KVR Audio

kelvyn · Post by **kelvyn** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:29 pm

Ah Xoc Kin wrote:
Compyfox wrote:...Same goes for Ah Xoc Kin:
Why compare it with analog type plugins? MixControl never made a deal out of it that it's a "digital" type tool. And personally, I'm sick of constantly seeing "this has to be more analog type" and "that has to be more analog type". I can agree on certain things like the compression modes (at least the response and interaction with the source material), but not for EQ. I want more usable/surgical EQs, for everything else I do have tons of analog type alternatives on my HDD already - and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one (Variety of Sound comes to mind especially)...
Just so you know, I couldn't care less about analog, digital, tubes, transistors, etc. I gave the Grand Channel example since I currently use that one. To me it's digital, regardless of whatever analog gear it is supposed to emulate. I just like its workflow and sound. Any plugin is digital, regardless of the marketing. If it sounds good and facilitates the workflow I'll use it.

I can see the benefit of having a more robust/surgical eq. section.

I'm with you... The Grand Channel (amongst a few other cs's) have set a watermark with regards to sound and flow. So surely the goal would be to create a strip that filters the best elements (sound/gui/workflow) of the best plug ins into a new product at an attractive price. It's ultimately about the sound though... isn't it?

rlahalla · Post by **rlahalla** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:51 pm

kelvyn wrote:I'm with you... The Grand Channel (amongst a few other cs's) have set a watermark with regards to sound and flow. So surely the goal would be to create a strip that filters the best elements (sound/gui/workflow) of the best plug ins into a new product at an attractive price. It's ultimately about the sound though... isn't it?

Well, the Grand Channel is supposed to emulate a product with a particular sound. MixControl Pro is supposed to be a clean, transparent, all-purpose channel-strip. I don't actually want a channel-strip to color the sound of the signal, but maybe I can try and have new modes of each module emulate something different and add a new color. Programming an emulation like that takes a considerable amount of funds, so I'd have to say doing such a thing would be coming in later on after the initial release. Who knows though. Maybe it will be a big hit and I'll be able to afford the development costs much quicker

Ah Xoc Kin · Post by **Ah Xoc Kin** » Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:06 pm

rlahalla wrote:...I don't actually want a channel-strip to color the sound of the signal, but maybe I can try and have new modes of each module emulate something different and add a new color...

Perhaps a transparent (normal) option, and some flavorful alternatives.

No need to emulate anything in particular. I'm sure the Grand Channel does not sound 100% like the hardware. I just know it sounds good and has a simple and efficient workflow.

BTW, other strips I've used do color the sound, like McDSP Channel G, Wave Arts TrackPlug, Renaissance Channel, URS Control Strip, or Nomad Factory's Analog Trackbox and Studio Channel (which I have not used in years). Waves Audiotrack is also simple and efficient, and IIRC that one is clean sounding. Haven't used it in a while.

Hope this helps.

Compyfox · Post by **Compyfox** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:24 am

Yes but you know why? They are modeled after SSL, NEVE and the likes.

MixControl does not offer that. It has it's own flavor due to the saturation mode (post EQ) and maybe certain tuned filters in the EQ section.

I'm with Reason on this: clean and transparent channel strip. Why? We have tons of emulation/analog-type plugins already, so why use/create another one? Take a look at dlM's Channel Strip - it's also not modeled after anything and it's still considered as usable tool. Or what about the channel strips that came before? Where they inferior in any way?

I say no - in the end, the usability is what matters, and what you(!) get out of it. Not if it's modeled after anything, or sounds close like anything else. This is why MixControl got raving reviews - due to it's versatility and transparent sound, while having an excellent usability.

rlahalla · Post by **rlahalla** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 2:38 pm

Yeah, I do have a responsibility to provide the new version with the features that the current version holds, and also provide a very transparent sound that the current users are accustomed to. Most people like MCP because of it's surgical, transparent nature. That being said, I am still interested in making sure that users who want colored sounding modules will also get what they want

Ah Xoc Kin · Post by **Ah Xoc Kin** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:08 pm

Compyfox wrote:Yes but you know why? They are modeled after SSL, NEVE and the likes.

MixControl does not offer that. It has it's own flavor due to the saturation mode (post EQ) and maybe certain tuned filters in the EQ section.

I'm with Reason on this: clean and transparent channel strip. Why? We have tons of emulation/analog-type plugins already, so why use/create another one? Take a look at dlM's Channel Strip - it's also not modeled after anything and it's still considered as usable tool. Or what about the channel strips that came before? Where they inferior in any way?

I say no - in the end, the usability is what matters, and what you(!) get out of it. Not if it's modeled after anything, or sounds close like anything else. This is why MixControl got raving reviews - due to it's versatility and transparent sound, while having an excellent usability.

No, they're not. Some of them are, some are not. If you want clean ones, you have many options. If you want modeled ones, you have many options. I gave examples for both.

My point was simple, or at least I thought so; a Channel Strip does not need to be transparent.

If transparency is the route MixControl takes, that's fine. If it offers some color to the sound -as it does right now with the 3 saturation modes- that's fine as well. At the end of the day it is just another tool to get a job done. In some cases I will choose this tool, and in other cases I will chose an alternative. Whatever sounds better, facilitates my workflow and does not tax my CPU resources.

