R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => Brad Blackwood => Topic started by: Noah Mintz on December 01, 2010, 03:28:21 pm

Title: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Noah Mintz on December 01, 2010, 03:28:21 pm
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?


Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: compasspnt on December 01, 2010, 03:51:36 pm
You are now a member of a special secret society.

Welcome.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Noah Mintz on December 01, 2010, 04:29:21 pm
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 15:51

You are now a member of a special secret society.

Welcome.



Phil Demetro just informed me that this is a 'hot topic' already. Guess I should have done my research before posting. Thought I discovered this all on my own and I was the only one.

In other news. Phil Demetro can also tell you a few things about 'special secret societies'






Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Table Of Tone on December 01, 2010, 04:35:55 pm
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?




I know where you're coming from, with regards to plugs.
I feel exactly the same!

I try to play with the plugs as much as possible to get my chops up with em but they don't often end up on the record.

Maybe the odd track here N there.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: dcollins on December 01, 2010, 05:33:59 pm
I have spent a lot (a lot) of time with plugs recently.  Have a separate PC just to run them.

Amount of client material committed to actual production CD's:

Exactly zero.

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.

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.........

Most I'd give a letter grade of "Meh."


DC
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Gold on December 01, 2010, 06:14:36 pm
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).
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Noah Mintz on December 01, 2010, 06:31:34 pm
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).


I'm quite intrigued by this one: http://www.uaudio.com/products/software/studer-a800/?UAVID=S tuder_A800_Trailer
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: MoreSpaceEcho on December 01, 2010, 06:37:41 pm
sonoris min phase eq and the venerable spitfish see regular use here, but that's about it. occasionally the voxengo gliss eq is useful on unruly bass notes or painful vocals...
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: compasspnt on December 01, 2010, 07:04:41 pm
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



This is now getting out of control...

"The Warm Analog Sound of the World’s Most Popular Multichannel Tape Machine..."

The warm analogue sound of the IC chip?

I thought they were killing music, what?

(Not to put down UA, for plugs, they do pretty good work.)
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Gold on December 01, 2010, 07:06:56 pm
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


I've never used an A800. I have A80's. I hate the way they sound when overdriven. If it was a 440 I'd be all over it. Those things only sound good when you beat them mercilessly.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Ben F on December 01, 2010, 07:14:30 pm
I find the cycle of hype interesting. Like the most amazing plug-in in invariably the latest...even then, it's generally a recreation of vintage hardware. How many Pultec emulations are there already?

That brings me to my second point...why do plug-in manufacturers design the plug-in with the same user interface as the hardware? Like 2dB steps on an API EQ and you have to move the mouse exactly on the knobs, it's a plug-in you can do anything you want! Seriously chuck a 200Hz on the Pultec EQ and be a bit different. Put in a 'stereo link' on the Massive Passive. I think a Sontec emulation will be next.

I was very impressed with the UAD-1 Massive Passive though. Pity I was over the sound of the Massivo at that point. And I like the included Sequoia plugs.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: William Bowden on December 01, 2010, 07:26:19 pm
I don't think they all sound the same, the waves L3 sounds pretty different to the multiband limiter in Sequoia for eg. I do 95% analogue myself, but sometimes a few plugs come in handy, especially if the client wants it just that bit louder for example and you don't want to drive your chain or converters harder.

My Z sys eq is that a plug-in in a box? Dunno but it's a pretty good problem solver.

The King
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Jerry Tubb on December 01, 2010, 11:03:10 pm
dcollins wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 16:33

I have spent a lot (a lot) of time with plugs recently.


I'm buying a lottery ticket!

JT
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: fuse on December 02, 2010, 02:55:35 am
Trying out all plugs is like a lottery. Only a few deliver.

Like dcollins said. They just started developing them and they keep improving every year.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Patrik T on December 02, 2010, 03:26:22 am
I have been "impressed" followed by extreme dissapointment too many times in order to bother spending more energy and money in that flavors-of-smear-landscape.

Naturally people using plugs-only will eventually chime in this thread and defend their things. And usually they have not one single piece of quality hardware. But always a lot to say about it.

I guess they sold their OCL-2 when VST-2 came and save the world.


Best Regards
Patrik
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Bender Mastering on December 02, 2010, 06:23:36 am
Well, the Softube stuff sounds different to me! And sounds better than everything else and they sound like real gear...

The DSM from Pro Audio DSP (Paul Frindle's new company) is a great tool and a real problem solver.

Other than this yes, most plug-ins sound the "same" and aren't really that usable.

My opinion.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: dietrich on December 02, 2010, 07:26:06 am
I find this to be true me: someone recommends a new plugin which I try and use a week before going back to the plugs I have incorporated for awhile now.

Surgical Eq plugins are great. Compressors......aahhhh. I started with limited hardware and had to use plugs so a few have stayed in my workflow. uad cambridge is my fix go to for a long time. its funny how many times some one tells me i must try 'this eq'....and i use it for a few days and back to the cambridge for the task.

