Thanks for this comparison. I wouldn't expect them to sound the same, since no two hardware processors ever sound identical. Other differences, as stated, can be attributed to different converters and trying to match settings by ear. He did say that there were differences in the metering response, which can be seen clearly during playback comparison where his Portico is showing gain reduction and AA is showing no GR. The converters alone are enough to make them sound different though.
Your hardware unit definitely is a little bit smoother... its really lovely. However the Access Analog version is not too far off. Maybe the converters are making a difference. Thanks for the comparison, really appreciate it
They're both beautiful, but the hardware, to me, sounds like there is more harmonic distortion, it just sounds bigger with tighter transients, but the real difference is the width. That's quite audible to me. I'm using JBL 6300 series monitors (on Sound Anchor stands) and a sub.
Awesome video.Both sounding great (although I'm an RME fan boy) .Literally to that level of hardware access all that matters is the skill of the engineer !
it seems that the Access analog has a little more low end , that is something i've noticed too between my MBP my 1176 and their gears , it was bugging me so much that i've sent them a mail and they told me that the gears were also passing through a Neve master bus converter , with a blue silk on Access analog is a crazy service ! Nice video as always
In the car listening to this, it sounds like the access audio losses some color and space compared to the hardware.. but, still an awesome tool. But the hardware sounded amazing
They definitely don’t sound the same. Your RME converters sound much clearer IMO and more detailed. The AA hardware for some odd reason sounds a little scooped and the kick loses it’s punch. Your hardware version with your RME sounds just like I expect high end analog gear to sound. I really do hope AA are actually using the real deal RND unit that they claim and not anything else. Thanks for doing this comparison.
your convertor maybe is super awesome ... I was considering the antelope galaxy but now im thinking to get the rme -2 Pro FS 2 channel high end convertor! Cool videos man lol :))
i hear access analogue felt more excitement and more commercial feel, Maybe so good at Low & low-mid , cant believe It is The Converter making the Huge Difference ( definitely for some it is minor ) ! this video has changed my mind to getting RME interface lol . also remember when they changed lynx to Orion 32 and it was inferior in term of quality as compared to i get from lynx using analogue access hardware's, glad they heard us and changed back to lynx.
Man… are you serious, bro? Check your ears, that’s really close now the hardware sounded slightly more open, but you can do some extra Eqing and the DAW loke l taking out a little 700k… and that mix almost sound identical I’m gonna do there for subscription instead of adding higher end gear to what I’ve got
More bass and warmth in the 11 to 12 min sample. The Access is airy again and the hardware has more warm harmonics that maybe ideal for analog gear. It maybe that electronic harmonic distortion people want but Im not experienced enough to tell if that is the sound good gear adds or if the airy clean access is the sound people want.
they are damn near the same, just the analog unit gives more warmth overall and the access version is more clear sounding and slightly less warm. Not a bad deal for a vst streaming audio from a real unit. Must be the converters.
Yeah, i think the general thought behind this video is more if they are on par quality wise than actually being identical. And i think they definitely are!
Because both units are pretty similar, we’re only comparing converters. If access analog didn’t do what it claimed to be doing, it would’ve been another story.
Yes, not massive difference but the hardware had more defined low end/bottom, the plugin didn't have that same definition, at least in the synth's bottom end. Super close tho.
@@machineagevoodoo2106 yes mate I watched the video. The plug-in is controlling the hardware at AA and sending back. The hardware is what’s in front of him. There’s still a difference. I think most are responding with “plug-in” being the AA version vs the hardware in front of him.
i think nobody no one is going to say "wow what a difference!" From what I hear, any version is going to be good. For me, there is no technology that improves a good song. there is no hardware or software that can improve it. Never hear somebody say "what a good song, as the snare sounds"
Great video. I stop using AA because of the work flow. Latency, you move the knob and sometimes take a long to hear the difference. Sometimes need to stop and start again to hear the gear. Is slow not like turn a knob in a real gear. Then upload your track to process , then save, then load in your daw. Was a good experience, but when I stop using, I still had credit without use, because of the slow workflow. So I ended investing in my own gear.
my impression is that the Access Analog unit (or its conversion) seems to give the sense of almost compressing the upper midrange more, resulting in somewhat lesser dynamic impact than your unit, a bit less sparkle, and a slightly narrower stereo image. Subtle but noticeable.
