Tape saturation, console plugins - not hearing a difference?

[dawnfirst]

Originally Posted by narcoman

it amuses me no end that because many on this thread can't hear a difference they assume that that others can't or there IS no difference! I can assure you (despite tape ems not quite being the same as real tape) that those who can't hear the difference with plugins likely can't hear the difference in real tape or valves or many other things.

The point is - it's NOT night and day at source in terms of "wow you've suddenly turned my boring mix into something world class" - but it is night and day when it comes to using things as part of a production chain and process.

The business is a game of inches and getting things exactly right IS the game. If one cannot hear the difference between these systems (either good or bad - notice I'm not endorsing either ) then either:

The monitoring environment aint up to it
More experience is needed (not in a negative way!!! Just understanding the old mix cliche of "how to hear")


Neither is a bad thing.

+1.

[TheCityBeef]

Tonebooster Reelbus, Super cheap, 12$ or 15$ If I Recall.

If you cant tell what Reelbus is doing by browsing through the presets It has to be your room/workspace.

[TGV]

Originally Posted by TheCityBeef

Tonebooster Reelbus, Super cheap, 12$ or 15$ If I Recall.

If you cant tell what Reelbus is doing by browsing through the presets It has to be your room/workspace.

I don't think Reelbus was the issue, but rather Slate. I, at least, couldn't hear the effect in the VCC Slate examples (i.e., I heard something, but I couldn't tell which one was which), but Reelbus has a very pronounced effect, even on cheap headphones.

[ksandvik]

Originally Posted by narcoman

Ooh false conclusion!! A game of inches and a game of tones isn't reflected by its target consumption format (although its all 192 these days). The differences are still there, and the emotive decision made by those who make the product. There is a reason, even in purile pop, that those who make slap dash decisions with ill regard for quality rarely surge ahead of the crowd! These kind of things are exactly what pushes the few that succeed ahead of the crowd!

Maybe. But I hope you see my point. These tape saturation/analog warmth plug-ins are really targeted towards producers/recorders so they feel good about the product, not the consumers of which many even listen to 128k streams via YouTube or Spotify...

And with many beginner producers mixing with 5" KRKs or cheap headphones, in untreated rooms, hoping that a tape plug-in will somehow make it sound better.

[chk23]

Originally Posted by TGV

I don't think Reelbus was the issue, but rather Slate. I, at least, couldn't hear the effect in the VCC Slate examples (i.e., I heard something, but I couldn't tell which one was which), but Reelbus has a very pronounced effect, even on cheap headphones.

Reelbus is more a saturation effect/coloration plugin than an accurate tape simulation that tries to simulate the exact behaviour of a tape machine down to the smallest detail, like VTM does.
We have to be aware of the fact, that the engineers that designed highend analog tape machines back in the days hadn't some "warm, analogue vintage coloration" in mind when they designed those machines. They were built to deliver the most accurate and clean representation of the recorded material possible with the technology used. So it's only logical, that a real tape simulation plugin has to be more subtle than a coloration effect that gives us an exaggerated version of what we today think "analog warmth" should sound like.

[cpu28]

Speaking of tape simulators, how does FerricTDS measure up nowadays?

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by ksandvik

Maybe. But I hope you see my point. These tape saturation/analog warmth plug-ins are really targeted towards producers/recorders so they feel good about the product, not the consumers of which many even listen to 128k streams via YouTube or Spotify...

And with many beginner producers mixing with 5" KRKs or cheap headphones, in untreated rooms, hoping that a tape plug-in will somehow make it sound better.

I absolutely see your point.

[chk23]

Originally Posted by ksandvik

And with many beginner producers mixing with 5" KRKs or cheap headphones, in untreated rooms, hoping that a tape plug-in will somehow make it sound better.

Funny, as you mention it: The first time I did some A/B tests with VCC and VTM was in an untreated room with KRK 5" monitors, and indeed I did not hear any difference

One thing to test the effectiveness of the simple room treatment I did afterwards was an A/B blind test with VCC and VTM, and as I suddenly could hear the difference, I knew that the treatment was effective. Same when I went from cheap tracking cans to more high end mixing headphones: Couldn't hear anything before on the cheap ones, but with my Sure SHR840 on the other hand the difference was like night and day.

