|
Post by mrholmes on Sept 14, 2019 3:23:27 GMT -6
Yesterday I had to play a few guitar takes in a session. I asked the AE about the debate, and he said that the debate is silly because you can match plug ins to sound exactly like the hardware. He advised me to try at home as long as it sounds like the hardware.
I did as he told me, and he was right, I can match the software to sound like the hardware.
I texted him:
You were right I can match it, but its an utterly frustrating task hardware owns the faster user interface.
His advice shows me the main problem is the fumbling with the mouse.
I don't like fumbling with the mouse, I like to do things with my hands. It's a stupid task and it never feels right...ah too much oh no, too less back again....shit again. The fumbling with the mouse leads to not to listen anymore.
I concentrate on the damn mouse arrow to get it right. Someone should create something that is more responsive than a mouse.
Also, a big problem is to find the right plug ins. I am about to sell my G SSL compressor because I don't use it anymore. The Native Instruments Version of this thing is nothing but BULL SHIT simulation.
The Slate Version did the Job extremly close to the hardware too close to keep the hardware.
Anyway the problem to me is the haptic s.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Sept 14, 2019 4:12:00 GMT -6
The solution to your problem is called Softube Console 1. Tactile control and amazing sound.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Sept 14, 2019 7:05:51 GMT -6
The solution to your problem is called Softube Console 1. Tactile control and amazing sound.
Is it supporting 3 party plug ins I guess NO?
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Sept 14, 2019 8:01:32 GMT -6
The solution to your problem is called Softube Console 1. Tactile control and amazing sound.
Is it supporting 3 party plug ins I guess NO?
Only UA ones. However, Softube’s plugins can’t be beat.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Sept 14, 2019 8:18:59 GMT -6
Again, where hardware shines is it's forgiveness. Most pro level hardware can be pushed well beyond it's intended levels, either by accident or intentionally.
Plugs can match a tone, but they can't match the forgiveness and range beyond. I've heard of some plugs being pushed to the point where they start sounding like they're bypassed because the simulation range ended.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Sept 14, 2019 9:20:40 GMT -6
Again, where hardware shines is it's forgiveness. Most pro level hardware can be pushed well beyond it's intended levels, either by accident or intentionally. Plugs can match a tone, but they can't match the forgiveness and range beyond. I've heard of some plugs being pushed to the point where they start sounding like they're bypassed because the simulation range ended.
I just can say what I experienced I matched the sound and it sounded to close to make a call. If the coding is very good -like with Cytmoic the Glue- it surpasses the SSL Hardware Compressor.
Today I did the same with an 1176.
To make identical settings by ear is frustrating with plug ins. If its done right a lot of differences fade away, but the hardware is always faster to access.
BTW.
In most of the cases I don't push hardware or plugs.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Sept 14, 2019 9:39:25 GMT -6
I’ve tried tests like these dozens of times (always thinking, shit maybe I can sell this hardware and just be fully ITB). In some instances of a single track, I can get a software emulation close enough to where I can’t reliably pass a blind AB. But if I do this with even a handful of channels and then AB the two sets (handful of tracks with SW emulation vs handful with HW) it’s not close. It never is. And more often than not it’s not that close on single tracks either.
My subjective experience.
|
|
|
Post by audioscape on Sept 14, 2019 10:47:18 GMT -6
Again, where hardware shines is it's forgiveness. Most pro level hardware can be pushed well beyond it's intended levels, either by accident or intentionally. Plugs can match a tone, but they can't match the forgiveness and range beyond. I've heard of some plugs being pushed to the point where they start sounding like they're bypassed because the simulation range ended. THIS. Plus a million.
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Sept 14, 2019 11:15:06 GMT -6
If you are interested in a more intuitive feel while controlling plug ins, I love the Avid D-Command. It has a dedicated EQ and Dynamics section. They go for pretty cheap now on the used market. Having said all that, I still use a ton of outboard and it is irreplaceable to me(have tried many times to match it).
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Sept 14, 2019 12:38:26 GMT -6
I did as he told me, and he was right, I can match the software to sound like the hardware.
.
Are we going down this rabbit hole again?? You indeed must be the #1 AE around. Personally, I've never been able to get close. Much less a perfect match. I do agree about the ergonomics of the whole deal though.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Sept 14, 2019 14:45:39 GMT -6
If you can't get close, you've not tried.
That said....that's not really the advantage of analog hardware. IMO/E. It's the speed of working related to the forgiving nature of classA nice electronics.
