Why do we have multiple software developers selling an emulation of some piece of gear; with each one of them claiming theirs is the "most perfect one"?

If all these plugins are "perfect sounding" why did all the plugin users recently swamp Softube's webserver over a free dbx160 emulation? Is it maybe because it is a better copy?

Why do we have major manufacturers creating software emulations of their own digital gear, who still can't even get that right?

Why did all the plugin users love the Dan Worall vs Harrison Mixbus videos of them selling a "perfect emulation" of their own hardware?

Self-interests.

 

music isn't as it was in the past, now on recording sessions you can make all the mistakes you want and they can be digitally corrected, even if you don't have the talent to play a song completely. cut & paste digitally correct the segments to save time and money, real musicianship and talent becoming a thing of the past replaced by talentless individuals who can't play or perform with basic amplification but instead need thousands of dollars of digital FX and specialized gear even on stage. Music is meant to be expressed by ones emotions, talent and skill not foreverever changing digital FX patches. Lets get back to real music performed by real musicians.

 

Marketing of "classic" hardware emulation relies on the conflation of classic hardware to the prestige, status & financial success of those seminal artists/producers who employed this kit to great effect originally.

I'm quite sure the majority of musical giants of the 50s, 60s, 70s etc could have created equally seminal output using today's software tools - though i think it's equally plausible that they too would have lost much creative momentum in the treacherous desert of endless perceived choice.

TL;DR - The past has already come and gone... Make YOUR music matter, now.

 

Last edited: Mar 19, 2024

They used what they had at disposal and didn't lose sleep trying to sound like decades before them or they were actually happy how they sounded back than, most of them were after what we have now and settled with what was possible.

There's still people recording in state of the art studios with great musicians, just not particularity stuck in time period and romanticizing about it, but excited about their own time and possibilities, same as those people in 60s, 70s and etc.

 

Last edited: Mar 19, 2024

IMHO most of the musicians that made the "sonority" on the video OP posted would dream to have access to all those tools, the clarity and the bandwidth we have today. Inexistant noisefloor would sound like a dreamy joke to the guys of that era. No need to filter the extremes for vinyl cutting also. I don't think any older engineer would miss the stress and limitations that making music on that era was. The music sounds good because we got talent on the performance, arrangement and composition. It's not better because it has noise, harmonic distortion, lower extremes, etc... BC with the analog gear and plugins we have today, those guys would bring us things our mind would blow. So better embrace the blessings of the era you live instead of reaching for a hard route that has no benefits, for nostalgia.

 

Of course they could have, they would just have some sonic differences. The reason why we know about many of the obscure old rare "legendary" gear is because of the people who used them. We don't know about them because of the gear they used. We know about the gear because *they* used it. Not every DX-7 was pumping out Michael Jackson records.

 

True in theory. However explain to me why most "modern" albums (and especially those "re-mastered" using "modern" processes from earlier analog multi-tracks) sound like they came from a shit grinder? The "modern" processes produce wave-forms of tracks that resemble boxes because they have the living crap limited out of them leaving no dynamic range with which to discern much past the most prominent parts of the "mix". And even the most prominent point sources in the mix are distorted due to brick-wall limiters gone amok. The digital tools can sound good in the hands of those who use them with care, but these days simply mutilating a track because one can coupled with spasmodically lackadaisical industry "quality" standards makes for a piss poor final product in today's commercial pop audio market.

Why is that? You think that vinyl disc cutting has changed radically since the 70's-80's+. It's still the same process maybe slightly refined with regard to improved material formulations, but the laws of physics that applied to the process back in the day still apply now. You still cannot over modulate a disc cutting head and expect it to stay in its track. So yes, filtering, compression, emphasis and de-emphasis are still needed for that process even today.

 

Last edited: Mar 19, 2024

I have the 20th anniversary Nirvana Never Mind Remaster and... oooooh my god.
Kurt certainly would kill himself again if he could hear it.

The saddest fact is that, almost always, the artist doesnt have any controll about remasters, it is label's fault

 

As @No Avenger has said: to recreate the feel of a real musician playing his instrument a simple sample library is not enough. A human playing an instrument can have so many subtle or obvious changes in articulation / playing technique that it's impossible to capture all these variants in a sample library. It's particularly difficult for instruments like brass, but also strummed instruments like guitar.

And if you think of a whole band of studio musicians: when they did their recording sessions they typically jammed alongside one another interacting with what their colleagues would do, which is very different from tracking one instrument first, then the next and then another one to create a composition.

