# So I made a compressor+EQ comparison between plugins and hardware...



## charlieclouser (Jun 3, 2020)

Hey kids. While editing and processing some drums I recently recorded, I decided to compare my hardware Distressors and AMS-Neve 1084 units to their closest equivalents in the plug-in world. I took just the room mics from a four-bar chunk of war-drum action played on floor toms and set up "as close as I could get it" sounds on both hardware and plugins (level matched to within 1db), bounced the files, digitally level-matched them to within 0.1db, and exported the files with conversion from 96kHz down to 48kHz using Logic's sample rate conversion.

The compressors were: Logic's stock Compressor plugin (in "Platinum Digital" mode), the UAD model of the Distressor, and my actual hardware Distressor pair.

The EQ's were: Logic's Vintage Console EQ, the UAD model of the Neve 1073, and my actual hardware AMS-Neve 1084 pair (with the switches set to mirror the settings available on a 1073). 

I'm impressed at how close I was able to get the plugins to sound like the hardware - or, more accurately, I'm impressed that the hardware could get close to the sounds I had already set up on the plugins.

I created a thread on Gearslutz with lengthy explanations and all the audio files attached. Get on over there and join the flame war!









Here's a hardware vs plugin shootout for ya - Gearspace.com


POST ONE of THREE I've been doing some processing on some live drum recordings for an upcoming project, and I just finished auditioning about 200 different EQ plugins and about 150 different Dynamics plugins... AND comparing them to my hardware. So I deci



www.gearslutz.com


----------



## doctoremmet (Jun 3, 2020)

This is very interesting. Will check the files! Thanks!


----------



## shomynik (Jun 3, 2020)

Awesome! Thank you for sharing this!


----------



## Daniel (Jun 3, 2020)

Thank you!


----------



## charlieclouser (Jun 3, 2020)

Interested to hear opinions on the comparisons....


----------



## purple (Jun 3, 2020)

My personal ranking in terms of what I liked best from the ABC comparison is :
BAC

But the differences were so small. I bet if I reshuffled them and did it again, maybe tomorrow, the results may vary. The problem with tests like this is they must be repeated and shuffled for accurate results. If you listen to two things, you will hear different things in them, even if the plugin is bypassed. It is only if the results can be repeated across multiple blind trials potentially over a longer stretch of time that the differences really _mean_ anything. And at the same time, if that's what it takes to confirm a difference, maybe it's not as relevant as we think. It won't be to 99.9% of the population anyways.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 3, 2020)

charlieclouser said:


> Interested to hear opinions on the comparisons....



Note: file 3 compressor shoot out.


I thought the first processed clip sounded more natural with a lot of air in the sound.
Two: More aggressive. Lost a lot of to room. Ambience getting cut out. Sounded harsh.
Three: Probably my favorite. Lots of room sound, big sounding. Warmer more round but still slammin'.

Of the 3 versions, number 2 is the one I liked the least.

Any hints on which is which?

Edit: I only listen to post three of three. I didn't see the rest ahead of it.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 3, 2020)

File 1: EQ shootout

Clip two sounded more natural to me. The others okay but not much different. Hard to tell with just EQ.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 3, 2020)

File 2: EQ Comp

Clip one sounded more natural again. Clip 2 way terrible imo with the EQ and compressor combined. Clip 3 my favorite again. I like the open sound, slammin' but not harsh though there's a little bit more high end sizzle in that one. Not usually a fan of that but it seems to be working here.


----------



## charlieclouser (Jun 3, 2020)

josejherring said:


> Any hints on which is which?



All shall be revealed in a day or so, once the gear slutz have had a chance to argue a bit more.
*
- EDIT - SPOILER ALERT -*

Well, I thought there would surely be a bunch of hardware die-hards showing up on Gearslutz to state that there were clear, obvious differences between each two-bar A-B-C loops in the twelve-bar chunks, but... only one customer actually took a swing at identifying which was which in the example files (and only got one out of nine right). There's a lot of text-only evangelists over there, but almost none who were ready to step up. I guess maybe the differences were too subtle? You can find any number of threads with dozens (hundreds) of pages of posts endlessly talking, talking, talking about this gear vs that gear, but almost never with audio examples or comparisons. Lots of big-swinging-dick talk, but few willing to pull their pants down.

And the few comparisons and examples I have found are usually worse than useless - not level-matched, or using two different takes of a singer instead of the SAME take recorded with two mics side-by-side, etc. The way to accurately compare processing is to have the EXACT same source recording, with levels matched to less than 1db, and preferably with the various examples being short enough to concentrate on a single hit / strum / syllable and compare how the different processors treat that one molecule of audio. Nobody seems to do that, but that's what I wanted to do with my comparisons.

