-
Welcome to the General Discussion forum for UAD users! Please note that this forum is user-run, although we're thrilled to have so much contribution from Drew, Will, and other UA folks! Feel free to discuss both UAD and non-UAD related subjects! 1) Please do not post technical issues here. Please use our UAD Support Forums instead. 2) Please do not post complaints here. Use the Unrest Forum instead. They have no place in the the General Discussion forum. Threads posted in the wrong forum will be moved, so if you don't see your thread here anymore, please look in the correct forum. Lastly, please be respectful.
Helios Under the Hood...
- Thread starter Jeraz
- Start date
billybk1
Shareholder
You have to check out the Plugin Power section of this months April 2007 webzine, Helios Type 69 EQ--Hardware and Software Up Close
I've gained a greater appreciation for the venerable Helios 69 console EQ and how easy it is to dial in to get that classic signature sound which is particularly ideal for rock & reggae.
The included video tutorial (about 9min) has Jason Carmer using the exact same Helios console that was modeled by UA for it's latest plugin in a mixing session. He calls it a very musical EQ, as he uses the Helios on drums (kick,snare room), bass, guitars, etc....the eq does sound fantastic in the hands of an engineer that knows how to use it.
The video is crystal clear and upclose so you can see exactly what is going on as each parameter is tweaked. The video cuts to the UAD-1 Helios 69 plugin as it is A/B'd (using the exact settings) against the actual hardware in the same mix, but in an ITB DAW environment. The similarity is striking. Goes to show how well UA modeled the real hardware.
There are also (7) additional Helios EQ presets that can be downloaded for use, as well.
I've gained a greater appreciation for the venerable Helios 69 console EQ and how easy it is to dial in to get that classic signature sound which is particularly ideal for rock & reggae.
The included video tutorial (about 9min) has Jason Carmer using the exact same Helios console that was modeled by UA for it's latest plugin in a mixing session. He calls it a very musical EQ, as he uses the Helios on drums (kick,snare room), bass, guitars, etc....the eq does sound fantastic in the hands of an engineer that knows how to use it.
The video is crystal clear and upclose so you can see exactly what is going on as each parameter is tweaked. The video cuts to the UAD-1 Helios 69 plugin as it is A/B'd (using the exact settings) against the actual hardware in the same mix, but in an ITB DAW environment. The similarity is striking. Goes to show how well UA modeled the real hardware.
There are also (7) additional Helios EQ presets that can be downloaded for use, as well.
Yes, I saw the movie, very good emulation of the Helios consola i must say, but its not pure emulation you know, the low mid and high's is abit off, but except that, its sounds very similar to the Helios consola.
I for sure want more of this color in my mixes! 8) , but thats mean more power witch means one more card in my case.
Cheers UA for a great emulation
I for sure want more of this color in my mixes! 8) , but thats mean more power witch means one more card in my case.
Cheers UA for a great emulation
Richard Hunter
Active Member
manolito said:
Not to debunk your post in any way, there is no way the Plug is going to capture every aspect of the console eq, but the audio compression used for the video stream is probably the biggest culprit for making highs and lows sound off on BOTH the plug and console versions.
Great video though. Nice work UA.
Jeraz
Active Member
Yes, I noticed this too. It was not so noticable on my laptop, but when I moved to my DAW setup, I noticed a subtle thickness to the analog bit that was missing in the digital version...but it is wonderfully close, and I daresay, not an important difference unless you A/B a lot. :wink:manolito said:
Of course, with different converters, it might have sounded different...so what we are hearing is not necessarily modeling difference...even if the very same converters were used to translate the analog board as to take the untreated signal from before the board an then treat it digitally...well, the various harmonic mixes (board and no-board) might translate through the converters slightly differently.
Even if you were IN THE ROOM and listening to the board through the monitors, and then the signal off the board, through the plugs, and then the monitors, the converters could account for the very subtle delta that I heard. :wink:
Good point about the compressors making the digital sound flat. It seemed the Helios plugin was doing quite well side by side but the mix at the end was dull and lifeless. I thought it might be the build up of the Helios but now am more inclined to think it may have been the compressor plugins taking the edge off.
The Helios plug works amazingly in the sub 150 range and makes it worth the purchase just to add some analog vibe into a digital sounding mix.
