|
Post by popmann on Mar 20, 2022 19:34:03 GMT -6
I'm going to once again have to defend Waves for a reason that people in personal studios don't necessarily value: recall. Waves has made some of these plug ins for 25+ years. They NEVER update the sound of a plug in to make it "better" for a REASON: it would kill recalls. If you're a guy at home working mostly on his own stuff, which at this point is also ME , you want a better deEsser. Always. Why would you NOT want them to improve it? But, if you have a closet/server full of client mix sessions that you need to be able to fully recall--(because why else are you mixing all digitally?)...the value is that I can move sessions from macs to PCs and back (obviously with the same DAW)--and Waves will recall exactly as it was from 25 years ago. I'd actually have a harder time NOW opening that old of a Cubase file. I couldn't, actually. Anyway--Waves is the only company I've used that is CONSISTENTLY ROCK SOLID with that. Another company, I stopped using their audio plug ins, because they change the engine and fucked me on some recalls. I had to do it by ear. That DAY, I uninstalled them so now I can see the dead stump if I open up one of those plugs. I meant to reinstall the old engine version...but...life is short. WUP is, first off...a Mac Tax. But, secondly--THAT is what you're paying it for--not for them to "improve" the engines/sound/function. It CAN be brutal for a Mac user with a lot of Waves investment since Apple breaks compatibility for them regularly. I get that. As to hard clipping at 0dbfs. I'll be diplomatic and suggest that's not a malfunction that's easily avoided by proper gain staging 101.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 20, 2022 19:15:43 GMT -6
FJI I liked far better. FWIW.
WTI I would guess is the one you applied EQ to...which if my reading comprehension is on, means that's the IK? I don't know how much of that is Leslie emulation difference and how much is that EQ'ing a Hammond/Leslie (IMO) can get really odd quickly beyond basic high lift or low shelf cut kind of "tone control" EQ.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 20, 2022 19:05:10 GMT -6
I do not know Jeff. Is that why I'm tagged? To see if I know him? I mean apologies if we DID meet and I didn't register names--I'm bad about that...but, the name alone doesn't seem familiar to me.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 19, 2022 12:00:04 GMT -6
I'll come by and pick up that broken outdated old 122. I'll not even charge you to haul it away. Ha.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 12, 2022 14:02:40 GMT -6
If anyone cares. It ain't replacing 32c here. I put it on these Cubase projects' busses and another instance ont he master...got the needles where I typically would...first-hard to even HEAR the difference...and when I did--it's just damping high frequencies. I just had the "tape" on, since I don't use their bus compressors much and while I DO use the bus EQ, it's so situational...there's no "test" for that...anyway...sounds just muted a little.
Now...that doesn't mean this isn't a lovely bus processor as a whole thing--if you're going to use all it's features...my concern was can I put it on the busses and have the generally better sound/imaging of 32c? Answer? No.
Looks like they installed all their demos alongside it...so, I'll give the "vocal intensity processor" and such modern VST plugs a try during this week or however long the demo is.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 9, 2022 20:10:00 GMT -6
I don't think Eric uses Burl. FWIW. I mean I don't pay that close attention--so, maybe he does but--maybe misunderstanding? Maybe I got too wordy? I'm saying take him at his word that he doesn't think converters make that big of a difference. That's not a contradictory opinion from what sits in his rack, is what I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 9, 2022 11:31:34 GMT -6
Just chiming in to say I retired the Stedman for the "buzz". If you want to hear it, you want a singer that can make LOUD clean open throated vowels. I thought I'd gone to heaven when I got the Stedam nand could hear the "air" through it...then I kept running into the "buzz"--different mics, different singers...I kept looking for something in my room that was vibrating...it was the pop filter. I keep it down on the little stand for the Royer 121 now.
