UAD Plug-Ins vs. Analog Hardware

[@dulla8469]

ok HOLY SHIT, that technique giving the lead vocalist another mic routed to a track with delay and a bit of reverb to get that effect on the words he wants is FUCKING GENIUS, first time ive seen it in my life

[@UniversalAudio]

👍

[@j.sherwoodowl4826]

yeah same. I just watched Jamie's KEXP performance and he does it there too so it must be something he does as part of his looping / live performance set.

[@Chris-vr8cd]

yea mind blowing

[@mateogala]

​@@UniversalAudio 👍🏻

[@tcibeatrecords4707]

Pretty awesome way to capture those vocal tales. But I wonder which fx were use on the vocals.

[@ManchesterMusic]

However people feel about the shootout, kudos to UA's marketing team for producing this clip and providing a slick, professional and reliable "shootout" themed video in response to the heaps of non-associated KZbin reviewers who often fall short on providing a valid, professional 'shootout' of UAD's gear vs other companies software. So much misinformation and poorly produced content out there, it's refreshing to see something objective and also pretty scientific in its approach.

[@BeauStephenson]

The amazing thing about this video is that it shows you how powerful software really is. For my own personal studio, I have an absolutely kickass tracking chain that is completely analog that I use to grab some tasty vocals, keys, bass, and guitars with. But then when I'm mixing, these plugins blow the lid off of it. Hybrid all the way for me. Analog gets me the big, fat, juicy, silky tones into the box, then the plugins open up creativity without limits. Match made in heaven if you ask me.

[@BeauStephenson]

Also, with unison technology, I'll have a hardware preamp going into a software compressor for tracking all the time. The UAD2 LA2A plugin is AMAZING for this.

[@simcHyt]

Hybrid rules :)

[@allenlocke1935]

Thanks for you're encouraging take! It gives me hope and may stave off jonesing for gear that's out of my reach.

[@rafaelcarmany463]

I have been doing this for 50 years now - using every single piece of gear on this video and many more. I haven't used that exact same API but have and am currently using other API Desks. Yes - I am 100% into Hybrid. I've been recording to an iZ Radar system for 22 years. Fabulous sound. Then transfer to Digital Performer for using UAD Plug-Ins, etc and editing. I love going through the actual analog front end and then "Enhancing" tracks with UAD Plugs. I return processed tracks to Radar and mix back into Radar cuz the convertors are so good. I have some other very expensive convertors but when you "A-B" them to the Radar they do not stand up - not even close. Not just to my ears - but to several other people who have been in the industry and signed to Warner Bros. and other Labels for many decades.

[@fullalbums5675]

I'm waiting for a plugin emulating apollo interface

[@xaosnox]

Am I misunderstanding your comment, or isn't that what Apollo is? You want the plugins built in to the interface? That would be impractical, because they all use different impedance, so it's easier to just use the UAD Console.

[@smpiggystudio]

@@xaosnox He's joking, but good one

[@NicStride]

@@xaosnox Gimme a native apollo plugin. :P

[@Daminatovideo]

LMAO, I bet it's coming....Factory Sound card input 3.5mm jack, sounds like 20k in channel strips.

[@Axeyard]

I'm waiting for a plug-in for my brain first, then my mind. Then I'll really have what Chomsky calls a mind/brain.

[@hyperluminalreality1]

I really like that vocal technique with the effect mic in hand. Very impressive. Sweet result.

[@ZakiWasik]

I could only hear a distinct difference on vocals and guitar. I can't say one sounded definitively better than the other. It really just sounds like two vintage units each with their own sound signature. Amazing!

[@theaudiocooker1444]

I've listen back and forth quite a bit on this one through my Focal Twin6's so a reasonable monitoring system. Also ran some blind tests too. The hardware definitely has a lovely sheen to it that the plugins are missing. There's still a little bit of magic that's not been captured by the modelling process.

[@HiredGoonage]

maybe, but can you hear it in the overall final mix/product?

[@tcibeatrecords4707]

On soloing the single tracks the analog sounded better. But listening to the entire song track i could not tell difference.

[@TomMontalk]

The differences people are hearing is mostly EQ related. I put a slight tilt EQ on the plugin samples and they're now almost indistinguishable from the hardware versions. Except for the background vocal clips, which were different performances with different levels, so what's chain versus what's performance is hard to say there.

[@infinitonica2362]

There is difference in EQ, but far superior transients with the analog stuff. Does the EQ experiements you did somehow help the transients?

[@bobsykes]

This comparison is a great! I first listened to it on a MacBook Pro 16" laptop. I was shocked that the vocal tracks came through as more forward and real over the laptop speakers in the analog gear recorded tracks than the DSP processed ones throughout the this entire test. Then I listed through an Apollo x6 Thunderbolt 3 interface, using Sennheiser HD 800S headphones and Cardas Clear headphone cable. The analog signal path still had more forward, punchy voices, but with less space and air. The DSP processed tracks had a more open sound, cleaner and more transparent highs, but they didn't put the vocal as much in your face as the analog recorded tracks. The most surprising thing for me was how much better the all of the vocals came through the laptop speakers with the all analog recording chain. Thank you for doing this.

[@UniversalAudio]

👍

[@Shawneverette]

The UAD is brighter and a little edgy compared to the hardware. Nothing that could not be fixed with eq. They both sound great.

