Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > Recording Technologies and Techniques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-21-2018, 10:42 AM   #41
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beingmf View Post
Get the free "Ceil" first - it's amazing! While the preamp didn't convince me on drums, it definitely wowed me on acoustic guitar. Compressor sounds great, filters are fantastic, EQs too for simple shelves (with a wide range of corner frequencies). And it's finally close to realtime when switching the modules on/off.
Sweet, I'll give it a go. I've heard the compressor action on Acustica plugins has got a lot better recently. They do take a boat load of RAM though, don't they?
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2018, 11:40 AM   #42
beingmf
Human being with feelings
 
beingmf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Jazz City
Posts: 5,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post
Sweet, I'll give it a go. I've heard the compressor action on Acustica plugins has got a lot better recently. They do take a boat load of RAM though, don't they?
Around 120 MB I think. Whereas each additional instance won't charge the RAM as much. They don't simply add up as each instance will share the same RAM hungry samples/vectors - as far as I know at least.
__________________
Windows 10x64 | AMD Ryzen 3700X | ATI FirePro 2100 | Marian Seraph AD2, 4.3.8 | Yamaha Steinberg MR816x
"If I can hear well, then everything I do is right" (Allen Sides)
beingmf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2018, 12:06 PM   #43
beingmf
Human being with feelings
 
beingmf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Jazz City
Posts: 5,065
Default

btw I didn't intend to hijack the thread. How I understood the OP, he fears that a 100% digital mix won't sound as lively as an analog, or hybrid, one. Which still used to be true some years ago, but there's some developers (among them, and to my ears the most refined, Acustica) who managed to bring the sound that is usually attributed to analog* hardware into the box.
Of course with a price: CPU and RAM. But nowadays capable computers are a lot cheaper than their equivalents years ago, especially Windows machines - so if the OP doesn't mind the different workflow, sonically the ITB results shouldn't be worse than OTB, rather the contrary**.
I know that not everyone likes to work with a mouse (or wants to map parameters to a controller), but to me the decision to get rid of the console and most of my outboard only resulted in much better and much more consistent mixes. I still love my console and my reel-to-reel, just the simple fact that I can recall yesterday's mix in a minute weighs out the missing 5% of "mojo" and intuitiveness on actual knobs and faders. I'm no longer forced to finish a mix with tired ears (which happened far too often)!
And on top it's waaaay cheaper, even if you consider the additional costs of a powerful computer and the software itself.

* or even digital, like in Taupe (ADAT didn't sound that bad actually ).
** the fun thing with Acustica though is that especially the latest products are far beyond the features of the original hardware, be it additional frequencies, different timings in compressors or simply the sonic character of device A merged with the behaviour of device B.

P.S. this only applies to gear which sounds "best" within its intended limitations. For creative abuse I still have some weird pieces of hardware.
__________________
Windows 10x64 | AMD Ryzen 3700X | ATI FirePro 2100 | Marian Seraph AD2, 4.3.8 | Yamaha Steinberg MR816x
"If I can hear well, then everything I do is right" (Allen Sides)
beingmf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2018, 01:33 PM   #44
citizenkeith
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 978
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by puke View Post
My big question is,..I assume I am going to mix down to a digital master. And I have no idea how to do this. I have a steinberg interface
Let's start with the basics. Which Steinberg interface do you use?
citizenkeith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2018, 10:58 PM   #45
puke
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serr View Post
A little perspective that might help.

Analog vs. digital...
NO! You listen to analog sound. Period. One system stores the signal as magnetic fields, the other as encoded binary samples.

The machines that do either have a range of nearly 1:1 perfect to appalling.

HD digital (24 bit. HD sample rates yes, but even SD sample rates) can contain any sound you can create with analog gear. The only limiting factor is if you go cheap or not just like with pure analog gear.

Now, some things can only be CREATED with analog gear. So that's what you keep doing. You have the same analog front end of mic and mic preamp as back in the day. You can put whatever analog devices in front of that you please just like back in the day.

The part where the digital system shines is in replacing the tape deck and a lot of the mixing board and processing. Nowadays even the average audio interface has extremely good analog stages. Professional grade at the very least.

OK, you have to learn that tape compression/limiting was a thing. And some of the harmonic distortion elements were not only OK, but actually became desirable. Digital doesn't have such a thing built-in. You have to dial that stuff up if you want it. (And you often do!) The tools are there to do just that. And the old school analog devices are still there and still do what they do.

