Waves SSL E-Channel for just $29!

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Effects Discussion
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

Hey guys, what about slowing down :)

Post

poshook wrote:Hey guys, what about slowing down :)
I second that. Still I give you all credit for skipping the WUP-"Discusssion" for once :party:

Everybody who has issues with Waves Central: I hear you. Maybe give it another shot, the latest release notes list "Waves Central 1.3.2.4: Improved installation times and several other performance improvements and bug fixes."
If you're still having issues, try to contact the support. From my experience they are really helpful :tu:

About that Null-Test: maybe start a fresh topic (if there already isn't one) like "the hitchhiker's guide to proper plugin-testing" that then can maybe become a reference for everybody else :phones:

About that SSL Channel (in case anybody remembers what we were initially here for :hihi:): I like it first and foremost because of it's simplicity and quick workflow, especially while I'm making music. Pull it up, tweak some knobs, move on. Sure it's "old" code. But I'm fine with that because at the same time it's really light on cpu, really stable and has minimal latency. Also there are tons of presets & articles to draw inspiration from.

The MSRP for the Single E-Channel hasn't been announced yet. But If we were talking about 179$ or so I'd agree, that there might be "more SSL-y" options on the market for the same or less money. But for 29$ I think it's a pretty sweet deal. And apart from NI's Solid Mix Series & IK Multimedia it's the only emulation that isn't tied to hardware or a dongle, If I'm not mistaken. (Slate: iLok, Duende: iLok, Universal Audio: UAD, Softube: Console1)

Post

BRBWaffles wrote:You don't know me at all, frankly.
Of course not, you hide behind an alias and present yourself with a larger than life ego.

BRBWaffles wrote:But, keep it coming, man. I'm getting a kick out of your attitude. You just can't seem to get your foot out of your mouth, and it's hilarious.
Note to self: Continue being freaking hilarious...

Check!




@krabbencutter:
The MSRP of the individual plugin is 199USD - don't know if that dropped over the years.



@poshook:
How are the measurements coming along?



Regarding "WUP-Discussion":
Do we want to go there? Because there is a topic worth talking about...
[ Mix Challenge ] | [ Studio Page / Twitter ] | [ KVRmarks (see: metering tools) ]

Post

Compyfox, i think you went off the deep end here, and made a bunch of nonsensical arguments. i won't go through them in detail, i'll just say that both points are valid.

yes, if one EQ nulls with another down to -80dB, a lot of people probably won't care for the difference (a lot more wouldn't hear it in the mix either). now, our ears are complex things, so -80dB @ 4kHz is not the same amount of difference as -80dB @ 100Hz, but it's still an arguably negligible amount. it's not a valid reason to dismiss an EQ, but it is valid to point out that there's nothing "special" about this EQ - it's just an EQ. it may be a good EQ, and thus it's not that different from other good EQ's, but the key point is, it's not that different. if you already have something with a similar sound, and similar workflow - IMO it's a waste, even for $29.

now, i think what Compyfox was actually trying to say, but didn't quite come up with the right way to say it, is that how an EQ sounds is not everything there is to it. to pick myself as an example, i could probably match the majority of "analog style" EQ's with a full parametric, and so could Compyfox and anyone else. still, it would take some effort and some adjustment of curves to even arrive at something this EQ gives me "for free", at a turn of a knob. if that happens to be a good curve that sounds good on wide variety of material - it's still probably worth having it, even if i can replicate the results with a good versatile EQ. you can think of it like a "preset" for equalization - you're trading the flexibility of full parametric for EQ designer's taste in curves.

that is something worth paying for, and in fact that "something" is why i have more than one EQ in the first place - because the "curves" i come up with usually sound worse than a turn of a knob from a "preset" EQ, so i really only use "surgical" parametric EQ's to fix problems (resonances etc.), not for shaping/sweetening the sound.
I don't know what to write here that won't be censored, as I can only speak in profanity.

