R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => Whatever Works => Topic started by: arconaut on December 01, 2010, 08:13:32 pm

Title: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: arconaut on December 01, 2010, 08:13:32 pm

Somebody's going to post this, might as well be me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gszni4TOATo&feature=playe r_embedded

Hey Chuck!
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Les Ismore on December 01, 2010, 09:05:40 pm
I bet that it's very good. Probably uses a lot of dsp off of one of their wimpy cards though. the plug in is reasonably priced at $350 (just a bit more than the price of a roll of 2") but I would suspect that you would need a uad2 quad card to run a lot of instances of it and that costs $1500. And then probably another one to run the rest of your plugs. I wish they would go native, but then they wouldn't be exclusive would they? I own 3 of their UAD1 cards so I can't demo it.  An instance count would be nice if anyone here demos it on their uad2.
Eventually they will have to go native IMO, it's just a matter of time.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 01, 2010, 09:15:22 pm
Another example of selling lies and fantasy -  the pro audio standard practice these days.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: tunetown on December 01, 2010, 09:29:08 pm
Looks like 24 stereo and 40 mono instances per quad card.

http://www.uaudio.com/support/uad/charts.html

Cheers
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 01, 2010, 09:44:26 pm
kats wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 18:15

Another example of selling lies and fantasy -  the pro audio standard practice these days.


I don't think anybody with any real experience expects any plug-in to sound "just like the real thing."  And no marketing department would be doing their job if they didn't sell it as being "just like the real thing."

The thing for me is that UAD plug-ins consistently please my ears more than just about every other manufacturer, and for the most part give me the flavor of their real life counterparts to the extent that my ITB mixes are pretty goddamn close to analog mixes.  

As far as native goes, I have a hard time believing that 20 instances in native wouldn't tax your processors.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Les Ismore on December 01, 2010, 10:30:00 pm
J.J. Blair wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 18:44



As far as native goes, I have a hard time believing that 20 instances in native wouldn't tax your processors.


on an 8 core? I doubt it. maybe on a laptop (2 core). I agree with you about their plugs tho. it just would be so much easier and powerful if they ran native.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 01, 2010, 10:59:25 pm
J.J. Blair wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 20:44

kats wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 18:15

Another example of selling lies and fantasy -  the pro audio standard practice these days.


I don't think anybody with any real experience expects any plug-in to sound "just like the real thing."  And no marketing department would be doing their job if they didn't sell it as being "just like the real thing."

The thing for me is that UAD plug-ins consistently please my ears more than just about every other manufacturer, and for the most part give me the flavor of their real life counterparts to the extent that my ITB mixes are pretty goddamn close to analog mixes.  

As far as native goes, I have a hard time believing that 20 instances in native wouldn't tax your processors.


I have a hard time understanding how this plug in will model the sound of music that has not been converted... ITB  
Very Happy

This is a new low.

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Les Ismore on December 01, 2010, 11:08:49 pm
kats wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 19:59



I have a hard time understanding how this plug in will model the sound of music that has not been converted... ITB  
Very Happy




I know what you mean, however I was reading a thread somewhere where Paul Frindle was answering a question about this very thing. He stated that if you could hear a sound on a finished digital master, you could authenticly model it in a simulation. So that means that if it can be recorded through converters and heard on a cd, you can simulate it. Of course the conversion has artifacts, but the character of something like tape can be simulated theoretically to the degree that you can notice it on any digital recording.
I found that very interesting as a way of thinking about it.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: compasspnt on December 01, 2010, 11:12:36 pm
As cross-posted in Brad's Forum:

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: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 01, 2010, 11:31:35 pm
Les Ismore wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 22:08

kats wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 19:59



I have a hard time understanding how this plug in will model the sound of music that has not been converted... ITB  
Very Happy




I know what you mean, however I was reading a thread somewhere where Paul Frindle was answering a question about this very thing. He stated that if you could hear a sound on a finished digital master, you could authenticly model it in a simulation. So that means that if it can be recorded through converters and heard on a cd, you can simulate it. Of course the conversion has artifacts, but the character of something like tape can be simulated theoretically to the degree that you can notice it on any digital recording.
I found that very interesting as a way of thinking about it.


That's basically doublespeak  (although not disingenuous) for saying as long as the final playback system is flawed, the emulation will sound convincing.

Not very encouraging.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: jetbase on December 02, 2010, 12:02:13 am
All these saturation & tape emulation plugins. Is it the new autotune? I use a couple but, generally speaking, I've found that anything recorded well doesn't benefit from saturation or tape emulation.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: el duderino on December 02, 2010, 01:03:19 am
"just drop the A800 on the first insert of every track and enjoy having the benefits of recording to tape"

i miss the smell, and the razor blade.

maybe for every instance of the plug-in you could have the bass player interrupt playback periodically in need of said razor blade.

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 02, 2010, 09:02:48 am
JJ here's who they are going to make money off of, from GS:


Quote:

[Mr. Katz,

It is an honor to have you here with us. I have so much respect for your work. For those of you who don't know who you've been follishly arguing with, take a gander...

Bob Katz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With that said, no disrespect intended, I want the plug-in so bad it's not even funny. For my personal setup, it will save time and I honestly feel it will affect my recordings positively. It may not be tape, but if I could buy any 1 hardware unit for $350 to do what this unit claims and have it integrrate with my itb setup at home, I'd be all over it as well. This plug-in is a dream come true. I hated when I left Nuendo 3.2 and upgraded to Cubase 5. I lost Magneto which was an integral tool I used to maximize signals, provide a bit of 'modeled' saturation and 'girth' to my mixes. I feel it did that well. Since then, I've been using the Fatso, but it doesn't do the same thing. I'm very excited about this plug-in my friends.



This is so bad, sad. Pro audio is not making money off the professionals, they're sucking kids dry. They're turning music into a video game, a virtual experience that is ultimately an empty one. Sure you learn a little, it can be fun, but playing John Madden's NFL does not make you a football player.

This guy thought I was Bob Katz btw! I had to bite my tongue before setting him straight, as I wanted to say: "For $300 fella, you can call me whatever you like".

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: arconaut on December 02, 2010, 09:12:51 am
Well, maybe somebody should cut to the chase and do an op-amp simulator plug-in. Here's your 2520, your 5532. Get that classic 741 sound.

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: MDM, on December 02, 2010, 09:19:38 am
All this plug-in stuff just makes me want to use better microphones and pres, personally.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: MDM, on December 02, 2010, 09:21:54 am
arconaut wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 17:12

Well, maybe somebody should cut to the chase and do an op-amp simulator plug-in. Here's your 2520, your 5532. Get that classic 741 sound.





Yes, by all means.. and then people should buy-up all those old soundcraft boards and pass the stereo mix through them to get that warm analog sound, distortion from oxidized contacts, and musical hiss that is SO missing in modern recordings. Very Happy
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 02, 2010, 09:44:57 am
Another victim:

Quote:

Ok it's not exactly the same and it will never be...but it comes so close that it becomes more and more useful and cheaper to use that kind of product....


And another.

Quote:

The best thing about it is you can hear it working while you're doing overdubs, something the originals did not allow. And the real thing cost $250,000 isn't made anymore and the spare parts have been destroyed.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Dominick on December 02, 2010, 09:57:21 am
http://dagobah.net/flash/ahhhhhhh.swf

900 lbs? My manual says 755 lbs. & I think that's shipping weight.
I want a 16 track head.
The image of 8 "machines" running together reminds me of Jim Steinman.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: faganking on December 02, 2010, 10:36:57 am
MDM, wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 09:19

All this plug-in stuff just makes me want to use better microphones and pres, personally.




I was just thinking the same thing...and just got to do it with a recent project at 'Red Rock Recording'.

We used these mic pre's:

LaChapell   992EG
D. W. Fearn VT-2
Buzz Audio SSA-1.1
Martech MSS-10(2)
Neve B002 6 channel 1073 type from 1972 BBC console

With these mics:

Neumann U-47 Tube
Neumann U-67
Neumann U-87 (2)
Neumann KM54
Neumann KM56
Schoeps 221B (3)
Royer SF-12
Royer R121
Coles 4038
RCA 77-DX

Great musicians in a great sounding room with great results and sounds as good as anything I care to remember from 25 years ago. After all...I'm no longer 30 years old and I'm NOT at Media Sound (which no longer exists). It's Thursday December 2nd, 2010.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: MDM, on December 02, 2010, 01:04:54 pm
fantastic!
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: scott_s on December 02, 2010, 01:31:49 pm
The with and without clips on the vid are not remotely volume matched, that is suspicious to me.

Another UAD 1 owner here, so no demo for me (and NO SOUP FOR YOU !! ... LOL)

I like the UAD plugs I have, but for this kind of thing the URS Saturation plug is working for me.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: compasspnt on December 02, 2010, 02:16:12 pm
scott_s wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 13:31

...for this kind of thing the URS Saturation plug is working for me.



Yeah, maybe.

But it is not a tape machine!
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: KB_S1 on December 02, 2010, 02:20:10 pm
How does this compare with Heat I wonder?

I admit I was somewhat taken in by Dave Hill's talk on 'Heat' at the AES show.
He didn't try and sell it as a tape replacement or a wonder tool that instantly made mixes sound like something. He did offer a solid insight into the technical challenge and the challenge of identifying what they were trying to achieve.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Les Ismore on December 02, 2010, 02:51:21 pm
scott_s wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 10:31

The with and without clips on the vid are not remotely volume matched, that is suspicious to me.

Another UAD 1 owner here, so no demo for me (and NO SOUP FOR YOU !! ... LOL)

I like the UAD plugs I have, but for this kind of thing the URS Saturation plug is working for me.


Yeah the volumes did not seem to be matched so the comparison is void. I picked up the URS Saturation plug last month when it was 1/2 price and it's kindo neato on some stuff, drums for instance. Not for everything imo but nice on drums. It's also native so I can run as many instances as I feel like without any noticable change in my cpu usage.
I have a 2" machine sitting in the room but I haven't even turned it on in several years, and it needs a little bit of attention to be back in service. I miss the sound character of tape, but not the effort involved to keep it running right. I also miss the fact that when you worked on tape you didn't have endless choices to make in the future that you do with computers. But then again when you work with not so brilliant musicians, it's nice to have the tools to make them sound more up to par. But of course when you have the ability to polish turds, it seems you spend more time polishing turds.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: scott_s on December 02, 2010, 04:01:06 pm
Drums is where I have used the Saturation plug mostly also.

Its funny on the volume matching thing - The Saturation plug seems to always add volume also, although it has an output level control where you can dial it back down.  I find -2 db is unity gain usually.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 02, 2010, 05:00:45 pm
Tony, I feel you.  Also, anybody who has that much reverence for Bob Katz ... well ... you know where I'm going with that.

Here's my initial thoughts:

First off, tape has better transient response.  No pre-ringing.  That's always the first thing I notice when I record to tape.  It sounds more 3D.  As soon as you put that through converters, you lose that.  This is why if I'm going to record to tape, I leave it there.  

Now, where this and CLASP come into play is using tape as a flavorizer.  Why would you want to do that?  Well, simply put, compared to analog, digital can sound a little boring.  This is why I use the Phoenix on certain things like OHs, vocals, or other stuff that needs s little fuzz on it.  

Now, would I ever think to myself that this plug-in makes my machine obsolete?  No way.  But, I can certainly see how this will make my ITB mixes more pleasing to my ears, and will make my life easier as far as getting the sound I'm after.

That's aways been the thing for me ITB.  I can get it to sound pretty goddamn good, but it takes more steps than a console mix.  It's like CISC v. RISC.  If this makes it easier, then I'm all for it.  

And trust me, I prefer to my OTB, but the reality of today's clients is expectations of endless recalls and tweaks, and for that fact alone, until I'm getting $5,000 and a point per mix, I'm going to learn to do outstanding mixes ITB.  
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 02, 2010, 05:02:39 pm
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 20:12

As cross-posted in Brad's Forum:

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.)



I thought the 800 was discrete.  No?  I though the chips didn't start until the 820.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Former Oceanway drone on December 02, 2010, 05:53:37 pm
Yuck.

Look. Studer's were, in my experience, very reliable machines. Sonically, they were okay. Multitrack machines were, and are still I assume, a pain in the ass. Studer's were relatively reliable and that made them very popular. But I thought they sounded okay, at best. An MCI, hardly a favorite(even on a good day), could and often did record nicer sounding tracks than a Studer on its best day. An Ampex, skillfully aligned, and with a quality batch of whatever was good that week, could sound great. But a Studer, no. Not in my, relatively limited experience.

All that said, what a stupid f*cking concept. I suppose ignorance and gullibility play a big role in selling such bongwater.

Cheers,

Alan Tomlinson

P.S. I don't miss tape ever. Anyone who does, wasn't there.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 02, 2010, 06:59:02 pm
Former Oceanway drone wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 16:53



Cheers,

Alan Tomlinson

P.S. I don't miss tape ever. Anyone who does, wasn't there.


Well we all think different. I still refuse to cook steaks on a gas BBQ, only charcoal (I don't consider it a PITA).  
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: compasspnt on December 02, 2010, 07:30:29 pm
Former Oceanway drone wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 17:53

Yuck.

Look. Studer's were, in my experience, very reliable machines. Sonically, they were okay. Multitrack machines were, and are still I assume, a pain in the ass. Studer's were relatively reliable and that made them very popular. But I thought they sounded okay, at best. An MCI, hardly a favorite(even on a good day), could and often did record nicer sounding tracks than a Studer on its best day. An Ampex, skillfully aligned, and with a quality batch of whatever was good that week, could sound great. But a Studer, no. Not in my, relatively limited experience.

All that said, what a stupid f*cking concept. I suppose ignorance and gullibility play a big role in selling such bongwater.

Cheers,

Alan Tomlinson

P.S. I don't miss tape ever. Anyone who does, wasn't there.


In my opinion, very well stated.

If I were to head to a deserted island, I would certainly take an Ampex or a 3M, an Otari (90-2), even an MCI (assuming great condition and well aligned, all of them) way before a Studer 800-III.  And I have had all of them.

But I agree, not nostalgic for the pain of the things.

Same for vinyl.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: jwhynot on December 02, 2010, 08:56:08 pm
More music. Less tech.  Fewer machines.

There is no romance in rewinding tape.

I don't miss it at all.

JW
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: faganking on December 02, 2010, 10:32:50 pm
December 2nd, 2010.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Podgorny on December 02, 2010, 11:22:59 pm
I've got to admit, ridiculousness aside, I LIKED what it did to the drum sound in the demo.

Does this mean I think it's going to make Pro Tools sound exactly like a tape machine? No. I'm sure there are people who will buy the hype, but for me, if it makes a neat sound, I'm interested regardless of how they try to market it.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Chromatic Paste on December 02, 2010, 11:32:25 pm
Has anyone here tried the Rupert Neve Portico 5042? Just curious. I have been interested in buying it seems to me like it might be a good alternative to some of these tape emulation plugins:

http://rupertneve.com/products/portico-5042/
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Fenris Wulf on December 03, 2010, 01:56:25 am
Former Oceanway drone wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 22:53

Yuck.

Look. Studer's were, in my experience, very reliable machines. Sonically, they were okay.

Yeah, but Universal Audio did a GREAT job of modeling the transport!!!
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Podgorny on December 03, 2010, 02:07:49 am
Fenris Wulf wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 00:56

Yeah, but Universal Audio did a GREAT job of modeling the transport!!!




Maybe they could model the A-80's behavior when punching.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Podgorny on December 03, 2010, 02:10:00 am
Perhaps someday, someone will make a plugin to emulate the "vintage digital" sound of pro tools, complete with spinning beach ball graphic and DAE errors.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Silvertone on December 03, 2010, 07:09:59 am
I do miss the 3D sound and depth that recording to analog does give you.  I've been all digital (capture medium wise) for the last 6 years or so.  Anytime I'm working on a mix I'll pull up one of my old mixes done off the 1" 8 track... bums me out every time I hear how 2D digital really is.

I show this to young engineers sometimes when they come in for mastering.  I hear the same thing from them over and over, the first thing is always "listen to those drums",  "I can hear around them", "I can hear everything so much more easily", "listen to that bass" etc..."

I always say, "look what we gave up for convenience".

That said, I agree that digital can be great and I'm happy with it 99% of the time, that is, until I compare it to what I use to capture in the analog world.

Maybe someday digital will be able to give us all the flaws that made analog sound so good when done right... maybe.

Till then my hunt is back on for an Ampex 1" 8 track... so if any of you know somebody who wants to sell one please let me know.  btw, I've located 5 so far (that are never used) but their owners don't want to sell them anyway... I find that very interesting. I think they know just how good that machine was/is!
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 03, 2010, 09:34:25 am
I'm selling a digital conversion emulator for tape users that can be patched in between the console and tape deck. It doesn't get rid of tape hiss, or artifacts due to poor calibrations, but you get that cool musical sound of low bit rates, band limits, and aliasing. All features are tweakable!  
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: eightyeightkeys on December 03, 2010, 09:42:34 am
Podgorny wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 23:22

I've got to admit, ridiculousness aside, I LIKED what it did to the drum sound in the demo.

Does this mean I think it's going to make Pro Tools sound exactly like a tape machine? No. I'm sure there are people who will buy the hype, but for me, if it makes a neat sound, I'm interested regardless of how they try to market it.


Thank-you.

I could care less if it's a "Studer" or a "MacGruber"....once you instantiate the frickin' plug-in, does it do something worth while or not. That's all that matters.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: MDM, on December 03, 2010, 09:53:11 am
Silvertone wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 15:09

...Maybe someday digital will be able to give us all the flaws that made analog sound so good when done right... maybe.




??  flaws sound good?

flaws don't help reproduce sound in a 3D manner as far as I can tell.

I'm hoping that someone makes a solid DSD-system which will outperform tape from the point of view of perceived space and feel.. until then tape is still the reference for me.. and those ampex machines had a nice design.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: arconaut on December 03, 2010, 10:12:27 am

I generally like aligning tape machines, it was always a zen moment for me - but only if I was there alone before the session. Trying to do it in a room full of people under a time constraint, no fun. Of course, you have to calibrate digital systems too, but I guess we don't talk about that so much and it's not the same.

There are convenient things about tape too - like, when the track is done it's done, no playing a bunch of crap and then editing. And yes, you maybe made a safety, but it wasn't the same as making a backup where the next day you were in a bind because you couldn't find "Snare_57.027.dup." But we all know this.

I used to have a program called SoundEdit 16, sounded completely gritty and I daresay, in a cool way. But only for funking things up, not for "pure" recording.

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Philip Shaw Bova on December 03, 2010, 10:52:13 am
I'm surprised that UAD didn't model the J37 instead of the a800. Then they could have convinced everyone that they too could sound just like the Beatles.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Silvertone on December 03, 2010, 02:12:25 pm
MDM, wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 08:53

Silvertone wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 15:09

...Maybe someday digital will be able to give us all the flaws that made analog sound so good when done right... maybe.




??  flaws sound good?

flaws don't help reproduce sound in a 3D manner as far as I can tell.

I'm hoping that someone makes a solid DSD-system which will outperform tape from the point of view of perceived space and feel.. until then tape is still the reference for me.. and those ampex machines had a nice design.




Aaaaa, that was a kind of "tongue in cheek" reference. Meaning all tape is flawed and so is the reproduction system but it IS part of why we love the sound... hope it makes more sense now.

best,
Larry
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: wwittman on December 03, 2010, 08:27:55 pm
The digital marketing reframing of the terms


Eveything people like are "flaws" but you can't call them attributes MISSING from digital.
They're just the mistakes we stupidly cling to


Yeah right.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: eric_hedford on December 03, 2010, 09:28:22 pm


I think the demo sounds pretty darn good.

Reality is that recording to tape is a luxury, out of reach for most artists.  

I commend UAD for putting out some amazing plug-ins, and by using cards, they have stifled the pirates, which means I don't have to compete with thieves when I spend my good money.  Go UAD.

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: rollmottle on December 03, 2010, 10:30:44 pm
For the detractors...or anybody really.

I'm curious what outcome or applications of these leaps in recording technology you would rather see?

