|
Post by joseph on Jan 22, 2016 10:20:45 GMT -6
Korg Minilogue looks good. Sequencer, Arp, 4 Voices, cross mod, ring mod, delay and 2 LPF filter types. All for 500. Pretty ridiculous value. www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MinilogueOn the other end of the spectrum, that new OB6 looks absolutely amazing.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jan 20, 2016 17:40:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jan 20, 2016 8:43:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jan 20, 2016 0:08:37 GMT -6
Drilling holes might be better than frying or ruining lifespan of 2 cards.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jan 19, 2016 23:57:06 GMT -6
Kenetek T4B?
This might sound better than the UA, then...
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jan 19, 2016 19:57:27 GMT -6
Thanks for your diplomatic response. But as I said the problem is I bought the Symphony for its modularity, to expand channel count later on, as advertised. But apparently one cannot do this without a good chance of introducing unacceptable operating noise, even with the vent-mod. So only reliable option is machine room/not tracking in control room or anywhere near Symphony, which is a big inconvenience, since I use it for monitoring. I would not consider the level of noise in my Symphony as being more than an occasional nuisance at the moment. It only happens when I've been tracking for hours at a time with all my rack gear running. My concern is that if I add another card, and inevitable heat, then the issue will be more than that. Based on other users' reports, I'm pretty convinced this would happen. If the new chassis solves this problem, why should I bear the cost to get the noiseless modularity I need when the original unit has a serious limitation, resulting in misleading advertising? "Expand as your studio grows [provided you don't mind extra noise]" Simple as that. Unless tech support can offer me an actual remedy i.e. a relatively noiseless AND expandable chassis which is what I thought I paid for already, I'll consider Apogee a company that does not stand by its products. Offering the new chassis at discount upon purchase of a new card would be an equitable compromise that I could accept, if not entirely fair, since I'd be paying twice. Moreover, how can I trust that if I get a Symphony MK II chassis at my own expense, and another problem creeps up, that Apogee will actually fix it in a satisfactory manner? I hear your frustration, man...but let's not make ultimatums. Plus, I doubt they would want to make any kind of deal like that in a public setting. I think your best bet would be to call and talk to someone in charge - hopefully they can arrive at a solution for you. BTW - was it billed as noiseless? I think you are wise in your advice, just wanted to put it out there that I'm not entirely pleased with how Apogee treated its MKI customers who are stuck with a potentially faulty but expensive chassis that cannot be expanded reliably. I think it's a reasonable expectation that a modern recording converter system would be relatively but not entirely noiseless under normal ambient temperatures. Most are these days, including the new Symphony after all. They did fix it for a reason! The fan on the Symphony I is pretty intrusive, louder than my computer's, so if it kicked in while I was tracking vocals in control room, the take would be ruined.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jan 19, 2016 19:50:06 GMT -6
My 8X8 fan only came (don't have it anymore) upon start up never once did it kick in. I knew anything more than that I would have to it isolated. Great sounding rig! Might try the MKII Yeah, I'm talking about what happens when you add another module and therefore more heat. On most days, I have the same experience you did, but now I'm stuck with an unexpandable chassis, which is not what I paid for, assuming the many user reports are accurate.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jan 19, 2016 19:41:50 GMT -6
I like all different styles, but do not like flashy players who can't control themselves and hold it down when required.
Nick Movshon is the best player I can think of who has amazing chops but still understands how to serve the music.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jan 19, 2016 19:18:59 GMT -6
Thanks for your diplomatic response.
But as I said the problem is I bought the Symphony for its modularity, to expand channel count later on, as advertised. But apparently one cannot do this without a good chance of introducing unacceptable operating noise, even with the vent-mod. So only reliable option is machine room/not tracking in control room or anywhere near Symphony, which is a big inconvenience, since I use it for monitoring.
I would not consider the level of noise in my Symphony as being more than an occasional nuisance at the moment. It only happens when I've been tracking for hours at a time with all my rack gear running. My concern is that if I add another card, and inevitable heat, then the issue will be more than that. Based on other users' reports, I'm pretty convinced this would happen.
If the new chassis solves this problem, why should I bear the cost to get the noiseless modularity I need when the original unit has a serious limitation, resulting in misleading advertising? "Expand as your studio grows [provided you don't mind extra noise]"
Simple as that.
Unless tech support can offer me an actual remedy i.e. a relatively noiseless AND expandable chassis which is what I thought I paid for already, I'll consider Apogee a company that does not stand by its products. Offering the new chassis at discount upon purchase of a new card would be an equitable compromise that I could accept, if not entirely fair, since I'd be paying twice.
Moreover, how can I trust that if I get a Symphony MK II chassis at my own expense, and another problem creeps up, that Apogee will actually fix it in a satisfactory manner?
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jan 19, 2016 16:18:23 GMT -6
Hi Lucas,
It looks great, but to be honest, I'm both pleased and a little annoyed by this, as a Symphony mk I owner.
The reason is the fan problem on the 1st version is a design oversight, and there are many reports from users (on GS, for example) with more than one card (either 8x8 or 16x16 plus a separate 8x8, 16x16 or especially preamp card), that the vent modification for the 1st version does not entirely solve the noise problem. But now we see they took this issue into consideration for the redesign, which is good.
But the appeal of the Symphony I or II is that it's modular, yet the potential noise issue with version 1 means that a user doesn't have the confidence that once they they add more cards, they won't then have excessive noise when recording.
My post vent-mod Symphony--that is, delivered already modded from factory--is usually but not always quiet when recording in longer sessions, so I and others have considered instead of getting another card, to get another chassis altogether. I'm happy that this new version is much quieter. However a fair deal would be to offer the new chassis at a substantial discount to Symphony I owners, since the vent mod did not entirely solve the problem of too much noise. Or some assurance from Apogee that they will provide a chassis that operates quietly, under normal ambient temperatures.
Basically, I'm not happy that in order to expand my channel count, but to ensure a quiet recording environment, I have to pony up an extra 1700 or so for new chassis, regardless. Had I known this, I would have either bought a bigger single card on the Symphony MK 1 to begin with, or looked elsewhere.
That said, the conversion sounds great, and it's cool they're striving for even better performance.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jan 8, 2016 23:46:13 GMT -6
I just want to thank John Kenn for being an all around stand up dude. There is no comparison to the free-for-all pissing contest and fudge factory that is gearslutz. RGO is so seriously talented that I actually feel self-conscious when I post here because the quality of the members is so high. The tone that has been set here is very honest and personable, and I appreciate any and all connections I have made. Who knew that the internet could be a decent place. Just remember the little people when you become a jaded professional with your own line of plugins.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jan 7, 2016 7:23:04 GMT -6
From the very first time I sat behind a PM 3k to today's Digital 'VCA" The stratagem has been simple, VCA group is about control , sub group is about sub mixing to send the combined group to a common destination, often they have some overlap. I have always found a master EFX VCA handy, to simply cut all EFX or an EFX mute group, Simply because it is often easier to trouble shoot without verb and delay, but then I love to use real console inputs to layer EFX and have some EQ as well. Quite often in my live days I would pretty much only touch say 4ch and the subs and VCAs during a show! Thanks! This is a helpful way to think about things in a nutshell.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jan 6, 2016 11:11:29 GMT -6
Hey guys, Thought it'd be cool to have a thread for favorite/preferred mixing approaches. But even if a lot of these things are song and tracking dependent, what are your favorite approaches assuming the mix calls for it? How do you like to route your buses? sub group/stems for like instruments for meSuch as putting drum channels with separate channel eq/comps on a VCA fader fed to a submix bus, with compressor insert, hitting the compressor harder sometimes or adjusting threshold where needed. Or instead fed to both a parallel submix and dry submix. I'm not a fan of parallel compression generally, but NEWER linear phase plugs are giving the idea new life in this camp, there are some very cool respects to ITB plugs, hybrid is my future.Do you like to send effects like individual snare or group room reverb back through a treated drum submix, same with other instrument submixes? nope, i keep them separateDo you keep these submixes separate to clean master or do you like to also apply mixbus processing? Submixes separate, and that where buss compression lives, I have ZERO inserted on the main stereo buss, it's the only way to do it imo I can keep my master .5 db under clipping with due diligence, maintain good DR, and allow a qualified ME to do a zillion times better job than my sorry ass 8) I'm a firm believer in the power of the people to dictate their own listening levels with their volume controls, I also believe it's a sign of mental illness to believe otherwise hahaStereo/microshifted delays and reverb on vocals and mono guitars or panned mono delays and reverbs? I never put reverb, delay or any effect directly on a track, always on an auxPanned stereo rhythm guitar but mono lead, etc? usually, but it totally depends on what's appropriate for the tuneDrums mono or stereo, with a VCA group for LR panned guitars, same deal with backing vocals vs lead vocals? Other LCR strategies, such as with acoustic instruments, keyboards and effects? again, totally depends, almost every element is panned LCR, but i'm not some hardcore guy that doesn't see the usefulness of mid panningAre there instruments you much prefer in mono or much prefer in stereo, such as acoustic guitar, drums? I prefer most in mono, even if they are recorded in stereo, as soon as you pan one mono element lft, and one mono element right, you have stereo.... kinda haha, with the benefit of all kinds of clarityTypically stereo parallel comp or instead mono to reinforce center of stereo drums, just kick and snare or a kick and snare heavy parallel mix including overheads, never been a big fan due to clutter, but this is where the newer linear phase stuff is breathing new life for me, i'll let you know how I feel in a bit.....and as part of the complete sound do you usually pan a pair or Glyn Johns overheads somewhere halfway or full? depends