eq and comp plugs have come a very long way from the waves c1 :)

+1 on Ozone, I have 5.x advanced and Alloy 2 and Nectar 2 also. Nowadays I use them a bit more sparingly, the meter section of OA is amazing, my biggest gripe of Logic Pro X, lack of good metering.

Donny Air wrote: The price is $99. Inexpensive for a plug, but pretty redundant in that the tools used already come stock with all major DAW platforms.

$99 here, $99 there, pretty soon it adds up to real money!

At the time of that writing - my original post, I was still relying heavily on plugs. Over the course of the last year or so however, and after switching DAW platforms entirely ( from Sonar to Samplitude Pro X) I'm using them less and less, and consciously so..

To use processor plugs in an "as needed" basis is one thing, and there are certainly times where I do use the stock plugs that come resident with Samplitude - GR, EQ, some verb and delay.... but there's a big difference in using them in this as-needed situation, versus leaning and relying on them alone to improve a mix. Understand that the more of these plugs you add, the more you have to deal with in the mix, for better and for worse.

I'm fairly convinced in the phenomena of the more plugs you buy, the more you tend to use them - and sometimes in a reflexive knee-jerk fashion - without first considering whether you really need them or not.

Different people will have different processes and preferences - On one end, Kurt is our analog purist guy, and if asked, he would come right out and tell you that he prefers an analog desk and a 2" deck. On the other end, there are others here who are doing mainly electronica, and they rely heavily on samples, loops, etc. as the basis of their productions. I fall somewhere in the middle, I guess. I came up learning in the analog world, and cut my teeth on consoles and tape machines, but as technology grew, and other options became available, I found myself taking more advantage of these hi-tech tools - but...I won't lie... there are times where I feel that I rely far too much on technology, and far too less on the music and the performance.

These days, I'm trying to find a common ground, where I can take advantage of what DAW's have to offer, yet at the same time, remembering that the music is what matters the most, and that has led me to a more basic and simple approach to production - and using these various processor plugs on an as-needed-only basis, has resulted in better clarity, better imaging, and better fidelity all-round. This approach has really cleaned up a lot of the messes I was making, back when I relied on plugs to create music.

I have a dear friend, a marvelous musician, a fantastic writer and arranger... but the worst thing that he ever did was to become a "plug-slut" - and he began a purchasing jag that continues to this day. His continual and endless quest for every plug that comes out that claims to do wonders to tracks... UAD, Izotope, Waves...you name it, he has it. And if something new comes out... a "better" compressor, a "lusher" reverb, a "new and improved" stereo imager.... he reaches for his Visa every time, and adds more and more of these to his already-bloated collection of processor plugs.

I understand GAS - and have been one who has also suffered from this from time to time as well, like anyone else in our craft... but, I visit some of my client's home recording rooms as a consultant, and it absolutely baffles me as to why they have so many different versions of the exact same thing! Is it really necessary to have 50 different compressors, 60 different EQ's, 25 different Limiters, 38 Reverbs, 27 Delays, 2 Turtledoves ... and a partridge in a pear tree? LOL.

I'm not trying to convince anyone either way in terns of plug usage. We all have our own methods and workflows that we prefer, or feel that works best for our own individual styles, so... use what you use, (and neither force it on anyone else or make apologies for what you do), but, make sure that you understand exactly what these processors are doing to your sonics, before you start throwing 8 different "whatevers" on every single track, just because you have them.

Stop and think a bit before you reach for a plug.
Make sure you understand just what it does (there are so many of my clients who have no idea what certain processors even do, yet they still insert it into their tracks ... go figure) and what the result will be once you insert it. You can have the most expensive limiter-compressor plug available, but if your music doesn't sound good when you use it, what's the point?

In the end, the music you make is what will speak the loudest; it's your final testimony of not only what you do... but even more importantly... how well you do it.

IMHO of course. ;)

d/

DonnyThompson, post: 418629, member: 46114 wrote: At the time of that writing - my original post, I was still relying heavily on plugs. Over the course of the last year or so however, and after switching DAW platforms entirely ( from Sonar to Samplitude Pro X) I'm using them less and less, and consciously so..

