analog emulation plug-ins, worth it?

J

Jack of Alderaan

New member
Hi guys,
When i started music, or to be more precise, when i started recording my music in the mid-00s (sometimes all by myself, sometimes helped by friends and their gear, a few times going into semi-pro studios) i remember that digital was generally throwned upon, and emulation plug-ins was considered gimmicks, cheap toys...back then i would record on tape when i could (rarely), on tascam cassettes recorders -4 & 8 track- (including an album and EP
rock.gif
), and the rest of the time wth my old laptop with a very basic, cheap setup.

now it's 2022 and i get the feeling that the digital world has made some progress over the past years...i just bought an macbook air M1, a SSL2 audio interface, a pre73jr and a couple of mics. A few days ago i bought two plugins from Waves, the J37 studer tape Emulator and their fairchild comp Emulator (discount prices!) Sounds good to me but maybe it's psychological
freak3.gif
? So here's my question:

What is your opinion on modern audio plug-ins? especially those whose purpose is to add warmth, that "analog"-like saturated magic touch...do you feel today's software are as good or close to the original stuff? Or are they still gimmicks and a waste of money? And if you think current's technology makes digital possibly sound just like analog then when do you think this "better quality" happened, what years?

ps : obviously i'm not looking to record with a "pristine" render and i'm deliberately looking for an analog-type kind of sound. the question is can it be achieved nowadays through plugins or...nothing beats good ol' hardware?
smile.gif
What's the consensus? I don't want to revive the analog vs digital war, just wanna know if emulation plugins are worth it, or just useless marketing/hype...
 
Pretty much all of these are adding saturation and/or harmonics to emulate the naturally occurring changes that happen to audio signals that are sent through transformers and other circuitry. Since it's essentially distortion they are actually doing something to your pristine digital audio signal, but whether that is a good or bad thing is entirely in the ears of the listener IMHO. I personally find the Waves Puigchild comp very good for shaping the sound and space of digital audio. YMMV
 
I have yet to buy or use an "analog emulation" plugin. I just don't drink the "analog warmth" kool-ade. Everything analog isn't warm, and warmth isn't necessarily analog. "Warmth has become one of the buzzwords that gets thrown out there these days, like a marketing phrase. When I record something, the goal is never to try to make it sound like something recorded back in the old days with all the warts covered up by distortion and noise.

For my money, being able to do a pristine render is a positive. Otherwise the whole industry would have dumped digital at the start and stuck with tape and vinyl and cassettes. Being able to mix 20 channels without significant noise or distortion building up is great.

If you could, would you buy a plugin that you could use on streaming music (which is what most people seem to use these days) that would give you the hiss, poorer frequency response and wow/flutter of a Walkman? It's the same thing.

Heck, why not go back to CRT scanning TVs. Who needs 8K video where you can see the pores on the newscaster's nose? It was so much better when we had 330 line resolution on those old over the air broadcasts.

... yeah, I think this stuff is marketing hype. Stick this in your chain and it will glue everything together into that warm, inviting sound you loved.
 
I don't use plugins greatly, just reverb, and maybe chorus.
With the cheap Cubase Elements 11, I was surprised how many plugins came bundled with it, which I haven't even explored yet.
So those were certainly worth it.
I use Behringer amp emulator rack units, which are basically plug-ins in a box, and they were worth the money.
Also I use a Line6 Flextone III modelling amp, which is versatile.

An interesting new development from SSL, is the UCI, which is a hardware glorified channel strip, But instead of containing analogue circuitry,
it is actually a physical controller for some of their software plugins. You can see on your screen, an array of channel strips in your DAW, and the UCI
context switches to be hardware front end to each of those channel strips.
I think this is where things are going to head, where you use a very much beefed-up DAW controller, posing as a mixing console,
but with all the processing done with computer plug-ins.

Digital signal processing has matured a great deal over recent decades, and is not inferior to analogue processing, unless the software engineers
bugger it up.
You have some nice kit there Jack.
If it sounds good - it is good!

Analogue warmth is just a load of bullshit.
 
