Wow. What a great comparison. If you dont have the hardware, the plugin does a very, very good job. If you have the hardware, you have the very best sound you can get for the pricetag. Advice: As a starting producer, use all the great plugins you can get, if your songs/tracks makes money, get the hardware. Easy as that.
The analog hardware has this "leveling" quality that puts things more upfront and is way more inspiring to record with that I personally find very important. It is exactly why I prefer to record with a hardware pre...to get that super pro feel. Yes sonically it's similar but I hear and feel a big difference.
Well to be honest hardware is great, But software isn’t very far to achieve great results, People always forget about how it feels. If it feel right what the matter. So just start making music, I bet if those artists and producers from the past have the opportunity to achieve this type of results with all the tools we have today they wouldn't be complaining. What is great about the old music is that they try to make things different, To achieve different colors and results, People nowadays want the same sound over and over the same color and don’t want to experiment to achieve new things. love your content cheers 🍻
I noticed that the UI would suggest you're using the mk i. variant of the uad plugin. Wouldn't the update with the newly modeled output section be a fairer comparison? Other than that, love the comparison. Thanks for taking the time to do this.
When the new version of the plugin came out, I tested it out and found there was no sound difference (Universal Audio has pretty much confirmed this in a few online forum posts). I did a few tests comparing it to the original version of the plugin and was able to get them to null out completely when comparing them, so there is no difference in the sound as far as I'm concerned. It's a lot of money to pay for getting a fader on the output, but might be worth it to people that are a fan of the 560 EQ (which was a nice addition).
The only difference I hear that's pretty obvious is the woofiness of the hardware around the 100-250Hz range and that could be that it's hotter? EQ wise i think the software got it 90%
I'm surprised at the Positive UAD plugin comments, compared to the analog signal, its not close. There is so much more clarity, definition, and openness in the hardware. Its beyond noticeable.
@@lightafluident.9950 or folks went for UAD because they simply can’t afford the analog counterpart. It’s not exactly a small investment to acquire a small rack of analog hardware… one piece of real gear costs more than most will ever spend on audio gear. Outside of professional environments that is.
That's exactly why I'm doing it this way! In the end, we'll have a full song tracked with EQ and Compression on every channel. Then we'll do the mixing stage, at that point I think we'll all start to hear some differences. It might be harder to nit pick with the little things on individual tracks, but it's a different story once things start to stack up.
Ive got the API console in UA Luna and really considered the Box but got a RND 5060 coming. May still change later cause Ive had GAS for this, but getting deep in Neve. I can hear the analog is just a little more open than the ITB. But sometimes it is that last little bit that can really make the music shine. You are right about pushing into the red, that's where the Shelford really shines. Don't think 0's and 1's can recreate that.
I love RND Consoles, a friend of mine has an 8 Channel 5088. Those 5060's look great if you don't need preamps and are looking for a solid command center for your studio!
Thanks for this! I own an api 3124 and an Apollo x8p. Was curious about the other aspects of the hardware. Even listening on an ipad i noticed subtle differences with transients which confirms what I’ve heard with my api pres. API is more in your face, but if you JUST listen to the sound they’re about the same. The EQ was actually less of a shift than i thought. But the pres is where API really shines. Curious what would happen if you overdrive or saturate both how they would respond comparative to each other.
Awesome! At this stage, we can confidently say that UAD shows itself very worthy! I listened several times with my eyes closed and at some point I realized that I couldn't tell which was API and which was UAD! You have done an excellent job! Looking forward to the next videos!
@@Ascoundrel Yes, you are right. The difference in switching is noticeable.I meant that I do not understand where is UAD and where is API. Maybe it's a placebo, but sometimes it seems to me that the API has a little more "body", and the UAD is cleaner and brighter (which is probably better for modern styles of music). It is hard to say. And it is all the more difficult to say what is worse and what is better. There is a difference, but the character is very, very identical. In a blind test, I would not say what and where exactly. Only switching. I can't say that UAD is better and API is worse. And vice versa. The same level of professional and excellent sound.
