Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2024 11:31:38 GMT -6
Oh…and I meant to mention the convenience of plugs. That’s a personal preference, though. I guess I wouldn’t put so much importance on convenience if I were making $2k per mix…but alas, I’m not.  Is the tool returning investment? In my panicky brain, if it’s not, it hits the door. I mean, I attempt to make everything I mix as amazing sounding as I can…but I’m not buying a $4k stereo eq for sub-$500 mixes. It would be great to invest in a bunch of super high end gear and the quality of the mixes brings in tons of work…but that just doesn’t happen. Are people choosing a mixer because they list a chandler Zener and GML eq on the master? Idk the answer to that, but if you’re telling me all I have to do is buy that shit at 48mo interest free and then I’ll start getting a flood of jobs - hey, I’d looove to do that…but that hasn’t been my experience. All this could be different because I live in a place where every third house has a studio and your neighbor probably went to Berklee…so maybe my view is skewed. Btw - this wasn’t directed at anyone in particular. Just thinking out loud. If you were making 2K per mix you would be all about the convenience and consistency of recall using plugins🤪. In that market you are totally at the mercy of the clients every whim and fancy. Hardware IME can be faster in a couple of scenario's, one you're a self tracker with at least a couple of years experience that knows exactly how to hit all the sweet spots of your equipment. At that stage nothing ever really needs to change, or you subscribe to the CLA methodology of HW set and forget which actually means you've got an assistant that makes everything sound like gold before it even gets mixed. When mixing became the art of polishing turds multiple times HW became the opposite of convenient.. |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 4, 2024 11:40:52 GMT -6
If you were making 2K per mix you would be all about the convenience and consistency of recall using plugins🤪. In that market you are totally at the mercy of the clients every whim and fancy. Hardware IME can be faster in a couple of scenario's, one you're a self tracker with at least a couple of years experience that knows exactly how to hit all the sweet spots of your equipment. At that stage nothing ever really needs to change, or you subscribe to the CLA methodology of HW set and forget which actually means you've got an assistant that makes everything sound like gold before it even gets mixed. When mixing became the art of polishing turds multiple times HW became the opposite of convenient.. This is as good a summary as any. Nailed it. |
|
|
|
Post by Bat Lanyard on Feb 10, 2024 19:52:40 GMT -6
Been working today and the lightbulb went off slapping a 201 on a track (pun intended): anyone who has a UA system old enough to still have the Roland 201 and not the "Space Echo" that replaced it should be in whatever OG club UA is farting together. If that's even happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 13, 2024 9:43:29 GMT -6
If you were making 2K per mix you would be all about the convenience and consistency of recall using plugins🤪. In that market you are totally at the mercy of the clients every whim and fancy. Hardware IME can be faster in a couple of scenario's, one you're a self tracker with at least a couple of years experience that knows exactly how to hit all the sweet spots of your equipment. At that stage nothing ever really needs to change, or you subscribe to the CLA methodology of HW set and forget which actually means you've got an assistant that makes everything sound like gold before it even gets mixed. When mixing became the art of polishing turds multiple times HW became the opposite of convenient.. Well, Deleted, it’s called getting what you paid for. If they want a bespoke mix, they can pay bespoke prices… |
|
|
|
Post by linas on Feb 13, 2024 10:56:59 GMT -6
I don't get it... This whole thread is dedicated to digital tools made by UA. As far as I understand, UA plugins is a widely accepted standard. You don't wanna use them, don't. I haven't. Is analog better for rock'n'roll music? Maybe, I don't know. I think, nobody really cares what you're using. We have used 1st gen Babyface and a Rode mic for almost a decade and the sound was always great. We've worked with Nikokokoleaudeaun and other big channels here doing VO. Mostly FabFilter for post, if I remember correctly. If needed to get myself recorded (pop/rock, vox), for TV or Radio, I'd probably go to the best studio in my town and wouldn't really care what they were using. In my free time, I produce all kinds of electronic music, melodic house, techno, electronica, dance pop, trap, trip hop, etc. Does anyone can tell what kind of gear I'm using? I don't know... I'm using good plugins, Diva, Padshop, Massive X, Arturia, etc. My hardware essentially is just a RME card and three diff kinds of speakers, HS8, A5X and custom passive top-ends. Yes, maybe for some Chris Stapleton shit I'd want something more cool, you know, like expensive outboard but also 95% of listeners use mp3 on a cheap laptop/phone, digital wireless 0.5 cm speakers.
