Do you have any plugin myths you'd like me to test for a possible part 2? 🤓 FYI that gearspace screenshot about the Harrison is NOT mine!! Haha.. Let me reassure you 😂 Also in regards to the comments that the PA & UAD shadow Hills comp don't null ruclips.net/video/1JAztwaI6Ls/видео.html First time 😂
the main reasons why ppl recommended these endorse plugins is cuz all of them have zero latency and use virtually no cpu. Plus they sound at least as good as the other emulations... which basically make them the best.
HEY PAUL, I just tried the UAD/Plugin alliance on the Shadow Hills Master compressor (the green one not the class A) and they DO NO NULL its really subtle but it doesn't null. if I tried PA against PA or UAD vs UAD they do null but not PA vs UAD. Love -your videos by the way I just want to let you know . for a possible myth that people believe maybe could be each that DAW has a sound of its own
@C I know but the whole myth was that people have kept telling me over the years that 'this plugin is endorsed so it's bound to sound closer than other emulations' Its the marketing that causes all this in my opinion. Harrison as a good example "Harrison's new cross-format 32C Channel plugin brings Harrison's True Analog sound to your digital audio workstation in your studio" Then release it with digital eq cramping and a lack of modelled saturation in the EQ. Ive not said its a crap sounding plugin, all I'm saying is that it can't be possibly true to the hardware without the non linearities of the hardware, but many will buy it thinking that cause its Harrison releasing it all of this has been incorporated
@@bernigracia3117 well. Subjectively, Logic adds some bottom end. Pro Tools is flat, the export sounds good. Ableton has "good midrange". Luna sounds like what Reason wants to sound like. FL sounds cold, or maybe flat at worst. Visual mixing and stock plugins aside, there's definitely something to be said about summing engines having a sound.
@@PaulThird Although it does have to be said, that many people, myself included, don't get the most out of their stock DAW plugins, because they simply use presets, that, not unlike the ones you get in guitar multi effects units which are over the top, and have to be dialed back to get useable sounds out of them! I use Logic myself, and have really got into creating stuff using only the stock effects, but tried to really learn how to use them, as opposed to buying loads of (expensive) 3rd party plugins, as "endorsed" by the flavour-of-the-month Pro Mixer, and then just using someone else's presets. My mantra, if you will, has been.. "Learn all about your stock stuff first, and learn how to get the best out of them". Then, and only then, turn to 3rd party plug-ins if there is something more that you need. Saves a lot of money, and you become a better and more critical mixer.
I started off mostly using stock avid stuff when I was a student way back when but I always found I wanted more character out of the plugins and maybe expected too much of them. However possibly logic and other DAW's have better stock options than avid. As you'll already know from the channel I'm very very particular about my plugins haha the plugins I use are the ones I know I can't get anywhere else at a few clicks of a button.. However it took a youtube channel and over a year to get to that stage haha 😅 To me it depends on how you mix. Because I see compressors also as tone boxes I look for comps that have certain linear frequency responses and harmonic signatures. I do the same with eq's, saturation, reverbs etc I could easily mix with stock plugins but I would need to use more of them to get the sound that I have in my head. Where I can get one third party plugin to do the job of 2 or 3 stock plugins, but that's only because I've extensively tested over the past year and know the plugins that can give me that specific sound. Its all because I have this stupid idea that I want my own 'signature' sound and Ive been battling it for years. Theres nothing to stop you just using stock plugins and creating an epic mix. If the recordings are amazing then they shouldn't need much work anyway. You could easily mix the record using stock plugs and it get accepted first time as the artist has no other reference to compare against. I think the whole gear obsession started when labels started sending mixes to lots of big engineers who were all competing against each other. I think that's where the whole 'squeeze that extra 5 or 10%' came from. Brauer with his A, B, C, D chains, CLA with his SSL desk, bluey and the rest of his expensive gear. When your comparing 3 or 4 mixes side by side I think thats where many lean more towards the gear as they are all amazing at their craft but they still need something to stand out or give something different to the next guy
What do you mean endorsed plugins don't sound better? It can't be endorsed just because they get an endorsement deal. 😂 Another brilliant video mate!!!
@@PaulThird I hear you mate, just make sure you also make some time for yourself. Thank you so much for continuing to put out great content, buddy. I'm sure that you'll be able to go full time with this soon.
Here some myth debunk (or maybe not?) challenges: 1. Analog gear always sounds better than the digital twins. 2. Digital sounds harsh. 2b. Analog sounds warm. 3. Freeware plug-ins sound cheap. 4. Mic emulations can replace the real ones. 5. AI mixing will replace real mixers. Same with mastering. 6. LCR mixing is better than continuous panning. 7. Mixing against pink noise will you give the best balance. 7b. Spectral compressors will always give you the best balance. 8. Room simulations (of exclusive rooms) with headphones is better than real amateur monitoring. 9. All linear digital EQs without saturation and dynamics will null if set-up accordingly. 10. Drinking some wine while mixing fill f*** up your mix.
1. ANALOG HARDWARE VS DIGITAL PLUGINS: ruclips.net/p/PLmcBOB8VmXMI_rvJtWcGnXpnBbWDK8jQL already debunked it on a lot of cases 🤓.. However will always be subjective though 2,3, & 4. Lots of subjectiveness and hard to prove 5. My sonible smart comp & EQ, & Gulfoss videos kind of cover that, with the smart mixes actually marginally winning in the polls I did but again dependent on the song and mixer. 6-8..again subjective 9. Way too many linear digital eq's 😅😅 10. Dunno if that's just something you yourself wants to test out 😜 haha I will say though I mix best sober haha I remember the beatles talking about their sessions on lsd and listening back sober like.. Wtf was that 😂 However, the big engineers loaded with wine would probably still do a better job than me haha
Hello Paul, couple of thoughts. 1. there are some (quite a few) plugins that have an "insert sound" - so one should keep that in mind when putting plugins on - even if they're "not doing anything" (in terms of you haven't boosted/cut with eq/put in a threshold/compression etc). Plus I noticed an interesting thing: Some plugins don't bypass cleanly.. that means when you hit their bypass-button, they deteriorate the sound slightly instead of doing a clean bypass. This is devious.. since when you use the plugin-bypass in a shootout, the plugins that do this tend to win. (not common.. but I suggest to use the DAW-Bypass at all times) 2. when it comes to oversampling I suggest to always use the ears. Sometimes even a plugin that should be oversampled works better in the particular mix when you don't do it. 3. good point! Needed to be said. 4. gain staging only affects plugin emulations of hardware if the company actually modelled it to affect it. Again: there's no set rule.. but yes, usually you're right. And I'm thankful you awakened me to that fact.. I had to "search" a lot longer for sweetspots (on some emulations, like the Softtube TubeTech MK II for instance) until you started speaking about that. 5. I'd use some UAD if I had an UAD interface.. but I don't have one.
There have been many studies done and they don't fully null but your talking like -130db delta signals so the differences are inaudible. From what I've been told you'll struggle to find any DAW's null with anything less than -100db
LMAO... that highlighted text on the Mixbus post "I do not like the sound of oversampling". As a computer scientist and plugin developer this is hilarious to me. Good grief. I will follow up on this by saying that for general audio engineering purposes there is almost no good reason to run at a sample rate higher than 44.1/48k when utilising oversampling for non-linear processing. 48k gives marginally lower latency when inputting than 44.1. Higher sample rates will also help in this department, but they are also incredibly more inefficient by comparison. Why use for example, 4x the cpu and disk space for ALL plugins, when you can just oversample the ones that you need to oversample. It might sound inefficient to up/down sample potentially several times in a plugin chain, but compared to running EVERYTHING at 96k+, it is STILL more efficient. It blows my mind how people are so ignorant to these things yet carry on echoing misinformation. Such is life...
About the UAD and PA comparison it's worth noticing that we're talking about plugins coded by the same company (Brainworx in this case.) Pretty obvious but I don't think you mentioned that so might be good to clarify : )
8:57 This is the people who DON'T read manuals. For example, Waves and Acustica Audio manuals they specify a good level of gain staging for its correct operation. Good video Paul!.
For test 1- some pluggins don’t initiate until you move a control. So if you moved a control, then reset it back to default, it’s possible the plugin would alter the sound since it’s now been engaged.
I think some plugins do indeed alter the sound just by running the signal thru it (and possibly only after having moved a control in some plugins, as you mention). I haven’t null-tested it yet but I can clearly hear it in some cases, even with blind A/B comparisons. What I think, some plugins alter, some don’t, and some might deterioate the sound. AFAIK it would be too absolute to either state that plugins deteriote audio in default or to state that they don’t. And tend to think that goes for altering in general. And whatever is deteriotion or improvement can be subjective. And even a null test will tell you there is a difference if there is any latency that the plugin might introduce (unless you allign them after rendering of course). Disclaimer: all this is just what I think.
also point 3, brilliant. I didn't think about the plugin as a teaser for their own brand hardware. You'll find that the majority of these companies contract out the writing of the code for plugins, that's why you'll see some of the same names having written the software for different companies.
it's great that you are helping people change their train of thought from these misconceptions "secret sauce", "mojo" and other bollocks. What i would suggest you do though is a follow up video showing the analytical tests that people can do to prove to themselves what is happening versus the "it's just voodoo" nonsense. How about showing others how to use tools like Plugin Doctor so that people can see for themselves what is happening.
