how many use any type of tape saturation or vinyl emulation when mastering?

anyone wanna share your ideas, of exactly what frequencies are involved, and rolled off/boosted to attain a smoother, old school 'vinyl' sound on your final mixes or masters?

Did you see this thread about a month ago:

http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?m=2071099

I don't use it at the moment, but might in the future. I'll need to play around with it more to see if it gives me a sound I like. I think I have tried parallel tape saturation before but can't remember the results. Just mixed a heavily saturated copy with the raw, for the same purposes of parallel compression, but was hoping to add something else that compression alone doesn't give. As I said I can't really remember how it sounded, but I do have a memory of maybe pushing it WAY too far till the saturation became distorted and then it sounded distinctly like a distorted and clean track playing in synch. But maybe that was with a distortion effect... Can't remember! Never tried vinyl emulation though.

I use a lot of saturation on drums mainly. I do like the sound that I get from the jb ferox plug. Free download from here http://www.jeroenbreebaart.com/. It's in the bundle.

+1 for Camel crusher. Not so analogue, IMO, but does saturate and dirty things up, and you get a nice graph to play with.


And mattplaysguitar, YES, saturation on the drums. You hear it sooo much on todays rock music (at least the stuff i like), and the music of old. Of course the old stuff, they really are saturating tape.......

Stuff like Superior Drums, just doesn't sound right, until i plug in distortion on them... Depend on the style of course.....

voxengo tape bus from voxengo analog suite

I use Ferox also. It actually works well for me. If you push it nice and hard, and learn how to tweak it, it's pretty nice. It's not a super in your face type of effect. He is a researcher and did some papers and such on the properties of tape, and I assume this plugin reflects that research. He also has some other nice plugs.

I don't have a lot of plugs, but I also do have Tape Bus and it can be quite cool on some things as well. I keep trying to get better at just recording it like I want it to sound, and use less processing in the mix, but it's a slow process of cut and measure, and the cutting takes a long time, and the measuring takes a fair bit as well.

EDIT: I've always felt your mixes were extremely well mixed and mastered and think maybe we should hear your ideas.

my thoughts exactly...

I concur with Jeff on this. I've done some recent experiments using external inserts for the first time with my pair of UA LA610s, and some SCA pre's inserted in the mix bus. I compared this on an acoustic jazz mix I did some months ago using largely UAD plugins. Oddly enough, the differences were fairly minor. I think this is testament to the remarkable job that UA has done on their emulations (as well as a few other plugin creators). The one test where I could hear a slightly more analog presence was using the SCA (seventh circle audio) A12 pre's inserted in the master bus. The bass was more forward, and there was a bit more solid nature to the solo instrument in the center of the mix. Why this happens is somewhat of a mystery. It could be purely the nature of the change in gain structure causing a bit of expansion in the final mix, or it could be the enhanced harmonic content of driving the input and output transformers in the API-clone SCA preamp.

As far as UAD dumping the hardware, I believe they are considering it (based on a survey they sent out a few months back). I think in live-mode the UAD plugs are running mostly native anyway. Since most of their EQ's (and a few other plugins) run internally up-sampled to 192ks/s, I'm not sure some DAWs can quite handle it yet.

I think my next experiment in mixing might be to use only the UAD channel strips on all tracks (this could be done with most any plugin set that delivers true channel strips based on classic consoles). The idea here is that the characteristic nature of the entire console may come through in the mix, if all the eq filter points, and channel compressors behave in the way the actual console does.

For those contemplating external summing, my experience has been mixed. If the clocking to your A/D/A chain (and the degree to which your A/D/A's follow an external clock) isn't stellar, expect to loose some of the stability of your stereo image. My first attempt involved coming out of a rack based D/A through some external gear, and back into my console. The imaging smeared a bit. The stereo image became more vague. A few days later, I recalled some A/D/A listening tests I had heard on the web, and remember noticing more difference in the imaging than in the fidelity. I reconfigured my experiment to use the same A/D/A for both output to the external devices and the inputs back into Sonar. Instant improvement. Imaging was comparable to using no insert at all in the mix bus. As far as the whole thing being an improvement, I think it's a matter of taste.

