A very condescending post. There are many on this forum who have been in the game for a long time, experienced producers, engineers, musicians.
First people ran away from analog to digital in the mid to late 90s, early 2000s was all about clean digital plugins and in the last 10 or so years its been a brutal fight between plugin companies to offer the most authentic "analog" sounding plugins, with all the oddities, imperfections and curves analog gear offers and people are buying it primarily because they WANT to lift their production and bring it closer to hardware and the good days of fat, round, less harsh analog sound.
For example. There have been many 1176 plugin emulations but only recently we got to taste a very authentic emulation with PA Purple 1176 and Overloud 1176.
The difference you talk about is not irrelevant and the market proves it.

 

What the point in - Vintage Chains?

 

Yes WE know.

There is also a market for go faster stripes that you can attach to your car.
Of course there are authentically painted analogue go faster stripes or just cheap digital stickers
but hey at least there's a choice - so all is good.

 

I couldn't care less about how things sounded in the past, none of my clients have ever asked me to make them sound like an old band

 

Stickers and plugins. Great analogy.
Plugins can be objectively scientifically measured and differentiated between each other in many ways. A sticker is a sticker.
People who are the loudest are usually the ones with terabytes of plugins. Discard the modern advanced plugins and go back to pre 2000 plugins, its just a "code".

 

Vintage/analog sound can easily be approximated, and it can get to be Very Close,
however it will Never be 100% the same, for obvious reasons..

The question is more about, what flavor/type of vintage you're after, to what extent/amount
and how/what will you use to get there..?

Is it..
An EQ + Compressor module on each instrument?
A channel strip?
A non-linear sum/console emulation?

A mix of the above?

That would be the Basics, then it would get more specific,
what do you do for the FX and Reverb, and ofc what do you put on the Master Buss, etc..

But in essence we've got a model of every single part necessary:
EQs/filters, Comps, Multiband Comps, Drive, Echoes/Reverbs/Delays, Mod FX, Exciters, Imaging, Tape sims..
It's all out there..


So I think it's very easily doable,
but of course the different modules would have to be closely selected to be compatible/synergistic with each other,
and to be applied in a way that makes sense from a realist standpoint, and adheres to a certain method of doing things..

You wouldn't put a Neve EQ+filter going to a Focusrite channel, going to an SSL comp, and getting non-linearly summed on an API console..
Ofc you could do it, but that makes no sense..

So for matters of realism, it would make sense to adhere to a certain method/way of doing that would also be logic/make sense irl.
(irl studios had limitations, they could only work with what they had, and that can be positive as it forces you to make the most of what you've got..)

Also everything would have to be very fine tuned not to fall short, or exceed the amount of "vintageness",
or let's say added Coloration of every and all parts.. and that's an important aspect.

One could very easily go overboard with any part of the signal chain/s,
specially with EQs, Exciters and Tape simulators.. which can be made to be incredibly/exaggeratedly gritty and coloured..


But yeah I think it's more than doable..
Just choose the Era/Style and Tech you want to approximate,
put it all together in a correct way that makes sense, and dial it to perfection..

It could take you some time, but the moment it's done it can be reused forever


(And no, I don't think it's that CPU demanding, at least with regular VSTs..
the really demanding stuff is the oversampled, linear phase, convolution type stuff, which is not so vintage..
or yeah the Acoustica/Nebula type of stuff.. but I guess you could get as good of a result with regular VSTs)

 

Last edited: Sep 29, 2021

I think you can approximate vintage sound even with less CPU demanding plugins. For example: you can use a high CPU demanding tape emulation, but you could just as easily use a softclipper set to lightly saturate the signal and a standard EQ to roll off the highs and make a light bump in the lows. It wouldn't sound exactly the same in each detail, but will get you 95% there and the listener doesn't notice the 5% missing. Of course if you were to run the softclipper at 2x, 4x or even 8x oversampling, than again this would be pretty CPU demanding.

