|
|
Post by ragan on Jun 11, 2015 10:46:33 GMT -6
Wait...are we comparing a completely different song/mix to Slate's song/mix?
I haven't checked the link here yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jun 11, 2015 12:13:46 GMT -6
Wait...are we comparing a completely different song/mix to Slate's song/mix? I haven't checked the link here yet. Yes, my point is those S Slate mixes are not very good imo, the mix i posted, whether you personally like it or not, is objectively depthful, full frequency, open, dynamic, and has great fidelity. The S Slates mixes are crushed and lifeless by contrast, there is no way to sense changes in depth, freq rep, openness, dynamic range, and overall fidelity via analog summing, simply because there are none of those essential attributes existing in his mixes to quantify any comparative differences. If those mixes are the kind of result someone is looking for?.., then he's right, analog summing is a waste of time. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 11, 2015 12:21:38 GMT -6
I think the very title of this thread leads it down the wrong path. Plugins don't sum. DAW's do - (ITB), Consoles do - (OTB), Summing boxes do (- OTB). But plugins? No. Console emulation via plugin? Sure. OTB distortion, phase skew, crosstalk emulation via plugin? Sure. Are they the same as OTB mixing? No. Are they summing? No.
Even though it's not a "summing" plugin, I gave up using the VCC after just a couple of sessions. Even my clients could tell the difference between that and hitting some nice analog gear on the master insert.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jun 11, 2015 12:49:57 GMT -6
Wait...are we comparing a completely different song/mix to Slate's song/mix? I haven't checked the link here yet. Yes, my point is those S Slate mixes are not very good imo, the mix i posted, whether you personally like it or not, is objectively depthful, full frequency, open, dynamic, and has great fidelity. The S Slates mixes are crushed and lifeless by contrast, there is no way to sense changes in depth, freq rep, openness, dynamic range, and overall fidelity via analog summing, simply because there are none of those essential attributes existing in his mixes to quantify any comparative differences. If those mixes are the kind of result someone is looking for?.., then he's right, analog summing is a waste of time. I see where you're coming from. Slate's pop punk stuff is definitely not my cup of tea, sonically or otherwise. But the differences between the two songs/mixes is gonna be due to so many things more than it's due to the summing. Mostly material, engineering, mix choices, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jun 11, 2015 12:56:10 GMT -6
Yes, my point is those S Slate mixes are not very good imo, the mix i posted, whether you personally like it or not, is objectively depthful, full frequency, open, dynamic, and has great fidelity. The S Slates mixes are crushed and lifeless by contrast, there is no way to sense changes in depth, freq rep, openness, dynamic range, and overall fidelity via analog summing, simply because there are none of those essential attributes existing in his mixes to quantify any comparative differences. If those mixes are the kind of result someone is looking for?.., then he's right, analog summing is a waste of time. I see where you're coming from. Slate's pop punk stuff is definitely not my cup of tea, sonically or otherwise. But the differences between the two songs/mixes is gonna be due to so many things more than it's due to the summing. Mostly material, engineering, mix choices, etc. to clarify, my point of putting up that mix was to show the lackluster bases of his test file, if you were to use the mix i put up as the base test file, it would show any differences between analog vs ITB summing with ease, using his file is tantamount to checking out the colors on a new tv with a black n white rerun of the twilight zone 8) |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jun 11, 2015 13:21:12 GMT -6
I see where you're coming from. Slate's pop punk stuff is definitely not my cup of tea, sonically or otherwise. But the differences between the two songs/mixes is gonna be due to so many things more than it's due to the summing. Mostly material, engineering, mix choices, etc. to clarify, my point of putting up that mix was to show the lackluster bases of his test file, if you were to use the mix i put up as the base test file, it would show any differences between analog vs ITB summing with ease, using his file is tantamount to checking out the colors on a new tv with a black n white rerun of the twilight zone 8) Sure. And I think that's a valid point. |
|
|
|
Post by LesC on Jun 11, 2015 14:14:15 GMT -6
