Neve EQ: Which plugin nails it?
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 887 posts since 12 Jan, 2011
For years I owned Sonimus Satson and loved it. Hmmmm, the Sonimus bundle looks tempting at the sale price. I'm not sure how close I'll get to Neve, but . . .
Last edited by tommyzai on Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRian
- 1189 posts since 11 Jun, 2019
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 887 posts since 12 Jan, 2011
-
- KVRian
- 1390 posts since 16 Jan, 2018 from Portland, OR USA
You´re right.
“In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.”
-
- KVRian
- 1189 posts since 11 Jun, 2019
I knowescalona wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:38 pmYou´re right.
If I was not I would have demoed it 6 Months ago. And I don´t buy Plugins that I can´t demo anymore. Nice Baxandall Freebie here https://fuseaudiolabs.de/#/pages/product?id=300965965
-
- KVRAF
- 2244 posts since 21 Nov, 2015
I use Satson together with the free SonEQ, which both compliment each other very well. There is actually a 'light' CM - Version of it, yet more just for the Tone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azZ__cGq74M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azZ__cGq74M
The art of knowing is knowing what to ignore.
-
- KVRAF
- 2244 posts since 21 Nov, 2015
Yepp, my bad. 
As stated, unfortunately there is no way to demo Britson. Heard good things, though.
As stated, unfortunately there is no way to demo Britson. Heard good things, though.
The art of knowing is knowing what to ignore.
-
- KVRAF
- 35436 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
Well.. if someone asks for a plugin that "nails it", then I would say, a lot can be gained from that.jochicago wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:58 pm I could rent an hour of studio space locally here in Chicago at a studio that has a Neve. I can sit there with all these plugins and make a "snake oil" video that says none of these plugins sound exactly like the first channel of the hardware console I'm sitting at. What could possibly be gained from that ridiculous exercise?
Imagine u-he or someone else doing meticulous emulations of hardware gear says "close enough" after an hour.
If it has to be as close as possible for YOU is another question.
-
- KVRian
- 1030 posts since 26 Feb, 2018
My point is that there is no such thing as close to hardware.
By the same approach, I could rent an hour of studio time to sit at a 70s Neve, to compare channel 1 of the hardware desk against channel 24 of the EXACT SAME DESK, and find that channel 24 doesn't sound exactly like channel 1, so channel 24 of the same desk is "snake oil".
Nobody's 1073 hardware or plugin is going to sound exactly like whatever that channel 1 sounds like at my local studio. Not even the other channels on the same desk.
This is not to say that there isn't "a sound" quality worth pursuing. It's to say that we can't just pull up plugin doctor, notice that the low band has a narrower Q in the plugin vs channel 1, and presume the plugin is wrong. The hardware is also off the specs.
This is also why comparing the plugins against each other doesn't work. Sure, they show different curves against each other and against hardware, that doesn't make any of them right or wrong.
To repeat, I'm not saying this automatically makes every plugin "good". I'm saying that we can't say that a plugin is "bad" based on comparing it to hardware looking at Qs and distortion behavior.
If you want to determine if a 1073 plugin is worth its salt, comparing it's specs to a random 1073 hardware unit is not the way.
By the same approach, I could rent an hour of studio time to sit at a 70s Neve, to compare channel 1 of the hardware desk against channel 24 of the EXACT SAME DESK, and find that channel 24 doesn't sound exactly like channel 1, so channel 24 of the same desk is "snake oil".
Nobody's 1073 hardware or plugin is going to sound exactly like whatever that channel 1 sounds like at my local studio. Not even the other channels on the same desk.
This is not to say that there isn't "a sound" quality worth pursuing. It's to say that we can't just pull up plugin doctor, notice that the low band has a narrower Q in the plugin vs channel 1, and presume the plugin is wrong. The hardware is also off the specs.
This is also why comparing the plugins against each other doesn't work. Sure, they show different curves against each other and against hardware, that doesn't make any of them right or wrong.
To repeat, I'm not saying this automatically makes every plugin "good". I'm saying that we can't say that a plugin is "bad" based on comparing it to hardware looking at Qs and distortion behavior.
If you want to determine if a 1073 plugin is worth its salt, comparing it's specs to a random 1073 hardware unit is not the way.
-
- KVRAF
- 35436 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
I'm sure you're right. It's just that it's the only valid option to compare them, if you want to have a clue about the level of emulation.
That said, I'm anything but an expert when it comes to EQ's, I never heard a huge differences between different EQ's. IMO, it's not as significant as when comparing synths. But, I could be wrong about that.
That said, I'm anything but an expert when it comes to EQ's, I never heard a huge differences between different EQ's. IMO, it's not as significant as when comparing synths. But, I could be wrong about that.
-
- KVRian
- 1030 posts since 26 Feb, 2018
It's a difficult thing to point at a 1970s hardware emulation plugin and say it's good or bad.
