Anyone use URS API or Neve plgins?

[mhschmieder]

Hmm, interesting observations. My counter-opinion is that I am doing a MUCH better job of EQ-ing now that I have graphical tools to work with, as I think of EQ graphically anyway (that is, I AM listening with my ears, but I know EXACTLY what curve I want to try to get to fix a problem, and that's easier for me if I can see the curve on the screen than it is in cases where I'm not fully aware of what slopes/formulae an analog-emulating EQ is using).

In spite of that, I am inclined towards the URS EQ's vs. continued use of MasterWorks EQ -- possibly setting my EQ in MW EQ first and then taking those settings and mapping them to other EQ's aferwards.

Anyway, here are my conclusions on the URS plug-ins, having worked with them extensively this weekend. All that remains is to try them on the snare, the drum overheads, and the final mastering. I'll do that later tonight.

The Neve Mix EQ wins hands-down on vocals, due to the transparency. ALL of the other EQ's sounded absolutely DREADFUL on male pop vocals no matter how I tweaked them! Just my experience, of course. This flies in the face of professional recommendations from various on-line reviews.

Surprisingly, although the Neve Mix EQ worked well for bass, I slightly preferred the Pultec EQ. I don't really need that many bands for the bass anyway as long as it was recorded well, but ended up using more bands with MW EQ simply because I wasn't getting the sound I wanted. So this would be a case where I would just do it completely by ear. The Pultec EQ just seemed rounder and more organic somehow (and the non-mix Neve EQ didn't give me enough control vs. the Neve Mix EQ).

The Pultec also won for the lead guitar, by a mile. This became more obvious once I switched on the VintageWarmer in the signal path. Almost anything else was just too aggressive or negated the effects of the VW.

On the kick drum, there is still a bit of an open question, which will be finalised once I run through the snare and overheads. Currently, whether soloed or in a mix, I find the API Mix EQ to give the most presence without sounding harsh, but it is a tight race with the possibly too tube-saturated MasterQ from PSP. Both EQ's deliver amazing punch without sounding artificial, but they cut through the mix quite differently, so a final decision might have to wait for when I have done a BTD on all my stems with all the other processing already applied.

I hated the SSL on ALL sources at EVERY setting. Similar to the SSL 1980's compressor. I do admit that it is well done, and am also open to it possibly finding a place on different source material. After all, the API EQ sounded unbelievably cold and harsh on bass, guitar, and vocals (yes, I know that it is especially recommended for all three of those sources), and yet it is my top choice for kick drum.

At this point though, I am suffering sticker shock, as I did not expect to have a different preference for each source. This means I would need the whole package, which is too rich for my blood.

As a result, I reread some reviews and found a few other suggestions, which I downloaded last night but did not have time yet to use.

Those are the convolution EQ's from Tritone (especially Hydratone), and the Sonalksis EQ's and compressors. Tritone also has some convolution based analog modeling compressors coming along soon as well.

I feel I should retry Neodynium, Equim, and Firium from Elemental Audio as well, as I am now much more experienced than I was six months ago when I first tried them, and as many people in the forums single out their finaliser (which I tried recently and hated) to not be up to the quality of their other plug-ins, so I shouldn't judge the suite from just that one.

I've ruled out waiting for a Firewire or Ethernet based UAD-1 card at this point, or even reconsidering TC Powercore. For a similar price, I could get Muse Receptor and have a much broader choice of plug-ins, with an even better performance load off the main CPU. Most of the quality plug-ins are now Receptorised (except for Altiverb).

[Splinter]

... the API EQ sounded unbelievably cold and harsh on bass, guitar, and vocals (yes, I know that it is especially recommended for all three of those sources).

Dude, I don't usually get personal on forums like this, but you must be out of your mind! The API is hands down the best of the bunch. Big and ballsy. And the Neve is warm and creamy... far from transparent. Man, what are you monitoring on? Don't take it as an insult, but that's just the complete opposite of everything I've every heard said about either plug and my own experience. I love the API on male vocals and EGs. Adds the perfect amount of presense without getting harsh. Beautiful air. Big lows. I just don't know what you're talking about.

Now, all that said, I was not impressed with the API or Neve Mix EQs. They didn't do a thing for me. If that's what you're basing your evaluation on, go back to the originals.

