Mastering Plug-ins vs Hardware Controversy

[jdg]

sure.
here was a good thread: Call Me Plug-In Boy

wonder what happened to joes first post.. edited out?

[yeloocproducer]

The top guys use a combination of digital or analog, or just digital or just analog... whatever is appropriate to the track. They're all tools. Just b/c someone has one set of tools (some plugins and a laptop) doesn't make them a mastering engineer. Experience does.

There are other threads here that talk about how Ted Jensen has been known to stay in the computer on a couple of projects, etc. Most likely, those projects already had plenty of analog goodness embedded in the mixes.

[Whitecat]

I would rather have Bob Katz or Ted Jensen or Ray Staff master my record with nothing but software than have some asshat with no experience who had ten million dollars worth of the finest vintage & modern outboard processing and conversion known to man. It's the ears, not the gears...

[thermos]

I heard Bob Ludwig uses mostly plugins/digital stuff now too.......Just what I heard.

[Greg Reierson]

Without a GREAT room, it doesn't really matter that much what box/algorithm you push it through. Mastering is much more about listening than processing.


GR

[heathen]

My firm belief is no most are not up to the task, maybe some people prefer digital sound compared to analog but to me the depth and clarity of a superbly maintained signal path is superior to the best digital systems.

Sure a plug in or digital rack eq could be in the chain, but as long as the conversion back to analog for more prcessing is superb it just does'nt matter.

I'm not a top ME but I've sat in on enough sessions to know that great analog gear is superior for processing an audio signal.

To me pure digitally mastered albums really do lack a lot of the fullness, depth and density of a great analog chain. There is always something nasty happening in the hf and the mids are nearly always harsh when using most plugins. Some people like that sound, it really boils down to preference.

I find the louder I turn these masters up the worse they sound, where as a dynamically intact mostly analog master is the reverse, the louder I turn them up the better they sound to a point.

[DSD_Mastering]

Yes, it's the ears and room. Digital or Analog... it's all good. Just depends on the monkey turning the dials ( or pushing the mouse ).


Regards,

[Online-Mastering]

So true: Ears and room. Because a reference room with a linear frequency response / reverberation gives you the good feeling that you are NOT eqing the mix and adopt the room resonances / sonic issues and fix THEM in the master. An acoustically treated room is a perfect starting point for an honest 'sonic picture' of a track. Now it's up to the good ears to make the best of it

[Masterer]

Originally Posted by terminal3

I would rather have Bob Katz or Ted Jensen or Ray Staff master my record with nothing but software than have some asshat with no experience who had ten million dollars worth of the finest vintage & modern outboard processing and conversion known to man. It's the ears, not the gears...

That's Mr. Asshat to you.


...and I agree, sorta.

[Whitecat]

Originally Posted by Masterer

That's Mr. Asshat to you.


...and I agree, sorta.

my apologies, good sir.

Seriously though, while I certainly value quality outboard, in the end that's gonna be such a small percentage of "the sound" - compared to what the ears/room/experience bring to the master.

[Edward_Vinatea]

Originally Posted by heathen

My firm belief is no most are not up to the task, maybe some people prefer digital sound compared to analog but to me the depth and clarity of a superbly maintained signal path is superior to the best digital systems.

If its clarity what you're looking for then digital delivers a transparent sound with better specs than analog. IMO, digital sound has an important value in the way we record, mix and master records. It is an important tool in a ME's arsenal. Knowing what to use for a given task is as important as knowing how to. Also some people don't realize that there are better digital recording systems, plugins, converters, etc just like there are better expensive sounding analog processors.

Regards,

[nickynicknick]

Originally Posted by heathen

I'm not a top ME but I've sat in on enough sessions to know that great analog gear is superior for processing an audio signal.

