|
Post by viciousbliss on May 3, 2017 12:04:59 GMT -6
Thanks for the files. I thought the point of using the same presets in any convolution was to accurately capture what's there. That the preset would already have everything tweaked to sound as close as possible to the hardware. Otherwise why use the same names? The manual I don't know was all that clear about how closely the SHP presets match the hardware presets without additional tweaking. Both those files you sent are good. Sounds like A is the hardware and B is SHP based on how those German files sounded. A has more subdued highs and clings to the source more. Not sure if that would always be my preference.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on May 3, 2017 0:52:57 GMT -6
Its a german review you can download dry and processed files but be carefull you will get addictet to the beauty of the hardware if you do the AB comparsion, the software is not even close .... but still a good software verb. But since then I have now a special M7 account where I put money on - from time to time- without getting wife trouble.... All after me....want one want one want one....did I say I want an M7? www.bonedo.de/artikel/einzelansicht/bricasti-design-m7/3.htmlThanks for posting the link. I downloaded the zip with the wavs. Then I resampled a few in Audacity to 88 using the triangle dither and the best quality. I think Audacity uses one of the best resampling methods now, Sox or something? Imported into pro tools along with the dry vocal. Inserted SHP on the dry vocal with the same presets. No other changes, tried to keep this as pure as possible. Stuff sounds really different, and not to where it's sounding like the same thing with different tails. It will sound like one of them has a lot more pre-delay or ER than the other, for example. Maybe there's things you have to turn off or change in SHP to get the IR to play back as purely as possible(I only adjusted the mix knob). I know that's the case if you want to try and match the regular SH with the pro version. They don't automatically match up if you load the same presets in each and do an A/B. I also translated the German site with google and didn't find any info as to how they made these files. For all we know they ran the M7 through a console or had plugs open. I'm sure the M7 would sound different at 24/96. I didn't find SHP to be harsh or of a lower quality. Maybe a tad cleaner sounding, but that could be because I'm comparing SHP at 32 bit float 88k vs 44/16 wavs. Doesn't look like there's a wav of the mixed song either. I'm not too worried about it, but I'm definitely interested in hearing more from anyone who has access to both an M7 and SHP.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on May 2, 2017 1:43:19 GMT -6
I've played around with it a bit on 88 and 96 sessions. Mainly on some rock and metal stuff using fan instrumentals and rock band type tracks. One bedroom rock song with a DI Guitar I ran through CLA Guitars and fake drums. Finished a Rap song but my Z800 won't stay powered on long enough for me to bounce it(it worked awesome with Rap too). For my taste, the pro version is better than any software reverb I've tried. It really does blend in with the source well. When I use it on vocals I record to mix in with Rock Band songs, it's very "that's more like it". I have always had my suspicions that a lot of these software reverbs make compromises and don't give the full picture one might get from a classic hardware reverb from the 80s.
The level of blending can change depending on the preset. Did any of you guys read what Gary Lionelli said on the Vi-control forum? He's saying it's indistinguishable from his hardware for the most part when you're comparing presets. Upon visiting his website, I learned Gary is a composer for some well-known TV shows and movies. I haven't really found anything else where someone claimed to have tested the unit and plug side by side. mrholmes, is there a place where we can hear those hardware files? I'm very curious about them. You were correct about how you can crank SHP and it still sounding good.
I've been using one instance w/Vocal Shimmer for all the vocals, one instance w/Music Forest for all the music tracks, and Saint Gerold as an insert on the master fader after VCC/BX_Console/ProQ2/API2500 and before NLS and L2. Usually set the mix knob on the MF insert to -18.5 or -15. I tried that bc I read Casey ran a whole jazz band through an M7. When I tried putting Tsar-1 on the MF instead, it just didn't work-was like the opposite of glue. I imagine this would be the case with most other software reverbs too. SHP is very good at giving cohesion to vocal harmonies and also at keeping up with wordy, fast-moving vocal songs. It doesn't seem to create any problems or color the sound in any sorta detrimental way. Low cpu mode makes it sound more like the regular SH, thinner and less cohesive. The regular one is still usable but it's missing Saint Gerold and other good V1 presets along with all the V2. I've compared the same presets in Altiverb with depth and speed on versus SHP and I think the Altiverb gets maybe 75% of the way there, if that. Have not compared it to Verbsuite but it sounds like the consensus is that SHP is a league above it.
