Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bblackwood]

carlsaff wrote on Tue, 22 August 2006 07:16

But since I like to do such cuts pre-comp and I want the MP primarily for post comp shelving and wide Q boosts, I probably won't use them a whole lot. Perhaps I'll use them when I'm not using the bells and shelves.

Not to derail the MP love, but this reminds me that the Ibis has inserts on the back so you can actually separate the different bands from one another in the chain.

Just thought I'd mention that.

[carlsaff]

Andy Krehm wrote on Tue, 22 August 2006 08:16

As I've read your posts over the last few days, it did occur to me to ask, since this is your first analog piece, why not a Manley Vari-Mu? That gives you colour and various shades of compression that plug-ins (IMO) can't come close to. In other words, plug-ins are better at equalizing than plug-ins are at compressing.

Actually, the MP would not be my first analog device -- it would be my first analog EQ. I have a Crane Song STC-8/M, which can bring color to some material via the ki/hara switch.

I think a Vari-Mu might be a future purchase/trial, tho I generally like my compression on the less obvious side of things -- the Vari-Mu seems to be known for compression that brings attention to itself... but I am not speaking from experience, only of what I've heard. And I'm also aware that it's color can be heard even when no GR is taking place.

Certainly a tube comp is in the plan -- likely either a VariMu or an OCL-2 (leaning towards trying the latter first)... unless another option comes to my attention.

[carlsaff]

bblackwood wrote on Tue, 22 August 2006 08:28

carlsaff wrote on Tue, 22 August 2006 07:16 But since I like to do such cuts pre-comp and I want the MP primarily for post comp shelving and wide Q boosts, I probably won't use them a whole lot. Perhaps I'll use them when I'm not using the bells and shelves. Not to derail the MP love, but this reminds me that the Ibis has inserts on the back so you can actually separate the different bands from one another in the chain. Just thought I'd mention that.

+1 for the Ibis. That's cool.

[carlsaff]

So... I bought the MP. Started using it on a real job yesterday that I'm finishing up today, and in addition to sounding great, I also discovered that it's just a damn fun box to use.

I think another comp (LTD-2, OCL-2, L2M or Shadow Hills), another EQ (NSEQ-2, API 550Ms, Ibis or GML 8200) and my analog chain will be more or less complete. Very happy with the decisions I've made thus far.

[Ged Leitch]

carlsaff wrote on Thu, 24 August 2006 19:39

So... I bought the MP. Started using it on a real job yesterday that I'm finishing up today, and in addition to sounding great, I also discovered that it's just a damn fun box to use. I think another comp (LTD-2, OCL-2, L2M or Shadow Hills), another EQ (NSEQ-2, API 550Ms, Ibis or GML 8200) and my analog chain will be more or less complete. Very happy with the decisions I've made thus far.

Great to hear your liking it Carl!

enjoy the realm of "Non digital" EQ


and yes, i'm very... very... jealous!!!

[carlsaff]

Ged, I'll still be using digital EQs, too! Perhaps indefinitely. They have their advantages (automation comes to mind). In this current project, I'm using digital EQ for "fixing" before the comp (HPF-ing and low shelving, mostly) and then using the MP for midrange work and high shelving. Good combo.

I think I'm going to experiment with placing the MP in front of the compressor on the next job, although I have no beef with the results I'm getting on this current project -- the mids are sounding really lovely, which is important, as it's kind of a 70s-sounding pop band.

[Glenn Bucci]

I too want a MP. For color I currently use the UAD Prec. EQ, and for detailed fixes, the Waves Mastering Linear EQ which adds no color. However now that I have the Waves SSL plug ins, I will try them out at the mastering stage as well.

[Adam Dempsey]

carlsaff wrote on Fri, 25 August 2006 04:58

Ged, I'll still be using digital EQs, too! Perhaps indefinitely. They have their advantages (automation comes to mind). In this current project, I'm using digital EQ for "fixing" before the comp (HPF-ing and low shelving, mostly) and then using the MP for midrange work and high shelving.