[@THEKITPLUG]

To be fair, they did not use the exact hardware that the plugins were engineered from. Each hardware unit will have tolerance differences so obviously there will be difference with the plugins. Still amazingly close to accurate. Im completely sold on the Plugins.

[@a1recordings]

No comparison hard ware will forever beat soft ware

[@johnbach2380]

@@a1recordings eh. I have hardware. Never is a bit strong.

[@orangemaniabrother2232]

People think we live in a high tech computer simulation similar to the matrix, if that's true then hardware is actually software and should be easy to imitate lol

[@dickhead9214]

@@a1recordings you have no idea what you’re talking about. i use hardware and software. the accolades i’ve received are enough for me to know what you’re spouting off at the mouth is false. don’t listen to this guy

[@jorgefrias7889]

@@a1recordings Knowledge will always beat hardware

[@snapascrew]

Man, I really wish they would have lied about all of the A/B examples then at the very end of the video revealed it was all backwards. Everyone says the neve hardware has more body. Sure. I can agree, but if you were lied to and thought that the neve clips were UAD and UAD clips were neve you’d be saying “the hardware was more clear and the plugin was muddy”. 🤣🤣🤣

[@mrGood-84]

You can hear the difference in lo-end and lo-mid punch (especially on the drums) where hardware just has "more" than UAD but it's soooooo close that when you consider the price difference.... man, I'm so happy I'm on UAD platform :)

[@lightafluident.9950]

I'm happy I use hardware to track. For the price of the overpriced Apollo, u can have a decent interface, a dope mic pre, and an awesome compressor to track through.

[@xaosnox]

This video worked. It got me on the UAD train. I have to admit, I was a cautious convert, and I still think it really sucks that they give you the "Legacy" versions of the plugins when you buy the MkII hardware, but you just can't beat the new UAD stuff. The advantages over hardware outweigh any quality differences by a thousandfold, especially in today's world of lossy distribution. I've got world-class quality that fits on my desk. I can say one thing for sure, though. I'll never, EVER use their de-esser after listening to the videos they produce! Everything sounds so gorgeous-until there's an "s" in the voice over! Best de-esser ever made is donationware. Airwindows DeEss has replaced FabFilter Pro-DS as my "go to" de-esser. It's brilliantly done. Doesn't compress the frequencies. It smooths out the harsh waveforms of sibilance instead. I crank it up all the way, run all the processing on the vocals that add sibilance, then add just enough of the dry signal back to get a natural sound, and it sounds a million times better than any of these UAD videos!

[@hansimeyer707]

I have been waiting and hoping for a proper comparison like this one for years! Well done! Great emulations, no doubt!

[@MCCABEWORLD]

UAD are the best in the Game! I love my Apollo & Plugins👏🏽😎 just a flawless Sound

[@jimmyw2802]

apollo is good but hardware is overall more natural and overall slightly brighter in some of the cases. but gear usually isnt the problem if youve got a solid recording and great inspirational ideas.

[@nicholasmichael5268]

This is so close, I think any difference people hear are mostly to do with specific hardware imperfections and psychological factors. I'd like to see all these people saying they can definitely hear differences, do a blind test, two parts, one which you pick the clip you think is the hardware or plugin, and another where you pick your favourite.

[@leosup722]

if I win your blind test on macbook speakers, what do I win ?

[@arioscos]

Honestly I own an Apollo and have tried the plugins on my music. I tried them with a vocalist and I just couldnt get a full sound. Vocalist agreed. The sound was so thin. I thought I was doing something wrong. I bought some outboard gear to compare. It was the best choice Ive made. These are my conclusions: Cons: 1. UAD plugins have a long way to go. Especially their preamps. On external preamps even 30db of gain gets you a big fat effortless sound. Their preamps requires that you turn the gain to at least 60. At 55 to 60 db, you notice noise from the plugin 2. I would recommend fabfilter. Their plugins are not emulations but man are they amazing. Try them out. Better cost too. Pros 3. I would still get their Apollo interfaces. Overall their interfaces, assuming you are not using their plugins or built in preamp, will help you alot. The functionality, Specs, and performance of the unit is unique. 4. Their plugins are very hyped. But it is marketing that works for them.

[@ezrashanti]

@@arioscos I feel the opposite. Plugins are great and unloading the processing from the computer is a great bonus. Definitely not the most cost effective, but they're solid professional tools. Apollo's for me do not have a sound that can compete with other products in the same price range. However it is a good all in one solution for tracking in a home studio for some. I have had a couple and they were far from my favorite, but they do work and there's a lot of good things about the setup, without having to have a complex rack of gear for conversion and monitor mixes.

[@chaseleslie6506]

Everyone saying there is a 5% difference, and I am not shilling for UAD, I just don't see it. Try closing your eyes and see if you can tell when it switches. As an audio engineer with 15 years of experience, I would be hard pressed on a test. I could not say with a bit of honesty that I could tell you when the A/B changes without watching the screen. I could not tell more than a 2% difference, if that, to be quite honest. I can promise you spending years honing your craft and perfecting your skill, and zoning in on the requisite talent and creativity will make radical changes, 300% changes in your songwriting. Some kid with $700 worth of gear in the basement could outdo 98% of us if they have the talent & willpower.

[@EnamAzed]

i agree with you 100%

[@ughpoor]

Listen closely to the hi-hat in drum example @ 3:17 ...you can hear the plugins are slightly tinnier and the hardware is darker. With the vocals 4:45 you can hear when he says "paAAART of me" the hardware sound seems more defined, like theres a bigger dynamic range. Idk I'd still be very happy with these plugins.

