First of all - sounds like totally different EQ decisions - its hard to tell. A is brigther and more "mixed" and B sounds boxy and dull (eq wise). so it can fool everybody BUT I thought mix B has more separation and stereo "feel" (still sounding dull due to eq decisions). If you make the mix B more brighter and more "mixed" it would be more clear.
Great, I guessed right! a) is definitely digital. Sharp, crisp and perfectly clear. b) is fuller/warmer but lacks that digital clarity in the highs. I came here to see whether I'm starting out on the right course by going digital over analog. Some swear that analog is still king and then there are those who swear that digital has caught up and is just cheaper route to get the same results.
I wish the two had been mixed to sound closer together sonically. For me, it's not a good comparison. I thought B was more open, but the mix needed a lot of work. A had a better mix. I am not sure that hardware (a console) makes an enormous difference at the mix stage. I would be curious as to a test between tracking with that console and just through an interface. To me, hardware usually, not always, sounds more open which is something I like. Thanks for the video!
Phew - I got it right - mix B was wider, more transparent, thicker and the instruments sounded more "real" (for want of a better word) like they were just there in space in front of me - listened on headphones and the mix jumped wider when going to B. Would love a comparison with some of the Brainworx stuff like the Focusrite emulation. Thankyou so much for doing this.
Mix B had depth right away. Any day, every day. Man, this war with analog vs digital, I keep falling everytime for it but honestly analog can't be beat. ❤️ Thanks for this comparison buddy 👍🏼
Console emulation has come a long way. The difference in sound quality can be negligible or just come down to a matter of taste. As far as the end user, it's not even a consideration. The justification for buying hardware over plugins is receding everyday. Especially when you factor in the maintenance, repairs, cables, and energy costs. Not to mention the labor in instalation, preventative maintenance, recall, etc. If you've got one, it's a wonderful antique and probably fun to work on. I've wanted an AWS myself. But I'm happy with the sound achieved from using my NLS Summer, BX_Console SSL 9000j, and various IK Multimedia and UA plugin emulations. This was a nice video to show how close the sound is.
I guessed correctly. Even with all the analog emulations, digital still sounds thinner and harsher to me. Mix B had more body and the distorted guitar sounded a lot better on the analog console. Thank you for making this test. It confirmed that hardware is still superior for now.
The funny part is that i've A/B the Lindell and Slate series to an Avalon /Neve Sum chain and its SO Close. After a point its about the taste of each individual and the sound source. Great video man always deliver the best !
Thank you so much for watching! I really appreciate your support! Be sure to check out my website for even more training. Also, a brand new home recording podcast is available www.homerecordingmadeeasy.com www.homerecordingmadeeasy.com/Podcast
Paused before the reveal: I liked "A" better. It was a bit brighter in a way I liked. "B" sounded good too, but sounded a bit low-mid rangy. The guitar sounded a tiny bit phasey on "B". I wouldn't know which was mixed on the console. I also bet "B" could be closer to "A" if mixed side by side.
It’s great to know that with enough experience and eventual skills, my digital investments can really compete with a $60,000 analog console. Keep the lessons coming Dave!
A sounds better to me. more balanced, more smooshed together, more spacious. great difference. upd : i thought A was console because it sounds better but the truth is if you have your mindset and skills for mixing, you can do everything with plugins, i mean it
I tought that i will never catch the difference...but i noticed that the B sounded not so bright and crisp,and i thought that this is the analog,and thats true :) The Analog has more harmonics and body,but i am sure that this can be done with digital.
There's a clear difference, specially in the low end, BUT I prefer the Mix A, because although it sounds nice all this warm in Mix B/Console, the clarity and transient in Mix A is uncanny. Mix B/Console, in my opinion sounds a little older, that may be cool to bands/artist who wants that vintage vibe. I think there is no good or bad, just different taste
Mix B has more depth and energy when mastered this could make a diffrence in loudness i guess. would be interesting to compere both mastered with the same settings and run them thru streaming plattform.. i wonder which would be louder and present. anyway thankyou very much for the comparison very good!
