You never hear any of them talking about the beauty of variation and colour. There is advantages to noise and distortion.. But then that's why 8 bit was so popular and why it is making a small comeback.

Chris, you are precisely correct. Every pass into tape compresses real world dynamics (120dB +)into something that can be managed on a record (70dB) or 16 bit CD(90dB). it's a different kind of compression than what a compressor would do. i suspect that the reason i prefer tape to digital is partly because it's what i grew up with ... my ears are tuned to it.

still i think there's nothing to compare to the sonics of Beatles, Early Stones, Tom Petty, ELO, Boston, The Band and all those analog recordings that were produced with low track counts (4/8/12/16). I really love the stuff from Nashville in the late 50's when they were using 2 & 3 tracks.

when i was a kid i met old timers who swore that 78 rpm records sounded better than 45s and Albums at 33 & 1/3. i suppose it's the same thing, different year.

NICE CONSOLE, eh?

Kurt Foster, post: 401788 wrote: ..... i suspect that the reason i prefer tape to digital is partly because it's what i grew up with ... my ears are tuned to it...

I think that you'll find that this is likely the most popular response from those people - like yourself - who prefer tape... because the bulk of the songs that influenced people like yourself were tracked to tape, so that is where their own respective preferences sit. (Man, I really had to suppress the urge to say "bias" instead of "preferences" in that last sentence... :wink: )

Again, I'm not against tape. But as Kurt and I have debated, I think it takes big bucks to do it right.

And here is where Kurt will say he'd rather use a tape deck as low in fidelity as a Dokorder 1/4" four track, any day of the week and twice on Sundays, as opposed to using any DAW, at which point I will respectfully agree to disagree, and so on, and so on.... LOL

Just funnin' witcha, Kurt. I do indeed respect your opinion(s). I just don't always agree with them. :)

hey it's all cool ... i would rather use tape ... i do have a DAW and it's all that i have recorded to in the past 10 years ... before that i had a 2" JH24 with 16 & 24 track heads / JH636 console and I mixed to a JH110 1/2 track on 1/4" tape. i did start with a 1/4" Dokkorder when i was a kid.... (how did you know that? did i mention that before?) also had (actually still have) ADATS and DAT / CD burners ... so i have recorded to just about everything, bouncing between cassettes or a sony stereo machine that did sound on sound bouncing from one track to the other.

i love the cut and paste ability of DAW and the ability to replace sounds like drums, but i am always disappointed with the sound at the end. i think digital eq and compression leave a lot to be desired. DAWs just sound like doo doo. I still prefer the ADATS through the JH636. the most fun i had recording was with tape though. it's more satisfying to pull something off by wild flying or some mix trick , track sharing and multing the outs to different channels at mix and then muting them at different points of the song where in DAW all you have to do is open another track, cut and paste, with everything available at a key stroke. i find recording with analog or even linear digital like ADATS to be more of a challenge and in the end more satisfying.

(how did you know that? did i mention that before?)

LOL... nope. But it was a good guess, considering that I also started on a Dokorder 4 track R to R as well, and so did a number of my friends.

I think that deck's parent manufacturer was Onkyo, if I recall correctly.

It was one pretty noisy beast. My affectionate nickname for it was the "hiss bucket". ;)

here it is .... the gear i had for my first multi track studio in the early 70's. i rented a house with 12 foot ceilings and set up the control room in one of the bedrooms and turned the living room into the live room. made a vocal booth in the closet in the cr ... pink glass and drapes .. screwed a mic stand to the ceiling and hung an old RCA velocity Jr ribbon mic from it. i also had another RCA vari-tone ribbon that had a slider to change the tone, some 58's and some old shure Elvis mics and a Boss analog DDL / chorus unit.

