Simple SSL G-Comp Comparison (BUSTER vs Real)

[tunca]

Here is simple comparasion of SSL G-Comp.Just two sound.One of real and the other is BUSTER from our company.

DRY

https://soundcloud.com/tuncak-1/dry

A

https://soundcloud.com/tuncak-1/a-1

B

https://soundcloud.com/tuncak-1/b-1

Settings:

Attack - 0.1 ms
Release - 400 ms
Ratio - 4

Gain reduction between -6 and -8 dB.

Please write which one is good for you.

Thanks.

[HcDoom]

A sounds like it has more GR going on and its brighter in character...while B sounds like lesser GR going on with more punch and darker character. To me both sound ok, in mixing case, I would go with what fits the track better.

[tunca]

A sounds like it has more GR going on and its brighter in character...while B sounds like lesser GR going on with more punch and darker character. To me both sound ok, in mixing case, I would go with what fits the track better.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Yes,A looks like has more GR going on but I checked GR meter it's around -6 and -8 dB like B.Also if you check with DAW meter,they have same level.So i didn't use makeup gain to show real reduction.

Also i will tell which one is real and which one is BUSTER.

Thanks.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

They both sound very close, but I wouldn't mind hearing more clips. Maybe a slow attack fast release comparison and/or an auto-release comparison. Honestly, I have The Glue and IK's version of the SSL Buss Comp and both sound very good, so another SSL isn't something I'm interested in.

You have some emulations of cool gear on your site, but I honestly haven't been interested in checking any out. You came seemingly out of nowhere, and released a whole lot in a very short period of time, which raises alarms in my head. Developers tend to take months, if not years between analog modeled plugins and you turned out a very large number of plugins quickly. Also, I get that English probably isn't your first language, but you don't say much about each release other than running through the features. So a few suggestions:

1. Release something very good (even if a cut down version of a commercial plugin) for free - use it to generate traffic to the site and get some buzz
2. Bring someone in to help with the marketing aspect of things - make me WANT to try the plugins
3. Add a link to your website in your signature here on KVR and other forums - how do I get to your site if you don't like to it?
4. The words "Analog Obsession VST" in a Google search need to bring up your page first
5. Your website is very minimal, with fuzzy, small photos of the GUI's, typographical errors - look to improve the design of the site at some point
6. Look to improve the GUI on your products over time
7. Stagger your releases - you don't want to put out 5 things in a month - tell us you spent months getting every last component modeled accurately, spread things out a bit
8. Look to expand the functionality of the gear beyond the original hardware - for example Dry/Wet blend, HP/LP filters on an EQ that didn't have any, Mid-Side processing options, Dual-Mono options, etc.
9. Think about non-audio related aspects of the plugin experience - resizable GUI's, XML based preset system for sharing, a good preset browser
10. If you have to give out some free (NFR) licenses with some key folks around here to get some buzz going, do it. If you have strong products that you believe can compete with the big boys, get someone like bmanic to try out your compressors. If he says they're good, I'd be all over the demos. I trust his ears when it comes to compressors and word of mouth from folks like him can go a long way.
11. Comparisons like this are good. Do more.

It's a saturated market, but it's one where several one-person companies were able to be very successful (Klanghelm, Valhalla, Cytomic to name a few). I wish you the best and I'll keep an eye out for your stuff.

[tunca]

They both sound very close, but I wouldn't mind hearing more clips. Maybe a slow attack fast release comparison and/or an auto-release comparison. Honestly, I have The Glue and IK's version of the SSL Buss Comp and both sound very good, so another SSL isn't something I'm interested in.

You have some emulations of cool gear on your site, but I honestly haven't been interested in checking any out. You came seemingly out of nowhere, and released a whole lot in a very short period of time, which raises alarms in my head. Developers tend to take months, if not years between analog modeled plugins and you turned out a very large number of plugins quickly. Also, I get that English probably isn't your first language, but you don't say much about each release other than running through the features. So a few suggestions:

1. Release something very good (even if a cut down version of a commercial plugin) for free - use it to generate traffic to the site and get some buzz
2. Bring someone in to help with the marketing aspect of things - make me WANT to try the plugins
3. Add a link to your website in your signature here on KVR and other forums - how do I get to your site if you don't like to it?
4. The words "Analog Obsession VST" in a Google search need to bring up your page first
5. Your website is very minimal, with fuzzy, small photos of the GUI's, typographical errors - look to improve the design of the site at some point
6. Look to improve the GUI on your products over time
7. Stagger your releases - you don't want to put out 5 things in a month - tell us you spent months getting every last component modeled accurately, spread things out a bit
8. Look to expand the functionality of the gear beyond the original hardware - for example Dry/Wet blend, HP/LP filters on an EQ that didn't have any, Mid-Side processing options, Dual-Mono options, etc.
9. Think about non-audio related aspects of the plugin experience - resizable GUI's, XML based preset system for sharing, a good preset browser
10. If you have to give out some free (NFR) licenses with some key folks around here to get some buzz going, do it. If you have strong products that you believe can compete with the big boys, get someone like bmanic to try out your compressors. If he says they're good, I'd be all over the demos. I trust his ears when it comes to compressors and word of mouth from folks like him can go a long way.
11. Comparisons like this are good. Do more.

It's a saturated market, but it's one where several one-person companies were able to be very successful (Klanghelm, Valhalla, Cytomic to name a few). I wish you the best and I'll keep an eye out for your stuff.

