What is KVR Audio? | Submit News | Advertise | Developer Account

Options (Affects News & Product results only):

OS:
Format:
Include:
Quick Search KVR

"Quick Search" KVR Audio's Product Database, News Items, Developer Listings, Forum Topics and videos here. For advanced Product Database searching please use the full product search. For the forum you can use the phpBB forum search.

To utilize the power of Google you can use the integrated Google Site Search.

Products 0

Developers 0

News 0

Forum 0

Videos 0

Search  

Redline Preamp

VST, AU, etc. plug-in Virtual Effects discussion

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

KVRist
 
131 posts since 9 Feb, 2007

Postby DanielKonopka; Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:37 am

Perhaps I'm oversensitive. These days people
(not only on the net) use quite foul wording so often
that you don't know when it's really meant to offend,
and when it's not.

Adding also the fact, that I have respect for you, bmanic.

I'm glad you had some laugh. ;-)

Peace guys!
"How are we supposed to judge what each converter sounds like without know which is which? I don't want to be unfairly influenced by blind listening."
- Gearhero @ GS
KVRian
 
676 posts since 6 Mar, 2004

Postby Liero; Wed Jan 27, 2010 11:06 am

bmanic what's your verdict on redline preamp? I tried and was disappointed by the sound, although it's hard to describe. It was just unpleasant, varisaturator worked better for me.
User avatar
KVRAF
 
7197 posts since 3 Feb, 2003, from Finland, Espoo

Postby bmanic; Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:41 pm

I have yet to try it. Need more free time to evaluate such delicate plugins and currently I have no full mixes to do and I'm really not in the mood to open old mixes as I'm totally fed up with them. :)

I use Voxengo Varisaturator a lot though, especially on various synth elements like leads, pads and basses to get that nice little "shimmer" going on. I especially like to combine it with Bootsie's Tessla Pro. Instant "realness" to static sounds.

Cheers!
bManic
"Remember the iLokalypse June 10 - June 22 2013 - Dominus"
User avatar
KVRAF
 
7197 posts since 3 Feb, 2003, from Finland, Espoo

Postby bmanic; Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:46 pm

DanielKonopka wrote:Perhaps I'm oversensitive. These days people
(not only on the net) use quite foul wording so often
that you don't know when it's really meant to offend,
and when it's not.

Adding also the fact, that I have respect for you, bmanic.

I'm glad you had some laugh. ;-)

Peace guys!


I agree with you. I should actually had added another smiley, this one :P . I found it funny because I too can be very pedantic when it comes to values and sometimes go to ridiculous lengths to "even out" numbers.. even though it makes no audible difference. So I was kind of laughing at myself there. :D

Cheers!
bManic
"Remember the iLokalypse June 10 - June 22 2013 - Dominus"
KVRAF
 
11955 posts since 22 Nov, 2004, from west of east

Postby eduardo_b; Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:53 pm

bmanic wrote:I especially like to combine it with Bootsie's Tessla Pro. Instant "realness" to static sounds.
I'm going to venture that static does not refer to stationary.

:)
We escape the trap of our own subjectivity by
perceiving neither black nor white but shades of grey
User avatar
KVRAF
 
7197 posts since 3 Feb, 2003, from Finland, Espoo

Postby bmanic; Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:08 pm

eduardo_b wrote:
bmanic wrote:I especially like to combine it with Bootsie's Tessla Pro. Instant "realness" to static sounds.
I'm going to venture that static does not refer to stationary.

:)


No. My choice of word is probably not good. What I mean with static is perhaps "too clean". A sound that is a bit sterile and lacks some excitement. For instance a simple Lately Bass kind of sound can get greatly spiced up and become a bit more "within the mix" by running it through some gentle harmonic saturation and Tessla Pro. As I don't know at all what Tessla Pro does I can only speculate but somehow it helps sounds to become more "real" for me. They sound closer to what I would expect things to sound that have gone through a complex chain of analogue hardware (preamp -> eq -> something -> something). Sometimes this is not desirable at all and in most cases it is a matter of really subtle details. In the end it is just something that adds to the overall feel of the mix.

.. or I'm just imagining things. :D

Cheers!
bManic
"Remember the iLokalypse June 10 - June 22 2013 - Dominus"
KVRAF
 
11955 posts since 22 Nov, 2004, from west of east

Postby eduardo_b; Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:26 pm

bmanic wrote:
eduardo_b wrote:
bmanic wrote:I especially like to combine it with Bootsie's Tessla Pro. Instant "realness" to static sounds.
I'm going to venture that static does not refer to stationary.