I like the results I get better than what H-Reverb and Abbey Road Plates yield. And SHP seems to use a lot less cpu than those. I've not tried it against any of the Exponential stuff. Just in mixes where I previously used Lexicon MPX, Rverb, Altiverb, Tsar-1, ARP, H-Reverb, Blackhole, Trueverb, and maybe a couple others I'm forgetting. Still quite a few presets I need to try. There hasn't been a lot of tweaking inside SHP by me, I do most tweaks with bx_console and it's usually just the gate and compression. Also used EQ7 stock from PT to cut highs and lows before going in and/or VLB902 to de-ess before SHP. I bought it because it delivered the goods for me better and faster than anything else I've ever tried.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Apr 11, 2017 2:20:21 GMT -6
Hello everyone,
Recently I had become frustrated with constantly running out of cpu on relatively small 96k sessions consisting sometimes of only one or two vocal tracks, 4-8 music tracks, 6 stereo aux tracks including the master fader, and 1-2 mono delay auxes. My computer is a Z800 with two 5670s. I had gotten some advice from an experienced person on how I might recreate a classic analog chain. Usually something like NLS-One Tape instance(Analog Channel/Phoenix/VTM)-Fix Doubler(sometimes Little Altar Boy too)-Bx_console-Pro Q2(sometimes)-CLA76-CLA2A-VLB902-Sknote Strip(for the balancing eq and cross talk, stereo aligned LAL on tracks and just aligned on the two main busses). I'd then add auxes for CLAEffects for throw delay, Ultrareverb or Echoboy, Primal Tap(mono), Doubler(usually DH910 or H3000), Music Reverb(ended up using Lexicon MPX to save cpu), Vocal Reverb(was last chaining T-Verb, H3000, and then MPX or Tsar-1), sometimes I'd add a second mono delay aux for another Primal Tap with a different setting, Music Bus, Vocal Bus, and Master Fader. On the busses I was using a few things. Another VLB902 to take care of leftover sibilance, Bad Buss Mojo, Bombardier, L1 or L2, Strip, maybe another AC202 or Phoenix, Satin on the master, Dh910 or Reel ADT at the top of the vocal bus, and maybe a Pro Q2. Music tracks might've just had NLS, Strip on some, Pro Q2, Bx_console, AC202 or Phoenix, and maybe a compressor like RenAxx or something not using a lot of cpu. Also used some Avid Aural Exciter and Big Bottom here and there. Mostly I'm working on Rock and Metal songs and I swear they use a lot more cpu than Rap or Pop sessions that are bigger running about the same number and type of plugs.
Then I saw a post on here mentioning the new Apogee Symphony and DSP. It seemed like adding DSP would be a cool idea. So I started researching. I've read enough bad things about HDX being really expensive and delivering way less than the cheapest Soundgrid Server. Forget that. UAD also doesn't seem to deliver a lot of value for what you're spending. I've done some emailing with Waves and Soundgrid seems interesting, but flawed. The servers will all work with a regular interface, but you need a Digigrid interface for the low latency thing and I think for the Emotion1 mixer and live sound. For $700 I can get an Impact Server that can run hundreds of their cpu efficient plugins(their plugin counts are almost all for mono instances and I was told by them that stereo counts are half the mono). But then you see that something like H-Reverb will run 8 instances on it and only I think 11 on the $2500 Extreme Server. With NLS you go from 80 mono on the Impact to 95 on Server One and 181 on the Extreme Server. There isn't a lot of improvement on most things when going from Impact to Server One. But they all have this limitation where you can't run more than 64 mono and 32 studiorack plugins per session(like Slate's VMR and that's the only way to use Soundgrid plugins, no single instances of a plug). I'm not even sure you could really utilize the full potential of the Extreme Server with that limitation. And you can't chain multiple servers for added dsp. Waves support told me multiple servers was for redundancy and some other reasons I don't know much about.
