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 18902 times)

Mixerman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #45 on: May 10, 2004, 01:39:02 pm »

David Schober wrote on Mon, 10 May 2004 05:28

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.


And where have I ever said that one couldn't make a great record on Alsihad? Is that what you think I've been saying? Can you find a post anywhere in the countless record of posts on the Internet written by me, where I say that one can't be creative, or use an old system, or make a #1 hit, or make a great record with Alsihad? Because if I have, I'd be interested in reading that post.

According to your post, you're discounting my criticisms of a platform and its manufacturer as moot because in the bigger picture all that matters is creativity, working, and the making of hit records. If that's the case, then why discuss any gear at all? I mean, EQ in the box should be just fine and dandy since all that matters is that we're being creative and making future hit records (while working). Discussing the ramifications of sample rates such as 192, 96, 44.1, is unnecessary and irrelevant to our work. Be creative, work, make hit records, and you can use any and all of those sample rates. Has there been a hit at 192 yet? I'm just trying to figure out whether that particular sample rate has been validated yet.

I know, let's just all agree to disagree, and shut the place down. You make records your way with your gear. I make records my way with my gear. We have resolved all our issues here. Creativity, working, and hit records. This is all that matters. The gear is irrelevant. Let's move on now. Julie! OK, we can shut the place down now!

As much as I'm being somewhat sarcastic, I agree with you and what you're saying on a more global scale. What I don't agree with, is your use of this as an argument to discount my criticisms of the platform itself. These two concepts are mutually exclusive of one another. Back to the topic at hand.

This thread was about EQ in Alsihad. I use EQ in Alsihad on rare occasion. It works. When I turn up the highs, more highs come out of the speakers, when I turn up the lows, more lows come out of the speakers. The inverse happens when I cut these frequencies. If that's the level of listening that one is capable of, just about every EQ plug-in known to man is more than satisfactory. If you want something more in your working  life, or if you find yourself becoming a tad bit more discerning, while being creative and making hit records, then I contend there are better options.

The side note of this thread is the use of the term Alsihad. I posted here to correct several gross misrepresentations regarding this term. Nothing more, nothing less. Upon posting my corrections, there were a few snide posts that looked down on the use of my term - a term that for all intents and purposes is meant to be funny. Humorous. Enjoyable, even. Of course, to some extent, even the snide reactions and the expressed desire to eradicate the word from existence, all play in to the master plan of this terms' entertainment value. For that, I thank you.

Like I said before, many moons ago on my forum at the Recpit, I tried to remove all posts that used the term [Alsihad's given name] and replace them with [Alsihad]. I tired to insist that posters on my forum use the term Alsihad. The results were disastrous. To this day, there are some respected (here on these forums if no where else) engineers that refuse to post on my forum. Oops! Obviously, this was a learning experience. I learned that I can't really stop people from using terminology that I find distasteful. I learned that if I tried, I'd risk my own personal well being, as I was becoming unglued. Mad, even! Fortunately, I snapped out of my madness, and I came back to reality. I realized that I had to get over it. As a result [Alsihad's given name] is now allowed on my forum, regardless of my disdain for the term. I now embrace all terminology that relate to Alsihad. I feel I'm a better person for it.

Now, I too must get ready to go to work. (Although, contrary to popular belief, I DO have a computer at work).

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

johnnywiz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 124
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #46 on: May 10, 2004, 03:52:15 pm »

Quote:

I can't wait to hear some of your Garageband tracks Razz


Garageband = Po' Tools.  Laughing
ya heard it here 1st folks.
Logged
JohnnyWiz
"What's with all these people who think that intonation is overrated?" JJB

Loco

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 508
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #47 on: May 11, 2004, 08:28:31 pm »

Every piece of hardware is obsolete the next day you start using it. there's something else already being developed or released that will outshine it. How to upgrade it? Via software or replacing the hardware. You just can't upgrade a transformer by pouring some elixir on top of it.

That's why most manufacturers have chosen the software way of doing things. It's easier and cheaper to be ahead of the rest. However, software can be only as good as the hardware it runs in.

And there's where the whole dabate starts over. Don't kill each other.
Logged
Carlos "El Loco" Bedoya

"There's no right, there's no wrong. There's only popular opinion"   Jeffrey Goines
http://www.tukanart.com

wwittman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7712
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #48 on: May 16, 2004, 09:00:44 pm »

Not EVERY piece of hardware is instantly obsolete.
in fact, i would make the case that the truly great hardware of any era is far from obsoleted by new attempts.

I'd rather have a good U-47 than just about anything created afterward to do the same thing.
It's in way obsoleted by the next month's flavour of microphone.

If we're to avoid the trap of whinging to each other about how "digital sucks", then we need to EQUALLY avoid the pitfall of the "digital rules, and analogue is for the museums" nonsense.

on topic: I often find that my preconceptions about EQ have to be somewhat adjusted (if not discarded) when EQ'ing in ProTools.
That is, the 2.2 k I know I like on a guitar amp on the 8078 does not seem to do the same thing on the plug-in EQ.. so I have to really listen and NOT expect to "know" what I want ahead of time.
This seems to be the case irrespective of which plug-in EQ I use.
They just don't respond LIKE analogue EQ's.
And one cannot expect them to.

