I am not denying that it ain't "the future", I hope it evolves into a setup that is just simple to setup as simple as using a desk/console. I do not have an SSL or other big bad motherf**ker 64 channel monster, I have access to some AMEK jobs such as the Einstein and other pretty decent ones but I tend to avoid the on-board/built-in mic-amps for most duties. I agree lightsfadelow that all the rest aside getting a good front-end and good material in the first place is more important than anything else, Nothing less I wonder if we shall ever see vintage DAT/ADAT machine modelling you know with too much analogue majik and warmth becoming boring It would not surprise me one day to be honest

All the best to all as always, Cheers

Dean

Haha, me neither (on the DAT/ADAT part), then again... TB TimeMachine.

Nah seriously... there are several hosts now that incorporate "vintage type" filters/compressors or even a complete channels trip array. The thing that comes to mind first is the HARRISON MIXBUS. Unfortunately that thing is so buggy and a CPU eater it's not even funny. RECORD (SSL type channelstrips) would come next.

But even here, we have to stick to the -18dB reference level and -9dBFS to -6dBFS peak maximum on a per channel basis. Harrison's Mixbus uses a VU for that purpose already, other hosts need an additional VU.


I can only say it again: if these tools do anything right, then it's teaching us how to setup our recording and mixing environment properly.

I wish such tools were around (affordable!) like 5 years ago. I'd constantly argue with my engineering class teacher in terms of what an optimal record level is. He always thought a max digital peak of -6dB was too low and I should rather go to -2dBFS, yeah right - on APOGEE ADC/DAC's and ROLAND 20bit ADAT(!).

Then again, I got the "you mix too well-behaved (transparent)" award compared to my fellow classmates anyway.

The Waves analog switches add low-level "machine noise", so to speak, but do not saturate the signal. I believe this is correct across their product line, unless there have been a few exceptions I'm unaware of.

The old "analog"-button is just a noise on/off switch. It's maybe even not the ssl/api/whatever noise, but some generic "analog"-noise. Most people switched it off in the past. Or used it just on a few tracks...

Then I misunderstood the concept and my warning can be ignored on that behalf.

Still, if it includes "internal saturation", this is adding up and needs to either be compensated at some point, or "underused" (less input level per gain stage, less saturation).

At least IMO

I believe the HLS channel has true saturation rather than just noise, and I want to say the API Collection is also not just noise. Perhaps even the Puigtec. Oh, and the new H-EQ. That definitely has saturation options, and they are selectable on a global basis.

But my understanding is that the SSL series is just noise. Pretty sure that's true for the V-Series, as well.

I was going to look this up in the manual last night. Unfortunately, my demo has expired. I'll have to check to see if the "?" in the waveshell was referencing a pdf that was installed somewhere.

You can download any manual pdf from the Waves website.

Oh, okay. That's great. THANKS

Finally tried the demo. It's darn nice for subtle effect. That said, I also just recently tried Satson ($39!) a couple weeks ago. First impressions of both doing some comparisons: I will say Satson does sound different than all three of the Waves models but holds its own - no doubt. IMO, In some respects it is more polite or nuetral, one might go so far to say 'more even keeled' in the upper edges of harmonic distortion compared to the bold waves models which makes it just 'different' and simply another color all told. I've so far found that Satson is quite equal in that it also adds remarkably comparable subtle aural "depth" or "breadth" to each channel.

If you have Satson and are wondering if you are missing out on something "better" with the new, pricey Waves "namebrand" 3console plug-in, you can breathe easy. They both sound good, just a little different. Grass is always greener so I had to demo the Waves, but so so far i've concluded that both make audio sound a just little, tiny bit more 'rich'...basically, you barely notice it when you insert the console plug-in; but if you work with it enabled for awhile during a session then turn the plug-in off later - you miss it - somehow it does add that 'something, that certain I don't know what?".

My thoughts anyways.

Having used and owned Slate VCC since the free iLok 2 deal I can safely say that it is NOT snake oil like some people in this thread claim.

Using VCC saves me time when mixing. It gets me to a much BETTER sounding mix faster than before it was released. It's not magic but it's a tool that makes my job easier and as we all know time is money. The only times I don't mix with it is when I'm going for a completely clean signal like classical music or talk radio. It was worth every damn penny.

I presume your targeting me with that comment as I was the one mentioning snake oil.

If you read what i said you will see that regarding the 'summing' is snake oil. The saturation etc is what it is and does and it in no way replaces or changes the summing engine of your daw.

Slate claimed early on that it was 'digital summing' that was to blame and that VCC does it different. It doesn't, the claim is snake oil. They use the same 'digital summing' that was claimed by them to be 'wrong'.

I also praised Slate for the abilty to help getting good mixes by the nature of it requiring proper levels to make their plugin sound good, which isn't always easy with the headroom daws offer.

When will people stop and realize that both analog and digital summing do the same thing. They simply add tracks together. The only difference with analog is that the hardware also adds specific saturation. Its the saturation that is being emulated, not the "summing". Adding 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 sounds the same in both analog and digital. Analog just has the side effect of harmonic distortion / saturation while doing it.

And the phase is wobbling in analog hardware, and that's what gives stereo audio tracks a broader [unstable] soundstage. You can't hear that on mono tracks, of course. Anyway, analog is just not perfect in any aspect. Sometimes that's good, sometimes it's not.

Cheers!

On the last big project I did I wound up using a tiny amount of chorus or phaser set to ever-so-slightly pan back and forth through the stereo field and tucked under the main signal. I'm not sure whether that's exactly along the lines of what you're referring to, but I did find that the slight resulting imperfection was very pleasing and did seem to make the tracks broader as well as more 'alive." Well... at any rate, I did it and it sounded good to me.