1081 - Surviving A Test with Other Hardware EQ

[Arys Chien]

A console recently come into my friend's place. I'm not saying which console it is, cause he's selling it. Clue: when it came out in the very early '90s, a 32 channel model costs over 100k.

It came with different \"level\". The one we got here is almost the highest among the four, costing over 100k back then. The EQ on the board in this test is \"far better\" than the one under it, I heard. I also heard that it sounds like an API, if not as good.

------

I brought some files to do the test earlier tonight. The \"raw\" files include sampled bass, miked power chords, very fake MIDI acoustic guitar from the RealGuitar VSTi, recorded vocal, sampled kick, snare, hi-hats & overheads and rhodes.

I sent the file out of Samplitude 8 Professional through RME Multiface optical, into Soundscape iBox24, then into this board's line input. After I've done eqing, I recorded the processed audio with Lavry Blue AD.

Then I took the files home and tried to produce the same result with UAD-1 1081 plug-in full version. I didn't write down the parameters of my eqing with the board. I believed I'd come closer this way.

------

To my surprise, there's almost nothing the board can do that the full version of the 1081 plug-in can't. The only differences I notice here are:

1) the board has an analog sound that just make the audio pass through it sound \"more right\". No significant loss of any kind, just more non-linear, softer, and a bit further away from my face, into the so-called \"commercial CD sound area\". (I'm not sure if you understand me here.)

2) I can't make the kick and snare sound as good as when I use the board's eq. Maybe it's the 1081's limited parameter. Maybe I did something \"outside\" the fixed parameters of the plug-in. Or maybe that eq is just great for kick and snare, like an API eq. (Hey the eq on this board does sound like an API eq....)

------

I would still love to find a board that I can use. I heard that \"console sound\" again tonight and really love it. There is really no way you can achieve that ITB. Maybe a good summing box will do the job too. DAWs are just not as good on summing....

Also, as great as the full version of the 1081 can be, the SE version still sounds \"just like a plug-in\" in comparison. And we all know that we can't run enough full version Neve plug-ins. With 8 cards I can run 24 1081 full version without running anything else. The board gives me 64 eq right there. If I use them I can have much more power to run other UAD-1 plug-ins like 33609 or Dimension D.

-------

My personal career management aside, I'm really please tonight, finding that our beloved, the full version of the 1081 eq plug-in, can do as good as a pretty good, if not great, hardware eq.

I thought I knew that, but I didn't know it that well til I did a thorough comparison. 8)

 

[Plec]

I have found from time to time, situations where I actually prefered an EQ plug-in to hardware. Had a very recent experience where I was to EQ a quite complex programmed string arrangement to fit in with a quite busy arrangement overall with beats and what not. So I needed to do quite a bit of EQ to make it all fit. I had the 1081 on from the getgo and basically needed to do some 4K shelf 3db and some 2K +4db.. you get the picture...

So I was going to replace the plugin with hardware since it usually improves things for me. So I went through an API, Focusrite ISA110, Amek9098 and finally a Millennia NSEQ-2.. although all of those EQs made the sound in itself \"better\".. they did not bring the strings forward in such an effortless manner as the 1081 did. So after an hour of A/B:ing and constantly going for the 1081, I just gave up. Then I tried replacing the 1081 with the 1073 and liked that even better

So.. I'd say it's all up to the situation...

 

[H2000]

To my surprise, there's almost nothing the board can do that the full version of the 1081 plug-in can't. The only differences I notice here are:

1) the board has an analog sound that just make the audio pass through it sound "more right". No significant loss of any kind, just more non-linear, softer, and a bit further away from my face, into the so-called "commercial CD sound area". (I'm not sure if you understand me here.)

2) I can't make the kick and snare sound as good as when I use the board's eq. Maybe it's the 1081's limited parameter. Maybe I did something "outside" the fixed parameters of the plug-in. Or maybe that eq is just great for kick and snare, like an API eq. (Hey the eq on this board does sound like an API eq....)

It would seem to me that those "only" differences are in fact the main differences between hardware and plugins, particularly when there are transformers involved.

That said, I also agree with Plec that sometimes the plugin just works.

 

[him]

I found that some mix done ITB still excellent. Sources like performance of musicians , recording enviroment & technique are imprtant as well.

