Post by: lagerfeldt on December 06, 2005, 06:28:06 PM
However, I'm trying to add "fatness" mainly to the 80-200Hz region. I have this special sound in mind, like tape saturating almost on the point of distortion (nice analog sounding distortion of course).
Some of the mixes I get are very clinical dance mixes which I warm up with the Gyratec and also do the best EQ to enhance the frequencies. Some additional low level compression brings up some low end details and lots of high end details. I also use the SSL Type 4000 clone which provides a nice glue compression.
I even tried a bit of the Waves S1 Shuffle since it primarily targets the low end, but that's just spreading and doesn't do what I want at all. Bah.
It's something else I'm looking for.. I wonder if the Portico Tape thingy will do it, but I'd like to target the low frequencies only if possible.
Post by: Ged Leitch on December 06, 2005, 06:36:18 PM
Hope that helps mate.
Post by: danickstr on December 06, 2005, 06:42:24 PM
this way there is more focus on the important areas.
Post by: lagerfeldt on December 06, 2005, 06:43:34 PM
Thanks, I'll try the PSP.
Danickstr,
Originally at some point I was getting a Tube Tech multiband comp but chickened out because it got a bad rep, so I though it would be a waste of time to go thru the hassle of getting one on trial.
However, how would I go about the procedure you describe? If I try anything like that I can't get things back together without it falling apart..? Just remember the low end is already getting a fair bit of tube gain stage in the Gyratec,
Post by: TotalSonic on December 06, 2005, 07:08:59 PM
Best regards,
Steve Berson
Post by: Dave Davis on December 06, 2005, 07:12:56 PM
-d-
Dave Davis
QCA Mastering/UltraInteractive
Post by: lagerfeldt on December 06, 2005, 07:21:01 PM
Dave, indeed. I usually do a 20Hz cut or even a bit higher, but usually I prefer to do a 20Hz cut and then roll off a bit via a shelf from e.g. around 50 Hz. That tightens things up, especially as the tube gain lifts the low end again.
Post by: danickstr on December 06, 2005, 07:34:56 PM
As a point of reference, the delay in a club from the bass in the subs and the mains overhead is more than what would occur if you did nothing, but it always is a good idea to try your best to "keep it together". In terms of samples, the delay from a mic x feet away can be calculated by taking the 44.1 k, dividing it into 1100 FPS for 44 samples per foot, and you find out that drums overhead mics 5 feet away are like 200 samples off of the close-miced kick and snare, for another FYI thing.
Post by: TotalSonic on December 06, 2005, 07:40:35 PM
| lagerfeldt wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 00:21 |
TotalSonic, thanks for the suggestion. I'm actually missing good analog EQ with those functions. I wonder if that'll do it though, as I'm really after quite a drastic effect? Hm, perhaps. |
hmmm... Depending on how big of a change you mean by "drastic" - it might not do it - although maybe if you combined it with a multiband comp only set for a single low to low-mid band it would do it for you. I've used an SPL Vitalizer and analog eq's to achieve some semi-drastic changes on the bottom end also.
It can get ugly real fast - but Wave's Maxx Bass might do what you asking also.
But If the client really wants mastering changes to be "drastic" from their original mix - but only want to change a specific freq band or sound of one instrument I usually direct them to try and bring these kinds of things out in their mix first. I usually think of mastering as trying to just enhance the integrity of the mix instead of drastically changing it. Then again - if they are in a time bind or simply do not have access to the unmixed tracks then you have to make do.
Best regards,
Steve Berson
Post by: bblackwood on December 06, 2005, 07:50:35 PM
Post by: lagerfeldt on December 06, 2005, 08:15:57 PM
| TotalSonic wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 01:40 |
hmmm... Depending on how big of a change you mean by "drastic" - it might not do it - although maybe if you combined it with a multiband comp only set for a single low to low-mid band it would do it for you. I've used an SPL Vitalizer and analog eq's to achieve some semi-drastic changes on the bottom end also. It can get ugly real fast - but Wave's Maxx Bass might do what you asking also. But If the client really wants mastering changes to be "drastic" from their original mix - but only want to change a specific freq band or sound of one instrument I usually direct them to try and bring these kinds of things out in their mix first. I usually think of mastering as trying to just enhance the integrity of the mix instead of drastically changing it. Then again - if they are in a time bind or simply do not have access to the unmixed tracks then you have to make do. Best regards, Steve Berson |
It's actually not the client as such, it's me.. A lot of these mixes are pure digitally created i.e. from soft synths and soft samplers and mixed ITB.
