Lmao.

Daniel Lanois "You don't need big money to make big music"

ME : Says the dude running U2's 2" reel dry tracks ( that sound like crap) through $250,000 of hardware...Oh don't forget a Million dollar studio too.

This is the same as the Morons who do interviews for Protools while a $150,000 console is sitting right behind them ROFL!!!!

You can not replace Mixing consoles with physical analog hardware with software, it's just not possible unless you start to actually emulate down to the COMPONENT level. So who is going to let you take apart their $150,000 console to sample individual caps and resistors?

Even then you still have to emulate the power rails and Caps distributing power!!

We won't be at this stage in software for 200 years.

 

Great hardware control with good sound..... but good is the enemy of great.
Use software for surgical clean reduction and moderate dynamics and hardware to drive and push the harmonics.

 

For me i use the ssl suite for shaping Sound and i use Bx G for séparâtes part and uad E to group sub part or drumbus.. i préfèr the Sound of uad for that there are no hash in mid and high

 

You are confusing a few things here.
1. emulation is often done at the component level. the question is how many samples are taken and how many steps can be recreated into code without morphing between them and kill your cpu.
2. you don't need big money to make big music! I agree with this statement to a hundred percent. You can create great music with stock plugins,100% ITB and mix it to a masterpiece... if the skill level is right. You don't need a big console for that.

 

Is that why every Pro who demos Protools has a 100,000 console behind them?
Never seen CLA or Daniel Lanois sitting in front of a 1000$ console.

Back to real sampling, NO you can not do a 48 Track console emulation, you would have to physically take it all apart and run sampling equipment through each individual cap, resistor, through the Transistors on the Eq's, the resistor series. Basically strip down an entire 48 channel console down to each resistor, cap, transistor etc.

You are talking 24th century stuff here. It is beyond our technology.

What waves and others are doing is downright criminal at this point. Sampling at component level can only be done and small pieces of equipment which don't have too many Caps, resisters, rails, faders, Transistors.

Take the Waves console emulations, they are not taking a 150,000 SSL console apart and removing individual caps off each channel which is the true way of sampling.

The issue is I get better results sampling 2" reel multitracks than from the Waves plugins.

What we need is to actually sample what came out of those consoles unmodified ( before mastering).
( This is why U2 will not release Multitracks, after the Making of with or without wa shown you know exactly why!!)
That 2" reel sounds like a bunch of amateurs recorded it and that was on the Amek console, then unto Steve Lilywhite's SSL console for remixing, yes There was 2 versions of the Joshua Tree, one was tossed and a new one was Remixed by Steve.

ITB will never replace a large format Console, it's why the Studios use them, it's why the Entertainment industry can not do PRO work for mass distribution, it's why Studios use dozens of Neumann U87 that cost thousands, not alone the outboard gear they use.

ITB does not sound like it came from a console, because IT NEVER DID. Just like a $100 Microphone will never sound like a U87 Tube Mic.

 

Why not? Aren't both of those things serve the same purpose, i.e. shaping the sound to your liking?

 

No. You should go back to the beginning and read the comments.

 

I doubt every professional demonstrating PT has or is constantly working on a $100,000 console.

PS: you can buy re-capped 48ch 4000series SSL consoles for 30K. You can also buy smaller SSLs for 10K or less if you are willing to put a few months of work into it. ;)

I said most emulations are based on component level measurements, not that every component is 100% emulated. The problem is not the measurement in the first place. Yes, it is very time consuming and therefore expensive to measure complex devices, but it is possible. The first problem is how many measurement samples give 100%? The second problem is that neither the developers, nor the consumers, have the cpu power to run an emulation that can calculate infinit states of each component and the interaction between those components in real time, or at all in a reasonable time. So when you emulate at the component level - and even with smaller devices - you reduce the states of the emulation. So instead of emulating 128 measurement points from infinity for every single piece, the output is simplified to - let's say - 4 states per piece.