 

[Mark Edmonds]

Also, when we talk about summing ITB compared to external, I think we need to remember that ITB is the perfect summing machine. ITB summing doesn't include all those extra stages like the D/A, all those analog circuits and the A/D back in. Analog summing is not technically superior at all, it just adds a big ol' chunk of living circuitry will all kinds of minor chaotic variances going on that digital summing cannot hope to emulate. It is inevitable that analog summing will produce a different sound (even if only marginal) and sometimes that sound will be preferable.

What I would like to see is someone with the physical modelling skills (like UA have) to produce a sort of \"flux\" plugin, a plugin that is continuously changing itself and changing what it does to the samples. And what it does to those samples is whatever the variances are that you can measure in components when they operate under different loads, as they age, as they influence each other and any other changing state that might help towards the sound we label \"analog\". Of course, I am not an electrical engineer so I don't know what I am talking about!

Mark

 

[Suntower]

Personally, I don't think I want a plug that sounds different over time---even if it 'ages' well like some sonic Bourdeaux. :mrgreen:

However, I -do- think they'll get to a point where there is a something like an 'age' dial on yer B3 or Stratocaster or 1176 but I think it will be product specific.

And yeah, they will definitely get VSTs to be more 'spongy'---meaning having more of the reactance and impedance effects of 'real' loads. For example, Amplitube 2 does this to a certain extent---it responds to changes in input signal levels and picking technique a LOT like real amps---which I find very encouraging of the future.

Best,

---JC

Analog summing is not technically superior at all, it just adds a big ol' chunk of living circuitry will all kinds of minor chaotic variances going on that digital summing cannot hope to emulate. It is inevitable that analog summing will produce a different sound (even if only marginal) and sometimes that sound will be preferable.

What I would like to see is someone with the physical modelling skills (like UA have) to produce a sort of "flux" plugin, a plugin that is continuously changing itself and changing what it does to the samples. And what it does to those samples is whatever the variances are that you can measure in components when they operate under different loads, as they age, as they influence each other and any other changing state that might help towards the sound we label "analog". Of course, I am not an electrical engineer so I don't know what I am talking about!

Mark

 

[Mark Edmonds]

Evening JC!

What I was thinking of was something like an age or tolerance dial that modifies or degrades component specification as appropriate. These could be set at specific values or set to modulate slowly.

Another aspect of the \"analog\" sound I think might be significant is noise. The right sort of noise is comforting to the ear, like the surf sound on a beach or a trickling brook. A sort of pet theory of mine in a way. I'd dead certain there is something in this whether a masking effect or a smearing effect or something more related to the subconcious effect of certain sounds and rhythms. Our ears have their own self-sound too - mine have from a very early age when I used to think I was listening to radio frequencies!!!! - so I wonder if we are conditioned in some way for noise and the absence of noise can be disconcerting.

Whatever....

Mark

 

[Suntower]

The age tolerance thing will definitely happen.

If you're familiar with NI's B4, it already comes with several 'age' settings plus a number of other controls (leakage) to mimic aging. Amp emulators will get there too.

I know exactly what you mean about the background noise. I took a psycho-acoustics class in college about 300 years ago and one of the things I recall was the idea that human hearing was just about as sensitive as owls or any other animal. But the reason we don't appear to hear as well as dogs or owls was that we had 'tuned' our hearing to ignore exactly the kind of background noise you mention. It turns out that if our ears were any more sensitive we'd actually get distracted by the self-noise inside our heads.

As part of that we had a chance to be in a -real- anechoic chamber and I must admit it was VERY disconcerting. You not only hear your own heartbeat, but also -literally- the noise between your ears! ...er... not to mention a whole lot of other bodily processes with complete clarity.

Hope yer doing well, sir!

---JC

Evening JC!

What I was thinking of was something like an age or tolerance dial that modifies or degrades component specification as appropriate. These could be set at specific values or set to modulate slowly.

Another aspect of the "analog" sound I think might be significant is noise. The right sort of noise is comforting to the ear, like the surf sound on a beach or a trickling brook. A sort of pet theory of mine in a way. I'd dead certain there is something in this whether a masking effect or a smearing effect or something more related to the subconcious effect of certain sounds and rhythms. Our ears have their own self-sound too - mine have from a very early age when I used to think I was listening to radio frequencies!!!! - so I wonder if we are conditioned in some way for noise and the absence of noise can be disconcerting.

Whatever....

Mark

 

[Arys Chien]

One of the things I found during the test is that I eq faster and better with console eq.

