GML 8200 vs Pulsar 8200 | Plugin vs Hardware
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 08. 2024
- In this episode of Plugin vs Hardware, I’ll be comparing the GML 8200 with the plugin version of Pulsar audio, the Pulsar 8200.
Watch until the end to not miss the reveal of this blindtest!
Use the link below to get the Pulsar for $89 instead of $149 (valid untill June 5th)
bit.ly/Pulsar8200
Plugin: pulsar.audio/eq-8200/
Hardware: www.massenburg.com/model-8200/
Which one is your favourite?
Tracks used:
Elle Hollis - Childs Play
music.apple.com/nl/album/chil...
Ginton & Koba Brown - Steady Ease
music.apple.com/nl/album/stea...
Join the virtual internship:
www.youtube.com/@thomasvopsta...
Join the discord channel!
/ discord
Make sure to Like, Comment and Subscribe if you want to stay up to date!
www.thomasvanopstal.com
/ thomasvopstal
/ thomasvopstal
Subscribe to my newsletter!
mailchi.mp/ac73022898c8/subsc...
TIMESTAMPS
00:00 Intro
00:15 What is the GML 8200?
00:35 Comparison
01:28 Mixbus 1 A/B
01:50 Hardware features
02:59 Mixbus 2 A/B
04:13 Plugin features
07:20 Vocals A/B
09:14 Outro - Hudba
Not the same eqing and not the same volume perception. Impossible to compare.
Dude, in your vocal tests, the A was in mono! Lol! Haha did you not check the video?
great video. i just bought the pulsar, very happy. never worked with the original but the plugin is awesome. best plugin bus-eq ever.
That's exactly how a professional test should be, thank you and 1000 thumbs up .....
Anyone who has even a moderate understanding of audio technology will immediately hear that the B examples are miles better than the A version .... a very clear argument why hardware is primarily used in many professional studios
Couldn't agree less... the B example sounds harsh and brittle. So much so that I am led to believe he was either incentivized to mislabel them or made an extreme error in the q curve when setting the hardware- and I'm leaning toward both.
LOL. Someone already disagrees. I think people who evangelize so aggressively about hardware are trying to justify their financial investments. There's nothing magic about hardware that can't be recreated by software.
@@bonchbonchwhat digital plugins can do hardware cant and will never will for instance limiters and eq
Great Fun! I was right with my choise but I was very surprised that the Pulsar sounds that nice and somewhat near to the hardware. Thanks for this video.
Surprisingly (given all my Dan Worral AB failures) I guessed correctly within about five seconds of listening. Legit HW mojo ftw.
Sooo good tracks and comparison. It's incredible to be able to hear both units on tracks that are already sounding well and not on a "drums + 2 synths demo". Prefered the hardware on the first mix, the plugin on the second. Thank you for this
I own the Pulsar plugin (I already own the UAD Massenburg DesignWorks MDWEQ5), in the A/B comparison I often chosen A because the excess of sibilances in B, but in one comparison I noticed a very deep and strong Kick and Bass that reveals that B was the real GML.
I miss these videos
B is obviously the hardware. I can instantly hear it.
I like A just a bit more, with less sibilance, but B is a bit more open. I like them both, so I'm happy with my plugin.
OK…it means nothing, but I guessed it and preferred the hardware as well.
I own the hardware but I think you could probably get a little more out of the plug in to get them closer. I think I’d get the Pulsar in addition to the real deal as the filters, tilt and recall are incredible features…plus I only have one 8200, so the ability to pull up a few of the plug ins is amazing. Thanks for the comparison.
I already have the plugin but in your examples, even with CZcams compression, the difference is easily audible, the low end in hardware has more depth and the top end is better too. I listen on my S4X headphone through the laptop's integrated soundcard, so with a wav file and good converters, the difference might be more significant...
That’s a nice track!!!!
I have chosen A. B has a good sound, but it has too much high (it may need to be de-essed more). Overall I think A is more balanced. But if I have to make a choice, I will be in favour of hardware over plugs all the way. 🙃
they are definetly close
I like both options .
both eqs sound amazing grate job the guys at pulsar
its not wich one is better is what you do with the eq
beside that I think i can save 6,000 USD
hardware was obviously open on the highs, even through a laptop speaker
I chose B twice
I got B. B is cleaner and wider. Man I wish B was the Pulsar tho!
Close But Low end is quit Beefy and 3D ,sheen is crispy clear on hardware.
it was to easy which one was the analog....the way analog sound is pure gold on my ears....i hope to put my hands on the real deal one day
Man oh man....why didnt you include the Nebula Surge EQ.....wow....
I choose B is Hardware at the test,because of the Low end have a deeper dive and the mid high have a more 3D sound.
But the plugin is pretty good.
Nebula Surge by Tim Patherick sounds identical to the Hardware....with the N4 Commerical Player Plugin + the Plugin your looking at $430 for a $6600 EQ.....
I knew immediately where the hardware was and where the software was. It's too obvious. The transients are more pronounced on the hardware, as if a little compression is added to the signal. The mix depth is also slightly superior to the plug-in. But, given the price difference.... I'm amazed that we have the option of using a digital copy. Thanks Pulsar.
usually i prefer to go with plugins. but this time hardware has better feeling. I mean silky highs and wide deep bass. of course, difference is not too high but noticeable enough)
I wish I liked more A because I saw in the end that that's the plugin...
wow, I prefer A , I guess I must buy plugin now! hehe ;)
Lol. This is the first time that i've heard hardware having a narrower phantom centre than a plugin. I preferred A for this reason.
But it might be that the hardware high mid boost was bringing more attention to that siblant range of the vocal, and only appears to reduce the phantom centre.
Ugh. Now giving it a good listen, i can hear in the first example how there is a bit more detail in the hardware, if you listen to the finger snap/clap, you can hear a better sense of ambience around it. This separation and detail is a consistent trait of hardware. BUT, i think the plugin is totally fine, i like the smooth relationship between audio parts across the stage, and my first impression of preferring A is what counts for me as the listener.
EQs are real close, at least at mix level. I'm no longer going to send my head in a spin over them, but i will always make sure i'm not shrinking the stereo image, narrowing the centre and losing low end heft.
At mastering level there is still a gap between hardware and plugins, and for those prices there should be 😂
EQ gets a pass man, but compression and distortion/saturation, still some way to go.
Edit : Thomas, thanks for putting up this comparison ;)
I had it right. It wasn’t even close!
Im shocked 😮 A is my winner
B is hardware IMO
A nice B super harsh
100% B solid bass georgus mids Silky hi
I got it…..wrong😂. Nice.
I preferred A 🤷
A is best