Waves SSL Bundle

For seeking technical help with Digital Performer and/or plug-ins on MacOS.

Moderator: James Steele

Forum rules
This forum is for seeking solutions to technical problems involving Digital Performer and/or plug-ins on MacOS, as well as feature requests, criticisms, comparison to other DAWs.
NotRude
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:24 am
Primary DAW OS: MacOS

Post by NotRude »

Having used SSLs since the third studio in NY was equipped with a 4000E in the mid 80s I was really knocked out to hear these emulations, specially the channel strip dinamics,they are spot on, suddenly my little home setup sounded like a quarter of a million dollar SSL board. I think they are well worth the money, specially if you consider the cost to get that sound otherwise.
Mario
MarkH
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Waves SSL Bundle

Post by MarkH »

I checked AudioMidi's web site and they sell the plugin bundle for $600. Not bad and definitely worth a serious consideration.
G5 Quad, 30" Cinema, MOTU Traveler, KRK Rokit 6 Special Edition, DP 5.1, OS X 10.4.8
User avatar
mcevilley
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by mcevilley »

I downloaded the demo today and, unfortunately, feel like I may have to own this one. It seems like it may have a bit of that magic you get from mixing on an SSL. I'd love to hear an A/B comparison done by anyone with an SSL and DP with the waves SSL plugs...any takers?
DP 9.52, Max OS 10.11, Mac Pro (early 2008), 2x2.8 dual quad core.
User avatar
hammerman
Posts: 535
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Lynn, MA
Contact:

Post by hammerman »

There already is a comparison on the Gearslutz site:

http://gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php3?t=59002

and here:

http://gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php3?t=59093

Listen to the examples first and THEN read the comments...

Hmmm.......
User avatar
mcevilley
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by mcevilley »

hammerman wrote:There already is a comparison on the Gearslutz site:

http://gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php3?t=59002

and here:

http://gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php3?t=59093

Listen to the examples first and THEN read the comments...

Hmmm.......
Okay, thanks hammerman. I can't wait to listen to the comparison. If I can't tell the difference or (although it would be kind of strange...) like the waves version better, I guess I can kiss my $600 goodbye.
DP 9.52, Max OS 10.11, Mac Pro (early 2008), 2x2.8 dual quad core.
Splinter
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: Unspecified

Post by Splinter »

mcevilley wrote:Okay, thanks hammerman. I can't wait to listen to the comparison. If I can't tell the difference or (although it would be kind of strange...) like the waves version better, I guess I can kiss my $600 goodbye.
Just did the test. Preferred the URS "1980" (their SSL comp) over the Waves. Avoid Waves like the plague. Go URS! It sounds better and more like the real SSL anyway. The Waves just killed the transients.
NotRude
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:24 am
Primary DAW OS: MacOS

Post by NotRude »

Frankly I was more impressed by the emulation of the channel strip than I was by the quad compressor which I feel is a little less controllable than the real thing, you have a good point about the URS splinter, but I still think the Waves package is reasonable and relevant, the channel strip makes all the difference to me in this bundle.
Mario
User avatar
giles117
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Henderson County
Contact:

Post by giles117 »

I prefer the waves.

I didnt bother with his test I did my own test and found the URS to be a little loose sounding to me.

I cant judge a compressor based on what another guy does, I can only judge it based on my own use. That to me is the fallacy of a sound test. It doesnt take into account how you work.

I tried the matching of all parameters and the URS came out loose to me.
DP 6.02
Quad 3.0 Ghz, 8.0 GB RAM, 2 - 1TB HD, 5 - 500GB HD's (RAID)
MOTU HD192, 2408mk3, Microlite, UAD-1, UAD-2, Powercore, Lavry Blue AD/DA convertor, LA-610
Euphonix MC Control

29 years in this business and counting.....Loving every minute of it.....
User avatar
mcevilley
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by mcevilley »

I just listened to the the two examples (waves/ ssl) in my studio on the monitors and I honestly couldn't hear any difference. I guess I'm going to have to get it.

By the way, I really got a kick out of all the people who were SO positive the first one was the SSL! :lol:
DP 9.52, Max OS 10.11, Mac Pro (early 2008), 2x2.8 dual quad core.
Splinter
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: Unspecified

Post by Splinter »

mcevilley wrote:I just listened to the the two examples (waves/ ssl) in my studio on the monitors and I honestly couldn't hear any difference. I guess I'm going to have to get it.

By the way, I really got a kick out of all the people who were SO positive the first one was the SSL! :lol:
I could tell an immediate difference on my 1" eMac speakers. Really. To me it was an obvious difference. The real SSL was open and snappy. The Waves plugs was flat and 2 dimensional. You really ought to listen to the URS comp though before you purchase. Go here: http://gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php3?t=59093
Splinter
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: Unspecified

Post by Splinter »

giles117 wrote:I didnt bother with his test I did my own test and found the URS to be a little loose sounding to me.

I cant judge a compressor based on what another guy does, I can only judge it based on my own use. That to me is the fallacy of a sound test. It doesnt take into account how you work.

