The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Synths for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Going soft??????? Yep, finally seen the light. yippeeeeee! Keyboard Synthesizers
Old 15th June 2010
  #271
Lives for gear
 
Eric J's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by in a blue field View Post
i wouldnt mind hearing gear choices from people who do this, and the why's behind those choices. and if they think it's a better option than just paying for an hour of studio time to have your stems go thru a 9000J and whatever else...
I actually heard it in a studio. One of my friends did an A/B comparison of stem channels just straight ITB and then going out through a DM 2-bus LT. The difference was clearly audible.
Old 15th June 2010
  #272
Lives for gear
 
subby33's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by in a blue field View Post
i wouldnt mind hearing gear choices from people who do this, and the why's behind those choices. and if they think it's a better option than just paying for an hour of studio time to have your stems go thru a 9000J and whatever else...
I'll try to find the link when I get home.

Here's the link to one of his videos, unfortunately its on his camera, but he has others videos to look at for examples too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZAhOj--RVY
Old 19th June 2010
  #273
Gear Maniac
 
Dudley's Avatar
 

personally, i think summing boxes are the biggest snake-oil product around at the moment, and have heard other people in the music-tech industry sniggering into their sleeves that people are being persuaded to buy them!
Old 19th June 2010
  #274
Lives for gear
 
Odey's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudley View Post
personally, i think summing boxes are the biggest snake-oil product around at the moment, and have heard other people in the music-tech industry sniggering into their sleeves that people are being persuaded to buy them!
Not sure about that... Many experienced mixers would disagree with you. And they are buying the products...

I know at least 2 or 3 mixers that use Classic SSL consoles at the studio and in their personal studio they always have a summing box.. be it a neve 8816 or a toft/trident or ..... well take your pick really.

And they have those boxes because they feel they need them in order to do their job properly.
Old 20th June 2010
  #275
Lives for gear
 
Dirty Halo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Odey View Post
Not sure about that... Many experienced mixers would disagree with you. And they are buying the products...

I know at least 2 or 3 mixers that use Classic SSL consoles at the studio and in their personal studio they always have a summing box.. be it a neve 8816 or a toft/trident or ..... well take your pick really.

And they have those boxes because they feel they need them in order to do their job properly.
I agree with you and I'll add that one of the most common misconceptions that lead to the other opinion above your post is that summing isn't just about stemming out 8 stereo channels and comparing that to an internal (ITB) mixer.

It's about breaking out the stems into the analog world for added analog inserts on those channels... THAT is where the major difference can be heard (and why/how most "pros" are using summing, not just running stems).

-Andrews
Old 20th June 2010
  #276
Gear Maniac
 
Dudley's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Odey View Post
Not sure about that... Many experienced mixers would disagree with you. And they are buying the products...

I know at least 2 or 3 mixers that use Classic SSL consoles at the studio and in their personal studio they always have a summing box.. be it a neve 8816 or a toft/trident or ..... well take your pick really.

And they have those boxes because they feel they need them in order to do their job properly.


well - maybe they don't feel so secure NOT using the desks they have always used, maybe clients need to see a big desk/ analogue sum box involved at some point, maybe it just works for them in some other way. I'm not knocking whatever people like to do, but studio superstition plays a much bigger part than many top mixers would care to admit on a board like this.
that's one situation. if you're in a studio you have always mixed in, and you still like to run through the desk or a sum box, then sure, fine, go for it.

On the other hand, convincing Joe Newbie that the only reason his PC mixes don't sound like million-dollar productions is because he needs to spend 1000 bucks on a box of transistors to sum his mix through is snake oil, pure and simple.
the reasons his mixes don't sound very good is because they aren't - he isn't very good at mixing.

If a summing box does impart much of a difference to the sound of the mix, then 99% of the time the punters will not have ears well-trained enough to hear it. it certainly isn't the 'missing magic' they crave.

the industry ( and this forum! ) is built solidly on the idea of fairy dust and studio magic, though, so i don't expect anyone to agree with me!
Old 20th June 2010
  #277
Lives for gear
 
