|
Post by paulnajar on Feb 11, 2022 1:27:11 GMT -6
Kind of. But I have been struggling for months to try and figure out a workflow where I can use it for summing. And the problem is that on full mix projects it forces me to make processing decisions based on where my 500 slots are located instead of based on what’s best. Does that make sense? I guess I could have just printed my fx and then summed, the thing is that I wanna be able to monitor my summing as I mix. Do you know what I’m saying, it’s tricky when there are effects that have to be taken into account. I have some summed smaller projects through it and it sounds amazing. If I had a second one it would be a whole lot easier. For sure trying to mix hybrid is more complex than ITB but the sonics is where the payoff is. I've only been mixing with my current setup for past 12 months and not all Cranbourne slots are full yet BUT all slots have some kind of colour on them either via what's in that slot or via inserts to other outboard. That said my general approach is to choose how I'm going to group my submixes and then choose which 500 channels receive each submix. So I can recall the mix 98% I calibrate the summing mixer with a 1Khz tone for each stereo pair on the Cranbournes but I do that AFTER I apply any plugins and after I drive the analog channels the desired amounts. I then set with the 1Khz tone so that each sum channel hits exactly -12dBFS on the actual mix down converter meters making sure I turn off the silver bullet and Wes Dione across my mix bus before I do. Once all of that is done I turn on the mix bus stuff again and balance up. When I finish the mix I take phone photos of everything analog and store them via that great free plugin called Snapshot right in my session in case I need to come back to it. It takes me about 20-30 minutes to recall a session for tweaking but that's better than no recall at all. Additionally I am tending to move the 500 gear around to different slots a bit so I make a note in my DAW session for each subgroup what actual analog gear was doing the processing for that group - regardless of which slot it may have been in at the time a mix was done. I still use quite few plugins before signals leave the box but a lot less than if I was mixing completely ITB. I know it's not always ideal signal flow and there are times when I wish I could add the analog processing before other plugins but I have resisted this so far to avoid extra ADDA cycles and try to think about the summing stage more for things like transformer & tube colour, sub group compression, transient saturation etc. So far so good. One other though. The summing in the Cranbornes is designed to be transparent and colourless. The RND Orbit is designed to be coloured. So designwsie they're different. With the Cranbourne the colour comes from what you have in the slots only. You could still get a lot done with only 8 channel summing via 1cranborne rack. That's how I started about 18 months ago. What a slippery slope:-) But seriously with the path I've been on I was happy that the ongoing choices were open ended so I could take my time developing a new workflow rather than have the pressure of having to make ALL the purchase decisions all at once and later discovering the solution I committed to ending up not so open ended. Kind regards
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 11, 2022 1:32:33 GMT -6
Kind of. But I have been struggling for months to try and figure out a workflow where I can use it for summing. And the problem is that on full mix projects it forces me to make processing decisions based on where my 500 slots are located instead of based on what’s best. Does that make sense? I guess I could have just printed my fx and then summed, the thing is that I wanna be able to monitor my summing as I mix. Do you know what I’m saying, it’s tricky when there are effects that have to be taken into account. I have some summed smaller projects through it and it sounds amazing. If I had a second one it would be a whole lot easier. For sure trying to mix hybrid is more complex than ITB but the sonics is where the payoff is. I've only been mixing with my current setup for past 12 months and not all Cranbourne slots are full yet BUT all slots have some kind of colour on them either via what's in that slot or via inserts to other outboard. That said my general approach is to choose how I'm going to group my submixes and then choose which 500 channels receive each submix. So I can recall the mix 98% I calibrate the summing mixer with a 1Khz tone for each stereo pair on the Cranbournes but I do that AFTER I apply any plugins and after I drive the analog channels the desired amounts. I then set with the 1Khz tone so that each sum channel hits exactly -12dBFS on the actual mix down converter meters making sure I turn off the silver bullet and Wes Dione across my mix bus before I do. Once all of that is done I turn on the mix bus stuff again and balance up. When I finish the mix I take phone photos of everything analog and store them via that great free plugin called Snapshot right in my session in case I need to come back to it. It takes me about 20-30 minutes to recall a session for tweaking but that's better than no recall at all. Additionally I am tending to move the 500 gear around to different slots a bit so I make a note in my DAW session for each subgroup what actual analog gear was doing the processing for that group - regardless of which slot it may have been in at the time a mix was done. I still use quite few