Wes Audio NG Tube EQ VS Fabfilter Pro-Q4

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

✅ High Quality Audio Examples ► www.audioanimals.co.uk/news/hardware-vs-plugin/wes-audio-ng-tube-eq-vs-fabfilter-pro-q4

[@nicoroy123]

Very good comparison. It demonstrate very clearly why outboard gear have not been replaced by plugins.

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@@nicoroy123 100%

[@lj9732]

Digital topples over every time up against high end anolog. So near yet so far. Thanks for another great video.

[@EzraExan]

This comparison was excellent! I definitely noticed the difference in low-end and high-end presence at varying volumes. The kick drum test and listening to it in a full mix really helped! It would be fantastic to see a comparison between the Elysia Mastering Compressor plugin and its analog counterpart!

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@@EzraExan I am planning to do this comparison ASAP a lot of people have recently asked for this one

[@musicproductionstreams8021]

Looking forward to Unfairchild comparision between hardware and plugin ❤

[@Rhuggins]

That would be fun!!

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@@musicproductionstreams8021 I'll see if I can get that comparison in soon

[@bakerlefdaoui6801]

@@AudioAnimalsStudio That plugin is phenomenal, specialy when oversampling ON. First time I had an AHA moment with an in the box compressor like when I heard the Michelangelo by Toneprojects for EQs. Pure DSP magic.

[@studiodsr]

I have both. The plugin is great but the real thing is so much more open, deeper, more 3D

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@@studiodsr a common theme whenever we compare any hardware to plugins.

[@ThisGuyDude]

Very interesting comparison, thanks very much. Quick question, sorry if I missed it for the fabfilter were you in natural phase mode? For me on the first source the fabfilter was much preferable to the NG tube EQ with both the clean and the warm/tube settings. While the NG tube EQ had a little bit thicker kick, it also seemed to be smearing on the transient relative to the fabfilter, and was more muddy than the fabfilter. On the second source I ended up liking what the NG tube EQ did to the kick and felt that it overall won the day. On that second source the warmth from the tube was particularly nice in the NG tube EQ, but the Fab filter warm mode was not flattering. On the third source I again preferred the fabfilter because the NG tube EQ seemed to smear and resonate the keys. I'm not sure that I would use the NG tube EQ on a mix bus because of the way that it seems to smear some of the low end punch and create resonance in keys. This is true even though the NG tube EQ seems to make the low end more thick... because unfortunately the trade-off is a decrement to the transient punch. Overall, I just particularly liked the definition that the fabfilter provided, especially on the first and third sources. It seemed much truer to the source and I felt that the coloration from the NG tube EQ didn't really add something particularly nice to those sources. Fortunately, thanks to your great comparison I feel like I have a pretty good handle on the coloration and impact of the NG tube, and I have some ideas on where that might be best used for my use cases. Not sure that I'll pick one up though, I have the Fab filter for and it's just phenomenal for clean eq. I just don't feel that the NG tube EQ in clean mode is that much better than the fabfilter as to warrant a purchase of the NG tube EQ. I'm not a big fan of the fabfilter warm mode though. I've already got a metric crap ton of warmers and have not so far found a use for the fabfilter warm mode.

[@tommysa3atf714]

Thanks for another great video Paul. Yes, what can be said, hardware is simply hardware 🥰 You hardly hear any difference if you listen to music and stand by the stove and cook, for example, but if you sit and actively listen and also have decent equipment, the difference is significantly more than you might think.

[@JamesBoss]

You always deliver the goods! Thank you

[@janjahrademusic]

awesome comparison, would love to know what saturation plugin you would use before or after the pro Q4 to make it sound a little more fuller and alive like the Wes.. Would be a great video trying out different saturation plugins to see which one gets closer.. so on one end you have the wes doing its thing and the other end you have proq 4 coupled with different plugin saturators or tape machines.. play the examples so we could hear...

[@MFASonic]

The NG Tube EQ handles every demand placed on it with such ease and naturalness that you immediately feel great confidence. What happens there is simply right. And it sounds perfect. I should buy a camera, because when my first NG arrived, I did exactly the same test (besides the fact that Q4 wasn't released, so I used the identical Q3). Thanks for another great video.

