[adam79[_3_]]

What's your favorite EQ Plug in? I downloaded the Softube Summit Grand Channel 20 day trial, which includes the EQF-100. The EQF-100 is, by far, the best sounding EQ plug that I've tried. It took the mix I was working on to another level. Great lows and amazing highs, especially in the airy 12k region.

Thanks,
-Adam

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 wrote:
What's your favorite EQ Plug in? I downloaded the Softube Summit Grand Chan=
nel 20 day trial, which includes the EQF-100. The EQF-100 is, by far, the b=
est sounding EQ plug that I've tried. It took the mix I was working on to a=
nother level. Great lows and amazing highs, especially in the airy 12k regi=
on.

I've never used a plug-in before, but when I need EQ the first thing I
usually reach for is the Orban 622. This may date me.
--scott

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

[geoff]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
adam79 wrote:
What's your favorite EQ Plug in? I downloaded the Softube Summit Grand
Chan=
nel 20 day trial, which includes the EQF-100. The EQF-100 is, by far, the
b=
est sounding EQ plug that I've tried. It took the mix I was working on to
a=
nother level. Great lows and amazing highs, especially in the airy 12k
regi=
on.

I've never used a plug-in before, but when I need EQ the first thing I
usually reach for is the Orban 622. This may date me.
--scott


Try it, you might like it ;-)

geoff

[Here In Oregon]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
"I've never used a plug-in before, but when I need EQ the first thing I
usually reach for is the Orban 622. This may date me."
--scott


Scott Dorsey never used a plug-in before? Huh!!! Who would have ever,
ever thunk. So Mr. Dorsey, sir,... have you ever used a computer? ;-)

To think all of these years I have been sending all of those people over
here with those very tough questions needing advice. G

Tell Mike I said hi!!!

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Here In Oregon wrote:

Scott Dorsey never used a plug-in before? Huh!!! Who would have ever,
ever thunk. So Mr. Dorsey, sir,... have you ever used a computer? ;-)

Most of what I do is to tape, but when I use a computer I pretty much use
it like a tape machine with fancy editing features, and mix conventionally.
Mixing in the box just seems phenomenally crude, especially when we already
have a much better tool for the job sitting right there.

To think all of these years I have been sending all of those people over
here with those very tough questions needing advice. G

My advice is to buy an Ampex and be happy!
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/23/2012 4:24 PM, Here In Oregon wrote:

Scott Dorsey never used a plug-in before? Huh!!! Who would
have ever, ever thunk. So Mr. Dorsey, sir,... have you ever
used a computer? ;-)

To think all of these years I have been sending all of those
people over here with those very tough questions needing
advice. G

Tell Mike I said hi!!!

I've never used an EQ plug-in either. I record things so
that they don't need EQ. It saves a lot of time and money.

--
"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

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

On 12/23/2012 8:52 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/23/2012 4:24 PM, Here In Oregon wrote:

Scott Dorsey never used a plug-in before? Huh!!! Who would
have ever, ever thunk. So Mr. Dorsey, sir,... have you ever
used a computer? ;-)

To think all of these years I have been sending all of those
people over here with those very tough questions needing
advice. G

Tell Mike I said hi!!!

I've never used an EQ plug-in either. I record things so that they don't
need EQ. It saves a lot of time and money.

Do it right the first time? What a silly idea.
Gee, I thought everyone just fixed it in post
these days. [Just kidding]

==
Later...
Ron Capik cynic-in-training
--

[geoff]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
In article , Here In Oregon
wrote:

Scott Dorsey never used a plug-in before? Huh!!! Who would have ever,
ever thunk. So Mr. Dorsey, sir,... have you ever used a computer? ;-)

Most of what I do is to tape, but when I use a computer I pretty much use
it like a tape machine with fancy editing features, and mix
conventionally.
Mixing in the box just seems phenomenally crude, especially when we
already
have a much better tool for the job sitting right there.

If you've never used them, how do you know that they are phenominally crude.
Some could possibly even make the 622 look lilke a turd in comparison. But
if you don't try, you'll never know.

And if you've REALLY never tried an EQ plugin on a DAW, how could you
possibly have an opinion on the matter, especially one that you'd pass on to
others ?

I can only guess you were jesting, and are not really such an ostrich.


My advice is to buy an Ampex and be happy!
--scott

I'm happy without an Ampex. I have an Otari and a Studer though ...


geoff

[geoff]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 12/23/2012 4:24 PM, Here In Oregon wrote:

Scott Dorsey never used a plug-in before? Huh!!! Who would
have ever, ever thunk. So Mr. Dorsey, sir,... have you ever
used a computer? ;-)

To think all of these years I have been sending all of those
people over here with those very tough questions needing
advice. G

Tell Mike I said hi!!!

I've never used an EQ plug-in either. I record things so that they don't
need EQ. It saves a lot of time and money.



Sadly I'm not that perfect. And seldom are others whose recordings I need
to work with.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
In article , Here In Oregon
wrote:

Scott Dorsey never used a plug-in before? Huh!!! Who would have ever,
ever thunk. So Mr. Dorsey, sir,... have you ever used a computer? ;-)

Most of what I do is to tape, but when I use a computer I pretty much use
it like a tape machine with fancy editing features, and mix
conventionally.
Mixing in the box just seems phenomenally crude, especially when we
already
have a much better tool for the job sitting right there.

If you've never used them, how do you know that they are phenominally crude.
Some could possibly even make the 622 look lilke a turd in comparison. But
if you don't try, you'll never know.

It's not the processing that is phenomenally crude, it's the user interface.

The processing might be great, but I want faders that I can ride and I
want one control per function.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/24/2012 9:20 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

It's not the processing that is phenomenally crude, it's the user interface.

The processing might be great, but I want faders that I can ride and I
want one control per function.

Typically, an EQ plug-in looks like the real thing. You see
one knob or switch per function, but you have only one
control, and that's the mouse that you have to move to each
knob before you can adjust what that knob adjusts.

As someone with low powered computers, relatively small (by
today's standards) monitors, and not terribly good vision at
a comfortable working distance from the screen, I find this
sort of user interface difficult to operate and it makes me
think too hard when I want to make an adjustment. Even if it
means moving my chair or looking in a different direction,
I'd rather just grab a knob.


--
"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

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/23/2012 11:59 PM, geoff wrote:

I've never used an EQ plug-in either. I record things so that they don't
need EQ. It saves a lot of time and money.

Sadly I'm not that perfect. And seldom are others whose recordings I need
to work with.

How boring it is to be perfect. And once you achieve
perfection, does it still sound perfect the next time you
listen to it? Having so many choices just makes me (and
probalby just about everyone else) a little unsure if this
is really right or if a different plug-in or a different
setting could make it better.

I let (or make) the musicians do all the work, and I strive
to make what they do in the studio come through to the final
product. Sure, sometimes it takes EQ or compression, but not
a lot of agonizing over which of many devices is the right
one to use. Not spending a lot of money and keeping things
that work for a long time (and shelving things that don't)
helps this decision process a lot, too.


--
"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

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/24/2012 9:20 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

It's not the processing that is phenomenally crude, it's the user interface.

The processing might be great, but I want faders that I can ride and I
want one control per function.

Typically, an EQ plug-in looks like the real thing. You see
one knob or switch per function, but you have only one
control, and that's the mouse that you have to move to each
knob before you can adjust what that knob adjusts.

Right, it's not the plug-ins I am complaining about, it's the mixing process.
The plug-ins might be fine, but if I am using a mixer I already have with
outboard stuff I already have, why should I bother?
--scott


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

[Luxey]

You hold the mouse in your hand, one hand you use to reach all the dedicated controls, on all the dedicated hardware.

Personaly, I think all EQ plug ins sound exactly the same. Some have very usefull presets, so you load one and "bang", the sound. On others you have to work hard to get the same effect, but in the end they sound all the same - the way you want them to sound.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/24/2012 9:20 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

It's not the processing that is phenomenally crude, it's the user interface.

The processing might be great, but I want faders that I can ride and I
want one control per function.

Typically, an EQ plug-in looks like the real thing. You see
one knob or switch per function, but you have only one
control, and that's the mouse that you have to move to each
knob before you can adjust what that knob adjusts.

