Sonimus Burnley 73 VS Waves Scheps-73 VS IK multimedia EQ 73

[simon.a.billington]

Mind you this will also depend on what channel strip you are using. Neve, EMI??

Maybe part of the problem is we are no longer discussing a single product but rather a concept. Most people in the world (including myself) don't have any idea of what real EMI or a proper Marinair-equipped Neve consoles sound like. The only plugin I know of that features both channel variation and modeled saturation/clipping is NLS so maybe it would be best to keep the discussion to that?

From the the moment when I first mentioned it, the suggestion was all about the concept, not any one product. I didn't mention any products specifically, in fact. It was all completely academic.

You could stick to the benefits of the NLS if you want, but that wasn't for me to decide.

The other side to your point, however, could be does it really matter what the original device sounded like. Maybe if you're a purist, but I think you could be missing the point and possibly a good opportunity...

Isn't it all supposed to be not about the equipment but it's about what you do with that equipment, how you chose to be creative with it, how you can use the equipment in different was to to best suit you or compliments the music??

This is another question that is very subjective to the individual. There are no absolutes, there are no right or wrong. It's simply about what works for you.

[simon.a.billington]

If I create two test-files according to your described method, are you willing to partake in a blind-test?

He said he would and I would, as well. You would have to use NLS for the test, bx_console wouldn't work since it doesn't model saturation. Please use at least 56 channels.

I would of course use the IKMM EQ73 on all the tracks vs. the IKMM EQ73 & Waves' emulation of the 1073, each on half of the tracks - which is what this whole argument started with - and nothing else.

So I suggest you go back to page one, read again, then come back and say whether you want to partake or not.

Yep it's what it started with... In a sense.

All I said is they are all good and I would use them together because they would compliment.

That's just the start though, and I never suggested it was a complete idea. I didn't speak in absolutes. The more variations the better.

I would also be using NLS or bx_console because of the larger amount of variations. However the BX doesn't do the preamp so it could be questionably the amount of difference it would make, although I consider it still would.

[jens]

the other two work nicely side by side. The subtle differences between them are what contribute to create a bit more depth.

tbh I find that really hard to believe...

What's hard to believe. No two analogue devices are the same. No two strips in console are exactly the same. Its the variations between the two that helps to make analogue sound so analogue and has more depth.

The trouble with most plugins at the moment is they model one channel strip and its the one channel strip that people use over and over and over in the same mix. That never happens on a real console.

The trouble is the harmonics they produce are exactly the same, no variations in characteristics whatsoever, and these build up slowly across a mix. Not so much at first, but they begin to to contribute towards a muddier sounding mix the more you stack them, especially if you have 50 or 100+ units across a mix.

Using several plugins modelled after the same thing is like having separate devices or separate strips, but not quite. However, subtle differences between them means the harmonics don't stack in exactly the same way all across the mix, well not as quickly anyway. This is what can help to contribute to a less muddy, more open sounding analogue mix.

Personally I use NLS, or even bx_console because they also model the variations across the channel harmonics as well which contributes to a greater variation and a greater depth. It's subtle, but even subtle becomes more obvious when used in larger numbers.

You can actually test it yourself.

[sonicpowa]

I haven´t read this thread all thru but speaking of saturation and harmonics responsible of the analog sound I would say it´s less than 1% of the overall sound. Actually in my tests I have created perfectly analog sounding mixes WITHOUT saturation at all... So what is wrong with digital not sounding like analog? It´s just too damn perfect. You have to remember to lowpass as much as hipass, and check out buildup frequencies; digital is not forgiving mixing mistakes like analog. You are expecting a plugin to correct your mistakes.
Also someone said about muddy frequencies, well what is it with that..? you just remove them! More open sounding mix? You make it more open sounding! There´s no plugin to do all that for you.

[Uncle E]

I haven´t read this thread all thru but speaking of saturation and harmonics responsible of the analog sound I would say it´s less than 1% of the overall sound. Actually in my tests I have created perfectly analog sounding mixes WITHOUT saturation at all... So what is wrong with digital not sounding like analog? It´s just too damn perfect. You have to remember to lowpass as much as hipass, and check out buildup frequencies; digital is not forgiving mixing mistakes like analog. You are expecting a plugin to correct your mistakes.
Also someone said about muddy frequencies, well what is it with that..? you just remove them! More open sounding mix? You make it more open sounding! There´s no plugin to do all that for you.

