Out of all my songs that been mastered by different engineers including myself. The ones that Paul has done for me, are the ones that stands out and i been approached by industry people. Cant thank you enough. Your service & quality is amazing. 🙏
The digital master sounds extremely good, but the analog wins 100 percent. This also shows Paul you're extremely knowledgeable and skilled. The gear is extremely important but most important is the engineer behind.
Knowledge combined with the gear is the key. I can't sit here and pretend I'd get the same result using a £5k mastering chain because I won't. The equipment plays a huge part in the sound.
The difference is day n night clarity,punch,separation whoever says theres no difference they need to start making money because 99% of the time unsuccessful people comment negative stuff on youtube
I do this to!!!! Such a brutal FLEX when you do this hey. I do it to junior engineers and destroy their in-the-box mastering haha. Brutal. Cool to see you do a video of this.
@sobrinN 100% I much prefer mixing ITB and will never go back to mixing out the box. But when it comes to mastering I wouldn't feel right digital mastering for my clients. Especially when striving for the best sound possible is so important.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Literally just what you do on any given day. Like what we saw today but with speakers on with a little commentary on some of the moves you make. It's something we don't see with other TH-camrs (obviously because the artists need to agree). How you layer saturation on this master was very interesting to me and it sounds fantastic.
@@LoomSoundStudio sure. A walk through video is something I keep needing to do as so many people ask for an updated one. There is an older one but the chain is slightly smaller at that time.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Its a tough one, obviously you can't give it all away but at the same time that's exactly what we want lmao. I think none of us will ever be able to replicate what you do as you have a custom chain and special ears. Maybe for paid subscribers? I would sub for that and many others would too.
@LoomSoundStudio I was contemplating creating a lot of content behind a paywall, which would be more geared towards tutorials, approaches I wouldn't want to just teach everyone.
Seems like your friend mastered his version overly dark. Your master sounded a lot more bright and lively, while also having more movement. The difference wasn't subtle, but do you think that with the right digital tools you could achieve the same, or comparative results? Monitoring environment plays a big role as well. I don't really consider myself a mastering engineer, but feel like I could do a decent enough job with digital only tools, just using Meterplugs Dynameter and iZotope Tonal Balance Control as visual references. A lot of it is familiarity with the tools that you have, and what they will add. Personally, I feel like most plugin emulations (including emulations of stuff in your rack) fall short of the hardware and are just a vague approximation with a fancy GUI. I think that there are some exceptions though, such as Pulsar Audio, Pulsar Modular, UAD, and Vertigo Sound. Some of the purely digital tools, not emulating anything are excellent as well, such as stuff from Oeksound, and Wavesfactory.
Yes to be fair I could achieve a much better master than his with digital plugins. Which is why when I heard the master I said to him I'm not being funny but I could get a better master with my monitors turned off. I couldn't achieve that claim with digital plugins though.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Let me rephrase my question - what meters & analysers do you typically use? Are there any specific analyser plug-ins or views you like when frequency shaping (not loudness)? I’m sure budding engineers would be interested to hear your go to’s.
What I'm hearing is mainly just a significant difference in the frequency balance, and some difference in the stereo field. How about a test where you first do an analog master as well as possible, and then as faithfully as possible reproduce each step in the digital domain? That way we'd be hearing what it really is that makes analog and digital different.
Have done a few similar videos on this. These kinds of videos showcase just how much difference is made when mastering in the analogue domain. Will look at doing another one soon.
Lets just say everyones ear is different Im 50 years old and should definitely prefer the analogue master which sounds brighter because with age ears become fatigued.....but i prefer the darker master why ...I have no idea. Imho both mixes sound great in there own respect ......Im gonna get trolled am I not.
WOW!!! its night and day! man you know your equipment, Ive never heard of any of your hardware units man. Analogue is the way, just invested in an SSL BUS+ and Fusion, but am no mastering engineer, but able to get a good pre mix for an engineer as cant afford your gear yet.
The analog master instantly sounded brighter and better. But brightness can be deceiving right? As I listened more I expected harshness and fatigue to appear in the brighter analog mix and depth and warmth to enhance the darker digital mix. But it didn't. The analog mix is just so smooth while still having (comparatively) loads of treble. Amazing. It would be cool to hear the two with closer tonalities but something tells me boosting the highs in the digital master or even doing a total eq match still wouldn't come close...
Also one thing to bear in mind is that I had no way of knowing whilst mastering if the song was bright. If I could audiable hear the master I'd have probably kept a similar tone up top but additionally use Dynamic EQ to control it more. You would be correct. Yes you could match the digital master in some ways in the high end. But that's when you'll really hear a harsh displeasing master that will cause fatigue.
And if the monitors were on this is maybe something that I would have tamed using the Goly Dynamic Shelving EQ. But unfortunately, without the monitors on you can't hear this.
Wow. Even on iPhone speakers the analog master is way more clear and full. My only question is what you would’ve done differently in your chain after you heard your deaf master. Would you have made many different decisions? Incredible job!
I honestly don't think there would be too much to adjust. I'd have smoothened the highend out using dynamic eq a bit more and definitely been more detailed with the mid side SPL PQ. Very hard to guess EQ adjustments. I'd also have been able to use the bus comp in a better way to glue the mix together. I way really surprised with the end result.
The digital one sounds choked and small by comparison! Think if the original project had used high end analog from beginning of the tracking all the way through to the mastering. RND and others should put this video on their website. Plug-ins still have miles to go and may never get there.
I've challenged him again to try and go one better. I said I bet I could get a better Master in under 1 minute than you could in an hour on a digital mastering chain. We are going to shoot this one tomorrow.
I just listened to this (as you mentioned on the other video), and it's a truly fascinating comparison. However, as a former engineer (recording and mixing), I don't think this necessarily shows that analog mastering is better than digital mastering. I think it to a higher degree shows that you are a better mastering engineer than your friend. My (bold) guess is that you might be able to make a better master with his digital chain than he would be able to with your analog chain. That would be another interesting comparison. I'm saying this since I know from my time working in studies that good engineers can create a better recording or mix with "poor" equipment than a poor engineer with good equipment.
