|
Post by Quint on Jun 14, 2022 22:11:14 GMT -6
Well a reverse image search from Tineye doesn't indicate that these pics were copied from somewhere else, so at least they seem to be pics taken by the seller. TinEye no longer seems to be useful as a tool for figuring out scams lately. I used to use that all the time as well. Google Reverse Image is a little handier. I report as many of these scams as I see each week. Tell tale signs: - Mexico, Italy, Germany, Australia - Absolutely zero feedback - Paragraph of Content copy pasted from somewhere else on the Internet - Also, old feedback (2017, 2018), meaning, somebody figured out a former reverb account user’s password and hacked into it I've definitely seen the old feedback hacked account thing. It's a dead giveaway every time.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 14, 2022 11:28:33 GMT -6
Hope you get your money back. I never pulled the trigger, but I kept getting tempted by some too good to be true Reverb postings for U87s when I was looking for a donor body/capsule to use with my MaxMod. There were a LOT of scams out there for U87s. I guess it just has to do with the general popularity of that mic.
The shit thing is that if/when Reverb or PayPal or the credit card company have to eat shit on something like this, they just pass that cost on to everyone. I don't know how often they're unable to recover the funds, but I'd be curious to know. Hopefully it's rare.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 14, 2022 11:11:51 GMT -6
It's probably Whack-a-Mole with these guys. They scam a few people and then move on and set up a new Reverb account. I'm not sure what methods Reverb has to combat this.
As a buyer, you can either take the risk or only buy from sellers who have a good transaction history.
Nick, what did this seller's transaction history look like?
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 14, 2022 10:14:26 GMT -6
Well somebody seems to have been busy with some kind of scam. That's 10 U67s for around $2,000 a piece in the last two weeks.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 14, 2022 9:52:36 GMT -6
Well a reverse image search from Tineye doesn't indicate that these pics were copied from somewhere else, so at least they seem to be pics taken by the seller.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 14, 2022 8:34:28 GMT -6
I can't see the listing but I've seen a ton of nice tube mics for unbelievable prices on Reverb lately and they always disappear pretty fast so I'm assuming they're all fakes...Like everyday I see one or two at prices too good to be true. Same here. It makes me reluctant to buy used mics on Reverb anymore. Well, at least used mics that are of a highly desireable nature.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 14, 2022 8:32:53 GMT -6
When I click on the link, it won't take me to the original ad, so I can't see any of the details. What'd you pay for it?
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 14, 2022 7:42:21 GMT -6
What about the Sebatron SMAC? Dual mono or linked stereo, solid state class A discrete, 60v rail for high headroom. sebatron.com/sebatron-smac-stereo-compressor.phpI've not used this compressor, but I have been interested in trying it. I have their VMP-4000e four channel tube preamp and I think it's great. Sebatron doesn't get talked about that much but it is great stuff and underrated. The reason I bring up the SMAC is because it has a dual opto thing going on that allows it to react faster than a lot of typical optos, but also apparently can do the typical slower opto thing too. Anyway, it might be worth a look.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 14, 2022 7:18:16 GMT -6
Anybody got a preference between the Auratones and the Mixcubes? I’ve had both. Actually Reftones as well…take what I say with a grain of salt, because I’ve owned all 3 but at various points in my skill level development. To me, the mono Auratone accomplishes what I want that speaker to do better than my old stereo Mixcubes or stereo Reftones ever did. Maybe it’s the mono thing though? Whatever it is, I love using that little speaker. Are you using the passive or active Auratone? If passive, what are you using for an amp?
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 13, 2022 20:56:34 GMT -6
Anybody got a preference between the Auratones and the Mixcubes?
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 13, 2022 14:53:22 GMT -6
For those of you using Auratones or Mixcubes or monitors like them, are you typically just using one in mono or using two for stereo?
