USE THE SUPER THANKS IF YOU LIKED THIS VIDEO! 👆👆👆 My Small Monitors: imp.i114863.net/qaPmg My Headphones: imp.i114863.net/2Dzyz SSL Fusion Video: ua-cam.com/video/zQ-wlyMTyOo/v-deo.html 🔥 YOU GOTTA WATCH THIS! ➡️ ua-cam.com/video/YuRVDyGL0VY/v-deo.html 🔥 🔥Join the Channel to Access All The Premium Courses: bit.ly/2SNX8bx + Mix Consultations 🔥Bella Kelly's Single/Video Throat: bit.ly/3dxeJOf
the MAP is NOT the TERRITORY! from alfred korzybski’s general semantics. what it means is this: the “map” is always an approximation, a model, like a plugin version of hardware. it attempts to model the analog as simply and as dsp efficient as possible. its always a battle of how accurate the model is vs how “expensive” is it dsp, latency-wise. but always remember: the physical universe is always more complex than the map or the model. plugins can only approximate. all maps and all models necessarily have to approximate.
I'll take 400 passes through a cheap modern converter any time over re-tracking take after take on tape. The crosstalk and bleed would always be horrible but the more you had to re-record over a track or punch in & out the more noise would creep up into that track. Between the 2 cycles for each pass across the heads to record and rewind the more you would re-record over a track the more crosstalk (bleed) you would have between the track you were recording and the other tracks on each side. This is why you normally see Bass guitar is on the 1st or last track and usually kick is on the 1st or last track. The lower the instrument the more it would spill over to other tracks on the tape. If you ever see a 1 inch or 2 inch tracking reel and the bass guitar is on a middle track you can be for certain than the engineers was a total noob or an very new assistant. After 20 to 30 plays the tape would begin to degrade from heat and friction so if it was an important session as soon as you were done tracking you made a safety copy to ensure that if the mix process went too long or overdubbing became a problem you could at least make recall sheets from the first mixes on the Dull original tape and then when you were ready to commit the mix down to 1/4 inch 2-track you would switch out the dull tape to the clean safety copy instead. Preserving as much fidelity as possible. None of these things are even an issue in modern recording and I am SO thankful for! I came up in the last years of tape and it was so much HARDER to get a good recording with so many factors that could go horribly wrong.
@@p0llenp0nyBecause its hardware, give me an analog console any day to do tracking sessions with since it makes the session move faster but TAPE SUCKS. The hysteresis would eat reverbs and delays so you have to over use them to even hear them on the mixdown tape. But good tape machines like a MCI JH24 made inexperienced engineers get better results during tracking since the tape would kind of glue things together and because engineers HAD to gain stage properly. There was no clip gain to pull an over cooked track down. You were basically mixing as you tracked it and you had to learn to get it right at the beginning. It was a pain but you would at least learn the fundamentals of recording. Today its the wild west and everybody has an opinion on how to do things their way and DAWs are very forgiving for bad engineers. But rewinding the tape and saying ROLLING for an overdub to start was way more fun than pushing the spacebar or R for record on a Mac!! LOL
A lot of drama about tape. Use a Studer A820 or 827 and don't print so hot. I can't relate to the tape hate at all, it sounds better, makes for mellower, less obsessive sessions. Maybe doesn't work for the most modern music, but generally sounds better than PCM for many genres. Converters keep getting better and better, and they keep losing less and less of the detail in the source tape. I work with digital now, and have to put in a ton more effort and money to try and deal with all the harsh edges, plugin artifacts etc. But I've yet to find a way around the detail that is lost with PCM. Tape, hardware, and console was WAY, WAY easier to get a good sound. Maybe I just lucked out working at studios that had high end stuff like API, SSL, Studer, Ampex etc. And also, musicians who could actually play and weren't relying on endless edits, tuning, or snap to grid.
@@chipsnmydip I can see benefits for both a good machine like and MCI JH24 or and Studer 827 with its digital EQ curve instant recall, running at 30ips and a tape formula that can handle hot signals such as +9 like GP9 or 499 is as good as any digital session running at 96K with about roughly the same bandwidth and very low noise for tape. But the time it takes is atrocious compared to modern computers. I think the reason digital gets such a bad wrap for many people is the level of i/o they buy. Recording on a Studer 827 was 1000 times better than recording on the 24 track 1 inch unbalanced Tascam MSR24 with no head room! Modern converters are better than they have ever been but the analog side of modern interfaces can vary wildly. Impedance differences in line level inputs from one brand to the next can be a pain to work with, the DBU levels of the outputs for monitoring can be from 14dbu to 22dbu and so on. So its less about the converter chips today and more about the analog inputs and outputs on a interface that can really be great or garbage. But I treat the DAW like a modern tape machine for the most part. But I still prefer the workflow on a computer compared to a tape machine simply for the fact that UNDO is a real option that did not exist in the analog days!! LOL
@@joesalyers I can appreciate and agree with all this. I did a few projects with Tascam 38, 1/4" 8 track, and it was very fortunate that these were lofi records...
i own a cl1b hardware and the cl1b uad plugin and id prefer the hardware any day ..... ..... i love plugins but i love hardware more , cant live without both of them
The "do a roundtrip to have more oomph" thingy you are referring to at the end, stems from the idea that you may get grittier sound if you clip the converter..I think it's useful to know how your converters sound when clipped, but that's about it
I don't know where it stems from but you see many home studio guys running adda trips with low budget interfaces because they thing it adds "analog vibe" which is obviously ridiculous
Very interesting. Thank you for your effort to make this "shocking" video. In addition, I learned that the psyche also has an effect on the hearing result. Just close your eyes and you will hear.
The thing is, every conversion is always detrimental, even todays converters, even the ones used in “intro” or “low end” gear is generally so good that many people can’t hear the difference. But making peope listen to it on UA-cam kinda is totally irelevant as it will destroy any purpose of giving a meaningfull and true a/b compare. Not that you can’t hear differences, but they are not representing the true real world difference between 2 different signals when you add the compression from the UA-cam codec
Nice experiment :) As expected, after 10 passes it definitely sounds slightly more "dull", the difference is even audible after youtubes lossy encoding. Applying a steep lowpass filter close to nyquist freq. is part of the conversion process btw. so they obviously do effect high frequencies and when working at 44.1k that can be audible at least after multiple conversions. Claiming that this is the only difference between analog/digital signal processors is obviously nuts, a heavily oversampled plugin could theoretically come pretty close to how the analog effect sounds though.
Thank you, David. Another great video! By the way, I have SSL Fusion hardware, and compared it to the SSL plugins. Regarding the Vintage Drive, as you said, the differences are drastic.
This test needed to be done. Thank you for sharing and adding audio examples! From my tests, the ONLY converters that sounded identical or better than the digital signal were Merging Technologies. They're literally the best (as in closest to raw signal in DAW). I've never heard converters that sounded exactly like the digital audio. Even my RADAR ADA II converters adds a little color and softens transients. The cheaper converters from my tests were less pleasant sounding and had less transient detail, when comparing to the top converters in the market (Prismsound, Merging Technologies, RADAR). As a hybrid mix engineer, I'd say that converters are VITAL, for accurate audio response of the hardware. It can lead to making different choices in the mix, similar to using oversampling in a plugin vs not. I did enjoy this video!
@@ilikemyrealname , The HAPI with the 2020 Premium cards sounded the best. This was specifically for muti-track converters. There are stereo converters like Forssell MADA-2 and JCF Latte that are at the same quality as HAPI, from my recent tests.
with one pass the difference is negligible, but there is a very subtle smearing of transients. with 5 passes, it became more apparent, especially if you listen closely to the high frequencies such as hi hats or sibilance. at 10 passes, it was obvious. it would be interesting to hear all the tracks together because i think the difference is most noticeable in a mix.
Nice video! Results where to be expected here. I think I could hear a tiny difference in the 10th pass thru drums, focusing on transients. Even in that extreme, non real life, case it could be just my bias.
Awesome test. I did this on a multitrack of vsti and confirmed same thing. Better to improve mixing chops than waste time running everything out and back into converters.
Awesome video!!!! 🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾 People I tell you! There is no comparison!! 😂😆🤣🤣😂😂you’re so right! It’s the people who don’t have any outboard gear that’s making these statements. In my opinion plug ins are just 1’s and 0’s and these companies are referencing outboard gear so they can craft the digital into what outboard gear sounds like. So it’s just an EMULATION. As close as they can get it. The outboard gear these naysayers have to take into consideration all the internal components of outboard gear that colors the sound that digital simply cannot replicate. Still usable. Just nowhere near the same. You’re absolutely right Conversion is conversion regardless. Please continue to pound that into peoples heads. I believe that in this day and age how much better can conversion get Love when you break these videos down. Keep it up sir!!!!!
Saying "the digital cannot replicate analog" is just as wrong as the people saying CD sounded worse than vinyl because it cannot reconstruct the smoth waveform and it looked stepped... Anything can be simulated, it's just a matter of ballance between complexity and practicality. There are software programs that can do complex electromagnetic simulations, circuit modelling and so on, but making a plugin needs to be comercially viable. A company that would spend - let's say - 5 years working only on 1 plugin to actually simulate all electronic componets, in a physically accurate way, as well as interactions, would be out of business instantly. So at the moment, while possible, is too difficult and not practically viable. But software is getting better and better, and quite soon, it would be impossible to reliably tell the difference, even by experienced engineers, it is inevitable.
