Quantcast
Native Instruments Premium Tube Series - Page 6 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Native Instruments Premium Tube Series
Old 15th September 2012 | Show parent
  #151
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Why is everyone so shocked the Softube version is better than UAD? They make some good plugs but not always the elite.

Last edited by Gear Geek; 15th September 2012 at 06:33 AM.. Reason: That was not nice
Old 15th September 2012 | Show parent
  #152
Lives for gear
 
grooveminister's Avatar
 
6 Reviews written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginaryday ➡️
Native Instruments Premium Tube Series-eq-shootout.jpg
That´s what I thought and heard:
UAD´s Massive Passive has 3dB less lo-end and 1dB more mids and highs.
When you level match the files, the bass has the most energy so the UAD example will have roughly 3dB more presence.
With 8-bit lo-fi style samples in the source material - nobody wants 3dB more presence which is a motherlode when mastering.

Flyingjay has set the Softube to sound good.
Copied the values to the UAD Massive Passive and/or tried to match the best he could.
So what we know now: The settings on both emulations of the Massive Passive don´t match.
Old 15th September 2012
  #153
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
You should put an analyser plugin at the end to match both settings.
Old 15th September 2012 | Show parent
  #154
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gear Geek ➡️
Why is everyone so shocked the Softube version is better than UAD? They make some good plugs but not always the elite.
because the MP is often pointed out as the most advanced emu from UAD, it uses a ridiculous amount of cpu and it costs a lot more..
Old 15th September 2012 | Show parent
  #155
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
he should make the uad sound as his best and then see if he can beat it with the NI
Old 15th September 2012
  #156
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
He should put the NI plug into VST Plugin Analyser and look at the phase distortion and the THD levels.

recording.de/uploads/newbb/05cec0fc7d474af44be4697e33faf211.png

This graphic above linked from recording.de shows the VPA harmonic distortion graph for the UAD Massive. It exhibits just two significant harmonics, 2 and 3, with the second order harmonic dominant, consistent with expected tube circuit behaviour. The NI Passive when tested by me exhibits multiple cascading harmonics, arguably more typical of a coloured compressor's behaviour than a mastering EQ's, and has the third (and subsequent odd) order harmonics dominant, consistent with unexpected transistor circuit behaviour.

Secondly, the UAD emulates all the characteristics of the original hardware, including the analogue input stage's requirement for professional levels, to the point where levelling down before, and levelling back up after, is considered standard operating practice when running hot. Driving the UAD (or indeed the real thing) much above EBU levels is certain to drive the Massive into inharmonic distortion. So the earlier 'run it hot' test seems a bit misleading to me.

NI Passive may or may not be a good equalizer, it certainly doesn't seem to me to have a lot in common with the UAD Massive emulation.

Last edited by Faint Brouhaha; 15th September 2012 at 11:15 AM.. Reason: More to say
Old 15th September 2012 | Show parent
  #157
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
I tested them quickly, Vari Comp and Passive use quite some CPU
Vari Comp has an interesting behavior
The Passive Eq has something very odd going on with the low pass filters,
resonance is not so pleasant, it has nice lows and wide Q settings are very smooth,
but with narrow Qs it rings, again, in a weird way
Old 15th September 2012
  #158
Lives for gear
 
4damind's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Maybe that the difference is more in the harmonic content than in the frequency response curves. We all know that UA often has problems to model this because of the big DSP usage, so I expect also with newer emulations that they don't model all details and only the most important stuff.

So I would like to see more a comparison with the real hardware (vs UAD/Softube).
Old 15th September 2012 | Show parent
  #159
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
i listened on monitors the Ni and uad samples but both are way too different sounding for comparing anything but i have the feeling nebula mp could blow both like usual when it comes down to plugin eq

Last edited by Fred_Abstract; 15th September 2012 at 12:32 PM.. Reason: none
Old 15th September 2012
  #160
Gear Guru
 
Jeezo's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
i don't think we should become crazy about that ....the fact is that with a Big fully parametric eq we can do pretty 90% of the eq's on the market ...the thing s that now we have an non uad alternative .....settings don't match ? a chance , this has been modeled by 2 different brands on 2 diff units so , with 2 differents technology..but who really cares ...

yep we can boost low end with uad and lower high too match the thing...but the fact is that NI/Softube made a winner here , we have VTM , ect .....native heaven starting to show .....we enjoy ......

