These are UNEXPECTED results........... Waves EV2 vs Brainworx SSL4000e

[@audiotoolshed]

💜 Brainworx SSL 9000J vs 4000G vs 4000E - Comparison : kzbin.info/www/bejne/bafHgoypqNZrmNE Which SSL4000e plugin do you prefer?

[@levondarratt787]

Their 9000 is really good

[@akagerhard]

not an SSL - user, so correct me if I'm wrong.. but from what I saw the line-gain-options were very different. While the Brainworx-plugin only had up to +10 linegain, the waves went up to +20. Obviously you'll have more saturation and thus "balls" with 20. Wouldn't you think comparing +10 to +10 would make more sense? Overall I must say that the brainworx-compressor sounded muffled - when it comes to the eq it's hard to say, but I think I preferred the brainworx curves more often. For me those kinds of plugins make no sense. I could use them, but why? With a proQ 3-Style EQ I can grab bands, drag them around and adjust both the gain and the frequency at the same time while doing so - good eqs even enable me to solo the bands while pressing additional keys (while still draggin around the band), changing the Q with the mousewheel or change the filter-type handily - this is a lot faster for fine-tuning and finding problem-frequencies. And when it comes to compressors I'd rather have the choice to pick the one that's best for the scource. But hey, to each his own.

[@fausto_colella]

EEE !!!

[@audiotoolshed]

Hey Gerhard, you're probably right, I'm showing differences here. The waves also has the mic gain which goes even more bananas. Why someone might use the plugin is basically the ''name'' ofthe brand, which is a bit nonsense I would say. And the other one is sonic signature which I think is a valid one. Proq3 is a very analytical, clean eq, maybe a bit hifi sounding. Love that plugin. A ssl variant will add more harmonics and maybe grit, which does sound different and may also be very pleasant in a mix. Usually these analog style plugins also have the benefit of frequency smearing where it sort of makes the audio sound more pleasing due to the way everything interacts, which can make mixing easier.

[@akagerhard]

@@audiotoolshed thank you for your response. I think back in the day the job of an EQ was not to add "grit" or harmonics, it was to EQ - the harmonics or distortion were just a byproduct. Nowadays we have the choice and I think we have more control over the sound if we use an EQ for EQ and a Saturation for Saturation, distortion for distortion etc. The only real reason I can come up with to use this kind of emulation is to recreate the sound of specific tracks that were mixed with those channel-strips. Thanks for your insight.

[@andivax]

The winner is SSL. They've sold the license to both Brainworx and Waves.

[@audiotoolshed]

hahah good one!

[@Mansardian]

I once had a little chat with an engineer who works with an SSL desk, and he said that the Brainworx SSL plugin really loses when it comes to the dynamics section. This is something where Waves always was closer to the original. His words, not mine, but I believe him.

[@audiotoolshed]

Interesting observations. I have a ssl related buscompressor, ( gssl styule, but with real SSL components) can check how that compares.

[@Mansardian]

@@audiotoolshed That would be interesting but he was talking about the channel compressor. This is something most people overlook because everyone is so focussed on the bus compressor. He said, 72 channels running through the 72 circuits of the channel dynamics section but people always wanna hear how accurate is the bus comp plugin 😀. He got me, for years I ignored the channel compressors. He then said with a smile, "you do know that the icing on the cake doesn't bake the cake?"

[@audiotoolshed]

Haha you’re right but it would be interesting to check the ssl “family” so to speak.

[@audiotoolshed]

Nice. I have a buscompressor which uses modified ssl5000 series ( yeah that broadcast series) boards. Sound really sweet and by routing audio trough it, it will already add a bit of glue, sound and 3d space.

[@Mansardian]

@@lespaul2550 Yes PLEASE! The results would be really cool!

[@GonzaCordovez]

Dude!...i loved this comparison...very energetic and to the point!....Congrats!

[@audiotoolshed]

Many thanks! And i hope it helped :-)

[@mvh2275]

I have the Waves CLA Mixhub and EV2 as well as the BrainWorks SSL E & G channel strips. After using all of them in mixes I have decided I favor the Brainworks versions only due to the lower cpu hits. They all sound great however I can run double the plugins vs. Waves on a mix before my computer starts peeking. My thoughts - Cheers, mvh

[@audiotoolshed]

If you run into that much of a difference in CPU usage it is a solid decision. Which CPU / OS are you on?

[@mvh2275]

@@audiotoolshed Mac i5 2.5GHz Dual-Core 16g ram macOS 10.15.7

[@devarni]

Thanks for the comparison! Considering that different consoles have been used, I think the differences are rather small. I like both quite well and it is probably more a consideration whether you like more Waves or Brainworx 😀

[@audiotoolshed]

It definitely down to taste.

[@axelfoley1768]

This was a good review. He doesn't talk too much, and only what is relevant to the next comparison. And he gave us clear indication onscreen which was on & which was off. I like the EV2 compressor, it sounds good imo

[@audiotoolshed]

He approves your comment and he says thank you for your kind words!

[@axelfoley1768]

@@audiotoolshed I subscribed after I watched your vid. Many plugin vids on KZbin but I don't subscribe, the reviewers are not organised and they don't know how to show it in a relevant efficient way. You don't have to reply to this.

