How To Outboard Effects

[Cary B. Cornett]

I remember that after digital consoles replaced the classic Neve and API consoles in major studios, a lot of people thought the new CDs lacked a certain life, or warmth, that was on records (including me). ... In truth, the analog version is less 'accurate'. But, it's said to be inaccurate in a way that pleases the human ear. I've also read one engineer say that you can accomplish the same result with straight digital - it just takes longer.

I first learned the craft on the "classic" analog gear. At the time, we weren't using it because it was "special" but because it was what we had on hand. And the "tricks" we used were mostly about fighting the tape to preserve our sound. Then for my own stuff I moved to computer-based recording (the world of SAW), and it was like wiping the dirt off the glass. The clarity gave me a big smile. And... I had to unlearn some of the tricks I had been using, because I didn't have to fight the tape anymore.

I can tell you that even I can tell the difference between analog and digital guitar effects when the digital one is trying to emulate a classic analog one. And I've heard comparisons of digital compressors and the classic analog originals they are attempting to copy - and they're clearly not the same. But, at the same time, I would argue that they don't have to be the same to produce a good result, albeit different.

Yes, all true. And I especially like that last bit: "a good result, albeit different".

The people who believe that the modification the right analog gear makes improves the sound are paying millions of dollar per year to obtain equipment that will provide it. The 500 Series gear market, which is a direct descendant of those 'lunchboxes' the engineers brought with them to record with, is bigger every year and there are all sorts of companies who are involved in it now. People are weird and sometimes they'll convince themselves of things that just aren't true - perhaps most especially when they are expensive. But, sometimes the truth is just the truth - and it is just as they believe. When I started putting this new version of my studio together last year, I got some excellent, transparent, digital preamps (RME and Grace Audio). But, I also left room for some analog pres as well - and in the meantime I've expanded that to include analog EQ and compression.

The original setup I had in mind for my recording rig was to include outboard analog EQ and compression, and at first I got some. I was going to get bunches of it, but as I learned to ride the digital horse, I turned away from the analog processing altogether and went entirely In The Box, recording everything flat and unprocessed to the files. Once I understood I didn't have to "fill the meters", I got control of the process. I keep the capture clean, and process in playback only, all with the internal mixer and plugins. None of my plugins try to be "analog classics" emulated in any way. I will not get the exact same sound as the guy with a pile of LA2As, 1176s, and Neve 1073 eq's, but it isn't necessary. My goal now is the same as when I was using those things: get a good mix that fits the song. My guess is you already do that now without the exotic analog outboard. I wish you well with your experiment, and I would be interested to know if it really makes that big a difference to what you need to get a good mix. My guess, though, is that the result is a lot more about you and your ears than about any specific "classic" tools in the lunchbox.

[Richard Rupert]

<SNIP>My guess, though, is that the result is a lot more about you and your ears than about any specific "classic" tools in the lunchbox.

I'm in total agreement. It's not the gear, it's the ear.