-
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.
Waves V-Series versus UAD Neve plugins
- Thread starter beatpete
- Start date
imdrecordings
Venerated Member
I haven't heard of any toe to toe action, between Waves & UA.
Go for it and let us know...
Maybe post the files and lets us give our opinions, but don't tell us what's what.
I don't think there are to many peeps around here with the Waves V series plugs.
-S-
Go for it and let us know...
Maybe post the files and lets us give our opinions, but don't tell us what's what.
I don't think there are to many peeps around here with the Waves V series plugs.
-S-
I read something over at Gearslutz though... basically what this guys said was that the Waves V stuff is good but unless you compare it to the SE versions of the UAD emulations it's really hard to do a fair comparison since the full versions sound so much better than the Waves V - apparently :lol:
imdrecordings
Venerated Member
HAHAHAHAHAH! :lol: :twisted:Plec said:
I guess you could say the UA NEVEs WUP'd-em :lol:
I have both and though I have not done any in-depth toe-to-toe comparisons, the Waves stuff seems to sound just as good as the non-SE UA stuff. I have gone back and forth using similar settings on projects where I had the UA 1073/1081 loaded and felt the both of them sounded great - I could go either way (though with Waves running natively, latency is lower). It is nice to have the Waves 2254 comp to compliment the UAD 33609.
There are an awful lot of Waves haters out there who are biased against their plug-ins. Yes, they are expensive and the WUP kinda sucks (though it is much better now that it used to be), but they do have some damn nice plugs despite the fact the some refuse to admit it or even try them out. The Waves SSL, V-Series and new L316 limiter are all outstanding, not to mention that Waves Tune is far superior to Auto-Tune IMHO.
There are an awful lot of Waves haters out there who are biased against their plug-ins. Yes, they are expensive and the WUP kinda sucks (though it is much better now that it used to be), but they do have some damn nice plugs despite the fact the some refuse to admit it or even try them out. The Waves SSL, V-Series and new L316 limiter are all outstanding, not to mention that Waves Tune is far superior to Auto-Tune IMHO.
Well.. I like the Waves SSL bundle and use it alot! Waves have great stuff, and nothing they produce is bad. But as Bob Katz said in a post at Gearslutz was that Waves do a great job at producing great plugins that use up very low-cpu power. That said... Waves are superb at making good compromises between cpu load and sound, but I remember when some guys did a real checkup on the Waves Linear Phase stuff and found all sorts of not-so-linear-phase-behaviour in order to save cpu (also gearslutz)... but who's gonna notice? 
Waves Tune is OK but is just a ripoff of the Melodyne concept, and they countered with the Melodyne Plugin which I find sounds and works way better than Waves Tune. Although Auto-Tune can sound better for some voices and singing techniques.
Waves Tune is OK but is just a ripoff of the Melodyne concept, and they countered with the Melodyne Plugin which I find sounds and works way better than Waves Tune. Although Auto-Tune can sound better for some voices and singing techniques.
The whole Melodyne concept is going to be hard too beat. The fact you can take almost audio, break up the transients and analyse the audio with so much ease is great to me. With Antares Autotune, you get this horribly tricky graph unless you use Auto mode.
I haven't used Waves Tune however if it's like anything else they have done it's sure too shine. One thing I will say about Waves, is I find their pricing scheme a bit out of touch with competitors prices.
Perhaps Waves should go the whole hog, add extra DSP instructions that run only hardware. I know they already have the APA 32 DSP units however don't these just off-load the main processing from the host CPU(s) using the same plug-ins?
I haven't used Waves Tune however if it's like anything else they have done it's sure too shine. One thing I will say about Waves, is I find their pricing scheme a bit out of touch with competitors prices.
Perhaps Waves should go the whole hog, add extra DSP instructions that run only hardware. I know they already have the APA 32 DSP units however don't these just off-load the main processing from the host CPU(s) using the same plug-ins?