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@MFASonic spot on. Someone was on the fence buying on and wanted to know how much difference there was between the tube EQ and pro q4. I say it's better and it's worth the money. But showing it with audio proof really helps. And if he's wondering, I'm sure many others are.

[@bontempo1271]

You always bring the good stuff Paul, thank you so much mate ! I wish you all the success in your endeavours. Looks like i may end up getting a Wes Audio bus EQ and comp ! Night and day difference on the low end as always. It's so obvious and in every example, so even if the EQ changes do not match exactly, it doesn't explain the low end. I'd imagine you're already aware of Bertom EQ analyser ? If you ever want to make sure your EQ settings are matched, it's real simple to set up.

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@bontempo1271 best way to explain the low end is it's analogue. Regarding the analysers. These are great for analysing plugins but hardware is way off and doesn't analyse it very well. You'd be way off if you matched to the curves in the analyser.

[@bontempo1271]

@@AudioAnimalsStudio Ah i didn't know it was off with hardware, cheers !

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@bontempo1271 some hardware it gets it kind of right. Other hardware it's totally off. For instance when I did this test there was a 0.5db increase in the high end.

[@bontempo1271]

@@AudioAnimalsStudio got it 👍

[@MonkeyMarc]

The Wes has such a tightness and weight to it compared to the fabfilter. Have you compared the Wes to the SPL PQ?

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@@MonkeyMarc I haven't compared it to the SPL PQ plugin or hardware

[@EarthboundMastering]

Great test! Thanks! Did the Fabfilter exports also go through the same converters and mastering console?

[@Prodbykahlert]

I recently started buying outboard gear, and I don’t even understand why people do things like “10% better comparisons.” Analog sounds so much better than VSTs-it’s just not achievable with VSTs. What analog gear does is so different that you simply can’t compare the two. My mixes started sounding 3D, and they sound way louder. I can push them much harder into the limiter after running them through analog gear, and they still sound super pleasing. And yeah, the Wes EQ, all the way to Q4, sounds like a joke-the low end sucks when it’s on.

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

But people who use plugins constantly argue that the differences can't be heard and a plugin emulation is pretty much like having the hardware. Me and you we laugh when we see these kinds of comments because we have knowledge and experience. But others don't and plugin developers and engineers endorsing the plugins are feeding them lies so they say this nonsense. I'm hoping with these kinds of videos highlighting the difference that these people will become slightly more educated on the subject and wake up to the plugin marketing.

[@TannerByTheSea]

So what’s your conclusion?

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@TannerByTheSea my conclusion would be much like what everyone else will come to. Fundamentally they sound the same but the tube EQ sounds special in the low end, the drum track highlights that. The stereo imagine is enhanced in a way pro q4 understandable doesn't. The top end is more controlled and smooth. Never harsh. Overall the tube EQ just sounds more alive and makes me smile.

[@TannerByTheSea]

@ thank God I was hoping you would say that

[@TannerByTheSea]

So pushing forward!! I’m moving in your boot tracks 😜 I just released another one on the 28th hallelujah… Go check that out because I need to have that mastered I wanted to maybe talk to you about that- I want to work on a remix- hence the dance track

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@@TannerByTheSea will check it out. Look forward to working with you. When you want to start working on that just drop me an email and I can answer any questions you have.

[@yurijogurtsov8710]

@@AudioAnimalsStudio tubes have their special flavour anyway - so a ProQ vs Hyperion comparison would be fairer.

[@TheDukeOfBlues]

Would like to see the Tube EQ vs the Chandler Curve Bender

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@TheDukeOfBlues if chandler wants to send one over for this test I'd be happy to do it.

[@OwensDrumming]

Curve Bender rocks 🤘🏼 just got one last week. Amazing

[@TheDukeOfBlues]

@@OwensDrumming lets have a look

[@michael.maurus]

Hi Paul. Thank you for your comparison. For my taste the ngtubeEQ sounds much more brilliant in MS mode with +4dB at 12-20k Tube, compared to the q4 in every genre.

[@acollectionofdaves]

Great video - What about the Blackbox HG-2 plugin vs hardware? That would be interesting in terms of the saturation and valves...

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@@acollectionofdaves that video is already done and uploaded to our channel.

