mcsnare wrote on Wed, 09 February 2011 20:36 |
I can tell you one thing: think about upgrading to Seq 10 or 11. They are both very stable (as in never crashed on me), and Seq 7 doesn't handle plugs very well. You'll have all kind of headaches opening sessions that worked fine before you closed it. When I started using more plugins was when I went to a separate computer to only handle that. An instance of Wavelab on live input, or whatever they call it now in WL6. If I'd had Seq 10 or 11 then, I probably wouldn't have done the second computer. As a side benefit the plugins you get with Seq 11 are pretty rad. Dave |
masterhse wrote on Wed, 09 February 2011 18:56 |
Likewise I like the McDSP limiters, but again PT only. |
bleen wrote on Wed, 09 February 2011 23:06 | ||
Au contraire! The McDSP stuff is now also running as AudioUnits: http://www.mcdsp.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=a rticle&id=662&Itemid=100025 Not that that really helps Brad, but just for the sake of clarity.... |
Quote: |
As a side benefit the plugins you get with Seq 11 are pretty rad. |
Jerry Tubb wrote on Thu, 10 February 2011 08:38 |
Flux Epure II |
masterhse wrote on Wed, 09 February 2011 20:56 |
The Sonnex Suppressor is very nice though I favor the Weiss DS-1 more often. The Suppressor tends to be more fidgety but has a nice interface for finding a problem. In general I use the Suppressor when I just want to de-ess a vocal in an M/S configuration and use the Weiss for overall duties. |
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Fri, 11 February 2011 07:25 |
I really wanted to love Suppresser, but found out it just wouldn't live with Samp 10. |
Greg Reierson wrote on Fri, 11 February 2011 18:26 |
dB Audioware De-Esser (best I've found besides Suppresser) |
Allen Corneau wrote on Fri, 11 February 2011 13:09 |
Someone had posted recently about an EQ plug-in that had the ability to switch individual bands between stereo, split mono, or M/S. |
Greg Reierson wrote on Fri, 11 February 2011 13:34 |
The Sonoris EQ can do all of that. GR |
mcsnare wrote on Thu, 10 February 2011 02:36 |
I can tell you one thing: think about upgrading to Seq 10 or 11. They are both very stable (as in never crashed on me), and Seq 7 doesn't handle plugs very well. You'll have all kind of headaches opening sessions that worked fine before you closed it. When I started using more plugins was when I went to a separate computer to only handle that. An instance of Wavelab on live input, or whatever they call it now in WL6. If I'd had Seq 10 or 11 then, I probably wouldn't have done the second computer. As a side benefit the plugins you get with Seq 11 are pretty rad. Dave |
aivoryuk wrote on Sat, 12 February 2011 06:16 |
I guess Brad it depends what you are after. You're not renowned for being a colour guy (unless things have changed), so I would probably steer clear of most of the emulations that are around. |
Quote: |
Hope this helps |
subvertbeats wrote on Sat, 12 February 2011 13:54 |
Still using BX-Digital v2 for most corrective work ITB before going out to the chain, |
Patrik T wrote on Sat, 12 February 2011 14:15 | ||
I have completely abandoned this philosophy the better the analog side have grown. I get a feeling that people who commonly correct before an analog chain have analog gear that maybe ain't too suited for the purpose of mastering. |
Patrik T wrote on Sat, 12 February 2011 07:15 |
I get a feeling that people who commonly correct before an analog chain have analog gear that maybe ain't too suited for the purpose of mastering. |
24-96 Mastering wrote on Sat, 12 February 2011 15:44 |
My analog gear must not be suited for the purpose of mastering then... or I prefer to not limit myself by following any 'philosophy' and just use whatever is needed... |
Patrik T wrote on Sat, 12 February 2011 09:13 | ||
Just realized my comments could come across as offensive and that was not the intention. Let's rephrase: If someone corrects things prior to an analog chain, is that to make the source fit the analog chain better or is it for the sake of the source? How can one tell, really? In my opinion, that kind of pre-processing should without doubts do only good to the source if you took the analog chain away. Otherwise the ME is curing himself for what he's got available or what he's doing. Is that really mastering client audio? Again: not trying to stir things up, but this I do find extremely interesting. And sorry if it's OT. Best Regards Patrik |
Jerry Tubb wrote on Sat, 12 February 2011 15:46 |
Hey Patrik, I think your comment is out to lunch.... It's actually Both, for the sake of the source and to fit the analog path, all for the greater good of the project. |
Patrik T wrote on Sat, 12 February 2011 16:13 |
Just realized my comments could come across as offensive and that was not the intention. |
Quote: |
Let's rephrase: If someone corrects things prior to an analog chain, is that to make the source fit the analog chain better or is it for the sake of the source? How can one tell, really? In my opinion, that kind of pre-processing should without doubts do only good to the source even if you took the analog chain away. Otherwise the ME is curing himself for what he's got available or what he's doing. Is that really mastering client audio? |
tweakman wrote on Sat, 12 February 2011 10:30 |
- Algorithmix Red/Blue EQs pre DA (I only wish they could do M/S) |
Greg Reierson wrote on Sat, 12 February 2011 15:09 |
Fixing problems ITB before hitting the analog chain is normal here. My best HP/LP/notch filter, de-esser, de-noiser, de-clicker, etc. are all plugs. GR |
zenmastering wrote on Sat, 12 February 2011 23:52 | ||
The Algo plug-ins come with three 'helper' plug-ins that are for this purpose: 'LR to MS' 'Gain' and 'MS to LR'. Just strap them around the dual-mono version of the Algo plug and you're off to the races. |
d101 wrote on Sun, 13 February 2011 01:32 |
Very effective plug-in is the free SonicEQ. |
zenmastering wrote on Sat, 12 February 2011 18:52 |
..... FWIW, I'm not a fan of the Xenon limiter at all. Graemme |
OTR-jkl wrote on Mon, 14 February 2011 12:42 |
Couldn't find where to d/l it. Do you have a link...? JL |
Patrik T wrote on Sat, 12 February 2011 23:15 |
I get a feeling that people who commonly correct before an analog chain have analog gear that maybe ain't too suited for the purpose of mastering. |
Andrew Hamilton wrote on Mon, 14 February 2011 07:32 |
Only analog gear is well-suited for the purpose of mastering from analog sources. |
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Mon, 14 February 2011 10:29 | ||
I think the right question is what processing is needed, EQ, compression, stereo image manipulation, frequency-conscious dynamics... and then one has to determine in his own arsenal which tools he thinks are the best suited for the task before him. If I think I need to do de-clicking, de-noising or de-clipping on an analog source, I won't have a second of hesitation to go digital and use tools that work only in the digital domain. Do you know a good analog denoiser or declicker? Me neither... |
Andrew Hamilton wrote on Mon, 14 February 2011 11:42 | ||||
In this case you are invoking a signal conversion or two's layer of coloration in order to remove something that shouldn't have been there, in the first place. There may be exceptions to this maxim as concerns other services, such as restoration - which is not straight pre-mastering. But no one wanted a computer until they were invented, though many historically and economically significant masters were cut without a hitch - all analog. Cheers, Andrew |
eightyeightkeys wrote on Sun, 13 February 2011 10:24 | ||
Just curious Graemme, why you're not a fan of the Xenon limiter....I'm working with the demo right at the moment and liking it very much. |
Jerry Tubb wrote on Mon, 14 February 2011 13:38 |
I don't mind a little tape noise, makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Much less distracting than the negative effects of vibe sucking noise reduction. |
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Mon, 14 February 2011 16:23 |
Once again, you're throwing the proverbial baby. |
Jerry Tubb wrote on Mon, 14 February 2011 23:52 |
Often it's still a toss up whether to use NR, or keep all the ambience & live with a little natural tape noise. Cheers, JT |
Andrew Hamilton wrote on Mon, 14 February 2011 17:42 |
But no one wanted a computer until they were invented, though many historically and economically significant masters were cut without a hitch - all analog. |
Table Of Tone wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 08:18 |
The problem is that younger clients are just not used to hearing tape hiss so they instantly see it as a negative thing! |
Dave Davis wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 08:29 | ||
