EQ/compression techniques
« on: April 16, 2018, 05:13:49 PM »
I realized today that (I think) the reason I'm not overly fond of straight to digital from preamp sound is it has more detail than my ear/brain/chest wants to have... seems like the high frequencies get too much too quick.. "edgy."

Other than using a plugin, or the real thing, are there any EQ/compression techniques you guys use to calm your mixes and build an energy in the "midtones"?

I was experimenting today and taking out 360Hz, some 12Khz, and a lot of subtractive EQ/compression and it seems to produce a more calm body... like tape.  Still not like the real thing but I found this interesting.. so I need less detail to satisfy my tastes perhaps.

Kind of like a painter who uses a small range of value shifts but gives the illusion of more depth than is there.  I don't want mixes that are squashed completely or anything but there you go..

Any tips would be appreciated.

Adam


john12ax7

Re: EQ/compression techniques
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2018, 06:38:54 PM »
What outboard do you have? For me I've found digital and ITB to be more satisfying the more time you spend getting the tones right on the way in.

Lots of gear has a sound  just running through it,  when even not EQing or compressing. I've spent a decent amount of time just listening and auditioning gear,  then setup different signal chains for tracking, vocal chain,  guitar chain,  etc.  A way to do this is record dry and then use hardware inserts to audition gear. If it improves the sound then it becomes part of the record chain.

Also consider ribbon mics,  they can give you that warm pleasing mid-range.

On the back end for mixing again having some cool colorful gear can help, both on the mix bus and / or have a colorful sunning box.  The passive summers can be cool since you can use different pres to shape the sound.

Re: EQ/compression techniques
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2018, 08:26:00 PM »
I've got some nice outboard, variety of eq and compressors and I'm building a mixing console that has a variety of amps inside.. old school Neve, meets SSL.. I'll be able to go all one or the other, or a combination of them.

I found using a Pultec style eq adding and subtracting at the same time a bit of a low end bump, along with committing to some pretty heavy handed subtractive eq on the way in the box gave more a sense of girth/less edge.

I was probably thinking about digital the wrong way... since the conversion from tape is pretty accurate, the conversion from preamp must be accurate too... but whatever goes on inside a tape machine and when it hits the tape there's a forgiving property to it... I can turn it up more easily on playback and it deals with peaks gently.  I don't know why but each track just seems to be more separate in the stereo space automatically... so I view the tape and the machine as this very musical interpreter.

It must subtract, but also add ... in a smart musical way.  Tape sounds clearer and louder on a mixdown when played back in my car, without having to do much work on processing.

So yeah, I've started to experiment with creating this effect without the tape to learn, and also so that I know I don't have to rely on a venue or station to have a tape machine handy in order for me to sound the same live.  I don't know if that sounds like a strange concern but for me I want to make sure the record can be done live with a very similar tone.  I know performance is the key to that, but I'm talking about the overall depth/body thickness of a sound... that weird separation, energy thing of tape.

Certain circuits and transformers driven a certain way do some of this stuff.. but yeah.. it doesn't matter if it's a 7 1/2 or 15 ips speed, a good or back deck there always seems to be a energy to it... not that I'd pick a consumer 7 1/2 deck for everything.. I think it just made me realize maybe it's what it takes away/compresses and then somehow adds back?  I record at 15ips when using tape.

When it comes to no tape.. subtracting seemed to help a lot .. parallel compression seems effective too.. to increase the energy/resonance.

A
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 08:30:29 PM by 80hinhiding »

abbey road d enfer

Re: EQ/compression techniques
« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2018, 08:49:49 PM »
Other than using a plugin, or the real thing, are there any EQ/compression techniques you guys use to calm your mixes and build an energy in the "midtones"?
Most tracks need some kind of dynamic control; it could be organic, like a singer with professional technique, a good sensitive guitar or bass player, it could be intrinsic, some instruments have actually a limited dynamic range (particularly winds), it could be the result of using a dedicated compressor or plug-in. The nice thing is that a compressor allows controlling the dynamics of a track that does not have this organic/natural control. Don't hesitate to use compression if you feel there's a need.
Same for EQ; many instruments/voices leave something to be desired, like nasality or unwanted resonances or parasitic noise; these need to be addressed soon in the recording process, not necessarily at the time of tracking, but as soon as the mix takes form, i.e. when you set up a monitoring balance. There is nothing more frustrating than listening to an ugly track when doing overdubs; bad for your ears and bad for your rep. Tone-shaping EQ can be refined later. Indeed, good EQ practice stars with boosting and sweeping for identification of the offensive frequencies, then cutting them as needed.
Who's right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is what's right or wrong.
Star ground is for electricians.

ruairioflaherty

Re: EQ/compression techniques
« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2018, 01:56:23 AM »
We could just argue about Mac vs PC instead?  :)

This is a huge topic but you are off to a great start because you are getting sounds that you like from your tape machine, unlike most people who are chasing some mythical idealized tone.

