DonnyThompson, post: 438823, member: 46114 wrote: that there was that particular time period when it was popular for recording studios to often have certain pieces of broadcast processing gear that was popular with and frequently used by radio stations; in an effort to emulate the conditions of broadcast facilities, so that the studios could test and check mixes for the "radio sound".

Didn't know this. It's been 15 minutes awake, and I've already learned my 'fact of the day'.

Sean G, post: 438824, member: 49362 wrote: Ideally I'd like an analog EQ that would allow me to tweek a signal on the way in should it be required and patch it across the odd stereo mix bus if I needed.

Sean, you may get more bang for your buck with a channel strip. The presonus eureka channel can be had in the 2-400$ range. I like em. I don't belive there's a stereo link to link a pair, it does have a digital out option which sometimes you can score in the unit. It does have detected knobs, which makes stereo pairing and recall a bit easier. The preamp is excellent (it's transformer coupled), the compresser is super transparent, and the eq is decent. Overall super usuable, and I wold wager that the any single section of the unit i.e. The pre, comp, or eq, is as good as any standalone unit, in the 2-400$ range. W the eureka you get all three for that price.

It's also possible to easily swap the X former, but the stock ones sound good out of the box. If I recall Davedog uses a eureka for his hi hat, but nothing else these days.

I've used the eureka on snare, overhead(s), and a lot of vocals. It can hold its own against even boutique stuff, it's not always the best, but I've picked it over calrec and Manley before. It's worth consideration.

You get to that price point by using surface mount knobs, and stuff like that, so it's in a sense a drive it to till the wheels fall off device, but the ones down at the studio have stood up to years of over aggressive fat fingered engineer(s) eh hem name(s) withheld, without breaking. Lol ever see a talkback button smashed into the console??? Not everything is built to ssl/neve tank like quality.

I do have a Eureka, but it doesn't get as much use as it used to since I picked up a pair Of Focusrite Octopre's. Every now and then if I want a touch of comp or EQ on something going in I'll use it for something different and its another option going in but not my only one.

Chris you make a very valid point, and coming from someone who has used both ITB and hybrid setups I'm sure you have more knowledge on the subject than most, although I'm sure you weren't strapping $400 units across a mix bus with the level and quality of gear you have used in the past. ;)

Maybe I have to just face it and come to terms with the fact that once you start running back OTB it can mean only one thing...loss of audio quality...and coupling that with mid-level gear probably aint going to get me in front of where I started from to begin with in the first place.

No doubt theres' a lot more surgical precision that can be applied ITB when it comes to EQ without the loss factor.

Maybe I'm a sucker for the joy that comes with physically turning dials and twisting knobs...after all thats' how I was taught to do things and sometimes those old habits learned are hard to let go of when technology moves forward and makes them redundant.

Cool. If you already have a eureka, you know what they do. As soon as the world realizes you don't need a whole computer for audio, we will get our knobs and faders back, I hope. The Berringer X-32 for instance, tracks multitrack straight to USB drive, and has all sorts of built in Dsp, and motorized faders. How long before editing is built in?

I used a mackie HDR which is a 24ch hard disk recorder, in the same vein as the Alesis HD 24. This thing is probably something along the lines of a 300mhz CPU, with maybe half a gig of ram? Hook up a screen and a mouse, and did you basic cut copy paste loop, style non destructive editing.

To me it's only a matter of time before people want editing capabilities out of their multitrack mixers/recorders. I say this half believing, and half hoping. But the technology is there.

Touch screen editing is a big step up from mouse editing imho, but nothing seems to replace the feel of faders and knobs.

kmetal, post: 438831, member: 37533 wrote: but nothing seems to replace the feel of faders and knobs

I added the Presonus Fader Port for that very reason...it allows for tactile control with fader rides and writing automation and a feel that you just can't get with a mouse...and also allows for control functions at the touch of a button. The motorised fader follows written automation on tracks and makes workflow a lot quicker as your'e not grabbing for a mouse every 30 seconds.

I wish my Allen & Heath desk had the same function and recallability !

Would you still reccomend the fader port Sean? Does it have ability to control plugins? I had borrowed my cousins alpha track a long time ago, but I never really made good use of it, I think it was something to do w my computer/PT combo at the time.

You can't control your plug-ins with it, but it beats a mouse IMO for what it does. It has USB connection, works for both PC & Mac platforms and has its own 9V DC power supply (only really to power the motorised fader...it will function without this but the fader is static).

It supports most commonly available DAW programs including Presonus' own Studio One, as well as Cubase/Nuendo, Digital Performer and Sonar directly, whereas Logic, Pro Tools and other HUI-compatible DAWs work via the existing HUI protocol. Functionality can be limited in some cases depending on how the sequencer's own external control system works, but because I run Studio One I don't have any issues using it. YMMV.

What I like is you can control Mute, Solo & Record functions at the touch of a button, track selection, as well as fader modes Read, Write & Touch, you can scroll through the window view and also control all your transport functions. It allows you to open both your plug-in browser and mix window with the touch of a button.
There is also a detent-action rotary Pan control pot for pan adjustments on the selected track.

Best of all it makes fader rides for writing volume automation much easier and IMO more accurate than using a mouse.

It comes with a 1/4 inch footswitch input for remote control recording and punching in...which is great for when you are flying Hans Solo.
I connected a spare guitar footswitch to it and its works a treat. This is ideal for recording guitar, keys or vocal tracks as you don't have to be standing over your desk to be hitting the record button.

