The end of outboard processing gear?

Halion

Halion

New member
I know we have some hardcore old-school guys here (with all due respect, love you guys ;)) as well as many of the guys that have beeing doing this only since the digital era (myself included), so I thought I'd get a good discussion on the matter started. I'm not really looking for extremes here, or ancient arguments like "analogue just sounds better". Fact is, it does, but that is hardly the only reason to chose one way of working over another.

First off, I'm not here to make a statement, or to fight over which is better. I'm just having a look at the future and here are my thoughts:

Having been mixing and creating audio for a couple of years now, I feel that I have a fair grasp on the matter of composing, producing and mixing. I know how to really use an EQ, compressor, reverb, the works. On top of that, I've gotten into many more advanced (insert grain of salt) processing methods like convolution, comb filtering, haas-effect panning and many more. I am however a computer-minded guy. I have no fear of knobs or analogue gear, but I find myself grabbing pluggins much more (even though I have access to quite a bit of hardware), mostly for the ease of use and the sheer amount that I can use them. If I want to, I can put as many processing on a track at one single time as I want. My home studio is mearly a computer and a small interface, but given the chance to design a studio, I think that right now, I'd go for a fully computer driven studio. Here's my idea:

Old vs new

Old:
Analogue desk.
Computer/HD recorder only used for storage and editing.
Rack gear for processing.
Mic placement and good rooms.

New:
In-the-box mixer.
Controllers for creation and controlling sequencer/plugins.
Plugins instead of rack processing.
Samples and modelling.

What are all your ideas on this? Would you go for old or new, provided you have the same budget for both?

Don't get me wrong, if I had the chance, I'd grab a good mic in a good room with a good instrument before I'd use a VST any day, but the simple fact is that you can make great music with just a computer as well. I do greatly appreciate the ability to actually "turn a knob and listen", that's why I feel a hardware controller is an absolute must if you're gonna go desk-free. As far as music recording goes (from the composer standpoint), I will go to great lenghts to get actual musicians playing my stuff, instead of going for a VST instrument. That is one thing I feel a computer is still far from capable of doing (or maybe it's me who can't make the computer do it, either way ;))

Just my thoughts. I'd rather buy a very nice plugin bundle than a couple of good compressors. I work faster with them too, which is very important to me, both in the creative sence of things as well as the whole time-is-money aspect.
 
I think I'd go for the "old." Right now I am using an Onyx mixer and plugins and all thgat good stuff, but I really really want a Mackie 8 Bus console some nice ouboard gear and sweet preamps. I know it will sound wierd, but I have dreams of owning my own studio like that. I think I'd rather have an analog mixer meets computer via a couple delta 1010's with some plugins and outboard gear.

I'm typing stream of conscience here so sorry about rambling, but I guess now that I have typed all that, I guess I'm just a gear slut and what a little of everything.

I've wasted anyones time that read this, sorry :(
 
I think you are making a false assumption, i.e. that it has to be "old versus new". A lot of people are making this mistake right now.

My own opinion is that the best approach is "old AND new". Take what you like of the old and take what you like of the new and find a way to combine them together in a comfortable work flow. This is very possible to do, and in fact is the way I work.

I combine hardware synths/samplers with virtual instruments, hardware analog mixers with virtual in-the-box mixers, hardware outboard processing with DAW plugin processing. The workflow is seamless and easy, and I feel that most of the time I get the best of both worlds.

There's no need to choose, you can indeed have it both ways.
 
SonicAlbert said:
I think you are making a false assumption, i.e. that it has to be "old versus new". A lot of people are making this mistake right now.

My own opinion is that the best approach is "old AND new". Take what you like of the old and take what you like of the new and find a way to combine them together in a comfortable work flow. This is very possible to do, and in fact is the way I work.

I combine hardware synths/samplers with virtual instruments, hardware analog mixers with virtual in-the-box mixers, hardware outboard processing with DAW plugin processing. The workflow is seamless and easy, and I feel that most of the time I get the best of both worlds.

There's no need to choose, you can indeed have it both ways.
Click to expand...


YAY! for Sonic Albert!!! the best of both worlds!! And that is the concept that I will always stand by.
I use a combo of Racks (FX,comps etc), outboard mixer, delta 44's for actual tracking.....I don't have to use them for everything, but the fact that they are there makes me confident that I can adapt to any recording occassion..
And that, I believe, is a versatile studio, regardless of what it costs.

Plus, I think outboard gear looks soooo cooooooool, with their pretty, fancy,gumpy gold bling bling lights 'n shit!! :rolleyes: :D

Anyways...Kindest Regards. :)
 
I am moving toward using my computer setup as simply a multitrack recorder and editor. At playback I would love to be able to run all 18 of my outs to a nice console and "effect " the heck out of it while mixing to a Masterlink or something similar.
I'd still use the software for automated moves and pans and the like but use outboard gear rather than plug ins.

My dream anyway!
 
I'd have to go along with SonicAlbert on this one; I use a combination of old, new, and old AND new hardware/software/techniques, depending on the project at hand.
 
Why limit yourself to one or the other? I look around my studio and just make the best of what's here. You're creating a false dichotomy. In any given instance, you could argue, "On female vocals, do you like the RNC going in, the UAD-1 comp after recording the track, or a little of both?" But even then, you could just as easily argue between the RNC and the 3630. If YOU like software better, then by all means, use it. Use the tools in your wok that you are most comfortable with and that you get the best results with, true for any endeavor, ESPECIALLY art.
 
I prefer mostly the old at this point. It's more tactile, which I like.

What I would love is for some of these companies that make high-quality plugins (like UA) to make hardware units that utilize these plugins. A two or four channel unit with a number of compressor modelers or reverb and delay modelers would be fantastic for those that like to use the outboard gear but can't drop $1500 per channel on some LA2As or something. I'm sure some purists would scoff, but I think it would be great.

