All Advertisers
| All Advertisers |
| |||||||
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| My Retro Sta Level review | syra | High end | 43 | 25th December 2007 01:17 AM |
| Retro Instruments STA-LEVEL instead of an LA-2A? | dubrichie | High end | 18 | 13th February 2007 09:36 AM |
| Retro Instruments Sta-Level - users? | castle | High end | 5 | 1st December 2006 09:03 AM |
| Purple MC77 or Retro Sta Level | mahasandi | High end | 8 | 27th October 2006 07:26 PM |
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
23rd November 2007, 07:49 PM
| #1 |
| Gear addict  Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: los angeles
Posts: 319
| RETRO sta-level OR 176.... I am looking into a new tracking comp. Right now my Purple MC77 is tackling almost everything that I like to compress during tracking. I also have a UA 1176, which is similar to the purple-not as good, and an Alan Smart C1 that I usually use as paralell or mix comp. I am looking for something that can make a vocal sound hyperbolic in classic way. From what I have read this is the STA-LEVEL. I do not know if anyone has actually heard the 176 reissue, but now that the 176 is out , I am wondering if this either a better choice because its controls (attack/release) give it more versatility- or a poorer choice for me because it is similar in function to the other (1176-type) comps i already own. I also feel I am over-using the purple (too often) and need something else to marry with that sound. What do ya'll think? thanks, nico |
|  |
|
23rd November 2007, 08:50 PM
| #2 |
| Gear addict Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: los angeles
Posts: 319
| The RETRO version of the 176 probably hasn't been out long enough to compare with the STA-level. But, perhaps someone with experience on the vintage originals can chime in. |
|
| |
|
23rd November 2007, 09:47 PM
| #3 | |
| Gear Guru Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New York City
Posts: 10,954
| Quote:
Seriously. In the grand scheme of things compression on vocals to me makes the biggest difference during mix time than at track time. And if you disregard the above and pursue a comp anyway an La2a is probably a better fit. I've only used the original 176 and to me it sounds like a tube version of an 1176...no real big deal if you ask me(again just an opinion). The Sta Level in my opinion works best at mixdown time. | |
|
| |
|
23rd November 2007, 11:42 PM
| #4 |
| Gear addict Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: los angeles
Posts: 319
| Thanks Thrillfactror... I have been using a Soundelux E47--> V72--> tele W395 eq--> Purple MC77 --> ampex mm1200/ 2" 499 as my primary vocal chain... This sounds great on most tunes, but the really roking stuff... Maybe this mic isn't the best for handling really dynamic vocals. It seems that something in the chain (EQ?) is collapsing, and i am smashing it to tape. I do like things to distort pleasantly...in a LEnnon solo record era fashion... but when i get the gain staging right so it sounds exciting and heroic, there is not enough headroom left and the loud passages collapse. Maybe the E47 is better suited for crooner type vox... What other mics do you recommend for "belters" not "crooners". I also have 2 U87's - but the midrange is not right for this project. SM7b, ribbons... Maybe a U67? I need something that performs like a champ... It is very nervous situation when the singer is giving these amazing performances and the recording chain is giving up... |
|
| |
|
23rd November 2007, 11:48 PM
| #5 | |
| Gear addict Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: los angeles
Posts: 319
| Quote:
Is this mic more conducive to capturing aggressive vox. with ease ? | |
|
| |
|
24th November 2007, 12:29 AM
| #6 |
| Gear maniac Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 168
| Consider Shure SM7 for a loud singer. Sleeper favorite... cheap too. It can work overtime on other sources after the screamo singer leaves your studio. (Guitar cabs, kik... really nice). A friend has an original 175B and it has serious freakin' mojo. Very fun, can go over the top in a hurry though (just my opinion). If the 176 is close to original, it should be a really cool compressor and a nice option to have. |
