|
Post by russellcreekps on Jun 22, 2024 14:31:14 GMT -6
Audioscape is offering a cross grade program for their EQP-A’s to a mastering version with stepped pots. In my case, I send out tracks for mastering, but wondering if I should consider this on my 2bus (where my EQP’s live)? Is it really so important though? Not much in my master chain has stepped pots…and I think it sounds pretty great. I also heard that a little variance between L and R could make a wider stereo image. Saw a vid (I think it was Joe Carrell?) say that on busses he runs his comp plugs in dual mono for this reason…I used to run my stereo hw comps in linked mode, but after seeing that, I now don’t and think something sounds better…just not sure what lol.
Thx
|
|
|
Post by sean on Jun 22, 2024 14:51:18 GMT -6
Personally when I use a Smart C1 I like running it in dual mono, especially since there isn't a low end side chain filter, because something loud in one side will pull the whole mix down and mess up the image. It's easy to A/B and see what you like better.
The real reason for stepped pots, especially when mix with analog EQ, is easy of recall.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,086
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Jun 22, 2024 16:31:37 GMT -6
Steped pots are no more exact than normal pots, they give a false sense of repeatability and precision. You want recall ability and ch to ch matching you need switched controls.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jun 22, 2024 18:17:03 GMT -6
Personally when I use a Smart C1 I like running it in dual mono, especially since there isn't a low end side chain filter, because something loud in one side will pull the whole mix down and mess up the image. It's easy to A/B and see what you like better. The real reason for stepped pots, especially when mix with analog EQ, is easy of recall. Problem with unlinked mode is you are randomly modulating a panner for stereo center on your mix. This can sound horrible on bigger and wider systems and headphones. It is louder than linked mode though. Problem with greater of either L or R linking is one side modulates the other even when unwanted. Loud events in one channel will pump the other down. Will compress with the pan law when panning around. Like a real ssl bus, Weiss ds1 with sc link on, daking comp II according to the manual Problem with audio summing linking is out of phase content is a total non factor and wil not trigger the compressor. Center content will be compressed 6 db more than sides. Like a gssl without turbo mod or daking fet iii fully linked. Problem with dc side chain summing and being center to both detectors is mid/side balance is randomly modulated but stereo center remain stable. Phase shifted content has less of a result on compression. Will not match pan law when panning around exactly. API 2500 and Molot GE More advanced solutions are often preferable: variable stereo linking of summed side chains to greater of l and r (kotelnikov. GE allows this only for peaks) variable summing to control amount of pan modulation (daking fet iii, api 2500, drawmer 1978, unisum) allowing only slower low frequency events to be linked and higher frequency events unlinked so the image won’t shift around with high frequency transients (api 2500 and molot ge) Allowing only slower events in time to be linked (aphex compellor, drawmer 241/251, api 2500+, unisum, most better limiters like the Oxford and Limiter 6 GE) Solution with less side effects is obviously to use a more intelligent or configurable compressor than from 1980.
|
|
|
Post by russellcreekps on Jun 22, 2024 21:24:13 GMT -6
Thanks all for the responses and great knowledge! dan , really appreciate the in depth information…very interesting, I did not know any of that..I’ll be taking a look at those compressors for sure. Not sure I completely understand it all but I will do some further research on your points. Wondering, in respect to this info, would you say running a modern plug comp (UAD 2500/Molot GE) after my EQP’s would repair any imaging issues cause by the difference from the L/R channels? Thx
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jun 23, 2024 2:13:23 GMT -6
Stepped switches are amazing for fast and very reliable recall of devices. That's why mastering gear is generally stepped switches on everything.
Stepped pots aren't reliable usually in recall to be 100% where you had it. But are close. Not the same thing though.
Not sure if audioscape is doing switches or pots. But pots aren't what I'd call mastering grade.
And while it's cool they are doing that, you still need two for the buss and TBH they take up way to much room/rack space to make it worth it. There are a lot of great stereo mastering eqs out there that take up less space than one of the eqps.