Of course words are relative, I would say 3dB is drastic in mastering, e.g. adding 3dB at 200Hz can really make a difference good or bad. So when I say drastic I actually mean "saturation", "fatness", "analog distortion", not just a "clean nice bass boost"
MaxxBass is something I need to play around with more, but it doesn't distort harmonics like I want, it seems.
My frustration stems from a mastering I did a couple of days ago. The first mix I got had a kick with decent low end but no punch, and the bass synth was incredibly low in volume. Some multiband and EQ rectified it quite a bit. The client was satisfied with the mastering but realized his mix - or actually his choice of sounds - was poor.
So he re-did the mix and I mastered it again, but from scratch. The kick now had punch and some deep low end but the bass synth was still low in volume. The client was very happy and loved everything this time. Of course it cost him 2x fee but next time he'll probably pay even more attention to the sounds and mix, and follow the pointers I gave him.
However, my frustration is that I wasn't completely satisfied with the mastering myself. I felt it just needed a bit of this saturation in the area around the fullness of the kick (it had punch and sub but lacked some fatness), it was too clean and digital - even after some excellent tube saturation on the whole mix.
Post by: EP on December 06, 2005, 08:50:27 PM
| lagerfeldt wrote on Tue, 06 December 2005 23:28 |
I have this special sound in mind, like tape saturating almost on the point of distortion (nice analog sounding distortion of course) |
Try tape yet? For less then the cost of many of the tools mentioned you could set up a 1/4" two-track deck and give it a whirl. Or use a friends.
I do think this sort of sound is best derived in the mixing-not an easy thing to get that 'burial mix' bass in the mastering alone-
but I try too!Post by: robot gigante on December 06, 2005, 09:52:30 PM
| TotalSonic wrote on Tue, 06 December 2005 19:08 |
I'd probably look towards an analog eq with some character to do what you're asking. i.e. the Amek/Neve Medici's low band with the "warm" button engaged can do what you're asking pretty well. From what I saw at the AES demonstration the Legendary Masterpiece, with it's ability to add a couple different saturation types to only one part of the spectrum, and also eq's with similar tweakable character (with "warm" now called "glow"), would be just the ticket for what you are asking. Best regards, Steve Berson |
I own a Medici as well, and the 'warm' function is fantastic for what you're talking about... but too much for mastering imho, it can make the whole mix distort too quickly even at low settings- I think I've only been able to use the 'warm' function once or twice successfully when mastering.
However, for mixing it can be great since you can run just the bass through it and not worry about distorting the other stuff. In fact it's one of those things where I haven't been able to find anything similar that does what it does...
Just my 2
Post by: nmw on December 06, 2005, 10:47:44 PM
i often find, especialy for alot of dance material i work on that if i use a shelf on the bottom end to boost, set at around the 160Hz ish area works infinitely better than using a regular bell.
it seems that often people dont take it high enough up, stopping at 80 or 100 Hz as they think they are getting out of bass area and you miss out on getting some real richness in the bottom end.
you could also have a look at a HEDD unit. may prove just the ticket though it sounds perhaps like the effect you are after may be more than this can give....
as for getting a rhythm and sound type bottom end and sound. thats something you really need to get working on at mixing. just like all the old keith hudson stuff. amazing bottom end and a real crunchyness all over that you cant stick on at the end
Post by: Ed Littman on December 06, 2005, 10:50:02 PM
| lagerfeldt wrote on Tue, 06 December 2005 18:28 |
I'm looking for some way of warming up the low end. However, I'm trying to add "fatness" mainly to the 80-200Hz region. I have this special sound in mind, like tape saturating almost on the point of distortion (nice analog sounding distortion of course). |
Either the Chandler LTD-2 or the crane song Hedd 192, or both would be your ticket!