[@hakangurdol]

NG Tube has massive saturation even on the clean output, didn't listen the rest. Thank you.

[@bluematrix5001]

I think the constant difference is the stereo field, the WES sounds 3D and more alive, also the WES tend to saund bigger in the low end and smoother in the highs and slightly more Harmonics(analog) the low end and the Harmonics would be closer with EQ and any low saturation... the WES is lovely...thanks for the video

[@zanza_the_rewolverine]

You can review Black box eq from plugin alliance?

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@@zanza_the_rewolverine I will happily review the hardware against the plugin when the hardware comes out.

[@zanza_the_rewolverine]

@ great

[@gaboonschoolofmusic9848]

you can never replace outboard gear ...you can also mix into them as well.......incredible... Wes audio is now on my shopping list

[@ast4127]

Of course you can, this is a popular myth. Producing and mixing your chair is more important then your outboard gear if you have the skill and know your plugins. For Mastering I would say you probably still need some outboard.

[@MR_Cellarpop]

I need this warm EQ :). Thanks for the video. Best/Mathias

[@TeeDubz]

Good job man! Love it! Thanks!

[@feliksweber8566]

Hi Paul, listen on my kii three system, the kick drum has a little longer sustain and more bass with wes audio. You need more of it in the Q4...the highend is also a little brighter sound expensive on wes audio. but can be achived with Q4, I think. WHat do you think?

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@feliksweber8566 I actually tried matching Q4 to the Wes Audio but then it's just became louder not sweater. It didn't match in the sense that they were the same EQ curves. You could maybe apply some saturation to pro q4 to give it a more of a similar sound. Which is why I switch the warm output on. Which did give pro q4 a little more "warmth" in the low end.

[@leroytakahashi]

This is a very expensive tube EQ vs the Fabfilter plugin and the consensus it seems is that the hardware sounds better.....but what about a more mid-range hardware EQ vs the FF? At what level is the FF equal to the hardware ie what do we need to spend to hear a difference?

[@jamesrisoto7729]

Totally

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

That's a good question. One we could probably work out. First question does the Wes Audio Hyperion sound noticeably better. This is a really interesting question I may have to look into.

[@leroytakahashi]

Yes please, genuinely intrigued by this

[@AA_MusicGuy1111]

Nice video. The ff in warm mode is really nice “eq” and the “eq” spect of it is very close however the whole mix on all the examples sounds more complete and coherent just running through the hardware. Things are in focus more etc. That said I don’t think ff is meant to be a finisher type thing so it’s not exactly apples to apples. It’s still the best plugin eq ever made and the new warm mode sounds killer for boosts

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@AA_MusicGuy1111 no doubt pro q4 is awesome. This is my favourite plugin EQ vs my favourite hardware EQ.

[@minwoo9153]

Thank you again for the amazing video! I don't understand why NG Tube EQ has so much fatter bottom end. Could it be your converter? Burl Bomber?

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@minwoo9153 I use the Ferrofish converters for these examples as the Burls do have a sound to them. The ferrofish are a lot more transparent and don't really have a sound. Certainly not one that would give you that fatter bottom end.

[@minwoo9153]

@@AudioAnimalsStudio Thank you. I was never impressed by Ngtubeeq, but this video makes me want one.

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@minwoo9153 well think of it like this. Do you like pro Q4? If you do, it's pro q4 but analogue. What's not to like. Minus dynamic EQ and spectral dynamics.

[@minwoo9153]

@@AudioAnimalsStudio The dimension and fattness Ngtubeeq gives reminds me of Bettermaker Vspe. I really love your videos. I wouldn't have a chance to listen to those.

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@@minwoo9153 very its very much the wow factor I talk of in the VSPE video. It instantly pricks my ears up to that warm rich low end.

[@AOEarlobe]

Hay Paul, great comparison.. Thank you. I hear the NG in tube modes saturation slightly softer transients warmer sound. However there are closer in depiction in sound when both are in the clean mode, however still hear the NG’s saturation just less pronounced. It make’s me want to buy an NG for my master bus.. The question, what has the better sound the NG or the Cranborne HE2??

