Enhancer reccomendations

B

Benreturns

New member
Im thinking of getting an enhancer for when im mixing down. I want something that will brighten and clear up my sound whilst keeping the bass punchy. I woul dlike my vocals to stand out a lil bit more.
What does anyone think to this? (i like that retro look to!)

http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=T1954&lang=eng

Why is it a 'tube' enhancer? Whats the difference with that and a regualr enhancer?

Can anyone else reccomend a good model? The lower the budget the better

Thanks
 
Better to work on getting what you're recording enhanced than to artificially enhance(?) your sound after the fact. Spend your money on better instruments/mics/preamps. You don't need an enhancer to make your vocals stand out. You need a good microphone and preamp and possibly a decent compressor, depending on your singing style. I've tried the Ultrafex Pro....not much use. Don't waste your hard earned dough.
 
I completely agree that you would be much better served by either learning how to better track or improve your signal chain into your recorded medium.

You indicate you want a low cost solution, but an enhancer is not the best place to spend your money.

I also agree that If vocals are your main problem area, then you need to look at your mic, then your current pre-amp and then possibly your compression.

For what it's worth, I made the same mistake a few years ago. I heard some material thru a BBE and I thought "wow". I bought one and put it in the mixdown chain and for a brief time I thought my mixes were improved. Soon I realized they were not "improved", simply "enhanced".

I worked harder at getting the right sounds recorded on the front end, with mimimum use of any processing. Lo and behold, when it came time to mix, I didn't need much "enhancement" at all, other than minimum EQ (just to get certain sounds to "fit in the mix".

If you work to improve your skills rather then depend on artificial shimmer, you will be much more satisfied in the long run.
 
I’ve used a BBE Sonic Maximizer model 422 in my studio for many years. It can be a useful tool. It may suit your needs because it treats bass frequencies as well as highs. I prefer it to the Aphex Aural Exciter and the Alesis Micro Enhancer.

It really does make a difference, especially for narrow track formats, such as 4-track cassette. It can be over done, but so can any type of processing.

Here is the online manual if you want to check it out:

http://www.bbesound.com/pdfs/422A_manual.pdf

You can usually find one on ebay for less than $75.00.

I haven’t used the Behringer Tube Ultrafex, but I see it has 12AX7 tubes. The Chinese made 12AX7 is a little noisey.

Tbeck :cool:
 
Last edited:
Hey thanks for all your advice!

Beck - i will check that model out, but also il take everyone elses advice and see if I can narrow the problem down while tracking.

I posted this on this board first, but didnt seem to get an answer so i tried the other. Also i thought it would be interesting to see how the opinions differ on 2 different boards.

Thanks everyone.
 
Sometimes I have used the Behringer Dualfex in the mixdown (with moderate settings). I used to set the left and right channels with different settings (enhancer to the left and exciter to the right) and the result it's not so bad.

MaxB
 
Bear, as usual nailed it. You can't cpmpensate lack of talent/techique with volume (boosted frequencies) which is all the enhancer does. Whatever you add to the signal chain will bring with it it's own noise and coloration the enhancer notwithstanding.
 
I try not to play favourites with brand names... I don't give preference to big names..... but I have several "sound enhancer" models and the Behringer SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!

And I don't say that because I dislike Behringer or because they are not a "premium brand name". It just sucks. I have the older model, thats a 1U rack space and isn't a tube enhancer... so maybe this model might actually be better and improved... the tube may add harmonics which was lacking from the original enhancer. I was dissatisfied with that thing from dayone when I bought it 2 years ago or whenever.

For the same price almost, get yourself:

(1) BBE Sonic Maximizer, or

(2) Aphex 204 Aural Exciter with Optical Big Bottom
(or buy the used Aphex 104 model [non-optical] on E-bay)..



I prefer the Aphex.... The other fellow said he prefers the BBE model. I personally feel the Aphex does more... but you need to be real careful with the stettings.... its very easy to overdo it. Overdoing it most definately "mudies" the mix by adding excessive harmonics and too much low end. When I first bought it, I cranked up all the knobs full volume despite the manuals suggestion I keep them at center.... now after more experience, I agree with the manual, if you don't overdrive the unit, it won't muddy the mix at all....

I also like the BBE Sonic Maximizer, I feel it has a smoother sound with less distortion.... but it just doesnt offer the same "punch"that the Aphex does (whatever the heck that means... the Aphex can really overdrive the low ends if set too high).

