The epic debate between fans of digital audio plugins and aficionados of physical analog gear spilled onto the internet in the early 2000s. Heated discussions became widespread, and this musical "holy war" rages on to this day.
Virtual Studio Technology (VST), meanwhile, was developed by Steinberg back in 1996. By the early 2000s, version 2.0 existed, and by 2006, with version 2.4, support for 64-bit formats had been added. Digital recording and music production were rapidly migrating to digital workstations (DAWs), and, believe it or not, people had opinions about this.
Over the years, opponents of audio plugins have leveled several key criticisms against them:
Even in the mid-2020s, audiophiles remain convinced that digital recording is inherently "dead," unnatural, and lacking depth.
We’re of the opinion, however, that such beliefs stem from subjectivity, and that the arguments put forth by proponents of physical gear have largely lost their validity over the past decade.
When it comes to putting this argument to rest, one thing we can do is look towards science.
Double-blind audio experiments are a type of scientific study that ensures that not only do participants not know which mixes they're hearing (digital or analog), but even the researchers themselves remain unaware until the experiment concludes. This is a precaution to prevent experimenters from unintentionally influencing the participants' perceptions.
Now, generally speaking, scientists don't often delve into issues like the objectivity and validity of the "digital vs. analog" debate—perhaps because they don't consider it a serious enough topic. And, in fairness, it’s not quite at the level of curing cancer. Nevertheless, one such study was conducted as far back as 2000. It involved student musicians listening to both digital and analog recordings of the same live concert.
The experiment was double-blind, and participants could switch between different versions of the recordings. You might be thinking, “Oh, they probably rated them fairly evenly.” Well, here's the twist:
Remember, this was the year 2000. Digital recording was still in a relatively early stage of development. And yet the results were impressively in its favor. Back then, it was common to criticize CD audio. The quality of CDs, it was argued, couldn't compare to the sound of albums and singles pressed on vinyl. Even today, this view has plenty of supporters.
Well, science has an answer for that too. In 2007, the Audio Engineering Society journal, founded in the US in 1948, published the results of another experiment. These findings disproved the myth that the human ear can detect differences in CD-quality digital-to-analog conversion (16-bit, 44.1 kHz). It's worth noting that even today, many believe that the CD audio format has too narrow a bandwidth for audio signals and that recordings should be made with greater bit-depth and higher sampling rates.
The experiment also employed a double-blind method. Participants included professional sound engineers(!), university students studying audio engineering, and dedicated audiophiles.
They were given recordings in more advanced formats alongside CD-quality recordings for comparison. The playback was done using multiple sound systems, including expensive professional monitors and even high-end equipment featuring electrostatic speakers, other costly components, and audiophile cables.
Finally, in 2019, another small experiment was conducted on the contentious topic of "digital vs. analog." Only 19 subjects participated, making it a small sample size, but the study followed all the rules, and its report was also published in the Audio Engineering Society journal.
In this case, trained listeners aged 17 to 37 were played various mixes of eight pop tracks. Each track had versions created either entirely on analog equipment or solely within a digital environment using plugins.
The researchers did observe that older participants tended slightly more towards preferring analog mixes. However, the experimenters characterized this tendency as "small."
The outcomes of these experiments aren't surprising. When the joint engineering team from Sony and Philips proposed the CD audio standard in 1980, they took into account the actual capabilities of human hearing while also increasing the dynamic range of recordings compared to studio tape machines and vinyl records.
Incidentally, sound engineers attempted to gauge the relative "bit depth" of a well-calibrated studio tape machine based on its dynamic range capability. It's important to understand that assessing "bit depth" is purely theoretical when applied to analog equipment. Nonetheless, it turned out that tape machines typically deliver a range equivalent to about 14 bits at best, though more commonly it's closer to 12-13 bits.
Magnetic tape is thought to effectively capture low-level noise (though whether that's necessary in music is questionable) and soft sounds (due to its gentle compression characteristics). However, many experts believe that even the CD format more accurately reproduces the spectral composition of recordings in the high-frequency range compared to tape. Needless to say, formats with higher sampling rates and bit depths perform even better.
Before digital workstations entered the music production market, the lives of independent musicians were often marked by hardship and financial struggles, as breaking into the music industry was extremely expensive. As recently as the 1990s, young artists had to buy musical instruments and equipment from flea markets and second-hand stores. They would repair old and broken amplifiers, often without an adequate set of skills.
A simple classic guitar combo amp like a Marshall was considered a luxury for many. A physical synthesizer, even a digital one, cost upwards of $1,500 if you were lucky. Vocal processors, drum machines, reverb units… outfitting a modest post-punk band in the '90s required a small fortune!
The digital recording revolution significantly reduced the cost of entry into the music industry for aspiring artists. Additionally, it sparked a boom in electronic music genres, including EDM. Today, some people still speak derisively of "bedroom producers." Meanwhile, numerous hits have emerged from bedrooms over the last 20 years.
