Thanks for doing this review! I can definitely hear the difference in the Low and Low-Mids. I actually listened with my eyes closed then opened when I heard the difference and my favorite was always the hardware! Thanks again!!
Thank you very much for the test! Once again it is clear in this example = real hardware is trillions of percent better than poor plugins / you are so great - thank you!!!!
The Plugin sounds 'congested' especially in the bass /low mids - (it may need some heavy oversampling to open up the fidelity). The hardware has 'air' and space around each sound, as if the sound exists in a real space (depth/dimension), and just sounds effortless. With plugins, we spend a lot of time addressing low mids which are often a symptom of the plugins, themselves...
@@logve3161 No. They are right. If you are used to high end hardware like this one then you'd well know it. Plugins only get you so far. If you want the best quality possible hardware is the way. And it gives you that quality effortlessly, almost by just passing sound through it or with minimal tweaks.
I love reading comments. Many are listening on a reference standard system. In that environment, nothing escapes and you hear all the good and the ugly. Say what you want, analog is king and the reason why manufactures are still in business and thriving.
Very nice, I like seeing these type of comparisons, for me I hear a slightly more open less cluttered sound in the mids from the hardware, but ya I would say overall they do come pretty darn close.
I think it's as close as you'll get with today's tech ability. It may be even closer to the version they referenced against. My unit could be slightly different to theirs.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio This is most definitely true as Leif himself had said that this is closer to the ref unit then any 2 hardware units are. So I would say they did a really good job emulating the unit they had and it's interesting how they did it.
@vidworxsfx exactly. If we did a test between my unit and his unit, there would probably be the exact same difference we hear here. I think an AB comparison needs to be done using the original unit.
This is an awesome video man. As someone made a comment, I do agree that the hardware had more beef and space to it, whereas the plugin seemed, I would say 90% close. 90% is really not bad, but I think you have to compensate for that by adding another plugin. Hardware wins always (this is coming from someone who always uses plugins).
You would be amazed how much the converters play in that depth and thickness, especially the ones that Paul uses. I believe he uses BURL dac and adc, and these guys has some audible filtering in the very highs and a prononced coloration in the low mids.
@@bakerlefdaoui6801 He should do a loopback d/a > a/d of the ITB version to get that colour aspect as part of the capture. This would remove the convertor tone from the equation.
@@bakerlefdaoui6801 I'm not so sure about that. I had a Burl B2 Bomber some years ago, compared it with the UA and the AVID I/O. I sent back the Burl and the UA because the differences were so slight that it was not even remotely cost justifiable to keep either units. They're good units, but there's a lot of snake oil in the converter business in my opinion. These days, unless you just buy the cheapest garbage out there, you're going to get pretty good quality conversion and you have to spend crazy amounts more money for just small improvements. This, of course, is a hotly contested debate so to each their own.
Thanks Paul, I'm impressed, it's one of the few emulations that really seem close to the original to me, it's very good, I have Ivory from Acustica Audio and I don't like it,... now I'm going to try the one from Relab, which because of your video me. It looks incredible, and I am very critical of the plugins,.... A hug, and thanks for sharing, this is very entertaining, even if you don't share the files so that one can play at home 🤣
Thank you so much for the video and the comparison. I have Beyerdynamic 1990 headphones and I have listened to the comparrison. There is more weight to the hardware and the plug in sounds like its on top of the music and not a part of it. Does it get in the same ballpark, yes. But I hear at least a 10% difference and for me having the hardware would be a worth while investment.
Sin entrar en la polémica digital / análogo, me quedo con la unidad física de lejos, escuchado con stax 009s a pesar de youtube. Imagino que en el estudio la diferencia es grande. En el de arriba oigo resonar al más puro estilo maselec, wow!!!
Hmmm. I wouldn't go selling the hardware just yet mate. Thank you for taking the time to show us how the hardware compares to the plugin. I appreciate that!
Definitely not. I remember when plugin emulations started to be a thing and a lot of people said I pretty much have the hardware in the box. This ones close for in the box but I know everyone I know who sold their gear thinking the emulation was a replacement over time regretted it.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Yeah man. It's tough because I totally get it for the mix engineers who are completing 1-3 mixes a day. If I was doing that, I'd probably be mixing entirely in the box with the exception of maybe a little recallable outboard on the mix bus. But I primarily just work on my own stuff and can take as much time as I like on the mix and master so, I still prefer the hardware. Great to have these plugins for rare and pricey gear like this though. I appreciate that!
@LesVegasMusic yeah exactly. £7500 VS £130 if you can't warrant spending that amount on hardware. Which let's face it if you are only mixing or mastering your own projects you would be mental to spend that much. Unless you have a lot of disposable income. For me as a business hardware is important and pays for itself in a week.
Amazing video as always, my friend. The plugin sounds ok, but too far from the hardware. So no regrets on buying the Sontec plugin a few weeks ago. 😆 Keep it up 💪
I think a lot of people including myself hear aspects of the hardware we like, but converters are really important for plugins and as I mix and master more (10+ years now) and have used hardware I feel I reach for plugins more often unless I am fixing a badly recorded track. With plugins you have more options like the mid side on every band and more sidechain options on compressors. Just more creative options and I feel less limited to push what is possible in a final render of a mix. You can get lost in things and my hope is plugins in the future use modeling as a base, but really push things after that so it can become better than hardware gear. Again if tracks or a mix were badly done to begin with high end analog gear helps give it life or thickness. Once I learned this and began recording my own stuff with multiple mics, excellent preamps, compressor, converters you get 90% done. I just attended a class of a man who worked on the music for Stranger things, the new Napoleon, Jurassic World, he did all the trailers. Guess what he uses all plugins and mixes and masters everything in the box. Of course they use samples a lot, and some real synths. His mixes sounded phenomenal and reminded me it all goes back to composition and how sounds are recorded on there way into your DAW
If you scroll down and listen while your brain forgets which is which, its much more fair test. Try saying which is which like 10 times and youll get a fair test. Very very good plugin Id say. Especially the EDM last song was incredible.
Thank you for the comparison! The plugin is surely useful but I hear a very big difference in my headphones on some of your examples like 5:27. The hardware makes the song sound complete, while the plugin is kinda flat and digital sounding in a bad way. I bet if you match the curves of the plugin with the pro q3 they will almost cancel out each other in the phase test.
I think you are getting fooled because the reverb on the sax varies in strength that has nothing to do with the sound of the plugin vs hardware...maybe a little difference but which is better...not so obvious....
A number of things could be happening for one we say not all hardware will sound the same but there seems to be a more spacious feel with the hardware. Could it be those notches are not perfect thus creating the difference in stereo image. Multi-mono might be the key with some L-R slight variation. Maybe, because the plugin is in the ball park.
Thank you for this very revealing example. As usual with plugins, the sound is a little clogged and the transients are rough. It's not as "open" as with the Maselec and there is less air between the notes. I can already hear it on my iMac speakers.
