Yeah... while the mario block description is good, he kind of described the role of transducers very wrong. As someone who teaches engineering, I kind of wish they hired educators for these videos who can describe it correctly
When anyone complains about the mini screen on an old sampler I always think this same statement but I don't usually say it as people who are used to mixing with their eyes won't understand.
well thats actually bs as you can always just close your fucking eyes and turn the knob on your midi controller. Defenitely not worth the price and that hardware mixers are going to break at some point
> "Analog is smooth" … "nothing is ever going to be as smooth as the original" That's a bad explanation. Those stair-step-shaped graphs are just a common visual metaphor for representing digital signals; they do not faithfully illustrate what you'll really hear. When you compare the output of an analog synth/mixer/filter to the output of the digital equivalent on an oscilloscope (analog or ditial; doesn't matter), the waveforms look *exactly the same*. When you push different implementations of the same concept *beyond* the limits where they can manage to be equivalent, you're going to hear some differences. For a example, digital clipping sounds very different from analog clipping. Depending on what you're trying to do, one effect may be way more desirable than the other. Intuitively, you can distinguish between 'natural' vs. 'artificial', 'warm' vs. 'harsh', etc., and creatively exploit these effects in musical ways. But don't get fooled into making conclusions about what's physically possible with one type of signal vs. the other. In practice, it's more about what's economically feasible. For example, neither type of signal can reproduce the platonic ideal of a square wave, with perfect right angles, because they both have a limited band-width. Obviously, no real speaker or headphone membrane will ever follow such a tracectory accurately, magically teleporting from one amplitude to the other in zero time. Because, again, the bandwidth is limited. And that's no problem at all, because the bandwidth of human hearing is also limited. The idea of thinking of a digital signal as a series of "snapshots" is spot-on; really good metaphor. But such a signal still carries exactly the same information as the analog equivalent. By the time you actually hear it (through an adequate DAC), it makes no difference. Construing analog signals to be 'smoother' is a complete misconception; totally beside the point. Sure, when you work with real-world gear you can actually afford, you notice some trends: Analog tends to cause less latency. Digital tends to introduce less noise. If you don't find it entirely necessary to study signal-processing maths until you understand exactly why that is the case, you're pretty much right. Just understand this: If you believe that analog performs somehow better by some vague 'smoothness' metric, you're dangerously close to being convinced that master volume knobs ought to be made of organic wood and that mixing consoles sound best when powered by gluten-free electricity.
Tracking is an analog process, because voice is analog. It's like using a camera lens vs and iphone filter. The way in needs to be processed analog to be of quality After preamp, comp, eq hits the converters, sure plugins are exactly the same Mixing in the box with plugins is perfectly fine Recording(tracking) quality needs quality outboard stuff. Just like expensive cameras with big lenses and big sensors. Do iphones take good pictures sure. Do you see pros using them for commercial shoots?
Aside from the slightly distracting background music, this video is ace. You just can't replicate everything analog gear does, purely inside the box. Start from the mic and work your way along the stream. I always recommend this approach and it's nice to see that train of thought reinforced here. Really, the only thing that never stops sucking about analog gear, is the price. Even cheap stuff isn't really cheap but hey, you want that magic, I guess you gota save up for it. Makes you respect the struggle and gear a lot more, that's for sure.
I would crack a joke about recording his voice through his outboard gear, but I genuinely think it sounds like artifacts from a noise reduction plugin. These artifacts are what x-noise or z-noise sound like when they're trying too hard.
@@homestudios5196 Most likely they were just plugging a lapel mic into the camera's sound jack or something. Probably was low on batteries, or had some kind of buzz from a short in one of the cables or something, and they just didn't realize till editing.
People ask how I get my vocals so clear. It’s no question because I use a small mixer with a built in compressor. Get the gain just right eq out the boom on the bottom and all the extra useless highs then compress it and as long as u have a decent filter even in a home studio setup in a big room it’ll sound close to booth quality
All credit to Xiph, but to regurgitate his point: In a band-limited signal like digital audio, the "stairsteps" aren't part of the final result. These get filtered out by an anti-aliasing filter and the resulting wave, once converted back to analog, is a hundred percent identical (save frequencies above Nyquist, which are inaudible, anyway). The stairstep is a helpful visual aide, but does not tell the whole story. To say digital will never have the same fidelity is purely false.
@@IronChefBoyardee You're absolutely right. Despite the generally good advice here, the understanding of digital is highly flawed. The analog wave will get reproduced exactly right up to Nyquist. Also, the discussions about not being able to push digital is quite dated. We have many plugins now that saturate in a very non-linear and pleasing way. The workflow is different to traditional analog but if you're using a work surface or controller, you can get the tactile response as well as the instal recall.
@@ToneSherpa you can perfectly reconstruct a signal if the sample rate is twice the max frequency. That's why the sample rate of digital audio is around 44 kHz (that max frequency humans can perceive is around 22kHz)
@@ToneSherpa At 44100 Hz sampling rate, for sounds under 22000 Hz, there's literally no difference. Above 22000 Hz, there is a difference but it's not perceptible to humans. When recording for dogs, use double sampling rates!
@@michaelmore Although ultrasound can impact the way you perceive audible sound... Think formant frequencies & such. It'll also affect the behavior of signal processors, although most people will never notice if your sampling rate is above 48kHz
"If you're on a budget..." "$550" I'll just keep living with my couple cheap pedals and Tascam US-1x2 I guess. Helpful explanations though in regards to how analog is captured and converted to digital.
I think you hit the nail right on the head about listening with your ears and not your eyes. I’ve been thinking about this idea a lot recently. Getting into recording and mixing can be extremely confusing with today’s new technology, but (for me at least) everything began making sense when I started to learn about analog gear.
Definitely the case. I have moved more and more towards a pure analog scheme. I use the DAW as a digital tape deck and that's it. If you stop looking at all the pretty pictures you will hear better. And it also encourages better 'song memory' because I'm not constantly looking at the DAW. I have to remember the song. And recording it as it should sound on the way in, it'll never sound better than that.
So many don't even mention the LL2A compressor limiter from Little Labs. That piece of kit is like 3 different compressors in one, and it also has mastering capabilities. I love mine. State of the art, and it gets the job done in a very transparent manner. Check it out if you ever have time. One love.
I m a audio engineer who goes around looking for beginner videos. Just so that I can complain because Im not really an audio engineer. RUclips in a nutshell
My vocal chain consist of a WA12 MK2 black mic preamp from Warm Audio; I chain an LL2A compressor limiter from Little Labs behind that (In FET mode); then I run a channel of the Art Pro VLA 2 behind that (optical compressor), but I only incorporate the last compressor into the signal if I feel I need more warmth/depth in the signal. Nothing like tracking through hardware.
