|
|
Post by mdmitch2 on Aug 14, 2015 18:49:24 GMT -6
Agree that the first one sounds the most different... it seems to have the most top end detail and the low end is a little tighter/lighter?
The other two are pretty close, but I feel like #3 has the most low/low mids. #2 is nice and balanced.
So my guess is same as monkey's
1 Modded
2 Gar131
3 Stock
Seems like they could all be useful depending on the type of song, and density of mix.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 14, 2015 22:06:56 GMT -6
Man...really hard for me to tell a big difference, but to me, I thought #1 and #3 were cleaner in the mids. But now listening again...I don't know.
Here's what I'd say though...
1. Modded
2. Stock
3. GARS
1. and 3 could be backwards...
Now that I've said this, I'm sure I will get them all wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Aug 15, 2015 0:16:27 GMT -6
I listened on my computer speakers and liked 2, 1 was also nice. 2 seemed smoother to me. am in the studio tonight so will have a better listen.
|
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Aug 15, 2015 1:41:19 GMT -6
I'll put the answers up tomorrow when I get home from the studio.
Curious if anyone has a favorite or one that they like the most.
I know it's a pretty funky recording. It was for a heavily stylized track. I actually used the modded channels a lot during recording and mixing. Not to record this sample though.
After the blind test I'll put up the track.
As we figured, the modded channels became more significantly different as layers added up, both tracking and mixing.
Anyway...Any favorites of the 3?
|
|
kosi
Full Member
Posts: 24 
|
Post by kosi on Aug 15, 2015 2:29:55 GMT -6
for my ears, track 3 has a tad more highs and 3d, somewhat closer up
track 2 is round and smooth
my guess:
track 1 stock
track 2 modded
track 3 gars
tiny differences
|
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Aug 15, 2015 7:32:56 GMT -6
I think #1 was my favorite. If I remember correctly it was smoother on the highs and a bit more tidy in the low end. Which is exactly what I would want on an acoustic guitar.
|
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Aug 15, 2015 8:00:12 GMT -6
It's 1 for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 15, 2015 9:29:57 GMT -6
So, basically, no one could tell a difference. Lol. I liked 3 for the mids and highs, but the bottom of 1 sounded more focused. It's so subtle on a single instrument.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 15, 2015 9:33:06 GMT -6
don't put the answers up yet! i need to listen to these and solidify my position as the village idiot! 8)
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Aug 15, 2015 10:10:23 GMT -6
Don't know why because you're all speaking in a foreign language, so I can't guess but here's what I hear, in order of preference..
2. warmest ..and nice airy sheen.
3. heavy
1. thin
|
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Aug 15, 2015 17:29:00 GMT -6
okay...
Here it is...
#1 Stock channel
#2 GAR1731 (rest of channel stock)
#3 Litz wire/red dot modded channel
If you go back in the thread you can see Jeff's more thorough explanation of what he did. It included some additional component removal/replacement.
If you guys are interested I can keep posting different stuff with the mods at play.
For me the difference in the channels here is MUCH less apparent than when I ran the mix through them.
But...100 ways to get it 1% better!!!!
I got a package from JS to do 2 more channels and hopefully when he gets home we can figure out the summing sections.
Anyway...I'm really stoked on this. Selling gear to fund modding the whole dang thing.
My name is Noah and I'm a Litz-aholic
|
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Aug 15, 2015 18:01:41 GMT -6
ha ha everyone's wrong! I love it.
|
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Aug 15, 2015 18:56:10 GMT -6
I've always preferred clean on acoustic guitar and #1 reflects that.my preamp of choice is usually a sytek pre.
Pretty sure when you get to bass, guitar, drums I'll not be picking the stock channel cause I usually use vp28 on those.
I would like to hipass the acoustic samples from this test next time in the studio and see which i prefer.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 15, 2015 19:56:15 GMT -6
i would have gotten this wrong off my first listen, I was about to do my final listen when i saw the reveal post.
