Best channel strip plugin that's NOT emulation of SSL, Neve, API, Amek, etc.

[scaremony]

Side effects looks really nice. I just thought of another one that is modular and helps me a lot, as it (a) saves time and (b) sounds great: PSP InfiniStrip (Wind at the moment).

Thank you for mentioning this! I've been looking at this thread and was kind of disappointed after investigating most of the options listed. I remember being mildly interested when it came out, but it seems like they've done some great updates and it'd really fit the bill with having everything on one page w/ some very usable modules to play with. I'll definitely have to give the trial a spin and maybe pick it up on a sale soon. Thanks again for the recommendation!

[ralfrobert]

Side effects looks really nice. I just thought of another one that is modular and helps me a lot, as it (a) saves time and (b) sounds great: PSP InfiniStrip (Wind at the moment).

Thank you for mentioning this! I've been looking at this thread and was kind of disappointed after investigating most of the options listed. I remember being mildly interested when it came out, but it seems like they've done some great updates and it'd really fit the bill with having everything on one page w/ some very usable modules to play with. I'll definitely have to give the trial a spin and maybe pick it up on a sale soon. Thanks again for the recommendation!

It may also be a good idea to look for it in the FS section here on KVR or on Knobcloud. It is on sale from time to time, and you may be better off second-hand.

[jasonekratz]

"You don't stop your sound design to start mixing, you do both from one end of the process to the other.[...]

I keep reading this stuff and wonder why you keep arguing (not to mention why people keep counter-arguing)

that's one way to look at it, but it to me this bit is more about a discussion.

Is it? The topic really is "Best channel strip plugin that's NOT emulation of SSL, Neve, API, Amek, etc.". Don't think antic604 was asking for tips on how to mix (and in fact noted otherwise earlier in the thread).

The fact that you want to keep tweaking all over the place while working on a song is just a workflow and frankly doesn't sound any better to me than getting stuff down first then tweaking via a channel strip.

Both may be seen as a bit argumentative, but there's no great reason to see either as more than 'well here's what I think'.

Well no shit? But who is the one in this thread that keeps arguing that everyone else is wrong? Ain't me bud. I've got my way, he's got his and neither has anything to do with the topic.

honestly its laughable that people have been doing it the "regular" way for decades and decades and you're here arguing that it's wrong and your way is better.

"laughable"? but fine, I'm not tone police, just sayin', didja wonder about why you were counter-arguing.
I didn't know using a channel strip was 'the regular way', and couldn't conceivably care any less about that.

Why do you think these companies spend time making channel strip plugins that emulate consoles? For their health? Its because for decades people recorded on consoles in studios that were filled with channel strips. And people want that "console in a box" for their DAWs. Thats all I'm referring to.

I'm not counter-arguing with him. I have absolutely nothing to say over how BONES wants to create his music. What I am questioning, and what is laughable, is why he keeps insisting on telling everyone his way is better despite decades of people creating music the old-fashioned way. His way isn't better, its just different. If he finds that way better than good for him. I never said otherwise. I personally have been recording music for decades, first on 4-track cassette then reel-to-reel with a small console, now with a DAW. That way worked for me just fine then and still works just fine now so I use a channel strip with my DAW.

[jasonekratz]

I keep reading this stuff and wonder why you keep arguing (not to mention why people keep counter-arguing).

you must be new here...

Heh. No but yeah no idea why I'm spending time wondering about this

[ghettosynth]

Here's a short video that discusses using dynamic EQ for mixing.



For me Neutron hits the sweet spot because it has dynamic EQ and a multiband exciter. One of the things that the video above points out and that I think some might be missing is the temporal nature of mixing. If your synth part sounds great during certain parts of a track but then has too much low end at other times, you're not going to fix that in the patch. I'm not going to bother to get into how EQ is very different from the typical resonant filters in synths and that that one is not a replacement for the other, but, even if you could, why would you bother trying to automate your synth just to avoid using the better tool for the job?

In any case, if you're using hardware synths, or, heaven forbid, real instruments, or even recordings of other people playing real instruments (samples) then, again, you're often not going to easily fix that by going back to the source.

Are there any other channel strips with dynamic EQ built in?

[BONES]

I mentioned Dunning Kruger before and you denied it, yet you keep adding evidence.

I think you'll find that it is you who needs to find evidence that I am not every bit as good at this as I think I am. It's not up to me to prove that I am as smart as I think I am, it is self-evident, surely?

What you need to remember is that I am talking mostly about electronic music, not the krap you do. As I've said a couple of times already, I put effects all over my vocals and if I was recording physical instruments it would be exactly the same. It's a different situation that requires a different approach. But electronic music offers a lot more opportunities to get your individual tracks sounding right without having to pile on the effects.

The whole topic of this thread is not for you and you don't get it and the more you post the more people start making fun of you and the more upset you get.

The problem is that people come along and read threads like this and think this is how they should be working. There are a couple of such threads live at the moment in Getting Started so I think it is important to present valid alternative viewpoints and I definitely feel I have the runs on the board to provide that.

It beggars belief that you and others cannot accept that other valid viewpoints exist (and your repeated personal attacks show that you are completely intolerant of such). What you need to remember is that I have done it the way you do but I was open-minded enough to embrace a different way of doing things that has had tangible benefits for the work I do. It's not just some shit I make up as I go along or something I am regurgitating from some random YouTube video. It's a view informed by the results I have achieved with it, results I am more than happy to share if you would like.

I keep reading this stuff and wonder why you keep arguing (not to mention why people keep counter-arguing).

No-one has even attempted a counter-argument. Like you, they get personal instead of staying on point. And the reason I keep at it is so that somebody who stumbles upon this thread in 6 months time, looking for good information, doesn't end up thinking like this. I'm also still waiting on someone to have the good manners to answer the question I asked at the beginning.

