It would be really interesting if you took a handful of top engineers and did a blind listening test of pieces of analog gear and several plugin emulations from the top programers and see how many of them can consistently pick out the tracks processed with analog gear.
But is this a relevant or important comparison? Trying to emulate analog gear is one thing, but in practice you'll be spending a lot of time shaving the last couple of percents of difference between the two. Not to even include batch differences. I think it's more important for digital processing units to do things that analogue cannot do or that is impractical. Linear phase processing, easy mid-side or other routing, dynamic eq, limitless multiband compression etc. are examples. DSP has almost fully levelled the field between pro and amateur music production and I think it's great. However the gatekeeping is still running rampant and I'd prefer people still listened to results instead of telling people doing thing xyz is bad.
In my personal experience, I think that analog is definitely better, since it has somewhat specific dedicated hardware. That is, the hardware of each device is specifically designed to achieve a purpose electronically, but from the root of the electronics itself, since they work with electric currents, converted into specific effects. And digital, as they mention in this video, is just an emulation, or an imitation of that, but with electronics specifically dedicated only to creating ones and zeros, at the end of everything, those ones and zeros will try to represent a wave cynoidal that would later become analog audio, but I never believe, could achieve perfect acoustics given the replication conditions to which a digitized signal converted to analog again is subject. I don't know, it's just a point of view, and I could be wrong, but I think it's more or less close to reality.
If the resolution/sampling rate is high enough, it's impossible to distinguish if the (same) sound is coming from an analog or digital source. I guess 😮😅
"Analog has sound that's magical, i don't know why Kyle" is not a good statement. If you can't explain it that you are being bias, because either you have romantic view of gear and music in general, or you are making one and trying to sell. Also gear costs so much it's almost ridiculous in this day and age.
@@milkyway8353 I think you are misunderstanding the statement and introducing your own bias by wanting everything quantified. Knowing what analog gear does to the sound, which they definitely do understand, does not mean they know and understand why the receptors in our brains treat those sounds differently. WHY does that distortion sound more pleasing? It could be as simple as analog is the sound that we grew up listening to and we feel some nostalgia. I don't think anyone actually truly understands the way our brain processes the two different sounds.
The harmonics added by recording analogue can be measured and presented in an easy way, so that's at least an unbiased fact. Many things can add up to the experience of analogue, like saturation (also measurable), watching an analogue device playing analogue media, VU meters bouncing to their physical limits without unbearable clipping and what's more. And then there's a buttload of psychological aspects to this subject, subjective indeed...
Well said! Sometimes a bit of distortion is a good thing. So when we record with ultra-clean digital, we might want to spice it up with a bit of analog.
«There are a huge number of variables in analog circuits»: True. There are variances in each component within certain tolerances. There are effects of aging. There are effects of environment. «As long as you’re using the same components it’ll do “that thing”»: False, for the reasons above. If you’re going to tout the inconsistencies as the advantage of analog, you can’t also claim that consistency is an advantage.
Analogue does nothing better. It is noisier. It is more distorted. It loses quality rapidly over time. There are those who like to pretend it has some magical influence, but they are fooling themselves. It's just bollocks.
“Better” means something different to each person. It also changes based on the situation. I have a video series on this topic that you can watch here: ua-cam.com/play/PLASEfdY-tiDp0iEkeq80u0QgoFrteGFhU.html&si=TEuC1e5dMMOzMChz
@@AudioUniversity Fortunately audio equipment is totally amenable to measurement, so "better" does have a real, objective meaning. And digital wins every time, and not by a small margin. If you are trying to say you enjoy the various distortions that analogue introduces, then by all means say that. But FFS don't use the word "better". It is factually wrong. The English language is full of words that can convey enjoyable degradation.
@@donepearce Distortion is not always 'bad'. Some distortion is actually quite desirable. When the large majority of engineers consider that to be desirable, it can be called 'better'. One of the definitions of Better is "more attractive, favorable, or commendable". So if the 'less perfect' sound is more attractive, it is better. TLDR it is not factually wrong to use 'better'.
@@donepearce Not sure what you are trying to say. My comment was intended to correct an error, that's all. You were the one to bring up the idea that 'better' couldn't ever be used to refer to analog audio.
Great video and discussion... Lovin the channel and what you're delivering! much appreciated!
Glad you enjoy it! I appreciate your comment. Thanks for watching.
It would be really interesting if you took a handful of top engineers and did a blind listening test of pieces of analog gear and several plugin emulations from the top programers and see how many of them can consistently pick out the tracks processed with analog gear.
But is this a relevant or important comparison? Trying to emulate analog gear is one thing, but in practice you'll be spending a lot of time shaving the last couple of percents of difference between the two. Not to even include batch differences.
I think it's more important for digital processing units to do things that analogue cannot do or that is impractical. Linear phase processing, easy mid-side or other routing, dynamic eq, limitless multiband compression etc. are examples.
DSP has almost fully levelled the field between pro and amateur music production and I think it's great. However the gatekeeping is still running rampant and I'd prefer people still listened to results instead of telling people doing thing xyz is bad.
