BRAINWORX vs UNIVERSAL AUDIO SSL 4000 E Series Channel Strip Comparison with Audio Examples 

While you wait? ✅ WAVES VS UAD SSL: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-93hVHDjP-7s.html ✅ HOME STUDIO TOUR: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0H8RGfYdXnA.html ✅ BIT DEPTH & SAMPLE RATES EXPLAINED: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-O3xD_5bwzaE.html 🎧 BRIGHT LIGHTS - FINAL MIX ✅ ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-SRwoUvSqa4U.html

Generally speaking, when A/B-ing processors one **must** loop short sections of audio to keep variables at a minimum. Switching plugins as the song progresses serves only to confound our primate brains. Differences between one song section to the next are typically gargantuan compared to the differences between processors. The more subtle the differences you're attempting to highlight the more important it is to loop short sections of audio. Give our auditory systems a fighting chance!

Bx,UAD, waves,IK multimedia,Slate digital. It really doesn't matter what you use. If you are good at mixing any of these will get the job done. They're all good!

Great video. I think the difference we are hearing is because UAD has a built-in THD and in BX THD is set to "0" from what I can tell.

Thankyou. Very happy with the bx ssle . This and other videos convinced me which to get. $349 usd rrp black friday discounted to 29.99. perfect timing. Now I can compare to the knockoff ssl9000 in Reason 11.

BX is so customizable. THD level and integrated parallel comp as well as the integrated overall parallel processing. And, I like the ability to tweak ALL instances of BX using just the header of any instance you currently dealing with. So, BX - one love :3

Excellent Video Ed ! Thank you 😊

I like the one can actually run on 100 channels without selling my firstborn, it's the BX for sure

Great vid, mate. Your explanations are very commendable. I picked up the BX 4000 G (for a CRAZY price) a while back, I really like it (not played with the E, but I have the Waves collection). I struggle with subtle sound differences as I have been to too many Motorhead/Mogwai gigs(!!!!!), but am training my ears (been using the Slate Academy vids), slowly!! Keep up the great work!! Enjoyed!!

Did we get to hear the Jensen transformer engaged on the UAD SSL?

UA sounds more 3D to me on my Adam S3H's. A bit of a plastic-y sound for BX.

Thank you for this video. Overall I liked the sound of UAD better because the BWX constantly had that scooped slight over compression feel to it. I presume you could tweak and eq around it because the additional features in comparison to the UAD was stupendous. For the price on sale I could see why BWX could be a strong contender. UADs business model and limitations makes me not want to go down that road as I consider my next move.

Great job Ed. Both sound really good and very usable. I would go 500 series hardware since I already have a VHD mic pre. I liked the UAD a bit better on the full mix. You're looking at a $50 USD difference with the Brainworx at a list of $349 and UAD $299. Given I already have an investment in UAD DSP chips (Twin DUO+PCIe OCTO) if I were purchasing plugin versions I would go with the UAD version and probably spend a bit extra to get the SSL G bus comp (can sidechain on that one).

Get Harrison mixbus 32c v7 and end your plugin window clicking. Best move I've made. Cheers

Nice video. What might have been cool is to A/B test with everything pretty much flat but demonstrate a big mult-cannel BX with unique channel pairs vs UA which misses that feature. Does that cumulative effect add up to a "bigger more separate" mix?

Thanks for your work, much appreciated here. I've owned the UA version for a long time and after hearing your comparison I don't see any major advantage to spending $349.00. The Brainworx was very nice to look at and the added side chain was a definite plus. The numerical readings on the knobs was a nice touch as well. Again thanks for you work here.

The tricky thing about Brainworx is that each channel sounds different. So you'd have to start with the channel that sounds most like the UA SSL with nothing engaged to give Brainworx the extra leg up :)

UAD showing their worth here...thx for the vid.

I own both but use the Bx 95% of the time. It has a velvety (slightly dirtier) sound to it which I prefer for most of my work.

Great video. I presume you used the same audio interface for testing, but as I understood it, the UAD SSL leverages the Unison pre-amps of an Apollo interface and the BrainWorx uses your computers cpu. I think the unison pre-amps add color and dynamics controlled by the SSL plugin. So, what’s going on with the BrainWorx SSL plugin if the signal is still coming through the Apollo unison pre-amp? Are we hearing the plugin natively, or a combination of the plugin AND the unison pre-amp? I’m confused.

