39 postsPage 1 of 2
1, 2
Another year, another CLA plugin from Waves. This time it's the MixHub, which is essentially an SSL console inside of a plugin. The promo video is pretty over the top, like a trailer for the next Marvel movie, but that's not really the problem. And this is not a rant directed at Waves. It's a general observation after years of using both analog-style and modern plugins. I think we can all agree that analog sounds better, no matter the genre. There's nothing wrong with digital, in fact, it's perfect. Well, but that actually "is" the problem, isn't it? It just sounds too clean and after a decade or two of people mixing ITB, we finally figured out that humans don't really like "clean." We want some saturation, some noise, some imperfections. Now we have a plethora of analog-modeled plugins, which is great! The only problem I have is that developers try too hard to recreate that box that's screwed into your rack, with knobs and everything, even visual perspective, where they photoshop different angles and shadows on everything (even scratches!!). While I think that a plugin should look great, it should be built with the ITB workflow in mind, and that really sunk in big time when I checked out the MixHub plugin. Chris Lord-Alge really tries to push the idea that, with this plugin, you will have his workflow at your fingertips. Well, he's sitting in front of a huge console, twisting knobs, moving faders, pushing buttons. That's what hardware is designed for ... you touch stuff with your hands! That workflow simply isn't very intuitive on a computer. With a direct emulation that also recreates the look, the plugin is really working against you.

Let's take an EQ for example. The hardware box generally has a frequency, Q, and gain knob for each range. Using my hands, I can quickly dial in what I want. With a mouse, on the other hand, I need to click on each knob separately. Moving them around with a cursor is just kind of a pain. Now let's move over to a modern EQ plugin that you would never see as a hardware box. I think one company that really gets it and also executes it flawlessly, is FabFilter. Their Pro-Q is nothing short of amazing, not only for its sound, but also its interface, which is perfectly suited for ITB workflow. I'm sure most of you have used one at some point, so I don't need to explain how easy and fast you can dial in the sound you want with a mouse. I'm fairly certain you can take the code of an SSL EQ plugin and slap a Pro-Q GUI on top of it. You wouldn't have much control over the curves, as you're stuck inside of an emulation, but you should be able to use it like a Pro-Q within the bounds of the original parameters.

This is why I love S1 so much. PreSonus just really gets it! An analog-style DAW equivalent would be Reason, I suppose. I used it in the past and thought it was super cool to have all these hardware looking plugins and even cables that you can patch in to other plugins to setup sidechains and such. Well, I'm older and wiser now. Fact is, it's incredibly unintuitive on a computer. It's just not a good workflow compared to a drag, drop, done!

I wonder what your thoughts are and no ... I don't work for FabFilter nor PreSonus :)

- Studio One 4.1.3
- Steinberg UR44
- Windows 10 x64
- i7 3.6GHz
- 16 GB RAM
- ZOTAC GeForce GT 710 1GB
User avatar
by darrenporter1 on Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:54 pm
It's all about what works for you. If you've been sitting behind hardware consoles for 35 years you will have a different view of things. Mice are slow and cumbersome, no matter the interface.

That's why I bought a Faderport 8 and a Console 1.

Go read some of the extremely long thread at Gearslutz on MixHub. Believe me, there are LOTS of people who think this thing is the Holy Grail... and Harrison MixBus... and Reason.. and Console 1... and all of the numerous digital hardware consoles...

And yes there is something to GUI design as well. For some people, the look-n-feel inspires them to be more creative. Don't discount the effect of psychology when it comes to creating art.

You'll know you're an old rock-n-roller when the only spandex in your pants is in the elastic waistband. :D


Studio One Professional 4.1.4
i5-8400, 16GB RAM, 512 GB SSD, 2TB HD, Win10 Pro
TASCAM US16x08, FaderPort 8, Console 1, JBL 306P Mk.II Monitors
Hairball Copper, DIYRE CP5, Sound Skulptor CP5176, Peavey VMP-2, Suhr Reactive Load
Lots of self-built tube amps, Carvin, Fender, G&L, Ibanez, PRS, Takamine guitars
User avatar
by reggie1979beatz on Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:07 pm
Pass the popcorn please!