To those who say "but doesn't the mic grille do that"...mic grilles are 99% round wire...usually polished, sometimes not...it's long been understood that the grille makes a difference in the sound of a mic. But, it's not a bad side effecty one, I think because it's round. The flat beveled edges of the little diamond cuts in the Stedman direct air in a single direction, and again, are not rounded at all...at least that's my theory on the "why". But, the sound is a kind of buzz overtone to the otherwise clean vowel. When I got it on ME...I just thought my cords were a little dry and ragged. But, I can take it from in front and not...during a loud vowel...and show it. It IS a subtle thing, grand scheme...but, it came at a time when I had a bunch of LDCs to match to a voice and would shoot them out...and it was consistently on the one with the Stedman. I didn't obviously notice THAT at the time--if you just TOLD me that it was causing it--I'd have called BS. More likely an old transformer ringing in the mic or something. But, it was the filter.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 9, 2022 11:23:09 GMT -6
While I try not to take this personally, I've GOT to say that someone implying the Eric is misleading people because he BOTH says ADA doesn't make "that much difference" AND uses professional ADA, is an insulting lack of perspective to someone sharing engineering knowledge for free. -He has used Avid systems for 20+ years. Lynx made a name for themselves being the ONLY "pedestrian" converters available...other than arguably Avid's own. IME, Avid's own is better than your random RME/MOTU/Lynx level...but the point is--none of that can BE USED AT ALL with aa Avid system. Certainly, you can't expect him to switch platforms so that he can use less expensive Thunderbolt converters, right? And he's traditional used more than 32 io, which limits his ability to use say 90% of home studio level conversion. -"not much difference" isn't...NO DIFFERENCE. When you're working at a certain level, you try to remove every little tiny bottleneck. I don't think he's claimed anywhere that, say, a SoundBlaster sounds the same as a Larvy, like...um, he who shall not be named. Anyhoo. I resemble that...in that I also don't think it's that big of a deal (but ask me about sample rate*)...AND I overdub through a Burl and monitor via Benchmark--but, again, both bought for FUNCTIONAL need, and again--there isn't much in the way of less professional ADA made. At all. I wanted to have nonproprietary stereo ADA for the home set up that I could change recording systems as tech and role decided without changing the sound, I was comfortable with. MOTU doesn't MAKE a converter--they make interfaces with converters...so, I didn't really have a choice of going pedestrian--it was "which" professional grade ADA will I buy. *which I maintain improves a lot of different serial functions in an ITB production--not JUST the conversion linearity.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 9, 2022 11:10:45 GMT -6
This makes me MORE curious. I will have to demo at some point. The channel is a hard pass. I don't need to demo--it's not the component level model in 32c. It's just a digital EQ with the curves of a 32c EQ. Why would the dynamics NOT be that? Again-didn't demo. Didn't even SOUND like something I wanted. I can hear the difference in turn the component model on/off with the EQ flat. Sounds better on...nearly 100% of the time. Is that just ever so slightly brighter or louder? Maybe. I don't do forensic work if I can help it.
Anyway--this, in theory can answer the question about the summing. I've maintained that the summing is different AND it has the tape saturation on the busses. Believe you me--I don't cherish the need to use a different app to mix than I do to create arrangements...I've spent a good amount of time with various tape sims and even multiband limiters -because their "tape", to my ear lacks distortion, won't fart out...anyway--if I set up Cubase with busses with this on it...if the summing is the same and the imaging I hear with 32c is really the tape saturation...I'll gladly buy it and stop with the 32c semi extra step. Semi because you HAVE to archive the tracks--using 32c just forces me to do that at mix time, rather than as an unexamined process after. If I export something wrong-I KNOW when I pull it in to do the final mix, and can correct that.
I also think the compressor here seems odd...a complaint I had was that the dynamics on the busses seemed to function similar to the channel compressor, if not exactly-and that I had to use third party plugs most of the time...they "fixed that" with the Harrison Buss compressor (included in 7.2), which this isn't. This seems like a full control digital compressor with a HPF on the side chain...rather than the fairly elaborate one in 32c now (in plug in form-not on the bus UI). I tested and was able to better MOST of my Slate Red or API 2500 settings on busses with their "clean" bus compressor. Go Harrison. Best part of 7.2 that I can hear. Anyway-this isn't that...NOR is it the two setting 32c bus compressor...I imagine it's fine. their audio stuff is universally good...except you know--that f'n reverb...
so, if these are full time limited demos, I'll get them and try it out with my current project--which is another project for a songwriter whose past stuff I created in Cubase and mixed in 32c. It WOULD be faster to slap those on all my busses in Cubase and finish the mix there.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 1, 2022 21:35:35 GMT -6
I am using it for mixing. Sounds great. Cut above.
