My experience has been that mixing ITB is easy when getting a great recording, recorded in a great room with decent gear but if you get a vocal that was recorded on crap gear and in a bad room then mixing ITB isn't going to fix that shit. I feel that hardware gets the little things right especially when it comes to saturation, efx, and compression and additive EQ, and it's those little details that separate pro vs am mix.
Nothing will fix a bad recording, the differences between ITB and OTB are so subtle that it doesnt matter anymore (let the downvotes begin..) If Andrew Scheps can go from this: https://imgur.com/a/nxAXfRn to working ITB than its good enough for me
Yes, soundwise they are not relevant, The most important difference is the physical aspect you should have if you're a beginner because you get a very good connection between what you are doing and what the result is. So basically you should use hardware if you can't really hear what you're doing. Because with hardware you will learn critical hearing way faster.
1960-70 there is no automation but there is dark side of the moon, kind of blue and other.. now with automation and general itb the music is copywrite of youtube tutorials..
Everyone today is ITB, millions of producers and songwriters and at best they come up with average stuff. OTB is more fun, faster and sounds better. As we see in ITB endless possibilities is the worst that could have happened to music production.
The difference is not subtle at all. Do you even own any analog synths? Then you could see how much punchier they sound, they also fit in within the mix easier. Same for other gear. With plugins you also get stuff like aliasing, nasty distortion, cramping, ringing etc.
Well, ATM it seems still not to be possible to emulate digital hardware exactly, even less analogue hardware. But this difference is mainly audible in a direct A/B comparison, or on high end systems (converters, monitors, room), so not under 'common' circumstances. On top of that software has some undeniable advantages. Apart from total recall, which you can do with digital or digitally controlled consoles too: automation is way easier way cheaper (per piece) you can use one plugin in as many channels as you want (or your computer is capable of) plugins can be more powerful and versatile no maintainance no wearout needs less space, less power consumption and produces less heat easier to transport (mobile) ... With hardware OTOH, you are way faster because: you have limited options you can use both hands at the same time and even mix with several people at the same time (real time 'automation') and it makes more fun, IMHO.
Punchier? No I did not hear that. What i did hear was annoying static clicks, hum, hiss, shitty reverb, uncontrollable delay, nonsensical ADSR, noisy pods, slightly out of tune. no, after owning several hardware synths. I can fully convinced say that I never need a hardware synth. Hooking one up these days is like enjoyable exercise for me, nothing more nothing less.
Depends on what you used and the condition it was in. I have zero problems you are stating here with analog synths. If you cant distinguish between a real moog or a ob-x and a plugin, then you might be among those who have a poor hearing and i dont mean to offend you, its just how it is.
i don't have the research i made some time ago to the university, but what i did was compare hardware compressors vs plugins of them with the same settings, and the results were variable with the uad distressor being the closest to its hardware related (even with a null test between the processed audios on each case)