To use processor plugs in an "as needed" basis is one thing, and there are certainly times where I do use the stock plugs that come resident with Samplitude - GR, EQ, some verb and delay.... but there's a big difference in using them in this as-needed situation, versus leaning and relying on them alone to improve a mix. Understand that the more of these plugs you add, the more you have to deal with in the mix, for better and for worse.

I'm fairly convinced in the phenomena of the more plugs you buy, the more you tend to use them - and sometimes in a reflexive knee-jerk fashion - without first considering whether you really need them or not.

Different people will have different processes and preferences - On one end, Kurt is our analog purist guy, and if asked, he would come right out and tell you that he prefers an analog desk and a 2" deck. On the other end, there are others here who are doing mainly electronica, and they rely heavily on samples, loops, etc. as the basis of their productions. I fall somewhere in the middle, I guess. I came up learning in the analog world, and cut my teeth on consoles and tape machines, but as technology grew, and other options became available, I found myself taking more advantage of these hi-tech tools - but...I won't lie... there are times where I feel that I rely far too much on technology, and far too less on the music and the performance.

These days, I'm trying to find a common ground, where I can take advantage of what DAW's have to offer, yet at the same time, remembering that the music is what matters the most, and that has led me to a more basic and simple approach to production - and using these various processor plugs on an as-needed-only basis, has resulted in better clarity, better imaging, and better fidelity all-round. This approach has really cleaned up a lot of the messes I was making, back when I relied on plugs to create music.

I have a dear friend, a marvelous musician, a fantastic writer and arranger... but the worst thing that he ever did was to become a "plug-slut" - and he began a purchasing jag that continues to this day. His continual and endless quest for every plug that comes out that claims to do wonders to tracks... UAD, Izotope, Waves...you name it, he has it. And if something new comes out... a "better" compressor, a "lusher" reverb, a "new and improved" stereo imager.... he reaches for his Visa every time, and adds more and more of these to his already-bloated collection of processor plugs.

I understand GAS - and have been one who has also suffered from this from time to time as well, like anyone else in our craft... but, I visit some of my client's home recording rooms as a consultant, and it absolutely baffles me as to why they have so many different versions of the exact same thing! Is it really necessary to have 50 different compressors, 60 different EQ's, 25 different Limiters, 38 Reverbs, 27 Delays, 2 Turtledoves ... and a partridge in a pear tree? LOL.

I'm not trying to convince anyone either way in terns of plug usage. We all have our own methods and workflows that we prefer, or feel that works best for our own individual styles, so... use what you use, (and neither force it on anyone else or make apologies for what you do), but, make sure that you understand exactly what these processors are doing to your sonics, before you start throwing 8 different "whatevers" on every single track, just because you have them.

Stop and think a bit before you reach for a plug.
Make sure you understand just what it does (there are so many of my clients who have no idea what certain processors even do, yet they still insert it into their tracks ... go figure) and what the result will be once you insert it. You can have the most expensive limiter-compressor plug available, but if your music doesn't sound good when you use it, what's the point?

In the end, the music you make is what will speak the loudest; it's your final testimony of not only what you do... but even more importantly... how well you do it.

IMHO of course. ;)

d/

You took the words right out of my mouth! Nicely put Donny.

For the essential tools (comps, EQ), I'm convinced, plug-ins are more of an image based around a preset than a difference between each one. Its digital lol.
oodles of plug-ins are presets for those who have never used or understand the real products they emulate. I'm not saying they suck, I am saying WE shouldn't need 10 flavours of EQ's in a digital world. Are WE nuts lol!

The biggest laugh of 2014 for me is seeing a Dangerous BAX or MEQ as a plug-in. The the money we are wasting on all these pictures, is nothing short of laughable.
CODERS > PLEASE CONVINCE ME I AM WRONG?

I will say this: CODE and the coders ability to make their plug-in run on every DAW is insanity. The integrity of each plug-in is subjective to YOUR DAW and YOUR processing conflicts or setbacks which accumulate as you add or remove bit by bit.
The best DAW's are the DAW's that need no third party plug-ins. Software should be Coded to work in the DAW it was designed for, not for every DAW on the planet. Other than specialized well tested code, most of this G.A.S is complete consumer nonsense subsidizing the dieing boutique hardware manufactures. Oodles of comps and EQ plug-ins is for the blind.

