|
Post by Johnkenn on Oct 28, 2016 7:16:24 GMT -6
Re: SSL - a typical SSL has enough phase shift to absolutely make the sonics different by the time you output thru the mix bus. Whether one LIKES that or not is a personal preference. As best I remember, a typical SSL 4k input to output was close to 30 degrees phase skewed from any input to any output. JimW would know the spec I'm sure. All LFAC analog consoles have this to some degree. Some more than others. Ok. Good explanation.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Oct 28, 2016 8:16:04 GMT -6
gotcha - One (of the many) mistakes I've been making with my own stuff is sticking a different reverb on every channel. Why is this a mistake? I've got a Bricasti and I rarely use it alone as the only reverb.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Oct 28, 2016 8:23:26 GMT -6
Re: SSL - a typical SSL has enough phase shift to absolutely make the sonics different by the time you output thru the mix bus. Whether one LIKES that or not is a personal preference. As best I remember, a typical SSL 4k input to output was close to 30 degrees phase skewed from any input to any output. JimW would know the spec I'm sure. All LFAC analog consoles have this to some degree. Some more than others. Anyone up for posting a mix pre / post summing box if they have one? Anyways, probably easier to provide a link HERE in case anyone wants to read the whole discussion Caveat: The actual site ( and initial discussion) is run by a guy who's keen to sell his own home mixing courses, and aimed largely at the amateur home PC/Mac user, equally the other guy's selling a book It's gonna be a couple of weeks, but I'll post a before (DAW) and after (Sigma) mix. For good measure, I'll also do one with and without my Bricasti. Should be interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2016 8:54:21 GMT -6
gotcha - One (of the many) mistakes I've been making with my own stuff is sticking a different reverb on every channel. Why is this a mistake? I've got a Bricasti and I rarely use it alone as the only reverb. i don't really understand how to get the best results with reverb - sounds like Wiz had a definite sculpting process prior to owning the Bricasti that's still a bit baffling to me - better start another thread
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Oct 28, 2016 9:24:53 GMT -6
Hey Wiz. Curious. What noise reduction do you use and can you elaborate on what you dig so much about it? Hey ragan I use MR NOISE by Wave Arts. I have had it for a few years... at the time I shot it out against what was around then, X Noise, Rx, and something else I can't remember what.. and for the money it was really good. its a plug in, not stand alone... you can't say take out a guitar squeak during playing, like Rx can etc.. But for broadband noise its great. I use it to remover air conditioner hum, buzzing etc Its not a click and do and everything is wonderful plug in by any stretch of the imagination, and its a little long in the tooth compared to some of the newer options, but I know how to get really good results out of it.. A light hand is whats needed, otherwise the cure is worse than the disease.... 8) cheers Wiz This is dumb. The full noise reduction suite is $160, MR Noise alone is $240. www.sweetwater.com/store/manufacturer/WaveArts?adpos=1t1&creative=110415389641&device=c&matchtype=b&network=g&gclid=CIal3-Dm_c8CFQsfhgodcp8NKA
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Oct 28, 2016 9:40:44 GMT -6
Why is this a mistake? I've got a Bricasti and I rarely use it alone as the only reverb. i don't really understand how to get the best results with reverb - sounds like Wiz had a definite sculpting process prior to owning the Bricasti that's still a bit baffling to me - better start another thread Reverb is complicated, but as a start I think of reverb in terms of depth and height. For example, rooms give you the perception of depth, but less than plates due to the longer decay time of plates. So, if you want your vocal to be pushed back further than the room did, you use the plate. Halls give you a sense of height that is higher than rooms. So, if you want more of a sense of height for a source you can use a hall. There's all kinds of other parameters, like early and late reflections, predelay crossover, diffusion, density,modulation etc. So, you've got to study, experiment and listen. I will say this: Unless you have a good mixing room, you're not going to hear reverb as well as you can. So, the first thing you need to make sure is that you're mix room is done well.