The advancement of the state of the art is an interesting topic both from a pure technology perspective and a creative one. These digital modeling technologies and the people who think about them are impressive and intriguing and exciting to me. These are tools for making sound just like any other. It's surprising how negative some of you react. The Bricasti reverb is state of the art digital modeling just like the UAD plug. Nobody said the sky was falling when that came out. I see no difference here. Set aside the emotional reaction to the marketing for a second and all we have is new recording technology...and that is never a bad thing for me.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Gio on December 03, 2010, 11:40:06 pm
rollmottle wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 22:30

For the detractors...or anybody really.

I'm curious what outcome or applications of these leaps in recording technology you would rather see?

The advancement of the state of the art is an interesting topic both from a pure technology perspective and a creative one. These digital modeling technologies and the people who think about them are impressive and intriguing and exciting to me. These are tools for making sound just like any other. It's surprising how negative some of you react. The Bricasti reverb is state of the art digital modeling just like the UAD plug. Nobody said the sky was falling when that came out. I see no difference here. Set aside the emotional reaction to the marketing for a second and all we have is new recording technology...and that is never a bad thing for me.

Food done in a microwave will never rival in taste or consistency, the dish it's trying to mimic.  

Innovation moves forward....I want to see some of that...
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Podgorny on December 03, 2010, 11:51:28 pm
Gio wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 22:40


Food done in a microwave will never rival in taste or consistency, the dish it's trying to mimic.  




This is gross oversimplification. And wrong.

I wish people would stop trying to make analogies relating audio to food or cars.

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 04, 2010, 12:04:48 am
rollmottle wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 21:30

For the detractors...or anybody really.

I'm curious what outcome or applications of these leaps in recording technology you would rather see?

The advancement of the state of the art is an interesting topic both from a pure technology perspective and a creative one. These digital modeling technologies and the people who think about them are impressive and intriguing and exciting to me.


I wish for advancements! But I don't call a second rate  modeling/emulation of anything an advancement...
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: RMoore on December 04, 2010, 12:07:24 am
Les Ismore wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 20:51

 I miss the sound character of tape, but not the effort involved to keep it running right. I also miss the fact that when you worked on tape you didn't have endless choices to make in the future that you do with computers.  



I recall distinctly how my pace of working slowed quite a bit once a DAW entered the control room - and it never improved (!).

On another note - I'm amazed at some recent ITB mixes I've heard from some contemporaries using outboard controllers.

There is an appeal of leaving behind all the boat anchors.

I was always underwhelmed with the sound of my Studer 810 as compared to the MCI JH110, which is why the Studer became the slap back delay.

Why a Studer plugin though & why not one of the analogue 'sound machines' like MM1200, Stephens, et al? Then I'd be tempted.

Maybe this is a taste of things to come.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: MagnetoSound on December 04, 2010, 03:38:02 am
RMoore wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 05:07

Why a Studer plugin though & why not one of the analogue 'sound machines' like MM1200, Stephens, et al?




Fame. Money. Riches.  Razz


Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: zmix on December 04, 2010, 12:52:13 pm
arconaut wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 20:13


Somebody's going to post this, might as well be me:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gszni4TOATo&feature=playe r_embedded
Hey Chuck!


Hey.. !  

A team from Universal Audio came by my mix room that day and asked me a variety of questions. Funny what they chose to use...   I specifically recall stating that the best thing about the A800 was the precise mechanical alignment of the  transport  and the powerful reel motors...  I wonder if they modeled those?  We'll find out if it pops a motor driver transistor and spools tape all over the inside of somebody's computer!!
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: wwittman on December 04, 2010, 02:30:32 pm
I just want it to make my computer weigh 200 pounds.

Oh, and drop in delay!
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: DSills on December 04, 2010, 02:43:16 pm
RMoore wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 23:07



Why a Studer plugin though & why not one of the analogue 'sound machines' like MM1200, Stephens, et al? Then I'd be tempted.

Maybe this is a taste of things to come.


Around the same time (NAMM 09?) they first announced the partner deal with Studer, they also announced one with Ampex - for emulations of machines and tape. Yet, with the Studer A800 plug, they don't refer to the 456 formulation setting as Ampex.

The promo film also shows an as-yet-unannounced Ocean Way plugin (seems to be room sim/models of Ocean Way Studios).


Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: rollmottle on December 04, 2010, 02:59:51 pm
kats wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 21:04

rollmottle wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 21:30

For the detractors...or anybody really.

I'm curious what outcome or applications of these leaps in recording technology you would rather see?

The advancement of the state of the art is an interesting topic both from a pure technology perspective and a creative one. These digital modeling technologies and the people who think about them are impressive and intriguing and exciting to me.


I wish for advancements! But I don't call a second rate  modeling/emulation of anything an advancement...


I would be careful about calling digital modeling of ANYTHING "second rate" just because you inherently disagree with the premise and output of the plugin. Bricasti's reverb is a digitally modeled emulation, not to mention every plugin and digital effect on the planet. "I don't like it" is different than "I know how it could have been done better." Dave Hill, Dave Amels, Bricasti, UAD, Melodyne, and tons of others are doing some pretty crazy, bleeding edge shit. Where you see the sky falling, I see some exciting possibilities.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Gio on December 04, 2010, 03:23:50 pm
kats wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 00:04

rollmottle wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 21:30

For the detractors...or anybody really.

I'm curious what outcome or applications of these leaps in recording technology you would rather see?

The advancement of the state of the art is an interesting topic both from a pure technology perspective and a creative one. These digital modeling technologies and the people who think about them are impressive and intriguing and exciting to me.


I wish for advancements! But I don't call a second rate  modeling/emulation of anything an advancement...

+1
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Gio on December 04, 2010, 03:31:53 pm
Podgorny wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 23:51

Gio wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 22:40


Food done in a microwave will never rival in taste or consistency, the dish it's trying to mimic.  




This is gross oversimplification. And wrong.

I wish people would stop trying to make analogies relating audio to food or cars.



Then why don't 5 star restaurants load their kitchens with microwaves?

Reverb is one thing, but I don't consider modeling a tape machine an advancement. Want butter, use butter. Want tape, use tape. See... simple. Smile
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Podgorny on December 04, 2010, 04:30:52 pm
Gio wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 14:31

Then why don't 5 star restaurants load their kitchens with microwaves?




There are food items that can be created in microwaves that cannot be replicated by traditional cooking methods.  And this is happening in Michelin-rated restaurants.  Not everything microwaved is trying to mimic something else.

If someone objectively listens to a product and deems it unworthy, I absolutely respect their opinion.  If on the other hand, someone dismisses a product based on, say, it's country of origin, I'd say they are narrow-minded.  A lot of people are still unwilling to admit that Japan in general, makes a better automobile than America.

Oops, there I go with those car analogies
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 04, 2010, 05:34:59 pm
zmix wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 09:52

arconaut wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 20:13


Somebody's going to post this, might as well be me:     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gszni4TOATo&feature=playe r_embedded
Hey Chuck!


Hey.. !  

A team from Universal Audio came by my mix room that day and asked me a variety of questions. Funny what they chose to use...   I specifically recall stating that the best thing about the A800 was the precise mechanical alignment of the  transport  and the powerful reel motors...  I wonder if they modeled those?  We'll find out if it pops a motor driver transistor and spools tape all over the inside of somebody's computer!!



I hope the plug-in models the 827, in terms of reliability.  
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 04, 2010, 05:57:10 pm
Former Oceanway drone wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 14:53

Yuck.

Look. Studer's were, in my experience, very reliable machines. Sonically, they were okay. Multitrack machines were, and are still I assume, a pain in the ass. Studer's were relatively reliable and that made them very popular. But I thought they sounded okay, at best. An MCI, hardly a favorite(even on a good day), could and often did record nicer sounding tracks than a Studer on its best day. An Ampex, skillfully aligned, and with a quality batch of whatever was good that week, could sound great. But a Studer, no. Not in my, relatively limited experience.

All that said, what a stupid f*cking concept. I suppose ignorance and gullibility play a big role in selling such bongwater.

Cheers,

Alan Tomlinson

P.S. I don't miss tape ever. Anyone who does, wasn't there.


I prefer the sound of my 3M M56 to all machines.  I prefer the sound of my 827 to ProTools.  I miss many aspects of the sound of tape, but I make great sounding music without it.  I don't miss having a machine (the 3M) that only one person in town can fix, and he's the biggest flake in the world.  (BTW, if anybody in LA can fix these machines, please PM me!!!)

I miss the ingenuity it took to create some of the edits and effects we had to on tape.  I don't miss the difficulty.  But I took pride in some of the things I came up with.  I miss that not just anybody could do some of the things that now, thanks to DAWs, anybody can do.  

When I work on tape after being digital for a while, I hear something that immediately makes me miss tape.  It's undeniable.  
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: stevieeastend on December 04, 2010, 06:04:21 pm
Former Oceanway drone wrote on Thu, 02 December 2010 23:53

Yuck.

Look. Studer's were, in my experience, very reliable machines. Sonically, they were okay. Multitrack machines were, and are still I assume, a pain in the ass. Studer's were relatively reliable and that made them very popular. But I thought they sounded okay, at best. An MCI, hardly a favorite(even on a good day), could and often did record nicer sounding tracks than a Studer on its best day. An Ampex, skillfully aligned, and with a quality batch of whatever was good that week, could sound great. But a Studer, no. Not in my, relatively limited experience.

All that said, what a stupid f*cking concept. I suppose ignorance and gullibility play a big role in selling such bongwater.

Cheers,

Alan Tomlinson

P.S. I don't miss tape ever. Anyone who does, wasn't there.



I worked with tape for about 10 years and I miss it. There are downsides to every way of working but to me the whole process of producing was just totally different because of NOT having computers around. And I loved it.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Bryson on December 04, 2010, 08:08:46 pm
DSills wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 11:43



Around the same time (NAMM 09?) they first announced the partner deal with Studer, they also announced one with Ampex - for emulations of machines and tape. Yet, with the Studer A800 plug, they don't refer to the 456 formulation setting as Ampex





http://www.ampex.com/press-release/165-universal-audio.html
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: wwittman on December 04, 2010, 08:23:46 pm
I not only miss tape when I don't use it, but also still often use it.

But then I may be unusual. I care about the sound
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Nick Sevilla on December 04, 2010, 08:31:52 pm
Podgorny wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 20:51

Gio wrote on Fri, 03 December 2010 22:40


Food done in a microwave will never rival in taste or consistency, the dish it's trying to mimic.  




This is gross oversimplification. And wrong.

I wish people would stop trying to make analogies relating audio to food or cars.




On that tangent.

I walk into a Radio Shack to buy a battery for some device. I forget what it all was.

The young dude behind the counter walks out and sees my car, and immediately has to say that he has some "brand X" car all souped up that has 300 more horsepower than my car, and it cost $$$ less than my car. He said it all proud n stuff.

To which I looked at him and said "What's horsepower?"

The look on his face was priceless.

Cheers
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 04, 2010, 08:49:49 pm
zmix wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 11:52

arconaut wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 20:13


Somebody's going to post this, might as well be me:     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gszni4TOATo&feature=playe r_embedded
Hey Chuck!


Hey.. !  

A team from Universal Audio came by my mix room that day and asked me a variety of questions. Funny what they chose to use...   I specifically recall stating that the best thing about the A800 was the precise mechanical alignment of the  transport  and the powerful reel motors...  I wonder if they modeled those?  We'll find out if it pops a motor driver transistor and spools tape all over the inside of somebody's computer!!



Hey Chuck, did you tell them is sounds pretty close to an A800 for a plug in?
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: stevieeastend on December 05, 2010, 06:18:46 am
The sound of tape is so totally different to me, that it doesn´t even make sense to pointing out the differences. To me it still sounds WAY better and I use it really every time I can when producing a band.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: arconaut on December 05, 2010, 09:01:57 am

Knowing that no generalization is true, do you think there is a bit of a dividing line between those who used analog equipment and those who only ever used DAWs? I have no issue with the concept of this plug-in, once I dispense with the notion that "it is a Studer A800." But for somebody who never used a Studer, obviously this is the key marketing angle.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: stevieeastend on December 05, 2010, 11:43:28 am
arconaut wrote on Sun, 05 December 2010 15:01


Knowing that no generalization is true, do you think there is a bit of a dividing line between those who used analog equipment and those who only ever used DAWs? I have no issue with the concept of this plug-in, once I dispense with the notion that "it is a Studer A800." But for somebody who never used a Studer, obviously this is the key marketing angle.


I don´t know if you referring to me but I do think that people having worked with tape and analog equipment for years have a different "concept" of sound which they are aiming to, which doesn´t necessarily refers to sounding "better" to the majority of the listeners today.

I also think that when working with analog the sound doesn´t become so obvious, people would rather responding to the band being "punchy" for example...
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: zmix on December 05, 2010, 04:20:02 pm
kats wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 20:49

zmix wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 11:52

arconaut wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 20:13


Somebody's going to post this, might as well be me:      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gszni4TOATo&feature=playe r_embedded
Hey Chuck!


Hey.. !  

A team from Universal Audio came by my mix room that day and asked me a variety of questions. Funny what they chose to use...   I specifically recall stating that the best thing about the A800 was the precise mechanical alignment of the  transport  and the powerful reel motors...  I wonder if they modeled those?  We'll find out if it pops a motor driver transistor and spools tape all over the inside of somebody's computer!!



Hey Chuck, did you tell them is sounds pretty close to an A800 for a plug in?



You may have noticed that the video was released on the very same day as the plugin.   Only during the interview (a month earlier),  did they tell me they were modeling the A800 and then proceeded to ask me questions about the Studer A800.

I don't use plugins much, you'll see some of my outboard in the video and understand why....   Twisted Evil
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: arconaut on December 05, 2010, 04:53:30 pm


I wasn't referring to anybody specific with my pondering post. A few years back, I was mastering a project I mixed in the box and the mastering engineer asked what console I used. He was surprised when I said it was ITB, but then said, "well, it's because you know what things are supposed to sound like."

Chuck - seems so sneaky that you are in that video in that context, it reads like an endorsement to me. I don't mean to meddle, though.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: zmix on December 05, 2010, 06:13:36 pm
arconaut wrote on Sun, 05 December 2010 09:01


Knowing that no generalization is true, do you think there is a bit of a dividing line between those who used analog equipment and those who only ever used DAWs?


I am prepping for an interview tomorrow and have been kindly provided the questions, several of which deal with this very subject.  

I would certainly say that procedurally there is a great division between those two groups.  DAWs have evolved to accommodate different working methodologies, initially they just replicated existing production tools and techniques (as in the case of simple 2-track editing and the original Digidesign "Sound Tools" software), but now provide tools not available by any other means. Since production and engineering are largely centered around problem solving, this difference in available tools can lead to totally different solutions and thus a very different result.  For example, in the quest to create  a solid rhythm track  a "DAW-centric" producer may rely on beat detective or heavy editing, and an "Analog" producer may simply hire a better drummer.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: wwittman on December 05, 2010, 08:33:42 pm
I know I tend to get sounds and record them; rather than try to 'make the sound' later

That makes things like saturation something I either like as an intrinsic part of the process or not interesting to me.
It's not something I'm interested in dicking about with as a 'colour'.

I tend to think of things like these, any of them, Heat, VCC, this UAD 800, as either on everything or not at all.

Whether this is generational, or 'because of' my analogue background I don't know.

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: thechrisl on December 06, 2010, 02:59:23 pm
Guess I'm trying to understand the beef with this.  Is it the exaggerated marketing?  The cheesy animation?  There are a lot of products out there (software and hardware) designed to provide some characteristics of tape (like that knob on the HEDD that says "Tape").  Many are highly regarded here on this forum.  Is it the fact that naive customers are going to be tricked into thinking they are getting a Studer for $349?  There are plenty of other UAD plugins (it's not just UAD of course) targeting the sound, vibe and peculiarities of a specific piece of hardware (some discontinued and some still in production).  

Maybe it's just the idea that this is mimicking a specific product originally intended as a storage medium?  It's not a compressor, it's not an EQ, etc.  Maybe that's what seems silly to people so familiar with tape recording devices.  Maybe next we'll see a Helios console or an EMI REDD plugin?  Doesn't sound that far fetched.

Just some thoughts, not trying to call anyone out (and I don't work for any of these guys).  I haven't tried this yet but if it does good things to the sound that I can't get elsewhere in the digital domain, why not?  Truth is I'll probably never know how close this really compares to an A800 but at least I know that going in.  The same was true of the UAD Fairchild and the Trident A-Range.  Still, I think they're pretty good tools for the money.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: maxim on December 06, 2010, 03:41:57 pm
giovanni wrote:

"Food done in a microwave will never rival in taste or consistency, the dish it's trying to mimic."

ever tried melting chocolate in a microwave?

works MUCH better than analogue....
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 06, 2010, 05:45:57 pm
thechrisl wrote on Mon, 06 December 2010 13:59

Guess I'm trying to understand the beef with this.
.



I have a UAD card, I like the plugs. The Pultec EQ - EQ's, the compressors compress etc. Do they sound like pictures? Who cares.

But what does this Studer do? Does it tape things- I mean WTF does it do? It's a bloody video game. You can pretend to bias and calibrate it, you can use different pretend tape formulations...

Clearly I'm overreacting. I guess it's not so much this plug in, which may very well sound cool, but perhaps what this represents to me. That is, what a joke this is all becoming.  
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: compasspnt on December 06, 2010, 06:18:40 pm
I am sure, knowing UA's relative plugin quality, that it is well done, and it just might sound fine.

For me it's just that, of all machines I might have ever thought of doing this with, the A800 MkIII would not be the choice.

In my world, this would have been done because of the name, not the results of recordings from the machine.

I like almost all other machines better.

But obviously others have different opinions.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: wwittman on December 06, 2010, 06:34:47 pm
Adding brush stroke filters to the dot matrix copy of the Mona Lisa...


I like a800s a lot. Although I'd rather a MK I or II, admittedly

But to me, this is a saturation plug.. Not a tape machine.

When I first saw and tried DuY Tape, I found I used the snare setting on everything. Doesn't matter to me what the pretty picture is.


Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 06, 2010, 08:19:50 pm
Wow! This is really an emotional subject!

I realize how the music industry has decimated the market for professional studio time, and how so many records are made these days in musicians' home studios - and how ultimately that screws everybody, from a business perspective.

I mean the record companies even screwed themselves, because the fully predictable collapse in quality when you go low budget on the creative front end of everything, and the bean counters send the brain trust out to pasture -- all that stuff behind the emotion in this thread is totally true, and totally sad and stupid and evil.

But you know what? I kind of dig this plug-in! I guess, just for the sake of evaluating something that's a damn fact (this plug-in), it helps to mentally isolate it from all the garbage that got us to where we are today. Fantasizing that we're in a separate reality where we can throw stones at the DAW world from behind our consoles -- [whispering] that's just a little self-delusional, isn't it?

Maybe some of you are blessed with project budgets that allow you to live like it's still the 1970s or '80s, and I'm happy for you! (Really!) But I don't. I have to find ways to make excellent-sounding results with contemporary budgets and means of production.

[Brain freeze - how many of you at any time in your lives thought the concept of putting the means of production into the hands of the proletariat was a terrific idea?  Laughing  Laughing Guess we may be having second thoughts on that...]

Back on topic - so here's how I roll with these kinds of things. In every stage of the production process, mentally divorce the sonic result from the process by which it got there. Do you get what I'm saying? If you obtain a result that in a different context (one you're more familiar or comfortable with) would be good - it's a good result (no matter what context it's actually in).

So, if UA (or somebody) could create a dsp that (with the right tweaking) could produce a sonic result that's quite good (and one I would not mind being associated with if it had come about in ways I'm more familiar with, or perhaps more proud of), I should man up and call it good.

Well, here's where I practice what I'm preaching (so to speak).

No, obviously the tape emulation doesn't tape. And yes, it's working with already digitized sound - but that's just a mind game. If you've got a (Studer) A-800, and somebody comes to you with a digital project they want bounced out to analog and mixed, would you turn them down?

Forget that if you had your druthers, you would have tracked to analog in the first place - it's too late for that. Tracking's done. For whatever reason, the producer needs you to take over. The band's really good, and you feel a hit coming on. You'd kind of like to be associated with it.

