Plugins are as good as a Pro Mixing Console?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 чер 2024
- Spending $100,000 on a Neve console was a TOTAL waste of money! Plugins do the same thing! They sound EXACTLY THE SAME. Well, that's what the marketing says, anyway! You tell me! Followup video: • $100,000 Neve Console ...
Crushing bass tone is the key to a great mix! Get ELEMENT BASS today! spectredigital.com/product/el...
Love the show? Click the JOIN button, become a Channel Member! Get exclusive live streams, and special emojis and badges! ua-cam.com/users/spectresoundst...
Join the SMG Discord! Share mixes, get feedback, make better records!
/ discord
About Spectre Sound Studios:
I'm Glenn Fricker, engineer here at Spectre Sound Studios. I love making records, and after doing it for sixteen years, I want to pass on what I've learned. On my channel you can find tutorials on how to record guitar, bass, real drums and vocals. There's reviews and demos of tube amps, amp sims, drums, mics, preamps, outboard gear, Electric Guitar, Bass Guitar, and plugin effects.
We've covered Moon on the Water, played Bias FX, given you the absolute best in Stupid Musician Texts, ranted & raved about bass guitar, and this channel is where The Eagle has Landed.
Everything you've wanted to learn about recording Hard Rock & Heavy Metal can be found right here on this channel!
I also respond to your comments & questions: The best make it into the SMG Viewer's Comments series of videos. Loads of fun, lots of laughs.
Thanks for checking out my channel & please subscribe!
For everyone wondering "where's the followup?" Here's the reveal video ua-cam.com/video/HyptWbSKZPE/v-deo.htmlsi=qOwwHEFD90Ckk3qg
As glenn said multiple times, theres no problem with purchasing expensive stuff. The problem is telling people they NEED to purchase them.
The problem are misleading comments like yours. Plugins are plugins, analog is analog. We shouldn't even be comparing them to each other.
That kinda goes both ways though. Insisting on people buying cheap stuff while being able to afford top tier gear yourself comes off a bit disingenuous.
@@CombatLegsVIDS
Calm down boomer...
We are comparing them, this is happening and you'll just have to learn to live with it 😄
@@CombatLegsVIDS Why not?
@@user-eh1vp3ev3c I use both but I'm not delusional about both tools. This weird digital vs analog battle is such a fascinating look into the psychology of man.
My favs are A (first song), then B (second song), then B (third song), then A (fourth song). So ABBA, you dancing Glen!
the same, every mix its so good, but ABBA its more.... i dont know, nice (?
The B mixes (assuming A & B didn't switch throughout the vid) generally sounded more full. Like they weren't as compressed, more real. The A mixes sounded more sterile to me and I would assume the console is Mix B, which I preferred. But I've always prefered a more human sound.
feel the same, B mixes all the way
I think so too.
I almost agree but it’s more B B A B for me.
And now, having learned that, go back in Reaper and enhance the mixes. B seemed a little more separation and some reverbs to me. A seemed a little more foggy/muddy/bland to me. Studio monitors at the vertexes of the equilateral triangle on my desk.
Yeah it’s not even close
Well since I was only able to really listen to the episode and not watch. I can tell you that both mixes in every instance sounded great to me. I'd be happy with either lol.
Mix B seems to be my favorite. They both sound great though. I wouldn't be disappointed with either product, if my band came in.
Love these tests. Thanks Glenn 🤘🤘🤘
By ear, the differences between these mixes are mainly in the width (q-factor) of the equalization applied and in harmonic saturation. I'm convinced that in Reaper you could replicate the sound from the console practically 1:1, if you applied a slight saturation at each stage of processing (to produce a similar effect to the effects of the transformers in the console) and work with wider set EQ parameters (the default settings on consoles are usually much wider than in plug-ins). In my opinion, with the current level of plug-ins, it is difficult to justify the purchase of a console by referring to how it sounds. However, you can easily justify its purchase with the advantages of ergonomics and productivity, as well as supporting proper habits (using your ears, not your eyes). In short: for the home it is a fad, for a professional studio, a justified purchase.
You really can’t tell brother Glen. At least sonically and I’m listening on a good pair of monitors and cans. No it’s not because I don’t want to spend the loot it’s just because I don’t hear a massive difference to justify $$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Bedroom producers are still making great material. At the end of the day a million can tell the difference and a million people can’t. Fuckin great channel always on point and I’m a R&B, blues, jazz, funk, gospel classic rock kind of cat. But I will tell you this I’m open to all genres of music even metal well some metal. It’s all great for the planet. I’ll continue to sub because you Glen keeps it real!!!
No.. A hundred can but a million can’t
I preferred mix A on most of them, curious of the reveal.
Same
On my well trusted and calibrated MacBook Air speakers both sounded great ;) but recording A in all cases reminded me mostly to my recordings made with real mixer and 1 compressor on the bus. :) Hit me if I'm wrong :D
I think the same here, there was a cymbal wash going on in a lot of the B mixes. That is what I noticed the most.