|
|
|
Post by BradM on Oct 28, 2016 10:21:47 GMT -6
So - you're saying the "magic" that people attribute to summing is caused by the color of the active amplifier...then you're telling me to take that away...well isn't that part of the summing process? I'm saying if you take the active amplifier stage away and you are still left with some kind of magic then it would be accurate to say that summing adds something nice to the mix. However, if you take that away and you have a mix that sounds like an ITB summed mix, then I think it's more accurate to say the magic is due to the amplifier. If we can call a passive box that simply contains resistors, switches, and connectors a summing box then we should judge the summing in its purest form by removing variables. Brad
|
|
|
Post by BradM on Oct 28, 2016 10:33:42 GMT -6
Brad - really don't have the time to do a remix of that mix right now. There are other guys here with Silver Bullets. Maybe they can step up and do it. Okay no worries. I should be able to do it after the 4th when I get back home. I need a Silver Bullet remote processing setup. Brad
|
|
|
Post by rocinante on Oct 28, 2016 11:48:27 GMT -6
For me it's this simple; nearly every awesome album I've ever listened to was done on a console. You can justify why ITB is just as good with endorsements by every plug in pushing producer in existance, but the albums I love the most were done on mixing consoles. They are huge. They were done using analog summing of some variety because it's a tried-and-true method. And if it works; it works. Yes you can get away with a lot of things In the Box (even the recording and mixing of an album) and its a magnificent tool but quicker, warmer and more refined results are just easier to obtain on a console IMHO. I'm no professional full time audio engineer. These days I maybe do a band a month or every other with most of my work being audio restoration and voice overs. But I cut my interning teeth on a Trident and the albums i helped mix on it sounded great from nearly the beginning before we even sat down to mix. On another note; I used the 8816 the other day. Its really something else once you start getting a feel for it. With four 1084s on the front and a manley inserted on the bus it definitely came real close to that console sound. Functionality and daw control is pretty awesome too. While not a console it definitely is nothing to scoff at. Ymmv
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Oct 28, 2016 16:17:52 GMT -6
Brad - really don't have the time to do a remix of that mix right now. There are other guys here with Silver Bullets. Maybe they can step up and do it. Okay no worries. I should be able to do it after the 4th when I get back home. I need a Silver Bullet remote processing setup. Brad its probably best, you send me one here... 8) cheers Wiz Bill you could just pass the console mix I did through it... thats what the Zulu did... its in the first post of that thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2016 17:17:56 GMT -6
i don't really understand how to get the best results with reverb - sounds like Wiz had a definite sculpting process prior to owning the Bricasti that's still a bit baffling to me - better start another thread Reverb is complicated, but as a start I think of reverb in terms of depth and height. For example, rooms give you the perception of depth, but less than plates due to the longer decay time of plates. So, if you want your vocal to be pushed back further than the room did, you use the plate. Halls give you a sense of height that is higher than rooms. So, if you want more of a sense of height for a source you can use a hall. There's all kinds of other parameters, like early and late reflections, predelay crossover, diffusion, density,modulation etc. So, you've got to study, experiment and listen. I will say this: Unless you have a good mixing room, you're not going to hear reverb as well as you can. So, the first thing you need to make sure is that you're mix room is done well. Thanks for the info it's starting to make sense the way you and Wiz describe it. Would you put the 3 different verbs on different auxes then sum them into one verb aux, or just go with the one aux with 3 verbs? BTW guys this is the best explaination I've read on how to set verbs up, thanks. Oh and my mixing room is shite
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 28, 2016 19:55:02 GMT -6
Re: SSL - a typical SSL has enough phase shift to absolutely make the sonics different by the time you output thru the mix bus. Whether one LIKES that or not is a personal preference. As best I remember, a typical SSL 4k input to output was close to 30 degrees phase skewed from any input to any output. JimW would know the spec I'm sure. All LFAC analog consoles have this to some degree. Some more than others. Wiz answered my initial question as to the "space" of his mix (Bricasti). The rest of the discussion is interesting though, as to whether you can get more "feel" for a mix rather than just "sound" by mixing OTB. In the first post this guy mixerman eluded to the fact that at some point mixing purely ITB you can get to a certain point whereby it becomes less intuitive - opening that mix out in a console or by using 16 channels and mixing into a summing box (rather than sticking it on a 2 buss) can bring more clarity to proceedings, and more importantly more feeling. This may explain why people are either using outboard controllers with a daw, or buying the smaller consuls, and /or using said summing boxes. Anyone up for posting a mix pre / post summing box if they have one? Anyways, probably easier to provide a link HERE in case anyone wants to read the whole discussion Caveat: The actual site ( and initial discussion) is run by a guy who's keen to sell his own home mixing courses, and aimed largely at the amateur home PC/Mac user, equally the other guy's selling a book Well, no offense intended, but it's pretty obvious that you didn't read what Mixerman (Eric Sarafin) said about the use of summing boxes very carefully, as you totally missed the point. The point is NOT what the end user thinks. End user "shootouts" are generally unreliable and totally meaningless is matters like this. If the end user can even hear a difference (maybe, maybe not) it's a total "pin the tail on the donkey" game to attempt to"identify" which is what - and it doesn't matter. Whatt DOES matter, and matters very much, is how the choice of gear/methodologies AFFECTS THE DECISIONS ANDF PERFORMANCE OF THE MIX ENGINEER. Many engineers find that they can work faster and reach meaningful decisions more easily with analog mixing, and that it takes less work and time to arrive at a final mix. It's not about the end user. In this matter the end user is irrelevant. What it's about is job efficiency. Now, there may very well be some advantages that show through in the final mix to the end user. It's also conceivable that the same result MIGHT be achievable with ITB summing - HOWEVER , if it takes 3 or 4 times as long to get the same result ITB that's not a very efficient utilization of your time and energy and (hopefully) your client's budget. And if it does take that much longer there's a good chance that your ears and concentration arte going to be fried by the time you're done, so maybe the result might not be as good after all.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 28, 2016 20:03:05 GMT -6
So - you're saying the "magic" that people attribute to summing is caused by the color of the active amplifier...then you're telling me to take that away...well isn't that part of the summing process? I'm saying if you take the active amplifier stage away and you are still left with some kind of magic then it would be accurate to say that summing adds something nice to the mix. However, if you take that away and you have a mix that sounds like an ITB summed mix, then I think it's more accurate to say the magic is due to the amplifier. If we can call a passive box that simply contains resistors, switches, and connectors a summing box then we should judge the summing in its purest form by removing variables. Brad I'm more inclined to believe that digital summing DETRACTS something from the mix. In many, if not most, digital processing a lot of corners get cut that are deemed "unimportant" by the developers and their accountant masters. There's not much motivation for developers to work on this, as it's not really a "sexy feature" that will sell more software to the punters.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 28, 2016 20:20:33 GMT -6
Reverb is complicated, but as a start I think of reverb in terms of depth and height. For example, rooms give you the perception of depth, but less than plates due to the longer decay time of plates. So, if you want your vocal to be pushed back further than the room did, you use the plate. Halls give you a sense of height that is higher than rooms. So, if you want more of a sense of height for a source you can use a hall. There's all kinds of other parameters, like early and late reflections, predelay crossover, diffusion, density,modulation etc. So, you've got to study, experiment and listen. I will say this: Unless you have a good mixing room, you're not going to hear reverb as well as you can. So, the first thing you need to make sure is that you're mix room is done well. Thanks for the info it's starting to make sense the way you and Wiz describe it. Would you put the 3 different verbs on different auxes then sum them into one verb aux, or just go with the one aux with 3 verbs? BTW guys this is the best explaination I've read on how to set verbs up, thanks. Oh and my mixing room is shite You put each verb on its own aux send, then bring each one back into the main mix through a regular channel and fader. Since the returns are full featured channels you also have the ability to EQ each separately and to run one into another for more complex effects. I also do this with delays.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2016 20:25:58 GMT -6
"Well, no offense intended, but it's pretty obvious that you didn't read what Mixerman (Eric Sarafin) said about the use of summing boxes very carefully, as you totally missed the point." oh oh - busted "You put each verb on its own aux send, then bring each one back into the main mix through a regular channel and fader. Since the returns are full featured channels you also have the ability to EQ each separately and to run one into another for more complex effects. I also do this with delays." ah,ok thanks...... would you mainly eq the top end?
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 28, 2016 20:53:28 GMT -6
"Well, no offense intended, but it's pretty obvious that you didn't read what Mixerman (Eric Sarafin) said about the use of summing boxes very carefully, as you totally missed the point." oh oh - busted "You put each verb on its own aux send, then bring each one back into the main mix through a regular channel and fader. Since the returns are full featured channels you also have the ability to EQ each separately and to run one into another for more complex effects. I also do this with delays." ah,ok thanks...... would you mainly eq the top end? I EQ what my ear tells me to EQ. An HF rolloff is common, to approximate what happens in the real world, but I'm not doctrinaire about things like that these days. Context is everything, with intent running neck and neck. I also might EQ the low end, if there was distracting mud and rumble. Or I might EQ nothing. Generally speaking, I use as little EQ as possible and as much as needed. In all cases. EDI: Please note that I'm mixing through a 32 channel console - If I was restricted to only half that I'd need to "pre-sum" some stuff ITB, if I was working ITB. In general I've got 23-24 tracks of audio off the tape machine, with the additional channels available for FX returns. However if I was tracking to the DAW I'd work the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Oct 28, 2016 20:57:01 GMT -6
Last week, I asked my friend for some help with a song. Something wasn't working, and I wasn't sure what it was. He replaced my Superior Drummer track with a very simple beat with brushes, I don't think he even used the bass drum, or maybe he did, but very quietly. I had sent him all the tracks, so he sent it back with the new drum, and a new mix. I noticed the reverb was different, and asked him which one he used. He told me it was an inexpensive Lexicon piece he got on eBay for $80.
