Analog Plugin Myth Debunked: 49 instances, no difference?

▶ MY FREE PLUGINS 🔗www.apmasterin...
▶ MIXING COURSES 🔗www.apmasterin...
▶ BEST RETAILER EU 🔗www.thomann.de...
VOTE! forms.gle/8c2A...

[@APMastering]

VOTE HERE: forms.gle/8c2AFkv2embLPiU39 24bit WAV download: drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LjUd0_3fwcmoCJJDJPckG-I3j6-Jh09x?usp=sharing

[@RealHomeRecording]

Although we may have our disagreements on some topics, if your videos ultimately save people money and has them focus on improving their songs/using software they already own instead of emptying their wallets, you did a good service to the audio community.

[@APMastering]

i've always focused on skills over gear. not exactly sure what we disagree on, i'm guessing the sensationalism factor... i'm trying to make stuff entertaining to reach a wider audience and it seems to be working. have i gotten the balance right 100% of the time? definitely not. but my channel has gone from zero to 5k in just a few months so i think many people dig the content.... some things backfired, like now the compressor part 1 video has 40k views and i actually wanted people to watch part 2, that was just the conspiratorial tantaliser to trojan horse a more technical video (part 2) to a wider audience but it didn't work as way less people watched part 2 and now i'm made my self look like the david icke of the audio world to the people who only watched part 1. i'm still learning how to best play this game lol.

[@RealHomeRecording]

@@APMastering keep at it, man! Also, you were smart to start an email newsletter list right from the jump.

[@gameon2000]

Old recording artist here, take it from me kids😂: 1.) fact #1: - modern plugins (finally) sound better than... cheap hardware. I only know of 1 plugin, that was good 20 years ago. 2.) Besides: already in the 80s - 90s all gear became digital anyway. So it was already then just mere software inside the box. just outboard with its own CPU, cuz the computers were slow at that time. so it was ITB already 20-30 years ago! 3.) hardware always be better in the sense of usability. Pushing real buttons, knobs and sliders is a feeling you WILL miss, once you had it. Many artists rebuy their old hardware they had and sold in the heyday if the digital / plugin craze nowadays. I went the lazy / smart 😂 road, I just kept all the junk 😂 so I don't have to rebuy it all now! I still use my 90s mac just for 4track recording with all the outboard so I saved big time like $100000 at least in the last 20 years - not needing a whole new fancy $10000 computer every 2 years to be able to use all that hot air a.k.a. plugins, that cost in itself. In no way would I ever pay $500+ for a single plugin that allegedly emulates a $10000 I don't really need. 4.) Remember: - Daft Punk made their music with a 40 y.o. cheap gritty $40 Alesis hardware Compressor! So it's NOT about the (cost) or kind of your gear!

[@Ricochetmex]

Next thing: Plugins vs analog hardware, does a nice preamp, hardware compressors and eqs make a difference that cannot be achieved by plugins?

[@mirkomarkovic3438]

Yes

[@brunopradomusic]

yes

[@alexzamora5285]

yes

[@jeremylarue4503]

I'm gonna guess... no. At least not a difference anyone cares about. As long as you're avoiding audible aliasing, digital can do anything hardware can. But, I've been wrong before.

[@unlockedaudio5109]

It depends. There are some hardware units that absolutely sound better than the plugin version, but there are some plugin emulations that I would argue are BETTER than the hardware. Which is shocking when you realize it, but I’ve experienced it and now I know when to use hardware and when to use software.

[@BartChilders]

100% - I'm so done with Skeuomorphic UI and I can barely tell any difference between the stock EQ and Compressor plugins and the high-dollar variants. Get it right at the source - THAT is what makes or breaks a mix.

[@APMastering]

yes yes yes. I'm going to do a video soon on this!

[@TheGarageRecordingSC]

Amen!!! A few months ago I started spending the time necessary, to get great sounds at the source, and the mix just comes together way faster!!

[@Beatsbasteln]

all that matters is that the song is sick

[@APMastering]

ha ha thanks

[@5adb0i]

Holy crap thank you for this!!! I genuinely can’t tell which is which (same as the last blind test) I only slightly prefer mix B, and am about to watch the next video with full excitement to find out which is which! I can’t tell which is which and don’t really even care because of how thoroughly your videos have explained everything! Please keep up with the blind tests!!! Would also be interested in seeing a double blind test - where you are also unaware which is which & have to guess the same as us (iirc I think White Sea Studio did one a long time ago so the workflow for it exists)

[@APMastering]

good idea. the next time I do one of these tests, I can guess too :-)

[@5adb0i]

@@APMastering I’m so excited!!!

[@FRANKMUSIKOFFICIAL]

Man I fucking love these.

[@mandubien]

B sounds larger and has more depth to me. Now, like I said before, in the end it’s only 1s and 0s. The only reason we use emulations is to…. emulate a certain type of sound because we know that’s the one we need to get a certain tone. Why use a classic graphic EQ where you gonna need 10 points to emulate a certain type of EQ whereas you can do the same thing in 10 seconds with the right emulation? Same thing with compressors and saturation…

[@APMastering]

thanks for the guess

[@recordingol]

Maybe I'm an idiot, but larger? I was dying to find any difference at all

[@mandubien]

@@recordingol it’s subtle but listen carefully to the guitars and the midrange in general. It widens a bit.

[@kontoograniczone]

@@recordingol there is no difference :D I think this video is a bait :D

[@animadversionx]

Incredible, I think it's great that real comparative tests are finally being done, and not those where the processed channel always sounds louder than the unprocessed channel. That said, it seems very difficult to find a difference that justifies a large investment haha. The only moment where I was able to perceive a change in voices was at minute 4:09, but nothing fabulously noticeable.