[@kodakeller6353]

MichaelRusso the funny thing is that you have to say “listen closely”. If you have to listen closely for a difference then that alone can easily justify not spending thousands on the gear. Also plugins are only going to get better and computers are only gonna get stronger. The future isn’t looking too great for gear my friend.

[@ughpoor]

@@kodakeller6353 Keep your pants on, I didn't attack your soul. I'm saying listen closely for all the people who said they couldn't hear the difference. And did I not say that I would be happy with these plugins? Or are you just trying to argue? I also said that I'm no expert... but I can still hear the difference. I'm sure experts don't have to listen very closely to hear it at all.

[@kodakeller6353]

MichaelRusso experts in what? You act like experts have super power ears or something.anyone can here the difference if you listen closely especially if ur listening loudly on good speakers. And listening on KZbin isn’t gonna give either of these units much justice.

[@kieranhurley5872]

just goes to show you can get 95% of the sound for a few 1,000 but could spend 80,000 plus getting that final 5% of the fidelity

[@Markpianist1]

Absolutely, Amazing!

[@aaronmcgill]

But isn't it that last 5% that we love...

[@analogdreamertheproducer4850]

Kieran Hurley id rather spend 80k

[@vincentsimeon5271]

Yes but its 5% of the fidelity and so from "gear choices" that represent, AT BEST 10%, of the final product. The song, the musicians, their mood and "mojo" during the recording day, the arrangements, the performance, the room, the placement of musicians in the room, the mics placement, the instruments prep, the rec engineer (mood and "mojo" during the recording day too), the mix engineer, the mastering engineer (pretty sure he can undo the subtles differences here), the time you have for each step, etc ect. At the end of the day I can perfectly work without hardware that represent 0.5% at best of the final product. I don't say that there is no differences, just that I can perfectly obtain what i want without vintage harware. And for the comparison, never forget that two hardwares neve 1073 for exemple don't match 100% so... pointless IMO (this test is not even a blind one). Anyway, I can perfectly work without vintage plungins too :D

[@NullStaticVoid]

For most people I'd say that the 95% is more than good enough. It's only when really pushing the limits of an EQ, preamp or compressor that you can hear that extra 5%. For example, I own a LA610 and have the 610 plugin. The hardware unit can unequivocally take more level without crapping out. The plugin is limited by the fact that it has to digitize the signal and then do it's DSP. I can plow a line level signal into the LA610 and it will distort, but it's not digital distortion, it's tube and transformer saturation. This is an edge case scenario. But then so was close micing a bass drum at one point.

[@j.sherwoodowl4826]

my takeaway: if your musicians, room, and mics, and technique are amazing, not much else matters.

[@adam872]

They both sounded good and pretty much the same to me. I'd be happy having the emulated versions in my rig.

[@louderthangod]

For me it's not about sounding the same but can it get me to where I can dial in the plugin to places where I'm just as happy for the same types of tones. If I can't get great tones with the UAD then that's on me and not the plugins.

[@jorgefrias7889]

We live in great times. This was not possible just a decade ago. Yes I understand that the hardware versions have the extra 3% in harmonics and headroom but even that can be argued since its all about taste and opinion. I work in a studio with a plethora of hardware, I do like the hardware versions better but to be honest the average listener will never be able to tell these minute differences. I gave the blind listening test to all my siblings and the results were all over the place. In fact some of them chose the software over the hardware. Realistically hardware isn't going to turn a crappy song into a gem. Most people that dwell over gear just lack skill. There's a reason engineers such as Andrew Scheps are moving to the digital domain. Well done UAD. Now please for UAD 3 we need better processors, your new plugins sound amazing but they smoke the processors out of the water.

[@bartni]

this makes me want to buy more hardware than plugins

[@slimyelow]

Funny, the exact same thought went through my tiny brain too.

[@blvkqmusicgroup]

@MrGreyjeep They def don't sound the same. Upgrade your speakers to monitors / or your ear is not ready to engineer.

[@AFAProductionsstudio]

I was thinking about the same thing lol

[@DJShowbrack]

BLVKQ MUSIC GROUP bruh i bet if u did a blind test you wouldnt be able to tell the difference. You like hardware, thats fine, but stop with the nonsensical geeky comments hahah

[@NickAnanas]

I agree we can hear two big differences in favour of the hardware, 1: the transients are amazing on Neve Preamp, 2) Higher frequency range. A bit more noise and openness with the hardware. The software is more presumed and fixed.

[@radio22king]

OK The tonal flavor is similar. Yes the plugins sound like they are in the same family. But the hardware has more dynamic range for sure. More space and more depth. Unfortunately, the cost of hardware is prohibitive for most. Also, I just had an issue with my SPL Iron mastering compressor. They told me I had to ship it back to the UK where I bought it. About $1200.00 shipping and insurance not to mention all the customs papers etc...I could have got it repaired here in Las Vegas but they (SPL) wouldn't give the repair shop a schematic of the unit so I'm in a real mess. Plugins are starting to look really good at that point. There are a lot of really great sounding plugins and I'm sure in time, they will get even better. Plus the recall is priceless.

[@UniversalAudio]

Good summary! Solid logic.

