DonnyThompson, post: 434230, member: 46114 wrote: I want you to mark the date and time that you've posted this, Chris - LOL - because I'm not willing to take the bet that it won't ever happen. Many things that we thought could "never happen", have in fact happened.
There was probably a time when people thought that something like the actual Bricasti hardware wasn't possible, either. But it happened.

Oh it will happen, but not likely in my time.
The power of the Bricasti could use 16 cores or 32 for that matter. Its only going to get more real as CPU increases. There is a reason you can't buy a Bricasti as a plug-in. The Bricasti is a dedicated room simulator derived from serious ultra sound technology. I suspect you can't produce it as plug-in and expect a DAW to keep from crashing. :notworthy:

But ya... I agree> I'll be eating my words here some day.

There will be a day when our computers emulate space so "wow" that the new gen won't enjoy the natural sound of music being played anywhere live. Its here now.

Joking aside... The Bricasti is in the camp of tools that require its own platform. It will most likely always require the most of what the current CPU offers, so they can keep making it better and better. Its true Pro Audio in my books.

The way I found it best sounding for my applications wasn't on the same DAW I was tracking with. It was on the capture side, through its optional analog pass, at the end of a mix between two DAW's.
Who knows, we might get to a point where we use 3 or more computers to run a mix more real. I definitely see that evolving.

But then, isn't that what Avid and UAD are trying to do better. DSP cards.
Which is why Bricasti puts the M7 in its own box.
Which is why I prefer two DAW's in a round about way too...

DonnyThompson, post: 434230, member: 46114 wrote: I've yet to hear any Pultec EQ sim truly sound like the real deal,

Indeed. Some plugs should never be sold as Pultec's. Those are analog for a reason. After owning a few Pulse MEQ-5, then getting a Pultec plug, I laughed with such disappointment, because Sequoia or Samplitude is cheaper in the long run. Both imo, do all the fundamentals I need to mix and master music natively, good enough. (well, except for Fabfilter, that stuff is exceptional).
But seriously, how many EQ plugs and compressors does a guy need? I've never got the reason for so many different plugs. I know guys that have a list so long they have issues scrolling to find them all lol.

Kyle has mentioned this a few times, which I completely agree with him.

I shake my head how plugs are being marketed off the backs of vintage gear. If they quit saying it was a Pultec, drop the BS gui of it, it wouldn't bother me as much.

Some analog front end is hard to beat. Pultec's and LA2A's are a few on my list.

DonnyThompson, post: 434229, member: 46114 wrote: And isn't it odd - that on a platform that is supposedly the industry's "gold standard" in DAW's, that the users were the ones who were forced to find a "workaround" to avoid using the master bus in order get better fidelity upon mixdown? :confused:

Lol gold standard. Avid brought a lot of gold into their pockets. But to have a 'workaround on something so fundamental is rediculous. I'm curious about other daws. I know Adobe audition never gave me that bottlenecking. Digital performer gets horrendous when you have a plug heavy session.

I will say protools LE absolutely sucked. I am going to reserve judgement on the PTHD 12 till I get my hands on it. I don't expect 1 daw to ever really do what the 2 daw configuration will do, but who knows as processing moves toward external cards/boxes and digitally controlled analog. I'm extremely excited about the digital controlled analog stuff. I like to get that interaction of compression and saturation on the way in. I just am not sold on the uad philosophy of using a pluggin to do that, then using the same set of processing plugs to mix. One thing digital (imo) doesn't do is stack well. Some better than others but nothing quite like the outboard.

Quick comment on saturation. I don't believe you can simulate the feel an sponenatity of saturation of a nice xfo pre or compressor. It lends itself as part of the performance. I'm speaking mostly on tracking. Ditto for eq on the way in. Once you get it tracked, I've never actually used OB for mixing.

One of my favorite happy accidents was taking the silver face 1176LN after a Manley tube pre. All buttons OUT and overdriving the (transistor?) circuitry via the input / output gain (mis)balance. It really created a great 60's/70's era edge or saturation on the vocalist thru my 414xls. Janis Joplin esqe, but with male vocs in that case. I have not been duplicate that sound any other way. I believe it has to do with the circuitry and the varying electricity (sag?) in the actual box. As opposed to the more 'stepped' binary saturations.

Another trick for amp sims I discovered. Thru my budget ART Vlz rack pre, I used the DI and agiain goosed the input gain. It was completely gross on its own, but paired w an amplitude Marshall pluggin, it lended a sense of reality to the distortion I've not achieved with any amp sim alone. I believe again it comes down to the non linearities in the hardware. It's similar to running a tube screamer in front of a dirty channel, in a high gain amp. You make the amp do a little less saturation in its own pre amp circuitry by feeding a semi distorted signal. I've never been huge into power amp saturation because it's just too loud. Damn I'm getting old. Lol

If I could sum up all I've learned over the years. Here is my quote of a lifetime working with sound.

My thirst to learn how to compare A to B and make C better, grows. I'm not saying we need to buy more gear or add a second DAW, what I'm saying is, finding ways to compare or emulate has my full attention.

There's nothing quite like certain "old School" circuits for adding the "something" we all seek on every project. Running a mic or really anything thru an LA2A set at no compression is to give a certain set of harmonic content to the source. Its not something you can find any other way. Same with any 1176 or Pultec. Most highend analog devices will add their own set of harmonics to a source. Nothing quite like the classics though. Lately when I have a strong voiced singer I will put the LA2A inline first to warm things up and use an 1176 to pick up anything that gets through. Slow first then fast. It works opposite also.

