I think of it as giving me a head start. Almost like everyone else is trying to build the canvas they are going to paint a picture on. Whereas I have the canvas already made instantly ready to paint on.
I've seen engineers sell all their gear thinking this. Then regretting it later. Because no matter how much they try their sound is inferior to what they used to get with their analogue chain.
You very much can with today's technology; you just have to know what you are doing ITB. However, to get fullly equal results, the signal does have to come out and play in the real world at least once.😉 Another hint, processing sample rates matter a ton. Furthermore, to some degree this really isn't fair because the analog signal, in comparison, always benefits form the circuitry/circuitry compression, natural EQ curves difference of each unit, and the tone of two converts. With just the implementation of the converts and a set of XLR cables the comparison becomes unfair. A more accurate test would be to emulate every piece of hardware you are using ITB; to include Converter/clipper plugins as well. Also, what you are really hearing in difference actually has very little to do with things just being analog. The biggest culprit is the summing behavior of a DAW vs the summing behavior of outboard gear. Piece this altogether the right way, you can easily save yourself thousands of dollars. Knowledge is more powerful than gear; my motto!
@taviqmasteringonline2754 you really missed the point of the video here. Go back and watch the first 2 minutes, where I explain in multiple ways to get the point across to a varied knowledge base. What you are requesting is a completely different video entirely.
Big difference. Very good video. I'm glad someone make a video like this. There so many bad information on the internet claiming digital sound the same like analog. That plugins emulation some the same as hardware gear. Thank you for clarifying this.
Huge difference, Analog brightness in all scales every instrument takes its own place on the vibration spectrum. Nice!. Thats why i love to work with you guys. 👍
What even surprised me when listening was on the 3rd song, the lead guitar comes to life. It gets it's own space in the mix and sounds so much more 3d and alive.
def the analog version sounds more open in the top end, less muddy, more bite, a little more harsh frequencies but at the same time it loses a considerable amount of stereo image which could be because of the natural crosstalk between L&R. Great comparison!!!
The stereo image for me becomes more true to how it should be and how you would want it as a platform to build upon. Using mid side and various stereo imaging tools in the chain when processing will give you the stereo image you want. What you see as a negative is I find one of the biggest positive. I find it sorts the stereo image.
ปีที่แล้ว
I can think of basically two things playing huge role here: analog saturation by its nature and multiple sound coloration by getting through multiple transformers. How many transformers do you have in this chain in total?
100% all of this plays a huge part in why it sounds so good. Converters alone are benefiting to the sound. This is exactly what this video is highlighting. How much difference transformers, converters and tubes make without even touching a parameter.
What this means is that the mastering units are not "true bypass". The signal chain does not affect the dynamics or frequency response of the signal BUT it does some magic on the phase response of the signal, giving an illusion of depth. PHASE is the variable that our brain uses to asses DISTANCE (remember sound is a physical entity) and thats why you get a sense of depth from "non true bypass" signals. As an electrical engineer who is one month new to analog gear, this is my finding. Cheers.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio that makes sense. They are only "bypassed" in the sense that they are not trying to alter anything (neutral settings), no gr, no eq, no saturation, is that correct?
This is dope and quite obviously the analog chain makes a huge difference (in terms of just running it through with nothing on)! As I think one comment kind of mentioned though, I would love to see a comparison of the same tracks being run through the same chain but with all the equivalent analog emulation plugins in the box (assuming those emulation plugins exist). And then A/B the true analog chain to the analog emulation chain. Preferably as a blind test and level matched. This way we could compare the color that analog provides (just running it through) to the color that the equivalent plugins emulate (when you just have them turned on). I have a number of analog emulation plugins that provide nice color simply by having them turned on, so I'd like to see how they compare to their true analog equivalents. Hopefully that makes sense. Great demonstration nonetheless! Thank you.
