|
|
Post by littlesicily on Apr 24, 2014 22:13:08 GMT -6
I was reading through the drip sta- documentation, you can really manipulate the parts choices in conjunction with tubes to dial a sound, i really need to build one and MAKE it work. My guess is it'd probably cost between $1,000 to 1,500... not too bad. My friends who built theirs said it was approx $1600 in parts I think. They did get a lot of upgrades though. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 24, 2014 22:17:13 GMT -6
You around tomorrow? I'll also forward you wiz email if you wanna try it... That was my take when I sang through it that time. The Drip was more colored/fuzzy... I'm slammed tmrw. Send hate mail to Sal  I sent over the files...if you get around to it in the next week, throw that down... |
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Apr 25, 2014 5:43:52 GMT -6
You should definitely hear it on a vox that hasn't been compressed. I'm not sure this was a good test because the peaks were already compressed, so in order to get it to those levels of compression, we were bringing the noise floor up and doubling up on an already colored LA2A...The thing that I'm amazed about on vocals is just how smooth the compression is - just how you can't hear it working...it's like the perfect attack and release and if I can use it, that shit ain't hard to dial in. You don't hear the compression (unless you want to) but the sonic thickness is just this beautiful euphonic velvet. Not the airy eshiness of tube optos...(no offense tube opto owners) Very good point. I could hear it pulling too much in spots on that pass. Which brings up a point I'd like to make. I usually print through a 76 just tickling the reduction. But really all I'm doing is adding a little beef through the path of the 76. Not much reduction to speak of (needle barely moves on loud peaks). I find this is the best way to run the Sta Level in series. It does a lot of work AND, it reveals a lot. So if there is some 4 or 5 db reduction going on during tracking, the Sta will amplify that and add some more itself. Not always a bad thing and sometimes just what you'd want. But that's why I usually always use the Sta as a mixing comp. It's a finisher. It puts that big record spit and polish on a vocal and little if any automation is needed if everything is gain staged and properly tracked. But this is just the work flow that I have gotten use to. I'm sure tracking with it and adding another comp in the mix would work just fine too. Question to the group concerning tracking compression: Is it largely agreed that using a tracking comp for beef instead of actual gain reduction is best or am I way off?? Serious question. |
|
|
|
Post by RicFoxx on Apr 25, 2014 7:08:43 GMT -6
You should definitely hear it on a vox that hasn't been compressed. I'm not sure this was a good test because the peaks were already compressed, so in order to get it to those levels of compression, we were bringing the noise floor up and doubling up on an already colored LA2A...The thing that I'm amazed about on vocals is just how smooth the compression is - just how you can't hear it working...it's like the perfect attack and release and if I can use it, that shit ain't hard to dial in. You don't hear the compression (unless you want to) but the sonic thickness is just this beautiful euphonic velvet. Not the airy eshiness of tube optos...(no offense tube opto owners) Very good point. I could hear it pulling too much in spots on that pass. Which brings up a point I'd like to make. I usually print through a 76 just tickling the reduction. But really all I'm doing is adding a little beef through the path of the 76. Not much reduction to speak of (needle barely moves on loud peaks). I find this is the best way to run the Sta Level in series. It does a lot of work AND, it reveals a lot. So if there is some 4 or 5 db reduction going on during tracking, the Sta will amplify that and add some more itself. Not always a bad thing and sometimes just what you'd want. But that's why I usually always use the Sta as a mixing comp. It's a finisher. It puts that big record spit and polish on a vocal and little if any automation is needed if everything is gain staged and properly tracked. But this is just the work flow that I have gotten use to. I'm sure tracking with it and adding another comp in the mix would work just fine too. Question to the group concerning tracking compression: Is it largely agreed that using a tracking comp for beef instead of actual gain reduction is best or am I way off?? Serious question. That seems logical and Im assuming the best way to go at it. My problem, as someone who loves to sing, is my room is fairly treated and a bit un-natural. I find compressing the signal helps with my pitch perception. When I had the Apollo I did tests where I would compress the heck out of my vocals in my feed but not record it. The more it seemed I compressed it the better the uncompressed signal I recorded would be. Not sure how to achieve this now without the Apollo. I just wanted to add that when I have sung in really open rooms I did not have to do any of this. I think one of the main reasons for the continual purchase of High end gear is for it to inspire performances out of me. |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Apr 25, 2014 8:04:06 GMT -6
