|
|
Post by mrholmes on Dec 5, 2017 10:01:17 GMT -6
I want even more Hardware more I/Os more fucking real gear.
Just for fun I am still doing that punk rock song to make a totally diffrent expereince in mixing an producing.
Punck rock is not my thing - normaly.
I believe in leaving my conrer to get better and better.
The diffrence between HW and SW seems to be extremly showy if I do something like rock or punk rock alike.
I had big time trouble getting the snare to sound hard compressed but still wide and open in the background of the room.
For fun I first used plug ins and puked off several times, never sounded right - wasted live time.
Switched on the hardware compressor, little bit of re-leveling on the mixer some verb, some delay DONE.
Time it took me was 5 minutes.
Special the feeling that its 3 D in the background is totally gone with plug ins.
More REAL GEAR PLEASE.
Its fun and easier to do....
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Dec 5, 2017 10:39:53 GMT -6
I hear you:): that’s what I did over last year, sold all my ua stuff, bought delta 16/4/2 board for the 4 band eq and insert, bought 9 channels of comp and 16 channels of conversion , electra eq
I’m no pro but real gear has another quality to it !
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 5, 2017 11:05:34 GMT -6
I want even more Hardware more I/Os more fucking real gear. More REAL GEAR PLEASE. Its fun and easier to do.... Um, YEAH!!!!!  96 i/o here. And it's filled already. I swear though, I'm not going any further..... probably.... |
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 5, 2017 11:36:43 GMT -6
I dunno.
Course I love to track with lots of hardware and think mic and source selection is really the most important thing of all by far.
But I think hardware informs how to use the good software and vice versa. So you know what kind of parallel compression you want and you know you like 1176 style for this or a pultec curve on kick or a 550a one on guitar and so on.
Don't get me wrong, I still use hardware on buses and totally on vocal and as I said I use a lot of it tracking and think this whole mike modeling and unison shit is a bunch of baloney.
One big thing is you don't want to lose the overall view of the mix and be able to adjust things. If you spend time bouncing everything through a few hardware pieces this can happen. So it's a fine line between committing and misjudging because you can't process things as a whole because you don't have enough hardware or enough of the hardware you want, only 1 of them.
Personally for certain things I will take UAD SSL or 560 emulations over many outboard eqs, including those I own. It's all about application.
But tons of records being done now with hybrid or even ITB approach. Some are distorted and compressed to shit and some very open with big soundstage, but I don't think it's so much about hardware vs software. I think it's more about the aesthetics of the capture and miking than anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Dec 5, 2017 16:48:47 GMT -6
I dunno. Course I love to track with lots of hardware and think mic and source selection is really the most important thing of all by far. But I think hardware informs how to use the good software and vice versa. So you know what kind of parallel compression you want and you know you like 1176 style for this or a pultec curve on kick or a 550a one on guitar and so on. Don't get me wrong, I still use hardware on buses and totally on vocal and as I said I use a lot of it tracking and think this whole mike modeling and unison shit is a bunch of baloney. One big thing is you don't want to lose the overall view of the mix and be able to adjust things. If you spend time bouncing everything through a few hardware pieces this can happen. So it's a fine line between committing and misjudging because you can't process things as a whole because you don't have enough hardware or enough of the hardware you want, only 1 of them. Personally for certain things I will take UAD SSL or 560 emulations over many outboard eqs, including those I own. It's all about application. But tons of records being done now with hybrid or even ITB approach. Some are distorted and compressed to shit and some very open with big soundstage, but I don't think it's so much about hardware vs software. I think it's more about the aesthetics of the capture and miking than anything else. Maybe its both? If my above expereince counts? |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 5, 2017 16:51:35 GMT -6
I took the hardware route years ago. I know folks say that plugs are so good these days, but I've yet to be able to push a plug and expand the sound into some new territory like I can with hardware. I like to be able to see where the hardware bends the tones before they break. That's typically the sweet spot for most things..
