THIS is why plugins are the way forward.

[Enlightened Hand]

As far as "the way forward" is concerned, I think it's a tough question.

On the one hand I agree that analog signal processors have their place mostly due to aural preferences of the user and the immediacy of control interaction. But I can't deny that the sonic differences between software and hardware (at least among the current "best" versions of software emulations of hardware) are becoming insignificant, and in some cases are very difficult to discern, if at all discernible.

In practical terms of comparison between the two that really just leaves the control immediacy of hardware (leaving aside the multiple instances of software argument for the moment). That's a big hurdle for software to clear. Because the very reason hardware is so easy to control is the reason it's a pain to purchase and own; it physically exists and takes up space.

If we made software to have it's own box for each piece we'd lose some of the significant advantage of software; it would cost more and it would take up space. The only real solution to control immediacy is better hardware controllers for software. Companies like Smart AV are all over this already and anyone that has used their stuff in earnest would be hard pressed to want to go back to patching things and manual recalls; those controllers (once you configure them to your liking) are so damn comprehensive and speedy that you can literally mix in half the time, leaving nothing to be compared but the sound quality and potential nostalgia for metal boxes and racks on racks of gear. But as a working medium for efficiency the Smart controllers are uncontested IMO. They are superior to any mixing console I've ever used and I've used Neve and SSL for production and mixing (as well as a few other lesser known pieces).

Does this make anything "the way forward"? I'm honestly not certain it does. With a fine analog console like the SSL Duality on the market there's no reason to abandon anything from the past except tape. So I guess I think it's most likely that plug-ins exclusively are not "the way forward" at least not for the foreseeable future. But it's just a guess on my part. IMO the most likely "way forward" is hybrid, as "easy out" as that might seem. It's just a logical extension of all that has come before and like I mentioned, desks like the Duality make it so easy that it's almost a no-brainer.

[Looneytune]

Hardware all day long.
Plugs for simple needs.

[Yuri Kogan]

Originally Posted by HomeProducer

I don't understand your point.

Those staircases are so tiny that you don't hear a difference, if you are an audiophile or just an mp3-lover. So digital has a resolution exceeding the human ear, given by the high dynamic range. Even if 16 bits are not enough, 24 bits are for sure.

So what is this about?

Irrespective of how tiny the staircase is it is still an approximation of the analogue original.
Also, analogue is a very complex waveform with lots of harmonics and environmental effets. Digital can only be that close to that. It still does not translate all the info from the analogue domain, the result being a "flat sound".
f you compare the signal in analogue and digital domains you will hear the difference.

[Yuri Kogan]

Originally Posted by joeq

oh dear God, not the staircase again! I, for one, do NOT think "plug-ins are the way forward" but this is embarrassing to the Cause.

It is you who needs to hit the textbooks.



Reality is reality. Sound in a room is not an "analog" of anything. Tape is analog of the sound event. Its ability to accurately reproduce that event is just as limited as digital's. Perhaps more so if you are interested in lack of hiss, if you need the dynamic range to be realistic, or if you like to hear a sustained piano chord with zero wow and flutter.

Analog and digital are BOTH approximations of Reality and both succeed only in the narrowest of definitions of "success". You choose your poison according to which artifacts and failures are least objectionable to your ear.

I have stood in the room while someone was playing a Stradivarius. Believe me, our ability to record and play back Reality has a long way to go.

Many very demanding people who spend significant amounts of time listening to music that does not come out of a speaker give the edge in capture to digital.


In any case, the discussion is NOT about recording and playback. It is about signal processing. Plug-ins as the way forward or not.

Hardware's ability to pleasantly process the captured waveform is IMO, to date, far superior to plug-ins. "Way Forward" notwithstanding.

I am of the opinion that Hardware signal processors are Not Going Anywhere - and in my studio, I am constantly adding to them.

Nevertheless, the ignorance around here about the preservation of the waveform and how digital recording works is just appalling.

I have to stick up for what is right, even if it is not my "side".

I have done the educational yards. I haver a university degree in electronics and 30 years experience in the industry. You?

I also have a multiroom facility which has lots of both analogue and digital equipment. Couple that with at least 25 years in this industry I probably know the digfference.

We use the gear every day. I KNOW that the more plugins you apply the flatter the mix becomes. My engineers know that too. This is what the discussion was about - 3D analogue vs 2D digital. I just got sick from reading srap wordplay from someone who comes across as a demagogue with little knowledge.

I will not impose my ideas on anyone here. Whatever rocks your boat. But facts are fact. And if digital is what you like by all means.

