Plug-ins can't compensate for what Pro Tools is lacking

[Robotnik]

Plug-ins can't compensate for what Pro Tools is lacking.

Charles, I've noticed in the screenshots of your mix channels, you are using a lot of plug-ins (tape emulators, tube emulators, track wideners, etc...you even use these on the Master fader!) to compensate for Pro Tools "mix bus" and to compensate for what some plug-ins are "doing." Isn't that enough to tell anybody that mixing rock in Pro Tools can't be done. Rock is all about the big, fat, in-your-face sounds. Plug-ins can't deliver the beef. You'd be better of recording to 2" first, mixing down to 2-track analog (1/4", 1/2" or like) and hoping for the best...But, you just can't get blood out of a stone no matter how hard you squeeze/compress.

[Curve Dominant]

posted by Robotnik:
Charles, I've noticed in the screenshots of your mix channels, you are using a lot of plug-ins (tape emulators, tube emulators, track wideners, etc...you even use these on the Master fader!) to compensate for Pro Tools "mix bus" and to compensate for what some plug-ins are "doing." Isn't that enough to tell anybody that mixing rock in Pro Tools can't be done. Rock is all about the big, fat, in-your-face sounds. Plug-ins can't deliver the beef. You'd be better of recording to 2" first, mixing down to 2-track analog (1/4", 1/2" or like) and hoping for the best...But, you just can't get blood out of a stone no matter how hard you squeeze/compress.

Robotnik,

This thread is about how it "can" be done, not listing excuses as to why it shouldn't be attempted.

Assuming your post can be in a certain manner construed as "on-topic" rather than another "analog vs. digital" flamethrow, I'd like to point out where and how your logic is flawed.

You could easily state all the same things about analog recording: That the fact you can't mix rock on analog tape without a $.25million+ console and a truckload of outboard processors would seem to indicate it cannot be done.

And as we both know that is simply not true. Great musicians recorded by a brilliant engineer who knows his gear will yield a compelling recording. Agreed?

Such as it is with Pro Tools and the plugins: It's not what you use, but rather the way that you use it, which will determine the quality of your results.

So you really need to approach this not from the attitude of "I can't do this" (which is essentially what you've posted), but rather the attitude of, "It can be done, even by me, if I take the time to master the system." And to that end, you will find a lot of useful information on this thread and elsewhere in this forum which will take you to that goal, so long as you take the time to study this information and put it to work.

I hope this helps.

[Charles Dye]

Originally posted by Robotnik
mixing rock in Pro Tools can't be done

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on that one.

[nikki-k]

Hi!
Hmmm...

I think it comes down to taste, experiences, etc. All opinion in the end.

I have had friends who LOVE music, and of different genres, variety, etc.
I have had times when I would be subjected to the most awful sound while riding in their cars (no, not the sound of someone saying, "Uh oh- windows wont roll down...hope you got a good breath last inhale...").
I will ask them if they actually think what they are listening to sounds good to them. I have even put albums I thought were done well right next to the offensive *product* they loved. Still, they shrug their shoulders and say it sounds fine to them. Go figure...

Narrowing things down to Pro Tools TDM summing and pan laws zeros in on a more specific opinion, and due to the "digital laws," a certain amount of fact is included.

Within any DAW, if one compares that to another medium, say 2" reel-to-reel analog thru a revered desk, there will be a difference. Does not take much knowledge or common sense to figure that one out or even hear said difference.

However, isn't the WHOLE point the FINAL product/mix?

If I decide to walk to the local Mom & Pop, and have 2 basic paths to choose from. One takes 10 minutes, the other takes 5. The shorter, easier (physically) route includes passing a site with workmen who whistle, catcall, and shout little blurbs of their proposed sexual prowess they would like me to experience with them. The 10 minute route goes thru the woods, a nice well-wron path, nice scent of pine as I walk.

To be safe while taking the shorter route, perhaps it would be a good idea for me to take some self-defense courses, get a permit to carry concealed, etc. In other words, educate and prepare myself for a potentially dangerous situation. Then again, the nice, aromatic, seemingly pleasant path thru the woods COULD be dangerous as well (just ask good ole Little Red )

The whole point of that little tidbit of warped wisdom is this:
No matter the path taken, each will require a bit of knowledge, comon sense, and set of tools to accomplish the task at hand to the best of one's ability. Which was to hit Mom & Pops' for a nice snack.

After leaving Mom & Pops', I climb to the top of a hill, beautiful mountainside view, sit down under a nice tree, and enjoy my snack with a smile.

Moral of the story:
Any path taken can end with a viscious bite in the ass.
Travel with wary and educated mind, and positive attitude and respect, and the rewards are glorious, irregardless of path taken.

(oh- BTW- with most DAW's, I prefer them because there are far less "hmmm- dunno if I can do that" or "Oh. No . CANT do that.."'s )

[C.Lambrechts]

Originally posted by Robotnik
Plug-ins can't compensate for what Pro Tools is lacking.

