Waves SSL E-Channel for just $29!

[chk071]

Where can you get it for $22, BTW?

AudioDeluxe among others, with a Waves Voucher (example: see page 2, middle).

Danke.

[1wob2many]

This thread is flooding with fanboi and off-topic crap.

Are you sleeping mods?

We're all very sorry that KVR doesn't meet up to your high standards. We promise to try harder and hope that in time you'll come to forgive us.

[Burillo]

Here's some insider insight...

Saturation/soft clipping 2005: signal = tanhf(signal)
Saturation/soft clipping 2017: signal = tanhf(signal)

that only applies to very simplistic waveshaping. modern saturation plugins are much more complex than static waveshapers.

The RBJ filters are in Vinnie Falco's filter library that many use, and the IIRFilters in JUCE work the same way as the RBJ filters. Who uses JUCE, you say? Companies like Valhalla DSP, D16, Sound Radix, Acon, Cableguys... so I guess their products are basically all shite because they use filters from a 2005 document. Interesting point.

i'm pretty sure the developers you listed as using JUCE use JUCE only for their GUI's and technical stuff, not for actual sound processing.

Upsampling/oversampling was a thing in the 90s already.

yes, but apparently it wasn't a thing in this particular plugin.

I have no information or opinion about this, but you quite evidently have. I want to form my own, so please feel free to link to any reliable source stating that Waves didn't use oversampling in their SSL plugins. Always good to know such things.

aliasing/oversampling is pretty easy to test if you know what you're doing. you can spot oversampling by shooting noise into the plugin and looking at analyzer afterwards - you'll see a steep lowpass filter close to Nyquist. there's no such lowpass apparent on E-Channe, so this plugin has no oversampling/anti-aliasing. here's a comparison of Waves SSL and T-Racks SSL channel (which does have oversampling) that i just did using REAPER's noise generator and a spectrogram:

wavesvstracks.png

this plugin doesn't model any saturation, so there's no aliasing going on while you're EQ'ing, but it might rear its ugly head when you're compressing, because compression does generate harmonics.

there's also another thing that affects old EQ's that is a solved problem in most modern good EQ's - cramping. basically, when you get close to Nyquist, the curve shape starts to warp, resulting in bad sounding high boosts. unfortunately, that's not as easy to test, so i can't tell one way or the other if this plugin's EQ curves are de-cramped, but i wouldn't be surprised if they weren't.

so, as you can see, while "old code" does not necessarily mean "bad code", it may mean "less sophisticated" code, as in, doesn't have oversampling/anti-aliasing, de-cramping and other tricks of modernity. how's that for "insider insight"?

[ATN69]

This thread is flooding with fanboi and off-topic crap.

Are you sleeping mods?

We're all very sorry that KVR doesn't meet up to your high standards. We promise to try harder and hope that in time you'll come to forgive us.

[electricthing]

Now I know why Waves is having these major sales!
They get popcorn and read KVR.

[Compyfox]

Now I know why Waves is having these major sales!
They get popcorn and read KVR.

Then I must have caused a boost in Popcorn output for a couple of companies in recent years...

[Temptin]

Here's some insider insight...

Saturation/soft clipping 2005: signal = tanhf(signal)
Saturation/soft clipping 2017: signal = tanhf(signal)

that only applies to very simplistic waveshaping. modern saturation plugins are much more complex than static waveshapers.

The RBJ filters are in Vinnie Falco's filter library that many use, and the IIRFilters in JUCE work the same way as the RBJ filters. Who uses JUCE, you say? Companies like Valhalla DSP, D16, Sound Radix, Acon, Cableguys... so I guess their products are basically all shite because they use filters from a 2005 document. Interesting point.

i'm pretty sure the developers you listed as using JUCE use JUCE only for their GUI's and technical stuff, not for actual sound processing.

Upsampling/oversampling was a thing in the 90s already.

yes, but apparently it wasn't a thing in this particular plugin.