[@audiotoolshed]

Quite the compliment! thanks.

[@NealMiskinMusic]

The Brainworx plugins are inaccurate because they modelled the component tolerances, that's the TMT stuff. The idea is that the components in an analogue desk are always ever so slightly off spec because of manufacturing tolerances, and so no two channels will be exactly the same. This contributes to the overall sound of a mix, adding "width" and "depth" that's missing from other console emulations, according to Brainworx. Besides you should be using your ears to EQ not the numbers, the numbers are just a reference, it's the sound that matters.

[@audiotoolshed]

I'm 100% with you, it's all about sound and not numbers. Which I make pretty clear in my video if you watch them. In this particular case I'm scratching my head because this deviation seems like an issue which could actually affect your mix in a bad way. If you use a real console, you route your audio through it and work on that audio on that channel alone. With a plugin and that nice TMT randomization you have the issue that if you use that TMT randomization in a later stage, with that potentially 10% variance ( which is 2 whole semitones at 5k / 500 hz difference, not too little), can potentially ruin you EQ settings if you have set that. 500 hz is the difference between fizz and fat, between sibilant and smooth. So if you plan on using TMT you need basically think beforehand which channels will need the plugin , insert those, randomize all and never touch the knob again.

[@NealMiskinMusic]

@@audiotoolshed Or you can hit the random button on any instance of the plugin and just don't use the random all button. You can even pick specific channels if you want, if you happen to find that you like channel 7 for bass or something. But yeah, be careful with the random all button, save before you do that.

[@audiotoolshed]

Hey Neal, yup, very true. It is something you need to work into your workflow to not mess up later.

[@mikamulperi]

Cant u turn that tmt off by disabling ANALOG…?

[@EdThorne]

Great comparison, Marlon.

[@audiotoolshed]

thanks Ed!

[@ktech4246]

Thanks for this video. Love to see a comparison with the SSL Channel Strip 2 as well.

[@audiotoolshed]

thanks! I havent planned such a comparison yet. Its not a true 4000 series plugin, only the eq can be switched to that.

[@vigilantestylez]

My experience is that while Brainworx sounds cooler, the waves plugins seem to sound closer to the real console. At least in my mixes anyway. The waves seem to capture the vibe and sound including all the things people didn't like about SSL consoles at the time, where Brainworx seems to have improved on those issues. I agree with another commenter who said the waves have a more realistic compressor to the real hardware. I like Waves older SSL plugins, the new ones use far too much CPU just to generate harmonics, more harmonics than the actual consoles. If I need harmonics, Slate virtual tape machine gets the job done. Great video! I'm a big fan of your channel! ☺️

[@audiotoolshed]

Nice observation! I know that the brainworx is sampled from teh one they had at brainworx studio at that time. maybe it was modded like that. Any ssl4000 has undergone multiple stages of mods and fixes by now, since they arent build anymore since somewhere in the 90s. Thanks for your kind words!!

[@vektacular]

I’ve tested all the SSL E plugins from BX, Waves, UAD and SSL….i personally feel like the best mix comes from BX…where as the best sound emulation on one channel comes from SSL and the one that comes in between is the UAD where I get a good mix and a very close to ssl console sound.

[@davidwarren127]

Nice comparison, thanks. Regarding the oddity of the Brainworx SSL 4000's frequency points: this discussion came up several years ago when Slate modeled the SSL 4000 EQ module. It was discovered that frequencies boosted/cut did not match the points selected. Slate entered the discussion to say that in their development, they discovered that the EQ module that they modeled this after had an identical interaction between EQ knob and frequency boosted. They decided to keep the plugin true to the hardware. I suspect that Brainworx made a similar decision. I have no idea whether this was an exception or a rule to 4000 desk EQ modules of the day.

[@audiotoolshed]

Hey David, good to point out the slate discussion. I get why there are differences, I only wonder if in a plugin you want that as well. If the plugin is modelled after your own ssl console I get it,. but in a DAW it's a different workflow and and I personally think if you work in a daw you need to make the workflow fitting for a digital enviroment and the many endusers who have never used a real ssl. So in my opinion waves made the smarter choice and I also suspect that's why ev2 will be a smash hit. If you consider BX, they chose this particular module as default, with it''s deviation in eq. They could also have picked any other channel which had a more correct behaviour and kept the rest as variations, which would be perfectly fine. Or simply adjust the response. So I cant really understand why this is done other than sentimental reasons.

[@mykrobinson6090]

@@audiotoolshed this makes me curious if the TMT feature of the Brainworx variant would give you a different EQ curve depending on which channel you use, since there are 72 to choose from. Also, if you disabled TMT, would it perform more like the Waves version with regards to EQ 🤔

[@audiotoolshed]

Those are very interesting questions and beyond the initial scope of this video. Have to see if I can dive deeper into this, but there’s so much to do.

