Liquid mix for mastering?

[soapdodger]

Has anyone used or evaluated the liquid mix for mastering?

I'm interested in how it compares to the equipment it convolves.

seems to me to be a great tool for mastering, given that it has such a range of EQ's and comp's.

Is it the case that I will lose some of the warmth and harmonic colouration that the real equipment has due to the convolution process?

[kellyrmartin]

I am very curious about this too. Its price point is quite low compared to the UAD-1, almost seems too good to be true.

[Reptil]

Haven't got one, so can't help you on specifics.
Consider anyway that the liquid mix is inserted after AD. Or I.O.W. as a plugin, maybe without going OTB at all.
That means its operation will be different from an analogue processor.
So the setup that you have is important in that respect.

Why not try yourself? If it gives you what you want, then that's ok, right?
Be sure to also audition a good analogue compressor.
And ABX compare them in a blind test.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by soapdodger

Has anyone used or evaluated the liquid mix for mastering?

I'm interested in how it compares to the equipment it convolves.

seems to me to be a great tool for mastering, given that it has such a range of EQ's and comp's.

Is it the case that I will lose some of the warmth and harmonic colouration that the real equipment has due to the convolution process?

no - because its not modelling, convolution is akin to sampling. It does retain a lot of the flavour of using the real deals, but without the flexibility. you also dont get the same results by overloading.

I'll tell you this though - i have a few of the real boxes in the LM and i did an experiment with the massive passive and the api2500. Using settings which were repeatable on both (you cant do every setting on the convolved versions) i was able to get near (not quite) 100% cancellation upon polarity inversion between the MP/2500 version and the LM version.

Very impressive, but not QUITE as good as the real deal. Very nearly though !
great value for money.


in comparison to the UAD. The two are very different. The LM versions are "more like" the real items. The UAD versions are not really that much like the versions they purport to be, but they are good plugins in their own right. If you want plugins that get close to being like the originals (which are still better IMO) then go LM. If you want good plugins that just sound good intheir own right and, perhaps, are more usefuyl for mixing purposes, then go UAD. I note this discussion is about mastering, but for me the mastering process should be left to a professional.

[johnzorzi]

I don't have an LM but I did read that Bob Katz says he can hear 'digititis' (his word) when using the LM and prefers the UAD. Try a search including his name.

I hope this helps, I was disappointed when I read this as I value Mr Katz' opinion highly and I have coveted one of these for a while. I bought a UAD-1 instead when I visited Canada earlier this year due to a good deal but I've still to get the damn thing working!

Still, it may be small enough not to be an issue - I probably couldn't hear it due to damage done when live gigging in the 80's!

[George Necola]

I dont like the LM for several reasons..

but I dont master.. so

[drakewire]

I have Liquid channel and the Mix, I would never use it for any kind of mastering for several reasons.
First both are great for tracking because of the tempting ability to use compression and Mic Pre's from various modeled technologies that sound very similar to the real things.
However in mastering you get away from the Mono farm and in to the Stereo Skillet... They both fry up different...
While I guess it would be most definitely possible to use the Eq and compression on a mastering chain in WaveLab or Sequoia, I just dont see the point, when there are a grip of other Plugs that would do the same thing better and more versatile to use.
The problem is that Focusrite products as a general rule dont maximize sound as loud and rich as necessary to create a final finished product. To me Focusrite always sounds very "Broadcast" like, which is desirable to me in a myriad of circumstances, which is why I own a great deal of their products.
But not for mastering, my dear watson... I need stereo widening and that cant be achieved in Sonic Modeling.