Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What is "True Analog" ?
#1
Harrison sometimes takes criticism for our use of the term "True Analog", which originated with the launch of Mixbus in 2009.

Clearly, you can't run an analog console in a computer, so what does "True Analog" mean?

Before I answer that question, it deserves a short anecdote from the original launch of Mixbus.

Where did the term True Analog come from?

Before the current ownership (consisting only of long-tenured engineers), Harrison was operated by Bill Owen. Bill was a successful lawyer and was part of the ownership group of the original Harrison Systems. He took over sole ownership of the company for a time, and traveled the world with our current president Gary to convince people of the need for computer-automated consoles.

But ... Bill was not a technical person. When I approached him to pitch the idea of Mixbus, I explained how we should make a DAW using our best-practices that we had learned while porting our analog consoles into the digital realm. I talked about how a better mixing engine should be dithered, how the parameters should be ramped, how it should have a knob-per-feature layout and how the knobs should be scaled exactly like our esteemed analog consoles, down to the type of pots used in the filter frequency knobs.

When I finished my description, Bill awoke from his slumber and said "I didn't understand any of that. Why would you waste your time with that?" to which I responded "Well, we are trying to avoid digititis, the digital artifacts that make a lot of current DAWs sound bad. After two previous large format digital console engine designs, we have some techniques that help us avoid digital artifacts, and those tricks aren't being done in the popular DAWs".

Bill replied "You're going to have to simplify your pitch, Ben, because you're approaching this from an engineering standpoint, but nobody knows those terms. You need to call it something simple like Analogue Emulation" Well, the other engineers and I had some concerns about that, because emulation is a loaded term and it can mean something really good, really bad, or nothing at all. We weren't emulating tube guitar amps and all their idiosyncrasies, but rather we wanted to fix digital so that it sounded more true to the intent of our super-high end consoles. Bill didn't like our timidity but he couldn't talk us into Analog Emulation, either.

Bill asked "is it good?" to which I replied "Yes, of course it's good, it's done by the same guys that make our million-dollar analog and digital consoles!" So Bill responded, "in that case, be bold. Call it something big. Call it True Analog". For us engineers, that was crazy talk. But on the other hand ... maybe he had something there.

What is "True Analog"?

"True Analog" is the marketing term which sums up the hundreds of subtle design choices that go into Harrison's DAW and plugin products. We arrived at those choices by trial and error when reproducing our analog sound in a digital world. They often include engineering models of resistor, capacitor and transistor circuitry found in Harrison's original analog console designs. By definition these circuit designs were linear and were designed to - even under harsh operating conditions - minimize distortion and noise down to theoretical limits. In other words, they are true to the signal. There are pitfalls in digital audio that can make it un-true to the signal, and we wanted to avoid those. We use dithering, parameter ramping, and a hundred other small design details of our choosing to avoid some digital mistakes and therefore retain more of the true analog sound.

It's hard to remember the days before digital, but Harrison is one of the few audio companies who continuously made products before, during, and after the digital revolution. We were making cutting-edge analog products for film production at that time. We had some very smart ex-military guys with experience with sonar and radar systems. With the support of early digital audio pioneers (anecdotally, the guys who later founded Waves) and a few false-start collaborations with companies like AT&T, Harrison eventually developed our own digital mixing engine to replace the analog mixing engines in our top-tier customer facilities.

Because it replaced an existing analog mix engine (separate from the mixer control surface) it was critical that the digital version should operate and sound like the analog one. This meant we had to address some negative aspects of digital audio by closely scrutinizing how the knob scaling affected the eq sounds, avoiding digital artifacts when turning knobs, and introducing dither to hide digital quantization noise (a technique that many DAWs still don’t use, even decades after it was found to be desirable). These were early days of digital and we were pioneering many of these methods.

Since then, we've continued to refine our approach, and we've made 5 major digital mixing platforms, learning a little more with each step. This hard-won experience has created a unique set of priorities that was informed by each prior iteration. Most digital products, as good as they may be, are stuck with their first-and-only implementation and haven't had the chance to evolve. Harrison's products span from million-dollar consoles to $9 plugins, and we have a depth of know-how that other companies ... even big companies like Apple or Avid ... simply lack.

Whew, that's a long story. Bill was smart enough to realize that this story needs to be encapsulated in a short phrase, because we can't explain all this, all the time. Hence "True Analog"


What isn't "Tue Analog"?

When you make a series of products covering such a wide range, one of the most important things to learn is what not to do. For that reason, True Analog is defined by what we don't do, just as much as it defines what we do do (heh).

Unless it is explicitly stated in the product manual, Harrison does not add distortion or noise to our digital signal processing products. We don't add hidden eq or level changes. There is no arbitrary "color" or other non-linear artifacts added to the digital signal processing models.

