No one is going to really hear any real difference on KZfaq once upload the video and the audio conversion happens that being said i heard differences on the low end, the high end, compression and the field separation and that is a little damning imo because that is what the RND BP does and its so hard typically to tell the difference on KZfaq, from my experience if there is a difference it usually is more pronounced in person……. The only way you are going to see what this plugin is really doing is two test, 1. Scientifically testing it with plugin doctor or equivalent software and seeing the curves when applying equivalent changes to both the plugin and hardware settings that will tell the truth how close emulation really is. 2. The ear test in a properly acoustically treated room with an appropriate monitoring system, a lot of time people think things sounds good enough or equivalent until you are in a real room with the hardware and plugin A/B testing it in person. I trust my ears especially after 30 years of doing this.

@@risingphoenix1484 "no one is going to hear any real difference on youtube".... "i heard differences on the low end, the high end, compression, and the field separation" (AKA everything)... 😛sorry I had to. Just a heads up that KZfaq apparently fixed a lot of their low audio quality issues that plagued it in prior days. The audio quality is definitely good enough to hear a difference, and I definitely agree with you that it will be more pronounced in person. WIth that said, Kiive has done an excellent job kicking off the modeling of a device this magical. I hope it evolves from here because I really don't want to drop the money on either an MBT or MBP. For now I will use Nfuse on channels/buses and Access Analog on my master!

I agree 1000%. Gonna do that in future for sure. I feel like a lot of people are hearing things that aren’t there.

"Good enough for rock and roll...especially through ear buds!"

Completely agree, some people are going to decide hardware before evening listening and justify it. We have come to a point where your arrangement is key, its not the tools anymore.

doesnt have mor elow end - just that the controls dont quite react the same way. giotta dial a bit more on the plugin. I find it just as good. That being said, none of these 2 boxes are "mastering grade" - as a ME, I beg peopel to not slam these on their Mix Bus or turn them off when bouncing. Promitive width controls and compressors do more damage than good (hence - please put on instrument buss, but dont treat these as 2000 dollar miracle boxes. That is a fraction what the pro gera in Mastering woudl cost. We dont do all in one boxes either. ).

@@levondarratt787 this is closer to a 4 grand unit. I find it great for mastering, but perhaps not the Compressor section. Obviously not as the only processor. I didnt say that it has “more” low, just that the lows are cleaner- it also seems to have the perception of having access to an additional octave that plugins in general dont have. As though the low end is cleaner and less crapped out

Thanks so much!

Yup amazing demo! 😊👌 No BS, easily watchable and straight to the point 👍

But lots of people still want to know if it’s an emulation or if it’s snake oil with a GUI. This video proved they actually modelled the neve

I have a pretty good monitoring system and excellent conversion. Comparing the MBT with the plugin, the differences were really REALLY subtle in the whole mix. Yes, there's a better reverb tail and clarity on the snare and more clarity on the highs. But would I be able to tell if someone didn't tell me that sth changed? I don't know. To make things worse, will there ever be a difference in commercial sound systems? Or perhaps there is a problem with Access Analog? How can you justify the 4k for the hardware?

@@dirtyharry1881 Well, I haven't. I really was close to getting it, but the silk on the software is so close, that the effort to find alternatives for the other bits is fine. The stereo widener is incredible in the hardware though, I'm not sure I have a plugin that sounds so good for that particular module. And let's not even start talking about how much easier it is to drop a plugin on instead of routing to the hardware.

@@adsertheblade agreed with you hear - the widener must be very difficult to model. Closest I have gotten is with something like DrMS. Interested in trying the Acustica widener though Spacecontrol - looks like you could maybe pull it off with that one.

Hey! Do you think the drive section of the Fuse plugins sounds as good as the HW Fusion's drive? I was planning on buy the Fusion, but I am not so sure anymore.

