Is virtual analog an advertising ploy?

[Unaspected]

it's not so much to clear space for the kick, that's a biproduct. it's to add rhythm to a static pad
id personally use a ghost track for the sidechain, to duck off the kick, or on 8s rather than 4s, but that's why i don't do this stuff now. no one wants different!

Also to throw in the odd off beat ghost kick to emphasise impact within the rhythm.

Though I've long favoured shelving and peak filters for ducking duties. You can do neat things with spectral processing in this area as well. No need for broad band ducking all the time - or any of the time.

Of course, it's used just as much in metal production. Devin Townsend loves the effect and he makes some truly massive sounding recordings using it. After all, it can be employed to mimic explosive effects on other sounds. Or, indeed, in a chain to simulate actual explosions for film and game audio production when used with certain Foley techniques. Then you would be feeding reverb into pretty heavy compression.

[_leras]

Oh, absolutely but that's what people forget - compressors are for real sounds that you have no other way of controlling. I definitely put compression on my vocals, mostly through saturation and overdrive, rather than a compressor, although I also manually level them in Audition, because it gives me way more control. And I put Puncher on my drums channel because it makes them sound great.

it's just a different use of the compressor technology, not for actual compression duties.
you and i may well seek transparent compression, for certain elements, but in certain genres, the compressor is used an an actual effect, what we would call over compression and dial back on, they want to hear the compressor working.
simplest example, the sidechained comp, on a long pad, ducking to the kick.

however, that chain of compress everything, does sound a touch excessive, even from the days we were doing dance music, while the individual compressors might get pushed hard, we weren't putting them everywhere.

These days this is just likely LFOTool, ShaperBox, or something like this:
https://www.kickstart-plugin.com/

Same kind of idea, but maybe cleaner

[_leras]

The stupid thing about ducking is that in my experience it makes things worse, not better, because you tend to lose power in the mix. Especially in dance music, the kick is so prominent that nothing else is loud enough to f**k with it, so I've never understood why they think they need to duck anything to protect it. I get that you can use it creatively but that' snot what we've been talking about here.

To maximise volume by only having one peak at a time, and also for groove as much as anything.

It also depends on the track. Sometimes kick is dominant, other times it's just punctuation for the bass.

edit: Getting a kick and bass to sit well together is one of the toughest things in mixing I think. When it clicks into place it can be really satisfying. This is when I want a 'lock these channels and don't let me change them' function in my DAW.

[BONES]

That sounds nice as a theory but it's not what happens in reality, in my experience. I protect my kicks by rolling off my basslines at about 25Hz if I have to (very rarely these days). Making the peaks bigger by summing kick and bass just emphasises the beat, which you end up squashing back down anyway. To me it has always felt like the answer to a questioon nobody ever asked. It feels like something someone did one time, to fix a very sepcific problem in a really good song, and everyone suddenly decided it was that one thing that made it a good song, so everyone started doing it all the time, on everything. Like when orchestra hits were a thing in the mid/late 80s - ROMplers and samplers gave everyone access to the sound and someone used it to good effect on a good songs and then everyone was putting them everywhere.

I never have any problem getting my kick and bassline(s) working together. I don't find it at all difficult, either in our EBM stuff or in the 80s covers I do. Once I get the sounds right, they always seem to work fine together.

[Pilonsky]

... Then I go eq, fixing anything thats not working.

I only EQ as a last resort, if I can't tweak a patch to do what I need it to. Actually, I honestly can't remember the last time I used EQ on anything that wasn't drums or vocals. Having too many places to change things makes life more complicated than it needs to be. The more I can do in the synth itself, the easier a mix comes together.

At that point it's sounding decent. At that point I have a crest factor of 12 or so. So I'm in the ballpark. But as soon as I start compressing busses, it starts sounding worse.

So don't compress it. Do you want to do good work or be a slave to your chosen genre? Those kinds of rules are just made to raise the price of admission, they aren't real constraints on you. If you can do your best work without compression, it probably means you are doing a better job than those other idiots.

So heavy compression is part of the sound of the genre, but heavy compression makes it hard to mix. It's one I can't figure out?

Mix first, compress later. Easy.

For example, the dance music manual says to compress the drums together, then parallel compress the drums (which does work), then compress the drums against the bass to get the bass pumping, then to compress the other instruments together, and finally compress it all together on the master buss. By that point my mix sounds like crap!