If you found something that works for you then keep doing it. But the whole idea of a channel strip, which is what this thread is about (the best one that isnt an emulation), has nothing to do with your personal mixing preferences or workflow.

Of course it does. This isn't Glee Club, we're not all here to agree with everything everybody says and a lot of what is being said in this thread is REALLY BAD ADVICE. "Don't use a channel strip" is equally valid advice, in the context of this topic, as "use this channel strip". If you can't see that, you need to remove your blinkers.

The fact that you want to keep tweaking all over the place while working on a song is just a workflow and frankly doesn't sound any better to me than getting stuff down first then tweaking via a channel strip.

What sort of brainlessness leads someone to dismiss something without even bothering to try it? I've got the results to show that the way I work today gives me tangibly better results than the way I was working two years ago (or 20 years ago), when I basically worked the way you do.

Either way you're still tweaking the sound and you're not saving any time or anything else doing it your way. And honestly its laughable that people have been doing it the "regular" way for decades and decades and you're here arguing that it's wrong and your way is better.

At least my point of view is informed by personal experience and the actual results I have achieved, rather than your wild speculation.

Give me a sound, any sound, and I think I can make it better.

To what end? The only sound I want to make better is the mix so anything that might make an individual channel/part/sound better is only relevant if it also makes the mix better. This is the basis of what I am trying to say - everything else is secondary to the mix.

Ok, Bones, now you owe me a beer for all this mixing advice!!

No, I think you owe me some examples because what you describe makes me wonder what your results sound like. Honestly, I don't even know what a "mixing only" session would look like.

[plexuss]

Analog Obsession LOADED is pretty good! https://www.patreon.com/posts/loaded-step-by-40299242

MAIN_BG.png

[antic604]

I just thought of another one that is modular and helps me a lot, as it (a) saves time and (b) sounds great: PSP InfiniStrip (Wind at the moment).

I left it out from the OT because most of the modules replicate componens from classic mixing consoles, but it's a good one indeed

[antic604]

---
is Neutron 3 a channel strip
sounds fantastic

I listed it in the OP, so it must be

Although the drawbacks (for me, obviously) are:
- visual feedback
- separate tabs/screens for modules

[_leras]

Honestly, I don't even know what a "mixing only" session would look like.

You must be kidding. It's such a massive part of recording songs that you have surely come across it.

After you have finished your arrangement and have all the parts nicely recorded, maybe with some additional processing, you prepare it for mixing. Sometimes people even send their audio tracks to a professional mixer to do this. I kid you not.

For me, at some point I decide I'm done with the arrangement and happy with all the parts, and then prepare a session for mixing. This will involve things like color coding tracks, grouping things more, making naming consistent, getting organized. All to help cement that move onto the last stage mixing.

There are so many ways you can mix a track, and that may even change depending on my vibe that day - so I like to try to have a mix ready to go, then mixing until it's done, hopefully quickly before I get fatigued and/or start second guessing myself. I also really enjoy this part of the process and love the "I'm now going to finish this track" aspect of this. For me, it really helps actually finish.

*I may take notes listening on other systems and come back and tweak a few parts +/- a few db.

Now, I understand that you can do this as you go along, and sure, I guess to an extent I do this also. But for me the final mix session is both fun and important.

How does this fit into the thread? Well... for the final mix process I find using channels strips can really bring some cohesion to the process. I can mix with these quickly, often without having to go back to earlier sound design or polishing choices. (which are also sometimes bounced to audio).

[_leras]

Don't think antic604 was asking for tips on how to mix (and in fact noted otherwise earlier in the thread).

Yeah, but he's gonna get them anyway!

[ralfrobert]

I just thought of another one that is modular and helps me a lot, as it (a) saves time and (b) sounds great: PSP InfiniStrip (Wind at the moment).

I left it out from the OT because most of the modules replicate componens from classic mixing consoles, but it's a good one indeed

And although it models (generic) analog stuff, this just means they implement time proven ideas and make them available as software. I think this is ok as you get a modern interface with lots of workflow support (e.g. changing the compressor model on the fly while keeping the settings), so the strip feels highly modern.

Sorry if recommending this was off-topic, but in the end, I do not really think so.

[whyterabbyt]

It beggars belief that you and others cannot accept that other valid viewpoints exist

[antic604]

And although it models (generic) analog stuff, this just means they implement time proven ideas and make them available as software. I think this is ok as you get a modern interface with lots of workflow support (e.g. changing the compressor model on the fly while keeping the settings), so the strip feels highly modern.

Sorry if recommending this was off-topic, but in the end, I do not really think so.

Yeah, I see your point. And it's a thin line indeed. But if PSP Infinistrip is OK, then so should be things like IK Multimedia's T-ReackS and MixBox, McDSP's 6050 Ultimate Channel Strip or Slate Digital's Virtual Analog Bundle and then we're getting dangerously close to discussing who got that SSL 4kE EQ right and who f**ed it up, which I tried to avoid

[ralfrobert]

…

Yeah, I see your point. And it's a thin line indeed. But if PSP Infinistrip is OK, then so should be things like IK Multimedia's T-ReackS and MixBox, McDSP's 6050 Ultimate Channel Strip or Slate Digital's Virtual Analog Bundle and then we're getting dangerously close to discussing who got that SSL 4kE EQ right and who f**ed it up, which I tried to avoid

You are right. By the way, Airwindows have channel strips, too. Is there anyone around who tried these? Other things made by Chris just sound great, so I think I should take a look and listen.

http://www.airwindows.com/cstrip-vst/

So minimalism finally found its way here.