Hardware

jera · Post by **jera** » Fri May 12, 2006 11:26 am

think im gonna get sum hardware im fed up of jus clickin a mouse.....its jus CASH!

dj $hy · Post by **dj $hy** » Fri May 12, 2006 12:05 pm

2000F wrote:
frostyljd wrote:Hey,
im thinking about buying a small mixer to mix my tune down on, like an allen and heath or something, what is your knowledge in these things, cause ive been making music for a while and i still cant get my sounds as 'big' and 'spaced' out, is it the hardware mixer that does this and do you have any opinions on the good ones
cheers[/quote

if you buy a cheap hardware mixer it will not make a huge difference - if so, maybe to the worse . However, it will change the way you mix, and it´s very inspiring to mix on a "real" mixer. Otherwise you might try a controller instead. Allen & Heath make nice products though, so it might be nice. But remeber that it´s far as flexible as software. On hardware you are limited to x amount of aux and z amount of busses. Usually cheaper mixers tend to lack full parametric (and four bands too) EQ´s, however this should not be a problem.

If you get a cheap analogue desk it will make more of a difference than doing mixdowns inside your host. I agree that if you buy some peice of shit then you MAY get some sound degrigation BUT in most cases an analogue desk is only a good thing imo. Adding the warmth of a desk to your sound means not only better mixdowns but better EQ'ing as its analogue!

I may not be the best guy to talk about software against hardware as I've always used at the least a desk!

But imo routing your sound into an external desk to EQ and record back is only a good thing, control is the eky!

forensix (mcr) · Post by **forensix (mcr)** » Fri May 12, 2006 12:20 pm

DJ $hy wrote:
If you get a cheap analogue desk it will make more of a difference than doing mixdowns inside your host. I agree that if you buy some peice of shit then you MAY get some sound degrigation BUT in most cases an analogue desk is only a good thing imo. Adding the warmth of a desk to your sound means not only better mixdowns but better EQ'ing as its analogue!

I may not be the best guy to talk about software against hardware as I've always used at the least a desk!

But imo routing your sound into an external desk to EQ and record back is only a good thing, control is the eky!

tis true but if you have a really good understanding of your DAW's mixer then you can get really good mixdowns out of them

hardware is not essential but its a good thing to have

2000f · Post by **2000f** » Fri May 12, 2006 2:36 pm

It´s a myth that analogue sounds "warmer" than digital. It sound different, and I have never understood the definition of "warm" either. Trust me, I have been mixing on everything from big Neve and SSL desks to small Mackie etc. as well as digital ones like Yamaha´s 01 and 02R. An analogue EQ will never, just because it´s analouge, sound warmer. It will sound different, and some times good/some time bad, compared to plugs. Try eg. the Sony Oxford, Waves, Massenburg etc. plugs, and you´ll be surprised. The only real thing that matters, as far as I am concernes, is that you like the sound and the way you can control it.

forensix (mcr) · Post by **forensix (mcr)** » Fri May 12, 2006 2:44 pm

2000F wrote:It´s a myth that analogue sounds "warmer" than digital. It sound different, and I have never understood the definition of "warm" either.

just eq some of the highs off and turn the bass up a bit

the waves plugins are fucking good it amazes me how good they are

jimmeah · Post by **jimmeah** » Fri May 12, 2006 2:47 pm

micrkorg

dj $hy · Post by **dj $hy** » Fri May 12, 2006 3:41 pm

2000F wrote:It´s a myth that analogue sounds "warmer" than digital. It sound different, and I have never understood the definition of "warm" either. Trust me, I have been mixing on everything from big Neve and SSL desks to small Mackie etc. as well as digital ones like Yamaha´s 01 and 02R. An analogue EQ will never, just because it´s analouge, sound warmer. It will sound different, and some times good/some time bad, compared to plugs. Try eg. the Sony Oxford, Waves, Massenburg etc. plugs, and you´ll be surprised. The only real thing that matters, as far as I am concernes, is that you like the sound and the way you can control it.

Terminology then! warm, different...My point was more on routing your sound. Correct me if I'm wrong but all the studios I've worked in have out desks which then route to say your fx then to say a compressor and then recorded back into say SX. If software is just as good then why do we have hardware that cost £1000's?? Why do real studios work this way?

I agree software is at a point now where it will put up a fight against hardware but two things stand out for me,

Easy of working with hardware compared to constant clicking with not 100% accurate response

Better sound, now this points gonna get ppl aggy but what the hell! Hardware sounds better than software. Rich, deep full sounds. Modules are built for one reason. Most software uses the same or similar algorithms which means that basically generate sound in the same(ish) way

IMO from moving from software to hardware even the quality of the sounds are much deeper and richer than any software I've ever used and I've got most of it!