Yep, I heard this. I wonder if it's an effect of the processing system. I wonder if you just bounced live through the AA Portico, rather than using their processing feature, you'd hear less of that narrowing and loss of top end. Ableton's export does this too and it really annoys me people don't hear it. They need to compare their exports to Pro Tools bounce export, which means you have to wait for the whole track to play. The PT version is always exactly the same as what I hear in the DAW, whilst the Ableton export file always seems flat. They have an algo to combine the tracks and all the plugins and VSTis. People say it's perfect, but I don't think so. Bounce in Place vs Freeze and Flatten do not null. Even in PT, their export vs live bounce doesn't null.
They have the same overall sonic signature, but the hardware in your studio makes the track sound more lifelike and clear to me. The access analogue version sounds slightly cloudy in comparison. Most people won’t hear the difference though. The biggest differences can be found by focusing on frequencies around 7k and above, and paying attention to how the audio moves around in the stereo field. It takes the right person and several years of analyzing microscopic details on a daily basis to be able to immediately hear those kinds of differences. However, all that being said. I don’t know if we are listening to live playback of your Portico MBP, or if the audio is printed? Because that might make a difference as well. The access analogue file we were listening to was printed. So, in order to have a fair comparison, we need to also be listening to a printed file of your Portico MBP, not live playback. Live playback of analogue gear always sounds clearer to me than a printed file.
I should have said “live playback through gear always sounds clearer to me, than a printed file”. At least, this has been my experience since I first noticed it a few years ago. I don’t know for sure why this might be the case, but here is my best guess. When we listen to audio (live) through analogue equipment, we hear a mixture of things (analogue gear, and digital converters). But, when you print, you are no longer listening to audio pass through analogue gear. You are only listening to a digital recreation of your audio…a “picture” of what once was partially analogue. This digital “picture” is a good replica of the original picture, but it will never be the original. So, I think hearing audio through something that is part of our analogue world, will always sound different than hearing audio through something that is purely digital (ones and zeros). Audio just sounds more realistic to me through analogue gear. The less I hear from the digital domain, the more realistic audio sounds. Instruments sound more like they do in real life, voices sound more like someone speaking to me in real life, etc. Most people think I’m full of shit, but I couldn’t care less. I hear what I hear because I’ve unwillingly spent the last 18 yrs analyzing all day every day, and so I’ve become incredibly aware of tiny details in all sorts of aspects of my life. I’ve spent the last 7 yrs analyzing audio on what most people would consider a microscopic level. Because of these things, I can hear details in audio immediately that most people will never be able to hear. It’s much more of a curse than it is a blessing. It’s given me nothing but difficulties, so I don’t want anyone to think I’m bragging. I wouldn’t want anyone to have the analytical problems that I have. It’s not fun at all. Anyway, sorry, I’m rambling. It’s hard for me to put these kinds of things into words, especially through text. But, hopefully something I said was interesting, lol 😊 Cheers!
And, great video by the way. I think it’s awesome that you compared your gear to the gear streaming from access analogue. I just ordered the Portico II MBP the other day, so I’ll be able to do this same test for myself to hear and see how well access analogue compares! I’m excited for the MBP 🤘
@@danieldavies7308 if you’re talking about monitoring before the AD converter then yes, i agree with you. After it goes through the AD it’s 1’s and 0’s and it shouldn’t matter if it’s recorded or not, the conversion has been done. And if it is, maybe the DAW is fucking up somewhere😅 but ofcourse youre listening to a recording of it, wether it was printed or played back live when recording, at the end of the day it still needs to be recorded for it to be able to be uploaded to youtube.
