A thought about mics Donny but I didn't want to add another variable to the question about colour pre ;)

I use the ua ,for lack of better words more fluffy sounds .I like the bass through there but I like the Pacifica with bass also. I base my decisions mostly on how the song is going and what I need it to do the Pacifica has a tighter sound if I were to compare

pcrecord, post: 421087, member: 46460 wrote: A thought about mics Donny but I didn't want to add another variable to the question about colour pre ;)

But don't you think that this would influence your decision regarding a preamp? Whatever color - or however much transparency - a given preamp has, the mic you use to test the pre has to be figured into the equation when determining how a given pre sounds - at least as far as I'm concerned, anyway.

There are mics out there that are more "colored" than others. For example, the much sought after "holy grail" of mics - the U47, is not what most would be considered to be transparent, regardless of what pre you push it through.

The AKG 414EB is not transparent. Nor are the later models of this classic studio standard. Neumann's TLM149 and M147 are by no means transparent. The U87 and U89's both come much closer to transparency, although there are slight presence peaks in both.

I recently had a session where we used the Rode NTK as the main vocal mic, and I can tell you from first-hand experience that it is nowhere near what would be considered to be transparent. In fact, I found it to be colored big time... not in a bad way... don't get me wrong, it sounded great for what we were doing. But transparent? No.

I guess I'm only suggesting that the sound of the pre is going to be directly related to the sound of the microphone, and I don't think that this should be discounted when determining how a given preamp sounds.

My two cents...

d.

I may get it wrong Donny but, for me NO mics is transparent. I've never heard a mic/pre combinaison that will sound exacly like my ears in the room with the instrument.

Of course, as you say, it's a combinaison ; Mic and Preamp.
Since this thread was about coloured preamps.
In my opinion, a coloured pre is a pre that give a singular signature to any mic and source you plug in it. You know if with any mic all my recordings sound nazal (giving that it's not a room acoustic problem) I would say that pre is coloured. Or if every recording has some identical harmonic distortion at 10k, it would be coloured !

The more gear aware I am, the more I realise that if you have a high quality preamp, you can make most mics sound good.
But you can't make any pre sound good with a high quality mic.
This mic shoot out where many mics were tried on a neve console didn't make me want to buy any of those mics. NO, it made me want to by a neve pre !!! ;)

http://www.mil-media.com/tubetest.html

Vacuum Tube Listening Test
To all users of Millennia Twin Topology and other vacuum tube equipment:

A comment we sometimes hear from customers is that Millennia's tube topology equipment "is too clean -- it doesn't sound tooby enough." Some owners want "thicker euphonic coloration" from their Twin Topology vacuum tube circuits.

In response to these customers, we've recently finished a comprehensive listening test on a modest collection of 12AX7, 12AU7, and 12At7 variety vacuum tubes. We picked NOS tubes which are readily available from specialty dealers and auctions. Here are the results of the test:

12AX7 Vacuum Tubes Under Test

• Sovtek 12AX7WA (baseline, our stock 12AX7 tube)
• Sovtek 12AX7LPS
• Mazda 12AX7 Chrome Plate (1963)
• Sylvania JHS12AX7 (1961)
• Tungsram ECC83LN
• Brimar 12AX7
• GE 12AX7 Large Plate (1963)
• Mullard CV4004 (UK)
• Philips 12AX7WA (11/86)
• Telefunken 12AX7 / ECC83 "Smooth Plate"

class="xf-ul">
12AU7 Vacuum Tubes Under Test

• CIFTE 12AU7WAH (1959)
• RT Production 12AU7WA (France, 1965)
• Mullard 4003 KQDD/K
• Telefunken ECC82

class="xf-ul">
For these tests, we used a number of program sources in our editing/listening room (Pass X amps, Dunlavy type 5 monitors) including Bob Katz's Chesky jazz recordings, Bruce Leek wind band recordings, and some of our own classical music recordings