Yes, it makes that old high end analog board obsolete. Sucks to see something like that retired perhaps. But the positive parts of the digital gear can make that a moot point. When you buy a better car, you don't tie your old one to the back of it and keep towing it around. Let it go. (Not a great analogy probably...)

"You have to dial that stuff up"....Surely you jest. Are you the guy that insists my DR103 with my four 72 4x12's can be "dialed up"... or a Superlead??? I've never heard ONE SOUL in my whole entire life who actually owned and used stacks of superleads or DR103s.....I've never heard one of them say they could even stand the copies that can be "dialed up" (but they all have them)... I mean,..are you kidding me??????? My one buddy in Hollywood that I still keep in touch with always....still has all the old..as well as the newer stuff that can be "dialed up":... And he mentioned to me last year that all he has to do is dig out the real thing and set it up and it gives him a big dose of what's real and what's fake. He says they still haven't come close to the real thing,...but there are very few folks out there who even know the real thing so they don't really have a clue.....But SOMEHOW,...a U67 is now worth a lot to a lot of folks.... for folks who are still trying to turn their DAW into something warm and phat. Gee....you really didn't need one of those in 1980..in fact,..I believe a U87 was worth slightly more than a U67 on the used market..if I recall.
puke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2018, 11:00 PM   #46
puke
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenkeith View Post
Let's start with the basics. Which Steinberg interface do you use?
I've got an MR816csx. While I've been looking for another,..I may end up getting a motu 16a or something (never heard a 16a,..but there are 16 outs as well as ins..It's not super cheap,..so might sound ok).
puke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2018, 11:06 PM   #47
puke
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangler View Post
I wonder if OP know that you "render" the project when you're done.
Yes. TO be honest,..I am more "not at home" with mac computers than DAWs. Believe it or not. Finding something in a mac is unbelievably irritating. I suspect that if I run everything through my console and back into the daw,.. I'm just feeding out 16 tracks on playback and recording a stereo mix on two additional tracks as I'm doing it. But I've never had my console hooked up to a daw.
puke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2018, 11:24 PM   #48
puke
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Key word, handful.



There's nothing missing and a well-recorded most anything will sound like it should sound regardless with proper skills. I can tell you one thing with absolute certainty, tape hides a lot of sins. The only thing missing is tape doing part of the job for you.

Key word is Handful indeed.
Dude, You misunderstood my point completely.... There are only a handful of folks left in that industry. Are you saying there's more than a handful?? ..Most of the equipment has made it's way to Nashville..hasn't it? (for a few years they were producing stuff out of nashville that has a semblance of the old rock and roll sound)/ The gear sure isn't in or around Hollywood anymore. And it's very rare the rock and roll sound even happens anymore. Maybe nobody's buying because they don't get that sound anymore.. Or maybe the other way around. But go ahead,.. refresh my memory of all the rock and roll records in the last year. There may have been some,..and maybe even some that weren't tracked on tape.

But those that listened to rock music way back....didn't care what the words were,..and rarely even cared about the melody. It was strictly the sound. I don't recall anybody in 8th grade that knew the words to songs at all...and yet my nieces and nephews all know all the words and melodies to the stuff they listen to,...and no, it does not resemble rock. That sound happened with overdriven tube amps and 2 inch tape,..the tape was often overdriven but not always. I never heard that sound happen any other way. It sure doesn't work well with digital. I know someone with a huge sound re-inforcement company,..and he says that always,..even back in the 70s and 80s,.. live sound was more harsh than tape. Even with bands that were perfect. I always thought they sounded awsome live,.. but I did not mix concerts for a living for 40 years.
puke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2018, 11:35 PM   #49
puke
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coachz View Post
Yeah, some of the digital would sound better.
I would like to see a double blind test. Preferably with rock music and live drums. I don't believe anybody disputes the opinion that a DAW is the place for nearly all pop, r&b, etc., But for the rock sound,..I'd like to see that test. (The number of uninformed out there who think they can use their little gadget box to reproduce the sound of a marshall superlead into 4 cabs is troubling) Problem is probably that anybody with the ability to do it is way beyond anybody's budget. DAW...not really,.. But having that decent daw next to a 2 inch tape machine,..pull two inserts out of all the channels going to a converter as well as a tape track.. I don't have the space or enough converters.. But if I did, someone would have to pay me a few thousand bucks to even think of doing it. And then just finding a drummer who will leave his ego at home and tune his snare down will be another nighmare all together. Of all the nightmares getting that rock sound,..I believe the dummer's ego was the biggest of all obstacles. Even though the singer usually had a bigger ego,..he really couldn't wreck a sound like a stubborn drummer. I realise that capturing the "existing" sound is the job of an engineer. But let's face it..There's that drum obstacle.... They should (and usually did) come back off the tape better than they went on.
puke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2018, 04:07 AM   #50
Coachz
Human being with feelings
 
