|
|
Post by popmann on Oct 15, 2016 16:20:53 GMT -6
Some folks just don't want to hear that after investing so much time and money on plugins, so they push back when politely challenged. Also, you can't account for people's listening skills, so what might be a small difference to some, is ALL the difference to someone else. Yeah, because the people who've spent some money on PLUG INS (?) are the ones who are the ones with so much invested they need to sell themselves? I fail to see that logic....but, then I can use mostly whatever's in the DAW....a few choice analog saturatey things, and be happy. No, the need to defend the spend is 100% in the other camp. It's less convenient by breaking nearly every workflow enhancement of a DAW. It's tens of thousands of dollars more expensive and the ongoing upkeep and power useage.... Anyway....the Babel is in an assumption of a need for a specific unit. Take my La3a.....cuz it's here still if someone wants to buy it.  ....if you assume "I must use an la3a for X task"....you compare my cherry picked 3a to a new reissue to a plug in emulation of it....mine will "win" that shootout more often than not. But, the failure in the logic is....that a specific unit will produce the best results for task X consistently. Mixing in software isn't about swearing up and down that the emulations of an La3a are tits on exactly 100% as good as a good old one in every scenario....it's about realizing that there are multiple paths to the same end...and that those ends being a little different doesn't mean "lesser"--that in fact, you're limiting yourself BY using 1950s-80s tech CONSTANTLY without question like it's the the holy trinity. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Oct 15, 2016 16:58:24 GMT -6
I certainly did question using old school tech. Hell, I sold my entire small studio a long time back, in which every single piece I had is now sought after "vintage" gear. I come at this from an unusual angle, since I only began using a DAW four years ago, after leaving the music business for a long time. So, my ears hadn't adjusted over time to the change, but ran smack into a digital wall, so to say. Once I got the hang of using a DAW and plugins, it was a treat, since there was no way I could afford things like a hardware Massive Passive EQ or an actual plate reverb. But as time went by, and I gained more and more experience with plugins, the only constant was that I was dissatisfied with my results.
I do get that my way negates many of the advantages of a DAW, but I don't care. If hardware gets me 98% of the vocal sound I want, where the only component missing is a great studio, then to me, it's worth every drawback using hardware involves. Where I hope to get to is a simple, but well chosen hybrid system, where I have all the hardware I prefer the sound of, and happily use the plugins that enable me to get close to some things I can't afford.
My point was that people who've invested money in something like a lot of plugins would often defend their purchase by saying there was little if any difference. I can certainly understand the workflow and convenience trumping the distracting use of hardware if someone expresses their appreciation of plugins that way. But that said, for me, I haven't been able to get where I want with plugins alone, so I'm cobbling together a system as best I can with practically no budget.
Every little step forward feels good though. One example, using the Warm Audio EQP-1A when tracking added a silky shimmering smoothness and cohesion I wasn't getting from any of the half dozen Pultec style plugins I have. If any one of those plugs sounded like the hardware, I'd sell it in a heartbeat. I'm not sentimental that way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2016 21:32:30 GMT -6
The two dimensionality I've found when I went 100% ITB can be cured by a summing mixer to a large extent. Johnken posted some really good sounding tracks a while back, with and without the D-Box. The D-Box mix was more transparent and 3 D. I can certainly see how it's easy to move it the ITB direction as plugs become better and better. Many have become valid in their own right now. Not so many people have long term analogue experience though. My first studio experience was at Bell Sound, right where Buddy Holly stood, next was Electric Ladyland, where I used Jimi's Marshall 100, then Plaza Sound, the studio custom built for Toscanini to conduct the NBC orchestra. That studio had a state of the art API board, and Electric Lady had whatever Jimi's albums were done on. I've worked with Trident 80 series boards at studios with all the classic gear we covet. Thing was, I paid little attention to those things then. My point is that analogue tone, including all the major tape decks you can name, (Studer was my favorite), is imprinted on my musical DNA, so I'm extra sensitive to the differences between now and then. Unfortunately, I'm still playing catch up on how best to use these plugins. A friend of mine with 2-3 dozen Grammy's for engineering and producing came by my place one day a couple of years ago. In five minutes, my tracks sounded better, and it was 100% ITB then. So high skill can definitely get an ITB recording up to a pro level, but I sure don't think it sounds better. Put a Steve Stills or Pink Floyd album on your turntable, relax for a few minutes, and you'll remember why. You're not wrong, Martin. People tend to go "oh, skill trumps gear" which is true (unless we're talking about truly awful gear) but then they go "therefore plugins are just as good" which is not true. Yes, someone with much greater skill than I could do a better mix ITB than I could do OTB but that's irrelevant to the fact that if you run those drums through the real hardware it sound better than running them through the software emulations. I've done it, meticulously. It's not even that close. If we're just talking sonics (not workflow, not budget, not recall) actual physical gear has it in a landslide. I'm sure you'd both pick it out on a blind test eh? |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Oct 16, 2016 21:50:25 GMT -6
