Well my German is very rusty and I only know basic Spanish so English it is, lol.

Gear is gear, vintage can age poorly or well. Tubes and capsules can sometimes just round out into having a great sound, but I'll admit that's not the norm. Just because gear is vintage does NOT mean it's better.... but that is often used to separate those without experience from their money. I've had brand new gear I returned as it sounded like azz too, lol.

Yes, it's about build quality, component quality, and design quality for all tools..... vintage Neumann and modern Requisite come to mind. There is no magic at work at all, but some gear can sound magical capturing a magical performance, just like some can sound like shit capturing a magical performance..... and no gear can fix a bad performance, lol.

In the end tool are tools, vintage, modern or digital....... find and use the best tools for the given task.

 

Agreed 100%.

Can we shake hands now?

 

I understand exactly what you mean, agree on many points, and yet come to a different conclusion. I know that my example is lame in some places, but it is a bit like reducing a human being to its chemical components. Here a little O, there a little C, H, N, Ca, etc.. But there is more. And I mean that from a purely aheistic-agnostic point of view.
Many technicians with decades of experience say they don't know why one component that is measured to be the same as another component will produce different sound results. They can't measure it, only hear it, and rely on their long experience.

I also think that we are talking about completely different topics here and lumping them together.

1. some vintage gear just sounds different than anything we produce today - in terms of reissues and clones. I think that's mainly due to component groups that are no longer available today.
2. components age. Their values can change over time, which changes the interaction of many different components, which leads to a change in sound. Since this process is not the same for every device, they also sound different. This can affect the timing of a compressor, the harmonic distortion, or the frequency response.
3. referring to your example to audiophiles: to lay 10K rca cables, soldered by virgins at full moon with lead-free gold solder, on small rosewood blocks to decouple them from the earth's magnetic field.... yes, that is voodoo nonsense.
Which does not mean that there is no sonic difference between cables. IMO neither better nor worse - but subtly different. Even if that is not the main reason to run such cables in the studio, but mostly has fiscal reasons.

I think we should agree on what we are talking about in the first place. Because one has nothing to do with the other.

 

Hey Sinus,

Yes, I get what you mean.

In my opinion, it's beyond proven that out perceptive qualities aren't accurate, meaning that most of the times they don't reflect reality.

I mean, how many blind tests we must do to convince people that at least 95% of us can't pinpoint which track was mixed with a plugin or hardware, or which track is a 320Kpbs MP3 or FLAC?

As far as I'm aware, using blind tests, which is the best way to get rid of information with potential to misguide perception, even extremely competent professionals with excellent ears can't nail them most of the times.

Yes, we're emotional and flawed beings, and all of this is what makes us humans, but we live in a world where so many people try to take advantage of us all the time using these vulnerabilities, that relying on objective, accurate tools to make decisions is a wise choice most of the times.

Take this thread, for instance:

Is the Brainworx SSL plugin as different to a real SSL console as some people here claimed? I mean, night and day?

I've posted two reasonably well made videos of objective comparisons between the two (and more) and, well, the least I can say is that the plugin gets really close.

How close? 3? 5? 7? 10% close at most? I can't say exactly, but the point is, it's not by any means a black and white difference. I think we all can agree with that.

So, why, in this case, some people say there's such a huge difference? Would they be able to tell which is which with accuracy in a blind test?

As for electronic components, it's very simple. If you think a certain component has a quality which is so subtle that you can't measure it, it simply doesn't exist. It's electronics. It's physics. We've created them. We know exactly how they work and that's why they work.

Take that link I posted about guitar tone capacitor models and materials and their alleged difference in tone. If you make a thread about it in a guitar forum, it can easily reach 15 pages or more...But, in the end, they've been measured a million times and the very physical nature of capacitors tell that the only thing that matters is their value. That's it. The rest is cognitive bias, placebo effect, etc...

I mean, if there's a difference in tone between a ceramic capacitor and a vintage Russian paper in oil capacitor of the same value, wouldn't it be easy enough to prove? Or would this difference be beyond what our extremely sophisticated testing equipment could measure? It's think that's very improbable, not to say impossible.

We can scan the human brain in 3D, but we can't measure such a basic and primitive electronic component such as a capacitor? I just can't believe that, my friend.

Anyway, I'm ok with all of this. Honestly.

Of course I'm perfectly aware that mixing a song in a room full of excellent hardware and a 30k console feels a billion times better than sitting in front of a pc with mouse. Of course it does! It's an incredible experience!

I'm a guitar player. I know that playing through a real amp feels a billion times better than through a plugin, but in a mix, in a blind test, could you really tell the difference between a Kemper or Neural DSP and the real deal? I'm humble enough to say I can't, not with statistically relevant accuracy, at least.

Most people who brag things like "Say it for yourself, of course there's a huuuge difference, it's so obvious, blablabla..." end up failing in blind tests.

So, the questions that matter, in my opinion, are:

-Looking strictly at the final result, which is the mixed song, is there a night and day difference?

-Can we quantify this difference? 5, 7, 10, 25, 100%?

-Are we able to distinguish this difference in a blind test with statistically significant accuracy?

By now you already know my opinion, but here it is again:

I think we already live in times where we can achieve incredibly good sound mixes in the box that are so close to hardware quality that most of us wouldn't be able to tell in a blind test, let alone the listeners...And I think that about ten years from now we'll reach the state of virtual indistinguishability.

Cheers,

M.

 

Last edited: Feb 23, 2021

One of the reasons we are so easily fooled is that we tend to think we're too smart to be fooled easily.