HOLY SHIT!!! THEY MAKE A METH PLUG IN!!??? =O WHAT'LL THEY COME UP WITH NEXT!!?? XD But really....I dig your videos Paul. In the beginning I was a bit iffy on you because anyone can make a channe,l and there are lots of arrogant audio people who come off like they know what they're talking about when it's really all bullocks and their mixes suck and don't have any balls. You have this bit of confidence/arrogance that takes some getting used to and not everyone is going to get...but now that I've followed you for a while I DIG IT and wouldn't want it any other way. It's simply that you know your shit and you're passionate about making your points....you mean what you say. That makes me feel like you're not wasting my time with something you're unsure about. That's cool. You deserve more views...best of luck with the channel. I'll tell who I can.
Thanks man. Appreciate it 🤜🤛 And yes in terms of the 'confidence/arrogance' thing, it's genuinely something that I've struggled with all my life as I have an incredible amount of self belief but also a lot of self critique as well. When I was in my teens and early 20's i couldn't control it so it just came out as cocky arrogance but after my autism diagnosis I learned that it was a social coping mechanism I instinctively had where I had to 'be somebody'. Since meeting my wife, having kids, working my way up in sales and management, and dealing with the autism diagnosis I've learned to strike a balance where I still stick to my beliefs and my guns but I also know I need to back that shit up which means research and testing, whilst still learning to have an objective outlook. Its a fine balance but I knew getting into the YT game I wouldn't be to everyone's liking as its the same in real life. I find that I'm mostly well liked in life BUT the people who dislike me really despise me haha 😅
I have a question I'm trying to work out regarding mastering at home, sample rates and oversampling... the reason I'm still unclear is there seems to be a lot of differing opinions, and it's always remarkable to me how many people seem more invested in defending their existing conclusions rather than genuinely curious to understand what's happening with audio on a deeper level. As far as I can tell, there's really two main reasons people use oversampling on plugins. The first and primary one, of course being reducing aliasing with high frequency harmonics. The second being that with some EQ plugins you can get cramping and funniness with the EQ response near Nyquist, so bringing up Nyquist improves that. Granted, there's two important things to consider here: not all digital EQs cramp, so it might not be necessary (I don't yet know enough about the coding of EQs to know exactly how some just avert this without oversampling, but ProQ3 being a good example.) Additionally, raising the Nyquist frequency by oversampling of course means it needs to be filtered again when it's downsampled back to the session sample rate, so you end up with a lpf rolloff, and changed phase response in the high end if this is done with a minimum phase rather than linear phase filter. This can affect the high end of a signal in its own ways, and you did another video already where you talked about the potential pitfalls of this more. Now, I generally work at 48khz for production and mixing and I don't really think the gains of going any higher are worth the CPU hit for me. However, I have been wondering if in my mastering sessions I should convert the files up and work at 96khz. I'm of course aware this doesn't add any detail to the stereo track that wasn't already there (I'd say it goes without saying, but this being the internet, I imagine one of the first responses I'll get will be "raising the sampling rate doesn't increase the quality of the file you idiot!" if I don't clarify that, LOL.) The reason being, however, that this would presumably help alleviate aliasing with any processors that do generate harmonics (which is generally going to be tamer than in a mixing context anyway) or any cramping in EQ plugins that I might want to throw in the mix (I imagine you could make the argument that any EQ which cramps shouldn't be used in a mastering context at all, I'm just thinking it wouldn't be a downside to pre-empt the potentiality.) Additionally, if I was to use any additional oversampling in particular processors at that sample rate, the phase distortion or low end dulling from any filtering that could possibly happen would then be further out of the audible range than with 48k. It seems to me then that the only trade-offs for this are that it would be heavier on CPU usage and latency, both of which I'm perfectly fine with in the context of mastering. Just trying to determine if there's anything I'm missing that would be a potential downside here? It seems like a no-brainer provided your rig is capable of handling it, and yet I've seen people argue that there's absolutely no reason to increase your sample rates above 44.1/48k for mastering in the box. And as you've pointed out the myths abound on these kinds of subjects. Cheers!
My mastering engineer works at 96k. I premix at 96 cause its where I do my main heavy compression (nebula can't be oversampled so I prefer to work with TimP comps at their highest available sample rate) and then mix at 48. If you are using non linear processes oversampling can be a benefit if there is aliasing as you mentioned but it's unnecessary if using an eq like proq3 or kirchhoff which has no cramping whatsoever. Lots of modern plugins have internal oversampling built in so it's not something to worry about There is also a big benefit of using oversampling with limiters. Panorama mastering made a good video about it. DM him on insta, Nicholas is really responsive
I bought the Harrison 32C Channel more to get the software sound they have in their Mixbus DAW, not because it might sound close to the hw and got as a bonus the low CPU usage that is great for a strip plugin. :-)
@@PaulThird actually, some of them do when using them with the Unison preamps. Impedance and gain stage matching makes a big difference with guitar and bass pickups.
@@johnbach2380 what? If the plugin is emulating the preamp perfectly then it is emulating it... perfectly. The question is... is it? Bottom line... UAD does NOT sound any better. EDIT: the best way to get the most out of plugins (i say this as a developer) is to use a high quality clean response preamp and then emulate analogue preamp characteristics. All we are doing in analogue or digital is wiggling waveforms. Providing you wiggle said waveform in exactly the same way it will sound EXACTLY the same. Then it becomes about how to do said wiggling identically. Not all plugins are created equally though. The thing is, people record their analogue gear into a DAW and then talk about how digital cannot replicate it. Which is utter tosh as proven by the fact they are playing their recording through a digital medium and saying that they can hear the analogue goodness. Rofl. Smh. It truely is the funniest thing.
Paul this video is spot on. You said EXACTLY what I had figured out. It's common sense people, if API makes a compressor that costs almost 3k or more do you honestly believe they are going to make a plugin, even by sonnox, UAD or BWX for let's say $200 that is going to sound exactly like or close to the $3k version? Dude they would be cutting their own throats and put themselves out of business, because no one would buy the hardware. No CEO worth his salt would do such a thing. Even though this is common sense, they will use big name artists, producers or engineers to convince you that isn't the case. They will sell you the plugin for flavoring to get you hooked in hopes that you may buy the hardware "eventually," or even if you don't they still made money off your purchase of the plugin as these companies have to pay for licenses. It's a game of charades people don't get conned. Business is about figuring out how to separate you the consumer from your dollars, scratch, cheddar, euros, skrilla.
Pedantic correction: the SSL Native Bus Comp 2 now does generate harmonics, as did the #1 v6, as did both versions of their channel strip IIRC. Still pretty clean sounding, arguably too much so, etc.
THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING THE HARRISON EQ! A couple of days ago I had a conversation..should I say discussion...with Harrison and their fans. With one guy I even had a pm-conversation in which I tried to explain scientifically why this can't sound like the real deal. Turned out to be a pointless mission. Nice guy, though, but no way to convince him.
@@PaulThird Kind of. I think Harrison's channel strip in Mixbus has some saturation too. I've used a digital EQ in Mixbus and they didn't have the saturated sound of the stock channel strips in Mixbus. You still get the tape saturation so there is a bit of saturation doing that, but to take the Harrison digital 32C channel strip and then run it in standard Mixbus it won't sound the same as the channel strip in 32C DAW.
6:30 😁 I hear you "Alvin". I thought it was just me when I couldn't hear any harmonics on the ssl native. But there is a new version, I think that might have some harmonics.
I dunno but summin tells me Alex will never give me one of his libraries to check out haha I think the whole rippling and chirp thing would annoy him too much as I would check them out in plugin doctor and run tests haha
People often get very religious about this, they do not want to hear the truth, it is much better believing those things as the responsibility then goes to plugins and gear, obviously this is why their music sucks, not because they need to learn more.
Yeah that's what I found reading thousands of comments over my time on youtube. I've found many X spends a crap ton on things that they believe makes or breaks them. Y buys the software that emulates that gear. X believes that he's superior to Y cause he owns the real McCoy and he'll do anything in his power to push that story that his mixes will sound better. Y can't sample the gear or compare their mixes to X so they just accept that it's true. Z comes along showing how close many plugins are and how some are actually subjectively better and its more about understanding the context of what makes this plugin or gear sound so amazing and how to use it X goes in the cream puff and slates Z and uses their 'success' and contacts so that Y and his pals don't start digging further. Z just makes more and more tests and X goes in the shadows never to be heard or seen again cause they cant be seen to admit that they rely on their gear over the ear. Just one repeated scenario I've seen play out over the year or so haha
So what do you think of the Harrison 32C plugin? Looks really nice to me. And you can add in what ever saturation plugin you want after right? Curious to have your take on that. Thanks for the video.
also point 1. I think the reason that this myth exists (just turning it on adds mojo!) comes about because there are a lot of plugins that when turned up have a few Db boost. This slight volume lift gives you that louder equal better vibe convincing you of the plugin "voodoo"
Hello - me again. "if you go into the HW emulation too hot" Thats the point of analog modelling plugins. If you want/need to go into the hw emulation hotter - you can and you must. Its not "unmusical" or anything. It might sound distorted and out of place for an RNB song, but it might be exactly what you need for a Foo Fighter like track. So there is essentially no rule against going into a plugin as hot as you like - whatever saturation/clipping happens because of going in too hot was not by accident, it was designed. It was designed and built that way on purpose. Its not a mistake/accident that it distorts. If its too much the frigging plugin itself has an input knob that lets you turn it down. BTW the shadow hills uad vs PA plugin have a tiny difference at -90 dbfs or so. They dont null out 100% for some reason, but practially that difference is inconsequential.
