Digital vs Analog Mastering A/B.. Wavs Posted

[Bang]

So we have a Manley Vari Mu here. Great mastering comp. So we mastered a tune by using a Waves Linear Eq, then out to the Manley which did about 1db of compression, then back into the workstation by clipping the a/d (Lavry Gold) a bit and then we used 4db of brickwall peak limiting. The results were nice. But I wanted to see if I could duplicate it with digital tools. So I replaced the Manley with a Waves Rennaissance Compressor, used the T-Racks Clipper in place of clipping the A/Ds, and did the master all digitally while referencing the analog master. So the difference between the "analog" master and "plugins" master was about 11,000 dollars of gear.

So here are three files. One is the analog master, one is the plugins master, and the other is a drums up master for Stefan. But which do you guys like best? And remember, these are pretty loud.. I didn't start the loud wars, but I do have to play the game so please save the "they all sound way too loud".

www.slatestudios.com/music/one.wav

www.slatestudios.com/music/three.wav

www.slatestudios.com/music/drums.wav

[Casey]

Hard to say without knowing these plugs very well, but I have heard my varimu suck the life out of guitars before just like in "two". So... I don't care for "two", the others sound nice.

[anotherslut]

to my ears, 'one' sounds like it's moving through the manley tubes.

if i'm right, my pick would be the analog master.

peace

[tmcconnell]

This is super compressed stuff to begin with, so in the overall dynamic range picture, its actually a pretty narrow.

#1 to me sounds like too much gauze over the lens. sweet, but, guess what, that music was never supposed to be sweet was it? Edge helps that stuff.

#2 sounds more musical, and the low end grabs better and faster and the high end hasn't been turned into fm radio cowpile. - much better, I thought.

#3 has way too much going on infrasonic, but still lacks definition in the high end. Like it was a multiband and the highs were being compressed but the lows slow limited, or something. Kinda yuk.

I think a lot of analog is correcting for the mp3 factor - and each day, I pray for all compressors to removed from most music.

[Mike Chav]

1 was the best to me, followed by 3 and lastly the 2nd one which sounds like a ren comp to me-----but i could be wrong...

[Bang]

I'm going to change things a bit.

First compare one and three. One of these is the manley/lavry combo and the other is the RennComp/TRacksClipper combo. Decide which between one and three you like better, or if you find them to be similar which is what I was going for. Then let me know where two fits in the picture. I appreciate this,

[T_R_S]

None of the Above

[H-Rezz]

Instead of trying to pick what is analog and what is digital i will just give my preferences in sonics and be surprised by what it actually ends up being

My Favourite is Wav3 , followed by Wav1 and lastly Wav2...

Wav3 for it's clarity,detail and punch , Wav2 because it almost sounds like Wav1 but with 0.1% more mud and finally Wav2 which isn't far from the others but not quite there , but without a comparison to anything else Wav2 would still sound good.

I must say though , if i am having difficulty placing digital and analog it speaks volumes for how far digital has actually come in emulated it's hardware predessesors and the charcteristics or tranformers,op amps, tubes etc.

[neilwight]

i dont want to rag on your thread however it doesnt seem like its perhaps as valid a comparison as the topic suggests.
id hardly call using LinEQ then out to a manley, back in and limiting inside the computer an analog mastering chain in the first place. its just a software setup with a manley in the middle
secondly you are then using what IMHO are less than adequete mastering tools on the digital side and then using them to try to replicate the sound of the first rather than using them with the prime aim of achieving the best material result from a sonic perspective

also theres no mention of converters used etc.

while i do take that you were doing this as much for interest as anything else, its perhaps more a DIY budget mastering vs DIY prosumer mastering A/B

[Gomez]

Between 1 and 3...

I like 3 better.

[pingu]

Originally Posted by neilwight

i dont want to rag on your thread however it doesnt seem like its perhaps as valid a comparison as the topic suggests.
id hardly call using LinEQ then out to a manley, back in and limiting inside the computer an analog mastering chain in the first place. its just a software setup with a manley in the middle
secondly you are then using what IMHO are less than adequete mastering tools on the digital side and then using them to try to replicate the sound of the first rather than using them with the prime aim of achieving the best material result from a sonic perspective

also theres no mention of converters used etc.

while i do take that you were doing this as much for interest as anything else, its perhaps more a DIY budget mastering vs DIY prosumer mastering A/B

Yes i agree.

