Question for Mr. Katz

[Masterbrother]

Hey Bob,

The following is a quote from your website:

"It used to be a rule that outboard gear outperforms plugins, but some of the highest resolution plugins that we use now equal or exceed the sound quality and resolution of some outboard gear. "

Could you be more specific?

[Edward_Vinatea]

Originally Posted by Masterbrother

Hey Bob,

The following is a quote from your website:

"It used to be a rule that outboard gear outperforms plugins, but some of the highest resolution plugins that we use now equal or exceed the sound quality and resolution of some outboard gear. "

Could you be more specific?

What's there to explain? It's crystal clear.

[Masterbrother]

Thank you Mr. Ka.... I mean Ed.
I mean specifics. What software matches or exceeds what
hardware. Weiss vs. Waves, that sort of thing.
Also, Eddie, have you had your liver function checked?
You look a little jaundiced.

[iangomes]

lol

[Edward_Vinatea]

Originally Posted by Masterbrother

Thank you Mr. Ka.... I mean Ed.
I mean specifics. What software matches or exceeds what
hardware.

I am certainly not going to even try to fill in for Mr. Katz, but any DAW with software doing 32 bit floating point or 48 bit integer processing has not only great SNR, but the dynamic range/resolution to beat the heck out of any analog system's specifications. That's not a secret.

[Masterbrother]

Thanks again for your wonderful insight.
I guess Bob must be working.

[hummer]

i'm no katz, but i think what the OP is getting at is nice outboard *digital* versus plugins.

comparable to the weiss stuff is algorithmix, at least their EQs. i think they're making dynamics processors now as well, but i haven't used them.

comparable to the hardware L2, or TC system 6k limiters, would be stuff like Sonnox, L2 plugin, Ozone, voxengo elephant, and i'm sure there are many others. good brickwall limiters are everywhere.

for compression, i think most people still prefer analog, but someone might chime in and make a few suggestions. i'm not sure if there's really anything that compares to the weiss ds-1 in the plugin world...

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Masterbrother

Hey Bob,

The following is a quote from your website:

"It used to be a rule that outboard gear outperforms plugins, but some of the highest resolution plugins that we use now equal or exceed the sound quality and resolution of some outboard gear. "

Could you be more specific?

Let's just say that the audible (not just measured) performance of many plugs has now reached the transparency, resolution and depth of image that we expect from the best outboard gear. Among them (in no particular order): PSP Xenon, Sonnox Suppressor, Algorithmix Plugins (all as far as I've auditioned), some of the UAD plugs, some of the TC powercore, many more. I try to be a selective individual, but you're pinning someone up against a wall by asking him to name names when there are no official "authorized" objective criteria to go by. But I'm happy enough with the names above to sleep well at night having recommened them :-).

How can anyone authoritatively, objectively, judge the quality of a processor by listening? In truth: NOT!

And processors are meant to alter sound, and one man's artifact is another man's meat! So the names I've mentioned I feel are grade A and above and that's as far as I'd like to go with any list.

There are objective measurements for judging linear phase equalizers for minimum ripple, pre-echo and other artifacts, and for judging non-linear processors for minimum aliasing. And the aforementioned list passes, at least at 96 khz and above. All the standard measurements, such as THD, IM and frequency response, chances are most reasonable plugins these days can pass those tests, but they tell us little or nothing other than that the processor "passes".

[Masterbrother]

Thanks for the succinct answer Bob.
Informative and helpful.

[alcopop]

Although I agree that plugins have come a long way , it is very rare that I would go to a digital compressor over a high end analogue one .
To my ears my Phoenix and Sct-8 win every time over my plugs .
Just my 2 cents .

[Edward_Vinatea]

The fact is that in this digital world-- a unit's phase shift distortion and circuitry oscillation noise which is also characterized by these degrees of 'un-quantized' and rather phase distorted, colored and noisy sound that we call 'analog warmth', only lives in the studio that created it. Having said that, the best gear attributes will do you no good whatsoever if you are not an experienced and skillful audio engineer. As it's been said before, you can own some expensive equipment and just pretend, but that doesn't make you a mastering engineer.

Regards,

[aivoryuk]

Originally Posted by Masterbrother

??????????? Is it me, or does this make no sense whatsoever?

well essentially Edward is saying (or my interpretation) is that it is always the engineer and not the gear that makes the difference.

Having a good room and speakers is more important that the expensive compressor and Eq.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by alcopop

Although I agree that plugins have come a long way , it is very rare that I would go to a digital compressor over a high end analogue one .
To my ears my Phoenix and Sct-8 win every time over my plugs .
Just my 2 cents .

When you say "digital" are you including both plugins and outboard? Many mastering engineers would disagree with you that there are "no satisfactory digital compressors", if you include outboard. But that goes past the original question.

