that was pre-mix off trash talk

Cool. Its all in fun, right? We might as well start demystifying this all and get down to business, right?

An update, we've got Natural chiming in on Donny's http://recording.org/index.php?threads/need-fresh-ears.57371/ thread , I don't know, is he calling (me) replacement technology part of the wannabe producer circle. That kinda hurt. Its going to get fun now.

never the less, this is just straight up Josh. No added anything. My intent is to find out if UAD creates more good than you are buying into.

Yes, I am smiling like an idiot right now...

I dunno, but I wish people would stop pissing you off because I need you to focus for when I knock your socks off ;)

bigtoe... garharharhar

:p cool.

Interesting. I also use uad...

Okay, I am booting this up. You even have an advantage because I am removing everything I've been using for years. Hows that lol! But, I may still need one fabfilter Pro L which isn't UAD. I think thats fair? :LOL:

Last time i did this was in 2006 lol.

I'm going from this :

to ITB. :)

OMG, what have I got myself in for hehe. I have been trying to duplicated what I get OTB all day and it sounds like ass so far. I'm determined to get it close.

I suppose I could supply tracks for you guys to play with, although I'm not sure that part of my current, on-going issues with this mix doesn't originate at the source level(s) to begin with.

I have a show I have to do out of town tonight, I'll be gone from around 3pm (EST) today and back tomorrow... let me think about it. LOL I don't know how much more embarrassment I can take. ;)

But if it serves the greater good, then I suppose I'd be willing to jump on the grenade. I mean, isn't that what we are all here for anyway? To improve ourselves? To take to task those processes that are available and either prove or disprove them?

As long as it doesn't turn into a "blame donny cause the tracks suck" fest... then I'm game.

all in good fun.
im sure your source files are fine.

at least bigtoe and me are on the same page in terms of "oh shit, what have i gotten myself into..."

Josh Conley, post: 417340, member: 47953 wrote:
im sure your source files are fine.
 

Well, I'm not. But, I'll play along. I've been publicly crucified before, I guess one more time won't matter.

I'm gigging out of town the rest of this weekend, so you'll have to give me a few days to export the tracks... and you'll have to tell me where I'm putting them... (sigh)...:confused:

if bigrig doesnt have space here, i think my google drive allows uploads..

Josh Conley, post: 417340, member: 47953 wrote:

"...on the same page in terms of "oh shit, what have i gotten myself into..."

It think it's probably safe to say that I will definitely be included on that particular page as well.

But I'll say it again... I'm not convinced anymore that these tracks - at their original source - are of a professional standard to begin with.

And that's precisely where I start to get nervous about this mix-off... because I'm already scared that many of these tracks are not up to par, or of the caliber and integrity that you guys are used to working with in a professional audio engineering capacity.

As I said before, as long as it doesn't turn into a "these tracks suck and let's ultimately blame Donny" screw-fest ... :confused:.... then I guess I'm okay with it. I'll be the first to admit that the tracks aren't up to par. I just don't need to be reminded of it over and over. ;)

So... I'll cooperate for the sake of bettering the all-round knowledge, and for the greater good, because in the end, that's what this forum is about, or at least that's what this forum should be about, and I can't preach that philosophy and just "talk the talk" without being willing to actually "walk the walk". It would be hypocritical for me to do otherwise.

Someone has to step up and open the door for others here to feel comfortable in posting their work. So, at least this week, I guess I'm the guy. So, I'm in. You'll just have to give me a few days to export tracks.

d/

In my opinion you get to see who can mix and who can't if you have weak tracks. As long as everybody uses the same thing tracks wise. Complaining about source tracks is a copout. Will it be as good a s great source tracks? Nope but If you are a pro it doesn't matter. You do your best. audiokid's story of sending tracks back because they don't meet his standards is interesting. I've never heard of that before on a professional level. I'm looking forward to hearing the mixes if you guys post as well as the tests I do to see if the swirl'ys of my sub par tracks are a result of extreme stereo field or the dreaded Behringer ADA. I'm not sure what's going to happen but it will feel good to prove audiokid wrong if that's what happens. Or I wil be educated in the process.

audiokid Good Luck.. Mixing with built in daw plug ins is going to be a huge challenge to compete with UAD. They wouldn't be as big and as popular if they weren't better than DAW built ins.

Just like hardware would be obsolete if plug ins were better.

I've spent about 24 hours attempting to get an ITB mix to sound like an OTB and here is what I have to say so far.
It ain't going to happen over night, if ever, but I don't give up to easy.
OTB is by far easier however, I'm hoping I can re-curve my current habits and get a handle on this better than what I'm hearing so far.. UAD is a distraction. I have no doubt. All I need is the basics, that is the essences of tight music. I have 20 years experience in crap plug-ins and wonderful VSTi, midi etc. Less is more when it comes to acoustic music.

