Thank you so much! First thing.. I'm glad you took my original comment as positive. I didn't mean for my original skepticism to come off as aggressive. I think this is a valid line of enquiry and I am happy you think so too. Not going to lie, I was hoping for cheap plugins to match the hardware because I can afford one and not the other. I think the top sounded a bit more 3d on the hardware? Perhaps not enough of a difference to keep me up at night though. It's difficult with youtube compression. I'm guessing the additional harmonics play a role. I both stand corrected and feel slightly vindicated. Bravo x
Thanks a lot for the initial comment, I didn’t see it as aggressive, as I’m saying in the video. UA-cam compression makes this comparison, unfortunately, a lot more difficult.
@@DarkTrapStudio it's pretty damn linear. It's essentially a myth that UA-cam has a sound, according to my tests it nulls very well, certainly not audible in blind test. Yes I'd compare to 320 mp3 (most people can't even hear 240kbps mp3 double blind).
Lets face it the Empress looks WAY cooler, and will be much more fun to use and immediate. Having been ‘in the box’ for the past 10-15 years I’m going back out in a huge way. Just because I can. We live in an amazing time for music equipment. We have so much choice, can have the absolute best of both worlds, digital for cost effectiveness and convenience, analogue for a little added warmth and tactile immediacy, hybrid for infinite choices with little limitation. Why do we have to pick just one when we can have them all! I’ve ordered an Empress, already have full Fab bundle. It is amazing…. But hell moving a mouse around is so boring and soulless! Have fun folks and enjoy whatever you choose to use.
"But hell moving a mouse around is so boring and soulless!" I've seen people say that a lot and am surprised more aren't using midi controllers. I rarely touch my mouse when EQing.
@@marloband7238 i have a UF8 and IC1 and they are a big step up, but still one knob per function is so easier. (Assuming you don’t have to switch between mixes 5 times a day, or recall a mix 6 months later) of course. So i get both arguments.
I think a lot of the pro engineer / audio scene is more about aesthetics and simply ownership and wealth/success display to a large extent. I think there's a lot to be said for entering a studio full of hardware and lights and cables though than just a laptop and speakers for the creative atmosphere, the setting of the mood to enter the creative mindset. It's a lot easier to do that from a computer screen in a studio full of hardware, than a blank room with two speakers and a computer and mouse.
@@SamHocking also of you’re in the creative zone it os rather easier to be spontaneous and collaborative with real gear than a Daw. But I appreciate that’s likely a niche use case: more than one person ‘playing’ the EQs, Sat/filter boxes and compressor to see what magic happens of what beaks. Not sure if it has much to do displays of affluence. Far easier to park a Ferrari outside the studio if that’s you’re bag It is all horseshit anyway. When the Sun burns out if won’t matter what Eq was used. Nobody will hear it. 🤣🤣 But what’s really cool about audio - whether pro not - is that it does not have to be binary. Not like Mac vs PC, iPhone vs Galaxy, It does not have to be either or and tribal. There’s a harmonious middle ground where bliss and joy exists….. The Hybrid Workflow! 🤣
Its always small differences when it comes to analog vs digital. But the small fidelity differences in a 20+ tracked projects makes a big difference in the final mix.
Do you have plugin doctor, because I think you can measure your hardware with plugin doctor, then try to match the curves and the saturation of the hardware to ProQ3 and Saturn?
One big reason why they never null is analog always have THD and the THD behaviour is so complex which is kinda impossible to mimic. The analog gears I have they always have slightly different amount of THD on each frequency and different frequencies may interact with each other. When it comes to digital its always 'fixed'.
I'm wondering if the difference has less to do with overall added harmonics, and more to do with how harmonics are generated in response to transients and micro-transients. I've often noticed (and did notice with this example), that analog gear tends to not only make things feel warmer, but also more present. It has a way of bringing out sounds, even when certain things are cut. I noticed here the kick felt slightly more present, even slightly compressed. I think this could apply the feeling of "air" which is maybe quick transients in the high end getting harmonic boosts due to a quirk of analog processing? Maybe those tone generating components have a transient response that's just not getting captured by sweeping a sine wave through them and seeing how they react. There's also just so many differences in analog gear, even from unit to unit, depending on age, model, any number of factors. Even in newer models, I wonder how variable these units really are, and is that variability/randomness a factor in why they seem new and unique and special to us? Or are these component parts even so unreliable that we need to start introducing randomness at the sample level, and see where that gets us? I also often ask myself... If we started with digital, and then analog came later... Would we like digital better? I guess it's more of a philosophical question, but I do have to wonder. As we get closer and closer to truly indistinguishable plugins, does it matter? Is a song really benefitting from a full analog mix vs. a digital mix if most people are gonna listen to it on an Echo or AirPods? I know we want to do our best work, but when it comes down to it, is hardware actually necessary for that?
Very interesting video. Like the your approach how you analyse stuff, very technical, which I think we all like. I’m looking into getting my first outboard gear and some of your videos really helped me do decide. Keep going the nice work. Greetings from Germany
Even on my phone i can hear easily that hardware has something extra micro articulation which sounds bit more alive. But it doesn't mean that it is better. Probably on main elements in the mix it could make some difference but maybe with some little saturation and minimal transient enhancement it would sound indistinguishable from the hardware? Who knows?
Of course there's a difference - analog tone is the result of interactions on an atomic/quantum level while the software is a mathematical estimation of said effects.
Would love to see more videos like this! I am also really interested in the remaining differences between digital and analog. Curious - if this was a digital plugin review perhaps you would’ve investigated things going on beyond just eq and used multiple tools to try to recreate the plugin, would it not have been similarly fair to add some Saturn on the top end or something similar to try to recreate the difference you are hearing?
To me the transients sounds duller on the plug ins. Like it does indeed boost and cut the same frequenzies, but in a dead way. Hardware seems to affect the sample in a more musical way. Hard to explain, but the hardware sounds much nicer in my opinion.
Was that actually you posting on 4chan the other night? It was pretty disturbing stuff . He was talking about your father having relations with a guy from the Beatles.
I know as a fact that anything analogue can be simulated with enough calculation power. Clearly there are several variables hard to codify, morphing envelopes and different distortions at different frequencies and levels, so you can't just read the input and output signal. Insteand of trying to rationally replicate the sound, the easier solution could be useing a neural network and analyze thousands of hours and sounds creating a heuristic 4 dimensional pattern. But at the end of the day it is all about taste, people try to recreate hardware cause someone get used to it, but it doesn't mean they couldn't create something better.
Wide q 5k boosts really seem to give the openness I had been looking for. I am not sure if the 5k thing is a response of converters or digital processing, but the subtle 5k wide q boosts really seem to compensate for me, on literally everything. Give it a shot.