Thanks you so much for your thoughts! Really important for me.I'm trying to improve my marketing.I hope i will make it improved.

About releasing time of plug-ins,i released them almost at the same time but making them was really long.Even now working on new projects but they will take time.Maybe in the summer they will be released.And i'm trying to improve GUIs,too.I will work another GUI maker with my new projects.

By the way i was working on BFE Filtek MK3 plug-in for 4 months.Now working on GUI.This weekend it will be released.No shining GUI

I'm trying to do my best.

Thanks for your interest!

[cprompt]

Damn that's some great advice there, for any new developer. You have already listened and reduced your prices so I'm sure you are willing to listen some more. Some here have said things like "first 10 to pm me get a free plugin" and that's a very good way of getting some buzz going. You need people to start posting how amazing these plugins are... And I'm not seeing anything like that yet. Get your plugins into the hands of people who actually know what they are talking about and can provide good reviews.

[bmanic]

Well, I at least can now vouch for the quality of ALL of his plugins. Personally I think they are at least on par with the competition, if not better sounding. Buster sounds very good in my opinion but I too have several other options (including Sand from Acustica Audio) so it's not the type of compression I'm looking for right now. Also, I have not received any NFR plugins so this is my opinion purely based on the demo versions that I've frustratingly dragged myself through. They keep resetting and I'm sure you all know how much I hate these kinds of demo restrictions. Still, the very first second I got one of the demos working properly it was immediately obvious that this is not a "me too!" type of developer. These are truly deep emulations with a clear vibe around them (all of them quite different to one another).

I did buy BXQ which I think is amazingly useful. I've always wanted a BAX type EQ in a non-nebula/Aqua plugin format that doesn't "sound like a plugin" (I know.. very vague but that's how I'd describe the other attempts). It's amazingly transparent yet has a clear vibe of it's own.. perhaps a bit too heavy of a vibe but that can be alleviated by driving the plugin with a softer signal.

It was also a nice surprise to receive Brutus (opto limiter) as a free gift.. not sure how long that promotion is going on though.

Indeed, the company had a rough start but Ridvan took all the critique very well and fixed most of the problems.

@tunca: At least the EAQ demo is still very limited and times out after just a few minutes. This is going to pose a big problem for a lot of people interested in demoing it. I was expecting the 20 minute demo coolout when I tried it out today.. but to my disappointment it stopped working after just a few minutes, which wasn't even enough time for me to finish sculpting a kick drum.

Anyhow, it's about time I say this: Welcome to the world of plugin development. Keep up the good work and don't forget to TEST your plugins thoroughly, on all systems, before releasing them.. both demo and retail.

[tunca]

Damn that's some great advice there, for any new developer. You have already listened and reduced your prices so I'm sure you are willing to listen some more. Some here have said things like "first 10 to pm me get a free plugin" and that's a very good way of getting some buzz going. You need people to start posting how amazing these plugins are... And I'm not seeing anything like that yet. Get your plugins into the hands of people who actually know what they are talking about and can provide good reviews.

Now i opened testimonial page on my website.You will see some famous people's and studio's testimonial soon.

Also i gave lots of plug-ins for free.And now i have promotion.BRUTUS is free with any purchase.(Last 2 days)

And Analog Obsession and Make Believe Studios will release FILTEQ (Filtek MK3) plug-in this weekend for free!

You will see lots of promotion in the future!

[bmanic]

Well I didn't get any for free! Where are mine damn it!

Just kidding. I have no problems paying for quality stuff when it's priced sensibly. Heck, I'd have no issues paying your original prices either if you were a bit more established and had a solid track record of providing bug free software and good support. I'm sure you'll get there if you keep refining your business.

You're off to a solid start now.

[plexuss]

To me A sounded more like analogue gear and B sounded cleaner and punchier like what digital can do. They are very different. Being very different isn't a good sign in terms of an emulation. Both are very usable musically. I can't say I prefer one over the other but I would pick the one that sounds best for the track I am working on. I would say A is the original hardware (if you used the original hardware) and B is a digital tool.

[bmanic]

Here's a quick little example of just how subtle and nice the BXQ can be (24bit 44.1kHz wav):

Original mix snippet

2 instances of BXQ on the mixbus

You may not even notice a difference at first.. especially when you go from the original to the one with the two BXQ instances, but usually you can hear the difference very clearly once you switch back to the original. It's deceptively transparent in a pleasant way.

Anyhow, this is probably the wrong thread but the action is here right now so there ya have it!

[meloco_go]

A and B are sounding quite different, as was already said there's more GR on A, so it brings a more tail on snare.
You should not trust GR meter, especially on hardware, it's very slow and who knows how precisely it is calibrated.
It's not that one is bad and the other is good, both sound nice.

Would like to hear this over a whole mix on autorelease.

[meloco_go]

Here's a quick little example of just how subtle and nice the BXQ can be (24bit 44.1kHz wav):

Original mix snippet

2 instances of BXQ on the mixbus

You may not even notice a difference at first.. especially when you go from the original to the one with the two BXQ instances, but usually you can hear the difference very clearly once you switch back to the original. It's deceptively transparent in a pleasant way.

Anyhow, this is probably the wrong thread but the action is here right now so there ya have it!

B sounds happier

[tunca]

By the way if you wonder when Brutus promotion will done,today is the last day!