I would skip tape altogether. If you hear what Chris has, I think you will find that the analog summing and analog inserts in a mastering loop combined with a second computer/DAW to capture at the final sample rate will give you what you want without the noise of and hassle of tape.

tape is hard to find and expensive to purchase. it's doubtful clients will be willing to go the distance. when they do print to tape and then dump to the DAW. of course you can always "rent" a reel to the clients. i used to record on ADATs with an MCI console and everything sounded just fine. i see no reason you can't do the same thing with a DAW. in fact that's exactly what the big boys do these days. the DAW is just a recorder. do all the processing with real outboard.

of course you need to get 24 channels or more of conversion, install a real patch bay, buy a bunch of Neve and API pre's (most people don't like the SSL pres for tracking) decent compressors, eq's, gates, get a few high end reverbs, buy some speakers and mics to set up in the L/R for room reverb.

as far as recall, well my friend those are billable hours. tedious, yes. but that's what interns are for. print up some recall sheets, get a digital camera and do the work, get paid. in the old days clients would block out time to mix and you would leave a mix up until you were sure you had it right ...

ssl, 2 inch, it's a real studio. use it bill for it enjoy it.

Well said John and Kurt.

I recently added an SSL G and an API 2500 to the system. The flavoring I expected to get from both these pieces is no disappointment. I don't think you need 32 channels of anything to get the flavour of something if you put the goods where it counts and thats what hybrid offers. If you are thinking like a mastering engineer with the ability to mix, it will start to make more sense to you.
The big console is going to be the tracking but I don't think its the answer for the Mixing and Mastering. What comes out of the DAW and how you go about mixing it all is where it either goes to latency hell or gets better. This is the area most people are lost IMHO. This is where all the shifting happens. Bad stuff.

I'd be coming out of the DAW and going into something the specializes in exactly what John just said. I have no regrets after all I've invested in and I can honestly say I wouldn't change one thing. To my ears, the BIG MIX happens via the analog stems coming out of the summing amp and into something like a Dangerous Master. How you harness that section and transfer it to a capture system is where the glue and size happens. Precise monitoring between your DAW and capture process is critical. If you do the round trip ( sum back to the same DAW) I say its a big big waste of time compared. So a tape machine would be cool but you can keep that. I'd be using a DSD or a second DAW like Sequoia that is set-up for mastering and sending your tracks off to the WWW. One step and its off to online publishing. No SRC on the DAW side at least.
I personally think most people doing this hybrid thing are going about it all goofy.

Things for you to study right now are a capture system and why people like me do that, high headroom summing device(s) ( like the Neos, Dangerous 2-bus) and a patchbay like the X-Patch that connect gear intelligently to the summing device and the converters. Forget the summing devices that add colour. those are a joke. You want big headroom and the ability to mono, mute, monitor the entire process. The monitoring system that connects it all together should be designed like a star ( see the Dangerous Monitor ST).

The console is not what I would call a good monitoring set-up.
There is a lot of guessing between the tracking, mixing and master ( capture device) in a hybrid system. Hybrid = Tracking, Mixing, Mastering. Think mastering while tracking and mixing and you will get it right.

[QUOTE=Kurt Foster;404346 most people don't like the SSL pres for tracking....

which has always puzzled me. I've heard other cookers tell me the same thing, but they've always been a little vague as to why when I ask them for specifics.

I've tracked with SSL's, and, to my ears anyway, they sounded great. I didn't find anything cumbersome about the work area, once you get to know a particular desk and the layout indigenous to that model or brand, one pro desk is much like any other pro desk.

print up some recall sheets, get a digital camera

Which, as most of us had to do, and was kind of a drag, especially compared to the current world of technology, where even the cheapest of digital platforms offer almost complete automation. But, we all did it. It was just part of the job.

I have tape boxes in storage that hold not only track sheets but printed console settings as well.

The E series SSL's, as I recall, were compatible with the G series automation package ( floppy discs for storage). I don't remember for sure, but I don't think that there was an actual E Series automation. As far as the level of automation, it was like anything else at that time, it depended on the particular desk as to whether it was "full" automation - or, VCA driven Faders and Switches. Some packages allowed for recall of dynamics, although the models I worked on personally only automated the on/off feature of the dynamics... it didn't recall actual settings/parameters of the compressor or gates.