This is often good with digital eqs that have high frequency cramping. Boosting lower high frequencies sounds better thx to less cramping. Pro Q of course does not cramp :)
Freq curves aside, I usually hear a little bit of extra dynamic saturation from the analog units. Somerimes analog eq,s sound like if they would compress a bit, and viceversa.
I tested Hardware against Plugins, several times, from Vitalizer, Pultec, Clariphonic, to simple Transformers... Hardware wins every time... so i bought the Hardware... Hardware sound musical... Plugins... sound like a 100 times Tape copy... where something lost, during the copy process ( loss of fine structures ). I use a lot of Plugins, cause they are easy to use... but some tools i have as hardware, to polish things...
Electricity is light and it's in analog as well as inside your cpu and digital processors. So, what was the diference when we went from all tube amps and transistors? Your right, it's spiritual.
I'd say that analog equipments's electronic elements always introduce a bit of distortion that adds harmonics. Likely impossible to fully replicate in digital unless you overload the cpu/dsp.
DOubt anyone could tell A/Bing these in the blind. The only significant difference I can hear (everytime) between D & A is Panning. Panning in your DAW had less spacial definition then panning on HW. I'de love to see anyone help to explain that in a Video. Unless its just me.... ???
CROSSTALK!!! Non linearities and crosstalk is what makes hardware magical and 3D. Constant micro shifts in electromagnetic energies creates tiny amounts of phasing in the mids and sides, which causes psychoacoustic 3Dimensional effects. Also, harmonic distortions change due to crosstalk as well.
the empress sounds slower and denser, also had a lot more saturation than I anticipated. I think if you added a simple saturation with a very low mix value you would probably get very close
The entire hardware industry is built around making producers think that more money of their money spent = improved sound quality. I swear you could secretly put FL Studio Soundgoodizer running on android in a hardware box and market it as all premium and analog, slap Stimming brand on it and sell it as a hardware unit for 5000$. People would buy that shit doing comparison videos and be arguing how it's exceptional sound quality and worth the money. You know it's true. A green crayon is still a green crayon whether you want to spend 1000 dollars on one or 10 cents. In either case, the picture you draw is going to be the same. Creating good art supersedes the tools used to make it.
There is a difference in ANALOG.. i have cheap stuff but the major Thing that made my Mixes run is - stop laughing - mixing my Stereo with MONO Aux Signal. I realy love to run mono aux into my art Tube Mic Amp in warmth mode and to some 3 band EQing on it - mix it back and that makes every Track dope. Better punch depth and so on.. and to me its just the analog MIXING with mono that was a huge difference to a DAW MONO Aux Mixing - it sounds different and it feels different. The rest i use is DAW Plugins for mastering but the analog is always sounding more alive. Cannot describe it other way. Its more like the warmth distortion of the Tube or Mixer that i realy like. In special on the Kicks and highend Signals that makes it clear and sharper without beeing to "sharp" just more clearity unless overdoing it but... its all about more LISTEN to musik.. I listen more when i eq then in the DAW there its more watching what i do. That makes difference too. Thank you for your videos.
warmth -> analog components induce slight harmonic distortion... that is perceived as warmth. That part is hard to do digitally without using a plugin that emulates exactly the same hardware. And still there will be a slight difference. Better/worse.. that is in the eye of the beholder. Analog or digital is soundwise not better/worse.. just a bit different.
Regardless of which sounds better, it's not worth it to switch from digital to analog. There's just not enough difference in my opinion. The listener won't hear a difference at the end.
Difrence is transformers,,, it makes saturation in bass, and low mid.. Everything can be measured! Just use right tool, i use REW.. Plug it input output and rune sine wave.. You should see harmonics on whole spectrum and THD,, plugins dont have that well made, cause it is very complex thing to simulate. even true iron plugin dont have it as well made, as the true stuff.. Sylvia Massy use it on all inputs and output,, then it was neccesity because of dirty power and hum, great sound is just side affect, not intentional, all colapsed when went to digital,,less ground problems, no need for isolation transformers... You want to find the truth, run it with REW.. Its free
Simply put, difference is the thing that’s different, but it’s really only ‘so’ important in musical context, and clearly, if you’re trying to be different (usually the goal) then why are you waistline your time trying to copy. 😂 Use or don’t use the gear and plugins of choice, but subjectively it really doesn’t matter if you’re trying to polish a T**d.
I think what makes analog sound good is the same thing that makes a grand piano sound good. The waves going through the tube almost organize themselves through sympathetic resonance, making the higher frequencies fall in line with each consecutive lower frequency, like a raft riding over the peaks and troughs on an ocean wave.
The proQ has a natural phase setting at the bottom of the UI which from what I remember it is quite different from the zero latency in terms of phase shift but personally I think at the end these are just tools, I’ve heard some terrible sound music with really nice analog gear and also the opposite is true too and with digital also that applies too.
When i found the switch, for me the difference of "zero Latency" vs "Natural phase" was almost night and esspecially for the low end. I think with it it would be way closer to the empress.
Bet no actual consumer can tell a difference. It would be fun to see you and a few other folks try and identify the hardware/plugs in a true blind test, if such a thing is possible.
It seems like plugindoctor would be a perfect plugin for actually comparing the exact EQ curves between software and hardware. Just did it for the first time this past week between the BX SSL4k E plugin and a DIY 4KE Black knob 500 series module clone and it made it so easy to match the hardware and software curves together. Also cool to really hear such a precise A/B of analog and software against each other from the daw.
A) try Pro-Q in "Natural Phase" mode B) I always assumed that the "match EQ" in a bunch of plugins are essentially Null Testing internally to the lowest residual signal. They won't perfectly match an Analog piece of gear. But 2 brand new pieces of the same analog gear won't perfectly Null either. There's an Acceptable Tolerance that should be the goal. C) did you measure THD on the analog gear? Might that effect the results?
I look at it like every plugin and piece of outboard gear is just another paintbrush in your sonic palette, none better than all and each good in their own respective right. The more you have, the more exponential creative options you have to help define sounds to your taste. I'm also glad this shows the difference, I'm always a fan of more options personally.
the point being that plugins are great when they offer us something analog cannot do (very few plugins actually) but when they are just emulations of analog gear, they are always inferior.
@@asteroidmrecords the proof is in the listening.Theres a reason why hi quality productions still use analog consoles and outboard gear. Accumulation of ringing/phasing/distortion etc with multiple plugins thins out productions.
@@mollyoko maybe in 2004, as far as these days there is no issue with plugins "thinning out the mix" especially when using proper sampling rate. Every hi quality production you hear now days has tons of plugins on it. I appreciate your opinions but you're pretty far off base with how music is actually produced nowadays. We have everything drop API to Neve preamps, a huge mic locker different compressors, limiters etc, but there isn't anything on the analog world that can do something like eventides split EQ plugin does, it just doesn't exist. Outboard gear is nice to have just as plugins are nice to have. Like I keep saying, the combination of both is better than either. The only real rule in audio production is "if it sounds good, it is good!"