|
|
|
|
Post by copperx on Feb 13, 2024 11:05:14 GMT -6
I don't get it... This whole thread is dedicated to digital tools made by UA. As far as I understand, UA plugins is a widely accepted standard. You don't wanna use them, don't. I haven't. Is analog better for rock'n'roll music? Maybe, I don't know. I think, nobody really cares what you're using. We have used 1st gen Babyface and a Rode mic for almost a decade and the sound was always great. We've worked with Nikokokoleaudeaun and other big channels here doing VO. Mostly FabFilter for post, if I remember correctly. If needed to get myself recorded (pop/rock, vox), for TV or Radio, I'd probably go to the best studio in my town and wouldn't really care what they were using. In my free time, I produce all kinds of electronic music, melodic house, techno, electronica, dance pop, trap, trip hop, etc. Does anyone can tell what kind of gear I'm using? I don't know... I'm using good plugins, Diva, Padshop, Massive X, Arturia, etc. My hardware essentially is just a RME card and three diff kinds of speakers, HS8, A5X and custom passive top-ends. Yes, maybe for some Chris Stapleton shit I'd want something more cool, you know, like expensive outboard but also 95% of listeners use mp3 on a cheap laptop/phone, digital wireless 0.5 cm speakers. I think you posted in the wrong forum. |
|
|
|
Post by Shadowk on Feb 13, 2024 11:46:13 GMT -6
I don't get it... This whole thread is dedicated to digital tools made by UA. As far as I understand, UA plugins is a widely accepted standard. You don't wanna use them, don't. I haven't. Is analog better for rock'n'roll music? Maybe, I don't know. I think, nobody really cares what you're using. We have used 1st gen Babyface and a Rode mic for almost a decade and the sound was always great. We've worked with Nikokokoleaudeaun and other big channels here doing VO. Mostly FabFilter for post, if I remember correctly. If needed to get myself recorded (pop/rock, vox), for TV or Radio, I'd probably go to the best studio in my town and wouldn't really care what they were using. In my free time, I produce all kinds of electronic music, melodic house, techno, electronica, dance pop, trap, trip hop, etc. Does anyone can tell what kind of gear I'm using? I don't know... I'm using good plugins, Diva, Padshop, Massive X, Arturia, etc. My hardware essentially is just a RME card and three diff kinds of speakers, HS8, A5X and custom passive top-ends. Yes, maybe for some Chris Stapleton shit I'd want something more cool, you know, like expensive outboard but also 95% of listeners use mp3 on a cheap laptop/phone, digital wireless 0.5 cm speakers. Let's hear it then..
I was into low end mixing / recording with the sort of stuff you have at one point, found it difficult to be fair. The only "on a budget" track I've heard that really pricked up my ears in two decades was a rock song on the purple site. Mackie 1640i I believe, although eventually it turned out that they used some rather expensive monitors, mic's, preamps and outboard tracking compressors tut, tut..