@Alexandru Lapugean plugins companies, in case you missed it, has been trying to emulate analog for 30+ years. And yet, analog is still better. Plus, if you ever worked with analog, you should know the ergonomics are just as important, plus you should also know that different chains will yeld different results, if anything just because of impedance differences between unit a and unit b. It doesn't matter how much money or time you throw at research and development, you won't do it. Just like CD don't sound like vinyl or tape. Why can't you people get over it lol don't buy analog and keep using plugins, we don't care, we don't come to you saying you're wasting money on your plugins. Yet, most mixes and masters out there, that sound great, are done in analog. Great, not good. Good is the enemy of great. We don't care about good here.
@@mixbustv 🤣😆😂😆🤣😆😂🤣Tell’em sir! Tell’em!!! Why waste the time and money on an emulation when you can go online or to your local music equipment store and buy/order outboard gear that’ll give you the sound you’re looking for🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾. Whatever works for a Engineer works for that Engineer. MixbusTv you might have to do a Documentary on this to get your point across on a bigger scale. 🤦🏾🤦🏾😂😂 like for real sir!!!
@@mixbustv Of course I agree with you with ergonomics/workflow, even the quality/liveliness ... at the moment. They have been trying, but where has the technology been at 20 years ago? Even now, as I mentioned, it is not really feasible, even though possible. The EM simulations I was talking about, are no even close to realtime. So computation power is also a limitation. But all these are just at the moment. There is no reason why digital could not do it. There is no "analog magic" that cannot be - by principle - reproduced by the digital, it's just variations/tolerances/interactions tha are really complex so not feasible from a financial or computational point of view in the present. And I hate to break it to you, but vinyl or tape do not sound better than CD, at least not in the way I am refering to it. The same waveform tthat sits on that vinyl or tape, could be perfectly be reproduced on a CD. But this is not the way it is done. A CD master sounds exactly as intended and heard by the engineer. A vinyl master is completely different. You have limitations with regards to the abilities of the cutting head, depth and thickness of the channels, depending on the song, there is plenty of filtering you need to do in order to feasibly cut that vinyl, and so on. For tape is similar, the sound will be modified by the magnetization process which is not perfect. Both these cases modify the incoming sound in a way that some perceive as "better", but if you did those changes in the master itself (for example running it trough a tape machine) and wrote that on a CD, what would be the difference?
Actually when comparing any hardware with software I usually pass both of them through my converters so I can hear the exact same treatment to both signals so its a completely fair test. I don't think internal summing sounds the same to my ears. Maybe its my Rosetta adding a bit of analogue mojo. (which I personally love) But certainly whether you would class a conversion as better or worse its all a matter of subjectivity and suitability to your or your clients music. So you do what makes you reach that end product. I've noticed that TOP mastering engineers comment on certain converters that play well with some hardware and not with others so this can also be a matter of marriage just like it would be for a microphone pairing to desired preamp. Converters surely do imho add a sound even if its subtle. I use multiple converters because I like to use them all for different things. Motu 896HD was my first converters as well as Creamware scope back when I didn't really understand the hardware so well. 21 years ago now. Currently still using an old school Apogee Rosetta 800, A Burl B2 Bomber and always experimenting. Hardware is usually my favourite choice. Softwares come a long way but most of the time still introduces some aliasing if not gain staged correctly so I usually use them in parallel and don't push them like I would my hardware. Mostly love Acustica stuff and using IRs or over sampling. All the best with your videos and keep it up!
But you don't use plugins that way. You don't do an adda trip every time you put a plugin on :D for testing, okay, just out of curiostity but yeah, not a real life comparison
@@mixbustv actually a lot of engineers loop plugins back into the chain. It’s very realistic and normal. Read SOS magazine mix reviews. Every top mix engineer working hybrid does it!
One is talking about sound perception improvement (like a limiter/clippr can do) the other one about pure technical point of view where the A/D clipping process is physically shapping/cutting the signal …. Plugins can both emulate AD/DA cvt sound shaping and sound processing with the typical color of the emulated HW, but, reaching the HW flavour with the SW emulation (plugin) is another story.
Hello, I believe that modern converters have such nice quality that it is impossible or hard to hear. One question, I think I did not understood how you do your DA to AD loop? what is passes through or straight analog out from DA to analog in from AD? Peace
David I mean what is this guy on About..A few yrs ago 2 guys from present day production's channel put to test 2 audio interfaces.The SSL2 and the ID14 and asked this question.They ran It through the interfaces 500 times.its worth a watch.Your video's are great man.
Oh, this is not what I was thinking it was. I thought this said AD/DA converter roundup! Like a shootout with the Lavry Gold and the Dangerous Music AD+. That's what I've been waiting for. AD/DA roundtrip test?! What the? Phew! SMH. I'm glad we put an end to that one. I didn't even know that was a thing.
Hi. Great video. Can you do a null test with 1 pass versus 5 pass, and then 10 pass. A null test is the final test to hear if there is any small difference . Thanks
Very nice one mate ! If I may, I don’t know where the original audio files are coming from but the vocal has such a rumble in the low end that my room is shaking 😱
@@maddietourmaline46 Well, I would really believe you if I actually haven't double-checked with headphones... Please guys, tell me you hear that low freq thingy in heaphones too?! (checked through HD650) I know at 45 my upper range is slowly falling into the void but my lows are good enough to hear this substantially ;) I'm definitely not talking about things I made up based on psychoacoustic effects of some sort. I can even add we can hear other track(s) in the vocal's reverb that have been exported with... I'm almost certain the low end rumbling is part of this reverb export, which can happen... But I wonder why we can find such low freqs in the low end of a reverb in a mix. Keep in mind I'm not trying to be an asshole tackling around, just want to analyse that thing I hear...
@@UltraSteaKME I believe that and I think you're hearing things correctly. I might just like bass a little too much. For the record I was listening on headphones as well, including a pair of very bass-enthusiastic v-moda Crossfades - my take is that the vocals probably have more low mids than they would in a mix (arbitrary but pretty indisputable). Still I am getting no distortion or discomfort and the vocal track sounds good to my ears. I would likely consider turning down or compressing the 150-300 hz range at least gently if I were to mix em', then mess around some more til I found values that worked better. Not something I noticed at first blush, but that may say more about my lack of ear training than your experience :>
@@mixbustv There is definitely a 60hz or 50hz hum going on in this recording, or a truck driving by, or some low tone. The vocal itself sounds fine but there is some low nonsense happening for sure.
I'm not interested in the objections at this point. It's just funny how with plug-in vs hw it seems people can't hear the difference but some grew golden ears for this video lol
Oh my.. I'm so surprised to comments like this. Like, you realize that analog will NEVER null right? If you pass one track once, then you pass the original again and null test the two 1st passes will NEVER null, right? This is one of the reasons as to why analog is different then digital. And also you don't need a null test to hear the difference between plug-ins and analog in that video.
@@mixbustv I'm just saying to show what difference there actually is in the spectrum. I can't be the only one curious to see the actual delta. I'm not saying it's the most practical application and the sound is the most important part but still something that might be interesting.
Can’t hear a damn thing on my iPhone for the synth. But I definitely hear the difference even at 5 passes on the drums and vocal. Didn’t think I would. But I can. Something akin to saturation or loss of detail in the upper mids/highs. Interesting.
Cool Video. Iam the opposite guy, I have a SSL Fusion Hardware and Neumann KH310, but I rarely use it. I was mixing so long in the box and with my DT770 pro, that it become my style of working and its hard for me to switch my workflow. Think always about to sell my speakers and the fusion, because of that.
Do what gets you the most output. It's always a grass is greener scenario. There is always 'better' something available. Trust me when you get your first hit using free plugins you realise none of it matters as long as you have the ear training to know. except to other engineers and audiophiles if course. And those two aren't a profitable audience!
@@Bthelick I use UAD plugins and imho most of them are sounding great. What I love is the total recall, when I work simultan on different projects. Sometimes when I know that a track come to the end, I start the SSL Fusion.
While I agree that there is a difference between analog and digital, it is usually a very subtle one, this is why in mixing we try to approximate these differences by using saturation and clippers and different analog modeled signal paths to try to get that sound in the box. But having said that I can't really hear the difference here on UA-cam through my car stereo, which is usually my last stop with my mixes for quality check. So if I can't hear it now through all that, is it really something that I need to be worried about? If I had the money I would love to have a burl mother ship setup. That is my dream converter. It has that clear 3d thing that I love from analog and that's hard to get in digital. But it's also one of those super subtle differences that only someone wired like me would either hear or care about. Your average listener isn't going to hear that difference, even if you sit them down, explained it and pointed it out while they were listening to it. So should I stress over not having it? I don't think so.
Very interesting video. I watched it carefully in my studio through monitors. Basically I can clearly hear (or that`s my imagination only) the difference. So the first run sounds fuller, richer than the original track (or that`s maybe it`s sllightly louder?) and 5th and 10th pass sound a lot worse than the original track. How would you comment on that Dave? Also... When having an external converter doesn't add anything in addition, and every converter degradates the sound, why do we have so many high end AD DA converters on the market? Thank you so much for your reply.
