I don't know how about native, but the Powercore version is really cool. 8)mataya said:Hi...Have anybody tryed those. Would really like to hear how do you compare them over UAD plugins or maybe Powercore owners if there are any here.
Thanks
The 88RS, Duende channel strip, and Oxford EQ all cover similar bases. However, the Duende Buss Compressor and Oxford Dynamics don't have any UAD equivalents.afone1977 said:But since i have neve channel strip, i'have no reason to Buy it
The SSL/Oxford are not aggressive in the way the 1176LN is, but rather smoother, silkier, and altogether more modern sounding, great for bringing cohesion to a mix or drum buss and making everything sound just a bit more "finished".saemskin said:which ones are faster and more aggressive in your opinions?
We were able to get the Oxford Dynamics to sound very similar to the Alan Smart C1 by turning the warmth up to 75%.Plec said:Dynamics:
I actually think that the VST Dynamics that come with Nuendo sound better for some stuff than the Oxford Dynamics. The "Warmth" section also doesn't sound quite there,, I think the Warmth option in Waves RComp sound more musical in comparison if that's what you need.
Not impressed at all.
It's very natural and uncolored sounding, I myself wasn't too impressed with it the first time I used it but have grown to love it after using the Duende so muchEQ:
No biggie here either, I find the PSP Neon to sound a bit better (not linear-phase) and after that I'd say Cambridge sounds better than Oxford EQ.
Not impressed at all.
They're totally different in goals, the Inflator isn't supposed to sound clean and is best when used beside a real loudness maximizer like Ozone.Inflator:
Same thing here, what can I say. If you want loudness, I think it still sounds way better to clip the front end of a good A/D. Also, iZotope Ozone sounds quite a bit cleaner at the same "loudness" as Inflator.
Not impressed at all.
The Limiter's Enhance section is the same algorithm as the Inflator and the Dynamic's Warmth control. I can understand why you might like it better in this application, though, since it's more responsive in the Limiter while the Inflator's sound is ever-present.Limiter:
Well, the limiter section doesn't sound that good to me. Again the Ozone actually sounds better, BUT the Enhance section is really really good! If you need the extra level... the Enhance section will do a MUCH better job than the Inflator IMO. A good combination would be the Ozone Limiter, Oxford Limiters Enhance, and then use the AutoComp to protect against reconstruction overs and then the Ozone Megabitmax dither.
Wow.... uhhmmm..... ok..... just try taking up 8dbs of 10k shelve on the sonnox and then do the same with the Cambridge on a vocal track. For me the Cambridge sounds like breaking glass.... the sonnox is very, very smooth for a digital plugin.....Plec said:I for one don't like them at all.
EQ:
No biggie here either, I find the PSP Neon to sound a bit better (not linear-phase) and after that I'd say Cambridge sounds better than Oxford EQ.
Not impressed at all.
That's really funny to me. I have a C2 and I can not make a connection between how that unit sounds and the warmth control of Dynamics. According to Smart, he says that the differences soundwise between the C1 and C2 should be almost identical. To me the Smart sounds very clean and the Warmth control seems to mimic transformer and tube saturation?We were able to get the Oxford Dynamics to sound very similar to the Alan Smart C1 by turning the warmth up to 75%.
I think you might have confused those, Eric. According to Paul Frindle who designed them, the Warmth control and the Inflator are the same but the limiter is different. Here's a quote from Gearslutz by Paul.The Limiter's Enhance section is the same algorithm as the Inflator and the Dynamic's Warmth control. I can understand why you might like it better in this application, though, since it's more responsive in the Limiter while the Inflator's sound is ever-present.
I think shelves sound better with the Sonnox than the Cambridge. But Hi/Lo pass filters, paramteric cuts and boosts sound better with Cambridge and all of the above sound better with the PSP Neon, except for the hi pass filters that I don't like on the Neon.lordward said:Wow.... uhhmmm..... ok..... just try taking up 8dbs of 10k shelve on the sonnox and then do the same with the Cambridge on a vocal track. For me the Cambridge sounds like breaking glass.... the sonnox is very, very smooth for a digital plugin.....
I'm curious how you came to this assessment of the sonnox? You don't have to like it but to say that the Cambridge sounds better leaves me kind of floored since I use them both daily and really notice the differences.
DW
Ok. I don't agree but ok.Plec said:I think shelves sound better with the Sonnox than the Cambridge. But Hi/Lo pass filters, paramteric cuts and boosts sound better with Cambridge and all of the above sound better with the PSP Neon, except for the hi pass filters that I don't like on the Neon.lordward said:Wow.... uhhmmm..... ok..... just try taking up 8dbs of 10k shelve on the sonnox and then do the same with the Cambridge on a vocal track. For me the Cambridge sounds like breaking glass.... the sonnox is very, very smooth for a digital plugin.....
I'm curious how you came to this assessment of the sonnox? You don't have to like it but to say that the Cambridge sounds better leaves me kind of floored since I use them both daily and really notice the differences.
DW
Since the Sonnox EQ has four different modes I'm not sure what to make out of the comments made in this thread. Which mode are you discussing? Or does the statement above relate to all modes?Cabbage said:When the Cambridge was first released, UA claimed that the reason the Oxford EQ has a reputation of being smooth is that it does not do what it says it is doing. If you boost 5dB (according to the GUI), the plug-in will give you less than 5dB, and will therefore sound smoother. So, if you want to make a fair comparison you have to boost more on the Oxford. Don't know if this is true, but given the (unfortunate) name of the UA plug-in, they knew what they were going after.
...
Petter
Too late, time to stand up like a real viking and prepare for battle!Plec said:Just so you know, I'm not trying to start a battle even if it may come across like that.
The person who's C1 we were using in the test said he chose the C1 over the C2 specifically because of its warmer sound. The picture of the C1's innards on Smart's site clearly show transformers, are these also in the C2?According to Smart, he says that the differences soundwise between the C1 and C2 should be almost identical. To me the Smart sounds very clean and the Warmth control seems to mimic transformer and tube saturation?
Yes, you must be right. I'm not sure where I heard the bit about them being the same algorithm but it wasn't straight from the horse's mouth. I've found what he said about using the Inflator together with the Limiter to be completely true and the Inflator/Brickwall combination sounds much better to me than the Limiter does on its own.I think you might have confused those, Eric. According to Paul Frindle who designed them, the Warmth control and the Inflator are the same but the limiter is different.