|
Post by ragan on Jul 29, 2016 19:01:13 GMT -6
Yes....there's a difference in EQ prior to hitting converters. After it's converted, I couldn't care less. I have analog EQ and don't patch it in....nearly ever. BUT....it's ability to transform and analog signal prior to capture makes it "part of the sound" in a way that you can't get later, IME. That's actually why I was looking at this--if I could "air up" the sm7....or beef up the Gefell with a Pultec sounding EQ on the way in it would make them both nicer....and me even LESS dependent on mix tools.... Another good thing about the EQP-Wa is the extra EQ points. So for beefing up, you get some nice low-mid spots not present on the original. Curious, have you ever blind tested yourself on your pre/post converter opinion? I haven't. Now I want to. I use hardware all the time in mixing and find it, on the whole, far superior to plugin emulations, conversion be damned. I've also blind tested myself on full mix WAV's where I took a song, ran it through DA/AD about 4 times and in a blind test I couldn't reliably pick out the original from the one that had 4 round trips. I've never tested the specific idea you're talking about though. Now I want to. Expectation bias is ruthlessly powerful, but if there truly is a benefit, I'd like to know.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jul 29, 2016 22:27:40 GMT -6
Curious, have you ever blind tested yourself on your pre/post converter opinion? No. I have the plug in vs hardware during mixing. Many times. But, the prior to conversion....is if something has a need and I apply it on the way in....it's done, fixed....if I don't....and even immediately try to dial in the same thing with digital EQ, I get.....something....close? But, it always sounds "EQ'd"....including when I ship it back out the same hardware units at mix. But, no....what would you need to do? You would need to mult and record EQ and not EQ'd.....then loop the "not" back out to the EQ and generate a new file---then ABX that? Keeping all the IO calibration so you hit the front of the EQ the same both from the preamp and the DAC? No. At the end of the day, I'm going to cut it with the EQ for workflow reasons. I suppose it would save me money on things like potentially getting a Warm in order to have a more "pultec'y" option for tracking since I have the option for mixing.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 30, 2016 6:43:15 GMT -6
I wouldn't go so far as to ABX test that, but it's always fun when someone does ;-) There has to be a difference between running an actual signal through a processor and running an already recorded signal. They're simply not the same thing. There's been no A/D conversion yet when you print with the hardware.
I realize under test circumstances it's highly possible differences might be indistinguishable, but part of the problem with tests like that is the test itself. It may or may not be a valid conclusion, and I've often noticed differences between things that begin to reveal themselves at a later date after listening for a while, and then those differences can sometimes be annoying ones. There's also the cumulative effect. In my video, I probably should have dialed in a little high end on the Warm for the acoustic guitar, so the UAD acoustic sounds maybe a little better, but when you put all the tracks together, I think it's no contest.
There's nothing wrong at all with the UAD plug, it's sounds really good, but it is different, flatter, and I feel is missing that feeling of silky smoothness that's much more pleasant to hear when listening to a song.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jul 30, 2016 10:19:31 GMT -6
FWIW--I never noticed it on anything but EQ....but, then when I DO need compression as "part of the sound", I print it and so I really don't have a lot of times when I've not just to compare---where I went a solid period without analog EQ here. Well, there was a graphic for kick, but....anyway....
Death by a thousand cuts. Or the inverse. That's what audio production is. If you're thinking anything alone is "transformative"....."night and day"....you're not gain matching things well....or needing to justify the "need" to spend money.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 30, 2016 11:50:51 GMT -6
Curious, have you ever blind tested yourself on your pre/post converter opinion? No. I have the plug in vs hardware during mixing. Many times. But, the prior to conversion....is if something has a need and I apply it on the way in....it's done, fixed....if I don't....and even immediately try to dial in the same thing with digital EQ, I get.....something....close? But, it always sounds "EQ'd"....including when I ship it back out the same hardware units at mix. But, no....what would you need to do? You would need to mult and record EQ and not EQ'd.....then loop the "not" back out to the EQ and generate a new file---then ABX that? Keeping all the IO calibration so you hit the front of the EQ the same both from the preamp and the DAC? No. At the end of the day, I'm going to cut it with the EQ for workflow reasons. I suppose it would save me money on things like potentially getting a Warm in order to have a more "pultec'y" option for tracking since I have the option for mixing. Gotcha. When someone says something like "there's a difference in EQ prior to hitting converters" I like to know if it's a gut feeling, an opinion just sort of picked up from general consensus, something they've rigorously tested for themselves, etc. Nothing wrong with any of those types of views of course, I just like to know which it is. I may do some testing myself, for my own benefit. Ragan
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Jul 30, 2016 11:52:47 GMT -6
Why would tracking with an EQ (or compression) sound better than tracking without it and running through it at the mixing stage given correct and identical gain staging and great high quality conversion such as Crane Song or Apogge etc.
