![]() ![]() ![]() If URS had done a deal with AMS Neve, had the Neve logo on their plugin, and had claimed to have modelled (and surely "modeling" implies IR/convolution) the 1084, then I'm sure buyers of the URS N series eq might have been a lot harsher in their commentary about it's sound. " statements, raises the bar of user's expectations a little. ![]() ![]() Having the SSL logo and the official endorsement, plus the "Waves engineers spent more than a year analyzing and modeling. yes not quite the real thing but within a couple of %Well, doogie, maybe I was being a little harsh! But 2 of the most-enjoyed features of the hardware master SSL comp were the slower attack time settings and the auto-release setting, neither of which have been successfully emulated. I have owned one for over 10 years (had it looked at twice to make sure it was 100%) and find that the virtual SSL comp is pretty damn close. This is a pretty solid endorsement IMHO Nigel and I would agree with all you said except concerning the master comp. yes not quite the real thing but within a couple of % Saying things like: "Extensive testing reveals that the Waves SSL 4000 plug-ins sound virtually identical to their hardware counterparts" is utterly misleading. Personal opinions of a piece of software's utility are fine. I've used SSL mixers since the third E series was installed in London, and my own impression of the Waves SSL is: E eq=fair resemblance, G eq=passing imitation, Channel compressor=couldn't even be described as, Master Comp=not even in the same ball park as hardware. BUT nearly all of the early reviewers came straight out and said "This is exactly like the SSL hardware." But many will be guided by early reviews. That's exactly the way production pros should choose a plugin. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |