audiokid, post: 458020, member: 1 wrote: I don't blame soundcloud for swirly transients and spacial corruption. I think soundcloud compression simply exposes it more. I'm more inclined to believe converters, conversion, mix processing and plug-ins are all part of the bad we continuously hear.

I've done tests for my own learning and never once heard SC change the transients that were locked in the right locations prior to uploading. Once I stopped doing what I found to be exposing this in my mixes, other than just crap MP3 compression sound... it all uploaded and sounded right to me.

pcrecord Marco, hey! you could do a good video on this. Suggestions... Do a mono mix and see what happens before and after you upload it to SC, then go from there. Start spreading a mix, using various plugins and so on. I have a feeling we would learn quite a bit from this.

Oh I wish I could participate but can't because I sold my converters and don't have a studio to work in now.

i'm beginning o think you just might be on to something here Chris.

maybe it's latency within the DAW and adding plugs and tasks for the computer to execute exacerbates the problem?

tape /console /outboard / 2 mix .... that's all at light speed. start running it through a processor and you have latency. latency has always been an issue for me. i hate it. one reason i hate working with digital audio.

Indeed... A few years ago I actually started checking mp3 mixes similar to how we check a mix in mono. The mp3 process simply skins out problems making it easier to hear the remainder much the same as a null test can show in a remainder.

audiokid, post: 458021, member: 1 wrote: pcrecord Marco, hey! you could do a good video on this. Suggestions... Do a mono mix and see what happens before and after you upload it to SC, then go from there. Start spreading a mix, using various plugins and so on. I have a feeling we would learn quite a bit from this.

Oh I wish I could participate but can't because I sold my converters and don't have a studio to work in now.

Very nice suggestion ! I'll get on to it in a few weeks..
I'm testing a ICon controler at the moment.. ;)

this is a (un-mastered) mix from like 2012, of one of my old bands songs. there's some sibalance problems which i'll fix in samplitude if i ever use this mix for anything. besides a slight dulling overall, deoth flattening, and an a seeming couple db of volume, i dont notice any audible artifacts from the MP3 conversion, which i think was done on an iphone app, but my ears and speakers could be lying to me. we only used 5 or six mics on the drums, and stuck them in a fairly dead booth with no parallel surfaces, and no samples. its overall pedestrian mix and song-wise, but im curious if it exhibits mp3 related issues, just out of curiosity. I just uploaded the .wav to soundcloud to compare the two, and see if SC exhibits any swirly phase stuff on it.

Attached files Lefty_-_Where_I_GO(EP_version) Mp3.mp3 (4.8 MB) 

kmetal, post: 458128, member: 37533 wrote: this is a (un-mastered) mix from like 2012, of one of my old bands songs. there's some sibalance problems which i'll fix in samplitude if i ever use this mix for anything. besides a slight dulling overall, deoth flattening, and an a seeming couple db of volume, i dont notice any audible artifacts from the MP3 conversion, which i think was done on an iphone app, but my ears and speakers could be lying to me. we only used 5 or six mics on the drums, and stuck them in a fairly dead booth with no parallel surfaces, and no samples. its overall pedestrian mix and song-wise, but im curious if it exhibits mp3 related issues, just out of curiosity. I just uploaded the .wav to soundcloud to compare the two, and see if SC exhibits any swirly phase stuff on it.

https://soundcloud/…

https://recording.o…

No this upload seems to be ok..
I started to prepare the video, so far I've done a whole mix of a song from www.cambridge-mt.com/ms-mtk.htm
I uploaded 12 versions of the song to soundcloud and they all seems to be ok. mp3, 16/44, 24/96, -11.7 and -7.5 LUFS, -0.48 and -0.0 bDTP.
My next move is to upload near digital peaking versions but if I can't reproduce the problem, it might be because of Samplitude.. I'll try Sonar next...
I'm surprise I'm having problems to make it sound bad.
I'm now searching some posts I heard with the bad sound.