The unmusical part is the aliasing as they are random frequencies introduced unrelated to the fundamental which also isn't in the hardware but yeah we both agree that how you treat your input has an affect in analog emulations. It all depends on each emulation and how they are coded and calibrated. whether it's driving it for more distortion or really backing off the input for transient preservation, it's a thing. I had people messaging me about 32 bit floats in DAW's and stuff.. I was just like.. Just watch the videos eh and you'll understand what the conversation is actually about 😂
@@PaulThird aliasing needs to be managed even in non-hardware emulating plugins like Saturn - and most modern plugins already have internal upsampling that can be enabled. You're arguing that using a lower level essentially will allow the aliasing distortion (which is still happening) to be at a lower level that cannot be heard. That then implies that as long is its not heard, there's no reason to use upsampling anyway? Also "transient preseveration" is not something one would want to have at all cases. Its a case by case basis. I usually employ clippers to squash the transients because compressors arent fast enough. Because thats what the song needs. Sometimes you need to drive the plugin and sometimes you need to keep it clean. Your way of explaining it implies that there is a correct way of doing it and an incorrect way of doing it. There isnt. One must know what happens if you drive it or not and decide if that is something that will serve the sound/song.
No what I'm saying is that the source is affected by the way you go into an analog emulation, which is what many have argued. You have control in terms how much aliasing you allow the plugin to make via the input. There's still certain plugins that can make audible aliasing even with oversampling with the input cranked. However whether the aliasing bothers you or not is a completely subjective issue. I've never once said rules. In my gain staging videos my advice is to use your ears but have an understanding of how you gain stage the input can have an affect on aliasing, saturation and transient preservation. It's up to you what you do with that information but I still think it's important to have an understanding instead of assuming that because it's digital it doesn't matter the level you input into the plugin, which many have believed to be true. No rules, just giving out information for others to have more context
Plug-in myth number 6... tape emulations - I literally gag every time I see a mix breakdown where UAD's Studer is added like some sort of magical fairy dust! 😄
Better no watch my studer tape vs plugins shootout then 😂 the UAD won out vs the hardware for me and in the poll but it was all still really subtle. The tape over every track had a bit more feel but nothing magical. It's that subjective loads of people actually picked the dry thinking it was the studer 😂
@@PaulThird Oh I watched it! My problem is you're paying for a few fixed EQ curves and a little saturation... which you can reproduce with the free Melda plugins (and Plugin Doctor!). As for wow/flutter I've never seen anyone use it other than for an "effect"... again, any delay with modulation could do the job. Money for old rope!
I actually like SSL’s approach to their plugins, its like their changing their classic models to fit in a modern / digital context. I own the V2 bus comp & channel strip, and you get way way more options to tweak compared to the hardware/other emulations. Sure, if i want the “SSL” sound i’d go for something else maybe nebula, but the native plugins are truly a lot more versatile.
oversampling is generally should only be turned on when you are applying non-linear processing like compression and saturation heavily, like using guitar amp sims to make overdriven tone lol.
Oversampling in plugins is all about removing aliasing. There's actually no other reason for it as all it does is shift niquist higher Anything that saturates and involves high order harmonics will most likely require oversampling dependent on the anti aliasing filters or internal oversampling already applied
Honestly, the "reason" is that making a software doesn't cost you anything, but time (except when it's not just that). Making hardware in the other hand will cost you a shit ton of money no matter if you are making the first or the 10000th unit.
Hear hear! I'm not so much in to the "tech" stuff. If it sounds good, it is good. (love the brainworks stuff) People should concentrate in making good songs. You got yourself an new subscriber.
Not quite Paul, I believe manufacturers release plugin endorsements for licensing deals. If a plugin developer released a plugin with a manufacturers’ trademark logo, then the plugin developer has to pay a licensing fee or Royalty to the manufacturer. Now that’s! Business. None of the work, all of the glory/pay! Now, it would be to the benefit of the manufacturer to be involved in the development of the plugin so that the user/buyer will eventually become a customer like you mentioned; a secondary source of profit.
Yeah it is all just a big ploy at the end of the day is it. Manufacturer : go and make us a plugin but don't make it sound really close to the hardware. Just enough. Developer: why would I do that? Manufacturer: you can release the plugin through our brand and sell more plugins as we'll endorse it. We both get paid. Developer: ahhh ok. Sounds like a great deal Mixing engineers: oh cool!! .. A new analog emulation.. And the manufacturer have even endorsed it.. This must sound close to the real deal... Must.. Have... It The cycle repeats 🤣
@@PaulThird Haha! Good one. But do you believe we actually have the technology to create a 1:1 emulation? I doubt it. But if we do, it would definitely be CPU Intensive.
It's possible as many plugins have gotten so close where I would say it's practically 1:1. Acustica magenta vari mu for example is so close id say its near identical. Same with UAD pultec and access analogs pultec. TimP stuff is so close its crazy where the extra features he offers actually betters hardware for me. 1:1 is kind of not the most realistic thing because of the non linearity of an analog system. Plugins are coded and therefore in a sense predictable where analog isn't. Convolution is a snapshot of non linear behaviour and its static as are other plugins so there is always going to be variables where a 1:1 is near impossible as 2 hardware units can sound different. However I'm unsure how much of that matters as there has been many plugins that have got super close almost like having 2 hardware units side by side. That to me is where the plugins are at. Not 1:1 but close enough where you wouldn't be able to tell its not hardware. Plugins can better hardware but those cases are few and far between but it is possible
Providing the plugin is coded correctly, offline renders will sound identical or better (depending on variable factors) than online renders. However... if plugins do not handle it correctly, online renders are the only way to guarentee that the resulting audio is exactly as you hear. I have various plugins that screw up when rendering offline and the resulting file is all kinds of broken. In these cases i real time bounce.
It's an old Pro tools habbit when you couldn't export really fast, and they would print the mixbus to a file and then cmd+alt+k to export it to wave. The only reason I see for online render is when you have a hybrid setup and use hw inserts. I don't own any plugins that crack up on offline render.
@@ericsami2277 Well, it is a problem. hahaha. It just means something is not coded correctly in PT, but it is merely semantics at this point. Problem / Inconvenience... meh. Whichever floats your boat. However, I am not convinced that they will get on their game as they are minting coins by doing the bare minimum already. I personally could never go back to the clunky workflow that PT was built upon. It was clunky and bloated then and it is clunky and bloated now. In saying that, I fully accept that some people like it and will continue to use it. More power to them. :).
There is 1 difference in uad ......others are running on your internal cpu and uad-2 runs on its own hardware which reduces latency. So yes the differences is small but you can run more plugins ins without introducing more latency
One more: "Reaper does not sound as good as other _more_ professional DAWs". I mean, how can 0.5 + 0.5 sound _worse_ in Reaper? And an audio engineer I asked for help said this shit.
It's all BS. If it was shit real audio guys like Dan Worral wouldn't use it for all of his audio tests and mixes. A daw is a daw at the end of the day and studies have been done and shown no audible differences between them. Its just workflow at the end of the day, that's what your paying for
Yeah that's true.. Until you realise you are adding a crap ton of aliasing by chaining all the analog emulations haha The more I look under the hood at waves plugins the more odd they become to me. Random plugins you'd expect to be clean making harmonics like sibilance and NS1, harmonics randomly switching off in certain settings of AR mastering suite. I still use the odd waves plugin at 48k but if there was one manufacturer I personally wouldn't chain a crap ton of plugins with it'd definitely be waves.. Unless I personally oversampled them.
I wish they could make hardware that sounded nearly as good a plugins! Lol.... In some cases that can actually be true...... Plugin haters are silly....
When I did my tape plugins shootout vs a real studer the UAD won by a landslide in the poll so dunno about that one haha And the studer was printed on every track as well I think he means more from the variety that plugins can offer compared to a lot of hardware. You can take plugins further in many ways compared to hardware. All subjective at the end of the day
@@dannydaniel1234 Ah, but have you used BX Console SSL with Slate VTM on the master bus? When I do this in Studio One with the Brit Console MixFX summing engine, I bet even the trained ear would have a hard time distinguishing which was the hardware and which was not.
@@dannydaniel1234 I doubt that. I like the sound of analog consoles but was never a fan of the sound of cassette tape. The music I like was mixed on analog consoles and printed to ADAT. Which is digital tape. Has no tape sound. Just CD quality sound which is what we get in the box. No color. No noise.
@@dannydaniel1234 I was around for that and no they didn't sound as good as CDs. Even with Dolby noise reduction it still has tape hiss. Cr02 and metal sounded good as far as tapes go, but it could never compete with CD. I had a portastudio multi track and I'll tell you Protools sounds far better. At least for the music I do. Analog consoles, outboard gear sounds great. But tapes in my opinion. Suck.
I don't see how the "endorsed myth" is debunked, as it's only an opinion and speculations. One company endorsement is not necessarily like the other. One may be do validation and certification and another one could just happy to slap its name on a plugin and collect money.