Good m/s eq's are alwayz welcomed , we have Heq ,Pro Q (fabfilter), the spl passive, brainworw ones ..ect ... and now this one .....choose one ....
Old 15th September 2012 | Show parent
  #161
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faint Brouhaha ➡️
He should put the NI plug into VST Plugin Analyser and look at the phase distortion and the THD levels.

recording.de/uploads/newbb/05cec0fc7d474af44be4697e33faf211.png

This graphic above linked from recording.de shows the VPA harmonic distortion graph for the UAD Massive. It exhibits just two significant harmonics, 2 and 3, with the second order harmonic dominant, consistent with expected tube circuit behaviour. The NI Passive when tested by me exhibits multiple cascading harmonics, arguably more typical of a coloured compressor's behaviour than a mastering EQ's, and has the third (and subsequent odd) order harmonics dominant, consistent with unexpected transistor circuit behaviour.

Secondly, the UAD emulates all the characteristics of the original hardware, including the analogue input stage's requirement for professional levels, to the point where levelling down before, and levelling back up after, is considered standard operating practice when running hot. Driving the UAD (or indeed the real thing) much above EBU levels is certain to drive the Massive into inharmonic distortion. So the earlier 'run it hot' test seems a bit misleading to me.

NI Passive may or may not be a good equalizer, it certainly doesn't seem to me to have a lot in common with the UAD Massive emulation.
I don't remember exactly the harmonic content of the massive passive (I've ran some sine sweeps, impulses and static tones through it) but when driven moderately hard it has TONS of harmonics and interesting things going on. Indeed if the UAD model only shows a few it must be completely wrong.

The massive passive is not what I would call a transparent EQ either. It has a certain "manley" mojo which is awesome on a lot of material. There's a good reason why the EQ is used so often in mastering but it is most definitely not due to it's transparency. There are other much more transparent options available.

Cheers!
bManic
Old 15th September 2012 | Show parent
  #162
Lives for gear
 
Jantex's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Compared NI to UAD and prefered NI. I don't care which sounds closer to which unit. I only care which sounds better to me and which brings me quicker to the sound I have in my head...and that is NI in my case. Congratz to NI and Softube. IMHO the best software EQ besides Steinberg Portico...IMHO better than Summit EQ. Softube outdid themselves.

EDIT: just wanted to add that I think all three plugins are superb and are best modeled tube EQs and Comps I have ever tried.
Old 15th September 2012
  #163
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jantex ➡️
Compared NI to UAD and prefered NI. I don't care which sounds closer to which unit. I only care which sounds better to me and which brings me quicker to the sound I have in my head...and that is NI in my case. Congratz to NI and Softube. IMHO the best software EQ besides Steinberg Portico...IMHO better than Summit EQ. Softube outdid themselves.

EDIT: just wanted to add that I think all three plugins are superb and are best modeled tube EQs and Comps I have ever tried.
LOL,man I don't know who some of the poster are?but the uad mp sounds nothing like the hardware.

There where several example on the sound on sound website.

UA come close to the hardware unit,but isn't dead on in most cases.we know this,we also know they are good Plugins.

I never thought UA Plugins were perfect emulations,but they get me in the ball park.

The rest is up to me!the PSP Nobel did the same thing for me,it was a little smoother than the uad pultec pro.

I never got around to buying the Nobel,and keep the pultec on my 2 buss(I still love it).

Now it seems the varicomp,passive eq,enhanced eq,uad ampex 102,Vcc and precision limiter is my new mastering chain.the pultec pro works better on it own compared to the enhanced eq.

But the enhanced eq works really well alongside the other 2 bundle Plugins.

I feel I increased the quality of my masters over night.

Ok passive eq is great,could careless what people say.I'm more concerned with Varicomp right now.

I want to compare it ubk1,the glue and other popular 2 buss compressors.

Sent from my PC36100
Old 15th September 2012 | Show parent
  #164
Lives for gear
 
dasoundjunkie's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by grooveminister ➡️
With 8-bit lo-fi style samples in the source material - nobody wants 3dB more presence which is a motherlode when mastering.