In theory as long as the gain staging is exactly matched it shouldn't sound different - but in practice I too find it does.
I've always put it down to the hardware's influence on the performer and having something with a better sound and vibe, it seems to draw a better performance.
Tracking with hardware is like putting on a great outfit for a night out - you feel great and have a better time!
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 30, 2016 11:54:49 GMT -6
There has to be a difference between running an actual signal through a processor and running an already recorded signal. They're simply not the same thing. There's been no A/D conversion yet when you print with the hardware. Well yes and maybe no. There's a technical difference obviously, the conversion. But either way that piece of hardware is post mic pre so it's getting hit with a line level signal. The DA of your converters is also hitting it with that line level signal. Jury's out for me on whether that's a difference that can be heard or not. Obviously somewhat converter dependent. Easy enough to find out if one is interested. But I also get the point of view of "Stop messing around with silly tests and record some damn music!". Both valid!
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 30, 2016 11:56:33 GMT -6
Why would tracking with an EQ (or compression) sound better than tracking without it and running through it at the mixing stage given correct and identical gain staging and great high quality conversion such as Crane Song or Apogge etc.
In theory as long as the gain staging is exactly matched it shouldn't sound different - but in practice I too find it does.
I've always put it down to the hardware's influence on the performer and having something with a better sound and vibe, it seems to draw a better performance.
Tracking with hardware is like putting on a great outfit for a night out - you feel great and have a better time!
Totally agree on the effect on performance. I can put whatever processing I want on to monitor in the UAD Console but when I track through hardware it's way better, vibe wise. Everything sounds more solid and real in the cans. That's not surprising to me though because I think most hardware sounds a lot better than plugin emulations, even good ones.
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Jul 30, 2016 11:58:40 GMT -6
If you have great converters hearing one pass of conversion on a double blind ABX test in my experience in simply impossible.
But I'm in the camp of, enough with the testing, better record music :-)
I track with EQ and/or compression almost all the time - if it sounds great - that's good enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 30, 2016 12:25:18 GMT -6
If you have great converters hearing one pass of conversion on a double blind ABX test in my experience in simply impossible.
But I'm in the camp of, enough with the testing, better record music :-)
I track with EQ and/or compression almost all the time - if it sounds great - that's good enough for me.
I mentioned this above but I couldn't reliably pick out 4 passes through AD/DA during one test I did. I definitely think the fear of conversion trips is more dogma than reality.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 30, 2016 15:18:21 GMT -6
To take the idea of tracking with hardware a step further, I think I make better decisions soundwise when I'm doing the recording, especially on a lead vocal. When I'm in the moment, trying to communicate the feeling behind the writing, I know it when I hear it, and then not only is the performance probably better for it, there's less to do later in mixing, and time is saved by not messing around with too many plugs. Less plug-ins later usually means a more finished, more pro sound, at least in my experience..
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jul 30, 2016 16:15:46 GMT -6
I have zero fear of conversion jumps. Did it for years. Just to clarify.
The better sounding processor makes more difference than any slight loss from a converter jump.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 30, 2016 21:33:36 GMT -6
Yep. If I thought a plug-in sounded better than the hardware it's imitating, or was simply equal, I'd just use it. With an Apollo you can print with plugs. If their preamps, compressors and equalizers sounded better to me, I wouldn't be bothering with the hardware.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 31, 2016 8:40:48 GMT -6
In a way, right now, it's a bit like comparing CD's to records. Was the CD more convenient, sure, the ability to skip tracks, no need to turn the record over, no scratches or pops, more portable, mp3's could be made, etc..
But with those gains in convenience, we lost our deep connections to the artists and music became like the wallpaper, there, but rarely noticed. Of course there are many other factors to this, but the digital vs. analogue debate started right there, when CD's became the norm and record companies used it as an excuse to raise prices sky high.
In certain cases the plugins are way more practical and affordable, so I think recording music will remain a hybrid thing for quite a while.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jul 31, 2016 13:30:29 GMT -6
I print all the hardware I think I need on the way in, and virtually nothing comes back out for hardware processing at mix, even though I'm hybrid mixing, exception being mix hitting a few stereo pieces. Too many remix demands on too low a budget for that to be practical. If tracks come from elsewhere and seem like they need something, they may all get hardware inserts at mix, and I probably won't bother to print the individual hardware paths back. I don't find my Analog Allstars Pultecs (or any other clones I've heard) to sound anything at all like an actual Pultec, so from that point I feel comparing the Warm to a Pultec plug is not a direct comparison at all. The AA's sound good, one just shouldn't operate under the illusion that one has a Pultec, when one really has a device that can make the same curves as a Pultec.