Special effects, sampling and restoration /mastering software, that's a different story. I think [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.izotope…"]Izotope[/]="http://www.izotope…"]Izotope[/] Ozone, ALONG WITH other high end restoration and mastering software is unmatched. Post Production software, HD room simulators , forensic tool, spectral editing, all that, indeed! So how much of all this do we really need to make a song with drums, guitars and vocals sound good? Not much more than a good DAW that works imho. Less is more.

I just started demo's of some of the new UAD plug ins that came out recently.. The BAX, Elysiia Compressor. The reissued Pulltec, The 1073 pre amp/eq.

I'm not planning on getting any of them.. The Elysia is something I will check out more it has some stuff on it that is interesting.
The BAX has a sound that's hard to get with the rest of my plug ins.. The only problem is I found a combination of plug ins I already have that sound better. The BAX is too scooped for my liking..

The 1073 pre eq thing i think is better for someone with an Apollo.. for me no difference between that and the 1073 that I already own..
The reissued Pultec isn't worth upgrading either..

So,, to me UAD is great but not perfect.. not every plug in they have is worth getting... Mostly because they are reinventing the wheel..
and putting things out for the cards and the Apollo.. Perhaps If I had an Apollo I would be able to appreciate something like the 1073 or 610 channel strips.

I would like to hear if a daw could match the sound of the UAD 1073. Haven't heard anything that has that sound...

Can you post something with the UAD 1073 in use?

Sure..

https://www.mediafire.com/folder/n6vkblzk89ycd/1073

Have you ecv

Chris Perra, post: 418882, member: 48232 wrote: I just started demo's of some of the new UAD plug ins that came out recently.. The BAX, Elysiia Compressor. The reissued Pulltec, The 1073 pre amp/eq.

I'm not planning on getting any of them.. The Elysia is something I will check out more it has some stuff on it that is interesting.
The BAX has a sound that's hard to get with the rest of my plug ins.. The only problem is I found a combination of plug ins I already have that sound better. The BAX is too scooped for my liking..

The 1073 pre eq thing i think is better for someone with an Apollo.. for me no difference between that and the 1073 that I already own..
The reissued Pultec isn't worth upgrading either..

So,, to me UAD is great but not perfect.. not every plug in they have is worth getting... Mostly because they are reinventing the wheel..
and putting things out for the cards and the Apollo.. Perhaps If I had an Apollo I would be able to appreciate something like the 1073 or 610 channel strips.

I would like to hear if a daw could match the sound of the UAD 1073. Haven't heard anything that has that sound...

(I'm not trying to be an ass here)
For the sake of mutual advancement, I am very much trying to enlighten us about something I think is starting to look more and more like boloney.
I see plug-ins under a new light which is looking like one big ripoff and a huge distraction. For those playing around in this business, this is all good. But for those really looking to improve their game, but have never used the real deal and are under the presumption of these being so special, do you need to have them all...? a lot of these plugs are without doubt paint by number presets for the kids. They are like getting a preset with an image.
As an example, I use the real BAX for filters that are only useful to me at the end of the chain of an analog matrix, nothing more. Its useless for anything more than that. You can achieve better results ITB with Samplitude. But, if you are OTB, then the real BAX is an essential ! ITB, what a joke!
The advantage of the BAX is to make your AD more proficient during capture. The filters on it are idea for removing unwanted freq above 20k . Cheaper converters that struggle with those high freqs will capture the mix better if you reduce those freq. Same for the subs. It does have a wide sweep curve that is really sweet to, but, my stock EQ in Samplitude is better, bar none.

So, why would I need a BAX plug-in when my DAW already has HPF and LPF.

That being said, Chris, have you ever used the real BAX and what are you actually trying to achieve with the plug-in that can't already be done with any EQ?
When you say you get better results with other plugs combined, I shake my head at that statement because its not the BAX that you are comparing, you are simply telling me that you are doing a lot of things you don't need to be doing.