The Helios plug works amazingly in the sub 150 range and makes it worth the purchase just to add some analog vibe into a digital sounding mix.
UA state in the article about the Helios 69 EQ:
\"The low cut circuit is the gentlest possible highpass filter, a first order low cut filter with one real pole and one zero at DC. A variety of cutoff frequencies is provided for this filter. \"
I've examined the AU version of the plugin and apparently this is not true, there is no selection for the HP filter.
Later a similarly worded sentence crept in:
The high filter for the Helios can be operated in a shelf-type boost mode, or a high-cut mode. In high-cut mode, there is a gentle rolloff between 5-10 kHz. In boost mode, a first-order high-boost shelf is enabled, with a selectable shelving frequency. The first-order shelf gives a smooth transition into the high frequencies, allowing about 15 dB of boost maximum without a harsh transition.
There is also no frequency selection for the high shelf.
\"The low cut circuit is the gentlest possible highpass filter, a first order low cut filter with one real pole and one zero at DC. A variety of cutoff frequencies is provided for this filter. \"
I've examined the AU version of the plugin and apparently this is not true, there is no selection for the HP filter.
Later a similarly worded sentence crept in:
The high filter for the Helios can be operated in a shelf-type boost mode, or a high-cut mode. In high-cut mode, there is a gentle rolloff between 5-10 kHz. In boost mode, a first-order high-boost shelf is enabled, with a selectable shelving frequency. The first-order shelf gives a smooth transition into the high frequencies, allowing about 15 dB of boost maximum without a harsh transition.
There is also no frequency selection for the high shelf.
living sounds
Member
Don't want to be a showstopper, but to me this video really shows the superiority of analog hardware.
billybk1
Shareholder
UA releasing a Helios 69 EQ plugin does not make the analog hardware obsolete by any stretch of the imagination. That the UAD-1 plugin version provides a close approximation in sound with identical features, layout &living sounds said:
parameter control, at a price point that most people can afford
is the real story. After all, not many of us have the luxury to fork over 4K for a single channel analog hardware version:
http://vintageking.com/New-Brands/Helio ... Mic-Pre-Eq
So I guess the $199 (or less) for a credible plugin version will have to do for now. I was fortunate enough to get my Helios 69 license for $59 though, so I feel I am in high cotton right now.
For -me-, even if I -could- afford a houseful of analog gear (and the requisite HVAC system) I wouldn't do it.
I got into DAWs for the convenience. Right now, they let one make a record that is -overall- way better than what was realistic 'back in the day'. The fact that they are getting ever closer to sounding 'old school' is just icing on the cake. All y'all who constantly drool over tubes and wires either:
1. Probably didn't live back then to appreciate how much better things are now with presets and recall and so on.
2. Probably get a hard-on just because it's hardware.
3. Love spending an hour setting up to do one track because (see #2).
Analog was great. And we're not there yet mixing ITB. But personally? I can't wait for hardware to die, Die, DIE! And the more money people spend on Manley's and whatevers instead of helping software companies like UAD research better ITB solutions, the longer it's a gonna take.
Hang on a minute...
OK. Got my asbestos suit on.
---JC
PS: Diggin' the Helios.
I got into DAWs for the convenience. Right now, they let one make a record that is -overall- way better than what was realistic 'back in the day'. The fact that they are getting ever closer to sounding 'old school' is just icing on the cake. All y'all who constantly drool over tubes and wires either:
1. Probably didn't live back then to appreciate how much better things are now with presets and recall and so on.
2. Probably get a hard-on just because it's hardware.
3. Love spending an hour setting up to do one track because (see #2).
Analog was great. And we're not there yet mixing ITB. But personally? I can't wait for hardware to die, Die, DIE! And the more money people spend on Manley's and whatevers instead of helping software companies like UAD research better ITB solutions, the longer it's a gonna take.
Hang on a minute...
OK. Got my asbestos suit on.
---JC
PS: Diggin' the Helios.
Jeraz
Active Member
LOL...no asbestos needed...you are \"talkin'\" to a guy that used to haul a view camera around the mountains surrounding Santa Barabara CA (as a student of Brooks Institute of Photography). Now, there was something incredibly process oriented and, well, beautiful about taking pictures with a 4x5 view camera, but it was time consuming and heavy and sometimes a PIA. Do I have a digital camera? Sure do. Do I love it? Sure do! But for some stuff, taking the time to stake out the lighting at different times of day, and clean the film holders and develop each sheet of film to a certain contrast ratio...man, that's cool.
