do Waves make the best plugin set? `

[DaveDrummer]

Just wondering, do you prefer Waves or Timeworks.

[John]

>From: "DaveDrummer"
>Date: 10/16/2003 10:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Just wondering, do you prefer Waves or Timeworks.


Short answer... Yes!
For verbs - Waves. As a matter of fact, the more I use them, the more I think
they are better suited for adding reverb to an overall mix than the TC Native
verbs.

For comp and EQ, it just depends on the program material. I like the Waves
Ultramaximizer for a final mix, but sometimes, I'll use Timeworks mastering
comp instead. They both can add dither, so they're handy to use when going from
24 to 16 bit. They both can be great tools or disasters, just depending on
how you use them. I really like the Timeworks EQ much better than any of the
Waves offerings though. YMMV

-John Vice
www.summertimestudios.com

[John]

>From: "DaveDrummer"
>Date: 10/16/2003 10:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Just wondering, do you prefer Waves or Timeworks.


Short answer... Yes!
For verbs - Waves. As a matter of fact, the more I use them, the more I think
they are better suited for adding reverb to an overall mix than the TC Native
verbs.

For comp and EQ, it just depends on the program material. I like the Waves
Ultramaximizer for a final mix, but sometimes, I'll use Timeworks mastering
comp instead. They both can add dither, so they're handy to use when going from
24 to 16 bit. They both can be great tools or disasters, just depending on
how you use them. I really like the Timeworks EQ much better than any of the
Waves offerings though. YMMV

-John Vice
www.summertimestudios.com

[Philicorda Neon Divider]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:58:40 +0000, John wrote:

>>From: "DaveDrummer"
>>Date: 10/16/2003 10:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>Just wondering, do you prefer Waves or Timeworks.
>
>
> Short answer... Yes!
> For verbs - Waves. As a matter of fact, the more I use them, the more I think
> they are better suited for adding reverb to an overall mix than the TC Native
> verbs.
>
> For comp and EQ, it just depends on the program material. I like the Waves
> Ultramaximizer for a final mix, but sometimes, I'll use Timeworks mastering
> comp instead. They both can add dither, so they're handy to use when going from
> 24 to 16 bit. They both can be great tools or disasters, just depending on
> how you use them. I really like the Timeworks EQ much better than any of the
> Waves offerings though. YMMV

Really? Timeworks mastering comp over L2?? I have tried the timeworks
demo and kinda liked it.... It's dirtier, more brutal, than L2 to my ears,
but that may not be a bad thing.
Is it worth getting if you have L1+L2 already?

> -John Vice
> www.summertimestudios.com

[Philicorda Neon Divider]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 02:58:40 +0000, John wrote:

>>From: "DaveDrummer"
>>Date: 10/16/2003 10:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>Just wondering, do you prefer Waves or Timeworks.
>
>
> Short answer... Yes!
> For verbs - Waves. As a matter of fact, the more I use them, the more I think
> they are better suited for adding reverb to an overall mix than the TC Native
> verbs.
>
> For comp and EQ, it just depends on the program material. I like the Waves
> Ultramaximizer for a final mix, but sometimes, I'll use Timeworks mastering
> comp instead. They both can add dither, so they're handy to use when going from
> 24 to 16 bit. They both can be great tools or disasters, just depending on
> how you use them. I really like the Timeworks EQ much better than any of the
> Waves offerings though. YMMV

Really? Timeworks mastering comp over L2?? I have tried the timeworks
demo and kinda liked it.... It's dirtier, more brutal, than L2 to my ears,
but that may not be a bad thing.
Is it worth getting if you have L1+L2 already?

> -John Vice
> www.summertimestudios.com

[Nathan West]

Which Waves set and Which Timeworks set are you talking about?

Nate

DaveDrummer wrote:

> Just wondering, do you prefer Waves or Timeworks.

[Nathan West]

Which Waves set and Which Timeworks set are you talking about?

Nate

DaveDrummer wrote:

> Just wondering, do you prefer Waves or Timeworks.

[Vladan]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:28:43 +0000, Philicorda Neon Divider
> wrote:

>> Short answer... Yes!
>> For verbs - Waves. As a matter of fact, the more I use them, the more I think
>> they are better suited for adding reverb to an overall mix than the TC Native
>> verbs.

Last night I got to use TC native verb, for the first time after
several years, and it rally ROCKS for that poprpose.
Usually, in the end, I find mix slider set at 5-10%.

Vladan
www.geocities.com/vla_dan_l
www.mp3.com/lesly , www.mp3.com/shook , www.mp3.com/lesly2
www.kunsttick.com/artists/vuskovic/indexdat.htm

[Vladan]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:28:43 +0000, Philicorda Neon Divider
> wrote:

>> Short answer... Yes!
>> For verbs - Waves. As a matter of fact, the more I use them, the more I think
>> they are better suited for adding reverb to an overall mix than the TC Native
>> verbs.