The reverb sounded wider than any verb I had, a little deeper too, but it maintained a beautiful clarity in the center, so the vocal was clear and natural, not too wet at all, even though there was plenty of reverb on it. Basically, I thought it sounded better than my UAD reverbs, my Relab XL480, Poor Plate, my Waves reverbs, Logic reverbs, and my Bricasti impulses.
So, to me, the hardware reverb made a huge impact on the track, even though to others it might be a subtle improvement. I'm inching my way back to analogue. Even if it takes a long time, I plan to get a second Warm Audio EQP-WA and the Stam SSL 2 bus compressor, and mix to compression and EQ then send it back to my DAW. I also plan to get either a cheap Lexi reverb like my friend, or maybe a Lexicon PCM60 or 70, a PCM42 delay or the Yamaha D5000. if I can afford it, I might try the Eventide H9 as my hardware reverb.
I'll try a summing mixer after I get all those other ducks in a row. Johnkenn's mixes with the Dbox were definitely better to my ears than without it.
My point is, I want to use the DAW as Wiz describes, for things like, comping, timing correction, automation, fades, and some easy to use plugs here and there. But basically, go in all analogue, use some plugs in the mix, but go to hardware for the final mix.
Right now my final mix is in the box, and I've only been satisfied once that way.
|
|
|
Post by rocinante on Oct 29, 2016 0:17:20 GMT -6
Personally i level all my faders on the console and use a daw controller for pan and track volume. I have enough outboard eqs that only a few drums may get the console eq and it is for cuts only. Surgery is done with plug ins. I use the auxes for outboard effects on guitars and parallel processing comps and to send singers a wet mix of themselves for confidence. Rarely is it applied when i actually do a mixdown. Every channel has an insert attached to the patchbays. I return 8 of my inserts to a dedicated channel from channels 17-24. Every channel goes to the daw through the patchbay. Every channel goes through the patchbsy to the console. I can put anything anywhere. And its fun. Fab filter gets used a lot cause i dont have an eq quite like it. Someday i will own a bricasti cause reverbs are pretty essential to a wide mix. i just recently started putting verbs on the tails of verbs on the tails of verbs and i must say its a nice effect. It would be a lot better with a bricasti though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 4:15:44 GMT -6
Thanks guys!
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Oct 29, 2016 4:52:04 GMT -6
I also plan to get either a cheap Lexi reverb like my friend, or maybe a Lexicon PCM60 or 70, a PCM42 delay or the Yamaha D5000. if I can afford it, I might try the Eventide H9 as my hardware reverb. I'll try a summing mixer after I get all those other ducks in a row. Johnkenn's mixes with the Dbox were definitely better to my ears than without it. Early this year, I sold my PCM60 and PCM41 for good money (~$700) to help fund my Blackspade mic purchase. I had no problems letting go of the 60; it was noisy and the verbs were just too thick and gooey for my blood. The 41 on the other hand was reasonably quiet and a very nice sounding unit.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Oct 29, 2016 8:30:39 GMT -6
Glad you mentioned that M57, I used to have the PCM60, PCM42 and the Yamaha Rev7. I do recall the PCM60 was noisy, so I guess I'll set my sights on the 70, but perhaps one of the half dozen cheap lexicon reverbs might do the trick, but it's not so easy to compare things like this. This is still thinking just out loud, I have other musical priorities that far outweigh the desire for a hardware reverb.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Oct 29, 2016 8:37:34 GMT -6
Thanks for the info it's starting to make sense the way you and Wiz describe it. Would you put the 3 different verbs on different auxes then sum them into one verb aux, or just go with the one aux with 3 verbs? BTW guys this is the best explaination I've read on how to set verbs up, thanks. Oh and my mixing room is shite You put each verb on its own aux send, then bring each one back into the main mix through a regular channel and fader. Since the returns are full featured channels you also have the ability to EQ each separately and to run one into another for more complex effects. I also do this with delays. One of the problems for young engineers today is that they are learning on the internet. Check out this Westlake Audio Reverb tutorial, where they're using the reverb as a channel insert and tweaking the dry/wet knob.They probably did it for convenience for the tutorial, but somebody new to mixing may think that using different reverb as insert's on every channel is how it's done.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Oct 29, 2016 8:42:02 GMT -6