I think there was somthing on gearslutz about the sslbuss comp to..Plec said:Waves are superb at making good compromises between cpu load and sound, but I remember when some guys did a real checkup on the Waves Linear Phase stuff and found all sorts of not-so-linear-phase-behaviour in order to save cpu (also gearslutz)... but who's gonna notice?
it was about the "analog" knob, somone there said that this knob dosnt do anything according to a test he did...., but in the end of the day he found out that this knob was producing noise....(kinda the way analog behave)
anyhow, I like the waves ssl eq very much, great round sound, good for drums and such...also the compressor is nice, punchy and transparent, I would call it 'The SSL Way' but to bad its without the Class A component, but I'm still using it so +1 for the waves ssl
PS: WUP SUCKS!
About noise etc:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... highlight=
8)
anyway i like them ALOT. SSl Channel is pretty awesome. Now neve channel and i am in heaven
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... highlight=
8)
anyway i like them ALOT. SSl Channel is pretty awesome. Now neve channel and i am in heaven
The analog button on both the SSL and V-Series definately adds noise (really noticeable when applied to lots of tracks) and I don't notice much of a difference/improvement in sound quality. I just wish the \"default\" when you load the plugins was off. BTW, any more comments on my original post, Waves Neve versus UAD neve? I'm loving the V-Series...
I posted the same question at the non-UAD section, it seems nobody wants to answer but talking about all non-relevant WUP. Why is that so? Well at least it's nice to see a few fair opinions here.
By the way, I don't own UAD so I couldn't speak for that. But V-Series has been really great and it's a great compliment for my SSL bundle too. I've observed something judging from the video of the UA 1073, and compared to Waves version, I suspect a e.g. same 6dB boost in UAD ver is not the same in Waves ver (which I suspect it's lower in comparison, say, UA 6dB vs Waves 3~4dB). It could be the video being compressed so the audio quality was not good enough to judge. I suggest whoever got chance to try both, try to use your ears to judge, cloning the setting might lead you to unfair results.
By the way, I don't own UAD so I couldn't speak for that. But V-Series has been really great and it's a great compliment for my SSL bundle too. I've observed something judging from the video of the UA 1073, and compared to Waves version, I suspect a e.g. same 6dB boost in UAD ver is not the same in Waves ver (which I suspect it's lower in comparison, say, UA 6dB vs Waves 3~4dB). It could be the video being compressed so the audio quality was not good enough to judge. I suggest whoever got chance to try both, try to use your ears to judge, cloning the setting might lead you to unfair results.
Where did you get this info from? Some *guy* over at Gearslutz? The V-Series manual states "The V-EQ3 achieves an accurate vintage sound by recreating the unique harmonic distortion and noise characteristics (and therefore the sound color) of the 1073 and 1066 devices. Turning of both the Analogue and EQ switches bypasses this analogue modeling completely."Plec said:
Just more misinformation being spread.....
imdrecordings
Venerated Member
He was refering to the SSL stuff.
I think.
-S- :?
I think.
-S- :?
Well first of all this thread is about the V-Series, but the "Analog" button on the SSL stuff does add distortion as well. When I first got my SSL bundle about a year ago I immediately noticed the distortion added with the Analog button engaged, and it was plainly obvious it was more than just noise added (this was before I read the manual to confirm it).imdrecordings said:
It would just be nice if people would make some attempt at getting accurate information before they go stating things as fact.
Obviously people who said the analog button only add noise are either they don't care to do a proper test, or they don't own it at all while just copy and paste what people said about it.
I did the test, insert EQ over a stereo mix, both gain +12dB and fader -12dB, duplicate the channel with the analog button off, phase invert, master buss gain +38dB, and finally normalize the file. The result is around 30%~40% is the music, while the rest are noise.
And with good monitors, you can hear the new V-Series add more obvious harmonics over the source than the SSL, even with every knobs set default. The added harmonics will make the track somewhat pushed forward.
And guys, please, we do not want anymore WUP comment here as it's way off topic (I can comment the 4 card limitation that cause instances count suffers on high samplerate without fork out extra cash, not so convenient concept and extra latency all day long if you want). All it need here is fair opinions between the 2, it's either you like one more than the other. I can't imagine anyone tried the V-Series will \"hate\" it, it's such a great set of plugins. So I'm expecting to see more comments here, but NOT which one is inferior to the other but rather as simple as which one works for you.
I did the test, insert EQ over a stereo mix, both gain +12dB and fader -12dB, duplicate the channel with the analog button off, phase invert, master buss gain +38dB, and finally normalize the file. The result is around 30%~40% is the music, while the rest are noise.
