Rack or Plugin?

C

colorsound

New member
Okay I just got a big tall rack effects holder with wheels on it, and it has very little in it. I may gradually be purchasing some good rack gear for recordings, but I am recording analog and doing the mixing digitally.

This is for people who have some studio experience: what rack gear do you think has been replaced by software plugins? Nowadays many studios use plugins for effects, but still have stacks of rack gear and patchbays sitting around collecting dust (so I've heard). What type of effects can be done the same or better by a plug-in, and what types are still best left to rack/outboard/analog effects?

I'm not much of a digital effects enthusiast I'll admit and I doubt plugins can achieve all high quality effects better than vintage outboard devices (it's common sense really). On the other hand, what rack gear isn't worth investing in if you've got waves/sound forge plugins?

Compression?
EQ?
Flange/chorus/phase?
Filters/Envelopes?
Reverb?

Also, I'm no stranger to effects boxes since I'm a guitar pedal nut... but I'm new to rack gear... With rack gear, is true bypass still something you need look for on each console? Thanks
 
I do an awful lot of work with plugs lately... Bet yeah, you're going to want compressors of every possible make and flavor. As far as I'm concerned, you can never have too many. VCA, Tube, Optical... Digital...

Same with preamps. Even "that cheapo crappy one on ebay" is going to sound good on something or just have that "something" to it that you're going to want on something.

Patch bay... Audio interface... CD Player... Amp... DAT machine... POWER CONDITIONER... 3-space rack drawer...

You're gonna need more racks...

John Scrip - www.massivemastering.com
 
Likewise, I'd want compression and also reverb in the rack. At least one great two channel analog eq in the rack as well. I love my TC 1210 analog chorus/flange box, nothing digital comes close, so I'd certainly want that.
 
Yeah I'm kind of curious about EQ.. there's so many of them out there how do I know which one to get? I haven't had fantastic experiences with EQ plugins so I'm thinking about maybe getting one of those MXR Rack EQ's. Are those good? How come it's important to have 2-channels of EQ? Can't you just do the EQ one chanel at a time? Or is it useful for EQing a stereo mix as opposed to each track individually (in the mastering stage) perhaps? The rack gear will mostly be used for mixing, but hey maybe if the compressor really does beat the plugins I'll use it again in mastering :)

My only concern is the constant A/D and D/A conversions when the audio goes from the comp to the rack and back again and again etc... In my experience analog to digital signal conversion is something you want to avoid...
 
colorsound said:
Nowadays many studios use plugins for effects, but still have stacks of rack gear and patchbays sitting around collecting dust (so I've heard).
Click to expand...


Uh, no. If there is a studio with racks of gear they tend to use them. Plugs are convenient and cheap. I don't believe for one minute that anyone is using them for sonically 'purist' reasons. If you look really closely and ignore what the masses are doing, the cream of the crop mixers use lots of outboard and analog consoles. It's not just what you use. It's not just how you use it. It is both.

------------------------------------
Nathan Eldred
atlasproaudio.com
 
For the most part, I think rackmount Noise Gates have been rendered pretty much expendable due to plugins that can perform the same function just as well -- sometimes better.

I can think of a few software-based de-essers which I like enough to where I don't feel the need for a rack version.

This one I realize is going to be up for debate, but I feel that some of the plugin EQ out there is giving the rack stuff a run for it's money. It would be hard to argue against choosing to use something like the Sony Oxford as your exclusive EQ.

Some peak limiters have been matched / exceeded by the Waves' L1 and L2. I say some because obviously the LA2A and similar will have a welcomed presence in any rack.

Not sure if this qualifies or not, but amp modeling plugs like Amp Farm are already replacing the POD Pro in a lot of racks.

I am also of the opinion that rackmount digital delays are quickly becoming a thing of the past. Not that I'm hearing any plugin versions that are blowing me away, but the technology and potential is certainly there for it to happen. Reverb is the same way -- once processor speed evolves to meet the demands, that is (or someone comes up with a viable PCI-based alternative).
 
I agree with a lot of that but not all.

Plugin eq may be useful for some tracks, but an analog eq is always going to be useful, no matter how good plugins get. The issue for me with plugins is that while they technically do what they say they will, i.e. provide processing, I have yet to hear a plugin that contributes to the audio what a great analog processor will. The plugin compressor will compress, the plugin eq will eq, etc., but I don't hear that extra something that the great analog rack gear contributes. Plugins are simply math and will not and cannot contribute beyond what they were programmed to do. So I think eq and compression are going to always be very hard for the plugins to beat excellent hardware.

