Abbey Road/Waves REDD Console Channel Strip

[hibidy]

Forgive if this comes across the wrong way but I have to say it!

Do people not understand that this is a tool to aid in possible sonic outcome? ALSO, do people understand the absolute obsess that the beatles put in when making most records like SP? It was antiquated machinery that they SQUEEEEEEEEZED all they could out. It's not really logical in my mind (and decrepit as it might be) to expect SP sounds w/o the room, the vibe and the actual tape and the obsession over every little detail.

Again, sorry if it comes across wrong, but this is simply a tool to aid you in your endeavors.

[@midnight]

It's not really logical in my mind (and decrepit as it might be) to expect SP sounds w/o the room, the vibe and the actual tape and the obsession over every little detail.

order of importance

1. the musicians
2. the instruments
3. the locations
4. the engineers
5. the compressors, eq's, reverbs, etc..

just my opinion. I believe we spend most of our time on KVR debating about the absolutely least important part of the equation.

[Compyfox]

somehow people on this forum got the idea the compressor or eq they use is more important than the instrument and instrumentalist itself...

Not at all, especially if we talk about the performance.

But if you want a specific sound from "yesteryear", then specific tools (and here I focus on EQ and microphones) are essential to get you there. And fast as well.


I said it at the "Virtual Console" thread. If everything would have been flat in terms of response for the last couple of decades, we'd focus on the performance only rather than the "specific sound" hype these days. But back in the day, you had non-linear devices, ton of hiss/noise/flutter (tape machine), a limited dynamic range, a limited frequency and loudness range even (if stuff needed to be printed on vinyl). The limits of technology at that time.

Today this doesn't matter anymore. The only thing we should really focus on is how we use the tools we have at our disposal, rather than hunting for that one true sound from "back in the days" with clones like this REDD one. This doesn't work. Our ears adapted to "modern sound", our daily used gear (iPods, radios, TVs) have evolved, our studio gear has evolved.


I tested this thing not only for sh'ts and giggles. I realised "damn - I'd mainly get it because of the EQ only", but for this, it's not even like the old module (read: stepped). I furthermore have the NF Altec 9063A - which is pretty much a successor to the POP module, since it was developed by Altec/Siemens in the first place. For a plain saturation module, it's just too expensive IMO and the GUI is a waste. It could have been implemented in NLS (much like the HELIOS preamp).

There is a similar case with the NF British EQ (NEVE 1081) - I only use it for it's simplicity in terms of design and usage, not because it's "vintage".

just my opinion. I believe we spend most of our time on KVR debating about the absolutely least important part of the equation.

There is definitely a point in this comment. But let's look at it from a realistic point of view.

1. the musicians

Are usually the ones writing songs.


2. the instruments

Are samples and over-engineered synths these days. Modern sound to begin with.


3. the locations

Can be simulated. And this is usually not available with most ITB-only musicians.


4. the engineers

The industry "teached" the mere user to be a musician, a recording tech, an audio engineer and a mastering engineer. Though I agree, if someone focuses on engineering only rather than songwriting. Then this person can definitely enhance a mix into whatever he feels like - without changing the performance.


5. the compressors, eq's, reverbs, etc..

Are tools that get us there. Or not, depending on the skill. But depending on the tool, or better said the "design" of the tool - we either take longer, or get there instantly.

Still no instant gratification or "warp back to the past" (as I wrote earlier, this can't/will not happen anymore), but... we can focus on what's more important.


This is why there are that many different tools from the same FX shelf. Each compressor works different, even though pretty much all do the same. Same with EQs - only one does frequency interaction with two bands, while the other doesn't. And here it doesn't matter to me if the tool is digital or not, as long as it does what I expect it to do.






But back to the REDD please, and maybe my audio demos. Though don't feel the need - I'm fine either way. I had fun using this device one way or another. If it only would have been the actual hardware (I can dream...).

[hibidy]

It's not really logical in my mind (and decrepit as it might be) to expect SP sounds w/o the room, the vibe and the actual tape and the obsession over every little detail.

order of importance

1. the musicians
2. the instruments
3. the locations
4. the engineers
5. the compressors, eq's, reverbs, etc..

just my opinion. I believe we spend most of our time on KVR debating about the absolutely least important part of the equation.

I agree with that, but it's FUN to talk about stuff. In no way was I trying to put a damper on the convo, just saying it's not really going to serve someone to thing that one console emu is going to give you that "SP" sound.

[@midnight]

Yeah, I mean, if anything I would say these plugins are designed for people that already have their mixes "there" and want to try and get a different "snapshot" of the mix. If you struggle with the basics of mixing, these are definitely not for you, and might even hinder your development.

I do like what I see in those harmonic spectrum graphs though. Looks like Waves was able to get the harmonics strong while keeping the aliasing very low.

[hibidy]

Well let's see if I have this right.

Of the one with/one w/o, they are pretty obvious. There is a (wait for it) CLEAR difference

Now the other two. Personally, I like the first one best. To my ears it sounds more open, cleaner and I feel the instruments sit best. God help me if I got it wrong

[zedd]

The bottom line is that aside from great musicianship and songwriting, the Beatles sounded as great as they did in the studio because they were experimental and creative with the tools that were available (and by "they" I am also referring to the studio engineers and George Martin).

No single plugin is going to fully deliver the sound of yesteryear, but there are a lot of plugins that can help get you there if you are using your ears and making the effort to get that magical sound you are looking for. The stuff which I like to do to make any instrument sound more interesting is to degrade the quality somewhat, whether by adding some subtle saturation, or slowing down the audio content to generate artifacts and wider room sounds, or any other number of tricks to add a little grain to sounds which are too sterile. Gobs of the right reverb can help too.