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@AOEarlobe yes I agree both sound fundamentally the same. The tube EQ just sounds more alive to me. This is why I wanted to change modes. Because with the tubes out we do have a very clean EQ. Which is more comparable with a clean plugin EQ. So it wouldn't be fair to hit the tubes and compare tubes vs a clean digital signal. Regarding the HE2. They are totally different EQs. The HE2 should be seen as a 3 band saturator. In an ideal world have both.

[@Javarrockamore]

Did this test the first day I got the Wes audio ngeq. Just too make sure I didn’t waste my 6k lol. I was kind of amazed at the differences. Now of course fab filter can have 30 bands and is more flexible but sonically the ngeq was leaps and Bounds better in my honest opinion .

[@AOEarlobe]

If you had to choose one which would you go for?

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@@AOEarlobe I'd go for both. They both have their place in my studio.

[@mehmetkurtulus4671]

"I have been following your channel with great interest for quite some time now, and I am eagerly looking forward to your response to my question. If you had to choose between the Bettermaker Mastering EQ and the Wes Audio ngTube EQ, what would you do? Perhaps the Bettermaker might be better for surgical tasks, but I feel that Wes Audio is generally better overall. What would your preference be? Thanks in Advance

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@mehmetkurtulus4671 I would choose the Wes Audio. The reason being is for a few reasons. 1. Every feature is on the front panel to use and you can fly around the EQ. The Bettermaker is a little fiddly. 2. Sound wise the tube EQ can do a lot more. Can be clean or tubey. You can choose. The bettermaker just sounds clean and clinical. Which is great if you want that sound.

[@mehmetkurtulus4671]

@@AudioAnimalsStudio "Thank you so much for your response. I was thinking the same as you. This might be too much, but I promise this is my last question. Digital limiters make me quite unhappy. The Hum Audio LAAL is a bit expensive for me. As an alternative, I’m considering the Bettermaker Limiter v2. Would you recommend it? I think Darthlimiter is better, but it’s almost impossible to get it right now. Thank you once again for your time."

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@mehmetkurtulus4671 the BM limiter V2 is good. The darthlimiter is better. But like you say hard to get hold of now. Did you watch my video review on all the Bettermaker gear? I go into a lot of detail about the v2 limiter in that video. I feel the BM limiters are compatible with digital limiters. The LAAL is in a league of its own. But as you say very expensive.

[@mehmetkurtulus4671]

@@AudioAnimalsStudio "I watched the video, but I think I missed the important point. I’ll watch it again. Thank you so much for your time and for your responses. Wishing you good work."

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@mehmetkurtulus4671 any questions you have just drop them in a comment.

[@braxal6983]

Paul, Do you have any 542's in your studio?

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@braxal6983 i used to have 2. I'm waiting for a digitally recallable version. Or a new 19 inch rack version to come out. I love them and wish they'd have put them into the MBT.

[@MartinArchea]

​@@AudioAnimalsStudio I am still mad at this. MBT would be really no brainer if there is 542 section instead of compressor. Do you think they are going to make 19 inch version? Would not it cannibalize their 500 series?

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@@MartinArchea the only reason I can think of why they didn't do this was because they'll release a new version at some point.

[@MartinArchea]

@@AudioAnimalsStudio I really hope you are right!

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@@MartinArchea I've been making this prediction every year for the past 5 years. Never happened. This could be the year.

[@christophersanchez8585]

massive difference ,wes audio definitely sounds fuller!!!

[@MellowXBrew]

The fundamental/low end is still not replicated perfectly in the digital domain if these were 100% matching curves

[@HardyNahtal]

A lot of the difference is very apparent in the top end! Which is worth the price of the Wes Audio 🎉It’s on my List to buy this year

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@@HardyNahtal you'll love it. I put it up there as my favourite EQ. No other EQ can complete with its features.

[@ChrisBrokamp]

Pretty much to expectation...it costs a LOT of money to chase that final 8-10% of improvement

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@@ChrisBrokamp something i hear a lot of people say is that it's only 10% who's going to really know. But this is just one instance. Those 10% add up to a lot across a mastering chain or a mix.

[@ChrisBrokamp]

​@AudioAnimalsStudio completely agree. Since going outboard my eyes have been opened.

