Favorite Channel Strip (Console) Plugin for Analog-ish Vibe?

[Lotuz2019]

How do you guys rate Excite Audio's Lifeline Console (full version)?

https://www.excite-audio.com/lifeline/lifeline-console

[legendCNCD]

Lindell's and Kush Blyss

[jamcat]

How do you guys rate Excite Audio's Lifeline Console (full version)?

https://www.excite-audio.com/lifeline/lifeline-console

Based on the marketing video, it sounds like it just adds phase cancellation.

[tommyzai]

Excite Audio's Lifeline Console looks sweet . . . crisp, clean interface with a chain of five useful FX. Anyone use and like?

[plexuss]

How do you guys rate Excite Audio's Lifeline Console (full version)?

https://www.excite-audio.com/lifeline/lifeline-console

It's pretty good. Functionally it over-laps other similar tools but it has it's own thing going on. Its worth checking out if the price is right. I was able to get it for a low price from PB when they were initially promoting it. Expanse and Chain are also worth looking at.

[_leras]

The previous mentioned schepps omnichannel has to be the best value channel strip. It's got tons of features and is easy to use. It's only shortcoming is that the saturation isn't the best. It's a really great tool though.


I think there's something to be said for using a channel strip across lots of channels. A neve or SSL consistency can really give a 'record', or at least a consistent sound.

I'm have found that for main sounds, better individual tools for eq and compression can get better results.

That said using a channel strip can give some consistency to the choices made and can help things gel together.

UAD have a lot of great channel strips. 88RS or API are both great. More expensive than omnichannel though.

[jamcat]

To really test out a console emulation, you need to put an instance at the top of each channel, and dial in your preamp drive and any EQ you may need. Then place a different console model in your 2nd insert slots across all channels, and match the levels to the first set of channel strips. You can repeat this process with as many channel strips as you want to get a taste of.

The next step works in Studio One. I'm assuming it will work in your DAW, too. It's important that all channels have the same sequence of plugins.

Select all channel, and turn off the first plugin in channel one. If your DAW works like Studio One, every plugin in slot one will turn off. Now turn on the second plugin in channel one. As long as all channels are still selected, every plugin in slot two will turn on. Repeat the process for all channel strip models you're testing, as many times as you like.

You really don't get a sense of how a console sounds until you've put it across the whole mix. And comparing multiple plugins this way really highlights the character of each one. It's the best way to choose the right channel strip for you. Or at least the right one for the song.

[owenpoe]

I like the SSL 4000 E, either Waves or Bx. Although, it is a relatively clean channel strip compared to many others.

[jamcat]

I like the SSL 4000 E, either Waves or Bx. Although, it is a relatively clean channel strip compared to many others.

The Waves SSL EV2 can get pretty dirty when you start turning up the MIC gain. But I've decided I like the Brainworx better. In a full mix with an SSL on every channel, the Brainworx just sounds a little more open and has more depth and space. Plus Brainworx has the companion SSL 4000 G strip with the choice between the pink 82E292 EQ and the orange 82E132 "pultec-style" EQ.

You can get the same preamp sound from the Brainworx SSLs with a combination of In GAIN, THD, and output fader, but they could really use more gain. The Waves EV2 has gain in spades, while the Brainworx can only match the EV's MIC gain up to about +20dB before maxing out.

[_leras]

To really test out a console emulation, you need to put an instance at the top of each channel, and dial in your preamp drive and any EQ you may need. Then place a different console model in your 2nd insert slots across all channels, and match the levels to the first set of channel strips. You can repeat this process with as many channel strips as you want to get a taste of.

You really don't get a sense of how a console sounds until you've put it across the whole mix. And comparing multiple plugins this way really highlights the character of each one. It's the best way to choose the right channel strip for you. Or at least the right one for the song.

I've done this and think it's a really great process to go through. I once made a mix with UAD SSL, UAD Neve 88RS, both with studer 800 tape, and a third mix where I just used the best tools I had available. I woudl say that it's probably best not to try and mtach levels, but just to do the mix with the different consoles and see where it leads you. If nothing else you'll have to get familiar with and learn the console - so it's win win mixing practice.

For me the outcome was that I preffered the 88RS to the SSL, but that my mix with all my better tools, particularly on the main elements sounded better.

Now I tend to use my best tools on the main and prominent elements, but will still use consoles on background elements or small non main groups to add a bit of cohesion. It's quite useful to have filters, comp eq all in one place and once you get to know a console it can be quick to work with. I particularly find that with a console eq, I can put two side by side and cut one and boost the other to make things that clash sit better together. Something about the console eq gui makes this work well for me.