If you like to riding the fader and want a more simpler hands-on approach than using a mouse for basic functions then yes, I would recommend it.

As a side note, I watched one of Warren Huarts' videos the other day where he did an interview and studio tour with Barry Rudolph.
Barry Rudolph has a home studio full of some of the best high-end gear money can buy and sitting on his desk was a FaderPort. He uses one with his DAW...go figure.

Disclaimer : I am not endorsed by or nor am I an employee of Presonus.

Sean G, post: 438834, member: 49362 wrote: It also has a footswitch input for remote control recording and punching in...which is great for when you are flying Hans Solo.

This alone is frigggin huge! i didn't even think of that. I'm gonna check this thing out right now. The price is certainly a good price.

I like the idea of having the automation accessible, and the transport controls too. Good to know man.

Lol I think it's safe to say that none of us work for any gear companies, or gear sales companies. If and when I ever have to, you'll all know, because you'll all be getting things at cost via my employee discount!!!!!!!!

I saw one on ebay only last night that was in the US going pretty cheap if you want to save a few bucks on retail price new.

But that footswitch control alone is a great feature, especially if you are tracking vocals, the last thing you need is the sound of you clicking record with a mouse and then the sound of walking over to the mic. My guitar footswitch has a really long cord so I can get well away and in position...you don't have to think about anything but the task at hand and away you go with the tap of the toe.

Sean G, post: 438836, member: 49362 wrote: I saw one on ebay only last night that was in the US going pretty cheap if you want to save a few bucks on retail price new.

But that footswitch control alone is a great feature, especially if you are tracking vocals, the last thing you need is the sound of you clicking record with a mouse and then the sound of walking over to the mic. My guitar footswitch has a really long cord so I can get well away and in position...you don't have to think about anything but the task at hand and away you go with the tap of the toe.

Lol I'm familiar with the 'hit record and run' to the mic technique. Also familiar with the 'smashing of guitar headstock into desk' technique while trying to quickly jump back and forth between rec/undo and playing.

Do you have any trouble keeping track, of which track the fader pro is controlling? It'd be killer if they came out with like a premium model for a couple hundred more that included an led scribble strip, and a couple more rotary encoders.

Beside the smakie MCU, it seems beeringer is the only other control surface that's reasonably priced, but it uses color coding from you daw, instead of track names, which is kinda disheartening at $600.

Then there's the avid artist mix, which I'm trying to figure out as we speak, if it's supported by samplitude. But even that is getting mixed revwiws relative to its s3 and s6 siblings, which carry 2x and 4x the price tag.

The novation nocturn was cool, you could control plugins, and it had a speed knob, so whatever control in the daw your mouse was hovering over, it would control. But it's no longer supported with 64bit OS. I think they may have a similar, newer device out.

I can't belive that hardware companies have not addressed this demand. Every engineer I know prefers knobs to mouse, for most things, especially fader, pan, and automation. Eq and compression would be nice to have a controller for, particularly eq, but that's a lot of knobs, given 3-4 knobs per band, on a 7 band eq.

The iPad is cool, and it runs PT and SAM, but it's just not the same as an actual fader.

Sean G, post: 438830, member: 49362 wrote: Maybe I'm a sucker for the joy that comes with physically turning dials and twisting knobs

I think most of us have the same love.

Sean G, post: 438830, member: 49362 wrote: Chris you make a very valid point, and coming from someone who has used both ITB and hybrid setups I'm sure you have more knowledge on the subject than most, although I'm sure you weren't strapping $400 units across a mix bus with the level and quality of gear you have used in the past.

If something works, that's what matters. If it can be emulated or reproduced itb for a fraction of the cost of hardware, then its an option. I've owned some of the best EQ's made and all but one can be replaced ITB better. They come stock with my DAW lol. So, my comments aren't intend to put a dollar amount as meaning we need to buy the best to be part of my arsenal. In fact that is quite the contrary. So many people think hardware means warm and is where pro Audio lives. Most analog gear sounds like crap in comparison to what I hear available itb. Especially in the parametric world. And a lot of analog gear degrades audio just inline.

I also believe there is a thought that digital audio is cold in comparison. I tend to agree with that when using crap/ older converters and cheapish preamps. The two combined tend to add a brittleness.
I've noticed many of these older opinions come from people mixing music that appears tracked through older Pro tools or worse or users that use poor gear and look to analog to help improve their weak front end/ thus, to soften the blow/ smear up the edge.
Anyway... that's another topic.

Today I have been on a road trip and was listening to satellite radio. I thought it was interesting to notice how the 80's music I thought used to sound so full sounded like AM radio in comparison to the Hits today.
I can't help but mention that my Pultec MEQ-5 help get that full lower mid that is so big sounding. So far I've not heard a plug-in do what a pultec does. Which is why I share this with our community. They really are amazing for getting that fat low mid that nothing else does as well.

This is what I was suggesting that you might find used for half of this. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00TJ8B0M6/?tag=r06fa-20

Update- looks like the artist mix supports samplitude. As much as I hate avid, my new rig is Ethernet based (as possible) and the artist mix is Ethernet based. There should,be less latency or lag relative to USB midi controllers.

This fader port is looking really good right now. Another product, just like SAM, I totally would've written off, if not for being part of this RO community.

Good looking out Sean.

audiokid, post: 438838, member: 1 wrote: I think most of us have the same love.

