Skip to main content


DonnyThompson Mon, 11/02/2015 - 05:19

I don't think they're on the market yet, are they? No, wait... I guess they are :
(Currently useable only with S1 2.6.5 and higher).

As far as the review above, Russ ( Pro Tools Expert) was better with his presentation in this vid than he has been with others, where he's usually haulin' ass through the reviews - he seemed more laid- back on this one, easier to follow.
(although I don't share his enthusiasm for the vocalist he used -I'm not nearly as impressed with her as he obviously is. I think she's pitchy. I'd rather hear these on something like an acoustic guitar - or on someone who can sing on key). ;)

I'm assuming that the VT 1 is a software emulation of the ADL-700, which is Presonus's hardware Tube-based Pre, ( although the built in GR was FET, not Tube) and the RC500 is obviously a software version of their RC 500 Hardware, which is a FET based Class A pre.

I've never used either - the hardware or the plugs. The hardware version of the ADL was/is considered to be a higher level model than what Presonus is typically known for, and was priced accordingly - around 2 grand retail - with the RC-500 being more of a mid-level pre, priced at $599 retail.

Reviews on the actual hardware versions of these models were pretty good, I recall that Tape Op wrote positive reviews for both.

One would assume that, in keeping with the SOP of other plug makers, Presonus would probably make these available for trial downloads; although I don't use S1 enough to bother, and I already have enough VST's of analog modeled strips and GR's, that I don't need any more - but if you're an S1 user, DL them, try them, and post back. Or, swing for the fence, spend the $79 ( U.S.) for the package, and see how you like them. :)

pcrecord Mon, 11/02/2015 - 08:04

Good looking softwares, how different the eq and comps are from other emulation ?

I've been thinking about preamp emulation for a while. UA610 and others seem very cute, but I'm asking myself how one would need them really.
I see the use for EQ, Comp and other hardware emulation, but the preamp circuit?? .. How would one would think of it ? Can we consider that it would be like putting a preamp in a second preamp ? What I'm getting at is, if I use the UA610 emulation, it would imply I don't have a 610, so what ever my preamp texture is, the result would be a combination of mine and the emulation... Also, what would it be if I use a 610 preamp and put a 610 emulation on top of it ???

A man, when my brain gets like this, asking random questions, it always end up with a few hours of studio tests.. ;)

DonnyThompson Mon, 11/02/2015 - 09:05

It's really all about what you like sonically - and not always whether or not you feel that the emulation is indeed an "accurate" model of the real thing.

I can say that some of these modeled strips and pres sound very good, and some even come very close in sound to their hardware Mothers.

For example, having worked on several real SSL's and Neve's over the years, I can say from my personal experience with the models I've used - like the Neve 1073 and 1081 from T-Racks, and the Oxford SSL E and G 4000 VST strips - that they sound remarkably close to the real thing(s), not only in layout and EQ response, but also in the gain-staging. When I boost the input/mic pot of the 1073 to add that harmonic " edge", what I hear back sounds eerily close to what I remember hearing on the real hardware I have mixed on. I get the same feeling with the few SSL models I've used. When I first tried the E Series strip, I remember acting on a sort of "muscle memory", dialing in a particular setting on a kick and snare that I used to use all the time, back when I was mixing on a real SSL, and I was amazed at the model's response, and how very close it sounded to the hardware when used with those same settings.

Yet, I've found some others that fall short - I've yet to hear a plug-in version of a Pultec EQ - from any of the manufacturers - that sounds like a real Pultec to me. And I'm not saying it won't happen at some point... I just haven't heard one yet.
It also doesn't mean that I won't use the modeled versions of the Pultec occasionally - on things like Kick, or Bass - because even though I don't think the VST's sound like a real Pultec, I still sometimes like the way they do sound, and I will use them when I feel that the "sound" that they do offer, will work to benefit those tracks from time to time.

And with others, well, I simply don't know, because I've never had the opportunities to actually use the real piece(s) that the models are based upon.