For those considering going into the UAD plugins and/or preamps, there's a pretty good deal running through the end of September. If you purchase a LA610 mkII preamp/compressor (which can be found on the web for 15% off the Guitar Center price), you apply via the mail to get a free UAD-2 Duo card (about $800 list). To top that off, if you already own a UAD-2 Duo (as in my case), you can then register the new UAD-2 card and get a $300 voucher for additional plugins (which is a different promotion). Pretty sweet deal, if you're in the market.

Jeff,

I didn't mean digital couldn't deliever an anlog sound, just that it seemed the long way around for me.  If I come in through a nice analog chain, and mix through it I don't have to worry about "adding" harmonic analog saturation after the fact.  When trying to mix or master w/ saturation software I spent time tweaking it and second guessing myself.  When using analog, I spend time adjusting every parameter but the saturation or harmonics - they are a given.  It is just one less thing to worry about since that variable is built-in.

I read the SOS article and it was very interesting and revealing.  I haven't used the UAD Massive Passive but no doubt it is very good and whether it is the same or not is a moot point.  Besides, I don't have a Massive Passive either.  But I will point out the system is fairly expensive.  The DSP card is $500 and the software more.  Of course, you get more than the Massive Passive, more channels, etc.  You couldn't match it w/ analog dollar for dollar, or Euro or Pound  or Yen.  I'd love to have it.

On the analog side of the arguement, buying good stuff doesn't lose too much value over time.  You take an initial hit, but it then holds it value.  And unlike digital, you can use it going in so you double your use.  I've got a Portico II that I've been playing with and a bass track I recorded using it didn't need any further processing - it simply fit into the track.  Cool.

But my original point was that emulation usually adds another variable.  Which is fun, but doesn't help with the deadline - even if you are just doing stuff for oneself.  Here at home I can spend my time programming a sound, or getting it on the hard drive, or mixing it in a song, or getting the analog emulation right.  Using analog is one less thing. 

@

I'm inclined to agree with Jeff. I am trying to beef up my mic's, my preamps, and my A/D chain because that's the part of analog that has real impact on my digital recordings. The mixing side I have been doing nearly all digital. In my experience it's taken more time to develop my ears to recognize problems in a mix, than to use particular tools to resolve them. In some ways I'm not sure the UAD plugs are necessarily capable of things that many others aren't (although many uad plugs sound very good). I think sometimes it's that their modeling of eq points, controls, and behavior get you more quickly to sounds you've heard on hundreds of recordings.

Every time I try a new "analog warmth" plug for mastering, it just sounds like going backwards. I get excited at first, being amazed at how they sound so much like the old gear, but I eventually turn them off because the original sounds better to me when I do a blind A/B.

I really like the 24-bit digital sound.

Mastering isn't where I go for "warmth" anyway. Just a blanket processing on everything is kind-of like pouring gravy all over a plate of potatoes, pecan pie, fruit salad, and steak. That's what it sounds like to me if I do too much more than gain-adjust, light EQ, stereo image, compress, and crop in mastering.

I do use inexpensive real tubes and the TL-64 and VC-64 on individual tracks, but that's different, because they all have very different settings that help define and place the instruments rather than blend them. I get enough blend with anything approaching -3 attenuation on the mastering compressor. More than that, and it's "Where have all the transients gone... Long time passing...".

I also (only once after reading a Katz article) dragged an old half-inch 8-track out, and bounced the song back and forth. That just turned out to be "Yes, I know that old familiar sound... it sounds like I'm trying real, real hard but am unable to get the sound that I had at the beginning." 

I'm just not very nostalgic. And even when I'm mixing something that's supposed to sound vintage, if the instruments themselves sound vintage, no one ever asks me to make it sound older and more messed-up. It's exciting to hear those old instruments recorded pristine and noiseless, without the limitations of the past. It always sounds like "This is what they were trying to do back then..." The ones who actually got it to sound good are/were amazing people.

I haven't used every high end tool in the world, but all this mystery-box stuff... this - plug in the $10,000 EQ and note how it changes the imaging or the clarity, or the (anything but its actual job) is a path with endless diversions but no destination. If I want the imaging or clarity or anything else to be different, I'll change them... ON PURPOSE.

