• Hardware
  • Preamp compressor EQ hardware (p.2)
2017/12/11 20:17:08
batsbrew
Cactus Music
No, I'm spending my money on hardware... DAW's it would seem are all the same and I have at least 4 or those. 
I like to have the best sound at the source, going in, not turd polishing it later ITB. 




 
 
buying hardware is the ONLY way to polish turds BEFORE they go into the daw...
everyone SHOULD be spending their dough on hardware, and NOT software!
 
2017/12/11 22:42:30
gswitz
I really like all the comments.
 
I've definitely considered the 500 series things because you can swap them out etc. It's a nice way to build at lower incremental cost.
 
My concerns with the 500 series are power supply and the trouble of routing stuff around.
 
Right now, I have EQs in my RME. I can run a mic into the RME, EQ it, send it out to my DBX 162 SL, then back into the RME. So, in this case I have access to EQ before or after the compressor. It's a lot like what you'd get with the Neve Shelford channel. I can even blend the tracks together after the EQ. It doesn't give me the Silk setting, but there are plenty of saturation tools in Sonar.
 
I kinda have 2 routes for Shelford like hardware EQ and Compression mixtures with my RME and DBX mixed up.
 
But, ok, and here's the point where you say 'OMG He's Lazy!'. 
 
I don't want to have to get down on my knees and futz with the cables all the time. I can have the Shelford Channel plugged into the RME all the time. I just plug in the mic and go.
 
To really play with the sounds of my DBX and my RME, I have to click things in the computer then dial things in on the DBX then twist things on the computer again. It's really not a problem per se. I then get 2 or 3 tracks recorded into the DAW... 1 is the original mic track, 1 is the return from the DBX, and the third is the loopbacked mix of the DBX and the original mic track.
 
Now, I'm in mixing heaven.
 
So, if I want more than 2x this setup, why not get another 2 channel compressor and now I've got 4x the setup.
 
I don't really have a good answer. There's no good reason for me to want a Shelford Channel or a Portico II.
 
I think over time I've realized I don't really need every possibility in the box. I can just print something that sounds good straight away and use it. There's only but so much time I'm going to spend polishing things. Having a tool that makes it easy to get a pretty sound seems like a nice time-saver.
 
I remember the liquid channel pre-s on a Focusrite I bought once (didn't keep it b/c it was buggy with my laptop's firewire and while it worked at first, as soon as I flashed the firmware it never worked again). That thing sounded so deliciously creamy. I still remember how it made my heart leap when I first used it. Then, I was crushed when it stopped working.
 
My RME and Audient Pres are nice and clean, but I'm not sure that clean is what I like. Whatever that focusrite did, I'd like to have some of that. :-)
 
So... there you go. I'm saving my pennies.
 
2017/12/12 00:25:43
Leadfoot
Another popular channel strip are the two half rack units from Summit Audio. The 2BA-221 preamp and the TLA-50 compressor. Beautiful sounding combo, and only about $1850, including the rack kit. If you'd never tried them, they're worth a listen.
2017/12/12 00:36:17
gswitz
https://youtu.be/VYNE9ppu9bY
 
In this video I played around with routing within RME TotalMix showing that you could do most of the channel strip stuff without even leaving the RME. No need to buy stuff.
 
Why do I still want to buy stuff?
 
2017/12/12 13:45:11
DeeringAmps
Bat's right on the 500.
The API Lunchbox is a six space 500 rack that has its own power supply in the box.
I have it routed to my patchbay, thus allowing any combination of i/o from the "500",
the 6176 and LA-610 and all the extra i/o on the UFX.
The 500 allows almost unlimited choices for adding "turd polishers" () to your rig.
 
T
12
© 2024 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1

Use My Existing Forum Account

Use My Social Media Account