The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Mixing with analogue eq, questions
Old 3 weeks ago
  #1
Gear Nut
 

Mixing with analogue eq, questions

Is mixing with outboard analogue eq’s beneficial ?
I want to buy on or two and maybe a compressor , of course I’ll track through it when I can , trying to get as close as I can to the desire sound .
But would it have benefits to mix with it , so tweaking knobs , finding the sound , print the track and so on .. knowing that D/A and A/D conversion will be done on a Uad device . I’ve heard conversion will kind of cancel the analogue benefits . What’s the deal ?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #2
Lives for gear
 
DeadPoet's Avatar
- I find hardware to sound way better than software. No need to discuss that in here, that's just *my* opinion.
- To my ears the added AD/DA doesn't damage the audio at all. If you keep an eye on your levels then I think converters are waaaaaaaaaaaaay down the list of stuff that'll hurt your sound
- I prefer listening to audio while turning physical knobs, not really knowing how much dB I'm adding or cutting. Goes faster and makes decisions more intuitive.



I have the luxury of having quite a few hardware EQ's on mixdown. Sometimes I do use Waves Q-clone if I want to print an EQ or re-use it further down the line.



Herwig
Old 3 weeks ago
  #3
Gear Nut
 

Yep, I also prefer the hardware eqs and comps, as the above poster.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #4
‘Conversion cancelling the benefits’ is a myth. Even back in the mid/late 90s when mediocre silver ADATs were utilized quality outboard went a very long way in making things sound excellent. 20+ years on even a basic mid level interface ADA should not stand in your way of the above.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #5
Lives for gear
 
swafford's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maoz View Post
Is mixing with outboard analogue eq’s beneficial ?
I want to buy on or two and maybe a compressor , of course I’ll track through it when I can , trying to get as close as I can to the desire sound .
But would it have benefits to mix with it , so tweaking knobs , finding the sound , print the track and so on
This has been debated to death. People who don't use analog will tell you the ability to have easy recall far surpasses any perceived sonic benefit. People who believe there is a sonic benefit will tell you that the ability to pull a sound together more quickly and with more musicality outweigh the ease of recall.

I love analog EQ, so I fall into the last camp, don't have a problem with keeping recall sheets, but also don't do music for a living.

What you like will highly depend on the way you work and your listening environment.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Maoz View Post
.. knowing that D/A and A/D conversion will be done on a Uad device . I’ve heard conversion will kind of cancel the analogue benefits . What’s the deal ?
There is no deal is the deal. Your largest variable to benefiting from using outboard EQ will be your monitoring and your wallet.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #6
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadPoet View Post
- I find hardware to sound way better than software. No need to discuss that in here, that's just *my* opinion.
- To my ears the added AD/DA doesn't damage the audio at all. If you keep an eye on your levels then I think converters are waaaaaaaaaaaaay down the list of stuff that'll hurt your sound
- I prefer listening to audio while turning physical knobs, not really knowing how much dB I'm adding or cutting. Goes faster and makes decisions more intuitive.



I have the luxury of having quite a few hardware EQ's on mixdown. Sometimes I do use Waves Q-clone if I want to print an EQ or re-use it further down the line.



Herwig
This is interesting - how do you use q-clone?

Cos surely if you use analogue eq, then “save” the settings using q-clone, you’re then using digital eq?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #7
Lives for gear
 
e-are's Avatar
I think you'll really dig analog eq's and comps. In my case, I have lots of outboard comps and eq's and IMO, they are easier to get the sound I'm hearing.
It seems like you can really push the eq's and things seems to feel bigger. There are many pro's who can make it work without hardware. I am no pro and can't!!
I think 500 series eq's would be the way to start. Kush Electra, Chambord Audio CA250, Capi, JDK Audio R24, are all great to start off with. For mixbus, I really like the Wes Audio Hyperion. I normally use up to 24 hardware inserts and when I'm done, hit record and all tracks with hardware are recorded back in. All original tracks are archived. Works great. A lot off folks say they won't use hardware because of the recall issues but this way, I have no problems.


Edit: As far as a compressor goes, if your getting only 1, DISTRESSOR.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #8
Lives for gear
 
andychamp's Avatar
There‘s something about mixing a whole song/project through the same hardware (eq and compression, mainly) that gives it a cohesive and unified character.
You can - kinda - approach that by limiting the scope of plugins you‘re using. But the element of instinct that enters through actual physical contact with hardware can‘t be replicated virtually.
I’ve found the loss through repeated conversion to become negligible at 96k and above. A good denoiser plugin helps, though.
With just one channel strip, it helps to define a hierarchy of tracks and then process them in that order.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #9
Gear Maniac
 

A lot of people with giant studios like their analog eqs, but find themselves staying more in the box due to the ability to get instant exact recall for client fixes, switching between projects quickly, etc.

If you don't need to worry about clients and switching between sessions, you might like some of the finer analog eqs out there. If you have high quality ad-da, one extra trip should be too bad of an audio penalty.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #10
Lives for gear
 
e-are's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gearstudent View Post
A lot of people with giant studios like their analog eqs, but find themselves staying more in the box due to the ability to get instant exact recall for client fixes, switching between projects quickly, etc.

If you don't need to worry about clients and switching between sessions, you might like some of the finer analog eqs out there. If you have high quality ad-da, one extra trip should be too bad of an audio penalty.
I believe Eric Valentine said he did like 20 ad/da loops and couldn't hear the difference between the round tripped version and the original. I've never tried it but I've not heard any negative artifacts.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #11
Quote:
Originally Posted by gearstudent View Post
A lot of people with giant studios like their analog eqs, but find themselves staying more in the box due to the ability to get instant exact recall for client fixes, switching between projects quickly, etc.

