|
Post by noah shain on Jul 23, 2017 20:39:02 GMT -6
While tracking to tape is great, I would argue with the idea that tape isn't an effect. It's absolutely become an effect and not much more. As a medium it is totally valueless to me. As an effect is the only way I use it. Why on earth would I use it as a medium only? The "effect" of using it is the only good thing about it. As a medium, tape is just completely obsolete. As an effect it's great. Thus...the tape sim craze. Plug in sellers keep making them because people keep buying them. People keep buying them because the effect sounds good...not for data storage. You may be slightly off the mark on this one John. Or maybe I'm nit picking semantics, which my wife would tell you I love to do. I think a bit of this is generational, those of us who came up when digital recording was in its very infancy and there were no digital multitracks have a completely different view of how you work with tape! Agreed Eric. I totally understand that. I'm on the cusp age wise. Tape is a medium that has an effect. So...back then it just HAD an effect. Now it IS an effect.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 23, 2017 17:42:25 GMT -6
$1299 SB $199 CS
Sell a PIIIIIILLLEEE of those damn things
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 23, 2017 17:35:07 GMT -6
What's best, of course, is tracking to tape - that's where you get the most benefit because for some reason tracking to digital first takes "something" out of it that you can't get back by going to tape later. Next is mixing to tape. Again, mixing to digital first and then dumping to tape doesn't do the same thing. The thing is that most young guys who didn't grow up with it don't get is that tape is a medium, not an effect. You can't just stick it on as an afterthought and expect it to do the same thing. It's kinda like photography. You can't do a film copy of a digital photograph and have it come out looking like it was shot on film in the first place. While tracking to tape is great, I would argue with the idea that tape isn't an effect. It's absolutely become an effect and not much more. As a medium it is totally valueless to me. As an effect is the only way I use it. Why on earth would I use it as a medium only? The "effect" of using it is the only good thing about it. As a medium, tape is just completely obsolete. As an effect it's great. Thus...the tape sim craze. Plug in sellers keep making them because people keep buying them. People keep buying them because the effect sounds good...not for data storage. You may be slightly off the mark on this one John. Or maybe I'm nit picking semantics, which my wife would tell you I love to do.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 23, 2017 17:23:42 GMT -6
Note to self...for next product release drop price 40-50% and coordinate massive dealer buy. I'll take 5ea $299 silver bullets...sound unheard. Paid in full, no demo required, don't need to see under the hood. Think of how many you'd sell EDIT Posting this got me thinking about how much I love my Chop Shops and how I bought a pile of rogue 5 Opamps and then I remembered you sent me some rogue 5s to try out forever ago. I still have them. I never paid for them. Send me a PayPal invoice and I will!!! They're great.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 19, 2017 18:24:12 GMT -6
What's your opinion Adam?
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 19, 2017 8:38:48 GMT -6
FWIW I just mixed a record where I printed mixes straight off the console with no tape AND printed to tape.
I brought both to Pete Lyman at Infrasonic and asked him to decide which sounded better.
He chose tape.
I used NOS GP9 and an ampex 440b
I would have been happy using either. They had subtle differences which were easily apparent in an a/b. No tape felt a bit wider and had more extended bottom/sub info.
Tape felt a little more saturated/compressed in the 1k to 4k area with the sub roll off and a little pleasant smear or softening up top. What you'd expect I guess. The Subtle compression added something sweet to the drums and vocals.
Pete made his decision in about 15 seconds.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 17, 2017 21:01:40 GMT -6
The one I'm still curious about is the Altec bird cage mics. Wonder how they compare to the Coles and other good ones. Anyone? Had one. Had it worked on at AEA. Sold it. It's a ribbon and a dynamic in one. Not great sounding. Band limited on both sides. Bad ass looking but not so great sounding.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 17, 2017 21:00:06 GMT -6
The Stager mics I heard in Nashville the other day do the Coles thing pretty well. Seemed like really good mics. Man I am geeked out on those stager mics. I'm comin to Nashville in September. I do believe I'm gonna come home with a pair. Just put my Royers up in the classifieds.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 17, 2017 8:37:01 GMT -6
When I was a kid everything I saw in the world turned in to a skate ramp in my mind. Now, everything I see turns in to a studio like one of those😂
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 16, 2017 22:13:38 GMT -6
How do these studios stay open? They gotta be loss leaders for some other angle!
