Wow that's crazy!! Tried listening on my phone speaker too and could still hear the difference!! Much much more on my DT 1990 pro.. incredible difference.
Amazing! Usually i don't hear any difference in YT videos of this kind. I only hear words "can u hear the difference?" =) even though im listening with a pair of Kii's. Wasn't waiting anything from this video, cuz i thought that YT conversion would kill the quality, but... NO! I could reeeealy hear this "canyon" difference! Man! You Rock! I dont have a lot of analog gear, but here's the way i use it for recording vocals/instruments - Mic->Neve preamp->Api2500 plus->Neve MBC (AES EBU out)->RME UFX+ (AES EBU in). Neve MBC gives a lil of silk saturation, but most importantly - it gives high grade AD conversion! Result is golden! After seeing how my analog chain gives this "life" to my recordings, I could really hear what you were doing there with analog mastering chain - applause to you and your great ears! ))) Also. I see an SSL fusion in your setup. You digging it or is not worth it?
What’s quite remarkable Paul, is that you could probably mix & master ITB and it will compete against analogue commercial masters 🔥. Appreciate the upload. The Analogues version has a thicker and pronounced bottom , but the hybrid master sounds plugins and outboard still sounds v pleasing , and of a high calibre 😊.
So, are you matching the hardware and plugins by copying the position of the knobs or are you actually trying to get a similar sound from each plugin by tweaking to taste. Because the latter seems like the more realistic situation. You can’t expect 12 O’clock on a pice of hardware to be the same as 12 O’clock on the plugin. I think the most scientific way to do this would be to get your analog chain set and the try nulling a test tone with each piece of gear and its relative plugin separately and then use those settings for the plugin chain. Otherwise your just expecting the plugin to function exactly like the hardware. What if I took that plugin chain and got a really crisp, clean, hifi sounding master with them and then tried matching the hardware knobs to the plugins? Then the hardware would sound overcooked and too bright most likely. See what I’m saying? If you’re just marching knobs and numbers then I feel like the test is flawed.
IMO, obscure test/comparison man, I'm sorry i had to say it, there's no need to repeat all the other comments. But I'm glad you did it because there's not many comparisons.
The majority of people watching this will quite clearly get a good understanding of the differences even if others requests the settings to be tweaked in favour of the plugins. Maybe a test that would please the people watching this video not for what it is, would be a test where using the same plugins we tried to match as close as possible to the analogue chain. This would required a flawed test though as the settings would need to be completely different to make up for the inaccuracies of the plugins when compared to the hardware.
Hey Paul, thanks a lot for your content I always appreciate! For this time though, I could criticize that matching volumes and adding a digital EQ at the end of the chain to fix the general tone balance would be much more relevant to decide how much better hardware is.
The SPL iron has a lot of aliasing in it, since i use reaper i oversample it to remove it, but i can relate that when it's not oversampled there is some degradation in the top end due to the aliasing.
Рік тому
Thanks Paul, I always wanted to see such comparison as being an analog lover myself. However, I would love to see even more thorough comparison from you in future if possible; To completely eliminate the different elements, try using only hardwares and their corresponding emulated plugins. For example, if SSL Fusion, use the official plugin for each module. If Elysia alpha compressor, Plugin Alliance has one. In this video you showed us only hardware vs. only plugin but I couldn’t know what you exactly did to only plugin one, and we all really want to know how it will compare when they’re all thoroughly emulated. I think it will be even better if you show how you set them. I’m not sure how you did it this time but in practical comparison, it’s better to try matching them by ear, not matching their knobs. Thanks again and I look forward to seeing more of your comparisons.
This video was more for my own curiosity if a master I did using just analogue, how much difference there would be if I directly switched the units for plugins at the same settings. Your video is definitely one to do in the new year.
Рік тому
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Thanks so much, I'm really looking forward to that video and I'm sure that comparison would be very beneficial for everyone (including audio professionals).
Amazing test, thanks again Paul this is the BEST QUALITY content on UA-cam!!! I hope people now can understand how powerful is analog. I mean, plugins are good as well, but you need to force the settings a bit more in comparison to the analog unit and use oversampling most of the times, however, I believe good sound is perfectly achievable digitally (If you have loads of CPU power and top notch coded plugins like Acustica, SSL, etc.)
Hi Paul, great video! I've watched it a few times now. I've got a Fusion and an Aurora N and was wondering what you'd recommend I add if I was able to get say three hardware pieces. Iron has a V2 that I'm curious about. A hardware Black Box looks very enticing and I use the MS version of the plugin a lot. This Goly stuff looks really cutting edge. Also, do you think adding plugins to a file that you've just rendered with hardware degrades it at all? Often it sounds like the plugins are making my Fusion-rendered files sound more flat and digital. Finally, I convert 24-bit to 16-bit with Saracon using TPDF and I've tried other methods. When listening on the Aurora N, I always notice the loss of a small amount of highs and perhaps some headroom. Doesn't matter if the 24-bit file is 44k or 96k. Thanks for any advice and keep up the great work!