Right, it's not the plug-ins I am complaining about, it's the mixing process.

I don't find I need to make a lot of fader moves. If I *do* need to,
they're stored as metadata with the project.

The plug-ins might be fine, but if I am using a mixer I already have with
outboard stuff I already have, why should I bother?
--scott



--
Les Cargill

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/24/2012 9:20 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

It's not the processing that is phenomenally crude, it's the user interface.

The processing might be great, but I want faders that I can ride and I
want one control per function.

Typically, an EQ plug-in looks like the real thing. You see
one knob or switch per function, but you have only one
control, and that's the mouse that you have to move to each
knob before you can adjust what that knob adjusts.

Right, it's not the plug-ins I am complaining about, it's the mixing process.
The plug-ins might be fine, but if I am using a mixer I already have with
outboard stuff I already have, why should I bother?


I've told my story before, but after 35+ years behind large format consoles,
switching to an ITB rig was awful. But I had to, because of the market
realities in this locale.

Took me a little over a year of constant complaining to come around, and I refused
to even start with it unless I had a 37" 1920x1080 LCD monitor with two similar
resolution 22" wing monitors. (Fortunately, I was able to hit the market just right
to build on the cheap a higher powered box that could support that plus the ITB
processing required.)

Sure, I too would like a knob for every function (and there is no way in hell I'd
ever consider mixing live sound on a "paged" or "moused" interface). But there are
some real advantages in the small footprint, gear cost, and maintenance. Day-to-day
good things can happen, such as complete and immediate mix recall being first and
foremost, followed by a delightful precision that is exactly repeatable at each
playback.

Part of the learning curve is dealing with the distractions and psychological
"clutter" of the computer environment -- which is in part, as someone observed, the
huge number of choices leading to all sorts of artificial and perpetual decision
angst that really shouldn't be necessary.

(You get around that by taking a day or longer break before you get too deep into
those mental "loops". You use the perfect recall to come back later -- days, weeks
-- when you are fresh. That's the single thing I love the most about digital mix.)

IMO, much of running things ITB has to do with how we adjust our "human information"
processors, and how we set the work flow to take maximum advantage of the good
portions of what the environment offers.

Another part is getting a minimally-usable working environment from day one, such as
plenty of display real-estate.

Having said all that, I think us old folks actually have it easier, once we overcome
our misgivings, because many of us started out on four or eight tracks, in *very
expensive* environments (studio and musician costs). We learned straight-away how to
be efficient and not navel-gaze.

Contrast this to someone who always had 128 tracks, a garage studio with an entry
cost of 1/100 of what it was 30 years ago, and you can see where many of the
workflow problems arise. Those old "primitive" settings were perfect training
grounds; if I were king I'd make the kids live in one of those environments for a
while to really grasp how to keep things flowing before they moved over to
digital.

When we learn how to recast that ability to be efficient and make decisions on top
of a new tool set, it's the best of both worlds, at least it has been for me.

I was dragged kicking and sceaming into that new world. But now that I'm
there, I can't imagine going back.

YMMV, of course. Do what makes you happy and keeps the clients happy, but also
realize that sometimes a little irritation can pay dividends later.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Steve King]

Frank Stearns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/24/2012 9:20 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

It's not the processing that is phenomenally crude, it's the user
interface.

The processing might be great, but I want faders that I can ride
and I
want one control per function.

Typically, an EQ plug-in looks like the real thing. You see
one knob or switch per function, but you have only one
control, and that's the mouse that you have to move to each
knob before you can adjust what that knob adjusts.

Right, it's not the plug-ins I am complaining about, it's the mixing
process. The plug-ins might be fine, but if I am using a mixer I
already have with outboard stuff I already have, why should I bother?


I've told my story before, but after 35+ years behind large format
consoles, switching to an ITB rig was awful. But I had to, because of
the market
realities in this locale.

Took me a little over a year of constant complaining to come around,
and I refused to even start with it unless I had a 37" 1920x1080 LCD
monitor with two similar resolution 22" wing monitors. (Fortunately,
I was able to hit the market just right to build on the cheap a
higher powered box that could support that plus the ITB processing
required.)