Its too bad that Samplitude hasn't gotten around to becoming a Mac platform. I'd probably use if it was. Just so I could hear the difference in the master bus and check out that editing.

I've been using an analog compressor behind any of my amp sims or guitar interfaces for a while now. The modded VLA is good for this as it has a nice even grit in the sound since it got rebuilt or I'll use the Joe Meek SC 2 1.07 for a bit more of that transistor grunt.

Davedog, post: 434299, member: 4495 wrote: Its too bad that Samplitude hasn't gotten around to becoming a Mac platform.

Dave,
Magix was originally coding for Mac, and enthusiastically so, too ... it was Mac that didn't play along, and ultimately decided to drop support for the project.

There was a rumor going around the Samp boards for awhile, that Avid was a main factor in this decision, having put serious pressure on Mac to drop the idea of allowing Samp into the OS.

I guess Mac figured that Logic and Avid were their bread and butter, and they didn't need the hassle of supplying support for another cross-platform DAW, especially one that wasn't as popular and as widely accepted as the others were.
The fact that it was a great production platform didn't seem to matter much to them. They were looking at numbers, and apparently they decided that the time, effort and money wouldn't have been worth it.

Which is funny ( in a sad way) .... because I've talked to many Mac users who's feelings are pretty much the same as yours. ;)

That's too bad and if it's more than a rumor I'm not surprised.....but even though what we do is ART there's the business of it. There's not a popular show about Investment Sharks for no reason.....

Davedog, post: 434304, member: 4495 wrote: That's too bad and if it's more than a rumor I'm not surprised.....but even though what we do is ART there's the business of it. There's not a popular show about Investment Sharks for no reason.....

I couldn't agree more. In this day and age, there's absolutely no technical reason why something like this shouldn't be able to happen.

It might not even be a technical thing... It could very well be economic.

Magix is a pretty small company - at least it's small in comparison to a giant like Avid - so it's also entirely possible that Magix can't afford to implement a support structure in their company for Macintosh OS-based issues with their program(s).

The advantage to them being smaller - and less popular - is that their customer base gets help a lot quicker than Avid customers do... and, it doesn't cost anything extra for support, either.

Any time I've had support questions or issues with Samp, I've sent them a crash log file or a support request via email, and the issues have always been resolved within 12 hours, and, for no charge.
That's sure as **** not gonna happen at Avid, at least not unless you pay a healthy added premium for a support subscription.

The disadvantage is, that because Magix doesn't have a staff of thousands, they might not be able to afford to provide support for OS's other than for PC.

Then again, Avid isn't all that PC friendly, either. Their last and most recent venture into Windows land - Pro Tool "First" - has turned out to be a huge failure, in that the majority of PC users can't even get the program to open, let alone work correctly.
Of course, the user can get help from Avid - IF they pay for it.

Just kinda thinkin' out loud, here... I don't know the real reason(s).

Avid is now and has always been a video platform....waayyyy before they acquired DigiDesign. All of the more modern versions run just fine on PC's but and this is a BIG BUT...due to the systems architecture they crash more than the Mac's. Protools has a very short fuse about things when its working. Any delays in the computer system will crash the car into the nearest tree. I have a friend who runs a bastardized version of TDM on a Linux server he built. You can't blink before things get loaded and on their way. But then he's a real head. I've had some really hot-rodded PC's. Still have a couple laying around somewhere.......I have an old Mac here in the office thats a better computer than all of those things put together. No worries.

Service? Customer? I haven't even bothered to use my free one and I'm an HD owner. Having $10,000 of their product isn't all that exciting for them. There's way more people out here that know their products better than most of their experts.

PT First is a toy. Its a way to make a little money and not do anything. LE was a way better platform than that. And it sucked unless you were doing folk rock or solo piano recitals. Nothing wrong with the DAW itself unless you needed some excellent edit capabilities and large track counts.

The thing is.....you have to look at PT for what its meant to be in order to understand why it does things the way it does. Sure lots of DAW's are simpler some sound better....maybe...some don't need a workaround for things that make audio sense....But its not designed as an audio platform. They make movies with the big rigs that are the flagship programs. The fact that they can also do audio to the level they do is a testament to the original software code written all those years ago as Sound Designer. The computing power had to actually catch up to the software. Maybe it still hasn't.

I know that Avid's bread and butter started out in video production; the fact that it was picked up and implemented by many as an audio production platform was one of those things that just happens sometimes... a product is designed for one particular purpose and then ends up being used successfully for another.

From what I understand - and I do agree that by PT standards, it's considered to be a "toy" - was that "PT First" was designed as a baited-hook concept to get those PC users ( and Mac, too, I suppose) who had been thinking about going the Avid route, a way to give it a try for free and at no risk. And as that concept, it's a good idea, though Avid certainly wouldn't be the first to release "light versions" of their platforms to try to get customers interested in investing in the real versions of those programs.

( Then again, something as basic as PT First - while perhaps considered to be a "toy" by today's standards - is still likely far more powerful than the early digital production platforms that cats like Keith Olsen and Hugh Padgham were using in the early days of digital, and which were being used to record and mix hit records, too...)

The thing is, I know many Mac guys who started out with Avid - actually, most of them started out back when it was still Digi ( myself included) who have since moved on to other platforms. The complaints I've personally heard from these colleagues of mine tend to vary widely, from the sound of the audio engine not being as good as other programs, to poor customer support, ( which also almost always seems to involve support reps being pissy and crabby with customers) to various bugs and other glitches ( that you referred to regarding computers that weren't powerful enough to run the program efficiently) to complaints about being "forced" to use the platform because it's so widely accepted that you have to know it (that one never made any sense to me... no one is "forced" to use anything. Everyone has the freedom to choose whatever platform they want to use and what best suits their own preference and workflow).

