What rack gear could you not live without in your mixes?

[iomegaman]

Not exactly "rack gear" because honestly there are a TON of albums being made now that are not going through a lot of rack gear...but Speakers make a significant difference...I have never gottnen onboard with the Yamaha NS10 craze...I guess they are popular because they translate well to "Meh" which is what most consumers are used to...but you also don't have to spend a lot of coin to get a good translation...many famous mix engineers use the Mackies...and believe it or not the despised Behringer Truths are not terrible...

But a good chair is indispensable and a proper mouse.

I've just recently started using the Softube Console 1 and am drifting further and further away from my rack gear which includes REDD.47/API/Trident/Neve/SSL/1176/etc...

Anymore I can get a quick a proper signal from my Biamp console OR the UAD Apollo/Antelope Discrete 8/Apogee Dual path stuff...

Mixing all in the box now...until I get that danged Bouse APD 1600 running anyway...

 

[Jen]

I’m relatively new to the world of recording at a pro level. Most of my experience prior was with portastudios and garage band.
Now as I building up my studio I’m finding that some of the things I felt I needed have moved out to make way for new things I think or feel I need. There are however a few things I know i’ll never part with. For instance my CAPI and AML pre’s. Good pre’s have been a huge game changer for me.

So this brings me to my question:

What are some rack gear that you own you couldn’t live without on your mixes?

Why?

What in particular do you use them on that you feel make your mixes “perfect”.



Ryan

Manley Vari-Mu.. even if not using it to compress or limit. The transformers and tubes add a cohesive and engaging sense to a remaster. . I even use it in my regular stereo engaged 85% of the time, to take the dry or sterile out of most commercial releases.

 

[soapfoot]

I have never gottnen onboard with the Yamaha NS10 craze...I guess they are popular because they translate well to "Meh" which is what most consumers are used to...

This is a very common position re: the popularity of the NS-10M, but I’ll gently push back on it a bit.

While speaker preference is ultimately subjective, there remain objective components to their evaluation. In one of those metrics, the NS-10M is best-in-class: time domain behavior.

If you look at a waterfall plot of an NS-10M you’ll see absolutely textbook performance. There was an AES study about this some time ago, and the NS-10M outperformed every other device under test by this metric.

Bandwidth is exciting and probably sells more speakers than a textbook waterfall plot, which is probably why most commercial nearfields opt to extend response as far as possible (even at the expense of time domain behavior). The NS-10M had the courage (or naïveté) to be what it is—a somewhat band-limited acoustic suspension nearfield.

Having built Northward Acoustics rooms in the newer part of our facility—which are superlative vis-a-vis time domain performance—I‘ve formed a strong belief/understanding that time domain stuff may be the single most important factor in translation—more so than nearly any other factor.

It’s true that NS-10Ms translate well to the outside world—but to say they translate well to “meh” is incomplete. They translate well period, because the sound stops and starts when it’s supposed to over their entire bandwidth (not a trivial task).

Incidentally, Auratone 5Cs are also measurably-stellar performers in this regard (they were the only other device in the aforementioned AES study that came close—admittedly an easier lift because their bandwidth is quite limited).

In both cases, people assume that they just represent “poor” speakers well… but I’d submit that this may be incorrect (or at least incomplete), and those two have become mainstays because they’re uncommonly good in the time domain.

 

[iomegaman]

I stand corrected, thanks for that!

 

[soapfoot]

Thanks for being receptive to gentle disagreement!

If interested to see more, here's the aforementioned study, published by AES (by Dr. Keith Holland of Southampton University, et al)

http://dt7v1i9vyp3mf.cloudfront.net/assetlibrary/n/ns10m.pdf?jQWj8tYIeZeymRCNXitG9Qfwq9mLf1t0

NS-10m waterfall plot on second-to-last page. Look at it in comparison to all others (most of which have obvious port resonances, ringing, etc). Note Auratone 5C also!

A waterfall plot provides so much useful information, but is seldom published as part of loudspeaker documentation. Maybe it's because they're *slightly* harder for a consumer to interpret/know what to look for, but also possibly because it's much trickier to hide flaws.

 

[iomegaman]

This makes a lot more sense to me after reading the article...it seems that the ability of the NS10 to "snap back" for bass response actually makes it a better mixing monitor than a lot of higher end larger speakers that have resonant ringing due to ports and speaker size...helping the NS10's to separate bass and bass drum because it has really short transient time response...I mean looking at most of those speaker waterfall plots shows a ton of "lagging rumble" in the low end some of them with 5x the transient time of the NS10...

