AMS RMX16 500 series vs UAD RMX16

[Firechild]

In this SOS article Hugh Robjohns basically says it is the UAD-plugin in a 500 series box, using the same SHARC chip as well.
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/ams-rmx16

However in this excellent video, the UAD plugin sounds nothing like the original hardware nor the 500 series unit. The 500 unit is very similar to the original though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqTaSW5f4IU

However, initially I thought the UAD clips had the reverb signal slightly lower but it is not the whole truth. If only focusing to the Drums comparison with the famous NonLin2 algorithm you can clearly hear the sound is not even close. The original and the 500 unit has this cool slapback effect making it really groovy.
So, I thought it was just a matter of using another pre-delay setting. So I took the first RAW sound of the drums and added my own UAD AMS RMX16 plugin and tried to dial in a carbon sound by ear. It was totally impossible.
So what is going on here? Obviously the AMS NEVE RMX16 500 series unit is NOT based on the UAD code. They are miles apart in sound, at least with the NonLin2 algorithm which I focused on.

[Aled Hughes]

We have an original RMX16 at the studio as well as the UAD plugin. I haven’t noticed much of a difference between them, but I haven’t really scrutinised them side by side either.

In any case, both are gorgeous!

[Firechild]

Ok, cool but try the settings in the video during the drums comparison with the Nonlin2 algorithm.
It sounds like complete different algorithms

[muzines]

The examples do indeed sound pretty different.

However, I'd look first to the test and the people doing it (in case something was overlooked, rigged up wrong, set wrong etc), before I assumed some things about the implementation (because from what we do know, it looks like the DSP side *is* the UA code.

Even more so as the people running the test made no mention of summary of the differences - so they either didn't notice, or didn't care - either way, it's not a ringing endorsement of rigorous testing!

Of course, they probably just want to sell the things, so... :shrugs:

[Firechild]

Yes, that was my thought first as well.
Like, ”dont bother too much dialing in the UAD-plugin correctly, we want to sell the 500 series unit anyways”.
However I tried hard to dial in that NonLin2 Drum reverb to match the original (and the 500 unit) with the UAD-plugin without luck. I also tried different algorithms to get closer but no luck. I came closer with the TC Electronic NonLin reverb.
It would be really interesting to hear from a higher instance…that the 500 series unit really is based on the UAD code. I still doubt that.

[Hugh Robjohns]

My understanding, from Mr Crabtree, is that the effects code is byte-byte identical to the original code in both the UA and 500 series versions, and other aspects of the original hardware that affected the sound character have been modelled in both implementations.

Obviously, the sound character of the UA version will be influenced by your own interface to some (hopefully negligible) degree.

I dont know why you're perceiving differences between the 500 and UA versions only on one program... that seems odd. Are you certain the Decay time and wet/dry parameters are identical, and that the input levels are comparable?

[Aled Hughes]

Ok, cool but try the settings in the video during the drums comparison with the Nonlin2 algorithm.
It sounds like complete different algorithms

If I can find time I’ll have a go at comparing the original v the plugin and see if I can replicate those differences (sorry, haven’t watched your link yet)

[Firechild]

My understanding, from Mr Crabtree, is that the effects code is byte-byte identical to the original code in both the UA and 500 series versions, and other aspects of the original hardware that affected the sound character have been modelled in both implementations.

Obviously, the sound character of the UA version will be influenced by your own interface to some (hopefully negligible) degree.

I dont know why you're perceiving differences between the 500 and UA versions only on one program... that seems odd. Are you certain the Decay time and wet/dry parameters are identical, and that the input levels are comparable?

Yes, NonLin2 with the drum example in the video above is impossible to nail. It is very few parameters as well to adjust…
But it is easy to test. Just record the ”dry” loop and put you UAD reverb on it and try to match with the original or the 500 series unit. In the video you can also see the settings/figures to start with. With the same figures on UAD it sounds totally different, as different as in the video. But you cant dial in the correct sound with any settings on the UAD plugin