|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 21, 2013 21:39:21 GMT -6
I have gone back and forth on this too many times...bought hardware, sold hardware, bought hardware, sold...well you get it. I'm currently in a hardware state of mind. But - there's no denying the Slate stuff is really, really good. Man, VBC Red on the 2 buss - really, awesome. I've also been really impressed by the new UAD 1176's and especially the new LA2A collection. That LA2 emu is fantastic on bass. It's really one of the first itb compressors I've thought that added thickness in any discernible amount...
Being a songwriter - and ultimately a home demo recordist (I leave any big stuff to the pros), I've fought with justifying a $2000 compressor...but when I sell it - I ALWAYS miss it...I guess the hybrid approach is really the key. I've got several excellent conversion, excellent pres and one excellent compressor...the rest I can do in the box.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 22, 2013 1:06:59 GMT -6
I've been vacillating between spending dough on HW or SW lately too. Really trying hard to figure out what's worth what. Very tricky ground with so much really solid software and so much blatant mythology in HW land. I still lean towards HW, but it's tough to say how much of that is psychosomatic and how much is honest sonic preference. I rented an old Urei blackface 1176 this weekend to compare to the software emulations I've got and it was mostly a toss up. I preferred the HW on some things and the SW on others. With my budget, I'm mostly all about the sleeper HW and the overlooked gems. Got a Symetrix 501 a couple days ago that can do some really sweet, pumping trash on drums. I'm told it's excellent on bass and kick as well. Haven't tried it yet...
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jul 22, 2013 4:13:33 GMT -6
Personally, for me, I think the software tools that come with most DA W's are pretty well good enough. Compared to the expensive third-party plug-ins.
By that I mean that realistically the the EQ that comes in Logic for instance is every bit as good as most third-party expensive EQ plug-ins. Same I would say of it's compressor. You may get where you want to go with the fancy graphic interface of a third party plug-in faster, my point is sonically we're pretty much in the same ballpark.
All intents and purposes.
Now hardware EQ and hardware compression are a different matter.
I really should clarify that above statement, I'm not saying for instance that the waves API plug-in EQ (Which I own) Isn't faster to use or more easy to use than the logic EQ I'm saying that both can perform exactly the same function For you and perform equally as well. There is no magic with the API EQ software. Whether that represents good value to you at the plug-in price Is a matter of personal opinion.
As to whether the waves API 550 plug-in sounds as good as the API hardware, it does not. I own a API 550B iin hardware. There are aspects of the hardware that theory in does not even come close to. As an example the hardware can function somewhat like a compressor. This is because of the transformers in it.
The area of compression, is possibly where the biggest difference between hardware and software exists, particularly valve compressers.
There are great reasons to use software or hardware. To me the point is not whether software can emulate its hardware counterpart exactly. It is more about the right tool for the given scenario.
I will say this, I do not think there's ever been a piece of software in plug-in for that I've purchased that I have not Somehow regretted further on down the track. Given my time over again and all the money I've spent on software I would just buy the hardware And leave it at that.
A great example for me is the slate plug-ins VCC VBC and VTM.
I bought each of those and on my personal mixes they never make an appearance. When mixing for clients they may get me where I want to go for a client's budget Particularly if I haven't tracked the project ( which is normally always the case nowadays).