[@dream.cast.studios]

Thanks for this review... Thanks a million

[@audiotoolshed]

And thank you for watching! Sounds like you needed this one :-)

[@cao77]

Two things I noticed you kind skipped. The weird behavior of the stereo on brainworx might be caused because of the slight differences caused by the TMT. The line gain on brainworx is independent of it’s thd, which has a a separate knob to control it. You can dial in more or less saturation apart from gain. Which is very handy imo. Also, the compressor in bx has a 2nd release stage, which may influence the difference in sound compared to waves.

[@audiotoolshed]

Yeah TMT has variations and by itself it's a great and smart thing to have. All those small variations will add to a bigger sound, in teh same way as using different preamps and eq's will add to a bigger sound. I pointed the THD setting out the other videos I did on BX, and I triple checked for this video. The waves plugin can drive more into saturation and if you want that or not is up to you, it's an objective observation. Also true for the second release stage, and if you use the hipass filter and mix it will affect the compression sound as well. For this video I went for the default settings mostly since that is how mos tusers will use it :-)

[@chuckwagon5518]

I don't know...At the end of the day the differences are so negligible that I don't see the need for preference of one over the other.

[@audiotoolshed]

For sure, if that is the conclusion you get from the examples it excellent.

[@JorgeSomBinario]

Very nice video bro!! Overall I liked the EV2 better. Regarding the TMT, with the EV2, I can work by subtly moving the standard knob to mono, very little, between 0 and 9 o'clock, in this range to achieve a difference in the stereo tolerance, and the Extra Wide Button is a good trick. Thank you to share you comparison to us!

[@audiotoolshed]

Hey Jorge! Thanks for the kind words!!! Yeah the movement on the ev2 is subtle isn’t it?

[@felipeReisfelipereis]

salveeeee jorjaooo

[@SrBoo]

Caralhoo, olha o homem aqui kkkkkkkkkkk

[@aioxio]

2:00 Couldn't hear any difference between both plugins and bypassed to RAW files. Maybe my headphones are not good enough... (Beyerdynamics 770)

[@audiotoolshed]

The difference is subtle TBH. But it is there. Both are slightly more forward sounding in comparison to the raw files.

[@anti_missionary_mission]

It's the TMT stuff in brainworks why the frequency differ. This is probably also different by closing different channels

[@audiotoolshed]

Probably. 500hz difference at 5k is too much of a difference in my opinion ( 10% difference or 2 semitones at this frequency). Small differences are fine.

[@anti_missionary_mission]

@@audiotoolshed i wonder if a real SSL is that far of or not. Today were so used to digital consoles, these things feel more like a gimmick. I do wonder how much CPU usage they differ

[@audiotoolshed]

Deviations in analog gear can be big, I personally question if you want that in a digital enviroment as well by default with that amount of offset. So I kind of get what you mean with gimmick.

[@flyback777]

I appreciate your work!! Thanks

[@audiotoolshed]

I appreciate that! Thanks for watching!

[@fausto_colella]

What really "sounds" different in a bad way is the price of the WUP that Waves steal from you when you'll be forced to update due to new OS/DAW releases. BX gives you free updates (untill now), Waves wants you to pay 10 times the "introductory price" to keep using their stuff. And with today's trend of "1 OS update per year", Waves is the not really a good "investment" :-/

[@audiotoolshed]

What is better: paying a very low price for a plugin and a price every year for updates ( IF you want to update) , pay a few hundreds dollar for a plugin with a few years of free updates or rent plugins for tenths of dollar a month which you will never own? This is a question, not a judgement. But these are basically the options right now out there.

[@fausto_colella]

@@audiotoolshed with actual market trend lead by Apple, you will be forced to update... the evolution scheme for Apple HW & SW has quickly migrated to the 1 year time span... and the "Wintel" platform seems to point the same way, with motherbords chipset changes every generation of CPUs. Then you want the new updated powerful computers? Good, you must use latest OS, and that means also latest sorftware to be compatible. That's how your "IF" is going to be become a "MUST" :-((

[@rt-uh6mt]

Exactly, Waves hits you with the update fee every year on your old SSL channel and now I have to pay $30 for another one? No thanks. I have so many console emulations I really don't need another or care if this one is minutely better than the last.

[@audiotoolshed]

@@rt-uh6mt second part of your comment is perfectly valid :-) first one is debatable ;-)

[@mymama12314]

@@audiotoolshed orrrrrr you could wait for a big discount to get the BX for the same price as the waves. You can actually own it for the exact same price.

[@idontwantanusername]