This is exactly why I suggested we do a video comparing my digital master vs my analogue master of a new track. This will definitely answer your question.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Partly, yes. It will probably show that YOUR analog master will be better than YOUR digital master. Probably for two reasons: a) The analog gear you have is awesome! and b) You know your analog gear MUCH better than your digital gear. Still, I think YOU could make a better master with digital gear than many engineers would be able to using your analog chain. What do you think? Bragging is okay. ;)
@stefanhansen5882 oh definitely. I use plugins a lot whilst mixing plus with the use of plugin emulation of hardware it is very easy to work in the box with a similar approach to out the box. The difference is very noticeable. Digital sounds 2d whereas analogue sound 3d.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio 2D versus 3D-now it's getting a bit esoteric for me. Yes, analog and digital sound different, but saying it has to do with the perception of space I find nonsensical, to be honest.
@stefanhansen5882 the proof is easily audiable when you listen to any of the videos in the hardware vs software emulation playlist below. Concentrate on the stereo image and depth when comparing the plugin emulation to the analogue hardware. th-cam.com/play/PLUOQNzITApNpZaOu9Hug0Ziu16KQgvqIK.html&si=AGUIveXeXMTEf5uO
He sold all his hardware which I always said he's stupid to have done. Since then I've been slowly but surely proving his mistake to him. This one was the icing on the cake. I have a challenge I'm shooting with him today where I challenged him that I could do a master in 1 minute and it be better than his digital master he spends an hour over.
Brighter and more compression does not equal better. Also the width manipulations sound phasey. Also the low end feels worst. Also a lot of the top mastering engineers running the charts now days are fully digital. Analog gear is great but it is not everything. Fun video though.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Indeed. It sounds "different" than the digital master for sure. I just completely disagree with "professionals use analog gear" because it is very much not completely true. At least in the US on the Top 40 charts. This goes for both mixing and mastering.
@@Drummerboy106 it's only once you have a reference point you realise how bad these digital masters that get released actually sound. If you compared them with an analogue master of the same song you would hear a night and day difference. For me I aim for the best and continue to add equipment that will achieve this. Trust me if it was possible to achieve what is achievable in the analogue world using plugins I'd happily sell everything. The fact is though it's just not true. You'll notice behind be an Avid S4 so you should already have realised I'm a big advocate for mixing ITB but honestly analogue mastering is world's ahead of digital mastering.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio We all have our options and make our choices. Sometimes analog is the right thing and sometimes it is not. Your taste and skill will guide you. Im not advocating for either side really. I've been doing this for long enough at a high enough level to know that Analog is not always the right call for a lot of modern music. That is all :)
@Drummerboy106 I think when you're an experienced engineer with analogue equipment you can always make it work. I can honestly say I've never once thought hmm this analogue master isn't working let's go all digital. Certain aspects of a mastering chain are well suited for plugins. Things like Soothe can be achieved in the analogue world. For me, it's a case of hybrid mastering. Combining the best of both worlds. What I think I'll do is give the pre master out as a download in another video. Then anyone up for the challenge can give digital mastering a go and try and get anywhere close to the analogue master. Then in a video we can play each master and directly compare them. See if anyone can get close. I'd love for you to get involved in that.
This could be the subject of another video but instead of mastering deaf, this time we find out if we can adjust a digital master to achieve the same results of an analogue master.
Yes. We put together a pre Master of a custom track so we have the license to open it up for download. I'm going to post this video tomorrow with the download link in the description. Then I'm going to compile all the digital masters and shoot a video comparing them to my analogue master. Never know there might be a job in it for someone.
Crazy concept of a video I applaud it! The analog master sounds louder and more squashed (probably higher RMS). So I guess it’s a matter of taste. But even though this has nothing to do with analog. It’s rather you vs him. Analog vs digital would be you doing your best digital master vs you doing your best analog master. Then we would hear and see how each tool influences your decision leading you to the best results. All the best!
As someone has already pointed out in the comments the two songs are matched and how you perceived the analogue master as louder only goes to further support the claim. If you rip the audio from the video and run it through an analyser you'll see this for yourself.
Aww man that’s incredible. But maybe your friend should at least add one good analog Box of any sort. A simple Spl vitalizer would at least get him over the hill.
He sold all his analogue equipment a few years ago and swears by digital mastering for convenience. Which I understand but his clients take a hit in quality for his convenience which I don't agree with.
If I would use the best of the emulations of the same pieces of gear that you've used WITH the same settings, would it be significantly different? )... I mean, I guess so but really will it be? Cuz maybe you are just so good that you can master def :)))... I mean I get the point but still :)
This video I've linked below does exactly that what you are asking and the difference is huge. I'll make an update to this video as it's an interesting subject. th-cam.com/video/p6JKqqfkJcI/w-d-xo.html
Proofs to me that analog Equipment is actually more important than 50%. Clearly just proofed that. And even more Important than Monitoring. Seems like with decent Speakers in the 2-4k price range and great Headphones and analog Equipment, even the Room should be not THAT important anymore as you just clearly proofed that - and it makes sense What do you think?
I'd actually say the room is more important than the gear. If you are hearing playback incorrect, you will adjust based on what you can hear. Even though I'm not listening to the speakers in this video, the outcome would be very much hit and miss if mastered like this every day.
@AudioAnimalsStudio are you saying you were lucky with the outcome? It seems general analog settings have a good chance to work better then ones worked on in detail digitally - as long as a decent mix in balance comes in ..? Wasn't that the point of the video? Further detailed adjustments should be achievable on good headphones while reference listening as well as using decent speakers in a decently treated room that's maybe not A1 mastering grade?
@Aquiiin yes as if the mix wasn't good it would have a very different outcome. This would only work on a mix that doesn't require lots of corrections. I know what settings to use to create a master that works well as a generic master that will blanket across all mixes and enhance the mix. But yes I guess you could achieve a master like this then adjust further to correct for any issues in headphones.
I think you would have done better not to show the wave forms because it kinda showed what really happened. I do like your equipment though very nice, a combination of both worlds is really where its at because there are things in the digital realm you will never do in the analog realm. I love PMC
@sassas7128 yeah on the list of video reviews to do. But it's a simple tool used for multiband compression. Great to tame a kick or snare that's too loud in the mix.
Devil's advocate, maybe your mate is not as good as he should be............secondly the major difference is yours a lot brighter sounding. Which implies to me with his master It's less about the fact it was done itb and more that he is either not very good or has poor monitoring and/or room. It's not as cut and dried as we would like to make out. Plenty of other 'big name' mastering engineers are mixing itb and getting grammy award-winning results. I have been recording, mixing and mastering since the mid 80s and the one truth I have found is it is never this or that, It never is. I've heard guitarists make a peavey 15watt solid state practice amp scream, and I've heard the best amps money can buy sound like turds. And everything in between. Imo it's more often than not the person and not the tool. The main difference between the two masters is how bright yours is in comparison. And on my PMC's here, a tad overly bright. We need to remove all the other parameters and variables before we can make objective statements. What would that master sound like if he mastered it in your room with your kit? Probably worse as well, due to how you are much more familiar with the room and sound. There are simply too many different variables at play to claim it is because one is hardware and one software. I did something similiar a few years ago when I mixed the same track at home ITB in a less than perfect room and then mixed it on a big Neve in a properly treated room with all the toys in the rack, guess which one sound better. The one mixed on the Neve. Proof that hardware is better? Or more a case of one doing one in a good sounding room?
Have done this video multiple times on this channel. The digital master no matter who does it always sounds embarrassing dull and lifeless. One thing we can always agree on is that digital mastering is second rate to analogue master. And that's a fact that can not be ignored. The fact I can do an analogue master deaf and still get a definitive better sound. The hilarious thing is that this is a Grammy nominated engineer. With a big name. Were probably talking about the same person.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio And I hear you and appreciate what you are saying and respectfully disagree, it is not as cut and dried as we would like to be. Remove some of the variables. There are simply too many. And I am not a digital evangelist. I love me analogue. I still think in this case, the digital master is just a bad master. Or that he is deaf or working in a bad room/speaker combo. Or just not very good. Let someone come and master the track in your room ITB with their tools of choice and try and match your analogue master. That is a more fair challenge.
@ferociousmullet9287 this exact video was already done. This is why im 100% disagreeing with you. And the results were better for the digital master but still nowhere close.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Not really wanting to look through every video of yours to find it, would you mind providing a link? I would be interested to see.
@@ferociousmullet9287 take a watch of this one. It is on a similar subject. I will add your video request to the list. th-cam.com/video/eL20FeCQi30/w-d-xo.html
I have a liddle studio iat home with 3-4 analog peaces of gear mybe 10% procent worth compared to your gear. and even the when i switch them in, its always like the sun is going up. it is really no comparisson. love 4 analog gear
You can't be serious. An analogue master, mastered by a deaf engineer beats a digital master by an engineer who can hear. What a great comparison to highlight the value of the equipment you have, bravo marketing.
@@Rhuggins I've now challenged him to this, he does a full master takes as long as he needs over it. I'll do a master in under 1 minute and it'll be better.
To be honest, the analog master would make your ears bleed in a club. Too much saturation, too much top end. Nice width tho. The digital master sounds a bit muffled but that's only in comparison to an overly bright master. But I imagine if you could actually hear what you were doing it would be excellent. But this test not so much, brighter isn't always better.
To me, it's just a difference in tonal balance. Analog work sounds 10k more. Equal loudness is an important criterion for mastering, but that digital mastering just sounds like an amateur mastering that can't eqing. unfair comparison
The key part to listen to is at the beginning of the video. I talk about the conversation I had. The claim that I too felt it was a poor Master and the claim was that I could do a better master with the monitors turned off. The fact you call it an amateur Master is exactly my point. This is a professional engineer's digital master. Which I think was poor hence the claim. To make it a fair comparison I would need to help him produce a better master. Which off topic. Always remember the subject of the video. This comment went off track a bit. It's like you skipped the first 5 minutes.
Haha I'm as honest as they come. You'll realise that if you watch my videos. I can totally understand why other engineers don't like it, going against the grain and talking truth on TH-cam.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I have nothing against you or how you do things. I’m 110% towards analog chain myself! But these kind of edited videos I just cant take seriously before there is some kind of validation. If it is true then great work my friend! But at the moment it sounds and looks to good to be true…
@jaykons1985 videos have to be edited so that they flow. I have to change camera angle to move to other side of the rack. Are you questioning that at the points I edit the video I could potentially have a quick sneaky listen as it isn't a seamless take. If that's the case, you are just going to have to trust me. Or not, entirely up to you. I honestly don't see the point in cheating the results. A good way of doing this video again would be on a live stream.
Why'd you delete the pinned comment and other video where you challenged us to an ITB vs Analog mastering shootout? A bit upsetting to be led to spend time on something only to have the other person not follow through and then delete...
If you watched the video you'd have heard that I clearly said I would delete the video on Monday evening to avoid people submitting audio files after the cut-off date. For your information the video goes out at 2pm today. So please don't be upset you will be included.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Right on! I did watch, but don't recall that part. I was following up mainly because someone had posted a comment in a Mastering group on FB and mentioned you had said no one submitted so that you weren't doing it, so I was just following up. Looking forward to it!
@EricNUFO 70 submissions came in. So as you can imagine it's a long video that has taken a while to put together. I think what you read on Facebook was that the people who claimed they could do better didn't get involved and wouldn't put their money where there mouth is.
Acrually the digital is way overblown on mains in the bass and subs so the digital sounds louder on my full-range reference system. Analog version sounds brighter but not louder. Which is awesome considering, you know..... the speakers were off. But yeah on a studio monitor maybe you might think that.
