|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Aug 9, 2024 13:24:00 GMT -6
Ok, this applies only to the less experienced engineers out there who are also usually the ones trying to figure out how to get a piece of gear to deal with this "sterile" problem.
I have a theory on this. I think that about 70% of the time what you're hearing is comb filtering which you are associating with "digital" though it would really be the same with hi-fi analog. You just don't know that because you've only tracked "digital".
The other 30% of the time it's some sort of time alignment problem from poorly planned multi-miking.
Where did I get this idea?
I say this because I learned that lesson myself just over the last three or four years as I really started to get a handle on phase coherency, time alignment, and (yes) room treatment. Once I learned what comb filtering sounded like in small doses, I realized it was what I would have previously called "digital".
And, once I started doing true zero latency monitoring of my tracking (by running monitoring before conversion) I realized that my mics sounded completely different than I thought they did. But that experience got my ear tuned into what slight time alignment issues sound like.
So for me, I'm really glad to have some of the gear I acquired when I was chasing a "more analog" sound, but I never got that sound until I just got better at mic placement and mixing.
Concrete advice if you're chasing a "analog warmth"
- Start by monitoring your signal direct. Talk into your microphone at close range. I betcha it suddenly sounds warmer and fuller. But that's just signal direct, no magic. That's not analog mojo, that's just a nice coherent signal. Now you know what it should sound like.
- Now that you know what it sounds like when the signal is clean, you can start listening for what in your room is messing that up when you're at full volume. And if talking quietly and close into a direct monitored microphone doesn't sound clear and full, your room has serious issues and you're probably not even on this forum.
I think a lot of you guys with "real" studios on here don't realize how much latency messes up the monitoring sound of the average home recordist. They don't even know what their gear sounds like because they don't hear the real signal until much later in the process by which time they've already tried to "fix it" when it was monitoring all along that made it sound wrong.
This is why you always hear sound samples of people trying to fix something and it's like "huh? What's wrong with this?" They had a bias because it sounded bad when they tracked it, though it was captured fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by doubledog on Aug 9, 2024 13:41:11 GMT -6
I'd say that is one piece of it, but also.... low cost converters, low cost mics (with weird resonances), untreated rooms (more weird resonances - especially that square bedroom), judicious application of a plugin without really understanding it or knowing how/why to use it -- or better yet stacking 17 plugins on one track (trying to "fix" whatever they fucked up with the first 2), and then finally smashing the living hell out of it with L2.
( I may have still left some room for Dan)
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 9, 2024 13:51:05 GMT -6
Ok, this applies only to the less experienced engineers out there who are also usually the ones trying to figure out how to get a piece of gear to deal with this "sterile" problem. I have a theory on this. I think that about 70% of the time what you're hearing is comb filtering which you are associating with "digital" though it would really be the same with hi-fi analog. You just don't know that because you've only tracked "digital". The other 30% of the time it's some sort of time alignment problem from poorly planned multi-miking. Where did I get this idea?