If that's the case you might wanna take a look of how you bring it in there and what it is exactly you bring in. Looking to compensate something after it's been recorded is the wrong approach ... wether analog or digital.

[spherop]

I think there's too much polarity in the whole idea of in the box or not - i use outboard gear along with my daw - and a small format midas venice mixer - however - I am extremely interested in technique of mixing in the box. because even with some nice outboard - i want to squeeze every last ounce of tone i can get before it leaves the box - and there's so many great plugs as well. bring on the in the box theory, technique and art - why have it be some sort of either or thing. best use of the tools at hand...

[Curve Dominant]

posted by Chris Lambrechts:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Robotnik
Plug-ins can't compensate for what Pro Tools is lacking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If that's the case you might wanna take a look of how you bring it in there and what it is exactly you bring in. Looking to compensate something after it's been recorded is the wrong approach ... whether analog or digital.

True.

As much as I've become known in my 'hood as the local Pro Tools "mad scientist" with the plugins and whatnot, I've found there is simply nothing that can be done to make lame source audio "sing" in PT, plugins or otherwise.

If anything, the capabilities of the system actually gets us more and more focussed on the things that you CANNOT do in PT... like strong lyrics, melodies, beats that groove hard, inventive chord progressions, etc.

Not to mention getting aspects of strong tracking stage signal input into the system, such as mic placement, using quality input preamplification, followed by intelligent gain staging, etc.

Then there are the "X-Factors" such as the contemporary cultural relevance of your material (or lack thereof).

All of these less obvious, yet thoughtful and time-expensive factors will play a significant role in how successful your production ultimately will turn out.

[doorknocker]

Originally posted by Robotnik
Plug-ins can't compensate for what Pro Tools is lacking.

It's not about compensation but rather enhancement. It's like saying Jimi Hendrix was lacking because he was using effects.
Pro Tools gives you a clean, empty canvas. What's 'lacking' are the sweetening artifacts of analog: tape compression, hiss etc. I like the fact that you can start with a pristine, hissless sound and still have the option of warming up or mangling the sound. The point is, you're not stuck with 'warmth' but rather able to create shade and light.
What I'd like to see though is less relience on modeled, classic gear in terms of plug-ins. I have a feeling that things like the GRM Tools plug are not as popular because the don't have the 'classic gear' heritage that Bomb Factory and similar brands have. I mean, I absolutely love my BF Tel-Ray plug-in but I guess relying so much on 'virtual analog' is also preventing us from going ahead.

Andi

[Charles Dye]

Tape saturation was not an intended feature of analog tape. Its existence only became truly apparent after digital tape came into use and recording engineers noticed that something was missing. The real irony comes into play when you realize that the saturation, which is essentially a distortion of the input signal, (along with tape noise) was what the designers of digital tape machines were trying to eliminate in the first place.

[Jim Williams]

Originally posted by Robotnik
Plug-ins can't compensate for what Pro Tools is lacking.

Charles, I've noticed in the screenshots of your mix channels, you are using a lot of plug-ins (tape emulators, tube emulators, track wideners, etc...you even use these on the Master fader!) to compensate for Pro Tools "mix bus" and to compensate for what some plug-ins are "doing." Isn't that enough to tell anybody that mixing rock in Pro Tools can't be done. Rock is all about the big, fat, in-your-face sounds. Plug-ins can't deliver the beef. You'd be better of recording to 2" first, mixing down to 2-track analog (1/4", 1/2" or like) and hoping for the best...But, you just can't get blood out of a stone no matter how hard you squeeze/compress.

Seems I remember an old R+B song from a few years ago, "There's nothing like the simulated thing, baby" or something like that...

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[Ruphus]

Originally posted by Charles Dye
Tape saturation was not an intended feature of analog tape. Its existence only became truly apparent after digital tape came into use and recording engineers noticed that something was missing. The real irony comes into play when you realize that the saturation, which is essentially a distortion of the input signal, (along with tape noise) was what the designers of the digital tape machines were trying to eliminate to improve the recording process.

This is funny, innit?
There seem true points on both side of opinions and trends and fashions must have their parts too.
And sometimes they seem even too surpass the facts. Like with first digital records on CDs and the the whole world thinking it to have outperformed analog ( despite of that we all had own ears attached to our brains ) and how it took a little while until the first who moaned about brittleness where the classical music guys. ... And us, the rest of the community started listening.

When new technology shows up it often is regarded as best there is, then if it is not it might be vastly banned after a while and maybe sometime later being pulled out again and put in relation ( if it has true qualities.)

If I´m not missing out on this one, nylon shirts once were highly regarded as wonderful high tech stuff. Today nobody is really lusting for them. Or anybody remembers when imitation leather became fashionable? I think it for a while was even more desired and more expensive than real leather. At least the imitation leather jeans that I wanted to have by all means was incredibly expensive. ( The only company still keeping stupid consumers paying a fortune for artificial leather seems to be Louis Vuiitton; what rediculous life style comedy.)

