the Analog really shines when you listen very loud !...the digital will get brittle harsh and crunchy if you compare the hi mids and highs ...just the 10% of smoothness in that area is worth it if youre able to afford the gear..but both mixes sound really good!...im subscribed to both you guys coincidentally lol. Analog Vlog has a great video on CONVERTERS!
Master X 2:02 Master Z 2:26 Digital 30:42 Analog 30:54 I'd say X = Analog & Y = Digital. X seems to be carrying the typical mid range and low end heft magic 🪄. You will also notice that the low end in the digital master, though appearing louder, is not as full and round as the analog master. Furthermore, if you trun it up loud you will hear the stereo image difference, in most cases, and in this case, the analog master feels wider. However, I do love the high-end on Z. Side note: I also think you might have given it away Nich because you seemed so more engaged with Z. Not in a narcissistic way; we just really dig our own work sometimes.🤣
The analog master is pillowy and Hi-Fi and reminds me of the Silk Sonic album. The digital one is tighter probably more radio friendly. Loved seeing both processes!
That was a cool experiment and I liked the silky smooth audio example you used for it as well. I don't have a preference which master was better though
Definitely enjoyed this demo comparison and technique! I liked the softness of the analog version that I perceived, notwithstanding YT audio translation, through my Barefoots. But the digital version was just as good. I prefer the loudness as well when it is required TBH.
I am a little late to the party 🎉 but there are subtle differences. At face value, or shall I say EAR value, if I were not shown both versions to compare I would not know if it was digital or analog. And I bet you and other qualified mastering or mixing engineers would not either. It is all about end results. That being said, engineering and tracking with analog high quality preamps, eqs, comps, etc. goes a long way to making a mix sound great - which means a master is going to sound way better too because we all know you cannot polish a turd. So… just based on my Focal studio set up listen, for me I like the analog better. Something sounds more open and wide. Alive. Warm. Pick your buzz word. The digital is NOT bad at all though. Not even close to being bad. I bet you money that you could even digitally replicate the open and warm analog master if you tried to match sound with other plugins. Good video!
Hey ! Thanks for sharing! Definitely happy to share the experience with you; you definitely understood the concept of the video, and thanks for watching!
Another great video! I've learned so many interesting things from you. How about a comparison using analog emulation like UAD, Acustica etc. as hybrid ITB vs analog hybrid 😊
Hi Nick, At 19:00, how did you level match those separate sections (pre and post master) so quickly and easily? It almost looked like you did something within insight, and didnt even click on anything. What am I missing here? Thanks so much!
Oh a jump cut of about 15 seconds. I loop 3 of the loudest seconds in the song take the short term lufs reading of before and after then gain stage the after down to match the before!
Good job :) It was never a battle but a matter of progress one way or another. I tend to feel most rosy about the late-'70s --mid '80s as being the 'height of analog' but I know it is just that I was very young then. The remnants of the past is always idealized while the (typical in every era) 80-95% of mediocrities produced at the time is long forgotten. :) That said, *Digital* _often tends to_ exhibit and facilitate greater specificity to detail. It often needs more tending to in order to sound good. *Analog* media, gain stages and summing _tends to_ glue tracks together better, and be less fatiguing on the ear at higher volume. This does not mean that bottom-dollar analog gear sounds any better than bottom-dollar anything else, though. (nothing wrong with being frugal in a pinch, but chronic cheapness is a serious impediment) As ever - the talent at work (and play) is much more important than the means, however crucial it may be.
Master Z is quite a bit better, which I think is the digital one? The original very nice mix is retained just with more space. X does not do much good for any of it, feels less dynamic, high mids are too hot, when I turn up both masters on my Dutch and Dutch monitors, X becomes noticeably harsh very early. Ultimately the test however doesn't say as much in regards to analog vs digital mastering as it does good vs mediocre engineers. Even if you try to ignore the differences in engineers here, the analog "chain" used here was just not cut out to showcase analog's strengths from the get go. I might have been more telling if one engineer did both versions in their own studios. Even four versions to compare would have been interesting.