It's still my strong preference to leave some things to the analogue domain, and EQ remains one.
Unless of course, one has no choice for a given project.
In that respect, I have to say I still find the Focusrite F4 EQ to be a favourite, even though I don't much like their hardware equivalent!

Logged
William Wittman
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, The Outfield, Hooters...)

Giovanni Speranza

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 240
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #49 on: May 31, 2004, 07:28:31 pm »

My opinion is that you could use the best EQ in Pro Tools, but the mixing bus would steal the magic.
Digidesign is releasing a new 48 bit engine, i wonder if there is a change.

There is only one way to be happy with your DAW EQ: using the best EQ, in the best summing DAW. (i.e. i'm happy with Channel EQ, in Logic)

George Massenburg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #50 on: May 31, 2004, 09:20:28 pm »

Giovanni Speranza wrote on Mon, 31 May 2004 18:28

My opinion is that you could use the best EQ in Pro Tools, but the mixing bus would steal the magic.
Digidesign is releasing a new 48 bit engine, i wonder if there is a change.

There is only one way to be happy with your DAW EQ: using the best EQ, in the best summing DAW. (i.e. i'm happy with Channel EQ, in Logic)


Giovanni,

You'll note on this forum that I don't sell anything I build, but I should inform you of three things:

1. The current PT HD bus is definitely 48-bit straight through.
2. As far as I know, the basic Channel EQ in Logic is 24 bit, not 48 bit.
3. You should listen to the 48 bit EQ's in HD before you form a seemingly-concrete opinion.

George
Logged

Level

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1811
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #51 on: May 31, 2004, 09:39:51 pm »

Is not George's comments the truth!


I did some serious mixing this weekend...IF you want you mix to end up sounding like ass, simply do multitracking in the box (any rendering you can think of) at lower rez per track and watch them bunch up on you. Me and my artist simply compared it to:

A. A fine Fried egg, steak, french toast, Coffee and Orange Juice breakfast served in a nice setting...


WITH

B: All of the above, put in a blender, served in a glass and drank.
Logged
http://balancedmastering.com

"Listen and Learn"
---Since 1975---

Giovanni Speranza

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 240
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #52 on: June 01, 2004, 09:43:02 am »

Channel EQ is real 32 bit floating point, Logic bus is straight 32 bit float, so George i don't know how to compare 32 bit floating point with 48 fixed, may i ask you to explain it?

Len

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #53 on: June 01, 2004, 02:09:46 pm »

I would recommend that mixers in the box give the Sonalksis EQ a try.  It is incredibly smooth.  There is a 30 day full trial.

I ended up "having to" buy it, along with their Compressor.

Cheers

Leonard Ng

George Massenburg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #54 on: June 01, 2004, 08:29:24 pm »

Giovanni Speranza wrote on Tue, 01 June 2004 08:43

Channel EQ is real 32 bit floating point, Logic bus is straight 32 bit float, so George i don't know how to compare 32 bit floating point with 48 fixed, may i ask you to explain it?


Hi Giovanni,

There are plenty of explanations out there (and it runs into some amount of detail, if you aren't already familiar with exponential arithmetic), and as much as I hate to do so, I'm going to ask that you be patient while I look for a reference.

But suffice it to say 32 float (with 24bit mantissa) is in my mind roughly comparable to 48bit fixed across an average audio dynamic range.

George

Logged

George Massenburg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #55 on: June 01, 2004, 08:34:31 pm »

Leonard Ng wrote on Tue, 01 June 2004 13:09

I would recommend that mixers in the box give the Sonalksis EQ a try.  It is incredibly smooth.  There is a 30 day full trial.

I ended up "having to" buy it, along with their Compressor.

Cheers

Leonard Ng


You know Leonard, it's really hard for me to stand by and see Sonalksis promoted over something I know is better.  My read on this is that they're promoting a new filter topology - "state space" - that has nothing in and of itself to do with the sound of an EQ (it's strength is in balancing processing across nodes, as far as I can tell).  

And what they're promoting about "Analogue characteristics" is complete and utter bullshit.  And you're welcome to forward this to them should they wish to debate this.

I hate this.  This kind of shitty marketting has ruined audio.

George
Logged

J.J. Blair

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12809
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #56 on: June 01, 2004, 10:13:19 pm »

I'm not married to any particular format.  Given my druthers, I would track drums and bass to 2" 16 track, then do everything else on 2" 24 trk. unless I needed to use PT for something.  But since it's difficult to get some people to master their instrument, let alone pay $160 for 17 minutes of tape, I wind up doing a lot of basics in PT.  I will avoid at all costs mixing in the box, but there have been records I engineered where somebody else was mixing in the box.  In those situations, I have found that I will EQ to disk where I would not EQ to tape, having to commit to a sound, so that I don't have to hope that the mixer is using a decent plug-in EQ.  It limits the ability to wait until hearing all the final tracks to EQ the frequency that I think best suits the mix, but a 10khz shelf from a Neve sounds better than any digital high end, any day of the week.