I'm always open to being wrong and I certainly ain't a badge snob, if I can sell off some stuff my bank account doth be happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Feb 13, 2024 13:37:20 GMT -6
I don't get it... This whole thread is dedicated to digital tools made by UA. As far as I understand, UA plugins is a widely accepted standard. You don't wanna use them, don't. I haven't. Is analog better for rock'n'roll music? Maybe, I don't know. I think, nobody really cares what you're using. We have used 1st gen Babyface and a Rode mic for almost a decade and the sound was always great. We've worked with Nikokokoleaudeaun and other big channels here doing VO. Mostly FabFilter for post, if I remember correctly. If needed to get myself recorded (pop/rock, vox), for TV or Radio, I'd probably go to the best studio in my town and wouldn't really care what they were using. In my free time, I produce all kinds of electronic music, melodic house, techno, electronica, dance pop, trap, trip hop, etc. Does anyone can tell what kind of gear I'm using? I don't know... I'm using good plugins, Diva, Padshop, Massive X, Arturia, etc. My hardware essentially is just a RME card and three diff kinds of speakers, HS8, A5X and custom passive top-ends. Yes, maybe for some Chris Stapleton shit I'd want something more cool, you know, like expensive outboard but also 95% of listeners use mp3 on a cheap laptop/phone, digital wireless 0.5 cm speakers. Linas it can be when you A/B Hardware vs. the Plugs they approximate... When the difference can be heard.  IMHO there is no doubt great sounding records, can be made totally ITB. But Great-er records with Hardware involved. Chris |
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Feb 13, 2024 17:45:16 GMT -6
I don't get it... This whole thread is dedicated to digital tools made by UA. As far as I understand, UA plugins is a widely accepted standard. You don't wanna use them, don't. I haven't. Is analog better for rock'n'roll music? Maybe, I don't know. I think, nobody really cares what you're using. We have used 1st gen Babyface and a Rode mic for almost a decade and the sound was always great. We've worked with Nikokokoleaudeaun and other big channels here doing VO. Mostly FabFilter for post, if I remember correctly. If needed to get myself recorded (pop/rock, vox), for TV or Radio, I'd probably go to the best studio in my town and wouldn't really care what they were using. In my free time, I produce all kinds of electronic music, melodic house, techno, electronica, dance pop, trap, trip hop, etc. Does anyone can tell what kind of gear I'm using? I don't know... I'm using good plugins, Diva, Padshop, Massive X, Arturia, etc. My hardware essentially is just a RME card and three diff kinds of speakers, HS8, A5X and custom passive top-ends. Yes, maybe for some Chris Stapleton shit I'd want something more cool, you know, like expensive outboard but also 95% of listeners use mp3 on a cheap laptop/phone, digital wireless 0.5 cm speakers. That's just not the point. It's not a race to the bottom or the top, it's not a narrative about anything in fact. It's a simple premise - at least that's all it is for me. Is hardware sonically superior to digital DSP. IMHO - yes it's considerably superior and I've yet to use digital DSP that proves to my ears that statement is incorrect. As to the application of that information or should I say conclusion .... well that's a completely different thread. For me I don't give a sh*t whether my listener uses a £100K Hi-fi or the butt end speaker in an iphone to listen to my music - their choice. What counts to me is the audio I'm hearing out of my ATC 25's - first and foremost I'm making music I love in both musical and sonic content. I have to be happy first - then comes the listener. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 13, 2024 18:01:50 GMT -6
Yeah, I don’t really give a damn about who makes the plug-in or what it looks like, I want to use ones that don’t screw up my mix sonically with aliasing or phase issues. All software/hardware is not equal I mean that’s not hard to test – some plug-ins that do the same thing sound differently. Great tools allow you to do the best work the quickest. Workflow matters. Ease of use. Sonics. If I had my druthers, I would mix with nothing but expensive analogue, and I guarantee I could arrive at something great quicker than in the box. That being said, I’m mostly in the box because of convenience and recall…and I feel like I can get really close with a hybrid set up…and for most projects, I ain’t charging HW prices.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 13, 2024 18:02:43 GMT -6
NASA sent three people to the moon in a tin can and a calculator computer…doesn’t mean they should try that again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadowk on Feb 14, 2024 2:17:08 GMT -6
I've got a question and seen as this is an anything goes thread at this point might as well ask it here. To say that we hear so differently, why does every single budget enabled mass consumer created audio production sound pretty much the same? There's been screw up's like Death Magnetic (Metallica) but for the most part, eerily similar. I've said before that I compared a modern club track (engineered by a team) to Toto Africa, the only real difference was the vocals were clearer and it had more bass. I thought to myself, so this is how far we've come in the last 42 years?  .. |
|
kcatthedog
Temp
Super Helpful Dude
Posts: 16,048 
Member is Online
|
Post by kcatthedog on Feb 14, 2024 2:40:24 GMT -6
Cus everyone’s using luna to be real pro ?  |
|
|
|