recording one or two tracks at a time with the biamp mixer as front end and monitoring thru the teac 2a into JBLs driven by a Kustom 50 watt per side power amp. squashed the sh*t out of everything with the quad limiter to keep it hot and to stay above the noise floor, eqing with a graphic EQ, spot wiping, fading and muting tracks between parts ... (signal masks noise). we would load up 4 tracks, sometimes recording three or four instruments to one track and bounce to one or two on the teac 3300 take the tape off the teac and put it back on the dokkorder to do 2 or 3 more tracks and maybe even do it again. real old school recording chops.

i had bands from all over central OREGON coming in to record. it was a whole lot more fun than anything i have ever done on DAWs. good times .... yeah good times . ;>)

That awesome Kurt. Man, I know.... Everyone seemed happier. Kids playing on the street was normal. Everyone had nice big stereo's. hm What a thrill to have grown up in our era.
Here is my first deck. I recorded one side at a time.

http://www.thevintageknob.org/sony-TC-630.html

Sony TC-630

I still have the mics.

my best friend Donny Holderer had one of those when i was in jr high .... TC630??? is that right? sound on sound ... record to the left track , flip the rocker switch set the balance and bounce and record to the right track ... we usually got 2 or 3 bounces before the noise was unbearable ... still we impressed ourselves many times with that machine.

Yup, that's the one, Kurt. Did the same thing. Got about three bounces before it sounded like singing in the wind. Funny thing, it wasn't so much the sound back then as it was just being able to make music.

My first rig, circa 1974:

My second rig, circa 1977:

Dokorder 4 trk / SM57 / Biamp 8 ch mixer / MXR dual 15 band EQ / Dbx 160 mono compressor

(Dead Link Removed)

JBL 4408's / Crown D150 Amp / Echoplex
(Dead Link Removed)

I still have the Dbx mono compressor, the Crown Amp, the SM57 and the MXR dual 15 EQ.

Shoulda never sold that Echoplex, though. facepalm

fancy !! dbx 160 and an echoplex ...

i'll take that old dbx off your hands ;)

You can have it when you can pry it out of my cold, dead, nicotine-stained fingers. Oh wait... that was just last night.

Nah. I'll think I'll hang onto it for awhile. ;)

Start with a Mic... and the rest is history :)

I love the info on Volts. Rupert mentions 90v rails. Neos is now swinging 120V.

Beautiful Neve Console.
Remy, note the word Stem on 3.23

i liked the "bits" where he talks about sample rates. i was actually going to bring this up in regards to the video you put up yesterday;
D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery @ xiph.org)

my interest was peaked when he talked about "stair stepping"... the part where he takes the sine wave and demonstrates the stair step effect (or lack of in reality). but he puts up a graphic that he refers to as a lollipop graph that clearly shows gaps between instances of sampling. this is lost information ... so while the bit rate for analog may be compared to 13 bit digital (this is dynamic range) the sampling rate for analog is infinite (or analogous which is why it's called analog). this loss of info is just as egregious (imho) as the loss of least significant bit info with lossey compression in codecs like mp3 and mp4. it's sort of liike breaking a piece of glass and then gluing it back together. there will always be some information that becomes lost in the process.

I know. but something gets them all convinced over something I don't get. I feel kind of stupid because that space (gap) leaves out something. From what I get, its more about dithering.
Some tests I did last year revealed how easy it is to make analog sound digital and impossible ( at present) to make digital sound analog. Once I ran tracks into a digital domain and back twice all the information that remained in a null tests vanished. So in other words, both the analog and digital tracks eventually nulled after a few ADDA's passes.

Maybe I'm clueless too. I often wonder if I'm fooling myself but I really try and be objective. Thus, why I go one direction > DAW#1 > Analog > DAW#2 . Plus there is no phase issues caused from the round trip latency that I have to suffer with. Could be, half this issues in digital are more about phase. Bit bit bit latency chipping away at a track.
So, that video didn't really tell me anything about music.

