Best Neve Plugins

[UA User]

I saw a thread on Gearspace about this new Neve Channel Strip Plugin: https://www.voosteq.com/model-n-channel/

Some folks said it was the best Neve channel strip plugin yet. Can any Neve hardware users speak on how accurate it is to the hardware, specifically the 1084 preamp/EQ and 2254 compressor? And are they more or less accurate than UAD’s 1084 and 2254 plugins?

I’ve been comparing them myself of course, but I’ve never used the original hardware units, so I’m clueless as to which are more accurate emulations.

 

[UA User]

I did a quick comparison of UA’s 2254 to VoosteQ’s 2254 on a drum bus. There were some obvious differences.

1. VoosteQ’s 2254 does not have an adjustable attack which was the case with the original hardware according to the UA manual if I remember correctly. And the release only goes down to 100 ms on the VoosteQ which I’m guessing is faithful to the original hardware too? Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

2. The VoosteQ doesn’t have the limiter section on the GUI so I assume they didn’t model it (but see below).

3. The VoosteQ compressor contained the transients much better than the UA compressor section at more extreme compression settings (fastest attack on the UA, 100 ms release on both versions, and 6:1 ratio on both versions). UA’s 2254 contained the transients well if I engaged the limiter section at the fastest attack and release, but then it sounded even more compressed then VoosteQ’s version.

So I wonder, did VoosteQ model the limiter but not include it on the GUI? If so it didn’t sound as overly compressed as UA’s 2254 with the limiter engaged. Why does VoosteQ’s 2254 sound so much smoother (on my quick test) then UA’s 2254?

@UniversalAudio can you share any insight on this? Also any hardware users, please chime in with your experiences and thoughts.

VoosteQ offers an unlimited 14 day trial if anyone wants to do their own comparison.

 

[SameOh]

Maybe they did a better job at emulating the hardware than UA.

Wouldn't be a huge surprise.

 

[JBH]

Wouldn't be a huge surprise.

Why not?

 

[UA User]

Maybe they did a better job at emulating the hardware than UA.

Wouldn't be a huge surprise.

That’s possible. Or maybe there’s something I’m missing. Maybe there’s a trick to using the 2254 that I don’t understand. That’s why I wanted experienced users to chime in.

Have you used both plugins and/or the original hardware?

 

[UA_User]

My favorite topic!

Preliminary opinion: no 2254 compression plugin sounds quite like the hardware or hardware clones in character (box tone).

Note: comments restricted to plugins I either own or have evaluated during trial periods.


Voosteq:
Model N: very colored for a plugin. I don't like lots of digital coloration on my mixes, so this would be used sparingly for my taste. As many have noted, the GUI is muted and needs some highlights and white-balancing. The plugin is super cheap while having a lots of sounds, so it's hard to complain. I've run into bugs here and there, but the developer does work on updates.

Lindell:
254e: one of the better itb compressors I've heard. Note that the noob shootout-makers on youtube don't realize it has oversampling options in the settings menu.
80 channel: pretty good, but the weird post-compressor-only gate is a waste of screen space. I turn the THD and fake preamp down to 0 on this plugin-I don't like it when the preamp simulation on a Neve plugin has "break up" programmed into it, because that's not how hardware Neve or Neve clone preamps sound when pushed (except for the GAP73, which does break up). Visually, I dislike how they changed the knobs from the more hardware-accurate 254e. Note: you don't get a free 254e stand-alone plugin with this... just running sound through this plugin is different.

Sonimus:
Burnley73: aggressive high shelf (accurate to many, but not all, very oldest hardware specimens) - I don’t use the hi shelf at all on this one. smooth preamp simulation (as far as fake digital saturation goes, which ain't very far with me). This plugin is a winner for the hi pass alone (it is always in the exact right place to enhance a signal). The GUI is disgusting, like the puke turquoise light in an old insane asylum. I made my own GUI for this and replaced the default, thank goodness.
Britson: channel is fine (nice filters!), but the bus is too colored for me to use often. The GUI is ugly, but I replaced it with my own. The oversampling in the new "N-Console" version may have improved Britson, no idea as I haven't tried it. They certainly improved the GUI in the newer N-console.

