compasspnt wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 15:51 |
You are now a member of a special secret society. Welcome. |
Noah Mintz wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 20:28 |
Hello, Just a general observation. I've been struggling to use plug-ins. Every so often I use the UAD plugs and the odd time I use a Liquid Mix plug (obv. both hardware dependent). I also use a limiter plug, either the Sonnex, Waves L2 or UAD. I've been trying some other plugs, BX Digital, SPL and a few others. While they are all great tools, I tend to think they all kind of sound the same. Yes, there are subtle differences in the way they work but the general sound is always the same. Is this just the way it is? Since they are all digital do they all have the same inherent sound? Am I crazy? I have a couple dozen pieces of analog hardware and none of them sound alike, so that's what I'm used to. I really want to start loving plug-ins, I think it's about time, but I just can't get the variation of sound, (a vibe, if you will), I'm looking for. Any thoughts? |
Gold wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 18:14 |
Lately I've gotten a few requests for "more distortion". I find it strange but the customer is king. I don't have a HEDD so I've used a few different warm-o-distortorators. They kind of sound like crap but luckily it's just what the doctor ordered. Oddly I can't get the warm-o-distorted analog sound from my analog chain. I like the Flux Alchemist but since I have the Maselec multiband the only thing I use it for (rarely) is the crest factor control (bitter sweet). |
Noah Mintz wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 18:31 |
I'm quite intrigued by this one: http://www.uaudio.com/products/software/studer-a800/?UAVID=S tuder_A800_Trailer |
Noah Mintz wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 18:31 |
I'm quite intrigued by this one: http://www.uaudio.com/products/software/studer-a800/?UAVID=S tuder_A800_Trailer |
dcollins wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 16:33 |
I have spent a lot (a lot) of time with plugs recently. |
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 15:51 |
You are now a member of a special secret society. Welcome. |
dcollins wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 23:33 |
One thing you learn about plug-ins (at least in my experience) is that some are really hilariously bad. Like how did it ever leave the lab kind of bad. Some are actually pretty good. EQ's are in that category. Compressors need work......... |
AndreasN wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 07:59 |
The cool thing about it is the low correlation between price and quality. It's now possible to build an arsenal of highly competent digital routines on the cheap. |
dcollins wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 16:33 |
But I'm optimistic. Really, I am. It's just that analog is 70 years old, good sounding outboard digital like 10 and eventually they will get it. |
Herbeck wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 08:21 |
The latest thing I've worked on is digital gain, not many developers worked on this one. =) |
dcollins wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 14:51 | ||
How hard is it to call the 'multiply' instruction? |
Herbeck wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 16:51 |
I've come up with a slightly different idea, and it sounds great. Same thing with the eq that I mentioned, it is not the same old concept it's something new. |
Waltz Mastering wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 15:58 | ||
What format do you code for. rtas, vst, au? |
Herbeck wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 13:51 |
I've come up with a slightly different idea, and it sounds great. Same thing with the eq that I mentioned, it is not the same old concept it's something new. |
Waltz Mastering wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 15:58 |
The waves de-esser seems to be getting a work out a bit more lately, although sparingly ...sibilance kills me. |
Jerry Tubb wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 20:40 | ||
Hey Tom, The Waves Ren DeEsser isn't bad at all, but I've found the Sonnox SuprEsser HD to be much more effective, esp in terms of flexible parameter controls. |
Waltz Mastering wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 13:23 | ||||
Thanks for the tip Jerry. I will give the Sonnex a try. I have the ren, but use the old school one that was released before that. I'm surprised no one has put out a "de-Plosive" plug-in yet for mix engineers. Seems like it would be easy enough to detect burst around 400Hz and attenuate that. Maybe that's getting to lazy? |
Jerry Tubb wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 20:40 | ||
Hey Tom, The Waves Ren DeEsser isn't bad at all, but I've found the Sonnox SuprEsser HD to be much more effective, esp in terms of flexible parameter controls. Other than that I use the Phoenix for occasional analog color (when not printing to tape!), the Flux Epure II EQ, and the PSP Xenon limiter to be uselful. That's about it for me. Cheers, JT |
dcollins wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 17:26 | ||
Is there more than one way to change digital level? What is wrong with the way it's presently done? |
Herbeck wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 07:02 |
There is nothing "wrong" with standard digital gain, but it is cool to have an option. |
Waltz Mastering wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 02:23 |
I'm surprised no one has put out a "de-Plosive" plug-in yet for mix engineers. Seems like it would be easy enough to detect burst around 400Hz and attenuate that. Maybe that's getting to lazy? |
Waltz Mastering wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 13:23 |
I'm surprised no one has put out a "de-Plosive" plug-in yet for mix engineers. Seems like it would be easy enough to detect burst around 400Hz and attenuate that. Maybe that's getting to lazy? |
Patrik T wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 00:29 | ||
What's with your mumbling approach to communication? Where are your answers to peoples questions? |
Adam Dempsey wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 07:16 |