With that said I was curious what kinda result I would get by just using a bunch of Waves efficient plugins instead of what I've been using, maybe J37 instead of Satin, and minimizing use of non-Waves stuff. Frankly, the mixes got way better. Didn't even need the VLB902 anymore(sm7 is the mic into Audient ID14). Phoenix/AC202 didn't seem all that necessary either(debating about buying Phoenix after this trial runs out too). Swapped the Primal Taps for H-Delay and just left it at default settings. Put Supertap 6 in for Ultrareverb, again at default settings. Rverb for the MPX chain(also tried chaining Trueverb-Doubler 2-Rverb and using H-Reverb or Abbey Road Plates). For whatever reason I didn't need to do much eq. Took out Fix Doubler and Little Altar Boy for the most part, Doubler 4 for Dh910 Aux, swapped in SSL Channel for Bx_console when I didn't need a gate(this was the only "analog" button I turned on and only for vocal tracks, CLA76 and 2A had the 60hz on too),and simplified the bus chains. Music Bus was now API2500-L2. Vocal Bus Reel ADT or DH910(Doubler doesn't seem to work here very well)-SSL-EQ(mainly just to turn the HPF on), H-Comp(the one vocal preset with Punch then changed to 100), and maybe an L2. Master Fader was J37-API2500-L2. A side note about BX_Console. I found that it could be better if I set channels to digital and maybe left one on analog because a lot of the time the mix benefited more from the consistency of the digital setting.
I was trying to do as little tweaking as possible to each plug, only adjusting when I felt a need. What I found was that a lot of these analog plugins do things that are hard to qualify. They can throw things outta whack with the touch of a button. Then you have to load another plug and try to balance it out. From what I read in some VTM thread I think it was, is that a lot of classic recordings are the result of countless bounces and passes through the board and whatever electronics. How could that possibly be emulated on a computer? In reading about the Aural Exciter, it seems a lot of recordings got so dulled by the constant use of the tape that exciters were used to bring them back to life. I've always thought the Waves Aural Exciter was a bit harsh, but the Avid one is pretty good. I did this Waves workflow test on some older songs with the rock band tracks, a Soul Asylum soundchoice karaoke wav from my disc, and Madagascar from Guns N Roses using the lossless wavs. My thinking was that if I was gonna record vocals to go with music tracks recorded decades ago, it would make sense to use plugins that emulate what was used then. But that doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, it seems the analog plugins can end up making things sound harsh and whatnot, even if I'm being very conservative and barely driving them. I turned the drive off on NLS and didn't use the Buss component or put the NLS Channel on the music tracks. J37 I changed the track and tape type sometimes, but left everything else at default. CPU usage total was usually around 40% instead of 100% in this Waves-centric workflow where I'm using just enough analog plugs to get a good mix instead of trying to set everything up in hopes that I'm emulating a classic analog workflow.
As far as Waves goes, they have some serious holes in their product line. It doesn't appear that they have a gate anywhere as good as Bx_console. The tape plugs are cpu monsters. You're basically stuck with supertap or H-delay for a delay aside from the sig series(I get the impression that their business model revolves around getting hobbyists to buy up sig series/abbey road/ssl). Doubler can't touch Eventide(but Reel ADT does unique stuff that's awesome when it works). Rverb and Trueverb seem quite mediocre and I don't find cpu monsters Abbey Road Plates or H-Reverb as easy to use as Lexicon MPX, Tsar-1, and a few others(nothing really does what Tverb does either). They don't have much in the way of great modulation stuff when compared to Eventide and Soundtoys. I'm pretty sure most of the sig series plugs are cpu heavy. Waves support couldn't give me plugin counts for anything not on their site already.
The studiorack plugin limits seem to be the biggest problem. It forces you into a Waves-Centric workflow. Seems the reality of mixing at 96k is that you have to use cpu efficient stuff for the most part. I'm not aware of any other solution for added DSP other than buying a server of some kind. Anyone know of anything else? I'm not sure how much higher the plugin counts would be on some modern workstation costing thousands of dollars. Probably not enough to justify the cost.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Jan 27, 2017 18:59:55 GMT -6
I've had the 231 since it first came out. Very powerful mic with a pleasing distortion. Ask audio has a review of the 201 where the reviewer claims the recordings he made with the 201 sounded extremely close to ones made with a U87. The freq response looks more like a 414 though.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Jan 17, 2017 16:57:07 GMT -6
Here's been my experience. It really boils down to the fact that often the artists just don't care. The free clients I've had liked the subpar mixes I did when first starting out years ago. One guy was even able to get a free mix and master from someone with 30 years experience and a formal audio education. The engineer even redid the fake drums, added keys, changed the tempo in parts, and basically rewrote the song. I think that's the version this client shows everyone. When trying new plugs or techniques, I've worked on their songs more and have got them pretty close to album quality despite the limitations in their source recordings and all the compromises I had to make when using my I5 cpu. No one really cared. They probably won't care when I redo the stuff without the compromises this year. For them, I think it was enough that even at my most inexperienced, their stuff no longer sounded like a bare bones bedroom recording. None of them is really giving their new material a mix at all. They just record some stuff in Reaper or Garage Band and post it.