Great sound happens in tracking. Which IS largely analog. So....that's my vote for analog's superiority. AND....to balance that I will say that I can't imagine mixing that way again.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 14, 2019 14:48:56 GMT -6
I asked the AE about the debate, and he said that the debate is silly because you can match plug ins to sound exactly like the hardware.
He was wrong. Perhaps you can match the sound in solo mode with one channel going (which in my opinion has largely to do with the tendency of A-B "testing" to cause one to start second-guessing their judgement after a couple of passes), but when you listen in context it's not the same because software doesn't interact the way hardware does (to start with, but by no means limited to, the fact that hardware is sensitive to input and output impedance, which doesn't exist with software), but also the fact that when you run several instances of a software emulation tyhe phenomenon known as "stacking" sets in and minute differences that aren't obvious in solo become exaggerted and become audible. Plus there's the fact that software emulations never behave exactly like the original hardware for reasons having to do with the realities of analyzing the details of hardware behavior and even if one were to get a full analysis, programming an exact emulation is highly impractical, even impossible if you expect it to work in real time. Software emulation of audio hardware is always an approximation. No hardware circuit ever performs exactly like the ideal circuit in the schematic - hardware components have tolerances, not exact values, plus there are always stray capacitances and inductances that affect operation. I've even heard of cases where an attempted hardware clone of a device did not work because the original layout had not been followed and the original layout incorporated a "phantom component" that turned out to be essential for the desired operation.
Software has got a lot better over the past decade, but it still is never exactly like the hardware it copies - there's always a difference of 5-10% or so. The question is whether that difference matters to you*. Obviouly it doesn't matter to him.
If you have any "vintage" or "classic" hardware I would strongly reccomend against selling it. It will cost you more when you decide to buy it back.
* - Even in the case of plug-in emulations of digital hardware reports of discrepancies are common, especially in things like reverbs.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 14, 2019 15:04:33 GMT -6
If you can't get close, you've not tried. That said....that's not really the advantage of analog hardware. IMO/E. It's the speed of working related to the forgiving nature of classA nice electronics. Great sound happens in tracking. Which IS largely analog. So....that's my vote for analog's superiority. AND....to balance that I will say that I can't imagine mixing that way again. And to balance that I must say that I can't imagine either tracking or mixing any other way. Both because doing audio on the computer drives me batty (well, battier) and because trying to adjust things with a damn mouse gives me carpal tunnel and aggrevates my arthritis. Knobs and faders don't.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Sept 14, 2019 15:44:00 GMT -6
If you can't get close, you've not tried. That said....that's not really the advantage of analog hardware. IMO/E. It's the speed of working related to the forgiving nature of classA nice electronics. Great sound happens in tracking. Which IS largely analog. So....that's my vote for analog's superiority. AND....to balance that I will say that I can't imagine mixing that way again. And to balance that I must say that I can't imagine either tracking or mixing any other way. Both because doing audio on the computer drives me battyu (well, battier) and because trying to adjust things with a damn mouse gives me carpal tunnel and aggrevates my arthritis. Knobs and faders don't.
That was my guesswork that the feel, the response is the problem to get the right setting. You are right I also made the experience, that it fails in mix time. And maybe the argument with the forgiving behavior of real gear is a good one.
Anyway I sold the GSSL today it had no use in 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Sept 14, 2019 16:40:06 GMT -6
If you can't get close, you've not tried. Wrong I'm afraid.... Of course, one man's "close" is another man's "wide chasm".
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Sept 14, 2019 17:28:53 GMT -6
I think it depends on the program material. At times I can say that the difference between HW and Plugins was indecipherable. And sometimes plugins are more useful (unlimited instances etc). BUT, other times the same piece of hardware, processing different material really brings something 3D and just different than plugins. It probably comes down to harmonic content, transient response etc etc.
I totally agree that ergronomically it’s no contest. Everyone says mix with your ears not your eyes, but come on, I have to use my eyes to move the mouse and manipulate the parameter I want and that is Instantly distracting. Our brains just love visual stimulation so much, it’s hard not to loose that little bit of focus. And over the course of a track that little bit adds up.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 14, 2019 17:29:45 GMT -6
I’ve given this a ton of thought. Too much really,...
because it’s true you can match any two things if: frequency response is equal, dynamics are the same. They will sound exactly the same if they are exactly level matched and meet the conditions above. But it never works! Later.. I hear the difference and it’s clear! The reason isn’t clear and dry though. I realized I only hear the difference when I’m not trying to.