Buying that as a plug-in would be the biggest waste of money for me. But, it is an excellent way to subsidize the manufacturer. But then again, I'm using a DAW that doesn't have crappy plug-ins so maybe those using Pro Tools, Logic, Sonar etc, hear these third party plugs as better and so it goes... I mean, you are already plagued with mass accumulative aliasing distortion issues so whats one more to the mix.

I switched from T-Racks to Izotope Ozone recently. The dynamic section is simply amazing compared to T-Racks.
Of course T-racks looks better, those analog look a like strips.. But sonicly, Ozone lets you make it loud and clear without destroying the trancients.. I love it ! ;) Well until I win the lotery and buy all those outboard gear I dream of !! ...

I was looking for a shelving eq that could be used in mastering to raise the energy in the mid to low highs.. Sometimes a bump in the bottom end is cool to. With the high and low pass filter that can help out with tightening the lows and being able to raise the mids low highs energy without the shrill. The BAX was interesting for that. It does what it says it does, it does make things sound radio like... kinda scooped sound with the highs and lows turned up. A bit of a smiley face..

I don't own a real Bax and have never used one.. I suspect what others use it for is different than the way you use it as it's marketed as an eq with filters. Not just a set of filters.

I have many shelving eqs they don't all sound the same.. I found The Massive Passive and the precision Eq gave me what I was looking for...

This looks like a cool plug in.... too bad it's on a Ilock..
http://www.thehouseofkush.com/#!the-ubk-clariphonic/c23ed

audiokid, post: 418885, member: 1 wrote:
So, why would I need a BAX plug-in when my DAW already has HPF and LPF.

I guess not all DAW are made equal. I found that the EQ on mine doesn't sound anything like the one Fabfilter makes. I end up buying their suite after a trial of their compressor, deesser, and limiter. They are visually ok and most of all they sounded better.

For me I guess there's nothing wrong with third party plugins. What I would refrain is having 6 EQs, 12Comps etc...
I admit I might have done too many trials. But, I have chosen 1 suite that sounds right to my ears. (At least for now..) ;)

pcrecord, post: 418886, member: 46460 wrote: I switched from T-Racks to Izotope Ozone recently. The dynamic section is simply amazing compared to T-Racks.
Of course T-racks looks better, those analog look a like strips.. But sonicly, Ozone lets you make it loud and clear without destroying the trancients.. I love it ! ;) Well until I win the lotery and buy all those outboard gear I dream of !! ...

I put a lot of faith in the mastering suites like Ozone and Sequoia. Mastering products (analog and digital) are always about preserving and keeping the transients in line. I think dedicated DAW's or a dedicated suites are tight and clearer sounding compared to a mosh up of third part code that smear the transients.

Regarding analog, the last few months I have been emulating my hybrid rig in Sequoia to almost 100%. So far, its proving superior sounding for the most part. Why, because I understand how to achieve the same steps I discovered using the real deal. Now that I know what to hear, and how and why those products where designed, it now seems to be all possible within Sequoia.

I used to use a de-esser, until I realized it was inferior to the alternative. Now that I have a DAW that is able to isolate only the sss, or fff or pops etc, I no longer need a plug-in that sucks unnecessary freq and rides through the entire track doing things to the freqs that it isn't set to do. Through and entire vocal track, subject sss can vary from 4k all the way up to 6k so why would I set up something to pull out those freqs where there are no sss. Its like using dirty water in a milkshake.

To give you an example. Using the Fabfilter compared to Object Based Editing is like using a one shade of white compared to spectral cleaning.

Consider this a gem. If we set a de-esser to reduce 5.5k , it works but what about the ss in the higher freq? To get the same result I get manually editing only the sss of a word, i would need to use 40 de-esser plugins through a song. Can you imagine the accumulative phase.

Once we learn how to do something ITB, you need less and less automated presets that don't really do it as well. Fast food vs ...

usually takes me about 25min to de-ess a vox track. then its done. no plug-in needed. ;)

You can manually edit using any daw can't you?

Chris Perra, post: 418893, member: 48232 wrote: You can manually edit using any daw can't you?