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 16, 2017 19:51:55 GMT -6
It's funny...I had the conversation with more than one person that I hadn't been to the Tracking Room in about 10 years...and they were saying the same thing. There are just SO many around here...and dropping like flies. I just geeked out on their website...holy heck that is a nice studio.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 16, 2017 18:41:44 GMT -6
If they replace everything but the case it will be more of a pultec indeed. Okay I get that this isn't a dead on copy by any means BUT when I listen to people Like Brad Mcgowen talk about his mini 1176 SMP module and think well what if you apply this to the pultec circuit, which is what this is. Okay they removed the tube based PSU, but every PSU guy I know who cares more about what a PSU dose rather than historically correctness tells me Solid state performs better. The Transformers, well they are not from a Boutique Audio Transformer manufacture, but again I know an OEM house can build an affordable great sounding audio transformer. So why can't Music Group with all the collective talent they have brought together with the manufacturing capabilities they have make a a good sounding Transformer? I have been one of Music Groups most vocal critics, but I keep hearing how they are putting money into their acquisitions and encourage the talent to do what they want, something they were not able to do for years! Now here's something a lot of people don't get : the talent at the larger companies is just as talented as any boutique company and many know these old classics as well as anybody. They also have access to manufacturing methods and purchasing experts that the little guys dream of ! So why can't they apply all this and get as close as those who are trying to do it historically correct with a far amount of parts that are not historically correct? Let's give them a chance, it might scare the hell out of some and make others giddy! Agreed. I didn't mean to give the impression I was bashing. I was actually defending. I'm in to it. I ordered one. Ill probably swap some tubes at some point. But for an outside kick mic...I bet this gives me what I'm after.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 16, 2017 15:53:10 GMT -6
Just a cursory glance and I can't see much and I'm no electronics engineer but it's different from a pultec. For starters I can only see 2 tubes in that case. Possible there's more. A pultec has 5. The layout is worlds away from a pultec layout which has tubes and transformers outside the case. From my limited conversations with tube designers, layout is dramatically important. I'm no pultec expert and I wouldn't buy a real one even if I could afford it. I do have a Retro 2a3 and I like it but my point was not to tear apart that design, just to say that this thing isn't really a 300 dollar pultec. It's a 300 dollar eq that borrows from the Pultec. I don't mean to make myself sound like I know what the F I'm talking about from a design standpoint...I don't. I just know it ain't a pultec. It's a cheap eq made with modern components. I bet it's really functional and I will probably get one. The pultec functionality that it does have is something I find really useful and I always wish I had 3 in a mix. Kick x 2 and bass. I just don't think this thing is gonna eat in to the market of anyone who's making a serious pultec clone. People with big cash are still gonna go boutique. People with less cash and different standards are less concerned and want functionality for cheap. This is only gonna compete with other manufacturers who make fairly cheap stuff that borrows some elements of classic designs...that's shark infested waters there. The big ones have always eaten the little ones in that pool. I guess I'm really just agreeing with others who've already posted. I don't see a crime here...precedent has already been set. It ain't no clone tho FWIW I don't hear the magic of pultecs. I like the way they work but have not found the 8 or 10 real ones I've used to be magic boxes at all. Used to be the only way to get those eq curves happening in 1 box but never magic for me. Possible they were all running out of spec or poorly maintained or something. Also possible my ears suck. Anyway... Cool, I think you are right about the 'lay of the land' as it were. The AML ezP-1A kit also has only two valves, but it does have that third transformer, I think, that these Warms and KT's do not. If I recall correctly, I think Jeff Steiger might have been one person that liked this one. The third valve, that the $3,500 reissue pultec has and these do not, is a rectifier tube in the power supply. As we all know power supplies are important, and that is a definite lack of authenticity for all of them, except the really expensive one. A solid state PSU is certainly a cost-saver, I would imagine. You can also spot this third tube (rectifier) on the old Pultec schematics. I don't see any mono EQP-1A with five valves, in my short searches. I'm sure a stereo 'pultec' might have 5 tubes. The Manley Massive Passive apparently has 6 tubes. On the 'not a clone' front, there are also WAY more center frequencies available on the KT unit, which I really welcome. On my Lindell PEX-500 eq's there are even fewer, but it's crammed into a 500 series size. The DIY Recording one...even less. Anyway I am very much a mid-end purchaser and equipment user, so I really don't have anything important to say about the more expensive stuff. I'm just really excited I get to try out a new EQ by the end of the month! I'll probably be pretty chatty when it gets here and patched in. Yes yes...3 tubes 🤦♂️ Hahahaha What a loudmouth I am
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 16, 2017 15:07:50 GMT -6
That studio looks KILLER! The guys in it are handsome too. But the ROOM!!!