Thanks so much for taking the time to do that John. Really great of you. The files, are really interesting to me. That STA is a monster acoustic guitar compressor, period. I (probably more than anyone listening to this for the first time) can really appreciate its ability, as its me playing and singing, and I know the pitfalls of that particular performance( note I picked this one, as its the extremes of what I can sing) The path for the vocal is U87 BAE 1073DMP Drip LA2A with a small amount of tracking compression (my normal tracking chain, though the pre gets substituted.) The acoustic is Maton Messiah, KM84 JLM Audio TG500 pre, no comp which EXACT model of STA is this, I find them confusing, can you provide me to a link of what it is please? Does anyone know, if the DRIP version is close to this? same? completely different? I love, love, love what it does to the acoustic guitar, and I have been chasing an acoustic guitar compressor forever but have been unable to find ANYTHING that doesn't screw up the harmonic content, till now... dammit 8) I would love to track vocals through it, as I love the feeling of singing "into" a comp, you can sort of float along with it. thanks again, absolutely great of you to take the time to help out this marooned convict on the other side of the pond!!!! cheers Wiz PS if you would like to see the song how it was done originally, it was part of a few I did where I tracked and filmed them live in the studio.... Hey Wiz, If you shoot me the files, I'll jam them through my TC Phoenix Mastering when I get a chance. I've got gigs tonight and tomorrow night, but should be up in the studio Sunday or Monday night. P.S. Nice song. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 25, 2014 8:33:01 GMT -6
You should definitely hear it on a vox that hasn't been compressed. I'm not sure this was a good test because the peaks were already compressed, so in order to get it to those levels of compression, we were bringing the noise floor up and doubling up on an already colored LA2A...The thing that I'm amazed about on vocals is just how smooth the compression is - just how you can't hear it working...it's like the perfect attack and release and if I can use it, that shit ain't hard to dial in. You don't hear the compression (unless you want to) but the sonic thickness is just this beautiful euphonic velvet. Not the airy eshiness of tube optos...(no offense tube opto owners) Very good point. I could hear it pulling too much in spots on that pass. Which brings up a point I'd like to make. I usually print through a 76 just tickling the reduction. But really all I'm doing is adding a little beef through the path of the 76. Not much reduction to speak of (needle barely moves on loud peaks). I find this is the best way to run the Sta Level in series. It does a lot of work AND, it reveals a lot. So if there is some 4 or 5 db reduction going on during tracking, the Sta will amplify that and add some more itself. Not always a bad thing and sometimes just what you'd want. But that's why I usually always use the Sta as a mixing comp. It's a finisher. It puts that big record spit and polish on a vocal and little if any automation is needed if everything is gain staged and properly tracked. But this is just the work flow that I have gotten use to. I'm sure tracking with it and adding another comp in the mix would work just fine too. Question to the group concerning tracking compression: Is it largely agreed that using a tracking comp for beef instead of actual gain reduction is best or am I way off?? Serious question. Yeah - I think it's different when you're singing through it. When tracking with it, I think it requires less work from the singer. I actually sing more dynamically through it, because I can hear better. |
|
|
|
Post by lolo on Apr 25, 2014 8:39:30 GMT -6
