|
Post by svart on Jul 15, 2019 7:04:56 GMT -6
Unfortunately we're dealing with tastes. And with tastes comes opinion, and we all know that popular opinions define right and wrong over time if you can get enough people to agree with you.
To argue that one person's ears can define how things *should* sound to everyone else based on popularity doesn't take into account the underlying taste of the person making the statement. Or I guess maybe it does, depending on how you look at it.
For me, there are lots of pro mixing/mastering guys whose products I dislike, that folks around here like. Much the same as there are plenty of pro folks and products that I like that a large contingent of forum members would say they dislike. I mean, I think we've established that in plenty of threads that I've argued in..
No matter who does it, it's still just tastes that have defined opinions that have defined the person's views of right and wrong.
But none of that changes the way preamps work, nor does it change the attributes they bring upon the sound travelling through them.
I'm still going to purchase and use what I like regardless of who or what says otherwise, whether it be a marketing person selling me emulations of gear they say I shouldn't want, a golden-eared pro who's skill is really only defined by the person who likes their products, or folks on the internet telling me I should like what they like because validation and all that.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 15, 2019 8:22:40 GMT -6
I seriously doubt many recordings are tracked with plugs when well maintained vintage gear is sitting there. As for mixing, I am sure plugs probably play a much bigger part. I’m kind of getting off topic, so I’ll go back and read UBK post in full and then come back. Go hang in La for a bit. You’ll see lots of UAD Twins and a laptop sitting on top of consoles with a single mic plugged into them. Interesting observation Jeremy. I guess many people like and are used to the sounds they get by themselves, so they bring it into studios and go from there. I've never said plug-ins aren't viable, just that hardware sounds better to me when tracking. I've never had quite enough outboard to compare plugs when doing a final mix, so I can't say one way or another. When I used a Pultec EQ, I certainly preferred it to the software. When I see modern productions with 50 or more tracks, it's obviously quicker and easier to use plugs, and of course, budget and times are factors. But given no time or money concerns and an engineer familiar with the gear, I still think hardware will produce a preferable sound to me. I can also understand if someone has grown up with using mostly plug-ins, it's quite possible that's the sound they prefer over hardware.
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Jul 15, 2019 8:36:05 GMT -6
Go hang in La for a bit. You’ll see lots of UAD Twins and a laptop sitting on top of consoles with a single mic plugged into them. Interesting observation Jeremy. I guess many people like and are used to the sounds they get by themselves, so they bring it into studios and go from there. I've never said plug-ins aren't viable, just that hardware sounds better to me when tracking. I've never had quite enough outboard to compare plugs when doing a final mix, so I can't say one way or another. When I used a Pultec EQ, I certainly preferred it to the software. When I see modern productions with 50 or more tracks, it's obviously quicker and easier to use plugs, and of course, budget and times are factors. But given no time or money concerns and an engineer familiar with the gear, I still think hardware will produce a preferable sound to me. I can also understand if someone has grown up with using mostly plug-ins, it's quite possible that's the sound they prefer over hardware. I think it’s more so a factor of some producers getting handed a certain budget to do a track, they want to use a real studio to feel good about themselves and impress the client but have no clue as to how any of the gear works. They can ask for an assistant for an hour to get them set with a mic going into their Apollo and have the assistant wire up a talkback and headphones situation and they are all set to go. Don’t even need to look at one of those annoying patch bays and figure out how they work... Kinda of a sad sign of the times but it is what it is. Go on Instagram and look at the hashtag “recording studio” or something similar. You’ll see pictures of all sorts of know nothings taking pictures in front of a console with all the faders down and the monitor section set to an external to monitor their laptop rig. Makes me chuckle every time.
|
|
|
Post by Bat Lanyard on Jul 15, 2019 8:41:42 GMT -6
I find UBK's insights and feedback to be really helpful 99% of the time. I think his forum posts hold up historically as well for the most part (mostly on GS).
A blanket statement from him, like the one in the first post of this thread, reminds me of a couple of years ago when his podcast became unlistenable due to him and his sidekick constantly saying "what's on your mixbus?!" in the most irritating voices known to man: he's basically off point. Is there really any difference between a pristine capture of signal only to then change it with a plugin or a flavorful capture of signal maybe untouched due to the character of the preamp used? It's the same damn thing whether you're adjusting sound or not.