For equalization, however, I find the Algorithmix Red and Blue to be totally satisfactory. The GML digital equalizer is also very nice, very lively. And no one can argue that the repeatability of a digital processor is very attractive (especially for revisions).

Then I might add my API 5500 equalizer in the analog chain set to flat to achieve the transformer distortion and a bit of grit and depth and perhaps some other analog processors, and away we go. See, there's more than one way to skin a Katz...

I currently don't have any "go to" plugin compressors for mastering, but in digital outboard I have THREE Weiss DS1 Mk3 outboard digital compressors in my rack and also the MD4 compressor in my TC System 6000. Someone must be doing somehing right :-) or a lot of mastering engineers must be wrong. In some mastering studios, Weiss is the only compressor in use, especially in Jazz and classical music mastering.

Is it possible for us to get the attitude and power and punch that you get with some of the analog compressors in the digital domain? I think the PSP mastercomp is a candidate for a lot of music, though it has seemed a little too sluggish for me to get "attitude" in rock. That's the issue, when you push many of the digital plugin compressors too far they give up the ghost. But outboard digital, I have been able to achieve the sound I'm looking for with combinations of the above tools, especially MD4 in parallel, it can be very powerful. You have to think outside the box (pardon the pun)... parallel compression can be extremely power in rock and I've done the shootout of the MD4 (in parallel mode) against some of the most powerful analog compressors that I own or have tried (in either parallel or standard mode) and I conclude that it is now totally possible for a talented engineer to achieve "punch and attitude" with an all digital chain.

That said, for rock and pop it's very rare that I don't go through some form of analog stage for some reason or other, usually to add some of the missing spice or warmth or depth or "grit" that currently cannot be obtained with the digital gear.

BK

[donsolo]

Hey Bob,
Using this logic I wanted to then inquire about your opinion of impulse responce usage to add that grit. PSP Vintage Warmer (not for mastering Per Se) comes to mind. Colortone from Tritone digital comes to mind as well.

Is it that it cannot be done with IR or is it that we have not acheived the processing power to do it accurately enough in real time?

[Glenn Bucci]

Originally Posted by bob katz

When you say "digital" are you including both plugins and outboard? Many mastering engineers would disagree with you that there are "no satisfactory digital compressors", if you include outboard. But that goes past the original question.

For equalization, however, I find the Algorithmix Red and Blue to be totally satisfactory. The GML digital equalizer is also very nice, very lively. And no one can argue that the repeatability of a digital processor is very attractive (especially for revisions).

Then I might add my API 5500 equalizer in the analog chain set to flat to achieve the transformer distortion and a bit of grit and depth and perhaps some other analog processors, and away we go. See, there's more than one way to skin a Katz...

I currently don't have any "go to" plugin compressors for mastering, but in digital outboard I have THREE Weiss DS1 Mk3 outboard digital compressors in my rack and also the MD4 compressor in my TC System 6000. Someone must be doing somehing right :-) or a lot of mastering engineers must be wrong. In some mastering studios, Weiss is the only compressor in use, especially in Jazz and classical music mastering.

Is it possible for us to get the attitude and power and punch that you get with some of the analog compressors in the digital domain? I think the PSP mastercomp is a candidate for a lot of music, though it has seemed a little too sluggish for me to get "attitude" in rock. That's the issue, when you push many of the digital plugin compressors too far they give up the ghost. But outboard digital, I have been able to achieve the sound I'm looking for with combinations of the above tools, especially MD4 in parallel, it can be very powerful. You have to think outside the box (pardon the pun)... parallel compression can be extremely power in rock and I've done the shootout of the MD4 (in parallel mode) against some of the most powerful analog compressors that I own or have tried (in either parallel or standard mode) and I conclude that it is now totally possible for a talented engineer to achieve "punch and attitude" with an all digital chain.

That said, for rock and pop it's very rare that I don't go through some form of analog stage for some reason or other, usually to add some of the missing spice or warmth or depth or "grit" that currently cannot be obtained with the digital gear.

BK

I agree with you Mr. Katz to a certain extent about plug ins compared to high end hardware units, but I clearly hear a small difference when using plug ins compared to analog hardware. The hardware gives you a sound that imparts it's character on the signal. All plug ins I have heard, they sound like they are layered on top of the signal. They may sound great, but they don't sound like they are a part of the original signal. I know when I interviewed Peter Frampton, he agreed with me. We both love the UAD plug in's but there is a certain "weight" or "magic" (that's the best words I can think of at the moment) with high end analog gear that plug ins don't give you. (Notice I did not say digital hardware).

There is the emulation of the hardware that many plug ins including UAD and Waves API, SSL, and V Series give you that are very close to the character of the analog hardware. But then there is something else the analog hardware imparts to the signal. That something (weight, 3 dim, stereo image) I believe has to do with
a. Going through your converters
b. Signal going directly into the analog box which changes the signal at the source, not something being added afterwards.
c. Some small aspect of the modeling that is missed by the plug ins.