For me it's feeling the music under my fingers instead of seeing it. I'm using a hybrid mixer (soundcraft 12mtk) I group all instruments in the daw and than send it through the eq and faders for final tweaking. Which is close to what's in the daw but it's always a bit different. Experimenting with guitars through a DI but up till now I prefer my cab with blackbacks and a ribbon plus at2035 mic. Maybe it's also between the ears. But let's be honest that's where art comes from. So if it makes your end result better... Why not. Doesn't matter what the reason is.
Digital audio recording software still depends on getting the highest quality sound on the deck, and that means you really want to be using good compressors in your signal chain *before* your interface. Software cannot make up for it after the fact. The problem with this, of course, is that high quality hardware compressors are expensive and stereo units are less common, but absolutely necessary in some applications. Even with low-end units, a small project studio with 16 input channels is expensive to fit with 16 channels of hardware compression, but it's absolutely vital, especially in today's restricted dynamic range marketplace.
Great video i agree with almost all of this except the explanation of what digital is ans does. If you send something thats been contertednto and from digital to a oscilloscope you will see 90 percent of the time it will look almost exactly the same. The blocks are just a way for us to understand and visually see what digital does. But between each point is where it overshoots and records the information between the blocks.
Ahh yes the Xiph test! Classic video that all audio engineers should watch. As for the advice in this video I agree with the rest of it. If your tracks already sound great when it comes time to mix, a lot of time is saved. So no doubt about it if you are recording music day-in-and-day-out outboard gear makes a lot of sense.
Analogue gear is expensive. And you can for sure get good sound in the box, you don’t have to have great analogue gear. Having said that, an outboard compressor during tracking of drums, vocals, bass or any other transient rich signals is amazing, it’s so much easier to immediately tackle those sounds and peaks before hitting the computer. It’s somehow more coherent sounding, almost like the compressor helped sum the signal in a nice way. But if you are happy in the box, spend your hard earned money on open back headphones for mixing, and a good microphone, probably $500-1000. That’s all you need to sound amazing. Those two things will make a huge difference.
Thanks for your video, I agree totally. Plugins are 2D and "flat" feeling, Analog gears are 3D, warmer and more "in your face". The main reason is that the plugins are all BAD under 200 Hz, despite if there are excellent in the frequencies above. And people must think about Aliasing VS low frequencies, that's a real point. Analog gears is mandatory to sound Professionnal. Also, people neglect the mastering step: It is so important to reach a real Pro sound. Merge Analog and Plugins is possible of course!!!! No parish as long as it pleases the ears.
Hi Jay I am starting up a home studio, and want quality but not too expensive stuff . I have an ISA One for example so around that price range. I do alot of vocal and guitar work, so which Compressor, Eq and Reverb units would you recommend? Thanks Jay
I am going to build a mastering chain this year. Thinking about getting 2 Burl Audio B1D Mic Pre amps and an API 2500 Bus-compressor. Cant decide which EQ though, maybe the Tegeler Audio Manufaktur EQP-1. Man I'm gonna be broke, but its true, nothing comes close to analog harmonic distortion. Tried a lot of plugins, no chance.
It is a common misconception that digital sound is like little steps. When is it converted to analog, the sound wave is smooth and the number of sample/sec. is enough to reproduce it correctly. In a decent setup, you would not be able to tell the difference in a blind test... It is sad when people cut corners like that when it comes to explain the differences between analog and digital.
I bought my first serious piece of hardware gear, an UA1176 compressor. Totally blew away any plugin compression I've ever heard. In fact, I realized how 2D all plugins are. The hardware is 3D and now I'm all about it. The future is hardware for me.
Hi, great video! I own the stereo version MP-2NV Great River. Since it doesnt have Line Inputs. How would you transfer tracks from your Daw (Basses, bus groups, synths, drum samples etc.) to the preamp using the line outs of my RME interface? Because the signal would be so hot to feed a preamp and the Impedance would also be a problem, right? What would be the best way to do it? I would like to give my software instruments a bit of depth and spice making them go through real circuits transformers. Thanks.
This guy might make great sounding records, but he doesn't know how digital audio works (and has explained it incorrectly). The points themselves are valid! Certainly not one for the budget conscious though...
Many op-amp based, capacitor and linear powered based analogue effect pedals such as distortions or tube screamers add a 45 degree phase shift due to their circuit design. Stack a couple of those and you have more latency than a good digital domain running at a modern fast clock rate. What about the latency in a big studio live room - a 40ft room adds a delay of 35.7 milliseconds. PA's always have time delay correction. Analogue is never instant - what about the distance between record and playback heads on a tape machine?
If we're talking about tracking, that's one thing. But with the advent of elite mixers like Tchad Blake, Andrew Scheps, and Michael Brauer mixing completely ITB, the analog vs. digital debate is just downright antiquated.
Word man, like seriously. There are so many industry professionals moving towards ITB. There are so many reasons to go for one or the other now, just do what you can afford (cough.. digital).
The interesting blind spot for the individual in the video or others who mirror the same sentiments is that they qualify their argument for analog by saying digital can't recreate the analog signal perfectly...then, they go through all the trouble to track things analog, only to put it through the ADC interface for digital conversion anyway. If their original qualifier were true, the entire analog tracking process would be pointless because it would be lost to some degree since digital cannot fully capture it. It's logically fallacious.
I've had a Great RIver for many years now.. It was recomended by my mastering engineer.. BUY ONE. Its awesome. Jay - whats your choice for a great Condensor vocal mic ??(men/women).. thanks.
While I support the message of this video, the explanation of the technical difference between analog and digital is mathematically incorrect. There is no inherent reason why analog should always sound better (or smoother as you say it) and digital will never get there. The actual differences are very technical and rather complicated, however they are most often neglectable if they are dealt with in the right way. Just try out stuff and don't be too preconceived in your opinion whether it's analog or digital. There is great and horribel things on both sides. Saying that as a computer scientist and signal processing guy.
Niandra Lades He did not say it sounds smoother. He said the wave was smoother and he’s right. Whether human beings can hear that smoothness is another point. But mathematically, since he neglected to mention Nyquist, he is mathematically correct.
@@bobgulian1858 There is no such thing as stairstep waveforms outside of incorrect plots. There is quantization error and there is aliasing, if and only if your equipment does not match with your desired signal. Otherwise digital can capture and reproduce analog in an ideal way, mathematically speaking (Engineers would probably disagree :D). That's what I comlain about, the plot that is shown and the "no matter how small you make those blocks, it will never be as smooth as the original curve". That's simply incorrect and it's a very common misunderstanding of digital audio, so I thought I should clear things up :)
Niandra Lades outboard sounds better. You can put a real tube or transformer in a plugin. It just has depth with real gear I’ve done work with both and they both definitely can sound good but side by side when a signal is run through hardware idc what anyone says it’s sounds way better
Addressing point number 4 - it's true that it's better to mix with your ears than your eyes, but you should have mentioned what radical a difference it can make HOW the listener will hear the track - their phone speaker, in the car... Their bass boosted BT boombox? This is why having big, precisely tuned (expensive) monitors in a acoustically flat room (expensive) is the only realistic alternative to getting to know a much more accessible graphical EQ. Really I guess it comes down to knowing your monitors/headphones and their inherent imperfections, and how to compensate for that in the mix.