plugins before signals leave the box but a lot less than if I was mixing completely ITB. I know it's not always ideal signal flow and there are times when I wish I could add the analog processing before other plugins but I have resisted this so far to avoid extra ADDA cycles and try to think about the summing stage more for things like transformer & tube colour, sub group compression, transient saturation etc. So far so good. One other though. The summing in the Cranbornes is designed to be transparent and colourless. The RND Orbit is designed to be coloured. So designwsie they're different. With the Cranbourne the colour comes from what you have in the slots only. You could still get a lot done with only 8 channel summing via 1cranborne rack. That's how I started about 18 months ago. What a slippery slope:-) But seriously with the path I've been on I was happy that the ongoing choices were open ended so I could take my time developing a new workflow rather than have the pressure of having to make ALL the purchase decisions all at once and later discovering the solution I committed to ending up not so open ended. Kind regards We're on a similar path. And if I'm not happy with the Orbit, I'm going to keep the MOTU AO partially for its extra ADAT outputs and probably add a second Cranborne and take a hack at it that way. What I would probably do is make the second one into a kind of mini console and fill it with mostly EQs. But for now, budget wise, if I don't like the Orbit I'll just buy a Cranborne, keep it mostly empty and fill it here and there. But, again, I think the Orbit is gonna be capable of "clean" when I want it. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by BenjaminAshlin on Feb 11, 2022 4:57:00 GMT -6
Here's another opinion on the RME brand from a guy who has been using MOTU 16a for years. But he is primarily a mix and mastering engineer who has a studio of analog gear. He said the reason he was moving away from MOTU was that the power converters on the 16a were failing every two to three years and he was tired of the reoccurring issue. I've not heard of this from others, so maybe he's particularly hard on them. Interesting review. Having owned a few RME interfaces over the years I never found their DA outstanding. I know the ADI-2 are a step up from their multichannel range but his opinion still surprises me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2022 8:11:39 GMT -6
Interesting review. Having owned a few RME interfaces over the years I never found their DA outstanding. I know the ADI-2 are a step up from their multichannel range but his opinion still surprises me. I had an RME UFX2 for about 2 days because I was having issues with MOTU drivers on Windows. I really wasn't keen and when I mentioned that on a forum the floodgates opened LOL. There's not wrong with RME interfaces, they're a solid choice and nowhere near a limiting factor in professional sound. Although you've got to like or even enjoy something if you're going to spend tons of hours, days, months or years with it..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2022 19:53:40 GMT -6
Here's another opinion on the RME brand from a guy who has been using MOTU 16a for years. But he is primarily a mix and mastering engineer who has a studio of analog gear. He said the reason he was moving away from MOTU was that the power converters on the 16a were failing every two to three years and he was tired of the reoccurring issue. I've not heard of this from others, so maybe he's particularly hard on them. What? The power supplies in the RMEs fail. RME just fixes their stuff and updates their drivers for decades while MOTU support gives you the runaround.
|
|
|
Post by BenjaminAshlin on Feb 11, 2022 20:05:11 GMT -6
Interesting review. Having owned a few RME interfaces over the years I never found their DA outstanding. I know the ADI-2 are a step up from their multichannel range but his opinion still surprises me. I had an RME UFX2 for about 2 days because I was having issues with MOTU drivers on Windows. I really wasn't keen and when I mentioned that on a forum the floodgates opened LOL. There's not wrong with RME interfaces, they're a solid choice and nowhere near a limiting factor in professional sound. Although you've got to like or even enjoy something if you're going to spend tons of hours, days, months or years with it.. Yes, the sound of converters is not to be discussed on the RME forum. lol
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Feb 11, 2022 22:23:52 GMT -6
Here's another opinion on the RME brand from a guy who has been using MOTU 16a for years. But he is primarily a mix and mastering engineer who has a studio of analog gear. He said the reason he was moving away from MOTU was that the power converters on the 16a were failing every two to three years and he was tired of the reoccurring issue. I've not heard of this from others, so maybe he's particularly hard on them. Interesting review. Having owned a few RME interfaces over the years I never found their DA outstanding. I know the ADI-2 are a step up from their multichannel range but his opinion still surprises me. And that guy is one of the toughest guys to please when it comes to audio gear. I've heard from several people who love the RME sound. Many who don't, but plenty who do. I don't think they'd stay around this long if they weren't liked by some pros. Maybe that unit is just a step up. RME had to switch out their ADDA due to the fire. I've heard some saying the change was welcome with the Babyface Pro FS.