Post by Shadowk on Feb 14, 2024 3:03:50 GMT -6
Cus everyone’s using luna to be real pro ? Not a fan of UA at the moment are ya Matt? I'm relatively sure Toto didn't have access to Luna back in the 80's, could be wrong though. |
|
kcatthedog
Temp
Super Helpful Dude
Posts: 16,048
Member is Online
|
Post by kcatthedog on Feb 14, 2024 3:54:24 GMT -6
Cus everyone’s using luna to be real pro ? Not a fan of UA at the moment are ya Matt? I'm relatively sure Toto didn't have access to Luna back in the 80's, could be wrong though. More poking fun, but it was a concern of mine when Luna was launched. I thought why do I want to push my original songs through the same extensions anybody else can use? I know it’s all up to the actual mix decisions, but your post reminded of that concerns and the ongoing concern about the differences between itb mixes and otb gear ? Like if you picked 10 tracks from 60’s, would you think they would also sound homogenized ? |
|
|
|
Post by lowlou on Feb 14, 2024 3:55:54 GMT -6
This thread is a forum within the forum. It's called Realtalkonline.com
I wish Dan would come back at this point. He was trashing many hardware, but it was kind of helpful to get another perspective. He's somewhat more aligned with the Audiosex forum mantras (sister site of a well known cracked vst hub). They passionately despise hardware over there lol. It's another informational buble. We are in a buble too, here (a good sounding buble I think), but as much as possible, we should try to mix opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by audiospecific on Feb 14, 2024 4:07:54 GMT -6
I've got a question and seen as this is an anything goes thread at this point might as well ask it here. To say that we hear so differently, why does every single budget enabled mass consumer created audio production sound pretty much the same? There's been screw up's like Death Magnetic (Metallica) but for the most part, eerily similar. I've said before that I compared a modern club track (engineered by a team) to Toto Africa, the only real difference was the vocals were clearer and it had more bass. I thought to myself, so this is how far we've come in the last 42 years? .. This brings up another question, why do commercial mixes sounded like 5 people mixed everything. Why do old nice stereo mixes sound flat and mono after they remastered them twice. |
|
|
|
Post by Shadowk on Feb 14, 2024 4:20:59 GMT -6
Not a fan of UA at the moment are ya Matt? I'm relatively sure Toto didn't have access to Luna back in the 80's, could be wrong though. More poking fun, but it was a concern of mine when Luna was launched. I thought why do I want to push my original songs through the same extensions anybody else can use? I know it’s all up to the actual mix decisions, but your post reminded of that concerns and the ongoing concern about the differences between itb mixes and otb gear ? Like if you picked 10 tracks from 60’s, would you think they would also sound homogenized ? Agreed and that's why in this day where people mostly use plugins I've tried to find some off the path hardware. There isn't an IAA622 plugin, nor is their a Chandler TG Opto, Gainlabs Empress EQ or IGS Vari-Mu plug.
TBH forget plugins I don't even think the UA HW re-issue sounds exactly like an actual LA-2A (neither do some of the other HW clones). The 1176 in the 6176 doesn't really appear to match exactly any of the Rev's I've had or used either. The Stam 2A pretty much nailed the sound of my Tele 2A, I've heard greater variances between different Tele units. My point is, I don't believe this issue is strictly plugin related.
Anyway, over the past half a decade I stopped obsessing over whether or not something sounds exactly the same. I'm more interested in how useful they are, if I need an exact copy then I'll pickup the HW or at least a top of the line spot on clone.
|
|
|
|
Post by audiospecific on Feb 14, 2024 4:27:44 GMT -6
This thread is a forum within the forum. It's called Realtalkonline.com I wish Dan would come back at this point. He was trashing many hardware, but it was kind of helpful to get another perspective. He's somewhat more aligned with the Audiosex forum mantras (sister site of a well known cracked vst hub). They passionately despise hardware over there lol. It's another informational buble. We are in a buble too, here (a good sounding buble I think), but as much as possible, we should try to mix opinions. The only time I ever heard people complaining about hardware is when they are using prosumer interfaces. But no complaints with the higher end stuff. After investigating this, I discovered that a lot of lower end interfaces don't really conform to the input/output impedance standards of the hardware, but the higher end ones do.
As for plugins, they have became better over time. However, I have heard off and on throughout the years about digital noise in the side chain channel at lower sampling rates. |
|
|
|
Post by audiospecific on Feb 14, 2024 5:10:15 GMT -6
More poking fun, but it was a concern of mine when Luna was launched. I thought why do I want to push my original songs through the same extensions anybody else can use? I know it’s all up to the actual mix decisions, but your post reminded of that concerns and the ongoing concern about the differences between itb mixes and otb gear ? Like if you picked 10 tracks from 60’s, would you think they would also sound homogenized ? Agreed and that's why in this day where people mostly use plugins I've tried to find some off the path hardware. There isn't an IAA622 plugin, nor is their a Chandler TG Opto, Gainlabs Empress EQ or IGS Vari-Mu plug.