The models I worked on were non-automated, non-moving fader models, instead of actual motorized faders, it relied on lighted indicators and a "null set" feature to tell you where the fader was originally. You put the console into recall mode, and then manually moved the fader(s) until an indicator light came on to let you know when the fader was in the correct position. Of course, I'm sure that there were motorized fader features available as well.... I'd be surprised if Peter Gabriel's SSL wasn't loaded to the hilt, with far more features than the models I worked on. LOL

Kurt Foster wrote: most people don't like the SSL pres for tracking....

Donny Air wrote: which has always puzzled me. I've heard other cookers tell me the same thing, but they've always been a little vague as to why when I ask them for specifics.

i have never mixed on an SSL but i think that people just preferred the sound of Neves and APIs for tracking with the ability to push the transformers. more meat. i don't know for sure but i have always thought that SSL didn't have transformers on the inznouts and therfore were more transparent much like a Neotek. .... what i have heard is the SSLs worked well and didn't add too much of the iron / transformer sound a second time around. but the all the stuff at Sunset was recorded exclusively through that Neve ... a matter of taste i suppose.

but SSL was the first to offer automation and what they called "full recall" even though it was far from that. there was still a lot of patching, outboard resets and eqs on the console to reset.

from what i remember the first SSL's were equipped with auto which as you described Donny was a null system with lights ... these were essentially the same type of auto systems that came on the MCIs with DBX 202 VCAs. ... the auto on my MCI worked just fine .. it ate three tracks on the tape 2 for auto 1 for a guard band, although when i had mine i just lost one track to smpte and one for a guard and i recorded the auto info on a synced ADAT ... it was cool because of it being digital you could actually punch in on an auto pass. while the auto on my MCI didn't do eq or aux's you could always patch mults with those changes you needed and have the auto mute and switch the different channels on and off as needed. my 636 had 36 channels plus 4 wild faders so there were plenty of extras to go around. i really liked mixing this way.

again if i had an SSL (or an API, Neve or even an MCI) i would use it to sum and mix. really a large format console is just a great big summing mixer with lots of extra features and an SSL because of it's transparency is an excellent choice.

if you're going to go with something like a Neos (which also is an excellent way to do it) then commit to that. if you're going to have an SSL, then imo, the Neos or whatever other summing choice you would make, becomes redundant.

Kurt explains it precisely. The Warehouse Studio has both Neve and SSL and the Neve is by far the tracking choice, the SSL is the mixing choice. http://warehousestudio.com/index.php?target=item3,item100,item122

SSL in/out spells boring to me compared, so you are going to eventually start looking for vibe. Avoid the huge expense and I would invest in a hybrid mixing set-up. Use the DAW for all the automation and invest in racks of pre's, great converters and a hybrid rig. This makes most scene today. The Maintenance on something like a big console alone will kill you in in the end. Way better going modular today. Things are developing towards this.

Just to add a bit more,

The only reason I would do the SSL console is if you are bringing in freelance mixing engineers. As Kurt describes, its the choice mixing console as engineers float from studio to studio. That's how I'm reading it all.

Is this the direction of your studio?

Chris,

i agree with you for the home studio or small mid level facility a big console is a no go for a number of reasons. but consoles are the centerpiece of a professional commercial studio. they define the sound of a room and there's always the ooh factor when you are trying to convince a potential client to book your room at 60 bucks (or more) an hour.

with a console or with a summing solution, it's still hybrid mixing. the term hybrid is not exclusive to the use of a stand alone summing solution.

a mix in a big room wouldn't use stems from the DAW. each track would be output to a discreet channel on the console at nominal level (full bit /no boost or attenuation) and then mixed / summed entirely in analog. no digital summing whatsoever. try it yourself. take discreet tracks and mix them / no summing or stems from the DAW and then sum them in the DAW and send them from the DAW in stems. i think you will hear a difference. once you sum or eq or change levels in a DAW, the damage is done and you can't undo it. DAWs are great for recording and editing but they suck for eq's processing, or when you begin to jack the levels around. find your nominal levels, -18 / -16/ -12 (whatever) and set it then leave it there. full bits out.