|
|
|
Post by BenjaminAshlin on Feb 12, 2022 5:05:58 GMT -6
Interesting review. Having owned a few RME interfaces over the years I never found their DA outstanding. I know the ADI-2 are a step up from their multichannel range but his opinion still surprises me. And that guy is one of the toughest guys to please when it comes to audio gear. I've heard from several people who love the RME sound. Many who don't, but plenty who do. I don't think they'd stay around this long if they weren't liked by some pros. Maybe that unit is just a step up. RME had to switch out their ADDA due to the fire. I've heard some saying the change was welcome with the Babyface Pro FS. Yeah I'm aware of his channel, I find my sonic tastes differ a bit. I've used RME for years rock-solid, the ADI-2 is a step-up from their multichannel. I knew about the fire at the time RME said they had enough stock to carry on production. I didn't realize that they changed ADDAs. It might be a welcome upgrade but their analog section needs refining too. I haven't heard the motu interface, but if the DA it is similar to a symphony then that would be interesting. I do have a soft spot for Apogee DA.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Feb 12, 2022 5:52:01 GMT -6
I’ll admit to not really understanding your set up:), it it seems to me, you have an Apollo, but are essentially building a system that, other than conversion , makes the Apollo redundant, but you are critical of the Apollo design (limitations?).
If you don’t track with UA plugs and have other UA dsp for mixing, why not just ditch the Apollo and buy an interface that really just does conversion and allows for whatever I/o you want your system to have ?
There is a used Aurora N 16 on gs now for around $2500, a symphony mkii would be great or always motu.
Is a new interface the simple solution , but you just have to choose?
|
|
|
Post by svart on Feb 12, 2022 9:13:42 GMT -6
Just an opinion on hybrid..
I did it for years. Then I went all ITB for mixing.
I'm now doing the best work of my life.
I used to firmly believe analog was superior so I never really tried full ITB, but now I know it was all *me* that made the difference. I don't think it was going ITB that was the game changer, it was just getting a self imposed limitation out of my way.
Don't let a single mindset determine your path.
|
|
|
Post by octalsocket on Feb 12, 2022 10:40:48 GMT -6
That guy that has had the PSU go on his numerous Motu 16a should have his power checked.
Mine has been on nearly constantly for 7 years now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2022 11:12:17 GMT -6
Just an opinion on hybrid.. I did it for years. Then I went all ITB for mixing. I'm now doing the best work of my life. I used to firmly believe analog was superior so I never really tried full ITB, but now I know it was all *me* that made the difference. I don't think it was going ITB that was the game changer, it was just getting a self imposed limitation out of my way. Don't let a single mindset determine your path. It really depends on what you're looking for, ITB or OTB doesn't determine a bad or good mix but there are differences for sure. That's coming from someone whose worked ITB for a quite a while and recently decided to go hybrid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2022 12:47:22 GMT -6
That guy that has had the PSU go on his numerous Motu 16a should have his power checked. Mine has been on nearly constantly for 7 years now. It's not his power. MOTU use Jamicons in the PSUs. You're just lucky. RME uses fucking lelons in the Firefaces. Some of the Focusrite rednet power supplies are so frickin cheap. Meanwhile the Dangerous Music and Daking bricks are great.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2022 13:15:05 GMT -6
That guy that has had the PSU go on his numerous Motu 16a should have his power checked. Mine has been on nearly constantly for 7 years now. It's not his power. MOTU use Jamicons in the PSUs. You're just lucky. RME uses fucking lelons in the Firefaces. Some of the Focusrite rednet power supplies are so frickin cheap. Meanwhile the Dangerous Music and Daking bricks are great. There's a lot of lucky people out there then..