Many of the 12AX7 tubes tested sounded similar to the new-stock Sovteks we currently use. However, two tubes stood out with a very pronounced sonic signature, adding what we were calling an "aura" around the music. The two tubes that were preferred for enhanced euphonic performance were the Mullard CV4004 (UK) and the Telefunken ECC83 smooth plate (Germany). Notes for the Mullard CV4004 say "adds a bit of extra dimension and body. Very sweet. Not 'hyped' in some negative way." Notes for the Tele say "Wow! Puts an 'aura' around the program. Does some interesting things to the HM and HF. Seems to lose a bit of LF presence, but gains some 'inside detail' of program (?). More immediate?"

On the 12AU7's, there were two NOS varieties that we found "positively euphonic" -- the Mullard 4003 KQDD/K box plate and a French military tube called RT Production from 1965. The RT was noted to "provides a 'sheen' on HF and HM, interesting effect on the HF's." The Mullard "adds a nice sense of brightness, but not too much. Slight loss of LF and LM. Rich in character." The other tubes tested did not sound significantly different than the new-stock Russian or Chinese 12AU7 tubes we now use.

Note that these results were found in NSEQ-2 and TCL-2 test beds. These same results may or may not be achieved in other audio equipment. Note also that we tested additional Mullard, Telefunken, and RT Production vacuum tubes and assured repeatable subjective results. Moreover, there are a myriad of other tubes that should have been included, but for reasons of time, cost, and/or availability, weren't. In the future, we may conduct additional tests if we can gather another modest stable of different NOS tubes. Comments and suggestions for future tests are invited. We also kept good notes on all the other tubes, so send an e-mail if you're interested in what we thought about the other tested vacuum tubes.

Since completing our tests, we've been stocking up on these "colorful" valves wherever we can find them.

Product Requirements:

• ORIGIN STT-1: Two each 12AX7 (4004) and 12AU7 (4003), one each 12AT7 (4024)
• NSEQ-2: Two each 12AX7 and 12AU7
• TWINCOM TCL-2: Four each 12AU7 and two ea. 12AT7
• TWIN DIRECT TD-1: Single 12AT7 (4024)

class="xf-ul">
What we might have available (call or e-mail for current stock):

• Telefunken (Germany) 12AX7 Smooth Plate, NOS & fully tested used
• Mullard (UK) CV4003 (12AU7) Box Plate, NOS, tested
• Mullard (UK) CV4024 (12AT7), NOS, tested

class="xf-ul">
You can also find these exact tube types via on-line auctions, and from on-line tube dealers such as Upscale Audio. Please call if you have any questions. Thanks for your interest! It was a fun test.

video">http://www.mil-media.com/resources.htmlvideo

Watch these, especially with John, Questions and Answers with John La Grou (the second one).

I have become a true fan of different types and uses of the vacuum tube. There are several actual experts out there that will tell you what you can expect with certain brands and builds. Kinda handy when you own several tube devices in the rack. I up-graded the tubes in my Manley DMMP just this year. Big difference.

And then theres the thing about solid-state builds actually having more "color" than a lot of the high-end tube capturing devices.

Its really all about the circuit design and the amount of "iron" in the path. There are very very few "new" circuit designs in mic preamps and other things recording....a lot of different 'implementations' to these basic circuits, some many many years old.

I think we are at the tipping point in this equipment development war thats been prevalent for about 25 years solid now. As Kurt mentioned, the old days required the amplification of signal to be as pristine as possible and to be rolled off due to head bump in the transfer of tape to tape machines and to be very high gain in the highs because of the lossy effects of many passes over the heads.

Its no longer an issue to anyone but those who's fidelity requirements dictates tape and analog circuitry in an all-in-one box...ala console.

