Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » looking for De-esser plug in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: looking for De-esser plug in [message #77133 is a reply to message #77114] |
Sat, 16 December 2006 09:43   |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>but after Neil's experience with Pulsar, I'm gonna have to add
>an emphatic "IMHO" and also a big, fat "YMMV" to everything I
>recommend from now on..
After my experience with Pulsar, I'm tempted to sell everything
except my guitars & Fantom & simply pay someone else to record
me when I feel like recording my stuff, and just forget all
about recording any other people. I'm serious - I'm totally in
a quandary as to what to do right now... I am SO sick &
tired of trying this & trying that & still NEVER being able to
get exactly what I want final mix-wise. "Close" isn't cutting
it for me anymore.
I really don't know where to go at this point, honestly.
PTHD? Simple one-shot solution... can't really justify the
expense, though. Analog Mixer? Same thing as PTHD with regard
to the expense for a good one & I don't see the benefit of
going "downscale" there. Digital Mixer? Dunno if that'd do it -
I'd have to hear it, try it, etc. Passive summing mixer?
I dunno how much of that is really snake-oil: I'd have to buy-
it-try-it, a/b mixes, etc, etc, sell it if I hate it, try
something else, shitcan it if I hate it.... and I'm kinda tired
of the whole cycle that I've gotten into lately of tweak,
remix, find a workaround, tweak, remix, try something else,
tweak/remix, ad nauseum.
I'm NOT being productive, is the point.
So, I have no fucking clue as to where to go next with this, or
if there's some affordable solution out there somewhere that'll
get me what I want, which is simply a streamlined, killer-
sounding, one-box solution. I'm tending to think "not".
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: looking for De-esser plug in [message #77135 is a reply to message #77133] |
Sat, 16 December 2006 12:06 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Neil,
Dunno if this will help, but your quandary has me thinking out loud (if
these comments don't fit your situation feel free to ignore them):
What if you start at the end and work backwards?
Instead of trying this or that voodoo piece of gear, hearing what it
does, and ditching it if it doesn't do what you want...
Start with what you want. Hear it in your head. Then analyze what it is
about your final desired sound that equals "killer" for you.
Is it clean, non-distorted crispness? Is it a type of distortion? Is it
an eq curve, certain frequencies you need to hear? Is it combinations of
instruments that don't step on each other? Is it stereo wideness?
Make a list of priorities.
Now start thinking about gear. What is the simplest signal path to
achieve each of your top 5 priorities?
Strip down your system to the simplest signal path you can, with
monitors you can trust and a room that isn't mucking things up (if your
monitors and room are sabotaging you, nothing will work).
Record something very simple. For example, just your voice, or just your
guitar. Can you make just that one track sound like you envision,
meeting your top 5 priorities?
If not, start working on your signal path, think about careful and
moderate eq or fx (little or none), and if necessary swap gear, until
you can. When you get there, keep track of what worked. Was it EQ? Was
it a certain room verb? Was it a touch of compression? Was it no FX?
Then add another track. Can you make a "killer" two track mix?
How about three?
Slowly build up a mix while keeping your signal paths as simple as
possible, and keeping variables to a minimum. Keep track of the
variables that bring you into the zone. Keep track of the ones that
don't, so you can avoid mucking up the mix with approaches that suck
energy away.
I suspect that most DAW systems, native and DSP, have enough range to
deliver a decent mix. So, while the search for gear is important, at
some point it's less about the gear and more about finding your sound
with the gear you have.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Neil wrote:
> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>
>> but after Neil's experience with Pulsar, I'm gonna have to add
>> an emphatic "IMHO" and also a big, fat "YMMV" to everything I
>> recommend from now on..
>
> After my experience with Pulsar, I'm tempted to sell everything
> except my guitars & Fantom & simply pay someone else to record
> me when I feel like recording my stuff, and just forget all
> about recording any other people. I'm serious - I'm totally in
> a quandary as to what to do right now... I am SO sick &
> tired of trying this & trying that & still NEVER being able to
> get exactly what I want final mix-wise. "Close" isn't cutting
> it for me anymore.
>
> I really don't know where to go at this point, honestly.