on the tune, i just Link left and right pans and move . them at my whim, the sub stem always remains hard left and right.Generally prefer mono overhead with stereo information coming from elsewhere, such as room, panned toms, reverb? I hate to say it again, but it depends on arrangement, it's all fluid, and this is part of the reason i scratch my head at guys who commit anything but light touch dynamics to their tracking, unless you're some sort of clairvoyant mix freak talent, you need the ability to manipulate tracks forward and backward, up and down in the moment, and at your whim, locking myself into some arbitrary constraint is just not wise imo, it takes no time at all to try, keep, or trash any idea, it takes a lot of time to try to undo and overdo. I seriously think these hyper compression junkies need to take a look at their wave forms if they can't hear the problems being created, look at what happens to all the low energy info, primarily the sibs in the compressed waveform, it's not subtle, and people wonder why their are so many slice crack zinged crispy critters out there? head scratcher... 8)
Anyway, would be fun to hear some preferred methods, as a shared reference and for inspiration. cool thread, I tried to keep it opinionated for your entertainment(as always haha 8), all that said, i'm not satisfied at all with my results being solely ITB at the moment, I think I just suck at this method, looking forward to the 1/2 step backward/forward to old school/hybrid.... Thanks! Yeah I like to have a mono overhead option but not commit in tracking. Same with FOK. What do you mean by sub stem always hard left and right? You mean for instruments other than drums? I don't like parallel compression much either as a rule, but I've found it useful for reinforcing center info and on quiet detailed sources like brushes, tambo on verses. I haven't made up my mind about comp on mixbus. Leaning toward no for rock and organic music, yes perhaps for electronic. I dunno. I always do effects on aux, I just mean for which instruments do you like your effects like reverbs and delays (pitchshifted or whatever) stereo for spread on mono sources (like vocals, guitars), mono input to stereo output on reverbs (drums, vocals), or panned mono reverbs (same, and guitars/keyboards). That kind of thing. And for mono vs stereo preferences on sources, I mean true stereo tracked or mono acoustic guitar, maybe with stereo room for an acoustic ensemble, or either single overhead or summing overheads to mono. Or mono drums and stereo rooms vs stereo drums and mono room. Some people just like acoustic and drums in mono, y'know? Or keyboards on a dense mix in mono, but in sparse mix in stereo.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jan 6, 2016 9:48:22 GMT -6
Hey guys,
Thought it'd be cool to have a thread for favorite/preferred mixing approaches. But even if a lot of these things are song and tracking dependent, what are your favorite approaches assuming the mix calls for it?
How do you like to route your buses?
Such as putting drum channels with separate channel eq/comps on a VCA fader fed to a submix bus, with compressor insert, hitting the compressor harder sometimes or adjusting threshold where needed. Or instead fed to both a parallel submix and dry submix.
Do you like to send effects like individual snare or group room reverb back through a treated drum submix, same with other instrument submixes? Do you keep these submixes separate to clean master or do you like to also apply mixbus processing?
Stereo/microshifted delays and reverb on vocals and mono guitars or panned mono delays and reverbs?
Panned stereo rhythm guitar but mono lead, etc?
Drums mono or stereo, with a VCA group for LR panned guitars, same deal with backing vocals vs lead vocals? Other LCR strategies, such as with acoustic instruments, keyboards and effects?
Are there instruments you much prefer in mono or much prefer in stereo, such as acoustic guitar, drums?
Typically stereo parallel comp or instead mono to reinforce center of stereo drums, just kick and snare or a kick and snare heavy parallel mix including overheads, and as part of the complete sound do you usually pan a pair or Glyn Johns overheads somewhere halfway or full?
Generally prefer mono overhead with stereo information coming from elsewhere, such as room, panned toms, reverb?
Anyway, would be fun to hear some preferred methods, as a shared reference and for inspiration.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jan 5, 2016 21:16:29 GMT -6
His eyes in the video are like wandering orbs in a haunted house portrait which seem to follow you everywhere.
Maybe VMS is really powered by black magic and human souls.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jan 4, 2016 22:53:47 GMT -6
thethrillfactor's posts on GS are an invaluable resource for his posts on balancing low end, midrange and effects, check them out. Can you please provide a link, or a more exact title? I went there and searched but couldnt find a thread on the topic started by Thrill. hate to ask, but my desire to learn overcomes that. Thanks, He usually just replied to topics thethrillfactor example www.gearslutz.com/board/3664525-post9.htmlBarresi www.gearslutz.com/board/341688-post30.html
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jan 4, 2016 22:33:06 GMT -6
I love low end depth almost as much as I love a clean and transparent top end. If you close mic stuff with cardiod mics, try switching to omni and watch all the low end buildup go away. I use omni a lot here as I like to multimic acoustic instruments. Ribbon mics were made for upright for me though! Nothing does what a good ribbon will do for upright to give it that warm soft pillow push. What do you guys think of subcardioid mics, like schoeps mk21 or "open" cardioid mk22? Otherwise, what omni mics are you digging and for what sources? Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jan 3, 2016 10:31:59 GMT -6
In this day and age where the single dominates, and people don't care so much about albums anymore, it makes sense to do the job right on the best songs.
