I was talking from "topic- analog emulation" point of view, not the real world.
Of course sunlight and sea waves are analog.

That is why they call it "emulation". Cause its not real, it can be as close as real.

Emulation = Illusion

 

I think it's the idea thst xou have an exact replica of a real world expensive device easily accessible and available.

Also, digital = generic. I'm not saying digital is bad, I really like FIR Comp and Kotelnikov, proudly digital compressors. But it's hard to associate any buzzwords like "warmth" or "analog flavor" with a digital device.

Analog emulations promise to contain something that goes beyond purely generic digital, even when it's still a digital algorithm after all.

 

I'll give you 1 good reason why analog emulations can be so cool:

This could be done with a non analog emulation synth, it would just take more fiddling to get there.

Of course, the main underlying motivator to get such sound is nostalgia. So there you have it

 

That's not generic, it's just resistant to marketing hype.

Plus, there are words that hype digital hardware: Clean. Transparent. Reliable. Flexible. For example...

 

Agreed 100% and good explanation. So I guess this:

was referring to "digital emulations of analog instruments"?

 

Man, If only there was a device that could take those ugly binary electrical pulses and turn them into an analog signal that is continuous before hitting the speakers.

 

Well, my shit is 100% analog.

 

The problem is that if you wanted to adjust those EQ bands it wouldn't be as easy to predict how they would look like.
Just turning the gain of bands won't be cutting it for a lot of, let's say flavoured EQs.
-> Equalizer emulations that have a passive design should have the EQ bands interact with each other so replicating the entire EQ with Pro Q is way harder than let's say EQ Matching a snapshot of it

And this is why Kirchhoff EQ is so good, because it has those curves as preset.
It's literally the best EQ on the market because of this, you basically buy like a bunch of other EQ plugins along with it (TDR SlickEQ and DMG Equilibrium are awesome for the same reason).

The only reason why I use Abletons stock EQ is becaused the latency w/ oversampling is still lower.

And thats just EQ plugins! The list goes on and on with compressor,tape,exciters...

Correct. It's because emulations that include the transformer have non-linearities, and this saturation is "natural" de-harshing.

Kirchhoff has Maag and Pultec curves that pass the null test.

That's because
1. Saturation added is de-harshing, as stated, and that makes the boost sit in the right place
2. Cramping for the high end, though that's not an issue anymore these days

Then Music with 1 Bit wordlength would be indifferent to music with 16 Bit.
My ears beg to differ.

Yeah and if videos were run at 10 fps everywhere you would wish they could increase that so the give the illusion of being moving pictures.
Whats your point here?
Shitty waveshapers with tons of aliasing are different than good analog emulations.
I think basically everyone agrees with you but you add nothing new?
Sorry for coming off so harsh, I'm a bit digital today ^^

No, Massenburgs EQ and Compressor are very unique for example. And those tools are only available in the digital world.
Plugins have differences because of the fine tunings. So every plugin is actually unique.
And if it's a limiter with lookahead then it's unique and digital, simple as that.
Also, being generic and sounding warm are not mutually exclusive.
digital ≠ cold.
You could use euphemisms like "controlled" or "balanced".
Same bullshit talk tbh, but it's to showcase that both digital and analog approaches to plugin design are useful and valid.

This guy got it.

That's what Brainworx TMT technology does.

And when I started making music in the late 2000s it was impossible for me to envision how professional mixes like in the radio could be made with a computer only.
Nobody talked about saturation, and the only EQ tip you got on the internet was "use your ears".

Those are indeed different worlds clashing together, but I am sure you see now that getting to a middle ground between digital lifeless uncanny valley sounding recordings and analog hiss is the solution to fidelity here.

 

Last edited: Jan 12, 2023

maybe he knows

 

Analog is a reminder that humankind gets so obsessed with bigger better and faster with the advent of digital, that it forgot what it already had like everything humankind does, humankind then dumps what it had for the better, bigger and faster only to reflect with "I wish I had of kept that"

While I expect nobody to agree with me, it is a reminder they fucked up by selling all their Neve desks, Studer machines, Prophet 5's and all analog equipment to keep up with the trends too quickly, only to find that buying back that gear second-hand gear ended up being just as expensive or more expensive than when the analog gear was new.

So now you have an influx of pseudo analog emulations in VST, AAX and AU format that really do not sound quite like the originals other than a good approximation. One of the greatest parts of analog recording in a studio which was originally a bane, was tape bleed in a live recording. Similar to mic bleed only in concept, but it had an earthiness in the sound which digital cannot do as a direct result of that tape bleed. You cannot get tape bleed in digital, only mic bleed. The tracks in digital are isolated, you could never guarantee that with analog. The 2" oxide tape had a characteristic of its own and all the wow and flutter which was never considered a good thing even then, is about as close as they can get. As for analog synths, some sound pretty good at a nostalgia level but they still sound digital.

If someone made an analog plugin on the "in" ports to nearby tracks that facilitated digital tracks in a live recording to bleed like tape used to (not microphone bleed), now THAT would be something. Otherwise, they are only an approximation, with some better than others but not close enough.

 

Last edited: Jan 12, 2023

Actually it is pulses of analog that SEEM like digital.

Despite my acceptance that at the quantum level things may have a binary origin, what we know as anaolog(ue) is our description of something real, and no more an illusion than our description of something we call 'digital'.

There is a distinct line that must be crossed when it comes to audio and that line is digital conversion.
Without digital conversion there IS NO DIGITAL audio, and all we have is analog(ue) audio .
The electrical "pulses" that normally beat a speaker are analog(ue) and we call them waves.
That kind of wave has existed forever.

