plugins in professionnal studios : Waves, ok, but what else if notWaves?

[Hueyduck[_3_]]

Hi,

Each time i'm going to a pro studio, the plugs I find are mostly the Waves.

But I'm sure there are other collections than this one that are used in
professionnal studios as well (just not in thos I'm going to).
What are those collections, according to your observation?

Note that I am note asking wich plugin collection is the best, wich is a
relative state, but rather the most frequent in pro studios :))

I'm interested in tknowing he collections that are used in studios who
haven't bought the Waves one.

Thks for your input(s)

Huey

[Hueyduck[_3_]]

Hueyduck a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Each time i'm going to a pro studio, the plugs I find are mostly the Waves.
(...)
> I'm interested in tknowing he collections that are used in studios who
> haven't bought the Waves one.

Thought it would have been an easy one. Or is it not the best forum to
ask this, maybe ?

Huey

[rakmanenuff]

On Dec 10, 11:42*am, Hueyduck > wrote:
> Hueyduck a crit :
>
> > Hi,
>
> > Each time i'm going to a pro studio, the plugs I find are mostly the Waves.
> (...)
> > I'm interested in tknowing he collections that are used in studios who
> > haven't bought the Waves one.
>
> Thought it would have been an easy one. Or is it not the best forum to
> ask this, maybe ?
>
> Huey

Dumb question.

Do you want good sound or not?

Anybody who's serious enough about sound
to use good non-Waves plugins like UAD,
McDSP, RND, Nomad, etc have also bought
Waves plugins because they care about sound. Duh.

[Hueyduck[_3_]]

rakmanenuff a écrit :
> On Dec 10, 11:42 am, Hueyduck > wrote:
>> Hueyduck a crit :
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> Each time i'm going to a pro studio, the plugs I find are mostly the Waves.
>> (...)
>>> I'm interested in tknowing he collections that are used in studios who
>>> haven't bought the Waves one.
>> Thought it would have been an easy one. Or is it not the best forum to
>> ask this, maybe ?
>>
>> Huey
>
> Dumb question.
>
-
Hello, Rakmanenuff,

I do not understand the reason of your aggressivity. Sorry if I hurt you
in any way, I didn't mean to.
Or maybe it is the regular tone of this forum, that you are employing.
I shall look into adopting it soon if it is assential to getting answers
from qualified people.
-

> Do you want good sound or not?
>
-
Again.
-
> Anybody who's serious enough about sound
> to use good non-Waves plugins like UAD,
> McDSP, RND, Nomad, etc have also bought
> Waves plugins because they care about sound. Duh.

"Waves, because they care about sound". Alright. A bit like a chessy
commercial, actually.
Anyway, thanks you for writing "UAD,McDSP, RND, Nomad". This the start
of a good answer to my question.


Huey

[Carey Carlan]

Hueyduck > wrote in
:

> Hello, Rakmanenuff,
>
> I do not understand the reason of your aggressivity. Sorry if I hurt
> you in any way, I didn't mean to.
> Or maybe it is the regular tone of this forum, that you are
> employing. I shall look into adopting it soon if it is assential to
> getting answers from qualified people.

You probably got silence because no one had a good answer. Waves plugins
are very prevalent. Perhaps none of the studio operators who read your
post have a great alternative.

Many who post here don't run studios. For instance, I do only location
recording.

[rakmanenuff]

On Dec 11, 10:40*am, Hueyduck > wrote:

> Or maybe it is *the regular tone of this forum,

Ah. So you care about "tone" then huh.

> that *you are employing.
> I shall look into adopting it soon if it is assential to getting answers
> from qualified people.

I do that sometimes. I troll to get good answers.

What next? "Every time I see a rock band they
have guitars. I'm interested in knowing what
instruments they use in rock bands that haven't
bought guitars"..?

> "Waves, because they care about sound". Alright. A bit like a chessy
> commercial, actually.

You butchered my sentence to change its meaning.
But yeah I'm sure they do care about sound :)

> Anyway, thanks you for writing "UAD,McDSP, RND, Nomad". This the start
> of a good answer to my question.

