Post by: j.hall on October 01, 2008, 09:10:56 PM
keep in mind it's not uncommon for me to get 60 - 96 tracks at mix so i need something that really won't bog the system down.
Post by: Boedo Constrictor on October 01, 2008, 11:01:47 PM
Post by: beau on October 02, 2008, 01:28:44 AM
peace
beau
Post by: craig boychuk on October 02, 2008, 10:08:49 AM
| j.hall wrote on Wed, 01 October 2008 20:10 |
keep in mind it's not uncommon for me to get 60 - 96 tracks at mix |
Yikes.
Post by: j.hall on October 02, 2008, 11:10:22 AM
yes, that's a lot of tracks. and you know what they say about more tracks......well, it's just more.
Post by: Eric H. on October 03, 2008, 04:37:57 PM
Post by: Adam Miller on October 03, 2008, 04:56:20 PM
Post by: NelsonL on October 04, 2008, 06:31:20 AM
Post by: garret on October 04, 2008, 10:08:35 AM
It's available as an RTAS plugin. I haven't used it in PT on OSX, but as a Windows VST is very efficient.
You can get a 30 day trial here..
http://wavearts.com/downloads/
Post by: j.hall on October 04, 2008, 11:58:33 AM
| Adam Miller wrote on Fri, 03 October 2008 15:56 |
I can't be of much use, but out of interest what are you not digging about the EQ3 J? It's always my go to plugin. |
for whatever reason, i feel like it's a touch cloudy sounding. i could be wrong, and i'd be happy to be wrong. just in the last few month i've been wondering if i shouldn't be using something else.
i'm probably just crazy.
Post by: imdrecordings on October 05, 2008, 10:09:47 AM
http://www.eiosis.com/aireqtdm
Post by: Jonah A. Kort on October 05, 2008, 02:33:57 PM
| imdrecordings wrote on Sun, 05 October 2008 09:09 |
Give this a shot. http://www.eiosis.com/aireqtdm |
what am I doing wrong? I downloaded the Universal Binary link,
clicked on the .pkg, installed the plugin. But its not in with
the inserts. I am quite sure I am missing something, throw this
dog a bone, I'm new to this. -jonah
Post by: imdrecordings on October 05, 2008, 02:36:21 PM
Does this help?
Do you have an iLok and a PT system?
It does mention:
| Quote: |
Please allow a 24 hour time to receive your trial license deposit onto your iLok.com account. |
Have you received your trial license?
I use the AIREq Native which is the VST version and you need a STienberg Key to use the VST version, but RTAS and TDM require the iLok.
Post by: wwittman on October 05, 2008, 02:47:56 PM
but I also use the URS plug ins
mostly the A version, but the Motown EQ is also pretty interesting
and of course, with Channel Strip Pro, you get a bunch of choices.
not overpriced, and not TERRIBLY DSP hungry
ursplugins.com
Post by: grantis on October 05, 2008, 02:50:33 PM
| Jonah A. Kort wrote on Sun, 05 October 2008 13:33 | ||
what am I doing wrong? I downloaded the Universal Binary link, clicked on the .pkg, installed the plugin. But its not in with the inserts. I am quite sure I am missing something, throw this dog a bone, I'm new to this. -jonah |
Did you download the RTAS? Or the VST? Check this folder...
/Library/Audio/Plugins/VST/
If it's the VST, you'll need this to make it work with PT
http://www.fxpansion.com/index.php?page=15&tab=43
Hope the helps!
Post by: Jonah A. Kort on October 05, 2008, 03:18:23 PM
| imdrecordings wrote on Sun, 05 October 2008 13:36 | ||
http://www.eiosis.com/aireqtdmdemo Does this help? Do you have an iLok and a PT system? It does mention:
Have you received your trial license? I use the AIREq Native which is the VST version and you need a STienberg Key to use the VST version, but RTAS and TDM require the iLok. |
I think that did it. I will wait 24 hours and report.
Post by: j.hall on October 05, 2008, 06:42:19 PM
| wwittman wrote on Sun, 05 October 2008 13:47 |
I like the Digi EQ3 but I also use the URS plug ins mostly the A version, but the Motown EQ is also pretty interesting and of course, with Channel Strip Pro, you get a bunch of choices. not overpriced, and not TERRIBLY DSP hungry ursplugins.com |
i keep looking at the URS stuff. i've heard mixed things. i just need to demo them and form my own opinion.
Post by: wwittman on October 06, 2008, 11:51:09 PM
so check them out
Post by: j.hall on October 07, 2008, 10:17:42 AM
Post by: NelsonL on October 08, 2008, 10:58:27 AM
The new SPL EQ bundle looks interesting too.
