smoothing out digital harshness?
-
- TopModernGeezer
- 2679 posts since 14 Mar, 2001 from Stuttgart, Germany
-
- KVRAF
- 4030 posts since 7 Sep, 2002
jens, it DOES sound warm. 
(emotions aside)
(emotions aside)
-
- KVRAF
- 25037 posts since 12 Jul, 2003 from West Caprazumia
that's a relative thing - but it doesn't sound analogue, or do you think it does?Aleksey Vaneev wrote:jens, it DOES sound warm.
-
- KVRAF
- 4030 posts since 7 Sep, 2002
jens, what is 'sounds analogue'? Records produced in 80ies? Todays records sound much better. I guess if we had those analog devices everywhere we still had that 80ies sound. So, we have a better sound 'in average' because of digital processors of various kinds - including various high end digital decks. I guess, nobody complains about their deck being digital in that market segment.
-
- KVRAF
- 7316 posts since 7 Mar, 2003
-
- KVRAF
- 2208 posts since 13 May, 2005
There are two main reasons for the "bad-80s-sound":
1. Early, low resolution digital processors and synthesizers
2. The sonic 'fashion' of that time, especially the tendency to overuse every new digital gadget
There have been recordings of remarkable quality as early as 1970 - listen to James Taylors "Fire And Rain", very few 80s productions can - from todays perspective - compete to that sound.
On the other hand, listen to Brian Adams' "Waking Up The Neighbours". That one was mixed in 1991, and even Bob Clearmountain himself wasn't able to make it sound great - since he had to use an early digital mixer on digitally-recorded material.
Today's best digital processors and algorithms are a lot better of course, but they still cannot truly provide the nonlinearities of analog gear - and most of the cheaper (= less CPU-consuming) processors have to make compromises.
1. Early, low resolution digital processors and synthesizers
2. The sonic 'fashion' of that time, especially the tendency to overuse every new digital gadget
There have been recordings of remarkable quality as early as 1970 - listen to James Taylors "Fire And Rain", very few 80s productions can - from todays perspective - compete to that sound.
On the other hand, listen to Brian Adams' "Waking Up The Neighbours". That one was mixed in 1991, and even Bob Clearmountain himself wasn't able to make it sound great - since he had to use an early digital mixer on digitally-recorded material.
Today's best digital processors and algorithms are a lot better of course, but they still cannot truly provide the nonlinearities of analog gear - and most of the cheaper (= less CPU-consuming) processors have to make compromises.
-
- KVRAF
- 4030 posts since 7 Sep, 2002
Until somebody spends some time and money to produce an ALBUM with two different sets of tools (one is high end analog hardware and the other is Nuendo or Pro Tools set of tools, including plug-ins) we can't really tell what is better or worse. It should be the same engineer with the same ideas about the material to be produced, the same acoustic environment.
It can be a kind of revelation if somebody ever makes such production workflow and sonic result comparison. Until that we are left to guesses and 'I thinks'.
It can be a kind of revelation if somebody ever makes such production workflow and sonic result comparison. Until that we are left to guesses and 'I thinks'.
-
- KVRer
- 23 posts since 15 Feb, 2005
Well with the outboard digital stuff like the jd I think you would be better off with a decent direct box. A possible source of the harshness could be the line inputs on your emu card are not getting fed the inpedence they are expecting. Pretty much every hardware synth i've ever patched up has sounds much better through even the cheapest di than going straight in a line input.
When things get into the box or your dealing with a vsti and it still has a bit too much bite you could always try rolling off the highs a bit with a good eq.
I also belive alot of the "digital sounds harsh" bs comes from people not paying attention to gain staging and unintentionally clipping stuff inside their daw.(the short story: most meters lie, badly, if they didn't they would use more cpu time) Try backing off a bit on all of your levels on one of your mixes (about 4 - 8dB) this can really open things up.
When things get into the box or your dealing with a vsti and it still has a bit too much bite you could always try rolling off the highs a bit with a good eq.
I also belive alot of the "digital sounds harsh" bs comes from people not paying attention to gain staging and unintentionally clipping stuff inside their daw.(the short story: most meters lie, badly, if they didn't they would use more cpu time) Try backing off a bit on all of your levels on one of your mixes (about 4 - 8dB) this can really open things up.
-
- KVRAF
- 25037 posts since 12 Jul, 2003 from West Caprazumia
most of it surely not...Aleksey Vaneev wrote:jens, what is 'sounds analogue'? Records produced in 80ies?
Todays records sound much better.
but not because they used your TubeAmp I dare to say - I was specifically commenting one certain old (&free ) plugin from you - so your generalizing post doesn't make much sense if it is meant as an answer to mine...
-
- KVRAF
- 4030 posts since 7 Sep, 2002
I was not mentioning TubeAmp - if you don't like it that does not mean nobody like it.
I was merely trying to give another vision and solution to the 'deharsh' race we seemingly have on the audio forums. Things are not that bad. In most cases all what is needed is just to improve mixing and tracking skills, and use different signal sources - mics, DIs, sample libraries. It's not always possible to 'deharsh' something if it sounds harsh in the first place.
Another possibility is that when you think it's harsh, it's not harsh at all - it just has too bright highs which can be tamed with any EQ.
I was merely trying to give another vision and solution to the 'deharsh' race we seemingly have on the audio forums. Things are not that bad. In most cases all what is needed is just to improve mixing and tracking skills, and use different signal sources - mics, DIs, sample libraries. It's not always possible to 'deharsh' something if it sounds harsh in the first place.
Another possibility is that when you think it's harsh, it's not harsh at all - it just has too bright highs which can be tamed with any EQ.
-
- KVRist
- 439 posts since 4 Oct, 2002
Aleksey was spot on in last post. YOU CANT FUCKIN UNBROKE
SOMETHING THATS ALREADY BROKEN. Key is to have great
sounding source to begin with. If your hihats are
aliasing you cant unalias them by anything. If your
track was (badly) clipped, in analog or digital domain,
you cant unclippit with anything. If your converters
sucks ass get something decent (like Rosetta or Lynx2).
You cant unjitter signal converted with sloppy-clock
ADC. And keep your fuckin levels fuckin low, troughout
signal chain. If you want loud, you have level knob on
your poweramp for that.
And guitar pedal would be last thing I would use to
make something sound smoother.
cheerz
urosh
SOMETHING THATS ALREADY BROKEN. Key is to have great
sounding source to begin with. If your hihats are
aliasing you cant unalias them by anything. If your
track was (badly) clipped, in analog or digital domain,
you cant unclippit with anything. If your converters
sucks ass get something decent (like Rosetta or Lynx2).
You cant unjitter signal converted with sloppy-clock
ADC. And keep your fuckin levels fuckin low, troughout
signal chain. If you want loud, you have level knob on
your poweramp for that.
And guitar pedal would be last thing I would use to
make something sound smoother.
cheerz
urosh