I'm convinced its all to do with bad phase issues ITB. Has nothing to do with SC. Has all to do with artifacts, unstable transients created when processing ITB or OTB round trip processing prior to uploading or compression. I believe the mp3 compression simply relieves the truth rather than creating it. I started testing this a few years back using my 2 DAW system. It exposed bad code in plugins, sloppy work, excessive use of spacial gimmicks found in BS pro audio gear etc. Its a real eye opener.

Thus... mix in mono to avoid being fooled. Less is more. :) Use compression to test your mixes for phase issues ;)

I'm convinced the mass of hybrid summing boxes, stereo gear that exclaims they sound wider than clean big rail are nothing more than a BS product strategically shifting the L/R just enough to create a widening effect. And I also think this about plugins. Bottom line. once you know how to do it, you know how they are building it into the algorithms and what to listen for and not to do.

After I discovered this, I started listening to mastering quality hardware and realized why hardware had to be built so precise and why it cost so much. Then I realized the very best hardware was never as tight as digital. thus... sell the mastering gear and mix-down using 2 DAW's and uncouple the DAW's.

And the rest is all about reverb which is why I have so much respect for Bricasti. It seems to keep the space in phase. The rest is history.

The space we are all looking for comes from a good room, good performances in tune with each other that are in a common space all reflecting together like a finely tuned piano (symphony of sound) . This space can come from a digital processor but not just any processor.

imho

pcrecord Go Marco, expose this even more.

audiokid, post: 458436, member: 1 wrote: I'm convinced its all to do with bad phase issues ITB. Has nothing to do with SC. Has all to do with artifacts, unstable transients created when processing ITB prior to uploading or compression. I believe the mp3 compression simply relieves the truth rather than creating it. I started testing this a few years back using my 2 DAW system. It exposed bad code in plugins, sloppy work, excessive use of spacial gimmicks found in BS pro audio gear etc. Its a real eye opener.

Thus... mix in mono to avoid being fooled. Less is more. :) Use compression to test your mixes for phase issues ;)

Any tip on easy way to produce those artifacts on soundcloud ?

(edited)

pcrecord, post: 458438, member: 46460 wrote: Any tip on easy way to produce those artifacts on soundcloud ?

Good question that Bos and others may be able to help.

At the time of testing, I had 4 ways to test this using my 2 DAW system. I heard (what I call the truth about gear) with help using the very best (stable) converters and a Dangerous Monitor ST and doing a lot of mix-down's and uploads. I bet I mixed down thousands of tracks of the same sources over the course of this project to prove "most of the gear" I owned could be emulated or simply eliminated through smart mixing ITB.
The more I learned, the more wanted to specifically prove the theory that "mixing and mastering hardware" really wasn't worth investing in anymore. I was fortunate enough to get most of my mixing and mastering gear bartering and therefore did not fool myself into likely something I had to like because it example: cost $5000.
Thus.... I didn't fall into the "support of purchase" trap, liking something because I bought it or because just because it had great praise did I believe it was worth keeping.

All that said,

I'm not sure what you've done so far but you could try mixing-down a mix in mono, uploading a mono mix to SC then go from there. See if SC changes the actual L/R of the mix. Other than it crushing the bits.... it should sum perfect in mono.

NOTE: Which is another excellent function of the Dangerous Monitor ST. You can sum and study a mix online with the addition of a 2nd DA.

It all evolved from there .

(WARNING) exposing this will piss a lot of people off. :notworthy: You will be up against money and ego. You have my blessings. (y)

imho

one contributor i think [based on listening to my cousins mixes over the years] is sampled cymbals. take BFD. you get a live recorded sample done at 96k. then they [possibly] dither it down to 44.1, then data compress. then you play the data compressed files back into the daw, recorded at say 44.1 or 96. eq, compress, widen. mixdown to stereo. then use mastering processing on the 2-track, then mixdown to 44.1, use dither. then you transfer it to MP3, or soundcloud.

in that case theres at least 2 additional compressions and/or conversions involved. i think thats part of it at least.

kmetal, post: 458441, member: 37533 wrote: one contributor i think [based on listening to my cousins mixes over the years] is sampled cymbals. take BFD. you get a live recorded sample done at 96k. then they [possibly] dither it down to 44.1, then data compress. then you play the data compressed files back into the daw, recorded at say 44.1 or 96. eq, compress, widen. mixdown to stereo. then use mastering processing on the 2-track, then mixdown to 44.1, use dither. then you transfer it to MP3, or soundcloud.

in that case theres at least 2 additional compressions and/or conversions involved. i think thats part of it at least.