There's indeed more depth to the HW unit and better separation. Otherwise spot on. Listening on very high end monitoring. Nothing that a little Soothe won't fix :)
As usual these plugins always make me look for ways to access the real hardware. The plugin is good but the hardware is the bomb especially on that last dance track.
I like the bass and the low mids more on the hardware - feels more robust and solid in the phantom centre. The EQ is very good indeed but a tiny bit more splashy / phasey in the stereo field? This is splitting hairs though - would need to do a blind test to be absolutely sure - but that's the initial impression.
As soon as you switch from hardware to plugin, the space disappears immediately, apart from that, the plugin sounds similar but a bit sharper than the original, otherwise it's a great comparison...
I feel there's so much difference. Analog gear has more punchiness, a more flat and enhanced general volume response and some vintage saturation taming the peaks. While the plugin sounds digital, more open and rounded. For me it's not an emulation, maybe they just even the eq curves, but not all of the sound. You just can't feel you are using a vintage analog eq emulation. But hey, I'm not saying this plugin is bad at all, maybe is a great piece of software by itself. But to be a trueful Maselec I think you will need to add sort of a limiter to get that fine little grit and flat analog sound. Maybe a LA2A.. Maybe an Apogee Soft Limit.. It would be interesting some tests on this. Edit: I listen to it again. Definitely a limiter only won't work, its like is missing the preamp (transformers) section circuitry. A preamp plugin would work for that, some 50/60's preamp emulation. Or both (maselec + pre + la2a/apogee). Just what I feel.
The hardware bass is clearer and the plug in a little muffled. The hardware in general has more sparkle and open sound. I found a similar difference with a real Massive Passive and the plug ins.
I've worked on these a few times. But never in my own studios or compared them directly with other gear. They sounded great which you'd expect from high end gear like that.
the plugin sounds clinical and well like a plugin, the hardware sounds alive, open and carefree. the hardware is more fun to listen too. I'm curious how UA would emulate this they are pretty good at capturing the tone and character. but they still have some work on their 1176 plugins in terms of dynamic capabilities compared the their hardware counterparts. but at least the got the character of the sound down really good. even the distoriton got pretty close.
That's what most people don't take into account. One's a plugin one's hardware. By definition, there will be a difference. Take it for what it is. A very close emulation that as a plugin of its own is a brilliant EQ that captures 99% of what the maselec mea-2 is.
So, I've noticed that in your hardware vs software videos (for example the SPL PQ) the hardware version pretty consistently sits higher (vertically) in the stereo field than does the software version, and I'm wondering if this might not be the doing of your converters. I went to your site to try and figure out which converters we might be hearing (the Burl maybe?) but it would probably be better to just ask you directly.
I am very happy that there is even 90% similarity between them, or 99% as you say, because I don't think anyone in the world compares listening to a wav format audio file vs listening to a vinyl record. Doesn't the price difference between them already explain everything? :) But I am really happy to see so much progress in the plugin world. By the way, I couldn't believe the similarity especially in the second song. Thanks for comparison!
Paul, which converters are you using? I guess they make a pretty obvious affectation to the signal path. To me, the hardware is warmer and slightly sweet in the hi-mids but I guess youtube it's not the proper platform to listen to this kind of critical comparison. Anyway, this is a very eye-opener video. Thanks so much for sharing!
I passed both the plugin and hardware through the same converters. The difference you hear is more to do with my unit being slightly different to the unit used to emulate the plugin.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio ahh, interesting. How many revisions of MEA-2 Leif built? And what is your Converters? And why you are passing Relab's MEA-2 thru converters? Sorry for too many questions! ))
@andivax I'm using Burl converters. These converters have a sound that would imply an unfair test as the hardware will benefit from the conversion. I think the MEA-2 is up to version 7. I would imagine the plugin was emulated on a the latest version which I believe is this version. But there are differences from unit to unit even in the same version.
The hardware is certainly thicker. The top end on the software is snappier and more immediate. But, I never expect a 1:1 equivalent in software. Can it do the basic thing of the hardware? Yes. Can I add something to the equation to make up the deficiency of what it’s missing? Totally. There’s nothing the hardware has that I couldn’t replicate either by further EQ adjustment or by adding another plugin.
The difference is small, but it's important and it's there, no doubt about it. The hardware gives back more space, more clarity, more solid bass etc. The thing people don't get is that for 1 piece of hardware in a chain the difference is subtle. But if you stack 6 of these, against 6 plugin emulations of the same hardwares, now the difference becomes obvious and huge. Up to this moment, plugins still can't get to the level of quality of hardware. Maybe they will in a few years. Maybe they never will. If they do get there, I'll be the first to sell my hardware. I don't care about looking good in a studio, about touching knobs etc. All I care is the sound.
From what i heard , the HW is a bit tighter and the plugin is a bit brighter.. and that`s all, SUPER CLOSE ! Thank you for the comparison, you are amazing
Its close, but as usual- more “depth” and energy from the analog. Clarity, separation, and space. But a potential complicating factor is indeed the Burl converters, which contain transformers and are very colored (by converter standards). Conversion itself can often color- let alone Burls. Would be curious to hear the plugin passed through the Burls just to eliminate any type of variables. Transformers do color. I really appreciate this comparison!! Thank you so much
Good one getting closer to analog ...we just need more science to unlock voltage dimension in real space and the smoothness of real analog we getting there
With my eyes open I kinda preferred the plug in, it's a bit brighter/ punchier, but with my eyes closed I preferred the hardware which has more depth and width. I think with the hardware set a bit brighter and louder it would win by a large margin. Thanks, I'm shopping to upgrade my mastering EQ
Hello ! Nice plugin, I think you have to make a blind test between these two, nobody could say which one is HW... Looks like you take 2 MEA2 hardware unit and compare them... I think I will save 7k on this unit :)
I think so. A blind test would be a great idea, a video with these A/B tests, then after a week or so a video with the results. I challenge every person saying they are really really different to do that test and not edit their results afterwards
Exactly. I think it would be an even split 50/50. Let's do it. I'll put this together. Or I upload a new video with flipped audio so plugin is analogue and analogue is plugin. See if everyone still says the hardware is better. A social experiment.
Hi Paul, I'm trying it and it seems good, very good, and it's hard for me to like a plugin!!! A fun question occurs to me, considering only the sound quality: would you prefer to work with this plugin or with a Wes Audio Hyperion, an HDE 250, an Elysia or the other one (I don't remember the name) that you always recommend in the price range of up to 3,000?
The HCL Thermos v3? I'd always prefer to work on hardware, but you could argue that this plugin achieves a very close sound to one of the best mastering EQs ever made. Do any of these hardware units come close to the maselec hardware. Probably not, to be honest. So you'd be closer to the hardware with this plugin than you would any of these hardware units. That's an interesting statement. Hardware is only as good as the converters it's running through. This is a really interesting question that as I comment, I go totally against my belief system of analogue is king. Now, if you added maselec mea2 hardware into that above list. I'd say hardware every time, even if it was only a very small marginal difference.
