Plugins Comparison - Are The Most Famous/Suggested Better For Real?

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Effects Discussion
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

Frankie.T wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 8:25 pm
Zaphod (giancarlo) wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:48 pm
I saw in the video that the settings change quite a bit in the comparisons between one and the other (i.e., you don't give the same attenuation and boost), so I don't really understand the test.
For Purple you can also test other emulations that you will be more familiar with. and compare them with hardware that is very common in all studios.

I see also settings are COMPLETELY different for each device. In our case they are attenuating 5kHz, for other plugins they are attuating 10kHz sometimes. Also amounts are completely different. It is a very strange test
The reasons i used a so different values sometime is because it was the only way to achieve the samish curve. If some plugins are very similar when you move knobs, others react very differently.

Anyway as i wrote in the previous post, i don't think there is anything wrong with Purple (more info in the previous post)

This is the setting to which purple was proposed.
I compared purple AA (a clone, bottom) with purple P1 (the real deal, top) and I see all hardware with those settings will have similar mids (we are subtracting 7dB at 2kHz, with a very wide bell... I would say that the mids with those settings can't be there.
It is interesting in the clone to see that the treble bell is less narrow.

I have seen the settings of the other plugins and it is normal to have midrange frequencies more present, in other cases. For example, with Tubetech's settings for purple AA (which has the same frequencies so it is easy to make a direct comparison) we have the second graph, with rather present mids and a rather light smile curve. I expect Softtube's plugin to make a curve similar to this, usually they are quite accurate.

In my opinion the test would make sense by trying to get close with the curves, OR by offering the same
tubetech.png
purplep1_vs_aa.png
setting for everyone, otherwise a matter of personal taste in each person's use comes into play.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Post

Frankie.T wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 8:25 pm
Zaphod (giancarlo) wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:48 pm
I saw in the video that the settings change quite a bit in the comparisons between one and the other (i.e., you don't give the same attenuation and boost), so I don't really understand the test.
For Purple you can also test other emulations that you will be more familiar with. and compare them with hardware that is very common in all studios.

I see also settings are COMPLETELY different for each device. In our case they are attenuating 5kHz, for other plugins they are attuating 10kHz sometimes. Also amounts are completely different. It is a very strange test
The reasons i used a so different values sometime is because it was the only way to achieve the samish curve. If some plugins are very similar when you move knobs, others react very differently.

Anyway as i wrote in the previous post, i don't think there is anything wrong with Purple (more info in the previous post)




This is the setting to which purple was proposed.
I compared purple AA (a clone, bottom) with purple P1 (the real deal, top) and I see all hardware with those settings will have similar mids (we are subtracting 7dB at 2kHz, with a very wide bell... I would say that the mids with those settings can't be there.
It is interesting in the clone to see that the treble bell is less narrow.

I have seen the settings of the other plugins and it is normal to have midrange frequencies more present, in other cases. For example, with Tubetech's settings for purple AA (which has the same frequencies so it is easy to make a direct comparison) we have the second graph, with rather present mids and a rather light smile curve. I expect Softtube's plugin to make a curve similar to this, usually they are quite accurate.

In my opinion the test would make sense by trying to get close with the curves, OR by offering the same setting for everyone, otherwise a matter of personal taste in each person's use comes into play.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Post

Since we are talking about comparisons, here are some factors that I compare (and I suspect many also do) besides just sound fidelity.
  • Price.
  • Ease of installation & amount of cruft installed on the system required to support the plugin.
  • CPU support (e.g. M1 native) & CPU usage.
  • Look & Feel / Ease of Use.
  • Vendor responsiveness, supportiveness.
At the end of the day it is about sound, but if the difference in sound is marginal, then these other factors do become tie-breakers. Or said a different way, any given plugin will need to be significantly audibly better in order to make up for shortcomings that have nothing to do with sound.

Post

Zaphod (giancarlo) wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 9:28 pm In my opinion the test would make sense by trying to get close with the curves, OR by offering the same setting for everyone, otherwise a matter of personal taste in each person's use comes into play.
That's what i've done here, cause theoretically it's the way to go. But when plugins react in a very different way, this is what happen, expecially when you can dial just with low and high frequencies (4 knobs but just 2 area), trying to have the same response on mid (without mid knobs) it's challenging if not impossible.
Introducing the "human" factor in a "controlled" way is not matter of taste, it's matter of workflow, and this is something that belong to plugins design, so it's part of comparison.

I don't think one method or another can be named as "right" because it all depend on the point of view.

If the goal is to match the same curve trying to be agnostic, the results are what we see in the video, it's a legit result, cause this tell us how the plugins behave. And the more "extreme" the settings are the more you can listen the differences.
If we want to have a more "linearized" comparison instead, we may listen less drammatic differences, but we may ear even better certain plugin characteristic.

