well... it is very individual , the1176 has a tight and punchy charecters because it's a hard-knee type of compressor,it can be used sometimes for overall compression but personaly its my favorite group compressor for drums,bass,guitars drum loops and vocals , the c1 is softer because it's a tube soft-knee model , and the finalizer is taking care of almost all the mastering stages (eq , 3-5 band compression & limiting a phase corrector and a very nice soft clip ) but it is a digital unit which i find very effective but you can get even better results using your pc/mac plugins because they can give you more control over everything .
but if you are unexperienced mastering engineer you should use the finalizer because it's a very flexible and easy to use tool ,and you have tons of presets that can be a start for every kind of mastering (i have used this unit more for radio comercials than to rock music...)

Originally posted by TanTan:
but if you are unexperienced mastering engineer you should use the finalizer because it's a very flexible and easy to use tool ,and you have tons of presets that can be a start for every kind of mastering (i have used this unit more for radio comercials than to rock music...)

But you can also do untold damage to musical material if you don't use the Finalizer correctly. Like in anything having to do with audio. LEARN BEFORE YOU BURN!!!!! In other words before you make your final CD do some experimenting with various settings on the Finalizer listen to them on various systems. Sometimes just making a song a bit louder with make it seem like you have done something wonderful to it until you hear it the next day and realize that all you have really done is make the song louder not better.

MTCW

I'm not a big fan of the 1176 for mastering. Love it on some individual tracks though when the need arises. I like to chain multiple compressors and use each one very lightly rather then compressing the hell out of the two mix with a single compressor. I'll sometimes use a Pultec to add a bit of bottom or high end and often use it for attenuation as well. I actually think the L2 can do a fair job but I'll seldom go past -3 with it or it'll start sounding like ass. My goal is to get it loud without sacrificing dynamic range. I'm not a big fan of exciters and the like.

Originally posted by Thomas W. Bethel:

Originally posted by TanTan:
but if you are unexperienced mastering engineer you should use the finalizer because it's a very flexible and easy to use tool ,and you have tons of presets that can be a start for every kind of mastering (i have used this unit more for radio comercials than to rock music...)

But you can also do untold damage to musical material if you don't use the Finalizer correctly. Like in anything having to do with audio. LEARN BEFORE YOU BURN!!!!! In other words before you make your final CD do some experimenting with various settings on the Finalizer listen to them on various systems. Sometimes just making a song a bit louder with make it seem like you have done something wonderful to it until you hear it the next day and realize that all you have really done is make the song louder not better.

MTCW Yes indeed!
I don't like Finalizer for hard Music. Idon't use this box anymore.
That's why I asked which one would you prefer?
Thanx - Vagelis

[/qb][/QUOTE]Yes indeed!
I don't like Finalizer for hard Music. I don't use this box anymore.
That's why I asked which one would you prefer?
Thanx - Vagelis [/QB]

Actually I would use a dbx Quantum. In my opinion it is the best compressor/limiter around for the price. If I had unlimited fiscal resources I would use the Weiss DS-1.

Yes indeed!
I don't like Finalizer for hard Music. Idon't use this box anymore.
That's why I asked which one would you prefer

Like for ALL things, there is no best. But if you are already used to the Finalizer and looking for a step up, look at the TC DBMAX from the Broadcast products which is a more powerful, more flexable, less harsh with less hard sounding artifacts that has had several OS updates to further improve on it. The biggest plus is that it is 1-5 band selectable where the Finalizer is fixed at 3-band. It also has presets for the different standardized broadcasting eq curves that are used for all radio/tv/cable so you are able to get a very good sense of what your material is likely to sound like after broadcast processing has been done.

Thomas ,

Why would you prefer the dbx Quantum to the Finalizer ?

I have the Finalizer Plus (not entirely happy with) and can buy a Quantum for not so many $$$

Marc

It sounds Great!!!!

I can control it from the computer if I want to.

It does not have all the finalizer problems.

It works very well and is somewhat easier to program than the finalizer (although some of the menu choices run a couple of levels deep.

It sounds GREAT!!!!!

Originally posted by Thomas W. Bethel:
It sounds Great!!!!

I can control it from the computer if I want to.

It does not have all the finalizer problems.

It works very well and is somewhat easier to program than the finalizer (although some of the menu choices run a couple of levels deep.

It sounds GREAT!!!!!

Amen to that, Thomas, and a big hello from me - this is my first visit and post to this esteemed forum.

Unlike Thomas I don't have a Quantum II and therefore lack remote control, but AFAIK my original Quantum has much the same innards though Thomas may have extra SRC options. Highly recommended for mastering - my Quantum gets used a lot.

Areas of it I particularly like are the EQ which is excellent for this price bracket (the MS EQ is a tremendous bonus too), the soft clipper, multiband compressor and also the broadband compressor which I've used a lot for tracking and mixing TV music.

I don't find the lack of remote control too bad, and know the various button presses pretty well now so things get done quickly - the menus are organised in a friendly way, most-used items being most accessible so you don't have to 'burrow' too much. The box also has surprisingly good converters which I've used a few times on location sessions to good effect.

I can control it from the computer if I want to.

Is this PC only or does this work on Mac too ?

And is there a big difference between Quantum & Quantum II ?

i read in SoundOnSound (sept '99)

Tape Saturation Emulation is implemented through the A-D converter circuitry ,it is not available to the digital inputs, which seems a shame, since digital sources are often far more likely to benefit from such a facility.

Did this change in the Quantum II ?

Thanks

Marc

[ December 14, 2003, 05:48 AM: Message edited by: henrybob ]

Thomas ......?

Al present the remote control software is only available for the PC. You may write to dbx directly and ask them if they are going to port it over to the MAC.

Never owned a Quantum so I cannot speak to that question.

I never used that effect so I also cannot speak to that part of your question.

More info on the Quantum II can be found at:

http://www.dbxblueseries.com/QuantumII.htm

and

http://www.harmony-central.com/Effects/Data/dbx/Quantum_II-01.html

and

http://www.dbxblueseries.com/quantumover.htm

Hope this helps.

Thanks, Thomas !

BTW : is it possible to describe how fantastic the Weiss sounds ?

And what are the other pros of this fab machine ?

Anybody knows the diff between Quantum I & II ?

Marc

Assuming the Quantum 1 has the latest 1.5 OS, I believe the main difference is that the Quantum II can be controlled remotely from a PC. The Quantum 1 must be edited from the front panel.

I bought a Quantum 1 quite cheaply this past June, and I must say it has been one of my better purchases. A great, if somewhat underrated box. The presets aren't the best, but editing is quite simple once you get a handle on wher ethings are. The converters are surprisingly good, as has been mentioned. I also use the dithering.

Once I bought the Quantum I sold my Waves L2 hardware. What the L2 has that the Quantum doesn't is the invisible gain increase with the digital limiter. Other than that, I found that in very detailed listening tests I preferred the Quantum. I was actually very surprised at what I heard. The L2 is still very very good at what it does best though.