If they wanted to be even more in-depth, I think a box with a number of ins and outs, much like a multichannel card like a Delta 1010 or something, but for effects rather than recording, with the effects parameters controlled via software on the computer. Maybe you can already do this, I dunno.
 
I've done both. Chasing the ITB sound is a long learning road that occasionally pays off but overtime I have migrated to a hybrid system like SonicAlbert. I saved up for a rack of high end preamps, compressors and EQ going in and out of the computer; best of both worlds.

ITB can achieve pro results but it takes a lot of high quality plugs to get there. You can run out of CPU power before you get satisfactory results on a PC. It's easier to do if you have a high end ProTools setup. There is more hardware power in that situation to utilize.

Plug ins cannot capture the smoothness, musicality or rich low mids of hardware however. This is why I moved to the hybrid approach.
 
sonicalbert nails it....

the long hard debate is always which is, standing by itself, better...

who the fuck cares? we have both...utilize them both to get the best setup and sound for yourself..
 
If that's the way you like to do things, then by all means keep doing it.

Don't let a bunch of ludites :D deter you by reminding you how much better outboard sounds. That will only depress you. Just keep doing your thing.

.
 
Adam P said:
I prefer mostly the old at this point. It's more tactile, which I like.

What I would love is for some of these companies that make high-quality plugins (like UA) to make hardware units that utilize these plugins. A two or four channel unit with a number of compressor modelers or reverb and delay modelers would be fantastic for those that like to use the outboard gear but can't drop $1500 per channel on some LA2As or something. I'm sure some purists would scoff, but I think it would be great.

If they wanted to be even more in-depth, I think a box with a number of ins and outs, much like a multichannel card like a Delta 1010 or something, but for effects rather than recording, with the effects parameters controlled via software on the computer. Maybe you can already do this, I dunno.
Click to expand...


there's numerous things like this....if you're saying what i think...

for example...look up the focusrite liquid mix....a hardware unit, controlled by software (and in this case, you can control the hardware by hand on the unit) delivering up to 32 channels of comps, verbs, etc....and handles all the plug-in processing...


i think HD must be a different world though....i feel, and can be corrected, that when people are designing native plug-ins and such, that are going to be ran off of your CPU, they design with a teeter-totter of quality plug-in to cpu usage in mind....

if their plug-in destroyed your cpu, you couldn't really use it...

on the other hand...if you are designing for an HD system it's like...this is what is going to work the best, so we'll do that...

eating up resources? buy another HD dsp card ya cheap bastard! i thought you wanted pro audio!
 
orksnork said:
for example...look up the focusrite liquid mix....a hardware unit, controlled by software (and in this case, you can control the hardware by hand on the unit) delivering up to 32 channels of comps, verbs, etc....and handles all the plug-in processing...
Click to expand...

Something like except for mixing out of the box, not on a computer. Say, for example, it has one input/output channel. You could connect your mixer's insert point to the input and output of the unit, and rather than it being one compressor or EQ or what-have-you, you could select from a variety of high-quality modelers of various comps and EQs, like those found in the UAD cards or something.

Eh, whatever.
 
that seems like a lot of wasted a/d and d/a conversion....no?

and that description describes plenty of digital reverb units
 
I'm mixing a couple projects on and old Trident 80B with all the outboard gear you can think of and there is no comparing high end outboard gear to in the box. Sorry! Outboard gear just has audio qualities that plugins can't duplicate. Most studios I deal with are getting farther away from plugins every day.
 
I agree with the best of both (when possible) - although I am still a dinosaur and tend to use a lot of outboard gear.

I use a pair of 1010's to get sounds in and out of the computer (running various hardware pres into the 1010s on the in side. I come out to a Mackie which I use for monitoring and mixing. The Mackie routes to and from various hardware proccessing/effects. So I basically use the computer for tracking and editing (and a lot of MIDI).

Eventually I may do my mixing/processing inside the box - and someday may eliminate all hardware (except for mic pres & monitor speakers) - but that's a few years down the road (as the software improves and my trust in the computers/software grows.

I still kepp my ADAT and use it a little - to keep it working should my computer crap out (yeah, I've heard that can happen)!
 
I think it depends on what your limitations are as you grow your system.

If you're constrained by CPU or disk in a digital rig, you'll tend to use outboard stuff to bypass that bottleneck.

If you have scads of CPU to burn, and a fast well resourced PC, you'll tend to use softsynths and VST (and other) plugins to leverage that gear.

If you can't afford either you may opt for a cheap DAW to provide maximum bang per buck.

And if you're a musical arranger rendering tracks, you might work from the dots into midi into sounds, rather than from sounds into sounds. If you're a performer you'll probably work from the instrument into the sounds.

So I think a lot of variations depend on what your limitations are. If you can't understand scores you probably won't start with annotation. If you can't play you'll probably start with samples and sequencers. If you play or sing you'll probably start with an instrument and maybe a mic. If you're older than 40 you'll probably look for something reminiscent of the knobs you were messing with to record in the 1980s. And if you're younger than 25 you'll probably not worry too much about starting inside a PC.

Whatever the constraints, and whatever the approach, there is some great music being made, and in the end, you don't hear the Thumpkwak Q236 Audio Disintegrator, processed through the Umpqok BR65Y - but you appreciate the music instead.

There are few here who can detect what the tools in use actually are. There are fewer who spend money on audiologists to understand their ears' limitations. There are few here who can transcribe the notes and individual parts from a recording. But there are a lot of people who really get into their recording and have fun.

So different strokes for different folks. Whatever you need in your context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top