Thanks Paul. You left me thinking about a topic,... The importance/influence of DACs on the sound of a HW, I understand that it has no effect on plugins. If this is so, to compare for example, not even 2 MLA2 will sound the same if we pass them through different DACs. So, you can't expect an emulation to sound exactly the same as the HW either, since to put it one way, the plugin would also have to emulate the "pass" through a deyermiando DAC. An interesting test occurs to me: scribbling them on tape!!! Yes, the comparison would be 1:1. It would be very useful if you could make a video comparing a low price DAC (for example the ones included in a Scarlett) with a better quality one,... For example, I bought a good brand Channel Strip and I run it through my old Scarlett and The sound is actually incredibly superior compared to the plugins, but I have the doubt of how much quality I may be losing,... I hope you can do it,... A hug,
@patricioandres2562 in these examples though for a fair test I ran both through the converters. So hardware went Burl converter - maselec hardware - Burl converter. Then plugin went plugin - Burl converter - Burl converter. There was a far far greater difference when the converter wasn't engaged in the plugin.
Be careful, not just in case, I'm not questioning your test at all, I love your videos, I'm just thinking about how I can get a good (objective) idea of the difference between HW and plugin! But you "killed me" by saying that the plugin benefits from passing it through the converter (I thought so); but some time ago I saw a video of a famous youtuber (mixbustv) and, according to him, he passed the plugins through the converters and stated that the plugins are not affected by passing them through the converters,... Interesting topic,... Now, since one can only hear through RUclips, it is impossible to give a serious opinion on the subject! That's why I like your channel,... Thanks Paul
@patricioandres2562 It has a massive impact. I'm using Burl converters which have a sound. It may just be his converters don't have a positive effect or give off a superior sound to not running through them. Which is why I use Burl because they are part of my sound. Subject for a new video I guess. Can you hear the difference Burl converters make.
its so close considering that you can add width after and UAD oxide tape or ssl transformer boy if you think outside the box '......but at 7.15 min the software is outshining the hardware
thx for the comparison. :) interesting! the original sounds so much more IYF and tighter. more open, more dynamic and 3d. transients sound more defined... the plugin does not reach that quality at all in my opinion...
Which is why I will never sell my MEA-2. The hardware sounds amazing. I’m surprised how far off the plug-in sounds given the literature and endorsement from Leif on their website.
The thing is, it could be bang on to his one and not to mine. The claim could be true. He does say the plugin is closer to the unit it is emulating than two what mine and yours would be.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio perhaps. Leif isn’t the sort of person to make statements lightly. However, mine sounds remarkably close to yours, instantly recognisable when you switch it in. I didn’t get that from the plug-in. Might be different in the room, which is worth a shoot out at my end. 👍🏻
@benjamin_hill I mean at the end of the day ones analogue the others digital. We know as analogue users of high end gear that there's always a superior sound. That's why we buy the gear even though a plugin can get pretty close. It's those small percentages across a mastering chain that add up to a lot in the final master.
@AudioAnimalsStudio I haven't used my High End analog gear in months due to recall nightmare and fast turnaround so I've reversed engineered the "missing" parts of the sound to add it via tweaked dynamic processing 1. Saturation 2. Depth 3. Effortless dynamics So on my master bus instead of having 1 eq and 1 compressor for example I now have to put 1-4 extra plugins that enhance the missing properties. This way I get a mix that is 100% on par with any mix I've done on analog gear. Only genre that I HAVE to use the analog is when I do rock/pop rock mixes especially with stems that are recorded somewhat poorly. I find that I get faster to the result I want when I process the stems or the mixes though analog... but not for mastering, mainly for the mixing stage. For mastering in my line of work (mainly media production) I rely on 100% digital tools and I get VERY competitive results Would I like to have the time and budget to afford high end mastering units? Of course, but I'd need to change careers heh So for the time being who can't get competitive and comparative results with today's DSP has more learning and experimenting to do IMHO YMMV etc.
Great comparison! They are amazingly close! In fact, the main difference I thought to have heard is the plugin sounding a bit wider. Not as in brighter or something, but like there is more separation between the sides. The hardware, wenever it came up, sounded like the stereo image collapsed slightly. Both sound really good and I have no preference for either
Yeah I'd agree. The hardware is perfect. The plugin improves on that perfection by adding mid side and if it is in fact improving separation that's a bonus.
I didn't find that was the case when I tested. What version of the maselec did you test it against? I'll do a video on this comparing all 3. See if this claim is true.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I finally downloaded the relab mea-2 demo, to do the test myself, and YES, you are RIGHT, it sounds better than the Acustica Ivory 🙂
@dextercon I have a blind test video scheduled as the next video to go live. Comparing all 3. One thing I noticed is that the cpu load of the relab version is far less. Ivory overloaded with 50 instances. But the relab had lots of room to spare at 50 instances. This is big plus to the relab version regardless of if it sounds better. When testing I found the Ivory to be somewhat close and clearly an emulation. Just found the relab version to behave more accurately. When using Ivory 5 in the box I don't feel like I'm on a mea2. With the relab version because of the skin I do feel this way.
I agree. Actually, I preferred the plugin over the hardware, because I'm a sucker for openness and clarity (not a "warm" freak). The plugin seems to be more revealing. They both sounded awesome, though!
@garymcknight7484 that's what many people forget. Just because it's not identical doesn't make it bad. It's close enough as an emulation. It's a great plugin in it's own right. If it had a different skin and a different name nobody would have a bad thing to say about it.
@ThomasVogtFreiburg that's a preset I found that brought any dull, lifeless mix to life. It worked well with most mixes. Like you say a good starting point to adjust from.
ohh, well, in this comparison there is a very big difference between the plugin and the hardware. Everything in iron is very transparent, naturally. The sound in the plugin is somehow crushed and flat
The plugin is very good if not even better in my aspect what you guys hearing and said the hardware is better is the ad/da converter used so yeah ill be grabbing this plugin
@@AudioAnimalsStudioagreed but remember wnen circuits meet circuits it will produce more harmonics so yeah hardware will sound a bit richer but this plugin nailed it to me it sounds more sharper and wider than the hardware
i suppose they only copied the curves and not simulating the components and the difference between the left and right channel. Maybe they tried to make it more precise than the hardware. plugins lack the big open and vivid sound of hardware still sadly. makes it hard to appeal to the audiophile audience with plugins.
@@FreeDooMusic Countless other EQ shootouts vs plugins have only minute differences. Check out some of the Manley Massive Passive shootouts.. even the engineers that own the hardware say they can hardly hear a difference, so why this one?
