GroupDiy Tribute Plugin

[justinheronmusic]

I think it would be amazing to have Klanghelm or another independent plugin developer do a Group DIY tribute plugin based on component modeling - a fully modded GSSL with switchable I/O transformers, a D-AOC with switchable I/O transformers, The Rude Tube; selectable skins to reflect everyone's creative designing. Modeling Edcor, Sowter, Carnhill, UTC, and Cinemag transformers.

It would kind of defeat the purpose of the DIY aspect of it, but at the same time...what if I want to try a D-LA2A with a Carnhill output?

 

[Dreams]

Personally i feel that kind of thing is fundamentally at odds with why i do this stuff in the first place. If i wanted to hear a D-LA2A with a Carnhill output i would solder them together. No offense

 

[ruairioflaherty]

Personally i feel that kind of thing is fundamentally at odds with why i do this stuff in the first place. If i wanted to hear a D-LA2A with a Carnhill output i would solder them together. No offense

Agreed.  Personally if I could master records without seeing a screen I would. Plug ins and visual stimuli are a necessary evil to be minimized. 

I remember a time when they still excited me though, even now I still have 250 odd licenses on my ilok and use maybe 5.  A massive waste of money.

I enjoy there there are some things that are beyond the reach of instant gratification.

 

[justinheronmusic]

I enjoy that there are some things that are beyond the reach of instant gratification.

You said it all right there, brother. When I was young I had these dreams of owning an all analog studio; and being recognized and distinguished for carrying on these absolutely beautiful traditions. The older that I get the more I realize that I am not a millionaire, or even a hundred thousandaire, and I have to be happy with what my modest income I can afford. Even these Group DIY builds can get pretty pricey.  :-[

(Let it be noted that I am still a beginner when it comes to DIY. With only a handful of completed projects under my belt, and no background in electronics)

My daydreaming mainly comes from the notion that it can sometimes be hard for a beginner to act quickly on mods - my experience level just isn't at the point where I can head to the workbench and solder/mod switchable transformers into an existing build on a whim.

So even though I agree with you, I also think that plugins are absolutely indispensable for mixing duties, and getting down to the  very fine details. Hardware is awesome for broad strokes. Committing things to "tape" is mostly essential to my workflow. But things like vocal compression, and EQ, can be hard for me to commit  to processing during recording - for me - and I tend to process them in mixing (though it all depends on the singer). I have 0 hardware EQ, but plenty of DIY mic pres and compression builds if that is indicative of my workflow.

I just thought it would be cool to somehow have the inclusiveness and flexibility of all the freakishly cool builds I've seen on here without dedicating my life to the ultimate fully modded version of every legendary group diy build - and a plugin came to mind 

Do either of you have a build that was built for tonal flexibility and variation? If so, how did it turn out? Was it worth the effort and expenses?

 

[ruffrecords]

So even though I agree with you, I also think that plugins are absolutely indispensable for mixing duties, and getting down to the  very fine details.

I am going to play devils advocate here. I think there far far too much emphasis on whizzy technology to solve problems. Yes, we can do wonderful things with editing takes together but when taken too far it leads to a 'don't worry we can fix that in the mix' attitude which I think is completely wrong. There are four major contributors to a good recording:

1. Talent
2. A good arrangement
3.  A good sounding room
4. Good recording equipment

If you do not get all of those right, no amount of fixing in the mix will turn it into something worthwhile

Cheers

Ian

 

[Rob Flinn]

I am going to play devils advocate here. I think there far far too much emphasis on whizzy technology to solve problems. Yes, we can do wonderful things with editing takes together but when taken too far it leads to a 'don't worry we can fix that in the mix' attitude which I think is completely wrong. There are four major contributors to a good recording:

1. Talent
2. A good arrangement
3.  A good sounding room
4. Good recording equipment

If you do not get all of those right, no amount of fixing in the mix will turn it into something worthwhile

Cheers

Ian

Amen

 

[bluebird]

I am going to play devils advocate here. I think there far far too much emphasis on whizzy technology to solve problems. Yes, we can do wonderful things with editing takes together but when taken too far it leads to a 'don't worry we can fix that in the mix' attitude which I think is completely wrong. There are four major contributors to a good recording:

1. Talent
2. A good arrangement
3.  A good sounding room
4. Good recording equipment

If you do not get all of those right, no amount of fixing in the mix will turn it into something worthwhile

Cheers

Ian

I'm going to be devils advocate...devils advocate

I think these things are only necessary for a certain kind of music.  A kind of music I've been listening to all my life and to be honest, am pretty board of. I was in the grocery store yesterday and heard a generic Strokes (2000's popular indie rock) copy band. The song was a well executed rock song, the lyrics clever, the arrangement perfect, but it was offensively regular and boring. I couldn't tell you why because it sounded like everything was done right on Ian's list. Even on ceiling speakers.

