Using analogue hardware with computer editing/mastering

[tacitus]

I'm guessing this topic belongs here, at least for me, as I wouldn't think I'd ever do it while recording a live classical concert, but:

Surfing around the other day I was I bit surprised to see how much of a thing it seems to be, chasing mojo from analogue kit while working with a DAW. In so far as I'd considered this at all, I imagined the time taken to do stuff in real time would make it far too much of a faff for an idle so and so like myself.

Am I right there, or is it something you can integrate effectively into a workflow without spending lots of time re-recording your magnum opus? I can't get my head round the whole idea, even if I can imagine hardware being delectable enough to tempt people to try it.

Am I missing something here (beyond the mere quest for perfection and unbridled gearlust?).

[James Perrett]

This topic has almost become a religious war. Some people just can't get the sound that they are looking for without using analogue hardware whereas others are perfectly happy completely in the box.

While I have a fair bit of analogue hardware here, much of it goes unused for most of the time. If I use it, I tend to put it before the ADC. Once something is in the computer it stays in the computer.

[tacitus]

Yes, I can see it has all the ingredients you need for a religious war - weaponisation of viewpoints, principally. As my view on religious issues is that there’s nobody here that can actually tell me the answers and I’ll have to work it out myself, I guess I’ll have to do the same with in the box vs outboard gear.

I must confess I’ve never had problems with keeping it all digital, but I don’t do much with my classical recordings. However, I’m awaiting Hugh’s review of the Phædrus SHUpHLER 4 and might just be a bit tempted, judging by what I’ve learnt so far. I’ve got this idea for a white tunic with a big Red Cross on it …

[Arpangel]

I could go in the box this morning, if I wanted to, no problem.
But I don’t, I just like the look of hardware, and the feel of it, the sound I can take or leave, sometimes if I’m feeling dead creatively, just walking into the studio and seeing my wall of modular is enough to spur me into action "come on! surely you can do "something" with all this shit"
None of it is necessary, but the only thing I’d keep if I did go entirely in the box and use via ReaInsert, is my Eventide Eclipse, nothing sounds like that thing, nothing, certainly no software I’ve heard.

[RichardT]

Hi Tacitus, it should be possible in most DAWs to set up external analogue effects. Once set up you can use them in your DAW project, but obviously, only one instance at a time (unlike internal effects).

Is it worth the extra complexity? Well, not for me, as I can get good enough results with digital plugins, but my mastering engineer uses some analogue devices and some digital effects. So clearly they add something special for him.

[tacitus]

Yes, a lot of what’s caught my attention was concerned with mastering. So far I’ve not got further than adding DAV pres to my recording chain (so no time penalty beyond plugging them in), but it was while I was probing the DAV website that I was led into full awareness of this idea of reintroducing analogue into the recording chain anywhere there’s a spare input and output.

I’m pretty sure that regular use of analogue would leave me twiddling my thumbs while it works, and that in turn would take my coffee consumption back to the dangerous levels I used to achieve. Fortunately, I think the kind of stuff that looks worth having will be beyond my means. Probably safest to keep it that way …

[Moroccomoose]

I still run a hybrid set up from the days thst computers struggled with time based fx. They consumed much more resources than eq, compression etc. So I have a lexicon mx400. Its plumbed in and permanently set up in my cubase templates and I use it routinely. Even though you can probably way out do it in software, even stock plugins, these days.

I also use hardware guitar amp modellers. Sometimes I record the DI and re-amp, sometimes just record the output fromb5he modeller.

The only time it impacts workflow is if I want to use the hardware else where and I have to faff about hooking it back up, or when rendering as it can ot be rendered out in real time.

Being slightly nerdy, I get as much fulfilment in succeeding in getting a good setup that maximises hardware features with comprehensive templates to make use of it as I do from actually playing and recording music!

[Arpangel]

Yes, a lot of what’s caught my attention was concerned with mastering. So far I’ve not got further than adding DAV pres to my recording chain (so no time penalty beyond plugging them in), but it was while I was probing the DAV website that I was led into full awareness of this idea of reintroducing analogue into the recording chain anywhere there’s a spare input and output.

I’m pretty sure that regular use of analogue would leave me twiddling my thumbs while it works, and that in turn would take my coffee consumption back to the dangerous levels I used to achieve. Fortunately, I think the kind of stuff that looks worth having will be beyond my means. Probably safest to keep it that way …

I think if you’re into recording acoustically, of any sort, it’s best to keep it as simple and as direct as possible, when I’m recording our piano the mic goes straight into the interface, with no external hardware, no compression, no EQ, no plug-in's.
I know sometimes it’s necessary to add those things, but I’d keep them all in the digital domain, lees is better in these circumstances.

[RichardT]

Yes, a lot of what’s caught my attention was concerned with mastering. So far I’ve not got further than adding DAV pres to my recording chain (so no time penalty beyond plugging them in), but it was while I was probing the DAV website that I was led into full awareness of this idea of reintroducing analogue into the recording chain anywhere there’s a spare input and output.

