![uad vs waves uad vs waves](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a4/1b/4d/a41b4de3e8166d67694af6e50fc630c2.jpg)
What makes a good processor (analog or digital) is the quality, ease and speed with which it allows one to achieve the desired results. Null tests or clinical listening tests might reveal a difference, but the mere fact of a difference does not make one necessarily better or worse. But they were awful close, in most of the examples, and setting two different compressors to the same settings does not mean that the one that sounds better at those settings is a "better" compressor: one would typically set a compressor wherever it sounds best, not to some arbitrary arrangement of knobs for an A/B test.
![uad vs waves uad vs waves](https://dt7v1i9vyp3mf.cloudfront.net/styles/news_large/s3/imagelibrary/A/Ampex_01-q3XFlLTKbhOsu6xKtHUa41tRRh2Vx_NK.jpg)
I think I usually slightly preferred the UAD version, when there was a clear difference (which was rarely). I think I could sometimes hear a difference between the two plugins. Whether you might be able to detect a "difference" in a null test or clinical listening test between two compressors does not by any means make the more expensive compressor "better" just because you proved there is a difference. Car designers and manufacturers will, and should conduct wind-tunnel tests and micrometer measurements and so on, but that doesn't mean that a regular road test cannot reveal the differences between comfort and handling quality, fit and finish, and so on.Įspecially with comparisons to stuff like UAD, which prides itself not so much on clinical accuracy as on re-creating that vintage "mojo", if something else sounds more or less "just as good" on lo-fi media, then we're kind of arguing about whether a '62 Tele sounds better or worse than a '67 Tele based on old Rolling Stones records or whatever.
![uad vs waves uad vs waves](https://www.audioanimals.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Waves-4000-E-Series-Emulation.png)
I.e., you could still absolutely tell the difference between a Stradivarius and a plywood starter violin even in a bad room, probably even in a bad room listening over a telephone line. A bad stereo can reveal the differences between good recordings and bad recordings, it just won't necessarily do a good job of revealing what the material will sound like on other systems. The purpose of good (accurate) monitors is to make sure that the sound the listener will hear on inferior playback systems will be roughly consistent to what they will hear relative to other well-recorded material. Good monitoring is critical for good decision-making, but it's a bit of a fine distinction. In a sense, if you need to do a forensic comparison on expensive monitors to distinguish between them, that's a pretty good indication that they are pretty similar, if not identical. That is, while I would never attempt to mix something on laptop speakers or earbuds, I still expect to (and generally do) hear a pretty categorical difference between "good sound" and "bad sound" on mp3s played through subpar sound systems. Given the price difference, and given normal listening environments and playback systems, one might argue that it hardly matters. Maybe is just me but.how can you tell from a youtube vid?ĭo you have your main mons pluged in?.