Yes, all that would indeed create or change things but I think the real pursuit is to find out what happens to a stereo mix and why it happens. I'm convinced the SC compression is exposing / making it easier for us to hear our mistakes and how we are processing a mix to sound artificially wider, wrong. (thus the swirly end result)

Example: Want to test a Crane Song STC 8 compressor.... make a perfect mix that sums and uploads perfect on SC then do it again with the STC8 and see what it does to the master once its uploaded. Do this with any analog product and I'm pretty confident you will question its integrity. Then start emulating products ITB and you will likely find out you can do it better, ITB. Hybrid mixing is a complete waste of time and money.
Then start comparing hardware to software using null tests. Learn what gear and software does.
I spent time time learning what products are doing rather than just accepting they do something because thats what they say its doing for me. I want to find out why and what that is. Or what I don't want it to do.

Eventually I came to the conclusion, its smarter to buy a Bricasti over 10's of thousands of dollars in hardware and put that at the end of a (mix or master) and forget about all the hype distracting us.

kmetal, post: 458441, member: 37533 wrote: one contributor i think [based on listening to my cousins mixes over the years] is sampled cymbals. take BFD. you get a live recorded sample done at 96k. then they [possibly] dither it down to 44.1, then data compress. then you play the data compressed files back into the daw, recorded at say 44.1 or 96. eq, compress, widen. mixdown to stereo. then use mastering processing on the 2-track, then mixdown to 44.1, use dither. then you transfer it to MP3, or soundcloud.

in that case theres at least 2 additional compressions and/or conversions involved. i think thats part of it at least.

Yes, all that would indeed create or change things but I think the real pursuit is to find out what happens to a stereo mix and why it happens. I'm convinced the SC compression is exposing / making it easier for us to hear our mistakes and how we are processing a mix to sound artificially wider, wrong. (thus the swirly end result)

Example: Want to test a Crane Song STC 8 compressor.... make a perfect mix that sums and uploads perfect on SC then do it again with the STC8 and see what it does to the master once its uploaded. Do this with any analog product and I'm pretty confident you will question its integrity. Then start emulating products ITB and you will likely find out you can do it better, ITB. Hybrid mixing is a complete waste of time and money.
Then start comparing hardware to software using null tests. Learn what gear and software does.
I spent time time learning what products are doing rather than just accepting they do something because thats what they say its doing for me. I want to find out why and what that is. Or what I don't want it to do.

Eventually I came to the conclusion, its smarter to buy a Bricasti over 10's of thousands of dollars in hardware and put that at the end of a (mix or master) and forget about all the hype distracting us. Don't get me wrong... I do believe good gear is the most beautiful thing during tracking but once ITB, other than the exceptional tools... stay ITB. And if you think its widening a mix chances are it won't sum in mono like you'd expect.
Don't blame it on SC.

imho

What are some of the converters raved about how they sound wider than most?

Do Burl or the Antelope ADC really sound great because the chip they are using is extra special, worth the $6000 admission or are they playing with the end of the conversions DA algorithm? I suspect Burl is doing a smart trick with their converters. I don't think they are remotely worth the cost and would love to see how they hold their integrity up in a mono shootout of a good mix.

But then there are acceptations where a Lavry AD simply just sounds smooth. Why is that?

I can't help but roll my eyes thinking about the 10M Antelope Audio clock and them charging $5000 for it. I'm thinking about those endorsing that product... check your mix guys and don't be so naive.But this is another aspect of the intertwined reasons we put blame on compression.
imho

audiokid, post: 458443, member: 1 wrote: Yes, all that would indeed create or change things but I think the real pursuit is to find out what happens to a stereo mix and why it happens. I'm convinced the SC compression is exposing / making it easier for us to hear our mistakes and how we are processing a mix to sound artificially wider, wrong. (thus the swirly end result)

Example: Want to test a Crane Song STC 8 compressor.... make a perfect mix that sums and uploads perfect on SC then do it again with the STC8 and see what it does to the master once its uploaded. Do this with any analog product and I'm pretty confident you will question its integrity. Then start emulating products ITB and you will likely find out you can do it better, ITB. Hybrid mixing is a complete waste of time and money.
Then start comparing hardware to software using null tests. Learn what gear and software does.
I spent time time learning what products are doing rather than just accepting they do something because thats what they say its doing for me. I want to find out why and what that is. Or what I don't want it to do.