I hear same as you bro, i think the sound from a converter, give more thickness and easy to mixing to the sound. In this video test, i disagree with David 😅
Thanks, I also use klotz 5000 and vovox sonorus, sometimes I find klotz a little accentuated in high mid freq. sometimes I suspect cables affected sound more than converters. Best
No sir analog and digital are not the same. My $4000 black box is the reason I don’t have to worry about clipping my drums and losing transients to save headroom. That unit is the reason I can hit a beautiful -7 LUFS on my Masters.
the only discernible difference i believe i could hear was 10 passes on the drum track, sounded like the transient snap was slightly weaker after the 10 passes i suspect the transient issue could be largely dealt with using proper clock sync or something very interesting to hear you can pass through A/D multiple times without discernible difference, thanks
I mean, you can hear the difference. It's just subtle, and not a fundamental one. I'd definitely rather incur an extra round trip through hardware than the sound of a plugin.
Hi david, I got your mixing and recording course on hip hop a while back and its been awesome...I was wondering if you have any other courses besides the ones on the channel suitable for someone who does mostly computer based music like afrobeat, dancehall and reggaeton
Thank you. The mixing technique I teach and use are applicable to almost any genre but I don't have anything specific to those genres. I will if I get clearance to use a song I mixed and mastered some time ago..
Only thing I disagree w/ David here is when he said that “No AD/DA round trip will make the plug-in sound better” (to the ear) because I believe here the term “better” is subjective. If I choose to sample a plug-in from my DAW into a SP-1200 or MPC3000 and the sound I get back from the conversion of either one of those samplers sounds better to the ear as far as I’m concerned then the sound DID get better. Even if it is just the coloration of those machines that I like.
But I didn't say "to the ear" :D which you added. That is the entire point. You can like 8bit converters but that's *objectively* worse, there's no way around the fact that a conversion, any conversion is detrimental. But even tubes are in fact detrimental if we look at it from a fidelity standpoint, yet we like them, same for transformers. The point is converters are not color boxes, at best they should have an OPTION for color, but I personally do not want my converter to color by default because is like starting a paint with an orange (or pick the color) canvas instead of white.
@@mixbustv no doubt, I appreciate it. And I get that wasn't the point you were making to begin with, I just wanted to offer a counter perspective. lol.
He did not use the Lavry. He used his Motu 828es. Which is a pretty old converter in terms of "Mores law" It came out like 6 yrs ago but is still bvery good using the DAC Sabre ess chips. There isnt much audible difference between cheap converters and "mastering grade" converters these days (since 2018 and on) . Im not even really sure what "mastering grade" means these days. I use RME and Ferrofish pro gen 2 converters and I cannot hear any difference between mine and my buddies Lavry or his Burl. I opened the same mastering session from my studio and bounced it through his two converters and could not hear any difference sound quality wise. The Burl sounded a bit duller on the high end but that was the only difference and it was not even REALLY noticible. They do have their own color or vibe but as far as sound quality there isnt really audible difference. You can master on a Focusrite scarlet and no one would know the difference.
@@mixbustv Relax dude, I'm on your side of this. ...was just suggesting a quicker (and probably easier way to discern) way to prove the comment wrong as opposed to solo switching.
that is subtle af. i honestly couldn't hear a difference between 1 pass and 10 on most sources. but only on the synth could i hear any difference between 1 pass and the original. and it's very subtle a slight less transient. if i wasn't looking for a difference i wouldn't hear it. I also heard a similar slight difference on the drums 10 pass. Different converters color differently and most don't color at all. I know some mastering engineers have super clean converters and specific converters to color the sound and push it a bit. but it's always subtle. I don't get why people put like thousands of dollars into high end converters and what not to squash out an extra .001% better. it's not worth the money. diminishing returns are very real. as is the sunk cost fallacy.
Because you do this for a living and your 0.1% is never 0.1% is the total of your chain and your competitors will have the best amd win over you. Doesn't matter by am inch or a mile, a win is a win
@@mixbustv yes very true! But I guess my point is at a certain point the client can’t tell the difference. And for many clients speed trumps a .01% in quality bump. We can nerd out all day, but in the end the client is who we are pleasing.
So will you be selling your redundant converters and downsizing to just one? If the theory is that conversion is only capable of being destructive, then the ideal in converters is something that doesn't color the sound at all, and that would imply you only need one converter right, the least destructive one? On the other hand, if the claim is that 10 round trips of conversion didn't make a difference, then doesn't that contradict the claim that conversion is inherently destructive?
10 passes clearly maka a difference, you can hear it even here. But who the heck does 10 passes? This test has been done ON PURPOSE with my worst conversion at the lowest sample rate simply to demonstrate the absurdity of the statement that one single pass (real life and what is always used in an analog vs plugin test) make all the difference is ridiculous because 9 out of 10 people won't be able to tell the difference between original and 1 pass. The rest was to show how little still would be the difference with multiple passes. The difference between my mastering converter and this is beyond worth the cost of the thing, plus, I would never clip the MOTU, I can clip my AD up to 6db without any problem. The fact that I'm saying conversion is destructive if anything it's another, much bigger reason to have the BEST conversion you can possibly have, especially for mastering.
1st pass sounds slighly different or thinner. 5th pass definitely sounds much more thinner than 1st pass. Don't think I would want to choose 10th pass over the ones before it.
@@mixbustv the passes just sounded and felt different to my ears compared to the originals. Maybe I just need to get my ears hearing re calibrated or something then lol
I just finished a project with a big mixer and I mentioned I mix hybrid on my Neve desk and he was saying mixing OTB even with Lavry Gold converters tended to collapse his stereo image. Nothing about shaving frequencies though.
Of course, but I remember making a specific video about this, some engineers, even great ones, have amazing ears and taste which makes up for some potential lack of technical knowledge. If anything, stero imagine on analog will most likely be wider simply because of the discrepancies between left and right in analog domain
So do you recommend getting true analog gear over plugins? I’m looking at the ssl fusion for some enhancement because these sounds are lifeless to me now
Good but why you have a Lavry Gold AD post on the picture and find out is a motu :( . So sad , if you have the Gold it will be good to shootout against the motu :) . Or even better with more converters , prism ADA 8XR , Prism ADA 128 , DAD ax 64 ( same as MTRX from avid ) , radar converter ( the new one ) , antelope Galaxy 64 . It will be good to see if the price difference is worth it .
You missed the fact that I have the AD+ (and DA)? And btw I have that because I tested it against all those you mentioned (altho' I'm not sure why the galaxy is there) Anyway, if you watched the video the point was exactly NOT to use one of my mastering grade converters which of course are better., not a shoutout between converters
I would say plugins and hardware definitely do not sound the same, but I also think it does not matter as much, you use what you have and make great sounding music. If it sounds good, nobody cares what tools were used on it. Correct, people should not fool themselves into thinking a plugin is the same as outboard gear. But they would also be correct in saying that just because it is expensive and it is outboard, it does not mean it is "better". It is just different. If some elitist engineers say outboard is always "better", I challenge them not use a computer whatsoever. Just tape and rack gear. Nothing with firmware or OS. Be a purist true believer, if you want to preach from a high horse, right?
Good is the enemy of great. If you want to settle, settle. But don't say it doesn't matter, ot doesn't matter for those who don't care. It matters when your song plays next to the other and it sounds worse. It doesn't matter if it's an inch or a mile, a win is a win. Amd let's also not confuse songwriting with mixing. Totally different things, a bad mix will destroy a good song very easily
It would have been interesting to see what is the difference between the original and the tenth pass, just to get an idea of what changed in the process. I.e., null test.
If you can't hear a difference after x passes, why do a null test? It is irrelevant and a waste of time - it's the pinnacle of insecurity. It's about what we can perceive. In practice it would be rare to do more than 2 roundtrips on a ADDA. Better worry about other things that make a huge impact that every child can hear, like acoustics of your room.
Hello do you think that the Uad Apollo x8 have pro quality converters or mid range? for example to process the audio with external gear in 3 or 4 loopbacks, thanks a lot!
Concentrate on the qualty of the tracking and more importantly write a good song, it is all in the song, if you don't have a good song you have nothing
Except when losing fidelity is considered better to someone. You can defntly hear in the 10th passes (even in the waveform) that the sound is more focused/less detailed/more commercial sounding, so yes it's detrimental in a pure quality search but in a real life situation the fact that it is actually somewhat rounding a little bit transients and bringing some saturation is not detrimental in my opinion, it's actually a plus.
bad comparation, a fair comparison would be to compare the exact same piece of music, you are comparing one section to another that are totally different
😂 Tell everyone you don't understand the test at all without saying you don't understand the test at all. Congratulations, you missed a chance NOT to embarrass yourself
I don't get it. Why You stick to this comment if it's saying the truth and exactly the same thing as you and what you show in the video. This guy comment: "The plugin is 100% the sound and hardware loses a little bit frequency and dB after 2 conversions. The converters are cutting some of the top frequencies nothing more". Your comment: "They don't sound thinner. Pass 10 loses a very tiny amount of top end. Low end is untouched, zero. And nobody does more than 2 passes". Conclusion: AD/DA converters doesn't improve the sound. Sound from the plugin will be 100% the sound and converters doesn't change that. In the worse case scenario after 2 or more conversion sound can slightly lose a subtle top frequencies. And exactly this guy comment mean. Maybe he not dress it up in the proper words correctly and unnecesiraly mention decibels. But the whole point was there and he mean the same thing.
You can't be serious 😂😂 So you want to tell me that after listening to this test, you STILL think ONE ADDA pass is THE difference between analog and plug-in? And the plug-in is 100%, note ONE HUNDRED % the analog? Lol wanna bet $100 you won't be able to tell which is which if I ask you to blind test 1 pass vs original? Yes at 10 passes, TEN passes there is a slight top end loss. Did you watch the vs video? Is there a top end loss between analog and plug-in? Or is a totally different thing? Unbelievable. Unbelievable also how depending on what test, nobody hear the difference but when the tests goes against the belief then everyone hears a ton of difference. Also, let's not forget I've been nice here and did the test at 48, if I was to do 88 or higher and even just clocking the system with my AD+ (one of the reasons for top end changes) it would be funny. Do you guys actually have any experience with analog?