Branding is ultra-important I think. I took it upon myself to learn this stuff when my band was supposed to reform. We had recorded with a college-educated home studio guy charging $25 an hour who nickel and dimed us. Terrible experience but he gave us a better result in 3 hours than our buddies gave us with their firewire interface and its stock software. When I shopped around for studios to use, I didn't find anyone who had samples that I liked. Everything was bare bones, sterile, and generic(and if they had samples, every sample had the same exact production style). None of the studios had a strong identity or brand. Whatever info was posted on their site didn't provide any evidence that they knew anything. Many had no samples at all. Just basic info and lists of gear. Seems a lot of studios think all they need to do is blab about what gear they have. A lot of the language on studio sites is nothing but basic appeals to emotion, all this "we will make your dream come true". No one was giving me a reason to hire them. Probably the strongest studio brand around here is Steve Albini's Electrical Audio. The rates for him or his staff are fair and you know what you're getting even if you have no clue about Albini's credits.
Right after I launched my old site, a $10 an hour guy started up a couple miles down the street with some cheap Behringer and Samson gear and cracked plug-ins(plugs would be added to his gear list right after popping up on torrent sites). Both are listed under his gear, so people might think he owns classic pieces of hardware. He gave away many free hours in exchange for Facebook likes. I actually thought his samples were better than a lot of brick and mortar studios around here. For whatever reason he raised his rates to $20 an hour and took most samples down. I think this guy is definitely competition for studios that pay rent around here that charge more. If a client can only afford enough time for basic tracking and a rough mix, it probably doesn't matter a lot where he goes because he won't have a budget for the time needed to do specialized mixing and mastering.
Bands are becoming more a thing of the past. I don't see many people on CL posting to start bands and a lot of the people who do post are the same guys who haven't been able to find anyone for years. In my interaction with a lot of these bands as a potential member, they hardly take their craft seriously. Most of em seem to just want to slop down some generic drek quickly so they can play on a tiny stage and pretend like they're rock stars. I quickly noticed that a lot of guys playing originals are doing so because they lack the technical skill to play even simple covers. This type of client seems like the type who would want you to rewrite their song into something usable and make them sound like a god for $20 a song. Bait and switch is another common thing with these types. "C'mon down we love all your influences and want to do exactly what you're talking about". Then I show up at their jam spot and find out they lied to me, want to play completely different music, and then they act inconvenienced when I don't know any of it. It's also funny when the only good riff they play is from a cover that they try to pass off as their own. Most of the time when bands try to recruit me, they are very demanding and inflexible. The whole attitude is ironic because they show that they don't even read my ad when they reply. This has been my experience dealing with musicians off ads for the last 15 years. I don't know what music culture was in the past, but, when you have so many low life hacks out there, not a lot of bands are gonna be forming. I see why a lot of people would rather just make electronic music or rock with fake drums on their computer instead.