The myth is that it's a 'fact' that endorsed plugs sound closer than other emulations cause the manufacturers themselves have made it or worked alongside the developer and personally endorsed it.. Thats just a myth as it's subjective dependent on the quality of the developer as well as the intentions of the manufacturer. I've given reasons as to why certain endorsed plugins can't sound closer than other emulations due to purposely excluding or limiting certain features needed to get the 'hardware' sound. I'm not saying that there isnt an endorsed plugin (different from licensed) that can sound closer than other licensed (uad, softube, waves, plugin alliance, softube) or non licensed emulations (acustica, black rooster, slate etc) but the notion that cause its endorsed means it should sound closer to the hardware is just an absolute myth. Im still yet to be shown an endorsed plugin that sounds closer than the rest of the emulations out there and it may be possible but I don't know of any examples personally as in the plugin game, you are only as good as your developer as its they who model and create the plugins. There's no explanation or specific reason why an endorsed plugin would sound closer.. Unless they had the 'best' developers or used technology that the rest aren't using i.e. Convolution possibly 🤷♂️
Worth pointing out the UAD does not "do" the same plugins. Brainworx sell their plugins on the UAD platform just like Softube, AMS and a few others. It's of course subjective, but I personally think that the plugin made by Universal Audio in general sound better than the ones made by Brainworx. But that has nothing to do with the DSP chips.
@@PaulThird Yes, the brainworx plugins are the same for sure. I was just pointing out that UA had nothing to do with them. They just allow BX to sell them on the UAD platform.
Its an interesting one cause brainworx essentially made these for UAD and then decided to create plugin alliance years later and sell their own native versions. I think UAD have the shark dsp license but not the native and that's why we have 2 versions
@@PaulThird UA has officially stated that they had nothing to do with de development of these plugins, they only provided the platform. They did however have a deal that made some of them exclusive for the UAD platform for a period of time. The same goes for some of the Softube plugins.
I've been buying plugins for nearly 10 years, I love them, I know I'm lucky to have these great tools but they're no Analogue & plugin companies are heroin dealers & I am right on the grear & don't want help... 🤘🏽💰🤔😂
@@PaulThird whit ma gonny dae? Chuck it eftur aw this? I'll end up back in the pub! Or & hoovering baby pooda in manky toilets.. I'll stick tae the plugins eh?🙄😆😆😆
Sorry, had to stop after the first example. It's already been proven that the signal does goes through changes when run through CERTAIN plugins. Especially plugins that emulate hardware. Maybe next time.
I did say that right after the test that obviously there are plugins that have set harmonics and linear frequency responses which acts as a 'pass through' . The myth is that EVERY plugin deteriorates the signal. That's what I proved to be false.
UAD winds me those DSPs are an absolute joke. Let's get some GPU acceleration going on plugins. I recently discovered Audio gridder what a fab bit of kit if you have a decent computer going spare.
In regards to UAD versus Brainworx - you are wrong. It's probably the case a lot of the plugs do have the same code, but not all. Two of them where I'm aware of this, Voice of God, and the Maag EQ, do not share the same exact code. This might have changed so take this as either used to not be the same, or are still not the same. In either case, not the same as of a few years ago when they came out. TBH, I haven't been doing audio for a few years, so I forget which one has what code. It comes down to one models the saturation and harmonics, the other doesn't. I want to say UAD's have the extra sauce, and the Brainworx versions do not. All I know for sure is, the two versions I have are the ones without the extra sauce, and that kind of bummed me out. With the Maag EQ, I don't think it matters much to have modeled the extra sauce. That EQ is not really about character distortion and harmonics. It's about the AIR band. Guessing that's got to be an oversampled plug, to accommodate the EQ curve that heads up over 40k or so. UAD had the edge there if memory serves, since most all UAD plugs are upsampled, even when using lower sampling rates in the session. The VOG plugin however, absolutely benefits from the extra sauce modeling. Without it, you can use stock EQs to get the curves the VOG is using. With the extra sauce, is what makes the VOG not your dad's stock EQ. Reviews comparing the two revealed the differences are obvious the more extreme the settings, rendering the version with the extra modeling as the one to have, as it's that much closer to the VOG hardware units. With all that said, this might be of interest. The how of why I ended up with the versions of those two plugins without the extra sauce modeling, is because when I researched UAD vs Brainworx plugins just before buying them, everyone said what you said here - all plugs from both UAD and Bworx share identical code. Which to me = "Buy the cheaper version(s), since they're both identical code-wise". Later after buying the versions that cost the least, I came across more reviews and comparisons, and guess what, there it was! Yep, the differences were verifiable, and in the case of the no special sauce VOG, sonically critical to getting the character that makes VOG not just a stock EQ curve marketed as something it's not. Hadn't I been steered wrong, and gone with my instincts to pay a little more for... it had to be the UAD versions as I'd assume they had fully modeled code by virtue of that's UA's thing save for their Legacy plugins. The moral is, beware of absolutes. There's most always, exceptions, to the conventional wisdom. Especially so in the world of audio, where the Dunning-Kruger effect is as common as white cones and Monster cables.
Brainworx didn't model voice of God. Universal audio did. Plus voice of god is just a simple resonant hpf. Science proves that. Already covered it on my channel and nobody was able to pick out which was which in both blind tests In regards to UAD vs brainworx. Null tests don't lie. I've scientifically proved on the channel that there are no sonic differences between UAD and brainworx versions. Even UAD themselves have stated there's no difference. Exact same code
Do you have any plugin myths you'd like me to test for a possible part 2? 🤓
FYI that gearspace screenshot about the Harrison is NOT mine!! Haha.. Let me reassure you 😂
Also in regards to the comments that the PA & UAD shadow Hills comp don't null
ruclips.net/video/1JAztwaI6Ls/видео.html
First time 😂
the main reasons why ppl recommended these endorse plugins is cuz all of them have zero latency and use virtually no cpu. Plus they sound at least as good as the other emulations... which basically make them the best.
plus the sound is more than saturation. I know you know this
HEY PAUL, I just tried the UAD/Plugin alliance on the Shadow Hills Master compressor (the green one not the class A) and they DO NO NULL its really subtle but it doesn't null. if I tried PA against PA or UAD vs UAD they do null but not PA vs UAD. Love -your videos by the way I just want to let you know .
for a possible myth that people believe maybe could be each that DAW has a sound of its own
@C I know but the whole myth was that people have kept telling me over the years that 'this plugin is endorsed so it's bound to sound closer than other emulations'
Its the marketing that causes all this in my opinion. Harrison as a good example
"Harrison's new cross-format 32C Channel plugin brings Harrison's True Analog sound to your digital audio workstation in your studio"
Then release it with digital eq cramping and a lack of modelled saturation in the EQ.
Ive not said its a crap sounding plugin, all I'm saying is that it can't be possibly true to the hardware without the non linearities of the hardware, but many will buy it thinking that cause its Harrison releasing it all of this has been incorporated
@@bernigracia3117 well. Subjectively, Logic adds some bottom end. Pro Tools is flat, the export sounds good. Ableton has "good midrange". Luna sounds like what Reason wants to sound like. FL sounds cold, or maybe flat at worst.
Visual mixing and stock plugins aside, there's definitely something to be said about summing engines having a sound.
“Third-party plugins are consistently better than stock plugins” and “Stock plugins are just as good as third-party plugins”
Ooooohhhhh.. Now that is a good one haha 🤓
@@PaulThird Although it does have to be said, that many people, myself included, don't get the most out of their stock DAW plugins, because they simply use presets, that, not unlike the ones you get in guitar multi effects units which are over the top, and have to be dialed back to get useable sounds out of them!
I use Logic myself, and have really got into creating stuff using only the stock effects, but tried to really learn how to use them, as opposed to buying loads of (expensive) 3rd party plugins, as "endorsed" by the flavour-of-the-month Pro Mixer, and then just using someone else's presets.
My mantra, if you will, has been.. "Learn all about your stock stuff first, and learn how to get the best out of them". Then, and only then, turn to 3rd party plug-ins if there is something more that you need. Saves a lot of money, and you become a better and more critical mixer.
I started off mostly using stock avid stuff when I was a student way back when but I always found I wanted more character out of the plugins and maybe expected too much of them. However possibly logic and other DAW's have better stock options than avid.
As you'll already know from the channel I'm very very particular about my plugins haha the plugins I use are the ones I know I can't get anywhere else at a few clicks of a button.. However it took a youtube channel and over a year to get to that stage haha 😅
To me it depends on how you mix. Because I see compressors also as tone boxes I look for comps that have certain linear frequency responses and harmonic signatures.
I do the same with eq's, saturation, reverbs etc
I could easily mix with stock plugins but I would need to use more of them to get the sound that I have in my head. Where I can get one third party plugin to do the job of 2 or 3 stock plugins, but that's only because I've extensively tested over the past year and know the plugins that can give me that specific sound.
Its all because I have this stupid idea that I want my own 'signature' sound and Ive been battling it for years.
Theres nothing to stop you just using stock plugins and creating an epic mix. If the recordings are amazing then they shouldn't need much work anyway. You could easily mix the record using stock plugs and it get accepted first time as the artist has no other reference to compare against.