Studio One 4.x, Win 10, I4770K (no OC), 16GB, RME Babyface Pro and tons of plugs. Also Faderport 2018 and Atom.
User avatar
by sirmonkey on Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:52 pm
Emulate imperfections for that classic sound? Like with tape or vinyl? How about using S1's splitter on a mix, set up multiband, and screw around with a saturator, like maybe the free one from Softube- on different frequency bands. Of yeah, and cut the high frequencies a bit. Good enough for me! :?

Atari 5200, 64K RAM S1PRO Radio Shack Cassette Recorder w/internal Mic,
User avatar
by reggie1979beatz on Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:15 pm
Well, you do know right? When they made the algorithms for digital, they got it wrong, right? Ask Neil Young, he knows. And BTW, the world is flat, there are no dinosaurs, and 2+2=potato.

Honestly, this is an old-world thing that is droll.

Studio One 4.x, Win 10, I4770K (no OC), 16GB, RME Babyface Pro and tons of plugs. Also Faderport 2018 and Atom.
User avatar
by Lokeyfly on Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:51 am
sgietz wrote......... This is why I love S1 so much. PreSonus just really gets it! An analog-style DAW equivalent would be Reason, I suppose. I used it in the past and thought it was super cool to have all these hardware looking plugins and even cables that you can patch in to other plugins to setup sidechains and such. Well, I'm older and wiser now. Fact is, it's incredibly unintuitive on a computer. It's just not a good workflow compared to a drag, drop, done!

I wonder what your thoughts are and no ... I don't work for FabFilter nor PreSonus :)


It's all good, sgietz. ;)

As mentioned, I think you just invest with what works for you. Want tactile control? Grab a $50 USB control surface with 8+ encoders, or included with your music keyboard. Want motorized faders? Grab a Faderport to your liking (1, 8, 16 channel). Want multi-touch? Invest in a large touch screen, Slate Rave ($999), etc. A mouse works for all we ask of it, but are aware of its limits, as well as its simple accessibility benefits. Automation is a quick setup/template away. Rewire to a comparable Rewire ready device (thank you, Propellerhead) is harmonious with your DAW. Yes, as you mentioned, drag & drop is also very cool. Recording with the ways and means today is pretty remarkable, and I somehow during a creative effort remind myself for just a moment, that it's a marvelous journey that I don't take for granted. There are no limits except within ones self, so if some plugin, or means to create reach some bump in the road, there's either another path or choice to carry out the mission. Even breaking away to work out a musical part with an instrument (I'm a guitarist, bassist, drummer, but only a keyboard wanna-be-ist) so practicing a riff, chords scene, or musical passage can be rewarding to reach some new musical plateau. We all experience musical holes,  ruts, or varied creativity swells, which makes that something good, all the more GOOD!


All choices, DAW's, genre's (I think), plugins are good. Don't put too much stock in some CLSmixhub as some great endorsement with superficial mixer channels floating by Chris Lord -cut me in for a percentage of total sales-ey says. It's all marketing sizzle. The plugin might work for some, and potentially the way some work, but we all pick our workflow. CLA has an SSL console, and won't be pushing that aside anytime soon as its his bread and butter. Maybe he genuinely feels he's giving us some invaluable advise, or great new plugin. Some just don't need a summing submix layout already there. Already having subs, auxiliaries, LFA's etc. It can work for those that choose to use it. Or be cumbersome for those who have other workflows. Choices are good.

Anyway, have fun is the bottom line, and make it happen your way. Sounds like you are excited with S1. Perhaps now outfit it with some encoders (V'GER wants to touch it's creater).

