it is simple and straight forward
Sometimes some hardware summing takes the leading edge of some transients
THIS sounds often more pleasing to the ears while also can provide some headroom to a MIX

That, can sometimes be exactly what is needed.

On the other hand the leading edge is what is needed in some music
So what to do?
work hybrid. Like tracking or summing some parts in analog (you yourself could send something through a tape/mixer)
sometimes just processing individual tracks is better

so in essence its just tools of a trade
that can be expensive........THEREFORE Plugins

 

The point is cultural heritage: for more than a hundred years we recorded and mixed in the analog domain, this means that the gear used added imperfections to the sound, those artfacts (static, crackle, saturation, hiss ...) are now intrinsic part of the message.
Listen to this awesome song from Fats Waller: would be impossible for me to imagine it without all that distortion:

A good digital setup, on the other hand, is built on purpose to add absolutely nothing to the process. Technically this is a big improvement in quality, but, it happens that, deep in our soul, we feel that there is something missing. Note that the older the sound engineer is, the more he will consider this difference significant
My opinion is that the lack of analogue imperfections in digital world can be a merit or a flaw, depending on what the goal of our recording / mixing is.
An example: I often work for TV productions, where any analog artifacts is considered evil

 

I see the usual suspects (terms) thrown in as being the definition of "analog". Let's clarify:
warmth = the sound has (somewhat) rich (low)mids and less high frequency content - a skilled producer/engineer can do that with ITB saturation and eq
depth = the perceived position of a sound in the stage of the song. a sound can't be "deep" and "upfront" at the same time - we position sounds with panning, high cut filtering (automation), L/R delay, reverb
width = if you want a wide mix, most of the elements must be narrow and just selected few must be wide. if all elements in a mix are larger than life, we perceive the mix as being average. width comes from contrasting wide and narrow elements.

The only thing a analog processor can do is "warm" (it cuts the highs due to its circuitry and pushes some saturation - yes, that is possbile but as I said, not unique to analog domain). As for "depth" and "width" these are production decisions that uses many tools and proper automation and arangement and can be very well made ITB

 

Both.

 

Analog seems more weighty [fatter] when played in a club! i suppose more like vinyl ...Digital can sound tinny harsh but whatever suits you.

 

Although there are many people here who use analog devices, no one has explained it clearly, they only mention very subjective things about analog sounding better.
Very briefly it is due to the harmonics that each device or each plugin creates in the recordings or in the audio, that is what gives it the distinctive characteristic that many analog devices have.

This guy explains it much better and the video is much more complete.

 

I'd say analog Warmth is a mix of many elements, like..
a certain Roundness (softened top highs/enhanced low end), and extra Depth (dynamics),
and well all the other non-linearities that could be introduced, like random Drive/energy, Phase and EQ variations..
many aspects of the (electric) audio signal could be affected/altered by the use of Analog gear.

This is completely Random for the most part, or at least initially it was,
but in a empirical/serendipitous way it was found that if you design your electric circuits this/that way, the sound is affected this/that way, and so engineers would eventually come up with a a standard most convenient way of doing the stuff..

Also it's a matter of Habit, in the sense that:
we (at least up to the millennial generation) have grown up listening to music made with acoustic/analog gear,
recorded/produced with analog gear, and reproduced/broadcasted with real analog/electronic gear..

Ofc Electronics was ever more prevalent in the 70's 80's, and then Digital from the 90's,
but we have even if unknowingly grown with that stuff, and benefited of the crystallization of decades of engineering and technological progress..


It's like flipping TV or Cinema..
HD is super Crisp and shit, but you take a 35mm film and it's almost as detailed as 4K,
but more Natural looking because the film was captured by a photo-chemical (Analog) process.

Maybe the absolute point to point resolution (pixels) is not as crazily detailed/perfect in a traditional film,
but the Colors man.. and it's also thx to the decades (a century) of Optical technological development.

Optic/analog cameras may not be as flippin Precise, but they also add certain nonlinearities/imperfections that are beneficial,
and this imperfections happen in the Real natural world, like Real Light bouncing inside the camera's mirrors/lenses in an imperfect way,
and being imperfectly captured by an imperfect chemical film..

But yeah, not all this imperfections are negative,
some might be in a technical sense.. but others turn out to be benefitial, or likeable.

Your million dollar analog 35mm camera may not be 100% perfect,
but it's as perfect as it can technically be while being engineered in a traditional way,
and since it's all based on physics/optics, and we're natural beings living in a physical/analog world..
we tend to like that because it looks/feels more natural to us.

An HD Digital camera is very Perfect/solid in the way it captures the light (photo sensor vs film),
but it is afterall Rounding up the results, Filtering the stuff to make it fit inside a cuadriculated matrix of mathematical possibilities.
So much cells has your sensor, and so much degrees of possible brightness/color are possibly captured and then represented by the mathematical processes that take place in the digitalization of the optical signal.