So would you turn the project down unless they scrap everything they've spent a fortune and several months working on, and start over analog? I don't think so!

So now you're going to bounce everything out to analog, and fly it back into your (digital) console, using the best converters money can buy (whatever converters float your boat).

Congratulations! Convoluted or not, we've just imagined a real-life scenario in which we find ourselves in a similar situation to the solution provided by this plug-in.

Is it such a stretch to imagine that instead of the analog tape bounce, there's now a dsp that gives nearly the same sonic result?

Well, for some time there has been the Anamod ATS-1, that so many people like so well. Of course that's an analog box! "It's not digital!" you say. Neither is a Massive Passive, and yet many of us don't have too much trouble admitting that the UAD plug-in of that box ain't so bad! So if we can get to that place, we may as well imagine a dsp version of the Anamod, right? And it's just a box into which a signal goes, and out of which a signal comes -- right?

I think if we pretend we're in a closet where our fellow studio engineers can't hear us, and we're among people who won't repeat anything we say (which may mean totally alone, OK?), we can admit that if you think of the record-in/play-out analog bounce as just a box into which a signal goes and comes back out altered, there's not anything "magic" about a Studer A-800.

So, how hard can it be to imagine that somebody can get damn close to what that thing does, by going into it and coming back out? That's not to say you would use it - especially if you've got the hardware A-800 (or whatever multitrack you like better).

What I'm surprised to find out is that the guys have actually done a good job, not only with regard to that certain je ne sais quoi..."tapeyness," but in terms of the range of sonic possibilities we're used to getting from tape.

If I "overbias," I get softer saturation. If I "underbias" too far, I hear drop-out or chatter. If I trim the "HF bias," I hear the highs go up and down. If I change the flux density (they call it "CAL"), I see distortion onset at a lower or higher input level. If I change "tape types," I hear a corresponding change in tape character non-linearities. If I change "speeds," I hear the "head bump" move up or down, and the frequency response change accordingly.

Now in reality, there is no "bias," or "head," or "speed." Of course! But, who the hell cares that what's causing those sonic changes is not physical matter, but rather bits?

I mean, in the final analysis (where a sound is just a sound), what does it matter how it came to be?

Finally, the reason the product exists at all is not just because plug-in users are sense-deprived, mud-blood morons (even if some of them are). It's because digital is sometimes too damned neutral and character-less for its own good, and there just aren't enough big analog decks and requisite know-how to go around.

And we don't blame the damn kids, bless their pointy heads. The smart ones (and there are a few) would have been glad to fetch coffee and sweep floors (and watch over our shoulders) for that once-in-a-lifetime chance when the big guy had to go home sick or just couldn't pull his fifth all-nighter in a row for the speed-junkie pop star who decided he could only work at night, and so the kid gets called on to run the desk. And voila! A mix engineer is born -- hat's off gentlemen -- a genius!

No, we don't live in those days any more. And as much as it pains us to acknowledge it before our peers, we probably never will again. So, does it suck eggs that we live in an age that such a thing as a tape emulation plug-in exists? Sure it does! Does that mean there's not a right way and a wrong way to make one? Having heard the UAD Studer plug-in, I don't think so. I think, for the most part, they've done it right.

Flame away, I've got my space suit on! Laughing Besides, I'm not an offensive kind of guy, and you guys are not assholes, so that's not gonna happen.  Cool
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 06, 2010, 10:10:44 pm
Well, my point is definately lost. I am not arguing the sonic benefits, or necessities  of anything. This is not about that. Heck, I'd be the first to say that "fidelity" is low on the totem pole when it comes to differentiating between hit productions and flops.

A hit production isn't reliant on a freaking Studer, so somehow I don't think this plugin is going to save anyone's ass either.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 06, 2010, 11:43:09 pm
kats wrote on Mon, 06 December 2010 21:10

A hit production isn't reliant on a freaking Studer, so somehow I don't think this plugin is going to save anyone's ass either.

Certainly not. But what a client wants, a studio finds a way to deliver. I don't know, and don't really care, how these old analog decks came to have their cult-like adoration, but what are you going to say to a customer - "you're mistaken, there's no appreciable benefit to using a Studer (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) for tracking?" [Even if you believe that]

Have you seen the looks on these guys faces, and the sound of their voices when they get their A-800 installed and start to play around with it, feeding their freakin' sample loops into it (around the 6 minute mark)? It's like they've just hit a vein with their favorite drug. They're stunned.  Shocked

OK, if you've got customers who think like these guys do (as so many people their age do), you gonna tell them to fog off? People read that Norah Jones tracks to analog, and well they want to sell records like Norah, right? They hear that [whatever band they're a ripoff of] tracks to a Studer, well DANG! That must be why they're so good!

Of course, we try to educate our customers, but we don't want to destroy their enthusiasm, do we? Rebuff this idea, and you not only potentially lose jobs, but stifle creativity. If this is what inspires people, what do we care?  Surprised
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: rankus on December 07, 2010, 12:49:43 am
svs95 wrote on Mon, 06 December 2010 20:43

 but we don't want to destroy their enthusiasm,


No.  Seeing the price of the tape usually does that Wink


Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Fenris Wulf on December 07, 2010, 01:38:09 am
svs95 wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 01:19

If you've got a (Studer) A-800, and somebody comes to you with a digital project they want bounced out to analog and mixed, would you turn them down?

YES. For the same reason I declined to make an impulse response of our reverb chamber. People would hear it and be disappointed, and think that's what our equipment sounds like.

When I mix the occasional location recording, I put an old saturation plug on the kick and snare and leave the rest alone. Re-taping does more harm than good.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Les Ismore on December 07, 2010, 01:58:25 am
I guess the re-tracking thing probably vary with different decks, because years ago I used to get tracks quite often that were done on adats and we would dump it to the ampex 2" and the difference would be stunning. It would make it sound like a record.
I did a test once burning some cds to a couple of tracks of the ampex and it came off tape sounding considerably juicier as well.
I owned my own studio so I didn't have endless amounts of experience with different decks, but I also owned a mtr90 as well and it didn't have that same thing as the ampex did (does, I still own the ampex). I've used other peoples studers and never found them quite as satisfying but they do have much sexier transports...
I always thought it came from the transformers and the really big traces on the cards. None of this miniaturization stuff going on there. Lots of room for them little electron fellers to jump around in and go crazy.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: wwittman on December 07, 2010, 02:40:45 am
I HAVE had singers say to me "can't you use a fairchild on my voice" when I have another itb plug in compressor on.
And I HAVE said z
"no, I can only use plug ins here and this compressor sounds better than the one with the PICTURE of the fairchild, which sounds nothing like a fairchild"

Are we discussing recording to analogue? Or just PRETENDING.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: wwittman on December 07, 2010, 02:44:54 am
Oh. And fwiw I find ZERO benefit in transferring from digital multi to analogue

What's lost has already been lost

I find some benefit in recording to analogue even if it is to be transferred to digital; but it's not as good as remaining analogue- sonically

It's just a question of the needs of the project.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Bryson on December 07, 2010, 03:22:46 am
wwittman wrote on Mon, 06 December 2010 15:34

Adding brush stroke filters to the dot matrix copy of the Mona Lisa...





Insta-glue!
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: MI on December 07, 2010, 10:54:54 am
Or egg whites...a la Mr. Bean.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 07, 2010, 11:09:20 am
wwittman wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 01:40

"no, I can only use plug ins here and this compressor sounds better

Are we discussing compression here, or just PRETENDING?  Wink  Laughing

You said it yourself, and it's true. We're going for what sounds better than what's there now. And if you and your client think an analog pass (or a pass through an analog emulation, if that's what you've got to work with) sounds better, then it IS better.

Nobody should use something they don't like the sound of, whether it's a plug-in or hardware. Like any other technique, just realize there are differences of opinion (and taste), and yours is right for you.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: MI on December 07, 2010, 11:50:11 am
wwittman wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 02:40

I HAVE had singers say to me "can't you use a fairchild on my voice" when I have another itb plug in compressor on.
And I HAVE said z
"no, I can only use plug ins here and this compressor sounds better than the one with the PICTURE of the fairchild, which sounds nothing like a fairchild"

Are we discussing recording to analogue? Or just PRETENDING.


Bingo!!

Since the "Monitor(s)" is now a Mac screens instead of JBL's everyone is listening with their eyes and trying to dial in visually instead of sonically.

But that's no surprise since most people are listening in their bedroom...
Seems like if you used something that looks cool, it must do the job correctly.

I had someone say to me a while ago "yea I'm gonna master my next album because I paid 600$ for my last mastering and all the guy did was use a few plugins I saw, so I've got the presets in my DAW and I'm gonna do the same."

It was a total facepalm moment...I was speechless.

MI
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: stevieeastend on December 07, 2010, 12:39:32 pm
MI wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 17:50

wwittman wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 02:40

I HAVE had singers say to me "can't you use a fairchild on my voice" when I have another itb plug in compressor on.
And I HAVE said z
"no, I can only use plug ins here and this compressor sounds better than the one with the PICTURE of the fairchild, which sounds nothing like a fairchild"

Are we discussing recording to analogue? Or just PRETENDING.


Bingo!!

Since the "Monitor(s)" is now a Mac screens instead of JBL's everyone is listening with their eyes and trying to dial in visually instead of sonically.

But that's no surprise since most people are listening in their bedroom...
Seems like if you used something that looks cool, it must do the job correctly.

I had someone say to me a while ago "yea I'm gonna master my next album because I paid 600$ for my last mastering and all the guy did was use a few plugins I saw, so I've got the presets in my DAW and I'm gonna do the same."

It was a total facepalm moment...I was speechless.

MI


And then everybody and your sister is suprised that nobody´s gonna buy this crap anymore...
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Jean Taxis on December 07, 2010, 12:52:12 pm
MI wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 17:50

Since the "Monitor(s)" is now a Mac screens instead of JBL's everyone is listening with their eyes and trying to dial in visually instead of sonically.


Sad, but true!

wwittman wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 08:44

I find some benefit in recording to analogue even if it is to be transferred to digital; but it's not as good as remaining analogue- sonically

Agreed, and when it is possible, I really prefer:
-Recording to analog, editing/punching if possible on tape, then transfer to P.T keeping a synchro,
-Working then only with P.T for editing/overdubbing all the tracks that "really" need DAW facilities (very depending on the artist !), or that have to be overdubbed in a smaller studio.
Then I re-sync the tape for the mix.
And each time, I have a feeling that the original tape sounds better than the transfered tracks...
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: compasspnt on December 07, 2010, 01:10:36 pm
Jean Taxis wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 12:52

I have a feeling...



?
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Jean Taxis on December 07, 2010, 02:05:54 pm
I mean: I have a feeling to "rediscover"(even if it may sound excessive) the tracks, with a fuller/more "3D" sound that was lost, even with good converters.
The more I work with the transfered tracks (the more I am used to them), the more it is obvious to me.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Les Ismore on December 07, 2010, 03:58:14 pm
wwittman wrote on Mon, 06 December 2010 23:44

Oh. And fwiw I find ZERO benefit in transferring from digital multi to analogue

What's lost has already been lost

I find some benefit in recording to analogue even if it is to be transferred to digital; but it's not as good as remaining analogue- sonically

It's just a question of the needs of the project.


Agreed except that I think that in some cases (and it depends on the tape machine) it can change the sound in a positive manner to dump from digital to 2" Ampex. Like I said, I didn't find this with the Studers or Otaris. I have a 1/4" Revox 1/2 track as well and it doesn't improve anything soundwise either but a 1/2" ATR can possibly improve a mix in some peoples opinion.
Of course if you just stayed analog and never went digital it would be preferable. But at some point it's got to go digital doesn't it....
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: stevieeastend on December 07, 2010, 05:02:31 pm
For me it´s about creating an atmosphere that fits the song, the sound has to serve the message of the song, it´s not about "just" recording although that can be enough sometimes.

I don´t think analog sounds necessarily "better", actually I just want to have it sound special, different to "real" or "normal"... tape gives you a lot of that, most of the time it´s enough to just concentrate on the music..
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 07, 2010, 11:00:23 pm
I hear all the horror stories out there (and have some of my own) about ignorance compounded with stupidity. I don't even cringe any more.

Matter of fact, I don't even notice it. I'm donating my time and energies to people who at least show some humility and initiative, and don't approach things like entitled know-it-alls. That virtually assures I'll seldom be in a crowded room (which is fine with me).  Laughing

That said, we're still contemplating the potential of a plug-in to recreate sonic behavior of a signal's journey through a device, and yield a result very close to the device, despite the different means by which it arrived there.

I happen to dig the Algorithmix EQs, the SPL Analog Code stuff (their new Passeq plug-in is amazing, BTW), and the Elysia plug-ins (the Alpha is outrageously good), not to mention my collection of AudioCube VPI plug-ins, and a lot of the UA stuff (certainly the Manley MP, the Neve stuff and their EMT verbs).

Now if these folk can get such amazingly useful behavior, the practical equivalent of the relevant hardware, I don't have too hard a time believing what I hear from the UAD Studer.

I agree with whoever said it's kind of sad that a reproducing machine that was a technological and manufacturing marvel, an absolute paradigm of analog's potential, would such a short time later be considered an audio effects device (and emulated as such). But it's only to fill a need that the technically accurate, sterile, soulless digital medium has created. And besides, that's nowhere near as sad as what those same years have done to some of my old girlfriends. I dated that?!  Crying or Very Sad Twisted Evil [I'm glad I can't hear what they're thinking!]

So if in competent hands, tracking through a nice Prism or similar converter into this plug-in gets my guy as near as he's ever going to be to an analog tracking session, and he and I both dig it, I fail to see the harm we're doing to somebody else.

Matter of fact, I can't see anything wrong with it. At all. This is not the first, and surely won't be the last difference of opinion on this forum.  Laughing  Wink

None of which says anything about the intrinsic quality of the UAD Studer. You guys morally or philosophically opposed to it really owe it to yourselves to give it a listen someday (after this puny imbroglio is long forgotten).  Cool

BTW - since when has the word "monitor" been the exclusive domain of audio engineers? Its origin has nothing to do with "our" definition. It was someone who supervises (or checks the quality of), by which it became "electronic equipment that is used to check the quality or content of electronic transmissions," by which circuitous route it became both a studio speaker system as well as a display device for electronic signals. And so today's engineers use both their eyes and their ears. If you are blind, I beg your pardon, since I know you have compensating abilities I can only dream of.


svs95
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Fenris Wulf on December 08, 2010, 12:39:14 am
svs95 wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 04:00

I agree with whoever said it's kind of sad that a reproducing machine that was a technological and manufacturing marvel, an absolute paradigm of analog's potential, would such a short time later be considered an audio effects device (and emulated as such).
Who says tape machines are obsolete? Not if they have quick-punch circuitry. Assuming the band has basic proficiency on their instruments, and doesn't need quantizing/autotuning/etc., working entirely on tape is about 3x faster than working in a DAW.

In MY world, it's DAW's that are obsolete. As I acquire more analog equipment, I need the DAW less and less. Eventually I won't need it at all.

Someday, I'm going to take the entire system up to the rooftop where our transmitter is located, and I'm going to throw it over the edge and record the beautiful crash it makes when it hits the ground. See, DAW's can sound good if you know how to use them properly.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 08, 2010, 01:41:04 pm
You totally misread me! I didn't say universally considered an audio effects device. I mean by those who don't have access to analog tape, and by the developers of this plug-in (for the purposes they inteded). I don't mean that everybody thinks analog is obsolete. Yet.

If somebody wants to build an all-analog facility, she'll want to invest in high-quality, good sounding gear.

If she wants to go all-digital, oh wait - she might want to follow the same advice!

If George Massenburg dropped by here to discuss his latest plug-in, would you guys with axes to grind about ITB processing just bite your tongues, or would you try to strike a blow against the evil digital empire on his head? Sellout!

No, I think you'd be nice to the guy! After all, he's got street cred in the analog world. People like George understand that quality is mostly in the design and the skill with which a device is used - not in the domain where it's used.

I didn't want to go there, but since you've brought it up...
Someday, the head re-lappers, calibration tape makers, pinch-roller re-builders, and service techs with sufficient chops not to make scrap metal out of our precious analog decks (which I own as well) are going to be gone the way of the dinosaur. Sad but true. Right now, we can pretend that we'll be able to keep this all going forever. I still have a drawer full of parts for my Studer 2-channel deck. But someday that won't be true.

I'm glad there are people like George Massenburg and the UA guys, and Ulrich over at Algorithmix and many others, devoted to seeing that as much as possible of the quality we old-timers remember will be available to future generations, who won't have access to things like analog tape, vacuum tubes, etc.

I'm not knocking how anybody else does things. But if some pro audio people want to discuss the relative merits of a particular digital processor, should we be scoffed at by people who don't? Can't you post in some thread where that's not what's being discussed, if you'd rather not bother with digital? I'm not going all forum cop, I'm just sayin'...


svs95
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Jay Kadis on December 08, 2010, 01:56:51 pm
Fenris Wulf wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 21:39



In MY world, it's DAW's that are obsolete. As I acquire more analog equipment, I need the DAW less and less. Eventually I won't need it at all..
You should be setting up a machine shop and learning how to use it if that's your future.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: johnR on December 08, 2010, 02:07:30 pm
Jay Kadis wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 18:56

Fenris Wulf wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 21:39



In MY world, it's DAW's that are obsolete. As I acquire more analog equipment, I need the DAW less and less. Eventually I won't need it at all..
You should be setting up a machine shop and learning how to use it if that's your future.


Better learn how to manufacture tape too.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 08, 2010, 04:49:51 pm
 Sad
Sad but true!
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Yammer on December 08, 2010, 07:50:18 pm
zmix wrote on Sun, 05 December 2010 15:20

kats wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 20:49

zmix wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 11:52

arconaut wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 20:13


Somebody's going to post this, might as well be me:       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gszni4TOATo&feature=playe r_embedded
Hey Chuck!


Hey.. !  

A team from Universal Audio came by my mix room that day and asked me a variety of questions. Funny what they chose to use...   I specifically recall stating that the best thing about the A800 was the precise mechanical alignment of the  transport  and the powerful reel motors...  I wonder if they modeled those?  We'll find out if it pops a motor driver transistor and spools tape all over the inside of somebody's computer!!



Hey Chuck, did you tell them is sounds pretty close to an A800 for a plug in?



You may have noticed that the video was released on the very same day as the plugin.   Only during the interview (a month earlier),  did they tell me they were modeling the A800 and then proceeded to ask me questions about the Studer A800.

I don't use plugins much, you'll see some of my outboard in the video and understand why....   Twisted Evil


Q: What do mopeds, fat chicks and plugins have in common?
A: All fun to ride until a friend sees you!

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 08, 2010, 09:50:27 pm
Yammer wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 18:50

zmix wrote on Sun, 05 December 2010 15:20

kats wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 20:49

zmix wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 11:52

arconaut wrote on Wed, 01 December 2010 20:13


Somebody's going to post this, might as well be me:         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gszni4TOATo&feature=playe r_embedded
Hey Chuck!


Hey.. !  

A team from Universal Audio came by my mix room that day and asked me a variety of questions. Funny what they chose to use...   I specifically recall stating that the best thing about the A800 was the precise mechanical alignment of the  transport  and the powerful reel motors...  I wonder if they modeled those?  We'll find out if it pops a motor driver transistor and spools tape all over the inside of somebody's computer!!



Hey Chuck, did you tell them is sounds pretty close to an A800 for a plug in?



You may have noticed that the video was released on the very same day as the plugin.   Only during the interview (a month earlier),  did they tell me they were modeling the A800 and then proceeded to ask me questions about the Studer A800.

I don't use plugins much, you'll see some of my outboard in the video and understand why....   Twisted Evil


Q: What do mopeds, fat chicks and plugins have in common?
A: All fun to ride until a friend sees you!



ROTFLMAO  Laughing  Laughing

Quick, get the screensaver back up! It's the Analog Taliban at the door! If they see that plug-in, I'm finished in this town!

svs95
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Bryson on December 09, 2010, 02:38:38 am
MI wrote on Tue, 07 December 2010 08:50



Since the "Monitor(s)" is now a Mac screens instead of JBL's everyone is listening with their eyes and trying to dial in visually instead of sonically.