I think the whole gear obsession started when labels started sending mixes to lots of big engineers who were all competing against each other. I think that's where the whole 'squeeze that extra 5 or 10%' came from. Brauer with his A, B, C, D chains, CLA with his SSL desk, bluey and the rest of his expensive gear.
When your comparing 3 or 4 mixes side by side I think thats where many lean more towards the gear as they are all amazing at their craft but they still need something to stand out or give something different to the next guy
Paul do you really like Pro Tools?
Yeah been using it for over a decade and never let me down
What do you mean endorsed plugins don't sound better? It can't be endorsed just because they get an endorsement deal. 😂
Another brilliant video mate!!!
🤓🤓
This is pure Gold Paul! Another fantastic video mate! Hope you're keeping well!
Bit tough being back at work and balancing both but I'm getting by.. Just haha 😅
@@PaulThird I hear you mate, just make sure you also make some time for yourself. Thank you so much for continuing to put out great content, buddy. I'm sure that you'll be able to go full time with this soon.
It's about time someone took on this issue . . . all power to you Paul.
🤜🤛
Here some myth debunk (or maybe not?) challenges:
1. Analog gear always sounds better than the digital twins.
2. Digital sounds harsh.
2b. Analog sounds warm.
3. Freeware plug-ins sound cheap.
4. Mic emulations can replace the real ones.
5. AI mixing will replace real mixers. Same with mastering.
6. LCR mixing is better than continuous panning.
7. Mixing against pink noise will you give the best balance.
7b. Spectral compressors will always give you the best balance.
8. Room simulations (of exclusive rooms) with headphones is better than real amateur monitoring.
9. All linear digital EQs without saturation and dynamics will null if set-up accordingly.
10. Drinking some wine while mixing fill f*** up your mix.
1. ANALOG HARDWARE VS DIGITAL PLUGINS: ruclips.net/p/PLmcBOB8VmXMI_rvJtWcGnXpnBbWDK8jQL
already debunked it on a lot of cases 🤓.. However will always be subjective though
2,3, & 4. Lots of subjectiveness and hard to prove
5. My sonible smart comp & EQ, & Gulfoss videos kind of cover that, with the smart mixes actually marginally winning in the polls I did but again dependent on the song and mixer.
6-8..again subjective
9. Way too many linear digital eq's 😅😅
10. Dunno if that's just something you yourself wants to test out 😜 haha I will say though I mix best sober haha I remember the beatles talking about their sessions on lsd and listening back sober like.. Wtf was that 😂
However, the big engineers loaded with wine would probably still do a better job than me haha
Actually drinking alcohol takes away the high end in your hearing. So you mixes will sound too harsh the next day.
Hello Paul, thanks for the video! Great topics here that i've often pondered about but couldn't be arsed to test them, thank you!
That's where I come in.. 'PAUL THIRD' The guy that 'does what you can't be arsed'
That should be my new intro 😂
Try this one. "The more you spend, the better it sounds."
Hello Paul, couple of thoughts.
1. there are some (quite a few) plugins that have an "insert sound" - so one should keep that in mind when putting plugins on - even if they're "not doing anything" (in terms of you haven't boosted/cut with eq/put in a threshold/compression etc). Plus I noticed an interesting thing: Some plugins don't bypass cleanly.. that means when you hit their bypass-button, they deteriorate the sound slightly instead of doing a clean bypass. This is devious.. since when you use the plugin-bypass in a shootout, the plugins that do this tend to win. (not common.. but I suggest to use the DAW-Bypass at all times)
2. when it comes to oversampling I suggest to always use the ears. Sometimes even a plugin that should be oversampled works better in the particular mix when you don't do it.
3. good point! Needed to be said.
4. gain staging only affects plugin emulations of hardware if the company actually modelled it to affect it. Again: there's no set rule.. but yes, usually you're right. And I'm thankful you awakened me to that fact.. I had to "search" a lot longer for sweetspots (on some emulations, like the Softtube TubeTech MK II for instance) until you started speaking about that.
5. I'd use some UAD if I had an UAD interface.. but I don't have one.
Glad you enjoyed it 🤓
Would be interesting to do a null test on the "protools has a better sound quality than other DAWs"
There have been many studies done and they don't fully null but your talking like -130db delta signals so the differences are inaudible. From what I've been told you'll struggle to find any DAW's null with anything less than -100db
LMAO... that highlighted text on the Mixbus post "I do not like the sound of oversampling". As a computer scientist and plugin developer this is hilarious to me. Good grief.
I will follow up on this by saying that for general audio engineering purposes there is almost no good reason to run at a sample rate higher than 44.1/48k when utilising oversampling for non-linear processing. 48k gives marginally lower latency when inputting than 44.1. Higher sample rates will also help in this department, but they are also incredibly more inefficient by comparison. Why use for example, 4x the cpu and disk space for ALL plugins, when you can just oversample the ones that you need to oversample. It might sound inefficient to up/down sample potentially several times in a plugin chain, but compared to running EVERYTHING at 96k+, it is STILL more efficient. It blows my mind how people are so ignorant to these things yet carry on echoing misinformation. Such is life...
It's pretty funny really.
As soon as I was sent that screenshot I knew it had to go in this video haha couldn't help myself 😂
Also it's definitely common to oversample in an audio editor or if you're going to print the track anyways. Think izotope rx, or edison, sony acid
Man if I could pick your brain for an afternoon I could walk away feeling so much smarter.
It's only the unknowing. They aren't a threat though. Just relax. It's a problem when professionals think that...which they don't.
‘Over sampling makes everything better’
This is the biggest myth for me.
Yeah oversampling gives a very specific result which is reducing aliasing. Doesn't work for every plugin and not the solution to all problems
About the UAD and PA comparison it's worth noticing that we're talking about plugins coded by the same company (Brainworx in this case.) Pretty obvious but I don't think you mentioned that so might be good to clarify : )
8:57 This is the people who DON'T read manuals. For example, Waves and Acustica Audio manuals they specify a good level of gain staging for its correct operation.
Good video Paul!.
For test 1- some pluggins don’t initiate until you move a control. So if you moved a control, then reset it back to default, it’s possible the plugin would alter the sound since it’s now been engaged.
On the fabfilter I toggled between the phase modes before I did the test 🤓
@@PaulThird good stuff
I think some plugins do indeed alter the sound just by running the signal thru it (and possibly only after having moved a control in some plugins, as you mention). I haven’t null-tested it yet but I can clearly hear it in some cases, even with blind A/B comparisons. What I think, some plugins alter, some don’t, and some might deterioate the sound.
AFAIK it would be too absolute to either state that plugins deteriote audio in default or to state that they don’t. And tend to think that goes for altering in general. And whatever is deteriotion or improvement can be subjective. And even a null test will tell you there is a difference if there is any latency that the plugin might introduce (unless you allign them after rendering of course). Disclaimer: all this is just what I think.
also point 3, brilliant. I didn't think about the plugin as a teaser for their own brand hardware. You'll find that the majority of these companies contract out the writing of the code for plugins, that's why you'll see some of the same names having written the software for different companies.
it's great that you are helping people change their train of thought from these misconceptions "secret sauce", "mojo" and other bollocks. What i would suggest you do though is a follow up video showing the analytical tests that people can do to prove to themselves what is happening versus the "it's just voodoo" nonsense. How about showing others how to use tools like Plugin Doctor so that people can see for themselves what is happening.
Great myth-busting. Loved you in King of Queens too. :-)
If only I knew what that was 😂
I don't see it 🤣🤣
Nebula answer all these questions with tim peterick nebula libraries
Love your channel - I've always thought this, great someone's saying it! Please never change!
🤜🤛
HOLY SHIT!!! THEY MAKE A METH PLUG IN!!??? =O WHAT'LL THEY COME UP WITH NEXT!!?? XD
But really....I dig your videos Paul. In the beginning I was a bit iffy on you because anyone can make a channe,l and there are lots of arrogant audio people who come off like they know what they're talking about when it's really all bullocks and their mixes suck and don't have any balls. You have this bit of confidence/arrogance that takes some getting used to and not everyone is going to get...but now that I've followed you for a while I DIG IT and wouldn't want it any other way. It's simply that you know your shit and you're passionate about making your points....you mean what you say. That makes me feel like you're not wasting my time with something you're unsure about. That's cool. You deserve more views...best of luck with the channel. I'll tell who I can.
Thanks man. Appreciate it 🤜🤛
And yes in terms of the 'confidence/arrogance' thing, it's genuinely something that I've struggled with all my life as I have an incredible amount of self belief but also a lot of self critique as well. When I was in my teens and early 20's i couldn't control it so it just came out as cocky arrogance but after my autism diagnosis I learned that it was a social coping mechanism I instinctively had where I had to 'be somebody'. Since meeting my wife, having kids, working my way up in sales and management, and dealing with the autism diagnosis I've learned to strike a balance where I still stick to my beliefs and my guns but I also know I need to back that shit up which means research and testing, whilst still learning to have an objective outlook.
Its a fine balance but I knew getting into the YT game I wouldn't be to everyone's liking as its the same in real life. I find that I'm mostly well liked in life BUT the people who dislike me really despise me haha 😅
I have a question I'm trying to work out regarding mastering at home, sample rates and oversampling... the reason I'm still unclear is there seems to be a lot of differing opinions, and it's always remarkable to me how many people seem more invested in defending their existing conclusions rather than genuinely curious to understand what's happening with audio on a deeper level.