Not really. Other plugin manufacturers can give you
sounds that Waves plugins don't but that's still not
a reason to avoid using Waves.
I see these "alternatives to Waves" threads a lot on
the internet and they bore me.

The only good reason to use something else is if the person
has no money and wanna use free plugins only. I've tried
that and couldn't get the results I wanted. Had to spend
some money on plugins.

[Hueyduck[_3_]]

rakmanenuff a écrit :
> On Dec 11, 10:40 am, Hueyduck > wrote:
>
>> Or maybe it is the regular tone of this forum,
>
> Ah. So you care about "tone" then huh.
-
English is not my first language. Sorry if I misuse a word.
-
>
> What next? "Every time I see a rock band they
> have guitars. I'm interested in knowing what
> instruments they use in rock bands that haven't
> bought guitars"..?
-
If such band exists, I would indeed be interested in knowing the answer.
If guitars are an essential element of band that wants to be called a
rock band, your question makes no sense and, now, I can feel the
annoyance you may have felt while misreading my first post.

What seems elementary for you is not for everyone, you know that. That's
why people ask questions, so that people who live with the answers
around give them to the one who question themselves about the very
existence of these answers.

Most of all, what lead to asking what I asked was that when I talk
about "Waves" in the studios I'm going to, the ingeneers keep on talking
about how the plugin the have at home are more interesting than the "Waves".

Then I ask "Why use them here?"

And the answer is always: "because our customers do. When they bring a
protools reel, it's full of waves in it. We have to have them."
This is not a value judgement, you will agree, right? It's necessary to
have them not because they are the best but because everyone uses it.

-
>
>> "Waves, because they care about sound". Alright. A bit like a chessy
>> commercial, actually.
>
> You butchered my sentence to change its meaning.
-
Understating that looking fo an alternative to "waves" is a clear
demonstration of me not caring for the quality of my work is butchering
the meaning of my whole post. And I wanted to know if you are just
mean, a troll , a mean troll, or simply someone who thinks I'm jerking
him around while I'm simply being curious. So I threw a gentle joke to
see your reaction.

You read that I wanted to avoid "waves". I never said that.
I said I was curious to know what else was used in professionnal
studios. But I'm ok with the answer "nothing". I won't believe it , but
I do believe what Carey wrote, for instance. And I will take my question
on another forum until I find someone that has other habits.

The same question could go with protools.
And I will find some professionnal studios using other software than
protools. Few, but some.
See what I mean?
Now should I stop calling "professional studios" the studios where were
produced soundtracks for movie with the help of Nuendo? I won't.

-
>
>> Anyway, thanks you for writing "UAD,McDSP, RND, Nomad". This the start
>> of a good answer to my question.
>
> Not really. Other plugin manufacturers can give you
> sounds that Waves plugins don't but that's still not
> a reason to avoid using Waves.
> I see these "alternatives to Waves" threads a lot on
> the internet and they bore me.
-
So that could be the reason I'm getting flamed by you. But please
acknowlkedge that you misread my thread. I never talked about the price.
I talked about the availablilty in professionnal studios. And I insisted
about that fact.

You seem to say that a pro studio without waves is not a pro studio.
This is not true. Having "waves "plugins isn't part of the definition of
a recording studio.

>
> The only good reason to use something else is if the person
> has no money and wanna use free plugins only. I've tried
> that and couldn't get the results I wanted. Had to spend
> some money on plugins.

Thanks for sharing this. But again: My question never was about money.


Huey

[Hueyduck[_3_]]

Carey Carlan a écrit :
> Hueyduck > wrote in
> :

> You probably got silence because no one had a good answer. Waves plugins
> are very prevalent. Perhaps none of the studio operators who read your
> post have a great alternative.
>
-
Then, I will wait until one who has does answer :))
-

> Many who post here don't run studios.
-
I don't either, you know :) But I go to them in order to work and get
interested by the stuff they use to mix my music.
I just like to look outside the box, is all. When I see a road that is
only one way while being 100 m large, I always wonder why the road is
"one way". I'm not young enough to get the "because it is" answer, you
see :)

-
>For instance, I do only location
> recording.