For my monitors I have a set of interchangeable grill cloths that have pictures of different speakers on them.
I just have the client break to the lounge while I "change the speakers" to their favorite, and they're pleased as punch.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Fenris Wulf on December 09, 2010, 08:37:35 am
svs95 wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 18:41

I'm glad there are people like George Massenburg and the UA guys, and Ulrich over at Algorithmix and many others, devoted to seeing that as much as possible of the quality we old-timers remember will be available to future generations, who won't have access to things like analog tape, vacuum tubes, etc.

They're marketing to people who have never heard the real thing, and in the process helping to reduce demand for the real thing.

Good in the short term, because used tape machines and consoles will continue to be undervalued. Bad in the long term, because eventually the used equipment won't be fixable any more. But I expect to get another 40 years out of it.

It's nothing new. I have to ride a bicycle made in 1972 just to have something well-made that doesn't get cracks in the frame and pop spokes every other week. If it falls apart I'll buy another one just like it. If the price goes up I'll stockpile two or three of them.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 09, 2010, 10:16:07 am
Fenris Wulf wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 07:37

svs95 wrote on Wed, 08 December 2010 18:41

I'm glad there are people like George Massenburg and the UA guys, and Ulrich over at Algorithmix and many others, devoted to seeing that as much as possible of the quality we old-timers remember will be available to future generations, who won't have access to things like analog tape, vacuum tubes, etc.

They're marketing to people who have never heard the real thing,


No they're not. They're marketing to whoever's willing to pony up the premium bucks for their excellent work, and that includes a whole lot of us who have heard both the real thing and the reel thing.

You have a sweet little niche there where you get to indulge your preference for old stuff, and I'm happy for you if you're having fun. Where you drift off into fantasyland is when you think that gives you some Olympian perch from which to condemn and hurl epithets at those of us using different methods.

I'm not some wet-behind-the-ears punk-ass kid shouting "Insta-Glue! Insta-Glue!" when I hear tape for the first time. I know good from bad, and I've heard plenty of both in whatever format you care to name.

What a damn shame that a forum for the meeting of professional minds in pursuit of excellence should devolve into a playground for pseudo-religious fanaticism. Go proselytize somewhere else.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Jay Kadis on December 09, 2010, 10:24:56 am
Once we learn how to get a sound or find a workflow that we like, it's understandable that we want to keep doing what we've been doing.  It takes work to adopt new tools and get the most from them.  But if you fail to keep up with developments, eventually you will be left behind.

I have had many opportunities to compare analog devices with their digital emulations and the plug-in versions are getting better all the time.  For me, they're already good enough to warrant adopting the digital workflow.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 09, 2010, 10:44:01 am
It's not even a matter of "good enough," Jay - that sounds like "settling." With all due respect, and appreciation, if we choose wisely, they're flat-out excellent! We don't have to make compromises any more in order to have an all-digital workflow.

Until there is a return to a high-quality analog retail delivery medium, we maintain a production environment that is orders of magnitude superior to anything most of our ultimate customers will ever hear. It's a privilege to work in rooms that sound as good as the ones we're in every day, with nothing analog in the middle of the chain.

That should be a given in this forum. We all got here by knowing what the f00k we're doing, and we ought to damn well be collegial in sight of that. The digital guys in here are doing excellent work that's a credit to whatever format they're using, as I assume the analog guys are. Horses for courses. But don't give me this "my daddy's bigger than your daddy" three-year-old horsesh-t in a place like PSW that's supposed to be for grown-ups. 'Nuff said.

Now who is going to try the UAD Studer A-800 plug-in and make an on-topic post in here, discussing its sound? Is it really that much of a culture-shock?
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Les Ismore on December 09, 2010, 10:57:57 am
svs95 wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 07:44

 But don't give me this "my daddy's bigger than your daddy" three-year-old horsesh-t in a place like PSW that's supposed to be for grown-ups. 'Nuff said.



You're starting to sound like a troll who drank too much coffee......
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: thechrisl on December 09, 2010, 11:19:58 am
Just thought I'd share this post from another conversation over at KVR.  It's in response to why the UAD plug "farts out" when overdriven as opposed to a different product which doesn't.  Some great points IMO, similar to comments made here:

I don't quite know what is the point of a tape library sampled in excruciating detail that doesn't budge into a complete fart-out. It would seem to me a such thing does not capture the essence of tape, but something else around it.

UAD seems to have succeeded better. But I also understand why they decided to model A800 first. Of the popular modern tape machines it has very few parasitic effects and as such it was the "easy" target. It probably saved a tremendous amount of work needed for modeling. It's damn close to really good modern digital recorders and you don't really hear it on a record. If you do, the engineer didn't do his job correctly. He was supposed to just skim near the surface, not puncture it and ruin the take.

To be honest, things would have been much more exciting if they had modeled a Studer B67, or something even older, slower and much worse. That one is insta-mash with turkey and gravy like your grandma used to make.

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 09, 2010, 11:21:11 am
With the UAD Studer, depending on the bias parameter, you can get more or less cushion in the saturation onset (just like the hardware).

One of the nicest things about the plug-in is that you can work out of calibration with it any time you like, because getting back to a fully-calibrated state is as simple as turning on AUTO CAL - no matter how far out of whack you were.

So that invites non-calibrated use in a way that having to go through the whole MRL tape procedure does not. Therefore, you can tweak the thing to get the kind of behavior and tone you like.

Now, that doesn't mean you can make it sound like an old tube Ampex mastering deck, or your B67, but you can vary the behavior to be much less neutral than the normal behavior of an A-800.

However, the primary idea of this plug-in is to be used in the first slot of every appropriate track (or group bus) in a mix, so that the cumulative effect is like tracking to an A-800, which was indeed as transparent as analog could get, but was still analog. Therefore, the idea is that this won't radically alter the tone and vibe of your project, but will subtly enhance some of the hyper-neutrality of your raw digital signals with the euphonic non-linearities of tape.

I can vouch for that. It does achieve this effect. I've heard direct comparisons with the hardware, and with settings as close as possible (matching card settings by eye, and then tweaking slightly to get closer), it's stunning how much alike the two sound. Obviously we can live without this stuff, but some projects just cry out for this sort of treatment.

From what I've heard, there are other tape emulations in development. Most likely one of those will be a machine with more personality. Well, it would have to be. It could hardly have less.  Very Happy
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Jay Kadis on December 09, 2010, 11:31:31 am
thechrisl wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 08:19

Just thought I'd share this post from another conversation over at KVR.  It's in response to why the UAD plug "farts out" when overdriven as opposed to a different product which doesn't.  Some great points IMO, similar to comments made here:

I don't quite know what is the point of a tape library sampled in excruciating detail that doesn't budge into a complete fart-out. It would seem to me a such thing does not capture the essence of tape, but something else around it.

UAD seems to have succeeded better. But I also understand why they decided to model A800 first. Of the popular modern tape machines it has very few parasitic effects and as such it was the "easy" target. It probably saved a tremendous amount of work needed for modeling. It's damn close to really good modern digital recorders and you don't really hear it on a record. If you do, the engineer didn't do his job correctly. He was supposed to just skim near the surface, not puncture it and ruin the take.

To be honest, things would have been much more exciting if they had modeled a Studer B67, or something even older, slower and much worse. That one is insta-mash with turkey and gravy like your grandma used to make.


I'll suggest they model my 80-8 next.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: jwhynot on December 09, 2010, 11:31:40 am
Thanks for the lecture Steve.

Now, if you would kindly observe your own advice.

Thanks
JW

{EDIT} this was a response to a post which has since been deleted.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 09, 2010, 12:23:20 pm
If you mean me, it's Stephen. Or maybe Steve is somebody else.

People who troll for angry replies by making gratuitous smackdowns of another member's working methods really ought to expect the same in return. I may resort to that, but I haven't yet.

BTW, thanks for all the constructive posts, guys! I've gone back over the thread, and there is actually a good bit of signal amongst the noise. Maybe we need some PSW Dolby.  Laughing  

For those of you wanting to give the plug-in a try, UAD owners just received an email discussing how to best evaluate their Studer plug-in. It says in part:

Quote:

How to saturate / overdrive the A800 plug-in
The Studer A800 was one of the "cleanest," best-engineered tape machines ever built. A properly calibrated A800 machine would exhibit no discernable tape wow or flutter, for example. But as engineers in the 80s and 90s found out, by over-biasing, you can deliberately saturate the A800 — and get a smooth, pleasing overdriven tape sound.

On the plug-in, click the Studer badge to expose the secondary controls. Turn the Bias control clockwise, then adjust Input and Output knobs to suit your taste and the program material. If things start to sound too dark, the HF Record EQ control can be used to bring back some high-end. But go gentle; this filter is potent. Keep in mind you are now running the machine "un-calibrated," but this can be the road to some seriously non-linear tones...


Which may be where some of us want to go with it.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: jwhynot on December 09, 2010, 12:27:38 pm
I mean you, Stephen.

Cheerio
JW
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 09, 2010, 12:35:46 pm
Did anybody ever tell you how cute you are when you're angry, JW?  Razz  Cool
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: jwhynot on December 09, 2010, 12:54:54 pm
People tell me I'm cute all the time, Steve.

Now, you!  Back to work!

JW
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 09, 2010, 01:05:34 pm
Who is this Steve guy? I'm starting to get jealous.  Frown
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Dominick on December 09, 2010, 02:21:26 pm
http://tascam.com/product/portastudio/
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 09, 2010, 03:27:48 pm
svs95 wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 09:44

It's not even a matter of "good enough," Jay - that sounds like "settling." With all due respect, and appreciation, if we choose wisely, they're flat-out excellent [plug ins!] We don't have to make compromises any more in order to have an all-digital workflow.





My experience tells me the opposite. Just the other day I slapped on the plug version of the API 2500 in our B room and it stank really bad compared to the HW version. I was actually shocked how poor it was in comparison. The wavs G-comp was better, but still not great.

I'm sincerely not trying to be adversarial, but I hear the differences daily.


EDIT: I should add that I love digital. I got jobs in television and theatre I never would have had it not been for the format. But strictly speaking I stand by the prior observation.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Fig on December 09, 2010, 04:20:55 pm
wwittman wrote on Sat, 04 December 2010 19:23

I not only miss tape when I don't use it, but also still often use it.

But then I may be unusual. I care about the sound




I try to use it everytime!  Just did a project where one tune was done in digital, the rest to 2".

Very revealing.  The tape invites the listener in - revealing nuance one can almost touch, the digital is merely a postcard photo of the real place.

Love this discussion!

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: fiasco ( P.M.DuMont ) on December 09, 2010, 07:18:23 pm
Fig wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 16:20


The tape invites the listener in - revealing nuance one can almost touch, the digital is merely a postcard photo of the real place.




Very nice.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: compasspnt on December 09, 2010, 10:24:00 pm
Gentlemen, a couple of posts earlier on smacked of poor showmanship.

Let's keep this potentially valuable thread completely professional.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Rob Darling on December 10, 2010, 07:25:11 am
Wow.  8 pages of threads about something and I can't find evidence that anyone actually used it before talking smack about it.

Come on kids, it's a tool, not a religion.  

I ran the demo and I have to say... great tool.  

This isn't like Heat or any of the "saturation" plugs that have little control... it's a much deeper plug with a LOT of control and flexibility.  

Everyone will talk about drums, but the cool thing I got right away, that is so elusive in digital recording, was a solution to the heavily-strummed acoustic guitar that had been recorded too close and feels more like a percussion instrument...  hitting it with the 800 plug, it was smoothed out so I could really zing the highs and get it to sit great without feeling like the pick was hitting my eardrum.  Very cool stuff.

UA should do a little tutorial on meters and tape so people who haven't used tape don't hit it too hard and think tape should make your stuff sound crappy, because it can certainly do this (probably a sign that UA got it right... lest we all forget the miserable days we've spent mixing something that someone recorded too hot.)

Now you all can go back to arguing about how nothing sounds like the thing that it is not and ignore the fact you learned the first time you ever put up a mic... that tradeoffs go with every stage of making a record (hey, recordings never sound like live either, and have arguably done more to kill creativity than digital could ever hope to do...) until you turn blue and if anyone comes into the thread looking for actual information, there will at least be one post.

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: thechrisl on December 10, 2010, 09:24:33 am
Dominick wrote on Thu, 09 December 2010 13:21

http://tascam.com/product/portastudio/


Damn, you beat me to it.  Hilarious.  A bit tongue in cheek & not meant to be a complete emulation.  From the developer:   http://www.analogindustries.com/blog/entry.php?blogid=129178 9222859

BTW, I bought the real thing for $25 on eBay last year.  Sometimes cassette is just right...


Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 10, 2010, 11:11:01 am
Rob, thanks for trying, but it's no use.

BTW, I have posted observations from using the plug-in and from comparisons I've participated in, and additional information for anybody interested. There are a few such posts in here, but good luck finding them. I would have posted more, but now I've got a 12-disc project to complete, so I can't contribute further to the topic, and didn't really get any useful on-topic dialog while I had time to be here.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: jwhynot on December 10, 2010, 11:30:11 am
I think the objection was to the hype.

I didn't object to anything except being lectured to by a troll.

Because, you see, most of the informative posts in here are brief, to the point, and contain no ad hominem attacks.

Those of us who confab here regularly can usually govern themselves quite well.

And those of us who have made a living at this for decades are allergic to pointless hype.

I'm willing to accept the balance that results.

Meanwhile, those who wish to gripe about griping are welcome to pick out curtains.

JW
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Les Ismore on December 10, 2010, 12:50:13 pm
jwhynot wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 08:30

I think the objection was to the hype.

I didn't object to anything except being lectured to by a troll.

Because, you see, most of the informative posts in here are brief, to the point, and contain no ad hominem attacks.

Those of us who confab here regularly can usually govern themselves quite well.

And those of us who have made a living at this for decades are allergic to pointless hype.

I'm willing to accept the balance that results.

Meanwhile, those who wish to gripe about griping are welcome to pick out curtains.

JW



What he said.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 10, 2010, 12:53:00 pm
jwhynot wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 10:30

I think the objection was to the hype.

JW


I'm curious how well this plug would do at it's price if there was no association to a tape machine. Just a regular distortion/compression(that barely does anything) plug with EQ.

I really don't have an objection, it was more of an observation on the ridiculousness of it all.

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 10, 2010, 01:45:00 pm
Tony, I think you are being overly critical.  How would any of their plugs sell without association of the thing they are emulating?
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: maxim on December 10, 2010, 02:57:08 pm
"http://tascam.com/product/portastudio/"

the best gtr track i ever recorded was done on one of these, way back in the dark ages

unfortunately, tape saturation was the one of very few features on this machine, which weren't bettered by the onset of the digital age

an effects box is an effects box.

none are perfect, all can find a use in creative hands

my saturation plugin of choice this week is this one:

http://www.soundtoys.com/products/Decapitator/


Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 10, 2010, 03:09:41 pm
J.J. Blair wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 12:45

Tony, I think you are being overly critical.  How would any of their plugs sell without association of the thing they are emulating?


I'm definately not critical of UA, it's a brilliant move. It show's their insight into the human psyche and the power of the emotional sell. If anything I am critical of us in general. I may call BS on these forums, but believe me, I get suckered into the emotional sale just like everyone else. I'm sure if I had no tape deck and mixed ITB, I'd be all over this plug just to help ease the memory of another time.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: wwittman on December 10, 2010, 03:24:20 pm
J.J. Blair wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 13:45

Tony, I think you are being overly critical.  How would any of their plugs sell without association of the thing they are emulating?



Well, on MERIT?

I do find it silly after a certain point that almost every plug-in claims to be replicating some analogue device.
Is there a reason it can't just be a GOOD compressor?  Does it have to be a fairchild/la2a/rs124/ba6a/ssl?

The marketing depts. have taken over the world.

They're just busy trying to decide what colour it should be.

But in any event, the disconnect here is in the implication that you can "add" the sound of an A800 to an intrinsically digital recording.
I don't believe you can.
You might add some quirks, but you can't return the QUALITY.


Unless they are selling this as a kind of alternative to, say, CLASP... not to recording entirely analogue.

It comes back to whether you want to buy that analogue is an "effect" as opposed to a superior SYSTEM as a storage medium.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 10, 2010, 03:37:24 pm
William, the fact of the mater is two-fold:

a) Sales would not be as good if they were simply called "Awesome Compressor" or "Great Sounding EQ."

b) UA actually does try to model these plugs on the original hardware.  They put a lot of R&D into it.

Of course, at this point in time, it's not possible to replicate the hardware, but there are aspects of the hardware that they get decently enough that they are useful to those of us having to mix ITB.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 10, 2010, 04:22:43 pm
jwhynot wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 10:30


I didn't object to anything except being lectured to by a troll.

Which would be people attacking the "outsider" to evoke a defensive post, and then attacking his defensive post. That's what trolling is.
jwhynot wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 10:30

Those of us who confab here regularly

...do not own the forum. Been a member here for almost 5 years.
jwhynot wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 10:30

And those of us who have made a living at this for decades...

...include me. Since 1971, in fact.
jwhynot wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 10:30

those who wish to gripe about griping

...would be you. I'm griping about people dissing other members and their equipment and methods. Feel free to gripe all you like about the rest.


svs95
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 10, 2010, 04:53:24 pm
svs95 wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 15:22.

 I'm griping about people dissing other members and their equipment and methods. Feel free to gripe all you like about the rest.

svs95


Well that's the tough thing. How can you ever make a comment about any tool one way or the other if people would feel disrespected because they use that piece of equipment. I think we should take it for granted that no one is trying to disrespect anyone in these types of conversations because we all believe it is the talent of the engineer that counts, not how deep one's pockets are.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Jay Kadis on December 10, 2010, 05:09:25 pm
kats wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 13:53

How can you ever make a comment about any tool one way or the other if people would feel disrespected because they use that piece of equipment.
By doing it without resorting to hyperbole and exaggerated emotion.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: marcel on December 10, 2010, 05:43:43 pm
I can't believe you guys have been talking about this thing for...

9 pages.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 10, 2010, 06:43:39 pm
kats wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 15:53

svs95 wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 15:22.

 I'm griping about people dissing other members and their equipment and methods. Feel free to gripe all you like about the rest.

svs95


Well that's the tough thing. How can you ever make a comment about any tool one way or the other if people would feel disrespected because they use that piece of equipment. I think we should take it for granted that no one is trying to disrespect anyone in these types of conversations because we all believe it is the talent of the engineer that counts, not how deep one's pockets are.

Tony, by all means diss the plug-in! You'd have to try it first. Dissing the IDEA of the plug-in, ridiculing digital audio and plug-ins generally, and emulations in particular, and this plug-in's concept specifically (as a ridiculous number of posters have done), when there are other members here making a good living with digital production, and to whom the subject is of interest -- that crosses the line into personal, absolutely it does.

Let's just forget about it, and move on without more of the same.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 10, 2010, 06:58:19 pm
wwittman wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 14:24


I do find it silly after a certain point that almost every plug-in claims to be replicating some analogue device.
Is there a reason it can't just be a GOOD compressor?  Does it have to be a fairchild/la2a/rs124/ba6a/ssl?


Seriously? Because they're ingenious designs, and behave in a way people enjoy. Why re-invent the wheel? Actually, most people who mix ITB have a combination of emulations and innovative digital-only designs. There are currently many more of the latter to choose from than emulations.

wwittman wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 14:24

Unless they are selling this as a kind of alternative to, say, CLASP... not to recording entirely analogue.

BINGO! That is exactly what the point of the product is! Thank you for articulating it in that context.

wwittman wrote on Fri, 10 December 2010 14:24

It comes back to whether you want to buy that analogue is an "effect" as opposed to a superior SYSTEM as a storage medium.

That isn't even being considered, you guys!! It's assumed that people working with plug-ins are already in the digital domain. Ergo, they're not deliberating about which domain to use. How could they? That's a moot point in such a case. There are any number of forums where one can find that discussion, however.

If that's what the disconnect was - thank you for helping to clear that up!
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: MDM, on December 10, 2010, 07:51:42 pm
William W has cut to the heart of the issue as far as I am concerned.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 10, 2010, 11:36:58 pm
What would really be interesting would be a direct comparison between a CLASP system (especially one with an A-800) and this plug-in on every track, especially if the comparison takes cost/benefit into account.