[mhschmieder]

I don't want big and ballsy, except on drums, where I need to compensate for an inadequate miking job. I have deliberately chosen problematic sessions to do my evaluations of plug-ins as I figure I'll learn more that way.

By transparent, I mean that if I hit the bypass button, the overall characteristic of the sound is almost identical. ONLY the Neve Mix EQ gives me this. I'm not sure why you refer to the non-mix EQ's as the "originals", or did URS release the Mix EQ's later? I don't know the whole history of which came first. I find the non-mix versions useless as I can't do surgical EQ with them and these sessions demand surgical EQ. In fact that's the only time I use EQ is to fix a problem that it's too late to fix in the tracking.

We are probably dealing with very different types of sessions and/or musical styles. That does not mean I am out of my mind. I recognise the quality of ALL of these plug-ins. I just don't have use for all of them, or the same use for some of them that others might have.

I am not interested in using EQ as an effect; only in using it to correct for recording problems and to make something sound more like it would have if it had been recorded better. Most of my music is 100% acoustic, and much of the rest is all keyboard-based. These particular sessions are pop cover band recordings and so are standard rock quartet. We've all done the homework to make things sound right when we play, so EQ in the mix is to correct for any biasing that occurred during recording.

For original pop or rock material, the approach might be different. I do not create or produce that kind of content at the moment. If that changes, perhaps I should learn more about using EQ as an effect vs. simply using it to try to preserve or restore the integrity of the recording itself. I can see in that case that broad-band non-surgical EQ is of way more use as it is part of the creative process at that point.

[beubbo]

Now, all that said, I was not impressed with the API or Neve Mix EQs. They didn't do a thing for me. If that's what you're basing your evaluation on, go back to the originals.

Hi Splinter,

do you mean that they really don't have the same sound/color compared to the *original* vintage design plug-ins ?

did you tried to set each version ("A" & "A Mix"...) to the same number of bands/frequency/gain/Q and see if they still sound different ?

Thanks.

[Grigri]

Hello.
Just to make my point clear.

I use the A & N EQs as a musical choice (= make the sound nicer).
I use MW EQ or Trackplug (WaveArts) for a more clinical or technical approach.

Often, I have : Trim > Trackplug > URS (A or N) in my plugin chain.
Trim to adjust the input gain , Trackplug for basic compression and technical EQ (sharp parametric EQ, HPF & LPF, Notch...) and URS for the cosmetic and "nice" sound. This is not a rule but it's more like an easy way to achieve what I'm looking for.

(BTW, now with DP5, I use the Trim plug as a way to "bypass" the prerendering mode on my plugin chain.)

In the end, these plugins are tools. Who cares that you've used this URS, Wave, MW, ___ Insert favourite plugin name here____ , if the final sound is right for you, -> = !!!

Grigri

[mhschmieder]

Thanks Grigiri for a very informative and useful post. As I have no experience with the hardware versions of these URS plug-ins, it hadn't occurred to me that they might be primarily intended for colouring the sound (even if only subtly so) as opposed to surgical work. I will keep that in mind before dismissing WaveArts TrackPlug and MasterWorks EQ (amongst others) as my primary go-to EQ's for problem-solving.

For the previous post, I'm amazed that I didn't think of what you did -- that "original" referred to the hardware EQ's and not to the non-mix GUI versions of the analog modeling versions from URS.

I should clarify my earlier remarks about aiming exclusively for transparency, as my current testbed project for plug-in evaluation is somewhat of an exception to my usual approach, in that the guitarist went through an amp modeler and we ran out of channels for adding a direct miking of his amp (this is why I bought the Behringer ADDA8000 last week to extend to 16 channels), so in this case I am using VintageWarmer and URS colourising EQ's to get a decent lead guitar sound since we lost all of that in the recording. I also might use those plug-ins for my own rare forays into lead guitar overdubs as I no longer own either a guitar amp or guitar effects .

[Splinter]

I am not interested in using EQ as an effect; only in using it to correct for recording problems and to make something sound more like it would have if it had been recorded better.

Then certainly these EQs are not for you. They are all about color. That's ALL EQ is to me... color. I rarely ever do corrective EQ. If all you want is corrective EQ you are barking up the wrong tree except for maybe the S series. Try EAS Firium or Waves Phase Linear EQ.

The parametric versions of the the API and Neve were just added to the bundle a few months ago, and no they are not like the originals - plugs or hardware. You can't really match something to the original that doesn't exist. I found they didn't add the same color in parametic usage as the original and that's what I like about the originals.