Eventually I came to the conclusion, its smarter to buy a Bricasti over 10's of thousands of dollars in hardware and put that at the end of a (mix or master) and forget about all the hype distracting us. Don't get me wrong... I do believe good gear is the most beautiful thing during tracking but once ITB, other than the exceptional tools... stay ITB. And if you think its widening a mix chances are it won't sum in mono like you'd expect.
Don't blame it on SC.

imho

intriguing.

i skipped the hybrid thing based on watching your post all these years, as you evolved from a fan/practitioner, to calling the bluff.

since we dont seem to experience this kinda of degradation in an all analog system, it must come down to the conversion. ive never heard this kind of side effect on classic recordings played back on tape and vinyl, or even cd. i invested in the fraunhaufer codecs which may or may not be snake oil, but ill be curious run things thru their paces. if nothing else, at least ill have simplified bath conversion capability.

audiokid, post: 458444, member: 1 wrote: Do Burl or the Antelope ADC really sound great because the chip they are using is extra special, worth the $6000 admission or are they playing with the end of the conversions DA algorithm? I suspect Burl is doing a smart trick with their converters.

the pricing is truly absurd. now i understand a good converter like that takes 10 years of R&D, and wont sell quickly or in large numbers. i dont have enough knowledge of how converters work to know what they;re doing. from what i do know, its not the chip really, its the analog section, stable power, and clocking that does it. i think Burl is catering to niche who loves the tape sound, by essentially mimicking a tape machines electronics, and having transformers built in. i dont think they;re DA side seems to be as acclaimed. i do suspect that much of it come from the digital algorithm and digital side of things, as the fundamentals of good analog electronics are well documented and proven.

i suspect the days of outboard digital conversion are in fact numbered. besides networked audio, i think we will be seeing digital integration built into the mics and instruments. look how midi drum triggering changed drums... keyboards... its only a matter of time before my guitar pickup sends a digital impulse to an amp sim, and voice synthesis is becoming more and more common. theres really no reason why you pay 5k for a pair of quested's of barefoots, and they dont have digital conversion built in. really i think its a bit much these days, where everything is digital to have to invest in 250-500$ per channel in AD and DA. lol so says the poor musician.

having experienced the difference in algorithms between DAWs back when i thought i was crazy for it, and hearing the difference between plugins, the antilogarithm seems to be king, not just in audio, but banking, military strategics, basically everything in the digital age of information.

audiokid, post: 458444, member: 1 wrote: I can't help but roll my eyes thinking about the 10M Antelope Audio clock and them charging $5000 for it.

what a racket. people have experienced significant improvements in those old PTHD 1st gen interfaces, by clocking them to alesis adat machines. i cant imagine antelope is selling many of those things past the 2014's 64 bit, next gen conversion releases.

it will be interesting when/if marco is able to pinpoint some things that SC is highlighting. it was insane to me the PTLE didnt have pluggin delay compensation built in, until the 64 bit version dropped.

kmetal, post: 458445, member: 37533 wrote: since we dont seem to experience this kinda of degradation in an all analog system, it must come down to the conversion. ive never heard this kind of side effect on classic recordings played back on tape and vinyl, or even cd. i invested in the fraunhaufer codecs which may or may not be snake oil, but ill be curious run things thru their paces. if nothing else, at least ill have simplified bath conversion capability.