When it comes to the drive, I don't think the drive on the HW is any special. The real highlight on the HW is the HF Compressor, which does that tape style thing really good. The software, both of SSL or kiive can't reach that. Drive is better in software to me

2 completely different units which do much of the SAME thing, just in different ways... strange comment like you didn't think your thought all the way through but decided to type it and send it anyway. By the way you can put them on top of each other with this plugin *drumroll* by stacking 2 instances...

I feel the same way. Bought all SSL Fusion plugins and just wasted money. The Fusion has a very good eq and hf comp - I dont think that the plugins can replicate that - specially when you push the eq in the hf comp

I've never heard a plugin that sounds exactly like the hardware we need to just get that outta our minds that it's even a possibility in our lifetime and just enjoy things for what they are

3D lol, more hardware mystical fairydust.

If you don’t believe that consoles and HW provide a mix with more depth it simply means you haven’t used high quality analog gear. It’s no fairytale. Doesn’t mean that ITB doesn’t sound good. But you can always tell a difference when you A/B.

Actually, I didn't think they sounded close and it was most apparent in the drum examples. The hardware significantly darkened the sound and the attack-release behavior was different. Most of this is due to differences between the hardware unit that was modelled and the hardware unit available at access analog. I've heard enough plugin vs hardware comparisons to know 100% that hardware doesn't sound "more 3Dish". SOME hardware units sound "better" on SOME sources with SOME settings and SOME plugins sound "better" on SOME sources with SOME settings. There are differences, but not in quality and class, just in sound. And the differences are not due to one being "analog" or "digital". There are no magic fairies in hardware. Basically, it's mostly EQ, compression and harmonics. In the majority of cases, the more apparent differences in sound are due to "EQ" (yes, non-EQ units can impact the frequency response too). If you really think hardware impacts the sound in another non-measurable way, I recommend to test yourself and get rid of the illusion your mind is playing on you. There are blind tests available on KZfaq. Sometimes you'll find that the plugin sounds more "analog" to you. Because "analog sound" is a bogus term that is a relict of a time that is no longer up to date. The differences that once existed between analog and digital in terms of sound quality are long overcome in all decent plugins. The differences in characteristics can be modelled. So examples of old digital software impacting the sound QUALITY negatively are: aliasing and EQ cramping. An example of bad analog hardware impacting the sound QUALITY negatively is noise. The issues on the digital side are now fixed with code - for example oversampling. But none of these things are what people call "analog sound". So what IS "analog sound"? Let's demystify the term: Hardware usually does two things: 1. It has a high frequency roll-off which you can imitate with any EQ. Sometimes there also is a little bump in the lows and a cut in the mids (all unit dependent). 2. There will be differences and inconsistencies between the left and right or the "mid" and "side" channel. Differences between the left and right channel create perceived width and inconsistencies (as in fluctuations in the frequency response) create movement, width and "depth". All of this can be emulated in good plugins. And if it isn't (because the plugin developers didn't know how or were lazy), you can create that effect yourself pretty easily once you understand how that "sound" is created. So no, hardware doesn't sound more 3Dish. Software sounds just as 3Dish. And terms like "better mid range definition, more defined lows and silkier highs" are not professional. "Silkier highs" probably just means a little roll off in the highs and maybe a light cut between 4 and 6 kHz. "better mid range definition" makes no sense at all - the "definition" or "resolution" is just as high digitally - so if a song has too much information in the 2 kHz frequency cutting 2kHz a bit will sound more pleasing, but it won't be "better defined" it will just be "less midrange information". The same is true for lows, but in this case, when people talk about "definition" they usually mean the attack and release behavior of a compressor. So for instance a slower attack (more transient information) and a slower release (less "body" and thus less "crowding" of the frequency"). So please, use scientific terms. We're audio engineers, not mystics. And all engineers that understand their craft and know what they hear, can use the proper terms. The terms you used are the terms our clients use (or we use for our clients) so that communication works. But between collegues, we should keep it proper. PS: If there actually WAS a difference in QUALITY every bigger mixer would use hardware predominantly. But most people are in the box for mixing and mastering - for good reason! The upsides of analog are in recording (0 latency) and aesthetics (looks pretty and impressive). Yes, using two hands to turn a knob is great too, but you can use software controllers for that.