It's A all the way for me. Much more clear guitars and B is a bit muddy
Really? I liked B way better on the first one, had no preference on the second, and liked B slightly better on the third.
I wouldn’t even pretend I know enough to guess which mix is which, but if the Neve helps you improve your craft it’s worth it.
It’s no different than buying a guitar that feels or looks awesome and encourages you to practice more, or a pedal that makes a fun sound that inspires you. Maybe more expensive, but your whole craft is helping other artists sound better, so I’m all for it!!
People are WAY too hung up on gatekeeping and “authenticity.” Do what brings you joy!
Well, I guess we can't all listen on iPhone can we, jk. Lol
@@Onemoretake01 we all can listen in our phones, but we might not enjoy it as much.
It’s kinda the same thing when you think about it. You don’t need a great headset or studio monitors just to listen to music, but some people want them and that’s cool.
@@lilirune but let's face it, everything used to sound GOOD on the radio... a long time ago
@@Onemoretake01 or audio cassette! Such high quality! :|
babb. I like the clarity of the second a mix more then de B. So good to see you so happy. Con Gratulation to you that you get there.
Great video Glenn! Born in Burnley, now living in San Diego, it's great to see Neve doing great things in North England. Keep on Rocking dude!
"It's A Trap!" - Admiral Acbar
I wouldn't be surprised if both were mixed on the same equipment lol
@@davidlong1786 And the point is still that, the Neve is there for a better workflow, not better mixes! :D
I’m afraid the butthurtery will be quite operational when the bias critics arrive. Muhahaha
I have some preferences on these mixes, the drum mixes are very different.
@@davidlong1786 Would basically be a useless video that doesn't serve any purpose then 😅😅
Even on a crummy phone speaker, B was more dynamic, detailed and open sounding but still powerful. I'd say that's the Neve
Nice video Glenn! I think this concept of "less is more" has been talked about many times in youtube but no one truly showed how to actually take a more minimalist approach to mixing (like using a console instead of the box), a video showcasing how to emulate this mixing style in digital would be a great follow-up to this (and much appreciated)
Congrats on the new desk Glenn! :D
Glenn - pls consider doing a video on "what unprocessed drums sound like at the source". I bet a lot of people recording drums would be shocked to hear what an SM57 sounds like in the proper position on a snare without EQ, gates, and other FX. Other mics like snare bottom, kick, toms, overheads, and room mics would also be great to hear unprocessed. This would give aspiring engineers a target to shoot for and help ensure they capture each source correctly on the kit. Took me a long time to figure this out on my own. Bet you could save a lot of your viewers some grief and time.
Many thanks from Glen Allen, Virginia.
I've actually been tracking drums, a cobbled together Ekit because I simply can't record real drums and I've stopped quantizing a while ago. Only thing I edit is maybe the velocity and man does it have a better feel. Also thanks for turning me onto Reaper.
Oh man, I'm so glad I found Reaper! It beats the hell out of paying the extortion...I mean, monthly payment for Audition! And they've never busted my balls over moving it around to different computers using the same authentication code.
Glenn, your mixes are definitely next level lately.
It's 1am, and everyone is asleep, so I'll listen properly tomorrow.
The guy that commented might have a point, but it depends on whether you're 'saying' that the audio quality is better using the Neve, or simply that your mixing technique is better when you use the Neve. If the latter, then theoretically, you could go back to Reaper with a new mindset and get the same results as with the Neve. If the former, then we're all wasting our time if we can't afford a Neve because we'll never get the same quality results as you now do.
I think it was definitely a warranted comment at heart, just written in a pain in the arse style!
I'm listening on headphones and I'm struggling to hear the difference. BUT is that a testament to software vs analog or just the skill of mix engineer. I liked both. The second song was imperceptible.
It's probably the headphones right?
I mean he still won't admit that the open back headphones completely change the sound, rather than the proprietary software from Sennheiser 😆
@@user-eh1vp3ev3c Nah. Any difference I'm hearing on my end personally sounds more like one mix is louder than the other.
@@mrjtfang2 BUT Glenn has repeated the argument about the Munson Fletcher curve... we perceive louder as being better however is it really "measurably" better. When I worked on cars and various farm equipment, I could do everything with Crescent wrenches.... when I wanted to get faster I got a set of ratchets/sockets.... when I wanted to get even faster I got impact tools.... the end result is the same.... but the workflow certainly sped up drastically. When speed and volume of work is of the essence, improved tools increase output. Quality is in the skill of the person using the tools.
@@mr_travismc1 I think we basically agree; i'm only saying I can't really tell a hardware vs software (as I think this is what this is?) difference because I honestly think the difference feels like volume more than anything.
I’m not listening on my mixing headphones, but then, most people listening to music aren’t, either.
