Waves SSL E-Channel for just $29!

[HcDoom]

Sonimus Satson, VCC, The Glue (and it will be even better with upcoming update), VMR, Acoustica, Softube console, latest UAD. All wiping floor with Waves SSL!

[Compyfox]

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

I'm between "too old to care" and "still too young to die".

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!!!

Ah hah! Now we're getting somewhere.
Because now comes the (age old) question "what is a good emu?!"... and ultimately "which is the 'best' and most accurate emulation on the market?". Which is also(!) highly subjective.


If we take a look at the official ports from Waves, Solid State Logic, Universal Audio and Softube (in that order) themselves - which is actually the best? Which is the "real, proper and only SSL emulation".

Which is even harder to figure out, as each "official port" did recreate something different, with the most different technology at their disposal. The Waves is the E-Series "black" knob version, UAD offers both the Brown and the Black filters, the Duende "Classic Channel" is simulating the E and the G (so once more, black), and Softube modeled both the 4k E and the XL9000.


(the paragraph that was originally at this place, has been moved post the following quote)

Sonimus Satson, VCC, The Glue (and it will be even better with upcoming update), VMR, Acoustica, Softube console, latest UAD. All wiping floor with Waves SSL!

From all these mentioned ones, only UAD and Softube are official ports. In fact, UAD overhauled their code recently and re-issued the SSL Plugins. Before that - "old code" was used for sheer endless records.


"The Glue" by Cytomic was well tuned, definitely no doubt about that. But we're talking "bus compressor", same with Slate VBC, not channel compressor. In fact - here is a conversation with Jim Motley (nice bloke, btw!) from SSL over on GS about this: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-en ... 000-a.html


Slate VMR (FG-S) is actually measured from a heavily-used console as well (I remember interviews and commentary from the devs about that) - and even then it's just 1, maximum 2 harmonics on boost - barely noticeable.

Satson is just a preamp, so is Slate VCC (again, heavily-used console as source, the G-series one for VCCv2 was freshly maintained IIRC).

And Acoustica Audio is IR technology (excuse me, Volterra Kerneling) - not pure algorithm - not to mention that I seem to remember the Alex B presets being very, very clean (he used a modded/noise-reduced / refurbished console for his recordings!).



Again... the console itself is a "modern" Class A one, meaning "it's supposed to be clean, the EQ and compressor being surgical". The compressor and gate are VCA. We're not talking Neve where the focus was on "character" with their transformers. So without any sarcasm being involved - wouldn't that mean that there is not a lot of "mojo" going on in the first place?

What about the fact that no hardware of the same device sounds exactly the same (the age old debate on the various Pultec emulations out there)? What if the console, for the plugin in question that's being "modeled from" (that is superior to the Waves one) , hasn't seen maintenance in years and parts of it were worn out, which in turn results in more noise and/or more saturation?

So even if(!) newer plugins are better than this... old Waves emulation. Does that mean that they're more like the real deal, or are they but an interpretation?



Food for thought...
Again - I don't want to sell you the SSL Plugin - I just want to offer a different viewpoint.




@krabbenkutter:
Well, I guess Dr Zoidberg sums it up well... it's still a complicated system. And I was going the guessing game route. So what if they "overhaul" the WUP system and make it more simple, on top of throwing out plugins "now" to get as many people on board?

I mean - from a financial standpoint it's a bit moot to undersell your plugins (which is a whole can of worms in itself), offer WUP for 1 year and then drop Waves v10. Wouldn't there be more income if there was no sale and v10 drops regardless?

What this will turn into - we have to wait and see.

[meloco_go]

Sonimus Satson, VCC, The Glue (and it will be even better with upcoming update), VMR, Acoustica, Softube console, latest UAD. All wiping floor with Waves SSL!