I believe both analog and conversion is responsible for this shifting but I think digital wins in the end because it has to finally decide what side to put the wrong bit on which is what the compressing of bits shows through process of elimination. You don't need to be a scientist to hear that swirly thing happening. I think we just didn't know it was the processing in our mixes (hybrid or digital) that is doing it in the first place. So, the key is to know what not to do when it comes to the "trade off" of preserving phase vs warming or over processing. What I suspect Ive learned out of all this is to get to the meat with as little processing as possible. Track better, process less and that included both analog and digital processing. It could be that the sample rate still hasn't got to a point digital knows what to do with what it can't convert. I have no idea but look forward to higher and higher sample rates. What I do believe is the swirlying we hear in an MP3 can be avoided with good mixing techniques.

kmetal, post: 458445, member: 37533 wrote: i skipped the hybrid thing based on watching your post all these years, as you evolved from a fan/practitioner, to calling the bluff.

cool. At first I was blown away with hybrid mixing but as I started fine tuning my system, analyzing everything , which I personally believe I would never have discovered this without the specific mastering console and 2 DAW system.

The good thing for us all... now that I know this, I trust my finding and believe we can all achieve awesome mixes ITB using a good DAW. I do however believe there are specific outboard products that I still want which include a outboard Bricasti M7 and Pulse Technique Pultecs . http://www.pulsetechniques.com/

kmetal, post: 458445, member: 37533 wrote: i think Burl is catering to niche who loves the tape sound, by essentially mimicking a tape machines electronics, and having transformers built in. i dont think they;re DA side seems to be as acclaimed. i do suspect that much of it come from the digital algorithm and digital side of things, as the fundamentals of good analog electronics are well documented and proven.

I suspect you are right.

audiokid, post: 458451, member: 1 wrote: I believe both analog and conversion is responsible for this shifting but I think digital wins in the end because it has to finally decide what side to put the wrong bit on which is what the compressing of bits shows through process of elimination. You don't need to be a scientist to hear that swirly thing happening. I think we just didn't know it was the processing in our mixes (hybrid or digital) that is doing it in the first place. So, the key is to know what not to do when it comes to the "trade off" of preserving phase vs warming or over processing. What I suspect Ive learned out of all this is to get to the meat with as little processing as possible. Track better, process less and that included both analog and digital processing. It could be that the sample rate still hasn't got to a point digital knows what to do with what it can't convert. I have no idea but look forward to higher and higher sample rates. What I do believe is the swirlying we hear in an MP3 can be avoided with good mixing techniques.

cool. At first I was blown away with hybrid mixing but as I started fine tuning my system, analyzing everything , which I personally believe I would never have discovered this without the specific mastering console and 2 DAW system.

The good thing for us all... now that I know this, I trust my finding and believe we can all achieve awesome mixes ITB using a good DAW. I do however believe there are specific outboard products that I still want which include a outboard Bricasti M7 and Pulse Technique Pultecs . http://www.pulsetechniques.com/

I suspect you are right.

very well put.

my only question is are you suggesting the pultec is good for mixing, or summing to daw 2? im assuming its excellent for tracking.

My final word on this topic: I'm looking forward to others going on from here. I'm not saying I wouldn't want on a nice SSL, Neve or API console. I would love this but only if you gave it to me.
I also don't believe engineers banging out hit songs on consoles have an advantage either. I don't believe either format has mix advantage. But, how can I know that for certain anyway. I'm just a guy with an opinion that thinks we can achieve great mixes and master music on either format once we know what we are doing.
I think the guy on the DAW is simply saving a shit load of money and most likely able to spin circles around the guys solely using a console. Digital audio mixing and editing is miles ahead of analog mixing. I think the mono button is pretty damn cool and if a process sounds goofy in mono, its best to find out why.

kmetal, post: 458453, member: 37533 wrote: my only question is are you suggesting the pultec is good for mixing, or summing to daw 2? im assuming its excellent for tracking.

When I owned a Dangerous Master, of all EQ I used, Pulse Technique Pultec's were incredible for both tracking and mixing. They have a sound and presence that dials in effortlessly. They move a wave so smoothly. I wish I could afford one analog Pultec for every channel. I've tried plugin Pultec's and they were very disappointing.

My next 2 DAW system may include 2 Pultec's on the second DAW. Not sure yet. I'm also not sure how I'm going to insert them either. Could be a simple summing amp or I may buy another Dangerous Master or something clean like that. Not sure. I sure like them though, they are special.