The audible difference between hitting tape before-vs.-after A/D conversion would be the primary margin within which a cost/benefit analysis between something like CLASP and this plug-in would hinge. Unless UA really missed the mark.

Some other factors one might consider: Dropout or other tape degradation (since CLASP freely encourages the re-use of tape); studio time spent rewinding or changing tapes in the middle of a session or (hopefully not) in the middle of a never-to-be-again inspired performance; other reliability issues; ongoing costs (time and money) of maintenance, calibration, tape stock, etc.; the built-in obsolescence of relying on hardware no longer being made or supported, and for which there is a dwindling supply of tape stock, parts and service expertise.

All these things might suggest we consider potential alternatives to CLASP and other tape hardware-based solutions for obtaining analog character (in an otherwise digital workflow), at least in the interest of intellectual curiosity, or for those with less deep pockets.

And comparisons with the Anamod ATS-1 would be interesting as well.  
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: jwhynot on December 11, 2010, 02:21:25 am
You know what would go nicely here?

A settee.

JW
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Fenris Wulf on December 11, 2010, 02:23:57 am
svs95 wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 04:36

What would really be interesting would be a direct comparison between a CLASP system (especially one with an A-800) and this plug-in on every track, especially if the comparison takes cost/benefit into account.

The audible difference between hitting tape before-vs.-after A/D conversion would be the primary margin within which a cost/benefit analysis between something like CLASP and this plug-in would hinge. Unless UA really missed the mark.

Some other factors one might consider: Dropout or other tape degradation (since CLASP freely encourages the re-use of tape); studio time spent rewinding or changing tapes in the middle of a session or (hopefully not) in the middle of a never-to-be-again inspired performance; other reliability issues; ongoing costs (time and money) of maintenance, calibration, tape stock, etc.; the built-in obsolescence of relying on hardware no longer being made or supported, and for which there is a dwindling supply of tape stock, parts and service expertise.


Cost-benefit analysis? Analog trumps digital there too.

If you do your homework and choose your equipment carefully, even a modest analog studio has better ergonomics, workflow, and reliability than any DAW system.

Considering that tape machines made 40 years ago are still readily available and repairable, and the demand for them is not increasing, I don't expect the supply of used gear to disappear in my lifetime.

I've used various DAW's and I've had to deal with drop-outs, clicks, crackles, and random bursts of white noise. I've reused reels of Quantegy 456 dozens of times and NEVER had a drop-out. My MCI punches better than a DAW and locates nearly as fast. I've found that most of the alleged benefits of DAW's are illusory.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: wwittman on December 11, 2010, 03:06:07 am
So... What if someone hypothetically said ' this sounds about a third as good as CLASP, BUT costs about a third as much..."

What then?

The point being that I don't know how to quantify "cost benefit analysis"

I can only talk about what sounds best to me

I only quibble about saying "this sounds like recording to an a800"

If I can't tell the difference between recording to analogue and digital with ANY plug in emulation, I shall be amazed, and be happy to admit my amazement.
But it hasn't happened yet

And if ony ONE person, in the entire world, can consistently tell the difference, then it isn't "like it"

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: stevieeastend on December 11, 2010, 06:10:40 am
There are a couple of great sounding plug ins out there, useful, cool tools.

But none of them is as good as the real thing, most of them only cost a fraction of the real thing though, so for me they are just some toys that help you to come close to a production with analog components, especially in mixing.

Comparing a La2a waves plug to the real thing... come on, you can´t be serious.

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: cgc on December 11, 2010, 10:51:12 am
I think the emulation craze is a waste of time and talent.  There is no such thing as analog emulation in DSP anyway - it is just basic functions like filtering and saturation chained together to give a response something like the physical device.  Because analog can do pretty unpredictable things the amount of code required to fake it can be considerable, and yet still not come close to the original.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 11, 2010, 11:11:07 am
wwittman wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 02:06

So... What if someone hypothetically said ' this sounds about a third as good as CLASP, BUT costs about a third as much..."

What then?

The point being that I don't know how to quantify "cost benefit analysis"

I can only talk about what sounds best to me

I only quibble about saying "this sounds like recording to an a800"

If I can't tell the difference between recording to analogue and digital with ANY plug in emulation, I shall be amazed, and be happy to admit my amazement.
But it hasn't happened yet

And if ony ONE person, in the entire world, can consistently tell the difference, then it isn't "like it"



Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: arconaut on December 11, 2010, 11:17:54 am

That's pretty much what the Bomb Factory guys were doing - looking at the schematics and trying to break each section into code that emulated that behavior. I suppose that other early commercially available "emulations"  were more based on overall transfer functions, that is to say "if we put this in, then we get this out so then our software must do this too."

I have no issues with the sonics of convolution reverbs, which is certainly a form of emulation.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Jay Kadis on December 11, 2010, 11:39:02 am
cgc wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 07:51

I think the emulation craze is a waste of time and talent.  There is no such thing as analog emulation in DSP anyway - it is just basic functions like filtering and saturation chained together to give a response something like the physical device.  Because analog can do pretty unpredictable things the amount of code required to fake it can be considerable, and yet still not come close to the original.
That is not what is being done, by UA at least.  It is by studying the actual physical behavior of circuit elements and assembling circuit models that they are able to make closer and closer approximations of what the hardware actually does.

Let's face it, once an electronic device ages, it no longer performs the same as new.  The sound of LA2As is all over the place.  Careful physical modeling is not limited by its nature, but only by the time devoted to analyzing its behavior and creating appropriate models.  The more we do this, the more we learn about how actual physical devices behave and the better the models will get.  It is not a waste of time by a long shot.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Fig on December 11, 2010, 11:50:03 am

First, Mr. Whynot, you crack me up!

Second, kats already nailed it with his first response.


Fenris Wulf wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 01:23

svs95 wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 04:36

What would really be interesting would be a direct comparison between a CLASP system (especially one with an A-800) and this plug-in on every track, especially if the comparison takes cost/benefit into account.

The audible difference between hitting tape before-vs.-after A/D conversion would be the primary margin within which a cost/benefit analysis between something like CLASP and this plug-in would hinge. Unless UA really missed the mark.

Some other factors one might consider: Dropout or other tape degradation (since CLASP freely encourages the re-use of tape); studio time spent rewinding or changing tapes in the middle of a session or (hopefully not) in the middle of a never-to-be-again inspired performance; other reliability issues; ongoing costs (time and money) of maintenance, calibration, tape stock, etc.; the built-in obsolescence of relying on hardware no longer being made or supported, and for which there is a dwindling supply of tape stock, parts and service expertise.


Cost-benefit analysis? Analog trumps digital there too.


While I agree with Fenris that my analog studio and its properly stored media doesn't exhibit such behaviors - I disagree with the premise of a cost-benefit analysis.

My clients are craving a recording experience - not a simulation thereof.

The gear we use is chosen purposefully - as sound quality being the number one consideration, and not in the manner that I believe people purchase clones and sims and 99 cent downloads.  

Our expectations are very high.

Steve, please do all the side-by-side comparisions you want - post the results, we love that stuff.  The Acid Test is starving for such information.

But defending the flag of "your-side" versus "ours", and somehow pretending it's a personal attack - maybe you take it personal that you've gone digital, consider the viewpoint of those who have not (and likely WILL not).  Whatever, if it works - right?

And... even though I'll search it myself and likely be astounded by man's ingenuity -- WTF is CLASP?
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: cgc on December 11, 2010, 12:40:23 pm
Jay Kadis wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 10:39

That is not what is being done, by UA at least.  It is by studying the actual physical behavior of circuit elements and assembling circuit models that they are able to make closer and closer approximations of what the hardware actually does.



They use the same DSP functions as everyone else.  Those models are a collection of filters and gain functions.  They may have broken the process down a bit more, but there is no difference between how a Pultec/SSL/API plugin and the Digi 3 apply a biquad.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 11, 2010, 01:04:13 pm
wwittman wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 02:06

So... What if someone hypothetically said ' this sounds about a third as good as CLASP, BUT costs about a third as much..."


What happens if they say "Well, they're very close, but damn if I can tell which one sounds 'better' in every case." Or "...but not $8000.00 worth of difference." We won't know until some people do the listening. I wish I could post such a test. I don't have access to a CLASP unit, but I have a Studer deck and the UAD plug-in. I have reported here that the plug-in sounds very good, very much like an analog bounce. I don't have multi-track tape here, though.

Anyhow, the question is only one of whether, in a digital environment, in situations where one wants to add some analog warmth or character (however you want to define that, and certainly it can be articulated more technically), which of several methods of achieving that is economically sensible (for that digital studio). NOT FOR YOU GUYS WHO AREN'T AND NEVER WILL BE CONSIDERING SUCH A QUESTION. What are you doing even posting here?  Razz

wwittman wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 02:06


And if ony ONE person, in the entire world, can consistently tell the difference, then it isn't "like it"

Why speak in absolutes? No two analog circuits can pass a test like that. Dr. Bob Moog used to claim he could "feel the difference between two circuits" just by holding them in his hands. I don't doubt the man, to be honest. No two A-800s will sound identical to that level of equivalence.

Two high end converters will sound different. Unless one is broken or seriously out of whack, which one is "better?"

So I'd like to see some people listening to these two systems, and the ATS-1 in 1:1 comparisons, and deciding which is best for them based on all considerations, including price.

It would also be nice if people would withhold judgments without having listened. I've heard analog my whole life (still do - I have tape and vinyl sources here). If somebody asks what I think of the UAD Studer plug-in (as this topic did), I report what I hear, to the best of my ability. I can't help if people don't want to believe what I'm saying, but can't be bothered to listen.

Why somebody refuses to believe a thing is possible is not germane to the conversation. It's like a conversation about how far the Wright Brothers flew with somebody who adamantly refuses to believe human flight is possible. There is an unbridgeable disconnect I guess.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Jay Kadis on December 11, 2010, 02:45:20 pm
cgc wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 09:40

Jay Kadis wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 10:39

That is not what is being done, by UA at least.  It is by studying the actual physical behavior of circuit elements and assembling circuit models that they are able to make closer and closer approximations of what the hardware actually does.



They use the same DSP functions as everyone else.  Those models are a collection of filters and gain functions.  They may have broken the process down a bit more, but there is no difference between how a Pultec/SSL/API plugin and the Digi 3 apply a biquad.
Breaking the process down is exactly how progress is made in physical modeling.  The behavior of a capacitor, for example, is quite complex - the more we know about its physics the better we can simulate its complete behavior.  It is a process of refinement that, along with increasing processing power availability, will allow the creation of software that will be indistinguishable from the hardware.   Our ability to distinguish the difference will eventually be exceeded.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Seb Riou on December 11, 2010, 03:05:08 pm
If a computer is able to emulate the erratic and (to an extent) unpredictable functioning of an analog device, We should be more worried by the advance of Artificial Intelligence than delighted by the warmth of digital sound.

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: wwittman on December 11, 2010, 03:34:36 pm
CLASP I mostly about time stamping

You don't really need CLASP to do a meaningful comparison.

If someone could record something directly into pro tools and, at the same time in parallel, into an A800, and then apply the plug in to the pt tracks and compare...

Level matched of course.

And if course the source should be live music not a recorded source.



The 'analogue gear all varies with age' meme is a canard in any meaningful sense.
Beaten to death. More marketing bs
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Phil Mayor on December 11, 2010, 05:02:26 pm
svs95 wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 18:04



So I'd like to see some people listening to these two systems, and the ATS-1 in 1:1 comparisons, and deciding which is best for them based on all considerations, including price.




I think it would be impossible to do 1:1, there are too many variables on each chosen piece..plus I'd want to do some actual work Smile

The best thing about the Anamod ATS-1 is the analogue model of the Ampex 351 machine running GP9 tape...I think it sounds phenomenal. I usually run the mix through it then onto DSD.

Funnily when I posted about the Anamod here it's didn't get one response...
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 11, 2010, 06:36:34 pm
"wwittman

CLASP I mostly about time stamping
You don't really need CLASP to do a meaningful comparison.

True enough. The main reason CLASP came up is that it's designed for creating digital output, and there were people having a hard time understanding the idea of a plug-in "emulating an analog storage device." CLASP made it easier to understand the concept.  

The only 1:1 comparisons I've heard were of A-800 hardware into to an A/D converter, which is a sensible way to compare the analog front end of an otherwise digital system to the A-800 plug-in. And yes, setting up the comparison involved a lot of time tweaking to get them closely calibrated, just as it would comparing the sound of two A-800s.

The demo used the plug-in on every track in the mix, and compared to the same session passing through an A-800. I'll see if I can get permission to post his results here.

I have not had an ATS-1 in here, but the MEs at Glenn Meadows Mastering Board mostly like it a lot. I'm personally more interested in seeing what an Ampex ATR 102 half-inch mastering  deck plug-in might sound like, than in the A-800. If UA (or anybody working at the circuit modeling level of emulation) ever does one, I'll be the one starting that topic here!
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Phil Mayor on December 11, 2010, 07:17:04 pm
svs95 wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 23:36


I have not had an ATS-1 in here, but the MEs at Glenn Meadows Mastering Board mostly like it a lot. I'm personally more interested in seeing what an Ampex ATR 102 half-inch mastering  deck plug-in might sound like, than in the A-800. If UA (or anybody working at the circuit modeling level of emulation) ever does one, I'll be the one starting that topic here!


You know the ATS-1 has an ATR-102 model on board too, right?(well if you buy the card, which I have done)
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 11, 2010, 07:34:05 pm
Yes, and ATS-1 is high on my list of next purchases. I've heard nothing but positives from people who have them. I guess I'm holding out a little longer hoping for something extremely similar that lets me stay in the digital workflow. Otherwise, I think that's where I'll end up.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: cgc on December 11, 2010, 11:13:55 pm
Seb Riou wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 14:05

If a computer is able to emulate the erratic and (to an extent) unpredictable functioning of an analog device, We should be more worried by the advance of Artificial Intelligence than delighted by the warmth of digital sound.




Or you could just marvel at the man-years (centuries actually) spent trying to make a computer not be a computer.  Emulating analog processing is like making a version of Excel that does math wrong and spills coffee all over the year end financial statement.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: cgc on December 11, 2010, 11:18:53 pm
Jay Kadis wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 13:45

]Breaking the process down is exactly how progress is made in physical modeling.  The behavior of a capacitor, for example, is quite complex - the more we know about its physics the better we can simulate its complete behavior.  It is a process of refinement that, along with increasing processing power availability, will allow the creation of software that will be indistinguishable from the hardware.   Our ability to distinguish the difference will eventually be exceeded.


Jay, at the end of the day the computer can only do gain by multiplication and that multiplication will always produce bit identical results.  To spend ages trying to make it not so (and it will never be not so) is fighting a losing battle with mathematics and physics.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Gio on December 11, 2010, 11:18:57 pm
cgc wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 23:13



Or you could just marvel at the man-years (centuries actually) spent trying to make a computer not be a computer.  

Very Happy !!!
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Fenris Wulf on December 12, 2010, 01:31:17 am
Quote:

Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world, where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program, entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world, but I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this, the peak of your civilization.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Nick Sevilla on December 12, 2010, 01:47:43 am
Wow.

11 pages.

It's only a plug in.

I used some Studers, including an A800.

No, if I do get this plug in, I will not compare it to the real thing.

That would be illogical.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: MI on December 12, 2010, 10:14:32 am
index.php/fa/15981/0/

I feel your "PAIN!"


MI
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Jay Kadis on December 12, 2010, 11:29:19 am
cgc wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 20:18

Jay Kadis wrote on Sat, 11 December 2010 13:45

]Breaking the process down is exactly how progress is made in physical modeling.  The behavior of a capacitor, for example, is quite complex - the more we know about its physics the better we can simulate its complete behavior.  It is a process of refinement that, along with increasing processing power availability, will allow the creation of software that will be indistinguishable from the hardware.   Our ability to distinguish the difference will eventually be exceeded.


Jay, at the end of the day the computer can only do gain by multiplication and that multiplication will always produce bit identical results.  To spend ages trying to make it not so (and it will never be not so) is fighting a losing battle with mathematics and physics.
Look up some of the work done on chaotic systems.  Modeling the real world, even with fixed multiplies, is possible if you take into account statistical variation.  It's a lot of work, but it is certainly worth it in the long run.

The "losing battle" has given us a view of the universe we would never have had if we just didn't bother with the research.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Tidewater on December 13, 2010, 02:24:22 am
MI wrote on Sun, 12 December 2010 10:14

index.php/fa/15981/0/

I feel your "PAIN!"


MI



Isn't that Lee Harvey Oswald's old drummer?
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: MagnetoSound on December 13, 2010, 07:50:30 am
Tidewater wrote on Mon, 13 December 2010 07:24

MI wrote on Sun, 12 December 2010 10:14

index.php/fa/15981/0/

I feel your "PAIN!"


MI



Isn't that Lee Harvey Oswald's old drummer?




Brilliant!  Laughing


Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: wxyz on December 13, 2010, 11:54:20 am
how I missed that bass meld
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 14, 2010, 09:01:57 pm
Nick Sevilla wrote on Sun, 12 December 2010 00:47

No, if I do get this plug in, I will not compare it to the real thing.

That would be illogical.

Comparing it to the digital capture of an analog bounce to an A-800 is perfectly logical. "Fascinating," in fact.


svs95
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: wwittman on December 15, 2010, 12:29:07 am
so, to you, it 'sounds like' recording to digital, transferring to analogue, and then transferring back into digital?

whoo hoo then


I'd LOVE to see them advertise it that way.

both buyers would love it.





Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: 0dbfs on December 15, 2010, 01:01:26 am
what about the pro-digi / apogee plugin? I heard it's limited to 32 simultaneous instances.

Best,
j
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: marcel on December 15, 2010, 11:56:27 pm
0dbfs wrote on Tue, 14 December 2010 22:01

what about the pro-digi / apogee plugin? I heard it's limited to 32 simultaneous instances.

Best,
j

To be authentic, it should be limited to 24.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: RMoore on December 16, 2010, 12:06:38 am
Hilarious - I've been off in the boonies in an 'off the grid' place & I come back to see this; some choice posts on this page. Nice one guys - keep it up! I love PSW..

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 16, 2010, 11:30:55 am
wwittman wrote on Tue, 14 December 2010 23:29

so, to you, it 'sounds like' recording to digital, transferring to analogue, and then transferring back into digital?

whoo hoo then


I'd LOVE to see them advertise it that way.

both buyers would love it.







How is that different from CLASP attached to a digital front end? That's a large share of their market.

http://www.endlessanalog.com/faqsTwo of CLASP's 14 FAQs pertain to using CLASP in digital production environments, either with a digital console, or with digitally recorded projects.

Furthermore, how can UA possibly NOT be marketing it that way, considering the ONLY way to use any plug-in is with a digital signal?

If you have an analog production chain, why would you care about what people in digital production environments are doing? Why would you derive apparent satisfaction from denigrating digital production methods, rather than leaving the topic to those it logically interests?

Posting to a topic in which you have no real interest, merely to insult those who do, and provoke OT responses is the essence of trolling, and has dominated this thread. This forum used to be better than that.

svs95
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: compasspnt on December 16, 2010, 12:00:33 pm
svs95 wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 11:30

wwittman wrote on Tue, 14 December 2010 23:29

recording to digital, transferring to analogue, and then transferring back into digital...



How is that different from CLASP attached to a digital front end?



d+a+d≠a+d
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: wwittman on December 16, 2010, 12:07:38 pm
exactly

CLASP makes the FIRST recording direct to analogue (and monitors it in input before any recorder)

massively different

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 16, 2010, 12:42:17 pm
wwittman wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 11:07

exactly

CLASP makes the FIRST recording direct to analogue (and monitors it in input before any recorder)

massively different



Except when it isn't used that way, which is frequent (according to Endless Analog).

From http://www.endlessanalog.com/faqs:
Quote from CLASP FAQ:

"Besides tracking and overdubs, let’s say I’m mixing a project that was not recorded with tape but I want the tape sound, can I use CLASP as an insert on individual channels when I’m mixing?
   Yes"

So CLASP is obviously sometimes used this way, and there are plenty of other professional solutions out there designed to be used as processing for digital signals, to impart analog tape characteristics.

