| Author
|
Diference between mastering in hardware (tubes) or sofware.
|
Serag
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
34
Posts :
351
Posted : Dec 8, 2006 08:10
|
Anybody knows the diference?
Someone sais that you can reach with plugs the same results as in hardware.
I think tubes can't be replaced but with all the new technology i have my doubts.
Undertow pls enlight us. |
|
|
AvS
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
464
Posted : Dec 8, 2006 17:54
|
First of all. Tube gear is not "better" sounding than solid state gear (hardware without tubes). Its just a different flavor.
In my oppinion the biggest difference in sound between hardware and software is the way the compressors sound. You can make a good hardware compressor work alot harder than a software one and it still sounds pleasant where even the best software can sound fatiguing. Dont know why that is. |
|
|
|
Kane
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
23
Posts :
1772
Posted : Dec 8, 2006 23:59
|
Do yourself some research in the difference between Linear Phase Filters, Analog Modelers, and Mastering Hardware..
I'd say that yes, some or most of your hardware can be replaced with the plugin concepts, and as AvS said, there is a difference in the compressors in this case..
Sounds like what you need are plugins considered analog modelers, since they're just digital gear made to model after their analog ancestors..
Check out the Mother of all MASTERING thread and the Mother of all VST Effects Thread..
|
|
|
|
Serag
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
34
Posts :
351
Posted : Dec 9, 2006 02:32
|
thanks guys,
Avs:
But im not saying that tubes are better than solid state, i know that both diferences.
I'll re-frase my question:
What is the diference between mastering with software and hardware?
for example:
T-Racks or Waves compared with a Neve compressor of 9,000 dlls.
qane:
Ok, but do i really can trust that if i work with the best of the bests software i will have the same results as in hardware ? so what is the deal here of the big companies like SSL or NEVE etc..
hugs |
|
|
|
ess765
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
25
Posts :
169
Posted : Dec 9, 2006 03:19
|
Serag, 90% of people here might not know what exactly mastering process is all about. So they think that using softwares or cheaper hardware they will get real pro results. So the answer for your question is very clear: no, never, impossible !!! Anyone who d try to tell you the oposite, that 100% software mastering can reach analog equipment results are totally ignorant( in the sense of not knowing this subject, I mean) about audio reinforcement.
Let me try to put into simple words. Sometime ago (back in 80 s ) sound engineers began to notice that their final audio results were always destinated to public audience through the same people ( radio stations, djs etc). So. if you wanted to make your tracks seduce those guys, you d really needed to pay attention to its final results more than ever.
One of the human ear caracteristics of our audio perception (psychoacoustics) is that louder sounds better(since the quality is kept away from clipping and distortion). That means that Dj s and radio producers are not audio experts. If you give to a Dj your own cd, and when he plays he feels that the previous played Cd was louder, 99,9 % of those Djs would (think) and say to you that your work qualiy is poor. The same with radio station guys. So, as I was saying, the sound engineers began noticing that even if the Cd was a genious work, it could never loose volume "power" to other ones, otherwise the market would consider it poor and it would be very hard to make it popular.
So, what s mastering and why is it so used?
Mastering is a extremelly techinical and sensitive work, where the target is to make the cds tracks to sound as comercial as possible compared to the general released works (industry standards). In other words, is a kind of attempt to include a cd into the markets demands concerning loudness and some other aspects.
So your question is: why the expansive hardwares are better. It s very simple. Analog professional mastering devices have a much bigger headroom compared to digital devices. What does it means? They can work the audio in much higher voltages (if you consider that analog equipments are electric circuits)without distortions or clippings. So when you ask yourself why a mastering analog device is so expansive, is because it s components are so specials and selected that allows you to work that audio with much more headroom than cheaper solutions.
So, by eq adjustments(this can adjust frequencies present at the track), multiband compression (this can bring the less heard transients closer to the louder ones)and limiting ( this can build a brickwall so that no audio waves peaks go beyond the desired level.
Professional mastering eqs, multiband compressor and limiters are really state of art audio related electric products, and their prices are simply a reflection of its qualities.
Thats why lots of old records such as Pink Floyds or Beatles's are remastered for. When they were prroduced, the audio equipment didn t allow them into bigger headroom, that s why sometimes for our years they seem to sound much more poor than our days released tracks, It s not that the engineers were bad professional, but that era s equipment didn t allowed them to have ourdays results. |
|
|
|
Kane
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
23
Posts :
1772
Posted : Dec 9, 2006 03:46
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-12-09 02:32, Serag wrote:
thanks guys,
Avs:
But im not saying that tubes are better than solid state, i know that both diferences.
I'll re-frase my question:
What is the diference between mastering with software and hardware?
for example:
T-Racks or Waves compared with a Neve compressor of 9,000 dlls.
qane:
Ok, but do i really can trust that if i work with the best of the bests software i will have the same results as in hardware ? so what is the deal here of the big companies like SSL or NEVE etc..
hugs
|
|
The best way to see the difference between mastering digitally and mastering with the hardware you already have is to try digital and see how you like it..