They sounded almost identical
For me it were mixes B. Clearer, not as scooped in the mids, and more spaceous, roomier, which I like. Creamy highs as well. I would dare to guess thoe were the console examples. It's probably not as much the tools, but how they alow you to work. You're doing things more intuitively just by having hands on tactile feeling of the controlls, instead of draging things with a mouse. I know a controller certainly improved how I work.
Love the channel!
I'd have been happy with either on my modest DAW setup.
I think B has more clarity and feels slightly tighter
Agreed. B just feels.. richer. More lush.
Agreed
Idk, the guitar sounds more clear in the A examples while the B examples were a bit smoothed out
Yeah it's something in the phase or EQ, track B sounds more cohesive in most samples provided
Agreed. Mix B sounds bigger, better instrument separation, and more 3D overall. I'll be VERY surprised if mix B is Reaper.
Honestly, all the mixes sound pretty fucking good. And I listened to them on a proper set of hi-fi Yamaha floor standing speakers through a Yamaha integrated amp, not on phone or laptop speakers. I can hear the subtle differences, but it makes no difference to me which one is which, because there's absolutely nothing wrong with any of them.
Yes. Life is too short to focus on anything that does not make a significant difference. Let alone the astronomical amounts of time that many such focus areas can consume and still not really be doing anything
Great video topic
0:13 Here I prefer Mix B the drums sound more punchy. The whole mix B sounds more 3 dimensional
1:26 Here I prefer Mix A, Mix B has too much reverb for my taste
5:20 Here I prefer Mix B. But it seems B has more reverb, but overall it sounds more organic
5:57 Here I prefer Mix A, Snare sounds more defined. Mix B has too much reverb for my taste
Really love that bass tone. Killer!
As a listener I don't hear a difference. As an artist I would prefer the one that makes you work faster and more efficiently, so for example if I have a revision to do in my project you could deliver faster. As a mixing student I think I heard some little things, but nothing makes me say "that's better". So in conclusion, it all comes down to being comfortable with your equipment. If someone tells me "hey I'm used to work directly on my computer and I can get the results I want that way" I'm totally ok with that. It's a matter of preference for the worker, not so much for everyone else. Cheers Glen!
I like Mix A bettter. I really hope it's the Neve.
I think the A mixes are the Neve. There is less "bleed" in the stereo field (the instruments feel more distinctively placed in each of their respective pockets, so the mix feels less "cloudy".)
All the mixes sounded very similar to me, but in each mix B sounded more open and slightly better. But the difference was small enough that it could have easily just been psychological.
I liked mix A more high frequencys with the low frequencies mix B sounded a bit squashed. My guess is Mix A is the Neve however im old my hearing could be jacked up lol fun comparison Glenn🤘
Lots of high end on the drums in the B mixes, good for old deaf ears and drummers with cymbal deafness. Not so nice for others.
I agree
Through a pair of okay quality headphones, they both sound great.
You should know by now good headphones don't exist on this channel.
Not unless they come bundled with proprietary software from one of the most expensive headphone manufacturers on the planet...
And also just happen to be open back headphones.
A good mix should translate on any kind of system. No need to make excuses. I sure as fuck don't have studio monitors in my car.
@@mrcoatsworth429you don't?! Do you even like music?!
I was tossing up whether to get an SPX90 I was looking at and your recommendation made me go for it. Popped it on a snare and it totally delivered the goods with minimal fucking about. Cheap, easy to use and sounds great. Thanks Glenn!
First things first: thanks for the really good content! Your channel is a goldmine for information about production, recording and mixing; and a source for confrontational discussions! ;) Also thanks for trying to work as scientific as possible. This is sadly not the case anymore on most information channels...
Now to the Mixes: 1. A (but I like the snare a bit better in B but the cymbals are just buried); 2. B (just fatter); 3. A (B has the better room sound on the drums but the Toms are popping out too much and the midrange is a bit more nasty); 4. B (better room sound and therefore drum sound suiting the song better)
Overall if the console is giving you a better workflow it is for sure worth it although the mixes may don't get directly better through better hardware but because of a sped up process. (Faster mixes are normally the better ones ;)) Also what most of us are guilty of is changing workflows very often which leads to inconsistent quality of work. This gets minimised if you have a proprietary System inside the workflow which minimises your options.
My opinion on the mixes I prefer:
1: A, the vocals stood out more from the rest of the mix than they did on mix B
2: B, mix A also sounded great, but in mix B the drums were just so huge sounding, and the bass was a lot more in the bass frequencies, at least on what I am listening
3: B, again mix A wasn’t bad, but everything sounded way more extreme on mix B (in a good way)
4: B, same thing as with 3, but the difference isn’t as big in this example.
I was listening on earbuds, but I was still hearing a big difference.
I think you and I are the only comments here which are in perfect agreement.
I agree with your comment except I picked B for them all. I thought I instantly heard the drums to be much more open, clear, and "huge". My 2 cents. Interested to know what they were now.
Both mixes sound great. If I were a client, I would be perfectly happy with either-the differences are negligible, which just goes to show that what you use to record is far less important than how you use it.