What am I hearing so far?
Wow, the amount of EQ I need ITB has changed. To get a mix as clear will now involve more EQ and painful carving that I didn't seem to need to do like now.

Here is the big loss:
"You don't know what you have until you loose it".
The biggest loss going 100% ITB is loosing the ability to hear cause and effect of the tracking, mix and SUM through a separate capture device. The sound of a summed mix on the same DAW is like working with a wool sock over your head. I'm at such a loss that I cannot live without my Dangerous Monitor ST and a capture system. So, my monitor controller and the capture DAW its back in the system. I continue to see what I can live without.
Josh, I may have to keep a few things here which I will make note of.

I now realize how impossible it is to even understand the workflow of my hybrid system. It really was something else.:love:
Going back ITB is nothing short of crammed and muffled sounding. I'm determined to emulate once again.

"...As long as everybody uses the same thing tracks wise..."

The tracks are what they are. I'll export them from my DAW in raw form, then upload them to wherever I'm told.

Everyone who chooses to have a whack at it will have access to the same exact tracks.

What each engineer ends up doing, what they use on the tracks, and what they have access to in their own individual arsenals is beyond my control, nor should it be a factor within my control.

They should use whatever they have and feel like using in whatever manner they see fit. As long as the song isn't edited in arrangement, or further tracks added, then it's a free for all, as far as I'm concerned.

Other than that, things like re-amping, triggering, processing, effects... it's all an open playing field as far as I'm concerned.

FWIW

totally itb stock plugins he said...
versus your uad crap.
put this to bed he said...

now what u sayin?
monitor however you like, but youre getting digital itb files and theyre to stay that way mister. no sexing up of any sort with that expensive looking and sounding gear you have...

or?

are you.....

chicken?

Good move Donny. However, I'm ITB now so I'm not into some mix competition with the mass. If I wanted to mix this better than better, I would use my hybrid rig. ITB is never what my hybrid is. That I am convinced of.

But, mixing to compare UAD against stock Samplitude/Sequoia no problem. !

Okay, I'm making headway today.

Not quite following you Josh, but, I'll say it again.

I will just stick to the stock Sequoia and (if I can't get the same result to limiting) I may use Fabfilter Pro L). I need my monitor controller and capture DAW. I just can't bare bouncing down on the same DAW.

My claim: UAD is a distraction and completely unnecessary. :)
In fact, I'm so certain its a complete waste of money, I'm willing to try and prove it for myself. This isn't a competition in the least. This is a reality check that I hope will save us a shit load of money and get us back on track to better music. I will do my best to see if we can start saving money and put this to bed. I say, UAD is more pretty GUI than what they claim it to be. Is it crap,

We will see ;)

I'll join the mix off then.. I'm not sure about my converters causing swirl. But I am sure Uad Plug ins are vastly superior to stock.. The only non uad plug in I use is a waves dither.

Chris,

other than the need to monitor (DA = monitoring) You don't need converters per-say because Donny has already tracked this all. It is what it is.
Its come down to importing multiple tracks that we will mix and sum ITB. No analog help, no need for more than two a channel converter. Your converter is only acting as a monitor feed or capture lane.

Yup I mix and render in the box no summing outside etc. .

So, this is coming down to me accusing UAD, its not all you think it is. We should be able to get a stock DAW to sound as good or better without UAD. So, the more UAD crap you want to use, the better I say. Bring it on!

After this I will be asking how much money we are spending on UAD software and we can all reflect..

Sound like fun? I'd say :)

So, who are you cheering for? More UAD money to spend or less is more?

Well.theres a lot of things that Uad offer that isn't included in a daw. When the last time you used UAD? You have a lot of the hardware. The software isn't exactly the same. But it's close...

I predict you are going to be crushed and humbled by this experience...

No, I say UAD isn't close to analog at all. Its redundant digital code that takes the brains out of a lot of this with pictures to fool you into thinking its doing more than it is.
When was the last time you used a console and a rack of gear lol :) As Max says so well, this ain't my first rodeo. hehe

this kind of software (comps, EQ) ( not mastering and forensic code) is someones idea of taking common scene out of knowing how simple it all is. I chose to buy a DAW that works on its own over one that needs a bunch redundant third party EQ and compressors. I grew up in the generation that listened more than looked. We will see how close I get with very little, then add up the costs to compare dollar for dollar, sound to sound.

