# Hardware emulation and why you shouldn't bother



## muk (Dec 31, 2016)

Hi guys 

If you are interested in mixing and mastering, you certainly stumbled upon the large field of plugins designed to emulate hardware. Companies such as UAD, Slate, Waves, Acustica Audio (the Nebula platform) and more specialize in the field. And the idea sounds tempting. Professional audio engineers of the decades past, and even today, used great hardware classics for their mixes. And you certainly have heard that digital mixes sound cold, harsh, and boring, right? And those hardware boxes are crazy expensive, so you probably can't afford them. So, what to do? Well, using hardware emulation plugins is the easy solution. They are not the actual hardware, but they surely must be the next best thing! 

Not quite, actually. And here's why. Lets have a closer look at that commonplace that digital mixes sound cold and boring. Cold and boring compared to what? Why, to the analog mixes of past decades of course. Digital is missing the tape saturation, and the distortion from the analog circuitry. True, I'm sure we can agree on that. But that doesn't mean that digital mixes sound cold and boring. Actually, it's exactly the other way around: analog mixes sound too warm! 

I'll put it another way: digital doesn't sound cold and boring. Digital doesn't sound at all. At least not if you are using somewhat decent plugins (and the stock plugins of your DAW are already more than decent). If your digital mix sounds cold and boring to you, there are two posibilities: 1. the source material sounds cold and boring. The fix for that doesn't lie in your mixchain. It's either the musicians and their instruments, or the components and setup of the recording gear. If your musicians recorded through your setup (or the samples you are using) don't sound good and interesting, there's bloody little you can do about that at the mixing stage.
2. your point of reference are analog recordings of the decades past. That's an understandable habit, but it's not the right reference. I would argue that the live sound of the musicians is - it certainly is for orchestras. And compared to that, analog recordings sound too warm, i.e. they introduced distortion (described as sounding 'warm') that wasn't there in the live sound. If you look at it that way, digital plugins offer more transparency and clarity than the classic expensive hardware. Make that your strong point instead of limping behind an idealized sound of the past with tools that try to capture that magic distortion, but never are quite the same thing as the actual hardware. 

Now I'm not saying you shouldn't use hardware emulations altogether. But I'd argue that you shouldn't use them the way they are marketed to be used. 'Can't afford a Pultec Eq? Use my emulation plugin instead, it sounds virtually indistinguishable from the real thing!' Even if that claim were true - lets assume it was for the sake of argument - chances are your mix doesn't need a Pultec Eq distortion in the first place, and your only slapping it on because you think it'll induce some analog magic. But that's grossly misleading. The magic is not in the tools, it's in the craft.
A Pultec emulation gives you pultecesque distortion, and only that. It's a one trick pony. Some of your mixes may profit from that, but most won't (and especially orchestral mixes). But there are digital plugins that give you much more control over the distortion they induce. They don't pretend to emulate a certain hardware unit. Instead, if you learn to use them, you can shape the kind of distortion you want - basically you have many hardware emulations in one plugin. And better yet, use distortion creatively, not as an emulation. 

If you are trying to emulate an analog signal chain with plugins, stop doing that. Instead, listen to what each plugin actually sounds like, and then decide per aural impression if you need that sound. Not per emulated hardware names.
And don't believe the shouters that digital sounds cold and boring. It doesn't, it doesn't sound at all. Meaning it sounds true to the source. In my book that's a strength, not a flaw.


----------



## chillbot (Dec 31, 2016)

Great post. Tell me this... cost aside ($240 vs $1,800) and looking strictly at the audio... why would I buy a Lexicon PCM91 (or PCM92 now) instead of the Lexicon PCM Native Reverb Bundle which offers "the legendary Lexicon reverb sound!" and "7 legendary Lexicon reverbs!"...? What is the benefit of one over the other, speaking strictly of audio and not of flexibility and/or price?


----------



## Iskra (Dec 31, 2016)

Very well said, sir.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Dec 31, 2016)

Instead of cold or warm how about musical? I like Acustica plugins bc they are just that. I can get a result I like quickly. I like Flux bc they're useful (I guess you could say surgical).


----------



## SBK (Dec 31, 2016)

Nicely said but
Aren't the emulations, a digital modern plugin which just uses fixed types of distortion or compression etc?
So basically you are using a digital modern processor... like your DAW's one or any other modern plugin .. or not?