Another example. If we believe there is depth to captured sound, more information behind the flat line, I believe digital doesn't see semi transparency, therefore, cannot measure space well, but I hear it. Maybe its all in my mind.
Something I feel relates, sophisticated colour matching software works great up until you try and match semi transparent colour. In other words, it cannot measure colouring in water. It always has to have a solid background. I often wonder is this is how a converter see's " or misses" in sound. Does analog see the colouring in the water per-say?

it's obvious to me that Monty is defending digital ... i remain unconvinced.

we still haven't figured it out yet but it's a fact proven by studies that there is less brain activity when listening to a recording that is digitized when compared to the same in pure analog ... cat scans clearly show a lot more brain activity with analog and listeners report coming away from the listening experience with a "more satisfied" feeling. these are studies that have been around for years now ... Neve has talked about this many times in the past.

Agree. I've seen and listened to a few programs on this. Its very convincing to me. I think I posted something on RO about that some time back, maybe even Bob here.
A recent study with classical music played while studying also helped stimulate students.. I wonder if this was digital lol.
There is an interesting article somewhere with Sting and music as well. Yup, lots of information about this coming to surface.

Our music today doesn't help. I think we are all becoming desensitized. We once believed advertisements were truthful and the Government was for the people, a fat chicken meant it was fed well.

Just because digital is so clear doesn't mean it actually sounds good, if you know what I mean.

I see my role in music today as an animator, someone who is good at tricks. Like a magician. Digital music is turning us all into plastic really. Musical magicians. I like it a lot, I like the ability to be my own boss but its lonely in the digital world. Its all about image. Sonic image that is :)

In ten years from now....

Ying Yang...

I recall, years ago when I first got into digital, playing some mixes for the wife, who, while having a decent ear for music, isn't trained in audio, and she said something to the effect that "it sounds like it has "holes" in it, like I could reach out and put my hands through gaps in the sound..."

Little did she know how on the mark she was. She was describing in her own untrained way, I think, what sounded to her like things that were missing, "spaces" being in the music, instead of the full and all encompassing, wrap-around sound of analog that she had grown up listening to...

Of course I told her she was nuts and that she didn't know what she was talking about....

fwiw
-d.

I think, for me the question is a bit too large.
Recording analog with a dictaphone will never be better than a well builded DAW and old 8 track recorder will beat any pc with a realtek soundcard.

I guess what causes a much more difference than digital vs analog is the engineer's experience and talent + the environement he's in, and how well he knows the gear he uses.

See, my room is analog, my microphone, my cables, my tube preamps and tube compressor are analog. They go into my DAW via not so bad converters. When I use a VST, I try to never over pass what the real thing could do (They often have this extreem settings you know ;)

So can I call myself an Hybrid recorder ? he he he ! :)

Museum of Magnetic Sound Recording

I believe Vinyl is coming back to some degree.

This is very cool:

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://museumofmagn…"]Stories - Museum of Magnetic Sound Recording[/]="http://museumofmagn…"]Stories - Museum of Magnetic Sound Recording[/]

Here is another one for the clue or less Remy, thinking Stems are a thing of the past.

Look this beast:

SSL unveil Sigma, the remote controlled analog mix engine

The Sonic Benefits Of SSL SuperAnalogue Summing, With The Convenience Of DAW Automation

Solid State Logic, the world’s leading manufacturer of creative tools for audio professionals, is proud to unveil Sigma, the remote controlled analog mix engine, at Musikmesse 2013 (Hall 5.1, Stand B.73). Designed for the DAW user that seeks the legendary big sound of an SSL console while retaining the convenience of working in the box, Sigma is a unique analog mix engine in a 2U rack unit, that is remote controlled using MIDI via Ethernet using a DAW or an iDevice compatible software interface.

Using proprietary MDAC control technology first featured in our Duality and AWS studio consoles, Sigma’s 100% analog summing engine can be driven by automation data created within your DAW of choice. Sigma features 16 flexible input channels, which can be individually switched between being mono or stereo for up to 32 channels at mixdown. There is accurate front panel LED metering for all channels. There are two stereo mix buses with dedicated outputs for convenient printing of stems back to the DAW and individual stereo insert points to facilitate implementation of parallel compression. Each input channel also features an individual direct output. Mix Bus B can also be injected into Mix Bus A for final mixdown.