That's a bit why I asked about being in the wrong group.
audio.pro interests many people amongst whom are the sound engineers.
But many are not, I realise that.
I could'nt find a more appropriate group on usenet.
(and I'm a bit reluctant to using the sites forum. It's just a bore to
me try and follow a thread)

Anyway, thanks for your answer.

Huey

[Scott Dorsey]

Hueyduck > wrote:
>Carey Carlan a écrit :
>> Hueyduck > wrote in
>> :
>
>> You probably got silence because no one had a good answer. Waves plugins
>> are very prevalent. Perhaps none of the studio operators who read your
>> post have a great alternative.
>>
>-
>Then, I will wait until one who has does answer :))

Okay, then, here's one: Don't buy plugins, buy actual equipment. The
lifetime of the plugin is fairly short; you will eventually have to upgrade
the host software and host hardware and eventually you will come to the point
where you have to replace or upgrade the plugin. You buy an actual piece of
analogue hardware and you can keep using it no matter what the recording and
editing technology becomes. Actual long-term cost of ownership is lower even
though the up-front cost is higher.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[rakmanenuff]

On Dec 12, 3:01*pm, Hueyduck > wrote:

> You seem to say that a pro studio without waves is not a pro studio.
> This is not true. Having "waves "plugins isn't part of the definition of
> a recording studio.

No.
There are many artists who would prefer to record to
analog tape and not use a DAW at all, but who're forced
to use Pro Tools because of budgets and practicalities.
Their new albums often sound worse sonically than
their older ones.

But I think nearly all hit records nowadays are
made on Pro Tools, using Waves and McDSP plus
pitch correction.
So if you're trying to sound like what's in the
charts this week it's hard to avoid that reference
point. I'm a Logic user, so matching the Pro Tools
sound is extra work.

Of course if sounding different from what's in
the chart is a person's aim they don't have to
use any of that stuff.
Metric Halo Channel Strip is a plugin to take
note of btw, used on Kesha, Katy Perry etc.

[rakmanenuff]

On Dec 12, 9:10*pm, rakmanenuff > wrote:

> Metric Halo Channel Strip is a plugin to take
> note of btw, used on Kesha, Katy Perry etc.

Massey plugins are good, Pro Tools only though :(

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/12/2010 4:10 PM, rakmanenuff wrote:

> There are many artists who would prefer to record to
> analog tape and not use a DAW at all, but who're forced
> to use Pro Tools because of budgets and practicalities.

Who's forcing them to record at all? Why bother making bad
sounding albums?

> But I think nearly all hit records nowadays are
> made on Pro Tools, using Waves and McDSP plus
> pitch correction.

That's nearly a sure bet (though I'm not sure about the
McDSP part). Because projects are rarely recorded
start-to-finish in a single studio and in a contiguous block
of time. Of course that depends on how you count. A musician
who records all of his own material in his own studio and
takes two years to complete a project would qualify, but
that's not really what we're talking about here - he can use
whatever tools he wants and nobody will care, or know. But
when Stevie Wonder e-mails a project to a studio in
Madagascar to have a guitarist add a four bar rhythm part,
the project must sound the same at both ends.

> I'm a Logic user, so matching the Pro Tools
> sound is extra work.

There isn't a "Pro Tools Sound." But if you're trying to get
deep into a production and try to figure out what plug-in
and what settings were used to get the sound of a background
keyboard part, you're pretty much out of luck. Even if you
walked into the same studio where the recording was made,
you'd be hard pressed to re-create the sound.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[rakmanenuff]

On Dec 13, 12:45*pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> On 12/12/2010 4:10 PM, rakmanenuff wrote:
>
> > There are many artists who would prefer to record to
> > analog tape and not use a DAW at all, but who're forced
> > to use Pro Tools because of budgets and practicalities.
>
> Who's forcing them to record at all? Why bother making bad
> sounding albums?

There was an interesting interview with John Kalodner,
who ended up having to leave his A&R job because he was
unwilling to lower the bar/compromise on budgets and quality.

I think artists just want to write, record and
perform, primarily. Sound quality isn't necessarily
their main priority.