I really enjoy the completely synthetic sound of pop R&B/trap/dance. There is something so refreshing about those sounds.

Even when you get all those things right. Talent, arrangement, technique. most of the time you get a song thats ok, technically good but rarely special.

Sometimes, you throw up a looped beat, hit a couple chords on a virtual instrument and sing a very inspirational vocal. Boom a hit, something special. Its the moment and the tools you have on hand to capture that moment. It may be real analog stuff and it may be virtual. Doesn't really matter as long as the spirit is captured in the physical, then shared.

I mean you could go all the way and say electricity in general messed up music. It was so vibrant with acoustic instruments, live, in the moment. Why did recording have to come along and ruin it all? Why does it have to be captured at all? Its silly to say "if its going to be captured, it must be captured following these strict rules..."

MHO of course.

 

[justinheronmusic]

There is a massive difference between not compressing or EQ'ing to tape, processing during mixing, and "fixing it in the mix". I don't really ever fix things that I've recorded in the mix, I consider it poor form. However, it's pretty typical for me to save EQ and compression on vocals for the mixing session - if I indeed recorded it. Most of the work I've done in the last 5 years someone else recorded, and in some instances it was recorded by the band themselves; In which "fixing" shit is 80% of what I do, and 20% is creativity - this is the reality of today's climate, I consider it just a part of the gig. For every record I get that is beautifully recorded, I have probably done 2-3 records where I spend a considerable amount of time cleaning and tightening things up.

Someday I'll be that dog, you know, the one that has his day? Until then, Pro Tools tricks are a way to stay relevant and active.

@ Bluebird, check out Daniel John's "Talk" album - that album sounds fantastic, mixed by Tony Maserati. If someone can do in mixing what was done on that record without relying on ITB precision, well, I would totally put my foot in my mouth.

@ ruffrecords, Pokey LeFarge's new album "Rock Bottom Rhapsody" is a fantastic blend of all 4 of those things with a really great vintage aesthetic. Honestly, this album is a modern masterpiece, at the very least from a production standpoint. No idea how they recorded it, but damn. If it doesn't sound like something straight out of 1958 in all the best ways.

The Beatles, King Crimson, The Stooges, Fleetwood Mac, Led Zeppelin, Hendrix, Velvet Underground all still turn me on, but music is ever changing, as is people's expectations of music and how it is made - what it means to experience a song is changing - as testified by bluebird.

All I'm saying is, in this environment, one needs to be able to balance retaining the integrity of the analog days, utilize the detailing capabilities of digital - harness the power of both. There is an evil in digital, and there is an evil in analog. Those who prevail have taken the angel's share of both.

 

[Ricardus]

https://tapeop.com/columns/end-rant/67/

Live Tracking: All sessions must be tracked as live as possible with real musicians and instruments. Imagine how much better Britney Spears would sound if she recorded in this manner!

Click Tracks: Metronomes may only be used at the start of a song. Any indication that a song was played entirely to a click, or that one was used to keep the band in time after the third bridge, will not be tolerated.

Editing: Only one edit of the master take of each song is allowed. In other words, two takes may be combined, but no more than one edit/splice point.

Punch Ins: One punch in per track is permissible on each song. Continuous takes, mistakes and all, always have greater feel than multiple punched in Frankenstein'ed takes.

Overdubs: Since an overdub is not part of the all-important live performance, the number of overdubs per song shall be limited to four. However, any overdubbing of lead vocals must be notated in the liner notes of any release and on the back cover in at least 10 point type. Remember: Coltrane didn't need no stinkin' overdubs.

Compression: No ratios over 10:1. Not even in parallel mode.