@@dougleydoriteI know there are a lot of plugins which are closer to the hardware. The hardware of this EQ probably have so many components to simulate that they chose to only copy the curves of each setting but not the behavior of the components outside of that.
Again all this algo eqs are sounded 'close' in terms of curves and completely off in terms of fidelity and phase relations. Yet again this Relab emulation just doesn't glue and tighten the mix the way the hw does, making the whole point of this everyone bellowed "mastered" quality. What the point of emulating it if it can't do the most important part? I don't get it. It looked like the process of coding this algos doesn't changed for the last ten years, that may be the reason they sounded the same 'update' after 'update'. The only eq that do this in plugin world are AA and Nebula sampled ones. Their separated sampled preamp section is where those fidelity phase relations are seem to happen.
@teemack1316 always honest. When you compare as many plugin emulations to hardware as I do your scale of how close something is is different to yours. If let's say a SPL PQ plugin is 95% there to the plugin. This is 99% there. Your scale may be very different to mine. If you feel it's 80% there, I wouldn't say there is 20% difference. I would say that's a dishonest assessment. 80% there to me is nothing alike. A huge difference. I think this is very close as close as you'll get in today's industry. Yes the hardware is better but it's in no way night and day. This sounds like the Maselec MEA-2 and behaves like the Maselec MEA-2. As someone that uses the MEA-2 I feel it reacting in a very similar way. As an emulation should.
@teemack1316 1% to you seems small. To me it's quite big. It's all down to your perspective. 0% totally different nothing alike 50% night and day difference not even similar to the plugin 80% night and day difference tonally similar but clearly not an emulation 95% sounds similar but with a hugely noticeable difference 99% very close with a noticeable difference but reacts in the same way the hardware does when adjusting parameters That difference is the obvious one I don't need to point out that one is digital and the other is plugin.
@teemack1316 that's your interpretation. Believe it or not, everyone interprets things differently. Your 20% is my 1%. We all look at things differently. All the best
@teemack1316 I look forward to seeing you compare your Maselec to the plugin and showing us why it is mathematically and scientifically 80% and not 99% look forward to seeing the video. Do post it here when you have done your comparison.
Why a company would try to recreate the same for cheaper price ? it would be absurd to kill the analog equipment ! I ITS MORE EXPENSIVE !!! they wont do a close enough plug in, never.
absolute jokers.. i can`t believe these guys are pretending to hear AMAZING difference, when Leif Mases himself said that the emulation is closer to the original hw more than any other hw would be..
Like almost everyone, Relab claim this is the best emulation painstakingly reverse engineering hundreds of components yadda yadda... only unlike all they're shitting on others efforts by calling them inadequate, brave. However I'm not convinced that anyone can replicate the flow of electrons bouncing around any specific hardware unit creating the depth or clarity or the saturation or anything extra that comes with it so I'm doubtful if it's as good as they claim. UAD said the same thing many years ago until they did an update and you realised everything sounded completely different, how could it have been perfect when it's changed so drastically. Also note there is a night and day difference in this video comparison so there is that too, at 2:55 it transitioned from depth and weight to bland (listen on good headphones), based on that alone how can it be perfect? Hmmm. Anyway, the point is don't be fooled by marketing hype, test it out, if you like it you like it.
Both sound great, but I have the feeling that the plugin sounds a bit flatter in the center, maybe it's the added stereo separation (or spread) as @musician1971a described, but because of this, in these examples, I tend to prefer the hardware over the plugin
Watch the plugin review ruclips.net/video/0pgUmlMOdHs/видео.htmlsi=opW32TYs-l54E1na
typical plugin sound - more harshness, less warm lows and mid lows vs analog. If i can hear it on yt, it means that the diff is big
what can be expected? plugin is $150 software and the hardware is a $10k beast of a machine.
Thanks for doing this review! I can definitely hear the difference in the Low and Low-Mids. I actually listened with my eyes closed then opened when I heard the difference and my favorite was always the hardware! Thanks again!!
Thank you for demonstrating this with many different styles (genres) of music 👍🏻
Thank you very much for the test! Once again it is clear in this example = real hardware is trillions of percent better than poor plugins / you are so great - thank you!!!!
yes real one sounds full and colorful the plugin sounds little softer and cooler ,but im sure lol 15k more will get you
The Plugin sounds 'congested' especially in the bass /low mids - (it may need some heavy oversampling to open up the fidelity).
The hardware has 'air' and space around each sound, as if the sound exists in a real space (depth/dimension), and just sounds effortless.
With plugins, we spend a lot of time addressing low mids which are often a symptom of the plugins, themselves...
exactly what i thought. the lower mid congestion of the plugin compared to the hardware is immediately apparent
bla bla.. I bet you'd fail an A/B blind test just like all the other gearslutz connoisseurs 😂
@@logve3161 No. They are right. If you are used to high end hardware like this one then you'd well know it. Plugins only get you so far. If you want the best quality possible hardware is the way. And it gives you that quality effortlessly, almost by just passing sound through it or with minimal tweaks.
I love reading comments. Many are listening on a reference standard system. In that environment, nothing escapes and you hear all the good and the ugly. Say what you want, analog is king and the reason why manufactures are still in business and thriving.
To be fair to the hardware, the difference is clear out of laptop speakers on this one.
Very nice, I like seeing these type of comparisons, for me I hear a slightly more open less cluttered sound in the mids from the hardware, but ya I would say overall they do come pretty darn close.
I think it's as close as you'll get with today's tech ability. It may be even closer to the version they referenced against. My unit could be slightly different to theirs.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio This is most definitely true as Leif himself had said that this is closer to the ref unit then any 2 hardware units are. So I would say they did a really good job emulating the unit they had and it's interesting how they did it.
@vidworxsfx exactly. If we did a test between my unit and his unit, there would probably be the exact same difference we hear here. I think an AB comparison needs to be done using the original unit.
Hardware is another level
Smooth, deep, tri dimensional, rich sound, on reverbs is so clear 😅
No way
This is an awesome video man. As someone made a comment, I do agree that the hardware had more beef and space to it, whereas the plugin seemed, I would say 90% close. 90% is really not bad, but I think you have to compensate for that by adding another plugin. Hardware wins always (this is coming from someone who always uses plugins).
I would say the difference is pretty big, the hardware sounds better, thicker, and totally with more depth in relation to the software.
on some examples hardware tame peaks and cut lows too much but it can be "better" for mix.
You would be amazed how much the converters play in that depth and thickness, especially the ones that Paul uses. I believe he uses BURL dac and adc, and these guys has some audible filtering in the very highs and a prononced coloration in the low mids.
@@bakerlefdaoui6801 He should do a loopback d/a > a/d of the ITB version to get that colour aspect as part of the capture. This would remove the convertor tone from the equation.