As far as I can tell, there's really two main reasons people use oversampling on plugins. The first and primary one, of course being reducing aliasing with high frequency harmonics. The second being that with some EQ plugins you can get cramping and funniness with the EQ response near Nyquist, so bringing up Nyquist improves that. Granted, there's two important things to consider here: not all digital EQs cramp, so it might not be necessary (I don't yet know enough about the coding of EQs to know exactly how some just avert this without oversampling, but ProQ3 being a good example.) Additionally, raising the Nyquist frequency by oversampling of course means it needs to be filtered again when it's downsampled back to the session sample rate, so you end up with a lpf rolloff, and changed phase response in the high end if this is done with a minimum phase rather than linear phase filter. This can affect the high end of a signal in its own ways, and you did another video already where you talked about the potential pitfalls of this more.
Now, I generally work at 48khz for production and mixing and I don't really think the gains of going any higher are worth the CPU hit for me. However, I have been wondering if in my mastering sessions I should convert the files up and work at 96khz. I'm of course aware this doesn't add any detail to the stereo track that wasn't already there (I'd say it goes without saying, but this being the internet, I imagine one of the first responses I'll get will be "raising the sampling rate doesn't increase the quality of the file you idiot!" if I don't clarify that, LOL.)
The reason being, however, that this would presumably help alleviate aliasing with any processors that do generate harmonics (which is generally going to be tamer than in a mixing context anyway) or any cramping in EQ plugins that I might want to throw in the mix (I imagine you could make the argument that any EQ which cramps shouldn't be used in a mastering context at all, I'm just thinking it wouldn't be a downside to pre-empt the potentiality.) Additionally, if I was to use any additional oversampling in particular processors at that sample rate, the phase distortion or low end dulling from any filtering that could possibly happen would then be further out of the audible range than with 48k.
It seems to me then that the only trade-offs for this are that it would be heavier on CPU usage and latency, both of which I'm perfectly fine with in the context of mastering. Just trying to determine if there's anything I'm missing that would be a potential downside here? It seems like a no-brainer provided your rig is capable of handling it, and yet I've seen people argue that there's absolutely no reason to increase your sample rates above 44.1/48k for mastering in the box. And as you've pointed out the myths abound on these kinds of subjects.
Cheers!
My mastering engineer works at 96k. I premix at 96 cause its where I do my main heavy compression (nebula can't be oversampled so I prefer to work with TimP comps at their highest available sample rate) and then mix at 48.
If you are using non linear processes oversampling can be a benefit if there is aliasing as you mentioned but it's unnecessary if using an eq like proq3 or kirchhoff which has no cramping whatsoever. Lots of modern plugins have internal oversampling built in so it's not something to worry about
There is also a big benefit of using oversampling with limiters. Panorama mastering made a good video about it. DM him on insta, Nicholas is really responsive
@@PaulThird Thanks for the feedback!
I bought the Harrison 32C Channel more to get the software sound they have in their Mixbus DAW, not because it might sound close to the hw and got as a bonus the low CPU usage that is great for a strip plugin. :-)
Do people really say that UAD sounds better than PA when a lot of PA plugins are also licensed to UAD…?
Someone explain to me how that works lol
There's actually videos on RUclips with people trying to prove UAD sounds better 😂😅
@@PaulThird actually, some of them do when using them with the Unison preamps. Impedance and gain stage matching makes a big difference with guitar and bass pickups.
@@tramer76 using good preamps will solve this issue with or without UAD. lol. :D.
@@jamescuttsmusicjcm5013 not really. Youre still not emulating the preamp the plugin is trying to emulate.
@@johnbach2380 what? If the plugin is emulating the preamp perfectly then it is emulating it... perfectly. The question is... is it? Bottom line... UAD does NOT sound any better.
EDIT: the best way to get the most out of plugins (i say this as a developer) is to use a high quality clean response preamp and then emulate analogue preamp characteristics. All we are doing in analogue or digital is wiggling waveforms. Providing you wiggle said waveform in exactly the same way it will sound EXACTLY the same. Then it becomes about how to do said wiggling identically. Not all plugins are created equally though. The thing is, people record their analogue gear into a DAW and then talk about how digital cannot replicate it. Which is utter tosh as proven by the fact they are playing their recording through a digital medium and saying that they can hear the analogue goodness. Rofl. Smh. It truely is the funniest thing.
Paul this video is spot on. You said EXACTLY what I had figured out. It's common sense people, if API makes a compressor that costs almost 3k or more do you honestly believe they are going to make a plugin, even by sonnox, UAD or BWX for let's say $200 that is going to sound exactly like or close to the $3k version? Dude they would be cutting their own throats and put themselves out of business, because no one would buy the hardware. No CEO worth his salt would do such a thing. Even though this is common sense, they will use big name artists, producers or engineers to convince you that isn't the case. They will sell you the plugin for flavoring to get you hooked in hopes that you may buy the hardware "eventually," or even if you don't they still made money off your purchase of the plugin as these companies have to pay for licenses. It's a game of charades people don't get conned. Business is about figuring out how to separate you the consumer from your dollars, scratch, cheddar, euros, skrilla.
🤓🤓
Great video! You are so right! Just because they say it a million times doesn't make it true.
🤓🤓
Pedantic correction: the SSL Native Bus Comp 2 now does generate harmonics, as did the #1 v6, as did both versions of their channel strip IIRC. Still pretty clean sounding, arguably too much so, etc.
Yeah I dont know why they keep on changing it so much. I've been told that the EQ curves are different in the new update apparently
I saw the UAD vs PA post in a FB group. Shook my head.
I think we saw the same one haha 😅
Keep ‘em coming, Paul. Love your channel. Thanks!
🤓🤓
THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING THE HARRISON EQ! A couple of days ago I had a conversation..should I say discussion...with Harrison and their fans. With one guy I even had a pm-conversation in which I tried to explain scientifically why this can't sound like the real deal. Turned out to be a pointless mission. Nice guy, though, but no way to convince him.
That's why i steer clear from certain forums.. I just sit and observe 😂
So its kind of like a cheaper way of getting the full Harrison 32C DAW?
@@PaulThird Kind of. I think Harrison's channel strip in Mixbus has some saturation too. I've used a digital EQ in Mixbus and they didn't have the saturated sound of the stock channel strips in Mixbus. You still get the tape saturation so there is a bit of saturation doing that, but to take the Harrison digital 32C channel strip and then run it in standard Mixbus it won't sound the same as the channel strip in 32C DAW.
6:30 😁 I hear you "Alvin". I thought it was just me when I couldn't hear any harmonics on the ssl native. But there is a new version, I think that might have some harmonics.
Yeah Ive been told it does seemingly.. About 12 years too late 😂
I dunno but summin tells me Alex will never give me one of his libraries to check out haha I think the whole rippling and chirp thing would annoy him too much as I would check them out in plugin doctor and run tests haha
People often get very religious about this, they do not want to hear the truth, it is much better believing those things as the responsibility then goes to plugins and gear, obviously this is why their music sucks, not because they need to learn more.
Yeah that's what I found reading thousands of comments over my time on youtube.
I've found many X spends a crap ton on things that they believe makes or breaks them. Y buys the software that emulates that gear. X believes that he's superior to Y cause he owns the real McCoy and he'll do anything in his power to push that story that his mixes will sound better. Y can't sample the gear or compare their mixes to X so they just accept that it's true.
Z comes along showing how close many plugins are and how some are actually subjectively better and its more about understanding the context of what makes this plugin or gear sound so amazing and how to use it
X goes in the cream puff and slates Z and uses their 'success' and contacts so that Y and his pals don't start digging further. Z just makes more and more tests and X goes in the shadows never to be heard or seen again cause they cant be seen to admit that they rely on their gear over the ear.
Just one repeated scenario I've seen play out over the year or so haha
yes definitely something to use when meeting new interesting people "are you into aliasing?" .. .. . :D
... Slowly walks away..
Damn it Paul this is why you don't make friends 😂
@@PaulThird well, i think it might be really hot topic while speed dating. :D (i'd try it, if i was speed dating)
So what do you think of the Harrison 32C plugin? Looks really nice to me. And you can add in what ever saturation plugin you want after right? Curious to have your take on that. Thanks for the video.
I've not had a look at it. Just had screenshots from other engineers in my circle
Good to see how myths are nulled 🍀
😂😜
also point 1. I think the reason that this myth exists (just turning it on adds mojo!) comes about because there are a lot of plugins that when turned up have a few Db boost. This slight volume lift gives you that louder equal better vibe convincing you of the plugin "voodoo"
The last one puts it to rest, finally.
I'm getting comments about the shadow Hills not 100% nulling but I will find out why.. I must! 😂
@@PaulThird hopefully they're not attempting to null the Green against the Red.
That's what I'm trying to figure out. There's only 1 UAD shadow Hills.. And 2 PA right? 🤔
@@PaulThird exactly. I only have the Green, until the Red goes for 29,99 on them PA sales
How are analog emulations nulling each other if they are non linear?
Cause some aren't non linear. Some are purely marketing
@@PaulThird lol
Straight to the point type of video that I love
Took a lot of editing haha 😅
Hello - me again. "if you go into the HW emulation too hot"
Thats the point of analog modelling plugins. If you want/need to go into the hw emulation hotter - you can and you must. Its not "unmusical" or anything. It might sound distorted and out of place for an RNB song, but it might be exactly what you need for a Foo Fighter like track.
