Tone Projects did a great job with this emulation. I think it performs on the edge of what is currently possible. The hardware preserves more space and detail for each individual sound. You can easily hear this when you focus on kick and snare. On the mix the plug-in keeps all sounds more in the same package. Micro 3D details are gone. That's something all plug-ins still suffer from. I love Tone Projects plug-ins and for my wallet it's close enough to the hardware.
I passed on the plug the first time out for this reason. HOWEVER, I only noticed I can shape the whole thing and pull back on the EQ amount on the tab up there, and if it's under 50% the detail remains.
For 15 times the price it really isn't a question the real question is how close is it. I'd also take into account that the reviver didn't use any of the advanced plugin features /or at least didn't show them/
Ok youtube addict and mastering engineer here. This is hands down one of the best gear comparisons here. Excellent work and insta sub. I must say though, the plugin was set almost to "clean" and should be at 12 o clock for the default emulation so bit of low hanging fruit missed there. I own a few analogue eqs, on this track the plugin would certainly be my choice.
Came here after getting the plugin. I heard that its closer than each hardware unit, what would be interesting is 2 units vs plugin. A big ask and appreciate this video. Very close.
Unlike a LOT of comparisons where the Hardware totally blows away the Plugin, I didn´t hear that in this comparison. The difference was very minimal. I think the Michelangelo plugin will be my next plugin purchase. Thanks for the video.
I'm no gear expert but to me the hardware sounded much better - alive/electric/sparkling, wide, deep and with strong and clear transients. The plugin sounded very linear and shy and didn't flatter the music at all. I take it you started with dialing in the hardware and then the plugin? Because some of the plugin settings didn't work at all. All in my opinion of course. Also - is your studio really inside of the mill? I heard no water wheels! And also: that song sounds great! Reminded me somewhat of "Walking on a String" with Berninger/Bridgers. Where can I find it? Kindly D
I really wish someone would switch the hardware and software audio and tell ppl months down the road that this is the software and this is the hardware some of these ppl need humbled in the audio community
@@triplebeam23 I’ve thought about it a few times (I considered doing it in the last video of my API vs Software series), it would just be too much of a dick move 😂. I’m not really trying to make a point with these videos, I’m doing honest presentations with hopefully enough examples where people can make their own decision. I don’t care what you do, I just want to make it easier for people to make a decision…
In this example the plugin definitely was preferable. The hardware sounded way too saturated in a mastering situation. To me the plugin was clearer, and actually the low end sounded less muddy. Maybe if the plugin was calibrated more towards "hot" they would've matched closer color-wise?
professional producer/ engineer here. Im monitoring on some very good speakers. the difference in the dimension is huge. you cant hear it but you can feel it in the higher bands. did here some distortion on the hardware at times. plugin doesn't deliver the same energy as hardware. my honest opinion. great video!!!!
Perfect video, thanks. The general sound is well captured, but the hardware does sounds slightly rounder. Maybe the EQ response simply is slightly differen?
The hardware is clearly better. The plugin sounded muffled by comparison. The lows and low mids lacked punch. The highs weren't as sharp and crispy. If you played just the plugin, I'd have thought it sounded good - but it suffered by comparison to the hardware. Cool shootout though. Thank you. ***no disrespect to Tone Projects intended. Their Kelvin Tone Shaper is an outstanding plugin.
Hardware is brilliant and wins the clarity transient and image. Maybe you can be more close with transient function in the plugin also cross section will work. but in this comparison plugin seems like any eq. hardware really shine and classy.
Damn... You tuned both so well. I feel like the plugin wasn't driven quite as hot as the hardware, so some of the juicy pumping didn't come out. However, there were still a few times I think it helped the mix better than the hardware. Often, though, the drums sounded a little brittle or sharp. I think the plugin has a transient detection system, what if you tuned the plugin to listen for the drums?
the saturation in the midrange of the hw is much more pleasing and audible to me. even the extreme setting makes the hardware genius sounding. That saturation lacks a bit on the software side. wondering how'd they compare, when you set the calibration to normal. anyway, thanks for the vid!