In another thread earlier this year, I mentioned that in my experiences here in Portland Or, there are several rooms with really nice acoustics, really nice consoles and enough work to stay open. I know or am in touch with some of the engineer/producers that do a lot of work around here and other rooms throughout the world, and I gotta tell you, NONE of them use the consoles in these rooms. At least not very often. They DO use the acoustics and this will always be why the recording studio will have a place in this business. As good as some home rooms can be....mines pretty good....nothing can emulate or replace the sound of initial tracks being captured in an environment built to do so. I can track a four or five piece band all at once here in my room, and get a decent sounding set of captures but if I was offered a project with a decent budget I would have zero problem packing up the hard drive and a couple of favorite pieces and heading to a room to get the takes. Then it would be back to the intimacy of my little room for vocals and things I can reproduce here without need of a bigger environment.

A few years back now...Endless Analog released the CLASP system. Major rooms with great multi-track machines that had been silent came out of storage. I don't know what their sales of this system has been but I'll bet a lot of the BIGS are using one. Its the only way someone independent and on a tight budget could ever hope to use tape to record a record with.

This is an example of what is on the other other side of the 'tipping point' for equipment development in the 'modern age'.

I have to agree with the theory that less is more and clean is good to go. There's size and bandwidth in a capture that leaves nothing out. You may be limiting the track with the instrumentation and the settings to achieve a certain tonal goal, but then limiting it even more through the assumption that you need some kind of 'color' to make it better seems counter productive in the long run. If you want to adjust the 'color' in post then at least you have the ability to choose from ALL the frequencies rather than a select group.

BUT...and I say this lovingly....there are SOME pieces of gear that impart that certain MAGIC to everything run through them. In those cases by all means and effort use whats magical and musical from the beginning and spend the time getting the hard to create tracks in their place. I use templates as my starting points in both tracking and mixing. They are based on the old-school methodology of "THIS SOUNDS LIKE THAT IS SUPPOSED TO SOUND, SO DON"T SCREW WITH IT"

Davedog, post: 421246, member: 4495 wrote: And then theres the thing about solid-state builds actually having more "color" than a lot of the high-end tube capturing devices.

Re: my experience with tube Gear, not mics:

The higher end tube gear I've owned and share the same love for as other has less noise and is closer to clean with a silky sweetness you immediately know is a good thing. Sweet, huge and ballsy comes to mind.
Pulse Techniques and the M-2b are stellar examples of this.
The LA2A is also incredible but they are also noisy, so I use those carefully and watch the gain. I guess thats the price for UA trannies.
When you have quality tube gear in line, they don't appear to be shrinking the audio while adding a sweetness and vibe that ITB never emulates.

Mid level tube gear I've owned is noisier and smeary sounding. They all posses a soggier bottom end that isn't worth its price and hype to me. I've never been sold on tube gear that has that flabby bottom.

To give an idea of the price point where tube gear break into higher end FOR ME, those products are usually in or above the $2000 mark.
It would be interesting to learn why the tube gear I appreciate has to be above the $2000 mark to produce?
There are clear issues with phase and inconsistent stability with lower end tube gear. The cheap stuff is just plain crap.

I'm debating buying a few More Pulse Techniques MEQ-5's and 1A3's but the API SS versions this time. A'm at a point where I either want transformerless tube gear or SS with tannies. Otherwise ITB excels.

There is a lot of marketing hype and support of purchase with Tube gear and colour. Other than specialized tracking comps and EQ's, I'm certain I am going to be able to get it all done ITB, better within the next few years. Sequoia is an incredible workstation and other DAW's are following.

The next generation of analog gear will employ some sort of digital coupling to compete. People will surely think its the new and improved.
I used to think smart analog would be the ultimate but no longer believe this to be true. I clearly hear a division between analog and ITB mixing and mastering now. I would never buy an analog product that has some sort of digital part to the processing. New and improved, dated and poor resale comes to mind. Dangerous Compressor will be a great example of this. Those will not hold their value because digial technology excels with this sort of processing. But there will be more and more coming.
Leave the brains to digital and keep analog simple.