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 11, 2022 14:57:25 GMT -6
Yep. It took longer to unscrew the lid off of the box than it did to swap out the pot. Pretty damn quick. The new parts go bad too... in my case, rather quickly. It probably varies, a bit, the lenght of this thing. It took me about five years before mine started getting scratchy. Either way, if it ever happens again, $20 and an easy swap ain't too bad. But I'll probably just swing for the Goldpoint next time anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 11, 2022 12:37:12 GMT -6
I just replaced the pot on mine. It was $20 though, and easy to order from Drawmer. It's also a simple molex plug and play thing, so it's super easy to swap out. Pretty painless, considering how much I like the price and feature set of the MC2.1. If I ever need to replace the pot again, I might explore buying one of those expensive Goldpoint switched attenuators. Didn't you swap out your pot too? You're saying it is not a solder job, just a connector for the Pot? Yep. It took longer to unscrew the lid off of the box than it did to swap out the pot. Pretty damn quick.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 11, 2022 12:02:42 GMT -6
The big Drawmers are good (I have an MC2.1,) but they have an Achille's Heel. The potentiometers WILL go bad, and you can replace them, then those will go bad again. Resulting in crackly noise and screwing with your stereo image. It's annoying. But other than that, they are nearly "perfect." I just replaced the pot on mine. It was $20 though, and easy to order from Drawmer. It's also a simple molex plug and play thing, so it's super easy to swap out. Pretty painless, considering how much I like the price and feature set of the MC2.1. If I ever need to replace the pot again, I might explore buying one of those expensive Goldpoint switched attenuators. Didn't you swap out your pot too?
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 10, 2022 15:43:40 GMT -6
These pedals don't let me tweak like a freak and dial out the coolness. This is why I never really got on with "menu divey" kind of amp sim hardware or amp sim plugins. The Iridium was the first thing I ever used that actually felt like using a real amp. I'd be curious to give these UAFX a try.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 10, 2022 8:42:20 GMT -6
If I ever got one of these, I think it would just live in a rack in my machine room and be permanently patched in as an available reverb bus, much in the same way you might do with an EMT 140. The big difference is that it wouldn't take up near as much space as an EMT 140.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 2, 2022 15:30:58 GMT -6
Well, the Burl does sound great, perhaps not everyone's preference, but great sounding nevertheless. The Apollo is a different animal. The Apollo's could sound better. For all their hype about specs, the conversion is lacking something, it's a bit narrow and honky in places. I've used an Apollo since the first week they were released and have found it to be an incredibly reliable and well built tool. That doesn't mean I shouldn't like to see the platform go a little further into higher end sound quality, especially in the conversion aspects. Shadow, as to my saying that sometimes there can be a big quality leap at a price point, I was mainly referring to computer technology. Huge leaps in power, memory, applications etc. do happen occasionally. After all, much of the gear we use involves computational ability, so it seems to me that at some point, a company will make a piece of gear that rivals a Burl or other high end converters at a much lower price point. To me it's a matter of when, not if. Then maybe I'm wrong and it's just wishful thinking since I can't afford the gear I'd like to have for my work yet. Hey Martin, as is probably obvious, I am mostly just joking around. While my personal view on converter shootouts is that the emperor is very scantily clad, I am not here to be the guy who tells other people they're not hearing whatever they're hearing. Tools for making music should be inspiring. While I don't need much from a convertor in that dept, I get that others feel differently. And I have used and enjoyed the Burls a good bit, they're cool. I have found that using Neve style line amps in front of Avid converters also sounds really vibey and cool on mix capture, albeit different. I have never owned an Apollo, but in using them at my friend's spot they seem ok to me. (He has the newer version, FWIW). But, the thing that I honestly wonder about is, what would contribute to midrange honk in an age when it's pretty much table stakes to make a flat (frequency wise) sounding A>D? I would think there must be measurements out there that show what you all are hearing. Edit: FWIW, and you guys probably already know this (I have only recently become curious) but Apollo x16 actually tests quite well: www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/universal-audio-apollo-x16-review.17649/I'm not sure either what this "honk" is that I hear talked about in relation to the Apollo? Granted, maybe it's because I own the x16 and not an older model. I don't know. All of the Apollos get thrown into one big discussion and nobody knows which generation we're talking about half the time. We're on the third generation now and probably on the cusp of a fourth in not too long, and the sound has improved over time between the original Apollo and the newest X series. In any case, I think this is also the sort of thing where it takes on a life of its own because it gets repeated enough that it becomes audio forum lore.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 1, 2022 13:55:14 GMT -6
