To be honest. I was doing a mix with 48 tracks using CLA Mixhub lite. The minute I got the new SSL EV2 I swapped the Mixhub out for it. I noticed right away my CPU usage went through the roof! So it definitely a CPU hog. I'd say it's comparable to the Mixhub heavy. So I restarted the mix with the Mixhub lite and all was fine.
Thanks for all the details, yes, how much drain on the EQ between the plugins across multiple channels was exactly what I was seeking and you answered my questions perfectly. Thanks!
I have both. But I find myself using the original one more because of CPU issues. I only use EV2 on Busses. Great Video GLS I know it's old but still. DOPE From Your Boy Poorhouzzzzzzzz SALUTE
@@BrofUJu of course - I think CLA has said himself that even some of the different channels on his console sound different from each other, so I guess there’s always going to be some minor differences. It’s all good though - more options for people to try! My main concern with this new one is the CPU usage compared to the old one, which according to one review I watched is considerably more.
@@guitardave yeah, not looking forward to that. I dont love the compressor on the original one though, I think this is far better, so might depend on if I want to use that or not
Appreciate the effort here, been hoping someone would do this. Have you taken into account in your A/B the fact that the EQ centers of the EV2 are "off"? Obviously we can't see exactly what frequencies are set, but there is a very clear difference between what the EV2 says it is boosting and what it actually boosts (or cuts). To me, it would see that you'd need to make sure that both are affecting the exact same tonal center to even begin to have a fair comparison. Just listening, the older version sounds slightly "brighter" to my ears, which makes sense, as the center shift on the new version seems to be lower.
I hope waves watch this video. I have been using the old version for many years across the whole mix. If I can’t use the new version in the same way due to cpu usage, it’s going to be a problem. Furthermore, the center issue of the black eq may be a matter of some concern. Excellent review!
Thank you very much. Could you also make a comparison between SSL’s by waves (incl the EV2) and SSL’s by company as Plugin Alliance / brainworx (if you have these too)? The brainworx versions are very cpu friendly. I own them all.
These are the types of character processors that I would usually use on a bus or a group to do my “pleasant sounding boosts”, etc. A 10% CPU hit is wild for individual tracks…that puts it on the same level as MJUC’s HQ mode, assuming your computer is roughly as powerful as mine. Fabfilter, older stuff and other nicely optimized processors on individual tracks…this type of thing on groups, etc.
@greenlightsound in another video, you stated that you couldn't get the trademark SSL 'snap' out of the Waves E-Channel's gate. How does the EV2 fare in that regard?
I picked this up. I have the old SSL E too, but I like the sound of this one more. The CPU hit does suck though. I'm thinking I may use a mixture of them across a mix depending.
So essentially - at the risk of sounding a tad skeptical - they've combined the features of the Brainworx SSL 4000E and the IK British Channel about 4 years after the fact, and plopped a Waves logo on it. As though the world really needed *another* SSL 4000. Admittedly, their temporary pricing will tempt many - until they realize it's another brazen scheme to get you to onto the money-spinning Waves 'Update Plan'. Whoops - I sounded skeptical. Sorry (well, not particularly)...
Man people love to hate I guess. When the original one was released (in 2006) there was no brainworx or ik british channel. This was the best they could do, in terms of coding, to emulate the SSL4000E. Now, as with everything, time has passed and so did analog emulations. They are remaking it from the ground up and adding a few necessary features.
@@florinmusic Right - about 5 years too late. Why bother re-treading all this old ground? Why not put money and resources into development of something novel and different? There are already close to 10 SSL 4000E emulations out there. Waves - a day late and a dollar short...
Interesting regarding performance. I'd heard about this plugin having performance issues but bought it today anyway because I have no SSL emulations at all. I'm currently running it on 96 channels plus the main out in Studio One 5.5 without the "Enable Plug-in Nap" feature turned on and my CPU is sitting at 32-33%. My system is from 2017 so definitely not some new, hot system.