Flyingjay has set the Softube to sound good.
Copied the values to the UAD Massive Passive and/or tried to match the best he could.
So what we know now: The settings on both emulations of the Massive Passive don´t match.
Yep, just started messing with these and Ur right. They don't match and like I said before, the source has a lot to do with it. This EQ sounds nice though and does a trick I always liked to do with the hardware. Any guitars recorded with a POD always have this really hashy top that I would fix by cranking the LPF as high as it'll go (6K) and then giving it the top I want. The MP has always done this better than any other EQ I've ever tried and the NI version does this very well. Having a native more cpu friendly version would make this EQ worth my while but they ( so far ) don't sound the same to me. I'll report back later, gonna play some more
Old 15th September 2012
  #165
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasoundjunkie ➡️
Yep, just started messing with these and Ur right. They don't match and like I said before, the source has a lot to do with it. This EQ sounds nice though and does a trick I always liked to do with the hardware. Any guitars recorded with a POD always have this really hashy top that I would fix by cranking the LPF as high as it'll go (6K) and then giving it the top I want. The MP has always done this better than any other EQ I've ever tried and the NI version does this very well. Having a native more cpu friendly version would make this EQ worth my while but they ( so far ) don't sound the same to me. I'll report back later, gonna play some more
They don't match as some one said to line them up by ear.

I can use kontakt to generate a sine wave also.

Sent from my PC36100
Old 15th September 2012 | Show parent
  #166
Lives for gear
 
dasoundjunkie's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I was referring to the tone of the units not just the calibration of the controls. The NI sounds a bit airier and the MP sounds a little more solid. Truth be told I like them both so far and I would be happy with either. Both seem that they can do what the other does but I know I'm going to develop preferences depending on source because they do sound sufficiently different for me to justify having both. I really like this guy but the UA unit IS the sound of the original. This is almost like an MP that was meant to be softer sounding. For me at least it's a keeper
Old 15th September 2012 | Show parent
  #167
Gear Head
 
rayhill's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
THIS plugins ROCKS ~~~

but the problem is that it use alot of cpu


when i look at my cpu meter in my cubase 6


it takes alot of cpu.... specially the vari mu comp.....


is it just me??


or does everyone has the same issue ??
Old 15th September 2012 | Show parent
  #168
Lives for gear
 
dasoundjunkie's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Yeah, that's almost as big a jump as the Slate FG-X. Sounds very nice but it's definitely something to consider
Old 15th September 2012 | Show parent
  #169
Lives for gear
 
Jantex's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Please don't concentrate only on Passive EQ. Also try Vari Comp!!! It eats 20% of my I7, but sounds A-M-Aa-Z-I-N-G...would never like to turn it off. I tried it on vocals, busses and it always sounds great. I have basically all the plugin comps, but this one smokes all the tube modeled ones. Softube really didn't want to compromise with these. They eat your CPU for breakfast but sound top notch...this bundle has just been bought!
Old 15th September 2012 | Show parent
  #170
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
I Like it , but gonna pass

Man i've got so many eq and compressor plugins wow! but we all know technology keeps getting better damn! my master buss is straight with the langevin dvc inserted with Cubase5. In comparing all these eq's with pure Manley hardware eq nebula massive and maag eq4 sound pretty close to that hardware eq.using -50db pads on that pre/eq works like a charm.But this ONE! sweet eq DAMN!
Old 15th September 2012
  #171
Lives for gear
 
krheatman's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
So from what I have read here the UAD 2 is more than a dongle as described in other threads.I think most of the people complaining about the cost of the cards should read this thread.My CPU doesn't take the hit,the card does.When you have a large project going it matters.Too bad someone couldn't come up with a unit you could add, with FW or USB,that you could put all your native plugins on and process OTB of you will with no tax on your CPU.

Sent from my PC36100
Old 15th September 2012 | Show parent
  #172
Lives for gear
 
dasoundjunkie's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
What everyone is refering to is that the cards available power is heavily taxed by the MP, not the computer cpu. My quad card can only take 4 instances of MP before begging for mercy
Old 15th September 2012
  #173
Lives for gear
 
Macaroni's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
LOL,man I don't know who some of the poster are? but the uad mp sounds nothing like the hardware.
That is total complete bull **** and not even close to being true!

Do you have a hardware MP to compare? You just lost any credibility you had by making such an absurd statement.

Why do people make such idiotic, foolish, insane statements? It does not serve this discussion.

There have been numerous pro engineers who have used the MP hardware extensively, and who have stated that it is so close they can't tell the difference. Read the reviews on the UA site from users who actually have used the hardware.

And who knows which hardware unit the SOS comparison samples used. This is a tube EQ and there will be subtle differences between hardware units for so many reasons.
Old 15th September 2012 | Show parent
  #174
Lives for gear
 
dasoundjunkie's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
BTW the enhanced eq sounds great as well. I really like this bunch and they have a home in my plugin folder
Old 15th September 2012
  #175
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macaroni ➡️
That is total complete bull **** and not even close to being true!