Post

Compyfox wrote: @krabbencutter:
The MSRP of the individual plugin is 199USD - don't know if that dropped over the years.
Don't know if that was before V9, but as far as I can remember the SSL plugins were only available as a bundle up until now. (it also reads "First time ever as a single plugin" on the Waves page?)
Compyfox wrote: Regarding "WUP-Discussion":
Do we want to go there? Because there is a topic worth talking about...
WUP is definitely worth a topic. But then please someone make it a separate thread (If there isn't already one). From my impression It happens far too often that threads, that were started for specific waves plugins, soon drift away into general discussions about WUP, Waves Central or other things :/

Post

Mr Fox likes to try and impress too much and doesn't like it when slapped down to size, simple as that. I find it a bit sad when he " investigates" posters and attacks, when this was done to him and the equipment he uses was exposed he had an apoplectic fit.

Back to the topic, if you like it buy it it's a steal at that price. I had an Audiodeluxe voucher spare so it made it a real no brainer. It's a great channel strip, lo cpu and the dyn sc feature and routing sets it apart.
Mac Studio
10.14.7.3
Cubase 13, Ableton Live 12

Post

Burillo wrote:how an EQ sounds is not everything there is to it. to pick myself as an example, i could probably match the majority of "analog style" EQ's with a full parametric, and so could Compyfox and anyone else. still, it would take some effort and some adjustment of curves to even arrive at something this EQ gives me "for free", at a turn of a knob. if that happens to be a good curve that sounds good on wide variety of material - it's still probably worth having it, even if i can replicate the results with a good versatile EQ. you can think of it like a "preset" for equalization - you're trading the flexibility of full parametric for EQ designer's taste in curves.
+1000
The way EQ is laid out, the way controls interact (constant Q vs constant width), etc. -- it all makes a sort of "preset" and affects your decisions in the mix. Certain EQs "push" towards a particular tone and it may or may not work for each person.
So, there's only one way to know -- to try and see if it fits one's sonic preferences.
To me the advantages of this plugin are in the way it is laid out, it is very flexible and powerful. Being "old code" has its pro's too -- it is very light on CPU. One can have a hundred tracks with an instance on each, and it would still hardly strain any modern CPU.
On the other hand, I always felt it sounds kinda "dull." Hard to describe but to me E-channel sort of pushes everything back even if I boost top end to the max. But that's just me.
Lows are nice btw

Post

meloco_go wrote:
Burillo wrote:how an EQ sounds is not everything there is to it. to pick myself as an example, i could probably match the majority of "analog style" EQ's with a full parametric, and so could Compyfox and anyone else. still, it would take some effort and some adjustment of curves to even arrive at something this EQ gives me "for free", at a turn of a knob. if that happens to be a good curve that sounds good on wide variety of material - it's still probably worth having it, even if i can replicate the results with a good versatile EQ. you can think of it like a "preset" for equalization - you're trading the flexibility of full parametric for EQ designer's taste in curves.
+1000
The way EQ is laid out, the way controls interact (constant Q vs constant width), etc. -- it all makes a sort of "preset" and affects your decisions in the mix. Certain EQs "push" towards a particular tone and it may or may not work for each person.
So, there's only one way to know -- to try and see if it fits one's sonic preferences.
To me the advantages of this plugin are in the way it is laid out, it is very flexible and powerful. Being "old code" has its pro's too -- it is very light on CPU. One can have a hundred tracks with an instance on each, and it would still hardly strain any modern CPU.
On the other hand, I always felt it sounds kinda "dull." Hard to describe but to me E-channel sort of pushes everything back even if I boost top end to the max. But that's just me.
Lows are nice btw
Still do not understand the difference between old and new code

Post

poshook wrote:Still do not understand the difference between old and new code
I purely meant it as a time reference. A code does not get old, but being produced for much slower CPUs it was aimed at a different point in the accuracy/performance curve than some of the newer plugins produced today.
Does not mean it is bad.

Post

poshook wrote:Still do not understand the difference between old and new code
It´s quite simple really: old code is crap, new code is the bestest in teh world!