I've been thinking about this thread, and it occurred to me that the descriptive term that we've been using is maybe not the best word to use, when translating to everyone's individual definition of it - Perhaps "color" is the wrong terminology to use...? maybe "character" would be more accurate...?

Speaking in terms of tubes... I know for a fact that my AKG Solidtube has a much different "character" than my 414EB's do... or my U89/89 for that matter, either.

I love the sound of the SolidTube, (especially since I changed tube models in it from an AX to an AT) - but do I reach for every single time? Nope. It's always performer/song dependent.

There are times I want the character of the 414EB. Other times, with other vocalists, I like the Neumann's the best. FWIW, I would consider the Neuamnn's to have the least "character" and, at least using my own definition of transparency, I would consider them to be the most "neutral" out of all the quality mics that I own.

Here's another thing to consider.... that "holy grail" of mics we've recently discussed...? the U47...? For as nice of a mic as it is, even if I did have the luxury of owning one, it wouldn't necessarily be my first choice in every single given situation, and I can say with complete honesty that I wouldn't use it every single time in every single scenario. There's no guarantee that it would be the best choice every time.
Maybe in one scenario, I want the character of a ribbon mic on vocals... maybe in another, the 'neutrality" of a U89....or another solid state condenser that might not be as neutral (414 C12/EB), in another, perhaps a different tube mic like a Rode...

I've posted in the past here, the scenario where I was working with a female vocalist years ago (early 90's) - and starting the vocal tracking session out with an AKG 414EB, and, not hearing what I wanted, so, I switched to a Neumann U89i... I didn't hear what I was after on that one either ... moved onto a U87 (and to interject here -FWIW - I never changed the pre - on that session, I was at a pro studio in eastern Ohio, and using an older Milennia HV - single channel...)... so, I moved on to another 414 (XL Model), and when that didn't give me the sound I was after, in desperation, I finally plugged in an SM57.... and BAM! - there it was... the sound I was after for her voice on that song was a lowly, $99, dynamic mic through that Milennia preamp. Nothing else had changed - not her position on the mic, not the pre, no other processing was inserted....

In the end, use what you like best, and forget the reasons as to why - other than that it just simply sounds best for that particular situation, and in the context of what you are working on at the time - I could have easily followed my own personal bias instead of using my ears, and not tried that SM57, figuring that if I wasn't able to get what I wanted using all those other mics, that there would be no way that a $99 SM57 would get me there, either - but it did.

And, referencing the other (related) thread here on RO of the Rode mic vs the U47 - because I think that both of these threads tie together ...

Yes...there is absolutely the possibility that the Rode mic may in fact be just as good - or maybe even better than the U47, at certain times...in certain applications and certain scenarios... and this brings me to my ultimate point:

In the end, it all needs to be taken into context - of what you are working with, what you are working on, as well as who (the performer) you are working with.

;)

d.

Boswell, post: 421070, member: 29034 wrote: I'm not a great fan of using the word colour to describe how much a pre-amp differs from being a piece of wire with gain. Instead, I prefer to think of it as two components: character and quality.

DonnyThompson, post: 421255, member: 46114 wrote: I've been thinking about this thread, and it occurred to me that the descriptive term that we've been using is maybe not the best word to use, when translating to everyone's individual definition of it - Perhaps "color" is the wrong terminology to use...? maybe "character" would be more accurate...?

Just sayin'....

DonnyThompson : I think we all know that changing the mic may have a more drastic effect on the sound than changing the preamp. But to me, a mic doesn't have a character or colour, it has a frequency signature that it can capture depending on the proximity and how loud the source is.
But we are just playing with words here.

If I make a record on a vintage neve mixer, it will have the character of that particular mixer. Same thing with tape machine, compressors, eq and also the room for that matter.

I respect studios who invest in signature sound gear because they made the decision to offer a certain sound and hope the customers to come to them for that very sound. It takes guts, knowledge and instinct to build that succes sound.
I also respect studios that try to have a transparent sound to be able to produce many styles of sounds and music.
But what is transparent really ? Other than capturing more evenly the signal the mic sends.