Nice video man.Just for the informative part of it if you want to experience SSL vibes try SAND3 (which I abuse everyday lol) by Acustica Audio you'll be surprised how convolution technology kills those two. As for the comparison the BX is actually working properly when it's been set with THD across the tracks, that creates the 3D image we experience with UAD by default. In terms of easy use I'd pick UAD , in terms of flexibility BX wins here.Both sounding top notch and also used them both in various occassions.Keep on \m/

To my ears, the UAD has better imaging than the Brainworx. Across from a whole mix, that difference is huge.

I preferred the Bx in every track by track comparison, but in the full mix the UAD was a little better

The compressor on the BX is not on par with the real SSL, from my experience. Difficult to match. I wonder if you have noticed that too? 🙂

Yeah, the UAD sounds more brighter and transparent although you could tell it has a bit of a character going on with the harmonics. In this exemple BX is over compressing a bit or just not making the dinamics as good coherent and balanced as the UAD. Just like he said, it sounds almost like a different eq is being applied with more bottom end. Kindda thicker sound. BX Doesn't sound bad at all but I'll rather have the UAD for seemingly be able to sound good with less time tweeking the knobs

Could you not mix the UAD version to get rid of the low mid prominence, and then copy those settings to the BX version? Would the BX then sound too thin? Something I've found with Brainworx channel strips - not just the 4000 -is they seem to tweak the image in order to make it sound bigger or 'nicer' but to me it makes it sound less gelled and less focused. And yes, normally one would mix to get the best sound (rather than compromise to match the sound with another plugin) and its only then - at a much finer level - the nuances and quality comes through. For me this is the strength of the UAD

I've checked several comparison videos by now. I do have the Waves EV2, but I think it sounds a but "dull". Having listen and watched your video the one thing that dosen't get mentioned is the openess. In my opinion the Brainworks also seem to "dull down" the air of the mix as the UAD sound like there is more headroom and space in the top. So far I haven't heard anybody mendtion this. Am I the only one hearing this?

UAD has so much more depth and width. Stereo image is wider and everything sounds more glued together. Low end is also more solid, i think all BX consoles the low end is a bit boomy and unfocused.

Please post a comparison of UAD Neve 1073 vs Bx Neve, if it is possible.

amazing video Ed! To my ears Brainworx SSL 4000 E sounds more cleaner and brighter

I am listening with cheap laptop speakers and I swear I can here massive difference between the two. Loving the Brainworrx.

Did you mix on one plugin and then copy those settings to the other? How did you choose your settings?

A bit more open at the top end, touch more lows on the UAD plugin

Have both, the low end of the BX is stunning, So much more depth and dimension. Similar to the SSL Native 9k plugin. The UAD is rather thin and fizzy by comparison, really needs an update.

Bx just has a sound . I cant explain. But I've listened to several different comparisons and I always prefer the bx ..

They both sound good! But i think that on both of the Channelstrips the Parameters are set differently. For example: The Brainworx Compressor cut´s more of the Transient´s than the SSL in the same setting. For me that made it difficult to compare.. And i think the comparison would be better, when the parameters are matched by ear... Nevertheless thanks for the Video! :)

I have both. Both have different uses but I use BX way more often than the UAD. If you have great speakers/sub setup (I've got PMC's for example) you'll hear a much fuller/wider sound from the BX. UAD is more "precise" but it isn't as exciting of a sound to me. Both are great but I personally think BX killed it w their SSL version.

Hey. Nice video. But while comparing the 2 I see that your THD in the brainwork plugin is always Zero. Try putting it to full and compare these 2. I feel the real tone on the SSL in the Brainwork plugin comes alive with THD and UAD SSL already has that harmonic saturation.

If you had both you could track through the UA version and mix with the BX version. BOBW

Does the PA have no transformers?

If you are going to use ssl, you should prob use the one that actually sounds like the unit its named after... Plugin Alliance nails the 4000e and G along with the 9000J with more function options with a better price point... Its really a no brainer...

Ok so on my tablet speakers There is no comparison, the UAD has more depth weight and clarity, I will need to listen on my speakers to get the whole thing. (After listening on speakers the BX sounds a bit better) But it also depends on the test. As I understand it, you have used the same settings on each plugin, what was the basis on what those settings were set up? also it looks like the BX THD was not adding any saturation which is applied manually unlike the UAD, so we would need to hear how the hardware unit sounds and which one is closest to that. As we do not know how the hardware setting sounds we can only really compare against the best settings on each plugin here, to really know what each can do, what ever the basis was on the settings you have put in here I would say I prefer the UAD a bit more, But I do think a little tweaking on the BX could make it better. If you were then to match the UAD settings to the tweaked BX ones, then it too might be hindered by what then worked best for the BX version.