I dunno. It makes me want to ask, if replacing a guitar is forbidden without permission, then what else do I need permission for? Using EQ? Compression? Editing? Where does it stop? I know artists that have weirdness about "too much EQ" or "too much compression" as well because they watched some YT video that told them the reason they don't like what they're hearing is not because of something they're doing wrong, it's obviously the amount of processing or some such nonsense.. It seems ridiculous to even consider asking permission to use as much EQ and compression as needed to get a guitar sounding right.. But why does using a simulation of a model/brand of amp that the artist already uses is some kind of heresy? Both are clearly manipulating the tone to get something better and in some cases the EQ and whatever will affect it more than anything else yet I've never once heard an artist ask me if I used too much EQ after the mix was done. Actually I've never had a single artist ask me anything about their mix once it was done. Seems that people want to see the baby, not hear about the labor pains. I think the line in the sand generally falls about where sound enters the microphone (or at least where it exits the speaker of the amp). I'd say that an artist's recorded amp falls on the artist's side of that line.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 1, 2022 13:53:01 GMT -6
I agree. It's a total pain to deal with managing all of those expectations, biases, lack of understanding how to get good tone, etc. But my approach to that situation would be to try educate rather than obfuscate. Sure, that's also a pain in the ass, so it's just an all around pain in the ass. I got into the recording world via being on the artist side first and I still always try to keep that in mind because, ultimately, none of this would be happening were it not for artists trying to create something in the first place. To that end, I still feel like it should be best practice to be transparent about such things as replacing an amp with a sim. It might be a pain in the ass, but I say be transparent and let the chips fall where they may. I guess I don't see how remaining neutral when it comes to revealing techniques is the same obfuscating. I had a session a little while ago. We had an entire song to track (drums, bass, guitar, vocals, wurlitzer etc) and about a day and a half to do it. We had, what we all agreed was a great vocal sound. When the singer started tracking she was started really belting, and the preamp/compressor combo I had was breaking up/distorting in a way I didn't like. So I quickly re-patched things and changed it. Did I tell anyone in the room that? Nope. It would have derailed the session. I did play her back a track from the new vocal chain and asked her to critique the sound... and she loved it. Was that obfuscating? In your book maybe so? IDK. In mine that's just called doing your job. Unless the artist has a clear, specific vision of the process they want, as in Martin's case, then it just seems minimally relevant at best, and completely detrimental at worst. And I don't think that's cutting the artist out of the process anymore than when I chose between a HW compressor and a plugin. Like I said before, it all depends on the specific context. For the example you are talking about with that singer, I don't disagree at all. As I mentioned before, it's already gone into the mic at that point so the sort of things you're talking about are taking place after that. That falls squarely in the engineer's court, I'd say. You don't get any disagreement from me on that. But I do just think there is a distinction to be made between the example you just gave and replacing an amp with a sim without it being discussed first.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 1, 2022 13:14:25 GMT -6
Yeah, I know that's kind of where a lot of metal tends to be these days but then, sure enough there will be a Tony Iommi acolyte that wants his real amps and only his real amps. For no other reason than "you never know", I'd still feel the need to ask everytime, regardless of genre. One thing I would say is that I would reverse this and say that the honus should be on the engineer and not the artist when it comes to expressing what rules might be "broken". If the artist plays through an amp, I think it's up to the engineer to propose a sim and get permission to do so rather than putting it on the artist to preemptively and expressly state that they are okay with it. If they played it through an amp, the expectation should be that that's how they wanted it and it should only be changed to a sim if it's discussed with them and they are cool with it. A lot of time this stuff comes up naturally. The same person who says