Oh you meant overproduced radio-friendly bullshit?
This comes up in a shuffle of all my favorite records and sounds perfectly appropriate. But the point being nobody has said it’s obviously an all-digital mix.
I don't know whether they use no analog gear at all. They might use some? I mean, mics and guitar amps are obviously analog equipment. But recording / mixing is according to an AMA they did, mostly digital.
But I don't personally know the engineer, so who knows what track uses what.
I imagine part of the reason many studios still mix analog is because it's what people are used to. They're used to compensating for the little boosts and cuts.
Oh you meant overproduced radio-friendly bullshit?
This comes up in a shuffle of all my favorite records and sounds perfectly appropriate. But the point being nobody has said it’s obviously an all-digital mix.
Nope. I'm talking about fundamental qualities of the recording, not anything to do with being 'produced'. Lack of clarity, bass, upper harmonics, and narrow stereo field.
__________________
It's time to take a stand against the synthesizer.
I think he has given off an impression in some interviews that he just tracks straight to digital and does all digital processing. But that doesn't seem to be the case at all. It seems that he records through analog gear, transfers to digital, then mixes with plugins, after imprinting the sound of analog gear first. I have mixed some analog recorded multitracks myself using plugins (free plugins at that), and they ended up sounding pretty nice, considering my low level of experience with mixing. But key to that was that the tracks were recorded with great mics in good rooms to tape and some outboard first. And I have heard other people (on other forums) do really good mixing of all digitally recorded tracks, using only plugins, but the sound just wasn't great (although I could hear the skill in their mixing). And while I recognize my mixing skills not being near what I have heard from these other people, the resulting sound had very similar fundamental qualities to it when doing the same (mixing all digitally recorded tracks).
If you want something sounding more big and commercial than the songs posted by ashcat, how about this?
All recoded digital (it sounds like samples, but it was all recorded through an Apollo interface) and mixed all ITB by Tchad Blake:
Quote:
It was a truly organic process of creation. The band didn’t limit their vision of creativity or the tools to bring their artistry to life. They even resorted to searching the kitchen for “musical instruments”. “I was working on Pro Tools 11 and my Apollo interface, so most of the plugins and tools I used were powered by Universal Audio and acoustic tricks,” says Aurelien. “None of the sounds or effects are MIDI or samplers. In the track, you can hear scissors, knives, and lamps—anything we could find that made a useful noise!”
I don't know whether they use no analog gear at all. They might use some? I mean, mics and guitar amps are obviously analog equipment. But recording / mixing is according to an AMA they did, mostly digital.
But I don't personally know the engineer, so who knows what track uses what.
I imagine part of the reason many studios still mix analog is because it's what people are used to. They're used to compensating for the little boosts and cuts.
Sounds a bit too squashed, but tasty otherwise. Where did you run across information on the recording and mixing?
__________________
It's time to take a stand against the synthesizer.
Sounds pretty good, warm, clear and all those other things to me.
Just hearing a few seconds in the intro to that video, that is pretty much exactly what I don't want to hear from digital. It sounds puffy, no transients, and too much distortion. I would call it 'cartoony'. I suppose for an example of a more popular song that isn't overproduced, this is one example of recorded sound that I like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQqshZbtEQ
__________________
It's time to take a stand against the synthesizer.
I have no idea of anything about the recoridng and mixing, but it lacks any low end weight, is too compressed, too distorted, lacking good clarity. Overall, it just sounds boxy.
I can't really complain about anything there. It sounds fat and with just enough low end weight, but not puffy and still has transients. Has some really nice upper harmonics and a really nice saturation. If I were to nitpick, I would say that it could be a bit less compressed so as to have more depth.
Compare the saturation on the above two recordings. What do you think? I think the second one sounds great. The first one, not so much.
__________________
It's time to take a stand against the synthesizer.
Last edited by brainwreck; 06-12-2019 at 10:24 AM.
Thirty years from now, if civilization is still OK, we'll all be chilling in front of our quantum computers, using heaps of processing power trying to emulate all that lovely aliasing. Everyone longing for those spectral copies folding back in.*
That mix-down sounded nice, but uh, you can't just pick a bunch of tracks and make them poster boy for analog or digital. Great results can be achieved in both realms.
Anyways, I don't think you're going to be convinced so I'll give it a rest now
Just listening to demos of Airwindows console5 and totape4, I have to say that these plugins are so subtle that I couldn't give a shit if they are on or off. But probably like so many other 'analog' plugin demos on youtube, the people demonstrating them are doing so in such a way that the plugins might as well be turned off.