Well of course when i say "warmth" i mean the distinctive sound of analog, call it the way you want, if there's a better word, good. I'm not saying it's better or worse than digital, just down to preference. Generally speaking my taste is more lo-fi than hi-fi. I like the grain of 70s italian movies, i like 8 track cassette recorders, i like mono drums, i like errors...it's personal taste, so no i dont like pristine sounds, i like it a bit rough 😁 and i wouldnt mind listening to spotify on a walkman, could be fun haha...as long as we have the choice and rhe best of both worlds!

But it's not really a question of analog vs digital. Again, i'm not saying one is better than the other. I just want to know if the consensus these days is that plugins are capable of emulating the sounds of before-the-bits...that one finds this sound irrelevant nowadays is not really what this is about...
 
TalismanRich said:
If you could, would you buy a plugin that you could use on streaming music (which is what most people seem to use these days) that would give you the hiss, poorer frequency response and wow/flutter of a Walkman
Click to expand...

Whilst I understand what you're saying in your full post, this is really common. RC-20 type plugins are in use everywhere and a ton of modern 'hits' have added "hiss, poorer frequency response and wow/flutter of a Walkman" added intentionally to the mix.

Jack of Alderaan said:
What is your opinion on modern audio plug-ins? especially those whose purpose is to add warmth, that "analog"-like saturated magic touch...do you feel today's software are as good or close to the original stuff? Or are they still gimmicks and a waste of money? And if you think current's technology makes digital possibly sound just like analog then when do you think this "better quality" happened, what years?
Click to expand...

There are many things that are achievable using modern plugins that you could never achieve with outboard gear no matter how good the gear or how good the engineer and I don't know anybody that totally excludes plugins as "gimmicks and a waste of money". Also many of the hardware modeled plugins have functionality built in that the original hardware never had (M/S mode, sidechain etc.) that at the very least speed up your workflow.

Having said that, many of the plugins that promise 'analog warmth' are, as TalismanRich points out, just hype but others do add something worthwhile and if you need or like what they're adding then what's the problem?
 
HumanPlanet said:
Whilst I understand what you're saying in your full post, this is really common. RC-20 type plugins are in use everywhere and a ton of modern 'hits' have added "hiss, poorer frequency response and wow/flutter of a Walkman" added intentionally to the mix.
Click to expand...
I can see using such a plug in for "artistic" effects, the same as you would use reverb to simulate being in a cathedral, when the reality is that you recorded it in a small, padded vocal booth with zero echo. To use it universally to make things "sound good" seems to be more of a bandaid approach covering for poor technique or ability.

A while back, a fellow posted a track he had recorded which really sounded like it was done by a blues musician in the 1930s. The tone and playing were spot on! It was a pristine recording, and if it was me issuing the track for sale, it would have left it that way. I also made the comment that if the track had some hiss and clicks, people probably would have believed it to be a genuine recording from 80 years ago, something akin to the Robert Johnson recordings. To illustrate, I even added in some record noise to the background and posted a clip. I thought it sounded quite realistic. However, it was a means to fake the listener, NOT to improve the sonics.

A plugin that would be INFINITELY more valuable to me is one that does the exact opposite of an RC-20. REMOVE the noises, speed inconsistency and distortion from the hundreds of albums that I have. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what some of the plug-ins that I have used do. When necessary, I've resorted to noise reduction to clean up a track that couldn't be redone.

In the 80s, they used to sell devices (I remember one called the Transient Noise Eliminator) that you could add to your stereo that was a click/pop filter just to clean up the inevitable defects that came from playing your albums 20 times. Add on a DBX 119 to increase the dynamic range and lower the noise floor, and you could have a very nice system.

Now its all done in software, and probably 10 times better. I've also used a couple of click/pop filters (along with manually redrawing wave files in a few cases) when transferring old records to digital.
 
A good friend has been buying reel to reel, and even valve (tube) reel to reels and has come to the conclusion that none of his plug ins capture the real sound of tube warmth. Before he had the glowing tubes, he thought he'd nailed it.
 
Hello Mr Rich. A lenghty post that deserves a lenghtier response than I'm about to give (probably).