Imo the reason is less ‘can you get the same thing in digital’ and more can you work as fast in digital as analog. And there are a lot of UA-camrs these days not understanding this. It’s like the latest trend comparing analog to digital or analog plugins to digital ones. Saying they can get the same harmonic distortion in a plugin and all this other bs that only slows you down imo. Glad you are taking this topic on.
Can’t wait to hear the recordings! I found all of the mixes good and didn’t have much a preference. There was some clear differences though but all did the job. If i had my monitors setup I’d take a listen and give answers i don’t think headphones would cut it here.
Is it a Kyuss tee-shirt ? Blues for the red sun ? Love it.
I think someone is having a little laugh here and wants us to write ABBA! They sounded best through my speakers, lol. Especially the second track, had more sub range in the kicks. It's a lot of money for a small improvement, but that's quite often the way with music gear. Honestly I hate that I could hear a difference because I won't be spending that much on a awesome desk and would like to think my DAW could keep up. If I'm wrong about the mix's... that's a lot to spend on a downgrade, ouch!
I guessed ABBA for the Neve as well.
I'll basically just echo other comments here. It's awesome to be able to buy a top quality (and expensive) piece of equipment. You could just stop there like literally thousands of other people on UA-cam, and tell how happy you are with that. But Glenn, I think you always choose the hard, more complex and non-obvious way of bringing the discussion in. And while at it, you always bring quality and affordable alternatives for people like me. Hell, I don't even play metal or the electric guitar, but here I've learned a lot about stuff that I bring everyday to my musical life.
Nice one, A flatter and B rounder so personaly i go fore B
This
Glenn, it sounds really good to me either way. Subtle differences. I would assume the Neve mix's are Mix B and the non Neve mix's are Mix A. I think the drums sound more open and a little more full in the mix's labeled Mix B. I'm sure the ease of use and tactile functionality go a long way having the Neve board. I recently added the presonus faderport 16 to my Studio one setup and its made mixing so much more fun and easy. Having the physical faders and access to multiple channels goes a long way. I appreciate being able to mix more with my ears and less my eyes. Keep up the great work as always.
Love the channel dude
A few weeks ago I was visiting a pro studio and we were actually able to a/b the same song, by the same band, recorded digitally with plugins and in a real studio with real amps into a Trident Series 80. Night and fucking day
different mixes in different environments usually sound different ;-) - its not easy to setup a mix to compare a digital version to an analog board version. usually without any processing just faderups then summing.
@@pongmaster123 oh totally, and great sounding records have been made both ways - I just mean the differences were very apparent through like, professional reference grade equipment!
Glenn spends a ton of money on something and then tries to justify his excessive purchase when an off-brand equivalent is fine. Where have I heard that before. 😐
I preferred: a/b/b/a ..I did not go back and re-listen to them and overthink it, but I found that my preferences for 2,3,and4 seemed to have a cleaner and tighter low end that really stood out, and gave the mix a stronger presence overall- without any unnecessary bloat.
Well… definitionally you can’t really compare “the sound” of a plugin to hardware unless you have the exact hardware the plugin is designed off of. For example, if you compare a 1073 plugin to any random 1073 instead of the exact 1073 the plugin is based off of, you are introducing a factor you can never get a resolution to.
The question is never really “does the software sound just like the original hardware.” The real questions are “does the tool you are using cause what comes out of the speaker sound good” and “does the workflow work for you.” Those are the only two things that matter with the former being exponentially more important at almost every stage
(edits made for clarity)
Exactly. Who cares what stove you have as long as you can cook good food with it
Both sound really similar, i would bet only for the reverb sound that "Mix B" es the console one but i love both mixes. Ur mix style is really consisten and that shows.
I think I preferred B in most of them except the second to last. I was listening through a little portable bluetooth speaker btw. They sounded less muddy, instruments were more present (but I probably listen more for guitar).
wow that is a hard one.. sometime i prefer mix A, sometime B, but they sound really different. But both sound good to me, so good job!
I was going to comment on the difference in MIxes but honestly, the are both very good sounding, it really depends on personal preference IMO.
The mighty console vs no console debate. If you are trying to record a rock band, with a drummer, few guitars, bass and vocals then a console is an absolute life changer. People think they are so crazy expensive, but when you boil it down to what they can do, they are a better value than buying individual parts. For me, in my work flow, the biggest quality of life upgrade a console gives is routing. If you know how to set it up, and utilize a patchbay, you can have almost limitless routing capabilities. I record bands with big drum kits, it's not uncommon for me to have like 20 mics up for a drumset. The client I work with the most will commonly have 6 or 7 toms, 2 kick and an extra snare. My console has 8 Busses, so I bus the toms to a single stereo track, I put 2 mics on each kick and 3 or 4 mics on each snare and those each get bussed down to their own mono track. It just saves so much space in my session to not have to bounce all those tracks down. Taking 20 mics, and reducing them to a handful of easy to navigate tracks in my DAW makes everything so much easier. I've even gotten calls from mix engineers thanking me for how simple it makes their lives as well. So, routing is one huge advantage for consoles.