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 16, 2017 14:57:31 GMT -6
Thanks man. FAR from a clone. I'm sure it sounds great and will do what you'd want it to do but this is not a clone of a pultec. It's a facsimilie. I'll probably get one just cuz it's so cheap. I think if there are buyers in the market for a pultec, that have pultec $, they are probably educated enough to know why they want a pultec. This will not satisfy the them. The guys I know that have pultecs want very specific design and components. This looks like an entry in to the cheap eq market more than a clone. No serious pultec consumer is gonna buy this. I think ANY eq with any functionality/topography is gonna sell at this price point. Am I wrong? Can you be more specific about the "specifics" you mentioned? Just trying to understand the differences you are seeing. Just a cursory glance and I can't see much and I'm no electronics engineer but it's different from a pultec. For starters I can only see 2 tubes in that case. Possible there's more. A pultec has 5. The layout is worlds away from a pultec layout which has tubes and transformers outside the case. From my limited conversations with tube designers, layout is dramatically important. I'm no pultec expert and I wouldn't buy a real one even if I could afford it. I do have a Retro 2a3 and I like it but my point was not to tear apart that design, just to say that this thing isn't really a 300 dollar pultec. It's a 300 dollar eq that borrows from the Pultec. I don't mean to make myself sound like I know what the F I'm talking about from a design standpoint...I don't. I just know it ain't a pultec. It's a cheap eq made with modern components. I bet it's really functional and I will probably get one. The pultec functionality that it does have is something I find really useful and I always wish I had 3 in a mix. Kick x 2 and bass. I just don't think this thing is gonna eat in to the market of anyone who's making a serious pultec clone. People with big cash are still gonna go boutique. People with less cash and different standards are less concerned and want functionality for cheap. This is only gonna compete with other manufacturers who make fairly cheap stuff that borrows some elements of classic designs...that's shark infested waters there. The big ones have always eaten the little ones in that pool. I guess I'm really just agreeing with others who've already posted. I don't see a crime here...precedent has already been set. It ain't no clone tho FWIW I don't hear the magic of pultecs. I like the way they work but have not found the 8 or 10 real ones I've used to be magic boxes at all. Used to be the only way to get those eq curves happening in 1 box but never magic for me. Possible they were all running out of spec or poorly maintained or something. Also possible my ears suck. Anyway...
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 16, 2017 12:12:24 GMT -6
Thanks man. FAR from a clone. I'm sure it sounds great and will do what you'd want it to do but this is not a clone of a pultec. It's a facsimilie. I'll probably get one just cuz it's so cheap. I think if there are buyers in the market for a pultec, that have pultec $, they are probably educated enough to know why they want a pultec. This will not satisfy the them. The guys I know that have pultecs want very specific design and components. This looks like an entry in to the cheap eq market more than a clone. No serious pultec consumer is gonna buy this. I think ANY eq with any functionality/topography is gonna sell at this price point. Am I wrong?