Z is sexy smooth. Perfect for this record! Listen to the snare and the separation in X. Not very pleasing to my ear whereas the Z sounds glued, beautifully intertwined. Just like how it’s supposed to sound for this record. I dunno which is which but Z any day for this one.
Z sounded slightly more upfront and more 'radio' to me, drawing more focus to the vocal. X sounded warmer and rounder, but also had a nice bounce to the low end that Z was missing. Hard to say which serves the intention of the music better.
I like B/Z master best, dont know what it is yet. C master sounded a bit harsh to me and deviated more from the original mix and a bit more uncontrolled/unconsistent. Edit: which one was it?
Master X sounds so much better to me ...more natural sound, smoother, more 3d, warmer and there is more space for the instruments to breath. which one is the which?
Humanity vs Torture - How have you been able to survive this beyond dated sounding track with that level of annoyance ? That's like spicing a burning tire on a barbeque grill. Still undigestible : )
some mentions maybe about the different approaches from technical perspective? What about gain levels? Gainstaging? All same in analog and digital domain? I do not thinks so, thats reason I ask... ;-)
Z is more open and dynamic, I'm tempted to say it's digital because of how clean it is. On the other side x, has a very obvious dynamic ceil, and the highs are hissing a bit. I think that's the digital...
I just had a song mastered hybrid WITH TAPE 😊 and it's a great version. beats any digital master I can muster on my own Yet I ended up preferring this: bouncing to tape (Telefunken M15) and shaving peaks with a digital limiter. boom
I think that prohibitting the other engineer from using plugins doesn't serve the audience well. We all have access to plugins. Most anolog mastering sessions will employ plugins as well. Most folks in the early stages of their journey will only have plugins. They're deciding weather or not to take the very expensive leap into hardare. And they will likely do that 1 or 2 units at a time. Therefore I think it makes more sense to have 1 engineer stick to plugins while the other can work hybrid as they normally would. Will the incorperation of some analog units make a difference I can justify? Will real vari-mu or pultec or blackbox or whatever, injected into my chain mean something more? Will boutique conversion mean something? In addition to what's available to everyone and not instead of.
analog sounds better ... but I think that the "original" one already sounds quite good by itself, crank volume up -> done. Maybe you should use softwares that tries to replicate real analog instead of fully digital softwares that are less warmer.
Stopping right here at 2:38 to guess... Master X is analog, Master Z is digital. That's my prejudiced bias because Master X sounded infinitely better to me. It was like 3D candy. (Finished watching and read through comments below, and now I know which is digital. It seems my prejudice caused me to expect magical depth imparted on the analog version. In actuality, you added more 3D depth with expansion on the claps, so you made it sound more "analog" than analog. Ha!)
The same thing I see happening over and over in these kind of videos: Analog gear gives "blur" to the low end and subtle volume decrease on the high ends... I mean, the sound is just "ready for TV and Radio" already... The digital master is good, but not "as good", but definitely usable for Radio and TV as well... This is not matchable by digital plugins at all... yet... Kind like Analog is 100%, while digital is at 90 ~ 95%
I preferred the analog one. It has more solidity on the lowend and just sounded more like a "finished record" in general, kinda has a juicy/soupy feel that suits the song better. Just a taste thing though maybe. The digital one sounded a little more "grainy" to me! P.s. Unrelated, but you're looking in good shape compared to a year or 2 ago!
Interesting; yeah; I really enjoyed the analog one; but not for the low end actually; more for the mid-range! I prefered the low end in the digital; P.s cheers; yeah taking care of myself as much as possible;
There are people who just prefer the super crisp nature of digital, they want that bling, don't like it when sounds evoke images of rounded objects, they want SHARP FOCUSED EVERYTHING, can't stand smooth stuff, it's tactile, a kind of fetish ASMR. Also, maybe not choose a 20 something kid with a handful of outboard gear to represent the last 80+ years of analog mastering. You weren't exactly going head to head with Bob Ludwig. Bob would have humiliated you and extended it all the way into dog hearing territory.