The other is, value. When you look at a console and see price tags of $20k and up to $200k for some, it's hard to say "what a value" but the reality is most people don't need a $100k console. Glenn has one because he's built such a great business that he can afford the luxury of a $100k console.
The value comes in the pure number of inputs you sometimes need to track a full band. My current setup has 24 lines coming from the live room, those all go into the console, and out to my converters, I also take the 8 Buss outputs from my console and send those to the converters as well giving me 32 inputs. Essentially, I use 24 channel strips though. If I were to buy 24 quality preamps, and 24 quality EQs, I'd easily be in for $25k - $50k. But I'd have little to no routing capabilities. You can buy a Trident 24 track console for under $20k, it has all the routing functionality, and it's split/in line meaning you can easily switch from tracking to mixing without rewiring the whole console.
Once you're in the "legendary" world of Neve, or API, then you're value greatly goes down. But with DAW integration, and all the other features something like that has, it's still cheaper than buying individual Neve (or equivalent) preamps, and EQs, then buying a DAW controller as robust as that, and again...still missing all the routing.
Now, here's the REAL trick. I don't have a $20k console. I paid $350 for a Soundcraft console from the 80s. 60db of Gain on the inputs, tons of routing, 4 band EQ with dual parametric midrange EQ on each channel, 8 Bus outputs, 8 Aux outputs, metering on every channel, etc etc. Before that I used a Mackie 8 Bus from the 90s, that I got for free. (the same console Gavin Harrison used to track the drums on Porcupine Tree's "Fear of a Blank Planet" album, if you're curious how good a cheap console from the 90s can sound).
If you're tracking drums, do yourself a favor and pickup a console. Soundcraft, and Mackie among others made great pieces of gear that people are basically giving away these days.
honestly this just goes hand in hand with your pickups take. A lot of the stuff doesn’t matter at the end of the day ((mix), but it does change the workflow on your side, and that’s something that DOES matter to you. Same goes with pickups, the engineer can change the tone quite a lot in post but the guitarist likes to feel the difference at his fingertips.
“I used less compression, less EQ on the Neve”… yeah goes along the lines of “I use less compression/eq since I changed my pickups” ?
Very very similar. Once you go into the whole “but the workflow is different” then you can easily see why “but it feels different when playing it” is just as important :)
i'm using an ultra flat semi-open headphones, and here is what i found:
-both sound KILLER , but there are differences.
-all clips A sounds a tad more agressive/harsh, sharper (in a good way), a a tad compressed.
-all clips B sounded more round, less harsh, felt more open and sounds more articulated.
Not sure which is which, but i like a bit more B clips because the sound opens a bit more and doesn't sound "compressed"
Both sounds great and if i have one mix or the other to my own record i'll be happy with it... but if the mix is B i'll be a bit happier
Now I'd like to see a vid where you try to duplicate what the Neve did to your mix by using plugins for transformer modeling, saturation and harmonics. You did a great job duplicating tone with a Rectifier vs. 6505 so maybe you could do that with console vs plugins. Especially since you can now make a better mix with the console. Kind of like reverse engineering a console mix with plugins.
A, B, B, A And I'm going to fall into my analog bias and guess that its the Neve. Either way it just felt like each instrument had more impact for each clip.
man, I would not even try to guess, because I liked both!
I don't know if you switched between the takes, but for all songs, the only thing I can hear in mix B was a bit more of reverb.
I lost the "need" to have a console when I got my Behringer XTouch (the big one, not the single channel).
I can have the same "limitation" as I have using console, with the advantage of having everything that digital realm has to offer... 😀
But very good blind test indeed!!!
I would love to see some blind comparison between realdrumms and triggered ones! ;-)
I have much more time mixing live than in the studio, but I can do that too. I find that working with a console and "tweaking knobs" rather than looking at the screen is just a far more efficient workflow for me. Plus, I prefer to run signal back through my analog desk as I prefer what that desk does to the signal, as well as the freedom to use my analog outboard equipment as I patch it in. I'm not against any sort of in-the-box or hybrid methods to get the job done, I just know that I find myself doing better with the mindset of fewer options means fewer distractions and my DAW is just a glorified MTR/playback device. At work, my manager also runs a personal studio and got an SSL surface in there and it changed how he mixes, saying he feels that by using the SSL ecosystem, things are coming together faster. Why? It's like you observed: mix with your ears and not your eyes.
Damn Glenn! you been shedding the pounds! damn noice work! we all proud of ya and the work you put in! damn LEGEND!
The mix A/B test reveals : the only thing that matters is Knowledge of the engineer. Both mixes sounds amazingly perfect, the result of the man doing some work right ! (from Bob Katz : The mids are the key to music.) !
