R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box  (Read 18819 times)

Jack Tors

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #30 on: May 05, 2004, 07:20:15 pm »

exit wrote on Mon, 03 May 2004 03:48

Guys-I was joking about Garageband. I haven't used it yet. I am  waiting on the G5 laptop tho! My G4 Titanium just busted a screen hinge. It's on it's last leg.



Actually, Garageband is an amazing product, especially at the price point.  I can assure you that it is capable of making quite acceptable remixes, etc.  Now, I'm not saying that we should all ditch Reason, PT, DP, whatever.  What I am saying is that the product should NOT be underestimated.  It is fun and easy!  And FREE!

Dr. Jack
Logged
Jack Tors

Kenny Gioia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #31 on: May 05, 2004, 08:46:59 pm »

Ruairi O'Flaherty wrote on Sun, 02 May 2004 14:05



Apologies if I came off a little heavy sounding and I definitely do not want to start a PSW vs R/E/P vibe.  I personally will not visit MARSH because of Mixerman's moderation there and I'd love to see the two boards remain very distinct in style and content.  I know that you did not mean anything by using the term Alsihad but unfortunately many others do and have used that and other tactics to cause flames, arguments and rants all over some of my favourite forums.

cheers,
Ruairi


The [euphemism for Protools replaced by editor, who has grown weary of the debate] term is all in good humor. Most of us over the MARSH do use Pro Tools. And like it. We like to have fun mixed in with our audio.

One of the great things about the MARSH is that it divided itself quite nicely from the Rec Pit. There hasn't even been any flame wars at all. (on our side anyway)

And my forum (EnGioia Recording) is just audio. No flames, no nonsense. The forums are very seperate for good reasons. Keep the info easily accessible. Alot of the guys at the MARSH may be a bit ruff around the edges and work blue Laughing but inside there is a lot of knowledge to be had.

And those of you who are a little too hoity toity might be missing out on some great discussions.

I for one will be hangin' at the REP to get to know you guys better and I hope some of you will return the favor.

Peace
Logged

Mixerman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #32 on: May 06, 2004, 05:09:55 am »

sdevino wrote on Sun, 02 May 2004 07:14

Alsihad is short for "All's I Had"  whichis followed by Pro Tools.


Alsihad does not stand for "All's I had." It never has, and it never will. Alsihad is a term derived from the word Alsihah, which is the name of a Shriners Lodge in Georgia. It is emblazoned upon a Fez owned by Fletcher. He has a forum here on REP. Alsihah is a person that operates Alsihad. I call myself a Luddite, which is one that generally shuns digital technology. There is nothing wrong with classifying ourselves for our likes and dislikes. It helps to establish certain preferences, and this makes it a little easier to understand our peer's position. Alsihad was designed to allow one to express their enjoyment or lack thereof. It has worked well in this capacity.

Contrary to popular belief, Alsihad, is not a negative term. If anything, it's a positive one. It is a name that I prefer to call it for expression of enjoyment. Obviously, GM prefers that poster's here, refer to Aslihad by its given name. Seeing as this is his forum, that's his prerogative. Personally, I think editing "Alsihad" in someone's post to read as "[Pro Tools]" is as absurd as my trying to edit all "Pro Tools" to read "[Alsihad]" in posts. I tried that once, a long time ago. It didn't work out very well.

Quote:


Mixerman and his crew in the MARSH do not allow posters to mention "Pro Tools" by name.


I'm not sure who my "crew" is but I can tell you that the above statement is completely false. We DO allow people to use the term Pro Tools on the MARSH, although I try to dissuade that words usage in the Womb. You see, I view Alsihad's given name as a dirty word. Further, I find said given name to be offensive. To me, the given name is the euphemism. Not my made up name, which is designed specifically to bring enjoyment or lack thereof.

But this is precisely my point. Let people call the box whatever they want. Alsihad, Pro Tools, we all understand these terms, and we all know what someone is talking about when they use either of these terms. Live and let live. What can I say? Some people come up with pet names for things. I don't see anyone complaining that I've dubbed control rooms as the Womb.

As an aside, I often work in multi-room complexes, and I hear other engineers referring to the box as Alsihad. I hear this term on an almost daily basis. The name Alsihad seems to have really caught on here in LA. I'd say that at this point, resistance is futile.

Quote:

Others in the MARSH do not seem to mind.
I also think it is time to give up this pointless practice outside of MM's forum (he is entitled to moderate his forum anyway he see's fit IMO).

Steve


Just because you don't see the point in my calling it Alsihad, doesn't mean that it's pointless. It just mean that you don't see the point.

I'm hoping GM won't edit out all the Alsihad's in this post (that could get rather confusing), as I'm merely trying to clear up several inaccurate statements, and to set the record straight. Nothing more, nothing less.

