"Lindell Audio 50" API channel strip by Plugin Alliance

[chroma]

Kind of like always using X mic for this kind of singer, even though you could probably do (most of) the same transform with eq …

[rezoneight]

On the other hand, why do all of that in the box? I guess I'm just of the mindset if you like what it does use it, otherwise shut it off. I'd hope the tolerance differences really aren't about better/worse but just different. If it's worse something is wrong anyhow. "Here use this plugin with the bum channel(s)". Nobody is going to go for that.

[jamcat]

Any time 2 things are different, there is the possibility for preference. And just because one channel is better for guitars, that doesn't mean it will also be better for drums. Or that someone else will agree that it is the better channel at all.

There's lots of mythology surround all of this stuff. Some people prefer Neve while others prefer API. Does that mean one or the other is "bum"? A common studio mythology is that SSL 4000 G channels are good for guitars, while E channels are good for bass and drums. You may or may not agree. But does this make either SSL revisions "bum"? Of course not. Since the channel modules on an SSL are interchangeable, it's pretty common to see an SSL board with combinations of E and G channels, with the various EQ revisions over the years as well. And maybe within this rainbow assortment of SSL channels, the engineer may swear a particular G channel is a "golden channel" for Telecasters (but not Les Pauls.)

[Teksonik]

Anyway I'm in to the studio now so please feel free to call me full of shit or an idiot or anything else that makes you feel better and brings joy to your day.

i never called you either!!!
i made a little joke about textbook definitions!!!

I never said you did. That's why I didn't quote you. It was just an invitation to the general population.

[Teksonik]

I'd hope the tolerance differences really aren't about better/worse but just different.

That was my entire point. Why do we add any effects plugin to any track in any song?

To make that track sound better. Different is pointless.

I own and have tested several TMT channel strips and while I can hear subtle differences between some pairs I've never found one pair that sounds appreciably better than another on any given source material.

Sure if you find a pair that you think sounds better on one snare you might use it every time you use that snare but there's no guarantee it will be the best pair for every snare.

So I think you're just better off sticking with one pair and dialing in the best sound for each track using the strip's EQ, Comp etc.

The idea that randomizing all the channel strips used in a song is beneficial is what I'm really pushing back against. There's just no way to guarantee that will provide desirable results on every track or any track for that matter. Again we're shooting for better not different.

I get it the hype is to model the sloppy tolerances of analog gear and "Analog" is the buzzword that gets some people's attention.

I just don't see much value in modeling slop.

I do like the sound of some PA channel strips and use the ones I own. I might even buy the Lindell 50 which is the subject of this thread if the prices drops a bit lower. But again I just find the whole TMT thing to be more hype than substance.

Others will no doubt disagree and that's fine. We can disagree and still remain civil.

In the end we have the option to use the TMT or not so everyone is happy.

[mcbpete]

The idea that randomizing all the channel strips used in a song is beneficial is what I'm really pushing back against. There's just no way to guarantee that will provide desirable results on every track or any track for that matter.

Think that's why they added that warning message if you press 'Random Channel: All' rather than 'Random Channel: One' as if 'Wait are you sure, the likelihood of you final mix being sorted by randomising all the track channels is pretty low!'

[rezoneight]

I'd hope the tolerance differences really aren't about better/worse but just different.

That was my entire point. Why do we add any effects plugin to any track in any song?

To make that track sound better. Different is pointless.

Agree on better. I guess the point I'm not making clearly is better+different (and maybe still not clearly) The point of EQ, compression, etc (ie: the stuff generally in a channel strip) is to tweak to either make individual things sound better, getting things to sit in better in the overall mix, or make the overall mix sound better. The funny thing of course is that an individual track, tweaked to fit into a mix, might not actually sound "better" at all but thats a whole different discussion.

I get it the hype is to model the sloppy tolerances of analog gear and "Analog" is the buzzword that gets some people's attention.

I just don't see much value in modeling slop.

Yeah I get this. I'm sure some of it is just nostalgia tbh. I do find value in it in some instances and frankly given that they're also modeling the UIs so closely I don't see that in the case of TMT it hurts and adds a bit of fun just like the UI does.