I have not heard the GML EQ plug in, so I cannot comment on that particular one, but with what I have heard I can. I am sure at one point the plug ins will get even closer, but at this point the question is, is there enough of a difference to justify paying thousands more for the hardware? Some plug ins have not been made yet to emulate the Pend OCL-2 or DW Fearn EQ and compressors, but others like the Waves API plug ins against the real thing, for many paying for the hardware is not worth it since the plug in's get you 90% there. Others are willing to pay the extra money for the small difference that you won't notice on your MP3 player.

[TranscendingM]

Originally Posted by Glenn Bucci

The hardware gives you a sound that imparts it's character on the signal...

I'm pretty sure Bob is not saying this isn't true. It seems he was conveying the point that the word "digital" shouldn't always equate to "plugin" AND "digital outboard" at the same time.

[heathen]

To me most digital processing lacks a certain density compared with analog processing, that being said a combination of digital and analog will usually sound great once you work out where to put your digi gear in the chain.

To me the LF region and HF air region around 20k suffer the most with only digi eq/comp processing and the mid range can get a little hollow, this is just my opinion.

Anyway these days with a good combination of both there is almost nothing which can't be done to audio.

[TranscendingM]

Originally Posted by heathen

... a combination of digital and analog will usually sound great once you work out where to put your digi gear in the chain.

Yep I totally agree with that

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by donsolo

Hey Bob,
Using this logic I wanted to then inquire about your opinion of impulse responce usage to add that grit. PSP Vintage Warmer (not for mastering Per Se) comes to mind. Colortone from Tritone digital comes to mind as well.

Is it that it cannot be done with IR or is it that we have not acheived the processing power to do it accurately enough in real time?

I've listened to many different convolution-based and modeling-approach digital distortion generators over the years. They are getting better and better (in general). The problem is that you cannot convolve devices whose characteristics change dynamically. Sintefex (Liquid Channel) tried to take samples of compressors at different levels, but I think only succeeded part of the way, at least to my ears.

Many of these digital devices are absolute dogs to my ears... either harsh when they're trying to be sweet or congested when they're trying to be open or some other artifact. The Cranesong Hedd still remains one of my favorites because what it does is nice and the artifacts are small and tolerable. The Hedd gets a little congested, but in a euphonic way, even if it's not the same as the real thing.

Personally I was never able to warm up to the Vintage Warmer though it doesn't seem to have any digititus, perhaps I didn't like its flavor of warming. Regardless, I haven't heard any digital simulations that exhibit EVERY palpable dimension. Some of them do no serious harm, capture some important dimensions of the real thing, and help in small doses (like the Hedd). But they all lack a little something currently---usually the third dimension of the real analog device is only partly there.

I find that there's still need for the real thing. Three analog tools in my rack supply 90% of the color that I need: My API 5500 can supply a certain genuine fatness in the bottom end that I haven't yet heard from any digital transformer or gear emulation. Its grit and sense of power and depth come from a unique distortion and phase shift that's particularly nice for rock and roll. I rarely use it for "purist material." My Pendulum OCL-2 is a subtle sweetener that retains most of the depth of the material. And my new Anamod ATS-1 does tape better than tape, with the depth you need, presence (on the 351 emulation) and an additional sense of power and warmth. I don't have anything analog that does "crunch" (a bit of true analog clipping helps when you want crunch) but it doesn't seem to be hard to get "aggressive" on the digital side when needed. So with these three analog pieces I can paint some pretty dimensional pictures and the paint seems to stick to the canvas pretty authentically. I haven't used the HEDD in a while but it's still a very useable and powerful tool as well. I sent the Trakkers up to the mix room because I found them to be superfluous with the combinations of analog and digital tools that I have.

[alcopop]

Sorry I should have been more clear . I only meant in the box plug ins .
I have used the Weiss compressor and it to my ears is most definitely on par
with my analogue pieces , one of the best if you ask me .

[alcopop]

Originally Posted by Glenn Bucci

I agree with you Mr. Katz to a certain extent about plug ins compared to high end hardware units, but I clearly hear a small difference when using plug ins compared to analog hardware. The hardware gives you a sound that imparts it's character on the signal. All plug ins I have heard, they sound like they are layered on top of the signal. They may sound great, but they don't sound like they are a part of the original signal. I know when I interviewed Peter Frampton, he agreed with me. We both love the UAD plug in's but there is a certain "weight" or "magic" (that's the best words I can think of at the moment) with high end analog gear that plug ins don't give you. (Notice I did not say digital hardware).

