ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,107 
|
Post by ericn on Sept 15, 2022 15:22:20 GMT -6
Here is the biggest problem, for some stupid reason we expect digital to do a great job of emulating analog, something at best it does a fairly good job. If only we would quit buying the latest emulation of an 1176 so the talented developers out there could put some real effort into developing tools that show us what digital can really do. The problem is there is more money in yet another Neve emulation rather than a developing a pinpoint EQ with zero phase shift
Think about this for a second we saw one generation of hardware convolution Reverbs from Sony and Yamaha. They weren’t bad but they couldn’t compete with 9th or 10th generation algorithmic based boxes, no more development, but man they sure kicked the ass of 1st generation algorithmic boxes. Now think where we migh have gotten in 20 years of development, yeah this is digital to digital comparison but the same thing applies we have to let the developers grow at what a technology can do rather than expect it to be like the old technology l.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Sept 15, 2022 16:10:44 GMT -6
I'm not so quick to be totally sold on the hardware camp. Yes, if we're talking stereo then there's some magic in hardware. Yes, if we're talking real tubes and real transformers and point to point hand wiring - hardware hands down. Yes, to mix processing stereo hardware compressors and EQ's - my go to is hardware. But here's the thing. I very carefully ABX double blind tested a single mono snare track being EQ's by the Sonnox EQ plugin and then sending the snare out to a Millennia STT-1 channel strip and using the STT-1 EQ in solid state mode (this is a very expensive hardware channel strip) and I and others found it impossible to tell which was which - we were ultimately just guessing. So hardware yes, in important places (like the mix bus) but there are other areas I'm very comfortable with plugins. I don't think anyone here is saying ANY piece of random, mediocre hardware beats ANY plugin. Personally, I choose my hardware to be exemplary, and in doing so, for me, the hardware easily beats out the plugins the vast majority of the time. Plugins are more difficult to chose IME. Often I will buy based on hype, demo files, etc. - only to find out I never end up using it. It happens on hardware too, but much less often. If I'm going for hardware, I'm using looking for a "sound" - not something uber transparent. Digital does that very well. Your Millennia example is telling for me. I hear the Millennia stuff as uber transparent. Not what I reach for when I want "vibey". Digital does that very well at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 15, 2022 17:00:15 GMT -6
I listened to a few demos of gear lately. Some that really impacted me were 1)Demo of running a mix through Elysia Skulptor mic pres and other gear and 2) Heider demo with Colt Capperune. Downloadable files of Heider recordings. I am hearing things my plugins don't do. This is something that I’ve also had to learn the hard way. Aside from speed. What a good chain does for a $99 dynamic mic, …wow! If those circuits were somehow crammed inside the mic, and the mic cost $3k, nobody would question it. People would say just get that mic, go direct and work ITB, be happy. Something the SM7 pro’s forget to mention: I just run it through the same $$$$ chain I do for everything else.. |
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Sept 15, 2022 20:22:17 GMT -6
I resisted being ITB for a long time, but when I went for it, I found a lot of ways to enjoy the process. I also feel that I mix like I mix, but maybe I'm deluding myself, and I should do a mix on the console and see how I think then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bat Lanyard on Sept 15, 2022 20:32:15 GMT -6
I have a hybrid setup. Just works for me. I use plugs where I need them ITB before sound goes out through gear. Just do what works for you. I tried ITB when I started trying to record because it was fairly cheap and quickly found nothing sounds like a record. That was my lack of experience and naivety on recording. Nothing more, nothing less. I had made a lot of records by then as a musician for more than 20 years. I feel like with the hybrid combo meal, I'm there. I only record and mix our stuff so my "other side of the glass" experience is limited, but the songs we do sound good to us and hold up against references. Hardware is what got us there. I think it's also relative to the rock/keyboard type genre though. If I were trying for what's on the radio now (that I never, ever listen to fwiw), no problem ITB. It's mostly gimmicky fucked-with shit to me. Back up ten years to what was going on in pop though and I'm totally in. And most of what I like from then was done with some hardware. If I'm going for England Dan and John Ford Coley or Ambrosia or some warm, super gelled type thing though... please. Educate me and do THAT sound ITB. Isn't going to happen no matter how many plugs are strapped on. End rant, lol. I feel like I had a drbill moment! |