That would be perceived loudness, the digital master is actually at the same loudness. But because it is dull and lifeless in comparison you are perceiving it as quieter. This just further confirms that analogue mastering can be perceived as louder when it in fact isn't. The digital master has a true peak of -0.1db whereas the analogue master has a true peak of -1db. Almost a whole db louder in volume but yet you still perceive the analogue master as being louder. Very interesting analysis there.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio yes and our ears have a bias for perceived loudness to sound better and fuller. True peak doesn't really show loudness it only shows the highest possible sample peak in that waveform. You can have a single sample at -0.1db and the rest of the song be way way quieter. To me the lower true peak and higher perceived loudness just indicates more compression was used. I'd wager the integrated LUFS for the digital is lower than the analogue and that the analogue has a lower dynamic range from compression. I'm not disagreeing that the analogue version sounds better, I'm just having a hard time truly comparing the two because our ears always perceive louder as better.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Just like a lot of Grammy winners and others who have gone in-the-box eh? In your video you said, "Let's be honest." Well, I think the digital version sounds better. The analogue is definitely not "one hundred times better" or significantly so. More highs and added harmonics, sure... Yet it isn't as pleasing to the ear imo.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio 😆 I'm impressed you even accepted such a challenge. I would actually like to hear a part two where you master it with speakers on and present that comparison. I'm not knocking analogue. But I do think the difference can be overstated sometimes and it's worth noting the plethora of high level guys even (not just aspiring engineers and mixers) who have given it up and gone entirely digital.
@andrewcornelius5223 I mix 100% in the box and believe me I'm a big supporter of the digital world. I just feel at some point ideally at the mastering end it is highly beneficial to turn those 1's and 0's into an analogue signal. There are big benefits. Have a watch of the analogue vs digital mastering challenge we posted. That's an interesting one to see. Video here th-cam.com/video/DMDU5EQJtvE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=3aTbI7K-5DADxymo
Hm… it’s probably just me, but to me the huge loudness difference between the two tracks was disturbing. The analog track had way too much high end and was a great deal more compressed. The digital one, althought i would have tweaked it a bit more and in a different direction, was more listenable when loudness matched. Lots and lots of high end doesn’t make a good master…
As said in the video, this is a professional digital mastering engineer who spent time to master this song using the mastering chain he uses when mastering for his clients. He won't want it shown, nor would he want people on TH-cam seeing his chain. What benefit would you have from a screenshot of his mastering chain. None. It's nonsense. If anything it'll even further conclude digital mastering is sub par because I know some of the best plugins are being used.
For those who are up for a challenge. I challenged the viewers to perform a 100% digital master using plugins and see if in the follow up video if any can compare to our analogue master. Anyone can get involved from all levels and expertise. Watch this video for full details: th-cam.com/video/d2z9bbZeC5U/w-d-xo.html
Watched this with sound off. Looked nice.
🤣🤣🤣
😂
lol
😄
Out of all my songs that been mastered by different engineers including myself. The ones that Paul has done for me, are the ones that stands out and i been approached by industry people. Cant thank you enough. Your service & quality is amazing. 🙏
Brilliant to hear. Thank you
My goodness. I honestly cannot believe how much better it sounds. The punch and depth you are getting is insane.
One of the most compelling videos you’ve done so far.
The digital master sounds extremely good, but the analog wins 100 percent. This also shows Paul you're extremely knowledgeable and skilled. The gear is extremely important but most important is the engineer behind.
This also shows how incredibly well Paul knows his gear.
this one too
It also shows off his experience, in just knowing those tweaks with that gear would make the mix sound better regardless. Great demonstration.
Amazing concept. This one deserves to go viral! great job mate.
Let's hope so
FaX 🔥
That was absolutely insane. You can hear the difference on phone speakers. Absolutely crazy.
I guess all that gear isn't overpriced after all. Your knowledge of the equipment is key to that. Nice work!
Knowledge combined with the gear is the key. I can't sit here and pretend I'd get the same result using a £5k mastering chain because I won't. The equipment plays a huge part in the sound.
Incredible song and incredible tutorial! Thank you so much! Great selection of gear too!
The difference is day n night clarity,punch,separation whoever says theres no difference they need to start making money because 99% of the time unsuccessful people comment negative stuff on youtube
100% jealousy is often clear to see on TH-cam. To me it's quite obvious even when listening on my phone.
great video. would have been cool to see what you would have tweaked after hearing the result.
I wouldn't go with either one if I had to pay but I would go with analog if revisions are possible to match taste.
You realise the speakers are off
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Yes, I know it is an experiment, which proves a lot of work can be done without tiring the ears meanwhile.
I do this to!!!! Such a brutal FLEX when you do this hey. I do it to junior engineers and destroy their in-the-box mastering haha. Brutal. Cool to see you do a video of this.
I think any professional who knows and understands their mastering chain could do it.
this video really helped show me what I need to do to take my mastering to the next level. Ill forever be an amateur until I get my analogue chain
And people think plugins could match over 120k of gear! There's no way, if it was the case the plugins would cost way more! Nice one!
I'm all for using plugins and plugins are great but when it comes to mastering analogue mastering is on another level.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I have the same opnion, plugins are more suitable for mixing, i really miss the analog when hearing a master done itb.
@sobrinN 100% I much prefer mixing ITB and will never go back to mixing out the box. But when it comes to mastering I wouldn't feel right digital mastering for my clients. Especially when striving for the best sound possible is so important.
The digital master sounds like pre-mix in comparison. Your analogue master sounds like the released, ready track. Night and day difference.
Hey Paul, fantastic video. Would love to see you do more mastering sessions for us to watch.
I'm going to start doing lots more. Thanks for watching. Anything in particular you want to see?
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Literally just what you do on any given day. Like what we saw today but with speakers on with a little commentary on some of the moves you make. It's something we don't see with other TH-camrs (obviously because the artists need to agree). How you layer saturation on this master was very interesting to me and it sounds fantastic.