This is special, really cool using one Pultec for the middle and the other for the sides. Bricasti on the end of this chain is all I need. No need for the NSEQ-4. ITB works better.

not everyone will be able to aquire pultecs, but we all have the mono button!

kmetal, post: 458459, member: 37533 wrote: not everyone will be able to aquire pultecs, but we all have the mono button!

exactly!

And even though I love this nice little analog summing package, I'm confident I would do well without them, it just wouldn't be a fun and would likely take me longer to get the mids the way I could with this.
Sequoia is an amazing 2 channel alternative and the reverb on that DAW is good enough for what I want to happen .

audiokid, post: 458460, member: 1 wrote: I'm confident I would do well without them, it just wouldn't be a fun

thats reason enough right there to have them imho. i was happy when messing w the reverb in samplitude, which i think is the same as sequoia. lately ive been picturing things as 3 channel, center/L/R. i dont have it to a method yet, but i think the Middle/Stereo approach is going to play well in mono, stereo, and surround. its sorta like a tree is the middle, and the bugs and stuff zinging around it are the stereo, the tree doesn't go anywhere no matter what the sides are doing. at least thats my new theory. ive also discovered the importance of LPF's. air turns into darts if there's too much of it, and what would inherently roll off on an analogue setup [tape] remains as-is in digital. LPF's sorta clear the air i guess literally and figuratively.

as brutal as this interim has been, i find its been helpful to be able to observe things from a distance, without immediately being able to adjust a setting. it really can reveal whats important in a good mix, when your not privy to a well tuned room and the good stuff.

i got a Justin Timberlake cd the other day, from like 2002 for a couple bucks, just to have a good commercial reference. it really is remarkable how few effects are on the cd, and how well they us the main frequency bands. i mean the thing romps on $10 computer speakers, but stays clear, in the mids and top. ive noticed particularly on pop mixes, they usually sound bigger on home and car systems, than in the studio, where they sound just ok. i thin they let the non linearities of typical systems work in the records favor. this seems counter-intuitive when the studio allows for such micro tuning and effects and candy, but its something of a common thread i seam to notice on big time pop records.

as far as high sample rates go, you know ive been touting it for years, i think the closer we get to linear the more natural things will sound. i truly believe that because tape is a linear form, it relates complex harmonics [ala hi gain guitars] much better. its the only format that to me sounds like the amp does when in front of it. not the room or whatever, but the sound of standing in front of it. digital doesnt do that yet, even if the sound is smooth and pleasing.

tube gear is difficult to emulate i think because how do you emulate the sorta randomness of electron movement that goes on within the tube.? the tube tech emulations are good sound eq's, but i dont know that they sound anything like a pultec. ditto for the psp and t-racks pultecs.

audiokid, post: 458460, member: 1 wrote: exactly!

And even though I love this, I'm confident I would do well without them, it just wouldn't be a fun and would likely take me longer to get the mids the way I could with this.
Sequoia is an amazing 2 channel alternative and the reverb on that DAW is good enough for what I want to happen .

it would be fun sometime to hear you take a crack with the pultecs/bricasti, then the alternative version in sequoia only. im convinced sequioa is the ultimate daw. as much as one can be without owning it at least.

kmetal, post: 458462, member: 37533 wrote: ive also discovered the importance of LPF's. air turns into darts if there's too much of it, and what would inherently roll off on an analogue setup [tape] remains as-is in digital. LPF's sorta clear the air i guess literally and figuratively.

using filters is a big part of what I do as well

kmetal, post: 458462, member: 37533 wrote: as brutal as this interim has been, i find its been helpful to be able to observe things from a distance, without immediately being able to adjust a setting. it really can reveal whats important in a good mix, when your not privy to a well tuned room and the good stuff.

great POV. Support of Purchase ! Most of my world has had a similar learning perspective too. I don't record most of what I mix and when you are having to mix other people's tracks you know nothing about, you listen and likely hear things that you might not hear or become passionate about simply because its not your work or music. Another situation where we are NOT being bias, falling into the trap of to "support of purchase" > mixing or mastering our own work too early in the game.