Yes, theoretically you are absolutely correct. However, my ears tell me different and I’m not 100% sure why. I do know though, that anytime you send audio, (whether it’s through a piece of gear, a cable, a tube, a converter, etc.) it is being altered. This is because you are sending audio in the form of electricity through these things. Electricity itself is full of noise (waveforms) and as it passes through resistors, capacitors, amps, etc, those also create and manipulate electrical waveforms. So, literally anything that electricity comes into contact with, will alter its waveform, and the resulting audio that came from that electricity. The degree to which these alterations become audible is up for debate. So, when audio (electricity) is passing through gear and through your converters, there is far more going on with your electrical waveform signal path than there is without the gear. And maybe I can hear that. No idea 🤷🏻♂️ I’ve spoken with some fellow mastering engineers that can also hear these weird things, and they explain their experiences in the exact same ways that I do. So, at least I know I’m not the only one.
You are using Portioco with Antelope Galaxy converters - try compare second Portico that They have - on Lynx Aurora N - Galaxy converters are not the best. There is significant difference because of different conversion DA-AD //But thanks for this video! Good job!:)
I hear that the studio version sounds open and not clamped. I think this is an audio broadcast problem (maybe the effect of converters?) I did not hear a difference in dynamic processing.
what percentage of your work is hardware based and plugin based (actual software plugin based)? And could you speak about aliasing in software plugins?
My recordings are 95% hardware based, with mixes it depends on how it was recorded and what the track needs, but i’d say 20-25% hardware. About aliasing, i don’t think about it too much. If there is an oversampling tool, i try it, but i very often turn it off too.
The hardware sounds warmer, but all analog gear always sounds warmer than their software counterparts due to actual analog components. Software is getting very good for in the box recording. But often I can hear the difference between software processed records versus analog hardware processed records.
@@thomasvopstal I thought I saw a comparison of an actual hardware unit and then a software vst? I heard the software vst on screen with less warmth than the hardware unit.
@@Don_nell they are both hardware units. Access analog actually sends your signal to their facillities, runs it through an actual hardware unit and then sends it back to your daw. So they’re both the same analog pieces of gear only one is in front of me and the other is a couple 1000 km away
@@thomasvopstal That's a great idea and process for someone looking to have their music go through actual hardware pieces for the everyday consumer. And It sounded great overall, but the conversions seemed to have shave off a little warmth from the hardware unit in the comparison. Both signals didn't sound identical for warmth in my speakers. It's not that big of a difference or may not even be noticeable to most people. But I do bass music and listened to both versions to notice that. When you run an original signal through external converters you are gonna get changes whether it's more warmth or less warmth or more highs or less highs something will be compromised because of different converters being used. It still sounded great in general and may not be noticeable to most people, but doing bassy music and having monitors that articulate bass very well I can hear a small decrease in warmth from those converters and the conversion process. Whenever I use software I usually always have to compensate for the bass in most cases if it was a bass driven part in my mixes. I always wanted a Portico II, and will buy one in the future and was drawn to your comparisons and I appreciate your comparisons on your channel as I listen to a lot of hardware / software comparison reviews.
Hardware is wider more sparkly high end, aliveness, openness etc. If you want to stop breathing while you're listening you should go for hardware. It has a price for a reason. It's not with all hardware the same thing, but with Neve when you go over 2000 dollars it's quality.
Just to clarify, theyre both hardware units. It’s just that one is in a studio in another country that i stream audio to and from and the other is in front of me.
@@thomasvopstal Aha, I get it now; well your unit is better sounding, more air, more open sound etc., so this RME clean converters are making Neve shine to the fullest in my opinion.
@@thomasvopstal Hey, I'm just watching specs of this RME ADI 2 Pro FS converter, it has usb connection, does this operate also like audio interface in another words can you record the whole song going from analog IN via usb (like audio interface would behave) into the computer or not. Also I'm looking RME Fireface UCX II that is technicaly audio interface and it has a lot of options but in comparison on offical site to FS; it says it has no analog stereo input like Pro FS but it has on a front panel, you can see it. It's just confusion to the max. :) Does this FS model has some kind of special analog stereo input... :)) Subcribed by the way. 👍
@@b.hornetiii.6771 good question! the ADI 2 pro fs is a converter with a class compliant usb interface, so it has 2 inputs and outputs ready to go without any drivers on both mac and windows, which is why i got it mainly. The inputd are line inputs only, so no mic pre’s.