Great that he trimmed himself of $14K of hardware, I guess. To each his own.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jul 15, 2019 8:47:25 GMT -6
Interesting observation Jeremy. I guess many people like and are used to the sounds they get by themselves, so they bring it into studios and go from there. I've never said plug-ins aren't viable, just that hardware sounds better to me when tracking. I've never had quite enough outboard to compare plugs when doing a final mix, so I can't say one way or another. When I used a Pultec EQ, I certainly preferred it to the software. When I see modern productions with 50 or more tracks, it's obviously quicker and easier to use plugs, and of course, budget and times are factors. But given no time or money concerns and an engineer familiar with the gear, I still think hardware will produce a preferable sound to me. I can also understand if someone has grown up with using mostly plug-ins, it's quite possible that's the sound they prefer over hardware. I think it’s more so a factor of some producers getting handed a certain budget to do a track, they want to use a real studio to feel good about themselves and impress the client but have no clue as to how any of the gear works. They can ask for an assistant for an hour to get them set with a mic going into their Apollo and have the assistant wire up a talkback and headphones situation and they are all set to go. Don’t even need to look at one of those annoying patch bays and figure out how they work... Kinda of a sad sign of the times but it is what it is. Go on Instagram and look at the hashtag “recording studio” or something similar. You’ll see pictures of all sorts of know nothings taking pictures in front of a console with all the faders down and the monitor section set to an external to monitor their laptop rig. Makes me chuckle every time. Reminds me of my last visit to one of Atlanta's largest studios, Doppler Studios. I knew the manager pretty well before they closed and he passed and I had been there a lot of times over the years and watched it wither and die a slow death. They eventually just turned off their main SSL and wouldn't even turn it on unless they had like a week's work scheduled for it. Mostly folks just wheeled in a sidecart with a Mac and some preamps and whatever interface. Usually used the top of the console to set paperwork down and such. Another studio around here is up the same creek now too, they can't afford to keep the big consoles running but they've switched to essentially doing mostly movie voiceover stuff and soundtrack writing to keep the doors open with the occasional studio session.
|
|
|
Post by bigbone on Jul 15, 2019 10:29:12 GMT -6
Used whatever you like as long as everybody is happy.!!!
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 15, 2019 11:18:09 GMT -6
Massenberg is a great engineer who has done a lot of stuff that I utterly hate. The same can be said for Sheps (NOT Shoeps.) Talk about cutting the balls off a production - yeah, those two are really good at it. FWIW, I find all the "recent" RHCP stuff unlistenable. And I was a huge fan of the band, worked stage monitors for them a few times.
Sometimes your opinions are bad. That can probably be said of everybody sometimes.
Some people like Steely Dan, too.
I'm just not a huge fan of most overly slick production, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Omicron9 on Jul 15, 2019 11:31:33 GMT -6
.... snip....I know people who think Aunt Jemima is maple syrup, when it's actually corn syrup plus chemicals. Real maple syrup tastes a thousand times better, but they're used to that junk food condiment because they grew up with it, so now they prefer it.
...snip.... [emphasis added]^ This. Well-said, Martin John Butler.
I'm donning my flame suit, and not trying to start anything; merely venting a long-held personal opinion here. Note "personal opinion." I think many folks prefer all things analog (it's a broad category, but couldn't think of a better word as an umbrella term for now) because that is the sound with which they grew up, or the gear on which they learned. There is a big difference between what sounds best and what sounds familiar. And yes, I realize that there really is no "best;" only what's best to you. But I wonder if in many instances that "best" is really "what's familiar."
Again... personal opinion only.... carry on....
-09
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 15, 2019 11:59:26 GMT -6
I imagine there's some truth there Omicron, but I operate differently. I don't care what source it is, if it sounds better to me than another, I'll use it. I would absolutely love it if plugs sounded as good or let's say.. the same as the hardware it's based on.
In fact, every time I've done a shootout I was definitely biased, because I wanted the plug to be as good, but it never was.