That is very debatable...depends what you need at any given point on your audio signal's journey..I disagree with this.

nick

[Plugin]

Hi,

Many of us are replying on the assumtion that we're talking about rock music or something.
There are different kinds of Mastering Engineers. At Deutsche Grammophon, an ME needs to have a Phd in sound engineering and be a classically-trained graduate. Now, that doesn't necessarily make a great ME on its own. George Martin was also a classically-trained musician who had at his disposal all the wonderful tools over at Abbey Road that were used for classical recordings. It was the sum of his learning with the curiosity/creativeness of the Beatles that made that adventurous sound possible. There are ME's working in the film/tv industry who use different tools on different occasions. Whoever assumed that everything gets dithered down to 16/44.1 anyway? In many cases, they will use plugins. They have standard reliable hardware units that are built like tanks, but no tv station is going to run out and buy 10 Fairchilds and having to have to maintain them for the next ten years! So, in general, unless it's for pop music(which, alas, is declining), a lot of plugs are used. That will increase yet more in the coming years!

[RCM - Ronan]

If the mixes come to the mastering engineer in great shape, I think it should be pretty easy to do it all with plug ins, but if heavy lifting for tone sculpting is required than I think analog tools are often superior.

If you hear a mix from Andy Wallace, its pretty much what you hear on the album, but a couple dB softer.

[lucey]

If the mix needs a lot of help the analog comes in really handy. If the mix is great a little digital eq and a limiter and it's done, as RCM said.

Mastering is mostly about the room and what it allows the engineer to do for your record. ("The engineer" includes the gear they choose, and most who can choose anything use mostly analog - for many reasons - draw your own conclusions.) If I came up in this field working a mouse all day or even using a Weiss rack, I'd probably not be doing this for a living, but many people do work that way.

[MASSIVE Master]

can a good ME in a good listening environment make as "professional" and "great" a master using only plug-ins as he/she could make using high end rack gear?

All I can tell you is personal preference -- When my digital stuff makes me smile as much as my analog stuff, I'll drop the analog stuff in a heartbeat. The expense, the maintenance, the note-taking... I can work digitally in fraction of the time with perfect recall at the click of a mouse. But I tend to not do so.

Not that I don't stay ITB on occasion - But usually with classical and such if I'm trying to make as little impact as possible. If I'm actually "doing something" I'm usually using the analog chain.

[Online-Mastering]

All I can tell you is personal preference -- When my digital stuff makes me smile as much as my analog stuff, I'll drop the analog stuff in a heartbeat. The expense, the maintenance, the note-taking... I can work digitally in fraction of the time with perfect recall at the click of a mouse. But I tend to not do so.

A fair answer, that shows that both worlds of processing have advantages. (and that economic advantages are an aspect, too).

Not that I don't stay ITB on occasion - But usually with classical and such if I'm trying to make as little impact as possible. If I'm actually "doing something" I'm usually using the analog chain.

And yes, if a specific sonic texture, a processing 'character' should be audible or is necessary to make to master sound as 'good' as possible, then the analog world still has more quality options to offer.

BUT: Keep in mind what a huge jump digital processing made in the past 10 years. How good -for example- an Algorthmix EQ is doing it's specific job today. Analog events like distortion are still not EASY to model (same for the ever-repeating tape simulation discussion). Keep the impulse reverbs in mind, that brought a new digital way for the mixing guys to bring new types of sampled room reverbs.

So we all can follow the developments in the digital domain very closely.If next year or in 5 or 8 years someone comes up and brings digital compression algorithms that sound truely analog or bring an unheard new digital quality, we ALL would be happy. As the final judge should be the ears and NOT what kind of machine (or pc or dsp) is used to create the sound. If it sounds good, it sounds good. Just my 5 cents.

Arne

[Ben F]

It's a very common debate.

As I like to say, everything begins and ends in analogue. From the power supply to the microphone, to the captured wave to the speakers. There is definitely something different and unique about analogue processing. It can be measured and emulated, but is not quite there yet. I've yet to come across a top mastering engineer that is 100% digital.

[tomdarude]

why settle for one side only?? to save money???


I guess that´s not really a relevant thing for a mastering studio,
after you hopefully invested $ 50 - 80.000,- for an appropriate room+speaker set-up!!

and having 10+ years of experience doesn´t hurt, btw.


analog, digital, who cares....

[kjg]

Originally Posted by tomdarude

analog, digital, who cares....

+1

use the best tools you can afford and that work for you. analog or digital.

monitoring, acoustics, and tools with an interface and sound that works for you, that is what counts.

