Real VS Real? UA1176LN vs Plug? What I thought

[RoundBadge]

I love the UA plug..but I found it a bit grainy compared to the real deals and the more you hit em[plugs] the smaller they sound.still use em when the real ones are all in use

[Absolute]

Originally Posted by kittonian

Alone on a single track some of the plugs do come rather close to the hardware. However, once you get a whole bunch of tracks going the difference becomes quite noticeable in the depth of the sound stage and stereo imaging of the song. The headroom afforded in analog and way you can push an analog compressor is far different from a digital plug-in.

.[/i]

Hey
This isnt directed at you personally..just the idea in general.

You know, I keep hearing this theory but its got to be a joke. I dont know why people keep repeating it..but it has to be traced back to a guy who was shown a clip of plugin vs hardware and he couldnt hear a difference--so he had to make something up

Yeah...I cant hear a difference..but there is one. Ok...Got ya

People who actually believes this should take a minute to question their assumptions because logically..it holds no water. If there is a reason why a mix sounds better..this is not it.

If you take the time to think about what happens to a single track when a compressor is put on it and then visualize those tracks as separate entities who will see this makes no sense.

If a compressed plugin track sounds just like a hardware compressor track-- combining it with another does NOTHING.

If I have 6 pieces of chocolate cake and combine them ---I stll have chocolate cake in the very same consistency as 1 peice.
Icing, or strawberries are not added like magic

Take those 2 comparision files and render them. Then render every track your gonna use compression on. Listen to both mixes. You'll see there is no mysterious phantom signal being added somewhere between the tracks

The tracks are the tracks. They are not really combined. If they sound the same--there will be no phantom processing.

I think the problem people have is they imagine the mix as containing more than the sum of its parts. It does not. If the individual tracks do truly sound the same --combining them will not change anything between the 2.

And if someone says, "well you can can only notice the difference when they are combined", I would say how is it that you cant hear the difference when the music is in its simplest form. Its much easier to compare a single snare drum with another then to compare 40 tracks at once.

So until someone prints 20 tracks that all sound the same using both methods---and combines them and it reveals this magical depth that is somehow created out of thin air by the **hardware compressor I think this myth should take a rest.

If there is a difference you guys are hearing..its not caused by this so called plugin buildup theory.

[Improv]

Originally Posted by Absolute

If a compressed plugin track sounds just like a hardware compressor track-- combining it with another does NOTHING.
...
The tracks are the tracks. They are not really combined. If they sound the same--there will be no phantom processing.

For the record, I make it work with plugins for the most part, but regardless... I think you're missing the magic of mixing.

Strange mojo and psychoacoustics come into play when you combine any two or more audio elements. That's what's so fun about it... when you do it right, you really do get MORE out of it than you put in. That's why people are so picky about this sort of crap. It's how it all works together. Who's that guy that ordered a console with the solo buttons disengaged? That's kinda the idea.

Originally Posted by Absolute

I think the problem people have is they imagine the mix as containing more than the sum of its parts. It does not.

It does too. And rarely am I so absolute on such things.

[u b k]

personally, i don't just use tools for the way they sound, i use them for the way they make sound behave. and while the sonic gap between plugs and hardware isn't earth shattering, the action is.

ime, only hardware compression can make sounds come forward and bring them to life. software compression just kinda holds things 'down'. the uad, god bless it's very useful soul, simply will not make a drum explode the way the hardware will. nor will the plug make an acoustic guitar shimmer, or a voice crackle with fire.

so forget how they sound in a naked a/b, drop those 2 vocal tracks into a mix and tell me if the software version sits the same as the hardware version. i maintain that they do not, not even close.

hardware is my older brother, i love him unconditionally, he's always got my back and together we'll get thru anything. software is that annoying in-law who's intentions are good, is often helpful, and still always manages to fµck something up.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[gainreduction]

Originally Posted by u b k

forget how they sound in a naked a/b, drop those 2 vocal tracks into a mix and tell me if the software version sits the same as the hardware version

Right on the money.

[jbuntz]

The real thing sounds amazing with the needle pinned. The plug sounds kinda shitty with needle pinned. Big difference. Also, the real think has a cool tone when you patch into it. The plug doesnt.

