Is it just ridiculous to add a "console" like "satson" AND a tape emu like "satin?"
I don't really usually even think about using too much of this stuff together. I'd rather have it a bit plain/jane than overdo it.
Too much?
-
- KVRAF
- 1706 posts since 1 Mar, 2010 from Paris
If it sounds good, then it's good.
Free banks for soft synths | ghostwave.fr | soundcloud.com/ghostwaveaudio
-
- KVRAF
- 5564 posts since 13 Jan, 2005 from the bottom of my heart
no it's not ridiculous. they used to do it this way in real studio: they record trough the analog consoles to tape. if you want: ITB first insert is the console plugin (i prefer on buss) and last insert tape plugin (master/buss).
Whoever wants music instead of noise, joy instead of pleasure, soul instead of gold, creative work instead of business, passion instead of foolery, finds no home in this trivial world of ours.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 42529 posts since 21 Dec, 2005
That's kinda what I thought but it gets taxing to keep track of all those plugs. It would be nice if S1 or Live had a way to D/D one plug onto multiple tracks*
*yes, I know reaper does this, I remember it well, no I'm sticking with the hosts I have
*yes, I know reaper does this, I remember it well, no I'm sticking with the hosts I have
-
- KVRAF
- 5564 posts since 13 Jan, 2005 from the bottom of my heart
as said i prefer on the busses (and additional the 2bus maybe) we talking about 4-5 subs most of the time (and the 2bus) so not that much to get lost.. ..but i think there are many ways to handle this for sure: ask two and you get three opinions so to say.
Whoever wants music instead of noise, joy instead of pleasure, soul instead of gold, creative work instead of business, passion instead of foolery, finds no home in this trivial world of ours.
-
- KVRAF
- 5564 posts since 13 Jan, 2005 from the bottom of my heart
you can do that. i prefer only trim and metering on single channels but thats not a must of course.hibidy wrote:Seems to me that idealy, you'd want satson on all the channels for gain staging/filters, the buss on the busses (well, duh) and then satin on the busses.
Whoever wants music instead of noise, joy instead of pleasure, soul instead of gold, creative work instead of business, passion instead of foolery, finds no home in this trivial world of ours.
-
- KVRAF
- 5223 posts since 20 Jul, 2010
All the music magazines, keybore communities and muso joints have a lot of great advice like "don't overdo effects/processing". While in many cases they can be true, often they're just a fast track to mediocrity.
Trust your ears and burn your own path. :rocknroll:
Trust your ears and burn your own path. :rocknroll:
http://sendy.bandcamp.com/releases < My new album at Bandcamp! Now pay what you like!
-
- KVRAF
- 5223 posts since 20 Jul, 2010
hibidy wrote:on the busses.
http://sendy.bandcamp.com/releases < My new album at Bandcamp! Now pay what you like!
-
- KVRAF
- 6419 posts since 22 Jan, 2005 from Sweden
Tube saturation=mainly even harmonics
Tape saturation=still more even harmonics but some odd as well
Then you never know how accurate these algorithms are for these. They might create harsch partials that are not audible in first generation plugin. But when starting to cascade these you never know what is the case.
So just putting this stuff in there, on every track, on every bus - you probably end up with blurred audio sounding worse - depending on the plugin-algorithm in there.
Getting really good algorithms is worth big money. Softtube is one company built entierly on such patented algorithms - so it's not just something you put together at home while watching tv.
So I guess let ears decide whether something more is really needed.
Often less is more as they say.
Tape saturation=still more even harmonics but some odd as well
Then you never know how accurate these algorithms are for these. They might create harsch partials that are not audible in first generation plugin. But when starting to cascade these you never know what is the case.
So just putting this stuff in there, on every track, on every bus - you probably end up with blurred audio sounding worse - depending on the plugin-algorithm in there.
Getting really good algorithms is worth big money. Softtube is one company built entierly on such patented algorithms - so it's not just something you put together at home while watching tv.
So I guess let ears decide whether something more is really needed.
Often less is more as they say.
-
- KVRAF
- 14658 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
It can be too much if overused.hibidy wrote:Is it just ridiculous to add a "console" like "satson" AND a tape emu like "satin?"
You can try it yourself:
Create a 4 track (1 stereo tracks are suitable) mix.
Let's assume that your four tracks are currently recorded, so create this plugin chain:
Console -> Tape.
Now you recorded your tracks on to tape (even if it's digital tape - but we're doing a test here).
The next step would be mixing.
Since you already "printed" on to tape, your host doesn't need another tape simulation for playback. But your host is still the "mixing console". So in order to recreate the old "tape -> console -> mix -> back to tape" chain, it's go like this:
Signal -> Channel Strip -> properly gain staged -> ran into console plugins -> mix -> summing bus.
The summing bus would then have another instance of the console (mix bus), then a tape machine for final mix down.
But wait, we're not done yet. What about mastering? Oh yeah, you're right! From tape, then ran through EQ and compressor modules, then back to tape.
So let's try that:
Stereo Stream (from tape) -> Channel Strip -> Console or Rack Preamp -> EQ/Comp/Limiter -> Console Mixbus -> Tape.
