The end of outboard processing gear?

Alright, thanks for all the great replies guys :)

"Best of both worlds", fair enough :)

Keep in mind that I'm mearly trying to get a discussion going here. I'm not trying to say anything about which is better, just personal preference.

Something to add: is sound quality the only reason for your choice, whatever it is?
 
Something to add: is sound quality the only reason for your choice, whatever it is?
Click to expand...

Sound quality is a big part of it.

Feeling is another part. I like the feeling of big knobs (e.g. Distressor). I like the feeling of using a hardware mixer versus a software mixer. It just feels better.

Another factor is depreciation. Most digital systems will be outdated in 3-4 years. Good hardware can last ten times as long and sometimes actually appreciate in value.

Long live hardware :)
 
Halion said:
Something to add: is sound quality the only reason for your choice, whatever it is?
Click to expand...

Sound quality is definitely the biggest factor for me.

I just don't think plugins or all digital mixing sounds that great. Yes, plugins are getting better and computers are getting faster. But it still boils down to sound. I think that the sound absolutely falls apart as more plugins are used on a track of tracks. With *most* plugins I can also clearly hear a change in the sound that I don't like. I call it the "processing" sound. It's like I can hear the plugin processing the sound.

In addition, I find that mixes come together faster on hardware, the various parts blend together better and easier, and the overall tone is more pleasant on the ear. Every one of those things is subjective, but I have noticed all of them.

There was a time when I went all digital with my studio. Everything was in the box and all the outboard had digital I/O. There was a certain something lacking form the sound, and it seemed like all I did was deal with digital issues regarding routing, clocking, whatever. All the tech got in the way of the music.

I also realized that I don't *need* all those options. They were just getting in the way, interfering. So now I've got the studio carefully thought out, with the DAW and analog mixers completely tied together into one smooth working environment. I can use my few selected plugins that I like, and also my outboard. I have only the options I need, not what options are advertised as necessary in this month's EQ or Sound on Sound.
 
Here, Here!..I am all about mixing "In the box" but plug ins (and I have some real high end one's) still can't compare to the real thing..The UAD's come close but don't sound as good as my LA2A and 1176..I think plug in verbs are getting very good but nothing yet tops real dynamic and eq processing...Why choose?
I try to use whatever sounds best for a project be it hardware or plugs..

Cheers,
Ray
 
Adam P said:
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.
Click to expand...


That's called a Focusrite Liquid Channel, it's a hardware box that emulates all the famous eq's and compressors while the Liquid Mix is a plug in that is controlled by a hardware device.
 
Halion said:
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.
Click to expand...

For me, I am used to analog consoles and outboard equipment. I can't concentrate with the ITB stuff. I have no opinion as to which sounds better as I have heard both, a combination and everything in between and many have great sounding records. Plug-ins do have their limitations as you need a faster computer to utilize them In my studio, I can have eq, compression, reverb/effects on every track with no latency all in real time. Easier for me to mix. But YMMV.
 
I think there is another common misconception here. Many people say how much faster it is to mix in the box. Personally, I find it is much faster to get "THAT" sound with a console and outboard. I also love the feeling of sitting behind a large 10 foot wide console with thousands of knobs and hundreds of buttons and faders. I feel comfortable sitting there and it actually helps to keep me focused on what I need to do and spurs creativity. Not to mention that in the winter it keeps my control room warm. I do a lot of ITB stuff, but it is comforting knowing that I have a rack full of cool vintage outboard comps and a whole console full of kileer preamps and packed with EQ's that in my opinion belittle some of the best of the plugins available. Integration is certainly the key. Automation is MUCH easier in just about any DAW application than even SSL, Amek and Neve automation systems. Editing is certainly easier on a DAW than splicing tape, storage space is incredibly cheaper etc... There are plenty of wonderful things that the digital realm and DAW's in general have brought to the table, even amongst the best of analog equipment. However, the analog juju is still there and is going nowhere. With the exception of Large Format consoles and analog decks, the rest of the "analog" industry is flourishing more now than ever before. Personally, I do not think it is long before large format desks reappear in force and used prices start going back up. I do however think that they will have a better feature set than ever before and make the whole integration process easier than it has ever been in the past.

