chordaholic,

> I know, I am asking the same old question.
Which DAW is the best? <

Hey, no problem asking again. What's "best" at any given moment is always a moving target.

I use SAW which you didn't mention, from IQS (http://www.iqsoft.com) and it's a fabulous multitrack audio recorder program. There are several versions in the SAW line ranging from not cheap to very expensive. :) But SAW is an extremely reliable and professional product that, unlike too many others, does not crash or lose your work when you least expect it.

--Ethan

http://www.ethanwiner.com/articles.html
"The truth is in there"

Ethan,

Thanks for your reply.
I've never heard of SAW. What kind of a
hardware interface does it work with? Digi001, or MOTU 2408mkII?? Because I think
the A/D converters are the most important
part of a DAW system especially if sound
quality is your first priority.

-chordaholic http://www.mp3.com/chordaholic

Soundscape R.Ed works differently then the vast amount of "DAW's" that are currently on the market. It doesn't use the PC for any of the audio processing. With the PC acting only as a GUI frees the PC to run other applications with a high degree of reliability.
The term "DAW" has certainly been stretched recently. In the not-to-distant past "workstation" meant something physical, even standalone.
R.Ed gives you the pluses of the computer-based DAW without the negatives. It streams it's audio to it's own drives--you can crash the PC and have playback continue!
Check out it's specs:
up to 128 tracks simultaneously @ 24/48 or 64 tracks simultaneously @ 24/96. This is a guaranteed track count with rock solid reliability. (more stable then a 2" deck without the maintenance cost)
That is with 112 inputs and 128 outputs
Mixer is totally user definable.
Soundscape is the only Motorola DSP-based company that can run the entire signal chain at 24/96 plug-insincluded.)
VITC/LTC/SMPTE & Sony 9 pin (RS422)and Black Burst
MIDI in/out/thru And MTC sync
Full EDL/OMF implementation
Full Networkability

Here is a real DAW--professional performance at a mid market price!

(with special thanks to Joel Gette!)
:D

Hi Chordaholic,

<< I have a list to choose from and the
only goal is know which system is the
all-in-one solution that can give you
that professional sound on a budget
including recording, mixing and mastering
so you don't have to take your tracks to
a studio later for mastering and all that. >>

All the software/hardware combos you mentioned are not solutions, they are just tools. Nothing more and nothing less, it doesn't matter whether you are talking about the cheapest system or a full blown PTools TDM DAW. It is possible to produce professional sounding mixes on any of these systems but it is far more likely that the mix will sound like crap. The most important part of a DAW system by far is not the ADCs but the operator.

Given a couple of weeks with a DAW anyone can learn how to stick a mic in front of a musician, get a reasonable take and learn the intricacies of EQ, reverb, delay, compression, etc. However, there is no shortcut around the years of experience that are required to understand how these tools interact with each other in a full mix and then to be able to use them as creative tools.

I've often heard the argument that professional engineers have srict time constraints but the DAW user can produce the same professional quality because they usually have virtually unlimited time. This is only true if you have five years to spend producing one track, and probably not even then.

There is no such thing as an "all-in-one solution" for making quality recordings. No matter the quality or quantity of your hardware you are not going to produce a high quality, polished, professional sounding master without a high quality, polished professional mastering engineer. The same goes for the producer and sound engineer.

In short, "that professional sound" you refer to, is usually created by a team of people (sound engineer, producer, mastering engineer) who probably have a total of 30+ years of experience and work with at least a couple of million dollars worth of equipment and environment. Now, you want to replace this team of professionals with a single inexperienced user, with a few thousand dollars worth of equipment/environment and produce a comparative level of quality. Does this sound impossible? It is possible that someone who has just passed thier driving test in a BMW could get on a Grand Prix race circuit and compete on equal terms with Michael Schumaker and his Formula 1 Ferrari. But let's face it, it would take a serious miricle and is completely unrealistic.

With this in mind you still have to make a decision about which DAW to buy. The answer can only be discovered by you and depends on a number of factors: Are you going to be writing and performing your own music? What style of music are you going to be working with? What sort and number of live musicians are you likely to be working with? How much audio editing are you likely to require? How much MIDI/Sampled/Synth material are you going to be using? Etc, etc, etc.

My vote is for you to make a list of the various DAWs that have a feature list best suited to what you want to produce and then go and sit in a demo of each of these systems to see which fits in best with your method of working and expectations.

Watch those expectations though. While a top class pro could, under certain circumstances, produce a professional sounding mix on any of the systems you mentioned. No top pro, given the choice, would choose any of them. In fact very few, if any, would choose a DAW at all for anything other than editing.

