i can assure you that none of these guys take the attitude that we are in “the age of cheap playback systems” so why bother with this piece of hardware or that piece of hardware..............
these guys go to great extremes using all kinds of esoteric high end and low end gear to get their sounds. their approach is about getting the song to sound great on any playback system.
an EMT 140 might not be their personal preference, but whatever their preference is, that decision is most likely based on how it sounds and not the notion that is does not really matter because in the end everyone is going to be listening to MP3’s on cheap playback systems.
No shit, the whole point of this conversation is in reference to using a plate 140 as apposed to digital reverb, be it hardware or plug in. As far as cheap playback systems, CLA mixes on a sony boom box half the time and has been on record more than once as stating that people listen on cheap systems and it is a consideration in mixing. The blanket statement that a real 140 as apposed to uad 140 is the heart of the topic.
i did a couple jazz records this year as well as one classical/jazz hybrid record last year with a lot of strings and woodwinds and the EMT 140 is untouchable for that kind of music.
anything that needs to sound natural, has a lot of space, and needs “air” around it is where the real EMT shines most brightly above the rest.......
Sure, post the dry files and I'll run them through my 140 to provide a wider picture of what the 140 sounds like. Mine is quite dark as far as they go, but pre/post eq goes a long way to customizing the sound - in a way that I can't replicate with plugin pre/post EQ.
Originally mono tube, mine is now solid state with passive stereo barcus berry pickups into jenson DI transformers to a pair of console channels.
I agree, but my point was, that in an age of cheap play back systems,
I don't buy that argument.always had mediocre/cheap playback systems around.
not everyone I knew growing up had audiophile turntable systems.
now its just cheap and extremely portable.
I remember when my parents had 8 track cassette..sounded not great.
the average stuff available today is sonically light years ahead of what my parents had in the 60's/70's.
Most car systems were sh*t compared to today
iPods smoke the old cheapo walkman units
As far as cheap playback systems, CLA mixes on a sony boom box half the time and has been on record more than once as stating that people listen on cheap systems and it is a consideration in mixing.
oh boy another CLA-misquote. if you quote tha man, do it right.
"i dont care about all that. i just mix to what sounds right to me. and i think i just found what i like is what seems to work. i never mix with radio in mind."
"most of the stuff i mix thru my boombox, which is mounted in my rack. i have a sony zs-m1 which is at really low level is what im mixing through because if the balance doesn't sound good at low levels, something is wrong"
so A) the guy you quote spend tens of thousands of dollars into proper sounding hardware reverbs. B) the guy you quote doesnt care about radio or other cheap reproduction systems at all, he uses the boombox for finding the BALANCE of his mixes only
Narcoman,
Next time you are in Chicago hit me up and we will do coffee.
There is an Intelligentsia joint in my hood.
It is to coffee what the EMT 140 is to reverb!
: )
I don't buy that argument.always had mediocre/cheap playback systems around.
not everyone I knew growing up had audiophile turntable systems.
now its just cheap and extremely portable.
I remember when my parents had 8 track cassette..sounded not great.
the average stuff stuff available today is sonically light years ahead of what my parents had in the 60's/70's.
oh boy another CLA-misquote. if you quote tha man, do it right.
"i dont care about all that. i just mix to what sounds right to me. and i think i just found what i like is what seems to work. i never mix with radio in mind."
"most of the stuff i mix thru my boombox, which is mounted in my rack. i have a sony zs-m1 which is at really low level is what im mixing through because if the balance doesn't sound good at low levels, something is wrong"
so A) the guy you quote spend tens of thousands of dollars into proper sounding hardware reverbs. B) the guy you quote doesnt care about radio or other cheap reproduction systems at all, he uses the boombox for finding the BALANCE of his mixes only
Nothing like completely taking what I said out of context. And it was far from a "quote" guy. I was simply paraphrasing the message, and there is far more than one interview of him saying the same shit over and over again. Also, I never said anything about radio, so...