I don't have monitors here yet so I'm not really up for demoing any new plugins at the moment.
Post by: compasspnt on October 09, 2008, 01:39:07 AM
And the UA Precision had some good and usable features.
But seriously, none of them really come close enough to great hardware units yet.
Not that you wanted to hear that...
Post by: j.hall on October 09, 2008, 04:56:35 PM
| compasspnt wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 00:39 |
But seriously, none of them really come close enough to great hardware units yet. Not that you wanted to hear that... |
oh no, i fully understand and agree with that. just looking for the best i can do in the digital world.
Post by: mcsnare on October 10, 2008, 11:43:00 PM
Dave
Post by: Greg Dixon on October 11, 2008, 06:24:13 AM
| mcsnare wrote on Sat, 11 October 2008 14:43 |
I think the URS A series sounded better when it looked just like an API..... Dave |
I don't know if you're being factious Dave, but I genuinely thought it sounded better when it had the fixed gain steps. I've been trying to find if I have the backup disk of the original, with no luck.
Post by: mcsnare on October 12, 2008, 02:29:44 AM
Dave
Post by: Ross Hogarth on October 12, 2008, 04:00:09 PM
| Greg Dixon wrote on Sat, 11 October 2008 03:24 | ||
I don't know if you're being factious Dave, but I genuinely thought it sounded better when it had the fixed gain steps. I've been trying to find if I have the backup disk of the original, with no luck. |
but iactually agreed
i think the new one is less agressive
Post by: Greg Dixon on October 12, 2008, 05:49:59 PM
Post by: compasspnt on October 14, 2008, 09:39:31 AM
Fortunately, I kept my original versions.
Post by: Nick Sevilla on October 30, 2008, 04:30:16 PM
| j.hall wrote on Wed, 01 October 2008 18:10 |
i'm starting to not dig EQ3 all that much. what EQs are you guys using that sound great and are DSP/RTAS friendly. keep in mind it's not uncommon for me to get 60 - 96 tracks at mix so i need something that really won't bog the system down. |
Waves Studio Classics Collection - the Neves.
Cheers
Post by: jonathan jetter on November 05, 2008, 10:25:06 PM
| Nick Sevilla wrote on Thu, 30 October 2008 16:30 | ||
Waves Studio Classics Collection - the Neves. Cheers |
the Waves Neve stuff is super-colored especially on the top end.
with most digital EQ's (URS A and N, Waves Q and Ren, Digi EQ3, etc etc) i find i can make things fairly similar by playing with the Q settings.
but the Waves Neve is just a different beast. there are spots where it's definitively been the best tool for the job and other spots where it sounds real bad.
i'm an EQ3 guy myself, and occasionally use the Waves Neve when needed. i have the URS plugins too but for whatever reason don't really use them much anymore.
jon
Post by: Berolzheimer on November 12, 2008, 09:30:32 PM
I'm not a fan of the renaissance eq at all.
Post by: jonathan jetter on November 13, 2008, 02:48:47 AM
i recently built a quad-core PC for $750. it runs PT HD flawlessly, can read HFS (mac-format) hard drives, and has more CPU power than i know what to do with. i'm not sure i could max it out if i tried.
Post by: j.hall on November 13, 2008, 10:12:06 AM
Post by: Nick Sevilla on November 16, 2008, 04:09:45 PM
| jonathan jetter wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 23:48 |
also as far as systems getting bogged down.... i recently built a quad-core PC for $750. it runs PT HD flawlessly, can read HFS (mac-format) hard drives, and has more CPU power than i know what to do with. i'm not sure i could max it out if i tried. |
I have the Mac Pro 8- core 2.8 GHZ with a PT HD2... so far, I have yet to run into a song that can even begin to use this much power...it's crazy.
Post by: jonathan jetter on November 16, 2008, 05:41:37 PM
| j.hall wrote on Thu, 13 November 2008 10:12 |
until all that spyware eats it up.................. |
there's not really any spyware threat. the only websites i visit on the studio computer are for software updates or to check my email. haven't had a problem yet.
Post by: Alberto on March 01, 2009, 06:13:07 PM
I entered a studio where a couple jobs were done with the Waves SSL Buss Compressor and that thing is fat and heavy, not in a good sense most of the time. It contributes to that "always the same" sound that I think the Waves SSL have (not that they are bad, though, but still.."predictable").
I've never used a real SSL console so I don't know if that's how an SSL-sounding console has to be, but I doubt it would lead to such a predictable-predicatbility *lol*.