I will step up to the plate swinging and say all plug-in EQs sucked ass until the Sony Oxford came along.  The Oxford was the first plug-in EQ that did not create phasing problems for me in the areass that I was boosting or attenuating.  However, as much as I like the Oxford, it really lacks any of that character that an analog EQ will give.  But then I found the URS N series Neve type plug-in.  I did a whole shoot out with a 1073 that I'll probably post in the appropriate forum soon.  While it can't match a 1073 step for step, it's the closest thing in the digital world that I have heard yet.  And it's a good bit cheaper than the Oxford, which I think I spent $800 or so on.  I'm curious if any of you have used it and found it as impressive as I have.

As far as de-essing goes, I have really had no complaints with the Digi de-esser.  But if I understood what some of you have said, you put the sibilant noise on another track and ride that fader?  Unless somebody already suggested it and I missed it, how about leaving the esses in the normal vocal track, but copying them onto a separate track, reversing the phase and then automating the fades to cancel against any offending sibilance?  Or is that what you guys were talking about in the first place, and I was reading carelessly?
Logged
studio info

They say the heart of Rock & Roll is still beating, which is amazing if you consider all the blow it's done over the years.

"The Internet enables pompous blowhards to interact with other pompous blowhards in a big circle jerk of pomposity." - Bill Maher

"The negative aspects of this business, not only will continue to prevail, but will continue to accelerate in madness. Conditions aren't going to get better, because the economics of rock and roll are getting closer and closer to the economics of Big Business America." - Bill Graham

J.J. Blair

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12809
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #57 on: June 02, 2004, 01:43:53 am »

OK. Duh.  I went back and read what George was talking about.  Moving the essing to another track so it wouldn't affect the compressor.  I need sleep!  Regardless, I decided to try the esses out of phase on another track writing in the apprpriate automation, and I liked the sound of gentle ess canceling better than writing a fader move on the vocal track around the essing.  It also sounded better than the de-esser.  It was extremely transparent.  I think, but I am not sure, it is through constructive and destructive phasing that the BSS DPR901 achieves the "compression" and "expansion" in their equivalent of a multiband compressor.  Maybe that's how all de-essers work too.  I don't know.  I just know when to use which gizmo and then turn the fucking knobs until it sounds right.

Note, that if for some bizarre reason you decide to try this time consuming method of de-essing, you should not have any plug-ins active on the channels, because the latency will ruin the perfect 180
Logged
studio info

They say the heart of Rock & Roll is still beating, which is amazing if you consider all the blow it's done over the years.

"The Internet enables pompous blowhards to interact with other pompous blowhards in a big circle jerk of pomposity." - Bill Maher

"The negative aspects of this business, not only will continue to prevail, but will continue to accelerate in madness. Conditions aren't going to get better, because the economics of rock and roll are getting closer and closer to the economics of Big Business America." - Bill Graham

Greg Dixon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #58 on: June 02, 2004, 01:48:03 am »

Hi George,
I've been wondering for a while, if you ever 'mix in the box'? I've been using PT HD, for about 18 months and been very happy with the sound. I keep reading peoples opinions, that you can't get your mix to sound right, without going through 'analogue summing'. My guess is that they've never really used PT HD, but having never used an SSL or Neve to mix (I was using and still track with a Soundcraft Ghost), I was just curious as to what you think.

I got absolutely ripped to shreds, on another forum, for saying that I'd done an experiment, where I loaded some un mastered tracks I'd done, into PT along side ones that had been mastered in Australia's top mastering suites, by some of our best engineers, to see how close I could get with just plug-ins. I used your EQ, Waves and McDSP compressors and a little bit of Aphex exciter. Everybody that's heared them, agrees that the plug in versions sound just as good and in some cases better.
Thanks
Greg
Logged

jfrigo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1029
Re: [Rant] EQ'ing in the box
« Reply #59 on: June 02, 2004, 02:06:14 am »

Greg Dixon wrote on Tue, 01 June 2004 22:48


I got absolutely ripped to shreds, on another forum, for saying that I'd done an experiment, where I loaded some un mastered tracks I'd done, into PT along side ones that had been mastered in Australia's top mastering suites, by some of our best engineers, to see how close I could get with just plug-ins. I used your EQ, Waves and McDSP compressors and a little bit of Aphex exciter. Everybody that's heared them, agrees that the plug in versions sound just as good and in some cases better.



I don't know what forum or what they said, but I can see some room for criticism of what you seem to be concluding. That's not to say one can't acomplish quite a lot "in the box." It's a different world and things have come a long way in just the past 5 years. That's still rather different from what I think you're implying however.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up