|
|
|
Post by BradM on Jul 15, 2019 13:12:57 GMT -6
This seems like a good place to say that I'm a huge Brad McGowan fan. Thanks, Liam! Not sure how I got dragged into this. I believe the following things when it comes to preamps: 1. People like preamps that make a source sound like "music" to them. This is the "starting point" for the sound. This is highly personal and is shaped by our biases, musical experience, and lifetime listening experience. If you grew up on Beatles records you may have different preamp tastes than the kid that grew up on K-pop. 2. People have a vision in their head of where they want a sound to end up when the production is mixed. This is the "end point" for the sound. 3. During the course of a production people will turn knobs, manipulate sounds and textures to get all the sounds they have recorded to go from the "starting point" to the "end point". When that journey is fun and exciting and allows them to produce repeatable and satisying results, then the choice of preamp is validated. I don't even do preamp shootouts any more. I just use the stuff that I know will annoy me the least when I'm on the journey. I once told Greg back when we were developing the Electra that "clean is the new dirty". cheers, Brad
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jul 15, 2019 14:00:49 GMT -6
I imagine there's some truth there Omicron, but I operate differently. I don't care what source it is, if it sounds better to me than another, I'll use it. I would absolutely love it if plugs sounded as good or let's say.. the same as the hardware it's based on. In fact, every time I've done a shootout I was definitely biased, because I wanted the plug to be as good, but it never was. Even on UA's plugin "versus" videos (like at Blackbird), I felt the same... Chris
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 15, 2019 14:26:47 GMT -6
.... snip....I know people who think Aunt Jemima is maple syrup, when it's actually corn syrup plus chemicals. Real maple syrup tastes a thousand times better, but they're used to that junk food condiment because they grew up with it, so now they prefer it.
...snip.... [emphasis added]^ This. Well-said, Martin John Butler.
I'm donning my flame suit, and not trying to start anything; merely venting a long-held personal opinion here. Note "personal opinion." I think many folks prefer all things analog (it's a broad category, but couldn't think of a better word as an umbrella term for now) because that is the sound with which they grew up, or the gear on which they learned. There is a big difference between what sounds best and what sounds familiar. And yes, I realize that there really is no "best;" only what's best to you. But I wonder if in many instances that "best" is really "what's familiar."
Again... personal opinion only.... carry on....
-09
If that were true then why are so many younger people all agog about "vintage tones"?
I also find that quite a few people often identify "Different" as being "Better", at last as long as it takes for them to realize that it really isn't.
We all have our biases. Often those biases change over time. I know mine have. I'd like to believe that my taste is improving but then we're back to what is "better".....
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jul 15, 2019 16:11:51 GMT -6
I wish plugs were as good for me to use as hardware...but it’s simply not the case for me.
The whole creative process of the song is easier, the “art” of the process works better for me.
Cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jul 15, 2019 17:36:37 GMT -6
You know, for me, in this context, I’d never want to use plugins to “enhance” the preamp source. Besides the fact that I’d have to monitor through the plugins to know what I’m getting, and bedsides the fact that I still think hardware sounds better, I really just don’t want to have that many choices. It’s already hard enough to not be overwhelmed with the infinite choices of plugins and vsti’s. I don’t also need the distraction auditioning the preamp sound, after its already been tracked.
Also, every decision you make I forms your other decisions. You miss that by “deciding later”. Kind of the same as recording a gtr DI with the specific intention of re-amping later, because “you’re not sure”...
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jul 15, 2019 18:01:25 GMT -6
For at least a few hundred years, enjoyable music has been partly about the balance of harmonics and the character of harmonic textures and resonances.. the “voice” of the instrument,. affected by the shape, the woods, the build, the finish,. etc. The art of recording incorporates this same phenomenon very much, (even though it’s much cheaper not to design for it and simply point to technical data as the hallmark of excellence.) The harmonic complexities of the signal chain are part of the musicality of the recording. If you try to make a record with extreme accuracy (clean preamps), it gets you to a place that entirely relies on the microphone’s harmonic character, and the source’s character. If your microphone is full of character, then are you really removing character from the chain? If you do use a low distortion boring wide-range microphone, then you are entirely at the mercy of the instrument’s character. Now this might be great for certain things that have tons and tons of harmonics and character, like a tube amp with a fuzzface. (Guitar amps are actually the only place I’ve gotten great sound with transformerless mics and preamps) Classical genre seems to be overly attracted to this approach too. But is what they are recording really a clean accurate capture? I’d argue it’s already enhanced. Think back to classical from 100 years ago. All these instruments probably sounded great out in an open field. But I can’t imagine symphonies without the sound of the performance hall. All the resonances of the hall give every instrument a commonality, a musically harmonious identity allowing them all to become one voice. It’s something that dates back a long long time: so it must be that we like all the instruments to have a common signature, it helps us enjoy the music. So I feel that somewhere in the chain, we need to have a harmonic character that imparts a character sound to everything so that things don’t stick out as being radically different. Unless you want that to happen. Mixing consoles used to do this, tape machines used to do this. Interfaces stopped doing it, + everything became a huge struggle for a long while. So the solution was just turned it up so loud you couldn’t hear any character rant over
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jul 15, 2019 18:45:11 GMT -6
I think accuracy is favored in classical because of depth, imaging, dynamic range, and things like that. Those things get lost a bit in some of the "vintage style" mic pres. You want to feel like you are there.
