Eqing/Adding effects with software

[Ipso Facto]

Hi! I'm wondering if it's a "bad" thing to be eqing, compressing, and adding effects with the plugins that come with Sonar 3 or if this kind of software is even comparable to hardware. If so, then is it comparable to low, medium, or high end hardware? Thanks!

 

[Dogman]

Hey Ipso, I'm fairly new here, but have found I can get some decent sounds by using software, at least for what I'm doing. Just remember to always save your original file somewhere, and at least you will always have that to fall back on if you mess up the one you are editing. I've gotten some good advice from people here on some compression and eq settings for my vocals, and the really helped. There are some people here who can give you good pointers, and I would just listen, and try them all if you can. You can definitely find some settings to give you a good sound.
Ed

 

[ryanlikestorock]

I've had this discussion with a few mastering engineers in the past and the general agreement is that 1db of gain with one tool is generally going to sound like 1db of gain on another. Unfortunately, we sometimes need EQ for more then 1db. Also, a lot of what comes from the hardware that I like is this open... air... or subtle musical distortion. I haven't found any software that can duplicate this although the UAD-1 Pultec comes close.

I guess my advice is that if you feel your EQ is the lowest link in your audio chain, upgrade it to hardware or some higher level software. If you're using bad mics, bad pres, bad band, etc... using digital EQ isn't going to hurt too much. 9 times out of 10, the person using the EQ isn't using the full potential of the EQ anyway. Master it, learn the limitations, then upgrade.

It's a cycle that probably will last your whole life.

 

[Massive Master]

If it sounds better after EQ'ing, it works.

 

[Ipso Facto]

Thanks guys. I ask because I see alot of second hand compressors (dbx etc.) and graphic eq's in stores around where I live. The shops themselves don't know what they are selling alot of the time (I live in Asia). They don't seem to be aware of names and they don't grade any of it. From memory I've seen Dbx 166 comp and Dbx 386 Preamp. The prices would be around 80-100usd. Worth it or am I fine with Sonar 3?

 

[Dogman]

Ipso, I actually used an old Ibanez CP-9 guitar compressor the last time I did some vocals, and it helped to even them out right in the recorder, and then used some settings that someone else told me to start with in the software, and the vocals were at least fairly even in volume. Don't know if that helps, but worked for me.
Ed

 

[Farview]

If you use hardware to do this, you will have to go in and out of your daw. Too many conversions add up.

 

[kylen]

I'm guessing that you may have underestimated the importance of monitoring as a building block in your studio - I could be wrong so don't sue me.

Here's an example that happened to me. I recorded some cool tracks with preamps and compressors I could afford at the time and when I went to mix the tracks it sure was hard getting them to mix correctly cause something kind of stuck out. So my cure was to stick a mastering limiter across the stereo buss and just let the limiter sort out the transients...hehe

Well after examining some of those old tracks I can see now (in Adobe Audition) that the attack on the vocal compressor wasn't set right - it was too slow for the ratio I selected (which was too high). If I had listened to it correctly and listened on adequate monitoring I would have heard it when I was recording and been able to fix it. Fixing that kind of stuff in the mix or during mastering is cruel and unusual punishment...

I've got Sonar and a dbx386 and all that stuff is fine - it's how you record the track and how you make sure what you've recorded is good that gets my vote. So monitoring is my 2cents.

ryan and Massive are real mastering engineers BTW, in case you didn't know, so what they say carries more weight in this universe - I'm an amatuer so I can say anything I feel like

 

[Marciano]

"Too many conversions add up" added by Farview...It´s not good to use many conversions but, if you have a good converter is not that bad...So many albuns that passed on the converters so many times and still sound great. See... Imagine the amount of albuns that whore recorded drums(and every thing else) tracks in tape, than go to the prootools for editing, than again to the tape for mixing, then again for dat or tape, then it goes to the mastering engeneer to a daw for the editings, etc...see, if is doing everything on a daw 2 conversions is not bad at all ,i guess.
Cheers

 

[Ipso Facto]

Good stuff! I guess I should be focusing on what I'm monitoring through instead of "accumulating" stuff that I don't know how to appreciate. Regarding software, one could also say "it's not the gear it's the engineer"?? BTW I'm not a lawyer. The name comes from watching this guy:

- John

 

[Ronan]

I am not familiar with the stock plug ins that come with Sonar but I am familar with a lot of the high end plug ins for pro tools. I prefer the outboard options almost every time. For me its worth the fidelity loss on the conversion to use better gear.

 

[xstatic]

I am with Ronan on this for sure I would rather have a little bit of "conversion loss" and get a channel inserted on my Distressor rather than use a plug in. Even my UAD card (which for software comps is awesome) sounds nowhere near what the Distressor does. Than there are my Trident outboard EQ's, Spectrasonics comp, Chandler preamps etc.... All of these add more than enough "magic" for me to easily justify some extra conversion if necessary.

However, that doesn't mean it is necessary. I just believe in using the best stuff that I can to help me achieve the best result that I can. It doesn't mean that a good engineer can't make a good mix using all internal stock plug-ins. I just believe that if that same engineer had better options that the same mix would sound better. In the end, software seems to only really hold the quality of low to mid range gear. There are certain exceptions and definately some plug-ins sound better than others, but decent outboard will win almost every time, even with the extra conversions. We haven't even mentioned the analog summing and imaging aspects which once again hold a certain unobtainable magic of their own.

The bottom line for me is that if you have some decent outboard, use it If not, than plugins are just fine. For the person starting out without a huge budget and is using a DAW as their centerpiece, than software plugs is where my first investment would go (not counting preamps and mics of course). Software plugs will allow you more widespread use and can be easier to learn on. As soon as you can though, I would always reccomend looking into some outboard to do the job for real instead of attempting to mimic it

 

[chessrock]

Imagine the amount of albuns that whore recorded drums(and every thing else)

I didn't know whores recorded drums.

Multiple talents. Me like-y.

 

[Farview]

I didn't know whores recorded drums.

Yes I do!!
As far as the conversion loss goes, it is not a big deal when you have even moderatly decent equipment. If you are coming out of an audigy card into a 4 channel berry to a 15 year old quadraverb, into a 3630, and back into the audigy, it would be best to use the plugins.

 

[JohnnyMan]

I didn't know whores recorded drums.

Multiple talents. Me like-y.

How many times during a drum recording session did you ask yourself, "I wish I had a whore here"?
Maybe a "whore" pluggin will soon be available?

 

[Massive Master]

If you are coming out of an audigy card into a 4 channel berry to a 15 year old quadraverb, into a 3630, and back into the audigy, it would be best to use the plugins.

OH MY GOD!!!

I had a nightmare JUST LIKE THAT!!!