If something works, that's what matters. If it can be emulated or reproduced itb for a fraction of the cost of hardware, then its an option. I've owned some of the best EQ's made and all but one can be replaced ITB better. They come stock with my DAW lol. So, my comments aren't intend to put a dollar amount as meaning we need to buy the best to be part of my arsenal. In fact that is quite the contrary. So many people think hardware means warm and is where pro Audio lives. Most analog gear sounds like crap in comparison to what I hear available itb. Especially in the parametric world. And a lot of analog gear degrades audio just inline.

I also believe there is a thought that digital audio is cold in comparison. I tend to agree with that when using crap converters and cheap preamps. I've noticed many of these opinions come from people mixing music that has been tracked through Pro tools or worse or users that use poor gear and look to analog to help improve their weak front end/ thus, to soften the blow/ smear up the edge.
Anyway... that's another topic.

Today I have been on a road trip and was listening to satellite radio. I thought it was interesting to notice how the 80's music I thought used to sound so full sounded like AM radio in comparison to the Hits today.
I can't help but mention that my Pultec MEQ-5 help get that full lower mid that is so big sounding. So far I've not heard a plug-in do what a pultec does. Which is why I share this with our community. They really are amazing for getting that fat low mid that nothing else does as well.

This is what I was suggesting that you might find used for half of this. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00TJ8B0M6/?tag=r06fa-20

Chris what about Neve style eq? Have you found a good emulation for it? I don't particualry like the waves version, which is the only one I've used. Mixing in general w a neve sound can get a bit lispy I think anyway.

From what I gather on the warm, they're able to keep costs down using PCB construction, vs point to point on the pulse version.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rane-PE15-SP15-5-Band-Rack-Mountable-Parametric-Equalizer-W-AC-Power-Supply-/321560904199?hash=item4ade860207:g:~0gAAOSwDN1USPqN

We use a few of these on kick in, kick out, and snare top down at one of the studios. I've never worked on really good eqs, so I'm not sure how they stand up. They sound 'pretty good' to me in dbx 90.s punchy kinda way. (A little) Cleaner than you'd expect but not by any means pretty, or shiny. Fwiw

It looks like this would be interesting, it can control all major pluggin formats, and Mac/PC compatible.

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/SLmk2-25

kmetal, post: 438840, member: 37533 wrote: Chris what about Neve style eq? Have you found a good emulation for it? I don't particualry like the waves version, which is the only one I've used. Mixing in general w a neve sound can get a bit lispy I think anyway.

From what I gather on the warm, they're able to keep costs down using PCB construction, vs point to point on the pulse version.

Not sure. I suspect anything Neve is worth having if its up to par.
I am really sitting in the camp that great conversion and big rail pre's are where it starts and ends and where I put my wallet in now. Most of the other things we used back in the day can all be emulated.
I still think LA2A's are essential for bass and vocals and I also think a single pass through a wire is enough to add that "character". I'm really believing when it comes to analog goodness, all I need is a pass through one analog product at the end of a mix will add some swing. ( NOT TO ACTUALLY USE THE POTS, JUST HAVING IT AS A PASS THROUGH).
Sorry if that sounds confusing. I really don't know another way to put it. I have a Folcrom here that I'm hoping to test out later this year. I hope I'm right. Who knows.
That being said,
The Warm Audio gear seems affordable and might be just what we need at an affordable pricel. My Pultecs cost $3000 each. I suspect Warn Audio will be a bit noisy but might be good enough to get the taste of what I think gives a really full sound using EQ's.

kmetal, post: 438837, member: 37533 wrote: Do you have any trouble keeping track, of which track the fader pro is controlling?

It controls the track you have highlighted in your DAW. There are Left / Right buttons on the FaderPort to switch to other tracks in your DAW just like you would when using the mouse to change tracks.

audiokid, post: 438838, member: 1 wrote: This is what I was suggesting that you might find used for half of this. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00TJ8B0M6/?tag=r06fa-20

I have been casting a keen eye over the Warm Audio stuff...the Warm Audio Tube EQ gets good wraps from what Iv'e read.

Actually, only yesterday I was looking at the Warm Audio WA-76 and I came came across this...
- a stereo linked pair mod thats out of the UK. http://www.nova-distribution.co.uk/wa76_stereo_linked_pair/

It comes with a switch that links the two. I sent them a message but being the weekend I haven't heard anything back. The WA-76 gets a good write up for a clone.
Here they retail for $1080 AUD (about $800 US). The WA-2A goes for a little less at $1030 AUD here in Oz.

audiokid, post: 438842, member: 1 wrote: I suspect Warn Audio will be a bit noisy but might be good enough to get the taste of what I think gives a really full sound using EQ's.

I think that I read that to keep the noise to a minimum they use an outboard power supply on the WA-76...

The other units are high voltage being tube units but the WA-76 uses a wall wart power supply.

kmetal, post: 438840, member: 37533 wrote: From what I gather on the warm, they're able to keep costs down using PCB construction, vs point to point on the pulse version.

Yeah that looks about right Sean. There's a cool site where the guy makes replica 1176s and he shows the internals of each different model, as the years rolled on, the internals had less and less components, which I'm guessing translated to fidelity and efficiency in there eyes. PCB saves on the labor of having to solder each component. I haven't heard any of these in person, but on the YouTube, the real pultecs always sounded better, than the ones being compared in AB. They have that 'thing'. A couple of the replicas sounded pretty darn good, and certainly usable.

Having only used the same urie 1176ln silver face, I can't comment really on how it 'should' sound, or does sound relative to the others. This thing sounds worn out, and probably needs new caps, and work to the power supply.