That's all I can say if you're talking about how you can't trust that it'll sound the same. |
|
|
|
Robin
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
9
Posted : Dec 9, 2006 20:10
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-12-09 03:19, ess765 wrote:
Thats why lots of old records such as Pink Floyds or Beatles's are remastered for. When they were prroduced, the audio equipment didn t allow them into bigger headroom, that s why sometimes for our years they seem to sound much more poor than our days released tracks, It s not that the engineers were bad professional, but that era s equipment didn t allowed them to have ourdays results.
|
|
i would disagree with you on this point because most engineers the real ones are constantly looking for the vintage equipment that is no longer available , like any one will tell you that if you can find a fairchild compressor from the fifties that weighs 6o pounds and may cost 20k is the shit! . The neve consoles that are so coveted have caracteristics that can t be reproduced these days because of the prime materials used for its circuits are no longer available and are ilegal to use because todays health and safety regulations , plus they dont remaster pink floyd etc for that reason, they digitaly remaster it for marketing reasons, dont mean it sound better. This way every year they can sell new dvd bundle packages etc. thats why you l never have the ultimate collection theres always a new one being sold next year |
|
|
|
Adrenal Mode
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
11
Posts :
308
Posted : Dec 9, 2006 21:20
|
i think your right about hardware tube compressors, thay do sound good, in real hardware compressor you can feel/hear the meter hiting down and squshing the material(signal), you actually can feel the power of this metal box
but i think with the digital age you can get GREAT result if you know what your doing with the right vst , its even could sounds like a real hardware.
ppl like and use analog gear is only bcuz the color/caracteristics of the analog circuits, digital age(vst) + good ears = can emulate the old color just by tuning it the right way and ofcurce with a GOOD sounding vst tools
only big studios will buy this stuff and belive me its for the repitation more then for use
BUT like i sed allready its not the same MESSIVE sound that come from this metal box
cheers
|
|
|
|
ess765
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
25
Posts :
169
Posted : Dec 10, 2006 08:22
|
Robin,
if should you read carefully what I said. I mentioned that all mastering process is related to marketing issues. So remastering PInk floyd is for the same reason. I never said that it sounds better because they are louder. Read again my post. I said that people usually think and perceive louder as better (that s proved by psychoacoustics scientific studies). Djs and radio station guys helped a lot on this concept.
About older processors such as Neve compressors and other hardware that engineers use a lot, you gotta understand that mastering harwdware are totally diferent from those pre amps/eqs/compressors and others that use to cost more as vintage devices.
For your knowledge, Rupert Neve s compressors and equipments are still being made, you can buy them easily. And their quality is still perfect, by the way.
If you read things better, You ll see that I m saying that hardware is far superior for mastering than software. That s the question about this topic. That s where you should keep your attention, and give your opinion to the guy who posted. |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Dec 10, 2006 14:52
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-12-08 17:54, AvS wrote:
First of all. Tube gear is not "better" sounding than solid state gear (hardware without tubes). Its just a different flavor.
In my oppinion the biggest difference in sound between hardware and software is the way the compressors sound. You can make a good hardware compressor work alot harder than a software one and it still sounds pleasant where even the best software can sound fatiguing. Dont know why that is.
|
|
The digital compression introduces non-linearities that go beyond the nyquist frequency and alias back into the audible range. The problem is that, as the compression itself introduces these frequencies, they can not be filtered out with an anti-aliasing filter after the fact.
Some digital compressors deal with this better than others. One way of reducing the problem is to upsample the signal before doing the compression. PSP MasterComp does this when it is set to FAT mode. (And I must say,it is a very good digital mastering compressor).
But you are right, you can apply much more compression in the analogue domain before things start to sound ugly and fatiguing. There are a few notable exceptions like the Weiss compressors or the TC Electronics M6000 unit. Unfortunately these cost alot of money.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Dec 10, 2006 15:08
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-12-09 03:19, ess765 wrote:
Serag, 90% of people here might not know what exactly mastering process is all about. So they think that using softwares or cheaper hardware they will get real pro results. So the answer for your question is very clear: no, never, impossible !!! Anyone who d try to tell you the oposite, that 100% software mastering can reach analog equipment results are totally ignorant( in the sense of not knowing this subject, I mean) about audio reinforcement.
|
|
Uou can actually but it is alot harder and you really need to know what you are doing. Even more so than with analogue gear. One way of looking at this is that analogue is much more forgiving.
Quote:
|
So your question is: why the expansive hardwares are better. It s very simple. Analog professional mastering devices have a much bigger headroom compared to digital devices.
|
|
Actually it doesn't. It has a much much smaller headroom. 32 bit floating point audio has 1538 dB of dynamic range. No piece of analogue gear gets anywhere near a tenth the dynamic range.
I couldn't be bothered to calculate the dynamic range of 64 bit floating point audio but you get the picture, I'm sure. 