So this "mathematicalization", this filtering and rounding of the real signal has its pros/cons.


So same applies to Audio.
HQ Digital audio is very flipping Precise, and has an almost "Perfect" response for the complete width/spectrum of the signal..
So for instance the Highs can be very Extended and precise, there's less intrinsic Phase and Drive non-linearities, and so on.

So much so, that the best digital equipment will capture/process everything so Cleanly,
that those flavorful non-linearities of analog gear are missing..

And that's when we start missing the old rusty and moody analog gear that,
even if technically limited (less precise and extended), manages to capture the stuff with a certain natural yet imperfect "charm",
that relates to the physicality of the real world we live in, and the 100% analog nature of humans.


So yeah it's all about Physical behavior+technical imperfections VS mathematical precision+filtering/limitations.
Although probably the stuff overlaps at some point..

And also the cumulative effect of all those imperfections, which can be better/worse depending on the quality/type of the gear, and the way it's all used/linked togheter;
which after decades of technical development and application/usage resulted, in a sort of emprical/serendipitous way, in a common practice/method of how to better use the stuff..

Nowadays we combine Software, Digital and Analog gear to try to get the best of both worlds..

 

Last edited: Sep 26, 2021

Who are those "most people" you are refering to?

Listeners?
Producers?
Engineers?

In other words: where's the data to back up your "most people" claim?

 

Honestly nowadays it's almost impossible to distinguish between film and digital cameras, at least the ones used for most feature movies. The differences are slightly more perceptible in extreme conditions like really low lighting, but a good DOP can get close to identical results with either medium. Add to that the fact that it all goes through digital post-production.

Now, that's not to say you can take a DSLR with you, hop in a time machine, and shoot Taxi Driver with it, and have it look identical. The differences become bigger the further you go back in time.

Of course, in the end, the audience barely notices anything, just like they don't know if a song is mixed using analog gear or ITB. Is there a philosophical conversation to be had about a tree falling down in a forest? I don't know, I dropped out of kindergarten

 

Correction: this should be the FIRST thing one is able to do!

It's a digital synth!
M1 for House.

 

Right..

But it's like the other way around..
Nowadays what matters is not the amount of precision/perfection of the image, both methods are very Precise,
but the actual quirks/behavior of the optical+chemical/analog method which gives the film a very natural and pleasing look.

Specially in the richness of Color and the way it may bloom, while being imperfectly yet pleasingly captured..
(or also differences in dynamic range, some positive/negative..)

You can take the best Digital camera and shoot Taxi Driver HD,
but it will look so Sharp/Perfect it will loose part of its Charm.. wouldn't it?

Also optics are related here,
I'm surely not an expert in that, but maybe an old-school totl Zeiss set of lenses is different than the average modern mass-manufactured lenses of today.. and well the type of camera and film used also has an effect.

So in the end all this imperfections/limitations and nonlinearities of old school cameras/film,
manage to give a certain Character to the final result that's pleasing to the eye.. unprecise, but pleasing.

And that's also a cultural and aqcuired taste,
if we never had 35mm cameras we would never know, we will never miss whatever effect/character they give/imprint to the images.

We would not consider that, and just take Digital video for what it is.
But we remember how things used to look in traditional Film, or in CRT monitors,
and we miss some of the effect/character this imprinted to the actual media..


And well, a good proof of that is this discussion we're having,
or the fact Digital (mathematical) filters/fx have been developed to Imitate/replicate the behavior of traditional analog methods..

Analog modelling audio software, imitating amps/speakers compressors/eqs/mixers and so on...
Optical modelling of chemical/magetic film, lenses and their effects to make our pristine HD video look more analog.


In any case the way I see it is:
Old school Film tends to be much less precise in terms of absolute Resolution,
and there's more bloom/blur, chromatic aberration and other defects..
But having more pleasing natural/rich Colors.. not because the sensors of a digital camera are less capable,
but actually due to the technical limitations yet Physical nature of the analog film medium.

While modern Digital video is like Super Precise, with incredible Resolution and absolute fidelity,
and while it may even be more capable in terms of color depth (chemical film and its developing method actually affect/modify color), it's like not as Charming, or "natural" looking..

That's how I perceive it to be..

But ofc that doesn't mean digital sucks,
Digital is not only every bit as Capable in a technical sense, if not more,
but way more Practical than old school film..

So choosing one method over the other is more a matter of preference and practicality..