How much and in what ways do all these differ? Quantification and qualification of the differences are what this topic is about. I don't know anybody who claims there's "no difference." But I'm more impressed with the improvement these processors make to a good digital signal (on some source material) than with how they fail to be exactly like analog (which I wasn't expecting them to be).

People using world class mics, pres and converters to create high quality digital projects may in some cases like what these processors do to some of their tracks. That doesn't make them the red-headed step-children of pro audio. This is their forum as much as those with analog tape front ends (to whom this topic doesn't really pertain).


svs95
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 16, 2010, 01:02:02 pm
svs95 wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 11:42

wwittman wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 11:07

exactly

CLASP makes the FIRST recording direct to analogue (and monitors it in input before any recorder)

massively different



Except when it isn't used that way, which is frequent (according to Endless Analog).

From http://www.endlessanalog.com/faqs:
Quote from CLASP FAQ:

"Besides tracking and overdubs, let’s say I’m mixing a project that was not recorded with tape but I want the tape sound, can I use CLASP as an insert on individual channels when I’m mixing?
   Yes"

So CLASP is obviously sometimes used this way,




I doubt ANYONE has bought CLASP to use in that fashion. Perhaps for kicks they might because they can, that's all - but I even doubt that would be worth the trouble. It seems YOU are using the term frequently, not EA.

It's a simple FAQ that says you can, but that was not the intent of the design nor of the users (that I have read about). To throw that red herring into this debate is pretty weak.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: marcel on December 16, 2010, 01:19:25 pm
RMoore wrote on Wed, 15 December 2010 21:06

Hilarious - I've been off in the boonies in an 'off the grid' place...

Hey Ryan, glad to hear you're back in Vancouver!

J/K

I see you're playing a new years show at Tom's place.  Should be a blast, their grand opening / Halloween party was legendary...
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 16, 2010, 02:16:48 pm
kats wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 12:02

 To throw that red herring into this debate is pretty weak.

What debate? Is this volconvo.com or greatdebateforum.com? Is it the comments section after a political or religious news story?

It seems to me this is a topic for the discussion of the UAD A-800 plug-in, and how it compares with other similar solutions for imparting tape characteristics to digital signals. If Endless Analog frequently advises people that CLASP can be used with existing digital projects to get "the tape sound," then it's fair game to include that scenario in those comparisons. It's perfectly OK if we leave it out, but I see no need to.

How is that a debate? This is what I don't get.

And what are your impressions having listened to the UAD A-800 in comparison to other tape character processors for digital signals?

svs95
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Tidewater on December 16, 2010, 02:30:38 pm
compasspnt wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 12:00



d+a+d≠a+d




I think Bron-Y-Aur Stomp may be in that tuning! Maybe you'd know, cheeky!

Wait, no.. 5 stings, must be a Stones song.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 16, 2010, 02:42:23 pm
Stephen,

Debate is not a dirty word. It means discussing opposing viewpoints. Is that not what we are doing?

Anyhow, your getting into semantics here and I've been a bit under the weather the last week or so, so I'm going to have to pass on trying to make sense of this  any further.

Just remember that without all the moaning of the old analog lunatics, you wouldn't see much improvement in the development of digital emulations.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Tidewater on December 16, 2010, 02:57:47 pm
Careful, Tony. If you convince them it's easier without the old guys....

They shoot horses, don't they?
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 16, 2010, 04:29:17 pm
kats wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 13:42

Stephen,
Debate is not a dirty word. It means discussing opposing viewpoints. Is that not what we are doing?

Anyhow, your getting into semantics here and I've been a bit under the weather the last week or so, so I'm going to have to pass on trying to make sense of this  any further.

Just remember that without all the moaning of the old analog lunatics, you wouldn't see much improvement in the development of digital emulations.

I don't know what passes for "old" in here, but I'm 54, and I've been involved in one aspect or another of pro audio since I was 15 years old (1971), including broadcasting, manufacturing, and production.

I have transitioned between analog and digital environments several times. I never bothered about the domain, but rather about the quality of the result.

Surely you're not advocating a viewpoint that high-quality digital audio is unachievable without analog tape source.

My old empirical mind is interested in where we are with digital audio production, where we might like to go, and how to get there. I would have the same considerations regarding analog medium improvements, but there's not a lot of new development happening there, in case you haven't noticed.  Cool

If there is "improvement in the development of digital emulations," I would like to discuss that with people who don't dismiss the notion out of hand, and if "old analog lunatics" want to exclude themselves from the conversation, go right ahead. Us old (and young) "domain agnostics" can do without OT domain advocacy posts.

So to anybody who has listened to the UAD A-800 on a multi-track project, how does it compare in your experience with other processors used for adding analog tape characteristics to ITB projects? And, heretical as it may be, how does it compare to the sound of an analog-tape-to-digital-desk setup (after digital conversion)? Not "does it make sense to do this," or "can any living soul hear a difference?" I've heard it compared, and it's not bad at all, IMHO.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 16, 2010, 04:52:54 pm
Quote:

I don't know what passes for "old" in here, but I'm 54, and I've been involved in one aspect or another of pro audio since I was 15 years old (1971), including broadcasting, manufacturing, and production.

I have transitioned between analog and digital environments several times. I never bothered about the domain, but rather about the quality of the result.

Surely you're not advocating a viewpoint that high-quality digital audio is unachievable without analog tape source.

My old empirical mind is interested in where we are with digital audio production, where we might like to go, and how to get there. I would have the same considerations regarding analog medium improvements, but there's not a lot of new development happening there, in case you haven't noticed.  Cool

If there is "improvement in the development of digital emulations," I would like to discuss that with people who don't dismiss the notion out of hand, and if "old analog lunatics" want to exclude themselves from the conversation, go right ahead. Us old (and young) "domain agnostics" can do without OT domain advocacy posts.

So to anybody who has listened to the UAD A-800 on a multi-track project, how does it compare in your experience with other processors used for adding analog tape characteristics to ITB projects? And, heretical as it may be, how does it compare to the sound of an analog-tape-to-digital-desk setup (after digital conversion)? Not "does it make sense to do this," or "can any living soul hear a difference?" I've heard it compared, and it's not bad at all, IMHO.



Stephen, what in the world does your post have to do with anything I have said?  You try to disguise these passive aggressive comments as responses to what I (or others) have posted, but they are totally off the point.

This rant on age or your credentials because I use the term "old analog lunatics" ( figuratively I may add if that wasn't apparent to you) clearly misses the point.

Do you actually have the gall to disagree with the notion that if people didn't question technology, there would be little reason to  improve?

EDIT: I'm now having to quote you as you have a habit of editing your posts after they have been responded to.



Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 16, 2010, 04:54:49 pm
There are pluses and minus to everything.  

Digital has a number of pluses, in terms of workflow and cost.  It has some minuses in terms of sonics, but with good converters, it's not horrible.  It just doesn't sound as magical.  But I can make it sound pretty good, with a great signal path on the way in.  

Analog is very preferable to me sonically, but has many drawbacks in terms of price, workflow, and ease of use.  I don't mind those downsides, but the overwhelming majority of my clients do.  They have become so accustomed to the DAW workflow, and don;t want to pay $300 for a reel of tape.  

The part about CLASP that makes it uninteresting to me is that if I go to tape, I stay on tape.  I might also record on DAW, and link to two, come mix time, but I find that even using great converters, going from tape to DAW loses that thing that makes tape special to me ... even though tape to digital might impart some frequency and harmonic benefits, the converters lose the immediacy that tape gives me.  Even the Prisms.  It's that 3D-ness of analog transients.  Zero pre-ringing.  

So, if a plug-in can give me some of that harmonic content and frequency response of tape that I find pleasing, while keeping the low cost and ease of use of the DAW workflow, I'm certainly in favor of it.  

I'll be downloading the plug-in and using it soon.  Probably next week.  I'll give you a report.  The funny thing is that 12 pages in, lots of heated debate, and not a single person has used the damn thing.  A lot of contention over the idea, and nobody has a single frame of reference.  It's like the producer who shoots down ideas in the studio without hearing if they work or not.  I usually find those to be the worst producers.  
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 16, 2010, 04:56:52 pm
oh, and WTF has happened to me?  When do I become the reasonable guy who doesn't want to get in arguments here?

Must be my girlfriend's influence.  I'm getting too used to a drama free life, and enjoy the lack of conflict.  LOL.

Either that or my 40's are mellowing me out.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 16, 2010, 05:23:19 pm
Why should any of that be obvious, Tony? Two consecutive posts referred to "old guys" and shooting horses, and so forth.
I'm not a mind reader.

Questioning technology with an eye toward working to improve it is not the same thing as ridiculing it. And I do NOT want to have to catalog what I'm talking about. Snarky disdain for digital technology is dripping from post after post - most of them not yours.

Got problems with digital technology? Work with the industry's developers to improve it (as I have been doing for over 20 years). That's the kind of constructive criticism that leads to results - not the self-amused postings of "old analog lunatics," no matter what their age or experience.

PS: I'm also involved in book publishing, and have experience in print editing and writing, so I like to edit grammatical errors, and sometimes for clarity. I think you'll find no differences in substance from an original draft to an edited version (which I take only a minute or two to do).
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: maxim on December 16, 2010, 05:53:24 pm
jj wrote:

"oh, and WTF has happened to me? When do I become the reasonable guy who doesn't want to get in arguments here?"

i'm not sure that there is an ACTUAL argument here?

just some defensive posts...
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Les Ismore on December 16, 2010, 05:57:18 pm
svs95 wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 14:23


PS: I'm also involved in book publishing, and have experience in print editing and writing, so I like to edit grammatical errors, and sometimes for clarity. I think you'll find no differences in substance from an original draft to an edited version (which I take only a minute or two to do).


The editing I was noticing was changing posts to appear less inflammatory and or rude later after the fact. Meanwhile people get offended not by what your opinion is but by the way that you present it. Then you go back and change the original post so it doesn't seem so inflammatory or rude and it makes their responses seem out of context.

My suggestion would be to measure twice and cut once (carpenter's saying). Think more about what you are going to say before you say it and publish it on the interwebs for all the world to see. Then maybe you would feel less inclined to go back afterwards and change your statements after the fact.

Like I said, whether people agree or disagree is not the point or the problem IMO. It's how one presents oneself. Most people are very polite and respectful here and to the point, and that is one reason why I for one like this forum more than other places.

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 16, 2010, 06:10:24 pm
J.J. Blair wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 15:56

oh, and WTF has happened to me?  When do I become the reasonable guy who doesn't want to get in arguments here?

Must be my girlfriend's influence.  I'm getting too used to a drama free life, and enjoy the lack of conflict.  LOL.

Either that or my 40's are mellowing me out.

J.J. Blair wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 15:54


I'll be downloading the plug-in and using it soon.  Probably next week.  I'll give you a report.  The funny thing is that 12 pages in, lots of heated debate, and not a single person has used the damn thing.  A lot of contention over the idea, and nobody has a single frame of reference.  It's like the producer who shoots down ideas in the studio without hearing if they work or not.  I usually find those to be the worst producers.  


Thank you for these posts, JJ. I'll look forward to reading your observations. I have used the plug-in, and made several posts here about my experience with it, but it's no surprise you can't find those any more.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: compasspnt on December 16, 2010, 06:13:51 pm
svs95 wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 18:10

I...made several posts here about my experience with it, but it's no surprise you can't find those any more.



What does this mean?
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 16, 2010, 06:41:37 pm
Les Ismore wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 16:57

The editing I was noticing was changing posts to appear less inflammatory and or rude later after the fact.

I have not done that, Les. There was never anything rude or inflammatory to edit. Not my nature. I cop to the "defensive" label on a few posts, which somebody just mentioned, because there is a distinct thread of ridicule toward the topic.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on December 16, 2010, 07:20:51 pm
compasspnt wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 17:13

svs95 wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 18:10

I...made several posts here about my experience with it, but it's no surprise you can't find those any more.



What does this mean?


Actually, I mean they're hard to find among the hundreds of posts that don't concern the sound of the plug-in. It isn't easy, but I guess you can find them:

Quote:

What I'm surprised to find out is that the guys have actually done a good job, not only with regard to that certain je ne sais quoi..."tapeyness," but in terms of the range of sonic possibilities we're used to getting from tape.

If I "overbias," I get softer saturation. If I "underbias" too far, I hear drop-out or chatter. If I trim the "HF bias," I hear the highs go up and down. If I change the flux density (they call it "CAL"), I see distortion onset at a lower or higher input level. If I change "tape types," I hear a corresponding change in tape character non-linearities. If I change "speeds," I hear the "head bump" move up or down, and the frequency response change accordingly.


Quote:

With the UAD Studer, depending on the bias parameter, you can get more or less cushion in the saturation onset (just like the hardware).

One of the nicest things about the plug-in is that you can work out of calibration with it any time you like, because getting back to a fully-calibrated state is as simple as turning on AUTO CAL - no matter how far out of whack you were.

So that invites non-calibrated use in a way that having to go through the whole MRL tape procedure does not. Therefore, you can tweak the thing to get the kind of behavior and tone you like.

Now, that doesn't mean you can make it sound like an old tube Ampex mastering deck, or your B67, but you can vary the behavior to be much less neutral than the normal behavior of an A-800.

However, the primary idea of this plug-in is to be used in the first slot of every appropriate track (or group bus) in a mix, so that the cumulative effect is like tracking to an A-800, which was indeed as transparent as analog could get, but was still analog. Therefore, the idea is that this won't radically alter the tone and vibe of your project, but will subtly enhance some of the hyper-neutrality of your raw digital signals with the euphonic non-linearities of tape.

I can vouch for that. It does achieve this effect. I've heard direct comparisons with the hardware, and with settings as close as possible (matching card settings by eye, and then tweaking slightly to get closer), it's stunning how much alike the two sound.


Quote:

The only 1:1 comparisons I've heard were of A-800 hardware into to an A/D converter, which is a sensible way to compare the analog front end of an otherwise digital system to the A-800 plug-in. And yes, setting up the comparison involved a lot of time tweaking to get them closely calibrated, just as it would comparing the sound of two A-800s.

The demo used the plug-in on every track in the mix, and compared to the same session passing through an A-800. I'll see if I can get permission to post his results here.


So, what I meant was several posts about working with the plug-in here, and one about a direct comparison to an ITB project using the plug-in versus a bounce out to the hardware in another studio. I also passed along some demo tips from UA. There has been some signal among the noise. More would be nice.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Bill_Urick on December 16, 2010, 08:33:46 pm
J.J. Blair wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 16:56

oh, and WTF has happened to me?  When do I become the reasonable guy who doesn't want to get in arguments here?

Must be my girlfriend's influence.  I'm getting too used to a drama free life, and enjoy the lack of conflict.  LOL.

Either that or my 40's are mellowing me out.


40's?

Punk.

Get back to me in a decade.

Cool

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: jwhynot on December 16, 2010, 08:54:16 pm
Some people are at pains to take offense.

It's a pity.  There are places in the world where offense is rightly taken.

Cheers
JW
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: arconaut on December 16, 2010, 10:37:22 pm
J.J. Blair wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 16:56

Either that or my 40's are mellowing me out.



How many 40's did you drink?

Surprised
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: jwhynot on December 16, 2010, 11:44:24 pm
Ew 40s.

Oh wait - if you mean Caidenheads I think I know what you're talking about.

One of those and it's life support.

JW
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 17, 2010, 12:00:38 am
40 US is like 50 Canadian.  
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Les Ismore on December 17, 2010, 02:52:49 am
not now it's at par (almost) Smile
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: CWHumphrey on December 17, 2010, 02:59:32 am
J.J. Blair wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 13:56

oh, and WTF has happened to me?  When do I become the reasonable guy who doesn't want to get in arguments here?

Must be my girlfriend's influence.  I'm getting too used to a drama free life, and enjoy the lack of conflict.  LOL.

Either that or my 40's are mellowing me out.


Man, I hope not.

Cheers,
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: zmix on December 20, 2010, 12:30:16 pm
Some interesting points have been made in this thread (buried between trollish fanboy blather and it's subsequent fallout).  

William Wittman made a great point about merit that I would like to discuss further.  I've often commented  that music is a democratic meritocracy (barring the payola, marketing pushes, etc), meaning that a record that cost $600 to produce will retail for the same price as one that cost $2M, and the fans don't care how much it cost or what gear was used as long as they like it.

Here is a question: "If plugins improve to the point where they approach analog gear, will records sound better?"  It's a bit like asking "If restaurant grade cooking equipment is available in every kitchen, will home cooking improve? Or,  given perceived ubiquity of ITB mixing, maybe it's more accurate to ask: "If microwave ovens had presets such as "brick oven",  "hearth", "Mequite BBQ", would home cooking improve?"  I suspect the novelty of "Mesquite BBQ" boiled water would wear off rather quickly.

The point was also about referentialism.  I am very interested in the differences between "intrinsic" and "referential" value when assigned to an object. In this case, does a plugin purporting to be something that it cannot possibly be, yet retaining some artifact of the original, need to be referenced to that thing to have value?  I have listened to the UAD A800, and once I tweaked it a bit I found I could get some subtle peak reduction and add some low order harmonics, and in that way it's different than other processors out there.  Maybe it will prove to be a solution to something.  

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 20, 2010, 12:56:35 pm
zmix wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 11:30

 I am very interested in the differences between "intrinsic" and "referential" value when assigned to an object. In this case, does a plugin purporting to be something that it cannot possibly be, yet retaining some artifact of the original, need to be referenced to that thing to have value?



Yes.

The key word is "purporting". Because UA is not really trying to market the sound of an A800. They are selling an emotion. Call it something else, and the emotional value is gone.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: jwhynot on December 20, 2010, 01:01:25 pm
Head in hands, shaking head, knowing what is to come.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 20, 2010, 01:43:05 pm
Sorry Smile

The fact is, that it may be a cool and useful plugin, I'm not saying different. I hope we can separate the two discussions without getting emotional.

PS, I'm available for Weddings and Bar Mitzvah's.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 20, 2010, 01:50:07 pm
Speaking of which it was a REAL Studer that has caused all this trouble. You can't make this stuff up.

So we bought a new console for the studio and we're trying to figure out how many guys we're going to need to lift this thing, about 1000lbs. So like a couple of idiots (my idea) I suggest we try and lift the A827 and gauge how many guys we'll need for the console based on that...


Anyhow, a torn rotator cuff and two weeks of too much time on my hands, rolling over on the bad shoulder and waking up at 3am etc etc -

And this is the trouble I start.

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Jay Kadis on December 20, 2010, 03:19:00 pm
kats wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 10:50

Speaking of which it was a REAL Studer that has caused all this trouble. You can't make this stuff up.

So we bought a new console for the studio and we're trying to figure out how many guys we're going to need to lift this thing, about 1000lbs. So like a couple of idiots (my idea) I suggest we try and lift the A827 and gauge how many guys we'll need for the console based on that...


Anyhow, a torn rotator cuff and two weeks of too much time on my hands, rolling over on the bad shoulder and waking up at 3am etc etc -

And this is the trouble I start.


Ouch!  Well, there's one advantage of the simulations: the worst injury you'll get is a paper cut.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: MI on December 20, 2010, 03:39:36 pm
kats wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 13:50

Speaking of which it was a REAL Studer that has caused all this trouble. You can't make this stuff up.

So we bought a new console for the studio and we're trying to figure out how many guys we're going to need to lift this thing, about 1000lbs. So like a couple of idiots (my idea) I suggest we try and lift the A827 and gauge how many guys we'll need for the console based on that...


Anyhow, a torn rotator cuff and two weeks of too much time on my hands, rolling over on the bad shoulder and waking up at 3am etc etc -

And this is the trouble I start.





Tony,

Seriously factor in a crane rental cost in console price.

Planet in Montreal replaced the 6000 with a 4000 and have used a crane to get in/out.

