33609: not impressed...

[Dan Duskin]

I have been messing with the 33609 (both full and SE) for 2 days now, and I am not impressed. No offense to those who love it... I'm just telling my story, and giving my opinion...

My first impression wasn't so great. I loaded the 33609 on the master bus of a rock mix and got strange results. The first thing I noticed while switching through the presets (I am not a preset person, I was just checking them out) was that it sounded as if everything below 150Hz virtually disappeared... I tried to ignore it and listen to the compression characteristics (thinking it was probably the attack and release settings in those presets). As I continued I was stumped by the sound of the compression, it pumped highly unmusical and devoured all energy and intensity from the music. Nevertheless, I was not going to give up! I am a huge Neve fan (although I have never used a Neve compressor, I am a big fan of Neve preamps and EQ's). So I continued after a break to clear my head and my ears...

I came back with fresh ears and a fresh mind, and decided to zero everything out on the 33609 (no compression or limiting--both turned off, input+output the same as the input). I hit play and noticed that it sounded like the kick drum went down in volume about 6dB, the bass guitar basically disappeared, the snare sounded as if it went down about 3dB, plus all transient attack and punch was completely removed (none of this was subtle!, it was very extreme for my taste). I was shocked! If the 33609 murdered all the life before even attempting to engage the compression or limiting there was no way I could ever make any use of it... unless it was for a lo-fi effect.

I know many of you love the 33609... I have been reading your reviews. However, personally... I do not get it... not even a little bit. I still love the Neve EQ though.

Remember, this is just my opinion. I have nothing against UA, and I have nothing against Neve. Nevertheless, this plugin does not work for me.

Sorry guys...

 

[protoculture]

the dual xeon brother has spoken!

So Dan, in your comparison to say other UA Compressors what do you think? I'm interested further into your opinion.

 

[Suntower]

Based on your observation about how generally useful the EX-1 is, I have done a TON of a/b ing with EX-1. I know it's heresy, but I'm finding I actually prefer the EX-1.

I also agree that the EQ is fabulous. It really does what everyone used to say about the Pultec --- makes just about everything sound better just by it's presence.

---JC

 

[Tony Ostinato]

I'm completely flat out blown away by how close to a 33609 they've gotten.

Now its up to you how much you like the 33609, after all not every major studio had/has one.


most do tho.

 

[Beat God]

i've been comparing the 33609 to the urs 1980, and waves ssl.
i don't like the waves ssl. the urs is my fav and the 33609 is good but i am still trying to see if i like it better than the urs.

the first day i tried the 33609 i hated it. the second day was mixed and today it gave me the best results of the three compressors.
i've only been using the se version as the regular one is worthless for the time being due to the amount of dsp it uses.

 

[Big Harpe]

I've always been a fan of the EX-1. It just sounds great to me. The 33609 is 'BIG' and doesn't cut it for me. It DEFINITELY destroys the low end, sort of like the SSL freebie. I am going to pass on this one.

 

[Medway]

I was pretty blase' about the Neve when I first demo'd it as well. Then read some comments on here by an electronic producer I know does really good stuff (Q) and gave it another shot.

With some tweaking I was able to get what I thought was a nice increase in density and some interesting color (midrange and meatier lows).

Now I had planned on selling my UAD so at this point I decided to put the Neve through its paces to see if it was worth holding onto the card for.

I did a comparison between the Neve, 1980, and Waves SSL. The Neve was really solid but deffinatly noticed the low end loss this time (I do house so I need that bottom). The 1980 is nice but a bit squirly on the release, its a bit jumpy and \"pluginy\" sounding although overall I do like its sound. For me the Waves won overall. It just seemed to be controlled enough, with a decent amount of color for that \"glue\" everyone likes to talk about.

Don't get me wrong the Neve can sound fantasitc on certain material. But for my 2buss it wasn't the right choice. The URS stuff is nice but all fo their comps seem to exhibit a weird flutter on the release times. And the attack phases are a litrle smeared losing transient detail (something the Neve excelled at).