Eric J's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudley View Post
well - maybe they don't feel so secure NOT using the desks they have always used, maybe clients need to see a big desk/ analogue sum box involved at some point, maybe it just works for them in some other way. I'm not knocking whatever people like to do, but studio superstition plays a much bigger part than many top mixers would care to admit on a board like this.
Not really. People who mix OTB on consoles or use analog summing do so because they have heard a difference, and it is clearly audible. Its a different sound than mixing ITB, period. If you hear it in person, you know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudley View Post
On the other hand, convincing Joe Newbie that the only reason his PC mixes don't sound like million-dollar productions is because he needs to spend 1000 bucks on a box of transistors to sum his mix through is snake oil, pure and simple.
the reasons his mixes don't sound very good is because they aren't - he isn't very good at mixing.
The newbie producer has a lot of other things that need worrying about before they get to the stage of needing these things, however, for the experienced mix engineer, there is a difference, and some like the sound of OTB or analog. Do not assume that the '$1000' box of transistors will not make a difference in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing, because it will, trust me. That is why people use them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudley View Post
If a summing box does impart much of a difference to the sound of the mix, then 99% of the time the punters will not have ears well-trained enough to hear it. it certainly isn't the 'missing magic' they crave.
Its not about the 'punters' as you say. Its about the mix engineer and obtaining a sound that is different from ITB. Again, if you have heard it, you know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudley View Post
the industry ( and this forum! ) is built solidly on the idea of fairy dust and studio magic, though, so i don't expect anyone to agree with me!
It is interesting that you think that, because, once again, I believe that if you had heard analog summing OTB mixes against an ITB mix, you would hear a difference. Better or worse is a matter of opinion, but there is clearly an audible difference.
Old 20th June 2010
  #278
Lives for gear
 
in a blue field's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudley View Post
well - maybe they don't feel so secure NOT using the desks they have always used, maybe clients need to see a big desk/ analogue sum box involved at some point, maybe it just works for them in some other way. I'm not knocking whatever people like to do, but studio superstition plays a much bigger part than many top mixers would care to admit on a board like this.
that's one situation. if you're in a studio you have always mixed in, and you still like to run through the desk or a sum box, then sure, fine, go for it.

On the other hand, convincing Joe Newbie that the only reason his PC mixes don't sound like million-dollar productions is because he needs to spend 1000 bucks on a box of transistors to sum his mix through is snake oil, pure and simple.
the reasons his mixes don't sound very good is because they aren't - he isn't very good at mixing.

If a summing box does impart much of a difference to the sound of the mix, then 99% of the time the punters will not have ears well-trained enough to hear it. it certainly isn't the 'missing magic' they crave.

the industry ( and this forum! ) is built solidly on the idea of fairy dust and studio magic, though, so i don't expect anyone to agree with me!



i understand what you are trying to convey but when people talk about sending stems thru desk or summiing boxes, they are not just talking about "oh, it's gonna travel thru circuitry, and analog just sounds better!"



so what's the explanation for that, if ITB and OTB summing are equal? is he somehow cheating to sell the product?

i suggest you read the Reason ITB OTB Mixes thread (arguably the single greatest source of accurate information on the internet for anyone who is trying to not record like a jackass), consider how levels work differently inside and outside the box, and also consider the common sense that if you make anything, like say a computer, complete incredibly difficult mathematical tasks, constantly creating an uncountable amount of minor errors which add up in the end (think the difference between "oh it's just one cigarette it's fine" and then seeing the inside of a dead smoker's lung), that it is only rational that the result may not be as pretty as just telling a piece of gear to open up its electrical passageways easy as pie; you're telling one guy to toss a ball in the air and the other guy to juggle 1000 of them, and expecting the same result from each. if analog summing is a myth then so is compressor glue and clock syncing
Old 20th June 2010
  #279
Lives for gear
 
Dirty Halo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudley View Post
the industry ( and this forum! ) is built solidly on the idea of fairy dust and studio magic, though, so i don't expect anyone to agree with me!
I think that is a very simplistic and pandering point-of-view and sounds more like something someone would read here and then parrot.

And when you say "the industry," what are you defining? True audio professionals or wanna-be bedroom warriors?

Here's something to consider:

A cell phone would seem like "magic" to a cave man.

Maybe all this "fair dust" and "magical" gear are just things YOU don't understand.