|
| |
|
24th November 2007, 12:50 AM
| #7 | |
| Gear Guru Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New York City
Posts: 10,954
| Quote:
And looking at your chain i can see how the MC77 could sound like its collapsing the sound. I know its a "holy grail" around here but its just not my choice when tracking vocals. Its too fast which can make things at times sound a little brittle or thin sounding. I prefer to use it these days actually as a snare parallel where its characteristics can be used to push the sound forward. | |
|
| |
|
24th November 2007, 03:56 AM
| #8 | |
| Gear addict Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: los angeles
Posts: 319
| Quote:
What would you use then? LA2A? I could borrow a Distressor from a buddy. But I really wasn't crazy about it on vox last time i tried. I know tape itself does a bit of compression, but we need something to control dynamics after the singer... I see your point with the MC77- it's just that the other choice, UA 1176, sounds WAY too veiled for vox for me... Also , since I'm all analog (no multiple instance plug-ins)here, I have to be choosy with my limited outboard at mixdown, this is why i usually print tracks with Eq and comp i like-I know it's not ideal...but it's working out so far. | |
|
| |
|
24th November 2007, 05:55 AM
| #9 |
| Lives for gear  Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Atascadero, CA
Posts: 1,819
| It sounds to me that you'd enjoy a CL1B. I use mine all the time during vocal tracking. I've also have 2 Sta-Levels but don't track vocals through them...I will track guitars through them on occassion...mostly use them in mix. |
|
| |
|
24th November 2007, 06:54 AM
| #10 |
| Gear addict Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: los angeles
Posts: 319
| What about the Sta-level makes it unappealing for tracking? Is it the risk of over - compressing or too much of one color? Rick , is the Tubetech box an LA2A clone, or? Any other boxes that people track wild vocalists through.? thanks again. |
|
| |
|
24th November 2007, 07:27 AM
| #11 | |
| Gear Guru Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New York City
Posts: 10,954
| Quote:
I am definitely not one of those guys. I prefer to do it the old way...ride the output by hand. For me the moment i hear the comp clamping down it totally throws off my mood. Plus i know the singer will hear the clamp or change in tone in their headphones and change their vibe accordingly which usually means extra work come mixdown.  You can also suggest to the producer to tell the talent to tilt their head back a bit if they are going to scream. Also using a mic in omni will allow the talent to step back a bit and it won't change the tone as much as in cardioid. If none of these work than a dynamic(SM7 as was suggested) is not a bad idea. You will probably have to EQ it and spruce it up a bit but it definitely works. And lastly why not track through a STA-Level? I don't know its hard to describe. Some boxes for me anyway just work best as a mixtool. Its like an ACE in your sleeve that you want to save for the right hand when its dealt. The STA-level puts such a stamp on stuff that its just more lethal in tiny doses. It either works or it doesn't. Also there are only so many boxes out there that work specifically when mixing vocals. I've always felt that vocals and snares are the hardest to fix and get right in the mix. A snare you can always replace but a great vocal performance is one of akind. and is unreplaceable. But if its not tracked well it becomes a specialty to make it fixable. You need special tools to coax badly tracked vocals into shining diamonds. Not only do they have to articulate the mids well but they have to make the vocal sound like pizazz. Not an easy task at all. Over the years i've only found a few and the comps i would trust i can count them on my hand. | |
|
| |
|
24th November 2007, 11:34 AM
| #12 |
| Lives for gear  Join Date: May 2004 Location: Los Angeles ,Ca.