Master Z sounds like an analog mix. It is cleaner in the lows and has a slight smear which makes it pleasant to listen to. Master X is cleaner overall but sounds more like a stack of individual tracks, less integrated.
These comments don't make any sense to me. Are they all bots? He said which one was which. Also....the simple conclusion is that either is fine and the difference is in taste and workflow. As for Will saying that analog couldn't compete with the loudness of digital....there are still people getting loud masters from clipping converters. Was that banned from the competition or something? Also....still....if you set Standard Clip's saturator control to min, that's hard clipping. You've covered this before in other videos. You know this. Why are you still getting it wrong?
Yeah; That's the direction he took his master in; which is fair enough; I find clipping converters a great way to get loud masters too; It wasn't a competition... we just jammed it out to see where the mix and our tools would take us; As for the hard-clipping; I know it is hard clipping and that's purposeful!
green analog, red digital... to me the red sounds better... green has problems in the bass -> sounds like bad smearish SSL compression. PS: 31:19 sick, it actually was the other way round? the green one was digital....
Good descriptor; I've starting finding a way to navigate this bloat in Ozone 11 using the delta modes! ~ Should I share this in greater detail in a future video?
Well why not. I am seriously digging how to uncripple the digital, or rather, "how to use the digital so it doesn't sound like a cardbox without dimension"... I dont believe in any added dimensional beauty in the digital, but I will give anything a try. @@panorama_mastering
X is crisp as hell.. Z sounds much warmer. I don’t feel as if one sounds more “analog” than the other. I’ll take a shot in the dark and say X is the analog master only because I feel like he may have over cooked his master because he felt like he was at a disadvantage. But that decision may backfire on me….
@@panorama_mastering Sweet.. im just happy you guys did an honest comparison. usually you get these analog nuts that will master a song with their gear and then blindly match the setting using on their plugin counterparts and then be like, "see, analog sounds so much better!" like really? lol
I'm so sorry but the I'll take the analog one on this example, the digital sounds crushed, clipped, the analog is more articulate, more detailed and dynamic and actually louder!!
![Megan Thee Stallion - Bigger In Texas [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QxTkZTLWdo4/mqdefault.jpg)
the Analog really shines when you listen very loud !...the digital will get brittle harsh and crunchy if you compare the hi mids and highs ...just the 10% of smoothness in that area is worth it if youre able to afford the gear..but both mixes sound really good!...im subscribed to both you guys coincidentally lol. Analog Vlog has a great video on CONVERTERS!
Amazing! Thanks for listening :)
Master X 2:02
Master Z 2:26
Digital 30:42
Analog 30:54
I'd say X = Analog & Y = Digital.
X seems to be carrying the typical mid range and low end heft magic 🪄. You will also notice that the low end in the digital master, though appearing louder, is not as full and round as the analog master. Furthermore, if you trun it up loud you will hear the stereo image difference, in most cases, and in this case, the analog master feels wider. However, I do love the high-end on Z.
Side note: I also think you might have given it away Nich because you seemed so more engaged with Z. Not in a narcissistic way; we just really dig our own work sometimes.🤣
The analog master is pillowy and Hi-Fi and reminds me of the Silk Sonic album. The digital one is tighter probably more radio friendly. Loved seeing both processes!
My pleasure! Thanks for following along!
That was a cool experiment and I liked the silky smooth audio example you used for it as well. I don't have a preference which master was better though
Definitely enjoyed this demo comparison and technique! I liked the softness of the analog version that I perceived, notwithstanding YT audio translation, through my Barefoots. But the digital version was just as good. I prefer the loudness as well when it is required TBH.
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for watching!
I'm really picky about these mastering ''tutorial'' videos but I really enjoyed this one! Good job buddy :D
Glad you enjoyed it!
Both mixes sound great! I feel there is a little more depth to the mid range in the analog master.