How do you route this kind of stuff? I've tried to use outboard gear by sending signal from an out on my interface, to the unit (compressor, eq, etc.), and then from an out on the unit back into a line in on the interface. My results haven't been exactly good and I believe I might be routing this poorly.
@@ToneSherpa The signal itself has no unwanted distortion and in fact sounds fairly good. It's just quiet and gives me some knarley feedback, and you can imagine the headache of trying to turn up the gain to get the signal louder only to increase the feedback with it.
With the way this video explains the difference between digital and analog waveforms I am left very confused. Maybe I am missing something, but from what I'm gathering it wouldn't make any difference in sound if all the analog gear is eventually ran into an interface and becomes a digital file.
Once an analog signal has been converted to digital, it loses its analog purity. Every round of digital to analog then analog to digital conversion after that lessens the signal's quality. If you have very nice converters like a Lynx Aurora (n), Burl Audio or Prism Sound then there won't be significant degradation. So, for the highest quality sound, it's best practice to process audio signals in the analog domain as much as you can afford to before that first round of conversion. More than anything, it saves time during mixing.
In terms of instrumental production, I dont play an instrument, so all my sounds are coming out of my DAW..will Mixing pre recorded audio with Hardware EQ,Compressors etc make much difference instead of doing all the mixing in the box..? Thanks in advance!
It will sound "different" because you are rooting and affecting the signal differently. "Better"? Well, that is completely subjective. Analog gear at any point of the signal chain alters the signal by applying voltage at different rates and times within the signal's journey. Just, keep in mind that the signal will need to be re-sampled before going back into the DAW. This can be where problems occur. Like editing photos: If you take a high quality picture, do some physical manipulation to it and re-scan that photo, unless you have a super high end scanner, the image will be of lower quality than when it was generated by the computer in the first place. Now, all that said, you as an artist may LIKE and WANT that change in quality! It may add some cool factor thay you wouldn't be able to get just in the box. Or, you may hate it. But, again, that is subjective. The best thing to do is simply try it and see what sounds good
Wow, that's some expensive stuff. They need to do one of these with things that the average Joe or Jane can afford. I'll start by voting for the dbx 160A for my "high-end" compressor.
check out FMR Audio - their RNC (Real NIce Compressor) is great for home studios. When these came out everyone loved them.. Remember, companies like reverb.com want to see you high end gear. The Great River preamp he talked about is excellent - I have had one for over ten years and use it everyday on vocals, bass, and guitars... save up and buy one of these.
For live performances, using a DAW makes you be a perfectionist, like you will try to make every edit perfect, which can suck away creativity. It makes you a programmer rather than a performer. I could be wrong.
No you’re not wrong man. The biggest mixing breakthrough I ever had was using analog style plug-ins that limit my options from over analyzing things and mixing with my eyes. Not the same thing but definitely the same concept I’d say
i honestly thought analog was a waste of money, and that people who say analog is the best sound, but i didnt know shit, about mixing, i never tried analog mixing, but i started using some emulated analog plugins, and i found that the sound is different, i know its not the same, but it does change the sound from digital processing, and i found myself not making hard cuts and hard boosts on eq, or compressing heavily, and makng the vocals sound unnatural, mixing with ssl channel a pultec eq and analog compressors force me to listen to what im doing instead of looking at the plugin like an eq and boost more cause it doesnt LOOK RIGHT
i have a warm audio wa73 eq and wa76 compressor. im running the preamp out into the compressor but i see that the wa73 preamp eq has an insert? am I doing this wrong? i guess im confused with my gainstaging for my signal. i usually dial the input in (back off 1 click from noticeable grit), then hit the eq if need be, then hit the yellow of the output trim on preamp and into my compressor, after comopressing 3-10db, i go line in to my focusrite. is this correct?
Great detail. Hi there how would you sum in Ableton using an SSL six through a second Gen 18i20 from focusrite? Any help is welcomed. I'm currently sending my main out from 18i20 to 1 and 2 on the SSL and the main out of the SSL goes to the inputs 3abd 4 on the 18i20. I'm thinking there must be a better way but I can't work it out. I just got the SSL six yesterday. Cheers
Can you not take the FFT of a tube amp and the FFT of the input signal then multiply the two together then use the IFFT to recover the sound you are looking for
" I'm not going to buy a tape machine....It's just not realistic any more" I have to LMFAO at that because I just bought an old school dual tape deck and guess what... The brand is REALISTIC Isn't it ironic.... don't ya think..... So yes.... it IS still realistic to buy a tape deck... lots of pun intended.
1:23 then digitized into your computer 2:16 but as you increase the resolution your digitization gets so close that you... yes you... will not be able to tell
Nice video! People just don't want to settle on the analog vs digital thing, however. An emulation of one piece of 1073 is an emulation of that particular 1073. Some other piece in better, or worse shape, might sound different. Personally I use a 73 style pre and 2a style compressor by Warm Audio and comparing them with digital emulations by Waves Audio, I can say they sound quite similar at similar settings. It's not a point of better analog, or worse digital and sure, all of them cost me a serious amount of money. But as the guy in the video explains, with analog you can go to extreme settings! And is more fun turning knobs, than clicking on the mouse, period! And your eyes will thank you, for less exposure to the computer screen... Horses for courses! Be prepared to invest on equipment, money you can actually afford, get it working and just make some f... music! That's all that matters... Just, move 'em people!
If I had only one piece of analog gear to record with, it would be a mic pre(probably the neve 500 series one.). The next piece would be an analog synth/drum machine. The stepping of digital signals are extremely fine. Finer than perceptible by humans. I have seen demonstrations of analog signals being converted to digital then getting sent to an analog oscilloscope and there is no stepping seen. Also the last few generations of audio interface(MOTU or focusrite gen 2 or 3) has such a low latency as to make it a non-factor when in every day use. The "theory" in this video is very ignorant, biased, and/or an over simplification.
I do not believe that we will never be able to perfectly recreate analog signals. Sure we can’t do it now (albeit we are so close that only the most hardcore and trained people could tell the difference without tools) but eventually they will be able to. It’s just like when people say we won’t be able to do other things. Air planes, PCs, etc.