It's worth spending some time trying to understand some of the mechanisms that are at play in your tape machine path, off the top of my head...

a) Does it have input or output transformers? If yes these will likely be doing what transformers do (coloration, low end distortion and fatness, depending on quality you may be losing some high end)

b) Frequency response - Depending on how you have your machine calibrated or not you may not have a perfectly flat frequency response, and this is not always a bad thing.

c) Head bump - affects the low end response, often in a pleasing way, depends on tape speed too.

d) Dynamic properties - depending on recording levels you will be getting some dynamic compression, that will vary with frequency.

e) High frequency softening / limiting - tape has a way of eating up fast high frequency transients that can be very pleasing and forgiving.

f) Noise - A dirty word in audio but can often be our friend in making things feel good.

g) Harmonic distortion - regardless of level you will have higher levels of distortion in your tape machine than a modern digital recorder, and likely lower order than that which you'll find in your digital world.

h) Tape formulation - can have a significant impact on how the machine sounds.


So, if I wanted to emulate your machine...

a) Does it have transformers?  If so, get a transformer or two into your digital record path.

b) Can you measure the frequency response of your tape machine with a sweep? If so easy to match with a good eq.  Even recording pink noise from your DAW onto tape and back into DAW will give you an approximation with FFT and averaging.

c)  Head Bump - see b)

d) Compression - low ratio compression with fast attack, medium release, barely working on your signal (will not be very accurate but better than nothing).

e) High Frequency Limiting - hard to do well in digital but work with low ratio de-essers and HF limiters (with soft ish knee).  My favorite in the analog world is the Maselec MDS2 but it's not cheap, does a great job of softening things in a pleasing way.

f) Noise - it would be fun to record the noise from your machine and then match it's profile and level using a signal generator and EQ, mix into your digital recordings.

g) Distortion - You'll want a distortion plug in that gives you some control over the harmonic content, I've used SDRR by Klanghelm and it gives good control over odd / even and low / high order distortion (cheap too).

h) Tape formulation - above my pay grade :)


I would be a really interesting exercise to split signals from your mic pre and record to tape and digital at the same time, allowing comparison after the fact.   You are very much on track with the idea that it's not what digital is losing but rather what tape is adding.

Last thought - what converters are you using and are you recording at lower levels?  If not you should be, don't peak above -10 dBFS.


« Last Edit: April 17, 2018, 04:19:55 AM by ruairioflaherty »

ruairioflaherty

Re: EQ/compression techniques
« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2018, 02:23:24 AM »
Indeed, good EQ practice stars with boosting and sweeping for identification of the offensive frequencies, then cutting them as needed.

I'm all for removing the nasty stuff but I don't think this approach is good advice, despite the fact that it is ubiquitous and Sound on Sound seem to built their entire magazine on it!  Boosting any frequency by 6 to 10dB and sweeping around will cause a temporary shift in your hearing that is not at all desirable and IME throws off any ability to make nuanced decisions.  It reminds me of how detrimental in can be spending too much (any?) time with instruments solo'd when mixing.

I suggest that a beginner  should try to identify the frequency by guessing as closely as you can and doing a cut with a low ish Q (say 1), listen for 10 seconds, does it feel/sound better?  If not try dropping your frequency, or raising it some until you get where you need to go.

Now that I work in a room that is essentially perfect with gear that is beyond anything I could need I am by far the biggest variable and weak link.  With that in mind I try to work at consistent levels, take regular breaks, not sweep around EQs, not listen to de-esser side chains etc etc. 
« Last Edit: April 17, 2018, 04:21:48 AM by ruairioflaherty »

tony hunt

Re: EQ/compression techniques
« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2018, 03:53:24 AM »
Butting in to say thanks for the above advice about not sweeping around in extremes.