Plugin reverbs are getting better, but I still haven't heard one that comes close to great outboard processing.

Your digital delay comment is interesting, and it has always seemed like delay would be one of the easier things to do with a plugin. There are some interesting delay plugins, but this is another area where there is a far greater variety of outboard processors out there, many of them with unique tones and delay properties. I don't really know of a plugin delay that can do or sound like a Korg SD-3300 or 3000, or the old Roland delays for example. That said, the area of delays does seem to be one where there is some parity between plugins and hardware.

Ultimately, it seems to me that viewing this issue as plugin *versus* hardware is incorrect, as it is possible to have both plugins and hardware. My studio is routed so that I can apply my hardware fx as easily as plugins, just by using pull down menus in my DAW. It needn't be a this or that situation, as it can be this and that, getting perhpas the best of both worlds.
 
SonicAlbert said:
So I think eq and compression are going to always be very hard for the plugins to beat excellent hardware.
Click to expand...

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the compression. But as far as EQ goes, you really have to experience something like the Sonalksis or Sony Oxford and you might change your mind.

The oxford's been around for quite some time, and the plugin uses the same algorythms.
 
SonicAlbert said:
I agree with a lot of that but not all.

Plugin reverbs are getting better, but I still haven't heard one that comes close to great outboard processing.
Click to expand...

TC ClassicVerb and Megaverb running on a TC Powercore card. ;)
 
Robert D said:
TC ClassicVerb and Megaverb running on a TC Powercore card. ;)
Click to expand...

I guess I'll have to listen to those now. The last time I heard a TC reverb plugin it was a very unimpressive experience. So you are saying that those TC reverb plugins are better sounding than my M3000 using the digital I/O?
 
SonicAlbert said:
Ultimately, it seems to me that viewing this issue as plugin *versus* hardware is incorrect, as it is possible to have both plugins and hardware. My studio is routed so that I can apply my hardware fx as easily as plugins, just by using pull down menus in my DAW. It needn't be a this or that situation, as it can be this and that, getting perhpas the best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on combining them, but can you tell me more about how you have this set up? Does that mean your soundcard has a line out used as an effects submixer, and do you worry about losing sound quality since the chain goes DIGITAL-analog (effect applied)-DIGITAL i mean quality could be dropping out with each dash. Tell me more about how you can mix the two, and does it require an expensive soundcard? Thanks


Also any oppinions on here about the MXR rack EQ? Or all most rack EQs about the same?
 
Well, I guess the way I do it *is* relatively expensive, but I'm sure it can be done for less money too. It's more the concept of it than the specific hardware I use.

Hardware-wise, I use a couple Tascam DM-24 digital mixers casacaded, along with two MOTU 2408mkII's and a MOTU 308. The 308 has four TOSlink, four SPDIF, and four AES I/O. I route all signals through Digital Performer. The six fx sends of the DM are output via ADAT lightpipe to one of the ADAT inputs on the MOTU 2408. In DP I have aux tracks set up to take the input signal from the DM-24 aux sends and route it to whatever fx box I wish. All the fx boxes are connected digitally to the 308 or a 2408.

So the way it works is this: I dial up aux send one on the DM-24, which sends that signal to DP where the signal is routed to whatever fx box I wish. I also have fx return tracks set up in DP, or I can submix the outputs of the fx boxes in analog in a submixer, which is then returned to a couple channels on a DM-24. Hope that makes sense: the fx outputs can be routed two ways, digital back to DP or analog to an analog submixer and then into the DM-24. The fx that are returned digitally to DP are then routed to a couple channels on the DM-24.

I can also use all my fx boxes via their analog I/O should I wish to, as they are patched into patchbays as well.

This setup allows me maximum flexibility, and to keep the fx in the digital realm if I want to. which I usually do, as I think that sounds better. Another advantage is that I can dither down the track that gets sent to my Lexicon PCM-91, as it is a 20 bit box, not 24. I dither using a plugin in DP. I think the PCM-91 sounds slightly better when it is being fed what it really needs to see, which is 20 bits or less.