I've never really thought about "recovery" in a speakers transient time plot before but if a speaker is hitting 60Hz for 100ms versus 20ms it seems you would get some funky phase issues in the low end if the frequency response changed faster than the speaker could recover...

thanks again for the article.

 

[soapfoot]

That's exactly it!

And in small nearfields, the port resonances (etc) are often meaningfully in-band (as we can see in that paper). In a well-designed larger bass reflex system this isn't necessarily the case.

Our large Northward rooms have ATC SCM-110ASL (large bass-reflex monitors) flush-mounted in the front walls, and if you do a waterfall plot of them (as we recently did, using REW) you can almost see a hint of the ports trying to cough out 18-20Hz. But this isn't really a big deal, first because it's barely-there, but also because it's below most of what we'd be interested in.

But a nearfield with a very long decay time at, say 80-150Hz could pose a real challenge.

I think of it a bit like a fast car--for anything other than straight-line driving, the brakes are just as important to the performance as the engine. A speaker that stops when it's supposed to is arguably more important than one that can make some kind of sound over a very wide band.

 

[EarthTone]

I love the part about exercise and health… Not a dig, but does Dave Pensado look healthy to any of you guys? Lol!

I’ll say that when it comes to acoustic music, other than the quality of the players, 90% of engineering is getting the recording right at the source. Mics, pres, conversion (hella important) and room are king here. Soooo much easier to get a good mix when the sounds are inspiring to start with and only need some fat trimmed. I’m working on something right now that was poorly recorded at a different studio and it just is going to be a bear for anyone to mix this down pleasingly. On the other hand things I’ve had client time to setup properly for and take time getting sounds with have been positively easier to finish with good results.

All that being said here are some things that I have and probably don’t need but that I love very much and wouldn’t want to be without:

Gyraf G22 (unreal stereo vari mu comp!)

Retro 2a3 plutec style multi mono two channel eq which nails the pultec functionality, has its own vibe, and some extra features like 14khz boost freq option and resonant filters at 40 & 90hz

Great River PWM 501’s x2 They have worked well on literally any mixing source I’ve tried them on.

La2 clone, sounds better than any plugin

Serpent sb40001 ssl style bus comp- Again sounds better than any plug I have used, just more open and 3d

4x 1073 clones I built from AML kits- The line amps sound is incredible for running 2-mixes through and the eq’s rule. Uad plugin does not even come anywhere close to the way these sound, even if only running signals through the line amps.

Buzz Audio Tonic eq- Very cool little 3 band inductor unit that has a vibe

Buzz Essence- Great opto compressor with both hpf and lpf sidechain boost/cut options. Hugh freq boost into the sidechain detector is very useful on pokey bright sources to tame the highs for more compression action on the top end; Haven’t even seen that in a plugin unless you consider a desser or multiband comp for a similar purpose but this does something different anyway. And very transparent compression even at high GR.

Anyway, none of this stuff makes it onto most of my client mixes just because of time and the fact that people will literally hit you up 4 years later asking you to change something in a mix so these days I pretty much don’t even offer analogue mixing to outside clients. Too many headaches. I do it for some people if I like the music enough. This is not my entire living by any means so I can afford to be picky about doing projects for people. Mostly I find I actually work better with plugins. It’s just faster and you don’t have to hook anything up or turn your ears away from the monitors to adjust a dial etc.

Oh yeah. Monitoring trumps all that stuff too. And room treatment. I have a pair of Proac Studio 100’s, the old ones, an Adcom gfa-555 amp modded by Jim Williams and Mytek Brooklyn+ DAC for monitoring duties. It’s an incredible chain. If it sounds right there, it will translate pretty much anywhere. They are not flattering speakers.

Have fun.

 

[john12ax7]

If interested to see more, here's the aforementioned study, published by AES (by Dr. Keith Holland of Southampton University, et al)

http://dt7v1i9vyp3mf.cloudfront.net/assetlibrary/n/ns10m.pdf?jQWj8tYIeZeymRCNXitG9Qfwq9mLf1t0

Thanks for that interesting paper. Wouldn't a lot of the of time domain performance have to do with the NS10 being sealed? I hadn't seen comparative speaker waterfall plots before but it does make sense. I've heard vast improvements in room acoustics when you get the waterfall looking good.