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 12, 2022 17:11:15 GMT -6
I’ll admit to not really understanding your set up:), it it seems to me, you have an Apollo, but are essentially building a system that, other than conversion , makes the Apollo redundant, but you are critical of the Apollo design (limitations?). If you don’t track with UA plugs and have other UA dsp for mixing, why not just ditch the Apollo and buy an interface that really just does conversion and allows for whatever I/o you want your system to have ? There is a used Aurora N 16 on gs now for around $2500, a symphony mkii would be great or always motu. Is a new interface the simple solution , but you just have to choose? Oh, this might might have been buried in the novels I wrote early in the thread. I'm selling the Apollo units to fund this. Otherwise, yeah, totally redundant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2022 17:33:04 GMT -6
Just an opinion on hybrid.. I did it for years. Then I went all ITB for mixing. I'm now doing the best work of my life. I used to firmly believe analog was superior so I never really tried full ITB, but now I know it was all *me* that made the difference. I don't think it was going ITB that was the game changer, it was just getting a self imposed limitation out of my way. Don't let a single mindset determine your path. The only thing is there are many more analog compressors that are effective dynamic control systems than digital. Especially from newer gear. Like for FET comps, Molot behaves closest but the sound is totally different than a clean Daking or whatever. It’s distortion models one brand of Russian hardware, zvukofor. Meanwhile there are dozens of awesome fet comps from the late 60s onward that all can sound very unique with their own distortion and filters. Kush hardware kicks the hell out of Kush plugs
|
|
|
Post by svart on Feb 12, 2022 18:06:15 GMT -6
Just an opinion on hybrid.. I did it for years. Then I went all ITB for mixing. I'm now doing the best work of my life. I used to firmly believe analog was superior so I never really tried full ITB, but now I know it was all *me* that made the difference. I don't think it was going ITB that was the game changer, it was just getting a self imposed limitation out of my way. Don't let a single mindset determine your path. The only thing is there are many more analog compressors that are effective dynamic control systems than digital. Especially from newer gear. Like for FET comps, Molot behaves closest but the sound is totally different than a clean Daking or whatever. It’s distortion models one brand of Russian hardware, zvukofor. Meanwhile there are dozens of awesome fet comps from the late 60s onward that all can sound very unique with their own distortion and filters. Kush hardware kicks the hell out of Kush plugs The thing is that it's all relative. I no longer use compressors just to reduce dynamics. I use them for vibe. To gel. To create dynamics. Sometimes just distortion. In any case, fidelity is also relative. I lost my desire for super clean a long time ago. I also lost my desire for chasing tone a while back too. Watch the pros. They just do. Very few of them sit there and critique the 2% difference in a plug to the hardware. They use one or the other and it's usually based on workflow, not fidelity. I'm finding that's my calling as well. I don't even shoot out plugs to each other. I just put it on a track and go. In the mix it rarely matters. It really doesn't. I'm much happier this way and my work keeps getting better and better because I focus on what gets me to my goal, and it isn't sweating small details.
|
|
|
Post by BenjaminAshlin on Feb 12, 2022 18:13:26 GMT -6
That guy that has had the PSU go on his numerous Motu 16a should have his power checked. Mine has been on nearly constantly for 7 years now. It's not his power. MOTU use Jamicons in the PSUs. You're just lucky. RME uses fucking lelons in the Firefaces. Some of the Focusrite rednet power supplies are so frickin cheap. Meanwhile the Dangerous Music and Daking bricks are great. Jamicons are fine as long as they aren't operating near their thermal limit. Lelon are less than awesome but RME don't have that many PSU failures (+ you can by a replacement for about $80).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2022 3:00:54 GMT -6
Watch the pros. They just do. Very few of them sit there and critique the 2% difference in a plug to the hardware. They use one or the other and it's usually based on workflow, not fidelity. I'm finding that's my calling as well. I don't even shoot out plugs to each other. I just put it on a track and go. In the mix it rarely matters. It really doesn't. I'm much happier this way and my work keeps getting better and better because I focus on what gets me to my goal, and it isn't sweating small details. I said the same thing in a roundabout way. However I just can't agree with your HW stance and I'm not in the analog superiority for the sake of it camp either. Why someone would take on the expense of HW without a semi-logical and / or effective reason is beyond me. I could certainly do without the overhead cost of HW, but.. 2% differences is just as arbitrary as Brian Lucey's 93% and IME some plugins sound absolutely nothing like the original HW. Then again I could say the same thing about a few HW clones so this isn't just a software problem. Speaking of "original" HW, most of the stuff I've bought hasn't even been modelled. I'm quite a fan of modern takes on HW from the likes of RND, Better maker, Chandler, Manley, IGS etc. the only classics I'm interested in is the LA-2A (or variant of). When it comes to the "pro's" you have no idea what they're actually doing and semantics has a part to play here. If I track through a Shelford Channel / 2A then I often don't need to do much ITB, all the heavy lifting in terms of primary sonic shaping has been taken care of. Then it's just a matter of panning, volume, surgical EQ, slight amounts of parallel comp, a dab of effects and general touch up's or polishing. Although the Shelford's mark on the process is classed as "tracking" not mixing, due to some language definitions I could use a ton of HW processing during the recording stage and state than I'm "mixing ITB". Finally I'm sure some of the nuances get lost in translation when the final mix is finished but your opinion vs. mine is completely dependant on preference. I've yet to hear a finished mix from you (for various reasons) and you might dislike my mixes and / or vice versa.. Your processes might be the exact opposite of what I look for in a finished track and again vice versa. I'm glad you've found your stride but after a while it does come across like "you're a tool bag for buying HW".. Look I ain't precious about purchases and I'm certainly not against plugins (quite impressed with Logic stock TBH) but I do at least try to understand two sides of a coin. There were reasons for me to buy select pieces and reasons for returning some HW. A few select pieces didn't offer enough over a plug to justify its expense whilst others did.. Although blanket statements covering the entirety of audio in such a subjective medium never works.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Feb 13, 2022 9:02:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by svart on Feb 14, 2022 9:39:24 GMT -6