Thank You for this video! Last weekend I tested both of them side by side for a few hours (I was looking to buy the SSL EV2) and I came to similar conclusions. It's nice to find confirmations. 🙂 My final preference, though, went to the Brainworx because of the slightly more aggressive sound; I'd say the Waves is more "hi-fi" (I'm going to use it on just a few specific tracks to add colouration - without going into distortion territory, though! - so the Brainworx suits me better). I have no experience with a real SSL, so I can't say which one is closer to the real thing (it also depends on the unit used for modelling), I made my choice based on my personal taste and the results I want. I was put a bit off by the frequency offset on the Brainworx (the Slate FG-S has a similar behaviour, I tested that too) and I strongly prefer the Waves on this aspect (also on another behavior: by clicking on a number around a knob, the knob snaps to that exact integer value - which also means being able to reset to zero by just clicking on the zero, without any modifier key) and for the GUI in general (for example, I prefer SSL EV2 for the way the knobs move when dragged with the mouse, they feel more "precise", in my opinion they move too fast on the Brainworx). From a HCI usability point of view, the Waves wins hands down in my opinion. The Q control, however, was a decision factor for me to choose the Brainworx: I found the Q to behave quite differently and I was under the impression that it was always higher on the Waves (or lower on the Brainworx, depending on which you choose as your reference). At the lowest Q settings (Q knob fully clockwise), I heard a wider curve on the Brainworx (I was unable to match it on the Waves). I usually go for quite wide curves, especially when boosting / looking for colouration, so the Brainworx has an edge in my situation. By the way, the Slate FG-S behaves quite similar to the Brainworx (only for the eq part of course, because it's not a full SSL channel strip so the comparison is limited). In my opinion, both plugins are really good and I think the choice is just a matter of personal taste. At the moment, my dream SSL channel strip plugin would be an hybrid with the Brainworx DSP and the Waves interface... but I doubt this will happen anytime soon.

[@audiotoolshed]

Good to read your experiences! And I fully agree what you said, It is spot on. Nice observation on the EQ Q settings by the way.

[@firstname7566]

I think the difference between them comes from the fact that they were modelled on two different units two different ssl desks..so in my opinion it's like have two consoles side by side..

[@royklerks1266]

Marlon did you try the external sidechain function yet ?!

[@audiotoolshed]

No I havent :-)

[@RoseGoldSound]

The TMT in brainworx creates the extra width almost phase issue. I tested Waves SSL 4000G vs BX 4000G and the low mid maxed had a pretty noticable spread on the vocal bus even though every track were mono with no reverb. Put it back to digital and it keep the original width. Also max gain were different. Waves was up to 17dB, Brainworx was up to 20dB on the shelves and 18dB on the mix band I believe. So cranking blindly wasn't a fair test on my side too. The little things...

[@audiotoolshed]

Yeah. To make it clear, I dont mind variations or quirks or whatever, but I do need reliable. If i turn up 5k, give me 5k. Not that hard to do on a plugin even though the original may do that. Imagine having crating a mix with the bx on all channels and then later decide to hit ''tmt''.

[@RoseGoldSound]

@@audiotoolshed No I understand. It's funny cause that's exactly what they say could be a good idea (after saving a version of the mix) haha. For me personally, I set different numbers from the start, before I make any moves. The frequencies not being exact while annoying (for reference purposes) doesn't bother me personally while working. I hear whatever is boosted a move according to what I hear. Better with accurate frequencies for sure, espacially to compare. Trying to match the two 4000G was not happening haha. They always sounded different. Good video !

[@audiotoolshed]

For some reason your comment only popped up after 10 days for me...... Yeah I think your workflow is the best to avoid any nasty suprised after doing a rTMT randomisation later in the mix process. I also preach using your ears and not your eyes while mixing, only since I pointed out the difference in this video, I feel like people think I'm not. I actually also dilike all those ''plugin doctor'' comments where people focus on eveything which doesnt matter at all. Ah well. Of course brainworx thinks the deviation is a good thing, otherwise they would have adjusted it. Also: marketing ;-) Yeah I'm pretty well trained and if i hear a 4500hz fizz in guitars, i will pull that frequency. If a plugin like this then doesnt do what i expect my brain get's confused ;-)

[@sebastianfeldhof8323]

I think you missed a few things on the brainworx one. Im sure, if you had put the plug in on the bus on digital, the stereoimage would have been also intact. Second the compressor has this stereo button, also much better for things like stereo. Third, the brainworx models a lot different channels, each with slight differences.

[@audiotoolshed]

Hey Sebastian: Stereobus or seperate track doesnt make any difference. Also the plugins are compared in default mode. Check all other comments on how and what exactly, so i dont have to repeat myself for the x-th time ;-)

[@sebastianfeldhof8323]

@@audiotoolshed yeah, I get the point, but still :p

[@jhstudio749]

The BX version is years older. If you compare it with Waves original SSL-E you'll get even more differences. I quit buying Waves plugins so Brainworx with TMT is the winner for me plus, I would never use either plugin on the 2bus.

[@audiotoolshed]

For sure. When you have found something that works , that's good! I agree this type of plugin is better suited for single tracks.

[@grandmaenjoysmusic]

What is the difference in CPU usage? It occurs to me that EV2 is rather pretty demending.

[@audiotoolshed]

On my system they were about the same in CPU usage.

[@grandmaenjoysmusic]

@@audiotoolshed Thank you! :)

[@audiotoolshed]

You're welcome!

[@mareksramek2513]

On my system the EV2 is about 10 times more demanding than BX. That makes it basically useless for me. I like the extra BX features two.

[@audiotoolshed]

10x? Seems like something is wrong there.

[@Phat-Monkey]

BX sounds more open (3D) to me...

[@audiotoolshed]

Interesting. Did you a/b them yourself?

[@Phat-Monkey]

@@audiotoolshed no man, just listening to your examples, I only have the classic Waves E channel and all of the PA SSL's but I have to say my fav out of all of them is the Lindell 50 series by PA, love the unity gain on it too...