The whole point, again, is the topic of real 140 plates as opposed to digital reverbs, hardware or plugins. So come back when you have something relevant to say.
Well then, some of the top dogs in the industry are low end. Because there are plenty of great ones, without a real plate 140, that use digital reverb.
CLA
TLA
JJP
JB
DP
MB
Just to name a few...
There are no names here, just letters. Please write the names. Thank you.
Beatles? Yes- I've listened to the recordings. Songs aside are you about to say that the recordings aren't good?
Here's the thing about endorsing s/w. I do it. I endorse very specifically a couple of high profile software products in audio. I'm sat nicely as an endorsee on the website. And you know what ? I speaketh the truth about how I feel about their products. S/W plugins do get used everyday in my work - why? The recall. For sound quality they do alright. They sound fine. But if you wanna get geeky? NONE of them come up as nice as the hardware equivalents when appropriate. Not the UAD Massive Passive, not the CLA 1176 and not the UAD EMT140. They all sound great, they all have a flavour of the items they purport to be but they don't sound the same.
And I'm doing you a little EMT one right now just so you can see/hear. Close - sure. The same? Nope, but I still use the UAD most times.....
not playing the GS game of getting you guess which is which - they're labelled. I've used far too much reverb on each sample - but you can hear them. The UAD is 6 foot 2 tall. But in this game of inches the EMT is 6 foot 4..... Both tall, both mighty, but we know who can reach the top shelf magazines easier.
Yes, they are slightly different. I could even say that these are really different reverbs, but similar.
EMT has more bottom end. I could call that mudd, since this is a reverb.
It seems to have more attack too, on the snare. If this was a compressor, I would prefer the EMT instead of UAD.
EMT has bottom noize (an F# hum) that UAD doesn't have, and that is a big thing for me.
UAD on the bass works better from me (because there is less need to put a HPF), and on the snare it has a little more decay, and it is brighter and spacier. On the voice too.
The UAD has a longer tail, and I could bet that the preset was not EXACTLY like the hardware. It's more balanced, more spread, it has more difusion (listen to the last word and decay of the voice). EMT seems a bunch of flutter echoes, and flutter echoes means problems for me. Never liked them. UAD gives me beautifull waves of reverb.
If the hardware and software units have exactly the same preset, then UAD sounds better. And I suspect that some slutz here are selling their hardware and upgrading to software for a reason they don't what to say, but they just don't admit it because they cannot accept that software is becaming really awesome!
P.S.: I really thought that the hardware was superior. I almost believed you guyz... I guess that, from now on, I will always listen to the equipment first, and then I listen to the users.
__________________
Listen and support music: MySpace, Facebook, ReverbNation
(offering free gifts once in awhile )
Yes, they are slightly different. I could even say that these are really different reverbs, but similar.
EMT has more bottom end. I could call that mudd, since this is a reverb.
It seems to have more attack too, on the snare. If this was a compressor, I would prefer the EMT instead of UAD.
EMT has bottom noize (an F# hum) that UAD doesn't have, and that is a big thing for me.
UAD on the bass works better from me (because there is less need to put a HPF), and on the snare it has a little more decay, and it is brighter and spacier. On the voice too.
The UAD has a longer tail, and I could bet that the preset was not EXACTLY like the hardware. It's more balanced, more spread, it has more difusion (listen to the last word and decay of the voice). EMT seems a bunch of flutter echoes, and flutter echoes means problems for me. Never liked them. UAD gives me beautifull waves of reverb.
If the hardware and software units have exactly the same preset, then UAD sounds better. And I suspect that some slutz here are selling their hardware and upgrading to software for a reason they don't what to say, but they just don't admit it because they cannot accept that software is becaming really awesome!.
