Focusrite Liquid Mix

[BackHand]

Evereything I've heard about the Focusrite Liquid Channel has been great reviews so far...is there anyone here who has used it here or such?

Sound on Sound thought it was great any way....and the Liquid Mix is supposed to use the exact same algorithems...so?

[lozion]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_language

[sigmatibet]

I think I'm gonna love this product. Don't forget the control surface thing that is worth the price alone. I've been waiting for something like this for ages!!!
I'll put it close to my computer keyboard,right beside my US2400 and I'll be able to control all my stuff with my hands. Analog control-digital process.

[tomdarude]

I agree on the nice controller design....but why the heck would I want to control a bunch of mediocre plugins ???


port the UAD1 stuff to native AU - include such a controller as a dongle ....I´d buy two!

[trotz]

Originally Posted by AlexLakis

Right.

Yeah, Reason does do pretty well!

Welcome, Trotz! Catalan? I've never heard of it! Is it a regional dialect of some other language, or it's own beast all together? You speak English very well too!

Thanks!

Catalan is the same romance language spoken in Barcelona, spoken or understood by almost 12 million people in parts of Spain, France... If you feel curious, here's a link to the wikipedia.

This is a nice forum and people have a fantastic sense of humor

[AdamJay]

Originally Posted by tomdarude

I agree on the nice controller design....but why the heck would I want to control a bunch of mediocre plugins ???

oh, so you've heard the plug-ins already?

tell us how they are, please.

[noiseflaw]

Originally Posted by tomdarude

I agree on the nice controller design....but why the heck would I want to control a bunch of mediocre plugins ???

Oh boy you crack me up!

So how long have you had your pre-release beta test unit then...... oh hang on a minute you don't need to test it, or any product cos' you have developed the uncanny ability to open your 'third eye' and see into the future.

Tell me how does the new Apogee Ensemble sound oh great Rishi Guru.

[WindWalker]

I for one can't wait to get the 411 after the release. Speculation is good (sometimes gets my blood flowing)...but nothing beats real world hands on product usage and analysis.

If the prelim's are good, I'll buy.

[tomdarude]

easy guys, easyyyyy.....just kiddin


....and actually I was referring to the above comments like, "I´ve been waiting so long for such....." or "I only READ good things about LC....etc"

no offense to anyone, but it was because I NEVER buy something without hearing it...but I also can understand getting curious about a new interface-approach.



guess noone got my sense of humor (okay, could be my bad english...sorry)

peace tom

[AlexLakis]

Originally Posted by BackHand

Evereything I've heard about the Focusrite Liquid Channel has been great reviews so far...is there anyone here who has used it here or such?

Sound on Sound thought it was great any way....and the Liquid Mix is supposed to use the exact same algorithems...so?

I bought the Liquid Channel, and used it briefly, and A/B'd it against one of the preamps it claims to emulate. I thought it sounded terrible. It wasn't even close. I boxed it back up and shipped it back to the distributor. If you're really pressed on getting one, I'd suggest buying from a dealer that lets you "test drive," and test drive it yourself. If it sounds good to you, I guess you shouldn't have a problem spending $3000+ on it...

If the Liquid Mix uses the same algorithms, I won't even look twice at it. Yeech.

P.S. Editorial magazines/sources rarely put out bad reviews. Bad reviews don't feed the machine. Remember the Simpsons episode where Homer was a food critic?

[thermos]

I would imagine the Liquid Channel being a huge dissapointment at 3k, as there is no way it can emulate all those things accurately.


BUT......convolution type plugin processing is potentially great. Think Hydratone, waves ssl, etc. For liquid channel owners, although the dynamics and eq didn't compare to their hardware counterparts, how did they compare to otherplugins? In other words, is a liquid channel 1176 emulation that much worse than the uad equivalent?

It sounds like an amazing product if the sounds are happening.

[slowjett]

Originally Posted by AdamJay

$799 ?
i'm going to have to give uncle eric a ring...

What the hell happend to 399??

[subatomic]

Price and availability
The Mac version of Liquid Mix is targeted to ship in Q2 of 2006. The PC version is expected to follow later in 2006. The unit is expected to retail for just £499 inc. VAT in the UK. Please contact your distributor for local pricing (visit www.focusrite.com/wheretobuy.asp for a full distributor listing).

£499 = us$871.17

[Duardo]

doesn't digidesign own focusrite?

No, they were Focusrite's North American distributor for a few years, and they collaborated on the preamps in the M Box and Control 24 as well as the Comman 8's control room section. Digidesign still distributes their TDM plugins.

Why do I need their cruddy DSP when I can run 5 (better) EQs and compressors on every track as it is on my native system (with CPU usage up to around 30%?) I don't think focusrite got the memo. DSP is dead.

So how do you know that their DSP is "cruddy" and your EQ's are "better"? I don't think DSP is dead...there are more and more DSP-based devices coming out all the time, and no matter how fast your processor is, you computer will have more power when you add extra DSP to it.

If you've never had problems with an 002 and your PC, you got LUCKY (or you paid too much for a pre-built machine.)

Uh, no, my point-in-passing was that you can build the EXACT same system for about 1/4 of the cost of the premade ones. I'd gladly pay top dollar for a working DAW. But I don't have to. Creation Stations and Alienware systems are ripoffs. Period.

I'm confused as to what your point is...first you say that if you never had problems you are either lucky or paid too much for a pre-built machine. But then you say that you can build the EXACT same system for a quarter of the cost...are you referring just to the "lucky" ones?

-Duardo

[7161]

tbh i'm a bit cheesed off that you moderators didnt respect focusrite - when someone pinched the PR & images from our site to post here you didn't temporarily remove the thread until the 29th like everyone else did.

Focusrite asked us to remove it (along with other sites), and we complied. SoS had the same link to our site in their forum which someone posted, and after focusrite asked for it to be taken down, SoS removed the thread on their site, (I assume until tomorrow/29th).

anyways y'know.. it's not fair-play really is it. We're trying to get a review unit asap for a video review and this isnt going to help (mebbe, i hope not).

[AlexLakis]

Originally Posted by Duardo

So how do you know that their DSP is "cruddy" and your EQ's are "better"? I don't think DSP is dead...there are more and more DSP-based devices coming out all the time, and no matter how fast your processor is, you computer will have more power when you add extra DSP to it.

DSP is DSP. And I don't need it. Anybody with a system built within the past year or so probably doesn't. And native systems are only getting more powerful. I can run soooooo many plugins it makes my head spin. If I could somehow seperate the UAD plugins from the cards, I would run them native in a heartbeat. I'd rather have the open PCI slots at this point.

I'm basing my opinion that most outboard and many inboard EQs will be better than the EQs provided by Focusrite in this machine based on my previous experience with the Liquid Channel. I was very unimpressed. I'm sure they will be usable. But I'd rather keep using the ones I have. They do a great job. ~$800 for "every EQ ever made?" Come on, dude.

Originally Posted by Duardo

I'm confused as to what your point is...first you say that if you never had problems you are either lucky or paid too much for a pre-built machine. But then you say that you can build the EXACT same system for a quarter of the cost...are you referring just to the "lucky" ones?

Sheesh, I guess I'm not very good at explaining myself or something. Or not good at covering 10000% of my bases. Not entirely sure what your point is either, tho...

I guess I'm referring to people who are willing to piece together a DAW by themselves, and have a pretty good working knowledge of computers and operating systems in general. All I'm saying here is that DAWs are hard to build. The compatability ratio between parts is very slim (ESPECIALLY when Digi is involved...they're very picky), and when you combine all the parts together, it's even slimmer. Adding firewire/PCI bus devices can be tough business!

Pre-built machines don't always state ALL of their components (chipsets, exact RAM modules, etc.) Most of the time, there are much better parts to use, and it winds up being MUCH cheaper to build a much faster system on your own. But it gets iffy. It's a process of trial and error. I bought two motherboards and two video cards before I found a combination that worked. And yes, it's still A LOT cheaper than buying premade.