On \"faster\": 50% of the time I'd hesitate if I'm eqing right with plug-in eq. Doing it with a board, however, is much faster with no hesitation at all.

On \"better': And the results are better than if I had started eqing the same source with a plug-in eq. I don't know why. The eq on the board is just more \"inspiring\" to me.

More on \"better\": Like I said, I could achieve very similar result with both eq, but that's when I use the plug-in eq and try to achieve what I had done with the eq on the board. I'm a better engineer with it.

I don't know about the others, so maybe it's just me and some people. Yet when I talked about it with a friend that owned a SSL AWS-900, he thought the same as I did.

Maybe it's not ITB mixing sucks. Maybe it's me that suck on ITB mixing. But I think maybe it's time to get a board.... :?

 

[Suntower]

IMO, this is not because of the 'software', but rather the hardware interface.

I think the main reason everyone tends to like hardware mixing better, is the same reason people like synths with lots of buttons better than the ones from the 80's with 1 'dial' and an LCD screen. KNOBS!

The fact that one has the -immediate- and -instant- feedback from twiddling knobs on a 'real' mixer vs.
---Selecting a parameter
---Clicking on the parameter
---Using a mouse to 'rotate' the parameter.

----That whole process screws with our trying to concentrate on the change in -sound-.

Said it before, say it again: What the world needs, more than any plug-in or mic or amp or synth is this:

A hardware controller/interface (knobs/sliders/joysticks) that somehow, magically, using some psychotic-aristotelian super-logic automatically and -instantly- remaps itself as you move around the screen in your DAW.

There needs to be a STANDARD that all plug-in companies agree to so that whoever builds this can make it work exactly the same way for all plugs. So when you mix, you don't even have to -look- at the hardware controller---you'd be able to memorize and -know- that when you clicked on B4 or a UAD-1 plug exactly how the controls would work. Just like you don't have to look at a piano while playing, or a keyboard while typing.

And of course, this interface would be totally plug'n'play---the moment you install a plug, it would auto-magically send the proper mapping data to the DAW and controller.


If we had something like that, I am pretty sure hardware would lose -much- of it's glamour. It's -primary- benefit at this point in history (other than looking cool) is that visual/tactile feedback. And conversely, it's the awkward human interface in current software/hardware that makes plug-ins seem to 'sound' worse.

---JC

One of the things I found during the test is that I eq
faster and better with console eq.

On "faster": 50% of the time I'd hesitate if I'm eqing right with plug-in eq. Doing it with a board, however, is much faster with no hesitation at all.

On "better': And the results are better than if I had started eqing the same source with a plug-in eq. I don't know why. The eq on the board is just more "inspiring" to me.

More on "better": Like I said, I could achieve very similar result with both eq, but that's when I use the plug-in eq and try to achieve what I had done with the eq on the board. I'm a better engineer with it.

I don't know about the others, so maybe it's just me and some people. Yet when I talked about it with a friend that owned a SSL AWS-900, he thought the same as I did.

Maybe it's not ITB mixing sucks. Maybe it's me that suck on ITB mixing. But I think maybe it's time to get a board.... :?

 

[Mark Edmonds]

IMO, this is not because of the 'software', but rather the hardware interface.

Exactly. I was just about to make the same point.

One of the major reasons I value the mouse wheel support in UAD plugins is that it is a form of tactile control with feedback. I don't need to concentrate on the awkward motion of a mouse, I can just rotate a real physical wheel. I love it. I wish all plugin people did this.

Said it before, say it again: What the world needs, more than any plug-in or mic or amp or synth is this:

A hardware controller/interface (knobs/sliders/joysticks) that somehow, magically, using some psychotic-aristotelian super-logic automatically and -instantly- remaps itself as you move around the screen in your DAW.

I believe this is just emerging now - Novation Automap. I already have the SL61 with an early software version flashed on it and it goes some of the way. I now hear that the new version does automatically map to all plugins and with the SL controllers, you've got a nice bank of knobs available. How well this universal automap works, I don't know but I need to update my controller's software and test it. Hmmmm..... let me have a peruse of their site......

Mark

 

[Mark Edmonds]

Hmmm, rather jittery experience so far. Leaving some major installation problems, there seems to be two nasty \"gotchas\" with this system.

1. It needs to wrap the plugin and it does this by creating a new dll with the same name as the plugin + \" (Automap)\" suffix. Net result: you double up your plugin count within the host because you have the original and the automap version.