I know that I moved away from it years ago, for two big reasons; the first was that, (at that time), the midi integration sucked, and the second was, (again, at that time), because Macs were a lot more money, and service centers for Mac computers were almost non-existent in my area. Those service centers ( even retail dealers) weren't anywhere near as prevalent as they are now. These days they're in nearly every mall and shopping center. Find a Starbucks, and an Apple Store probably isn't all that far away.... LOL.

I made the move over to PC and PC-Based programs not because I had anything "against" Mac, but because PC's gave me more bang for the buck; it allowed me to start using early versions of Sonar, which had a much better midi/audio integration. As the years passed, and I got good enough on the PC and PC-Based audio production progs, I just ended up staying with them. For me it was about being able to be productive, and I found that for me, I was more productive on a PC with Sonar than I was on a PC with PT, or on a Mac and PT as well, for that matter.

I don't consider myself to be a PT "Expert"... not by any means. I know there are guys who eat and sleep that program, and who, as you mentioned, probably know more about it than some of the support staff who actually work at Avid ( some of them are right here on RO, like yourself) ... But I never got that far with it. I learned what I needed to know, and yeah, I know my way around it well enough these days to record, edit and mix on newer versions of the platform, and have done so at other studios, but when I do, I prefer to have one of those PT/Mac Fan-boys working near me, so that if something odd does occur, I can turn it over to them and things get fixed pretty quickly.

It's a far better program now than it was back when I ditched it. I just didn't have the money - or the patience - to stick with it throughout its eventual life-cycle of improvements. I've got nothing against it personally.
Actually, I've got nothing against any DAW platform, pal... I think people should use whatever they are the most comfortable with, and that which allows them the greatest amount of flexibility, quality and creative support.
Obviously for many, that's Avid. For others, it may be Logic, or Sonar, or Cubase, or Samplitude... along with Ableton, Reason, FL and S1... and I'm sure I've left out a few.

If I was asked by someone who was just starting out what audio production program they should get, I'd tell them that there are many very good platforms out there, that you can absolutely make pro recordings on all of them (dependent on the other peripheral gear, of course) but that what's most important is to get a program that will support your main artistic intention, and then, get to know that platform as well as you possibly can, because that's where your productivity in digital audio production ultimately lives.
It's not as much about the program itself, as it is about knowing whatever you use as intuitively as you possibly can ... Know everything about it - all the features, the intricacies, the strengths and the weaknesses, as deeply as you can...
Know it inside, outside, sideways, over-under and upside down. ;)

IMHO of course.

-d.

forum url test. no need to reply.

Imo macs aren't as great as people say they are, and pcs aren't as bad as people say. DP is a Mac only program and has crashed as much as protools LE on a creation station.

Any computer starts to chug after about 3 years, if not from wear and tear, from software getting more cpu hungry. You can fire up and alesis HD 24 and it'll work just the same as it always did. I've also heard recently that those have the same converter chips as the blue digi HD interfaces. Perhaps with better clocking.

Computers are computers not dedicated recorders. Until they are, there's always gonna be problems. Whether is OS updates or a million different hardware combos it's tough to blame the computer companies. Heck, a lot of the internals are the same or similar in both machines.

The passing of Steve jobs was the turning point for Apple, whether it's coincidence or not. I've seen horrible pcs that never worked, and decent i7 custom built ones that never crashed. I've seen mac laptops die in 5 years with cd drives that almost never worked. How about an iPhone charger that broke after a month?

Garage band on an iPad has never crashed on me. I all fairness I haven't put a ton of hours in on it, but I'm far more confident slinging a phone or tablet to a live gig than any tower or laptop you throw at me.

Just a theory, but I belive if you want truly reliable performance you treat it like a dedicated hard disk recorder. Daw only, no internet, and no tweaks or upgrades once you get it going. I realize this is nearly impossible, but otherwise it's one new pluggin, one new driver and there's no return.

For what I can foresee from PT 12 is a slow move towards object based editing, and track freezing.

Maybe I just have crap luck with computers but I don't think any of them work amazingly. They are flaky by nature. Radar has the right idea but it's just not the general publics idea of what a daw should be. Not enough photo realistic pluggin windows m, or crackable plugins.

I can literally tell when Apple is about to implement their bi-monthly iOS updates because my stuff goes glitchy a week or so before. Suddenly i can't acces pictures, the Internet gets screwy, hell my doctors office iMac lost my appointment, and don't you know a few hours later today my phone get the upgrade message. Who needs meds when Facebook can now automatically make you better looking in this update? Even that didn't work!!! :)

How bout this one? My cousin bought a brand new 2013 or maybe 14 Mac Pro quad tower from sweewater and pro tools nine. Fresh install with just protools on it. Literally recording 2 tracks, and the all too familiar buffer underun BS. Gimme a break and his 4K back...

I will reserve judgement until after I use PTHD 12 for myself but my expectations are low.

--Davedog I've heard bozwell mention people using samplitude realtivly successfully on a Mac without dual booting, with some program, the name of which is in a brain cell of mine that is no longer with me.

