I use 2 HD flat-screen monitors via the 2 DAW approach.

1. DAW is my multitrack capture and mix monitor
2. DAW is my mixdown and master monitor
   DAW1 monitor is also my entertainment monitor. My entire studio is designed for both recording and multimedia

audiokid, post: 441547, member: 1 wrote: I use 2 HD flat-screen monitors via the 2 DAW approach.

1. DAW is my multitrack capture and mix monitor
2. DAW is my mixdown and master monitor

Sorry Chris, I was referring to monitor speakers.

ChrisH, post: 441548, member: 43833 wrote: Sorry Chris, I was referring to monitor speakers.

(y) I see that now.

In that case, I use 3 pairs of monitors (plus a sub) for various stages of tracking, mixing and mastering. I also use the larger ones for entertainment and mixing.
However, I also have an entertainment sound system too. I use all sorts of speakers to listen to mixes.
Most important for me are Avatone's.

audiokid, post: 441549, member: 1 wrote: (y) I see that now.

In that case, I use 3 pairs of monitors (plus a sub) for various stages of tracking, mixing and mastering. I also use the larger ones for entertainment and mixing.
However, I also have an entertainment sound system too. I use all sorts of speakers to listen to mixes.
Most important for me are Avatone's.

Do you EQ while listening through your avantones?

Once I adapt to a set of monitors I prefer to stick with them for the most part, then check once in a great while on the other ones in the control room. I bring mixes home and check them there since I'm used to hearing everything on them and can select all sorts of sources for instant comparison. I also do some mastering at home for that reason. But in a given control room I use one set.

ChrisH, post: 441550, member: 43833 wrote: Do you EQ while listening through your avantones?

Absolutely.
They are exceptional for dialing in mid range and volune level. Volume level first, then eq.

bouldersound, post: 441551, member: 38959 wrote: Once I adapt to a set of monitors I prefer to stick with them for the most part, then check once in a great while on the other ones in the control room. I bring mixes home and check them there since I'm used to hearing everything on them and can select all sorts of sources for instant comparison. I also do some mastering at home for that reason. But in a given control room I use one set.

I'm very similar to Boulder, but because the Avatones do not have accurate high and sub freq, I use a full range, second pair for those freq as well.

I have a third pair I trust which is a portable Sirius boom box that I use to study mixes online.

audiokid, post: 441552, member: 1 wrote: Absolutely.
They are exceptional for dialing in mid range and volune level. Volume level first, then eq.

According to SOS the newer avantone mix cube things are a bit more full range and hifi ish, and not quite as useful for that blown forward mid thing the cubes are beloved for. Do you find this to be the case audiokid ? What model are you using.

When I have the luxury of two sets, I mix on my favorite and double check periodically on the other set.

Best combo I've ever used is uerie 813cs and Yamaha ns10's. In that room mixing became fast, fun, and professional. Car checks became fun not full of errors. There's nothing like being able to mix into a full range speaker system / room withou second guessing.

That said I've got Yamaha hs-5's and alesis elevate 5's in my shopping cart. I can't go full range honest so I'm using the Yamahas mainly because I'll be able to mix into them.

Mono is too overlooked. Hit that button and It will tell you if your vocals are ok, and if there's frequency clashing. Depending on the mix, it goes 'kaboom' when you go back to stereo.

If your mix sounds good in mono then there's little chance it will sound worse in stereo.

Funny that earbuds and phone hasn't been mentioned by anyone yet, myself included. Isn't that how it's gonna be heard 95% of the time??

kmetal
I use the "newer" Avatones for mids and mono.
I generally mix mono.
Because I am past 20 years old, I no longer hear higher freq anyway so I also choose monitors that are flavoured to my tastes and deficiencies.

The newer Avatones are still mid forward or lacking top and bottom.

You could never master on then.

audiokid, post: 441558, member: 1 wrote: I generally mix mono.