Venues don't seem interested in paying original bands. Even over a decade ago, the best you could hope for was the $300 from the door split between however many bands. Maybe there's a couple exceptions somewhere. Lots of cover bands around here, maybe some of them are making money. But I don't think those type of bands really record anything. The next step for myself is to remix a few tracks now that I have a Z800. I'm able to work at 96k and use many more instances of many plugs compared to my I5. This is real important for Sknote Strip since you can't freeze it. One instance of MJUC still maxes it out at HQ mode for the most part though. After I do these mixes, I'll finish up my new site, maybe make some videos, and just try to keep building a brand and see what happens. Advertising would definitely help. If we all had budgets for ads in magazines or commercials on local tv, I'm sure there would be a lot more potential clients.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Jan 17, 2017 14:34:44 GMT -6
hearthis.at is another I use.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Dec 4, 2016 13:39:23 GMT -6
Any other Waverider users here? I've been using it for almost two years on everything. Never thought it made anything sound worse, but it doesn't allow for moves like CLA does in the CLA Audio Legends course(unless you do them with a mouse or control, of course). When I tried those files I found myself wanting to make a lot of the same moves bc those tracks were very undynamic. From what I recall, everything in that course was run through CLA's prepping gear, so, that could be why they were the way they were. The Ken Lewis audio school lessons I bought don't feature a ton of fader riding. I've only ever heard of Pensado using Waverider when it comes to famous music mixers, and his endorsement quote doesn't say how he used it. To me, the results are good enough that I couldn't really justify buying a control surface and individually working on each channel(not to mention Waverider can do things no human could do). With Waverider I can setup 32 channels at once and listen. I do tend to use clipgain a bit when I want to individually work on tracks or parts of tracks. Anyway, I've just always been curious as to why volume riding plugs don't seem to be widely used.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Nov 18, 2016 3:40:21 GMT -6
Just demoed this the other day since November is plug-in month with all the sales. It makes my tracks sound better even on default. Wider, smoother, and with more of a presence. Sample rate was 88.2. Not sure if the result has anything to with me already running NLS Nevo at the top(drive between 0-8 depending on the track), Strip V3 at the bottom and HEAT set to default with the eq off and the top dial turned left once. It helped some vocals I recorded that were a little sibilant and too dynamic to sound smoother and more controlled without me tweaking anything when I added it to the vocal buss. Don't think I had added it to anything else but the main stereo instrumental track at that point. Kept bypassing it to make sure I wasn't hearing things. The eq is quite good, definitely. I'm still reading the manual and figuring it all out, but I was able to tweak a few things without the manual on a different mix and get some nice results quickly. Dirk I thought explained that there were some nonlinearities with this, that it wasn't just a channel strip. There's also some good talk around page 88 of the ultimatepluginanalysis thread. bx_console seems worthwhile to me. I'm not sure what else could pull all this off, especially without a much bigger cpu hit.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Oct 27, 2016 17:44:14 GMT -6
I already use a ton of analog emulations, so UAD makes a lot of sense for me if I wanted to spend the cash. The 224, AMS, 910, 1176, 2A, tape machines, I'd end up running a majority of UA plugs most likely. Cheapest Z820 I'm looking at so far is $650 on ebay. Needs a second processor though. For my needs, I think I only need about 25% more computing power than I have. Unless I want to load 50 Satins for a 50 track session or something. What boggles my mind is how it ends up that audio plug-ins need a better computer than compressing a 40 gig blu ray with x264 in bdrebuilder does.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Oct 27, 2016 9:19:56 GMT -6
These used HP workstations can be had for as little as $300 a lot of the time, so it's definitely a lot cheaper. I was only looking at UAD to save on cpu, on the chance that there's some truth to the idea that a lot of plug-ins are so cpu heavy that separate dsp is absolutely necessary. I don't have anything with Thunderbolt. There's a lot of reasons I work at 88, based on the discussion I've had with people like Andy from Cytomic on the gearslutz ultimate plug-in analysis thread. Yeah, I had seen the Pro Tools optimizations and stuff. I'd like to make Izotope Neutron a part of my workflow, but when I've tried it, it's extremely cpu heavy like a lot of people are saying. The few times I tried it, just leaving it on in default mode while setting up the masking made a big difference(just telling the current instance what other instance to unmask, nothing else). Thanks for the replies.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Oct 26, 2016 22:19:16 GMT -6
Hi all,
I'm constantly maxing out my I5 Gateway DX computer running at 88 khz using stuff like Satin, Sknote Strip, CLA Classic Comps, Pro Q2, Altiverb, Autotune 8, L1, Analog Channel 202, Analog Stage, Waves Ren, Primal Tap, Ultrareverb, Puigchild, and the H3000 Factory. When I tried Neutron, nothing will play at all. Even if it's just 5-7 tracks and 4 auxes. I did some research on computers, and something like an HPZ800 looks like it'd do well for my Pro Tools Native setup. People have claimed to run hundreds of D-verbs over 200 tracks without a freeze. With this computer I'd be surprised if I could run 40 D-verbs. But I've also read other threads where people say they need AAX-DSP because that technology is the only thing that works for big sessions. UA looked less expensive than the Avid stuff, but it's still going to cost 3-4k if my understanding is correct. So, what's the verdict nowadays?