[dr_Jezz]

Originally Posted by CPhoenix

^Did you notice a difference with Satson alone?

I demo'ed Satson and I swear I hear zero effect on it. However.. I can't say that I placed it on every single channel and turned the "FAT" switch on.

Anybody notice a difference w/ Satson alone?

Here's a comparison of a rough 'n' ready demo the first time I ever experimented with Satson ... all relevant info in first post. I'd repost, but you can only load MP3's once ... crank up your monitors and you will definitely be able to hear a difference (and I don't just mean the bass increase, which I left in as a straight comparison of simply adding channel inserts, and seems unusually large now I listen back, but would have taken out otherwise). The drums (esp. snare) sound different and that 'cohesiveness' thing is going on, so I've never done a comparison since. Have a listen (I know it's not especially scientific - I'm a scientist) ...
Quick MP3 example of Saton

[miscend]

Originally Posted by HSLand

I've been demoing some console, tape & tube saturation plugins like in the AlexB line. After so many attempts to try and hear a difference between original and processed mixes, I honestly just couldn't hear it. It was the same thing with the new Slate tape plugin too.

Is there something going on in the highs, lows, the 'glue', the wideness, that I'm just not hearing? The effect is so subtle that I could probably get a bigger difference by boosting +1 decibel with any random EQ on the mix somewhere.

The differences are not very apparent to the untrained ear. You need to train your ears - they add a subtle amount of glue and consistency to the mix without changing the sound too much. Especially stuff like Satson; you can't hear it on individual channels, but applied to dozens of channels & busses across a full mix it subjectively adds a subtle 3D-ness and depth that really improves a song.

[StringBean]

NLS can be okay, I guess you have to mix into it rather than throw it on every channel at the end.

The Kramer tape is the most badass of all those tape emulation plugs...even the slightest push on that will be audible.

[cqd]

Vcc added to much noise for my taste..can anyone tell me though, how do these new fancy tape sims compare to the digidesign reel tape suite?

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by cqd

Vcc added to much noise for my taste..can anyone tell me though, how do these new fancy tape sims compare to the digidesign reel tape suite?

I have VTM and have had reel tape for ages. Reel tape is ok in some circumstances...but VTM is just "nicer" for want of a better word all round - even if you push it a bit harder, it breaks up more "tape-like" -RTS just goes to crap.

[popmann]

If you guys can't hear a difference, I seriously question your monitoring chain...DA to Ears.

[SWAN808]

the tape plugins make a larger difference IME...the consoles are cool but honestly I think it might be better for many people to not get too worried about them until they nail their general mixing skills and get other bases covered properly-it really should be one of the last things to put on the shopping/priority list...when I hear slate VCC neve I mainly hear a bit of subtle saturation and a low end boost. I rarely hear any additional separation or depth and more often its the usual added punch of saturation with that 'sound' that you get from plugin saturation...honestly Id be surprised if it was difficult to do that by mixing and using a bit of saturation elsewhere in the mix...and chucking a saturator on the master bus.

actually the ones I liked best were the Airwindows desk, bus colours and console. he achieved something very interesting with his digital sum technique but it seems to affect the mix in a musical and not cheesy or overblown way. that guy is a genius.

Ill also add that Im skeptical the difference between 'consoles' amounts to much more in reality that EQ curves...Im sure the model does something clever and Fabrice and Steven would jump into testify but I mean what the end result actually mounts to.

I actually think a transparent high quality saturator like Fielding DSP Reviver is preferable. I like it a lot.

I gave up with Nebula consoles a while ago as I genuinely struggled to hear a difference that was preferable - and the hassle extent is too great IMO...but I use their tapes which I think sound marginally better than Slate VTM after a good bit of testing - although its close and VTM is easier to use.

When I discovered the benefit of running tracks out the box thru some analogue gear I kind of lost interest in fussing over the console wars for such a marginal gain...