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@ChrisBrokamp I tried going back into the box and it was a huge step backwards. The fact we have so much digitally recallable gear available now and more to come. The huge negative of analogue being more time consuming with recall isn't a factor. So it now at least for me all comes down to sound.

[@PurpleMusicProductions]

​@@AudioAnimalsStudioI completely agree. When I started my hybrid journey, I absolutely cannot stand being in the box as it is so digital and even VSTs bother me. I can deal with the frustrations of recall by snapping pictures and taking notes because the end result is well worth. Craftsmanship is never easy otherwise everyone would be one. That extra 8-20% adds up over tracks and separates the wheat from the chaff.

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@PurpleMusicProductions 100% I always think of it like when you compare a mix to a master. One jumps off the page and the other is just OK.

[@marcusgarveyson]

In some instance i preferred the pro q4 but overall i preferred the ng tube eq

[@magnivore1603]

Are any of the Wes Audio 500 series EQs similar to the ngTubeEQ? I’d like to make sure I don’t purchase overlapping similar styles of gear!

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@magnivore1603 this is a question I've been asked a few times. And I'm going to record this video tomorrow for you. Will try and post it Friday. I'll compare it to the hyperion and compare sound. It's something I'm interested in knowing the answer to.

[@magnivore1603]

@ thank you very much!

[@markusdex]

Super interesting comparison - but hold on here! I ran the 4:10 examples through measurement and the Wes Audio example is measuringing +0.8db louder then the Fabfilter version. Is this on purpose or by mistake?

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@markusdex the audio is matched how I perceive them to sound as close as possible. The wes audio example here could measuring louder but the perceive loudness is the same. Which is why when listening you shouldn't hear a volume difference.

[@markusdex]

​@@AudioAnimalsStudio I can hear a difference, the Weiss comparison sounds better - fuller - more impact. ......But so does any signal if it is louder, as in this example by +0.8 db Got no doubt the Weiss sounds better, unfortunately this is not the comparison that prooves it. Would love to hear them properly level matched!

[@dans5529]

@@markusdex You can still obviously hear what the Wes is doing despite the slight volume discrepancy. Even when I lower the Wes by a few dbs and then listen to the Pro Q a few dbs louder straight after, I can still hear the tighter/punchier low end from the Wes, for example.

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@dans5529 exactly. As mentioned in the intro. Theoretically, we should hear the fundamentals exactly the same. The key differences are glaringly obvious and highly audible. Again as mentioned in the intro this is the purpose of the video.

[@DanBires]

Great video but I still rather use plugins.

[@hiphop3sree3]

I'm listening through Samsung mobile ultra 23... Even though the difference is subtle ... But it sounds like it should be like that... You can't tell the Fab sounds a little plastic😅

[@braxal6983]

Hi Paul. The Wes Audio Tube EQ sounds fatter, wider and more dimensional than the Fabfilter Pro Q4. I suppose if they were not heard next to each other it would be hard to tell the difference. All the percentages of hardware gear verses plugins will add up to a better mix using as much hardware as you can.

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@braxal6983 yeah exactly. Pro Q4 is brilliant and you wouldn't sit there and say it sounds bad just because it doesn't sound analogue. Yes the tube EQ sounded better but then it's 30 times the price. Could you use additional plugins to achieve a similar sound. Maybe but it'll take 30 times longer. So instead I pay 30 times the price to get an instantly pleasing sound. That's how I think about these things.

[@Genital.Wartzenegger]

A video should be made of trying to make them sound the same. Low end bump or the soft highs in the tube eq make it so obvious

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@Genital.Wartzenegger I did try this but it just made it sound worse and created an unfair comparison.

[@Genital.Wartzenegger]

@ well in that case, that eq sounds insanely good.

[@riktascale4]

I am listening to this through JVC earbuds and it sounds like the Wes Audio is not harsh but the FF BY COMPARISON sounds harsh. Makes me want to invest in a Craneborne adat for additional outs and find a way to incorporate the Wes audio stuff😅

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@riktascale4 if you want to do that why not get a wes audio titan rack with a Calypso adat unit. Then you can add 4 wes audio units to your interface via inserts over adat. I had one and it worked great. It just took up a much needed slot in my titan rack so I swapped it for an EQ.