Watch the pros. They just do. Very few of them sit there and critique the 2% difference in a plug to the hardware. They use one or the other and it's usually based on workflow, not fidelity. I'm finding that's my calling as well. I don't even shoot out plugs to each other. I just put it on a track and go. In the mix it rarely matters. It really doesn't. I'm much happier this way and my work keeps getting better and better because I focus on what gets me to my goal, and it isn't sweating small details. I said the same thing in a roundabout way. However I just can't agree with your HW stance and I'm not in the analog superiority for the sake of it camp either. Why someone would take on the expense of HW without a semi-logical and / or effective reason is beyond me. I could certainly do without the overhead cost of HW, but.. 2% differences is just as arbitrary as Brian Lucey's 93% and IME some plugins sound absolutely nothing like the original HW. Then again I could say the same thing about a few HW clones so this isn't just a software problem. Speaking of "original" HW, most of the stuff I've bought hasn't even been modelled. I'm quite a fan of modern takes on HW from the likes of RND, Better maker, Chandler, Manley, IGS etc. the only classics I'm interested in is the LA-2A (or variant of). When it comes to the "pro's" you have no idea what they're actually doing and semantics has a part to play here. If I track through a Shelford Channel / 2A then I often don't need to do much ITB, all the heavy lifting in terms of primary sonic shaping has been taken care of. Then it's just a matter of panning, volume, surgical EQ, slight amounts of parallel comp, a dab of effects and general touch up's or polishing. Although the Shelford's mark on the process is classed as "tracking" not mixing, due to some language definitions I could use a ton of HW processing during the recording stage and state than I'm "mixing ITB". Finally I'm sure some of the nuances get lost in translation when the final mix is finished but your opinion vs. mine is completely dependant on preference. I've yet to hear a finished mix from you (for various reasons) and you might dislike my mixes and / or vice versa.. Your processes might be the exact opposite of what I look for in a finished track and again vice versa. I'm glad you've found your stride but after a while it does come across like "you're a tool bag for buying HW".. Look I ain't precious about purchases and I'm certainly not against plugins (quite impressed with Logic stock TBH) but I do at least try to understand two sides of a coin. There were reasons for me to buy select pieces and reasons for returning some HW. A few select pieces didn't offer enough over a plug to justify its expense whilst others did.. Although blanket statements covering the entirety of audio in such a subjective medium never works. Well for one, I took on tens of thousands of $$ for HW expense because I believed it to be better. Everyone from The Pros down to Armchair Joe at GS and GDIY screamed it. Being an electrical engineer as well as an audio engineer, it spoke to both parts of my life and I can only say that confirmation bias is a hell of a drug! And as for the "Pros" and semantics, I have watched enough videos to know that it's not in what they say, it's in what they don't say. Don't watch the promo videos, watch their work videos. You'll see that there's a lot more "do as I say, not as I do" type of stuff going on. But as I was saying, I don't really compare the plugin emulations to the real things. I have a rack of 1176 with every revision from A to G, but I've never once compared them to the Waves version. Why? Because the plug sounds fine and gives me the 1176 "vibe" that I want when I choose it. The thing I don't miss is having to patch them, repatch them, clean the connector because it's noisy, etc. And I don't know where you possibly got the "toolbag" thing from. I've neither thought that or insinuated that at any point. I think folks around here that know me would agree that if I thought that, I don't have much problem saying it out loud. I simply see an opportunity to offer an alternate view in a thread full of opinions. I was hardware centric hybrid for 20+ years. I built hardware. I designed hardware. I pontificated it's virtues daily at GS, GDIY and here. I also found out that a lot of what I said as fact was flat wrong. I made judgements on things that were mostly confirmation bias. It just took me a while to realize that I wanted this stuff to be more complicated than it is because it made me feel smarter than the next guy. Knowing all the ins-and-outs of why something should be superior at some academic level made me feel like a Pro. My mixes on the other hand were anything but. I've told the story many times on here. I spent years upgrading hardware, buying/selling, trying the new hotness, etc. None of it ever got me where I felt I should be. I watched my local peers surpass me daily. One day as I'm patching up my hardware to recall a session I decide not to use the HW 1176 and instead use the plugin. I didn't even hear a difference. I took a copy of the session and then dropped in plugs instead of any hardware and the mix sounded almost identical. I had a great epiphany at that moment that I had been blaming the hardware for "not being good enough" for years. And I've since heard what's apparently an old cliche' of "a bad carpenter blames his tools for his mistakes" and it was me. Every mod I made was blameshifting my inadequacy to my tools. The knowledge about some super OPamp that I installed no longer provided that ego boost. Knowing that some type of dither that some program uses was supposed to be better on paper no longer clouded my choices. I think it may have been a mix engineer that I respect and was watching online once who said it best. He said something to the gist of "I have like 10 different 1176 plugins, but I can't hear the difference. I just pick the first one and move on". This was such a simple comment but it was incredibly profound to me that I couldn't work that day. But I've always said, use what works best for you. Just don't let it control how you work or the choices you make because you'll spin your wheels just like I did.