This JDK audio company is formed from members of API's team or former team, and they have an eq I've been interested in for some time. It seems like the cheapest outboard eq aimed at professional studios. They run about 50% cheaper than their api branded cousins. http://www.jdkaudio.com/r24.html

audiokid, post: 438842, member: 1 wrote: Not sure. I suspect anything Neve is worth having if its up to par.
I am really sitting in the camp that great conversion and big rail pre's are where it starts and ends and where I put my wallet in now. Most of the other things we used back in the day can all be emulated.
I still think LA2A's are essential for bass and vocals and I also think a single pass through a wire is enough to add that "character". I'm really believing when it comes to analog goodness, all I need is a pass through one analog product at the end of a mix will add some swing. ( NOT TO ACTUALLY USE THE POTS, JUST HAVING IT AS A PASS THROUGH).
Sorry if that sounds confusing. I really don't know another way to put it. I have a Folcrom here that I'm hoping to test out later this year. I hope I'm right. Who knows.
That being said,
The Warm Audio gear seems affordable and might be just what we need at an affordable pricel. My Pultecs cost $3000 each. I suspect Warn Audio will be a bit noisy but might be good enough to get the taste of what I think gives a really full sound using EQ's.

Sounds like you subscribe to what I call 'majic boxes' where you just plug and play, with minimal tweaking, and the box just better-izes things. If I'm understanding you, it sounds like you pre not eqing on the way in very often (not counting the eq on amps, or filters on the mics)? Or is it more of a case of a pair of pultecs are all you need to get where you want?

I've been waiting to hear your thoughts on the fulcrum since you picked it up some time ago, I like the potential of what it can do, and it's bare bones simple design.

La-2 on bass eh? I don't even own an emulation pluggin of an la-2, but I've always envisioned one or a replica of one, in my collection at some point.

Warm audio is certainly interesting to me, I can't help feel like it's one of those 'almost' there type stains where it becomes very expensive to get to the next step. Hopefully someone around here will try one.

Controllers- Between object based editing in Sam, and clip gain and fast bouncing in PT12, I'm holding of on a true multi fader control surface for a bit. The archaic clip gain in DP 8, was well archaic, but I loved the precision I had with it. A great way to even out dynamic vocals without compression. So before I go whole hog on trying to chase my past ways of working, I'm going to spend the proper time learning all this new uber powerful software that I'm slowly getting.

I gotta thank you Sean for the fader port suggestion. That's going to be my automation fader. Then a simple 61 key semi weighted midi controller (akai, or notation) gives me 8-16 rotary knobs, and 8 faders, for controlling the daw mixer and plug-insas well. Plus another set of transport controls, and the keybed for playing, and a set of finger pads for drums or triggering.

This keeps things modestly priced, with a modest footprint.

kmetal, post: 438850, member: 37533 wrote: Sounds like you subscribe to what I call 'majic boxes' where you just plug and play, with minimal tweaking, and the box just better-izes things.

Not really, I just feel most analog gear is inferior to ITB now. So why gum up a track with noisy hardware. But each to his own.
Being said, UA gear is pretty noisy but the trade off is worth it. The plug-ins are a joke in comparison.
imho

kmetal, post: 438850, member: 37533 wrote: If I'm understanding you, it sounds like you pre not eqing on the way in very often (not counting the eq on amps, or filters on the mics)?

The best chain I have used to date is an M-2b, LA2A, 1176 Pultec MEQ-5. And not necessarily in an order or with all of them. The M-2b pre is awesome.LA2a are wonderful for vocals and a MEQ-5 is the ultimate for mid range shaping. All the rest can be done ITB.

kmetal, post: 438850, member: 37533 wrote: Or is it more of a case of a pair of Pultecs are all you need to get where you want?

one Pultec for each channel would be choice. ;)

kmetal, post: 438850, member: 37533 wrote: La-2 on bass eh?

Very smooth for both vocals and bass.

kmetal, post: 438850, member: 37533 wrote: I've been waiting to hear your thoughts on the folcrom since you picked it up some time ago, I like the potential of what it can do, and it's bare bones simple design.

This is just my creative pallet talking. .

After years of careful listening through really worthy gear (not trying to like something just because I bought it), the thing that stands out the most is the more analog gear in a path, the more a product looses its identity.
So I am looking for a certain role analog has in my world now. It certainly isn't analog gear with a bunch of bells and whistles.

I simply want gear with character. Something that will add that "glow" without crushing the bandwidth. Glow is what digital does not have.
I want a Folcrom to add a mix through an M-2b. M-2b have a glow like no other pre I've used.

Two DAW's and a really good monitor control section has helped me understand carful use of character. Thats why I like two DAW's.
I like analog Pultecs because they have the ability to do broad curves with a "glow" and no honk. You dial it in as easy as a a gas heat element.

I'm seeing very distinct roles to analog and digital. If I can do it ITB, I will always do that way. Its cheaper and easier but some things like LA2A's and Pultecs just sound better in the hardware state. They have that glow.

That Warm Audio EQP-WA has got my gear aquisition syndrome playing up again now...Damn !

Lol I swear this isn't a multi quote contest. I always respect your opinions Chris, even if they differ from mine, because your one of the few engineers I know who isn't nostalgic with gear, tones or sounds.

audiokid, post: 438887, member: 1 wrote: Not really, I just feel most analog gear is inferior to ITB now. So why gum up a track with noisy hardware. But each to his own.