And also what mods were done on your vla? And did it clear up the mildly edgy 1-5k range? I gave mine to my boss, but maybe he'll be interested in the mods.--

If this PC I specd out fails to deliver, I may have to go back to wax cylinder. If someone made a modern versions of a mackie HDR, or alesis HD 24 I'd be all over it. I have yet to use more than 50-60 tracks, including sixes. Maybe the computers pick up on my mistrust of them via wifi. ;)

Edit- can anyone explain to me why plug-insand processing on a basic digital mixer stacks pretty much inaudibly (to me) but daws and computers haven't been able to? does it have to do with dedicated dsp chips inside? Sorry this angry rant has nada to do with analog summing.

I used to build PC based DAW systems.
My only driving motivation was to offer something tha provided better value out off the shelf parts.
My brand name was Digiatl Audio Wave (PC DAW).
I used attend NAMM shows running 64 channels Nuendo without hiccup.
Most producers would be amazed how powerfull and stable my system would run.
Thoses days, I was also strategic partners with Intel, AMD and WD.
Everytime Intel or AMD would come up with a new board, they would send it to me for testing and putting together a new system.
We released many press releases together for many of my new product offerings.
Even they were amazed to see that there was a nish market for their products to be utilised among A/V professionals.
I was at the cover of the Recording Magazine of the October 2004 issue, my system sitting on top a MAC! (see the attached pdf for those who want tom know more)
Time passed quick and coupled with poor business experience, good ald days were gone. And I went out of business in 2005 and closed the business in 2005.
I was all for PCs by than.
Than I got in to the same vagon as usual with others.
I bought a mac book in 2012 and since than using macs on all platforms across the board.
When I see a PC, I can not even find my way around now!

It feels funny to be asking below question after 10 years (once being the best PC audio guy!), but there is no ending to learning in life!

What would be the best PC setup that I could put together for ruuning samplitude (at a modarate cost!).
Board (no hick up board to run with audio cards):
Chipset (if possible - Intel or AMD)
RAM (8 or 16?):
HD (7200rpm sata - Solid State - hybrid ?)
Or straight out of the box laptop from a brand name like Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc...

What ever you could chip in, I would appreciate it.
All the best and thank you in advanced for your two cents...

I think those are very good questions, and I can respect the fact that you're humbling yourself by asking that which you used to know so well with Nuendo.

There are many people here who are incredibly knowledgeable when it comes to computer systems - of all kinds. There are also a couple of regular members here who use either/both Samp Pro X and Sequoia as their primary DAW platforms;
( Chris ( audiokid ), myself, and a few others ) although I'm not sure that any of us are "qualified" to answer your questions regarding foundational system specs for the optimal environment for running the program.

Speaking as a regular Samplitude Pro X user myself, knowing what I know about it now - and if I were in your position - I would suggest to you that your best option would probably be to contact Magix ( Manufacturer of Samplitude) directly, and get the answers to your questions from the source.

When you ask them, make sure to ask what their suggestions would be for an "optimal" system, as you described to us in your post, and not that of only "minimum recommended requirements", and I would suggest to you that you also include some additional information; such as what project sampling rate you want to use on a common, daily basis, as well as what current audio I/O you use, and, how many and what type of plug ins you may already have, and whether these are native in your system, or are residing in an external processor -based system ( such as UAD , Waves Digi-Grid. etc. ).

http://www.magix.com/us/support/

Tim Dolbear, the North American Rep for Magix/Samplitude/Sequoia, is a member here at RO; he's a very busy guy though, and hasn't been around here much lately, so while I can "page" him for you, I can't guarantee that he'll get it.
Page: ( TimDolbear )

Also, here's a link to the Samplitude User's Forum; there are some very knowledgeable people over there who could answer your questions with a high degree of accuracy.
In particular, search out a regular user named "Kraznet". He is amazing in his knowledge of "all things Samplitude", is considered an expert with Samp/Sequoia in the industry, and from what you've described about yourself, he would be to Samplitude what you yourself once were to Nuendo. He also produces some fantastic Samplitude instructional videos on YouTube that are highly regarded and respected. Here's the link to the user's forum :

http://support2.magix.net/boards/samplitude//index.php?act=idx

FWIW, I can tell you that I am currently running an HP/AMD-based system; 3.5Ghz Quad Core, 16 Gig of RAM, a 7200 RPM 2 TB internal Western Digital HDD, Windows 10 OS, using a Presonus VSL1818 USB as my main audio I/O interface, and using various native VST's and VSTi's from IK Multimedia, Slate, NI, Waves, Kush and Fabfilter, (along with the "stock" line of processors that come with Pro X Suite); and I can generally run up to 40 audio tracks /8 Bus Groups / 8 Aux, with up to 4 plugs inserted on each track/bus/aux, using an additional 12 tracks of stereo VSTi's, at a typical SR of 44.1/32 Bit Float - without any hiccups, freeze-ups or glitches occurring.
Take note that some processors are more processor-hungry than others. For example, in my experience, I've found Slate to be more taxing than the other native VST's on my system.

Now, to be clear... for my own style and workflow, very rarely do I ever actually use that many processors at once in an average project ... but I have managed to be able to do so, on the rare occasion that this amount is called for, and without any problems.

Good luck, and please let us know what you find out.

-d

Dear Donny, thank you.
this is very...very useful information and more than what one would ask for.

I have been following all of you guys here for some time and left couple of posts regarding analog summing and got very good feedback from Chris (the audiokid), kmetal, bosswell, and others as well.
All of you are professionals and almost gurus on your own end each having a specific experience on certain things.
And it seems like each one of you has a different quest on finding the best in what you do.

Below quote is one example of the above:
"My thirst to learn how to compare A to B and make C better, grows.
I'm not saying we need to buy more gear or add a second DAW, what I'm saying is, finding ways to compare or emulate has my full attention."