[@audiotoolshed]

ah ok! yeah the lindell is a different beast of course, neve style.

[@WildAnalog]

@@audiotoolshed No, the 50 is the API emulation. You are thinking of the 80.

[@audiotoolshed]

Ah yes, correct. Also a different beast ;-)

[@SvperSlickX]

The Saturation knob on the bx ssl adds a little volume

[@audiotoolshed]

Just as in default setting, right. Sneaky buggers ;-)

[@musicplaylistize]

Some analog stuff (like tubes or MPC circuits) will loose fidelity when cranked too high, which can translate in volume dips through frequencies, but aside from that, most if not all intended saturation/drive devices will boost volume by adding harmonics.

[@audiotoolshed]

It’s added extra harmonics,newly generated. So it’s logical that it will raise volume a bit. The best plugins compensate for that.

[@musicplaylistize]

@@audiotoolshed there's volume buddy in Ableton (max for live) that gain match any change in lufs changes on a given track or buss, and there are many equivalent accessible for other daws so it's not really an issue. On the other side, whenever a plug-in has built in gain compensation, great, but most analog emulations don't have it, and I wouldn't judge the quality of a plugin by whether it has that feature or not, except maybe the plugin alliance black box where all functions will frustratingly add volume lmao.

[@bobbyweezer]

Nice vid. Can't you do Alt-click to reset parameters, with Waves plugs?

[@audiotoolshed]

I have to recheck my settings, I would expect you could.

[@eddysel10]

Great video. Things that you may have to take into consideration: - probably 2 very different consoles were used; - brainworx modeled 72 channels and waves, probably 1 channel. I would suggest to take the cost aspect also into consideration. I have posted a detailed comment as a reply to a comment posted. Pls read this comment.

[@audiotoolshed]

Hey Eddy, - most probably different console so small differences are ok. Pointing those differences out in this video and I prefer the waves. - 72 channels is what TMT is about. My main issue is that the difference is too big. Especially on default. I dont mind small changes and I think that TMT by itself is a good thing ( pointed that out in the BX ssl videos i did) small differences will make a mix bigger because the randomisation will help avoiding eq frequency buildup and more. But with the EQ -> 500 hz at 5000 hz is 10% off / 2 full semitones at that frequency. That's too much. It could have be adjusted especially for the default setting. My main concern is that if you decide to randomize TMT at a later stage it WILL throw and potentially ruin your mix with those deviations. So you really need to start with the BX plugin on every channel and make sure you have TMT set before you do any mixing and never randomize again.

[@alchemistrpm82]

@@audiotoolshed What you are criticizing the bx version for is exactly what makes it the best emulation, sir. Brainworx and SSL themselves modeled the 4000 E on 72 channels, each of those emulated circuits presenting slightly different results. Analog circuits are variable. The bx is as realistic as possible. Results will not be precise, unlike in something digital, such as Pro Q3. If it's not your bag, it's not for you - it's not for everybody. But I think you're missing the point, with respect. Pull up a white noise sample and spectrum analyzer the way you did, set bx to boost 5k again, then check the results as you cycle through different channels. You'll even find some are quite accurate. Some mixers like to save multiple mixes of a track set to different TMT channels and let the client decide. It's a nice feature, not really a detractor.

[@audiotoolshed]

@@alchemistrpm82 I would suggest you read one of my many replies here below. If you regard 500hz at 5khz as slightly then we have something to discuss about ;-) 10% variation. At that range it 2 full semitones, or the difference between fizz and clarity. It is too much as your standard default channel. Also if that variation happend later, when you decide to use TMT in a later stage that WILL throw off your complete mix. Also emulating a console exacty is a bit BS in my opinion if you have never used the original to begin with. Marketing. Optimize a plugin to be used in a DAW enviroment. Its not an analog console where you only use 1 channel for an instrument. Every user will start with the same default settings. Why havent they decided to use a channel of that console which is way more acurate as the default for everyone to start with is beyond me. Nobody would know, Waves has shown you can do it. That said the BX ssl4000e is an excellent sounding plugin for sure.

[@alchemistrpm82]

@@audiotoolshed I honestly don't know what you're on about... My 4000 E EQ works perfectly fine. Boost at 5k results in a peak at right around... well, 5k. 500 boosts at 500. Are you sure you didn't misread the UI? It is very small, it's an easy thing to do. Emulating an actual analog console is the whole point of the plugin, Marlon. It's marketed to people who either know and love analog, and/or those who wish to emulate it. There's a million and a half other options for those who don't fall into those groups. If you feel as you do about analog circuits and the pursuit to emulate them as closely as possible, I have to wonder why you bother with console emulations in the first place? Anyway, I like the EV2. I think Waves did a pretty good job. But they haven't done anything Brainworx hasn't done better to be honest. I guess that's just my opinion. I don't always agree with you but I like your style bro

[@alchemistrpm82]

@@audiotoolshed As far as TMT throwing off your complete mix, choosing to change or randomize is a choice. You can choose not to, you can try it then decide to change it back, or you can save multiple mixes. You can change all channels on all tracks at once, or just the instance you're focused on. I'm not seeing the issue there... It even warns you when you hit the "randomize all" button asking for confirmation.