@@d3vp131 That is true, and of course anti-cramping doesn't automatically mean it'll sound better, but I was asking because the SSL Native introduced anti-cramping, and I haven't heard anyone talk about it.
Great comparison! If using Waves Non Linear Summing plugin with EV2 should you switch analogue mode off? Would you be doubling harmonic distortion if use EV2 with analogue on with NLS..?
I would either switch it off or use very little input gain. You would be adding a double dose of harmonic distortion if you use both. It might be a good idea to just use NLS on busses in that case.
I bought EV2 almost instantly since it was released and was very disappointed because to my surprise it doesn't work with mac os 10.13 (high sierra). 10.14 is the minimum requirements for this plugin. But I really can't update my workstation since, you know, it's a WORKstation. I remember my previous experiences with updating OS and having shitload of problems when a bunch of other plugins stopped working and my working projects was all messed up. Anyway, my bad, should've been more careful and read the requirements before making a purchase.
The EV 2 channel strip is a CPU hog. I had one instance of it running and it was 60 plus cpu usage. It does sounds good, but that cpu usage, is not good.
Thanks for the great comparison video! In your opinion how does this compare to the SSl Native one and the UAD one? Been using the ssl native channel strip 2 for a while now as my go to if I need an ssl channel strip and I can’t get the UAD one because I don’t have any UAD hardware so in the end what do you think?🤔
@@GreenLightSound Thanks for replying! Yes i agree the UAD one sounds the best. But I also have the SSL E from Plugin Alliance/Brainworx so I might have to do a shootout to see which one i like. Maybe thats an idea for a next video🤔. But all in all thanks again for replying appreciate it!
Have they addressed that CPU usage since you have done this video. I am looking for a channel strip (for Studio One 5) that I can create a template with a channel strip available on all channels. Doesn't mean I'd activate it on all channels, but the CPU drain is a little scary on this plugin. Any info you can provide would be appreciated and useful. Thanks. Phil NYC Area
The CPU usage is still fairly high for me (7% or so per instance). Too much to use on every track of most mixes. Of course, it's all dependent on your system and CPU.
Even on Windows 10/i7-4800/48k, with all sections engaged in Reaper 6: bx_4000 e - .34% Fuse VCS-1 - .44% Waves EV2 - 1% This seems to be a Studio One issue.
Hi Joe thanks for the review. The new plugin is rendered useless due to its CPU usage. Most people would only get away with using a few instances of it on buss channels. Not really suitable for individual track channels 😔
I'm running 30 mono and 16 stereo instances of this at 96K on a 2018 Mac Mini without Logic Pro breaking a sweat. Buffer setting 64. Not sure what the problem is with CPU here? All comps and EQs engaged... I suspect the bigger problem here is Studio One's outrageously bad CPU management.
Same; running 64 stereo instances in Reaper on 2018 MBP, CPU usage hovers between 30 and 35%, max. For reference, doing the same thing using bx_console SSL 4000E does result in lower CPU usage (~21%), but 35% w/64 tracks on an almost 4-year-old laptop isn't egregious.
@@MichaelSchatteMusic Its truly outrageous...... I thought my PC had had a virus after installing Studio One.... Transferred mixes from Pro Tools and couldn't even load up 30% of the plugins before the shit show started on my CPU usage
Price, for one. Plus I think the SSL one doesn't model the curcuit, but just the EQ curves and dynamic response. And I think it's based on a 9000J, not the E series.
Wow, what's with the black knob showing its centre at 70 Hz for a 100Hz bell?! Is that true modelling? Honestly, I won't be buying anymore Waves Plugins. Can't be arsed with their update scam. I switched to the Native SSL stuff as soon as it was on various sales. I love the channel strip, the bus comp and the saturator. Then SSL released version 2 of the Ch Strip and Bus Comp! Sigh. I'll wait until they are heavily discounted.
Somebody mentioned that the actual desk does that, but I can't confirm. The problem is switching between the two will yield very different center frequencies. You can't switch them on the actual console, so it's not a problem there.