Last night I got to use TC native verb, for the first time after
several years, and it rally ROCKS for that poprpose.
Usually, in the end, I find mix slider set at 5-10%.

Vladan
www.geocities.com/vla_dan_l
www.mp3.com/lesly , www.mp3.com/shook , www.mp3.com/lesly2
www.kunsttick.com/artists/vuskovic/indexdat.htm

[John]

>Really? Timeworks mastering comp over L2?? I have tried the timeworks
>demo and kinda liked it.... It's dirtier, more brutal, than L2 to my ears,
>but that may not be a bad thing.
>Is it worth getting if you have L1+L2 already?
>

>From: Philicorda Neon Divider


You're exactly right in that it can be more "brutal". I think that's a good
word. But for some material, that's exactly what is called for. I'm really
glad I have both sets of plugins, so that I can make the appropriate choice for
the program. Timeworks doesn't have to be too harsh though... If you just
raise the threshold a few db's, then it smooths out from the default settings.
Also, don't forget the hard/soft knee switch. I usually find that I have to
tweak less with the Waves Ultramaximizer to get a good sound than with
Timeworks.




-John Vice
www.summertimestudios.com

[John]

>Really? Timeworks mastering comp over L2?? I have tried the timeworks
>demo and kinda liked it.... It's dirtier, more brutal, than L2 to my ears,
>but that may not be a bad thing.
>Is it worth getting if you have L1+L2 already?
>

>From: Philicorda Neon Divider


You're exactly right in that it can be more "brutal". I think that's a good
word. But for some material, that's exactly what is called for. I'm really
glad I have both sets of plugins, so that I can make the appropriate choice for
the program. Timeworks doesn't have to be too harsh though... If you just
raise the threshold a few db's, then it smooths out from the default settings.
Also, don't forget the hard/soft knee switch. I usually find that I have to
tweak less with the Waves Ultramaximizer to get a good sound than with
Timeworks.




-John Vice
www.summertimestudios.com

[John]

>Last night I got to use TC native verb, for the first time after
>several years, and it rally ROCKS for that poprpose.
>Usually, in the end, I find mix slider set at 5-10%.
>
>Vladan
>

I used to use TC Native exclusively for final mix reverbs. The GUI was really
intuitive, and I liked the many preset choices. I've started using Waves more
now though. I honestly think it sounds better on some stuff. The trouble is
that it is alot less user-friendly, IMHO. That's one reason I didn't pick it
up years ago when I had just started using DAW's. It takes more tweaking, and
it has less presets... but if it sounds better, then you gotta work with it! I
also tend to use R-verb more than True-verb. (maybe I have too many choices?)

If I'm applying a TON of verb, I'll go back to TC Native. It really can give a
good reverb wash to a final mix. There are few applications for this though.
I do use it on gospel, since all those records sound washed out to me, and
that's the sound the client is trying to emulate.




-John Vice
www.summertimestudios.com

[John]

>Last night I got to use TC native verb, for the first time after
>several years, and it rally ROCKS for that poprpose.
>Usually, in the end, I find mix slider set at 5-10%.
>
>Vladan
>

I used to use TC Native exclusively for final mix reverbs. The GUI was really
intuitive, and I liked the many preset choices. I've started using Waves more
now though. I honestly think it sounds better on some stuff. The trouble is
that it is alot less user-friendly, IMHO. That's one reason I didn't pick it
up years ago when I had just started using DAW's. It takes more tweaking, and
it has less presets... but if it sounds better, then you gotta work with it! I
also tend to use R-verb more than True-verb. (maybe I have too many choices?)

If I'm applying a TON of verb, I'll go back to TC Native. It really can give a
good reverb wash to a final mix. There are few applications for this though.
I do use it on gospel, since all those records sound washed out to me, and
that's the sound the client is trying to emulate.




-John Vice
www.summertimestudios.com

[Marc Wielage]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:20:15 -0700, DaveDrummer wrote
(in message >):

> Just wondering, do you prefer Waves or Timeworks.
<--------------------------------snip-------------------------------->


For what? "Plug-ins" comprises dozens (maybe hundreds) of different possible
categories -- anywhere from EQ to reverb to limiters to noise-reduction to
spectral analysis to god-knows-what-else. And a lot also depends on your
choice of platform: PC or Mac, TDM, VST, DirectX, etc.

As a general plug-in developer, I'd say Waves is at or near the top of the
pack in terms of having the broadest range of products. They aren't cheap,
but I consider the Waves Platinum (and now Diamond) package to be
indispensible to the type of work I do.

If you're just talking about reverb plug-ins, I'd say Digidesign's ReverbOne
is the best I've found, at least for TDM.