For me the analogy is out walking the dog in the dark; the eyes adjust to the low light. Then a jogger comes along with a bright LED strapped to his head and it then takes about 15 minutes or more for the eyes to adjust to the dark again.

ruairioflaherty

Re: EQ/compression techniques
« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2018, 04:04:23 AM »
You are welcome Tony. Of course I still find myself doing it from time to time and these days if I have to hunt a high Q resonance I will turn the speakers down as far as possible.


abbey road d enfer

Re: EQ/compression techniques
« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2018, 08:05:21 AM »
I'm all for removing the nasty stuff but I don't think this approach is good advice, despite the fact that it is ubiquitous and Sound on Sound seem to built their entire magazine on it! 
I use this method from the day I experimented with a variable-frequency EQ (actually an attempt at a wah pedal), and nobody told me how to do it; it just made sense to me, and it has worked so far.

Quote
Boosting any frequency by 6 to 10dB and sweeping around will cause a temporary shift in your hearing that is not at all desirable and IME throws off any ability to make nuanced decisions. 
I'm not subject to that neuronic effect; if I knew it existed, I wouldn't have suggested this method (or caveat'ed it). 

Quote
I suggest that a beginner  should try to identify the frequency by guessing as closely as you can and doing a cut with a low ish Q (say 1), listen for 10 seconds, does it feel/sound better?  If not try dropping your frequency, or raising it some until you get where you need to go.
This is a typical trial/error process, that in fact many beginners adopt because they don't know better. In order to make this method half effective, one has to have a good ear training, at identifying frequencies, which most beginners don't. Actually, I think this method is adequate for tone-shaping, but unsuited at eliminating nasty drum resonances (which is what I need to EQ out the most) or vocal nasalities.

Quote
Now that I work in a room that is essentially perfect with gear that is beyond anything I could need I am by far the biggest variable and weak link.
This kind of wisdom comes only with time and experience. Before reaching that stage, one needs to learn; there is not one unique method of learning, but most of the times, a faster way to learn comes from having some kind of tutoring, with techniques, tricks and  rules (that are meant to be broken only after they have proved being too restrictive).

Quote
not sweep around EQs, not listen to de-esser side chains etc etc.
I'm glad you have found a methodology that suits you, but I would not recommend to a beginner.
Who's right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is what's right or wrong.
Star ground is for electricians.

Re: EQ/compression techniques
« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2018, 08:19:07 AM »
Yeah I can't see wanting to listen to tracks in isolation with a solo feature, very often if at all.

I've tried the boost and sweep, then cut.  It was fun but in the end I always seem to dial everything back and nudge back close to where it started.  I think it depends on the creative stage and what you're doing though... with regards to how aggressive you can get..  if it's an effect on a parallel track for a guitar then I might go nuts on it.

I'm still in demo/writing/rough mix mode but getting solid results.  Trying to avoid demoitis with the songs and build a well balanced sound that isn't edgy.  I need to learn which frequency areas need to be rolled off gently or boosted gently, etc... where to blur the edges and where to leave them.. if I can use another painting analogy.  I like to paint too :)  Solid form that can be turned up without bothering the ears.. able to be relaxed to.  I think you guys know what I'm talking about.. given the talent and experience around here.

I'm pretty good at controlling my dynamics when I play/sing, whatever instrument I'm on.. but there's still work that needs to be done on them, especially when I'm not using tape.. to my ear anyway.

Hopefully this doesn't come across as bragging, but I had more positive reaction from a mix I did myself from a song I did entirely myself, with one crappy mic and a computer soundcard at 16 bit.... a year after being to a big studio with 2 dedicated engineers working on my stuff in great rooms and great equipment.  Does that mean they weren't good engineers.. no.  My songs weren't where I wanted/needed them to be, but I didn't know squat about the gear, or tone, or have the time in the big studio to pan for gold.  When I'm isolated and alone working on stuff I feel more safe to just make something, and experiment... the song/mix I had a good reaction to didn't really have a proper production standard.. which I aimed to figure out.

I've learned a ton in the past few years about all this stuff, but still much more to learn.

Thanks guys for the tips.