Ed
Post by: mikepecchio on December 06, 2005, 11:18:43 PM
First thing that comes to my mind for warm rich sound with a little bulr... slight "bass halo" or whatever, is Neve. not necesarily any processing, just run thru any one of the old line amp, compressor or EQ modules 1272, 1271, 1073 1066, 2254 etc (with the class-A output circuit). There is DC flowing thru the output transformer in that circuit and it does something unique to the low end. by the way some of the more popular neve gear like the 1081, 2087, 33105, 33609's, etc have a different circuit and sound quite different in the low end. IMO.
got alot of extra money? this seems pretty obvious -- how about a pair of pultecs?
EDIT: I just thought of this.. has anyone ever tried running mixes thru a pair of mcintosh tube power amps? you'd have to pad the output a bit. I love that sound on SOME material. I can't imagine it making sterile techno sound worse.
mike p
Post by: jazzius on December 07, 2005, 02:00:07 AM
Post by: dcollins on December 07, 2005, 02:55:23 AM
| jazzius wrote on Tue, 06 December 2005 23:00 |
The Hedd will add thickness to that 80-200 range...for days....nothing else (that i've tried) will do this so well without damaging other parts of the spectrum......Dazzer |
Which knob(s) did you turn?
How much?
DC
Post by: lagerfeldt on December 07, 2005, 05:23:05 AM
| jazzius wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 08:00 |
The Hedd will add thickness to that 80-200 range...for days....nothing else (that i've tried) will do this so well without damaging other parts of the spectrum......Dazzer |
The more I read about it, the more I'm thinking the Hedd 192 might be the answer to my dreams. I'm just a bit hesistant to get another digital machine, but if it sounds good it sounds good..
Post by: jazzius on December 07, 2005, 08:03:08 AM
| dcollins wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 07:55 | ||
Which knob(s) did you turn? How much? DC |
pentode, tape.........how much?.....depends on the level of incoming and what I'm trying to achieve..I've been known to push it well beyond bedtime on occasion....the more you spank it, the more corrective EQ'ing you have to do afterwards (or more likely before) to compensate certain certain areas.........Darius
Post by: lagerfeldt on December 07, 2005, 11:40:31 AM
I'll keep on experimenting until I find a method or piece of gear that'll target this need even better.
Post by: bblackwood on December 07, 2005, 11:44:28 AM
Post by: HansP on December 07, 2005, 12:58:57 PM
a 2-band compressor with a large transition width might be also of great help. normal multiband can be dangerous and makes it difficult to keep the sound together. results should keep a certain clean steadyness and not float and pump too much. you should feel the beat like a strong handle or grid where you as a listener can grasp hold.
Post by: robot gigante on December 07, 2005, 01:02:17 PM
Post by: ammitsboel on December 07, 2005, 01:38:28 PM
| lagerfeldt wrote on Tue, 06 December 2005 23:28 |
I'm looking for some way of warming up the low end. Gaining a lot on my Gyratec X (Vari Mu) goes a long way and also increases the stereo perception a lot (I call it Daddy's Little Helper). |
What you need might be a somewhat "lossy component", a device that knocks off the clinical sound and adds a nice colour to what's left. Cheap "specifically chosen" copper cables can often do a lot of it and the rest could be done by playing around with your analog units to find out what combination of ins/outs after each other that sounds the best for your purpose. Imagine yourself as the chef that has to cut off the bad part of the ingredients in order to make the perfect compromise.
You could also enter the world of custom modding for specific purposes...??
Post by: ammitsboel on December 07, 2005, 01:46:13 PM
| jazzius wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 07:00 |
The Hedd will add thickness to that 80-200 range...for days....nothing else (that i've tried) will do this so well without damaging other parts of the spectrum......Dazzer |
That's what my G10 does and there is plenty of it!??