@@triplebeam23You will also never find one hardware unit that sounds exactly like another. That's because every unit is different and so was the one that was modelled in a plugin.

he Is very good at comparing plugins. That maybe was a little mistake for being a flawless A/B

Or null them to the hardware.

It's only been out for a few months and people already making it sing!! God dam! Where is the video? Gotta see it!

@@mixedbymattypretty sure the MBT will be topping the billboard charts any day now.

The Rothko I’ve got my eye on. I just got the SPL MK3, and honestly it reminds me of the Fusion hardware, but with a Bass comp that’s yins to the Fusions HF Comp Yang. The MK3 is sort of threatening the mix bus use case for my Silver Bullet MK1 hw, but my HG2 for tube sat will stay. With the SPL, you do get a bit of that Tube color, but with no options for Pentode and Triode.

Ever looked into the Louder than Liftoff Silver Bullet?

i guarantee you that if you spring for the MBT you will never be dissapointed, i have both the fusion and MBT. the fusion is good for retro stuff, modern polish the MBT is the most incredible analog box you can get, i like it better then my fairchild (clone that is)

@@RealHomeRecording Yes, years ago but there is swinging some "trust issues" with it. Probably nonsense but it feels like it wants to be a pro unit but uses amateur components feel. Will look into it again. Thanks for the heads up.

@@Sance21 That sounds like, despite the relative cheap price, the MK3 is capable of bringing a great analog flavor a plugin can't provide.

I've said this time and time again, his examples , are terrible.

@@chicagoblow I mean I like his style but you need to make sure your OBS is working properly before making videos like this. I paid someone to help me get all that set up, it does amaze me how many audio youtubers have the shittiest sound. Or some play the worst produced tracks you've ever heard in your life (not saying that here, just there's something so obviously wrong with the sound, delete the video & reupload it when it's right)

@@DVNT I know right.. he does this all the time.. he's funny bro. I just come for the laughs. His examples are terrible.

yah! The first example it was. Left a note pin on top. Not sure how it wasn't edited out but such is life! :)

The Fusion plugins are not very good. Bought all of them but I just dont like them. Heard the fusion a few times and the HW is way better. That was a waste of money in my opinion.

Celestial isn't an emulation. They didn't even have a Fusion on hand to compare to when they made Celestial. They took the premise and used their own algos to make Celestial. And to me, the saturation on a snare doesn't quite hit like the hardware does. On the Celestial gearspace page, Giancarlo from Acustica says in the intro, it's not an emulation, and pages in says it a few more times, what I've said above. People are just so used to Acustica emulating hardware, it didn't matter what Giancarlo said. lol. They want to believe it's an emulation. Cheers.

I like the tonewood of a fiberglass guitar. 🤪

That’s what I was hearing. Snare had more punch and transient through the analog. Plug-in sounds good, but it’s way better on it’s own than comparing it to the hardware. Cause it kinda doesn’t come close

The end product is all digital 010101's

@@kalidesu doesn’t have to be I had a hardware recorder

You sure it's not just the youtube algorithm through your phone 😂

@@mixedbymattyListening on Adam monitors. Have used Fusion for mastering and have all the Neve UAD plugs. But didn't you hear the aliasing on the highs? All Kiive EQ plugins do this. Hence x16 OS.

@@mixedbymatty Hey Matty, there is fair amount of smearing from the plugin, hardware more focus. Stick to your hardware.

Something is strange - the stereo field on the plugins is way more open - i‘m just listening on my phone but there is a big difference. Almost if the hardware is mono? I have a flue maybe it is just that one of my ears is totally closed :)

hahahaha. You don't have hardware. Just tons of speakers lol

Well you could say this is new for the plugin world. No plugin of the Neve. I wouldn't say it's inferior. It's not the exact same. But still a tool that's very usable.

Perfect!