Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Waves JJP Plugins.. Nice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Waves JJP Plugins.. Nice [message #99255 is a reply to message #99251] |
Sat, 14 June 2008 14:14   |
|
|
I was orginaly turned on by the DSP card concept, but when I heard of compat
problems, problems with multi-cards and the like...It just turned me off
of the DSP _Dongle concept.
Plus, the card is is still the same (Power)as the orginal. Users have been
asking to run plugins, but UAD just keep making more plugins (Which is cool)
...
But, as PICe slots are srinking, more DSP power is needed..For sure..
Lastly, with Quad, 8 & 16 core processors, a dongle based Plugin format becomes
mute.
I think both Digidesign and UAD will have to "honestly" address this problem(if
having 8, 16 cores processor) is a problem..
Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>The card saves your CPU from the hit which allows them to make the
>baddest plugs around. When I bought my UAD1 and couldn't hear the
>difference between my 1176LN and their plug I was convinced.
>
>Not to say other plugs don't rock, but from what I've heard so far UAD
>rock just a little harder.
>
>Lamont wrote:
>> Yes, but do they really need the "dongle" pci/pcie card??
>>
>> Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>>> You can never go wrong with UAD. They rule.
>>>
>>> LaMont wrote:
>>>> Anybody see these..http://www.waves.com/Content.aspx?id=7306
>>>>
>>>> Everytime, I think about getting into the UAD(s) , waves or some other
>> cool
>>>> Native plugin maker changes my mind.
>>>>
>>>> Keep em comin..
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Waves JJP Plugins.. Nice [message #99261 is a reply to message #99257] |
Sun, 15 June 2008 07:19 |
Ted Gerber
Messages: 705
Registered: January 2009
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I've had a ton of trouble sorting out the Waves copy protection,
yet they have been very helpful and straightened it out over
the phone quite easily (lots of practice?).
I love their SSL & API plugs, they are very easy to get good
sounds with. I tried A/B 'ing their emulations with the Liquid
Mix, by applying the same settings to the LM version of the
same piece of hardware. I couldn't get it any where close to
sounding similar. However, I DL'd a bunch of tracks that someone
set up for comparison's sake with examples from Waves, Liquid
Mix, SSL Duende and the URS plugs. They all sounded great, tho
not identical.
I guess I need to spend more time with the LM, since I already own one. If
I were buying again, i would buy the Waves stuff.
Ted
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>Hey LaMont,
>
>I'm not a huge fan of hardware dongles, but the copy protection on Waves
>was as bad as I've ever seen as of a few years ago.
>
>Don't forget the Liquid Mix.
>
>TCB
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Anybody see these..http://www.waves.com/Content.aspx?id=7306
>>
>>Everytime, I think about getting into the UAD(s) , waves or some other
cool
>>Native plugin maker changes my mind.
>>
>>Keep em comin..
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Waves JJP Plugins.. Nice [message #99264 is a reply to message #99261] |
Sun, 15 June 2008 10:26 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I haven't deal with Waves in a long time, but my last experience was bad enough
that I'm not going back unless I'm really pushed. I was a reviewer and paid
out of pocket to upgrade my NFR copy to a standard copy and it took hours
and hours to get things straightened out. Talk about friendly fire.
I haven't ever used, much less owned, most of the obscure gear the LM models,
so I can't say anything about their accuracy, I just think it sounds great.
Other things in its favor.T
- The hardware dongle (i.e. the FW box) is a hardware dongle, but at least
it gives me some meters and knobs in exchange while the UAD just takes up
a PCI slot and give me nothing else.
- It's a tweaker's dream with the EQ. I have a few EQs set up with H/L pass
filters (which I use a lot) from I think the Neve emulation and then two
parametric filters from one of the squishy vintage sounding tube EQ things.
I think it's the Massive Passive emulation.
- 32 channels with a teensy CPU hit, so for comparatively large track count
things like the Monkies it's a godsend
Downsides
- Slows down exports/bounces to real time because it has to feed the signals
through the hardware dongle. Minor annoyance but at the end of a mix session
I got spoiled using the export mix option in SX.