[RusRant]

They didn't use 40 tracks because they didn't have the option to use them. If they did they almost assuredly would have

Your probably right. George Martin said those records couldn't have been made on 24 tracks. I think his point and mine is to many choices can ruin things. When you have unlimited plugin instances, unlimited tracks, unlimited choices in everything it doesn't always, and usually ever mean better. I like to make a choice and stick with it. 4-tracks does that for you in a real hurry. And yes I knew about the bouncing of tracks, but even that made them make choices. If the plugin sounds good, go with it. If it doesn't don't. I just like seeing people make choices I guess. I still want to see that mix with 40+1176 comps. That would rock!!

[norman_nomad]

Here's a post from 05 when I linked a quick UAD vs hardware comparison. Vocals and bass both being driven pretty hard into the compressor. You can decide yourself which one you like best. I post the answers on the next page.

Is it me or is the UAD-1 really underwhelming?

[Absolute]

Originally Posted by Improv

For the record, I make it work with plugins for the most part, but regardless... I think you're missing the magic of mixing.

Strange mojo and psychoacoustics come into play when you combine any two or more audio elements. That's what's so fun about it... when you do it right, you really do get MORE out of it than you put in. That's why people are so picky about this sort of crap. It's how it all works together. Who's that guy that ordered a console with the solo buttons disengaged? That's kinda the idea.

Originally Posted by Absolute
I think the problem people have is they imagine the mix as containing more than the sum of its parts. It does not.


It does too. And rarely am I so absolute on such things.

Im afraid you didnt read my post that well. It happens

I explained it quite well .

Im not talking about how Frequencies are mixed and thus masked. I made that quite clear. If we dont know that--we shouldnt be mixing


If I have 1 glass of yellow dyed water(snare plugin comp) and one glass of Blue(Vocal plugin comp)

and I have 1 glass of yellow dyed water(snare hardw comp) and one glass of Blue(Vocal hardw comp)

AND....the tracks sound identical (Dy'd Water)

Then I will have green water when I mix them together

There is nothing added by magic. In fact it is physically impossible for something to be added.

So again, this idea that when hardware comps tracks somehow "buildup"-- they retain depth
and when Plugins somehow "buildup" --they dont .............is nonsense

Thats only can happen if the individual tracks DONT sound the same

BTW..I think Im starting to sound like a prick..sorry. Im not a digital groupee either. I just think people should look elsewhere for sonic differences they hear--because this theory doesnt work.

[buddha fingers]

despite the little arguments, this has been a good thread. im learning a lot. i kind of agree that on a single track a plug in may sound damn near as good as hardware. but once u get 40 or so tracks it makes a diff.
maybe my logic is flawed but what if you were only using plug ins, and after a mix you bounced each track seperatly with the effect. you could then disable all the plug ins and bounce the whole thing.
actually, im gonna test this out right now. im gonna open an old mix(with lots of tracks), bounce each track with effects, then re bounce the whole thing and a/b the 2 mixes.

i hope i am making sense. ha. anyway i will come back and share my results if anyone is interested.

Buddha Fingers

[Gear Tramp]

Originally Posted by Absolute

Im afraid you didnt read my post that well. It happens

I explained it quite well .

Regardless of how well you explained it, you're still wrong.

Hitler explained his ideas extremely well, wouldn't you say?

Doesn't mean he was correct.

If I have 1 glass of yellow dyed water(snare plugin comp) and one glass of Blue(Vocal plugin comp)

and I have 1 glass of yellow dyed water(snare hardw comp) and one glass of Blue(Vocal hardw comp)

AND....the tracks sound identical (Dy'd Water)

Then I will have green water when I mix them together

There is nothing added by magic. In fact it is physically impossible for something to be added.

HUH?! Water? Cake? WTF?

The properties of H2O and recorded music are a little different, dude.

If we don't know this, we shouldn't be mixing.

So again, this idea that when hardware comps tracks somehow "buildup"-- they retain depth
and when Plugins somehow "buildup" --they dont .............is nonsense

Thats only can happen if the individual tracks DONT sound the same

Low level noise and harmonic distortion do add up. What may not be apparent on one single track will be perceived upon stacking and listening within the context of the mix. Psychoacoustics 101.

If we don't know this, we shouldn't be mixing.

BTW..I think Im starting to sound like a prick..sorry. Im not a digital groupee either. I just think people should look elsewhere for sonic differences they hear--because this theory doesnt work.

I'm guessing you don't own any hardware...

