chazba said:
Does anyone remember a box called Finalizer that came out maybe 5 years ago? I read a review a few years back in one of the mag's about it, and the builders seemed to think that it could perform miracles.
Yeah, that's pretty much how it was marketed...
chazba said:
I'd say so, yes.
chazba said:
Anybody got one? ever used one??
As mentioned, it wasn't an "evil" box - It was only as evil as the engineer that was using it. That being said, I was based out of a studio that had one for quite a while and it was adequate for whipping things through if you really knew what you were shooting for. Easily abused, easily fooled if you weren't careful.
Bought one after I started out on my own and pretty much got sick of it after a couple weeks. Sold it cheap.
I'd say one of the major potholes of using such technology (presets, "wizards" and the like) is that it takes away from the most important skill - Listening.
Processing isn't about "Wizards" and presets and pee-wee-hermanizers... You should listen to a mix and have a clear "vision" for what it requires as far as processing is concerned (this is why it can be desperately difficult to master one's own mixes, as this was already done in the mixing stage).
Processors and plugs that try to "take a guess" for you can easily lead to "Sonic Maximizer Syndrome" - Where it changed, and it's louder, therefore it's better. 90% of the time, that's not the case.
But buying one... I'm not a big fan of a lot of digital processing - Finalizer included. But if was going to try to put together a decent digitally based, "budget friendly" system, I'd go with the UAD collection and sprinkle a few unique "problem solvers" in there rather than the "all in one" of the Finalizer (or the Quantum II, which I still have, and so rarely use, or Drawmer's unit, etc.).
Granted, if you need a set of converters *and* the processing HP, you probably aren't going to find a cheaper solution (although in that case I'd recommend the Quantum II - There's a reason I didn't sell that one).