Ya don't say eh?

audiokid, post: 441558, member: 1 wrote: Because I am past 20 years old, I no longer hear higher freq anyway so I also choose monitors that are flavoured to my tastes and deficiencies.

As opposed to just adding top end till you hear it? Lol

audiokid, post: 441558, member: 1 wrote: I use the newer Avatones for mids and mono

The active ones or passive.??

Reguarding mono- I've heard that mono through two speakers wasn't the same as mono through a single driver, I was contemplating using an additional single speaker at some point. This isn't possible easily with my current (potential) setup which has no monitor controller, since all outs are used up. Maybe a space headphone out would be fine enough.....

Anyway I guess it's something to do w the boundary reactions between two speakers even in mono can exhibit like phase type build ups and cancellations. That's getting uber technical and I've never mixed mono through just one speaker, figured use mention it, maybe someone here is?

kmetal, post: 441556, member: 37533 wrote: Funny that earbuds and phone hasn't been mentioned by anyone yet, myself included. Isn't that how it's gonna be heard 95% of the time??

I often do a headphone pass when I think I'm done with a mix. Mostly I make tiny eq, level and panning adjustments and then recheck on speakers.

kmetal, post: 441561, member: 37533 wrote: Ya don't say eh?

As opposed to just adding top end till you hear it? Lol

The active ones or passive.??

Reguarding mono- I've heard that mono through two speakers wasn't the same as mono through a single driver, I was contemplating using an additional single speaker at some point. This isn't possible easily with my current (potential) setup which has no monitor controller, since all outs are used up. Maybe a space headphone out would be fine enough.....

Anyway I guess it's something to do w the boundary reactions between two speakers even in mono can exhibit like phase type build ups and cancellations. That's getting uber technical and I've never mixed mono through just one speaker, figured use mention it, maybe someone here is?

Active.

The dangerous st has a mono switch. It works excellent.

bouldersound, post: 441566, member: 38959 wrote: I often do a headphone pass when I think I'm done with a mix. Mostly I make tiny eq, level and panning adjustments and then recheck on speakers.

Ive tried this but it seems I make (more often than not) poor EQ mix decisions with headphones.

However, I find headphones ideal for most other functions.

My A set are a pair of Yamaha HS-7s' and my B set are KRK Rokit 5s'.

I mix primarily through the HS-7s' as I find them to be more accurate and do a mix check with the Rokits...the Rokits seem to be more boomy in the low end than the Yammys'.

I also have a set of Sony APM-100 bookshelf speakers (yep...remember those with the square drivers?...) I have had since the 80s' powered by an old Sansui amp I have also owned since the mid 80s' that I will occasionally run a mix through just for a different perspective...they don't really have any low end about them at all.

Maybe every now and then I may listen to the mix through a set of AKG Q-701's again just for another perspective, they tend to be very crisp and clinical compared to the Yamahas and Rokits.

I was doing the earbud thing for a while, but thats like throwing a spanner into the works for me and I hate the sound through those retched things so I gave that away because of the element of doubt it was creating with my mixing.

kmetal, post: 441556, member: 37533 wrote: Funny that earbuds and phone hasn't been mentioned by anyone yet, myself included. Isn't that how it's gonna be heard 95% of the time??

I'd like to comment on this by saying that from my personal experience a great mix is also what sounds best on a phone, versus having the mindset of "mixing for iPhones/Androids".
You could say that creating a great mix is mixing for cellphones. haha

(Edited)
I don't think there is one specific way to mix. If it works then it works. I wish I was better on headphones. I really want to experiment with the SPL Phonitor.

My personal experience, when I final mix on phones I always mix detail that never translates well.
If I mix on speakers, my mix seems to sound even better on headphones. Never opposite.

Could it be that headphone mixing makes it difficult to remain objective to real world acoustics?

Putting it another way... Headphone mixing fools me into thinking the wrong parts matter, when in fact those things matter, wasting time creating mixes that don't translate well on most other playback systems.
So I personaly choose speakers as the final proof because the real world is my target audience.