Can't really tell if the plugin is using similiar width parameter values. There's a clear difference within space between them, but spectrum/color wise not so much. Except for the vocal, but that comes at no surprise that the hardware unit has an edge here, not as big as i would have thought, but clearly there
Man, especially on the favorite setting sections at the end, I much preferred the hardware. The tonal quality was similar but there was just a world of 3D character that's hard to describe that just disappears when the hardware is removed. IMO the software sounds a little flat and lifeless by comparison. Listening on Adam A77x's through a MOTU 828es in a treated room.
Low frequencies are similar on both. Difficult to tell with Aggression, because I didn't like the distortion on this track. The Mid, High and Air were much better with the hardware. And overall the hardware had a 3-D aspect that wasn't apparent with the plugin. I listening on Barefoot Footprint 02s through Dangerous Convert-8 DA.
Aggression almost never goes over 3, usually hovers between .5 and 2 on my hardware unit. Though I think my calibration is a bit higher usually. Shame he didn’t touch those settings because it changes the sound soooo much. This would be a very difficult piece of gear to demo because everything interacts so much.
I prefere the plugin to the hardware. That is crazy. The plugin is musical saturated yet retains the clarity and transients, the hardware clouds the signal too much in my opinion without being more musical than the plugin. The analog has a little bit more depth, but still the clarity and punch of the plugin wins for me. What an achievement !
Well... My two cents; every analog unit should sound different and depending even on the atmospheric conditions they'll sound differently. So, 1 to 1 comparisons vst vs HW will never accurate. And it'll be interesting to know if he used the bottom hidden panel on the plugin to really match the "3D-ness". Anyway I blindly trust Bob Katz and I'm looking forward to buying this baby!
Comparison is not a bad thing but plugin always will have an edge couse you can use plugin to different tracks different settings on a parallel bla bla there is a gazillion ways , on the other hand hardware is limited to all these things unless you have a 30 of these units , also if it doesn't sound as good as hardware you can always add another ore two plugins that will top the hardware at any given time
The plugin wins in this test, cleaner and more controlled sound while preserving character ideal for mastering. Both are a wonderful piece of engineering.
Tone Projects did a great job with this emulation. I think it performs on the edge of what is currently possible. The hardware preserves more space and detail for each individual sound. You can easily hear this when you focus on kick and snare. On the mix the plug-in keeps all sounds more in the same package. Micro 3D details are gone. That's something all plug-ins still suffer from. I love Tone Projects plug-ins and for my wallet it's close enough to the hardware.
I passed on the plug the first time out for this reason. HOWEVER, I only noticed I can shape the whole thing and pull back on the EQ amount on the tab up there, and if it's under 50% the detail remains.
Vocals sounds better on the hardware for sure!! Great comparison.
Tbh i like the cleaner sound of the plugin a bit more. hardware also adds this weird fluttering. thanks for the test!
Interestingly, there were times I preferred the plugin to the hardware. Not always, no, but frequently.
Thanks for the video!
(For instance, at 7:43)
@@lindsayandrews5707yeah, me too!
Hardware still sounds better, Thanks for the video !
For 15 times the price it really isn't a question the real question is how close is it. I'd also take into account that the reviver didn't use any of the advanced plugin features /or at least didn't show them/
Vocal from hardware still cleaner and better!
@@cj7steps421better ? 😂. Cool.
Ok youtube addict and mastering engineer here. This is hands down one of the best gear comparisons here. Excellent work and insta sub. I must say though, the plugin was set almost to "clean" and should be at 12 o clock for the default emulation so bit of low hanging fruit missed there.
I own a few analogue eqs, on this track the plugin would certainly be my choice.