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 14, 2022 11:01:48 GMT -6
I said the same thing in a roundabout way. However I just can't agree with your HW stance and I'm not in the analog superiority for the sake of it camp either. Why someone would take on the expense of HW without a semi-logical and / or effective reason is beyond me. I could certainly do without the overhead cost of HW, but.. 2% differences is just as arbitrary as Brian Lucey's 93% and IME some plugins sound absolutely nothing like the original HW. Then again I could say the same thing about a few HW clones so this isn't just a software problem. Speaking of "original" HW, most of the stuff I've bought hasn't even been modelled. I'm quite a fan of modern takes on HW from the likes of RND, Better maker, Chandler, Manley, IGS etc. the only classics I'm interested in is the LA-2A (or variant of). When it comes to the "pro's" you have no idea what they're actually doing and semantics has a part to play here. If I track through a Shelford Channel / 2A then I often don't need to do much ITB, all the heavy lifting in terms of primary sonic shaping has been taken care of. Then it's just a matter of panning, volume, surgical EQ, slight amounts of parallel comp, a dab of effects and general touch up's or polishing. Although the Shelford's mark on the process is classed as "tracking" not mixing, due to some language definitions I could use a ton of HW processing during the recording stage and state than I'm "mixing ITB". Finally I'm sure some of the nuances get lost in translation when the final mix is finished but your opinion vs. mine is completely dependant on preference. I've yet to hear a finished mix from you (for various reasons) and you might dislike my mixes and / or vice versa.. Your processes might be the exact opposite of what I look for in a finished track and again vice versa. I'm glad you've found your stride but after a while it does come across like "you're a tool bag for buying HW".. Look I ain't precious about purchases and I'm certainly not against plugins (quite impressed with Logic stock TBH) but I do at least try to understand two sides of a coin. There were reasons for me to buy select pieces and reasons for returning some HW. A few select pieces didn't offer enough over a plug to justify its expense whilst others did.. Although blanket statements covering the entirety of audio in such a subjective medium never works. Well for one, I took on tens of thousands of $$ for HW expense because I believed it to be better. Everyone from The Pros down to Armchair Joe at GS and GDIY screamed it. Being an electrical engineer as well as an audio engineer, it spoke to both parts of my life and I can only say that confirmation bias is a hell of a drug! And as for the "Pros" and semantics, I have watched enough videos to know that it's not in what they say, it's in what they don't say. Don't watch the promo videos, watch their work videos. You'll see that there's a lot more "do as I say, not as I do" type of stuff going on. But as I was saying, I don't really compare the plugin emulations to the real things. I have a rack of 1176 with every revision from A to G, but I've never once compared them to the Waves version. Why? Because the plug sounds fine and gives me the 1176 "vibe" that I want when I choose it. The thing I don't miss is having to patch them, repatch them, clean the connector because it's noisy, etc. And I don't know where you possibly got the "toolbag" thing from. I've neither thought that or insinuated that at any point. I think folks around here that know me would agree that if I thought that, I don't have much problem saying it out loud. I simply see an opportunity to offer an alternate view in a thread full of opinions. I was hardware centric hybrid for 20+ years. I built hardware. I designed hardware. I pontificated it's virtues daily at GS, GDIY and here. I also found out that a lot of what I said as fact was flat wrong. I made judgements on things that were mostly confirmation bias. It just took me a while to realize that I wanted this stuff to be more complicated than it is because it made me feel smarter than the next guy. Knowing all the ins-and-outs of why something should be superior at some academic level made me feel like a Pro. My mixes on the other hand were anything but. I've told the story many times on here. I spent years upgrading hardware, buying/selling, trying the new hotness, etc. None of it ever got me where I felt I should be. I watched my local peers surpass me daily. One day as I'm patching up my hardware to recall a session I decide not to use the HW 1176 and instead use the plugin. I didn't even hear a difference. I took a copy of the session and then dropped in plugs instead of any hardware and the mix sounded almost identical. I had a great epiphany at that moment that I had been blaming the hardware for "not being good enough" for years. And I've since heard what's apparently