I will answer these questions for my next video as this will allow me to go into far more detail. I will add it to the your questions answered playlist.
Paul, I was curious if you added any other plugins to compensate for the loss of the analog pieces that you don’t have plugin emulations of. If I understood it correctly, you’re using only 5 or so plugins in the plugin-only example, right? Just curious if you could make the plugin example more competitive by adding other plugins to it. For me, I always got that flat plugin sound no matter how many plugins I piled on. So, I got Fusion. Lately I’m just using Fusion first then plugins: Basslane Pro, SPL PQ, UAD 670, and VSC-3 on an aux that feeds into the master fader where I have Pro-L2 in transparent mode. It’s getting down to crunch time. I found one leasing company that would do business with me but they would want $900 a month on a 20k gear purchase. Otherwise I can get a card and do 36 months on a Herchild, Shadow Hills MC, anything from Dangerous, and the Portico II. 48 months on selected Looptrotter and IGS gear like Emperor and Tubecore. And 24 months on Bettermaker’s catalogue. Unfairchild, Alpha, SPL, Buzz, all are 6-12 months, so probably out of the question. Max they said I’d get on a card is 10k, but even if it’s lower, I could get a Herchild or SHMC. If a Herchild brings in revenue like you said an Unfairchild does, maybe I can use that to get other things. Lots of prominent people are saying this new Stamchild 670 mkII is the best Fairchild ever. Better than Vacuvox even. On Mixbusstv, I thought it sounded a bit too clean. From UA-cam samples, my favorite was the Herchild. But it’s hard to qualify samples when comparing hardware. Maybe I could use all my cash to get a Dangerous Compressor and/or Black Box too with a Herchild or SHMC. Use the PQ plugin until I can afford a Buzz. Or maybe get a Bettermaker Eq now. Unless you think this idea of having a Herchild or SHMC as a centerpiece followed by stuff like Dangerous and Bettermaker is a dumb idea. But at least we know that swapping in some plugin versions didn’t ruin things completely. That’s a relief. I’ve mentioned Audio Animals in a lot of places in a natural way, forums and UA-cam channels. So, hopefully more people see these great videos because you’re doing stuff that no one else has done for the UA-cam audio community.
In this example the gear that I had emulations of were replaced and the analogue gear that didn't have an emulation of stayed in the chain. So taking the analogue gear out the emulation chain would have an even bigger difference.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio That's the settings for the analog+plugin emulation, right? I'm just trying to figure out what was in the third example that you said were "just plugin emulations". It was just the plugin emulations of what was in the rack, right?
@@AudioAnimalsStudio gotcha. Arenyoubusing the B2s or the mothership. I was told to go with the mothership with the bd4m card. Was told it sounds better
This is a question regarding the matching of sound rather than matching of settings, which I am sure you have done a lot of with your years doing this. Do you find that the difference with solid-state hardware is smaller in general than with valve-based? Width and depth always seem to come up as descriptors and are both a feature a valve actually has. The other time I have heard both of those descriptors was in your video about why you use Dolby Atmos, and in both cases the result of such dimensions appears to be added clarity, which is no surprise. I'm just wondering if ambisonics, or an element of, might be the missing piece of the puzzle, just as adding 3D to movies and games seems to have significantly closed the gap between 2D screens and real life. 🤔🤔
With adjustments and adding more plugins you could get somewhat closer. No matter how much you try though analogue hardware has a certain quality you just can't achieve in the digital domain.
Pfff. The analogue chain, different world. The way it enhances music sounds magical. Completely uplifting experience. Does something to the listener, not to mention it has the finished commercial record sound. Plugins still fall flat, literally. I wouldn't mind doing a test with those tracks though, see if i can use other plugins to get closer. I'm always looking for ways to maintain and ehance the stereo field ITB.
What I think we should do is get a royalty free song I can master then allow it to be downloaded. Then someone like yourself can attempt to match that sound using plugins.
Very interesting video. I’m curious to know which plugins were used in the digital master, especially which plugin was used to model the Portico. I’m not sure I’ve found an official Portico plugin yet. Cheers!
@@AudioAnimalsStudio understood, to me it sounds a little soft on the transients but maybe the elysia nvelope after it does the trick. I was just curious to know the reason of the choice. Big ups to you! Keep It up🫶🏻
the plugin master actually doesn't sound that bad, it's punchier in some ways and the stereo field is more clear... the analog version is certainly brighter, a bit more rich in texture, and possibly a touch louder, but it's slightly more grating in it's brightness
I feel the complete opposite to you. The stereo field is narrow in comparison. The plugin master lacks punch. This could be down to your playback device or system giving you a totally different contrasting opinion.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I agree it's more narrow but it's more coherent, to my ear. I could be wrong of course, but it sounds like more M/S stuff going on in the analog master... gives an initial impression of width (which is nice) but elements sound less defined in where exactly they sit in the field.