Try Console6. If you're going to hear a difference with any of the "Console" plugins, it's that one. And only if you're using it as intended, which might seem confusing. I haven't tried it yet because I don't find the others to work well for me; either they're too subtle for what I do (I'm already working towards that kind of "clarity" in the mix anyway), or you have to be really careful of the low frequencies you feed it. I don't like having to redo my workflow around a plugin that doesn't necessarily do much for me.
And try ToTape5 (not 4). For that matter maybe just use IronOxide5.
Be careful because some of his plugins introduce extra lows in the 0-10 Hz range. It's not bad with ToTape5 but it caused me an issue in one of his other plugins.
As for your finding digitally recorded/mixed songs which "sound more analog": I think the real "problem" is that when you embrace digital, it's difficult to limit yourself to making sounds which are "like analog" again. You have increased fidelity: greater bandwidth, lower distortion and lower noise floor. I gravitated toward this immediately. I don't hate analog mixes but I like what digital can do. If I have to "think like analog", I have to purposely limit the bandwidth and add distortion in various ways. The mixes you've used as examples sound unappealing to me since they're "so analog" it's almost like eating food that's "too sweet". I can cook like that, but I'm prone to taking it a bit easier on the sugar. I wouldn't be surprised if others feel similarly about it, and that's why you don't hear as many digital mixes which sound the same as analog.
I have tried many of the "tape" emulators and harmonic saturators to get that analog vibe and so far the best success I have had is by:
* pulling the highs on almost every instrument way down and then opening the highs back up just until they start to open up
* reducing attack of some instruments in combination with highs. Like glass bottle hits have too much attack as a rule for me and some cowbell.
* adding some medium room reverb to raw instruments like synths and percussion to push them back in the mix a bit.
Regarding the tape emulators, none of the albums I listen too have any noticeable wow and flutter or hiss so I have no need for what they add.
Harmonic saturation is cool for making instruments "spread" into the spectrum and I like that on snares and vocals mainly. Those tips help me get music finished that my friends are saying wow to. I have asked them for more tips on what needs to be improved in the mixes and they are usually saying, nothing. The mixes are coming out tight, balance spectrally and have a nice solid bottom and top. Good Reaper success here.
As for your finding digitally recorded/mixed songs which "sound more analog": I think the real "problem" is that when you embrace digital, it's difficult to limit yourself to making sounds which are "like analog" again.
I don't agree. I went full on synths, drum machines, plugins for a while. And then I tried to use elements of that for more traditional band oriented music. I eventually found that I wanted to get away from all that completely. Synths, big reverbs, smashed drums, etc., etc. I like drums, guitar, bass, vox. As boring as that may be to some people. With all the electronic stuff and artificial effects, I felt like what I want to do was getting further and further away. Not to mention the additional load of using all that stuff and feeling like wearing way too many hats. Limitations aren't evil. Endless possibilities of mediocrity are.
__________________
It's time to take a stand against the synthesizer.
Last edited by brainwreck; 06-12-2019 at 11:42 AM.
Just hearing a few seconds in the intro to that video, that is pretty much exactly what I don't want to hear from digital. It sounds puffy, no transients, and too much distortion. I would call it 'cartoony'. I suppose for an example of a more popular song that isn't overproduced, this is one example of recorded sound that I like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQqshZbtEQ
That's weird, Vulfpeck sound way more cartoony to me. Their whole schtick is a caricature of old recordings.
From Reddit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulpeck
we usually don't use tape. one cat in LA tracks to tape and that is really fun.
most of it is done trough eq and compression. VULF COMPRESSOR can do it well. pitch variation (WOWO) is a nostalgic sound.
Sometime around the turn of the century, an unknown Japanese DSP engineer engineered a radically weird compression algorithm for the Boss SP-303 Dr. Sample Sampler.
Years passed, and this “Vinyl Sim” compression languished in obscurity, a dark art known only to practitioners of instrumental beatmaking, producers like J Dilla and Madlib.
But then Vulfpeck’s Jack Stratton read about the compression algorithm on a forum and enlisted two friends, Devin Kerr and Rob Stenson (co-founders of Goodhertz), to bring that algorithm to life in a digital form.
So this "vintage" sound is a reproduction of a digital emulation from around 2000... supposedly the worst time for digital audio.
Your example has less transients than the one I posted. It's weird that you would think of digital as having less transients, when that is one of its strengths (and problems to work around).