So much wasted space for the black/brown switch. It looks bad, is in a weird position and feels like it would be an important switch for something else but it is actually not. Really amateur UI decision to do it this way
No OS, No Gain compensation, WUP, stupid transfer fees. I have mixhub and they sound identical. BX...two eqs, two comps, cheap transfer fees, tmt and no Wup. No waves for me again. I still think the og ssl has a better comp.
I appreciate the A/B comparisons without talking over the change. No one does that for some reason! Well done.
After seeing how well you do plugin overviews/reviews and comparison, subbing was an instant no brainer. This is how plugin videos should be.
appreciate the call outs on CPU usage, including comments from viewers
Thank you, useful comparison. it would be interesting to compare the EV2 with the SSL section of the CLA MixHub, also in term of CPU usage.
EV2 looks about the same as Mixhub Lite, and the full Mixhub is about 30-40% more than either.
To be honest. I was doing a mix with 48 tracks using CLA Mixhub lite. The minute I got the new SSL EV2 I swapped the Mixhub out for it. I noticed right away my CPU usage went through the roof! So it definitely a CPU hog. I'd say it's comparable to the Mixhub heavy. So I restarted the mix with the Mixhub lite and all was fine.
I kinda like the old one better...
Thanks for all the details, yes, how much drain on the EQ between the plugins across multiple channels was exactly what I was seeking and you answered my questions perfectly. Thanks!
Excellent and thorough review Joe, thank you. I especially appreciated you reporting on the concerning CPU performance difference.
I have both. But I find myself using the original one more because of CPU issues. I only use EV2 on Busses. Great Video GLS I know it's old but still. DOPE From Your Boy Poorhouzzzzzzzz SALUTE
It looks like the new one is based on the CLA Mixhub version minus the bluey compressor option. Might be tempted to get this!
Difference is the CLA one is specifically modelled off his desk, this one isn't. Similar, but might be some smaller differences.
@@BrofUJu of course - I think CLA has said himself that even some of the different channels on his console sound different from each other, so I guess there’s always going to be some minor differences. It’s all good though - more options for people to try! My main concern with this new one is the CPU usage compared to the old one, which according to one review I watched is considerably more.
@@guitardave yeah, not looking forward to that. I dont love the compressor on the original one though, I think this is far better, so might depend on if I want to use that or not
Appreciate the effort here, been hoping someone would do this. Have you taken into account in your A/B the fact that the EQ centers of the EV2 are "off"? Obviously we can't see exactly what frequencies are set, but there is a very clear difference between what the EV2 says it is boosting and what it actually boosts (or cuts). To me, it would see that you'd need to make sure that both are affecting the exact same tonal center to even begin to have a fair comparison. Just listening, the older version sounds slightly "brighter" to my ears, which makes sense, as the center shift on the new version seems to be lower.
I didn’t think of that. Good point. That’s weird issue though.
I hope waves watch this video. I have been using the old version for many years across the whole mix. If I can’t use the new version in the same way due to cpu usage, it’s going to be a problem. Furthermore, the center issue of the black eq may be a matter of some concern.
Excellent review!
Thank you very much. Could you also make a comparison between SSL’s by waves (incl the EV2) and SSL’s by company as Plugin Alliance / brainworx (if you have these too)? The brainworx versions are very cpu friendly. I own them all.
The old one still rules imo. Light CPU, Gritty, and familiar.
These are the types of character processors that I would usually use on a bus or a group to do my “pleasant sounding boosts”, etc. A 10% CPU hit is wild for individual tracks…that puts it on the same level as MJUC’s HQ mode, assuming your computer is roughly as powerful as mine. Fabfilter, older stuff and other nicely optimized processors on individual tracks…this type of thing on groups, etc.
The input stage on the EV2 models SSL’s transformer saturation does it… that’s clever.
Good video, thanks mate.
@greenlightsound in another video, you stated that you couldn't get the trademark SSL 'snap' out of the Waves E-Channel's gate. How does the EV2 fare in that regard?