[@shane2973]

Bobby...I am curious what the outcome of this repair scenario ended up being...also now that some time has passed I am curious if you have had a chance to try the Plugin Alliance Iron Comp...very interested in your opinion in comparison of the Hardware and the Plugin

[@radio22king]

@@shane2973 Hi Shane. The end is that no help was given to repair the issue. I had to sell it for much less then I paid for it. For an item that is not an easy buy for most people, I would have thought I would have received a little better resolve. I tried the plug in version and I have to say it is very close. The hardware on a complex mix sounds awesome compared to the plug in. I had a big band song I mixed with the hardware. 14 horns and 5 Rhythm plus vocals. A little more natural dynamic range on the hardware. Of course the plug in version has recall and that is invaluable when doing several different sessions. But I will conclude that if the customer service from SPL was how it should be, I would still have the hardware version.

[@Markpianist1]

OK guys, just listened to this on my Genelecs. First off this is youtube but I have listened to the plugin vs hardware with these same units and it is hard to tell except when you overdrive, like on the bass into the 1176. Anyways the lead Vocal had more sizzle on the hardware than plugin but you know, another hardware unit may not. The background vocals the plugin had more warmth and more sizzle than the hardware. Everything else was identical. Very cool, glad I got an Apollo 8p. Love it!!

[@simcHyt]

Everything sounds good on Genelecs lol

[@legendfpv]

Presonus Sceptre beats Genelec.

[@majormoody]

I agree about the bass compression. I think it was the DBX on bass though. A bit warmer in the hardware but no clear winner. The real win for hardware was the lead vocal for sure! More "space" all around in the analog but very similar character / behaviour in the plugs.

[@allenlocke1935]

@@legendfpv I hear those are good. But Ric Beato is still rocking his old Event 8" 20/20P's like me, though his are sporting two front bass ports where mine have only one. Just sayin'.

[@HellfireBeats]

Hardware is definitely beefier and warmer, but without seeing the visual cues in the video, I doubt most would be able to tell the difference. For the price UAD is a steal either way!!!

[@genesisnkaidence8519]

Hellfire Beats EXACTLY

[@Luigi1984]

i'm ok with that !

[@HansBaier]

I went the other route: Got an Alctron 500 series channel strip and a RME interface. Real hardware which won't expire on os software or computer interface updates, for the price less than a UAD plugin. Actually the UAD Neve emulation is twice as expensive as the Alctron clone for $150. Will be very long lasting, since RME has up to date drivers for their interfaces now almost 20 years old.

[@reddvest]

My brother!!! Whats good man? Ive worked on hardware and software and I can't say its a "definite" kind of thing here. Get 4 engineers/producers in your studio and play this for them without them knowing and you will get mixed results.

[@rt-uh6mt]

@@HansBaier if you pick up the UAD Neve during the holiday bundle sale it can be less than $100. That said I do use a Warm Audio hardware pre too but UAD is rock solid, both in performance and sound quality, never had any OS or update problems. Even something as simple as their brigade chorus pedal plugin, it honestly sounds to me so much better than any stock or free chorus plugin I compared it to. UAD hardware isn't cheap but depending on how you look at it, it's not bad either, you can get a Lexicon 480L on ebay for $4000 or get the UAD emulation for about $100, again during the bundle sales.

[@rafbass]

This video is fantastic. Every little part of it is amazing. The video quality, the audio quality, the music quality, the comparison quality. It's just perfect. Everything is perfect.

[@UniversalAudio]

😍

[@gbaren]

Both mixes sound great & the performances & musicianship were stellar. Groove SO in the pocket. Analog chain has just a touch more "juiciness" but emulation so close & has the clarity. Great stuff!!

[@JMLRecording]

THIS is what all YT videos should be made like. So well done.

[@florin1290]

You know guys and everybody knows that even Jacquire King, there will be difference between hardware and plugin forever, special when we talks about vintage hardware. But, we have to admit that, the plugins are very, very close with hardware and for us who don`t have a lot of money to spend in hardware equipment or travelers a lot its a huge help to come closer in sound and knowledge with the professionals. Thank you Universal Audio for this amazing unison technology !!!

[@AlwinMonteiro]

UAD, you guys are fantastic! I really want all your products! The only thing that I noticed different is the response of the transients in the top end and high mids are more pronounced in your emulation. It is steal having a great sound, but somehow it does not feet the original units and make it sound like having a very subtle difference in the low mids, but as I said it sound great as well and it definitely seems like original! Great job! :D

[@ooglek]

The bass line didn't sound the same to me. It sounded like there was some clipping on the DSP track... anyone else hear the same? The audio track too, but I feel like I should listen to a double-blind track so I'm not biased. The backup audio track was spot on. Put all together, they are pretty much indistinguishable. Impressive!

[@petermiao8970]

I'm a longtime fan and user of UAD software plug-ins and have spent quite a lot of money on them in the last several years. Having said that, this video is the greatest promotional ad for hardware equipment that I've ever heard.

[@lightafluident.9950]

All the money you spent on UAD you could have probably had some decent hardware pieces to run in conjunction with your DAW.

[@ZenonMarko]

Superb comparison. Fantastic musicians, arrangement, productions as well.

[@angeloboltinimusic]

Came for the gear, stayed for the music!