Diffusion!! Wow - surprised you see it that way round as diffusion is the one area that the UAD fails for me ! . Dont get me wrong - the UAD gets more use than the plate here simply because of recall and it is absolutely more than good enough. I do find the UAD a bit harsh and incapable of being sunk into a simple mix - but its fine in a complex beast.
The point being - the UAD doesnt sound like a plate!! It sounds fairly much like a plate - but doesn't do that "aretha" thing or that "Eta" thing ... know what I mean? On a jazz project I worked last year NONE of the ITB solutions worked.
Im selling mine because it doesn't earn money. Im also selling two of my Massive Passives for the same reason - one real one and the rest plug in works for me. I'll be selling my Neve console too soon - It is much better than ITB but so what? ITB is still absolutely excellent and I can make great mixes that way. My work is MUCH better on the console but really really great and really great are close enough!! And the recall enables better business practises. The clients AREN'T paying for hardware - they're paying for your experience.
Diffusion!! Wow - surprised you see it that way round as diffusion is the one area that the UAD fails for me ! . Dont get me wrong - the UAD gets more use than the plate here simply because of recall and it is absolutely more than good enough. I do find the UAD a bit harsh and incapable of being sunk into a simple mix - but its fine in a complex beast.
The point being - the UAD doesnt sound like a plate!! It sounds fairly much like a plate - but doesn't do that "aretha" thing or that "Eta" thing ... know what I mean? On a jazz project I worked last year NONE of the ITB solutions worked.
Im selling mine because it doesn't earn money. Im also selling two of my Massive Passives for the same reason - one real one and the rest plug in works for me. I'll be selling my Neve console too soon - It is much better than ITB but so what? ITB is still absolutely excellent and I can make great mixes that way. My work is MUCH better on the console but really really great and really great are close enough!! And the recall enables better business practises. The clients AREN'T paying for hardware - they're paying for your experience.
I really cannot understand why are you "downgrading". If Hardware is better for you, there is nonsense to sell it.
Besides, clients still believe that hardware is better then software. If I had Hardware, I will only sell it if it was worse then software. Otherwise, I would only destroy the possibility of a greater sound, and a better experience, for me and the client.
I don't know the difference between the software and the hardware, never used any of them. I just know the difference between the plate compare zip file.
But if those files mean the difference between the software and Hardware units, I support your decision of selling the hardware, for the reasons I wrote before, but mainly for the noise that the hardware brings.
noise in hardware! Yeah - well thats a facet of recording "old school". haha
Running a business means keeping liquid. Hardware doesn't bring clients at all - don't believe that myth; the only clients it brings are weekend warriors and I'm 20 years past that !!
The EMT is awesome. I love it. But it's getting very little use yet still sits on the maintenance bill every year. Hoarding equipment for nostalgic reasons is folly. Not so folly is keeping it because it just sounds amazing. Well - so did my gold sparkle Ludwig drum kit - sold it (for stupid collectors money) and replaced it with something that needs less attention and still does the job. The quality of plugins is sufficiently good enough to do the job; not amazing - but the only people who seem to be abel to spot amazing are those who record anyway. They aren't clients. Clients are corporations wanting a sync done, an advert worked, a film mixed or - rarely - a band developed.
None of which requires mojo equipment.
When I want that - for drums and outboard - I hire it in. A single hire payment shows up less depreciation on accounts, costs no maintenance and keeps the darn place just that tiny bit clearer. I've still got a LOT of outboard; but things that aren't being switched on for months at a time - liquify them. Bring them back into cash and invest in something that will make my company money. An asset that doesn't earn is a keep sake for a soon to be pauper!!
I've even looked into long term hires for equipment - you know, so you can replace as things and tastes change. Depends which keeps more liquidity on the books.
The clients AREN'T paying for hardware - they're paying for your experience.
good point. but I bet clients it when they see a neve desk...maybe as part of plugin bundles developers can inclue a hologram desk image to project in the studio
I remember the UAD Neve 88RS plugin being quite good...seems like proper good mix engineers can do a mix ITB but more amateur engineers will find analogue easier as its more forgiving to lack of experience...the more I listen to current music the more I think everybody is becoming used to ITB/Hybrid anyway...