It is the same reason why many people prefer to mix on consoles. A hardware 1176 compared to a plugin 1176 is like comparing an ITB mix buss to a console mix buss. On a console every channel adds noise and distortion and it adds up. You wouldn't be able to hear it if you solo'd one track, but if you compared an ITB faders up mix to a console faders up mix, I have a hard time believing even you wouldn't change your point of view.

I mean, what you're trying to prove/suggest is that hardware enthusiasts are just full of shit and all of the professionals who work in top-flight studios using racks of outboard are just playing with their dicks.

All the best,

Gear Tramp

[aryschien]

Hi Absolute,

I got 1 glass of water (snare plug-in comp) and the other glass of water (kick plug-in comp). I mixed them up and got a glass of water.

Then I got 1 glass of water (snare hardware comp) and the other glass of water (kick hardware comp). I mixed them up and it exploded. It turned out that neither of the glasses were H2O....

My Chandler Zener makes my drums explode. My UAD-1 Neve 33609 plug-in doesn't. My API 525, Chandler LTD-2 and Manley ELOP all makes me "see" the bass sitting in the mix beautifully, with 8dB+ compression going on, while none of my UAD-1 compressor plug-ins do that without muffle the bass.

I guess not all that's transparent is H2O....

That said, the UAD-1 plug-ins are really amazing. They are what I'll use when I run out of hardwares, or need complicated routing that I still can't do with my hardware setup. Within 5dB of compression it is ok. I just won't use a compressor plug-in on the vocal, kick, snare and bass.

[6strings]

Originally Posted by Gear Tramp

...all of the professionals who work in top-flight studios using racks of outboard...

are a dying breed....

[Gear Tramp]

Originally Posted by 6strings

are a dying breed....

As are quality mixes that you can listen to all day long without feeling like your ears are bleeding.

Beat Detective, Plugins, Auto-Tune, they all contribute.

[kats]

So again, this idea that when hardware comps tracks somehow "buildup"-- they retain depth
and when Plugins somehow "buildup" --they dont .............is nonsense

What are you talking about?

If I add 2dB lowshelf on a single track my mix won't sound "bassy", but if I add it to every track in the mix, ****en rights it'll sound "bassy".

Whatever differences there may be between the 1176 and the UAD will definately be magnified as it's applied to more and more tracks. It goes with everything. The more tracks I record using a Neve, the more identifiable the characteristic Neve sound will be.

[6strings]

Originally Posted by Gear Tramp

As are quality mixes that you can listen to all day long without feeling like your ears are bleeding.

Beat Detective, Plugins, Auto-Tune, they all contribute.

Seperate issue altogether... (you're talking about misuse of the tools)

I was merely pointing out that more pros are turning to ITB and plugs because plugs help create a more efficient work flow and are more flexible in everyday use. Being able to quickly recall a past project to exact detail in regards to settings is one example as to why someone would forgoe a bit of high-end "luster" in favor of a plug...

[Franco]

Not trying to be a smart ass, or defend plugins vs. hardware, or vice versa, but can someone please address this for me:

If the difference between mixing 40+ tracks ITB versus say, and SSL 4000 with dynamics on every channel is so huge, then why can't I tell the difference between the two?

I think the front end is much more important, especially with live music, but speaking specifically about hip hop, there are projects I hear that I know have been mixed on an SSL and some that are mixed ITB (from reading the interviews done on these artists) and to be honest, there aren't any people that I've talked to who have said "Oh yeah, but so-and-so's CD sounds so much better because you can just tell that it was mixed on a console!"

?

[Gear Tramp]

Originally Posted by 6strings

Seperate issue altogether... (you're talking about misuse of the tools)

I was merely pointing out that more pros are turning to ITB and plugs because plugs help create a more efficient work flow and are more flexible in everyday use. Being able to quickly recall a past project to exact detail in regards to settings is one example as to why someone would forgoe a bit of high-end "luster" in favor of a plug...

Efficiency and workflow have become more important these days.

Recall is important, but one can print different versions of the mix as well as stems.

The point is that hardware does have advantages and plugins have advantages.

Hardware sounds better. Plugins are cheaper and easier to use and offer total recall. What you're willing to trade is up to you.

But telling yourself (and other people on a forum) that there is no difference (especially when you don't own hardware or mix OTB) is like stroking a goat and hoping to get milk.

All the best,

Tramp de Gear

[electropoet]

Originally Posted by Franco

Not trying to be a smart ass, or defend plugins vs. hardware, or vice versa, but can someone please address this for me:

If the difference between mixing 40+ tracks ITB versus say, and SSL 4000 with dynamics on every channel is so huge, then why can't I tell the difference between the two?

