im not hearing a big difference. in future videos, dont stop and talk over the switching back and forth between FX and NOFX. its hard to pick up on the difference it makes when you stop the music and announce it and then start it back up again. just switch back and forth so people can hear the change.
@@montyrayza7220 Unless you’re paying somebody to do something you don’t make demands, you make polite suggestions. Obviously both you and the author of OG post are entitled pricks.
They are so close honestly. As someone who doesn't own any hardware apart from a mic and couple interfaces, I seriously can't even think why I would want to get outboard gear at this point. Plugins have just gotten TOO good. And especially with UAD and their unison tech, I don't even need to get a preamp either.
Waaaow thank you for this! Didn't expect such a big difference especially in the low end and image field sounds better imo on the 369. Congrats on your first video 🔥🔥🔥
The Behringer version handles the transients in a much more pleasing way. The UAD one sounds like all software compressors do, super grabby in a not pleasing way.
People need stop giving Behringer hate, this video proves they’re fully capable of making amazing clones and anyone else who’s hating is just doing it cause it’s cool to hate behringer lol
There are plenty of reasons to hate on behringer. But making affordable gear that sounds pretty good is not one of them. Them making clones of other equipment and using cheap labor is not very cool though but you can blame the consumers just as much as behringer for that
After looking at their history - they dont get a pass from me. I also dont trust their gear. But its personal decision. People can do whatever they want.
Plugin sounds lifeless like any other plugin I used over the last 20 years, Behringer gives it that analog character and subtle analog distortion that we all like in our music.
It beat sounds good already without the processor, it might be overkill. just like I suspected. but for sure I am going to try and pick it up though. I want to mike beats going through a Marshall amp.
Hardware to emulate a plugin clone… ? Give me a break, is this really where we are at now? Has anyone meaningfully compared this to an actual 33609, both sonically and in a component level…?
It's always annoying when people do A/B comparisons when they stop the music after the first example, then do a little 2 minute explanation, then play the second example . . . it makes it so much harder to compare, ideally you'd simply play the first example, then immediately switch the second, with an onscreen indication, without stopping the process.
Very impressed by the Behringer. The plugin clamps down a little too quickly on the snare which is what I feel like normally happens in compressor plugins vs hardware (which sometimes is cooler). The hardware lets its breathe a bit more. Crazy for cheap the hardware is compared to an actual neve
I prefered the sound of the plugin with the settings you chose for this mix. Yes it did sound quite digital and contained, as you expressed the frequency response was slightly different, but what caught my ear was the fact that the 369 even though punchy was kind of choking the mix, the strings sounded better to my preference with the 369 but the mix as a whole sounded better with the settings on the neve plugin. I really want to get this unit in the future so I will be on the lookout for future reviews. Many thanks for this review! All the best, Mi-Shu
@@Notinserviceij Unless someone with ears and acumen imparts a sound within the digital realm that becomes pronounced enough for less knowledgeable folks such as yourself to discern a difference. Punchline =Digital has a sound and you sound less informed and lazy saying otherwise
@MultiFreddy34 digital doesn't have a sound period You can mention I'm "un informed" dozens of time For we listen to from a computer is still analog, can't hear 1s and 0s mate And second of all The sound going from converter into the comp and back tot he converter if left un touched will remain unchanged unless the converters colour or degrade the sound What you are thinking of is the Act of sound manipulation and the artefacts that come from that I.e. aliasing from use of plugins within a daw That's not really a sound of digital but hell I'm willing to give that to you, so plus 1 to you I guess End of the day though digital system without manipulation imparts not change to the sound, you can test this yourself FYI I look forward to your response about how I'm ill informed? Perhaps you work for neve or idk maybe you are just mad that I am right and for years you have be spouting this bs
The UAD one clearly kills the low-end transients. On the other hand, comparison of the Behringer to the original Neve makes the Behringer sound like a plugin! 😅😅
- uad plugin более насыщен низами, что бы звучать более приятно, но звук как и у многих плагинов неестественно искусственный. - Behringer 369 звучит более нейтрально и слышно, что это настоящий железный компрессор, а не плагин. P.S. uad plugin подойдет для создания звуков для компьютерных игр, а Behringer 369 создан для музыкантов.
We all have to get away from computers and plugin's. Because they don't sound good or feel good. If anyone on here is an Engineer that can Build Analog Equipment leave me a message on this post. I have invented something that will make it possible and easy for all Producers to get away from computer's and plugin's.
No I maybe completely missing the point of these units, but to me, the unprocessed drum-loop sounds much better - brighter and more 'lively'. With the processing enabled, it's as if it's had all of the life drained from it...