[@MrMikomi]

I think you should've had an option C: "I can't tell the difference".

[@APMastering]

I agree. next time!

[@thegroove2000]

Placebo effect. Words are also spells. Hence why marketing is so important.

[@keremplanex4584]

Great tune, both mixes sound great. If I had to i would go with B but no idea which one used analog modeled plugins. They do sound very similar. Love these series, keep em coming.

[@animadversionx]

It seems to me that regardless of the plugins used, the mix sounds incredible. Could you make a video showing how you got to that result? greetings from Chile

[@APMastering]

thanks! sure! i can do that but also i'm thinking about making a whole course on mixing at some point.

[@animadversionx]

@@APMastering Great, I'll be watching for that video or course, whichever comes out first hehe. thanks very much buddy

[@Omtaman]

Yes, nice experiment...nice music , too. However, did you push the saturation tough?

[@APMastering]

its irrelevant, if I run anything through a real tape machine I can hear it

[@joa1232]

Wow I wanted to see such a comparison for so long, thanks for that. I liked B more - but is it possible that B is just a bit louder?

[@BenedictRoffMarsh]

I found essentially the same result when I reviewed the hyped UAD Capitol Mastering Comp and then compared it to a typical Benedict master using stock + some freebies. Essentially no fan would pick a difference (worth anything).

[@pelennorDSP]

One thought I had overnight .. how did you gain stage into the two analog style plugins you used? Both of them appear to have configurable calibration points, not sure what the defaults are on each one.

[@APMastering]

i just slapped them on. if the level was too low, and they were realistic, id get excessive noise, which i didn't get

[@sparella]

I do this occasionally when I bypass all instances of the analog modeled channel strip plugin I use. (Its easy in Reaper.) I usually prefer it on, but rarely I do like it bypassed. In that case I turn off the analog emu. A.A.

[@PluginJunkie]

I can’t confidently say which one’s which, but I prefer Mix B. I’m admittedly not listening on my reference headphones, but it sounds slightly rounder and fuller on this setup. Also, great track! Reminds me of Tame Impala’s early EP’s.

[@thegroove2000]

You have confirmed all along what I suspected about UAD.

[@APMastering]

TBF UAD arent crap, they are decent plugs, but there's no "magic" there

[@thegroove2000]

@@APMastering Not crap but no mojo. As you have demonstrated just use stock equivalents plugs instead.

[@thegroove2000]

Thanks for doing what you do.

[@danielhalond6292]

We need a minute to think if those analogue gears were too impactful, it would make it harder to mix certain songs. Although they really color the sound, back then everyone did their best to actually attenuate what we are trying so hard to exaggerate nowadays. This is a good example. So hard to put a finger on. I feel tempted to run this through a session and analyze it with my eyes haha

[@APMastering]

feel free, download link to wavs in pinned comment

[@IntheDAW]

Honestly digging this channel and these videos.

[@jeremylarue4503]

I'm surprised that no saturation- distortion didn't make more of a difference.

[@bradleypower4803]

B seems to stand out more in the drums, which might suggest an 'analog' quality. However, I'm going to guess that 'A' is the analog-modeled one. I suspect you were trying to throw us off-haha!

[@APMastering]

it's double blind right now because i forgot. in order to get the answer i'll need to phase reverse one of the mixes with the video

[@Chu_the_Master]

Yes B sounds slightly brighter. I got it right with my eyes closed about 70-80% of the time. I don't have a preference though.

[@justletmesigninokthx]

@@Chu_the_Master i thought A was the analog modelled, but only on macbook speakers. B did sound brighter to me.

[@mainsailsound983]

@@Chu_the_Master but that doesn’t answer either of the questions 🤓

[@JacobGorban]

My guess is that B is analog. It's less pokey which I suppose saturation may be doing. In any case, my initial impression is that mix A is clearer but it's too hyped in the high-mids and the transients there poke a bit too much. Now maybe it's the analog doing its thing but in any case, mix B sounds more saturated to me and more "mixed". We'll see which one is analog.

[@APMastering]

results video already up!

[@Tripod-42]

Sounds very very close. I think in A there are the analog modelling plugins.

[@lexlux777]

Would you consider mixing it in Harrison MixBus?

[@APMastering]

i think i'll release the multitrack and you can try anything you like

[@vigilantestylez]

@@APMastering Should host a mixing contest, and then the winner has to tell people what plugins they used. That would be fun, and eye opening.

[@vigilantestylez]

How were they recorded?

[@APMastering]

with mics and either a mackie desk to an audio interface or straight into the audio interface. apogee ensemble

[@vigilantestylez]

​@@APMasteringok. So the signal is going through an analog process before going into the digital world. So, then there is no need for analog emulation. The tracks are already analog. Grab ProQ3, a stock compressor and go crazy.

[@APMastering]

lol i don't think that's how the marketing works

[@vigilantestylez]

@@APMastering They gotta do what it takes to make sales. But your approach of meticulously matching curves and harmonics is fundamentally flawed. Engineers don't mix by reverse-engineering another mix; they strive for the best possible sound within their chosen toolset. By focusing solely on replicating the sonic characteristics of analog emulations, rather than optimizing the overall mix, you're missing the point. A truly effective comparison would involve creating two distinct mixes-one using solely stock and free plugins, the other with high-quality analog emulations-to highlight the inherent sonic differences and allow listeners to make informed judgments based on their preferences.