I didn't start sharing this sentiment until I got lucky enough to work on 'real gear, in a real room'. Analog for me has a place when getting a sound for tracking (hi and lo fi), and I'm going to experiment w a 2ch mastering/summing thing possibly in between the two daws. Noise per se doesn't bother me, but the room it takes up does. I'm moving into clear clean and open, but full. I believe this is achievable now. Clean doesn't mean sterile or or small by default anymore. I've got gritty and grungy down to a science by now.

audiokid, post: 438887, member: 1 wrote: The M-2b pre is awesome.

Even phil likes the millennia, which he feels is 2nd to some old Jensen? Brand preamp. Says it's the biggest fullest pres out. Seems like millennia can't be beat. 2 millennia, 2 neve, and a couple home made jammmies, are what's on my endless list. Tough to decide which first. Lol there's plenty of time.

audiokid, post: 438887, member: 1 wrote: one Pultec for each channel would be choice. ;)

Fair enough. May I ask why you went with the meq5 as opposed to the more recognizable eqp-1?

audiokid, post: 438890, member: 1 wrote: Two DAW's and a really good monitor control section has helped me understand carful use of character. Thats why I like two DAW's.

Dangerous st is coming. Can't be beat in price /performance from over a years worth of research. My friend went to NESCOM, an audio school that has nothing, nothing, but the most expensive stuff out there, and lots of it. He used both the dangerous and millennia. I think there were some firmware issues relating to the millennia. Sonically neither beat the other. Since I'm setting up surround in my eventual home mix suite, dangerous is the only one that's affordably scalable. And I like its Ethernet. Sorry for sweating cat6 these days.

Sean G, post: 438892, member: 49362 wrote: That Warm Audio EQP-WA has got my gear aquisition syndrome playing up again now...Damn !

Your not alone brother. I'm thinking of pulling the trigger on one of those JDK audio 2ch eqs. They are the same price per channel as the warm, or similar ball park. I know the designs are different (xformer balanced out vs tube) but you might find JDK to be a bit more integral. Just my 2c

kmetal, post: 438893, member: 37533 wrote: Noise per se doesn't bother me, but the room it takes up does.

Its not about either. I can live with noise and love the space it takes up. Its all about not being worth it and especially not being as proficient or sonically as good. I am 100% convinced of this.
In my opinion, ITB is better for all mixing and mastering. Especially for mastering. At least Samplitude ITB.
Two DAW's though, thats why I heard the truth and how I came to the realization.

kmetal, post: 438893, member: 37533 wrote: Fair enough. May I ask why you went with the meq5 as opposed to the more recognizable eqp-1

ITB top and bottom is what the DAW does so well. But noting does the midrange like MEQ-5.

audiokid, post: 438896, member: 1 wrote: In my opinion, ITB is better for all mixing and mastering. Especially for mastering. At least Samplitude ITB.

This is exactly why I'm not specing out much hardware yet.

kmetal, post: 438893, member: 37533 wrote: JDK audio 2ch eq

Interesting Kyle, where are they made?

Sean G, post: 438892, member: 49362 wrote: That Warm Audio EQP-WA has got my gear aquisition syndrome playing up again now...Damn !

Hey Sean, I'm curious why you were looking at a parametric in the first place? I don't mean to steer you away from that. Maybe its for similar reasons as me.

This is why I used the 622.
The 70's bass sound is woolly and the kicks sounded like flap... Then the 80's came.

I used the Orban to push 80 to 100 hz. It did it really well. But then I got smarter and learned how to mix like the 80's and also used the Linn kits. I also learned to use synths to augment subs and so it goes.

Today, digital parametric is hands down superior. This is why I don't use an analog parametric. I've owned beautiful parametrics, and to my surprise, Sequoia made it possible for me to sell them with no regret.

more so for bass & kick...I want something that has a little versatility, so having a second channel would be handy if I wanted to use it across a stereo bus.

I'm not completely sold on the idea either. I'm open to the views of those that came before me, otherwise you don't really learn anything except from your own mistakes which can be an expensive and fruitless exercise that just makes you want to pull what ever hair you had left, right out of your head.

kmetal, post: 438897, member: 37533 wrote: This is exactly why I'm not specing out much hardware yet.

We should start a thread on the mixing business.

In a nut shell, here is what I've learned.

All the gear in the world won't help improve a badly tracked mix. Good mixes mix themselves. Sure we get all the tracks and think we have the ability to fix. We buy gear we read is great for this instrument and that but to my ears, none of it does what going back to the engineer and seeing if they could improve bleeds and bad overdubs that started in one day and ended a week later. Or, simply dumping the bad drums and doing a replacement.
As we improve our listening skills, we are now learning about phase problems introduced from god knows what and realizing how cool ITB really is now. And how gear really isn't as important as learning how to get into a mix deeper which digital audio does so much better..
But wait... what about the sound of bad converters and preamps that have that glassy upper freq to it.

So, we first think warm tube gear and analog processing will help. Well it doesn't. You are only as "big" as the weakest track. It becomes a process of learning how to reduce to make it all sound "glued".
To my ears, most analog tweaks OTB... instantly messes up with the imaging and introduces transient smear. Which means, shifting freq's that pull the mids and subs apart which kills the big ass sound you are going for in the first place.

You go nuts trying to improve or you will be like so many where they think they are improving a mix up until some guy on a laptop simply dials a mix in using some smart tricks.

You will blow more clients away by learning how to bring mixes better in phase and replacing their crappy room sound with a Bricasti over investing in analog gear as a mixer.

