Take the Sweetjesus Duende vs Waves SSL blind test

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live

Which sounds better?

Mix A
6
21%
Mix B
23
79%
 
Total votes: 29

b0unce
Posts: 5379
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:16 pm

Post by b0unce » Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:32 pm

good point, as blind-testers we're not really privvy to the ..umm.. context you're using the EQ's in, like...what to expect. Hmmm. still, C wasnt even in the running for that particular blind test...
spreader of butter

Zerobae
Posts: 386
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:17 am
Location: Vienna
Contact:

Post by Zerobae » Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:36 pm

sweetjesus wrote:
Zerobae wrote:Wow, the URS thingy sounds very good, too!
Have you played with their Channel Strip by any chance?

(I also didn't like C at all.)
no .. its RTAS onli right?
No, I don't think so...
http://www.ursplugins.com/ursStrip.html

I hear they have a Channel Strip Pro (or something) in the pipeline, too.

JACKAL & HYDE
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 7:26 am

Post by JACKAL & HYDE » Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:58 pm

Mix B sounds rounder and better compression wise. Whether that means its duende or not, no idea. But the thing is, everyone on here is complaining about the $2,000 but if your really being legit, Waves SSL collection costs $1,000 and Duende can be obtained now for $1499 so the difference is really $500 not $2,000. And I dont know what Duendes problem is in Ableton via power drain, but I've heard it uses next to nothing CPU wise in Samplitude/Nuendo so this sounds like an Ableton problem when using Duende within it. And if anyone was ape s%#t over the Waves SSL 4000 you could always get an APA33 or 44 http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/APA32/ connected via ethernet and run an assload of Waves eq's.

anti-banausic
Posts: 1609
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 9:15 pm
Location: NYC

Post by anti-banausic » Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:50 pm

I passed. With flying colors. Was expected really. From the day that I was born, people knew that I was going to make "waves". It had something to do with being able to hum Bartok and Beethoven before I could talk. Even Shostakovich, but with a little more trouble there.

Image

Could this have been why?
Macbook c2d 2.0, 2G RAM, 160G HD 5400 RPM, OSX(10.5.5), XP Home, LIVE6, BCR 2000, UC33e, Yamaha P-200, Logic Studio, KRK V6 II

siddhu
Posts: 568
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 10:39 am
Location: surface of the earth
Contact:

Post by siddhu » Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:11 pm

sweetjesus wrote:well shit aye folks the B mix was done with the SSL Duende on the mixbus.

A was done with Waves SSL 4000.

in the EQ folder, the A is the duende, b is the URS Pulteq and C is the Waves SSL eq's.

i found the duende's eq's to be magnificent like nothing i have come across before and this is where its power is.

I don't have a Duende but among a lot of very experienced engineers and producers the Duende is considered to be the best digital EQ on the market.

The compressor is not as highly regarded as it's EQ's, so your "right" in saying that it's the EQ that has you sold.

The Duende is going to be my next major hardware purchase hopefully within the next 3-4 months.

ultrasource
Posts: 289
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 8:17 pm
Location: nj

Post by ultrasource » Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:09 pm

nice. i love a/b comparisons! i like b, and like others, feel good that i can hear a difference ; 0
HP L2000 | Live 5 + Operator | MOTU 828mkII | other stuff

badnicki
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:10 am
Location: London

Post by badnicki » Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:41 pm

I listened to both tracks via a pair of sony mdr-cd280 headphones. I saw the poll results before hitting play so that may be why I voted "B" but I had to really, really, listen to individual parts for subtle differences. There seems to be an extra roundness and extra depth to "B." But honestly, they are sooooo close it's extremely difficult to judge.

donnydonny
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 9:36 am
Location: San Francisco, USA
Contact:

Post by donnydonny » Sat Apr 14, 2007 5:06 am

I thought the bass on A had a clearer sounding mid-range than in B. That was the main difference that I heard and liked.

eyeknow
Posts: 5822
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:16 am

Post by eyeknow » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:10 am

sweetjesus wrote:well shit aye folks the B mix was done with the SSL Duende on the mixbus.

A was done with Waves SSL 4000.

in the EQ folder, the A is the duende, b is the URS Pulteq and C is the Waves SSL eq's.

i found the duende's eq's to be magnificent like nothing i have come across before and this is where its power is.
ok, the a/b- b is a better listen. I think it breaths more

the a/b/c eq- a and b are good and c just BLOWS! Not sure why, that is the way it is to my ears though.

I'm not EXACTLY sure what I'm listening to though, for example, could you explain what your mix bus means? (routing/etc........I'm assuming you are using live as the host :lol: ) Also, the waves/duende stuff has comps.......so I'm trying to understand how they were used. Might not be making myself clear......