Another quote from you:

DonnyThompson, post: 434318, member: 46114 wrote: complaints about being "forced" to use the platform because it's so widely accepted that you have to know it

So I really want to try out the DAW1-to-DAW2 setup as much as I can.
Knowing that I am not forced to use anything and being able to choose whatever platform I want feels great.
And having such options is luxury!

That is why I considered getting another PC.
Among all other things that I want to do, I have to watch the cost factor as well.
I already have a Mac mini and a Mac book pro that run Logic, PT and Cubase.
So I will first try to get the mac mini work with windows (there are couple of options that I found running Win on a Mac without bootcamp).
Despite the fact that there are some posts about this setup being problematic, I will try it and see how it works for me.
At least It would help me to test and see how well I would get along with Samplitude (learning curve & work flow).
If that works fine, than I may not need to get a PC for the moment.
It would serve me enough for the time being to try out the DAW1 running Samplitude for tracking my demos only.

I have a small setup at home and do not require multi i/o recording capability.
Your setup is great and full blown studio like.

Since I am a singer-song writer, I get most of my recordings from session players.
This method has worked out much better for me.
Than I could have the whole song mixed anywhere I want while I also do some mixing on my own and concitune to learn how to mix as well.

Below is one of my songs (called "Bitsin") that we just finished mixing (actually remixed it after having the first version mixed in LA - kind of Nashville style mix it was...).
I did the vocals in Istanbul on this song.
The rest belongs to different session players all over the US.
This mix belongs to a great guy (Artur) in Poland. He has wonderful toys in his studio and truly analog oriented.
What he did was great and brought up the whole energy of the song alive.

Enabling technology and ways of communication has helped me tremendously to be able to have a professionally finished product.

If you care to listen, below is a sample of what I write and produce. (Since I am native Turkish, I sign this one in Turkish).

But eventually I want to get better on mixing so I want to put together a good hybrid mixing setup for myself.

I realize that you use persons vsl-1818. I have been checking the new studio 192 + the new DP88 lately for my setup (for hybrid setup).

I dont want to use any plugin (not because I don't like it or am against it but to get hands on using hardware and just learn to dial in what I like to hear).
I attended one of the Mix & the Masters session back in February at Studios La Fabric with the analog guru Steve Albini.
After spending two weeks with him recording, mixing and mastering an Irish band just by using all analog gear including real-to-real analog tape,
watching him finding the sweet spot for each mic placement,
using the space around us for reflections,
dialing in the hardware and mixing and matching signals for different tones and effects without going into any one of the digital stuff (all that PTs, converters,etc...),
and coming up with a HUGE, ENERGIZED and LARGER THAN LIFE production told me that there is still much more to explore with pure electricty with what we have in our hands but we are just too lazy to explore what could be done.

I would like to thank you again and all of the other guys before you for tremendously valuable conributions (even scientificly sometimes) that you have made in this forum.

I will check all the links you provided and keep exploring.

I love this quote from Daniel Lanois:
"I will do music for the love of music and for the love of people who listen to music—nothing else will drive me."

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

I'm glad I could be of some help. That's what RO is for. I am but one of many people here; and there are those here who are far more knowledgeable than myself about certain things. The great thing about RO is that we have such a plethora of talent in so many different areas of audio; we have a community of experts in tracking, mixing, computers, tape machines, consoles, acoustics, microphones, electronics, midi...

fmk2000, post: 434414, member: 49572 wrote: I dont want to use any plugin (not because I don't like it or am against it but to get hands on using hardware and just learn to dial in what I like to hear).

But can you afford it?
You mentioned Steve Albini - who has the luxury of using pretty much whatever gear he wants; Jack Joseph Puig at Ocean Way is similar in his workflow, and like Albini, he has very nice OB gear choices at his disposal... but not all of us can afford that luxury. In fact, very few of us can.
OTOH, Andrew Scheps has recently stated that he is now almost entirely ITB for mix processing. All three of these guys are incredible engineers; talented, experienced, highly respected ... yet they obviously have different preferences in terms of their own workflows.
I will say this: if you are on a limited budget, ITB processing ( Plug Ins) will be far more affordable to you, and give you far more value out of your money, than it would be for you to use the original OB analog versions of digitally emulated ITB processing. That's one of the things about analog, (or hybrid) systems, and that is that good analog gear is NOT CHEAP - at least it's not cheap to do it right, so you have to have some pretty serious cash on hand.
If you think about the "right" kind of analog gear - pieces like 1176's, LA2's, Pultec EQ's, ... or even a tape machine if you are wanting to go strictly analog, you are not going to be able to do this cheaply.
So, if money is an object, and there are limitations to your budget, you should know that an OB rack including pieces like those mentioned above can zap your budget pretty damned fast ... often on just one or two pieces.

And on that note, You are going to get varying opinions here on RO regarding "workflows"... workflow is the term used to describe your own preferences in term of signals going into your DAW, as well as the types of gear that you use while mixing.

Some prefer a strictly digital workflow, others prefer all analog.

Some prefer a mix between the two, which is a "Hybrid" workflow, which incorporates the use of external analog/digital gear for processing, while using a DAW as the main multi-track capture and mixing format, so both OB (outboard) and ITB (digital in-the-box) processing are being used.

Chris ( audiokid ) had what was probably the nicest hybrid system I've ever seen on the pro "mid" level ( "mid" meaning size here and not a reflection of his equipment or his skill as an engineer) and yet, he ultimately ended up going almost entirely ITB with his processing...
and if you asked him, he will likely tell you that not only was he able to save a LOT of money by doing so, he was also able to accomplish the same processing quality using digital ITB processing ( he also uses a 2 DAW method -one for tracking, another for summing/mixdown) instead of using a multi-thousand dollar rack full of high quality analog gear.