My 2 cents,

Greg

chordaholic,

> I've never heard of SAW.

It's not as well known as Cakewalk or Cubase, probably because it's aimed mainly at pros.

> What kind of a hardware interface does it work with? Digi001, or MOTU 2408mkII?? <

SAW works with any standard Windows sound card(s). There are demos at the IQS web site for the various versions, and neither the demos nor the product add anything to your registry or Windows folder. So you can try it out, delete the install folder afterward, and nothing stays behind. That alone makes it an easy choice to at least try!

--Ethan

http://www.ethanwiner.com/articles.html
"The truth is in there."

Yep, Soundscape R.ed gets my vote. I have recently added the mixpander DSP expansion board which gives me another 9 DSPs to runplug-inson so I now NEVER run out of power (for my projects anyway).

The system could do with moreplug-insbut apart from that I cannot fault it. It has NEVER crashed. 32 tracks 24 Bit, all day everyday.

Current plugs available are:

TC Reverb (based on M5000)
TC Dynamizer (based on finaliser)
Wave Mechanics Reverb
Compressor X
Aphex Aural Exciter
Aphex Big Bottom
Apogee Master tools
Dolby Surround
Cedar De-Hiss
Cedar De-Click
Vocalign
SS Delay
SS Dynamics
SS Modulation
SS Dither
SS Noisegate
Spin Delay
SS Time stretch/Sample Rate Conversion
SS EDL
SS OMF inport/export
Arboritum plug pack (loads of stuff)

However, each to his own.

Peace

Scaper

So, 2 votes for Sounscape R.ed so far which
is a system I didn't even have in my list
of candidates. But, I will look into that
now. Thanks to Bert and Scaper for your
inputs.

Greg, thanks for your reply about the
importance of the engineers/producers in
the recording process as opposed to the
gear itself. I coudn't agree with you more,
however, it is really costly to take your
recording to a pro studio and have it mixed
and mastered by the pros these days.

That is one of the things I was considering
myself; I've been doing my tracks at home
(using Cubase VST+Audiomedia III on an older Mac) and wanted to take them to a pro studio to have them mixed and mastered.
However, the first studio I went into which
wasn't a top-of-the-line studio too and they
gave a quote of $85 and hour for a minimum
of 4 hours only to do mastering. So, that's about $340 minimum per song which will make the an album of 10 songs cost about $3400
minimum!

Again, this is only the mastering part of the
process, I cannot even imagine how much it will cost to do your tracking at a pro studio too given that tracking takes much more time.

Anyway, so I thought, with that kind of money ($3400+) I can easily buy a good DAW solution and a good fast PC and spend some time and learn the mastering process and get some decent recordings. I know it won't be as
good as the pro sound but at least I still have some money left to eat!!! Besides, some of the pros are using some of the DAW's I've listed, like Nuendo for example, so I won't
be too far off, hopefully.

Thanks,
-chordaholic http://www.mp3.com/chordaholic

From your list, Paris. The others are host-based, where Paris is a hybrid. You get near zero-latency (as all hardware has a little) tracking and monitoring, a stellar sounding mixing engine, 4-band graphic EQ on every channel, very good comps, track grouping, on board effects, VST/DX support, easy config for outboard inserts/Auxes, etc, very high quality converters, a hardware control surface, up to 128 tracks from a standard $120 Maxtor ATA66/100 drive, very quick/easy editing features, OMF compatibility, excellent stability on either PC or Mac, and expandability for very reasonable cost.

Above all the sound is key, and Paris is very warm (analogish to many users), with great imaging, depth, clarity and transparency. Again, Paris is different than the others in your list as they are software only, and all mixing, tracking and monitoring is done in software, so latency is an issue there. Nuendo gets high marks for sound quality from some users I've talked to, and is probably one of the best host-based-only systems. Soundscape's R.ed looks like a nice custom/standalone system, but you are much more limited in the plugin department (custom format) than with a standard VST/DX supporting app (such as Paris and the others in the group). I don't know the popularity of R.ed in the US (SS seems to be very popular in Europe post markets), but Paris seems to be becoming the most popular mid-priced DAW for music tracking and mixing, and is more often compared with Pro Tools for varying reasons. You also will have the benefit of compatibility with DSP cards like the UAD-1 Powered Plugins for some killer compressors, and more, without adding CPU overhead.

As one poster already said, the "best" is relative to what you need, want to spend, and hope to achieve with the system. Compare several for features, performance (look for the negatives as well as positives!) and price. Demo as many as possible, then decide.

