Put distortion ("color, warm up or saturate the signal") on the channels and buses.

[jmh]

ALL software plugins are DSP audio chains. The only way to get a non-DSP based audio chain is to use analog outboard gear. (preamps, compressors, etc.)

Pretty much all analog mixing desks since the 1970's are transistor based. Very few designs used Tubes as the maintenance on a multi-channel desk would be crazy, not to mention the heat it would generate.

Pretty much any characteristic that one daw or software might impart on the audio can (or will) be able to be done with a plugin. As Phillip said they all are dsp whether it is contained in a plugin or built into the bussing in a daw.

The one thing that really hasn't been said which relates to pre-digital recording is tape saturation which is an imperfection in that media's ability to reproduce sound - but an imperfection that can have a very pleasing effect in terms of timbre and dynamics. Then (in my case being a little kid in the 60s) you can couple it with its intentional use during a really good time for the art of recording ushered in with the success of the Beatles. Anyway all the stuff I loved then was recorded on tape (till Bop till you drop) and there is that association too). Remembering my earliest recording 4 track cassette portostudio (Fostex?) it got a beautiful saturation and was user friendly and easy.

We live in a time of high fidelity. The gear of old that really is associated with many famed recordings got there by virtue of their imperfections as much as their quality. If a mic imparts some pleasing characteristic on 80% of singers and another that imparts a bad character on majority of singers - which one do engineers tend to use? Then it gets momentum and an aura of success. Nowadays, there are a ton of mics with better specs than a u47 - still while I've never used one, I'm sure I would love to have a u47 rather than most of the others. A lot of the gear from the old days is the same situation.

Now every one of the circuits of old is being modeled in software to varying degrees of success. Some of the models are possibly better than the original circuits certainly in terms of fidelity and noise floor. But you can do things in digital that few could afford. If you consider that the some 15 $200 tubes, were recommended to be replaced every 6 months, keeping a Fairchild in tiptop condition would be ridiculously expensive. Also there are manipulations that you can do to audio that you can't in real world components. Those can be blended into models of traditional style devices to create entirely new things.

Anyway, real gear is fantastic. Being able to have something that approaches or surpasses that sound for much less money is fantastic too. One of the problems may actually be having too many choices and toys rather than getting really good at using a few pieces of equipment. The other thing is in the old days of studios there was a mentoring that would happen that does not with us each working in isolation (so I have heard). The reduction of collaborative environments may be the missing component.

[Pedro V]

What I read regarding the tubes was I think in relation to the impulse response, it was something that got me thinking...

There are mysterious things along the same lines as what happens with these recordings from yesteryear. For example; I have two Sansui SPX9900 speakers. They are 5-way, 7-speaker Hifi boxes, also from the early 80s or older. I have them connected to a cheap Chinese 3 channel digital amplifier (without chassis, it's a card the size of my hand without the power supply): L, R, Sub. There are 6 way including a Harman Kardon sub (Down firing) that I have hidden in a corner to make it sound better.

The amp has 3 knobs: Bass, Treble and Volume, with a crossover slope of about 12dB.

When a customer left these speakers abandoned at my father's business, before listening to them I thought: Tremendous rubbish that they sold before to deceive people. Ha ha ha. Then I listened to them and spent the afternoon with a measurement microphone measuring frequency response, phase, impulse, and dispersion. The result? Strange, but I invite you to listen to them and laugh at how good they sound. Now I use them as a reference with a single correction filter on the highs. They show you everything. Little harmonic distortion, high sensitivity***8230; But it has a 17***8221;***8230;. Anyway***8230;

I don't think I'd trade them for today's consumer studio monitors: Yamaha, Adam, KRK, JBL, etc.

I don't know about the high-end ones... I have my doubts.

Maybe almost half a century in technology is not that long?

I think that if we analyze other things it is an eternity.

https://reverb.com/item/10822555-vin...n-walnut-grain

[Dave Labrecque]

Dave,

I haven't tried UAD but I don't find it appealing at all. Among other things, they use DSP, I don't like it, I feel something similar about that company to the one I feel about Waves.

You have good reflections, and points: Aesthetics...

I have read unique things about the tube, but I don't remember anymore.

Don't think I'm very experienced...

I am first following Bob's method (Trying to learn), in fact I have opened old sessions and have been removing PSP Audioware plugins, which are the ones I liked, and forcing myself with methods to make the mix as clean as possible, using the basics. To then see what else may be necessary.

This company also catches my attention: https://www.apulsoft.ch/

If you don't like the DSP paradigm, UAD now have quite a few plugins available for native processing. And I think you can get a three-month subscription to all of them for 99 cents as a trial. Just a thought.

Always good to master the basics before moving on to other things, of course. Good luck!

[Dave Labrecque]

Philip and JMH -- I woulda thought you guys would know, but in case you're not aware...

"DSP vs. native" is a distinction often used--if technically incorrectly--in current-day audio recording/production vernacular to differentiate between a plug-in's dependency on/employment of dedicated, discrete digital-audio signal-processing hardware ("DSP") or a computer's own built-in ("native") CPU to work its magic. I think this is what Pedro was referring to.