Equalization: No boosts of frequencies. Not even on a Pultec. Cutting frequencies is okay, but only up to -4dB. Remember, it's called corrective equalization for a reason.

Plug-Ins: None will be allowed. Ever. They are "fake" tools. They invariably emulate something that exists in the real world, but obviously in an inferior manner. If the Beatles had plug-ins they might have used them, but we can rest assured that their records would have sounded far worse for it.

Artificial Tuning: This modern travesty of the recording arts is never allowed. If two notes are rubbing together in a bad way then the world shall hear it as intended — or the performance must be redone.

Track Nudging: Anyone caught moving a snare hit, bass line, backing vocal, tambourine hit or such will be removed from our program with no refund or recourse.

Track Count: No more than 24 tracks may be used per song, no matter what device you are recording to, unless you have an Otari 32-track analog tape deck. Any records created on 4-track machines will be given special merit and a mention in our new monthly journal, Purity and Honesty in Recordings.

Mixing in the Box: This is never allowed. In fact, studies are being performed (by us) suggesting that simply monitoring mixes with digital summing while tracking or overdubbing can cause improper production decisions and induce ear fatigue.

Mixing Automation: A total of two automation moves per track on any given song will be allowed. Any more moves indicates that the recording process was obviously flawed and will not be permitted.

Computer Monitors: When using a DAW (or even console automation), computer monitors may not be on for more than 50% of the recording and mixing time. The same applies to any and all control surfaces and/or track balls.

Mastering: All mastering must be done in real time as the master tape passes the headstack. All EQ and compression changes must be performed by hand without automations. Anything resembling brick-wall limiting will be disqualified.

Delivery Format: Any recording project turned in on anything other than 1/2" or 1/4" analog tape will be automatically disqualified from our endorsement. We're currently investigating whether wire recorder mixdowns will qualify.

Solution: We have decided to implement a certification system so that music buyers shall be able to identify music that was recorded to our rigorous standards. For a $5000 annual fee recording studios, engineers, producers and home recordists can sign up for the "Tape Op Purity and Honesty" certification program. Our handpicked panel of experts will review any recording sent in (on a high end audiophile stereo, of course) and will evaluate whether any violations of the Purity and Honesty rules have occurred. These experts will be selected for their ability to perceive impure and dishonest recording techniques in the final master. An official logo will be issued for the album artwork if we determine that all of the proper steps have been taken to ensure that the music to be released was recorded properly, purely and honestly. With this program we hope to restore some much-needed integrity to the once noble profession of audio recording.

 

[pucho812]

I don't think we need a tribute plug in, you want to tribute, buy some gyraf audio products as Jacob really helped a ton of folks with projects like the GSSL  and so on, or donate to keep this place around  or both. I heard some gyraf compressors at NAMM that were light years ahead of any competition, the heart wants but the funds are not there yet

 

[ruffrecords]

https://tapeop.com/columns/end-rant/67/

Live Tracking: All sessions must be tracked as live as possible with real musicians and instruments. Imagine how much better Britney Spears would sound if she recorded in this manner!

Click Tracks: Metronomes may only be used at the start of a song. Any indication that a song was played entirely to a click, or that one was used to keep the band in time after the third bridge, will not be tolerated.

Editing: Only one edit of the master take of each song is allowed. In other words, two takes may be combined, but no more than one edit/splice point.

Punch Ins: One punch in per track is permissible on each song. Continuous takes, mistakes and all, always have greater feel than multiple punched in Frankenstein'ed takes.

Overdubs: Since an overdub is not part of the all-important live performance, the number of overdubs per song shall be limited to four. However, any overdubbing of lead vocals must be notated in the liner notes of any release and on the back cover in at least 10 point type. Remember: Coltrane didn't need no stinkin' overdubs.

Compression: No ratios over 10:1. Not even in parallel mode.

Equalization: No boosts of frequencies. Not even on a Pultec. Cutting frequencies is okay, but only up to -4dB. Remember, it's called corrective equalization for a reason.

Plug-Ins: None will be allowed. Ever. They are "fake" tools. They invariably emulate something that exists in the real world, but obviously in an inferior manner. If the Beatles had plug-ins they might have used them, but we can rest assured that their records would have sounded far worse for it.