Yes I can do this but I honestly can't imagine the results changing in any way. The plugin emulations of the units I have when passing through sound like they are bypassed. I would argue that they will intentionally not change the sound. Only one way to find out though I guess. Let's test this.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I would have to disagree. As an example, I've experimented with many of kush audio plugins like Blyss. I'll put a plugin on the end of the chain called MAGC (which essentially just level matches the effect of any plugins so you're just hearing the sonic difference and not being biased towards volume differences). I'll then close my eyes and click the bypass really fast (so i don't know if it's on or not). and I can consistently pick when its on because it has a certain favorable brightness and saturation it adds which is somewhat similar to the effect of what is displayed in this video with the analog gear. Now I don't know if every plugin emulation does this, or even if it does how it would compare to its analog equivalent, but I would really love to hear! But again thank you for this!
@thereiffodyssey2000 that may be the case with this particular plugin. When testing any plugin alliance plugin, I would say when no settings are changed the plugin is acting like a true bypass. I can't say I've ever noticed a difference when switching the default template on or off.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Oh yea it may not be the case with every plugin. I can't speak on plugin alliance as I don't use them (that I know of). But it also might not be the case with every piece of analog gear ever that it adds color just by having it on. Nor does it necessarily need to. But with that being said, Blyss or kush audio plugins in general are not the only plugins by any means that do this. Another group of plugins that I've tested in this way that add color are a number of analog obsession plugins, and I'm sure they're many more. So for me its not a question of whether or not plugin emulations can add color just by having them turned on as many objectively do. It's a question of how that color compares to their analog equivalents. Only one way to find out :)
@thereiffodyssey2000 the video is more to highlight the difference a high end mastering chain can instantly add just by passing through it. It isn't a comparison of how accurate the plugin can emulate the analogue hardware. Will need to put this into a different video
Ok, it shows no processing versus a combination of box tones running through tubes and transformers. For a real digital versus analog comparison you would need to apply the specific plugin emulations on the digital version as well. There´s of course still a difference but it´s not that big anymore. Also an accurate rms or LUFS short term level matching would be necessary as the analog version feels louder in this comparison due to the introduced harmonics from the gear.
You've kind of missed the purpose of what this video is about. I tried to explain it in as much details as possible in a couple of different ways so everyone would hopefully understand. I'll try and explain here again. The video is to show what is achieved by just the analogue chain being active. Passing through different pieces of equipment totally passive and unaffected. It shows how converting audio to analogue and passing through transformers and tubes even without being pushed through has an overall pleasing sound. I can tell you now if I added the plugin emulations to the in the box version there would be zero change. Volume is matched pretty close. You are perceiving it as louder as it is bright, more separated and more detailed.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio yes, by reading your title again I get what you are showing off here. Maybe the word "versus" is misleading. Anyway, I enjoy you gear show.
@ronson795 you know what I sat there for 10 minutes trying to think of a title. This was the best i could come up with. Which is why I put the second part to the title for extra clarification. If you can think of a better title that better explains it, please let me know.
not just harmonics, the dynamics also affected by soft-clipping and tube compression. 15 stacks of them. There is not going to be one single human being in the world that will pick the darker version of 98% similar track and saying it's better than the brighter one, it's just how our brain works.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio That is not true - most of the plugin emulations ADD something just by inserting them in the digital chain. Specially - the emulation of the ones you have here in the studio.
Hi, I'd like to ask a question regarding the BURL converters. I currently own the BURL B2 ADC, which I love to death, however my DAC for the analog chain is still the RME Fireface UFX main outs. (My monitors have a built-in DAC, Type 20 MK2 by HEDD which are connected directly via AES). The question is, how much of a difference the BURL B2 DAC would make to my analog chain in comparison to the RME Fireface UFX (which is being clocked by the BURL ADC). I'm asking because I got a really really good deal on the BURL ADC, but for the DAC it would definitely have to pay full price with some crazy customs duties. Also besides the conversion and opamp, the DAC doesn't seem to imply any analog character like the ADC does because of the transformer, hence my question. Thank you so much for your content, following it daily. Cheers.
I have always liked to use the same converter for both in and out of my mastering chains. I can't say how much difference there will be without testing myself. I can only advise getting one to test and measuring if it's an improvement before buying them. I know I love my Burls and given the choice if I was in your shoes I'd swap.