30:15 casual platinum record on the floor XD
don't care which one the second one is but I like it better because it serves the music better
+1 analog. That mid range and airiness is something special for this record.
Great video. I prefer the analog mix just sounds like a record. I truly understand NOW why hybrid is ultimately the way to go.
I am a little late to the party 🎉 but there are subtle differences. At face value, or shall I say EAR value, if I were not shown both versions to compare I would not know if it was digital or analog. And I bet you and other qualified mastering or mixing engineers would not either. It is all about end results. That being said, engineering and tracking with analog high quality preamps, eqs, comps, etc. goes a long way to making a mix sound great - which means a master is going to sound way better too because we all know you cannot polish a turd. So… just based on my Focal studio set up listen, for me I like the analog better. Something sounds more open and wide. Alive. Warm. Pick your buzz word. The digital is NOT bad at all though. Not even close to being bad. I bet you money that you could even digitally replicate the open and warm analog master if you tried to match sound with other plugins. Good video!
Hey ! Thanks for sharing! Definitely happy to share the experience with you; you definitely understood the concept of the video, and thanks for watching!
They both sounded better than the original, but I can't decide which of the masters I liked better. Did the artists have a preference?
This was done after Will had completed the project for the artist. I am not sure which one the artist prefered from this video…
Another great video! I've learned so many interesting things from you. How about a comparison using analog emulation like UAD, Acustica etc. as hybrid ITB vs analog hybrid 😊
This is a super solid idea; I think 1:1 comparisons would be best to pit these emulations against their hardware counterparts; of which I don't own;
Hi Nick,
At 19:00, how did you level match those separate sections (pre and post master) so quickly and easily? It almost looked like you did something within insight, and didnt even click on anything. What am I missing here?
Thanks so much!
Oh a jump cut of about 15 seconds.
I loop 3 of the loudest seconds in the song take the short term lufs reading of before and after then gain stage the after down to match the before!
@@panorama_mastering makes sense! And here I thought you were a wizard 🧙 LOL
Thanks for making this, truly fabulous content
Good job :) It was never a battle but a matter of progress one way or another.
I tend to feel most rosy about the late-'70s --mid '80s as being the 'height of analog'
but I know it is just that I was very young then. The remnants of the past is always idealized while the (typical in every era) 80-95% of mediocrities produced at the time is long forgotten. :)
That said,
*Digital* _often tends to_ exhibit and facilitate greater specificity to detail. It often needs more tending to in order to sound good.
*Analog* media, gain stages and summing _tends to_ glue tracks together better, and be less fatiguing on the ear at higher volume. This does not mean that bottom-dollar analog gear sounds any better than bottom-dollar anything else, though. (nothing wrong with being frugal in a pinch, but chronic cheapness is a serious impediment)
As ever - the talent at work (and play) is much more important than the means, however crucial it may be.
The digital master sounds like a video game soundtrack song. The analog master sounds like a record.
Master Z is quite a bit better, which I think is the digital one? The original very nice mix is retained just with more space. X does not do much good for any of it, feels less dynamic, high mids are too hot, when I turn up both masters on my Dutch and Dutch monitors, X becomes noticeably harsh very early. Ultimately the test however doesn't say as much in regards to analog vs digital mastering as it does good vs mediocre engineers. Even if you try to ignore the differences in engineers here, the analog "chain" used here was just not cut out to showcase analog's strengths from the get go. I might have been more telling if one engineer did both versions in their own studios. Even four versions to compare would have been interesting.
this is great :)
My god, analog wipes the floor w/digital here to my ears. Sounds big, warm, and inviting. The difference is NOT subtle.
Z is sexy smooth. Perfect for this record! Listen to the snare and the separation in X. Not very pleasing to my ear whereas the Z sounds glued, beautifully intertwined. Just like how it’s supposed to sound for this record. I dunno which is which but Z any day for this one.