A prime example of this would be any of the Fairchild 660 or 670 models ( Waves, UAD, Slate, T-Racks, etc.) because I've only ever been in the presence of a real 670 once in my entire career, and that one time, I was an assistant engineer, and I wasn't using it... I was watching the head engineer using it ( it was a rental from Dreamhire, as I recall), and because it was just that one time, I have no real idea how close these various emulations of it actually are. Cats like Alan Parsons will say that the UAD version of the 670 sounds vey close to his original Abbey Road 670, and while we'd all like to think that Alan wouldn't lie to us, we don't really know that he's not doing a paid testimonial, and maybe exaggerating a bit ...? ... I'd like to think he wouldn't, but who really knows?

Then there's always the other important thing to take into account, and that's how different these classic pieces could sound from each other. While I never used an 1176 that I thought sounded bad, I can say that I've heard two exact same real 1176's side by side that didn't sound the same to me. Neither was bad - not by a long shot - they both sounded great... but they didn't sound the same.

Andre Scheps will tell you that the differences between his signature model of the 1073 strip from Waves is almost imperceptible from his real Neve console's 1073's - but it's difficult to say....other than what you are able to experience yourself, and based on the real pieces you've had the opportunities to work with on previous occasions to using the emulation.

But, none of that really stops me from using any of these VST models, either. If I like the way a certain VST sounds on the tracks or buses I'm using it on - then the question of its accuracy doesn't really come into play for me, as long as I like what it's doing and what I'm hearing as a result of its use. ;)

IMHO of course.


Sean G Mon, 11/02/2015 - 13:28

The jury is still out for me on these, on the few occasions I have used them I found myself reaching for other channel strips in my library...
I'll admit maybe its just a familiarity thing and I need to try them a few more times to give them a better run on a few different tracks, but on the few times I applied them I didn't think they could do anything more than I could achieve with other plugs, even some free ones...

I still find myself reaching for Boot EQ channel strip more times than not...and it was a freebee, a simple to use plug modelled on a vintage channel strip design...

Can't beat that.

Chris Perra Mon, 11/02/2015 - 14:44

I have the Uad stuff. There's no way you can say any modeled pre amp plug in sounds the same as just the hardware preamp, but it's the colour and characteristics that you might like. I find the newer stuff is crazy on the processing power though. Might be good for tracking with the preamp plugins on the input but mixing forget it unless you like to freeze tracks or have an octo.

kmetal Fri, 11/06/2015 - 04:45

I think preamp and it tonal effects are a lot more subtle, than a compressor or eq. So to me it should be the easiest type of circuit to emulate. Lol it's a volume knob.

A compressors tone and behavior is reacting in a much more interactive relationship to the input signal, than say a preamp, which is interacting, but in a very simple way amplification.

You want color and 'action' use an eq or a compressor. There much more obvious than the more nuanced differences among pre amps. This is not to say pre amps don't sound distinctly different from each other, just that I've always felt it's the eq and compressors that really can shape the sound, in a more permeable way.

The emulation is s tone only thing. The mic still needs proper power, Ect, so I would imagine the emulations are only as good as the input signal.

This would be great for thing like drums, where you have high channel counts and not likely to have many 'character' options for many channels. You could have a nice clean high gain physical preamp, as a canvas to use some things to fatten, dirty up, and mangle.

All this stuff, emulations, is all just trying to (re)produce, pleasing harmonics / distortions, without the currently required physical iron, and current flows. nobody's putting out any modern affordable hardware peices worth emulating, lol, so everything that is emulated, is vintage.

So unless you use the actual pieces they modeled, it makes no difference how 'true' they are. Old shit all sounds different. It's not even fair to expect anyone to recreate that, hardware or software.

Tube guitar amps don't sound the same. Guitars don't either. But you can hear a strat, you can hear a Marshall, and know what it is, based on the tendencies. That's all these plug-insare supposed to do.

People assume the hardware does 'more' or is more dramatic, but that's not always the case. I've ab the api 550 eq next to the waves version and the pluggin did a lot more noticeable change to the effect, than the hardware did. These are both current peices and not supposed to be of any vintage. So, you think $1k for 4 bands of eq would be more dramatic than the $100 pluggin, but it's not always true.

dvdhawk Fri, 11/06/2015 - 10:09

I've had the hardware version of the RC-500 for a while now, and have found it to be very useful. I wasn't sure if I'd like the FET compressor, but it has done nicely so far - although I haven't slammed it really hard (nor am I likely to). For all the more they're asking for it, it's definitely swinging out of it's weight class.