Whuuuuu? You're not serious, here right? If so, speak for yourself. I absolutely, positively wanted a computer before I'd ever seen a small, personal one and I definitely wasn't alone. |
Dave Davis wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 08:29 |
Most engineers in the late 70s were aware of digital audio and its potential benefits for recording. Most of those folks realized a computer, whether or not disguised as an appliance, was the way to get there. Obviously virtually every classic cut prior to 1980 was unhindered by a lack of DSP, so no argument there. |
Dave Davis wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 08:29 |
But even there I've heard many reissues that benefitted from specific DSP to address certain issues better or more transparently than the analog processes available at the time of creation. |
Dave Davis wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 08:29 |
In short, DSP can make some older recordings more pleasant to listen to, even if they were successful initially. Fans can pick often their poison, choosing the new or old versions. |
Dave Davis wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 08:29 |
My "pro" audio experiences began in 1978, when I worked for a fairly well-off band doing live sound and a little recording with the gear of my choice. By the time I entered the industry, "computers" were already in wide use as automation controllers, often hidden as dedicated DSP in analog-looking boxes. Crappy digital delay lines were all the rage when they appeared a few years later. While I was always impatient and disappointed by the early digital devices, like many I went gaga over the first Synclavier I saw in the mid 80s. Throughout this era the dream of using DSP for eq, compression and limiting was thriving. It wasn't only the prophets who desired computer-based control for this all-digital processor (we sort of had it with midi, eh?). After a couple months using ADATs, most people pined for computers to eliminate the unreliable transports and visualize the tracks. The concept of "clothesline" gain control existed before the capability to do it, thanks to early computer midi sequencers. But alas, the drives were too small, RAM too pricey. Still my first DAW, PT1/Deck, pushed the envelope and made me dream of still more things I wanted that had not yet been invented. |
Dave Davis wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 08:29 |
... When I started mastering professionally in the mid 90s, again I was pretty impatient with the pace of progress... There were plugs I liked back then, but they took tons of DSP the computers lacked. But by this point there were unique digital processes emerging already, especially in the area of limiters, able to do things analog couldn't (full-fidelity look-ahead). Multi-band compression is a process introduced tangentially in the analog era, that flowered and matured in DSP (to be re-introduced to analog in the 21st century). Many engineers I knew could imagine, describe and pine for tools like ReNOVAtor which hadn't been invented yet. Again, the need preceded the tools. |
Dave Davis wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 08:29 |
... Many engineers clearly imagined and anticipated general purpose computing appliances able to handle audio. Don't take my word for it, talk to Glenn Meadows (calling Glenn! Come in, Glenn!!) or ask Jay Petach. There were few anti-digital luddites in the pre-PC era damning computers but plenty of vision and excitement in anticipation. In fact I think you have in backwards: MOST engineers desired something a lot like a modern DAW, in an admittedly sci-fi/HAL kind of way (we grew up with Captain Kirk and Spock on TV). When I was in elementary school, my friends and I played a "space game" where an etchasketch was something essentially like an iPad - a general purpose computer to talk to our "ship", conjure images and sounds, etc... so in the mid 60s even CHILDREN imagined computers doing all kinds of tasks (many since realized)! |
Dave Davis wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 08:29 |