The statement "No matter how small you make those blocks, it will never be as smooth" is complete bullshit. Harry Nyquist might fight you on that statement.
hey. so while we're giving tips here... guys, you should consider recording better quality audio on a video discussing how to get the best quality audio. I can't take u seriously when I've heard Twitch streamers with better audio quality lmfaoo
Meh... the “it will never be as smooth” is very misleading. First, it makes it seem like analog is-and will always be-better. Not true. Digital is way cleaner; that’s the half the problem; it’s often too clean. Second, no matter what you do, your music will end up digital anyway. And we’ll all be okay. 😉
You don't prefer analog gear because you are losing the integrity or truth of the audio recording signal...you prefer analog gear because you are actively altering the integrity or truth of the original audio signal--it just happens to be in a pleasing way. It's literally the opposite that's explained in the video. Digital "waves" in practical reality never look like blocks...it's a misunderstanding of how digital sampling actually applies in the real world due to textbook illustrations, which were meant for theoretical understanding of concepts--or as a means to demonstrate differences between analog and digital in a graphical sense. I appreciate the video, however I think it's a bit misguided. From a recording engineer perspective, certainly you have more experience and that's why Reverb contracted you to make the video; from an audio engineer perspective (yes, crossover) there is certainly some statements made here that are misleading and false in the practical sense. In fact, if what you are saying is absolutely true, and the reasons you've highlighted are in fact the reasons that analog is preferable, then you'd nullify every point of your argument by re-sampling it back through your ADC/DAC interface into the DAW. In other words, you're saying that you use outboard gear for particular effects and recording usage because it's smoother...it sounds better because it's smoother; you don't like to do everything digital because of the theory you discussed in the beginning, that it will be less smooth despite the high sample rate. If this is the case--that is, if the digital sampling results in a loss of quality--wouldn't you just be losing all the analog goodness as soon as it get's resampled back from the outboard routing into your interface for analog-to-digital conversion; again, it will still only be able to re-created the signal in your DAW by "mario blocks" as you say. The only way your explanation would make sense is if you do EVERYTHING analog...including the print medium (to tape), and never even released the music on CD or through streaming services...but, only offered it as vinyl and perhaps reel-to-reel if even possible for the consumer. Otherwise, you will inevitably deal with this digital sampling conversion issue that you explain as the culprit. Thus, given the above contradiction, the reason analog is utilized has absolutely nothing to do with the fidelity of the signal being sampled (and, as explained a loss of smoothness or integrity) is actually and practically due to the seemingly pleasing audio artifacts, harmonic characteristics, and in reality imperfections of analog that result in it's supposed "richness", "warmth", "character", "soul", and any other intangible adjective used to describe analog superiority. In fact, the digital world processes the audio signal FAR, FAR more true to the real thing. In other words, when audio signals are processed within the digital environment, there is significantly less noise, and less colouring of the original sound. The same can't be said for analog processing; the signal is unavoidably adulterated far more than digital when processed through analog gear.
What is "true"? As soon as a sound wave hits a microphone capsule, it is no longer "true". It is no longer "real"...it is a representation of the what the human ear would process. Sometimes, we don't position a microphone properly or we don't have time to pick the right microphone. Or we have a limited selection of microphones...so equalizer get us closer to that original sound that our ear perceives. Compressors help bring back that original "real" sound as well. But yes....I agree with your sentiment.
@@ToneSherpa I got a Sony TC-570 on E-Bay for $50. I got a Tascam Porta Ø2 for $100. I've got a Wollensak T1500 my Brother found in a basement he was cleaning out... Tape is cheaper than a Computer.
To cover up what ever buzz or noise they didn't realize was there until editing. Listen close you can just hear some of the artifacts from the noise plugin they used.
@@ToneSherpa plus people have been adding low background Music to Videos with a Monologue since forever... it helps prevent people from stealing your Vocal Capture & using it.
Great video on how to use outboard gear! I recently uploaded a mixing tutorial, where I demonstrate how to connect an outboard unit, with the right cables. Check it out: ruclips.net/video/yhP0TZvqeQY/видео.html
This guy doesn't know how digital sound works, it seems. No, you don't get stairsteps. And yes, the EXACT original analog signal is what you're gonna get when converted back to analog again
That’s a lot a dough for us non trustfund cuties out there lol booyeah but ok I’m sure Spotify listeners will really love that I went to those measures, will really hear the diff ha no jk; I’m just being a butthole
Gsus, you guys shouldn't be PRO-TIPING anyone! with the crappy sound of this video. the backround music is too loud. the naration sounds like its MP3 @32kbps CBR. TSSTSS
id say hes a bit nervous, had too much coffee, and the editing is choppy... too lazy to get the performance right.. would he do that with a band or make them do the song a million times until it was perfect? ... ah the downfall of our split second world
This is just analog fetishism. You can use digital outboard gear and get most of the same benefits of flexibility and low latency. Idk why this video needed to be "analog vs. digital". Whoever wrote this script should have given the video a different title because you really mislead me. Digital outboard gear can be found relatively cheap and does really cool stuff! Compression plug ins are really good now! Why are you making videos like this?
@@KeenApollo I agree to some extent. I'm just saying that the outboard gear does not have to be strictly "analog". There are plenty of examples of "digital" based equipment that is still outboard gear. You still gain the benefits of having a dedicated unit with lower latency because it does one job. I think a lot of folks in the audio world get too hung up on making sure everything is "analog".
Oh man, the engineers are going to have a field day with his explanation of analog/digital
Souma Mondal lol you beat me to it. This is a handful.
@@sammacdonald8240 yes it is called Shitty Common Trite Song 101
Musician vs engineer though.
Yeah... while the mario block description is good, he kind of described the role of transducers very wrong. As someone who teaches engineering, I kind of wish they hired educators for these videos who can describe it correctly
@@sonicjackalopeproductions3342 What did he get wrong, exactly?
Mixing with your ears and not with your eyes really hit me. Very well said.
Make Something that’s what’s up
I remind myself of this on a daily basis.
When anyone complains about the mini screen on an old sampler I always think this same statement but I don't usually say it as people who are used to mixing with their eyes won't understand.
well thats actually bs as you can always just close your fucking eyes and turn the knob on your midi controller. Defenitely not worth the price and that hardware mixers are going to break at some point
> "Analog is smooth" … "nothing is ever going to be as smooth as the original"
That's a bad explanation. Those stair-step-shaped graphs are just a common visual metaphor for representing digital signals; they do not faithfully illustrate what you'll really hear. When you compare the output of an analog synth/mixer/filter to the output of the digital equivalent on an oscilloscope (analog or ditial; doesn't matter), the waveforms look *exactly the same*.
When you push different implementations of the same concept *beyond* the limits where they can manage to be equivalent, you're going to hear some differences. For a example, digital clipping sounds very different from analog clipping. Depending on what you're trying to do, one effect may be way more desirable than the other. Intuitively, you can distinguish between 'natural' vs. 'artificial', 'warm' vs. 'harsh', etc., and creatively exploit these effects in musical ways.
But don't get fooled into making conclusions about what's physically possible with one type of signal vs. the other. In practice, it's more about what's economically feasible. For example, neither type of signal can reproduce the platonic ideal of a square wave, with perfect right angles, because they both have a limited band-width. Obviously, no real speaker or headphone membrane will ever follow such a tracectory accurately, magically teleporting from one amplitude to the other in zero time. Because, again, the bandwidth is limited. And that's no problem at all, because the bandwidth of human hearing is also limited.