If all we were mixing to was a particular headphone, then I would mix on those headphones.
I think speakers therefore are the safer bet.

Thoughts?

audiokid, post: 441569, member: 1 wrote: Ive tried this but it seems I make (more often than not) poor EQ mix decisions with headphones.

However, I find headphones ideal for most other functions.

Yeah, that's why I do "tiny" changes and then go back to speakers for a pass. It's more for fine detail on the panning.

bouldersound, post: 441646, member: 38959 wrote: Yeah, that's why I do "tiny" changes and then go back to speakers for a pass. It's more for fine detail on the panning.

I used to spend a lot of time with pan placements and now I go either hard left, hard right or center.
Edit: With the exception of special effects like sweeping etc.

Do you find its a benefit to do more than what I describe (left, right center)?

audiokid, post: 441648, member: 1 wrote: I used to spend a lot of time with pan placements and now I go either hard left, hard right or center.
Edit: With the exception of special effects like sweeping etc.

Do you find its a benefit to do more than what I describe (left, right center)?

I feel it does add to the experience. To the degree that people have left proper stereo systems behind they've replaced them with earbuds. So although I'm mixing for the Maxell dude in the chair it yields similar benefits for the earbud generation. The mix should sound good from anywhere relative to the speakers but if someone happens to be in the right spot, or using earbuds, I want them to be able to get lost in the sound without being distracted by things that are overwhelmingly in one ear or the other. The headphone pass lets me fine tune that stuff.

I start with LCR then move things off center or in from the sides as I see fit at the time. I've been doing XY overheads lately so even if I pan them hard the image ends up spread across a narrower range. I like wide drums but not so they sound hard panned. Kick, snare, bass and lead vocal typically get centered. They are the backbone of the mix. Vocal doubles might be microscopically nudged off center. Harmonies might be a touch wider or not, depending. Midrange instruments (guitars, keys etc.) can go different places, also depending. Doubled rhythm guitars usually get hard panned, or at least wider than the drums sound. Solos generally get centered or nearly so unless that would leave one side too bare, like if a panned rhythm guitar takes a solo in the same take rather than overdubbing.

Some music gets a pretty literal representation of the band on a stage while for some I just put things where it sounds cool. Checking the mix on different monitors and in headphones is a big part of that. That's also why I take mixes home. I can check them in 2.0, 5.1 and everything in between.

Sean G, post: 441570, member: 49362 wrote: I was doing the earbud thing for a while, but thats like throwing a spanner into the works for me and I hate the sound through those retched things so I gave that away because of the element of doubt it was creating with my mixing.

I hate them also, which is why I don't check things on them. I probably should tho... Maybe w the new setup...

ChrisH, post: 441630, member: 43833 wrote: I'd like to comment on this by saying that from my personal experience a great mix is also what sounds best on a phone, versus having the mindset of "mixing for iPhones/Androids".
You could say that creating a great mix is mixing for cellphones. haha

I can do mix judgements from my iPhone cuz I'm so used to it. That said I'm always afraid when it comes time to check on the phone, especially if it's some random client phone.

It's like seeing a chick without makeup, sometimes there's demons lying below..

audiokid, post: 441633, member: 1 wrote: My personal experience, when I final mix on phones I always mix detail that never translates well.

Ditto. I tried it a few times it never worked. I don't even own (studio) headphones anymore. I hate them for tracking and can't mix on them. That said I'll probably eventually get a beyer set just to have

audiokid, post: 441648, member: 1 wrote: I used to spend a lot of time with pan placements and now I go either hard left, hard right or center.

I used to until working out of the lede room on the bigs. Suddenly there was a real soundstage. It was like 'oh' that's why reviewers bring up steroe field placement in reveiws.

