• 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.

Sonnox Oxford Native plugins

mataya

Member
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
 

Campos

Member
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
I don't know how about native, but the Powercore version is really cool. 8)
 

Fundy

Established Member
I think the only difference will be how the core of the DSP code is implemented within the native versions. With the advent of modern processors, Sonnox are able too take advantage of their optimisations. So, don't quote me, the Powercore shouldn't sound much different from the native. Also it's down to preference in which sound you prefer.
 

afone1977

Active Member
IMO very good plugins, the only native plugin that don't make me laught compare to UAD-1,

the dynamic plugin is huge and so musical,

But since i have neve channel strip, i'have no reason to Buy it (they are very expensive too : aBout 1600 usd i think for a 6pack)

i could'nt try the reverB
it didn't work on my system

But many tell it's awesome
 

mataya

Member
I tried the demo plugs and I got to say they sound pretty good to me..I don't own UAD anymore so it's hard for me to compare them,but for now I think they are veryi useful...hm..I think UAD is never going to be native because they can't think of a protection solution that is good as with current product,DSP..
 

Eric Dahlberg

Purveyor of musical dreams fullfilled.
afone1977 said:
But since i have neve channel strip, i'have no reason to Buy it
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.
 

saemskin

Established Member
which ones are faster and more aggressive in your opinions?
 

Plec

Venerated Member
I for one don't like them at all. :)

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.

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.

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.

TransMod:
Really cool! Thumbs Up!

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.

To be honest, I can't understand what the rave was all about with these plugins. IMHO the quality of UAD are way better. Maybe I'm a bit harsh because I was expecting something extraordinary judging from all the reviews and just felt really let down when they didn't stand up to my expectations. The Sony Oxford plugins to me, sound like pretty much any other plugins out there.

But of course I will review them again in a year or so to see if I've changed my mind about any of them. These are my impressions thus far though.
 

baronluigi

Active Member
So Sonnox = Sony?

I had a poco but sold it a few years back. The Oxford EQ was way better than the UAD Cambridge, just sounded more musical and smooth. (I actually never use the Cambridge)

I am curious about the Oxford Reverb and how it compares to Dreamverb and Waves IR-1 (my go to reverb).

The UAD Neve stuff is awsome, so is Waves SSL. I don't think the Oxford is in the same league, not as pristine sounding, but maybe a real Neve sounds better than a Sony OXF board.

I wonder if UAD has an API Strip in the works???
 

Eric Dahlberg

Purveyor of musical dreams fullfilled.
saemskin said:
which ones are faster and more aggressive in your opinions?
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".
 

Eric Dahlberg

Purveyor of musical dreams fullfilled.
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.
We were able to get the Oxford Dynamics to sound very similar to the Alan Smart C1 by turning the warmth up to 75%.

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.
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 much

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.
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.

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.
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.
 

lordward

Active Member
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.
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
 

Plec

Venerated Member
Hey Eric!
Just so you know, I'm not trying to start a battle even if it may come across like that. I value your opinions always, so please don't take anything personally. Cheers mate!

We were able to get the Oxford Dynamics to sound very similar to the Alan Smart C1 by turning the warmth up to 75%.
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?

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 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.

-----------
I don't know where I have supposed to have said that the inflator and limiter are similar?! But they are not at all and are definitely not interchangeable in any way.

The inflator very basically speaking is a special kind of 'distortion generator' that has no dynamic activitiy over time, in other words it's a static process (i.e. it is not a compressor). It is designed to give the impression of loudness by providing the harmonic cues we associate with loud and stressed sounds - and increase the harmonic density of the programme in a way that is sympathetic to the ear.

The enhance function of the limiter is a special kind of dynamic process that does not add distortion to steady state signals. It works over time, programme history, peak and average levels and LR stereo differences to limit the signal and squash peak events, whilst providing the listener with the impression that the peaks are still there! In this way it can sympathetically remove peak events so that you can provide more transparent limiting, or make the programme even louder without causing sample value overs.

If you try to use the limiter and the inflator together you get mixed results depending on the programme. Although they have totally different ways of working and provide different effects, they can accentuate the side effects of each other in a way that can be counter productive and end up sounding worse.
 

Plec

Venerated Member
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
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Sonnox is the one of a kind plugins and I really love it.
UAD-1 is great too, but I just can't compare both because those are different objective IMO.

If you're interested, you can try the demo and if it's worth to have, buy it.
I also did it. ;)

UAD-1 is a bit difficult to try the demo because it's necessary to have UAD-1 dsp card already...
Sonnox, you just need to have iLok.
Very easy. 8)
 

lordward

Active Member
Plec said:
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
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.
Ok. I don't agree but ok.
I think the Cambridge has more flexibility but to my ears the Sonnox sound smoother and especially noticeable when boosting anywhere.

Each to his own.....
DW
 

Cabbage

Active Member
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.

Dynamics - I have difficulties getting a good sound out of it. Supposed to be transparent, but I can't find the sweet spot.
Inflator - Great as a quick fix, when you don't have much time to screw around.
TransMod - Simply great!
Reverb - Sounds terrible soloed, but really works in a mix. Can't make up my mind on this one.


Petter
 

replicant

Active Member
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
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?

To me their great tools to have in the toolbox, but again if it doesn't do it for you, fine by me. :wink:
 

Eric Dahlberg

Purveyor of musical dreams fullfilled.
Plec said:
Just so you know, I'm not trying to start a battle even if it may come across like that.
Too late, time to stand up like a real viking and prepare for battle! ;)

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?
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?



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.
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.
 
UAD Bundle Month
Top