Yup, but Object Based Editing is the bomb.

usually takes me about 25min to de-ess a vox track. then its done. no plug-in needed.

Or you can get a singer who knows how to use a mic, and a pop filter ;P. Just saying. LOL.

Object edition is definitly the best way to go. But not all customers have the budget for the time it takes. When I setup a de-esser, I do so before any dynamic manipulation or EQ and I choose a thresold that doesn't affect the whole track.. Also you can set a range of detection (ex: from 4k up to 6k)
In the end you need to listen very carefully to the track and automate a bypass on words/parts that bothers you ;)

fabfilter-pro-ds-487757.jpe

pcrecord, post: 418896, member: 46460 wrote: Object edition is definitly the best way to go. But not all customers have the budget for the time it takes. When I setup a de-esser, I do so before any dynamic manipulation or EQ and I choose a thresold that doesn't affect the whole track.. Also you can set a range of detection (ex: from 4k up to 6k)
In the end you need to listen very carefully to the track and automate a bypass on words that bothers you ;)

nope, you are fooling yourself. ;)

I challenge anyone to a vocal track. You use the de-esser, then manually take it out and I guarantee, the Vox track done manually (if you know what you are doing) will sound better without question. And, it takes less time ($) in the end to mix a track.
WHY?

If the vocal sounds better, the Bass in the music is superior because the transients aren't effected as much. Its the accumulative thing again. Less is more. When you only reduce the suspect without plugins running in the background, its always a win win. I have the FabFilter , nothing compares to manual editing. Nothing. Automation comes at a price.

To truly find this out, we would have to mix a complete track and compare which that would be more time than I care to loose for no benefit of mine. Simply put, I'd consider the tip before you jump for an automated plug-in.

(better said, so I edited a few lines)

Thanks for the links, Chris (Perra).

It's that kind of response that keeps the debate intelligent and productive. I applaud you for that.

That being said...

Obviously, you and I differ in what each of us expects when we think of a Neve 1073.*

I have to say - in my opinion only, of course - that this plug really doesn't resemble the sound of a Neve 1073 to me at all.

Having used the real thing over the years via 500 Series Lunch Boxes and racked modules, there is a "certain" thumbprint to a 73. Smooth - but at the same time with a slightly edgy resonance, and a characteristic lower mid "body" to them without the mud ... a certain "silky" sound, with a smooth mid-range...yet, with a slight but pleasing harmonic edgy at the same time... if you've never heard or worked with a real 1073, it's really tough to describe it in words... other than that it's a wonderful sound... (assuming you are using an appropriate mic) and I'm just not hearing "that" character on these samples.

(*although as a side note, I will admit that the Vintech X73i sounds amazingly close to a Neve 1073... but, that's comparing one real pre with another real pre, and is probably better left for another discussion.)

Speaking ONLY for myself, if I had purchased a UAD 1073 plug with expectations of it sounding like a real 1073, I would have been greatly disappointed in the results, based on the audio samples that you gave.

I'm NOT saying that those recordings sounded bad... not at all. They were clean, clear, and with the exception of a gigantic POP on "Pittsburgh" LOL (and perhaps a slightly thick character in the lows-low mids), it was a nice recording, certainly useable for any mix... and, she has a very nice voice, too - with a bit of rasp that I love hearing in female singers that have that character... Bonnie Raitt, Sheryl Crowe, etc., ... But...

It doesn't sound like a real 1073 mic pre to me, (or a Vintech either, for that matter).

It sounds like... hmmm...well... pretty "average" sounding to me, and certainly not having the punchy bit silky characteristics/coloration that 1073's are so famously known for. It's kinda funny really, if you go back in time...when Rupert first started designing his pre's, his intent was for more transparency and less coloration, as most of the other go-to preamps/consoles at that time added heavy coloration to the signal. I wonder if he ever considered that his design would one day become known as "sound" in and of itself? LOL

(even one 1073 to another might sound different, but... they always sound great - or at least I've never worked with or heard one that didn't. ) ;)

Hey, Chris... if this works for you? Then that's what counts. That's all that counts. You should absolutely use what you like to use, and for your own criteria and reasons. Far be it for me to tell you what you should be using. We all have our own individual preferences. ;)

IMHO, of course.

d/

Here's a subject dear and near to my heart, been singing, good I am told, for 44 + years. I know how my voice sounds, pretty well, on recordings. I know what I sang, I still play live gigs. Anyway, I know I joked about the whole using Mic properly and the pop filter. Seriously though, we've had the discussions about GIGO. This is a wonderful example of why we want someone good to record in the first place.