Now I'm not gonna be in that room much soo we will see.

audiokid, post: 441648, member: 1 wrote: Do you find its a benefit to do more than what I describe (left, right center)

I do mostly rock and roll so mostly it's lcr. I will narrow keyboards and effects to keep the extreme LR for guitars. Same for hi hats and toms, I'll narrow them a bit.

bouldersound, post: 441652, member: 38959 wrote: I've been doing XY overheads lately so even if I pan them hard the image ends up spread across a narrower range.

Love XY for overheads I do XY or single OH by default. Never looked back. I usually hard pan the XY as well.

Thanks for sharing this with me Boulder. I will revisit panning. What goes around, comes back around.

So I don't sound like my process is so simple, I should clarify that I do hear and appreciate the separation in detailed panning but I try to go at it a different way by using stereo room mics and/or virtually via a Bricasti reverb process to achieve achieve a real world stage.
I use aux sends into 2 buss effects that still create a clock type pan that is more like bleed as the audience would experience it. Then, use M/S processing to future tighten up the stereo freq. I find if panning is too close to the center, things don't open up the same which makes it harder to get example: Lead Vox, Bass, kick and snare dead center with that "natural" open room sound on the sides, thus reverb sill sounding deep in mono or stereo and center levels volumes less "bursting or too loud, too soft".
Its kind of my way of reducing compression to control volumes which is all part of the de-cluttering of freq. Mono sounds fat as does stereo.

Its not that easy to execute on each mix because often people get so busy with tracks and doubling, but if tracks are clean and recorded well, 2 buss processing is a beautiful thing.. Headphones just gets way too distracting to a point I miss the simplicity of a common room process.

With stereo mic techniques the panning is in the placement of the source in the pattern, even if you hard pan the channels.

bouldersound, post: 441736, member: 38959 wrote: With stereo mic techniques the panning is in the placement of the source in the pattern, even if you hard pan the channels.

exactly.

I try and have as many functioning speaker sets and environments as I can once I get the mix to a point where it becomes only a slight adjustment of pan or level here and there. I primarily get there with drums, bass instrument and vocals FIRST. And then I leave these alone in their sub-mixes. Everything is a set of master fader sub mixes going out to a print track at the original sample rates. I listen primarily through a set of Sundholm Engineering 6.5 passive monitors. And check most of the guitars and keys when added through my Neumann KH120's. Then the whole thing gets a test press at 44.1 and I listen to my home stereo which is a Big Yamaha receiver with Genelec 1029's with a sub in front. I'm currently "storing" a set of the Sundholm's in addition to MY pair. The ones I'm storing have all the high-end crossover stuff, the super wire and sound incredible. The best place to "store" them is on the bridge......btw

Davedog, post: 441748, member: 4495 wrote: I try and have as many functioning speaker sets and environments as I can once I get the mix to a point where it becomes only a slight adjustment of pan or level here and there. I primarily get there with drums, bass instrument and vocals FIRST. And then I leave these alone in their sub-mixes. Everything is a set of master fader sub mixes going out to a print track at the original sample rates

+1

Davedog, post: 441748, member: 4495 wrote: Everything is a set of master fader sub mixes going out to a print track at the original sample rates.

How much headroom in general is on each of these sub mixes channel meters? Do you leave the fader at unity on these?

kmetal, post: 441753, member: 37533 wrote: How much headroom in general is on each of these sub mixes channel meters? Do you leave the fader at unity on these?

In my workflow, I attempt to keep all faders as close to unity. There used to be a "myth" that a mix always sounded better when you left the DAW faders hot and alone, then used a console to boost or reduce but I have busted that myth. I simply do not mix hot or waste time with a console with faders. ITB is 1000% better.

Being said, everything sounds better in my DAW system when all gain staging renders the channel fader's to sit close to unity, while the over all master faders end up mixing near unity at -20 output.
Basically my tracks, bus stems and master faders are all sitting near unity and not in the red. My idea is to make sure the overall master bus exports or captures the final mix around -20 to -8.
When I capture the 2 bus on DAW2, the capture level is landing around -20 as well. I don't usually have to move the fader at all. I simply adjust the converter gain and/or the DAW gain so it keeps everything at the same level it was sent. It always sounds better when I capture the mixdown below -8. Works beautiful for me.