DAWs are great for recording but they suck for mixing. this is why most major productions still being done in NY / Nashville / LA are being done in large traditional studios with a Neve or API on the front end and SSL's at mix. the DAW's are used mostly as a glorified recorder and most processing is done in analog because analog processing just sounds better than plug ins. same with eq. real analog eq's built into the better consoles just sound better.

yes you can find guys who use plugs and that might be they are warming up to the sound the plugs offer rather than the real things or maybe these guys are doing at least part of their work itb at times and they need the plugs. but the guys who work in the big rooms all the time though still using hardware in large.

with a summing mixer but you would need at least 8/16/ 24/ 32 outboard eq's/ comps to match what a well equipped console could offer but you would still not have all the aux functions. consoles can offer on board compressors on every channel as well as multiple paths to mix, several aux sends that can be pre or post, monitor paths for both C/R, headphones and studio mains all simultaneously. the mix is printed to a separate system either a stand alone DSD or a hi res DAW, through separate converters just as you are doing to avoid sample rate reduction and dithering.

not everyone can afford the initial cost of purchasing and commission a large format console, let alone the upkeep of said console or the real estate involved to house one. Client base and type of work may not warrant such an investment and in those case the smaller format summing solutions and the use of plug ins and a more economic use of outboard may be just the right solution.

.

.

Totally agree and get it all. I used consoles for 18 years.

This is what ITB is to me lol.

I never sum ITB. Hate it and don't see me returning ITB anytime soon. I use my DAW like a recorder and editor and treat every move I make like borrowing money, or running a race. Once you start adding clothing, rubber boots lol, , things start getting goofy. Kind of like Monty Pythons Twit race lol.

I think we all don't realize how Plug-ins are a latency phase nightmare that creep up on a mix. Man, I think twice every-time I use anything ITB. Plug-ins are like opening a Pandora box to me.
I also get the commercial studio appeal and the ability to have 32 channel strips. I hope acoustic music keeps growing.

Its always wonderful walking into a room that has a console. Even a crappy Tascam does it for me! But, consoles limit you, or force one sound. Digital technology is not going backwards. Specialized modules that work with DAW's may not look as impressive as a console but they will excel and dominate the new recording world coming. And I'm not talking about bells and whistles.

It will be fun to reflect back on all this stuff in ten years.

Food for thought and a big question.
Why would I want to pay for an SSL compressor on each channel? This is ludicrous today and to me, really boring compared to bypassing all that extra noise and shaping sound where it counts.

SSL is not great for half of the music I can imagine.
As an example of what I just discovered:

The Neos has a huge vibe of energy. I can tell right away what something sounds like when I insert it. The Neos doesn't restrict, it welcomes and always reports back whatever you feed it. There isn't a more powerful summing system on the planet that I know of.
It tells the truth of what something sounds like. This is what I like about hybrid. Its a place to hold a party of different themes. I don't concider a console as true hybrid. Its mixing OTB on a console. I know others will disagree but thats how I think.

Two examples of what I just discovered.

The API 2500 seems to keep the space and electric energy open in a mix. If I want to keep going, this is a good thing. The SSL G on the other hand reacts like a stop, like the end of the party and a summery of what just happened.

But either of these might be good or bad in certain area's of a mix.

If I had an SSL console, I can only imagine this, but the SSL wouldn't be something I would want on every channel after what I hear. But, it is definitely something that I want in a push of a button.

Check this new Dave Hill comp. There is going to be more and more stuff like this designed for modular hybrid systems. These products will be the demise of traditional consoles.
I don't see owning a console as logical anymore. Pro audio is changing way to fast to be locked into one product.
I'd love to have an API 1608 but I bet I would be mixing on my rig more than that. Okay, maybe this is what people would pay for in a commercial studio but for how long?

Anyway, I don't want this thread to be all about my set-up. It works for me and like I say, I would love a 1608.
I think we all love gear.

i'm with you on this Chris. if i had the need for a console, it wouldn't be an SSL. the only reason to have an SSL imo is for client demand or if someone dropped one in your lap at a ridiculously good price. if i had one i would use it. but given the choice, i would also lean to an API. i'm not sure it would be a 1608 although they do look nice but if i were going to take the plunge i think i would want more than 16 channels. 24 minimum, 32 would be better. a 1608 for tracking and a Neos for summing at mix would be su-weeet!

any summing itb can be detrimental (even into stems). anything that makes the computer do math, any processing itb ... detrimental. eq, compression, level changes, mix automation in the box all will compromise the sound. despite the promise of a console-less studio all DAWs do well is record playback (at fixed level) and edit. even a cheap crappy mackie will sum your mix better than itb. now i'm not saying a good mix cannot be done itb, i'm just saying it would probably sound better if it were done on a console.

if i had the client base and very deep pockets i could also live with another MCI JH-636 with super eq's, moving faders, loaded with Hardy pres. call me silly, i just love how those old beasts sound. i would get a bunch of Radial lunchbox's and stuff them with Neve and API pres and EQ's for tracking and restore my compressor collection with LA2's LA3's and 1176's and get a few pairs of system 9098 pres/ eq's.