TCB
"Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>I've had a ton of trouble sorting out the Waves copy protection,
>yet they have been very helpful and straightened it out over
>the phone quite easily (lots of practice?).
>
>I love their SSL & API plugs, they are very easy to get good
>sounds with. I tried A/B 'ing their emulations with the Liquid
>Mix, by applying the same settings to the LM version of the
>same piece of hardware. I couldn't get it any where close to
>sounding similar. However, I DL'd a bunch of tracks that someone
>set up for comparison's sake with examples from Waves, Liquid
>not identical.
>
>I guess I need to spend more time with the LM, since I already own one.
If
>I were buying again, i would buy the Waves stuff.
>
>Ted
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hey LaMont,
>>
>>I'm not a huge fan of hardware dongles, but the copy protection on Waves
>>was as bad as I've ever seen as of a few years ago.
>>
>>Don't forget the Liquid Mix.
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Anybody see these..http://www.waves.com/Content.aspx?id=7306
>>>
>>>Everytime, I think about getting into the UAD(s) , waves or some other
>cool
>>>Native plugin maker changes my mind.
>>>
>>>Keep em comin..
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Waves JJP Plugins.. Nice [message #99269 is a reply to message #99261] |
Sun, 15 June 2008 15:25 |
Bill L
Messages: 766
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
What site was that?
Ted Gerber wrote:
> I've had a ton of trouble sorting out the Waves copy protection,
> yet they have been very helpful and straightened it out over
> the phone quite easily (lots of practice?).
>
> I love their SSL & API plugs, they are very easy to get good
> sounds with. I tried A/B 'ing their emulations with the Liquid
> Mix, by applying the same settings to the LM version of the
> same piece of hardware. I couldn't get it any where close to
> sounding similar. However, I DL'd a bunch of tracks that someone
> set up for comparison's sake with examples from Waves, Liquid
> Mix, SSL Duende and the URS plugs. They all sounded great, tho
> not identical.
>
> I guess I need to spend more time with the LM, since I already own one. If
> I were buying again, i would buy the Waves stuff.
>
> Ted
>
> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>> Hey LaMont,
>>
>> I'm not a huge fan of hardware dongles, but the copy protection on Waves
>> was as bad as I've ever seen as of a few years ago.
>>
>> Don't forget the Liquid Mix.
>>
>> TCB
>>
>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Anybody see these..http://www.waves.com/Content.aspx?id=7306
>>>
>>> Everytime, I think about getting into the UAD(s) , waves or some other
> cool
>>> Native plugin maker changes my mind.
>>>
>>> Keep em comin..
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Waves JJP Plugins.. Nice [message #99270 is a reply to message #99269] |
Sun, 15 June 2008 19:42 |
Ted Gerber
Messages: 705
Registered: January 2009
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>What site was that?
Hi Bill, it's a thread on Gearslutz
http://gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/78107-ssl-vs-what -else-ssl.html
Ted
>Ted Gerber wrote:
>> I've had a ton of trouble sorting out the Waves copy protection,
>> yet they have been very helpful and straightened it out over
>> the phone quite easily (lots of practice?).
>>
>> I love their SSL & API plugs, they are very easy to get good
>> sounds with. I tried A/B 'ing their emulations with the Liquid
>> Mix, by applying the same settings to the LM version of the
>> same piece of hardware. I couldn't get it any where close to
>> sounding similar. However, I DL'd a bunch of tracks that someone
>> set up for comparison's sake with examples from Waves, Liquid
>> Mix, SSL Duende and the URS plugs. They all sounded great, tho
>> not identical.
>>
>> I guess I need to spend more time with the LM, since I already own one.
If
>> I were buying again, i would buy the Waves stuff.
>>
>> Ted
|
|
|
|
| Re: Waves JJP Plugins.. Nice [message #99271 is a reply to message #99270] |
Sun, 15 June 2008 19:44 |
Ted Gerber
Messages: 705
Registered: January 2009
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Should have pointed out, it looks like the author listed the plugs in order,
but it's a blind test...
"Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>>What site was that?