[@homelandhomemusic]

Very nice job!

[@audiotoolshed]

Thank you! Cheers!

[@carlos.e.flores]

Thank you.

[@audiotoolshed]

And thank you!

[@0danye0]

man what is the name of the track playing? loved it!

[@audiotoolshed]

whatever you want to call it! I created that track to use in my videos. i havent released it (yet)

[@TheRiteHand]

The Waves is so usable and immediate. I always struggle to get the brainworx to do what I want.

[@KamuBodohYaKan]

But the tmt...

[@SeriousTipStudio]

Lol at 3:28 you said, let's adjust the gain boost. But that is the EQ. On plugin alliance. I think you got it mixed up with waves SSL. 😮

[@audiotoolshed]

Yeah must have been eq hi shelf.

[@brettmarlar4154]

I have the Waves version. But there was another aspect you didn't mention, is that the Waves has two different low end eq values. in the black and brown . That's another thing tha the Brainworx didn't have.

[@audiotoolshed]

I dont quite follow. Both plugins have the brown and black eq option, which I pointed out.

[@brettmarlar4154]

@@audiotoolshed Sorry, I must've missed that bit. Plus I didn't see it on the Brainworx. I blame it's different layout.

[@morenazo6412]

In true analog form, not even two mixing consoles, tape machine or eq's of the same name, model and manufacturer sound exactly alike.

[@audiotoolshed]

True. But these are plugins in a digital daw environment.

[@morenazo6412]

@@audiotoolshed But if the plugins that you're comparing were modeled on two different mixing consoles, wouldn't logic dictate that they would sound a tad bit different? I mean, maybe the components were a bit more aged on the brainworx ssl that was modeled. There are two many variables to go through here.

[@nicholasriley4729]

The bx9000’s compressor is 🧨🧨🧨

[@audiotoolshed]

;-)

[@24k-n6x]

No two TMT channels on the brainworx are the same. So if you choose analog and not digital then left is different then right so a 1khz frequiency on one might slightly differ on the left, etc. Same with the compressor and everything on the BX strip. This makes the sound more 3D in a way analog gear does.

[@audiotoolshed]

True. And small differences are not an issue at all, it's only when are those variations too much right. I'm pointing out the differences between the plugins and it's funny they do differ quite a bit at points but also you can match them quite easily.

[@24k-n6x]

@@audiotoolshed What about aliasing at 48khz and 96khz?

[@audiotoolshed]

As long as you can’t actually hear it, it will never be an issue in a mix. It will most definitely never be an issue for the people who listen to your mixes ;-)

[@24k-n6x]

@@audiotoolshed hope so! some plugins have veery nasty non musical harmonics though. Ive started mixing at 96khz just so that harmonics bump on a higher frequency celling so when they get down to the audible range they are very very low, hopefully under -100dB. I know, even if it was at -50dB i might not be able to hear it but frequencies to stack up and sometimes you can tell a cleaner mix from a harsh one. keep it up brother!

[@audiotoolshed]

Yeah what you do is basically oversampling, but than in the DAW itself instead of the plugin. I always am somewhat sceptical about the whole aliasing stuff. I do not often use the same plugin on every channel except for these reviews ( to point out th epotential of a plugin) so by default I have every potential artifact already scattered out. Also, when 80% of the listeners listen to your mix and master via phone speaker or bluetooth speaker whic is also a bitrate compressed aac or mp3 file, let alone on youtube where teh audio has been DOUBLE compressed like that , it all becomes very relative quickly ;-) And dont let me begin on vinyl pressing or tape mastering ;-)

[@joeythompson6227]

Waves won't release any reviews on the product page if its negative...so your just viewing the filtered positive reviews of this product.

[@audiotoolshed]

Maybe. In any case, my comparison was 100% unbiased and honest.

[@joeythompson6227]

@@audiotoolshed your comparison is great, nothing against you man, keep up the good work! I just have a personal dislike for waves and I don't want others to be swindled into the same financial trap I am!

[@gabrieljonquieres3148]

at 8min brainworx clearly is more harsh and has less musicality compared to the waves, regardless the eq settings, even though waves has like many of his plugins this particular highs sound signature, that is quite difficult to get used to but at the end different than other plugin manufacturers but not bad, definitely cleaner

[@audiotoolshed]

Could be the q settings as well of that band. Smaller q is more resonant/ peaky.