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Dec 31, 2016)

I generally avoid using hardware emulations because of that and use plugins like Fabfilter instead. I've seen people slap on a tape emulation on the master buss without actually listening to what it was doing because tape always magically makes it sound better...

Where I do think it's important to have all of the emulations (even if they're not perfect) is in learning the gear. I'd like to know what a Pultec does but don't have access to one... I'm really curious about a Massive Passive but would need to get a UAD card for that.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 31, 2016)

Yes and no.


----------



## stonzthro (Dec 31, 2016)

So do you have a problem with the actual plug-ins, or the marketing hype? 

I for one, really do Like UAD for some things (the 88RS emulation is indeed fantastic), and I've tried lots of different plugs.


----------



## wst3 (Dec 31, 2016)

what Jay said!

I still have a PCM-90 in the rack, and I prefer it to the modern Lexicon emulations I've tried. My ears, that's all. And that doesn't mean it's my favorite reverb, although some times it is. I also use, frequently, UAD Plate 140, UAD Lexi 224, UAD Ocean Way Studios (not strictly a reverb, but gorgeous), UAD AKG BX-20, Exponential Audio Nimbus, Liquidsonics Reverberate, PSP Pianoverb and Springbox, Camel Audio Camelspace, and Zynaptique Adaptiverb. Each has it's strengths (and weaknesses I suppose), and yet even with that lovely toybox the PCM-90 gets patched in. 

Go figure!

To the OP, your case is well made, but really, it has always been thus - when all we had was hardware we had to make different decisions, but ultimately it was playing to any given devices strengths.

My thing, and I have no idea if it would work in the marketplace, but I'd love to see, for example, UA extend the capabilities of the hardware they emulate. Doesn't even need the same old face plate... let me swap the signal path in an 1176, or let me set the threshold instead of the input level, and so on. That would be cool!!!


----------



## synthpunk (Dec 31, 2016)

Troll bait, life is too short, go make art.

But I'll add this, why are top audio Engineers with Grammy Awards moving to ITB and some if not all emulation? Workflow, recall, and results.


----------



## Tysmall (Dec 31, 2016)

I share concern with the marketing hype behind emulation plugins if that is what this is about, it's puts this false sense of power in the gear. But it's boosting sales for plugin developers and that is always good in my book, because I want to see how far we can take this crazy digital rampage our industry is heading towards.

Look at Neutron's automatic processing ... Imagine telling someone they could do that for 100 dollars in their bedroom 30 years ago.


----------



## kunst91 (Dec 31, 2016)

I'd say don't overthink it and use what you like! If UAD gets you the sound that you want, go for it. I use stock logic plugins for almost everything, mainly since they're simple and I know them better than anything else out there. But if I need some secret sauce or a specific sound, I spring for UAD or soundtoys and never think twice about it.


----------



## synthpunk (Dec 31, 2016)

Marketing gets a bad rap around here by some, if you don't like marketing ignore it, don't buy it. You don't have to preach to the choir we're all pretty intelligent people (I think). We can figure most of it out. It starts to sound allot like the xenophobia going around the world these days. Sorry I just had to say that.


----------



## ryst (Dec 31, 2016)

I don't care what a plugin is modeled on at all. I only decide to use it if I like the way it sounds. I don't bother comparing it to it's hardware counterpart. The emulation itself is meaningless to me. If it does what I want it to do, I use it. If I don't like the way it sounds, I don't use it. I would argue that the GUI's of a lot of plugins these days fool people into thinking the emulation sounds like the real thing. But that's a whole different topic.


----------



## Mundano (Dec 31, 2016)

Play with the sound colours like pencil colours. Then analog and digital turn friends of the same team...


----------



## muk (Jan 1, 2017)

The gripe I have with hardware emulation plugins is that many of them are sold to fix a problem that doesn't exist. The argument goes something like this: premise 1 digital sounds cold. Premise 2 analog mixes sound better because of the hardware used. Conclusion: if you use hardware emulation plugins, your mixes won't sound cold anymore, and therefor better. 

All the talk about how to simulate an analog mixchain with these emulations shows that above argumentation is present. What I am trying to say is that, in my opinion, both of the premises are wrong, and therefor the conclusion as well. 1 Digital doesn't sound cold, that's just wrong. Its true to the source you feed in, and that's a good thing (in my opinion the point of reference for your mix should be the live sound, not old recordings).