I feel the same way about audio. I love the convenienc of well made software, but I also love turnin' the knobs and watching the meters on real gear. And I love the sound it makes, and I love snapping XLR plugs into something with custom wound transformers and knowing some engineer poured his heart and sould into making something sound beautiful.
Now, some people are just bottom-line sort of folks. I respect that. But I enjoy the art and the practical; the journey and the result. I maybe full of sh1t, but I am happier that way.
I feel the same way about audio. I love the convenienc of well made software, but I also love turnin' the knobs and watching the meters on real gear. And I love the sound it makes, and I love snapping XLR plugs into something with custom wound transformers and knowing some engineer poured his heart and sould into making something sound beautiful.
Now, some people are just bottom-line sort of folks. I respect that. But I enjoy the art and the practical; the journey and the result. I maybe full of sh1t, but I am happier that way.
I understand how you feel.
In my view, one plays better with a guitar that feels great----even though it's mic'd and the audience can't 'hear' the difference. In that case, I buy your argument---anything that allows for executing a great performance is worth it.
That said, I wonder if Ansel Adams had the same love affair with 'hardware' that today's nostalgic photographers do.
I think a lot of this faux nostalgia is driven by that love of -process-. (ooooh, the smell of the stop bath!) The process is great, but sometimes it's that very love which distorts objective listening. I know engineers who, frankly, love their gear more than they serving their clients best interest. IOW: they are so jazzed about their -way- of recording that they aren't thinking about whether it's the best solution for their clients. Not to be too harsh---they honestly -believe- they are serving their client's interests by being 'all analog all the time'. But that's blind faith. 'Analog is always better!'. And it just ain't so any more. In fact, maybe not even most of the time. In fact, probably not all that much.
...er.... unless, of course, just -seeing- all those lights and VU meters going gets one pumped. (See 2nd paragraph.)
:mrgreen:
---JC
In my view, one plays better with a guitar that feels great----even though it's mic'd and the audience can't 'hear' the difference. In that case, I buy your argument---anything that allows for executing a great performance is worth it.
That said, I wonder if Ansel Adams had the same love affair with 'hardware' that today's nostalgic photographers do.
I think a lot of this faux nostalgia is driven by that love of -process-. (ooooh, the smell of the stop bath!) The process is great, but sometimes it's that very love which distorts objective listening. I know engineers who, frankly, love their gear more than they serving their clients best interest. IOW: they are so jazzed about their -way- of recording that they aren't thinking about whether it's the best solution for their clients. Not to be too harsh---they honestly -believe- they are serving their client's interests by being 'all analog all the time'. But that's blind faith. 'Analog is always better!'. And it just ain't so any more. In fact, maybe not even most of the time. In fact, probably not all that much.
...er.... unless, of course, just -seeing- all those lights and VU meters going gets one pumped. (See 2nd paragraph.)
:mrgreen:
---JC
I don't really want to fuel the digital vs. analogue war anymore... but I'm in the same school as Suntower here. I started out on the DAW and just built from there until I had all the analogue gear I would want. It sounded great, and still sounds great! But today.. IMHO anyway.. you can't handle the twists and turns of most major projects if you don't have total recall of every single parameter at the flick of a switch. If you want a midpriced console that can do all the stuff your DAW can and still sound great you need something like the SSL Duality.. but that will set you back about 280 000$.
Now, I still use all my outboards for tracking and mixing, although 90% of mixing happens ITB anyways. I can get a much more \"musical\" and ready result from my DAW mixes in a shorter amount of time than I can on the console. Mainly because I don't have to deal with the hazzle of analouge \"workflow\". I'm always in the creative zone on the DAW not having to think technical thoughts as much. If I want to make a cool effect I don't have to get cables, patch in the gear, oh... something was wrong with the patchscheme... etc... Then the initial vibe is gone. Then in the middle of it all, you can in 10 seconds open another session and make changes to something completely different without screwing anything up.
So, just putting the better sound of analouge aside for a moment and focusing on workflow...
I did think the Helios plugin sounded better for the room mics than the console though.. but other than that I feel the difference is pretty much what's expected.