@@thomasvopstal aha, so "ready to go" meaning working with computer (recording into) without use of drivers etc. I like so much the fact that UCX II has USB direct recording function so you can record the whole song on to USB stick without the comp. DAW hassle; but if the quality of recording is compromised (colored in any way) by the mic pre's of UCX than the FS is the best choice to make. Thanks.
They're both hardware man, the access analog is just a robot controlling the hardware and sending the audio over a networking connection so they're both hardwares.
@@aviatedviewssound4798 I know but i wanted to make the difference clear between how i perceived the difference between the hardware neve and the " digital" software controled hardware. RUclips is compressed digital audio so the cd an mp3 difference was an analogy.
Honestly Nebula Alex B Pres Colors and Saturation (RND Portico Pre Setting ) + Acustica Audio Snow...Both Live Analog 18 Core Live Sampling Pluigins, Together will match a physical RND Portico.....all the way up to 90%, Live analog sampled plugins...are changing the Game... Thats $250 vs $4000 for 90% of the Sound, Depth and Analog Richness....thats a no brainer..... Ive been shooting out Acustica Audio and Nebula vs Access Analog and Acustica and Nebul with your own Analog Rack actually Sound better than Access Analog...if you have at "Some of your own gear with Live analog sampled plugins....its no point is using Acess Analog....Exp. Timp P Opto 32 Which is a 3A and 2A in one....sound as good or better than the UAD LA2A on Access analog... Its being sent off Digital and Return Digital Running a Mix through your own Analog Gear and then using Nebula and Actica to put a glue, niced toned finish on the Song is going to sound Warmer, Smoother, and more open....than Access Analog...Access Analog has a Harsh tone from thier gear....
The Lynx conversion must be making the AA sound wider and clearer. The elements are also separated better on the Lynx, more distinct from each other while still sounding like a cohesive whole. I'm listening through my own Aurora N that I after using AA. There were also a lot of things that I read about the Aurora N conversion being the most transparent of the converters they knew. K701 headphones.
@@duel5071 just checked again. No mention of Antelope. I believe someone there told me a year ago that there was maybe one thing connected to the Antelope.
Thanks for this comparison. I wouldn't expect them to sound the same, since no two hardware processors ever sound identical. Other differences, as stated, can be attributed to different converters and trying to match settings by ear. He did say that there were differences in the metering response, which can be seen clearly during playback comparison where his Portico is showing gain reduction and AA is showing no GR. The converters alone are enough to make them sound different though.
AA is doing a pretty awesome job in leveling the playing field. Sounds pretty close to me, off-course different converters.
I love this series. Would love to hear a Culture Vulture Plugin vs Hardware video! :)
Thanks! I’ll see if i can get my hands on one!
Loved your hardware version - had more silky highs :) Stoked to try the coupon code!
They're both hardware cuzzo
@@aviatedviewssound4798 I dont think some of these people understand that.
Your hardware unit definitely is a little bit smoother... its really lovely. However the Access Analog version is not too far off. Maybe the converters are making a difference. Thanks for the comparison, really appreciate it
They're both beautiful, but the hardware, to me, sounds like there is more harmonic distortion, it just sounds bigger with tighter transients, but the real difference is the width. That's quite audible to me. I'm using JBL 6300 series monitors (on Sound Anchor stands) and a sub.
Awesome video.Both sounding great (although I'm an RME fan boy) .Literally to that level of hardware access all that matters is the skill of the engineer !
it seems that the Access analog has a little more low end , that is something i've noticed too between my MBP my 1176 and their gears , it was bugging me so much that i've sent them a mail and they told me that the gears were also passing through a Neve master bus converter , with a blue silk on
Access analog is a crazy service ! Nice video as always
What AA has is a little more 700k that needs to be EQed out… small price to not have to pay $4000 to get to use the unit on a regular basis
@@johnisrael5183Damn 700k? They've got that high, high, high frequency response!
In the car listening to this, it sounds like the access audio losses some color and space compared to the hardware.. but, still an awesome tool. But the hardware sounded amazing
They definitely don’t sound the same. Your RME converters sound much clearer IMO and more detailed. The AA hardware for some odd reason sounds a little scooped and the kick loses it’s punch. Your hardware version with your RME sounds just like I expect high end analog gear to sound. I really do hope AA are actually using the real deal RND unit that they claim and not anything else. Thanks for doing this comparison.