Now... what isn't really considered to by "hybrid", is the use of analog preamps and microphones for recording. Regardless of whatever outboard or ITB processing we use for mixing, we're all the same when it comes to recording tracks, at least in that we are all using microphones and preamps to capture and record audio... so in that sense, we are all using some type of analog front-end before the signal hits the digital conversion stage. Some of us like to accent that front-end by also busing the signal through other various Outboard processing gear for added character ( like perhaps an 1176, or an LA2 or dbx compressor, or maybe a boutique preamp, EQ, or channel strip), but short of that "accented" signal stage, this gain-chain is not really hybrid, nor is it unique, because if you are recording songs using real instruments and voices, regardless of your caliber, you have to get those sound sources into your DAW somehow...

Ultimately, it's up to you, because we all have our own preferences when it comes to our recording/mixing workflows, and what works well for one person might not be the best choice for another. You need to use whatever allows you to be the most creative and productive, and of a sonic quality that you are happy with ... but you have to able to afford it, too. ;)

fmk2000, post: 434414, member: 49572 wrote: one of my songs (called "Bitsin") that we just finished mixing (actually remixed it after having the first version mixed in LA - kind of Nashville style mix it was...).
I did the vocals in Istanbul on this song.

It's a nice song, and it's also sonically pleasing. But, by the same token, I'm not hearing anything there that couldn't also be just as easily accomplished at your own studio, using a few nice condenser/dynamic/ribbon mics, a nice transparent mic preamp, good conversion, a DAW that you are familiar with, all while using ITB processing.

Here's my opinion... take it for what it's worth:

If you are on a limited budget, then forget the OB rack for now.
Take the money you would have spent on OB gear, and instead, put it into what will really matter: nice microphones, nice preamps, nice converters, good monitors, and an acoustically well -balanced mixing space.
These things will make much more of a difference to your sound and sound quality, than an LA2 or a 1176 will. I'm not saying you shouldn't get few of those OB pieces eventually, but for right now, your quality is going to be determined far more by your mics, pre's, and converters, than it will be from a few boutique OB gear pieces.

IMHO of course.

-d.

Donny you are almost right on most of the things you say.
However, my curiosity for OTB will not die down that quickly but the cost factor is the biggest issue as you put is so well.

fmk2000, post: 434436, member: 49572 wrote: Donny you are almost right on most of the things you say.
However, my curiosity for OTB will not die down that quickly but the cost factor is the biggest issue as you put is so well.

Well, I have done tests and have convinced myself, with absolute certainty that I will produce a better, more defined, warmer, clearer, phase coherent mix over any analog "round trip" mix today.
Caveat, I might use a Bricasti and two DAW's to get this done. This would be completely dependent on how well the tracking was.

Now that being said, I can't do a challenge right now because my marriage is in the tank, my head is so mixed up with women problems as I am living in the dog house to regain some sort of sanity lol.
But, under different circumstances I will challenge any engineer with proper tracks on the planet to post his/her analog OTB mix to prove ITB can't do the same tracking project so close or even better to the best analog OTB equipment/ workflow available today.
Analog is a front end component, not a mixing solution. Once ITB, stay ITB.

No studio in their right mind will do a public challenge like this because if they do, their studio hype on how their racks of gear are so important, will be over. Or at least tamed down so substantially that it will change the way we think about OTB mixing, globally. This I am 100% certain of.

I profess, scream to the top of mountains... that ITB is just as acceptable or better sounding to ever warrant buying analog mixing gear again based on the presumption that analog is worth its investment today, that is actually sounds that much better to an ITB mix that it is even worth it anymore.

Its a lot fun mixing OTB!! love it... , but sound wise... no way. Its a total hyped out waste of money and more likely than not, in most cases, not even as good sounding.

There, :D how did I do?

audiokid (y)

more likes more likes!!! I have to beat Donny this week!

I should also mention, I am still waiting to test the Folcrom out. I have a hunch that it is going to be special. How I include it and if I use it on the entire mix or not is undecided.

I also want to make note that I personally think its better to use one (less is more) character product over a lot in an OTB pass.
The reason I say this, if you are looking to add vibe (character) to a mix , all you need is one tranny or tube in the whole mix or on a lane (avoid stacking).

One preamp or what you choose will give you the truest character without smearing and messing the imaging as much. Its kind of like saying, if you need fat, you don't need coconut oil, butter, canola oil and mutton all in the same broth lol!

more likes more likes!!! I have to beat Donny this week!

I should also mention, I am still waiting to test the Folcrom out. I have a hunch that it is going to be special. How I include it and if I use it on the entire mix or not is undecided.

I also want to make note that I personally think its better to use one (less is more) character product over a lot in an OTB pass.
The reason I say this, if you are looking to add vibe (character) to a mix , all you need is one tranny or tube in the whole mix or on a lane (avoid stacking).

(Again, we're talking mixing OTB)
One pre-amp or what you choose will give you the truest character without smearing and messing the imaging as much. Its kind of like saying, if you need fat, you don't need coconut oil, butter, canola oil and mutton all in the same sauce lol!

