![waves ssl e channel vs uad waves ssl e channel vs uad](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/bwMAAOSwXvxa2GCM/s-l400.jpg)
- #WAVES SSL E CHANNEL VS UAD UPDATE#
- #WAVES SSL E CHANNEL VS UAD PRO#
- #WAVES SSL E CHANNEL VS UAD PLUS#
I would personally like to see a button that hides the right half of the interface when its not in use., so all we see is the business end of the EQ and Dynamics section. It's not a big deal, I would just think that would be a more intelligent default setting. May I suggest the Range being set to 0 as default and the trim option off. There are always going to be pros and cons with anything like this.Īlthough I noticed by default the Expander's -30dB trim control was on by default and the Range control was set to 20. You could definitely produce a great mix with the new E & G and the Waves versions, so this kind of splitting hairs is mostly irrelevant. The Waves SSL plugins were still brighter, a little more focused and clearer on the top, compared to the Brainworx version.
![waves ssl e channel vs uad waves ssl e channel vs uad](https://www.audioanimals.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/SSL-4k-Channel-Strip-768x768.jpg)
Its pretty much what I would have expected from the additional harmonics being produced. It's especially noticeable when using multiple across a mix, because thats the real life scenario.Īlthough, when I backed off the THD, much of that bark cleared up. When using several across a mix and comparing it with the Waves version I did notice it can have a bit more bark in the upper low mids and sound not quite as bright on top. On the onset, these do sound very similar to other SSL plugins, but thats a good thing.
![waves ssl e channel vs uad waves ssl e channel vs uad](https://arefyevstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Luchshiye-plaginy-emulyatsii-SSL-konsoli.jpg)
I couldn't help but compare the SSL plugins with the older E & G, just to see if I can spot much of a difference.
#WAVES SSL E CHANNEL VS UAD UPDATE#
I don't know why they don't just simply update the E & G and give was a legacy button, but that's the direction they have gone.Īs always, very impressed Brainworx. Brainworx together with SSL to make some subtle improvements on their designs, but to also make them more accurate, at least according to SSL. The Brainworx SSL branded plugins are slightly different than their earlier kin. Saves tons of DSP and don't need to spend the $99 to get the "pre only" crossgrade (identical sound). Same as like i often use the never 73 just for the PRE, for example. You can literally see the load instantly change in the UAD meter when you disable sections. Often I will just use the EQ and the dynamics will not use any DSP at all. Don't forget that you don't need to use DSP for any part of the plugin that isn't being used. Will be interesting to see how efficient brainworx is.įor me, the UAD is spot on, I am not surprised how much DSP it uses. It consumes around 10x the duende one per instance. Ik is nice but SO heavy, it's ridiculous really. but will check out the demo anyway as sort of an SSL junkie and I still need to at least "know" hehe. Nothing I have ever seen runs as light as duende as far as an ssl channel. Money is tight right now but maybe for Xmas when they have their massive sale. that thing actually always puts a smile on my face, but would be interested in the channel when i run out of DSP. I don't think it could ever top the UAD bus comp for me. Official ones are out now, just got an email. Hope this helps anyone looking for one of these for their system. Fits on my screen in my room, but not the mobile laptop.
#WAVES SSL E CHANNEL VS UAD PRO#
I work on a 13" MacBook Pro when I'm on the go, and it doesn't fit on the screen. Oh on more thought, I personally don't like the size of the Brainworx gui either. To me, it had a dirtier tone for the lack of better words. Should note though that it might sound too clear, as i don't recall the 4K boards ever having a clean EQ sound. With that said, its not much better, just a bit clearer. As for EQ, think i give both Brainworx and UAD as a tie over the Waves. But the other 2 strips are MUCH more CPU friendly. Though, if you are heavily invested in UAD, then i can see choosing it. Also like the G dynamics of the Brainworx model.
#WAVES SSL E CHANNEL VS UAD PLUS#
Brainworx also has good CPU consumption plus with TMT you get minor differences with each strip, which is nice when dealing with stereo tracks. The benefit of the Waves is you can run a ton of them without much CPU hit. Not one really shines out as the better sounding SSL 4Ke strip. Think you can get the SSL sound with all of them. Personally all 3 really capture the 4KE vibe. Waves really nailed the gate and dynamics section. Both Gates on the Brainworx and UAD seem to sound similar, but like others have pointed out on this thread, the Waves really excels on their model of the 4K E. The Mic seems to add some more crunch to the tone. I like the fact that UAD you can switch between the Line and Mic input. Here are my personal findings from an old user of SSL consoles.īoth the UAD and Brainworx models sound very similar. I spent some time comparing the Console_E vs UAD SSL vs Waves E Channel.