@@asteroidmrecords I use an api and burl, cranesong, atc, split eq, fab filter etc. I have an isolated tuned control room. I can hear the differences that stacked plugins make to my productions and mixes. Like I said, I use plugins where they can be creative and do things I can't do with analog. If you can't hear the differences maybe you should improve your monitoring.
You should've matched against Pro-Q in Natural Phase mode, which has equivalent phase response with analog EQs. It's practically impossible to hear this slight difference in the top end phase response by ear, but it will show up as significant difference when nulling. (This applies to other digital EQs too, except many don't offer such a mode at all.)
@@this_is_jmdub The frequency response of IIR filters begins to differ a lot from analog as the frequency increases (it's just math). You can avoid this by increasing the sampling frequency or using more filters to compensate the difference. Noone can hear this only because different doesn't mean bad, who cares what type of filter is used if it sounds good?
@@this_is_jmdub sound waves can also be heard by ears , ears convert them . they travel allover your body brain etc and envoirment no matter you have ears or not
I enjoyed this video, as I've been doing many comparisons vs my hardware and plugins, for many years. Personally, Plugin Doctor would've been the best option to get the eqs to match, because you can see both (hardware and software) eq curves at the same time. These videos will never get old, even as software gets better and closer to physical gear.
Nulling a digital signal with another one, which went through a converter is not possible by simply flipping the polarity. One reason is because sample shifts can happen in subsample ranges when going throug a converter (given you tried to match them by aligning them manually). Phase shifting is definitely less of a problem here compared to that. In order to compare these two, it would be better to make an analog roundtrip with the ProQ as well and compare that with the empress. That way the effect of the converter can be negated (even if it might not be that big, but still, some converters have a small impact on the transients as well).
Рік тому+10
Similarly, I don't know fully but I think analog gear is literally organic and works with non-linearity. That's why they response dynamically, to dynamic source. I believe that we human is animal and we find non-perfection "pleasing" and "musical".
An EQ doesn't respond dynamically to a dynamic source as it is a static processor (unless it is a dynamic EQ). If you measure analog gear, you'll see that it is much more precise as a lot of people try to make you believe. The non-linearities are coming from distortion/saturation of certain components, which have a certain transient softening effect, which is not present in the fabfilter EQ. It would have been nice, to measure the distortion of the empress as well and try to recreate it. We'd probably see a much closer match and people would probably really struggle in a blind test.
what you hear that is different between Empress and ProQ is that Empress also adds saturation and since its analog and stereo, small difference between L and R give it some more "wideness"... software is great if you need clean sound but if you need saturation/distortion/character/randomness analog is still irreplaceable
People who make this type of comments are generally those who never used hardwares. They will be saying sh*t about hardware gear as long as they can’t afford them, but once they start using them they will change their speech.
Anyway, this is an interesting test that confirm my choice of going ITB. In the video is fairly evident from the analyser that there are artifacts when matching. But is a fair test and I am impressed by the ProQ 😛 I am ITB since ProTools 4 and never regret it.
For me the most important, if I can hear the $$$ difference... Then, if the difference in sound and $$$ will effect the "album" sales.... In most cases, not. Sad reality mostly ignored by artists. If you can afford it, do it. If it's a hobby about sound, do it. But if you're a good songwriter, musician with a limited budget and trying to make a living... Spend the money on publicity instead... Until you make it... and can afford slightly better sound for crazy money. And strong enough not to get lost in gear instead of melodies, harmonies, rhythms and inspiration, experiences to share or write about. May the 4th be with us.
Anybody who thinks plugins (hardware emulations) match the actual hardware has simply never tried the hardware or doesn't have an ear to be able to hear the difference. MOJO comes from hardware...sorry but it's true for the most part. YES, you can mix and release a song in the box. But will the stereo image be as wide as one recorded thru analog gear...well that probably depends on the engineer. But with very few exceptions NO!
Don't you dare say something must be spiritual just because you don't understand it! Just kidding. Neuroscientist here. Love your channel. Cheers from California. 😉🧠☀️
To my ears the hardware is adding another element which is somewhere between compression and saturation. With the hardware I can hear the low-level information (like reverb) moving to the timing of the music's dynamics. Transients are also softened in the hardware version. I'm not hearing this with the Pro Q. I've always thought that one of the things good hardware does is make low level things move in a subtle way. You can hear that really clearly here. Not all hardware does this, which is why some hardware to my ears doesn't sound particularly great. Whereas some does sound really good and I think this might be why. No reason why you couldn't do this with software though I think if you put your mind to it.
The bass is day vs night in the second comparison. You don't have any midrange presence or harmonics in PROQ3 like what you get with the analog eq. It's not subtle, it's obvious. The bass comes alive...
to each his own workflow. I use Bertom EQ curve analyzer to match the curve as exactly as possible, I mean like 0.1 - 0.2 db accurate. Of course I don't know how accurate you were behind the curtain (for such things I usually don't trust approximations by automatic processes) but I wonder if the audible difference is worth the 2000,- Would be cool if you could provide the white noise rendered, the Empress track rendered and we try if we can null it. I mean, if a bigger community comes to the same conclusion...we can happily lean back and know for sure. 🙂
The word ‘better’ is rife with subjectivity. Your idea of ‘better’ is just as valid as mine, and vicea-versa. So you get to decide relative to the track you’re working on if it’s better.
Empress vs Pro Q - Close, but the warmth and saturation are very different on the kick and low end. Empress vs Pro Q Match - Even Closer, but you'd need the analog unit to auto match anyways, and the saturation is still not there. Empress vs UAD - Similar Vibe, UAD has a thicker low end but less defined, modelled saturation is close, but there's much more clarity on the Empress. Analog Pultec vs UAD Pultec would be a very close comparison. There's always going to be the argument that plugins can get the job done without any need for analog gear, and I agree, an experienced & talented engineer can make an amazing mix in the box, BUT the value that Analog brings is a lot more than sound. You get the job done faster and easier, instead of using EQ and Saturation in the box you can just use a Tube EQ. Hands on workflow is faster as well, and you really get to know the units you own, you start to build a formula & habits for your mixes, making you even faster over time. And maybe the most important thing is that gear is INSPIRING, it gives you pride and makes you want to work with it. When you go into a studio that's all in the box, with just a laptop, speakers & interface, it's fine, but it's not inspiring, you can get the job done if you know what you're doing of course. But it's a completely different feeling walking into a studio with analog outboard gear, rack effects, tape machines, synths, etc. It creates an environment of inspiration and you can't help yourself from wanting to create and use the toys/tools in front of you. Hybrid is the way to go in 2023, best of both worlds, and even if plugins become 1:1 as good as Analog in 10 years I will still have Hardware just because of the hands on workflow and inspiration I get from it.