You're not wrong, Martin. People tend to go "oh, skill trumps gear" which is true (unless we're talking about truly awful gear) but then they go "therefore plugins are just as good" which is not true. Yes, someone with much greater skill than I could do a better mix ITB than I could do OTB but that's irrelevant to the fact that if you run those drums through the real hardware it sound better than running them through the software emulations. I've done it, meticulously. It's not even that close. If we're just talking sonics (not workflow, not budget, not recall) actual physical gear has it in a landslide. I'm sure you'd both pick it out on a blind test eh? Pick what out, hardware? I always do here. I've done meticulous testing for myself here because I'm always hoping I can mentally justify selling something off so I can buy something else. I always blind test myself. I can sometimes fool myself on single tracks, but if I do multiple tracks through both hardware and plugin emulations, it's not that hard to pick the one I like better in a blind AB and thus far, it's always been the hardware. One example is I took the 10 mics I had on a drum kit and ran them all through Great River Harrison 32c EQs and on some of the individual drum mics, WA76. Then I ran the bass through the same GR 32c and the Hairball Rev A. Then I duplicated all the tracks and matched as closely as I could (spent some real time on it) with the UAD Harrison 32c and the Slate FG-116 (emulation of a Rev D, which is what the WA76 circuit is) and UAD Rev A (same circuit as the Hairball) in all the same spots. I RMS matched everything and made two groups, one all hardware, one all plugin emulations. Then I blind tested myself on the two groups of drums/bass. It wasn't close. The hardware group had more weight, more space, just sounded more real. The plugin emulations group sounded flatter. I came back the next day and blind tested myself again and got the same result. On single tracks, the emulations can sound much closer (though I normally guess those right too in my blind tests, especially on my own voice, where it's easy to spot the hardware). But once you start stacking the tracks up, the hardware wins the day (for me). I've done it so much now that the jury isn't even out for me personally. I don't have any desire to convince anyone else of it but I know what my experience is in this matter. My ears like the hardware a good but better. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Oct 16, 2016 22:32:29 GMT -6
Ragan said, "I've done it so much now that the jury isn't even out for me personally. I don't have any desire to convince anyone else of it but I know what my experience is in this matter. My ears like the hardware a good but better".
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Also, blind tests are one way to compare, but something you may not notice in a blind test can become evident after repeated listening.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Oct 16, 2016 22:58:23 GMT -6
I'm sure you'd both pick it out on a blind test eh? Pick what out, hardware? On single tracks, the emulations can sound much closer (though I normally guess those right too in my blind tests, especially on my own voice, where it's easy to spot the hardware). But once you start stacking the tracks up, the hardware wins the day (for me). That reminds on a discussion on the other blue board. I told Mr. Steven Slate that I think audio tools only can be rated in real live mixes, and not on single tracks. No surprise to me that he disagreed... If I use a new tool it should work in mix mode thats the end of the story for me. |
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Oct 17, 2016 8:06:25 GMT -6
Honestly if you have 2 channels of really nice mic pres, I would think that the DIY Recording Equipment SB2 Passive Summing Mixer kit would do the job for $49, even though it's not sexy and "high end." It is essentially identical to the Roll Music Folcrom if that makes it sound any better. The only reason I don't use my summing mixer on every mix is that the routing and workflow is slightly annoying to set up. That's exactly what I'm doing. I've got two Chameleon Labs Neve-style preamps with Carnhill transformers in (mic input; line input is a "custom wound transformer) and out plus EQ. Eight outputs are going to my patchbay, to my DIYRE SB2, to my preamps, then my analog mix buss compression. Sometimes one pair of those stems will get a compressor before it hits the summing. If I had more available outputs I'd be running 16 into the summing but, for right now, it's just eight outputs that can be devoted to it. I've got 8 more but I like the option to bring analog into a few other portions of the signal path when it works for those sources (speaking of which: I'm looking for a low budget stereo compression setup for electric guitar buss - I do a lot of metal/punk/hardcore and the stacks of guitars that eventually build up could use some squeezing sometimes I think and since I'm already breaking my guitar buss out into a stereo pair of analog stems ...). Now, I'm not nearly as good at all of this as many of you guys are, but it feels like it's made an improvement to my mixes. Placebo? Possibly. But I'm pushing the preamps pretty good to try to get some transformer love - it definitely feels like I'm getting SOMETHING I wasn't getting before. Could I get it just by going into the line inputs on the preamp? I haven't tested. I found the thing I like and now I'm trying to keep up with the stuff I'm working on. After I get some work done with the new setup, I'll investigate more thoroughly. I've also integrated a parallel mix buss (ITB) into many of my mixes (and a little of my mastering). After coming back in from the summing and mix buss compression, it's splitting ITB to a couple layers of saturation and slow, heavy compression. I think that's also made a huge difference in some of the mixes (and been inappropriate for some others). It's not an all-the-time thing and you have to be careful with it - I had one saturation plugin that was weirdly interacting with the non-saturated stuff and I was getting some comb-filtering at 14kHz-ish (It wasn't latency related because, as I changed the settings, the filtering moved. I eventually bypassed the plug and all was well) - but it can do some cool stuff to add some weight and movement to the whole shebang. I'm doing a mix for an electropop thing with a four-on-the-floor kick for a friend and I think that parallel chain is really giving me some juice. Automate that shit and you've got an instant-pelvic-thrust fader. |
|
....if you assume "I must use an la3a for X task"....you compare my cherry picked 3a to a new reissue to a plug in emulation of it....mine will "win" that shootout more often than not. 