Not to be an analog geek but I don't think the Hedd is what he's looking for. It might be 50% or maybe 60% of the way though.
Post by: lagerfeldt on December 07, 2005, 03:14:53 PM
I'm doing this a lot lately, have you checked out what it does to the harmonics, it's f*cking incredible! You can actually view it in a freq analyzer, the harmonics just spike all the way up when you turn the dial and the sound gets fuller, creamy and full of life and details.
Also the stereo width is enhanced in a way no stereo plugin does. This has got to be the most magical piece of gear ever. Basically it's just good tube design I guess, but it never siezes to amaze me.
Post by: Viitalahde on December 07, 2005, 03:44:23 PM
I find myself using less EQ to fix these kind of bass problems.
To drive it more, I just pre-gain using the gain of the SSL mixbuss compressor clone in the rack.
Post by: lagerfeldt on December 07, 2005, 06:01:50 PM
| Viitalahde wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 21:44 |
Yes - the G10 is incredible in this matter. Partially tubes, partially transformers. I find myself using less EQ to fix these kind of bass problems. To drive it more, I just pre-gain using the gain of the SSL mixbuss compressor clone in the rack. |
Do you use the SSL first, then the G10, or the other way around?
Post by: fj on December 07, 2005, 07:32:32 PM
I have had limited luck using the triode knob with some of the more "open" mixes I have worked with, but my unit is still new and I wouldn't call my self comfortable enough with the unit to make my own recommendations.
Post by: bobkatz on December 07, 2005, 07:44:28 PM
| fj wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 19:32 |
Speaking of the HEDD, I'm curious how people are using the triode knob. It seems that it may add in the area the post is addressing. Which types of productions does it help on, what do you feel it adds, how much do you use? I have had limited luck using the triode knob with some of the more "open" mixes I have worked with, but my unit is still new and I wouldn't call my self comfortable enough with the unit to make my own recommendations. |
It's the knob I use the least, or should I say "hardly at all". It's extremely subtle and when you turn it up far enough to matter on the instrument that you care about it usually screws up some instrument or other. I suspect it would be most useful on an individual instrument track during mixing, but it has limited use I'd say in mastering entire tracks.
BK
Post by: Adam Dempsey on December 07, 2005, 09:06:45 PM
| Dave Davis wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 11:12 |
In addition to many of the good suggestions above, I'd consider something non-obvious: A good high pass filter below the lowest musically useful information you have. Undesireable low harmonics eat a lot of power, and really do nasty things to the audible portions you care about. Also, don't automatically assume you have anything worthwhile at 20Hz, simply because that's the lowest number you see... you may find that a setting considerably higher (>30 Hz) tightens up your bass in every environment. -d- Dave Davis QCA Mastering/UltraInteractive |
Not being able to avoid sharing what has worked so often for me, 10+ yrs in the same room...
A good HPF for tightening this sort of music ideally being steep (24dB/oct or more) and analogue (avoiding ringing).
Or two digital HPFs in series and a very gentle low shelf cut (eg no more than -0.5dB @ 20 to 30 Hz), then parallel compression (2:1) - the compressed signal followed by a hi shelf cut (eg -4dB @ 5k) and combined with the uncompressed signal to taste, keeps the highs 'alive' and can really add beefy character without sounding "EQ'd".
Worth a try and you may find you don't need to compress the overall mix - keep it tamed but thumping.
Post by: dcollins on December 07, 2005, 10:48:33 PM
| Adam Dempsey wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 18:06 |
A good HPF for tightening this sort of music ideally being steep (24dB/oct or more) and analogue (avoiding ringing). |
Well, not so sure about the ringing part, but filters can really help. Maybe even start with a broad peak or shelf followed by the filter.
For most analog EQ's, the higher the dB/oct the more ringing there is.