:)


No. My choice of word is probably not good. What I mean with static is perhaps "too clean". A sound that is a bit sterile and lacks some excitement. For instance a simple Lately Bass kind of sound can get greatly spiced up and become a bit more "within the mix" by running it through some gentle harmonic saturation and Tessla Pro. As I don't know at all what Tessla Pro does I can only speculate but somehow it helps sounds to become more "real" for me. They sound closer to what I would expect things to sound that have gone through a complex chain of analogue hardware (preamp -> eq -> something -> something). Sometimes this is not desirable at all and in most cases it is a matter of really subtle details. In the end it is just something that adds to the overall feel of the mix.

.. or I'm just imagining things. :D

Cheers!
bManic
No, of course not, you are definitely not imagining any of this. But you are also very much the exception in terms of attention to detail and awareness of it. That's what I appreciate most about your posts. You bring an insight that is truly interesting and credible -- at least to me.

Do you think there's a difference between seeking "analogue" sound and simply using a few tools that bring enough change to music to result in what you refer to as "real" sound?
We escape the trap of our own subjectivity by
perceiving neither black nor white but shades of grey
User avatar
KVRAF
 
7197 posts since 3 Feb, 2003, from Finland, Espoo

Postby bmanic; Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:06 pm

eduardo_b wrote:Do you think there's a difference between seeking "analogue" sound and simply using a few tools that bring enough change to music to result in what you refer to as "real" sound?


Good question. I don't know. I've been wondering about that myself for quite some time. From a sound designers perspective, sounds that have some "movement", no matter how subtle, are always more interesting and useful than straight up static ones. Simply adding random noise (white, pink, brown.. doesn't matter) can make a very simple saw-lead sound more "real" compared to the saw without any "chaos" in the background.

I think it has something to do with our brain that we like chaotic things.. perhaps it is because we are so used to chaos in our daily lives. Entering an anechoic chamber is a pretty strange feeling thing and a good reminder of the opposite. Complete silence. I wholeheartedly recommend everybody to do this at least once in their lifetime! Make sure you stay more than 20 minutes in it as well.. you'll start experiencing some truly weird stuff, like hearing "mosquitoes" inside your head (it's the blood flowing in your brain that you hear. No I'm not kidding!).

Perhaps there is also something with saturation/noise that truly does help to "gel" mixes. I do find it easier to mix synth based things when using plugins like Nebula, Varisaturator, Warmifier, Tessla Pro etc. and I don't think it is just a subjective opinion thing. I really do feel like something is helping all the unnatural parts (completely digital sources) to gel better, creating a more cohesive end result.

I just wish there was more time in each day so that I could properly study all this and measure things. Surely all could be explained if just properly investigated. I don't believe in Voodoo at all. There's no such thing as "magic". :D

Cheers!
bManic
"Remember the iLokalypse June 10 - June 22 2013 - Dominus"
KVRAF
 
1692 posts since 9 Jul, 2006, from Paris, France

Postby K-Slash; Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:29 pm

DanielKonopka wrote:Perhaps I'm oversensitive. These days people
(not only on the net) use quite foul wording so often
that you don't know when it's really meant to offend,
and when it's not.

Adding also the fact, that I have respect for you, bmanic.

I'm glad you had some laugh. ;-)

Peace guys!

Hey hey, relax, was just kidding with you.

That was just the example you gave that pointed me to this sarcastic direction :D.
KVRAF
 
1945 posts since 23 Jun, 2006
 

Postby Zaphod (giancarlo); Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:20 am

bmanic wrote:
eduardo_b wrote:Do you think there's a difference between seeking "analogue" sound and simply using a few tools that bring enough change to music to result in what you refer to as "real" sound?


Good question. I don't know. I've been wondering about that myself for quite some time. From a sound designers perspective, sounds that have some "movement", no matter how subtle, are always more interesting and useful than straight up static ones. Simply adding random noise (white, pink, brown.. doesn't matter) can make a very simple saw-lead sound more "real" compared to the saw without any "chaos" in the background.

I think it has something to do with our brain that we like chaotic things.. perhaps it is because we are so used to chaos in our daily lives. Entering an anechoic chamber is a pretty strange feeling thing and a good reminder of the opposite. Complete silence. I wholeheartedly recommend everybody to do this at least once in their lifetime! Make sure you stay more than 20 minutes in it as well.. you'll start experiencing some truly weird stuff, like hearing "mosquitoes" inside your head (it's the blood flowing in your brain that you hear. No I'm not kidding!).

Perhaps there is also something with saturation/noise that truly does help to "gel" mixes. I do find it easier to mix synth based things when using plugins like Nebula, Varisaturator, Warmifier, Tessla Pro etc. and I don't think it is just a subjective opinion thing. I really do feel like something is helping all the unnatural parts (completely digital sources) to gel better, creating a more cohesive end result.