An Artist and Studio monitoring section provides a Monitor and Headphone output. The Main monitor output has Main and Alternative connections to accommodate two sets of monitors. A comprehensive switching matrix enables selection of your monitor source. A large front panel rotary control uses a push-select mechanism to determine whether it adjusts Mix A, Mix B, Main Monitor or Headphone levels. There is also a Talkback input with adjustable Dim level. Control and switching of a wide range of functions including; monitor level and source, inserts, talkback, sum B>A and mono check, can all be achieved using any standard MIDI hardware control surface. A MIDI learn feature makes setup simple and easy. A pair of user-assignable dual action push/hold buttons on the front panel or a foot-switch can also be assigned to the same collection of switching functions. Sigma uses MIDI over Ethernet for control and to connect to a cross platform software interface, which provides additional control and setup capability. The software interface enables Sigma to be remote controlled using an iDevice.

Key Features:
• Advanced DAW automation driven SSL SuperAnalogue™ mix engine
• Works with all major DAW’s including Pro Tools, Logic, Cubase/Nuendo, Samplitude/Sequoia and Soundscape
• 16 flexible channels individually switchable between stereo or mono for up to 32 channels at mix down
• 2 stereo mix buses with individual stereo insert points
• Independent Main and Alternate Monitor outputs
• Direct outputs on all channels
• Talkback facility with adjustable Dim level
• Intuitive cross platform set-up and configuration software and control interface
• High speed External MIDI control via single Ethernet cable

Sigma is due to ship in August 2013.
£2799, $4499, 3359€ + VAT or Sales Tax

Allen & Heath Qu-16

A point of view

Wow, I will admit i did not read all 15 pages.... I have been away from this forum for a while, looks like i missed out on allot of fun...:cool:

The difference everyone hears between Analog and Digital is the deference in how the signal is processed. Each one has there own sonic signature (really its just distortion)

Analog distortion has a more natural hormonic (in truth, a distortion our ears have been trained to hear since the turn of the 20th century) over the sampled distortion seen in Digital audio. Usually caused by the dither frequency / smoothing of the square or edged wave (insert what ever you want to call it here) when converted back to analog. Over the years ADC and DAC have improved, with greater sampling rates you get a better picture along with a higher low pass filter. Bottom line. You can see the deference on a scope when comparing a pure analog signal to a digital signal that was converted to an analog signal. (although you are zoomed in tight on the wave to see it). With such a small difference between signals, most feel that it is insignificant when compared to the benefits gained when using a digital recorder/editor/mixing solution. What ever brand you want to place here. Summing, well one uses a mathematical equation to sum signals, the other uses moving electrons.... IS there going to be a deference,,,, Like comparing oranges to apples. This could get very technical, but i will save that for another day. Yes, there is deference, it comes down to whether or not you are comfortable with it or not. It comes down to your ears, not what people say, or others recommend. Both approaches work, its up to the user to decide how. :)

Recording solely in analog today is not only hard work, it is very expensive (has anyone priced a reel of 2" tape lately?) Hard work as in, editing is not so simple, it is in and of itself a form of art. Due to expense and ease of editing, we move into the next phase of the recording industry. Hybrid. By using analog equipment to sum digital signals we lower the distortion that was added by the digital process, by adding analog distortion to the signal at a greater level. The digital distortion is still there, just not as "loud" as the THD added by the analog console, summing network, (what ever is the trend piece here)...etc...

Its not that digital is to clean, because in fact it isn't. It's just not the kind of distortion we have accustomed our selves in hearing. So i say this, pick your THD and roll with it. diddlydoo

Joel

Wow, I would like to weigh in but looking at the general tone and tenor of this forum I am concerned about the possible variants of flame responses I have noticed:
1. You are a dumbass because you just joined the forum -- how dare you defile this thread with your newbie-ness?
2. You are a dumbass because it all depends on the glorious talent of the engineer (namely moi!)
3. You are a dumbass because, we'll, I'm not even going to waste my time justifying what a dumbass you are... It would be beneath me to do so.