@Michael DiSanto exactly the same mid side processing is applied to both analogue and digital. The ms processing is applied on the Elysia MusEQ which because it isn't exactly the same could give this impression.
We need a list of the actual plugins used. then it would be helpful to know the settings. many plugins will not sound the same at the same dial settings and that must be accounted for. if that's carried out for each plugin and there's still no way to get them to sound closer that's more important than not knowing exactly how this test was carried out. as it could just be dials not translating 100% between the plugins and the hardware.
just one example - at the same settings SSL fusion hardware and SSL's own plugin sound vastly different. but with tweaking they can get super super close.
@@toddmiller6497 just believe.. it's not about settings. He's absolutely right about hardware vs soft. You'll never get 3d bouncing quality sound from plugins
Yeah very convincing, especially the all plugin version which just lost depth and realness to it vs the all analogue. Keep these type of real listening vids coming. Please do a vid on "how to test your room and set up monitors in order to fix minor flaws like: 6db null @ 100hz and +3 boosts at 90-40hz" Thanks.
You milage may vary, my as an engineer I can say nowadays engineers and scientists can copy things very well. And emulation too.. But it depends how they copy their hardware as if they will provide exect same copy no one will buy any hardware from them. I think the only difference will be that the hardware will generate results diffrent ebery time as they aren't computers mostly. At the end of the day you are doing most of the work is digital devices..
The clarity is obvious and I’m listening on a phone 😂… I always find analog is a living sound. Obviously there’s all these subtle things that digital tries to emulate but never is the living aspect of the sound emulated. I think what it is, in digital separate sounds don’t have their own space… where they overlap they get boxed together… in analog sounds seem to live individually, or rather there’s a lot more headroom of each sound living individually… of course you can run into the same flat sound with analog if you do its completely incorrectly but this then means if you do it right, you’ll get a noticeable step up when using analog… the big difference is a accumulated effect. These tiny differences add up a lot with just a few units… imagine the difference on a mix… 60 digital track VS 60 analog
Someone with a really good knowledge of mastering could create an OK master using ozone. For me though it's not up to standard of a good analogue mastering. It'll achieve you far better results than AI mastering though.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I run out for compression, Saturation and EQ then come back in and over sample ITB limiters. I get good results. I agree, plug-in mastering is a nightmare to listen to.
Yea Digital emulations are not there yet and will never be 100%. But you have to Master different digitally to get a bit more closer but you know that as no other and this is just a comparison between HW and SW. so HW wins by far but doesn’t surprise me. Cheers and nice vid thanks
The hardware mastering version is great,no doubt. If all the settings were just matched to the plugins,- of course,- they will be not the same soundwise. The question,that everyone,i'm sure,- want to know the answer to,is: is it possible to achieve the same result s with the plugins only? The answer is obvious: yes! With the right choice and right settings - no doubt: yes!
I am sorry but the test is not correct. You can indeed go much closer with plugins then what you did. It may not be the exact same settings, maybe adding a bit of stereo widening or saturation but what you did here is not right, simple. But I am with you on the analog discussion, analog sounds better if your converters are excellent. Analog has more life, more iron. Details though are better on digital masters, conversion no matter how "clean" it is will hide some precision. Honestly the only way to truly hear the difference between analog and digital is through a great converter, and great speakers. If the difference is detectable that much on UA-cam it means some settings you set are off. Another thing regards your often mentioned...or you go expensive analog or you go plugins. Don't agree, I have some 500 series modules that sound better then some expensive 19 inches racks units. This is imo misleading. Anyway Thank you for your video
Exact same settings were used. Adding more to the plugin is not a correct test. You are asking me to cheat to make the plugin better. When the hardware is set to -12 the plugin is set to -12. The plugins are setup identically to the settings on the hardware. What this highlights is the inaccuracies of the plugins matching the hardware. What you can do though in these test is cheat by adding some extra EQ in to get a closer sound. What you are talking about isn't what this video is about though, you are talking bout analogue vs digital plugins. This video is about how much difference there is when replacing hardware for plugin emulations at exactly the same settings. If the plugin emulations were bang on correct, there should be no difference.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio no.. that’s backwards thinking. Because I could take the plugin and make it sound good and then when I try matching the hardware am I supposed to have the opinion that the hardware is to bright and heavy? You can’t set one against the other that way. You need to make each piece as close to each other as possible then test. Not all hardware is even calibrated the same, so how can you expect a plugin to be exactly the same? I suggested trying to null a test tone between hard ware and plugin in. That will tell you if they can accomplish the same things. Just the fact that you said “never” use plugins for mastering is kinda nuts. Your test was flawed.