-a
Old 20th June 2010
  #280
Lives for gear
 
wwjd's Avatar
"read here an parrot" "read here an parrot" "braaack!"

sorry!
Old 20th June 2010
  #281
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Halo View Post
Maybe all this "fair dust" and "magical" gear are just things YOU don't understand.
thumbsup

Arthur C. Clarke's, Third Law Of Prediction.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."


ns
Old 20th June 2010
  #282
Gear Maniac
 
Dudley's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by in a blue field View Post
so what's the explanation for that, if ITB and OTB summing are equal? is he somehow cheating to sell the product?

why not? 'gear manufacturer in massaging truth to sell product shocker!'


anyway, i didn't mean to get peoples backs up, i'm sorry. i'm not a troll. i'm an audio professional with my own opinions based on my own experience. we all do things differently, and we all consider different things important in getting a good sound.

to clarify, i don't say there is NO difference in sound when using a summing box, i say that, in my opinion, it is not a crucial, or, for me personally, a worthwhile difference.

i'm not looking to bicker, so apologies to anyone who i've annoyed.
Old 20th June 2010
  #283
Lives for gear
 
OurDarkness's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudley View Post
On the other hand, convincing Joe Newbie that the only reason his PC mixes don't sound like million-dollar productions is because he needs to spend 1000 bucks on a box of transistors to sum his mix through is snake oil, pure and simple.

the reasons his mixes don't sound very good is because they aren't - he isn't very good at mixing.
I agree 100%.

It's ridiculous to think that you will buy, say a Neve summing mixer, send your mediocre mixes through that and all of a sudden you will have instant warmth, 3D spaces and the like. Excellent mixes might benefit a little but it's never a night and day difference.

But.

Using quality stuff all the way through the end, might make a considerable difference.

And.

I will take a well-recorded, properly mixed, all vst production over a crappy recording, poorly mixed on Neve/API, squished to death all-analog-synth production ANY DAY.
Old 20th June 2010
  #284
Lives for gear
 
in a blue field's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudley View Post
why not? 'gear manufacturer in massaging truth to sell product shocker!'

anyway, i didn't mean to get peoples backs up, i'm sorry. i'm not a troll. i'm an audio professional with my own opinions based on my own experience. we all do things differently, and we all consider different things important in getting a good sound.

to clarify, i don't say there is NO difference in sound when using a summing box, i say that, in my opinion, it is not a crucial, or, for me personally, a worthwhile difference.

i'm not looking to bicker, so apologies to anyone who i've annoyed.

music people have such thin skins... no offense, i'm a music person too, it's a projection, "sensitive artist" or whatever, no one should be surprised really... i'm just sayin', like i see this all the time here, we didnt high-five you and pass you the joint, so it must mean we hate you? i cant speak for these other people, but since you quoted me, i was not riled up in any way, i mean you cant have a public forum in the true sociological sense without dialogue that is inherently in conflict. i am not new to the concept of marketing, but i also am familiar enough with SSL to know that they dont need to distort the facts (at least, not in the case of something so sure as this). if you add enough features that can technically be achieved separately to a summing box then you have a mixing desk, it's kind of the same thing to say a mixing desk is snake-oil as it is to say it about summing boxes, you surely dont think the 9000J is snake-oil do you?

make all the fruity loops albums you desire! if i like it then awesome! vector burn is one of my favorite drumnbass artists ever and he did everything on FL! but to imply that this community as a whole is just a bunch of people bitching about their inability to mix as well on a computer as they do with hardware, or that we're all the gullible victims of business sharks, is horribly ignorant and i hope thats not what you meant, i dont know any other message boards where people have been known to have conversations with michael brauer or bob katz, go tell them they believe in fairies and cant mix it well enough in pro tools. isnt MHB working on some sort of pro tools template or something right now, his assistants will and ryan were talking about it a couple AESs ago, it's based on his particular totally illin' way of using the SSL? it's not all crazytalk here man

i like music enough that i have become a huge nerd about it, and huge nerds become OCD about having the highest quality they can, i dont care what's good enough for you or anyone else kuz i dont settle for second best, if it's not the best i can bring to the table then it's not good enough for me, i see nothing wrong with not comprimising quality, and there is a lot more fact to all of it than "fairie dust"
Old 20th June 2010
  #285
Lives for gear
 
subby33's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudley View Post
well - maybe they don't feel so secure NOT using the desks they have always used, maybe clients need to see a big desk/ analogue sum box involved at some point, maybe it just works for them in some other way. I'm not knocking whatever people like to do, but studio superstition plays a much bigger part than many top mixers would care to admit on a board like this.
that's one situation. if you're in a studio you have always mixed in, and you still like to run through the desk or a sum box, then sure, fine, go for it.

On the other hand, convincing Joe Newbie that the only reason his PC mixes don't sound like million-dollar productions is because he needs to spend 1000 bucks on a box of transistors to sum his mix through is snake oil, pure and simple.
the reasons his mixes don't sound very good is because they aren't - he isn't very good at mixing.