I don’t own a massive studio, I own one piece of hardware and a small desk BUT my sound have greatly improved with my latest purchase and I'm just trying to relay that to this topic but just not doing a very good job!

eventualdecline · Post by **eventualdecline** » Fri May 12, 2006 4:38 pm

Recently took a pic of my gear this weekend:

frostyljd · Post by **frostyljd** » Fri May 12, 2006 9:28 pm

cool, interesting,
im defenitely getting a mixer-probably the allen and heath one, i cant be bothered to mess around cause i really want a set-up which can get the sound to the best quality. Does anyone know of any top producers that dont use a hardware mixer? I do things with guitar pedals such as the boss dd3 delay (wicked little thing) and that has a certain quality to it, producing a slightly tuffer sound. I do alot of looping with it. defenitely gotta save up for the mixer tho, cant quite see how it would plug into my mac g4 tho..(hint hint)

leo

italics · Post by **italics** » Fri May 12, 2006 10:48 pm

2000F wrote: The only real thing that matters, as far as I am concernes, is that you like the sound and the way you can control it.

wise words.... i know plenty of 'professional' producers that swear by software and plenty that swear by hardware... i couldnt tell the difference in the final product tho and i doubt anyone could.... whatever you're comfortable with and gives you results is what is best

lucky_strike · Post by **lucky_strike** » Fri May 12, 2006 11:07 pm

i can honestly tell the difference, Soft synths r still a way off being close to the quality!
take the vise soft synth for the power core! its shit compared to the hardware version! the sounds are just bigger!
compare any of the juno soft synths to the originals!? not even close! and thousands of hours have gone into them,
Powercore is on the rite track, u can get bigger plug ins cos the work is done outside the pc.

soft synths r still to cpu intencive!

italics · Post by **italics** » Fri May 12, 2006 11:11 pm

sorry but i just dont agree.... most hardware is digital and software based anyway... the converters might sound better but if you're running a shit hot s/card then all should be good... just my opinion

its what you do with what you got that matters, not just what you got LOL scuse the rhetoric

2000f · Post by **2000f** » Sat May 13, 2006 9:07 am

Well, each to their own, but with some soft synths I find it hard to compare with the original (eg. who owns a real Moog Modular and Yamaha CS-80?), so I can´t tell of course and therefore I don´t say in general that I always will be able to tell the difference between analogue and software). However, I own a rather big collection of synths, and I can tell you that the software synths sound real close to the originals a lot of the time. However, I´m not really interested in this aspect and use both the software and the hardware unit. I tend to evaluate soft synths on their own premises, not comparing them in general to analogue (except if it´s a clone).

With regards to the analogue vs. digital debate: Try the afore mentioned plug ins. These will sound WAY BETTER than any "cheap" analogue EQ. However, I will agree that a real Pultec, Neve, SSL or GML Massenburg EQ tend to sound different (sometimes better) than the software replica. Keep in mind however, that even different hardware Pultecs sound different (due to age, wear, state of the valves and electronics etc.). I´m sorry to say, but I don´t agree on the point that analogue per definition sounds better. BTW, SSL have actually licensed and approved for their EQ´s, comp´s etc. to made in software versions by Waves. The SSL software department teams furthermore have developed their own plug ins and powercore system, the Duende units. http://www.solid-state-logic.com/music/duende_home.html

I have met top producers and engineers working with analogue or digital only, but the main part prefers an analogue desk, if possible. The reasons for this are many. However, it´s silly comparing an SSL 9000j to an Allen & Heath or Mackie mixer, just because both are analogue. But trust me on this one; for the last 5 years a rather high percentage of top 100 hits are mixed on digital (i.e. Pro Tools) only. This percentage will rise I´m sure (as the new Pro Tools system sounds much better - the old "Mix" system wasn´t as good, and a lot didn´t like it for final mix downs on an old PT system). This is also to do with the fact that a lot of the big studios are closing, as it´s now possible to produce and mix almost everything at home or in small "project studios".

Futhermore you have to take into consideration who is the potential buyer/listener of the mix: if it´s a release on EMI Classical or Deutsche Grammophon sound quality IS THE KEY, and no compromises are allowed what so ever. Only the very best equipment is used in this case. The same thing can´t be said about eg. Grime and Dubstep releases. I´m not saying that these releases in general sound dodgy at all, however a lot of stuff is released that has never even been to the analogue domain (before mastering and/or pressing). And does it matter? Not as far as I am concerned. The only thing I care about is "does it sound good". So whether you choose to mix analogue (big or small desk), digital or "inside" you DAW does not matter to me at least.

I´m am currently doing a lot of my Dubstep productions in Reason only. Sometimes I mix in Pro Tools (with outboard processing too), and I think I´ll be able to tell the difference. At least it is easier to mix (flexible) in Pro Tools I reckon, and Reason mixes tend to become "flat" and undynamic when using a lot of compressors and limiters. But the reason I at the moment mainly mix in Reason is that it´s fast and efficient. So it all comes down what you prefer work flow-wise and sound-wise. And at this point I reckon we can all agree at least.

dj $hy · Post by **dj $hy** » Sat May 13, 2006 11:21 am

2000F wrote: But the reason I at the moment mainly mix in Reason is that it´s fast and efficient. So it all comes down what you prefer work flow-wise and sound-wise. And at this point I reckon we can all agree at least.

Dito

At the end of the day its how you work and not what with. My choice was made through the way I was taught to work so my advice is narrowed to my exposure.

This is one interesting part of making music, big or small studio the result can be the same!

Some guys I worked with around the 1st DMZ could not get over the fact Request Line was built in Fruity Loops! Needless to say the were outboard through and through!

__________ · Post by **__________** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:00 am

isn't a computer a piece of hardware anyway? heeheehee

Hardware

Who is online