I have no information or opinion about this, but you quite evidently have. I want to form my own, so please feel free to link to any reliable source stating that Waves didn't use oversampling in their SSL plugins. Always good to know such things.

aliasing/oversampling is pretty easy to test if you know what you're doing. you can spot oversampling by shooting noise into the plugin and looking at analyzer afterwards - you'll see a steep lowpass filter close to Nyquist. there's no such lowpass apparent on E-Channe, so this plugin has no oversampling/anti-aliasing. here's a comparison of Waves SSL and T-Racks SSL channel (which does have oversampling) that i just did using REAPER's noise generator and a spectrogram:

wavesvstracks.png

this plugin doesn't model any saturation, so there's no aliasing going on while you're EQ'ing, but it might rear its ugly head when you're compressing, because compression does generate harmonics.

there's also another thing that affects old EQ's that is a solved problem in most modern good EQ's - cramping. basically, when you get close to Nyquist, the curve shape starts to warp, resulting in bad sounding high boosts. unfortunately, that's not as easy to test, so i can't tell one way or the other if this plugin's EQ curves are de-cramped, but i wouldn't be surprised if they weren't.

so, as you can see, while "old code" does not necessarily mean "bad code", it may mean "less sophisticated" code, as in, doesn't have oversampling/anti-aliasing, de-cramping and other tricks of modernity. how's that for "insider insight"?

Yes, old code is less sophisticated. That's a nice way of putting it.

Modern algorithms do more work than the old "DSP cookbook" examples. That's why the CPU usage is so much higher on great, modern plugins. Because they do a lot more processing. For example, some modern plugins like Cytomic The Glue and FXpansion Synth Squad model electrical components at the component level. No digital math at all. It all happens with virtual voltages and virtual electrical circuits.

JUCE is mostly used for easy compilation to different cross-platform plugin formats, and the GUI handling code it provides. I don't believe any serious plugin developer would use its basic, built-in filters and effects.

And yes, the Waves SSL lacks oversampling. And its EQ suffers from cramping:

"Waves SSL is still good, and its main benefit is extremely low CPU useage and extremely fast workflow. However, its main drawback is that the EQ has curve warping / cramping near the nyquist point at 44.1kHz sample rate. I verified this by doing a 10dB peak boost at 8kHz at both 44.1kHz and 96kHz sample rates, passing pink noise into fabfilter pro-q and matching against unfiltered pink noise, to verify that at 44.1kHz the peak filter attenuated much more quickly. This is only an issue when doing high frequency boosts or using the low pass filter. (Waves VEQ3 and VEQ4 also suffer from this issue).

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/10745480-post88.html

And as for the "appeal to authority" by listing some top mixers who still use Waves SSL: Who cares? They still use it because they're very familiar with it. They've had 11 years to learn it inside & out, remember?

[Burillo]

actually, Waves SSL actually does model some kind of saturation (there's a third-order harmonic at around -80dB), and it does alias because of this. see this frequency sweep:

wavesvstrackssweep.png

dynamics section was bypassed.

[kmonkey]

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".

In fact, UAD overhauled their code recently and re-issued the SSL Plugins. Before that - "old code" was used for sheer endless records.

Pardon may i jump in with opinion. If you still have UAD then try to compare UAD SSL with mentioned Waves SSL.

They don't sound nothing alike! As someone mentioned in this thread when it was still on topic Waves high boost suffer from terrible extremely terrible digitus/shittytus/cancer/tumor/mushy crap for your music.

I know you are long enough here to care for your music so you can't say to me that you gonna like Waves better over UAD one. Waves can make job done if you boost +2db at maximum sure.

Compressor on UAD is also much different sounding. Not subtle area.

Even old UAD code sounds EXTREMELY noticeably different to Waves. Just boos high on cymbals, past 6db and you will hear it. You are not that deaf i know it!

Nothing is highly subjective until you want it to. Sure you can say "hey man i think to my taste waves sound better to me" and there is nothing wrong with that. Nothing! That is being subjective yes.

But if you take hardware model, post UAD, and then post Waves and compare the two then again you can argue and say difference is subjective thing but in this case Waves will turn out so much worse sounding in highs that one gotta ask do you really like shittytus on your music and can't spot when one source is more close to real thing then another - in which case there is no subjectivity !?


It's like you will say to me glass filled with ocean water is good for drinking, enough good because it is made up from water. I will say to you that glass of pure drinking water is far better. Then you'll say to me it's subjective thing and if you put the two in front of your eyes they are both looking the same.

Come on!

[pixel85]

I just stumbled upon this article: http://www.soundonsound.com/people/insi ... iams-happy

Another one I read recently: http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/ ... ers-closer
That channel is almost on every Track.

There are so many of pro mixers who still use this plugin. So if 22$ is too much money for this plugin...