Regards,
Dedric

Yea, for an all round client/studio DAW at a great price I would have to say Paris. It is know for good sound quality AND it wisely incorporates a hardware system to conserve the CPU power of your computer ), as does Pro tools (though with Paris I wouldn't brag about it's use of VST plugs which tend to sound cheezy).
IMHO, as strickly "host based" systems go I think DP has an edge in sound quality over most, even Nuendo. The reason I say this is that Nuendo uses the same audio engine as Cubase (which I'm familiar with) and the sound in no way resembles anything like the warmth of analog (if that matters to you).
Combine DP with some well thought out hi end hardware and you will achieve "top pro" results regardless of what anyone tells you. Oh yea, of course, as Greg said (in a nut shell), if you don't know what your doing you won't achieve "top pro" results anytime soon. That can't be stressed enough!
Let your ears be the judge, that will keep you busy searching for the ultimate rig for years to come.... good luck. ;)

Originally posted by Tony C:
Yea, for an all round client/studio DAW at a great price I would have to say Paris. It is know for good sound quality AND it wisely incorporates a hardware system to conserve the CPU power of your computer ), as does Pro tools (though with Paris I wouldn't brag about it's use of VST plugs which tend to sound cheezy).

VST plugins cheezy? Hmmm - Waves too? Waves has even said their VST versions should have the edge in sound quality over their other formats. I don't think there is a plugin to suit every need (sometimes I use Waves, sometimes Paris EDS comps/EQ, sometimes outboard gear), but with host-based apps plugins are your only option. I, and many other producers and engineers have had great success with sound quality in mixes using VST/DX plugins (usually Waves). I even know of one producer/engineer that has gone through the process of comparing to outboard gear, and is quite successful at emulating some rather pricey outboard gear - beyond outside listeners' ability to distiguish between the two. It does help to understand how to get the most of any tool.

Regards,
Dedric

I'd like to give Greg a big pat on the back for his post on this thread.
I read too many threads that whinge about the shortcomings of there $1000 digital audio systems.
"The A/D converters aren't good enough"
"We want better mic pres"
"Not enough tracks"
"I can't work with this latency"
etc etc. etc.
These people need to step back and realize that they have bought a consumer level piece of equipment. You get what you pay for. I have a DIGI001 and I know its shortcomings. You simple have to work with it and be happy with what you've got.
If you want totally professional results, buy a MixPlus, go to school and then after 10-20 years experience you might be getting there!

Greg, as a PT user I'm sure you visit the DUC from time to time. I ask you to pop into the 001 forum every now and them and everytime you see somebody whinge about their system's shortcomings, cut and paste your above post and put them back in their place.

Well done Greg

Mark

Originally posted by Greg Malcangi:
[QB No top pro, given the choice, would choose any of them. In fact very few, if any, would choose a DAW at all for anything other than editing.

My 2 cents,

Greg[/QB]

Greg,

Do think that is truthfully the nature of DAWs (not just the list above) or more of an indication that those top pros cut their teeth on traditional consoles instead of DAWs, and probably are more comfortable there? As you stated, it isn't so much the tool (at least to some degree), but the operator.

There are hit songs being recorded and mixed in Paris and PT, but certainly not the host-based systems listed above (at least not mixed - some combinations are being used in production).

There is nothing wrong with a pro using a DAW to record, produce and mix music (I know of several who do). i.e. the Pro isn't thereby dubbed "incompetent" for doing so. Some of the best music produced comes from people breaking the traditional rules, not adhering to them blindly (there is also plenty of garbage too). IMO, it isn't whether the format is "perfect" but whether its' use is creative and productive, and no format is "perfect".

Regards,
Dedric

Hi Dedric,

<< Do think that is truthfully the nature of DAWs (not just the list above) or more of an indication that those top pros cut their teeth on traditional consoles instead of DAWs >>

To get the best out of a top pro you need to give them the best tools. Currently that means high end analog/outboard gear. There are no EQ plugs that are anywhere near as good as high end outboard gear. The same is true of compression and reverb, not to mention the desks themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not DAW bashing here. In my own studio I use PTmix3 and a ProControl. DAWs are getting better and some plugins are now starting to at least get in the same ball park as some of the high end outboard gear. Although DAWs aren't there yet they are getting closer and the lines are starting to blur.