Some of the finest engineers on the planet came here to say that hardware sounds better (probably without even listening first)
Hahahahha....this was good.....I agree with you
Came here after getting the plugin. I heard that its closer than each hardware unit, what would be interesting is 2 units vs plugin. A big ask and appreciate this video. Very close.
Unlike a LOT of comparisons where the Hardware totally blows away the Plugin, I didn´t hear that in this comparison. The difference was very minimal. I think the Michelangelo plugin will be my next plugin purchase. Thanks for the video.
I heard it
I was going to say the exact opposite. The hardware sounds incredible but when switching to the plugin the sound image totally collapses.
@@cyberhawken yea. People are desperate to fit analog. Makes them feel better about not having to spend the cash lol.
@@byus6928or vice versa. Makes hardware buyers feel better about their purchase lmao. In this instance, the plugin is a very commendable effort
I ordered the hardware because of this video... arrived last week, no regrets Michelangelo is amazing! (good plugin too).
I'm no gear expert but to me the hardware sounded much better - alive/electric/sparkling, wide, deep and with strong and clear transients. The plugin sounded very linear and shy and didn't flatter the music at all. I take it you started with dialing in the hardware and then the plugin? Because some of the plugin settings didn't work at all. All in my opinion of course. Also - is your studio really inside of the mill? I heard no water wheels! And also: that song sounds great! Reminded me somewhat of "Walking on a String" with Berninger/Bridgers. Where can I find it? Kindly D
Great comparison. I have a solid state/mosfet Michelangelo on the way! Can't wait to get it into the mastering chain.
i love the attention to the cinematography, enjoyable reviews
I really wish someone would switch the hardware and software audio and tell ppl months down the road that this is the software and this is the hardware some of these ppl need humbled in the audio community
@@triplebeam23 I’ve thought about it a few times (I considered doing it in the last video of my API vs Software series), it would just be too much of a dick move 😂. I’m not really trying to make a point with these videos, I’m doing honest presentations with hopefully enough examples where people can make their own decision. I don’t care what you do, I just want to make it easier for people to make a decision…
Thank you for this fantastic & accurate comparison. The plugin sounds amazing ☺️ For the rest/missing 2% i would dial in a Tube Eq …done 👍
hardware has the edge
In this example the plugin definitely was preferable. The hardware sounded way too saturated in a mastering situation. To me the plugin was clearer, and actually the low end sounded less muddy. Maybe if the plugin was calibrated more towards "hot" they would've matched closer color-wise?
Sound is pretty similar to me, and the song is just beautiful! Cheers!
This makes me want to buy the hardware...
No weight in the plugin, perhaps they aren't matched to the T is why. but there's a lot more weight in the low end on the HW.
It'd be interesting to know if he used the individual band saturation. There could lay the 2% difference
Definitely Hardware!! 5% more everything. BUT Bro, Both are great. Thanks for the review, love your videos.
professional producer/ engineer here. Im monitoring on some very good speakers. the difference in the dimension is huge. you cant hear it but you can feel it in the higher bands. did here some distortion on the hardware at times. plugin doesn't deliver the same energy as hardware. my honest opinion. great video!!!!
Perfect video, thanks. The general sound is well captured, but the hardware does sounds slightly rounder. Maybe the EQ response simply is slightly differen?
The hardware is clearly better. The plugin sounded muffled by comparison. The lows and low mids lacked punch. The highs weren't as sharp and crispy.
If you played just the plugin, I'd have thought it sounded good - but it suffered by comparison to the hardware. Cool shootout though. Thank you.
***no disrespect to Tone Projects intended. Their Kelvin Tone Shaper is an outstanding plugin.
All tho the hardware has a little low-end I prefer the plugins for mixing it has this clean top end
Thanks for this video
ça sonne comme Daniel Lanois ton affaire Bravo!
