Acustica RUST vs UAD HITSVILLE vs KIT MO-Q - a shootout!

[@FoliaSound]

Hellloooo! Which is your fav Motown style EQ? Do you have any or you just don't need it?

[@aviatedviewssound4798]

Paul you crazy with these intro dances LOL, love the content today man.

[@FoliaSound]

@@aviatedviewssound4798 , thanks :D This is just the way I work in the studio, seriously!

[@Cefshah]

I have 2 of these plugins in your shootout (Rust and Mo-Q). And hands down... Acustica "Rust" is most musical!! (Mo-Q will probably be used more while making coarse adjustments during tracking or mixing.) 🙂 Rust is so much like a musical instrument; it'll be the first plugin I map with my fancy new controller. Main reason... this is an EQ that you just need to listen to, as you turn the knobs. Simply adjust the tone the way you want it to be, by ear; Rust can do a lot, without screwing things up.

[@Clarity-808]

Fantastic comparison - one of the best I've seen on KZbin. Thank you!

[@FoliaSound]

Wow, so great to hear that. Thanks!

[@martijnvandongen292]

Thank you so much for the comparison and taking the time to share! I was in doubt about Rust, I own the KIT Plugin version but somehow it sounded not the way I like it. I bought trust.

[@FoliaSound]

Nice, Martijn, I'm happy I helped!

[@TheMixClub]

I enjoy the MO-Q. I use it on my MB. I only push it a DB or two at most and I love it. I have not tested tested RUST of HITSVILLE. I like watching Paul but i dont get that deep in the woods with testing plugins. You all are to smart for me. I like something or I dont. Its about that simple. I aways wanted to build audio hardware. but they would not even let me get within 10ft of a soldering iron or make a set list as i have dyslexia lol..... Great vid Enjoyed.

[@eprotz]

Yes, kudos for looking to the manuals!

[@Cefshah]

Great comparison!! If I could only have ONE of these Motown style EQ's, I would go with "Rust"; but I love having more than one of these kinds of plugins. Often, I can hear where different plugins like these are more effective in certain situations.

[@FoliaSound]

Thanks!

[@americanantagon1st]

Great video. Maybe the eq on Rust would make it more similar to UAD, adding some vintage tone. I can tell that Rust eq does the same as other AA eq vs algorithmic plugins. It just sounds more dynamic and clear, in comparison. Better definition in the transients.

[@dimocka79]

UAD. Smooth,warm and silky. Like it.

[@racializedkanadian]

thanks!! great choice of song/track, to compare as well.

[@FoliaSound]

Thanks, man, hope to hear from you soon!

[@mikeglass7993]

Nice comparison. Rust is nice. They had some glitches with it when it first came out, so I stepped away. I might check it out again after watching this. Thanks Paul.

[@FoliaSound]

Thanks, Mike!

[@1wibble230]

Got Rust in the recent sale, an impulse buy. Glad I did. No idea if it sounds like real motown eq, don't even care. But its a fantastic eq, doing just 0.5 or 1db boosts on the main bus works some special magic

[@JimGramze]

I think you sold me on Rust, for final more subtle applications is sounds dreamy. Good choice of song at the beginning, very Motown like (I'm from Detroit). I believe in general they high-passed everything from about 90 Hz back in the day.

[@FoliaSound]

Heeey, Detroit, how are you? I'll visit you one day for some real house music! Thanks!

[@johnnyvegas2015]

I will probably never have a use for Motown EQ but agree with you, Rust seems to be the best choice...cheers

[@FoliaSound]

Cheers, Johnny, thanks!

[@andivax]

You should use this EQ on couple of tracks. This way you will immediately notice the difference. Not mention UAD had descrete controls for some reason and Kit has no saturation at all. So when I compared UAD and AA I prefer UAD for old school style of music and AA for the modern music. The curves and phase are almost the same. Didn't check the impulse BTW. UAD had too many saturation for my taste.

[@RaunoPaananenAudio]

Rust is very very musical, Good thinking!

[@jahnneu315]

Nice review!

[@FoliaSound]

Thanks, come back soon for more!

[@Randallkoller]

I'm listening through my workstation and they're all decent but I'd choose Rust all day! it's cleaner and adds a flavorful analog fatness and tone that the other 2 don't deliver at all! In fact they sounds harsh by comparison!

[@Cefshah]

Useful video. Bravo!! 🙂👍

[@FoliaSound]

Thx, come back soon for more, man!