--MFW

[ScotFraser]

<< > For verbs - Waves. >>

Reverbs are really a very personal taste matter. I find the Waves Rennaissance
Reverb to be good & not outstanding, easily bested by the Kind of Loud RealVerb
for versatile tweaking.

Scott Fraser

[Bob Olhsson]

In article >, ScotFraser
> wrote:

>Reverbs are really a very personal taste matter. I find the Waves Rennaissance
>Reverb to be good & not outstanding, easily bested by the Kind of Loud RealVerb
>for versatile tweaking.

My experience has been that what digital reverb sounds best on a
specific piece of program material can vary all over the map. Sometimes
even D-Verb sounds best around here.

Funny how real plates and chambers never seemed to need that much
tweaking.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN 615.385.8051
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
http://www.hyperback.com/olhsson.html
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!

[david]

In article >, Bob Olhsson
> wrote:

> My experience has been that what digital reverb sounds best on a
> specific piece of program material can vary all over the map. Sometimes
> even D-Verb sounds best around here.
>
> Funny how real plates and chambers never seemed to need that much
> tweaking.



The D-Verb has also surprised me more than once. Also liked your line
about plates and real chambers.



David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com

[EggHd]

<< Funny how real plates and chambers never seemed to need that much
tweaking. >>

Decay time (on plates) and a slap in front of them with a varispeed.

Soundlabs in LA used to have two sends to each plate (switchable). One straight
into the plate and the second one thru a tape delay then into the plate.

With 2 plates there was 4 possibilities of space. Pretty cool for the time.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Mark Stebbeds]

On 20 Oct 2003 21:08:49 GMT, (EggHd) wrote:

>Soundlabs in LA used to have two sends to each plate (switchable). One straight
>into the plate and the second one thru a tape delay then into the plate.

I still set plates up that way. It became SOP decades ago.

Damn, I'm old.

Mark

[EggHd]

<< Damn, I'm old. >>

Naw.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Mark Stebbeds" > wrote in message
...
> On 20 Oct 2003 21:08:49 GMT, (EggHd) wrote:
>
> >Soundlabs in LA used to have two sends to each plate (switchable). One
straight
> >into the plate and the second one thru a tape delay then into the plate.

I have a question. I've always heard people say predelay (which I guess is
basically what the second configuration is) is good for letting the main
track (the one being sent to the reverb) stay up front by separating it from
the reverb. I find the exact opposite when I use predelay (unless I'm going
for that separate effect). It sounds like two "standout" tracks and was
better (more cohesive) without the predelay. It always sounds like two
separate, unrelated sounds. What's the trick to getting the wet and dry
tracks to sit together as one (but have the reverb still "in the back")?

[EggHd]

<< What's the trick to getting the wet and dry
tracks to sit together as one (but have the reverb still "in the back")? >>

Other than the correct amount of pre delay (not too long) and the right decay
on the verb along with the right amount of send return level I don't know what
to else to say.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Bob Olhsson]

In article >, Mark Stebbeds
> wrote:

>I still set plates up that way.

I set my Sony R-7 plate & plate patch up that way!

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN 615.385.8051
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
http://www.hyperback.com/olhsson.html
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!

[Scott Dorsey]

Mark Stebbeds > wrote:
>On 20 Oct 2003 21:08:49 GMT, (EggHd) wrote:
>
>>Soundlabs in LA used to have two sends to each plate (switchable). One straight
>>into the plate and the second one thru a tape delay then into the plate.
>
>I still set plates up that way. It became SOP decades ago.

Sure, if you don't have a Cooper Timecube to do your pre-delay. Remember
those horrible things?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Kurt Albershardt]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> Sure, if you don't have a Cooper Timecube to do your pre-delay. Remember
> those horrible things?

I built a flanger with bucket brigade chips and hacked it up for
predelay later.

[ScotFraser]

<< Sure, if you don't have a Cooper Timecube to do your pre-delay. Remember
those horrible things? >>

Yup, thanks for reminding me. What was the bandwidth, 400Hz to 1,200Hz or so?


Scott Fraser

[EggHd]

<< Sure, if you don't have a Cooper Timecube to do your pre-delay. Remember
those horrible things? >>

Yep. Rufus had a huge hit with that sound. It sure wasn't hi fi.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
ScotFraser > wrote:
><< Sure, if you don't have a Cooper Timecube to do your pre-delay. Remember
>those horrible things? >>
>
>Yup, thanks for reminding me. What was the bandwidth, 400Hz to 1,200Hz or so?

Plus or minus lots and lots.

Actually, I think both the compression driver and the microphone were rated
up to 15 KC or so. The stuff in-between, though.... who knows what the hell
that looked like on a plot. It sure didn't sound flat.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."