Analog Warmth: Origins, How To in Software

[watchnerd]

A pretty good article on the origins of "analog warmth" and how to recreate / simulate those effects using modern recording software / plug-ins:

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/analogue-warmth

Also a great example of how much of the art of making a pleasing recording is the judicious manipulation of effects.

 

[Cosmik]

I do wonder if some of the time people are fooling themselves into thinking that they have achieved warmth, when in fact they have just achieved woolliness. The act of applying an analog warmth plugin will make you expect to hear warmth.

I read one producer somewhere saying that his clients often ask for the recording to be "not too perfect". In the 1970s they went for brilliant, clean, rich recordings - and did a pretty good job if you ask me. Now, they use plugins to mess up potentially brilliant digital recordings - another one of the factors that lead some people to conclude that 'digital' is rubbish in comparison with the classic LPs they listen to.

 

[watchnerd]

I do wonder if some of the time people are fooling themselves into thinking that they have achieved warmth, when in fact they have just achieved woolliness. The act of applying an analog warmth plugin will make you expect to hear warmth.

I read one producer somewhere saying that his clients often ask for the recording to be "not too perfect". In the 1970s they went for brilliant, clean, rich recordings - and did a pretty good job if you ask me. Now, they use plugins to mess up potentially brilliant digital recordings - another one of the factors that lead some people to conclude that 'digital' is rubbish in comparison with the classic LPs they listen to.

What's the difference between warmth and woolliness? I often hear them used synonymously.

 

[Cosmik]

What's the difference between warmth and woolliness? I often hear them used synonymously.

Well I would cite a track like Rocket Man by Elton John as having a warm sound, even though it's beautifully clean and clear - originally recorded with analogue, obviously, but I don't think it is necessarily the analogue that is giving it the warmth. I would think it's more to do with the musical arrangements and the way they worked in the studio.

One modern band whose music I like, but whose sound I don't like is Franz Ferdinand - I would describe their sound as woolly. I found this snippet, which kind of explains some of it, I think:

So then I mixed them in Pro Tools. At first I had problems with them because when I just mixed them normally, they tended to sound a bit wimpy and clean, '80s kind of sounding. Then once I realised they'd been recorded with a bit too little compression, I started to experiment putting the whole mix through the Neve compressor. And that was quite good, until I actually did something that you're not supposed to do. I actually put the whole mixes through [Line 6's plug-in] Amp Farm...

In other words, they record something that sounds a bit "wimpy and clean", then scuzz the whole mix up with some analogue-style plugins. It's not a great sound, it seems to me.

I'm sure I can think of some more examples if I put my mind to it.

 

[watchnerd]

In other words, they record something that sounds a bit "wimpy and clean", then scuzz the whole mix up with some analogue-style plugins. It's not a great sound, it seems to me.

I'm sure I can think of some more examples if I put my mind to it.

But what you think is scuzz the artist seems to feel is closer to their preference. Seems like just differences in preferences.

Nonetheless, any tool can be mis-used.

And, unless you're listening to a vinyl rip, any recording of 'Rocket Man' you're listening to today has almost certainly been digitally remastered, potentially using all sorts of effects plugins.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I do wonder if some of the time people are fooling themselves into thinking that they have achieved warmth, when in fact they have just achieved woolliness. The act of applying an analog warmth plugin will make you expect to hear warmth.

I read one producer somewhere saying that his clients often ask for the recording to be "not too perfect". In the 1970s they went for brilliant, clean, rich recordings - and did a pretty good job if you ask me. Now, they use plugins to mess up potentially brilliant digital recordings - another one of the factors that lead some people to conclude that 'digital' is rubbish in comparison with the classic LPs they listen to.

In previous decades, you had clean recordings but unclean distribution formats.

Nowadays, the distribution format is clean. So people try and emulate older recordings by introducing pollution somewhere in the modern recording production process.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

 

[watchnerd]

In previous decades, you had clean recordings but unclean distribution formats.

Unclean distribution formats, definitely.

Clean recordings? Sometimes. For every Dark Side of the Moon, you have the horrible mixes of early Led Zeppelin albums.

 

[fas42]

Unclean distribution formats, definitely.

Clean recordings? Sometimes. For every Dark Side of the Moon, you have the horrible mixes of early Led Zeppelin albums.

Do you mean the original releases? If so, that says a lot ... those recordings are masterpieces of 'big' sound, which require a very clean system to reproduce well - a dead giveaway is when a rig makes a complete mess of them ...

On "wrecked", modern recordings, Amy Winehouse tracks are the worst I've heard - trying to give them a 50's vinyl sound, it's so obviously fiddled, and sounds truly awful ...

 

[Cosmik]

But what you think is scuzz the artist seems to feel is closer to their preference. Seems like just differences in preferences.

Am I saying anything different to that?

And, unless you're listening to a vinyl rip, any recording of 'Rocket Man' you're listening to today has almost certainly been digitally remastered, potentially using all sorts of effects plugins.

Quite, but the question was: what is the difference between "warm" and "woolly"? I was pointing to an example of each, where IMO one is warm yet has great clarity, while the other is, to my ears, woolly - with some evidence as to why that might be, based on how 'analogue' plugins are (ab)used these days.

 

[watchnerd]

Do you mean the original releases? If so, that says a lot ... those recordings are masterpieces of 'big' sound, which require a very clean system to reproduce well - a dead giveaway is when a rig makes a complete mess of them ...

The original vinyl releases from Atlantic. Look at the spectral analyses. Zep I has no low end, all midrange, heaps of compression and distortion hitting the dynamic range limits of the tapes, leading to tape saturation. LZII too much compression, reverb, bloated bass.

 

[watchnerd]

Do you mean the original releases? If so, that says a lot ... those recordings are masterpieces of 'big' sound, which require a very clean system to reproduce well - a dead giveaway is when a rig makes a complete mess of them ...

Oh and to quote Jimmy Page on the issue:

"According to Page, when a Zeppelin LP was pressed back in the day, the sound quality suffered as the production moved further away from the master recordings. When a band or artist remasters their material today, those issues can be corrected.

What happens is, with these albums [is] that you find that the first test pressings are pretty good, but once they get them on the production line, then the quality, sort of, it starts to disappear a bit — or lack. With all of the advance of technology, that has sort of, preceded the point that we can ... that I can revisit the albums and re-cut them; then it gave the opportunity to give the best possible quality at this point. And really, actually — by hi-fi standards, this in, like reviews in hi-fi magazines — [they say] they're better than what the original ones were; which of course, that's always the object of the exercise."

http://www.musictimes.com/articles/...-zeppelin-remasters-better-than-originals.htm

 

[fas42]

Ahhh, we're in "the remasters are better than the originals" territory ... hi-fi standards of music mag's are the goal ...

Friend down the road owns some of the remasters - I don't - and when played on his reasonably tweaked setup I thought, WTF! Aneamic, one-dimensional, pedestrian - where was the grandeur of sound that I knew well from my original release CDs? Are they trying to make it sound like a club band playing a cover, or something?

Sorry, I don't think Page is the best to quote on this ...

 

[watchnerd]

Friend down the road owns some of the remasters

Which ones? There have been several. Some horrible.

 

[fas42]

This one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Led_Zeppelin_Remasters.

 

[watchnerd]

This one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Led_Zeppelin_Remasters.

Yeah, those are crap. Try the 2014 remasters.

 

[fas42]

Yeah, those are crap. Try the 2014 remasters.

Good to know!