Now, that being said, IF we have to deal with it after, there are ( I disagree to a certain extent here Chris (audiokid) tools that can do a MUCH better job now, than in the past, of intelligently preempting an issue on set parameters. If you know what it should sound like. Again, that being said, like all tools, it is only as good as the person using it. Also as Donny (the choir master :D ) will say, it's about listening environment too. I am more than willing to concede I have nothing done to date, due to lack of enough work and environment that I can say, I HAVE done it properly if I needed to use the tools.

Izotope who are definitely at the top of their field in plugins made some significant new tools in Nectar 2 for example. Just throwing it out there as another example of new is not always inferior? :). I have used Nectar 2 a few times, done A/B comparisons as I tool around, and it does a bloody good job.

Cheers,

My .02 of what I feel?.

Tony

Makzimia, post: 418895, member: 48344 wrote: Or you can get a singer who knows how to use a mic, and a pop filter ;P. Just saying. LOL.

NOTE: there are two Chris' here (Perra).(audiokid) ;)

Everyone has ss to deal with. Lower end ADDA, mic, mic pre's and the performance all have an area (somewhere) that can be addressed from some sort of ss, or edgy metallic bit. . Manually de-essing is choice for the best vocal tracks. Automation is for the lower end gear and performances on a budget, or for those who know no better.
I use them, but only as a scratch or where i don't really care to take the time to do it better.

And this is why I said to a certain extent. I simply don't have all the gear, or the environment to really say. I just know what I have heard... :(. So far.

Makzimia, post: 418901, member: 48344 wrote: And this is why I said to a certain extent. I simply don't have the gear, or the environment to really say. I just know what I have heard... :(. So far.

This is why I'm sharing all this with us. I've spend easy, half million on gear and the business over the life, Sequoia / Samplitude is the bomb. It way cheaper than what most are spending to even play. A few grand, you are pretty set. If only I had known before. I'd have a bigger boat, thats for sure.

Appreciate that Chris (audiokid) :). Sorry other Chris. Just putting out the fact newer stuff may surprise you. Have you even tried Nectar 2 for example. I use Ozone Advanced, and I know what that does sound wise (even with my less than stellar setup), so with that as a reference of MY level of quality, Nectar 2 stacks very well, in MY environment at least...

Again really do appreciate your insight, love a good discussion, and I will definitely cede to your superior experience, and others here too :).

That plug in was uads 1073 eq..

Makzimia, post: 418903, member: 48344 wrote: Appreciate that Chris :). Just putting out the fact newer stuff may surprise you. Have you even tried Nectar 2 for example. I use Ozone Advanced, and I know what that does sound wise (even with my less than stellar setup), so with that as a reference of MY level of quality, Nectar 2 stacks very well, in MY environment at least...

Again really do appreciate your insight, love a good discussion, and I will definitely cede to your superior experience, and others here too :).

Big hug back.
I'll look at it, thanks.

I choose to not need extra plugs (the basics) most likely because I have a DAW now that doesn't need all the fuss.. Third party EQ, Comps, de-essers don't get in my machine that I don't need. Specialty code, thats a different story for me, but, I would tend to use it as a separate process outside my DAW and import the finished over running more accumulative crud i don't trust in a machine that is finely tuned.

I get really excited over big suite's that are HD mastering and beyond. But for basic recording and mixing, simple and less of everything is my idea of better. Reaper, that is killer for what it is but, you need the Walmart plug-in chain added to it which then becomes a problem again. Fabfilter and Reaper, together, thats the bomb for budget goodness! And i love the FabFilter Pro L. Its my go to for mastering.
But, I put all my money into the front end and very little in the DAW for basic plug-ins. Object Based Editing is all about dealing with the suspect. So, if your music is tracked well, you need less and less running in the background. The more crud in, needs more fixing which mass tend to reach for automated processing.