> > But I think nearly all hit records nowadays are
> > made on Pro Tools, using Waves and McDSP plus
> > pitch correction.
>
> That's nearly a sure bet (though I'm not sure about the
> McDSP part).

Lol. Agreed.

> > I'm a Logic user, so matching the Pro Tools
> > sound is extra work.
>
> There isn't a "Pro Tools Sound."

If I run the exact same audio file through the
exact same plugins in Logic and Pro Tools
I get two different results. Whatever's going
on there, audio engine / digital summing, is
real, not a myth.

> But if you're trying to get
> deep into a production and try to figure out what plug-in
> and what settings were used to get the sound of a background
> keyboard part, you're pretty much out of luck. Even if you
> walked into the same studio where the recording was made,
> you'd be hard pressed to re-create the sound.

Yes and No. It doesn't do any harm to know
what equipment was used on your fave recordings,
or to read interviews to get closer to the mixing
engineer's viewpoint.

I find that when I try my own way of
doing things without any regard for other ppl's
methods, I sometimes overlook or discard
things that actually work, or go off on tangents.
Brutal a/b comparisons are always useful IMO,
as long as it's understood that no two songs are
alike.

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/13/2010 1:40 PM, rakmanenuff wrote:

> I think artists just want to write, record and
> perform, primarily. Sound quality isn't necessarily
> their main priority.

There are all kinds. Some don't care about quality because
they figure that anyone who hears their recordings will be
hearing an MP3 file or a YouTube video. Some won't even give
it that much thought. Some specifically want "lo fi" for
some gawdawful reason. But there are a lot who really do
care about quality. They won't necessarily buy $9.000 mics
for themselves, or even go to a studio with a shelf full of
them, but they'll take as much care as they can, and maybe
pass the project off to a good mastering engineer who will
make it sound like the artist does, when played back through
a good system.

There's really no generalizing, only specific, and often
nearly unique examples of what someone has done. or is doing.

>> There isn't a "Pro Tools Sound."
>
> If I run the exact same audio file through the
> exact same plugins in Logic and Pro Tools
> I get two different results. Whatever's going
> on there, audio engine / digital summing, is
> real, not a myth.

This may be, but I don't think that either is a "sound"
that's desirable or undesirable. It's just how the system
works. And they're getting better all the time. These days
it's just not worth the effort, at least when it comes to
software, and it's getting to be likewise with hardware,
that you really can't worry too much about the tiny
differences in sound, you shop for the features that appeal
to you, or that you need.

Of course there are still things that indeed have a "sound."
There are times, when, if I have a choice, I'll use a
Millennia or an API, or a genuine vintage Neve, or a Grace
preamp. But I usually don't have that luxury, so it's the
Great River, the Mackie or the Soundcraft. I can't blame the
"wrong" choice of preamps for not having a string of
platinum selling clients beating down my door wanting to
have me record them.

> Yes and No. It doesn't do any harm to know
> what equipment was used on your fave recordings,
> or to read interviews to get closer to the mixing
> engineer's viewpoint.

Sure, that can be fun, but what's been done is old hat. Why
not create something yourself that you've never heard on a
record before?




--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[rakmanenuff]

On Dec 13, 10:04*pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> On 12/13/2010 1:40 PM, rakmanenuff wrote:
>
> > I think artists just want to write, record and
> > perform, primarily. Sound quality isn't necessarily
> > their main priority.
>
> There are all kinds. Some don't care about quality because
> they figure that anyone who hears their recordings will be
> hearing an MP3 file or a YouTube video. Some won't even give
> it that much thought. Some specifically want "lo fi" for
> some gawdawful reason. But there are a lot who really do
> care about quality. They won't necessarily buy $9.000 mics
> for themselves, or even go to a studio with a shelf full of
> them, but they'll take as much care as they can, and maybe
> pass the project off to a good mastering engineer who will
> make it sound like the artist does, when played back through
> a good system.

I can tell whether a vocal was done on a C12 or on a
cheapo mic, even on mp3. Plus good mastering shines,
even on mp3.

Some vinyl was good, some vinyl was bad, vinyl was never a perfect
or consistent format. An mp3 at 320 kbps isn't really
much worse than a CD at all. CD wasn't necessarily
an ideal format either, it was 44.1 for starters. Nor were cassettes.

