Hardware/Plugin Value Heirarchy

Obviously, putting a real EQ on every track is too expensive, so I assume you record through EQ hardware. The problem is that you have to commit. Do you ever find yourself printing already recorded tracks through EQ hardware?

Can't answer for Christopher, but for me, sure.  Why not?

Yeah me too! During mix, it’s pretty fast even going one track at a time. I’m mostly looking for character from the EQ circuit, ..to pretend it was mixed through a 36 channel Neve for example.. some quick dialing in, maybe 30 seconds to a minute, and print. Some tracks I find a few different settings, mild/aggressive etc, and print back a couple versions as alternates.

It’s way faster than tracking, you can just print only where the item is, not the whole song. So for example instead of a 5 min print, vocals might be done in under 2 minutes if there’s not many words in the song. So printing alternate vocal EQ settings is very fast, just jump around the timeline and punch in where the words are.

when I know the mic and I know the EQ settings that seem to work well, I love tracking with EQ so much, makes me have a great starting point. If I don’t have it perfect, I haven’t been upset with using plugins to adjust. Similar to any mic on anything..

Not trying to promote anyone , but I do look at the Silver Bullet as a smart device which gets most of what I do in hardware in a nice unit. That, some EQ, and a tube thing.. would probably satisfy me.. I think about it sometimes

I've often thought that, if I started using hardware EQ, that I would first use software EQ to get estimates of the changes, then print them with hardware EQ. That way, I'd know that the EQ moves are copacetic across the mix before printing each track.

Does anyone work that way?

Note: I suck at mixing anything but small projects, so this is just a thought experiment for me.

This is how I integrate all my hardware. I get things in the ballpark with emulations and then I have a starting point when it is time to commit. I work without a patchbay, so it’s nice to do the trial and error part ITB. Then I just process the most important tracks first. Not all my outboard is emulated 1:1 in plugins, but I can get close enough to know what will work.

Corrective eq is the thing that is generally better done with plugins and left on. I love analog sweetening eq, but that stuff is usually pretty subtle IME and can be done fine with plugins if prioritizing like the OP.

I'm a big fan of MOTU, used their (now ancient) 1224 for well over a decade. When upgrading I was looking at the Motu 16A but ultimately decided to go with Lynx. Overall through, Motu is really really nice conversion considering the cost and channel count and both 828ES and 16A offer input paths that are direct - no internal pre to bypass when using your nice pres.

I have noticed though, in two different cases (not the GR, haven't tried 500 series version), where I greatly preferred the 19 inch version of a preamp (from same company) to the 500 series version - I opened them up and found the transformers were (likely) the key difference - physical size was different (people often talk about the +/- 16V supply limitation too, but that's easier to work around in my opinion). That being said, lots of good stuff in 500 series format and I would never hesitate about API, Avedis, Buzz Audio, etc.

Is there a place near you where you can rent gear? If so, that might be a great way to try hardware and see if it's worthwhile. Plugins have come a long way and it's definitely law of diminishing returns with hardware. I just love using hardware though, often find it easier/quicker to get a sound I like, it's more inspiring to me, and maybe it's just the psychology of it all: I like physical controls, bright lights, and fancy meters :-)

I would try renting an RND Shelford Channel if one was available (a place near me has them) - see if worth all the fuss (and the cash).
-Chris

I'd recommend the Silver Bullet in that case. You can use it in so many different ways. As a stereo pre-amp it's great, obviously as a bus (or mix bus) sweetener/color, and the bax EQ is awesome in my opinion. It's really tuned perfectly so you can "twist it 'till it's good".

I've said this before, but I would be an instant buyer (even pre-sale) if LTL released a standalone Bax EQ. Mark me down for two drbill.

This discussion about using plugins to sort of predetermine what eq moves you might want to make in hardware is why I was keen to make the move to Luna. With the API console plugin/extension that they have now (there will be others), you can seamlessly track within Luna and hear those eq moves realtime during tracking and then again on playback, all while not having to commit to any eq moves or worry about latency or buffers.

It's not that you can't do this with two separate plugins, one in DSP and one natively in the DAW, or even all natively if you are able and willing to really crank your buffer down, but I didn't want to have to mess with all of that or worry about buffers or latency or plugin settings in two different locations. Luna just takes care of all of that in the background.

I have quite a few hardware comps and use them a lot during tracking, but I don't print hardware eq as much during tracking and that's part of the reason I don't have as many hardware EQs. So my line of reasoning is to commit hardware comps during tracking, let Luna/API plugin handle non-committal eq moves during tracking so you can hear what you're aiming for, and then do whatever I see fit during the mix stage (print more hardware using inserts or use plugins).

Pro Tools offers similar DSP/CPU shuffling capabilities with the caveat that it's more expensive than a Luna/Apollo setup. Also, you can't use UAD extensions within PT in this way, as only Luna allows this with UAD extensions. I realize that comes down to a personal preference thing, and you could do this with "other" plugins within PT, but I do like UAD plugins/extensions.

The other nice workflow thing about that API extension is that it's integrated (if you choose so) into Luna right there on the screen for each channel. There is no plugin window to open. It's just always there, which provides for a more console-like experience. This is what UA was aiming for and it's what attracted me to giving Luna a shot.

It's pretty cool to just be able to pull up Luna with the API console emulation on every channel and just get to it. Even if you ultimately end up not sticking with the eq (or comp) settings on the API, it makes for a pretty easy to use, great sounding, non-committal placeholder until you get to the mix stage, and all while allowing you to not have to worry about buffers or latency or anything when you're tracking and trying to stay focused on the artistic/music side of the equation.

And your stuff sounds killer, so there's that as well.

This seems like as good a jump spot as any other... and overall this didn't go the direction I thought it would from the title. Value? Hardware easily wins. In terms of value & return on investment? If I spent $2500 on an analog box 10 years ago its still worth something today. 10 year old digital gear..? Not the point I guess! 

So what's wrong with commitment?? If your making an album at some point your going to have to start making decisions and committing to various parts of the process. Takes & edits... sounds... musical arrangements... hopefully none of its too paralyzing and then we can move on to picking some questionable reverb! Mastering? Song order? Album artwork? So many things to commit to. 

Overall with EQ? Hitting things twice... while recording and again at mix? And a 3rd time again at mastering? Just part of the process & happens on almost every record. If anything it was more frequent in the full on analog dinosaur days. Tracking to tape off a console? You'd have to EQ and shape sounds on the capture side to maximize headroom & bandwidth vs noise.

I've never been fearless about carving things up on the tracking side... EQ, compress, mangle at will. I'll even print FX like reverbs & delays. No fear of commitment! The EQ doesn't even have to be extensive, sometimes a little tweak at top or bottom goes a long way and is all you need. No source is truly perfect. Rarely.

Recording an album is artwork. An exaggeration of life and so sometimes? That acoustic with dead strings your too lazy or inspired to change? Slap a little 10kHz on there. If you know your going to make a move then don't put it off... get lazy & use a plug. Record it the way you want it. 

Overall its interesting to read everyone's responses & see what they consider invaluable to the process. From a gear expansion standpoint one thing I always consider before everything else is actual needs. Lots of stuff I'd love to have, but what could I add tomorrow that would actual expand my capabilities? What wall have I hit that needs addressing? 

Like hypothetically? If someone handed you $5000 tomorrow to invest in the studio/album... what makes the most sense? Would you spend $5k on a manley vari mu for "mastering" or is it more likely you'd hire someone to master for $500 and drop the rest on a big pile of microphones? I know what I'd do!