AVA De-Esser vs XT-DS De-Esser

[guillaume.protet]

Hi all,

I am wondering about the differences between AVA De-Esser vs XT-DS De-Esser. The only differences I see are:
- AVA De-Esser can be run on any DAW. It's not the case of XT-DS De-Esser.
- AVA De-Esser has a little more options than XT DS De-Esser (the Spectrum options)
- XT DS De-Esser seems to be Mono only
- AVA De-Esser has better graphical UI and I more recent than XT DS De-Esser

Some my question is: is there major differences in the sound quality/engine between this 2 plugins ? If you would like to use these plugins in Mixbus, which one would you buy ?

Thanks a lot in advance for your answers.

[dspasic]

Hi all,

I am wondering about the differences between AVA De-Esser vs XT-DS De-Esser. The only differences I see are:
- AVA De-Esser can be run on any DAW. It's not the case of XT-DS De-Esser.
- AVA De-Esser has a little more options than XT DS De-Esser (the Spectrum options)
- XT DS De-Esser seems to be Mono only
- AVA De-Esser has better graphical UI and I more recent than XT DS De-Esser

Some my question is: is there major differences in the sound quality/engine between this 2 plugins ? If you would like to use these plugins in Mixbus, which one would you buy ?

Thanks a lot in advance for your answers.

great question!
i'm interested as well in general difference between AVA and XT versions, because i'd love to use exclusively XT ones, but for example AVA legacyQ has awesome spectrum which i miss in the XT version of eq..
Awesome plugins indeed!

[Tassy]

As I know XT was developed only for MB and AVA Plugs are intended to be on the market for any other daws.
But which other daws can see and use them is the question of the future.
Good that AVA-SC uses very little DSP and so does XT-SC.

[dspasic]

But which other daws can see and use them is the question of the future.

i think this is philosophical question, and doesn't contribute anything except endless debate because it depends on path concerning digital audio industry, and not Harrison/Mixbus in particular. <- and that's why i love XT native format, so it's all self-contained and compact, + it works on linux, for me that's all that i need - no external dependency involved

As I know XT was developed only for MB and AVA Plugs are intended to be on the market for any other daws.

The things you've just said are obvious and are the root cause why AVA plugins appeared. - that's well explained on the HarrisonConsoles(.)com homepage.


XT: Plugins, Templates, Addons for Mixbus, Mixbus32c
AVA: Harrison AVA plugins provide renowned Harrison sound and usability in a convenient plugin format for AAX, VST, VST3, and AudioUnit hosts.
quoting text from homepage

But what are differences other than plugin format, regarding features/engine in particular?
side-by-side comparison from the devs would be awesome, and very informative for us. Specially for me because i use XT format all the time, since i love all-in-one solution which is already available by using XT format
Thanks

[Dingo]

The code for both the XT-DS and the AVA-DS stem directly from Harrison's X-range found in their enterprise consoles.
Essentially the code in XT range is the same as found in the AVA range.
The major differences is format (AU-VST/3-AAX) in the AVA and different GUI.

[dspasic]

The code for both the XT-DS and the AVA-DS stem directly from Harrison's X-range found in their enterprise consoles.
Essentially the code in XT range is the same as found in the AVA range.
The major differences is format (AU-VST/3-AAX) in the AVA and different GUI.

Dingo, regarding code base - ok,
features - sorry but that's nonsense. Did you even read the OP?

- XT DS De-Esser seems to be Mono only

what about that?

- AVA De-Esser has a little more options than XT DS De-Esser (the Spectrum options)

what about spectrum analyzer in the AVA series?
,ext sidechain? (never tried with XT plugins indeed)?

[Dingo]

Dingo, regarding code base - ok,
features - sorry but that's nonsense. Did you even read the OP?

Yes I read the OP and your post, and ... essentially the code in XT range and AVA is the same.

[madmaxmiller]

I have a reply from Ben himself in an email where he confirms that the DSP in the XT- and AVA plugins is exactly the same.
Before anyone yells "nonsense" they should look into PIN management to find what happens when you put a "mono" plugin into a stereo strip.
As convennient as a built-in FFT is - it's not necessary for function.
Apart from that, the XT SC and MC and DS have a very intuitive spectral visualization, too, which is repeated in their AVA pendants and just complemented by two different visualisation modes on the bottom.

And it's still the sound we are talking about here, right? There's good news: They are the same.

MMM

[Tassy]

Regarding Pin management some advice regarding being aware of plugin IN/OUT numbers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beCeUHoW7To
Cheers
Tassy