I do like the sound of some PA channel strips and use the ones I own. I might even buy the Lindell 50 which is the subject of this thread if the prices drops a bit lower. But again I just find the whole TMT thing to be more hype than substance.

Others will no doubt disagree and that's fine. We can disagree and still remain civil.

In the end we have the option to use the TMT or not so everyone is happy.

Yep. So I'll take back that I think you're full of shit Cheers.

[Unaspected]

The idea that randomizing all the channel strips used in a song is beneficial is what I'm really pushing back against. There's just no way to guarantee that will provide desirable results on every track or any track for that matter.

Think that's why they added that warning message if you press 'Random Channel: All' rather than 'Random Channel: One' as if 'Wait are you sure, the likelihood of you final mix being sorted by randomising all the track channels is pretty low!'

Yeah. I wouldn't expect anyone to use TMT like that. It doesn't make any sense.

Maybe some people have experimented with randomising the channels after the mix and it was an interesting exercise just to find out how much difference it makes but I can't imagine anyone employing that as the final step of a mix: Repeatedly hitting a button until the mix sounds "better".

[jamcat]

The idea that randomizing all the channel strips used in a song is beneficial is what I'm really pushing back against. There's just no way to guarantee that will provide desirable results on every track or any track for that matter. Again we're shooting for better not different.

I get it the hype is to model the sloppy tolerances of analog gear and "Analog" is the buzzword that gets some people's attention.

I just don't see much value in modeling slop.

So I think the idea is to increase complexity in the system, and greater complexity = less quantization = more analog.

Randomizing all channels is just a way to quickly diversify all the channels in order to introduce maximum complexity with a single click.

[Teksonik]

There's no guarantee complexity = better. But then I'm not one to think analog automatically=better.

Anyway I spent some more time with the TMT consoles I own yesterday and while once again I can hear some difference in some pairs I never really did find a pair that improved the sound to the point where I said "that's the pair". For example some were a little brighter some darker but then why not just set the EQ to what you want rather than leaving it up to chance ?

On the Console N some of the pairs have what looks like a toothpick stuck in the in High or Low Shelf buttons:

Console N.png

I guess that must have been a technique engineers used on the hardware to achieve a certain effect.

You could spend hours just trying all the combinations and drive yourself crazy flipping through pairs..."does 5+6 sound better than 2+3, wait did 29+30 sound brighter or ?

I suppose if you were double tracking a guitar for example you might choose two different pairs but again why not just make adjustments to taste on the individual consoles ?

I do like the consoles I own and really lust after the Amek 2099 although it will be awhile before it drops in price to the point where I can justify the purchase.

All in all I don't think the TMT on its own is a reason to buy any of the PA consoles but since it can be largely ignored by sticking to a single pair and just dialing in the desirable sound manually it's not something that should keep anyone away from buying.

[legendCNCD]

TMT to me sounds like ‘analog drift’.... nearly impossible to notice (in small amounts) for a single vco, but add a second set ‘the same’ and the small differences become very audible. Could you do that yourself by programming small offsets yourself? Sure, but that’s a workflow difference.

And especially in the digital age, some people like have exact control over how the analog ‘drifts’ (small detune amounts etc) and others prefer the workflow of pushing a button and having some good-sounding defaults already applied. I used to be the first hardcore but as I get older and lazier (and have less free time) I’ve come to appreciate those shortcuts

The way TMT is used in the consoles is not quite that. It's very easy to notice.

Here's channels 1 and 2 of the Lindell 80 console at default settings:



There's nothing subtle about that. There's an almost 2db difference in the low end between the right and left channels. Meanwhile the high end is pretty close. Other channels look different. Some are closer together, some are further apart. Some are more off in the mids, or highs, etc.

Yeah, I would definitely consider that unacceptable. So maybe it is better to treat these strips as Teksonik suggests - with TMT providing 72 completely different consoles. Or one broken desk.

This is with EQ on. I have my own list for 80, what channels to use and how they bump or dip some frequencies.
Here without EQ on same 1-2.