2. Of course, as the plugin has a different name, it is considered a new plugin by the host so all your old projects need to have each plugin instance replaced with the automap version before you can use it. ie, zero portability to anyone without automap and all old projects wont work without a lot of hassle.

However, starting new projects can use the new system and it does seem to work as advertised. Full parameter control via real knobs and updates on the LCD strips too. This is very nice. Just had the odd experience of tweaking the 1176 with real controls!

I expect the wrapper method was the only way ahead with this so I am not going to knock Novation for it. The real concern I have though is that by using the Automap version of the plugins, I am forcing presence of the Automap system on all my projects and because of the portability problem, if I ever change from Automap, none of my projects will load without missing plugin errors. Not nice that. Really ties you in.

Otherwise, caveats aside, it is still impressivisimo

Mark

 

[Mark Edmonds]

Oh great, in the course of all that frigging around with the installation, all my Nuendo preferences got zapped. Grrrrrrrr.......

Serves me right maybe for installing the point zero version :evil:

Mark

 

[Suntower]

Plus ca change, plus que c’est la meme chose

Some have to die that the future might be made safe for all.

I salute you (and all) who live on that bleeding edge. :mrgreen:

--JC
Man, I need to find something productive to do.

Oh great, in the course of all that frigging around with the installation, all my Nuendo preferences got zapped. Grrrrrrrr.......

Serves me right maybe for installing the point zero version :evil:

Mark

 

[Akis]

I've been using a BCR2000 with my EQ's and compressors in Nuendo for about 2 years now with great results... Sure, I still have to look at the screen, but the feel is much better than turning a knob with a trackball. However, I do find myself just using my damn trackball when I'm lazy to switch between presets on my BCR...

 

[Plec]

Agree with all of the above!

Imagine everytime you needed to do EQ on a console.. you had to open it up, get a screwdriver and manually alter the guts of the gear?

Imagine everytime you where laying down a guitar track.. you had to look at a virtual guitar neck on screen and follow what you where doing?

That's how I feel about plugins. Your mind easily gets distracted by things that are not related to the task at hand. One nice little trick is to first (before even listening) make EQ adjustments with the EQ off... doing the stuff that you think is needed. Then just turn it on, make a quick assessment of what needs to be changed again and then turn it off and make changes accordingly. This keeps your perspective much more fresh and works wonders with both ITB and OTB mixing.

 

[O.]

I'm not saying which console it is, cause he's selling it.

This logic is beyond me...

Other than that, nice observation. I wish I could run 24 1081's!

 

[teetoleevio]

That's how I feel about plugins. Your mind easily gets distracted by things that are not related to the task at hand. One nice little trick is to first (before even listening) make EQ adjustments with the EQ off... doing the stuff that you think is needed. Then just turn it on, make a quick assessment of what needs to be changed again and then turn it off and make changes accordingly. This keeps your perspective much more fresh and works wonders with both ITB and OTB mixing.

This is a really interesting thing to try!
Thanks !

Teetoleevio

 

[Arys Chien]

NEWS UPDATE:

My 1081 plug-in's ass just got kicked by a pair of Avedis E-15 eq (the Brent Averill version of the API 550a).

My friend has a lunchbox with 2 512s and 2 E-15s. I borrowed it and extended the original test as an A/B/C test, ***** Console EQ v.s. UA 1081 plug-in v.s. E-15.

The 1081 plug-in still sound in the same league as the ***** Console EQ, but the E-15 is simply better. There's no comparison on kick and snare. Tighter bottom, heavier punch, more exciting highs and \"visible air\", you name it.

I'm ordering a BAE lunchbox with a pair of Avedis E-27 (the newer version of the E-15, with more frequency points) and API 550b.

This is bad. Now I want to see where I can get myself an API compressor to try out....

p.s.: I'm not saying that you can't do right with plug-in eqs. I'm saying that, if you can do good with plug-in eqs, there's a great chance that you can do better with a good (and expensive) hardware eq.

 

[Akis]

[quote="Arys Chien":1fcidiy0]I'm not saying which console it is, cause he's selling it.

This logic is beyond me...[/quote:1fcidiy0]

Me too. I can't see how mentioning what console it is would affect your friend's sale.

Furthermore, Arys, don't get me wrong, but your comparison is apples to oranges to say the least. I mean, nobody said that the 1081 plug-in should sound any similar to, better or worse than an API (clone) EQ. The only fair comparison would be with the hardware 1081.