[mizzle]

Originally Posted by Yuri Kogan

Irrespective of how tiny the staircase is it is still an approximation of the analogue original.
Also, analogue is a very complex waveform with lots of harmonics and environmental effets. Digital can only be that close to that. It still does not translate all the info from the analogue domain, the result being a "flat sound".
f you compare the signal in analogue and digital domains you will hear the difference.

A few major misconceptions still pervade:

1) You are still confusing "analog" with "acoustic". Acoustic sound sources (instruments) are not analog. The terms are not synonymous.

2) The quantization distortion (the information gap between an analog signal and it's digital conversion) of a 24 bit, 48khz waveform lies in a frequency range outside that of human hearing. Beyond that, DA conversion smooths over those steps, so you are not hearing "stepped output" in your audio unless it has been bit reduced.

3) You seem to harbor the notion that analog is somehow not an "approximation" of acoustic waveforms. Both analog and digital as storage mediums will never completely match the original phenomenon.

4) Your misapprehension of the terms "analog" and "acoustic" obviously stem from the teaching that both are continuously variable. While on the surface this seems true, you will find that the higher the resolution of focus, the more audio phenomenon will behave in a quantized fashion due to limits of physical quanta (electrons, molecules etc.).

[matt thomas]

Originally Posted by mizzle

4) Your misapprehension of the terms "analog" and "acoustic" obviously stem from the teaching that both are continuously variable. While on the surface this seems true, you will find that the higher the resolution of focus, the more audio phenomenon will behave in a quantized fashion due to limits of physical quanta (electrons, molecules etc.).

LOL. If quantisation at the atomic level were the limiting factor, we would have to have digital sampling rates tens of thousands of times higher than current norms, to match analog.

(about 100,000,000 atoms in a linear inch, times 30 inchs (from 30 ips) = 3,000,000,000 atoms per second of analog tape. Divide this by 44.1k to get a quantisation resolution about 68,000 times higher resolution on tape, assuming single atoms are the limiting factor )

m

[Yuri Kogan]

Originally Posted by mizzle

A few major misconceptions still pervade:

1) You are still confusing "analog" with "acoustic". Acoustic sound sources (instruments) are not analog. The terms are not synonymous.

2) The quantization distortion (the information gap between an analog signal and it's digital conversion) of a 24 bit, 48khz waveform lies in a frequency range outside that of human hearing. Beyond that, DA conversion smooths over those steps, so you are not hearing "stepped output" in your audio unless it has been bit reduced.

3) You seem to harbor the notion that analog is somehow not an "approximation" of acoustic waveforms. Both analog and digital as storage mediums will never completely match the original phenomenon.

4) Your misapprehension of the terms "analog" and "acoustic" obviously stem from the teaching that both are continuously variable. While on the surface this seems true, you will find that the higher the resolution of focus, the more audio phenomenon will behave in a quantized fashion due to limits of physical quanta (electrons, molecules etc.).

Analogue is the real world. Its not a representation of one. Analogue recording mediums have their limitations but still represent the environment more musically and dont flatten the image. Analogue outboard processors do it even less.
Digital medium due to processing power and quantisation still are not capable of representing the complexity of the analogue world.
Acoustics are a variable of the real environment. It is not to be confused with analogue processing.

Your semantics just confirm how little you understand. Send a signal through analogue processor and compare it with the plugin. Real world results - nt a literary contest.

[Syncamorea]

There's no way for me to be nonbiased on this topic. If you've ever built tube amps and pres, modded analog gear and sat in that analog warmth - the kind you get when a room is full of tube gear and doesn't have enough ventilation - you probably get an appreciation of analog that won't go away. Don't get me wrong, I am impressed with how far digital has come - the affordability of better than decent sound, ease of automation, amazing plug in bang per buck, etc., etc. These are actually great times to be passionate about audio, even if it's not a trivial occupation. If your goal is to be totally ITB, obviously you can produce product that has good sound. And if your goal is to carry the analog torch, it's still possible to live in the tech. That's pretty cool.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Yuri Kogan

I have done the educational yards. I haver a university degree in electronics and 30 years experience in the industry. You?

I have a recent Masters degree in technology and 35 years experience in the industry. I'm old, but I have been Back To School.

My credentials are beside the point. Anyone who employs the "staircase" argument vs digital recording is not 'educated' in how digital recording works.

I actually agree with you in my preference for hardware signal processing, BTW, but if I hear the stairsteps argument one more time I am going to plotz.

[Yuri Kogan]

Originally Posted by joeq

I have a recent Masters degree in technology and 35 years experience in the industry. I'm old, but I have been Back To School.

My credentials are beside the point. Anyone who employs the "staircase" argument vs digital recording is not 'educated' in how digital recording works.