So basically, you can do this with any DAW as a long as you have a soundcard or cards that have enough and the right kind of I/O. My current project is integrating an Ensoniq DP/4 into my DP setup. What I'm going to do is use a couple of SPDIF I/O on the 308 to a couple ART DI/O converter boxes, and then patch those into the DP/4. So I'll be able to use the DP/4 as conveniently as the rest of my fx.

The thing that makes me chuckle is when I see people dumping their hardware effects because they "are going full digital". It is totally unneccesary to get rid of hardware or get crazy about everything having to be the exact same sampling frequency. All you need is converters and enough I/O on your audio interfaces. there are also sample rate converters that can be used to integrate lower sampling rates with equipment using newer higher rates. I plan on keeping my favorite hardware indefinitely, but just go to the trouble to find a way to work it into the future gear.

One thing I'm discovering is that digital is all about converters. The better the converters at every step of the way, the better it all sounds. Or stay digital as much as possible. But I'd rather do the conversion and be able to use my favorite and preferred outboard than stay digital and use a plugin I'm lukewarm on. Just my preference.
 
Okay that's quite a mouthful. So for your analog rack gear that DOESN'T have optical outs (which most old outboard gear doesn't) there's still a conversion going on, right? Do you find that noticable?

I'm only mixing digitally because I record to cassette (which has a good, warm sound to it at first) and then dump all the tracks to a computer ASAP where I can play with them freely. If you do the mixing analog you have to worry about making backup tapes, and then there's also the fact that everytime you bounce/transfer something the quality level goes down...

I have yet to play around with using outboard gear digitally, will it work okay if I use my laptop (which has a Soundblaster card) or will there be too much quality loss?
 
Just to expand on my last post, by doing this it would be like this:

Soundcard goes from headphone out to rack, effects applied, signal comes back into line in jack. If this would cause terrible quality loss, I'd like to note that the card is equipped with optical in and out, if there was any other type of rack device that could process the rack devices decently and talk with the sound card digitally with optical cables... It would be kind of like a quality D/A effects mixer device that handles the converting for the computer. That would be it's only purpose... Do they make anything like that?
 
I don't know that I'd want to go there with a soundblaster.

I think one thing you might be overlooking is the idea of combining a "wet" or effected track with the dry track. The way I like to work with an outboard compressor is I'll do just like you said (basically out of the sound card to the rack gear and back in). But I'll purposely over-compress it and then mix the compressed version in with the uncompressed until desired balance is achieved. Similarly, if I was using an outboard reverb, I would just make an entire version of the track 100% wet, and mix that in with the original until I had the proper amount of verb.
 
Your idea about using an external fx box as a converter is a good one. Certainly, with a soundblaster card I would also be mixing in the computer as well! You definitely don't want to do any conversions in and out of that soundcard if you can help it. So in your case, staying in software would yield better results.

Unless you did exactly what you propose, which is to use a good external fx box for fx *and* as a converter. The thing is, most of them have SPDIF digital I/O, not optical. So if you want any choice at all you'd need to get one of those little SPDIF/optical conversion boxes. I don't think they are very expensive, and I believe M-Audio makes one. As soon as you are talking SPDIF, then you have a lot more options.

Two fx boxes that are known for their good converters are the Kurzweil Rumour and Mangler. In your case, the Rumour, the reverb box, would probably be a good addition to your setup.

Ultimately though, a better soundcard with more I/O would probably turn out to be one of the single biggest improvements you could make for your sound.
 
I've got SPDIF In and Outs on here too, in the back. I agree though, although the A/D converter sounds pretty good the first time, I bet it doesn't sound as good the second time (if I go out then back in)...

I'll check out those two boxes you mentioned. I do like the Soundforge plugins I downloaded quite a bit, but they just aren't good at some things (AKA chorus, the EQ is mediocre)... I wouldn't buy an external box for digital reverb because digital reverb is digital, a chip with 1's and 0's, which theoretically could be perfectly emulated by computer software. Plus I just don't use reverb a lot... Now maybe for analog reverb... But yeah, probably just outboard boxes for chorus/flange/ADT, compression, and EQ.
 
Just looked at the Kurzweil's... I don't want an effects box though, this box would be just for routing analog effects and converting. How do you achieve the percent wet/dry effect with your rack gear? That's a useful feature for some effects...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top