Object Based Editing is the bomb. Everyone should try it for a month.

I agree with audiokid(Chris), if you know how to work basic tools, there's no reason to get a suite like Izotope Nectar.

Nectar is a good shortcut product that sound ok but it offers nothing we can't do with other tools/automation/editing. ([="https://www.izotope.com/en/products/mixing-mastering/nectar/features/#platereverb"]Plate Reverb[/]="https://www.izotope…"]Plate Reverb[/], [[url=http://="https://www.izotope…"]FX[/]="https://www.izotope…"]FX[/], [="https://www.izotope.com/en/products/mixing-mastering/nectar/features/pitch"]Pitch[/]="pitch">https://www.izotope…"]Pitch[/], [[url=http://="https://www.izotope…"]Delay[/]="https://www.izotope…"]Delay[/],[="https://www.izotope.com/en/products/mixing-mastering/nectar/features/#deesser"]De-Esser[/]="https://www.izotope…"]De-Esser[/], [[url=http://="https://www.izotope…"]Saturation[/]="https://www.izotope…"]Saturation[/], [="https://www.izotope.com/en/products/mixing-mastering/nectar/features/compressor"]Compressors[/]="compressor">https://www.izotope…"]Compressors[/], [[url=http://="https://www.izotope…"]Gate[/]="https://www.izotope…"]Gate[/], [="https://www.izotope.com/en/products/mixing-mastering/nectar/features/#eqmodule"]EQ[/]="https://www.izotope…"]EQ[/], and [[url=http://="https://www.izotope…"]Limiter[/]="https://www.izotope…"]Limiter[/])
it is convenient to have all that at once but for someone who knows how, it becomes limiting. I had the first version until I realised that it didn't sound that good. I tried the version 2 but didn't buy it. At first the harmonisation looked promessing but it sounded far from melodyne which is included in Sonar.

In the end, what mathers is to make it sound good for you. Using an easy tool the right way is far better than using an advance tool/technic and fail at it.
I've been putting my money on preamps and mics for the past 2 years, because I learned that getting the source right is better then trying to fix it with any tool (OTB or ITB). Fixing it in the mix doesn't exist, it's more like hidding it if you ask me ;)

Hi Marco,

I definitely do not consider Chris (audiokid) to be wrong, and nor I right. I just pointed out that there is tech coming up, that in the right hands, can do a great job. There is a VERY strong case for Object based editing obviously, as since the time Samplitude was covered as having, as far back I quickly found, as 2010 (probably longer, only did a quick look), is now in a lot of the bigger DAWs. Including Logic Pro X, which as Donny said to me, does in fact look a lot similar to Samplitude.

Now Harmony, I have tried that, Nectar 2 does OK, but it's not the greatest. I own an older TC Helicon Vocalist with the voice craft card, a Voice Live 2 and a Voice live touch. Each of those does a better job of harmony, particularly the Voice live 2. Finally I believe I did say earlier, my use of some of these plugins has been scaled back a lot over time. Much more selective. And with my new SSL X-Patch making it's way here, I am going to try to use my outboard gear a lot more efficiently than I have been able to and almost eliminate my need to use plugins of certain sorts.

Having said that, I too am still a fan of UAD, and no I don't have any actual comparisons either, against the real hardware version. However a: I like that they save on CPU power, and b: they sound a lot better than some of the bog standard stuff floating about. Again my personal opinion of what I have listened to. I look forward to actually trying as audiokid said and doing Object editing. Sadly, I had no sooner gotten some work done on learning Logic Pro X than I had to pack to move, and haven't got anywhere to work at the moment.

Cheers,

Tony

DonnyThompson, post: 418898, member: 46114 wrote: Thanks for the links, Chris (Perra).

It's that kind of response that keeps the debate intelligent and productive. I applaud you for that.

That being said...

Obviously, you and I differ in what each of us expects when we think of a Neve 1073.*

I have to say - in my opinion only, of course - that this plug really doesn't resemble the sound of a Neve 1073 to me at all.