I bought the v7.2 upgrade but, I've not gotten to where I have done anything BUT mix. I will say that I'm disappointed in the LACK of forward movement with the app in the 4 years or however long. They DID rearchitect the compensation engine, which will make it better for those integrating hardware. But, it seems like there are still so many glitchy little things that I'd have hoped 4 years of development might've addressed. When I first bought it (around v4?) I didn't know how old the POS it's based on was...I blamed the little glitchy stuff on being a green engine. They jsut did some sort of "20 years of Ardour" celebration...and my overwhelming thought was "TWO GD DECADES...and it crashes when I close one project and directly open another?" I mean...how does THAT get by? And mind you--this happened on the Macbook AND the Win7 machine and now the Win10 machine. v4.x and now 7.2. Anyway--back then, I was more forgiving like "at least they started with the sound--they'll get this little UI stuff sorted out"...nope. Still regularly resetting the MCU (in the menus of Mixbus) so it will recognize...still have to close and reopen the app to change projects (which is less of a deal than it would be with a Logic/PT/Cubase--it takes literally seconds to launch the app as it scans nothing on startup)...now they implemented VST3, and it has the same issue AU and VST3 always have with the dynanmic allocation of DSP--only unlike Steinberg, they don't give you a way to disable that.
They have never done ARA...which I made the technical case to their head guy is what they should do, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel--let plug in devs take care of tuning and audio quantize--all that kind of stuff. Just give them ARA access to do it. Nada. Now most other DAWs have ARA...and Mixbus doesn't.
So after years...? Mixed feelings. Sound? Brilliant. I can't say enough good about it. But, having this many unintended quirks at 20 years old? Having watched what the Harrison team has worked on in 3-4 years of dev...ehh...I would defend the glitchy when it was young and I thought the DAW engine underneath was just as young. I liked the idea that they started with the SOUND...and were working on function. Good sales pitch, and the first part is obviously true. I just question the project management on the "function"...maybe it's slower than I'd want...small, not coding, company...open source (ie: part time) devs...but...I'm less gung ho. If the playlist comping turns out to be fixed, that will be one big roadblock to working with it beyond mixing.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Feb 19, 2022 19:32:47 GMT -6
I remember it as an expensive cheap sounding LDC. It DID introduce me to the concept of the grille FINISH mattering--as it had one side finished shiny and the other matte. Of course, I have no way to confirm that wasn't just that the two sides of the capsule were REALLY unmatched, but...
Sibilant. Ratty upper mids.
I had tried it because it was recommended because I always rented old 87s for my own projects...and it was "their 87'ish mic"...but, to me--it had the hallmarks of the wave of CHinese LDCs--a bright K67 style cap with seemingly no deemphasis circuit...no slanted grille to reduce proximity...only made with good enough head amp that it was "better than those" by...some amount that was NOT $2k more to me.
I question the "always cutting low mids"...and then wanting a U87. To ME--when I think about mistruths of the 87, it's that there's a big nasal HONK...rather than LOW bass, it has this huge warm low MID proximity effect that survives compression better, and then it sounds like there's a resonant shelf DOWN around 11kh--causing a big spike RIGHT there, and the HF to fall off above. I mean...I dunno--it's like a less universally good 67. Still great utility mic. The prices people sell them for now I find insane--and i LIKE old 87s. But, I'd BET a new 67 RI would best an old 87 at anything--and they're getting close in price, no?