I wonder if these were mixed in different rooms? If the digital mix was done in a familiar room and the analog mix was done in an unfamiliar room that would probably have a big impact here.
I agree, BUT.....I said several times in the video that this is not a mix. All I did was run stems through each process to see if we heard a difference. I know I was pretty clear in the video about that fact
Mixer mix sounded a bit more scooped! Just the real preamps that drive it would add some compression as well. NICE to see you LEFT it LIKE an analogue wave, and didn't HARD limit it and took all the dynamic out of it! Both DID sound good tho! Just a little different!
Honestly i jump straight to the comparison (so maybe i skip some useful informations) and thought that mix A is the plugin because it's harsh and thin sounding and it's normal to choose it over mix B because it is more sounding like how a mixed track should sound and mix B, if it was mixed it is simply badly mixed because it sound raw and untouched. So this comparison for me is simply wrong and not fair because if the SSL console was correctly used to mix the track the result would be very different. Thanks for the video also !
Thanks! That's a very interesting comparison. I'm kinda torn between the two. I like the top end of mix A and the low/mids of mix B. If the top end of the analog mix didn't feel so veiled, it would have been ma favorite.
I called it...mix A was wider, and had better definition between instruments...the console had a more immediate low end, but sounded a bit muddy... Let's address the elephant in the room...what was the Infinity EQ doing on the console mix?
I was using it to for the analyzer to visually look at what was going on from an EQ stand point and I also turned down the output level a little to better level match the mixes.
I knew which one was which as soon as I heard the vol of the two. The only difference I hear in them is the Brick-walling of the digital output which serves to only make it sound louder and more harsh! As far as which one sounds better, that depends on your system and your personal preference... Personally, I like the $60,000 mixer version better, as it has milder tones and isn't brick-walled to be loud! Great video and good comparison! Thanks!
B mix has emotion and punch in the chest. Mix A sounds smeared together in comparison. Though it is subjective because the real console sounds like albums I grew up listening to.
Clearly Mix A has more sonic color added to it.....I also like Mix A but Mix B is more natural to me....Is Mix A and Mix B are both mixed with the same settings or to their best settings??...
I preferred mix A, but what was the analog console that was up against these plugins? We have to consider these plugins are usually modelling legendary SSL and Neve consoles, where let's say they were being compared to a Mackie or Tascam console, the plugins would blow the mackie and tascam away. Even the Midas console in my opinion is pretty crummy in comparison to these plugins that model SSLs Neve, and Harrison Consoles. A fair comparison is to do a mix on SSL 4000 style plugins for instance, and then do a mix on the SSL 4000 console itself. I imagine that would be very difficult to do as SSL 4000s are rare nowadays, and if you were to do a comparison of these SSL plugins against a SSL Duality... forget it, the Duality is a super analog, or basically a clean digital console and the Duality with it's current SSL Algorithms would crush a SSL 4000 plugin mix. Unless you have an affinity to that sound, but most people would probably prefer a mix on the Duality over a Waves or Slate SSL 4000 mix ITB.
Did you watch the video? I explained how this comparison was developed. It was not a 1 to 1 SSL console to SSL plugin. That was not the point. If that is what you got out of the video then I think you missed the point. Either way, I appreciate you watching. I'll tell you this....80% of the people that have left comments that "thought" they knew which was the 70K console were incorrect. As soon as I say "it's analog" most people think they hear the difference
@@HomeRecordingMadeEasy I did watch the video, but missed the part where you said what console was being used. Yeah I understand if you tell them "it's analog" they will think it's better, but I did prefer the plugin mix which shows the plugins are very powerful, we can't deny the fact that the most sought after mixer in the world is a total ITB mixer who mostly uses channel strips, but has the best at home control room on the planet. The console whichever that was sounded almost like a live mixer from radio shack and was quite muffly sounding. Very mid-rangy, more than some other consoles which can sound nearly transparent but with smooth highs, and amazing low end punch. So was it a fair comparison? Eh... that's debatable. The console was a $70k console, and the plugins are modeled after consoles much more expensive. So naturally they should sound better. I know some of these plugins even have some of the engineers who worked on the consoles as staff to create the plugin. So if you could somehow get a direct 1 to 1 comparison between the plugins and the the gear they emulate then we could say "the analog was better than the digital mix" with some accuracy. But I would give yourself a pat on the back, as the Mix A was very nice no matter how it was done.