Coachz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 12,769
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by puke View Post
I would like to see a double blind test. Preferably with rock music and live drums. I don't believe anybody disputes the opinion that a DAW is the place for nearly all pop, r&b, etc., But for the rock sound,..I'd like to see that test. (The number of uninformed out there who think they can use their little gadget box to reproduce the sound of a marshall superlead into 4 cabs is troubling) Problem is probably that anybody with the ability to do it is way beyond anybody's budget. DAW...not really,.. But having that decent daw next to a 2 inch tape machine,..pull two inserts out of all the channels going to a converter as well as a tape track.. I don't have the space or enough converters.. But if I did, someone would have to pay me a few thousand bucks to even think of doing it. And then just finding a drummer who will leave his ego at home and tune his snare down will be another nighmare all together. Of all the nightmares getting that rock sound,..I believe the dummer's ego was the biggest of all obstacles. Even though the singer usually had a bigger ego,..he really couldn't wreck a sound like a stubborn drummer. I realise that capturing the "existing" sound is the job of an engineer. But let's face it..There's that drum obstacle.... They should (and usually did) come back off the tape better than they went on.
I tried every plug in there is including helix and there is nothing that reproduces a Marshall tone even close. I have a DSL15C, and just picked up a DSL40CR last week (my dream amp). I'm going to be running my tonelab le through the effects send to provide all my effects because the tonelab le can't do the marshall sound justice. It's amazing how real tubes are so hard to recreate in software or pedals. With the DSL15C though it only has the metal distortion so I bought the 40 for the Ultralead I channel the 15 is missing. Now I'm very happy.

I had a friend bring over a solid state orange crush 20 watt last week and it sounded terrible. When I crank the Marshall I'm transported to the stage of my favorite classic rock artists. The sound is IT. So yeah, some things absolutely can't be done in the box and the Marshall sound is one of them. I even posted to the helix forum trying to get Marshall sounds but none came close.

I did find that with Helix I was able to get a Rockman sound after using Fab EQ and matching the EQ of the original Rockman. It sounds really really close if not the same.
Coachz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2018, 05:49 AM   #51
Geoff Waddington
Human being with feelings
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by puke View Post
I would like to see a double blind test. Preferably with rock music and live drums. I don't believe anybody disputes the opinion that a DAW is the place for nearly all pop, r&b, etc., But for the rock sound,..I'd like to see that test. (The number of uninformed out there who think they can use their little gadget box to reproduce the sound of a marshall superlead into 4 cabs is troubling) Problem is probably that anybody with the ability to do it is way beyond anybody's budget. DAW...not really,.. But having that decent daw next to a 2 inch tape machine,..pull two inserts out of all the channels going to a converter as well as a tape track.. I don't have the space or enough converters.. But if I did, someone would have to pay me a few thousand bucks to even think of doing it. And then just finding a drummer who will leave his ego at home and tune his snare down will be another nighmare all together. Of all the nightmares getting that rock sound,..I believe the dummer's ego was the biggest of all obstacles. Even though the singer usually had a bigger ego,..he really couldn't wreck a sound like a stubborn drummer. I realise that capturing the "existing" sound is the job of an engineer. But let's face it..There's that drum obstacle.... They should (and usually did) come back off the tape better than they went on.
I hear ya on all that stuff -- grew up on Studers and Neves but did a bit with MCI, 3M, Ampex, etc. -- never used a Stephens

I would say that digital was markedly putrid back a bit.

But affordable clocking/conversion has come a very long way.

I would also like to see a double blind test.

Has to apples to apples comparison -- meaning -- a great recoding space to capture the "liveness" of the drums and the real Marshalls -- that have been adjusted to sound good in that space by the way

Also, real good quality mics/pres, etc.

So we're just talking the console/tape capture part.