[@RadiAsian]

excellent ...subscribed

[@FoliaSound]

Thx, man!

[@Diogrus]

Nice video! I still not tried any of them, but I like both AA and Kit plugins (generally speaking). Now, about this particular EQ, from your review, I liked Rust the most, but as an AA user, I know the CPU usage is a huge part of the deal, so it's sounds like a "bittersweet better". We won't be able to use it in the whole production (unless we commit tracks to relief the CPU), so Kit's one has this advantage of being way lighter and usable. And, well... Windows user here, without UAD card, so the Hittsvile will need to wait a bit longer for me to test it. Going a bit further about Rust, have you tried its preamp? Does it add a bit more complexity to the sound? 😃👍

[@FoliaSound]

All my test is done using the preamp. Yes, id does add a lot of pleasant harmonics!

[@Diogrus]

@@FoliaSound Dang! I think I missed that. I don't know why I thought you done the test without it (maybe remembering that the MoQ is more on the cleaner side). Anyways, thanks for the video, and the answer!

[@h-voltage]

How is the MO-Q lighter on your CPU? This is one VERY rare instance when an Acustica plugin is way lighter on CPU. Mo-Q uses 16% here, and Rust even with the preamp ON uses just 6%. This is one of the lightest plugins from Acustica.

[@Robert_Babicz]

:-) nice shootout

[@FoliaSound]

Thanks, rob! Btw, I'm working hard on presenting you something I would call the best mix and master I could get, based on my current skills. I'm more than open to your feedback, man. Good to see you back! :)

[@Robert_Babicz]

@@FoliaSound i am always happy to critic things in a nice way

[@le-berry]

I don't like UA (although having 3 Octo's and basically al the UAD-2 and Native stuff) The acustica is fake stuff and hyped sadly I could not try KIT MO-Q so I do appreciate the shootout. For me it's UA Hitsville having the charm and vibe one would expect I did notice that this mostly only manifest on a good monitor or headphone. I love to use Hitsville in the studio on Focal SM-9.

[@FoliaSound]

I compared a lot of Acustica stuff vs UAD stuff and I can twell one thing for sure: Acustica is far from being fake. Its EQs are always great, also some of their compressors (I use Magenta) are absolutely stunning and bring a lot of life to your mixes.

[@le-berry]

What you hear is what you get and I'm happy for you. I don't think the cannot deliver anything good but the methods used to make the sound 'authentic' are really misleading and once you test you end up concluding the trick works like the magic from the magician, the illusion is percieved a such. Once you know the trick (cheap and not very interactive disapointing methods used bij Acustica to make you hear that magic without true modelling techniques which one would expect to be present in the high end range). @@FoliaSound

[@RJ1J]

Only problem with Acoustica plug-ins is that most don't work well with M1 in the number of DAWs. For example, Ableton and ProTools - forget it. Especially if you wanna run a plugin at native IR sample rate of 96khz. Logic M1 Native is the only DAW so far I found the can handle Acoustica plug-in at 96. Really really sucks. This is on an M1 Ultra btw.

[@FoliaSound]

Pro Tools doesn't support M1 officially and issues apply to many, many plugins out there. This is purelt PT/Mac issue, I believe.

[@le-berry]

Acustica makes bullshit products very misleading (sometimes the do bring something to the table but not due to modelling more with cheap tricks which does not fit the 'simulation' of something good (the interaction is totally off with much of their plugins). Unexpected results which are like trowing a dice at times.

[@RJ1J]

I wouldn't go that far. A lot of the plug-ins that I own are fantastic. But I agree that I have trialled others and owned some that suffer from what you talk about. So far it's only one, Snow. That is all over the place.@@le-berry

[@le-berry]

Fair enhough I maybe was a bit all in on the brand (having invested quite a bit in acustica, I take it to personal) First my impression was ok (having invested blured my objectivety) The horrible GUI made me think the focus is al on the sound but that proved to be wishfull thinking. They present the products with passion but the passion is hard to find when questions are asked about certain bugs and choices. Same deal with UA (they are even worse in responding like lawyers are in charge). I stopped engaging with Acustica because the defensive response made me give up. Hating the interface is one thing hating the people behind the interface and their questionable choices. Acustica and UA are both blindly focussed on marketing. @@RJ1J

[@Robert_Babicz]

btw you did not compare the harmonic distortion

[@FoliaSound]