Enjoy,

Mixerman
Logged
Now available! The Daily Adventures of Mixerman & Zen and the Art of Mixing!

Mixerman.net
The Womb Forums
Facebook Page
Mixerman Radio Show

Fred Rogers

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #33 on: May 06, 2004, 08:20:30 am »

exit wrote on Sun, 02 May 2004 16:48

Ruairi O'Flaherty wrote on Sun, 02 May 2004 14:05


BTW what direction are you going with the new rig?

Ruairi


But back to the original topic-My point about EQing in the box was this: on the console you just twist knobs and listen. On DAW's, you watch your mouse movements and look at the EQ curve, rather than listen. At least this is my little roadblock. I always go right at certain frequencies, I've got a mental stump here I'm trying to hop over. That's what I meant about turning the screen off!

exit


Exit,

I agree.  I honestly do not believe that staring at a screen while eq'ing is helpful.  That is why I feel that working on a control surface of some kind, whether it be Logic Control for Logic, all the way up to Icon for pro tools is helpful.  To me, it is a whole different game if you're using screen images to dictate what you're doing to the audio.  Listening is the important sense here!
Logged
Fred Rogers

Skwaidu

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #34 on: May 06, 2004, 09:20:10 am »

What troubles me is that when I'm mousing around the EQ's in Alsihad I still retain my ability to listen... Unlike others it seems! Very Happy

And yeah, I use Pro Tools, and I do get enjoyment from the term "Alsihad".
Logged
"You Gotta Love The HOMO Stuff!"

http://koti.mbnet.fi/skwaidu/Homomilk.jpg

http://www.backtoback.cd/TIB3.jpg

studiojimi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1232
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #35 on: May 06, 2004, 10:57:14 am »

[quote title=Ruairi O'Flaherty wrote on Sun, 02 May 2004 17:15]
exit wrote on Sun, 02 May 2004 21:48



That all sounds cool, I'm on PT6.2.3/Dual G5/Accel and a 192i/o.  I have never heard the 96i/o, some say they are poor compared to the 192.  Of course some people wouldn't touch the 192 so I guess whatever works for you.



it's ok to look and see with your eyes

god gave you both ears and eyes and a lot of other good stuff to use.

i use my eyes and my ears when i play live
why should that change in the studio.
FYI
i just did a classical guitar cd at 192
it just sounds pristine
the client is very happy
so much so he did the rest of his current catalog for the next cd

today we will begin a full rock CD at 96K  or 88.2
which should i use?

it will include a rock version of mozart's 40 symphony
i will produce and play drums.

happy summing brothers


Logged
CAZADOR RECORDING
STUDIOJIMI'S PSW SONG FORUM
MY MYSPACE
How very good and pleasant it is
when kindred live together in unity!
Psalm 133:1

exit

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #36 on: May 06, 2004, 11:31:23 am »

Thanks for contributing Jimi. I've yet to find the EQ's I'm 100% happy with. I haven't used the Oxford or Massenburg's yet, but I have ordered the MDW stuff for my new rig. I have a feeling that when I switch over to PT6.x that I'll be much happier with the sound of things.
Logged
Mark *exit* Goodchild

"The buffet plate is peaches, plums, oranges and bananas... You can have those bananas."

Kenny Gioia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #37 on: May 06, 2004, 11:51:26 am »

Before the Oxford and GML plugins came out, Pro Tools was not a very pleasant place to apply EQ.

These Plugins are more than useable.

I still prefer Pultecs (not the knockoffs) and Neve's but I'm not afraid to use plugins anymore. For EQ anyway.

Logged

maarvold

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 853
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #38 on: May 06, 2004, 12:28:33 pm »

Regarding Mixerman's pet name for Pro Tools, I want to know: what did the Shriner that inspired Fletcher to purchase the hat look like?  Or, maybe more appropriately, what does Fletcher look like in the hat.  Obviously, this would be part of the inspiration for the pet name.  And, as the saying goes, "one picture is worth a thousand words".  

Rather than asking The Moderator to engage in censorship (forbidden by The Constitution, btw), I seem to remember an ignore list in the member preferences that [presumably] allows a forum member to block the display of posts from selected users.  Therefore, an end user could just choose for... well, for Mixerman, for example, not to exist in the world of their perception.  I've been wanting to use the word 'onus' lately, so here goes (and I hope I'm using it correctly):
This places the onus of non-flaming behavior on the poster who has potential-for-flaming.  For example, a forum member who had a real problem with the term Alsihad could--as is Mixerman's stated desire--derive pleasure from the term by using it as the impetus to remove Mixerman from his or her reality.  Think how gleeful they could be as they show their friends how Mixerman's posts don't even appear on his own forum (which also has an ignore list feature).  