You should definitely hear it on a vox that hasn't been compressed. I'm not sure this was a good test because the peaks were already compressed, so in order to get it to those levels of compression, we were bringing the noise floor up and doubling up on an already colored LA2A...The thing that I'm amazed about on vocals is just how smooth the compression is - just how you can't hear it working...it's like the perfect attack and release and if I can use it, that shit ain't hard to dial in. You don't hear the compression (unless you want to) but the sonic thickness is just this beautiful euphonic velvet. Not the airy eshiness of tube optos...(no offense tube opto owners) Very good point. I could hear it pulling too much in spots on that pass. Which brings up a point I'd like to make. I usually print through a 76 just tickling the reduction. But really all I'm doing is adding a little beef through the path of the 76. Not much reduction to speak of (needle barely moves on loud peaks). I find this is the best way to run the Sta Level in series. It does a lot of work AND, it reveals a lot. So if there is some 4 or 5 db reduction going on during tracking, the Sta will amplify that and add some more itself. Not always a bad thing and sometimes just what you'd want. But that's why I usually always use the Sta as a mixing comp. It's a finisher. It puts that big record spit and polish on a vocal and little if any automation is needed if everything is gain staged and properly tracked. But this is just the work flow that I have gotten use to. I'm sure tracking with it and adding another comp in the mix would work just fine too. Question to the group concerning tracking compression: Is it largely agreed that using a tracking comp for beef instead of actual gain reduction is best or am I way off?? Serious question. Good point Cowboy. I normally track with a comp. Not so much for gain reduction but more for the beef. Esp when im singing i find it easier to track with compression. Sounds better in the cans=better takes imo. |
|
|
|
Post by lolo on Apr 25, 2014 8:40:22 GMT -6
Very good point. I could hear it pulling too much in spots on that pass. Which brings up a point I'd like to make. I usually print through a 76 just tickling the reduction. But really all I'm doing is adding a little beef through the path of the 76. Not much reduction to speak of (needle barely moves on loud peaks). I find this is the best way to run the Sta Level in series. It does a lot of work AND, it reveals a lot. So if there is some 4 or 5 db reduction going on during tracking, the Sta will amplify that and add some more itself. Not always a bad thing and sometimes just what you'd want. But that's why I usually always use the Sta as a mixing comp. It's a finisher. It puts that big record spit and polish on a vocal and little if any automation is needed if everything is gain staged and properly tracked. But this is just the work flow that I have gotten use to. I'm sure tracking with it and adding another comp in the mix would work just fine too. Question to the group concerning tracking compression: Is it largely agreed that using a tracking comp for beef instead of actual gain reduction is best or am I way off?? Serious question. Yeah - I think it's different when you're singing through it. When tracking with it, I think it requires less work from the singer. I actually sing more dynamically through it, because I can hear better. Totally agree |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 25, 2014 8:48:51 GMT -6
Hey wiz, you don't happen to have an uncompressed version of these vox, do you? I think we're hearing a lot of your LA2A on those vocals... |
|
|
|
Post by RicFoxx on Apr 25, 2014 8:55:11 GMT -6
Hey wiz, you don't happen to have an uncompressed version of these vox, do you? I think we're hearing a lot of your LA2A on those vocals... Yeah I would like to hear this also as the original file seemed very compressed already. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Apr 25, 2014 9:00:23 GMT -6
Question to the group concerning tracking compression: Is it largely agreed that using a tracking comp for beef instead of actual gain reduction is best or am I way off?? Serious question. I've had this conversation in the past when i was much more of an unconscionable scowling bastard...mea culpa  For me i don't track with compression at all, if i can help it? It doesn't make sense to me when i can apply it afterward. B Swedien says, and i quote "tracking with compression is kokoo", I pretty much agree, it does permanently remove transient info, and alter the tonality and dynamic range of a source, essentially taking future options off the table forever, undo is no longer an option. It's tantamount to taking colors away from a painter. If you are an ITB guy, you have tons of HR, total recall, and zillions of plugs at your disposal, it makes even more sense to track WITHOUT compression. In Ricks case, I'd apply the compression to his headphone mix to give him the comfort he wants from that, without the commitment to tape. Of course, this is JMO, you should do what makes you happy, but i will say this in addition, compression is not "addition" of GR, it's multiplication GR. (these numbers are conservative IMV, most guys hit much harder) If you track at 2:1, then apply an additional 2:1(serial compression is common here) to the track afterward, and then you mix into a sub comp at 2:1, and then into stereo buss compressor at 2:1 and then you have it mastered and he/she compresses 2:1. that is NOT 2:1+2:1+2:1+2:1+2:1=10db GR, it's 2:1x2:1x2:1x2:1x2:1= 32db GR!!!