As you well know it's all about inspiring the performers to give that little bit extra.

Given all that, I'm wondering how close we could get with today's gear.
__________________
To install you need the CSI Software and Support Files
For installation instructions and documentation see the Wiki
Donate -- via PayPal to waddingtongeoff@gmail.com
Geoff Waddington is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2018, 02:28 PM   #52
cyrano
Human being with feelings
 
cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Belgium
Posts: 5,246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by semiquaver View Post
There is very little tape still being used. Good luck getting your hands on a calibration tape that's not shedding. And you can't get new heads, I bet you can't even get them lapped anymore. Who still makes actual tape for that matter? Is Ampex still in business? For better or worse it's over. Move on. Sold my last 2" machine in 95.
Mmmm...

Secondhand 4 track cassette recorders are going up in price. In France, a new tape manufacturer has recently started production. Sales are better than expected, production will be scaled up.

Tape is not dead, it just smells funny
__________________
In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
cyrano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2018, 09:11 PM   #53
puke
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coachz View Post
I tried every plug in there is including helix and there is nothing that reproduces a Marshall tone even close. I have a DSL15C, and just picked up a DSL40CR last week (my dream amp). I'm going to be running my tonelab le through the effects send to provide all my effects because the tonelab le can't do the marshall sound justice. It's amazing how real tubes are so hard to recreate in software or pedals. With the DSL15C though it only has the metal distortion so I bought the 40 for the Ultralead I channel the 15 is missing. Now I'm very happy.

I had a friend bring over a solid state orange crush 20 watt last week and it sounded terrible. When I crank the Marshall I'm transported to the stage of my favorite classic rock artists. The sound is IT. So yeah, some things absolutely can't be done in the box and the Marshall sound is one of them. I even posted to the helix forum trying to get Marshall sounds but none came close.

I did find that with Helix I was able to get a Rockman sound after using Fab EQ and matching the EQ of the original Rockman. It sounds really really close if not the same.
If you think a Superlead is a hard thing for a "box" to re-create,..You should see how bad they crucify a Hiwatt Dr103 and play like it's the Hiwatt sound.
puke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2018, 09:13 PM   #54
puke
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Waddington View Post
I hear ya on all that stuff -- grew up on Studers and Neves but did a bit with MCI, 3M, Ampex, etc. -- never used a Stephens

I would say that digital was markedly putrid back a bit.

But affordable clocking/conversion has come a very long way.

I would also like to see a double blind test.

Has to apples to apples comparison -- meaning -- a great recoding space to capture the "liveness" of the drums and the real Marshalls -- that have been adjusted to sound good in that space by the way

Also, real good quality mics/pres, etc.

So we're just talking the console/tape capture part.

As you well know it's all about inspiring the performers to give that little bit extra.

Given all that, I'm wondering how close we could get with today's gear.
The steven's machine I have knowledge of...Had very short runs inside (not a large machine at all). It sounded just as good as the other 24 tracks
puke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2018, 10:48 AM   #55
puke
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Waddington View Post
I hear ya on all that stuff -- grew up on Studers and Neves but did a bit with MCI, 3M, Ampex, etc. -- never used a Stephens

I would say that digital was markedly putrid back a bit.

But affordable clocking/conversion has come a very long way.

I would also like to see a double blind test.

Has to apples to apples comparison -- meaning -- a great recoding space to capture the "liveness" of the drums and the real Marshalls -- that have been adjusted to sound good in that space by the way

Also, real good quality mics/pres, etc.

So we're just talking the console/tape capture part.

As you well know it's all about inspiring the performers to give that little bit extra.