DC
Post by: Adam Dempsey on December 08, 2005, 12:40:28 AM
Post by: dcollins on December 08, 2005, 01:00:21 AM
| Adam Dempsey wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 21:40 |
Yes, sorry, I meant any nasty high Q digital ringing, rather than the nicer, euphonic ringing as with some analgue EQ, eg our Orban 622B parametric - great for colour. |
If Bob Orban were here, he might say that if you have the same frequency curve in analog and IIR digital eq's, the phase response is the same.
Hilbert said so.
I have no idea why, but analog eq does seem to work better....
It's a growth industry!
DC
Post by: Viitalahde on December 08, 2005, 01:03:11 AM
| lagerfeldt wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 23:01 |
Do you use the SSL first, then the G10, or the other way around? |
Depends, but sometimes I put the SSL clone first just to drive the G10, it's pretty clean gain I got there. I might do some tickleing with it too, but not much at all.
Sometimes it works really well the other way around also.
Post by: lagerfeldt on December 08, 2005, 04:26:25 AM
| Viitalahde wrote on Thu, 08 December 2005 07:03 | ||
Depends, but sometimes I put the SSL clone first just to drive the G10, it's pretty clean gain I got there. I might do some tickleing with it too, but not much at all. Sometimes it works really well the other way around also. |
I have enough gain going out from the DAW in 4+dBU. Is your SSL transformer balanced?
Post by: Viitalahde on December 08, 2005, 05:06:50 AM
| lagerfeldt wrote on Thu, 08 December 2005 09:26 |
I have enough gain going out from the DAW in 4+dBU. Is your SSL transformer balanced? |
Nope, it's actually modified/unbalanced. Into the VCA with a resistor, output is simply the I/V converter after the VCA.
I could tweak the gain on the DAW too but turning a knob is just so much more inconvenient.
Post by: ammitsboel on December 08, 2005, 12:48:39 PM
| lagerfeldt wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 20:14 |
Henrik, have you changed the setup so you can now get hotter levels into the GX, and then really turn up the gain ALL the way? I'm doing this a lot lately, have you checked out what it does to the harmonics, it's f*cking incredible! You can actually view it in a freq analyzer, the harmonics just spike all the way up when you turn the dial and the sound gets fuller, creamy and full of life and details. |
I have all the gain I want now from a nice preamp in front of it.
I think there are good things and bad things about cranking the gain in the G10. In some aspects the sound gets bigger and more open, but in other aspects it gets more closed in. I consider the effect to be too much for mastering unless you really do receive indescribably bad audio to work with? I tend to run the output low so I don't saturate the core of the output transformer, too me it sounds closed in when it saturates. How do you run your output and what to you prefer?
The overall effect of the G10 is caused by the whole circuit and not just the tubes'n'transformers.
Are you still sitting close to your monitors?
Post by: Viitalahde on December 08, 2005, 01:06:39 PM
| ammitsboel wrote on Thu, 08 December 2005 17:48 |
I tend to run the output low |
I run the output pretty low too and do the saturation (if I do) at the input.
But let's not forget that when gainstaged & used more traditionally, the G10 is a very good sounding compressor.
I'm thinking of testing a high pass filter in the sidechain some day.
Post by: lagerfeldt on December 08, 2005, 03:38:02 PM
| ammitsboel wrote on Thu, 08 December 2005 18:48 |
I have all the gain I want now from a nice preamp in front of it. I think there are good things and bad things about cranking the gain in the G10. In some aspects the sound gets bigger and more open, but in other aspects it gets more closed in. I consider the effect to be too much for mastering unless you really do receive indescribably bad audio to work with? I tend to run the output low so I don't saturate the core of the output transformer, too me it sounds closed in when it saturates. How do you run your output and what to you prefer? The overall effect of the G10 is caused by the whole circuit and not just the tubes'n'transformers. Are you still sitting close to your monitors? |
As for my monitoring situation, actually I find myself moving further back when mastering which provide a more holistic pespective that I'm enjoying and finding more and more useful. But it certainly takes some getting used to after 15 years of super nearfielding when mixning and producing
I love gaining the input on the G10 but I too keep the output down, since this causes some kind of midrange compression/closing. Everything is +4dBU but sometimes I use Lo Gain on the converter (upper bass seems to be clearer for some reason here?). I then gain a bit extra on the output on the transformer balanced SSL clone Jakob built (which sounds nicer than the standard DYI or Danfield 726).