If you don't need to worry about clients and switching between sessions, you might like some of the finer analog eqs out there. If you have high quality ad-da, one extra trip should be too bad of an audio penalty.
There's also a lot of people who stay in the box in giant studios who feel they don't gain anything from using outboard at the mix time.

Although recall is important, to continually paint people mixing ITB as doing it solely out of convenience is disingenuous.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #12
Lives for gear
 
DeadPoet's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
This is interesting - how do you use q-clone?

Cos surely if you use analogue eq, then “save” the settings using q-clone, you’re then using digital eq?
Yes, and I know Q-clone doesn't capture 100% of the transformer action going on. But sometimes just inserting the Q-clone plugin on a track (mono or stereo) and turning knobs without looking at what exact frequencies I'm abusing still works faster (and thus better) than pulling up an EQ plugin and clicking around.


That is really a personal thing: the longer I do this the more I notice that my eyes always win over my ears.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #13
Lives for gear
 
DeadPoet's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
There's also a lot of people who stay in the box in giant studios who feel they don't gain anything from using outboard at the mix time.

Although recall is important, to continually paint people mixing ITB as doing it solely out of convenience is disingenuous.
Off course, and then enter the big names a la mr. Ghenea & mr. Scheps.


Thing is I (think I) learned my digital tools better by using the analog ones.

I draw a parallel in music teaching (which I do as well): students growing up with modelling amps tend to not get "great" sounds out of them - I always blamed the equipment. But then I noticed some great guitar players getting great tones out of those same, low-budget modelling amps. Seems that the guys that learned to make the tones on the analog equipment tend to get better sounds out of the digital equipment *because they know what they want, how it behaves, how it should sound*.



Also outboard -for me- is a good way to learn to commit to a sound: I tend to track through my gear. Part of the "digital sucks" is the postponing of decisions as well.



...but now we're getting into an analog vs digital debate again.


I love my racks, keeps me nice and warm in autumn & winter as well!


Herwig
Old 3 weeks ago
  #14
Lives for gear
 

imo there are no benefits in using analog eq's, assuming you have digital gear available with the same filter characteristics.
tubes and/or transformers are another discussion though but once in the digital domain, i recommend staying there...
Old 3 weeks ago
  #15
Lives for gear
 
BIG BUDDHA's Avatar
to the O/P.

i suggest you run a mix through a couple of Hardware Tube Pultecs, play with the knobs, and listen to some Analog EQ.

then you can use your ears, and decide for yourself.

Buddha
Old 2 weeks ago
  #16
Gear Nut
 

I’ve found the loss through repeated conversion to become negligible at 96k and above. A good denoiser plugin helps, though.
With just one channel strip, it helps to define a hierarchy of tracks and then process them in that order.[/QUOTE]

Could you explain it a bit more in depth ?
Thanks for your insight
Old 2 weeks ago
  #17
Lives for gear
 
andychamp's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maoz View Post
Could you explain it a bit more in depth ?
Thanks for your insight
Gladly. Which part?
Old 2 weeks ago
  #18
If you want actual audio over anecdotes then go to gearshoot . com and listen to their roundtrip AD/DA loops. Almost all of them have no meaningful difference after 5 passes.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #19
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ripripstabstab View Post
If you want actual audio over anecdotes then go to gearshoot . com and listen to their roundtrip AD/DA loops. Almost all of them have no meaningful difference after 5 passes.
that's a good idea , i didn't know the gearshoot website before . Thanks !!!
Old 2 weeks ago
  #20
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by andychamp View Post
Gladly. Which part?
First of all , how do you recommend using the denoiser plugin ?
Could you describe quickly where you place it , how you are using it and what benefits it has ?

"With just one channel strip, it helps to define a hierarchy of tracks and then process them in that order."

Well that's exaclty what i was thinking about . Do you mean that being limited to one Eq/ comp , makes you decide what's the heart of the tune and force you to make choices , and then obviously process them from the most important elements to the last details ?
Old 2 weeks ago
  #21
Lives for gear
 
andychamp's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maoz View Post
First of all , how do you recommend using the denoiser plugin ?
Could you describe quickly where you place it , how you are using it and what benefits it has ?
Okay...when sending a digital signal out the DAC, through analog hardware and back through the ADC, you will inevitably pick up some noise. How much will depend on your general gain structure, the analog gain you‘re using, eq gain, compression, makeup gain, etc.
What I did was then to put a denoiser plugin (Waves Xnoise, IIRC) on the re-recorded tracks. There‘s usually enough „pure“ noise somewhere on there to take a noise profile. Finetune the denoiser a bit to avoid artifacts, and you‘re good.
On some tracks, a gate or judicious muting will be enough, but sometimes a denoiser is what you need.
I‘m currently getting familiar with Reaper and have high hopes for their „ReaFir“ plugin.
What I have to try is putting the denoiser right on the live input, some DAWs like Cubase and Reaper let you do that.

Quote:
"With just one channel strip, it helps to define a hierarchy of tracks and then process them in that order."

Well that's exaclty what i was thinking about . Do you mean that being limited to one Eq/ comp , makes you decide what's the heart of the tune and force you to make choices , and then obviously process them from the most important elements to the last details ?
Exactly!
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