[@southpau]

That shows you how much gear REALLY matters. If the song is great nobody cares. Give me a mackie mixer and some sm57s and I’ll make records all day! And i have LOTS of expensive gear that i don’t even use! I’ve Been using my slate mic over the u87 and m149 thats on the shelf!! Nobody has said a thing! 🤷🏿‍♂️🤷🏿‍♂️

[@msphawaii6444]

This is an easy comparison test maybe one of the more obvious versions to hear a difference. My opinion - the analog has tone and soul. The digital sounds like digital, lots of bits trying to figure out its algorithm to appear alive. I believe that is why analog is still alive and well. Using a combination of both analog and digital worlds with professional products and engineering skills whether vintage or modern can give a very professional sounding product that can stand up to time to an ever evolving market. It starts at the source - passion, good talent, good song and good gear. Thanks API for the 500 series rack idea.

[@nelsonstarr5356]

I HATE to say this--as I'm a big fan of great plugins and emulations from UAD, Slate, Waves, Softube, etc.--and am hugely embarrassed but, to my ears (and assuming these A/Bs were done right) the analog sounds quite "meaningfully better" in most if not all comparisons. I was a bit shocked, especially in the vocals and final mix A/Bs, just how better was the fidelity and desired sound of the analog over the Unisons. I just assumed that the Unisons would stack up far better and with much less contrast than I heard here. I'm a bit stunned actually by the brutal honesty allowed to be portrayed here by Universal Audio. I applaud it wholeheartedly!!

[@johnglenn4433]

It seems like a small margin to many, but over the width of a mix you really start to hear that 1-2% difference multiplied by the number of tracks.It's particularly noticeable in terms of depth and 3 dimensionality. Were going to get to a point that kids are going to record with a $99 mic into emulations and auto-tune everything because they cant sing on pitch and have n voice training or mic technique and get programs to pick musical chords for them because they cant read or write music... Wait! We're already there!!!

[@renestjacques1]

Excellent review and musicianship .. thank you all .. merci .. and seasons greetings 2018 ..!!

[@karma_moths]

My home set up includes the UAD Apollo X interface and some UAD outboard gear also and to me the main difference is that the sound you get from outboard gear has more depth of field (something like that - hard to put into words) - it's more dimensional where as pluggins are kind of like a holographic representation of that depth. They cant quite get there in that respect. Saying that, your average music listener wont give a shit. They either like the song or not and as long as it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb relative to the other recordings they're listening to then there's no reason to get hung up on the details.

[@n3crobard]

Something extra powerful about the UAD platform here that perhaps is missing is the speed of mix and matching processing chains, and in some cases also the benefits of unique features on the plugins that aren't available on the hardware (or would require some mod work). While there were some discernible differences, I actually liked UAD better than the HW on a few of the shootouts.

[@DjLeoZero]

Fantastic to see this in action - I can hear the slight difference in cohesion and fluidity in the hardware..... but then stick some tape emulation in the mix on top of the UAD plug-in tracked version and I can deal with all that and get to a more live / organic sound again.... so in-the-box wins.... once you have a decent tool kit of plugs to get you where you want to be with an aproximation of the analog sound - you're good..... the speed at which you can move and record musicians with the plug-ins keeps the session fresh and you get the best out of the musicians..... messing about with temperamental hardware and patch bay leads is a buzz-kill for the session people.... I did my first session yesterday since watching this video, and more unison pre-amp tutorials and the results were maazing. I was recording live congas, and went in really hot into a 1084 unison pre.... recording straight through it and printing the results.... the sound quality was INCREDIBLE.... I had few mic options but the good old 57 killed it and really sang through the Neve pre-amp.... I'm off to upgrade my Apollo for more DSP today!..... keep up the amazing work UAD...... I've used UAD plugs across 15+ years of remixes for Dua Lipa, Madonna, Lou Reed & David Bowie, Paul Weller, etc.etc. and the more I learn the more I'm committed to working with your products even more. Keep up the amazing work and all the extra tutorials that go with the products - they make all the difference.

[@UniversalAudio]

👍🏻

[@ricardolima3418]

Jacquire, amazing producer and audio engineering! I love it. I've got an Apollo 16 and recommend it.

[@simcHyt]

It really makes the vocals so much tastier, can tell by listening on 10€ earbuds. As a beginner audio engineer, mixing hip hop where the vocal is crucial, you will never get a great sounding recording of it without some real compression before it.

[@simcHyt]

Stock DAW compressors do the thing of correcting the imperfections of already compressed recorded signal just fine for me. The reason why some vintage gear was so popular is because people loved working with it, not only because of the sound. That communication between a compressor and an engineer, looking at the needle jumping and listening to the reality of what is happening electrically inside that box... Nothing can really replace that. We all know that, why am I writing this, it's late

[@shane2973]

This great even almost 2 years later. Something I found interesting about this entire process, I'm not sure if most people caught, is that the hardware was used to "match" the software and not the other way around. This leaves an interesting question...was the software essentially the best it can be where the hardware may possibly sound even better? I don't know the answer to that because I do not own UA plugs or original Vintage gear. All that said I think UA sounded good and Software has really come a long way from the early days, for me anyway, of talking with Steinberg about Cubase 3.5 on a windows 95 machine and having them say "This will NOT sound like a $100,000 2" Tape machine" Pretty awesome stuff!

[@konafama]

Those artists could perform into an iPhone and I’d love it! The artist mod is always the vintage I love. Well performed. Sounds great, All.

[@richardaylward70]

For me, the biggest difference was the OH bleed on the vox track. The mix track comparison was stunning and, if I had to pick a personal favorite, I'd pick the software.