2 Analog doesn't sound better than digital. It sounds warmer, and maybe you are used to that sound. But that doesn't make it better per se. If analog mixes sound good, it's because the mix engineer knew what he/she was doing, not because of the hardware used. So, if anything, you should be using a mixer skill emulation plugin, not a hardware emulation. Of course such a plugin can't be built. You could get it's effect though, through learning what these mix engineers did, how they did it, and why. But as said, you can't sell that as a plugin.

Conclusion, your mixes don't sound cold in the first place. If they do it's not because of your digital mix chain, but because of the source signal. And hardware emulation won't help you with that. 

To sum jt up, harware emulation plugins are creative tools for mixing. They are not tools to bring back the sound of revered recordings. But the very fact that they are presented as hardware emulation - often with accompanying quotes how indistinguishable they sound from 'the real thing' - at least clouds up their real uses for mixing in my opinion.


----------



## Saxer (Jan 1, 2017)

The natural signal chain of analog hardware is a way of loosing the original quality and add noise and distortion on each process. But all this influenced our way of listening. That was the sound of music 30 years ago (and before). In listening test with young people most of them liked the sound of mp3 more than high end audio. It's an imprint like mamas sunday cooking (ok, not my mama, as she wasn't really cooking good).
This digital-cold association is a relict of the early digital days when plugins just were not good. 'Cold' means just unknown or not feeling comfortable with it. Trying to copy the behavior of analog hardware was a logical step to get back to the comfort zone.
Meanwhile all this is a bit outdated. The analog hype is still good for marketing. Plugins improved over the last decades and reached hardware on most tasks. But there is still some hardware in use for good reasons: haptic, workflow and a predictable or unique sound.


----------



## novaburst (Jan 1, 2017)

muk said:


> Not quite, actually. And here's why. Lets have a closer look at that commonplace that digital mixes sound cold and boring. Cold and boring compared to what? Why, to the analog mixes of past decades of course.



@muk 

This argument is long and washed out and pointless.

One reason is because it is our ears that tell us what we like and what we don't, it is not what is used, emulation or analog.

you also forget that you can get both hardware digital amps and tube mixed together, that is hardware company's taken note of what digital can do.

Developers like isotope, UAD, Slate, Waves and hundreds more are not jokers they really do offer you a very good and true to life choice with there plugins.

Emulation means to copy, so if I took the picture of Mona Lisa and copied it to a convincing high standard what will your attitude be if I put them both together could you pick the true one absolutely no, but you can guess and you probably would get it wrong because you have not been in front of the true Mona Lisa,
Or what will you do when you find out one was fake are you going to like the other because you now know it is the true one but the fake one really looks better in your eyes.

Point is what ever you say it is our ears that are going to judge what we want not how it was done

If it came out poor with hardware what gives !! are you going to like it because you know it was done on hardware

But the digital plugin version sounded better so you will not like because you know it was done by plugins.

and so the endless debate begins, it does not matter how much scientific analogy you give about it if my ears like it that is it final, and if it happens to be plugins so be it and if it was hardware so be it.

The one who has the knowledge and understands how to mix great will always win weather he or she used a gun or a bow and arrow the end result is the one that matters.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 1, 2017)

muk said:


> 2 Analog doesn't sound better than digital. It sounds warmer, and maybe you are used to that sound.



And that's the selling point. If a plug-in helps us get a warmer sound we prefer, then that is its raison d'etre. The fact that the GUI reminds us of the hardware allows us to be familiar with adjusting it and is, well, fun.

I will say this: I used to beta test for UA and one of the testers actually owned a lot of the gear we were testing. To varying degrees he said the emus were pretty close. And when they were off, we was not shy about telling them so and exactly why. Some times it lead to changes other times not.

Also, at UA they had two or three of what they were emulating, all of which sounded somewhat different from each other because they were tube gear and they shot for an average.

They make my mixes sound better to my ears quickly, the card has some DSP that helps my computer, and they are enjoyable to work with.

Oh, and aren't orchestral samples emulations?


----------



## davidgary73 (Jan 1, 2017)

+1 on what Jay said. 