Quote:
|
What does it means? They can work the audio in much higher voltages (if you consider that analog equipments are electric circuits)without distortions or clippings.
|
|
It is all relative. With floating point audio, clipping occurs at +800 dB FS or so. (I can't remember the exact figure). Again, no analogue gear gets anywhere close to this.
Of course, before we can hear anything, the signal has to be translated back to fixed point audio for our soundcards and converters to use but that is irrelevant to the actual processing headroom. And suffice to say that with 24 bit audio, we have more than enough dynamic range to cater for our human hearing.
Interestingly enough, no converter really reaches 24 bit dynamic range because of the _analogue_ stages in the converters. The limitations have to do with the laws of physics. The noise floor in the best converters is actually cause by electrons discharging spontaneously. It is called self-noise. We can't do anything about that.
Quote:
|
So when you ask yourself why a mastering analog device is so expansive, is because it s components are so specials and selected that allows you to work that audio with much more headroom than cheaper solutions.
|
|
I would say that the main reason is because of the very limited market these devices have. Market economics at work ...
Quote:
|
Professional mastering eqs, multiband compressor and limiters are really state of art audio related electric products, and their prices are simply a reflection of its qualities.
|
|
And limited market.
Quote:
|
Thats why lots of old records such as Pink Floyds or Beatles's are remastered for. When they were prroduced, the audio equipment didn t allow them into bigger headroom, that s why sometimes for our years they seem to sound much more poor than our days released tracks, It s not that the engineers were bad professional, but that era s equipment didn t allowed them to have ourdays results.
|
|
No, the reason is, as others have mentioned, 100% pure unadulterated greed.
Btw, most of them sound better in the original form than the crushed-to-death version that comes out of such remastering.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
Akousma
Started Topics :
8
Posts :
69
Posted : Dec 10, 2006 18:21
|
the thing is : to crush or not to crush,in a natural or digital way...u choose the "flavor"..eheh
thats my humble remark.
|
|
|
|
faxinadu
Faxi Nadu / Elmooht
Started Topics :
282
Posts :
3394
Posted : Dec 11, 2006 18:17
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Dec 11, 2006 23:25
|
postunder: The compression changes the shape of the waveform so you are not only changing things in the amplitude domain but also in the frequency domain.
For instance, one (simple) way of looking at it is if you have an attack of 1 ms on a compressor, you are modulating the frequencies present in the waveform by something akin to 1Khz. You get all sorts of frequency products out of that and that doesn't even take into account the actual shape of the attack curve.
Compression, expansion and limiting are non-linear processes that can cause frequencies way up into the Mhz ranges (and possibly beyond). Of course the sampling rates we use don't allow for such frequencies so they alias back into the audible range.
Just think of it as some type of distortion that isn't band limited.
UnderTow
|
|
|
|
ess765
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
25
Posts :
169
Posted : Dec 13, 2006 22:17
|
Undertown,
1 - those analog extra class gears cost more because their electronic equipments are really more expansive than cheap gears components. If you take a single resistence or capacitor, you ll find price/quality range so wide that yo d be amazed. When you open up those expansive devices you ll see its resistences and capacitors visual look making them to belong to a really special quality level. They use to use separate colors for some qualities ranges, so that when you open up those devices you can know what kind of electronics did yhe engineer used on them.
The fact that the market is limited is not a main issue here. The main consequence for a product on a narrow market, is that few people will be interested in producing them as they d have few consumers. Lots of companies like SSL make real expansive gear for limited market and they still make a nice money ( the SSL9000 console cost U$1.000.000,00). You can have limited market for really cheap products. I m sorry but you re point is not correct. But if you analize all the mics pre amps, compressors etc inside its channels you ll see why is it so expansive.
2 - when you talk about digital enviroment for headroom you just forgot the most important thing: the digital signal (no matter how many bits of resolution ) you ll need to be transduced to an electric signal so that can go through audio cards or whatever and then come back to regular SPL so that you can hear the sound waves out of the speakers.
And what really limited and still limits the headroom for the digital mastering process, is exactly their lower capability regarding headroom compared to analog equipments that are state of the art. You can use Pulteks wonderfull compressors or Drawmers (available for the TDM users) on plugins also. They sound real nice. But they don t have the same "touch" as the analog ones.
For all guys here that are trying to become an artist I d recomend very seriously: focus on composing and mixing your tracks and leave the mastering for real profesional studios. Check out their previous jobs, evaluate their equipments and invest your money with them so that a nice album don t sound below some real less qualified works just because of mastering process. That can make a lot of diference when you submit your tracks to DJs or record labels (many times the record labels d pay for it...)
If you know someone that tells you that digital enviroment for mastering is better than analog....ask him why the most carefull productions are made in the most expansive loaded studios on earth...? And why can t this guy beat the others....? Ask him why 90% of the best mastering guys are analog??
Are those really experienced mastering guys so idiots to pay 100 times more for products that might give him the same results? I guess they re not.... |
|
|
|
|