The plugin does this low end enhancement that the rack unit doesn’t. I actually enjoy the rack unit a bit more. Both plugin and rack sound and react great to the drums and full mix! Thanks for the comparison mate.
The low end on the mixed bus examples sounds a bit more focused and saturated with the plug-in, but the Behringer hardware sounds like it has more low end extension less saturation in the lower frequencies. Both sound very nice… I suppose it is a case of choosing which ever you feel fits your mix better.
uad best, more puch with the transients, no boomy sustain and lot more clarity in the high end. Behringer still sounds good but definitly not as good as the uad
honestly, I didn't like the Behringer nearly as much as the plug-in on the drum bus, but when you put it on the full stereo mix I kinda' liked it...thanks for the review!
Behringer has a tiny bit more bass on mixbus, but obvious more low end on drum loop alone. Most likely if you add a slight Little Lab VOG to UAD (as to any plugin…) it is more than super to anyone. Hardware is also very welcome, and nothing against it. I’d say it’s individual’s preference.
Very nice demo, great sounding music, but not too complex to distract the attention from the matter at hand. The brighter plugin actually sounds louder, I wonder if you matched RMS or peak level? There's a case for peak level matching, because that's one of the selling points of analog. Maybe do both on the next video? Anyway nice work, thanks for the demo!
I don't mind gaps between audio snippets. If a sonic difference is inaudible without careful A/B/C comparisons, the final audience will neither know nor care.
you just convinced me. and i’ll soon get one . in this video by listening on my I-pad it seems that you need to extend the release time of behringer . Thanks for this video.
I don't hear a huge difference, but that doesn't mean the Behringer unit is bad, it has a nice punchy sound. I think loads of folks would love a Neve clone in their studio, irrespective of the badge name. Very useful!
Someone please explain to me the point of this review, or for that matter any A/B test online, in this particular 'test' the reviewer has never owned a 33609 before, ear matched the settings and posted it in a video online via a format that uses a codec to compress audio. Yet theres people on here talking junk about wider and deeper, clearer. Where their own systems are just as much a part of the intepretations of what they are hearing. The test also only provides one A/B with the settings at fairly rudimentary purposes. Without the tester having experience of how these devices should sound in varying scenarios where the device is driven with different program material or scenarios and setitngs, not to mention all the above is kinda dumb
I wouldn't expect too much of this as well. But it shows clearly that the unit does not sound bad at all and that it can probably do the job you're looking for. If you want to test a neve against the behringer or a heritage audio in the real world without codecs and stuff you have to order all three of them and test them at home. These youtube tests can only help you to decide if testing the unit at home could be something you're interested in or not. And as you can have it for 30 days there's no risk at all. But when you listen to this test and think that the unit clearly sounds totally bad or is a scam you can skip this. Time saved: X days of testing.
Thanks for the vid. Would like to hear some mixbusses that are really pushed to the limiter side of things, cranked. It was known for imparting some grit when done this way. Software will not be the same. Would like to hear that. Thanks!
Would love to see blind test with these. Its very subtle. I thought the HW had a bit more punch but it could be down to settings & quite possible my imagination. I personally don't see the point of HW when we have such good plugins these days.
Because it is 2024 it would make sense to do a A/B/C comparison since that is what this is: Dry, UAC, Behringer. Without chit-chat in between to make sure the tonality of ones memory remains in-tact between the 3 states. Also have parallel spectral analyses of the 3 states. Simply hoping someone notices it perceptually is very prone to placebo.. like asking if someone is listening to mp3, flac, cassette, or vinyl in a blind test. for the truly precise individual (the one who should actually care about whether or not something was recreated or is perfect, if it makes a difference at all) they should be capable of demonstrating that instead of talking about it like it's 1970 and people are supposed to sit there and nod and agree. It starts to come across more like they are practicing for some kind of audio-visual marketing role years from now. or practicing english (forgive me, but, you can always write a script, practice it, and do it multiple times, especially someone specializing in audio haha)
@@JordonBeal Because we are not in 1984 - it is very very simple to lock the input sample, chop it precisely at where it begins, invert its signal and subtract it from A-B, A-C, and so forth to prove that differences are actually being made. I'm just saying that the general technical game of people reviewing hardware is often probably 40 years behind technologically, even though they use cutting edge at-your-fingertips platforms to give this dated content to consumers to potentially drive purchase choice. Combine that with anyone who talks over the audio (that's like someone giving visual tech demonstrations and putting their head in the way of the screen while talking about whatever its showing) and it just gets kind of annoying. However, if this device is good, then fantastic. I didn't catch any single extremes being tested for it or anything... just the look of the meters on the physical device, clicking on/off... and all that. and this happens everywhere, lol.. all of the things I just complained about.