As usual, there were a few who said, "I didn't listen to the examples, but here's what I think", one who only said he hated the sound of the example in general and that it wasn't "his cup of mush", and one who said something like, "Maybe if you weren't trying to polish a turd it would have been a better comparison". In that case, keep your forked tongue behind your teeth. Shaving 3db off a vocal that was recorded with a u47 is something the tea-boy can do with whatever gear or plugin is handy, but polishing a turd takes WORK!

I'm of the opinion that when you're just trying to add an extra 5% of fairy-dust to an already decent-sounding recording, just about any tool can get you there - and then it might not make as much sense to spend thousand$ for a slight improvement. But when you need to do some really heavy lifting, really put the boot to it, THAT's when the differences between different tools become more apparent, and so many of them just fall over - and that's when it might make more sense to spend thousand$ because you're dealing with a source that needs all the help it can get. If I only need to go down the block for a quart of milk, then a Toyota or a Bentley will get me there and back, but if I need to maintain 90mph for hours over rocks and sand, then the list of tools that are up to the job becomes much shorter. THAT's why I chose the roughest, rawest, most in-need-of-work recording I had on hand to do the comparisons - because then it's more like the Baja 1000 and not a milk run. Oh well, par for the course over there I guess.

Aaaaannnnnyyyyywaaaayyyy here's the reveals:

In ALL of the "ABC" files, the first two-bar chunk (A) is Logic's stock plugins, the second two-bar chunk (B) is UAD plugins, and the third two-bar chunk (C) is hardware.

In the "CompEq" test, the three different EQs are all going through Logic's stock Compressor afterwards.

In the "Comp" test, the three different compressors are all going through Logic's stock Vintage Console EQ before the compressors.

I chose the room mic pair for this test because it was the "worst" sounding of all the mic positions, and would need the most heavy lifting from EQ and compression, and I must say I was surprised that there was not a bigger difference between $8k worth of hardware, $2k worth of UAD DSP and plugins, and the Logic plugins which are basically free. I heard the biggest difference in the compressors, where the hardware Distressors had just a tiny bit different "bite" on the attack which I do like, but for the EQs it was basically a wash. That said, the Logic stock Compressor can go much, much harder than it did in this test and can put an absolutely massive amount of hurt on the signal without chattering on low frequencies or breaking up, whereas every single other plugin I have that emulates hardware couldn't get anywhere near what Compressor can do without needing a ton of tweaking of release times to prevent bad sounds from happening.

Is this test conclusive for all applications and all situations, and can we now officially declare hardware dead? No. But it sure illustrates how far plugins - even the stock ones in Logic - have come.


----------



## wilifordmusic (Jun 4, 2020)

Charlie, thanks for taking the time to do this and share with us.

Steve


----------



## dgburns (Jun 4, 2020)

charlieclouser said:


> Interested to hear opinions on the comparisons....



I hear what you mean by more bite on the distressors. I think I agree that the eq was not as much of a difference, and this makes a degree of sense. I wonder if distressors were the best choice for this kind of test?
You know, sometimes it’s about using hardware because it is tactile, and you get to a setting that you might not get in the plugin, not that the plugin is bad or anything. But I will add that going into a bunch of hardware with trannies going into the converters seems to be better for me than going in dry and then inserting hardware by going round trip using inserts. I think once in the daw, it is a toss up if hardware has any improvement over the plugins. The plugins have the advantage of no degradation by going out the converters and are recallable. But I feel that interfacing say, a mic pre into a comp, assuming trannies on both, I feel the hardware boxes talk to each other differently than when I use the comps as inserts through the converters. I can push into the compressor harder and it gives that certain tranny saturation I can’t seem to get as easily any other way. Bass gtr especially makes it very noticeable.
Can’t get that with the Logic comp, but find the waves CLA has more of the saturation and knee you are hearing with the distressors.
So for me, hardware all the way while going into daw, then it’s pretty much a crap shoot. But I must admit I have dusted off my old mixer and have had interesting results pushing out stems into it for some mixing. Maybe too much time on my hands?


----------



## José Herring (Jun 4, 2020)

Thanks for doing this. It confirmed a lot of my suspicions. I'm actually socked that the UAD comp in my ears performed the worst. Yes the EQ was probably one of the better. The UAD EQ combined with the UAD compressor was so nasty it was practically unbearable. I marginally preferred #3 when everything was all in. Logic stock stuff is good. Almost as good as the hardware and really given the age of those plugins is quite remarkable.