[@dylanjastle]

@@vigilantestylezthis would introduce too many variables. The result wouldn’t indicate anything meaningful

[@okay1904]

Thanks for all your content. Enlightening. Sorry to bother you, would it be possible to make the mixes available for download @ a minimum of 16 bit 44.1Khz uncompressed? So we can listen to the files that you are hearing, rather than KZbin's compressed version, cos KZbin compresses everything lossy, so we are NOT listening to the actual audio, and it is going to be more difficult to hear any differences, from KZbin's lossy compressed degraded rendition of your hard work.

[@APMastering]

see pinned comment 😎

[@smugler1]

on another note, youtube and other similar platforms that compress audio are the main way people consume music. So if you can't hear a difference on that, and most people are listening on that, does it matter if you CAN tell a difference with a microscope? Afterall, the youtube hype videos and their marketing isn't "you might tell a difference under a microscope!". They're broadcasting "use this or your mix will be BAD".

[@CsanadCzToth]

The mixes sounded a bit different, but both were good in my opinion. "Analog" isn't analog, but in the end neither will fix a bad mix.

[@theandroids]

So many people hate on these videos because they refuse to believe their precious plugins are mostly snake oil.

[@DjDalePlay]

what do you think of the extensions for NAM, and Proteus? ....

[@APMastering]

not familiar

[@APMastering]

to me proteus is a unit EMU made a million years ago and all the grime kids were using it for the eski sound 20 years ago

[@cupsempty]

B, but i like A better. Again, like with the Compressor vid pt 2, these are close. If i hear them 2 minutes apart, i'd have no idea which one i'm listening to. And again, great video, thank you!

[@APMastering]

100%

[@Chrisonander]

Did you make the mix with the analogue plugins, and then try to recreate with the standard plugins?

[@APMastering]

yeah that's the only way to remove the subjectivity. i would have made a much better mix with digital plugs

[@Chrisonander]

@@APMastering Hmmm, i think that's still missing the biggest defence of the analog plugin side, which is about adding a partiuclar colour and flavour. I don't think the main claim is that these plugins create mixes that are unreplicatable. It's more about quickly achieving a particular colour/bias/imperfection, not saying that that can't be recreated in other ways. I know you've touched on that in other videos, I just think this video shows you are a really skilled mixing/mastering engineer, but I don't think it's debunking anything

[@APMastering]

as i say, i would have achieved a better mix, faster, with digital plugs only.

[@BradBordessa]

Good conversation to have, but I feel like all you're proving is that you spent a lot of time matching the analog version. What I want to know is *how long* each mix took. If my experience is anything to go by, you just shot from the hip with the analog mix (fast) and then painstakingly took forever to recreate it with the freebies. Sure, it sounds very close and you obviously CAN do it with digital, but how much does it slow you down? Time is money and inspiration. Sometimes all you want to do is turn one knob, not obsess with how to recreate said knob. Also, if you're anything but an expert and don't have a Neve to put on a track, how would you ever know how to match those curves with digital? I appreciate your enthusiasm, but framing the topic this way seems to stretch the truth a little bit.

[@APMastering]

it's MUCH faster using normal digital. as i said i find the modelling plugins a pain to use

[@BradBordessa]

@@APMastering Sure, in general, but I have a hard time believing **this** mix specifically was "much faster" when you were trying so hard to prove your point by creating a copy.

[@APMastering]

@BradBordessa i just matched the EQ in bertom curve analyser and matched compression with my analyser plugin. of course i matched it otherwise i wouldn't have held everything else equal and we'd introduce a new variable of human subjectivity. that's basic testing methodology.

[@BradBordessa]

@@APMastering Right. Thanks for sharing. So this is not a "real world" process. You've framed it like you make the same moves, workflow-wise, between digital and analog, when, in fact, getting this result actually required an analyzer. IMHO, you're doing yourself a disservice by not being more transparent about your methodology in the video. What you have to share is interesting/useful, but it seems like your zeal is clouding the presentation and will end up backfiring on you.

[@fredriksigeman]

You are correct. And both mixes sound great.

[@APMastering]

thanks!

[@joejordan4246]

I think that A was the analog mix. I also thought the song was good too. The song reminded me of early Foo Fighters. Great job!

[@APMastering]

thanks! it's supposed to be a mid 60s freakbeat sounds

[@DavidLuchow]

What ever said and done nice game plan 🔥🔥 🔥

[@sancessounds]

Idk, I can hear a pretty clear difference from A to B, but not sure which is which specifically. Don't care too much but at the same time, if you can hear a difference, I think its clear there is a sound from one to the other. Really comes down to preference and workflow IMO. Even if I know EQ's all sound the same, I still use SPL PQ on the master bus because I just like using it and the workflow it has. I even turn OFF THD and the analog features on it every time just so I have the cleanest through I can.

[@APMastering]

i can hear some difference but it's certainly not a big difference and it's not going to make my song end up at #1 in the charts

[@JoeMamaBesser]

I challenge. Everyone hears differently and has different listening gear, rooms, positions, and listening/mixing experience, but I say the difference is subtle at best. I'm not trying to call you out, but claims of "huge" and "big" differences" always smack of "protest too much".

[@BorisBarroso]

What a great comparison. Thanks for making this comparison

[@APMastering]

Glad you liked it!

[@semyonboyk0]

I'll take a clean interface like Pro-Q over any analog EQ, even if it gives me some tiny difference. It's just faster and more flexible. My votes: A is "analog", I prefer B. But I'm mostly guessing, I have no idea, and in the end of the day I just don't care which one is "analog" :D

[@APMastering]

exactly! it really doesnt matter. it's not going to take my little psych rock song from 1k views on youtube to double platinum certification.