If a summing box does impart much of a difference to the sound of the mix, then 99% of the time the punters will not have ears well-trained enough to hear it. it certainly isn't the 'missing magic' they crave.

the industry ( and this forum! ) is built solidly on the idea of fairy dust and studio magic, though, so i don't expect anyone to agree with me!
You are right on some parts. Selling a 1,000 dollar mixer to a nub who isn't even sure how to mix is just a money making oppurtunity. However, you could say that about almost anything on the market. Why are people still spending 3,000 dollars on workstation keyboards when they can just buy a laptop w/ sample libraries for half the price? Not a total parallel but it goes back to selling junk for the sake of selling it.

The link I posted is of a guy who knows how to mix VERY WELL. Look at his tutorial video on it. He does it all in box. No summing, no outboard mixing. It sounds excellent. He has mastered the art of mixing, but felt something "missing" from his mixes. He then invested in that summing box. He can hear an audible difference.

You just cant tell me , that someone who mixes on a proffesional level is buying snake oil. They're doing it because they hear a difference. As others have said, a summing box is the last thing you need to invest in, but if you have mastered what you have, and taken it to the limit . . . then its time to expand your options and sounds. That's what the man in the video i linked did.

I personally feel I can definitely hear the difference. If you put a very well mixed and mastered audio file in which one was summed and the other was not, I may not be able to tell (unless it was the same exact song). But there is kind of a mystical thing in music thats . . . a musical "silence". It cannot really be heard . . . but its there. You feel it. Hard to describe. Kind of the difference between analog and digital synths. We use words to describe the difference . . . but its as if the difference between them is so slight . . . yet the "feeling" of it . . . is immense.

Anyway, just wanted to say I dont agree with you about the snake oil thing. There is a difference in sound . . . for sure.
Old 21st June 2010
  #286
Lives for gear
 
timbreman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Halo View Post
I agree with you and I'll add that one of the most common misconceptions that lead to the other opinion above your post is that summing isn't just about stemming out 8 stereo channels and comparing that to an internal (ITB) mixer.

It's about breaking out the stems into the analog world for added analog inserts on those channels... THAT is where the major difference can be heard (and why/how most "pros" are using summing, not just running stems).

-Andrews
Hey there was wondering if you have any files you could post demonstrating the difference between before and after running thru summing.

Thinking that would be interesting to hear for alot of people on here.
Old 21st June 2010
  #287
Lives for gear
 
Dirty Halo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by timbreman View Post
Hey there was wondering if you have any files you could post demonstrating the difference between before and after running thru summing.

Thinking that would be interesting to hear for alot of people on here.
I would love to, but I've since moved on to a full console (so, in a way, that says something in itself.) But, if you want to hear a mix ITB versus OTB via SSL, I can do that... the thing is, it'll never be a fair comparison, because the mix OTB will have the benefit of SSL EQ, channel compression, inserted hardware, etc.

The last Dirty Halo album could be interesting though because we did a version of the album, fully mixed and fully mastered both mixed through a Dangerous 2 buss and on an SSL 9000k (not ours, mixed at the Warehouse)...

And as if to contradict EVERYTHING I've said heh ... we chose our Dangerous 2 bus / ITB hybrid album over the SSL 9000k!

(But, mostly because we liked HOW we mixed it, ie. we spent more time on the ITB/summed version)

-Andrews
Old 21st June 2010
  #288
Gear Nut
 

Yet another pointless discussion. James holden uses old p4 computer with old vst's and sounds great and there are countless other examples. Music is all about creativity and not about tools. Aphex twin used crappy drum machines and other budget equipment, but look at the results... So if you "need" 30 hardware synths then i think there is other problem that you need to worry about.... lack of creativity
Old 21st June 2010
  #289
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
Of course, nobody "needs" them.

What it can offer you is a faster route to the goal. If you buy a certain box or plugin that sounds just right with minimal adjustment instead of having to work hard for something to fit in the mix, you could call that lazy. You could also call it smart; time is money, and if buying that saves you time, you'd be robbing your own wallet if you wouldn't use it but would need to go through the same process each and every time.

If 30 synths are not indicative of talent, neither is a minimal setup. It's no goal in itself, and if you die with the most toys, you're a corpse with a lot of toys, you didn't win anything.

Making music's supposed to be, y'know... fun?
Old 21st June 2010
  #290
Lives for gear
 
kilon's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meskis View Post
Yet another pointless discussion. James holden uses old p4 computer with old vst's and sounds great and there are countless other examples. Music is all about creativity and not about tools. Aphex twin used crappy drum machines and other budget equipment, but look at the results... So if you "need" 30 hardware synths then i think there is other problem that you need to worry about.... lack of creativity

So if I was giving you a cheap toy piano, you could make great sounding electronic music ?