Sure, I too would like a knob for every function (and there is no way
in hell I'd ever consider mixing live sound on a "paged" or "moused"
interface). But there are some real advantages in the small
footprint, gear cost, and maintenance. Day-to-day good things can
happen, such as complete and immediate mix recall being first and
foremost, followed by a delightful precision that is exactly
repeatable at each playback.

Part of the learning curve is dealing with the distractions and
psychological "clutter" of the computer environment -- which is in
part, as someone observed, the huge number of choices leading to all
sorts of artificial and perpetual decision angst that really
shouldn't be necessary.

(You get around that by taking a day or longer break before you get
too deep into those mental "loops". You use the perfect recall to
come back later -- days, weeks -- when you are fresh. That's the
single thing I love the most about digital mix.)

IMO, much of running things ITB has to do with how we adjust our
"human information" processors, and how we set the work flow to take
maximum advantage of the good portions of what the environment offers.

Another part is getting a minimally-usable working environment from
day one, such as plenty of display real-estate.

Having said all that, I think us old folks actually have it easier,
once we overcome our misgivings, because many of us started out on
four or eight tracks, in *very expensive* environments (studio and
musician costs). We learned straight-away how to be efficient and not
navel-gaze.

Contrast this to someone who always had 128 tracks, a garage studio
with an entry cost of 1/100 of what it was 30 years ago, and you can
see where many of the workflow problems arise. Those old "primitive"
settings were perfect training grounds; if I were king I'd make the
kids live in one of those environments for a while to really grasp
how to keep things flowing before they moved over to
digital.

When we learn how to recast that ability to be efficient and make
decisions on top of a new tool set, it's the best of both worlds, at
least it has been for me.

I was dragged kicking and sceaming into that new world. But now that
I'm
there, I can't imagine going back.

YMMV, of course. Do what makes you happy and keeps the clients happy,
but also realize that sometimes a little irritation can pay dividends
later.

Frank
Mobile Audio

Excellent post. Really captures my experience. Sounds like we both started
out about the same time although my path diverged from yours later. I spent
about a decade in the analogue world; with other studio engineers we built
our first three-track from components from 2-track and mono Presto decks
plus a custom made head stack. Then a four-track from re-cycled Ampex 350
components. And, so on, progressing through off-the-shelf 8, 16, & 24 track
machines to interlocked 24s. It was interesting to track the average
per-project customer billings over time. As we added more tracks and more
and more outboard equipment, billable time increased exponentially. My
colleagues and I often asked ourselves if the quality of our recordings was
increasing, were we happier with our 24-tack mixes than with earlier mixes
of similar arrangements, did the days of over-dubbing and mixing time save
money vs. hiring additional musicians for the original sessions, etc.
Generally, we concluded that our earlier sessions and mixes were just as
satisfying...maybe more so. Certainly, the personal satisfaction of
recording most of the instruments and even vocals simultaneously was much
greater than what we felt after interminable hours of overdubs and mixing
and re-thinking every little detail. Of course, it helped that we had a
studio that accomodated as many as 20 musicians, a Studio B to isolate
vocals or strings, and at least one second engineer to set up, tweak mic
placement, and handle the other chores of apprenticeship. Now, my recording
is mostly limited to spoken word and associated production to created sound
tracks and commercials, all done in a DAW. And, I, too, would never
consider going back to tape and a razor blade.

Steve King

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/24/2012 10:47 AM, Luxey wrote:
You hold the mouse in your hand, one hand you use to
reach all the dedicated controls, on all the dedicated
hardware.

I think of it a little differently. You have one rack space
and a couple of dozen signal processors. You put then into
that rack space one at a time, adjust it, then move it out
of the way and put another one in so you can adjust that one.

Personaly, I think all EQ plug ins sound exactly the
same. Some have very usefull presets, so you load one and
"bang", the sound. On others you have to work hard to get
the same effect, but in the end they sound all the same -
the way you want them to sound.

EQs shouldn't have presets, because things that look alike
(like female singers) don't all need fixing the same way (or
at all). But if it suits your way of working, who's to argue?


--
"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

[Sean Conolly]

"Luxey" wrote in message
...
You hold the mouse in your hand, one hand you use to reach all the dedicated
controls, on all the dedicated hardware.