@@mixbustv You misunderstand something. I mean the same thing as you. There is no difference and I wrote this. By plugin I mean synthesizer vst in the DAW so the audio from the DAW have 100% same sound when you convert it using AD/DA hardware and eventualy after few conversion in the worst case scenario it can cut subtle the top frequencies and I think this guy comment mean the same. At the end he wrote: "They sound the same just learn how to use the plugin and stop trying to compare to different sound sources". I think he mean: Hey people. Stop wasting your time comparing sound from the vst synth plugin and sound after AD/DA conversion or different hardware like this. Learn how to do the good sound in the plugin and make music. Stop making excuses and looking and buying expensive hardware like this. The sound is the same and it doesn't improve your sound.
Can you achieve an amazing sound with plugins? YES. Does it make sense a $2000 piece sounds exactly like the $200 plugin version? OF COURSE NOT. The AD conversion test was too much time wasted to explain such a basic issue, which is inevitable even in the most expensive converters. Let that baby cry brother, he doesn´t even know how to crawl
I know right? In a plugin vs hw test "I hear no difference, makes no difference" one pass of ADDA "oh man I can hear it from the PHONE dawg!" lol all of a sudden golde ears appeared
I you ever use that stock foto o you holding your nose for some reason I will seriously unsubscribe. You are in a far, far ayaw place from the informative channel you used to have.
Hey David, I used to love you more when you didn't cut clips from movie scenes that you thought were funny, it's just ridiculous and lowering the quality of your content, imo
Do you hear the difference between analog and plug-in in the video or you need to phase invert? Answer this. Unbelievable how delusional some people are
@@mixbustv did you really get my point ? it could be just phase reverse and check the analyzer. instead you prefer to show first the synths than the drums than the vocals by every individual and wasting our time, dont treat your audience like they are stupid, dont show us where to laugh.
Oh I do get your point, you're the one not getting THE point: the difference between analog and plug-ins is in the adda trip. No it's not. You don't need a null test to hear the difference between the plug-in and the analog and you cannot tell 1 adda trip in a blind or non blind test. This video is proof. But you are the only one wasting everyone's time with your useless comment trying to tell me how to run tests on my own channel 😂 you're also here watching my videos so, who's wasting time?
A null test would be fun. Though of course, just academic. I did this same test (10 passes) with my 2002 built M-Audio for snicks and giggles, and got pretty much the same results. I couldn't tell the diff at all - though I don't have super developed ears.
Trabalho com eletrônica há 19 anos, faço reparos de interfaces de áudio no Brasil. O Conversor NÃO colore a música, e sim o circuito driver/ pré que o antecede. É só pegar o datasheet do componente conversor e pesquisar, ele tem e é neutro. A questão do som ser mais agradável em um que em outro se deve ao circuito anterior, e isso é pessoal e indiscutível.
I used to own Lavry blue and black, they are outstanding. The funny thing is I’m a home producer and now I use a focusrite and I’m very happy with it. If you are not doing high end mixing and mastering i don’t think it’s that important
why didn't you just make a null test? I must say that I didn't quite understand what was the point of debunking such a nonsense! anyway, I love your content, I've learnt so much from you, thanks man, you are awesome!
Because you don't need a null test to hear the difference between analog vs plugin do we? And anyone who touched analog once know that it will NEVER null, that's analog, even just a pass on the ADDA. If you run the same track twice, as in two 1st passes of the original they won't null. I find it funny that people claim they don't hear a difference in plugins vs hw videos or it doesn't matter but lol this, everyone has golden ears?
@@mixbustv ok! I watched the video again and now I completely understand what's all about! I lost one or two lines and I thought you talked about ADDA converters in general! that's why I didn't grasp the 10fold passing and such! However, now I am realizing that it was even sillier than before, because as you said, the hw units of that kind are non linear (like most plugs)!
What you also can offer is a phase inversion on one channel and then mix them with the 10 times resampled sound (technically called "AND" operator). Then the difference is what you hear. If we hear silence, there would be no difference, everything else is exactly the difference between the signals. Only the latency must be compensated which could be done by a leading click sound
We didn't need a null test to hear analog vs plug-in difference right? A null test with analog vs the original is useless as two 1 passes won't even null
Thanks for doing this test and video! Could Definitely hear the difference, before seeing this I ran my own ad/da loop tests between ferrofish, Apollo; Apollo x, lead me to upgrade to lynx Aurora, couldn’t be happier mixing and tracking, yes analog is deeper , more detailed than the software emulations with proper converters in my humble opinion but of course most people can’t hear the difference and it doesn’t matter
the result is what i already supposed: the converters of today are so really good that you didn´t get a mess in the signal if you put it a lot of times through it ... thx for your vid and the content 👍👍👍
I do wonder what options works best and most bang for buck for connecting a lot of outboard with this principle in mind. Digitally controlled analogue routing vs huge amount of I/O and having a few extra conversion trips. I suppose mostly it depends on the material And genre to a degree. So a bank of Patches vs a Bank of Ferrofish? Could be a very complex and time consuming video to out together. 😂
USE THE SUPER THANKS IF YOU LIKED THIS VIDEO! 👆👆👆
My Small Monitors: imp.i114863.net/qaPmg
My Headphones: imp.i114863.net/2Dzyz
SSL Fusion Video: ua-cam.com/video/zQ-wlyMTyOo/v-deo.html
🔥 YOU GOTTA WATCH THIS! ➡️ ua-cam.com/video/YuRVDyGL0VY/v-deo.html 🔥
🔥Join the Channel to Access All The Premium Courses:
bit.ly/2SNX8bx + Mix Consultations
🔥Bella Kelly's Single/Video Throat: bit.ly/3dxeJOf
The Small Monitors link doesn't go anywhere.
The reason I love this channel is you're telling the absolute truth of everything in audio. No acting
🙏🙏
Pfft.
I'm calling you out on this one.
(He's the Terminator.)
@@antoine2817 Name one better then ?
best audio engineering channel on youtube, been here since day 1
You should call this "Thoughful Thursday's. Debunking audio myths, lies, and misconceptions" 😁
NICE. Sometimes you can't tell people 'the truth' .... you must SHOW THEM. Your time and effort ..... MUCH appreciated !!!
🙏
the MAP is NOT the TERRITORY! from alfred korzybski’s general semantics. what it means is this: the “map” is always an approximation, a model, like a plugin version of hardware. it attempts to model the analog as simply and as dsp efficient as possible. its always a battle of how accurate the model is vs how “expensive” is it dsp, latency-wise. but always remember: the physical universe is always more complex than the map or the model. plugins can only approximate. all maps and all models necessarily have to approximate.
Thanks for contributing a comment that makes zero sense. Trying to be deep on UA-cam comments...great job.
@@Jazzguitar00 It wasn't complicated. If you didn't understand, ask for clarification.
I'll take 400 passes through a cheap modern converter any time over re-tracking take after take on tape. The crosstalk and bleed would always be horrible but the more you had to re-record over a track or punch in & out the more noise would creep up into that track. Between the 2 cycles for each pass across the heads to record and rewind the more you would re-record over a track the more crosstalk (bleed) you would have between the track you were recording and the other tracks on each side. This is why you normally see Bass guitar is on the 1st or last track and usually kick is on the 1st or last track. The lower the instrument the more it would spill over to other tracks on the tape. If you ever see a 1 inch or 2 inch tracking reel and the bass guitar is on a middle track you can be for certain than the engineers was a total noob or an very new assistant. After 20 to 30 plays the tape would begin to degrade from heat and friction so if it was an important session as soon as you were done tracking you made a safety copy to ensure that if the mix process went too long or overdubbing became a problem you could at least make recall sheets from the first mixes on the Dull original tape and then when you were ready to commit the mix down to 1/4 inch 2-track you would switch out the dull tape to the clean safety copy instead. Preserving as much fidelity as possible. None of these things are even an issue in modern recording and I am SO thankful for! I came up in the last years of tape and it was so much HARDER to get a good recording with so many factors that could go horribly wrong.
@@p0llenp0nyBecause its hardware, give me an analog console any day to do tracking sessions with since it makes the session move faster but TAPE SUCKS. The hysteresis would eat reverbs and delays so you have to over use them to even hear them on the mixdown tape. But good tape machines like a MCI JH24 made inexperienced engineers get better results during tracking since the tape would kind of glue things together and because engineers HAD to gain stage properly. There was no clip gain to pull an over cooked track down. You were basically mixing as you tracked it and you had to learn to get it right at the beginning. It was a pain but you would at least learn the fundamentals of recording. Today its the wild west and everybody has an opinion on how to do things their way and DAWs are very forgiving for bad engineers. But rewinding the tape and saying ROLLING for an overdub to start was way more fun than pushing the spacebar or R for record on a Mac!! LOL
A lot of drama about tape. Use a Studer A820 or 827 and don't print so hot. I can't relate to the tape hate at all, it sounds better, makes for mellower, less obsessive sessions. Maybe doesn't work for the most modern music, but generally sounds better than PCM for many genres. Converters keep getting better and better, and they keep losing less and less of the detail in the source tape.