But i am an advocate for these types of tests,
for the fact that i believe digital mastering with plugs is quite capable of achieving
awesome results. Again its the man behind the gear.


FWIW
2 didn't seem too good to me though.

[pingu]

Originally Posted by Gomez

Between 1 and 3...

I like 3 better.

Why

[pingu]

3 is 0.1 of a db louder and also has more bottom end from 30 hz down

up to around
3db peaks.

I dont really know what to say to this without more info.

That is a big difference really.

[pingu]

I think a good way of evaluating the difference between outboard and analog more consistently would be to

grab 10 guys half with the best of the best analog and 5 guys with the best of the best digital. Now these guys have to have similar abilities also.

Then over the period of a month or 2 get the guys all to master about 10 songs.
As best as they can. Then submit these songs for review and voting and judgement.

But before they are reviewed they need to be listened to at the same apparent listening levels.

Then once the votes are in. Reveal which guys did what with what.
And which ones were favoured.

[heathen]

Number 3 sounds like the Manley though I've never heard one it sounds thicker and richer as described by people, 1 sounds more sybilant has slighltly more definition though less warmth. 2 sounds a touch thin. My fav is 3 but they both sound reasonable just different. I bet the analog mastered stuff will always sound better at a high spl. Though as mentioned it is essentially a digital master with a Manley thrown in.What converters were you using? Is clipping cool these days?Some of your waveforms were flat on the high transients. That will sound worse the louder it gets on a stereo. I use three stages of soft compression to maximise levels without adversely affecting a waveform and without digitally clipping it. An analog eq is a must also (well I think) unless your needing a surgical digi eq just to notch a nasty band.
I think they sound ok though,but I'll post back after I listen at a higher volume.

[StefanColson]

Three has some high end stuff that I don't like (sounds like MP3 compression artifacts to me), just sounds a little smeary. I don't know how to describe it without using stupid audio words, but one just has more air and clarity.

That being said, three also has a little more bite in the guitars and is a little more agressive. There's a little more for the ear to latch on to, wheras with one it's easier to kind of gloss over at the wall of sound.

One sounds more like a record, and is my fav. It just is much more open than three is. Three has more edge to it, but it serves to muddy up the sound too much.

Two sounds like one with some low mids cut out and a little boost in the bite range on the guitars.

Three has a great low end and nice aggressive guitars, but overall it's too dense and lacks the space that the others have. One breathes to me, and three is a bit claustrophobic (it makes it sound like a lower bit-rate mp3 which I know it's not).

My order of preference:
1: One
2: Two
3: Three

That being said, they're pretty similar, and I listened to each a good three or four times before posting. At first the differences are pretty small, and without the comparison all would probably be great on their own.


Another note on the mixes: Bang, this is probably my least favorite mix I've heard from you. The normal punch that you get seems to be missing, and the drums on this cut sound kind of anemic. Doing anything differently with the drums? It still sounds great, but it's totally different than the stuff I was hearing from you a while back.

[Ollie]

This was a simple test, but mastering is not that simple.

The sessions I have gone thru, the engineers can split the signal and listen to the middle image and the side images. If needed, they can process these differently.

Then I have seen them chain eq's and comps together to process each of those images seperately.

Multi comps - each one takes a little nibble to treat a sonic area to their liking.
Same with analog eq's.

It was quite interesting.

[Bang]

Originally Posted by neilwight

i dont want to rag on your thread however it doesnt seem like its perhaps as valid a comparison as the topic suggests.
id hardly call using LinEQ then out to a manley, back in and limiting inside the computer an analog mastering chain in the first place. its just a software setup with a manley in the middle
secondly you are then using what IMHO are less than adequete mastering tools on the digital side and then using them to try to replicate the sound of the first rather than using them with the prime aim of achieving the best material result from a sonic perspective

also theres no mention of converters used etc.

while i do take that you were doing this as much for interest as anything else, its perhaps more a DIY budget mastering vs DIY prosumer mastering A/B

First off, most top mastering engineers use an outboard eq and an outboard comp in their chain. I used one of the two because frankly, a 30Hz hi pass and -1 at 200Hz was all the mix needed and I like cutting with linear phase eq, just as most mastering engineers use Weiss which is code in a box, but some very big ones actually use Waves stuff like their Lin EQ and Multiband and even de-esser. Plus, the very top three mastering engineers in country that I've used to master in the past use plugin limiters in their workstation. So visit a top ME.