The new sounds awesome, i download today the demo version, but the CPU consuming is the same like the Cla Mixhub.....thats so sad
I picked this up. I have the old SSL E too, but I like the sound of this one more. The CPU hit does suck though. I'm thinking I may use a mixture of them across a mix depending.
So essentially - at the risk of sounding a tad skeptical - they've combined the features of the Brainworx SSL 4000E and the IK British Channel about 4 years after the fact, and plopped a Waves logo on it. As though the world really needed *another* SSL 4000. Admittedly, their temporary pricing will tempt many - until they realize it's another brazen scheme to get you to onto the money-spinning Waves 'Update Plan'. Whoops - I sounded skeptical. Sorry (well, not particularly)...
I am so pissed off with the extortionate WUP. They practically give their plugins away but hook you in with regular updates and the WUP
That’s silly.
Man people love to hate I guess. When the original one was released (in 2006) there was no brainworx or ik british channel. This was the best they could do, in terms of coding, to emulate the SSL4000E. Now, as with everything, time has passed and so did analog emulations. They are remaking it from the ground up and adding a few necessary features.
They were first to have SSL plugins -- what are you talking about?
@@florinmusic Right - about 5 years too late. Why bother re-treading all this old ground? Why not put money and resources into development of something novel and different? There are already close to 10 SSL 4000E emulations out there. Waves - a day late and a dollar short...
what about a comparison to CLA mixhub? And what about the "gate trick"? ;)
Interesting regarding performance. I'd heard about this plugin having performance issues but bought it today anyway because I have no SSL emulations at all. I'm currently running it on 96 channels plus the main out in Studio One 5.5 without the "Enable Plug-in Nap" feature turned on and my CPU is sitting at 32-33%. My system is from 2017 so definitely not some new, hot system.
so that's a cpu hog. thx for review
p/s in my opinion it's better to use old one or cla mixhub
CPU usage on Studio One is not reliable. Awful CPU management, one core overload, etc. Studio One still inefficient. Native M1 on Logic Native M1?
Agreed mate.
Do you know if there's any cramping when using a bell in the high end? Like around 16kHz or higher?
There were never any consoles built that were perfect and didn’t have imperfections. Cramping seems to be the new buzzword like Aliasing.
@@d3vp131 That is true, and of course anti-cramping doesn't automatically mean it'll sound better, but I was asking because the SSL Native introduced anti-cramping, and I haven't heard anyone talk about it.
Thanks for the video. Just for reference, whats your system specs?
Mac, 4GHz i7 processor, 32 gig RAM.
@@GreenLightSound thanks..
Great comparison! If using Waves Non Linear Summing plugin with EV2 should you switch analogue mode off? Would you be doubling harmonic distortion if use EV2 with analogue on with NLS..?
I would either switch it off or use very little input gain. You would be adding a double dose of harmonic distortion if you use both. It might be a good idea to just use NLS on busses in that case.
@@GreenLightSound Yes makes sense. Thanks for the reply.
Don't let your intellect decide. Try it and do what sounds good!!
4:46 is that aliasing going on when you drive it really hard? those harmonics that pop up behind the fundamental tone?
Yes, though you would probably never run it that hot in an actual mix.
I bought EV2 almost instantly since it was released and was very disappointed because to my surprise it doesn't work with mac os 10.13 (high sierra). 10.14 is the minimum requirements for this plugin. But I really can't update my workstation since, you know, it's a WORKstation. I remember my previous experiences with updating OS and having shitload of problems when a bunch of other plugins stopped working and my working projects was all messed up. Anyway, my bad, should've been more careful and read the requirements before making a purchase.
The EV 2 channel strip is a CPU hog. I had one instance of it running and it was 60 plus cpu usage. It does sounds good, but that cpu usage, is not good.
Thanks for the great comparison video! In your opinion how does this compare to the SSl Native one and the UAD one? Been using the ssl native channel strip 2 for a while now as my go to if I need an ssl channel strip and I can’t get the UAD one because I don’t have any UAD hardware so in the end what do you think?🤔
I haven't tried the SSL native, but the UAD is the best in my opinion. It's also a CPU hog and limited by the amount if UAD processing you have.