|
|
|
Post by RealNoob on Sept 15, 2022 21:07:03 GMT -6
I'm not so quick to be totally sold on the hardware camp. Yes, if we're talking stereo then there's some magic in hardware. Yes, if we're talking real tubes and real transformers and point to point hand wiring - hardware hands down. Yes, to mix processing stereo hardware compressors and EQ's - my go to is hardware. But here's the thing. I very carefully ABX double blind tested a single mono snare track being EQ's by the Sonnox EQ plugin and then sending the snare out to a Millennia STT-1 channel strip and using the STT-1 EQ in solid state mode (this is a very expensive hardware channel strip) and I and others found it impossible to tell which was which - we were ultimately just guessing. So hardware yes, in important places (like the mix bus) but there are other areas I'm very comfortable with plugins. Yes of course - well said. That’s what I meant but did not say at all. Thanks for making it clear. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Sept 15, 2022 21:17:27 GMT -6
I have a hybrid setup. Just works for me. I use plugs where I need them ITB before sound goes out through gear. Just do what works for you. I tried ITB when I started trying to record because it was fairly cheap and quickly found nothing sounds like a record. That was my lack of experience and naivety on recording. Nothing more, nothing less. I had made a lot of records by then as a musician for more than 20 years. I feel like with the hybrid combo meal, I'm there. I only record and mix our stuff so my "other side of the glass" experience is limited, but the songs we do sound good to us and hold up against references. Hardware is what got us there. I think it's also relative to the rock/keyboard type genre though. If I were trying for what's on the radio now (that I never, ever listen to fwiw), no problem ITB. It's mostly gimmicky fucked-with shit to me. Back up ten years to what was going on in pop though and I'm totally in. And most of what I like from then was done with some hardware. If I'm going for England Dan and John Ford Coley or Ambrosia or some warm, super gelled type thing though... please. Educate me and do THAT sound ITB. Isn't going to happen no matter how many plugs are strapped on. End rant, lol. I feel like I had a drbill moment! Passion is GOOD! Takes passion to make great music. Carry on.....  |
|
|
|
Post by tkaitkai on Sept 15, 2022 21:23:39 GMT -6
Good hardware usually sounds like music right off the bat.
Digital takes a little bit more finesse, but it can sound awesome if you take the time to dial it in. Not identical to analog, but just as worthy in its own right.
I think what messes a lot of people up is the pursuit of trying to make ITB productions sound exactly like analog. That’s for sure not going to happen, because it’s, well, not analog.
IMO, the best results come when you embrace digital for what it is and just do whatever you have to do to make shit sound good. If that means I have a matching EQ set to 75% on the stereo bus instead of the Pultec-emu-du-jour, so be it. A flashy, hardware-esque GUI isn’t going to make my mixes sound better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bat Lanyard on Sept 15, 2022 21:23:47 GMT -6
I have a hybrid setup. Just works for me. I use plugs where I need them ITB before sound goes out through gear. Just do what works for you. I tried ITB when I started trying to record because it was fairly cheap and quickly found nothing sounds like a record. That was my lack of experience and naivety on recording. Nothing more, nothing less. I had made a lot of records by then as a musician for more than 20 years. I feel like with the hybrid combo meal, I'm there. I only record and mix our stuff so my "other side of the glass" experience is limited, but the songs we do sound good to us and hold up against references. Hardware is what got us there. I think it's also relative to the rock/keyboard type genre though. If I were trying for what's on the radio now (that I never, ever listen to fwiw), no problem ITB. It's mostly gimmicky fucked-with shit to me. Back up ten years to what was going on in pop though and I'm totally in. And most of what I like from then was done with some hardware. If I'm going for England Dan and John Ford Coley or Ambrosia or some warm, super gelled type thing though... please. Educate me and do THAT sound ITB. Isn't going to happen no matter how many plugs are strapped on. End rant, lol. I feel like I had a drbill moment! Passion is GOOD! Takes passion to make great music. Carry on..... 100% |