First, thank you for the time, effort, and detail you put into you videos and I mean no harm with comments below! However, regarding this one, I feel a more accurate test would be to emulate every piece of hardware you are using ITB; to include Converter/clipper plugins as well for AD/DA simulation. You very much can, with today's technology, achieve equivalent results; you just have to know what you are doing ITB. However, to get fullly equal results, the signal does have to come out and play in the real world at least once.😉 Another hint, processing sample rates matter a ton. The first misconception is that 100 analog is better. It's really not; all things considered. With analog being reliant on digital for playback and vice versa for recording, how much analog do you really need? That about question is the root of what I offer you. Furthermore, to some degree this really isn't fair because the analog signal, in comparison, always benefits form the circuitry/circuitry compression, natural EQ curves difference of each hardware unit, and the tone of two converts. AND I'M SURE YOU KNOW thats all converters have a sound. With just the implementation of the converts and a set of XLR cables the comparison becomes unfair. Also, what you are really hearing in difference actually has very little to do with things just being analog. The biggest culprit is the summing behavior of a DAW vs the summing behavior of outboard gear/routing. Piece this altogether the right way, you can easily save yourself thousands of dollars. Knowledge is more powerful than gear; my motto!
This isn't what the test is about though is it. As I say in a few different ways in the intro, the video is to show how much difference hitting an analogue chain can make. Just by hitting this chain in particular. This video is based off a question and discussion I previously had on a plugin vs hardware video. We wanted to know how much difference the chain makes. What you are requesting is another video entirely. Which I will shoot as I think 3 people now have said what you've said mistaking this video for that one. I had previously done a video on replacing plugins in the chain with plugin emulations. This video may answer your question.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I get it and hitting any analog chain would make a good difference especially if the original mix is processed and summed ITB. And perhaps my comments target more of the root cause, a fully digital mix. Either way, the video is very intuitive and I do not form my comments in the manner of being argumentative. Nearly everything in this realm is subjective now'a days. I support your work!
@taviqmasteringonline2754 yeah it's just we need to stay on subject here. We're crossing into a video I did some months ago explaining exactly what you are referring to. I will do an updated version of this. What I really want to do is pick a plugin for each piece of hardware and try replicate the hardware as best as is possible. Maybe even better. I perform a master and get someone like yourself to replicate it identically as best you can. You up for the challenge?
Was wondering what you think about the Manley Mastering EQ and Vari Mu and also the Tube-tech Opto compressor for mastering? I have the Massive Passive Mastering edition from Manley and am on the fence with SPL Iron, tube tech, Manley, Masalec for a compressor to buy for mastering. What do you think?
Tried that but didn't have anywhere near the same effect. Closer but not close enough. I do wish you were right, but even after testing with multiple different transformer plugins there was still a night and day difference. To the average ear you probably wouldn't be able to hear a difference.
Listened twice through two sets of monitors and as the description ("by comparison") says: analogue version was ACTIVE-alive, energetic, open, substantial depth; the digital was having a "BYPASS" surgery: depressed, closed, and a little fuzzy......not any indictment on the mix but this is just by comparison.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio learned that the hard way, about the converters. I decided I would give the new Audient EVO16 a shot for a HW setup….yeah not great. Ended up sending it back to get the new RME UFX III..much much better. This shit aint cheap! Lol
@Rhuggins RME converters are very good. I remember about 15 years ago switching my digidesign 003 converters for 2 channel RME converters for my monitors. It was like getting a monitor upgrade. From that day on I realised the importance of good converters.
The difference in the second track in particular is STAGGERING. Everything has more space. It's remarkable.
Brightness, warmth and saturation sticks out very interesting on the A/B. 👌🏻
It's such a big difference it's almost hard to believe the parameters are natural. Much wider, brighter. punchy and also compressed.
I think of it as giving me a head start. Almost like everyone else is trying to build the canvas they are going to paint a picture on. Whereas I have the canvas already made instantly ready to paint on.
I was a fan of "you can do it all in the box", untill i got my first hardware 😁 There's something in analog you cannot immitate just yet :)
I've seen engineers sell all their gear thinking this. Then regretting it later. Because no matter how much they try their sound is inferior to what they used to get with their analogue chain.
You very much can with today's technology; you just have to know what you are doing ITB. However, to get fullly equal results, the signal does have to come out and play in the real world at least once.😉 Another hint, processing sample rates matter a ton.