I say this because I learned that lesson myself just over the last three or four years as I really started to get a handle on phase coherency, time alignment, and (yes) room treatment. Once I learned what comb filtering sounded like in small doses, I realized it was what I would have previously called "digital". And, once I started doing true zero latency monitoring of my tracking (by running monitoring before conversion) I realized that my mics sounded completely different than I thought they did. But that experience got my ear tuned into what slight time alignment issues sound like. So for me, I'm really glad to have some of the gear I acquired when I was chasing a "more analog" sound, but I never got that sound until I just got better at mic placement and mixing. Concrete advice if you're chasing a "analog warmth"- Start by monitoring your signal direct. Talk into your microphone at close range. I betcha it suddenly sounds warmer and fuller. But that's just signal direct, no magic. That's not analog mojo, that's just a nice coherent signal. Now you know what it should sound like. - Now that you know what it sounds like when the signal is clean, you can start listening for what in your room is messing that up when you're at full volume. And if talking quietly and close into a direct monitored microphone doesn't sound clear and full, your room has serious issues and you're probably not even on this forum. I think a lot of you guys with "real" studios on here don't realize how much latency messes up the monitoring sound of the average home recordist. They don't even know what their gear sounds like because they don't hear the real signal until much later in the process by which time they've already tried to "fix it" when it was monitoring all along that made it sound wrong. This is why you always hear sound samples of people trying to fix something and it's like "huh? What's wrong with this?" They had a bias because it sounded bad when they tracked it, though it was captured fine. I think it's the opposite really. What analog people are hearing is the culmination of a lot of small inherent distortions/phase/noise issues from analog circuits which aren't present in "digital" workflows. My thought process: Back when consoles and tape machines were the go-to, you had THOUSANDS of opamps, caps, transistors, transformers, etc that the audio went through across dozens or more of channels with vastly unequal length conductors (cables, traces, inside and outside the gear) which ALL conspired to add noise/distortion/phase issues from soup to nuts. Digital took ALL of that away. It's much, much more pure, but it's also removed a ton of the euphonic nature of distortions that people tend to like. So digital was never "sterile" in the sense that it removed something from the source material. It simply sidestepped all the other additional sonic additions that we've learned to recognize as "normal" in the audio. |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Aug 9, 2024 13:52:07 GMT -6
I'd say that is one piece of it, but also.... low cost converters, low cost mics (with weird resonances), untreated rooms (more weird resonances - especially that square bedroom), judicious application of a plugin without really understanding it or knowing how/why to use it -- or better yet stacking 17 plugins on one track (trying to "fix" whatever they fucked up with the first 2), and then finally smashing the living hell out of it with L2. ( I may have still left some room for Dan) Maybe... but I don't think the converters are the problem. I don't think the average home recordist can hear the difference in converters but they DO hear something. And when I'm helping friends of mine set up spaces for demos and stuff what they are usually actually hearing is comb filtering or just micro-latency on their tracking headhpones. So I'm with you on untreated rooms and I'm KIND of with you on low cost mics. But even then I think it's mostly that the mics are picking up so much high end that it's comb filtering the crap out of the signal and, hence, "digital". I bet if you did a demonstration of comb filtering for the average novice recordist they would say "wait, that's what 'digital' sounds like." And I KNOW (cuz I've done it) that when you show people how to properly do direct monitoring they almost always go "holy crap, my mic sounds amazing now." |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Aug 9, 2024 13:56:01 GMT -6
Ok, this applies only to the less experienced engineers out there who are also usually the ones trying to figure out how to get a piece of gear to deal with this "sterile" problem. I have a theory on this. I think that about 70% of the time what you're hearing is comb filtering which you are associating with "digital" though it would really be the same with hi-fi analog. You just don't know that because you've only tracked "digital". The other 30% of the time it's some sort of time alignment problem from poorly planned multi-miking. Where did I get this idea?
I say this because I learned that lesson myself just over the last three or four years as I really started to get a handle on phase coherency, time alignment, and (yes) room treatment. Once I learned what comb filtering sounded like in small doses, I realized it was what I would have previously called "digital". And, once I started doing true zero latency monitoring of my tracking (by running monitoring before conversion) I realized that my mics sounded completely different than I thought they did. But that experience got my ear tuned into what slight time alignment issues sound like. So for me, I'm really glad to have some of the gear I acquired when I was chasing a "more analog" sound, but I never got that sound until I just got better at mic placement and mixing. Concrete advice if you're chasing a "analog warmth"- Start by monitoring your signal direct. Talk into your microphone at close range. I betcha it suddenly sounds warmer and fuller. But that's just signal direct, no magic. That's not analog mojo, that's just a nice coherent signal. Now you know what it should sound like. - Now that you know what it sounds like when the signal is clean, you can start listening for what in your room is messing that up when you're at full volume. And if talking quietly and close into a direct monitored microphone doesn't sound clear and full, your room has serious issues and you're probably not even on this forum. I think a lot of you guys with "real" studios on here don't realize how much latency messes up the monitoring sound of the average home recordist. They don't even know what their gear sounds like because