----------



## sourcefor (Jun 4, 2020)

Yeah late to the party but I was partial to C but all could pass the test! Thanks for this! I got rid of my Distressor when I was able to get nearly the same sound with logics classic vca comp and my dbx160x. But still want it back!


----------



## charlieclouser (Jun 5, 2020)

josejherring said:


> Thanks for doing this. It confirmed a lot of my suspicions. I'm actually socked that the UAD comp in my ears performed the worst. Yes the EQ was probably one of the better. The UAD EQ combined with the UAD compressor was so nasty it was practically unbearable. I marginally preferred #3 when everything was all in. Logic stock stuff is good. Almost as good as the hardware and really given the age of those plugins is quite remarkable.



You may have misinterpreted some of my descriptions as to what was in each of the tests.

- On the first test / first post, there is no compression, and the ABC file compares Logic Vintage Console EQ, UAD Neve 1073, and hardware AMS Neve 1084.

- On the second test / second post, the ABC file compares the same three EQ's as above, but all going through the Logic stock Compressor afterwards.

- On the third test / third post, the ABC file has the audio going through Logic's Vintage Console EQ first and then through three different compressors - Logic's Compressor, UAD Distressor, and hardware Distressor.

So at no point in the example files do we hear UAD EQ and UAD Compressor at the same time. Whenever we hear UAD EQ with compression, it's going through Logic's Compressor after the comp, and whenever we hear UAD compression it's going through Logic's Vintage Console EQ beforehand. Sorry if the descriptions were confusing.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 5, 2020)

charlieclouser said:


> You may have misinterpreted some of my descriptions as to what was in each of the tests.
> 
> - On the first test / first post, there is no compression, and the ABC file compares Logic Vintage Console EQ, UAD Neve 1073, and hardware AMS Neve 1084.
> 
> ...


Yeah probably did. I heard the last example first. And in that example 1 was good, clip 2 sucked, and clip 3 was very good. 

How ever it all got to that, I couldn't keep up.


----------



## charlieclouser (Jun 5, 2020)

dgburns said:


> I hear what you mean by more bite on the distressors. I think I agree that the eq was not as much of a difference, and this makes a degree of sense. I wonder if distressors were the best choice for this kind of test?



Well, out of all my hardware the Distressors were the best for a zero-attack-time, 12db gain reduction situation. The 1176's in my UA 6176 units don't grab as fast (there's always a "pip" on the attack) and the Kush / UBK modified Fatso doesn't have the ability to tailor the release time to eliminate chattering when getting that amount of gain reduction. It's great on more complete mixes or stems, and can get you into Portishead territory for sure, but on these big war toms it didn't behave. Plus I had no direct equivalent in plugin form really.



dgburns said:


> You know, sometimes it’s about using hardware because it is tactile, and you get to a setting that you might not get in the plugin, not that the plugin is bad or anything.



For me that's not so much the case any more. After 35 years with so many different pieces of hardware with arbitrary control markings, and so many plugins with either flat or skeumorphic UI's, I seem to be operating more by ear (and metering) and paying less attention to whatever the legends on the controls are saying. When Logic's Compressor shows attack+release in ms and the Distressor just uses some arbitrary number between 0 and 10, there's no choice but to operate by ear if you're trying to match them. That's why I use a short phrase for this kind of test+compare, so I can listen hard to just one particular hit in the phrase as it loops and try to get both compressors to let go at the same rate.



dgburns said:


> But I will add that going into a bunch of hardware with trannies going into the converters seems to be better for me than going in dry and then inserting hardware by going round trip using inserts. I think once in the daw, it is a toss up if hardware has any improvement over the plugins. The plugins have the advantage of no degradation by going out the converters and are recallable. But I feel that interfacing say, a mic pre into a comp, assuming trannies on both, I feel the hardware boxes talk to each other differently than when I use the comps as inserts through the converters. I can push into the compressor harder and it gives that certain tranny saturation I can’t seem to get as easily any other way. Bass gtr especially makes it very noticeable.
> Can’t get that with the Logic comp, but find the waves CLA has more of the saturation and knee you are hearing with the distressors.
> So for me, hardware all the way while going into daw, then it’s pretty much a crap shoot. But I must admit I have dusted off my old mixer and have had interesting results pushing out stems into it for some mixing. Maybe too much time on my hands?