Mario
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 20, 2010, 05:39:18 pm
I refuse! Haha

Co-incidentally this board is a 6000. But it is not that big at 7ft and we have an elevator that it will fit in. It's funny because I was just talking to Francois at Studio Economik and he was talking about how Planet swapped consoles because they didn't like the sound of a 6k compared to a 4k. I thought it was odd. All things being equal isn't the only difference the program bus matrix? They are easily modded. Mine is set up so that stereo A bypasses the matrix and goes straight to the stereo bus. Stereo B&C come up on the patch bay and then you bring them in wherever you want.  
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: MI on December 20, 2010, 06:01:57 pm
Keith (ssltech) would be the one to confirm all that...

Daniel did tell me they had some other hicups with his.

Francois is cool guy, I bought my JH-110A off him many years ago...

Mario
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: zmix on December 22, 2010, 01:01:36 am
zmix wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 12:30

Some interesting points have been made in this thread (buried between trollish fanboy blather and it's subsequent fallout).  

William Wittman made a great point about merit that I would like to discuss further.  I've often commented  that music is a democratic meritocracy (barring the payola, marketing pushes, etc), meaning that a record that cost $600 to produce will retail for the same price as one that cost $2M, and the fans don't care how much it cost or what gear was used as long as they like it.

Here is a question: "If plugins improve to the point where they approach analog gear, will records sound better?"  It's a bit like asking "If restaurant grade cooking equipment is available in every kitchen, will home cooking improve? Or,  given perceived ubiquity of ITB mixing, maybe it's more accurate to ask: "If microwave ovens had presets such as "brick oven",  "hearth", "Mequite BBQ", would home cooking improve?"  I suspect the novelty of "Mesquite BBQ" boiled water would wear off rather quickly.

The point was also about referentialism.  I am very interested in the differences between "intrinsic" and "referential" value when assigned to an object. In this case, does a plugin purporting to be something that it cannot possibly be, yet retaining some artifact of the original, need to be referenced to that thing to have value?  I have listened to the UAD A800, and once I tweaked it a bit I found I could get some subtle peak reduction and add some low order harmonics, and in that way it's different than other processors out there.  Maybe it will prove to be a solution to something.  




Possibly the theory of the "Uncanny Valley" could explain something?

Quote:

The uncanny valley is a hypothesis regarding the field of robotics. The theory holds that when robots and other facsimiles of humans look and act almost like actual humans, it causes a response of revulsion among human observers. The "valley" in question is a dip in a proposed graph of the positivity of human reaction as a function of a robot's lifelikeness.



Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: wwittman on December 23, 2010, 03:58:27 pm
zmix wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 01:01



Here is a question: "If plugins improve to the point where they approach analog gear, will records sound better?"  It's a bit like asking "If restaurant grade cooking equipment is available in every kitchen, will home cooking improve? Or,  given perceived ubiquity of ITB mixing, maybe it's more accurate to ask: "If microwave ovens had presets such as "brick oven",  "hearth", "Mequite BBQ", would home cooking improve?"  I suspect the novelty of "Mesquite BBQ" boiled water would wear off rather quickly.




excellent point.
And I suppose my feeling is that presets such as "Brick Oven" on the microwave oven serve the needs of the marketing dept first, then consumers who have never cooked in a brick oven, and then only distantly followed by professional chefs who might find some use for the setting whilst still KNOWING it isn't really anything like COOKING in a brick oven .
(the substance almost but not completely unlike tea)

but the marketers deduce that someone (probably the pros and experienced) wants brick ovens, and, before their discussion poisons the well of the bigger pool potential buyers it's better to claim to 'include' that feature.




zmix wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 01:01


The point was also about referentialism.  I am very interested in the differences between "intrinsic" and "referential" value when assigned to an object. In this case, does a plugin purporting to be something that it cannot possibly be, yet retaining some artifact of the original, need to be referenced to that thing to have value?  I have listened to the UAD A800, and once I tweaked it a bit I found I could get some subtle peak reduction and add some low order harmonics, and in that way it's different than other processors out there.  Maybe it will prove to be a solution to something.  




exactly.
I guess it seems clear to me (and the marketing folks) that it DOES need to be referenced in order to max sales potential.
"great new compressor plug in"s are rare to see advertised. "Neve" "SSL" "1176" "Fairchild" compressor plug ins are ubiquitous.




zmix wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 01:01



Possibly the theory of the "Uncanny Valley" could explain something?

Quote:

The uncanny valley is a hypothesis regarding the field of robotics. The theory holds that when robots and other facsimiles of humans look and act almost like actual humans, it causes a response of revulsion among human observers. The "valley" in question is a dip in a proposed graph of the positivity of human reaction as a function of a robot's lifelikeness.






interesting, and could be, I suppose.
But I suspect that there's something much more deeply threatening about humanoid machines than Studeroid software. <g>


Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 23, 2010, 08:58:12 pm
zmix wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 00:01

 Possibly the theory of the "Uncanny Valley" could explain something?


Quote:

The uncanny valley is a hypothesis regarding the field of robotics. The theory holds that when robots and other facsimiles of humans look and act almost like actual humans, it causes a response of revulsion among human observers. The "valley" in question is a dip in a proposed graph of the positivity of human reaction as a function of a robot's lifelikeness.




Not quite. The above is not an intellectual response. It is instinctive. In the case of the A800 plug, the complaint is on an intellectual level. Now perhaps if we started barfing after listening to it, you might have a case of "Uncanny Valley" Smile
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Haolemon on December 31, 2010, 01:11:48 pm
According to Resolution Magazine, UAD has also made an arrangement with Ampex to model their tape machines and tape formulations...........
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on December 31, 2010, 01:22:36 pm
All they have to do now is somehow add a coin slot to the unit and it would be perfect.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Podgorny on December 31, 2010, 08:38:51 pm
I have this plugin now, and guess what? It's nice. REALLY nice.  I like it quite a bit.

So there.

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: arconaut on December 31, 2010, 10:58:39 pm
But what is its impedance?
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on January 12, 2011, 12:16:43 pm
zmix wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 01:01



Here is a question: "If plugins improve to the point where they approach analog gear, will records sound better?"  It's a bit like asking "If restaurant grade cooking equipment is available in every kitchen, will home cooking improve?


Possibly, if the person at home is somebody like Rachel Ray, who came out of obscurity with no credentials. But the real question is not so much on the "home" (hobbyist) side of the analogy.

What will happen in studios already populated by engineers with good ears and chops, but without access to certain hardware? Being able to work with a great emulation can be a powerful help to good engineers in many circumstances, and it can contribute to better records from skilled users.

"Uncanny Valley" may be a factor, considering how closely some people identify with their gear. Wink
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: zmix on January 13, 2011, 01:20:45 pm
svs95 wrote on Wed, 12 January 2011 12:16

zmix wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 01:01

Here is a question: "If plugins improve to the point where they approach analog gear, will records sound better?"  It's a bit like asking "If restaurant grade cooking equipment is available in every kitchen, will home cooking improve?
Possibly, if the person at home is somebody like Rachel Ray, who came out of obscurity with no credentials. But the real question is not so much on the "home" (hobbyist) side of the analogy.

Rachel Ray isn't microwaving frozen dinners, she's cooking with real ingredients, besides which, according to UA, the vast majority of their customers are not full-time working professionals. So my analogy about the microwave oven may be more appropriate here.


svs95 wrote on Wed, 12 January 2011 12:16

"Uncanny Valley" may be a factor, considering how closely some people identify with their gear. Wink


Eww that's creepy...  and a bit like making fun of someone's shoes because they prefer to walk rather than ride a motorized chair:



index.php/fa/16155/0/
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: fiasco ( P.M.DuMont ) on January 13, 2011, 04:24:19 pm
Boy, Michael Moore has really let himself go.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Bill Mueller on January 13, 2011, 07:35:01 pm
This is a silly thread.

Best regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: compasspnt on January 15, 2011, 02:24:11 am
I know who could tell us:

One of The Uncanny Valley People.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: maxim on January 15, 2011, 06:11:39 pm
index.php/fa/16170/0/
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Glenn Bucci on January 16, 2011, 08:00:43 pm
Wow a lot of comments on this thing. Ok, what UAD has offered on this plug in is good.

How does it stack up against the Portico True Tape and Anamod ATS-1? I would think with your signal actually running through transformers and circuits compared to a modeling software that the depth and umph would be more with the hardware, while the software still can add the color that is good.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on January 21, 2011, 11:46:14 am
zmix wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 12:20

svs95 wrote on Wed, 12 January 2011 12:16

zmix wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 01:01

Here is a question: "If plugins improve to the point where they approach analog gear, will records sound better?"  It's a bit like asking "If restaurant grade cooking equipment is available in every kitchen, will home cooking improve?
Possibly, if the person at home is somebody like Rachel Ray, who came out of obscurity with no credentials. But the real question is not so much on the "home" (hobbyist) side of the analogy.

Rachel Ray isn't microwaving frozen dinners, she's cooking with real ingredients, besides which, according to UA, the vast majority of their customers are not full-time working professionals. So my analogy about the microwave oven may be more appropriate here.

Huh? You were asking if more people have access to better tools, will it produce better results. I was simply saying, it depends on the genius of the person using the tools.

zmix wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 12:20

svs95 wrote on Wed, 12 January 2011 12:16

"Uncanny Valley" may be a factor, considering how closely some people identify with their gear. Wink


Eww that's creepy...  and a bit like making fun of someone's shoes because they prefer to walk rather than ride a motorized chair:


Chuck, you suggested the "Uncanny Valley" response might be a factor. I didn't think you were making fun of anybody. I actually agree with that (as a small, subconscious factor, maybe), because people sometimes do identify with their possessions ("the clothes make the man," or maybe "the gear makes the man"). If something gets too close to a cherished thing, it might invite that kind of response. I agree that can't be completely discounted.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: zmix on January 25, 2011, 01:25:26 pm
svs95 wrote on Fri, 21 January 2011 11:46

zmix wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 12:20

svs95 wrote on Wed, 12 January 2011 12:16

zmix wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 01:01

Here is a question: "If plugins improve to the point where they approach analog gear, will records sound better?"  It's a bit like asking "If restaurant grade cooking equipment is available in every kitchen, will home cooking improve?
Possibly, if the person at home is somebody like Rachel Ray, who came out of obscurity with no credentials. But the real question is not so much on the "home" (hobbyist) side of the analogy.

Rachel Ray isn't microwaving frozen dinners, she's cooking with real ingredients, besides which, according to UA, the vast majority of their customers are not full-time working professionals. So my analogy about the microwave oven may be more appropriate here.

Huh? You were asking if more people have access to better tools, will it produce better results. I was simply saying, it depends on the genius of the person using the tools.

zmix wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 12:20

svs95 wrote on Wed, 12 January 2011 12:16

"Uncanny Valley" may be a factor, considering how closely some people identify with their gear. Wink


Eww that's creepy...  and a bit like making fun of someone's shoes because they prefer to walk rather than ride a motorized chair:


Chuck, you suggested the "Uncanny Valley" response might be a factor. I didn't think you were making fun of anybody. I actually agree with that (as a small, subconscious factor, maybe), because people sometimes do identify with their possessions ("the clothes make the man," or maybe "the gear makes the man"). If something gets too close to a cherished thing, it might invite that kind of response. I agree that can't be completely discounted.


My comment about the "Uncanny Valley" was sarcasm, plain and simple.  

Not sure if you're taking the piss here or just being intentionally obtuse, but In either case I suggest that you re-read my comments about Microwave presets.  I specifically mentioned them in my post you quoted above as being the better analogy to the make-believe world of plugins.

Have you noticed that only plug-in users seem to require justification for their use? Your incessant comments (and your troll pseudonym: "Yammer" ) about real gear are just weird, particularly since you make them in the company of working professionals who contribute to this forum.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on January 25, 2011, 02:21:46 pm
> your troll pseudonym: "Yammer"

Chuck, whoa! If you're not being sarcastic, you have me confused with somebody else. I've never posted under any other user name in the PSW forums.

I'm not disparaging hardware use. I own hardware (including tape) and use it (although not exclusively). I don't see why it's "either you're for something or you're against it" in here. I'm for whatever works (like the forum says).

Is Michael Brauer a member of this forum? I'd sure like to hear his comments. I know he has used the UAD Studer plug-in, and really liked it, and has publicly commented on his results. Doesn't make him anti-hardware, or part of some dumbing down conspiracy. A processor does what it does, no matter what domain it's in. One is free to like the result or not, and that will probably vary depending on the source signal.

I don't think people who like this plug-in (or any plug-in) on some tracks are by association enemies of the hardware paradigm. In my case, I'm just somebody who needs the flexibility of ITB processing on some of my projects, and I don't feel like I'm screwing those clients.

Also, I'm not a mind reader. I can't always tell (especially without emoticons or something) that sarcasm is intended. That doesn't make me stupid, it's just the nature of text communication.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: zmix on January 25, 2011, 02:58:20 pm
svs95 wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 14:21


Is Michael Brauer a member of this forum? I'd sure like to hear his comments. I know he has used the UAD Studer plug-in, and really liked it, and has publicly commented on his results.

Ok... On Gearslutz he said this:

"You're right, it might be implied that the studer plugin must be cool too . I was talking about studer and tape and other things, i hadn't heard the plugin yet."

Which is exactly what I said here.

UA admitted to a friend of mine at NAMM that nobody in the promotional video (including me) had heard the plugin at the time of the filming.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: DSills on January 25, 2011, 03:56:24 pm
No dog in this fight (don't have access to either UAD or a real tape machine), but I did follow the thread on GS....

Quote:

ok, so yesterday I tried the studer UAD on printed drum efx bus, toms, snare, Guitar and overheads for a track that needed more of a saturated punchy sound. It sounded great to me. I also have heat which I like alot. So, I tried it and I liked it. Am I going to make sure that it's accurate by trying it against tape...uuh no, I know what I wanted to hear and I heard it, It worked for me. end of story.

BTW, If I didn't like it, I would have said, tried it but it didn't do anything for me. Would I have pissed off UAD a bit, probably, but they knew that going in that I'm not kissing any butts. I use what I like and that's it.

michael brauer


http://www.gearslutz.com/board/6078126-post369.html
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on January 25, 2011, 04:11:36 pm
Chuck, the only place I can seem to find his remarks right now are at GearSlutz as well. This is after he used the plug-in. So I guess he's not too bothered by his remarks in the video. Have you tried the plug-in yet?
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: zmix on January 25, 2011, 04:14:37 pm
svs95 wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 16:11

Chuck, the only place I can seem to find his remarks right now are at GearSlutz, as a matter of fact:




Thanks for sharing that...  I'm glad that there is a thread like that one on GS with some empirical testimony!
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on January 25, 2011, 04:34:15 pm
So Chuck, what's your emperical contribution? Have you tried the Studer plug-in yet? If you're worried about being associated with it, you might want to check it out. I don't think you'll be as worried about that once you've heard it.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: zmix on January 25, 2011, 05:57:50 pm
svs95 wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 16:34

So Chuck, what's your emperical contribution? Have you tried the Studer plug-in yet? If you're worried about being associated with it, you might want to check it out. I don't think you'll be as worried about that once you've heard it.


A word of advice Stephen, people here wouldn't have found you to be such a troll if you didn't try to bait them so much.

I have one objective only: Getting the sounds I need from the gear available in the service of the artistic vision of the song and it's production.  You may look at my website and see that I have no published gear list.  My collection of gear is certainly noteworthy and spans the entire modern recording era.  Why not boast about it?  Because that misses the point entirely. Gear does not mix records. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: "He that is of the opinion gear will do everything may well be suspected of doing everything for gear".

I have used the UAD A800 quite a bit and I love certain aspects of what it can do, once it's calibrated properly it can be really nice on certain sounds... But,  I do feel that  it can be improved, and I've already contacted UA about these aspects..

As an experiment,  I have sent additional mixes to clients (after they've signed off on the originals) where I have used the UAD A800 on a few key instruments and in every case the clients have preferred the original... Had I began the mixes with the UAD A800 they may have had a different reaction.. but the comments they made were very informative, and entirely objective since I did not mention what I had done differently in the second set of mixes.

I have a song up on the burner at the moment that I intend to use to put the UAD A800 through it's paces..   I'll let you know.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on January 25, 2011, 07:14:26 pm
Chuck, you know perfectly well who I am, and you know who "Yammer" is, and you not only know we're not the same person, you know we're not affiliated, any more than you and Yammer are affiliated (since you know him in the same capacity I do).

How am I baiting you! I just asked for your opinion of the plug-in, which is what the OP asked for. I don't like fanboyism either, but there's no reason I can't have an on-topic positive opinion about this plug-in, based on working with it. There's also no reason you can't have a different opinion. That would still be productive.

I'd be happy to read any opinions, positive or not, that begin along the lines of "I've worked with this plug-in for awhile, and here's what I've found..." like Michael Brauer did; rather than these vacuous generic rants about digital audio or plug-ins.

Whatever the domain or the category of device, there is quality and there is crap. If we start from there, we might get somewhere worth going.

I think your straw poll of clients is skewed (though not deliberately). Whenever there are changes after the fact, in my experience there's usually a preference for the original mix, if it was good to begin with. It might be interesting to hear some client reaction where the plug-in is used up front. That way they're just reacting to what they hear, rather than the loaded context of making changes to an approved mix.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: zmix on January 25, 2011, 07:56:09 pm
svs95 wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 19:14

Chuck, you know perfectly well who I am
No, I don't know who you are, apart from your forum presence.  I couldn't find you listed on any online discography services whatsoever.

svs95 wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 19:14


I'd be happy to read any opinions, positive or not, that begin along the lines of "I've worked with this plug-in for awhile, and here's what I've found..." like Michael Brauer did; rather than these vacuous generic rants about digital audio or plug-ins. .


Obviously you didn't read my post above where I clearly stated:
zmix wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 17:57

I have used the UAD A800 quite a bit and I love certain aspects of what it can do, once it's calibrated properly it can be really nice on certain sounds... But,  I do feel that  it can be improved, and I've already contacted UA about these aspects..


svs95 wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 19:14

I think your straw poll of clients is skewed (though not deliberately). Whenever there are changes after the fact, in my experience there's usually a preference for the original mix, if it was good to begin with. It might be interesting to hear some client reaction where the plug-in is used up front. That way they're just reacting to what they hear, rather than the loaded context of making changes to an approved mix.


Nor this part:
zmix wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 17:57


I have a song up on the burner at the moment that I intend to use to put the UAD A800 through it's paces.. I'll let you know.[

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on January 26, 2011, 12:49:39 am
Yes I read your post from earlier today, Chuck. It's the only way I knew you had sent out the revised mixes. I'm just saying they're not "entirely objective" as you put it, because there's a prejudice against revisions of a completed project.

However it was the complete body of posts prior to that which I was referring to. I look forward to your posting back with further experiences.

I agree with you about the importance of calibrating this plug-in to get desired results (which may or may not mean factory calibration). There are so many variables that, even though it might be found by trial and error, it helps to have a background with analog tape, and Studers in particular, to know where to start tweaking for a given result.

If you'll please reply to the PM I sent you before your last post, I'll remind you how you know me, and how we both know "Yammer." Since we haven't discussed it before, if you want to know more about my (non-celebrity) work, I can do that while we're at it.

Thank you for changing tack on this topic. I hope it encourages others to work with this thing and give experience-based feedback.

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: jwhynot on January 26, 2011, 02:33:21 am
Good lord what a gigantic load of tripe about nothing.

It's a plug-in.

Good night everyone.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Bubba#$%Kron on January 26, 2011, 02:36:28 am
How did you get a pic of my real doll??!!!

maxim wrote on Sat, 15 January 2011 15:11

index.php/fa/16170/0/

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: zmix on January 26, 2011, 02:28:46 pm
svs95 wrote on Wed, 26 January 2011 00:49

Yes I read your post from earlier today, Chuck. It's the only way I knew you had sent out the revised mixes. I'm just saying they're not "entirely objective" as you put it, because there's a prejudice against revisions of a completed project.

However it was the complete body of posts prior to that which I was referring to. I look forward to your posting back with further experiences.

I agree with you about the importance of calibrating this plug-in to get desired results (which may or may not mean factory calibration). There are so many variables that, even though it might be found by trial and error, it helps to have a background with analog tape, and Studers in particular, to know where to start tweaking for a given result.