Reverb on the other hand, is an area where I think plug-ins are outstanding in particular Relab.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 22, 2013 6:10:34 GMT -6
Yeah - the biggest failure in SW is compression...Although, it's getting closer with VBC, and the UAD mkII's...There's just something about the grabbiness of the attack that's not the same. I use VCC on everything I do...To me, the Neve or Trident settings definitely add some positive harmonics. I also have the Classic API Missing Link's - which are basically two 500 series pieces with two more transformers, fader and filters...Basically like the extra stage of the console after the pre and EQ. They really tighten the bottom and shave off transients when I run mixes through them. Just that finishing touch that I can't seem to get with software.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 22, 2013 8:20:32 GMT -6
I have gone back and forth on this too many times... Me too. I am inclined to buy select HW, and have already done so with the Slate Dragon (x2) and pres A-Designs Ventura, Slate Fox. Part of my problem is that I effectively work in isolation, even living in the Phoenix area, which is a very big place but is a desert in more ways than one: there is no VK outlet here, or anything remotely like it. And I am not too thrilled about demoing gear "on approval" when shipping is involved. I know myself too well - I would keep everything sent to me. I may end up taking a road trip to LA just to audition EQs and other outboard. But even doing this is problematic because their listening environment is not the same as mine (theirs is better). So I have bought my pres and comps blind. So far I've been lucky, I like my purchases so far. But I don't really like buying stuff this way. For me, The List of Wants is not trivial: - an LDC in the 1.5 to 2.5K$ range, for prime vocal duty. Picking a mic is the worst, particularity in my case since I am not a vocalist. - a Retro STA - Burl Vancouver - a tube EQ: Hammer or Retro E23 (cough) - a second Apollo Quad - good patch bay IMHO, this is also ties into the whole OTB summing discussion. I want this gear, but suddenly my hand is frozen half-way to my wallet. I'm $10K into building my studio and figure another 10-15K will "finish" it (yeah, right). Why did this poor guitarist think he could engineer? Matt |
|
|
|
Post by 4trakheadstak on Jul 22, 2013 9:34:08 GMT -6
Software came a long way in my mind with Cubase 7. For me, the sound of it is important but almost equally important is the speed of the tools. The Cubase Eq has always been pretty good but now you have the ability to really get aggressive with tracks with the saturation and transient effects available on each track. These features are very easy to activate and experiment very quickly. To have that available in HW would be very expensive and much slower to use. Just my .02. Then there are the UAD plugs also that can't be ignored. The 250 is still the best reverb plug I've heard by far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 22, 2013 9:41:17 GMT -6
This is EXACTLY what I want this board to be about. Talking about and hearing the product. I'm lucky that I live in Nashville and can demo or rent pretty much everything under the sun. We should have a "can you show me what this piece of gear sounds like" post or sub forum. Also, with home recording going the way it's going - and the industry for that matter - these formally unobtainable pieces are ending up in the hands of people like us - guitar players, songwriters, etc. I have gone back and forth on this too many times... Me too. I am inclined to buy select HW, and have already done so with the Slate Dragon (x2) and pres A-Designs Ventura, Slate Fox. Part of my problem is that I effectively work in isolation, even living in the Phoenix area, which is a very big place but is a desert in more ways than one: there is no VK outlet here, or anything remotely like it. And I am not too thrilled about demoing gear "on approval" when shipping is involved. I know myself too well - I would keep everything sent to me. I may end up taking a road trip to LA just to audition EQs and other outboard. But even doing this is problematic because their listening environment is not the same as mine (theirs is better). So I have bought my pres and comps blind. So far I've been lucky, I like my purchases so far. But I don't really like buying stuff this way. For me, The List of Wants is not trivial: - an LDC in the 1.5 to 2.5K$ range, for prime vocal duty. Picking a mic is the worst, particularity in my case since I am not a vocalist. - a Retro STA - Burl Vancouver - a tube EQ: Hammer or Retro E23 (cough) - a second Apollo Quad - good patch bay IMHO, this is also ties into the whole OTB summing discussion. I want this gear, but suddenly my hand is frozen half-way to my wallet. I'm $10K into building my studio and figure another 10-15K will "finish" it (yeah, right). Why did this poor guitarist think he could engineer? Matt |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 22, 2013 9:42:41 GMT -6
I love the UAD EMT250. Use it all the time. Don't think I'll be buying the original hardware anytime soon  |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 22, 2013 10:28:38 GMT -6
This is EXACTLY what I want this board to be about. Thanks, I agree. I understand that it's all subjective and that everyone has a unique opinion, but I think opinions matter when it is backed up by obvious knowledge/experience (and great mixes). Even scratch work, when posted, is illuminating to me because I am working on my "engineer's ear" and trying to listen in a new way for me - with a critical, technical mindset. Also doing this with my favorite popular music, cutting across genres I haven't visited in the past. It's amazing because, rather than becoming "clinical", this listening time has expanded my appreciation for the art and craft of music making. For instance, while I have always appreciated Dwight Yoakam, I recently discovered his "Sings Buck" album, and "Together Again" just sounds astounding to me, both technically and musically. Which put me on the trail to Buck's music. Which reminded me that my Dad insisted that we watch Hee Haw when I was a boy. And that Roy Clark was my favorite picker, and my first guitar was painted Red/White/Blue by my Dad in our basement. All because I was searching for a great vocal mic, and I read that Dwight uses a vintage U47. Just beautiful. I love music, it can be better than sex! Well, sometimes. Matt |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 22, 2013 10:58:51 GMT -6
Oooo...gonna have to check that Dee-wyte record out...
I think you just caused a sale...This forum is the answer to the whole music industry!
