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
Eric Written by:

14 Comments

  1. April 3, 2010

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

  2. Jack Deckard
    April 4, 2010

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

  3. simon
    April 9, 2010

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

  4. rich
    April 26, 2010

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

  5. Harry Nak
    May 13, 2010

    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.

    • May 13, 2010

      The PCM 90 is hooked up via SPDIF i/o. Analog signal path is not to play in this case.

  6. Harry Nak
    May 13, 2010

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

  7. Quinto
    May 14, 2010

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

  8. will
    July 20, 2010

    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!

  9. will
    July 20, 2010

    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….?

  10. mk3
    August 29, 2010

    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?

  11. cow
    May 7, 2011

    ‘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!

  12. Anonymous
    January 11, 2013

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

  13. Anonymous
    May 15, 2013

    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.

Comments are closed.