TalismanRich said:
I can see using such a plug in for "artistic" effects, the same as you would use reverb to simulate being in a cathedral, when the reality is that you recorded it in a small, padded vocal booth with zero echo.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

TalismanRich said:
To use it universally to make things "sound good" seems to be more of a bandaid approach covering for poor technique or ability.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this in that much of the music produced today is done digitally (often by kids that learn't in 'bedroom studios') and is so clean that the introduction of 'analog noise' becomes desirable.
 
Plug-ins can emulate the types of distortion, filtering and phase shifting that analog gear does. The trick is figuring out which of those things is what you are after.

A fender champ and a Marshall jcm 800 are both tube guitar amps, both have tube "warmth", but they don't sound anything like each other. They don't break up the same way, they don't have the same "tone". Which one sounds "better" is up to the ear of the listener and the context of the music being played.

In other words, if you like the sound that cassette tape emparts on a signal, and you try an analog simulator plug-in that emulates what transformers do to a signal, you might not like it. That doesn't make it a gimmick, it's just not what you think of when you think "analog sound"

The other thing you run into is, all the emulation plug-ins that I've used do a good job of mimicking what that hardware sounds like, but if you A/B it with the real thing, you will be able to hear a difference. But with any two pieces of analog gear, there will always be a difference too.

It's a waste of time worrying about whether something is an exact recreation of something else. If it does something to the sound that you like, use it and get on with your life.
 
TalismanRich said:
A while back, a fellow posted a track he had recorded which really sounded like it was done by a blues musician in the 1930s. The tone and playing were spot on! It was a pristine recording, and if it was me issuing the track for sale, it would have left it that way. I also made the comment that if the track had some hiss and clicks, people probably would have believed it to be a genuine recording from 80 years ago, something akin to the Robert Johnson recordings. To illustrate, I even added in some record noise to the background and posted a clip. I thought it sounded quite realistic. However, it was a means to fake the listener, NOT to improve the sonics.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that giving a song a certain vibe or feel is 'faking the listener' and would also argue that if it improves the song, it has also (maybe not technically) improved the sonics.

TalismanRich said:
A plugin that would be INFINITELY more valuable to me is one that does the exact opposite of an RC-20. REMOVE the noises, speed inconsistency and distortion from the hundreds of albums that I have. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what some of the plug-ins that I have used do. When necessary, I've resorted to noise reduction to clean up a track that couldn't be redone.
Click to expand...

They are out there but improving an existing album collection is a different topic, no?

TalismanRich said:
In the 80s, they used to sell devices (I remember one called the Transient Noise Eliminator) that you could add to your stereo that was a click/pop filter just to clean up the inevitable defects that came from playing your albums 20 times. Add on a DBX 119 to increase the dynamic range and lower the noise floor, and you could have a very nice system.

Now its all done in software, and probably 10 times better. I've also used a couple of click/pop filters (along with manually redrawing wave files in a few cases) when transferring old records to digital.
Click to expand...

I will always say that whatever you need to use to make a song sound the way you want it to is all that matters and if a bit of fake flutter or crackle or whatever is what gets you there then great. Then the consumers will decide if you were right or not without even giving a second thought to how you did it or why.
 
Last edited:
rob aylestone said:
A good friend has been buying reel to reel, and even valve (tube) reel to reels and has come to the conclusion that none of his plug ins capture the real sound of tube warmth. Before he had the glowing tubes, he thought he'd nailed it.
Click to expand...

Hi Rob.

Maybe he did nail it. The vast majority of consumers will not A/B an analog recording to a digital one the same way they will never A/B a WAV file to an Mp3 file and in isolation what sounds good, sounds good.
 
Farview said:
Plug-ins can emulate the types of distortion, filtering and phase shifting that analog gear does. The trick is figuring out which of those things is what you are after.

A fender champ and a Marshall jcm 800 are both tube guitar amps, both have tube "warmth", but they don't sound anything like each other. They don't break up the same way, they don't have the same "tone". Which one sounds "better" is up to the ear of the listener and the context of the music being played.

In other words, if you like the sound that cassette tape emparts on a signal, and you try an analog simulator plug-in that emulates what transformers do to a signal, you might not like it. That doesn't make it a gimmick, it's just not what you think of when you think "analog sound"

The other thing you run into is, all the emulation plug-ins that I've used do a good job of mimicking what that hardware sounds like, but if you A/B it with the real thing, you will be able to hear a difference. But with any two pieces of analog gear, there will always be a difference too.