@@samuliauno8163 It's important if they want to keep saying that they use analog because it sounds better.
Maybe AI could be a game changer in terms of simulating the analog sound
Interesting discussion.
Thanks for joining, Henry!
On mobile, this video is ridiculously quiet. Might try to listen later on desktop, but its far, far too quiet for youtubes -14 target
In my personal experience, I think that analog is definitely better, since it has somewhat specific dedicated hardware. That is, the hardware of each device is specifically designed to achieve a purpose electronically, but from the root of the electronics itself, since they work with electric currents, converted into specific effects. And digital, as they mention in this video, is just an emulation, or an imitation of that, but with electronics specifically dedicated only to creating ones and zeros, at the end of everything, those ones and zeros will try to represent a wave cynoidal that would later become analog audio, but I never believe, could achieve perfect acoustics given the replication conditions to which a digitized signal converted to analog again is subject. I don't know, it's just a point of view, and I could be wrong, but I think it's more or less close to reality.
If the resolution/sampling rate is high enough, it's impossible to distinguish if the (same) sound is coming from an analog or digital source. I guess 😮😅
"Analog has sound that's magical, i don't know why Kyle" is not a good statement. If you can't explain it that you are being bias, because either you have romantic view of gear and music in general, or you are making one and trying to sell. Also gear costs so much it's almost ridiculous in this day and age.
I’d recommend watching the full video or this series: ua-cam.com/play/PLASEfdY-tiDp0iEkeq80u0QgoFrteGFhU.html&si=dAKxGAZ5xCUrHF4z
Will do, love the topics you are dealing with, thank you @@AudioUniversity
@@milkyway8353 I think you are misunderstanding the statement and introducing your own bias by wanting everything quantified. Knowing what analog gear does to the sound, which they definitely do understand, does not mean they know and understand why the receptors in our brains treat those sounds differently. WHY does that distortion sound more pleasing? It could be as simple as analog is the sound that we grew up listening to and we feel some nostalgia. I don't think anyone actually truly understands the way our brain processes the two different sounds.
The harmonics added by recording analogue can be measured and presented in an easy way, so that's at least an unbiased fact.
Many things can add up to the experience of analogue, like saturation (also measurable), watching an analogue device playing analogue media, VU meters bouncing to their physical limits without unbearable clipping and what's more. And then there's a buttload of psychological aspects to this subject, subjective indeed...
Your last sentence may be the bias 😂
Can you recommend to me about software mixer
ANALOG IS GREAT BECAUSE IT’S CLOSE TO NATURE 🎉
What people do these new age: I observed is, they clean the sound so much and end up addinh so much...
Well said! Sometimes a bit of distortion is a good thing. So when we record with ultra-clean digital, we might want to spice it up with a bit of analog.
Analog for recording - yes
For mixing - hell no
Mastering - maybe
Cheers.
Thanks for watching!
«There are a huge number of variables in analog circuits»: True. There are variances in each component within certain tolerances. There are effects of aging. There are effects of environment. «As long as you’re using the same components it’ll do “that thing”»: False, for the reasons above. If you’re going to tout the inconsistencies as the advantage of analog, you can’t also claim that consistency is an advantage.
My takeaway: audio engineers and producers are every bit as superstitious and unscientific as musicians.
Check out this series: ua-cam.com/play/PLASEfdY-tiDp0iEkeq80u0QgoFrteGFhU.html&si=dAKxGAZ5xCUrHF4z
Not a good engineer, or should I say true engineer.
Audio is weak. So ironic from an audio channel.
What's up with your audio? It's super quiet even with your audio at full volume. Is UA-cam lowering the volume of audio again?
Analogue does nothing better. It is noisier. It is more distorted. It loses quality rapidly over time. There are those who like to pretend it has some magical influence, but they are fooling themselves. It's just bollocks.
“Better” means something different to each person. It also changes based on the situation. I have a video series on this topic that you can watch here: ua-cam.com/play/PLASEfdY-tiDp0iEkeq80u0QgoFrteGFhU.html&si=TEuC1e5dMMOzMChz
@@AudioUniversity Fortunately audio equipment is totally amenable to measurement, so "better" does have a real, objective meaning. And digital wins every time, and not by a small margin. If you are trying to say you enjoy the various distortions that analogue introduces, then by all means say that. But FFS don't use the word "better". It is factually wrong. The English language is full of words that can convey enjoyable degradation.
@@donepearce Distortion is not always 'bad'. Some distortion is actually quite desirable. When the large majority of engineers consider that to be desirable, it can be called 'better'. One of the definitions of Better is "more attractive, favorable, or commendable". So if the 'less perfect' sound is more attractive, it is better.
TLDR it is not factually wrong to use 'better'.
@@matthewmason7753 good grief. They call themselves professionals.
@@donepearce Not sure what you are trying to say. My comment was intended to correct an error, that's all. You were the one to bring up the idea that 'better' couldn't ever be used to refer to analog audio.