Many people are looking for pedals and plugins that add "color" by way of distortion, tonal shifts, or crosstalk. This is perfectly acceptable and good, but for a variety of reasons it is something Harrison has chosen not to do. Consoles are meant to be the heart of the music making process and are there to tie together all the other pieces of the puzzle. Having a clean signal path is critical to this purpose. In our experience, if you make a product that 'futzes' with your sound, then you get relegated to the category that is sometimes useful, but often not. We want our products to be in the 'always useful' category.

Some plugin developers de-cramp their equalizers to correct for naturally-occurring behaviors at lower sample rates. Harrison generally does not de-cramp our equalizers. We'll likely cover this topic in a future post, but the short answer is: if you do anything to de-cramp the EQ at low sample-rates, you're either deviating from the original circuit elements, or you are adding processing that will make a more 'digital' sounding EQ. This is a hotly-debated topic, but we’ve tried it several ways and we like our solution.

Some plugin developers upsample and then downsample (i.e. “oversample” or “re-sample”) their operations so their individual response looks better when inspected on a graph, or to slightly lessen aliasing artifacts for ‘modeled’ analog distortion; but this introduces digital distortions, so we only re-sample in cases we deem it is necessary for our desired operations.


We've got your back!

Our list of successes is long: Records made on Harrison consoles, in the last 50 years, have sold many hundreds of millions of copies. We've had an astounding number of movies made on our digital film consoles. We've sent consoles on the biggest tours ever (heard of a little group called U2 ?) and were part of worldwide events like Live Aid. The local Ryman auditorium broadcasts American country music to the world from Nashville ... using Harrison mic preamps.

Our products are made by people in Nashville with extensive experience in our field. But at the end of the day we are only human! We have a company history of fixing errors when we are alerted to them, and we stand behind our products. That's why Harrison is still standing when many companies have not stood the test of time.

We are here for you! I look forward to your comments.

-Ben at Harrison
Reply
#2
Ben -

Thank you for such an interesting post!
I have a few comments that I want to take some time to iron out before sharing with you and the rest of this forum.
But, in the meantime, it occurred to me that there is one product that I feel Harrison should put out that would enhance its MB/MB32C DAWs:
   A Harrison [USB] Audio Interface.

The bridge between an instrument (let's consider ones voice as an instrument for now) and DAW is one part of the signal path that has tremendous
influence over the signal the DAW is going to process. A microphone is also a BIG contributor but that's another topic. There are so many choices of audio interfaces
today that, given a copy of the same input signal, two otherwise identical DAW setups could produce different sounding results if their audio interfaces were different.
If Harrison put out its own line of audio interfaces it might come closer in its quest of "True Analog" regardless of the OS platform its DAWs run on.
What's more, MB/MB32C customers would have a distinct advantage over other DAW/interface combos as a Harrison audio interface could be "tuned" for MB/MB32C
using Harrison's "Legendary" mic/line pre-amps and  A-D/D-A converters. Maybe some killer options such as multiple outputs for more out-of-box processing support?
Current interfaces are really lacking in multiple line level I/O capability! Done right, I think this would be a top contender.

Comments?

Patrick
Reply
#3
(09-22-2022, 11:52 AM)Ben@Harrison Wrote: Harrison sometimes takes criticism for our use of the phrase "True Analog", which originated with the launch of Mixbus in 2009.
....
Unless it is explicitly stated in the product manual,  Harrison does not add distortion or noise to our digital signal processing products.  We don't add hidden eq or level changes. There is no arbitrary "color" or other non-linear artifacts added to the digital signal processing models.
...
This is very important as many people are looking for digital consoles, DAW's, plugins or other DSP tools that add "color" or other non-linear aspects to their products. This is perfectly acceptable and good, but for a variety of reasons it is something Harrison has chosen not to do.  In our experience, if you make a product that 'futzes' with your sound, then you get relegated to the pile of stuff that is sometimes useful, but often not.  We want to be in the 'always useful' category.

Thanks for the background Ben...

I vividly remember when we swapped our Series 12 analog out for the new Digital core and we had some of the most experienced engineers and mixers critically listening and no one could fault any aspect of the change over.

It is difficult for me to understand why some people want to enhance the very artefacts that most of us have spent our entire careers trying to reduce.

Constantly battling between Noise and Distortion always seeking to find Clarity and Fidelity.

A Cabinet emulation or FX / Distortion for Guitar fine... Tape Saturation all good but really .... adding noise and distortion just because the forty year old desk that has been 'sampled' has failing capacitors or dirty connectors is just crazy talk.