But even if you have access to great studio musicians, who know what they are doing just like the guys on these 70s records, you would still have to recreate the entire recording setup and processing chain. You can approximate that sound with current plugins, but it's really not the same as an analog studio and recording chain. Once again the real physical world is more complex than the attempts to emulate / model it algorithmically or digitally. Typically the analog world contains randomness and less redundance / repetition. The recording process in an analog studio with a whole team and a band of musicians, everyone with a dedicated role, is very different from using a DAW to make music.

There are still many artists and labels that are pursuing the retro sound. Some of them produce records strictly according to the formula that was used in the 1960s and 1970s. Daptone records come to mind:

 

This is more about gatekeeping/fencesitting,owners pride, old habits and evading change than pragmatism. If a 70s producer was offered a laptop with a few freeware plugins on it, he would probably gladly trade in his gear, checkbook, keys and trophy wife who is mostly plastic, but can suck a golfball through a garden hose.

 

The producers of the old school were more orchestrators and arrangers; they wrote parts for additional instruments themselves, determined their dynamic relationships, or came up with possible rarely used and quite naive effects that would not include the sound image as a whole. They were not focused on production in the sense of constantly changing the color of sound, inventing new and unusual virtual instruments, overemphasizing the role of ambience, merging sounds, and especially not introducing various forms of sound distortion. This, thanks to the technique, slowly turned into an obsession, a habit, and finally a style. Such a degenerate style rules pop music today; the technical form of the soundtrack has become equal to the composed content itself. The constant search for production effects and their accumulation is more evidence of a lack of musical inspiration and its compensation with technical exhibitions that are available to us in abundance in this day and age.

 

Even playing styles evolve in such a way that it's impossible to play exactly like back in the mofo day.

For example, whenever you watch a movie, and there's a funk track that's obviously recorded in present day but intends to sound like 60s funk, the guitarist will still have his Nile Rodgers or Prince influence in there. The drummer will sound like a drummer who has played with 20+ piece kits before. The bass player, try as he might, can't hide the fact that he's grown up in a post-Jaco/Bootsy/Graham world etc. etc.

And in the rare instances where a band can imitate another band from the past to such a point you'd think they share DNA, it's so bizarre lol. I saw a Pink Floyd tribute band years ago, and if you closed your eyes you'd think it was the real deal. Uhm... OK? How is that different from playing PF albums on really loud speakers?

Will A.I. tribute acts kill live music too? OH FUCK WE'RE HEADED TOWARDS THAT AREN'T WE??

 

Eh. I don't disagree with you, but I wonder where you draw the line that separates old school from new. Where would you put Alan Parsons, for instance?

 

By some comments, I think many people here miss the point that sounding x or y or z can be an artistic choice: like the color tones, shades and palettes you choose when painting (dark, pale, pastel, bright, warm, cool, etc) to give your work a certain mood.

After decades of technology and music genres development, an artist has now a broader palette of sound colors at their disposal to choose from than 60 years ago. And not everyone wants to sound as modern as it can be, and this may reflect an artist's perspective towards their work.

Seems some people never heard of Portishead or Amy Winehouse.

 

Last edited: Mar 19, 2024

To me they sound very modern if not futuristic with the blend of Henry Mancini OSTs,Ataris,samplers,Pulltec,paulxstretch and a gloomy Beth Gibbons on top.

 

It of course happens but rarely anymore, when you cut a record before hard disk recording you needed to nail your take as a band, for instance laying down the rhythm track or the band as a whole playing the song through. There were no samples to blend in or replace the drums and studio time was very expensive if you were recording at a major studio. Producers guided and were many times an addition to the band in terms of input. Nowadays lots of musicians can't play their instruments, vocals are fixed in the mix and mistakes are fairly easily corrected. Things couldn't be any different unless you're a Bob Dylan capable of doing 35 takes live with 10 other musicians until he hears what's in his head.

 

Their vol 2 sounds like it was recorded in the 1940s, at max. ;) (and a blend of Henri Mancini for sure will not help you sound... er... very modern).

 

Partly. They did not slice samples in the fourties. Or wait, they did maybe on tape, but I get your point. Going for old might not be the only reason for the choice. It also makes sense in a musical way. Motown is already taken, the sound is unusual and no one really did it before.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Mar 19, 2024

Wait, Dylan can hear ??

 

A bit harsh in the highs, especially the hi-hat/shaker thing on the left. The guitar sounds great though, and I like the overall atmosphere. What guitar, amp and pedals did you use?