Now, let's assume we didn't use a mastering chain, but let's see how often we ran through the console and through the tape.
Original Signal (clean signal) -> Console -> Tape (Recording - then playback) -> Console -> Tape (Mixdown - then playback) -> Console -> Tape (Master recording).
Not counting the reproduction "digitalisation".
So you used 3x the console, and three times the tape machine. Maybe even driven a bit harder (even by just 1dB) than you should, because you wanted a specific sound.
But wait... did you compensate the loss of frequencies while mixing?
Well, I think you didn't. So why does the track sound all muddy of a sudden?
Now ask your question if it's "too much" again?
-
- KVRAF
- 14658 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
Simpyfied, the more you ran your signal through a saturation device (console plugin, tape plugin, etc) without paying attention to quality loss (high frequency loss, added psychoacoustical lowend, added frequency response fingerprint from the modules), chances are that your signal is total garbage POST mixing.
I like to use Slate VCC with the NEVE console as preamp. But I also like to use the Nomad Factory British EQ (another NEVE) as sound shaper. Both come with a harmonic fingerprint. Now having two saturators in row doesn't make sense in this case, since i see the channel strip as "one" unit rather than serveral with their own preamps and what not. So I turn off all other influencing saturation - else it's too much in my opinion. And I actually prefer the control over such modes, rather than being forced to use them.
You can do a similar test with Sleepy Time Records "Crosstalk" v2.
Put several of them in series, all of them with the same high value (i.e. the tweaking knob turned up 3/4th of the possible range). The more you add, the more your sound will degrade. And that is clearly noticable.
Now imagine what would happen if you use console and tape plugins (or other "analog emulations" for that matter, along with it's non-linearities, crosstalk, etc) over and over and over again without taking note of what's happening. Just because you "like the sound". But in the end, you make things worse rather than actually adding usable content.
Up until this day, digital tools and environments are hated because of their barely existing "imperfections".
Since this whole emulation madness broke loose a couple of years ago (and by that, I still mean since the day the first digital tools were available), people are after the sound from "yesteryear" again. In hope that this is adding the much desired "fairy dust". But high maintenanced, optimized and nowadays regular digital equipment spawned for a reason... it fixes the flaws from old recording gear: crosstalk, noise floor, channel bleeding, non linearities, etc.
You can clearly overdo it.
Unless you're fully aware of what you're doing and you're actually after this particular sound. Then the old rule applies: "what feels right, is right".
Though you can definitely say that this is a way more detailed "less is more" explanation.
As always - several sides to a medal.
I like to use Slate VCC with the NEVE console as preamp. But I also like to use the Nomad Factory British EQ (another NEVE) as sound shaper. Both come with a harmonic fingerprint. Now having two saturators in row doesn't make sense in this case, since i see the channel strip as "one" unit rather than serveral with their own preamps and what not. So I turn off all other influencing saturation - else it's too much in my opinion. And I actually prefer the control over such modes, rather than being forced to use them.
You can do a similar test with Sleepy Time Records "Crosstalk" v2.
Put several of them in series, all of them with the same high value (i.e. the tweaking knob turned up 3/4th of the possible range). The more you add, the more your sound will degrade. And that is clearly noticable.
Now imagine what would happen if you use console and tape plugins (or other "analog emulations" for that matter, along with it's non-linearities, crosstalk, etc) over and over and over again without taking note of what's happening. Just because you "like the sound". But in the end, you make things worse rather than actually adding usable content.
Up until this day, digital tools and environments are hated because of their barely existing "imperfections".
Since this whole emulation madness broke loose a couple of years ago (and by that, I still mean since the day the first digital tools were available), people are after the sound from "yesteryear" again. In hope that this is adding the much desired "fairy dust". But high maintenanced, optimized and nowadays regular digital equipment spawned for a reason... it fixes the flaws from old recording gear: crosstalk, noise floor, channel bleeding, non linearities, etc.
You can clearly overdo it.
Unless you're fully aware of what you're doing and you're actually after this particular sound. Then the old rule applies: "what feels right, is right".
Though you can definitely say that this is a way more detailed "less is more" explanation.
As always - several sides to a medal.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 42529 posts since 21 Dec, 2005
So the main reason I made this is that I feared that using all this gobbly gook too much was a bad idea, I've come to the conclusion that I should stick with the less is more concept!
Thanks to all.
Thanks to all.
-
- KVRAF
- 14658 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
It is ultimately your call.
If you know how to properly compensate (EQ wise for example), or if you don't overdo it on purpose, you can use as many saturation tools you like. The same applies to emulations.
If you juggle with "vintage gear", you have to know it's sideeffects, and know your ways around it. "Less is more" might be the better technical approach, but is it the approach you desire for your sound?
If you know how to properly compensate (EQ wise for example), or if you don't overdo it on purpose, you can use as many saturation tools you like. The same applies to emulations.
If you juggle with "vintage gear", you have to know it's sideeffects, and know your ways around it. "Less is more" might be the better technical approach, but is it the approach you desire for your sound?
