The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Hi-end digital mixer vs PT ITB Equalizer Plugins
Old 2nd July 2015
  #181
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman View Post
I would say, that's a matter of opinion.
Not when you can measure exactly what they do and find out that there is nothing special about them. Don't get me wrong, UAD make good plugins, but so do many other companies.

I understand having a preference for particular tools and brands, we all do, but refusing to work somewhere because they don't carry your favourite brand of replaceable tools seems foolish to me.

Anyway, I'm just passing time while I eat breakfast before leaving on vacation. Whatever works for you and rocks your world. The sun will be rocking mine for the coming days!

Alistair
Old 2nd July 2015
  #182
Lives for gear
 

I can relate to Hench. I need the DNS One plug in for mixes. Can I get by with another plug in, sure, but I can do a better mix faster with DNS One. The paradyme I would put forth would be, "I will need an extra few days with the mix if I can't have my plug in set, it's your dime.".
Old 2nd July 2015
  #183
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimmt View Post
As is the question why many prefer the sonics of a console. Actually I don't get why you keep dissing consoles on a forum when you seem to be so insisting on a porprietary topology (UAD) yourself. Where is the big deal? These things all sound a little different, and everybody hears a little different, all good. No need to force a standard or a paradigm on anybody.
Because the topic is, that mixing post on a console sounds better than ITB.
Which is nonsense.
Old 2nd July 2015
  #184
Lives for gear
 
ggegan's Avatar
I can't think of any facilities that don't have Cedars, although some offer the hardware version rather than the DNS One.

Listen, no one is forced to work with substandard tools at the major facilities, they all offer a robust pallette of plugins that will turn out great tracks, especially for dialog mixers, but with new plugins coming out constantly there is no way they are going to run out and buy every gadget on the market.

Most facilities I work at do allow mixers to bring in their own plugins and iLoks, but there are a few big ones that have policies that discourage it for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post. I can appreciate why they have these policies, they aren't capricious decisions.
Old 2nd July 2015
  #185
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Not when you can measure exactly what they do and find out that there is nothing special about them. Don't get me wrong, UAD make good plugins, but so do many other companies.

Alistair
This might be true. But that would mean I would have to install THOSE plugins.
The only standard plugins in my template are Reverb one, Revibe, and that distortion plugin which I can't remember the name of.
So going into a mix replacing nearly every single plugin in my chain, to appease someone in the tech dept, that will slow me down and undermine the outcome of my mix.
Yeah, call me picky, but For me that's a pretty unacceptable situation to be put in.

And I'm not the kind of guy who changes plugins on a regular basis. I tend to stick with what works for me.
It took me months to even try out FabFilter DS. But one of the guys here kept bugging me to check it out. So I finally did. And I'm glad I did.
FabFilter simply blows away every single de-esser I have tried.
Old 2nd July 2015
  #186
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Also, I didn't start out using using what I use today.
I used to use all the standard stuff. Waves Q10, Renaissance de-essers, c4, R-Comp!, Eq3-7 etc. I was simply wholly unsatisfeid with the sound of my Dialog.
I am very happy with how my dialog sounds now, and refuse to go backwards.
Old 2nd July 2015
  #187
Lives for gear
 

This thread again?

I thought the post forum consensus a while back was that digital is digital weather on a System 5/DFC or in PT.

Its just a matter of workflow preferences.

Last edited by Ienjoyaudio; 2nd July 2015 at 11:45 PM.. Reason: Spelling.
Old 2nd July 2015
  #188
Lives for gear
 
ggegan's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ienjoyaudio View Post
This thread again?

I though the post forum conscious a while back was that digital is digital weather on a System 5/DFC or in PT.

Its just a matter of workflow preferences.
Maybe you should turn off your spelling auto correct option. I had to read your post several times to figure out what you were saying.
Old 2nd July 2015
  #189
Lives for gear
 

If you are using UAD hardware that is essential to your workflow I believe that puts you in the Hi-End Digital mixer over PT ITB camp.

IMO, you can not simultaneously champion ITB workflow whilst insisting on using Outboard gear.
Old 2nd July 2015
  #190
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ggegan View Post
What I often see is the director of sound, who is generally the highest ranking mixer gets together with the chief engineer and hash out a plan. They may or may not ask the other staff mixers' opinions.

The issue is a practical one. In order to keep a really large facility running smoothly with a minimum of glitches and the ability to move mixes and personnel from one stage to another with minimum hassle a universal toolset is decided upon. If a stage goes down or a mix needs to move to another for any reason all that needs to happen is to pull the sessions from the server in the new room and they're good to go at a moment's notice .
That is exactly how it works around here. Instead of dub stages we have a few networks and large production facilities. Same process. Some take input, some don't. The important thing for most is redundancy.
Old 2nd July 2015
  #191
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathand View Post
If you are using UAD hardware that is essential to your workflow I believe that puts you in the Hi-End Digital mixer over PT ITB camp.