I imagine any mix done like that would sound terrible. So don't do it. You know what the music you want to make sounds like, you don't need a f**king manual to tell you how to get there, Do what works for you, it's only the final output that matters.

the apparenlty obvious solution of going with whatever makes the mix sound better regardless of the expectation of the genre? Compression is tricky! I almost feel like I have to, even though the mix and my ears are telling me its not helping.

I think compression is, by and large, a hoax. It makes everything louder and louder sounds better but if you want your mix to be loud, you only need to compress it at the end of the signal path, in the master channel. I always chicken out when it comes to loudness. I'd rather keep some intimation of dynamics than squeeze the soul out of it just so it sounds louder on Spotify. If it's a good piece, the DJ will turn it up when he plays it.

Dance music has a manual now?

... and a DSG option, but it's more expensive.

Yeah I got the mix going pretty good, then I start buss compressing and it starts going downhill. Happens almost every time. Like I was saying you almost feel like you have to for some reason. As if you don't compress you're not doing right. But your point is taken.

Another thing: I don't know how you feel about crest factor as a measuring tool, but buss compression actually increases crest factor. It actually lowers the potential loudness of your mix. I kept on getting to about a crest factor of 12 without any compression. Then by the time I was done buss compressing and doing some compressing on the master, my crest factor would be at about 16! I mean thats the wrong direction. Ive tried it many times, and its always the same result.

So yeah, NOT having to use compression is a great load off my back (I think it also has to do with the fact that Im using samples that have already been compressed, and sequencers and synthesizers that let me control velocity. So there are no spikes, and if there are I can re do it or just even out the velocity. Then there is automation, which is the next place Im going.)

As far as eq is concern one thing Ive learned it so leave the mid frequencies alone. As soon as I start messing with those too much, the mix starts falling apart. Messing with the lows and the highs is more forgiving. A little shelving eq goes along way. Not all frequency overlapping has to be eliminated. That is the gel. And saturation does not replace those frequencies. Often when you're making the music, and hot swapping samples or messing with knobs on the synth, you end up choosing sounds by how well they jive with the other sounds. Sometimes those frequencies start playing together and the whole becomes greater than the sum of its part. Then you got over it with eq, start messing with those frequencies, and you start losing the vibe or energy of the mix. The balance between isolation and a mix that gels is tricky. Leave well along I guess.

[Pilonsky]

Ok, after spending close to $500 on virtual analog plugins, including both processors and effects, I feel like maybe this virtual analog thing is a sham. Maybe this idea of virtual analog is a pipe dream?

The short answer is : Yes.

The long(er) answer is : Yes, and very much so.

Everything is just "An advertising ploy of sorts" ("you buy my plug - that was modeled after a rare vintage comp/EQ that John Lennon used whilst making love to Yoko Ono.... and all your work will be induced magically with love and vintageness").

I can’t help but feel that that money would have been better spent on some actual analog hardware. Like maybe it’s a better idea to get the analog tone and saturation you want going by using preamps and such going in the box, and then just using digital Eq, compression and effects for mixing purposes? Maybe analog is analog and digital is digital, and each serves its purpose?

Nope, it's the same thing with analog. it's just that the overabundance of virtual tools makes the whole notion of "choosing" - an overwhelming (daunting ?) experience. in the analog domain one was - and is - "restricted" by virtue of the (mostly) prohibitive price of the gear used. so one is forced to be "boxed in" (pun intended).

If money (and physical space) was no issue, very quickly you would have found yourself in the same position, asking yourself : "maybe this analog thing is a sham" ?

I once saw a video of CLA, whereupon he was stating "the fact that I have so many compressors doesn't mean I use them all...". and I was like saying to myself "dude, you have maybe couple hundreds thousands dollars worth in comps alone. if you don't use them... what do you do with them ?? do you use them to make barbecue ?!"

The sad truth is that 99% of the tools one uses for making music - is (AND WAS, for the last 10 or so years) valid for making the highest possible outcome at any given moment. be it analog or digital (the last 10 years has cemented this fact). why sad ? because we (yes, me too) buy the same versions of same tools, over and over again, just to reach to the same results (more or less).

So is it "An advertising ploy of sorts" ? yes. but so is almost EVERYTHING else in our lives. we live in a capitalistic era. and everything is a commodity. your creative aspirations are some else's income.