[@riktascale4]

@AudioAnimalsStudio oh l did not know a WA titan could be connected via adat. I will certainly enquire about it at VK. Thanks for the insight🙏

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@riktascale4 yeah it requires the Wes Audio Calypso module. Great conversion in it.

[@riktascale4]

@AudioAnimalsStudio will certainly check it because l was wondering to use adat with wes audio and recall with the WA technology. The WA multiband also peaks my interest.

[@vicneve1169]

And the good news is that we don't have to buy that EQ. Just send your music to Audio Animals for mastering 😊

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@@vicneve1169 1x tube EQ £5500 or 110x Audio Animals masters £5500

[@risingphoenix1484]

There is a huge difference the ngTube EQ sounds way fatter and musical... the FFPQ4 sounds weak and thin . It's theoretically the same but sonically you can hear the difference... Again, we use our ears to make music so we are more sensitive than the average person to subtle sound differences. There may not be much of a difference to the average earbud listener.

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@risingphoenix1484 i agree. I listened to the examples this morning using my meta glasses and couldn't tell them apart. Granted they have little to no low end but the average listener maybe they wouldn't tell the difference. I like to think they would subconsciously without knowing it like the tube EQ and that leads to them listening again. I know how I feel when listening to a badly mixed song. I don't gravitate towards it. I feel a full lovely sounding song you gravitate towards it. At least I do.

[@jetn8654]

You dialed them in the same way. Fine. Next test, try acheiving the sound you want with each by dialing in aurally, as that is what a good mixer would do.

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@jetn8654 you could always do this test yourself and share your video.

[@studiodsr]

Ng tube all day every day. That hollow, digital, in the box sound I’m always trying to avoid is right there in the pro q, and completely absent in the Ng tube. Pro q is completely fine for surgical use on individual tracks but for bus processing the Ng is night and day better

[@xandervideo1]

Bass has way more 'authority' through the WesAudio for a start.

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@xandervideo1 authority. I like that way of describing it. That's exactly what that bass has. If you hear me describe the low end as having more authority in future videos, know I got it from you.

[@rnbyido]

same old conclusion. Hardware smoother, deeper.. but would the average listener be able to tell the difference if an entire record was mixed and mastered in the box? I very much doubt it.

[@philventre8076]

yes they would be able tell the difference at some level, probably they couldn't put their finger on what exactly that difference is though. It may be slight, but used across an entire mix, the sum of the parts adds up and becomes very apparent.

[@rnbyido]

@philventre8076 I disagree they wouldn't

[@justinhoffman1111]

oh I thought you were going to try to match them ( the sound) not just match the settings. Analog 1 to 1 will always sound better - I can almost bet that the eq curves on the analog unit are smoother then what the WES plugin is showing ( not that its a bad thing) so doing a 1 to 1 match with digital I don't think will ever be the same to be fair. I think you can get closer with adjusting the pro Q4

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@justinhoffman1111 tried this the results were worse for fabfilter. So decided to do it as I did in the video. Want it to be fair and not make fabfilter sound worse.

[@MarkVO]

The difference is IMMEDIATELY noticeable. The Wes Audio is full, rich, punchy and wide. The Pro-Q4 sounds almost like you didn't actually use it.

[@Deandre-r3j]

Hardware sounds richer

[@aleksamrkela831]

Not even close!

[@therealrickjames1983]

It's a difference yes, but not enough for the thousands of dollars that analog cost. You wouldn't be able to tell listening to a song. Just my opinion.

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@@therealrickjames1983 you 100% can hear listening to a song. What do you think the 2nd and 3rd examples are. It's glaringly obvious.

[@therealrickjames1983]

@AudioAnimalsStudio I meant if a song just came on. Most people wouldn't be able to say that's analog and that's digital without these types of comparisons.

[@therealrickjames1983]

If your point is to show analog is better then I agree it's just not enough to justify the price difference for most of us.

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@therealrickjames1983 just because something is too expensive for you to warrant buying it doesn't mean it isn't worth it. To you it isn't worth it but if you had thousands of clients it would be worth it to them. It's units like this that separate one service from another. Even if it's 10% better for me that's worth its weight in gold. Multiply that across 140 analogue devices and you have a significant difference. But that's going to cost £250,000. That's the price we pay to give our clients the best sound we possibly can. And ultimately what gives us a unique sound compared to everyone sounding the same in the box. Regarding the average listener hearing the difference. They can hear the difference they just don't know why they can hear the difference. You've given me an idea for an interesting video to put this common myth to the test.