they hate autotune might ask you to fix their pitch in one spot down the line. They may take pride in my doing it with varispeed vs. melodyne or whatever. I am managing their expectations real time. And by the way, I love early Black Sabbath and would pick up on the cues if that were the case. But if the general idea here is not to kill the vibe, my experience tells me that getting into a preliminary "boundaries" discussion is not something I would personally recommend. I think what ultimately happens in a successful recording situation is as above, the engineer is picking up on cues and proceeding accordingly. The conversation I want to have isn't about gear or techniques, it's about the sound they're striving for. If you do that conversation right, the other things fall into place. The problem with picking up on cues is that it assumes that it would even occur to an artist that such things as amp replacement with sims can or could happen. They may not give you those cues because it may never occur to them that you would even consider doing something like that. I'd rather get confirmation up front than rely on my interpretation of cues, in the hopes that I'm reading them right, if they're are even cues being sent in my direction in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 1, 2022 12:51:04 GMT -6
I think my job is to use appropriate tools to deliver a great work product. Now, if I was recording some SRV wannabe, I’d def not use an amp sim. We’d have front loaded all the work to getting a great guitar sound in a real effing studio, otherwise I don’t see the point. By the same token, if I were recording modern metal I’d be totally confident in using samples and would not worry about getting permission. It’s where the genre is at. If I was recording someone with Quint’s strong feelings on the subject of what constitutes “cheating” (my word not yours, and no disrespect intended) it would be my hope that the artist would air their strong beliefs up front towards a mutually beneficial collaboration. In other words, if there are rules, that’s great… but the artist needs to express that they have a vision that does not include X widely accepted modern production techniques because, guess what, we are taking largely about 4 digit budgets in my world and we have to be hyper efficient to do good work, and taut absolutely might include an amp sim under certain circumstances. Yeah, I know that's kind of where a lot of metal tends to be these days but then, sure enough there will be a Tony Iommi acolyte that wants his real amps and only his real amps. For no other reason than "you never know", I'd still feel the need to ask everytime, regardless of genre. One thing I would say is that I would reverse this and say that the honus should be on the engineer and not the artist when it comes to expressing what rules might be "broken". If the artist plays through an amp, I think it's up to the engineer to propose a sim and get permission to do so rather than putting it on the artist to preemptively and expressly state that they are okay with it. If they played it through an amp, it should be assumed that that's how they wanted it and it should only be changed to a sim if it's discussed with them and they are cool with it.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 1, 2022 12:37:09 GMT -6
Well there's always been that sort of battle between artist and engineer. It's one of the reasons that many artists have gotten into recording themselves, especially given the proliferation of affordable but good quality gear in the last 10+ years. I still maintain that transparency is the way to go here, but to each their own. My own experience mirrors Svart and Notneeson. I find that artists sometimes know exactly what their after sound wise, but almost never know how to get there. I've had plenty of guitar and bass players insist on one method or another (DI, no DI, real amp, sim, no sim etc), without any real understanding of how the methodology effects the end result. Guitar players especially get hung up on these things, and speaking as a guitar player myself, almost none of them really understand how to get good tone. For example, so few of them realize that those perfect tone settings on your amp won't sound the same once you setup your amp in a different room. As Svart said, there's a lot of psychology at play here and you need to be a master of it for sessions to run smoothly. Artists may say they want a certain thing, but what they really want is a great sounding end result, period. And that's +1000 for artists that are immature, insecure in their art, or just inexperienced. Does that mean you have Carte Blanche to do as you please as the AE? Sometimes yes, sometimes no...depends on the context and the individual situation, however "transparency" is a double edge sword. It'll often screw you. So if an artist asks me specifically how I got such and such a sound I'll tell them, honestly. But I don't volunteer that info, too many land mines there. But at the end of the day, if you're delivering great sound tracks to them, 99% of the time they stop caring. ymmv I agree. It's a total pain to deal with managing all of those expectations, biases, lack of understanding how to get good tone, etc. But my approach to that situation would be to try educate rather than obfuscate. Sure, that's also a pain in the ass, so it's just an all around pain in the ass. I got into the recording world via being on the artist side first and I still always try to keep that in mind because, ultimately, none of this would be happening were it not for artists trying to create something in the first place. To that end, I still feel like it should be best practice to be transparent about such things as replacing an amp with a sim. It might be a pain in the ass, but I say be transparent and let the chips fall where they may.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 1, 2022 12:28:13 GMT -6