[Mixtree Audio]

Originally Posted by lapsi

You should try the Airwindows plugins. I guarantee you won't be fooled by the graphic . Plus they're mostly freebies so you can demo them with material you know well.

(pssst. shhhh, don't give it away)

[antstudio]

Here are two versions of a rough mix. I mixed into VTM+VCC and finished with FG-X. For comparison I disabled all VTM and VCC instances but kept FG-X. To try to level match as much as possible I added FreeG just before the FG-X on the VTM+VCC version and reduced gain -2.39db.

You should be able to hear a clear difference in a good monitoring environment. If you can't you have to seriously look at your monitoring situation.

I'm not sure which you'll prefer but I prefer the VTM+VCC version. In a head-to-head comparison, the VTM+VCC version seems a bit dark or muddy but once I get away from the head-to-head comparison and just listen to each as a listener, I find the VTM+VCC version much more satisfying.

Therefore, I suggest you listen two ways for comparison. First, a blind test in a monitoring environment keeping the levels matched (or adjust first if you feel the levels aren't accurately matched).

Next, listen to each separately starting with the volume at zero and start cranking it up to where you feel it's loud but satisfying (not painful). Try this test in a monitoring environment and in a car. In my experience the "Without VTM_VCC" version becomes hard to listen to very quickly with lots of annoying high frequencies and an overall sterile, clinical sound. With the "With VTM_VCC" version I just want to crank it up.

Again it's a rough mix and I'm not a pro - there's supposed to be a vocal in here somewhere but I basically suck and can't get the vocal right. Anyway, for purposes here it may be best to listen with just the drums/bass/guitars.

And finally...yes, I would have mixed differently and cut a lot of HF in various places if I wasn't mixing into VTM+VCC, so this is not a comparison of whether VTM+VCC can actually improve your mixes. For me it's more about workflow and satisfaction while mixing. I really enjoy mixing a lot more now when I mix into VTM+VCC and things seem to go faster, meaning I get to the sound I want a whole lot quicker.

..ant

[dr_Jezz]

Originally Posted by antstudio

Here are two versions of a rough mix. I mixed into VTM+VCC and finished with FG-X. For comparison I disabled all VTM and VCC instances but kept FG-X. To try to level match as much as possible I added FreeG just before the FG-X on the VTM+VCC version and reduced gain -2.39db.

You should be able to hear a clear difference in a good monitoring environment. If you can't you have to seriously look at your monitoring situation.

I'm not sure which you'll prefer but I prefer the VTM+VCC version. In a head-to-head comparison, the VTM+VCC version seems a bit dark or muddy but once I get away from the head-to-head comparison and just listen to each as a listener, I find the VTM+VCC version much more satisfying.

Therefore, I suggest you listen two ways for comparison. First, a blind test in a monitoring environment keeping the levels matched (or adjust first if you feel the levels aren't accurately matched).

Next, listen to each separately starting with the volume at zero and start cranking it up to where you feel it's loud but satisfying (not painful). Try this test in a monitoring environment and in a car. In my experience the "Without VTM_VCC" version becomes hard to listen to very quickly with lots of annoying high frequencies and an overall sterile, clinical sound. With the "With VTM_VCC" version I just want to crank it up.

Again it's a rough mix and I'm not a pro - there's supposed to be a vocal in here somewhere but I basically suck and can't get the vocal right. Anyway, for purposes here it may be best to listen with just the drums/bass/guitars.

And finally...yes, I would have mixed differently and cut a lot of HF in various places if I wasn't mixing into VTM+VCC, so this is not a comparison of whether VTM+VCC can actually improve your mixes. For me it's more about workflow and satisfaction while mixing. I really enjoy mixing a lot more now when I mix into VTM+VCC and things seem to go faster, meaning I get to the sound I want a whole lot quicker.

..ant

yes ... 'with' is quite obviously better in any monitoring situation - interesting how it boosts the bass in the same way that Satson does, but even more obviously attenuates the highs ... I might go back and do a comparison trying to correct for that in so far as it's possible and see if that 'cohesive sound' remains independently of the eq and volume changes. I strongly suspect it will