[@therealrickjames1983]

@@AudioAnimalsStudio I would love a comparison of a good in the box mix vs an analog one and see how much of a difference it is.

[@michaelmertens813]

The Analog EQ clearly sounds better. But in which world is it economically right for somebody who does audio for a living, to pay 5k plus for one ! instance of an EQ? Not in this world. Let alone the follow up costs, if you start to work outside the box again. Analog gear is a playground for financially independent people now, not for the average audio peon. Interesting video though.

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@michaelmertens813 100% this is a pro audio product for professionals. Not that you can't be a professional using plugins. But like all professionals you buy the best gear you can afford to do your job to best of its ability.

[@michaelmertens813]

@@AudioAnimalsStudioMaybe, but I don´t think nowadays all professionals buy the best gear they can afford. The budgets that allow that, seem long gone.They might buy the best computer. But obviously, my perception and discernment is based on local experiences, not global. Thanks for the video anyway.

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@michaelmertens813 if they can warrant the purchase and can afford to spend that money they will. Many will look at it as plugin costs £200 hardware costs £5500 can I warrant spending £5300 more for the 10% better sound. Most people no. But for me, yes. I can warrant spending this on an EQ because i want to achieve the best sound and it is an investment into my clients sound. Ultimately getting me a better end result and winning me more clients. So I can warrant a purchase like this.

[@sikemper]

Hardware has a decent resale value, so the investment is less than you think.

[@babylittlebaby]

youtube codac stands in the way

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@babylittlebaby which is why I put the full quality examples on our website to listen to in an AB player. Check the description.

[@vodkastudios4170]

In general it sounds like there is a subtle saturation with the WesAudio, just slightly more prevalent bass overall, slightly crisper highs. I can definitely get a very similar sound with ITB vsts though, you just have to know your way around the tools you practice with.

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@@vodkastudios4170 let's put it to the test. I'll send you the original audio. You can then send it back processed exactly the same using ITB plugins. I can then put together a video blind test. And we can all see if you are right. Up for it?

[@vodkastudios4170]

@@AudioAnimalsStudio It is such a subtle difference between the two but yeh it is noticeable enough to where I am pretty sure I can approximate what the WesAudio is doing. I will tell you right now, all I will likely do is copy the EQ curve you have, add a good multiband saturator where only the low and high end are being processed, boost the low end ever so slightly with the correct sounding distortion algorithm (I mean like we are talking baaaarely boosting, but it does sound like it would be a boost.), do the same with a different algorithm on the high end, parallel process that with the mix knob while A/B ing with your WesAudio example until it sounds right. If I can't get that high end sheen with a multiband saturator, I would probably try Spectre on the high end extremely subtly to try and achieve it. Adjust mix knobs to again, make sure levels are pretty much identical and it should approximate it pretty well. The issue is it really is not so big of a difference currently, it is ridiculously subtle, at least on the headphones I am listening to it on. ( I will have access to good studio monitors soon, but I am currently on a good pair of headphones that I know quite well.). Either way I would be up for the challenge.

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@vodkastudios4170 ok go to the pinned comment I have posted on this video. Or in the description you will find a link to the audio files. You can download them from the players. Download the Wes Audio Tube EQ with the tube active and then download the clean version of Fabfiter. Will be the files in the 3rd examples on the website. You can download by right clicking the player and saving files. Then use the tube EQ as a reference and the plugin audio to process exactly as you want to to get them to match up.

[@vodkastudios4170]

@@AudioAnimalsStudio It let's me play them without issue but does not let me download them. I tried on both Firefox and Brave browser. There is no player that pops up, the sounds just play when I click on them, and right clicking does not offer any options to download the file, when I click "save as" it downloads the entire html. I very well might be missing something obvious, maybe you can provide me with some more info on exactly where to press to download?

[@AudioAnimalsStudio]

@vodkastudios4170 drop me and email and I'll send them to you. Email is on the contact page. That seems the easiest way.

[@joeyf808]

Laughable, No Comparison.