@Northern Skies you are all looking for a different video. This video is about replacing the hardware with its plugin emulation equivalent matched to the same settings.. Not can you achieve the same result as analogue mastering using plugin emulations. This video will be covered in an upcoming video. I'm glad you are all so interested in this upcoming video.
Of course hardware will always win digital clipping maximum output is 0 dbfs and in a high end console you'll have a bigger headroom +24 dbu maximum output some do +27 dbu like the SSL's
Because of you my wife want to kill me. I’m in the live sound industry, Digico user. Waves plugins user but after I started to watch your video I decided to give a try and add analog gears to my master bus. I added a portico MBC and the SSL fusion and brother my mix just went to another level. Now i feel that i need a mastering EQ. Any recommendations? I’ll love to keep it in 1 maybe 2 rack space. Thanks for all you do for us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Haha imagine how my wife feels. Put moving house on hold I need to build another studio. Regarding EQ's. I really like the Handcrafted Labs Thermos v3. It has mid side built in and is a brilliant 4 band eq with filter. Has everything. Another option is the goly porter grinder. A bit more. The best option is the maselec mea2. But that is £7k. The Thermos is as good and only £3k with mid side.
I bet you set all the settings the same. Thats the problem. unfortunately, the setting conversion is different, just as each piece of the same analog gear is different. my SPL does NOT sound like yours on the exact same settings. I can hear that you used same settings! You need to master the song to the best you can or let me use the same plugins setup, replace your analog with different plugin and then see who Master is better. Thats a fairer comparison.
How about this. I give you a list of plugins you can use that I have analogue hardware of. You can then use these plugins to achieve the best master you possible can. You then send me a start to finish screen recording of your master. I will then use this for the video and I will also create a master using only the hardware equivalent. Then we let youtube be the judge. Here is a list of plugins you can use. And if you aren't up for it, maybe someone else who reads this would be. Blackbox HG2 Elysia Nvelope Kush Clariphonic SPL PQ Elysia MusEQ Vertigo VSE-2 SPL Iron
@AudioAnimalsStudio that would not be fair because you are using 3 extra pieces of analog gear that there is not a pligin for. So for those three I should be able to pick whichever I want to. Or you only use the gear that has a equal plugin for. And I'll use the equal plugin and no more. It's no apple to apple if you using additional gear that what I'm able to use. And if your going to use additional gear of your choice I should be able too do the same. If your using 3 additional gear of your choice then my 3 additional should be of my choice. The point is if analog sounds better, worse or same with the best we can make it right? I'll let you choose which way we go on this! 1. Only gear with plugins matching or 2. The number of pieces of extra gear you use I choose my extra plugins and no more. In addition, you will need to pick the same song to master of course.
@AudioAnimalsStudio thats what I just said. You have to use only the hardware I'm allowed to do the plugin of. Now on the song. I'll allow you to pick and provide song. In addition, to assure everything is fair, we can do this live and do it time-based. I think 10-15 min is enough time. What you think? To make sure I only use allowed plugins and you only allowed gear.
@ThaDawn provide me with a 15 minute video of you using only the above plugins along with the original source audio you are using. Then when I have 15 minutes to shoot the video I will. I can't have you dictating my busy schedule.
I want hardware bad but I don’t want to waste money just to get it wrong I’d rather pay you to master my tracks plugin emulation is as far as I can go.
This issue is when getting into hardware is kind of like, go big or go home. Cheap hardware is as good as plugins, but if you get quality equipment you result in a big quality difference. As lovely as analogue hardware is if I was a producer I would outsource my mastering instead of buying a mastering chain. For instance you are mastering one song a week of your own. The chain use is minimal. It would be far cheaper to outsource mastering.
Wow that's crazy!! Tried listening on my phone speaker too and could still hear the difference!! Much much more on my DT 1990 pro.. incredible difference.
I think there’s something with the stereo field that make pure analog “more 3d”
The difference is significant
Thank you!
Amazing!
Usually i don't hear any difference in YT videos of this kind. I only hear words "can u hear the difference?" =) even though im listening with a pair of Kii's. Wasn't waiting anything from this video, cuz i thought that YT conversion would kill the quality, but... NO! I could reeeealy hear this "canyon" difference! Man! You Rock!
I dont have a lot of analog gear, but here's the way i use it for recording vocals/instruments - Mic->Neve preamp->Api2500 plus->Neve MBC (AES EBU out)->RME UFX+ (AES EBU in). Neve MBC gives a lil of silk saturation, but most importantly - it gives high grade AD conversion! Result is golden! After seeing how my analog chain gives this "life" to my recordings, I could really hear what you were doing there with analog mastering chain - applause to you and your great ears! )))
Also. I see an SSL fusion in your setup. You digging it or is not worth it?
What’s quite remarkable Paul, is that you could probably mix & master ITB and it will compete against analogue commercial masters 🔥.
