This sounds like a monster!

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:23 pm

I think my head just exploded....

chrispick · Post by **chrispick** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:07 pm

kwiz wrote:Okay what about this. Lets say a company like, oh I don't know, maybe Universal Audio offers a hardware/software device that connects to your cpu via firewire or ethernet. This device will provide the same plugins as the UAD-1 as well as NEVE EQ & Comp. emulations.

SSL & Neve currently license out the rights for WAVES and UAD to emulate there hardware. Since convolution technology is here and seems to be growing, it would probably make sense for companies that make the hardware that we know and love to get in on the action.

Well, yeah, this stuff is on the way for sure. It's just too popular an idea to pass up.

re: Liquid stuff - The Liquid Channel gets mixed reviews in the trenches. A lot of people seem to agree the EQs are good-to-saometimes-great, but the comps seem to leave a lot of users wanting.

There's also the issue of having too many choices at hand. You have to know the nuances of a lot of convolutions before you can effectively record -- otherwise, you have singers and instrumentalists standing around while you flip through and test out countless EQ-comp permutations.

To add, more choices don't necessarily translate to better choices. To paraphrase what another producer said on another BB, "What do you want? Jerry Seinfeld doing stand up at your birthday party? Or Rich Little doing impersonations of 50 different comedians?"

Now, I think the Liquid Channel is pretty cool, what little I've played with it. But, the more I get into recording and mixing, the more I'm starting to believe that having one great one-trick-pony is better than having more than one passable fifty-trick-ponies. YMMV.

I may be the odd-man-out on this one. A lot of people I know love restaurants where there are a thousand items to choose from. I like places that make one thing great. I'll lose that race.

There's another thread on this BB where people are pushing to cram more functionality into the Sequence Editor. I think it's more than packed enough now. And, odd-man-out, I think.

I know that, in my project studio case, I have a solid clean pre-and-comp, a solid coloration-pre and-comp and the Tritone ColorTone plugin and I'm not for want. That's two channels strips and a plugin.

Not trying to dissuade anyone, BTW. Just offering food for thought.

kwiz · Post by **kwiz** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:58 am

Chrispik,

You make a great point, but I believe convolution technology will only get better.
I remember what the converters sounded like on the Mitsubishi X880,
(the first and maybe only 32 track digital machine) they sucked.

Sony introduced there digital multitrack which sounded much better etc...

As far as choice goes, to each his own. I like you am a believer of using one great pre-amp/comp that can achieve the sound that I desire, but I also like to have options. In the 90's I mixed in a few major studio's in NYC, but I always gravitated to the rooms that not only sounded great, but had the most outboard gear options.
Not because I'm a gear slut......okay maybe I am a lil bit,

but mainly because when time permitted, I would experiment with getting certain sounds by chaining gear together etc. Gear that I normally wouldn't have the luxury of owning because of the cost.

Many of us are guilty of having hundreds of plugins that we just don't use. Why? Because we believe that one day we'll use them for something.

Engineers/Producers that are spending studio time flipping through pre-sets while talent is waiting is just plain foolish IMHO, especially if the clock is ticking and a budget is on the line but I agree with you, it does happen.

Sometimes I wish that hardware/software developers would just slow down a bit and let the rest of the world catch up to the technology and have a chance to gel with it for more than 6 months before the next big thing.

grimepoch · Post by **grimepoch** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:17 am

I'd like to add that I think it has a lot to do with what you are doing with regards to the music. If you are mastering or doing final mixing type operations, I think you are completely right. I'd rather have only a handful of things I know work, and work well.

Where I get into trouble is when I am experimenting, then I want as much gear/plugins I can. I do a lot of electronic oriented music, so for me, sometimes the horrible nuances of some gear can really make a sound shine.

The best way I can explain where my worlds collide. My UAD is AMAZING for vocals, live guitar, and realistic drums. The UAD is not so good for computer (808) sounding drums, and very rough edgy sounds at the sound level. So I have a lot of duplicated functionality and have to really think about both options when I am putting stuff together.

I went with the vocal master pro instead of the liquid channel because given my level of expertise (much lower on the scale) the last thing I needed was 50 thousand options! I just know I work better if I make my box of crayons a little smaller. I mean, who needs 430324 shades of black....

wait, I do!

Splinter · Post by **Splinter** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:39 am

Adding to the discussion, I don't think having an additional plug/processor opens too many options because in all reality most people don't use one processor for 25 things... at least I don't. I find the one or 2 uses for the processor I like and then it becomes a go to for that purpose - hardware and plugs alike. These processors are like colors on an artists pallette - they each bring a unique flavor and depth. I don't disagree that if money were limited you'd be better off with 1 really nice device, but with the advent of convolution technology the cost of sounding like you have 10 really nice devices is greatly reduced, but still doesn't change the reality that I only like certain devices for certain uses.

