Personally I’ve never touched the bias or head EQ settings and unless you have strong feelings about tape formulation the simplicity of Oxide combined with its lower price make it the obvious choice. The thing you are missing in Oxide compared to the Studer is choices of tape formulation and access to the “tweaks”. Both plugins were created by the same team and both sound really good. Is there another reason to use Oxide? I’d say there is. So if the Studer A800 plugin has the same DSP usage as Oxide, why would I use Oxide? It a fair question and the easy answer is that Oxide costs less than half what the Studer does. Put some drums through it and you might be surprised. The x4 attack switch in the compressor section, not available in the hardware version makes a comparatively slow optical compressor very grabby indeed. The 32KHz setting for the high shelf in the EQ section gives the famous Air band of the Maag Eq a run for its money.

Rated as a great DI for bass the Unison technology found in UAD hardware means and the tactile control offered by UA hardware means that the sweet spots won’t be too hard to find in this classy sounding and surprisingly flexible channel strip. Paired with a nice Neumann or possibly a Sony C800G it’s a vocal front end with some bling to it.

Frequently associated with Hiphop and R&B production it’s a classic front end for such styles. It’s a very polished sounding tube preamp with an optical compressor and a very capable EQ section. Avalon’s most popular product, this high end channel strip is rightly regarded by many as a classic but is possibly misunderstood by some.

Uad plugins vs hardware