“B” is better,. 3D, definition, seperation, sonically more spacious, wider frequencies. “A” sounded smeared/compressed, although brighter.. but,.. you could brighten up the Console mix, but you cant give to “A” what “B” has, unless,.. its those Slate plugins that are getting in the way? Or the way they were used?
The truth is that having elements of analog hardware and digital is the better than just one or the other. For example, stadium arcadium. Recorded through very nice gear, nice reamping setups, etc. Mixed digitally. One of the greatest records of the century.
That being said, if you've got good enough gear to capture good clean tones, pairing that with good sound selection and digital plugins, you're going to be fine.
They both sound very good but mix B I find sounds abit warmer and I find that mix A guitars sound a little like if therés a phase issue or that kinda more flanger effect.But one or the other sounds very professional so I don’t think its worth spending 60000$ for a console unless you like faders better than a mouse.Were they both recorded with the same preamp?
IMHO Mix A was clearer, wider, more crisp (which I preferred). Mix B sounded warmer, but didn't have the same high end definition to me. Being analog gear, that didn't surprise me at all. What surprised me is how many preferred B over A...makes me wonder if B has the wider audience, and thusf I should change my preferences if that's what most want...
Well.... I did much prefer mix B from the beginning, likely due to the low end bump. If you tried to make the DAW sound like the condole you probably could just from matching EQ.
oh wow.. such an interesting comparison. Firstly I've listened this on tiny JBL speaker and mix A seemed to be a clear winner.. then I've listened to this in semi-treated room with 3-way Dynaudios Core 47 and subsequently on Ultrasone Pro900 headphones and I have to admit it is not so clear which mix I'd prefer anymore. Mix B has more "nasal" sounding range on guitars and snare drums and less pronounced highs on cymbal & yes the highs are smoother on mix B. ... to me, Mix B has slightly more stereo movement in individual instruments... I would personally take care of the nasal quality in mix B (if possible) and maybe then it could be clearer that the analogue console excels in mid-range area. Mix A seem to have taken care of those nasal frequencies, but it is perhaps a little too harsh on cymbals, but - isn't all the new music exactly like that? Also - i am noticing activated inserts on Mix B... I'm curious what's that about. A great point is made in this video! Thank you.
This was not a tiny bit different to me but a big difference. Mix B sounded more natural and thicker to me where it could use sime mix bus processing to sharping up. Mix A sounded clearer Btw l learn to mix itb and still do.
I have off topic question that maybe you can answer. I just upgraded to Studio One 4.5 ( yea slow to the party) and I have no fast fwd/rewind on recording interface. But I have it on the master interface!!! Tech support told me its because my monitor isnt up to specs.. Huh? I'm thinking thats pretty lame .. Any idea at all whats going on? I have looked around and apparently I am the only guy with this problem. Big fan of your videos thx
Mix B sounded much more balanced. I think what I hear most is that highs are much more present in A in not the most pleasant way. B sounds still rich but in a pokey way. I also noticed the kick compression and therefore low end on A sounds a bit too flooded and muddy. B it sits just right, no extremely of EQ transient or something I don’t know lol. Guitars on A had a very apparent ball of low mid that doesn’t exist on B.
Mix B is on an SSL 4k console or something similar to it because of its' darkness...Less transparent than plugins but definitely more weight. I'm curious if you have a Console 1 around to compare it to the emulation. The thing which nobody is talking about is probably the different monitors on which you've mixed these 2 tracks. I can hear that the analog console room monitors had more high end, and it reflected on your decisions.