Cool video! It would be interesting to also hear a version with the ProQ + your converters against the Empress + your converters. IMHO you already get a lot of analogue vibe by running through the converters alone.😃
Ahaha "analogue vibe", do some testing yourself before you comment. Nobody can hear a single pass in practise.. you would even struggle to hear five passes ADDA! Things like aliasing play a far more important role in the difference between software and hardware.
Imho using analog eqs is mostly a workflow thing, to get a certain sound in seconds instead of minutes. If you're doing mostly hobby projects, they're probably not worth it (but still fun). If you're a pro, and your time is worth a lot of money, they can be very helpful. Also, the dropoff in the high end is not only because of your convertors, but also because iirc a pultec attenuates a little bit even with the attenuation at 0.
I'm pretty sure most pros would disagree entirely considering graphic eqs are much easier and faster to dial in than non graphic ones, but even if you prefer stepped eqs like a pultec for example, most still reach for plugins because recalls on analog gear at this point, make it nearly worthless to use outboard gear on their level unless there's a sound they really really want, or it's a master bus, or drum bus for color that just never changes. Outboard gear is way more time consuming Also UAD Pultecs are known to be 1 to 1 with the hardware, they will actually null and in some cases even sound better than older hardware units. There are some great videos like Paul Thirds showing thay they are identical
I'd say the guy who left the comment was right. In my studio there wasn't a significant difference. A difference yes, but it was minor and only engineers could hear it. My girlfriend thought I was crazy when I said "You don't hear a difference at all?" She's a great example of an average listener. The Auto Matched EQ was definitely the closest. Great work as always my friend!
There are a lot of 1176 plugins out there and they do sound like a real life 1176 on hardware, the problem is your reference point. Even hardware varies, each real 1176 sounds slightly different. What you get with digital is consistency and predictability.
In response to the comments talking about using the ‘natural’ setting. Don’t think that would null any better, it would have completely different phase shift compared to the analog empress EQ
Analog just seems to make things sound more present while plugins put them behind a thin screen. It's like having a little bit of blurred vision but not realizing it until you suddenly put on glasses.
I don't think you showed this, but I'm assuming you did some manual latency compensation by adjusting the timing of the recorded hardware signal? I would guess a good amount of the differences would be attributed to the tube amp stages adding some harmonics. As you know, this could be tested by feeding in a sinewave and viewing the frequency response... or automatically using the new hardware modes on PluginDoctor 2 I think :) Thanks for the testing!
I don't want to be mean, but i do not like people saying "I can do the same with ProQ3". Sure it is an incredible eq, you can do soooo many things in, you can save preset of very closed matched curves from analog if you spend time on doing it, but in practice, the workflow of an analog equipment is sooo different, even for small details. In the end, some like digital sound, some like analog sound! And that also is something very personal. There are no better, it's all different according to tastes. I always thought it is a matter of taste and budget. You want to make yourself happy and can afford such an eq ? Do it! You can't get one? Stop arguing and go on, you'll find better for your use. Anyway, I should leave my beer alone, great video! Thanks for sharing these experience everyone can recreate with its own stuff.
Pro Q3 in natural phase mode removes cramping amd improves the EQ on the high frequency, Pro Q3 is a perfectly clean EQ. Volcano 3 is more analog than Pro Q3, it adds non-linearity or subtle distortion, you can change the filter type as well. I'm using it because it's way more flexible than a Pultec and way cheaper.
Does this prove that analogue is better (or worse)? You tried to create the same effect in analogue and digital. And every time, there were obvious differences. The null tests confirmed differences. But were the differences a measure of the quality of either medium or just differences? No being argumentative: I can't decide. And for the record, I much preferred the ProQ3 effect vs the analogue, but I preferred the analogue to the UAD.
In my opinion, using the analog gear on masteing is best solution rather than use it on mixing. 1. It is much more affordable. Hire a mastering engineer won't cost a lot. 2. Make the tracks mre 3D and warmer. It is undeniable that there are many plugins they are sound feeling analog gear. (As long as it is done in the right way) It is very expensive to ask people to do analog mixing, so I think it is the most cost-effective way to use analog gear only during mastering.
At this point, I think engineers are using their ears for scientifical practices instead of a real life situation. If we have to check our ears to be that precise it honestly means it never mattered in the first place. Sound is so subjective to the point that none of this even matters anymore. We should just use our ears to get a clean, clear sound and be happy with the results. But I do understand the reason behind the study or practice.
Thank you so much! First thing.. I'm glad you took my original comment as positive. I didn't mean for my original skepticism to come off as aggressive. I think this is a valid line of enquiry and I am happy you think so too. Not going to lie, I was hoping for cheap plugins to match the hardware because I can afford one and not the other. I think the top sounded a bit more 3d on the hardware? Perhaps not enough of a difference to keep me up at night though. It's difficult with youtube compression. I'm guessing the additional harmonics play a role. I both stand corrected and feel slightly vindicated. Bravo x
By the way I think your point that no one would use pro-q in this way (and would therefore not achieve the same curve) was an excellent observation.
Thanks a lot for the initial comment, I didn’t see it as aggressive, as I’m saying in the video. UA-cam compression makes this comparison, unfortunately, a lot more difficult.
UA-cam sounds surprisingly good. Do your own test, upload and download a sine sweep
@@GingerDrums Yes I agree, Side are ugly when listening solo but in context Its not apprent, like 320bps MP3
@@DarkTrapStudio it's pretty damn linear. It's essentially a myth that UA-cam has a sound, according to my tests it nulls very well, certainly not audible in blind test. Yes I'd compare to 320 mp3 (most people can't even hear 240kbps mp3 double blind).
Lets face it the Empress looks WAY cooler, and will be much more fun to use and immediate. Having been ‘in the box’ for the past 10-15 years I’m going back out in a huge way. Just because I can. We live in an amazing time for music equipment. We have so much choice, can have the absolute best of both worlds, digital for cost effectiveness and convenience, analogue for a little added warmth and tactile immediacy, hybrid for infinite choices with little limitation. Why do we have to pick just one when we can have them all! I’ve ordered an Empress, already have full Fab bundle. It is amazing…. But hell moving a mouse around is so boring and soulless! Have fun folks and enjoy whatever you choose to use.
"But hell moving a mouse around is so boring and soulless!"
I've seen people say that a lot and am surprised more aren't using midi controllers. I rarely touch my mouse when EQing.
@@marloband7238 i have a UF8 and IC1 and they are a big step up, but still one knob per function is so easier. (Assuming you don’t have to switch between mixes 5 times a day, or recall a mix 6 months later) of course. So i get both arguments.
I think a lot of the pro engineer / audio scene is more about aesthetics and simply ownership and wealth/success display to a large extent. I think there's a lot to be said for entering a studio full of hardware and lights and cables though than just a laptop and speakers for the creative atmosphere, the setting of the mood to enter the creative mindset. It's a lot easier to do that from a computer screen in a studio full of hardware, than a blank room with two speakers and a computer and mouse.
