|
Post by illacov on Dec 5, 2016 18:35:46 GMT -6
Fascinating stuff! Is the preorder still open? Yes indeed! Feel free to head over to handsomeaudio.com/pre-order-zulu But do it from a computer. Mobile won't work for security reasons. Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 5, 2016 16:49:29 GMT -6
So about how about using your hardware differently when you mix in the box? DAW>Mic Pre> HW compressor anyone?
I will upload some files demonstrating this soon.
Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 5, 2016 16:46:23 GMT -6
Mixing by committee has become SOP True. So you can either play by "those," rules or make your own and learn to starve like a man. Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 5, 2016 12:31:14 GMT -6
So by this same gesture owning a UAD based system or any hardware on the 2 buss would create the same scenario WITHOUT the console correct? And hold the phone. How much cheaper is it to reprint an entirely ITB recall for the client since you still have to make the adjustment/edit ITB or not? Thats not free-er-er LOL I do the majority of my studio work in record production, my job is to make my clients happy with the work I perform for them but its on me to choose the methods. Recalls are included in the budget. Since the recalls are included it frees up the constraint of choosing method over madness. I have my hands tied with using hardware on my 2 buss, so all my mixdowns are real time. Enjoy a coffee break MMMM Coffee. Thanks -L. I don't own a UAD system, if I did I probably would only use it with my analog rig. I sometimes choose to stay ITB if I know there will be lots of revisions, changes and tweaks. I include two recalls within every bands quote and it's rare that it's enough. I love having the analog rig and more often than not would rather work on that than just plugins but I have to be as efficient as possible and sometimes that just means staying itb. I also keep the Chemex on my rack and the kettle nearby. Coffee break gets done during the 2 minute export times and it's right on to the next one. It keeps my work from piling up uncontrollably. Dag 2 minutes? So you save 2m30s in my scenario? Thats alot of sips you could be enjoying. Heres a dead serious question. Pro Tools for the majority of it's existence was online bounce until maybe 2 years ago. You couldnt render offline in non realtime. This is the industry standard DAW (Dr. Evil Quote fingers). So when did it enter the equation for us engineering folk to all of a sudden feel the need to turn around recalls or revisions faster than what the music business accepts as standard? Multiple recalls add up for certain. But so does that final invoice. I have no idea who your clients are, but no matter who hires you, studio time is studio time. Regardless if its a desk youre recalling or a session. In scenarios like that its a billable hour and beyond. I don't sell minutes. Anything beyond emailing a file, billable hour. Regarding keeping clients because of your rates or costs, people stay with you or don't. You can be as affordable for them as you can, but they can still opt to leave for next go round. The only thing that ever remains is your work. Which is why I always say do it like its your last gig. Never compromise how you work just to please people. Accomodate but never buckle to pressure. Cuz in the end, whatever makes you stand out in a crowd is what makes you desirable. Thats what will last, the money can come and go, trust me it will. So will the clients, but your work is what you can always count on being the equalizer. Thats how Ive stayed alive is by going hard at it with blinders on. BTW, slightly overdriven mic preamp to the dbx on a drum buss is MONSTROUS, I feel like I just made a new piece of gear patching it this way LOL. Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 4, 2016 22:43:03 GMT -6
Jordan thanks for the kind words about Zulu! Its worth the print time Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 4, 2016 22:38:10 GMT -6
Im curious where the concept of leaving "mixes up," on boards enters the conversation within a modern context. I'm not speaking for everyone,just myself here but, I print thru the consoles channels plus the board EQ and back while using hw inserts like analog comp, verb or Zulu etc. Then at mixdown, I just leave the faders at unity on the board and the DAW is the recall platform. Thats how I work. Ive seen tons of cats do it that way. Use the channels as a cooker for the DAW tracks then use the board as a summing mixer but with all the fun trimmings. If you use anything that dictates a real time mixdown (UAD, HW compressor on the 2 buss) then you don't enjoy any more speed at mixdown. For edits, its all in the computer for most everybody. In this scenario, I dont see the competive edge save for maybe the 4 minutes you dont have to spend during the render. Who can't recall a broomstick mix? ? Thanks -L. Except that you add an additional stage of the console and you're not considering the hardware recall or that 4 minute print times do add up to a clients bottom line (especially in an era of convenience and album budget cuts). Of course you can reset a board and go that way but the expectation from most is that you click open and it opens the way it was last left. Not a compromised version of what it was before. My bus compressors and summing mixer are