TC Finalizer 96k- anyone willing to admit it sounds good

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert D
  • Start date Start date
R

Robert D

New member
Ok, so here's a piece of gear that pro's all love to hate. Why?....because it comes with this sort of implied promise that it will, in the hands of a complete idiot, turn out a pro quality master. Now, we all know that a single piece of rack gear can't replace a properly designed room, a great monitoring system, a rack of truely high end mastering gear, top notch software, and a real mastering engineer. My question is, prejudice aside, how does this unit really sound, both in the right hands (and ears), and even in the wrong hands by way of it's wizard function. I'm not asking because I'm thinking of getting one...I'm not. I'm just curious because I had the opportunity to play around with one over the weekend, and I was pretty impressed. Even the (oh God, here it comes) wizard function was supprisingly effective at making good mixes sound better.
So, flame away, all you pro's who feel the same as a republican after reading what a good president Clinton really was. I know the concept stinks, but getting past that, what do you actually think about the sound of the Finalizer 96k?
Regards, RD
 
We used to have one at the studio. We tried unsuccessfully to use it to master something. The eq's were very boring, and the limiting just didnt' even approach what the L1 could do, much less what the L2 or the Waves MB could do!

The A/D converters were pretty good. As a "front end" for a DAW, and it's ADAT interface were about the only two things that made us "fret" over selling it or not. Other than that, the DSP was just not all that hot, and just didn't provide what we could do with plugin's.

Not a horrible box, but not good enough for the price either. For less money, or about the same money, you could get a Lynx One audio card (the converters are every bit as good!), Wavelab, and the Waves Master Bundle and a decent used computer and do a far more effective job in mastering.

Ed
 
I got one, for the MS matrix tools that it has. As far as mastering with it: If you like the sound of volume wars blasted crap, where the choruses are QUIETER than the verses and the snare and kick dissapear EXACTLY when they are supposed to get louder, than I guess its a pretty nice piece of gear
 
It always takes me a day or two to evaluate anything, as I have to record it, and then listen to it later. So, listening back now to the mixes I ran through the finalizer, and comparing them with my results using plugins, I'd say I got mixed results (as opposed to mastered results :) )
I didn't hear any of the compression problems mentioned above, and thought it did a very good job in that department. The difference may be that I wasn't asking it to compress stuff to death. The bass was tight, the kick and snare didn't get wacked, and the mixes got a nice boost in percieved volume and punchyness. Nothing that I couldn't do with plugins though, for a lot less money, very much agreed.
I did find that the highs were a bit stridant and bordering on harsh. Having now been forever spoiled with the Sony Oxford EQ, the eq in the finalizer falls well short.
Anyway, of the 4 mixes that I ran through it, 1 mix really came alive with the finalizer, 2 were pretty much a toss up, and one sucked. From this, I think I can conclude that, just as with plugins, the finalizer is gonna be the right tool sometimes, and the wrong tool other times. That fits perfectly with my experience in all things audio, but at the price that the Finalizer goes for, it's a damn expensive "works some of the time" piece of gear.
Cheers, RD
 
A justified, insightful, and well stated assessment of it! :D

Ed
 
Makes Sense,, although I have never used the unit before.

So which pieces of hardware are the Pro MEs using?

Im starting to get the impression that if you compare hardware to plugins,, that the hardware better be some really expensive sh@t that only the pros or someone with $ can afford to really hear a significant difference in regards to processing.

Im rambling now ...

I mean I wouldnt trade my DAW for a regular 24 channel H/D recorder,, but I sure as hell would for a Studer or 24 channel 2" analog recorder and Im strickly digital.

Nor would I trade my effects plugins for a Quadraverb or something like that,, but I sure as hell would for a high end Lexicon.

Would you trade a Great Rivers mic pre for some new micpre plugin that just came out. No,, but i would probably trade a cheap Art mic pre for the plugin.

I think when you compare plugins to hardware most of the people in this NG would be better off going the plugin route unless you got long $$$. For processing that is.

Apples and Oranges maybe?
Dont know,, But I would love to test drive some of that High End hardware sh@t

Malcolm824
 
I was just having a conversation the other night with one of the most successful local mastering engineers about the current state of "production".

He hears it all, stand alone units, DAW's, digital mixers, low end analog, high end analog. His credits and ongoing client base include:

The Dandy Worhols
Darrell Grant
Fishbone
Gino Vanelli
Gus Van Sant
Jus' Family Records
Mel Brown
Sony
Subpop
Tom Grant

This is the short list :)

His take? The low end analog stuff is much easier to master to sound good than most of the digitally mixed stuff. He claims all the analog stuff has more "gerth", "seperation", and "ear appeal".

In reality man, you gotta spend a buttload on digital to get results that MIGHT possibly get misheard as analog.

Peace.

Ed
 
I agree, it doesn't even come close to what the L2 can do.
 
I have one too, it is a nice gear, but not as good as they advertise. In wrong hands it wont make a difference. The eq isn't that great. Limiting is good. A/D converters are good too. The main use of that is the soft limiting, which prevents any clips. It is not a great compressor though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top