Hey, if somebody doesn't articulate everything exactly the way you might, that doesn't mean they're a dumbass. Maybe they just don't speak English as well as you or maybe they are quite as eloquent. The graceful conversationalist reads between the lines and finds the essence of the question or statement and then adds something of value or stays quiet. I see nothing worthwhile in trouncing a genuine question unless it's the only ego gratification one gets in life. It's a little like mixing isn't it? Look inside and see what can be, then make it better, otherwise don't play with the newb, er, I mean knob.

"The graceful conversationalist reads between the lines and finds the essence of the question or statement and then adds something of value or stays quiet."

You should heed your own lessons :) In any event you should have been around 5 or 6 years ago if you think it is difficult to get a word in edge wise with these people. I remember one guy in question blew a gasket over the "messenger" type spelling, which is more relate-able to "texting" these days, still poor excuses for English in any country.

I guess what I am trying to say is this: "If you come here looking for a war of words you will most likely go down in flames. And you must remember only one thing, you came in here with this poor excuse for an attitude. But I might be willing to bet you that before you are shown the door you will be given the chance to prove your point, whatever it might be."

But if it is in fact a piss and crack war on your part...your presence here will be short lived.

Fair enough, Space. This probably does look like a poor excuse for an attitude -- but I did spend quite a bit of time *reading* before I ventured a post, so this mini-rant was not formulated in a vacuum. I think the basic thrust of my post was anti-flame, not pro-flame! :biggrin:

Look, I HATE the futility of forum testosterone spraying -- who has the time? Wouldn't it be refreshing to simply be able to put a question out there without having to mentally sculpt it into something so smooth it cannot possibly be pedantically attacked?

Anyway, I came here to (hopefully) talk about how we can all get better results with the gear we have, or can reasonably hope to have.

Jms4th, post: 406779 wrote: Wow, I would like to weigh in but looking at the general tone and tenor of this forum I am concerned about the possible variants of flame responses I have noticed:
1. You are a dumbass because you just joined the forum -- how dare you defile this thread with your newbie-ness?
2. You are a dumbass because it all depends on the glorious talent of the engineer (namely moi!)
3. You are a dumbass because, we'll, I'm not even going to waste my time justifying what a dumbass you are... It would be beneath me to do so.

Hey, if somebody doesn't articulate everything exactly the way you might, that doesn't mean they're a dumbass. Maybe they just don't speak English as well as you or maybe they are quite as eloquent. The graceful conversationalist reads between the lines and finds the essence of the question or statement and then adds something of value or stays quiet. I see nothing worthwhile in trouncing a genuine question unless it's the only ego gratification one gets in life. It's a little like mixing isn't it? Look inside and see what can be, then make it better, otherwise don't play with the newb, er, I mean knob.

Jms4th, post: 406784 wrote: Fair enough, Space. This probably does look like a poor excuse for an attitude -- but I did spend quite a bit of time *reading* before I ventured a post, so this mini-rant was not formulated in a vacuum. I think the basic thrust of my post was anti-flame, not pro-flame! :biggrin:

Look, I HATE the futility of forum testosterone spraying -- who has the time? Wouldn't it be refreshing to simply be able to put a question out there without having to mentally sculpt it into something so smooth it cannot possibly be pedantically attacked?

Anyway, I came here to (hopefully) talk about how we can all get better results with the gear we have, or can reasonably hope to have.

First I would like to say, welcome.

You do realize this topic is posted in a hybrid thread, which in itself is a big step beyond newbie if not down right overkill , way over most peoples heads in a digital world that works just fine as is for the MASS. Not something a newbie or a novice would comprehend or appreciate that's for sure.