all completely stepped and to be honest the way I've had that stuff set up hasn't changed in a long time. Best of luck with Zulu, I'm looking forward to seeing it. It looks like a very great piece of kit! Can't wait to try it out So by this same gesture owning a UAD based system or any hardware on the 2 buss would create the same scenario WITHOUT the console correct? And hold the phone. How much cheaper is it to reprint an entirely ITB recall for the client since you still have to make the adjustment/edit ITB or not? Thats not free-er-er LOL I do the majority of my studio work in record production, my job is to make my clients happy with the work I perform for them but its on me to choose the methods. Recalls are included in the budget. Since the recalls are included it frees up the constraint of choosing method over madness. I have my hands tied with using hardware on my 2 buss, so all my mixdowns are real time. Enjoy a coffee break MMMM Coffee. Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 4, 2016 18:45:01 GMT -6
Yes, in most cases one should dither to 24 bits and it's so far down that dithering when it's not needed isn't likely to be a problem. When in doubt, I dither. Wait a minute, a DAC for your master buss should suffer from the same artifacts then. So I should monitor with a dither plugin engaged on my 2 bus? Help me to understand, you're implying that our hardware DAC technology suffers from the same artifacts that a data package suffers from? This is intriguing to some degree but I'm still curious about how we incur truncation distortion on just the playback/replication side. Wouldn't that also imply that our DAC tech has an issue with properly reproducing audio? Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 4, 2016 17:46:34 GMT -6
Reaper is my platform of choice, 64 bit float mixing engine. No idea off the top of my head about the dithered outputs option.
Dither on the DAC to a HW compressor or mic preamp nets me what exactly? Less distortion? Does it improve the headroom of my converters?
Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 4, 2016 16:13:40 GMT -6
I think crappy line stages and lack of dither are the two most common causes of bad digital sound. So if one is mixing through a console or summing mixer, what type of dither plugin is best to use on each of the 16 (or 24 or 32) outputs from your dac? I assume you would place this plugin as the last item on each channel before it leaves the dac? Any suggestions on particular brand? Why would you dither a source track during a mixdown? This is news. I was taught that dither was the very last thing you do on a master when converting to 16bit. Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 4, 2016 15:54:13 GMT -6
I stooped using them because they all miss one or another thing. They simulate a lot of things but they still have probs with amps? I now use the HK Tubemeister 5 with the Red-Box which sounds fantastic and is not fake. Other from that I also like to use the full-tone amp sim analog-pedals (each 30$) which is great for writing and sometimes tracking. I own that pedal in the video and the black one with the boost for metal. I've cut some mean tones with both. Its still real analog distortion, the American one works really well on keyboards. ITB amp sims, I used to use the Simulanalog stuff ALOT. But now I have a Fender Deluxe, Peavey tube guitar, 80s Peavey Bass Cabinet, modern Ampeg mini Head. Several guitars, several basses. Why simulate? I own a nice reamp setup when I get DI guitars or guitars that need more love. I can always go into a really clean power amp with a pedal or guitar preamp and get great results too. I learned alot about power amps with cabinets during my last year doing a side gig with a Grateful Dead tribute band. Lead guitar had an Alembic with a Macintosh monoblock solid state and a tube preamp. Thing weighed a ton but the TONE. Sometimes you have to understand that faster doesnt always mean digital. I think where the digital stuff rules is that you get all those different options in one device versus you get one or two sounds out of a really good amp and thats it. But its alot faster for me to grab the right guitar, fire up whichever pedal if at all is necessary and mic it up, ribbon, dyname, condenser etc...record it once and move on. Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 4, 2016 15:43:10 GMT -6
Sounds like you have a viable product idea, Langston. Say a box with four nice line amps with pots, detented at unity. TRS ins and outs. The DAC Rocker. Actually, I think svart should be the tech behind it and I'll conceptualize it with him. My vote is that it has output transformers so that you literally have a transformer to real world connection. Think about it. Neve 1073 to 1176. That's Marinair output to 1176 Input transformer. But we skip the Neve/API/etc when we use our 1176 now and just go DAC (opamps)>1176. Thats a different sound altogether. This won't necessarily apply to all gear of course but it will make a big difference in how you can run it. Svart?? Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 4, 2016 15:32:46 GMT -6
Oh, the gain rider stuff I've tried I feel like they aren't transparent. It seems bizarre for me to say that considering how analog minded I am, but I prefer to get my color elsewhere, so I stick with volume and prefx volume for rides etc...
Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 4, 2016 15:30:35 GMT -6
Between the use of VCAs and the automation being used more to feature a source, there you have it. A low track count full band mix might only require 16 recorded tracks. FX might require rides. Lead Vocal will need rides of some sort. Drums might need brute force rides in 2 or 3 sections, guitars maybe 2 spots. You get the picture?
If you can focus on the song's arrangement, you can very quickly plan out your automation moves and between you and the producer or if thats you, you can knock out some serious automation pretty quickly with a mouse. Especially if you use VCAs.
Ive always been very fortunate for lead vocal rides, a good deal of it revolves around extremely judicious use of compression during tracking or mixing. I also tend to let the compressor tell me what works from section to section. I normally don't have too much trouble with word to word edits, Reaper's pencil tool is fast and easy to use with my Marble Mouse. Part of it is my technique. I more so focused on words that dont have impact than words that do. Unless you have a bad take, you can pick out whats off very quickly. I do lots of listening before edits. Once that lead vocal is a money maker, everything else falls into place very quickly. I really enjoying using pre-fx volume for this.
I would love a 16 channel control surface for certain, but I need fully motorized faders, easy to read display and a built espresso maker. Otherwise I'm mouseketeering.
Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 4, 2016 15:18:21 GMT -6
Therein lies my point. Gabriel Roth of Daptone talks about ignoring the meters during tracking to tape and gets it to where it sounds good with your ears, on machines like a 440 and a Teac 8516. During playback he'd listen to a track in solo and realize he accomplished way more saturation/distortion (plus compression) than he thought he'd heard during tracking. I personally always felt that what made Motowns recordings gel together WAS the distortion/saturation. Maybe it didn't come from the deck, but that fuzzy delicious musical magic was my motivation to try the same things with my tape machines. And dammit, it gave me the same results. In solo they sounded pretty wild, but together in context it was damn good. Thanks -L. Yeah But using the 8516 and 440 in the same sentence is some kind of Audio sin! Between the thin track width and the fact that I have never seen a 8516 stay in alignment, let's just say it had a distortion all its own you either love or hate! Also in analog we were not yet replacing every drum hit, so you had that gel of everything happening in the same room at the same time. You either used bleed to your advantage & made it sound like a kit, or as time went by and input and track count increased, you fought it, trying to make it sound like a drum machine. Thats my point brotha. If you listen to Sharon Jones (RIP) and The Dap Kings, its amazing what they accomplished with her, the players and the tech. But it makes sense! Those Tascams and Teacs were and are the shit. I based Zulu's ProFi deck on my Teac and Tascam machines because they are so tapey and musical. I know some people think Daptone sounds cartoonish but listen to their stuff and then fire up some Sam and Dave or Percy Sledge, it makes sense. I see all that the legends like Bob O and others say about using tape, I also got guys who are legends saying the opposite from my own career but what they are saying and what I have as my musical DNA (growing up listening to Motown for example on Vinyl, cassette and the first pressing CDs) that dirt was always there. Maybe the source of the dirt needs to be disclosed? It can't all be my mom's stereo on cinder blocks, cuz the grit stayed from my childhood to right now if I go pull it up on streaming. Bob O. ? BTW, the drum clips on the website sound great but I think they'd really pull you back in time better if they had some tape involved. The cymbals especially jump out and sounding different, snares too. Its worth noting that those older recordings had the drums lower in the mix but they had more body. The kick for example is buried on DSOTM but on the loop library example its up but lacks the maple syrup thickness. Not a knock against AP or the drummer, I think thats more about the digital than anything. Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 4, 2016 14:40:19 GMT -6