[@RegebroRepairs]

If you want a tape sound, and want to model it being to tape twice, just put two tape emulations on the master. 😀

[@mrpinguin9189]

HUUHH WHOOOAAAT. Thanks for this ground braking advice 😂

[@APMastering]

ssssssh! then i'd have less plugins for this video

[@RealHomeRecording]

I want a real tape sound, so I use MixAnalog's web site. Studer or Telefunken machines for pennies on the dollar!

[@beatsbeercigarettes]

Silly kids just bounce it tape, twice ;)

[@drrodopszin]

I think there are two types of mathematical answers to these questions. 1) is 1.533853 equals 1.533852862 which is obviously untrue and 2) what is the threshold of human hearing that compares these numbers, i.e. if 1.534ish equals 1.534ish enough to fool the ear. People come and say "this is stupid" because of 1).

[@APMastering]

i get your analogy and totally agree

[@EqDior]

Awesome vid and comparison. What theme is that you are using in Reaper?

[@APMastering]

its my own custom theme I made, its specifically for mastering and it comes with my mastering course

[@FraenkFokken]

Im amazed that you were able to get them to sound so close. Honestly no way to tell, but ive just got some monkey banana gibbon 5s and some old ATH-M50. Would be interesting for me if better speakers/ headphones would make it easier to distinguish them better. B sounded a little clearer, just a tad more airy but neglectable, which is why id say thats the digital one, simply because you can be more precise w them than the analog emulations. After watching all your videos I´m wondering why you have all these expensive pro plugins in the first place, when they are a "scam" anyway haha. Great Videos, stoked for more!

[@APMastering]

all demos! im running out of demo licenses for plugins ha ha, ive done a lot of the UAD, plugin aliance and slate stuff now.

[@riq4724]

na but how did you even mix this, thats the biggest transformation I have ever heard

[@APMastering]

just a normal mix focused on a neo freakbeat sound

[@MariJu1ce]

only reason i use these alalog plugins is the ease of use of for example an Neve channelstrip, and equing without using your eyes all the time.. A neve or api has good preset frequencies and Q's. Just too many options and easy to f** up with pro'q.. But yea, digital is digital, no matter how fancy the GUI is.

[@RegebroRepairs]

Yeah, I modded my old Tascam Mixer to use the Neve frequencies, and it's just much more musical and useful now.

[@vigilantestylez]

One mix sounds warmer than the other, but I think you mixed with the analog emulations first, then tried to match everything with the free plugins so that it would be hard to differentiate between the two which was which, but no one is going to mix that way, they will just do the best they can with the free plugins, and I would say that the differences would be more pronounced. Now some might prefer the flat cold mix over the warm one in that scenario, but that is personal taste.

[@APMastering]

which is which? i'd make a better mix just with digital plugs

[@vigilantestylez]

​@@APMastering I think you are mistaking opinion with fact. Which is better? The better one is better.

[@APMastering]

which one?

[@vigilantestylez]

@@APMastering I like the brighter one better. B.

[@thomaslai4680]

Is it possible to use the ableton stock saturator to mimic the saturation?

[@APMastering]

maybe i don't use live

[@yeshello2528]

It's a good saturator, but it depends.

[@mewesttmg3125]

Option A - analog. The high frequencies are dirty. Option B - free plugins. Less saturation. I like Option B better. I listen on $320 speakers with naturally free ears. Thanks for the compression plugin. Very good. The only thing it can't emulate is variMU, for example, AR 1 from Kush Audio. As I understand it, the ratio changes depending on the level of the incoming signal.

[@APMastering]

this is very easy to code. i can do this in 5 minutes, might include for next release

[@mewesttmg3125]

@@APMastering cool

[@MDHeleniak]

Cool topic. Thanks for doing this. 'A' was slightly more open so I think 'A' uses commercial plugins. But I am only 1/2 convinced this is a good example. Why? Here, in day-to-day work, I get bigger differences in sonics w/ commercial plugins. But I push modeled plugins into non-linear territory where they begin to breakup (go non-linear), as their analog counterparts do. It sounds like you weren't pushing the plugins on this mix. IE, no finesse to 'milk' what is good about analog-modeled sonics. To satisfy curiosity, can you show gain reductions in action plus EQ settings? Better yet, can you release the multitracks so we can use our favorite plugins and prove or disprove this for ourselves?

[@APMastering]

i'm considering releasing the multi track

[@fernandomiranda9736]

B For Me Neo, Man But They Look So Cool😔

[@MixedByDotRob]

Great music! Reminds me a bit of the early Who! I would definitely listen to a whole album of this! 👍🔥

[@APMastering]

thanks! i recorded a whole album but never released it

[@pcbenutzer6651]

B has bit less low end punch that’s it’s for me, so I prefer A and considering the logic that the Analog Model should be better I say A is the analog mix 🤣

[@APMastering]

doesnt sound like you'd bet $1000 on it lol

[@LS-ud7do]

I prefer A, punchy and open. B is analogue modelled, it sounds like 9 poorly emulated 1176's; way too much grit (some of which is probably aliasing). If A turns out to be analogue modelled, I'll take back what I've said about UAD. Side note: 9 _real_ 1176's would probably ruin a mix, but I still think UAD sucks, Lindell I'd need to test.

[@APMastering]

UAD are considered excellent, and for what they do, I have found that UAD are some of the best. I'm just not particularly interested in what they do, if that makes sense.

[@lukasgruber1280]

You certainly have a point. However most nuances will get wiped in KZbin compression. Providing a FLAC download would provide better results.