Adam


ruairioflaherty

Re: EQ/compression techniques
« Reply #10 on: April 17, 2018, 10:08:11 AM »
I use this method from the day I experimented with a variable-frequency EQ (actually an attempt at a wah pedal), and nobody told me how to do it; it just made sense to me, and it has worked so far.
 I'm not subject to that neuronic effect; if I knew it existed, I wouldn't have suggested this method (or caveat'ed it). 
 This is a typical trial/error process, that in fact many beginners adopt because they don't know better. In order to make this method half effective, one has to have a good ear training, at identifying frequencies, which most beginners don't. Actually, I think this method is adequate for tone-shaping, but unsuited at eliminating nasty drum resonances (which is what I need to EQ out the most) or vocal nasalities.
 This kind of wisdom comes only with time and experience. Before reaching that stage, one needs to learn; there is not one unique method of learning, but most of the times, a faster way to learn comes from having some kind of tutoring, with techniques, tricks and  rules (that are meant to be broken only after they have proved being too restrictive).
 I'm glad you have found a methodology that suits you, but I would not recommend to a beginner.

All fair points Abbey and I understand that it works for you.  Perhaps there is a third way where beginners can separate their learning (sweeping, side chain listening etc) from their actual mixing work.

As a mastering engineer I get mixes from people at every level.  I can't count the number of times I have seen a musician get into recording and their first completely unschooled efforts are excellent. Then for years, the more they learn the worse things get and the further they get from being musical and into tweaky things like we discussed above.  Some come out the other side and manage to combine musicality with some technical chops, many don't.

Watching the very best working it is very much a feel based exercise, much less beating it into submission and more working with what's good about the audio.  I feel this perspective is missing in online discussions about audio.

scott2000

Re: EQ/compression techniques
« Reply #11 on: April 17, 2018, 11:53:45 AM »

Watching the very best working it is very much a feel based exercise, much less beating it into submission and more working with what's good about the audio.  I feel this perspective is missing in online discussions about audio.

Thanks for sharing!

 I actually came across the EQ technique you mentioned of not using seek and destroy and, prior to that, after years of basically learning how to learn more , it resonated with me in a profound way when I happened across it in some obscure article or something.

Echoing abbey somewhat.... I wonder if it would've made as much sense to me foregoing the spinning my wheels for so long . Maybe.... I'll never know . I do know to me it makes total sense now and am appreciative when something is mentioned that feels like putting a name to the face in some aspects.... It just feels right.....If that makes sense.....
All is not lost in my quest for certain knowledge but, if nothing else, it's helped me fine tune my radar to some of the more obscure information that I consider invaluable....

Exciting stuff!

Re: EQ/compression techniques
« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2018, 02:08:19 PM »
We could just argue about Mac vs PC instead?  :)

This is a huge topic but you are off to a great start because you are getting sounds that you like from your tape machine, unlike most people who are chasing some mythical idealized tone.

It's worth spending some time trying to understand some of the mechanisms that are at play in your tape machine path, off the top of my head...

a) Does it have input or output transformers? If yes these will likely be doing what transformers do (coloration, low end distortion and fatness, depending on quality you may be losing some high end)

b) Frequency response - Depending on how you have your machine calibrated or not you may not have a perfectly flat frequency response, and this is not always a bad thing.

c) Head bump - affects the low end response, often in a pleasing way, depends on tape speed too.

d) Dynamic properties - depending on recording levels you will be getting some dynamic compression, that will vary with frequency.

e) High frequency softening / limiting - tape has a way of eating up fast high frequency transients that can be very pleasing and forgiving.

f) Noise - A dirty word in audio but can often be our friend in making things feel good.

g) Harmonic distortion - regardless of level you will have higher levels of distortion in your tape machine than a modern digital recorder, and likely lower order than that which you'll find in your digital world.

h) Tape formulation - can have a significant impact on how the machine sounds.


So, if I wanted to emulate your machine...

a) Does it have transformers?  If so, get a transformer or two into your digital record path.

b) Can you measure the frequency response of your tape machine with a sweep? If so easy to match with a good eq.  Even recording pink noise from your DAW onto tape and back into DAW will give you an approximation with FFT and averaging.

c)  Head Bump - see b)

d) Compression - low ratio compression with fast attack, medium release, barely working on your signal (will not be very accurate but better than nothing).

e) High Frequency Limiting - hard to do well in digital but work with low ratio de-essers and HF limiters (with soft ish knee).  My favorite in the analog world is the Maselec MDS2 but it's not cheap, does a great job of softening things in a pleasing way.

f) Noise - it would be fun to record the noise from your machine and then match it's profile and level using a signal generator and EQ, mix into your digital recordings.

g) Distortion - You'll want a distortion plug in that gives you some control over the harmonic content, I've used SDRR by Klanghelm and it gives good control over odd / even and low / high order distortion (cheap too).

h) Tape formulation - above my pay grade :)


I would be a really interesting exercise to split signals from your mic pre and record to tape and digital at the same time, allowing comparison after the fact.   You are very much on track with the idea that it's not what digital is losing but rather what tape is adding.

