Chandler Curve Bender Review: Analog Gear Still King?

[@DragonBiscuit]

Listening on some good cans and it's immediately apparent the hardware, as expected is not only less harsh sounding, but absolutely imparts a lovely sense of depth/space that is still not accurately replicated by plugins. I usually have a massive passive or stereo pultec sitting on my mix bus - but sure wouldn't mind a curve bender - obviously the price, cost of operation, heat (my studio gets toasty), and maintenance are all barriers to entry. I don't expect to sell any of my favorite analog pieces but plugins have certainly come a long way.

[@andrewwhitehouse1878]

Thanks for doing this!! I felt that the hardware had slightly less crystal clear highs than the plug-in, and that the HW seems to have a tighter and more solid low end, it's extremely subtle but it sounds deep and solid. I don't have a horse in the race since I can only afford the plugin currently!!

[@chadfayrobinson7537]

I prefer the hardware, could there be more harmonics in the hardware can you a person even measure that ?

[@raretonemastering]

Love my Curve Bender but the caveat is that I am mastering full time so those added few percent are actually worth the investment. For anyone tracking and mixing I would stick with the plugin. Personally, I find compression is where hardware really outshines the software. Great video as always Oliver!

[@OliverShillito]

I think you’re in a different ballgame if you’re mastering full time. It makes sense for that I guess!

[@Chaos-Dynamics]

The hardware sounded better to my ears, not 6 grand difference but still 😊 Very nice eq

[@OliverShillito]

If you have the money to burn then it's certainly a statement piece to own! That's for sure.

[@RevoltStudio-hj6tj]

Smoother Highs on the Hardware compared to the plugin which is a bit more agressive

[@dgkompoitsos]

UAD x Softube did an amazing job at emulating this and the Zener Limiter which I am also looking forward to seeing you reviewing it. As usual, the hardware wins; better 3D imaging with a punchy foundation that does feel very natural and organic to my ears

[@davemaverick8438]

in blind test especially on the phone, I could always hear instantly when that high frequency percussion hits , that high end harsh sparkle of plugin, vs the hardware rounded pleasant sound, vsts always seem to have something predictable over 7k

[@Javarrockamore]

its the depth in the hardware that separates it

[@americanantagon1st]

Please, use Bertom EQ Analyzer. It's free and will be much better than Pro-Q for matching frequencies. I enjoyed and preferred the hardware. Thank you for sharing.

[@OliverShillito]

I’ll check it out. Thanks for the suggestion!

[@Rhuggins]

First off, thanks so much for making this video! If you ever want to compare the frequency response of two units, whether HW or SW, I highly recommend the free Bertrom Curve analyzer. Give it a shot and you wont go back; the FFT from Pro3 in this circumstance doesnt seem to me to be useful at all

[@chrisdover8507]

If you’re listening to 20 songs, like the average listener, then hardware is less fatiguing even if the listener doesn’t necessarily know. I don’t really agree with industry mixers deciding that ITB is good enough. I guess generally they’re using hardware in mastering. The only guys making ITB work are veterans who previously were all analogue and they can bend it in the box to ‘passable’ results. “I don’t think software will ever sound as good as hardware” - Rupert Neve

[@JulianFernandez]

save the 6k Id say?

[@kingvintage2227]

yea there's no comparison here .. I didn't have to even turn on my monitors to hear the difference ... analog forever