My settings for the Waves though were a bit unorthodox. .3 attack, 10:1 ratio and about 6-7 on the meter of gain reduction. Not what you'd expect to work on the 2 buss but was perfect for me. The usual settings of low ration and higher attack just produced a higher peak to average ratio, not what I was looking for.

Jesse

 

[mightymike]

You're not the first one Dan....

Emulation rating wise the UAD gets a thumbs up with alot of users but there are some producers here who turn to some of the URS compressors before the UAD neve... especially when the UAD version takes up so much power...

mm

 

[Arys Chien]

Hi Dan,

I had the same feeling when I first tried out the 33609 plug-in demo. Then I realized that, as a bus compressor, its threshold is not high enough. Even when I set the input gain to the lowest possible level, and the threshold to the highest, there was still some 2 to 4dB gain reduction going on. I had to back down on the volumn pre 33609 to get a more subtle compression.

Then it's a lot better.

Reading your description about the \"sub-and-bass-gone\" side effect, that's exactly what I heard before I back down on the original volumn of the mix. If you haven't tried it, see if it solves the problem.

------

On the other hand, though knowing better and better how to use the 33609 plug-in, I too am not too blown away by it. I can tell where and how it betters the other UAD-1 compressor plug-ins, but honestly it's not obvious as compared to a hardware unit.

I bought it and kept using it, mostly because it's by far the best piano compressor (for my music). That alone worths it, for me.

------

Also, don't you think it's getting harder and harder to be impressed by new UAD-1 plug-ins? Because we have been so impressed from its birth. :wink: (Like the reason why we can still be easily impressed by Nuendo X upgrade is only because they didn't do a great job in the previous version.)

 

[svs95]

You guys aren't mentioning the \"Headroom\" parameter, so I assume you aren't using it. That may be a wrong assumption. In any case, that will control how much compression you get from this box. Basically you are changing the input/output calibration gain structure. The higher the number, the more compression you get, because you're hitting the input hotter, but this is output neutral. But it does affect tone/timbre/harmonics and spectral balance (maybe including LF response on some bass-heavy material).

14dB will give you the least amount of GR, but the Neve 33609 (the hardware) basically ALWAYS compresses, unless you turn off the compression and limit switches. There really isn't a setting where you get no compression. However, when you hear how transparent a little bit of the Neve compression really is on most material, that's not a problem.

I am NOT surprised to hear that a) it's not everyone's cup of tea, or b) it's not great on every mix. I haven't seen anything yet that is. :wink:

I'm also not much surprised that Dan doesn't like it, considering his virulent posts in opposition to UA's development path. I'm not saying he doesn't mean what he's saying about the 33609, but let's face it, there's not a lot of love lost there. :lol:

svs95

 

[m2]

Dan,

I can certainly see that some people wouldn't particularily like it. Same as with any compressor.

You only mentioned using it on a full mix, have you tried it on individual instruments yet?

For me, I think it's killer on kick / snare, and also lead vocals. I definately think it depends on what kind of sound you're looking for, but I've had some fantastic results especially on kick. On one track the drummer had a kick that was relatively large and had a lot of low end. The producer wanted more snap and thwack instead of low end thump... (you get it, right?!-). Using the limiter section I got exactly the kind of snappy attack he wanted and the compression took care of the body of the sound. Extremely useful.

But hey, we all hear things differently, and we all use different rooms and instruments....

 

[BTLG]

I'm still not sure it sounds like any 33609 I've used.

I like it, I just don't think it's worth the scrill for me.

Matt

 

[Dan Duskin]

I'm also not much surprised that Dan doesn't like it, considering his virulent posts in opposition to UA's development path. I'm not saying he doesn't mean what he's saying about the 33609, but let's face it, there's not a lot of love lost there. :lol:

Huh?
I LOVE the UAD-1 plugins... it's the hardware that irritates me. Hell, even Tony knows I love the plugins. I guess you didn't read my post.

But this one, it sucks out so much low-end and transients out before the gain-reduction needle even moves, I just can't see wanting to suck life out of my mixes just to use the compression, even if it does sound great. It's like I would need one without the input/output side of the modeling.