@@SamHocking also of you’re in the creative zone it os rather easier to be spontaneous and collaborative with real gear than a Daw. But I appreciate that’s likely a niche use case: more than one person ‘playing’ the EQs, Sat/filter boxes and compressor to see what magic happens of what beaks. Not sure if it has much to do displays of affluence. Far easier to park a Ferrari outside the studio if that’s you’re bag
It is all horseshit anyway. When the Sun burns out if won’t matter what Eq was used. Nobody will hear it. 🤣🤣
But what’s really cool about audio - whether pro not - is that it does not have to be binary. Not like Mac vs PC, iPhone vs Galaxy, It does not have to be either or and tribal. There’s a harmonious middle ground where bliss and joy exists….. The Hybrid Workflow! 🤣
I agree with hybrid with a heavier leaning towards hardware.
on my system i couldn't hear any difference after you fully adjusted the curves on the pro Q 3. very interesting video
Get your ears cleaned and/or a better system - there was a massive difference - the HW version had loads of saturation not present in ProQ.
Its always small differences when it comes to analog vs digital. But the small fidelity differences in a 20+ tracked projects makes a big difference in the final mix.
Do you have plugin doctor, because I think you can measure your hardware with plugin doctor, then try to match the curves and the saturation of the hardware to ProQ3 and Saturn?
empress sounds tighter in the lowend then the q3, esp the low lows
One big reason why they never null is analog always have THD and the THD behaviour is so complex which is kinda impossible to mimic. The analog gears I have they always have slightly different amount of THD on each frequency and different frequencies may interact with each other. When it comes to digital its always 'fixed'.
I'm wondering if the difference has less to do with overall added harmonics, and more to do with how harmonics are generated in response to transients and micro-transients. I've often noticed (and did notice with this example), that analog gear tends to not only make things feel warmer, but also more present. It has a way of bringing out sounds, even when certain things are cut. I noticed here the kick felt slightly more present, even slightly compressed. I think this could apply the feeling of "air" which is maybe quick transients in the high end getting harmonic boosts due to a quirk of analog processing? Maybe those tone generating components have a transient response that's just not getting captured by sweeping a sine wave through them and seeing how they react.
There's also just so many differences in analog gear, even from unit to unit, depending on age, model, any number of factors. Even in newer models, I wonder how variable these units really are, and is that variability/randomness a factor in why they seem new and unique and special to us? Or are these component parts even so unreliable that we need to start introducing randomness at the sample level, and see where that gets us?
I also often ask myself... If we started with digital, and then analog came later... Would we like digital better? I guess it's more of a philosophical question, but I do have to wonder. As we get closer and closer to truly indistinguishable plugins, does it matter? Is a song really benefitting from a full analog mix vs. a digital mix if most people are gonna listen to it on an Echo or AirPods? I know we want to do our best work, but when it comes down to it, is hardware actually necessary for that?
Very interesting video. Like the your approach how you analyse stuff, very technical, which I think we all like. I’m looking into getting my first outboard gear and some of your videos really helped me do decide. Keep going the nice work. Greetings from Germany
why would you not measure the hammerstien harmonics curve also? surely that's the other half the signal.
Even on my phone i can hear easily that hardware has something extra micro articulation which sounds bit more alive. But it doesn't mean that it is better. Probably on main elements in the mix it could make some difference but maybe with some little saturation and minimal transient enhancement it would sound indistinguishable from the hardware? Who knows?
what's the name of the plug-in you use to analyze the frequency curve of the equalizer at 08:11
Thanks in advance ❤
Of course there's a difference - analog tone is the result of interactions on an atomic/quantum level while the software is a mathematical estimation of said effects.
Would love to see more videos like this! I am also really interested in the remaining differences between digital and analog.
Curious - if this was a digital plugin review perhaps you would’ve investigated things going on beyond just eq and used multiple tools to try to recreate the plugin, would it not have been similarly fair to add some Saturn on the top end or something similar to try to recreate the difference you are hearing?
To me the transients sounds duller on the plug ins. Like it does indeed boost and cut the same frequenzies, but in a dead way. Hardware seems to affect the sample in a more musical way. Hard to explain, but the hardware sounds much nicer in my opinion.
The UAD Pultec is out on Spark. Could you do a comparison video?
Was that actually you posting on 4chan the other night? It was pretty disturbing stuff . He was talking about your father having relations with a guy from the Beatles.
Love your channel, What is the analysis tool you are using?
I know as a fact that anything analogue can be simulated with enough calculation power.
Clearly there are several variables hard to codify, morphing envelopes and different distortions at different frequencies and levels, so you can't just read the input and output signal.
Insteand of trying to rationally replicate the sound, the easier solution could be useing a neural network and analyze thousands of hours and sounds creating a heuristic 4 dimensional pattern. But at the end of the day it is all about taste, people try to recreate hardware cause someone get used to it, but it doesn't mean they couldn't create something better.
Thanks for your videos very instructive for me an autodidact.
You should do a frequency domain null test so the phase is shift ignored? Is that even true? I think not because the two are coralated
What’s that analyzer he used?
Different doesn't mean worse, of course. You might have the same result if you compare ProQ to another plugin? Some fancy hardware emulation?
Wide q 5k boosts really seem to give the openness I had been looking for. I am not sure if the 5k thing is a response of converters or digital processing, but the subtle 5k wide q boosts really seem to compensate for me, on literally everything. Give it a shot.
This is often good with digital eqs that have high frequency cramping. Boosting lower high frequencies sounds better thx to less cramping. Pro Q of course does not cramp :)
it would be interesting to see the impulse responses from all the equalizers in the test to anyone can compare and add to null test
The thing, if the analog eq has non-linearity, an impulse response isn't enough.
Plugin doctor offers the frequency response, phase and Hammerstein to detect non-linearities.
@@saricubra2867 How do you use frequency response in plugin doctor to understand nonlinearities?
@@sparella Is not frequency response, it's Hammerstein and it shows the harmonics.
@@saricubra2867 Thanks. I understand now.
Freq curves aside, I usually hear a little bit of extra dynamic saturation from the analog units. Somerimes analog eq,s sound like if they would compress a bit, and viceversa.
I tested Hardware against Plugins, several times, from Vitalizer, Pultec, Clariphonic, to simple Transformers...
Hardware wins every time... so i bought the Hardware...
Hardware sound musical...
Plugins... sound like a 100 times Tape copy... where something lost, during the copy process ( loss of fine structures ).
I use a lot of Plugins, cause they are easy to use... but some tools i have as hardware, to polish things...
Electricity is light and it's in analog as well as inside your cpu and digital processors. So, what was the diference when we went from all tube amps and transistors? Your right, it's spiritual.