> PTHD? Simple one-shot solution... can't really justify the
> expense, though. Analog Mixer? Same thing as PTHD with regard
> to the expense for a good one & I don't see the benefit of
> going "downscale" there. Digital Mixer? Dunno if that'd do it -
> I'd have to hear it, try it, etc. Passive summing mixer?
> I dunno how much of that is really snake-oil: I'd have to buy-
> it-try-it, a/b mixes, etc, etc, sell it if I hate it, try
> something else, shitcan it if I hate it.... and I'm kinda tired
> of the whole cycle that I've gotten into lately of tweak,
> remix, find a workaround, tweak, remix, try something else,
> tweak/remix, ad nauseum.
>
> I'm NOT being productive, is the point.
>
> So, I have no fucking clue as to where to go next with this, or
> if there's some affordable solution out there somewhere that'll
> get me what I want, which is simply a streamlined, killer-
> sounding, one-box solution. I'm tending to think "not".
>
> Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: looking for De-esser plug in [message #77140 is a reply to message #77135] |
Sat, 16 December 2006 16:43 |
"Neil" OIUO
Messages: 3
Registered: July 2005
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>What if you start at the end and work backwards?
Then that means I have to start each mix with a preconceived
notion, instead of letting the song "mix itself", as it
were.... IOW, to me a song should just come together - not
necessarily simply/easily, but the song should tell you which
direction to go in, not the other way around.
>Instead of trying this or that voodoo piece of gear, hearing
>what it does, and ditching it if it doesn't do what you want...
I haven't exactly done that, though... I've tried things that
SHOULD get me closer to where I want to be, based on what I've
heard other people say about them.
>Start with what you want. Hear it in your head. Then analyze
>what it is about your final desired sound that equals "killer"
>for you. Is it clean, non-distorted crispness? Is it a type of
distortion? Is it an eq curve, certain frequencies you need to
hear? Is it combinations of instruments that don't step on each
other? Is it stereo wideness?
It's hard to say exactly - it's almost one of those: "I'll
know it when I hear it" kinda things... you know where you dial
something in & just jump out of your chair & say "YEAH! THAT'S
IT RIGHT THERE!" I never have those moments anymore... it's
always: "eh, that's not too bad" or "That's pretty close." or
something like that.
Ultimately, though, what I'm short of mix-wise is a combination
of clarity/power/size. And by "power", I don't mean RMS;
by "size" I don't mean depth or width alone, but a combination
of both. In Paris, I could get the power & size, but not the
clarity; in Cubase I can get the clarity, but I'm coming up
short on the power & size. Summing in Paris helped, but then I
lose some clarity & transparency. Running stems out of Cubase,
then reimporting into a new project to get the final 2-mix
helps too... that way you get a bit more well-defined
soundstage & get to keep the clarity, but this is just another
workaround, really... I still would like to be able to hear the
FINAL 2-track product as I'm mixing, without another step in
between. I was hoping Pulsar could keep me in the digital
domain all the way through the process, but it can't at my
chosen samplerate. Convert everything to 96k then use Pulsar?
Nope, this puts my PC over the top - now I'd be looking at more
money for another upgrade just to see if the experiment would
work. Convert everything to 44.1? Maybe I should... maybe my hi-
rez quest is nothing more than tilting at windmills.
>Record something very simple. For example, just your voice, or
>just your guitar. Can you make just that one track sound like
>you envision
Yes, one track is fine, two is fine, a few is fine, a lot is
even fine... it's the entire mix that I'm not able to get where
I want... maybe it's VST EFX vs hardware, maybe it's ITB mixing
of any kind vs a console, maybe I really like phasey/smeary
analog EQ & just don't know it. Point is, at this stage, I
don't KNOW what would get me there! If I did, I'd implement
that & be done with dicking around.
I appreciate your input, Jamie... it's just one of those things
where I'm 98%-99% there, but that last 1 or 2 percent are the
most important ones - like the keystone at the top of an arch...
it's only one stone, but without it, all the rest collapse.
Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: looking for De-esser plug in [message #77144 is a reply to message #77133] |
Sat, 16 December 2006 20:47 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Neil" <IUOI@OIU.com> wrote in message news:45842218$1@linux...