Kyle. I try and keep around -6db on the metering on the print track. I want room for mastering. I really don't care what the rest of tracks are doing or are showing on their individual channel meters.....Ok ...I take that back a bit....each of the sub-master vca's have to behave somewhat. I'm looking at NOTHING sending peaks of any sort to the print track metering. But mostly It's what I hear with the speakers that tells me where I'm at when I'm getting serious about assembling a mix. If I feel something is having to work hard to be heard I need to reassess what is going on with those tracks in that set of subs. Like I said.....The VERY FIRST THING is drums, bass instrument (whatever is playing that part...could be a synth...cellos etc) and lead vocals. These I spend a LOT of time on. Getting them all to coalesce into a single thing. A balance if you will. Always monitoring thru the print track. Then I add everything else. Of course I have mixed each part of everything else to a point...but if adding ANYTHING takes away from the clarity and the balance of the drums/bass/vocal thing then I fix the additions. Once you learn to work this way things fall into place rather quickly at a point. The print tracks input stays steady with enough headroom to allow for dynamics while still retaining power and grace . The thing I've learned is this is how the mixer in the PT HD systems was designed to work. I don't have a collapse in my master buss....everything is a master buss and I'm going to print a realtime master from these vca masters I create. I'm going to do this at the set sample rate and the only conversion is on the mastering for repro end.. ......Each piece...keys/guitars/horns/backing vocals/leads of any sort/Chilean chanting/ etc have their own vca master that they are bussed to. These are then sent through an aux master and this is bussed to a stereo channel which I record to. The aux master and the sub-masters are where I put the bulk of my compression/eq/etc if needed. Oh sure....at some point in the recording process there may have been a hardware something used and printed to the track...sometimes individual tracks will have plugin assigned to it for something or other....depends on the need or desire and the effect of the sound in the track. Sometimes I'll buss these tracks out to another track and record them with the devices on them...ie: print to another track. Then I can eliminate the plugin. At the mix there are very very few plugins in actual operation and this is key for controlling phase and harmonic intermodulation distortions between two separate yet similar devices. Tese days I've gotten really simple in my selections from the library. I have a large amount of plugs....I actually use maybe 15 different ones. I will occasionally branch out but you learn to use what you know and like.

Speaking of plugs and I'm sure most will agree....there's a "sound" you get with certain manufacturers of plug-ins. Even the SAME EMULATION OF A HARDWARE device will sound different from plug to plug. So I will tend to find something I like in, say an EQ or a comp made by XXX and through the whole song I'll tend to go with the other stuff from XXX to kinda give a certain spark to things. Maybe I'm just nuts but I hear these differences.....digital's all the same ......right!?

audiokid, post: 441754, member: 1 wrote: In my workflow, I attempt to keep all faders as close to unity. There used to be a "myth" that a mix always sounded better when you left the DAW faders hot and alone, then used a console to boost or reduce but I have busted that myth. I simply do not mix hot.

Being said, everything sounds better in my DAW system when all gain staging renders the channel fader's to sit close to unity, while the over all master faders end up mixing near unity at -20 output.
Basically my tracks, bus stems and master faders are all sitting near unity and not in the red. My idea is to make sure the overall master bus exports or captures the final mix around -20 to -8.
When I capture the 2 bus on DAW2, the capture level is landing around -20 as well. I an don't usually have to move the fader at all. I simply adujut the converter gain and/or the DAW gain so it keeps everything at the same level it was sent. It always sounds better when I capture the mixdown below -8. Works beautiful for me.

