Thanks, let others know about it!!

Thats what I also hear:1)

Yeah - as I always say: A thing like a tape machine does create something. A plugin can not create something.

Yeh...go on and ruin your program material by running it through ancient technology with its inherent limitations just so you can say you pushed the thing through magnetic tape. Ridiculous.

@@danieldettwiler.official I agree 100%

@@J3unGYour limited by specs. Dude in theory a guitar amp sounds awful. You have a lot to learn 😂😂😂✌🏽

Thanks, why not spread the word?

Great.. good luck with the 1/2"!

btw, I have a Nagra 4.2 in my home studio, do you have any opinion on this little machine? its not studio-designed equipment, more like a field recorder, but I think it sounds great. But I never compared with a Studer for example

Great - spread the word! I have heard that nagras are great sounding! It is a swiss company, but I don't have any experience with it. I would guess it sounds amazing.

I don't have time to compare everything, and there might be nice things out there. We have compared the Camper Profiling Amplifier, that a Bass Player brought in into the Studio, saying it would be as good as a real Ampex Bass Amp. I heard the difference in within 5 Seconds. Real life compared to dead.

Acoustica Audio have great modulation indeed. But on my Computer (which really is a strong machine), most of their plugins require too much CPU resources.

"the sum is more than its parts" things going on with hardware

I agree to the answer from @phil ipp. Complex analog things can not be emulated close. We can not emulate a tree, nor a musical instrument, why should we be able to emulate great analog hardware? That said: I never expect close emulation from the plugin. I expect, that plugins are usable in a mix, and they are. More should not be expected.

Why? Because of the limitations of the technology. it's definitely different and much worse because of these limitations. The other reason why is the myth of analog sounding better than digital. This is patently untrue on many different levels technical and artistic and this piece here is just another of the long line of analog porn. Do yourself a favour and concentrate on using technology in a truly artful way and don't waste your time emulating twats on the Internet who perpetuate the lie of analog. You had to have suffered through that ridiculous era of soundsucker rooms and studio tans to know why many of us old fartz don't want to go back to that shit.

@@danieldettwiler.officialWhat are you talking about, spends on the instruments. A piano is better digital now days while a trumpet or an acoustic guitar not so much

96 khz. Most practical, compuer can still run many tracks and many plugins. 192 might be even better. No oversampling, that's always very bad. I tried always, mostly with Fabfilter. Turn it on, i.e. on its limiter and it sounds worse. It is very clear why: To oversampling is not easy and to go back is even more difficult (you need filter etc). I would avoid that if I can. Working in 96 k for me is good then without any oversampling in the plugin. Harmonic distortion is mainly happen in the analog outboard in my studio, and there there is no oversampling necessary to avoid aliasing. The alisasing is the main problem in digital audio. And there is no way to avoid it in Harmonic Generators (and even compressors), except oversampling, and that ruins your mix.

​@@danieldettwiler.official thank you for the answer. I totally agree with you about oversampling, just wanted to ask your opinion. It often annoys me when nice plugins not allowing us to turn oversampling off. I'm trying to convey to the developers that we need this option more than the actual oversampling :) by the way, many uad plugins do oversampling...

@@LYSHEmusic Ah, that's interesting, I did not know that UAD Plugins do that. But I always disliked most UAD Plugins. At first listen, they sound great and very close to the original. But after a certain time I get very unhappy about my mix, if UAD Plugins are used. There is something extremely chemical in it. It might very well be the oversamling in that case. Ore too many FIR Filters and other stuff, so that they end up with a close result - but at a price.

​@@danieldettwiler.official Yeah, it's easily might be oversampling artifacts. I myself never used uad plugins, but my friend told me similar impressions about using them. For me the crush test for things like this is to check what plugin is doing at low volumes. When listening loud, oversampling might sound cleaner, but at low volumes we can hear all the truth emmidiately.

Hm, I would not say brighter. But it smooths the transients, in a way that it seems they are still there. A nice sound, for sure:-)

@@danieldettwiler.official there is no smoothing.

​@@synthoelectro Yeaah.....

Check your ears. NOT BRIGHTER. Tape accentuates mid-mids and so you think it's brighter. look it up on a spectrum analyzer. There's no freaking discernable frequency after 8.5 KHz. you have to juice it with some kind of EQ but you introduce hiss at that range if your signal is low to begin with. I think the guy in this vid is gaslighting us and made the digital program deliberately less glossy..

Yes, indeed, a smooth top end is something, that a real tape can do, while this is near impossible to recreate in digital.

What is good, what is "shit" . Where are you rrequirements? . There is a wide range of "taste" . What i appreciate about videos like this, is to bring scientific approach into, where a lot of myths wander around. That means a defined approach with repeatable results. That started with the calibration of the tape machine. Tomorrow the technical specification may changed a bit . I would assume that the room, where you listen in , has more impact of the sound impression than many of that subtle differences of carefully designed digital gear. And how we say in german : About taste you cannot argue ...