[@CesarBenzoni]

Both sound great, the comparison is great and honest, everyone chooses whatever suits the work or the budget better and the rest is bla bla bla

[@betteroffdead79]

Difference is there, but subtle. Point is that with this kind of simple music and with very good performance and sound from the band, you just need to gently touch the source - try to mix some more dense genre, and now you'll see how analog can handle so much better the mix. Plugins are very good when you don't push them too much, the big difference comes out when you push things...anyway, UAD are among the best plugins around for sure.

[@ElectroMusicBattle]

if i had to describe the analog vs digital sound in the final mix its like in the digital version the borders of the elements are hitting hard on each other, like big walls hit together. In the analog mix the elements sound more like they have a fog around them. this leads to a more glued mix in my opinion :).

[@briang6868]

Excellent video we'd love to see you do other A/ B comparisons between hardware and software versions of SSL, Manley, Summit TLA 100, and other UA products

[@kevindietz6470]

On the drums, I feel like I noticed slightly more clarity from the hardware than the plugins (very minimal amount, almost negligible). On the bass, I preferred the sound of the plugin chain, it seemed tighter and punchier. On the vocals, I noticed more presence from the hardware, but knowing the UAD 1073 sound well, I’d say that could be easily compensated for with a little top-end EQ boost on the plugin. Guitars, I liked the plugin chain better, more clarity and sparkle. BG Vocals, I’m 50/50. Interesting to hear the A/B of all the tracks! I think the plugin chains might have the edge, save for the lead vocal, as Michael Bustamante mentioned earlier. Like Jaquire mentions in the video, and it’s an important point; no two hardware modules sound exactly alike (especially vintage Neve gear!) which could account for some differences. Great video, great comparisons!

[@StereoAnthony]

Pretty much agree with everything!

[@StarsoundStudios]

Great comparison. I have owned UAD plugins for years and are on all of my mixes!

[@tommyradband]

I would say that deadscene's comment is 'right on.' More like 2% at the highest difference. I have been using Apollos since day one of their availability, with vintage hardware UA 610 preamps, LA-2A compressors, and Pultec EQs. The hardware is simply awesome, the UAD plugings are just as fantastic. I simply can't tell the difference except on very clean guitar, chello, and violins. Which, are not that readily used in rock 'n roll, etc...So, I am a very happy camper with a professional, album quality recording studio at home. My recordings sound as good as anything on the radio, go figure, GO UA! 38 year musician, sound engineer.

[@ferncabral1661]

The very fact that many world renowned mixing engineers and musicians actually choose to use UAD plugins along with the Apollo interfaces( Twin, 16, etc...) in their own studios and mobile rigs , speaks volumes . I am not paid or endorsed by UAD either. I just own an Apollo Twin with a ton of UAD plug ins, a very nice pair of Sony Professional Headphones and some great neutral studio monitors. I like what I hear. When I was originally looking into what type of interfaces (and the best also) that I could find to work with my DAW, UAD stood out and when I saw all of the professionals that were using UAD's interfaces and plugins , it greatly influenced my decision. As a matter of fact , it sealed the deal. I thought that if its good enough for all of these iconic industry professionals, it should certainly be good enough for me. I believe that currently, its the best that money can buy , without having to mortgage your house and that getting to work and actually making "the music" , soundtrack or that "next hit song", is whats most important above anything else. With the use of the current UAD platform, it appears to be getting sound recording and mixing to the point that most listeners can't really tell the difference most (maybe all) of the time. I've listened to many major releases from the distant (and even not too distant) past, that pale in comparison to what you can hear produced with this modern platform. I like this quote and it applies to many things : "Done is better than perfect"

[@dspoet1]

Fern Cabral Real talk. Totally agree.

[@bayboymusic1]

My next hardware purchase will be Universal Audio. Great!

[@fuzzupuzzu]

im going to check this out today... Im only wondering... how much the fact that this is a compressed youtube video will make a difference for the comparison

[@steveg219]

They sounded pretty identical most of the time, in some cases I actually preferred the plug-ins

[@stephenwally5337]

IMHO, I love how the hardware interprets the sound. They sparkle much more.

[@CrossbeatsMusicProduction]

Its great that UAD stood up to this challenge. There is a difference but it definitely depends if you can afford to pay the difference to.

[@theglovefactory]

This is an advertisement paid for by UA. They didn't get challenged. They'd paid for it.

[@CrossbeatsMusicProduction]

Jeremy Glover I know its an advertisement by UA :) when I say challenged I mean they had no real chance of beating the hardware but they at least showed the example and got a little closer then one would expect.

[@RodneyD]

You got to be kidding... The UAD plugins sounded amazing, even a better in my opinion. Im listening in a well acoustically treated room and the UAD plugins had jus as much depth, width, and clarity as the hardware. There was a difference but nothing to suggest that the hardware was far superior to the plugins...NOTHING!!! People on here trying to micro manage subtle details that 95% of the human population can't even discern. PHENOMENAL JOB UAD! For the rest of you UAD haters, keep using the Musicians 1 bundle by waves.

[@GabrielXDrums]

Rodney D absolutely roasted Waves with that, I'm so glad I never bought a Waves bundle back when I was looking to spend money, before I purchased my Apollo Twin less than a week ago. Time to grab that one-time plug in bundle offer 😁

[@simcHyt]

I hope your plugins will work 20 years from now :)

[@jamesmcfadden1468]

if that makes you feel better.

