Compared to plugins or compared to other saturation hardware units? Im kinda interested too, seems like a no-brainer but not sure yet...

I have one, it sounds very nice- but good point!!

It is very unlikely that two completely different analog technological pieces based on completely different phenomenon and material properties would have identical transfer curves. But you are correct that transformers do shape the signal in their own way too.

FETs are more like pentodes. A triode is quite a bit different. I know a few designers have used FETs to simulate valves in analogue guitar amp sims, but they're not a drop in replacement and need quite a bit to work to sound similar. I think you're right though, a transformer with a saturated core will add a ton more colouration and harmonics, so the valve alone won't be the complete picture.

When we consider that the most lusted after analogue gear was actually fairly linear and high fidelity, you're unlikely to be really overdriving it unless you're specifically after that sound as an effect. I have a TL Audio C1 valve compressor, and a couple of Ivory compressors too. They actually use VCA chips to do the gain control, with the valves only used for added colouration. The C1 sounds glorious, and it is totally transformerless.

Glen Fricker (SpectreSoundStudios) did a thing debunking power tubes sounding different. They were just louder >_> Even in Positive Grid's BIAS software, it reacts like that. But you can also change between "American" and "British" transformers, so there's definitely something to that.

I've no idea how they're going to sell any of these for that price point.

@@RJ1J There are audio engineers serious about audio out there.

negative nancy 🤡🤡

which specific unit did you go for ?

I use a mini tube buffer sometimes. You might find that the old tube has drifted out of spec over the decades which will cause nonlinearities that work well with some sources but not others. In my case I prefer a new Chinese or Russian tube for bass and an old stock tube for other signals.

@@sparella I chose my NOS tube based on a thorough review which describes the sonic characteristics. They are 1978's 6N23P from Voskhod

That's what the oversampling and the filters are meant to achieve, extending nyquist higher up and cutting off the wave before it passes nyquist and folding back down far up enough from the audible range that it doesn't effect it. Not all distortion/saturation plug ins do this though (more and more are starting too however). I think it's quite difficult to achieve well, or at least the lack of good filters on a LOT of plug ins would suggest this anyway. It can be done though and a fair few good plug ins do exactly this. AT the same time though, oversampling uses how ever many times more of your cpu power, so 4x oversampling will use up 4x cpu. An I9 12900k can only run like 4 instances of some plug ins with x16 oversampling at 192Khz, so if a lot of plug ins are using over sampling and you use a high sample rate, you'll run into the limitations pretty quickly. Most people don't work like this however, but some do.

Yes i understand what oversampling do and the goal, but what i dont understand (and it s because i don t know the math and the coding) is why (before oversampling and filter and downsampling) can t you just say/code "if my harmonics i m trying to create is over a certain frequency (nquyst) , just don t add it" ?

@@ardierr.2525 that is what a filter is basically.

@@ardierr.2525you can’t just ”code in harmonics”. Proggramming isn’t just ”addHarmonics(signal);” and it works. Harmonics are most often ”added” with a some type of waveshaper algorithm that essentially takes the signal volume at a sample point and puts it through some nonlinear function. The harmonics appear, because the waveform’s shape changes and sometimes that shape consists of frequencies that are above the nyquist, and so we have aliasing. It’s just how it works, how physics work, how digital audio works exc. No-one is going in there and adding harmonics one by one, not even by proggramming

It is possible to only add, say the second harmonic, but if the signal contains frequencies above 10k there will still be aliasing. Its not possible (or at least feasible) to add harmonics differently for different frequencies in the spectrum. However some synthesizers do this. That's what a bandlimited oscillator is.

Capturing and producing are two different things. But still, the aliasing issue can be tackled in a way that it's inaudible - even over multiple tracks (with reasonable settings). So no, nobody needs hardware for mixing and mastering, unless he wants to impress clients. It's a luxury. In production it's a bit different, because it offers (next to) zero latency. (in my well tested and unwavering opinion)

Good point. It would be useful if plugin manufacturers told us what they optimized their plugins for. But you're right, usually it will probably be 48kHz. One drawback of 48kHz is that the latency when tracking anything through plugins will be higher than at 96kHz.

I may do this, but i dont have a youtube chanell. I found fabfilter saturn comes closest to mine

I've wondered about this too..my theory is that over the course of multiple tracks, the aliasing starts to add up.

@@jordancraighead Oh it sure does add up, Sam talked about this specifically in the oversampling video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/p85drMWjrJbVeZs.html

Depends on your settings. IF you gainstage correctly, don't drive the saturation too hard over multiple instances, run your session at 96 kHz, and/or use oversampling the Aliasing will stay inaudible with all good and mediocre plugins - even over multiple tracks. Yes, it "adds up", but not in a way that becomes audible, because the sources are different and thus the harmonics fold back at different frequencies (and at different times...). In other words: If we imagine aliasing to be body fat, multiple sources of fat would not all accumulate in the belly, but distribute themselves more or less randomly across the body. Thus - as long as you're not gaining A LOT of fat, even though the amount of fat increases, it doesn't become more visible. There are other issues that can occur in digital. Like for example EQ cramping (that can be fixed too). More audible differences are not based on the difference between analog and digital, they are based on the individual differences between units. Analog frequency curves often roll off the highend for example. Once you know what you're looking for, you can create a sound that "sounds analog" in the box, or a sound that "sounds digital" in analog.

@@SchoenerShortBeats The crazy thing about that is 96k only gets you one octave over 48k since pitch is logarithmic.

@@jordancraighead Yes, our human brains are very bad when it comes to logarithmic relations, thus, it seems "crazy". Here is another logarithmic relation only few people know: Did you know, that in order for it to become X °C warmer due to the greenhouse effect, the amount of CO2-Saturation (that is already really high) in the atmosphere would need to double? (Assuming all other factors stay the same, which they don't) Thus the effect CO2 emissions have on the climate decreases logarithmically.