The uad MP very close to hardware as mentioned above. missed some overall depth but putting track slightly thru analog chain+the uad MP=same depth as just hardware.

I do thank the designers for software limiters
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: mcsnare on December 02, 2010, 07:38:03 am
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 15:51

You are now a member of a special secret society.

Welcome.



Phil Demetro just informed me that this is a 'hot topic' already. Guess I should have done my research before posting. Thought I discovered this all on my own and I was the only one.

In other news. Phil Demetro can also tell you a few things about 'special secret societies'

Didn't Phil tell you the Illuminati wants us to think plug ins are great? It's part of their 'plan'.

Dave





Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: AndreasN on December 02, 2010, 07:59:26 am
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.........


After doing technical tests on plugs for many years the conclusion is that most software developers can't posibbly be using even rudimentary test routines. Not to mention listening. Being able to program does not equate audio engineering skills.

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.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: compasspnt on December 02, 2010, 08:35:13 am
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.




Steve Massey for one.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: dietrich on December 02, 2010, 08:37:58 am
lets just talk once more about the GUI of the SPL Passeq plug..
why......
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Gregg Janman on December 02, 2010, 08:48:24 am
I agree with most of what has been said. I've always been more of a hardware guy, whether it be synths or compressors. The only place plugins seem to work for me is in the limiting realm, with occasional "surgical" EQ.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Herbeck on December 02, 2010, 11:21:04 am
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.



This is one of the reasons why it's so fun to work with digital, there are plenty of things to discover.
It's cool to know that you have an eq that is truly unique, when people claim they are all the same.

The latest thing I've worked on is digital gain, not many developers worked on this one. =)



All the best

Herbeck


Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Jerry Tubb on December 02, 2010, 01:40:21 pm
I still find that my outboard Digital EQ, a humble Z-Sys, sounds better than any ITB plug-in EQ.

JT
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: bblackwood on December 02, 2010, 01:53:16 pm
I'd love to find some plugs that were as good or better than my hardware, but i've been disappointed over and over. I'm certain they'll get there, but they aren't there yet, ime.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: cass anawaty on December 02, 2010, 01:58:21 pm
UAD Precision EQ gets a little play, but that's about it for mastering.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: aivoryuk on December 02, 2010, 03:28:15 pm
They have come on quite a bit in the last few years and more are sounding like they are part of the sound rather than a layer on top of the sound.

Some of the compressors are improving but I still find myself relying on a hardware compressor be it a digital one.
You wouldn't think it would make a difference it's just computing right but it always seems to sound more solid.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: dcollins on December 02, 2010, 03:51:43 pm
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. =)



How hard is it to call the 'multiply' instruction?


DC
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Herbeck on December 02, 2010, 04:51:36 pm
dcollins wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 14:51

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. =)


How hard is it to call the 'multiply' instruction?



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.

And if you or anyone else want to hear an example, I'll be happy to post one.



All the best

Herbeck
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Waltz Mastering on December 02, 2010, 04:58:51 pm
The waves de-esser seems to be getting a work out a bit more lately, although sparingly ...sibilance kills me.
That's usually it besides a limiter.

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.



What format do you code for. rtas, vst, au?
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Herbeck on December 02, 2010, 05:47:20 pm
Waltz Mastering wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 15:58



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.



What format do you code for. rtas, vst, au?



I've only worked with vst, I'm not a pro programmer but sometimes I'm able to think outside the box.
I would need some help to make the plugins commercial acceptable, but at the moment that's not what I plan to do.



All the best

Herbeck

Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: dcollins on December 02, 2010, 06:26:46 pm
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.



Is there more than one way to change digital level?  What is wrong with the way it's presently done?



DC
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Jerry Tubb on December 02, 2010, 08:40:32 pm
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.


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
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Waltz Mastering on December 02, 2010, 09:23:48 pm
Jerry Tubb wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 20:40

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.


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.



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?
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: jetbase on December 02, 2010, 09:33:55 pm
Waltz Mastering wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 13:23

Jerry Tubb wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 20:40

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.


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.



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?


Wavelabs de-plopper (in their De-Clicker) sometimes works for that. RX2's de-clicker in multiband mode is supposed to be good for thumps but I haven't tried it on plosives yet. Usually editing works best.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: masterhse on December 02, 2010, 10:13:17 pm
Jerry Tubb wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 20:40

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.


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


Jerry,

Have you checked out the McDSP ML4000 limiter? Might be another to add to our otherwise oddly similar lists.

Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Herbeck on December 03, 2010, 01:02:29 am
dcollins wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 17:26

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.



Is there more than one way to change digital level?  What is wrong with the way it's presently done?



There is nothing "wrong" with standard digital gain, but it is cool to have an option.



Allt he best

Herbeck

Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Patrik T on December 03, 2010, 01:29:11 am
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.


What's with your mumbling approach to communication? Where are your answers to peoples questions?