Cedar De-thump on SADiE (2496 and series 5 systems) works a treat - nothing like it. The only times it failed me were the odd occasion in which an attack first needed dealing with using manual De-click. |
bblackwood wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 09:20 |
Yah, for things like tick / thump / buzz & noise removal and limiting, digital tools can't be beat. I think the thread is really about standard analog processing like EQ and compression.... |
bblackwood wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 08:20 |
Yah, for things like tick / thump / buzz & noise removal and limiting, digital tools can't be beat. I think the thread is really about standard analog processing like EQ and compression.... |
masterhse wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 21:13 |
Jerry, Have you checked out the McDSP ML4000 limiter? Might be another to add to our otherwise oddly similar lists. |
Herbeck wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 02:33 | ||||
I made an offer to upload some test files, what can be more strait forward? I'm willing to share how these plugins sounds, not how they work for obvious reasons. |
Jerry Tubb wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 11:51 | ||
I have not. Will it work in soundBlade? JT |
Waltz Mastering wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 20:23 |
I'm surprised no one has put out a "de-Plosive" plug-in yet for mix engineers. Seems like it would be easy enough to detect burst around 400Hz and attenuate that. Maybe that's getting to lazy? |
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 16:13 |
The only thing that has deterred me from purchasing it is that it needs the goddam iLok... |
Jerry Tubb wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 17:00 | ||
What's wrong with an iLok?, we've got 6 of 'em. JT |
Waltz Mastering wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 11:38 |
Say you had a mix peaking at -24 dBfs,... to bring that up 14 or so dB, is your plug noticeably different sounding from straight up digital gain? What is the characteristic that sets it apart? Is it colored, similar to the VCC console emulation plug? |
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 18:51 |
But the real serious reson is I don't like the idea of paying for the software manufacturer's protection... |
dcollins wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 18:26 |
Is there more than one way to change digital level? What is wrong with the way it's presently done? DC |
Greg Reierson wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 10:43 | ||
Doesn't some portion of the money you charge your clients pay for the locks on your studio doors? GR |
Nick Sevilla wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 20:26 |
No, the plug ins do not sound like their real life counterparts, |
Noah Mintz wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 14:28 |
I've been trying some other plugs, BX Digital, SPL and a few others. While they are all great tools, I tend to think they all kind of sound the same. Yes, there are subtle differences in the way they work but the general sound is always the same. |
Patrik T wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 09:48 |
I might be deaf. |
Waltz Mastering wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 12:59 |
The gains do null completely. |
Herbeck wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 20:53 | ||
The difference is very tiny, and as I said before this "gain" is hardly a game changer. |
Quote: |
The eq on the other hand has it's very own sound, and it would be interesting to hear your take on it. Thanks for taking the time to listen. |
Herbeck wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 20:53 |
Patrik, Were you referring to the eq or the gain? |
24-96 Mastering wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 15:34 |
Is there any chance of trying the EQ out? |
Garrett H wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 13:16 |
This thread is like Thanksgiving dinner at my house: 4 different conversations with 10 people speaking at the same time. |
Bonati wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 16:12 |
I use a few plugins - as few as possible. I've noticed they tempt me to look at them instead of listening. That's no good. Plugin sound quality will get there but I think I'll continue to dislike the psychological pitfalls of using them. |
Nick Sevilla wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 20:24 |
You can always close your eyes while listening... |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 05:41 |
I'm seriously thinking about adapting the clipping circuitry from an Orban broadcast processor, which uses clever techniques to get rid of the IM, to make an analog brickwall limiter. |
Nick Sevilla wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 13:15 |
And I am thinking of keeping ALL my transients and dynamic range in my work. |
Nick Sevilla wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 12:15 |
And I am thinking of keeping ALL my transients and dynamic range in my work. Cheers |
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 08:33 | ||
|
Nick Sevilla wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 12:38 | ||||
My Romulan genetics likes the term "Captive Public". Please.. elaborate. BTW, I do know hat a commercial release needs to be aurally competitive, ie loud as s%^t and without much in the way of transients / dynamic range. I don;t live under a rock. |
Quote: |
But, when I am producing a record, I try to do this smashing only at the mix stage. |
Quote: |
Why? 1.- The Re-Mix. Ever try to fluff a pancake after it's been smothered with syrup, and half eaten? Impossible. |
Quote: |
2.- The Re-Release in 20 years for a new as yet undiscovered delivery medium. |
Quote: |
3.- Because I said so. |
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 09:27 | ||||||||||||||
I'm not at all advocating the "Loudness War", but most people listen to music in conditions where it is impossible to retain the original dynamic range. On average, I listen to music in my car more than anywhere else, and I hate to have to adjust the volume all the time, so I'm quite content with a DR index 12.