And you say my digital tools are less then adaquate. You're wrong. The T Racks clipper to me sounds almost identical to clipping the Lavry Gold, which is the A/D we borrowed for this test. Again, visiting the top mastering guys in the country and you'll find a Lavry Gold. You'll also probably find a 3700 dollar Manley Vari Mu. The Timeworks limiter is the best one I've heard, way better then the L2 which again, you'll find it TOP MASTERING chains. Do you get it now? We have a Manley Massive Passive here too, but the mix just didn't need it. The difference between my "analog chain" and the digital plugins chain is about $11,000. So find me a prosumer DIY budget guy using these tools. I'll wait.

And if my digital tools such as the Renn Comp is just crap, you should EASILY be able to tell which is which. Lets hear it.

I'm doing this test because in an effort to improve my mastering chain, I've borrowed a ton of gear. But before I start putting money down, I was curious to see if I could match the sound with plugins. And I think I came close. What do you think?

[Bang]

Originally Posted by StefanColson

Three has some high end stuff that I don't like (sounds like MP3 compression artifacts to me), just sounds a little smeary. I don't know how to describe it without using stupid audio words, but one just has more air and clarity.

That being said, three also has a little more bite in the guitars and is a little more agressive. There's a little more for the ear to latch on to, wheras with one it's easier to kind of gloss over at the wall of sound.

One sounds more like a record, and is my fav. It just is much more open than three is. Three has more edge to it, but it serves to muddy up the sound too much.

Two sounds like one with some low mids cut out and a little boost in the bite range on the guitars.

Three has a great low end and nice aggressive guitars, but overall it's too dense and lacks the space that the others have. One breathes to me, and three is a bit claustrophobic (it makes it sound like a lower bit-rate mp3 which I know it's not).

My order of preference:
1: One
2: Two
3: Three

That being said, they're pretty similar, and I listened to each a good three or four times before posting. At first the differences are pretty small, and without the comparison all would probably be great on their own.


Another note on the mixes: Bang, this is probably my least favorite mix I've heard from you. The normal punch that you get seems to be missing, and the drums on this cut sound kind of anemic. Doing anything differently with the drums? It still sounds great, but it's totally different than the stuff I was hearing from you a while back.

Well its more of a guitar and vocal mix. And its a bit louder then past mixes which makes the drum smack sink a tiny bit. As the song continues there is a drum break where you can really hear the depth and smack of the drums. My old mixes were very drums up and sure, they are fun for engineers to listen to, but the idea of the song gets lost with all that drum up. This song centers around the guitar and vox. When I finally get the isochrone and do the Big Ben A/B, I'll use a song that has more drums.

EDIT: Through some simple MS processing and some Multiband, I took the guitars down and I'll post that master. I dig it. Thanks Stefan.

[hrn]

2: the most musical to my ears
3: about the same as 1 but slightly nicer
1: think it has some sizzly high end I don't like

All three are quite hard to my ears. Very nice mix and production though but could need some kind of "vinylizer" to soften it a bit.

Hans

[Bang]

for Stefan.. a little MS processing and some Multiband and here is a master that is more drummy like my older stuff, let me know if you dig:

www.slatestudios.com/music/drums.wav

[RKrizman]

I like 1 the best. Seems bigger, more exciting, more real. 3 sounds like plugins to me, but who knows?

Great stuff, BTW.

-R

[kaipiranha]

I agree 100% with RKrizman.

Kai

[Bang]

I was hoping some fresh ears would help me with this issue but now I'm just more confused. I was planning on dishing out the dough for either the Manely or the Pendulum. Dunno now.

one.wav is the Waves Renn Comp to the T Racks Clipper

three.wav is out to the Manley Vari Mu doing 1 db of compression and then outputing some tubeness into the Lavry Gold A/D.