I tried the matching of all parameters and the URS came out loose to me.
The reason most people don't like these tests is because they hate to have their biases revealed. Or they feel the need to justify their decisions (purchases.) I haven't bought either, so I stand nothing to lose.

I thought this was a great test. He matched the settings by finding the greatest amount of phase cancellation between the plugs and the original. In other words, it was as close as the plug is going to get to the real thing. Based on that, you could form your own opinions witthout being "wrong." Listen and tell me which one you like. I liked the URS, as did most others compared to the Waves comp.

You said tthe URS was "loose" and that's exactly what I didn't like about the Waves plug - it was too grabby and killed the high end - where the URS sounded thick, but open. Granted neither matched the clarity of the real SSL, but if you're staying in the box the URS was the winner for me.
User avatar
giles117
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Henderson County
Contact:

Post by giles117 »

Splinter wrote:
giles117 wrote:I didnt bother with his test I did my own test and found the URS to be a little loose sounding to me.

I cant judge a compressor based on what another guy does, I can only judge it based on my own use. That to me is the fallacy of a sound test. It doesnt take into account how you work.

I tried the matching of all parameters and the URS came out loose to me.
The reason most people don't like these tests is because they hate to have their biases revealed. Or they feel the need to justify their decisions (purchases.) I haven't bought either, so I stand nothing to lose.

I thought this was a great test. He matched the settings by finding the greatest amount of phase cancellation between the plugs and the original. In other words, it was as close as the plug is going to get to the real thing. Based on that, you could form your own opinions witthout being "wrong." Listen and tell me which one you like. I liked the URS, as did most others compared to the Waves comp.

You said tthe URS was "loose" and that's exactly what I didn't like about the Waves plug - it was too grabby and killed the high end - where the URS sounded thick, but open. Granted neither matched the clarity of the real SSL, but if you're staying in the box the URS was the winner for me.
I have used the 1980 for a minute and enjoyed it to start but after the waves I prefer the waves. You can change settings and loosen up the comp if you so feel.

However I also noticed that I had to hit the threshold an additional 6db for the URS to start compressing as much as the waves version, so there are differences. Basically I think it is a case of pick which comp you need for whcih style you are mixing.

I'd prolly use the URS on Jazz
DP 6.02
Quad 3.0 Ghz, 8.0 GB RAM, 2 - 1TB HD, 5 - 500GB HD's (RAID)
MOTU HD192, 2408mk3, Microlite, UAD-1, UAD-2, Powercore, Lavry Blue AD/DA convertor, LA-610
Euphonix MC Control

29 years in this business and counting.....Loving every minute of it.....
FM
Posts: 331
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: New York City
Contact:

Post by FM »

well, i may be out of the loop on this one since i am still using DP 4.12... i asked the tech guy at Waves and he said they didn't test the bundle on 4.12 so it may or may not work.

but, for what it's worth, on one of the listening tests, i picked the software not the real thing, hmmmmm...

i agree with others, mixing is often such a matter of style and experience that while someone can get great results with one set of software tools someone else would find the same tools unusable.

i guess i won't know for sure until i test the bundle... if i even can get it to run on my G4.

i will soon find out.

great thread Kwiz, thanks for starting it!

FM

FM coulda, shoulda and absolutely woulda.
User avatar
mcevilley
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by mcevilley »

FM wrote:
but, for what it's worth, on one of the listening tests, i picked the software not the real thing, hmmmmm...

i agree with others, mixing is often such a matter of style and experience that while someone can get great results with one set of software tools someone else would find the same tools unusable.
.
I agree with you 100%, which is what I think the gearsluts test revealed. Although I sometimes think that if I had $800,000 to buy an SSL, my mixes would sound perfect everytime, this is not necessarily the case. A bad mix on an SSL still sounds bad. And, a great mix ITB can also sound really great.

The fact is, a LOT of hit records are mixed on SSL's, which do sound fantastic, but, it's also possible to stay ITB and have a darn good sounding record. Incidentally, after the test and a few remixes with the waves plugs demo, I think they can be a really nice addition to my aresenal.
DP 9.52, Max OS 10.11, Mac Pro (early 2008), 2x2.8 dual quad core.
gives
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Portland OR
Contact:

Price at GC

Post by gives »

giles117 wrote:After over an hour of listening...

The Mix Bus Compressor is Here. Trust me you wanna run them with the analog mode on....Just warms up your sound so nicely.....

Good Job Waves. Still hate the company, but for this one it is worth it. :)

On My G5 they dont exact a heavy tax and they run wonderfully under DP. :)

Wonderful Pcs. Gonna remix a couple tunes that I mixed without them. God I missed the sound of analog and these come real real close.....


Lastly, the URS S never sounded as good as these. The S was modeled afer the E series EQ (or so they said.) It is very digital and sterile sounding compared to these puppies.

Finally look around. GC made me a wonderful offer :) 800 is list.....
What was your price? email me..G
Gregory Ives Composer/Sound Designer/Producer
Post Reply