Did they claim that? The true way?

No one has claimed that.

I dont' get your point. I don't really care if a mic costs $100 or $10,000. I use what is available. And I use what works best in a particular case, and if a $300 mic is the better choice, I'm not going to use a $3,000 mic just because it has a "Neumann" logo. If I don't need outboard gear for a mixing project, or if it's a disadvantage, I don't use it, even if there's $50,000 in front of me and $100,000 in the rack behind me.

True. ITB doesn't sound like a mixing console any more than a mixing console sounds like a tape machine. Congratulations, you've realized that different media sound different. That being said: U87 is not a tube mic.

 

Last edited: Feb 22, 2021

Dan, with all due respect, you don't have to actually take it all apart to measure individual components.

I guess you never used a simple measuring device such as a multimeter? Complex devices operate under the same principle. Basically, they have two tips which look like needles or alligator clips, and all you have to do is touch or attach them to the beginning and ending terminals of any component or sequence of components to measure them.

Those terminals are all exposed under the PCB (printed circuit board), where they're soldered. Taking these measures is a piece of cake. The hard part is that you have to take A LOT of measures of the same components or circuit in order to model them accurately. The more measures you take, the more accurate it gets because some components react accordingly to the applied current or other variables.

So, let's say you want to measure a simple capacitor which works as a filter. You have to measure it in several states because most certainly its slope changes depending on its state...There might also be a bump at a certain frequency range or a change in the resonant peak, etc...

Also, it's possible to model any electronic circuit without even having physical access to them, because all possible components have been mathematically modeled by academical nerds (and these models improve all the time). So, if you have the original schematics, you're done.

So, all of these bigger companies like Waves, Brainworx or IK do take a lot of time to measure the stuff they model as accurately as possible.

Even if they have to buy a 100k console and destroy it to measure it, which DOES NOT happen, it would still be worth it because who knows how much they would earn in plugin sales. Probably much more than that.

However, what usually happens with expensive equipment like consoles is that they simply borrow them from some studio, or do whatever measures they can locally and take the rest from the schematics, etc...

Also, to be honest, if your goal is to measure a 48 channel console, you don't have to measure all of them. One of them is enough. Want to be thorough? Go ahead and measure 10 channels.

A 100k resistor with a 10% tolerance is always an 100k resistor with 10% tolerance. Just measure one and randomize its value based on its tolerance and you're done. So you would have a bunch of 100k resistors in your emulation with real values varying from 90k to 110k.

This is the same for all other components.

Expensive equipment such as high end consoles tend to have even smaller component tolerance.

I, for one, when assembling guitar pedals or amps, select every single component by hand, so that the overall tolerance is always bellow 5% max, 2% average.

That's why this thing of saying that no audio hardware sounds the same is bullshit. What changes is the room, the speakers, monitors, etc...Premium studio hardware use selected components and will sound the same unless you have superhuman hearing.

Man, nowadays even cheap components have very small tolerance. That's why a TV or computer motherboard of the same make an model work virtually identically. So, there's no reason why it would be different for music hardware at all. It's a myth.

 

Last edited: Feb 22, 2021

My limited understanding tells me there is a lot more to it than what you are describing.
If it were that easy as you say, you could drive any of those plugins like a console channel by now, but you can not.
Also the dynamic range in daw is limited by the plugin and daw differently than a console.
You can simply drive the console to the edge and work and operate on the edge and it will sound great while the plugin will give you a nasty digital distortion.
These analog beasts can be abused in a musical way that the plugins still can not.
Several pros have stated it here better than me, it is hard to understand if you have only digital experience with plugins.

 

This is the best explanation of the process, the logical approach to it.
Nobody in his right mind would strip a big console of it’s components to measure specific electronics properties that are already mathematically known from almost a century ago.
You’ve explained it perfectly.
And I too agree with you that the sonic differences present between different units of same audio hardware must (by design) be minimal, not day and night.