No time for this today. I know Steven believes that there's no difference between emulations and hardware, he's based his company's reputation on it. These tests have their own bias. Yes, the plug-ins sound good enough to use professionally. Yes, they're very similar to the products they emulate, and in these comparisons, few, if any can tell them apart. That said, every time I've had the hardware and the plug side by side, the hardware sounded better, and stacked better. I just got a new preamp yesterday, The Dizengoff D4, believe me, no software emulation can reproduce what this thing is doing. Really, people aren't stupid, they'd love to buy say.. a Sta Level plug, rather than stereo Sta's for $5,000, but it's just not the same, sorry. The bias I referred to is that differences are not always obvious at first, especially when A-B-ing, but give it time in your own space and system, and the difference becomes as obvious as mustard stain on a black tie. Martin, I have 2 Warm TB12's and a Heritage DMA73. Would you be able to compare the Dizengoff D4 to the Warm preamp that you have (or had)? Maybe there's a thread about the D4, but I can't find it. Maybe you could start one about your experience with the D4? |
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jun 11, 2015 16:02:54 GMT -6
Since my latest ITB mixes my opinion changed. Its not the matter of summing ITB or OTB. You can have graet sounding mixes ITB. If you mix ITB its important that you re-engineer in your head waht the missing link is, compared to sitting on the console and using outboard. IMO it makes a bigger diffrence which tools you use compared to OTB. For good reasons I stoped believing the marketing hype some companies do.We have many indipendet developers today. They know what they are doing. For a reason they do not have to spend a single cent into marketing. They give you live time free updates.  ? |
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Jun 11, 2015 17:23:02 GMT -6
I'm agnostic about it. I've used Neve, SSL, API and Trident desks (though I was the artist and not the main guy pushing faders around). But I've never sat them all in a room and wired up a crazy matrix in order to flip back and forth between them. It's possible that the actual sonic differences are smaller than we'd like to think, but that if you do a whole project on one particular desk, you make different decisions throughout which in the end leads to pretty different sounding mixes. Or not. Maybe the differences really are huge. It's of course totally possible that Slate's bias towards his products and economics makes him cook the books on his comparisons. But assuming that would be OUR bias. It's not like we have empirical evidence he's a crook. We're assuming he must be. And maybe he is. I certainly don't know him. I am, though, intrigued by the fact that he invites AE'a over to compare all his plugs to the hardware themselves when they don't trust his tests. Hard to say what's going on in Internet Forum Land. Gotta triangulate. you don't need to wire up a crazy matrix.
just set up a series of preamps and a/b between them at unity and being pushed and you will see they all sound very different when being pushed. then setup a mix and a/b a pair of each of those flavours on the master buss and again they all sound very different.
I'm putting this in the same box as.
all preamps sound the same and all converters sound the same which is what the gearslutz folk love to eat for lunch.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Jun 11, 2015 17:48:33 GMT -6
I don't understand how anybody can make a comparison between ITB and OTB. You can have very professional results using either, and there are lots of folks who are able to, and do just that.
But, you wont ever get ITB to sound like what breaking channels out onto our SSL sounds like with the faders at unity. Anybody that has ever worked on a console will understand this. I don't get why there is even an argument. If you're mixing in the box, then use the tools you have to make a great sounding mix and move on. The comparisons are just silly.
Also, I don't think Steven is a great marketing dude at all. I find him quite annoying and usually can't make it through more than 30 seconds of his over inflated ego videos.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jun 11, 2015 18:15:24 GMT -6
[quote author=" jeremygillespie" source="/post/62652/thread" timestamp="1434066513"Also, I don't think Steven is a great marketing dude at all. I find him quite annoying and usually can't make it through more than 30 seconds of his over inflated ego videos.[/quote] He and his plugins are always in the forefront of conversations. I'm willing to bet that he's selling a ton of plugins. To the uninformed, he is a god among men. To the more experienced, he comes off as a toolbag and is unwatchable, but we're not his target audience. I find it difficult to not give him credit for the amount of effort the guy puts into hocking his stuff, and what I expect are pretty stellar sales numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jun 11, 2015 18:39:59 GMT -6
LesC, I'm just getting started with the D4. So far, it seems to have a tangible life and sparkle, and I'm really digging it.
The Tone Beast is a quite different animal. For those who want creative options, the TB has them in abundance, you can get all sorts of variations with the vintage capacitors or clean ones, steel or nickel transformers, etc, so it's a fantastically designed piece at a great price. All that said, for me, I'm a one man band here, and I look for the best vocal tone I can get with my mic. My goal was something resembling a great studio preamp, like running through a Neve console, or a Massenberg preamp, but within my meager budget.