Vinyl, tube, and tape emulators in mastering... I guess I'd use them if I was doing a score for a period movie.

excellent responses folks, thanks.

and it seems, it's all over the map...

which is what i expected, really.



and it's good that it's that way, it gives a much broader pool of ideas and techniques to pull from.
now, i gotta weed thru them all, over time, to figure out what works for me.
but i needed a starting place.


philip, searchfinger-
ok, let me dwell on this for a little bit, and i'll try to come up with a brief synopsis of what i think/do, for what it's worth, just to add into the pool.

The place where hardware can't be replaced is in the tracking phase. If your desire is to get a warm, harmonically rich, generally compressed, and correctly EQ'd signal into the DAW from the start, then you have to use hardware for that. That doesn't require that you have lots and lots of outboard gear really. A small set of well selected stuff will serve that purpose, and not necessarily expensive. An LA-610 is an example, or various other channel strip'ish boxes that make for nice tracking front ends. A Distressor, which you can get used for around $900 is another good choice. Or an Aurora Audio GTQC strip.

I don't have a lot of stuff. I have home made 1176 and LA-2A compressors, a Drawmer 1968, and a couple of ART VLA Pro II's, plus a pair of Speck EQs, plus a Solo/610 and a Great River pre-amp. That's enough variety to track things so that they are pretty close to what they need to be in the mix, and to get them pretty smooth and saturated, EQ'd and compressed. I just keep doing test pieces, trying to get a particular sound into the DAW, then see what I have to do in terms of mixing to get it there, and try to use that feedback the next time.

And obviously it can be used for mixing purposes as well. The 1176 and LA-2A are my most commonly used tracking comps. The two of them together, each doing half the work, makes for a nice result. The 1968 works well for a lot of stuff, and a nice drum bus or mix bus compressor. The Speck EQs aren't expensive and are quite flexible for tracking or mixing.

batsbrew some interesting points. One could say however that is tracking everything through the same device (s) a good thing. It could mean that every track is going to take on a similar sonic signature and they are all going to be very similar in some way.

I used to own a large format Tascam mixer and for years broke out all my tracks outputs through multiple sound cards and did full analog mixes on this and after a while I noticed all my mixes had the same sound on them. But after going to an all digital setup that sound went away and I was hearing something else and it seemed better to me and more transparent. I can put stems or part of the mix now through something like that Tascam mixer and control how much of that sound stays and goes or if it's there at all.

I am not always trying to copy the exact sound of a piece of hardware either, you don't have to. Who says that sound is holy and everything must sound like that, it is just one sound. But if you record direct to a clean mixer and start applying some interesting plug-ins after the fact then you are creating a new sound so to speak. Why cannot that be as good and interesting as the all analog sound.

One can vary the way things are tracked. I tend to track a wide variety of things (and as a result use a variety of input signal chains) and yes some things sound good through a great pre and compressor etc but you don't have to do it on everything. I have been working with a Yamaha digital mixer lately and I like the way things sound going direct to that. Also for the ultimate in transparency, one should patch a synth etc direct to the converters Input and don't go through anything at all. Some (external) synths sound better not going through any processing of any form on the way in. They are so perfect and detailed and amazing the way they are, they are better off going direct. I find then they maintain their integrity all the way through a complex mix even to the very end and even if they have come in very early on.

What DBX model do you use?

As has been pointed out many times, thousands of records, the one's many of us think are some of the best ever made, were recorded through effectively one piece of gear, being the pre-amps, EQs, summing, and compression of a single console. Different consoles do often have 'a sound', some purposefully more than others. But still, I'm sure that lots of albums recorded on a Neve console or an SSL console sound little alike.

I would imagine that you being you, and therefore always playing like you play, would have more to do similarity of output for us self-recorders. Certainly the tone of the source and style of the players would vastly outweight any influence of the hardware used. I guess that one of Fleetwood Mac's albums and Nirvana (Nevermind) were tracked on the same Neve console at Sound City Studios, and they definitely don't sound the same. Here's some of the albums recorded there. I doubt very seriously anyone could listen to those albums and say, oh, recorded on a Neve console or not.

http://www.soundcitystudios.com/cli_indx.html

Not to say you shouldn't use more toys if you have the financial wherewithal to own more toys. I certainly would. But it doesn't take a lot of hardware to mix it up quite a bit.