Waves Abbey Road Reel ADT

[Compyfox]

I'm not testing this time. Sorry.

[MickGael]

CPU hit ?

Can't give you a hard number, but not too much. Less than 10%. Just a guess.

[MickGael]

Do the drive controls at least add some nice coloring?

The rest indeed looks pretty simple, can be done manually, too...

Yes. Adds thickness and some nice grit. Heavy, but not at all overdone.

[Compyfox]

Define "thickness" and define "grit".

Kind of weary to hear buzzwords as of late.

[MickGael]

Define "thickness" and define "grit".

Kind of weary to hear buzzwords as of late.

Offering my definition would be an academic exercise.

I am describing what I hear: not resorting to buzzwords. You might try it for yourself before you dismiss it out of hand.

[Compyfox]

If I'd try every plugin in the market, I wouldn't have time for other stuff.

So please enlighten me what you mean by "thickness" and "grit"?

If by "thickness" you mean an enhancement of the lowend (making it more "thick") and by "grit" you mean an added distortion (I assume it's pleasant), maybe then I can work with it.

Else I'm like "WTF are you talking about?! Thickness and grit? I have like 20 different tape plugins with half of them being able to pull off that 'artifical double tracking' technique - but none of them can be considered 'thick' or 'gritty'".

I connect these two words with rather negative aspects of audio engineering.
And I downright hate(!) descriptions like this as of late. Because nobody can actually tell what is meant by that. And like you wrote yourself "you might try it for yourself".


Of course I could (reason why not, see above) - but I'd love to get such comments cleared first.

[Tricky-Loops]

I'm not testing this time. Sorry.

But before you call something an useless marketing blurb, you should test it...

[MickGael]

If by "thickness" you mean an enhancement of the lowend (making it more "thick") and by "grit" you mean an added distortion (I assume it's pleasant), maybe then I can work with it.

See? We do understand each other.

[Compyfox]

Then why not make it clear right from the start, MickGael?

I'm not testing this time. Sorry.

But before you call something an useless marketing blurb, you should test it...

Another test with the Waves software drama? (huge download, demo periods, etc) *sigh*


Look, I've taken a closer look at all recent Abbey Road creations only to find out that it's nothing more than marketing babble, wrapped in a cool looking "vintage" GUI, with the brand "Abbey Road" slapped on to it. I consider that a huge warning sign to other possible customers (and I wasted a lot of time on it). My REDD console review speaks for itself, the RS56 is more than disappointing - though a nice add-on if you use a tape machine in combination (whatever one is at your disposal - the "octave" setting of the EQ don't make sense otherwise to me).

The "Kings Microphones" were already highly questionable (IMO, IR plugin with a nice GUI?! Come on!), the tape machine was another try to step into the already oversaturated market (ton of tape machine emulations - even rare ones! Now we also have a "Sandbox" tape machine by U-HE!).


Waves didn't reinvent the wheel. Heck this plugin isn't even the first of it's kind on the market, even though the promotion says so otherwise (see the ADT Plugin thread by Vacuum Sound).

Spending currently 99USD (later about 200 USD), plus the occasional WUP sure is a lot of money for what this thing is actually offering (also considering the GUI size/design). To some it might be "the thing", it might even be more than worth it to them. To me it's nothing more than another dumbed-down tool, riding on famous names and brands, to gain further income.


Even if I had the money currently, I'd think TWICE if I really need that plugin. Why? Because I have like 3-5 different plugins that can do the very same thing - and then some more. Two to three of them even freeware!

So why waste the time to test?
Especially if it's a "digital" plugin with maybe only a slammed on standard saturation module to be somewhat... "analog" (like all other recent "emulations" by Waves where you can switch the "analog mode" on/off).

[MickGael]

Then why not make it clear right from the start, MickGael?

Well, it seems I did. You understood what I meant.

[Tricky-Loops]

IMO, most plugins from Waves are overpriced with lot of marketing blabla. And then they make a sale every few months, and even for the reduced prices I wouldn't buy most of them (with a few exceptions like Waves Tune, for example). Not that they were bad (in the worst cases they're average) but so far I've always found better alternatives...

And some kind of ADT, I always did it manually with a Delay, why should I need a pricey "Abbey Road" plugin for that?

[MickGael]

Waves didn't reinvent the wheel. Heck this plugin isn't even the first of it's kind on the market, even though the promotion says so otherwise (see the ADT Plugin thread by Vacuum Sound)

Let's be fair about this: Waves claims to have emulated the Abbey Road ADT system SPECIFICALLY: something so idiosyncratic - and specific to that studio - that no other studio or engineer was able to recreate it - quirks and all - over intervening decades.

Is it true to the original ADT? Dunno. Can't know.

Does any of this mean you should like the plugin? Of course not.

Clear as mud!

[Tricky-Loops]

Probably the real staff of Abbey Road Studios will laugh at it... I'm sure they have nowadays much more sophisticated mixing techniques than ADT...

[Compyfox]

...that no other studio or engineer was able to recreate it - quirks and all - over intervening decades.

Actually... don't think so.

I don't know anymore which of the mushroom heads found that effect by accident (was it McCartney? Lennon used that type of effect mostly - don't have that "Recording the Beatles" book at hand currently - it was written in there as well), but it was actually very easy to reproduce post this album. And actually overused in the 70ies and especially 80ies (ABBA comes to mind, even though a lot of that stuff was rerecorded regulary).


Still... Waves wrote:

Waves/Abbey Road Reel ADT is the first plugin to successfully emulate Abbey Road Studios’ pioneering process of Artificial Double Tracking.

Plugin wise, other people came first. Modeled after Abbey Road gear (which we can't be sure at this point - see the comment on "slapped on saturation" again) lies on a whole different ballpark.

But the "process" was definitely made accessible to the mass through other means years before this particular plugin.

[MickGael]

I don't know anymore which of the mushroom heads found that effect by accident (was it McCartney? Lennon used that type of effect mostly - don't have that "Recording the Beatles" book at hand currently - it was written in there as well), but it was actually very easy to reproduce post this album. And actually overused in the 70ies and especially 80ies (ABBA comes to mind, even though a lot of that stuff was rerecorded regulary).

It was not an accidental discovery. It was the creation of Ken Townsend (one of the honest-to-God recording ENGINEERS that worked for EMI). It was built to solve a specific problem.

And yes: other studios built their own versions of ADT. However, none of them sounded quite like the ADT created at Abbey Road. How could they? There was very little off the shelf in those days. Many pieces of gear were built to order, or modified in-house, so there were sonic differences at different studios. Must have been exciting times!

PS: "Recording The Beatles" is an masterpiece!