I work with digital now, and have to put in a ton more effort and money to try and deal with all the harsh edges, plugin artifacts etc. But I've yet to find a way around the detail that is lost with PCM. Tape, hardware, and console was WAY, WAY easier to get a good sound. Maybe I just lucked out working at studios that had high end stuff like API, SSL, Studer, Ampex etc. And also, musicians who could actually play and weren't relying on endless edits, tuning, or snap to grid.
@@chipsnmydip I can see benefits for both a good machine like and MCI JH24 or and Studer 827 with its digital EQ curve instant recall, running at 30ips and a tape formula that can handle hot signals such as +9 like GP9 or 499 is as good as any digital session running at 96K with about roughly the same bandwidth and very low noise for tape. But the time it takes is atrocious compared to modern computers. I think the reason digital gets such a bad wrap for many people is the level of i/o they buy. Recording on a Studer 827 was 1000 times better than recording on the 24 track 1 inch unbalanced Tascam MSR24 with no head room! Modern converters are better than they have ever been but the analog side of modern interfaces can vary wildly. Impedance differences in line level inputs from one brand to the next can be a pain to work with, the DBU levels of the outputs for monitoring can be from 14dbu to 22dbu and so on. So its less about the converter chips today and more about the analog inputs and outputs on a interface that can really be great or garbage.
But I treat the DAW like a modern tape machine for the most part. But I still prefer the workflow on a computer compared to a tape machine simply for the fact that UNDO is a real option that did not exist in the analog days!! LOL
@@joesalyers I can appreciate and agree with all this. I did a few projects with Tascam 38, 1/4" 8 track, and it was very fortunate that these were lofi records...
i own a cl1b hardware and the cl1b uad plugin and id prefer the hardware any day ..... ..... i love plugins but i love hardware more , cant live without both of them
The "do a roundtrip to have more oomph" thingy you are referring to at the end, stems from the idea that you may get grittier sound if you clip the converter..I think it's useful to know how your converters sound when clipped, but that's about it
I don't know where it stems from but you see many home studio guys running adda trips with low budget interfaces because they thing it adds "analog vibe" which is obviously ridiculous
Very interesting. Thank you for your effort to make this "shocking" video. In addition, I learned that the psyche also has an effect on the hearing result. Just close your eyes and you will hear.
The thing is, every conversion is always detrimental, even todays converters, even the ones used in “intro” or “low end” gear is generally so good that many people can’t hear the difference. But making peope listen to it on UA-cam kinda is totally irelevant as it will destroy any purpose of giving a meaningfull and true a/b compare. Not that you can’t hear differences, but they are not representing the true real world difference between 2 different signals when you add the compression from the UA-cam codec
Nice experiment :) As expected, after 10 passes it definitely sounds slightly more "dull", the difference is even audible after youtubes lossy encoding. Applying a steep lowpass filter close to nyquist freq. is part of the conversion process btw. so they obviously do effect high frequencies and when working at 44.1k that can be audible at least after multiple conversions. Claiming that this is the only difference between analog/digital signal processors is obviously nuts, a heavily oversampled plugin could theoretically come pretty close to how the analog effect sounds though.
Exactly, and also I've been "nice" and did it at 48 with my worst conversion
Thank you, David. Another great video! By the way, I have SSL Fusion hardware, and compared it to the SSL plugins. Regarding the Vintage Drive, as you said, the differences are drastic.
did you compare the acoustica version?
@@ManOfDoodle No, I compared only SSL Fusion plugins. Maybe somebody else on this stream did and can comment.
A null test would have been nice to see what is actually different between the two files.
Yes, please!
True
No brainer
Good call. This test should be able to be replicated by most ppl watching so let's do it.
came to the comments to say the same thing
thx, great video! that's, what i waited for.
This test needed to be done. Thank you for sharing and adding audio examples! From my tests, the ONLY converters that sounded identical or better than the digital signal were Merging Technologies. They're literally the best (as in closest to raw signal in DAW). I've never heard converters that sounded exactly like the digital audio. Even my RADAR ADA II converters adds a little color and softens transients. The cheaper converters from my tests were less pleasant sounding and had less transient detail, when comparing to the top converters in the market (Prismsound, Merging Technologies, RADAR). As a hybrid mix engineer, I'd say that converters are VITAL, for accurate audio response of the hardware. It can lead to making different choices in the mix, similar to using oversampling in a plugin vs not. I did enjoy this video!
Which Merging Technologies converters do you have?
@@ilikemyrealname , The HAPI with the 2020 Premium cards sounded the best. This was specifically for muti-track converters. There are stereo converters like Forssell MADA-2 and JCF Latte that are at the same quality as HAPI, from my recent tests.
@@americanantagon1st Thanks for your response, I’ll check these out. I think Marc Daniel Nelson mentioned using the Latte.
@@ilikemyrealname , No problem at all! My pleasure! Yes, the Latte is at the same level as the top converters and the price reflects this.
with one pass the difference is negligible, but there is a very subtle smearing of transients. with 5 passes, it became more apparent, especially if you listen closely to the high frequencies such as hi hats or sibilance. at 10 passes, it was obvious. it would be interesting to hear all the tracks together because i think the difference is most noticeable in a mix.
All these yrs...i never thought of this david, interesting experiment! Thanx again
Nice video! Results where to be expected here. I think I could hear a tiny difference in the 10th pass thru drums, focusing on transients. Even in that extreme, non real life, case it could be just my bias.
Yes you can at the 10th pass, if done at higher SR with the AD+ we probably woldn't hear a thing
@@mixbustv What about the others? Is that your ultimate choice for transparency?
Awesome test. I did this on a multitrack of vsti and confirmed same thing. Better to improve mixing chops than waste time running everything out and back into converters.
Waiting for your thoughts on this new product called Freqtube Ft 1 by Freqport. Analogue external tubes for a plugin!
Awesome video!!!!
🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾 People I tell you! There is no comparison!! 😂😆🤣🤣😂😂you’re so right! It’s the people who don’t have any outboard gear that’s making these statements.
In my opinion plug ins are just 1’s and 0’s and these companies are referencing outboard gear so they can craft the digital into what outboard gear sounds like. So it’s just an EMULATION. As close as they can get it.
The outboard gear these naysayers have to take into consideration all the internal components of outboard gear that colors the sound that digital simply cannot replicate. Still usable. Just nowhere near the same.
You’re absolutely right Conversion is conversion regardless. Please continue to pound that into peoples heads. I believe that in this day and age how much better can conversion get
Love when you break these videos down. Keep it up sir!!!!!
Saying "the digital cannot replicate analog" is just as wrong as the people saying CD sounded worse than vinyl because it cannot reconstruct the smoth waveform and it looked stepped... Anything can be simulated, it's just a matter of ballance between complexity and practicality. There are software programs that can do complex electromagnetic simulations, circuit modelling and so on, but making a plugin needs to be comercially viable. A company that would spend - let's say - 5 years working only on 1 plugin to actually simulate all electronic componets, in a physically accurate way, as well as interactions, would be out of business instantly. So at the moment, while possible, is too difficult and not practically viable. But software is getting better and better, and quite soon, it would be impossible to reliably tell the difference, even by experienced engineers, it is inevitable.
@Alexandru Lapugean plugins companies, in case you missed it, has been trying to emulate analog for 30+ years. And yet, analog is still better. Plus, if you ever worked with analog, you should know the ergonomics are just as important, plus you should also know that different chains will yeld different results, if anything just because of impedance differences between unit a and unit b. It doesn't matter how much money or time you throw at research and development, you won't do it. Just like CD don't sound like vinyl or tape. Why can't you people get over it lol don't buy analog and keep using plugins, we don't care, we don't come to you saying you're wasting money on your plugins. Yet, most mixes and masters out there, that sound great, are done in analog. Great, not good. Good is the enemy of great. We don't care about good here.
@@mixbustv 🤣😆😂😆🤣😆😂🤣Tell’em sir! Tell’em!!!
Why waste the time and money on an emulation when you can go online or to your local music equipment store and buy/order outboard gear that’ll give you the sound you’re looking for🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾.
Whatever works for a Engineer works for that Engineer.
MixbusTv you might have to do a Documentary on this to get your point across on a bigger scale. 🤦🏾🤦🏾😂😂 like for real sir!!!
@@mixbustv 💯💯💯💯💯🎯🎯🎯🎯
@@mixbustv Of course I agree with you with ergonomics/workflow, even the quality/liveliness ... at the moment. They have been trying, but where has the technology been at 20 years ago? Even now, as I mentioned, it is not really feasible, even though possible. The EM simulations I was talking about, are no even close to realtime. So computation power is also a limitation. But all these are just at the moment. There is no reason why digital could not do it. There is no "analog magic" that cannot be - by principle - reproduced by the digital, it's just variations/tolerances/interactions tha are really complex so not feasible from a financial or computational point of view in the present.
And I hate to break it to you, but vinyl or tape do not sound better than CD, at least not in the way I am refering to it. The same waveform tthat sits on that vinyl or tape, could be perfectly be reproduced on a CD. But this is not the way it is done. A CD master sounds exactly as intended and heard by the engineer. A vinyl master is completely different. You have limitations with regards to the abilities of the cutting head, depth and thickness of the channels, depending on the song, there is plenty of filtering you need to do in order to feasibly cut that vinyl, and so on. For tape is similar, the sound will be modified by the magnetization process which is not perfect. Both these cases modify the incoming sound in a way that some perceive as "better", but if you did those changes in the master itself (for example running it trough a tape machine) and wrote that on a CD, what would be the difference?