Last time I checked, UAD card cost $2000. I'm guessing the average guy is spending $3000 for UAD ability. Then there is Waves, FabFilter etc "". Pretty easy to get to $4500 in no time, plus your DAW and computer. I think I was up to $18,000 in software when I had my Pro Tools Mix system. $40,000 by the time I added up all the extra's. It all sounded like crap compared to what I have now. I think the full suite for Samplitude is around, what,. $1200 or less?
http://kellysmusic.ca/productinfo.asp?s=SAMPLITUDE-PROFESSIONAL&p=510401649#.U8rgObHgdHA

Who are you cheering for? The support for more UAD or finding out we can actually make great sounding real music with very little investment. A great Pre, mic(s) Excellent 2 channel converters and a good DAW goes a long ways in comparison to less quality and added money on plug-ins that create phase and latency to say the least.

Chris Perra, post: 417368, member: 48232 wrote: Well.theres a lot of things that Uad offer that isn't included in a daw.

Like what?
And with what DAW are you referring to?

Chris Perra, post: 417368, member: 48232 wrote: .

I predict you are going to be crushed and humbled by this experience...

You think I'm trying to impress you or anyone. I just lost my studio dude. And humbling is what I need? Shame on you man. I'm trying to attempt to run a race with my arms tied behind my back. Its a sick world indeed. I'm handicapped as suggested and you are saying I should be humbled. (n)

I didn't know you lost your gear.just that you have an arrogance about UAD and converters. .

there lots or stuff Uad has vs any daw. Like studer tape simulation. A moog filter . Shadow hills mastering comp. Ocean ways room simulator. Emt 250 and 140. Engle guitar Sims. Lexicon 244 Manley massive passive..so many things..

The emulations of hardware are very good. not exact but very good.

I don't have an arrogance about UAD or converters. I have mastering experience and convictions and self respect about what I do for music. I'm Passionate and hopefully onto something that may be beneficial for us all, iIf you actually listening and care> Do you care?
If you are one of the people more interested is supporting your purchase, you don't belong in the same arena. That helps no one. It only spreads misinformation.
No disrespect but lets talk pro audio, not affordable recording and nonsense . This thread is in the pro section of the forum, are you aware of this?

Never the less, lets get serious for a second , I am hoping you can answer some of my direct questions with out insult?

Ok, well you come across as some on with an arrogance. Didn't mean to offend. What else would you like like to know about UAD vs Daw?

You are claiming plug-ins sound close to hardware. Lets change shoes. Isn't that a pretty arrogant statement, an insult to someone who has spend thousands on tools and years studying both Digital and Pro Audio?

• How do you know this?

• What benefit would this have ITB for me or you?

class="xf-ul">

I've done tests.. in general the analog is bigger. The plug on sound cleaner and tighter.

Tests with 1176, la2a and pultec

Uad has many analog vs plug in demos on their website. More tests than I've done. .

The benifits are speed. Cost of the hardware . And consistency of each peice of hardware. Plus less noise from hooking up million things in a chain. Less conversion equals better end of the chain results. Unless you invest in really expensive cables and converters. Not to mention electricity, and matinence costs. .

Chris Perra, post: 417382, member: 48232 wrote: I've done tests.. in general the analog is bigger. The plug on sound cleaner and tighter.

Tests with 1176, la2a and pultec

Uad has many analog vs plug in demos on their website. More tests than I've done. .

The benifits are speed. Cost of the hardware . And consistency of each peice of hardware. Plus less noise from hooking up million things in a chain. Less conversion equals better end of the chain results. Unless you invest in really expensive cables and converters. Not to mention electricity, and matinence costs. .

Anyone care to comment?

Sigh.

Ok. Whatever you guys wanna do is fine.

But it's clear that we have different goals.

You guys are trying to either prove or disprove the validity of ITB plugs, particularly UAD.

I'm trying to get the best mix I can with whatever I can use - which is, I think, what any engineer would do - because I have a client who needs this song/mix to be as good as possible.

FWIW

-d.

Which is why I am even wasting my time on this. Less is more. UAD or whatever. My point is, too many plug-ins sound like ass. I'm attacking UAD because that is what everyone thinks is the best plug-ins lol. Sonar, Logic, Sam, Cubase, PT whatever. Plug-ins give you that nice squashed sound. Bad conversion keeps it swirling, low end pre-amps, think AM radio. Mix it all together, yummy. Its all relevant. Round and round.

High end discussion or the bare minimum demo, same rules apply, which comes down to accumulation. Its clearly audible. But who is listening. :)

regards

"...Plug-ins give you that nice squashed sound."
"...too many plug-ins sound like ass..."

Then I suppose, if it's really that bad? Then really, what's the point? What's the use in even trying ... if we'll never reach an acceptable standard of fidelity by using plug ins?