Until you're established, people might see you as a dreamer or even a crazy person. You may find yourself working long hours at minimum wage just to make ends meet, even with a degree from a music college. Music becomes something you pursue only in your spare time— nights and weekends.
Against this socio-economic backdrop, which is even worse for musicians in developing countries, it's crucial to have a rational, objective understanding of how effective affordable digital equipment (like budget-friendly audio interfaces) and software can be.
Audiophiles, with their myths about Great Analog, can genuinely hinder the development of emerging musicians and undermine their hope, which is vital to keep them going in the early stages.
Meanwhile, the current state of digital recording and music production technology has reached a phase where the "digital vs. analog" debate has become meaningless. Young artists really don’t need to worry anymore that "cheap software" might sound inferior to "proper equipment."
Today's supposedly "cheap-sounding" (note: this isn't true!) digital technologies give young artists the opportunity to create decent demos, and even finished products under very modest conditions.
Let's look again at rational evidence on the matter.
You shouldn't blindly trust internet forums, musical myths, or even the opinions of esteemed music producers and artists. Not that they’re all wrong, or even mostly wrong, but you can find opposing opinions on everything. In this ever-changing world, only science consistently and persistently provides empirical evidence for its discoveries and theories.
There’s a genre of research in the scientific community known as “review” or “meta-analysis.” This involves a group of scientists gathering all available peer-reviewed literature on a particular topic, summarizing the findings of other researchers, and drawing conclusions.
One significant scientific source regarding the performance of digital devices, and subsequently plugins, pertains to the most frequently used method of audio signal processing: equalization.
This comprehensive review, titled "All About Audio Equalization: Solutions and Frontiers," published in Applied Sciences, demonstrates that modern digital computer solutions can achieve results comparable to analog equipment, especially in the context of audio content and music production. Here is a direct quote:
“Although low-order parametric and graphic equalizers are well-established, variations and extensions of these designs, like high-order parametric equalizers or convolution-based graphic equalizers, offer nearly unlimited potential to shape the spectral content of a signal. These design options enable users or designers to prioritize precise control, low computational costs, and/or minimal latency.”
By "convolution," they’re referring to one variant of the Fast Fourier Transform, which is extensively utilized by developers of contemporary equalization plugins.
In this section, we'll discuss technical aspects of digital recording in simplified terms—since we're addressing fellow musicians here rather than engineers. We know that the maximum frequency a healthy, young human can hear is 20 kilohertz. So why does the CD audio format use a sampling rate of 44.1 kilohertz? What's the point?
According to the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem, the sampling rate during digital recording must be at least twice the highest audible frequency (or the cutoff frequency of the audio signal). Otherwise, an unpleasant form of audio distortion called aliasing occurs. Visually, aliasing creates a moiré effect, while in audio, it manifests as an annoying noise or frequency substitution, leading to masking of frequencies in the mix.
At one time, audiophiles' criticism of audio plugins was justified. Many of them, particularly saturation plugins, add additional harmonics to the sound (which sound engineers and producers aim for). Some of these harmonics, however, essentially constitute ultrasound, being significantly above the audible limit of 20 kilohertz.
The nature of digital recording and processing is such that these ultrasonic harmonics (which are theoretically inaudible) seem to "bounce off" the ceiling of the sampling rate. These reflections then seep into the audible sound, introducing chaos (aliasing).
Indeed, plugins that simulate analog audio equipment operate more predictably and cleanly than the actual hardware. This is especially true when they emulate nonlinear distortions like those produced by guitar pedals and amps, tube preamps, console transistors, and magnetic tape.
Audiophiles argue that analog devices impart a uniquely warm character to sound distortions due to their inherent imperfections, suggesting that this cannot be replicated in a digital environment.
While this argument seems convincing, we know from double-blind studies that people cannot discern any difference between digital and analog sound. They're simply biologically incapable of doing so.
It’s a weak argument, especially considering that modern plugin developers have successfully mastered modeling analog circuitry.
If the human ear fundamentally cannot tell the difference between digital and analog-processed audio, how can it possibly perceive that a modeling plugin is "too perfect" in imitating a specific piece of hardware, which naturally exhibits minor deviations?
Moreover, the fact that modeling in audio plugins is "too perfect" is actually an advantage for many music producers and sound engineers. Because, in practical work, we expect plugins to behave predictably, rather than surprise us every time we launch a project in our DAW, regardless of how good they occasionally sound.
And that’s what we mean when we say the epic debate of "plugins vs. analog gear" has lost all meaning and should come to an end.
We get it. Don’t misunderstand us. We know that what drives lovers of physical musical equipment is a sincere and passionate devotion to the craft. A love for the studio environment, for each knob, fader, and button, for the barely perceptible hum of transformers, and similar details.
It just seems that those driven by this feeling could express it more openly and honestly, without retreating to pseudo-rational arguments. After all, people who prefer plugins can certainly appreciate a deep affection for gear. Some of them might even share it!