Actually there countless of pro musicians, who favour one tool over the other, and many that praise analogue, or very known VAs over VSTs.

So I have countless examples against your argument as well.

Its true that there are listeners that do not care about the quality of sound, wether is analogue or digital or just well designed. But then there are other listeners that do care.... ALOT!

Each musician chooses his target group.

I am on the completely other side , believing that tools are way more important than musicians, and a great tool is capable of inventing a whole music genre if used right.

Afterall if tools were not important , then we will still be playing music with tree branches and turtle shells.
And no I am not suffering from lack of creativity , I suffer from the opposite actually.
Old 21st June 2010
  #291
Lives for gear
 
Dirty Halo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meskis View Post
Yet another pointless discussion. James holden uses old p4 computer with old vst's and sounds great and there are countless other examples. Music is all about creativity and not about tools. Aphex twin used crappy drum machines and other budget equipment, but look at the results... So if you "need" 30 hardware synths then i think there is other problem that you need to worry about.... lack of creativity
Oh the irony! heh Your criticism is even more pointless (and about as much of a cliché around here as it gets).

I'll see your and raise you a
Old 21st June 2010
  #292
Lives for gear
 
Dirty Halo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kilon View Post
I am on the completely other side , believing that tools are way more important than musicians, and a great tool is capable of inventing a whole music genre if used right.
Wha huh?

Can you please give us a few examples of what you mean, please?
Old 21st June 2010
  #293
Lives for gear
 
kilon's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Halo View Post
Wha huh?

Can you please give us a few examples of what you mean, please?
yeah sure

piano, violin, electric guitar and .... eeee... ahh... synthesizer

Even my owns country folk music would not exist without bouzouki



music genres would not exist without that ones , would they ?
Old 21st June 2010
  #294
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kilon View Post
Its true that there are listeners that do not care about the quality of sound, wether is analogue or digital or just well designed. But then there are other listeners that do care.... ALOT!
Yes, hardware sound's better, but nowadays you can make good sounding records just with a cumputer. Most of 90's electronic music was made with budget tools and sounds great. It was driven by inovating thinking and not by hi-end synths. Look for instance at monolake. Nowadays he uses ableton with altiverb and that's it. And he rocks(i remember his surround live). It's all about music and ideas. If you make **** then with 30 synths you will make good sounding ****, but still it's ****. I don't want to offend anyone, but most of the gearslutz are more of a gear collectors than musicians-producers. If you can't make a decent record without jp8 then i feel sorry for you
Old 21st June 2010
  #295
Lives for gear
 
timbreman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Halo View Post
I'll see your and raise you a
LMAO!

I only find this amusing because I recently got addicted to online poker.
Old 21st June 2010
  #296
Lives for gear
 
kilon's Avatar
 

Quote:
Yes, hardware sound's better,
Well that is abold statement

Does it ?

Which hardware ?

Against which software ?

Under what use ?

Personally I do not like vague bold statements.

Quote:
but nowadays you can make good sounding records just with a cumputer.
You can its true

Quote:
Most of 90's electronic music was made with budget tools and sounds great.
Not the type of music I loved.It was driven by big ugly and extemely expensive analogue modular in the size of a room and true lush analogue synths.

Quote:
It was driven by inovating thinking and not by hi-end synths. Look for instance at monolake. Nowadays he uses ableton with altiverb and that's it. And he rocks(i remember his surround live).
Dont know the guy but I will take a peek at youtube shortly.

Quote:
It's all about music and ideas.
The right tools, can genrate the right ideas.

Quote:
If you make **** then with 30 synths you will make good sounding ****, but still it's ****.
Not necessarily even "good sounding ****" , but I never said musical skill does not count.

Quote:
I don't want to offend anyone, but most of the gearslutz are more of a gear collectors than musicians-producers. If you can't make a decent record without jp8 then i feel sorry for you
I am not one of them, my music is there in my signature , you are welcome to have a listen.
Old 21st June 2010
  #297
Lives for gear
 
timbreman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Halo View Post
Wha huh?

Can you please give us a few examples of what you mean, please?
I can kinda sorta see what he is talking about.

Several years back a friend showed me this program called Koan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koan_(program)

You could basically give it a few parameters and it would construct an entire song for you. Granted the program was way way deeper than all that. Someone could get lost in how deep you could program it but it's just an example.