Ya, you are reading my mind lol.

I've never had the opportunity to use or hear Hardy pre's. I'd love the [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.johnhard…"]Jensen Twin Servo 990 Mic Preamp 2-Channel[/]="http://www.johnhard…"]Jensen Twin Servo 990 Mic Preamp 2-Channel[/]
Maybe one day.

audiokid, post: 404393 wrote: I've never had the opportunity to use or hear Hardy pre's. I'd love the [="http://www.johnhardyco.com/JTS9902ChDetails.html"]Jensen Twin Servo 990 Mic Preamp 2-Channel[/]="http://www.johnhard…"]Jensen Twin Servo 990 Mic Preamp 2-Channel[/]
Maybe one day.

that's them! [[url=http://="http://www.google.c…"]same thing[/]="http://www.google.c…"]same thing[/]. they make them to fit for a 600 series channel strip. transformer and all!

Can you explain their sound?

big like a GR but cleaner. can be run anywhere between very clean like a Millennia to colored like a vintage Neve. a very versatile pre.

in case your wondering what spawned my question it's the studio i work for is moving(has two, moving the weaker one), i dunno if you remember the thread i started a few months ago that went array by page 8 or whatever, but after months of negotiation the deal went down, under what i think are fair terms. and since building a commercial facility as large as this one, is absurdly impractical, this is the only way for his business to break out of the 'mid-level'. it's gonna be insane, and every contact the old timer who works there has left is gonna be utilized, but lets face it, your not gonna get a band w/ a 25k budget to come to a studio in a mill type practice facility. so he's decided to go big, or go broke trying. i'll start a thread somewhere else showing our progress.

the only reason to have an SSL imo is for client demand or if someone dropped one in your lap at a ridiculously good price.

shockingly that just may happen. the barter system is an amazing thing, to me the cost of giving someone a couple days a month for an e-series is a no brainer, even tho the electricity bill will go up by 150 per mo. The studio is all setup for it cuz that's what it was built around, in 1982. it even has a separate room w/ ac supply for the power supply. So we'll see if this all happens, it's likely, but not absolutely for sure yet.

Its always wonderful walking into a room that has a console.

i agree wow factor is an excellent sales person. it certainly looks way cooler than the 42 channels of mackie control surface currently in use.

if it were my choice, which is isn't i would get a neve. but there is a healthy 12 ch of api pre's, along w/ dual channels of cartec, manley,neve, 4ch brent avril. summit tla-100, joemeek sc2, 1176ln, and a couple more i can't think of after ten hr's of ripping down insulation. so were aren't necessarily married to the ssl input section. we're gonna use all mogami wiring (canare for xtra stuff), quested nearfields, ueri 813c mains, and all the usual commercial studio mics, including a c-12. while it's not bricasti, we have the classic yamaha spx 90, and eventide h3000 for people interested in ob verb. but we also have a reverb room. there's a reasonable amount of good OB equipment there. we don;t have jack joeseph puigs collection, but it's certainly not a semi-professional setup.

besides the fact that it's super fun to mix otb, i think it's just as much about curb appeal. if kenny wayne sheppard showed up, he ain't gonna stay if he see's mackie on anything.

I would skip tape altogether.

most people can't afford it. but it's useful to have the machines to do restoration work. and since it's become 'hip' again it's good to at least have to offer. more often than not, they'd just rent the tape.

Think mastering while tracking and mixing and you will get it right.

very interesting way to think about it.

The only reason I would do the SSL console is if you are bringing in freelance mixing engineers. As Kurt describes, its the choice mixing console as engineers float from studio to studio. That's how I'm reading it all.

Is this the direction of your studio?

no, mixing is certainly what the chief engineer made his millions doing, so it will be a big part of what we offer, which perhaps is why he pushes so hard for this board to the owner. our focus is to be an all-incompasing studio, in a pleasant area. we are going to be able to sleep six, with a small kitchen and shower. Mix, restore, master, record (not necessarily in that order). i'm also working on putting together a monthly web cast (we have a professional videographer who works w/ us), so we could kinda do like a 'live w/ jules asner' type thing. i'm going at this at every angle. or at least trying to.