These are conservative numbers, most guys pound compressors. IMV, this is why a ton of music sounds like the visual equivalent of staring at the sun through a peephole in the front door, or the difference between hearing an explosion over a cell phone vs real life. Dynamic range= emotional excitement, always has, always will. DR ratings are astonishingly pitiful these days, it's a shame for music. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 25, 2014 9:33:14 GMT -6
Question to the group concerning tracking compression: Is it largely agreed that using a tracking comp for beef instead of actual gain reduction is best or am I way off?? Serious question. Yeah - I think it's different when you're singing through it. When tracking with it, I think it requires less work from the singer. I actually sing more dynamically through it, because I can hear better. Yes, this is my opinion, as well. My vocalist loves the STA for this exact reason. His signal level is so well-controlled that he sings with greater confidence. He doesn't know it yet, but we are going to do some testing this weekend. I want to objectively determine the "sweet spot" on the STA for my vocal chain and his singing style. I think we are already pretty much there, but we have never done a PT playlist of takes while changing the gain structure into the comp between takes. Should be interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 25, 2014 9:37:56 GMT -6
Question to the group concerning tracking compression: Is it largely agreed that using a tracking comp for beef instead of actual gain reduction is best or am I way off?? Serious question. I've had this conversation in the past when i was much more of an unconscionable scowling bastard...mea culpa For me i don't track with compression at all, if i can help it? It doesn't make sense to me when i can apply it afterward. B Swedien says, and i quote "tracking with compression is kokoo", I pretty much agree, it does permanently remove transient info, and alter the tonality and dynamic range of a source, essentially taking future options off the table forever, undo is no longer an option. It's tantamount to taking colors away from a painter. If you are an ITB guy, you have tons of HR, total recall, and zillions of plugs at your disposal, it makes even more sense to track WITHOUT compression. In Ricks case, I'd apply the compression to his headphone mix to give him the comfort he wants from that, without the commitment to tape. Of course, this is JMO, you should do what makes you happy, but i will say this in addition, compression is not "addition" of GR, it's multiplication GR. (these numbers are conservative IMV, most guys hit much harder) If you track at 2:1, then apply an additional 2:1(serial compression is common here) to the track afterward, and then you mix into a sub comp at 2:1, and then into stereo buss compressor at 2:1 and then you have it mastered and he/she compresses 2:1. that is NOT 2:1+2:1+2:1+2:1+2:1=10db GR, it's 2:1x2:1x2:1x2:1x2:1= 32db GR!!!
These are conservative numbers, most guys pound compressors. IMV, this is why a ton of music sounds like the visual equivalent of staring at the sun through a peephole in the front door, or the difference between hearing an explosion over a cell phone vs real life. Dynamic range= emotional excitement, always has, always will. DR ratings are astonishingly pitiful these days, it's a shame for music.Swedien also has a $200K desk, million dollar room, etc... |
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Apr 25, 2014 15:27:48 GMT -6
When I was doing those vids, the idea was to do everything first and only pass, so the only version I have is with compression but.....
I got some time today, I will re sing it without compression and post it up. 8)
meeeeeee meeeee meeee meeee meeeeee *COUGH* moe moe moe moe moe *SPLUTTER* ACH CHEW!
righto wheres that U87
8)
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Apr 25, 2014 15:29:14 GMT -6
A set of VU meters helps enormously when starting out with compression.. I still use mine, continuously all day every day..I would be lost without them.
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Apr 25, 2014 15:37:21 GMT -6
PS if you would like to see the song how it was done originally, it was part of a few I did where I tracked and filmed them live in the studio.... Hey Wiz, If you shoot me the files, I'll jam them through my TC Phoenix Mastering when I get a chance. I've got gigs tonight and tomorrow night, but should be up in the studio Sunday or Monday night. P.S. Nice song. Hi I will retrack the vocal and post up a couple of links here so people can grab them and can have at it... 8) the song, I wish was one of mine, its not.. its by a band here in Oz called "Cold Chisel" who were huge here in the 70's and 80s and was written by one of my favourite writers, Don Walker. cheers Wiz |
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Apr 25, 2014 16:17:03 GMT -6
Here is a link to the retraced vocal, sans compression. So its just me into U87 BAE 1073DMP. (zip file contains acoustic and vocal tracks 44.1Khz 24 Bit) This song really is just over the limit of my range, but its a great test for me to hear the STA on as its the extremes of my voice, soft, belty etc so grain of salt served on side. It was also, interesting, tracking without the LA2A which I haven't done for a really long time... its a great crutch! 8) So feel free to run your favourite vocal compressor over this and see how it fares... would love to hear them. cheers Wiz dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13120658/Overwar%20no%20comp.zip |
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Apr 25, 2014 17:15:16 GMT -6
I'll run one through mine tonight if I get time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 25, 2014 19:07:00 GMT -6
Cool. Whoever gets there first cowboy. I did double attack one o'clock release. Peak GR on one pass at -10 and another at -20. Also normalized to -6db
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Apr 25, 2014 19:31:51 GMT -6
I've had this conversation in the past when i was much more of an unconscionable scowling bastard...mea culpa For me i don't track with compression at all, if i can help it? It doesn't make sense to me when i can apply it afterward. B Swedien says, and i quote "tracking with compression is kokoo", I pretty much agree, it does permanently remove transient info, and alter the tonality and dynamic range of a source, essentially taking future options off the table forever, undo is no longer an option. It's tantamount to taking colors away from a painter. If you are an ITB guy, you have tons of HR, total recall, and zillions of plugs at your disposal, it makes even more sense to track WITHOUT compression. In Ricks case, I'd apply the compression to his headphone mix to give him the comfort he wants from that, without the commitment to tape. Of course, this is JMO, you should do what makes you happy, but i will say this in addition, compression is not "addition" of GR, it's multiplication GR. (these numbers are conservative IMV, most guys hit much harder) If you track at 2:1, then apply an additional 2:1(serial compression is common here) to the track afterward, and then you mix into a sub comp at 2:1, and then into stereo buss compressor at 2:1 and then you have it mastered and he/she compresses 2:1. that is NOT 2:1+2:1+2:1+2:1+2:1=10db GR, it's 2:1x2:1x2:1x2:1x2:1= 32db GR!!!
These are conservative numbers, most guys pound compressors. IMV, this is why a ton of music sounds like the visual equivalent of staring at the sun through a peephole in the front door, or the difference between hearing an explosion over a cell phone vs real life. Dynamic range= emotional excitement, always has, always will. DR ratings are astonishingly pitiful these days, it's a shame for music.Swedien also has a $200K desk, million dollar room, etc... Ok? but really that has almost nothing to do with what i said... |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Apr 25, 2014 19:52:03 GMT -6
I love compression. Call me crazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 25, 2014 20:03:33 GMT -6
Swedien also has a $200K desk, million dollar room, etc... Ok? but really that has almost nothing to do with what i said... I misread... |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Apr 25, 2014 21:09:43 GMT -6
I love compression. Call me crazy. dont get me wrong man, i love it too, i've got like 20+ compressors lol, there is nothing more fun! You literally cant mix without them, that wasn't what i was saying. I was just making the case for using compression in the mix vs tracking, nothing more. |
|
|
|
Post by RicFoxx on Apr 25, 2014 22:05:27 GMT -6
Ok my Sta Level is here and I can honestly say I would probably sell one of my kidneys to keep it. The thing is smooth as hot butter....damnit it's really good! cowboycoalminer I did the thing with the WA76 where I just ran a signal through it kissing the GR meter and then patching it through the Sta Level and that is it man...fat and then smooth and glossy! Im really glad I ponied up and got the thing. |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Apr 25, 2014 23:14:50 GMT -6
I love compression. Call me crazy. dont get me wrong man, i love it too, i've got like 20+ compressors lol, there is nothing more fun! You literally cant mix without them, that wasn't what i was saying. I was just making the case for using compression in the mix vs tracking, nothing more. Meh. I'm a big proponent of get it right in tracking vs. fix in the mix. |
|
For me i don't track with compression at all, if i can help it? It doesn't make sense to me when i can apply it afterward. B Swedien says, and i quote "tracking with compression is kokoo", I pretty much agree, it does permanently remove transient info, and alter the tonality and dynamic range of a source, essentially taking future options off the table forever, undo is no longer an option. It's tantamount to taking colors away from a painter.