|
|
|
Post by Bat Lanyard on Sept 15, 2022 21:32:06 GMT -6
Good hardware usually sounds like music right off the bat. Digital takes a little bit more finesse, but it can sound awesome if you take the time to dial it in. Not identical to analog, but just as worthy in its own right. I think what messes a lot of people up is the pursuit of trying to make ITB productions sound exactly like analog. That’s for sure not going to happen, because it’s, well, not analog. IMO, the best results come when you embrace digital for what it is and just do whatever you have to do to make shit sound good. If that means I have a matching EQ set to 75% on the stereo bus instead of the Pultec-emu-du-jour, so be it. A flashy, hardware-esque GUI isn’t going to make my mixes sound better. Digital has its place, no doubt. Agree with embracing it and making shit sound good. If you have those skills. All I'm saying in relation to the thread is that I can't make digital sound good. |
|
|
|
Post by tkaitkai on Sept 15, 2022 22:01:18 GMT -6
Good hardware usually sounds like music right off the bat. Digital takes a little bit more finesse, but it can sound awesome if you take the time to dial it in. Not identical to analog, but just as worthy in its own right. I think what messes a lot of people up is the pursuit of trying to make ITB productions sound exactly like analog. That’s for sure not going to happen, because it’s, well, not analog. IMO, the best results come when you embrace digital for what it is and just do whatever you have to do to make shit sound good. If that means I have a matching EQ set to 75% on the stereo bus instead of the Pultec-emu-du-jour, so be it. A flashy, hardware-esque GUI isn’t going to make my mixes sound better. Digital has its place, no doubt. Agree with embracing it and making shit sound good. If you have those skills. All I'm saying in relation to the thread is that I can't make digital sound good. I totally get that, and I’m definitely very biased in the direction of hardware = better. Way easier and more satisfying to just grab a knob and turn it until it sounds right. But my hardware is limited (pretty much just a few high end pieces for tracking), so I’ve had to find ways to make ITB work. For me, my productions took a pretty big leap forward when I stopped trying to build a virtual console in my DAW. Instead, it’s like… what does this track need? More brightness? Okay, let’s try Sie-Q or Tonelux Tilt. Too harsh now? A little bx_refinement or Unharsh should do the trick. Less low end? Sonimus Britson or Satson for a really quick HPF. More compression? Let’s try FirComp. None of that working? Maybe it’ll be cool to totally mess it up with a bitcrusher or FF Saturn, or maybe it’s time to grab a matching EQ and find a song in a similar genre and do some cheating.  Where digital really shines, IMO, is with tools like impulse responses, modulation, distortion, matching EQs, and spectral processors like DSEQ, soothe, etc. I feel like people are too reluctant to embrace this stuff, when in reality, they’re super powerful tools in the right hands. |
|
|
|
Post by Bat Lanyard on Sept 15, 2022 22:18:33 GMT -6
Digital has its place, no doubt. Agree with embracing it and making shit sound good. If you have those skills. All I'm saying in relation to the thread is that I can't make digital sound good. I totally get that, and I’m definitely very biased in the direction of hardware = better. Way easier and more satisfying to just grab a knob and turn it until it sounds right. But my hardware is limited (pretty much just a few high end pieces for tracking), so I’ve had to find ways to make ITB work. For me, my productions took a pretty big leap forward when I stopped trying to build a virtual console in my DAW. Instead, it’s like… what does this track need? More brightness? Okay, let’s try Sie-Q or Tonelux Tilt. Too harsh now? A little bx_refinement or Unharsh should do the trick. Less low end? Sonimus Britson or Satson for a really quick HPF. More compression? Let’s