So, concerning the Liquid Mix, I suspect I would find 2 or 3 comps and a couple EQs I liked and that would be most of what I would use it for.

The fun part however about these toys is when you do have time to "play" you often find some new and creative uses you didn't know were there.

chrispick · Post by **chrispick** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:19 am

Yeah, like I said, I'm not trying to dissuade anyone really. Just trying to throw in some perspective - get some discussion going.

I'm curious about the Liquid Mix too (especially how its going to integreate with auto delay compensation). But I think it's sensible to at least raise an eyebrow at a piece of gear that promises so much at so low a price. I mean, it's quite a price drop from their Liquid Channel.

I agree convolution technology is coming around fast. It works fabulously in Altiverb already. It works less impressively in ColorTone (although still pretty great), but I've yet to find a use for even half the convos presented.

And I dig what everyone is saying about experimentation. I'm into that too. Check out my website (below) for some samples, if you care.

monkeysan · Post by **monkeysan** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:13 pm

um....

http://www.kvraudio.com/news/5078.html

=D

kwiz · Post by **kwiz** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:34 pm

Frodo, ya see this!!!
The game has officially changed.
Nice catch monkeysan

panda · Post by **panda** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:40 pm

though basicly no one has heard this thing. so it really impossible to form any real opinion. i like the idea, and here is why.
first, if you want that 1176 sound. get a freakin 1176.
i for one. can't afford 12 x 1176's.. or 6 x La2a;s.. etc.
sure i sum outside the box, but pretty minimal mixing happens.
i still do a lot inside the box. so this would fit into my work eviroment.
it would give some control from my desktop verse mouse. cool.
i could take it someplace else, and have the effects. i don't care if it perfectly emulates something. [see above] but if it sound good. and can put personality on it. great!

and this "to many option" thing is a crap argument. there are thousands of pre's and compressors. yet, if you know what your doing, you know what you want.. "oh, this needs an opto style comprssion." or "vari-mu here".. etc. you could sit there and flip through settings. but who does that? hell, i dont do that with my hardware. i know what i want, and i just do that.

everyone use to think physical model synth, the softsynth were horrible. now everyone has a nord in their rack, and tons of softsynths.. so, if it works. great. it will so be on my desk.

and the reason its so much cheaper then the liquid channel. 1. the r & d was already done.. and there is no analog signal in the unit, like the liquid channel. no A/D, no opamps, connectors, etc.. is a microchip, firewire, and cheap plastic box.. no power supply! this makes things cheap..

bottom line to me. it looks like a usefull thing. i don't expect it to be a neve, or manley.. i mean, if its ••••, screw it. but everything "bad" i read about the liquid channel. was that when side by side with the original, it wasn't as good.. no sh!t? who would have know.

panda

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:55 pm

http://www.mi7.co.jp/pro/duende/

http://www.proaudio.de/news/beitraege/2006_03-29.html

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:29 pm

kwiz wrote:Frodo, ya see this!!!
The game has officially changed.
Nice catch monkeysan

Hey kwiz-- from one gear slut to another!! Eh??

I take some of the arguements with open ears. But the "too many options" argument becomes an issue of wisdom. You never experiment in the presence of a client unless your client asks you to do so. I always allow considerable time measured in weeks before employing new toys. Someone wisely pointed out the the UAD-1 was good for some things but not for others. How was that discovery made except by exploring options? The same exploration for a usable solution will require that additional options be available.

These software choices and new helper boxes are being taken *sort of* the wrong way by some, imho. It's a little disengenuous (pardon the expression) to draw too many comparisons to their hardware equivalents and then determine that they suck. Instead, compare something like the UAD-1 to what MOTU offers natively and then make a fair judgement. Buying an SSL and a stack of 1176's is simply out of the question for most of us. But comparing a UAD-1 to Waves Renaissance, for example, is a fairer approach that remains grounded in personal (and hopefully good) taste.

For recording real instruments and vocals, I'm a firm believer that certain hardware cannot be replaced-- not yet, but beyond the comfort zone of using 2-3 devices for the sake of simplicty, any engineer (with musical sensitivities) worth his salt will want to expand his engineering vocabulary to master the art of different types and similar variants of processing-- both hardware and software.