I don’t use emulations because they’re like presets. I can use ReaEQ and ReaComp to control frequency response and dynamic range exactly the way I want it. I do a lot of preemphasis/deemphasis and often end up with long chains of the same two plugs over and over again.
CoachZ mentioned the one thing that this doesn’t really address very well, and that’s trainsient response/slew rate. I have a couple of JS slew rate limiters that I’ve written for that. There is probably a way to get it out of ReaEQ/ReaComp, but it would get weird fast.
Try Console6. If you're going to hear a difference with any of the "Console" plugins, it's that one. And only if you're using it as intended, which might seem confusing. I haven't tried it yet because I don't find the others to work well for me; either they're too subtle for what I do (I'm already working towards that kind of "clarity" in the mix anyway), or you have to be really careful of the low frequencies you feed it. I don't like having to redo my workflow around a plugin that doesn't necessarily do much for me.
And try ToTape5 (not 4). For that matter maybe just use IronOxide5.
Be careful because some of his plugins introduce extra lows in the 0-10 Hz range. It's not bad with ToTape5 but it caused me an issue in one of his other plugins.
As for your finding digitally recorded/mixed songs which "sound more analog": I think the real "problem" is that when you embrace digital, it's difficult to limit yourself to making sounds which are "like analog" again. You have increased fidelity: greater bandwidth, lower distortion and lower noise floor. I gravitated toward this immediately. I don't hate analog mixes but I like what digital can do. If I have to "think like analog", I have to purposely limit the bandwidth and add distortion in various ways. The mixes you've used as examples sound unappealing to me since they're "so analog" it's almost like eating food that's "too sweet". I can cook like that, but I'm prone to taking it a bit easier on the sugar. I wouldn't be surprised if others feel similarly about it, and that's why you don't hear as many digital mixes which sound the same as analog.
I really like ToTape5 and IronOxide. Very useful and tasty.
My take on the "analogue" thing (since we're discussing it) is that there are a few psychological biases at play.
a. "Nostalgia is a toxic impulse." -John Hodgman. This is not to say that looking back fondly on an era we enjoyed. Rather it's the impulse to recreate that period in the present. This cannot be done. The past must remain in the past, by definition.
No one is immune to this. I certainly am not. The part of our brains that processes feelings of nostalgia is not reliable. It's selective memory and mythology. (None of which are bad things in their proper context.) All my favourite music was recorded in the analogue era. I always assume (and you all do as well, if you're honest with yourselves) that I must recreate my favourite sounds in my own work. If you've followed my logic up to now, you'll understand why this cannot ever happen. Time marches on.
John Lennon addressed this when The Beatles broke up in 1969. The old records exist if we want to reminisce. There's an entire academic career in this, so I'm holding back.
b. I think the analogue workflow is very appealing. Physical knobs, faders, buttons, etc. are tools like flint arrowheads. Humans are very comfortable with the tactile. Desktop computing is a brand-new phenomenon. We're slowly watching the tactile slip away from us. It feels as though the ideas it generated are leaving with it. The way we generated ideas is also fading. Sitting among a few like-minded people banging out a song is how humans have always created. That process is less and less prevalent.
It will, however, always exist. We will always want to play music, tell stories, and dance TOGETHER. This is where the analogue fraternity is in the right. The need for humans to gather is a defining characteristic of our species. Once it's gone, we're no longer humans. We'll be something else. (which isn't bad, I suppose. It's just different.)
c. Superiority of skill, or the "golden-ear" is devoutly to be wished. We all want to be considered gurus/geniuses/prodigies. Competition is also a fundamental human characteristic, particularly among males. We want to win. I can prove any of you wrong, I become superior. I've won. It's an ugly thought in black and white, but it's true nonetheless. There would be no social media if we weren't in competition. I don't believe that how-to videos are altruistic. If they were, they'd be far less biased and much better researched.
If I have real, physical gear and you only have a digital approximation, I've also won the capitalist game. You cannot compete with me. I've won since I possess the "Real THING." (The religious overtones should not be ignored, but I'll leave that too for now.)
Most of us are okay at keeping our egos in check. We probably won't kill a friend for our own glory, but we must remember we are all capable of it. Digital communication can make us less empathetic.
TLR
So, if I were to summarize, I think the analogue fans (which I admittedly sympathize with) is correct to remind us that we may have discarded part of ourselves in our quest for "better." However, to doggedly hold a position that has already lost most of its ground is foolish. The past is past. Accept it. Bring what you can carry and move along.