[@prince2626]

bruh chill why dragging waves in all this u know this is other league stuff..... waves aint anywhere near this uad plugin shit n ol...

[@lightafluident.9950]

Or use real hardware like me!!! 😂 😂 😂.

[@Boojakascha]

Loved every second of the video, but can somebody explain me why the lead singer is waving around a poor microphone like a twig while just the Shure SM-7 is hooked up?

[@UniversalAudio]

The other mic IS hooked up and is what is doing the "effect throws" he is performing. Look/listen more closely.

[@toddcarpenter4233]

Ill take the hardware any day.. until i get 800k I suppose my twin will have to do , heh

[@joek2904]

Are there any Apollo walk throughs for modern metal? What are some go to signal chains with pre amps, eq and compression? How hard should preamps be pushed?

[@andreasoberholz]

Its maybe a good idea to provide people with some level matched AB files because of the YT audio compression. In the video its close but someone has to do his own real world test. I still love hardware because of its real knobs.

[@andreasoberholz]

Mh this website shows an XML Error Code...

[@t.farris1755]

This version seems to have a different feel from the released version. I love this version. Wish I could purchase this version if there was one.

[@365daysofsongarchive6]

Thank you so much for this video. I too can hear a bit of a difference on the low end, but dude..... it's so subtle and IMO not worth the extra money. I'd rather spend those extra thousands on promoting/touring the record that was recorded with the Apollos. Killer track Jamie, band and Jacquire!

[@CS-xi9dz]

Software is definitely making great strides. Just the other day I was on my laptop checking out the Nord Grand samples..My wife commented on how beautiful the sound of the white grand was without knowing it was virtual. Impressive how everything is improving.

[@tuneunleashed]

It has nothing on the Hardware White Grand

[@ericlee5935]

on calibrated headphones with sonarworks, the difference is very subtle in some cases and quite obvious in others however in the context of the mix the uad stands very good to the hardware, love them

[@TheSteveKinney]

massive difference on bass, guitar, and vocals. .. the background vocals sounded pretty damn good though.

[@timothydigerolamo]

Now let’s remember that they’re comparing plug ins with outboard gear, going into the same interface. In that case, they’re going to sound very similar. But the moment you use the outboard gear with an actual tape machine, that’s when everything is glued together in a way that is indescribable. The AD conversion screws up the intended color. But who has time/money to work with tape nowadays when 24bit is so much more familiar and convenient to our generation?

[@harveyspecterdj6661]

Damn that is VERY close! The most significant difference to me is the kick. That does have a tad more oomph on the hardware chain but I'm sure that's a matter of EQ. But honestly? I'm impressed! Very!

[@henriquenicolau]

UAD plugs are very very very good and do wonders. But hardware has that hidden magic that our ears capture and somehow makes us feel better. My opinion: drums- hardware handles the transients better making it more even and smoother lead vocals- almost the same... his voice would sound good through a 10$ phone mic anyway... hard to say. bass - hardware makes it wider and 3dish filling . the ending mix sound a bit bigger. guitar- hardware puts some maple syrup on the waffle . bg vocas - the texture is more pleasant on hardware . the long notes gives the uad away. Congratulations to those who worked to do this comparison.

[@MaximumLevelAudio-BrianKnop]

The hardware was matched to the emulations? Shouldn't it have been done the other way around? Set the hardware up for the best tones, and see how close you can get with the emulations? I've recently started acquiring hardware, and I can get it to do things the emulations can't do at all. If I was setting up the tones on the software first, it would be a lot easier to match, because I wouldn't be pushing the software out of it's realm to match things the hardware can do, but the software can't. I still have limited hardware experience, but I've found that I can push hardware into more extreme territory that the software can't hit. All that said... the software emulations are obviously impressive and super useful!

[@Swizzenator]

This is exactly correct. I wont call it deceiving but they should have presented it in the video somewhere. But it all still sounded nice so Im back in my hole.

[@TriWaZe]

I actually like that they did this because every KZbinr did the opposite. And all though they did find bigger differences. The plugins all tend to need to be pushed harder to get the same results and as you push them they get a lot more brittle and harsh, where as the hardware handles it smoothly all the way to max.

[@ytb917]

this is the kind of demo legends are made of. those comps were astonishingly similar on un-amazing headphones. i'd like to hear these comps on better playback gear.

[@offslip9093]

What you heard on your un-amazing headphones is pretty much what 99% of the population would be listening to. So, if they sound similar to you, the majority of the buying public too would not notice the different:). UAD wins all day, on price, reliability and the number of instances you can run of a Fairchild 670 compressor in your session ;-).

[@JeraCravoMyself]

Great video! Great input from King great music. We are in the threshold where buying new outboard will become "obsolete" to the biggest amount of small studio/home recording setups. Yes, of course there is a difference, but is it worth the price?

[@SuomyOna]

The problem with a comparison like this is neither the equipment nor the engineers. It's that from an experience point of view, being an engineer, who gets the privilege of escaping into a studio to take part in the creative process, has a somatic connection to the space, the electricity, and the physical nobs. There is irreplaceable, unreproducible joy in working with your hands and turning those nobs. You can be making eye contact with a musician, feelin' the groove, while making an adjustment without having to worry about cursor placement with a mouse. And that makes an indelible imprint. So even if mathematically indistinguishable, an engineer or gear head like those in the comments is always going to rate having created with the hardware as the winner. They both will be biased towards the experience of creating, rather than the experience of listening. I'm no studio engineer; I've barely been in one. But I do love a good sound fidelity comparison and have really good ears. I personally could not tell the difference.