Having used the real thing over the years via 500 Series Lunch Boxes and racked modules, there is a "certain" thumbprint to a 73. Smooth - but at the same time with a slightly edgy resonance, and a characteristic lower mid "body" to them without the mud ... a certain "silky" sound, with a smooth mid-range...yet, with a slight but pleasing harmonic edgy at the same time... if you've never heard or worked with a real 1073, it's really tough to describe it in words... other than that it's a wonderful sound... (assuming you are using an appropriate mic) and I'm just not hearing "that" character on these samples.

(*although as a side note, I will admit that the Vintech X73i sounds amazingly close to a Neve 1073... but, that's comparing one real pre with another real pre, and is probably better left for another discussion.)

Speaking ONLY for myself, if I had purchased a UAD 1073 plug with expectations of it sounding like a real 1073, I would have been greatly disappointed in the results, based on the audio samples that you gave.

I'm NOT saying that those recordings sounded bad... not at all. They were clean, clear, and with the exception of a gigantic POP on "Pittsburgh" LOL (and perhaps a slightly thick character in the lows-low mids), it was a nice recording, certainly useable for any mix... and, she has a very nice voice, too - with a bit of rasp that I love hearing in female singers that have that character... Bonnie Raitt, Sheryl Crowe, etc., ... But...

It doesn't sound like a real 1073 mic pre to me, (or a Vintech either, for that matter).

It sounds like... hmmm...well... pretty "average" sounding to me, and certainly not having the punchy bit silky characteristics/coloration that 1073's are so famously known for. It's kinda funny really, if you go back in time...when Rupert first started designing his pre's, his intent was for more transparency and less coloration, as most of the other go-to preamps/consoles at that time added heavy coloration to the signal. I wonder if he ever considered that his design would one day become known as "sound" in and of itself? LOL

(even one 1073 to another might sound different, but... they always sound great - or at least I've never worked with or heard one that didn't. ) ;)

Hey, Chris... if this works for you? Then that's what counts. That's all that counts. You should absolutely use what you like to use, and for your own criteria and reasons. Far be it for me to tell you what you should be using. We all have our own individual preferences. ;)

IMHO, of course.

d/

I'll try some stuff with the 1073 preamp thing they have and something that has more silk in the performance.. That singer is great,.. nice character and tone but not alot of air going on that characterizes hearing silk. That eq was pretty bumped up to go with the aggressiveness of the song.. Not really in the context of hearing it solo.. I had the 200 hz cranked. so that accounts for the low mid action. On that track I actually used the harrison eq for the real mix and just used the 1073 as a quick demo so you could hear..

This 1073 plug ins high shelf is pretty aggressive and gritty... I wonder if the actual preamp by itself can use some grit and aggression to get it to stick out in an aggressive mix.. That by itself it would be smooth in the highs and mids and can use more aggressive eq to get it to stick in a mix. I find the 1073 eq plug in to be pretty aggressive.

If you want I can do a few eq treatments with other ones to show the character of a few.. The Harrison, 88rs, SSl, Helios, Trident, 1081,
The other thing is I usually will be using some kind of compressor before the eq.. and some kind of reverb. That track is just dry so it doesn't reflect the typical sound I'd be going for.. There's extra things going on from the other plug ins that would give the vocal more character than just eq for me...

Ok I made some more files.. I tried the 1073 preamp thing. and also went through the stages of adding an La2a silver comp and effects that I used on the track. I also added examples of different UAd Eq's.. Using the same Comp and effects each time. only changing the eqs.

They aren't level matched and the exact eq setting didn't happen for each as some don't have the same eq options frequency wise as others..

There's a couple weird things, the 1073 preamp I level adjusted so the 10db I added I took back as there's a fader after the eq. So It seems quieter than the rest sort of and the Trident, I don't know what I did,.. I must have juiced the output.

In general I did a high pass around 50 hz.. a low bump around 100 hz a bump around 4 k or just under and a high shelf around 10 k. To where I though it sounded ok.. They all sound different to me.... some more than others...

http://www.mediafire.com/?n6vkblzk89ycd