try FirComp. None of that working? Maybe it’ll be cool to totally mess it up with a bitcrusher or FF Saturn, or maybe it’s time to grab a matching EQ and find a song in a similar genre and do some cheating. Where digital really shines, IMO, is with tools like impulse responses, modulation, distortion, matching EQs, and spectral processors like DSEQ, soothe, etc. I feel like people are too reluctant to embrace this stuff, when in reality, they’re super powerful tools in the right hands. I think where digital shines is with tempo sync with effects and modulation. Totally agree with that. Trying to arpeggiate parts out on a live keyboard takes many, many takes to get it right. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Sept 16, 2022 0:38:15 GMT -6
I used to believe this very thing. Hardware just got you more excitement quicker. The problem is that when I went back to blind A/B, I found that the "obvious" immediacy wasn't there. Knowing which one was which I could tell the difference.. If you get my drift. I’d really love to do a blind test. I’ve had the experience of thinking HW is - like Rob said “more immediate.” Or like it just melds with the sound. It’s incredibly hard to describe. I’ve mentioned the word “passive” before. Like it doesn’t do anything to eff up the sound. I’ve also reassessed opinions from blind testing. Ultimately, I’m completely in the box. Unless I had enough cash to fill out for 32 IO with a 32 channel Sumbus, I’d just rather stay ITB. Do I ultimately think something like that scenario would sound better? Yeah, deep down I do…but then I hear Serban Ghenea mixes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2022 0:50:52 GMT -6
Here is the biggest problem, for some stupid reason we expect digital to do a great job of emulating analog, something at best it does a fairly good job. If only we would quit buying the latest emulation of an 1176 so the talented developers out there could put some real effort into developing tools that show us what digital can really do. The problem is there is more money in yet another Neve emulation rather than a developing a pinpoint EQ with zero phase shift Think about this for a second we saw one generation of hardware convolution Reverbs from Sony and Yamaha. They weren’t bad but they couldn’t compete with 9th or 10th generation algorithmic based boxes, no more development, but man they sure kicked the ass of 1st generation algorithmic boxes. Now think where we migh have gotten in 20 years of development, yeah this is digital to digital comparison but the same thing applies we have to let the developers grow at what a technology can do rather than expect it to be like the old technology l. These plugin companies don't want to be Sound Radix, Tokyo Dawn, Sonnox, or U-he. Right like Waves, Audiotonix (SSL), IK, and Franciso Partners (who own Plugin Alliance and Izotope and Native Instruments) literally rip off other plugins and repackage and make stuff that sounds horrible. They're basically digital Behringer. Lindell even makes plugins now.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Sept 16, 2022 1:24:46 GMT -6
I'm not so quick to be totally sold on the hardware camp. Yes, if we're talking stereo then there's some magic in hardware. Yes, if we're talking real tubes and real transformers and point to point hand wiring - hardware hands down. Yes, to mix processing stereo hardware compressors and EQ's - my go to is hardware. But here's the thing. I very carefully ABX double blind tested a single mono snare track being EQ's by the Sonnox EQ plugin and then sending the snare out to a Millennia STT-1 channel strip and using the STT-1 EQ in solid state mode (this is a very expensive hardware channel strip) and I and others found it impossible to tell which was which - we were ultimately just guessing. So hardware yes, in important places (like the mix bus) but there are other areas I'm very comfortable with plugins. I don't think anyone here is saying ANY piece of random, mediocre hardware beats ANY plugin. Personally, I choose my hardware to be exemplary, and in doing so, for me, the hardware easily beats out the plugins the vast majority of the time. Plugins are more difficult to chose IME. Often I will buy based on hype, demo files, etc. - only to find out I never end up using it. It happens on hardware too, but much less often. If I'm going for hardware, I'm using looking for a "sound" - not something uber transparent. Digital does that very well. Your Millennia example is telling for me. I hear the Millennia stuff as uber transparent. Not