 

This is a whole different story...

Measuring things accurately is one thing, translating them to mathematical models that could run in practical situations using our current processing technology is another.

Right now, we have the technology to make virtually identical emulations, but you would probably be able to use only one or two instances of them in a average music production computer.

In order to make it commercially viable, programmers have to compromise. There's no other way. They simplify what they think can be simplified in a circuit and focus on what they think is most important.

However, we've come a looong way if we compare where we are now and where we used to be ten years ago, in terms of emulations.

Literally every month some PhD student comes up with better ways to emulate a transformer, tape hysteresis, etc...

It's just a matter of time, probably another ten years or so, until we're able to produce commercially viable plugins which are virtually identical to their analogue counterparts.

 

Last edited: Feb 22, 2021

Yes plugin emulation of hardware has come a very long way in the 23 years I've been using a DAW. Unfortunately the math needed to accurately reproduce the harmonic distortion that takes place inside a vacuum tube or transformer is well beyond us today, and to properly mimic the different channels of a console with all their aged component variances will take a quantum computer technology not yet invented.

Until then we have the Acustica Audio/Liquidsonics dynamic convolution technology plugins or common algorithmic technology plugins or hardware. All have strengths as tools, we must all determine the best tool for our needs.

As my main goal is to make the best music possible, I use all daily in a hybrid creation approach.... to each their own.

 

Isn't it a scam if BX claims to have modelled a certain hardware and it turns out the plugin is not even remotely in the ballpark?

 

There are new AI and neural networks based approaches to measure and recreate the components and signal flow of analog devices. We are not talking 24th century stuff here. And you don't need a SSL Board for great mixes, digital plugins can be much more precise and are often preferred by engineers. Pensado for example does most of his mixes using plugins.

 

@WillTheWeirdo Inspiring Studio Design. I love it!

 

Haha, we're both at the October 9, 1976 Grateful Dead show at the Oakland Coliseum, but I'm in front of the stage in center field while my buddy is deep and far away at home plate. We're both "in the ballpark" and having a wonderful time though our experiences are vastly different.

 

Your entire post pretty much nailed it! Only the last part is arguable. Even though your statement is of course completely correct, it doesn't address the actual argument that there are tolerances between vintage devices. It's not about factory-fresh hardware, but about 30, 40 or 60 year old devices. one may have been overhauled a few years ago, while the other is still almost in its original condition and was in dire need of service. you usually don't need bat ears or special measurement technology to determine differences here. healthy ears or multimeter/oscilloscope is enough.

Remember, some people don't bring their equipment in for service until nicotine soup is already oozing out of every crack, the PCB and case are half dissolved in rust, and the capacitors are bursting.

 

Last edited: Feb 22, 2021

Hey Will,

In my opinion, this is not correct, man. There's already excellent and very accurate vacuum tube emulation algorithms out there, and like someone else said, if you consider how "black box" emulations using machine learning are slowly becoming the standard in accuracy instead of component modeling, we're pretty close to have virtually identical emulations in the box.

Hey Sinus,

Yes, I agree with that, but the way I see it, if your vintage equipment sounds that much different from what it was supposed to sound originally, it needs repairs.

You see, electrical components do have a lifespan and they will not sound better as they age. We're not talking about wine here!

This whole idea that vintage sounds better is nonsense...Perhaps, if we were talking about acoustic instruments, of which the wood might become somewhat more stable along the years, it could make some sense...But regarding electronic components, they only get worse and less reliable as they age.

Also, remember that all the great records made using these classic equipment have been made while they were relatively new and in excellent conditions. So, if we're using these memorable albums as reference of how a certain console or compressor should sound, we're thinking about well serviced units, not 50 years old beaten up to death pawnshop stuff.

 

Last edited: Feb 22, 2021

@RMorgan

How many years of experience on analog consoles do you have?