I doubt you'll see any semi major mastering engineers with a pair of these in their racks any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by FM77 on Jun 23, 2024 6:53:57 GMT -6
Personally when I use a Smart C1 I like running it in dual mono, especially since there isn't a low end side chain filter, because something loud in one side will pull the whole mix down and mess up the image. It's easy to A/B and see what you like better. The real reason for stepped pots, especially when mix with analog EQ, is easy of recall. Problem with unlinked mode ... Problem with greater of either L or R linking ... Problem with audio summing linking ... Problem with dc side chain summing ... Solution with less side effects is obviously to use a more intelligent or configurable compressor than from 1980... That is alot of problems man! Still got to persevere and make music Seriously, in day to day work it just isn't that complicated or convoluted in practical use. If you have good monitoring, none of it is a real issue.
This is a creative field to a greater extent than a technical field simple because even within the technical field we are creative. While I always appreciate maximizing sonics, we are making music for ourselves, not a scope. Sometimes center content being compressed more (in unlinked mode) is fantastic. It is a choice to bring the center forward as a group. It is part the sound of the record, or song or the pleasing end result. Mono is a tool, dual mono, stereo, linked or unlinked, M/S etc.
I have 3 or 4 pieces of hardware I run in dual mono, by necessity really. NOt always, but certainly in some cases. Any issues are source dependent, application dependent and use dependent. Meaning , they aren't actually problems, just part of the decision process. If I hear something wacky, I adjust. Output levels need to be watched.
On all of my favorite albums - Somewhere, phase issue is included. Noise is included. Mismatched levels, mis matched panning or a hole or bump in the center might be included. If it is working, it works. No analyzing needed.
|
|
|
Post by chipbuttie on Jun 23, 2024 7:24:08 GMT -6
I totally agree. I sometimes use my mixbus comp linked sometimes unlinked, just depends which I prefer for that song. I’m aware of the potential downsides such as centre image shifting etc but in real world use it’s rarely a problem for me, if it is I’ll hear it.
With regards to stepped controls, I purchased the mastering version of my current bus compressor for quick and easy recall. It has switches though not stepped pots. The comp I previously used on my mixbus wasn’t stepped and the markings around the pots weren’t very fine so recall was a bit of a pain. For me, if they are using switches it’s worth it!
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jun 23, 2024 9:31:54 GMT -6
Problem with unlinked mode ... Problem with greater of either L or R linking ... Problem with audio summing linking ... Problem with dc side chain summing ... Solution with less side effects is obviously to use a more intelligent or configurable compressor than from 1980... That is alot of problems man! Still got to persevere and make music Seriously, in day to day work it just isn't that complicated or convoluted in practical use. If you have good monitoring, none of it is a real issue.
This is a creative field to a greater extent than a technical field simple because even within the technical field we are creative. While I always appreciate maximizing sonics, we are making music for ourselves, not a scope. Sometimes center content being compressed more (in unlinked mode) is fantastic. It is a choice to bring the center forward as a group. It is part the sound of the record, or song or the pleasing end result. Mono is a tool, dual mono, stereo, linked or unlinked, M/S etc.
I have 3 or 4 pieces of hardware I run in dual mono, by necessity really. NOt always, but certainly in some cases. Any issues are source dependent, application dependent and use dependent. Meaning , they aren't actually problems, just part of the decision process. If I hear something wacky, I adjust. Output levels need to be watched.
On all of my favorite albums - Somewhere, phase issue is included. Noise is included. Mismatched levels, mis matched panning or a hole or bump in the center might be included. If it is working, it works. No analyzing needed.