And this was all several years back so I have no idea what's out there now!

It's kinda scary where things are going though.
Soon we will all be replaced by robots who require little to no data from us.
Old 22nd June 2010
  #298
Lives for gear
 
Dirty Halo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kilon View Post
Personally I do not like vague bold statements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilon View Post
tools are way more important than musicians, and a great tool is capable of inventing a whole music genre if used right.
Maybe this is a misunderstanding and/or language thing, but where would ANY instrument be without the musician playing it?

How can a tool be more important than the person using it?

How can a tool even be more important the the task it was designed to perform?

A guitar is a guitar, but put that guitar in Eddie Van Halen's hands and it transforms. Take that same guitar and put it in MY hands... heh

And as for the "tool" inventing whole new genres, again, isn't it the musician behind it who sees new potential? The person who uses something ordinary in an extraordinary way?

Take the TB303 as another example, it was designed to be a bass accompany box... it took a PERSON to see it's real potential.

Again, I say all this in the spirit of good conversation and allowing for misunderstanding... or perhaps we just don't agree, which is ok too.

-Andrews
Old 22nd June 2010
  #299
MPZ
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Halo View Post
Maybe this is a misunderstanding and/or language thing, but where would ANY instrument be without the musician playing it?

How can a tool be more important than the person using it?

How can a tool even be more important the the task it was designed to perform?

A guitar is a guitar, but put that guitar in Eddie Van Halen's hands and it transforms. Take that same guitar and put it in MY hands... heh

And as for the "tool" inventing whole new genres, again, isn't it the musician behind it who sees new potential? The person who uses something ordinary in an extraordinary way?

Take the TB303 as another example, it was designed to be a bass accompany box... it took a PERSON to see it's real potential.

Again, I say all this in the spirit of good conversation and allowing for misunderstanding... or perhaps we just don't agree, which is ok too.

-Andrews
LOL- ironically I think you two are in agreement. I think the point that Klion is making is that the potential of an instrument trancends what any one person does with it. For example, 303>Acid due to the potential of the box that someone thankfully saw and exploited. if an isntrument is capable of great things, but not in the manner it is usually used, the number of musicians using it conventionally doesn't matter.

It's 2 ways of saying the same thing- one just isn't very intuitive.
Clearly a tool can have potential far past its normal usage (as Klion is saying), and clearly a musician can use a tool in an unexected way and get fantastic results (as you are saying). its the exact same idea, with one phrasing referring to common narrow under-usage of musical tools, and the other venerating the genius usage of musical tools by creative individuals
Old 22nd June 2010
  #300
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
The pure summing units (so it is argued) don't tend to add a great deal to a mix summed ITB. The TLA units though do sound really sweet.. they aren't transparent sounding to me at all, from what I can hear but they do sound great..

there is a very interesting video interview with The Free Masons and they have a song in Logic they, have been working on for about a Month for some reason.. probably some technical issues. but they have obviously been tweaking that Mix for that time too so they are at this kind of, end game stage in the ITB Mix. at the end of the interview He starts playing the Track and it sounds pretty good. a good mix, arrangement with automation. etc

Then He runs it through a Large format TLA desk and within 3 minutes it sounds outstanding.

There's nothing much I could say about that!..it just seemed perfectly obvious to me.
not that the TLA sound is going to tick all boxes.. but It would tick enough for me I think. The only concern I have is that it might sound just too exciting and engaging, all the time. I would like to be able to cover more emotional ground than just excitement. but still I like it a lot. I think I could be happy with that unit. I would have to test it though.

The only thing swaying me now though is Paul Frindles DSM processor plug-in.
He's proved to me now, what that unit is capable of. basically by, reproducing the spectral and Dynamic signature of the sound of BBC Radio 1 Broadcasting on weekend 10pm Dance Music Channel.. He totally nailed the sound.

an OP placed a thread which stated.
"Why my song sounds awfully on radio ?? Help needed..."

a Great Mix totally ruined by the Radio Stations processing. I PMd paul and he got the dry mix and showed exactly what the issues were. so now I am thinking I should really use that processor. This TLA is great but I have to really consider where I put my Time and Money. Whoever gets this TLA though, I think they will have a great time with it.. especially for certain genres of Music. I doubt the purchaser will be disappointed there.

enjoying the Thread by the way.

thumbsup
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
axtrak / Post Production forum
0
andychamp / So much gear, so little time
1
AlanTide / So much gear, so little time
3

Forum Jump
Forum Jump