One point that hasn't been discussed is the transient response of preamps.
I mostly reach for my ISA preamps for drums because I know they are faster and they will translate a puchier sound. Is it part of the character ? I think so!

As recordists or audio engineers we should be aware that we are playing with a puzzle of Tools. To be successful, you need to know each part of that puzzle very well and know how they will affect the sound OR you better be very Lucky ! ;)

DonnyThompson, post: 421255, member: 46114 wrote: I've been thinking about this thread, and it occurred to me that the descriptive term that we've been using is maybe not the best word to use, when translating to everyone's individual definition of it - Perhaps "color" is the wrong terminology to use...? maybe "character" would be more accurate...?

I love this thread. We are all thinking.

I'm thinking colour also fit into the thought of emulating and gluing in character: Then I'm hearing the infamous doubling of guitars, vocals etc so they apear to be less noticeable and bigger than real. Which equals less focus and more smear. Some of us just hate to hear how we really sound so we look to colour rather than a way to improve our performance or musical approach.

To my ears, colour is located in the lower quality gear, compromised build which can become something special too. Character is located in the performance or creation of the track. The gray area is, do we buy it or make it? And what is the sonic price to pay for it and where is it best emulated?

fun topic

Here is another twist to this.
There has never been a time where I didn't wish the vocals where spatially bigger and clearer so I could add more sonic character in and around them in a mix.
There has never been a time where I was 100% satisfied with the space around something smeary in the music. It works both ways. If something is smeared, there is only so far you can go with the surrounding "colour" or overall character" until it becomes buried and noisy. Its a contact compromise dictated around space. Which is why space and pristine capture is paramount to me.
If the capture is excellent, its a hell of a lot easier and fun mixing music any way you want it, ITB

pcrecord, post: 421263, member: 46460 wrote: I respect studios who invest in signature sound gear because they made the decision to offer a certain sound and hope the customers to come to them for that very sound. It takes guts, knowledge and instinct to build that succes sound.
I also respect studios that try to have a transparent sound to be able to produce many styles of sounds and music.
But what is transparent really ? Other than capturing more evenly the signal the mic sends.

I have my bullet proof vest on so go for it. No disrespect intended. Its just another look into this crazy business.

Knowledge and knowing where technology is going wins this one.
The console, tape, and racks of hardware is financially insane and a sonically dated concept being fueled by marketing trends and the uninformed. I also believe it is part of the desperate approach (naive or down right knowing) to lure clients into thinking they need hardware to sound better. If you can afford to buy a console, you must be a pro. If it looks like that, it must sound better.
Which is also believed by those whom lack the ability to use a DAW to its fullest in the first place. DAW's are a big sound that takes knowledge on how to mix all that it empowers you with. Its really easy to get lost in them.
Consoles are simpler in some respects and good for those who are overwhelmed which comes at a big price.

Other than personal pleasure, there is no gain with hardware after that capture. Once ITB, stay ITB. The concept of hybrid is a loosing battle as well.

We have surpassed the 70's and 80's in every way and have bit distortion for the 90's and beyond. People are no longer satisfied with just the pure sound of real performance and this is why the DAW wins whether we like or admit. It wins for its purity and it wins for everything virtual and can be emulated in any direction at will.
We may think a console and tape is smart but if we truly knew we could save thousands of dollars, give you and your clients a better end product, why would anyone ever use dated technology and burn fuel to power these machines?

There is nothing a console can do sonically (transparent or 40 shades of grey) better than a DAW today. So, the best capture is paramount if you are aware of what a DAW can do.

I'm convinced there is going to be a lot of hits made on the new Antelope MP32 and the Orion32, transparently tracked into any one of the 30 DAW's on the market today. We can spend $10,000 or $200.000, but at the end of the day, its all going to end up ITB. Color will have nothing to do with it. It will be all up to the guy at the wheel.