Actually when comparing any hardware with software I usually pass both of them through my converters so I can hear the exact same treatment to both signals so its a completely fair test. I don't think internal summing sounds the same to my ears. Maybe its my Rosetta adding a bit of analogue mojo. (which I personally love) But certainly whether you would class a conversion as better or worse its all a matter of subjectivity and suitability to your or your clients music. So you do what makes you reach that end product. I've noticed that TOP mastering engineers comment on certain converters that play well with some hardware and not with others so this can also be a matter of marriage just like it would be for a microphone pairing to desired preamp. Converters surely do imho add a sound even if its subtle. I use multiple converters because I like to use them all for different things. Motu 896HD was my first converters as well as Creamware scope back when I didn't really understand the hardware so well. 21 years ago now. Currently still using an old school Apogee Rosetta 800, A Burl B2 Bomber and always experimenting. Hardware is usually my favourite choice. Softwares come a long way but most of the time still introduces some aliasing if not gain staged correctly so I usually use them in parallel and don't push them like I would my hardware. Mostly love Acustica stuff and using IRs or over sampling. All the best with your videos and keep it up!
But you don't use plugins that way. You don't do an adda trip every time you put a plugin on :D for testing, okay, just out of curiostity but yeah, not a real life comparison
@@mixbustv actually a lot of engineers loop plugins back into the chain. It’s very realistic and normal. Read SOS magazine mix reviews. Every top mix engineer working hybrid does it!
Great work! 👍
Great video as always David! Is it possible to get the files? I would love to do a blind test myself and I think I speak for a lot of people!
Amazing video! This should have a million views
Great video! Thanks David👍😎🎸
Thank you!
Great vid, thank you! Fan from Poland
One is talking about sound perception improvement (like a limiter/clippr can do) the other one about pure technical point of view where the A/D clipping process is physically shapping/cutting the signal ….
Plugins can both emulate AD/DA cvt sound shaping and sound processing with the typical color of the emulated HW, but, reaching the HW flavour with the SW emulation (plugin) is another story.
Maybe I'm missing something about your comment but nobody mentioned clipping anywhere
Physically cutting? A signal? Which is not physical? Ok.
Hello, I believe that modern converters have such nice quality that it is impossible or hard to hear. One question, I think I did not understood how you do your DA to AD loop? what is passes through or straight analog out from DA to analog in from AD? Peace
If you're using analog inserts for mixing there's only one way to do it, DA out of your DAW into analog, back into AD in your DAW
David I mean what is this guy on About..A few yrs ago 2 guys from present day production's channel put to test 2 audio interfaces.The SSL2 and the ID14 and asked this question.They ran It through the interfaces 500 times.its worth a watch.Your video's are great man.
Thank you!
"It's always the people that don't have analog hardware the screams and shouts that they are the same, we don't give a damn." lol so true. 😂🙃💯🤷♀
Yes! I've been waiting for this one!
Oh, this is not what I was thinking it was. I thought this said AD/DA converter roundup! Like a shootout with the Lavry Gold and the Dangerous Music AD+. That's what I've been waiting for. AD/DA roundtrip test?! What the? Phew! SMH. I'm glad we put an end to that one. I didn't even know that was a thing.
Thankyou for such great content bro... . The only mixing Channel I trust on UA-cam . ❣️
🙌🙏
2:14 en serio??? el risitas con jesus quintero es de lo mejor que ha podido dar españa al humor universal
No olvidemos la escoba.
The snare was the easiest to hear what it did. There is a blurring of the snap to the transient. The snare loses a tiny bit of the pop.
Hi. Great video. Can you do a null test with 1 pass versus 5 pass, and then 10 pass. A null test is the final test to hear if there is any small difference . Thanks
Very nice one mate !
If I may, I don’t know where the original audio files are coming from but the vocal has such a rumble in the low end that my room is shaking 😱
Then your room might have problems, that's how a human voice is suppose to sound as oppsed to the over HPF'd crap that's out there today
Providing a second point of reference to say that the rumble is not in the audio file. Good luck sorting out the room resonance 💪
@@maddietourmaline46 Well, I would really believe you if I actually haven't double-checked with headphones... Please guys, tell me you hear that low freq thingy in heaphones too?! (checked through HD650) I know at 45 my upper range is slowly falling into the void but my lows are good enough to hear this substantially ;) I'm definitely not talking about things I made up based on psychoacoustic effects of some sort. I can even add we can hear other track(s) in the vocal's reverb that have been exported with... I'm almost certain the low end rumbling is part of this reverb export, which can happen... But I wonder why we can find such low freqs in the low end of a reverb in a mix. Keep in mind I'm not trying to be an asshole tackling around, just want to analyse that thing I hear...
@@UltraSteaKME I believe that and I think you're hearing things correctly. I might just like bass a little too much. For the record I was listening on headphones as well, including a pair of very bass-enthusiastic v-moda Crossfades - my take is that the vocals probably have more low mids than they would in a mix (arbitrary but pretty indisputable). Still I am getting no distortion or discomfort and the vocal track sounds good to my ears. I would likely consider turning down or compressing the 150-300 hz range at least gently if I were to mix em', then mess around some more til I found values that worked better.
Not something I noticed at first blush, but that may say more about my lack of ear training than your experience :>
@@mixbustv There is definitely a 60hz or 50hz hum going on in this recording, or a truck driving by, or some low tone. The vocal itself sounds fine but there is some low nonsense happening for sure.
Great video as always. You should sum out of phase the sets, just to address the inevitable objections.
I'm not interested in the objections at this point. It's just funny how with plug-in vs hw it seems people can't hear the difference but some grew golden ears for this video lol
I would have liked to have seen the phase flipped on the higher generations to see if it nulls out.
Oh my.. I'm so surprised to comments like this. Like, you realize that analog will NEVER null right? If you pass one track once, then you pass the original again and null test the two 1st passes will NEVER null, right? This is one of the reasons as to why analog is different then digital. And also you don't need a null test to hear the difference between plug-ins and analog in that video.
@@mixbustv I'm just saying to show what difference there actually is in the spectrum. I can't be the only one curious to see the actual delta. I'm not saying it's the most practical application and the sound is the most important part but still something that might be interesting.
Some converters add a little bit of high frequency shelving. Arora for instance. I've never heard of an adda that attenuates high frequencies.
Some do, Burl does, in a different way some cheap ones do too
I like the first trip. It sounds smooth, silky and more pronounced.😂😂😂😂😂
Wow, this was an eye opener! 💪💪
Can’t hear a damn thing on my iPhone for the synth. But I definitely hear the difference even at 5 passes on the drums and vocal. Didn’t think I would. But I can. Something akin to saturation or loss of detail in the upper mids/highs. Interesting.
Granted, UA-cam compression and all.
Cool Video. Iam the opposite guy, I have a SSL Fusion Hardware and Neumann KH310, but I rarely use it. I was mixing so long in the box and with my DT770 pro, that it become my style of working and its hard for me to switch my workflow. Think always about to sell my speakers and the fusion, because of that.
Don't be afraid to let "good" go for "great". Changes can be hard, when for the better are always worth it
Do what gets you the most output.
It's always a grass is greener scenario. There is always 'better' something available. Trust me when you get your first hit using free plugins you realise none of it matters as long as you have the ear training to know. except to other engineers and audiophiles if course. And those two aren't a profitable audience!
@@Bthelick I use UAD plugins and imho most of them are sounding great. What I love is the total recall, when I work simultan on different projects. Sometimes when I know that a track come to the end, I start the SSL Fusion.
Jay clas is famous now LOL
While I agree that there is a difference between analog and digital, it is usually a very subtle one, this is why in mixing we try to approximate these differences by using saturation and clippers and different analog modeled signal paths to try to get that sound in the box. But having said that I can't really hear the difference here on UA-cam through my car stereo, which is usually my last stop with my mixes for quality check. So if I can't hear it now through all that, is it really something that I need to be worried about? If I had the money I would love to have a burl mother ship setup. That is my dream converter. It has that clear 3d thing that I love from analog and that's hard to get in digital. But it's also one of those super subtle differences that only someone wired like me would either hear or care about. Your average listener isn't going to hear that difference, even if you sit them down, explained it and pointed it out while they were listening to it. So should I stress over not having it? I don't think so.
Here's another one... If you think it's subtle you never work with 50 channels of analog. But like you said don't worry about it
Haha - best video ever! thanks!
Love it, No BS!
I absolutely believe you and i could not tell difference. However a null test would have been proper at the end.
You can't nulla analog with digital. You can't even null two 1st passes, it's analog.
@@mixbustv You can't or is it just not ever going to be 100%?
The opening email read 😂
Very interesting video. I watched it carefully in my studio through monitors. Basically I can clearly hear (or that`s my imagination only) the difference. So the first run sounds fuller, richer than the original track (or that`s maybe it`s sllightly louder?) and 5th and 10th pass sound a lot worse than the original track. How would you comment on that Dave? Also... When having an external converter doesn't add anything in addition, and every converter degradates the sound, why do we have so many high end AD DA converters on the market? Thank you so much for your reply.