what I reach for when I want "vibey". Digital does that very well at this point. We’ll I do hope you’re not calling the Millennia STT-1 mediocre! It sounded like it, I would take exception to that, it has THE best bass DI I’ve ever used and the pre-amps on it solid state and tube are exceptional at capturing acoustic instruments when you want a very stable dynamic response. The tube pre is a Fred Forrsell design you know And the EQ is very popular with Mastering engineers. I think my ABX test showed that for clean EQ digital is up there with the best hardware. The DMG Equilibrium is truly amazing imho. But, yes I do agree with you when you step outside of “clean” then hardware wins at adding hair, saturation and compression all day everyday. |
|
|
|
Post by bchurch on Sept 16, 2022 5:40:19 GMT -6
Here is the biggest problem, for some stupid reason we expect digital to do a great job of emulating analog, something at best it does a fairly good job. If only we would quit buying the latest emulation of an 1176 so the talented developers out there could put some real effort into developing tools that show us what digital can really do. The problem is there is more money in yet another Neve emulation rather than a developing a pinpoint EQ with zero phase shift This is what I don't get. We're no longer encumbered by the inherent limitations of what analog circuits can do - but 80% of plug-ins are trying to accurately model those limitations, instead of creating software that does things analog couldn't do, be it practical limitations, cost, etc. I don't need another fake patinated UI with fake VU's - give us something new. I have to give it up to Freakshow Industries for this. Their stuff may have limited use (due to them being completely off the reservation), but it's very much influenced by the digital frontier's charge of "hey, we can do whatever we want". Oh, and if you aren't aware of Freakshow Industries, boy oh boy are you in for a treat. Their marketing and products are brutal genius. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Sept 16, 2022 9:18:59 GMT -6
I don't think anyone here is saying ANY piece of random, mediocre hardware beats ANY plugin. Personally, I choose my hardware to be exemplary, and in doing so, for me, the hardware easily beats out the plugins the vast majority of the time. Plugins are more difficult to chose IME. Often I will buy based on hype, demo files, etc. - only to find out I never end up using it. It happens on hardware too, but much less often. If I'm going for hardware, I'm using looking for a "sound" - not something uber transparent. Digital does that very well. Your Millennia example is telling for me. I hear the Millennia stuff as uber transparent. Not what I reach for when I want "vibey". Digital does that very well at this point. We’ll I do hope you’re not calling the Millennia STT-1 mediocre! Not at all. It's a high quality piece, no doubt. My comment was essentially that in my experience they generally shoot toward the "transparent" side of the spectrum. And that's what digital does best IMO. I have not tried that specific piece or any of their tube oriented gear. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Sept 16, 2022 11:04:48 GMT -6
One aspect missing from this conversation is time. In my experience, I've noticed that differences not obvious when comparing gear and plug-ins can show themselves over time. Once you notice a thing, you notice it all the time, and it affects your listening experience.
I've learned that the very process of A/B style blind testing can affect your results. Bob Olhsson has spoken about this kind of testing being extremely difficult to do scientifically.
"Immediacy" can mean many things. I also think we tend to ignore how things feel, giving how they sound preference. That's natural, but how something feels is usually my first criteria. Be it a mix, a mic, a plug, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by robo on Sept 16, 2022 11:28:17 GMT -6
I agree with others that analog gear almost always has a wider sweet spot, and thus is quicker to set and move on. It keeps you in a state of flow and reacting to the music rather than the tools.
That’s much less the case if you have to get up and patch something in, which is how my studio is most of the time. I prioritize my setup for tracking, so it’s always a bit of a hassle in the mix. Due to this, I just run major elements though hardware chains in mixing (vocals, drums, bass, mix bus). This is usually after mocking something up with plugins. Hardware almost always wins.