I'd say that analog equipments's electronic elements always introduce a bit of distortion that adds harmonics. Likely impossible to fully replicate in digital unless you overload the cpu/dsp.
DOubt anyone could tell A/Bing these in the blind. The only significant difference I can hear (everytime) between D & A is Panning. Panning in your DAW had less spacial definition then panning on HW. I'de love to see anyone help to explain that in a Video. Unless its just me.... ???
CROSSTALK!!! Non linearities and crosstalk is what makes hardware magical and 3D. Constant micro shifts in electromagnetic energies creates tiny amounts of phasing in the mids and sides, which causes psychoacoustic 3Dimensional effects. Also, harmonic distortions change due to crosstalk as well.
the empress sounds slower and denser, also had a lot more saturation than I anticipated. I think if you added a simple saturation with a very low mix value you would probably get very close
How about doing a real analog v digital null test.
The entire hardware industry is built around making producers think that more money of their money spent = improved sound quality. I swear you could secretly put FL Studio Soundgoodizer running on android in a hardware box and market it as all premium and analog, slap Stimming brand on it and sell it as a hardware unit for 5000$. People would buy that shit doing comparison videos and be arguing how it's exceptional sound quality and worth the money. You know it's true. A green crayon is still a green crayon whether you want to spend 1000 dollars on one or 10 cents. In either case, the picture you draw is going to be the same. Creating good art supersedes the tools used to make it.
its like the notes draw out longer on the empress
With my noob ears the Empress makes the bass sound better. The sound is more upfront, more clarity mids in the empress.
The match wasnt good. Try to use some eq detector and put both with the same curve
I hear some subtle changes, but which one is better....
What the hell guys?? There was no output volume potentiometer on the original pultec.
Where universal audio developers are looking
It doesn't NULL but can you tell in a blind test which is which? guess not.
There is a difference in ANALOG.. i have cheap stuff but the major Thing that made my Mixes run is - stop laughing - mixing my Stereo with MONO Aux Signal. I realy love to run mono aux into my art Tube Mic Amp in warmth mode and to some 3 band EQing on it - mix it back and that makes every Track dope. Better punch depth and so on.. and to me its just the analog MIXING with mono that was a huge difference to a DAW MONO Aux Mixing - it sounds different and it feels different. The rest i use is DAW Plugins for mastering but the analog is always sounding more alive. Cannot describe it other way. Its more like the warmth distortion of the Tube or Mixer that i realy like. In special on the Kicks and highend Signals that makes it clear and sharper without beeing to "sharp" just more clearity unless overdoing it but... its all about more LISTEN to musik.. I listen more when i eq then in the DAW there its more watching what i do. That makes difference too. Thank you for your videos.
warmth -> analog components induce slight harmonic distortion... that is perceived as warmth. That part is hard to do digitally without using a plugin that emulates exactly the same hardware. And still there will be a slight difference. Better/worse.. that is in the eye of the beholder. Analog or digital is soundwise not better/worse.. just a bit different.
what is your vertical analyzer???!!
Flux Pure Analyzer
I find the same weird thing with analog synths vs VSTi's. Analog synths sound superior, at least the good ones.
Surprise surprise the uad plugins gain level on default 😂
It doesn’t doesn’t nul🎵
Regardless of which sounds better, it's not worth it to switch from digital to analog. There's just not enough difference in my opinion. The listener won't hear a difference at the end.
My dumbass has never noticed that EQ match button in Pro-Q3 before. SMH
Difrence is transformers,,, it makes saturation in bass, and low mid.. Everything can be measured! Just use right tool, i use REW.. Plug it input output and rune sine wave.. You should see harmonics on whole spectrum and THD,, plugins dont have that well made, cause it is very complex thing to simulate. even true iron plugin dont have it as well made, as the true stuff.. Sylvia Massy use it on all inputs and output,, then it was neccesity because of dirty power and hum, great sound is just side affect, not intentional, all colapsed when went to digital,,less ground problems, no need for isolation transformers... You want to find the truth, run it with REW.. Its free
Simply put, difference is the thing that’s different, but it’s really only ‘so’ important in musical context, and clearly, if you’re trying to be different (usually the goal) then why are you waistline your time trying to copy. 😂 Use or don’t use the gear and plugins of choice, but subjectively it really doesn’t matter if you’re trying to polish a T**d.
White Sea Podcast name suggestion: Sandstorm.
😆 🗯️ @Whiteseastudio
I think what makes analog sound good is the same thing that makes a grand piano sound good. The waves going through the tube almost organize themselves through sympathetic resonance, making the higher frequencies fall in line with each consecutive lower frequency, like a raft riding over the peaks and troughs on an ocean wave.
this is my favourite voodoo description . you are a true poet ! :)
Are was just about to type this then I seen your comment
As a student of the piano I concur. Very well said.
The proQ has a natural phase setting at the bottom of the UI which from what I remember it is quite different from the zero latency in terms of phase shift but personally I think at the end these are just tools, I’ve heard some terrible sound music with really nice analog gear and also the opposite is true too and with digital also that applies too.
Yeah, I think there's this widespread myth that digital gear not only makes music "sound worse", but even drives musicians to "make worse music"
When i found the switch, for me the difference of "zero Latency" vs "Natural phase" was almost night and esspecially for the low end. I think with it it would be way closer to the empress.
Bet no actual consumer can tell a difference. It would be fun to see you and a few other folks try and identify the hardware/plugs in a true blind test, if such a thing is possible.
It seems like plugindoctor would be a perfect plugin for actually comparing the exact EQ curves between software and hardware. Just did it for the first time this past week between the BX SSL4k E plugin and a DIY 4KE Black knob 500 series module clone and it made it so easy to match the hardware and software curves together. Also cool to really hear such a precise A/B of analog and software against each other from the daw.
exactly my thought !
What are your thoughts on the comparison between the hardware and plugin version?
A) try Pro-Q in "Natural Phase" mode
B) I always assumed that the "match EQ" in a bunch of plugins are essentially Null Testing internally to the lowest residual signal. They won't perfectly match an Analog piece of gear. But 2 brand new pieces of the same analog gear won't perfectly Null either. There's an Acceptable Tolerance that should be the goal.
C) did you measure THD on the analog gear? Might that effect the results?
You have to measure phase.
I don’t know about everyone else… all those eq sounds could be more than useable in the mix. It sounded fine. Haha.
I look at it like every plugin and piece of outboard gear is just another paintbrush in your sonic palette, none better than all and each good in their own respective right. The more you have, the more exponential creative options you have to help define sounds to your taste. I'm also glad this shows the difference, I'm always a fan of more options personally.
the point being that plugins are great when they offer us something analog cannot do (very few plugins actually) but when they are just emulations of analog gear, they are always inferior.