@@bakerlefdaoui6801 I'm not so sure about that. I had a Burl B2 Bomber some years ago, compared it with the UA and the AVID I/O. I sent back the Burl and the UA because the differences were so slight that it was not even remotely cost justifiable to keep either units. They're good units, but there's a lot of snake oil in the converter business in my opinion. These days, unless you just buy the cheapest garbage out there, you're going to get pretty good quality conversion and you have to spend crazy amounts more money for just small improvements. This, of course, is a hotly contested debate so to each their own.
Pretty Big……that’s a bold statement…..
hardware so much more relaxed and less stressed sounding in the bass.
Thanks Paul, I'm impressed, it's one of the few emulations that really seem close to the original to me, it's very good, I have Ivory from Acustica Audio and I don't like it,... now I'm going to try the one from Relab, which because of your video me. It looks incredible, and I am very critical of the plugins,.... A hug, and thanks for sharing, this is very entertaining, even if you don't share the files so that one can play at home 🤣
I would love to add Acustica Audio Scarlet (as a passthrough) to this plugin to add the missing girth, me thinks. Well, I'll try it out:)
Thank you so much for the video and the comparison. I have Beyerdynamic 1990 headphones and I have listened to the comparrison. There is more weight to the hardware and the plug in sounds like its on top of the music and not a part of it. Does it get in the same ballpark, yes. But I hear at least a 10% difference and for me having the hardware would be a worth while investment.
Sin entrar en la polémica digital / análogo, me quedo con la unidad física de lejos, escuchado con stax 009s a pesar de youtube. Imagino que en el estudio la diferencia es grande. En el de arriba oigo resonar al más puro estilo maselec, wow!!!
Hmmm. I wouldn't go selling the hardware just yet mate. Thank you for taking the time to show us how the hardware compares to the plugin. I appreciate that!
Definitely not. I remember when plugin emulations started to be a thing and a lot of people said I pretty much have the hardware in the box. This ones close for in the box but I know everyone I know who sold their gear thinking the emulation was a replacement over time regretted it.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Yeah man. It's tough because I totally get it for the mix engineers who are completing 1-3 mixes a day. If I was doing that, I'd probably be mixing entirely in the box with the exception of maybe a little recallable outboard on the mix bus. But I primarily just work on my own stuff and can take as much time as I like on the mix and master so, I still prefer the hardware. Great to have these plugins for rare and pricey gear like this though. I appreciate that!
@LesVegasMusic yeah exactly. £7500 VS £130 if you can't warrant spending that amount on hardware. Which let's face it if you are only mixing or mastering your own projects you would be mental to spend that much. Unless you have a lot of disposable income. For me as a business hardware is important and pays for itself in a week.
Amazing video as always, my friend. The plugin sounds ok, but too far from the hardware. So no regrets on buying the Sontec plugin a few weeks ago. 😆
Keep it up 💪
Fala berrr
Gostou do sontec mais que esse da relab?
Achei que o plugin soou bem cold perto do hardware
I think a lot of people including myself hear aspects of the hardware we like, but converters are really important for plugins and as I mix and master more (10+ years now) and have used hardware I feel I reach for plugins more often unless I am fixing a badly recorded track. With plugins you have more options like the mid side on every band and more sidechain options on compressors. Just more creative options and I feel less limited to push what is possible in a final render of a mix. You can get lost in things and my hope is plugins in the future use modeling as a base, but really push things after that so it can become better than hardware gear. Again if tracks or a mix were badly done to begin with high end analog gear helps give it life or thickness. Once I learned this and began recording my own stuff with multiple mics, excellent preamps, compressor, converters you get 90% done. I just attended a class of a man who worked on the music for Stranger things, the new Napoleon, Jurassic World, he did all the trailers. Guess what he uses all plugins and mixes and masters everything in the box. Of course they use samples a lot, and some real synths. His mixes sounded phenomenal and reminded me it all goes back to composition and how sounds are recorded on there way into your DAW
If you scroll down and listen while your brain forgets which is which, its much more fair test. Try saying which is which like 10 times and youll get a fair test. Very very good plugin Id say. Especially the EDM last song was incredible.
I'm going to do a blind test video today. I'm very interested which one people pick in a blind test.
Feels like the plugin is missing that lower end thickness/tightness.
Good job on comparing them both. I would say the OBG is still better. Price is a huge difference of course.
Thank you for the comparison! The plugin is surely useful but I hear a very big difference in my headphones on some of your examples like 5:27. The hardware makes the song sound complete, while the plugin is kinda flat and digital sounding in a bad way. I bet if you match the curves of the plugin with the pro q3 they will almost cancel out each other in the phase test.
Agreed, the hardware is more open, airy, creamier, and has more depth. You can hear quite a difference with headphones.
I think you are getting fooled because the reverb on the sax varies in strength that has nothing to do with the sound of the plugin vs hardware...maybe a little difference but which is better...not so obvious....
I can hear a noticeable 3D (in your face) like difference between the two, favoring the hardware of course. I guess that just can't be replicated!
A number of things could be happening for one we say not all hardware will sound the same but there seems to be a more spacious feel with the hardware. Could it be those notches are not perfect thus creating the difference in stereo image. Multi-mono might be the key with some L-R slight variation. Maybe, because the plugin is in the ball park.
Thank you for this very revealing example. As usual with plugins, the sound is a little clogged and the transients are rough. It's not as "open" as with the Maselec and there is less air between the notes. I can already hear it on my iMac speakers.
the hardware sounds wider and more open in the low mids + more silky and transparent in the top end
There's indeed more depth to the HW unit and better separation. Otherwise spot on. Listening on very high end monitoring.
Nothing that a little Soothe won't fix :)
As usual these plugins always make me look for ways to access the real hardware. The plugin is good but the hardware is the bomb especially on that last dance track.
right its like buying fake shoes and hoping no one notices
I like the bass and the low mids more on the hardware - feels more robust and solid in the phantom centre. The EQ is very good indeed but a tiny bit more splashy / phasey in the stereo field? This is splitting hairs though - would need to do a blind test to be absolutely sure - but that's the initial impression.
As soon as you switch from hardware to plugin, the space disappears immediately, apart from that, the plugin sounds similar but a bit sharper than the original, otherwise it's a great comparison...
I feel there's so much difference. Analog gear has more punchiness, a more flat and enhanced general volume response and some vintage saturation taming the peaks. While the plugin sounds digital, more open and rounded.
For me it's not an emulation, maybe they just even the eq curves, but not all of the sound.
You just can't feel you are using a vintage analog eq emulation. But hey, I'm not saying this plugin is bad at all, maybe is a great piece of software by itself.
But to be a trueful Maselec I think you will need to add sort of a limiter to get that fine little grit and flat analog sound. Maybe a LA2A.. Maybe an Apogee Soft Limit.. It would be interesting some tests on this.
Edit: I listen to it again. Definitely a limiter only won't work, its like is missing the preamp (transformers) section circuitry. A preamp plugin would work for that, some 50/60's preamp emulation. Or both (maselec + pre + la2a/apogee).