|
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Dec 5, 2017 17:30:23 GMT -6
I took the hardware route years ago. I know folks say that plugs are so good these days, but I've yet to be able to push a plug and expand the sound into some new territory like I can with hardware. I like to be able to see where the hardware bends the tones before they break. That's typically the sweet spot for most things.. Another good argument is touching a real knob. If I can speak for myself it makes it a lot easier to do. It sounds stupid yes and some plug do sound good but touching something that is not the mouse is diffrent to me. For example. How does the snare sounds...hyper compressod. Before I dial in all those numbers on a plug in compressor I do it with two hands on the real gear. Its faster to me and makes fun too... |
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 5, 2017 17:58:59 GMT -6
I took the hardware route years ago. I know folks say that plugs are so good these days, but I've yet to be able to push a plug and expand the sound into some new territory like I can with hardware. I like to be able to see where the hardware bends the tones before they break. That's typically the sweet spot for most things.. Yes I don't like plugins much for saturation/distortion purposes. I also hate the sound of amp sims. I see plugins more as a complement to hardware for targeted stuff or as a part of a signal chain. Typical thing would be cutting the mids with a plugin eq prior to 3 band hardware eq, or for filtering. Often I use plugins as a stand in for patching hardware pieces. Like if I know that I might want to use a 1073 eq I would use UAD plugin first to see how it sounds and then print the hardware. Then leave my BAE hardware for key things in the mix that might be more subject to change, like vocal. Anyway it all depends. I find the MKII UAD stuff far superior to the other analog style simulations, and like DMG/Tokyo Dawn for transparent stuff. And I prefer the plugin reverbs and effects for a lot of things, because of the busing possibilities and Relab beats most hardware pieces. |
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Dec 5, 2017 19:08:11 GMT -6
Anyway it all depends. I find the MKII UAD stuff far superior to the other analog style simulations, and like DMG/Tokyo Dawn for transparent stuff. And I prefer the plugin reverbs and effects for a lot of things, because of the busing possibilities and Relab beats most hardware pieces. True the MKII stuff by UAD sounds great but they now charge ø 250-300 for a plug in and I cant use the DSP card in a another studio. To my ear slate is not far away from UAD. The main thing what made me going the Slate monthly sub. plan was that UAD and even more Waves want to charge me for the the same plug in(s) over and over again. I agree on the part that slamming a source sounds best with hardware. For reverb. There is yet not a plug which does the Alesis Midiverb 2 or 3 trick on guitars. MVs and guitars is a never ending love affair. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 5, 2017 21:25:22 GMT -6
I dunno. Course I love to track with lots of hardware and think mic and source selection is really the most important thing of all by far. But I think hardware informs how to use the good software and vice versa. So you know what kind of parallel compression you want and you know you like 1176 style for this or a pultec curve on kick or a 550a one on guitar and so on. Don't get me wrong, I still use hardware on buses and totally on vocal and as I said I use a lot of it tracking and think this whole mike modeling and unison shit is a bunch of baloney. One big thing is you don't want to lose the overall view of the mix and be able to adjust things. If you spend time bouncing everything through a few hardware pieces this can happen. So it's a fine line between committing and misjudging because you can't process things as a whole because you don't have enough hardware or enough of the hardware you want, only 1 of them. Personally for certain things I will take UAD SSL or 560 emulations over many outboard eqs, including those I own. It's all about application. But tons of records being done now with hybrid or even ITB approach. Some are distorted and compressed to shit and some very open with big soundstage, but I don't think it's so much about hardware vs software. I think it's more about the aesthetics of the capture and miking than anything else. If my above expereince counts? There's the right answer!! |
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 5, 2017 21:37:43 GMT -6
True the MKII stuff by UAD sounds great but they now charge ø 250-300 for a plug in and I cant use the DSP card in a another studio. To my ear slate is not far away from UAD. The main thing what made me going the Slate monthly sub. plan was that UAD and even more Waves want to charge me for the the same plug in(s) over and over again. I agree on the part that slamming a source sounds best with hardware. For reverb. There is yet not a plug which does the Alesis Midiverb 2 or 3 trick on guitars. MVs and guitars is a never ending love affair. Yep many things can't be replicated with plugins. I have a lot of guitar pedals that I wouldn't ever bother with as a plugin because even if they sounded as good I would use the pedals because they precede the amps, which I like to record live as much as possible. Plus you get all these unique variations on overdrive and big muffs from new tinkerers on the scene and so on and it's fun. Much the same way you can't track with plugins pre conversion, doesn't sound the same. Same with synthesizers. I like some plug ins, but hardware synths are also a tangible instrument, plus you have eurorack which is so much fun. I only got into UAD recently and on sale, so I did not have to go through the whole upgrade process and thunderbolt octo was already much discounted from before. Before that I was using Slate FG-N and DMG 550 curves mainly, and Empirical Arousor, which I still use. But UAD just works, has a big catalog, and is ergonomic, no rack and stable, and the MKII plugins are all very high quality, such as Pultec, LA2A gray, and so on. Slate ilok errors nag you about plugins you haven't bought and is kinda unstable in my experience. Slate FG-Stress is excellent and all their eqs are useful for sure. But I also found the Slate 1176 release to have a very small sweet spot and the metering to be totally jerky and annoying. Everyone says don't use the meters use your ears but I use the meters and knobs to get in the ballpark if I want to match the settings I like on my hardware and also tweak the release. In fact I see so many people do this I think the don't use the meters thing is kinda BS, because even if not accurate, you know the behavior and it communicates something to you. I think the Slate SSL eq sounds good but it lacks the whole synergy of the SSL channel strip, with filters and dynamics. The UAD is truly outstanding and sounds much more like an SSL than the brainworx stuff in my opinion. Likewise I think the UAD 1073 sounds much more like my BAEs for whatever it's worth. The phase response and the way it grabs the sound is very similar, especially in the low end, and it is less pointy than the Slate when you crank it. I also can't take the constant drama of the Slate threads and promises. I want to buy plugins that sound kinda like hardware I'm familiar with and be done with it without any fuss. |
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Dec 5, 2017 22:38:25 GMT -6
mrholmes, what sample rate were you using itb?
