x
anonymous 25 January 2002

Which Box is the better one?

Tags

Comments

Guest Fri, 01/25/2002 - 09:18

Apples and oranges. Or in this case, maybe it's more like comparing a bayonet to a swiss army knife.

The L2 does brickwall limiting and conversion. The Finalizer has EQ, multiband compression, expansion, normalization, phase metering, tone generation, stereo width adjustment, digital "radiance", auto fades, bunches of style presets, and probably will wash your car if can figure out how.

That being said, if what you need is limiting and/or conversion, the L2 is really good for that. But if you need all that other stuff, maybe the Finalizer is what you need. I bought a Finalizer when it first came out back when I was using ADATs, but the past few years I hardly ever touch it. Probably because I send all my stuff out for mastering these days, and mastering engineers tend to hate it if you throw too much stuff across the whole mix. But if I was doing in-house mastering, I'd rather use the L2 and get the other stuff from different sources.

anonymous Fri, 01/25/2002 - 22:41

i cannot conceive of a time it would not be detrimental to use it for tracking or mixing.

Brad,
All I've heard from other users of the L2 hardware is that it is one of the best front ends to ProTools. A/D was co-developed with Manley Labs. Why would it be detrimental to use it for tracking? I was assuming that the original poster meant hardware when he stated "best box". Maybe that is where the confusion started.
Thanks.
Allen :)

anonymous Sat, 01/26/2002 - 06:25

The L2 is indeed a nice front end for PT, as is the HEDD. (I just wish Dave could upgrade our original to the new version...) Most everything tracked here goes through one or the other.

I normally do no processing on the L2 (other than setting the output ceiling at -.1dB to avoid any possibility of overs with unusually dynamic sources) on the way in, but I have on occasion squashed something purely as an effect... Usually, a kick or bass. It can be a very 'distinctive' sound.
I would recommend *extreme* caution, however, as it is possible to remove most or all of the transient from the signal. And a drum with no transient equals zero "punch."

And Jules, you mean you don't have an L2 yet?
Geez, that was last year's "Must Have" accessory... And you call yourself a gear slut...

Sincerely,

anonymous Sat, 01/26/2002 - 08:51

Brad,
Thank you for clearing that up. Do you know what it is like to be on the verge of pushing the buy button and then you see something that totally goes against what you were believing in the product? Whew. That is alot of cha ching for a purchasing mistake. Actually I don't see much about the HEDD on the web so it must be out of reach for alot of people. I've heard alot of praise for Crane Song though. So have you actually A/B'd the L2 A/D and the HEDD or was that a subjective comment?
And Jules I was surprised too. Now take one of those Apogees off the shelf and get yourself one of those L2s and one HEDD. I would love to hear from someone that has A/B'd the Lucid 24/96, Apogee AD8000, Digi 888, Crane Song HEDD, Waves L2, and RME 2496. Thanks everyone.
Allen :)

anonymous Sat, 01/26/2002 - 09:18

Thanks Brad,
I appreciate your honesty and unbiased opinion here. At least I know that you aren't a sales rep for Crane Song or Apogee. Since I already have the L2 software I think I'll hold off and see how the PTHD 192K compares to the HEDD 192. We could only wish that it were the same unit or better. Let me know what you find out. Thanks and keep up the great posts.
Allen

ahallada@aol.com

Jon Atack Sat, 01/26/2002 - 11:00

I'll second Brad's posts about the L2.

Like most gear I like, the L2 is pretty much a one-trick pony that does its one trick well. I do not use the L2 for anything other than mastering, getting the last few dBs just before UV22HRing down to 16 bits. The L2 does a darn good job at limiting as long as you don't overdo it...though the sound still takes a slight hit when compared at equal levels. If it wasn't necessary to use the L2, I'd be much happier.

Brad, FWIW I set the L2's out ceiling at -0.3 dB. Do you go higher than that?

Jon

anonymous Sat, 01/26/2002 - 17:03

But you could run the L2 w 3-6 db of processing and
create a cushion where unexpected high level inputs
are limited rather than clipped. ie set threshold at -6, adjust nominal input level so little or no limiting occurs and now you have 6 db of clipping
protection because 6 db of your gain is in the digital realm.