Some of the UA emulations of the HW I have just don't seem to match, I did need to try the newer LA-2A's but as I've got plenty of HW opto choices I never really bothered. The original UA-1 was a "shrinker" though, also at a certain point it would really just dull the sound whereas the HW expanded it.
TBH forget plugins I don't even think the UA HW re-issue sounds exactly like an actual LA-2A (neither do some of the other HW clones). The 1176 in the 6176 doesn't really appear to match exactly any of the Rev's I've had or used either. The Stam 2A pretty much nailed the sound of my Tele 2A, I've heard greater variances between different Tele units. My point is, I don't believe this issue is strictly plugin related.
One thing I always wondered, is why haven't things moved on from these. Technology advances. I've used all kinds of software and hardware version of these just to see what was special about them and asked others too. I just don't see why they are special because you can get the job done without them and the tones from driving the 1176, I found that I can duplicate, and put it on a better compressor. I remember talking to an electronics engineer when he had 50 question to throw at me about the Fairchild, but one question he asked me that resurfaces every time I see one, is:"What is the fuss about this device since its not really that good of a compressor design wise".
|
|
kcatthedog
Temp
Super Helpful Dude
Posts: 16,048
Member is Online
|
Post by kcatthedog on Feb 14, 2024 6:50:11 GMT -6
Ya, I care about the utility of the thing I am using, not whether it sounds “exactly like”! Not to bash UA again, most(all?) plug in makers make similar claims, originally cit was the suzzle for the software steak, but all that matters to me is whether I can get my track/mix/production sounding the way I want, but still unfortunately limited by my skills. So, I still see each song as a learning opportunity and have fun being creative. Every time, I start a new song, it’s like meeting a new best friend, no idea where it’s going, but I want to go there with it! |
|
|
|
Post by Shadowk on Feb 14, 2024 7:56:16 GMT -6
One thing I always wondered, is why haven't things moved on from these. Technology advances. I've used all kinds of software and hardware version of these just to see what was special about them and asked others too. I just don't see why they are special because you can get the job done without them and the tones from driving the 1176, I found that I can duplicate, and put it on a better compressor. I remember talking to an electronics engineer when he had 50 question to throw at me about the Fairchild, but one question he asked me that resurfaces every time I see one, is:"What is the fuss about this device since its not really that good of a compressor design wise".
It has, we have mixing desks with +27dBu headroom 120+dB of dynamic range & 0.00015% THD, converters that are just mad. Plugins that can do things like adjust on lookahead and in terms of specifications no physical HW in existence could ever match it. Software is to an extent within reason and in the confines of processing power infinitely flexible..
In the 70's the goal was pretty clear, all types of noise, hiss, wow, flutter etc. were the enemy of engineers alike and it needed sorting out. Even consoles degraded signals in countless ways.. Today however an SSL Big Six for example is technically speaking superior in every way to a 70's console. We don't have crunchy VCA's in a DAW like an SSL 4K does however some still revere that console. Then it becomes apparent what the issue is.
In this pursuit of sonic technical excellence was there, at any point a confrontation with reality to understand if it's what we actually want? We needed to get to this point before an opinion could be devised upon but here we are. Super clean technically amazing audio is available, so what now? Hands up who prefers a U89 to a U87? It's technically superior in practically every way so why not? Neumann even made that mic to replace the U87. Didn't quite work did it.. Who prefers Kotelnikov to a hardware Sta-Level? Well, guess which one is technically better.
This has been a hard lesson to learn for me but music is a magician's game, it's smoke and mirrors. Realistic and accurate can be boring, it's like choosing between two games and one is about being master of the universe, the other is a hoovering simulator. At least we now we have a choice though, you can dirty stuff up as much as necessary or not. The other problem is if one of these genius creations is made they just don't sell very well. Everyone is searching for that magic set in the basis of yesteryore.. Sure it might be a limit to progression but there are reasons.
Personally and I guess this isn't a popular opinion per se I like to balance both ends, anything with the word "vintage" in it I tend to shy away from. I'd take an SSL G-Bus comp over any classic Vari-Mu, I don't like mic's with tons of distortion or lack of detail (like most dynamics) and just because it is a toob mic it doesn't mean it has to be harmonically saturated. I like some of the more modern, clean and powerful tools ITB even if they aren't popular. I'd take a Shelford over a 1073 any day of the week etc. etc. That being said it doesn't mean I don't have use for some of these technically "inferior" devices because I have enough of them. It just depends on the context..