Personaly, I think all EQ plug ins sound exactly the same. Some have very
usefull presets, so you load one and "bang", the sound. On others you have
to work hard to get the same effect, but in the end they sound all the
same - the way you want them to sound.

========================================

I agree, and for processing plugins in general. Not that I have a lot of
plugins, or any high dollar ones, but I just don't find any real differences
in the sound. They either suck or they work. With analog kit every piece has
it's own sound, some subtle and some obvious.

Yes, I know there are some plugins with extensive modelling to recreate the
sound of hardware, but in my limited experience I haven't come across any
that really sound convincing to me. I understand the cost justification, but
if money wasn't a factor I'd rather just buy the hardware than something
that tries to emulate the hardware. One could argue that the size of the
market for modeled plugins is proof that pure digital sound is missing
something.

For workflow, forget it. I work twice as fast mixing through a real console
than mucking around in the computer. I am strictly an amatuer though, so I'm
not making any assertions on anyone else's situation.

Sean

[Sean Conolly]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 12/23/2012 11:59 PM, geoff wrote:

I've never used an EQ plug-in either. I record things so that they don't
need EQ. It saves a lot of time and money.

Sadly I'm not that perfect. And seldom are others whose recordings I
need
to work with.

How boring it is to be perfect. And once you achieve perfection, does it
still sound perfect the next time you listen to it? Having so many choices
just makes me (and probalby just about everyone else) a little unsure if
this is really right or if a different plug-in or a different setting
could make it better.

I let (or make) the musicians do all the work, and I strive to make what
they do in the studio come through to the final product. Sure, sometimes
it takes EQ or compression, but not a lot of agonizing over which of many
devices is the right one to use. Not spending a lot of money and keeping
things that work for a long time (and shelving things that don't) helps
this decision process a lot, too.

It's rare that I record anything that's worth spending a lot of time on
anyway. The recording isn't going to sound any better than the band.

Sean

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Mon 2012-Dec-24 09:20, Scott Dorsey writes:
snip
Most of what I do is to tape, but when I use a computer I pretty much use
it like a tape machine with fancy editing features, and mix
conventionally.
Mixing in the box just seems phenomenally crude, especially when we
already
have a much better tool for the job sitting right there.

It's not the processing that is phenomenally crude, it's the user
interface.

Ditto here. Old blidn man doesn't mouse. Yes, for some
things, workibng on a database, I might use something which
requires my synthesized speech and screenreader to do mouse emulator, but then I have to listen to the speech to tell me where my "mouse" is pointing. I don't have time to listen
to an artificial voicebox talking to me when I'm trying to
listen to the audio which pays the bill. I want a knob, a
switch, etc. I may record digitally, but that's why I let
the daw surgeons do other stuff, if needed these days.

But then, as MIke notes, I try to capture the performance so that I don't need eq, etc. When I do need such things, I've got good gear in the racks in the truck, such as if we're
going to air live ,grin.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[geoff]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 12/24/2012 9:20 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

It's not the processing that is phenomenally crude, it's the user
interface.

The processing might be great, but I want faders that I can ride and I
want one control per function.

Typically, an EQ plug-in looks like the real thing. You see one knob or
switch per function, but you have only one control, and that's the mouse
that you have to move to each knob before you can adjust what that knob
adjusts.

Surely you don't have to move your mouse further than you'd need to move to
turn a knob on some outboard (possibly even in a rack somewhere) ? Often
multiple knob-twists can be achieve in a single click-drag. I'd call that a
UI improvement over a box with knobs.

As someone with low powered computers, relatively small (by today's
standards) monitors, and not terribly good vision at a comfortable working
distance from the screen, I find this sort of user interface difficult to
operate and it makes me think too hard when I want to make an adjustment.
Even if it means moving my chair or looking in a different direction,

Large screens and powerful computers (not necessary) are very inexpensive
these days. Especially if 'used'. Pretty much all software comes with basic
tools/plugins/etc bu8ndled for the price. If these are in some way
inadequate, other free or inexpensive plugins are available. You don't NEED
Waves inflated-price plugs. And squinting at tiny legends on knobs and
switches on my FX boxes ....