Both files were brought up the last few dbs with the Timeworks limiter.

two.wav which is not there any more was me using the converters on a Fostex DAT machine instead of the Lavry.

Hmmm.

[JP11]

I didn't get a chance to listen..just an observation...

whenever anyone does a test like this, I don't think I've ever seen one with a clear cut "winner"...

and this is with people who are into audio and listening critically...

[heathen]

Number 3 was quite easy to pick as the manley,as it sounds exactly the way as described by many people,thick and gooey,that being said I'm glad I bought the Pendulum es8 instead as it imparts more of a hifi type sound when used on the main stereo outs,without making the bottom end too mushy.
My stereo chain consists of an Avalon ad 2055 an Al smart c2 and a Pendulum es8 with Apogee rosetta 200 conversion. The al smart is great for the faster transients and the es8 tames the slower transients extremely well,sometimes with the avalon I dont even use the eq though just patching it in and turning it on imparts a nice sound.
I'd still like a Manley though ,but I'll wait till I find one for a bargain.

[inlinenl]

I should not be doing this .....

talk about space ... three is much more deeper ...

[guid0]

Maybe it's the ganja talking
or my cheap PC speakers are just really lame, but I don't hear that much of a diff between any of these tracks.

[neilwight]

pingu,
i see your point and often look in on these with some interest. in this case however i dont feel something like this can be an accurate indication of whether digital can provide "awesome results". its flawed in so many ways that its almost useless from this perspective.

bang,
i am an ME, (www.conclusorn.co.uk).
my experience of the weiss ( i actually recently took the algorithmix EQ over the weiss eq) and similar tools are that they are great for clean or surgical work. any heavy lifting or shaping is always better served with good analog outboard EQ IMHO. i do also like my LinEQ and use it frequently here on projects though dont care for its highpass filter. often changes 2k area too much for me. linEQ lowband can work better though since ive had algorithmix the waves has hardly been on.
i totally disagree with your thoughts on t-racks. it offers sonically compromised results and i find it way less than acceptable to use on anything. its a guitar amp style plugin pack IMHO however as always YMMV. as for the clipping sounding as good as clipping a lavry,hmmm.

again i'll say.
this test would have been more interesting if you had run the first chain for the best result you could achieve then ran the second with the same aim, not just simply trying to recreate that of the first. this would have provided two tracks, each with different chains used to create the best result they could. this may have told you more than the way its currently structured.
i take your point ref EQ if the mix didnt require anything an analog EQ could offer however this then IMHO alters the summary of the test to something along the lines of regular mastering vs software only. it may seem pedantic but its not a very full test as it stands.

ref the manley etc.
i had a manely, pendulum es8 and ocl-2 in here alongside the thermionic culture phoenix. i choose the phoenix over everything else and have not regretted it.
the manley lacked some definition in the bottom end for me and could only do that manley sound. the pendulums were amazing but could only do transparent. they worked amazingly well on some acoustic material but really didnt do too much on hiphop and electronic tracks i tested. the phoenix was the best of the bunch. tighter low end than the manley, could be nice and coloured if required but also as clean as the pendulum if the input drive was turned down. very versatile and a very nice addition here.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by Bang

I was hoping some fresh ears would help me with this issue but now I'm just more confused. I was planning on dishing out the dough for either the Manely or the Pendulum. Dunno now.

one.wav is the Waves Renn Comp to the T Racks Clipper

three.wav is out to the Manley Vari Mu doing 1 db of compression and then outputing some tubeness into the Lavry Gold A/D.

Both files were brought up the last few dbs with the Timeworks limiter.

two.wav which is not there any more was me using the converters on a Fostex DAT machine instead of the Lavry.

Hmmm.

Hey bang.

First off I think many cats around here have been digging your tests so don't let some people rain on your gig. Everyone has a take some people just don't know how to say it without stepping on toes. Everyone is a expert on the internet right? Fook'm.

Second, next time maybe post a big !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ATTENTION RESULTS POSTED BELOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so I don't find out the results before I listen...

fuuck