Real Names for Focusrite Liquid Mix emus - brought to you by St. Peeder

[mission1]

Saint Peeder,

Here is something interesting I've found, if you save AUPresets of the settings they seem to load OKAY in all versions. So it is kind of ironic that Focusrite is less compatible with their own format vs Apples format .aupreset...

I haven't tried VST presets yet, not sure if they work...

Cheers

PS: have you heard any word or rumor of when they will go final? They seem lazy as hell compared to other developers...

Nonetheless, I am so hooked on the Liquid Mix I cannot live without it..

[George Necola]

PS: have you heard any word or rumor of when they will go final? They seem lazy as hell compared to other developers...

it's a thirdparty product. it was not developed by focusrite only their name is on the box. so maybe they didn't work out a good support-contract with the 3rd party-developer

[neilwilkes]

Originally Posted by mission1

peeder,

i downloaded the new 2.2 beta of the LM and it won't load your snapshots. it says they are an incorrect format :(

your snapshots rules, did you by any chance port them to 2.2?

thanks

Peeder's Snapshots are working just fine in my Beta build of 2.2b21 on XP-PC
(I just read this post & felt horrified with the thought of having to redo these myself.
I have gotten so used to them.....)

[neilwilkes]

Originally Posted by mission1

PS: have you heard any word or rumor of when they will go final? They seem lazy as hell compared to other developers...

Nonetheless, I am so hooked on the Liquid Mix I cannot live without it..

Me too.
It's a fine tool.

Development is all done by Sintefex - not Focusrite - so it's all down to when the clever chap over there can get it done.

[barryjohns]

Snapshots are a "No Go" on Liquid Mix 2.2b23 on Mac.

[mission1]

They released 2.2 today... Snapshots don't work on the Mac :(

[peeder]

Yeah yeah yeah I'm on it...

[peeder]

OK PeedersSnapshots2.2.zip is attached to the first post of this thread. This should work on Mac LM 2.2 final, as it was created with it. I hope it works under Windows for those lost souls toiling on that mistake. Let me know how it works for you!

[Kadden Heart]

does the release of 2.2 seem to be running flawlessly in PT?

i don't wanna have to revert to 1.5 again.

[ar10003]

Yeah Thanks Peeder, this is so much easier.

ANyone know why LM aren't allowed to do this themselves, is it a licensing issue?

[barryjohns]

Originally Posted by peeder

OK PeedersSnapshots2.2.zip is attached to the first post of this thread. This should work on Mac LM 2.2 final, as it was created with it. I hope it works under Windows for those lost souls toiling on that mistake. Let me know how it works for you!

I really appreciate you taking your valuable time to do this. I hope I can do something for you some time.

Barry

[peeder]

Originally Posted by barryjohns

I really appreciate you taking your valuable time to do this. I hope I can do something for you some time.

The 1176 is MORE than enough Barry.

[mission1]

Yes, THANK YOU! Huge help!

[SoundCampaign]

You know I was really hyped on this product at first but now I'm like...Ehhhh....Plus it's overwhelmingly buggy...Even w/ the latest software...For me it's unusable right now...But anyhow thanks for the snapshots brotha!

Randy

[Kadden Heart]

will be getting the new final version tomorow, can't wait to try the snapshots!!!



random idea:
you know what would be cool,... CLA presets in the liquid mix. lol,...
the waves has G series, E series, and buss compression, ,...the LM has the same series if i'm not mistaken?
i wonder if it would be illegal for someone with the waves CLA presets, to set them in the LM emulations and make them loadable snapshots?

[dannygold]

I like how they emailed me when new betas came out, but didn't email me when the drivers went final. All class those guys.

[mission1]

I've had zero problems with my LM, but the hosts are another story.

[simer]

Hi there

I'm having problems downloading your snapshots, Peeder. Am I doing something wrong?

Many thanks again, by the way!!

simer

[peeder]

They broke the website on Sunday. Maybe they will get attachments fixed soon...

[Heartfelt]

I just stumbled across this thread...


Why the UAD over the Liquid Mix?

I am quoting a rig purchase and was looking at the LM for the 32 channel ease with comps and EQ.

In my package, I will be upgrading my waves plugs to a gold bundle and then adding a LM.

Should I be looking at UAD first? what would be comperable?

Thanks for any insight.

[peeder]

Originally Posted by Heartfelt

Why the UAD over the Liquid Mix?