I actually agree with you in my preference for hardware signal processing, BTW, but if I hear the stairsteps argument one more time I am going to plotz.

PLEASE dont go to plotz
There is definitely alot more to it but I dont have the patience to go into it on this forum. staircase is basic enough for the neophites.
BTW done a recent degree too - MBA. But doing courses regularly on top of that. Although its getting more and more dfficult - I have too many fingers in too many pies.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Yuri Kogan

staircase is basic enough for the neophites.

it is not "basic" - it is a misconception

[Yuri Kogan]

Originally Posted by joeq

it is not "basic" - it is a misconception

Hmmm. I think I will leave it at that.

[archfrenemy]

What if the difference between a continuous analog waveform and a digital waveform created out of a large number of samples is extremely subtle? What if the difference would only be recognized by an ear that is conditioned to hearing that continuous waveform? Perhaps whether or not someone has a good continuous waveform frame of reference could be found to correlate with age? Or, maybe the earlier in life and more often you listen to digital waveforms the more your ear will grow accustom to them? Perhaps the brains of those that grew up on digital waveforms have adapted better at filling in the missing wave segments to perceive a continuous sound wave.

Science has uncovered less about how the human brain percieves stimuli than almost any other topic. What's my point? Simply that every single one of you who is 100% on either side of this argument is either going to be proven wrong over time, or proven ignorant and lucky.

As for me... I am going to keep listening to records and wav files, using hardware and plugins, and having an open mind on the subject.


Oh, and one more thing...

Hardware Rulz!!!!!! (mostly joking of course)

[Enlightened Hand]

The problem is not that there is some audible non linearity that can't be produced digitally. The problem is that people think sampling is like putting together a collage of pictures, "snap shots" if you will, and assembling an artificial representation of a waveform. Actually it's taking snapshots enough times per second to be able to reproduce the audible wave in it's entirety, perfectly, from scratch, based on the sampled information.

But some people can't get their heads around that concept.

[Flying_Dutchman]

the "problem" is if you haven´t tried you think it´s a myth

[stinkyfingers]

the "problem" is i ran out of cigarettes and i don't have a ride to the store.
f@#k!

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand

The problem is that people think sampling is like putting together a collage of pictures, "snap shots" if you will, and assembling an artificial representation of a waveform. Actually it's taking snapshots enough times per second to be able to reproduce the audible wave.

It's amazing that one high quality digital picture can capture real life in such a beautiful way.

24 pictures/frames a second and the human eye can't even tell its not actual motion,instead of 24 snap shots per second consecutively?!

Blu-ray play at 24 fps with over 2 million pixels,it reaches the highest visibility that the human eyes can manage.

35 mm film exceeds the human eye.

192 khz 24 bit exceeds analog tape and the human ear.

Waves forms are much easier to capture,than life it self in digital photos or video.

Pictures require ccd's,audio require adc's,some are just dinosaurs.


Www.nowyourreallyinthestoneage.com

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App

[Enlightened Hand]

[Enlightened Hand]

So much deep misunderstanding of sampling theory.

Waves can be defined completely mathematically. Once you have enough information you can recreate them in their audible entirety. That's what sampling does for us. It's not animation. It's not illusion. It's recreation based on understanding wave functions.

[FLYINGJAY]

I can understand OTB processing,my whole stand point is and always has been,its not always needed.

I appreciate tape and tubes to the fullest,and have always leaned towards getting a stereo tape machine to bounce to!until I heard mixes done completely ITB.

It's the man not the gear these days.

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App

[Slipperman]

Originally Posted by FLYINGJAY

It's the man not the gear these days.

I gotta get me some birdshot rounds.

The solid shot is obviously not cutting it.

SM.

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by Slipperman

I gotta get me some birdshot rounds.

The solid shot is obviously not cutting it.

SM.

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App

[FLYINGJAY]

That bird picture is digitally enhanced,maybe they should've used a vintage analog....? Umm shit,I don't know?

How did they enhanced those black and white pictures back in the day?

Any way harmonic distortion and crosstalk would have really made that pic 3d!

That pic is totally unacceptable!

It's sad how bad that digital still image look,for crying out loud!

Now that I see that horrible thing,I'm selling my Canon rebel t3i.

I can take this anymore....

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App

[Demonslave]

Because you're poor
Because you have no faith in da biz
Because you downloaded it
Because you're new
Because you have no guidance
Because it works for you
Because you've already had success and "claim" it's "as good"
Because you're high all day
Because it works for your clowns (clients)
Because "old school" techniques don't work...
The list goes on and on.
IF PLUGINS ARE THE WAY FORWARD THEN POST NOTABLE LINKS TO YOUR MUSIC and end the debate..............actions and results speak louder than words...
OK?