Bob from reading your posts you're not refuting that tape does act as a compressor when a hot signal is recorded to it. I admit I started recording later than you and never at your level of expertise. I played on my first record in 1969 and set up my first studio in 1972. Every studio I've worked in from that time has used this phenomenon to greater or lesser degree. Rock drum sounds have particularily benefitted from this. Funny, I've never recorded piano that way and tambourine turns into pure distortion if recorded too loud to tape. I'm sure jazz and classical engineers would shudder at going too hot to tape but I have seen engineers at Danmarksradio use this often. Tim I think a lot of us just considered the compression a part of the sound of tape, it wasn't something we even really thought about. Also even most big rooms didn't have more than say 6-8 ch of compression till the days of the SSL! Therein lies my point. Gabriel Roth of Daptone talks about ignoring the meters during tracking to tape and gets it to where it sounds good with your ears, on machines like a 440 and a Teac 8516. During playback he'd listen to a track in solo and realize he accomplished way more saturation/distortion (plus compression) than he thought he'd heard during tracking. I personally always felt that what made Motowns recordings gel together WAS the distortion/saturation. Maybe it didn't come from the deck, but that fuzzy delicious musical magic was my motivation to try the same things with my tape machines. And dammit, it gave me the same results. In solo they sounded pretty wild, but together in context it was damn good. Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 4, 2016 14:22:33 GMT -6
I think crappy line stages and lack of dither are the two most common causes of bad digital sound. It would be very interesting if DACs came with a controllable output level rather than just fixed +4 or -10. I'd greatly enjoy having the ability to drive my gear with clean gain this way or even headphone mixers etc.... I think this contributes less to things being crappy and more to things sounding disconnected. You don't use an 1176 in a vacuum, in analog terms its integrated into the channel strip structure. I think tying things back together by using some analog gain stage/line stage with your compressors/eqs etc..helps a great deal to minimize the disjointed effect of just patching a compressor/other piece of hardware to a set of converters. Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 4, 2016 11:24:20 GMT -6
I sonically prefer to patch in my Neve before my dbx on snare or my Altec pre before my Gates. It offers a level of depth and control that I don't enjoy ITB. I just finished a typical band mix drums, guitar, base, organ, LV and BGV - all ITB. I was able to get as many depth and dimension as I get with my real gear. There was no reason to switch on my hardware. I have 144 db dynamic range that is more than I will ever have in the analog world. For the sake that I repeat myself, since Slates VCC2, I see myself using the console lesser and lesser. And if he puts out some more processing tools - in the quality of his VBC - I see myself selling my real gear. In the end it counts what works for you. I see myself having a nice hybrid setup workflow. The hardware gets fired every time I find a plug-in substitute. Prost What does this have to do with patching in your hardware differently? Honest question. Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 4, 2016 11:22:38 GMT -6
Heres a frame of thought to share with you. In theory, you use a console as your matrix for signal processing. This is an active device, active stages throughout that can drive other stages. What console do you use? Wheatstone SP5. Transformer based mic pres, NE5532 chips, 3 band EQ, low band eq goes down to 40hz, 16khz on high band. Really sweet board. I made this thread less to discuss mixing on my board than to discuss using the channels which are post insert + EQ and post fader on the dorect outs, to hit my analog hardware. The majority of which is not super expensive stuff, but I have more fun with that gear when I have my channels or mic pres involved. Even my Yamaha REV 7 is a different beast when its just DAC>REV7 vs DAC>SP5>REV7. Standalone mic pres with a DI count too! This stuff sits idle during most mixdowns buts technically fodder for your mixing needs too. A real analog piece can offer loads of character that you wont get internally and even though we often associate that with boutique compressors and EQs, theres loads of flavor inside your 312/1073/Quad8/Tonebeast/CAPI preamp that will add some magic to your mixing process when you treat it like a gravymaster instead of a preamp, this really does some amazing stuff into a compressor, but as well, a compressor into a preamp that can attenuate (like a Neve 1073 pre) offers you some pretty wild opportunity to dial in flavors that just don't exist in digital. Ill be glad to make some clips of this principle. I can accomplish this pretty easily with just my dbx and my SP5. Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 4, 2016 10:28:13 GMT -6
In my experience, this is true as well. But it still won't sound like that same band to tape.