Appreciate the upload. The Analogues version has a thicker and pronounced bottom , but the hybrid master sounds plugins and outboard still sounds v pleasing , and of a high calibre 😊.
this is exactly what Im looking now - getting some good hardware to finally get that sound I hear from radio or my musiclist
So, are you matching the hardware and plugins by copying the position of the knobs or are you actually trying to get a similar sound from each plugin by tweaking to taste. Because the latter seems like the more realistic situation. You can’t expect 12 O’clock on a pice of hardware to be the same as 12 O’clock on the plugin. I think the most scientific way to do this would be to get your analog chain set and the try nulling a test tone with each piece of gear and its relative plugin separately and then use those settings for the plugin chain. Otherwise your just expecting the plugin to function exactly like the hardware. What if I took that plugin chain and got a really crisp, clean, hifi sounding master with them and then tried matching the hardware knobs to the plugins? Then the hardware would sound overcooked and too bright most likely. See what I’m saying? If you’re just marching knobs and numbers then I feel like the test is flawed.
IMO, obscure test/comparison man, I'm sorry i had to say it, there's no need to repeat all the other comments. But I'm glad you did it because there's not many comparisons.
The majority of people watching this will quite clearly get a good understanding of the differences even if others requests the settings to be tweaked in favour of the plugins. Maybe a test that would please the people watching this video not for what it is, would be a test where using the same plugins we tried to match as close as possible to the analogue chain. This would required a flawed test though as the settings would need to be completely different to make up for the inaccuracies of the plugins when compared to the hardware.
Hey Paul, thanks a lot for your content I always appreciate! For this time though, I could criticize that matching volumes and adding a digital EQ at the end of the chain to fix the general tone balance would be much more relevant to decide how much better hardware is.
The SPL iron has a lot of aliasing in it, since i use reaper i oversample it to remove it, but i can relate that when it's not oversampled there is some degradation in the top end due to the aliasing.
Thanks Paul, I always wanted to see such comparison as being an analog lover myself.
However, I would love to see even more thorough comparison from you in future if possible;
To completely eliminate the different elements, try using only hardwares and their corresponding emulated plugins. For example, if SSL Fusion, use the official plugin for each module. If Elysia alpha compressor, Plugin Alliance has one. In this video you showed us only hardware vs. only plugin but I couldn’t know what you exactly did to only plugin one, and we all really want to know how it will compare when they’re all thoroughly emulated.
I think it will be even better if you show how you set them. I’m not sure how you did it this time but in practical comparison, it’s better to try matching them by ear, not matching their knobs.
Thanks again and I look forward to seeing more of your comparisons.
This video was more for my own curiosity if a master I did using just analogue, how much difference there would be if I directly switched the units for plugins at the same settings. Your video is definitely one to do in the new year.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Thanks so much, I'm really looking forward to that video and I'm sure that comparison would be very beneficial for everyone (including audio professionals).
ANALOGUE very time to my ears by a country mile ❤💯👌🏽🕺🏽💃
Amazing test, thanks again Paul this is the BEST QUALITY content on UA-cam!!! I hope people now can understand how powerful is analog. I mean, plugins are good as well, but you need to force the settings a bit more in comparison to the analog unit and use oversampling most of the times, however, I believe good sound is perfectly achievable digitally (If you have loads of CPU power and top notch coded plugins like Acustica, SSL, etc.)
Hi Paul, great video! I've watched it a few times now. I've got a Fusion and an Aurora N and was wondering what you'd recommend I add if I was able to get say three hardware pieces. Iron has a V2 that I'm curious about. A hardware Black Box looks very enticing and I use the MS version of the plugin a lot. This Goly stuff looks really cutting edge. Also, do you think adding plugins to a file that you've just rendered with hardware degrades it at all? Often it sounds like the plugins are making my Fusion-rendered files sound more flat and digital. Finally, I convert 24-bit to 16-bit with Saracon using TPDF and I've tried other methods. When listening on the Aurora N, I always notice the loss of a small amount of highs and perhaps some headroom. Doesn't matter if the 24-bit file is 44k or 96k. Thanks for any advice and keep up the great work!
I will answer these questions for my next video as this will allow me to go into far more detail. I will add it to the your questions answered playlist.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Thanks Paul, I know it's gonna be awesome!
Paul, I was curious if you added any other plugins to compensate for the loss of the analog pieces that you don’t have plugin emulations of. If I understood it correctly, you’re using only 5 or so plugins in the plugin-only example, right? Just curious if you could make the plugin example more competitive by adding other plugins to it.
For me, I always got that flat plugin sound no matter how many plugins I piled on. So, I got Fusion. Lately I’m just using Fusion first then plugins: Basslane Pro, SPL PQ, UAD 670, and VSC-3 on an aux that feeds into the master fader where I have Pro-L2 in transparent mode.
It’s getting down to crunch time. I found one leasing company that would do business with me but they would want $900 a month on a 20k gear purchase.