For me, Acustica Acqua's plugs are great and i love what it imparts to the source


----------



## KEnK (Jan 1, 2017)

Personally I'm in the "emulations are amazing" camp-
This is because I know a lot of the hardware and I usually hear what I expect from the software versions-
I've actually spent quite a bit of time experimenting, trying what the op recommends.
(Meaning getting "that sound" w/o "that emulation") Sometimes I got pretty close, but most often not.
Point is, the emulations work, there's a reason certain pieces of gear have been favored for decades.
Why not use them?
To me, copying "analog" is in fact one of the best things about "digital".
I know what I want before I decide to choose a particular emulation,
so I'll reach for a Neve, SSL, LA3A, or a Fairchild because they're the right tool for the job,
the correctly shaped brush to paint in a particular shade of light.
It works, it's a really good thing.

k


----------



## wst3 (Jan 1, 2017)

muk said:


> The gripe I have with hardware emulation plugins is that many of them are sold to fix a problem that doesn't exist. The argument goes something like this: premise 1 digital sounds cold. Premise 2 analog mixes sound better because of the hardware used. Conclusion: if you use hardware emulation plugins, your mixes won't sound cold anymore, and therefor better.



I couldn't agree more! Marketing ploys like software that will fix your room/monitors, software that will automatically mix and (worse) master your recordings, and software that emulates the "warmth" of analog used to make me crazy. Now I just don't read it!

There are some errors (more accurately distortions) that the human ear enjoys, or has been conditioned to enjoy. Examples might include the compression from bending the needles on your tape deck meters, or some of the harmonically related distortion that results from saturating a transformer or overdriving a gain stage. These were the results of imperfections in analog circuit components - and I'll be the first to admit that I do find some of them useful/pleasing in some cases. Another example, which needs more research, is crosstalk on tape, or even in a console, not to mention microphone bleed in the studio.

There are other errors - wow, flutter, and noise - which we may be accustomed to, but when they are gone we find we didn't like them so much after all. Not at all really.

If plugins were designed to, and marketed as attempts at recreating the pleasing errors I think that might be better. As we grow more accustomed to the lack of errors in digital recording (well, more accurately the new errors) these effects may become less popular.

None of which excuses marketing them as fixing digital audio... but I've gotten past that (mostly<G>)...


----------



## wst3 (Jan 1, 2017)

KEnK said:


> Personally I'm in the "emulations are amazing" camp-


This is where my split personality rears up - I agree with this too... well, not all emulations, but a lot of them, and especially UA emulations.

I did not own everything they emulate, but I am far too familiar with some of them. The 1176 and LA-x compressors were absolute mainstays in studios when I was young. The 1176 was also found in almost every broadcast production facility I worked in. I know how to get certain sounds (and yes, effects) with them. The dBX 160 was another ubiquitous compressor - I think I can safely say there were a couple of them in every facility I ever worked in. When I first tried the UA emulation I swear it took me back in time, it was that close.

Close, as it turns out, is not always appropriate. I love the emulation, but I don't use it nearly as much as I thought I might. I use it to get certain sounds on bass, drums, and sometimes rhythm guitar. I've tried it on vocals and horns and what I remember about that was wishing I had anything else in the rack<G>! So I guess that makes it accurate, but not necessarily useful?

I'm also a big fan of processors and effects that leave the analog (emulation) world far behind. I can do tricks with the (now ancient) Waves C series compressors that I could never do with any of the hardware compressors I used - but it won't impart that "analog" sound. Which isn't what I use it anyway.

Soundtoys has, I think, found the balance between emulation and extension - there are more controls on most of their processors than I can shake a stick at, I'm certain I'm far from getting the most from any of their plugins, but I'll bet they are tied with UA in instance count in most of my tracks. I can do cool things, and they sound great no matter what I do (well, ok, I've made them sound bad, but it's not as easy as you might think!) PSP and Voxengo are in that same league, really flexible, controls that couldn't or wouldn't exist in analog circuits, and great sound.

Some emulations use hardware as a starting point and then go way off track, but in a good way. The Transient Shaper that comes with Sonar does stuff that no other transient shaper can do, and you can easily over do it, but sometimes that sounds really cool. Their emulations of some of the revered hardware compressors are in the same camp, but I've not found many uses for them.

Some emulations (no names please) have disappointed me because they exaggerate the errors, and that seems to be all they do. Lots of folks use them, so maybe I've just not learned how to use the effects? Doesn't matter, I'm pretty happy with the tools I have.


----------



## KEnK (Jan 1, 2017)

wst3 said:


> I'm also a big fan of processors and effects that leave the analog (emulation) world far behind. I can do tricks with the (now ancient) Waves C series compressors that I could never do with any of the hardware compressors I used - but it won't impart that "analog" sound.