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Oct 4, 2016 3:03:11 GMT -6
I just have a cheap generic one I use with my Samson MTR231 when I do use that mic. Most of the time I use the SM7 with no compression, eq, or processing during recording. If I'm doing some fast and wordy Metal song, plosives will still make it through an sm7 windscreen or a pop filter with a condenser(and it's a lot worse with no filter on the condensers). I've never really tried drawing out and removing plosives, but I find the plosive guard preset on Mcdsp 4020 Retro Eq to be pretty useful. The plosives seem to be reduced 90% or go away altogether and the vocal track never really seems to sound worse to me afterwards. From the looks of it, there's a few areas adjusted on the eq for that preset.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Oct 4, 2016 2:55:51 GMT -6
I made some comments on kvr on a tape thread and can sum them up here. Satin is probably most similar to VTM out of all the ones I've tried. The sound is a bit more transparent and clean. Those Studer presets are really nice, that's right. J37 has more of a rolled off high end sound than the others. HEAT and Phoenix II seem to pump up the lowest frequencies more than the others. I rarely choose HEAT and after 30 days of testing couldn't begin to justify $450 for Phoenix II. McDSP Analog Channel 202 is really good. Sorta like Phoenix but without the big low end. I'll often stick AC202 on individual tracks instead of or in addition to Satin. Euro Vintage 1 is my fav preset to work with and I rarely adjust more than the input/output. I like the sound better when you turn down the input and turn up the output. With J37 I'll usually do the opposite although I haven't tried turning down the input much. J37 seems to overload and distort in a bad way far easier than the rest. Kramer comes across as smooth and crunchy. Reelbus seemed credible when I tried it but it's been a long time. Using one of these on a whole mix can do very well if you set it right. They're all worth owning but if I had to pick one, it'd be Satin.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Oct 4, 2016 2:47:35 GMT -6
This is worth snapping up if you don't have it. Pretty unique. Probably my favorite along with Primal Tap and Ultrareverb
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Oct 4, 2016 2:42:29 GMT -6
Anyone using Wave Rider by Quiet Art? It's supposed to be a vastly superior product as Vocal Rider was created as sort of a knock off of an early WR version. I use WR on all my instrument and vocal tracks along with PT clip gain and compressors. It doesn't allow for drastic volume changes unless you manually edit the automation, so I end up doing those sort of things with clip gain even though it's pre-processing. Hand editing with a mouse doesn't appeal to me at all. Maybe if I had a Faderport or something similar I'd try some extra fader riding, but I'm not dissatisfied with the results of my current method.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Oct 4, 2016 2:34:07 GMT -6
MJUC in HQ is one of the worst for me. I do a lot of Rock and Metal and I notice those busy styles consume way more than Pop stuff. On a 50 track pop song I could use a lot more plugs than if I mixed a metal song using 3-4 rock band instrument tracks and 1-2 vocal tracks I recorded. Essence can use a lot. Waves DBX160 also uses a lot. I swear Tsar uses more than Altiverb 7. Satin makes the list, of course, but I think it uses less than MJUC or DBX160 by a good margin. This applies to when I was working at 44 and now when I'm working at 88. Decapitator can use a bit but sometimes it's not too bad. My cpu is an almost 5 year old I5. Was thinking of going for an HP Z800 in hopes that I could get at least 20% more cpu power. A lot of the time I'm barely able to get in everything I want. My other main plugs would be Autotune 8 in Flextune, CLA76, CLA2A, Fix Doubler or H910 or H3000, Primal Tap, Hornet Analog Stage, Sknote Strip V3, 1-2 instances of Altiverb, Ultrareverb, 2 API2500, Analog Channel, Pro Q2 in zero latency, few L1s, and then one instance of MJUC on the master fader. I spend a lot of time just doing 10 second offline bounces because nothing plays back unless I deactivate Essence, 1-4 Satins, and the MJUC. Occasionally deactivating other stuff and setting MJUC back to regular allows playback to go through.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Sept 15, 2016 7:42:16 GMT -6