IMO, you can not simultaneously champion ITB workflow whilst insisting on using Outboard gear.
It's still a plugin, running within the protools mixer.
Hence, ITB
Old 2nd July 2015
  #192
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman View Post
Also, I didn't start out using using what I use today.
I used to use all the standard stuff. Waves Q10, Renaissance de-essers, c4, R-Comp!, Eq3-7 etc. I was simply wholly unsatisfeid with the sound of my Dialog.
I am very happy with how my dialog sounds now, and refuse to go backwards.
Hench,

I'm curious about the UAD stuff. Could you elaborate more on why specifically you feel your dialog has improved with your switch to UAD plugs? What do you have on your chain? What specifically do you like about each of these plugs, and what makes them better than others?

Thanks!
Old 2nd July 2015
  #193
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman View Post
It's still a plugin, running within the protools mixer.
Hence, ITB
Does the "plug-in" require External hardware, the UAD Quad Core Satellite, to work? Answer is yes. Hence, OTB.
Old 2nd July 2015
  #194
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by postprosound View Post
Hench,

I'm curious about the UAD stuff. Could you elaborate more on why specifically you feel your dialog has improved with your switch to UAD plugs? What do you have on your chain? What specifically do you like about each of these plugs, and what makes them better than others?

Thanks!
Remember, it's not just the UAD plugins.

In general I was unhappy with the lack of depth. Things just didn't sound right.
Worst was Q10. That always just sounded grainy and phasey when notching. Eq3 and 7 I felt were just too wishy washy.
I use numerous UAD plugins. The pultec HI and lopass. VoG, precision limiter, the pultec midrange eq. On the masters I use the pultec to add brightness when needed and the Fairchild compressor to soften peaks. I also use the lexicon reverb when I need a bit of verb on music.
I also use their DBX 160 on the ADR master, which I turn the gain up all the way on. Since I started doing this, I've found it much easier to match production dialog. It adds a bit of that "production" sound to the ADR.

Those with DMG audio eq's, one for shaping another for notching, and the fabfliter DS allow me to do what I consider a pretty good job, in a small amount of time.
Old 2nd July 2015
  #195
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathand View Post
Does the "plug-in" require External hardware, the UAD Quad Core Satellite, to work? Answer is yes. Hence, OTB.
Then I guess anyone who use a CEDAR DNS 2000 is mixing OTB.
Old 2nd July 2015
  #196
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman View Post
Then I guess anyone who use a CEDAR DNS 2000 is mixing OTB.
Yup
Old 2nd July 2015
  #197
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathand View Post
Does the "plug-in" require External hardware, the UAD Quad Core Satellite, to work? Answer is yes. Hence, OTB.
I think the distinction most people make between ITB and console is that with the latter there is literally an audio signal (analog/AES/MADI) sent from the recorder/editor/player to a console with full processing functions completely apart from the playback. In the former, everything is integrated into one comprehensive operational interface and processing platform within the computer, even if some "audio" data packets may be passed to and from dedicated DSP assets like a UAD box or PCI card.

If you want to refer to an HDX system that uses a Thuderbolt-to-PCI chassis as "OTB" mixing, semantically you probably could...but most people would disagree.
Old 2nd July 2015
  #198
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman View Post
Remember, it's not just the UAD plugins.

In general I was unhappy with the lack of depth. Things just didn't sound right.
Worst was Q10. That always just sounded grainy and phasey when notching. Eq3 and 7 I felt were just too wishy washy.
I use numerous UAD plugins. The pultec HI and lopass. VoG, precision limiter, the pultec midrange eq. On the masters I use the pultec to add brightness when needed and the Fairchild compressor to soften peaks. I also use the lexicon reverb when I need a bit of verb on music.
I also use their DBX 160 on the ADR master, which I turn the gain up all the way on. Since I started doing this, I've found it much easier to match production dialog. It adds a bit of that "production" sound to the ADR.

Those with DMG audio eq's, one for shaping another for notching, and the fabfliter DS allow me to do what I consider a pretty good job, in a small amount of time.
Thanks Mark, I appreciate the insight. I too have never been a huge fan of the Q10. Besides it being, as you said, grainy, I just found the interface too sensitive to deal with; Move the trackball a 1/6th of an inch, go up 4 octaves. And the Eq3... Though i can see where you would say it's wishy washy... i still use it. I really like it's simplicity, for better or worse. And it seems pretty transparent. Horses for courses....

I am very curious about the 160 cranked all the way up. that really is interesting. How do you set the compression and threshold? Where does sit on the chain? Do you have to get funky with the gain staging?