Absolutely!
I'm a big fan of Brainworx, Melda, Voxengo and of course PSP.
Loving dynamic equalizers lately and wrapping my head around various spectral type processors
Also there are many aspects of ITB that we take take for granted, that would be unlikely or impossible in a real world studio. 
(Talking about the ease of doubling tracks, extensive routing, mid/side processing, etc).

We have so many tools and methods now- because of digital.
No need to dismiss any of them.

k


----------



## chrysshawk (Jan 1, 2017)

I´m not sure I even understand this discussion. Mixing is about making something sound as good as possible. Consequently, what it´s modeled on or not is not even part of the equation.

That said, there are a few hundred tried and true hardware chains that do sound great together. Of course, you can try to invent the wheel by scrapping all that knowledge that´s been accumulated during the history of mixing. Or you can use it to quickly get great results yourself.

Honestly, I really only hear newbies who would want a hardware emulation because it´s marketed that way.


----------



## Greg (Jan 2, 2017)

A lot of VI instruments do sound cold, analytical and terribly boring. Running those back into the analog world can do wonders for the sound. If you want one special piece of analog kit I really recommend looking at the HG-2 Black Box. Its a tube saturation box with the most pleasing harmonic character I've ever heard.


----------



## jcrosby (Jan 2, 2017)

muk said:


> And don't believe the shouters that digital sounds cold and boring. It doesn't, it doesn't sound at all. Meaning it sounds true to the source. In my book that's a strength, not a flaw.



I actually haven't seen anyone shout that in years. As far as I'm concerned we've been past the belief that digital is cold for about a decade.

Digital does have a sound, aliasing, and without dither you'd hear the sound of digital in every digitized recording. And digital does distort, clipping. I think we can all agree that clipping in analogue sounds quite different from clipping digital zero...

There's a lot in your post that's subjective. As others have pointed out many software synths are brittle or anemic sounding and one of the most efficient ways to warm them up are modeled plugins that are revered just as much for their saturation as they are for their tone... And I think that's a pretty big part of the equation you've overlooked. Part of why certain boxes have been loved is just s much about simplicity and ease of use. These boxes were loved not only for tone but for being time efficient in a tracking session.

I'm not sure where you're going with this and what you're basing it on but it's totally opinion based. At the end of the day you're the only person who has to live with the mixing choices you make...


----------



## muk (Jan 3, 2017)

Maybe I've been reading too much of this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/audioengin...antages_of_hardware_rackmount_eq_vs_software/

and this:

http://therecordingrevolution.com/why-plugins-are-the-worst-investment-in-your-studio/

Sound advise, in my opinion.


----------



## EC2 (Jan 3, 2017)

I really wonder what each contributor´s definition of "warm" vs. "cold" actually is.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 3, 2017)

I wouldn't dream of trying to replace Tubes rounding off waveforms with digital shapers.
And I can't find multi band compression in hardware that's as effective as my DSP plug ins.
Trust your ears and use what works.
The all hardware or all software claims seem stubborn to me.

Digital Distortion rarely works, but when ran through low gain Tubes that can be driven into the red it gives me the extra control of tone hard to get on a Tube mic or Tube based mic pre.

But I always enjoy threads where others try to convince me I can't hear.


----------



## benmrx (Jan 7, 2017)

Personally, I think the advancement in analog modeling plugins is huge. I sold my console, 2" tape machine and 90% of my rack gear around 4 years ago. Never would of dreamed of doing that 10 years ago.


----------



## JPQ (Jan 24, 2017)

Actually some digital mixes sound cold but some analog mixes sound cold. Similar thing i dont understand people who like hardware virtual analogs but hate software ones. Most important is how tools are used.


----------



## pixel (Jan 24, 2017)

I don't give two f* if synth or effect is perfect emulation or not. If it sounds good and is usable then it can be analogue, digital or can be even made from wool. Instead of focusing on how something sound some people care does it sound exactly the same like analogue equivalent. I don't and I will never understand those people. I make music to be enjoyable for listeners not to wank in front of screen thinking 'oh my god this plugin sound exactly like my granny's old refrigerator' 

Ps. it's easy to make warm mix in digital domain


----------



## nas (Jan 27, 2017)

As was the case when I was using many of the classic hardware units back in the day, I just try it out on the source and if it works well in the mix it stays. The same goes for plugins - emulation or not - if it sounds good in a specific context, that's what I'll use. That approach hasn't changed not matter what tools I use... what has changed (and hopefully evolved) is my experience and taste.


----------