Well=
the left side of the brain allows us to spot/not spot the differences. Another part of the brain decides what we enjoy/don’t enjoy.
So when we A/B and level match, we are using the critical part of our brain to try and decifer the differences..
The act of listening to Music is emotional. We use a different part of brain to enjoy music.
Unfortunately too many engineers develop the critical side to the point that they hardly ever venture out of it. Developing the emotional side takes a lot of effort and failure.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Sept 14, 2019 18:54:15 GMT -6
I’ve given this a ton of thought. Too much really,... because it’s true you can match any two things if: frequency response is equal, dynamics are the same. They will sound exactly the same if they are exactly level matched and meet the conditions above. But it never works! Later.. I hear the difference and it’s clear! The reason isn’t clear and dry though. I realized I only hear the difference when I’m not trying to. Well= the left side of the brain allows us to spot/not spot the differences. Another part of the brain decides what we enjoy/don’t enjoy. So when we A/B and level match, we are using the critical part of our brain to try and decifer the differences.. The act of listening to Music is emotional. We use a different part of brain to enjoy music. Unfortunately too many engineers develop the critical side to the point that they hardly ever venture out of it. Developing the emotional side takes a lot of effort and failure. Good point. I remember an ABX test regarding DA-AD conversion. Everybody was convinced to hear more depth and dimension when they knew the brand names of the converters. The same test done blind made the differences fade away. Confirmation bias. We are all happy to be confirmed. Perception distortion is another topic how our senses can be fooled I think it's a combination of many factors why things can or can't work.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Sept 14, 2019 18:56:11 GMT -6
Just because you can put a dozen plugins on a single track doesn’t mean you should. I think this is one of the issues with how plugins are often used even if they are touted to match the hardware versions.
Would you put four hardware compressors, three EQ’s, a tube overdrive and a harmonic enhancer on one track even if you had them available?
Yet I often see sessions that have more plugins on each track than I’ve had hot breakfasts.
I watched peeps struggling to make sense of a mix and then suggested to bypass the plugins and listen to the raw track. It’s often the case after listening that the plugin count gets dramatically reduced.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 14, 2019 19:26:10 GMT -6
I’ve given this a ton of thought. Too much really,... because it’s true you can match any two things if: frequency response is equal, dynamics are the same. They will sound exactly the same if they are exactly level matched and meet the conditions above. But it never works! Later.. I hear the difference and it’s clear! The reason isn’t clear and dry though. I realized I only hear the difference when I’m not trying to. Well= the left side of the brain allows us to spot/not spot the differences. Another part of the brain decides what we enjoy/don’t enjoy. ............................................................................... If frequency response is "equal" that's only about 1/3-1/2 of the tone. The other half to 2/3 is the harmonic spectrum, which you can't alter with EQ in any real sense. You can alter the overall frequency curve but you can't alter the basic ratio of harmonics to fundamental except in a very rough way that isn't harmonically related.
If "frequency response" is equal, dynamics are not necessarily the same. Frequency responce has nothing to do with dynamics, just as it has nothing to do with the ratio of harmonics.
You can think of it like viewing a painting through a colored gel. The gel alters the overall color of the picture but does nothing to alter the relationship of the components of the original. Or the dynamic range.
Spending a few days playing with Photoshop can be quite instructive in terms of understanding the analogy.
You have a point about only being able to hear the difference when you're not trying to. That has to do with what I'm always harping about concerning the A/B process causing you to second guess your real perceptions and why I don't believe that blind A/B "testing" is valid.
No. Unfortunately too many "engineers" never develop their critical facilities beyond a very crude, primitive point. I could elaborate, but won't unless somebody wants me to.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 14, 2019 19:52:37 GMT -6
I’ve given this a ton of thought. Too much really,... because it’s true you can match any two things if: frequency response is equal, dynamics are the same. They will sound exactly the same if they are exactly level matched and meet the conditions above. But it never works! Later.. I hear the difference and it’s clear! The reason isn’t clear and dry though. I realized I only hear the difference when I’m not trying to. Well= the left side of the brain allows us to spot/not spot the differences. Another part of the brain decides what we enjoy/don’t enjoy. So when we A/B and level match, we are using the critical part of our brain to try and decifer the differences.. The act of listening to Music is emotional. We use a different part of brain to enjoy music. Unfortunately too many engineers develop the critical side to the point that they hardly ever venture out of it. Developing the emotional side takes a lot of effort and failure. Good point. I remember an ABX test regarding DA-AD conversion. Everybody was convinced to hear more depth and dimension when they knew the brand names of the converters. The same test done blind made the differences fade away. Confirmation bias. We are all happy to be confirmed. Perception distortion is another topic how our senses can be fooled I think it's a combination of many factors why things can or can't work. No, not "confirmation bias".