I'm doing this for years already and its even hard for me to understand let alone explain the things I am learning to the general public. If you don't have it, you cannot appreciate it.
And if you've never experienced great analog gear, you're really out of your league on this one anyway. Thats not saying you can't make a hit recording using Garageband or a Korg workstation, but don't come here beaking off about attitude if you've never experienced the high voltage that gets me cranked up like looking at a beautiful women. Your rant isn't saying much more than WTF are you doing 2 posts into our forum? This is all you have to say?

So, the general vibe in this crowd or topic should have a bit more confidence, experience, passion which, looking from the outside in may appear arrogant to the less informed. Someone who lives hybrid however, and is getting great results realizes words are not arrogant at all. We are very passionate and excited to share our findings. I personally think its far from how you see it.

Had this been posted in a "newbie" forum, i doubt most of the people engaging in this thread would even bother to discuss these things with the same tonality. It would be pointless discussing much more than plug-ins and vst. Thus, why we created a hybrid forum in a pro audio category. It is for the people who get it and want little to do with newbies noise.

So, that being said, your point is?

perhaps a little respect or even reverence for the advice of seasoned pros would go a long way to mellowing some of the "attitude" displayed by them. it's hard to treat a newbie with any degree of modicum when all that comes from them is, "What do you know your old and the music you liked sucks .. We sound like crap because that's how we want it to sound".

then they post a song with that the drums sound like sneakers in a dryer, no melody, two chords, everyone playing the same chords in the same positions, bridges, chorus's and verses that can't be told apart and absolutely no dynamics, tension building or release that was smashed to sh*t with 2-bus compression and get pissed off when they are told they are "dumb asses".

Haha, now that is funny... Drums sound like "sneakers in a dryer". Good one.

Here's my deal. I have taken a long break from the world of professional recording but as someone once said, "you can never leave". I am looking at the sad state of my gear on a post-divorce financially melted world , wondering if I have the grits to start the studio building thing all over again. My Pro Tools rig is obsolete -- I might donate it to the Smithsonian. The only mixer I have is a DM-/24 with meter bridge. I am not thrilled with the quality of mixes on that board but I have to make do until some side projects pay off. I think my room is pretty decent so I don't think that's the issue and I am monitoring through 1030As. I can never really shake that semi-flat quality no matter how hard I try and it can be frustrating. So, I am thinking about trying some Dangerous gear to see what effect that might have.

To address your point, I suppose there are different manifestations
of arrogance -- I am not trying to proscribe your use of the term "dumbass" should the situation warrant it! :-). In some cases it is merited, and even if not I suppose it's a part of putting yourself "out there". It was simply a way I chose to criticize what I have seen (and ironically, not even really so much in this particular thread) as a sort of insular knee-jerk response to less than slickly crafted queries. I hope that makes sense and doesn't dig the hole deeper!

Really, in my experience, the people at the pinnacle of their profession are, if anything, kinder and more charitable.

I come home and open my email, to find that there has been some activity in this here thread, not really aware of what i may find and of course not reading the snipit that comes in the email before hitting the link...... WOW.... I was expecting some ones argument for this gear or that approach, never would i have foreseen Jms4th change the topic in the way he did...

If you wanted attention, you got it...

although it was written to express an observation it most certainly was also intended to shake the pot to see what would come of it... Well I like my drinks stirred not shaken...

If, your intent is to find an HONEST answer to a question, find how others may view a product/piece of gear or learn new ways to record something etc... This is the place for you. However, if spending time to evaluate the overall "demeanor" of the forum is of more importance to you, then a professional audio forum is place you may not want to tread. Audio carries allot of passion and everyone here holds to their views passionately, sometimes that can come out in a harsh and rude manner. But understanding the passion allows you to understand the individuals expression. Nothing is personal here unless you make it that way. There will always be that one that will get under your skin, but in the end you decide if this forum will be helpful to you.

my 2 cents...duh

Oh man, not what I wanted...