Sorry. Normally I do, but I was trying to make this more about the API stuff than the mics and instruments. Guitar is a 2002 Taylor 714. Mic is an OktavaMod (Michael Joly's old comapny) MK-012.
Seems to be just a bit more body and presence in the hardware. For a fraction of the cost I'm a proud owner of UAD Apollo/software. Maybe one day i can afford more hardware
Give me a Lavry or Prism Converter, a decent mic and maybe a low cost front end for preamp and compression.... and stock plugins...and maybe the Izotope Suite with RX, or maybe a Plugin Alliance Bundle...decent monitors, and I'm good. Now for commercial studios, I would probably get more hardware, but home recording, don't need it.
Man... thank you for this comparison video. The hardware has way more "sparkle" in the high end than the UAD version. The UAD doesn't sound bad, just a little more muffled than the real thing. It lacks the crispness... the sweet highs.
It was definitely enlightening. My own conclusion was that the the software had quite varied a degree of success, at those different stages of preamp, EQ and a whole chain with compression. With the preamp modelling, what I was hearing was tthat the preamp modelling was not an adequate substitute for the the real hardware. They did not sound like the same thing. It sounded like a rough ballpark approximation, at best. So, especially for the critical tracks like vocals and main guitars, I think it's worth investing in the hardware if you can afford it. Especially when a great preamp like a CAPI VP28 is not _that_ expensive for one or two channels, relative to the cost of a UAD audio interface. Whereas, with the EQ, it was closer, and I would consider the software quite acceptable. For me, this chimes with the fact that many engineers are very comfortable at this point using software EQs extensively. But the most interesting thing was that once the full signal path was heard, with the compression, then the full paths sounded acceptably close again. I've noticed that before with cheaper transformerless mic clones. Naked, they sound inferior. But, once you introduce EQ and Compression, even digital, the gap becomes closer. So, with a bit of work, can get there with software. But, if you can afford the hardware, you save yourself that work/time.
I read your comments on all three videos. We are pretty much on the same page with everything you said. The EQ was definitely the one thing I could not tell a difference on with anything, the software EQ phased out pretty much completely with the hardware in most instances. I ended up selling the EQ's after that video, I'm extremely happy with the UAD ones.
@@MillSounds yes, I owe you sincere thanks. Because I was setting our my budget for next couple of years studio budget. And EQs were towards the bottom of the list. Sources then mics, room/monitoring at the top. But, after this, I will reallocate what was the EQ budget, probably toward a really nice stereo ribbon mic pair (AEA, Coles, or Royer). Once you have one or two pairs of great pres, plus a bank of 8 good ones, maybe that's good enough preamps. Be interesting to know why you decided to offload the API The Box...
@@compucorder64 I've got the console for sale on reverb right now. I have absolutely no complaints with it, it's great and I like it. This is a whole other conversation, but it just boils down to me not needing a console. I went really far down the hardware rabbit hole, used the Box Console to help be the brain and put everything together and just decided I don't really want to work that way. I'm going to really simplify things here soon, but it has nothing to do with the console. It's amazing, I'm just realizing I'm going to be happier going consoleless...
@@MillSounds Makes sense to me. I used to have an ex-BBC OB van Amek BC3. I sold it when I moved country from the UK. I kinda miss it, ... a bit. But, I don't know if I'd re-invest in a console again. I'd get more out of some great mics, or a great drum kit, piano, Rhodes, Wurlitzer, interesting amp, vintage synth or whatever.
I agree. There will always be that small percentage plugins lack. However everyone has their preferences for workflow purposes. I love hardware, I just can’t justify the time it takes to recall, maintenance costs and down time,
Great work. Thanks for doing this series. What headphones are you using in this video? If you said in the video, I missed and apologize if so. Thanks Brian
Neumann NDH20 headphones. I went through a bunch of headphones over the last 2 years and had about given up one finding something good. I gave those a try and absolutely loved them!