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the compliment but I'm not sure if I could be bothered with the inevitable flame replies! If you want to cut and paste some of that message into the (DUC) 001 forum feel free! :)

Greg

Dedric,
...The others are host-based, where Paris is a hybrid.
Not true--Soundscape R.Ed IS NOT host-based--it ONLY uses the PC for GUI.
Paris is different than the others in your list as they are software only, and all mixing, tracking and monitoring is done in software, so latency is an issue there.
R.Ed even streams to its' own drives--latency is simply not an issue with this product.
Soundscape's R.ed looks like a nice custom/standalone system, but you are much more limited in the plugin department (custom format) than with a standard VST/DX supporting app (such as Paris and the others in the group).
In a sense, the "limitedness" is more of a Paris issue--correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Intelligent Devices has ever released new algorhythms for Paris's DSP (and may never at this rate.)R.Ed on the other hand has had a good number of top-shelf 3rd partyplug-inswritten for it's DSP, AND there are more coming RIGHT NOW! Additionally, I can stream other applications running other types of DSP into R.Ed.--it isn't a problem. Soundscape is the only Motorola DSP-based company that can run the entire signal chain at 24/96 plug-insincluded.)

BTW, I speak from experience. Not only have I owned both systems; I've also done support for both! (12 years for EMU<>ENSONIQ.)

Don't get me wrong--Paris is a fine product (and EMU/ID has brought it to maturity with 3.0, which BTW is pretty much what is what is spec'd out to do when it was an Ensoniq product.)

Thanks

Bert,

When referring to "the others are host-based only" I was referring to the original post that did not mention R.ed. R.ed was added to the discussion later, and IMO, is a variation of the what the posters was asking about since it is a standalone DAW. I'm sure R.ed is a great DAW - I just like the flexibiltiy of a cross-platform system with support for more more widely accepted plugin formats (VST/DX) like Paris (in addition to existing EDS FX) instead of relying on developers to port to it. No, the EDS 3rd party development hasn't happened, but I don't count it out for the future, or rely on it - it would be nice, but isn't a show-stopper either way. I have a lot of options with my system for my projects and clients, and the sound quality is the first reason I chose Paris. I wouldn't be surprised to see VSTi in the future for Paris, which will be a nice addition.

Regards,
Dedric

Dedric,
Waves plugs blow away VST plugs. I wasn't talking about 3rd party VST plugs, I was referring to Steinbergs VST plugs. And yes, they do sound cheezy to me and a whole lot of other people.
Also, try not to kid yourself about host based systems not being used to put out major label albums, hit records, film tracks, etc.. For practical applications in a client based studio your right, host based studios don't cut it as well as Paris or PT (for now). However, a lot of great musician/composer/engineer types (people who have been in the biz forever) are kicken ass with some great sounding productions done totally in the comfort of their own homes AND on their little DAW host based rigs FWIW ;)

Originally posted by Tony C:
Dedric,
Waves plugs blow away VST plugs. I wasn't talking about 3rd party VST plugs, I was referring to Steinbergs VST plugs. And yes, they do sound cheezy to me and a whole lot of other people.
Also, try not to kid yourself about host based systems not being used to put out major label albums, hit records, film tracks, etc.. For practical applications in a client based studio your right, host based studios don't cut it as well as Paris or PT (for now). However, a lot of great musician/composer/engineer types (people who have been in the biz forever) are kicken ass with some great sounding productions done totally in the comfort of their own homes AND on their little DAW host based rigs FWIW ;)

Ah yes, nomenclature confusion - I was assuming you meant VST as a format. I with ya on Steinberg's VST stuff. Not pretty for what is supposed to be a "pro" audio sequencer, but, hey whatever.

Yeah, Logic, Cubase, DP, etc have been around the pro world for various uses, in various forms, for years. I enjoy using Logic for audio in combination with Paris at times, and not just for sequencing. When the tool does what you need - use the tool. I don't really care whether it is the standard or not, as long as it meets my criteria for quality and performance, and getting the job done.

I hope some of this is somewhat helpful to chordaholic; although, Greg has a point that "all-in-one" for a "professional sound" isn't necessarily realistic - I do know of Paris being used in all phases of pro-level production (including mastering by a really talented pro mastering engineer) - don't know about the others - just one example. All of the aforementioned systems are being used to some degree all the way from the hobbyist level to the pro market. IMO, music production greatly benefits from knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the tools you have access to and making the most of them, not just sticking to a formula for achieving the goal, or assuming that a given product's "pro" title/advertisements means you will make a "pro" production with it.