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadowk on Feb 14, 2024 7:59:43 GMT -6
Every time, I start a new song, it’s like meeting a new best friend, no idea where it’s going, but I want to go there with it! I like that.. |
|
|
|
Post by doubledog on Feb 14, 2024 8:22:57 GMT -6
I've got a question and seen as this is an anything goes thread at this point might as well ask it here. To say that we hear so differently, why does every single budget enabled mass consumer created audio production sound pretty much the same? There's been screw up's like Death Magnetic (Metallica) but for the most part, eerily similar. I've said before that I compared a modern club track (engineered by a team) to Toto Africa, the only real difference was the vocals were clearer and it had more bass. I thought to myself, so this is how far we've come in the last 42 years? .. But don't forget the goal of a mastered release sorta used to be to make it sound as good as you could on an audiophile system (and then it would generally sound good on FM radio too). Today some of these songs are specifically mastered for iTunes or Youtube so you can listen on a shitty phone through shitty Bluetooth earbuds. So much for the technology...  |
|
|
|
Post by audiospecific on Feb 14, 2024 8:23:04 GMT -6
One thing I always wondered, is why haven't things moved on from these. Technology advances. I've used all kinds of software and hardware version of these just to see what was special about them and asked others too. I just don't see why they are special because you can get the job done without them and the tones from driving the 1176, I found that I can duplicate, and put it on a better compressor. I remember talking to an electronics engineer when he had 50 question to throw at me about the Fairchild, but one question he asked me that resurfaces every time I see one, is:"What is the fuss about this device since its not really that good of a compressor design wise".
It has, we have mixing desks with +27dBu headroom 120+dB of dynamic range & 0.00015% THD, converters that are just mad. Plugins that can do things like adjust on lookahead and in terms of specifications no physical HW in existence could ever match it. Software is to an extent within reason and in the confines of processing power infinitely flexible..
In the 70's the goal was pretty clear, all types of noise, hiss, wow, flutter etc. were the enemy of engineers alike and it needed sorting out. Even consoles degraded signals in countless ways.. Today however an SSL Big Six for example is technically speaking superior in every way to a 70's console. We don't have crunchy VCA's in a DAW like an SSL 4K does however some still revere that console. Then it becomes apparent what the issue is.
In this pursuit of sonic technical excellence was there, at any point a confrontation with reality to understand if it's what we actually want? We needed to get to this point before an opinion could be devised upon but here we are. Super clean technically amazing audio is available, so what now? Hands up who prefers a U89 to a U87? It's technically superior in practically every way so why not? Neumann even made that mic to replace the U87. Didn't quite work did it.. Who prefers Kotelnikov to a hardware Sta-Level? Well, guess which one is technically better.
This has been a hard lesson to learn for me but music is a magician's game, it's smoke and mirrors. Realistic and accurate can be boring, it's like choosing between two games and one is about being master of the universe, the other is a hoovering simulator. At least we now we have a choice though, you can dirty stuff up as much as necessary or not. The other problem is if one of these genius creations is made they just don't sell very well. Everyone is searching for that magic set in the basis of yesteryore.. Sure it might be a limit to progression but there are reasons.
Personally and I guess this isn't a popular opinion per se I like to balance both ends, anything with the word "vintage" in it I tend to shy away from. I'd take an SSL G-Bus comp over any classic Vari-Mu, I don't like mic's with tons of distortion or lack of detail (like most dynamics) and just because it is a toob mic it doesn't mean it has to be harmonically saturated. I like some of the more modern, clean and powerful tools ITB even if they aren't popular. I'd take a Shelford over a 1073 any day of the week etc. etc. That being said it doesn't mean I don't have use for some of these technically "inferior" devices because I have enough of them. It just depends on the context..
Interesting you say that about mixers. I was taught that you create a +32 to +40 audio circuit and set the clip at +18 to +24 on a professional console. But the difficulty in mixers is the signal to noise loss in the summing circuit.
There is a lot of tube sounds that are not represented in pro audio tube equipment. Other than people clinging to the past, those sounds only represent half of its color wheel.
|
|
..