 

...and we have virtually no idea what is going on there. We can measure voltages, hypothesize how they correlate, and we can make paraplegics walk again. But at the end of the day, we have to admit that we know virtually nothing about the how and why. I wouldn't claim that this is transferable to simple electronic components. I'm just saying that we can't measure and know everything. TBH, I don't really care, I don't design audio devices. I'll leave that to the Rupert Neves of today's era.

 

Something that is rarely spoken of in the never ending dialogue of old vs new or digital vs analogue, is the contemporaneous world that existed at the time of vintage equipment. Without knowing the listening experience that was available to people of the 1950's through to perhaps the 1970's, once would assume that sonic fidelity was something that must have been of the highest calibre in the "olden days"
It was not. AM radio was monophonic and small speakers had a limited frequency response. By the 1960's and the development of the Hi-Fi record player, there were still limitations due to the nature of the manufacturing process whereby low frequencies had to be removed because the stylus would jump out of the groove. In the 70's studios evolved quickly and in some ways created much of the "Golden age" of equipment that we now look to as the holy grail. But almost every classic album from the greatest studios of that time and the decades before have been remastered and had new detail revealed due to the extended range that we now expect to hear when compared to a 1970's Hi-Fi system.
Which brings me to the current paradox. We, those who own top quality studio monitors, are not representative of the listening masses. They use standard ear buds on their phone, their car audio with booming bass or their home theater system with artificial DSP processing.
So, as we argue about the nuances of a genuine original Neumann U87 compared to a new Peluso, is the end result being noticed by the majority of listeners on Spotify? Or any listeners.

 

I know what you're getting at, but I don't mix for the average listener. I mix for my client. Actually, that's not the whole truth either. I want my client to be happy, but I also want to get the best out of the material and surpass myself. It's actually like jerking off in front of a mirror, if I'm honest.

Joking aside, I think in the end it doesn't matter whether you drive a ferrari or a fiat, as long as you reach your destination. But ferrari is certainly more fun.

 

Last edited: Feb 24, 2021

Yes, your understanding is limited. Dynamic range is not limited by the DAW, with 24-bit audio (the WAV files you record to in all DAWs) being capable of 144 dB of dynamic range, and the DAWs and plugins use 32-bit floating point internally, for a whopping 1528 dB of dynamic range and the ability to save up to +770dB over 0dBFS (over "clipping"). See https://www.sounddevices.com/32-bit-float-files-explained/

The fact you drive the console means you utilize its smaller dynamic range, or in other words - you're utilizing with the fact that it's provably worse than digital for musical effect.

You can drive plugins (good ones), but you do it by working with inputs peaking way lower than 0dBFS. You can't work the same way as with a console, because the meters show something different in plugins - it's not the same thing. With Plugin Alliance models specifically, you can "drive" the channel without using the input and output, just with a single knob that dials in the distortion. So you can have saturation from the channel without the compressor being overly sensitive if you want to. Or you can use the input and drive at the same time to get both.

 

Good point.
Then the main apparatus holding you back is actually the audio interface, most have a low DR expensive ones go beyond 120db, most are around 100-115db.

 

plugin can sound one to one to their hardware counterparts but it would have to use a lot of cpu but still you get them to sound like the hardware without the cpu problem but you would have to bounce them when applying the effect using metaplugin in oversampling mode

 

Nope. Here's scientific research on dynamic range across different genres of music. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2331216516630549

Also:


Do you really want more sudden volume changes than between an anechoic chamber and physical pain? Do you really need more for your music? Is there not enough parts that are too quiet to hear in a car in music you're listening to? Do you really want to be adjusting your volume knob several times during a song?

If there's not that much dynamic changes in a song as it's played in the room, there's nothing to be gained by having more dynamic range. It will only be as much as actually played. And it will likely be compressed and limited before it's out for the listener to enjoy. If your music doesn't sound good, the problem is not lack of dynamic range in your recording gear, that's for sure.

 

Another scientist. One is convincing me vintage gear is placebo and other is telling me DR is placebo.

I disagree with "there is nothing to be gained from having more dynamic range".
From working on cheap interfaces to higher end interfaces, i can assure you DR of an interface makes a big difference.

 

Last edited: Feb 24, 2021

I have to say the SSL Native Channel 2 is tight and focused.
Compared to PA it is easier to quickly dial in the sound you have in your head, faster to get the low end right.
Sub boost on this plugin is nice, less phase smearing, it targets frequencies with bigger precision.
A lot better product.

 

I'm happy to see that this thread is still going, so I will add a small update. I own the bx SSL 4k E & G plugins, and I currently use them before a Nebula SSL Line in/Mic Pre/Bus program. This works for me, although I have no idea how it compares to the actual hardware.

 

You should test drive the SSl native channel.
You mean the alexb 9 KC? Yeah, that is special.

 

Jesus Christ. Holy shitballz. Brainworx bx_console SSL 4000 E is $349?

Please, please, do yourself a favor if you have $349 to spare and really need to go console emulation.

1. Get N4 ($499 reg, but many times a promo discount up to 80%)
2. Get AlexB's SSL 4K E library ($50)

And be done with it.

These algo emulations are not worth it. Don't flush your money down that drain. They absolutely do not achieve what N4 does, if you're looking for hardware emulation.

 

Nebula is cpu demanding and many times clumsier slower to use, algos are handy, low cpu and offer a faster workflow.
You can get the BX 4k E for 20-30$ on discounts.
I would rather go with SSL native for tracks, AA Sand for busses and AlexB 9KC for the mixbus.

 

You can easily get Bx 4000 at $39.99 even 29.99

I like Waves SSL mostly although other Waves modeling plugins are garbage...

Not impressed by SSL , I haven't digged it deeply. But GUI is so nice.

 

Some hardware fans insist there's an intrinsic magic that software emulation is incapable of capturing. However, when doing a blind test or hearing real world examples, it usually becomes impossible to reliably tell which is which.