Ah Xoc Kin · Post by **Ah Xoc Kin** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:09 pm

rlahalla wrote:Yeah, I do have a responsibility to provide the new version with the features that the current version holds, and also provide a very transparent sound that the current users are accustomed to. Most people like MCP because of it's surgical, transparent nature. That being said, I am still interested in making sure that users who want colored sounding modules will also get what they want

Thanks

rlahalla · Post by **rlahalla** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:18 pm

Ah Xoc Kin wrote:
rlahalla wrote:Yeah, I do have a responsibility to provide the new version with the features that the current version holds, and also provide a very transparent sound that the current users are accustomed to. Most people like MCP because of it's surgical, transparent nature. That being said, I am still interested in making sure that users who want colored sounding modules will also get what they want
Thanks

Not a problem. I'm not opposed to new ideas whatsoever. I'm essentially looking for feature requests and ideas from current users just so that I have them on-hand, but in the end, I'll go slow creating it and we can all decide on the best path together

Ah Xoc Kin · Post by **Ah Xoc Kin** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:32 pm

You might enjoy reading this:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan07/a ... p_0107.htm

A bit old, but hopefully you'll find it useful.

rlahalla · Post by **rlahalla** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:37 pm

Ah Xoc Kin wrote:You might enjoy reading this:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan07/a ... p_0107.htm

A bit old, but hopefully you'll find it useful.

Good read, I did actually read that when it came out but it's still a great resource for me. Thanks again

rlahalla · Post by **rlahalla** » Wed Sep 05, 2012 2:17 pm

Ah Xoc Kin wrote:If transparency is the route MixControl takes, that's fine. If it offers some color to the sound -as it does right now with the 3 saturation modes- that's fine as well. At the end of the day it is just another tool to get a job done. In some cases I will choose this tool, and in other cases I will chose an alternative. Whatever sounds better, facilitates my workflow and does not tax my CPU resources.

I'd actually like to have quite a few more than 3 saturation modes, as well as a variety of different modes for each of the other modules, including the EQ. I'd like the gate also to have various operation modes, and I'd like the limiter to have a number of modes as well, such as one for brickwall limiting. I'm open to all suggestions though, but we'll see what happens soon-ish.

Agreed · Post by **Agreed** » Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:56 pm

Any chance there could be a "linked" mode where multiple instances within a project could communicate, especially regarding the Saturation mode? Seems like that'd be a feature you would want to change on all of them at once, to get a different flavor on the saturation going on per-track without having to do each instance individually. Other features need not necessarily be linked, but that one would be quite useful.

rlahalla · Post by **rlahalla** » Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:17 pm

Agreed wrote:Any chance there could be a "linked" mode where multiple instances within a project could communicate, especially regarding the Saturation mode? Seems like that'd be a feature you would want to change on all of them at once, to get a different flavor on the saturation going on per-track without having to do each instance individually. Other features need not necessarily be linked, but that one would be quite useful.

That sounds like a good feature request, consider it noted and I'll take a look into it

Compyfox · Post by **Compyfox** » Wed Sep 05, 2012 7:26 pm

This could actually work with "groups", as several programmers offer this by now (Slate with VCC and VTM, and SKnote with RoundTone and StripBus, or MellowMuse with SATV for example). But most important in this case would be a reference level. Either variable, or just two "set" ones at -20dBFS, -18dBFS and 0dBFS (the most used ones around the globe).

Personal opinion though, but I think Agreed is aiming at using MixControl as actual console type channel strip. And here, a reference level is(!) essential. On top of having a properly calibrated VU (reference level, 300ms rise/fall, I will be picky on that topic!) - and in spirit of MixControl - as vertical bargraph rather than needle.

If there won't be a VU bargraph, I'll simply continue using VUMT for this purpose (it's in my main insert setup anyway).

But yes, I could think of using MCP 2 as console type plugin. Much like UAD's NEVE 88RS (sans the console saturation) - only with more possibilities. Indeed a good FR.

Agreed · Post by **Agreed** » Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:01 pm

Compyfox wrote:This could actually work with "groups", as several programmers offer this by now (Slate with VCC and VTM, and SKnote with RoundTone and StripBus, or MellowMuse with SATV for example). But most important in this case would be a reference level. Either variable, or just two "set" ones at -20dBFS, -18dBFS and 0dBFS (the most used ones around the globe).

Personal opinion though, but I think Agreed is aiming at using MixControl as actual console type channel strip. And here, a reference level is(!) essential. On top of having a properly calibrated VU (reference level, 300ms rise/fall, I will be picky on that topic!) - and in spirit of MixControl - as vertical bargraph rather than needle.

If there won't be a VU bargraph, I'll simply continue using VUMT for this purpose (it's in my main insert setup anyway).

But yes, I could think of using MCP 2 as console type plugin. Much like UAD's NEVE 88RS (sans the console saturation) - only with more possibilities. Indeed a good FR.

This is exactly right

Thanks Compyfox for saying my FR better than I did!

MixControl Pro Discontinued, V2 TBA.