:D

Post

Burillo wrote:now, i think what Compyfox was actually trying to say, but didn't quite come up with the right way to say it, is that how an EQ sounds is not everything there is to it.
To keep it short and simple: workflow, maybe even instant gratification...

I think I said that a couple of times.



krabbencutter wrote:
Compyfox wrote: @krabbencutter:
The MSRP of the individual plugin is 199USD - don't know if that dropped over the years.
Don't know if that was before V9, but as far as I can remember the SSL plugins were only available as a bundle up until now. (it also reads "First time ever as a single plugin" on the Waves page?)
In all honesty... I didn't dig through the Waves page directly, I also only went for AudioDeluxe. I always had the assumption that the plugins were also available individually, like the Abbey Road stuff was/is.

So that might be one of the reasons why Waves is so aggressive regarding plugin pushing as of late...


krabbencutter wrote:WUP is definitely worth a topic. But then please someone make it a separate thread (If there isn't already one). From my impression It happens far too often that threads, that were started for specific waves plugins, soon drift away into general discussions about WUP, Waves Central or other things :/
Well I'd only direct the attention towards one thing: you buy a new plugin, you get the most recent WUP - does the new WUP address all previous plugins as well? And now that your plugins are on the most recent WUP, and v10 kind of on front doors... WUP WUP, free upgrades?

Image



woodsdenis wrote:Mr Fox likes to try and impress too much and doesn't like it when slapped down to size, simple as that. I find it a bit sad when he " investigates" posters and attacks, when this was done to him and the equipment he uses was exposed he had an apoplectic fit.
Do we want to talk measurements again? Did you actually see the mistake with the THD+N plot? Oh wait, we're still hung up on that "Null Test" BS... cool.

I've yet to get a solid "slap down" of my findings for mvMeter... I'd love to continue this at some point. :wink:


woodsdenis wrote:Back to the topic, if you like it buy it it's a steal at that price. I had an Audiodeluxe voucher spare so it made it a real no brainer. It's a great channel strip, lo cpu and the dyn sc feature and routing sets it apart.
I'm surprised that nobody went apesh*t so far, because "no external SC" or "mix dial for the compressor" oh and "mid/side capabilities". Three essential and mandatory features these days. :roll:

*yup, that was sarcasm*



meloco_go wrote:
poshook wrote:Still do not understand the difference between old and new code
I purely meant it as a time reference. A code does not get old, but being produced for much slower CPUs it was aimed at a different point in the accuracy/performance curve than some of the newer plugins produced today.
Does not mean it is bad.
Oooooh! Tell that to the people that think that code deteriorates!
Or those that think that copying from one HDD to another let "bits flop"... :roll:

Then again, I love me some rusty 0's and 1's... :hyper:
[ Mix Challenge ] | [ Studio Page / Twitter ] | [ KVRmarks (see: metering tools) ]

Post

Compyfox, you must be an old man, am I right?

Btw, when someone says old code it doesnt mean its bad, but it means its incomplete and done in time when emulation coding was not advanced as today. So, write whatever you want and be sarcastic as much as you want - but these old Waves SSL emus suck compared to any new properly emulated software. Neither this SSL emu has proper THD emulated, neither all the circuits and nonlinearities, they just modeled curves which you can emulate with any digital eq. Compressor is basic and some default DAW compressors are much better than this old SSL emu. Yes, you can get the job done with it, but how it will sound...definately not like real or proper SSL emu!!!

Bye

Post

HcDoom wrote: but these old Waves SSL emus suck compared to any new properly emulated software. Neither this SSL emu has proper THD emulated, neither all the circuits and nonlinearities, they just modeled curves which you can emulate with any digital eq.
Suck at being precise emulation? Maybe. At being really nice and functional EQ? Definitely not, at least for me. And I even said I am not a particular fan of the sound.