Just what I feel.
£122 verses £5,829 second hand. No surprise the hardware unit is superior. BUT for 2% of that price. Worth a buy (and bought!)
Hello. what kind of equalizer do you think is musical?
Maselec MEA-2?
Elysia museq?
The hardware bass is clearer and the plug in a little muffled. The hardware in general has more sparkle and open sound.
I found a similar difference with a real Massive Passive and the plug ins.
great videos, have you worked and tested the d w fern gear, vt5, vt7? any thoughts?
I've worked on these a few times. But never in my own studios or compared them directly with other gear. They sounded great which you'd expect from high end gear like that.
my ask can you do a video on the converter you have please you have
What will the 96Hz version of the plugin sound like? I think there is logic to this.
the plugin sounds clinical and well like a plugin, the hardware sounds alive, open and carefree. the hardware is more fun to listen too. I'm curious how UA would emulate this they are pretty good at capturing the tone and character. but they still have some work on their 1176 plugins in terms of dynamic capabilities compared the their hardware counterparts. but at least the got the character of the sound down really good. even the distoriton got pretty close.
Acoustica audio scarlett robs this identical
The hardware sound more open and 3D to me but the plugin sounds great too.
That's what most people don't take into account. One's a plugin one's hardware. By definition, there will be a difference. Take it for what it is. A very close emulation that as a plugin of its own is a brilliant EQ that captures 99% of what the maselec mea-2 is.
Really close! But plug-in a bit flat in 3D space and not that smooth.
So, I've noticed that in your hardware vs software videos (for example the SPL PQ) the hardware version pretty consistently sits higher (vertically) in the stereo field than does the software version, and I'm wondering if this might not be the doing of your converters. I went to your site to try and figure out which converters we might be hearing (the Burl maybe?) but it would probably be better to just ask you directly.
Both audio files are passed through the Burl converters. The plugin roughts through without the hardware in chain.
I am very happy that there is even 90% similarity between them, or 99% as you say, because I don't think anyone in the world compares listening to a wav format audio file vs listening to a vinyl record. Doesn't the price difference between them already explain everything? :) But I am really happy to see so much progress in the plugin world. By the way, I couldn't believe the similarity especially in the second song. Thanks for comparison!
Paul, which converters are you using? I guess they make a pretty obvious affectation to the signal path. To me, the hardware is warmer and slightly sweet in the hi-mids but I guess youtube it's not the proper platform to listen to this kind of critical comparison. Anyway, this is a very eye-opener video. Thanks so much for sharing!
I used Burl converters in this video. But both the hardware and software come out through the converters.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Burl and Maselec is such a great match.
The hardware ( as expensive as it is) sounds 3 D and juet sooooo much better. Very easy to hear.
Are those really same volume? Hardware sounds louder than plugin.
i definitely heard a difference in the lower mids. plugin is a little more congested in that area. great plugin though
Thanx for the great comparison! Why is the difference? Converters?
I passed both the plugin and hardware through the same converters. The difference you hear is more to do with my unit being slightly different to the unit used to emulate the plugin.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio ahh, interesting. How many revisions of MEA-2 Leif built? And what is your Converters? And why you are passing Relab's MEA-2 thru converters? Sorry for too many questions! ))
@andivax I'm using Burl converters. These converters have a sound that would imply an unfair test as the hardware will benefit from the conversion. I think the MEA-2 is up to version 7. I would imagine the plugin was emulated on a the latest version which I believe is this version. But there are differences from unit to unit even in the same version.
@@AudioAnimalsStudiogot it! thank you very much for the review!
Hardware sounds so much better (stereo image) ":warmth" low separation, mids, highs I mean... hardware!
The hardware is certainly thicker. The top end on the software is snappier and more immediate. But, I never expect a 1:1 equivalent in software. Can it do the basic thing of the hardware? Yes. Can I add something to the equation to make up the deficiency of what it’s missing? Totally. There’s nothing the hardware has that I couldn’t replicate either by further EQ adjustment or by adding another plugin.
The difference is small, but it's important and it's there, no doubt about it. The hardware gives back more space, more clarity, more solid bass etc. The thing people don't get is that for 1 piece of hardware in a chain the difference is subtle. But if you stack 6 of these, against 6 plugin emulations of the same hardwares, now the difference becomes obvious and huge. Up to this moment, plugins still can't get to the level of quality of hardware. Maybe they will in a few years. Maybe they never will. If they do get there, I'll be the first to sell my hardware. I don't care about looking good in a studio, about touching knobs etc. All I care is the sound.
From what i heard , the HW is a bit tighter and the plugin is a bit brighter.. and that`s all, SUPER CLOSE !
Thank you for the comparison, you are amazing
Sorry not to close, far between, i can hear the aliasing from the iPhone.
Its close, but as usual- more “depth” and energy from the analog. Clarity, separation, and space. But a potential complicating factor is indeed the Burl converters, which contain transformers and are very colored (by converter standards). Conversion itself can often color- let alone Burls. Would be curious to hear the plugin passed through the Burls just to eliminate any type of variables. Transformers do color. I really appreciate this comparison!! Thank you so much
The plugin is passed through the Burl converters in this video.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I should have known. Meticulous attention to detail, as always
@Rhuggins without it the difference is far greater.
@@AudioAnimalsStudiodifferent how?
@teampyro911 the converters have a sound. Looping out through the converters the plugin signal is processed into the analogue domain.
Good one getting closer to analog ...we just need more science to unlock voltage dimension in real space and the smoothness of real analog we getting there
With my eyes open I kinda preferred the plug in, it's a bit brighter/ punchier, but with my eyes closed I preferred the hardware which has more depth and width. I think with the hardware set a bit brighter and louder it would win by a large margin. Thanks, I'm shopping to upgrade my mastering EQ
You can't go wrong with the MEA-2 hardware
Yes it is different. But this emulation is a good try and worth it.
Who produced the beat @5:28
Hello ! Nice plugin, I think you have to make a blind test between these two, nobody could say which one is HW... Looks like you take 2 MEA2 hardware unit and compare them... I think I will save 7k on this unit :)
I think so. A blind test would be a great idea, a video with these A/B tests, then after a week or so a video with the results. I challenge every person saying they are really really different to do that test and not edit their results afterwards
Exactly. I think it would be an even split 50/50. Let's do it. I'll put this together. Or I upload a new video with flipped audio so plugin is analogue and analogue is plugin. See if everyone still says the hardware is better. A social experiment.
Already looking forward to this!@@AudioAnimalsStudio
Definitely a difference in the top end and the overall presence and soundstage. But the cost diff is $200 vs $10-15k, so…
not a big deal but one of the settings is slightly off on the clip at 5:28
I can look at that a million times. Double check and check again. Human error is very much a real thing.