Last week, I asked my friend for some help with a song. Something wasn't working, and I wasn't sure what it was. He replaced my Superior Drummer track with a very simple beat with brushes, I don't think he even used the bass drum, or maybe he did, but very quietly. I had sent him all the tracks, so he sent it back with the new drum, and a new mix. I noticed the reverb was different, and asked him which one he used. He told me it was an inexpensive Lexicon piece he got on eBay for $80. The reverb sounded wider than any verb I had, a little deeper too, but it maintained a beautiful clarity in the center, so the vocal was clear and natural, not too wet at all, even though there was plenty of reverb on it. Basically, I thought it sounded better than my UAD reverbs, my Relab XL480, Poor Plate, my Waves reverbs, Logic reverbs, and my Bricasti impulses. So, to me, the hardware reverb made a huge impact on the track, even though to others it might be a subtle improvement. I'm inching my way back to analogue. Even if it takes a long time, I plan to get a second Warm Audio EQP-WA and the Stam SSL 2 bus compressor, and mix to compression and EQ then send it back to my DAW. I also plan to get either a cheap Lexi reverb like my friend, or maybe a Lexicon PCM60 or 70, a PCM42 delay or the Yamaha D5000. if I can afford it, I might try the Eventide H9 as my hardware reverb. I'll try a summing mixer after I get all those other ducks in a row. Johnkenn's mixes with the Dbox were definitely better to my ears than without it. My point is, I want to use the DAW as Wiz describes, for things like, comping, timing correction, automation, fades, and some easy to use plugs here and there. But basically, go in all analogue, use some plugs in the mix, but go to hardware for the final mix. Right now my final mix is in the box, and I've only been satisfied once that way. You don't think this could have been a multitude of any other factors, like different panning or EQ choices or compression, etc? I have a hard time with the logic that if it's hardware (even cheap hardware), then it must sound better. Not denying it, just questioning correlation vs causation.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Oct 29, 2016 8:52:18 GMT -6
You're absolutely right indiehouse. The new mix was put through a board too. The thing is, I'm very familiar with the more popular reverb sounds, and my friend and I share many of the same plugins. He's done many mixes for me the same way, but this time, the reverb was outstanding to me. So much so, that I actually asked about it. Considering all a mix has going on, for me to question the reverb really says something.
I was completely surprised that it was a hardware reverb. I certainly don't subscribe to any belief that hardware is always better than software. I'd much rather have software if it sounds as good, because it's way more convenient.
It did make me think that the hardware reverb might be the main reason I prefered the mix. Last week, NoFilterChuck posted some files with the Eventide H9 as his hardware reverb, and the tone of the reverb was shockingly superb. Then people describe the Bricasti as a huge problem solver, and then the mix I like has a hardware Lexicon reverb, and the signs are all pointing to me liking the hardware better than the software.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 9:00:45 GMT -6
You're absolutely right indiehouse. The new mix was put through a board too. The thing is, I'm very familiar with the more popular reverb sounds, and my friend and I share many of the same plugins. He's done many mixes for me the same way, but this time, the reverb was outstanding to me. So much so, that I actually asked about it. Considering all a mix has going on, for me to question the reverb really says something. I was completely surprised that it was a hardware reverb. I certainly don't subscribe to any belief that hardware is always better than software. I'd much rather have software if it sounds as good, because it's way more convenient. It did make me think that the hardware reverb might be the main reason I prefered the mix. Last week, NoFilterChuck posted some files with the Eventide H9 as his hardware reverb, and the tone of the reverb was shockingly superb. Then people describe the Bricasti as a huge problem solver, and then the mix I like has a hardware Lexicon reverb, and the signs are all pointing to me liking the hardware better than the software. Only just finally sorting my routing OTB to something like workable. I've got a Lex mx 200 processor I've had for ages but never had a lot of chance to test. Gonna run this against my plugs ( valhalla / ik / lex) now I've got more of an idea how to use it A lot of great info here thanks!
|
|