UAD SSL has a deep Bass or Sub bass if you listen to drum mix. Bx SSL is missing the deep Bass or Sub bass.

To me on my studio monitors the Sound of the SSL is WAY better, it's not even close. It sounds a lot wider and clearer, more defined. Just more professional. But I want to love the BX because of the very nice features. Now ED if you read this I have a question...Was the mix perfected on the SSL first then you matched the settings of the BX or vice versa ?

It's impossible to tell which sounds better. If you set the controls on the Bx and matched settings on the UAD you will get one set of results, do it the other way round and the results will be different.

crazy how big the difference. even obvious on my phone speakers. Imo the brainworx sounds much better and professional on the full mix.

I think the mids sound a little better on the Bx.

I'd pick the UAD for all types of tracking as I can hear the bottom end clarity on my Genelec's. I own some Brainworks products & like them over all. If I had both I'd be likely to use the UAD for tracking & probably experiment with the BW unit when mixing. My guess, based on experience, is that I'll prefer the UAD even for mixing - unless I found something particularly useful in that extra feature they've added that supplies several channel implementation. My guess is that it's a gimmick that I'd probably ignore after a while as it seems totally unnecessary. I don't know anyone that would complain if every channel on an analog desk sounded identical. When setting up a mix we never discussed setting it up according to which channels sounded the best. It was always for workflow convenience that we selected one channel over another - not ever due to sonic differences. If there were audible sonic differences in a track that made people not want to use it - we'd have the track brought back to spec by the techie. The BW is close enough that I'd try it out for mixing but I would not even consider it for tracking as it doesn't have the additional preamp running in unison. Currently there's no way for BW to compete with that with software. So if I had to own only one of them it would definitely be the UAD. The thing that stood out most for me is the fact that the BW unit doesn't handle bass the same way UAD does & that makes the biggest difference to me as I prefer the cleaner bottom end of UAD & also hear notable greater presence on my Genelec's. As for mids & tops they are in the same ballpark but the soundstage is more forward with the UAD. I prefer that because it's easier, & more sonically pleasing, to reduce presence than it is to achieve it.

The BX console E sounds warmer and thicker then the UAD in my opinion both sound good but BX wins in my book

Older video, but from reading the comments there are several people who either A. Haven't trained their ears, or B. Have bad monitoring, or bad listening environments. There is nothing subtle about this test. Even though you didn't "loop the same section" as another comment mentioned, it was quite evident, even with my eyes CLOSED, that there was a very obvious difference. That being the UAD sounded FAR more open. Not only more open, but the sound field appeared wider. UAD was tighter, more polished and glued together. The BX was scooped, sounded overly compressed for this particular track, dark and muffled. If anything, I would liken it to hearing an amateur mix, vs a experienced mix. That's how noticeable the difference was to me, in my environment. The UAD sounded like an actual record. The BX, did not. To make sure I wasn't fooling myself, I checked on all my playback devices. CLA-10A's, Genelec 8030c, and Nuemann NDH 30s, in a treated space and this is coming from someone who has ZERO UAD plugins, but I do have some PA plugs, so there is no bias here. I agree with many in regards to the high pricing of UAD and I never liked the idea of having to buy their hardware interfaces just to run their plugs, but time and time again when I hear shootouts there is indeed a difference and it's not as subtle as many claim. Same goes for the many shootouts I've heard of the UAD LA2A vs the Slate FG-2A. It's night and day, to ME. In regards to vocals, regardless of the tests I've heard ranging from rock, rap, country etc. The UAD does the same thing EVERY time. That "thing" is being tight, controlled, and buttery smooth. The Slate, while certainly no slouch, doesn't have NEAR the control, tightness and isn't as smooth compared to the UAD. I also used to own Slate plugins and ditched them all a month ago. Don't miss them. They got the job done, but there is most definitely a "slate sound" when you have a project full of them. With that said, there are a lot of dev's making solid plugs these days, some of which are VERY affordable. However, the more and more I see and hear things like this, the more the UAD Native plugs are sounding enticing to me now. There is just something about their sound to ME, that is hard to beat. And trust me, I wish that wasn't the case as I'm all about saving money etc. But good is good, and great, is great. Different strokes for different folks as they say.