|
|
|
|
Post by ab101 on Sept 16, 2022 12:07:15 GMT -6
I am going to try to list some plugin advantages over hardware. 1. Cost - obviously much lower cost. 2. Related to cost but also use - it can be placed on many tracks at once with even different settings. 3. Likely lower energy use. 4. Recall is usually easier as settings can be saved, and often imbedded in a project file. (Hardware with detents and/or digital aspects - like Wes Audio hardware, is starting to do this in a hybrid digital/analog situation.) 5. Sometimes easier to see and easier to use. At least for me, it is easier when I can see the eq graphs, for instance. 6. Less space taken in the room and the like. 7. Easier to upgrade - sometimes even free revisions. 8. Less repair costs. Well, there may be more advantages. The big disadvantage can be the forgiveness factor discussed above (sweet spot) as well as the beauty of analog, but in time I suspect these obstacles will be overcome. Having said all this, I am still in a hybrid situation and love hardware. But I am sort of a molecule collector. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Sept 16, 2022 13:15:37 GMT -6
I used to believe this very thing. Hardware just got you more excitement quicker. The problem is that when I went back to blind A/B, I found that the "obvious" immediacy wasn't there. Knowing which one was which I could tell the difference.. If you get my drift. I’d really love to do a blind test. I’ve had the experience of thinking HW is - like Rob said “more immediate.” Or like it just melds with the sound. It’s incredibly hard to describe. I’ve mentioned the word “passive” before. Like it doesn’t do anything to eff up the sound. I’ve also reassessed opinions from blind testing. Ultimately, I’m completely in the box. Unless I had enough cash to fill out for 32 IO with a 32 channel Sumbus, I’d just rather stay ITB. Do I ultimately think something like that scenario would sound better? Yeah, deep down I do…but then I hear Serban Ghenea mixes. It was one of those enlightening times where I'm flipping between A/B and "hearing" the difference but I hadn't been clicking the right channel selector so it was never actually changing. When I did click the right one, I closed my eyes and clicked it fast as I could for a while so I wouldn't know which was which. I couldn't really tell. They sounded different, but no more than two different units would anyway. It was really part of the impetus to go mostly ITB. I have no regerts. |
|
|
|
Post by bchurch on Sept 16, 2022 13:47:40 GMT -6
A lot of what I've got going in my racks are things that haven't been modeled well, if at all.
The Aphex / B&B CX-1 comps are my drum room secret weapon. No plug-in.
The FET GainBrain comps. One plug-in and it's only for UA systems. Also, really doesn't capture it.
The Stam SA-4000-MKII. All the E/G-comp clones are based on more recent VCA's, not the 202. No plug-in.
And so on...
I've got no issue using DSP-based stuff where it works, especially on modulation, reverb, or delay. And I particularly like Analog Obsession's modeled Neve 84 channel, SSL comp, and LA2A.
But nothing's more real than real. For mission critical duties? I hear that "final 5%".
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Sept 16, 2022 14:38:20 GMT -6
Here is the biggest problem, for some stupid reason we expect digital to do a great job of emulating analog, something at best it does a fairly good job. If only we would quit buying the latest emulation of an 1176 so the talented developers out there could put some real effort into developing tools that show us what digital can really do. The problem is there is more money in yet another Neve emulation rather than a developing a pinpoint EQ with zero phase shift This is what I don't get. We're no longer encumbered by the inherent limitations of what analog circuits can do - but 80% of plug-ins are trying to accurately model those limitations, instead of creating software that does things analog couldn't do, be it practical limitations, cost, etc. I don't need another fake patinated UI with fake VU's - give us something new. I have to give it up to Freakshow Industries for this. Their stuff may have limited use (due to them being completely off the reservation), but it's very much influenced by the digital frontier's charge of "hey, we can do whatever we want". Oh, and if you aren't aware of Freakshow Industries, boy oh boy are you in for a treat. Their marketing and products are brutal genius. Just checked out Freakshow, holy shit I love these plugins and haven’t even used them yet. They are so up my alley. I love mangling stuff, and usually reach for sound toys when trying to destroy sounds but these are going to be fun. Thanks for the tip. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 16, 2022 16:29:37 GMT -6
I'm not so quick to be totally sold on the hardware camp. Yes, if we're talking stereo then there's some magic in hardware. Yes, if we're talking real tubes and real transformers and point to point hand wiring - hardware hands down. Yes, to mix processing stereo hardware compressors and EQ's - my go to is hardware. But here's the thing. I very carefully ABX double blind tested a single mono snare track being EQ's by the Sonnox EQ plugin and then sending the snare out to a Millennia STT-1 channel strip and using the STT-1 EQ in solid state mode (this is a very expensive hardware channel strip) and I and others found it impossible to tell which was which - we were ultimately just guessing. So hardware yes, in important places (like the mix bus) but there are other areas I'm very comfortable with plugins. Sure, it's possible to set up hardware so that it sounds (as bad as) software. So what? |
|
kcatthedog
Temp
Super Helpful Dude
Posts: 16,092
Member is Online
|
Post by kcatthedog on Sept 16, 2022 16:48:22 GMT -6
Fun for me, was the tangible immediate experience/effect of reaching out snd turning a knob, pushing a button, manipulating a plug in just isn’t the same .
|
|