Oh absolutely. That's why I still have the hardware, even if it's not practical to mix a 200-track cue in half a day through anything other than plugins. I use the hardware mostly on the way in, but in the case of these recordings I needed to record a HUGE amount of material in about ten days when I had the crew, players, and some borrowed+rented instruments on site. After a day of setup and testing, we recorded a different instrument / ensemble setup each day and captured about four hours (!!!) of performances a day. So it made more sense to record clean and concentrate on instrument tuning and mic positions and leave tracking eq+comp out of the picture. We were recording a lot of really quiet stuff as well as the war drums, and spent so much time chasing stand rattle, head flap, moon gels coming loose, player's breath noises, and other miscellany that if we'd been trying to "get a sound" from eq+comp on the way in we'd probably still be recording months later! Plus, I knew I'd want to use the raw recordings through a variety of processing to create different results down the road, and I didn't want to lock myself in to one sound on the day. So we tracked through the CraneSong Spider and my 1084's (with eq's bypassed) and didn't use any compression off the floor. 

When I'm tracking in place on a cue, I usually use the 1084>Distressors chain if I'm only using two mics, and if I need more mics I usually use the CraneSong Spider with UBK Fatso on the stereo inserts, and commit to a stereo blend on the front of the Spider right then and there. Works pretty good so far.


----------



## Beluga (Jun 5, 2020)

Well, the differences are minimal and more due to the settings I suppose with the first A obviously having a quicker release tail bringing the release out more and the second cutting it out more.

The second has a bit more low mid warmth and the third sounds thinnest or cleanest if you will. This could also be related to EQ settings or anyway easily adapted by EQ.

I tested my tube distortion in my pre-amp against decapitator and concluded that the difference was not important enough to go through the trouble of running the signal out of the box into the hardware distortion. Yes maybe it's slightly richer, ever so small but not important enough to make an artistic impact.

Does it mean I'm not using it? Of course not, I still use it when recording. I have two different tubes in them and find the difference between them fascinating.

I think what makes sense to use hardware gear is more a workflow thing and the way of using it. I'm not a synth guy so I bought a hardware synth to get more into it. I'm still using my software synths but with the hardware synth I'm getting different sounds. So I suppose it's the same with the compressor. Maybe when recording the hardware setting will give a new sound/different approach.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Jun 5, 2020)

charlieclouser said:


> You can find any number of threads with dozens (hundreds) of pages of posts endlessly talking, talking, talking about this gear vs that gear, but almost never with audio examples or comparisons. Lots of big-swinging-dick talk, but few willing to pull their pants down.


Huh. Sounds like another forum I know where there's lots of arguing over the latest Spitfire GUI or "which legato is best" at the expense of actual music.

Anyway, thanks for this Charlie. I was surprised more Gearslutz didn't bite either. I've been using Logic stock only for a while now and haven't felt the pressing need to go further.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 5, 2020)

I don't own any hardware anymore but I did this a while back.









macProVideo.com


The new Vintage EQ plug-ins that come with Logic Pro's 10.4 update may punch above their weight, but can they take on UAD's mighty DSP-powered emulations? Jay A




www.macprovideo.com


----------



## wst3 (Jun 5, 2020)

a million ways to do the test, nothing wrong with your approach.

As a die-hard dinosaur I have to admit I found the differences between the three to be much more subtle than I expected. I figured the UAD plugins might be pretty close to the hardware, that has been my experience, I did not expect the Logic plugins to be that close.

On my laptop I can't hear any differences, on my meager studio monitors I do hear subtle differences, but not such that I'd even take a swing at identifying them, and I think it impossible to even grade them, they are different, but nothing glaringly bad, or remarkably good.

I have not, yet, given up on hardware, but I am headed that way. I still think I prefer the hardware, I make no claims that it is better. And I don't own a lot of the more exotic hardware for which I have plugins. I have a pair of hot-rodded Orban 672s and a pair of soon to be hot-rodded Urei LA-4s, and I don't think I'll be selling them anytime soon, but they don't get nearly the exercise they once did.

We truly live in a time when we can do things I never dreamed of when I first started.

Thanks for once again raining on my "get off my lawn" parade Charlie<G>!

Post-script: while there is no clear difference between the best of the hardware and software processors - meaning if I can't hear the difference I'm using the software - there remains a difference between microphones. Not between hardware and modeled, but just between microphones. That fascinates me.

I have done mediocre comparisons in my studio and there are just certain models I prefer. A big part of that is ease of placement, or relative immunity to placement, if I can just sit down and start playing without fiddling around with placement I'm a happy camper. But even when I do fiddle around there are just some microphones which rise to the top. I am not claiming this is a scientific, well disciplined test, just my results. And ironically, I don't even own my favorites - can't possibly justify the investment since I no longer record other people. Now if I win the lottery????