It's a waste of time worrying about whether something is an exact recreation of something else. If it does something to the sound that you like, use it and get on with your life.
Click to expand...

I am in total agreement.
 
Interesring replies...thanks. of course just like a fender and a marshall amp wont have the same sound, one should just look for something that suits them and achieve the sound they're after. In my case i'm not looking for a perfect replica of this or that piece of old vintage gear. It's just that i find digital too clean, at least in my experience. Again, just my opinion. A bit of extra analog noise is more to my liking. But are these plugins good at simulating this (without sounding 100% similar) or is just marketing? As i said i like what the puigchild and the j37 emulators seem to do to sound....but how can i know it's not psychological and i just hear what i want to hear? In the end if i'm pleased with the result then i suppose it's fine...
 
Jack, your comment about not knowing if it's psychological is very astute. Perception bias if VERY real. It's also been shown that comparison tests can be "fooled". Here's an example:

Some time back, I came across a microphone comparison where there were 4 mics. One was chosen as a control, and 6 "different" samples were presented. The mics weren't identified, just samples. The actual sequence was 1-2-1-3-1-4. There were comments where the same mic sample was described as being both smooth and harsh, bright and dull. It actually turned out that if the preceding mic was very dark sounding, the next control sample was judged as bright or harsh. If the preceding mic had a bump in the highs, the control was judge as dull. There were only a couple of comments that judged the control samples as being similar. I don't recall anyone thinking they were the same sample. I wish I had bookmarked that comparison.

While I can't say that I agree with your choice that some extra noise is good, it's certainly your choice. In the end, music is art, so it's up to the artist to decide the end result, and someone will surely agree with your choices. Heck I'm surprised that someone spent almost $47 million for this painting! I know 3rd graders who could do as well!

painting-1.jpg
 
i was assisting in an all analog studio in the mid 90's , 24 ch studer , neve console and racks and racks of urei , pultec , la2a .. you name it, some of the best original bits of analog gear .. from memory 7 or 8 racks about 1.5 m tall each .. and i listened to mixes by aria and grammy award winning engineers played straight off tape and man i havent heard anything like it since, it sounded like gold and honey was dripping from the speakers ... but then again neither did the people that bought the cd's of those recordings.

Even if you got a good vinyl pressing of those recordings and played it back on a nice analog hifi system there would be a loss of about 15 % ( to my estimation ) depth of field in comparison to playing straight off tape in the studio.

ffwd to today i use a lot of tape and transistor saturation plug ins ... sometimes too much ( oops ) regardless ... using a good saturation plug in instantly changes the articulation of the sound ( to my ears ) and it gives it character.. but when i break out a signal to an analog unit, the raw grunt you can push is much more exciting and extreme ( for me ) .. and if you want fatness ? analog and digital combined used the right way is gonna get pretty close.

Will you be able to re create the sweetness of Klaus Wunderlich' 1976 version of Tico Tico ? or Jackie Davis' Manana charm ? The slickness of Bob Crewe , Music to watch girls by ... ? hmmm man i havent heard anything that is that " cool " but id like someone to point me in the direction of stuff that is ..

Albums like Deep Purple " Made In Japan " Zepplin " Houses of the holy " Even Jeff Buckleys " Grace " full of imperfection driven by brilliant perfectionists. How would those albums sound if they were recorded today ? with all digital equipment ? i dunno but im sure some of the charm would be lost .. cos analog is representative of rawness ( in this example ) and what i find interesting is in all 3 albums i mentioned above you can hear the colour of the room ... i mean youre there .. especially with a good set of cans on and a glass of merlot ...

So id conclude that yeah you can do it , no saturation plug ins are not a gimmick , digital delays replicate analog delays .. are they a gimmick ? nah just a modern and often far more convenient interpretation..

If you asked me would i go back to that studio and record like that again ? not for the money i was making , no .. lol 14 hour days , 6 days a week , just to get a good drum sound !? the amount of frigging around , and processing and forethought that had to go into AAA recordings is by today's standards Staggering ! Im happy digital is where it is today .. it has so many advantages over AAA minus the charm.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top