I'm on break in a semi truck and I cannot hear a difference in any of those❤ great job
mix b sounds rounder and has more clarity. the only thing i missed was the volume in the overheads. the crashcymbal dissapears.
nice video!!! greets from austria.
Been live engineer for a long time and using physical mixer, with full channel strip as separate controls instead of a touchscreen is day and night difference in how fast I am to do the decisions I need to do and that makes my mixes better because i'm not wasting brain power or concentration to twiddling with a mouse one knob at a time. I can better focus on the sound and doing things than HOW to do things.
But that's the thing... I wouldn't want to go back to analog boards, but I don't want to deal with those touchscreen abominations either. For me, a good digital mixer has complete channel strip, each channel has a select button and I only need touch screen for anything fancy and routing...
So there's a ton to be said about physical controls... even if everything under is digital.
Yeah as a guitar player it's a bit annoying to consciously avoiding multi-effects and patching together separate pedals and amps and other boxes to have instant access to different sounds and ways to tweak them without menu diving but then on the recording side it's all in the box and annoying menus and digging for simple controls that would be instantly accessible on a console.
OK, Im going by the assumption the advantage of discrete electronics and paths and the separation and transparent capabilities of real VCAs on the Neve and the harsher hollow mid range on some of the mixes being Reaper and the deeper richer mix being Neve -so thinking the Neve is Mix 1 A Mix 2 B Mix 3 B. Mix 4 A -How'd I do? Did I embarrass myself? Science is fun -unless I'm wrong.
My hoy take on this: it’s not the car, is the driver. I’ve seen Jack Endimo making songs roar with just pro tools eq. But all recorded on a Caltec old mixing table.
I think that the problem is not analog/digital. Is embrace the flaws and let the music flow. If you want to sound as analog, guess what? Do flaws on your mix: not perfect L-C-R, saturation problems in some channels, name it!
Digital is not analogue. End of discusión, but you can make great mixes depends on what you want. For metal, rock and all things, less lab and more all ppl tracking on the same room.
And as Glenn said: it’s faster
Ps: Glenn, you should definitely commit to the mix and print your stuff. Great idea if your mixing like this on your Neve.
I worded this differently in my comment. I agree! Glenn even spoiled it in the video: He got the Neve for workflow, not to have better mixes. So if the mixes are "better" with the Neve, it's just dumb luck. The motive for the Neve is a fancypants mouse alternative. :)
Woooo more blind tests! I love these. I seemed to like the B mixes more? There were things I liked with both.
People, let's help Glenn. If you have ideas for blind tests, comment them here for so Glenn can find them easily. And remember, they don't have to be to show that things are similar, they can also be to show how different they are.
I know other channels have done similar to my following suggestion, but I'd like to see Glenn's take on Helix vs Quad Cortex vs real amp through a power amp and the same speaker/cab. This way there are no IRs, same speaker and mic positions. No bullshit about people saying that you need to drive the crap out of tubes to push air.
I was able to hear the high end of the bass from mix A, so I’d go with that.
Song 1 A may be Neve it’s slightly less compressed
Song 2 B might be Neve as the snare sounds like the SPX and the kicks poke through which you tend to do when doing analog and being devoid of visual info
Song 3 B is the analog most likely
Hell yeah I absolutely loved this quality on quality 🤤
Nice use of the world Pablum....unexpected and appreciated.
I preferred B on all 4. They just sounded bigger. I do recall you saying that DAWs sound quality should be just as good when discussing Pro-tools vs other DAWs a while back. However, I would imagine the end result, the mix, has a better chance of being better because of the intuitive workflow. As for your comment on baking in Fx, I view that as an artistic choice that tends to elicit happy accidents which are key to making a song unique. It also avoids the endless option paralysis which usually ends in one using a standby setting they know works but just sounds the same.
This vid was next level..Good Sh!t amping it up!!!!😊
tbH, i don't any clue abt tHis topic. I enjoyed all A-mixes over B-mixes. Thank you !
Boy you are going to love my console design with digico and neve
Yea I need knobs and switches that’s why I’m upgrading to the new fender or boss stuff all the advantages of digital + physical good stuff
Way back in the 80s when I was working on a Harrison console we had an SSL salesman tell us why we should buy a fully automated SSL. [computer based automation was a relatively new thing.] We were doing major level releases at the time so I asked "So why should we spend 5 times what we spent on this console for one with computer automation?" the rep responded. "Because the producers and musicians can make it perfect with automation, so they'll spend the money to make it perfect,"
So true.
Listening to those mixes on a pair of individually calibrated 770s, I hear some differences in fat but not enough to justify the expense of the console. Sorry.
Part of it is, as you described your mix process, I think over-processing may be a large part of the difference. Back in the day, we may have had a couple of reverbs, a couple of effect units, a few compressor/limiters. a few gates and only had 24 tracks MAX. Due to the lack of effects, they weren't added till mixdown. Most of the classic mixes came out of environments like that. Today when using a plugins, you can put multiple effects on hundreds of tracks but does the track need it? Do you really need that many tracks? Maybe more EQ is necessary ITB due to the lack of analog nonlinearity? I do find myself using more high and low pass filters ITB but transformers and caps tend to do that job in analog mixers.