hardly anyone has realistic monitoring. Nearfield as it is now, ultra nearfield, is great at spotting problems but terrible at giving a realistic stereo spread and most larger monitors in most rooms are set up to be beyond useless. The amount of near field monitors that have a realistic amount of dynamics and headroom and stereo imaging is incredibly few. I would say only a handful and they’re not what people would expect and often stuff that itself has a sound like the Quested 8” actives or the Focal 6” with the Beryllium tweeters or real three way speakers (not most of the mini ones) that can be repurposed as quasi near fields but usually not a mere 1m away. The only reason the producers took over with their shockingly low low levels of expertise and skill and apologizing for crappy misbehavior is because the industry is at rock bottom even versus a few years ago and is set up to siphon small amounts of money towards the top without having to give advances anymore or even get most artists working with anyone who knows anything. The productions aren’t there. They sound genuinely small and bad and gross. The huge ones started drying up in the 2000s when artists with huge sounding records suddenly got tinny and small and now most popular music albums are mixed like boy band music but worse by people who truly do not care at all about anything other than cleaning up the producer or artist’s mess, making them conform to everyone else’s mess enough for them and the label to sign off on it. There are some truly phenomenal younger or lesser known live performers and you may not like and their material might not be great but they can play it even if the venue is bad. The will and the money is just not there to record a realistic stereo representation of that, or even a hyper realistic, surreal, or impressionistic one, and release it. They don’t even have a throw the mics up and what comes out comes out demo. Instead what comes out might as well be dance hall with poorly recorded vocals to a distorted backing track with recordings you’ve heard before. Look at the tools that get released that are clones of. Compare them to what I put in the advanced stereo linking down there. They have phenomenal control of the stereo spread with the ability to minimize pumping and perceived stereo shift. Yet go over to the purple site and watch them fawn over quarter century old digital processors that cannot be pushed and say they are the only thing that lets digital mixing feel analog and lust after Behringer or Behrigner level clones of almost 40 year old compressors that now will have drifted into pure distortion which they’ve never heard a clean modern type of not be what they expect and the sound of the volume modulation being by far the more noticeable aspect. I wonder what they would think of the Aphex hardware which pretty much sounds pristine like good digital or of the murky old digital things people used to use like Blockfish which definitely sounds more analog than a lot of analog gear but not in a good way or if they were around when MJUC came out and you could put that on your two bus and it’s instant slight volume control, fatness, and murk for 25 bucks. Manley Varimu sounds more digital and pristine even through the glycerine sound than a lot of what’s in MJUC. Or a lot of the cheaper 500 series modules from Lindell and now DBX just sounding like a pass through cheap interfaces because they are made from similar cheap circuitry. Now we even have plugins like the Glue and the Metric Halo Sontec that can emulate the phase shift of passing through inferior converters. Of course better converter into cleanish analog hardware and back into digital is going to sound much more digital than what the average current user perceives as “analog sound in the box” and will mostly be free of any major harmonic distortion and digital artifacts Dan
|
|
|
Post by Darren Boling on Jun 23, 2024 9:44:02 GMT -6
Audioscape is offering a cross grade program for their EQP-A’s to a mastering version with stepped pots. In my case, I send out tracks for mastering, but wondering if I should consider this on my 2bus (where my EQP’s live)? Is it really so important though? Not much in my master chain has stepped pots…and I think it sounds pretty great. I also heard that a little variance between L and R could make a wider stereo image. Saw a vid (I think it was Joe Carrell?) say that on busses he runs his comp plugs in dual mono for this reason…I used to run my stereo hw comps in linked mode, but after seeing that, I now don’t and think something sounds better…just not sure what lol. Thx I use Plugin Doctor's analog mode to check matching and drift, even has a quick button to take a screenshot you can save in the session folder.
|
|
|
Post by FM77 on Jun 23, 2024 10:36:46 GMT -6
That is alot of problems man! Still got to persevere and make music Seriously, in day to day work it just isn't that complicated or convoluted in practical use. If you have good monitoring, none of it is a real issue.
This is a creative field to a greater extent than a technical field simple because even within the technical field we are creative. While I always appreciate maximizing sonics, we are making music for ourselves, not a scope. Sometimes center content being compressed more (in unlinked mode) is fantastic. It is a choice to bring the center forward as a group. It is part the sound of the record, or song or the pleasing end result. Mono is a tool, dual mono, stereo, linked or unlinked, M/S etc.
I have 3 or 4 pieces of hardware I run in dual mono, by necessity really. NOt always, but certainly in some cases. Any issues are source dependent, application dependent and use dependent. Meaning , they aren't actually problems, just part of the decision process. If I hear something wacky, I adjust. Output levels need to be watched.