Regards,
Dedric

Yes, I agree with you and to further elaborate on Gregs quote ""all-in-one solution" for a professional sound.....no matter the quality or quantity of your hardware......."
IMHO, if you don't have the ears and years behind you (especially when it comes to digital set ups), you'd be better off saving up your pennies and buyin time at a reputable studio.
That is, unless you're new at it AND you have great ears, time, a lot of money and a few years to kill.
Sooooo, what's the best DAW? It depends Watson, it depends on.............. :D

Paris. Total stability, seemingly limitless power, near-zero latency, amazing sound.

Depends on what you're looking for. I have to agree with Tony that sometimes it's worth hiring a pro. For one thing, when you're paying by the hour, your concentration is on the music, not the equipment. The first time I sang thru a U87, my toes curled. And that's with a mediochre voice. I still can't afford that kind of mic, but I just bought a Beta 58 that's really smooth and does double duty - live and recording. I'm using a Tascam 428 with Cubase and an iMac. This setup does amazing things for under 2 grand. I know it's not the ultimate, but my sights are set at a larger target - to get someone else to produce my stuff in a place that has tube pre's and Pro Tools with a U87 here and a C2000 there. Maybe and old D28 to pluck. Maybe a Studer to smooth things a bit. A B3 with Leslie. And a Baldwin, Yamaha, or Steinway grand to plink...

Even winning the lottery might not pry that D28 away from its owner.

Originally posted by Greg Malcangi:

To get the best out of a top pro you need to give them the best tools. Currently that means high end analog/outboard gear. There are no EQ plugs that are anywhere near as good as high end outboard gear. The same is true of compression and reverb, not to mention the desks themselves.

Greg

I partially agree, and partially disagree with this statement. I agree that good hardware has its place in mixing and tracking, and that any successful DAW must be able to interface easily with ouboard gear just as an analog console can. There are good plugins, and good DSP algorithms on the market, and in DAWs, however. I'm a paris user myself, and I really like the EQ on that system and I don't hesitate to use it in a hearbeat. Does it replace a pultec, or a 1073 EQ...nope, its just a different flavour. I prefer my hardware comps (distressor and ELOP) to theplug-insfor lots of sounds, but then there's things like waves L1 which smash a track harder than any harware unit I've heard.

For reverbs, I usually use dedicated hardware verbs with my Paris rig (SRV-330, 3030, and 2000, Ensoniq DP-Pro and a tube spring reverb), but occasionally I useplug-inslike Sonic Foundry Acoustic Modeller, which can sound phenomenal (depending on the impulse). I sheepishly admit that most of the verb plugs that I hear aren't all that great, and don't offer much in the way of programmability.

I think there's a trap that many DAW users fall into where they absolutely want to do everything inside the computer, trying to avoid DA/AD conversions, or just trying to shrink a studio into a little beige box. I honestly think that the best results come from a combination of good old hardware, and DSPplug-ins One thing I'm really diggin' in paris is that you can put a direct-x pluggin as an insert on a track, then send it
out to an outboard unit, route it back into the paris mixer, insert a paris plug, then send it through the paris channel strip. It's the same for aux's...except no direct-xplug-ins

It was that feature that sold me on paris...I can work the same way that I did when I was using a 2" deck and a console (except now I have extra editing features, and more aux sends).

I'm pretty sure paris isn't alone in its ability to interface with hardware like that...I'm sure protools does it, as does ReD. Hell, maybe even the native daws can do that now.

Cheers,

Kris

Thanks to everyone for all your replies.
It seems like the DAW that got most of
the votes is Paris Pro. And Nuendo which
was my first choice didn't get any votes
at all.

So, I went to E-MU's website and checked
out Paris Pro, and the two things that
kind of surprised me about this system were
first the fact that the base system only supports 16 tracks and second, they don't
talk about the features of the software that comes with it. I mean does the software have any good editing features such as looping zero-corrsing, etc. Or does it support any mastering functions like loudness maximization and stuff like that. I mean
since the software is only a couple of
hundred dollars tells me that it doesn't do
any of that, but I don't know.

Can Paris users comment on this please??

Thanks,
-chordaholic
http://www.mp3.com/chordaholic

chordaholic,

Each EDS card supports 16 tracks live to/from disk, but Paris supports up to 128 hardware tracks. Virtual submixes allow you switch one (or more) of your EDS cards to a new submix (or submixes), mix those tracks, switch back, hit update, Paris plays through the song bouncing that submix to disk, and you continue on - works very well, retains all mixing info for each submix for quick updates). Paris 3.0 also supports native tracks (host-based) and any submix can be assigned to run native tracks (any submix can be either card-based, native or virtual). Native submixes are just like card or virtual, except they don't require an EDS card, and use the CPU (like Nuendo, Logic, Cubase, DP, etc). VST/DX plugins are available on each track and Aux bus for native tracks (the largest native-only track count I've heard so far is 100 with no plugins).