kmetal, post: 458462, member: 37533 wrote: i got a Justin Timberlake cd the other day, from like 2002 for a couple bucks, just to have a good commercial reference. it really is remarkable how few effects are on the cd, and how well they us the main frequency bands. i mean the thing romps on $10 computer speakers, but stays clear, in the mids and top. ive noticed particularly on pop mixes, they usually sound bigger on home and car systems, than in the studio, where they sound just ok. i thin they let the non linearities of typical systems work in the records favor. this seems counter-intuitive when the studio allows for such micro tuning and effects and candy, but its something of a common thread i seam to notice on big time pop records.

(y)

kmetal, post: 458462, member: 37533 wrote: tube gear is difficult to emulate i think because how do you emulate the sorta randomness of electron movement that goes on within the tube.?

my thoughts as well

kmetal, post: 458463, member: 37533 wrote: it would be fun sometime to hear you take a crack with the pultecs/bricasti, then the alternative version in sequoia only.

I'll do that when I get my next studio up and running.

kmetal, post: 458463, member: 37533 wrote: im convinced sequioa is the ultimate daw. as much as one can be without owning it at least.

I think there are other well coded DAW's too but Samplitude and Sequoia object-based processing is where that DAW really cleans up. Object-based processing enables the DAW to run more efficiently which translates the need for less CPU and we all know that translates into faster performance.

kmetal, post: 458462, member: 37533 wrote: lately ive been picturing things as 3 channel, center/L/R. i dont have it to a method yet, but i think the Middle/Stereo approach is going to play well in mono, stereo, and surround. its sorta like a tree is the middle, and the bugs and stuff zinging around it are the stereo, the tree doesn't go anywhere no matter what the sides are doing. at least thats my new theory

exactly.

Today, I think outboard gear is worth gold for tracking. Mixing on a neve board is appealing to many until they need to modify something in a mix you thought was done. Recalls are such a pain. Unless I have an unlimited budget, ITB is a better choice..
Just my own poor guy conclusion. ;)

pcrecord, post: 458469, member: 46460 wrote: I think outboard gear is worth gold for tracking.

i think many project studios could benefit from this statement. too many of them focus on the mixing, which is never quite right due to monitoring, room, and conversion issues. so the endless mix versions and pluggin hunts continue. one solid channel strip and an sm7, and 414, could take care of most duties in a high end way. things dont necessarily need to be expensive of boutique, just solid. instead you get a tlm 103 into a scarlett.

ditto for sample sets. instead of 200TB of samples, a few well chosen collections, can elevate productions the same way good tracking gear does. instead what you get is fruity loops samples, done with an apollo interface and a bunch of cool pluggins.

for $300 the avid eleven rack is the best deal going in budget interfacing imho. i full suite of effects, full amp sim suite, all dsp speed, a mic input, 4 analog outputs, digital i/o [stereo], and you can control the rack unit from the computer. i think it takes some experience with in a good room/gear, even just a couple days, and you suddenly can hear thru the hype. sure the eleven rack is old, but its still relevant, and smokes its similarly priced peers. some engineers will make excuses about why they have budget gear saying its 90% there ect ect, this is not what im saying. yes im broke as a bad joke, but being selective, you can find diamonds in the rough, and reasonably often. if you buy nothing but gear like that on its way out, your behind the times, but theres also a substantial amount of ten year old wvaes pluggins on commercial releases everyday.

i think most engineers are not selective with their gear. look how damn good the ISA stuff is!

kmetal, post: 458479, member: 37533 wrote: i think most engineers are not selective with their gear. look how damn good the ISA stuff is!

Amen to that ! ;)

I've listened to a video of 4 drummers (including Thomas Lang) praising about the moon mic from DW yesterday.
They all go about how good it is and how well it's frequencies are balanced and perfect.. I listen to the demo and it sounds soft and unfocused. Goog alone but surely not working in a full mix. What a sale pitch. God I'm glad I don't have to prostitute myself to live in this new music industry.. It's never been so selling oriented...
I listen to my own recording and with a touch of EQ, it sounds about the same without it.