Otherwise I can get a card and do 36 months on a Herchild, Shadow Hills MC, anything from Dangerous, and the Portico II. 48 months on selected Looptrotter and IGS gear like Emperor and Tubecore. And 24 months on Bettermaker’s catalogue.
Unfairchild, Alpha, SPL, Buzz, all are 6-12 months, so probably out of the question. Max they said I’d get on a card is 10k, but even if it’s lower, I could get a Herchild or SHMC. If a Herchild brings in revenue like you said an Unfairchild does, maybe I can use that to get other things.
Lots of prominent people are saying this new Stamchild 670 mkII is the best Fairchild ever. Better than Vacuvox even. On Mixbusstv, I thought it sounded a bit too clean. From UA-cam samples, my favorite was the Herchild. But it’s hard to qualify samples when comparing hardware.
Maybe I could use all my cash to get a Dangerous Compressor and/or Black Box too with a Herchild or SHMC. Use the PQ plugin until I can afford a Buzz. Or maybe get a Bettermaker Eq now.
Unless you think this idea of having a Herchild or SHMC as a centerpiece followed by stuff like Dangerous and Bettermaker is a dumb idea.
But at least we know that swapping in some plugin versions didn’t ruin things completely. That’s a relief.
I’ve mentioned Audio Animals in a lot of places in a natural way, forums and UA-cam channels. So, hopefully more people see these great videos because you’re doing stuff that no one else has done for the UA-cam audio community.
In this example the gear that I had emulations of were replaced and the analogue gear that didn't have an emulation of stayed in the chain. So taking the analogue gear out the emulation chain would have an even bigger difference.
You should watch this video. It'll really help you. ua-cam.com/video/4YdcjsqmGE4/v-deo.html
@@AudioAnimalsStudio That's the settings for the analog+plugin emulation, right? I'm just trying to figure out what was in the third example that you said were "just plugin emulations". It was just the plugin emulations of what was in the rack, right?
I cant remeber of any if your videos ever said. But was your ad/da are you using?
We use Burl converters in all our studios.
@Audio Animals Studio ok cool. Im between burl mothership and merging hapi. Have you tried merging and are they similar?
@SXTWLVE no I haven't used them before so couldn't possible comment
@@AudioAnimalsStudio gotcha. Arenyoubusing the B2s or the mothership. I was told to go with the mothership with the bd4m card. Was told it sounds better
@SXTWLVE we use the B2's and they are perfect
This is a question regarding the matching of sound rather than matching of settings, which I am sure you have done a lot of with your years doing this. Do you find that the difference with solid-state hardware is smaller in general than with valve-based? Width and depth always seem to come up as descriptors and are both a feature a valve actually has. The other time I have heard both of those descriptors was in your video about why you use Dolby Atmos, and in both cases the result of such dimensions appears to be added clarity, which is no surprise. I'm just wondering if ambisonics, or an element of, might be the missing piece of the puzzle, just as adding 3D to movies and games seems to have significantly closed the gap between 2D screens and real life. 🤔🤔
The question will then be... Can you get a plugin version to sound closer to the analogue version?
With adjustments and adding more plugins you could get somewhat closer. No matter how much you try though analogue hardware has a certain quality you just can't achieve in the digital domain.
Pfff. The analogue chain, different world. The way it enhances music sounds magical. Completely uplifting experience. Does something to the listener, not to mention it has the finished commercial record sound. Plugins still fall flat, literally. I wouldn't mind doing a test with those tracks though, see if i can use other plugins to get closer. I'm always looking for ways to maintain and ehance the stereo field ITB.
What I think we should do is get a royalty free song I can master then allow it to be downloaded. Then someone like yourself can attempt to match that sound using plugins.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio yea that would be really good. If you find the time to do that, it would be much appreciated !
Like da Gold Font on Black Tee 🔥🙏🏾
Very interesting video. I’m curious to know which plugins were used in the digital master, especially which plugin was used to model the Portico. I’m not sure I’ve found an official Portico plugin yet. Cheers!
using access analog , is there anything on their list you would say is a must try ?... so far loving the width knob on portico :}.
Check out the blackbox hg2. That is something special.
Why you choose the spl iron over other option at the same price point? Like the thermionic phoenix?
The SPL iron has always been one of my favourite compressors. In my opinion, one of the best compressors in the price range.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio understood, to me it sounds a little soft on the transients but maybe the elysia nvelope after it does the trick. I was just curious to know the reason of the choice.
Big ups to you! Keep It up🫶🏻
the plugin master actually doesn't sound that bad, it's punchier in some ways and the stereo field is more clear... the analog version is certainly brighter, a bit more rich in texture, and possibly a touch louder, but it's slightly more grating in it's brightness
I feel the complete opposite to you. The stereo field is narrow in comparison. The plugin master lacks punch. This could be down to your playback device or system giving you a totally different contrasting opinion.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I agree it's more narrow but it's more coherent, to my ear. I could be wrong of course, but it sounds like more M/S stuff going on in the analog master... gives an initial impression of width (which is nice) but elements sound less defined in where exactly they sit in the field.