Regards
Patrik
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: lowland on December 03, 2010, 02:07:34 am
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?

Not quite what you're talking about, but I find Retouch quite brilliant and very quick for that sort of thing - far too expensive if that's all one was doing with it, but as it does so much else besides (including on a good day polyphonic retuning) it takes some of the sting out of the price tag.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Adam Dempsey on December 03, 2010, 02:16:15 am
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?

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.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Herbeck on December 03, 2010, 02:33:43 am
Patrik T wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 00:29

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.


What's with your mumbling approach to communication? Where are your answers to peoples questions?


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.



All the best

Herbeck
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: lowland on December 03, 2010, 03:31:10 am
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.

I have De-Thump here, and it works fine. It was originally bought for orchestral LF problems and dealt with those well, but when I eventually got up the courage to employ Retouch for that I found it quicker/more controllable and stayed with it - it's more than twice the price though. All the Cedar-for-SADiE denoisers integrate into the DAW well, another timesaver, but now that various Izotope tools are to be bundled with SADiE 6 I wonder if a custom version of RX might eventually become available: even if it's a cost option, that would be a powerful additional tool in the armoury.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: bblackwood on December 03, 2010, 09:20:15 am
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....
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: masterhse on December 03, 2010, 11:15:08 am
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....


Does anyone feel that linear phase EQs have an advantage in some situations?
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Jerry Tubb on December 03, 2010, 11:48:00 am
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....


Yep, I've got two versions Sonic NoNoise, (PT HD & Sonic sB) both are amazing.

Nick is quite adept with iZotope Rx 2.

And we just bought Wavelab 7, so we'll be looking into those Oxford NR tools as well.

Like DC said the best of the plug-ins are the EQs.

I would add to that the Crane Song Phoenix, used sparingly.

I haven't really found any compression plugs that float my boat, although the Fairchild (and their other classic emulations) with the UAD card got my attention on a recent project, and the Flux Alchemist is the first multiband gizmo to raise my eyebrows, but haven't bought either.

But for a straight mastering job there's nothing like a simple analog chain with a dig limiter on the end to do the job.

I could babble on...

JT
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Jerry Tubb on December 03, 2010, 11:51:02 am
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.




I have not. Will it work in soundBlade?

JT
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Waltz Mastering on December 03, 2010, 12:38:05 pm
Herbeck wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 02:33

Patrik T wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 00:29

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.


What's with your mumbling approach to communication? Where are your answers to peoples questions?


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.



How would that work? Comparing the differences between digital gain which  is clean and transparent in the first place with a alternate that is "cleaner"?

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?
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: masterhse on December 03, 2010, 01:31:47 pm
Jerry Tubb wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 11:51

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.




I have not. Will it work in soundBlade?

JT


No, TDM and RTAS only.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Geoff Emerick de Fake on December 03, 2010, 05:13:56 pm
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?
Sonnox Suppresoor is supposed to be tunable to any frequency range. Abstract from their website: "Since the SuprEsser can operate at all frequencies, ‘plosives’ and other annoyances can also be removed effortlessly, making it more than a simple De-Esser. "
The only thing that has deterred me from purchasing it is that it needs the goddam iLok...
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Jerry Tubb on December 03, 2010, 06:00:28 pm
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...


What's wrong with an iLok?, we've got 6 of 'em.

JT
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: ggidluck on December 03, 2010, 07:44:02 pm
While we are on the topic of plug-ins, has anyone tried the Massive Passive for UAD-2?


Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Geoff Emerick de Fake on December 03, 2010, 07:51:40 pm
Jerry Tubb wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 17:00

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...


What's wrong with an iLok?, we've got 6 of 'em.

JT
I'm ran out of USB ports, so I have to install a hub, so more wires, more things that can go wrong.
But the real serious reson is I don't like the idea of paying for the software manufacturer's protection...
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Herbeck on December 04, 2010, 09:11:36 am
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?



Hi Tom,

I think that it is a little smoother/fuller than standard digital gain.
I made a small test with a 5db boost.

I also made a test with my eq comparing it with Flux Epure II.
Settings for Epure: 1,5db 2kHz Q7

It would be interesting to hear your take on the eq and gain.

The alternative digital gain may not be a game changer and some folks probably wonder why?
Well, why not? it's fun to try out new ideas.


All the best

Herbeck


https://www.yousendit.com/download/cEd0R0ljR3N3TGl4dnc9PQ
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Greg Reierson on December 04, 2010, 11:43:57 am
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...



Doesn't some portion of the money you charge your clients pay for the locks on your studio doors?


GR
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: cass anawaty on December 04, 2010, 12:18:03 pm
FYI, the new ilok holds tons of licenses.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Tidewater on December 04, 2010, 03:35:37 pm
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



Yes. Currently, it's done digitally!
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Geoff Emerick de Fake on December 04, 2010, 03:49:35 pm
Greg Reierson wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 10:43

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...