Just did some vocals with the regular foam and the sock foam(a7ws). Both are very usable but the sock makes it a little rounder and fuller, not as clear. It's also slower. All that makes the A7ws a little more awkward to work with on a vocal.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Aug 29, 2016 8:49:53 GMT -6
This is one of my top 4 Analog plug-ins along with Hornet Analog Stage, Satin, and Sknote Strip. I've tried Phoenix II, J37, Kramer, NLS, VCC, VTM, HEAT, Reelbus, Satson, Britson, SDRR, pretty much everything out there aside from UAD. AC has two plugs and both are useful. These tape plugs all do different stuff, so, I can't really say you need one over the other.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Aug 29, 2016 8:45:09 GMT -6
Given how much smacking, breathing, and hissing I hear in songs by people like Justin Bieber and Ariana Grande, we could all probably get away with not editing that stuff out.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Aug 29, 2016 8:40:35 GMT -6
I always use the big sock windscreen on vocals straight into my ID14. Since I've started recording and mixing at 88 khz, I don't have to do a whole lot of de-essing or eq solely for harsh vocal frequency curbing. The other day I just did a comparison between the A7ws, the thin windscreen, and no windscreen. With no foam, you will prob need a pop filter as it gets a lot of air blasts and hissy sounds from your voice. The thin screen stops this stuff quite a a bit and the A7ws big sock screen stops stuff even further. I'm not really going for a modern sound, like all these hit top 40 records where you hear every breath, lip smack, hiss, etc from the singer.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Feb 14, 2016 23:53:36 GMT -6
Tried some new stuff with some harmonies that didn't sound so hot as they were. Using the pitch option really helped blend them. I think I was using a tight 4.3% setting. Further tweaking of frequency range enabled me to cut out some of the bad-sounding lows that were throwing off the blending. Created some doubles that blended very very well using about 53 ms for tightness too.
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Jan 23, 2016 17:36:39 GMT -6
Hi everyone, I've been using this very often for about the last year. First off, it can be very easy to use or it can end up mangling audio. Mainly I use it to align vocals or to generate doubles for harmonies where myself or someone else didn't sing something. This program is one of the reasons I paid for Pro Tools along with Waverider. Unfortunately the two programs conflicted at first, where inserting Waverider on a track that had been Revoiced would cause a crash. I think it's been fixed now. On mixes I did months ago and have forgotten what harmonies were two sung vocals and which were a sung guide vocal and a Revoice generated double, I have a hard time telling the difference. Sometimes it's best to leave the pitch option off. Revoice can align stuff that's a little off, but if it's very off, there will be some really bad pitch artifacts that are obvious in solo but may not be so obvious to an inexperienced engineer. Rough vocals seem to throw it off at times. With doubles, you don't want to set it too tight. Delaying it I think around 20-40 ms was better. I could never imagine just operating this program standalone. You really have to hear every Revoiced part in the context of the mix, bc a lot of the time it doesn't work. Suppose one could take a too tight double or aligned harmony and change the eq and fx up to make them blend better if you end up using the wrong settings in Revoice. Sometimes it's faster just to set the nudge to 10 ms in PT and just align like that. Revoice also creates wav files for every instance you spot new audio, but they aren't too big. I've also doubled a guitar part where I felt like I wanted two tracks panned wide instead of one mono distorted guitar.
I never thought of using Revoice for pitch correction. The pitch thing may be more for dialogue, as they vouch that you can do ADR with a different person and make it work. So maybe the match pitch function is more for replacing a line as opposed to blending harmonies? It seems to work ok if I'm feeding it a vocal that has gone through Autotune 8 in Flextune. From what I recall, bypassing AT didn't make a difference. Revoice has a learning curve, but once you experiment with the settings and hear different results inside a mix, it shouldn't take even inexperienced people very long to make it work.
It's a worthwhile program for these uses, I haven't found anything else and the doubling it does sounds a lot more like a real sung track as opposed to plug-ins like Waves Doubler, Fix Flanger, H3000, Excal, etc.
|
|