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Feb 16, 2022 8:23:15 GMT -6
Hey popmann - I remember you mentioning that once you started hitting the Burl less when you printed, you really loved it. I noticed here when I printed that (somewhat) mixed one that it can really add a lot of top/upper mid info when you push those transformers. Was that your experience? I think it works like tape—clipping the HF off the transient so it sounds brighter, despite the HF removal….so, if the mic is a bit pokey, pushing it harder takes care of that, while not being rolled off sounding. But, its a little dark, pushing harder opens that up too. Its subtle either way, in that i cant tell its there in the result—nothing sounds too bright or wooly if you hear an adjust accordingly. It allows me too pump more HF EQ on the way in…becuase it doesnt get all “mackie circuit sounding” and edgey. Just gets more open.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Feb 2, 2022 21:23:36 GMT -6
Ive never used midi over network.
I didnt know LUNA had a secondary (larger playback) buffer.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Feb 2, 2022 13:17:31 GMT -6
few notes:
-You can't change the buffer size of LUNA at mixdown, unless something has changed recently. There are a lot of functional issues with a full time 128 buffer. One being there are VIs that require more linear time (vs CPU time) than that for input scripting. I never meant to imply it technically couldn't host a VI. Anything CAN host a VI--doesn't make it good at it. If it's not good at it, in my language it "can't". I can see how that's confusing. I need to stop that and be more specific.
-I understand you want to take audio and MIDI for later. It's always been what people did. I've rarely been able to use the MIDI later. Take that for whatever it's worth. So I stopped taking it in most scenarios. If I build something with MIDI that I can't play I render it when I get happy with it.
-CPU is never the reason I don't leave things MIDI until mixdown. It might be a side benefit, but I can open a 96khz project and have my drums and strings and pianos and Hammond all playing MIDI "live"...maybe ultimately that might limit my mixdown DSP, I guess-I wouldn't know, as I start over once I have the arrangement ideas fleshed out typically.
-You can't archive MIDI. Not really. So...you HAVE to render VIs to audio eventually or those tracks are lost to time. The thing is--you can spend a few minutes here and there as things are created...OR...you set up a block of time to render and double check all the tracks after you're done with the mix. I'm bringing this up just to say there's a lot reasons that add up to my "don't use MIDI unless you have to--and when you have to, render it to audio as soon as you can" attitude. Much like why I'll never use 44.1 to record shit--any given argument can be "that's not significant"--which can both be true on a SPECIFIC advantage of 96khz, and ignores that 20 "that's not that significant" adds up to being pretty significant.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jan 31, 2022 21:30:09 GMT -6
I think maybe the disconnect is that you think MIDI is used and left as MIDI to "change sounds later" more than it is. That would lead you to assume it works better than it does, which is understandable.
If in what I've said you don't see a problem, there might not be one for you.
MIDI sequencers will NOT play back the timing of the performance. Ever. INSIDE the same host, though, it WILL play back the PPQN rounded capture of that performance back repeatedly without timing changes--in a DAW where MIDI/VI work is the developer's focus.
I think you should do VEP if you want to use a second machine. I didn't know you were going to leave things MIDI for the life of the project. That will handle your recalling of sounds--give you a bunch of audio pipelines back to the DAW without spending a ton on a big IO for both machines to do that routing analog.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jan 31, 2022 14:14:32 GMT -6
I'm not sure how to bridge this communication gap. I'll think on it. I think what you're proposing, leaving things MIDI is a bad idea made WORSE by it being externally hosted. The only tech advancement* in MIDI sequencing VIs inside the DAW is that the timing loss happens ONLY on capture...afterwards it will play that incorrect capture (and whatever you edit it to) back more accurately than external ever could.
*other than people not having to learn MIDI 101 if that's applicable
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jan 30, 2022 20:55:03 GMT -6
You don't need MIDI going from the PC to the Mac...MIDI sequencing happens on the Mac....it will send C1 and Vel123 when it's sequenced to happen on the midi channel assigned on the Mac (and matched on the PC)...that will result in what? audio of a C1 being triggered--THAT is audio that goes back to the Mac now over he analog wires.