they don't hear the real signal until much later in the process by which time they've already tried to "fix it" when it was monitoring all along that made it sound wrong. This is why you always hear sound samples of people trying to fix something and it's like "huh? What's wrong with this?" They had a bias because it sounded bad when they tracked it, though it was captured fine. I think it's the opposite really. What analog people are hearing is the culmination of a lot of small inherent distortions/phase/noise issues from analog circuits which aren't present in "digital" workflows. My thought process: Back when consoles and tape machines were the go-to, you had THOUSANDS of opamps, caps, transistors, transformers, etc that the audio went through across dozens or more of channels with vastly unequal length conductors (cables, traces, inside and outside the gear) which ALL conspired to add noise/distortion/phase issues from soup to nuts. Digital took ALL of that away. It's much, much more pure, but it's also removed a ton of the euphonic nature of distortions that people tend to like. So digital was never "sterile" in the sense that it removed something from the source material. It simply sidestepped all the other additional sonic additions that we've learned to recognize as "normal" in the audio. That's all true svart, but for the typical songwriter setting up to track their own stuff or a podcaster or something... they are miles away from that type of detail. They really are hearing a "digital" sound and what they are calling "digital" is comb filtering and time alignment issues. They're not hearing something missing. They're not hearing a lack of the subtle flavoring and distortion that we all love from great analog gear, they're hearing the harshness of comb filtering and the weirdness of bad time alignment and out of multi mic setups. So you're not wrong at all on the nuances of what makes analog smoother, etc... it's just that what the true newbie is experiencing is something much more basic and MUCH more solvable. |
|
|
|
Post by doubledog on Aug 9, 2024 13:57:49 GMT -6
yes, agree for sure that many new recordists don't know how to monitor properly so they are hearing comb filtering because they hear the direct signal and the round-trip through the computer mixed together and it sounds "digital" (even if digital really has no sound...).
but I think beyond this, there are a lot of people out there that still say digital is harsh and they are listening to finished mixes (even professional mix/masters). Of course some of them are, but not all, and if you remove streaming platforms (including or maybe especially.. YouTube) they are not always as bad as you think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 9, 2024 14:00:05 GMT -6
Ok, this applies only to the less experienced engineers out there who are also usually the ones trying to figure out how to get a piece of gear to deal with this "sterile" problem. I have a theory on this. I think that about 70% of the time what you're hearing is comb filtering which you are associating with "digital" though it would really be the same with hi-fi analog. You just don't know that because you've only tracked "digital". The other 30% of the time it's some sort of time alignment problem from poorly planned multi-miking. Where did I get this idea?
I say this because I learned that lesson myself just over the last three or four years as I really started to get a handle on phase coherency, time alignment, and (yes) room treatment. Once I learned what comb filtering sounded like in small doses, I realized it was what I would have previously called "digital". And, once I started doing true zero latency monitoring of my tracking (by running monitoring before conversion) I realized that my mics sounded completely different than I thought they did. But that experience got my ear tuned into what slight time alignment issues sound like. So for me, I'm really glad to have some of the gear I acquired when I was chasing a "more analog" sound, but I never got that sound until I just got better at mic placement and mixing. Concrete advice if you're chasing a "analog warmth"- Start by monitoring your signal direct. Talk into your microphone at close range. I betcha it suddenly sounds warmer and fuller. But that's just signal direct, no magic. That's not analog mojo, that's just a nice coherent signal. Now you know what it should sound like. - Now that you know what it sounds like when the signal is clean, you can start listening for what in your room is messing that up when you're at full volume. And if talking quietly and close into a direct monitored microphone doesn't sound clear and full, your room has serious issues and you're probably not even on this forum. I think a lot of you guys with "real" studios on here don't realize how much latency messes up the monitoring sound of the average home recordist. They don't even know what their gear sounds like because they don't hear the real signal until much later in the process by which time they've already tried to "fix it" when it was monitoring all along that made it sound wrong. This is why you always hear sound samples of people trying to fix something and it's like "huh? What's wrong with this?" They had a bias because it sounded bad when they tracked it, though it was captured fine. Yes! A lot of harsh tones seem to be because of resonances, phase and aliasing...The Deres thingy has been great. You obviously can go too far with it, but it reminds me to check resonances... |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Aug 9, 2024 14:03:52 GMT -6
yes, agree for sure that many new recordists don't know how to monitor properly so they are hearing comb filtering because they hear the direct signal and the round-trip through the computer mixed together and it sounds "digital" (even if digital really has no sound...). but I think beyond this, there are a lot of people out there that still say digital is harsh and they are listening to finished mixes (even professional mix/masters). Of course some of them are, but not all, and if you remove streaming platforms (including or maybe especially.. YouTube) they are not always as bad as you think. 100%. Which is why I added the caveat at the top that this applies only to less experienced engineers. There are obviously real differences between analog gear and digital domain, but that's not what new recordists are hearing. Anyway, that's my hot take! |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 9, 2024 14:13:34 GMT -6
I am always confused when the latency question comes up, since there are plenty of ways around it.