Yep. I want you to understand that when I say -6 on these meters its probably actually -8 or -9 in reality. The meters in PT tend to be showing you anticipated peaking. When I pull up a Dorrough Meter on the print track its usually -10 to -8 if I'm going to be seeing it louder at mastering. Less if the music dictates a lot of dynamic range. Yes to unity especially on the vca subs.....I try not to move the faders of their "SPOT" the one I've chosen because everything is sitting nicely. I use the volume in the automation much more than fader rides these days. Its...once again....finding that spot where the drums and bass and vocals co-exist in a perfect way and everything else comes as goes in a dynamic way enhancing but never breaking the bank.

The drums and bass and lead vocals are ALWAYS THE BANK>

Davedog, post: 441756, member: 4495 wrote: Yep. I want you to understand that when I say -6 on these meters its probably actually -8 or -9 in reality. The meters in PT tend to be showing you anticipated peaking. When I pull up a Dorrough Meter on the print track its usually -10 to -8 if I'm going to be seeing it louder at mastering. Less if the music dictates a lot of dynamic range. Yes to unity especially on the vca subs.....I try not to move the faders of their "SPOT" the one I've chosen because everything is sitting nicely. I use the volume in the automation much more than fader rides these days. Its...once again....finding that spot where the drums and bass and vocals co-exist in a perfect way and everything else comes as goes in a dynamic way enhancing but never breaking the bank.

The drums and bass and lead vocals are ALWAYS THE BANK>

+1

Killer breakdown Dave!!!

I cherry pick plugs. I try and get the best/most useful of each type from whatever manufacturer I like. Or in some cases I'll just grab the best offerings from an entire company.

I've used quite a bit of what's out there between the studios and my buddy being a geek. There's probably about a dozen or two that are indispensable, the rest either average or no good. Imho

I've got about 15 or so, with another 10 I'm planning on, and I'll be set for mix/master/metering.

I find most are average and each manufacturer has one or 3 that are remarkable relative to the others. This could be either their own creation or a model.

I find none of the models sound the same. And don't really sound/behave like the hardware, in the few cases I've been able to compare the software to hardware.

Pluggins are a bit unique in that it's now always the newest or most expensive ones that are 'the best'. The waves renessaince stuff being a prime example.

Although vsl and BFD were pricey I think they are by far better than the competition, and I got them on sale so... Win win.

Just got this Piano vsti a couple hours ago, sounds way way better than it should, especially for $17. This thing does not sound cheap. They even recorded it in Boston, which isn't far from me at all. Pretty neat. Audio/video samples at bottom of page of link fwiw

http://sonivoxmi.com/products/details/eighty-eight-ensemble-2

Davedog do you notice a significant difference in sound when you print your plugs to the track vs keep them on inserts?

Do you think it has to do w delay compensation or eliminating the gain stages??? JW.

Are you using native plugins or dsp or both? If Dsp is it AAXdsp

Ive been planning on printing my edits and processing once I've got my parts recorded, then moving them into a fresh mix session for finalization in a different program.

kmetal, post: 441777, member: 37533 wrote: Davedog do you notice a significant difference in sound when you print your plugs to the track vs keep them on inserts?

Do you think it has to do w delay compensation or eliminating the gain stages??? JW.

Are you using native plugins or dsp or both? If Dsp is it AAXdsp

Ive been planning on printing my edits and processing once I've got my parts recorded, then moving them into a fresh mix session for finalization in a different program.

To my ear there is a noticable difference between printing a set of plugs to a new track rather than just keeping them on a track through a mix. It certainly cuts down on the delay compensation and in doing so isn't asking the cpu to load up as much. I don't know the theory or math on this but anytime your computer is idling along doing its job, it's a good thing. Leaves lots of room for cpu heavy processes. Of course you have to be able to make decisions on things when printing something. Fortuantely with my track count I have available and the number of voices, I can keep the original tracks and print to a new one then disable the old track. It remains asis but doesn't add to the cpu load or the delay.

