Waves API 560 and IK Multimedia EQ PG - Same settings, different sound?

[jamcat]

Between the 2500 and dbx 160, those seem to be two glaring omissions from what is already a fairly complete universe of eqs and comps.

Totally agree on both counts!

[plexuss]

You should try out the Red Rock Sound API 550/560. They also have a free version of the 560 without the saturation circuit modelled.

Uh... my brain just turned off, sorry.

The whole circuit saturates. What planet am I on.

[v1o]

You should try out the Red Rock Sound API 550/560. They also have a free version of the 560 without the saturation circuit modelled.

Uh... my brain just turned off, sorry.

The whole circuit saturates. What planet am I on.

Well they claim the free version is just the API EQ curves without anything else.

[plexuss]

You should try out the Red Rock Sound API 550/560. They also have a free version of the 560 without the saturation circuit modelled.

Uh... my brain just turned off, sorry.

The whole circuit saturates. What planet am I on.

Well they claim the free version is just the API EQ curves without anything else.

Do you think analogue gear has circuitry dedicated to adding saturation and its possible to avoid saturation by not including such circuitry? doh!

[v1o]

You should try out the Red Rock Sound API 550/560. They also have a free version of the 560 without the saturation circuit modelled.

Uh... my brain just turned off, sorry.

The whole circuit saturates. What planet am I on.

Well they claim the free version is just the API EQ curves without anything else.

Do you think analogue gear has circuitry dedicated to adding saturation and its possible to avoid saturation by not including such circuitry? doh!

Well plugins are different to hardware. With a digital EQ it's possible to recreate just the EQ curves only.

With the hardware API EQs, as far I know, most of the saturation comes from the transformers and the 2520 opamp. Modern EQ circuits that are transformerless and use ICs tend to be more transparent.

[AC222]

Between the 2500 and dbx 160, those seem to be two glaring omissions from what is already a fairly complete universe of eqs and comps.

Totally agree on both counts!

Thanks for humouring me, boss. You Rock!!!

[Burillo]

You should try out the Red Rock Sound API 550/560. They also have a free version of the 560 without the saturation circuit modelled.

Uh... my brain just turned off, sorry.

The whole circuit saturates. What planet am I on.

Well they claim the free version is just the API EQ curves without anything else.

Do you think analogue gear has circuitry dedicated to adding saturation and its possible to avoid saturation by not including such circuitry? doh!

It's possible to model circuit's frequency response without modeling distortion.

[simon.a.billington]

Hi,

Just comparing the Waves API 560 and the IK Multimedia EQ PG and for some reason they seem to sound very different even with the same settings. Waves API 550A and IK Multimedia EQ PA sound almost the same.

I'm about to sell my Waves Studio Classics Collection and the only plugins I'm gonna miss are the API EQ's - and that's why I'm looking for some good alternatives.

Its largely because no two consoles are created equal. Hell, they can't even get the channels sounding identical within the same desk!! This the reason why Brainworx has come up with TMT to accomodate these differences and Waves has their NLS.

There's plenty of reasons for the differences. Largely its due to age and component tolerances. I say this everywhere over the web, but its impossible to manufacture components that are identical, even with today's technology. The older the tech is the bigger the variations and the bigger the variation again if its been well used. Maintenance will impact the sound as well.

Manufacturers know all this and are the first ones to tell you that no two piece of audio tech is identical, they even list basic tolerances on their spec sheets.

A trick that I've seen employed by devs over the recent years is adding more saturation to their emulations so that their plugin would naturally sound better than their competitors. I'm uncertain whether this is a marketing tactic or not, but I know UAD is guilty off this. I'm pretty sure IK is as well. There could be other reasons for this, though. It's kind of the equivalent of adding more sugar to the mix and people thinking the sweeter one tastes better. This would go further to explain the differences with the Waves plugins. Usually you can just drive the pres and/or the in and out levels harder to get something that is a lot closer. So don't let the "more saturation, instant gratification" effect fool you.

[imrae]

I sometimes wonder if there is some quantum principle at work when it comes to the marketing of analogue emulations.

"Our modelling is so good it sounds just like the hardware"

"This behaves differently from [my hardware/other 'perfect' emulation]"

"Oh we didn't mean YOUR hardware, it sounds like some other unit with bad tolerances. Here's a famous producer who loves the unit we modelled."

"Oh. Can you show us a comparison with the rare/broken hardware you modelled?"

"No"

[plexuss]

Do you think analogue gear has circuitry dedicated to adding saturation and its possible to avoid saturation by not including such circuitry? doh!

It's possible to model circuit's frequency response without modeling distortion.

Yes, with software this is possible. But with analogue gear it is not: the electronic components themsevles impart specific distortions. In analogue gear the distortion and noise are a factor of the components and the circuit design. There is no way to remove all distortions and noise in analogue gear. Further, analogue distortion and noise interact in complex ways. To truly emulate analogue these complex interactions would also need to be emulated. It seems many people think just adding some "saturation" and noise will make an otherwise distortionless emulation more accurate. This is not possible. I also wonder how many devs actually emulate these complex interactions vs just adding in some saturation and noise and calling it a day.