You listen with your ears not your eyes.
Macmini 8,1 | OS X 13.6.3 | 3 GHz i5 32G | Scarlett 18i20 | Mixbus 10 | PT_2024.3.1 .....  Macmini 9,1 | OS X 14.4.1 | M1 2020 | Mixbus 10 | Resolve 18.6.5
Reply
#4
Fascinating read Ben! Thanks.
Reply
#5
Thank you!
Reply
#6
Thanks for your info about this, it's always cool to have some insight and background knowledge about what's going on under the surface. :-)
Mixbus/Mixbus32C on Linux (Kubuntu)/KXStudio repositories.
GUI: KDE and Fluxbox
Reply
#7
(09-22-2022, 09:42 PM)Dingo Wrote:
(09-22-2022, 11:52 AM)Ben@Harrison Wrote: Harrison sometimes takes criticism for our use of the phrase "True Analog", which originated with the launch of Mixbus in 2009.
....
Unless it is explicitly stated in the product manual,  Harrison does not add distortion or noise to our digital signal processing products.  We don't add hidden eq or level changes. There is no arbitrary "color" or other non-linear artifacts added to the digital signal processing models.
...
This is very important as many people are looking for digital consoles, DAW's, plugins or other DSP tools that add "color" or other non-linear aspects to their products. This is perfectly acceptable and good, but for a variety of reasons it is something Harrison has chosen not to do.  In our experience, if you make a product that 'futzes' with your sound, then you get relegated to the pile of stuff that is sometimes useful, but often not.  We want to be in the 'always useful' category.

Thanks for the background Ben...

I vividly remember when we swapped our Series 12 analog out for the new Digital core and we had some of the most experienced engineers and mixers critically listening and no one could fault any aspect of the change over.

It is difficult for me to understand why some people want to enhance the very artefacts that most of us have spent our entire careers trying to reduce.

Constantly battling between Noise and Distortion always seeking to find Clarity and Fidelity.

A Cabinet emulation or FX / Distortion for Guitar fine... Tape Saturation all good but really .... adding noise and distortion just because the forty year old desk that has been 'sampled' has failing capacitors or dirty connectors is just crazy talk.

You listen with your ears not your eyes.

Ian,  its people like you, having your experience, that puts things down to brass tax.  There are plenty of products out on the market that will add all the distortion and tape saturation you want but Harrison shines through as standing for Clarity and Fidelity.   Keep fighting the good fight Smile
The Doctor
Getting Surgical with Audio
Reply
#8
"Some plugin developers de-cramp their equalizers to correct for naturally-occurring behaviors at lower sample rates. Harrison generally does not de-cramp our equalizers. We'll likely cover this topic in a future post, but the short answer is: if you do anything to de-cramp the EQ at low sample-rates, you're either deviating from the original circuit elements, or you are adding processing that will make a more 'digital' sounding EQ. This is a hotly-debated topic, but we’ve tried it several ways and we like our solution."

I am by no means trying to start anything here, on the contrary, I'm weary of the topic of cramping, so this paragraph concerns me that this statement may get pounced upon by 'internet'. I guess what strikes me as pounce-bait would be the possibility of reading into the above that Harrison places a higher priority for accurately modeling original circuit elements, than they do accurately modeling those original circuit elements' behavior.
That is, I can already see the youtube video titles "Harrison claims NOT cramping sounds Digital!"

I personally realize that this is not the point of what you are saying, I'm trying to help you see the third rail potential of that paragraph as I read it with the eye for potential critics' judgement.

To me it seems like one could read it as "cramping is a more accurate model of the analog circuit" and I know that's not what you mean.

edit- I should have read the post explaining the 32c eq before I got to typing! So this may be moot already.
Reply
#9
Hi Clint,

I'm still working on a blog post specifically about the cramping issue.

We pulled up all the old analog eq's this weekend and took a good look at our prior analysis and we're still very happy with what we did, all those years ago.

That said, we've come to the conclusion that it's probably easier to de-cramp some or all of our EQs than to continue debating the issue.... at least in the case where we are running at 48k or below.

Thank you very much for sharing your opinion here!

-Ben
Reply
#10
(11-03-2022, 01:22 PM)Ben@Harrison Wrote: Hi Clint,

I'm still working on a blog post specifically about the cramping issue.

We pulled up all the old analog eq's this weekend and took a good look at our prior analysis and we're still very happy with what we did, all those years ago.

That said, we've come to the conclusion that it's probably easier to de-cramp some or all of our EQs than to continue debating the issue.... at least in the case where we are running at 48k or below.

Thank you very much for sharing your opinion here!

-Ben

Thanks for the great insight, it really matters to some of us - to understand background, history, and future Smile  
de-cramped eqs? Wow, that's great news!  Looking forward to play with de-cramped version of eq! 
Btw, since i'm nowhere near expert - is cramping still relevant within a 32c DAW, or it only relates to plugin? and does the workaround (96khz project sample-rate) relates to 32c DAW as well, or is it relevant only to plugins? 
aaaand do you plan to de-cramp only 32c-channel/bus plugins, or the idea is to evaluate all eq-related plugins? (AVA/XT-ME and XT-EQ)
Thanks a lot & keep up the great work!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)