I use native and DSP. I'm not on any AAX since I'm still on PT10.3.8. It has been a very stable program for me and even though I have an 11 license I haven't gone there . I probably won't. Some of my more knowledgable friends have discovered that 11 seems to be the bastard step-child gap between 10 and 12 with 12 being the winner in all aspects.

I do, on occasion, build a completely new session for mixing. I still retain the tracking session as well as some of the preliminary mixes associated with it. Unless the mix of a perticular song presents itself right from the start, this is my preferred method. Depending on the time element for a project I will, sometimes, make three of four complete mixes with a certain vibe to them all being different. These will also have different instrumentation mixing as well as the effects and approach. Other times its down and dirty and thats where it goes.

I know this is off topic and apologies to ChrisH the OP for straying...but

Speaking of plug ins...Waves are currently running the SSL Collection heavily discounted. I am seriously looking at this...is anyone currently using it and if so, your thoughts?

Davedog, post: 441780, member: 4495 wrote: To my ear there is a noticable difference between printing a set of plugs to a new track rather than just keeping them on a track through a mix. It certainly cuts down on the delay compensation and in doing so isn't asking the cpu to load up as much. I don't know the theory or math on this but anytime your computer is idling along doing its job, it's a good thing. Leaves lots of room for cpu heavy processes. Of course you have to be able to make decisions on things when printing something. Fortuantely with my track count I have available and the number of voices, I can keep the original tracks and print to a new one then disable the old track. It remains asis but doesn't add to the cpu load or the delay.

I use native and DSP. I'm not on any AAX since I'm still on PT10.3.8. It has been a very stable program for me and even though I have an 11 license I haven't gone there . I probably won't. Some of my more knowledgable friends have discovered that 11 seems to be the bastard step-child gap between 10 and 12 with 12 being the winner in all aspects.

I do, on occasion, build a completely new session for mixing. I still retain the tracking session as well as some of the preliminary mixes associated with it. Unless the mix of a perticular song presents itself right from the start, this is my preferred method. Depending on the time element for a project I will, sometimes, make three of four complete mixes with a certain vibe to them all being different. These will also have different instrumentation mixing as well as the effects and approach. Other times its down and dirty and thats where it goes.

Excellent sir!

I wonder if delay compensation is still active in pt when you disable the pluggin bit keep it instanciated. My thinking is I could make use of the commit function in pt12. I also wonder how freezing, vs print to a new track works. If experience tells me anything printing to a new track is probably most solid. This is gonna come in super handy with all the virtual instruments...

@192k I've got 999 tracks in samplitude, and 32-64 in pt/pthd 12. So I'm planning on using samplitude for wetting and editing and then PTHD for 7.1 surround avid alongside media composer video software. One day I hope to have all three sync'd on there own computers.

Sean G, post: 441782, member: 49362 wrote: I know this is off topic and apologies to ChrisH the OP for straying...but

Speaking of plug ins...Waves are currently running the SSL Collection heavily discounted. I am seriously looking at this...is anyone currently using it and if so, your thoughts?

The e channel is absolutely fantastic, and the Ssl bus comp is pretty good. Sometime I leave the comp on sometimes not, but it's one of the better bud compresser plugins available imho.

The ssl channel is killer. Super quick and convenient with the eq gate comp and expander all within the channel.

Having a channel strip really avoids the artifacts of having all that stuff on seperate instances (phase, delay comps, gain stages).

It's pretty much my go to for drum kits, with maybe something extra/different on the bus or overheads. It's good for guitars, even vocals. It sounds good and it's super fast.

CLA uses it and the BF76 plugins he said quite often. Lol he doesn't use his CLA classic compresser that waves modeled and he endorses apparently.

The reason I didn't snag it was its limited to 96k sample rate, and everything I'm buying has to be 192k capable, and cross platform/format.

This isn't an issue for most. It's not cheap but the ssl channel is worth it's price. I think davedog uses it as well. I use it all the time if I'm at the studio.