The stock bottom(way back on the original mix sample that was posted), was wholly different than the stock bottom on this new sample 1.(identified as the stocker) howz that? the litz and 1731 both seemed to have more/similar bottom than the stock(unlike the original mix sample), how can the 1731's add that much bottom to the stocker on their own? Now i'm just thoroughly confused... jeeshh. This is why i don't like blinds, shootouts and AB's that are out of my control, the dots never seem to connect unless the stuff is in my own environment, and in MY OWN HANDS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 15, 2015 20:21:09 GMT -6
So, basically, no one could tell a difference. Lol. I liked 3 for the mids and highs, but the bottom of 1 sounded more focused. It's so subtle on a single instrument. I did think 3 had the best mids and highs  |
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Aug 15, 2015 23:50:35 GMT -6
i would have gotten this wrong off my first listen, I was about to do my final listen when i saw the reveal post. The stock bottom (way back on the original mix sample that was posted), was wholly different than the stock bottom on this new sample 1. (identified as the stocker) howz that? the litz and 1731 both seemed to have more/similar bottom than the stock (unlike the original mix sample), how can the 1731's add that much bottom to the stocker on their own? Now i'm just thoroughly confused... jeeshh. This is why i don't like blinds, shootouts and AB's that are out of my control, the dots never seem to connect unless the stuff is in my own environment, and in MY OWN HANDS. I hate doing them too. I was hesitant even to post these because I don't want to minimize the impact Jeff's genius in these mods. To me it was obvious within 10 seconds of playing the mix through the channels that the mod was GOOD. Jeff's instincts were spot on and I'm f___king excited about the future of the console. |
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Aug 15, 2015 23:52:28 GMT -6
i would have gotten this wrong off my first listen, I was about to do my final listen when i saw the reveal post. The stock bottom (way back on the original mix sample that was posted), was wholly different than the stock bottom on this new sample 1. (identified as the stocker) howz that? the litz and 1731 both seemed to have more/similar bottom than the stock (unlike the original mix sample), how can the 1731's add that much bottom to the stocker on their own? Now i'm just thoroughly confused... jeeshh. This is why i don't like blinds, shootouts and AB's that are out of my control, the dots never seem to connect unless the stuff is in my own environment, and in MY OWN HANDS. I think it's mic position. There is a proximity thing happening. I'm guessing the stock channel rolls off the bottom more. |
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Aug 16, 2015 0:01:34 GMT -6
i would have gotten this wrong off my first listen, I was about to do my final listen when i saw the reveal post. The stock bottom (way back on the original mix sample that was posted), was wholly different than the stock bottom on this new sample 1. (identified as the stocker) howz that? the litz and 1731 both seemed to have more/similar bottom than the stock (unlike the original mix sample), how can the 1731's add that much bottom to the stocker on their own? Now i'm just thoroughly confused... jeeshh. This is why i don't like blinds, shootouts and AB's that are out of my control, the dots never seem to connect unless the stuff is in my own environment, and in MY OWN HANDS. I think we gotta remember that the mix test had a LOT of low end transient information and sub content. The modded channels handled that SO gracefully and that signal was SO much more dense and complex. I totally agree though...A/B tests like this are pretty useless. You gotta work with a piece and live with it to get a feel for it. If I wasn't really zoned in on the test I wouldn't have heard ANY difference with the acoustic. But with the mix I heard it clearly and immediately. I can't wait to do the rest of the mods. I think it's really gonna shine when the console is rocking at full tilt. Did anyone flip phase and listen to the difference signal between pairs? Pretty interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Aug 16, 2015 0:08:38 GMT -6
For what it's worth, here's the song that the acoustic came from. It's a pre-mastering mix captured on the Ampex and converted through the JCF. The modded channels showed up half way through production so some foundation elements weren't tracked through them but a bunch of vocals and percussion were. During mix they had the lead vocal and the bass. Not sure this is worth a dang but here it is. www.hightail.com/download/bXBaOU1Td0k5bEJMWE5VagIt's obviously not released yet but I trust you guys;) We're on to more songs on this record and MOST of it will go through modded channels during tracking and as many during mix as I can get built! |
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Aug 16, 2015 14:37:48 GMT -6
Hey guys
I deleted the post with the swap amp files.
Something about it made me feel crappy. I don't think it's much of a useful test anyway and I don't want to disrespect or cast a negative light on anybody's creations.
They're all great and we all have a different idea of what sounds good so...
No disrespect meant to anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 16, 2015 15:22:21 GMT -6
Hey guys I deleted the post with the swap amp files. Something about it made me feel crappy. I don't think it's much of a useful test anyway and I don't want to disrespect or cast a negative light on anybody's creations. They're all great and we all have a different idea of what sounds good so... No disrespect meant to anyone. no good deed right? haha, not a problem Noah, i think it's been said many times, the best thing to do for a real evaluation, is to get the stuff in your own hands in your own environment, there are just WAY to many variables that are best left in the hands of the evaluator. I prefer identified files online, simply because i feel i can be honest with myself, and somewhat ego free (i admitted to being wrong and i never even had the chance to post 8), in this particular case i picked the 1731's straight away, and then I listened for similarities between the first files you posted as compared to the second files, which really took me out of the honesty zone as i had pre determined expectations I was focusing on, the most surprising thing for me in those samples was the apparent swap of the bottom between the 2, i'm still pretty puzzled by it. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,107
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Aug 16, 2015 15:44:09 GMT -6
Noah I'm with Tony
I never get into these guessing games simply because I find I vote for what I want it to sound like rather than really being critical.
|
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Aug 16, 2015 18:52:46 GMT -6
i wouldn't sweat it,
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 16, 2015 19:46:36 GMT -6
Yeah, no biggie. Again, it was a single instrument...hard to tell. However, I did think #3 had a more clear and defined mid and top which is the conclusion we all came to on the listening test before. Imagine that spread out over the entire console.
|
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Aug 17, 2015 21:53:44 GMT -6
I know this old thread is dying but I gotta post one more comment.
I started a mix from scratch today, mostly in the box. Same record as the original mix files I posted.
What a difference. So much easier to get it right .
Bottom is tight as hell.
Very happy.
Thank you Jeff Steiger.
|
|