 

[Whoops]

I love the part about exercise and health… Not a dig, but does Dave Pensado look healthy to any of you guys? Lol!

You're right he doesn't look Healthy, I'm just sorry for him because he might have big health problems in the future.

But for example Bob Clearmountain, Tchad Blake, Jack Joseph Puig, Chris Lord-Alge, Tony Maserati, Eddie Kramer, Andrew Scheps and Manny Maroquin, all of them look Healthy and "seem" to be in a good place psychologically, and you need good mental health otherwise it's very hard to make a long and consistent career.

Audio Engineering and studio work can really waste you down, very long hours, obsessive clients, tight deadlines, making the studio run everyday to pay the bills, no direct sunlight/bad air, etc etc, it can destroy you psychologically if you are not careful and balance this down.
I too was caught into the trap when I was pushing for a career and trying to make a name for myself (in the Portuguese music industry), I worked 4 years straight almost without free days, without holidays, working until late at night, it was not unusual to leave the studio at 6 or 7AM, after that I was burned out psychically and psychologically. I became freelance after that and balanced my life out I got to a very stable and happy place, I'm healthier and my mixes and mastering work sounds much better nowadays.
I will never ever work for a commercial studio again

I also discovered that laptops, headphones and great plugins allow me to work outside my house and that I didn't have to be inside my studio everyday working. So sometimes I start a mix or even do a complete mix on a beach bar looking to the Atlantic Ocean and catching some sun, I find that to yield a great sounding mix, no kidding. I'm completely serious, it works very well for me. Portugal is very sunny and has probably the best Beaches in Europe.

I mixed at least part of some records in this bar in the photo (I still like to finish the mix and listen in my studio speakers), it's great the ability technology allowed me to work outside the studio




Some music I mixed 80% in this beach:

 

[soapfoot]

Thanks for that interesting paper. Wouldn't a lot of the of time domain performance have to do with the NS10 being sealed?

I suspect that’s part of it, but it’s also possible to do a bass reflex design well (for that matter, it’s surely possible to do acoustic suspension poorly…)

 

[gswan]

None. If you are a half-useful mix engineer then you will learn to adapt to whatever you have available, including no rack gear at all.

 

[Jelly]

Not rack gear(but at least hardware). EMT 140 and Revox A77 pro (mono transformer balanced no mic pre). I’ll probably never loose my daw for the unlimited tracks and editing capabilities alone, but I never use plugins beyond the stock eqs and the couple standard comps that came with protools 8 when I want something transparent. I have several tape machines, but the A77 is my favorite rn. Tape machines are compressors, eqs, distortion boxes, delays, pitch shifters, flanger/phasers, loopers, reverse, degraders, transient capturers, and recorders…I’m sure I’m forgetting something. I’m not saying plugins don’t sound good, but in my limited experience with them they rarely sound as good or better than hardware imo. Another thing is that I play my hardware in real time. Playing plugins requires drawing in automation or a controller. I get that if you mix for a living then cost and efficiency are important, but if you want the best sounds and to have the most fun while making music, hardware is the clear winner imo.

 

[Whoops]

I’m not saying plugins don’t sound good, but they rarely sound as good or better than hardware imo.

That is an overly generalization and I totally disagree.
And for sure for you to state that then you don't know all the plugins I know or you never used all the outboard gear I've used over the years, or you have something against software and computers.

There's many plugins, there's many hardware units, in plugins as in hardware there's bad units, good units and great units, so I find that over generalization about "all" plugins completely wrong.
There's many plugin emulations, some of them are actually not that good (Waves emulations for example), but there's some brands and specific plugin emulations that are simply amazing, there's also many many plugin units that are not emulations and don't exist in hardware.

Personally in my professional experience the pinnacle of ridiculousness of the discussion between plugins vs hardware came in 2011 were I was producing a record in Abbey Road's Studio 3.
I had 4x Fairchild 660 compressor units in the studio, 2 of them are in the studio rack and 2 of them were brought in for my sessions. I used the Fairchilds in the recording, then I tried the Bombfactory plugin emulation and for my needs the plugin didn't sounded better it sounded much better and I skipped those 4 really expensive units and used the plugin instead.
After that the discussion between plugins and hardware was over for me, I've used it all in terms of hardware I enjoy all the good things, sometimes I use it but I don't miss any of it nowadays, specially after UAD.