[@APMastering]

youtube isn't that bad but i will provide 24bit wav.... check pinned comment

[@lukasgruber1280]

@@APMastering its not that bad but you would not expect a CD vs Vinyl comparison to make sense on YT, which is basically the same

[@APMastering]

no worries, wav files are up

[@lukasgruber1280]

@@APMastering thank you!

[@Harrysound]

I absolutely love that Neve channel strip. The compressor in it sounds really really good on drums. I understand what you’re saying about the GUI and I get it but I don’t mind it though I hate the metering in the plug-in. Anyway I went for B

[@APMastering]

i actually don't like the compressor very much because i feel the attack is too fast. the distortion is kind of cool though.

[@Harrysound]

@@APMastering threshold at -12 , 4:1 , fast recovery job done on nice snappy snare

[@ABbruh]

⁠@@Harrysoundhow can you recommend a threshold when you don’t even know the level of the source material?

[@JT-qc2nb]

Might be able to hear more of a difference in electronic instruments (i.e. VST bass, drums, guitars) with analog effects rather than recorded instruments. But yeah, in general, the overall difference should be nominal/subtle for the overall mix.

[@APMastering]

sure, i could do a techno track in another video if the idea isnt stale... ive got WAY more unreleased techno than rock

This is so cloooooooooose !!!! ^^ I'd say A is the "analog" one, as it has a little more smooth top end...but the difference I hear is very minimal (plus I wouldn't bet on my answer), and mostly if I take off my "engineer" hat to wear my "casual music listener" one....I 100% don't care about the difference ^^'

[@APMastering]

exactly, nobody cares about that tiny difference and it was with 49 instances lol

[@mewfan84]

B is analog modelling and sounded better and more 3D ;) And you didn't even drive them plugins that hard, there was much more distortion to be had on a rock song like that one. Good playing, btw!

[@APMastering]

thanks for the compliment on the playing. I'm keeping it double blinded, so make sure to vote so when I make the reveal video you can see if you were right!

[@desperateBeauty]

B. and I prefer it. these differences are subtle, which is why so many plugins add a subtle (marketing) boost so untrained ears think it's doing something noticeable. but non-linearities are very worthwhile if you want that sound, but it takes ear training to reliably hear them.

[@APMastering]

well if you have trained ears to hear the subtle things, you should be able to easily tell me which mix is which as there are 49 instances here....

[@desperateBeauty]

@@APMastering I already did.

[@APMastering]

lets see if you were right. results video fairly soon

[@monkmusic5994]

I think, you hear differences in a very subtle and very well recorded rough mix. If the source is muffled, distorted etc. nothing makes a difference. It is all about subtle details in mixing.

[@APMastering]

i can repeat this with another song and get the same result

[@monkmusic5994]

@@APMastering yeah, in the end they are tools we are familiar with, no matter what we use, it is our craftsmanship that counts. I think your message is correct: we do not need golden hammers and nails, normal ones will do the job and even brand names are not needed. However, the illusion of having all the pro equipment as virtual tools feeds my GAS. It is an addiction, thus no other plugin will satisfy this thirst for new stuff, only detaching ourselves from the object of greed. Your clips could help, thanks.

[@pipelineaudio]

"The stacking myth?" Ethan Whiner enters the room

[@APMastering]

Ethan Whiner is a very cool dude but I didn't see him talk about stacking... if he did, I'd love a link!

[@pipelineaudio]

I posted a link to him talking about it but looks like KZbin deleted it. I think he also talks about it on one of the audio mythbusting videos I did with him.

[@APMastering]

i'll look through the youtube black hole comments and approve it

[@APMastering]

nope didn't go to the held for review folder. but i'll see if i can find the video now

[@okay1904]

Sorry to bother you AP. Not that it's important for me, cos I am not running Linux, but the download of the Linux version of the ApComp is being reported by Google drive, as having a virus, and therefore unable to be downloaded. For this reason, it's impossible to download the entire archive of the compressor plugin folder, or the entire google drive share with both the compressor plugin and the analyzer, in a single zip file, from google. The alternative has been downloading the files individually, and excluding the ApComp Linux version, since google drive has prohibited download of this file.

[@APMastering]

hey very unlikely there's a virus in the linux version... there aren't many viruses on linux and it was a fresh install of debian so it's probably just google being weird but i'll take a look. anyway you only need to download the zip for your os

[@-KingOfKhaos]

Literally if the artist and sound engineer dial in their sound early on before any actual recording takes place, there will be little need for any more than ONE instance of post effects.

[@APMastering]

although I wouldn't personally put a number on it, I agree with the sentiment

[@-KingOfKhaos]

@@APMastering Yeah I was being a little too aggressive with the “ONE” statement… but we both agree way less than 49 instances lol… a few or less generally speaking… BTW, you put out great content and I’ve been watching all of your recent vids, and I never had the evidence I needed to actually win the debate when it happens on expensive digital compression / EQ emulators vs hardware versions and I love how you just went ahead and BUILT your own plugins to get a solid benchmark to work from. That is dedication my friend! Well done! 👍🏻

[@paulnoonan1666]

I preferred B. It seemed more dynamic. I think A was the analogue mix, it sounded like there was too much squashing the mix. Though of course I could be wrong....

[@APMastering]

nice. ill reveal at some point soon. i don't know which is which without going and looking because I double blinded it with shuffling.

[@brucejgray]

For q1, should have had a third option for don’t know.... I would have chosen don’t know for which is the digital or analogue modelling mix.