[Uncle E]

Not API but regarding emulation quality:

[MogwaiBoy]

I can confirm that the Red Rock Sound is closest to the Waves API 560. Infact it's pretty much just like they copied the Waves plugin, rather than actually modelling a hardware unit.

The 560 is probably my favourite EQ from Waves - mostly because the original API design is near perfect. I find graphic EQ's quite intuitive and that particular API unit has fixed frequencies at the perfect spots, and the wide curves (lots of band overlap/interaction) but with proportional Q behaviour is marvelous. Would love an actual lunchbox rack version.

[plexuss]

Not API but regarding emulation quality:

The video covers one aspect of what I mentioned, that the preamp impedance impacts the character of the mic. Now, imagine all the components in the signal path of an audio circuit: in effect, each component impacts the character of the component after it. The distortions and noise caused by analogue circitry are highly dynamic not just with respect to audio signal but just sitting there in a quiesent state.

I don't know any plugin companies that models distortion and noise to this degree, do you? Typically they appear to be taking a static snapshot at some point and then simply applying this as an addition to the signal. Wrong. That's now how analogue works.

I am skeptical of all analogue models because of this. Sure, the sound of the circuit may be somewhat accurate, but the nuances including distortion and noise would require component level modelling of their distortion and noise characteristics as they apply within the circuit they are part of.

Mostly, emulations are just bullshit from that perspective.

[Uncle E]

I don't know any plugin companies that models distortion and noise to this degree, do you? Typically they appear to be taking a static snapshot at some point and then simply applying this as an addition to the signal. Wrong. That's now how analogue works.

Correct. Many are using static impulses. I would be surprised if PA's TMT isn't simply impulses of each channel of a board (which, tbh, would be rather cool and I would probably appreciate their plugins more if that is the case). I believe the only companies currently using dynamic convolution are Acustica, Overloud, and Kemper, and I'm not sure if Overloud is using it on any products besides TH-U.

I am skeptical of all analogue models because of this. Sure, the sound of the circuit may be somewhat accurate, but the nuances including distortion and noise would require component level modelling of their distortion and noise characteristics as they apply within the circuit they are part of.

Mostly, emulations are just bullshit from that perspective.

Yes, in many ways I agree. Some of the Acustica plugins sound excellent and have enough different preamp models that you can have a TMT kind of thing going on. I posted that UA video for other people's benefit but I was never all that impressed with it. Frankly, if one of the best engineers in the world can't get the plugins to sound as good as the hardware, what chance do I have of it? Rabea Massaad did a comparison between the UAD 1073 and a modern AMS-Neve BCM10 (still expensive but 1/10 the price of the equipment Jacquire King used), and in that one the hardware was the clear winner, IMO. If Rabea were to do the same test using Acustica Gold, I believe there would be less of a difference.

[simon.a.billington]

I don't know any plugin companies that models distortion and noise to this degree, do you? Typically they appear to be taking a static snapshot at some point and then simply applying this as an addition to the signal. Wrong. That's now how analogue works.

Correct. Many are using static impulses. I would be surprised if PA's TMT isn't simply impulses of each channel of a board (which, tbh, would be rather cool and I would probably appreciate their plugins more if that is the case). I believe the only companies currently using dynamic convolution are Acustica, Overloud, and Kemper, and I'm not sure if Overloud is using it on any products besides TH-U.

I am skeptical of all analogue models because of this. Sure, the sound of the circuit may be somewhat accurate, but the nuances including distortion and noise would require component level modelling of their distortion and noise characteristics as they apply within the circuit they are part of.

Mostly, emulations are just bullshit from that perspective.

Yes, in many ways I agree. Some of the Acustica plugins sound excellent and have enough different preamp models that you can have a TMT kind of thing going on. I posted that UA video for other people's benefit but I was never all that impressed with it. Frankly, if one of the best engineers in the world can't get the plugins to sound as good as the hardware, what chance do I have of it? Rabea Massaad did a comparison between the UAD 1073 and a modern AMS-Neve BCM10 (still expensive but 1/10 the price of the equipment Jacquire King used), and in that one the hardware was the clear winner, IMO. If Rabea were to do the same test using Acustica Gold, I believe there would be less of a difference.

Actually according to the way Dirk described TMT its more complex then that. There are ways in which each individual module of a channel strip would vary. For example the frequencies on each eq won't be exactly the same when set to the same position, the ratios of a compressor will deviate slightly one to another. Then there is the way of how each module interacts with the next, that would change too.

So TMT is a process of factoring in these different aspects by bringing able to virtually change their tolerances. Hence the T in TMT. The Waves NLS on the other hand I'm pretty sure does an impulse modelling thing. But thats not a bad thing as I think to sounds quite good. Most of them do.

This whole "does it sound good as the original" thing is really a bad equation to be asking. The quality of mixes has dramatically increased over the last 10 years thanks to the availability of these tools. Everything is so much clearer and punchier now, when in the hands of the right producer engineer.

Why must it sound like the original when this technology sounds so much better?? We can hear the transients now, we can hear the bottom end there's less mush and more intelligibility. But if we want to inject some mush for aesthetic reasons we can do that too. This type of choice is a fantastic thing... unless maybe you happen to be making lofi.

Personally I think that in the last few years, since oversampling became a viable option, that "close enough" actually sounds "better than the original" to me.