In the end, as usual, balance is key and personal taste counts for a great deal. If one fellow says he enjoys the sound of a certain thing, who are any of us to tell him differently? Unless, we really do feel like we want to go to war. I doubt we want that. I certainly don't.
That's all.
__________________
"I've never trusted Klingons and I never will. I can never forgive them for the death of my boy."
I don’t use emulations because they’re like presets. I can use ReaEQ and ReaComp to control frequency response and dynamic range exactly the way I want it. I do a lot of preemphasis/deemphasis and often end up with long chains of the same two plugs over and over again.
CoachZ mentioned the one thing that this doesn’t really address very well, and that’s trainsient response/slew rate. I have a couple of JS slew rate limiters that I’ve written for that. There is probably a way to get it out of ReaEQ/ReaComp, but it would get weird fast.
That's what got me into finding a way to tweak low pass and attack at the same time. It lets me find the sweet spot of each.
The part of our brains that processes feelings of nostalgia is not reliable. It's selective memory and mythology. (None of which are bad things in their proper context.) All my favourite music was recorded in the analogue era. I always assume (and you all do as well, if you're honest with yourselves) that I must recreate my favourite sounds in my own work. If you've followed my logic up to now, you'll understand why this cannot ever happen. Time marches on.
This is exactly why I find Vulfpeck, synthwave etc. quite fascinating. They don't sound like old music, they sound like memories of old music.
Agreed with Coachz, Judders, ashcat_lt, and kirk1701.
And brainwreck: aliasing is the least of your concerns in mixes such as the ones you mentioned liking. Especially that Mission of Burma song. Those drums sound like someone popping bubble wrap.
You have to realize how bandwidth-limited these mixes are (and also how strong the mono image is), and how much that affects your perception of the "clarity" etc. (which is a subjective term). Try to avoid definining things too subjectively and focus on what you know you hear. Address that first. The rest is minor by comparison. I hear obvious differences, and I don't care about using very specific plugins to make up subtle differences (this is why I don't care about plugins that emulate specific hardware). When I want some analog-type sound, I decide what aspects I want and how much. With an all-analog workflow (especially on a reasonable budget) you didn't really have that choice.
I don’t use emulations because they’re like presets. I can use ReaEQ and ReaComp to control frequency response and dynamic range exactly the way I want it. I do a lot of preemphasis/deemphasis and often end up with long chains of the same two plugs over and over again.
CoachZ mentioned the one thing that this doesn’t really address very well, and that’s trainsient response/slew rate. I have a couple of JS slew rate limiters that I’ve written for that. There is probably a way to get it out of ReaEQ/ReaComp, but it would get weird fast.
Which saturation plugin do you use in the emphasis/de-emphasis technique, if you don't mind sharing? I am uncertain which, or whether any, of the Cockos/JS saturation effects react in such a way that would make them suitable to use with this technique.
A simpler approach would be to use one of the plugins called "3x3 EQ" or "4x4 EQ". They have a nice drive built in, per band. It works well on lots of sources without sounding gross. "3x3" has more intense drive, but you can also edit the code easily on 4x4 for more drive.
Which saturation plugin do you use in the emphasis/de-emphasis technique, if you don't mind sharing?
I said ReaComp and I meant it.
Since they fixed the knee (a while back now), it’s almost all I use.
Edit - And yes the oversampling doesn’t work but I never wanted to use it anyway. One big issue with anti-aliasing is that it undoes any real hard limit that the non-linearity imposing. In fact, any filter after a hard limit makes it not a hard limit anymore. There is no way to guarantee the absolute maximum output with an oversampled system.
I don't know whether they use no analog gear at all. They might use some? I mean, mics and guitar amps are obviously analog equipment. But recording / mixing is according to an AMA they did, mostly digital.
But I don't personally know the engineer, so who knows what track uses what.
I imagine part of the reason many studios still mix analog is because it's what people are used to. They're used to compensating for the little boosts and cuts.
Since they fixed the knee (a while back now), it’s almost all I use.
Edit - And yes the oversampling doesn’t work but I never wanted to use it anyway. One big issue with anti-aliasing is that it undoes any real hard limit that the non-linearity imposing. In fact, any filter after a hard limit makes it not a hard limit anymore. There is no way to guarantee the absolute maximum output with an oversampled system.
THere are some limiters that do it, not sure how as I'm not a coder.
For example, Vladg Limiter no6 has true ISP limiting that works whether you have the built in 4x oversampling disabled or enabled.