I mean if we are going to voice the good musicians, good room scenario then why not good engineer, good equipment and good working deck too?
Wouldn't this sound good too?
Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 4, 2016 10:04:11 GMT -6
Heres a frame of thought to share with you.
In theory, you use a console as your matrix for signal processing. This is an active device, active stages throughout that can drive other stages.
A DAC is very different from a console line amp. If you can get your signal from your DAW to something that has a line amp or you can get into a mic preamp via DI, then you can experience a totally different level of interaction with your hardware.
For those of you with multiple vibey preamps or really cool transformer based consoles, consider the tone options alone.
Aside from that, you also gain the ability to drive your analog equipment with analog gain while maintaining clarity at your DAC. What if the compressor just sounds better pushed or for the source to the extreme? If you push the DAC too far it will not be pleasing, but an amplifier designed to take line level or mic level signal and boost it can go to bounds your DAC can't.
In my experience, not utilizing this free hack, limits our experience with hardware in a mostly digital environment. We are limited by the DACs headroom and ability to handle loud transients on full scale audio especially. There's plenty of gear in your studio that exhibits some pretty sweet tones when driven with healthy amounts of signal.
Think about it, your compressor's threshold in most cases goes "over," 0db. Why on earth would a compressor need a threshold that goes to +10db?
I find that for even conservative applications, I sonically prefer to patch in my Neve before my dbx on snare or my Altec pre before my Gates. It offers a level of depth and control that I don't enjoy ITB.
You have to put things in context electronically. Think like a mad scientist!
Be glad to post clips, even my dbx 266 benefits from the approach.
Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 4, 2016 9:14:39 GMT -6
Erasure only became a problem with the high output tapes like 456 of the '70s and '80s that tape machines from the '50 and '60s weren't designed for. We aligned for 185 until around 1970 and then 3 dB. higher with Scotch 206. We only pinned the needle for bass and lead vocal because our early 8 tracks had a hum problem on the two outside tracks. (Almost from the beginning we were doing 8 to 8 mix down transfers exactly like we had done 3 to 3s and the Beatles did 4 to 4s. I roll my eyes whenever people talk about recording to one 8 track because that wasn't how I ever saw it done.) The only instrument that benefited from tape saturation for me was the piano and even then it was never pinned and recorded peaking to around -5. A very small percentage of people using tape today are recording at traditional levels and today's tape has pretty serious drop out problems if it isn't transferred right away. Ok so you did engage in this behavior but only on two tracks and out of necessity. Could you possibly see how this might influence recording aesthetic? Especially on popular material? The position that you were in, every decision that you or the bosses made, influenced us ALL. Even if they were never intended to be thought of as intentional motifs or sonic excellence. If we heard it and it had anything to do with gold standard classic pop or rock music, we admired it because it was that: popular. One thing of interest to share. In the Tom Dowd movie, there's discussion about how the USA had 8 track for 10 years before UK. In a world where these gaps in tech, technique and communication where far more common than they are now, how could anybody possibly know what everybody else was doing? Now they can but at the time? I personally grew up listening to my mentors and their friends talk about pegging sounds to tape, maybe not the whole production but they did it and it wasn't described as if they agonized over doing it but rather they delighted in it. I can listen to the DSOTM album and hear the tape compression, the splat, the soft cymbals with tasty sustain. Does this mean they pegged every needle on every track? Maybe none at all, but if you grow up listening to and working with analog tape, then you know why things sound tapey:) Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 4, 2016 6:58:50 GMT -6
I didn't learn these things from a youtube video LOL I was there too. I was born in 1977 and started in studios in 93. Definitely a tape only environment, gear was very small range of choices, one console, one tyoe of mic pre, one type of EQ.