The idea of thinking of a digital signal as a series of "snapshots" is spot-on; really good metaphor. But such a signal still carries exactly the same information as the analog equivalent. By the time you actually hear it (through an adequate DAC), it makes no difference. Construing analog signals to be 'smoother' is a complete misconception; totally beside the point.
Sure, when you work with real-world gear you can actually afford, you notice some trends: Analog tends to cause less latency. Digital tends to introduce less noise. If you don't find it entirely necessary to study signal-processing maths until you understand exactly why that is the case, you're pretty much right.
Just understand this: If you believe that analog performs somehow better by some vague 'smoothness' metric, you're dangerously close to being convinced that master volume knobs ought to be made of organic wood and that mixing consoles sound best when powered by gluten-free electricity.
XD
Diga lá, Tino
"Sentiu"...
Geez this man had a family lmao
when you refer to gluten-free electricity it's AC or DC? Im confused...my wooden faders does not sound right to me....
Tracking is an analog process, because voice is analog. It's like using a camera lens vs and iphone filter. The way in needs to be processed analog to be of quality
After preamp, comp, eq hits the converters, sure plugins are exactly the same
Mixing in the box with plugins is perfectly fine
Recording(tracking) quality needs quality outboard stuff. Just like expensive cameras with big lenses and big sensors. Do iphones take good pictures sure. Do you see pros using them for commercial shoots?
Aside from the slightly distracting background music, this video is ace. You just can't replicate everything analog gear does, purely inside the box. Start from the mic and work your way along the stream. I always recommend this approach and it's nice to see that train of thought reinforced here. Really, the only thing that never stops sucking about analog gear, is the price. Even cheap stuff isn't really cheap but hey, you want that magic, I guess you gota save up for it. Makes you respect the struggle and gear a lot more, that's for sure.
It's really tough to watch a video about audio when the audio quality in the video is really bad. Love reverb, but what happened here?
I would crack a joke about recording his voice through his outboard gear, but I genuinely think it sounds like artifacts from a noise reduction plugin. These artifacts are what x-noise or z-noise sound like when they're trying too hard.
@@ICACJ Yeah, That's what I hear too, but why would there be so much need for noise reduction in a control room? I'M SO CONFUSED!
@@homestudios5196 Maybe the outboard chain has an EMI or RFI problem. There. I cracked my joke anyway.
@@homestudios5196 Most likely they were just plugging a lapel mic into the camera's sound jack or something. Probably was low on batteries, or had some kind of buzz from a short in one of the cables or something, and they just didn't realize till editing.
"analog warmth"
People ask how I get my vocals so clear. It’s no question because I use a small mixer with a built in compressor. Get the gain just right eq out the boom on the bottom and all the extra useless highs then compress it and as long as u have a decent filter even in a home studio setup in a big room it’ll sound close to booth quality
What gear are you using?
the irony of this video
All credit to Xiph, but to regurgitate his point: In a band-limited signal like digital audio, the "stairsteps" aren't part of the final result. These get filtered out by an anti-aliasing filter and the resulting wave, once converted back to analog, is a hundred percent identical (save frequencies above Nyquist, which are inaudible, anyway). The stairstep is a helpful visual aide, but does not tell the whole story. To say digital will never have the same fidelity is purely false.
That being said, all the other points, ESPECIALLY regarding latency, are spot-on.
@@IronChefBoyardee You're absolutely right. Despite the generally good advice here, the understanding of digital is highly flawed. The analog wave will get reproduced exactly right up to Nyquist. Also, the discussions about not being able to push digital is quite dated. We have many plugins now that saturate in a very non-linear and pleasing way. The workflow is different to traditional analog but if you're using a work surface or controller, you can get the tactile response as well as the instal recall.
The Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem undermines the premise of this video
Care to explain which ones? Genuinely curious.
@@ToneSherpa you can perfectly reconstruct a signal if the sample rate is twice the max frequency.
That's why the sample rate of digital audio is around 44 kHz (that max frequency humans can perceive is around 22kHz)
@@Horstronic Oh so it's just imperceptible. I guess theoretically he was right, but practically you can't hear the difference.
@@ToneSherpa At 44100 Hz sampling rate, for sounds under 22000 Hz, there's literally no difference. Above 22000 Hz, there is a difference but it's not perceptible to humans. When recording for dogs, use double sampling rates!
@@michaelmore Although ultrasound can impact the way you perceive audible sound... Think formant frequencies & such. It'll also affect the behavior of signal processors, although most people will never notice if your sampling rate is above 48kHz
"If you're on a budget..."
"$550"
I'll just keep living with my couple cheap pedals and Tascam US-1x2 I guess. Helpful explanations though in regards to how analog is captured and converted to digital.
This. As if $550 is just throwaway money.
I think you hit the nail right on the head about listening with your ears and not your eyes. I’ve been thinking about this idea a lot recently. Getting into recording and mixing can be extremely confusing with today’s new technology, but (for me at least) everything began making sense when I started to learn about analog gear.
Definitely the case. I have moved more and more towards a pure analog scheme. I use the DAW as a digital tape deck and that's it. If you stop looking at all the pretty pictures you will hear better. And it also encourages better 'song memory' because I'm not constantly looking at the DAW. I have to remember the song. And recording it as it should sound on the way in, it'll never sound better than that.
So many don't even mention the LL2A compressor limiter from Little Labs. That piece of kit is like 3 different compressors in one, and it also has mastering capabilities. I love mine. State of the art, and it gets the job done in a very transparent manner. Check it out if you ever have time. One love.
I m a audio engineer who goes around looking for beginner videos.
Just so that I can complain because Im not really an audio engineer. RUclips in a nutshell
My vocal chain consist of a WA12 MK2 black mic preamp from Warm Audio; I chain an LL2A compressor limiter from Little Labs behind that (In FET mode); then I run a channel of the Art Pro VLA 2 behind that (optical compressor), but I only incorporate the last compressor into the signal if I feel I need more warmth/depth in the signal. Nothing like tracking through hardware.
Very informative. Thank you
Great River and Distressor are among my faves for sure
For me it's feeling the music under my fingers instead of seeing it.
I'm using a hybrid mixer (soundcraft 12mtk) I group all instruments in the daw and than send it through the eq and faders for final tweaking. Which is close to what's in the daw but it's always a bit different.
Experimenting with guitars through a DI but up till now I prefer my cab with blackbacks and a ribbon plus at2035 mic.
Maybe it's also between the ears. But let's be honest that's where art comes from. So if it makes your end result better... Why not. Doesn't matter what the reason is.
i love my 22mtk
My mans with the Antelope Orion 32! 👌
I just recently got UAD solo and the pultec EQ emulation is so unbelievable... I still want that warm audio gear pultec eq now tho ahhhh
Really awesome video!!! So concise and informative!!!
That was a brilliant video that answered 90% thanks man. You do such great to the point vids.