 

Often particularly due to to the lack of real non-linear summing.
But having Waves NLS on every channel and buss helps, I guess.
Creates more of an analogue desk vibe for us to work with.

Exactly.
And so why even use a tape emu anyway, when back then we were working hard to not get any unwanted tape-based artifacts noticed?! lol
I know a vintage sound is made both from driving the outboard, and from going to tape though.

 

You mean sound like the Eagles for example that is considered as a benchmark in mixing for many seasoned pro mixing engineers or any other 1001 artist that sounds better then modern garbage?
They dont ask because they know you can not provide such a service so they settle with sampled snares and a sound like any other clone out there.

 

Well I meant it more in a Philosophical level..

It will always be a software emulation/simulation/approximation,
so it will never be Exactly the same.

But I agree, non linear summing is a step in the right direction,
even if still on its Infancy.

And there's interesting options in the field like Brainworx TMT stuff,
or UAD Luna summing consoles which sound remarkably good to me, or at least the API one does..

-One aspect I'm not too sure about tho, is the inclusion of channel Defects on purpose.
(and that's what both Waves NLS and Brainworx TMT do..)

I imagine one thing would be to -> Emulate the actual Summing of the channels,
like whatever mojo it may get from the circuit/components like the Transformer etc when shit gets summed irl.

Another thing is having Defects/variations on the emulated Channels to make it be more realist..
(little but noticeable variations in Volume, EQ, Phase, Drive, etc..)

I'm certainly interested in the Summing part,
but I personally don't like the channel Defects/variation part.


If I've spent months working on a track, (composing, producing, adjusting, mixing..)
I don't want it to have defective channels with unbalaced left/right, and eq/phase/drive issues.

It could be seen as more Realist in a way of speaking, but that's not what I'm after.

Summing is the interesting part to me,
how do they emulate that, and what positive effects it could have on the sound/music..

 

Last edited: Oct 1, 2021

And the original equipment isn't the same from day to day anyway, heat and load depending!
So it will NEVER be like it, because the hardware can NEVER be like it was after it's been worn in and used once!
Or even in comparison to another model of the same.
Computer can do 'random' though.
Just we know it's impossible for it to be truly random and infinite.

Interesting. Didn't know about that.
Nope. Definitely not into it!

No thanks!
It would make me so ocd to have to do more than one bounce of each track to make sure I was getting a take that had 'mojo' I liked!
Otherwise, there may be an imperfection I don't like on a solo, and I would have to rebounce.

Just an edit with above edit:
Computer can do 'random' though.
Just we know it's impossible for it to be truly random and infinite.
Probably just as well in this instance.

 

Yeah that's exactly why they don't convince me,
it triggers my OCD not to know what the actual F I'm doing to the sound

And the thing has 72 different channels to choose from, (Waves has 32x3)
each one with its own unique characteristics/defects..

So one would have to Analyze every single one of those channels,
and see what it actually does in all aspects..

Then knowing this make a sensible choice like, this channel is for Bass, this for Voice, Drums etc..
(imagine this with an entire Orchestra.. )


It could be seen as being more realist in a way of speaking, (channels are modeled after the real thing)
but yeah I don't really want that, and I don't have the time/patience to analyze so much channels.


One thing Brainworx does tho, is allow to have the same Channel for both Left/Right channels,
and that's what they call "digital" mode..

This will avoid excessive variations on the left/right channels of a signal,
so at least the stereo imaging would be preserved..

But yeah, I'm still more interested in the actual Summing

 

Last edited: Oct 1, 2021

What do you think? Let me present you with some vintage London Tower chains.


There is an option that doesn't exist: it is possible to get the vintage sound in the box already [for about a decade] ITB and you don't need many special and/or expensive and CPU taxing plugins to do it, but you have to know how to do it, that is - you need experience. There's no instant gratification.