Dave McNair Sat, 01/26/2002 - 17:19

I have an L2, a HEDD, and a Lucid 24/96 and I will tell you that the HEDD blows all of them away for quality of converters. The Lucid is not as good as the HEDD but still better than the L2 converters. I just recently did an A/B with the HEDD to a Prism AD1. It was VERY close, but we all felt that the Prism was a tiny bit smoother and more "expensive" sounding, but the HEDD had a little bit better transients. It better be, cause the price of an AD1/DA1 combo is over $10,000.

anonymous Sun, 01/27/2002 - 05:34

Jon,
I talked to a guy that posts alot on the ProTools TDM forum and is an engineer in the Hollywood area and he has A/B'd the Apogees and L2 and says that L2 is the only thing he will use on the front end now. I've heard that from about 3 other posters on the DUC also. Didn't get much feedback on why. Fletcher at Mercenary is using the Lucid converters and told me not to waste my time with Apogee. He may have been having a bad Apogee day? Not sure but he tells it the way it is and said the Lucid are the best bang for the buck right now.
Allen :)

Jon Atack Sun, 01/27/2002 - 11:57

The caveat with Apogee comparisons is that Apogee is continually improving the sound of the things with refinements to the clock, analog circuit, motherboard, ambus D/A, psu, etc. My experience is that a new AD8000 sounds immediately better than one from 3 years ago, unless the old one has been upgraded with the mods (which have been free so far, except for the Special Edition one).

And the other caveat is whether or not it was a Special Edition Apogee or a regular one.

I've compared the Apogees to a number of things (but not the L2 or HEDD) and so far the PSX100SE has always come out on top fairly easily. I'll admit to not having heard the db Tech or DCS boxes, though. Maybe I should compare the L2 to the PSX100SE...I suppose I never really imagined it would compete with the PSX100SE.

Jon

erockerboy Sun, 01/27/2002 - 12:44

Brad, FWIW I set the L2's out ceiling at -0.3 dB. Do you go higher than that?

Hi guys,

Why -0.3 for the out ceiling? Is -0.1 a problem for certain CD players or mastering houses? I've used -0.1 for years with nary a complaint from any quarter. So why is -0.3 the magic number?

Also... all you HEDD guys, I would love to know what the heck you guys use the "Triode" knob for. "Pentode" and "Tape" are pure butter, but every time I turn up "Triode" to the point where I can actually notice the effect, it sure doesn't sound "warm" and "fat"... more like "distorted" and "sh*tty"! And unless I WANT that sound as an effect, I literally NEVER like it on anything. WTF?!? Especially you Jules, I know you love the HEDD on your PT mix bus... how hard do you hit this thing, and do YOU ever use "Triode"?

I know Fletcher likes to back things off by "half a number" on the HEDD... but I have a healthy dose of skepticism about using "magic boxes" at such subtle levels that my mind starts playing tricks, ya know? If I have to second-guess what it's doing to my mix, chances are I should just unplug it, ya know? This goes for HEDD, L2, C4, BBE, Finalizer DRG, Aural Exciter, etc.

And while we're on the subject of the HEDD, has anyone else found that the "optimal" operating levels of all the Cranesong stuff are annoyingly lower than the rest of the +4 analog world? Both my HEDD and STC-8 seem to like their input levels to be 10-15 dB quieter than any other outboard box in my rig. Weird huh?

erockerboy Sun, 01/27/2002 - 14:25

I use 'Triode' quite often. Softens the top while adding energy. Helps the low end on material without a lot of bottom end already on it. I agree it tends to smoosh out bottom on things with lots of low end, but I use when I need it, that's it.

Verrrry interesting... well, maybe I just don't like it 'cuz I'm mostly doing R&B/hiphop mixes with tons o' lows, where the "Triode" process just messes things up too much.

By the way, do you guys use HEDD's DSP process a lot on the tracking side of things too? Or just the mixing/mastering side? I think the HEDD is a great all-around converter for tracking... but dialing in that "Pentode" or "Tape" is always a temptation!

And although the knobs can go to ridiculous levels, I rarely use process levels more than 2 or 3.

Now this gets to the heart of my other issue... which is, if I can't hear it, why use it? Don't get me wrong, there are DEFINITELY lots of reasons to have "transparency" in certain processing stages... for example, I definitely don't wanna hear a mastering compressor working. But it seems like it's always a struggle (for me anyway) to decide when to use or not to use the "magic box" types of processing, e.g. HEDD, DRG, BBE (back in the day), Exciter, Spatializer, Vitalizer, QSound etc. etc. The idea being that it's "cool" to put just the teeniest bit of stuff across your final mix, not enough to really notice it but just enough to psychologically suggest to yourself (and/or your client) that the mix is somehow "better" just 'cuz you've got all those cool boxes plugged in....