So there is essentially no rule against going into a plugin as hot as you like - whatever saturation/clipping happens because of going in too hot was not by accident, it was designed. It was designed and built that way on purpose. Its not a mistake/accident that it distorts. If its too much the frigging plugin itself has an input knob that lets you turn it down.
BTW the shadow hills uad vs PA plugin have a tiny difference at -90 dbfs or so. They dont null out 100% for some reason, but practially that difference is inconsequential.
The unmusical part is the aliasing as they are random frequencies introduced unrelated to the fundamental which also isn't in the hardware but yeah we both agree that how you treat your input has an affect in analog emulations. It all depends on each emulation and how they are coded and calibrated. whether it's driving it for more distortion or really backing off the input for transient preservation, it's a thing.
I had people messaging me about 32 bit floats in DAW's and stuff.. I was just like.. Just watch the videos eh and you'll understand what the conversation is actually about 😂
@@PaulThird aliasing needs to be managed even in non-hardware emulating plugins like Saturn - and most modern plugins already have internal upsampling that can be enabled. You're arguing that using a lower level essentially will allow the aliasing distortion (which is still happening) to be at a lower level that cannot be heard.
That then implies that as long is its not heard, there's no reason to use upsampling anyway?
Also "transient preseveration" is not something one would want to have at all cases. Its a case by case basis. I usually employ clippers to squash the transients because compressors arent fast enough. Because thats what the song needs.
Sometimes you need to drive the plugin and sometimes you need to keep it clean.
Your way of explaining it implies that there is a correct way of doing it and an incorrect way of doing it. There isnt. One must know what happens if you drive it or not and decide if that is something that will serve the sound/song.
No what I'm saying is that the source is affected by the way you go into an analog emulation, which is what many have argued.
You have control in terms how much aliasing you allow the plugin to make via the input. There's still certain plugins that can make audible aliasing even with oversampling with the input cranked. However whether the aliasing bothers you or not is a completely subjective issue.
I've never once said rules. In my gain staging videos my advice is to use your ears but have an understanding of how you gain stage the input can have an affect on aliasing, saturation and transient preservation. It's up to you what you do with that information but I still think it's important to have an understanding instead of assuming that because it's digital it doesn't matter the level you input into the plugin, which many have believed to be true.
No rules, just giving out information for others to have more context
the differences between analogue and digital is the "ART" that's what going to make you.
Plug-in myth number 6... tape emulations - I literally gag every time I see a mix breakdown where UAD's Studer is added like some sort of magical fairy dust! 😄
Better no watch my studer tape vs plugins shootout then 😂 the UAD won out vs the hardware for me and in the poll but it was all still really subtle. The tape over every track had a bit more feel but nothing magical. It's that subjective loads of people actually picked the dry thinking it was the studer 😂
@@PaulThird Oh I watched it! My problem is you're paying for a few fixed EQ curves and a little saturation... which you can reproduce with the free Melda plugins (and Plugin Doctor!). As for wow/flutter I've never seen anyone use it other than for an "effect"... again, any delay with modulation could do the job. Money for old rope!
Tbh it is something very subtle and could be easily missed in a production. It's something I'd say the average listener definitely wouldn't pick up on
@@PaulThird Yeah, 90% of the effect is psychological because of the cool GUI 😎
@@mixphantom0101 so you’re ok with saturation plugins? Just not when they’re paired with any kind of frequency curve?
I actually like SSL’s approach to their plugins, its like their changing their classic models to fit in a modern / digital context. I own the V2 bus comp & channel strip, and you get way way more options to tweak compared to the hardware/other emulations.
Sure, if i want the “SSL” sound i’d go for something else maybe nebula, but the native plugins are truly a lot more versatile.
oversampling is generally should only be turned on when you are applying non-linear processing like compression and saturation heavily, like using guitar amp sims to make overdriven tone lol.
Oversampling in plugins is all about removing aliasing. There's actually no other reason for it as all it does is shift niquist higher
Anything that saturates and involves high order harmonics will most likely require oversampling dependent on the anti aliasing filters or internal oversampling already applied
Honestly, the "reason" is that making a software doesn't cost you anything, but time (except when it's not just that). Making hardware in the other hand will cost you a shit ton of money no matter if you are making the first or the 10000th unit.
Hear hear! I'm not so much in to the "tech" stuff. If it sounds good, it is good. (love the brainworks stuff) People should concentrate in making good songs. You got yourself an new subscriber.
🤓🤓
Thumbnsil says ot all I am tuned in 🧐
I was actually quite pleased with the thumbnail 😂
@@PaulThird me as well 🤦♂️🤣
Brilliant work Paul!
🤓🤓
UAD don't even get me started.
Not quite Paul, I believe manufacturers release plugin endorsements for licensing deals. If a plugin developer released a plugin with a manufacturers’ trademark logo, then the plugin developer has to pay a licensing fee or Royalty to the manufacturer. Now that’s! Business. None of the work, all of the glory/pay!
Now, it would be to the benefit of the manufacturer to be involved in the development of the plugin so that the user/buyer will eventually become a customer like you mentioned; a secondary source of profit.
Yeah it is all just a big ploy at the end of the day is it.
Manufacturer : go and make us a plugin but don't make it sound really close to the hardware. Just enough.
Developer: why would I do that?
Manufacturer: you can release the plugin through our brand and sell more plugins as we'll endorse it. We both get paid.
Developer: ahhh ok. Sounds like a great deal
Mixing engineers: oh cool!! .. A new analog emulation.. And the manufacturer have even endorsed it.. This must sound close to the real deal... Must.. Have... It
The cycle repeats 🤣
@@PaulThird Haha! Good one. But do you believe we actually have the technology to create a 1:1 emulation? I doubt it. But if we do, it would definitely be CPU Intensive.
It's possible as many plugins have gotten so close where I would say it's practically 1:1. Acustica magenta vari mu for example is so close id say its near identical. Same with UAD pultec and access analogs pultec. TimP stuff is so close its crazy where the extra features he offers actually betters hardware for me.
1:1 is kind of not the most realistic thing because of the non linearity of an analog system. Plugins are coded and therefore in a sense predictable where analog isn't. Convolution is a snapshot of non linear behaviour and its static as are other plugins so there is always going to be variables where a 1:1 is near impossible as 2 hardware units can sound different.
However I'm unsure how much of that matters as there has been many plugins that have got super close almost like having 2 hardware units side by side. That to me is where the plugins are at. Not 1:1 but close enough where you wouldn't be able to tell its not hardware.
Plugins can better hardware but those cases are few and far between but it is possible
I heard about people rendering in real time as opposed to normal offline renders because that's how hardware does it. Any validity to this?
Providing the plugin is coded correctly, offline renders will sound identical or better (depending on variable factors) than online renders. However... if plugins do not handle it correctly, online renders are the only way to guarentee that the resulting audio is exactly as you hear. I have various plugins that screw up when rendering offline and the resulting file is all kinds of broken. In these cases i real time bounce.
It's an old Pro tools habbit when you couldn't export really fast, and they would print the mixbus to a file and then cmd+alt+k to export it to wave. The only reason I see for online render is when you have a hybrid setup and use hw inserts. I don't own any plugins that crack up on offline render.
No difference
@@ericsami2277 ah well thats a problem with protools then.
@@ericsami2277 Well, it is a problem. hahaha. It just means something is not coded correctly in PT, but it is merely semantics at this point. Problem / Inconvenience... meh. Whichever floats your boat.
However, I am not convinced that they will get on their game as they are minting coins by doing the bare minimum already. I personally could never go back to the clunky workflow that PT was built upon. It was clunky and bloated then and it is clunky and bloated now. In saying that, I fully accept that some people like it and will continue to use it. More power to them. :).
There is 1 difference in uad ......others are running on your internal cpu and uad-2 runs on its own hardware which reduces latency. So yes the differences is small but you can run more plugins ins without introducing more latency
But what about if you have delay compensation already active in your daw?
@@PaulThird delay compensation is per track set to 0 on the uad ones...
One more: "Reaper does not sound as good as other _more_ professional DAWs". I mean, how can 0.5 + 0.5 sound _worse_ in Reaper? And an audio engineer I asked for help said this shit.
It's all BS. If it was shit real audio guys like Dan Worral wouldn't use it for all of his audio tests and mixes. A daw is a daw at the end of the day and studies have been done and shown no audible differences between them.
Its just workflow at the end of the day, that's what your paying for
@@PaulThird quality of built-in resampler matters probably, but it's great in Reaper since it features r8brain algo by Voxengo.
Oversampling does have implications for true peak evaluation
AudioGridder seems to be a Solution for Budget Studios. please do make a Detailed Video on AudioGridder with a Practical Video Samples. Thank You!
Waves definitely has a few videos about the plugins being even better because they can have how ever many instances they want of it
Yeah that's true.. Until you realise you are adding a crap ton of aliasing by chaining all the analog emulations haha
The more I look under the hood at waves plugins the more odd they become to me. Random plugins you'd expect to be clean making harmonics like sibilance and NS1, harmonics randomly switching off in certain settings of AR mastering suite.
I still use the odd waves plugin at 48k but if there was one manufacturer I personally wouldn't chain a crap ton of plugins with it'd definitely be waves.. Unless I personally oversampled them.