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman
I've even looked into long term hires for equipment - you know, so you can replace as things and tastes change. Depends which keeps more liquidity on the books.
interesting studio insights! I suppose if you buy second hand you are doing a long term hire generally with cost only of maitanace and perhaps a marginal depreciation-sometimes increase in value...
I have made same experiences with other hardware effetc units too. Sure - sometimes plugins could replace the certain hardware unit in many cases. Especially the dynamic and eq plugins convinced me in the last years a lot (e.g. Softube, UAD 1176 etc.) - and the bad reliability and utopical secondhand prices of some old hardware products could also be a good reason that more and more people prefer to work with plugins.
I don't know why - but the most problem with plugins I see in the reverb discipline.
There's no reverb plugin that convinced me 100%. There are ok to work with, but don't do an A/B comparison. For me it's funny, because instead of old analog hardware gear the most digital reverb units works full digitally and with algorithms that could be translated into a DAW. Ok, there are also some things like A/D and D/As and analog preamps in a hardware reverb, that coulour the incoming signals - yes - but what I can't understand is, why a hardware reverb sounds even better than a plugin when it's connected digitally via SPDIF or AES/EBU.
In my setup for example I connected the Lexicon 300 with AES/EBU digitally with my DAW and use it as an external plugin in Cubase. The result is miles away better then the Lexicon PCM-Bundle Plugs - even when the paramters have been set on the same values. Why?
The main difference what I notice (and I'm a musician, remixer and producer - not a technical engineer) is that the reverbs of plugins sounds like added to the signal, but they don't transfer the signal in a virtual room like a hardware reverb does.
So the release phase of a reverb is quite well with the Lexicon PCM Bundle and even the UAD EMT-140 plug sounds nice, but the early reflections or the first milliseconds of the reverb sounds dead and not spacey enough instead of a hardware reverb L300 or original EMT-140.
So I think the engineers/developers of plugins should care more about this facts in the future. At the moment even an old Roland SRV-2000 or PCM-70 adds more room information to a signal than any plugin that I have tested.
The quality of plugins is sufficiently good enough to do the job; not amazing - but the only people who seem to be abel to spot amazing are those who record anyway. They aren't clients.
I will always thrive for perfection in my work, but I agree that it's more or less waste of time. Most people just doesn't know, care about quality - "80% is good enough".
Hope that engineers will fix it in the future. But we should not be too hard - you can get nice sounding reverb plugs for 99$ today
Sudad G
I know what you mean but that Blackhole test turned out to be flawed due to aprameter mis-matches under the hood...I read a response from Eventide somewhere about it. If you look at another video on Youtube with a wurlizer going thru presets - near the end there is a H8000 Blackhole preset - sounds a lot more like the one in the comparison you posted...ok here it is:
@7.52
re: Lex 300 to PCM - not quite apples to oranges comparison...you need to compare a PCM96 which will be closer...I suspect going thru conversion (and being turned into an analogue waveform then resampled) can make a difference to a signal...
I will always thrive for perfection in my work, but I agree that it's more or less waste of time. Most people just doesn't know, care about quality - "80% is good enough".
it's always a toss up between perfection, on time and the right price. If I was a millionaire I'd do the quality thing all the way. As a professional you get paid because your "good enough" is usually way better than the average joes "excellent". You get there quicker and cheaper.....
Well then, some of the top dogs in the industry are low end. Because there are plenty of great ones, without a real plate 140, that use digital reverb.
New Reply 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
)
)
. Dont get me wrong - the UAD gets more use than the plate here simply because of recall and it is absolutely more than good enough. I do find the UAD a bit harsh and incapable of being sunk into a simple mix - but its fine in a complex beast.
