Introducing Secret by Acustica Audio: The sound of history, reimagined for today

[DJErmac]

EDIT : not worth it

[careyletendre]

Did they finally run out of colors?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... %E2%80%93Z

Oh I see. The internet said it's a colour. Got it.

[markmann]

If you think my single opinion is a major killer move for Acustica Audio and that all the "community" has to prove me wrong, just do it, I’m smiling at it. Sorry, forum : we are free to talk about the post.

The previous "community" member finished his speech implying that all you need to get a 70’s sound is a plugin, no matter what your composition and arrangements rely on. Sure, insert this plugin on any modern s#it and boom : everybody instantly remembers Pink Floyd !
No need to make a 70’s-like composition of course. The plugin will save the day. People generally hear more a plugin touch than a composition.

Keep up the good work, I love you guys.

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

[DJErmac]

EDIT : not worth it, means nothing to me

[jens]

Laughing at your own stupidity right there, huh?

Let's face it: at the end of the day you're just one of those sad dudes who spends more time discussing what other musicians should and should not use for this and that reason, than working on their own craft - KVR is full of blokes like you.

One day it's pitch-correction, the other it's clip-launchers in DAWs, now it's emulations of 70's gear - it's all the same shitty wannabe-superiority that stems from a deep-rooting insecurity.

Why would a sane musician ever care so much about what others are using? If the gear in question is of no interest to you, then why would you enter the a thread about it to start arguing how useless said gear is, instead of simply ignoring it and walking somewhere else?

What would your shrink say if they knew? That's a lot of wasted therapy sessions right there.

[DJErmac]

EDIT : not worth it, means nothing to me after all. If a 24,000pv forum boss comes out for me from the dephts it means I’ve ventured way too deep in the web insanity for me. Happy Acustica talk everybody !

[ROTMetro]

Last week I was listening to a (volume normalized) playlist of mostly modern stuff, and jammed right in the middle was a Credence Clearwater song that sounded like it was recorded in a tin can. I guess this particular version didn't get the benefit of being remixed/remastered like most stuff from this era has.

Would anyone today feel confident submitting a mix to a label that sounded like it was recorded in the 70s, 80s or even the early 90s?

Would a techno producer turn in a track that used an 80s sounding TB303 or emulation of one? The LA2A is 60 years old and the 1176 is from 1968 and a ton of modern vocals have one or the other if not both on them. Old equipment can be used for modern sound just make modern sound trend choices when you use it. The whole retro disco sound choices in modern pop is very 70s.

Have you played with this? It's pretty nice. Really great on synths dripping with reverb (like the new Tai Chi chorus verb update).

With CC, you might be hearing:
A really poor digital remaster. They did some horrible remasters to give CDs 'wow' (basically the poor 80s cousin of turning songs into sausages).
CC isn't a modern style sausage.
Mastered for playback on vinyl no mp3.
Not keeping with the current trends of filling the sonic spectrum.
Not keeping with current ear candy.
Different music trends. 2010 mixes sound different than 2024 mixes even when done in the same studio/same hardware.

There's hundreds of different choices/reasons that make up sound differences, not just one piece of gear thats 'old'.

[billinder33]

Last week I was listening to a (volume normalized) playlist of mostly modern stuff, and jammed right in the middle was a Credence Clearwater song that sounded like it was recorded in a tin can. I guess this particular version didn't get the benefit of being remixed/remastered like most stuff from this era has.

Would anyone today feel confident submitting a mix to a label that sounded like it was recorded in the 70s, 80s or even the early 90s?

Have you played with this? It's pretty nice. Really great on synths dripping with reverb (like the new Tai Chi chorus verb update).

I won't be testing it, but don't have anything against Acustica as a company, their plugins, or anyone that uses these or similar emulation plugins. I haven't touched an Acustica product in several years, and the ~$1k of Acustica plugins I own didn't make the move into my latest system, even though their plugins sound nice, probably the most hardware-sounding vendor on the market.

But I don't use them because their design paradigm is outside my current mix philosophy, which is... there is only so many things you can do to an audio wave form - EQ, dynamics, harmonic, digital manipulation (clipping, bit-crushing, sample rates etc.), time-based FX. That's it. I mostly use the same 4 best-in-class plugins for EQ, compression, harmonics, and clipping, unless there is some edge case that requires I pick a different tool.

This may seem boring, but workflow-wise, it covers 90% of all channel strip duties, produces predictable, repeatable results, provides visual feeback, and makes blocking and tackling processing as fast as it can be, short of some one-button AI solution. Going this direction was possibly the best, most productive decision I've made related to manipulating audio. I don't have to worry about non-linear input handling, think about which plugin will work best with which source, or wonder what kind of 'magic' is sitting behind a skeuomorphic knob, button, or switch. I don't waste time GAS'ing for every new pre/eq/comp/saturation plugin that hits the market, because I know I'm already covered.

Back to Acustica, are their plugins still high in resource consumption, have poor or no visual metering/feedback, and slow to respond to configuration changes?

How does this one stack up against their other 200+ offerings? Where does it fit inside their massive portfolio and why would I reach for this one over the others?

With CC, you might be hearing:
A really poor digital remaster. They did some horrible remasters to give CDs 'wow' (basically the poor 80s cousin of turning songs into sausages).
CC isn't a modern style sausage.
Mastered for playback on vinyl no mp3.
Not keeping with the current trends of filling the sonic spectrum.
Not keeping with current ear candy.
Different music trends. 2010 mixes sound different than 2024 mixes even when done in the same studio/same hardware.

I think you're making my point. If the gear that made these recording were such a big part of their success, why would they need to be remixed/remastered in the first place? It was never the gear.