I am quoting a rig purchase and was looking at the LM for the 32 channel ease with comps and EQ.

In my package, I will be upgrading my waves plugs to a gold bundle and then adding a LM.

Should I be looking at UAD first? what would be comperable?

Thanks for any insight.

If you can afford and host UAD (at least three cards) you should because it's the best-sounding. The LM is a great deal and sounds pretty good but it's no UAD. The LM is certainly competitive with any current host-based offerings.

[Haddox]

I like LM and UAD and with identical settings, PULTEC sounds identical to UAD. Now someone give me an inferiority complex about my ears. A big thanks to PEEDER for the effort

[DeadPoet]

Hey Peeder, a little off-topic but would you happen to have tested the LM plug-in behaviour? I'v tested CSP for distortion and curves and that confirmed what I was hearing: no distortion/saturation in the input stage and the curves are somewhat boring sounding (to me, and in comparison to the UAD plugs).

Do the LM saturate? I'm guessing not because of the (semi-static) convolution it uses.



TIA,
Herwig

[peeder]

Originally Posted by DeadPoet

Hey Peeder, a little off-topic but would you happen to have tested the LM plug-in behaviour? I'v tested CSP for distortion and curves and that confirmed what I was hearing: no distortion/saturation in the input stage and the curves are somewhat boring sounding (to me, and in comparison to the UAD plugs).

Do the LM saturate? I'm guessing not because of the (semi-static) convolution it uses.

Thanks for the question, got me to run the test.

I compared the 1176 plugins of both LM and 1176 blackface vs. the hardware 1176 (UA reissue current rev). I found actually that the LM saturates much more like the hardware than the UA version! But the UA version has a more accurate-to-the-hardware compression curve (though it isn't perfectly smooth). Both have plenty of artifacts visible on the spectragram. The 1176 UAD plugin I believe was their first plugin though so I have to cut them some slack.

The LA-2A was a completely different story. Here the UAD was vastly more accurate to the hardware, though not sporting the true majesty of its function. The Liquid Mix compression curve was a flat-out mess, and the distortion model was pretty terrible. The UAD's distortion model wasn't as great as the hardware but was far closer to it. Having the UAD and hardware versions of the LA-2A and seeing this I will probably never load in the LM LA-2A.

So my conclusion is the plugins from each vendor will be a bit of a mixed bag, but my ears tell me the UAD is king at least most of the time. The UAD doesn't have the 60 models of the Liquid Mix available though. There are gems in that pile that make the LM a good buy. Even though the Liquid Mix has quite a bit of low-level artifacting...it's low enough you probably won't notice at least in a dense mix. The UAD has far less artifacts at least as far as I've looked.

[samim]

the attachment download on this forum have been not working for a while now and i would really like to get my hands on the liquidmix real names fix. does anyone have an alternative download link? would be really cool!

[disuye]

Also out of frustration with the stupid (albeit lawyer friendly) naming that Focusrite uses on the Liquid Mix, I made this PDF cheat-sheet. Print or leave digital, your shout.

Index of /liquidmix <- 24kb PDF file

[mission1]

Is it just me or did they break the AudioUnit automation parameter names in this build? I remember that automation parameters had real names and now they all show up like "Parameter #1, Parameter #2" etc....

I think the Liquid Mix sounds amazing, but I a little disappointed in the bugs and quality issues with the software. They a slow to update and address things.

[Wheelie]

I find the same thing, LM haven't released software yet that correctly works with the 2 DAWS I use, in each update they fix something and break something else.... kinda getting to the point that they'll never be able to produce a fully working version.

Its a piece of hardware that I own but think twice about using as its a technical headache ironing out the bugs for the manufacturers. Which is a shame as it could be a great product

[jeronimo]

Originally Posted by Wheelie

I find the same thing, LM haven't released software yet that correctly works with the 2 DAWS I use, in each update they fix something and break something else.... kinda getting to the point that they'll never be able to produce a fully working version.

Its a piece of hardware that I own but think twice about using as its a technical headache ironing out the bugs for the manufacturers. Which is a shame as it could be a great product

What DAWs are those?

[SoundCampaign]

Originally Posted by Wheelie

Its a piece of hardware that I own but think twice about using as its a technical headache ironing out the bugs for the manufacturers. Which is a shame as it could be a great product

I couldn't agree more...I wish my ass could use it more, but the bugs it produces are embarrassing when I have clients over / mixing...If they would just get the software right I'd be all over this thing...