@@PaulThird absolutely!
@@PaulThird H-Verb's early reflections are money. And abbey roads chambers are cool sounding
Abbey road chambers is a cpu killer but I can't not use it haha 😅😅
@@PaulThird I'm a confident man who prints reverb tails (audiosuite is so easy)
It’s business! Yes it is!! Gotta make that $$$$$$
🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑
YES, well executed!
🤓🤓
Great video!
🤓🤓
bro u're the best
🤓🤓
What a geezer 👍🏼
🤓🤓
Preach, brother Paul.
🤘🤘
🤣🤣Please please thank you for this video🤣More please.
🤓🤓
great video
🤓🤓
Congrats on your new ID44 😂
You can't miss it on my desk, don't even have to reposition it 😂
SPEAK THE TRUTH MY DUDE!!
If i remember correctly, the 32c strip only looks like it's cramping because the lpf is engaged. It's still a disappointing plugin though
I wish they could make hardware that sounded nearly as good a plugins! Lol.... In some cases that can actually be true...... Plugin haters are silly....
I know. Still baffles me that exist haha 🙃
When I did my tape plugins shootout vs a real studer the UAD won by a landslide in the poll so dunno about that one haha
And the studer was printed on every track as well
I think he means more from the variety that plugins can offer compared to a lot of hardware. You can take plugins further in many ways compared to hardware.
All subjective at the end of the day
@@dannydaniel1234 Ah, but have you used BX Console SSL with Slate VTM on the master bus? When I do this in Studio One with the Brit Console MixFX summing engine, I bet even the trained ear would have a hard time distinguishing which was the hardware and which was not.
@@dannydaniel1234 I doubt that. I like the sound of analog consoles but was never a fan of the sound of cassette tape. The music I like was mixed on analog consoles and printed to ADAT. Which is digital tape. Has no tape sound. Just CD quality sound which is what we get in the box. No color. No noise.
@@dannydaniel1234 I was around for that and no they didn't sound as good as CDs. Even with Dolby noise reduction it still has tape hiss. Cr02 and metal sounded good as far as tapes go, but it could never compete with CD. I had a portastudio multi track and I'll tell you Protools sounds far better. At least for the music I do. Analog consoles, outboard gear sounds great. But tapes in my opinion. Suck.
44.1/16
I
S
G
O
O
D
I like it a lot!
🤓🤓
endorsed plugins just pretty GUIs that look like the hardware
Got Cha P3!
🤓🤓
I Love This!
🤓🤓
I don't see how the "endorsed myth" is debunked, as it's only an opinion and speculations. One company endorsement is not necessarily like the other. One may be do validation and certification and another one could just happy to slap its name on a plugin and collect money.
The myth is that it's a 'fact' that endorsed plugs sound closer than other emulations cause the manufacturers themselves have made it or worked alongside the developer and personally endorsed it.. Thats just a myth as it's subjective dependent on the quality of the developer as well as the intentions of the manufacturer. I've given reasons as to why certain endorsed plugins can't sound closer than other emulations due to purposely excluding or limiting certain features needed to get the 'hardware' sound. I'm not saying that there isnt an endorsed plugin (different from licensed) that can sound closer than other licensed (uad, softube, waves, plugin alliance, softube) or non licensed emulations (acustica, black rooster, slate etc) but the notion that cause its endorsed means it should sound closer to the hardware is just an absolute myth.
Im still yet to be shown an endorsed plugin that sounds closer than the rest of the emulations out there and it may be possible but I don't know of any examples personally as in the plugin game, you are only as good as your developer as its they who model and create the plugins. There's no explanation or specific reason why an endorsed plugin would sound closer.. Unless they had the 'best' developers or used technology that the rest aren't using i.e. Convolution possibly 🤷♂️
@@PaulThird thanks for your answer.
Worth pointing out the UAD does not "do" the same plugins. Brainworx sell their plugins on the UAD platform just like Softube, AMS and a few others.
It's of course subjective, but I personally think that the plugin made by Universal Audio in general sound better than the ones made by Brainworx. But that has nothing to do with the DSP chips.
I proved in another video that they are identical. Same plugins, it's just that one is dsp and the other is native. Sound identical and fully null
@@PaulThird Yes, the brainworx plugins are the same for sure. I was just pointing out that UA had nothing to do with them. They just allow BX to sell them on the UAD platform.
Its an interesting one cause brainworx essentially made these for UAD and then decided to create plugin alliance years later and sell their own native versions. I think UAD have the shark dsp license but not the native and that's why we have 2 versions
@@PaulThird UA has officially stated that they had nothing to do with de development of these plugins, they only provided the platform. They did however have a deal that made some of them exclusive for the UAD platform for a period of time. The same goes for some of the Softube plugins.
They sound better to your eyes because of the uad branding
I've been buying plugins for nearly 10 years, I love them, I know I'm lucky to have these great tools but they're no Analogue & plugin companies are heroin dealers & I am right on the grear & don't want help... 🤘🏽💰🤔😂
😂😂
@@PaulThird whit ma gonny dae? Chuck it eftur aw this? I'll end up back in the pub! Or & hoovering baby pooda in manky toilets.. I'll stick tae the plugins eh?🙄😆😆😆
fine..
Sorry, had to stop after the first example. It's already been proven that the signal does goes through changes when run through CERTAIN plugins. Especially plugins that emulate hardware.
Maybe next time.
I did say that right after the test that obviously there are plugins that have set harmonics and linear frequency responses which acts as a 'pass through' . The myth is that EVERY plugin deteriorates the signal. That's what I proved to be false.
watch the whole video next time my dude
@@ronnielad1928 I hear you man..
@@PaulThird ok. Yeah, I've never heard anyone claim ALL plugins work that way.
Whoever is thinking that is wacky lol!
You make cool videos BTW
UAD winds me those DSPs are an absolute joke. Let's get some GPU acceleration going on plugins. I recently discovered Audio gridder what a fab bit of kit if you have a decent computer going spare.
I'm still contemplating an audio gridder video but need to get my i5 laptop fixed first haha
Are analog summing plugins a myth?
Are you talking waves NLS or UA API or Neve Summing?
They're mostly (if not only) adding distortion and crosstalk among the tracks. In that sense they actually do something.
@@emrahalpat use Luna and tell me that
@@nexusobserve you mean they dont do anything?
@@emrahalpat it's hardware boosted DSP so I guess somewhat analog. I'm just saying it sounds fucking good. Not all summing plugins are 30 dollars USD
What’s a plug in meth?
Dunno.. Some kind of lab where they make addictive plugins 🤷♂️
🤓🤓🤓
Remember to check out my autism channel if you want to learn more about my life 🤓🤓
In regards to UAD versus Brainworx - you are wrong. It's probably the case a lot of the plugs do have the same code, but not all. Two of them where I'm aware of this, Voice of God, and the Maag EQ, do not share the same exact code. This might have changed so take this as either used to not be the same, or are still not the same. In either case, not the same as of a few years ago when they came out.
TBH, I haven't been doing audio for a few years, so I forget which one has what code. It comes down to one models the saturation and harmonics, the other doesn't. I want to say UAD's have the extra sauce, and the Brainworx versions do not. All I know for sure is, the two versions I have are the ones without the extra sauce, and that kind of bummed me out.
With the Maag EQ, I don't think it matters much to have modeled the extra sauce. That EQ is not really about character distortion and harmonics. It's about the AIR band. Guessing that's got to be an oversampled plug, to accommodate the EQ curve that heads up over 40k or so. UAD had the edge there if memory serves, since most all UAD plugs are upsampled, even when using lower sampling rates in the session.
The VOG plugin however, absolutely benefits from the extra sauce modeling. Without it, you can use stock EQs to get the curves the VOG is using. With the extra sauce, is what makes the VOG not your dad's stock EQ.
Reviews comparing the two revealed the differences are obvious the more extreme the settings, rendering the version with the extra modeling as the one to have, as it's that much closer to the VOG hardware units.
With all that said, this might be of interest. The how of why I ended up with the versions of those two plugins without the extra sauce modeling, is because when I researched UAD vs Brainworx plugins just before buying them, everyone said what you said here - all plugs from both UAD and Bworx share identical code. Which to me = "Buy the cheaper version(s), since they're both identical code-wise".
Later after buying the versions that cost the least, I came across more reviews and comparisons, and guess what, there it was! Yep, the differences were verifiable, and in the case of the no special sauce VOG, sonically critical to getting the character that makes VOG not just a stock EQ curve marketed as something it's not.
Hadn't I been steered wrong, and gone with my instincts to pay a little more for... it had to be the UAD versions as I'd assume they had fully modeled code by virtue of that's UA's thing save for their Legacy plugins.
The moral is, beware of absolutes. There's most always, exceptions, to the conventional wisdom. Especially so in the world of audio, where the Dunning-Kruger effect is as common as white cones and Monster cables.
Brainworx didn't model voice of God. Universal audio did.
Plus voice of god is just a simple resonant hpf. Science proves that. Already covered it on my channel and nobody was able to pick out which was which in both blind tests
In regards to UAD vs brainworx. Null tests don't lie. I've scientifically proved on the channel that there are no sonic differences between UAD and brainworx versions. Even UAD themselves have stated there's no difference. Exact same code