It's a big mixed bag! Everyone likes each one for different reasons;
Z sounded slightly more upfront and more 'radio' to me, drawing more focus to the vocal. X sounded warmer and rounder, but also had a nice bounce to the low end that Z was missing. Hard to say which serves the intention of the music better.
That's the fun of something like this!
I like B/Z master best, dont know what it is yet. C master sounded a bit harsh to me and deviated more from the original mix and a bit more uncontrolled/unconsistent. Edit: which one was it?
Which one was X/Z ?
Master X sounds so much better to me ...more natural sound, smoother, more 3d, warmer and there is more space for the instruments to breath. which one is the which?
Digital sounds much cleaner and its much present in the high-mids/highs. Analog sounds noticeably more distorted but has a much more tamed top end.
I prefer the digital one
Humanity vs Torture - How have you been able to survive this beyond dated sounding track with that level of annoyance ? That's like spicing a burning tire on a barbeque grill. Still undigestible : )
some mentions maybe about the different approaches from technical perspective? What about gain levels? Gainstaging? All same in analog and digital domain? I do not thinks so, thats reason I ask... ;-)
Z is more open and dynamic, I'm tempted to say it's digital because of how clean it is.
On the other side x, has a very obvious dynamic ceil, and the highs are hissing a bit. I think that's the digital...
I just had a song mastered hybrid WITH TAPE 😊 and it's a great version. beats any digital master I can muster on my own
Yet I ended up preferring this: bouncing to tape (Telefunken M15) and shaving peaks with a digital limiter. boom
I think that prohibitting the other engineer from using plugins doesn't serve the audience well. We all have access to plugins. Most anolog mastering sessions will employ plugins as well. Most folks in the early stages of their journey will only have plugins. They're deciding weather or not to take the very expensive leap into hardare. And they will likely do that 1 or 2 units at a time. Therefore I think it makes more sense to have 1 engineer stick to plugins while the other can work hybrid as they normally would. Will the incorperation of some analog units make a difference I can justify? Will real vari-mu or pultec or blackbox or whatever, injected into my chain mean something more? Will boutique conversion mean something? In addition to what's available to everyone and not instead of.
You make a great point here for real world applicability; this was more about the two of us nerding out,
Try using a clipper and saturation before digital limiting to mimic the VM😊😊
analog sounds better ... but I think that the "original" one already sounds quite good by itself, crank volume up -> done.
Maybe you should use softwares that tries to replicate real analog instead of fully digital softwares that are less warmer.
still lot of EQ work to do 2 db isn't enought and the middle version boost more the sub bass low, but the problem isn't here
Stopping right here at 2:38 to guess... Master X is analog, Master Z is digital. That's my prejudiced bias because Master X sounded infinitely better to me. It was like 3D candy. (Finished watching and read through comments below, and now I know which is digital. It seems my prejudice caused me to expect magical depth imparted on the analog version. In actuality, you added more 3D depth with expansion on the claps, so you made it sound more "analog" than analog. Ha!)
Analog = BEST!
The same thing I see happening over and over in these kind of videos:
Analog gear gives "blur" to the low end and subtle volume decrease on the high ends... I mean, the sound is just "ready for TV and Radio" already... The digital master is good, but not "as good", but definitely usable for Radio and TV as well...
This is not matchable by digital plugins at all... yet...
Kind like Analog is 100%, while digital is at 90 ~ 95%
I preferred the analog one. It has more solidity on the lowend and just sounded more like a "finished record" in general, kinda has a juicy/soupy feel that suits the song better. Just a taste thing though maybe. The digital one sounded a little more "grainy" to me!
P.s. Unrelated, but you're looking in good shape compared to a year or 2 ago!
Interesting; yeah; I really enjoyed the analog one; but not for the low end actually; more for the mid-range!