Sorry, off topic, but Martin has spurred some comments: I must have 2000 vinyl albums, many that I bought new and have played very few times (used to do a cassette from vinyl and listen to that, so lots with less than 3 plays ever) and it's damn hard to find one that meets the sound of the CD, let alone exceed it. Vinyl does seem to sound better on smaller systems that need help. I always kinda cringe when I hear vinyl versions of masters that've come out of my place, there's always something that's suffered in the matrix of compromises. Records can be fun to hear (when I didn't have anything to do with them), so long as I don't compare. I've bought a lot of modern vinyl that should be well produced, and just isn't. Horrible noise floors, rumble, flattened dynamics, lost sense of 'air', etc. Back in the day you could take vinyl like that back to the store for a refund, now it's 'part of the sound', sorry kid. It's always seemed to me that many so currently enamored with vinyl are comparing against marginal mp3's played through questionable (iPhone) playback electronics, rather than directly against a CD. On a good system. Much less an original master. Spend the money on a quality CD player (used market only now, I'm afraid) and check out the sound of it's electronics. I still have an HHB CRR-800 from '98 that stomps a half dozen consumer CD players I have into the ground, cold. If you really want a comedy moment A/B the same 44.1/16 files on it and an iPhone, you'll be looking for a brick to smash the iPhone with. I've a couple of the same 'audiophile' CD player which is fully DC coupled, and they sound even better BUT they go massive fail with any source having full scale sustained signal; no analog electronics headroom after the converters!
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 1, 2016 8:37:18 GMT -6
It would be fun to hear a Pultec next to the Warm EQP-WA.
I have noticed over the years that when it comes to vintage gear, almost no two pieces of anything ever sound the same. U47's, U67's, C12's, Neve preamps, LA2A's, etc.
So in a way, a better comparison might be a vintage Pultec, a brand new Pultec, an EQP-WA, if that was possible.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 1, 2016 10:10:36 GMT -6
There has to be a difference between running an actual signal through a processor and running an already recorded signal. They're simply not the same thing. There's been no A/D conversion yet when you print with the hardware. Well yes and maybe no. There's a technical difference obviously, the conversion. But either way that piece of hardware is post mic pre so it's getting hit with a line level signal. The DA of your converters is also hitting it with that line level signal. Jury's out for me on whether that's a difference that can be heard or not. Obviously somewhat converter dependent. Easy enough to find out if one is interested. But I also get the point of view of " Stop messing around with silly tests and record some damn music!". Both valid! Paralysis by analysis
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 1, 2016 11:19:16 GMT -6
It's been known to happen ;-) I tend to use what I can afford and not worry about having original pieces like UREI compressors, vintage Neve's. etc. I try to find the basic sound I want, and get as close as I can afford to get. I figure if I ever make a lot of money, I can always cherry pick my favorite pieces.
So, the EQP-WA works beautifully for me, I don't even think about a real Pultec, I'll look for that kind of thing when and if I get back to a real studio again, and who knows, maybe an original Pultec might not necessarily be better, maybe just different.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Aug 2, 2016 8:23:24 GMT -6
I'm curious in my quest to be as agnostic of mix tools as I can be....one of the few vintage emus I can't really shake is the Pultec. Nothing (other than that Slate freebie) adds "air" to things as euphonically. There's only a handful of third party analog emulation type plugs I can't seem to do without.....and most are far more subtly different than a Pultec plug adding air.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 2, 2016 9:39:00 GMT -6
When I use a Pultec plugin on drums, I've found it much easier to get a little fuller kick or punchier snare than when using types of EQ's. That said, the plugs don't add in that smooth glassy thing the hardware does. The EQP-WA almost feels the way a compressor does when blending things together, except it smooths harsh frequencies a little. I don't know exactly why.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Aug 6, 2016 22:53:57 GMT -6
Well there is the concept that audio running through an opamp based signal path out of your converters (usually 50 to 250 ohms) into an EQ or compressor for that matter is going to interact differently than say the transformer coupled output of a microphone preamplifier that's spitting out in this case say 600 ohms. Transformers interacting with each other is a real phenomenon. Once you convert that signal to digital and then back out to analog, you've also eliminated that potential for interaction. Even though quality conversion may appear to be transparent to the clarity of the signal, by nature of design it won't be a non factor in said signal behavior once AD/DA is added into the equation.
Try the following, run a signal from the DA of your computer into a tasty mic preamp that has a DI or use a DI box to get into a mic preamp via the mic input. Now patch that to your analog tubey transformery EQ or compressor etc.... Make it sound good. Note how you accomplished said result. Remove the compressor or EQ, if your level's allow or if you have a transparent way to attenuate the signal (YMMV) print the signal post mic preamp. Now send that new signal back out into the compressor/EQ via your DA. Sound the same? Found this out long ago, once its in the computer, the rules change and your results change. If you want to interface with certain types of equipment you have to make a signal live again. Those extra harmonics count. This is why I've been very busy in the R&D department, documenting all the fun ways to make those dead digital signals live again without patching in a ton of widgets and instead maybe just one.