People are loath to make decisions, even when they know they did a half-assed job writing a song and just haven't bothered to cut it.
Speaking for myself, many of my favorite records only have 9-10 songs, and beyond that you often have filler anyway, what really belongs on b sides or to liven up a set. Worst case scenario you save a song for next record or EP.
I find cutting things refreshing!
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jan 3, 2016 8:55:04 GMT -6
Thanks! Yeah, that is good info, makes sense to avoid linear phase on those sources.
To answer your question, don't know if would be better for your purposes, but DMG Equilibrium has linear phase mode, even in parallel mode.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 30, 2015 15:32:40 GMT -6
Slightly off topic but I've always wondered why you've never made one of these tutorials. You've given half of it away already on these forums but "Mixing it like Motown" would be an instant buy for me. Mix however you want, but without great musicians, you end up with shit. That'll be 20 dollars. Join me next month for part 2 of my course, entitled "If you like My Chemical Romance, kill yourself."
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 30, 2015 10:03:31 GMT -6
Wonder how these compare to the BAE 10DC. The BAE has variable attack, 2 faster and 2 auto release options but not 1.5 on compressor section, 10:1 ratio, and there's an option now with hpf sidechain. But these kind of compressors sound best taking off like 1-3db on the meter or they get too grabby. And my general feeling is that overuse of hpf even on more transparent compressors can lead to poorly balanced buses. So the only thing I would really miss from 10DC is the 10 and 20ms attack options. But the AML 500 series has a slow attack 25ms in addition to the 5ms.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 27, 2015 13:09:04 GMT -6
The answer is no, because you still capture the sound of the room, good or bad, using the closer mics, and you can't get rid of it once it's captured. But artificial reverb can replace room mics to some degree. To my ear the ERs by real mics cant be replaced by any artificial reverb. I did try very hard today to come close to some famous Jazz recordings. To my ear, there is no race in direct ABing. The ERs, as well as the tails, sound very smooth and very natural. But saying you can recreate a real room with close miced sources? In my opinion its impossible becasue it never sounds natural. Maybe I am wrong, but my instinct tells me there is some truth? Even if I never tracked a Jazz Band in a great sounding room! I think you are right! But better mics make a big difference in controlling/smoothing early reflections.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 27, 2015 12:31:32 GMT -6
I don't think the UAD tail has much depth at all, but like I said, the attack/onset sounds good.
Consequently, even though the UAD sounds more like a plate in isolation, it sounds boring vs the real thing. In an actual mix context, I think the Valhalla serves the role of more authentic plate behavior vs another choice of room or typical digital plate reverb rather well, and has a lot of character, plus you have all those modes to play with. He just added 5 more in new beta. Including mono input (which can sound more retro), and parallel stereo, which stays out of the way well.
However, you really need to eq the return liberally and personally I would use an interesting predelay, since the sound is pretty big/ungrainy to start with.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 27, 2015 12:18:54 GMT -6
The answer is no, because you still capture the sound of the room, good or bad, using the closer mics, and you can't get rid of it once it's captured.
But artificial reverb can replace room mics to some degree.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 25, 2015 22:04:59 GMT -6
It's FAKE... for Pity's sake gentlemen, you have two mono sources grouped in... MONO. Mono center with mono 'sides' in phase and out of phase. When you hear 'stereo' from MS you are actually hearing a peycho-acoustic effect not actual stereo. The same single is on left and right, just with a 180ยบ phase shift. JMHO!! What is "actual stereo"? With M/S, you just have left and right phase differences vs cardioid mic, rather than phase differences of one mic in a pair vs the other. Even if mics heard like your ears, a near-coincident signal from two perfect microphones through 2 speakers to your ears is not the same thing as your ears hearing the source in the room. From 2pulse, on GS: "M/S recording and decoding relies on polarity differences to reproduce accurate stereo localization. Sounds that arrive from the left side of the MS array will enter the positive lobe of the "S" mic, and will therefore be same-polarity as the always-positive "M" mic. Sounds arriving from the right will enter the negative lobe of the "S" mic and are opposite polarity as the "M" mic. What M/S decoding does is send same-polarity information (M+S) to the left speaker, and opposite polarity information (M-S) to the right speaker, thereby recreating the stereo spread as it exited in front of the mics."
|
|