But I personally feel that our feelings for Mixerman should be much like Hannibal Lechter's for Agent Starling: that the world is a more interesting place with him in it.  
Logged
Michael Aarvold
Audio Engineer

Zoesch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 269
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #39 on: May 08, 2004, 10:17:27 pm »

David Schober wrote on Sun, 02 May 2004 09:36

First off - do we have to use that ridiculous nickname here, I understood that bs is to be restricted to MARSH.


I agree completely!  It's not professional.  It's pejorative and displays an agenda.  When criticism is needed, (name a DAW that doesn't) refraning from slang that invites a flaming threads can help rather than hurt the dialog....Something I hope this forum avoids!


Sometimes I wonder if a sense of humor is an optional DAW component... and why so many people seem to not have one installed.

If a pet name for your software of choice bothers you that much it might be time to evaluate the relationship between you and your gear.
Logged
It has always been Ringo's fault

David Schober

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 298
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #40 on: May 09, 2004, 03:22:20 pm »

[quote title=Zoesch wrote on Sat, 08 May 2004 21:17]

Sometimes I wonder if a sense of humor is an optional DAW component... and why so many people seem to not have one installed.

If a pet name for your software of choice bothers you that much it might be time to evaluate the relationship between you and your gear.


Stefan,

Maybe you missed what this comment was all about.  It has nothing to do with being offened at a nickname.  It's about the inane rants that were such a part of the previous forum.  Alsihad was a red herring, a poster child, of the innumerable posts that had nothing to do with professional recording, but chiildish rants about one system vs. another.  As far as I've seen it's only the minor players that get involved in that kind of thing.  

Call my system or whoever's system whatever you want.  But lets get to the issues what really makes the difference in our work.
Logged
David Schober

Zoesch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 269
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #41 on: May 10, 2004, 12:08:47 am »

Oh yes seems I missed that part... I'm not interested in the flames either (Although they can end up being quite enlightening at times), but I do take exception of comments made in this thread about people which are quite childish and divisive.

Let's move on to more constructive things, no matter what they are called.
Logged
It has always been Ringo's fault

Mixerman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #42 on: May 10, 2004, 02:48:50 am »

David Schober wrote on Sun, 09 May 2004 12:22



Call my system or whoever's system whatever you want.  But lets get to the issues what really makes the difference in our work.



So let me see if I've got this straight. You don't think that a specific manufacturer building and selling a system designed to be both closed and obsolete in a predetermined amount of time makes a difference in our work?

That's an interesting perspective you've got there.

Mixerman
Logged
Now available! The Daily Adventures of Mixerman & Zen and the Art of Mixing!

Mixerman.net
The Womb Forums
Facebook Page
Mixerman Radio Show

David Schober

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 298
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #43 on: May 10, 2004, 08:28:20 am »

Mixerman wrote on Mon, 10 May 2004 01:48

David Schober wrote on Sun, 09 May 2004 12:22



Call my system or whoever's system whatever you want.  But lets get to the issues what really makes the difference in our work.



So let me see if I've got this straight. You don't think that a specific manufacturer building and selling a system designed to be both closed and obsolete in a predetermined amount of time makes a difference in our work?

That's an interesting perspective you've got there.

Mixerman



Okay.....I'm probably taking bait I shouldn't.

So here's some more that fit that bill IMHO.  All of the Sony digital tape line.  The Mitsubishi line as well.   In a sense they're really worse as the platform was abandoned by the manufacturer.  You know GM's unhappiness with his rather large investment of his console that can never be upgraded.  While they weren't created to be "obsolete in a predetermined amount of time" their fate is worse than an upgrage path....because there is none.

Hasn't this been discussed ad nasuem?
PT, DP, Logic, etc all by the nature of what they are will be obsolete in a few years every time something new comes out, for ex, the release of OSX.    But this stuff is only obsolete if you wanna have the newest thing.  If you want to always have the newest, you'll have to pony up.

But, I have plenty of friends making lots of money on an old version of PT they bought a couple of years ago.  In fact, one produced one of the biggest songs of the last couple of years, "I Can Only Imagine" on that "obsolete" system!  So much for that affecting his work.

I've got other things to do rather than go down this path...like the tracking session I'm heading off to do.  And the quality of work I do today, the sounds I get, the creativity I bring to the table make a heck of a lot more difference than what platform I'm on.   Maybe you see it differently, but for me that's the bigger picture that keeps me working.
Logged
David Schober

exit

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #44 on: May 10, 2004, 11:46:55 am »

Yeah, Ok, how's eryone doing?

BACK ON TOPIC!

Hey Mixerman, are you EQing "in the box" yet? If so, what situation made you feel like you needed to use that particular tool? If you haven't, do you foresee yourself working "in the box" any time in the future? Not just Protools either, whatever box that is not a console strip!
Logged
Mark *exit* Goodchild

"The buffet plate is peaches, plums, oranges and bananas... You can have those bananas."
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up