Waves SSL E-Channel for just $29!

[nIGhT-SoN]

If we use the same principle, ssl consoles or any old hardware is useless because it's old, but hey, everyone these days is looking for that old sound. Maybe they are crazy.

[Compyfox]

However, I believe that much bigger challenge than the possible shortages in the modelling of the E-Channel is that many (most?) users are too lazy to study how these plugins (e.g. the SSL E-Channel) work. This concerns most of the software, and I'm equally quilty as you are.

I understand this completely.


In fact... if somebody would kick off a similar thread for the NEVE EQ series by Waves (not counting the Schoeps version), I'd say "look somewhere else". Reason as to why: once more the usability.

The NEVE plugins (or V-Series rather) by Waves are really not that great. What makes the NEVE EQ so unique is the usability, the fixed frequencies, the stepped controls, etc. Add to that, that the NEVE EQ (especially the 1073 and 1081) are not only "tuned", but due to their preamps also considered to be Character EQ's... then this is a completely different topic.

Though before anyone shoots in that direction - UAD is king here. IK Multimedia is nice and all, but personally I realized that I just don't like the sound of the preamp (and I can't turn it off either). Waves on the other hand, has "freely sweepable" filters - even though the filter band interaction is still similar to the actual NEVE devices in question, but it's still not the same "feeling". So to me, I use tools by a company that is sadly still considered "cheap and bad" (unadjusted if I may add) - and that is Nomad Factory. If I really want more "mojo", I use one of the many, many, many available preamp/saturation tools on the market.


So we really have to differentiate here - what is more important to you? Accuracy of modeling, or actual usability (to this counts: handling, CPU usage, UI design, etc) and behavior?


It's like with the Softube Tape Machine thread a couple of days ago:
Of course you can link several individual modules to create the effect of "tape": filtering, soft saturation, wow and flutter, noise. You can even create custom UI's in a modular subhost of your choice.

...or you can pick up a plugin that does all that already, eases up your workflow and does sound pleasing to your ears on top.

Its easy to lauch the plugin, but to get good results, one should learn at least the basics how the plugin works, what effects each parameter has.

...

That is a rare treat these days.

Nowadays, if a tool doesn't have like 20k presets, and the majority being "go to ones", it's not worth the money? You can't be serious.

Same goes for testing equipment. Who these days really knows how to take a closer look under the hood? Which is why I'm not showing anymore how I test things... which makes debunking (my) findings way more interesting - and sifts out who is really skilled in that area. Which in turn offers a way better ground for discussions. *cough - mvMeter thread - cough*

As if an algorithm all of a sudden sounds bad just because it´s old...

Are the Lexicon 480L algorithms crap just because they are more than 30 years old? I don´t think so.

But, but... company C has created an algorithm that sounds slightly better than company B... so company A from like 3 years ago is absolute trash, not to mention "no Mac and x64". And I don't know where to put company B anymore... *sniff*

[/sarcasm - for those that didn't get it]

IMHO it´s important to know ones tools well, regardless of their age. Constantly chasing the latest uber-emulation is a waste of time.

Agreed.

There are reasons to chase for a newer tool of the same device, if technology got better regarding modeling certain circuity (Tubes being a prime example, not many companies still that do this justice). Prime example would be old PODFarm (10+ years at this point, and before that it was GearBox and before that AmpFarm) vs modern day freebie Tube Amps (example: Ignite Amps or TSE Audio before they turned commercial). But if you know how to handle those tools, maybe with an occasional EQ in between, you still get your money's worth out of it. (here the constant "meh, the Musiclab samples sound bad compared to xyz" discussion comes to mind as well)

Else I'd be selling my old hardware synths / ROMplers. But alas - modern day synths or ROMplers just don't have the "bread and butter" charm that is sometimes needed in overproduced productions. Which is why Xpand2 by Air Music Tech is so underrated IMO (that thins was a steal for 1USD a couple of months back!).





But let's go back to the Waves deal. Only wanted to clarify a couple of things...

[pekbro]

Seriously... Waves Central actually works fine for most folks?
No problems, no time spent babysitting the thing to get it working
correctly?

All hunk dory?

I would be tempted to classify that as a mysterious unexplainable phenomenon.

[do_androids_dream]

Wasn't impressed with this at all. The only thing I liked was the gate. The compressor is fairly useless because the attack gets grabby and clicky very quickly on anything with a transient. I have the smacklabs free logic channel and prefer that way more.