That's why I give deference to the plugin development process. To stay on the same example, take the Waves 73 plugin. I'm not promoting it (I don't even use this one), but look at how it was made. Waves put their engineers on it, with many years of experience sampling and emulating vintage gear. Andrew Scheps told them that his favorite piece of gear of all time is the Neve 1073, so they worked on the plugin together. Scheps had 10 units at his studio that he was very familiar with. The Waves engineers made a plugin based on samplings with access to various Neve desks, and they kept a 1073 unit at the office for direct comparisons. They went back and forth with Scheps for months to tune the details of the plugin. Scheps was trying to decide how he wanted things to behave compared to his 10 units, and ultimately decided to tune the plugin as what he thought a perfect 1073 should sound like.
How could I possibly come in after all that work by people with skills and ears well above mine, and put that plugin into any type of home analysis and claim I can tell better than the Waves engineers if the graphs are in the right place, or I can tell better then Andrew how a unit he grew up with and loves is supposed to sound.
Another example that I've mentioned before elsewhere, but it's worth repeating. The collaboration with Puig for the Fairchild 670 compressor. Puig uses his Fairchild in his studio all the time. That compressor has like 20 tubes, forget consistency across units, it changes the way it sounds every few hours. Puig says that every day he turns it on the compressor sounds different, and there are days that it sounds amazing. So he says they gave him the plugin with a settings panel that had dozens of variables, so he could fine tune the plugin to behave like his Fairchild. Puig played with the plugin for months, testing it several times and tuning it to what he felt was his Fairchild unit on the very best day. When he was having a good Fairchild day in the studio he would take time to get back to the plugin and adjust the settings some more.
What are the odds that after all that work, the Waves Puigchild plugin is going to sound or appear in the graphs to be 100% identical to any hardware 670 you compare it to? It would be a coincidence if they sounded the same, the obvious thing to expect is that it won't. Just like no 2 hardware units compared to each other are going to sound the same.
BTW, to your point about EQ, if I grab 2 EQ plugins of any kind, once I match the bandwidth, I struggle to hear much difference between them. The only difference I hear is when the bell shape changes significantly (sometimes they get pointy of flatty or lopsided), or any "analog" algorithm that is being applied to the signal to give it flavor. To me this is what makes something unique in the digital domain. In the case of the Lindell 80, IMO that's what we are buying: the shapes of the bands, the ease of use of a Neve design (in terms of the panel), and the "analog" sound emulation (saturation, noise, etc) that gives a flavor pleasing to the ears.
That's why I give deference to the plugin development process. To stay on the same example, take the Waves 73 plugin. I'm not promoting it (I don't even use this one), but look at how it was made. Waves put their engineers on it, with many years of experience sampling and emulating vintage gear. Andrew Scheps told them that his favorite piece of gear of all time is the Neve 1073, so they worked on the plugin together. Scheps had 10 units at his studio that he was very familiar with. The Waves engineers made a plugin based on samplings with access to various Neve desks, and they kept a 1073 unit at the office for direct comparisons. They went back and forth with Scheps for months to tune the details of the plugin. Scheps was trying to decide how he wanted things to behave compared to his 10 units, and ultimately decided to tune the plugin as what he thought a perfect 1073 should sound like.
How could I possibly come in after all that work by people with skills and ears well above mine, and put that plugin into any type of home analysis and claim I can tell better than the Waves engineers if the graphs are in the right place, or I can tell better then Andrew how a unit he grew up with and loves is supposed to sound.
Another example that I've mentioned before elsewhere, but it's worth repeating. The collaboration with Puig for the Fairchild 670 compressor. Puig uses his Fairchild in his studio all the time. That compressor has like 20 tubes, forget consistency across units, it changes the way it sounds every few hours. Puig says that every day he turns it on the compressor sounds different, and there are days that it sounds amazing. So he says they gave him the plugin with a settings panel that had dozens of variables, so he could fine tune the plugin to behave like his Fairchild. Puig played with the plugin for months, testing it several times and tuning it to what he felt was his Fairchild unit on the very best day. When he was having a good Fairchild day in the studio he would take time to get back to the plugin and adjust the settings some more.
What are the odds that after all that work, the Waves Puigchild plugin is going to sound or appear in the graphs to be 100% identical to any hardware 670 you compare it to? It would be a coincidence if they sounded the same, the obvious thing to expect is that it won't. Just like no 2 hardware units compared to each other are going to sound the same.
BTW, to your point about EQ, if I grab 2 EQ plugins of any kind, once I match the bandwidth, I struggle to hear much difference between them. The only difference I hear is when the bell shape changes significantly (sometimes they get pointy of flatty or lopsided), or any "analog" algorithm that is being applied to the signal to give it flavor. To me this is what makes something unique in the digital domain. In the case of the Lindell 80, IMO that's what we are buying: the shapes of the bands, the ease of use of a Neve design (in terms of the panel), and the "analog" sound emulation (saturation, noise, etc) that gives a flavor pleasing to the ears.
-
- KVRian
- 1189 posts since 11 Jun, 2019
-
- KVRAF
- 3368 posts since 2 Oct, 2004