I think we all don't realize how Plug-ins are a latency phase nightmare that creep up on a mix. Man, I think twice every-time I use anything ITB. Plug-ins are like opening a Pandora box to me.
I also get the commercial studio appeal and the ability to have 32 channel strips. I hope acoustic music keeps growing.

this couldn't be more true. that's the first thing my boss told me when i met him 4 or 5 years ago. he said your using way too many plugins. my mixes sounded fuller and clearer dry. even the 'best' plug-insget cheesy very quickly. I tend to use buses to try to limit the amount of dsp i use

The E series SSL's, as I recall, were compatible with the G series automation package ( floppy discs for storage).

i hope so. but then, where am i gonna find floppy discs!? "new thunderbolt to floppy drive box", lol, not happening. i can already see the disgust on people's faces while i'm learning the not-so total recall. i'm gonna have to get fast asap.

anyway sorry for the long winded post i don't have much shop talk time for the next 7 weeks. but i appreciate the angles, and what seems to be consensus opinions on certain things. I watched an interview w/ Chris Lorge Alge who still uses that board (sure you all know he's almost exclusively a mixer), and his method is to submix (bounce) things (like vocs, strings ect.) into stereo pairs itb, then bring it out to however many channels he has, like 48 or something.

it's actually intersting cuz we could use a secondary computer (the old mac g5) for a setup similar to yours chris. i'll have to explore this in more detail, cuz i liked the results of what i've heard ya do. anyways i'm outy, been up for 24hrs straight again. this is gonna be crazy!

Kurt said:

not everyone can afford the initial cost of purchasing and commission a large format console, let alone the upkeep of said console or the real estate involved to house one.

LOL, not to mention having one of each. "Honey... I need two $80 thousand dollar consoles....a Neve for tracking and an SSL for mixing....oh, and we're gonna have to knock out a few walls..." LOL

Chris said:

I think we all don't realize how Plug-ins are a latency phase nightmare that creep up on a mix. Man, I think twice every-time I use anything ITB. Plug-ins are like opening a Pandora box to me.

I've come to realize this myself in the past couple years. And not just in regard to phase/latency, either. Tone, definition, warmth and clarity can also be effected.

A few months ago, I opened up an old project file that I hadn't worked with in quite sometime. I decided on a total remix from the ground up, so I removed all processing from the tracks, leaving nothing but the recorded tracks in their original form. I couldn't believe the clarity, definition and depth that returned to the mix upon doing so.

Now, it could be argued that I had simply over-processed the tracks, and I suppose that's possible, but it's not as if I just started mixing yesterday - I've had quite a few years of experience mixing, and truthfully, I didn't really have all that much going on...Most here who have heard my mixes would probably agree that I usually don't tend to go over-the-top with regard to FX or processing, so it's not as if I had massive amounts of compression or limiting, or dramatic changes in EQ, or tracks swamped with reverb, flange or delay. The FX and processing were pretty minimal. But, when I removed all those plugs to start over, the clarity and integrity of the tracks was more than just a little evident... as subtle as a kick in the crotch.

It's not just the "less is more" approach. Even minimal amounts of the wrong processing can do damage, because these FX often skew the integrity of the tracks. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not the fact that I used too much processing... it's that I used the processing, period. You could use even the barest or most minimal amount of reverb, but ...if that particular reverb plug damages the integrity of the audio, it doesn't matter how much or how little you add.

An example... I had originally tracked an acoustic guitar on the track I mentioned above, using an M-S mic array (414 as the Fig 8 and a C1000 as the center). I added a slight amount of compression and verb, and when I removed this processing to start over, the width and depth of the M-S array came shining through. In using processing plugs on the track - even the most minimal amount - I had damaged the natural scope, width and depth that a nice M-S pair can offer. I just hadn't realized it at the time.

The downside is that I don't have a rack of peripheral OB gear to tap. Like many other users, I have no alternatives but to use the plugs. However, in the last year or so, I've become much more aware of just how much, at times, some plugs can negatively effect the overall mix.

IMHO of course.
-d.

DonnyThompson, post: 404415 wrote:
LOL, not to mention having one of each. "Honey... I need two $80 thousand dollar consoles....a Neve for tracking and an SSL for mixing....oh, and we're gonna have to knock out a few walls..." LOL

Here it is, waiting for me, and in Canada. I suppose I could sell the boat, but didn't I just say I was thinking about selling my gear and buying a bigger boat a few months ago? facepalm

(Dead Link Removed)

Sounds like this studio is going to be a riot kmetal!

audiokid, post: 404393 wrote: I've never had the opportunity to use or hear Hardy pre's. I'd love the [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.johnhard…"]Jensen Twin Servo 990 Mic Preamp 2-Channel[/]="http://www.johnhard…"]Jensen Twin Servo 990 Mic Preamp 2-Channel[/]
Maybe one day.