The problem here is that the conditions of the typical ABX test are such as to confuse the listener and make him doubt and second guess his own perceptions, to the point that his uncertainty overwhelms his ability to listen critically. I believe that only the first one or two passes of an A/B or A/B/X test have any validity at all and after that it all goes down the toilet.
How many times when doing a mix you've "compared" things until you don't know which way is up anymore and may even settle on a final decision such that when you come back to it after a day or so you wonder what the hell you were thinking? I'd bet that pretty much everybody here has experienced that.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 14, 2019 20:14:15 GMT -6
Yeah your comments before on this made sense to me and that’s why I think it has to do with the physical nature of how we listen. Everything you’ve said makes sense on this, including the physics of hardware.
Some are quick to point out Confirmation bias. But it works in reverse too- The idea that confirmation bias can mess you up is a confirmation bias in itself!
I think it takes practice to break free from all the psychology and then you can start to grow in this field. If you know bias exists, you can learn to be wary of it. If you know AB test makes a person prone to not hear the differences, you can learn to listen to where the differences should be.. in the complex physics, highs and low peaks.
Besides, a perfect level match doesn’t exit: they can only match at certain frequencies and level. As soon as they go spectral as you say, they have to be different. And that’s where we have to zone in.. the differences are audible if we know where to listen.
Then of course AB test doesn’t do much because again, get kinda stuck in the analytical side of the mind and can’t decide which is more emotionally pleasing.
So when I do a AB test, I only do level match to find out exactly what about the two are different, for technical engineering reasons.
For music, a better test is what I call “A-UP, B-UP”:
For this you push A way louder than B, listen for 10-30 seconds or more, then flip between the two. Then make B louder than A, do the same thing. Usually the better sounding one will come through.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Sept 14, 2019 20:27:30 GMT -6
Good point. I remember an ABX test regarding DA-AD conversion. Everybody was convinced to hear more depth and dimension when they knew the brand names of the converters. The same test done blind made the differences fade away. Confirmation bias. We are all happy to be confirmed. Perception distortion is another topic how our senses can be fooled I think it's a combination of many factors why things can or can't work. No, not "confirmation bias". The problem here is that the conditions of the typical ABX test are such as to confuse the listener and make him doubt and second guess his own perceptions, to the point that his uncertainty overwhelms his ability to listen critically. I believe that only the first one or two passes of an A/B or A/B/X test have any validity at all and after that it all goes down the toilet. How many times when doing a mix you've "compared" things until you don't know which way is up anymore and may even settle on a final decision such that when you come back to it after a day or so you wonder what the hell you were thinking? I'd bet that pretty much everybody here has experienced that.
I cant wipe away the psychlogical fact that in Blind AB the diffrences where gone. Thats for me confirmation bias, our brain loves to search for confirmation. I also cant wipe away that even experienced AE have fooled thier hearing perception by not doing a correct level matching. I did it many times believing A sounds better than B. Bob Katz once told me that he fooled his ears by a diffrence of fraction of a db in comparing DAs...made him believe he found the holy grail.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 14, 2019 22:23:48 GMT -6
That’s why A-up / B-up is the way to go for me. Louder is always better to the subconscious. If the quieter one still wins, you know. At least for me.
The thing is level matched doesn’t exist: add in that our ears are fletcher Munson.. hypothetical: : if A is quieter at 800hz, but louder (more dynamics) at 3khz, it will win a level matched AB.
|
|
|
Post by theshea on Sept 15, 2019 1:00:46 GMT -6
i think if there more plugins with just knobs going from minimun to maximun (or left to right) without showing values, one could contentrate more on the sound and not worry about "the right value" or "a bit more/a bit less". its always coming back to the one problem when mixing in the box: we mix to much with the eyes. and we all concentrate on "the right values" we have read so often and which are implemented in the back of our minds.
what i found helpful to me is when mixing in the box is to map the knobs of my akai mini to a comp and just turn them knobs until they sound right. closing my eyes and not looking. gets me to crazy settings most of the time but its quick and it sounds like i want it to sound.
ok and now go and listen to the music in my sig all mixed itb and tell me it sounds bad :-)
|
|