So, less is more - which is fine if you're recording a three piece blues or jazz act - but what then do you do if you're writing and producing stuff that is in a vein of someone like Alan Parsons? Or Pink Floyd?
If you need those certain textural tools of production to set the tone or overall vibe and mood of a mix - be it reverb, delay, flanging, echo, compression, limiting, or EQ - and you don't happen to have a real EMT plate, or a TC Electronics or Bricasti Reverb, or a rack of real LA2's or 1176's, or a 50 thousand dollar Neve, or API channel strips or a rack of Pultecs at your disposal?

Does it then become a simple case of being completely and totally screwed? And what then, for those of us who don't have access to all that hi caliber, hi-dollar, second mortgage gear? Should we all just pack it in and go home? It sounds to me that this is the jist of what you're saying... that if I don't have that stuff, then the ball game's pretty much over.

Or have I misunderstood?

I'm curious as to what constitutes 'Too Many' plugins.
How are most people using them? How many and what type of plugins do people use on each track?
For example, a snare track, or a gtr track. If you're using UAD or Waves or whatever, what are you doing to these tracks?
I'm not using UAD, so I don't have a dog in that fight. I generally have 1 plugin on a track. Usually just an EQ. If I also need a compressor, then I remove the EQ and I insert usually the Renn Channel. Although for the past couple of weeks, I've been working with that Eventide Channel. For 90% of the work, one of these do fine. If it's something more surgical, I'll remove that and use something else. If we can't find it ITB, then we move to OTB.
I agree with audiokid that the more plugins you use, at some point, starts to work against you.
But that can also happen with a rack of outboard gear if you're daisy chaining a bunch of boxes together.
So the sound is not getting "squashed" (IMO) just because there's a plugin in the project.
I'm guessing that it's just easier to insert a bunch of plugins without much regard as to what is actually happening. If you had to do it with outboard gear, and you were limited to what's in the rack, then someone might make better/different choices.

As to Donny's issue.

I'm trying to get the best mix I can with whatever I can use - which is, I think, what any engineer would do - because I have a client who needs this song/mix to be as good as possible.

Those terms "best" and "as Good as possible" will (IMO)mean different things to different people. If you point everyone to an example of what a 'Best Mix' should sound like you could get closer to the target.

yes, you have completely misunderstood. I just stripped down my entire rig, spent 24 hours rethinking ITB and pretty much duplicated my $100,000 hybrid rig ITB. I'm rotf.

Too many plugin are anything you need beyond the basics of your daw. If you were tracking on a console, would we be replacing a eq on every trip with another one? Like the ridiculous list of plug-in people are buying over and over.
I swear even having them on the strip smears your audio up. But who's really listening.
This is so obvious to me. If people would quite buying into all this hype, spend some money on a good 2 channel pre, ADDA and tweak very little itb, I bet there would be a lot better sounding music.

There's many top producers and engineers using Uad and other plug ins..

i haven't heard all your work audiokid but what I have sounds deep but not wide.. and dark in general compared to industry standards today.

If I close my eyes listening to your song with female vocalist i envision an old vintage well made classic black and white movie.. Which takes skill as they had very little work with tech wise back then.

Does that compete with today's sound?. Nope. Is it valid and good quality. Yes. . But that's a choice you make. Some people want newer more vibrant sounding stuff..

This mix off is going to be interesting.

Taste has nothing to do with this topic.
We are judging me because I am saying plug-ins are for the most part, redundant and way over used. The cheap trend is changing btw, cream is rising and the crap is revealing.
And, nothing I have done, that you hear has been mastered. I mix and prepare and do my best. But who's saying I'm the best. I'm saying less is more and I hear swirlying sound in your mix and a really squashed sound in Donny's current mix. Its really obvious. So, you attack me because I suggest to back off on plug-ins and take the less is more approach, lol Maybe suggestion that a better converter over more plug-ins might be better ;)

You ask how your music sounds in my forum, I say I hear a swirly sound and you resent this and tell me Behringer is just a good. rotf.
:)

I'm not the one asking for help here. Drummers usually prefer bright music, there is a reason for that. You posted your work, and asked. Its really obvious what the issues are.

My suggestions are quizzing expenditures and trying to suggest a better place to put money to help, in kindness. UAD or all the plug-ins on the planet ain't helping you on this one. lol. Source, mic-pre, conversion is where it starts and ends. Plug-ins are the most over rated least of your worry.

cheers!

I'm not judging you.. just observations. As yours were to me. I can hear the swirly in my recordings I think you are confusing technique with gear.I disagree that it's the converters.. my tests will confirm.. I never said behringers converters are as good as prisms just not worth the cost in upgrading as to me converters are the least noticeable sonically . I also disagree that Daw plug ins are as good as Uad.