Jim Roseberry

Why put it on every track?  Why not just buses? 

If you're modeling the whole console, you've got channels and buses.

Not only that, I would imagine if it is a good emulation, crosstalk is included.  Therefore, the more channels, the more the characteristic sound of the console is achieved.

Jim Roseberry

Why put it on every track?  Why not just buses? 

If you're modeling the whole console, you've got channels and buses.

In practice does that really make a difference?  I don't have any console emulation so I'm curious.

vintagevibe

Jim Roseberry

Why put it on every track?  Why not just buses? 

If you're modeling the whole console, you've got channels and buses.

In practice does that really make a difference?  I don't have any console emulation so I'm curious.

I can't speak for Sonar, but with the Waves console emu each track will have a slightly different sound just as a real mixer would - no two channels are exactly identical in their response. And channels will have a slightly different sound than a bus. So in Theory no two channels are identical, in practice I have no idea how the Sonar emu is set up.

Interesting visuals there, arachnaut - it looks like the CE is adding/boosting the upper harmonics.  It would be interesting to see how the bus CE responds to multiple instances of track CEs (e.g., due to summing, crosstalk, or variability between channels).

Of course, these are simple static tests, no doubt the emulation is dynamic.

A better test would be the 'invert and subtract' approach which nulls out the input signal leaving just the processed change.

Console Emulator module - online help

tunekicker

Guitarpima


I agree with Tunekickers comment. The only thing is, I would have had to rebuild the mix entirely which would have skewed the results anyway. I though about it and decided that leaving the mix the way it was was the best way.

This would make A/B comparisons pretty hard, I recognize that. I just think a huge part of the A/B has to do with gain staging and mix choices when using one or the other. 


Honestly I don't really care about A/B comparisons. If I like the way it sounds when I add CEM then I will use it. I'm going to try a mix where it is the first thing I do, and if I like it that would be my MO moving forward. Then I guess we'll see. 


I use a lot of UAD plugins because I like warmth and tone. So if CEM is any good, I am going to like it a lot, and that will modify my workflow quite a bit.


Peace,


Tunes

My feelings as well. In my opinion, these CEM's add a little saturation and high end sparkle. I also feel that I have to jump on them considerably before I hear a change and then I have to question whether I am hearing a volume boost or something that is physically coming from the plug itself.
 
The middle one....N I think it is? Whatever the middle one is.....gves out the most sound alteration. The other two sound similar to me to where I need to jack them to really hear them but they are definitely cleaner than the middle one. My best explanation of what I hear from these so far would be sort of along the lines of a BBE without the low end contour. They just give you a little dirt and sparkle. If you need that kind of sound, it's there for you. Those using UAD plugs to warm things up probably won't like the effects of these.
 
I felt the Waves versions did a bit better job at this as well SToons. You can REALLY hear a difference when you kick them on especially when you use the track and bus versions at the same time. At any rate, the jury is still out for me on these plugs. I can see where they would be useful for many users. Me personally, I've spent a lifetime cleaning up my mixes as well as others mixes....the last thing I want to do is dirty things up synthetically unless it's for effects purposes...but that's just me. :)
 
-Danny

The only difference I heard was in the intro on the 2nd. Much fuller.

Danny Danzi

tunekicker

Guitarpima


I agree with Tunekickers comment. The only thing is, I would have had to rebuild the mix entirely which would have skewed the results anyway. I though about it and decided that leaving the mix the way it was was the best way.

This would make A/B comparisons pretty hard, I recognize that. I just think a huge part of the A/B has to do with gain staging and mix choices when using one or the other. 


Honestly I don't really care about A/B comparisons. If I like the way it sounds when I add CEM then I will use it. I'm going to try a mix where it is the first thing I do, and if I like it that would be my MO moving forward. Then I guess we'll see. 


I use a lot of UAD plugins because I like warmth and tone. So if CEM is any good, I am going to like it a lot, and that will modify my workflow quite a bit.


Peace,


Tunes

My feelings as well. In my opinion, these CEM's add a little saturation and high end sparkle. I also feel that I have to jump on them considerably before I hear a change and then I have to question whether I am hearing a volume boost or something that is physically coming from the plug itself.
 
The middle one....N I think it is? Whatever the middle one is.....gves out the most sound alteration. The other two sound similar to me to where I need to jack them to really hear them but they are definitely cleaner than the middle one. My best explanation of what I hear from these so far would be sort of along the lines of a BBE without the low end contour. They just give you a little dirt and sparkle. If you need that kind of sound, it's there for you. Those using UAD plugs to warm things up probably won't like the effects of these.
 
I felt the Waves versions did a bit better job at this as well SToons. You can REALLY hear a difference when you kick them on especially when you use the track and bus versions at the same time. At any rate, the jury is still out for me on these plugs. I can see where they would be useful for many users. Me personally, I've spent a lifetime cleaning up my mixes as well as others mixes....the last thing I want to do is dirty things up synthetically unless it's for effects purposes...but that's just me. :)
 
-Danny

I'm still on the fence myself. I hear a difference when I added them to every track and buss but as stated, it would be better to start the mix off with it in the first place.
 
 When I recorded that track, I did not use compression on the input. I read your article about compression and will start using a little bit, as stated in your article, and see what results I get. I have to wait for my OC to come home though. It's off at Roland getting a labotomy or something.

Guitarpima


I took a mix (not mastered) and added the CEM to all the tracks. You be the judge. Which one has the CEM added.
 
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14693440/Mo%20the%20Lawnda.mp3
 
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14693440/Mo%20the%20Lawnda%202.mp3
 
 

Thank you so much for posting this!  I never knew the words to that song before.  Now I can sing it! WOOT!
 
Papa I bought a new lawnmover....
 
j/k :)

Guitarpima


The more and more I insert the CEM to tracks I've been working on, the more it grows on me. I'm liking the 3rd button, I guess that's the API(?), as it's sounds the best combined.

That one's inspired by the Trident A-Range, as I understand.  It definitely has the most aggressive impact on its throughput.