They're not pro / Waves paid them to advertise. Illuminati and Reptilians are behind this.
Real professionals are here. Real pro doesn't use anything that is older than 1 year. Especially old crap like MiniMoog -> it's so old that it's the crappiest synth ever

[poshook]

Oversampling is not a problem, just use 88.2kHz project or ddmf Metaplugin with 2x OS option

[Compyfox]

actually, Waves SSL actually does model some kind of saturation (there's a third-order harmonic at around -80dB), and it does alias because of this. see this frequency sweep:

At which frequency were you? You said "sweep", yet this image is obviously from a static position?

I'm not disregarding that this plugin aliases (should be easy to unveil with a sweep nearby the Nyquist frequency) - it is "old code" after all and oversampling technology has improved over the years. Just for the record.

Pardon may i jump in with opinion. If you still have UAD then try to compare UAD SSL with mentioned Waves SSL.

They don't sound nothing alike! As someone mentioned in this thread when it was still on topic Waves high boost suffer from terrible extremely terrible digitus/shittytus/cancer/tumor/mushy crap for your music.

I know you are long enough here to care for your music so you can't say to me that you gonna like Waves better over UAD one. Waves can make job done if you boost +2db at maximum sure.

I don't have an UAD myself - but my point was indeed more aimed at "can you tell me which of the official ports is actually the most superior?".

Even old UAD code sounds EXTREMELY noticeably different to Waves. Just boos high on cymbals, past 6db and you will hear it. You are not that deaf i know it!

If I had access to an UAD right now, I'd do a couple of plots just to see what's going on. Sadly, I don't.

It's like you will say to me glass filled with ocean water is good for drinking, enough good because it is made up from water. I will say to you that glass of pure drinking water is far better. Then you'll say to me it's subjective thing and if you put the two in front of your eyes they are both looking the same.

Valid argument on that end - no doubt about that.


Still... wouldn't the same apply with the various available NEVE EQ's?

I personally love (and prefer) the Nomad Factory British NEQ not only because of it's usability. If you don't use the "Vintage" mode, there is no saturation or noise happening whatsoever. So I only have access to the filter curves. Is it worse than the official UAD version? Probably, due to the lack of (again) the "mojo", but I tend to mix/match that anyway, and I'm mainly after the usability (btw: before anyone asks, I really dislike the Waves V-Series, and IKM's creations are not only CPU hungry to me, but I can't also turn off the saturation).

My second most favorite EQ is the Focusrite (Midnight to be precise, which is based upon the ISA/RED EQ) - it's as clean as it can get. There is currently no other ISA port (the TDM Forte Suite has been discontinued, sadly - and there was never a modern port). is it a bad EQ because it's not only "old code" but can also (theoretically) be recreated with any digital EQ?

For that matter - what about TDL Slick EQ?
You can turn the saturation completely off and only have the filter behavior/interaction.


Which brings us back to the "cancer" high-end... to me, I personally don't like the way too harsh FG-N high frequency band compared to other NEVE 1073s... the saturation also has a huge influence in this game of course. The Waves creation obviously has none for the EQ in case of the SSL 4k E - but what if we'd introduce that "outside" of the plugin? Pre, or ideally in post? Wouldn't that make the plugin "less cancerous" if there is saturation involved that "reduces" the harsh high-end frequencies?

Granted, that would be a workaround, but still... would the price of the plugin "then" be adjusted? (you can get C.Budde Christortion or Hornet Plugin Harmonics for free! Toying around with the second and especially third harmonic should add a lot!).

And isn't this exactly the reason, why Waves NLS exists?


What about the "Duende" Classic E? I don't have access to that one either (though I know somebody who has) - that is directly out of the house of Solid State Logic... what's happening here? I mean... if SSL would not "support" the Waves ports, then Waves would not be able to use the "SSL brand".



Once more - I'm not out to sell you anything. I'm just trying to offer a different viewpoint.

Oversampling is not a problem, just use 88.2kHz project or ddmf Metaplugin with 2x OS option

That would get rid of the aliasing, it would also smooth out the filters a bit. But it would not contribute to the criticism with the lack of "mojo".

[BRBWaffles]

Oversampling is not a problem, just use 88.2kHz project or ddmf Metaplugin with 2x OS option

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought DSPs had to use an internal sample rate independent of the host sample rate. So, a 88.2kHz host can still be running a 44.1kHz DSP.

[pixel85]

Oversampling is not a problem, just use 88.2kHz project or ddmf Metaplugin with 2x OS option

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought DSPs had to use an internal sample rate independent of the host sample rate. So, a 88.2kHz host can still be running a 44.1kHz DSP.

E channel support to 96kHz

[poshook]

...delete this empty comment