Project , you didn't hear it on the videos ...i made ..the last one on vocals ?

 
 
              

Everyone should always use the best gear they have to hand, of course. But isn't an entry level UAD system about a grand? Given that, it sounds like the $60 alternative is holding up quite well.

Danny I hate you - I'm so close to buying a UAD card lol! Grrr...

John T


Everyone should always use the best gear they have to hand, of course. But isn't an entry level UAD system about a grand? Given that, it sounds like the $60 alternative is holding up quite well.

yep, $60 is a good price.

Middleman

gtgarner


The UAD version (under the scope) perfectly models the LA2A.  Period.  That was the

I can't speak to your monitoring system but here, I can hear a large difference. A better test is to record a performance then run it through both the hardware and plug in. Print both and reverse the phase on one of the tracks. There will be a large difference in the files.

I'm not sure what some folks are talking about. When I A/B my plugin with my hardware version, I don't see any distinguishable difference on my scope.  I really don't. 

That's interesting, I'm thinking maybe there's either a flaw in the way Middleman conducted his comparison, or there is radical variation, not just slight, between the hardware units. Did you listen to the files Middleman posted? In that example, the hardware version sounded noticeably better to my ears - not just different, I would say better. 

jamescollins

I'm not sure what some folks are talking about. When I A/B my plugin with my hardware version, I don't see any distinguishable difference on my scope.  I really don't. 

That's interesting, I'm thinking maybe there's either a flaw in the way Middleman conducted his comparison, or there is radical variation, not just slight, between the hardware units. Did you listen to the files Middleman posted? In that example, the hardware version sounded noticeably better to my ears - not just different, I would say better. 

A"scope"is one thing,your ears are something else,and that first HW file just has that intangible extra quality,that if I let it bug me,I'll end up getting into HW.

Which is just SO out of the question for me,ITB,has saved my life,being able to record at a decent quality for so much less outlay.

So if I don't have the HW version,I'll never miss it,but THAT first file of middleman's,has got me thinking[dangerous!]

Middleman


I can't speak to your monitoring system but here, I can hear a large difference. A better test is to record a performance then run it through both the hardware and plug in. Print both and reverse the phase on one of the tracks. There will be a large difference in the files.

Middleman, I'm curious, why would ya reverse the phase? I mean I know what it does and all....but if we have to reverse a phase to hear that something is different, isn't that sort of cheating? Honest I'm not trying to be sarcastic...this is one of those situations where I've not grasped the science end. Like for me, things are black or white. I either hear a difference that leaps out to me as better, worse, subtle...you get the idea. If I can't hear a difference when listening this way, aren't I (in a sense) cheating if I have to enable something to show me the difference? To me, if I can't hear a blatantly obvious difference with the files just playing back to me normally, there probably isn't that much of a difference that needs to be proved using other methods.
 
 
Though my thinking is probably incorrect and flawed, can you understand why I may feel that way? I'm actually curious about this...not trying to be controversial. However, like James mentioned....I do hear a difference for the better in your hardware version, that's for sure.
 
 
James: C'mon, you know you love me....gimme a tour hug! LOL! :) Trust me, it's a good investment and you can always sell it if you don't like it. But I don't think you will. Once you try some of that stuff I mentioned and you hear what it does to your audio, you'll never look back. I wish I had a few more places to put one because if I did ("yeah I know where you can put one Danny" Hey, that's soo not nice! LOL)...I'd say "if you don't like it, I'll buy it off you" but unfortunately I got enough of them for now.
 
 
Then there's always Beagle...there's a plug in their arsenal that only he can unlock and a coupon that allows him free becan for life. The special plug is called the Snafu Bapu De-Posterizer. Each time Beagle posts, it counts as two and bapu loses two posts. That's on the soft knee setting. Beagle can really hit hard with it and pulverize if he decides to with hyper-de-posterizer without a limiter. This mode also has a setting that allows for block mode. Bapu will always be one post behind no matter how many posts he tries to go over. It's really analog so it's going to bite down to the core like a Beagle can when he's been messed with for too long or there's a threat of his becan being taken away.
 