[archfrenemy]

Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand

So much deep misunderstanding of sampling theory.

Waves can be defined completely mathematically. Once you have enough information you can recreate them in their audible entirety. That's what sampling does for us. It's not animation. It's not illusion. It's recreation based on understanding wave functions.

Did you invent this math recently? Are you sure that perfect continuous audio wave can be created through discrete sampling? Historically, some form of mathematical rounding or dithering must be applied to the combined samples in order to approximate a continuous wave. Kind of like adding a small amount of digital distortion to smooth out the imperfect wave.

If I am out of date here (which is totally a possibility) then please point me toward the DAC that can pull that off. Cause I really want one!

[Slipperman]

Originally Posted by FLYINGJAY

Attachment 287706

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App

Stay right where you are!

Right on that branch!




I'll be right back!!!







The trusty old Flammenwerfer 41 should do the trick.


Maybe I'll hit mizzle with the same shot!

Two birds with one WhaddaYaCallit.


SM.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Slipperman

Stay right where you are!

The trusty old Flammenwerfer 41 should do the trick.

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by archfrenemy

Did you invent this math recently? Are you sure that perfect continuous audio wave can be created through discrete sampling? Historically, some form of mathematical rounding or dithering must be applied to the combined samples in order to approximate a continuous wave. Kind of like adding a small amount of digital distortion to smooth out the imperfect wave.

If I am out of date here (which is totally a possibility) then please point me toward the DAC that can pull that off. Cause I really want one!

First of LOL ok slipper I fell for that one!Lmfaoooo

And joeq,your always just absolutely a gent(cough!).

Arch,what about the meany varieties of noise from analog gear?

Though some of them(not all) are very pleasant.





Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App

[archfrenemy]

Distortion was probably the wrong choice of words. I did not mean that it was audio distortion, but a digital distortion of the waveform itself using randomly generated numbers.

As for analog distortions... I am probably legitimately obsessed with them. I do all kinds crazy stuff for them like turning old portable tube radios into preamps, circuit bending, mods, analog synth making, tube swapping, feedback loops... Basically I am saying that I am probably too biased to really weigh the positives and negatives of analog distortions.

I will say that I record all of those analog distortions into my DAW. I don't have the time or money to have a full analog studio, and even if I did, I don't think that I could give up the flexibility of recording to computer.

Also, IMO using digital recording and manipulation has tone advantages on some of my instruments and tracks. However, using analog front end and manipulation certainly has tone advantages on some of my tracks as well. What I am saying is... Both formats are useful and can sound quite beautiful in their own right, but they certainly do not sound the same as many have argued here.

Those of you who only use digital or only use analog are needlessly missing out on a ton of sonic options.

[Enlightened Hand]

Originally Posted by archfrenemy

Did you invent this math recently? Are you sure that perfect continuous audio wave can be created through discrete sampling? Historically, some form of mathematical rounding or dithering must be applied to the combined samples in order to approximate a continuous wave. Kind of like adding a small amount of digital distortion to smooth out the imperfect wave.

If I am out of date here (which is totally a possibility) then please point me toward the DAC that can pull that off. Cause I really want one!

All of that good analog distortion and "depth" that people like to describe as purely analog, what do you think that's being listened to through these days?

Unless you're using only tape for storage and playback then you're hearing all of the analog goodness through converters that are giving you all you can hear; admittedly some give more than others because of differences in design.

What this conversation routinely misses is that there are two different things at issue that are being conflated. The first is whether or not "digital" can reproduce all of the audible frequencies and distortions available. It can. That's been a settled matter for years.

The second is whether or not software signal processors can deliberately induce the types of subtle distortions that analog signal processors can. Up until recently they have fallen short. But their shortcoming isn't a shortcoming of "digital" as many like to say. It's a shortcoming of programming and the complete understanding of what is really going on with a circuit in action on a signal. If a programmer doesn't account for an action or combination of actions it won't be in the programming. If we hear subtleties in analog equipment (and I know we do) that aren't being accounted for in software signal processors then they will always sound different to us until the programmers can account for and properly code in those subtleties. But they CAN be reproduced digitally. The question is whether or not programmers can identify, isolate and account for them in their software processor coding. That's a separate matter altogether from digital as a medium being able to produce everything we can hear.

The conflation is made more confusing when people misunderstand how converters work and then apply that misunderstanding to a paradigm of analog being superior in signal processing. It's actually a big mess of misinformation and confusion. I think it's best with isolating the real problem before carrying on with these emotional flights of analog fancy.