@Michael DiSanto exactly the same mid side processing is applied to both analogue and digital. The ms processing is applied on the Elysia MusEQ which because it isn't exactly the same could give this impression.
Why dont you do Blindtests?
We need a list of the actual plugins used. then it would be helpful to know the settings. many plugins will not sound the same at the same dial settings and that must be accounted for. if that's carried out for each plugin and there's still no way to get them to sound closer that's more important than not knowing exactly how this test was carried out. as it could just be dials not translating 100% between the plugins and the hardware.
just one example - at the same settings SSL fusion hardware and SSL's own plugin sound vastly different. but with tweaking they can get super super close.
@@toddmiller6497 just believe.. it's not about settings. He's absolutely right about hardware vs soft. You'll never get 3d bouncing quality sound from plugins
Yeah very convincing, especially the all plugin version which just lost depth and realness to it vs the all analogue. Keep these type of real listening vids coming.
Please do a vid on "how to test your room and set up monitors in order to fix minor flaws like: 6db null @ 100hz and +3 boosts at 90-40hz" Thanks.
I think the winner here is the engineer as on both tracks I could happily listen to either and enjoy it. 😉
You milage may vary, my as an engineer I can say nowadays engineers and scientists can copy things very well. And emulation too..
But it depends how they copy their hardware as if they will provide exect same copy no one will buy any hardware from them.
I think the only difference will be that the hardware will generate results diffrent ebery time as they aren't computers mostly.
At the end of the day you are doing most of the work is digital devices..
The clarity is obvious and I’m listening on a phone 😂…
I always find analog is a living sound.
Obviously there’s all these subtle things that digital tries to emulate but never is the living aspect of the sound emulated.
I think what it is, in digital separate sounds don’t have their own space… where they overlap they get boxed together… in analog sounds seem to live individually, or rather there’s a lot more headroom of each sound living individually… of course you can run into the same flat sound with analog if you do its completely incorrectly but this then means if you do it right, you’ll get a noticeable step up when using analog… the big difference is a accumulated effect.
These tiny differences add up a lot with just a few units… imagine the difference on a mix… 60 digital track VS 60 analog
You should try Acustica Coral instead of the PA Iron, it's much better.
What do you think about izotope ozone? Can someone create a commercial grade Master using it?
Someone with a really good knowledge of mastering could create an OK master using ozone. For me though it's not up to standard of a good analogue mastering. It'll achieve you far better results than AI mastering though.
Thanks for the reply. Love watching your videos. Keep up the good work. 👍
@fawdian thank you. Glad you are enjoying them. I hope they are helpful
Very helpful and informative.
Do you mainly handle limiting in the digital domain?
Yes in this studio in my chain I prefer to limit ITB. In the other studio we use the Bettermaker Darthlimiter and maselec MPL-2
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I run out for compression, Saturation and EQ then come back in and over sample ITB limiters. I get good results. I agree, plug-in mastering is a nightmare to listen to.
Yea Digital emulations are not there yet and will never be 100%. But you have to Master different digitally to get a bit more closer but you know that as no other and this is just a comparison between HW and SW. so HW wins by far but doesn’t surprise me. Cheers and nice vid thanks
The hardware mastering version is great,no doubt. If all the settings were just matched to the plugins,- of course,- they will be not the same soundwise. The question,that everyone,i'm sure,- want to know the answer to,is: is it possible to achieve the same result s with the plugins only? The answer is obvious: yes! With the right choice and right settings - no doubt: yes!
I'm pretty sure that the name Museq is coming from "music", just written in a tricky way. So it is pronounced as "muse" + "EQ".
In the east end of London we say musek. The Heritage Audio Herchild is called a Eritage Audio Erchild.
I am sorry but the test is not correct. You can indeed go much closer with plugins then what you did. It may not be the exact same settings, maybe adding a bit of stereo widening or saturation but what you did here is not right, simple. But I am with you on the analog discussion, analog sounds better if your converters are excellent. Analog has more life, more iron. Details though are better on digital masters, conversion no matter how "clean" it is will hide some precision. Honestly the only way to truly hear the difference between analog and digital is through a great converter, and great speakers. If the difference is detectable that much on UA-cam it means some settings you set are off. Another thing regards your often mentioned...or you go expensive analog or you go plugins. Don't agree, I have some 500 series modules that sound better then some expensive 19 inches racks units. This is imo misleading. Anyway Thank you for your video
Exact same settings were used. Adding more to the plugin is not a correct test. You are asking me to cheat to make the plugin better. When the hardware is set to -12 the plugin is set to -12. The plugins are setup identically to the settings on the hardware. What this highlights is the inaccuracies of the plugins matching the hardware. What you can do though in these test is cheat by adding some extra EQ in to get a closer sound.