@@LoomSoundStudio sure. A walk through video is something I keep needing to do as so many people ask for an updated one. There is an older one but the chain is slightly smaller at that time.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Its a tough one, obviously you can't give it all away but at the same time that's exactly what we want lmao. I think none of us will ever be able to replicate what you do as you have a custom chain and special ears. Maybe for paid subscribers? I would sub for that and many others would too.
@LoomSoundStudio I was contemplating creating a lot of content behind a paywall, which would be more geared towards tutorials, approaches I wouldn't want to just teach everyone.
Mind blowing 💥🤬🥊 you friend mush be sickened bro 😂 😂😂 thanks for this one ✌🏽
One word: WOW! DEAF Analog Mastering for the win! More videos like this please!!!
Dude that's crazy!
This makes me pretty entertained and bit sad at the same time 😅
Seems like your friend mastered his version overly dark. Your master sounded a lot more bright and lively, while also having more movement. The difference wasn't subtle, but do you think that with the right digital tools you could achieve the same, or comparative results? Monitoring environment plays a big role as well.
I don't really consider myself a mastering engineer, but feel like I could do a decent enough job with digital only tools, just using Meterplugs Dynameter and iZotope Tonal Balance Control as visual references. A lot of it is familiarity with the tools that you have, and what they will add.
Personally, I feel like most plugin emulations (including emulations of stuff in your rack) fall short of the hardware and are just a vague approximation with a fancy GUI.
I think that there are some exceptions though, such as Pulsar Audio, Pulsar Modular, UAD, and Vertigo Sound. Some of the purely digital tools, not emulating anything are excellent as well, such as stuff from Oeksound, and Wavesfactory.
Yes to be fair I could achieve a much better master than his with digital plugins. Which is why when I heard the master I said to him I'm not being funny but I could get a better master with my monitors turned off. I couldn't achieve that claim with digital plugins though.
A really interesting video. What graph did you use ITB for the master?
By graph do you mean spectrum analyser?
@@AudioAnimalsStudio if by visual representation and what you can see you mean a spectrum analyser, then yes.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Let me rephrase my question - what meters & analysers do you typically use? Are there any specific analyser plug-ins or views you like when frequency shaping (not loudness)?
I’m sure budding engineers would be interested to hear your go to’s.
@@ourmindzdj fabfilter pro q3 as spectrum analyser. Then Izotope insight 2 for levels.
Yep! okay take my money! It does indeed sound better to my ears also. 👍🏾
What I'm hearing is mainly just a significant difference in the frequency balance, and some difference in the stereo field.
How about a test where you first do an analog master as well as possible, and then as faithfully as possible reproduce each step in the digital domain? That way we'd be hearing what it really is that makes analog and digital different.
Have done a few similar videos on this. These kinds of videos showcase just how much difference is made when mastering in the analogue domain. Will look at doing another one soon.
Lets just say everyones ear is different Im 50 years old and should definitely prefer the analogue master which sounds brighter because with age ears become fatigued.....but i prefer the darker master why ...I have no idea. Imho both mixes sound great in there own respect ......Im gonna get trolled am I not.
Videos like this leads me to buy another piece of gear. Legend
WOW!!! its night and day! man you know your equipment, Ive never heard of any of your hardware units man. Analogue is the way, just invested in an SSL BUS+ and Fusion, but am no mastering engineer, but able to get a good pre mix for an engineer as cant afford your gear yet.
Look into 500 series. That's a smart affordable way to go. The Fusion and bus plus is a great combo.
The analog master instantly sounded brighter and better. But brightness can be deceiving right? As I listened more I expected harshness and fatigue to appear in the brighter analog mix and depth and warmth to enhance the darker digital mix. But it didn't. The analog mix is just so smooth while still having (comparatively) loads of treble. Amazing. It would be cool to hear the two with closer tonalities but something tells me boosting the highs in the digital master or even doing a total eq match still wouldn't come close...
Also one thing to bear in mind is that I had no way of knowing whilst mastering if the song was bright. If I could audiable hear the master I'd have probably kept a similar tone up top but additionally use Dynamic EQ to control it more. You would be correct. Yes you could match the digital master in some ways in the high end. But that's when you'll really hear a harsh displeasing master that will cause fatigue.
Kush plugins and hardware are insanely good ❤️
Forget to add that analog sound way better cleaner/wider/warmer 😎
I like the roll off on the top on the analog master, but i think it was a little bit too bright from 3k-8k. Just my opinion.
And if the monitors were on this is maybe something that I would have tamed using the Goly Dynamic Shelving EQ. But unfortunately, without the monitors on you can't hear this.
Great Job 👌👌👌👌
Wow. Even on iPhone speakers the analog master is way more clear and full. My only question is what you would’ve done differently in your chain after you heard your deaf master. Would you have made many different decisions? Incredible job!
I honestly don't think there would be too much to adjust. I'd have smoothened the highend out using dynamic eq a bit more and definitely been more detailed with the mid side SPL PQ. Very hard to guess EQ adjustments. I'd also have been able to use the bus comp in a better way to glue the mix together. I way really surprised with the end result.
that a shock, not even listening to out, and it sounds way better lol. Fair play.
The digital one sounds choked and small by comparison! Think if the original project had used high end analog from beginning of the tracking all the way through to the mastering. RND and others should put this video on their website. Plug-ins still have miles to go and may never get there.
I’d like to hear a few more comparison’s - but I think you maybe very right! Stereo width was the big difference
I've challenged him again to try and go one better. I said I bet I could get a better Master in under 1 minute than you could in an hour on a digital mastering chain. We are going to shoot this one tomorrow.
I just listened to this (as you mentioned on the other video), and it's a truly fascinating comparison. However, as a former engineer (recording and mixing), I don't think this necessarily shows that analog mastering is better than digital mastering. I think it to a higher degree shows that you are a better mastering engineer than your friend. My (bold) guess is that you might be able to make a better master with his digital chain than he would be able to with your analog chain. That would be another interesting comparison. I'm saying this since I know from my time working in studies that good engineers can create a better recording or mix with "poor" equipment than a poor engineer with good equipment.