[@APMastering]

you are right. but so far it seems there was no statistically significant preference

[@anything4280]

I exclusively use free plugins to mix my own stuff so I've known this truth for a long time now (maybe close to 7 years). And I've always wished someone would have the balls to say it on a public platform. There are channels that do it somewhat (eg glenn fricker from spectersound or paul third) but you're the first person I've seen who reveals what's behind the curtain fully. You *literally* do not need a single piece of paid software if - 1. You're only mixing/mastering (i.e you're not planning on using vst instruments). 2. You know what you're doing. The plugins market is so oversaturated right now that almost every paid plugin (and by "almost", I mean 99%+) has a dozen free alternatives that are either as good, or in some cases even better than their paid counterpart/s. And the rare plugins that do not have a direct 1:1 alternative (eg soothe 2) you can entirely do without provided that (again) YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

[@APMastering]

totally agree. i think soothe2 is one of the most overhyped plugs and all you really need is the free version of nova and the knowledge of how to use it. I can't speak for others in how much magic behind the curtain they've revealed but I'm pretty enthusiastic about destroying bullshit, and the audio industry has a lot of bullshit

[@mazy-beats]

I think B is the analog modelled plugin mix.

[@APMastering]

thanks for commenting!

[@sheeepman]

God knows which one is analog but I like the B one more since in the A the transients are unpleasantly harsh

[@KenDavis761]

Its NOT night and day. Both are good. Preferred B.

[@taviqmasteringonline2754]

"A" just sounds worse than "B" to me in every measurable sonic way. Sounds like I'm hearing aliasing plus far more dynamic loss. I say A is analog modeled and B is the digital plugin version. My listening preference would be "B".

[@vigilantestylez]

The Lindell 80 series channel which is what he is using has 16X oversampling. You will not hear any aliasing on that plugin unless he turned the oversampling off.

[@taviqmasteringonline2754]

@@vigilantestylez That does not negate harmonics coming from other sources (plugins).

[@vigilantestylez]

@@taviqmasteringonline2754 it could come from the universal audio plugins, but I am not sure as I don't have their 1176 plugin. The source material is analog and wouldn't have aliasing, but if during conversion the interface introduced aliasing, I am not sure, but I doubt as you said that it happened one of the mixes, and not both. So, I would assume the aliasing would be on the UAD plugin.

[@taviqmasteringonline2754]

@@vigilantestylez That is my assumption as well or a combination of the 1176 and tape machine.

[@fcmas]

​@@vigilantestylez 16x oversampling isn't the default setting.

[@thevi_olin]

nononononono, stop it! I need my auto gain compensation, analog modelling on all my tracks, with oversampling and natural phase, the tape simulator with authentic wow & flutter measured from a rare model ... really, It makes a difference cause marketing said so. Also, my iphone speaker makes it clear: I can't stand cramping eq, 0x saturation and I need at least 5 analogue modelling plugins on every track. Also, I immediatly bought the Tascam cause digital magic fairy dust IS REAL! Why you do this to me? Let me spend my money on plugins instead... Also, the plugins with simulated noise are the BEST!!! ;) And I can't wait for the next Waves game changer! ;)

[@APMastering]

i'm sorry 😂

[@masonthomassax]

Absolutely love this video. Analog hardware bros BTFO

[@EdwinDekker71]

I'm not saying you're wrong or right but when the source material is already pretty saturated, adding subtle extra saturation is going to be less noticable. Would be interesting to do the same test with super clean source material perhaps. I could hardly tell any difference btw, but hey I spent years on stage having cymbals smashed in my ears 😂👍

[@APMastering]

the drums were clean as a whistle

[@EdwinDekker71]

​@@APMastering ok! 👍👍

[@Aiden-cl]

I prefer A because for rock i tend to prefer brighter mix. But i think B its the analogue has that bump distortion "analogue" moody in the bass. :s

[@APMastering]

thanks for guessing, make sure to vote!

[@IsmaelAngelus]

First I have to say that I loved the music. Great job! Second: I voted B in both questions.

[@davidasher22]

i don't very much like those analog type GUIs either. Especially those ones you were talking about with the frequency and gain on the same knob. ughhh!! so annoying!

[@APMastering]

100%

[@zachvalenti]

You rock - I hope you never stop. I'd be interested to get your take on Slate's VSX / Sonarworks / Goodhertz CanOpener + Toneboosters Morphit.

[@APMastering]

Slate's VSX - the headphones? If that is not snake oil, I'll legit make a video of me eating mud from the ground as an apology. They have a car speaker thing and only this is grounds to be skeptical, as modern car stereo systems use all pass filters and other tricks to overcome problems of time delay / comb filtering caused by an off center listening position. This completely obfuscates how you ought to mix because older systems lack this trickery and so it's like trying to cook soup and custard in the same pot without combining the two. Added to that, they claim to sound like planars and dynamics with their technology but in my experience the sound of the two are extremely different and also influenced massively by pressure based transmission and cup seal, and using EQ doesnt even begin to address that. No way that can work. Sonarworks - as room correction, it's IMPOSSIBLE its NOT snake oil because time domain considerations and for headphones its not much better Goodhertz CanOpener - dont know it, probably also snake oil Toneboosters Morphit - i like Toneboosters but Morphit isnt useful IMHO

[@alkaiosmusic]

One more, Realphones!

[@strangerting7818]

@@APMastering😮what about vsx’s club simulation modes? What headphones do you use/recommend?