Hi Paul, I'm trying it and it seems good, very good, and it's hard for me to like a plugin!!! A fun question occurs to me, considering only the sound quality: would you prefer to work with this plugin or with a Wes Audio Hyperion, an HDE 250, an Elysia or the other one (I don't remember the name) that you always recommend in the price range of up to 3,000?
The HCL Thermos v3?
I'd always prefer to work on hardware, but you could argue that this plugin achieves a very close sound to one of the best mastering EQs ever made. Do any of these hardware units come close to the maselec hardware. Probably not, to be honest. So you'd be closer to the hardware with this plugin than you would any of these hardware units. That's an interesting statement. Hardware is only as good as the converters it's running through. This is a really interesting question that as I comment, I go totally against my belief system of analogue is king. Now, if you added maselec mea2 hardware into that above list. I'd say hardware every time, even if it was only a very small marginal difference.
Thanks Paul. You left me thinking about a topic,... The importance/influence of DACs on the sound of a HW, I understand that it has no effect on plugins. If this is so, to compare for example, not even 2 MLA2 will sound the same if we pass them through different DACs. So, you can't expect an emulation to sound exactly the same as the HW either, since to put it one way, the plugin would also have to emulate the "pass" through a deyermiando DAC. An interesting test occurs to me: scribbling them on tape!!! Yes, the comparison would be 1:1. It would be very useful if you could make a video comparing a low price DAC (for example the ones included in a Scarlett) with a better quality one,... For example, I bought a good brand Channel Strip and I run it through my old Scarlett and The sound is actually incredibly superior compared to the plugins, but I have the doubt of how much quality I may be losing,... I hope you can do it,... A hug,
@patricioandres2562 in these examples though for a fair test I ran both through the converters. So hardware went Burl converter - maselec hardware - Burl converter. Then plugin went plugin - Burl converter - Burl converter. There was a far far greater difference when the converter wasn't engaged in the plugin.
Be careful, not just in case, I'm not questioning your test at all, I love your videos, I'm just thinking about how I can get a good (objective) idea of the difference between HW and plugin! But you "killed me" by saying that the plugin benefits from passing it through the converter (I thought so); but some time ago I saw a video of a famous youtuber (mixbustv) and, according to him, he passed the plugins through the converters and stated that the plugins are not affected by passing them through the converters,... Interesting topic,... Now, since one can only hear through RUclips, it is impossible to give a serious opinion on the subject! That's why I like your channel,... Thanks Paul
@patricioandres2562 It has a massive impact. I'm using Burl converters which have a sound. It may just be his converters don't have a positive effect or give off a superior sound to not running through them. Which is why I use Burl because they are part of my sound. Subject for a new video I guess. Can you hear the difference Burl converters make.
its so close considering that you can add width after and UAD oxide tape or ssl transformer boy if you think outside the box '......but at 7.15 min the software is outshining the hardware
lol you can also add lemon and make lemonade
Won't work on my system so never got a chance to demo it.
thx for the comparison. :) interesting! the original sounds so much more IYF and tighter. more open, more dynamic and 3d. transients sound more defined... the plugin does not reach that quality at all in my opinion...
I just hear a difference when I am watching the video. ;)
Your brain tells you there's a difference
Absolutely ! Great Comparison @@AudioAnimalsStudio
Which is why I will never sell my MEA-2. The hardware sounds amazing. I’m surprised how far off the plug-in sounds given the literature and endorsement from Leif on their website.
The thing is, it could be bang on to his one and not to mine. The claim could be true. He does say the plugin is closer to the unit it is emulating than two what mine and yours would be.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio perhaps. Leif isn’t the sort of person to make statements lightly. However, mine sounds remarkably close to yours, instantly recognisable when you switch it in. I didn’t get that from the plug-in. Might be different in the room, which is worth a shoot out at my end. 👍🏻
@benjamin_hill I mean at the end of the day ones analogue the others digital. We know as analogue users of high end gear that there's always a superior sound. That's why we buy the gear even though a plugin can get pretty close. It's those small percentages across a mastering chain that add up to a lot in the final master.
@AudioAnimalsStudio I haven't used my High End analog gear in months due to recall nightmare and fast turnaround so I've reversed engineered the "missing" parts of the sound to add it via tweaked dynamic processing
1. Saturation
2. Depth
3. Effortless dynamics
So on my master bus instead of having 1 eq and 1 compressor for example I now have to put 1-4 extra plugins that enhance the missing properties. This way I get a mix that is 100% on par with any mix I've done on analog gear.
Only genre that I HAVE to use the analog is when I do rock/pop rock mixes especially with stems that are recorded somewhat poorly.
I find that I get faster to the result I want when I process the stems or the mixes though analog... but not for mastering, mainly for the mixing stage. For mastering in my line of work (mainly media production) I rely on 100% digital tools and I get VERY competitive results
Would I like to have the time and budget to afford high end mastering units? Of course, but I'd need to change careers heh
So for the time being who can't get competitive and comparative results with today's DSP has more learning and experimenting to do
IMHO YMMV etc.
Great comparison! They are amazingly close! In fact, the main difference I thought to have heard is the plugin sounding a bit wider. Not as in brighter or something, but like there is more separation between the sides. The hardware, wenever it came up, sounded like the stereo image collapsed slightly. Both sound really good and I have no preference for either
Yeah I'd agree. The hardware is perfect. The plugin improves on that perfection by adding mid side and if it is in fact improving separation that's a bonus.
I agree. The software seemed to open up the soundstage a bit.
Analog sound more smooth, more full... there is something in there that VST does not have. My 2c
Trust me the Ivory 5 from acustica audio is a super maselec🎉
I didn't find that was the case when I tested. What version of the maselec did you test it against? I'll do a video on this comparing all 3. See if this claim is true.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio blind test between the three would be killer. Thanks for the demo!
@alxs2k printing the audio as we speak. I may put a blind test section in first then switch to the results. That'll make things interesting.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I finally downloaded the relab mea-2 demo, to do the test myself, and YES, you are RIGHT, it sounds better than the Acustica Ivory 🙂
@dextercon I have a blind test video scheduled as the next video to go live. Comparing all 3. One thing I noticed is that the cpu load of the relab version is far less. Ivory overloaded with 50 instances. But the relab had lots of room to spare at 50 instances. This is big plus to the relab version regardless of if it sounds better. When testing I found the Ivory to be somewhat close and clearly an emulation. Just found the relab version to behave more accurately. When using Ivory 5 in the box I don't feel like I'm on a mea2. With the relab version because of the skin I do feel this way.
The plugin sounds more open to my ears…. However I would have preferred to hear the source in bypass mode as well…
You can watch the plugib review to hear it bypassed here ruclips.net/video/0pgUmlMOdHs/видео.htmlsi=opW32TYs-l54E1na
I agree. Actually, I preferred the plugin over the hardware, because I'm a sucker for openness and clarity (not a "warm" freak). The plugin seems to be more revealing. They both sounded awesome, though!