What we CALL DIGITAL has only existed (at non-quantum scales) for a short time, and we had records and wax cylinders,etc LONG before anything that humans defined as "digital" (again, for the quantum asshats, at non-quantum scales) ever existed.
When the pulses reaching your speakers are digital ... well, if you hear that sound you probably can guess what it is ...
There are effects that create that sort of sound. I call it horrible...some other people might create whole music genres around it .

 

I does it for the sound yo. I don't like clean and sparkly. I like my turds slightly out or tune (just enough to annoy you) and analog. I like my digital lo-fi and or aliasing. I like my sound to be stuck back in the 80s. So I went out and bought a bunch of hardware from the 80s. I couldn't get it right with plugins. I know it's possible but too much effort imo. That said, if I had no other choice that would be my reason to use emulations. Straight up for the sound or as close as I can get.

 

I get your point,
but then, what if nowadays "digital" plugins are something people will start getting rid of in favour of analog inspired plugins (topic of this thread) just to realize they want those clean plugins back few years later?

and about that bleed feature, isn't this basically some kind of send/return across tracks with varied dry/wet ratio? I'm pretty sure any decent DAW can do that, it's just that people don't think about doing that

 

This digital picture is too harsh.
It would have been much better if made with my 77 Polaroid.

 

I had a hardware Juno-106. Out of curiosity I bought Softube Model 84 plugin which emulates that synth. For days - probably weeks - I compared them through all possible scenario's, listening to all its different components on all levels. I ended up selling the Juno-106.

I still own a Prophet 6 and Moog Matriarch, so I do value hardware, but I also acknowledge that some software has become indiscernibly good.

 

Last edited: Jan 13, 2023

There is more in WHAT you do than WHAT you compare.

How many ppl "compare" analog and digital, but do not MATCH both ?
Internet is full of those so called "comparisons".

Here is an example

They pick the brighter plugin as analog because it is just sounding better
Now match both settings : you will get around 50/50 response

Same with guitar amps sim.
I personally picked Helix over real amp comparison because high mids were upfront on the plugin ... and i liked it better

The first time i couldn't tell a synth plugin was UHE ACE and Synth Squad, both with zero latency filters.
And it was 2009 for both

Same with amp sims : i sold my last all tube amp when i got a Tonelab LE (2007 model)
Kemper i even more impressive (but later 2012 model)

Basically, i don't feel a real need for analog hardware since those days.
Between 10-15 years ago.

I still love putting my hands on analog hardware of course
But to me, it become more a luxury/pleasure than a massive sound difference.

In a final mix, those differences will disappear.
We reached our senses limit.

Even if some ppl pretend to be bats

 

Yes in this case, but I saw other comparisons with the same settings and it was impossible to my ear to get differences like DX7-Dexed or Juno 60-Arturia Jun6.

and from 15:00

This is an interesting psychoacoustics experiment, I remember that in past I considered high quality sound that with prominent high frequencies, maybe because most audio cassettes of the time were dull and real crap even compared to a 96kB mp3 of today.

Of course.

Of course.

 

Things like the Arturia Synclavier are interesting because afaik it's literally the EXACT code from the original machine, just ported to a modern OS and running on hardware orders of magnitude faster and cleaner. It's better than original. And a quarter million dollars less expensive.

 

I'm old enough to have started out in the analog world interning at a high end studio facility during the summer in my last couple of years of high school (SSL E/G console, a wall of rack compressors and external pres, Studers, etc) along with having a tascam portastudio at home. As the years progressed, I split my time recording between mid-tier studios and recording at home and saw the transition to ITB in real-time. Emulations were a big part of making that transition easier - if I see an 1176 interface, I kinda know what to expect (how accurate it was is a different story)....this is the same for most of the guys either my age (mid-40s) or older. If you go to any of the AES conventions you'll see a lot of old dudes swapping anecdotes (lies) from 1987 in between visits to check out the scantily clad babes at the Slate booth...

After many years of using analog emulation plugins to replicate the workflow I'd used for years, I'm now using things like DC8C (admittedly I usually start with presets that replicate certain analog compressor behaviours) and the SSL X-eq2 as my first choice plugins on channels. These days I could care less about seeking out some nostalgic "glory days of analog" (which is how plugin manufacturers market these tools), but I do use some analog emulations based on how they sound, not whether I want to replicate a specific old-school bit of gear. The emulations usually also have features not in the original analog unit (i.e. sidechain HPF) as demand for the benefits of ITB-specific tools has become the norm.

To my personal taste, there's not many of the "old masters" in the rock world who do better work now ITB than they did in the 80s and 90s. Tchad Blake is probably the exception but a lot of that is to do with his mindset of not wanting to recreate what he did and find new ways of working. Most of the others are still trying to recreate their OTB workflow and gear ITB (e.g. Brauer) or in a hybrid setup (e.g. TLA). I tend to prefer what those guys did in 1994 compared to now as I don't think replicating the same workflow and "gear" (emulation) choices necessarily produces the best result but we are all creatures of habit.

 

Last edited: Jan 14, 2023

Oh the digital emulations are definitely more pristine. I completely get selling it. It makes no sense to keep multiple large keyboards when you only need a MIDI controlling keyboard to access millions of samples and rompler sounds that are certainly of a high quality.

These days, you can have 100s of the older keyboards in digital format on one computer that only take up the space of the computer and one keyboard.
On a practical level it no longer makes sense to fill your room up with multiple rack keys and 77-88 note keyboards.