I felt like the UAD sounds more open

UAD Killed it in this one.

The difference is quite small, BUT, those small differences mean a lot in a full mix

I've been using the original UAD 4k as my go-to channel strip plug for 12 years now. I have to run two quad cards to get it onto 48+ channels. The latency is frigging obnoxious, but the plug-in sounds great and is easy to use. I have the Waves SSL-E for rainy day overflow channels and low-latency usage and it neither sounds as good, nor is it as easy to use as the UAD. I have been REALLY curious about the PiA/Brainworx one for some time now, because it seems to have even more flexibility than the UAD, and I like the idea of different tolerance values on individual tracks across a single instrument, ie. acoustic drums. I am, reluctantly, forced to agree with the multitude of assessments in the comments that at these particular settings, the UAD sounds irrefutably better on drums, bass and the main mix. But I liked the PiA better on the guitars, keys, and vocals. Also, given what I heard, I do feel like the PiA could be pushed to sound however you needed it to. Since they were, after all, modelled on completely different physical consoles, it stands to some reason that to achieve the results you were looking for, you might well need to have slightly different settings between consoles. Like so many tools, I would surmise that I would need to sit with it, experiment with it and push it to it's limits to see what could be possible. I think I shall buy it and try for myself. Thanks for the vid, I'll subscribe directly if you would kindly return the favour. ;)

Comparison actually starts at 5:50

With all the extra mods, at some point the Bx version ceases to be a 4000 E sim and just ends up being a mush of someone’s imagination and what they had to drink the night before.

Uad in full mix is harsh, Bx transport me to the modern 80's 90's stuff

UAD is so musical

Overall UAD sounds a touch more open and balanced, so for all the bells and whistles BW has, it's not worth it if the UAD plugin inherently sounds better. Now that UAD have finally gone native, I can't wait for them to reissue the SSL and Neve channel strips, along with some of their other classic plugins. The brainworx plugin does seem to suck the life out of the sound slightly, this is most likely due to the smiley face eq attenuation. The open spacial sound / depth on the UAD version is noticeable on the guitar delay tracks.

Both are great but to me the UAD sounds much more analogue. Full and juicy.

Alliance is best

BX is more compressed and fuller. UAD is brighter and better at least to me. GUI look goes to BX hands down.

Brainworx sounds like there is a sheet over the sound, UAD is way more crisp, more hi fi.

brainworx sounded wider less fat and a little bit muddy, uad sounded fat, a little thin in the stereo image slightly less muddy than brainworx.

Uad is always a winner💪

the bx was compressing at least 2db more than the uad in every example. it's not a 1:1 trial but is interesting. I'd like to see all settings the same and adjust the compressor threshold to get the same GR result, and maybe use a spectrum analyzer to make sure the eqs are doing the same thing, sounds like they are not.

Lol close call, it’s a shame UAD only allows users to use their plug ins with their interfaces 🚮 You’re right about the smiley face

I guess I disagree that the full mix sounds better with the UAD version. To me, it definitely sounds more “open” but also a bit more mid rangy and harsh. To me, the bx mix sounded like an album should sound. In other words open is cool but open is not always better. Also, the v-gain on the bx is completely off. This simulates noise in the actual console, which I would expect is also present to some degree (although fixed) in the UAD version. Having it off likely leads to an inaccurate comparison. Maybe it would have also been better to turn off the "analog" button which would have disabled TMT.

UA Bx same guys?

UAD

The final mix just stopped me from buying Brainworx version :/

Overall the UAD sounds better .

The Brainworx is great,but the UA is on another level.

In England there is a hierarchy's. Meaning SSL is not a Neve, they are a lesser lineage in every way ! They can't match the sound !

Brainworx sounds better to me on the instrumental parts, voice is better on UA

Am I the only one hearing some strange stereostuff going on? .. I am listening on headphones and it seems there is a difference in WIDENESS... the brainworx is much "smaller" O.o ... as soon as the E series kicks in it is much wider

Final Mix, UAD = open, alive, expensive, BX = narrow, cheap

you should have done matching by ears .... is so useless at the same settings... if the programmer is different he will emulate a different machine , let me explain : every hardware is unique ...dust .. smoke .. age...corrosion ecc, so if you dont match by ears the comparison is useless because of ccourse sound different.. but we are mixer engineers we use ears not numbers...

BRAINWORX on full mix is better.UAD is muddy and mushy.

UA is overpriced shite.