S1 Pro 4.5.2, Laptop: VAIO i7, 8 core, Win 7 64x. Audio Interface: Audiobox 22 VSL, Audiophile 192 Controllers: Arturia Keylab 49 MkII, Novation SL25 MKII, Faderport 8, Roland JV-90, Guitar controller: Roland GR-50, Percussion controllers: Roland Octapad, Akai MPD-18. MIDI Patchbay: MOTU 8x8, Sampler: E-Mu ESI-32, Mixer: Yamaha Promix 01. Other hardware/Plugins and Libraries, contact me.

 My music

On Bandcamp

On YouTube
User avatar
by Lawrence on Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:30 am
sgietz wroteThere's nothing wrong with digital, in fact, it's perfect. Well, but that actually "is" the problem, isn't it? It just sounds too clean and after a decade or two of people mixing ITB, we finally figured out that humans don't really like "clean." We want some saturation, some noise, some imperfections.

I'll probably regret sticking my beak in here but I generally agree with your observations with the following caveat:

We're mostly talking about a mass consumer market. In the professional audio world a lot of that doesn't apply, or not as much. That is to say, in my experience many professional studios get most of the "analog warmth" they need on the front end, before it even hits the DAW. That may happen by recording through a console or using really good analog outboard. I mean, in lots of studios here like that, the DAW inputs are fed from a console or from a rack with really nice outboard. And of course, some of them also additionally sum back through the same analog console in post while mixing in the DAW, adding another layer of that analog flavor.

On the consumer front it's most often a consumer level preamp not, for example, a PreSonus ADL 600 that was $2k or something and sounds a good bit warmer than an AudioBox.

So you're right, we do prefer the warmth of analog for the most part and in the mass consumer market the cheapest way to get it is to fake it in post with plugins. On the other hand that's maybe not so universal either as the accuracy of digital may actually sound better being "clean" for some things like classical music.

User avatar
by SwitchBack on Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:02 am
I have a slightly different take on this, which could also explain the need for ‘imperfection’: I suggest that any mixing of sound in a mixer, being digital or analog, is unnatural.

Music performed live - unplugged or individually amplified - mixes in air. Air is 3-dimensional. Sound pressure can disperse up and sideways as much as it can travel towards the listener. That way crazy pockets of pressure will take care of themselves when sound waves from different sources ‘clash’. When thinking ‘natural’ this is the standard.

Mixing in a mixer is 1-dimensional. Waves pile on waves pile on waves with no place to disperse. Although mathematically correct this produces peaks way higher than could ever occur in air. Unnaturally high, edgy. In analog gear these peaks eventually meet saturation, analog clipping and the gear’s bandwidth limitations. Mathematical imperfections, but they take some of the edge off the signal, making the mix sound more like a mix in air.

Digital mixing doesn’t have mathematical imperfections, or the boundaries were moved way further out. Compressors and limiters are absolutely necessary to bring the crazy peaks to where they should be, more or less. With modeling of analog gear we can now take one step backwards. Mathematically correct simulations of analog imperfections. It sounds better, but it’s still not natural ;)
User avatar
by darrenporter1 on Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:53 am
For the record, Neil Young is not anti-digital... he's anti compressing digital audio for size because, yes in fact, it does change available dynamic range and frequency response. He is more than happy to release his material on sites that do not use compression algorithms and CD's. I feel the same way... I can easily tell the difference between a squished MP3 and an original 44.1/16 WAV file.

But the masses are generally perfectly happy to suffer quality for convenience, in many more ways than just digital audio formats.

You'll know you're an old rock-n-roller when the only spandex in your pants is in the elastic waistband. :D


Studio One Professional 4.1.4
i5-8400, 16GB RAM, 512 GB SSD, 2TB HD, Win10 Pro
TASCAM US16x08, FaderPort 8, Console 1, JBL 306P Mk.II Monitors
Hairball Copper, DIYRE CP5, Sound Skulptor CP5176, Peavey VMP-2, Suhr Reactive Load
Lots of self-built tube amps, Carvin, Fender, G&L, Ibanez, PRS, Takamine guitars
User avatar
by Lawrence on Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:16 am
What these types of discussions usually lack is context. One context I spoke of above, where some people spend $$$ on great analog gear and everything sounds great, and warm, etc.