For example, Vladg Limiter no6 has true ISP limiting that works whether you have the built in 4x oversampling disabled or enabled.
I don't know, maybe by some iterative process, but I honestly don't buy it and am not sure you could even prove it in this case. ISP is always an approximation to begin with. Literally just making up values the same way that oversampling does.
I don't know, maybe by some iterative process, but I honestly don't buy it and am not sure you could even prove it in this case. ISP is always an approximation to begin with. Literally just making up values the same way that oversampling does.
I really like ToTape5 and IronOxide. Very useful and tasty.
My take on the "analogue" thing (since we're discussing it) is that there are a few psychological biases at play.
a. "Nostalgia is a toxic impulse." -John Hodgman. This is not to say that looking back fondly on an era we enjoyed. Rather it's the impulse to recreate that period in the present. This cannot be done. The past must remain in the past, by definition.
No one is immune to this. I certainly am not. The part of our brains that processes feelings of nostalgia is not reliable. It's selective memory and mythology. (None of which are bad things in their proper context.) All my favourite music was recorded in the analogue era. I always assume (and you all do as well, if you're honest with yourselves) that I must recreate my favourite sounds in my own work. If you've followed my logic up to now, you'll understand why this cannot ever happen. Time marches on.
John Lennon addressed this when The Beatles broke up in 1969. The old records exist if we want to reminisce. There's an entire academic career in this, so I'm holding back.
b. I think the analogue workflow is very appealing. Physical knobs, faders, buttons, etc. are tools like flint arrowheads. Humans are very comfortable with the tactile. Desktop computing is a brand-new phenomenon. We're slowly watching the tactile slip away from us. It feels as though the ideas it generated are leaving with it. The way we generated ideas is also fading. Sitting among a few like-minded people banging out a song is how humans have always created. That process is less and less prevalent.
It will, however, always exist. We will always want to play music, tell stories, and dance TOGETHER. This is where the analogue fraternity is in the right. The need for humans to gather is a defining characteristic of our species. Once it's gone, we're no longer humans. We'll be something else. (which isn't bad, I suppose. It's just different.)
c. Superiority of skill, or the "golden-ear" is devoutly to be wished. We all want to be considered gurus/geniuses/prodigies. Competition is also a fundamental human characteristic, particularly among males. We want to win. I can prove any of you wrong, I become superior. I've won. It's an ugly thought in black and white, but it's true nonetheless. There would be no social media if we weren't in competition. I don't believe that how-to videos are altruistic. If they were, they'd be far less biased and much better researched.
If I have real, physical gear and you only have a digital approximation, I've also won the capitalist game. You cannot compete with me. I've won since I possess the "Real THING." (The religious overtones should not be ignored, but I'll leave that too for now.)
Most of us are okay at keeping our egos in check. We probably won't kill a friend for our own glory, but we must remember we are all capable of it. Digital communication can make us less empathetic.
TLR
So, if I were to summarize, I think the analogue fans (which I admittedly sympathize with) is correct to remind us that we may have discarded part of ourselves in our quest for "better." However, to doggedly hold a position that has already lost most of its ground is foolish. The past is past. Accept it. Bring what you can carry and move along.
In the end, as usual, balance is key and personal taste counts for a great deal. If one fellow says he enjoys the sound of a certain thing, who are any of us to tell him differently? Unless, we really do feel like we want to go to war. I doubt we want that. I certainly don't.
That's all.
Aye aye.. Nice post. The only thing I would disagree with you on is the statement that "tactile is slipping away from us". Instead I would point out that computers are still in their relative infancy. The hone computer is still stuck more or less in its original incarnation: a box with a screen, keyboard, and mouse. As technology gets more fantastic, I'm sure that UI will become a bigger and bigger focus, I just don't think the tech is quite there.
Nope. They get noisier too (or can). Its up to the model
Analog circuits add lots of things.
Digital only adds what the programmer wants. And aliasing, which the programmer might want, or not...
My point is you can't emulate a mic, a speaker, or a headphone. It'll always be an approximation.
When it comes to stuff like tubes and transformers, there aren't many people around who really understand what's happening. And even those admit that part of it is chance. How would any programmer, even the best, code chance?
__________________
In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
Your ears and brains also only provide you with a (very crude) approximation to the true nature of the air-pressure field surrounding you.
Any given piece of analog gear is only an approximation of even another of the same make and model. Combine it with any other random unit from however many other pieces are in the chain. Which one is right? Give all that exact same gear to three different engineers. Now which one is right? Use it on three different recordings...
R
Linear Mode