Furthermore, to some degree this really isn't fair because the analog signal, in comparison, always benefits form the circuitry/circuitry compression, natural EQ curves difference of each unit, and the tone of two converts. With just the implementation of the converts and a set of XLR cables the comparison becomes unfair.
A more accurate test would be to emulate every piece of hardware you are using ITB; to include Converter/clipper plugins as well.
Also, what you are really hearing in difference actually has very little to do with things just being analog. The biggest culprit is the summing behavior of a DAW vs the summing behavior of outboard gear. Piece this altogether the right way, you can easily save yourself thousands of dollars. Knowledge is more powerful than gear; my motto!
@taviqmasteringonline2754 you really missed the point of the video here. Go back and watch the first 2 minutes, where I explain in multiple ways to get the point across to a varied knowledge base. What you are requesting is a completely different video entirely.
This channel is gold, can’t believe I only discovered it a few days ago, I’ve got a lot of catching up to do 😅
Thank you. Glad the videos can be of help to you.
Big difference. Very good video. I'm glad someone make a video like this. There so many bad information on the internet claiming digital sound the same like analog. That plugins emulation some the same as hardware gear. Thank you for clarifying this.
Yeah. I love digital plugins but I 100% know as a fact analogue is far superior in the mastering world. Makes a huge difference.
Huge difference, Analog brightness in all scales every instrument takes its own place on the vibration spectrum. Nice!. Thats why i love to work with you guys. 👍
What even surprised me when listening was on the 3rd song, the lead guitar comes to life. It gets it's own space in the mix and sounds so much more 3d and alive.
oh nooooo !!! you're so amazing sir 🤩🤩🤩
super! Thanks for the important work!
Just sent u an album for mastering, exited is an understatement 😅 keep up your great work on this channel, love the content and cheers from Norway 😊
Thank you. Glad you are enjoying the channel
def the analog version sounds more open in the top end, less muddy, more bite, a little more harsh frequencies but at the same time it loses a considerable amount of stereo image which could be because of the natural crosstalk between L&R. Great comparison!!!
The stereo image for me becomes more true to how it should be and how you would want it as a platform to build upon. Using mid side and various stereo imaging tools in the chain when processing will give you the stereo image you want. What you see as a negative is I find one of the biggest positive. I find it sorts the stereo image.
I can think of basically two things playing huge role here: analog saturation by its nature and multiple sound coloration by getting through multiple transformers. How many transformers do you have in this chain in total?
100% all of this plays a huge part in why it sounds so good. Converters alone are benefiting to the sound. This is exactly what this video is highlighting. How much difference transformers, converters and tubes make without even touching a parameter.
Voltage clearly has more fun with transients, cool video indeed
What this means is that the mastering units are not "true bypass".
The signal chain does not affect the dynamics or frequency response of the signal BUT it does some magic on the phase response of the signal, giving an illusion of depth.
PHASE is the variable that our brain uses to asses DISTANCE (remember sound is a physical entity) and thats why you get a sense of depth from "non true bypass" signals.
As an electrical engineer who is one month new to analog gear, this is my finding. Cheers.
No unit is bypassed. Audio is passing through each unit utilising transformers etc.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio that makes sense. They are only "bypassed" in the sense that they are not trying to alter anything (neutral settings), no gr, no eq, no saturation, is that correct?
@pb25193 yes that is correct
This is dope and quite obviously the analog chain makes a huge difference (in terms of just running it through with nothing on)!
As I think one comment kind of mentioned though, I would love to see a comparison of the same tracks being run through the same chain but with all the equivalent analog emulation plugins in the box (assuming those emulation plugins exist). And then A/B the true analog chain to the analog emulation chain. Preferably as a blind test and level matched. This way we could compare the color that analog provides (just running it through) to the color that the equivalent plugins emulate (when you just have them turned on). I have a number of analog emulation plugins that provide nice color simply by having them turned on, so I'd like to see how they compare to their true analog equivalents. Hopefully that makes sense. Great demonstration nonetheless! Thank you.