UAD:
2254: very nice soft, puffy/poofy sounding compressor. I like it alot, but any 2254 related hardware of any sort I've ever heard, either under my fingers in real life or in shootouts on youtube, is more aggressive than this in vibe. Nice GUI except the overbearing jpg-looking wood surrounding it, and the numbers are kind of hard to see in places.
mk2 1073: somewhat similar preamp saturation to the Sonimus Burnley. EQ's are good. The wood texture around the GUI needs to be toned down, for my taste.
Legacy 1073: perfectly usable, with low DSP hit.

Waves:
V-comp: kinda soft and poofy, kinda like the UAD is. Except this one (as often with Waves in my opinion) has loose, unreliable compression action. Cheesy GUI. I would never reach for this plugin over the other options.
V-EQ's: fine I guess. I dunno, the waves stuff is long in the tooth and sounds like plug-ins to me.

I'm sure I'm forgetting a couple, but that's enough rambling for now, anyway.

 

[UA_User]

Maybe there’s a trick to using the 2254 that I don’t understand.

It's not just you. The 2254 is an oddball compressor. Takes awhile to get to grips with it. It's not a great tool for direct envelope-shaping, but the action of these Neve diode-bridge compressors has a charm, and they grow in usefulness as time is spent with them.

 

[Eric Dahlberg]

I'm sure I'm forgetting a couple, but that's enough rambling for now, anyway.

Maybe try the NoiseAsh and Acustica? I hate using the Acustica but the sound is pretty incredible.

 

[UA_User]

Maybe try the NoiseAsh and Acustica? I hate using the Acustica but the sound is pretty incredible.

I like the sound of Acustica stuff (not especially the action on their compressors, but the box-tone is often pretty convincing). However I've always had difficulties with their stuff regarding stability and authorizing and so on, so I don't use them solely on practical grounds. It has been a few years since my last attempt however, so maybe they've ironed the kinks out.

Haven't had a chance to try NoiseAsh yet, but it's on the menu.

 

[Eric Dahlberg]

I like the sound of Acustica stuff (not especially the action on their compressors, but the box-tone is often pretty convincing). However I've always had difficulties with their stuff regarding stability and authorizing and so on, so I don't use them solely on practical grounds. It has been a few years since my last attempt however, so maybe they've ironed the kinks out.

Yep, same. I own a bunch of them and never use them for those same reasons.

 

[UA_User]

So I wonder, did VoosteQ model the limiter but not include it on the GUI? If so it didn’t sound as overly compressed as UA’s 2254 with the limiter engaged. Why does VoosteQ’s 2254 sound so much smoother (on my quick test) then UA’s 2254?

This is easily answered by spending a couple minutes with the hardware. The hardware limiter doesn't have a very smooth action, and the UAD and Lindell 2254's try to recreate the limiter action of the hardware they were modeling, and moreover the individual unit or revision they are modeling.

Hardware in general is almost always more dense and compressed sounding, and shaves transients. Maybe Voost was trying to recreate that? So at a given amount of compression, it'll have more density. Maybe running the Lindell or UAD into an inflator or saturator or limiting sort of plugin, with the the 2254 limiters turned off, would get them more in the ballpark?

 

[UA User]

My favorite topic!

Preliminary opinion: no 2254 compression plugin sounds like the hardware or hardware clones in character. The action however can be similar.

Note: comments restricted to plugins I either own or have evaluated during trial periods.


Voosteq:
Model N: very colored for a plugin. I don't like lots of digital coloration on my mixes, so this would be used sparingly for my taste. As many have noted, the GUI is muted and needs some highlights and white-balancing. The plugin is super cheap while having a lots of sounds, so it's hard to complain. I've run into bugs here and there, but the developer does work on updates.

Lindell:
254e: one of the best itb compressors I've ever heard. Note that the noob shootout-makers on youtube don't realize it has oversampling options in the settings menu.
80 channel: pretty good, but the weird post-compressor-only gate is a waste of screen space. I turn the THD and fake preamp down to 0 on this plugin-I don't like it when the preamp simulation on a Neve plugin has "break up" programmed into it, because that's not how hardware Neve or Neve clone preamps sound when pushed (except for the GAP73, which does break up). Visually, I dislike how they changed the knobs from the more hardware-accurate 254e. Note: you don't get a free 254e stand-alone plugin with this... just running sound through this plugin is different.