Doesn't some portion of the money you charge your clients pay for the locks on your studio doors?


GR
True; but I don't issue a separate invoice for it...It's all a matter of presentation.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Geoff Emerick de Fake on December 04, 2010, 03:54:50 pm
To continue with Sonnox Suppresser, I took the plunge, got me an iLok this morning, downloaded the demo version from the website, spent the whole afternoon installing the iLok client, crasshed twice my PC, and finally it is unusable. The sound stutters, I have tried all sorts of settings, buffers, presets, sample rate, ...finally sent a ticket to the online support. I hope they come back to me on Monday.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Bonati on December 04, 2010, 07:12:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Nick Sevilla on December 04, 2010, 09:26:15 pm
The only thing I do like about the plug ins :

RECALL.

In this day and age where artists are not as sure about what they are doing, this alone makes plug ins invaluable to my work.

No, the plug ins do not sound like their real life counterparts, but then again two of the real devices rarely sounded the same.

In the end, because we live in such a fast paced world, it is good to be able to have something that is reliable and recallable for the changes required.

Cheers
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: yeloocproducer on December 05, 2010, 11:46:46 am
Piling on here.

+1 Suppressor as the only plug (aside from limiter) I'm using.  I like it for "essh" type stuff better than my MPL2 which will dig in to0 hard when it needs to respond to upper mids sometimes.  It can be good in other freq. ranges as well as a problem solver.

+1 Z-sys EQ sounding better than plugin EQs, many of the new LP/MP included.  No experience with algorithmix though.

I'd like to see an M/S function in the suppressor, that would make it even better.  I don't like running digital M/S chains (waves MS plugs sandwiching the suppressor, etc.).
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Geoff Emerick de Fake on December 05, 2010, 12:57:32 pm
Nick Sevilla wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 20:26


No, the plug ins do not sound like their real life counterparts,  
This is true for plugins that emulate analog processors, but I have no qualms about using reverb and delay plugins (although I have Lexicon, Quantech and tc electronics hardware).
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Herbeck on December 06, 2010, 06:54:01 pm
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.


In most cases digital eq's sounds pretty much the same. but the eq I've made don't.
And in my opinion it's superior to any plugin eq I've heard, in the test you can clearly hear the difference.



All the best

Herbeck


https://www.yousendit.com/download/cEd0R0ljR3N3TGl4dnc9PQ
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Patrik T on December 07, 2010, 10:48:59 am
I might be deaf.


Regards
Patrik
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Herbeck on December 07, 2010, 12:03:46 pm
Patrik T wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 09:48

I might be deaf.



Hi Patrik,

Thanks for taking the time to listen.
But your response is a little odd, do you mean that you can't hear the difference?


All the best

Herbeck
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Waltz Mastering on December 07, 2010, 01:59:50 pm
The gains do null completely.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Herbeck on December 07, 2010, 02:53:04 pm
Waltz Mastering wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 12:59

The gains do null completely.


Hi Tom,

The difference is very tiny, and as I said before this "gain" is hardly a game changer.
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.



Patrik,
Were you referring to the eq or the gain?



All the best

Herbeck

Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: 24-96 Mastering on December 07, 2010, 04:34:42 pm
Herbeck wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 20:53

Waltz Mastering wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 12:59

The gains do null completely.


The difference is very tiny, and as I said before this "gain" is hardly a game changer.


"Very tiny" is a bit of an overstatement ;)

After correcting the (very slightly mismatching) gains to match, the residual null I get sounds like this:

   http://www.24-96.net/xchange/H_gain_5db_residual_below_minus 100.zip

That's after adding 90 dB of gain, i.e. the original residual is somewhere around -120 dBfs. Looks like noise shaped 24bit dither to me. Or am I missing something?

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.



I'd love to compare the EQs, but I think it's not really possible when one hasn't got access to them. Going by posted sound examples can only be so conclusive... I don't know what your objective was with the track when applying the EQ... so which is better and which is worse is a somewhat arbitrary decision. And then I don't know if the significant difference is down to topology or different settings (or different internal interpretation of the same settings).

Is there any chance of trying the EQ out? If not, do you mind posting the EQ settings? So I can have a comparison with my EQs?

Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Patrik T on December 07, 2010, 05:59:26 pm
Herbeck wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 20:53

Patrik,
Were you referring to the eq or the gain?


Both.
Both.

(Which "both" above clearly appears best to your eye?)


Best Regards
Patrik
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Fenris Wulf on December 07, 2010, 10:36:02 pm
I do small-budget projects and master them for CD in-house. Since we don't have any suitable 2-bus EQ's or compressors, I used to master stuff with the UAD plug-ins. As soon as we upgraded to a better console with more flexible EQ, and better monitoring, I stopped using the plug-ins entirely. Even 2 dB of plug-in compression or EQ makes the nice analog mix sound "digital." I give the mix about 1.5 dB of gain reduction with the Precision Limiter, and that's it.