Gette, post: 406789 wrote: I come home and open my email, to find that there has been some activity in this here thread, not really aware of what i may find and of course not reading the snipit that comes in the email before hitting the link...... WOW.... I was expecting some ones argument for this gear or that approach, never would i have foreseen Jms4th change the topic in the way he did...

If you wanted attention, you got it...

although it was written to express and observation it most certainly was also intended to shake the pot to see what would come of it... Well I like my drinks stirred not shaken...

If, your intent is to find an HONEST answer to a question, find how others may view a product/piece of gear or learn new ways to record something etc... This is the place for you. However, if spending time to evaluate the overall "demeanor" of the forum is of more importance to you, then a professional audio forum is place you may not want to tread. Audio carries allot of passion and everyone here holds to their views passionately, sometimes that can come out in a harsh and rude manner. But understanding the passion allows you to understand the individuals expression. Nothing is personal here unless you make it that way. There will always be that one that will get under your skin, but in the end you decide if this forum will be helpful to you.

my 2 cents...duh

OK, I have already been misquoted... Gette, audiokid, et al, I promised Space earlier that I would not get into crossing the streams with you guys. Maybe you guys are all outta my league. I'm sorry if I curdled your martini. howdy

jms4th - I actually do not like martini's.... And for the record, thank you for making me laugh.... welcome to the forum...

Thanks guys, sorry I busted through the door like Kramer on Seinfeld.

Wow..

Back to the original topic..
I had a recent experience when mixing at a high end studio, the bass was tracked with way too much low mid frequencies and was colliding with kick drum heavily around 125 hz. I had some downtime waiting for the band to arrive, after eq'ing that issue with a Api 560 PLUG-IN and then feeling that something was "missing", I then bypassed the plugin and ran it outboard to an actual 560 eq, set to the same settings, it fixed the problem but didn't feel like there was a anything missing from the bass sound, sounded as if it were just tracked that way, Am I crazy?

ChrisH, post: 406932 wrote: Wow..

Back to the original topic..
I had a recent experience when mixing at a high end studio, the bass was tracked with way too much low mid frequencies and was colliding with kick drum heavily around 125 hz. I had some downtime waiting for the band to arrive, after eq'ing that issue with a Api 560 PLUG-IN and then feeling that something was "missing", I then bypassed the plugin and ran it outboard to an actual 560 eq, set to the same settings, it fixed the problem but didn't feel like there was a anything missing from the bass sound, sounded as if it were just tracked that way, Am I crazy?

This is not crazy. I have the same experience when I use my 550bs and then the waves plug. When I use waves q-clone it sounds much closer then their models????? To me this doesn't mean the plugs suck. It means that when I open a modelled plug I should not be expecting the analog gear. I should use it for what it does. Great mixes can be had ITB.

the way modifications of a signal are applied are different in analog vs digital. digital models a result while analog actually changes the sound via amplification subtraction / addition. digital modelling may include phase shifts that would be made in analog but still the results can be slightly different.

in the end good results may be achieved using either but if an artist paints the same exact picture twice using different mediums the results will not be the same.

i have used both digital and analog and had good results with either but my preference is still in high quality analog. however current market conditions are prohibitve to analog. cost of studio space, maintenance and tape prevent all but the deepest pockets to explore the advantages of quality analog recording. in the end i see digital as good enough and analog as better.

ChrisH, post: 406932 wrote: Wow..

Back to the original topic..
I had a recent experience when mixing at a high end studio, the bass was tracked with way too much low mid frequencies and was colliding with kick drum heavily around 125 hz. I had some downtime waiting for the band to arrive, after eq'ing that issue with a Api 560 PLUG-IN and then feeling that something was "missing", I then bypassed the plugin and ran it outboard to an actual 560 eq, set to the same settings, it fixed the problem but didn't feel like there was a anything missing from the bass sound, sounded as if it were just tracked that way, Am I crazy?

Did you blind A/B it under controlled conditions? No, because you were in somebody else's high end studio. So, you are left wondering because aural memory is fleeting and the subjective differences are so minuscule. I have heard it said that the goal of digital is to emulate analog. Does anyone know of any such comparisons (published) .between plugs and the outboard gear they are emulating (obviously with different degrees of success).