You can run multiple cards with Paris - so far there are quite a few 80+ hardware-track setups. Compared to other similar software/hardware hybrid DAWs, the cost per track is lower with Paris including the cost of multiple EDS cards added to a base Paris pro system. I run a 2 card system and will soon be adding a third (48 tracks, plus submixes). Some users run 6, 7 or even 8 cards (via a PCI expansion chassis).

Paris does allow you to loop sections, and edit waveforms (or stereo pairs) at the sample level. You can also "solo" selections or tracks with from 3 different locations (C16, editor buttion, and audio window preview). Crossfades between audio segments are as quick as dragging the ends across each other and selecting a curve style. The cursor is context sensitive, so you get the crossfade tool at the corners, the segment length extender at the ends (for extending or shortening the segment played), and a drag tool in the middle. You can also time compress/expand segments in place; sample-accurately render tracks or selections to disk, with or without VST/DirectX plugins (very fast - only about 5-10 sec for a full length track, less for short segments); also reverse, gain change, normalize/supernormalize, polarity invert, sample rate convert, and pitch shift; as well as cut, paste, snip, paste multiple, etc.; object jails allow you to store a segment, segments, track or tracks in "temp" locations for later use (i.e. alternate takes, edits, etc).

These are just editor window features to give you an idea.

Sorry for the lengthy post - hope this helps a little.

Regards,
Dedric

Thanks to everyone for all your replies. It seems like the DAW that got most of the votes is Paris Pro. And Nuendo which
was my first choice didn't get any votes
at all.

One vote from me! I try to avoid mixing in computers, so the sound of the Paris mixing scheme wasn't a selling point with me. I was mainly looking for a recording, editing, and general purpose tool to use in conjunction with analog mixers and other things. For just doing that I liked Nuendo a lot better than Paris. In a lot of ways I prefer it to Pro Tools TDM, too. It's really well designed and easy to use, with some very smart features.

I'm pretty sure paris isn't alone in its ability to interface with hardware like that...I'm sure protools does it, as does ReD. Hell, maybe even the native daws can do that now.

Not very easily, because of latency issues. I don't know of any that'll let you address an i/o from an insert.

The upcoming multiboard-version IV of swiss company Merging Technologies' Pyramix! ;-)
Real-time DSD-conversion, SACD encoding, high-end plugins, great sound, extremely stable on WK2, MADI, great support, etc.

Benoit

Hi Kris (Dr Frankencopter),

I understand where you are coming from as what you have written is pretty much along the lines of my setup. I use PT TDM, McDSP EQ, outboard reverb, etc. I've not yet heard the Paris system so I can't directly compare. However, the EQ that most of the top pro's use is the EQ found in desks like the Oxford, Neve's and SSL's. I would be very surprised if Paris' EQ could compare sonically with these.

For the time being I'm going to have to stick to my guns and say that DAWs/plugs are still not as good as the traditional large format stuff/high end outboard gear for mixing.

Greg

Hi Greg,

Can't give you a direct comparison of Paris EQ to outboard, but I do know of a producer/engineer (top pro) who regularly inserts high-end outboard EQs, comps etc, then recreates that sound in Paris with some combination of Waves plugins and/or Paris compression/EQ (and 3rd party listeners haven't been able to tell the difference). To me Paris' EQ is the most transparent digital EQ I've heard, but doesn't have the color and character of a nice outboard (or a classic console EQ strip) - great for leveling EQ bands, but not for changing tone. Sometimes that is the desired goal though. I think that is really what Kris was saying, and I agree - many digital EQs simply destroy the sound, but Paris' does it's job very well. I actually know a very good, very successful mastering engineer using Paris (for mastering) - onboard EQs and comps almost exclusively.

Bob Katz (mastering engineer) has commented on the transparency of Paris' EQ.

For tone and coloring, outboard gear is obviously a nice way to go - just insert into a Paris channel strip and you have the best of both worlds (analog is fine since the converters sound so good - just as you would with PT and your converter of choice).

If you would like, post an audio segment (24-bit SDII or Aiff is fine) and I'll put the EQ settings of your choice on it with Paris and repost to let you hear and compare to whatever you would use on it (as long as you do the same with your EQ, so I can also compare the difference). It would be quite interesting to put some different options side by side (esp. McDSP (since it is TDM only), Paris, Waves). I can setup ftp access to my website if you are interested (nothing to complicated since we both have regular work taking precedence).