If you'll please reply to the PM I sent you before your last post, I'll remind you how you know me, and how we both know "Yammer." Since we haven't discussed it before, if you want to know more about my (non-celebrity) work, I can do that while we're at it.

Thank you for changing tack on this topic. I hope it encourages others to work with this thing and give experience-based feedback.




No Problem.. thanks for the clarifying PM...

Like they say: "Never Judge a Man until you've walked a mile in his shoes"





... ( Because that way if you piss him off, he's a mile away and barefoot!!!)

Cheers,

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on February 08, 2011, 01:54:13 am
zmix wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 16:57

I have used the UAD A800 quite a bit and I love certain aspects of what it can do, once it's calibrated properly it can be really nice on certain sounds... But,  I do feel that  it can be improved, and I've already contacted UA about these aspects..


You think calibration could be made to correlate better to the hardware?

zmix wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 16:57

I have a song up on the burner at the moment that I intend to use to put the UAD A800 through it's paces..   I'll let you know.


How did that turn out? I assume you tried the UAD A800 on multiple tracks of the project (rather than on the mix)?
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: mcsnare on February 08, 2011, 08:58:07 pm
I haven't had tons of time with it, but so far I'm lovin' the A-800. Those other UAD joints ain't bad, either.

Dave
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Ross Hogarth on February 08, 2011, 09:53:06 pm
mcsnare wrote on Tue, 08 February 2011 17:58

I haven't had tons of time with it, but so far I'm lovin' the A-800. Those other UAD joints ain't bad, either.

Dave


i agree !!!
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Len on February 17, 2011, 07:46:53 am
The latest issue of Sound on Sound A/Bs the UAD against a real studer in one of Sweden's top studios.  Basically the UAD came out equal.  The electronic edition should be available over the next couple of days.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on February 17, 2011, 07:51:53 am
Len wrote on Thu, 17 February 2011 06:46

The latest issue of Sound on Sound A/Bs the UAD against a real studer in one of Sweden's top studios.  Basically the UAD came out equal.  The electronic edition should be available over the next couple of days.


Haha, integrity at it's finest.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Peller on February 17, 2011, 08:59:37 am
Tony,

It took a lot of work to put the UAD / Studer comparison together, and it's disappointing to see our "integrity" being mocked by someone who doesn't even seem to have read it. Why so dismissive?

For anyone who does want to read it, the March issue is on our site now. The article text is only accessible by subscribers, but the audio examples are available for free download by anyone:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar11/articles/uadaudio.htm

To say that the two came out equal is perhaps not quite the point. It might be better to say that -- with a lot of close listening and parameter changes -- our author felt he was able to match most aspects of the real tape machine's sound with the plug-in. There were some remaining differences on the bass guitar, but these were likely down to the transformer input stage on the machine he tested, which is not modelled in the UA plug-in.

Universal Audio were not involved in any way in the tests, nor have they seen the text before publication.

I would be interested to know what PSW'ers make of the comparison...

Sam from SOS

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Jay Kadis on February 17, 2011, 10:50:00 am
A pertinent interview with Dave Berners of Universal Audio:

http://createdigitalmusic.com/2011/02/modeling-analog-in-a-d igital-age-a-conversation-with-universal-audios-chief-scient ist
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on February 20, 2011, 08:49:06 am
Well Peller, my apologies to offend your work. The post above mine says that your conclusions are that the plugin is basically equal to tape. This is an impossible statement.

I did however just read your article and it seems that your conclusions are that the Plugin  exhibits compression characterstics very similar to 456 @ 15ips, although not quite the same.

These two statements are vastly different. I wrongly assumed that the poster was being factual.

I didn't bother to listen to your samples since a big reason to use tape is for it's resolution, not it's compression characteristics.   If you consider that there are 80 million N-S binary transactions per second  at 15ips on your typical recorder, you posting sound samples at 44.1 or 96k of tape recordings and then comparing them to digital recordings is nonsensical because now your just comparing digital to digital. IE, you are now just comparing the tape artifacts to the plugin.

Which is absolutely fine if presented this way. The proper thing to say if your trying to be intellectually honest would be that the UA plugin faithfully captures all the negative artifacts of tape recording. Otherwise you are misleading your readers who might not know better.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Podgorny on February 20, 2011, 10:24:01 pm
So Tony, have you figured out that non-digital music distribution medium for the 21st century yet?
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on February 21, 2011, 08:10:57 am
Am I supposed to take that statement seriously?
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Len on February 21, 2011, 08:21:24 am
kats wrote on Sun, 20 February 2011 13:49

Well Peller, my apologies to offend your work. The post above mine says that your conclusions are that the plugin is basically equal to tape. This is an impossible statement.

I did however just read your article and it seems that your conclusions are that the Plugin  exhibits compression characterstics very similar to 456 @ 15ips, although not quite the same.

These two statements are vastly different. I wrongly assumed that the poster was being factual.

I didn't bother to listen to your samples since a big reason to use tape is for it's resolution, not it's compression characteristics.   If you consider that there are 80 million N-S binary transactions per second  at 15ips on your typical recorder, you posting sound samples at 44.1 or 96k of tape recordings and then comparing them to digital recordings is nonsensical because now your just comparing digital to digital. IE, you are now just comparing the tape artifacts to the plugin.

Which is absolutely fine if presented this way. The proper thing to say if your trying to be intellectually honest would be that the UA plugin faithfully captures all the negative artifacts of tape recording. Otherwise you are misleading your readers who might not know better.


Oh fer cryin out loud.  I merely wanted to let people know the article existed so people could read it.  I was not going to precis the whole thing!  "Basically equal" was simply meant to say that the UAD was close in many ways to the original so that some of the enthusiasm we have been reading in the previous pages of this thread might be justified, so one should go and read the SOS article.


Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on February 21, 2011, 09:36:31 am
"Basically equal" is a pretty bold statement Len. That means you could replace a Studer 800 with a plugin. But I don't blame you as Sam from SOS isn't taking your claim to task and instead is coming down on me for disputing the claim.

This suggests to me that they intended the reader to be left with the impression that you presented here.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Len on February 21, 2011, 12:33:04 pm
Argh - these forums do my head in.  I think most reasonable people know that a plug in is a plug in and hardware is hardware.  No matter what plug in you use, there will be a trade off compared with using hardware, but at the same time some benefits re convenience and price.  If someone on this board of audio professionals is going to read "basically equal" to mean "Oh my God I'm never going to have to buy hardware again!" then I am really sorry to have somehow misled them.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on February 21, 2011, 01:21:28 pm
Len I'm seriously not trying to rag on you and I hope my replies don't make you feel that way. Your impression of the article was what it was. I cannot argue with that. I can however take exception to SOS leaving it's reader's with that impression. I did not read the article (I thought I did in the earlier post, but that was just the sound samples with explanations) and Sam was not disputing your impressions.

The fact that they even post digital sound files doesn't sit well with me. That is the same thing as saying 44.1/24 sounds the same as an Mp3 - "and here's some mp3's of both formats so you can hear it yourself". Not good IMO.

What we are really comparing is tape artifacts to a plugin designed to emulate such artifacts. Things such as tape compression, machine electronics and their affect on tone etc. The point being that for people who record to tape, these peculiarities amount to a small reason for their motivation to continue with the format.

Now as far as the final playback medium is concerned, let's think about that for a minute. Who here records at 128 kbps just because that is the predominant playback medium today? It's generally accepted that recording and mixing at the highest resolution possible right through the mastering process yields the best results regardless of the final playback resolution, and this doesn't even take into account that there are still those who listen to high resolution formats in their home.

The thought that the legacy of this format being reduced to nothing more than an effect box upsets me. It does nothing to promote good audio or educate a new generation of audio engineers. To me it's nothing more than a cash grab from the unwitting who've never had the chance to hear what good analog recording is all about. For those with the experience my rant is moot. And for the record I enjoy UA's plugins and think they sound cool. I'd also use this "Studer" plugin for effect as well if I thought it sounded cool. I love effects! It's the blatant dishonesty of the sales rhetoric that leaves me disgusted.

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on February 21, 2011, 01:24:38 pm
It's funny to see people now characterize what this plug-in is able to emulate as "the negative artifacts of tape," when it is the predominant feature of analog that survives digitization (at least in a PCM distribution culture).

Certainly nobody in this forum expects a plug-in to emulate the resolution of analog tape. Give us a break!

And yes, whether Podgorny intended it seriously or not, I think it's a valid question. To what end (aside from a narrowly archival one) is the additional resolution of an analog medium without the requisite distribution format with which to appreciate it? In an alternative analog universe, it would make sense. But in the actual real world, it's superfluous to needs.

But most of all, it's superfluous to this discussion, which is not about things no plug-in is capable of achieving (which are by definition outside its design parameters), but rather about what this plug-in does achieve.

I've listened to the SOS test files, and they confirm my own experience with the plug-in. There is definitely more than just tape compression and "negative artifacts" going on. In a purely textbook sense, the process may be "destructive," but from a listener's perspective, the result has a euphonic quality that belies laboratory metrics. Not enough to be terribly useful on a stereo buss, but as presented (used on multiple tracks in a mix), it strikes me as beneficial!

Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on February 21, 2011, 02:01:01 pm
svs95 wrote on Mon, 21 February 2011 12:24

It's funny to see people now characterize what this plug-in is able to emulate as "the negative artifacts of tape," when it is the predominant feature of analog that survives digitization (at least in a PCM distribution culture).



So can I take that you discount my reply to this point in my last post:

"It's generally accepted that recording and mixing at the highest resolution possible right through the mastering process yields the best results regardless of the final playback resolution, and this doesn't even take into account that there are still those who listen to high resolution formats in their home."

Quote:

Certainly nobody in this forum expects a plug-in to emulate the resolution of analog tape. Give us a break!


If they think recording to tape and using this plug is close, then yes they do. Again, I was clear in who I was addressing my concerns about.

Quote:

And yes, whether Podgorny intended it seriously or not, I think it's a valid question. To what end (aside from a narrowly archival one) is the additional resolution of an analog medium without the requisite distribution format with which to appreciate it? In an alternative analog universe, it would make sense. But in the actual real world, it's superfluous to needs.


Answered above. But further  to that (remember that I'm saying "further to that")  perhaps $30 million in new and used vinyl sales last year alone can be a reason.

Quote:

But most of all, it's superfluous to this discussion, which is not about things no plug-in is capable of achieving (which are by definition outside its design parameters), but rather about what this plug-in does achieve.

I've listened to the SOS test files, and they confirm my own experience with the plug-in. There is definitely more than just tape compression and "negative artifacts" going on. In a purely textbook sense, the process may be "destructive," but from a listener's perspective, the result has a euphonic quality that belies laboratory metrics. Not enough to be terribly useful on a stereo buss, but as presented (used on multiple tracks in a mix), it strikes me as beneficial!


They are still negative artifacts from a design aspect. But I do agree 100% that using negative artifacts of any piece of gear as an effect can not only be beneficial to a production, but has been common practice since the beginning of recording.

The point (for eg) is that an 1176 is a compressor. It is designed to compress. A plug in that models the distortion and perhaps the tone of it's circuitry without actually compressing, while perhaps useful, would be a little ridiculous  to market as a digital replacement for an 1176, with a GUI to match. What you would be modeling is only the negative (used positively) artifacts of the design.



Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: svs95 on February 21, 2011, 06:41:54 pm
kats wrote on Mon, 21 February 2011 13:01

The point (for eg) is that an 1176 is a compressor. It is designed to compress. A plug in that models the distortion and perhaps the tone of it's circuitry without actually compressing, while perhaps useful, would be a little ridiculous  to market as a digital replacement for an 1176, with a GUI to match. What you would be modeling is only the negative (used positively) artifacts of the design.


[I apologize in advance for the length of this post. I am going to excessive lengths to avoid confrontation and make super-clear what I mean. Please don't take it as an insult that I'm being this careful. Even at that, it's highly likely I'll be misunderstood, but that's just the nature of human communication and forums in particular. I have a high regard for my colleagues - both those I know personally, and those of you I've never met, and I really wish that was always clearly understood by all of us. All we can do is try.]

Interestingly enough, the UAD 1176 LN actually does compress, and even eschews the analog signal path shmutz of the hardware. So UA is not deficient in their understanding of what's important and what's not in a particular device.

I actually sympathize with the difficulty that can arise when someone prizes analog for resolving power, and views that as its chief marketable value, if they then conclude that must be what's being marketed, at least by implication, but it clearly is not!

This is not a product for the analog market. It's not being marketed as superior to, or a replacement for, analog hardware for those in an analog production environment, including people recording for vinyl. It's a plug-in for DAW environments that don't have analog tape, and aren't in the market for it.

Among those of us who get to hear analog tape, we may discuss things like superior resolution to eg 24/96 digital, but we're always assuming "all other things being equal."

While it's not insignificant, in the total spectrum of factors affecting the final sound of retail content, the resolving power of the tracking medium is not foremost. Almost any other choice performers, producers, and engineers make can have more prominent audible consequences. The choice of analog versus high-resolution digital tracking, while eminently worthy of discussion, is not the primary contributor to quality. Again - I'm not discounting it, or saying it's insignificant. I'm not even saying some people won't disagree that it's not the most important decision. I just don't think most people believe that. Otherwise, they'd set up the tape deck, go home and party, and let the B Team run the sessions!

So, in light of that, I really don't think tracking resolution is the first thing people think about when they want "the sound of tape" on their digital recording! I think they want the most easily audible characteristics, which I'm sorry to hear you describe as "negative," because clearly many people like them. You do a very good job describing how people view this plug-in - as a way to interpose certain easily identifiable characteristics of tape into a digital recording.

Feel free to say this doesn't appeal to you, or that you consider that a naive or overly romanticized view of tape, lacking real appreciation for the finer points, but it is nonetheless real.

I don't think kats is disrespecting anybody, but I think a company like UA, that has done much to preserve our analog hardware heritage by re-introducing classic hardware like the 610, 1176, and LA-2A, and who show a deep appreciation for and understanding of the analog hardware world, should not be denigrated for giving customers what they want. After all, they polled their UAD customers several times, and this was always at the top of the list of what they wanted. So they tell me, and I can't imagine why it wouldn't be true.

At least "analog tape emulation" was - not necessarily this one. But maybe it was a good idea to start "small" in terms of the audible footprint, and work up to more character-laden tape emulations, which I hope they will do. At least I hope this is not their "last word" on the subject.

But for what it is, and what it does, I would call it a very good signal processor, and a successful design. For what it cannot do, outside design criteria, it's hard to find fault, and nobody should have such expectations. It would be an insult to customers to assume they're incapable of understanding that. IMHO, YMMV...
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on February 21, 2011, 10:28:00 pm
svs95 wrote on Mon, 21 February 2011 17:41

 

It's a plug-in for DAW environments that don't have analog tape...



And I'm saying that it's just a plugin.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: zmix on February 22, 2011, 10:23:14 am
kats wrote on Mon, 21 February 2011 13:21

...The thought that the legacy of this format being reduced to nothing more than an effect box upsets me. It does nothing to promote good audio or educate a new generation of audio engineers. To me it's nothing more than a cash grab from the unwitting who've never had the chance to hear what good analog recording is all about. For those with the experience my rant is moot. And for the record I enjoy UA's plugins and think they sound cool. I'd also use this "Studer" plugin for effect as well if I thought it sounded cool. I love effects! It's the blatant dishonesty of the sales rhetoric that leaves me disgusted.


I understand these feelings, I expressed similar concerns to UA when they told me that they had planned to do the UAD A800 plugin.  (I possibly felt them more deeply than most since the head of R&D at Studer who was in charge of the A800 project in 1977 was a guy named Paul Zwicky, now the curator the Studer Museum in Zurich).

I have since  had some time to cool off and just use the thing.  I've tried it on a variety of sources and I like what it does. It has even been indispensable in several instances. It's complex and well behaved ( it's apparently 8x upsampled so aliasing is minimized).  It's not going to replicate the immediacy of recording directly to tape, and any of us who have rested out hands on the A800 remote for the hours we have are going to feel a bit peeved by UA using the "Studer" name, but to be honest,  I wouldn't care if they had  called it the UAD "squashiphonic  transient cushion" and used  generic black box GUI.  Outside of the glare of industry perception and the impossibly slippery slopes of marketing, it is there,  capable of doing something that no other plugin can.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Len on February 22, 2011, 11:08:18 am
kats I think to be fair to Sam at SOS you need to read the article so you get the full picture.  In the same SOS there is an editorial/guest page by Elliot Mazer where he rails against both hardware and software providers which simply trade on the good name of great analog products of old. SOS may not be everyone's cup of tea but as a long time reader I know they never oversell anything, unlike some of the other audio mags which only ever give glowing reviews for everything.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Phil Mayor on February 24, 2011, 12:07:16 pm
Len wrote on Tue, 22 February 2011 16:08

I know they never oversell anything, unlike some of the other audio mags which only ever give glowing reviews for everything.


You mean like when they reviewed the Focusrite Liquid Channel emulator thing, said it was even better than the real thing and there was no difference between it and the Fairchild 670. In fact I don't think I've ever seen them give Focusrite a bad review even the horrible green series they thought was amazing.

I personally would never trust any magazine review.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: compasspnt on February 24, 2011, 12:52:46 pm
Phil Mayor wrote on Thu, 24 February 2011 12:07

...when they reviewed the Focusrite Liquid Channel emulator thing, said it was even better than the real thing...



Hey, the emulator may well be better than the real thing...
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: kats on February 24, 2011, 01:22:23 pm
compasspnt wrote on Thu, 24 February 2011 11:52

Phil Mayor wrote on Thu, 24 February 2011 12:07

...when they reviewed the Focusrite Liquid Channel emulator thing, said it was even better than the real thing...



Hey, the emulator may well be better than the real thing...




Less expensive, low maintenance, and you don't have to pay for dinner.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Len on February 24, 2011, 01:51:34 pm
Phil Mayor wrote on Thu, 24 February 2011 17:07

Len wrote on Tue, 22 February 2011 16:08

I know they never oversell anything, unlike some of the other audio mags which only ever give glowing reviews for everything.


You mean like when they reviewed the Focusrite Liquid Channel emulator thing, said it was even better than the real thing and there was no difference between it and the Fairchild 670. In fact I don't think I've ever seen them give Focusrite a bad review even the horrible green series they thought was amazing.

I personally would never trust any magazine review.


I'm not suggesting we should agree with anything the mags say but I think SOS is different re: saying everything is brilliant because they are not afraid to say something which might annoy advertisers.  Believe me I cringe at any review suggesting plug-ins sound as good as the real thing, but on a daily basis plug-ins are used by people we all respect and get the job done.  

Plus as I pointed out, last years Grammy for best non-classical engineering was won by Imogen Heap, using her TLM 103 going into Avalon 737 and Focusrite Liquid thingys.  Very Happy
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: Phil Mayor on February 24, 2011, 02:35:43 pm
compasspnt wrote on Thu, 24 February 2011 17:52

Phil Mayor wrote on Thu, 24 February 2011 12:07

...when they reviewed the Focusrite Liquid Channel emulator thing, said it was even better than the real thing...



Hey, the emulator may well be better than the real thing...




Actually I just bought an Emulator..an Emu Emulator II..and I'll tell you what the HxC 5 1/4 Floppy Emulator I purchased to go with it its definitely better than the real thing! It's amazing.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: compasspnt on February 24, 2011, 03:16:49 pm
Yikes!

The E2 Liveth.
Title: Re: Studer 800 Plug-In
Post by: gwailoh on February 24, 2011, 05:16:54 pm
Phil Mayor wrote on Thu, 24 February 2011 09:07


I personally would never trust any magazine review.


A bit extreme, IMO.  Not that hard to judge over time which reviewers have integrity.

OT I suppose but an example from my own experience.  I have an engineer friend who regularly contributed equipment reviews to one of the major industry periodicals over a long period.  He worked frequently at my studio and would sometimes leave hardware there for me to interact with while he was working through his evaluation.  One time I found a quirky interface glitch connecting a processor digitally to PT at a particular sample rate.  I told him; he verified it; and pointed it out in his review, which was published unchanged by his editors.  So I know from my own experience that this review process was legit, and I know that his other reviews were equally competent and thorough.