Sonimus:
Burnley73: super-aggressive high shelf (apparently accurate to many, but not all, very oldest hardware specimens). Excellent smooth preamp simulation (excellent, as far as fake digital saturation goes, which ain't very far with me). This plugin is a winner for the hi pass alone (it is always in the exact right place to enhance a signal). The GUI is disgusting, like the puke turquoise light in an old insane asylum. I made my own GUI for this and replaced the default, thank goodness.
Britson: channel is fine (nice filters!), but the bus is just a bit too colored for me to use often. The GUI is ugly, but I replaced it with my own. The oversampling in the new "N-Console" version may have improved Britson, no idea as I haven't tried it. They certainly improved the GUI in the newer N-console.

UAD:
2254: very nice soft, puffy/poofy sounding compressor. I like it alot, but any 2254 related hardware of any sort I've ever heard, either under my fingers in real life or in shootouts on youtube, is more aggressive in vibe. Good paired with the Lindell 254e for different sound, but similar compression. Nice GUI except the overbearing jpg-looking wood surrounding it, and the numbers are kind of hard to see in places.
mk2 1073: somewhat similar fake preamp saturation to the Sonimus Burnley (not much "break up"). EQ's are good. The wood texture around the GUI needs to be toned down, for my taste.
Legacy 1073: perfectly usable, with low DSP hit.

Waves:
V-comp: soft and poofy, kinda like the UAD is. Except this one (as often with Waves in my opinion) has messy, unreliable compression action. Cheesy GUI. I would never reach for this plugin over the options listed so far.
V-EQ's: fine I guess.

I'm sure I'm forgetting a couple, but that's enough rambling for now, anyway.

You say the VoosteQ is very colored. Are you saying that the hardware isn’t very colored or just not as colored as VoosteQ?

I tried the Lindell 2254 but had issues with a loud audio blast. I’ll have to revisit that one.

I compared the VoosteQ to the offerings from UAD, Softube, and Arturia. The last three were all more similar to each other than to VoosteQ in my quick comparison.

But the compressor action was puzzling. Can hardware units be that different?

 

[UA User]

This is easily answered by spending a couple minutes with the hardware. The hardware limiter doesn't have a very smooth action, and the UAD and Lindell 2254's try to recreate the limiter action of the hardware they were modeling, and moreover the individual unit or revision they are modeling.

Hardware in general is almost always more dense and compressed sounding, and shaves transients. Maybe Voost was trying to recreate that? So at a given amount of compression, it'll have more density. Maybe running the Lindell or UAD into an inflator or saturator or limiting sort of plugin, with the the 2254 limiters turned off, would get them more in the ballpark?

Sorry I posted right as you were answering a question I asked.

 

[UA User]

Maybe try the NoiseAsh and Acustica? I hate using the Acustica but the sound is pretty incredible.

You’re a hardware guy, right? Do you have any thoughts on the VoosteQ vs other options?

 

[UA_User]

You say the VoosteQ is very colored. Are you saying that the hardware isn’t very colored or just not as colored as VoosteQ?

I'm saying that it's too much digital coloration for my personal taste.

Can't answer the question simply, because the Voost is based on a whole chain of gear, and also has a bunch of options to change virtual components and such. I'll do my best to break the hardware down:

Real Neve 73-style preamps: either clean or colored, depending on how you set it.

Real Neve 2254-style compressor: the original vintage designs of this style of compressor, and newer faithful clones based on that design, are rather colored units.

Real Neve 73-style EQ: most all analog EQ has more "bite" than digital EQ. It's two different sounds. I can't say if that counts as colored, because I've been alive just long enough that digital EQ was rare when I was a kid, so analog EQ bite just sounds normal to me, not like a color. It's hard to say...

Neve 73-era console electronics/summing: no clue... I've never seen or heard or mixed through a vintage Neve console in real life. Closest I've been is spending 4 hours over two days in the same room as some sort of sidecar of vintage modules (with the fader modules included), that we weren't using, as we weren't tracking anything. It was hard to concentrate on the task at hand with those Neves in the room staring at me...

I compared the VoosteQ to the offerings from UAD, Softube, and Arturia. The last three were all more similar to each other than to VoosteQ in my quick comparison.

But the compressor action was puzzling. Can hardware units be that different?

I dimly recall reading on a thread somewhere that the Voost is a model of a custom hardware of some kind. The dev posted photos of it I believe (the unit is located in Japan). Anyone know more?

I can assure you that the UAD and Lindell are reasonably close to the typical 2254 hardware in compressor action. It's kind of an unusual compressor action, but that's how the hardware is.

 

[UA User]

I'm saying that it's too much digital coloration for my personal taste.