The D4 has that same kind of sound, strong, full bodied and balanced, clean, with no harsh highs at all, yet it's not muffled, just smooth, and the low end is seriously right, smooth and strong, but not bloated at all.. I feel like I'm running through a real board's preamp now, so the D4 is my go to pre until I can afford to face off with a 1073 clone like a Heritage Audio pre and see where that's at. Even if I had a 1073, I don't think I'll ever let it go
Sorry to go off topic, I'll start a new thread on this soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jun 11, 2015 20:41:38 GMT -6
all preamps sound the same and all converters sound the same which is what the gearslutz folk love to eat for lunch.
I HATE that sh%t. Gets real old real fast. It's even worse on some of the "lesser" forums that are out there lurking in the dark corners of the internet. Blind leading the blind. I have to say that analog summing is very, very subtle, but you can hear it, and it is a pleasant sound. I don't think it would make or break a project. But I might be inclined to use it if I was going "all out" on a mix. As it stands, I haven't fired up my summing mixer in quite some time, but I'm still glad I have it. I love Dr. Bill's point that plugins "don't sum" they just don't! They should be called saturation plugins or whatever, to be more accurate. When I think about them that way, the Waves NLS or whatever, I feel a lot better about using them, and why they aren't a real substitute for an analog mix, like other people here have said. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jun 11, 2015 20:51:38 GMT -6
It's similar to the subjectivist vs. objectivist arguments that plague the audiophile community. If someone can't tell the difference between a $99 receiver and Conrad-Johnson rig in a blind test, that just tells me the test is the problem. Test that shit in your living room or studio for a day or two and you'd use the receiver as a doorstop.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jun 11, 2015 20:53:43 GMT -6
I'm agnostic about it. I've used Neve, SSL, API and Trident desks (though I was the artist and not the main guy pushing faders around). But I've never sat them all in a room and wired up a crazy matrix in order to flip back and forth between them. It's possible that the actual sonic differences are smaller than we'd like to think, but that if you do a whole project on one particular desk, you make different decisions throughout which in the end leads to pretty different sounding mixes. Or not. Maybe the differences really are huge. It's of course totally possible that Slate's bias towards his products and economics makes him cook the books on his comparisons. But assuming that would be OUR bias. It's not like we have empirical evidence he's a crook. We're assuming he must be. And maybe he is. I certainly don't know him. I am, though, intrigued by the fact that he invites AE'a over to compare all his plugs to the hardware themselves when they don't trust his tests. Hard to say what's going on in Internet Forum Land. Gotta triangulate. you don't need to wire up a crazy matrix.
just set up a series of preamps and a/b between them at unity and being pushed and you will see they all sound very different when being pushed. then setup a mix and a/b a pair of each of those flavours on the master buss and again they all sound very different.
I'm putting this in the same box as.
all preamps sound the same and all converters sound the same which is what the gearslutz folk love to eat for lunch.
It isn't very much like that. A console is a lot more than a stereo pair of line amps. I've run mixes through all the pairs of preamps I've had here. It can be very cool. And I know you weren't exactly saying it, but I'm not in the camp you're talking about. I say I'm agnostic about the summing thing because I don't have a console to compare to. I don't take Internet forum statements as gospel, no matter what the dogma is. I gotta try it for myself. On some Slate and UAD plugins, I've AB'd them with the exact hardware they're modeling. When I test myself blind, sometimes I can reliably tell a difference, sometimes I can't. When I test myself knowing which is which, I almost always prefer the hardware. That's my bias. Anyway, the jury's still out with me on what's worth shelling out coin for and what's not. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jun 11, 2015 20:56:27 GMT -6
Sidebar, what mic is on that track Tony, any idea? It sounds so much like mine, I'd love to know..
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 11, 2015 21:06:29 GMT -6
I love Dr. Bill's point that plugins "don't sum" they just don't! "SUMMING" is the most mis-used, misunderstood word on audio forums these days. Most people have no clue what it even is. But they sling it around like crazy. I've said this before and I'll say it again - summing ITB or summing OTB is virtually identical for all critical intents and purposes. It's what's SURROUNDING the OTB summing network that brings the analog goodness that people love. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 11, 2015 21:10:25 GMT -6
PS - I know that a controversial statement and there are those here who would like to string me up for saying it, but it's my honest opinion after tracking and mixing on almost every major mixing console platform out there professionally for 30+ years. Gain staging, drive, distortion, iron, class A electronics and discrete op amps are what bring the life to the party. Not a passive network of resistors. My $.02.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jun 11, 2015 21:11:54 GMT -6
When I attended the UAD demonstration in a lovely studio in Brooklyn a while back, Gannon used their 1073 plug through an Apollo Twin. It sounded just great, much of what I desire. But that tells me the studio itself is the 800 pound Gorilla in the room. The room was beautifully designed, the sound in the console room was fantastic, the monitors were great, the miking was great.