Yes you would. My ADK Custom Shop MP-2 pre has a Hardy-esque option. The 990 op-amps are an option made for it as well as a Jensen transformer. While not the JT-16 the Hardy uses, it is a Jensen and gets you very close combined with the op-amp. This is a very high-fidelity combination. Its not the twin Servo topology but then what is! As Kurt said, Hardy makes a direct replacement card for the MCI and the Sony consoles. They don't include the Twin Servo topology either but I have recorded on a desk with Hardy pres installed and it was pretty darned good.

I would like to add my take on the ITB and the use of plugs and what it does to the integrity of well-recorded tracks. The key here being "well-recorded"......

I have found myself using less and less over the years even when I have a lot to choose from. AND I also find myself choosing plugs that have a lot less problems with phase coherence.

Long ago and far away in another galaxy, I was taught some stuff by an older engineer who "knew things". One of these was the relationship of Phase to Clarity. His entire premise was to be completely in phase at every point in the relationship with a signal and a source. So he built little phase boxes. All of them has some sort of phase 'tilt' he could adjust and consequently he almost never touched any of the four Pultecs he had in the rack. His EQ on the board was a couple of passive Hi/Low knobs that he also didnt use very often. Everything was about placement and phase.

And this produced fidelity at all frequencies.

The Little Labs IBP and IBPJunior is just such a tool

Exactly Dave!

This is the best advice, why I have invested in OTB and what I rant and obsess over. When everything is in phase, including time lines between L/R channels, the center focus gets tight and your mix gets huge. It makes mixing a dream. And, you need less EQing.

The Neos is a massive headroom, 120v rail , correctly phased to my ears and I'm guessing why these big volt consoles sound so awesome. I actually went so far to specifically request non detent panning pots because I am a phase fanatic. I hear everything with this console and can dial in or recognize issues with precision. And ME wanting the Detent version because of recall, I don't know about that...

Do you all hear that swirly digital sound in digital mixes today? This is the first area I attack in a mix. Its also why I prefer Stem Mixing over mastering any day of the week. You can dig in deep and fix phase ITB then sub it out to step it up via hybrid summing.. Its the real deal.

To my ears, the majority of digital mixes are phase problematic. You nailed the golden rule, Dave. but...

• I'm convinced we cannot stop phase issues from happening ITB. Phase issues creep up on us like a virus. We think its the sound of our mix. People are getting conditioned to that phasy/ shifted sound. They also think its the sound of MP3.
• Also: If anyone is doing the "round trip", (inserting hardware into your DAW session like we do on a console) latency related phase issues creeps up there as well. Hybrid mixing can be a terrible process if you aren't going about it right either. Long cable runs, slow converters, weak clocks, bad power, unchecked micing, spacial and acoustic reflections etc etc, and ADDA tracks back and forth is about as bad as it gets. Thus, why I keep the straightest wire possible, go one direction and do not want all that extra stuff ( that belongs on the way in) in the path going back out to the summing system. To my knowledge, the majority are not doing hybrid mixing right at all. So, let the Neve's and API flavours of the world make the music and let the hybrid mixing consoles tighten it all up. To me that would be the perfect system. Neve/API > AD> DAW#1 > DA> Analog Summing system > Capture DAW#2 > Limiter> Internet > Done.

So how do you monitor this system? Through your coloured Neve or what? Another topic...

Plug-ins ... I think a large percentage of plug-ins look better than they react, especially when you use them with other plug-ins. I think we have a long ways to go before simulators will truly will do what vintage iron does in a phase coherent chain. Gain management, phase and power makes audio special and enjoyable to listen to for long hours at a time..

I wonder how designers test their plug-ins with other third party code. Can you imagine how much money it would cost to have all the plugins on the same page, all happy together and every computer and OS on the planet! Wishful thinking I'd say.
Its why I use and highly recommend Sequoia/ as the DAW of choice and why most ME use that DAW. It does that math.. and you don't need third party extra's with that product. Unlike Pro Tools that is a super market for all the crappy phasy code, Sequoia works and is all tested as a complete system.