Digital audio recording software still depends on getting the highest quality sound on the deck, and that means you really want to be using good compressors in your signal chain *before* your interface. Software cannot make up for it after the fact. The problem with this, of course, is that high quality hardware compressors are expensive and stereo units are less common, but absolutely necessary in some applications. Even with low-end units, a small project studio with 16 input channels is expensive to fit with 16 channels of hardware compression, but it's absolutely vital, especially in today's restricted dynamic range marketplace.
that pretty much a lie as there are top level producers like boris brejcha which only use a daw
Great video i agree with almost all of this except the explanation of what digital is ans does. If you send something thats been contertednto and from digital to a oscilloscope you will see 90 percent of the time it will look almost exactly the same. The blocks are just a way for us to understand and visually see what digital does. But between each point is where it overshoots and records the information between the blocks.
Ahh yes the Xiph test! Classic video that all audio engineers should watch.
As for the advice in this video I agree with the rest of it. If your tracks already sound great when it comes time to mix, a lot of time is saved. So no doubt about it if you are recording music day-in-and-day-out outboard gear makes a lot of sense.
@@RealHomeRecording yes the classic video everyone needs to see. But i also gree with everything else. It's pretty much on the nose
Really good video!
I run a tube mic into a tube mic pre into a tube compressor into a tube Pultec. I run this into REAPER.
Do you know if there are tube preamps that are designed like guitar tube amp preamps, for use with an amp VST?
Analogue gear is expensive. And you can for sure get good sound in the box, you don’t have to have great analogue gear. Having said that, an outboard compressor during tracking of drums, vocals, bass or any other transient rich signals is amazing, it’s so much easier to immediately tackle those sounds and peaks before hitting the computer. It’s somehow more coherent sounding, almost like the compressor helped sum the signal in a nice way.
But if you are happy in the box, spend your hard earned money on open back headphones for mixing, and a good microphone, probably $500-1000. That’s all you need to sound amazing. Those two things will make a huge difference.
Thanks for your video, I agree totally. Plugins are 2D and "flat" feeling, Analog gears are 3D, warmer and more "in your face". The main reason is that the plugins are all BAD under 200 Hz, despite if there are excellent in the frequencies above. And people must think about Aliasing VS low frequencies, that's a real point. Analog gears is mandatory to sound Professionnal. Also, people neglect the mastering step: It is so important to reach a real Pro sound. Merge Analog and Plugins is possible of course!!!! No parish as long as it pleases the ears.
Great vid…..how do you feel about the combined pre-amp compressors?
Hi Jay I am starting up a home studio, and want quality but not too expensive stuff . I have an ISA One for example so around that price range. I do alot of vocal and guitar work, so which Compressor, Eq and Reverb units would you recommend? Thanks Jay
I am going to build a mastering chain this year. Thinking about getting 2 Burl Audio B1D Mic Pre
amps and an API 2500 Bus-compressor. Cant decide which EQ though, maybe the Tegeler Audio Manufaktur EQP-1. Man I'm gonna be broke, but its true, nothing comes close to analog harmonic distortion. Tried a lot of plugins, no chance.
It is a common misconception that digital sound is like little steps. When is it converted to analog, the sound wave is smooth and the number of sample/sec. is enough to reproduce it correctly. In a decent setup, you would not be able to tell the difference in a blind test... It is sad when people cut corners like that when it comes to explain the differences between analog and digital.
I bought my first serious piece of hardware gear, an UA1176 compressor. Totally blew away any plugin compression I've ever heard. In fact, I realized how 2D all plugins are. The hardware is 3D and now I'm all about it. The future is hardware for me.
Hi, great video! I own the stereo version MP-2NV Great River. Since it doesnt have Line Inputs. How would you transfer tracks from your Daw (Basses, bus groups, synths, drum samples etc.) to the preamp using the line outs of my RME interface? Because the signal would be so hot to feed a preamp and the Impedance would also be a problem, right? What would be the best way to do it? I would like to give my software instruments a bit of depth and spice making them go through real circuits transformers.
Thanks.
So much good info in the video
This guy right here, gets a golden star.
Thank you!
This guy might make great sounding records, but he doesn't know how digital audio works (and has explained it incorrectly). The points themselves are valid! Certainly not one for the budget conscious though...
Many op-amp based, capacitor and linear powered based analogue effect pedals such as distortions or tube screamers add a 45 degree phase shift due to their circuit design. Stack a couple of those and you have more latency than a good digital domain running at a modern fast clock rate. What about the latency in a big studio live room - a 40ft room adds a delay of 35.7 milliseconds. PA's always have time delay correction. Analogue is never instant - what about the distance between record and playback heads on a tape machine?
If we're talking about tracking, that's one thing. But with the advent of elite mixers like Tchad Blake, Andrew Scheps, and Michael Brauer mixing completely ITB, the analog vs. digital debate is just downright antiquated.
Word man, like seriously. There are so many industry professionals moving towards ITB. There are so many reasons to go for one or the other now, just do what you can afford (cough.. digital).
He was talking about tracking.
The interesting blind spot for the individual in the video or others who mirror the same sentiments is that they qualify their argument for analog by saying digital can't recreate the analog signal perfectly...then, they go through all the trouble to track things analog, only to put it through the ADC interface for digital conversion anyway. If their original qualifier were true, the entire analog tracking process would be pointless because it would be lost to some degree since digital cannot fully capture it.
It's logically fallacious.
I've had a Great RIver for many years now.. It was recomended by my mastering engineer.. BUY ONE. Its awesome. Jay - whats your choice for a great Condensor vocal mic ??(men/women).. thanks.
Miktek CV4 all day
While I support the message of this video, the explanation of the technical difference between analog and digital is mathematically incorrect. There is no inherent reason why analog should always sound better (or smoother as you say it) and digital will never get there. The actual differences are very technical and rather complicated, however they are most often neglectable if they are dealt with in the right way. Just try out stuff and don't be too preconceived in your opinion whether it's analog or digital. There is great and horribel things on both sides. Saying that as a computer scientist and signal processing guy.
Niandra Lades He did not say it sounds smoother. He said the wave was smoother and he’s right. Whether human beings can hear that smoothness is another point. But mathematically, since he neglected to mention Nyquist, he is mathematically correct.
@@bobgulian1858 There is no such thing as stairstep waveforms outside of incorrect plots. There is quantization error and there is aliasing, if and only if your equipment does not match with your desired signal. Otherwise digital can capture and reproduce analog in an ideal way, mathematically speaking (Engineers would probably disagree :D). That's what I comlain about, the plot that is shown and the "no matter how small you make those blocks, it will never be as smooth as the original curve". That's simply incorrect and it's a very common misunderstanding of digital audio, so I thought I should clear things up :)
Niandra Lades outboard sounds better. You can put a real tube or transformer in a plugin. It just has depth with real gear I’ve done work with both and they both definitely can sound good but side by side when a signal is run through hardware idc what anyone says it’s sounds way better
Addressing point number 4 - it's true that it's better to mix with your ears than your eyes, but you should have mentioned what radical a difference it can make HOW the listener will hear the track - their phone speaker, in the car... Their bass boosted BT boombox? This is why having big, precisely tuned (expensive) monitors in a acoustically flat room (expensive) is the only realistic alternative to getting to know a much more accessible graphical EQ. Really I guess it comes down to knowing your monitors/headphones and their inherent imperfections, and how to compensate for that in the mix.