Also, pre-built machines are all ready tweaked to work with audio. If you just buy the parts, you're gonna have to do some tweaking. A lot of audio engineers would rather not go thru this whole process. If you wanna delve into this ideology further, read "Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." It will explain it a lot better than I ever could.

So it's clear for EVERYONE, to summarize:

-Building DAWs is tough.

-DSP is obsolete (or NEARLY obsolete, for you people who will just argue this point to no avail.)

-If you expect to pay ~$800 for "every EQ ever made," you'll probably get your money's worth, but not much more.

[jjdpro]

I for one love DSP.. I started out using EMU/Ensoniqs Paris system, which I still use to this day as wellas PT HD-3(expanded)and Nuendo..

Working in naitive land is cool, especialy on our custome built Dual Opterons systems, BUT.. Even with all that power, the 2 DSP based systems (Paris & Pro Tools HD 3) are smooth and robust. You are mixing in total confidence. Not to say that mixing Neundo is bad, it's not, but one feels like a nice well engineered 4 cylinder(multi-valved)Honda Accord and the other feels like an 8 cylinder (multi-valved ) Lexus..

Having said all of that, I welcome this new product fron Focusrite. It's about time somebody came up with solid solutions for the Native based studio.

But, i do agree with Mr Lakis, adding firewire to a system is "Risky Business". IRQ sharing comes into play and one can really screw things up..

[Slogun]

Originally Posted by jjdpro

I for one love DSP..

Me too. But there's also another reason why I welcome these kind of DSP based solutions. I can enjoy having these plugins for myself while the crack kids can not

on cracked software

[Jonboy79]

Originally Posted by 7161

tbh i'm a bit cheesed off that you moderators didnt respect focusrite - when someone pinched the PR & images from our site to post here you didn't temporarily remove the thread until the 29th like everyone else did.

Focusrite asked us to remove it (along with other sites), and we complied. SoS had the same link to our site in their forum which someone posted, and after focusrite asked for it to be taken down, SoS removed the thread on their site, (I assume until tomorrow/29th).

anyways y'know.. it's not fair-play really is it. We're trying to get a review unit asap for a video review and this isnt going to help (mebbe, i hope not).

I'm curious as to what you think happened here on this thread that isn't fair to you? Its not like Jules is selling these units or profitting from this thread in any way. Its like when people dig up photos of cars that aren't made public yet, it just happens and tends to generate more of a buzz than actual release dates. I think there is more positive going on here for focusrite than negatives and if I were involved with the company I'd be happy seeing something like this. So again what about this thread isn't fair?

[AdamJay]

Originally Posted by Slogun

Me too. But there's also another reason why I welcome these kind of DSP based solutions. I can enjoy having these plugins for myself while the crack kids can not

on cracked software

i'm with you on that!

[noiseflaw]

Originally Posted by AlexLakis

If the Liquid Mix uses the same algorithms, I won't even look twice at it. Yeech.

P.S. Editorial magazines/sources rarely put out bad reviews. Bad reviews don't feed the machine. Remember the Simpsons episode where Homer was a food critic?

Firstly I WILL have more than a freakin' look at this box o' trix especially at £500, and I will be looking at it more than twice dude 'cos I will be viewing it intimately on a daily basis.

I will be comparing it to plugin bundles such as Powercore and UAD - and I guess that it's gonna raise the bar for those kind of dsp card options.

I am a fan of emulations because I am a fan of ITB I like the sound I am only now just being able to get, especcially with the Waves SSL Bundle and Tritone Digitals's stuff, for a measley £500 I guess Focusrite will sell truck loads of this unit - I mean c'mon! i get real knobs to twiddle with my dynamic convolution, Oh yes please....two sugars for me - bring it on.

[Ziggy!!]

Originally Posted by AlexLakis

DSP is DSP. And I don't need it. Anybody with a system built within the past year or so probably doesn't. And native systems are only getting more powerful. I can run soooooo many plugins it makes my head spin. If I could somehow seperate the UAD plugins from the cards, I would run them native in a heartbeat. I'd rather have the open PCI slots at this point.