I prefered the low end in the digital;
P.s cheers; yeah taking care of myself as much as possible;
There are people who just prefer the super crisp nature of digital, they want that bling, don't like it when sounds evoke images of rounded objects, they want SHARP FOCUSED EVERYTHING, can't stand smooth stuff, it's tactile, a kind of fetish ASMR. Also, maybe not choose a 20 something kid with a handful of outboard gear to represent the last 80+ years of analog mastering. You weren't exactly going head to head with Bob Ludwig. Bob would have humiliated you and extended it all the way into dog hearing territory.
Master Z sounds like an analog mix. It is cleaner in the lows and has a slight smear which makes it pleasant to listen to. Master X is cleaner overall but sounds more like a stack of individual tracks, less integrated.
Yeah I hear the same. Well described.
Based on the style and what was aiming at, the digital version is what suits the song.
Master Z sounds better to my ears, more open and natural. Master X sounds a bit too bright and lack the punch that the Master Z has.
Mater Z is analog?
I personally really like analog Color. It Sounds much More opened and Musical to me (mainly because of the manley passive)
Thanks for watching!
A N A L O G
These comments don't make any sense to me. Are they all bots? He said which one was which. Also....the simple conclusion is that either is fine and the difference is in taste and workflow. As for Will saying that analog couldn't compete with the loudness of digital....there are still people getting loud masters from clipping converters. Was that banned from the competition or something?
Also....still....if you set Standard Clip's saturator control to min, that's hard clipping. You've covered this before in other videos. You know this. Why are you still getting it wrong?
Yeah; That's the direction he took his master in; which is fair enough; I find clipping converters a great way to get loud masters too;
It wasn't a competition... we just jammed it out to see where the mix and our tools would take us;
As for the hard-clipping; I know it is hard clipping and that's purposeful!
@@panorama_mastering That all makes sense, and I agree. I like the edge. You did say soft clipping in the video. Hence my confusion.
Master Z sounds way better and more pleasing to an ear
green analog, red digital... to me the red sounds better... green has problems in the bass -> sounds like bad smearish SSL compression.
PS: 31:19 sick, it actually was the other way round? the green one was digital....
The beard is growing mane lol 😂
Again, same as in pultec hw vs sw. Digital has this bloated, stuffed low end, and analog has air all over it. Clear difference.
Good descriptor; I've starting finding a way to navigate this bloat in Ozone 11 using the delta modes! ~ Should I share this in greater detail in a future video?
Well why not. I am seriously digging how to uncripple the digital, or rather, "how to use the digital so it doesn't sound like a cardbox without dimension"... I dont believe in any added dimensional beauty in the digital, but I will give anything a try. @@panorama_mastering
X is crisp as hell.. Z sounds much warmer. I don’t feel as if one sounds more “analog” than the other. I’ll take a shot in the dark and say X is the analog master only because I feel like he may have over cooked his master because he felt like he was at a disadvantage. But that decision may backfire on me….
X was the Digital; Z was the analog!
@@panorama_mastering Sweet.. im just happy you guys did an honest comparison. usually you get these analog nuts that will master a song with their gear and then blindly match the setting using on their plugin counterparts and then be like, "see, analog sounds so much better!" like really? lol
I'm so sorry but the I'll take the analog one on this example, the digital sounds crushed, clipped, the analog is more articulate, more detailed and dynamic and actually louder!!
The analog sounds better. Just more real sounding, the digital sounds digital and kinda fake. Plastic. But is sounds nice too. Just less real for me.
That's fair enough! I really enjoyed the analog one too!
@@panorama_mastering valves and good ad/da power 🔈🔥💎 , but sometimes is better to stay itb. Like 10% on my workflow
I like X better. More silky.
basicly, fuck mastering, just slap a Pro-L on the master and it 's better than all the effort everyone tries to put into it.
🤣🤣 Sometimes it's better that way indeed, but it's rare if the mastering engineer is very good.
Interesting take!
@@panorama_mastering Ima just keep finishing stuff at -6 and pay those 40€ tho, just to be sure 😄
@@huberttorzewski I guess it 's the other set of ear 's you pay for yea.
Master Z sounded better. I couldn't care less which one is digital or analog tbh.