I'd rather just grab a knob.

I'll refrain from making the obvious comment here ;-)

geoff

[geoff]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/24/2012 9:20 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

It's not the processing that is phenomenally crude, it's the user
interface.

The processing might be great, but I want faders that I can ride and I
want one control per function.

Typically, an EQ plug-in looks like the real thing. You see
one knob or switch per function, but you have only one
control, and that's the mouse that you have to move to each
knob before you can adjust what that knob adjusts.

Right, it's not the plug-ins I am complaining about, it's the mixing
process.
The plug-ins might be fine, but if I am using a mixer I already have with
outboard stuff I already have, why should I bother?
--scott


To validate your advice to those who have software and don't have Orban 622s
, etc ?

geoff

[hank alrich]

Luxey wrote:

You hold the mouse in your hand, one hand you use to reach all the
dedicated controls, on all the dedicated hardware.

Personaly, I think all EQ plug ins sound exactly the same. Some have very
usefull presets, so you load one and "bang", the sound. On others you have
to work hard to get the same effect, but in the end they sound all the
same - the way you want them to sound.

My Metric Halo channel strip does not sound the same as other DAW EQ's I
have available, and most of the others, too, do not sound alike to me.

Now change a setting on that plugin while riding gain on the lead vocal.

I appreciate mixing in the box sometimes now, but I don't overlook
waht's lost in the present state of the interface.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[hank alrich]

Sean Conolly wrote:

The recording isn't going to sound any better than the band.

Thank you. We can perfume pig **** but eventually the natural odor
prevails.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/24/2012 3:39 PM, Steve King wrote:

It was interesting to track the average
per-project customer billings over time. As we added more tracks and more
and more outboard equipment, billable time increased exponentially. My
colleagues and I often asked ourselves if the quality of our recordings was
increasing, were we happier with our 24-tack mixes than with earlier mixes
of similar arrangements, did the days of over-dubbing and mixing time save
money vs. hiring additional musicians for the original sessions, etc.
Generally, we concluded that our earlier sessions and mixes were just as
satisfying...maybe more so.

That's been the story for me. I think many of the recordings
I made direct to mono or stereo in the 1960s are more
enjoyable than 16- and 24-track recordings I made through
the 1990s. I think it was mostly a matter of getting the job
done quickly so neither the musicians nor I got tired of it.
To some people, spending hours cleaning up drum leakage,
experimenting with different guitar sounds using EQ, and
tuning vocals is both fun and billable. I think it's just
tedious and, if it's necessary, calls for another session
with the players, perhaps after more rehearsal time, or
brining in a good guitarist who can actually play the part.
I'm not adverse to a few fixes here and there with punch-ins
or edits, but I don't feel that it's my job as the engineer
to built a song out of scraps that we've recorded.

I used to do it enough so that I was familiar with the tools
that I had (it was rare that I added anything new) and could
work pretty efficiently. But now I don't spend enough time
in the studio to learn a DAW very well. I have to spend too
much time looking for the tools to do what I wan tto do. I
just don't have the attention span to learn which EQ plug-in
is which, and it's so easy to get distracted and install a
new one to play with, and then download the latest version
of the DAW and find that the user interface has changed in a
way that makes me re-learn that little bit that I remembered.

But a Record button and an EQ knob are there forever. I'll
let the young folks and those who have to do this for a
living do all the tedious work and keep up with the computers.

--
"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

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/24/2012 4:03 PM, Sean Conolly wrote:

Yes, I know there are some plugins with extensive modelling to recreate the
sound of hardware, but in my limited experience I haven't come across any
that really sound convincing to me.

I've always wondered what the fascination with this is. If I
have a model of an equalizer that was used on a Beatles
recording, what's the big deal? I'm not recording The
Beatles, or anything that sounds like them. What would make
me think I need to use that equalizer?




--
"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

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/24/2012 5:21 PM, geoff wrote:

Surely you don't have to move your mouse further than you'd need to move to
turn a knob on some outboard (possibly even in a rack somewhere) ? Often
multiple knob-twists can be achieve in a single click-drag. I'd call that a
UI improvement over a box with knobs.