An interesting thing about the UAD Harrison 32 plugin is the filters always have a little bit of cut (around 25Hz and 18KHz) when they are engaged. Since the plugin defaults to having them engaged, users get the effect of having everything sound better just by loading it.

Anyway, as much as I agree with you, you work a lot faster when the gear does part of the work for you (as in the case of the Harrison plugin). Interestingly to the current discussion, when I was at Chris Lord-Alge's studio, I saw racks full of outboard compressors but, outside of a few Pultec's, I don't remember seeing a bunch of outboard EQ's, meaning he's using his SSL console for most of his EQ'ing.

[jens]

I would of course use the IKMM EQ73 on all the tracks vs. the IKMM EQ73 & Waves' emulation of the 1073, each on half of the tracks - which is what this whole argument started with - and nothing else.

So I suggest you go back to page one, read again, then come back and say whether you want to partake or not.

Simon has been talking about using NLS together with them since his first post in this thread. However, if you prefer to not include NLS, I'm fine with that, too.

No, actually he said that he likes NLS because it automatically generates the assumed effect he described earlier - so it's NLS OR different emulations of the same device together, not AND...

[jens]

Please use at least 56 channels.

Why? How did you calculate this number?

In order not to steer to much off topic, I will start an new thread in "everything else", discussing excessive track count...

[Uncle E]

No, actually he said that he likes NLS because it automatically generates the assumed effect he described earlier - so it's NLS OR different emulations of the same device together, not AND...

It's OK, I'll do it any way you want to do it.

[Uncle E]

Why? How did you calculate this number?

In order not to steer to much off topic, I will start an new thread in "everything else", discussing excessive track count...

It's not a scientific number but there does need to be a sufficient number of channels to prove or disprove Simon's point.

[simon.a.billington]

I would of course use the IKMM EQ73 on all the tracks vs. the IKMM EQ73 & Waves' emulation of the 1073, each on half of the tracks - which is what this whole argument started with - and nothing else.

So I suggest you go back to page one, read again, then come back and say whether you want to partake or not.

Simon has been talking about using NLS together with them since his first post in this thread. However, if you prefer to not include NLS, I'm fine with that, too.

No, actually he said that he likes NLS because it automatically generates the assumed effect he described earlier - so it's NLS OR different emulations of the same device together, not AND...

No I did say or that I prefer to use them together, the more variation the better. 2 is better than one, three is better than two, etc. Mind you, I sure as hell don't want to be spending that kind of cash, but you don't have to when you use something like NLS which has the subtle variations I'm talking about, its the whole premise of the plugin in the first place.

I also did say its a preference thing, because whether it is or isn't true, the net outcome will still be subject to everyone's personal tastes. Some people still prefer the sound of vinyl even though it is a lower dynamic range and frequency response than a PCM format.

That has been my whole underlying point before it got derailed.

[jens]

No, actually he said that he likes NLS because it automatically generates the assumed effect he described earlier - so it's NLS OR different emulations of the same device together, not AND...

It's OK, I'll do it any way you want to do it.

Fine - this will take some time - I'll have to find an appropriate song-section, then prepare it...
(and start the Scheps demo (or purchase the Burnley) - I only have the T-racks one... )

[jens]

Why? How did you calculate this number?

In order not to steer to much off topic, I will start an new thread in "everything else", discussing excessive track count...

It's not a scientific number but there does need to be a sufficient number of channels to prove or disprove Simon's point.

I'll have to find an appropriate song-section

I just don't come near that number - 40 tracks all in all (including busses and sends) is a lot for me, and they never all stream at the same time... 56 six tracks all playing at the same time is so much - it's even a lot for a full blown orchestra....

[realmarco]

so i went ahead with Waves' Scheps 73(1073 EQ) plugin

as soon as i put on the main buss and added the low band eq i was blown away.

its like "boom pro Mix done"

and it does Mid-Side without the encoding and decoding plugin inserting hassle

[Andy Gone]

Thanks for bringing us back to the topic ))))

I love it too. It eats up some CPU, but this is needed to sound cool.

I use to use it also on live recording 2buss applications, and there M/S mode sometimes saves my ass.

[nicksohn]

Burnley is the best for me.