I just updated to the new Luna / UAD software, and as well as the new API bundle. Now once again, when I open up my mix templet, the render meter is already at, 55 - 60% and this is parked!
Tried a simple 20 channel mix yesterday, and the computer crashed about ten times!
Did I mention I HATE computers!
More to come.... (maybe)
Thats render meter bugs me 2! Has both latest MBP and iMac. It is always "render meters" that put a stop to the mixing and then there are not many native plugs in my mixes. Hope they optimize Luna for today's computers in the near future!
Mixing ITB is absolutely a different skill set that requires a large time investment to transition to or incorporate into your workflow.
There are countless examples of mixers that have gone through this process. (Andrew Scheps and Michael Brauer being 2 such examples) Until they got over the "hump" of gathering the experiences to get good at it, they thought it wasn't possible and that they needed the gear and maybe a console. Now of course, with their new skills, they understand they do not.
It's a process.
Last Edit: May 16, 2021 9:54:03 GMT -6 by Drew @ UA
From an outside perspective, the prices are nuts. I like UA and I used the first two generations of Apollos for several years but moved out of that platform awhile back. I still eye Apollos sometimes and think, "should I give it another go?" but I just can't square the cost. I mean, I spend all of my spare money on studio gear, I'm not averse to gear-spending in general. I actually moved to a more expensive interface (Symphony MKII) when I left UAD-land. But there is just no scenario where I can see myself spending $700 or whatever it is on a plugin extension pack (I'm still sort of unclear on how this package is bought and sold so maybe I'm not understanding something about it). I like UA and I think in a few years Luna might be really cool. I hope it is. More (creative) competition in DAW land is good. But the UAD pricing scheme, to me, seems to be a relic of the days when they really were head and shoulders above others in modeling. I don't think that's been the case for several years now and the plugin economy has changed a lot. The idea of spending $300/plug on stuff you can only run a handful of is just a really hard sell.
BUT I obviously don't have access to UAD's books. Maybe it's working wonderfully and there are still people shelling out hundreds of dollars for single plugs.
Yeah, that’s a big negative for me as well. Spending that kind of money for a plugin you can only use with Luna. If I decided to use another DAW, or use another interface, it would be such a loss. At least with my Satellite, non-Luna plugs, I can use whenever/wherever.
From an outside perspective, the prices are nuts. I like UA and I used the first two generations of Apollos for several years but moved out of that platform awhile back. I still eye Apollos sometimes and think, "should I give it another go?" but I just can't square the cost. I mean, I spend all of my spare money on studio gear, I'm not averse to gear-spending in general. I actually moved to a more expensive interface (Symphony MKII) when I left UAD-land. But there is just no scenario where I can see myself spending $700 or whatever it is on a plugin extension pack (I'm still sort of unclear on how this package is bought and sold so maybe I'm not understanding something about it). I like UA and I think in a few years Luna might be really cool. I hope it is. More (creative) competition in DAW land is good. But the UAD pricing scheme, to me, seems to be a relic of the days when they really were head and shoulders above others in modeling. I don't think that's been the case for several years now and the plugin economy has changed a lot. The idea of spending $300/plug on stuff you can only run a handful of is just a really hard sell.
BUT I obviously don't have access to UAD's books. Maybe it's working wonderfully and there are still people shelling out hundreds of dollars for single plugs.
Yeah, that’s a big negative for me as well. Spending that kind of money for a plugin you can only use with Luna. If I decided to use another DAW, or use another interface, it would be such a loss. At least with my Satellite, non-Luna plugs, I can use whenever/wherever.
That's the thing that stops me from even think about Luna. I have to commit to a new DAW (a pain in the ass, but ok), to be on a Mac (i kind of prefer macs anyway, but currently I'm using both PC and Mac), and to never change the interface from an Apollo (currently all the places I work does not have an Apollo).
You see? UA is asking for so much commitment I few I'll be in a toxic relationship. I bet once you go that route, you'll receive messages on you phone like "why were you looking at that Lynx interface?"
Mixing ITB is absolutely a different skill set that requires a large time investment to transition to or incorporate into your workflow.
There are countless examples of mixers that have gone through this process. (Andrew Scheps and Michael Brauer being 2 such examples) Until they got over the "hump" of gathering the experiences to get good at it, they thought it wasn't possible and that they needed the gear and maybe a console. Now of course, with their new skills, they understand they do not.
It's a process.
Unless you started there day 1, LOL!! hey how are you doing.
Mixing ITB is absolutely a different skill set that requires a large time investment to transition to or incorporate into your workflow.
There are countless examples of mixers that have gone through this process. (Andrew Scheps and Michael Brauer being 2 such examples) Until they got over the "hump" of gathering the experiences to get good at it, they thought it wasn't possible and that they needed the gear and maybe a console. Now of course, with their new skills, they understand they do not.
It's a process.
Unless you started there day 1, LOL!! hey how are you doing.
Is it easier moving ITB to OTB/Hybrid versus the other way around? I'm moving into a hybrid setup and my personal experience has been "whoa, this makes life way faster." The hurdles are figuring out routing and patching (which is fun anyway I think) but once you're there it seems to be a pretty fast learning curve.
My setup is pretty simple though, a few key pieces for tracking and then a 500 series for busses in the mix. Plus I'm only just getting this going, so maybe I haven't run into the brick walls yet.
Unless you started there day 1, LOL!! hey how are you doing.
Is it easier moving ITB to OTB/Hybrid versus the other way around? I'm moving into a hybrid setup and my personal experience has been "whoa, this makes life way faster." The hurdles are figuring out routing and patching (which is fun anyway I think) but once you're there it seems to be a pretty fast learning curve.
My setup is pretty simple though, a few key pieces for tracking and then a 500 series for busses in the mix. Plus I'm only just getting this going, so maybe I haven't run into the brick walls yet.
I was doing hybrid for a while, and it did feel easier for me too. Like, oh, this is fun and easy. I guess I've always enjoyed the ITB Challenge, as it were. Hybrid is a great workflow though if you love hardware.
Out of the box is probably the hardest, since you have to use a tape machine or some other digital recorder. That "challenge" can be fun though, too, and you really have to get it right, or else you're screwed. Like hey this camera only takes one picture so everyone look PERFECT. I've never truly enjoyed out of the box sounds though, other than classic records, which my affordable out of the box equipment is no where near.
Is it easier moving ITB to OTB/Hybrid versus the other way around? I'm moving into a hybrid setup and my personal experience has been "whoa, this makes life way faster." The hurdles are figuring out routing and patching (which is fun anyway I think) but once you're there it seems to be a pretty fast learning curve.
My setup is pretty simple though, a few key pieces for tracking and then a 500 series for busses in the mix. Plus I'm only just getting this going, so maybe I haven't run into the brick walls yet.
I was doing hybrid for a while, and it did feel easier for me too. Like, oh, this is fun and easy. I guess I've always enjoyed the ITB Challenge, as it were. Hybrid is a great workflow though if you love hardware.
Out of the box is probably the hardest, since you have to use a tape machine or some other digital recorder. That "challenge" can be fun though, too, and you really have to get it right, or else you're screwed. Like hey this camera only takes one picture so everyone look PERFECT. I've never truly enjoyed out of the box sounds though, other than classic records, which my affordable out of the box equipment is no where near.
Oh yeah, no interest in going full OTB. Partially for the same reasons, I've never thought it sounded all that great when I've actually done it. It could be (in fact it probably is) that the engineers I know that are doing full analog (like truly full analog for everything except reverb boxes) aren't up to the standard of the guys that did it 30 years ago? I'm not sure why, but one way or the other it always sounds old to me and not in a good way. That's saying something because I love vintage sounds. But I don't want my records to sound like they were found in a dusty old crate lost in the bottom of a church basement.
There's old school, there's vintage, and then there's kitsch.
Plus, it seems like they're always freaking out about something breaking.
But hybrid? A little EQ going in? A saturated signal path? A 2 bus compressor knob? What took me so long??
Last Edit: May 16, 2021 12:27:42 GMT -6 by gravesnumber9
Post by gravesnumber9 on May 16, 2021 12:35:53 GMT -6
Some of this analog worship reminds me a bit of some parallels in fashion. Wear some vintage boots? Looking good! Throw on a period appropriate leather jacket to match the boots? Aren't you slick! Toss in a paisley shirt? Wait, you're pushing it. Grow a gigantic handlebar mustache? Huh? Throw in a gigantic floppy felt hat with flowers on it? Ok, now you're wearing a costume.
That's how this stuff feels. At some point they go so far that they have moved beyond a nod to the past and are now wearing the sonic equivalent of a costume.
Last Edit: May 16, 2021 12:36:31 GMT -6 by gravesnumber9
Some of this analog worship reminds me a bit of some parallels in fashion. Wear some vintage boots? Looking good! Throw on a period appropriate leather jacket to match the boots? Aren't you slick! Toss in a paisley shirt? Wait, you're pushing it. Grow a gigantic handlebar mustache? Huh? Throw in a gigantic floppy felt hat with flowers on it? Ok, now you're wearing a costume.
That's how this stuff feels. At some point they go so far that they have moved beyond a nod to the past and are now wearing the sonic equivalent of a costume.
I think that's an interesting and astute observation, but I would argue that any mix is wearing a costume. There's no "neutral" sound, it's all aesthetic choices made for aesthetic reasons based on layers and layers of costumery as represented in the tastes and sensibilities and emotional associations/references of the person mixing.
The "fashion" vs "costume" distinction could be viewed as a measure of how aligned a given aesthetic is with the current cultural center of (aesthetic) gravity, but I think the "the sound of this era is ______" thing is sort of over. Since anyone can get access to all kinds of sculpting tools now, sonics are more or less a free for all, playground situation.
At my joint I have a few setups I usually go between for mixing.
But up until this new LUNA Release, I never tracked anything EVER to a computer! I have only tracked to a Radar unit since it's release in 91 No LATENCY, and it sounds absolutely wonderful.
Literally turn it on, arm the tracks you're gonna record to, and go! Done. Amazing unit, with amazing sonics.
And then after tracking was done, I would just send the files out via Ethernet to the computer for mixing... if I was going that route.
So because of a few different things that transpired in the last year I decided to give the computer a try. Firstly, my last minute move to a much smaller space, & of course the pandemic, which lead to much more remote work, and the need for total recall... Obviously the workflow is different.
At this point it's still a learning curve, & comfortability factor for me. As I am NOT a computer person, (actually I loathe them) which is why I bought the Radar originally (still have 3)
At the moment, my UA tracking and or mixing system consists of 2 x Apollo x16's 2 x Apollo x8p's 2 x Satellites, Octos and 1 x Apollo x4 for tracking out of the studio.
Because I was going to try this new UA setup, I figured I'd go all in, just my nature. So I purchased a new Mac Mini, fully blown out, (although not the M1 version!)
Then I went for a bigger curved LG monitor, 38 inch, which made the render meter in Luna, max out, and the entire system crashed constantly. So I purchased a Sonnet "GPU" Puck to handle the new large size monitor, and all was fine.. UNTIL..yesterday,
I just updated to the new Luna / UAD software, and as well as the new API bundle. Now once again, when I open up my mix templet, the render meter is already at, 55 - 60% and this is parked!
Tried a simple 20 channel mix yesterday, and the computer crashed about ten times!
Did I mention I HATE computers!
More to come.... (maybe)
What OSX?
I dont see how any company can release reliable software on an OSX that changes every year.
Some of this analog worship reminds me a bit of some parallels in fashion. Wear some vintage boots? Looking good! Throw on a period appropriate leather jacket to match the boots? Aren't you slick! Toss in a paisley shirt? Wait, you're pushing it. Grow a gigantic handlebar mustache? Huh? Throw in a gigantic floppy felt hat with flowers on it? Ok, now you're wearing a costume.
That's how this stuff feels. At some point they go so far that they have moved beyond a nod to the past and are now wearing the sonic equivalent of a costume.
I think that's an interesting and astute observation, but I would argue that any mix is wearing a costume. There's no "neutral" sound, it's all aesthetic choices made for aesthetic reasons based on layers and layers of costumery as represented in the tastes and sensibilities and emotional associations/references of the person mixing.
The "fashion" vs "costume" distinction could be viewed as a measure of how aligned a given aesthetic is with the current cultural center of (aesthetic) gravity, but I think the "the sound of this era is ______" thing is sort of over. Since anyone can get access to all kinds of sculpting tools now, sonics are more or less a free for all, playground situation.
That's why I like the clothes analogy. Because just like any mix is a bit of a deception (if that's the right word) so are clothes. They're designed to cover your real body at a minimum and possibly even to make you look better than you really do. Do these boots make me look taller? I'll take 'em.
It gets a bit silly though when you're trying to dress up like it's 1955 just like it's a bit silly to make your music sound like it's still 1955, or 1965 or 1985 or whatever. Or maybe silly is the wrong word, but it's a costume. Costumes have their role. Theater. Halloween. Job interviews! And as long as you know you're wearing a costume, that's ok... but if you go around dressing like a 15th century minstrel because "that's when the world was pure" or something, that's a bit odd. Admit it's a costume and enjoy it.
Or do what most of us do. Pick and choose what you like. Cuz like you say, "the sound of this era is ___" is over. Or if it's not over, the sound of the era is that there is no sound of the era.
I was doing hybrid for a while, and it did feel easier for me too. Like, oh, this is fun and easy. I guess I've always enjoyed the ITB Challenge, as it were. Hybrid is a great workflow though if you love hardware.
Out of the box is probably the hardest, since you have to use a tape machine or some other digital recorder. That "challenge" can be fun though, too, and you really have to get it right, or else you're screwed. Like hey this camera only takes one picture so everyone look PERFECT. I've never truly enjoyed out of the box sounds though, other than classic records, which my affordable out of the box equipment is no where near.
Oh yeah, no interest in going full OTB. Partially for the same reasons, I've never thought it sounded all that great when I've actually done it. It could be (in fact it probably is) that the engineers I know that are doing full analog (like truly full analog for everything except reverb boxes) aren't up to the standard of the guys that did it 30 years ago? I'm not sure why, but one way or the other it always sounds old to me and not in a good way. That's saying something because I love vintage sounds. But I don't want my records to sound like they were found in a dusty old crate lost in the bottom of a church basement.
There's old school, there's vintage, and then there's kitsch.
Plus, it seems like they're always freaking out about something breaking.
But hybrid? A little EQ going in? A saturated signal path? A 2 bus compressor knob? What took me so long??
You're kidding right. You think electrical audio recording (to name just one) sound like that. Or that gear is not reliable. Seriously im gonna have to strongly dissagree.
Im using gear from 1950 but there is no way i can even fire up my digital gear from 15 years ago. Drivers are old and out of date and its all unsupported. This thread is one big complaint about a digital system thats not working.
The conversation about digital also relies on you not having the otb gear to a/b. Then youll hear what sounds better.
Post by kcatthedog on May 16, 2021 16:10:24 GMT -6
Perhaps, I am misinterpreting but it seems to me the technology of the times became part of the sound of those recordings and that’s a good thing.
Rather then production being seen as an accoutrement, it seems to me quite the opposite, that we should be aspiring to presenting the music/song in its most engaging and powerful form to make an artistic statement about the song.
Hopefully, that has little or nothing to do with affectation.
I just saw an interview with Ringo in which he said he could never recreate his fills, he played in the moment and they went with the best take: works for me, who cares if his collars were bottom down or not ?
Last Edit: May 16, 2021 16:12:49 GMT -6 by kcatthedog
Studios are still using tape and it still sounds more hifi than pcm.
The beatles also used tape and it sounds anything but hifi.
Very rare that there's not a computer in the room these days unless you're recording with Jack White. My original OTB comment I guess I meant the extreme, no computer in the room at all, anywhere during the production.
Studios are still using tape and it still sounds more hifi than pcm.
The beatles also used tape and it sounds anything but hifi.
Very rare that there's not a computer in the room these days unless you're recording with Jack White. My original OTB comment I guess I meant the extreme, no computer in the room at all, anywhere during the production.
Electrical audio is just one example where no computers are used.
I think our exposure becomes the norm for us but its no more than a construct to validate our personal choices. Me included.
Oh yeah, no interest in going full OTB. Partially for the same reasons, I've never thought it sounded all that great when I've actually done it. It could be (in fact it probably is) that the engineers I know that are doing full analog (like truly full analog for everything except reverb boxes) aren't up to the standard of the guys that did it 30 years ago? I'm not sure why, but one way or the other it always sounds old to me and not in a good way. That's saying something because I love vintage sounds. But I don't want my records to sound like they were found in a dusty old crate lost in the bottom of a church basement.
There's old school, there's vintage, and then there's kitsch.
Plus, it seems like they're always freaking out about something breaking.
But hybrid? A little EQ going in? A saturated signal path? A 2 bus compressor knob? What took me so long??
You're kidding right. You think electrical audio recording (to name just one) sound like that. Or that gear is not reliable. Seriously im gonna have to strongly dissagree.
Im using gear from 1950 but there is no way i can even fire up my digital gear from 15 years ago. Drivers are old and out of date and its all unsupported. This thread is one big complaint about a digital system thats not working.
The conversation about digital also relies on you not having the otb gear to a/b. Then youll hear what sounds better.
Did you even read the comment you’re responding to? He said that it’s most likely the engineers he’s worked with.
And I’ve recorded in lots of big studios, on many consoles and maintenance is absolutely an issue. There’s always channels that are out, buttons that stick, scratchy pots, phantom power that doesn’t work on channel XYZ, a bad soldier joint in a cable snake etc etc. I don’t mean to imply that major studios these days are a reck, but keeping an all analog studio (with a LFAC) is a maintenance intensive job. It just comes with the territory. That doesn’t mean analog gear is “unreliable” (which nobody said), just that maintenance is a huge (and valid) concern.
Studios are still using tape and it still sounds more hifi than pcm.
The beatles also used tape and it sounds anything but hifi.
Very rare that there's not a computer in the room these days unless you're recording with Jack White. My original OTB comment I guess I meant the extreme, no computer in the room at all, anywhere during the production.
I’m talking about the extreme as well. The reality is that it’s hard to pull off. There’s barely even anyone that makes tape anymore. Most of these guys are re-using reels or doing NOS.
My guitar player (and close friend, he was in my wedding), runs an all analog studio. I love it. It’s very cool. And very busy. And very fun.
But you couldn’t pay me enough money to run that studio. Nobody knows how to fix the gear. The parts are impossible to find. And in the end what makes oh a popular studio is that players play well when they feel like they’re doing it like their heroes. Not that it sounds hi-fi. It doesn’t.
Very rare that there's not a computer in the room these days unless you're recording with Jack White. My original OTB comment I guess I meant the extreme, no computer in the room at all, anywhere during the production.
Electrical audio is just one example where no computers are used.
I think our exposure becomes the norm for us but its no more than a construct to validate our personal choices. Me included.
Electrical Audio tracks to ProTools. There’s a computer monitor right on their first website photo.
I’ve recorded on three (I think, maybe four?) records in true analog studios. No PT no nothing. It’s very freeing in one way but has its own set of issues. And it’s never sounded all that great in my experience.
Oh yeah, no interest in going full OTB. Partially for the same reasons, I've never thought it sounded all that great when I've actually done it. It could be (in fact it probably is) that the engineers I know that are doing full analog (like truly full analog for everything except reverb boxes) aren't up to the standard of the guys that did it 30 years ago? I'm not sure why, but one way or the other it always sounds old to me and not in a good way. That's saying something because I love vintage sounds. But I don't want my records to sound like they were found in a dusty old crate lost in the bottom of a church basement.
There's old school, there's vintage, and then there's kitsch.
Plus, it seems like they're always freaking out about something breaking.
But hybrid? A little EQ going in? A saturated signal path? A 2 bus compressor knob? What took me so long??
You're kidding right. You think electrical audio recording (to name just one) sound like that. Or that gear is not reliable. Seriously im gonna have to strongly dissagree.
Im using gear from 1950 but there is no way i can even fire up my digital gear from 15 years ago. Drivers are old and out of date and its all unsupported. This thread is one big complaint about a digital system thats not working.
The conversation about digital also relies on you not having the otb gear to a/b. Then youll hear what sounds better.
The difference is that you don’t want to use anything digital from 15-20 years ago except for the very best converters: Prism, Lavry, Metric Halo. Nothing else holds up. The plugins, except for the Oxford EQ run at 88.2 kHz or higher and maybe Waves Renaissance for the weirdly resonant filters, certainly not despite what gearslutz posts. Most FireWire gear still works on Windows 10.
The same as you wouldn’t want to use anything but the best signal processors from the 50s and 60s. That stuff is mostly all old and not in the same condition as it was then. The best and most usable pieces were the most well known pieces. The same with even 90s gear. It’s old and needs maintenance and restoration.
Right now, in 2021, the best dsp is cleaner than any of the classic analog signal processors (they were never the cleanest things around though) and surpassed analog in possibilities long ago. Certain things only became effective in the last 5 years ago but the way forward is digital.
Most new analog boxes are clones or retro inspired. They don’t to use modern transistors and current ics in line level gear. That would cost money. The same with most new plugins being picked apart. The bean counters don’t want to pay for r&d and years of work. So we get a bunch of soft and hard clippers masquerading as component modeling and dysfunctional emulations with horrific misbehavior that the programmers insist are perfectly modeled in spite of no functioning compressor behaving that way and the plugin sounding and rendering like just another broken aliased digital compressor.
Last Edit: May 16, 2021 20:23:13 GMT -6 by Deleted
Studios are still using tape and it still sounds more hifi than pcm.
The beatles also used tape and it sounds anything but hifi.
That’s just flat out wrong. A CD is cleaner than any tape machine. Modern converters with modern IC opamps smoke them. It’s just the typical interface and multichannel converter is using cheap junk. A lot of tape machines used junk. Most of them were not Ampex or Studer. Many of the 80s Japanese ones that were very common are broken in ways that render them unrepairable without cannibalism.
That tape will still get converted. Most vinyl pressings are direct metal mastered and go through a worse converter than what’s in any non budget interface. Especially almost every production costly enough to afford tape reals that gets a big pressing.
Last Edit: May 16, 2021 19:13:32 GMT -6 by Deleted