Disclosure use some analog gear on the front-end tho’. (Not saying that plugins aren’t good, just thought I’d point that out just in case).

@@WheelieMix for sure though albeit not much, on some of their biggest tracks the most they’ve used is some analog to digital converters maybe used some analog processing on the mix in general like when they used the SSL fusion on their track “waterfall” on the 2 bus which you can get in an SSL plug-in go watch some of their breakdowns I mean for god sake “Settle” was completely mixed with stock logic plugins on the first go round, then most likely had a bit of hardware processing done in mastering

@@WheelieMix then people like J Joshua mix completely in the box, does analog give you specific sound … sure does ? The overall point tho you know what you’re doing you can do all that stuff in the box and casual music listeners won’t know the difference

Oh yes sure, I just pointed that out because I’ve been with them in the studio (only once). and I had to handle and store some of their studio gear. My experience is limited but I thought it could be helpful :). And yes I actually handle that SSL Fusion, apparently Guy liked it from he briefly told me. Disclaimer : I don’t know them personally at all. Oh and they like analog synths too ;).

But do you use UAD? 😁

@@c3r1c38 I do have some UAD stuff as well

I'd love to set up a blind test for people that claim such things. I'm convinced this is mostly psychoacoustical and thus they wouldn't be able to tell which is digital and which is analog consistently.

@@akagerhard I can say that about any hardware vs software most don’t have the ear for it anyway I think it’s all subjective and I like what I like and I know what I hear

100% agree. But there are options like Black Box HG-2, Overstayer Saturator NT02A, Thermionic Culture Vulture, etc... But I think the whole point of Decapitator is so you don't have to go and buy all the hardware units they based the plugin off.

We totally agree. Its worth every penny and you can tun it as 4 individual mono channels or 2 stereo…

Tbh do whatever makes you feel good. Anything that could make it feel less like a job is something worth doing to me ✌️.

Distortion and Saturation is not the same, why compare the 2 different products.

@@IbogaRecordsMusic because it does also saturation in analog domain. Saturation is one of the analog circuits available with the analog heat. And saturation and distortion are somehow related ... You can use Elektrons analog heat in a mastering chain to ad analog warmth.

I use Analog Heat as well and i love it, but it does not saturate with Tubes like Freqtube FT-1. The tubes also give u a nice suttke compression. For me its 2 very different products.

Why do you think it’s “cheap” conversion? “Expensive” converters aren’t even expensive these days.

Same!

The Analog Heat is Distortion and not with Tubes inside. A bit hard to compare Distortion to Tube Saturation and Harmonics I would say. But im sure interrested to see what comes out of such test. I have both Analog Heat and Freqtube FT-1 and both units to me are very good for the purpose they are made. Freqtube run as 4 instances wich is very cool or 2x stereo and I think its worth the money.

@@IbogaRecordsMusic that's a very good point. I have the Elysia Karacter which if you crank it all the way up goes pretty hard towards distortion, hence the idea.

Did not delete it

@@Whiteseastudio odd, can't find it anymore. Must be overlooking it :)

Maybe mixed in the box but probably recorded via analog hardware.

@@johnmills8200 Well, you can't record voices without at least a mic and preamp. So yes, most of them probably include at least a bit of analog hardware.

I would disagree on the part about the settings being matched, unless you are saying by ear, because plugins and the gear they are simulating often sound different at matched settings. I'd agree if it is just two songs mixed well and to the best of their ability. On top of this, the final song is all that matters... the analog or digital version only exists if you present it. Not all distortion plugins have to clone analog gear either. I like coldfire by arturia, and I don't believe it is emulating any specific analog equipment and don't particularly care. It even has aliasing distortion as an option. The plugin sounds and is really cool.

The human brain is most used to perceiving sounds from the natural environment, which are highly complex in frequency content, dynamics, and temporal information. For example, human speech in all languages and even animal vocalizations (e.g., even birdsong) contains many fast formant transitions. Simple, pure, flat sounds (such as those that can only be produced digitally) are by far the most artificial, unnatural, and new to the historical evolution of the human brain. This is very likely why the complex harmonic distortion that comes from analog hardware gear, compared to digital sources, is found to be more pleasant by most people and is still highly sought after (despite being so expensive) even after more than four decades of digital sound. Sorry, I'm a neuroscientist who studies music and auditory processing in the human brain. Hope this is interesting in some way to your thoughts. Cheers!

@@cortical1 Very interesting. Thanks for sharing some knowledge.

@@kutnersuicide Thanks for hearing my two cents. I like your prediction that the younger generation of listeners may prefer the flatter, more digital sound, especially as it becomes more nostalgic for them. You very well might be right. Time will tell. 👍🏻

​@@cortical1I think the same could be said for visual stimuli, yet the trend toward flat icons, logos, buttons in UIs seems to indicate a similar direction. I hope it's just a fashion trend and look forward to the return to gradients and shading.

Define "recorded wrong". Complete genres are based on heavy distortion, like gabber house, pounding Detroit techno/Berlin/Birmingham.

@@noisevector Are they? That's nice....

What if your life was extended a few hundred years? Could you potentially understand in 300 years?

@@benmorrow1701 Nurse, he's out of bed again!

@@CircusNormal kk

I don’t really get this design choice as well. How much more expensive would this be if it features i/o? Now this is not really interesting for people who work partly or fully analog which is a shame as it’s otherwise a good sounding box.

@@cl1xor I think that was a choice of the manifacture cause with USB audio you can insert like a plugin and bypass on the fly...with analog connections, you cannot insert like a plugin cause you have to physically connect I/O and the routing will be more complicated for a not "pro" user.