[ATN69]

Seriously... Waves Central actually works fine for most folks?
No problems, no time spent babysitting the thing to get it working
correctly?

All hunk dory?

I would be tempted to classify that as a mysterious unexplainable phenomenon.

I basically don't like any of those "centrals" and there are a few. Waves, Cakewalk, NI, Arturia, etc, all have this approach. It's a waste of space on the HD and they need to be updated from time to time. But there is no way around it. Installing that central is the only way if I want to use any Waves plugs.

If I buy a plug from u-he, D16 group or anyone without a central, I can just download and install that particular one that I bought, which is much faster, easier and with less file size. I don't see how it's easier for the user with these "centrals" compared to just install a single plugin.

[waltercruz]

Seriously... Waves Central actually works fine for most folks?
No problems, no time spent babysitting the thing to get it working
correctly?

All hunk dory?

I would be tempted to classify that as a mysterious unexplainable phenomenon.

Always worked fine to me. (Mac OS running Sierra)

[MogwaiBoy]

I'm finding things are running smoothly with Waves Central - atleast it doesn't want to autostart like Gobbler (Softube). It updates itself and checks for available updates to your plugins... it's pretty seamless.

Native Access has caused me some grief with Kontakt/Reaktor updating errors, mostly because NI want to store a whole bunch of temporary folders on my C: drive - which unfortunately 'CCleaner' removed. Took a few late nights to figure that out.

[ghettosynth]

My comment from another thread:


Other than the unified interface of the Waves E-Channel, I'm not hearing anything that I really think is miles ahead of NI's solid series. I remember when BX console went on sale and I watched some videos, I thought that it looked much more flexible than the SSL stuff. Had it been a LOT cheaper I probably would have picked it up.

I'm probably not going to get the E-Channel, I'm not feeling the value over and above what I already have. The advantage of NI's approach is that I can use the SSL dynamics with some other EQ.

I'm trying to decide if workflow is worth a pizza? I don't think so in this case because it's a tradeoff. The self-contained nature is great, but, I'm not a fan of skeuomorphic EQ, I much prefer a graphical interface.

So, tell me I'm crazy?

[Local Man]

For those intrigued by this deal but confused by the debate in this thread about whether an old plugin has any value and how closely this plugin actually models the hardware it is designed after, maybe I can model what I feel is rational behavior.
Today I saw this deal in my inbox and thought 'hmm that is a very good price for something I have heard many people praise over the years.' I thought about it and though I have many good EQs and compressors, I don't have a really good all in one channel strip plugin that I enjoy using. I downloaded the demo and tried it out on a few things. I liked it in general but I really liked it on drums. In particular it really cleaned up a kick drum sample that I like despite the fact that it is kind of muddy so I have struggled with it for a while. I thought about it and decided that that alone is worth the $22 to me so I bought it. Do I care that it doesn't model the saturation and non-linearities of the hardware? No. Do I care that it is originally from 2005 or whatever? Not really (hell, my DAW is originally a lot older than that). Do I care that Waves is kind of an annoying company with a lot of gimmicky plugins and a pretty shady and convoluted real price vs sale price marketing strategy? Kind of. But in the case of this particular plugin the value was enough for me to look the other way.
My advice? Take any comments that aren't backed up by actual user experience with a huge grain of salt. And, try it for yourself and see if it works for your unique situation. All else is just noise.

[Brother Charles]

Hear, hear! I agree with Local Man.

I've wanted the Waves SSL stuff since a couple of years. Personally, I think that the $24 @PluginDiscounts was a brilliant deal - a no brainer, in fact.

For those intrigued by this deal but confused by the debate in this thread about whether an old plugin has any value and how closely this plugin actually models the hardware it is designed after, maybe I can model what I feel is rational behavior.
Today I saw this deal in my inbox and thought 'hmm that is a very good price for something I have heard many people praise over the years.' I thought about it and though I have many good EQs and compressors, I don't have a really good all in one channel strip plugin that I enjoy using. I downloaded the demo and tried it out on a few things. I liked it in general but I really liked it on drums. In particular it really cleaned up a kick drum sample that I like despite the fact that it is kind of muddy so I have struggled with it for a while. I thought about it and decided that that alone is worth the $22 to me so I bought it. Do I care that it doesn't model the saturation and non-linearities of the hardware? No. Do I care that it is originally from 2005 or whatever? Not really (hell, my DAW is originally a lot older than that). Do I care that Waves is kind of an annoying company with a lot of gimmicky plugins and a pretty shady and convoluted real price vs sale price marketing strategy? Kind of. But in the case of this particular plugin the value was enough for me to look the other way.
My advice? Take any comments that aren't backed up by actual user experience with a huge grain of salt. And, try it for yourself and see if it works for your unique situation. All else is just noise.