__________


I would like to point out one thing, something that perhaps we all could learn from. In the end, if we are making great tracks, on time, it probably doesn't matter to much how we get there. Mark here has played with stuff, formed opinions, and found something that works. Then he works with what he's created. We all could do the same. Form opinions on what we want, tinker until you come close, then get to work. (it goes without saying that you always learn, and make changes when needed).

I belive it was the great golf instructor Harvey Penick would said something to the effect of, 'never play for money against someone who has found a way to become good with a bad grip. They've found a way to make it work.'
Not that Mark's way or anyone else's is anything less than exceptional, but if you've found a way to something work, and have good results, its a good thing. Keep going.
Old 2nd July 2015
  #199
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by postprosound View Post

I am very curious about the 160 cranked all the way up. that really is interesting. How do you set the compression and threshold? Where does sit on the chain? Do you have to get funky with the gain staging?
I have a separate ADR chain that the ADR feeds into, that then feeds into the master dialog processing chain.
I have the DBX as the last plugin on that chain. I will have the threshold dusted so it is just barely doing something to the peaks.
Old 2nd July 2015
  #200
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by postprosound View Post

I belive it was the great golf instructor Harvey Penick would said something to the effect of, 'never play for money against someone who has found a way to become good with a bad grip. They've found a way to make it work.'
Not that Mark's way or anyone else's is anything less than exceptional, but if you've found a way to something work, and have good results, its a good thing. Keep going.
And this is a very good point.
Because I view every mix I do as a competition. And I am competing with every other mixer in LA.
Why would I go into a competition with a handicap?
Old 2nd July 2015
  #201
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor View Post
I think the distinction most people make between ITB and console is that with the latter there is literally an audio signal (analog/AES/MADI) sent from the recorder/editor/player to a console with full processing functions completely apart from the playback. In the former, everything is integrated into one comprehensive operational interface and processing platform within the computer, even if some "audio" data packets may be passed to and from dedicated DSP assets like a UAD box or PCI card.

If you want to refer to an HDX system that uses a Thuderbolt-to-PCI chassis as "OTB" mixing, semantically you probably could...but most people would disagree.
I don't agree that connectors are analogous to leaving the DAW for additional Processing but regardless, here's the argument I'm trying to make - PT ITB has again and again been championed for its ability to allow mixers to plug n' play. Go to any facility in the world, bring your .ptx, and start mixing. As we know in practice this is BS. If Hench showed up at your place, you'd have to install 3rd party hardware and software in order to start mixing. And if he left, taking his stuff with him, you'd be F'd if you tried to subsequently open his session and make a change.

The point I'm trying to make is, PT ITB is not enough for most mixers. Most mixers will want a Cedar box. Some will want a UAD card. Others will need a fancy Meter. Hence, OTB
Old 2nd July 2015
  #202
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathand View Post
I don't agree that connectors are analogous to leaving the DAW for additional Processing but regardless, here's the argument I'm trying to make - PT ITB has again and again been championed for its ability to allow mixers to plug n' play. Go to any facility in the world, bring your .ptx, and start mixing. As we know in practice this is BS. If Hench showed up at your place, you'd have to install 3rd party hardware and software in order to start mixing. And if he left, taking his stuff with him, you'd be F'd if you tried to subsequently open his session and make a change.

The point I'm trying to make is, PT ITB is not enough for most mixers. Most mixers will want a Cedar box. Some will want a UAD card. Others will need a fancy Meter. Hence, OTB
But the big distinction is, that I can go into any Protools equipped room in the world with my UAD satellite, and be ready to mix at my speed within half an hour, and have access to all the tools I use.

The same is nowhere near true for someone who mixes OTB. They either need to find a stage using the console they're familiar with, or spend time learning a new console.
Old 2nd July 2015
  #203
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathand View Post
I don't agree that connectors are analogous to leaving the DAW for additional Processing but regardless, here's the argument I'm trying to make - PT ITB has again and again been championed for its ability to allow mixers to plug n' play. Go to any facility in the world, bring your .ptx, and start mixing. As we know in practice this is BS. If Hench showed up at your place, you'd have to install 3rd party hardware and software in order to start mixing. And if he left, taking his stuff with him, you'd be F'd if you tried to subsequently open his session and make a change.

The point I'm trying to make is, PT ITB is not enough for most mixers. Most mixers will want a Cedar box. Some will want a UAD card. Others will need a fancy Meter. Hence, OTB
I get your point, but whether 3rd party hardware DSP horsepower (e.g. the UAD Quad) is present or not, the fact remains that all operational mixing functions of a so-called ITB mix are taking place entirely within the platform. Cedar, perhaps a slightly different case (unless it's the on-board DNS One).