😎
Hardware has a higher air value, like a bell somewhere 12k
Could you tell me please, what song is playing in the video? Spotify can't find it
Thanks for the Comparison! Well Done and much appreciated. ❤Hardware sound a bit better (2%) but not for that price 😅
Hardware is brilliant and wins the clarity transient and image. Maybe you can be more close with transient function in the plugin also cross section will work. but in this comparison plugin seems like any eq. hardware really shine and classy.
wow hardware everytime
Damn... You tuned both so well. I feel like the plugin wasn't driven quite as hot as the hardware, so some of the juicy pumping didn't come out. However, there were still a few times I think it helped the mix better than the hardware.
Often, though, the drums sounded a little brittle or sharp. I think the plugin has a transient detection system, what if you tuned the plugin to listen for the drums?
the saturation in the midrange of the hw is much more pleasing and audible to me. even the extreme setting makes the hardware genius sounding. That saturation lacks a bit on the software side. wondering how'd they compare, when you set the calibration to normal. anyway, thanks for the vid!
Can't really tell if the plugin is using similiar width parameter values. There's a clear difference within space between them, but spectrum/color wise not so much. Except for the vocal, but that comes at no surprise that the hardware unit has an edge here, not as big as i would have thought, but clearly there
Man, especially on the favorite setting sections at the end, I much preferred the hardware. The tonal quality was similar but there was just a world of 3D character that's hard to describe that just disappears when the hardware is removed. IMO the software sounds a little flat and lifeless by comparison. Listening on Adam A77x's through a MOTU 828es in a treated room.
hardware.
Thank you! With the hardware its "alive" , with a plugin - kinda "dead" :)
Hi, are the calibration settings the same?
it might be a bit difficult to make them the same. That might be making the biggest difference I’m hearing.
Low frequencies are similar on both. Difficult to tell with Aggression, because I didn't like the distortion on this track. The Mid, High and Air were much better with the hardware. And overall the hardware had a 3-D aspect that wasn't apparent with the plugin. I listening on Barefoot Footprint 02s through Dangerous Convert-8 DA.
Aggression almost never goes over 3, usually hovers between .5 and 2 on my hardware unit. Though I think my calibration is a bit higher usually. Shame he didn’t touch those settings because it changes the sound soooo much. This would be a very difficult piece of gear to demo because everything interacts so much.
I prefere the plugin to the hardware. That is crazy. The plugin is musical saturated yet retains the clarity and transients, the hardware clouds the signal too much in my opinion without being more musical than the plugin. The analog has a little bit more depth, but still the clarity and punch of the plugin wins for me. What an achievement !
The plugin collapses the stereo field, the mix sounds narrow. The hardware is more open and a clear stereo depth (more 3D)
We have a custom gold Michelangelo
We like the tone projects more. Selling the hardware.
Why not a fan of Plugin Doctor?
Thanks for the video, would have been cool to add a small section with a blind test.
Just need a product that can add depth and sparkle to plugins and many of these plugin emulations would be much much closer.
Yes
Well... My two cents; every analog unit should sound different and depending even on the atmospheric conditions they'll sound differently. So, 1 to 1 comparisons vst vs HW will never accurate. And it'll be interesting to know if he used the bottom hidden panel on the plugin to really match the "3D-ness". Anyway I blindly trust Bob Katz and I'm looking forward to buying this baby!
2 pretty different beasts.
Comparison is not a bad thing but plugin always will have an edge couse you can use plugin to different tracks different settings on a parallel bla bla there is a gazillion ways , on the other hand hardware is limited to all these things unless you have a 30 of these units , also if it doesn't sound as good as hardware you can always add another ore two plugins that will top the hardware at any given time
The hardware by a mile, that extra 5% makes all the difference
Why is it almost impossible for the plugin developers to nail that low mid punch?
The plugin wins in this test, cleaner and more controlled sound while preserving character ideal for mastering. Both are a wonderful piece of engineering.
They can't overcome 3D width. They're all the same.
Plugin sounds better
$249...What? Hell nah
Plugin: flat lifeless
Hardware: 3D clarity