On all of my favorite albums - Somewhere, phase issue is included. Noise is included. Mismatched levels, mis matched panning or a hole or bump in the center might be included. If it is working, it works. No analyzing needed.
hardly anyone has realistic monitoring. Nearfield as it is now, ultra nearfield, is great at spotting problems but terrible at giving a realistic stereo spread and most larger monitors in most rooms are set up to be beyond useless. The amount of near field monitors that have a realistic amount of dynamics and headroom and stereo imaging is incredibly few. I would say only a handful and they’re not what people would expect and often stuff that itself has a sound like the Quested 8” actives or the Focal 6” with the Beryllium tweeters or real three way speakers (not most of the mini ones) that can be repurposed as quasi near fields but usually not a mere 1m away. The only reason the producers took over with their shockingly low low levels of expertise and skill and apologizing for crappy misbehavior is because the industry is at rock bottom even versus a few years ago and is set up to siphon small amounts of money towards the top without having to give advances anymore or even get most artists working with anyone who knows anything. The productions aren’t there. They sound genuinely small and bad and gross. The huge ones started drying up in the 2000s when artists with huge sounding records suddenly got tinny and small and now most popular music albums are mixed like boy band music but worse by people who truly do not care at all about anything other than cleaning up the producer or artist’s mess, making them conform to everyone else’s mess enough for them and the label to sign off on it. There are some truly phenomenal younger or lesser known live performers and you may not like and their material might not be great but they can play it even if the venue is bad. The will and the money is just not there to record a realistic stereo representation of that, or even a hyper realistic, surreal, or impressionistic one, and release it. They don’t even have a throw the mics up and what comes out comes out demo. Instead what comes out might as well be dance hall with poorly recorded vocals to a distorted backing track with recordings you’ve heard before. Look at the tools that get released that are clones of. Compare them to what I put in the advanced stereo linking down there. They have phenomenal control of the stereo spread with the ability to minimize pumping and perceived stereo shift. Yet go over to the purple site and watch them fawn over quarter century old digital processors that cannot be pushed and say they are the only thing that lets digital mixing feel analog and lust after Behringer or Behrigner level clones of almost 40 year old compressors that now will have drifted into pure distortion which they’ve never heard a clean modern type of not be what they expect and the sound of the volume modulation being by far the more noticeable aspect. I wonder what they would think of the Aphex hardware which pretty much sounds pristine like good digital or of the murky old digital things people used to use like Blockfish which definitely sounds more analog than a lot of analog gear but not in a good way or if they were around when MJUC came out and you could put that on your two bus and it’s instant slight volume control, fatness, and murk for 25 bucks. Manley Varimu sounds more digital and pristine even through the glycerine sound than a lot of what’s in MJUC. Or a lot of the cheaper 500 series modules from Lindell and now DBX just sounding like a pass through cheap interfaces because they are made from similar cheap circuitry. Now we even have plugins like the Glue and the Metric Halo Sontec that can emulate the phase shift of passing through inferior converters. Of course better converter into cleanish analog hardware and back into digital is going to sound much more digital than what the average current user perceives as “analog sound in the box” and will mostly be free of any major harmonic distortion and digital artifacts Dan
And while I understand that view, I find it to be a small slice of reality. Despite it all we somehow still manage to work, produce, create and move forward.
Genuinely, I don't subscribe to the doom and gloom as it does not square with my experiences, past or current. You know already that you and I have a very different view and experiences on gear and production over the past 30 years. Today, I have friends making sonically beautiful records. As a hired musician, I hear alot of amazing audio. This town is rich with excellent audio.
I like today's gear. I like vintage gear. I like some modern production, I like some vintage production. But above all else, as creatives we have never had so much freedom. I still buy cassette tapes, DATs, CDs. Its just cool and for me it's all good.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,086
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Jun 23, 2024 13:01:22 GMT -6
An idea for someone looking for great side hustle, get one of those CNC pattern cutters you see in fabric stores, cut overlays for gear, it would be the best recall sheets ever, overlay the sheet put a dot exactly where the knob pointer is, lay it back over line the pointer.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jun 23, 2024 21:06:35 GMT -6
Thanks all for the responses and great knowledge! dan , really appreciate the in depth information…very interesting, I did not know any of that..I’ll be taking a look at those compressors for sure. Not sure I completely understand it all but I will do some further research on your points. Wondering, in respect to this info, would you say running a modern plug comp (UAD 2500/Molot GE) after my EQP’s would repair any imaging issues cause by the difference from the L/R channels? Thx No, they will not fix your stereo issues from applying different filters to L and R.
|
|