Anyway, this was not about compressors so, back to EQs: I am currently liking the URS stuff..I've heard about the Console Strip Pro and demoed it..but I have mixed feelings, I was expecting more maybe..and couldn't get much of what I wanted. I think the A/N/S series from URS is what I am more looking for: dedicated coloration in a good sense. I am probably also fighting my frustration for not using my UAD Neve stuff
being on HD I can never have the same processing power and benefits I get from TDM plugins.Sorry if that was a little chaotic, I don't post much in these topics but I would really like to start helping by providing my opinion. Maybe it's not worth but it's still another point of view.
Lol long post, sorry guys
Post by: maxim on March 02, 2009, 07:39:28 PM
"there's not really any spyware threat. the only websites i visit on the studio computer are for software updates or to check my email. haven't had a problem yet."
my brother, who works in computer security, told me once that, on average, it takes 20 minutes from the time of internet connection for the first spybot to arrive on your computer...
Post by: Colin Larson on March 31, 2009, 03:56:46 AM
must be nice to be rich!
Post by: wwittman on March 31, 2009, 04:01:58 PM
Post by: marcel on March 31, 2009, 08:34:09 PM
| wwittman wrote on Tue, 31 March 2009 13:01 |
One doesn't have to be Bill Gates to afford a Macintosh |
I doubt he needs to buy one, he's a major Apple shareholder.
Post by: Nick Sevilla on April 01, 2009, 12:30:20 PM
| Colin Larson wrote on Tue, 31 March 2009 00:56 |
you guys won't use PCs to run PT because you're afraid of spyware? must be nice to be rich! |
Apple computers are affordable. Go to a store, or online, and compare.
I have 4, and they all work all the time, day in, and day out.
They don't get sick with viruses... nor crash every 15 minutes, or crash because you look a them with one eye closed.
I still have not seen a professional recording studio with a Pro tools rig on a windows machine.
Cheers
Post by: j.hall on April 03, 2009, 05:00:46 PM
Post by: Chris Ilett on April 03, 2009, 07:37:22 PM
| jonathan jetter wrote on Thu, 13 November 2008 01:48 |
also as far as systems getting bogged down.... i recently built a quad-core PC for $750. it runs PT HD flawlessly, can read HFS (mac-format) hard drives, and has more CPU power than i know what to do with. i'm not sure i could max it out if i tried. |
I bet I could
Post by: Colin Larson on April 06, 2009, 11:03:36 AM
As far as the studio PC, it hasn't crashed yet. It doesn't have an internet connection. And it's fast... way fast.
I just think it's lame how there's this attitude flying around that PCs are unusable as PT rigs. In reality, I've seen a bunch that work fantasticly, and you end up saving $1000+ over the mac equivilent. I can see where bigtime studios can't go PC just because of clients' who might share in this antiPC attitude, but for the smaller home studios, you might want to consider the options and maybe have enough money left over for a shiny new mic pre or something.
fyi: I've been a mac user since I was 12 or so. I never owned a windows box until a couple years ago. And I'm talking about building your own PC when I talk about saving all that money.
Post by: wwittman on April 07, 2009, 01:13:00 AM
but an EQUIVALENT PC is not $1000 less than the Mac.
Post by: Colin Larson on April 07, 2009, 12:50:12 PM
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
Post by: 0dbfs on April 07, 2009, 01:27:43 PM
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
Post by: garret 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 |
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).
Post by: Chris Ilett on April 07, 2009, 02:17:07 PM
http://rainrecording.com/products/solstice/
Or something similar. I think that came in at a few dollars over your budget.
Post by: Tomas Danko on April 08, 2009, 10:19:50 AM
It's still going to be more expensive than an equivalent PC, of course.
Post by: cgc 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.
Post by: cgc on April 09, 2009, 08:43:01 PM
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.
Post by: dodlum on April 11, 2009, 12:54:43 AM
Abbey Road 12412
Waves API
Waves SSL-G
Sonnox Oxford
Filterbank
Channel G
URS N Series
Massey vt3
All these work great imho.
David
Post by: Nacho on May 09, 2009, 01:23:04 PM
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!
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!
Post by: jetbase 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?
Post by: Nacho on May 10, 2009, 11:00:08 PM
| jetbase wrote on Sun, 10 May 2009 18:22 | ||
Why not? |
Compression can't be undone
Post by: jetbase on May 10, 2009, 11:33:40 PM
| Nacho wrote on Mon, 11 May 2009 13:00 | ||||
Compression can't be undone |
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.
Post by: j.hall on May 11, 2009, 12:47:30 PM
Post by: NelsonL on May 11, 2009, 01:15:30 PM
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.
Post by: Nacho on May 11, 2009, 02:41:01 PM
| jetbase wrote on Sun, 10 May 2009 22:33 | ||||||
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.