 

Last edited: Sep 26, 2021

Yep I think its a wrong term, maybe "some" must go there instead of "most"

 

You can make equally as good mixes in the box, some of the best mix engineers are doing all their work in a DAW now

For me, I like analog mixing because it’s a cool hands on approach. It’s a bit more fun and interactive.

could people confidently pick out an analog mix or a mix in DAW out in a blind test these days, if both were mixed by a skilled mix engineer? Doubt it.

 

Now you're getting into subjective appreciation of film vs. digital, and while I mostly agree that old movies have some visual charm we don't see anymore, the debate can go on forever

One thing to remember is budget made a much bigger difference in the past when it comes to the final product. I'm talking about film here, but it also applies to music, so whenever I say camera related stuff you can replace it with audio gear stuff and it'll probably work

Back in the day, the best equipment was the most expensive, and thus not accessible to all filmmakers. That's why a movie like 2001 : A Space Odyssey looks sharper than Taxi Driver, even though it's almost a decade older. Kubrick had a much bigger budget, and used top of the line cameras, lenses, film stock and lights. Today, people shoot music videos using more or less the same gear they use to shoot movies and series. There is still expensive equipment that will give that extra oomph but overall the "pro" look is way more accessible than it used to be. And while there's still a visual gap between, say, a DSLR and the Arri Alexa, it's not as big as the gap between 16mm and 70mm.

Not to mention, the limitations of film could be an artistic choice too. Using a certain film stock would give you a certain look with certain defects, even if you could afford more expensive film that would minimize those defects. Unfortunately in digital, price related defects don't have that quality, unless you're going specifically for that cheap video look, which could be an artistic choice too, but I digress.

Oh and btw, there was a brief period in the 2000s where digital cameras didn't perform as good as they do today, but were still very powerful, so they gave some unique looking movies. Michael Mann's Collateral is one of my favorites from that period. Look at all that digital noise in darker scenes. The image is obviously high definition but the shadows have that distinctive video look, yet it doesn't look cheap. Definitely worth watching (again ).

As for the lenses, again, the high end lenses today would outperform even the best Zeiss from the 70s. But the real revolution is that an amateur filmmaker (or photographer) can buy lenses that are FAR more superior to what an amateur could afford back then.

And yes, it's all an acquired taste. Modern tv's with their 60 fps HDR make everything look like you're actually on the set, and I find that super annoying. I much prefer the 24 fps motion blur. And apparently that was a random choice : they didn't pick that speed because it's closest to our natural vision, but because it was the lowest speed at which things looked pleasing. They could have theoretically settled for 60 fps (and have a more natural look) but it would require much more film stock used, and cost more. 24 fps was the "ok, looks good enough, no need to go further" compromise. Not a perfect analogy, but it reminds me of guitar amps. A good clean tone is often associated with tube amps, but in reality tubes distort the sound even at clean settings. The Roland jazz amps in the 80s were much cleaner, but most guitarists prefer that ever so slightly distorted Fender twin reverb sound lol.

Anyway, don't know why I wrote all this, as I mainly agree with your points

 

i am an almost completely "in the box" guy. mostly due to the $$ aspect. and i mostly make music that is heavily based in live/real instrumentation (gtrs, drums, bass, live vocals as opposed to samples, etc). i use the neural dsp plugs (or my ndsp quad cortex as of late) for pretty much all of my gtr and bass tracks, and sd3 or ggd connected to my roland edrums kit for drums. which has allowed me the freedom (and privilege) of having ultra convincing near 1:1 sounding recreations of gear i could NEVER otherwise afford. i have pretty much every plugin available )obviously not possible but ive at least got nearly all of the bundles, suites, etc) including nearly the entire uad roster. all of the best emus of sought after hardware blah blah blah... and i have been completely happy working almost exclusively in the box since i started recording roughly 3 and a half yrs ago. i've been able to really create some, imo, awesome and inspired tracks. that sound plenty warm and have plenty of "feel". i think it really does come down to the tool and YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE in mastering how they work and how to use them...

all of that said though, ab a year ago i had to find out for myself what improvement in quality i could achieve, if any, with hardware over emus of hardware. i had just picked up my first "good/higher end" mic (neumann tlm103) and i decided i wanted to get a decent mic pre.. even though i had emus of neves, ua 610's, v76's, you name it, through my apollo. i settled on a uad 710 twinfinity bc of the ability to have the solid state side and a tube side in one pre, and also bc i could afford that unit without having to eat ramen for a month to recover. (mostly the latter).

what i discovered was that i absolutely could hear a difference in the quality of things recorded through it (mostly vocals and bass gtr). like an actual (nearly impossible to describe) warmth and... magic? on the tube side, and a discernible transparency and clarity on the trans side.

moral of the story.... fuck i dunno. maybe its what a few others have said in previous posts ab them all having their place and being equally as useful as the other depending on the situation. a beautiful piece of code or algorithm designed by a master is = to a beautifully designed board paired with a pretty glowing tube also designed by a master.. and whichever you can afford is plenty damn good enough as long as you understand that if you run shit through it expecting chart topping gold to come out the other side, you're gonna be disappointed EVERY TIME. i don't want to completely undermine the gears importance in the process, bc obviously it does matter to a point.. but the gear doesn't write or perform the music. thats on us.

and if this is a troll post.... well fuck

 

Last edited: Sep 27, 2021

Nice thread - lots of nice comments - nice reading different perspectives

Complaint first...