Rock and roll is a completely different story, and the human ear/mind is especially loving of distortions and complexity so those sounds are rewarding to the listener.
I'd be sort of interested in how those rules can be broken and how different kinds of gear could be used for purposes less than intended. I don't really believe in purism anyway.
|
|
|
Post by shoe on Jul 15, 2019 19:06:23 GMT -6
I can definitely see the appeal of having a totally flat wide frequency preamp for certain situations (might even be interested in one if it was 19" and 2-4 channels. I think this would be something I would use for, say, a live location recording. Something where you have lots of variables out of your control and not much time or opportunity to mix and match gear to optimize the sources...yeah neutral and transparent is probably a great idea. However, for most things I do...probably not the best type of preamp for me. I like my neve style preamps and chandler preamps a lot for guitars and vocals and bass and synths and processing drums. I definitely don't want an accurate capture of my singing
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 16, 2019 12:43:20 GMT -6
For at least a few hundred years, enjoyable music has been partly about the balance of harmonics and the character of harmonic textures and resonances.. the “voice” of the instrument,. affected by the shape, the woods, the build, the finish,. etc. The art of recording incorporates this same phenomenon very much, (even though it’s much cheaper not to design for it and simply point to technical data as the hallmark of excellence.) The harmonic complexities of the signal chain are part of the musicality of the recording. If you try to make a record with extreme accuracy (clean preamps), it gets you to a place that entirely relies on the microphone’s harmonic character, and the source’s character. If your microphone is full of character, then are you really removing character from the chain? If you do use a low distortion boring wide-range microphone, then you are entirely at the mercy of the instrument’s character. Now this might be great for certain things that have tons and tons of harmonics and character, like a tube amp with a fuzzface. (Guitar amps are actually the only place I’ve gotten great sound with transformerless mics and preamps) Classical genre seems to be overly attracted to this approach too. But is what they are recording really a clean accurate capture? I’d argue it’s already enhanced. Think back to classical from 100 years ago. All these instruments probably sounded great out in an open field. But I can’t imagine symphonies without the sound of the performance hall. All the resonances of the hall give every instrument a commonality, a musically harmonious identity allowing them all to become one voice. It’s something that dates back a long long time: so it must be that we like all the instruments to have a common signature, it helps us enjoy the music. So I feel that somewhere in the chain, we need to have a harmonic character that imparts a character sound to everything so that things don’t stick out as being radically different. Unless you want that to happen. Mixing consoles used to do this, tape machines used to do this. Interfaces stopped doing it, + everything became a huge struggle for a long while. So the solution was just turned it up so loud you couldn’t hear any character rant over Well, yes - that's what buss processing and mastering are for.
|
|
|
Post by MorEQsThanAnswers on Jul 16, 2019 12:51:01 GMT -6
I was considering buying an Omega as a way to capture DI guitar for later re-amping (in which case the colored preamps would be in play)
I love all of his plug-ins and am saving up for a set of tweakers too!
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jul 16, 2019 13:24:16 GMT -6
I was considering buying an Omega as a way to capture DI guitar for later re-amping (in which case the colored preamps would be in play) I love all of his plug-ins and am saving up for a set of tweakers too! In my personal experience, using beautifully colored gear on the front end is just as good for reamping or using simulators. I think there's a bit of a myth that you have to use a "clean" capture when, for reamping, in my experience, it sounds good, it is good.