In reality sometimes people that say they like plugins are attacked by other people saying that they like it because they never used the hardware units, I find it's actually the opposite, people that defend hardware like if it was the last Coca Cola in the desert are normally people that never used most of the well known hardware units and dream about having it (which I totally understand) and think it would make them miracles.
There's no miracle involved in hardware, Plugins keep constantly evolving and yes that are plugins as good as the original units, there are also plugins that do many amazing things that no hardware unit ever did and that there's no equivalent in the hardware world.

I attached photos of the Hardware I had at my disposal in Abbey Road Studio 3 in 2011, all great stuff that I like a lot and had the pleasure to work with, but I don't need any of it 2022 for mixing.
I still like to record/track with great Mic Pres, EQs and compressors before it hits the recorder (PT).
It's not about hardware or plugins, both are tools,both are great, it's about having the tools you need and how you use them.

 

[Brian Roth]

I have not done much recording work the past few years but I never found a plugin that emulated a LA-2A when "abused". Background....decades ago when I was regularly recording, I accidentally "wrong" set up a LA2 on a bass (DI) input while tracking. What happened was that I had the makeup level set WAY too high (as in slamming the output stage) but it worked perfectly in the mix. When soloed, the distortion was obvious...but in a mix that worked great in mixes for pop/rock/country/jingles/etc. I used that trick for decades. Never could duplicate that sound with a plugin.

Bri

 

[Brian Roth]

If you move along to approx. 3:18 in this:



....you can kinda hear what a "blasted" LA2 can do when "abused". Yes...yes that was a bass amp on 11, but I accidentally did that with a Real LA2. Works well in many mixes.

Bri

 

[Brian Roth]

LOL that Grand Funk clip was a exageration of the sound I accidentally discovered by blasting a REAL LA2 with a bass DI.

NEVER heard a plugin that could duplicate that unique effect. If I was a "good boy", I would have watched my signal levels and never EVER made that mistake again <g>.

But I did it again and again.....

Bri

EDIT....the original LA2 "mistake" was done on a MCI desk via channel insert, and the unbalanced return went directly into the channel level pot....no buffers, etc. which nowadays would SCREAM with that semi-clipped +24 (?) dBu signal.

In later years, I had to concoct methods for that hot level so I wouldn't explode the "oh so pure and sweet and correct and sensitive and politically correct" inputs of Modern <cough> gear.

LOL....my one trick pony cutting bass guitar...and I I have 2000 Grammies for that sound! <G> Try it....

Bri

 

[Whoops]

If you move along to approx. 3:18 in this:



....you can kinda hear what a "blasted" LA2 can do when "abused". Yes...yes that was a bass amp on 11, but I accidentally did that with a Real LA2. Works well in many mixes.

Bri

It’s a cool sound for sure, thanks for sharing.
I also did a similar “mistake” one time with an 1176 while recording drums, I didn’t check it’s controls (they were maxed out) and when unmuted the track everyone almost jumped out and was scary at the studio, well but it was a beautiful distorted sound that I was able to use in the record, and somehow like you it was a trick I used over the years.

I will try to see if any of the UAD LA-2A plugins achieve something similar to the song you showed, I’ll let you know.
I also found in the past that most plugin emulations maxed out, when on the limit, we’re not able to achieve the distortion as the hardware units they were emulating. But then I found other ways to had the distortion I wanted inside the box, you make it work for you, sometimes you have to go a different route to achieve the same result.
I’m able to achieve a similar sound to that bass with plugins, even if it’s not an LA-2A plugin.

But like I previously said, there’s also sounds I can achieve with plugins that no hardware unit can do, because there’s not even an equivalent in the hardware world

 

[jensenmann]

Brian, you mixed that Grand Funk record?

Back in the days that was one of my favorite records.

 

[Brian Roth]

Brian, you mixed that Grand Funk record?

Back in the days that was one of my favorite records.

LOL!!!!! I was still in High School when that was released! But I was listening and learning. That cool bass sound caught my attention. I stumbled across "something similar" by accident working on a jingle track circa 1975 (77? 78??)....ie the LA2 having it's butt kicked. As I said, I can only do that trick with a real LA2....never from a plugin.

Bri