25 years ago there was a guy waxing about the problems of digital who pointed out you could make digital recordings of LP's and no one knew the difference, it sounded totally analog and lacked the perceived 'problems' of digital. It's just a medium.
The 16 and 20 bit 'record hot' era caused more problems than digital itself - everyone was in analog red at all times chasing that false prophet. I only heard grainy digital artifacts on one ADAT record that came in to mix because the tracking amateur was so afraid of digital overs they left the levels down below -40dBFS.
I leave the studio full of tube gear and nice mics for the live radio show job, and use lower grade mics through A&H and Yamaha digital consoles. The room and the talent of the players is always the obvious part, and I might gripe about artists wanting floor wedges too loud, upping the bleed levels. The rare times there's ever a remix done I never find myself complaining about the 'digital'.
|
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Aug 9, 2024 14:22:58 GMT -6
I am always confused when the latency question comes up, since there are plenty of ways around it. Most entry level interfaces even have direct record knobs. So yeah, it's a bit weird. But your average beginner has no idea what that is or how to use it (or why). |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 9, 2024 14:52:42 GMT -6
Tracking and acoustic issues aside, isn’t latency relative to everything already tracked? If all the tracks have the same latency it’s just a simple delay before it starts, if you’re monitoring vox or any instrument that has latency and u r hearing the same sound live and recorded at the same time, that sucks for time critical and drummers especially. That said, the digital sound to me is less about tracking, phase and acoustic problems and more about homogeneity, everyone x 1,000,0000,000 has the same exact daws and plugins that sound exactly the same as the other, analog gear has value variances on top of variances in 100’s of parts, no 2 analog channel strips side by side sound identical, ask any old school engineer and they’ll tell you they “use __ channel for vox”, because it sounds the best, analog has personality as varied as humans, digital certainly does not so you better capture a unique front end, jmo of course
|
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Aug 9, 2024 15:00:46 GMT -6
Tracking and acoustic issues aside, isn’t latency relative to everything already tracked? If all the tracks have the same latency it’s just a simple delay before it starts, if you’re monitoring vox or any instrument that has latency and u r hearing the same sound live and recorded at the same time, that sucks for time critical and drummers especially. That said, the digital sound to me is less about tracking, phase and acoustic problems and more about homogeneity, everyone x 1,000,0000,000 has the same exact daws and plugins that sound exactly the same as the other, analog gear has value variances on top of variances in 100’s of parts, no 2 analog channel strips side by side sound identical, ask any old school engineer and they’ll tell you they “use __ channel for vox”, because it sounds the best, analog has personality as varied as humans, digital certainly does not so you better capture a unique front end, jmo of course That's a really interesting point that I've been thinking about as well, everyone is using the same stuff. But on the first point, the issue is that you have folks that are hearing the, say, 20ms between what they hear in their head and bleeding through their headphones and what they get back from their headphones. They then interpret this as a problem with the fidelity of their recording and by the time they get to playback they're already biased about the tone they captured because of the way it sounded while they were capturing it. Then you add into that that they most likely have some really nasty comb filtering coming off of at least one if not more surfaces and then on top of THAT that they read somewhere that they should use two mics on their acoustic guitar and that at least one of those should be a SDC capturing every transient detail (about 30% of which is reflected sound off of a desk/window/floor/ceiling/wall) and you have a recipe for... "It sounds digital!" So really my insight here is that comb filtering, phase incoherency, and poor time alignment all sound like what amateur recordists thinks is "digital". And it's probably because what they think of as "digital" is a crappy home recording. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 9, 2024 16:36:08 GMT -6
Back in the day we used to call truncation errors, aliasing and other freaky digital hash “space monkeys”, good name for a band if you’re DDD
|
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Aug 9, 2024 17:07:51 GMT -6
The lower cost of digital recording tech has lowered the entry point so that basically anyone can play.
