R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: PT efficient EQs  (Read 10094 times)

Colin Larson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
Re: PT efficient EQs
« Reply #45 on: April 07, 2009, 12:50:12 pm »

alright, since I did totally pull that $1k number out of my arse, I went to apple.com and newegg.com to put two equivilent systems together and see exactly how much you would save if you went PC.

I modeled the PC after the baseline quadcore mac pro available on the apple site, with the 2.66ghz processor.  I left everything stock on the mac except I opted for two 640gig hard drives instead of one, since most of us have dedicated audio and system drives.  I also bumped up the ram to 6 gigs instead of the stock 3 gigs.

total cost = $2,849.00

the PC I built up comes with the same processor, 6 gigs of ram, two 640gig hard drives, and after that I did my best to match the mac part for part.  They're certainly equivilent computers.

total cost = $1,496.90  (includes shipping, keyboard and mouse, os, etc.)

I was going to include a link to the pc parts list, but newegg is being a major pain right now.

EDIT: Now obviously, you need to build the PC yourself, so whatever you value your labor hours at is your business  Smile
Logged

0dbfs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 405
Re: PT efficient EQs
« Reply #46 on: April 07, 2009, 01:27:43 pm »

I did this with similar results last time I updated my studio machine and went with a PC platform about a year ago...

Not to mention I have both old style PCI and PCIe slots on the MoBo (seven total)... Which I use for a combination of UAD's, MOTU 424, and Powercore cards.. with room for expansion. Has Firewire too for the mbox/pro-tools.

I've not been disappointed.

I do use a MacBookPro under OSX with the mbox for remote sessions though.

It can be a complicated world sometimes..

Cheers,
j
Logged
Jonathan Burtner
Music is Everything!
Audio is Everything Else!

garret

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1012
Re: PT efficient EQs
« Reply #47 on: April 07, 2009, 01:47:43 pm »

Colin Larson wrote on Tue, 07 April 2009 11:50


EDIT: Now obviously, you need to build the PC yourself, so whatever you value your labor hours at is your business  Smile


Actually, you don't have to build a custom-pc yourself.. in most towns, there are independent computer shops that order parts and build pcs all the time, for a modest fee (usually around $100).

Logged
tomorrow is already here - http://www.worksongs.net/

Chris Ilett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 253
Re: PT efficient EQs
« Reply #48 on: April 07, 2009, 02:17:07 pm »

IF I go back to PC, it shall be one of these

http://rainrecording.com/products/solstice/

Or something similar. I think that came in at a few dollars over your budget.

Tomas Danko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
Re: PT efficient EQs
« Reply #49 on: April 08, 2009, 10:19:50 am »

I think that the total price of an upgraded Mac computer goes through the roof if you buy RAM from Apple. Buy the computer from Apple store and then get your own RAM, and the price will drop quite a great deal.

It's still going to be more expensive than an equivalent PC, of course.
Logged
http://www.danko.se/site-design/dankologo4s.gif
"T(Z)= (n1+n2*Z^-1+n2*Z^-2)/(1+d1*z^-1+d2*z^-2)" - Mr. Dan Lavry
"Shaw baa laa raaw, sidle' yaa doot in dee splaa" . Mr Shooby Taylor

cgc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 329
Re: PT efficient EQs
« Reply #50 on: April 08, 2009, 11:26:39 am »

Colin Larson wrote on Tue, 07 April 2009 11:50



I modeled the PC after the baseline quadcore mac pro available on the apple site, with the 2.66ghz processor.  I left everything stock on the mac except I opted for two 640gig hard drives instead of one, since most of us have dedicated audio and system drives.  I also bumped up the ram to 6 gigs instead of the stock 3 gigs.

total cost = $2,849.00

the PC I built up comes with the same processor, 6 gigs of ram, two 640gig hard drives, and after that I did my best to match the mac part for part.  They're certainly equivilent computers.

total cost = $1,496.90  (includes shipping, keyboard and mouse, os, etc.)



The MacPro uses a Xeon 2.66Ghz processor and server motherboard, which you cannot get for that cheap.  Here is the MacPro CPU at newegg.com - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117 182

Apple gets CPUs for a cost average over the lifetime of the part which enables them to initially offer the machines for cheaper than the competition, but they become more expensive at the end of the CPU part's life.  
Logged

cgc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 329
Re: PT efficient EQs
« Reply #51 on: April 09, 2009, 08:43:01 pm »

On the original topic, the Sonalksis EQ is effective, but the interface is kind of cluttered.  I like it a lot better than the Waves EQs, which is faint praise. It might take more DSP than the Digi although I have not measured it.

I have the demo of the Massey one, but I haven't used it much.  The bands are fixed, but he usually picks really nice, usable parameters for his plugs.  Probably not a replacement for the Digi EQ, but nice to have around.  His THC fuzz plug-in is great too.
Logged

dodlum

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
Re: PT efficient EQs
« Reply #52 on: April 11, 2009, 12:54:43 am »

In no particular order:

Abbey Road 12412
Waves API
Waves SSL-G
Sonnox Oxford
Filterbank
Channel G
URS N Series
Massey vt3

All these work great imho.

David
Logged

Nacho

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 137
Re: PT efficient EQs
« Reply #53 on: May 09, 2009, 01:23:04 pm »

Hello Guys,
I think most plugins that work better than EQ3 are going to be less DSP efficient.

