Awesome!! I will post the raw audio file too! It would be interesting to see everybody's take on it.

 

Every time i see a digital vs analog discussion i feel really strange for feeling that i don't need any HW besides a good converter and monitors. I don't blame people for going to that 1073 sound that can be only crafted by the hands of sir Rupert Neve because they know what they are going for. But i know how good analog gear sounds, and sounds great, but i feel that the digital setup is way more powerful, cleaner, defined than any hybrid or full analog setup. And if you miss the "analog mojo" whats you're really missing? The harmonics? The frequency response and the curves? the noise? everything? If you know what it's missing you can go for it with a plugin that will mimic that behaviour. And the best part: you can choose what you want and skip the other points of the HW that you're not looking for.

For me it's about how empowered you feel with your setup. If analog is making your job done easier and faster with noticeable results, go for it, embrace it. If digital mixing makes you laugh on the face of audiophiles because they are fighing to do what you can make in 3 seconds with a digital transient shaper and fabfilter pro-q, embrace it as well. Just don't think you got any advantage because of your setup because NO GEAR IN THE WORLD will make you sound good. Audio engeneering will make you sound good

 

It should be reference tone matching. Use an unprocessed raw file, and a processed file. Then start with the unprocessed file, and match it to the processed reference file with the chain. Even that usually does not prove accuracy for sticklers (because usually there is another agenda going on there anyway), but without the reference tones you are just ending up with a soundgoodizer. It's absolutely possible, and should be done without using 10 plugins to do it. The more plugins you add, the more difficult you are making it on yourself to actually get a "match".

This is actually one main subject of the below video tutorial you can find on sister site. Skip to the part with his assistant Fernando, he is all over it. You can get a little insight to this stuff, even though I think the term "tutorial" is really pushing its meaning. Still a good watch.
PureMix Michael Brauer The Evolution From Analog to Digital "Brauerize"© TUTORiAL

100% plugins, too. No offsite gear rental, hardware, or other off-topic solutions to the actual question required. Just some tedious technical work.

Here's a better analogy. Watch an episode of that show Forged in Fire sometime. When they say "build a 10 inch long kitchen knife", and some guy makes a battle axe because it will be better for chopping. Then they kick the guy off the show because he can't follow simple directions. That's what answering a question about plugins with "hardware is better" boils down to.

 

Last edited: May 30, 2025 at 4:31 AM

Nooo man, don't tell people about that masterclass, they will discover that in 2025 you can do whatever you want to your audio source with digital plugins!

Let em keep spending money on expensive hardware or snakeoilsh renting devs, hearing depth out of mono sources since it was summed from a 1957 Altec (the same model from The Beatles) full of noisefloor, phase shifting and untamable distortion because AnAlOgRoCks

 

This is not a digital vs analog discussion... it's a vintage Neve hardware vs plugin emulation discussion.

Also when you say digital clean some may say sterile, it all erspective. In fact GML, Grace Design, Requisite Audio and Great River all did or do analogue clean amazingly well, none are steril tho. My Requisite Audio Pal Plus is flat out to 40Khz and down only 2db up at 60Khz... Danny has a preamp flat till around 300Khz, compared to that digital can't comprehend what clean clear actually is, lol.

Yeah it's all subjective and there are levels in this audio layer cake.

 

Sure, but let's not pretend Brauer's not getting analog tracked audio files to mix, nobody at home just on a laptop is paying his mix rates, lol. It's all tracked out in quality studios, with quality tracking engineers, of different sizes ready to roll, then he mixes with plugins, which I do also, my friends Leslie Brathweite, KD, and John Frye do also.

We gotta stop pretending gear and skill don't play a part in all this... because it does, especially the last elusive 10% everyone is needing to reach to stay ahead of the the AI competition moving forward.

Lets face it, middling mixes will not cut it as AI mixing rounds into form... and from reading the posts here most are most likely not up for the challenge. I am because I'm working to improve every single day using every possible tool advantage possible to have a mix sound unique to myself at a very high level. Question is... are you?

 

If you're not making electronic music, every sound source is analog. You need at least a mic and a pre to record something, and yes, that's analog and of course the quality of those components play a important role on the result.

So why are you renting analog gear?

I may assume those people are putting their lack of competence on the storage enviroment. It's sterile because it's the exact result of you good work or your dumbness, if doesn't sounds good, you know... And DMG Equilibrium > GML 8200. It's just superior and has been proved, it's not a matter of opinion.

No, i'm not, i'm just turning knobs without any single clue and i NEVER blind test my stuff or compare it with other commercial results

 

Read the thread title again. This is a thread with some kid asking about plugins. And you wanting to flex your internet resume, name drop, and act high and mighty, about hardware you do not even own.

All those studios you say you worked at, do you know why the number of them you claim is so high? I do, and you are reading about it. I had forgotten why I had originally put you on ignore. I'm not any Acustica fan, but it was funny when Giancarlo said "oh yeah I remember you". He had forgotten too.

 

I own hardware, I have an API Box (SN 226) based hybrid studio using the best analog and digital tools for my needs. I've done major work all analog, then all digital, today I prefer hybrid.

With services like Access Analog I was pointing out that today owning hardware or plugins are NOT the only option... and nobody here was letting him know he had better options than emulations available for cheap. It's funny so many are attacking me for simply pointing out he has real access to actual vintage hardware. I was under the impression having options was a good thing.