Do you have a hardware MP to compare? You just lost any credibility you had by making such an absurd statement.

Why do people make such idiotic, foolish, insane statements? It does not serve this discussion.

There have been numerous pro engineers who have used the MP hardware extensively, and who have stated that it is so close they can't tell the difference. Read the reviews on the UA site from users who actually have used the hardware.

And who knows which hardware unit the SOS comparison samples used. This is a tube EQ and there will be subtle differences between hardware units for so many reasons.
I could care less about how you feel dude,so close is a good point,however the difference is there.I think they are similar at best.

So its not exactly the same,the plugin falling short on high mids and lows.it sounds nothing like the hardware.its a good plugin,that's it.

Typical troll to go after credibility,LOL,have fun with that.

If you can't hear the difference from the hardware opposed to the plugin,that says something about you not me.

Did you say read the reviews on the UA site?did you?yes you did ok.

Anyway,after more test it seems the NI passive eq is also a great eq!

But honestly the uad mp is out pacing the NI passive.

I like them both,2 more files coming in 10 minutes tell me what you think?



Sent from my PC36100
Old 15th September 2012 | Show parent
  #176
Gear Guru
 
Jeezo's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayhill ➡️
but the problem is that it use alot of cpu


when i look at my cpu meter in my cubase 6


it takes alot of cpu.... specially the vari mu comp.....


is it just me??


or does everyone has the same issue ??
If used for mastering purposes , no big deal , if you guyz planned to use it as a regular mix tools : problems ....(cpu i mean)
Old 15th September 2012 | Show parent
  #177
Gear Guru
 
Jeezo's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jantex ➡️
Please don't concentrate only on Passive EQ. Also try Vari Comp!!! It eats 20% of my I7, but sounds A-M-Aa-Z-I-N-G...would never like to turn it off. I tried it on vocals, busses and it always sounds great. I have basically all the plugin comps, but this one smokes all the tube modeled ones. Softube really didn't want to compromise with these. They eat your CPU for breakfast but sound top notch...this bundle has just been bought!
i heard the same when the vertigo was out : the best comp people were saying ....
Old 15th September 2012 | Show parent
  #178
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jantex ➡️
Please don't concentrate only on Passive EQ. Also try Vari Comp!!! It eats 20% of my I7, but sounds A-M-Aa-Z-I-N-G...would never like to turn it off. I tried it on vocals, busses and it always sounds great. I have basically all the plugin comps, but this one smokes all the tube modeled ones. Softube really didn't want to compromise with these. They eat your CPU for breakfast but sound top notch...this bundle has just been bought!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeezo ➡️
i heard the same when the vertigo was out : the best comp people were saying ....
I never liked the Vertigo, but I side with Jantex, the Vari Comp is the
real deal in this bundle, not the eqs (which btw they seem not to introduce
any harmonic content whatsoever when inserted)
Old 15th September 2012 | Show parent
  #179
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
UA and NI are slightly different but neither is "better". It's a matter of preference. They are very close in my own comparisons.

If you are a consumer who has neither and looking to purchase it comes down to $299 for three excellent plugins vs $1499 for uad2 quad plus price of one plugin.
Old 15th September 2012 | Show parent
  #180
Lives for gear
 
krheatman's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by grooveminister ➡️
That´s what I thought and heard:
UAD´s Massive Passive has 3dB less lo-end and 1dB more mids and highs.
When you level match the files, the bass has the most energy so the UAD example will have roughly 3dB more presence.
With 8-bit lo-fi style samples in the source material - nobody wants 3dB more presence which is a motherlode when mastering.

Flyingjay has set the Softube to sound good.
Copied the values to the UAD Massive Passive and/or tried to match the best he could.
So what we know now: The settings on both emulations of the Massive Passive don´t match.
You could test 10 units and come up with 10 different emulations.There is no down side to either and any test or opinion on your part is subjective.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 57 views: 14772
Avatar for Alécio Costa
Alécio Costa 5th September 2008
replies: 66 views: 7521
Avatar for bewareofdogs
bewareofdogs 24th January 2009
replies: 575 views: 71418
Avatar for NuSkoolTone
NuSkoolTone 12th June 2011
replies: 186 views: 29059
Avatar for _Mark
_Mark 12th March 2015
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump