|
Post by thehightenor on Jan 19, 2023 1:59:08 GMT -6
Wow, that’ great! Thank you! Are you finding the extra effort is worth it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2023 14:37:48 GMT -6
Yes I agree with many points in your post. When I watched the video MHB and his assistant would pull up for example the UAD Neve 33609 stereo bus comp and say these settings make it sound identical to the hardware. Now I’m no genius but my hearing tells me the plugin definitely does not have the mojo of the hardware. I’ve never heard a stereo compressor plugin that didn’t sound flat and 2D compared to its hardware equivalent. After decades of working with high end hardware I know MHB can hear that too! The sonic compromises he’s making for whatever commercial reasons he has (100% valid I’m sure) aren’t compromises I need to make. I watched the video series and then reminded myself of that fact. Finances, or lack thereof, are a very strong motivator and can alter your hearing 🙉 Again, I don't fault anyone for going all ITB(I've done it myself at different times in my career). What does irk me a bit though is acting like it sounds identical to hardware. That is demonstrably false and *shameless plug* I've done multiple hardware vs plugin shootouts on my channel that prove that. If a plug-in manufacturer could make a plugin that nulls with hardware why are there exactly zero demonstrations showing that? If they could, they'd do it and they'd sell like hotcakes! I wish just one of these top mixers that go all ITB would be honest and just admit how business isn't what it used to and it doesn't sound the same but they are going to make the most of what they can afford now. Another interesting observation is 2 other mixers that I've been inspired by(Jacquire King and Tchad Blake) were at one point all ITB but have gradually added hardware back in to a hybrid set up over the last couple of years. I wouldn't be surprised to see Brauer end up doing the same. Brauer doesn’t want to use the dynamics plugins that are cleaner than current hardware (because stuff like Aphex, GML, and Crane Song are gone) because he’s mostly just using them for distortion and then just route busses to separate distortion plugs as svart put it. Brauer wasn’t using Aphex and Daking comps (which you can still get); he was using a hodgepodge of stuff for distortion in their rectifiers and internal amps. He doesn’t want to just find plugins that distort similarly and use them instead of half assed emulations.
|
|
|
Post by phdamage on Jan 19, 2023 14:59:20 GMT -6
Longtime Cubase user here. I don't see why you couldn't do the Brauer routing matrix in there. It certainly isn't any more complicated than the bastardized Andrew Scheps template I use.
Admittedly, I work on very dense mixes with tons of distortion, so maybe I don't hear the subtleties that others would on the projects they work on.
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Jan 20, 2023 20:00:54 GMT -6
Wow, that’ great! Thank you! Are you finding the extra effort is worth it? I think it depends on how your workflow operates normally. For an engineer like Brauer who is mixing a project where all the parts come to him fully realized, you can drop in the tracks and it does build a decent sounding mix very quickly. There have been some things that I've tried with studio recorded raw tracks and it can sound very radio ready in short order. Remember though that these videos don't show all the work that's happening to clean up files, make sure timing is fixed, tuning vocals, etc. That work may or may not be done within this template structure. A lot of us on the message boards will mix little by little as we create ideas and parts for our own music, or an artist we are working with. In that case you might not want to deal with all the complex options for his template. And you might not want to bounce out your individual tracks only to drop them into a different project file and start mixing again. After trying most all of the templates offered up on Pure Mix, I've learned a good deal from each of them. I've tried to copy each of them in Logic. They all have their strengths, and most of them are pretty similar when you look at the big picture. I think Brauer's is particularly tied to his experience with that SSL console and it's routing options. All the decisions are keeping him in that same set of choices. In a way the Schep's template is very similar, but the organization is more disciplined to keeping it like the SSL console. The big mystery we've all had for so long with Brauer was, who actually owned the amount of outboard gear that he did to run everything through for a whole mix? Getting his results was an unknown because it was just a ton of gear that most would never own. Now that he's ITB, you realize it's not all that different from the other templates we've seen through these education outlets.
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Jan 21, 2023 11:49:19 GMT -6
Wow, that’ great! Thank you! Are you finding the extra effort is worth it? I think it depends on how your workflow operates normally. For an engineer like Brauer who is mixing a project where all the parts come to him fully realized, you can drop in the tracks and it does build a decent sounding mix very quickly. There have been some things that I've tried with studio recorded raw tracks and it can sound very radio ready in short order. Remember though that these videos don't show all the work that's happening to clean up files, make sure timing is fixed, tuning vocals, etc. That work may or may not be done within this template structure. A lot of us on the message boards will mix little by little as we create ideas and parts for our own music, or an artist we are working with. In that case you might not want to deal with all the complex options for his template. And you might not want to bounce out your individual tracks only to drop them into a different project file and start mixing again. After trying most all of the templates offered up on Pure Mix, I've learned a good deal from each of them. I've tried to copy each of them in Logic. They all have their strengths, and most of them are pretty similar when you look at the big picture. I think Brauer's is particularly tied to his experience with that SSL console and it's routing options. All the decisions are keeping him in that same set of choices. In a way the Schep's template is very similar, but the organization is more disciplined to keeping it like the SSL console. The big mystery we've all had for so long with Brauer was, who actually owned the amount of outboard gear that he did to run everything through for a whole mix? Getting his results was an unknown because it was just a ton of gear that most would never own. Now that he's ITB, you realize it's not all that different from the other templates we've seen through these education outlets. Thanks for the info and feedback. I create music in the old fashioned way. I write the songs and then make nice little demos of them to sort out the arrangements. Then in a new project I track everything properly and edit the odd timing or vocal tuning issues here and there (occasionally it does happen) any VI's are turned to audio files. I then start a new mix project with a reset mixer and start mixing from the beginning as if I'm a mix engineer receiving files to mix. So after reading your post, I think this template might work well for me. I'm certainly going to give it a go as the workflow might really suit the way I work.
|
|