>
> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>
>>but after Neil's experience with Pulsar, I'm gonna have to add
>>an emphatic "IMHO" and also a big, fat "YMMV" to everything I
>>recommend from now on..
>
> After my experience with Pulsar, I'm tempted to sell everything
> except my guitars & Fantom & simply pay someone else to record
> me when I feel like recording my stuff, and just forget all
> about recording any other people. I'm serious - I'm totally in
> a quandary as to what to do right now... I am SO sick &
> tired of trying this & trying that & still NEVER being able to
> get exactly what I want final mix-wise. "Close" isn't cutting
> it for me anymore.
>
> I really don't know where to go at this point, honestly.
> PTHD? Simple one-shot solution... can't really justify the
> expense, though. Analog Mixer? Same thing as PTHD with regard
> to the expense for a good one & I don't see the benefit of
> going "downscale" there. Digital Mixer? Dunno if that'd do it -
> I'd have to hear it, try it, etc. Passive summing mixer?
> I dunno how much of that is really snake-oil: I'd have to buy-
> it-try-it, a/b mixes, etc, etc, sell it if I hate it, try
> something else, shitcan it if I hate it.... and I'm kinda tired
> of the whole cycle that I've gotten into lately of tweak,
> remix, find a workaround, tweak, remix, try something else,
> tweak/remix, ad nauseum.
>
> I'm NOT being productive, is the point.
>
> So, I have no fucking clue as to where to go next with this, or
> if there's some affordable solution out there somewhere that'll
> get me what I want, which is simply a streamlined, killer-
> sounding, one-box solution. I'm tending to think "not".
>
> Neil
Neil,
I'm very happy with the sonic footprintof my DAW. The hoops I jump through
are ridiculous and I doubt that at the end of the day, anyone but me would
GAF about the sublety of the differences. There are lots of disadvantages to
a multi modular system. I've got so many different things interfacing
digitally that if something starts to act up, the probabality of me finding
it within less than an hour or two are practically nil. I know the system
well though and can pretty much troubleshoot it efficiently, but there are
lots of potential Gremlins. It takes me about 10 minutes to boot from a dead
standstill and get my templates loaded and ready to import files to mix.
That's a little slow, but tolerable.......but if something goes wrong, then
it's 10 more minutes.etc. .........that's when I start going postal.
Tonight I started having some stability problems with a project. I got
kinda' fatigued and sloppy and made some "not so optimal" edits in Cubase. I
think this may have caused some problems when inserting UAD-1
plugins.........I think.............. then again, it might be heat. I can
walk into my machine room and the temperature is 15 -20 degrees above room
temp with the exhaust fans blowing out of 3 x Magmas with 3 x Pulsars, 4 x
UAD-1's and 4 x EDS X cards. I had three glitches within about 5 minutes so
and these cards are working hard so it could be that after 7 hours, they
need a rest. I know I do so we'll see if things behave normally in the
morning when the Magma's are cooled down and I am seeing straight.
Cheers,
Deej
..
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: looking for De-esser plug in [message #77157 is a reply to message #77151] |
Sun, 17 December 2006 16:05 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Graham Duncan" <graham@grahamduncan.com> wrote:
>
>Neil,
>
>Have you blind tested your 88.2 files vs. 44.1 on your gear?
Not in the context of individual tracks within an entire song -
that would involve retracking an entire piece track by track...
something I'm not interested in doing... YET! Simply converting
88.2k tracks to 44.1 wouldn't be a fair test becasue one would
have the extra step of conversion & the other one wouldn't.
I have, however, a/b'd 44.1k mixes to 88.2k mixes of the same
song & yes, I can hear a difference there if that's what you
meant.
>Have you listened to Voxengo's r8brain (or pro)?
Yep, I have r8Brain... I think it's a VERY good samplerate
convertor. Don't have the "pro" version, though.
>Also, I think you should look up a producer or engineer you
>think is the best in your genre and pick their brains, perhaps
>even hire them to track/mix a few tunes.
Not a bad idea, but WHO? Maybe it's not the gear, maybe it's
the operator (me).
Neil
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Dec 03 00:44:20 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02340 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