@@mollyoko I just don't believe in things like "this will always be better" when it comes to audio
@@asteroidmrecords the proof is in the listening.Theres a reason why hi quality productions still use analog consoles and outboard gear. Accumulation of ringing/phasing/distortion etc with multiple plugins thins out productions.
@@mollyoko maybe in 2004, as far as these days there is no issue with plugins "thinning out the mix" especially when using proper sampling rate. Every hi quality production you hear now days has tons of plugins on it. I appreciate your opinions but you're pretty far off base with how music is actually produced nowadays. We have everything drop API to Neve preamps, a huge mic locker different compressors, limiters etc, but there isn't anything on the analog world that can do something like eventides split EQ plugin does, it just doesn't exist. Outboard gear is nice to have just as plugins are nice to have. Like I keep saying, the combination of both is better than either. The only real rule in audio production is "if it sounds good, it is good!"
@@asteroidmrecords I use an api and burl, cranesong, atc, split eq, fab filter etc. I have an isolated tuned control room. I can hear the differences that stacked plugins make to my productions and mixes. Like I said, I use plugins where they can be creative and do things I can't do with analog. If you can't hear the differences maybe you should improve your monitoring.
You should've matched against Pro-Q in Natural Phase mode, which has equivalent phase response with analog EQs. It's practically impossible to hear this slight difference in the top end phase response by ear, but it will show up as significant difference when nulling. (This applies to other digital EQs too, except many don't offer such a mode at all.)
who cares if you can't hear it
@@this_is_jmdub For the sake of comparison you should, because otherwise the null test results are flawed and unreliable.
@@this_is_jmdub The frequency response of IIR filters begins to differ a lot from analog as the frequency increases (it's just math). You can avoid this by increasing the sampling frequency or using more filters to compensate the difference. Noone can hear this only because different doesn't mean bad, who cares what type of filter is used if it sounds good?
@@this_is_jmdub sound waves can also be heard by ears , ears convert them . they travel allover your body brain etc and envoirment no matter you have ears or not
I enjoyed this video, as I've been doing many comparisons vs my hardware and plugins, for many years. Personally, Plugin Doctor would've been the best option to get the eqs to match, because you can see both (hardware and software) eq curves at the same time. These videos will never get old, even as software gets better and closer to physical gear.
I was hoping Pro Q would have been updated by now with the inclusion of vintage curve modes 😃 coincidentally -
Kirchoff EQ is basically that. Might want to check that out.
Nulling a digital signal with another one, which went through a converter is not possible by simply flipping the polarity. One reason is because sample shifts can happen in subsample ranges when going throug a converter (given you tried to match them by aligning them manually). Phase shifting is definitely less of a problem here compared to that.
In order to compare these two, it would be better to make an analog roundtrip with the ProQ as well and compare that with the empress. That way the effect of the converter can be negated (even if it might not be that big, but still, some converters have a small impact on the transients as well).
Similarly, I don't know fully but I think analog gear is literally organic and works with non-linearity. That's why they response dynamically, to dynamic source. I believe that we human is animal and we find non-perfection "pleasing" and "musical".
An EQ doesn't respond dynamically to a dynamic source as it is a static processor (unless it is a dynamic EQ). If you measure analog gear, you'll see that it is much more precise as a lot of people try to make you believe. The non-linearities are coming from distortion/saturation of certain components, which have a certain transient softening effect, which is not present in the fabfilter EQ. It would have been nice, to measure the distortion of the empress as well and try to recreate it. We'd probably see a much closer match and people would probably really struggle in a blind test.
what you hear that is different between Empress and ProQ is that Empress also adds saturation and since its analog and stereo, small difference between L and R give it some more "wideness"... software is great if you need clean sound but if you need saturation/distortion/character/randomness analog is still irreplaceable
People who make this type of comments are generally those who never used hardwares. They will be saying sh*t about hardware gear as long as they can’t afford them, but once they start using them they will change their speech.
Anyway, this is an interesting test that confirm my choice of going ITB. In the video is fairly evident from the analyser that there are artifacts when matching. But is a fair test and I am impressed by the ProQ 😛
I am ITB since ProTools 4 and never regret it.
I can hear the kick sound bigger and warmer on the empress even on a 30€ bluetooth speaker :)
For me the most important, if I can hear the $$$ difference... Then, if the difference in sound and $$$ will effect the "album" sales.... In most cases, not. Sad reality mostly ignored by artists. If you can afford it, do it. If it's a hobby about sound, do it. But if you're a good songwriter, musician with a limited budget and trying to make a living... Spend the money on publicity instead... Until you make it... and can afford slightly better sound for crazy money. And strong enough not to get lost in gear instead of melodies, harmonies, rhythms and inspiration, experiences to share or write about. May the 4th be with us.
Love your channel bro. Your reviews are unbiased
Anybody who thinks plugins (hardware emulations) match the actual hardware has simply never tried the hardware or doesn't have an ear to be able to hear the difference.
MOJO comes from hardware...sorry but it's true for the most part. YES, you can mix and release a song in the box. But will the stereo image be as wide as one recorded thru analog gear...well that probably depends on the engineer.
But with very few exceptions NO!
Don't you dare say something must be spiritual just because you don't understand it! Just kidding. Neuroscientist here. Love your channel. Cheers from California. 😉🧠☀️
To my ears the hardware is adding another element which is somewhere between compression and saturation. With the hardware I can hear the low-level information (like reverb) moving to the timing of the music's dynamics. Transients are also softened in the hardware version. I'm not hearing this with the Pro Q. I've always thought that one of the things good hardware does is make low level things move in a subtle way. You can hear that really clearly here. Not all hardware does this, which is why some hardware to my ears doesn't sound particularly great. Whereas some does sound really good and I think this might be why. No reason why you couldn't do this with software though I think if you put your mind to it.
The bass is day vs night in the second comparison. You don't have any midrange presence or harmonics in PROQ3 like what you get with the analog eq. It's not subtle, it's obvious. The bass comes alive...
Add a little tube saturation to it and you're probably not going to be able to tell the difference.
to each his own workflow. I use Bertom EQ curve analyzer to match the curve as exactly as possible, I mean like 0.1 - 0.2 db accurate. Of course I don't know how accurate you were behind the curtain (for such things I usually don't trust approximations by automatic processes) but I wonder if the audible difference is worth the 2000,-
Would be cool if you could provide the white noise rendered, the Empress track rendered and we try if we can null it. I mean, if a bigger community comes to the same conclusion...we can happily lean back and know for sure. 🙂
Dan Worrall please do it
Why the null test is interesting, I would be curious to see how many people could hear a difference in a blind test and which they would prefer.
The word ‘better’ is rife with subjectivity. Your idea of ‘better’ is just as valid as mine, and vicea-versa.
So you get to decide relative to the track you’re working on if it’s better.
4:14 What analyzer are you using?
Great video!