I don't think they're close at all. Without mixing in the same environment the warmth and high/mid/low balance is, of course, going to be different. It's hard to comment on which one is better or how equivalent they are, since there are so many differences in the two mixes that are not simply emulation vs actual.... (time, place (room/monitors/environment) some emulations are of entirely different gear.... it goes on. The only real comparison is with the knobs and faders in the same positions, but hey, you got comments, including mine, so I guess youtube advertising royalty mission accomplished.
Obviously, I preferred MIX A. Those two mixes are very different, unfortunately. You can tell by the high end (with plugin mix) and the mid-range with the Analog Console. IMO, this was too far off to even consider "which one is better". If you had more time on the console and tried to closely match that of the plugins, we would see a very different outcome. I've spent over $70k in hardware and I can justify my investment, when doing A/B matching with my plugins. This is all calibrated with DDMF Plugin Doctor, BEFORE passing judgement on which is better. Anyways, thanks for sharing!
Well, I hear. ya. most people totally misses the point of the video but thats ok. When I tell people that Mix A was really the plugins that usually puts a stop to the debate....LOL..
@@HomeRecordingMadeEasy -- Thank you for your reply. Based on the video, it seems like you're trying to debunk the argument that analog mixing is better. That's totally understandable. There's definitely better ways to prove the sonic advantages of plugins and this demonstration wasn't quite that. I would add that neither one (plugins/hardware) is "better" , but the sum of both is the best, IMO. From my experience, hardware brings unparalleled realism to a record (not always preferred) and digital brings convenience and much more versatility. The debate will live on because nothing was really proven, other than comparing a not so good mix to a good mix.
A combination of 1-2-3 saturation plugin per every channel in the mix i believe will give you exactly the same analog console sound,that's why Andrew Scheps is mixing in the box now days.
Not true. I haver an SSL console and it sound way different than plugins. Mixing with plugins to 10 longer to get to the final sound. For every guy like Andrew S, there are 20 guys mixing on consoles
Mix A is a good mix. Mix B: you did not treat all of the "mud/masking" and resonating frequencies. Therefore unfair comparison. I'm guessing analog had you limited to the eq bell count. This comparison is unfair.
The bigger difference would be if he used the digital mix summed through the analog mixer. That result would be different. Straight up though, I also preferred A. The hybrid setup I think is ultimately the best. Digital recall with analog colour when required. The highs are more pleasing on the console though but 60k difference??
@@HomeRecordingMadeEasy Funny, revisiting this video as it popped up on my recommended videos and both you and I have bought consoles despite both thinking there isn't as big of a difference as expected. You went and dropped much more on your SSL than I did on my old beater Ramsa though. Either way, I love sitting in front of a console. Just feels right!
G'day David just wondering what your opinion is on purchasing studio one 5 pro as apposed to a sphere subscription? You do get a lot with a sphere subscription for the price but not having the stand alone DAW if you don't renew the subscription is holding me back at the moment. I already have Studio One 4 Pro and not really sure I want or even need to upgrade
I dont know much about the Presonus sphere to be honest. As far as an upgrade to version 5? It depends on what you are doing. If you are recording, composing, mixing, mastering then yes there are a lot of new features. If you are like myself who strictly mixes, then not so much. There are only a couple of features in that case and may not be worth it if budget is a concearn.
slate (or specifically Farbrice's) algorithms are far ahead of the game. They out performed UAD enough for me to move away, and imo Waves or IK haven't managed a good analog model to date. its not "plugins have come really far" its Slate did it right. Having said that I've had millions of streams using slate and I've had millions using only freeware so its in the ears and the application. But my ears tell me that slate got the analog thing closest to the real gear every time I've had the chance to compare.
Some Digital EQ’s tend to exaggerate the gain, sounds like the Slate API one is no exception. That’s probably what you’re liking, but the analog console would probably sound better than the plugin if you compensated for that. But yes, good plugs are totally worth it.
I got rid of my console years ago. I now use RME Fireface UCX & plugins. Smaller footprint & better sound. Thank god for 64bit computer to do all the heavy lifting. I still think analog though.