Last thought - what converters are you using and are you recording at lower levels?  If not you should be, don't peak above -10 dBFS.

I somehow missed this post.  I'm glad you broke it down like this as I've identified a lot of this but it's nice to see it in writing from someone else, and expanded on.  I recently did a split signal test after I made a routing box to make my life using the tape machine easier.. I have a rotary switch where I can pick where the signal goes to on the tape machine.  The routing box I made has 4 balanced in, 12 balanced out options.. which make tracking easier for me (I don't have to take off my instrument as much or get down under the machine), and this box opened the possibility to do a direct comparison to straight digital as well.. I realized after.

My main aim is to keep the musicality, and so far I'm achieving that... without making things too complex on a technical level.  I understand it's not the norm to pull this all off independently.. but hopefully things work out and I'll get to collaborate in near future with some good people.

I'm using the converters in the Zed R16.  Coming into the computer at about -18 average, with about -10 peaks.  Edit: well depends.. if it's individual tracks I let it come in higher than an average of -18db, probably more like -12.

Even using transformers and other outboard and eq there's something I can't capture without tape.. I think I'm going to just simplify this and forget the comparisons for now and just get tracking to the tape machine... convert and bring the multitrack in the computer, do some editing if I need it.. then mix to my DIY console that is still in development.

I like your idea of recording the noise and trying to integrate that in the digital environment for straight to digital situations.

I was testing the bass roll off and presence boost on the SM7B mic this morning until I stopped myself and said, this isn't getting the record done.. 

Aiming to keep it simple and will definitely want to get this thing mastered by someone other than me.  Not as a fix, but as the last step to have another set of ears on it and adjust it, get it ready for the real world.  I don't want it to be part of the loudness wars at all..

I kind of fall within the indie/old school/jazzy/easy listening rock/soft hearted/progressive sound.  If I write something that sounds like it'd be a pop song I put it in the bin. haha   I just want interesting music that will not get annoying quickly.. to me.
  I like world/adventure/watching the ocean move type stuff I guess.

A
« Last Edit: April 17, 2018, 02:31:14 PM by 80hinhiding »

Matt C

Re: EQ/compression techniques
« Reply #13 on: April 18, 2018, 10:21:45 AM »
it's already been mentioned, but +1 for keeping levels very conservative on the way into the computer. In my experience things start to sound really gross really fast if the levels get too high.

Re: EQ/compression techniques
« Reply #14 on: April 18, 2018, 10:46:59 AM »
it's already been mentioned, but +1 for keeping levels very conservative on the way into the computer. In my experience things start to sound really gross really fast if the levels get too high.

Agreed, and I am very conscious of that.   Straight to digital especially conscious of it.

I'm having a bit of an issue maintaining average level at the moment (so I'm kind of the opposite of too loud), especially if I use the G Bus Compressor clone I have on a mix, because I only have unbalanced inserts at the moment.. and if I don't want to pump a lot of make up gain in, or hit any gear hard all around, I end up with a quiet average level.. so there would be all kinds of room to work with there for a mastering engineer... as long as the noise floor isn't too much.  They probably have a few eq and limiting tricks where this is a non issue anyway.. but I'm aiming to do my best.

With tape, I can have a higher level and need to have a higher level because of the preamp and machine hiss/noise.. I need to get above that enough so that when I put the mixer fader at a spot where it sits right that you can't really hear the hiss.  This is a concern for me when it comes to having it mastered.  I don't want a noise free recording, but I don't want quiet moments where the arrangement gets sparse to be blatantly hiss filled.  Noise reduction units I've seen are unbalanced, and fortunately I have balanced inputs and outputs on the tape machine so I'd rather use those balanced connections... but it might be worthwhile to try a noise reduction system, I just don't want to kill the nice sound I'm hearing from it now without.

