Plug-ins or hardware – who is right?
Music production today takes place within the computer. Point. Artists like Billie Eilish producer Finneas and Jacob Collier are winning a lot of Grammys - with titles that, at least according to legend, were produced entirely “in the box”. So is analog hardware now actually an anachronism, a complete waste of money, a topic for die-hards and nerds?
Istill use a lot of analog equipment every day and consider myself a hardware fan. And what our two examples above have in common is not primarily the lack of analogue equipment, but above all incredible talent. It‘s really worth watching Finneas‘ Deconstructed videos on YouTube - his secret is, above all, a sophisticated arrangement and a meticulous coordination of the individual sounds. And it can be assumed that both Finneas and Jacob Collier had mastering studios with high-quality analog outboard equipment involved. What you can certainly learn from these two artists is that money cannot buy talent and that high-quality gear alone is no guarantee of a successful production.
Strengths and weaknesses of analogue technology
To make the discussion a little more objective, let‘s take a look at the specific properties of digital and analog sound technology - because everything that is digital is by no means bad or everything that is analog is good. Analogue sound technology works with alternating currents that correspond more or less exactly to the recorded sound signal. During all manipulations, these currents are processed directly using electronic components: capacitors filter low frequencies while coils allow them to pass through. Transistors and tubes can amplify signals. Depending on how high quality these components are and how sophisticated the corresponding circuits are, you can achieve processors such as equalizers, compressors or amplifiers that work more or less accurately.
Of course, analogue sound technology has its own characteristics and problems: it noises, it distorts and it sometimes compresses unintentionally. Digital technology is miles ahead, especially when it comes to the signal-to-noise ratio - in other words, the „absence“of background noise and the maximum dynamic range. When it began its triumphal march in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the professional world was euphoric: some of the main problems with audio technology had finally been solved.
However, it quickly became clear that this supposedly brave new world was not so great: many productions sounded lifeless and cold, and the warmth and pressure of top analogue productions was sorely missed. A key reason for this is that many of the shortcomings of analog technology sound organic and natural and therefore do more good than
Tape machines are synonymous with “analog” sound. harm to the signal: Tubes and, in certain circuit designs, transistors also generate even-numbered harmonics as distortion products. They thus continue the natural overtone series upwards and thus ensure more assertiveness in the mix. Saturation plugins are designed to simulate exactly this behavior. The control behavior of famous analog compressors such as Teletronix LA2A, Urei 1176 or of course the legendary Fairchild 670 is extremely musically and difficult to achieve digitally. A studio owner who ran many top productions in analogue in the 1980s once told me that the biggest challenge in digital mixing was to regenerate the “dirt” that simply “happened” automatically in analogue.
A closer look at digital technology
Let‘s move on to digital technology: Here, all of our analog signals (the output signal of a microphone is always analog and the digital loudspeaker membrane has not yet been invented) are converted into
series of numbers using an analog-digital converter (DAC). Every signal processing is based on nothing more than a calculation algorithm. This leads to completely new problems: There are massive differences in quality during conversion, which are primarily expressed by a lack of space and initially inaudible artifacts - although inaudible does not mean that these are insignificant: digital artifacts caused by poor converters or inadequate processing have been proven to cause stress. Compared to analog technology, the digital audio world can be described as “sneaky” to a certain extent: If an analog signal path is faulty, I notice it immediately: there is noise or distortion or the signal is erratic. Poor digital technology, on the other hand, can sound completely fine at first - but after listening to it for a long time, you get a headache.
So even in the digital world it does matter which converters and plug-ins you use. If I want to create a neutral-sounding equalizer (we‘re not talking about an analogue simulation here), I have to program a corresponding algorithm. This can be done with more or less effort. The Epure V3 equalizer plug-in from Flux performs an internal upsampling to 384 kHz sample rate. The result is an extremely accurate way of working. Similar to a sophisticated analog circuit, the calculation algorithm of high-quality plug-ins also requires a lot of development effort, which has to be paid for at the end of the day. And in another respect, you don‘t get anything for free: Elaborately programmed plug-ins generate more processor load and therefore higher latencies. At the same time, the number of instances that can be used simultaneously on a computer system decreases. However, it must be noted that the performance of modern computers has increased so dramatically compared to earlier times that these problems are becoming increasingly relative. So even a sufficient number of elaborately programmed plug-ins should run perfectly on a reasonably up-to-date computer. That leaves you with the diligent task of meticulously comparing processors from different manufacturers: For example, 1176 or Fairchild emulations from Waves sound completely different to their counterparts from Universal Audio.
There are certain tasks that can be implemented much better purely digitally than analogue: These include narrow-band equalizers and filters, brickwall limiters or dynamic EQs. So it depends on the respective task whether it makes more sense to use a “digital” plugin such as the onboard equalizer of common DAWs or an analogue simulation or even hardware. In our “Efficient Mixing” workshop in this issue, we delve into this topic in more detail.
… and what is “better”?