[VELLTONE MUSIC]

FrontDAW is Ok,but nothing special imho,for the moment use mostly PA bx SSL 9000j to add some character.
I discover console emulations save time if you need such analogish vibe from hardware,can't say which is more or less authentic,when hear something inside the mix,u can decide worth it or not.

[jamcat]

I would say that it's probably best not to try and match levels, but just to do the mix with the different consoles and see where it leads you. If nothing else you'll have to get familiar with and learn the console - so it's win win mixing practice.

Of course it's not going to be possible to exactly match two different consoles with fixed band EQs. They will have their own sound and they will lend themselves better to some things than others. This is all true, and it's a significant part of what you are discovering when you do this kind of comparison.

But you want to make sure that you are comparing strengths and weaknesses of the console strips, and not your own from one mix to another. It's not terribly useful if what you're actually preferring is the job you did on one of the mixes. So you should at least try to eliminate avoidable differences. Then you can really compare apples to apples.

When I recently compared Waves SSL EV2 to the Brainworks SSL 4000 E console, I matched them as best I could. By doing that I was able to compare finer details, such as clarity and width, saturation character, and the more indefinable quality of which one provided the most holistic illusion of a real console. (Brainworx won out on all accounts by a hair, perhaps because of TMT.)

For me the outcome was that I preferred the 88RS to the SSL, but that my mix with all my better tools, particularly on the main elements sounded better.

Historically, engineers have preferred the sonic character of vintage consoles such as Neve, Trident, Helios, and API for recording. But once the SL-4000 E came out, they all preferred mixing on SSLs because of the fully parametric EQs, compression on every channel, relatively clean neutral sound, and automation. Mixing on SSLs in the '80s changed how records were made, and how they sounded.

Generally, engineers hated mixing on the vintage consoles, because, while they're well suited for getting a great tone to tape, they're pretty limited, and not well suited for fixing problems in the mix that they create. Their fixed bands tend to only compound resonance problems in the mix. (But that is also the sound of '70s rock.)

So in the '80s, SSL really became seen primarily as a mixing console rather than a recording console, and really, as THE mixing console. SSL built on that reputation with the SL-9000 "Superanalogue" series, which has a completely transformerless signal path for the most transparent sound possible. Really good for getting out of the way during mixing, but not much attitude for recording big rock records. So Neve and such were still primarily used for tracking.

This is why I use two console strips, separated by a tape emulation. This way, I get the personality and attitude I want when I'm shaping tone on the front end, but I also get the precision of the parametric SSL EQ and dynamics when mixing tracks on the back end. You could also just use stuff like FabFilter or any other modern, transparent parametric EQ and compressor plugins here, but for me, I prefer staying within the context of the large format console, so that's something I would only do if there's a very specific problem I need to fix.

But honestly, at that point, the best solution is probably going to be tweaking the problematic overtones in Melodyne Studio's Sound Editor. I mean, if you're going to cheat, then you might as well really cheat.

[cbricius]

I have recently started using Sonimus A-Console with the UAD API Vision and I love it. Great bundle if you work outside of Luna.
I really like the previous mentioned schepps omnichannel. I have done mixes where I've only used this plugin and it sounds great. I specially like its preamp module and the saturations that you can get from it.

[j wazza]

softube bus processor is dope

[_leras]

But you want to make sure that you are comparing strengths and weaknesses of the console strips, and not your own from one mix to another. It's not terribly useful if what you're actually preferring is the job you did on one of the mixes. So you should at least try to eliminate avoidable differences. Then you can really compare apples to apples.

This is why I use two console strips, separated by a tape emulation. This way, I get the personality and attitude I want when I'm shaping tone on the front end, but I also get the precision of the parametric SSL EQ and dynamics when mixing tracks on the back end. You could also just use stuff like FabFilter or any other modern, transparent parametric EQ and compressor plugins here, but for me, I prefer staying within the context of the large format console, so that's something I would only do if there's a very specific problem I need to fix.

But honestly, at that point, the best solution is probably going to be tweaking the problematic overtones in Melodyne Studio's Sound Editor. I mean, if you're going to cheat, then you might as well really cheat.

My point was more just let the tools take your mix where they will when testing, there's an assumption that you're still going for the best sound to your taste. SSL is a bit more edgy than an 88RS, so I find I make slightly different choices - and that's just part of the process.

Ha - well who is to say what is cheating - if it sounds good it is good. Modern clean tools have their places for sure, but tools with a nice tone can actually elevate things sonically. Sometimes I may try 3/4 different things on a sound before finding what I think works best, and this is acutally most true for distortion/saturation...