I think the front end is much more important, especially with live music, but speaking specifically about hip hop, there are projects I hear that I know have been mixed on an SSL and some that are mixed ITB (from reading the interviews done on these artists) and to be honest, there aren't any people that I've talked to who have said "Oh yeah, but so-and-so's CD sounds so much better because you can just tell that it was mixed on a console!"

?

Not to mention how different the mix will sound once its been professionally mastered. The difference between ITB and OTB will shrink even further.

[AlexLakis]

Originally Posted by Gear Tramp

But telling yourself (and other people on a forum) that there is no difference (especially when you don't own hardware or mix OTB) is like stroking a goat and hoping to get milk.

FWIW, goats actually do produce milk, I believe...Dunno what you're stroking...

Didn't read the whole thread, but I think, in the end, workflow is more important than a small percentage of sonic fidelity, simply because the performer, performance, and engineer are much more important than a slight raw fidelity increase. If you can make any of those factors better by staying ITB or using plugins, I think that's the way to go. Just my two cents, hope I didn't post too out-of-context.

[6strings]

Originally Posted by Gear Tramp

Hardware sounds better. Plugins are cheaper and easier to use and offer total recall. What you're willing to trade is up to you.

But telling yourself (and other people on a forum) that there is no difference (especially when you don't own hardware or mix OTB) is like stroking a goat and hoping to get milk.

I'm not getting into this one way or another.... just saying that it's becoming a moot argument given the technology of choice in this day and age.

Hey, vinyl sounded considerable better than CDs in the 80's. However, after a few years everyone learned to work with the new medium (and the mastering technology improved as well) and things got much better. I imagine a similar circumstance here... Time moves on...

[Gear Tramp]

FWIW: Goat milk is disgusting, and yes you can get it, but it isn't going to be MILK as we know and love it.

For that, there is only the cow.

This topic is beat-down, tossed-around.

I'm still trying to figure out why music today is so fatiguing.

Everything matters. I think the NOISE that consoles and hardware introduce actually HELP make music more enjoyable and comfortable to listen do.

DITHER.


I don't even know what I'm going on about anymore.

Gear Trampoline, signing off from this thread.

(and I'm not gonna pull a zaza and keep posting, so don't even think it!)

[Franco]

Originally Posted by electropoet

Not to mention how different the mix will sound once its been professionally mastered. The difference between ITB and OTB will shrink even further.

WORD.

I think I can tell more of a difference between a digital reverb and a "real" room reverb (from listening to old records) much more than the difference between an ITB mix versus an OTB mix, especially after it's been mastered. I have yet to hear an obvious "oh wow, you can tell this mix was done on a console with real 1176LNs!" Actually on the contrary, I've bought CDs (some non-hip hop, one that blew me away that comes to mind is The Prodigy's "Fat of the Land", where I said to myself after listening to the whole CD for the first time "I know these guys are heavily into their gear, I wonder what they used to mix this?" and a few years later, read an interview where they said they mixed the whole record on Cubase VST 32).

Recordings, yes, absolutely. There's a major difference in tracking vocals through a high-end pre than through one of the pres on an MBOX for example, but key point here is the mixes.

I agree that some people reading this may get the wrong message (about everything, including that a mix through a console is eons different than an ITB mix, and I'm just saying, to me, who is someone who struggles in still remaining to be a fan of music first, it's not that obvious).

[kats]

Hey, vinyl sounded considerable better than CDs in the 80's. However, after a few years everyone learned to work with the new medium (and the mastering technology improved as well) and things got much better. I imagine a similar circumstance here... Time moves on...

Quality is not a fashion.

Cheap & convenient is no recipe for any long term success. And the proof is already in the pudding.

[AlexLakis]

Originally Posted by kats

Cheap & convenient is no recipe for any long term success. And the proof is already in the pudding.

Is there really any true long term success as far as mediums go? Time and technology march on, and everything changes. Is the pudding you're referring to the fact that CDs don't have a clear cut successor yet, or that the difference between a great ITB mix and a great OTB isn't overwhelming yet in the corner of the former?

[zilver]

Originally Posted by Gear Tramp

Regardless of how well you explained it, you're still wrong.

Hitler explained his ideas extremely well, wouldn't you say?

Doesn't mean he was correct.


Gear Tramp

This is way over the top.
Quite stupid to make such a remark in a debate about gear (!)

Hans