This is particularly true of mixing and processing samples and synths. It's awkward to try to reconcile a rather purist approach to engineering on a computer when instruments are going virtual. A true purist will always vote for real musicians for a start. But for those of us who work in a largely virtual world, the tidings of UAD/Neve, Liquid Mix, and now Duende/SSL come as nothing less than good news. Teething periods and growing pains, notwithstanding.

What are the options? Use DP's plugins or none at all? No, these helper boxes are not to be considered an excuse for getting identical results by replacing hardware. I look at it as the potential to have better quality plugins than have been or might be already available which now have the blessing of names we've grown to trust. Keeping thoughts in the positive, I am delighted to know that these companies are at least addressing the issue of taking the load off our overtax'd CPU's with something of potentially greater integrity than any obscure turnkey starter kit.

As long as we're all dealing with virtual reality here on this forum, I just hope to better understand the "reality" of making music in virtual musical world. As always, the key is to try before you buy wherever possible-- and do your experimenation before employing new gear into your sessions.

Just my 2•

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:36 pm

Tim wrote:http://www.mi7.co.jp/pro/duende/

http://www.proaudio.de/news/beitraege/2006_03-29.html

1.600 Euro?

It had BETTER be the bee's knees!!

kwiz · Post by **kwiz** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:55 pm

Frodo wrote:
kwiz wrote:Frodo, ya see this!!!
The game has officially changed.
Nice catch monkeysan
Hey kwiz-- from one gear slut to another!! Eh??

I take some of the arguements with open ears. But the "too many options" argument becomes an issue of wisdom. You never experiment in the presence of a client unless your client asks you to do so. I always allow considerable time measured in weeks before employing new toys. Someone wisely pointed out the the UAD-1 was good for some things but not for others. How was that discovery made except by exploring options? The same exploration for a usable solution will require that additional options be available.

These software choices and new helper boxes are being taken *sort of* the wrong way by some, imho. It's a little disengenuous (pardon the expression) to draw too many comparisons to their hardware equivalents and then determine that they suck. Instead, compare something like the UAD-1 to what MOTU offers natively and then make a fair judgement. Buying an SSL and a stack of 1176's is simply out of the question for most of us. But comparing a UAD-1 to Waves Renaissance, for example, is a fairer approach that remains grounded in personal (and hopefully good) taste.

For recording real instruments and vocals, I'm a firm believer that certain hardware cannot be replaced-- not yet, but beyond the comfort zone of using 2-3 devices for the sake of simplicty, any engineer (with musical sensitivities) worth his salt will want to expand his engineering vocabulary to master the art of different types and similar variants of processing-- both hardware and software.

This is particularly true of mixing and processing samples and synths. It's awkward to try to reconcile a rather purist approach to engineering on a computer when instruments are going virtual. A true purist will always vote for real musicians for a start. But for those of us who work in a largely virtual world, the tidings of UAD/Neve, Liquid Mix, and now Duende/SSL come as nothing less than good news.

What are the options? Use DP's plugins or none at all? No, these helper boxes are not to be considered an excuse for getting identical results by replacing hardware. I look at it as the potential to have better quality plugins than have been or might be already available which now have the blessing of names we've grown to trust. Keeping thoughts in the positive, I am delighted to know that these companies are at least addressing the issue of taking the load off our overtax'd CPU's with something of potentially greater integrity than any obscure turnkey starter kit.

As long as we're all dealing with virtual reality here on this forum, I just hope to better understand the "reality" of making music in virtual musical world. As always, the key is to try before you buy wherever possible-- and do your experimenation before employing new gear into your sessions.

Just my 2•

Ehh?
I was just pointing out what we talked about earlier in this thread.
As far as the next paragraph goes, I'm not sure if you were directing that at me but I couldn't agree more. Like I said in an earlier post I think it's foolish to experiment with settings if talent is just sitting around, and you're on a tight budget.

As far as tracking goes, hardware still and probably will always rule.

All in all, the news of these new products is exciting for some of us and will be debated by purists and non purists forever.

chrispick · Post by **chrispick** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:04 pm

kwiz wrote:All in all, the news of these new products is exciting for some of us and will be debated by purists and non purists forever.

I think it's all cool. And I definitely fall into the non-purist column. So long as good music is made.

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:07 pm

Hey kwiz--

You had questioned yourself in an early post about being a "gear slut". I'm just identifying with you.

As for the rant, it was not directed at you or to anyone in particular here on this forum-- but more to the general issue that keeps cropping up all over the place of software not being as good as equivalent hardware-- when getting the hardware is out of the question.

I couldn't be happier that these companies are making these announcements-- and am rather fatigued with Apple's "relatively limited" options for quality plugs -- at least up to so recently. As far as I'm concerned, the glass is "half full" and not "half empty".