There's always talk of hardware vs software, but rarely do I see people mentioning what sample rate they were using in any discussion. I think the vast majority of GS is at 44/48. As I understand it, 88/96 is like the bare minimum to run software equal to hardware. I've never worked with hardware aside from vocal and guitar processors, but I've heard a lot of modern stuff done on hardware in big studios that sounded as flat and sterile as your average home recording.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 6, 2017 7:39:50 GMT -6
True the MKII stuff by UAD sounds great but they now charge ø 250-300 for a plug in and I cant use the DSP card in a another studio. To my ear slate is not far away from UAD. The main thing what made me going the Slate monthly sub. plan was that UAD and even more Waves want to charge me for the the same plug in(s) over and over again. I agree on the part that slamming a source sounds best with hardware. For reverb. There is yet not a plug which does the Alesis Midiverb 2 or 3 trick on guitars. MVs and guitars is a never ending love affair. Yep many things can't be replicated with plugins. I have a lot of guitar pedals that I wouldn't ever bother with as a plugin because even if they sounded as good I would use the pedals because they precede the amps, which I like to record live as much as possible. Plus you get all these unique variations on overdrive and big muffs from new tinkerers on the scene and so on and it's fun. Much the same way you can't track with plugins pre conversion, doesn't sound the same. Same with synthesizers. I like some plug ins, but hardware synths are also a tangible instrument, plus you have eurorack which is so much fun. I only got into UAD recently and on sale, so I did not have to go through the whole upgrade process and thunderbolt octo was already much discounted from before. Before that I was using Slate FG-N and DMG 550 curves mainly, and Empirical Arousor, which I still use. But UAD just works, has a big catalog, and is ergonomic, no rack and stable, and the MKII plugins are all very high quality, such as Pultec, LA2A gray, and so on. Slate ilok errors nag you about plugins you haven't bought and is kinda unstable in my experience. Slate FG-Stress is excellent and all their eqs are useful for sure. But I also found the Slate 1176 release to have a very small sweet spot and the metering to be totally jerky and annoying. Everyone says don't use the meters use your ears but I use the meters and knobs to get in the ballpark if I want to match the settings I like on my hardware and also tweak the release. In fact I see so many people do this I think the don't use the meters thing is kinda BS, because even if not accurate, you know the behavior and it communicates something to you. I think the Slate SSL eq sounds good but it lacks the whole synergy of the SSL channel strip, with filters and dynamics. The UAD is truly outstanding and sounds much more like an SSL than the brainworx stuff in my opinion. Likewise I think the UAD 1073 sounds much more like my BAEs for whatever it's worth. The phase response and the way it grabs the sound is very similar, especially in the low end, and it is less pointy than the Slate when you crank it. I also can't take the constant drama of the Slate threads and promises. I want to buy plugins that sound kinda like hardware I'm familiar with and be done with it without any fuss. One of the joys of older SSL consoles is running the signal a bit hot through the strips into the mix bus. The way that the opamps bend the signal when they're pushed is the key to the large sound of SSL. |
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 6, 2017 10:01:57 GMT -6
One of the joys of older SSL consoles is running the signal a bit hot through the strips into the mix bus. The way that the opamps bend the signal when they're pushed is the key to the large sound of SSL. Interesting, the UAD emulates the pre/line amp input and output gains/drive. Sounds rather good with a touch of it! Someone did an analysis mixmasterforum.com/t/uad-ssl-4000-e-channel-strip-plug-in-analysis/33 |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 6, 2017 11:27:26 GMT -6
One of the joys of older SSL consoles is running the signal a bit hot through the strips into the mix bus. The way that the opamps bend the signal when they're pushed is the key to the large sound of SSL. Interesting, the UAD emulates the pre/line amp input and output gains/drive. Sounds rather good with a touch of it! Someone did an analysis mixmasterforum.com/t/uad-ssl-4000-e-channel-strip-plug-in-analysis/33That's pretty neat they've gone to those lengths to get the sound. But one things boggles my mind.. claiming the preamps were "classic".. I don't think anyone actually loved the 4k preamps.. they just grudgingly used them when they ran out of others! |
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 6, 2017 11:41:01 GMT -6
That's pretty neat they've gone to those lengths to get the sound. But one things boggles my mind.. claiming the preamps were "classic".. I don't think anyone actually loved the 4k preamps.. they just grudgingly used them when they ran out of others! True, that's what people say and do now, but not necessarily originally. UAD did model the Jensen versions, however, yet plenty of albums actually tracked on an SSL too. www.gearslutz.com/board/768959-post4.htmlThat said I think it's probably right they shouldn't advertise the preamps as being classic. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 6, 2017 12:20:34 GMT -6
I'm about to put together a video comparing the Stam SA73 preamp to the UAD 1073 Unison plug-in. I'll say this, the Stam sounds better on everything, no matter how close I get them,
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,940 
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Dec 6, 2017 12:32:00 GMT -6
Plugins will get there when the marketing departments start letting the developers do their own thing, not trying to copy an analog piece!