>
>Hi Bill, it's a thread on Gearslutz
>
> http://gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/78107-ssl-vs-what -else-ssl.html
>
>Ted
>
>>Ted Gerber wrote:
>>> I've had a ton of trouble sorting out the Waves copy protection,
>>> yet they have been very helpful and straightened it out over
>>> the phone quite easily (lots of practice?).
>>>
>>> I love their SSL & API plugs, they are very easy to get good
>>> sounds with. I tried A/B 'ing their emulations with the Liquid
>>> Mix, by applying the same settings to the LM version of the
>>> same piece of hardware. I couldn't get it any where close to
>>> sounding similar. However, I DL'd a bunch of tracks that someone
>>> set up for comparison's sake with examples from Waves, Liquid
>>> Mix, SSL Duende and the URS plugs. They all sounded great, tho
>>> not identical.
>>>
>>> I guess I need to spend more time with the LM, since I already own one.
>If
>>> I were buying again, i would buy the Waves stuff.
>>>
>>> Ted
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Waves JJP Plugins.. Nice [message #99272 is a reply to message #99270] |
Sun, 15 June 2008 21:02 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
That's a pretty shaky test. It shouldn't be considered a comparison of various
products, but a comparison of which single band SSL comp model sounds best
when destroying the sound of a pop song with a female vocal by crushing it
to death.
TCB
"Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>>What site was that?
>
>Hi Bill, it's a thread on Gearslutz
>
> http://gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/78107-ssl-vs-what -else-ssl.html
>
>Ted
>
>>Ted Gerber wrote:
>>> I've had a ton of trouble sorting out the Waves copy protection,
>>> yet they have been very helpful and straightened it out over
>>> the phone quite easily (lots of practice?).
>>>
>>> I love their SSL & API plugs, they are very easy to get good
>>> sounds with. I tried A/B 'ing their emulations with the Liquid
>>> Mix, by applying the same settings to the LM version of the
>>> same piece of hardware. I couldn't get it any where close to
>>> sounding similar. However, I DL'd a bunch of tracks that someone
>>> set up for comparison's sake with examples from Waves, Liquid
>>> Mix, SSL Duende and the URS plugs. They all sounded great, tho
>>> not identical.
>>>
>>> I guess I need to spend more time with the LM, since I already own one.
>If
>>> I were buying again, i would buy the Waves stuff.
>>>
>>> Ted
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Waves JJP Plugins.. Nice [message #99281 is a reply to message #99264] |
Tue, 17 June 2008 07:54 |
|
|
Thad.. The reason different manufacture of the same "stated unit" sound different,even
with identical settings, is due to the fact that, "No (2) two analoge hardware
gear are alike.
You could a 1974 1176 (#0002) and could an 1974 1176(#0003). Similar yes,
but they would not sound the same.
So, URS, UAD, Waves, Sonalkis, Focusrite have modeled their "own" or different
1176(s), neve 1073..yada yada..
All in all, "it's all good"!!! I would add that, that it's time to pull the
plug on focusing on compressors, Eqs.. I would like to some serious Chorusing,
Flanging, Phase-shifiting.
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>I haven't deal with Waves in a long time, but my last experience was bad
enough
>that I'm not going back unless I'm really pushed. I was a reviewer and paid
>out of pocket to upgrade my NFR copy to a standard copy and it took hours
>and hours to get things straightened out. Talk about friendly fire.
>
>I haven't ever used, much less owned, most of the obscure gear the LM models,
>so I can't say anything about their accuracy, I just think it sounds great.
>Other things in its favor.T
>
>- The hardware dongle (i.e. the FW box) is a hardware dongle, but at least
>it gives me some meters and knobs in exchange while the UAD just takes up
>a PCI slot and give me nothing else.
>
>- It's a tweaker's dream with the EQ. I have a few EQs set up with H/L pass
>filters (which I use a lot) from I think the Neve emulation and then two
>parametric filters from one of the squishy vintage sounding tube EQ things.
>I think it's the Massive Passive emulation.