Lose the nail polish. 💅
Empress vs Pro Q - Close, but the warmth and saturation are very different on the kick and low end.
Empress vs Pro Q Match - Even Closer, but you'd need the analog unit to auto match anyways, and the saturation is still not there.
Empress vs UAD - Similar Vibe, UAD has a thicker low end but less defined, modelled saturation is close, but there's much more clarity on the Empress.
Analog Pultec vs UAD Pultec would be a very close comparison.
There's always going to be the argument that plugins can get the job done without any need for analog gear, and I agree, an experienced & talented engineer can make an amazing mix in the box, BUT the value that Analog brings is a lot more than sound. You get the job done faster and easier, instead of using EQ and Saturation in the box you can just use a Tube EQ. Hands on workflow is faster as well, and you really get to know the units you own, you start to build a formula & habits for your mixes, making you even faster over time.
And maybe the most important thing is that gear is INSPIRING, it gives you pride and makes you want to work with it. When you go into a studio that's all in the box, with just a laptop, speakers & interface, it's fine, but it's not inspiring, you can get the job done if you know what you're doing of course. But it's a completely different feeling walking into a studio with analog outboard gear, rack effects, tape machines, synths, etc. It creates an environment of inspiration and you can't help yourself from wanting to create and use the toys/tools in front of you.
Hybrid is the way to go in 2023, best of both worlds, and even if plugins become 1:1 as good as Analog in 10 years I will still have Hardware just because of the hands on workflow and inspiration I get from it.
Cool video! It would be interesting to also hear a version with the ProQ + your converters against the Empress + your converters. IMHO you already get a lot of analogue vibe by running through the converters alone.😃
Yup. This is the error most comparisons make
Ahaha "analogue vibe", do some testing yourself before you comment. Nobody can hear a single pass in practise.. you would even struggle to hear five passes ADDA! Things like aliasing play a far more important role in the difference between software and hardware.
Imho using analog eqs is mostly a workflow thing, to get a certain sound in seconds instead of minutes. If you're doing mostly hobby projects, they're probably not worth it (but still fun). If you're a pro, and your time is worth a lot of money, they can be very helpful.
Also, the dropoff in the high end is not only because of your convertors, but also because iirc a pultec attenuates a little bit even with the attenuation at 0.
I'm pretty sure most pros would disagree entirely considering graphic eqs are much easier and faster to dial in than non graphic ones, but even if you prefer stepped eqs like a pultec for example, most still reach for plugins because recalls on analog gear at this point, make it nearly worthless to use outboard gear on their level unless there's a sound they really really want, or it's a master bus, or drum bus for color that just never changes. Outboard gear is way more time consuming
Also UAD Pultecs are known to be 1 to 1 with the hardware, they will actually null and in some cases even sound better than older hardware units. There are some great videos like Paul Thirds showing thay they are identical
I'd say the guy who left the comment was right. In my studio there wasn't a significant difference. A difference yes, but it was minor and only engineers could hear it. My girlfriend thought I was crazy when I said "You don't hear a difference at all?" She's a great example of an average listener.
The Auto Matched EQ was definitely the closest. Great work as always my friend!
There are a lot of 1176 plugins out there and they do sound like a real life 1176 on hardware, the problem is your reference point. Even hardware varies, each real 1176 sounds slightly different.
What you get with digital is consistency and predictability.
Sick video! What is that analysis plug in btw?
In response to the comments talking about using the ‘natural’ setting. Don’t think that would null any better, it would have completely different phase shift compared to the analog empress EQ
Natural phase mode removes cramping for the high frequencies.
@@saricubra2867 not true. ProQ3 does not cramp on any of the phase processing modes.
Over here fans of the NoiseAsh "Rule Tec", the closest thing to the vintage Pultec that we have tried, cheers Wytse.
i LOVE THE WARMTH OF EMPRESS
Analog just seems to make things sound more present while plugins put them behind a thin screen. It's like having a little bit of blurred vision but not realizing it until you suddenly put on glasses.
Those who say that usually fail blind listening tests.
Comment for da algorithm
Streak count: 121
What you think in trying to match the curve with the Q Clone from Waves? Do you think it will match better?
I don't think you showed this, but I'm assuming you did some manual latency compensation by adjusting the timing of the recorded hardware signal? I would guess a good amount of the differences would be attributed to the tube amp stages adding some harmonics. As you know, this could be tested by feeding in a sinewave and viewing the frequency response... or automatically using the new hardware modes on PluginDoctor 2 I think :)
Thanks for the testing!
The only one that I found useful is Landr. The rest is awful. The real mastering engineer wins. No real competition here.
I don't want to be mean, but i do not like people saying "I can do the same with ProQ3". Sure it is an incredible eq, you can do soooo many things in, you can save preset of very closed matched curves from analog if you spend time on doing it, but in practice, the workflow of an analog equipment is sooo different, even for small details. In the end, some like digital sound, some like analog sound! And that also is something very personal.
There are no better, it's all different according to tastes. I always thought it is a matter of taste and budget. You want to make yourself happy and can afford such an eq ? Do it! You can't get one? Stop arguing and go on, you'll find better for your use.
Anyway, I should leave my beer alone, great video! Thanks for sharing these experience everyone can recreate with its own stuff.
I was the original commenter and I don't think anything you just said is mean. It makes total sense. Enjoy your gear.
Pro Q3 in natural phase mode removes cramping amd improves the EQ on the high frequency, Pro Q3 is a perfectly clean EQ.
Volcano 3 is more analog than Pro Q3, it adds non-linearity or subtle distortion, you can change the filter type as well. I'm using it because it's way more flexible than a Pultec and way cheaper.
If you don't know the "Q" exact;y, you can't possibly compare the 2 units.
Does this prove that analogue is better (or worse)?
You tried to create the same effect in analogue and digital. And every time, there were obvious differences. The null tests confirmed differences.
But were the differences a measure of the quality of either medium or just differences?
No being argumentative: I can't decide.
And for the record, I much preferred the ProQ3 effect vs the analogue, but I preferred the analogue to the UAD.
In my opinion, using the analog gear on masteing is best solution rather than use it on mixing.
1. It is much more affordable. Hire a mastering engineer won't cost a lot.
2. Make the tracks mre 3D and warmer.
It is undeniable that there are many plugins they are sound feeling analog gear. (As long as it is done in the right way) It is very expensive to ask people to do analog mixing, so I think it is the most cost-effective way to use analog gear only during mastering.
At this point, I think engineers are using their ears for scientifical practices instead of a real life situation. If we have to check our ears to be that precise it honestly means it never mattered in the first place. Sound is so subjective to the point that none of this even matters anymore. We should just use our ears to get a clean, clear sound and be happy with the results. But I do understand the reason behind the study or practice.
Empress sounds effortless - Pro Q sounds cramped
Pro Q has a natural phase mode that removes cramping.