In the end I can say this... I love the power and flexibility that digital has brought to my studio. My analog gear isn't going away though. Digital helps me do certian things easier, and sometimes faster. In the end though, my console and comps etc... are the heart and soul of everything that happens in my studio.
 
Halion said:
Alright, thanks for all the great replies guys :)

"Best of both worlds", fair enough :)

Keep in mind that I'm mearly trying to get a discussion going here. I'm not trying to say anything about which is better, just personal preference.

Something to add: is sound quality the only reason for your choice, whatever it is?
Click to expand...

Of course, sound quality is the only reason. If you have ever mixed on a vintage console with a bunch of vintage outboard gear you'll never want to mix in the box again. It's just that much better sounding.
 
Micter said:
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.
Click to expand...

The 80B EQ's are excellent arn't they? That board has such a nice sound to it.


Anyway, I fall into both categories. My home setup is mostly ITB with a few peices of outboard gear. If I had the choice, I'd use more outboard, however I usually don't have that kind of money laying around. I like the fact that you can buy a high quality plug for $400 and use it on as many tracks as you like depending on processor speed. Even when working in an analog enviroment, there are certain things that I'll let the computer process, since I like the sound of certain plugins.

If I had the choice between mixing on the SSL or strictly in a DAW, I'll take the SSL and outboard gear any day. There is something different to sitting in front of a console for 12 hours, over getting a massive headache staring at a computer screen all day.


Of course, sound quality is the only reason. If you have ever mixed on a vintage console with a bunch of vintage outboard gear you'll never want to mix in the box again. It's just that much better sounding.
Click to expand...

That is true sometimes. The quality of the engineer determines what the end result will sound like on a mix. I know a good few big time analog engineers that have gone totally digital, and have created the same results. I feel that the analog sound is more pleasing to the ears from the start, you have to work a bit harder to achieve close to the same sound.
 
Ya that Trident board kicks! I'm really diggin' it! As far as the analog mixes, you are indeed correct they take a ton of work and the engineer has to know what he is doing. I'm working with a guy that just blows my socks off. He can make a mix that's for sure. I've never heard a digital mix that is as big! Plugins aren't there yet for my taste.
 
I've also noticed that with digital panning, you don't get as wide of a perception for some odd reason. Anyone know the reason behind this? Or am I imagining it?


As for some super cool plugins, check these out.

http://www.cranesong.com/PHOENIX.html

They sound absolutely hot on snares, vocals, guitars, and bass.
 
TuoKaerf said:
The 80B EQ's are excellent arn't they? That board has such a nice sound to it.


Anyway, I fall into both categories. My home setup is mostly ITB with a few peices of outboard gear. If I had the choice, I'd use more outboard, however I usually don't have that kind of money laying around. I like the fact that you can buy a high quality plug for $400 and use it on as many tracks as you like depending on processor speed. Even when working in an analog enviroment, there are certain things that I'll let the computer process, since I like the sound of certain plugins.

If I had the choice between mixing on the SSL or strictly in a DAW, I'll take the SSL and outboard gear any day. There is something different to sitting in front of a console for 12 hours, over getting a massive headache staring at a computer screen all day.




That is true sometimes. The quality of the engineer determines what the end result will sound like on a mix. I know a good few big time analog engineers that have gone totally digital, and have created the same results. I feel that the analog sound is more pleasing to the ears from the start, you have to work a bit harder to achieve close to the same sound.
Click to expand...


are you looking into the toft atb series then???

i've BEEN recorded on this console (not engineered, been in the band) and i know that it's terrific...

if Alan holds his end on this...it's going to be amazing, and at a terrific price point
 
I don't know if stompboxes qualify as "outboard gear," but I've been getting into stombox echos and reverbs vs. plugins for recording. There's something exciting about committing a sound to disk. Plus, to my ears a 150 stomp box echo often sounds more appealing than my UAD-1 Channel Strip echo, e.g.
 
old vs new??

how about Old + New?