[@desperateBeauty]

​​​​@@APMasteringas somebody who just got the VSX phones and was equally skeptical (but open minded) - enjoy the mud. they are invaluable for mixing, not just the room emulations (the club speakers for example are priceless), but are also flat all the way into sub-bass (even without room emulation enabled), you can confidently mix bass on them and get real oomph. of course that is also influenced somewhat by your amp/headphone out, but I've got mine sounding awesome with a bit of a house curve and a tiny bit of transient enhancement. I can fully mix on these, the different environments make a lot of mix issues very obvious, and they're fun to listen to. they also don't appear to be static room impulses, there's something dynamic going on that really simulates what speakers do in a room.

[@APMastering]

zero mastering engineers I know use this kind of gimmick. "Club speakers" lol wut? have you been to clubs before? they all sound massively different and massively dance floor location dependant

[@izzyvickers6258]

The difference is noticeable (to me), yet negligible. Analog in my ears has a level of depth and more accurate stereo field that I haven't heard replicated with digital. Digital can get close, but the sounds have more of a "mesh" blend and it could be hard to tell. For this reason, I believe A is the analog-modeled mix and I would prefer B. A is THE perfect choice however if B never existed. To the defense of analog-modeled plugins (me being an itb-engineer), for me it's not about how "close" I can get the sound. I really admired the workflow of earlier engineers. Things just worked. Why use an EQ born in the 50s that only controls low and high? Because if I want crispier vocals, I just turn the dial at the frequencies I'm given and I'm FORCED to make a decision. I like it? Good, then I move on. And also, sue me lmao I like sexy plugins 😁 Very fine analysis and series you've been doing!😁

[@thegroove2000]

49 Analog modelled plug ins ha ha ha

[@MrMikomi]

I'm at 4:36 and to me they sound identical.

[@nandhukarthaofficial]

Mix A has little more punch, especially, the kick and snare are more pronounced. Mix B is smoother and clean, over all. I'll pick Mix A as it suits the genre and style. Believe that Mix A is the one with analogue modelled plugins.

[@APMastering]

thanks for the guess!

[@-47-]

Has anyone actually ever claimed that the difference is huge? As far as I'm aware, everyone who buys these plugins is aware that they're paying for subtle differences.

[@APMastering]

but can you even tell the difference? i put marketing claims on the screen

[@jameswhitty8007]

Question is was it record using analog hardware?

[@APMastering]

yep, they were 100% analogue instruments and microphones

[@jameswhitty8007]

@@APMastering plugged into analog hardware in can imagine like a tape, desk etc.. no? Makes no difference maybe.

[@APMastering]

this would have probably been going through an apogee ensemble with art rack pres as additional mic pres recorded onto reaper.... or mackie 8 bus pres into ensemble, i had an 8 bus around that period but don't remember what i used

[@jameswhitty8007]

@@APMastering good memory for a 10 years old recording, love the song it's on my list now thanks to you! I used to mess with gear and hardware in the 90's, remember Mackie and Art very very well. Had a laptop Compaq Presario with Audicity and later found Reaper! That was the massive difference! Used both Audicity and Reaper trying to get better trying different uses and approaches not bothering much on the plugins that were very basic those days but did do the digital and easy part of things. Having a widener a delay a phaser a tremolo a reverb n the laptop without having to connect gear was magic. I used to have this Wow thing pedal that was one of the things to record with before equing or any other processing. I remember some stuff we used to do in the home studio garage and then going to these proper studios... boom! Hard work but I was a pioneer using both analog and digital technologies. Anyway, since ai became a stay at home dad during pandemic lockdowns back in 2021 I started getting more aquinted with other plugins from all these brands and companies. With 20 plus years experience with stock pluigns as they were getting better and updated has well as analog gear, I can say that plugins are convenient depending on the needs but can't substitute technical knowledge and expertise. When I found out about presets from other renowned people I was like let's have fun! It is fun and useful to learn other approaches and perspectives but nothing compared to the raw knowledge I had in person next to real hardware. It's getting close but... digital world is just more convenient and versitale I'd say and I do have some plugins cheapest deals for reverbs and delays which I think it's where the evolution differences are more noticeable and are much better nowadays. Thank god for Tukan plugins! I still record some stuff but everything using just a good mic preamp going to my old laptop with Master Reaper and fool around with live mixing. As if I know what I'm doing all the way. Listen to this latest song I improvised when you can. Cheers!

[@APMastering]

nice one. i started using reaper in 2010 i believe. before that i was using logic and before that some cracked version of nuendo as a teenager and before that fruitloops ha ha

[@Modalitony]

Just a guess - B sounded clearer. A is analog, since stacking many plugs could be obscuring the low end slightly. I prefer B. What is funny is that the difference was more clear on the bluetooth noisecancelling headphones rather than on the modest ATH M50x, which is weird to me.

[@APMastering]

thanks for commenting!

[@Modalitony]

Thank you for your helpful and informative videos :)

[@andrelafosse]

A has a deeper, wider, "3D" quality to it, while B sounds flat and 2D by comparison. (This may be more obvious on headphones than speakers.) It's not that B sounds bad, in and of itself. But going from A to B definitely sounds like some of the life is being drained from the whole thing.

[@APMastering]

i don't hear any 3d stuff

[@vigilantestylez]

​@@APMastering the person is saying that there is better separation of instruments and depth on mix A. On B the instruments sound smeary and not well defined. But that is their opinion and not mine.

[@yeshello2528]

3d... I hate mixing engineer circlejerk.

[@andrelafosse]

@@yeshello2528 How would you describe the difference in sound between the two versions?