|
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Dec 6, 2017 12:40:09 GMT -6
I see plugins more as a complement to hardware for targeted stuff or as a part of a signal chain. Thats the most intresting sentence in the discussion to me - yet. Because I made several times the observation that I can get something very different if I use plug ins pre or post hw. For example I get that bit of SSL vibe from Slates VCC but the nice breakup by the output stage of the PRO VLA 2 with compression set off. I just use the output amplifier of the compressor to get some grid. Sounds amazing gives glue holds the picture together. If I try the same with a plug in it never feels right. It misses the balls factor... |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 6, 2017 12:43:11 GMT -6
A long time ago, I was saying that emulations will run out. Since UAD's already digitized many of the popular audio products people are interested in, they would do well to use the strengths of digital to create easy to use new plug-ins.
I haven't used it, but plugs like the Fab Filter seem like the kind of thing they could do too. They could create their own reverb as well.
Their Oxide's a step in the right direction. I actually like it as much or better than the more complex ATR-102 occasionally.
|
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 6, 2017 13:45:26 GMT -6
I'm about to put together a video comparing the Stam SA73 preamp to the UAD 1073 Unison plug-in. I'll say this, the Stam sounds better on everything, no matter how close I get them, For the record I'm talking about using UAD 73 eqs/line stages and channel strips only in mix context, not the Unison approach. I only own a satellite. I would never think to track with Unison and expect it to really sound like the actual preamp, that's ludicrous. |
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 6, 2017 13:46:33 GMT -6
I see plugins more as a complement to hardware for targeted stuff or as a part of a signal chain. Thats the most intresting sentence in the discussion to me - yet. Because I made several times the observation that I can get something very different if I use plug ins pre or post hw. For example I get that bit of SSL vibe from Slates VCC but the nice breakup by the output stage of the PRO VLA 2 with compression set off. I just use the output amplifier of the compressor to get some grid. Sounds amazing gives glue holds the picture together. If I try the same with a plug in it never feels right. It misses the balls factor... Yep! |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 6, 2017 14:58:41 GMT -6
Joseph, what are you talking about "ludicrous"? The whole idea of UAD's Unison technology is to make it sound more like the hardware. So when comparing the sound of their 1073 plug-in to a real 1073 or 1073 clone, it only makes sense to use it. I've also done tracks with the Great River version of a 1073 design, and still prefer the Stam.
I understand you might use it for other things, but for a shootout, that's the proper way to compare I think.
I agree about Slate often being frustrating. I had major issues with iLok on two of their plugs, and they personally promised me an updated FG-X Compressor over 4 years ago, so I bought FG-X because an update was imminent, otherwise I might not have bothered. That was $150 wasted, no matter how much Slate defends it online, I don't think it's very good.
|
|
|
|
Post by 79sg on Dec 6, 2017 15:46:19 GMT -6
Maybe someone can convince me but I still cannot see how 1's and 0's will ever be the same as analog. I use both but.....
|
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 6, 2017 17:25:52 GMT -6
Joseph, what are you talking about "ludicrous"? The whole idea of UAD's Unison technology is to make it sound more like the hardware. So when comparing the sound of their 1073 plug-in to a real 1073 or 1073 clone, it only makes sense to use it. I've also done tracks with the Great River version of a 1073 design, and still prefer the Stam. I understand you might use it for other things, but for a shootout, that's the proper way to compare I think. I agree about Slate often being frustrating. I had major issues with iLok on two of their plugs, and they personally promised me an updated FG-X Compressor over 4 years ago, so I bought FG-X because an update was imminent, otherwise I might not have bothered. That was $150 wasted, no matter how much Slate defends it online, I don't think it's very good. No I think I miscommunicated. What I meant was that I was speaking above about using the eqs in mixing vs BAE hardware. Yes to do a preamp shootout you of course are right you would use the unison. Personally I think the unison stuff is very wishful thinking as a substitute for the real thing, due to how preamps change not only the loading and frequency response of microphones, but also the speed, dynamic and transient response of the capture. That's all I meant by ludicrous. |
|
