mastering: vintage warmer vs. waves masters software

[Ash Holmz]

Man i been spending forever tryin to compare the sounds of these two... and in my opionon i get a much fuller and richer sound from the warmer than i do from the expensive ass waves joints... but the waves shit is cleaan and precise which is good for certain types of tracks but for giving richness to a mix i gotta go with the warmer...i say if u use hardware and edit in the digital realm..then the waves is better but if ur strictly software like me and need a fuller haevy sound then the warmer is both much cheaper and more effective in that case... anybody else used either one of these products and have an opionion?

 

[Formant024]

I've used waves, the whole kit and I have used it for a little while since TC|Works came out with better kits like Spark. But Vintage Warmer is just better in any case though it's not something you can compare with either Waves or Spark since a it's a single utility and not a kit. There's no case in defining which source input is better, the plug will do good for hardware and software. A real soft knee comp/lim with tape saturation is always better but also expensive and vintage warmer is just the right alternative for the job.

 

[God]

I don't think it's necessarily right to compare the two. The whole "warm" and "colder" feeling seems moot to me. It is a perception thing. When you come down to it, most people are not going to know or "feel" the difference because they usually are playing most music through very weak car stereo speakers or some awful boombox that does not give signal representation like a Genelec monitor.

Personally, most of the stuff I have worked on is dumped onto a tape for saturation, even if it has been recorded in ProTools HD.

I think it's a matter of preference, really. What you are used to. Both outcomes are amazing regardless.

 

[Formant024]

Sorry, but I dont care for consumer playback, I know that people dont care about whats been used, I think as much as me being bothered what audio system they're using.

The point is wether we as producers hear these things or notice specific dynamic changes during production by one of these utilities. A listener's perception on anything besides Genelec is not factor we should be concerned about, like said, neither will they if you wouldn't use hardware tape saturation. It's personal preference or that approach to make a distinction between you and other producers that makes you use these utilities. There's one thing I am sure of, I haven't seen any plugs alike the vintage warmer but I've worked through a few kits like Waves and none of them lasted except a very few including the warmer. I haven't compared it to the Fostex D16, might be a nice project.

 

[Ominous]

I read an article in the very back of the January's Electronic Musician, and basically it was the writer's opinion that once we get to the level of precision that we are on as far as audio quality goes, the answer to these kind of debates are in the ear of the listeners.

Back in the day, you'd master a beat or song, just to have someone pump'n it on some wack ass head phones or a shitty factory car stereo. But in today's world of the MP3 compression, you can do all kinds of audio mastering that will matter on a good home system and for standard CD quality but a majority of it with be butchered by people copying and compressing your music for sharing with others or user ease, like playing it in their little portable MP3 player or their computer.

Basically mastering is really important, but mostly to us because we are the rare few who are really hearing an accurate representation of the sound on our moniters...

I just started using the Waves bundle that I got a copy of from somebody. Sounds good to me...

 

[Shonsteez]

Word. Im just starting to venture into different vst usage...
I really like tha vintage warmer, and tha ME edition of stienbergs waves vst's.
theres also a dope one called auto-tune by antares and it helps tune tha fucked up parts of somebodies voice so that after recording your vocals its perfectly in tune with tha rest of tha vocals on tha track...pretty nice.

 

[fade502]

I have been using the Antares Tube Warmer... I think it is ill. Maybe my customers won't care, but when I mixing down I do. I think it sounds great.

 

[God]

Honestly, I think people put TOO much on the type of (in this case) warmer that is used to "warm" the track up so it doesn't sound "cold." That is the same with software for anything.

I've argued again and again, that it is in fact up to the listener's ear, many people, after they purchase some kind of gear attempt to justify their purchase by ardently defending a position because of their personal stake and investment in the product.

That is what I see happening here. How many of you, on your normal stereo (not studio monitors) take a bunch of commercial CDs then actually analyse which CD's were mastered with software or with hardware, or with both? Can you really tell which one is "colder" or "warmer?"? Can you tell for sure?

That would be an interesting experiment, wouldn't it?

Sincerely,
God

 

[fade502]

I'll bet I can't tell which one is software or hardware... honestly, but one the same token I can tell you when an effort has been made to warm the track with some device or another. To put in in more 'scientific' terms, the only way you could really make a case is to take 2 of the same tracks (one warmed, and one raw) and play them side by side. I'll bet the average listener can distinguish between the two.

 

[Shonsteez]

How many of you, on your normal stereo (not studio monitors) take a bunch of commercial CDs then actually analyse which CD's were mastered with software or with hardware, or with both? Can you really tell which one is "colder" or "warmer?"? Can you tell for sure?

Dam, I wish i knew!!!
Thats something ive pondered once or twice...
Especially since im still tryin to figure out if it can really compare on a equal level...my guess would be NO...But, i think it may come close enough to be able to have some difficulty figuring out which is which.