|
Nick Sevilla wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 13:12 |
...I had one major artist get remixed, where the multitrack of one song was LOST... |
Nick Sevilla wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 12:12 |
However I had one major artist get remixed, where the multitrack of one song was LOST (don't ask, I have no idea). So that was more a re-master to match the new remixes. It worked, but also took a lot longer to master that one song to match the remixes. Happy Holidays!!! |
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 10:24 | ||
Was it a remake of The Mammas & Papa's "Make Your Own Kind of Music"? |
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 14:02 | ||
|
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 12:24 | ||
Was it a remake of The Mammas & Papa's "Make Your Own Kind of Music"? |
bblackwood wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 07:39 | ||||
I got it, Terry - nicely done. |
compasspnt wrote on Mon, 27 December 2010 13:19 |
Andy, what do you use for de-essing? I don't like to have to de-ess, but if necessary, I find plugins can work very well for that purpose...and I do have several dbx 902s. |
Brad Sarno wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 00:28 |
But I honestly can't imagine NOT using my analog tube gear as the heart of my mastering path anymore. I've tried all-digital projects and there's just some magic and mojo and organic presence that I can only get with the analog stuff. |
Quote: |
And also, I can't imagine NOT using a digital peak limiter because so much of what I do MUST be at contemporary loudness levels to satisfy the clients. |
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 06:23 | ||
|
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 06:23 | ||
|
Laars
Post by: SafeandSound on January 25, 2011, 12:18:59 PM There are jobs for which the outcome is preferable to use digital tools IMO. You just have to select the right tool for the task at hand. (and the right digital tools which is a skill in itself and half the battle) Using analogue is not some kind of panacea for all mix ills. cheers Post by: Tomas Danko on January 27, 2011, 07:40:33 AM
As great as it can sound, and I don't question that, one should be aware of the artifacts that comes with any form of convolution using FIR filters. Quite often engineers are taught what flaws to listen for, and when they disappear they think the new algorithm is better since they don't recognize/hear the new flaws that comes with it. Just because the old bad is gone, doesn't always mean the new is better. Quantizing in both the time and frequency domains (FFT windows) is something worth looking into, for anyone wanting to get familiar with the flaws in question. Cheers, Danko Ps. FWIW, I use a lot of convolution in my daily work. Post by: Jerry Tubb on January 28, 2011, 07:55:52 AM which implies that plug-in domination is inevitable. I don't think so. Hardware rules ; - ) Cheers, JT Post by: Patrik T on January 28, 2011, 09:54:00 AM Best Regards Patrik Post by: Geoff Emerick de Fake on January 28, 2011, 06:02:25 PM
Post by: Jerry Tubb on January 28, 2011, 07:38:51 PM
Preachin' to the choir. I've been using recording hardware since the mid 1960s and plug-ins since the Q10 was first released in 1993. My Sontec rocks, any digital EQ is just... OK. Cheers, JT Post by: Geoff Emerick de Fake on January 29, 2011, 08:19:00 AM But I regularly use digital EQ's and plug-ins, and though many are not even worth the time spent to test them, some are real fine for me. The problem is that creating an EQ seems like a ritual of passage for DSP/plug-in developpers, and we are invaded with EQ plug-ins that make no sense. It's not a reason to throw the proverbial baby... Post by: Jerry Tubb on January 29, 2011, 01:31:11 PM
Plug-ins seem to do best in jobs that are difficult or inconvenient in the analog world. I haven't heard any plug-in compressor that floats my boat, although the UAD Fairchild is interesting. I see from your profile that you've been audio-active since the early 70s. Cheers, JT Post by: eightyeightkeys on February 01, 2011, 08:50:17 PM The initial trial phase of any plug seems to come with a load of anticipation on my part....maybe hope....that, yes, perhaps this plug will finally offer something different. EQ plugs are pretty consistent across the board. I can pull up a Cubendo EQ or a TC EQ or a UAD EQ and they will all do the job perfectly well and perfectly boring. I thought that the Sonalksis EQ's were a cut above, but, at the point that I tried it, I had gone off EQ plug-in purchases. Humpff. Compressor plugs seem to be almost uniformly without any mojo. The only plugs that I'll purchase any more are reverbs and maybe a delay if it's really something different. The PSP N20 for example. Lots of creative potential there. The QL Spaces is another that seems to be offering something that sets it apart from the pack. Post by: Dave Davis on February 02, 2011, 10:38:08 AM I also like the sound of MasterComp, and sometimes return to Waves Renaissance Comp for specific color. At my old job we had LA2As I used all the time, but in the tracking/mix room I use these days they have UAD versions which sound very good when properly gain-staged (plugs respond differently to poor levels than analog, no matter what the mfg says). I still use their Distressor, LA4 and DBX 160 in tracking and mix sessions for specific colors, but honestly it's as much matter of convenience as sonics - If I want to dig around the plug-list and tweak forever I can get the same sounds or better via plugs. I'm not a snob, just lazy, at least for tracking/mixing, when musicians are in the room to get work done. I use Ozone 4 at times to do things analog hardware cannot do at all. I like the SSL models from UAD, but again, MH MIOComp sounds more real, maybe just more like an SSL to my ear, at least as far as the color of the compression goes. YMMV, just one MEs take on plug-in comps. -d- Post by: aleatoric on February 04, 2011, 01:43:04 AM Post by: SafeandSound on February 04, 2011, 04:37:15 PM People do have a slight tendency to "bang on" relentlessly about analogue equipment being superior in almost every way (except for processing which is technically impossible). I find it a bit odd that it is often cited by people who are supposed to have plenty of experience. You have to wonder why. You cannot substitute ears or good decision making with rack units. |