None of them is a wrong or correct approach, it's just a different way to have a better understanding.

kidslow wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 9:29 pm Since we are talking about comparisons, here are some factors that I compare (and I suspect many also do) besides just sound fidelity.
  • Price.
  • Ease of installation & amount of cruft installed on the system required to support the plugin.
  • CPU support (e.g. M1 native) & CPU usage.
  • Look & Feel / Ease of Use.
  • Vendor responsiveness, supportiveness.
At the end of the day it is about sound, but if the difference in sound is marginal, then these other factors do become tie-breakers. Or said a different way, any given plugin will need to be significantly audibly better in order to make up for shortcomings that have nothing to do with sound.
I had the same thought.
At the beginning i tried to understand what to include and what not. I ended up to go just for pure sounds, because otherwise the video would became a documentary, i prefer to deep dive into details when i review newer release.
The idea now is to give to the listener an idea on which plugin he would like more, cause it's hard to demo lots of them, in this way one can take a listen and decide to pick what he find more interesting.

Post

It's a different thing to be checking these out in private with a personal interpretation of results, and completely another to be making a video to share with an audience. My OCD method is to start by compiling a big list of potential candidates, and then winnow it down to a handful based on criteria that have nothing to do with sound but everything to do with how I might find inspiration and want to repeatedly use a given plugin. Then compare the remainder based on audible (or visual/audible) criteria and hopefully end up with a clear preference or two.

For me this process is first about educating myself, because I lack decades of experience working with these tools, and second about narrowing down choices so that later when rushed I can just reach for a specific plugin and know generally what to expect. In my opinion some popular plugins are genuinely best of breed, and others are not. When there are many emulations to choose from, there are obscure gems to be found. I'm not looking for best of breed, which is completely subjective anyway, but rather best for me.

Post

Price doesn't really factor. We have extremely respected devs live klanghelm, DDMF, Hornet, ToneBoosters, Analog Obsession, Airwindows... Many free and very low cost who rule the roost. If anything there's more balking at higher priced plugins these days. I think people respond most to...

Clean processors that do what they say on the tin
low CPU usage or respectable optimization
Stability and active development

Quality is quality... In every realm.

Post

I have UAD-2 Pultec and 1176. Second generation of both. They have made a Pultec v3 which is better but I haven’t gotten it yet.

Here’s the thing. It’s not so much the specific EQ curve. It’s all the transient response fx caused by all the transformers and tubes. You can’t get these from native plugins. These sonic features require too much processing power. Which is why only UAD can do them right.

What you get is an immediate and definite IMPACT onto the sound which is too complex to categorize as one simple thing. It’s a blend of analog weirdness and error which affects the impulse response. Like how a SM57 sweetens a guitar cabinet.

The end result sounds like a famous record instead of your homemade stuff. Because the colors applied were used successfully for decades so you already expect to hear those colors.

Post

Audion wrote: Sun Dec 11, 2022 11:34 am I have UAD-2 Pultec and 1176. Second generation of both. They have made a Pultec v3 which is better but I haven’t gotten it yet.

Here’s the thing. It’s not so much the specific EQ curve. It’s all the transient response fx caused by all the transformers and tubes. You can’t get these from native plugins. These sonic features require too much processing power. Which is why only UAD can do them right.
The UAD Native plug-ins are quite literally the same as the UAD hardware versions, they just process on the CPU rather than the UAD hardware. Modern day CPUs can handle those plug-ins quite easily actually.
Ableton Live | Numark Party Mix II | Arturia MINILAB 3

Post

I made another comparison, this time it's about 1176

Plugins tested:
UAD 1176
Acustica Audio Nickel
Purple Audio MC77
Waves CLA76
Arturia Fet76
Softube Fet Compressor
Native Instruments VC76
Slate Digital FG-116 Fet

Here you can find the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0oxTe4Q55g

The more i test the more i'm impressed to see certain kind of differences, expecially in few plugins, it's not about to be better or worse, but just different

Post

Could've included some freebies

Post

I have found some plug ins are better than other plugs ins. This is why I use
the best sounding ones.

Post

kPere wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 9:27 pm Could've included some freebies
I'm improving my research for newer videos, trying to include everything i find that is available as freebies or demo

Post

Synthman2000 wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 9:35 pm I have found some plug ins are better than other plugs ins. This is why I use
the best sounding ones.
I prefer workflow and efficiency. I'd use acustica plugins if it was for a sound only i guess.

Post

After 1176, there is a natural companion, la-2a

Plugins in this comparison:
Native Instruments VC-2A
Waves Cla-2a
Uad la-2a
IK Multimedia White 2a
Analog Obsession LALA
Black Rooster Audio Vla-2a
Brainworx bx_opto
Slate Digital FG-2a
Overloud Comp-la
Hornet Ha2a
Melda MTurboComp Ma2a

Here the video
https://youtu.be/f801C-5DyeI

Lot's of good plugins here with interesting behavior

Post

-deleted-
Last edited by Uncle E on Thu Dec 22, 2022 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Effects”