The informed will demand transparent tracking so they can do it better ITB.

A very well stated assessment of where this is going and I have to agree to a point. I see these independent producers go to work in these rooms and they pull up their laptop, plug into the main computer and start their sessions. Usually the input is from the racked preamps although larger sessions will use the consoles....but after capture its ITB and the only time it leaves is for some "color" "attitude" "character" etc...and usually only for select tracks as the session grows and forms its eventual being.

audiokid, post: 421270, member: 1 wrote: I have my bullet proof vest on so go for it. No disrespect intended. Its just another look into this crazy business.

Knowledge and knowing where technology is going wins this one.
The console, tape, and racks of hardware is financially insane and a sonically dated concept being fueled by marketing trends and the uninformed. I also believe it is part of the desperate approach (naive or down right knowing) to lure clients into thinking they need hardware to sound better. If you can afford to buy a console, you must be a pro. If it looks like that, it must sound better.
Which is also believed by those whom lack the ability to use a DAW to its fullest in the first place. DAW's are a big sound that takes knowledge on how to mix all that it empowers you with. Its really easy to get lost in them.
Consoles are simpler in some respects and good for those who are overwhelmed which comes at a big price.

Other than personal pleasure, there is no gain with hardware after that capture. Once ITB, stay ITB. The concept of hybrid is a loosing battle as well.

We have surpassed the 70's and 80's in every way and have bit distortion for the 90's and beyond. People are no longer satisfied with just the pure sound of real performance and this is why the DAW wins whether we like or admit. It wins for its purity and it wins for everything virtual and can be emulated in any direction at will.
We may think a console and tape is smart but if we truly knew we could save thousands of dollars, give you and your clients a better end product, why would anyone ever use dated technology and burn fuel to power these machines?

There is nothing a console can do sonically (transparent or 40 shades of grey) better than a DAW today. So, the best capture is paramount if you are aware of what a DAW can do.

I'm convinced there is going to be a lot of hits made on the new Antelope MP32 and the Orion32, transparently tracked into any one of the 30 DAW's on the market today. We can spend $10,000 or $200.000, but at the end of the day, its all going to end up ITB. Color will have nothing to do with it. It will be all up to the guy at the wheel.

The informed will demand transparent tracking so they can do it better ITB.

there's always been two schools of thought. the question predates digital going as far as the 50's. meanwhile the audio music biz has kept chugging along and i think that's what will keep happening.

form follows function. i like the feel of faders. i find mixing with a mouse on a screen to be a drag. i am not comfortable sitting for hours staring at a computer screen regardless how large it is. i enjoy the comfort of relaxing in a comfortable chair in front of a large format console. i suspect there will always be people who feel the same.

i can still stay in the box and have faders with something like a PreSonus Studio Live or i can choose to get a new Neve or API as well as a myriad of other choices like a Harrison or Audiant and still maintain what i myself would call a professional profile.

a lot of what Chris said rings true. for a long time a studios "professionalism" was judged in large by what kind of gear they had. a lot of that comes from having the knowledge to find and make such purchases (new or used). the advent of internet and the knowledge available on any subject by forums and bulletin boards just like RO has made this less of a indicator. fifteen years ago, no one knew what an LA2A was. i remember many times asking music stores about "those limiters they call LA's" and getting blank stares in return.

i like having more tools than i need to do a job. transparent's cool. so's warm and fat and gnarly ... even distorted. i think it's cool we have many choices to make and i would strongly advise anyone to not go blindly following any individuals advice on "the only way to do it". follow your muse. find your way to do it.

LOL! My ProTools instructor/guru calls my insistence of having controllers "Old Guy Studio". I have the Avid/Euphonics Artist Controller and the Artist Mix. I too need the knobs......okay "need" is a strong word here.....'want' is better.