Here here. I got my samplers and synths, I got logic, I got everything I need. Now it's time to make some music. Im finally out of the analog modeling rabbit hole! I just had to whine a little on my way out. And Il'l be real careful not to go down the analog rabbit hole either. Point taken.

So is it "An advertising ploy of sorts" ? yes. but so is almost EVERYTHING else in our lives. we live in a capitalistic era. and everything is a commodity. your creative aspirations are some else's income.

Yep, I concur. They got me. AGAIN. Hopefully I can recover some of what I spent, and Im moving on. I guess one general lesson here is something I already knew: you don't need half the sh!@# you think you do.

[BONES]

Another thing: I don't know how you feel about crest factor as a measuring tool, but buss compression actually increases crest factor. It actually lowers the potential loudness of your mix. I kept on getting to about a crest factor of 12 without any compression.

Honestly, I don't even know what it is and I wasn't interested enough to look it up. I go by the maxim "sounds good, is good". (Actually, maybe we could call that the "Mixim"?) I don't approach any of it technically. The first thing I add to any new project is a brickwall limiter on the Master channel so I don't have to worry about levels while I work. Then, before I render out the mix for mastering, I'll drop the master level so that the limiter is only working on any really big peaks, not on any of the regular dynamics. Even when I'm mastering, I rely on Ozone to get all the technical stuff right, using the Assistant, and I concentrate on making it sound better.

Often when you're making the music, and hot swapping samples or messing with knobs on the synth, you end up choosing sounds by how well they jive with the other sounds. Sometimes those frequencies start playing together and the whole becomes greater than the sum of its part. Then you got over it with eq, start messing with those frequencies, and you start losing the vibe or energy of the mix. The balance between isolation and a mix that gels is tricky. Leave well along I guess.

Abso-freakin'-lutely!!! I agree with every word of this. If you spend some time choosing the right sounds they shouldn't need a lot of work to get them sitting in the mix exactly where you want them. You just need the confidence to do it your own way and when you start getting the results you're looking for, you'll know you took the right path.

[_leras]

Another thing: I don't know how you feel about crest factor as a measuring tool, but buss compression actually increases crest factor. It actually lowers the potential loudness of your mix. I kept on getting to about a crest factor of 12 without any compression. Then by the time I was done buss compressing and doing some compressing on the master, my crest factor would be at about 16! I mean thats the wrong direction. Ive tried it many times, and its always the same result.

So this sounds like you are increasing the difference between your peaks and your average. Likely you need to play around with the attack and release times.

This means that you are compressing such that you are letting peaks through, but clamping down after that. Which can be fine and could maybe make things more punchy.

Often bus compression might be gentler, bring down the peaks and not clamp down so much after. After bringing your peaks back to the same level (make up gain/output) then non peaky parts will be brought up higher in volume than when they started.

Also, for busses how much gain reduction are you going for? 2-4db might be a good aim.

[Unaspected]

Another thing: I don't know how you feel about crest factor as a measuring tool, but buss compression actually increases crest factor. It actually lowers the potential loudness of your mix. I kept on getting to about a crest factor of 12 without any compression. Then by the time I was done buss compressing and doing some compressing on the master, my crest factor would be at about 16! I mean thats the wrong direction. Ive tried it many times, and its always the same result.

So this sounds like you are increasing the difference between your peaks and your average. Likely you need to play around with the attack and release times.

This means that you are compressing such that you are letting peaks through, but clamping down after that. Which can be fine and could maybe make things more punchy.

Often bus compression might be gentler, bring down the peaks and not clamp down so much after. After bringing your peaks back to the same level (make up gain/output) then non peaky parts will be brought up higher in volume than when they started.

Also, for busses how much gain reduction are you going for? 2-4db might be a good aim.

Very much. It's more how the compressor is being employed rather than this being the end result of the application of compression.

A fast attack and moderate release is possibly a better setting for buss compression but - as with all things - it depends on program material and the result we are after. Threshold and ratio, again, to taste. Low threshold and ratio tends to sound more transparent to the ear; whereas high threshold and ratio is often used for saturation and is best driven into. Then it is useful to have a gain stage at the front of the group buss (for backing off or pushing into) if one isn't supplied by any plugins ahead of the compressor or the compressor itself.

Of course, there are so many variables when it comes to the context of application. Best thing I can suggest is to simply learn how the compressor works and that should inform the user as to when and how it can be used.