The other context is this: If anyone thinks that tape sounds so much better than digital, they can still use tape decks, go out find a used one and record on it, but they probably won't be using the "used to cost $30k and up" 2" tape decks those great records were recorded on before digital.

I can certainly see a guy who still owns one and liking the sound of it and not minding the linear nature of it and the regular maintenance involved in running it, and spending $200 for tape reels, holding onto it and still using it.

What I actually can't picture is a modern DAW user going out and buying a used washing machine sized Otari 2" 24 track because he thinks it sounds better. :)

In that light, the discussion about it is more philosophical.

User avatar
by darrenporter1 on Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:26 am
Lawrence wroteWhat these types of discussions usually lack is context. One context I spoke of above, where some people spend $$$ on great analog gear and everything sounds great, and warm, etc.

The other context is this: If anyone thinks that tape sound so much better than digital, they can still use tape decks, go out find a used one and record on it, but they probably won't be using the "used to cost $30k and up" 2" tape decks those great records were recorded on before digital.

I can certainly see a guy who still owns one one and liking the sound of it and not minding the linear nature and the regular maintenance involved in running it, and spending $200 for tape reels, holding onto it and still using it.

What I actually can't picture is a modern DAW user going out and buying a used washing machine sized Otari 2" 24 track because he thinks it sounds better. :)

In that light, the discussion about it is more philosophical.


I truly believe we live in a Golden Age of music production. Sure Sgt. Pepper's was done on SO much less but I guarantee you if they had back then what we have today they would have taken full advantage of it to make that record and it still would have been every bit as magical.

Bottom line: Garbage in, Garbage out.

You'll know you're an old rock-n-roller when the only spandex in your pants is in the elastic waistband. :D


Studio One Professional 4.1.4
i5-8400, 16GB RAM, 512 GB SSD, 2TB HD, Win10 Pro
TASCAM US16x08, FaderPort 8, Console 1, JBL 306P Mk.II Monitors
Hairball Copper, DIYRE CP5, Sound Skulptor CP5176, Peavey VMP-2, Suhr Reactive Load
Lots of self-built tube amps, Carvin, Fender, G&L, Ibanez, PRS, Takamine guitars
User avatar
by reggie1979beatz on Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:56 pm
Context?

By the time the listener hears it it's on earbuds with an mp3.

I lust to talk about Studio One but the analog vs. digital wars are just a bore. I'll bet 97 out of 100 times these so called "experts" on how much better analog is can't tell in a recording. Oh snap, there are blind tests that prove that all the time. Though they may sound different, they usually both sound good.

Studio One 4.x, Win 10, I4770K (no OC), 16GB, RME Babyface Pro and tons of plugs. Also Faderport 2018 and Atom.
User avatar
by PreAl on Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:43 pm
Experiment.
Get Pink Floyd Great Gig in the Sky on CD (via dark side) make it into MP3.

The Hammond sounds like a most impressive washing machine.

It don't mean crap unless you FLAC.
(Neil Young approved).

Studio One Pro 4, Faderport 1, Atom, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40, Maschine Studio, Octapad SPD-30, Roland A300, Windows 10 Pro 64 bit.
EVGA Geforce 1070 (Nvidia drivers). A bigly amount of other gear.
User avatar
by reggie1979beatz on Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:45 pm
:lol:

Studio One 4.x, Win 10, I4770K (no OC), 16GB, RME Babyface Pro and tons of plugs. Also Faderport 2018 and Atom.
User avatar
by Lokeyfly on Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:39 am
I certainly am not going to touch the analog vs digital thing on the technical front. There are great strides in capturing vintage gear, saturation, vacuum tube emulation (for what it even lacks in low end), etc, etc ("blah blah woof woof" as Jimi Hendrix used to say). I'll leave what is digitally or analog pure to the theologians who wish to chase that. What we can be thankful for is there are so many degrees of what is good, even great, accessable audio quality, now. There's always some other extreme to ponder, be it Audiophile equipment, but when making music, one has to determine does their listening audience have B&W Nautilus speakers with Audio Research class A tube amps, or are they streaming through their ear buds while jogging (or both). What's pretty apparent is you can strive for your productions to sound good through both, along with some good middle ground. Quality wise, analog, or digital, there will always be an obligatory audio transparancy wall. Even from a playback perspective, DAC's, amplifiers (of all amp classes) are just getting better, and smaller through continuous efforts. So where does it end? Well, it doesn't. You simply find your own private Idaho. From bedroom producer, to the Record Plant's Studio C, there's a budget along with a pre conceived idea of what good quality is. Yet that quality is becoming all the more accessible if you look for it. On the flip side, there's the MP3 compressed side, but we can agree that is a squashed convenience, with few bits remaining to compare with any real audio quality discussion.

Thankfully companies like Schiit Audio with owners rolling their eyes at the Audiophile fat cats with their more $$$$ is better community. Schiit (and all the inventive comments, aside) are making fantastic digital and analog hybrid equipment, so the marriage of both entities does get better all the time with both affordable, and a slight degree pricier consumer, looking for impressively good audio hi-fi quality. Daz' a good thing.

So if these few points covered some vast degree of what digital audio quality can be, or is becoming more and more accessable with less bump to your wallet, then it was worth mentioning. Btw, there's a bumbling ever increasing crowd buying into LP records again, even with its mono bass grooves (lack of), and fiercely limited bandwidth. But you can't stop trends, Hollywood havens for the homeless, or fake wrestling fans, now can we. Sure we love the originals, and all its magical mystery. Just don't ask me to buy anymore records, mediocre tube amps, or a Beetle bus to capture "groovy".

Maybe some purists need to buy or check the original price of a 1950's Fairchild 660 optical compressor, and a 24 track, 2" Studer A80 tape deck (or facsimile), and face the world with a smile. Face it. You're living the dream.

Somehow that Slate Raven, quantum thru-put, and latest DAC convertors, doesn't seem so awful, now Mr/Ms Purist. ;)

S1 Pro 4.5.2, Laptop: VAIO i7, 8 core, Win 7 64x. Audio Interface: Audiobox 22 VSL, Audiophile 192 Controllers: Arturia Keylab 49 MkII, Novation SL25 MKII, Faderport 8, Roland JV-90, Guitar controller: Roland GR-50, Percussion controllers: Roland Octapad, Akai MPD-18. MIDI Patchbay: MOTU 8x8, Sampler: E-Mu ESI-32, Mixer: Yamaha Promix 01. Other hardware/Plugins and Libraries, contact me.

 My music

On Bandcamp

On YouTube
User avatar
by Lawrence on Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:37 am
Good discussion and good thoughts from all.

reggie1979beatz wroteContext?

By the time the listener hears it it's on earbuds with an mp3.

That's the thing. If you talk to most higher level full time audio engineers, they record and mix for the best cases, not the worst cases where people are listening to 128k mp3 rips from a torrent with earbuds. When or if you do play their music on a decent stereo system it sounds spectacular. :)

User avatar
by sgietz on Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:06 am
darrenporter1 wroteIt's all about what works for you. If you've been sitting behind hardware consoles for 35 years you will have a different view of things.

I reckon a lot of those guys set in their ways are selling insurance now. It's never a good idea to hold on to old technology as you're main method of doing things. New interfaces require new workflows. That's when you see these young kids in their bedroom whipping up a beat in 30 minutes, when the old way took hours or days.

Lokeyfly wroteAs mentioned, I think you just invest with what works for you. Want tactile control? Grab a $50 USB control surface with 8+ encoders, or included with your music keyboard. Want motorized faders? Grab a Faderport to your liking (1, 8, 16 channel). Want multi-touch? Invest in a large touch screen, Slate Rave ($999), etc. A mouse works for all we ask of it, but are aware of its limits, as well as its simple accessibility benefits.