Too much analog on a lane, bus or mix kills the bass and imaging.
That's how I hear it.

audiokid, post: 434437, member: 1 wrote: Well, I have done tests and have convinced myself, with absolute certainty that I will produce a better, more defined, warmer, clearer, phase coherent mix over any analog "round trip" mix today.

audiokid, post: 434437, member: 1 wrote: I profess, scream to the top of mountains... that ITB is just as acceptable or better sounding to ever warrant buying analog mixing gear again based on the presumption that analog is worth its investment today, that is actually sounds that much better to an ITB mix that it is even worth it anymore.

Its heartening to hear someone (audiokid ) who has plenty of experience with both analog & digital and hybrid to come out and say that, and not for the first time either, for as we all know, for a long time ITB has been looked upon as the poorer cousin in regards to sound quality when compared to OTB analog mixing, and now the technology is at the point where engineers like Andrew Scheps are relying more on ITB mixing, then this view that ITB is second best is undeserved to say the least.

It gives those of us who are strictly ITB some legitimacy to what we do.

-Don't get me wrong, who wouldn't want a room full of top-rate analog gear, or a well-respected brand name console, but I for one don't have the room or the budget for such, or the means to earn a return on that sort of investment.

Therefore for what I do, ITB for me is the only choice.

And BTW audiokid ...when I upgrade I'm coming to rack your brain on the how-to's on a 2-DAW set-up.(y)

(y)

fmk2000, post: 434404, member: 49572 wrote: What would be the best PC setup that I could put together for ruuning samplitude (at a modarate cost!).
Board (no hick up board to run with audio cards):
Chipset (if possible - Intel or AMD)
RAM (8 or 16?):
HD (7200rpm sata - Solid State - hybrid ?)
Or straight out of the box laptop from a brand name like Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc...

Man I gotta say your awesome for making it as far as you have in the industry. As a young up and coming professional, I've found being well rounded as my biggest asset. And I belive custom recording pcs will be more and more relavent as the passing of Steve jobs marks a new turn for Apple. I am not a computer designer, but I've had little luck with most computers Mac or PC. This is the computer I spec'd out for my (very significant) recording rig upgrade. This PC is in addition to all the converter/cable/rack Ect. I spent about a week researching the current offerings of parts on a both platforms pre built, and custom ordered. I picked this as what I thought will be a solid performer for about 3-5 years. I then picked out all the same parts on PC audio labs, website to compare costs. They're came in around $3200. I can't speak about specific compatability but these are all mainstream state of the art parts. And after specing it out myself, it was comforting to know that all these parts are included as options from a mainstream audio computer company. I did this back in August, and some of the parts werent quite out yet, now they all should be, and prices may have gone down.

I also just picked up this machine wich is going to be my mixdown daw, and be the machine to help me get my files organized, until I pull the trigger on the upgrade. The kid gave it to me w an extra 5% off, so I bought it on a whim. This is my first foray into AMD processing. Again, I can't attest to how well it will perform but even if it doesn't record a note I needed one for office and RO, of course. That said, the specs look decent and for the price point I thought it was a good purchase, can't wait to unbox it.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/hp-pavilion-desktop-amd-a8-series-8gb-memory-1tb-hard-drive-natural-silver/4246800.p?id=1219712308322&skuId=4246800

Ps fwiw I'm going to be moving from a budget FireWire interface, to Ethernet based networked audio. This via a company called Dante, and specifically the audio Dante virtual sound card, which uses any standard Ethernet point 128+ audio tracks, asynchronous sample rates, and video and other data.

The next part which is where I get more reward. Avoiding bouncing and being able to capture and master on a second DAW is by far the best workflow I have ever experienced. Without writing a book, I use two DAW's , both loaded with Samplitude/Sequoia and do no see me changing this simple process anytime soon. DAW is for mixing, DAW2 is for capturing and finishing. DAW2 is where I base all tracking, mixing and mastering decision.

Being able to mix 2 channels into an uncoupled second DAW with mastering software is pure butter. Being able to hear your mix through an excellent converter that has a monitor out on DAW2 is the best.
Avoiding bouncing is better than bouncing.

I need nothing more. No gear and the second DAW doesn't need to be very powerful. All it is used for is basic summing and mastering. That's it.

That's how I do it today.

This is the most interesting recording/mixing workflow that I have ever come across in the last 10 years. Would you have a recommendation for the capture ad/da? Or one just needs simply an AD for example if we are using the Dangerous ST and Orion?

So far I absolutely love my Pure2 by Antelope. It's my box 2 ad/da. Thanks to audiokid for suggesting I check it out.

Thank you. I will check the Pure2. Much appreciated.

You're welcome and good luck!

audiokid, post: 429523, member: 1 wrote: fwiw, through my studies,

Chris is a true Pioneer.

audiokid, post: 429523, member: 1 wrote: fwiw, through my studies,

Hybrid >The biggest waste of money in an analog mixing console are the faders, panning, bloated summing/mastering and monitoring section. This doesn't leave much to be desired in any analog console today.
DAW panning and DAW volume automation is hands down superior and an independent monitor controller is by far superior. The benefit from analog is simply all in the pass and maybe a tranny to add selectable character flavour. Less is more.
I used some of the best mixing and mastering gear money can buy and not one analog product convinced me it couldn't be emulated better ITB. Other than the pass between two uncoupled DAW's, once ITB, mix ITB.
I spent 3 years comparing products together and on their own. A simple analog pass and Samplitude or Sequoia with excellent monitoring abilities is all I need to accomplish what $100,000 worth of mixing/ master gear and 2 DAW's do better.

Chris is a True Pioneer. Utmost respect.

vibrations1951, post: 447259, member: 34341 wrote: So far I absolutely love my Pure2 by Antelope. It's my box 2 ad/da. Thanks to audiokid for suggesting I check it out.