The engineer suggested they try a re-amp became the guitar sounded little dinky. He popped on a sim, and it made the track sound way way better instantly, and fit the track perfectly. But my friend the producer insisted they not use a sim without the guitarist's permission, who they wouldn't be able to reach at that moment. The engineer vociferously argued for the change with good cause. The tracks were done with the original guitar tone. That's kind of my point. Even if everyone in the room knows it's better for the mix, there's always that inherent bias against certain things that will derail improvement if you let them. Sometimes democracy doesn't work when hard decisions need to be made. But this completely side steps the artist's opinion on what is "better", and that's the sort of fundamental problem I have with this. It's the artist's music and, yet, everyone but the artist seems to be in on the conversation about what is better or what should ultimately happen. I don't think it's unreasonable for an artist to have the expectation that they should be made aware of such proposals and ultimately have the final say. Absent any such discussions, I also don't think it's unreasonable for an artist to assume that the track they laid down, through whatever amp they played it through, remains intact. Once it's into the microphone? Sure things get a lot more gray and I don't disagree that that's usually where an artist is going to say "make it sound good", which, in my interpretation of that, means eq, compress, add reverb, etc. But I don't interpret that to mean to replace the amp they played through with a sim, not without permission anyway. It might seem to be a subtle distinction, but it's an important one. I get that it can be a difficult task to manage artist expectations, biases, etc. But that's the job. And, not for nothing, but you'll also have to manage said artist's psychology if they find out their amp was replaced with a sim and they weren't consulted about it.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 1, 2022 10:49:29 GMT -6
Well there's always been that sort of battle between artist and engineer. It's one of the reasons that many artists have gotten into recording themselves, especially given the proliferation of affordable but good quality gear in the last 10+ years. I still maintain that transparency is the way to go here, but to each their own. I would neither volunteer to list out my tool set, nor lie about what I did. Neither of those makes any sense to me. Well that's the critical thing right? As long as everyone is on the same page about whatever sort of things are being "replaced" during the mixing stage, I have no problem with it. As for volunteering to list out your tool set, I'm not sure what you mean. If you're talking about not wanting to detail every little "trick of the trade" such as plugin settings or whatever that you're using during the mix stage, I don't see a problem with that. I've just been saying that, a recorded amp (the expectation that that actual recorded amp is what is being used in the mix) is the sort of thing that should be discussed if a sim replacement for it is being considered during the mix stage. That is all.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 1, 2022 10:30:59 GMT -6
I hear what you're saying and understand the difficulties you describe, but I still think transparency is always the best route. Sims, samples, whatever are all valid tools. I just think engineers should be upfront about the use of such tools and have the conversation. That's all I'm saying. For what it’s worth, I’m always trying to help them get “their sound” in tracking and wouldn’t push an amp sim on anyone when (critically) the right amp is likely going to be much more inspiring. Reamping at mix stage though… that’s a dumb hill to die on and I know first hand how smaller shops like Svart’s bleed for their clients, for scant money, and often very incomplete gratitude. I also know how “sound guys” ruin innumerable sessions and gigs for artists. It’s kind of a crap sandwich. Remind me why I do it, again? (Less and less, to be honest. I’ve only done remote client work and (lots of) personal projects since the pandemic started). Well there's always been that sort of battle between artist and engineer. It's one of the reasons that many artists have gotten into recording themselves, especially given the proliferation of affordable but good quality gear in the last 10+ years. I still maintain that transparency is the way to go here, but to each their own.
|
|