Also, my subjective opinion is that the Aphex has the ability to bring out voices which were buried deeply in a mix, and so can correct a crappy mixing and EQ'ing job.... The effect can be a little harsher due to the harmonics known which can add a little bit of edginess to the vocals... The BBE Sonic Maximizer can also correct bad EQ'ing on muddied and buried vocals... but the effect is more subtle/smoother/less distortion... but not quite as edgy as the Apex 204.

Save your money... DONT buy the Behringer.... MY subjective opinion... take with a grain of salt.
 
chessrock said:
Oh boy. Here we go.
Click to expand...


LMAO chess!!!!:p :D :p my lips are krazee-glued shut!!!!;)

Since Y2K, I've always try to adhere to Cuzzin' Brucie Blue-Bear's most wise and simplistic advice of "getting it done right" during tracking, a task I consider the utmost of importance. However, there have been occasions where I've captured a shhh-weet perf
(solo, riff;...or either a hellacious harmonic-rhythmic-melodic technique) yet negative tracking issues such as freq'y mish-mash,audible artifacts, signal peaking, etc. were present that needed to be addressed.
That's where I believe certain signal enhancers MIGHT come in handy, especially if the perf you tracked was maddd tite but could use some eq adj'ing, levelling or shine/enhancement.
I myself only utilize the basic of dynamic processors such as comps or eq after 1st, trying "to get it tracked right" then run my mixdowns thru a outboard pre. I'm no s-expert by any means but I can honestly tell you from 1st hand observation that a majority of Sonic Mx'mizr's owners I know start off by using the unit sparingly on a track or 2, then proceed to add it to all thier tracks,
then eventually will ALWAYS run thier mixdowns thru the unit rather than simply focus on rec'ding their jammies properly.
Like a junkie hooked on heroin believing all is rite with the world!!! :eek: :p :eek:
The BBE mite come in handy every now & then & if U do decide to purchase 1, try not to get addicted to it's falseness. Shoot instead,
why not get yourself some capable monitors where you can REALLY judge your mixes and determine what is needed during your tracking!!

Just my .0000000000001 cent opinion!

Peace
Q.rM
 
Originally posted by MISTERQCUE

a majority of Sonic Mx'mizr's owners I know start off by using the unit sparingly on a track or 2, then proceed to add it to all their tracks, then eventually will ALWAYS run their mixdowns thru the unit rather than simply focus on rec'ding their jammies properly.

Like a junkie hooked on heroin believing all is rite with the world!!! :eek: :p :eek:
Click to expand...


That just about sums it up.
 
MISTERQCUE said:
Shoot instead,
why not get yourself some capable monitors where you can REALLY judge your mixes and determine what is needed during your tracking!!

Peace
Q.rM
Click to expand...

[RANT]
I am glad I don't have a problem taking advice from people around here. If I did, I would probably have racks full of processing gear I didn't really need, all the while sitting in my square, untreated control room trying to mix tracks that were recorded in another square untreated room through a pair of Monitor I's and complaining why my mixes sound like ass.

After taking everone's advice, I now have pretty good mixes after just setting volume levels.



Buy some really good monitors if you don't have them. Treat your mixing area if you haven't done so already. It'll be alot easier to get the tracks recorded properly in the first place and you won't need no stinking enhancer.


[/RANT]:D
 
Alright, this whole..... anti-enhancer backlash phenomenon is a very interesting sociological observation.... it stems in part from the "record it right in the first place" philosophy.... which I tend to agree with myself.

However, theres a time and place for every piece of gear in the rack. Its kind of like saying that you don't need a reverb unit because you should just design your recording studio so its more reflective if you want to put that in your mix...... or its like saying we don't need compressors because if you really know what your doing.... you should be doing all the volume adjustments with the mixer faders.... a technique which served well for decades before compressors became popular and produced good sounding music....yet we realize how asinine and ignorant a statement that would be today... theres nothing wrong with a little automation folks... if the "black box" can do it for me without me having to rewire my stuoid and patch in all kinds of equipment... and if I'm happy with the end-result.... I'll go with the automatic black-box mystery unit.... and if its not working out.... then I'll just correct the sound manually (either before it gets tracked, or after), the old fashion way.