[@gabrieljonquieres3148]

@@audiotoolshed true, aso I checked this is peculiar to all the brainworx and all waves algos, harsh for brainworx and waves is clean but somewhat less analog sounding than uad for example to my ears, though more modern and clean sounding which in fact I really enjoy at the end, especially when modern mixes use 20+ serial effects on general and specific mixbusses and such... 96K would be also a must in this case even though 3 pcs at 800€ each with 12th gen i7 would be necessary I think and a great interface because limited electronics speed on ADs generates lot of intermodal modulation disto at 96K. So I'd add your most recent video topic : Make a new Sampling freq around 60K so to solve all the aliasing problems everybody talks about, which is solved also by incorporating any VST into an oversampling process. Though doesn't solve the 96K needed for clean highs in a 20+ serial effects mix. The solution I like actually is high cuting above 13K like old tape used to do, and work at 48K with audiogridder and few other old pcs. Oversampling with Firecobra from united plugins or tone empire plugins helps, when placed at the start of the treatment chain. This is not to be nosy but only because I've been working in a hifi company where my job was to select electronic components to get the best out of the loudspeaker filters I was making and such details need to be listened with headphones or high level highly detailed monitoring speakers

[@24k-n6x]

i tried oversampling EV2 in Reaper and all the eq peaks shift by an octave but this does not happen in brainworx ssl. EV2 is sloppy code put together just for a fast buck.

[@swst09]

Is there any chance that the abnormal behaviour of the Brainworx is part of Tolerance Modeling Technology(TMT)? I did the white noise EQ test while switching virtual channels and analog/digital mode and I experienced frequency and stereo image shifting.

[@audiotoolshed]

I used default setting. So that would be tmt channels 01 and 02. That should happen in the default setting, and even that, by this much is not reliable.

[@swst09]

@@audiotoolshed I had the same issue, weird that the deafault channel isn't accurate, but some random channels are.

[@audiotoolshed]

Hmm. Yeah I agree.. Default should be the ''best'', accurate and more, and the rest varations. If i dial in 5k, I want 5k, not 4.5k.

[@duncanmcneill7088]

@@audiotoolshed - it seems to be a feature of all the Brainworx consoles - the frequency of cuts and boosts bears no relation to either the panel graphic or the figure that the plugin reports numerically. It may say you’re boosting at 1kHz but the actual frequency may be as low as 600Hz depending on which channel you have selected. Also, with “analog” engaged, the left and right channels of a stereo pair will have slightly different responses just like an analog desk would - that’s the TMT effect. It’s annoying. You have to use your ears. That said, I am NOT buying any more Waves plugins. Ever.

[@audiotoolshed]

Yeah “feature”. Give me setting which match audio and visuals :-) it’s a plugin, should be do-able. You don’t have to buy waves plugins, there’s a free one coming only this Friday ;-)

[@bluematrix5001]

all cool but to say the curve is really steep or anything we need to see it in the graph...anyway Brainworx sounds better to me

[@audiotoolshed]

Hey there. Yes / no, You can hear it, which is usually the better ( not to mention more musical) method. That q was smaller, which results in a more prominent smaller frequency boost, but I can understand why you want to see a graph, it takes some training to hear it. Have you had the option to buy the brainworx ssl4000? was in a sale last week.

[@pjlira]

Please make a comparison with UAD.

[@audiotoolshed]

I dont own an UAD interface and also not plan to get one.

[@marceloribeirosimoes8959]

Would be a better comparisson using plugin doctor and some oscilloscope.... But that's a cool video. Thank you!

[@audiotoolshed]

I thank you for watching! I have some problems with plugin doctor. It’s the right tool in the wrong hands these days. People abuse it to overfocus on all things that don’t matter and forget to actually listen with their ears. Such a shame.

[@marceloribeirosimoes8959]

@@audiotoolshed I totally agree. But my point was about the visual help for those that almost can't perceive 0.1 dB changes at 2k band... :-) Maybe by observing the EQ curve differences, we could focus a bit better... That's all. I hope not to sound "picky" nor bitter...

[@audiotoolshed]

Nah man, all is good. I pointed the differences which you could hear out in this video and both plug-in can be adjusted to sound really similar. Most people cannot hear 0.1 dB difference. Heck not even 1dB. Only the deviations I noticed while comparing is something I frown upon.

[@rnbyido]

Brainworx is based on the SSL 9000 desk and the waves on the 4000. Not sure how u can compare ?

[@audiotoolshed]

No you're confusing a few plugins. Brainworx has it's own 9000j plugin, a 4000G and 4000e. This plugin is the brainworx 4000e it even says so in the bottomleft of the plugin: BX_CONSOLE SSL 4000E. If you need to learn the difference between various brainworx ssl plugins check this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bafHgoypqNZrmNE

[@rnbyido]

@@audiotoolshed ahhh my mistake ..sorry .. thank you

[@audiotoolshed]

@@rnbyido no problem!!

[@BottleneckMoses]

Waves EV2 is a CPU hog... 10-11% per instance on my pre M1 Mac (i7 with 32gb RAM). More than 7 or 8 instances per song and it crashes Logic. Plus, in my experience Waves customer service is terrible, whereas Brainworx have been extremely professional and eager to assist when I've had issues. Just my opinions. Taking these factors into account, it's an easy win for Brainworx. P.S. I purchased my bx ssl on sale for $29.99.

[@audiotoolshed]

I have better performance than you have, but my machines are also beefier from what you share. Good deal on the Brainworx!

[@remsounds]

amazing video ♫

[@audiotoolshed]

Many thanks!!