an old cliche' of "a bad carpenter blames his tools for his mistakes" and it was me. Every mod I made was blameshifting my inadequacy to my tools. The knowledge about some super OPamp that I installed no longer provided that ego boost. Knowing that some type of dither that some program uses was supposed to be better on paper no longer clouded my choices. I think it may have been a mix engineer that I respect and was watching online once who said it best. He said something to the gist of "I have like 10 different 1176 plugins, but I can't hear the difference. I just pick the first one and move on". This was such a simple comment but it was incredibly profound to me that I couldn't work that day. But I've always said, use what works best for you. Just don't let it control how you work or the choices you make because you'll spin your wheels just like I did. I definitely appreciate both sides of this age old debate. And maybe as a recent convert to hybrid I'll recant and go back to ITB-land where I lived happily for a long time. For me it has more to do with really liking the workflow of hardware and thriving under some the limitations it provides. Frankly, if it wasn't such a sound compromise I'd do everything on my Tascam 246. I really think I play better on my own stuff doing that. Again, because of limitations. Some people don't struggle with "menu paralysis", I am definitely not one of those "some people". That's me in real life and its me in Audio Engineering world too. I just do better when I have fewer choices and fewer chances to tweak. Anyone who reads my posts probably wouldn't be surprised to hear that. Anyone who knows me personally would DEFINITELY not be surprised. I just lack the discipline to "make a decision and go with it" so I have to find ways to force myself to commit. In audio, hybrid does that for me.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Feb 14, 2022 18:55:24 GMT -6
I said the same thing in a roundabout way. However I just can't agree with your HW stance and I'm not in the analog superiority for the sake of it camp either. Why someone would take on the expense of HW without a semi-logical and / or effective reason is beyond me. I could certainly do without the overhead cost of HW, but.. 2% differences is just as arbitrary as Brian Lucey's 93% and IME some plugins sound absolutely nothing like the original HW. Then again I could say the same thing about a few HW clones so this isn't just a software problem. Speaking of "original" HW, most of the stuff I've bought hasn't even been modelled. I'm quite a fan of modern takes on HW from the likes of RND, Better maker, Chandler, Manley, IGS etc. the only classics I'm interested in is the LA-2A (or variant of). When it comes to the "pro's" you have no idea what they're actually doing and semantics has a part to play here. If I track through a Shelford Channel / 2A then I often don't need to do much ITB, all the heavy lifting in terms of primary sonic shaping has been taken care of. Then it's just a matter of panning, volume, surgical EQ, slight amounts of parallel comp, a dab of effects and general touch up's or polishing. Although the Shelford's mark on the process is classed as "tracking" not mixing, due to some language definitions I could use a ton of HW processing during the recording stage and state than I'm "mixing ITB". Finally I'm sure some of the nuances get lost in translation when the final mix is finished but your opinion vs. mine is completely dependant on preference. I've yet to hear a finished mix from you (for various reasons) and you might dislike my mixes and / or vice versa.. Your processes might be the exact opposite of what I look for in a finished track and again vice versa. I'm glad you've found your stride but after a while it does come across like "you're a tool bag for buying HW".. Look I ain't precious about purchases and I'm certainly not against plugins (quite impressed with Logic stock TBH) but I do at least try to understand two sides of a coin. There were reasons for me to buy select pieces and reasons for returning some HW. A few select pieces didn't offer enough over a plug to justify its expense whilst others did.. Although blanket statements covering the entirety of audio in such a subjective medium never works. Well for one, I took on tens of thousands of $$ for HW expense because I believed it to be better. Everyone from The Pros down to Armchair Joe at GS and GDIY screamed it. Being an electrical engineer as well as an audio engineer, it spoke to both parts of my life and I can only say that confirmation bias is a hell of a drug! And as for the "Pros" and semantics, I have watched enough videos to know that it's not in what they say, it's in what they don't say. Don't watch the promo videos, watch their work videos. You'll see that there's a lot more "do as I say, not as I do" type of stuff going on. But as I was saying, I don't really compare the plugin emulations to the