I'm basing my opinion that most outboard and many inboard EQs will be better than the EQs provided by Focusrite in this machine based on my previous experience with the Liquid Channel. I was very unimpressed. I'm sure they will be usable. But I'd rather keep using the ones I have. They do a great job. ~$800 for "every EQ ever made?" Come on, dude.



Sheesh, I guess I'm not very good at explaining myself or something. Or not good at covering 10000% of my bases. Not entirely sure what your point is either, tho...

I guess I'm referring to people who are willing to piece together a DAW by themselves, and have a pretty good working knowledge of computers and operating systems in general. All I'm saying here is that DAWs are hard to build. The compatability ratio between parts is very slim (ESPECIALLY when Digi is involved...they're very picky), and when you combine all the parts together, it's even slimmer. Adding firewire/PCI bus devices can be tough business!

Pre-built machines don't always state ALL of their components (chipsets, exact RAM modules, etc.) Most of the time, there are much better parts to use, and it winds up being MUCH cheaper to build a much faster system on your own. But it gets iffy. It's a process of trial and error. I bought two motherboards and two video cards before I found a combination that worked. And yes, it's still A LOT cheaper than buying premade.

Also, pre-built machines are all ready tweaked to work with audio. If you just buy the parts, you're gonna have to do some tweaking. A lot of audio engineers would rather not go thru this whole process. If you wanna delve into this ideology further, read "Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." It will explain it a lot better than I ever could.

So it's clear for EVERYONE, to summarize:

-Building DAWs is tough.

-DSP is obsolete (or NEARLY obsolete, for you people who will just argue this point to no avail.)

-If you expect to pay ~$800 for "every EQ ever made," you'll probably get your money's worth, but not much more.

You're kidding right?

Do you not think that software companies are going to keep expanding code and making much more complex algorithms that will use more and more computer resources... DSP will still be used and continue to be used for a long time. Last time I checked Protools|HD was still a popular choice... DSP = low latency. DSP = specialized processing that can be used effeciently for a single purpose. Lets face it, everyone knows we won't be waking up in a years time with our new computers and be thinking "This computer is as fast as I'll ever need it to be".

I'm pretty sure everyone understands that the Liquid Mix and the UAD-1 and the Powercore won't be as good as the dedicated analog hardware it emulates. But for the price of these DSP units you couldn't even get a single analog equivilant. We aren't all made of money, don't have tons of outboard and don't have the latest and greatest computers... The very situation why "cost effective" was ever coined.

"The compatability ratio between parts is very slim (ESPECIALLY when Digi is involved...they're very picky)". Picky? Well-tested? A Digidesign daw is the easiest to build because of the compatability testing. I've built 3 Pc's all with 002's, a mixture of DSP cards, firewire drives and gigastudio! They work without a hitch probably because I just followed the compatability documents.

It seems while you are complaining and whinging the rest of us are making music.

[AlexLakis]

Originally Posted by Ziggy!!

You're kidding right?

Do you not think that software companies are going to keep expanding code and making much more complex algorithms that will use more and more computer resources... DSP will still be used and continue to be used for a long time. Last time I checked Protools|HD was still a popular choice... DSP = low latency. DSP = specialized processing that can be used effeciently for a single purpose. Lets face it, everyone knows we won't be waking up in a years time with our new computers and be thinking "This computer is as fast as I'll ever need it to be".

No, I'm not kidding.

Latency? Oh, right! My UAD-1 card! Yeah, that has greeeeeat latency. Thanks for the DSP, guys. Now, instead of being able to run 70 instances of 1176, I can only run 7.

My computer is as fast as it needs to be right now, and will be for quite some time. And when it needs to be faster, I'll just buy parts to make it faster, not some propriotary hardware that will take up additional system resources. If you did some research on upcoming computer processing technologies, you might find yourself amazed. I know I am.

Originally Posted by Ziggy!!