This is exactly why I suggested we do a video comparing my digital master vs my analogue master of a new track. This will definitely answer your question.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Partly, yes. It will probably show that YOUR analog master will be better than YOUR digital master. Probably for two reasons: a) The analog gear you have is awesome! and b) You know your analog gear MUCH better than your digital gear.
Still, I think YOU could make a better master with digital gear than many engineers would be able to using your analog chain.
What do you think? Bragging is okay. ;)
@stefanhansen5882 oh definitely. I use plugins a lot whilst mixing plus with the use of plugin emulation of hardware it is very easy to work in the box with a similar approach to out the box. The difference is very noticeable. Digital sounds 2d whereas analogue sound 3d.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio 2D versus 3D-now it's getting a bit esoteric for me. Yes, analog and digital sound different, but saying it has to do with the perception of space I find nonsensical, to be honest.
@stefanhansen5882 the proof is easily audiable when you listen to any of the videos in the hardware vs software emulation playlist below. Concentrate on the stereo image and depth when comparing the plugin emulation to the analogue hardware.
th-cam.com/play/PLUOQNzITApNpZaOu9Hug0Ziu16KQgvqIK.html&si=AGUIveXeXMTEf5uO
The analogue master gives the record allot of life. Sounds very good. With gear you get what you pay for.
100% and effortlessly good sound too.
pretty good Def....cripe sake...How amazing set up like getting in the melenium falcon.....you may have made the guy buy new plugins....lol
He sold all his hardware which I always said he's stupid to have done. Since then I've been slowly but surely proving his mistake to him. This one was the icing on the cake. I have a challenge I'm shooting with him today where I challenged him that I could do a master in 1 minute and it be better than his digital master he spends an hour over.
@AudioAnimalsStudio
if you could possibly master a deathmetal piece? I would love to see your decisions while working
Hahaha you’re a legend Paul!💪
so yes, once again a reason we need to have nice hardware equipment's in our studio's.... voltages or calculations...
100% makes the world of difference.
Brighter and more compression does not equal better. Also the width manipulations sound phasey. Also the low end feels worst. Also a lot of the top mastering engineers running the charts now days are fully digital. Analog gear is great but it is not everything. Fun video though.
You realise the speakers are off.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Indeed. It sounds "different" than the digital master for sure. I just completely disagree with "professionals use analog gear" because it is very much not completely true. At least in the US on the Top 40 charts. This goes for both mixing and mastering.
@@Drummerboy106 it's only once you have a reference point you realise how bad these digital masters that get released actually sound. If you compared them with an analogue master of the same song you would hear a night and day difference. For me I aim for the best and continue to add equipment that will achieve this. Trust me if it was possible to achieve what is achievable in the analogue world using plugins I'd happily sell everything. The fact is though it's just not true. You'll notice behind be an Avid S4 so you should already have realised I'm a big advocate for mixing ITB but honestly analogue mastering is world's ahead of digital mastering.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio We all have our options and make our choices. Sometimes analog is the right thing and sometimes it is not. Your taste and skill will guide you. Im not advocating for either side really. I've been doing this for long enough at a high enough level to know that Analog is not always the right call for a lot of modern music. That is all :)
@Drummerboy106 I think when you're an experienced engineer with analogue equipment you can always make it work. I can honestly say I've never once thought hmm this analogue master isn't working let's go all digital. Certain aspects of a mastering chain are well suited for plugins. Things like Soothe can be achieved in the analogue world. For me, it's a case of hybrid mastering. Combining the best of both worlds. What I think I'll do is give the pre master out as a download in another video. Then anyone up for the challenge can give digital mastering a go and try and get anywhere close to the analogue master. Then in a video we can play each master and directly compare them. See if anyone can get close. I'd love for you to get involved in that.
I’d be curious to hear how your own completely in the box master would hold up against your deaf analog mastering chain.
This could be the subject of another video but instead of mastering deaf, this time we find out if we can adjust a digital master to achieve the same results of an analogue master.
just awesome
Absolutely insane 💥🔥🌋🔥💥
I wish these shots were more closed up to get into detail
I see a coment about giving out the pre master to see what digital mastering engineers could do with it in the box.
Is this going to happen?
Yes. We put together a pre Master of a custom track so we have the license to open it up for download. I'm going to post this video tomorrow with the download link in the description. Then I'm going to compile all the digital masters and shoot a video comparing them to my analogue master. Never know there might be a job in it for someone.
@AudioAnimalsStudio look forward to hearing what people come with myself included.
If i can hear it on my iPad, there’s a DIFFERENCE!
Crazy concept of a video I applaud it!
The analog master sounds louder and more squashed (probably higher RMS). So I guess it’s a matter of taste.
But even though this has nothing to do with analog. It’s rather you vs him. Analog vs digital would be you doing your best digital master vs you doing your best analog master. Then we would hear and see how each tool influences your decision leading you to the best results.
All the best!
As someone has already pointed out in the comments the two songs are matched and how you perceived the analogue master as louder only goes to further support the claim. If you rip the audio from the video and run it through an analyser you'll see this for yourself.
I can see already. That’s why I said it “sounds” louder. Probably because of a higher RMS.
I just seen the video, without the sound and yes analog is better 😂
wider, bigger, juicier !!! wow !! 💎💎💎
Aww man that’s incredible. But maybe your friend should at least add one good analog Box of any sort. A simple Spl vitalizer would at least get him over the hill.
He sold all his analogue equipment a few years ago and swears by digital mastering for convenience. Which I understand but his clients take a hit in quality for his convenience which I don't agree with.
If I would use the best of the emulations of the same pieces of gear that you've used WITH the same settings, would it be significantly different? )... I mean, I guess so but really will it be? Cuz maybe you are just so good that you can master def :)))... I mean I get the point but still :)
This video I've linked below does exactly that what you are asking and the difference is huge. I'll make an update to this video as it's an interesting subject.
th-cam.com/video/p6JKqqfkJcI/w-d-xo.html
Fookin 😂ell if I Eva saw a Pi55 take .