Given all that, I'm wondering how close we could get with today's gear.
If the double blind tape test would use a 2" 16, I think the drums would be no contest. Bass guitar for sure no contest (actually...only 2" 16 no contest,..I'm not sure 2" 24 would be any better on tape),. Distorted rock guitar (meaning the distortion comes from being cranked all the way) no contest,.. Cymballs and overheads....probably DAW, electronic instruments....DAW, editing..DAWx100, singer.... would depend on the singer and the mic,.. Acoustic guitar...not sure on that one,things like a B3 with a leslie...not sure,.. And there would always be the question: How hard to hit the tape with the drums, especially the snare and kik. And the other question,..does the final mix have to be done in the box if you are on a DAW, as opposed to getting the help from a good sounding console at mixdown time..if you are just testing tape vs. DAW recording mediums,...the daw would have to get the help of the console at mixdown so as not to give the tape an unfair advantage. When studio's first started needing decent converters across the board (I think this was early 90s...just for having digital copies better than the panasonic DATs we all had..the panasonics did sound pretty good for being cheap)...At that time I was living in Burbank,.. and I believe it was about $3,000 bucks a channel for good converters (I didn't have any because we weren't necessarily commercial and we didn't care..$3000 could be better spent elsewhere for us). That was a lot of money at the time. I think you could come up with a pair (maybe even 2 pair) of pristine matching U67s for less than that...but that was before people realized a U67 could fix a lot of digital sins...Actually, a U67 can eliminate a lot of problems in either case,..But the "need' really didn't happen until digital was the main medium.
Oh, one last thing,..I suppose in a double blind test you'd really need to use all U87s or something similar. You wouldn't be able to get enough of the same high quality tube mic in the same studio to do drums with. But (at least in the past) everybody and their dog had a shopping cart full of U87s. But even 30 years ago it was rare that a studio in hollywood had more than 2 matching tube mics (except for when they came out with "the tube"...I suppose somebody could have bought a bunch of them,..but I don't know of anybody who bought more than one,..so I guess that's a moot point..they were $1,500 bucks at the time, more than most (or dare I say all) vintage tube mics at the time,.)

Last edited by puke; 12-31-2018 at 07:37 AM.
puke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2019, 07:14 AM   #56
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beingmf View Post
Get the free "Ceil" first - it's amazing! While the preamp didn't convince me on drums, it definitely wowed me on acoustic guitar. Compressor sounds great, filters are fantastic, EQs too for simple shelves (with a wide range of corner frequencies). And it's finally close to realtime when switching the modules on/off.
So, I got Ceil and demoed Taupe. Gotta say that neither did much for me.

I was fully expecting to love Taupe, as I'd read so much hype about it on Gearslutz that I began to get infected myself. Upon trying it though, I actually prefer what Softube Tape does, and I prefer the Studer EQ modelled in my Antelope interface than the one in Taupe.

I'm happy though, because I was fully expecting to love it and have to buy it.
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2019, 07:22 AM   #57
Coachz
Human being with feelings
 
Coachz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 12,769
Default

Carriage returns added for post above !!!

If the double blind tape test would use a 2" 16, I think the drums would be no contest. Bass guitar for sure no contest (actually...only 2" 16 no contest,..I'm not sure 2" 24 would be any better on tape),.

Distorted rock guitar (meaning the distortion comes from being cranked all the way) no contest,.. Cymballs and overheads....probably DAW, electronic instruments....DAW, editing..DAWx100, singer.... would depend on the singer and the mic,.. Acoustic guitar...not sure on that one,things like a B3 with a leslie...not sure,..

And there would always be the question: How hard to hit the tape with the drums, especially the snare and kik. And the other question,..does the final mix have to be done in the box if you are on a DAW, as opposed to getting the help from a good sounding console at mixdown time..if you are just testing tape vs.

DAW recording mediums,...the daw would have to get the help of the console at mixdown so as not to give the tape an unfair advantage. When studio's first started needing decent converters across the board (I think this was early 90s...just for having digital copies better than the panasonic DATs we all had..the panasonics did sound pretty good for being cheap)...

At that time I was living in Burbank,.. and I believe it was about $3,000 bucks a channel for good converters (I didn't have any because we weren't necessarily commercial and we didn't care..$3000 could be better spent elsewhere for us). That was a lot of money at the time.

I think you could come up with a pair (maybe even 2 pair) of pristine matching U67s for less than that...but that was before people realized a U67 could fix a lot of digital sins...Actually, a U67 can eliminate a lot of problems in either case,..But the "need' really didn't happen until digital was the main medium.

Oh, one last thing,..I suppose in a double blind test you'd really need to use all U87s or something similar. You wouldn't be able to get enough of the same high quality tube mic in the same studio to do drums with.

But (at least in the past) everybody and their dog had a shopping cart full of U87s. But even 30 years ago it was rare that a studio in hollywood had more than 2 matching tube mics (except for when they came out with "the tube"...

I suppose somebody could have bought a bunch of them,..but I don't know of anybody who bought more than one,..so I guess that's a moot point..they were $1,500 bucks at the time, more than most (or dare I say all) vintage tube mics at the time,.)
Coachz is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.