• Some of you bastards just made me waste 5 minutes of my life trying to work out what this magic 1 Terrabyte involves... In various comments I saw ITB and thought I was reading 1 Terrabyte mixing, 1 Terrabyte guitar emulations, 1 Terrabyte plugins, 1 Terrabyte saturation and eq. Baffling Admittedly, I am a bit 'out of my box' at the moment so that's going to be my excuse for not reading ITB properly.

Personal opinions (rambling)...
I'm agnostic over the analog versus digital debate and have experience of both. My (musician-biased) belief is that 99% of the real magic is won or lost at the stages of writing, playing, and recording performances. Recording-engineering is not really where the magic dust gets sprinkled - but it is where things can be ruined - so it's a serious craft.

For recording, I still make use of analogue mixers but only because I was never tempted to buy digital mixers.
I phased out using analogue multi-track tape machines when ADAT arrived (now antique) and gave me cleaner recordings.
(confess I never sold the old multi-tracks though) So, do I miss that 'mystical analogue tape sound'?
Yeah right and I also miss the money I had to blow away on noise reduction tech!
For example, I still own a Revox (2T stereo) tape machine - so of course I've explored printing digital recordings to tape - waste of time! I have also explored most of the trendy analogue tape plugins - and I now couldn't be bothered to use any of those either. Compared to getting the music right it's all just faffing around at the margins.

I love audio engineering ideas when they're being creatively applied to instrument/sound generation - no rules there,
and that's where I find modern FX most useful.
In a production-recording sense I mostly want audio engineering to just be as unobtrusive as possible.
Digital ITB makes all of that so much easier - there's very little point in going back.

None of these opinions are in any way disrespectful to the wonderful craft of audio mastering but I always aspire to make the mastering stage as redundant as possible - preferably almost nothing to do.

My equation for evaluating all the toys (analog or digital) is something like...
"does it enable more time to think music or does it distract by becoming an enjoyable engineering game?".

A separate debate about analogue mixing - but not quite what the OP had in mind - and far too long for here - is what happens when mixing is a live performance - no automation! and commitment to 'choosing takes' is more real time, etc.
That's what analogue used to imply.
This is now a typically neglected aspect of injecting life into recordings - but it doesn't need to be that way
- we all just prefer the lazier more flexible options that ITB provides.
Why make your mind up now with 16 tracks when you can meander around for weeks with 250 tracks?

=========

EDIT-UPDATE: I just got around to watching that Fats Waller video mentioned in @recycle's post (below). While I agree 100% with everything @recycle said in that comment, I failed the test of checking out the old-fashioned analogue features of the audio-video. I failed because within a fraction of a second I was just sucked into the content - amazing music, amazing vibe (even in a making movie context). It kind of reinforced my bias that the right magic content easily eclipses the engineering issues every time.

 

Last edited: Sep 27, 2021

...this is how this thread appeared in my browser. Now as far as me clicking on it...



I skimmed thru this thread... but(t)... all I saw was just a lotta geek talk...

 

I know this will date me but, I was working in recording studios before digital audio was available. I have worked with digital FX one by one as they came out. I have seen digital recording advance from early development to what it is today.

I know how to work these devices, what they sound like, and how to chain them together with a patch bay. That's why I use hardware emulations.

However, the emulation plugins only do what job they were designed to do. Most of the newer plugins far exceed the function and control of the old school plugins. I use both. IMO a Pultec eq on bass will sound better than a clean digital eq or analogue console eq. Use whatever works for you.

 

I'm a proponent of hybrid setups, because that way you get the best of both worlds. Record through analogue, mix in the box approach. Maybe using some of that analogue gear in the mix. too [mixing buses or stems OTB]. Using hardware instruments as well as plugin instruments. Whatever works for you. One shouldn't dismiss the importance of education about the audio equipment/tools for this to work, too, and training your ears to hear separate instruments, miniscule dynamic and EQ changes. Learn how to hear separate tracks, but also learn how to hear the whole track, too.

In the end, as a few of you said, the result is what matters. Music, sounds, lyrics, arrangement. Some will mention charisma and sexuality? That could be kind of circumvented. Just look at Daft Punk or Sophie...

Cheers!

 

ok... well that, i would say, ends the "is this a trolling thread" debate