U did all of that muted 🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️🔥🙏🏾
& it sounded better
Audio Animals and the Analog wins!
Proofs to me that analog Equipment is actually more important than 50%. Clearly just proofed that. And even more Important than Monitoring. Seems like with decent Speakers in the 2-4k price range and great Headphones and analog Equipment, even the Room should be not THAT important anymore as you just clearly proofed that - and it makes sense
What do you think?
I'd actually say the room is more important than the gear. If you are hearing playback incorrect, you will adjust based on what you can hear. Even though I'm not listening to the speakers in this video, the outcome would be very much hit and miss if mastered like this every day.
@AudioAnimalsStudio are you saying you were lucky with the outcome?
It seems general analog settings have a good chance to work better then ones worked on in detail digitally - as long as a decent mix in balance comes in ..?
Wasn't that the point of the video?
Further detailed adjustments should be achievable on good headphones while reference listening as well as using decent speakers in a decently treated room that's maybe not A1 mastering grade?
@Aquiiin yes as if the mix wasn't good it would have a very different outcome. This would only work on a mix that doesn't require lots of corrections. I know what settings to use to create a master that works well as a generic master that will blanket across all mixes and enhance the mix. But yes I guess you could achieve a master like this then adjust further to correct for any issues in headphones.
Did your friend like the analog mix better when he heard it?
Yes, said there was a night and day difference.
I now aspire to become an armless guitar player.
Why stop there.
I think you would have done better not to show the wave forms because it kinda showed what really happened. I do like your equipment though very nice, a combination of both worlds is really where its at because there are things in the digital realm you will never do in the analog realm. I love PMC
Check this video out. Confirms your thoughts are aligned with mine th-cam.com/video/W03nu6QJlzk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=duUyKyhLJxypP5Mj
You are missing Maselec MLA4?
We have a Masleec MLA-3
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Can you share how do you use it most?
@sassas7128 yeah on the list of video reviews to do. But it's a simple tool used for multiband compression. Great to tame a kick or snare that's too loud in the mix.
Devil's advocate, maybe your mate is not as good as he should be............secondly the major difference is yours a lot brighter sounding. Which implies to me with his master It's less about the fact it was done itb and more that he is either not very good or has poor monitoring and/or room. It's not as cut and dried as we would like to make out. Plenty of other 'big name' mastering engineers are mixing itb and getting grammy award-winning results. I have been recording, mixing and mastering since the mid 80s and the one truth I have found is it is never this or that, It never is. I've heard guitarists make a peavey 15watt solid state practice amp scream, and I've heard the best amps money can buy sound like turds. And everything in between. Imo it's more often than not the person and not the tool. The main difference between the two masters is how bright yours is in comparison. And on my PMC's here, a tad overly bright. We need to remove all the other parameters and variables before we can make objective statements. What would that master sound like if he mastered it in your room with your kit? Probably worse as well, due to how you are much more familiar with the room and sound. There are simply too many different variables at play to claim it is because one is hardware and one software. I did something similiar a few years ago when I mixed the same track at home ITB in a less than perfect room and then mixed it on a big Neve in a properly treated room with all the toys in the rack, guess which one sound better. The one mixed on the Neve. Proof that hardware is better? Or more a case of one doing one in a good sounding room?
Have done this video multiple times on this channel. The digital master no matter who does it always sounds embarrassing dull and lifeless. One thing we can always agree on is that digital mastering is second rate to analogue master. And that's a fact that can not be ignored. The fact I can do an analogue master deaf and still get a definitive better sound.
The hilarious thing is that this is a Grammy nominated engineer. With a big name. Were probably talking about the same person.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio And I hear you and appreciate what you are saying and respectfully disagree, it is not as cut and dried as we would like to be. Remove some of the variables. There are simply too many. And I am not a digital evangelist. I love me analogue. I still think in this case, the digital master is just a bad master. Or that he is deaf or working in a bad room/speaker combo. Or just not very good. Let someone come and master the track in your room ITB with their tools of choice and try and match your analogue master. That is a more fair challenge.
@ferociousmullet9287 this exact video was already done. This is why im 100% disagreeing with you. And the results were better for the digital master but still nowhere close.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Not really wanting to look through every video of yours to find it, would you mind providing a link? I would be interested to see.
@@ferociousmullet9287 take a watch of this one. It is on a similar subject. I will add your video request to the list. th-cam.com/video/eL20FeCQi30/w-d-xo.html
but the mbp is showing gain reduction
Look into the SFE
I have a liddle studio iat home with 3-4 analog peaces of gear mybe 10% procent worth compared to your gear. and even the when i switch them in, its always like the sun is going up. it is really no comparisson. love 4 analog gear
Lets get u a REDD 4k Camera bruv
Send it over
You can't be serious. An analogue master, mastered by a deaf engineer beats a digital master by an engineer who can hear. What a great comparison to highlight the value of the equipment you have, bravo marketing.
At least I know if I go deaf I can still have somewhat of the job I love.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Lol
Would love to see friends reaction. Keep us in the loop 😇
He's no longer talking to me. I've been kicked from the WhatsApp group
@@AudioAnimalsStudiothats too damned funny. Sorry he didnt take it too well…I appreciate your pursuit of truth
@@Rhuggins I've now challenged him to this, he does a full master takes as long as he needs over it. I'll do a master in under 1 minute and it'll be better.
Maybe the plugin guy is just not that great. 😂✌️
Which is probably why he didn't want to be named.
Almost too good to be true
To be honest, the analog master would make your ears bleed in a club. Too much saturation, too much top end. Nice width tho.
The digital master sounds a bit muffled but that's only in comparison to an overly bright master.
But I imagine if you could actually hear what you were doing it would be excellent. But this test not so much, brighter isn't always better.