I hear same as you bro, i think the sound from a converter, give more thickness and easy to mixing to the sound. In this video test, i disagree with David 😅
Many thanks for the video, which cables are you using in the chain? Many Compliments fot the channel
Mogami and Klotz
Thanks, I also use klotz 5000 and vovox sonorus, sometimes I find klotz a little accentuated in high mid freq. sometimes I suspect cables affected sound more than converters. Best
Good! But I think the comparison lacks the Nul test
You can't null analog with digital. You can't even null two 1st passes. Totally useless
No sir analog and digital are not the same. My $4000 black box is the reason I don’t have to worry about clipping my drums and losing transients to save headroom. That unit is the reason I can hit a beautiful -7 LUFS on my Masters.
the only discernible difference i believe i could hear was 10 passes on the drum track, sounded like the transient snap was slightly weaker after the 10 passes
i suspect the transient issue could be largely dealt with using proper clock sync or something
very interesting to hear you can pass through A/D multiple times without discernible difference, thanks
Yass!
I mean, you can hear the difference. It's just subtle, and not a fundamental one. I'd definitely rather incur an extra round trip through hardware than the sound of a plugin.
Hi david, I got your mixing and recording course on hip hop a while back and its been awesome...I was wondering if you have any other courses besides the ones on the channel suitable for someone who does mostly computer based music like afrobeat, dancehall and reggaeton
Thank you. The mixing technique I teach and use are applicable to almost any genre but I don't have anything specific to those genres. I will if I get clearance to use a song I mixed and mastered some time ago..
@@mixbustv That would be amazing...I hope they grant us Clearance and sooner rather than later
I‘d love to see a null test on this.
No analog will ever null with digital. Two 1st passes won't null
Only thing I disagree w/ David here is when he said that “No AD/DA round trip will make the plug-in sound better” (to the ear) because I believe here the term “better” is subjective. If I choose to sample a plug-in from my DAW into a SP-1200 or MPC3000 and the sound I get back from the conversion of either one of those samplers sounds better to the ear as far as I’m concerned then the sound DID get better. Even if it is just the coloration of those machines that I like.
But I didn't say "to the ear" :D which you added. That is the entire point. You can like 8bit converters but that's *objectively* worse, there's no way around the fact that a conversion, any conversion is detrimental. But even tubes are in fact detrimental if we look at it from a fidelity standpoint, yet we like them, same for transformers. The point is converters are not color boxes, at best they should have an OPTION for color, but I personally do not want my converter to color by default because is like starting a paint with an orange (or pick the color) canvas instead of white.
@@mixbustv no doubt, I appreciate it. And I get that wasn't the point you were making to begin with, I just wanted to offer a counter perspective. lol.
You only need a simple null test if cancels perfectly then there is no difference done!
Nothing cancels perfectly other than a digital copy of a file. Nothing.
i think hardware reduces the transients & some top end.
You think or it does. Because it doesn't up to 8 passes
What was your signal path? Lavry GOLD or different converter
Everything but the vocal was digital. SW synth and SD3. Vocals were tracked at 88 with AD+
He did not use the Lavry. He used his Motu 828es. Which is a pretty old converter in terms of "Mores law" It came out like 6 yrs ago but is still bvery good using the DAC Sabre ess chips. There isnt much audible difference between cheap converters and "mastering grade" converters these days (since 2018 and on) . Im not even really sure what "mastering grade" means these days. I use RME and Ferrofish pro gen 2 converters and I cannot hear any difference between mine and my buddies Lavry or his Burl. I opened the same mastering session from my studio and bounced it through his two converters and could not hear any difference sound quality wise. The Burl sounded a bit duller on the high end but that was the only difference and it was not even REALLY noticible. They do have their own color or vibe but as far as sound quality there isnt really audible difference. You can master on a Focusrite scarlet and no one would know the difference.
@@johnwalter6410 Does the old Fireface 800 still make the grade compared to newer converters ?
Couldn't have done a simple null test?
Do you do need a null test to hear the difference between plug-in and analog in that video?
@@mixbustv
Relax dude, I'm on your side of this.
...was just suggesting a quicker (and probably easier way to discern) way to prove the comment wrong as opposed to solo switching.
@@Arkayem he needs a relax indeed
All you did was pass through the converter not other hardware right? The drums too me on the 5 passes seemed way snappier for some reason.
Of course no hardware
now I wonder how much Burl converters actually color the sound! those are a little different right?
A lot, there's a transformer in there and it's literally meant to color with different drive settings
that is subtle af. i honestly couldn't hear a difference between 1 pass and 10 on most sources. but only on the synth could i hear any difference between 1 pass and the original. and it's very subtle a slight less transient. if i wasn't looking for a difference i wouldn't hear it. I also heard a similar slight difference on the drums 10 pass. Different converters color differently and most don't color at all. I know some mastering engineers have super clean converters and specific converters to color the sound and push it a bit. but it's always subtle. I don't get why people put like thousands of dollars into high end converters and what not to squash out an extra .001% better. it's not worth the money. diminishing returns are very real. as is the sunk cost fallacy.
Because you do this for a living and your 0.1% is never 0.1% is the total of your chain and your competitors will have the best amd win over you. Doesn't matter by am inch or a mile, a win is a win
@@mixbustv yes very true! But I guess my point is at a certain point the client can’t tell the difference. And for many clients speed trumps a .01% in quality bump. We can nerd out all day, but in the end the client is who we are pleasing.
So will you be selling your redundant converters and downsizing to just one? If the theory is that conversion is only capable of being destructive, then the ideal in converters is something that doesn't color the sound at all, and that would imply you only need one converter right, the least destructive one? On the other hand, if the claim is that 10 round trips of conversion didn't make a difference, then doesn't that contradict the claim that conversion is inherently destructive?
10 passes clearly maka a difference, you can hear it even here. But who the heck does 10 passes? This test has been done ON PURPOSE with my worst conversion at the lowest sample rate simply to demonstrate the absurdity of the statement that one single pass (real life and what is always used in an analog vs plugin test) make all the difference is ridiculous because 9 out of 10 people won't be able to tell the difference between original and 1 pass. The rest was to show how little still would be the difference with multiple passes. The difference between my mastering converter and this is beyond worth the cost of the thing, plus, I would never clip the MOTU, I can clip my AD up to 6db without any problem. The fact that I'm saying conversion is destructive if anything it's another, much bigger reason to have the BEST conversion you can possibly have, especially for mastering.
1st pass sounds slighly different or thinner. 5th pass definitely sounds much more thinner than 1st pass. Don't think I would want to choose 10th pass over the ones before it.
They don't sound thinner. Pass 10 loses a very tiny amount of top end. Low end is untouched, zero. And nobody does more than 2 passes
@@mixbustv the passes just sounded and felt different to my ears compared to the originals. Maybe I just need to get my ears hearing re calibrated or something then lol
I just finished a project with a big mixer and I mentioned I mix hybrid on my Neve desk and he was saying mixing OTB even with Lavry Gold converters tended to collapse his stereo image. Nothing about shaving frequencies though.
But it doesn't, it's NOT the conversion
Of course, but I remember making a specific video about this, some engineers, even great ones, have amazing ears and taste which makes up for some potential lack of technical knowledge. If anything, stero imagine on analog will most likely be wider simply because of the discrepancies between left and right in analog domain
@@mixbustv not most likely, that has exactly been my experience. I can FEEL pan moves much more distinctly analog.
Could also be pan laws
@@mSarimaa yes you’re right.
So do you recommend getting true analog gear over plugins? I’m looking at the ssl fusion for some enhancement because these sounds are lifeless to me now
Look at my studio, take a wild guess 😄
I've done tests where I did a shitload of round trips with a signal, and it still nulled with the original. Commenter is nuts.
Why no Nulltest?
Read my other replies to the same comments
Good but why you have a Lavry Gold AD post on the picture and find out is a motu :( . So sad , if you have the Gold it will be good to shootout against the motu :) . Or even better with more converters , prism ADA 8XR , Prism ADA 128 , DAD ax 64 ( same as MTRX from avid ) , radar converter ( the new one ) , antelope Galaxy 64 .
It will be good to see if the price difference is worth it .
You missed the fact that I have the AD+ (and DA)? And btw I have that because I tested it against all those you mentioned (altho' I'm not sure why the galaxy is there)
Anyway, if you watched the video the point was exactly NOT to use one of my mastering grade converters which of course are better., not a shoutout between converters
Null test-->Export null wave file-->Import Null wave file and normalize-->Show me the money.
What money? You can't null Anakin and digital, you can't even null two 1st passes
@@mixbustv null the digital passes.
Killer video as always!
I would say plugins and hardware definitely do not sound the same, but I also think it does not matter as much, you use what you have and make great sounding music. If it sounds good, nobody cares what tools were used on it. Correct, people should not fool themselves into thinking a plugin is the same as outboard gear. But they would also be correct in saying that just because it is expensive and it is outboard, it does not mean it is "better". It is just different. If some elitist engineers say outboard is always "better", I challenge them not use a computer whatsoever. Just tape and rack gear. Nothing with firmware or OS. Be a purist true believer, if you want to preach from a high horse, right?
Good is the enemy of great. If you want to settle, settle. But don't say it doesn't matter, ot doesn't matter for those who don't care. It matters when your song plays next to the other and it sounds worse. It doesn't matter if it's an inch or a mile, a win is a win. Amd let's also not confuse songwriting with mixing. Totally different things, a bad mix will destroy a good song very easily
It would have been interesting to see what is the difference between the original and the tenth pass, just to get an idea of what changed in the process. I.e., null test.
A null test between analog and digital wouldn't really be useful, if you print twice the same track, both 1 pass, they won't null, it's analog
@@mixbustv Indeed it wouldn't null. I was curious about the differences.