[BRBWaffles]

Ugh... "null down to -80dBFS"... oh please!

That's not a null test at all if most console sim's crosstalk kicks in at -76dBFS. If it's below -110dBFS - then we start talking, and even then, it is not(!) a "null test". I can "null" with any digital EQ with this...tolerance as well.

With the exception of some compressor comparisons, I could care less about most plugin differences past, like, -60dB, to be honest. In the mix, I'm not at all convinced that a difference that can only be discerned at -60dB is worth breaking balls over, or worth purchasing additional plugins. The E-Channel is not a very colourful tool, and the general understanding is that it's value is mostly in the EQ curves. The very fact that I could null the damn thing down around -80dB with pretty much any EQ at any bandwidth or band shape tells me that the differences aren't worth the additional money. Even if it's only $29. Hell, get the Dead Duck bundle, use that channel strip, and slap a white noise generator behind it at -100dB if you want their gimmicky "analog" feature, and voila. But yeah, -80dB (or even -76dB) is definitely outside the ballpark of when I stop caring, and any company trying to sell you differences that only exist at -80dB is basically selling you snake oil. Sorry.

Like, on my master track, I run the mix through a few really good analog emulation compressors with the threshold off just to catch some of that additional spooky analog-sounding voodoo, sure. But that's just me fellating myself and piling on extra crap because I can. Sure, it sounds good. But, the mix would be no worse off if I decided not to do that. Just as your EQ moves would be no better off if you used the E-Channel instead of ReaEQ or the CS-3301. Like, get a grip.

[poshook]

+1 to what poshook and Compyfox said above -- the Waves channel may be "old" but it has a unique character that others lack. Snap, punch, firmness -- whatever you want to call it, I haven't heard it from most other emulations out there. There's a reason this strip has been used on countless professional mixes over the years.

The Waves channel does model some harmonic non-linearities -- it may not be a state-of-the-art model of all the internal SSL circuitry (for that you need to pay $$$ for the new UAD plug), but it does bring some subtle coloration to your tracks. Try hitting it really hard and you'll most likely hear it.

Add the low CPU hit, solid stability, lots of useful presets, and wealth of online tutorials for this plug, and you've got a no-brainer however you look at it. One of the crown jewels of the Waves lineup for under $22 (at the usual discounters with DK39S code) -- how can you complain about that?

Cheers,
Eddie

Yes there is definitely saturation modelled in Waves E-Channel. Check the pictures with 1kHz sine wave: First is Waves E-Channel - no EQ, -3db Compression, 0db Input gain, Analog OFF.

Saturation on Wave E-Channel is introduced by compressor...

Wave E-Channel



BX_Console from PA - 3db of compression, no EQ, 0db Input gain.



Here picture from Acustica Audio Sand - EQ on, -3db GR on compressor:
The saturation introduced by compressor only as well, EQ is clean like hell:



And finally picture from Slate FG-S EQ only, so no saturation at all, only a bit of noise:

[cprompt]

Saturation on Wave E-Channel is introduced by compressor...

Yeah, but it's so low, barely getting past -90dbFS. Of course, if I put this on every track it would build up for sure, but slapping an instance on a snare won't add anything to write home about.

I compared this to the IK British Channel which I got years ago and was able to match the EQs closely enough so I passed. The only difference is that the IK one introduces no saturation at all.

[Compyfox]

er... not to burst any bubbles, but... did you spot the mistake?



poshook - can you please measure again with the following?

• a -18dBFS sine signal?
• the compressor engaged but not compressing (read: threshold as high as possible, ratio at 1:1, no gain compensation)?
• post the difference of one EQ band boosted (one plot) and one not (a separate plot)? (so two plots - let's say: 3kHz, boost about 6dB)
• maybe even use a different FFT?

I'm pretty sure the results would look vastly different...


Also... why do you compare a NEVE console by Brainworx with an SSL console by Waves?

[macmuse]

Seriously... Waves Central actually works fine for most folks?
No problems, no time spent babysitting the thing to get it working
correctly?

All hunk dory?

I would be tempted to classify that as a mysterious unexplainable phenomenon.

Always worked fine to me. (Mac OS running Sierra)

Same here, installs and authorizes the plugin quickly, haven't ever had any problems.