>
>- 32 channels with a teensy CPU hit, so for comparatively large track count
>things like the Monkies it's a godsend
>
>Downsides
>
>- Slows down exports/bounces to real time because it has to feed the signals
>through the hardware dongle. Minor annoyance but at the end of a mix session
>I got spoiled using the export mix option in SX.
>
>TCB
>
>"Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>I've had a ton of trouble sorting out the Waves copy protection,
>>yet they have been very helpful and straightened it out over
>>the phone quite easily (lots of practice?).
>>
>>I love their SSL & API plugs, they are very easy to get good
>>sounds with. I tried A/B 'ing their emulations with the Liquid
>>Mix, by applying the same settings to the LM version of the
>>same piece of hardware. I couldn't get it any where close to
>>sounding similar. However, I DL'd a bunch of tracks that someone
>>set up for comparison's sake with examples from Waves, Liquid
>>not identical.
>>
>>I guess I need to spend more time with the LM, since I already own one.
>If
>>I were buying again, i would buy the Waves stuff.
>>
>>Ted
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Hey LaMont,
>>>
>>>I'm not a huge fan of hardware dongles, but the copy protection on Waves
>>>was as bad as I've ever seen as of a few years ago.
>>>
>>>Don't forget the Liquid Mix.
>>>
>>>TCB
>>>
>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Anybody see these..http://www.waves.com/Content.aspx?id=7306
>>>>
>>>>Everytime, I think about getting into the UAD(s) , waves or some other
>>cool
>>>>Native plugin maker changes my mind.
>>>>
>>>>Keep em comin..
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Waves JJP Plugins.. Nice [message #99284 is a reply to message #99280] |
Tue, 17 June 2008 12:43 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yeah, it really is. I've been doing more and more test mixes with the LM and
the main problem I seem to have is confusion with all of the different models.
So, I settled on 3-4 EQs and 3-4 comps that I use all the time unless something
just isn't happening. So my 'go-to' EQ is the Massive Passive model (pretty
in your face, but it works with the Monx) and the default comp model is the
one from the Neve VR. Those I know well, 2-3 others I know OK, and I go fishing
for special f/x if necessary.
It's lots 'o fun,
TCB
"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>LM is very cool.
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hey LaMont,
>>
>>I'm not a huge fan of hardware dongles, but the copy protection on Waves
>>was as bad as I've ever seen as of a few years ago.
>>
>>Don't forget the Liquid Mix.
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Anybody see these..http://www.waves.com/Content.aspx?id=7306
>>>
>>>Everytime, I think about getting into the UAD(s) , waves or some other
>cool
>>>Native plugin maker changes my mind.
>>>
>>>Keep em comin..
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Waves JJP Plugins.. Nice [message #99289 is a reply to message #99284] |
Tue, 17 June 2008 13:50 |
Bill L
Messages: 766
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
What luxury! In my day we just used the board EQ - and liked it!
I never owned an analog board with built in compression, but if I did I
would probably have used it for most things, I'm sure (especially if it
was a Neve or API).
TCB wrote:
> Yeah, it really is. I've been doing more and more test mixes with the LM and
> the main problem I seem to have is confusion with all of the different models.
> So, I settled on 3-4 EQs and 3-4 comps that I use all the time unless something
> just isn't happening. So my 'go-to' EQ is the Massive Passive model (pretty
> in your face, but it works with the Monx) and the default comp model is the
> one from the Neve VR. Those I know well, 2-3 others I know OK, and I go fishing
> for special f/x if necessary.
>
> It's lots 'o fun,
>
> TCB
>
> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>> LM is very cool.
>>
>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>> Hey LaMont,
>>>
>>> I'm not a huge fan of hardware dongles, but the copy protection on Waves
>>> was as bad as I've ever seen as of a few years ago.
>>>
>>> Don't forget the Liquid Mix.
>>>
>>> TCB
>>>
>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Anybody see these..http://www.waves.com/Content.aspx?id=7306
>>>>
>>>> Everytime, I think about getting into the UAD(s) , waves or some other
>> cool
>>>> Native plugin maker changes my mind.
>>>>
>>>> Keep em comin..
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Dec 14 16:38:50 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01298 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