Out of those Satson and VCC do not have any EQ/Dynamics functionality, The Glue is a buss comp, VMR lacks Gate/Expander and their SSL EQ module lack LPF, Softube and UAD need hardware to run. Acoustica has latency/CPU load preventing it from being used on many channels, and I don't know if they sampled EQ per band or did sample properly all the knobs at once (should make a difference for E model, though Waves fail in this respect too). I'd say only IK british channel is directly comparable, feature-wise and operation-wise.
It would be interesting to see BX SSL, and Overtone DSP are doing 4000 EQ and said on Facebook they would look into full channelstrip as well.

[ATN69]

Sonimus Satson, VCC, The Glue (and it will be even better with upcoming update), VMR, Acoustica, Softube console, latest UAD. All wiping floor with Waves SSL!

VCC and VMR from Slate = $14,99/month, Sonimus Satson = $39, The glue compressor = $99 and this one is not a channel strip, Acoustica Amethyst = $110, Console one $259 and up, UAD SSL 4000E = $299.

Waves SSL E-Channel = $29.

Not exactly sure what you mean with wiping the floor with Waves SSL, but whether something is better or not is highly subjective since it is based on ones preferences.

[BRBWaffles]

Personally, I'm skeptical of the entire analog emulation market, for two reasons that are somewhat related:

1) The vast majority of the targeted market has absolutely no idea what the actual device sounded like at all. Myself included. So, what does it mean to you as a consumer to own the plugin? What do you think you're gaining?

2) Because of the above point, the people buying these plugins actually have virtually no idea if buying it is a good or bad idea. If you don't know what the original sounded like at all, how can you possibly identify a use-case scenario for the plugin?

I criticized the E-Channel because it sounds exactly like pretty much every other digital EQ on the market, herp derp. In my opinion, that makes purchasing it a dubious decision. The plugin does not come packaged with unique use-cases that benefit only from this plugin exclusively.

In my estimation, most emulations are gimmicks outside of some very specific examples. For example, there does seem to be an indispensable character to the 1176 in particular, but I haven't personally encountered another compressor emulation that was actually irreplaceable. You can't make the same argument for any console/channel emulation, however. There were a number of console/channel emulations packaged with my IK Multimedia bundle, and I consider all of them effectively useless. Most of them are just really crude 3-band EQs with input/drive and output, and the functionality is dismal in relation to the cost and the gains when using it. Want a console emulation? Grab Abletunes' Drive Knob, grab Melda Productions' Noise Generator, then grab ReaVerb and slap a random console impulse response on it, then maybe slap Kuassa's basiQ on the end. Boom, you have essentially the same thing for free. Some of you would probably say "what about the nonlinearities!". Yeah, sure. Maybe for the .1% of you who might actually know what to listen for in order to even identify nonlinearities in a plugin, it might be a reasonable selling point. For the rest of you, it's likely a complete waste of money.

[ATN69]

My personal take on any purchase is,

1. Does the plugin bring anything new?
2. Does it replace anything I already have, but with easier work flow, etc?
3. Does it work well in my system without crashes, glitches, etc?
4. Does it sound fine to my ears?
5. Is this thing value for money?

If the answer is no to any of the above questions I simply don't buy.

I could not care less what it tries to emulate because I don't believe it is possible to 100% emulate hardware with software. Even if you possibly could get close, I still don't believe an exact match is ever possible. Even hardware that is mass produced in a factory is not exactly the same if you compare one unit to another.

[Compyfox]

I could not care less what it tries to emulate because I don't believe it is possible to 100% emulate hardware with software.

What about digital synths, where the "main sound factor" to "emulate" is the DAC?
Would that argument still apply?

Or what about the old LAWO AG Plugin Suite? Those were 1:1 ports of one of their digital console FX modules (mc2-Series console - EQ, compressor, etc).

Would you also say that the official, by Harrison Audio produced and by Harrison Audio distributed, "Harrison Mixbus / Mixbus 32C" is not a 100% emulation? I mean, they sell it as such.



Again... food for thought...

[ATN69]

I could not care less what it tries to emulate because I don't believe it is possible to 100% emulate hardware with software.

What about digital synths, where the "main sound factor" to "emulate" is the DAC?
Would that argument still apply?