real things. I have a rack of 1176 with every revision from A to G, but I've never once compared them to the Waves version. Why? Because the plug sounds fine and gives me the 1176 "vibe" that I want when I choose it. The thing I don't miss is having to patch them, repatch them, clean the connector because it's noisy, etc. And I don't know where you possibly got the "toolbag" thing from. I've neither thought that or insinuated that at any point. I think folks around here that know me would agree that if I thought that, I don't have much problem saying it out loud. I simply see an opportunity to offer an alternate view in a thread full of opinions. I was hardware centric hybrid for 20+ years. I built hardware. I designed hardware. I pontificated it's virtues daily at GS, GDIY and here. I also found out that a lot of what I said as fact was flat wrong. I made judgements on things that were mostly confirmation bias. It just took me a while to realize that I wanted this stuff to be more complicated than it is because it made me feel smarter than the next guy. Knowing all the ins-and-outs of why something should be superior at some academic level made me feel like a Pro. My mixes on the other hand were anything but. I've told the story many times on here. I spent years upgrading hardware, buying/selling, trying the new hotness, etc. None of it ever got me where I felt I should be. I watched my local peers surpass me daily. One day as I'm patching up my hardware to recall a session I decide not to use the HW 1176 and instead use the plugin. I didn't even hear a difference. I took a copy of the session and then dropped in plugs instead of any hardware and the mix sounded almost identical. I had a great epiphany at that moment that I had been blaming the hardware for "not being good enough" for years. And I've since heard what's apparently an old cliche' of "a bad carpenter blames his tools for his mistakes" and it was me. Every mod I made was blameshifting my inadequacy to my tools. The knowledge about some super OPamp that I installed no longer provided that ego boost. Knowing that some type of dither that some program uses was supposed to be better on paper no longer clouded my choices. I think it may have been a mix engineer that I respect and was watching online once who said it best. He said something to the gist of "I have like 10 different 1176 plugins, but I can't hear the difference. I just pick the first one and move on". This was such a simple comment but it was incredibly profound to me that I couldn't work that day. But I've always said, use what works best for you. Just don't let it control how you work or the choices you make because you'll spin your wheels just like I did. I want to commend you on your honesty and humbleness on this post Cris... We trod a similar path cheers Wiz
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Feb 14, 2022 21:58:21 GMT -6
Everyone's ears hear a little differently. In the 90's I beta tested cables for high end companies as a hobby. It seems I have an ear for subtleties. I've tried a whole bunch of plug-ins emulating 1176's, Pultec's, etc. Not once did the plug-in give me the effect the hardware did. I preferred the hardware, but at that time, kept it bone simple, tracked with hardware, mixed ITB.
I had to sell all my outboard and some great guitars a few years ago. So now, other than my preamps, I'm all ITB. I hope to add some flavors I like and get a few hardware pieces again. When I use plugs, I use them as they are and don't bother thinking about the hardware they emulate. I either like them or I don't. I "NEED" the UAD Ocean Way and ATR-102, I use the LA2A a little, like the EMT-140 a lot, but don't need it too often, and that's mostly it, with an occasional 1176 instance. I sometime print a pinch of LA2A, but mostly don't print with plugs and have no interest in Luna as it is now.
So getting back to the tread topic, I could easily dump the Apollo and use a satellite, but if a satellite is $1,000 it makes little sense to sell my X6. If an Octo was say $600, then it would make sense for me.
* I just checked and see Apollo's have gone up in price. So.. maybe I could get $2,000 for mine with no extra plug-ins? Still, I'd want an Octo, so I'd only gain maybe $1,100 toward a new interface. A Lynx Aurora sells for around $3,500 to $4,300 for 8 or 16 channels.
So.. let's say I'd need to add $2,500 to the $2,000 I'd get from selling the Apollo to have a better sounding interface, that leaves me with the issue of why not keep the X6, forget about converters for now, and just buy a Dangerous Music 2 Bus + for some analogue mojo down the road a piece.
That would still leave me with the Apollo's converters though, right, ugh.. I just need a wad of money, that would make this a lot easier.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 14, 2022 22:16:16 GMT -6
I’ve been seriously thinking about going old PTHD 192 now that they are cheap.
Dumb idea?
|
|