Post by: Adam Dempsey on December 08, 2005, 08:01:55 PM
| dcollins wrote on Thu, 08 December 2005 17:00 | ||
If Bob Orban were here, he might say that if you have the same frequency curve in analog and IIR digital eq's, the phase response is the same. Hilbert said so. DC |
Yes, totally correct in theory & there's more to analogue EQs than frequency curves & phase shifts but our Orban EQs are custom modified & the 622B is not a neutral sounding unit. The ringing comments, above, are in reference to 24 dB/octave hi pass filters and risk of ringing with many digital filters that are that steep.
(HPFs not featured on the Orban parametric but on the tube EQ http://www.dexaudio.com.au/html/media_404.html)
Post by: Thomas Detert on December 11, 2005, 09:24:08 AM
I use the VEQC 2000 which sound pretty good !
Have a look at http://www.sebatron.com
cheers,
Thomas
Post by: lagerfeldt on December 11, 2005, 10:18:00 AM
| Thomas Detert wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 15:24 |
Did you ever used a SEBATRON on the Low End ? I use the VEQC 2000 which sound pretty good ! Have a look at http://www.sebatron.com cheers, Thomas |
Hello Thomas, nice to see you here!
I couldn't find the VEQC 2000 on the website?
Post by: thephatboi on December 11, 2005, 02:14:21 PM
Post by: zetterstroem on December 11, 2005, 02:22:12 PM
just did an album with plugs..... the manleys (summing mixer and comp)made it nice and phat....
(i still hate plugs.... but the record sounds ok.....)
Post by: Thomas Detert on December 11, 2005, 02:28:15 PM
| lagerfeldt wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 16:18 |
Hello Thomas, nice to see you here! I couldn't find the VEQC 2000 on the website? |
Hello Holger , nice to see you as well
unfortunately this "VALVE EQ / OPTO COMP." is discontinued ,
but the THORAX is some kind of follow up to the VEQC !
Their DEEP and AIR Knop is some kind of magic
My VEQC is followed by an API 2500 and to my ears it sounds great! Especially on the low end !!
But i am not a ME , just a little recording guy
They have a Forum:
http://www.recording.org/forum-38.html
or look here ( Discontinued Lines )
http://www.gtamusic.com/sebatronprices.htm
cheers,
Thomas
The VEQC 2000:
Post by: lagerfeldt on December 12, 2005, 07:08:52 AM
| zetterstroem wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 20:22 |
you should have bought the manley holger... just did an album with plugs..... the manleys (summing mixer and comp)made it nice and phat.... (i still hate plugs.... but the record sounds ok.....) |
Nah, as u may remember I tested the Manley against the G10, the Manley sounded like an old shoebox in comparison
I just mixed a track for a client ITB (apart from slight 2bus compression from the GSSL). Sounds absolutely wonderful, open, and warm. I've moved away from the Waves plug-ins when mixing and using almost only Sonalksis for EQ+Comp, so much better and analog sounding.
Post by: lagerfeldt on December 12, 2005, 07:11:35 AM
| Thomas Detert wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 20:28 My VEQC is followed by an [b |
API 2500[/b] and to my ears it sounds great! Especially on the low end !! But i am not a ME , just a little recording guy |
You are so modest
It's okay to be little as long as the music sounds big, right? Interesting with the VEQC, I've never heard of it before. The API 2500 is a jewel though.
Post by: zetterstroem on December 12, 2005, 10:53:21 AM
reminds me of ammitsb
Post by: ammitsboel on December 12, 2005, 12:37:33 PM
I think the Joemeek idea could be very appropriate for mastering.
Post by: ammitsboel on December 12, 2005, 12:43:35 PM
| lagerfeldt wrote on Mon, 12 December 2005 12:11 |
It's okay to be little as long as the music sounds big, right? |
It's cool to be little when the music is big.