 
The SE version works a little faster but is a bit buggy. Good for use in a quick pinch but if you rely too heavily on it, it can reverse the effects....so I'd not trust that one too much. However, it does offer "No Alembic Mode" which is a pretty cool feature. While enabled, any note bapu plays on that bass sounds out the word "no" in Am no matter what note or string.
 
Ok, that's eough..lol....I'm getting close to posting the code for this imaginary plug.....I better get back to work and make some money. :)
 
 
Zo: will check out the vids sometime tomorrow. Thanks! :)
 
 
-Danny

Hmm. The thing is, just showing that the two versions don't completely null doesn't mean that the difference is a significant or particularly audible one. There's a huge amount of territory in between "identical" and "audibly different".

 In some cases ignorance is bliss....I picked this up and it is working well for me here. I don't have CLA or UAD and I have never heard the real thing but I like this PC plug-in and what it does.

 I do appreciate all of the insight into the comparisons though. Thanks for taking the time to make these comparisons. No two of the hardware units sounded exactly alike,so I would be extremely surprised if someone came here and said, " Yeah man, these things are EXACT clones of one another and of the original". lol.....so in order to try the plug for yourself you have to buy it and for 40 smackers I jumped on the wagon....... the rest of you have until the 31st to decide or pay more for it.

 I'm really not into nostalgia at all. If I have a tool that works well and accomplishes an end result that I can be comfortable with I'm not concerned with  who or what it copies.
 
  Some engineers got together and said, hey man, we can get pretty much the same result as this 2500.00 hardware unit in software. The unit has a good reputation of giving good results for certain applications and it is the box of choice for Cleo Hemplefinger and Henri Bubblebutt, two world renowned mixing engineers.

  So they  accomplished that goal. This box has been copied by different companies and comparisons reveal that differences are subtle,maybe move one control a few ticks one way or the other to get the same or a very similar result to the real thing. I'm glad this is no surprise and I don't think the bakers would allow a plug-in out there that isn't  tried and tested to be good,especially since they stake the reputation of the relatively new PC on it.

  Keep up the good work Cakewalk. Make all of those other traitors drool when they see us using the PC and getting the plugs for a song.

 

 

 

It totally does the job! I can add some tube for some growl if I so desire.

Starise


 In some cases ignorance is bliss....I picked this up and it is working well for me here. I don't have CLA or UAD and I have never heard the real thing but I like this PC plug-in and what it does.

I do appreciate all of the insight into the comparisons though. Thanks for taking the time to make these comparisons. No two of the hardware units sounded exactly alike,so I would be extremely surprised if someone came here and said, " Yeah man, these things are EXACT clones of one another and of the original". lol.....so in order to try the plug for yourself you have to buy it and for 40 smackers I jumped on the wagon....... the rest of you have until the 31st to decide or pay more for it.

I'm really not into nostalgia at all. If I have a tool that works well and accomplishes an end result that I can be comfortable with I'm not concerned with  who or what it copies.

Some engineers got together and said, hey man, we can get pretty much the same result as this 2500.00 hardware unit in software. The unit has a good reputation of giving good results for certain applications and it is the box of choice for Cleo Hemplefinger and Henri Bubblebutt, two world renowned mixing engineers.

So they  accomplished that goal. This box has been copied by different companies and comparisons reveal that differences are subtle,maybe move one control a few ticks one way or the other to get the same or a very similar result to the real thing. I'm glad this is no surprise and I don't think the bakers would allow a plug-in out there that isn't  tried and tested to be good,especially since they stake the reputation of the relatively new PC on it.

Keep up the good work Cakewalk. Make all of those other traitors drool when they see us using the PC and getting the plugs for a song.

Check my last video ...... and check the relative frequencies relationship

yep this the key ...more than an overwall gain change this is the balance that is crucial ..wehn you go HP it give solid bass with controlled highs ....excellent for a voice i worked with to day ....

Vocal chain : Cl1B -Trident eq-Waves doubles (real smooth) ..send to Hdelay +send to Xverb 
Bus PC2A +VCC ......

mmmm !!