Regards,
Dedric

Chordaholic,

I personally am using the MOTU 2408 MkII, Cubase VST/24, Waves Plugins, Yamaha O1v mixer, Focusrite Voicemaster. I think I have great results. I tracked my first album on a Neve and Trident, and mixed on an SSL. After running out of money, I had a record...Never again!!

Spend your time, buy they best gear you can afford, and get to work. Remember, it is not the gear, but the user, for the most part, and especially given the quality of most of the stuff out. If you listen to most of the stuff on these boards, all of your stuff will be obsolete in 2 years, except for your $2000 preamp. Bullshit!!Most of the stuff coming out now, even the "semi-pro" stuff that "pros" turn their nose up at (Cubase/MOTU/Yamaha mixers), is in many ways superior to the best gear from a couple of years ago, and from what I remember, music didn't sound too bad back then. CDs are 16-bit, 44khz for crissakes!

Get a decent mic (I use the Blue Blueberry). Get a decent pre-amp, compressor, and eq...I know that some people are going to flame this, but the ones in the O1V are Ok in my book. BTW, I A/B'ed my set up against the top Avalon gear (2022-2044- 2055), and while the Avalon stuff was good, tweeking my set up got the "same" results. I must say that the 2055 EQ is great though.

I guess what I am trying to say is, whatever you buy, don't get TOO hung up on the specs. Most of the "semi-pro" stuff is great, regardless of what the gear snobs say. Remember, most of these guys work at studios, so the fact that you can cut a good sounding album in your bedroom threatens their jobs. Studios are going belly up all over town in LA. Many hits are tracked, and mixed on systems that people on these sites say are crappy.

Use compression, EQ, and effects judicously. What else....hmmm, that it.

Hi Dedric,

Thanks for the offer but for more than one reason it's not that easy for me to upload audio files.

If the Paris EQ is as good (or better) than the McDSP plugs then it's at least acceptable. Beyond that it comes down to personal preference on colour. If you like the tonal characteristics of Neve's or SSL's for example, then currently there are not any plugs that can compare. To hark back to my first post though, I'd rather have a top pro using McDSP (or Paris) than a relative beginner using a Neve.

RE: Blazer. Sorry, I can't let that one go. I used an O2R exclusively in my studio for a couple of years, I also did quite a bit of work with an O1V. I don't know if they have changed them in the last few years but my impression at the time was that they had the worst internal EQ and compression of anything I've ever heard! For me personally they are the best example of the critisims leveled at digital audio effects; harsh, tinny and very nasty indeed. This might be exactly what you want for garage and some techno/house but for classical, jazz and most other types of pop the EQ and compression is virtually unusable on these desks.

Greg

uh.. I use Digi001 PTLE, though have many issues with digidesigns marketing claims. The sound of the digi001 is not the sam as the tdm, though it was marketed that way. I was willing to settle for lower track count and host based proccesing, not consumer level sound. That issue alone has me looking for a new daw, and Digi's general lack of moving forward at market pace. So it's hard to recomend... sure I can get a decent sound, but not a golden one. and that's not my lack of ability, it's the hardware limitation. I have produced better sounding mixes on my old yamaha four track with better stereo imaging and better depth, go figure? Now I'm looking at Paris and Nuendo. I want "that sound" or at least the capabitlity of capturing it when hooked up to quality sources. There's hundreds of users who have addressed this issue wth digi to no response, so I say to hell with them.

Hi blazer,

I agree 99% with your post (would have been 100% if you'd used the word 'logic' instead of 'cubase' - sorry for that)
People listen to music in their cars, using old mono thingies to listen to compact cassettes, downloading mp3's from the web.
Nobody ever bought a record just because it sounded so good (except for a few hifi guys).
They like the song - they buy it.
Nearly all the big studios have gone - at least here in germany and the u.k.
Every musician owns a 'project studio' to do the daily work.

Kind regards
Walter :D

blazer,
Thanks for your reply describing your
set-up, that was great! I've been zooming
on that Focusrite voice processor unit too.
I think I'll get it...

Anyway, blazer and Walter, I agree with both
of you 100% that you should not get too
hung up with specs and finding the right
gear and all that. I've always said that
myself, and I believe that if you concentrate on writing the best song rather than finding the best gear the results would
be much more satisfying.