|
|
|
Post by MorEQsThanAnswers on Jul 16, 2019 13:55:52 GMT -6
I was considering buying an Omega as a way to capture DI guitar for later re-amping (in which case the colored preamps would be in play) I love all of his plug-ins and am saving up for a set of tweakers too! In my personal experience, using beautifully colored gear on the front end is just as good for reamping or using simulators. I think there's a bit of a myth that you have to use a "clean" capture when, for reamping, in my experience, it sounds good, it is good. Much appreciated! I had (and kind of still) have reserves about “double Neve-ing” things but I’ll consider giving it a go before pulling the trigger on a new preamp. That said, I wonder if this is a good argument in regards to using his plugins in tandem because I’m sure that through a guitar amp, I’d lose the fidelity of “analog mojo” I was using the real preamp for to capture a DI
|
|
|
Post by BradM on Jul 16, 2019 14:10:30 GMT -6
In my personal experience, using beautifully colored gear on the front end is just as good for reamping or using simulators. I think there's a bit of a myth that you have to use a "clean" capture when, for reamping, in my experience, it sounds good, it is good. +1 I would add then when something sounds "right" to your ears, you don't necessarily hear it as colored. You just hear it as good. Brad
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jul 16, 2019 14:17:52 GMT -6
For at least a few hundred years, enjoyable music has been partly about the balance of harmonics and the character of harmonic textures and resonances.. the “voice” of the instrument,. affected by the shape, the woods, the build, the finish,. etc. The art of recording incorporates this same phenomenon very much, (even though it’s much cheaper not to design for it and simply point to technical data as the hallmark of excellence.) The harmonic complexities of the signal chain are part of the musicality of the recording. If you try to make a record with extreme accuracy (clean preamps), it gets you to a place that entirely relies on the microphone’s harmonic character, and the source’s character. If your microphone is full of character, then are you really removing character from the chain? If you do use a low distortion boring wide-range microphone, then you are entirely at the mercy of the instrument’s character. Now this might be great for certain things that have tons and tons of harmonics and character, like a tube amp with a fuzzface. (Guitar amps are actually the only place I’ve gotten great sound with transformerless mics and preamps) Classical genre seems to be overly attracted to this approach too. But is what they are recording really a clean accurate capture? I’d argue it’s already enhanced. Think back to classical from 100 years ago. All these instruments probably sounded great out in an open field. But I can’t imagine symphonies without the sound of the performance hall. All the resonances of the hall give every instrument a commonality, a musically harmonious identity allowing them all to become one voice. It’s something that dates back a long long time: so it must be that we like all the instruments to have a common signature, it helps us enjoy the music. So I feel that somewhere in the chain, we need to have a harmonic character that imparts a character sound to everything so that things don’t stick out as being radically different. Unless you want that to happen. Mixing consoles used to do this, tape machines used to do this. Interfaces stopped doing it, + everything became a huge struggle for a long while. So the solution was just turned it up so loud you couldn’t hear any character rant over Well, yes - that's what buss processing and mastering are for. I think I get way too passionate about it at times. But back when I first started, which was right when ITB took off, I didn't know what was wrong or had the tools or know how. Just hang onto our butts, rip some hair out, waste a zillion hours trying every plugin there is and hope mastering saves the day. When I don't really know what mastering will do to the sound, I am just kinda guessing/hoping it will come together when they do their thing. I just knew.. it didn't sound anything at all like any of my references and I didn't know how in the world to get there. So I'd be doing non stop stupid eq moves and processing like mad trying to get the sound to do something that it couldn't.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 16, 2019 15:39:30 GMT -6
Well, yes - that's what buss processing and mastering are for. I think I get way too passionate about it at times. But back when I first started, which was right when ITB took off, I didn't know what was wrong or had the tools or know how. Just hang onto our butts, rip some hair out, waste a zillion hours trying every plugin there is and hope mastering saves the day. When I don't really know what mastering will do to the sound, I am just kinda guessing/hoping it will come together when they do their thing. I just knew.. it didn't sound anything at all like any of my references and I didn't know how in the world to get there. So I'd be doing non stop stupid eq moves and processing like mad trying to get the sound to do something that it couldn't. I generally don't expect mastering to "do anything" to the sound except add a bit of cohesion and occasionally straighten something out that I couldn't quite get right. Other than that it's get the levels of all the tracks on the album at a coherent level, add the metadata, and make me aware of any problems I might have overlooked or wasn't able to suss out. I use Bob O for mastering because I like his philosophy on what mastering is and he does a great job, well worth the money I pay him. My music is pretty unlike most of the pop and rock oriented stuff that's around now and he understands that and doesn't try to turn it into something that it's not, which is something that a lot of lesser MEs seem to think is something that's their prerogative to do.
Incidentally, I generally don't think in terms of things being "colored". Either they're right or they're not and I just try to get things sounding as right as I can. We also do very little editing or punching in. If a take isn't right we just do it over, usually. On the last album I think we might have punched in a couple words on one song and actually autotuned one note on a vocal because we were well past the tracking stage and were working from the computer dump on the final mixes, not the original master tape, so that was the simplest way to get it done. I generally hate autotune, but in this case it really isn't noticeable. That's out of 12 songs on the album.
|
|