Big topic but that's how I hear it.

audiokid, post: 438902, member: 1 wrote: All the gear in the world won't help improve a badly tracked mix. Good mixes mix themselves. Sure we get all the tracks and think we have the ability to fix. We buy gear we read is great for this instrument and that but to my ears, none of it does what going back to the engineer and seeing if they could improve bleeds and bad overdubs that started in one day and ended a week later. Or, simply dumping the bad drums and doing a replacement.

I agree, your mix is only as good as how well it was tracked. Theres' none of this "fix it in the mix"...thats' total BS. Its just an excuse for the lazy who couldn't be bothered getting it right in the first place. Its as useful a mantra as putting a band-aid on a broken arm.

I did a mix for a friends' band as a favour, it was tracked at a budget studio for next to nothing. Pulled my hair out for hours trying to repair poorly tracked drums played by a guy who kept time like a Taiwanese Timex. In the end I dumped the lot and replaced all the drum tracks. It was obvious what I had done as soon they heard the opening couple of bars but nobody said a word, not even the drummer. They had never sounded so tight and polished like on that track.

For that split second when the song started you could see that soul-crushing moment when he realised it wasn't him...and the deadly silence from the collective realisation of the band to what they were hearing.

Sean G, post: 438904, member: 49362 wrote: Pulled my hair out for hours trying to repair poorly tracked drums played by a guy who kept time like a Taiwanese Timex. In the end I dumped the lot and replaced all the drum tracks. It was obvious what I had done as soon they heard the opening couple of bars but nobody said a word, not even the drummer. They never sounded so tight and polished like on that track.

And it just keeps going that way.

You should try mastering. That is twice as frustrating. You are endlessly pushing volume and trying to soften the sss. And by the time you get the track, you keep thinking about how to fix it in the mix lol.

audiokid, post: 438905, member: 1 wrote: You should try mastering. That is twice as frustrating. You are endlessly pushing volume and trying to soften the sss. And by the time you get the track, you keep thinking about how to fix it in the mix lol.

I'm no M.E, but that would be the only time I would say that the saying rings true...when a revision is needed at the mastering stage to balance or improve the tracks sonics or fidelity.

When its all said and done if this gives a better final result then so be it...but at the tracking -> mix stage its just lazy IMO.

Other than your clients, all the work you do is never realized by your peers because people from the outside do not hear your amazing improvement. They still hear the problems that are part of the mix that you can never fix. And you cannot constantly be saying, you should have heard this before. I did this and that to it.
And so it goes.

But... all it takes is that one mix that was tracked well. Then you are a hero and a career is launched.

Mixing our own work is fun, mixing for other people is an eye opener. Once I started mixing for other people, I started really learning about phase and alignment. I think this is why so many engineers are now realizing, once ITB, stay ITB.

As we learn what not to do, a great mixing room and knowing your monitors is essential.

audiokid, post: 438907, member: 1 wrote: But... all it takes is that one mix that was tracked well and is a great some. The you are a hero.

I know it sounds cliché, and its been said many times before now, but something that is tracked well literally mixes itself...you really don't have to do much to it, it already sounds good to start with. Iv'e heard many M.E's say the same thing about tracks that are mixed really well too that come to them for mastering.

In the case where you are just mixing something tracked really well, sometimes theres' a little guilty feeling associated with the task that you haven't really done much to make this track really shine...especially if its tracked by someone else.

I find I'm using less plug-ins when this is the case or those that I am using is only being applied minimally, also theres' less processing going on so theres' less latency smearing things.

It becomes a pleasure to mix whereas when its the opposite it feels like the task at hand is a chore.

audiokid, post: 438907, member: 1 wrote: Mixing our own work is fun, mixing for other people is an eye opener

IMO I think mixing for others you become more critical of what you are doing and the end result. I know I do. Sometimes I feel I second-guess what I'm doing, not because I'm not confident in what I'm doing, but human nature kicks in when you know someone else will be critiquing it, usually the artist or performer(s) whose work it is, which is silly in a way because even mixing your own work is open to critique when its heard by others. When I mix my own tracks I don't fall into that mindset like I do when mixing for others and its hard to train your brain to make that switch and think the way I do when mixing for myself.

Maybe its because with my own stuff I have the final say and when its done, its done, and I'm satisfied. With someone elses work, there is always the chance that they may want something revised, which can evoke thoughts of " I didn't get it right in the first place..." or " It wasn't good enough..." which I know is silly because it just comes down to personal taste. ;)

Sean G, post: 438899, member: 49362 wrote: Interesting Kyle, where are they made?

Well good question, I'm guessing they're assembled overseas. They are designed and specd in America I believe, as part of API, either former team members, or s sister Corp. I'm gonna find out, because they use high quality parts, and an old but proven design.

audiokid, post: 438902, member: 1 wrote: We should start a thread on the mixing business.

Yeah we should. I'm moving into it, I'm sure I can learn a lot. It also helps when talking about gear to know if your talking tracking or mixing. I think it's easy to get misunderstood.

I know any of the gear I talk about (beside a possible summing type thing) is exclusively tracking. I don't mix with hardware once it's ITB, I never have. So eq for instance, my thought is if I can get some basic eq out of the way, it's less I have to do later. I've never had powerful mix hardware, like an ssl, or anything so, my mixing on hardware was limited to eq on a Portastudio. I mix as I track. I'm old school in that sense, where I eq with mic placement and selection, and make the person sing in tune, and make sure the guitar is intonated and tuning checked every few takes.