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 22, 2013 10:59:31 GMT -6
Personally, for me, I think the software tools that come with most DA W's are pretty well good enough. Compared to the expensive third-party plug-ins. By that I mean that realistically the the EQ that comes in Logic for instance is every bit as good as most third-party expensive EQ plug-ins. Same I would say of it's compressor. You may get where you want to go with the fancy graphic interface of a third party plug-in faster, my point is sonically we're pretty much in the same ballpark. All intents and purposes. Now hardware EQ and hardware compression are a different matter. I really should clarify that above statement, I'm not saying for instance that the waves API plug-in EQ (Which I own) Isn't faster to use or more easy to use than the logic EQ I'm saying that both can perform exactly the same function For you and perform equally as well. There is no magic with the API EQ software. Whether that represents good value to you at the plug-in price Is a matter of personal opinion. As to whether the waves API 550 plug-in sounds as good as the API hardware, it does not. I own a API 550B iin hardware. There are aspects of the hardware that theory in does not even come close to. As an example the hardware can function somewhat like a compressor. This is because of the transformers in it. The area of compression, is possibly where the biggest difference between hardware and software exists, particularly valve compressers. There are great reasons to use software or hardware. To me the point is not whether software can emulate its hardware counterpart exactly. It is more about the right tool for the given scenario. I will say this, I do not think there's ever been a piece of software in plug-in for that I've purchased that I have not Somehow regretted further on down the track. Given my time over again and all the money I've spent on software I would just buy the hardware And leave it at that. A great example for me is the slate plug-ins VCC VBC and VTM. I bought each of those and on my personal mixes they never make an appearance. When mixing for clients they may get me where I want to go for a client's budget Particularly if I haven't tracked the project ( which is normally always the case nowadays). Reverb on the other hand, is an area where I think plug-ins are outstanding in particular Relab. I agree that when plugin EQs are only modeling curves, you can accomplish the same things with almost any of them. Since loads of CPU is available today, some coders have started really modeling the whole circuit though (lots of people have claimed they modeled the whole path but clearly didn't). In your API 550 example, I agree that the Waves doesn't sound like the hardware. Have you hear the UAD version that just came out? It really behaves like hardware. It can be pushed really hard and it doesn't get crazy and peaky. And it adds that little bit of saturation. The new UAD Pultecs are stellar. Just putting signal through them has a sweetening effect, precisely because they've modeled the whole topology. Not to sound like a UAD fanboy, I just happen to like their plugs a lot and mostly use them despite having spent a small fortune on other native plugs. Anyway, I do agree with your broader point, that often you can get the job done with stock plugs and that slick GUI's do have a placebo effect on the ear. But there are some plugs now that are modeling vastly more of the nonlinear complexity of hardware. And, as you'd expect, they both sound better and take a bigger bite of your CPU. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 22, 2013 11:02:14 GMT -6
You guys used the new Pultecs?
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 22, 2013 11:10:00 GMT -6
Oooo...gonna have to check that Dee-wyte record out... I think you just caused a sale...This forum is the answer to the whole music industry! Hah, cool! If you don't mind mp3-ish quality, for quick listening I use grooveshark.com. It's free, and if you use Firefox with the noscript plugin, you can kill the ads panel. Some of the content is pretty clean, for lossy files. I preview all music using the site these days. It's great for casual listening too. And since it's a social site (what isn't), you can follow other users and see/play their playlists. Good stuff, and no randomness like Pandora. I certainly welcome any suggestions on "reference mixes", or just great music in general. I am all-in. Matt |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 22, 2013 11:16:17 GMT -6
Well, don't get me started on free streaming...I'm a songwriter...
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 22, 2013 11:21:24 GMT -6
I certainly welcome any suggestions on "reference mixes", or just great music in general. I am all-in. Matt On the topic at hand, have you listened to The Black Keys "Brothers"? That was one record that convinced me that ITB mixing wasn't limiting me in any way. So beautifully saturated, bloated and punchy. Tchad Blake's a wizard.... |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 22, 2013 11:23:43 GMT -6
You guys used the new Pultecs? Yeah. They're amazing. I haven't heard highs like that HW or SW elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 22, 2013 11:28:14 GMT -6
Well, don't get me started on free streaming...I'm a songwriter... Apologies, I did not mean to tread on dangerous ground! The site is licensed. I think the site owner had to work something out with the powers that be in order to stay active. But I understand from reading threads on GS, getting paid is problematic in a general sense these days, and a particular site being "licensed" may not mean a thing to the individual trying to get paid. Of course, the situation sucks. I have not had the privilege of selling any of my music (yet), but I understand. Intellectual property rights is tough to enforce when dealing with the Web. Matt |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 22, 2013 11:36:57 GMT -6
I might post a thread about it...It's ridiculous. I had 27,000 plays on Pandora last quarter and got $3...
