Who makes your favorite Analog Emulations?

[jamcat]

I replaced Waves dbx 160 with Arturia’s VCA-65,

Maybe you did, but then again you could have replaced it with whatever else, since both model entirely different devices (which might help to explain the vast differences between these two plugins )

So that’s not actually true. The dbx 165 operates just like a 160 when set to AUTO, which is how I always use the 165.

I am able to get the same bouncy bass as I got from the Waves 160.

[jens]

Well, inside the two different original hardware devices these two plugins each emulate one of, two different VCA-chips are responsible for the actual compression as far as I know - or am I mistaken?

[jamcat]

You’re probably right about that, as that’s how things went. But the dbx 165 was designed to be an expanded 160, with the AUTO button giving you the original 160 sound. Sure, there are people who will claim they can hear a difference (there always are) but it’s a stretch to say they’re totally different. They’re close enough for rock n’ roll, and that’s certainly true in software form where there are no actual VCA chips, only modeled compression curves.

[jamcat]

I assume the old stuff was revered because it helped make stuff sound better, that’s all.

Reverence seems to come from some combination of uniqueness and scarcity. Being the first counts for more than being the best.

[MogwaiBoy]

Sonimus
Arturia
Acustica Audio
London Acoustics
NEOLD
Fuse Audio

[Boy Wonder]

Interestingly, I've been leaning more towards the stock plugins in Cubase 12. Back in the day (C5), I used their channel strip but very little else as there were reverbs, choruses, delays, compressors, etc that I preferred, mainly from Waves, like Renaissance reverb or C6. C12 is a whole new territory for me, as I'm slowly discovering. Their room reverb sounds nothing like their past ones. This new one is rich, bright and sings like a shimmer verb. Their FX Modulator is worth the price of admission alone. Their analog-style compressors sound nice and smooth and I give their ping-pong delay, Auto Pan, and up/down compressor Squasher a good working out. I've yet to explore their dynamic EQ, but from what I've seen, it looks like a winner, too.

[jens]

You’re probably right about that, as that’s how things went. But the dbx 165 was designed to be an expanded 160, with the AUTO button giving you the original 160 sound. Sure, there are people who will claim they can hear a difference (there always are) but it’s a stretch to say they’re totally different. They’re close enough for rock n’ roll, and that’s certainly true in software form where there are no actual VCA chips, only modeled compression curves.

Fair enough! Personally I find both quite different and use them for different things, but then again that might perhaps be another story if I used them in others ways... plus I religiously use the "TIME WARP" feature on the Arturia, something the DBX 165 doesn't have anyway...

Nice article here btw.:

https://www.mixonline.com/technology/bi ... compressor


It explains by the way how the 165 is softknee (Over Easy), while the original 160 isn't, which of course should be able to explain potentially tremendous different transfer curves.

[_leras]

Interesting, no Arturia FX. Why not? I don’t own their FX collection, but I’m leaning towards getting it when the next sale comes. I’m mostly interested in the compressors and EQs they’ve included. Are Arturia‘s emulations significantly worse than f.e. UAD in your opinion?

No conspiracy I just haven't used them. I've never heard Arturia talked about in the top tier though.

The ones listed I have tried/owned at least some from each company over the years.

That said, I think in terms of fidelity, there are a few that I find are just better e.g. UAD.

[jjpscott01]

Interestingly, I've been leaning more towards the stock plugins in Cubase 12. Back in the day (C5), I used their channel strip but very little else as there were reverbs, choruses, delays, compressors, etc that I preferred, mainly from Waves, like Renaissance reverb or C6. C12 is a whole new territory for me, as I'm slowly discovering. Their room reverb sounds nothing like their past ones. This new one is rich, bright and sings like a shimmer verb. Their FX Modulator is worth the price of admission alone. Their analog-style compressors sound nice and smooth and I give their ping-pong delay, Auto Pan, and up/down compressor Squasher a good working out. I've yet to explore their dynamic EQ, but from what I've seen, it looks like a winner, too.

100 Percent. The stock effects in Cubase 12 are incredible.

[jamcat]

That said, I think in terms of fidelity, there are a few that I find are just better e.g. UAD.

UAD has a long way to go regarding accessibility to earn favoured status. How can you favour plugins that only run on overly-expensive, antiquated DSP chips that slow down the plugins' potential and limit the number you can use? Or the tiny handful of native Spark ports available, none of which support Windows or M1 on Mac currently, and are subscription only? This is a company that hates their own users. That's not something I can get behind in its current form.

[jamcat]

You’re probably right about that, as that’s how things went. But the dbx 165 was designed to be an expanded 160, with the AUTO button giving you the original 160 sound. Sure, there are people who will claim they can hear a difference (there always are) but it’s a stretch to say they’re totally different. They’re close enough for rock n’ roll, and that’s certainly true in software form where there are no actual VCA chips, only modeled compression curves.

Fair enough! Personally I find both quite different and use them for different things, but then again that might perhaps be another story if I used them in others ways... plus I religiously use the "TIME WARP" feature on the Arturia, something the DBX 165 doesn't have anyway...

Nice article here btw.:

https://www.mixonline.com/technology/bi ... compressor


It explains by the way how the 165 is softknee (Over Easy), while the original 160 isn't, which of course should be able to explain potentially tremendous different transfer curves.

Nice article, thanks. It is true that the knee is different, but in practice, as far as I can tell, it just leads to a slightly smoother version of what you get from the 160. I did fret over the knee a bit at first, but after comparisons of the VCA-65 in AUTO trying to match the Waves 160, I was pleased with the results and was still able to get the effect I was looking for, which was to get bass guitars to start bouncing a bit.

When I switched, it was because I wanted to get away from Waves due to their one-machine-license-only policy after WUP expires. But, the SSL EV2 begrudgingly forced me back to Waves anyways.

I must say, I did find it odd that Arturia doesn't include an advanced feature to switch to a 160-style hard knee, since they like to add extra bells and whistles to their models. That seems like an obvious one.

[dmbaer]

I'm surprised nobody has yet mentioned Nomad Factory. There's supposed to be an effort underway to bring the NF catalog up to date, probably as VST 3 plug-ins if nothing else, but I haven't heard any updates since that was announce maybe a year ago. But as old as they are, they sound great and are wonderful at adding a vintage sheen to a track.

[jjpscott01]

I'm surprised nobody has yet mentioned Nomad Factory. There's supposed to be an effort underway to bring the NF catalog up to date, probably as VST 3 plug-ins if nothing else, but I haven't heard any updates since that was announce maybe a year ago. But as old as they are, they sound great and are wonderful at adding a vintage sheen to a track.

I didn't mention it in this thread but Magnetic II is still one of my all time favorite plugins. It has that thick warm tape effect I love.

[Arrested Developer]

Is it ok to post names instead of brands?

Reimund Dratwa is responsible for some of my favourite emulations (PiA, Blackrooster Audio, NEOLD, Fuse Audio)

[scalawag]

AA, period.