-L
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 7, 2016 8:00:47 GMT -6
illacov said, "Those extra harmonics count." I bet they do! Welcome to the forum.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 8, 2016 8:33:36 GMT -6
Many of us who've struggled to cobble together the best hybrid system we can on a tight budget have turned to Warm Audio. I'll be getting the WA2A soon. I also have the EQP-WA and the WA76. I've often heard about people using the LA2A and 1176 together. The theory goes I believe, the 1176 tames the fast transient peaks, and the LA2A handles the smoothing out and adding some warmth and heft.
So far, I've found the 1176 style compressor to be quite "grabby", for lack of a better word, and I don't love it on lead vocals. I do like it on bass and on songs with very "strummy" acoustic guitars though.
So, my signal chain can include the WA2A, WA76 and the EQP-WA, one, two, all three, or none of the above. (I like a light boost around 400hz. on the EQP-WA for my mic).
In what order would you place these pieces? I assume the EQP-WA should be last. What settings would you guys suggest I try to get close to the sound I like? You know my style by now, big up front singer/songwriter style vocal like Lyle Lovett or Chris Isaak.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Aug 8, 2016 9:13:14 GMT -6
Many of us who've struggled to cobble together the best hybrid system we can on a tight budget have turned to Warm Audio. I'll be getting the WA2A soon. I also have the EQP-WA and the WA76. I've often heard about people using the LA2A and 1176 together. The theory goes I believe, the 1176 tames the fast transient peaks, and the LA2A handles the smoothing out and adding some warmth and heft. So far, I've found the 1176 style compressor to be quite "grabby", for lack of a better word, and I don't love it on lead vocals. I do like it on bass and on songs with very "strummy" acoustic guitars though. So, my signal chain can include the WA2A, WA76 and the EQP-WA, one, two, all three, or none of the above. (I like a light boost around 400hz. on the EQP-WA for my mic). In what order would you place these pieces? I assume the EQP-WA should be last. What settings would you guys suggest I try to get close to the sound I like? You know my style by now, big up front singer/songwriter style vocal like Lyle Lovett or Chris Isaak. I always do EQ before compression, for what it's worth. I like the compressors to be reacting to the sound I want to hear. As for the comp order, both ways work, just set up a hardware insert and send a raw vocal out to the hardware and swap them around and see what you like.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 8, 2016 11:01:47 GMT -6
Thanks Ragan. Found this from Sound On Sound: SOS contributor Mike Senior replies: There are no hard and fast rules here. A lot of it has to do with the way you work, and for subtle EQ settings I don't think it's particularly important which way around you plumb the two processors. However, in principle there's one straightforward reason why it makes sense to compress before you EQ, especially when you're first learning about processing. Let's say, for the moment, that you've already set up a compression sound you like for a particular track in your mix, and then decide to use a pre-compression equaliser to adjust the track's tonality. Any boost or cut you apply with the EQ controls will change the overall level of the signal relative to the compressor threshold setting you've already chosen, and will therefore mess with your carefully tweaked compression sound, unless you keep revisiting the threshold and/or ratio controls to compensate.
Pre-compression EQ also usually appears less responsive than post-compression EQ, as the compressor's gain changes fight the EQ gain adjustments. This can be disconcerting when you're still getting to grips with this kind of processing, and it encourages you to go for heavier processing than is actually necessary.
Q. Should I EQ first or compress first?
As there are no hard and fast rules for the order in which you arrange EQs and compressors, many products (both software and hardware) feature dynamics-ordering switches. The controls of Metric Halo's Channel Strip plug-in (left) and Focusrite's ISA430 unit (right) are shown here.
As there are no hard and fast rules for the order in which you arrange EQs and compressors, many products (both software and hardware) feature dynamics-ordering switches. The controls of Metric Halo's Channel Strip plug-in (left) and Focusrite's ISA430 unit (right) are shown here. In practice, I find that I tend to EQ after I compress for most common tonal-shaping tasks, so that I don't have to worry about the two processes interacting. If ever I find myself EQ'ing before the compressor it's usually when I'm having problems getting the compressor to respond suitably. A common example of this is when an acoustic guitar has been recorded with a mic too close to the sound hole. A mic in this position often captures unappealing low-frequency resonances, and these can really hit the compressor hard, causing it to respond erratically to certain notes and strums and not others. Cutting the low-frequency resonances before the compressor can help tame the low-frequency anomalies before they reach the compressor, making for more transparent and natural processing. No amount of low-frequency EQ after the compressor can do this. Another situation like this is where a singer occasionally taps their foot on their mic stand: the low-frequency thump will trigger a brief and unmusical gain dip from the compressor unless low-frequency EQ has been used to remove it first.
|
|