Live mixing also is different because you can mix to the room without consequence. And it's fast and intuitive. Some nights your a problem solver, other nights your an enhancer. I'm just tired of the scene, so live mixing isn't something I'm interested in right now. Maybe in a few years when I start to travel

audiokid, post: 438907, member: 1 wrote: But... all it takes is that one mix that was tracked well. Then you are a hero and a career is launched.

My best sounding mixes were done quickly ITB or via digital mixer, with a bunch of well rehearsed professionals, live in studio. Little to no editing, few punches, and only a couple takes. Really, how real records of the golden age were made much of the time.

Mixing other people's recordings makes you more of a sound designer. I've realized that while you may be able to improve a mix, it's not gonna get much better, unless you start adding things, and replacing things.

Many many bad mixes are just bad arrangements, many average songs, lack something unique. That's an area I learned to pursue from the studios. Pre production done at post. lol

One of the main reasons I want to be involved in realtime remote recording is so I can tell the person to move the mic. Or pick a new one. Or sing with heart.

The other reason is because it's now possible to get DI feeds off all the guitars, bass, and trigger the drums (one way or another) leaving crappy acoustics for the vocals, which. If I'm present even remotely, I can tell the person to get out of their closet, or hang up some blankets.

The next step is a set of motorized stands that I can manipulate remotely, but one thing at a time.

I look at my job as much as a foley sound person, as recording engineer, and my live space will resemble that. Re triggering my own well tuned snares, and re amping from my own killer virtual amps, and tube amps. Sending things out to real space, and using a bricasti. For sure, I'm getting one, when time allows. Hopefully this next gen.

I've learned from working with reasons samples that they sound great already, there's not your typical mud cuts Ect, it's like learning to un mix. But when you start with good sounds, the sounds your dialing in become good too, to fit in.

Particularly with eq, I'm ok with whatever phase things I'm changing because it's part of the sound hitting 'tape' and I think phase is more a problem relative to another instrument our sound, vs when working on a solo instrument. I think it's phase relationships that can be troublesome, just in general. I don't know if I said that exactly how I meant it, hopefully you catch what I mean.

Mastering- gradually starting to work w two tracks more and more, I've discovered how unbalanced my mixes were. SSS like you said Chris. Vocals just way out of proportion in the top, relative to the rest of the track. That's not good vocal sound, it's bad mix technique. Is actually one of things I'm looking forward to w Sam, is finalizing some old mixes that had sss problems. Working on 2 trk, has shown me massive errors in my ways.

These are the kind of thing where an ME would've told me first mix back in the day, if I came up in the 70's. I've literally never had any of my mixes mastered by a true ME.

Most of my old finalizing in Adobe audition was simply take my mix, adjust the gain and be done. The whole mastering step was kinda a new thing to me when I started at the studio.

But, what also was new to me was the whole, 0 everything out when you start to mix, which frankly, I think is dated if you've tracked the mix. This wasted a lot of people's money at the studio.

Because I was self taught, and 17 years later, still am not breaking the 4 input barrier at home, I have a very. Concise rec/mix technique. And A lot of my recordings are rough sounding, with energy.

I wanted to learn how to make real records. And I'm getting close. It's a certain level of perfection, and how you get it, it's vibe vs mistakes.

When I hear small dull sounding drums that the engineer says is from like toontrack or whatever, I understand that they are trying too hard, or the acoustics/monitoring/conversion if off. Bad arangemeent in the form of un fitting samples.

I recently mixed song on cubase for iPad, wireless through the Apple TV, wth my HRs plugged into the tv headphone jack.that came out better than the original, which was done at the studio. With many more brand name plug-insand really pro monitors. When I clear enough space on the pad, I'll post the two mixes. Maybe I'm wrong.

My brain is mush by this hour so I'll stop. Lol this post sounded better in my head while I as lying awake.

The biggest thing I've noticed about all the people who I consider masters of any field, carpentry, music, philosophy, electronics, is simplicity. It seems like eventually after you go through all the elaborations and grandour, it's simplicity that does it. Even complicated things and processes, get simplified.

It's almost as if I (we) feel if it's easy we didn't earn it.

Almost by default, I've basically nailed the rough mix, albeit with a couple clams, mixed the song to garbage, then observed what's good about the first, and end up with basically a refined rough. I think one of the biggest lessons I've learned is the discipline to serve the song. Let punk be punk, let fidelity happen. And frankly, learn that not everything sounds good, or should, and accept it.

That said, I'm going to spend an enormous amount of time on some of my mix templates, particularly w electronic bass, and drums. Many people who send me mixes will be sending me triggers, whether they know it or not. I've mixed enough horrible fruity loops sounds to realize, it ain't what they're using on the 'records'.

Lol I say this, and I'll end up setting up remote audio rigs for the next decade. I never, ever, ever, thought that buying a book to help me make a little music room for my cousin was gonna put food on my plate, and yet I'm on my second design gig of 2016. Usually it's one studio every two years, or at least that's how it's been since '06. This year it's 2 studios in 6 months!!! And my buddy just got his new house w a 2 car garage, slated to become a studio in a year or two. So I like this ride right now. It's gonna be great to get back to how it was in college before I was pro level mixing/recording, where I woke up, had some OJ and some food, fired up the system and a little something else, and just played, and vibed. I miss that freedom, I'm earning it back.

Sorry for run on off topic rambling.

kmetal, post: 438910, member: 37533 wrote: I know any of the gear I talk about (beside a possible summing type thing) is exclusively tracking.

As well.