Yes I can do this but I honestly can't imagine the results changing in any way. The plugin emulations of the units I have when passing through sound like they are bypassed. I would argue that they will intentionally not change the sound. Only one way to find out though I guess. Let's test this.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I would have to disagree. As an example, I've experimented with many of kush audio plugins like Blyss. I'll put a plugin on the end of the chain called MAGC (which essentially just level matches the effect of any plugins so you're just hearing the sonic difference and not being biased towards volume differences). I'll then close my eyes and click the bypass really fast (so i don't know if it's on or not). and I can consistently pick when its on because it has a certain favorable brightness and saturation it adds which is somewhat similar to the effect of what is displayed in this video with the analog gear. Now I don't know if every plugin emulation does this, or even if it does how it would compare to its analog equivalent, but I would really love to hear!
But again thank you for this!
@thereiffodyssey2000 that may be the case with this particular plugin. When testing any plugin alliance plugin, I would say when no settings are changed the plugin is acting like a true bypass. I can't say I've ever noticed a difference when switching the default template on or off.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Oh yea it may not be the case with every plugin. I can't speak on plugin alliance as I don't use them (that I know of). But it also might not be the case with every piece of analog gear ever that it adds color just by having it on. Nor does it necessarily need to. But with that being said, Blyss or kush audio plugins in general are not the only plugins by any means that do this. Another group of plugins that I've tested in this way that add color are a number of analog obsession plugins, and I'm sure they're many more. So for me its not a question of whether or not plugin emulations can add color just by having them turned on as many objectively do. It's a question of how that color compares to their analog equivalents. Only one way to find out :)
@thereiffodyssey2000 the video is more to highlight the difference a high end mastering chain can instantly add just by passing through it. It isn't a comparison of how accurate the plugin can emulate the analogue hardware. Will need to put this into a different video
Nice one
Ok, it shows no processing versus a combination of box tones running through tubes and transformers. For a real digital versus analog comparison you would need to apply the specific plugin emulations on the digital version as well. There´s of course still a difference but it´s not that big anymore. Also an accurate rms or LUFS short term level matching would be necessary as the analog version feels louder in this comparison due to the introduced harmonics from the gear.
You've kind of missed the purpose of what this video is about. I tried to explain it in as much details as possible in a couple of different ways so everyone would hopefully understand. I'll try and explain here again. The video is to show what is achieved by just the analogue chain being active. Passing through different pieces of equipment totally passive and unaffected. It shows how converting audio to analogue and passing through transformers and tubes even without being pushed through has an overall pleasing sound. I can tell you now if I added the plugin emulations to the in the box version there would be zero change. Volume is matched pretty close. You are perceiving it as louder as it is bright, more separated and more detailed.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio yes, by reading your title again I get what you are showing off here. Maybe the word "versus" is misleading. Anyway, I enjoy you gear show.
@ronson795 you know what I sat there for 10 minutes trying to think of a title. This was the best i could come up with. Which is why I put the second part to the title for extra clarification. If you can think of a better title that better explains it, please let me know.
not just harmonics, the dynamics also affected by soft-clipping and tube compression. 15 stacks of them. There is not going to be one single human being in the world that will pick the darker version of 98% similar track and saying it's better than the brighter one, it's just how our brain works.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio That is not true - most of the plugin emulations ADD something just by inserting them in the digital chain. Specially - the emulation of the ones you have here in the studio.
Also is the WesAudio NG good for mastering, its cheaper of the bunch, how does it compare to say the SPL Iron? thanks.
The iron is a better mastering compressor. I think of the NG Bus Comp as a mix bus compressor to be used similar to a gbus comp on a SSL console.
Hi, I'd like to ask a question regarding the BURL converters. I currently own the BURL B2 ADC, which I love to death, however my DAC for the analog chain is still the RME Fireface UFX main outs. (My monitors have a built-in DAC, Type 20 MK2 by HEDD which are connected directly via AES). The question is, how much of a difference the BURL B2 DAC would make to my analog chain in comparison to the RME Fireface UFX (which is being clocked by the BURL ADC). I'm asking because I got a really really good deal on the BURL ADC, but for the DAC it would definitely have to pay full price with some crazy customs duties. Also besides the conversion and opamp, the DAC doesn't seem to imply any analog character like the ADC does because of the transformer, hence my question. Thank you so much for your content, following it daily. Cheers.