Now, in that same place, I'd love to hear a Neve 1073 and compare that. All the files and blind tests have too many issues in general, although I enjoy them, and find them quite helpful sometimes. We all mention the aspect of multiple tracks amplifying an effect, and I feel that plug-ins cumulate in a harshness that I'm trying to mix around. Just today, I listened to a test track of a mic a friend left with me to try, and I heard a bit of a hiss. Tape emulation wasn't on, there wasn't any processing on the track, yet there was hiss. By chance I turned my Relab XL-480 reverb off, and the hiss was gone. I've never noticed it before, but man, it was a relief turned off.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jun 11, 2015 21:22:43 GMT -6
PS - I know that a controversial statement and there are those here who would like to string me up for saying it, but it's my honest opinion after tracking and mixing on almost every major mixing console platform out there professionally for 30+ years. Gain staging, drive, distortion, iron, class A electronics and discrete op amps are what bring the life to the party. Not a passive network of resistors. My $.02. For better or worse, you're making the same point Steven Slate makes, which is that it's the nonlinear stuff (phase anomaly, harmonics, crosstalk, etc.) that give a console it's sound, not the actual summing. And those things (in theory) can be modeled. Whether or not they are currently being modeled correctly is, of course, up for debate. |
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Jun 11, 2015 21:48:11 GMT -6
you don't need to wire up a crazy matrix.
just set up a series of preamps and a/b between them at unity and being pushed and you will see they all sound very different when being pushed. then setup a mix and a/b a pair of each of those flavours on the master buss and again they all sound very different.
I'm putting this in the same box as.
all preamps sound the same and all converters sound the same which is what the gearslutz folk love to eat for lunch.
It isn't very much like that. A console is a lot more than a stereo pair of line amps. I've run mixes through all the pairs of preamps I've had here. It can be very cool. And I know you weren't exactly saying it, but I'm not in the camp you're talking about. I say I'm agnostic about the summing thing because I don't have a console to compare to. I don't take Internet forum statements as gospel, no matter what the dogma is. I gotta try it for myself. On some Slate and UAD plugins, I've AB'd them with the exact hardware they're modeling. When I test myself blind, sometimes I can reliably tell a difference, sometimes I can't. When I test myself knowing which is which, I almost always prefer the hardware. That's my bias. Anyway, the jury's still out with me on what's worth shelling out coin for and what's not. I realise a console is a lot more than a pair of line amps. the point was all it takes to hear a difference is a pair of line amps. add a console to the equation and it's an even bigger difference.
you don't think so which is fair enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 11, 2015 21:53:36 GMT -6
PS - I know that a controversial statement and there are those here who would like to string me up for saying it, but it's my honest opinion after tracking and mixing on almost every major mixing console platform out there professionally for 30+ years. Gain staging, drive, distortion, iron, class A electronics and discrete op amps are what bring the life to the party. Not a passive network of resistors. My $.02. For better or worse, you're making the same point Steven Slate makes, which is that it's the nonlinear stuff (phase anomaly, harmonics, crosstalk, etc.) that give a console it's sound, not the actual summing. And those things (in theory) can be modeled. Whether or not they are currently being modeled correctly is, of course, up for debate. Agreed. But how we "solve the problem" couldn't be more different. Obviously software vs hardware. In my usage, VCC gets all phasey (best way I can describe it) and I end up feeling like I hate the mix the more I push it. Yes, it's more colored. No doubt. But it doesn't bring me what I want, and that's why I quit using it early on. I think that maybe someday it will get there, but for me, VCC isn't there yet. The Silver Bullet brings that back for me, but without the need for 48 channels of D/A and a huge console. Couple that with it's so simple to use, that it makes mixing much faster for me. I can get the same results that I can get driving a console hard. Sometimes, I can get better as it can be a little more heavy handed and easy to back off than tweaking the gain staging on 48-96 channels of console. I tend to play a little safer on the console gain staging, cause if you go to far and you have to back everything off at the input, it can really radically affect your mix. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jun 11, 2015 21:54:36 GMT -6
It isn't very much like that. A console is a lot more than a stereo pair of line amps. I've run mixes through all the pairs of preamps I've had here. It can be very cool. And I know you weren't exactly saying it, but I'm not in the camp you're talking about. I say I'm agnostic about the summing thing because I don't have a console to compare to. I don't take Internet forum statements as gospel, no matter what the dogma is. I gotta try it for myself. On some Slate and UAD plugins, I've AB'd them with the exact hardware they're modeling. When I test myself blind, sometimes I can reliably tell a difference, sometimes I can't. When I test myself knowing which is which, I almost always prefer the hardware. That's my bias. Anyway, the jury's still out with me on what's worth shelling out coin for and what's not. I realise a console is a lot more than a pair of line amps. the point was all it takes to hear a difference is a pair of line amps. add a console to the equation and it's an even bigger difference.