How do you route this kind of stuff? I've tried to use outboard gear by sending signal from an out on my interface, to the unit (compressor, eq, etc.), and then from an out on the unit back into a line in on the interface. My results haven't been exactly good and I believe I might be routing this poorly.
Just curious, what specifically is wrong? Noise, Distortion? Low signal level?
@@ToneSherpa The signal itself has no unwanted distortion and in fact sounds fairly good. It's just quiet and gives me some knarley feedback, and you can imagine the headache of trying to turn up the gain to get the signal louder only to increase the feedback with it.
With the way this video explains the difference between digital and analog waveforms I am left very confused.
Maybe I am missing something, but from what I'm gathering it wouldn't make any difference in sound if all the analog gear is eventually ran into an interface and becomes a digital file.
Once an analog signal has been converted to digital, it loses its analog purity. Every round of digital to analog then analog to digital conversion after that lessens the signal's quality. If you have very nice converters like a Lynx Aurora (n), Burl Audio or Prism Sound then there won't be significant degradation.
So, for the highest quality sound, it's best practice to process audio signals in the analog domain as much as you can afford to before that first round of conversion. More than anything, it saves time during mixing.
In terms of instrumental production, I dont play an instrument, so all my sounds are coming out of my DAW..will Mixing pre recorded audio with Hardware EQ,Compressors etc make much difference instead of doing all the mixing in the box..? Thanks in advance!
It will sound "different" because you are rooting and affecting the signal differently. "Better"? Well, that is completely subjective. Analog gear at any point of the signal chain alters the signal by applying voltage at different rates and times within the signal's journey. Just, keep in mind that the signal will need to be re-sampled before going back into the DAW. This can be where problems occur.
Like editing photos: If you take a high quality picture, do some physical manipulation to it and re-scan that photo, unless you have a super high end scanner, the image will be of lower quality than when it was generated by the computer in the first place. Now, all that said, you as an artist may LIKE and WANT that change in quality! It may add some cool factor thay you wouldn't be able to get just in the box. Or, you may hate it. But, again, that is subjective. The best thing to do is simply try it and see what sounds good
Wow, that's some expensive stuff. They need to do one of these with things that the average Joe or Jane can afford. I'll start by voting for the dbx 160A for my "high-end" compressor.
check out FMR Audio - their RNC (Real NIce Compressor) is great for home studios. When these came out everyone loved them.. Remember, companies like reverb.com want to see you high end gear. The Great River preamp he talked about is excellent - I have had one for over ten years and use it everyday on vocals, bass, and guitars... save up and buy one of these.
it doesnt matter what you use what really matters is your creativity. some of the best producers only use a daw
For live performances, using a DAW makes you be a perfectionist, like you will try to make every edit perfect, which can suck away creativity. It makes you a programmer rather than a performer. I could be wrong.
No you’re not wrong man. The biggest mixing breakthrough I ever had was using analog style plug-ins that limit my options from over analyzing things and mixing with my eyes. Not the same thing but definitely the same concept I’d say
No analog gating? Or is that built into your compressor?
i honestly thought analog was a waste of money, and that people who say analog is the best sound, but i didnt know shit, about mixing, i never tried analog mixing, but i started using some emulated analog plugins, and i found that the sound is different, i know its not the same, but it does change the sound from digital processing, and i found myself not making hard cuts and hard boosts on eq, or compressing heavily, and makng the vocals sound unnatural, mixing with ssl channel a pultec eq and analog compressors force me to listen to what im doing instead of looking at the plugin like an eq and boost more cause it doesnt LOOK RIGHT
i have a warm audio wa73 eq and wa76 compressor. im running the preamp out into the compressor but i see that the wa73 preamp eq has an insert? am I doing this wrong? i guess im confused with my gainstaging for my signal. i usually dial the input in (back off 1 click from noticeable grit), then hit the eq if need be, then hit the yellow of the output trim on preamp and into my compressor, after comopressing 3-10db, i go line in to my focusrite. is this correct?
sounds right to me
Great detail. Hi there how would you sum in Ableton using an SSL six through a second Gen 18i20 from focusrite? Any help is welcomed. I'm currently sending my main out from 18i20 to 1 and 2 on the SSL and the main out of the SSL goes to the inputs 3abd 4 on the 18i20. I'm thinking there must be a better way but I can't work it out. I just got the SSL six yesterday. Cheers
Can you not take the FFT of a tube amp and the FFT of the input signal then multiply the two together then use the IFFT to recover the sound you are looking for
He's living the dream
What are those monitors he has?
" I'm not going to buy a tape machine....It's just not realistic any more"
I have to LMFAO at that because I just bought an old school dual tape deck and guess what... The brand is REALISTIC
Isn't it ironic.... don't ya think.....
So yes.... it IS still realistic to buy a tape deck... lots of pun intended.
1:23 then digitized into your computer 2:16 but as you increase the resolution your digitization gets so close that you... yes you... will not be able to tell
Nice video!
People just don't want to settle on the analog vs digital thing, however.
An emulation of one piece of 1073 is an emulation of that particular 1073. Some other piece in better, or worse shape, might sound different.
Personally I use a 73 style pre and 2a style compressor by Warm Audio and comparing them with digital emulations by Waves Audio, I can say they sound quite similar at similar settings.
It's not a point of better analog, or worse digital and sure, all of them cost me a serious amount of money.
But as the guy in the video explains, with analog you can go to extreme settings! And is more fun turning knobs, than clicking on the mouse, period! And your eyes will thank you, for less exposure to the computer screen...
Horses for courses!
Be prepared to invest on equipment, money you can actually afford, get it working and just make some f... music!
That's all that matters... Just, move 'em people!
Have you tried the pulsar vari-mu?
Steve Albini and Electrical Audio.... enough said LOL
If I had only one piece of analog gear to record with, it would be a mic pre(probably the neve 500 series one.). The next piece would be an analog synth/drum machine.
The stepping of digital signals are extremely fine. Finer than perceptible by humans. I have seen demonstrations of analog signals being converted to digital then getting sent to an analog oscilloscope and there is no stepping seen. Also the last few generations of audio interface(MOTU or focusrite gen 2 or 3) has such a low latency as to make it a non-factor when in every day use. The "theory" in this video is very ignorant, biased, and/or an over simplification.
great stuff, thx
If i buy all this stuff ,i'm a dead man 💣💣💣( dixit my dear wife )
What song is playing in the background at the beginning?!
the audio from this video couldve used a de-esser. kinda hard to listen to.
You make it sound like analog (magnetic tape)signals have infinite resolution, which is certainly not the case.
Lots and lots of great records are recorded on tape, right now.
Like which ones?