Davedog, post: 421271, member: 4495 wrote: A very well stated assessment of where this is going and I have to agree to a point.

Thanks Dave.

Kurt Foster, post: 421273, member: 7836 wrote: a lot of what Chris said rings true.

Thanks Kurt.

Kurt Foster, post: 421273, member: 7836 wrote: i like the feel of faders. i find mixing with a mouse on a screen to be a drag. i am not comfortable sitting for hours staring at a computer screen regardless how large it is. i enjoy the comfort of relaxing in a comfortable chair in front of a large format console. i suspect there will always be people who feel the same.

I cannot agree more! But, I don't think we are talking about knobs and faders here. If we were, I think a lot of us would love to have those days back and I would surely have a large Neve too. :love:

Kurt Foster, post: 421273, member: 7836 wrote: i like having more tools than i need to do a job. transparent's cool. so's warm and fat and gnarly ... even distorted.

For the record, I don't think colour is part of "Fat as in big and punchy", although I know it may appear that way for other reasons, which is why we are having this colourful discussion. :D
To my ears, colour doesn't contribute to the more open size of a mix. Size is a straight wire into the DAW.
Fat to me is part of the original source or mixing process. I'm not so sure it has anything to do with a transformer based console or hardware doing the Round Trip.
Tubes and Trannies certainly add to the character but not size or depth, which is why I prefer modular tube or trannies options. You are sure to have a wider and deeper sonic pallet of character when you can pick and choose which channels are transformerless, tranfomer or tubes which is why more people are seeing the advantage with transformerless summing or mastering consoles. A transformerless monitoring chain is also more accurate.
Anytime Ive used a preamp with a tranny, I hear a character but at the sacrifice of size and depth. This is comparing a tranny to transformerless. The transformerless (especially with big rails) always sounds bigger and fatter with far more detail and natural character. A mix is always more interesting when you have a wider spectrum of character and tones used to help things stand out from the rest. When everything is through the same character in a mix, it tends to sound more boring. So, just as all transformerless is boring, so is all transformer. The difference is you hear one clearer boring or smeary less boring. The ideal is to mix and match to create space and character within the entire mix. And so it continues, learn how to mix and keep your original path a big and clear as you can. Once ITB, its easy to build a song when you have a clearer picture to begin with.

audiokid, post: 421270, member: 1 wrote: Other than personal pleasure, there is no gain with hardware after that capture. Once ITB, stay ITB. The concept of hybrid is a loosing battle as well.

Just to interject for a moment... I gotta say Chris, you're one helluva stand-up guy. Man, I respect you big-time.

Not much more than a year ago, you were pretty convinced that hybrid was the way to go, yet in the months since, you have found that this wasn't necessarily the case for your situation.

It takes serious integrity and character to come out publicly and say "Well, okay...guess what...I was wrong."

After working with this process as intensively as you did - damned near giving everything you had to implement the best hybrid process available - you came to your own conclusion that it wasn't necessarily "the" process you originally thought - or hoped - it would be for what you do and what you hope to accomplish.

You are one of those all-too-rare people who base their opinions and observations on having actually done what you talk about ... and that's pretty rare these days, when there are so many others out there in "internet audio land" who just love to speak with "authority", giving their "experienced" opinions on certain methods, certain pieces of gear, certain workflows - yet without ever even having tried those methods or gear that they speak of.

You've also spoken without the bias of working for a particular company; you've had no sales agenda, no motivation other than to seek the truth, and, to pass your experiences - your actual experiences - on to others in the hope of enlightening those who may be considering doing something similar to what you've already done. You're not selling them anything... you're simply stating what you found, what you learned, and from there it's up to the individual to decide what is best for them.

Personally speaking, I'm still considering the hybrid method, at least to some degree. I haven't yet ruled it out. That being said, you can be damned sure that I read and listen to everything you say about it, and take it all into serious consideration while deciding what will ultimately be best for my situation. ;)

Not that I didn't already highly respect you anyway... but I'm really very impressed by you in regard to this subject.