• I'm convinced if we mix ITB, we cannot hear it happening. It creeps up on us like a virus. We think its the sound of our mix. People are getting conditioned to that phasy sound. They think its also the sound of MP3 lol.
• Also: If anyone is doing the "round trip", ( inserting hardware into your DAW session) phase and latency creeps up on you as well .

i think that's why we should just take direct sends from each track at nominal level (most important) from the DAW and then mix sum and add effects at the console.

in regards to phase issues, this was something a guy named Armin Steiner (i've mentioned this several times) was a very meticulous about as far back as the 60's. people were trying to figure out how he was getting such great mix's out of a garage studio in his moms house. turned out he had those phase control box's he dialed in the phase to be coherent when he tracked and at mix. MCI and other manufactures used to offer an option of phase correlation meters on their consoles.

when i had my MCI at he start of every session i would go through the tracks one by one comparing with the other tracks already up, which way on the phase switch on the channel strip sounded better. the correct one was the one that sounded fatter. i had one client a guy named George who was so impressed that i had done this before he had arrived at the session. appearently no other engineers in the area that he had worked with knew to do it. he came back often and spent a ton of cash ... all because that one thing convinced him i knew what i was doing.

Absolutely!

Its why I want two Bricasti as well. No plug-ins! I want ALL outboard efx hardware again. I need a great delay. I bought an Orville but it wasn't open sounding enough so I returned it. I need something like the Bricasti for an echo box. Any suggestion, please share?

I love this topic.

I know you have it right Kurt, its so obvious. The first thing I noticed with your track I played with a while back was it was in phase from the tracking on! And its why it sounded so warm and easy to listen to.

I need to learn more about this phase box you are both talking about. Although, i don't think it is that useful for my service because I use my eyes and ears jogging tracks that other people missed during tracking, yes/no?

We should be promoting this here, or marketing it lol! hmm, come to think about it, I think I saw a DI manufacturer have something like this?

I need to learn more about this phase box you are both talking about. Although, i don't think it is that useful for my service because I use my eyes and ears jogging tracks that other people missed during tracking, yes/no? ....... We should be promoting this here, or marketing it lol! hmm, come to think about it, I think I saw a DI manufacturer have something like this?

i have been saying this over and over since the times when i had Carol Kay on the forum back in 2003 answering questions. this is all part of the Wrecking Crew legacy. Stiener was cutting sides "sans vocals" for Barry Gordy off the Union books so Gordy could take Wrecking Crew tracks back to Detriot for vocal overdubs, which was strictly against the Union rules. this is the source of much of the Carol Kay / James Jamerson riff. only Gordy knows which tracks are which and he ain't talking.

Here's a quote from [="http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_armin_steiner/"]Armin Stiener in a MIX inteview[/]="http://mixonline.co…"]Armin Stiener in a MIX inteview[/]

"One thing that was really significant to that studio, and part of the reason our sound was so good, was that we developed a phase-correcting network that we used on every channel of our tape machines.

Using tape, as opposed to recording direct to disc, made phase shift properties more apparent. When the fundamental and its overtones don't arrive at the same place at the same time, and the sound is a little bit spread, you don't hear it coming back exactly like you do in the room. What Bert did was design a device we called a “scrambler.” So if we had a 3-track recorder, we would have a scrambling device for each of the three channels, and they would be tuned to the characteristic of the tape track. We'd come out of the bus, into the scrambler, out of the scrambler, into the tape machine. And it would decode itself better. It was a compromise between shifting the high end and the low end at the same time, and it created better transients. We were the only ones who had that."

Little Labs is making [[url=http://="http://www.littlela…"]box's like this[/]="http://www.littlela…"]box's like this[/] now ...

Would something like this work as an insert on a stem or as the first piece in a patchbay between the DAW and the Neos?
http://www.littlelabs.com/ibp.html

Man, this is a cool product. Looks like it would work.
http://www.littlelabs.com/ibp-ibp_jr.pdf

hmm, plug-in

audiokid, post: 404458 wrote: Would something like this work as an insert on a stem or as the first piece in a patchbay between the DAW and the Neos?
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.littlela…"]Little Labs[/]="http://www.littlela…"]Little Labs[/]

i would stick to the hardware version. plug in sounds like more of what we've been talking about. less plug the better, right?

Stiener was doing it on tracks as he recorded. these were 3 track machines so i would guess the answer is yes it would work on stems. too bad the don't make an 8 channel version.