I have always liked to use the same converter for both in and out of my mastering chains. I can't say how much difference there will be without testing myself. I can only advise getting one to test and measuring if it's an improvement before buying them. I know I love my Burls and given the choice if I was in your shoes I'd swap.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio thank you for the quick response 🙌
First, thank you for the time, effort, and detail you put into you videos and I mean no harm with comments below!
However, regarding this one, I feel a more accurate test would be to emulate every piece of hardware you are using ITB; to include Converter/clipper plugins as well for AD/DA simulation.
You very much can, with today's technology, achieve equivalent results; you just have to know what you are doing ITB. However, to get fullly equal results, the signal does have to come out and play in the real world at least once.😉 Another hint, processing sample rates matter a ton.
The first misconception is that 100 analog is better. It's really not; all things considered.
With analog being reliant on digital for playback and vice versa for recording, how much analog do you really need?
That about question is the root of what I offer you.
Furthermore, to some degree this really isn't fair because the analog signal, in comparison, always benefits form the circuitry/circuitry compression, natural EQ curves difference of each hardware unit, and the tone of two converts. AND I'M SURE YOU KNOW thats all converters have a sound. With just the implementation of the converts and a set of XLR cables the comparison becomes unfair.
Also, what you are really hearing in difference actually has very little to do with things just being analog. The biggest culprit is the summing behavior of a DAW vs the summing behavior of outboard gear/routing. Piece this altogether the right way, you can easily save yourself thousands of dollars.
Knowledge is more powerful than gear; my motto!
This isn't what the test is about though is it. As I say in a few different ways in the intro, the video is to show how much difference hitting an analogue chain can make. Just by hitting this chain in particular. This video is based off a question and discussion I previously had on a plugin vs hardware video. We wanted to know how much difference the chain makes. What you are requesting is another video entirely. Which I will shoot as I think 3 people now have said what you've said mistaking this video for that one. I had previously done a video on replacing plugins in the chain with plugin emulations. This video may answer your question.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I get it and hitting any analog chain would make a good difference especially if the original mix is processed and summed ITB.
And perhaps my comments target more of the root cause, a fully digital mix. Either way, the video is very intuitive and I do not form my comments in the manner of being argumentative. Nearly everything in this realm is subjective now'a days. I support your work!
@taviqmasteringonline2754 yeah it's just we need to stay on subject here. We're crossing into a video I did some months ago explaining exactly what you are referring to. I will do an updated version of this. What I really want to do is pick a plugin for each piece of hardware and try replicate the hardware as best as is possible. Maybe even better. I perform a master and get someone like yourself to replicate it identically as best you can. You up for the challenge?
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Sure👍🏾
@@taviqmasteringonline2754 drop me an email at studio@audioanimals.co.uk
I get same effect when i run thru my analog gear
Was wondering what you think about the Manley Mastering EQ and Vari Mu and also the Tube-tech Opto compressor for mastering? I have the Massive Passive Mastering edition from Manley and am on the fence with SPL Iron, tube tech, Manley, Masalec for a compressor to buy for mastering. What do you think?
I personally opted for the SPL Iron. Incredible compressor. I would always recommend this to anyone.
If you stacked the same amount of transformer modeling, saturation, bit reduction in the box, you would be at a similar starting point.
Tried that but didn't have anywhere near the same effect. Closer but not close enough. I do wish you were right, but even after testing with multiple different transformer plugins there was still a night and day difference. To the average ear you probably wouldn't be able to hear a difference.
I challenge you to a master-off. Ill use only digital. @@AudioAnimalsStudio
🔥
Listened twice through two sets of monitors and as the description ("by comparison") says: analogue version was ACTIVE-alive, energetic, open, substantial depth; the digital was having a "BYPASS" surgery: depressed, closed, and a little fuzzy......not any indictment on the mix but this is just by comparison.
Totally agree.
So moral of the story, you cant have to much GOOD analog 😂
The key word there is good analogue. And your analogue gear is only as good as your converters.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio learned that the hard way, about the converters. I decided I would give the new Audient EVO16 a shot for a HW setup….yeah not great. Ended up sending it back to get the new RME UFX III..much much better. This shit aint cheap! Lol
@Rhuggins RME converters are very good. I remember about 15 years ago switching my digidesign 003 converters for 2 channel RME converters for my monitors. It was like getting a monitor upgrade. From that day on I realised the importance of good converters.