Add some DSP horsepower! Watch out, TC & UAD, look at this!

[beej]

No, but I certainly had combinations of subgroups, four lead vocals, chant groups, harmony groups, whisper groups. Like a say, a bunch of stuff. It's not uncommon...

[nuffink]

I know it's not uncommon. It's the kind of thing that's practiced by people who publicly complain that music's overcompressed. You know, people with no sense of irony?

[nuffink]

And, as I said before, no f**king clue.

[beej]

Whatever, dude.

[NoBrain2k]

I've gotta say this looks VERY interesting, All you need is a few nice clean Preamps and your all set for a very high quality mixing setup dynamics and EQ wise. I mean.. wow, 32 channels (mono or not) of decent EQ and Compression emulating some of the best hardware availiable for £500, My wish list has just changed conciderably!

[Lunch Money]

Using a compressor doesn't always mean mashing the hell out of it. 32 channels of mashed-to-hell compression would suck. But 32 channels with light peak-taming can still be very dynamic. There's no reason to assume compression always = over-compression.

Greg

[AndrewSimon]

Convulsion? + Fire Wire? =
Latency? for real time monitoring?
Hate the price.
OK so it's like a UAD but only does a "channel strip" thing.
Sorry I am not impressed, I will stick to the UAD.

If any manufacturer wants to break the bank they should build a box that can run native plugs.

Yeah but 32channels of compressors and eq's is quite impressive to me. If and I mean "IF" it sounds good, it's a must buy. Since there isn't a AD/DA or preamp attached to it, I wonder how much focusrite tweak the formula, cause as far as I know the Liquid Channel wasn't all that it was advertised to be...

Yeah but... at almost $900 you can buy 2.5 UAD cards that can do quite a lot of EQ's and even LA-2A's
Also as somebody pointed it out: if the 32 channels are mono then.... well then UAD is ahead.
But for me is about the latency, I like to play live and monitor with FX's.
I run at extreamly low latencies (1.5ms)
Check it out and double it x2.5:
Here is a direct link:
http://www.uaudio.com/products/digital/ ... specs.html

[bmanic]

Well, as a Sintefex FX 8000 owner I'm devastated! I really do wonder how they can pull off 32 channels as this box does only 6 and has way over 30 SHARC DSP processors (not the budget ones either) inside it and gets quite hot. My guess is that they have shortened each impulses sample length to something like 256 or 512. The sintefex uses 2048 samples long impulses. However, this unit is exactly what I thought would pop up sooner or later and will force the original unit prices to drop like crazy. Anybody found more links about this thing?

Cheers!
bManic

Yeah they probably lopped the IR, but also, that sintefex is how old now? I'm sure DSP chip speed has ramped up a bit since it was released.

Also, they don't have to include any ad/da electronics, further knocking change off the backedn of the manufacturing cost.

But anyhow, I'm content with my current tools, my dollars go to promotion nowadays.

Well, according to some of the tests I ran with a for computer made dynamic convolution (this can unfortunately not be distributed due to patents) I could run one instance of 1024 samples long impulse response with 128 layers and it took 90% of my Athlon 3200+ CPU. The Sintefex FX8000 has 6 channels and runs 2048 long IR's. Now, the new toy is supposed to run 32 channels? Hmmm.. makes one wonder a bit.

True, DSP power has gone up since 1998 when the original unit was introduced but has it cost effectively really gone up that much? Could be, who knows.

Cheers!
bManic

[beej]

I expect the algorthym's in the Focusrite box are not Syntefex's high-end algorythms - companies don't usually license out their top end technology like that, as it can destroy their own userbase.

However, Focurite's Liquid Channel went down well, and this new thing is really aggressively priced. We'll have to wait until some user reports come in before making judgements...

[Since1980]

Yeah but... at almost $900 you can buy 2.5 UAD cards that can do quite a lot of EQ's and even LA-2A's
Also as somebody pointed it out: if the 32 channels are mono then.... well then UAD is ahead.
But for me is about the latency, I like to play live and monitor with FX's.
I run at extreamly low latencies (1.5ms)
Check it out and double it x2.5:

Yeah to make it worth while you would have to buy a flexi pak and a project pak to get the variety. Once you start using the 1176LN, Pultec, and Fairchild you would run out of power. So yeah, you can buy 2.5 Project Pak UAD's but all you would get is the Pultec eq. Cause everything else in that pak, you might as well stay native. Plus if you are on a Protools system it is RTAS...

So we just have to see what Uad comes out with. If their new cards are as powerful than IMO it's a real race. This thing will almost be the same price as the new Waves SSL bundle and is cheaper than URS EQ bundle price. So let's just say that the Liquid Mix is on-par with Uad-1, Waves SSL, and URS. Besides latency and the (maybe) mono/stereo issue, Liquid Mix is the winner.

Maybe latecy doesn't bother me as much, cause I have some hardware and native plugins for that, but I can cleary see how this is an issue.

But we have to first hear it, before making any judgements on it's value.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[nuffink]

And, as I said before, i have no f**king clue.

Duh.

Shame you can't buy wit eh, tosser. How's the career going?

[Frippertronix]

That 32 channels might also translate 16 stereo channels. I've easily used that amount on small projects. Heck, I've had some projects that have had 80+tracks of vocals. Just because you don't need it doesn't mean others don't either...

And you put a compressor on every voice did you?

Sure. Squash the shit out of everything.

[Frippertronix]

$800-$900 is no small change for just EQ and comp. regardless of track processing power, it's going to come down to the sound. If it's 40x great sounding EQ's, comps, it will be a miracle from heaven. I guess one will be making a trip to Guitar Center to hear it, though.

[Frippertronix]

Using a compressor doesn't always mean mashing the hell out of it. 32 channels of mashed-to-hell compression would suck. But 32 channels with light peak-taming can still be very dynamic. There's no reason to assume compression always = over-compression.

Greg

Plus, this is also an EQ. EQ on every channel isn't a luxury, it's a necessity in many cases.