Can't answer the question simply, because the Voost is based on a whole chain of gear, and also has a bunch of options to change virtual components and such. I'll do my best to break the hardware down:

Real Neve 73-style preamps: either clean or colored, depending on how you set it.

Real Neve 2254-style compressor: the original vintage designs of this style of compressor, and newer faithful clones based on that design, are rather colored units.

Real Neve 73-style EQ: most all analog EQ has more "bite" than digital EQ. It's two different sounds. I can't say if that counts as colored, because I've been alive just long enough that digital EQ was rare when I was a kid, so analog EQ bite just sounds normal to me, not like a color. It's hard to say...

Neve 73-era console electronics/summing: no clue... I've never seen or heard or mixed through a vintage Neve console in real life. Closest I've been is spending 4 hours over two days in the same room as some sort of sidecar of vintage modules (with the fader modules included), that we weren't using, as we weren't tracking anything. It was hard to concentrate on the task at hand with those Neves in the room staring at me...


I dimly recall reading on a thread somewhere that the Voost is a model of a custom hardware of some kind. The dev posted photos of it I believe (the unit is located in Japan). Anyone know more?

I can assure you that the UAD and Lindell are reasonably close to the typical 2254 hardware in compressor action. It's kind of an unusual compressor action, but that's how the hardware is.

Thanks for the insight! It sounds like I would need to use a faster compressor/limiter to control the drum transients (if needed) before or after the 2254.

The VoosteQ preamp saturation was completely different than the UA at extreme settings. UA’s sounded crisper and the VoosteQ sounded more mushy to me. I’ve read some reviews that the UA preamp saturation is really close to the hardware but I can’t say.

The VoosteQ 1084 EQ was overall less bright and had more low end in general than UA’s 1084. I maxed both out at different bands one at a time.

 

[UA User]

I'm saying that it's too much digital coloration for my personal taste.

For my tests I turned off everything but the section I was testing and turned the age knob to “new”. Still, I’m not sure I liked how much low end and sustain it seemed to add to the drums when driving the preamp or EQ.

 

[UA_User]

It sounds like I would need to use a faster compressor/limiter to control the drum transients (if needed) before or after the 2254.

I don't consider that a 2254-specific issue. Depends purely on how the drums are played and recorded, if they need transients shaved or not.

Generally speaking, the 2254 plugins are not a great choice for punchy drums, in my opinion. YMMV.

The hardware can do a bit more with drums. I feel that's true of 99% of compressors though. Even plugins that people don't usually associate with drums can make a pretty good showing on a kick or snare in their hardware versions.

All just what my ears tell me. Someone else might hear things completely differently.

The VoosteQ preamp saturation was completely different than the UA at extreme settings. UA’s sounded crisper and the VoosteQ sounded more mushy to me. I’ve read some reviews that the UA preamp saturation is really close to the hardware but I can’t say.

The key thing here for me is that a physical microphone preamp in real life, amplifying a microphone, is a microphone preamp. A plugin is a distortion algorithm with the word "preamp" written on it, applied to a signal already recorded by a microphone and microphone preamp.

The special wispy thing, that happens in the real Neve when setup right, has to be recorded in the first place... the plugins don't add it. Maybe in a few years, with some sort of AI insanity, we'll be able to add it to things that don't have it. Neve say never...

 

[UA User]

Neve say never...

Aha… I see what you did there.

I tried the Lindell 2254 again and I really like it, maybe even more than the UA. And after tweaking the compressor and limiter sections on it and the UA 2254, I think they could be just as usable as the VoosteQ for controlling the transients of this drum bus. They all seem to require slightly different settings to get similar results. I need to play around with them some more.

I do think the Lindell and UA are more versatile due to the separate compressor and limiter sections with two different attack settings on each.

 

[UA_User]

For my tests I turned off everything but the section I was testing and turned the age knob to “new”. Still, I’m not sure I liked how much low end and sustain it seemed to add to the drums when driving the preamp or EQ.

I saw on a discussion elsewhere, perhaps gearspace (can't remember), that the Voost can't be made transparent or neutral.

To me this plugin is very colored, which is why my review is pretty much just saying how colored it is. It's too much for general usage, for me. If I put an EQ on something, it means I want to change something specific. I don't want the thing I was about to work on noticeably changed the moment before I was about to change it, which forces me to recalibrate my planned EQ moves. I hope that makes sense.

It's not a knock on the plugin. There is a time and place for this kind of mojo plugin, for sure.