@@GreenLightSound Thanks for replying! Yes i agree the UAD one sounds the best. But I also have the SSL E from Plugin Alliance/Brainworx so I might have to do a shootout to see which one i like. Maybe thats an idea for a next video🤔. But all in all thanks again for replying appreciate it!
Have they addressed that CPU usage since you have done this video. I am looking for a channel strip (for Studio One 5) that I can create a template with a channel strip available on all channels. Doesn't mean I'd activate it on all channels, but the CPU drain is a little scary on this plugin. Any info you can provide would be appreciated and useful. Thanks.
Phil
NYC Area
The CPU usage is still fairly high for me (7% or so per instance). Too much to use on every track of most mixes. Of course, it's all dependent on your system and CPU.
My testing today in Reaper 6/Windows 11/i7-11700/192spls CPU usage for stereo instances:
SSL E
Even on Windows 10/i7-4800/48k, with all sections engaged in Reaper 6:
bx_4000 e - .34%
Fuse VCS-1 - .44%
Waves EV2 - 1%
This seems to be a Studio One issue.
Hi Joe thanks for the review. The new plugin is rendered useless due to its CPU usage. Most people would only get away with using a few instances of it on buss channels. Not really suitable for individual track channels 😔
I have to agree. High CPU is a deal breaker for a channel strip.
I'm running 30 mono and 16 stereo instances of this at 96K on a 2018 Mac Mini without Logic Pro breaking a sweat. Buffer setting 64. Not sure what the problem is with CPU here? All comps and EQs engaged... I suspect the bigger problem here is Studio One's outrageously bad CPU management.
Same; running 64 stereo instances in Reaper on 2018 MBP, CPU usage hovers between 30 and 35%, max. For reference, doing the same thing using bx_console SSL 4000E does result in lower CPU usage (~21%), but 35% w/64 tracks on an almost 4-year-old laptop isn't egregious.
@@MichaelSchatteMusic Its truly outrageous...... I thought my PC had had a virus after installing Studio One.... Transferred mixes from Pro Tools and couldn't even load up 30% of the plugins before the shit show started on my CPU usage
Why wouldn't any one just get the channel strip from the source (SSL) and bypass the middle man (Waves)? Don't make sense.
Price, for one. Plus I think the SSL one doesn't model the curcuit, but just the EQ curves and dynamic response. And I think it's based on a 9000J, not the E series.
10 times the CPU usage! Uhm, dealbreaker...
EV2 vs CLA Mixhub?
cla mix hub??
3:00
what computer do you use
Late 2015 iMac, 4GHz i7, 32 gig RAM.
Why does every sound channel have terribly recorded vocals?
Wow, what's with the black knob showing its centre at 70 Hz for a 100Hz bell?! Is that true modelling?
Honestly, I won't be buying anymore Waves Plugins. Can't be arsed with their update scam.
I switched to the Native SSL stuff as soon as it was on various sales. I love the channel strip, the bus comp and the saturator.
Then SSL released version 2 of the Ch Strip and Bus Comp! Sigh.
I'll wait until they are heavily discounted.
Somebody mentioned that the actual desk does that, but I can't confirm. The problem is switching between the two will yield very different center frequencies. You can't switch them on the actual console, so it's not a problem there.
Cpu problem 😢
So much wasted space for the black/brown switch. It looks bad, is in a weird position and feels like it would be an important switch for something else but it is actually not. Really amateur UI decision to do it this way
Good point, it is an odd placement, nowhere near the low EQ band.
Just get an SSL desk! lol
the slate digital ssl eq sounds way better why even use these
The Slate is EQ only, no input section or dynamics. Not really a fair comparison.
No OS, No Gain compensation, WUP, stupid transfer fees. I have mixhub and they sound identical. BX...two eqs, two comps, cheap transfer fees, tmt and no Wup. No waves for me again. I still think the og ssl has a better comp.