You could also say that everything else gets bigger when you are small... or maybe you just don't have that grab of detail if you are too physically big?
Zetterstroem and Lagerfeldt!
Why aren't you in the womp? you silly clowns!!
Regards
Henrik
Post by: lagerfeldt on December 12, 2005, 04:24:51 PM
| ammitsboel wrote on Mon, 12 December 2005 18:37 |
Has anyone tried mastering with the Joemeek compressor? I think the Joemeek idea could be very appropriate for mastering. |
Now, don't go contaminating my thread you little person
I must confess I never heard of the WoMP before it was too late.
Post by: zetterstroem on December 12, 2005, 08:09:34 PM
i din't have a studio to work in these days..... (as you know)
and anyway i don't like sports...
Post by: Thomas Detert on December 13, 2005, 02:39:42 AM
| lagerfeldt wrote on Mon, 12 December 2005 13:11 |
You are so modest It's okay to be little as long as the music sounds big, right? Interesting with the VEQC, I've never heard of it before. The API 2500 is a jewel though. |
Yeah, the API is the best thing that i ever bought !
The VEQC is not really recommended for mastering , but on the SUBS-Groups for Drums it's a secret weapon and gives you punsh and air, especially if your sound is produced ITB.
There will be an update of the VEQC 2000 very soon:
| SEBATRON wrote |
Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 12:36 pm The THORAX comp circuit is a major evolution of the VEQC comp circuit. Although both are optical in nature and driven by Class A discrete circuitry. How do they differ? The THORAX comp circuit has a much wider dynamic range allowing it to react over a wider range of signal level and conversely attenuate ( compress ) over a wider range.The THROAX also has greater flexibility in adjusting the compression time dependant curve because of the extra parameters available to the user…. Namely the Attack and Release parameters which have been factored ( or spread ) out over the three-position A/R toggle switch….from fast to slow ….. Additionally the THORAX compressor is faster than the VEQC meaning that it can operate in a peak mode more effectively and is desirable in certain percussive situations….. On the other hand the VEQC is in its own class of units ,, and fills a void here.It's a stereo based valve EQ/Comp/Exciter. Drums in particular are really interesting when sub-grouped through this unit. The circuit anomalies seem to create more of a 3-D image to a premix. I used to sub group just kick and bass through the early prototypes in sessions and just that could totally change a mix. Mono in but Stereo came out. The passive E.Q network is great for chomping out a big mid section of frequencies and highlighting upper harmonics generated in the valves with the variable Air feature…The two mid bands are unfortunately quite close together so sometimes it can be a let down if you need to be a bit more surgical. However , it’s not really designed to be such a box. Like I say ,, more of complete set of E.Q and Comp that acts either subtly or destructively to create sound timbres not really attainable on most current gear. It can get you to a place real quickly once you get a feel of the signal path. Don’t buy it if it’s your only compressor ,, but if you own many compressors and you only use this one then you would definitely have your own sound. The VEQC will be upgraded shortly with the same THORAX comp circuitry. I suggest hanging out for that. Quote: So please ramble at length THORAX Transformer balanced input. D.C valve filament for quieter operation. Anodes driven by H.T rail. Voltage selector on back for 110/220 vac operation. Complete Steel box and front panel …. No Aluminium. Discrete Class A circuitry throughout. No intergrated circuits. All parts readily available. Mic pre: XLR inputs on front and back. D.I input for a wide range of impedances. Switchable phase , phantom and a three way attenuating pad. Air and Deep for upper and lower spectrum control. Variable Colour control . Variable output level. Compressor: Optical attenutaion …. feedback compression. True bypass also shunts off detection circuitry . Variable colour and gain selectable via the ‘drive’ control. Compression timing constants spread over a three way toggle. Variable output level….blah blah ….. Metering: Switchable and variable for different situations …. High , med , low ranges . Preamp and Main output levels. Gain Reduction. The THORAX can also be thought of as two vmp channels linked up with a dynamic dependant attenuation circuit ( compressor ) patched into the middle of the last quandrant . You see, ,, the approach was not preamp then add EQ then add a Comp section…. It’s setup