That's like saying, that in a restaurant, the cook would not be important, the only thing important was the quality of the cow. We wouldn't listen to that 65-year-old recordings like "Kind of Blue" if the recording quality is not therefore outstanding. It's actually very easy to destroy nice music by bad recording and mixing.

It is a problem of the DACH Countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland). it seems to be forbidden to criticize a mixing engineer or a recording, and everything is justified by "this is my taste" or "we always did it like this" or "nobody else would hear this". In all honesty, I hate this behavior. There are very clear does and don't in soundengineering. Spectral Balance, physical Integrity and Depth of field can be specified precisely and it can be clearly said, whether it made sense or not.

You, my brilliant friend are the only person on this comment thread who makes sense. THANK YOU from the bottom of my heart. Distortion is an anomaly because classic hit songs contained it and everyone wants to copy that 'vibe'. What they don't realize is they should fucking learn how to WRITE BETTER MATERIAL. Don't worry about the tech. You will only be able to record within your financial budget anyway...

With all my respects I think that's a Gearslutz-style myth. I've seen sound engineers destroying the music of very good bands. I think that a good band, recorded and mixed by a good engineer with good hardware is something unbeatable( plugins well used can help, I suppose). A good band bad recorded (acoustics, bad mic election, etc) never will sound well (even using stock DAW plugins) I think these myths have been appearing for a long time, often supported by sound engineers who previously used hardware but have switched to ITB and obtain benefits from the plugins that bear their names. Also comes to mind an engineer that I admire a lot who used a lot of hardware in his buses and has recently swichted to 100% ITB. I'm disappointed with his latest mixes because they don't sound like his ITB mixes(he only record incredible bands). Anyway everything is changing, and the "musical business" want a cheap and fast job by the engineers (plugins are perfect for this job). But hey, there are opinions of all colors

That might be one reason, and here it is interesting that it is very different whether you add analog distortion or distortion with a plugin. With the later, the harshness always stays, or is even stronger.

@@danieldettwiler.official I think there maybe be another piece of the puzzle, listening to my favorite records recorded with tape, the hiss from the tape is usually darker than the hiss created from plugins. I think this is because they commonly used tape encoders, which boost the high end going to the tape, then decodes it by removing the same amount of high end after. This results in the tape hiss with less high end frequencies. This isn’t probably what is happening between the plugin vs the real tape machine in your scenario, but just from my own test with the J37, boosting the highs into the plugin and cutting the same amount after takes away harshness as those frequencies are being naturally compressed by the distortion. Maybe compare the noise from the real machine to the plugin and see if there’s any built in encoding that the plugin didn’t account for.

@@trentkraemer7109 Yeah - noise is very important, and even more, most likely it is different if the analog signal goes to a system with a noise floor, than if the noise floor is just added as a sample (in a digital plugin).

Distortion is distortion. It's NOT GOOD because it's a beautiful complete curve that is given a shitty haircut by the limitations of the gear. Things happen during this physical occurrence and one of them is harmonic distortion which some people think makes the program material 'sound better'. It's distortion bro and we had to deal with it as an attempt to rise above the noise floor, nothing more. When digital came through people complained that it was 'too bright' because we had no concept of the potential beyond what our preamps were capable of capturing and our speakers and amps recreating. Compression circuitry was meant to keep levels in line so our speakers and gear wouldn't blow up but people got used to that sound because hit records were recorded that way. And just like children who believe in Sanity Clause, some audio engineering geekz think that the inherent limitations of the technology was somehow borne from the same source as the brilliance and artfulness of the composer. Seriously. Some people can't get past the idea that distortion on old Wilson Pickett or Motown sessions made the song. Wrong. The song and the artist expressing the emotion for the song made the damn song. The limitations just got in the way. it was a necessary evil and I'm glad that the digital era makes it possible for us to record things decently without resorting to crappy technology.

@@J3unG tell that to rock or metal guitarists lol. Distortion is a tool and an important part of music, one could even argue that any sound aside from a pure sine wave is some form of distortion. There are many useful ways to use distortion, feel free to ignore them if you feel like it. The only thing I’m concerned about is if it’s really true that plug-ins won’t achieve what real equipment can.

Good to know with the Chandler comp by Softube. I don't use Softube, not because I would not like it, but they don't get the AAX ProTools Standard right, and make mistakes in the automation. And they don't want to fix it. Very sad...

I second that. Softube Germanium is AMAZING. So good, I went and bought a pair of the hardware. Truly amazing emulation.

@@eddieleonard6925 A man I want to speak with! How is the hardware version of this?

@@jongriffin2608 It's incredible. I have the Germanium Tone Control EQ's, which have the same "drive" function, a very unique sound with lots of weight. The germanium line is classic (hardware and plug-ins).