Artificial Tuning: This modern travesty of the recording arts is never allowed. If two notes are rubbing together in a bad way then the world shall hear it as intended — or the performance must be redone.

Track Nudging: Anyone caught moving a snare hit, bass line, backing vocal, tambourine hit or such will be removed from our program with no refund or recourse.

Track Count: No more than 24 tracks may be used per song, no matter what device you are recording to, unless you have an Otari 32-track analog tape deck. Any records created on 4-track machines will be given special merit and a mention in our new monthly journal, Purity and Honesty in Recordings.

Mixing in the Box: This is never allowed. In fact, studies are being performed (by us) suggesting that simply monitoring mixes with digital summing while tracking or overdubbing can cause improper production decisions and induce ear fatigue.

Mixing Automation: A total of two automation moves per track on any given song will be allowed. Any more moves indicates that the recording process was obviously flawed and will not be permitted.

Computer Monitors: When using a DAW (or even console automation), computer monitors may not be on for more than 50% of the recording and mixing time. The same applies to any and all control surfaces and/or track balls.

Mastering: All mastering must be done in real time as the master tape passes the headstack. All EQ and compression changes must be performed by hand without automations. Anything resembling brick-wall limiting will be disqualified.

Delivery Format: Any recording project turned in on anything other than 1/2" or 1/4" analog tape will be automatically disqualified from our endorsement. We're currently investigating whether wire recorder mixdowns will qualify.

Solution: We have decided to implement a certification system so that music buyers shall be able to identify music that was recorded to our rigorous standards. For a $5000 annual fee recording studios, engineers, producers and home recordists can sign up for the "Tape Op Purity and Honesty" certification program. Our handpicked panel of experts will review any recording sent in (on a high end audiophile stereo, of course) and will evaluate whether any violations of the Purity and Honesty rules have occurred. These experts will be selected for their ability to perceive impure and dishonest recording techniques in the final master. An official logo will be issued for the album artwork if we determine that all of the proper steps have been taken to ensure that the music to be released was recorded properly, purely and honestly. With this program we hope to restore some much-needed integrity to the once noble profession of audio recording.

Sounds far too lenient to me.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Ricardus]

Sounds far too lenient to me.

Cheers

Ian

Agreed!

I actually wrote a letter to the editor in reply when they published that, and they printed it. I was a little bit excited.

 

[okgb]

I think the original idea is fine , maybe grp diy  as a whole doesn't want it or not interested in it,
but there are some people who'll never  be able to make or afford the devices, or a combination may save them the trial
and sometimes the only way things get done is however they get done. could they make any money off of the plugin ?

I think everyone agrees real muscians playing real music is better , what are you going to do about it?

 

[ruffrecords]

I think everyone agrees real musicians playing real music is better , what are you going to do about it?

What I did about it was design mixers for the Kinks and the Who, recorded many local bands live (from the early 60s to the late 90s) and in the last 20 years recorded 15 albums.  I am sure there are many other here who have done a whole lot more. with real musicians.

Cheers

Ian

 

[ubxf]

Yes that's a pretty light resume, let's hear from the heavy weights

 

[john12ax7]

In the spirit of the place why not a diy plugin,  make it open source code for everyone to learn from.

 

[okgb]

I meant in terms of supporting live music and muscians

Streaming services don't pay much, live venues are on hold, buying direct from artists websites can help
and  looks like the model is going to have to change,  but it's still hard to find a good radio station these days
[ I recommend 88.5  So cal  ]  the mp3 generation is going to take allot of education if they even care and the gamers
are used to computers doing everything,  As a gtr player I love tubes  anyone want to guess how long they will be around?
allot of the business people are only interested in what they can make money off of, and some things are hard to fight
there are effective drugs that could be created but even whole countries can't afford to do it, so let me try to cap this off in a more positive tone,  value music and the listening of it, and enjoy whatever you do!

 

[justinheronmusic]

There is no such thing as a "real recording process" or "real musicians", such a concept only exist in the minds and ego of the individual. Comparing your creative process to the likes of some of the greatest recording artist of all time will only kill creativity. Setting such rules for recording seems contradicting to what made recording an art form in the first place. The Beatles broke rules.