Post

Subject: Waves SSL E-Channel for just $29!
Compyfox wrote:
krabbencutter wrote:WUP is definitely worth a topic. But then please someone make it a separate thread (If there isn't already one). From my impression It happens far too often that threads, that were started for specific waves plugins, soon drift away into general discussions about WUP, Waves Central or other things :/
Well I'd only direct the attention towards one thing: you buy a new plugin, you get the most recent WUP - does the new WUP address all previous plugins as well? And now that your plugins are on the most recent WUP, and v10 kind of on front doors... WUP WUP, free upgrades?
They now have a dedicated page & video that answer most questions: waves.com/wup
but some details are still missing, so here's a crash-course in WUPness :D

WUP is per plugin or bundle and it's 1 year for newly registered plugins/bundles. So if v10 or a new plugin version (like Element 2) or a new plugin for your existing bundle comes around the corner, all plugins/bundles that have an active WUP will be covered for free.

Example: This crazy sale started around late april. So if v10 comes around before April 2018 all plugins you've recently bought will get the new version for free.

From my own experience renewing WUP for a year usually costs around 10% of the current MSRP, but at least 10$ (per plugin per year). So if the MSRP of your plugin is 179$ one year of WUP should cost 17,90$ for this plugin. If the MSRP is 100$ or below it will always be 10$. WUP is also capped at 300$ per WUP-purchase. But there are some exceptions:

If you're WUPing several plugins together, they will all get extended to the same date, based on the plugin that has the longest active WUP. This will increase the overall WUP cost in relation to the additional WUP period and can exceed the 300$ cap.

Example: you own H-Comp (179$ MSRP) which has WUP until 06/2018 and Supertap (79$ MSRP) which has WUP until 12/2018. If you upgrade them together, both plugins will get extended until 12/2019. The cost for Supertap would be 10$ (as that's the minimum WUP cost per plugin/year) and the cost for H-Comp should be 26,85$ (179$ MSRP = 17,90$ per 1-year of WUP. As your WUP will be extended for an additional 6 months by this, you'll also pay 50% more for WUPing this plugin). You simply pay what you get.

Overlapping products won't also count towards the 300$ cap.

Example: You own H-Comp and Mercury (which also includes an "additional" H-Comp. Both have active WUP until 06/2018. If you WUP them together until 06/2019 you'll pay 317,90$. 300$ for Mercury (MSRP 7599$, WUP capped at 300$) and an additional 17,90 for H-Comp, because it's overlapping with Mercury.

If you owned SSL E-Channel and Mercury with the same active WUP period, you'd pay only 300$ for an additional year, because SSL E-Channel does not overlap with Mercury.

Some additional notes:
- For every dollar you spend on WUP, you'll get the same amount back as a voucher, which can be used for up to 50% off a bundle, or 25% off single plugins.
- If the WUP for one of your products has already expired, the renewal cost might be a bit higher, depending on how long it has expired.
- I don't know if minor version updates (like the recent 9.6 -> 9.91) are still covered, even if your WUP is expired
- there actually are WUP-Sales. For example they had a 25% off sale sometime last year. And I just checked the WUP prices for my products and they were all around 30% lower than I expected them to be.
Compyfox wrote: Image
:hihi: you name it. It's a pretty complex system, but I think they're now doing a really good job in explaining it on their dedicated WUP page. I'd only wish they'd be a bit more transparent with the actual math behind it.

Post

HcDoom wrote:Compyfox, you must be an old man, am I right?

Btw, when someone says old code it doesnt mean its bad, but it means its incomplete and done in time when emulation coding was not advanced as today. So, write whatever you want and be sarcastic as much as you want - but these old Waves SSL emus suck compared to any new properly emulated software. Neither this SSL emu has proper THD emulated, neither all the circuits and nonlinearities, they just modeled curves which you can emulate with any digital eq. Compressor is basic and some default DAW compressors are much better than this old SSL emu. Yes, you can get the job done with it, but how it will sound...definately not like real or proper SSL emu!!!

Bye
let me know the algo plugins you talked about as proper ssl emulations

Post Reply

Return to “Effects”