You can't not split MIDI signal. (I don't mean there aren't boxes that will allow you to mult them, I mean) It will cause two midi notes to arrive at the VI...but, even if you set it up so that you only hear the direct mult...the machine "recording" MIDI will still have the latent feed as the timing of record. You want to HEAR that when you're playing--not just when it plays BACK. That just ensures that the overall timing would be WORSE than MIDI is natively.
I feel like you're sweating the wrong element here. This is a COMPELTE change to your workflow. The couple milliseconds of MIDI throughput is trivial. I mean I plug in directly because I'm playing live and recording the audio.
I don't get your question about MIDI "routing". There shouldn't be a need to do more than pick the channel in whatever host you're using on the PC...and also select that channel on the MIDI track you're sequencing on the Mac. You do NOT want to try to reroute things at OS or control panel level. You can see how channelized MIDI works with Kontakt in Cubase right now--set it up in the VI rack with 16 instruments...and 16 midi tracks--each on their own channel pointed at that instance of Kontakt. That's just how it will work if Kotnakt is on a PC in a real "rack". I think Kontakt has 64 or 128 midi channels it can use for one instance.
If you do what you're suggesting: record MIDI and audio at the same time...you'll find the objective truth is they're never the SAME. Make it keeping the midi for "mixdown" and you open up even more variables for change. The one ACTUAL advancement of MIDI with the instrument inside the DAW is there's only ONE point of loss--the capture. Once it's captured, the PLAYBACK timing is insanely consistent compared to external. You sound like you're wanting to do a lot of MIDI work. I'm not sure why you'd choose LUNA for that. I see why you're doing this now--LUNA isn't capable of hosting VIs.
If you're not recording live bands, I don't understand the attraction to LUNA-as cool as I think it IS for that given workflow. If most of what you do is MIDI, LUNA isn't going to really help. Just like HDX won't help. That's a cool tool for ANTOHER job than the one it sounds like you want to do. Cubase on that current PC will be exponentially easier to use.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jan 29, 2022 21:40:06 GMT -6
Most interfaces have MIDI. UA is breaking tradition. that's fine--irrelevant, you just need a MIDI IO...and an audio IO for both machines. It DOES mean you have to find a MIDI IO that works with Apple Silicon, which leaves out the benchmark standard MOTU boxes, I understand. Apple done broke the shit out of a lot of old USB MIDI with their M1. I'm sure there are some that work--jsut saying, another research point for you. Jsut because a MIDI IO worked with MacOS doesnt' mean it works any MORE with MacOS on M1.
There should be no word clocking together. That's not what a PCM clock does. Easiest to connect analog audio. That way you can run it through analog gear or run the two machines at disparate sample rates. I mean technically, a SPDIF works fine...but, digital connections can be more functionally troublesome for the less experienced. MIDI from the main DAW to the MIDI machine...AUDIO connection from the midi machine to the main DAW. Those are the required connection.
The latency "added" with MIDI throughput isn't going to be more than a few milliseconds. There's no "total number" I can give you because I have zero idea what you think you're running on the slave machine, thus what kind of interface it has and all added up to the buffer. It's whatever latency you can Currently run the VIs on the 8700 system at, with a handful of milliseconds added for an extra ADC trip and the MIDI throughout of the main DAW.
This is a logistical PIA if the only thing you've ever known is working with VIs/MIDI inside the DAW and/or want to leave things liquid MIDI up until mix time.