Yeah you can hear a very slight difference but both sound great
your convertor maybe is super awesome ... I was considering the antelope galaxy but now im thinking to get the rme -2 Pro FS 2 channel high end convertor!
Cool videos man lol :))
i hear access analogue felt more excitement and more commercial feel, Maybe so good at Low & low-mid , cant believe It is The Converter making the Huge Difference ( definitely for some it is minor ) ! this video has changed my mind to getting RME interface lol . also remember when they changed lynx to Orion 32 and it was inferior in term of quality as compared to i get from lynx using analogue access hardware's, glad they heard us and changed back to lynx.
i felt the same. i didnt get the hype about orion
Not even close ...........thank you for this shoot out
Man… are you serious, bro? Check your ears, that’s really close now the hardware sounded slightly more open, but you can do some extra Eqing and the DAW loke l taking out a little 700k… and that mix almost sound identical
I’m gonna do there for subscription instead of adding higher end gear to what I’ve got
More bass and warmth in the 11 to 12 min sample. The Access is airy again and the hardware has more warm harmonics that maybe ideal for analog gear. It maybe that electronic harmonic distortion people want but Im not experienced enough to tell if that is the sound good gear adds or if the airy clean access is the sound people want.
I noticed some difference in the depth of the sound. Access Analog had it more than the plugin IMO.
You mean that access analog had more depth than the hardware? Because the plugin is accessanalog. Might be their converters
they are damn near the same, just the analog unit gives more warmth overall and the access version is more clear sounding and slightly less warm. Not a bad deal for a vst streaming audio from a real unit. Must be the converters.
Yeah, i think the general thought behind this video is more if they are on par quality wise than actually being identical. And i think they definitely are!
@@thomasvopstal I was going to buy actual units but your video sold me on access so there you go. Lol
This is great overview of both the processor and the AAnalog service, but like you say, we are only "comparing" the converters.
Because both units are pretty similar, we’re only comparing converters. If access analog didn’t do what it claimed to be doing, it would’ve been another story.
@@thomasvopstal Check out their new mastering chain, it's impressive! Thanks for explaining the control on the MBP in "depth" :)
Yes, not massive difference but the hardware had more defined low end/bottom, the plugin didn't have that same definition, at least in the synth's bottom end. Super close tho.
You know it's not a plugin right? Did you even watch the video? Access analog is a remote hardware service. I dont even get all these commenters man
@@machineagevoodoo2106 yes mate I watched the video. The plug-in is controlling the hardware at AA and sending back. The hardware is what’s in front of him. There’s still a difference. I think most are responding with “plug-in” being the AA version vs the hardware in front of him.
i think nobody no one is going to say "wow what a difference!" From what I hear, any version is going to be good. For me, there is no technology that improves a good song. there is no hardware or software that can improve it. Never hear somebody say "what a good song, as the snare sounds"
Preferred the AA versions wider and smoother
Great video. I stop using AA because of the work flow. Latency, you move the knob and sometimes take a long to hear the difference. Sometimes need to stop and start again to hear the gear. Is slow not like turn a knob in a real gear. Then upload your track to process , then save, then load in your daw. Was a good experience, but when I stop using, I still had credit without use, because of the slow workflow. So I ended investing in my own gear.
my impression is that the Access Analog unit (or its conversion) seems to give the sense of almost compressing the upper midrange more, resulting in somewhat lesser dynamic impact than your unit, a bit less sparkle, and a slightly narrower stereo image. Subtle but noticeable.
Yep, I heard this. I wonder if it's an effect of the processing system. I wonder if you just bounced live through the AA Portico, rather than using their processing feature, you'd hear less of that narrowing and loss of top end.
Ableton's export does this too and it really annoys me people don't hear it. They need to compare their exports to Pro Tools bounce export, which means you have to wait for the whole track to play. The PT version is always exactly the same as what I hear in the DAW, whilst the Ableton export file always seems flat. They have an algo to combine the tracks and all the plugins and VSTis. People say it's perfect, but I don't think so. Bounce in Place vs Freeze and Flatten do not null. Even in PT, their export vs live bounce doesn't null.