To me, it's just a difference in tonal balance. Analog work sounds 10k more. Equal loudness is an important criterion for mastering, but that digital mastering just sounds like an amateur mastering that can't eqing. unfair comparison
The key part to listen to is at the beginning of the video. I talk about the conversation I had. The claim that I too felt it was a poor Master and the claim was that I could do a better master with the monitors turned off. The fact you call it an amateur Master is exactly my point. This is a professional engineer's digital master. Which I think was poor hence the claim. To make it a fair comparison I would need to help him produce a better master. Which off topic. Always remember the subject of the video. This comment went off track a bit. It's like you skipped the first 5 minutes.
Before everything is done live this is definitely fish oil! It's like watching a magician who does the trick behind the curtains :D
Haha I'm as honest as they come. You'll realise that if you watch my videos. I can totally understand why other engineers don't like it, going against the grain and talking truth on TH-cam.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I have nothing against you or how you do things. I’m 110% towards analog chain myself! But these kind of edited videos I just cant take seriously before there is some kind of validation. If it is true then great work my friend! But at the moment it sounds and looks to good to be true…
@jaykons1985 videos have to be edited so that they flow. I have to change camera angle to move to other side of the rack. Are you questioning that at the points I edit the video I could potentially have a quick sneaky listen as it isn't a seamless take. If that's the case, you are just going to have to trust me. Or not, entirely up to you. I honestly don't see the point in cheating the results. A good way of doing this video again would be on a live stream.
Why'd you delete the pinned comment and other video where you challenged us to an ITB vs Analog mastering shootout? A bit upsetting to be led to spend time on something only to have the other person not follow through and then delete...
If you watched the video you'd have heard that I clearly said I would delete the video on Monday evening to avoid people submitting audio files after the cut-off date. For your information the video goes out at 2pm today. So please don't be upset you will be included.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Right on! I did watch, but don't recall that part. I was following up mainly because someone had posted a comment in a Mastering group on FB and mentioned you had said no one submitted so that you weren't doing it, so I was just following up. Looking forward to it!
@EricNUFO 70 submissions came in. So as you can imagine it's a long video that has taken a while to put together. I think what you read on Facebook was that the people who claimed they could do better didn't get involved and wouldn't put their money where there mouth is.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Nice, that's a good amount! Makes sense, a lot to go through and right on, I made no prior claims but I def participated. :D
@EricNUFO yeah. Most people are decent and saw it for what it is. A fun experiment we can all get involved in.
The levels aren't matched. The analog version is louder. One can even see the difference.
You realise the speakers are off. How the hell can you level match with the speakers off. Come on mate think.
Acrually the digital is way overblown on mains in the bass and subs so the digital sounds louder on my full-range reference system. Analog version sounds brighter but not louder. Which is awesome considering, you know..... the speakers were off. But yeah on a studio monitor maybe you might think that.
The digital master is quieter so of course it won't sound as "good". I find it difficult to make a real comparison because of that.
That would be perceived loudness, the digital master is actually at the same loudness. But because it is dull and lifeless in comparison you are perceiving it as quieter. This just further confirms that analogue mastering can be perceived as louder when it in fact isn't. The digital master has a true peak of -0.1db whereas the analogue master has a true peak of -1db. Almost a whole db louder in volume but yet you still perceive the analogue master as being louder. Very interesting analysis there.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio yes and our ears have a bias for perceived loudness to sound better and fuller. True peak doesn't really show loudness it only shows the highest possible sample peak in that waveform. You can have a single sample at -0.1db and the rest of the song be way way quieter. To me the lower true peak and higher perceived loudness just indicates more compression was used.
I'd wager the integrated LUFS for the digital is lower than the analogue and that the analogue has a lower dynamic range from compression.
I'm not disagreeing that the analogue version sounds better, I'm just having a hard time truly comparing the two because our ears always perceive louder as better.
One quick thing I will add. The speakers are off so when mastering I am unable to adjust anything based on what I can hear.
I feel like it's more a matter of taste. I actually prefer the digital master. The highs are too hyped for my taste on the analogue.
I now aspire to become digital mastering engineer
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Just like a lot of Grammy winners and others who have gone in-the-box eh?
In your video you said, "Let's be honest." Well, I think the digital version sounds better. The analogue is definitely not "one hundred times better" or significantly so. More highs and added harmonics, sure... Yet it isn't as pleasing to the ear imo.
@andrewcornelius5223 I now aspire to be an engineer that turns his monitors on to make the correct adjustments to the high end.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio 😆 I'm impressed you even accepted such a challenge. I would actually like to hear a part two where you master it with speakers on and present that comparison. I'm not knocking analogue. But I do think the difference can be overstated sometimes and it's worth noting the plethora of high level guys even (not just aspiring engineers and mixers) who have given it up and gone entirely digital.
@andrewcornelius5223 I mix 100% in the box and believe me I'm a big supporter of the digital world. I just feel at some point ideally at the mastering end it is highly beneficial to turn those 1's and 0's into an analogue signal. There are big benefits. Have a watch of the analogue vs digital mastering challenge we posted. That's an interesting one to see.
Video here th-cam.com/video/DMDU5EQJtvE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=3aTbI7K-5DADxymo
😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣
Hm… it’s probably just me, but to me the huge loudness difference between the two tracks was disturbing. The analog track had way too much high end and was a great deal more compressed. The digital one, althought i would have tweaked it a bit more and in a different direction, was more listenable when loudness matched. Lots and lots of high end doesn’t make a good master…
You understand that the monitors are turned off when mastering?
This Video is absolute Nonsens when you don't know which Digital Mastering Chain is used.
As said in the video, this is a professional digital mastering engineer who spent time to master this song using the mastering chain he uses when mastering for his clients. He won't want it shown, nor would he want people on TH-cam seeing his chain. What benefit would you have from a screenshot of his mastering chain. None. It's nonsense. If anything it'll even further conclude digital mastering is sub par because I know some of the best plugins are being used.
For those who are up for a challenge. I challenged the viewers to perform a 100% digital master using plugins and see if in the follow up video if any can compare to our analogue master. Anyone can get involved from all levels and expertise. Watch this video for full details: th-cam.com/video/d2z9bbZeC5U/w-d-xo.html