LA-2A vs. A Plug

[John Phillips]

Has anyone ever done a comparison of the LA-2A hardware (original or UA) and
compared it to any of the software plugs out there? If so then I would
appreciate your thoughts about the comparison. I do not have a clue as to
how close they have come...

Thanks for any thoughts,

John Phillips

[Mike Rivers]

John Phillips wrote:
> Has anyone ever done a comparison of the LA-2A hardware (original or UA) and
> compared it to any of the software plugs out there? If so then I would
> appreciate your thoughts about the comparison. I do not have a clue as to
> how close they have come...

I doubt that there are any two LA-2As that sound alike, so which one
would you like to compare it to? You shouldn't look for this sort of a
comparison, but rather look at what it will do for you. If you have an
LA-2 that you like, then just use it and forget the plug-in. But I can
tell you that there are some pretty sharp people who don't feel that
it's any less useful to use the plug-in version of a famous product
than to use the actual famous product, even if they don't sound
identical.

If you're looking for the closest match to an average (not as in
"ordinary" but as in "what most people like about") LA-2A, I'd say go
for the one from Universal Audio. They probably have heard more LA-2As
than anyone making plug-ins.

[will]

I'll second the UA suggestion (also that it's pretty much what one
would expect an 'average' hardware unit to sound like). I use their
LA-2A plug a lot. I don't have the pleasure of owning that particular
piece of gear, but the plug sounds pretty darn good and does pretty
much what you'd expect. I don't know how well this applies, but for
reference I do happen to own a couple of hardware 1176's and the
UA plug emulation of that piece is particularly good as well. HTH.


Mike Rivers wrote:
> John Phillips wrote:
> > Has anyone ever done a comparison of the LA-2A hardware (original or UA) and
> > compared it to any of the software plugs out there? If so then I would
> > appreciate your thoughts about the comparison. I do not have a clue as to
> > how close they have come...
>
> I doubt that there are any two LA-2As that sound alike, so which one
> would you like to compare it to? You shouldn't look for this sort of a
> comparison, but rather look at what it will do for you. If you have an
> LA-2 that you like, then just use it and forget the plug-in. But I can
> tell you that there are some pretty sharp people who don't feel that
> it's any less useful to use the plug-in version of a famous product
> than to use the actual famous product, even if they don't sound
> identical.
>
> If you're looking for the closest match to an average (not as in
> "ordinary" but as in "what most people like about") LA-2A, I'd say go
> for the one from Universal Audio. They probably have heard more LA-2As
> than anyone making plug-ins.

[Scott Fraser]

There is use for both. I track with hardware LA2A's & mix with software
LA2A's. Do they sound the same or different? I don't know, I use them
at different times for different applications. Both sound good & both
are very useful tools for me. I'm not really concerned with how similar
they may be. I'm really only interested in whether each is the tool I
need at a given moment.

Scott Fraser

[Roy W. Rising]

"John Phillips" > wrote:
> Has anyone ever done a comparison of the LA-2A hardware (original or UA)
> and compared it to any of the software plugs out there? If so then I
> would appreciate your thoughts about the comparison. I do not have a
> clue as to how close they have come...
>
> Thanks for any thoughts,
>
> John Phillips

I doubt that any software plugin accommodates the following sentence from
the LA-2A Circuit Description: "The amount of light depends upon the
applied voltage AND FREQUENCY." [Emphasis added.] That's part of the real
secret of the T4 Gain Reduction device.

I prefer the LA-3A. Tests done at ABC-TV Hollywood in 1968-69 revealed
that an LA-2A required new tubes about every six months. If we waited a
year, the Mixer-Engineers noticed the difference!

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Mike Rivers]

Roy W. Rising wrote:

> I doubt that any software plugin accommodates the following sentence from
> the LA-2A Circuit Description: "The amount of light depends upon the
> applied voltage AND FREQUENCY." [Emphasis added.] That's part of the real
> secret of the T4 Gain Reduction device.

Don't you think this can be modeled? Not the actual light, but the
response of the gain reduction module to amplitude and frequency? If
they did the job right, the software prepares the same "black box"
response.

> I prefer the LA-3A.

Well, that's a different device.

> Tests done at ABC-TV Hollywood in 1968-69 revealed
> that an LA-2A required new tubes about every six months.

This is 2006. LA-2As probably still change with aging of the tubes, but
I suppose that's part of the character, particularly if you use NOS
tubes from the period instead of these newfangled Chinese or Russian
tubes that you can buy new today.

[John Phillips]

"Scott Fraser" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> There is use for both. I track with hardware LA2A's & mix with software
> LA2A's. Do they sound the same or different? I don't know, I use them
> at different times for different applications. Both sound good & both
> are very useful tools for me. I'm not really concerned with how similar
> they may be. I'm really only interested in whether each is the tool I
> need at a given moment.
>
> Scott Fraser


Thanks to all.

I knew that they would not sound exactly the same but I did not have an
appreciation of how good or bad they are. I do not expect that I will ever
have the hardware to compare. After the responses, I am even more excited
about using them. I was already thinking about getting the UA as it also
saves CPU cycles with the UAD card, now I will.

John Phillips

[Scott Fraser]

<<I doubt that any software plugin accommodates the following sentence
from
the LA-2A Circuit Description: "The amount of light depends upon the
applied voltage AND FREQUENCY." [Emphasis added.] That's part of the
real
secret of the T4 Gain Reduction device. >>

Circuit non-linearities can be modeled. That's exactly what UA is
selling with their software emulations.

Scott Fraser

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
"John Phillips" > wrote:

> Has anyone ever done a comparison of the LA-2A hardware (original or UA) and
> compared it to any of the software plugs out there? If so then I would
> appreciate your thoughts about the comparison. I do not have a clue as to
> how close they have come...
>
> Thanks for any thoughts,
>
> John Phillips

I've had the privilege of hearing the UA LA-2A hardware and software
side by side and they're pretty close. They should be, since our LA-2A
was used as one of the devices actually modeled. (It spent most of its
life in Stanford University's Memorial Church and was "only used on
Sunday morning.")

The 1176 plug-in also sounded quite close to the hardware version.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x