[@p.m-audio]

what i dont found good, you dont speak about the cpu usage between the two. then you wanna see that the waves consume much more power then the brainworx. just saying add 20 waves channels in a row, and add brainworx 20 times you get your cpu results. but thanks for your video mate

[@audiotoolshed]

Because for me they were similar. So that's hard to display ^^

[@p.m-audio]

@@audiotoolshed No Problem ;) thanks for the review

[@audiotoolshed]

For sure!!

[@BrantleyAllen]

Why not compare the one sold by SSL.

[@audiotoolshed]

SSL themselves dont have a ssl4000E plugin.

[@BrantleyAllen]

@@audiotoolshed ok. Why not compare the SSL 9000K to the Waves or Brainworx 4000E?

[@audiotoolshed]

Hey Brantley, because it's a different beast altogether. It would be interesting to do a ''ssl emulation plugin shootout'' and include basically all versions, show why some sound different than other etc. I did an brainworx ssl4000e vs ssl4000g vs sl9000j video though, to show how each version is different.

[@BrantleyAllen]

@@audiotoolshed i got the SSL 9000 Channel from them last year on sale. I don't use the waves version at all anymore. I had started using CLA Mixhub and have stopped using that, too. I used to use the Schepps Omni on my drum bus and have moved to the SSL Channel for that, too.

[@audiotoolshed]

Ok nice! Yeah then you probably heard that the 9000j is very different sounding than the 4000e. More open and clean. The 4000e has more beef by itself.

[@Grabason777]

brainworx ssl4000e Best

[@audiotoolshed]

;-)

[@hiddennotesberlin]

i do get this comparison for content reason, but it doesn’t make sense if you want to know which one of these plug in‘s is closer to the real thing.these are both very inexpensive and both do their job as good as any ssl type plugin these days

[@audiotoolshed]

Hey there! No not for content reasons, it's to let the viewer know about the difference and similarities. I resepctfully disagree with your comment. I personally think comparing with th ereal thing is moot, unless you have that exact console model the companies modelled with all its modifaction and servicing fater all those years in use. Or else there is no point in doing that at all.M ost users using these plugin will never have seen a real SSL in their life. So the interesting question is: which one will sound best to you, will work for YOUR workflow and how happy are you in using it. With an SSL 4000e related sound.

[@MKD371]

Waves sounds slightly less muddy.

[@audiotoolshed]

Mostly with the compression settings I showed I would say. The EQ can be matched to eachother.

[@lastwarning1]

Waves goes to default value by alt-clicking.

[@audiotoolshed]

Yup

[@tone9930]

ev2 has more mid high in dead position. Wot about that?

[@audiotoolshed]

explain dead position.

[@tone9930]

Everything at 0

[@audiotoolshed]

It's subtle at best I would say. Check the all plugins in default comparison in the beginning I did.

[@RedSeaMastering]

Waves wins in every aspects.

[@rickblackers88]

EV2 sounds better.did you compared it with SSL CLA mixhub?

[@audiotoolshed]

I didnt compare with CLA mixhub, because these are exact emulations of the channelstrip and I wanted to keep this comparison clean and focussed.

[@flimtrick]

These kind of comparisons are kind of useless. There is no sense of comparing two channel strips by using one instance on a master bus. Quality cumulates so more fair comparison would be using in several channels like a drums and bass and maybe guitar or synth part. Mixing with several channels you can more easily hear the difference and see how the plugin adds to the mix when used multiple instances. For example the trebles are really different between those two. If you boost the treble on several instruments, you can more easily hear how it sounds in a mix. Does it get harsh when used on different sources. Using only one channel it´s quite hard to say which one is better.

[@audiotoolshed]

I respectfully disagree. I guess you missed the first 3 minutes or so of the video where I use the plugins on all channels. A video with only white noise could have been done as well. If you want to hear differences between plugins a single, coherent source works best. What if you plan to use it on the masterbus? If you cant hear the difference with 1 source then a comparison is useless.

[@audiolego]

EV2 it is

[@audiotoolshed]

Yeah that one will do the trick ;-)

[@jspacone]

I have the Waves. It just happened to be the one I spotted first, and it just happened to be on sale. But I gotta say - now I feel like a genius! Spoiler alert: I’m not.

[@audiotoolshed]

At least you have vision ^^

[@audiolego]

Subbed

[@audiotoolshed]

Nice, thanks!

[@MixingMAN]

Waves EV2 Better !!!

[@iTimestretcher]

No matter what the result is, the Brainworx is better because they don't make you pay upgrade plans to keep your plugins working. I will never ever buy Waves again....

[@audiotoolshed]

Well you don’t have to pay for upgrade plans ofcourse ;-)

[@iTimestretcher]

@@audiotoolshed Right, but now all the Waves plugins I own do not work in Ableton on X64 or in Bitwig Studio. So I don't wanna pay a company that can't just keep their plugins working without paying extra fees. Plugin Alliance is way smoother and better plugins in my opinion and there are many other options also, as you know, which you don't have to pay extra fees to keep something working, they just have normal updates to keep their plugins working and then entice you to pay with upgrades. If they ever get rid of "the update plan" I will buy Waves again, but until then, nah.

[@audiotoolshed]

@@iTimestretcher that’s a very valid reason. I wonder if one day they will change it up.