I’m pretty sure that regular use of analogue would leave me twiddling my thumbs while it works, and that in turn would take my coffee consumption back to the dangerous levels I used to achieve. Fortunately, I think the kind of stuff that looks worth having will be beyond my means. Probably safest to keep it that way …

Yes, a lot of that mastering gear is extremely expensive and you need to process audio in real time. Plus you need to let the gear warm up so it behaves consistently (my mastering engineer used to leave things for an hour or so). And in cases where there is no controller plugin, you need to keep records of all the settings. So there is a cost in convenience!

Using a mastering engineer is another option.

[ajay_m]

Also of course routing stuff 'out of the box' into analogue gear involves a D/A and subsequent A/D conversion to get the result back into the DAW. Now of course with modern convertors and 24 bit resolution this is obviously not going to introduce any significant signal degradation but it seems odd to me that somehow some subsequent purely analogue processing is going to add some kind of subtle magic that simply working entirely digitally cannot do. It *is* going to introduce latency, requiring care in aligning the resulting audio up with anything that didn't get routed out externally.

Because if there is some kind of unquantifiable 'analogue magic' this kind of implies that all the theory that went into designing and building top-quality convertors and associated audio processing in the digital domain is somehow flawed or incomplete, because purely analogue signal paths can somehow sprinkle fairydust over the audio signal that we cannot precisely emulate digitally. [an argument we see made over the merits of analogue synths vs digital ones as well]

I also get that historically, digital bit depths were a lot less. When you only had 12 bits of resolution, say, and digital filters with less than ideal passbands and somewhat unpredictable phase behaviour across their stopband, and limited sample rates, then yes, aliasing and all manner of other artifacts can and did occur. Is this true now with 24 bit convertors supporting up to 192KHz sample rates and with signal to noise ratios in excess of 100dB. I would argue not.

Now I do get that having something with actual knobs you can twiddle can be a lot more immediate than faffing around with a mouse, but this begs the question as to why a decent control surface wouldn't be a better investment, or even (as I am a great advocate of) a modern digital mixer as the combined audio interface, mixer and control surface, thus allowing all manner of experimental tweaking in a hands-on manner but without ever leaving the digital domain. But I do accept that endless arguments can be had over the time domain, phase response and other fine details of various bits of analogue circuitry and that - arguably - these are not exactly replicated by their digital equivalents.

[jaminem]

I have a hybrid setup. I use analog hardware on every mix. It’s trivially simple to setup external effects in my DAW Cubase. I have a patchbay as well so I can tap into any external effects and create a chain if needed. I typically use the same HW for every application, for example an API2500+ and a Fatso on my drum bus, Black Lion Bluey into a Tubetech CL1b for my vocal chain. Sometimes I also add a Harrison 32eq and an RND542 tape sat on the vocal chain.
So…why you might ask? Several reasons. To me HW does sound better. Plugins are good enough these days (wasn’t the case when I started) and I’m happy I could get a decent mix without the HW, but since I have it, why not use it? Tweaking knobs is a nicer experience for me than mousing. I also have Console one for this purpose.

My HW is pre patched in my templates so no need to mess about, they are there and ready to go.

Don’t get me wrong, I love plugins and use plenty, but HW is cool too.

I recently bought a Roland U110. Why the hell would I do that? Simple. Modern string libraries are way too good. Too realistic. Music I’m working on atm wants nasty crappy, gritty strings. For £60 a 90’s rompler is just the job.

[BigRedX]

I can only see the point of analogue mastering if you are going to go for an all-analogue signal path from microphone to delivery medium. Oversize I'd be worried that the additional number of DA and AD conversions are going to be more detrimental to the audio that any "magic" the analogue processing is going to impart.

About 15 years ago my band looked at putting out a mini album with an all-analogue signal path from mic to (in our case) compact cassette. While it was possible to have a guaranteed analogue mastering stage it was, back then, significantly more expensive than doing it in the digital domain; presumably because of the extra hassle of having to calibrate and run two reel-to-reel tape machines. The thing that scuppered it for us was not this additional expense, but the fact that non of the low-volume compact cassette duplication companies would accept a reel-to-reel master and even if they had they would have probably digitised it anyway for the duplication process.

[Hugh Robjohns]

...I'd be worried that the additional number of DA and AD conversions are going to be more detrimental to the audio that any "magic" the analogue processing is going to impart.

I can understand that concern, but the reality is that modern mastering-grade converters are essentially blameless and there is no audible detriment. But analogue signal processing can bring some welcome characteristics and flavours that might be helpful for some material.

Fortunately, it's very easy to integrate hardware — analogue or digital — into in-the-box mastering, for those that wish to go down that route. Obviously, it's a very subjective way of working, but I wouldn't deny that there are aesthetic benefits to using physical hardware controls and analogue signal processing on occasion...

[Matt Houghton]

What Hugh said. Plus, depending on the way you're working, the additional converter stages question could well be a red herring...

For instance, I tend to use 'external plug-ins' in my DAW when I want to use hardware for mixing (if recording, I tend to use it as a front end before the converters).

Now, it's possible that the sound going to and coming from my hardware could be improved a tiny bit with very slightly better converters.

But when making judgements about whether a particular hardware compressor or EQ might be offering me something my plug-ins don't, the converters' contribution is already there in the monitors. So if I think the hardware better, it's a non-issue.

[Arpangel]

There are some cases where you can’t avoid using hardware, like me, putting hardware compressors across the outputs if my modular and other things to stop them overloading the mixer inputs.