I bought my Pure 2 and 32+... now the Dangerous ST is remaining! I cant thank you guys enough...There is something about this site that makes me believe that what you guys say is true and honest... Much love and respect...

Namin, post: 447714, member: 50331 wrote: I bought my Pure 2 and 32+... now the Dangerous ST is remaining

Excellent choices.(y)

Namin, post: 447714, member: 50331 wrote: There is something about this site that makes me believe that what you guys say is true and honest...

Pro Audio is an evolution of constant learning and change. It is subject to cause and effect of endless possibilities and scenarios.
I'm always learning and try to be transparent about that. I simply share what I do and always recommend others to make their own decisions best for them. Analog mixing, summing and mastering is very subjective and full of debate.
A lot of analog outboard gear I've used in a hybrid mixing workflow are no longer an asset to me because digital tools are now replacing them . My entire analog summing process evolves.
What was once value, is no longer.

Namin, post: 447714, member: 50331 wrote: Much love and respect...

Thank you. Its good to have you with us. I look forward to learning from you as well. I look forward to hearing all about your hybrid discoveries.

audiokid, post: 447715, member: 1 wrote: Excellent choices.(y)

Pro Audio is an evolution of constant learning and change. It is subject to cause and effect of endless possibilities and scenarios.
I'm always learning and try to be transparent about that. I simply share what I do and always recommend others to make their own decisions best for them. Analog mixing, summing and mastering is very subjective and full of debate.
A lot of analog outboard gear I've used in a hybrid mixing workflow are no longer an asset to me because digital tools are now replacing them . My entire analog summing process evolves.
What was once value, is no longer.

Thank you. Its good to have you with us. I look forward to learning from you as well. I look forward to hearing all about your hybrid discoveries.

Chris! I also did get an SPL Mixdream! Thank you so much for the welcome. I cannot tell you how excited I am to into this new way of working. I have not received my units yet. I promise you as soon as I get working with it, I will be posting before and after results. But I need to know one thing... Would it be advantageous to get one more Mixdream so that I can have 32 channels of summing?

I also discovered the above video and thought I should share it with you if not already where Simon briefly touches on an "old fashioned method" ! Enjoyed watching it particularly after reading about a certain 2 DAW workflow on RO

Namin, post: 447852, member: 50331 wrote: Chris! I also did get an SPL Mixdream! Thank you so much for the welcome. I cannot tell you how excited I am to into this new way of working. I have not received my units yet. I promise you as soon as I get working with it, I will be posting before and after results. But I need to know one thing... Would it be advantageous to get one more Mixdream so that I can have 32 channels of summing?

I started with the MixDream and Dangerous Master then sold the Mixdream to buy the SPL NEOS because I wanted at least 24 channels. After using both MixDream and Neos, the Mixdream is a far better solution. The Neos sounds no better, has useless faders, usless panning and a useless mastering section.
A Mixdream and Dangerous Master is what I would invest in. If you still need another 16 channels, then add another Mixdream.
But, if you have the budget, get a Dangerous Master as well! and sum your Mixdream into that.

DAW 1 > Orion 32 DA> Mixdream (master out) > Dangerous Master (master out)> uncoupled mastering AD> DAW2

Connect all 3 analog stereo outs of this workflow to a Dangerous Monitor ST (3 input hybrid monitoring controller ) and you will have a world class hybrid mixing and mastering system.

audiokid, post: 447856, member: 1 wrote: I started with the MixDream and Dangerous Master then sold the Mixdream to buy the SPL NEOS because I wanted at least 24 channels. After using both MixDream and Neos, the Mixdream is a far better solution. The Neos sounds no better, has useless faders, usless panning and a useless mastering section.
A Mixdream and Dangerous Master is what I would invest in. If you still need another 16 channels, then add another Mixdream.
But, if you have the budget, get a Dangerous Master as well! and sum your Mixdream into that.

DAW 1 > Orion 32 DA> Mixdream (master out) > Dangerous Master (master out)> uncoupled mastering AD> DAW2

Connect all 3 analog stereo outs of this workflow to a Dangerous Monitor ST (3 input hybrid monitoring controller ) and you will have a world class hybrid mixing and mastering system.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Chris! I have no money left now!!! But I am alert as an owl and a bat and a Falcon! It will take me some time, but I shall get it if you say so...Thank you Chris once again..

Thank you all for this great information. I am setting up a 2 computer system to try this for my home studio. My question is: I do still need some type of analog summing Box to get away from the 2-bus DAW? I should just understand that analog summing by itself is not a magic bullet. I should hear more improvement by uncoupling the 2 computers and having no bounces? Thanks

Dykesh, post: 454542, member: 51050 wrote: Thank you all for this great information. I am setting up a 2 computer system to try this for my home studio. My question is: I do still need some type of analog summing Box to get away from the 2-bus DAW? I should just understand that analog summing by itself is not a magic bullet. I should hear more improvement by uncoupling the 2 computers and having no bounces? Thanks

exactly

Does anyone have an opinion on just how expensive the 2 channel A/D conversion needs to be to get the full benefits of uncoupling? I am using a Metric Halo Lio-8 for tracking but I only have an Apogee Rosetta 200 (192kz) and an RME 9632 card. I am also thinking about summing inside the Metric Halo. Their software gives me 18 mono channels of summing in an 80 bit environment. I just don't want to buy an expensive summing box and not have good enough conversion. Thanks for any ideas

I guess I am also asking: if we are converting at 44/16 bit, how much quality difference will there be from different priced converters?