Is the UAD plugs really THAT much better?

[jones-y]

Well said, apart from use of the word 'chops'. Bit cringeworthy that, almost on a par with 'DAW' and 'rompler'

I know... Couldn't think of another word.

But I would just hate to tell someone I did my album on a "DAW"

Too close to "DOH!"

And I've outgrown "Romper Room". So I prefer sound module. (you know, I once heard someone call it a sound modular I couldn't help but laugh )

[SJ_Digriz]

What I am saying is that the difference between the signal coming off a $2500+ channel strip and any vst analogy is not yet at the same level.

You are now. Previously you were saying the difference was "huge". How huge? 3 miles? 17 tonne? 45dB?

Again, do my test.

Listen to Bela Fleck Acoustic Planet II....sounds great...

then listen to Bela Fleck Acoustic Planet I

You will go holy shit, that last one sounded terrible, what happened?

The difference IS huge. It's off scale. There is no comparison. Same engineers....one recorded analog, mixed digital, mastered analog to digital...the other all digital in the box.

I use that as an example because you guys seem to think I'm calling your sounds crappy. This is not the case. I'm saying that the signal off of a good analog EQ sounds way better, more open and you have more control with it than a digital counterpart. I AM NOT BAD MOUTHING VST OR UAD. I have 2 of the f**king things. I liked my first one so much I BOUGHT ANOTHER!!! and I'm about to get a 3rd.

But, when I go into a studio that has the good stuff there is no comparison. NONE. NADA.

Also, I am not claiming to be some superman engineer. In fact I'm just the opposite. I'm a used up old guitar player who has twiddled around enough studios over time to have heard most of this stuff.

[SJ_Digriz]

twiddle has now become my official word of the day.

[Kingston]

I'm not insane. I'm reality challenged.

from now on I'll just ignore your ramblings and trust your sig.

[jones-y]

But, when I go into a studio that has the good stuff there is no comparison. NONE. NADA.

Again, the best piece equipment any pro studio has is the engineer.

And besides, Bela Fleck Acoustic Planet II was released on June 22, 1999. That's a lifetime ago in digital...

[ericj23]

but surely when mixing you could compensate for any failings in the recording

According to the pros, that's a very bad strategy. And I've come to agree with them.

alas mr four tet is a pro

and he uses a soundblaster

and his records don't sound reedy, tinny lacking in bottom or any other such metaphysical tosh put about by people seeking to describe vanishingly small differences in sounds

[jones-y]

but surely when mixing you could compensate for any failings in the recording

According to the pros, that's a very bad strategy. And I've come to agree with them.

alas mr four tet is a pro

and he uses a soundblaster

and his records don't sound reedy, tinny lacking in bottom or any other such metaphysical tosh put about by people seeking to describe vanishingly small differences in sounds

Yeah, but he made it sound good on the way in, not on the way out

[nuffink]

What I am saying is that the difference between the signal coming off a $2500+ channel strip and any vst analogy is not yet at the same level.

You are now. Previously you were saying the difference was "huge". How huge? 3 miles? 17 tonne? 45dB?

Again, do my test.

Listen to Bela Fleck Acoustic Planet II....sounds great...

then listen to Bela Fleck Acoustic Planet I

You will go holy shit, that last one sounded terrible, what happened?

The difference IS huge. It's off scale. There is no comparison. Same engineers....one recorded analog, mixed digital, mastered analog to digital...the other all digital in the box.

I use that as an example because you guys seem to think I'm calling your sounds crappy. This is not the case. I'm saying that the signal off of a good analog EQ sounds way better, more open and you have more control with it than a digital counterpart. I AM NOT BAD MOUTHING VST OR UAD. I have 2 of the f**king things. I liked my first one so much I BOUGHT ANOTHER!!! and I'm about to get a 3rd.

But, when I go into a studio that has the good stuff there is no comparison. NONE. NADA.

Also, I am not claiming to be some superman engineer. In fact I'm just the opposite. I'm a used up old guitar player who has twiddled around enough studios over time to have heard most of this stuff.

Bela Fleck? You're having a f**king laugh.
That's your benchmark?

[craigmorris74]

Indeed, a good mastering house will use good hardware. A "budget" mastering house will use in the box. The difference is huge.

Right. I guess that's why when Mark Linett remastered Pet Sounds he used that high dollard peice of hardware called the .....uh, the UAD-1. Yep, with a rack of great hardware staring him right in the face.

[SJ_Digriz]

Bela Fleck? You're having a f**king laugh.
That's youre benchmark?

No, not a benchmark. It's an example of the same very experienced people doing something both ways. One sounds good...the other sounds amazing.

[nuffink]

Bela Fleck? You're having a f**king laugh.
That's youre benchmark?

No, not a benchmark. It's an example of the same very experienced people doing something both ways. One sounds good...the other sounds amazing.

Not to me. They both sound like shit.

[Henchman]

And besides, Bela Fleck Acoustic Planet II was released on June 22, 1999. That's a lifetime ago in digital...

WHich means they probably used PT's. Which is still a recipe for shite.

[SJ_Digriz]

Indeed, a good mastering house will use good hardware. A "budget" mastering house will use in the box. The difference is huge.

Right. I guess that's why when Mark Linett remastered Pet Sounds he used that high dollard peice of hardware called the .....uh, the UAD-1. Yep, with a rack of great hardware staring him right in the face.

There is a bit of an overstatement that it was re-mastered with "just" the UAD-1. Regardless, the original Pet Sounds master tracks would hardly be considered an audiophile source. And, I have the remaster and well, lets just say it sounds like a CD remaster.

[SJ_Digriz]

WHich means they probably used PT's. Which is still a recipe for shite.

lol, so we have hate for PT now, how original. I can understand not likeing the price and other aspects of the business model, but recipe for shite? whatever

[ericj23]

but surely when mixing you could compensate for any failings in the recording

According to the pros, that's a very bad strategy. And I've come to agree with them.

alas mr four tet is a pro

and he uses a soundblaster

and his records don't sound reedy, tinny lacking in bottom or any other such metaphysical tosh put about by people seeking to describe vanishingly small differences in sounds

Yeah, but he made it sound good on the way in, not on the way out

eh it was recorded on the free microphone that came with his soundblaster - not the very expensive channels trips being advocated here

go look up the sound on sound article about him

the talent surely lies in the hands of the user not the equipment

so the fact that many pro's doing the job now favour analogue (or expensive shit anyway) does not make it better for me - just them

if the record sounds good it is