What you are talking about isn't what this video is about though, you are talking bout analogue vs digital plugins. This video is about how much difference there is when replacing hardware for plugin emulations at exactly the same settings. If the plugin emulations were bang on correct, there should be no difference.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio no.. that’s backwards thinking. Because I could take the plugin and make it sound good and then when I try matching the hardware am I supposed to have the opinion that the hardware is to bright and heavy? You can’t set one against the other that way. You need to make each piece as close to each other as possible then test. Not all hardware is even calibrated the same, so how can you expect a plugin to be exactly the same? I suggested trying to null a test tone between hard ware and plugin in. That will tell you if they can accomplish the same things. Just the fact that you said “never” use plugins for mastering is kinda nuts. Your test was flawed.
@@davidasher22 this video is to highlight how accurate the plugin emulation is compared to the hardware. You are looking for a different video.
you are 100% right. this video is absolutely ridiculous.
@Northern Skies you are all looking for a different video. This video is about replacing the hardware with its plugin emulation equivalent matched to the same settings.. Not can you achieve the same result as analogue mastering using plugin emulations. This video will be covered in an upcoming video. I'm glad you are all so interested in this upcoming video.
Of course hardware will always win digital clipping maximum output is 0 dbfs and in a high end console you'll have a bigger headroom +24 dbu maximum output some do +27 dbu like the SSL's
Because of you my wife want to kill me.
I’m in the live sound industry, Digico user. Waves plugins user but after I started to watch your video I decided to give a try and add analog gears to my master bus. I added a portico MBC and the SSL fusion and brother my mix just went to another level. Now i feel that i need a mastering EQ. Any recommendations? I’ll love to keep it in 1 maybe 2 rack space. Thanks for all you do for us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Haha imagine how my wife feels. Put moving house on hold I need to build another studio.
Regarding EQ's. I really like the Handcrafted Labs Thermos v3. It has mid side built in and is a brilliant 4 band eq with filter. Has everything. Another option is the goly porter grinder. A bit more. The best option is the maselec mea2. But that is £7k. The Thermos is as good and only £3k with mid side.
I bet you set all the settings the same. Thats the problem. unfortunately, the setting conversion is different, just as each piece of the same analog gear is different. my SPL does NOT sound like yours on the exact same settings. I can hear that you used same settings! You need to master the song to the best you can or let me use the same plugins setup, replace your analog with different plugin and then see who Master is better. Thats a fairer comparison.
How about this. I give you a list of plugins you can use that I have analogue hardware of. You can then use these plugins to achieve the best master you possible can. You then send me a start to finish screen recording of your master. I will then use this for the video and I will also create a master using only the hardware equivalent. Then we let youtube be the judge. Here is a list of plugins you can use. And if you aren't up for it, maybe someone else who reads this would be.
Blackbox HG2
Elysia Nvelope
Kush Clariphonic
SPL PQ
Elysia MusEQ
Vertigo VSE-2
SPL Iron
@AudioAnimalsStudio that would not be fair because you are using 3 extra pieces of analog gear that there is not a pligin for. So for those three I should be able to pick whichever I want to. Or you only use the gear that has a equal plugin for. And I'll use the equal plugin and no more. It's no apple to apple if you using additional gear that what I'm able to use. And if your going to use additional gear of your choice I should be able too do the same. If your using 3 additional gear of your choice then my 3 additional should be of my choice. The point is if analog sounds better, worse or same with the best we can make it right? I'll let you choose which way we go on this! 1. Only gear with plugins matching or 2. The number of pieces of extra gear you use I choose my extra plugins and no more.
In addition, you will need to pick the same song to master of course.
@@ThaRealDawn no it would be fair as I would only use the hardware you use. You have to make it a fair test. No cheating.
@AudioAnimalsStudio thats what I just said. You have to use only the hardware I'm allowed to do the plugin of.
Now on the song. I'll allow you to pick and provide song. In addition, to assure everything is fair, we can do this live and do it time-based. I think 10-15 min is enough time. What you think? To make sure I only use allowed plugins and you only allowed gear.
@ThaDawn provide me with a 15 minute video of you using only the above plugins along with the original source audio you are using. Then when I have 15 minutes to shoot the video I will. I can't have you dictating my busy schedule.
I want hardware bad but I don’t want to waste money just to get it wrong I’d rather pay you to master my tracks plugin emulation is as far as I can go.
This issue is when getting into hardware is kind of like, go big or go home. Cheap hardware is as good as plugins, but if you get quality equipment you result in a big quality difference. As lovely as analogue hardware is if I was a producer I would outsource my mastering instead of buying a mastering chain. For instance you are mastering one song a week of your own. The chain use is minimal. It would be far cheaper to outsource mastering.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I will let you know when I’m ready