Or what about the old LAWO AG Plugin Suite? Those were 1:1 ports of one of their digital console FX modules (mc2-Series console - EQ, compressor, etc).

Would you also say that the official, by Harrison Audio produced and by Harrison Audio distributed, "Harrison Mixbus / Mixbus 32C" is not a 100% emulation? I mean, they sell it as such.



Again... food for thought...

I get your point, but in the end of the day a copy is just a copy. If you take a digital synth for example, there are other circuits included that also affect the sound coming out of it, such as filters, DAC's, etc. When I say 100% I mean 100%.

[Rockatansky]

I wonder how many people here judging the Waves SSL stuff are actually entitled to others trusting their judgement. Who here actually is or has been using SSL gear for long enough to be able to know and feel what defines the sound, and how to relyingly check how they match? ...

Completely disregarding the part about how closely it matches the actual SSL hardware, it's still a channel strip plugin with filters that are "tuned", in whatever way (probably by dynamically changing curve) to have a certain character, and you get that for $29 or even less.

How many others like that are there? The Wave Arts one is currently on sale for $19 somewhere, nice but cramped and overloaded interface, off-the-shelf static digital filters, lots of options but no character. Others? 32/64 bit VST/AU/AAX Channel strips for Mac and Windows under $30? Anyone?

Slate, Metric Halo, McDSP, Eventide, Softube TT/Summit, ... anything I forgot? All a lot more expensive, static and bland, far less features or trying to impress you by mentioning "tube" all over the place. Some by Sugar Bytes, MellowMuse, AudioD3CK and BeatSkillz, and that thing by iZotope... but come on now, different leagues. What else? Exactly. Zilch.

I'm no Waves fanboi by any means, I've had my fair share of gripe with them and their narrow-minded ways. (Like WUP for existing plugins being more expensive than purchasing them new again in the sale.) But no matter if it's really "SSL character" or not, how far down you can null it with your favourite DAW EQ -- $29 is still a damn good deal in this market for a character channel strip.

At the end of the day, and that's the part most people have a problem understanding or accepting, it doesn't matter what your tools sound like. It only matters what YOU make them sound like. GUI design and workflow layout play a significant role in deciding how people understand and use their tools, what people CAN make their tools sound like.

Some people have a thing for dragging dots over grids with frequency curves jumping about in the background. Some people have a thing for twiddling a round thing back and forth without any other kind of visible feedback. Some people like having separate plugins for every task (EQ, Gate, Compressor, Saturator, etc.) because they can swap out individual processors to their liking, and some people prefer having a single plugin that comes with most of the tools they need so they can "learn" that specific set of tools rather than wasting time clicking through their arsenal, trying to figure out if they like compressor A or compressor B better on their bassline.

Neither approach is wrong or right, neither approach is good or bad, in and of itself. It only matters which is the approach YOU feel comfortable with. If you're uncomfortable with the tool you're about to use, it's the wrong one. Doesn't make the tool itself bad or worse than others in general, it just makes it bad or worse than others fo YOU.

If you're into console styled interfaces without lots of candy coloured lines jumping about, then the E Channel is a great alternative. If you like the curves it creates, that is. If you don't, then fair enough. It's a free market, move on and use something else, nothing wrong with that. But just because you maybe don't "get" the limited style or workflow of the E Channel, or think it "doesn't sound like SSL", that doesn't automatically make it shit or not worth having.

I've had the Waves SSL bundle before and sold it again, I thought it was a rip-off at the normal price, even at the reduced price I paid for it. The bus compressor is a sick joke, the EQ sounds nothing like the SSL EQs I've available to use, and the channels are too similar to constantly worry about which one to use. The compressors in the channels are useless when it comes to pushing it hard on transient rich material, which ironically is exactly what the SSL hardware excels at, even according to the Waves "product owner" in their recent making-of video.

I still went for this deal, because quite simply 1) it's a channel strip 2) with a distinct character and 3) a low CPU footprint that 4) runs on Mac in 64 bits and 5) just does something on a kick drum that I like. Can't have enough of those. It won't become "the treasure of my studio" or any important part of my workflow, hell no, but it's one more flavour that I can try out every once in a while if what I normally use doesn't get me there.