I just wish there was more time in each day so that I could properly study all this and measure things. Surely all could be explained if just properly investigated. I don't believe in Voodoo at all. There's no such thing as "magic". :D

Cheers!
bManic


great post. Niklas says always what I think :) and using a better english :hihi:
The explanation of movement is very important. I think digital added something, if you need to produce a "digital" song (something done with cut/paste tool, with sudden silence, thant again music and so on) or a song with an incredible S/N ratio you can't beat it. But you loose something, and this gap was filled by digital tools lately. Digital is less "digital" and is introducing disturbing variables, so music seems more played by humans and not by machines. These variables could be
1) shuffles and quantization tricks
2) noise (I mean sampled noise)
3) dynamic harmonic distortion
4) dynamic behaviour controlled by random variables (or simply by many variables, so it's less deterministic)
5) performance mistakes not completely fixed
6) oversampling and other tricks like fir filters, so frequencies around nyquist point are less predictable


please note they are all "introduced errors", or "controlled errors". We are humans, guys, not machines. The "error" is our most important building block.


and more important

7) good mixing. Well, this is the most important tip. I mean mixing giving a sense of spaceness, achieved using panner, eq and compressor tools. So each element has its own space (sometimes it's achieved by using m/s techniques, or mono reverbs). I found mixing on hardware is much simpler, because complex interactions of phase, frequencies and harmonics help a lot, so each element is less static and you hear it better even in crowded mixes. Your ear is very good for detecting "movement". For example: dogs. They see very well if the target is moving.
KVRist
 
77 posts since 3 Sep, 2007

Postby Glich; Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:55 am

Liero wrote:bmanic what's your verdict on redline preamp? I tried and was disappointed by the sound, although it's hard to describe. It was just unpleasant, varisaturator worked better for me.


i found a bug in the program that made an unpleasant harsh sound, maybe you stumbled on the same bug. they're fixing it right now
KVRist
 
98 posts since 31 Aug, 2005

Postby johnrrrrrr; Sat Jan 30, 2010 10:36 am

Tp3 wrote:
kobal wrote:
But veterans can not always "encapsulate" it in words... and can not express WHY they don't like digital.



At its crux...its they now realize they actually have to use their ears instead of relying the smoothing effect of the analog path. Many will blame digital but its actually them. I know this because Im one them(in respect to my former gear). Take a guy like Mike Shipley and others. The switch doesnt affect them because they are that good. They knew what analog did and can replicate that on digital.

At this point, only the engineers who weren't as good as they thought they were slam digital. They are a pathetic bunch. Now they get to hear exactly what it is they recorded--instead of listening to a completely different version as they did with analog.
KVRAF
 
11955 posts since 22 Nov, 2004, from west of east

Postby eduardo_b; Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:39 am

johnrrrrrr wrote:At this point, only the engineers who weren't as good as they thought they were slam digital.
Or weren't willing to make the switch because the virtual gear wasn't as good as it is now. Some engineers have noted that the quality of plugs now is very good compared to even a few years ago. Being in the box these days is about learning how to work with it.
We escape the trap of our own subjectivity by
perceiving neither black nor white but shades of grey
KVRist
 
119 posts since 5 Jul, 2004

Postby kobal; Sat Jan 30, 2010 5:19 pm

johnrrrrrr wrote:
Tp3 wrote:
kobal wrote:
But veterans can not always "encapsulate" it in words... and can not express WHY they don't like digital.



At its crux...its they now realize they actually have to use their ears instead of relying the smoothing effect of the analog path. Many will blame digital but its actually them. I know this because Im one them(in respect to my former gear). Take a guy like Mike Shipley and others. The switch doesnt affect them because they are that good. They knew what analog did and can replicate that on digital.

At this point, only the engineers who weren't as good as they thought they were slam digital. They are a pathetic bunch. Now they get to hear exactly what it is they recorded--instead of listening to a completely different version as they did with analog.



you quoted me but it was not coming from me anyway it s not about getting a good mix or not,it about the love of some gears ,have you used some analog gears?it s a lot the feeling when you tweak the sound,it can feel alive,also for me there is some nostalgia with the colour some gears give to the sound ,that part of the magic .
also what is good production for you don t mean it s good for me, it s subjective,i m tired to always trying to explain it s not about getting a well balanced mix, if u don t understand it s fine, some don t find magic in the analog sound,some do,as long as you enjoy working with your tools it s really what matter, but sonically hardware and analog often beat softwares thats a fact
KVRAF
 
11955 posts since 22 Nov, 2004, from west of east

Postby eduardo_b; Sat Jan 30, 2010 5:39 pm

kobal wrote:i m tired to always trying to explain it s not about getting a well balanced mix
You mean not balanced in frequency distribution, tonal quality, instrument separation? None of this matters? :?:
We escape the trap of our own subjectivity by
perceiving neither black nor white but shades of grey
PreviousNext

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

Return to Effects