Posts: 5,742
| The 176b's won't be out till mid december I'm totally down with the purples,originals,bluestripes but I'm also seriously diggin rediscovering the old 175B's. I know Thrill thinks they sound like a tube 1176,But man,I dunno,Guess my mileage varies...they sound friggin coool to me. on bass alone..like the classic old Buffalo Springfield /CSNY vibe to me. holding their own with the 660's for mojo. Nico, I'll have one of the first batch of Retro 176B's here next month,if your still curious,i'd be happy to loan it to you.heres to hoping its badass. I can also say I'm really diggin the old Sta's for tracking and mixing,not using the La's as much lately,especially on bass stuff. The Retro Sta reissue upgraded with good NOS[8386,etc] tubes is also a killer.a tad cleaner in a real good way ..if I could only find another for cheap like the old days  .A 67 is a good place to start with loud guys. love em. |
|
| |
|
24th November 2007, 07:47 PM
| #13 |
| Gear addict Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: los angeles
Posts: 319
| Thanks gentlemen again for the detailed help...Thrill thanks for the shared experience and advice...RB..as always, I will def. give you a ring. I guess the only way is to try all these approaches- and hope for the magic blessing... Maybe a Retro comp is in order as mix time is right around the corner. |
|
| |
|
24th November 2007, 09:08 PM
| #14 | |
| Gear nut Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 111
| Quote:
On really loud vocals it's not unusual for some condensor mics to sound like they are "collapsing". One of their greatest assets, being very sensitive to subtle details, can be their biggest problem because some, if not most, just overload much more easily than a moving magnet type (dynamic) mic. Also, the mass of the magnet in a dynamic mic can function as a built in compressor because it's inertia resists changes in velocity (or is it acceleration? - college physics was such a long time ago) and can smooth things out in a pleasing way. It can also help by minimizing or even preventng overload. So, long winded way of saying I'd try a good dynamic mic first. Something like SM7 or even a 57. But bear in mind that the sound you'll get with a dynamic mic is often much more dependent on the load it's looking at than with a condensor. Dynamics often don't like transformerless or opamp input stages. I've seen many times were a condensor might sound decent (or at least useable) with everything from a Neve to a Mackie, but a dynamic mic that sounds like complete crap through that same Mackie will be magical through a nice transformer input preamp like a Neve, Calrec or RCA BA-11. Edit: Just remembered you're using a V72. Love that preamp but my 2nd area of concern for distortion would be it's input stage. Your mic is probably putting out a pretty hot signal on the loud passages. May need to pad the input. Also, U67 can be a great mic for bombastic singers. | |
|
| |
|
24th November 2007, 10:18 PM
| #15 | |
| Gear maniac  Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Very close to my neighbours, but far from my friends.
Posts: 153
| Quote:
Best of luck, S | |
|
| |
|
24th November 2007, 11:19 PM
| #16 | |
| Gear addict Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: los angeles
Posts: 319
| Quote:
I love the V72's and actually have been checking out the V672 or Mercury M76 as an addition. I can't ever find V76's for sale.. How would you describe the solid stae V672 to the tube counterparts? Are they good? | |
|
| |
|
25th November 2007, 02:14 PM
| #17 | |||
| Gear maniac Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Very close to my neighbours, but far from my friends.
Posts: 153
| Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Then of course you have all the other usual suspects that would get the job done.... All the best, S | |||
|
| |
|
25th November 2007, 09:01 PM
| #18 | |
| Gear addict Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: los angeles
Posts: 319
| Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
25th November 2007, 10:46 PM
| #19 | |
| Gear maniac Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Very close to my neighbours, but far from my friends.
Posts: 153
| Quote:
 I haven't used the other Vx76 enough to give you an opinion, but I'm sure there are others around here that can give you help on that... Read you soon, S | |
|
| |
|
27th November 2007, 07:37 PM
| #20 |
| Lives for gear  Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: VIE
Posts: 975
| wow, some days ago a urei 176 went on ebay for more than 5.500.- dollars.....crazy..... |
| |
|
27th November 2007, 09:04 PM
| #21 | |
| Gear addict Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: los angeles
Posts: 319
| Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
28th November 2007, 02:47 AM
| #22 |
| Gear maniac  Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 208
| 1176's they're not. The original UA's have birth defects that can be dealt with and I'm curious to see how the so called re-issue deal with those defects. If they get it right, it could be a nice box. Should be interesting. Ron Allaire, Skyline |
|
| |
|
28th November 2007, 11:15 AM
| #23 | ||
| member no 666  Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Foxboro, MA USA
Posts: 5,778
| Quote:
Highly agree with the chain of multiple compressors when it comes to highly dynamic vocals... usually start with 2 EL-8's with something sandwiched between them... like EL-8 @ 6:1 med attack, fast release--->Tracker "Air Optical" quick attack, medium release---->EL-8 3:1 fast attack, fast release... no more than like 3-5 db of gain reduction with each and it usually holds pretty true without giving me shit. If necessary... add a Pendulum PL-2 "peak limiter" to the end of the chain if you still might get an "over" or two sneaking through. Peace.