You've set an example for others. I only wish that more people out there in audio-land would have the balls to do the same.

Well done, Sir. ;)

Ha, thanks Donny. Those are the kindest words anyone has ever said to me here :love: Thank you for seeing where my heart is.
-------------------------

Just to clarify. I am still working with an uncoupled hybrid process. That part hasn't changed.
What has changed. I discovered I could emulate my analog mastering matrix on the master bus of Sequoia. Had I not had the opportunities to have all the gear over the years, there is no way I would have learned how to emulate it.

Now that I've done this, external hardware is no longer a necessity, its now a choice of diminishing return. I am now faced with being a fool and keeping it, because I love looking at it. The last two mixes you heard were without the hardware. I think I know how to use my DAW better that yesterday. :)

The core to my main hybrid system is:

• SPL Neos
• Dangerous Master
• Dangerous Monitor ST
• Orion32
• Prism Atlas
• RME PCIe Madi
• SSL Digital Patchbay
• 2 DAW's
• Two Licenses of Sequoia 13
• Big Furman Power Conditioner and UPS backups. (important for the converters)
• Mogami 110ohm and Accusound Silver Cable.

class="xf-ul">
I have beautiful hardware and a long list of products I own or have owned that people lust over, but I assure you, its less important than your monitoring and capture process itself. I can emulate all EQ's and compressors good enough.

Perhaps this next part is of interest.

When we first start the hybrid thing, we are focused on playing with tones, character building inserting gear and doing the round trip. Its fun and you will be talking about comps and EQ's to the enth degree, raving about how this is so much better than ITB.

Round trip is the most common process. Its the starter package where you cut your hybrid teeth. Most people never go beyond this method and many are sure to end up unsatisfied sooner or later. Its endlessly expensive, flawed and fed by the old school engineers who can't get their head out of the console days and may have a hard time understanding digital audio more than they care to admit.

Traditional hybriders claim inserted gear into there ADDA chain and capturing it back to the same DAW sounds great! This process has pushed the industry into trying to make a DAW work like a console. Its insane and flawed but if it makes them happy and we can afford it all, its really fun and impresses the crowd! Enjoy it.

However, keep listening to the phase. Don't be fooled, the round trip is full of phase problems. If you can't here this, you have a smeary monitor system. If you think converters and a stellar monitor system don't matter, you are no better off that you were ITB. And, the rest of this topic is not for you.

Assuming you have good ears and are wanting more depth and definition now :) The next step is repairing and tweaking latency and smearing you are still hearing. Or is that glue and colour to you?
Well, its actually something you DIDN'T have ITB! But, you are so deep into it at this time, you really don't know what you are hearing but know something still isn't big and loud enough as you dream.

Its a very expensive loosing battle from this point on. Super clocks, better converters, better gear, more gear, maybe even a console is now the next step. Are we gaining or getting further and further away from the real reason our mixes don't translate.

If you are like me, your attention to detail at this stage is far from where you will end up. Your focus moves to the next step, mixing into the master! You now start thinking more like a mastering engineer and this is when it starts to get exciting.
You are at a point where you are rethinking everything you did since you mixed your first song. I mean, you've invested in all this time and money, now its about phase and big.
If you've actually done your homework, spent the time to truly evaluate your current hybrid chain and all that its doing, how you are hearing to end result, it starts coming back to digital audio. :)

If you are lucky, you will find ITB still sounds bigger but not quite what you want either. This is a good indication that you are on the right track.

Once you hear this, your focus is undoing all you were doing. You rediscover mixing skills, better summing and improving your suffering monitor process.

Next, See my main hybrid core again now :)

Words like phase, accumulative distortion, transparency, rails, independent 3 way monitoring, mix into your master, 2 channel conversion, uncoupling DAW's, object editing , less is more, start hitting home.

I've always been in the camp to embrace a DAW, not fight it.