I do miss the control of an analog console but wish one of the manufacturers would make a hybrid a control surface with real faders [I do miss P&G 100mm faders], real preamps and knobs for effect controls adding a direct computer I/O for DAW and no, none of the current control surfaces actually do that.
I heard one producer/engineer friend of mine complain that he loved his Studer 24 track tape machines but hated the "head lump" at the low end. I was working on a Otari MTR 90 II that didn't have the problem. I told him maybe he should trade his Studers for Otaris. Of course, that didn't happen.
I'm hearing more reverb on one mix vs. the other. Did you use the SPX90 on both?
I think that B was the neve for all. The last one though was almost impossible to perceive a difference in so... wow you're right, that's probably the best digital mixing you've done. The OH compression was literally the only thing I could pick out that influenced my decision on that last one. Either way I'm impressed and not as hesitant to use software. Interestingly, I think the Digital mixes probably sound better to people on lo-def phone or laptop speakers as the inherently louder volume would outshine the clarity and dynamic range.
Hi, Glenn! Stay to the end of this LONG comment for an idea I think you might like.
I THINK I heard a slight difference in the two mixes. In the first A/B comparison, I thought I heard a subtle shift in the midrange and treble. In the second one, I didn't hear any significant difference, even the one I thought I heard before.
I guess for me, and as you were saying, it's about workflow. Something like a console, or even an old Portastudio with cassettes, is going to be designed to some extent for people to just jump in the pool and come up with something that's swimming. If they want to "plug-in" to any effects, they can't just open a menu, stick it on, and start changing settings. It might require disconnecting, reconnecting, all that good stuff, unless of course there's a patch bay or a shitload of channels or whatever. Regardless, it means you have to decide, "Do I really need to do this?" In a DAW, you want to do it because you CAN, and it's easy to do; but, that can be a distraction.
I think a hybrid approach is right for me. I like the idea of recording the band raw, even to digital, and capturing the performance; and then, later, I can go play in the sandbox (DAW, of course) and see what else can be done. Setting aside the difference in recording the whole band vs each member individually in layers... that's still a workflow concern, for me as well as the band.
I have a suggestion for future videos. I would like to see you get something like the Zoom H8 (I actually have the H6, and not the apparently spayed and neutered Essentials version) or any similar device that even vaguely resembles a Portastudio--or ya know fuck it, get an old Portastudio!--and with no DAW or console, record your band(s) doing their thing. If you can also mix strictly in that same device, even with limited capabilities, then do as much of the mixing that way, to get something that is either ready to go, or ready to transfer to the DAW or console for further processing. Then, show folks THAT rough mix, to show how far they can get without a DAW or console. You could still polish it up later and show that for comparison, of course. By way of doing this, you can also have a whole new line of products to demo on your channel. It could even give you a "back to basics" chain of videos to which you can point people to enhance the points you frequently make.
Thanks again for all you do, and take care! 🤘
Song 1: The ride comes through a little better in A. B sounds a little more compressed, and the stereo field not as wide. Choosing A, though both mixes sounded a little flat.
Song 2: Mix B is louder and more lively, with a much wider stereo field, but with some pumping from the kick on the master bus comp. Given your description of how you compress in your Neve workflow, I'm guessing the Neve mix was B. Choosing B, hands down.
Song 3: Toms have more attack in Mix B, which also sounds wider than Mix A. Guessing Mix B is the Neve, again given your statements of how you compress.
Song 4: Pretty close to each other. Mix A has a bit of a mid scoop in the guitars compared with B; I prefer the rounder mids in the guitars of mix B.
B sounds right. The thwack and depth is there, and the instrument separation is there.
Mix B sounds ready for radio so clean and clear
Would be nice if, after the 'guess which is which' phase ended, you put up some stems for download so people can see if they can rival the sound of the Neve mix with ITB / hybrid. The point would still remain that the Neve allows for faster workflows, but I'd say that is a moot point for people who can't spare the $100K and don't need to churn out 24 albums a year.
Oh, and just to answer, Listening on monitors, for the first fragment,. Mix B definitely had more oomph to my ears. For the second fragment, mix A sounded better. For the third fragment, I really can't discern any differences in sonic quality, they were both great and full-bodied.
Both mixes are great! Let’s start there. Well done Glenn!
I assume B is the console, since it sounds more open, likely/largely due to much less layers of compression. The drums have more balls. I will say honestly that I like the guitars on A better. B possesses a fizziness to it, as well as a bit of a bloated bottom that makes me prefer A more. Element kicks ass on both!
Mix B is my fav of them all. I feel it has less of that low-mid mud in the mix and it's a tiny bit more open. I honestly don't know if that's the console or not, but for 80K price point on the console, and to get just a little less low-mid bump on your mixes, it's an extremely high price to pay for such small difference. I might be wrong but that's my opinion.