__________________ Fletcher "I'm not really an asshole... I just play one on the internet" [author unknown] R/E/P the Recording Engineer and Producer forums Mercenary Audio the small drinking company with a large audio problem mwagener wrote on Sat, 11 September 2004 14:33 We are selling emotions, there are no emotions in a grid Roscoe Ambel once said: Pro-Tools is to audio what fluorescent is to light | ||
|
| |
|
28th November 2007, 07:32 PM
| #24 |
| Gear addict  Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: LA
Posts: 473
| I agree with the above post about the mic, alot of newer mics have thinner capsuls, somebody correct me if I am wrong but I believe Nuemann U47s/U67s have 6-8 micron capsuls. Alot of the Soundelux mics are 3 micron to increase sensitivity and probably freq. response. The problem is that a 3 micron capsul can't take the same hit the 6 micron can, I had a Soundelux U99 and though it was cool for some stuff, I felt it was kinda "light" sounding and not as beefy, also tended to be more sibliant than a great mic with a thicker capsul, so.... when your loud singer gets on that mic I think a thin capsul can sound almost like compression and can fold at high level. I don't know what thickness capsul is in the E47 but might be worth checking. Another thing, of course that is a nice tube pre you have, but I have found alot of tube pres also kinda fold or crap out at higher vols. though I know the Vs are not as prone to this as many. You might consider a fat sounding solid state pre... And if you use the Purple 77, be sure to slow the attack time way down, try like or 2 o'clock on the attack knob with a pretty fast release. And last, I don't like distressors on vocals at all, to me they are the opposite of a great tube compressor, I would think about using a full sounding solid state pre and tube compressor...
__________________ Sean Ingoldsby Real Time Studios Ojai, California http://homepage.mac.com/seaningo/ "Dung beetles with ostentatious horns tend to have smaller testicles" source unknown, as read in Harpers Findings, Dec. 2006. |
|
| |
|
19th December 2007, 01:10 AM
| #25 | |
| Gear addict Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: los angeles
Posts: 319
| Quote:
What do ya'll think of this deal. Anyone familar with the work of Erick Helsing? Sounds very German , must be good  | |
|
| |
|
8th July 2008, 09:42 AM
| #26 |
| Gear addict  Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: UK
Posts: 316
| CAN someone explain the difference between a 176 and a 176b. Is it the same thing??? and Cue roundbadge.... |
|
| |
|
8th July 2008, 05:17 PM
| #27 | |
| Lives for gear Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,267
| Quote:
 I assume he added the b because the popular UA was the 175b. I asked Phil Moore about the b designation and he said the "Retro 176" units I'll get from him will have all the updated controls, including the attack mode. | |
|
| |
|
8th July 2008, 05:27 PM
| #28 |
| Gear addict Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: UK
Posts: 316
| Thanx man So b stands for better from our point of view |
|
| |
|
8th July 2008, 06:13 PM
| #29 |
| Gear addict Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Central Point, Oregon
Posts: 489
| There is a nice, long, recent thread about the Retro 176 here: Retro Audio's 176 compressor.... bloody hell From all I've gathered in the discussions here, it seems the 176 would probably be a better vocal tracker because it makes it easier to dial in gentle compression than it is on the Sta. |
|
| |
|
9th July 2008, 05:04 AM
| #30 | |
| Gear nut  Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Utah
Posts: 121
| Quote:
Service / restore your Universal Audio UA 175 176 or 177 "The 175-A had stepped input and output attenuators, along with vernier controls for fine adjustment of In/Out levels. The hinged front panel dropped down to reveal Attack and Release time controls, along with calibration pots for GR Zero, Cathode Balance, and Plate Balance. The 175-B moved the Attack and Release controls out to the front panel. With the inside control panel removed, a slightly shallower chassis was used. (The unit we're restoring has Langevin balanced pots on the input and output, instead of the stepped attenuators.) The UA 176 added a gain reduction selector switch, with 2:1, 4:1, 8:1, and 12:1 settings. An unusual output transformer with balanced taps allowed the different ratios. The UA 177 was just like the 176, but included no meter on the front panel. The rear terminal strip has connections for an external VU meter." | |
|
| |
