Is virtual analog an advertising ploy?

[Pilonsky]

Is VA an advertising ploy?

Ì´d say that the answer depends on the consumer. For most gear**** and many others - clearly yes. For a big part of the EM community today: strangely no.

The above example is perfect. Many people don´t seem to hear/feel a difference, although they are pretty obvious for trained ears.

But I´d also recommend to better think of hardware vs software and just not to believe people who say "it´s all the same" anymore since every mofu synth sounds different and hardware even more.

Just twist a SSI 2144 chip (common today) filter and you´ll know better.

I’m buying hardware from now on. I learned my lesson. It makes more sense financially, cause it retains its value, and I don’t need anyone’s permission to sell it. And I don’t have to pay transfer fees to sell it either. When I’m ready to upgrade I sell the old piece and use it as a down payment for the new. With minimal loss.

Then there’s process. The finished product is important, but the process of making music is the fun part. It’s getting into a flow, and loosing yourself a few hours. That’s the part that keeps me going. And hardware is way more fun. Cables, knobs, noise, etc. And minimal screens. Just your hands and your ears. It’s so much fun.

And finally the sound. It’s no contest. Digital has its part, but analog is the foundation. It’s thick, it has depth, texture, bottom — and it just sounds like it’s alive.

And yes, when I buy a piece of hardware it’s mine. I can keep it, sell it, give it away, or throw it away. That’s important.

Sounds good, but I´d better focus on getting a feeling for the differences and using them intentionally.

VSTs can really make "unheard sounds" and have their qualities, too - but I´d say "digital qualities", even if the manufacturers claim that their synth would be modeled after an analog.

But - despite of the lowend consistancy and depth - try making "golden" and solid sounding highs with a VST - or maybe better let it be to even really try it. CPUs are still to slow to compute the highend as acoustic instruments or good synths can make it - my two cents on that topic.

And we should not forget that the highend makes a lot of our quality perception...

Yeah using it intentionally is something that Ive found has merit. It's hard at first cause there's so many tools and so much to keep track of. But knowing what works for what really helps. But thats mostly a trial and error process. You try something, it works so you keep it. Then you try something else that you can't get to work, so you drop it. Eventually you got a bunch that stuff that works.

One thing that Ive found kind of tricky is that my mixes come out better with less compression (aside from parallel on drums). But house music is heavily compressed, pumping and all that. But the second I go for that compressed pumping sound, I start losing my balance. So Im trying to nail down a genre thats heavy on compression, but I find it easier to mix without much compression.

You know I gain stage everything (which really does help). I start adding each layer one by one. Lower the volume, raise the volume, switch monitoring sources . . . Then I go eq, fixing anything thats not working. 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 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?

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! Way worse than before I compressed it all. And my crest factor is then about 16 to 20, so it means Im gonna have to Compress/limit more to get it loud at the end. I mean it's a hard one to figure out. I don't know if it's me and lack of skill using compression; or if it's just 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.

[melomood]

Dance music has a manual now?

[dumbledog]

Yeah, the KLF wrote it in 1988

[melomood]

Ah. I never got in to them. 1988 my head was deep in to folk rock nostalgia. Furthest out of touch I'd ever been

[BONES]

... 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.

[Michey]

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.

[dumbledog]

Ah. I never got in to them. 1988 my head was deep in to folk rock nostalgia. Furthest out of touch I'd ever been

It's worth an amusing look if you can spare the time. Just keep in mind it won't make you rich. Or happy.

[_leras]

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!

Do what you like with the drum compression that sounds good. Sounds like this bit works for you.

To get the bass (or other parts) out of the way, you may just want to duck it to the Kick and not all the drums, or even a short cymbal playing the kick rhythm. You need to find a compressor with side chain that works for you for this.

There are also other tools like LFOTool, Cableguys Shaperbox - which can also be used. These don't even need Sidechain, and in someway are cleaner and simpler.

[_leras]

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.

Loudness is one thing. For vocals and real instruments it can also bring out some hidden details and make a fuller sounds.

But, it's also possible to use things like release time to add a gentle groove to elements in a mix. Things like release matching 1/8 bar etc. This is where bpm to ms chart/calc can be helpful.

But for sure the more dynamic the better and this is starting to be the case for some streaming services too.

[BONES]

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.

[vurt]

Yeah, the KLF wrote it in 1988

that's the manual, not the dance music manual, which is by rick snow.

i do prefer the klf one, but it doesn't touch on making music really, more how to make a bit of cash to fund your art.
sadly, meaningless today, as the dole they rely on in chapter 1 is not going to be easy to live on. or get.

[vurt]

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.

[BONES]

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.

[vurt]

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!

[HAL76]

Yeah using it intentionally is something that Ive found has merit. It's hard at first cause there's so many tools and so much to keep track of. But knowing what works for what really helps. But thats mostly a trial and error process. You try something, it works so you keep it. Then you try something else that you can't get to work, so you drop it. Eventually you got a bunch that stuff that works.

And the big disadvantage of hardware is, that you can´t immediately check it but have higher information and transaction costs. Softeare is so tempting - it´s there within minutes. But HW in my experience is more rewarding and a long term investment.

But I´d add one thing: it´s not all about if a tool works for you. If you want to develop and really learn you also have to adapt to the tools - or frquently to what you have. I think that you often learn more and discover new things. My Waldorf M for example (latest purchase) is pretty different from how I normally work and can´t do many things I "always do". But I have already learned a lot this way and it just sounds great. It gave me a cpompletely new direction as did the Microfreak I bought in February.

Concerning compression: rely on your ears and not on generalizations. And what you may think is needed at that moment is often not really it. That´s what many mixing engineers say ..

cheers, I´m in a hurry!