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 16, 2017 11:44:56 GMT -6
Does anyone have and like them or are people buying on spec ? Yes, I have and like and have posted about this and the KT1176. I will be grabbing at least one more at this price... Any chance of you taking a pic of the guts? The way these are laid out you can't see anything! I wanna see those transformers! On behalf of the curious RGO membership, I thank you.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 15, 2017 18:49:57 GMT -6
A little off topic but trim automation is pretty useful along these lines. It's post insert. I'll do some automating early in a mix with trim to get things leveled out a little before I go too deep. That way you have some basic leveling automation but you can still grab a fader and move it without it snapping back to the old level when you let go. Can be pretty handy. Interesting, I never thought about doing it that way! I will often pull out some gain on the first insert, and use VCAs and automation, but I have always applied trim auto last. Great tip. It's a great way to get some automation going without commiting to general balance level. It was actually a game changer for me when I started doing it. Also allows you to get automation going during overdubs when you know levels are gonna change all the time.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 15, 2017 8:55:12 GMT -6
A little off topic but trim automation is pretty useful along these lines. It's post insert. I'll do some automating early in a mix with trim to get things leveled out a little before I go too deep. That way you have some basic leveling automation but you can still grab a fader and move it without it snapping back to the old level when you let go. Can be pretty handy.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 14, 2017 8:43:23 GMT -6
Don't think so. I'm not saying it's the only reason but it is one of many reasons. Mr. Williams also made a good point about the maximum output of a converter and leaving 6dB headroom but even then it's something a mastering engineer should be capable of dealing with in digital domain. Mixing with 6dB headroom could be a good practice to follow but not necessary as long as you know what you're doing (if you don't know what you are doing then yeah sure, leave the 6dB headroom). I meant that I missed your point! Noise certainly can't be the deciding factor when building a 2 bus chain in this day and age...can it?
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 14, 2017 1:00:11 GMT -6
I'd rather choose dither over noise floor of ANY analog line amplifier in existence. Point missed
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 12, 2017 21:41:05 GMT -6
Side note: Did you hear my files of the Maag Eq's I modded? Pretty unreal. I loved the air band, but the overall sound of the stock EQ was just blah flat, in fact I had a stock Rane Parimetric that sounded better as a Utility EQ, so If you figured out how to make it useable! Air and sub are all I use most of the time. Once in a while the 2.5 shelf or a cut in the 650 band. But top and bottom bands are $$
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 12, 2017 17:24:19 GMT -6
Side note: Did you hear my files of the Maag Eq's I modded? Pretty unreal. No I didn't!! Another thing I gotta send you?😂😂😂
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 11, 2017 22:24:05 GMT -6
Am I crazy? I thought I was looking at a hardware compressor!
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 11, 2017 18:14:31 GMT -6
By no means take this as inflammatory.... You guys who don't care what level your 2 buss is operating at ITB, how do you feel about the levels your audio interface is putting out to you power/amp speakers and running them at their best sonic point? cheers Wiz I am rarely all itb these days but when I am I'm mixing really hot. My dac is adjustable. I can turn it down if it's pegging the meters on the console. Another trick is to mix in to an Aux track as your 2 bus and do all your processing there. Aux tracks are routed differently than master faders in PT. Pulling down your aux track 2 bus fader won't affect your plug ins on that track. On a master fader you are pulling down the level feeding the plug ins when you pull down the fader. No good for fade outs!! If you use an Aux your level to the plugs is set by the channel faders of the mix only. Move the aux fader and your compression and stuff stays the same. Then you can use a master fader on the output of that track for the headroom and dither. Then you can pull that empty master fader down without affecting the compressors or saturators on your 2 bus. At least in PT you can. FWIW I use a bunch of master faders in PT with the multiple busses. If I have a bus that's receiving complex program then I put a master fader on it. I swear it sounds better. ZERO science behind that...pure anecdote. But I swear it does.
|
|