[Rockatansky]

I could not care less what it tries to emulate because I don't believe it is possible to 100% emulate hardware with software.

...

I get your point, but in the end of the day a copy is just a copy. If you take a digital synth for example, there are other circuits included that also affect the sound coming out of it, such as filters, DAC's, etc. When I say 100% I mean 100%.

Such a fallacy.

Ever heard of "nonlinearity"? That's what people these days are trying so hard to model. Differences between individual channels. Apparently, even the original hardware can't 100% emulate the original hardware, otherwise every console channel (of the same make/model) would sound and behave identical to others.

[ATN69]

I could not care less what it tries to emulate because I don't believe it is possible to 100% emulate hardware with software.

...

I get your point, but in the end of the day a copy is just a copy. If you take a digital synth for example, there are other circuits included that also affect the sound coming out of it, such as filters, DAC's, etc. When I say 100% I mean 100%.

Such a fallacy.

Ever heard of "nonlinearity"? That's what people these days are trying so hard to model. Differences between individual channels. Apparently, even the original hardware can't 100% emulate the original hardware, otherwise every console channel (of the same make/model) would sound and behave identical to others.

lol, that's exactly what I said in a post further up the thread, if you bother to read it. Mass produced goods aren't exactly identical when you compare 2 items, even from the same batch.

[BRBWaffles]

I could not care less what it tries to emulate because I don't believe it is possible to 100% emulate hardware with software.

...

I get your point, but in the end of the day a copy is just a copy. If you take a digital synth for example, there are other circuits included that also affect the sound coming out of it, such as filters, DAC's, etc. When I say 100% I mean 100%.

Such a fallacy.

Ever heard of "nonlinearity"? That's what people these days are trying so hard to model. Differences between individual channels. Apparently, even the original hardware can't 100% emulate the original hardware, otherwise every console channel (of the same make/model) would sound and behave identical to others.

I've often made this criticism of analog gear itself, as opposed to the emulations. Especially tube gear. Depending on how hot and how long you're running certain gear, the sound can change from day to day or week to week, perhaps even minute to minute. Hell, the tonal character of a unit can change in response to being plugged into a different outlet in a same building. I remember watching an interview with Andrew Scheps wherein he said that he couldn't record or mix on his console at around 2pm every day because the city droops the power for some reason. He said it caused all sorts of issues. Frankly, I prefer the reliability of digital tools.

Also, I believe nonlinearity refers to DSP parameter behaviours that don't scale linearly. Like band or Q shapes changing depending on amplitude, bands changing shape depending on frequency, attack and release character in relation to amplitude, etc. Things that aren't as simple as 1:1. Analog equipment has a lot of these weird idiosyncrasies.

[billcarroll]

The Waves SSL E Channel is all over many contemporary top releases. Sounds terrific, and light on CPU. Seems to work pretty damn well.

An absolute steal at < $29.

[keyman_sam]

Err..pardon the ignorance, but what can you do with the SSL E-channel that you can't do with your DAW's inbuilt channel strip? Say Cubase?

[BRBWaffles]

Err..pardon the ignorance, but what can you do with the SSL E-channel that you can't do with your DAW's inbuilt channel strip? Say Cubase?

Likely little to nothing, I would argue. I stated earlier that I was able to null the E-Channel with ReaEQ down to approximately -80dB at peak with several different source materials. Every band activated, tons of overlap, still nulled successfully. So, what you can infer from this is that most of what you can do with the E-Channel, you could reasonably do with ReaEQ. I did not test the compressor, though. It's difficult to truly get substantial null test results with compressors. But, it seems at least somewhat accepted that the compressor on the E-Channel isn't anything special. In my 12 years of experience I've never actually seen anyone use the E-Channel compressor, now that I think of it.

For $29, you're likely just paying for a pretty GUI and perhaps a better workflow when compared to ReaEQ, for example.