Just about every PT-based mix facility is going to have a different inventory of software on hand, to say nothing of DSP hardware like HDX cards or whatnot. So any time a job comes in that may compel the facility to change its complement of plugs ins, the facility will have to make the choice whether to accommodate. It's still "ITB" mixing as I would see it.

Anyway, this is kind of a distraction from the discussion. I know what you're saying, but I think ITB platform compatibility is a slightly different topic from comparing console-based or DAW-based mixing.
Old 2nd July 2015
  #204
Lives for gear
 
Stimmt's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman View Post
Because the topic is, that mixing post on a console sounds better than ITB.
Which is nonsense.
Stating UAD plugins (which depend on external DSP) sound better, and at the same time belittling engineers who find a console sounds better (which depends on external DSP) is the real nonsense here. It doesn't even matter whether that is because of the quality of algorithms (in your case UAD, in Gary's case above the EQ/DYN of a DFC) or because of the dedicated processing structure. With the same gusto you expect from others to accept your sonical preference of UAD, you should accept that some people prefer the sonics of a console.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathand View Post
If you are using UAD hardware that is essential to your workflow I believe that puts you in the Hi-End Digital mixer over PT ITB camp.

IMO, you can not simultaneously champion ITB workflow whilst insisting on using Outboard gear.
Spot on, that's the point. Everything else is splitting hairs or stretching terminology. And off we go into the realms of workflow again.
Old 2nd July 2015
  #205
Lives for gear
 

Again, it boils down to what business we're talking about. If it's a studio-for-hire-business that wants to attract freelance mixers with their jobs, it would probably be a stupid decision to not allow the mixer to bring his tools of choice.
If it's a business that doesn't need to cater to freelancers' needs, it's different.
The company I work for has certain tools that the mixers, be it employees or freelancers, have to work with. (I should add that while we don't have UAD plugins, we have almost everything else here).
They also have to use the templates in place.
There are very good reasons for that, and no mixer will change these.
It's a business decision.
For me, this was never a problem. If a mixer says he can't work that way, well, then he can't work here. Quite simple.
Mixers like Hench can choose the facilities that cater to their needs. Companies with stricter policies can choose to hire other not as unflexible mixers, f.e. like Gary.
Old 2nd July 2015
  #206
Lives for gear
 
minister's Avatar
Wow.... so are people actually saying if you have a PCI card in your Computer (which is usually defined as the "box") that is not an AVID Pro Tools Card then it is is Out of the Box? OTB still inside the computer. OTB if you go to a digital rack box but use PT summing. What a strange discussion........
Old 2nd July 2015
  #207
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimmt View Post
Stating UAD plugins (which depend on external DSP) sound better, and at the same time belittling engineers who find a console sounds better (which depends on external DSP) is the real nonsense here. It doesn't even matter whether that is because of the quality of algorithms (in your case UAD, in Gary's case above the EQ/DYN of a DFC) or because of the dedicated processing structure. With the same gusto you expect from others to accept your sonical preference of UAD, you should accept that some people prefer the sonics of a console.



Spot on, that's the point. Everything else is splitting hairs or stretching terminology. And off we go into the realms of workflow again.
The small point you missed, is that unlike the person who stated that a console mix sounds better than an ITB mix, I never claimed that mixing ITB sounds better.
I never said that one sounds better than the other.
Old 2nd July 2015
  #208
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ggegan View Post
Maybe you should turn off your spelling auto correct option. I had to read your post several times to figure out what you were saying.
That was embarrassing.

I can't post replies and work at the same time. Fixed.
Old 3rd July 2015
  #209
Lives for gear
 
dr.sound's Avatar
 

Let's make something perfectly clear:
Nathan work in a Facility that use Fairlight
as their choice. His bias about Pro Tools can be easily seen
if you look at his comments of previous posts.
In my book ( and most others) Henchman is mixing in the box
with an additional box that was made to attach on a Pro Tools system.
It's still in the box, it being done in Pro Tools.
A Cedar box that is controlled by Pro Tools and is automated in
Pro Tools (and can be edited/ modified or cut or pasted within Pro Tools) is still mixing in the box.
Old 3rd July 2015
  #210
Lives for gear
 

For me: ITB means the DAW computer and the app in use can have all the automation for all aspects of a mix within it. I never thought it referred to whether or not all the electronic guts being controlled by that automation were actually in the same enclosure. Even before the current UAD outboard boxes we had outboard card-racks, etc, going back quite a ways, as well as Cedar 2000 etc. ITB isn't just a ProTools thing, it's how almost all DAWs work now, or can work. The arguments I've heard between ITB and a console come down to the convenience of having one run of automation instead of two to deal with, vs ergonomics+sound (to some folks). If an outboard box acts like it is part of the DAW computer I call it part of an ITB setup….

p
Topic:
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
Forum Jump
Forum Jump