FWIW My credit list and the studio's I've worked are much bigger, I'm a multi-platinum pro with millions of Soundscan, over half a billion streams and a few plaques.... and unlike you I'm not posting under a fake name, anyone can Google me and learn my work, I'm as open and public as it gets. Giancarlo and I have over 100 personal emails, I was a beta tester with Acustica some years back and his flawed plugins and poor support were problems when I posted on Gearspace about them, again simple searching would show that is true. You don't seem to actually know what you are typing about, lol.

I've also got over 35K hours in pro audio having worked at every level possible from the basement to the majors and I'm still here on forums like this offering options and info freely to any that care to read. Feel free to ignore my posts

 

1. True
2. I own some select gear but I sold some a bunch when Access Analog came of age, my wife and I prefer to move every few years so less is more at times. Having full hardware access online allows for a modern gear freedom that I could only imagine just 10 years ago.
3. To each their own opinions, but I prefer the GML 8200 EQ to Equilibrium in every way but cost and convenience and nothing is proven, lol... it's all opinions.
4. I'm always analyzing references, almost nobody sends mixes without a ref track, but different strokes for different folks.

 

Last edited: May 31, 2025 at 4:28 AM

This makes a lot of sense.

 

So that's what this is, right? It's funny but the software you are talking about being compromised was what? Acustica. You weren't crying about lack of support or their bloatware when "testing" them. From the brush-off you got on here, it looked like you were paying for them to me

So, when it comes to advising people about snake oil plugins to throw their money at; why do you think all this supposed expertise with hardware is now valuable to compare one digital plugin to another? Because you say you "remember" what it sounds like? Sounds like you were angry about paying for snake oil all by yourself. Or maybe one of those guys who got all upset when your precious UA plugins became available to native UAx format users for $30 bucks a month?

Feel free to drop a wave file clean, and which you have processed using remote location hardware.

That simple.

 

Last edited: May 30, 2025 at 8:28 AM

@WillTheWeirdo.

I did not want to enter into this debate again, but, it's been a long time.

I just want to understand what's been said here :

Are you saying that analog high end class-A hardware can be cleaner than any algorithmic mathematical operation such as linear FIR processing or ...gain ? I'm just afraid I did not get it right and I genuinely ask for a clarification since you seem inclined about sharing knowledge and talking about your personal experience.

 

I'm not going to go line by line, because a flood of unrelated information is a typical response for those peddling snake-oil.

But one about the video I found amusing, was he went straight to say Michael Brauer's studio rate is prohibitive, and that he also gets high quality stems and multi-track sessions sent to him. Fair enough. But then couple that with the fact he says he does too, so I'm not really sure how that points to any meaningful difference.

Except for one of them. He's saying the very skilled Michael Brauer is able to not need snake oil plugins because he is so good at what he does and knows how to tone reference match plugins, and Will himself can't get that "extra 10 percent". But if he had actually watched the videos, he would know that Michael Brauer says the exact same thing. He can't explain how to do it either and says so in no confusing language about it. That's why when the subject of matching emulation plugins against actual hardware arrives, he hands the tutorial over to his tech assistant. Why spend all the time to do that, when he can just fire up any plugin every developer in the world would throw him for free, along with everything else they make for a mention in a video? Maybe because it is an unnecessary waste of money to pay for remote hardware rental.

Instead we get some spiel about hourly rates. His tech Fernando is the one who did every reference match in his entire template. It's the entire subject of the video, if not a detailed tutorial about how to precisely match everything up the way he has.

About that 10% difference his tech can get out of plugin matching. What a misleading number that even is. Does anyone actually believe that AMS Neve would allow only UAD to have an officially licensed version of anything they make, if it was actually off by a margin of 10% accuracy ?
I do not think Behringer would allow a developer to put their brand name on something that was 90% accurate. Maybe UA and Neve have lower standards. I think between the two of them, they might get it even closer than Fernando. Just maybe.

 

Last edited: May 31, 2025 at 2:14 AM

Yes, I believe that AMS Neve would allow UAD to license a version in order to leverage both of their brands in order to make as much money as they possibly can even though it debatably might be only 90% as accurate in emulating their own current original products which are also as close to tolerance as they can make their own hardware in relation to their much sought after vintage units. Universal Audio which has also pioneered in the world of audio recording and who too has an immaculate reputation amongst the tops in the field has for I believe since 1999 has been making emulations of their own hardware and so selling the idea that using their brand will be a great experience. Is there actually an argument in this room that says that their offerings of 1999 can compete with their current crop? So yes, every company that wishes to sell you something is doing their utmost to convince you that their product is as close to the original as possible or even the exact same, that the most recent product is bigger, better and sweeter than the last and that even though you are not a consummate professional such as Michael Brauer with golden ears and an assistant named Fernando can still make pro mixes if you only would buy and use their brand's software emulation.

 

When he posts a unprocessed stem and then the resulting remotely processed stem, you can check it against the hardware version and see what you end up with. You have the UA plugin also right?

 

Glad the Brauerize masterclass has been mentioned, actually really cool stuff. I'm nowhere near his level in all senses, but when he mentioned the BX 4000/9000 emulations, his reaction was EXACTLY the feedback I got when I started mixing ITB. I remember doing two mixes, one with the 4000E (there was no 9000J at that time) and another one with a different plugin for each thing, and every single time someone would just say the SSL mix was the real thing (and then I had to say that no, I didn't have a console). The whole "3D sound" thing never got me because that was the FIRST feedback I got after I started pushing out mixes during my first year. Funny thing to think that back then I couldn't even hear compression and I effortlessly did the so-called 3D sound without even thinking about it.

At least one really cool thing I got from this thread, I'm midway through it and it's been a great watch.