PCM 90 / PCM Native comparison

PCM 90 / PCM Native comparison

My curiosity built up enough to run a native bundle vs hardware box comparison. Out of the 70, 300, 480, & 80/90’s I have available the 90 is the closest unit I have at hand to this native lineage. It’s also the box that would get replaced 1st. I did a rough numerical parameter match just to see how close it came without further tweaking. This is the result.

  1. 1.
    N-plate
    0:34
  2. 2.
    90-plate
    0:34
  3. 3.
    N-Tiled-Room
    0:34
  4. 4.
    90-Tiled-Room
    0:34
  5. 5.
    N-C-Hall
    0:34
  6. 6.
    90-C-Hall
    0:34
  7. 7.
    N-Large-R-Hall
    0:34
  8. 8.
    90-Large-R-Hall
    0:34
  9. 9.
    N-Med-Room
    0:34
  10. 10.
    90-Med-Room
    0:34
  11. 11.
    Verb-Test-Drum-Noodle
    0:34

14 Responses to PCM 90 / PCM Native comparison

  • WOW, the 90 sounds way better! Thanks for killing the native version….

  • The plates and tiled room sound close. The hall doesn’t.

  • Why would they cripple their algorithm intentionally? Isnt PCM 90 ALL digital too?

  • The real deal does sound better – but I can’t get the native version to sound quite as thin as this!!

  • The difference in sound is because of the internal summing vs analog mixing of the verb in the signal path.

    If you really want to null it out:
    Use the digital io of the pcm90 in the daw, and compare it with the plugin.

  • That being said, the Hall on the native really sounds iieeewww compared to the pcm90

  • The resonances in the medium-small ambiences in the native version are terrible, or that’s just me???

  • Is there some delay issue with the plug in version, because listening to the tiled room examples you get a definite double attack effect on some (but strangely not all) the drum hits which is not at all present on the 90. For example the second snare hit in the main passage, a clear double attack when you listen carefully. Either a delay problem or very different algorithm??

    Agree with above comment about resonances…. very odd!

  • Just had a listen to hall comparisons as well and again this second attack (or very strong early refection) is very apparent in the plugin. If this is intentional then it seems that the presets / algorithms on the 90 and the plugin are too different to be compared as like? Or there is a problem with the plugin as I wondered before….?

  • Thank you for doing this comparative work! The plates and rooms sound quite close, but there is quite a difference in the halls. However, it sounds like there is much more reverb (wet/dry balance or send) in the native hall examples than in the PCM90 hall examples…True?

  • ‘Without further tweeking’ is the keyword, I’m sure the parameters in the plug-in are scaled differently – try it the other way around. 🙂 I never got sounds as bad as these out of the plug-ins, you have to work really hard for this. But thanks, things like those are fun!

  • WOW, there is a diference, AND maybe enough to decide on a mix?

  • Are you serious? How could you not turn down the verb on the native? It’s a lot more wet than the 90 mix. Not a fair comparison at all. You can’t just line up parameter values, you have to go by sound. Maybe all the values are fine, but at least the wet/dry mix is totally off.

Leave a Reply