When everything is in phase, including time lines between L/R channels, the center focus gets tight and your mix gets huge. It makes mixing a dream. And, you need less EQing.

i think people reach for the eq to quickly because they don;t know they are hearing phase issues, or that eq'ing is essentially messing w/ phase. i swear lack of phase coherence is why there are so many bad drum recordings coming out of home studios. It amazes me how much this concept gets over looked in magazine tutorials books ect. it's always move the mic around till it sounds good, but they never say why! i didn;t really start to usderstand this until a few years ago. ______ magazine will show you 15 different mic techniques and never tell you to 'make sure you to try reversing the polarity.

that lil labs thing look cool, i thought that a beyer m160 was next for me, but, man i dunno. a definate must try.

as far as plug-insgo, does anyone know exactly why they introduce phase like characteristics? i know alot of programs have 'automatic' delay compensation, is that to try to attack that problem? is it that cpus or ram, just can't keep up? do 'all' digital processor's introduce some sort of phase issues? i haven't noticed it really on anything but plugins. (could just be me tho).

kmetal, post: 404517 wrote: i think people reach for the eq to quickly because they don;t know they are hearing phase issues, or that eq'ing is essentially messing w/ phase. i swear lack of phase coherence is why there are so many bad drum recordings coming out of home studios. It amazes me how much this concept gets over looked in magazine tutorials books ect. it's always move the mic around till it sounds good, but they never say why! i didn;t really start to usderstand this until a few years ago. ______ magazine will show you 15 different mic techniques and never tell you to 'make sure you to try reversing the polarity.

one thing that helps prevent phase problems is the [[url=http://[/URL]="http://en.wikiaudio…"]3 to 1 rule[/]="http://en.wikiaudio…"]3 to 1 rule[/]. this is a basic fundamental of recording but it is surprising how many home recordists are unaware of it.

ow picture this. a drum set mic up with a mic on every drum ... two for the snare and two for the kick. add to the equation a drummer who crams all his drums together and places his cymbals 3 inches above the toms so he doesn't have to move at all when he's playing. how in the hell are you going to observe the 3 to 1 rule? this is why the Glyn Johns method is such a great solution .... but then you have to have a great sounding room ... each step opens a new can of worms. one workaround this problem engineers developed with multi miking set ups was to place the overheads at least 3 or 4 feet above the kit, pull most of the mix out of the overheads accenting the snare and kick mostly and the hard gateing the toms so they only opened when they were hit. you need really good gates for this ( usually Drawmers / Dynamites / Keepex) because cheap gates have a tendency to chatter or false trigger. With DAWs you can just draw out the waveforms between hits. Good Housekeeping.

this is why there are no substitutes for sound techniques and room designs, and why quality equipment is a must.

With DAWs you can just draw out the waveforms between hits.

yeah for most sessions, i just end up deleting the chatter altogether and just 'batch fading' the heads and tails, or sometimes i just leave it, especially for demos when the bands are good. if the tom mics aren't hurting the overall sound, why bother killing em'?

i've been using x/y almost exclusively for overheads about 3 ft over the kit. OH + Kik. all i need, in the studio room anyway. also, kinda off topic, but i've been using a 'kit' mic, a nice condenser (414 or 87) like 3-8 ft in front just high than the kick. oooof punch city, and ambience controlled by distance. love it.!!!!

this is why the Glyn Johns method is such a great solution

it'll be another 5 or six weeks till i get finished w/ this other studio remodel, but i'm gonna try it as soon as i can, been aware of it for a while just never bothered.

Kurt Foster, post: 404464 wrote: i would stick to the hardware version. plug in sounds like more of what we've been talking about. less plug the better, right?

Stiener was doing it on tracks as he recorded. these were 3 track machines so i would guess the answer is yes it would work on stems. too bad the don't make an 8 channel version.

Both do the work they are designed to do. I have the UAD plug-in and as I have said, even though I haven't had an opportunity to try the Little Labs version, some of my early schooling was with an engineer who built his own phase coherrant corrective devices and they were able to 'tilt' phase 0-180 degrees. His were used on the mic lines at tracking and eliminated any need for anything past that point. With the ability to slide tracks in micro-seconds and adjust the phase a variable amount there should never be 'poorly recorded' tracks. Phase flip switches on a console do work and I use them judiciously but phase is a funny phenom and 180degrees isnt always going to completely fix the problem.

BTW...the Little Labs list of tools is something every studio should consider. There are several that will absolutely blow yer mind on what they do. You'd be surprised to learn just how many of todays big-time producers and engineers use these things to get "That Sound". An amazing company!