There are, of course, logistical differences a user may experience in using one vs. another. My guess is that Pedro's preferences involve those differences.

C'mon. You know this.

[Dave Labrecque]

What I read regarding the tubes was I think in relation to the impulse response, it was something that got me thinking...

There are mysterious things along the same lines as what happens with these recordings from yesteryear. For example; I have two Sansui SPX9900 speakers. They are 5-way, 7-speaker Hifi boxes, also from the early 80s or older. I have them connected to a cheap Chinese 3 channel digital amplifier (without chassis, it's a card the size of my hand without the power supply): L, R, Sub. There are 6 way including a Harman Kardon sub (Down firing) that I have hidden in a corner to make it sound better.

The amp has 3 knobs: Bass, Treble and Volume, with a crossover slope of about 12dB.

When a customer left these speakers abandoned at my father's business, before listening to them I thought: Tremendous rubbish that they sold before to deceive people. Ha ha ha. Then I listened to them and spent the afternoon with a measurement microphone measuring frequency response, phase, impulse, and dispersion. The result? Strange, but I invite you to listen to them and laugh at how good they sound. Now I use them as a reference with a single correction filter on the highs. They show you everything. Little harmonic distortion, high sensitivity***8230; But it has a 17***8221;***8230;. Anyway***8230;

I don't think I'd trade them for today's consumer studio monitors: Yamaha, Adam, KRK, JBL, etc.

I don't know about the high-end ones... I have my doubts.

Maybe almost half a century in technology is not that long?

I think that if we analyze other things it is an eternity.

https://reverb.com/item/10822555-vin...n-walnut-grain

They do look pretty silly. Should I take the plunge, Pedro?

[Pedro V]

Dave,

I have mastered the basics, the point is to improve, improve the mixes and do them quickly. I have potential clients but I still don't dare to take the step, I am demanding of myself. I've always used SS non-commercially.

My good experience with audio is in the installation of sound systems. Also in the manufacture of speakers. I was born in the business.

The issue of DSP and UAD; In my head it had always been linked to its hardware to do digital signal processing. That's why the misunderstanding, I thought it came for granted and they would understand me.

I don't know if you are making fun of something or taking it as a joke.

If you really want to try the Sansui then go ahead, but they don't have low range, you have to pair them with a Subwoofer. A well-placed 12 or 15 inches does the job. I have a 10", I already had it by then and my room is small, plus the corner adds 12dB. Always try to take advantage of the corners.

I input the signal to the amplifier from a Rane mixer where I add a few dBs to the high frequencies.

That's all.

[jmh]

Philip and JMH -- I woulda thought you guys would know, but in case you're not aware...

"DSP vs. native" is a distinction often used--if technically incorrectly--in current-day audio recording/production vernacular to differentiate between a plug-in's dependency on/employment of dedicated, discrete digital-audio signal-processing hardware ("DSP") or a computer's own built-in ("native") CPU to work its magic. I think this is what Pedro was referring to.

There are, of course, logistical differences a user may experience in using one vs. another. My guess is that Pedro's preferences involve those differences.

C'mon. You know this.

Sorry Dave & Pedro. I always lose the thread at the mention of Steely Dan. But I also admit to just thinking of any dsp processor as equivalent to code run in a computer. Dedicated dsp processors definitely serves a purpose in tons of devices. Something built with a specific purpose would usually have the edge on latency. And now there are FPGA devices where logic can be at a hardware level but flexibly reconfigured to do some other task. I don't think these use clock cycles in the way we think of cpus performing a step at a time instead often have several decisions made at the same time by virtue of the paths already programmed.

There are hybrid devices too. I think something like the Mcdsp has a bunch of analog processes that are digitally controlled and I assume plenty of digital processing and probably fpga as well.

It was better when I was just being nostalgic about tape saturation with the knowledge that I would not be able to keep a large multitrack in top working order. If I get on the dsp bandwagon too, I'll have to get into a 12 step program for gear...

[Pedro V]

Dave,

To your question: They do look pretty silly. Should I take the plunge, Pedro?

Of course, they sound wonderful.

[John Ludlow]

For what it's worth, I think you can figuratively think of all these things as if they were colored lenses, usually a very light colored lens, that you wash over your recording. In analog gear, each one is distinctive in its own particular way. Not all of them use tubes. Some of them benefit from accumulation over multiple tracks. You don't need them. But... I think it's nice to have access to them anyway. The way they distort isn't accidental. Like, all Neve's stuff distorts, in a very particular way: like Neve stuff. Same with API. Like an audial signature.

It's a real potential rabbit hole though too. So, know that. But if you decide to go down it anyway, one way to save money is to look into 500 Series gear. That is, 'save money by comparison to the same circuit and components in a non-500 Series package'. They're not cheap. The idea is that relative economy is obtained by sharing some aspects of the job - housing, power, and I/O between otherwise distinct hardware. You buy a box that conforms to the 500 Series standard, and then fill it with physical plug-ins that also conform to it. Some of the best names in analog circuitry are represented as 500 Series modules: Neve, API, Burl Audio - or high end digital stuff like Grace Design...

https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/500-series-gear-buying-guide/

[Dave Labrecque]

No joking intended. What of what I said were you unsure of?