[heathen]

Originally Posted by nickynicknick

That is very debatable...depends what you need at any given point on your audio signal's journey..I disagree with this.

nick

As I said it's a preferential thing, some like it some don't. Even if analog mastering only gives an extra 3% of sound quality for 10 times the price the final result is worth it to me, when it's forever.

[nickynicknick]

Originally Posted by heathen

As I said it's a preferential thing, some like it some don't. Even if analog mastering only gives an extra 3% of sound quality for 10 times the price the final result is worth it to me, when it's forever.

what's debatable is the fact that an analog stage might not give you that and may even detract...there is no absolutes...just tendancies.

Nick

[Online-Mastering]

ven if analog mastering only gives an extra 3% of sound quality

That's true. If you take the gear itself. This is why it will always a matter of the engineer, the man BEHIND the knobs. Because mastering can add 50% to a not-well mixed track. But it doesn't matter if the engineer uses digital or analog. It's nit about the technology itself. It's about ears and brains that control the gears' parameters.

You can do a perfect master with analog tools as well as with digital tools. The choice of tools is up to you. YOU decide what a track needs. If the decision was right - it's right!

[heathen]

Originally Posted by nickynicknick

what's debatable is the fact that an analog stage might not give you that and may even detract...there is no absolutes...just tendancies.

Nick

This all depends on who's analog stage you're talking about I guess as they all sound different and use different gear, some very heavily modified. This is where it boils down to who you choose to use and stay with as your ME.

1 ME's algorithmix red sounds just the same as any other persons Algorithmix red. Though anyone using analog gear will usually have thier own preferences for what they decide to keep in the signal path. Even the type of mastering console used will have an overall impact on the sound.

If good analog gear is detracting from the sound then yes it is definately the monkey behind the knobs ruining things.

There are absolutes, if your fav mastering dude is good then you know the results you can usually expect and trust them to attain for you.

Anyway I'm not going to hassle anyone about thier preferences, I believe what my ears tell me and I believe you when you tell me you prefer plugins for a lot of stuff.

[heathen]

Originally Posted by Online-Mastering

That's true. If you take the gear itself. This is why it will always a matter of the engineer, the man BEHIND the knobs. Because mastering can add 50% to a not-well mixed track. But it doesn't matter if the engineer uses digital or analog. It's nit about the technology itself. It's about ears and brains that control the gears' parameters.

You can do a perfect master with analog tools as well as with digital tools. The choice of tools is up to you. YOU decide what a track needs. If the decision was right - it's right!

2 perfect masters of the same song by different engineers could sound tonally totally different and still both be right, still there would have to be a preference over 1 for the other in terms of what sounds most pleasing to the person listening.

[Online-Mastering]

2 perfect masters of the same song by different engineers could sound tonally totally different and still both be right, still there would have to be a preference over 1 for the other in terms of what sounds most pleasing to the person listening.

This is part of what I was saying: Two experienced engineers can produce to professional masters, which BOTH could be wonderful and just RIGHT for a listeners' taste.

Basically I meant: Creating a professional well-sounding well-translating master depends significantly more on the engineer who does the job and not so much on the gear that is used.


Arne

[Virtalahde]

I don't understand the debate between analog vs. digital.

I use both. A vast majority of any processing is analog here, but digitally you can do tricks that just are not possible in the analog domain.

For example, linear phase EQ's are not my cup of tea for all-around EQ, but they can be real life savers when used properly.

[Plugin]

All great answers here!

A lot also depends on different circumstances: type of music, context, etc...
I once mastered the sound for a corporate video(). There was a bit of muzak and a lot of dialogue. I didn't need to have a Fairchild or a Neve slapped across the audio track. I'm sure the guy in the suit and tie watching it didn't wonder why the sound guy(me) used an Algorithmix for this project!!!

[Spartacus]

Both are different, and you shouldn't consider them for doing the same job,

for exemple, you can't do surgery like thin "notch" Eqing using analog gear as you will never bring to a mix the colour and texture of a tube compressor with some digital gear.

...as you will never do a white wine from red grapes and vice versa

then it's up to you to prefer Red or White, or both!!