Everything we do on a DAW by contrast is basically informed by an entirely different set of rules. So to answer your question, what we are doing now is not to fully represent the past but to improve this platform we have now.
Hi hats to tape, I could spend hours talking about that. LOL
Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 3, 2016 23:08:15 GMT -6
Maybe it comes down to results. If you get the end result you want, there's no right or wrong way there. This, but I also think the guys who learn to get it done ITB enjoy a serious competitive advantage flipping between mix to mix to tracking or mastering over those having to leave a mix up on the board while a client approves. Is it all about competition? Of course not, BUT, it is absolutely a factor to those who want better and better jobs with better and better clientele. It really does depend what the end goal of your work is. Im curious where the concept of leaving "mixes up," on boards enters the conversation within a modern context. I'm not speaking for everyone,just myself here but, I print thru the consoles channels plus the board EQ and back while using hw inserts like analog comp, verb or Zulu etc. Then at mixdown, I just leave the faders at unity on the board and the DAW is the recall platform. Thats how I work. Ive seen tons of cats do it that way. Use the channels as a cooker for the DAW tracks then use the board as a summing mixer but with all the fun trimmings. If you use anything that dictates a real time mixdown (UAD, HW compressor on the 2 buss) then you don't enjoy any more speed at mixdown. For edits, its all in the computer for most everybody. In this scenario, I dont see the competive edge save for maybe the 4 minutes you dont have to spend during the render. Who can't recall a broomstick mix? ? Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 3, 2016 22:36:07 GMT -6
What do/did you consider slamming tape? At 0 on the VU? Over? Pegged?
Add in lower headroom tape and all bets are off.
Im extremely curious how these decks ya'll used were calibrated? +3, +6, +9? Bob O? Anyone else?
Thanks -L.
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Dec 1, 2016 22:34:31 GMT -6
Yes, if memory serves, but it's been a long time. I forget exactly how it read, but settings were either -10db or +4 db. The +4 was balanced. I used +4. Although it's supposed to make no difference, +4 setup always sounded louder. More headroom I think. Oh! I'm not referring to consumer vs professional level. I'm referring to how your internal levels were setup when the deck was calibrated. See on decks when you set these levels up, the 0 on the VU meter is normally going to indicate a level over what we actually call 0db. For instance our Studer A810, when you hit -9 on the VU, that's actually 0db. When you go to 0 you're actually at +12db. This typically applies to all tape decks, they have their internal configurations and calibrations that are aside from the consumer vs professional aspect. This is why I was curious about your post where you said that you never pegged your meters, thus you claimed that you weren't hitting your deck that hot. On average if you were approaching 0db on the needles or even in the neighborhood, you could be anywhere (depending on the formula you calibrated for, EQ curve and tape speed) from +3db to +9db over 0 once you got to the actual 0 on your meter. So when people are talking about pegging their meters, they are speaking typically of recording very very hot to tape, whereas your machine even though your needles weren't dimed you were still hitting the deck hot, definitely hotter than you'd hit digital converters. BTW the offer is still out there to do a pass of something of yours through Zulu while we wait for the initial run to spawn. I've watched a bunch of your videos on youtube, must say I dig the material. Thanks -L.
|
|