What I personally do (and some of you might consider it a capital sin) is that when I record (using PTHD7.4) I use the EQ3 to cut off any odd harmonics with narrow Q on drums and color the tracks a little bit with SSL EQ (not DSP efficient).

Then when I'm done recording, I copy the original tracks into a virtual track on the playlist (just to have the unaffected track) and Audiosuite all plugins to each track.  That way I still get the same color, no DSP use, plus I can always go back to the original uncolored tracks.  IF I use any compression, I wont Audiosuite it.

Now, back to the original thread subject:
I find very useful the URS EQs (any of them) but they have a distinctive sound that says: "URS in use here!".
The EQ3 I try to use it only for narrow Q attenuation, nothing else, I think it sounds pretty much fake for other tasks, unless I'm running out of DSP power!  Very Happy
The REQ from Waves, rarely use it, but sometimes comes in handy, for example when boosting highs on BGVs and Low pass or Hi pass filtering.
The Qparagraphic from Waves is just TOO fake for me.
API from Waves, I find it too heavy colored (not in a good way like real APIs should) and not punchy enough.
Sonalksis is fairly good (only demoed, not enough time to find a specific use to it) but it didn't shake my grounds.
Wavearts, I haven't used the EQ that much but the other plugins are really cool.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot the Sonnox EQ, Great stuff!.. Don't own it but have used it in other studios.  Try it out.

So basically, I'll stick to the SSL EQ and URS A/S/N, Fulltec and as far as compression goes Massey CT4 (this one rocks!), SSL Buss Comp, UAD 1176, sometimes URS comp in very specific needs (it gets a little tricky with this comps) and for last in use when running out of DSP, the Comp/Limit3 from Digi.

Thanks for reading such a long post and sorry!   Embarassed
Logged
"The act of accomplishing nothing other than wastefulness is both exhausting and debilitating to the soul." -Mixerman
www.ptystudios.com
www.myspace.com/nachomolino

jetbase

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: PT efficient EQs
« Reply #54 on: May 10, 2009, 07:22:36 pm »

Nacho wrote on Sun, 10 May 2009 03:23

IF I use any compression, I wont Audiosuite it.



Why not?
Logged
sleep is not an option

jwhynot: "There's a difference between thinking or acting dogmatically and drawing from experience."


Glenn Santry
http://www.myspace.com/glennsantry

Nacho

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 137
Re: PT efficient EQs
« Reply #55 on: May 10, 2009, 11:00:08 pm »

jetbase wrote on Sun, 10 May 2009 18:22

Nacho wrote on Sun, 10 May 2009 03:23

IF I use any compression, I wont Audiosuite it.



Why not?



Compression can't be undone   Very Happy
Logged
"The act of accomplishing nothing other than wastefulness is both exhausting and debilitating to the soul." -Mixerman
www.ptystudios.com
www.myspace.com/nachomolino

jetbase

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: PT efficient EQs
« Reply #56 on: May 10, 2009, 11:33:40 pm »

Nacho wrote on Mon, 11 May 2009 13:00

jetbase wrote on Sun, 10 May 2009 18:22

Nacho wrote on Sun, 10 May 2009 03:23

IF I use any compression, I wont Audiosuite it.



Why not?



Compression can't be undone   Very Happy



I thought that, as long as you process non-destructively (i.e. create a new file) you could undo any audiosuite process. I might be misunderstanding your method though.

I use Audiosuite to save cpu as well.
Logged
sleep is not an option

jwhynot: "There's a difference between thinking or acting dogmatically and drawing from experience."


Glenn Santry
http://www.myspace.com/glennsantry

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: PT efficient EQs
« Reply #57 on: May 11, 2009, 12:47:30 pm »

only if you save the original file to another playlist.....
Logged

NelsonL

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1233
Re: PT efficient EQs
« Reply #58 on: May 11, 2009, 01:15:30 pm »

If I need the extra CPU headroom I get my sound, save it as a pre-set, remove the plugin, duplicate the playlist, and then audiosuite the duped playlist using the pre-set I just saved.

Is there a quicker way? Not that my way takes very long, just curious. It'd be nice if you could audiosuite directly from RTAS or TDM.
Logged

Nacho

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 137
Re: PT efficient EQs
« Reply #59 on: May 11, 2009, 02:41:01 pm »

jetbase wrote on Sun, 10 May 2009 22:33

Nacho wrote on Mon, 11 May 2009 13:00

jetbase wrote on Sun, 10 May 2009 18:22

Nacho wrote on Sun, 10 May 2009 03:23

IF I use any compression, I wont Audiosuite it.



Why not?



Compression can't be undone   Very Happy



I thought that, as long as you process non-destructively (i.e. create a new file) you could undo any audiosuite process. I might be misunderstanding your method though.

I use Audiosuite to save cpu as well.



I think it just might be a matter of taste or mis-use of the compressor from my part.  I never end up using the compressor the same way as when I was tracking so that's why I don't audiosuite it.

Also, the one I use the most (CT4) is very DSP efficient so it doesn't really mess up with the DSP power.
Logged
"The act of accomplishing nothing other than wastefulness is both exhausting and debilitating to the soul." -Mixerman
www.ptystudios.com
www.myspace.com/nachomolino
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up