I used to like the Fairchild plug-in for vox, until I discovered that an Aphex Compellor does "transparent" much better. I'm never spending another cent on plug-ins.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Geoff Emerick de Fake on December 08, 2010, 11:11:18 am
There are things that just don't exist in analog, or that are clearly superior in digital, though. Spectral cleaning, Debreath or Suppresser for example.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Herbeck on December 08, 2010, 01:30:03 pm
24-96 Mastering wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 15:34


Is there any chance of trying the EQ out?



Hi Robin,

Not at the moment, but if you have some idea how to make a good comparison with your EQs it would be fun.
Different styles of music, settings or whatever, send me a PM and we'll work it out.



All the best

Herbeck


Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Garrett H on December 08, 2010, 02:16:59 pm
This thread is like Thanksgiving dinner at my house: 4 different conversations with 10 people speaking at the same time.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Geoff Emerick de Fake on December 08, 2010, 04:51:11 pm
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.
That's the beauty of a forum. If there is too much governance, the thread just shrinks. Giving some liberty enriches it. sometimes a moderator chooses to split the thread when it has drift too far; this is not the case now.
Anyway, you seem to have a very disciplined family; generally, with 10 persons, we end up having 11 different conversations. Razz
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Nick Sevilla on December 08, 2010, 08:24:50 pm
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.



You can always close your eyes while listening...
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Fenris Wulf on December 09, 2010, 08:41:03 am
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.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Geoff Emerick de Fake on December 09, 2010, 10:33:33 am
Start by a thorough analysis of the way this clipper is implemented. It works that well because it is well complemented by the limiter. The clipper takes care of the first milliseconds of transients, the rest is controlled by the fast limiter.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Macc on December 09, 2010, 04:21:12 pm
Limiters aside, I use DMG EQuality for precision stuff as it sounds very good to me. Sometimes the UAD de-esser gets used, though I keep meaning to go back and try Spitfish again.

Some other stuff gets used here and there when heavy work is required, but that's about it.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Table Of Tone on December 16, 2010, 08:20:40 am
It really depends on so many things.
Obviously the material being worked on.

What signal path I'm using and what ADC I'm using.

If I'm using the ADC on the MADA 2, I'll normally but not always, make up some gain after it using something digital.

If I'm using my olde AD122, I won't use anything after it!

Nothing I put after it makes it sound better than it already does!
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Bonati on December 17, 2010, 12:59:01 pm
Nick Sevilla wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 20:24

You can always close your eyes while listening...

I don't like doing that and never thought it was necessary. I like to look straight ahead at the speakers and have processors right in front of me. I work faster and get better results.

Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Nick Sevilla on December 17, 2010, 01:15:31 pm
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.


And I am thinking of keeping ALL my transients and dynamic range in my work.

Cheers
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Bonati on December 17, 2010, 03:30:39 pm
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.

Applause!
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Geoff Emerick de Fake on December 19, 2010, 11:33:32 am
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
Not very realistic considering the way music is "consumed" today. Unless you have a very specific outlet for your productions. That's what the guys at IRCAM do; they create "works" that can be played only on a specific system, in a specific room, to a captive public.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Nick Sevilla on December 19, 2010, 01:38:40 pm
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 08:33

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
Not very realistic considering the way music is "consumed" today. Unless you have a very specific outlet for your productions. That's what the guys at IRCAM do; they create "works" that can be played only on a specific system, in a specific room, to a captive public.



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.

But, when I am producing a record, I try to do this smashing only at the mix stage.

Why?

1.- The Re-Mix. Ever try to fluff a pancake after it's been smothered with syrup, and half eaten? Impossible.

2.- The Re-Release in 20 years for a new as yet undiscovered delivery medium.

3.- Because I said so.

Cheers
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Geoff Emerick de Fake on December 20, 2010, 12:27:43 pm
Nick Sevilla wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 12:38

Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 08:33

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
Not very realistic considering the way music is "consumed" today. Unless you have a very specific outlet for your productions. That's what the guys at IRCAM do; they create "works" that can be played only on a specific system, in a specific room, to a captive public.



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.

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.
Quote:

 But, when I am producing a record, I try to do this smashing only at the mix stage.
I don't think of it as "smashing", my aim is to make the thing more listener-friendly. In addition, I favor dynamic processing while tracking, even knowing that what's been done can't be undone (or can it?). It's an artistic choice; taking almost irrevocable decisions while tracking is a strong incentive for defining the founding concepts. Definitive antidote to "we'll fix it in the mix".
Quote:

 Why?

1.- The Re-Mix. Ever try to fluff a pancake after it's been smothered with syrup, and half eaten? Impossible.
Isn't the remix done off the multitrack?
Quote:

 2.- The Re-Release in 20 years for a new as yet undiscovered delivery medium.
I really doubt anything that's produced today deserves to be re-released later Laughing Seriously, again, this would be done off the multitrack.
Quote:

 3.- Because I said so.
This is a very good and valid reason.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Glenn Bucci on December 21, 2010, 10:40:54 pm
I thought I would share my test results with several plug in compressors for mastering on a blues (Stevie Ray) song I recorded, and a smooth jazz song.