Nothing against UA's modeling... I just can't see a use for this compressor (hardware or software based).

 

[Tony Ostinato]

not to provoke anger but it seems we might be divided along age lines again, those old enough to have used the 33609 a lot being more impressed than the under 40 crowd perhaps.


not altogether right or wrong and in 2050 you might very well wax poetic about early native plugins.

 

[svs95]

I'm also not much surprised that Dan doesn't like it, considering his virulent posts in opposition to UA's development path. I'm not saying he doesn't mean what he's saying about the 33609, but let's face it, there's not a lot of love lost there. :lol:

Huh?
I LOVE the UAD-1 plugins... it's the hardware that irritates me. Hell, even Tony knows I love the plugins. I guess you didn't read my post.

I haven't read all your posts, but when I put this topic's original post together with your previous "fucking idiots" remarks, I guess I got an unrepresentative impression of your goodwill. :wink:

You've got me wondering, is the only kind of music you work with really beat-heavy, thumpety-thump stuff, or do you work with pianos and guitars and things? I don't see how you could fail to like this on non beat-heavy stuff.

I just used it on a live rock and roll recording and the kick sounds great. But I've also use it on some solo stuff and some ballads and some other acoustic material, and I've gotta say it's pretty groovy. Don't you work with any of that stuff?

svs95

 

[Spacey]

I'm going to have to disagree with most of you.. I really like the 33609. I write hard...and I mean BIG thumping electronic music for a living...and this compresser seems to get rid of a lot of the vsti clinical sound that I hate so much.

We've had the waves SSL and I just found it too snappy and well digital sounding, the Urs ones for me seemed to lack any meat.

I know I'm probably young by producer/composer standards here (33) but I do remember working with tape and big desks/outboard. And I miss it lots, but the ease of use of plugins and cost are more important to me at the moment due to not being the richest man in the world.

I'm really not getting the bass sucking from the 33609 at all, nothing as bad as the Fairchild??? Maybe it's my hearing, or my monitors he he ... I am after all using NS-10m's and a good sub bass (love this set up).

I liked the Waves channel strip for it's gate and eq, but the rest I could do without, so we didn't buy it. The 33609 seems to have a lovely gluey mushey in a good way that gets rid of the clinical digitalness of workin g 100% in the box.

I suppose writing electronic music is different from real drums/guitars etc... but I use some heavy beats and I'm really not hearing the lack of hard pounding dynamics with the 33609. I love it so much I bought it yesterday.

Just thought I'd give my views.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

From what I have read from you in the past and in this comment, along with listening to some of your work online some time ago I have a feeling you would be pleased with the sound of the Waves SSL bus comp. I tihnk it is going to give you the type of sound you are missing with the Neve plug...

Have you tried it?

cAPS

 

[Dan Duskin]

From what I have read from you in the past and in this comment, along with listening to some of your work online some time ago I have a feeling you would be pleased with the sound of the Waves SSL bus comp. I tihnk it is going to give you the type of sound you are missing with the Neve plug...

Have you tried it?

cAPS

Very true Caps, very true. I'm gonna try the SSL Mixbus compressor right now.

 

[Arys Chien]

I have messed with the headroom setting, and even when I set it at 14, I still got some 2 to 4dB compression going on, unless I lowered the volumn pre 33609 enough.

Which I don't like. Lowering the level ITB and weakening the sound.

------

One thing that I found no other plug-in but the 33609 does is the ability to make the sound \"open without being too bright\", which IMHO is part of the reason why we favor analog over digital. For those who don't like it that much, you might listen to it again from this aspect.

 

[Trebor Flow 2]

The 33609 is not a great bus compressor, never was, never will be. Just becasue UA modelled it, doesn't elevate it to that status.

There said it - feel much better.

oops oh yeah, I forgot to add those important PC forum abbreviations.

IMVHO - YMMV

Trebor

PS If UA do a deal with Alesis who will be looking forward to their perfect stunning emmulations of the Alesis 3630 rack compressor and the precise software version of their studio classic Midiverb 4. I'm sure UA would get those spot on too.