@@lahattec The difference would come from the hardware nonlinearities, not because of the convertors passing multiple times
If you can't hear a difference after x passes, why do a null test? It is irrelevant and a waste of time - it's the pinnacle of insecurity. It's about what we can perceive. In practice it would be rare to do more than 2 roundtrips on a ADDA. Better worry about other things that make a huge impact that every child can hear, like acoustics of your room.
You could have done a null test
Do you need a null test for the analog vs plug-in?
@@mixbustv To see if the conversion was perfect even with 10 repetitions, which i suspect it is
I love that you always want the smoke then own the comments XD
😄
Hello do you think that the Uad Apollo x8 have pro quality converters or mid range? for example
to process the audio with external gear in 3 or 4 loopbacks, thanks a lot!
Buy a Flock
@@mixbustv what is a flock?
@@mixbustv i am a fan of yout videos and i like to know if the apollo x8 have pro converters or medium quality, i think a flock is a patchbay?
Concentrate on the qualty of the tracking and more importantly write a good song, it is all in the song, if you don't have a good song you have nothing
Platitude. And this is a mix and mastering channel, song writers worry about songwriting and mix engineers worry about mixing.
Except when losing fidelity is considered better to someone. You can defntly hear in the 10th passes (even in the waveform) that the sound is more focused/less detailed/more commercial sounding, so yes it's detrimental in a pure quality search but in a real life situation the fact that it is actually somewhat rounding a little bit transients and bringing some saturation is not detrimental in my opinion, it's actually a plus.
Which is what I said at the end about the old converters
bad comparation, a fair comparison would be to compare the exact same piece of music, you are comparing one section to another that are totally different
😂 Tell everyone you don't understand the test at all without saying you don't understand the test at all. Congratulations, you missed a chance NOT to embarrass yourself
interesting how significantly it loses energy and impact on the drums
Would you try a blind test?
@@mixbustv hmmm why not ? the only way to find out the real truth :|
I don't get it. Why You stick to this comment if it's saying the truth and exactly the same thing as you and what you show in the video. This guy comment: "The plugin is 100% the sound and hardware loses a little bit frequency and dB after 2 conversions. The converters are cutting some of the top frequencies nothing more". Your comment: "They don't sound thinner. Pass 10 loses a very tiny amount of top end. Low end is untouched, zero. And nobody does more than 2 passes".
Conclusion: AD/DA converters doesn't improve the sound. Sound from the plugin will be 100% the sound and converters doesn't change that. In the worse case scenario after 2 or more conversion sound can slightly lose a subtle top frequencies.
And exactly this guy comment mean. Maybe he not dress it up in the proper words correctly and unnecesiraly mention decibels. But the whole point was there and he mean the same thing.
You can't be serious 😂😂 So you want to tell me that after listening to this test, you STILL think ONE ADDA pass is THE difference between analog and plug-in? And the plug-in is 100%, note ONE HUNDRED % the analog? Lol wanna bet $100 you won't be able to tell which is which if I ask you to blind test 1 pass vs original?
Yes at 10 passes, TEN passes there is a slight top end loss. Did you watch the vs video? Is there a top end loss between analog and plug-in? Or is a totally different thing? Unbelievable. Unbelievable also how depending on what test, nobody hear the difference but when the tests goes against the belief then everyone hears a ton of difference. Also, let's not forget I've been nice here and did the test at 48, if I was to do 88 or higher and even just clocking the system with my AD+ (one of the reasons for top end changes) it would be funny. Do you guys actually have any experience with analog?
@@mixbustv You misunderstand something. I mean the same thing as you. There is no difference and I wrote this. By plugin I mean synthesizer vst in the DAW so the audio from the DAW have 100% same sound when you convert it using AD/DA hardware and eventualy after few conversion in the worst case scenario it can cut subtle the top frequencies and I think this guy comment mean the same. At the end he wrote: "They sound the same just learn how to use the plugin and stop trying to compare to different sound sources". I think he mean: Hey people. Stop wasting your time comparing sound from the vst synth plugin and sound after AD/DA conversion or different hardware like this. Learn how to do the good sound in the plugin and make music. Stop making excuses and looking and buying expensive hardware like this. The sound is the same and it doesn't improve your sound.
Can you achieve an amazing sound with plugins? YES.
Does it make sense a $2000 piece sounds exactly like the $200 plugin version? OF COURSE NOT.
The AD conversion test was too much time wasted to explain such a basic issue, which is inevitable even in the most expensive converters.
Let that baby cry brother, he doesn´t even know how to crawl
All visual biased people here that think they here a big difference. In a blind test they would choose the multiple converted file 😅
I know right? In a plugin vs hw test "I hear no difference, makes no difference" one pass of ADDA "oh man I can hear it from the PHONE dawg!" lol all of a sudden golde ears appeared
Bro, why even bother with unqualified and stupid comments..?
We made an interesting video, it's all good 🙌
@@mixbustv Thanks for your everlasting input!
I you ever use that stock foto o you holding your nose for some reason I will seriously unsubscribe.
You are in a far, far ayaw place from the informative channel you used to have.
Oh please see yourself at the door by all means. About 10K people at this time disagree with you, so I think I'll keep doing what I'm doing
Hey David, I used to love you more when you didn't cut clips from movie scenes that you thought were funny, it's just ridiculous and lowering the quality of your content, imo
and come on wtf was that you are comparing the passes with soloing the tracks??? come on just phase reverse it
'Ye is that you? "worried about the wrong things, the wrong things"
Do you hear the difference between analog and plug-in in the video or you need to phase invert? Answer this. Unbelievable how delusional some people are
@@mixbustv did you really get my point ? it could be just phase reverse and check the analyzer. instead you prefer to show first the synths than the drums than the vocals by every individual and wasting our time, dont treat your audience like they are stupid, dont show us where to laugh.
Oh I do get your point, you're the one not getting THE point: the difference between analog and plug-ins is in the adda trip. No it's not. You don't need a null test to hear the difference between the plug-in and the analog and you cannot tell 1 adda trip in a blind or non blind test. This video is proof. But you are the only one wasting everyone's time with your useless comment trying to tell me how to run tests on my own channel 😂 you're also here watching my videos so, who's wasting time?
I hear the synth is a bit dull and less open with the 10x convertion but it didn't proof anything cuz non do 10x convertion 🤣
Could you please respond @Hugoknots I would love to hear your response.Thanks!
Not sure what comment you refer to
A null test would be fun. Though of course, just academic. I did this same test (10 passes) with my 2002 built M-Audio for snicks and giggles, and got pretty much the same results. I couldn't tell the diff at all - though I don't have super developed ears.
Não há diferença. Conversores são TODOS iguais. Os circuitos antes dele que podem modificar o som.
Trabalho com eletrônica há 19 anos, faço reparos de interfaces de áudio no Brasil. O Conversor NÃO colore a música, e sim o circuito driver/ pré que o antecede. É só pegar o datasheet do componente conversor e pesquisar, ele tem e é neutro. A questão do som ser mais agradável em um que em outro se deve ao circuito anterior, e isso é pessoal e indiscutível.
I used to own Lavry blue and black, they are outstanding. The funny thing is I’m a home producer and now I use a focusrite and I’m very happy with it. If you are not doing high end mixing and mastering i don’t think it’s that important
why didn't you just make a null test? I must say that I didn't quite understand what was the point of debunking such a nonsense!
anyway, I love your content, I've learnt so much from you, thanks man, you are awesome!
Because you don't need a null test to hear the difference between analog vs plugin do we? And anyone who touched analog once know that it will NEVER null, that's analog, even just a pass on the ADDA. If you run the same track twice, as in two 1st passes of the original they won't null. I find it funny that people claim they don't hear a difference in plugins vs hw videos or it doesn't matter but lol this, everyone has golden ears?
@@mixbustv ok! I watched the video again and now I completely understand what's all about! I lost one or two lines and I thought you talked about ADDA converters in general! that's why I didn't grasp the 10fold passing and such! However, now I am realizing that it was even sillier than before, because as you said, the hw units of that kind are non linear (like most plugs)!
What you also can offer is a phase inversion on one channel and then mix them with the 10 times resampled sound (technically called "AND" operator). Then the difference is what you hear. If we hear silence, there would be no difference, everything else is exactly the difference between the signals. Only the latency must be compensated which could be done by a leading click sound
We didn't need a null test to hear analog vs plug-in difference right? A null test with analog vs the original is useless as two 1 passes won't even null
@@mixbustvIt would be interesting, though, where the differences are. Maybe even just to realize that it makes no sense.
@@mixbustv was just an suggestion for the heretics and unbelievers 🙃
Thanks for doing this test and video! Could Definitely hear the difference, before seeing this I ran my own ad/da loop tests between ferrofish, Apollo; Apollo x, lead me to upgrade to lynx Aurora, couldn’t be happier mixing and tracking, yes analog is deeper , more detailed than the software emulations with proper converters in my humble opinion but of course most people can’t hear the difference and it doesn’t matter
the result is what i already supposed: the converters of today are so really good that you didn´t get a mess in the signal if you put it a lot of times through it ... thx for your vid and the content 👍👍👍
🙌
I do wonder what options works best and most bang for buck for connecting a lot of outboard with this principle in mind. Digitally controlled analogue routing vs huge amount of I/O and having a few extra conversion trips. I suppose mostly it depends on the material
And genre to a degree. So a bank of Patches vs a Bank of Ferrofish? Could be a very complex and time consuming video to out together. 😂
Nice! I always wandered how much the adda roundtrip was affecting the sound
THIS is why I love your channel so much. Thank you David!