I listen to all the new pop stuff and also to lots of 70s
music and I honestly don't think either one is "better".
Your ears get used to whatever you feed them.
New stuff mixed like 70s might sound wrong, and 70s
mixed like new might sound wrong, but only because
you have the reference points of both and knowledge of how
it "should" sound.

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

rakmanenuff wrote:
> On Dec 13, 10:04 pm, Mike > wrote:
>> On 12/13/2010 1:40 PM, rakmanenuff wrote:
>>
>>> I think artists just want to write, record and
>>> perform, primarily. Sound quality isn't necessarily
>>> their main priority.
>>
>> There are all kinds. Some don't care about quality because
>> they figure that anyone who hears their recordings will be
>> hearing an MP3 file or a YouTube video. Some won't even give
>> it that much thought. Some specifically want "lo fi" for
>> some gawdawful reason. But there are a lot who really do
>> care about quality. They won't necessarily buy $9.000 mics
>> for themselves, or even go to a studio with a shelf full of
>> them, but they'll take as much care as they can, and maybe
>> pass the project off to a good mastering engineer who will
>> make it sound like the artist does, when played back through
>> a good system.
>
> I can tell whether a vocal was done on a C12 or on a
> cheapo mic, even on mp3. Plus good mastering shines,
> even on mp3.
>
> Some vinyl was good, some vinyl was bad, vinyl was never a perfect
> or consistent format. An mp3 at 320 kbps isn't really
> much worse than a CD at all. CD wasn't necessarily
> an ideal format either, it was 44.1 for starters. Nor were cassettes.
>
> I listen to all the new pop stuff and also to lots of 70s
> music and I honestly don't think either one is "better".
> Your ears get used to whatever you feed them.
> New stuff mixed like 70s might sound wrong, and 70s
> mixed like new might sound wrong, but only because
> you have the reference points of both and knowledge of how
> it "should" sound.

Almost everything I hear now that is remotely new is mixed a lot
like the '70s. The stuff that doesn't sound like that is either
pop, which is mixed to a "ten pounds of poop in a five pound bag"
standard, and some (non-mainstream) hip hop, which is pretty sparse.

The worst, though is what passes for country. That form
from 5 years ago was moderately overproduced; now it's
beyond belief. It is very, very shiny, and the vox
sound like they are coming from the middle of your head, but
the sheer quantity of information packed in there is
extreme.

--
Les Cargill

[alex]

Il 07/12/2010 16.16, Hueyduck ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> Each time i'm going to a pro studio, the plugs I find are mostly the Waves.
>
> But I'm sure there are other collections than this one that are used in
> professionnal studios as well (just not in thos I'm going to).
> What are those collections, according to your observation?
>
> Note that I am note asking wich plugin collection is the best, wich is a
> relative state, but rather the most frequent in pro studios :))
>
> I'm interested in tknowing he collections that are used in studios who
> haven't bought the Waves one.
>
> Thks for your input(s)
>
> Huey
I feel quite satisfied with plugins from fabfilter.
I use only 2. The pro-C (comp), pro-Q (eq) and i'm about to buy the new
pro-L (bw limiter) that i have under test right now in its demo version.

The pros are:
-really good sound quality;
-great flexibility, pro-c and pro-q can work in MS mode, very useful for
my premastering jobs;
-wonderful interface that get rid of those terrible big vintage knobs
emulations out there;
-really lightweight in term of processing power needed.
-good midi interface;
-serial number based license that keeps you free from chins of usb dongles.
-price: each less than $200

cons:
-not supported by any DSP accelerator card (as far i know), but very
lightweight.

bye
alex

[Hueyduck[_3_]]

alex a écrit :

> I feel quite satisfied with plugins from fabfilter.

Hi Alex,
Thanks for this lead. I will look into thos plugins.

>
> cons:
> -not supported by any DSP accelerator card (as far i know), but very
> lightweight.

This is not a pb for me :)) ON the contrary

Thx again


Huey

[Mr Soul]

I really like the software from PSP Audioware in Poland.

Mike C