It's hard to compare these two versions, because the EQ are very different. Version A has a more smiley face EQ, more top and low end end less low mids. Version B is more flat EQ wise, but also more pleasing sounding. I think the top end of version A sounds a little cheap. I prefer the hardware version.
You sure? Are you sure that you know which the hardware version is? I'll bet you don't. Its been amazing to see that when people think one is the "hardware" it must sound better. They find out that the were completely wrong.....I really loved this little test.
@@HomeRecordingMadeEasy Yes, my guess was that Mix B was the hardware. The stereo image is typically wider on good analog gear. I have bought a lot of outboard analog gear this year and have done a lot of testing between analog and plugins, because I'm working in a hybrid setup now. But like I wrote, the two mixes are hard to compare because they EQ wise are very different. Mix B sounds a little muddy, so many people will prefer mix A, because it sounds a little clearer. But thanks for the video:-).
Mix B sounds punchier, more natural... Mix A sounds a little less dense, and sounds like the highs aren't as rounded. However, I do believe that the emulations and their prices, vs actual hardware, are more worth while.
That is what I observed as well, with mix B there was a roil off of the higher freqs that left it feeling darker than mix A. On it's own without the comparison however I would never know if it were digital or analogue.
Analog gear has an almost indescribable "polish" to it, I did pick B as the analog desk... On comparing my own mixes in the box (I'll never afford a $6,000 desk, let alone a $60,000 one LOL) to an album I did have recorded at a top Sony studio many years ago, I have NEVER been able to achieve this indescribable "lacquer" that analog gear imparts, even using the exact same plugins as the console used and chain used in that particular studio (and it's VERY subtle, but after 10 years of chasing this sound, my ears can now hear it... Sometimes LOL)... Until recently, after 10 years of "LUSTING" after that sound and 1,000's of comparison mixes of my vocals in my own mixes and the pro Sony Engineer Studio mix, I finally FOUND the sound almost identical sonically via some hardware chain plugins that actually DO sound like analog hardware, I couldn't believe it... And David is right, Slate plugins are pretty amazing sounding tools, thanks for sharing David!
The mix b is pretty much "not a mix". Soundwise it is full, fat, smooth, punchy and ready to mix!!! Mix a now, is thinner, plus mid scooped plus "digitrebled"-harsh and the compressor attack-peaks are really ugly. You could use a Brainworks Channelstrip for better resaults. Any way "mix a" and "mix b" are not even close. You need to do something with your monitoring man.
Mix B for me. There is something special about B. Instantly i felt the magic. A sounds way too clean./bright. The muddiness in can always be scooped out delicately. B definitely for me
Seems strange to me, that you dint prefer using S1's native Console Shaper which has deep internal routing to each channel and bus in the circuit topology. It sounds arguably the closest to an analogue console, if not indistinguishable.
@@HomeRecordingMadeEasy I respect your opinion, but I'm quite certain though that Jim Odom, former recording engineer, former working musician and founder-CEO of Presonus wouldn't put his reputation at stake before releasing a console modeler on his patented DAW. The fact that in less than a decade S1 has become an industry leader is testament to a great management team that talks to their R&D folks and the default CS that comes loaded with it is a step in evolution toward the perfect DAW they aspire to create. But that's just my two cents...
Mix A is clearly better because there’s a bump in the higher frequencies. Mix B sounds completely flat and sounds dead and uninteresting to me. I picked Mix B as the analog desk right away. Sonically, Mix A was way nicer.
MIX A sounds better for me, more detailed. MIX B sound like all mix go throw tube amp. Add to MIX A vst plugin that emulates tube amp-it sounds pretty equal.
the plugin version has a top end and clarity that the console doesn't have...now maybe with a little more time you could get the same sonic range out of it; but at this time the plugin mix sounds better to my ears...
I am sure that with time on the console I can get that mix to sound better but my focus was not "can the mixes sound the same" it was more about a 60K console sounding not really any "better" than good plugins.
there is a BIG difference...very audible difference ...me likey analogue-y mixey......B sounds more natural, more musical, but to be fair 60,000$ does not really justify the cost to performance ratio, so yes I'm with A on this one