The real question, to me, is did it add to the experience of the song or take away? Why are we all so hung up on militant rules of recording?

 

[ruairioflaherty]

There is no such thing as a "real recording process" or "real musicians", such a concept only exist in the minds and ego of the individual. Comparing your creative process to the likes of some of the greatest recording artist of all time will only kill creativity. Setting such rules for recording seems contradicting to what made recording an art form in the first place. The Beatles broke rules.

The real question, to me, is did it add to the experience of the song or take away? Why are we all so hung up on militant rules of recording?

100% agree here. I've had records made every which way move me, from laptop home studios to iPhone recordings to the A list studios and players.  Nothing is more boring than (mostly middle aged men) arguing how music was better when.... (not accusing anyone here of that)

Nothing guarantees a timeless recording - not gear, not players, not even great songs.  90% of the music coming out of Nashville proves that.

The game is capturing inspiration whenever it arrives and however you can.  Back to my original point I'd argue that plug ins can sometimes undermine that goal, but some music just doesn't exist without them.

 

[justinheronmusic]

I like writing away from a computer, with little low-fi portable recording devices.  It's a whole lot more fun and productive for me than trying to simultaneously be pro engineer at the same time as being a creative spirit who's tapping into his inner freak, for lack of a better term.  Emotions, that's the better term.

Anyway, my new approach is to keep those processes separate, even if I'm going to end up doing both the rough demo on a low-fi portable device, as a sort of colour preliminary/smaller version of what I intend it to be... and a higher production value in the end using good equipment - or working with others to get it up to scratch.  There is a certain level the production has to be at to be competitive in music, in my experience.  I used to have demoitis.  Where I was afraid I'd get too attached to a demo, because it had captured the raw energy so well.  But, over time I've found that if I do enough sketching, and then scaling it up to final it is not as scary as trying to jump right into amazing production value.  That can be a big buzz kill... but it does sometimes work too breaking out the big canvas without a thing preplanned.  So many ways to go about it.  I have riffs from twenty years ago that may see the light of day sometime.. or as bluebird said, throw up a loop, start improvising. 

Let's not forget that people like Peter Gabriel sometimes takes years to piece together songs and there are multiple versions created before final.

Other times, someone in their bedroom on a laptop creates a song that resonates with and audience, in a hour.

I don't want to see any screens in the writing... and often like the lights off now.  It's weird perhaps, but has been working..

I don't mind your plugin idea, even if I'm not a plugin kinda guy.  I'm sure it'd be both fun and useful for lots of people.

Adam

Hell yeah with this! Broad strokes, for sure!
I was actually just interviewed for a podcast about the creative process and the interviewer was telling me that recording a song is like this final glue added to the process and once it's recorded it has this sense of permanence; it's the point of no return for him. He may be able to rerecord the song, but as far as lyrics and structure, recording is what cements it in place in his brain. I find it so interesting, as I am the opposite. Recording is the start and end of the song and fluid throughout up until the mixing session. This, I feel, is the benefit of using Pro Tools. I can write, compose, and revise interchangeably.

Fortunately, engineering is second nature to me. Pro Tools is second nature to me. My biggest hurdle is clearing my mind of all the outside voices, and just learning to listen to my own - it's the only way I can write music. I tend to write lyrics outside, or in complete silence, alone.

I spent many years writing on a 4-track. It really does put you in  a different headspace, the hiss really sets this mood, gives you a backdrop to clear the mind. Alas, I have found that if I turn off my monitor and just use the transport on my little Command 8, I can achieve a similar, albeit not the same, headspace -  but I end up with usable takes that usually make the final recording. Of course I say that, but it should be noted that I throw away much more songs than I release.

Peter Gabriel's "Up" record is one of the greatest musical accomplishments I've had the pleasure of hearing. Incredible record inside and out. Also, one of Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan's last performances! Crazy to hear them play it live in the studio. Is it true that he records in A=432hz? I've read that there is this entire subculture of musicians who record in 432.

  If there ever was to be a GroupDiy plugin, it would have to be open source and crazy variable, some way for people to "demo" components to get an idea of what they want for their build. Edcor, UTC, Carnhill, Sowter? Op Amp? Tubes? If there was a way to component model and demo certain essential components to get more of an idea on how your build will sound with x, y, & z.