What are you doing TODAY (or whenever in the past/present) that you are hoping going this way will make better? I mean this will entail booting two machines...loading your DAW project...THEN loading your Cantible (or whatever host on the slave) project you stored with all the VI settings...and making sure you have them monitored properly in Console.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jan 28, 2022 12:44:24 GMT -6
Thats how i geenrally do it. If/when you need MIDI on the primary DAW, you plug the keyboard into the primary’s midi and the primary midi out TO the secondary. Audio connections remain the same. Youuse a midi track in the primary. You can sequence midi just like everyone did for the first 20 year of midi. edit However, I see that you're mentioning hooking up keyboard controllers to the primary computer, and then passing that midi on to the slave computer, IF you DO want to record midi in the primary DAW. I would like to do this, if possible. Can you elaborate on this? How would you do this in practice? Run your midi to a splitter box and then send it to the primary AND the slave at the same time? Midi into the primary DAW and then use something like VEP or the new BC Connector to pipe midi over to the slave? How would that affect tracking latency? Does this cause any syncing/drift issues? I take it you've never used external midi devices? At that point, the "second computer" would behave and be addressed like you would say a Roland JD800 or Yamaha Motif. All you would technically need is your interface's MIDI in and out (and the one on the destination machine). Keyboard's midi to main computer....main computer's MIDI output to second computer's MIDI input. Audio connections back. Latency? It adds a little. Always did, but it's handfuls of milliseconds--not really functionally an "issue" unless that second machine is already running borderline too latent or something. Drift? This is MIDI, man. The timing SUCKS compared to audio. Always has, That said, No--it doesn't cause any drift, per se (which to me means a variable speeding up and slowing down independent of the main machine) because there's no additional "sync"...the MIDI lives in your main machine DAW's MIDI engine just like it's a software instrument. It fires (MIDI) notes at a second machine along side the audio playback.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 26, 2021 14:45:33 GMT -6
I will tell you after having a number of backup drives fail, i got spendy and got a Glyph Raid 1 system. Noisy as hell. Relativly slow, but i got the version with the industry stabdard Hitachi enterprise drives….i was a little disappointed to learn you cant just replace one if it fails….it has the individual status lights, but if/when one fails youre supposed to send it into Glyph for replacement….I figured like most hardware RAID, youd get whatever right spec drive and unplug the failed, and boot up with the new in and it would auto populate data from the good one.
Luckily, its been like 3+ years now and ihavent needed to test that.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 25, 2021 13:15:20 GMT -6
Yeah, I dont really get what advantage this has over the CC121-iguess its the control of the 64bit strip?…but it doesnt look like it follows mouse focus like the 121 does….and doesnt have a fader….its interesting to see how people’s brains work.
Im telling you….a single knob that emulates mouse wheel….will control third party plug ins….everything in the new channel strip….EQ….other than some third party plugs having issues with calibration, um Waves….i think I have a whole $35 in mine….and I use it more than the $2k MCU+Ext sitting on the desk. Hover mouse with right hand, turn big Griffin knob.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 24, 2021 13:59:42 GMT -6
I would absolutely REQUIRE the pro version of Abbey Road Two. One word: portamento. Strings without portamento transitions are not useable to me for pop music. There are too many times, my ear at least, wants them to slide between chords….i think there are other differences….mics? Tape recordings? More round robins? Anyway….maybe I just still feel burned by VSL….which the solo strings i would argue NEED the “extended” expensive version. But, no portamento is a deal breaker for me.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 22, 2021 22:42:48 GMT -6
I don't have Abbey Road Two. Nor anything with the new EW player. I have the old East West QLSO. Not installed for years. I think I DID put the latest PLAY on computer when I built it three (?) years ago, and quickly removed the libraries. The Hollywood strings were still big smarmy strings if I remember.
This incites GAS for me for a very specific reason--I've used Elenor Rigby as an example of iconic pop strings that literally can't be done well with say 90% of "string samples"...maybe more...they're all aimed at, um "composers" for music for video (and games)...it seemed to be to be a serious lack, given how many people I know who write songs and want strings--end up with something like East West or those lite VSL orchestral things--and they don't work because they never HAVE. Sure--Linda Ronstadt did that one pop record with a real orchestra--but that was NOVEL...most pop/soul/country strings are relatively small sections. So you had to kind of use solo strings in combination with some smaller chamber or divisi sections...mix and match libraries on a per song basis.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 22, 2021 21:17:00 GMT -6
I think he means something besides the Abbey Road Two...which is $399 for the "big" Pro version. Uses their new proprietary player like all their new stuff will.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 22, 2021 10:35:26 GMT -6
GAS induction.
|
|