Mastering engineers in particular dreamed of devices like modern digital limiters, surgical EQs, and variable band-pass options. No one pined for noise in that era, as some kind of desireable benefit; it was viewed as a necessary evil to be minimized and avoided at all costs, not vaunted (we never dreamed we'd be injecting it intentionally as "dither"). Lathes were among the first audio devices to benefit from computerization, and once CDs became common, that trend accelerated to the point where we got the first DAWs. As a profession we're at the leading edge of the shift, with few foot draggers. I'm glad our profession's been slow to ditch great sounding analog, and that we embrace whatever works. We're lucky because most mastering gear is well-built and designed, so it never didn't sound good. We get it! But most idea taken to extremes get worse. We've all seen some sketchy practices, executed with janky old gear, being sold as some sort of "classic" fashion plate. Likewise many modern plugs fit that notion even better than worn out DBX 163s - a retro gui, atop some ugly algos with lots of injected noise isn't charming or classic, just noisy and ugly (T-RACKS!). I'm not saying plugs are better or analog is worse. Actually both are pretty great these days in mastering. I'm saying that many engineers anticipated and dreamed of DAWs long before personal computing was a reality. In fact, thanks to positive experiences with console automation, cutting computers, and digitally-controlled analog stages in the 70s, most engineers had been exposed to the benefits. Since audio was becoming more modular in the pre-PC era (breaking "out of the box" of giant holistic consoles to specialized outboard processors), we were jonesing for computers and DAWs at work before accountants ever heard of Visicalc. "No one wanted a computer until they were invented" is bunk, at least in audio. Even out here in the Ohio Valley hills many engineers wanted computers. |
Table Of Tone wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 07:18 |
The problem is that younger clients are just not used to hearing tape hiss so they instantly see it as a negative thing! |
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 02:01 | ||
Regards, Geoff |
bruno putzeys wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 14:33 |
I'm trying to work out why, when someone asks "what's the best plugin around" the discussion has to turn into an analogue vs digital debate. The positions are clear, the heels are dug, there's no point in elaborating or restating. I, for one, was following the thread to hear whether there are some particularly smooth and unobtrusive compressors around in plug-in form. Not just brick-wall limiters but compressors one would use to good artistic effect. |
Dave Davis wrote on Wed, 16 February 2011 00:29 |
When I was in elementary school, my friends and I played a "space game" where an etchasketch was something essentially like an iPad - a general purpose computer to talk to our "ship", conjure images and sounds, etc... so in the mid 60s even CHILDREN imagined computers doing all kinds of tasks (many since realized)! |
bblackwood wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 21:29 |
Guys, start the analog vs digital debate in another thread - I'm genuinely interested in finding some new things to try out once I get Seq11 here and installed. |
masterhse wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 11:03 | ||
Is there a plug-in to give uncompressed audio the sound of mp3s at different bit rates? |
bblackwood wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 15:29 | ||
Yah, I was thinking the same thing, Bruno. Guys, start the analog vs digital debate in another thread - I'm genuinely interested in finding some new things to try out once I get Seq11 here and installed. |
bruno putzeys wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 14:33 |
I'm trying to work out why, when someone asks "what's the best plugin around" the discussion has to turn into an analogue vs digital debate. The positions are clear, the heels are dug, there's no point in elaborating or restating. I, for one, was following the thread to hear whether there are some particularly smooth and unobtrusive compressors around in plug-in form. Not just brick-wall limiters but compressors one would use to good artistic effect. |
Jerry Tubb wrote on Wed, 16 February 2011 01:30 | ||||
Good call Brad. I assume you're looking for plug-ins that do things that you can't do with your analog path? Cheers, JT |
masterhse wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 16:03 | ||
Is there a plug-in to give uncompressed audio the sound of mp3s at different bit rates? |
Jerry Tubb wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 17:11 | ||