I'm seriously considering selling some outboard pres to purchase a toft atb16 for summing, and 16 channels of analog eq. I think i would sum it to a separate converter and computer.

I have been an audio engineer for the last fifteen years. When I started we used ADAT M20s (the flagship 20-bit versions) in a 32-track studio with an analog console and outboard processors from Summit, Nightpro (NTI/Maag), Orban, UA, etc, etc. We had about 48 channels on mixdown. We also had a closet full of mics from Neumann, RCA, Shure, Sennheiser, CAD (when they were made in the USA), and other great mics. We had a DW kit and a whole slew of vintage instruments and amps. It was a top class project/commercial studio for the late nineties. We also had a 24 inch Sony 2" tape machine (with Dolby SR) and a Studer 1/2". While I was considered by my superiors to be a talented engineer who got promoted to chief engineer at the place at the age of 20, my recordings, listening back to them now, are nothing to be considered amazing. They were fine, sure, but nothing to write home about. They weren't recorded to tape but they were mixed in realtime on an analog console with very expensive outboard gear.

Nowadays I have a small hybrid setup with Lynx and Apogee converters, Class-A mic pres (I have two vintage Chilton consoles) and a modest collection of microphones. I have one outboard compressor/mic preamp - a TL Audio C1. The C1 is not considered the best of the best but it's a full-voltage tube processor that works great for what I use it for, which is mostly compressing vocals and bass and for use as a preamp/DI. I have a small summing box - a Dangerous D Box - and mix mostly ITB with four stereo stems to the D Box.

I am making the best recordings I have ever made in my career thus far and I can tell you, it has about 5% to do with the platform or gear. Sure, we find things we like but for the most part, and as far as EQ goes, the Cubase channel EQ is good enough for me. I've never understood the subtle differences in certain pieces of gear, particularly EQs. Maybe I'm just naive or haven't A/Bed the right ones, but if I need something a little brighter, I turn up a 10K shelf and it's brighter. Whether it's on an outboard EQ or on the channel EQ in Cubase, my ears tell me it's pretty much the same results. Maybe I'm just more of a forest than a trees kind of guy. I will admit that compressors have a wider margin of flavour, however, but honestly, to my ears the plugin emulations available are just fine and give me what I want. Maybe I'm just a product of the digital age and don't know better? Either way, I work within that realm and my workflow is tuned to it so I use the tools therein to produce what I consider to be the best results I can muster.

Ya know, a fully analog studio costs a fortune. Spending large amounts of money - and I don't care who you are - WILL sway your opinions because it's human nature to want to believe you've spent your money on something that was worth it, especially considering how much we pay for high end gear. I believe firmly in that but it's difficult to prove or disprove because it's a psychological issue. The gear, the software, the whatever are all tools and that's what they should be seen as. A $5000 compressor is not going to make a vocalist sing better. The best preamps in the world or 2" tape won't make a drummer play better. The best console or summing box won't make a mix better. At least, not until you identify its strengths and mix INTO those strengths. I am a firm believer in the influence of the performance, the placement of the microphones, and the ears and skills of the engineer over any other piece of mind-numbing minutia in this audio game. It's tiring to constantly discuss the merits of one EQ over another. The laughable part - and Kenny Gioia has said this many times - is that the end listener is completely oblivious, nor would he give a rats ass - what EQ was used on the kick drum or which console you summed the mix on.

Another thing that's more important than gear, platform or any other minutia of this audio madness is the vibe of the recording and mixing space. Even THAT has more impact on the resulting sound than any circuit design. I am a firm believer in that as well. Shit recordings have been made on the best equipment in the world because of A. an ill equipped band and B. a ill equipped engineer. To me that proves THE GEAR IS INCIDENTAL TO THE MAKING AND RECORDING OF MUSIC.

If you notice the "engineering" it's not music.

Cheers :)