[Pluginsale]

It could def be if the right technicals aren't built in, Oversampling, Anti-aliasing and accurate saturation emulations.
Alot of companies have gotten by not hiring the right person doing the backend but the technology is beyond capable for what's on the market, and no plugin is honestly worth more than $50 and won't be in the next two years once A.I takes over

[jens]

You can hear the sounds I used in 1986 but they were all pretty shitful, even though they were mostly analogue and all recorded in an analogue studio. And then you can hear the stuff I've made completely ITB, without a studio at all. Listen to both these songs, then tell me which one uses the best sounding gear -

That is a weird argument. Your '86 record sounds crappy indeed, but what is that supposed to prove?
First of all, it's obviously recorded from a scratchy vinyl disc and we don't know how much of the bad sound-quality is due to this. But besides this, there certainly was bad and broken gear in '86 (just as there is now - both in and out of the box) and there certainly were people that had not too much of a clue of what they were doing (just as there are now)...

but regarding the gear just as well as the craft of producing you can turn this into a valid point (that would have to be considered off topic for this thread though), even though it well at least partly explains your own stance here, without you seemingly being at all aware of it:

Studio-time was expensive. Gear was expensive. Home-studios were very rare and typically used gear that was very far from being top-of-the-line. Also, due to for this reason limited access to gear, people had much less experience using it and thus often far less skills regarding self-producing their music. Professional engineers and producers - again - were expensive. Thus stuff that was produced with a very limited budget, was of a very limited quality soundwise.

These days it is much much cheaper to obtain quality gear - again both inside and out of the box.

To seek to turn this fact into an argument that a Fairchild with its 7398 tubes has no special, intrinsic merrit that would offer something significantly different to a run-of-the-mill digital compressor is as bizarre an argument as to claim that it is impossible to emulate said Fairchild digitally, without a) having significant skills regarding digital audio modelling and b) having access to the original device yourself - which makes this whole argument bizarre. So I think that you are both wrong, for very different reasons.

edit: typos

[noiseboyuk]

You can hear the sounds I used in 1986 but they were all pretty shitful, even though they were mostly analogue and all recorded in an analogue studio. And then you can hear the stuff I've made completely ITB, without a studio at all. Listen to both these songs, then tell me which one uses the best sounding gear -

An interesting comparison. To my ears your version sounds modern, indeed using "better sounding gear". Perhaps unsurprisingly, the original sounds totally 100% 80s. It doesn't sound to me like you were going for an authentic 80s sound, but rather bringing it sonically up to date (which is absolutely fine). I prefer the former aesthetically - the 2022 version sounds too close to generic EDM to push my pleasure centers. The rawness, idiosyncrasies and - yes - nostalgia of the 80s version do exactly that.

[nirm123]

No doubt about that

[BONES]

That is a weird argument. Your '86 record sounds crappy indeed, but what is that supposed to prove?

It shows what you get when you use analogue gear. The guys who ran the studio were professionals, it cost my backers a small fortune and that's what we got out of it. Shit.

First of all, it's obviously recorded from a scratchy vinyl disc and we don't know how much of the bad sound-quality is due to this.

There is that but the print-through on the master tapes after 40 years would be a lot worse, if they haven't been totally consumed by black mould or something. You can listen to the remastered version some crazy Belgians released in 2015 -

https://deathlyquiet.bandcamp.com/releases

If you listen to the third song, Save Me, you'll hear how much better things were 7 years later, when all my gear was digital and it was being recorded to ADAT. Even though the engineer who did that was a lot less cluey than the other guys, we still managed to do a much better job.

Studio-time was expensive. Gear was expensive. Home-studios were very rare and typically used gear that was very far from being top-of-the-line. Also, due to for this reason limited access to gear, people had much less experience using it and thus often far less skills regarding self-producing their music.

But this stuff wasn't self-produced, it was done by two full-time professional sound engineers who built and co-owned the studio. The remastered EP has a mix of stuff from different eras, some of which I did at home, but mostly I've recorded at proper studios with people who know their shit. It didn't help.

[jens]

That is a weird argument. Your '86 record sounds crappy indeed, but what is that supposed to prove?

It shows what you get when you use analogue gear.

No, it doesn't - it only shows what you got out of it.

The guys who ran the studio were professionals, it cost my backers a small fortune and that's what we got out of it. Shit.

So you got screwed royally - that is still off topic.