----------



## charlieclouser (Jun 5, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> I don't own any hardware anymore but I did this a while back.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good one Jay. I hadn't seen those before but they definitely confirmed my findings - and thanks for formatting the comparisons the "right" way, which makes it easy to hear how close Logic's Vintage EQ's are to the big, expensive guns. Dang but the Logic team are really crushing it lately, eh?


----------



## charlieclouser (Jun 5, 2020)

wst3 said:


> As a die-hard dinosaur I have to admit I found the differences between the three to be much more subtle than I expected. I figured the UAD plugins might be pretty close to the hardware, that has been my experience, I did not expect the Logic plugins to be that close.



I didn't expect the results I got either. I wasn't all that surprised that Logic's plugins got so close to the UAD stuff, but I fully expected that when I compared them against the real hardware that it would feel like a huge amount of calories or caffeine had been added to the sound, and that within ten minutes I'd be on the Vintage King website pricing vintage Neve 80 series consoles.

Not so much!

In a way I'm kind of glad that the demands of mixing for film+tv (massive track counts, unrealistic deadlines, and wide stem counts) kind of rule out my ever going back to a big analog console. The day I unplugged all those expensive custom-wired 56-pin EDAC connectors on the back of my rigs was bittersweet, but mostly because I realized that many of the wires had never had a signal pass through them on their way to my bank account! I jumped into mixing and processing ITB probably a little earlier than most, and a little before today's golden age of awesome plugins, but I love the sound and the level of control I have now. Don't miss the olden days at all.

But I do agree that microphones remain an area where it REALLY matters, and where jumping through hoops and spending heaps is still warranted. That, and monitor speakers as well.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 5, 2020)

On microphones, it depends, Charlie. On my vocals on my album, “Honestly “ I sang them all through a $500 EV-RE 20, which matches my voice better than a $20,000 U-47.


----------



## JJP (Jun 5, 2020)

charlieclouser said:


> But I do agree that microphones remain an area where it REALLY matters, and where jumping through hoops and spending heaps is still warranted. That, and monitor speakers as well.



Yes to the monitors! I did a monitor shootout in a controlled environment with an acoustical engineer and a studio architect last year. I will never question the value of good monitors in a properly-treated room.


----------



## charlieclouser (Jun 5, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> On microphones, it depends, Charlie. On my vocals on my album, “Honestly “ I sang them all through a $500 EV-RE 20, which matches my voice better than a $20,000 U-47.



Obviously for vocals it's much more of a case of what matches the pipes. On the Helmet record I produced nearly 20 years ago, we borrowed Jimmy Iovine's personal ELA M 251 (insured for $25k at the time), rented about a dozen mics including U-47, M-149, M-147, and SM-7b, and I had some 58's and some Oktava LDC tube mics that I got on blowout from Banjo Center for $99 each.

We also had Jimmy's rack of various Neve preamp/eq modules, some v-72's, and his Fairchild.

The 251 was, not surprisingly, the winner by a large margin - just a god-like tone. Second place was the M-149. The M-147 sounded like ass on Page's voice. U-47 was pleasing up top but wrong for his voice; it had a weird roughness to the low end when he pushed it. The SM-7b was the clear winner for metal scream takes. None of the other rentals made the cut. The only other tube mic that made the grade was my $99 Oktava tube mics. In the end they were too noisy to use, and they failed at an amazing rate. I had eight of them (!!!) and two failed on the first day during the shootout. No two sounded the same but they all had a very pleasing tone and "tube squash" character to them. So for vocals ya just never know until you try 'em.

I will say when it comes to non-vocal recording, for me the M-149 is the lord of all microphones - I've never heard it sound wrong for the source and always seems to make everything sound bigger and better than real life - but for $5k each it had better!


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 6, 2020)

Agreed , love M-149, I believe that is the mic they mostly use with Sarah McLachlan.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 6, 2020)

charlieclouser said:


> But I do agree that microphones remain an area where it REALLY matters, and where jumping through hoops and spending heaps is still warranted. That, and monitor speakers as well.



Mic preamps can make a big difference too.


----------



## robgb (Jun 6, 2020)

I honestly don't know why anyone bothers with hardware anymore. I have a ton of it taking up an entire corner of my garage. I should probably sell it all to somebody who thinks hardware is the greatest, but for some reason I'm reluctant to part with any of it. Part of my history, I guess. Today I'm completely in the box. See no reason to go outside of it, except for vocals and live instruments. And even those get EQ'd and compressed inside.


----------



## Henu (Jun 8, 2020)

robgb said:


> I honestly don't know why anyone bothers with hardware anymore.



Mastering.


----------