Lol I took advantage of the sale over the weekend to fill out my waves collection. Only want two more plugs from them, other than that I've finally got all the ones I want from them. Scooped the l2, DBx compressor (not amazing sounding but does m/s, which is cool), and I grabbed the CLA compressors (la2/3 and 1176's)

All in all I'm about $500 in on waves, all from sales. I've got the mucians 2 and native power pack bundles, all the renessaince (except verb cuz it's 96k only), and the new ones I listed.

The last two from them I want is renniassance bass, and the TG12345 chain strip which sounds quite good on snare and vocals (also does m/s)

The Reniassance comp is on sale I belive for an impulse $30, highly reccomended if you don't have it yet. I love that compresser.

I have a few of the Renaissance plug-ins, the R-comp, R-Bass and R-Vox. Casting an eye over that SSL collection at $550 off of this weekend...only $249 as opposed to $799...

Since I have an HD set-up I cant run TDM versions of plugs and record through them. The waves SSL stuff is all over my drums in the template I use for tracking. SSL says drums.

Sheesh, I use the same simple eq and comp on 90% of my tracks. The remaining 10% are split between using even less (e.g. just the eq) and using more, usually one added slightly fancy plugin.

Well, that's at my main gig. At the other place my partner pushes me to use his expensive (to my thinking) plugins, which I do and get perfectly adequate results. Ninety-nine percent of it is in listening to what's there and knowing what to do about it. And that brings us back to the topic, monitoring.

bouldersound, post: 441792, member: 38959 wrote: Sheesh, I use the same simple eq and comp on 90% of my tracks. The remaining 10% are split between using even less (e.g. just the eq) and using more, usually one added slightly fancy plugin.

+1

Samplitude is all about the stock DAW emulating a beautiful console with perfectly excellent strips and accurate processing plugs. My system (touch wood :)) is optimized well, never (well hardly) crashes and to this date does not require additional DSP accelerators. The well optimized PC with good ADDA drivers seems to do it all. That seems to be the magic ingredient for me.
[SPOILER=FYI] (quietly I say this as I do not mean to offend or push public).. I've owned two very well known converters with a pile of plug-ins and DSP (one unit as a front end and one as a back end, both sharing ITB and OTB workflows in various scenarios together with Sequoia).
When comparing stock plug-ins to third party plugins and workflows, separate and together in simple to complex scenarios... my comparisons are third party DSP power never exceed a simple cost effective stock Sequoia workflow.
My conclusion to this day, the DAW engine and how it does that math sounds to be more important. [/SPOILER]

Maybe we can do a mix "plug-in" shootout some day. I think we would all like to know if we are actually hearing what we are seeing.

Other than a few third party plug-ins outside the fundamentals of what I need to mix most music (apart from ITB virtual music), the variations of third party EQs and compressors on the market don't really sound any better than the next. I could be completely wrong but to my ears... most of all I have tried appears to be more about pictures and a design over sound quality.
I guess what I am always saying to myself... If I was on an analog console, I wouldn't be inserting 4 different EQ or compressors on each lane.
A great question and one that would be really interesting to shoot out.... how is the old analog days of mixing a song any different from today when it comes to the basic workflow of recording and mixing music captured from microphone's?

That being said, the only EQ's I've heard unattainable (non emulatable) is a Pultec Analog MEQ-5 which I would use for both tracking or hybrid summing. But those are even unnecessary. I mean, I can live without them too.

Being the "keep it simple" advocate... A well captured performance sounds great without anything but the mic, pre-amp, conversion path and a nice set of speakers.

Sean G, post: 441782, member: 49362 wrote: I know this is off topic and apologies to ChrisH the OP for straying...but

Speaking of plug ins...Waves are currently running the SSL Collection heavily discounted. I am seriously looking at this...is anyone currently using it and if so, your thoughts?

No worries, sir!
I use their G series channel strip all the time, specifically the G Series cause it has the BELL eq shape option.
+1 for the Renaissance Waves plugins, love the reverb and RVox can get the job done.