I don't measure workflow by how many inches I move my hand.
I measure it by how long it takes me to remember what I have
to do in order to get my hands on the controls. I move my
hand from the console fader to the EQ knobs and I'm there,
and I know I'm there. So what if it's eight or ten inches?
I may only have to move the mouse an inch to get from where
it is to where I click on the place where I can plug in an
EQ, then I click on the list of plug-ins, decide which one I
want, click on that, and then when the GUI pops up, squint
to read which control is which (they're always too small)
and click-and-drag. And then maybe I decide that another EQ
would be better and I do it again

Convince me that this is better than reaching over and
turning a knob, getting it to sound as good as I can with
that knob and move on.


--
"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

[Luxey]

понедељак, 24. децембар 2012. 21.42.11 UTC+1, Mike Rivers је напи�ао/ла:
On 12/24/2012 10:47 AM, Luxey wrote:

EQs shouldn't have presets, because things that look alike

(like female singers) ...

He, he. Good one!

I don't use presets too much, but, for example, I wanted to EQ my guitar, going directly and dry to mixer, to DAW. Tone controll on guitar is not up to the job, and I won't buy a new one (guitar), soo...., EQ, ... I've dialed a Jazzy sound preset, wanted to use it as a starting point, but what happened, it did not need any tweaking. Nice.

So, in Daw I apply Amp simulator, FX and processing,... All of it. I've learned what amp to dial, and what EQ, to make my guitar sound the way I want.
Cool stuff.

[Luxey]

One cold make an virtual environment with only the plug ins one like and use, so each time the DAW start, it opens with plug ins in their usual rack spaces. That way no need to learn any more than in hardware based studio.

However, I understand what you mean. I prefer hardware too, but it requires space, and don't come as freeware.
Tangential - You'd be amazed how many excelent and usefull freeware there is. From basic to utterly esoteric. So, unless you're to ammas customers based on plug ins brands, freeware's (plug ins) all you'd ever need.

[Luxey]

That's called marketing. Different companies, different strategies, same targets.
The Beatles
They are famous -
everybody say they have a good sound -
ther's so much talk about their creativity
on their equipment,

.... now lets goback....,

I'll have equipment (or emulation of it),
I'll be creative,
I'll sound good,
I'll be famous...
I'll be The Beatless?!

Nobody goes that last step, or three.

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich wrote:
Sean Conolly wrote:

The recording isn't going to sound any better than the band.

Thank you. We can perfume pig **** but eventually the natural odor
prevails.

Sure, but how much more can you bill for perfuming it, that is the
question in the end?
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/24/2012 4:03 PM, Sean Conolly wrote:
Yes, I know there are some plugins with extensive modelling to recreate the
sound of hardware, but in my limited experience I haven't come across any
that really sound convincing to me.

I've always wondered what the fascination with this is. If I
have a model of an equalizer that was used on a Beatles
recording, what's the big deal? I'm not recording The
Beatles, or anything that sounds like them. What would make
me think I need to use that equalizer?

It's part of a more generalized fascination with a particular sound, and
therefore with the equipment used to get that sound. Vox sold a whole lot
of amplifiers to kids who wanted Vox amps because the Beatles had them.

Sometimes the connection is a valid one, if a person is indeed trying to
get that identical sound. Sometimes it is merely sympathetic magic.
--scott

NOW! 25 BIG HITS PLAYED BY BANDS THAT ALL SOUND EXACTLY LIKE REM!





--
"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


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

[Sean Conolly]

"Luxey" wrote in message
...
?????????, 24. ???????? 2012. 21.42.11 UTC+1, Mike Rivers ?? ???????/??:
On 12/24/2012 10:47 AM, Luxey wrote:

EQs shouldn't have presets, because things that look alike

(like female singers) ...

He, he. Good one!

I don't use presets too much, but, for example, I wanted to EQ my guitar,
going directly and dry to mixer, to DAW. Tone controll on guitar is not up
to the job, and I won't buy a new one (guitar), soo...., EQ, ... I've dialed
a Jazzy sound preset, wanted to use it as a starting point, but what
happened, it did not need any tweaking. Nice.