Todays $500 interface probably has better quality converters than the highest quality pro digital recorder did 30 years ago.
Today you can get decent converters for $100 per channel.
Back then it was maybe $10,000 per channel.
So the cost very much both determined and raised the bar to entry.
Which also meant some kid in his basement could never afford the state of the art digital multrack recorders that were the order of the day back then in professional studio facilities.
But neither could he afford the microphones or the properly designed studios and control rooms that came with it.
IMO it’s not the digital versus analog thing that makes the biggest difference, it’s everything else.
If you could afford half a million dollars for a digital multitrack recorder it’s highly unlikely you were recording in a terrible acoustic space with cheap Chinese condenser microphones.
Today with a $1500 digital recording setup it’s more likely that most are recording in less the ideal spaces with less than ideal microphones and signal chains and don’t have the kind of training someone operating a half million dollar recorder would have most definitely had.
If Formula 1 race cars cost $10,000 instead of $10,000,000 every second person would own one but it doesn’t mean that they could drive well enough to be world champion let alone make it out of their own driveway without crashing into the mailbox.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Aug 9, 2024 17:18:30 GMT -6
If Formula 1 race cars cost $10,000 instead of $10,000,000 every second person would own one but it doesn’t mean that they could drive well enough to be world champion let alone make it out of their own driveway without crashing into the mailbox. I get your point, but I think for ME, it's a bit of a tangent. Using your example - if you got Lewis Hamilton to drive a consumer $10,000 F1 car and a $10,000,000 F1 race car - could HE tell the difference between the two. I think the answer is an obvious and unequivocable yes. And that's where we are today. Those with discerning ears can tell the difference, and to some of us, the difference is enough to abandon ITB for a Hybrid or Analog workflow. |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Aug 9, 2024 18:02:20 GMT -6
If Formula 1 race cars cost $10,000 instead of $10,000,000 every second person would own one but it doesn’t mean that they could drive well enough to be world champion let alone make it out of their own driveway without crashing into the mailbox. I get your point, but I think for ME, it's a bit of a tangent. Using your example - if you got Lewis Hamilton to drive a consumer $10,000 F1 car and a $10,000,000 F1 race car - could HE tell the difference between the two. I think the answer is an obvious and unequivocable yes. And that's where we are today. Those with discerning ears can tell the difference, and to some of us, the difference is enough to abandon ITB for a Hybrid or Analog workflow. For sure. I'm all hybrid as well. But if you take the average straight up novice self-recorder they aren't actually chasing gear. They're chasing a clean take they just think that's "analog". |
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Aug 9, 2024 18:18:07 GMT -6
If Formula 1 race cars cost $10,000 instead of $10,000,000 every second person would own one but it doesn’t mean that they could drive well enough to be world champion let alone make it out of their own driveway without crashing into the mailbox. I get your point, but I think for ME, it's a bit of a tangent. Using your example - if you got Lewis Hamilton to drive a consumer $10,000 F1 car and a $10,000,000 F1 race car - could HE tell the difference between the two. I think the answer is an obvious and unequivocable yes. And that's where we are today. Those with discerning ears can tell the difference, and to some of us, the difference is enough to abandon ITB for a Hybrid or Analog workflow. I agree there’s always that last elusive 5% of ‘special sauce’ that some will strive to find as you have. If the return on that investment can be realised then sure especially if that’s something you can have your clients understand and appreciate. We ran a hybrid setup with a console and outboard and I if had to describe our sound I would have called it ‘1972’. But we also used Coles 4038’s, KM84’s, Pultecs and a genuine EMT140 plate amongst the other usual stuff. For me it was hearing a Coles, or a KM84 or Pultec style EQ or an EMT140 for the first time that was the realisation that THAT was the sound I had been hearing on those records from 50 years or more ago much less the recording medium itself. A definite issue with ITB is not to commit to ‘tone’ when tracking and recording vanilla tones and then using too many chained plugins trying to give the track some kind of analog mojo. In the early days of the studio we tracked an artist and I played it ‘safe’ by not committing to sounds when I was tracking because I was planning on ‘going to town’ with the console and a bunch of outboard gear during the mixdown. Then after tracking the client changed his mind due to finances and mixed the entire album himself at home ITB on his MacBook. Needless to say it sounded bland, thin and sterile. I still keep in regular touch with our mastering engineer and his biggest gripes with the files he receives from clients are due to sibilance and small, poorly treated rooms, and poor dynamic control when tracking not whether it was recorded or mixed digitally. He regularly describes material he receives as being harsh but due to mics, rooms and technique. And that’s be going on for years but especially since COVID. |
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Aug 9, 2024 19:07:36 GMT -6
And while you’re at it consider the overuse of click tracks, quantisation, samples, pitch correction, denoising, no room tone/spill etc etc. can all contribute to that ‘perfect’ sterile digital sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Aug 9, 2024 20:10:33 GMT -6
I think the most common problems with digital are crappy analog stages and a build up of truncation distortion.