The question of whether plug-ins or hardware are “better” cannot be answered in general terms. The good news: Computers are so powerful today and the emulations of analog studio equipment are so sophisticated that the differences are becoming smaller and smaller. This makes the listening test all the more important: Just as it is common to compare the sound of different analogue devices, you should also listen carefully to plug-ins, as mentioned above. And more than that: In my experience, inexpensive analog hardware no longer sounds fundamentally better than a well-made plug-in. The 1176 plug-ins from Universal Audio and – my latest new discovery – Arturia can definitely hold a candle to some hardware devices. However, this does not apply to my own original Urei 1178 (the stereo version of the 1176). I have yet to hear of a plug-in that offers the magic and precise time control capabilities of this device. But: can you really hear that in the mix? I imagine, yes, but maybe I just don‘t have the talent to set the plugins accordingly. What is certain is that Urei 1178 hardware devices are now being traded on the used market for astronomical sums and then you only have one instance that needs to be integrated into a system.
Integrate analog hardware into the workflow
Speaking of integrating: While you can easily insert a plug-in into a channel with a mouse click, things are completely different with analog hardware: Here you need an additional D/A and A/D converter. Anyone who works with an analogue mixing console including a patch bay will find it easy to flexibly integrate many different hardware devices. It‘s even easier with the Stagetec Aurus Console in my Amazing Sound Studios: 24 analog processors are permanently connected to their own converter paths and can be patched completely freely with the mixer, with the assignments also being saved for each project.
If you don‘t have this option, hardware inserts can be defined in all common DAWs, which you can use just like plug-ins in the DAW mixer. When mastering, you can then combine plug-ins and hardware devices as you wish and are completely free in their order. Unfortunately, when it comes to mixing, it isn‘t always entirely unproblematic; this is where latencies come into play, which arise from the additional analog-to-digital conversion and the hardware buffer of your audio driver. Of course, plug-ins also generate latencies, but these are automatically compensated for in every DAW. This is not always the case with hardware inserts, which can lead to phase problems between tracks. If you are not sure, put a 1 kHz test tone on two tracks with and without an inserted hardware insert. If the mix of the two sounds “phasey”, you have a latency problem. Most DAWs also offer solutions for this, but this often doesn‘t happen automatically.
„Feel it” – analog hardware and plug-ins in practice
In order to give you a little insight into working with plug-ins and hardware, I would like to share with you a little bit about my own mixing workflow, which - like those of many colleagues - is characterized by a combination of hardware and plug-ins. For me, equalizers are actually mostly digital: I use the Epure V3 mentioned above for surgical procedures, and the Massenburg MDW plug-in can also boost it sometimes. The latter is an excellent compromise between precise working methods and subtle analogue coloring. I use the Neve 1073 plugin from Universal Audio for characterful preamp coloring. It is particularly useful for kick drums and snares.
When mastering I use the Passeq V2 hardware from SPL. Its round bass and silky highs, which are characteristic of a passive EQ, are hard to achieve with plug-ins - although Plugin Alliance‘s emulation is really very good and is often used in my mixes - after all, I only have two channels of the hardware. The same applies to the Iron compressor from the same manufacturer: The emulation is really good and is used regularly. The plug-in and hardware are ideal for vocals in the mix; the hardware sounds a bit more rounded.
A really recommendable and comparatively inexpensive analog equalizer comes from Elysia: The Xfilter 500 as a lunchbox module offers great analog Class A sound and is a real secret weapon for mixing and mastering.
We stick with Elysia: The Xpressor 500 is an excellent sounding and extremely versatile compressor. With its innovative gain reduction limiter and dry-wet control, which enables uncomplicated “New York compression”, it is my regular guest on the drum bus. It may just be a feeling, but I don‘t think that a plug-in can achieve this powerful sound - a real insider tip for under 1000 EUR.
For the daily compression of individual tracks, I like to use the 1176 emulations from Arturia and Universal Audio. They simply do their job inconspicuously - but snare drums are usually given the 1178 hardware. I almost always edit toms with the Universal Audio Fatso PlugIn - it‘s simply great for this purpose. Otherwise, I actually use a colorful “color box” of analog compressors: The Rockruepel Comp One shines with a wonderful, almost exciter-like tube coloring that makes acoustic and electric
For me, equilizers are actually mostly digital. «
guitars shine in an incomparable way. Maybe you can achieve something similar with saturation plugins, I haven‘t tried it. Another great universal compressor is the VSC-2 from Vertigo Sound. With its versatile time control, it is suitable for a variety of signals from drums to bass to vocals. The plug-in is also supposed to be very good here, but since I own the hardware I haven‘t tested it.
An important part of my work is bus compression: The drum bus is happy with the aforementioned XPressor 500, all other instruments are often slightly compressed together. For this I used the Red 3 from Focusrite, designed by Rupert Neve - also as hardware. You could certainly also use plug-ins for this purpose; I‘m thinking, for example, of an emulation of the SSL bus compressor.
I also usually compress the stereo sum subtly in order to merge the mix into a single unit. As a rule, a maximum of 3-4 dB gain reduction takes place. I either use the Black Cat Audio Jaguar 670 Fairchild clone or the Elysia Alpha, which is rightly described as one of the best compressors available today. This device is pure magic and embodies a league that will probably not be reached with plug-ins for a long time. The good news: I recently used a much cheaper Drawmer 1978 on the stereo sum in another studio, which also did a very good job.
Overall, with this way of working, I achieve very transparent, powerful and “organic” results in my opinion, which I cannot achieve in the same form just “in the box”. However, the artists mentioned in the introduction to this article show that you can work differently. And that is perhaps the only conclusion that does justice to this topic: Ultimately, it comes down to personal working methods and preferences. There is no right or wrong. The famous Joe Meek quote cannot be repeated often enough: “If it sounds right, it is right”. ⸬