Hardware vs. Software
- Thread starter sbcgroup2
- Start date
Golden
New member
It's important to really consider what you "need" and why you "need" it and whether or not you can afford it... You have to ask yourself all the many questions that will ultimately help to forge the musical visions in your head. 
If it's for pure volume, then that's a very expensive volume box. However, if you've got 1000s of $$$ kicking around, then why not?
If it's for pure volume, then that's a very expensive volume box. However, if you've got 1000s of $$$ kicking around, then why not?
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
If your primary concern is eeking out "pure volume", then you're wasting your money on something as good sounding as the Manley, because any advantage it would give you will be wiped out by your quest for the Holy RMS.sbcgroup2 said:When ISN'T it about pure volume?
G.
Last edited:
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
I hear where you're coming from Glenn, but I normally have a much easier time getting to "STUN" levels using hardware... Not that I enjoy it...SouthSIDE Glen said:
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Yeah, that's a very good point, John. I agree.Massive Master said:
It just seems like such a shame to spend all that money and get all that quality, just to use it to flatten a mix into a pancake. It's kind like going out and buying a brand new Volvo for it's excellent crash handling and safety engineering so that it can be used in a demolition derby
.But like Golden said, if you got the bucks to burn, then more volu...er...power to you.
G.
bblackwood
Senior Moment
Remember, the ultramaximizer is not a typical compressor, it's a peak limiter - very different uses...sbcgroup2 said:
No offense, but this is precisely the type of thinking that has driven audio quality down for over a decade. Don't worry about what's easier, worry about what sounds better...
B
Beck
Guest
sbcgroup2 said:
Hardware… absolutely!
And by all means please get out of the digital domain at some phase, no matter how convenient it is to stay there. IMO, the total ITB approach is a significant reason (though not the sole reason) why so much music I hear these days sucks.
But frankly, try something like a vintage Alesis Mico Limiter (one of my favs) before you go spending big bucks. Ok… so I moded mine and it performs magnificently in a comp/limiting role between my analog master to CD. I also have an RNC and a symetrix comp/limiter. You don’t have to take out a loan to get decent results. It doesn’t have to be a tube unit.
Re:
Tell me more!
What do you use as your analog medium?
Right now I have a MOTU 1296 interface going into an old PC. I could run out from the MOTU into a mastering unit to a CD burner.
I like the idea of applying effects like reverb, delays and eq on the computer since I can constantly adjust the levels w/o having to constantly re-record the track.
On a side note: I am going to pick up a stereo Distressor (EL8x) and use that for most of my primary tracking purposes. But I know that these aren't recommended for mastering uses; only tracking.
Tell me more!
What do you use as your analog medium?
Right now I have a MOTU 1296 interface going into an old PC. I could run out from the MOTU into a mastering unit to a CD burner.
I like the idea of applying effects like reverb, delays and eq on the computer since I can constantly adjust the levels w/o having to constantly re-record the track.
On a side note: I am going to pick up a stereo Distressor (EL8x) and use that for most of my primary tracking purposes. But I know that these aren't recommended for mastering uses; only tracking.
re:
I'm not looking to flatten a mix into a pancake. But, you need some volume too, at the same point. Those pro mixes are so "gelled" too...love to get that sound.
I'm willing to spend money, but not if it really doesnt matter. I want to keep adding some quality gear, etc.
SouthSIDE Glen said:Yeah, that's a very good point, John. I agree.
It just seems like such a shame to spend all that money and get all that quality, just to use it to flatten a mix into a pancake. It's kind like going out and buying a brand new Volvo for it's excellent crash handling and safety engineering so that it can be used in a demolition derby
But like Golden said, if you got the bucks to burn, then more volu...er...power to you.
G.
I'm not looking to flatten a mix into a pancake. But, you need some volume too, at the same point. Those pro mixes are so "gelled" too...love to get that sound.
I'm willing to spend money, but not if it really doesnt matter. I want to keep adding some quality gear, etc.
B
Beck
Guest
sbcgroup2 said:
Tape...
sbcgroup2 said:
Your can sound can suffer here because your DAW is employed as jack of all trades... master of none.
I know this is the selling point of the DAW model, but it’s also one of the main reasons these forums are filled with cries for help. Use your PC as a recording medium and do sound processing with dedicated outboard devices designed for a specific purpose.
Once you can pull yourself away from the glow of all the latest ITB wonders a whole new world of sonic possibilities opens up.
IMO, it’s here that digital as a recording medium approaches usable.
sbcgroup2 said:
The problem with the digital domain is that it is now at it's "state-of-the-art" level in history. What I mean is that you can go out and get a nice mastering tube compressor (that have been around for 50 years) or a plug-in. The plug-ins will only sound as good as your A/D, D/A converters and those can cost $$$$ for really good ones (pro)
Like analog tape vs. Digital. You can get a tape machine that was top of the line in the days of pro analog recording for pennies on the dollar. You CAN"T get top of the line digital converters without paying through the nose because they are used now in pro studios. A top of the line analog deck will not outperform a top of the line digital pro rig, it is just that most people cannot afford a pro rig so the low cost stuff takes a bashing.