Now, I still use all my outboards for tracking and mixing, although 90% of mixing happens ITB anyways. I can get a much more \"musical\" and ready result from my DAW mixes in a shorter amount of time than I can on the console. Mainly because I don't have to deal with the hazzle of analouge \"workflow\". I'm always in the creative zone on the DAW not having to think technical thoughts as much. If I want to make a cool effect I don't have to get cables, patch in the gear, oh... something was wrong with the patchscheme... etc..
. Then the initial vibe is gone. Then in the middle of it all, you can in 10 seconds open another session and make changes to something completely different without screwing anything up.So, just putting the better sound of analouge aside for a moment and focusing on workflow...
I did think the Helios plugin sounded better for the room mics than the console though.. but other than that I feel the difference is pretty much what's expected.
Arys Chien
Active Member
I too think that the video shows the gap between the hardware and the plug-in.
Yet that's it. An opinion without ditching the plug-in, or can't do the math and know how much the price difference is.
I bought the plug-in myself. I'll use it whenever I ran out of outbaord eqs.
I love total recall about ITB mixing. Whenever I'm making decisions on which outboards to buy, if the sound qulity of both is in the same league, I'll choose the one with stepped knob for much easier recall.
Yet I still love patching some IMPORTANT tracks out of the DA and run them through outboard eqs, compressors and pres. Things do sound better that way.
I don't know why there should have been a \"war\" here. I don't know why the price difference has anything to do with the hardware sounding better than the plug-in. And I don't know why simply saying \"the hardware sounds better than the plug-in\" equals \"you guys should all give up plug-ins and ITB mixing.\" It's just a simple statement of what we observe from a demo video.
Yet that's it. An opinion without ditching the plug-in, or can't do the math and know how much the price difference is.
I bought the plug-in myself. I'll use it whenever I ran out of outbaord eqs.
I love total recall about ITB mixing. Whenever I'm making decisions on which outboards to buy, if the sound qulity of both is in the same league, I'll choose the one with stepped knob for much easier recall.
Yet I still love patching some IMPORTANT tracks out of the DA and run them through outboard eqs, compressors and pres. Things do sound better that way.
I don't know why there should have been a \"war\" here. I don't know why the price difference has anything to do with the hardware sounding better than the plug-in. And I don't know why simply saying \"the hardware sounds better than the plug-in\" equals \"you guys should all give up plug-ins and ITB mixing.\" It's just a simple statement of what we observe from a demo video.
svs95
Shareholder
I'm wonder if they actually got the same parameter settings on the plug-in as were on the hardware. I found it difficult to see the hardware settings with the odd and constantly-changing camera angles, and he really was constantly changing the EQ right up until the video swithches to the software. There's not a lot of time to concentrate on the sound of his final setting. And yet it does change when they switch to the software.
I wish they had done the session without the compressors -- it adds too much to the comparison. We're really comparing a chain of three plug-ins to a chain of three hardware units. Really not as helpful as it could have been.
How much of the difference do we attribute to the EQ versus the compressors? Who knows?! I'm pretty sure the 1176 and LA2A emulations did not model analog signal path non-linearities. Also, they modeled vintage specimens, and not newly manufactured UA reproductions!
I also wish there had been a comparison of the full mix between the plug-ins and the hardware. That would have been interesting, IMHO.
svs95
I wish they had done the session without the compressors -- it adds too much to the comparison. We're really comparing a chain of three plug-ins to a chain of three hardware units. Really not as helpful as it could have been.
How much of the difference do we attribute to the EQ versus the compressors? Who knows?! I'm pretty sure the 1176 and LA2A emulations did not model analog signal path non-linearities. Also, they modeled vintage specimens, and not newly manufactured UA reproductions!
I also wish there had been a comparison of the full mix between the plug-ins and the hardware. That would have been interesting, IMHO.
svs95
I watched the video while doing some other stuff, but I thought the interviewer stated he 'took the files home' and recreated the examples on his own daw? In that case the whole comparision is flawed as the whole soundchain is different. they moddeled the eq, not the whole console.Arys Chien said:
That aside, I think there (ofcourse) will be a (big?) difference between the hardware and software. I just don't think this video is good enough to draw any conclusions.
cheers
Budy