1. Waves V Series: Transparent comp that is able to smooth out the hard dynamics in a gentle way making them more even with the rest of the song. Very nice for mastering. I was able to get good results rather quickly.
I preferred 1.5 ratio with meters going up to -2.0db.
Attack fast with release on auto.
I tried harder threshold of up to -6db; it made the dynamics too soft for my tests.

2. Waves SSL comp: Punchy, clean but controlled. Not as smooth as the V comp. I found the attack on 0.3, and 0.1 the comp was too grabby for my taste on both songs. I preferred the attack at 1 mill. Ratio on 2. I like this comp on the blues number but it did nothing for me on the jazz.

3. Waves API 2500 comp: This sounded in between the SSL and V comp. Not as sharp as the SSL, but not as smooth as the V comp. Good control. The fast attack was not as grabby as the SSL. Ratio was at 2 and release on 5. Sounded great on both songs. On the blues number it controlled the transients without getting in the way. When the attack was on 0.3 it was too faster on the kick. 0.1 was better and 1.0 was even better.

4. UAD Fairchild: It sounded like a heavy handed V Series. A little sticky and smoother. Eh, it was ok. People like mastering engineer Massive Mastering advised it takes too much of the low end out.

5. Waves Ren Comp: This offers Eletro or Opto, and smoother and warm options.Warm adds a slight haz to the signal. I preferred the smooth button active. I also preferred opto for mastering. I really have liked this compressor for guitars, and bass, but for mastering, it did not do anything for me.

6. Samplitude's Ammunition compressor: This controlled the dynamics but still allowed the songs to breath. Clean, but controlled. So much controls like side chain, M/S, compressor mix, HP filters, that you can obtain so many different sounds to your signal. Hands down the more powerful plug in compressor I have ever used.

7. Waves Linear mastering compressor. I used this with the threshold controlling each band the together so it worked more like a stereo compressor. I used the opto mastering setting and slided the threshold until the strong dynamics were controlled. I found it kept the same integrity in the music while controlling the hard kicks are bass guitar parts. This is very clean, not adding artifacts and was a good controlled compressor. This compressor is not talked about much on the forums, but I really like it. Especially for those who cannot afford a GML Dynamic Controller or Cranesong ST-8.

I liked the Samplitude Ammunition compressor the best. I might even use two together with each having a different purpose. I might also want to use it with the V Series. The V could gently add a subtle clean smoothness, while Ammunition and control transients, and with its' other controls, but used like an L2 limiter but this is a cleaner more open sounding limiter. Waves Mastering compressor was good to control transients without affecting the music as much. With this being a linear comp, it is very clean

I liked the API on the blues number, but think it would be better on a drum or 2 bus. SSL was good if you want a song to be punchy and forward.

Though some are very useful, I have not found any to take place of something like a Manley Vari Mu, Pend OCl-2, or GML Dynamic Controller.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Nick Sevilla on December 22, 2010, 01:12:39 pm
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 09:27

Nick Sevilla wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 12:38

Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 08:33

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
Not very realistic considering the way music is "consumed" today. Unless you have a very specific outlet for your productions. That's what the guys at IRCAM do; they create "works" that can be played only on a specific system, in a specific room, to a captive public.



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.

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.
Quote:

 But, when I am producing a record, I try to do this smashing only at the mix stage.
I don't think of it as "smashing", my aim is to make the thing more listener-friendly. In addition, I favor dynamic processing while tracking, even knowing that what's been done can't be undone (or can it?). It's an artistic choice; taking almost irrevocable decisions while tracking is a strong incentive for defining the founding concepts. Definitive antidote to "we'll fix it in the mix".
Quote:

 Why?

1.- The Re-Mix. Ever try to fluff a pancake after it's been smothered with syrup, and half eaten? Impossible.
Isn't the remix done off the multitrack?
Quote:

 2.- The Re-Release in 20 years for a new as yet undiscovered delivery medium.
I really doubt anything that's produced today deserves to be re-released later Laughing Seriously, again, this would be done off the multitrack.
Quote:

 3.- Because I said so.
This is a very good and valid reason.


Hi,

Cool post.

The "Remix" should be off the multitrack... that is where I keep the dynamic range. The mix should be appropriate to the kind of music.

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!!!
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: compasspnt on December 22, 2010, 01:24:35 pm
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...



Was it a remake of The Mammas & Papa's "Make Your Own Kind of Music"?
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Geoff Emerick de Fake on December 22, 2010, 05:02:05 pm
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!!!
That's like asking a cook to make boeuf bourguignon from chili con carne, on the premises that it's almost the same ingredients at the start.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Nick Sevilla on December 23, 2010, 02:19:09 am
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 10:24

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...



