Liquid Mix impressions and result

[Martin Naef]

Hi Paul

punkdISCO wrote:
> "It's not the big massive "wow!" factor, but it just works, and works
> well"

> I have read that some people feel the UAD emulations are 'better'
> however, other people then jump in on the discussion (people with
> current experience of the actually hardware v the LM v the UAD);
> their view is that the LM is more accurate and true to the physical
> hardware whilst the UAD puts a slight marketing spin on their
> emulations by being very true to the hardware but at the same time,
> flattering or exaggerating certain aspects.  I actually kind

Well, "better" is always relative. I think it's worth considering the
different approaches taken: LM is based on extensively measuring the
device, essentially taking a "brute force" approach at emulating
hardware. Most other simulations try to be "clever" and recreate the
character of each device individually. I wouldn't be surprised if
developers of the second approach tended to overemphasize the
individuality slightly, hence making the results more distinctive than
the actual hardware actually is.

For me personally, I couldn't care less whether the simulation is true 
to the original or not - I just wanted a variety of high quality EQ and 
compression.

> But however you look at it, even comparing the LM to the actual
> hardware, the differences are so minutely small, you just would never
> tell the difference, certainly in context of a mix.  And if you then
> consider that Martin has 32 channels of EQ/Comp processing using 20
> EQs and 40 compressors emulations, all for £250 (used), then this is
> an insanely small amount of money to spend.

Exactly my point. A comparable UA bundle could have easily set me back 
£1000. Admittedly, it's not a fair comparison as the UA offers other 
goodies - but do I really need them?

> PS: the track sounds great..

Thanks!

Martin