To add
I'm of the mindset, gear I buy for mixing should be useful for tracking.

Mastering, Classical music/ pure acoustic instrumentation etc comes to mind. Whats the difference if its classical or a group of folk musicians so, analog gear, especially 2-bus products should be true for mastering or mixing too.
Otherwise why buy anything analog that isn't useful in a hybrid system. Stay ITB. Which is why transparent summing boxes are my choice. Its easy to hear what your analog gear is really doing. And, to keep the analog summing in the path, for when you need it. Its also why its so cool to have digital patching because I can switch gear any way I want for tracking, mixing or mastering.Thus, allowing everything in your arsenal to be used through digital switching. This makes it very easy to A/B/C . Thus, demystifying what analog gear is really doing for me today.

This is deep but how many samples have you heard that all sound the same up until you actually add reverb and process them into a mix?
A good example: Listen to a keyboard without reverb. Or listen to sample libraries all without reverbs.
If you follow this mindset, its pretty clear how important tracking pure is, and how important reverb is to the spacial distances of a song. There really isn't a lot of reason to be EQing the tracking imho. But, I also disagree with myself because they are exceptions and some of those are pretty damn obvious.

My choices are pretty simple today. Other than character analog compression and Pultecs, I personally don't believe there is much we need in a path for tracking anymore. I am inclined to feel its not logical EQing going in. I guess I don't trust myself that much. I feel its better to do most processing ITB and to keep the tracking lanes pretty flat and pure.

But, I've never heard LA2A's sound as nice ITB as they do when used for tracking vocals. I wonder why that is? Anyone have an answer?

I personally don't believe there is anything analog I would buy for mastering again. Digital mastering is just too awesome in comparison.

kmetal, post: 438910, member: 37533 wrote: That said, I'm going to spend an enormous amount of time on some of my mix templates, particularly w electronic bass, and drums. Many people who send me mixes will be sending me triggers, whether they know it or not. I've mixed enough horrible fruity loops sounds to realize, it ain't what they're using on the 'records'

Spot on. (y)

audiokid, post: 438921, member: 1 wrote: Which is why transparent summing boxes are my choice. Its easy to hear what your analog gear is really doing. And, to keep the analog summing in the path, for when you need it. Its also why its so cool to have digital patching because I can switch gear any way I want for tracking, mixing or mastering.Thus, allowing everything in your arsenal to be used through digital switching. This makes it very easy to A/B/C . Thus, demystifying what analog gear is really doing for me today.

This makes so much sense. Are you still using the Xpatch for this?

audiokid, post: 438921, member: 1 wrote: I am inclined to feel its not logical EQing going in.

The beautiful thing about art, is we can all pick our own colors. I love learning how others arrive at their sounds.!

audiokid, post: 438921, member: 1 wrote: But, I've never heard LA2A's sound as nice ITB as they do when used for tracking vocals. I wonder why that is? Anyone have an answer?

....waiting.... Maybe one day when I get lucky enough to play with a real LA-2, I'll have an answer for ya. I've used the waves cla-2 on vocals, it cuts and is perhaps a bit edgy. I can only use my imagination on this one... Next time I talk to Dan Zellman, I'll ask his thoughts. He was the guy who programme the URS pluggin line, which was fairly short lived on the mainstream, for various, reasons, of which I'm not privy to the details about. I think it was a corporate head type situation.

I am in Shock.!!!! Get this. JDK audio R24 eq, assembled/manufactured in Maryland, USA!!!! Unbelievable.

The more I look into it the more I'm discovering its top end is seemingly its strong suit. So while SOS and the other various reviews did say it was good for Kik and bass, it might not be the first choice for @Sean G , but undoubtably worth looking into to, if for no other reason than fun.

It did get some marks for transparency, but many people wish for matched detented pots, for mastering scenarios, and an in/out gain adjustment, which is absent.

I'm currently arranging a demo with a company in Boston, who carries them, but doesn't have them in stock, so the salesperson has my info, and is gonna get back to me whenever.

Lol serious GAS all ther sudden.

kmetal, post: 438922, member: 37533 wrote: This makes so much sense. Are you still using the Xpatch for this?

Yes. Best investment ever. But, forewarning! It took me a good while to understand the power of digital switching and how to set up a fully switchable modular tracking, mixing and mastering system. I'd never settle for less now. Only downfall is you need a few of them if you want a lot of gear available. I suspect better digital routers will start coming. Like 16 and 32 channel routers (digital patchbays).

I've sold a lot of gear (no longer needed) but everything in my rack can or could be switched on the fly. Everything can be compared without pulling patch cables. And there is not degradation. These are straight wires controlled by switching relays. Same idea as the Monitor ST. Digitally controlled relays.

This is a big topic but the skinny is. We know that it is near impossible to remember a tweak after a sec passes. So digital patchbays (routers) close that gap. Its a big attribute to being able to compare more accurately.

kmetal, post: 438922, member: 37533 wrote: Lol serious GAS all ther sudden.

Indeed. that never ends.

Update : - Picked up a Klark Teknik DN-410 used but in good condition for $295...compared to the prices they are going for on ebay ($380 -> $800 + & mostly out of the US and in USD) it was much cheaper than what was on offer.
The way I see it if it doesn't meet my needs or expectations I can just list it on ebay for what I picked it up for...but I'm sure I'll put it to use on something anyhoo.

kmetal, post: 438922, member: 37533 wrote: Lol serious GAS all ther sudden.

Yep...its an itch that just needs scratching sometimes ;)