Also, some people might not understand fully what sound enhancers actually do. Different manufacturer models have different features (Behringer, BBE, Aphex). They are not just EQ's folks.... if they were... people wouldn't be buying them like hotcakes, because we all already have racks full of EQ's.... I have 4 of them myself including 2 dual 1/3 octave graphic and multiple 5-band parametrics.

EQ's are "static" devices.... and some sonic maximizers are "dynamic" devices.... you can't do that with a static EQ without getting really involved with the rewiring and chaining several EQ channels with an expander to create sort of a punch-gate....

So next maybe your gonna say that we don't need DRAWMER Punch Gates (i.e. mx-40) or de-essers (mx-50) either... because we could really do the same thing with what we already have in the studio (EQ's and expanders and compressors)... which is true enough.... but any piece of equipment which can take the workload off the engineer may be worth having.... if your willing to spend the money.
 
Industrial said:
Alright, this whole..... anti-enhancer backlash phenomenon is a very interesting sociological observation.... it stems in part from the "record it right in the first place" philosophy.... which I tend to agree with myself.

However, theres a time and place for every piece of gear in the rack. Its kind of like saying that you don't need a reverb unit because you should just design your recording studio so its more reflective if you want to put that in your mix...... or its like saying we don't need compressors because if you really know what your doing.... you should be doing all the volume adjustments with the mixer faders.... a technique which served well for decades before compressors became popular and produced good sounding music....yet we realize how asinine and ignorant a statement that would be today... theres nothing wrong with a little automation folks... if the "black box" can do it for me without me having to rewire my stuoid and patch in all kinds of equipment... and if I'm happy with the end-result.... I'll go with the automatic black-box mystery unit.... and if its not working out.... then I'll just correct the sound manually (either before it gets tracked, or after), the old fashion way.

Also, some people might not understand fully what sound enhancers actually do. Different manufacturer models have different features (Behringer, BBE, Aphex). They are not just EQ's folks.... if they were... people wouldn't be buying them like hotcakes, because we all already have racks full of EQ's.... I have 4 of them myself including 2 dual 1/3 octave graphic and multiple 5-band parametrics.

EQ's are "static" devices.... and some sonic maximizers are "dynamic" devices.... you can't do that with a static EQ without getting really involved with the rewiring and chaining several EQ channels with an expander to create sort of a punch-gate....

So next maybe your gonna say that we don't need DRAWMER Punch Gates (i.e. mx-40) or de-essers (mx-50) either... because we could really do the same thing with what we already have in the studio (EQ's and expanders and compressors)... which is true enough.... but any piece of equipment which can take the workload off the engineer may be worth having.... if your willing to spend the money.
Click to expand...

So what's your point?

No one is downing the use of Mx'mzr's just the unnecessary need to use it on every track!

Re-read MISTERQCUE's post!

A-Salaam A-Laikum
 
MUSTAFA> So what's your point? No one is downing the use of Mx'mzr's just the unnecessary need to use it on every track!
---------------------

It was just a general response I was making which was not specific to this thread. I've seen multiple message threads on homerecording.com and other good music recording message boards on the use of audio enhancers. Sometimes I just sense that you get a usual following of people who consistently reply that they make good paperweights or such... I wasn't talking about anyone specific in this message thread.

I was merely reinforcing the idea that theres nothing wrong with a little automation. "Black box" type devices (i.e. automatic de-essers as opposed to manual de-essing and such)... are not bad. I perceive a small group of people seem to think everything should be done the "old fashioned way" by hand... which is fine... and oftentimes it works out better that way... its just more work.
 
Industrial said:
MUSTAFA> So what's your point? No one is downing the use of Mx'mzr's just the unnecessary need to use it on every track!
---------------------

It was just a general response I was making which was not specific to this thread. I've seen multiple message threads on homerecording.com and other good music recording message boards on the use of audio enhancers. Sometimes I just sense that you get a usual following of people who consistently reply that they make good paperweights or such... I wasn't talking about anyone specific in this message thread.

I was merely reinforcing the idea that theres nothing wrong with a little automation. "Black box" type devices (i.e. automatic de-essers as opposed to manual de-essing and such)... are not bad. I perceive a small group of people seem to think everything should be done the "old fashioned way" by hand... which is fine... and oftentimes it works out better that way... its just more work.
Click to expand...


LOL!!!:D :D :D

Just messin' with you dude!

Mustafa Salaam & MISTERQCUE are 1 and the same!!:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top