There is the emulation of the hardware that many plug ins including UAD and Waves API, SSL, and V Series give you that are very close to the character of the analog hardware. But then there is something else the analog hardware imparts to the signal. That something (weight, 3 dim, stereo image) I believe has to do with
a. Going through your converters
b. Signal going directly into the analog box which changes the signal at the source, not something being added afterwards.
c. Some small aspect of the modeling that is missed by the plug ins.

I have not heard the GML EQ plug in, so I cannot comment on that particular one, but with what I have heard I can. I am sure at one point the plug ins will get even closer, but at this point the question is, is there enough of a difference to justify paying thousands more for the hardware? Some plug ins have not been made yet to emulate the Pend OCL-2 or DW Fearn EQ and compressors, but others like the Waves API plug ins against the real thing, for many paying for the hardware is not worth it since the plug in's get you 90% there. Others are willing to pay the extra money for the small difference that you won't notice on your MP3 player.

I very much agree with this

[Ben F]

I believe the digital emulations will get there eventually. In terms of mixing I can almost get there 100% in the box for certain styles of music, but for rock/indie music I think that analogue crunch is essential and very difficult to emulate with plug-ins.

For mastering however, that 5-10% difference between analogue hardware and their software emulations (like UAD) is worth 200% to my ears. The sense of depth/space and the way the music transforms into something more real and organic is what most of my clients are looking for, and that elusive quality has still not been matched in the digital realm. For precise tweaks on a good mix I can happily work entirely in the digital world.

I think this is why all of the top mastering engineers around the world (like Mr. Katz) that work on a variety of music styles still use a mixture of both analogue and digital.

[masteringhouse]

I have yet to hear anything in the digital world that adds the sense of depth that a good tube unit provides (including the HEDD). This includes both mastering gear and amp simulators.

On the other hand I have yet to hear anything analog that has the surgical capabilities or has functionality like look-ahead in the analog world. Hybrid (aka "best of breed") is the way to go.

I do agree with Bob's digital recommendations. Xenon and the SuprEsser are fantastic. But at the same time no one will pry my Fearn or Chandler comp from by rigor mortis-ridden hands.

[donsolo]

So convolution is truly just 2dimentional.

I wonder if you could write DSP to apply to a white noise for example that would build at various amounts of time?

But then the computational power would get exponentionally high. I see your point. Damn.

At the same time, I've taken to heart a thought from your book (I'm paraphrasing) which is use the tools you have til you outgrow them. Then Chandler or something.

[edit machine]

Originally Posted by donsolo

Hey Bob,
Using this logic I wanted to then inquire about your opinion of impulse responce usage to add that grit. PSP Vintage Warmer (not for mastering Per Se) comes to mind.

I would also be curious to know what Bob thinks about PSP Vintage Warmer!

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by edit machine

I would also be curious to know what Bob thinks about PSP Vintage Warmer!

I tried it briefly and wasn't turned on. Your mileage may vary!

BK

[Veseli]

Originally Posted by Ben F

I believe the digital emulations will get there eventually...

I have a thought that it will never get "there" cause I feel there is a big essential difference in a realities of these two worlds (digital and analog).
Here is my point :
When sound is passing through a analog chain there is a reality to it in a way that it exists and move as real electric current flowing through the circuits made of metal. crystals, semiconductors, electromagnetic fields and all those paths which make this analog "magic" possible. And every time is subjected to weather conditions, temperature, many subtle circumstances I define as the "moment" of gear...

Digital, on the other hand, is emulating this process all the way through, converting from its own language of codes into microchips operating at very low voltages, and this energy has been cut into many small pieces and impulses to come to the domaine of software which does its own thing to it and then after all those calculations it "resurrects" via DA convertor into a real world of amplifiers and speakers to air vibrations.
Practically, digital is playing with our perception in another way than analog, the basic energy representing the recorded sound is not the same.
In analog domain sound path is always simpler and "shorter" comparing to manipulated path of digital domain I think.
So analog will always be more natural process to it.
I hope this sounds articulate enough to get me.

Somehow I "feel" a physical relation to the sound when working with analog gear. Not to sound too metaphysical,
perhaps my "inner bioelectronics" relates to it, while no such a feeling at all happens when working in digital with the mouse in my hand.

But, the results counts in the end, right ? Our ears are not perfect and this might just be a feeling of a person working with actual gear.
Listeners don't bother if the music is done in digital or analog as long as it pleases their senses.
Just an observation... Anyone on this ?

[Waltz Mastering]

I believe what you say is more true with compression especially vacuum tube compression, more so that eq.

TW

[Waltz Mastering]

Actually, that is the topic.

[basstracker7769]

Mr. Katz i was curious what you thought of the UAD products
since they use your metering in their Precision Limiter

I dont have the resources to buy and try a vast resource of plugins or the real vintage gear
but UAD has always done the job for me

Any thoughts ?