So, in Daw I apply Amp simulator, FX and processing,... All of it. I've
learned what amp to dial, and what EQ, to make my guitar sound the way I
want.
Cool stuff.

================================================== ===

Yeah, but after you've figured out everything to add, go back in a week and
listen to it and it feels like something was lost in the process.

Sean

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
In article , Here In Oregon
wrote:

Scott Dorsey never used a plug-in before? Huh!!! Who would have ever,
ever thunk. So Mr. Dorsey, sir,... have you ever used a computer? ;-)

Most of what I do is to tape, but when I use a computer I pretty much use
it like a tape machine with fancy editing features, and mix
conventionally.
Mixing in the box just seems phenomenally crude, especially when we
already
have a much better tool for the job sitting right there.

To think all of these years I have been sending all of those people over
here with those very tough questions needing advice. G

My advice is to buy an Ampex and be happy!

I'd say your record is stuck, but in your case I guess it's an endless tape
loop.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
Most of what I do is to tape, but when I use a computer I pretty much use
it like a tape machine with fancy editing features, and mix
conventionally.
Mixing in the box just seems phenomenally crude, especially when we
already
have a much better tool for the job sitting right there.

If you've never used them, how do you know that they are phenominally
crude. Some could possibly even make the 622 look lilke a turd in
comparison. But if you don't try, you'll never know.

And if you've REALLY never tried an EQ plugin on a DAW, how could you
possibly have an opinion on the matter, especially one that you'd pass on
to others ?

I can only guess you were jesting, and are not really such an ostrich.

You haven't read too many of his other posts then I guess.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 12/24/2012 5:21 PM, geoff wrote:

Surely you don't have to move your mouse further than you'd need to move
to
turn a knob on some outboard (possibly even in a rack somewhere) ? Often
multiple knob-twists can be achieve in a single click-drag. I'd call that
a
UI improvement over a box with knobs.

I don't measure workflow by how many inches I move my hand. I measure it
by how long it takes me to remember what I have to do in order to get my
hands on the controls. I move my hand from the console fader to the EQ
knobs and I'm there, and I know I'm there. So what if it's eight or ten
inches? I may only have to move the mouse an inch to get from where it is
to where I click on the place where I can plug in an EQ, then I click on
the list of plug-ins, decide which one I want, click on that, and then
when the GUI pops up, squint to read which control is which (they're
always too small) and click-and-drag. And then maybe I decide that another
EQ would be better and I do it again

Convince me that this is better than reaching over and turning a knob,
getting it to sound as good as I can with that knob and move on.

Why would he bother, you are happy with what you are used to, and don't like
change. Why you imagine everyone else should think the same is the real
mystery.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/24/2012 7:55 PM, Luxey wrote:

I don't use presets too much, but, for example, I wanted
to EQ my guitar, going directly and dry to mixer, to DAW.
Tone controll on guitar is not up to the job, and I won't
buy a new one (guitar), soo...., EQ, ...

I understand personal presets like that. You use this EQ
curve to get what you've identified as a particular favorite
sound on your own guitar, Voice artists sometimes have a
standard EQ curve for their voice with their favorite mic.
It's their sound and people hire them for it.

But if you have a Korean copy of a baby Taylor guitar and
you're playing a bluegrass song, you won't get Del
McCoury's sound by selecting the "Acoustic guitar" preset
for your EQ plug-in. You have to do something else first,
like change the guitar or change the player, or both.

On the other hand, when you're using reasonably good
instruments and attempting to get generic sounds for common
genres fairly quickly, some presets can be a good starting
point, maybe saving you a minute before you get the sound
"dialed in."


--
"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

[Luxey]

Yes, my thoughts, exactly.

[Luxey]

Yeah, but after you've figured out everything to add, go back in a week and

listen to it and it feels like something was lost in the process.

Possible, but same thing happens with hardware. Sooner or later one will drop into endless tweakers loop. I think it's pointless to debate which is better. In the end, it all comes down to personal preference. As I said, I prefere hardware, but conditions are permiting. For some reasons, like total recall and automation, software is a clear winner. Hardware advantages are vague and I still prefer it, but under circumstances, I don'use it. Life.