DAW + Outboard comp/limiters, gates etc, can make a really nice combonation..

think, ProTools HD + UA 1176.. to me, you can't beat that..
 
"Oh shut the fuck up u stupid white wanna be sound engineer. you're fucking NO ONE yet. stop boasting your zero knowledge posts everywhere you fuckface"

umm? grow up racist pig. all of a sudden, only blacks can be sound engineers? oh excuse me, i dont revolve my life around an MPC1000 so i can never be as good as you.

i'm obviously twice of what you are. man up to your neg's atleast. lets here some music, ass.
 
Halion said:
is sound quality the only reason for your choice, whatever it is?
Click to expand...

Sound quality is the chief consideration for me. I still use all outboard processing and a combination of analog tape, digital and MIDI sequenced instruments. Based on past experience and current trends, it’s going to be a long time before I can even take most PC-based systems seriously, much less move toward an ITB mindset.

However, I really can’t say it any better than SonicAlbert did about choosing old and new equipment based on what works.

The only thing I can add to that wisdom is that people should be careful not to adopt a manufacturer or vender perspective of what music is all about. This can happen to you by osmosis, sooner or later. To the manufacturer you are a consumer. Whether you actually ever get around to making good music or not is of no consequence.

There are many more levels of product, including more levels of junk than there was when I started doing this in the 70’s. What I mean is if you want anything from a mic to a magic plug-in, there is one out there for you no mater how little money you have.

Wading through the toys to get to serious equipment is harder today then ever before, and I don’t envy anyone with little or no background trying to sort it out. Marketing departments often start the conversations that continue in these forums. Trends aren’t necessarily based on true advances in technology. It’s been this way for quite some time though, as most music magazines are product oriented, as are most music forums.

To follow the salesman is an endless journey of dumping last year’s model for the latest buzz. In truth, the thing you have will likely do just as well as the thing you want.

~Tim
:)
 
Well said tim.

DAW is easier, to some extent. especially when you change your mind.

but i must say, some outboard gear blows away its software counterparts. the sound is incredible at times.
 
mikeh said:
I agree with the best of both (when possible) - although I am still a dinosaur and tend to use a lot of outboard gear.
Click to expand...

Dinosaur--Key concept here...I still use my Rocktron 311...And ART FXR...Even though I have much "better" comps and effects in my Yammy AW1600...Is it part Fred Sanford or part McGuyver, I don't know, but the old rack stuff will always have a place and a potential use, AFAIC...

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)!
Click to expand...

I resemble this remark. I have and still use my XT occasionally, though my self contained DAW can be much more convenient...I even keep an old Fostex 4 track around... :o

Eric
 
I wouldn't know about all the high end outboard stuff compared to in the box. I've never owned anything out of the box better than a 4 track and chinese condensor. If the difference is as great as between a kick ass guitar tube amp and a amp sim plugin, then I'd be all for outboard gear. Software will never equal real amps/guitars and I'm betting the same holds true for nice rooms, preamps, compressors, equalizers, and tape. In my limited experience, it's a alot of work to make software not sound bad. It's like I'm starting with crap and trying to hide the shortcomings. Or, I'm starting with someone else's sound and trying to make it my own (samples). I've figured out that I don't like trying to emulate the real world. It never sounds right and isn't inspirational. If I was dropped into a nice studio full of kick ass gear right now, I wouldn't likely create any magical mixes but I don't think that I'd be fighting the gear so much while trying to cover up hideous faults either. We get alot of editing control and shortcuts in the box but I think we lose alot of personal sound control at the same time. I don't like to think about the sound I'm missing out on. That said, I'll keep fighting my box until my pockets can support my curiosities for real gear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top