Actually the younger clients, at least here in Tejas, are the ones who have been requesting the most analog tape layback mastering from us! They grew up with digital, so when they hear tape on the ATR, they generally dig it, "noise" and all. JT |
Table Of Tone wrote on Wed, 16 February 2011 06:45 |
I think I saw something at NAMM show from Sonnox that fits that description. |
Jerry Tubb wrote on Wed, 16 February 2011 00:30 |
I assume you're looking for plug-ins that do things that you can't do with your analog path? |
OTR-jkl wrote on Sun, 13 February 2011 20:42 |
Couldn't find where to d/l it. Do you have a link...? JL |
OTR-jkl wrote on Wed, 16 February 2011 09:45 | ||
Sorry, obviously I didn't hit the correct reply button. I was directing this toward Jerry Tub and d101 regarding the SonicEQ... |
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 16 February 2011 06:41 | ||
Hrm, I dunno, honestly. Just looking to see what's out there. I don't really feel limited (haha) by my analog gear, but I'm open to trying out new things. Who knows? I suspect I'll end up finding things similar to the Sonnex Suppressor more useful but I'm open to any suggestions... |
Jerry Tubb wrote on Wed, 16 February 2011 12:42 |
Two have gotten my attention, the UAD Fairchild emulator, and one of the SSL compressors, don't remember which one. Honorable mention goes to the Flux Alchemist, but it's more complicated than any female I know, save perhaps my wife ; - ) ...including that Man/Woman audio device pic that floated around the net a few years back. Anyone know the SSL compressor of which I speak, maybe it's Waves (almost bit my tongue off on that one), I've heard it on a handful of projects as a 2 bus comp, raised one of my eyebrows. |
masterhse wrote on Wed, 16 February 2011 12:22 | ||
Jerry, I have the Waves SSL collection. The bus compressor is in there along with the E/G series channels and G equalizer. I use them occasionally with stem mastering, but I haven't really found them to be much use otherwise. Duende also has these. I heard the UAD Fairchild at a friend's studio and was also impressed. |
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 16 February 2011 06:41 | ||
Hrm, I dunno, honestly. Just looking to see what's out there. I don't really feel limited (haha) by my analog gear, but I'm open to trying out new things. Who knows? I suspect I'll end up finding things similar to the Sonnex Suppressor more useful but I'm open to any suggestions... |
Greg Reierson wrote on Sat, 12 February 2011 15:09 | ||
Fixing problems ITB before hitting the analog chain is normal here. My best HP/LP/notch filter, de-esser, de-noiser, de-clicker, etc. are all plugs. GR |
bblackwood wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 21:29 |
I'm genuinely interested in finding some new things to try out once I get Seq11 here and installed. |
subvertbeats wrote on Thu, 17 February 2011 06:08 |
Greg - I just want to point out that this quote that is attributed to me was not in fact made by me. |
subvertbeats wrote on Thu, 17 February 2011 06:16 | ||
Per my earlier post, do check out the built in EQ116 |
Jerry Tubb wrote on Wed, 16 February 2011 11:42 |
Hi Jeff! although I resemble a tub, the claw-footed variety, my name is spelled with two b's. Not sure if that's orthographical or not, perhaps Mr. de Fake could enlighten us. : - ) |
Jerry Tubb wrote on Wed, 16 February 2011 11:42 |
But back on topic, I think the Sonic EQ is a VST thingy, Mac only? |
Viitalahde wrote on Thu, 17 February 2011 18:17 |
Just entered the license key to the Fabfilter Pro-L. This thing is here to stay! |
Slip wrote on Wed, 23 February 2011 14:56 | ||
I can't even begin to tell you how happy and relieved I'm to hear this! You approve! I was hoping to get you onboard the early prototyping and beta testing.. and then in the autumn you decided to start building your new studio! Amazing stuff man. Very impressive and I've got to tell you.. balls of steel! Can't even imagine the amount of work that went into that. Looking forward to visiting you someday, once this damn snow melts. I've just recently been on the roof of our studio, clearing snow away with a 'kola' (huge shovel kind of thing) because the land lord doesn't seem to want to take care of it. Terveisin, Niklas |
Viitalahde wrote on Wed, 23 February 2011 13:29 |
Now start working with a de-esser/high frequency limiter, and I might not need to do a hardware equivalent. |