Adam

abbey road d enfer

Re: EQ/compression techniques
« Reply #15 on: April 18, 2018, 12:43:09 PM »
it's already been mentioned, but +1 for keeping levels very conservative on the way into the computer. In my experience things start to sound really gross really fast if the levels get too high.
This subject has been debated to death. Almost inevitably, it turns out the reason is the analog parts of the signal path have not been designed for operation at the elevated levels that make the )digital meters move. -12dBfs (considered as a conservative digital operating level) corresponds to an analog level of +6 to +12 dBu, which is hot for most analog equipment (preamps, EQ's, compressors...). Only a fraction of currently developped analog equipment is ready for operating at such levels.
There is nothing wrong with operating close to 100%fs in the digital domain, on the contrary (numbers do not distort), but the analog path must be ready to handle it.
Who's right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is what's right or wrong.
Star ground is for electricians.

Re: EQ/compression techniques
« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2018, 02:11:03 PM »
Hopefully this doesn't come across as bragging, but I had more positive reaction from a mix I did myself from a song I did entirely myself, with one crappy mic and a computer soundcard at 16 bit.... a year after being to a big studio with 2 dedicated engineers working on my stuff in great rooms and great equipment.  Does that mean they weren't good engineers.. no.  My songs weren't where I wanted/needed them to be, but I didn't know squat about the gear, or tone, or have the time in the big studio to pan for gold.  When I'm isolated and alone working on stuff I fel more safe to just make something, and experiment... the song/mix I had a good reaction to didn't really have a proper production standard.. which I aimed to figure out.

This is because, I'm guessing, it was tracked with more emotion and the(unaltered) recording came across as more genuine. This will 'always' have a greater impact over what mic into what preamp into what compressor, etc...to elicit a more favorable response from others that are listening. Also, were the songs the same or was the second song a better song? Important variables...

« Last Edit: April 18, 2018, 02:25:10 PM by desol »

Re: EQ/compression techniques
« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2018, 09:01:12 PM »
This is because, I'm guessing, it was tracked with more emotion and the(unaltered) recording came across as more genuine. This will 'always' have a greater impact over what mic into what preamp into what compressor, etc...to elicit a more favorable response from others that are listening. Also, were the songs the same or was the second song a better song? Important variables...

You're right, it was both.  I felt freer, and just had fun improvising.. plus it was different material that started leaning toward really finding my voice.  I took a long hiatus after that though and a few years ago started writing again.. with ideas of what kind of album I might want to buy and put on, but it turns out thinking doesn't really work out... the more I just let stuff happen, the more my thing happens.. whatever that is.  Feels good.

I'm going to embrace my digital recorder more instead of thinking of it as losing something.. it isn't hurting me or the music.  I still have an appreciation for the tones and overtones of certain equipment.. that won't change but when it comes to tracking and writing.. the feel does seem to rise above it.

Cheers

A

Re: EQ/compression techniques
« Reply #18 on: April 20, 2018, 06:29:08 PM »
I have been tracking straight to digital the past couple days and have formed a new workflow that is allowing some fun stuff to happen musically.  I even setup the MIDI controller on the Zed R16 to facilitate the process operating the transport and record/add track functions. 

I'm actually digging it, this digital thing.  I'm now hybrid for sure.  I experimented hitting the tape machine with significant level after my straight to digital track, for specific tracks and can use it like another piece of outboard processing.

I am definitely finding pros to using my computer for the multitrack.  I feel it's expanding my composing strengths.. being able to get things a bit tighter, a bit quicker and then experiment on top of that in near real time.  Signal strength is good, clarity is there, not much noise unless I choose to put it there, etc.

I hope I can finish my own console soon to integrate that in the process.  It'll be fun to come out of the computer and do some sub mixes and full mixes through it.  Always feels like so much to do, with so little time, but I'm getting there.

Just thought I'd drop by to share this with you guys.   Do I still love film, tape and everything analog. Yes.  Do I dislike digital. No.  Progress. :)

Cheers

Adam


john12ax7

Re: EQ/compression techniques
« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2018, 07:11:04 PM »
Getting away from using a mouse and staring at a computer screen can certainly be a big help. Pushing actual faders is nice.  And there is something very satisfying with a dedicated transport.  Have always thought nice big lighted buttons like on a Studer would be a great DIY project to control the DAW.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
10736 Views
Last post June 06, 2005, 04:11:31 AM
by
12 Replies
2816 Views
Last post April 19, 2008, 07:28:42 PM
by bcarso
5 Replies
1959 Views
Last post May 16, 2011, 01:02:14 PM
by mulletchuck
7 Replies
2140 Views
Last post November 17, 2011, 12:07:04 PM
by TomWaterman