And with good monitors, you can hear the new V-Series add more obvious harmonics over the source than the SSL, even with every knobs set default. The added harmonics will make the track somewhat pushed forward.
And guys, please, we do not want anymore WUP comment here as it's way off topic (I can comment the 4 card limitation that cause instances count suffers on high samplerate without fork out extra cash, not so convenient concept and extra latency all day long if you want). All it need here is fair opinions between the 2, it's either you like one more than the other. I can't imagine anyone tried the V-Series will \"hate\" it, it's such a great set of plugins. So I'm expecting to see more comments here, but NOT which one is inferior to the other but rather as simple as which one works for you.
Well.. sorry to tell you this, but you guys seem to be misled here. I can understand the need to defend your gear, but in 3 different null-tests I've never had anything left when comparing analogue button on/off, other than the low-level noise it leaves behind.
Just for fun I did a quick fourth... using a 220Hz sinewave at 0db (which shows any added harmonics quite easily)
*Sine wave vs. the same phase reversed = Complete Null
*Sine wave with SSL EQ vs. Unprocessed phase reversed = Complete Null
*Sine wave with SSL EQ and \"Analogue\" button engaged vs. Unprocessed phase reversed = Low-level noise without any signal visually or audibly related to the source material.
*Sine wave with SSL EQ and \"Analogue\" button engaged +11db and countered with -11db at the master fader vs. Unprocessed phase reversed = Low-level noise without any signal visually or audibly related to the source material.
If Pigcat for example got a 60-70% cancellation with music, I should've got A LOT of harmonics left on this sine-wave thing, especially at that level since harmonic generation varies with level and 0dbFS sine-wave is waaaaaaay hotter than ANY musical material you would ever hear, and you know pushing a 0dbFS sine wave through a clean preamp would inject a considerable amount of harmonics into the signal since optimum operating level is at about -14dBFS. The noise of the Waves SSL stuff is down at -120 to -130db or so... any added harmonics would show up instantly over that noisefloor. AND take into consideration that the SSL 4000 is a very \"dirty\" sounding board for being solid-state, which a model should generate harmonics being anything but subtle. :lol:
Basically, people need to learn how to make correct null-tests.
This is the result of the last test-run. If you can find a trace of a 220Hz 0dBFS source signal or any harmonic related to it... I'd be more than happy to admit that I'm wrong. (Watch your speakers! 0DBFS NOISE!!!)
http://www.panicroom-productions.com/eq ... d_Null.wav
Just for fun I did a quick fourth... using a 220Hz sinewave at 0db (which shows any added harmonics quite easily)
*Sine wave vs. the same phase reversed = Complete Null
*Sine wave with SSL EQ vs. Unprocessed phase reversed = Complete Null
*Sine wave with SSL EQ and \"Analogue\" button engaged vs. Unprocessed phase reversed = Low-level noise without any signal visually or audibly related to the source material.
*Sine wave with SSL EQ and \"Analogue\" button engaged +11db and countered with -11db at the master fader vs. Unprocessed phase reversed = Low-level noise without any signal visually or audibly related to the source material.
If Pigcat for example got a 60-70% cancellation with music, I should've got A LOT of harmonics left on this sine-wave thing, especially at that level since harmonic generation varies with level and 0dbFS sine-wave is waaaaaaay hotter than ANY musical material you would ever hear, and you know pushing a 0dbFS sine wave through a clean preamp would inject a considerable amount of harmonics into the signal since optimum operating level is at about -14dBFS. The noise of the Waves SSL stuff is down at -120 to -130db or so... any added harmonics would show up instantly over that noisefloor. AND take into consideration that the SSL 4000 is a very \"dirty\" sounding board for being solid-state, which a model should generate harmonics being anything but subtle. :lol:
Basically, people need to learn how to make correct null-tests.
This is the result of the last test-run. If you can find a trace of a 220Hz 0dBFS source signal or any harmonic related to it... I'd be more than happy to admit that I'm wrong. (Watch your speakers! 0DBFS NOISE!!!)
http://www.panicroom-productions.com/eq ... d_Null.wav