Was it a remake of The Mammas & Papa's "Make Your Own Kind of Music"?



Fortunately, no. At least that one was not me.

It was an Ottmar Liebert record. don't remember which one though.
The multitrack was a Fostex 16 track something or other tape machine.

Cheers
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Nick Sevilla on December 23, 2010, 02:34:29 am
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 14:02

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!!!
That's like asking a cook to make boeuf bourguignon from chili con carne, on the premises that it's almost the same ingredients at the start.



But remember, you are going to serve it to Americans.

I'll duck now.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: bblackwood on December 23, 2010, 07:39:17 am
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 12:24

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...



Was it a remake of The Mammas & Papa's "Make Your Own Kind of Music"?


I got it, Terry - nicely done.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: compasspnt on December 23, 2010, 08:15:14 am
bblackwood wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 07:39

compasspnt wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 12:24

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...



Was it a remake of The Mamas & Papa's "Make Your Own Kind of Music"?


I got it, Terry - nicely done.



I knew someone would! (Of course, I got it slightly wrong, it was Mama Cass as solo.)

But I knew it was either that or "You All Everybody."
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Andy Krehm on December 27, 2010, 10:34:21 am
Other than limiter plug-ins, the only other one I use when needed is the MDW eq.

This I find excellent for roll-offs and when engaged, doesn't seem to affect the sound adversely. It's also helpful that it's programmable so a problem solver for one-pass mastering when one section of a track has too much sub or can be automated to take care of some plosives.

I have a good selection of outboard analog and digital gear but just like the sound and ease of using the MDW eq over the outboard gear for this purpose.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: compasspnt on December 27, 2010, 01:19:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Andy Krehm on December 27, 2010, 01:43:04 pm
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.


I most often use the TC 6000, usually in M mode. Light lifting sometimes works using the Weiss EQ1-DYN and when there's BIG trouble, nothing I have beats the Weiss DS1 MK3 (or MK 2!).
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Brad Sarno on December 28, 2010, 01:28:50 am
I use both plug-ins and real analog processing. Nothing I've found will give the sweet airy top end that an analog (tube especially) EQ can, a Massive Passive in my case. In the pre-analog path I'll often use a Waves Ren De-Esser in the digital if the sibiliance is bugging me. Also, I get TONS of use with the Waves Mastering Linear Phase multiband comp. Really, using that linear MB to control overly dynamic problems early in the path before the analog gear really allows me to use my Vari-Mu more gently and effectively. And sometimes a more precision or surgical digital EQ can help me handle real specific issues that my Massive Passive can't. Then after the analog path has come back in, I'll monitor (and eventually print) with a digital peak limiter:

Flux Pure Limiter for more pristine stuff and fine tweaking. The Flux stuff is real nice to my ears. I demoed their EQ and liked it a lot.

L2 still treats me just fine for stuff that's not too loud. A solid workhorse plug-in.

Event Horizon for loud rap, hip-hop, and loud beat-heavy rock actually set as a peak clipper. Try it! Great tool for high impact aggressive stuff. Less squishy than a limiter. I was surprised to find how incredibly useful this $39 plug-in could be.

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. Maybe I just haven't worked enuf with the really high end digital processing, but analog and tubes are the only way I can roll.

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. So analog processing and digital peak limiting are quite obviously essential to me.

Brad



Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: SafeandSound on December 28, 2010, 11:38:42 am
Please delete. (HNY everyone)
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Catalin Truta on January 24, 2011, 09:03:36 pm
Interesting that nobody around here seems to be aware of the already famous Nebula.

There's nothing in the "tired" algorithmic plugins world that can touch Nebula, if loaded with the very best mastering eq libraries (things like the 5500 or the Massive Passive).

Everybody who is indeed serious about finding the latest/best in plugin should pay acustica-audio . com a visit.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Geoff Emerick de Fake on January 25, 2011, 07:23:30 am
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.
As a producer/SE/artist, my take on mastering is that it's the stage where levels/dynamics and spectra are managed, but too late and not pertinent to add distortion (however euphemistically disguised as "warmth", "character" or fairydust.
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.
100% agreed - in conjunction with a good set of peak and rms meters.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Laarsø on January 25, 2011, 09:44:28 am
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 06:23

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.
As a producer/SE/artist, my take on mastering is that it's the stage where levels/dynamics and spectra are managed, but too late and not pertinent to add distortion (however euphemistically disguised as "warmth", "character" or fairydust.


How many hit records were mastered with a Pultec?  


Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 06:23

Brad Sarno wrote on Tue, 28 December 2010 00:28

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.
100% agreed - in conjunction with a good set of peak and rms meters.



Or a good set of ears and a pair of VU's to get the micro-dynamics nailed.



Laars
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Geoff Emerick de Fake on January 25, 2011, 11:41:21 am
Laars
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: SafeandSound on January 25, 2011, 12:18:59 pm
The thread might as well be called "Hardware, not convinced yet"

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
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Tomas Danko on January 27, 2011, 07:40:33 am
Catalin Truta wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 02:03

Interesting that nobody around here seems to be aware of the already famous Nebula.