[paradeatw]

what's everyone's experience regarding the A and N series CPU usage? How many instances can you run of each? Is it lighter then MW EQ?

If anyone has a moment, can they post their CPU and RAM along with and idea of how many instances you generally run wihtin a session... taking into consideration other plugs in use as well as just a straight example of no plugs loaded except for the A series or N series?

Just curious is it's light enough to run on all tracks or if it's something mre like a few select tracks? If it's less CPU intensive then running a few knobs within MW EQ that would be great... now, i know you can turn on several knobs in MW EQ but if we were comparing equally, whoa a fatty pig? MW EQ or URS?

[Grigri]

I've updated my signature and I add my setup.

For me, URS are light on CPU.
I have large project with 40 to 60 Tracks and URS dont' tax the CPU.
I have only audio and aux tracks, no MIDI, no VIs.
I don't know if it's lighter than MW EQ, if I have time, I'll try a test and post my result.

Grigri

[Resonant Alien]

I am not interested in using EQ as an effect; only in using it to correct for recording problems and to make something sound more like it would have if it had been recorded better.

Then certainly these EQs are not for you. They are all about color. That's ALL EQ is to me... color. I rarely ever do corrective EQ. If all you want is corrective EQ you are barking up the wrong tree except for maybe the S series. Try EAS Firium or Waves Phase Linear EQ.

I second Splinter on this one. If you are trying to do transparent, corrective EQ, then you have no business using the URS, or even the Pultec EQs for this. The URS and UAD Pultec are intentionally designed to emulate vintage equipment that was intended to add color. If you want surgical EQ, you need to be looking at Waves or even the UAD Cambridge, not Pultec or URS.

[MT]

Well, I finally got on board with the URS demos and all I can say is "holy ••••". Finally, something that's as good as the hype.

I usually go to a plugin in general to color something (I use outboard mostly to correct problems) or to pimp it up. That 1970 Compressor is incredible, but I agree with the other impressions of the "Mix" versions of the EQ (but that may be my own limitations - too many knobs for my lame ass). I couldn't get a handle on them. The API worked great - really easy to sweeten my vocal so that it sits better. I even liked just a nudge of that BLT EQ on the drum bus. I was trying everything out on one modern rock song with very loud guitars and tough high/low end, but I piled on the URS plugs and UAD-1 stuff on this mix and CPU perfomance was just fine (running a heavy Reason ReWire session as well). Also had many instances of Vintage Warmer going (which is an absolute STEAL at $150 - I can't think of a more useful plug than VW).

Anyway, just wanted to join the URS lovefest after being so blown away by them. Totally worth the money.

MT

[Splinter]

Finally, something that's as good as the hype.

MT, that's it, right there. These are hands down some of the best EQs available as plugs. The only other worth looking at for color is Hydratone, but it's a CPU oinker (and is anything but surgical.) URS EQs are extremely efficient.

As for the comps, how do the URS comps compare to Vintage Warmer? I'm definitely looking for mo' better compressors. I currently use RenComp and RenVox, but am wanting to get away from Waves. I know there's demos, but I don't have internet on my studio computer. It's a total pain to download stuff for it.

[MT]

As for the comps, how do the URS comps compare to Vintage Warmer?

I'm no expert, but I'd have to say that 1970 comp is the best comp plugin I've ever used (to add color and to punch up a track). It is just amazing. VW is rediculously underpriced, and I can't believe I didn't buy it sooner. I'd say VW is more of a "saver" in the comp range, meaning that it will save a track that's being difficult. Very musical and very flexible. The presets are great starting points too. I dropped the 1970 and VW on the drums (in that order) last night and the snare absolutely exploded without the kick becoming overwhelming or the OHs becoming crappy, just off of the presets. It was the first "holy ••••" experience I had had in audio since I bought my 6176 a couple of years ago. At minimum, I'm buying the Comp suite from URS, iLok or no iLok. Unfortunately, I didn't make it past the 1970 to try the 1980 because I had to get the mix done yesterday and didn't have too much time to mess around.

I long ago burned the 1176LN trial before I had enough experience to actually figure out how to use it, so it may be something special (and would have liked to compare it to the 1176 in my 6176), and I prefer to use some outboard compressors I have, but the URS stuff is exceptional, IMO. I have never used the Waves stuff, and now refuse to even consider them, based on all the crap I've read about their maintenance program, which sounds like total bullsh••.