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 22, 2013 11:52:38 GMT -6
I might post a thread about it...It's ridiculous. I had 27,000 plays on Pandora last quarter and got $3... That is crazy! I would welcome a thread, it would be very educational to me since I have no experience dealing with the financial side, other than making sure my band got it's proper share of the "Door". Even that was often a problem, but my drummer was a large human and could fake the surly thing very well. We got paid, every time. You have me re-thinking grooveshark. I have never downloaded ripped music or movies. That this service may not be much different, I had not considered (obviously). Researching their payment model (and payment models as a whole) now. Matt |
|
pma
Full Member
Posts: 35 
|
Post by pma on Jul 22, 2013 13:37:09 GMT -6
Scenario:
Imagine 2 channels of hardware EQ / comp or whatever inserted on a sub group. Stereo unit or dual mono. Doesn't matter.
Now, have a few tracks with drums and send those to the sub group, creating a parallel additive mix. Ok. To make it easier, let's drive the inserted very HOT, peaks overloaded.
If you now blend in the inserted mix you will hear a widening effect. Especially on peaks but also on timbre and noise-like reverberate sounds.
Do the same with software and it will be like turning the pan knobs together. Creating a center image instead.
Why is that? Well, hardware can never be exactly matched. Especially clipped waves comes out as casts of every components personality.
Hence - spreading, widening, creating depth. If used in stereo.
That's my problem (and, any ITB mixer's I suspect. If you watch P..do's Place, every other episode explains stereo spreading)
I've spent 3-4 years figuring out if I really need a console / hardware inserts / summing. Workflow is a key. But not the single key.
At the time when I started investigating the validity of ITB, Pro Tools ADC wasn't yet sorted so I mixed a bunch of tracks in Propellerhead Record (now Reason). Weird thing about work flow is I'm still very pleased about my balances in Reason. They're much closer to my analog mixes. I've been going back and forth between PT and Reason, trying to pin point the issue. I can't.
So, work flow determines a lot of decisions.
Which leads me to a more annoying battle. A good song tracked ok doesn't suffer from bad gear. I hate that argument. We're not needed. We're obsolete.
A good song mixes it self .Bah!! ...still it's true. Or, for the market / public / peasants ... whatever. Us audio nerds spot the behringer(or Logic gold verb or whatever) in a sec.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 22, 2013 13:46:51 GMT -6
Scenario: Imagine 2 channels of hardware EQ / comp or whatever inserted on a sub group. Stereo unit or dual mono. Doesn't matter. Now, have a few tracks with drums and send those to the sub group, creating a parallel additive mix. Ok. To make it easier, let's drive the inserted very HOT, peaks overloaded. If you now blend in the inserted mix you will hear a widening effect. Especially on peaks but also on timbre and noise-like reverberate sounds. Do the same with software and it will be like turning the pan knobs together. Creating a center image instead. Why is that? Well, hardware can never be exactly matched. Very interesting. This is obvious justification for having more than one set of "stem processing" outboard chains: 2ch EQ + 2ch comp + ?, as many times over as possible (or practical? Nah). My budget just got busted. Matt |
|
pma
Full Member
Posts: 35
|
Post by pma on Jul 22, 2013 13:51:05 GMT -6
Ha ha! Well. Easier and cheaper if you just decide on not liking "wide".
Hell, what's wrong with labeling your mixing style as "focused", "in-phase" etc etc..
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 22, 2013 14:08:04 GMT -6
If you now blend in the inserted mix you will hear a widening effect. Especially on peaks but also on timbre and noise-like reverberate sounds. Do the same with software and it will be like turning the pan knobs together. Creating a center image instead. Very interesting! |
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Jul 22, 2013 14:24:42 GMT -6
You guys used the new Pultecs? I LOVE the new Pultecs. Sound as real to me as any software eq yet. Ridiculously good at the price they ask. The new UAD stuff and the Slate stuff is stepping things up in a great way. I long for the day I can use software only and be satisfied. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 22, 2013 14:41:32 GMT -6
You guys used the new Pultecs? I LOVE the new Pultecs. Sound as real to me as any software eq yet. Ridiculously good at the price they ask. The new UAD stuff and the Slate stuff is stepping things up in a great way. I long for the day I can use software only and be satisfied. Yes, the Pultecs seem to have some sort of mojo going on. I want to insert them on every buss, every time. And I can't wait for the AMS RMX verb to be released! Matt |
|