Here is a point I'd bring up that does not seem to be discussed in any great detail.......all three are basically dongled (I can only assume the duende IS the dongle for that setup?) so......

a. cpu hit is going to win by an overwhelming degree by the duende. That is exactly what it's for, and that is why you'd want it. IF the sound is that good.....and you NEED the cpu hit taken off your puter........get a second job, go squeegee some windows.......or sell some less useful stuff and get the duende........just seems no brainer to me.

b. With the waves.....I cannot and WILLNOT be sold. Here's why......1)It's waves which means a dongle inside of a dongle and support that only exsists IF you do the wep. 2) It does not take a load off, so to speak. Yeah, if you want to shell out for the hardware (which is fine if you do mega waves plugs) and wep, then that is a different subject.......but duende is specific.........mo money.......but it's a need-filled.......not just an "addition" .....

c. I gotta give creds to the URS stuff. I have the 80's comps, the "fultech" and the a series as well as the channel strip. (cue language) FUCKING BEAUTIFUL! I swear on the graves of sound-gods past........just inserting them WITHOUT tweeking sounds better instantly (your mileage may very....) but they are cpu friendly, extremely useful and the support (lol....what little has been needed) has been awsome.

Ok, can't think of anything else to say.........

Zerobae
Posts: 386
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:17 am
Location: Vienna
Contact:

Post by Zerobae » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:23 am

eyeknow wrote:c. I gotta give creds to the URS stuff. I have the 80's comps, the "fultech" and the a series as well as the channel strip. (cue language) FUCKING BEAUTIFUL! I swear on the graves of sound-gods past........just inserting them WITHOUT tweeking sounds better instantly (your mileage may very....) but they are cpu friendly, extremely useful and the support (lol....what little has been needed) has been awsome.

Ok, can't think of anything else to say.........
Eyeknow, care to post a short before/after example of the URS Channel Strip?

eyeknow
Posts: 5822
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:16 am

Post by eyeknow » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:53 am

love to, er......don't know exactly how......... :cry:

the quicktime (online) - youtube - myspace stuff e-ludes me......

Hell, I just figured out to do paypal :lol:

What I can tell you is that the channel strip is a very clear addition. Now, the comp is a bit "advanced" in that you have to know about threshold. Then, it's a bit of experiment to get the correct in/out....but then again, that is what engineers do :wink:

I'm guessing you don't have an ilok.....so that you can demo it yourself?

Zerobae
Posts: 386
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:17 am
Location: Vienna
Contact:

Post by Zerobae » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:59 am

eyeknow wrote: I'm guessing you don't have an ilok.....so that you can demo it yourself?
No, that's exactly my problem... I hesitate to shell out 50 Euros just to demo URS and Sony Oxford.

I have just tried Metric Halo's Channelstrip for the first time and I have to say: Fantastic. I never thought much about having dedicated channel strips before... now I want to compare some of them before I buy one.

ilia
Posts: 787
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 4:12 am
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by ilia » Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:16 am

sweetjesus wrote:
Zerobae wrote:Wow, the URS thingy sounds very good, too!
Have you played with their Channel Strip by any chance?

(I also didn't like C at all.)
no .. its RTAS onli right?

i feel the URS sounds in between the 2.

ill say that the SSL eq is the only one which does just what it should 'add more bass' without changing the integrity and / or dynamics of the rest of the music.
FWIW, I've tried Waves SSL before and could never find a good use for their bus compressor. The difference with the Duende on your mix sounds pretty big to me (listening on Adam S1's), enough to make me look into it further.

I must say though, that of all native compressors, I found Waves SSL channel strip sounds best on my vocals.

sweetjesus
Posts: 8803
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: www.fridge.net.au
Contact:

Post by sweetjesus » Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:45 am

Duende vs Waves on a 909 kick drum

www.fridge.net.au/duende/909

settings were numerically identical.

i used the numbers on the ableton mixer chans to match the levels.

not sayin which is which but one of them is Duende mono compressor and the other is a mono Waves SSL.

:P

sweetjesus
Posts: 8803
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: www.fridge.net.au
Contact:

Post by sweetjesus » Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:50 am

eyeknow wrote:I'm not EXACTLY sure what I'm listening to though, for example, could you explain what your mix bus means? (routing/etc........I'm assuming you are using live as the host :lol: ) Also, the waves/duende stuff has comps.......so I'm trying to understand how they were used. Might not be making myself clear......
both of the mixes, i worked them upto a certain point and then did the comparison by rendering alternate versions with either the Waves SSL or the duende.

id say that the test shows the colouring they both add and the way they work with dynamics. it wasnt a settings matched one because of the settings used on one of the plugins did not have an exact match on the other (they have a different ratio and some different values in the steps for some knobs).

for the EQ, i was prtty tired so instead of being precise, i just turned the bass knobs up fairly high to see how their eq's colour the sound.

the 909 test i just added, uses the exact same settings on both compressors.

Post Reply