you don't think so which is fair enough.
Gotcha. My opinion on the matter is work in progress. When I've run mixes through my Heritage DMA-73, it's been cool, but more 'effect-y' than using the Neve setting on VCC. I get a more naturally wide and punchy soundstage from the VCC emulation than from my pair of 1073 clones. I need to do more testing though. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jun 11, 2015 21:59:49 GMT -6
For better or worse, you're making the same point Steven Slate makes, which is that it's the nonlinear stuff (phase anomaly, harmonics, crosstalk, etc.) that give a console it's sound, not the actual summing. And those things (in theory) can be modeled. Whether or not they are currently being modeled correctly is, of course, up for debate. Agreed. But how we "solve the problem" couldn't be more different. Obviously software vs hardware. In my usage, VCC gets all phasey (best way I can describe it) and I end up feeling like I hate the mix the more I push it. Yes, it's more colored. No doubt. But it doesn't bring me what I want, and that's why I quit using it early on. The Silver Bullet brings that back for me, but without the need for 48 channels of D/A and a huge console. I can get the same results. Sometimes, I can get better as it can be a little more heavy handed and easy to back off than tweaking the gain staging on 48-96 channels of console. I tend to play a little safer on the console gain staging, cause if you go to far, backing it off can really radically affect your mix. Interesting. Well, I have dramatically less experience than you do with consoles. It's funny, the same ad hominem thing people go after Slate with could be applied to you here. "Well of course you're gonna say the Silver Bullet is the answer..." Assuming since you have an interest in it you've become merely a salesman. And no, for the record, I don't think you're faking your opinion.  |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 11, 2015 22:13:09 GMT -6
True enough and certainly a fair statement. Of course the proof is in the pudding, and we're still a bit away from delivering the first units, but enough have been out in the hands of experienced guys who love it to make both Brad and I pretty excited to get it out to the general AE public.
But just for the record - I've been talking about this form of mixing for YEARS before the silver bullet ever became a product - touting the workflow and saying great things about other peoples products like Jeff @ CAPI and Colin @ AML. Both of their products really help in this "OTB SUMMING" respect (using that in the WRONG way, but it seemed appropriate. LOL) but they are just preamps and don't go far enough for what I needed - even though I had them cascaded together. I needed multiple gain stages chaining into each other, and I needed subtle and controllable ways of controlling the staging, because too much is ugly and too little is too subtle, and mic pre's are really designed for this task. So the Silver Bullet and it's whole unique "tone amp" circuitry came about as I sought out taking the pre amp / tone amp thing further and deeper. Enter Brad McGowan's genius and voila! Turned out Brad and I were both on the same "summing" page before discussing it.
As a matter of fact, thinking back, Im pretty sure Jeff thought I was crazy when I told him what I was doing. But it's been gratifying to see so many follow suit after I started talking about it online. I'm pretty sure I've sold a wad of vp28's, and EZ1073's. Before I started talking about this style of workflow many years ago, I never heard of ANYone putting their mixes thru mic preamps. Now it's everywhere. So.....take it with a grain of salt, but you can't doubt my opinion which came long before the SB.
As for your work flow - I'd suggest more experimentation with your 1073's. I'm not familiar with the Heritage, but I'd be surprised if it couldn't take you further than the VCC Neve emulation. But then again, maybe we're looking for different things. cheers, bp
|
|
?