Anyway, I hope that's helpful. I'd say that overnight, VW and the 1970 comp have become my two most important tools.

Also, man, I keep my Mac off of the internet as well, and having a USB jump drive makes downloading so much easier. Check those out if you don't have one already.

MT

[Splinter]

... having a USB jump drive makes downloading so much easier. Check those out if you don't have one already.

Yeah, I need a 1GB USB key. Presently, I burn updates to a CD and transfer, but I don't think that will work with an iLok. I suppose I could authorize the demos on this computer, but then I'd have to load up this machine with a bunch of crap... hmm. They sure don't make it easy.

[mhschmieder]

I agree with MT's assesment entirely. The VintageWarmer is definitely one of those rare plug-ins that can "save" a problematic track. I would probably not use it on well-recorded tracks in general though, but it sure can breathe life into a poorly-miked drum kit or a direct non-amped guitar signal .

After finishing with my URS EQ evaluation last night, I realised it's the wrong tool for my task. Although the API EQ's all work quite well on drums (as does also the PSP MasterQ), that's primarily because my drummer has a dead kit (same one he used in high school!). Because he's a phenomenal player, it is possible to use EQ and compression to make it sound like a better kit . If he didn't have such good attack and good control, there would be no way to "fix it in the mix".

I have no experience with the consoles being modeled in the URS EQ package, so apologise if I took this discussion off-course by comparing the EQ's to MasterWorks EQ. I knew what I was trying to get going into my evaluations, as I had already spent 100 hours getting the EQ the way I needed it for my cover band's demo sessions. Many problems to deal with such as direct-only guitar and all-at-once vs. overdubs (LOTS of bleed-through, which I had never before had so much of in a session or had ever spent time learning how one surgically removes that in the mix). So I was primarily looking for using EQ notches to "make room in the mix" or to surgically remove bleed-through, with occasional boosts to compensate for imprecise mic placement or even mic shortcomings.

My only DIRECT console experience is with Mackie, Alesis, Yamaha (digital), and Tascam . All were so bad that I swore off of EQ for a few years. It had not occurred to me that higher-end consoles had deliberately biased EQ's that were meant to be musically pleasing as opposed to clinically "accurate". And yes these are all lovely EQ's.

I probably should have paid attention to what consoles the engineers used in the professional studio sessions I did as a bass player, but I never was in the actual console room in most cases, and at the time didn't realise I would eventually be forced to start doing the whole package myself.

If I was starting with a fresh session I might decide to use these URS EQ's creatively. But I am simply trying to MATCH my MasterWorks EQ settings in a better EQ plug-in to see which one gives me the least high frequency phase distortion. This is my only complaint about MW EQ; although even at that it is a pretty decent generic digital mix EQ plug-in.

Now I can see why there's a preference for the "standard" versions of these plug-ins vs. the "mix" versions, as most people are not using them to try to replicate a specific EQ correctional curve. I personally found the Pultec to be the easiest to work with, in that almost any setting at least sounded good . And it is definitely amazing just how different each of these plug-ins sounds at similar settings.

If I have the dough later on, I'll buy the package and use it as a learning tool to become more familiar with the character of classic high-end consoles.

The 1970 compressor might make it into my collection anyway, as it is the only one that I auditioned that preserves the full integrity of my bass sound at moderate settings (and I only use moderate settings). It definitely colours the sound at higher settings and perhaps that is its main purpose, but I found it to be remarkably transparent and unobtrusive at soft limiting settings.

Tonight I will audition the Sonalksis plug-ins (for EQ and compression), and maybe HydraTone for EQ (if only as a cheaper alternative to the URS for discovering how to work with some of the high-end console EQ's such as the Amtek, API, Avalon with which I am already experienced, and the fourth one which I presume from the name is Fairchild?).

Looks like I might hold out for Summer NAMM to make final purchases after all, if Cambridge EQ is the most appropriate upgrade solution for surgical EQ vs. the MasterWorks EQ plug-in. Surely they'll release a Firewire or Ethernet based solution for us iMac and/or laptop users! Everyone else is doing it by now, so they'd be fools not to as they'll be left in the dust by the competition (especially with all the PCI problems regarding changes to that architecture in recent years).