The guitar sounds exactly like Andy Summers from the Police. That's a good thing.
They have the same overall sonic signature, but the hardware in your studio makes the track sound more lifelike and clear to me. The access analogue version sounds slightly cloudy in comparison. Most people won’t hear the difference though. The biggest differences can be found by focusing on frequencies around 7k and above, and paying attention to how the audio moves around in the stereo field. It takes the right person and several years of analyzing microscopic details on a daily basis to be able to immediately hear those kinds of differences.
However, all that being said. I don’t know if we are listening to live playback of your Portico MBP, or if the audio is printed? Because that might make a difference as well. The access analogue file we were listening to was printed. So, in order to have a fair comparison, we need to also be listening to a printed file of your Portico MBP, not live playback. Live playback of analogue gear always sounds clearer to me than a printed file.
Interesting take, could you elaborate on why you think live playback would sounds better than the printed audio?
I should have said “live playback through gear always sounds clearer to me, than a printed file”. At least, this has been my experience since I first noticed it a few years ago. I don’t know for sure why this might be the case, but here is my best guess.
When we listen to audio (live) through analogue equipment, we hear a mixture of things (analogue gear, and digital converters). But, when you print, you are no longer listening to audio pass through analogue gear. You are only listening to a digital recreation of your audio…a “picture” of what once was partially analogue. This digital “picture” is a good replica of the original picture, but it will never be the original. So, I think hearing audio through something that is part of our analogue world, will always sound different than hearing audio through something that is purely digital (ones and zeros).
Audio just sounds more realistic to me through analogue gear. The less I hear from the digital domain, the more realistic audio sounds. Instruments sound more like they do in real life, voices sound more like someone speaking to me in real life, etc.
Most people think I’m full of shit, but I couldn’t care less. I hear what I hear because I’ve unwillingly spent the last 18 yrs analyzing all day every day, and so I’ve become incredibly aware of tiny details in all sorts of aspects of my life. I’ve spent the last 7 yrs analyzing audio on what most people would consider a microscopic level. Because of these things, I can hear details in audio immediately that most people will never be able to hear. It’s much more of a curse than it is a blessing. It’s given me nothing but difficulties, so I don’t want anyone to think I’m bragging. I wouldn’t want anyone to have the analytical problems that I have. It’s not fun at all.
Anyway, sorry, I’m rambling. It’s hard for me to put these kinds of things into words, especially through text. But, hopefully something I said was interesting, lol 😊
Cheers!
And, great video by the way. I think it’s awesome that you compared your gear to the gear streaming from access analogue. I just ordered the Portico II MBP the other day, so I’ll be able to do this same test for myself to hear and see how well access analogue compares! I’m excited for the MBP 🤘
@@danieldavies7308 if you’re talking about monitoring before the AD converter then yes, i agree with you. After it goes through the AD it’s 1’s and 0’s and it shouldn’t matter if it’s recorded or not, the conversion has been done. And if it is, maybe the DAW is fucking up somewhere😅 but ofcourse youre listening to a recording of it, wether it was printed or played back live when recording, at the end of the day it still needs to be recorded for it to be able to be uploaded to youtube.
Yes, theoretically you are absolutely correct. However, my ears tell me different and I’m not 100% sure why.
I do know though, that anytime you send audio, (whether it’s through a piece of gear, a cable, a tube, a converter, etc.) it is being altered. This is because you are sending audio in the form of electricity through these things. Electricity itself is full of noise (waveforms) and as it passes through resistors, capacitors, amps, etc, those also create and manipulate electrical waveforms. So, literally anything that electricity comes into contact with, will alter its waveform, and the resulting audio that came from that electricity. The degree to which these alterations become audible is up for debate.
So, when audio (electricity) is passing through gear and through your converters, there is far more going on with your electrical waveform signal path than there is without the gear. And maybe I can hear that. No idea 🤷🏻♂️
I’ve spoken with some fellow mastering engineers that can also hear these weird things, and they explain their experiences in the exact same ways that I do. So, at least I know I’m not the only one.