Call me crazy but my new rule is, "If I can't hear it, I'm unplugging it!" F$@k subtlety... I wanna hear what the doggone thing is doing to my mix, or it's outta there!!

In the future I plan to leave all the "subtle" stuff to you mastering geniuses. :)

Not here. Got an STC-8M and HEDD-192 and both bark along nicely on program at 0vu...

On the STC-8, you have something like +28 db headroom - either your levels are *way* too hot (which I doubt) or there's an interface issue here, I believe.

Humm, maybe something is wrong at my place. I've got the Cranesongs sitting in the rack right next to bunches of other +4 gear from diverse manufacturers, and NONE of the other pieces seem to mind their input levels, just the Cranesongs. Para ejemplo, I can mult my 2-mix via patchbay into HEDD and AD-8000 simultaneously. HEDD is crappin' out, red lights coming on like crazy... but Apogee is as happy as a clam. Go figure. Looks like I'll need to troubleshoot when I get some spare time (ha!).

erockerboy Sun, 01/27/2002 - 14:39

On the head I often use 7 & 7 for pentode & triode (on mixes) . Heck! I aint mastering! I'm a GONZO ENGINEER!

Duuuuude... you are a WILD MAN!! My eardrums would get vaporized if I turned the triode up to 7... usually I don't even turn it on at all now, I just wave my hand in the general direction of the HEDD, and it's about right.

:)

anonymous Sun, 01/27/2002 - 16:58

Originally posted by Brad Blackwood:

Nope. All the limiter is doing is raising the post conversion level. Clipping occurs at the actual A/D stage, so unexpected transients will clip the input, *then* be limited (for an even more beautiful sound...).

The 6 db of gain in the limiter does nothing for you - it raises the noise floor as well as signal.

There is *no* benefit to tracking with the L2, except for the converters.
I guess I wasnt clear- I would lower the input signal before the L2 by 6 db and set the L2 threshold at -6---gaining 6 db of clipping overhead
at the expense a little more noise, actually the total gain is the same, just different staging.

Guest Mon, 01/28/2002 - 18:49

Originally posted by EJolson:

Humm, maybe something is wrong at my place. I've got the Cranesongs sitting in the rack right next to bunches of other +4 gear from diverse manufacturers, and NONE of the other pieces seem to mind their input levels, just the Cranesongs. Para ejemplo, I can mult my 2-mix via patchbay into HEDD and AD-8000 simultaneously. HEDD is crappin' out, red lights coming on like crazy... but Apogee is as happy as a clam. Go figure. Looks like I'll need to troubleshoot when I get some spare time (ha!).

I've got just the opposite problem (I think?). If I send a digital output from my 888/24 to my HEDD, and use the Hedd's converters to listen to the mix, if I A-B it with the analog out directly from the 888/24, the mix coming from the HEDD is at a MUCH lower volume. This does not happen with any other gear (like a TC Finalizer), so I assume that it is not merely a calibration problem with my 888.

Dave McNair Tue, 01/29/2002 - 19:57

Jon, have you listened to the L2 converters yet? Just wondering. Also as far as the Hedd triode pentode thing, I've found the interaction between the 2 is an issue. The triode by itself is not that audible untill things get really fuzzy, but if you crank the pentode a bit, adding some triode really fattens things up, YMMV.

erockerboy Fri, 02/01/2002 - 01:07

I've got just the opposite problem (I think?). If I send a digital output from my 888/24 to my HEDD, and use the Hedd's converters to listen to the mix, if I A-B it with the analog out directly from the 888/24, the mix coming from the HEDD is at a MUCH lower volume.

This is totally consistent with my experience. Both nominal input AND output levels on the HEDD (and STC-8) seem to be calibrated substantially lower than the rest of my gear. Still haven't had time to troubleshoot this, but I will get to it soon. It's almost like Dave Hill decided he wanted "0 VU" on his stuff to be 10 dB quieter than the rest of the world. Oh well, it still sounds great... but the level mismatch IS annoying tho.

x

User login