[@onteraction8294]

I think for many many years most [K’ed] users of waves didn’t read about them or recognize the work that goes into characterizing them. They flip some knobs not knowing what they’re doing then just say it’s nothing or gimmicky. If one spends the time and understands how to use a channel strip and the knowledge of what they’re designed to achieve then one will hear what’s going on and use them appropriately. I’ve known people for decades buying hardware telling me it’s shit after selling it. They just didn’t have the ears or patience to know what they bought and how to use it. Now add all the plugin companies people have access to now. It’s easy to fly over things without knowledge and appreciation.

[@APMastering]

ok but if i run everything through a real tape machine i hear a difference no matter what i do and the worst i'm using the machine the bigger the difference is

[@ArtEntity]

Then how can u ACTUALLY make a plugin that oozes honey sound into your ears ???

[@APMastering]

i guess you could have a plugin that remote activates a supersoaker pointed at the listening position

[@mv883]

Did I miss the track ID? Sounds cool!

[@APMastering]

i made/recorded this song

[@mv883]

@@APMastering well done!

[@RJ1J]

This is not a fair test. The point about these expensive analogue modelling plug-ins is pushing the input on them. You push until it distorts, and then you pull back to taste. Stock plug-ins generally don't have the algorithms as advanced as UAD for example. Also, if you're using you are using UAD hardware, the signal gets up sampled to 192khz, making aliasing much less of a problem. If we saw the settings you used for each, or at least a few, of both sets of plug-ins, it will be easier to test your claims. If you are basically bypassing the Studer by barely adding any input, of course you're not gonna get anything from it. It seems you are simply looking to debunk an entire industry, but you are not transparent with your experiment. Sounds a bit suss to me.

[@APMastering]

1. ive worked with actual tape machines and a round trip through tape is audible with or without overdrive. if the UAD does what it says on the tin, there would be an obvious difference with or without saturation too. 2. there was measurable distortion occurring in the test. 3. you are NOT "supposed" to bring everything up to some threshold of distortion perception. There is no magical rule that states you need to do this. You can do this if you want. In my experience systematically doing this degrades the sound quality of the music.

[@phadrus]

Why has no one else done this before?

[@APMastering]

cant speak for anyone else... i actually just made the video in response to that comment i showed at the start of the vid

[@BenedictRoffMarsh]

I have done similar a few times. People don't like hearing these things as they feel special from using their feel-goodifiers - that aren't really sound goodifiers after all ;-) This is one that happened in a review for Higher Hz. All the hype and (apparent) cost for pfft kzbin.info/www/bejne/naCwl2p8l5x5btEsi=temO_PjQ9GDXytbZ

[@CreativeMindsAudio]

They have plenty of times. The differences are subtle, but mixing workflow is everything. Do what works best for you. Getting analog emulation plugins isn’t going to make you a better mix engineer nor is it going to magically make your mixes sound better. Of course if you have a good mix it’ll make it that way .5% better or it could help you get there a lot faster.

[@Tito-Torres]

Si you still wanna be paying monthly subscriptions?

[@image66media]

I disagree with the “common wisdom” that the tiny differences add up to something significant in a final mix. That would tend to be true with a sequential processes, but not with a parallel set of processes. The reason has to do with the averaging that occurs during the summing process. If you cannot discern the difference on one channel in a mix, you most certainly won’t hear it when combined with other channels in the mix, unless it’s the exact same signal processed identically and then summed together. The more channels we are summing together, the more the cumulative effect is represented on a logarithmic scale. In summing all the channels together, the cumulative difference is NOT exponential, it is logarithmic. If we take 20 channels of the exact same waveform, apply exactly the same process to it, the artifacts, if phase-aligned, will add to each other. However, nothing is exactly the same, and the randomness of sound will negate the artifacts or the effect of them in the mix. This is also why some of us really old-timers in digital audio are still believers in “dithering” as that applies a randomness to the signals which ends up reducing noise or the effect of summing of low-bit differences. And many of these analog plugins do in the digital world what analog devices do in the analog world - add dithering noise. Honestly, I think the biggest factor that contributes to the overall sound, as well as specific instruments, is how much the low-cut (high-pass) filters affect square and saw waves-are they maintaining phase-coherency? And this only really reveals itself when we hit a peak compressor or limiter.

[@APMastering]

great comment! that's exactly why you can get a quieter electronic circuit by using for example opamps in parallel to perform amplification... uncorrelated parasitics! the sum of uncorrelated noise is much quieter than correlated input signal. exactly!

[@CruiseLoungeStudio]

i hear no difference

[@LabofmusicRecords]

ha ha, so nice :) I knew it but I love all this plugins, so I have the most of it 😂 I also have the most DAWs because I like it.

[@SouthStreet24Media]

OK, I may be the only one who has ever done this in this comment section but my production DAW of choice is FL Studio. It comes with demo songs showcasing the capabilities of the software. I replaced all the compressors from one of the demo songs from the stock versions with analog emulations and I can tell you that the difference was night and day.

[@flamesintheattic]

It's a weird concept.. Users are happy with the overall quality of a DAW but then assume the same programmers are incapable of making a proper EQ, so they need to buy third party fancy ones. It's very weird.

[@APMastering]

lol and if those same people understood coding, they would appreciate just how much more complex building an entire DAW is than an EQ or compressor.

[@leandroleal3874]

I Prefer the A version

[@moritzschiekel2272]

Im working fulltime in a studio and i also have some students and its every time the same. thay go trought ther copy settings and magic plugin to ther Analog phase. And on the end i ask them if my mix sound good and radio ready to them and then i show them that i mixed it with trash vom izotope and stock vst 😂😂 its always about the result not the way . Kep up the good work. A sounds better to me

[@APMastering]

lol yeah, i think this kind of thing is controversial because the industry has fooled people so hard into the magic of analog blah