All good points. If you want to keep that tactile control, it's certainly an option. I have a Faderport at home (the old one). Thought it was cool to have the motorized fader, but ultimately found myself grabbing the mouse more often than not, because it was simply faster to get things done ITB. I do have a MIDI keyboard. I use the knobs for automation, as drawing it in is still more wonky than just turning a knob. And since, for example, filter sweeps usually involve at least 2 parameters (i.e. cutoff/resonance), that works better. It's also super easy thanks to S1's brilliant way of linking controls. Again, drag and drop wins over patching cables :)


SwitchBack wroteI have a slightly different take on this, which could also explain the need for 'imperfection': I suggest that any mixing of sound in a mixer, being digital or analog, is unnatural.

Music performed live - unplugged or individually amplified - mixes in air. Air is 3-dimensional. Sound pressure can disperse up and sideways as much as it can travel towards the listener. That way crazy pockets of pressure will take care of themselves when sound waves from different sources 'clash'. When thinking 'natural' this is the standard.

Interesting idea. Personally, I grew up with electronic music and that's still my preference. Listening to some of the older stuff that was made with early computers, it sounds quite sterile. It's all too perfect and robotic. Over the years that has changed with loose quantization, adding swing, movement, etc. In comparison, the more commercial EDM from back then didn't have that. In part because a skilled engineer was working on it, and I also think because the gear it was mixed on was coloring the sound a bit. Granted, I have no way to back that up, but I believe it can't be ruled out. I personally like how tape, or mild saturation can smooth over a harsh high-end, for example. That's something I do quite often now. On every cheat sheet there would be a "boost the high-end a little for sparkle." Nowadays, that just makes everything sound harsh. I tend to cut the highs, much like we all highpass pretty much everything that's not kick or bass. It gets pretty harsh very quick up there with synths and percussion samples.

darrenporter1 wroteI truly believe we live in a Golden Age of music production. Sure Sgt. Pepper's was done on SO much less but I guarantee you if they had back then what we have today they would have taken full advantage of it to make that record and it still would have been every bit as magical.

Bottom line: Garbage in, Garbage out.

Right on! As mentioned above, a kid can get some software, maybe some MIDI keys and crank out a hit in an hour (it's happened a few times). With the resources being accessible to nearly everyone and the distribution network we call the internet, it's all equal now. It just comes down to talent, not how much money you have, or who you know. If you prefer to spend half a day miking up a drum kit, set up your recording chain, etc., I show you a kid who can do it in half the time and make it sound better without getting off his chair.

Anyway, I didn't really want to start a digital vs analog discussion. I was sounding off about where I think plugin manufacturers are missing the point with analog emulations. The interface and workflow need to compliment each other, so that you spend more time being creative and less time turning knobs with a mouse cursor. It just doesn't make sense. All great points so far :)

- Studio One 4.1.3
- Steinberg UR44
- Windows 10 x64
- i7 3.6GHz
- 16 GB RAM
- ZOTAC GeForce GT 710 1GB
User avatar
by SwitchBack on Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:41 pm
sgietz wrote
SwitchBack wroteI have a slightly different take on this, which could also explain the need for 'imperfection': I suggest that any mixing of sound in a mixer, being digital or analog, is unnatural.

Music performed live - unplugged or individually amplified - mixes in air. Air is 3-dimensional. Sound pressure can disperse up and sideways as much as it can travel towards the listener. That way crazy pockets of pressure will take care of themselves when sound waves from different sources 'clash'. When thinking 'natural' this is the standard.