around a totally discrete signal path with the various passive networks ( EQ/Comp) added as tangental signal modifiers that don’t impede the quality of the signal at all. That’s why when you kick in the Comp section of the THORAX there is absolutely NO signal degradation. The E.Q is deliberately targeted at frequencies that are hardest to manipulate using digital E.Q./ plug ins etc …. These two points ( air and deep ) are the ones that make the analogue gear worthwhile….. the valves , the passive networks …. With the variable colour and E.Q functions you can get some very inspirational tones and flavours. The D.I can be a killer for bass and guitars and being able to immediately dial in a bit of compression makes it quick and reliable to use. Vocals can be softly compressed with a nice slow attack/release or Squashed quite effectively when compression times are shortened. At the highest Ratio , you can scream and then whisper into the mic and the meter will barely move. If you want to really squash , to go further , try the drive control in ‘ Hot ‘ mode. |
cheers,
Thomas
Post by: ammitsboel on December 13, 2005, 12:30:56 PM
| zetterstroem wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 01:09 |
i din't have a studio to work in these days..... (as you know) |
| zetterstroem wrote on Tue, 13 December 2005 01:09 |
and anyway i don't like sports... |
I see the womp as a give and take, not a sport.
Anyone that likes working with music should be in the womp.
Regards
Henrik
Post by: Guest on February 05, 2006, 11:56:55 AM
I have used a side chain comp with a hpf 120hz leaving the rest of the mix alone, this has helped me really tighten the bass line and electro kick in some dance stuff i've been mastering.
Post by: Ged Leitch on February 05, 2006, 12:44:25 PM
| cuesonic wrote on Sun, 05 February 2006 16:56 |
Hi all I have used a side chain comp with a hpf 120hz leaving the rest of the mix alone, this has helped me really tighten the bass line and electro kick in some dance stuff i've been mastering. |
Don't you mean a low pass filter?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on February 05, 2006, 01:02:16 PM
To me the most desirable quality one can achieve in the 80-200Hz. range is called "balls." The lack of it is generally the sound of electronics that are being overtaxed which, unfortunately, no signal processing can restore although Dave's suggestion of trimming some of the low end can help minimize further taxing of electronics. A careful touch of fast release compression on the bass and drums can glue the low-end together with distortion in some cases but in others it just makes them sound more wimpy. The right reverb in the drum mix can help sometimes too.
My experience with harmonic generators like max-bass has been that it is far safer to use them on individual elements of a mix. They can sound very impressive in the room where they were set up but it rarely translates to what things are going to sound like elsewhere. Aural illusions are very very fragile compared to a clean recording of awesome sounds.
Post by: lagerfeldt on February 05, 2006, 03:31:40 PM
IF we were talking about actually recorded stuff, which we are not. I'm talking about synth/sampler based dance music so there's no real acoustics involved (in terms of the recording), no way of enhancing something that's not there to begin with.
You are also talking about reverb on the drum mix, that's rarely used in that context on dance music.
Which means you need a different approach and sometimes you need to mess around a bit more or do different stuff.
Post by: Ben F on February 05, 2006, 06:51:23 PM
I do a lot of electronic music and have found cutting the low end and notching out problem frequencies with a precision EQ (such as weiss) and then adding some grunt in the low end with an API or Massivo works well. The Massive Passive is beautiful in the 68Hz-220Hz range.
This is followed by a tube compressor generally with a HPF in the side chain, because they just can't compress the low end without effecting the high frequencies. You may be suprised to hear the best results so far have been achieved using the Tube-tech multi-band. I don't know where you heard it had a bad reputation. We're talking electronic music here not rock or jazz...so the negative effects of using mult-band aren't as noticeable. There are separate attack/release times for each band. I only wish they made a dentented switch 2-band version, that would be perfect. You should trial one yourself.
Post by: ATOR on February 06, 2006, 07:44:21 AM
This way you can really beef up the low end with a crazy amount of processing without harming the low end punch and the rest of the track.