Yep, I didn't and I it's on purpose. My videos tend to be too long and too detailed, I'm trying to focus on most important things and how they sound and not to go too far with everything that should be tested and revealed :)

[@Robert_Babicz]

@@FoliaSound the harmonic distortions are the difference in this 3 plugsins

[@FoliaSound]

Yes, they are and I think I mentioned that in the vid, talking about high register of Rust. Acustica sounds the richest and when looking at harmonic analysis you'll find the proof for it. I just decided to say in the sum up that it sounds the richest, most organic without getting into more and more details ;) My videos are painfully long and it totally affects my views and community and I'm always trying to decide - how to make it as short yet as interesting and competent as possible? This always brings compromises and sacrifices :(

[@Robert_Babicz]

@@FoliaSound

[@marcfrank7446]

Yep ‒ this is something PluginDoctor will not display, and most of the time it is *the* decisive factor. [Rust wins *by far*, even when listening on mediocre PC speakers]

[@nathanielcade947]

Really enjoyed your comparison of the plugins. Have to agree with you on Paul Third. He (Paul Third), after calling out Kit Plugins created his own version of the Motown EQ using Melda MXXX. He did not however, compare his creation to the Kit Plugins or, the UAD version. Paul Third also wants us to pay him for his version rather than offer it up freely to the vast MXXX preset database already in existence. He does have the right to do so but, given his position & comments, this comes off as somewhat disingenuous. Again,,,Thank You and keep up the work! One more thing. What are your thoughts on the following video from Kit Plugins? kzbin.info/www/bejne/d2i2n6N7g9KkjdE

[@assessoroffice7212]

both are nice sounding but still a DSP paper sound to me... not a real hardware sound.

[@theclaverman]

Of course. But in a blind test I bet you actually would have big time problems with picking out the hardware from the plugin version…and this is proven thousands of times in blind tests, as people are certain they absolutely can hear difference but the result is often close to 50/50 which really mean…they had absolutely no clue which one’s which…

[@Maksitto]

UAD is the best and musical And you didn't turn on the preamp in rust

[@1wibble230]

Rust sounds the best, and you can clearly see that its pre=amp IS on, its in the 4x oversampling ON mode. It's a 3 way slider. Off - On - On(4x). yw:)

[@Maksitto]

@@1wibble230 on the 2nd track pre is def off on rust

[@joelybarish4618]

Thank you for your informative review of Rust. Paul third is a nitwit pretending he has any actual knowledge.

[@FoliaSound]

Thanks! I'm not gonna judge Paul, but it's good to discuss his theories sometimes!

[@blackswanstudios6632]

@@FoliaSound Well, it seems to me you reached the same conclusions in your actual listening experience as Paul Third did using a more scientific method, but you state that you disagree with him at the end, which is weird. He was saying that the kit plugin was marketed as a faithful recreation, which it clearly is not. That's an objective observable fact. Like you said, it sounds more digital than the others, more like a normal algo/modelled plugin, which is naturally not the case for the hardware So you're hearing exactly what Paul Third is saying, but implying he is wrong at the end...I don't quite get that?

[@joelybarish4618]

@@blackswanstudios6632 the sooner you distance yourself from Paul Turd, the better off you will be.

[@blackswanstudios6632]

@@joelybarish4618 Huh? I'm not allowed to state objective facts here? I have to ''distance myself'' from a youtuber you don't like? That's odd. I'm not in alliance with Paul, I don't agree with every conclusion he makes and the same goes for every KZbinr.

[@nathanielcade947]

@@blackswanstudios6632 Take out the word "scientific". No calibrated external measuring tools were used.

[@Randallkoller]

Paul 3rd slams acustica all the time, likely because they won't give him free licenses or some shallow crap of that sort

[@FoliaSound]

Paul 3rd slams a lot of things, but he's quite aware of his tendencies of overciticizing things. He's an autistic guy and he gets nervous sometimes, I can somehow relate to that ;) I generally love Acustica stuff mostly, but I'm not a blind believer ot theirs, that's for sure!

[@AlexLapugean]

Well ... do you think he criticize things without reason? All of his reviews I've see had legitimate slams. Like in the case of Kit Mo-Q, where he showed the curves are perfect bell curves like the ones in Fabfilter Pro-Q, and also added no saturation at all, same for Harrison 32C (which also cramps). The logical question is why would these plugins exist and why would anybody need them? Many snobs would just say "just use your ears", but I think shady plugin developers actually rely on people not critically analizing their plugin and go by hype and endorsments/recommendations.