@garymcknight7484 that's what many people forget. Just because it's not identical doesn't make it bad. It's close enough as an emulation. It's a great plugin in it's own right. If it had a different skin and a different name nobody would have a bad thing to say about it.
Audio Animals, I just installed the relab demo and find your preset “dull mix to life” to be perfect as a starting point ! Thanks!!
@ThomasVogtFreiburg that's a preset I found that brought any dull, lifeless mix to life. It worked well with most mixes. Like you say a good starting point to adjust from.
ohh, well, in this comparison there is a very big difference between the plugin and the hardware. Everything in iron is very transparent, naturally. The sound in the plugin is somehow crushed and flat
The plugin is very good if not even better in my aspect what you guys hearing and said the hardware is better is the ad/da converter used so yeah ill be grabbing this plugin
The plugin also runs through the ad/da converters by the way.
@@AudioAnimalsStudioagreed but remember wnen circuits meet circuits it will produce more harmonics so yeah hardware will sound a bit richer but this plugin nailed it to me it sounds more sharper and wider than the hardware
in the beginning not enough diference
Curious why the difference in this one is so massive compared to many other plugin vs hardware comparisons
i suppose they only copied the curves and not simulating the components and the difference between the left and right channel. Maybe they tried to make it more precise than the hardware. plugins lack the big open and vivid sound of hardware still sadly. makes it hard to appeal to the audiophile audience with plugins.
@@FreeDooMusic Countless other EQ shootouts vs plugins have only minute differences. Check out some of the Manley Massive Passive shootouts.. even the engineers that own the hardware say they can hardly hear a difference, so why this one?
@@dougleydoriteI know there are a lot of plugins which are closer to the hardware. The hardware of this EQ probably have so many components to simulate that they chose to only copy the curves of each setting but not the behavior of the components outside of that.
Plugin sounds like a plugin. Big differences
I hate to say it, but the plugin sounds neutered, the original sounds like a finished product, the plugin sounds like it needs mastering
Huge difference. The hardware unit has much more depth and richness. Plugin sounds brittle in comparison..
The hardware is more spacious, more three dimensional. As soon as the plugin is engaged the sound stage collapses and become two dimensional.
Relab should have charged $99 as an introduction price..$150 intro prices too much
Black Friday next month. Might be on sale then too at a further discount. I have no inside knowledge on this BTW.
The original sounds like a record
Hardware, more musical.
Not even close to my ears. Hardware is a lot smooth, natural and tone is overall is significantly better as expected
Im sure you use the plugin + an AD/DA round trip and you get 99.9% of the hardware sound
Yes, the plugin is run through the same converters as the hardware unit is.
Plugin doesnt do it for me, the hardware sounds so much smoother and bigger.
Hardware is more comfortable in a hi mid and hi
How close they are? Not even close, hahaha It's like someone would release music out of prison when it's switched to hardware.
Analogue is more depth ..
They sound nothing alike to me.
Plug-in sounds flat as a pancake and in my opinion has a crap midrange… The difference is NOT small. The hardware is open and sweet sounding
Again all this algo eqs are sounded 'close' in terms of curves and completely off in terms of fidelity and phase relations. Yet again this Relab emulation just doesn't glue and tighten the mix the way the hw does, making the whole point of this everyone bellowed "mastered" quality. What the point of emulating it if it can't do the most important part? I don't get it. It looked like the process of coding this algos doesn't changed for the last ten years, that may be the reason they sounded the same 'update' after 'update'.
The only eq that do this in plugin world are AA and Nebula sampled ones. Their separated sampled preamp section is where those fidelity phase relations are seem to happen.
Weird analogy but...
Hardware sounds like Vick's vaporub under your nose
Software sounds like it needs a respirator
One of the better analogies I've heard
@teemack1316 always honest. When you compare as many plugin emulations to hardware as I do your scale of how close something is is different to yours. If let's say a SPL PQ plugin is 95% there to the plugin. This is 99% there. Your scale may be very different to mine. If you feel it's 80% there, I wouldn't say there is 20% difference. I would say that's a dishonest assessment. 80% there to me is nothing alike. A huge difference. I think this is very close as close as you'll get in today's industry. Yes the hardware is better but it's in no way night and day. This sounds like the Maselec MEA-2 and behaves like the Maselec MEA-2. As someone that uses the MEA-2 I feel it reacting in a very similar way. As an emulation should.
@teemack1316 1% to you seems small. To me it's quite big. It's all down to your perspective.
0% totally different nothing alike
50% night and day difference not even similar to the plugin
80% night and day difference tonally similar but clearly not an emulation
95% sounds similar but with a hugely noticeable difference
99% very close with a noticeable difference but reacts in the same way the hardware does when adjusting parameters
That difference is the obvious one I don't need to point out that one is digital and the other is plugin.
@teemack1316 that's your interpretation. Believe it or not, everyone interprets things differently. Your 20% is my 1%. We all look at things differently. All the best
@teemack1316 I look forward to seeing you compare your Maselec to the plugin and showing us why it is mathematically and scientifically 80% and not 99% look forward to seeing the video. Do post it here when you have done your comparison.
I can hear the difference on just an iPhone speaker 😂
Stick around for the blind tests
Why a company would try to recreate the same for cheaper price ? it would be absurd to kill the analog equipment ! I ITS MORE EXPENSIVE !!! they wont do a close enough plug in, never.
ugh this one is not even close
the unit has much more depth and 3d sounding than the plugin
hardware is fat! u hear how full the lows are
Sounds stellar! I can't hear the difference at all in my Beyer 1990 or Neuman 120II Those who say they can wouldn't pass a blindtest for sure!
absolute jokers.. i can`t believe these guys are pretending to hear AMAZING difference, when Leif Mases himself said that the emulation is closer to the original hw more than any other hw would be..
Like almost everyone, Relab claim this is the best emulation painstakingly reverse engineering hundreds of components yadda yadda... only unlike all they're shitting on others efforts by calling them inadequate, brave. However I'm not convinced that anyone can replicate the flow of electrons bouncing around any specific hardware unit creating the depth or clarity or the saturation or anything extra that comes with it so I'm doubtful if it's as good as they claim. UAD said the same thing many years ago until they did an update and you realised everything sounded completely different, how could it have been perfect when it's changed so drastically. Also note there is a night and day difference in this video comparison so there is that too, at 2:55 it transitioned from depth and weight to bland (listen on good headphones), based on that alone how can it be perfect? Hmmm. Anyway, the point is don't be fooled by marketing hype, test it out, if you like it you like it.
Both sound great, but I have the feeling that the plugin sounds a bit flatter in the center, maybe it's the added stereo separation (or spread) as @musician1971a described, but because of this, in these examples, I tend to prefer the hardware over the plugin
It could be argued that that subtle difference could be made up for in the box.