There are an infinite number of ways to get something modern to sound more retro, if you are determined to get there.

As for people scoffing at the idea of a plugin being able to deliver some of that "Abbey Road sound", my experience with the Abbey Road RS124 Compressor plugin is that it does shape instruments in a way which totally makes them sound like Abbey Road treatments of the '60s. I think that some plugins can take you a lot closer to familiar sounds if you use them in the right context. I imagine that the EQ curves on the REDD plugin could help you more easily zero in on particular tones as well, especially if you're working with Beatley instrumentation.

No, you are never going to sound like Sgt. Pepper out of the box (and even I know that), but you can get a lot closer with the right plugins. There are a lot of "right" plugins.

The most important tool in your studio is the one in your head. Experiment, be creative, and use your ears. You don't need the REDD plugin... but it probably could assist with numerous things.

Why do you think it's "breathing" better? I kind of try to get behind the phenomenon why "crosstalk" is needed/wanted.

I guess what I meant was that the imaging seemed a tiny bit more crisp and more defined on the second demo, but upon listening again the differences between them are so miniscule. The second still seems slightly better if I had to choose, but if I wasn't specifically comparing them, I would never know (or care) about the difference. If you told me that it is the exact same recording, I wouldn't be at all surprised. The brain is a funny thing.

[Compyfox]

I thought about fooling you people with an a/b test, but no... I did indeed use a VST plugin to simulate crosstalk (which is not available in the REDD!).

So I have two votes now:
zedd says B, hibidy says A

I'd love to hear more responses. This is just a test, but I want to know if people can really "hear" it and whether or not it makes a difference.

[hibidy]

When I listen for something I try and pick out the individual instruments and how clearly I can hear them. Btw, neither sounds bad.

[DuX]

Waves' emulations have always been sub-par, but nobody seem to have noticed that before. Except me. I'm proud to say that I don't own nor use[d] even one of Waves' plugins. Ever. However, I had my doubts, and I did try them lots of time, and even had to use them in other people's studios. People just like brands and stick to them no matter what. "Good" for you. Stick to that and fork out the money into deceitful and money grabbing brands like Waves and Avid instead of donating to innovative people like Variety of Sound, VladG or Christian Budde and Cockos, for instance. People who do really innovative and great work mostly for free.

You know what? I think it's better to invest 500$ or more for a nice little hardware console from Soundcraft or Allen and Heath, and mix partially OTB, than fork out a 200$ for this, if you want a really *true emulation*. I think it couldn't get more true if you use a real console.

It's a unique experience, and there's no way back. Trust me, I've been and am there. Working with a true hardware console is a completely different experience. Especially regarding *saturation*.

However, both ITB and OTB is the way to go IMO. Combined, it is such a powerful combination of mixing that gives great results depending *always* on your knowledge, of course. I pity everybody who resent one or the other.

Cheers!

[@midnight]

That's crazy, Waves emulations are some of the best.

[zedd]

So I have two votes now:
zedd says B, hibidy says A

Just to clarify, my vote is that B sounds minutely better, but it is not a guess as to which demo utilizes crosstalk. It seems to me that it is just as likely that the crosstalk emulation is degrading the tone rather than improving it.

I wish the difference between the files was a little less subtle, because I'm not sure the results are going to convince me either way that it is worth emulating crosstalk or not.

------------------

But I don't have to be convinced that bleeding is good...

I love how when you listen to Rubber Soul with isolated channels you can hear the bleeding of the right channel into the left channel and visa versa. It is part of the magic of those recordings. Microphone bleeds and hard panned vocals/instruments = pure happiness (for properly accustomed ears).

[Compyfox]

If it's barely noticable, then I did a good job - because this is what I was trying to aim for, see if it really matters.

---

The "bleeding" you describe in "Rubber Soul" could also come from common used (mono) reverb panned in the middle, which in turn is hearable on both channels of course. But I can be mistaken - I'm not familiar with this song (off hand), neither with the production process.

But you can clearly hear something similar with AC/DC's recording "You shook me all night long" - especially the intro.

[kvaca]

I'd love to hear more responses. This is just a test, but I want to know if people can really "hear" it and whether or not it makes a difference.

I hesitated if to join /Im not very happy to see more and more console stuff instead of new innovative plugins these days/ but seeing not much interest from more experienced people I couldnt resist forever

after listening A/B at first I need to say its not fair from you to use different records /or samples/ for both files...becouse it makes the final conclusion a lot harder than necessary...

but...I think that B file is with more hearable artifacts /crosstalk,or bleeding?/ becouse it sounds simply dull most of the time compared to A...but I dont like A file either becouse while being more clear it lacks some depth of file B...but still it sounds more natural to me, so my vote is A=without crosstalk B=with crosstalk

[Compyfox]

Three votes now. Okay.


Let me clear this first:
The A/B files are a snipped from the last section of the song. One render is with the crosstalk activated, one without.

I didn't mess with EQ, volume, FX or samples throughout the whole production. The "without REDD" file is what I came up with after a couple of hours of preparing. "with REDD" is the same production, just with the REDD active, the" without" file is actually the very same mix, with all instances of the REDD and the tape machine on master deactivated.

Again, the A/B files are based upon the mix with the REDD and master tape engaged.


A question to those that participate in that A/B test...
Do you think "crosstalk" is the thing you actually look for? Or is it really not needed?


Personally I say "give me the option to turn it off". Because I'm using a modern console (DAW) where I do not want/need crosstalk. I just would love to get access to preamps.

I think it's all down to personal preference.




I'll maybe post a mix with VCC RC Tube and the Altec 9063A clone later. Maybe even without RC Tube since the used tape machines already add so much IMO.