I do not believe that we will never be able to perfectly recreate analog signals. Sure we can’t do it now (albeit we are so close that only the most hardcore and trained people could tell the difference without tools) but eventually they will be able to. It’s just like when people say we won’t be able to do other things. Air planes, PCs, etc.
Great video
audio sounds like shit cause he recorded digital instead of analog
The statement "No matter how small you make those blocks, it will never be as smooth" is complete bullshit. Harry Nyquist might fight you on that statement.
ironic considering the shockingly terrible audio quality in this video
hey. so while we're giving tips here... guys, you should consider recording better quality audio on a video discussing how to get the best quality audio. I can't take u seriously when I've heard Twitch streamers with better audio quality lmfaoo
Please?! Does anyone know the song in the background?!
It sounds like it might be the band Neck Deep but I'm not sure.
Nothing like tracking through hardware.
Meh... the “it will never be as smooth” is very misleading.
First, it makes it seem like analog is-and will always be-better. Not true. Digital is way cleaner; that’s the half the problem; it’s often too clean.
Second, no matter what you do, your music will end up digital anyway. And we’ll all be okay. 😉
Yes that the truth ..analog is the best
I thought he was holding a vaporiser in his hand at first
I dunno..., concrete is very small rocks and seems pretty smooth.
Why video sound is so bad ?!
Distortion 😁
I have to stop it watching because of the background sound. Don’t tell us about sound quality with a stupid repeating loop.
You don't prefer analog gear because you are losing the integrity or truth of the audio recording signal...you prefer analog gear because you are actively altering the integrity or truth of the original audio signal--it just happens to be in a pleasing way. It's literally the opposite that's explained in the video. Digital "waves" in practical reality never look like blocks...it's a misunderstanding of how digital sampling actually applies in the real world due to textbook illustrations, which were meant for theoretical understanding of concepts--or as a means to demonstrate differences between analog and digital in a graphical sense.
I appreciate the video, however I think it's a bit misguided. From a recording engineer perspective, certainly you have more experience and that's why Reverb contracted you to make the video; from an audio engineer perspective (yes, crossover) there is certainly some statements made here that are misleading and false in the practical sense. In fact, if what you are saying is absolutely true, and the reasons you've highlighted are in fact the reasons that analog is preferable, then you'd nullify every point of your argument by re-sampling it back through your ADC/DAC interface into the DAW. In other words, you're saying that you use outboard gear for particular effects and recording usage because it's smoother...it sounds better because it's smoother; you don't like to do everything digital because of the theory you discussed in the beginning, that it will be less smooth despite the high sample rate. If this is the case--that is, if the digital sampling results in a loss of quality--wouldn't you just be losing all the analog goodness as soon as it get's resampled back from the outboard routing into your interface for analog-to-digital conversion; again, it will still only be able to re-created the signal in your DAW by "mario blocks" as you say. The only way your explanation would make sense is if you do EVERYTHING analog...including the print medium (to tape), and never even released the music on CD or through streaming services...but, only offered it as vinyl and perhaps reel-to-reel if even possible for the consumer. Otherwise, you will inevitably deal with this digital sampling conversion issue that you explain as the culprit.
Thus, given the above contradiction, the reason analog is utilized has absolutely nothing to do with the fidelity of the signal being sampled (and, as explained a loss of smoothness or integrity) is actually and practically due to the seemingly pleasing audio artifacts, harmonic characteristics, and in reality imperfections of analog that result in it's supposed "richness", "warmth", "character", "soul", and any other intangible adjective used to describe analog superiority. In fact, the digital world processes the audio signal FAR, FAR more true to the real thing. In other words, when audio signals are processed within the digital environment, there is significantly less noise, and less colouring of the original sound. The same can't be said for analog processing; the signal is unavoidably adulterated far more than digital when processed through analog gear.
What is "true"? As soon as a sound wave hits a microphone capsule, it is no longer "true". It is no longer "real"...it is a representation of the what the human ear would process.
Sometimes, we don't position a microphone properly or we don't have time to pick the right microphone. Or we have a limited selection of microphones...so equalizer get us closer to that original sound that our ear perceives. Compressors help bring back that original "real" sound as well.
But yes....I agree with your sentiment.
Tape4Ever.
Tape Never. (because I'm poor)
@@ToneSherpa I got a Sony TC-570 on E-Bay for $50.
I got a Tascam Porta Ø2 for $100. I've got a Wollensak
T1500 my Brother found in a basement he was
cleaning out... Tape is cheaper than a Computer.
A transducer is a converter 😎👊
Hard to trust a video about audio gear when the audio on the video is terrible.
That’s a sensitive capsule
Does anyone else feel really sceptical listening to videos about audio that have terrible audio
Why the background music? I thought a man talking like to be heard?!
To cover up what ever buzz or noise they didn't realize was there until editing. Listen close you can just hear some of the artifacts from the noise plugin they used.
@@ToneSherpa plus people have been adding low background Music to Videos with a Monologue since forever... it helps prevent people from stealing your Vocal Capture & using it.
Great video on how to use outboard gear! I recently uploaded a mixing tutorial, where I demonstrate how to connect an outboard unit, with the right cables. Check it out:
ruclips.net/video/yhP0TZvqeQY/видео.html
This guy doesn't know how digital sound works, it seems. No, you don't get stairsteps. And yes, the EXACT original analog signal is what you're gonna get when converted back to analog again
The things id do if i had money
A "pre"? Say preamp, please.
That’s a lot a dough for us non trustfund cuties out there lol booyeah but ok I’m sure Spotify listeners will really love that I went to those measures, will really hear the diff ha no jk; I’m just being a butthole
Shaking ribbon mics like that is a BIG NO NO! Guys, don't do that at home. EVER!
😎 I totally agree 👏👏👏🎼🎵🎤
People still use tape
Gsus, you guys shouldn't be PRO-TIPING anyone! with the crappy sound of this video. the backround music is too loud. the naration sounds like its MP3 @32kbps CBR. TSSTSS
8:49 is he using auto tune? lol
id say hes a bit nervous, had too much coffee, and the editing is choppy... too lazy to get the performance right.. would he do that with a band or make them do the song a million times until it was perfect? ... ah the downfall of our split second world
Reverb is really going downhill, terrible.
go to mollucass island
Einfach krass 👌🏼💚
💗
This is just analog fetishism. You can use digital outboard gear and get most of the same benefits of flexibility and low latency. Idk why this video needed to be "analog vs. digital". Whoever wrote this script should have given the video a different title because you really mislead me.
Digital outboard gear can be found relatively cheap and does really cool stuff! Compression plug ins are really good now! Why are you making videos like this?
Outboard gear before applying plugins does sound better though it's no question
@@KeenApollo I agree to some extent. I'm just saying that the outboard gear does not have to be strictly "analog". There are plenty of examples of "digital" based equipment that is still outboard gear. You still gain the benefits of having a dedicated unit with lower latency because it does one job. I think a lot of folks in the audio world get too hung up on making sure everything is "analog".