Hi Carl,
With more time to "play" with the MP you'll no doubt take a liking to its HPF and general LF EQ, too.

[Andy Krehm]

Andrew Hamilton wrote on Sun, 08 April 2007 14:22

Do you ever use the TRS inputs and/or TS outputs of the Massivo, so as to bypass the transformers?  I understand, from a talk with Paul Fargo, that, unlike the Massivo,  the Vari-Mu can not be fitted with transformerless in/outs because the limiter is informed by the signal from a tertiary winding on the input xformer, and the action is push-pull all the way.  But the Massivo doesn't require the transformer topology.   I'm not anti-iron to the core, but I noticed that Doug Sax's custom tube eq is transformerless.  I wonder in what other ways it surpasses the transparent capability of the stock (or even mastering) Massivo.  I've read that active balancing circuitry is also potentially deleterious to signals, depending on implementation. Some time ago I had to abandon using the transformer in/outs on my Massivo after discovering that there was no way to get a Lissajous to be a thin line of correlation if I passed a sine through the transformers that was any higher in frequency than about 5kHz.  By the time I turn the osc up to about 9 or 10k, the erstwhile line of correlation looks like the outline of an almond, rather than being needle-thin.  I was told by Manley that one of the transformers was probably losing a little high end compared to the other, causing the appearance of misaligned azimuth (as if one was about to align a tape head)...  After listening to the TRS/TS in/outs, I was happy to carry on using it without the transformers.  I figure, if you use the Massivo with the vari-mu, and don't bypass the eq's xformers, you'd get twice the Manley sound, which would probably be too much Manley sound for many a mix. ymmv? _andrew

Has anyone else tried the MP's TRS/TS in/outs?

Sonic impressions?

Any trade-offs, like increased noise, etc?

I'd try it myself but don't have the correct cables in the studio.

[Andrew Hamilton]

Gravity 8058 wrote on Fri, 18 August 2006 00:21

Congrats!  I love mine.  ...  Got the mastering version and it's handy. You're gonna love it, oh, and the HPF's are awesome and extremely useful.

Your mastering version HPF settings may be useful, but the standard version HPF settings are useless on mixes, iuam.   The low settings on the mastering version look way more appropriate for getting rid of non-musical energy without touching the sacred "808" zone.   If I engage even the lowest setting on my HPF (20 cps), it eats bass north of that as well and makes the mix sound brighter.  Ymmv.





Andrew

[carlsaff]

Andrew Hamilton wrote on Thu, 12 April 2007 11:49

Your mastering version HPF settings may be useful, but the standard version HPF settings are useless on mixes, iuam.

I don't find them useless. Pretty sure the other MEs here with the standard edition (far more commonly seen than the mastering edition, actually) will agree with that.

That said, I do increasingly wish I had the selection of HP frequencies available in the mastering edition, and I'm already scheming for a swap out as a result. But the standard HPs work well for lots of styles, especially rock. If I need greater fine tuning in the way of an HP, I have several DSP options that work fine. But 22 or 39 on the standard MP is often just the thing. If it dips a bit above the selected frequency, a slight bell bump right above the HP frequency will do the trick.

[compasspnt]

carlsaff wrote on Thu, 12 April 2007 13:49

I don't find them useless. Pretty sure the other MEs here with the standard edition (far more commonly seen than the mastering edition, actually) will agree with that. That said, I do increasingly wish I had the selection of HP frequencies available in the mastering edition, and I'm already scheming for a swap out as a result. But the standard HPs work well for lots of styles, especially rock. If I need greater fine tuning in the way of an HP, I have several DSP options that work fine. But 22 or 39 on the standard MP is often just the thing. If it dips a bit above the selected frequency, a slight bell bump right above the HP frequency will do the trick.

Agreed, exactly.

[Taproot]

Slightly off topic, but the MP is a monster for tracking too. I love mine all the way around.