|
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Aug 9, 2024 20:17:54 GMT -6
Digital is not sterile. Shitty recording technique is just shitty.
I believe early digital was 'harsh' because engineers who'd trained on analog were applying analog tools and techniques to the then-new medium, for example, cutting 'to tape' with deliberate HF boosts that they'd learned would be softened (or even deteriorated over time) by an analog medium. Those techniques simply do not work in a digital capture.
The other issue was inferior conversion.
One of those problems (the latter, in case anyone is unclear) ceases to exist in the modern era. The issue of poor or incorrect technique persists, though it's less a function of well-trained engineers applying analog techniques incorrectly, and more a simple function of home recordists having no clue what they are doing. Their recordings would still suck if they working on a Studer 2", because the capture format is not the issue.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,083 
|
Post by ericn on Aug 9, 2024 20:27:01 GMT -6
The main problem is and has been is we are always trying to view digital as we do analog. Everybody wants digital to be a quieter version of analog it’s not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Aug 9, 2024 23:03:28 GMT -6
Put on Molot or Vulf. They’re the last things from sterile. Vintage Warmer is legendary and isn’t worse than driving analog gear into crunch territory.
|
|
|
|
Post by jacobamerritt on Aug 9, 2024 23:14:25 GMT -6
Curious how many top notch recordists under 30 even think or care about this sort of thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Aug 9, 2024 23:25:53 GMT -6
And as I said before, you can easily set the Oxford Limiter to be an SSL bus compressor type thing that is more aggressive than anything barring the Smart C2’s crush button.
The Weiss gear and plugs are digital, clean, and far from sterile.
Eqs? Some of the Slick EQ GE’s modes, ie Funky, Seven, and Excited, are ridiculous sounding. The Slick EQ M is fabulous. I love the PSP Vintage Warmer EQ and the PSP RetroQ originally in the SQuad 4 pack modeled from the Vintage Warmer one has much better shelves than the Pultec and Neve ones. The Goodhertz tilt shift is like a better Tonelux and the Tone Control is so smooth.
All of the Sascha Eversmeier plugs are classic: blockfish, spitfish, thd, ammunition, vandal, satin, presswerk, colour copy, etc
MJUC and the other Klanghelm plugins are classics. These are often many peoples first plugins.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Aug 10, 2024 0:40:14 GMT -6
It’s not just sterile for me.
Plug-ins are flat and 2 dimensional compared to my hardware.
In cinematic terms they lack “depth of field”.
I’ve got a very decent monitoring system in a great sounding room.
And secondly, I hate spending my hard earned money!
I have sat for many an hour directly comparing my Thermionic Phoenix MP, Thermionic Swift EQ, RMS VCA comp, STA Level, LA-2A etc etc to plugin equivalents and the software is fundamentally lacking in dimensionality, depth of field, vibe, added energy and sonic weight IMHO.
I cannot reproduce the same sonic landscape with plug-ins (no matter the combination I use) as that which I can achieve with my hardware.
I’d love plug-ins to be able to achieve the same as then I could sell my hardware and have a nice heap of cash in my bank account.
This stuff is highly subjective.
For one engineer, there’s no difference and software can easily equal if not better hardware, for other engineer/ producers like myself it has to be hardware, as much as is affordable.
All approaches are valid and should be respected by the community.
There’s no right or wrong here, simply personal preference.
|
|