[@dspoet1]

I wonder if the results would be closer with the Apollo X series rack mount interfaces.

[@bunker5tudios495]

When are we going to have more plugins in native? Please add all neve and manley stuff to spark 🙏

[@gearspace]

Jacquire King is about to do a Q+A on Gearslutz.com for two weeks - starting on June 5th. If you have any questions to ask him about this video or anything else it's a great opportunity to glean some knowledge from a master! Check it out - goo.gl/OXUcPg

[@GlennGutierrez]

No Cloudlifter on the SM7, just straight in to the Apollo? (I was already very close to picking up an SM7B for vocals, and now I'm that much more... sure.)

[@UniversalAudio]

Yup!! SM7B was released in 1973..... just a good clean pre like in the Apollo is all that's needed!! If that doesn't work, you likely have the wrong mic.

[@johnnybrit804]

Uauuuu!!!! Hardware wins!!! I'm on the right track! I love the real things, always!

[@rt-uh6mt]

Wow. That double mic technique 0:20 with one of them really wet on the reverb is a really cool idea. Definitely going to try that trick. As far as the sound quality it's very very close. Sometimes I think I can here a slight difference but not sure if it's just in my head. Listening on ATH40x headphones. Maybe on high end monitors you might notice more of a difference?

[@UniversalAudio]

That is a cool one!

[@Swizzenator]

@@UniversalAudio Really? Google automation.

[@zerb]

THIS IS A GREAT VIDEO! please make more like this!

[@milanpolak]

great video, great job UAD!

[@billymack4258]

Sounded awesome!! What uad reverbs, delays and eq were used on the lead vocal mix ? Could you please explain why was the second mic was used for this and was the reverb effects tracked live? Thanks.

[@nicktestajr]

This is mind blowing. Yeah the hardware sound better but the margin is so slim. I bet you find that much difference between hardware units. This sold me. It might take a while but an Apollo is for sure going to be my next interface.

[@UniversalAudio]

Exactly.

[@ZiadSidawi]

On Bass guitar there is an initial transit that is rounded in UA. On vocals the UA made it thinner. On guitars the UA feels like there is a veil between your ears and the guitar sound. When listened as a whole song, it felt muddier.

[@dzamusic]

I believe the difference which is clearly noticable might result because the digital chain FIRST hits the AD converter (with lower dB), where the analog chain hits the converter hot and with a lot of added harmonics.

[@2dollarcrew]

What's that mic splitter they are using?

[@gkashiwa]

The splitter in the diagrams is just representational. We used a 24 channel, 3-way transformer isolated splitter on the recording.

[@2dollarcrew]

Gannon Kashiwa thank you, sir. Best comparison video I've ever seen. Please do more like this!!!

[@JackLove]

Hardware is hardware u can't get same quality just with plugins, i felt the difference and loved hardware,but close enough UAD.

[@ДетиТишины]

UAD is unique, the same quality

[@PetrFink]

OMG I really didn't expected, that HW is so much better than these emulations. This is crazy :-O I am going to sell all my "virtual knobs".... thank you Apollo for opening my eyes (ears in fact).

[@Axeyard]

Damn. I wish I hadn't watched this. The hardware is noticeably better. There's a crispness and a clearer contour to the highs, to my ear. Maybe some more 1084 would help to give it a little crackle up there. Still, who the hell wants to go around patching stuff with wire anymore? And no space to keep and maintain that mass of hardware for the average human mammal. Enjoyed all you guys' comments though.

[@Vincefromsin]

With a better Unisson preamp (clean and loud like GML or Millennia) and a bit of extra DSP powered emulation, I think Unisson technology will be a killer feature in the next years!

[@hugohasselblad4890]

I prefer the plugins, more tighter sound. Especially the drums. Both are great.

[@UniversalAudio]

👍

[@DLuxProdbeatz]

Uad for sure stands its ground. Im listening through my adams and the hardware has same sound but is def more clear and less muffled

[@marco.trerotola.filmmaker]

I'm not an engineer mastering and I have just a home studio with apollo and no expensive monitors, my question is; is it possible from youtube to have a good quality sound to ear the difference? I'm very glad to have both Apollo with owns plugins, the results are very good for me.

[@CK-wo1ly]

Yes you can hear the difference. Whatever youtube is doing to the audio (probably just basic limiting), it's doing it to both the hardware and software sound evenly, so you'll still hear the differences in the remainder. Listen closely on decent headphones and audio interface and you'll hear it.

[@marco.trerotola.filmmaker]

@@CK-wo1ly I have an Univesal Audio Apollo, Yamaha hs7 monitor and Sony professional 7506 headphones ... But what audio quality does youtube have? 16 bit 44.100 at least like the quality of a CD? I don't think the quality of youtube is very high, maybe it will be compressed like an mp3. In my opinion it would have been better to be able to download separate tracks for more accurate listening.

[@marc-olivierjohnson8569]

on Studio monitors! 1st example More high end on the hardware 2nd example more subs on the bass on the hardware 3rd example u can hear more low mids and reverb on the vocal 4rth example u can hear more guitar pickup noise on the hardware 5th example there is some low mid cut and high end roll off on the plugins bighter hardware mix Conclusion…use an EQ plugin to compensate