Impact Beats Waves SSL!!!!!

[roberts]

Waves SSL Compressor down for the count Impact blows Waves away!!

Look here...
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/showt...t=59093&page=3

[Rail Jon Rogut]

How do you come to that conclusion? The thread indicates that the Waves SSL plug-in and the SSL G384 hardware are very, very close -- with a lot of folks unable to discern between them or feel the difference is negligible.

Rail

[roberts]

Phase reverse using a level meter. Impact Attack and release times were almost identical to the SSL hardware.
There was no pumping at all. But when you phase cancelled the URS and the Waves reverse phase showed pumping which indicates attack and releases are very different from the hardware. If fact when I did the bind test I tought Waves matched the Impact and I realy thought that the real SSL file was a Plug-in I was wrong and very impressed how much Impact came the closest to matching SSL hardware.
All I can say to the guys at Digi would did the programming on Impact is "NICE GOING" You nailed Impact dead on on!!

Waves came a close 2nd and the URS 1980 was 3rd. But as I said the attacks and reales were off the SSL
The RMS phase cancels on impact lower that -50db

BUT with that said they were all really close but Impact sounded the closest to the SSL hardware than Waves.
Just comparing Waves to the Hardware the hardware sounded more open to me.
In the thst Waves VS SSL test/poll most people could tell the difference.

Not that this really matters in the big picture BUT Impact is way cheaper than the Waves bundle.

[filmixer]

I took those little tests on Gearslutz and preferred #2 in the first test and #3 in the second test. Both were the hardware. That being said, I must say I think there were some big flaws in the methodology. For one, since the hardware had to be patched in with some converters, he patched converters across the plugins as well to "even it out" I guess. That's not how anyone uses plugins. They should have been used "clean" and not through a DA/AD patch. For two, the music sample used was just that, samples. Samples and digital reverb. I didn't think the mix sounded very good to start with and certainly wasn't a high resolution source. Which brings us to three. The test was done at 44.1k. I think a test like this should be done at 88.2 at least, so that the plugins are running close to the same audio bandwidth as the hardware. A real test for me would be a live band, maybe a three piece rock or jazz outfit, right off the mics. A stereo mix would feed the hardware, then into Pro Tools at 96k. An additional clean feed would go to additional tracks where the plugins would be applied. I think then we could hear more of the differences. What I though was funny about this test were the people that didn't just pick the one they liked the best, like I did, but were big hardware fans trying to guess which one was the hardware or not. Statements like "I like #1 better, sounds more squishy and nice, #2 sounded a little boring. I'd say listening to my crappy computer monitors that #1 is the hardware". And " For me it's number one. The snare has more punch and the release feels more even throughout the file. And "I'm pretty sure I wouldn't change my mind if I took the files to the studio in order to listen to them on good monitors. I think #1 is hardware, too." And here is "The Epitome of Gearslutz" list:
"#1 has more anomolies and vibe factor. Sounds like the analog one to me."

"They sound almost identicle. I'm guessing 2 is the plug-in

No. 1 is the analog one i reckon

Well, overall I like No.1 better, it´s got more punch, more bass

i still think 1 is the real deal 2 is the plug....1 sounds better anyway

1 is hardware.

to my ears no2 screams digital

#1 is analog # 2 in the plug-in

1 is hardware, much more dense, less open. more of a vibe"

They were all wrong.

Whoops. One more big flaw I almost forgot about. The SSL hardware was a FX G384 outboard unit. Not an actual G-series buss compressor installed in a console, which the plugin was modeled from.

[thermal]

To me, there is no comparison sonically. The SSL Quad sounds unbelievable! I bought it today after using it on one session.
It's a must have, IMO. It just sounds awesome. This is glue - sticky, thick glue that makes the rhythm secion rock! Impact sounds good, but not amazing. The SSL bundle lists for $1600.00, (worth every penny) but you can get it from Thomas at Alto Music for $899.00

Use your ears, not your eyes.

[LivetrackinNYC]

Jeremy,

I think you got the results mixed up


http://gearslutz.com/board/showpost....9&postcount=68



OK guys....and the result is:

1=URS 25.76%
2=Waves 9.09%
3=SSL 37.88%

surprise1=UAD-1 GateComp
surprise2=Voxengo Marquis

I think I made a mistake with the poll. I should have asked: What do you think sounds closest to the SSL and post the SSL audio as a reference.

The problem is that the test/thread begun with only two audio files, the Waves plugin and the SSL hardware. Later when adding others it didn't occur to me to change the poll.

Because if you like something better what does that mean for anyone else anyway? Do you get my drift?

Never mind....Now that you know what audio file is the SSL hardware you can still post your findings what comes closest to the real thing.

I promise next time I do something more useful with a long Saturday...

[roberts]

The SSL Quad sounds unbelievable! I

Your Right!!
Unbeieveable bad .. only 9% liked it in the poll URS vs Waves vs SSL hardware.
Waves no longer hold the monopoly on good quality plug-ins
Tune is bad Z Noise is no better than X noise and now Digidesign TKO's Waves!

[Steve MacMillan]

Tune is bad Z Noise is no better than X noise and now Digidesign TKO's Waves!

I bet my dad can beat up your dad!

[minister]

I bet my dad can beat up your dad!

hey, it used to be that my govenor could beat up your govenor, but now your govenor...

[Mikey MTC]

Geez Roberts - make up your mind!
In one post Impact "blows Waves away" and in another "TKOs Waves"

Yet in another, Waves "came a close 2nd."

I would ask why all the anti-Waves hostility but another thread on that three letter acronym, we don't need!