 

Last edited: Sep 29, 2021

Digital stuff will never sound exactly like analog gear, and analog gear will never sound as perfect as digital stuff. The point is that neither one has to sound exactly like the other for them both to sound great.

The biggest difference will always be in the individuals that use the gear/plug-ins and how they use them. A bad engineer won't magically produce the a great mix just because he/she has access to the best and most expensive analog and digital equipment. A great engineer, on the other hand, can most likely produce a great mix with only the most basic of stock/free plug-ins.

Too bad I'm not one of them...

Spoiler

yet

 

it is absolutely, totally, 100% the opposite!!! Just one example out of many:

I am currently recording and mixing the first album of a Nu Metal band (yes nu metal in 2021 what do you know?) The band wanted to record the real drums, so we went to a local studio that has a decent drum room and we recorded there. I was totally eager to mix the drums with no samples, we recorded everything super neat. Then during the mixing stage the band asked me to make the drums sound like this other band called Love and Death, and they specifically showed me a song called "Down" (it's on youtube) and I was listening to it thinking "omg here we go again", I found some snare and kick samples similar to those blend them with the real drums and they weren't fully convinced, then I totally replaced kick and snare, and they loved it. They even congratulated me for my achievement of making them sound like somebody else! See? It's not me, it's them! And we are not talking about some kiddos fooling around with their guitars, these are 25-35 year old men, that grew up listening to records of the final era of pure analog.

Just my opinion, but from a practical point of view, there is no point in obsessing with the sounds of the past, for one simple reason: There is not, and there won't ever be a consensus of what a good sound/recording/mix is, never. Cause taste can't be measured or ranked in any way.

 

Last edited: Sep 29, 2021

Yeah, i was wrong with settle because most are sheep that want what the other band has going, not much has changed in this regard since the 70s and 80s..."i want HIS sound".
There are people like David Bowie, he did what he wanted to do and then there are bands who want to sound like any other modern cloned band.
I guess there are many ways to see this, you are right.
Sorry if i sounded like a dick. Respect bro.

 

No mate, is because amateur market increased so much, plugin companies realized that the only direction of growth is to appeal gullible, experienceless people and they start selling the very thing true engineers were running away from: noise, random nonlinearities, and unwanted saturation. Engineers are engineers: they expect for a piece of gear to behave EXACTLY as it is in the specs (and if it doesn't, they work around the flaws and fidn use for them). They don't want oddities, imperfections and all kind of stuff. The unpredictible/charm/vibe is for amateurs that don't really understand how their tools work, what engineers want is the predictible behavior.

 

Predictable, as in functioning without blowing up in your face or noise bursts that destroy your speakers in this regard i agree.
But unpredictable behavior, if you own any analog synths, sometimes you go wow, where did that come from, in VSTS synths this almost never happens, because VSTS are mostly predictable because they have no real tubes, circuits, they are coded to sound mostly boring.
Predictability=clean stock digital plugins.
What some of us want is some flavorful "chaos" in the sound.

 

The main reason why old recordings sound the way they do is not the gear. It's not the expensive microphones, not the consoles with huge transformers, and not the 6U compressors with giant ceramic knobs on the front panel. All of that has an impact on the sound, but the biggest difference in recording is the room. There are few studios today that spend as much money building the rooms as they did back then. Rooms where it almost doesn't matter where you put the musician or the mic. It will sound different because, for example, the surrounding materials are different, but it always sounds awesome. Because the rooms just sound awesome. That allows for a lot more creative freedom in the recording process than is the case in modern studios. As far as mixing goes, if you want it to sound the way it used to, mix the way it used to. Don't overhype the bass and treble, focus on the midrange, and forgo modern effects and mixing techniques and let your transients breathe.

 

Probably that’s why Vangelis was so impressed by these “features” that he had 2-3 CS-80s in the back stage just in case his stage CS-80 suddenly decided to get “unpredictible” and Vangelis was like “wow, where did that come from?”