[jamcat]

There's no guarantee complexity = better. But then I'm not one to think analog automatically=better.

I think the goal is to sound more like you’re mixing through a real console. If that’s what you’re after, then it sounds “better.”

I switched to the bx SSL 4000 E and G channels from the IK British Channel. I love the IK models. They work and sound as expected. But when you switch a full mix from IK to bx (which is easy to do in Studio One with 2 clicks) you hear the instant difference, and to me, there is no contest, the bx channels sound like a physical console. (However, I think IK could close the gap quite a bit by incorporating preamp modeling on the British Channel.)

Anyway I spent some more time with the TMT consoles I own yesterday and while once again I can hear some difference in some pairs I never really did find a pair that improved the sound to the point where I said "that's the pair". For example some were a little brighter some darker but then why not just set the EQ to what you want rather than leaving it up to chance ?

On the Console N some of the pairs have what looks like a toothpick stuck in the in High or Low Shelf buttons:



I guess that must have been a technique engineers used on the hardware to achieve a certain effect.

The bx_console N is modeled after a specific console owned by Dirk, which has done duty in Skywalker Ranch and numerous studios around the world over the years. I believe the toothpicks wedged in certain channel shelf buttons is because they are malfunctioning and need a little help to stay on.

You could spend hours just trying all the combinations and drive yourself crazy flipping through pairs..."does 5+6 sound better than 2+3, wait did 29+30 sound brighter or ?

I suppose if you were double tracking a guitar for example you might choose two different pairs but again why not just make adjustments to taste on the individual consoles ?

Or you could just put it on every channel and let it do its thing. I don’t even touch the EQ or compression a lot of times. Just “running through a channel” is enough to get a physical console sound. For me, that’s what I’m after.

I do like the consoles I own and really lust after the Amek 2099 although it will be awhile before it drops in price to the point where I can justify the purchase.

Do you mean the 2098 or the 9099?

[thecontrolcentre]

I imagine he means the 9099 as the 2098 is an EQ ...

[Teksonik]

I think the goal is to sound more like you’re mixing through a real console. If that’s what you’re after, then it sounds “better.”

Better than? Like I said I'm not one to think that analog automatically =better.

I switched to the bx SSL 4000 E and G channels from the IK British Channel. I love the IK models. They work and sound as expected. But when you switch a full mix from IK to bx (which is easy to do in Studio One with 2 clicks) you hear the instant difference, and to me, there is no contest, the bx channels sound like a physical console.

Is that due to the plugin components themselves or TMT ? What does a "physical console" sound like? Which ones have you spent time with?

The bx_console N is modeled after a specific console owned by Dirk, which has done duty in Skywalker Ranch and numerous studios around the world over the years. I believe the toothpicks wedged in certain channel shelf buttons is because they are malfunctioning and need a little help to stay on.

Well that's a bit silly don't you think. Emulating a button that won't stay on?

Or you could just put it on every channel and let it do its thing. I don’t even touch the EQ or compression a lot of times. Just “running through a channel” is enough to get a physical console sound. For me, that’s what I’m after.

I'd rather do my thing but if that works for you then party on. Again I don't know what constitutes a physical console sound and am not convinced it's something I should strive for but to each his own.

Again I really like the PA consoles I own I just haven't bought the TMT hype.

Do you mean the 2098 or the 9099?

bx_console AMEK 9099

https://www.plugin-alliance.com/en/prod ... _9099.html

[vurt]

There's no guarantee complexity = better. But then I'm not one to think analog automatically=better.

as jamcat said above, im not sure thats necessarily the aim.

as i said earlier, i dont know if it works, but i think the idea is more for people who are making "band" music in the box. and while we are modelling rooms perfectly, a lot of mixes are still sounding, for want of a better word, sterile, in comparison to similar music, where actual live musicians are recorded, rather than samples arranged in a host.
again, the instruments sound as good as possible, but that something is missing.

now, is that analog mojo as they call it? and if so, how do we achieve that, not for everyone, but for those that do want it.

its not about analog being better, otherwise the obvious answer would be, buy a bloody mixer and record musicians!!!!
its about making digital, sound appealing to "some" people