What piece of gear has made the biggest difference in YOUR

Well...our new studio , regarding gear: ATC ASL110 Pro soffit-mounted monitoring = O...M...G..., detail, precision of stereo-image, depth,
changed everything for me. Control room has been built around these monitors, and the acoustician knows them pretty well, result is
mindblowing. Only thing I would say is: be afraid to listen to your old mixes on these ones :0

If "your" sound was meant as personal instrument sound, then I'd say my trusted AEA R84 microphone on altosax Selmer Mark VI 1958, an alliance made up there

my diy custom built drum kit is my crowning achievement sonically, my 72 jazz bass is a plugnplay no brainer to boot. I know, thats 2 

Oh right: mmm...still the ATC's, it's like a super audio "lens" for all the other gear I have

What about you, mister admin?

regards, Nico

Without a doubt the best piece of studio gear for me was the patchbay system. It doesn't give a sound per se, but it allows me so much more flexibility that I've found ways to patch equipment to invent new sounds that I like.

Monitors. mk1 624s. For the first time in ANY studio, I could mix and it translated perfectly elsewhere. No "learning"....that actually is a bullshit construct of people working with or selling shitty monitors--even ones, IME, that cost WAY the F more money. I brought a stack of CDs--both my work and others to listen for very specific "translation challenges"--the 624s were the only monitors sub $2k in the store that reveal each and ever problem/quality. I literally couldn't believe that with a $2k budget, I walked out with a $8-900 set of powered speakers...but, they were simply teh best at revealing every nuanced flaw. Which is the ONLY point of mix monitors for me. I HATE to listen to music on them--you'd be AMAZED how fucking awful a lot of stuff sounds when you can hear it like that...my stereo speakers/amp cost a good bit more--and NICELY smooth all that over for a better listening experience--the only point in STEREO speakers. That's why I'm always weirded out by people who say they only listen to music on their studio monitors and/or judge studio monitors on how good (and detailed) they make commercial music sound...it's like saying the only time you appreciate vaginas is in stirrups with speculum for a better view....sorry-I feel bad about not having a gender reversed or neutral equivalent...but...

Then others are more with qualifiers....doubling the sample rate fixed the "weird" that was CREATED by switching to digital tracking/mixing all in one fell swoop...the Royer 121 does wonders for amp recordings that were utterly an completely not needed prior to digital tracking....so, those things are things that made a big difference--but only because something previously was functionally different. I was fine with a 421 to 456 for decades--never even thought to explore "better" cause it was "fine"....until 24bit PCM came home with me and it actually was NOT "fine"...

Back to monitors--the whole "good mixes can be done on all kinds of monitors" is from an era where tracks were made with someone in the control room listening and adjusting based on he full range mains--there was no PROBLEM to fix in the mix--it was simply about setting some balances and pans--I can "mix" great recorded tracks pretty well in headphones. But, I can't record (track) AND mix....AND master...with inferior monitoring. Someone....somewhere has to have honesty--that used to be the mains in the control room during tracking...now, with people recording at home without experience and lousy small rooms and monitors that "sound good" playing some CD they like with inferior mics...and 44.1...I'm saying--there's more sonic "fixing" in the mix than what mixing used to be. Propenents of mixing o nthe NS10s ALSO had the mains to flip to if they needed the speculum perspective of something momentarily. That actually rarely meant you do mixes with ONLY NS10s. It meant those were the speakers for 90% of the mix....Aurotone and mains were always used for what they brought to the table. I brefily had a second set of little computer speakers hooked up to flip to--but they simply didn't add value. I've learned--make it sound the best you can on the 624s and it will sound the best it can on some other system. The downside is that for most playaback systems, I work too hard. I've long crossed teh line of "can't tell the difference" on my (relatively nice) stereo system....and on a computer speakers? Forget about it. I mix on the 624s-periodically engaging headphones for the "speculum plus halogen light" view.

When you say "doubling the sample rate" I assume you mean going exclusively to 88.2?

Yeah, I have difficulty following rules sometimes, and counting too, heh.

Meaning EITHER 88.2 or 96khz. I have more experience with 96khz. I've recently been experimenting with 88.2 based on Larvy's whitepaper...and have been fine with it. Technically, doubling professional sample rate is 96. Everything south of a few years ago was 48 or 96. 44 and 88 as TRACKING rates are a relatively new thing of the all digital age...based on the theory that IME was a fail--which was "use 44.1 from the beginning and it will sound better than doing a SRC at the end for CD"--that has NOT been my experience at all. 96 does SRC better to 44 than 48 (IME)...and I've not done enough 88.2 to have a statistically relevant sample pool to say if it doesn't better or worse than 96 if it's NOT delivered at full rez. 

- Ribbons on E GTR cabinets : for the same reasons popman said. 57s to tape was fine to me until digital came in the place.
- Tape delays (RE301 and EP4) : no plugs can come close....really.
- Digital audio : portability, recalls
- Pete Cornish line drivers : high freqs and punch back in guitar rig

Given the last responses, I want to qualify my answers with "recording gear". i didnt consider instruments. Source is ALWAYS king, IME.

This is a great question.


VU meters


cheers

Wiz

I actually meant it as recording gear...but no big whoop...