I'm pretty sure everyone understands that the Liquid Mix and the UAD-1 and the Powercore won't be as good as the dedicated analog hardware it emulates. But for the price of these DSP units you couldn't even get a single analog equivilant. We aren't all made of money, don't have tons of outboard and don't have the latest and greatest computers... The very situation why "cost effective" was ever coined.

I agree. The product is pretty cool. But for the price of this product, you COULD have the latest and greatest computer. At least one that wouldn't hinder your creativity. Do you really want a Focusrite EQ on EVERY ONE of your channels, by the way?

Originally Posted by Ziggy!!

"The compatability ratio between parts is very slim (ESPECIALLY when Digi is involved...they're very picky)". Picky? Well-tested? A Digidesign daw is the easiest to build because of the compatability testing. I've built 3 Pc's all with 002's, a mixture of DSP cards, firewire drives and gigastudio! They work without a hitch probably because I just followed the compatability documents.

Uh, yes, they are picky, that's why there's only a handful of compatible motherboards listed on Digi's website. Most of the people I know who have followed their guidelines have had problems. Even Mac users. And not just Powerbooks with 002s. I'm talking about HD systems running on G5s. Not to mention the tons of people I've seen on Digi's help site. I'm glad you've had good luck building yours!

Originally Posted by Ziggy!!

It seems while you are complaining and whinging the rest of us are making music.

LOL! Thanks for making a personal jab, man. I've actually been trying to draw out of this thread for quite some time, but people keep pulling me back in. I've been trying to make objective points as a computer engineer, while others seem to find more pleasure in attempting to meticulously pick me apart. Us PC engineers are pretty disgruntled in general, so please excuse my "complaining and whining?" I'm just damning the machine...not my fellow audio engineers...

[FireMoon]

I'm sure it has been covered elsewhere on these forums however, Nearly every problem i have known ppl to ahve with Firewire on PCs was down to using a flakey chipset... If you stick to Texas Instruments or the Via Belkin and LaCie use on their cards most ppl have absolutely no problem at all.

Now back to the thread

[JohnRodd]

Originally Posted by BackHand

Evereything I've heard about the Focusrite Liquid Channel has been great reviews so far...is there anyone here who has used it here or such?

Sound on Sound thought it was great any way....and the Liquid Mix is supposed to use the exact same algorithems...so?

I'd suggest.... that you don't believe magazine reviews - as they generate a large amount of $ from ad sales.

From people I know, and trust - I've heard nothing but bad things about the Liquid Channel.

YMMV.

[The Press Desk at Gearslutz.com]

A Revolutionary Liquid Multi-channel Firewire Mix Processor

Liquid Mix’s onboard DSP hosts 32 classic EQs and 32 vintage
compressors simultaneously in the mix – an impossible task to achieve
with your computer’s CPU alone.

Each of Liquid Mix’s 32 channels provides Compressor and EQ emulations
selected from a huge pool of high-quality vintage and modern day
classics. 40 Compressors and 20 EQs are available straight out of the
box, with an expanding library online. Furthermore, a totally unique
hybrid 7-band ‘super EQ’ can be built out of separate classic EQ
sections in every one of the 32 channels. Each channel appears as a
separate VST/AU/RTAS effect within the sequencer and will work within
all major applications, including Pro Tools.

Liquid Mix uses the same patented Dynamic Convolution process as
Focusrite’s Liquid Channel. Unlike standard convolution techniques,
Dynamic Convolution utilizes vast processing power to sample the effect
of a classic processor on a series of audio pulses, at many different
gain settings and frequencies. In Liquid Mix, all this processing is
done using onboard DSP, so the processing has almost no effect on your
computer’s own CPU.

Liquid Mix’s DSP is housed within an elegant desktop control solution
and connects to the computer via Firewire, which also provides
bus-powering. The physical metering, screen, rotary controls and
buttons on the hardware help to provide a tactile ergonomic solution,
placing the sounds of an array of high quality vintage processors at
your fingertips. You can choose to control each channel either from the
desktop control unit, or from within the sequencer, using a simple GUI
that functions exactly