If you can live with the affordable digital stuff, go with a plug-in.
FALKEN
*************************
MCI2424 said:
bah. my record collection begs to differ. not trying to spark the whole argument or anything. I just dont think that cost or sound is the main reason that pro tend to use digital tracking nowadays. I think its reliability and convenience of automation/recall. anyways the OP was asking about boxes and I think you would agree that the boxes kill plugins for the most part.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
Heh... I spent most of the last couple days doing nothing but taking "top of the line" digital recordings and running them to 1/2" tape and pulling the signal directly off the repro heads (a.k.a. "Layback" for those in Rio Linda) to give it some breath.
And I don't track much anymore - But whenever I can, if I can do the same at the tracking level (record to tape and pull off the repro heads into the DAW), I'm all over it.
"Better" or "worse" is subjective to some extent - But "different" can't be ignored. Some prefer one over the other. I prefer both.
And I don't track much anymore - But whenever I can, if I can do the same at the tracking level (record to tape and pull off the repro heads into the DAW), I'm all over it.
"Better" or "worse" is subjective to some extent - But "different" can't be ignored. Some prefer one over the other. I prefer both.
Massive Master said:
Why would you do that?
Just asking. The tape will not do anything for a digital recording but add whatever the "sound" of the tape decks pre-amps are (if the tape is not driven above 0). A GOOD tape deck should add nothing at all in the way of "sound" on the tape.
At least if it is maintained and aligned correctly.
I love the "sound" of RADAR (as Fletcher so eliquently points out on occasion)
I wish I had one, but I have too much as it stands now.
Not true. Tape is loved by so many for what it does do to sound. Digital is loved by so many for what it does not do. ANY tape machine will change the way something sounds. If you do not like that idea, do not use tape. Many people still track to analog tape because of what it does do, and then mixes in digital because of what it does not do.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
While I prefer quality analog iron to quality digital plugs 9 times out of 10, I don't like converting between analog and digital domains any more than absolutely possible unless I have top shelf conversion at my disposal. Put a street-quality converter and sloppy clocking between domains and converting back and forth too many times will IMHO do just about as much bad to the sound as the analog stuff will do good.
So, assuming one is working with less than A-list conversion and clocking (as 90% on this board are), I prefer to keep my analog to the tracking and/or to the summing (if I have a great board or summing amp) and mastering.
But going in and out of the box between those ends of the process with standard prosumer conversion and/or mixing control can just wash out many of the analog advantages, IMHO, if it is not done judiciously.
G.
So, assuming one is working with less than A-list conversion and clocking (as 90% on this board are), I prefer to keep my analog to the tracking and/or to the summing (if I have a great board or summing amp) and mastering.
But going in and out of the box between those ends of the process with standard prosumer conversion and/or mixing control can just wash out many of the analog advantages, IMHO, if it is not done judiciously.
G.
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
One factor about tape that constantly gets glossed over is the quality and maintainence of the tape machine itself. This is becoming a lost art. It's not like you can just buy a tape machine on eBay and all of a sudden have glorious old school tone.
A tape machine is very complicated and must be kept up constantly--frequent alignments and maintainence. Something that I dare say most (as in 99%) owners of home/small studios will not do to the extent it should be done.
The other factor is the quality of the tape formulations themselves, which I've heard has declined. In other words, it's becoming harder and harder to get really excellent quality tape. I don't use tape myself, but I've heard the bitching about the quality.
What's comparable to tape formulation now is the quality and tone of converters. People argue about that like they used to argue about which formulation was best.
Tape machines have a certain sound, but also require a lot of care and attention to keep running at their best. Having recorded in studios when tape was still the format, I personally am very happy with digital recording.
A tape machine is very complicated and must be kept up constantly--frequent alignments and maintainence. Something that I dare say most (as in 99%) owners of home/small studios will not do to the extent it should be done.
The other factor is the quality of the tape formulations themselves, which I've heard has declined. In other words, it's becoming harder and harder to get really excellent quality tape. I don't use tape myself, but I've heard the bitching about the quality.
What's comparable to tape formulation now is the quality and tone of converters. People argue about that like they used to argue about which formulation was best.
Tape machines have a certain sound, but also require a lot of care and attention to keep running at their best. Having recorded in studios when tape was still the format, I personally am very happy with digital recording.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
The days of being able to choose not only between Ampex, BASF, Maxell, and many other brands of open-reel tape, let alone different formulations of each brand, are long over, the last time I checked. Last time I looked, for most folks the choices are Quantigy, Quantigy or Quantigy.SonicAlbert said:
Now I admit on not really being up to date on this stuff; maybe some others have gotten back into the game. But it's such a relatively small market that profit margins would have to be extragavant; I can't see very many companies getting into it unless it's to offer a "boutique" tape at inflated prices or to dump some cheap rust-on-a-reel formulation on the market for more reasonable prices.
G.