I guess when you have the big bucks, you can give yourself some luxuries. I know if I had that kind of money I would do it to. Kudos on the video.
in the first example, A sounded like it had slightly more clarity and B reminded me of vinyl. In the 3rd example, the guitar in B sounded glued into the mix slightly better; I found it a little more satisfying though both sounded great.
so, what would you recommend for the home "studio" as a desktop mixer? Is there an analog option that's affordable? a midi option to control your daw with physical inputs?
Preferences
1: Mix A: Tighter overall. A bunch of out of control low mids and lows in most of the instruments in the Mix B
.
2: Mix A: A is more tight and controlled, similar low/low mid issue on Mix B. Too much verb on mix B and it's too thuddy.
3: Mix B: A is more blown out in the low end in the guitars and they sit over the mix, B everything feels gelled. Verb sounds better in B as well.
4: Mix B: A has the same blowout I've been explaining. B everything sounds nice and smooth across the board.
I think the question is also often less so about the sound, but the workflow.
If you can get lost in the process it just a great feeling and you will often end up with something better
That reaper template at 05:22 looks great!
I'm commenting before the reveal but for me it is ABBA. That doesn't say I know which is which with regards to NEVE or DAW. I'm listening through my Dynaudio BM6A's. Frankly, I'd be proud to have either.
Howdy Glenn,
here are my preferences: 1=A, 2=A, 3=A, 4=B. Mainly because in the chosen mix everything sounds clearer (and the drums are a bit more present :) ).
Thank you heaps and keep it up!
Cheers!
Both mix are great. Really close to each other.
What I heard (maybe it was psychosomatic) was that the A mixes sounded slightly brighter and more clear. The B mixes sounded darker and lacked the sheen of higher frequencies. I preferred the A mixes.
I'll be honest, I can't say which is which, but while I think Mix B sounds more "professional", Mix A sounds more "raw" and I prefer that sound.
Also, if Glenn wants to buy a Neve console who the flip cares? He's not saying that everyone who mixes in a home studio as a hobby needs one. He's often praised the wealth of free plugins there are available - because you can get great results with them! His mixes probably do sound better with the Neve console (like I say, I'm not sure which mix is which), but if you can't afford the same, then Glenn in his videos will 100% help you to get great results, for cheap. Thanks Glenn, for being honest, but also helpful for people like me who can't afford a Neve!
Hi Glenn! How does this test whether the Neve sounds better than plugins or vice versa? They're different mixes. One can sound better than the other for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with the sound of analog equipment or digital plugins. You could be having more fun on the Neve, making you mix better, you could be having a bad day for one of the mixes. You could just be making different decisions on one day than the next, completely subjectively. You could subconsciously be making the DAW mix slightly worse. The newer mix may be the better one because you've already mixed the song once before and know what to better the second time around. If I were to mix a song twice with the exact same plugins, it wouldn't sound exactly the same.
For what it's worth, though. Here is which mixes I preferred:
1) Mix A
2) Mix B
3) Mix B
4) undecided. I don't like how clicky the kick in both examples, but I like the snare better than in B. So probably B.
The board gives an open sound as well as a heavy bottom it's pure glory.
I'll have some guesses at the mixes:
1. 0:14 - A = Neve, B = Reaper
2. 1:27 - A = Reaper, B = Neve
3. 5:21 - A = Reaper, B = Neve
4. 5:57 - A = Reaper, B = Neve
My 'Reaper' guesses are the ones that sound a little bit 'cloudy' to me. The 'Neve' guesses seem to be more articulate/clear, and the reverbs are more pleasant.. which made me prefer them. So that's an assumption I had going in, which is that the Neve mixes would be better. I'm used to being wrong on these blind tests though. 🧃🧃🧃
You know how in all of your other tests; pickups, tone wood, tubes; you sort of land on, "yes, there is a SLIGHT difference in certain scenarios, but is it enough of a difference to justify spending hundreds of dollars on upgrades?"...
Well, not gonna lie, I couldn't tell you which mix was which. Neither sounded appreciably "better," or even all that drastically different. But, having said that, that isn't the ONLY consideration. As you pointed out in the video there's a lot to be said for improving workflow and getting better sound on the performance side rather than in hours of editing in post. Turnover is a real thing in business, and it makes sense. I've spent over two years slogging through desktop Reaper mixes on a solo album that I'm sure could have been done in a couple of months -- writing time included -- at someplace like Revolution in downtown TO with people who know what they're doing and have the gear to do the job.
I think it's worthwhile for bands to truck out their EPs and debut albums on a DIY DAW. You learn a ton about audio, what sounds good in a mix vs. in your garage, and how music is constructed for end user consumption. That's all critically important to the creative process -- the technical has to be there to serve the creative. But a second album? Save your gig money and have it done in a quarter of the time by professionals who know how to do it.