👏👏👏, thanks, ecellent
Better high end response on the hardware. Maybe the threshold is higher on the hardware? AA sounds ‘squeezed’
That's nuts.
wowww Acess Analog more 3D for me
You are using Portioco with Antelope Galaxy converters - try compare second Portico that They have - on Lynx Aurora N - Galaxy converters are not the best. There is significant difference because of different conversion DA-AD //But thanks for this video! Good job!:)
Can you switch between their converters? Ive tried, but couldnt find it
I hear that the studio version sounds open and not clamped.
I think this is an audio broadcast problem (maybe the effect of converters?)
I did not hear a difference in dynamic processing.
hardware is winner
yup hardware is wider sounding ans smoother
Thanx!!🙌👍👍👍
Anytime!
The one from AA sounded like it was a plug-in, flat and boring..:.
Do you not have an opinion by yourself or why don't you share you thoughts hearing in a great studio with experienced ears?
probably the convertors made the diff, otherwise very close.
I don't see any reduction meters on the plug in version.
what percentage of your work is hardware based and plugin based (actual software plugin based)? And could you speak about aliasing in software plugins?
My recordings are 95% hardware based, with mixes it depends on how it was recorded and what the track needs, but i’d say 20-25% hardware. About aliasing, i don’t think about it too much. If there is an oversampling tool, i try it, but i very often turn it off too.
In the compressor of analog access the Side Chain is already pre-activated
Not much of a difference in sound hence the direct access of the hardware. Good posting.
The hardware sounds warmer, but all analog gear always sounds warmer than their software counterparts due to actual analog components. Software is getting very good for in the box recording. But often I can hear the difference between software processed records versus analog hardware processed records.
But you do know that both of these are pieces of hardware right?
@@thomasvopstal I thought I saw a comparison of an actual hardware unit and then a software vst? I heard the software vst on screen with less warmth than the hardware unit.
@@Don_nell they are both hardware units. Access analog actually sends your signal to their facillities, runs it through an actual hardware unit and then sends it back to your daw. So they’re both the same analog pieces of gear only one is in front of me and the other is a couple 1000 km away
@@thomasvopstal That's a great idea and process for someone looking to have their music go through actual hardware pieces for the everyday consumer. And It sounded great overall, but the conversions seemed to have shave off a little warmth from the hardware unit in the comparison. Both signals didn't sound identical for warmth in my speakers. It's not that big of a difference or may not even be noticeable to most people. But I do bass music and listened to both versions to notice that. When you run an original signal through external converters you are gonna get changes whether it's more warmth or less warmth or more highs or less highs something will be compromised because of different converters being used. It still sounded great in general and may not be noticeable to most people, but doing bassy music and having monitors that articulate bass very well I can hear a small decrease in warmth from those converters and the conversion process. Whenever I use software I usually always have to compensate for the bass in most cases if it was a bass driven part in my mixes. I always wanted a Portico II, and will buy one in the future and was drawn to your comparisons and I appreciate your comparisons on your channel as I listen to a lot of hardware / software comparison reviews.
What converters were you running for the hardware in the studio? (not the AA version).
I thought i mentioned that in the video, but they’re RME ADI 2 pro fs converters
thanks
Access Analog is more punchy and somehow feels to have a beter phase relationship between L and R
I agree the access analog does sound more balanced
maybe a dumb question... how do multiple people in the world use the same unit at the same time? or do you schedule in time online to use it?
You schedule time to use it yes
Hardware is wider more sparkly high end, aliveness, openness etc. If you want to stop breathing while you're listening you should go for hardware. It has a price for a reason. It's not with all hardware the same thing, but with Neve when you go over 2000 dollars it's quality.
Just to clarify, theyre both hardware units. It’s just that one is in a studio in another country that i stream audio to and from and the other is in front of me.
@@thomasvopstal Aha, I get it now; well your unit is better sounding, more air, more open sound etc., so this RME clean converters are making Neve shine to the fullest in my opinion.