After the rave the following trend as it appears being actual is rather ditching digital. But as has been said already it has also to do with knowing how to treat the medium. There have been some very valuable and plausible directions for better use of digital already on this forum that bring digital closer to the analog smoothness.

I already do not doubt that a knowledged person with current quality convertors and a good host at hand ( yes, I believe that coding matters and PT LE is not the program I would estimate as lossless, they might do better with their new 64 bit writings, though ) could do pretty close to the analog domain and for the future I expect digital to enable what ever desired from completely clean to distortion of any kind.

Just a semiliterate opinion,

Ruphus

[mitgong]

I record and mix all kinds of music within PT.

If you bring me this rock, I shall record and mix it. And yes, it will be recorded and mixed. And yes, it will rock.

But you must bring me this rock.

[alphajerk]

Originally posted by mitgong
If you bring me this rock, I shall record and mix it. And yes, it will be recorded and mixed. And yes, it will rock.

can i steal this?

[Mind-Over-Midi]

Are you guys ever going to get tired of this A vs D thing? How boring.grudge

[AUDIOSFX]

I must agree, this arguement is old and tired. Use your damn tools and hush... Its not x daws fault you are accustomed to "discoloration" thats life. Get over it and quit whinning...yikes...

dynamic range...hmmm digital...
edit flexiblity.... hmmm digital...
sound...remember soundtools...dude..
how about edit droid... version one of sonic solutions?

does analog sound better... does it?

tape hiss sounds better...?

my ears hurt...

next...

-ws

[Curve Dominant]

posted by Ruphus:
I believe that coding matters and PT LE is not the program I would estimate as lossless

I knew there was something cool about the coloration introduced by floating-point drift. Kinda reminded me of those old toob consoles.

[EJolson]

Originally posted by mitgong
If you bring me this rock, I shall record and mix it. And yes, it will be recorded and mixed. And yes, it will rock.

But you must bring me this rock.

Yea, verily. And upon this rock I will build my discography. Go, and do thou likewise.

[Ruphus]

Originally posted by Curve Dominant
I knew there was something cool about the coloration introduced by floating-point drift. Kinda reminded me of those old toob consoles.

Where they muffling?

Ruphus

[Curve Dominant]

Where they muffling?

Ruphus

You mean the floating points? The drifting ones?

I don't know if they were muffling, honestly. They were too tiny to see. Or hear.

What are we talking about anyway?

[Ruphus]

Thought you were agreeing PT LE processing to introduce sonic veil. I understood like you were ironically saying its alteration to be just as good as analog distortion. Consequently my remark.

Nothing important.

Ruphus

[Curve Dominant]

Thought you were agreeing PT LE processing to introduce sonic veil. I understood like you were ironically saying its alteration to be just as good as analog distortion. Consequently my remark.

Nothing important.

Ruphus

I was indeed being ironic with that post, and especially with the analog comment.

But in all seriousness and to put a finer point on the issue, it's not the PTLE processing which introduces floating point drift error, but rather the host computer's floating point processor.

Which means that ANY host-based system (Nuendo, DP, Logic, et al) has floating point drift error present if its host processor does not use triangular probability dither to round errors, and as far as I know none of the floating point processors do. That goes for Mac AND Windows machines.

Conversely, I would be suspecting of someone who claims to possess the ability to discern floating point drift error, since such errors fall so far down below the noise floor they should be inaudible. But invariably there will always be some who make such claims, just as there will be those who claim to hear up to 30kz, or that they can hear "the spaces between the ones and the zeroes" in digital audio.

Hopefully this explains the intended depth of the irony in that post.

[Ruphus]

I see, thanks for explaining!

Ruphus

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally posted by Curve Dominant
...Which means that ANY host-based system (Nuendo, DP, Logic, et al) has floating point drift error present if its host processor does not use triangular probability dither to round errors, and as far as I know none of the floating point processors do. That goes for Mac AND Windows machines...

I'm told this CAN be addressed with DSP code. Some know to do it and some don't know or don't bother. Also I think I remember reading that Samplitude is 64 bit float.

[djui5]

Maybe this thread would be better titled "pro-tools/plug-in's can't compensate for garbage in"?

[mitgong]

Originally posted by alphajerk
can i steal this?

Yes you may, my Clutch-lovinig brother, if you repeat these simple words: "John Bonham is the one true god".

[mitgong]

Originally posted by EJolson
Yea, verily. And upon this rock I will build my discography. Go, and do thou likewise.

So let it be written. So let it be done.

[mitgong]

Originally posted by djui5
Maybe this thread would be better titled "pro-tools/plug-in's can't compensate for garbage in"?

You won the free tickets!

[alphajerk]

Originally posted by mitgong
Yes you may, my Clutch-lovinig brother, if you repeat these simple words: "John Bonham is the one true god".

there shall be no gods before jean paul gaster.