A (hopefully better) thread about console emu

I see we run the same cordless phone in our set ups.
 
Nice.

Hi Craig,
Thanks! I used the S type setting of the console emulator and the SSL is the X-rack in the photo.

I'll have to have a look at the drum track a bit later just to make sure I'm "apples to apples" here....may have to wait until ENG v ITA is over though :)

Mike: yep, I think that is the phone model used at Abbey Road. It's really all about the sound quality :)

Dean

Anderton
Did some prelim out of phase/nulling and was pretty impressed, but the drum track doesn't seem to null. Is there a plug-in with lookahead or something? Also, what setting did you use on the ProChannel, and what series SSL console is it?
 
And now the important part: nice recording  

Hi Craig
Not sure what you were hearing on the drum tracks but I re-exported three new versions and uploaded again anyway. I'm curious to hear what your (or anyone else's) impressions are on each version and if you think the different versions are are better or worse. None of them should null since they all are treated differently, but the differences are subtle. 
 
Dean
 
Oh, one more thing...I've been mixing through the SSL with the compressor engaged and just taking a bit off the top, so now that I'm listening to versions with no 2-bus compression they all sound weird. It's very strange...

Free consulting! You gotta love these forums.

 
 
Peak metering on transients may be variable among the things you are looking at. I would be inclined to calibrate things level wise using sine wave continuous tones and setting up VU meters to be in agreement. VU metering the content would also be a good idea especially if you are trying to create an analog mix on a real console to match one ITB. That is where real VU's come into their own monitoring levels out of real consoles.
 
I find the completely un processed tracks have a more natural tail on the signal. It sounds like the very tail or the end quiet parts of the waveform have been changed in the SSL version and the console emulator to some extent. And perhaps the attack part too. I am not sure a quality console such as a NEVE or Harrison, SSL etc would be altering the dynamics much along the way. (if no compressors are used etc i.e. just in the channel strip and summing buss etc)  Things may change when right at the limit and the signal starts to move out of the most linear part of its range into saturation of transformers and things etc..Deliberate overload etc..But under normal conditions with lots of headroom  involved the signals I would imagine should not be altered much in any way.
 
It gets us back to the question of who says mixing out of the box on a console is better. When you start to hear how nice and natural digital can sound especially when compression is not used much anywhere you start to hear the flaws in the out of the box approach after a while. And from the 96K thread elsewhere I think it can be assumed it is nice to record in a higher resolution than our playback medium so working at 96K 24 bit is probably also a good idea.
 
Harrison Mixbus is really fantastic for doing this sort of thing. I really like the concept of a whole program devoted to basically mixing stems and tracks together.  It is like taking all your DAW multitrack sessions down the road to a Harrison equipped studio.  You are spreading all your tracks and buses across a Harrison console and it sounds like it.  I have not compared the two directly side by side but I have used a real Harrison console for quite a while in my teaching career and I remember the sound of it very much.  Harrison Mixbus just oozes the same sound.  It is equipped with great dynamics and EQ and tape saturators on channels and buses everywhere. It is also has a special EQ control just for removing that low end 250 Hz mud on the master buss. Just turn it to the left and it is all gone! They have also got some excellent mastering processors too.