@@thomasvopstal Hey, I'm just watching specs of this RME ADI 2 Pro FS converter, it has usb connection, does this operate also like audio interface in another words can you record the whole song going from analog IN via usb (like audio interface would behave) into the computer or not. Also I'm looking RME Fireface UCX II that is technicaly audio interface and it has a lot of options but in comparison on offical site to FS; it says it has no analog stereo input like Pro FS but it has on a front panel, you can see it. It's just confusion to the max. :) Does this FS model has some kind of special analog stereo input... :)) Subcribed by the way. 👍
@@b.hornetiii.6771 good question! the ADI 2 pro fs is a converter with a class compliant usb interface, so it has 2 inputs and outputs ready to go without any drivers on both mac and windows, which is why i got it mainly. The inputd are line inputs only, so no mic pre’s.
@@thomasvopstal aha, so "ready to go" meaning working with computer (recording into) without use of drivers etc. I like so much the fact that UCX II has USB direct recording function so you can record the whole song on to USB stick without the comp. DAW hassle; but if the quality of recording is compromised (colored in any way) by the mic pre's of UCX than the FS is the best choice to make. Thanks.
plugin=2D analog gear=3D
It's nothing like the real thing. The access wasn't bad sounding tho.
think the Antelope audio converters sound better more fuller
FILE :1 - HARDWARE BETTER
FILE 2 ALSO , they more characteristic
The wide, The highs and lows different!!! On the plug felt lows compressed shitty stereo and bad highs, no debate here
It's literally a remote hardware setup, no plugin. But whatever haha
@@machineagevoodoo2106 I say what I hear bro, whatever it is, there is difference that I can notice
Access sounds more airy and Hardware sounds more forward in the mids at the 10 min mark with the female voice sample.
If i focus on the hihat the difference becomes clear, the hardware sounds like a cd and the software sounds more like a high resolution mp3 of the cd.
They're both hardware man, the access analog is just a robot controlling the hardware and sending the audio over a networking connection so they're both hardwares.
@@aviatedviewssound4798 I know but i wanted to make the difference clear between how i perceived the difference between the hardware neve and the " digital" software controled hardware. RUclips is compressed digital audio so the cd an mp3 difference was an analogy.
Yup, there is a difference
Honestly
Nebula
Alex B Pres Colors and Saturation (RND Portico Pre Setting ) + Acustica Audio Snow...Both Live Analog 18 Core Live Sampling Pluigins, Together will match a physical RND Portico.....all the way up to 90%, Live analog sampled plugins...are changing the Game...
Thats $250 vs $4000 for 90% of the Sound, Depth and Analog Richness....thats a no brainer.....
Ive been shooting out
Acustica Audio and Nebula vs Access Analog and Acustica and Nebul with your own Analog Rack actually Sound better than Access Analog...if you have at "Some of your own gear with Live analog sampled plugins....its no point is using Acess Analog....Exp. Timp P Opto 32 Which is a 3A and 2A in one....sound as good or better than the UAD LA2A on Access analog...
Its being sent off Digital and Return Digital
Running a Mix through your own Analog Gear and then using Nebula and Actica to put a glue, niced toned finish on the Song is going to sound Warmer, Smoother, and more open....than Access Analog...Access Analog has a Harsh tone from thier gear....
Acces analog is smoother. Especially in the highs.
RME rules 😂
Analog is a thousand times better lmao
The Lynx conversion must be making the AA sound wider and clearer. The elements are also separated better on the Lynx, more distinct from each other while still sounding like a cohesive whole. I'm listening through my own Aurora N that I after using AA. There were also a lot of things that I read about the Aurora N conversion being the most transparent of the converters they knew. K701 headphones.
Lynx? It's Antelope
@@duel5071 AA just says “powered by Lynx conversion”, does it list what’s on the Antelope? Last time I asked them, there wasn’t much on the Antelope.
@@viciousblissvideos oh interesting thanks
@@duel5071 just checked again. No mention of Antelope. I believe someone there told me a year ago that there was maybe one thing connected to the Antelope.
@@viciousblissvideos thanks for the info
WAN audio processing wide area network
null test
Hardware 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉 software 🎉
The hardware was better .. high freq was more crisp
This is Analog vs Analog. Access Analog uses The real hardware.
SW isn't HW that's so easy! if you wanna do the real thing go for HW.
But they are both hardware?