There's nothing in the "tired" algorithmic plugins world that can touch Nebula, if loaded with the very best mastering eq libraries (things like the 5500 or the Massive Passive).

Everybody who is indeed serious about finding the latest/best in plugin should pay acustica-audio . com a visit.

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.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Jerry Tubb on January 28, 2011, 07:55:52 am
As to the OP, I wouldn't even use the word "yet"...

which implies that plug-in domination is inevitable.

I don't think so.

Hardware rules ; - )

Cheers, JT
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Patrik T on January 28, 2011, 09:54:00 am
I think  more energy should be put into emulating noise characteristics rather than distortion characteristics when software developers glance at hardware.


Best Regards
Patrik
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Geoff Emerick de Fake on January 28, 2011, 06:02:25 pm
Jerry Tubb wrote on Fri, 28 January 2011 06:55

As to the OP, I wouldn't even use the word "yet"...

which implies that plug-in domination is inevitable.
I'm not sure about the "domination". But the existence of plug-ins is indisputable. And not wanting to use them is depriving one's self of functionalities not available otherwise.
Quote:

 Hardware rules ; - )
Just like a digital delay or reverb is a combination of hardware and software, there is no reason why a recording or mastering chain could not be also an hybrid, taking the best of both worlds. Any piece of audio hardware is the combination of material and intellectual components. It has largely been shown in the past - and today - that lousy hardware can exist. You can't condemn plug-ins on the basis that some are a real failure, no more that one could condemn hardware because some are real lemon.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Jerry Tubb on January 28, 2011, 07:38:51 pm
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Fri, 28 January 2011 17:02

Jerry Tubb wrote on Fri, 28 January 2011 06:55

As to the OP, I wouldn't even use the word "yet"...

which implies that plug-in domination is inevitable.
I'm not sure about the "domination". But the existence of plug-ins is indisputable. And not wanting to use them is depriving one's self of functionalities not available otherwise.
Quote:

 Hardware rules ; - )
Just like a digital delay or reverb is a combination of hardware and software, there is no reason why a recording or mastering chain could not be also an hybrid, taking the best of both worlds. Any piece of audio hardware is the combination of material and intellectual components. It has largely been shown in the past - and today - that lousy hardware can exist. You can't condemn plug-ins on the basis that some are a real failure, no more that one could condemn hardware because some are real lemon.


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
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Geoff Emerick de Fake on January 29, 2011, 08:19:00 am
I have no doubt the Sontec is a fine piece of gear.
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...
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Jerry Tubb on January 29, 2011, 01:31:11 pm
Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Sat, 29 January 2011 07:19

I have no doubt the Sontec is a fine piece of gear.
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...


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
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: eightyeightkeys on February 01, 2011, 08:50:17 pm
I'm glad I stumbled on to this thread because I thought I was the only one with this thought.....also thinking that my ears must finally be going because I cannot hear much difference between 'em all.

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.
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: Dave Davis on February 02, 2011, 10:38:08 am
I really like MIOComp, but I'm not sure that qualifies as a "plug", since it runs on +DSP in MIO-land. MH Channelstrip's comp is very similar and something I use pretty freely when I'm working native, or don't have an MIO handy (rare to never)... CS has some modes that are unique to it and not obviously there in MIOcomp, but the knee control in MIOComp covers those functions, with even more flexibility. Still, I could use CS and not wince or whine.

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. Wink

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-
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: aleatoric on February 04, 2011, 01:43:04 am
FWIW I recently sent two files to a client of mine.  Previously I mastered his last album 100% digitally.  He was extremely happy with the results and only hired me after picking from many samples he received (everyone else had analog gear at the time except me).  On his latest mix he encouraged me to do one version completely digitally (as I had done before) and one version with my recently new analog chain (Sontec MEP-250EX, FCS P3S ME, fed by Mytek's).  Files were sent with a simple v1, v2 file name extensions, I did not tell him which was which as it is irrelevant to the final result.  He and his band ended up choosing the digital version.  The mix did not really require much as it was great and had already hit an analog 2-bus chain.  Very light compression, small EQ changes (within 1dB max) and light limiting on my end.  I'm totally glad I have some analog gear as it really is the ticket on most projects, at the same time you can't shy away from the utter transparency of some high quality plugins making small moves on the right mix.  The proof is in the pudding sometimes as this client and his band (without knowing) preferred the sound of a purely digital master over an analog master in this specific instance (both masters were within 0.1dB RMS).  I think it is important to keep your mind open and use what you have for what is going to ultimately produce the best master.  Plugins are pretty cool sometimes IMHO.  
Title: Re: Plug-Ins - not convinced yet
Post by: SafeandSound on February 04, 2011, 04:37:15 pm
Interesting and yet unsurprising story Aleatoric.

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.