But I really think it's time for me to
upgrade my recording gear since I've been
using Cubase 3.5 + AudioMediaIII card on an
older mac for the past 6 years.... :)

Take care,
-anoush
http://www.mp3.com/chordaholic

Hi Coonga,

Re: Your complaints about the 001; "sure I can get a decent sound, but not a golden one."

You can get reasonable consumer gear for a few hundred dollars. 001 costs $1,000 or thereabouts. The big studios spend millions of dollars to get that "golden sound". Which end of the scale is 001 closest to? ... A highly spec'ed TDM system is going to cost you several tens of thousands of dollars and even then it's pretty hard to get a "golden sound".

I think you need to be a little bit more realistic in your expectations Coonga.

If you move to a Paris system I think you will hear an improvement over 001. I'm personally not impressed with Nuendo though.

Greg

I said 'capable of recording" that golden sound, or at least thats what meant. Big studios have millions in outboard gear yes. and If I had millions in outborad gear ok, then I could record that quality? nope.

Hi Coonga,

<< and If I had millions in outborad gear ok, then I could record that quality? nope. >>

Nope! Or probably nope. You probably don't have an extensive mic collection at your disposal or the experience to use it in a top quality live room. In addition, there's the knowledge and experience required to use a high end console, recorder and outboard gear to it's best advantage in combination with the mic choice and placement.

BTW, I'm not deliberately trying to put you down here. I don't have the knowledge or experience either. I believe I can get a pretty decent sound but my 10 years of experience in the recording business has taught me the difference between what I am capable of and what a top pro in a big commercial studio can do. Everytime I work in a big studio I can't decide whether I am inspired by what I hear or whether I just want to give up!!

Greg

Originally posted by Greg Malcangi:
Hi Coonga,

Greg

Definitely don't give up, but Greg has implied a good point - use the strengths of others when possible, but know yours too. In my experience, there is a finite definition of what can or can't be done in any studio of any size. Give me a couple of really good mics, pres, a high-end recording medium (Paris in my case) and a quiet room and I can record a lot of material that will compete with any studio. The difference is the variety of choices, how a drumkit sounds in a great room mic'd well with great mics, or an ensemble, or a complete band or orchestra - where only a high-end room with a great engineer will get the right sound, and you have to have an array of high-end mics and pres to make the most of every track - i.e. no compromises.

I think it is important to distinguish between the value of having a choice in mics, pres, path and experience vs. "a million dollar studio can sound good, and no one else can", which I don't think anyone is implying here; just to delineate a bit. Would I prefer to track with a large choice of gear in a high-end facility? Absolutely - everytime, because that would be the best choice for my projects and artists, even if the cost difference was much greater than the quality difference over doing it myself (assuming budget isn't the limiting factor). Does that mean I can never create an equally great sounding recording unless I do. Nope. Not at all. I just have to minimize or bypass my weaknesses and those of my studio, and maximize my strengths as a producer. I've found enough successful engineers that knew far less than I would have expected at that level to keep me believing in my abilities. Often the only difference is what gear and what recording techniques they are familiar with. The ones that do have an expertise I don't, I try to learn from. The moral of the story is - it pays to know what you can do, what you can't do, make the most of what you have, and try to keep moving up a level as often as possible (budget permitting) - i.e. track elsewhere when you have the money and your own rig, experience or room simply won't do.

More simply, I believe there are ways to get great sounds with less than a million-dollar facility - it does take comparable gear, and a lot of the expertise - the rest is just taste and choice.

Regards,
Dedric

Excuse me, guys, but you're forgetting one very, very important thing: The player! Wanna get some good sounds? Then you need a great musician!
Have you ever heard a difference between a good drummer and an excellent one? I have had an opportunity to hear this when a good drummer was testing the mikes and playing a bit and an excellent one played after him on the same kit. What a difference! There are no mikes, outboards and EQs that could make these two sound equal! To make myself clear: I'm talking about the difference in the SOUND of the kit. So, when you're listening to some recordings and wonder how was this and that recorded or mixed, think about the source first, and you'll find the biggest part of the answer.
Another think that's common in all these posts is that everybody blames gear for bad sound. DAWs are thin, etc... Ever asked yourself a question: "Do I know my way around this equipment? Am I using it best way?"
SSL, NEVE, Pultec, Fairchild and other "Big Time" equipment have some problems, too and a bad engineer, recording a lousy song, played by crappy musician won't make this equipment shine!
Anyway, when you get an opportunity to work with these bigtime consoles, you'll discover it's not so easy to get a good sound, as it seems when you listen to finished recordings.
Branko