Interesting idea. Personally, I grew up with electronic music and that's still my preference. Listening to some of the older stuff that was made with early computers, it sounds quite sterile. It's all too perfect and robotic. Over the years that has changed with loose quantization, adding swing, movement, etc. In comparison, the more commercial EDM from back then didn't have that. In part because a skilled engineer was working on it, and I also think because the gear it was mixed on was coloring the sound a bit. Granted, I have no way to back that up, but I believe it can't be ruled out. I personally like how tape, or mild saturation can smooth over a harsh high-end, for example. That's something I do quite often now. On every cheat sheet there would be a "boost the high-end a little for sparkle." Nowadays, that just makes everything sound harsh. I tend to cut the highs, much like we all highpass pretty much everything that's not kick or bass. It gets pretty harsh very quick up there with synths and percussion samples.

Yes, most electronic music is created 'in the box', from start to finish, with a ridiculous amount of simultaneously playing tracks too. What an experiment it would be to find a large dead room, set up a speaker (pair) for each track, and record the whole thing with just one XY mic pair or a Decca tree. It will put the "boost the high-end a little for sparkle" tool back in the toolbox for sure. Now model that! :thumbup:
User avatar
by darrenporter1 on Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:13 pm
sgietz wrote
darrenporter1 wroteIt's all about what works for you. If you've been sitting behind hardware consoles for 35 years you will have a different view of things.

I reckon a lot of those guys set in their ways are selling insurance now. It's never a good idea to hold on to old technology as you're main method of doing things. New interfaces require new workflows. That's when you see these young kids in their bedroom whipping up a beat in 30 minutes, when the old way took hours or days.


OK now we are finally at the root of your rant... you are assuming everyone makes the same music as you. You know, there are still people who arrive at a session hours early and set up a drumset, painstakingly set mics around it, plug a bass guitar into a DI box, put mics in front of guitar amps, stand around a mic and clap their hands to a beat.... People who do it this way tend to be SLOWED DOWN to the extreme when all they have to work with is a mouse.

If all I wanted to do was assemble a bunch of loops that someone else created and release that on SoundCloud then sure, a mouse and a screen is all I need and all the rest of that stuff is a superfluous waste of hard-earned money.... or is it? Regardless, I have ZERO interest in making music that way. Not knocking those who do at all, it's just not what I like.

So, you are clearly more hung-up on "workflow" than you are "analog vs digital" and furthermore it seems that you are approaching this art form with a very narrow view of the myriad ways that people make it happen.

Just my observation. And no, I don't sell insurance.

You'll know you're an old rock-n-roller when the only spandex in your pants is in the elastic waistband. :D


Studio One Professional 4.1.4
i5-8400, 16GB RAM, 512 GB SSD, 2TB HD, Win10 Pro
TASCAM US16x08, FaderPort 8, Console 1, JBL 306P Mk.II Monitors
Hairball Copper, DIYRE CP5, Sound Skulptor CP5176, Peavey VMP-2, Suhr Reactive Load
Lots of self-built tube amps, Carvin, Fender, G&L, Ibanez, PRS, Takamine guitars
User avatar
by darrenporter1 on Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:31 pm
sgietz wroteRight on! As mentioned above, a kid can get some software, maybe some MIDI keys and crank out a hit in an hour (it's happened a few times). With the resources being accessible to nearly everyone and the distribution network we call the internet, it's all equal now. It just comes down to talent, not how much money you have, or who you know. If you prefer to spend half a day miking up a drum kit, set up your recording chain, etc., I show you a kid who can do it in half the time and make it sound better without getting off his chair.


This is so full of B.S. that it's not worth any effort to continue this discussion. You clearly don't get it.

You'll know you're an old rock-n-roller when the only spandex in your pants is in the elastic waistband. :D


Studio One Professional 4.1.4
i5-8400, 16GB RAM, 512 GB SSD, 2TB HD, Win10 Pro
TASCAM US16x08, FaderPort 8, Console 1, JBL 306P Mk.II Monitors
Hairball Copper, DIYRE CP5, Sound Skulptor CP5176, Peavey VMP-2, Suhr Reactive Load
Lots of self-built tube amps, Carvin, Fender, G&L, Ibanez, PRS, Takamine guitars

39 postsPage 1 of 2
1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gerardbechard and 16 guests