|
Wishlist (GAS is gooooood) (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Richard Butler |
| quote: | Originally posted by tehlord
I've got both here now and I just like OTB better in terms of hands on and sound. I know the sound side of it can be partially down to preference, but my ears can easily tell the difference when it's sitting here in front of me so that's all that really matters. I think a hybrid setup is win all round.
|
Funnily enough myself and a mate were saying only yesterday how we both prefer the sound of OTB, and we say this after sitting on the fence for some years. He is going more OTB now, I would if I wasn't so obsessed with long term investment.
Hope to run a track of mine through an SSL clone circuit he is soldering together, and also through his soundcraft desk and other gizmos but obviously if I could I'd have all OTB synths to.
We came to this conclusion after really listening carefully to a lot of 80's tracks such as those from SADE, Luther Vandross, Imagination, Madonna, Africa Bombatta, Marvyn Gaye, Eurythmics (check those in synths in 'sweet dreams', just off the scale luscious) and others.
You can hear how each drum machine soundclap / snare slightly varies due to analogue not being 100% faithfull on every event. You can hear masses of depth.
I like reading about cosmology and particle physics and in a recent book Lee Smolin was explaining how any Human mathematical equation is only ever a very crude approximation of reality. As such a number in the digital realm which represents a sound, is going to be void of a huge amount of information.
We're always reluctant to discuss this but I don't give a if someone disagrees with me, I have come to the conclusion I enjoy the sound of analogue much more. I will never truly like a track of mine made in Cubase with a little digital hardware synth in there. |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| quote: | Originally posted by tehlord
The other consideration is that I know for a fact that my ears work better when I'm not staring at a screen. ;)
|
| quote: | Originally posted by evo8
yeah this whole thing where you have to look at the screen when mixing - not good.
|
Glad to know I'm not the only one.
As for the Avid S6, it looks like it will be a pretty solid control surface and I'm guessing that it will integrate perfectly with PT. I'm sure it will be built like a tank and priced like one too. It does seem to be a response to the Raven, but I doubt that the Raven will be able to compete - it just seems like something that sounds cool in concept, but sucks in practicality, tactility, price,... |
|
|
| Richard Butler |
1993 - I mean just listen to the sound of this, incredible IMO;
Another example of da analogue goodness;
|
|
|
| evo8 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Richard Butler
Funnily enough myself and a mate were saying only yesterday how we both prefer the sound of OTB, and we say this after sitting on the fence for some years. He is going more OTB now, I would if I wasn't so obsessed with long term investment.
Hope to run a track of mine through an SSL clone circuit he is soldering together, and also through his soundcraft desk and other gizmos but obviously if I could I'd have all OTB synths to.
We came to this conclusion after really listening carefully to a lot of 80's tracks such as those from SADE, Luther Vandross, Imagination, Madonna, Africa Bombatta, Marvyn Gaye, Eurythmics (check those in synths in 'sweet dreams', just off the scale luscious) and others.
You can hear how each drum machine soundclap / snare slightly varies due to analogue not being 100% faithfull on every event. You can hear masses of depth.
I like reading about cosmology and particle physics and in a recent book Lee Smolin was explaining how any Human mathematical equation is only ever a very crude approximation of reality. As such a number in the digital realm which represents a sound, is going to be void of a huge amount of information.
We're always reluctant to discuss this but I don't give a if someone disagrees with me, I have come to the conclusion I enjoy the sound of analogue much more. I will never truly like a track of mine made in Cubase with a little digital hardware synth in there. |
at the end of the day you shouldnt have to justify using whatever you want to use, or preferring the sound of digital over analogue or vice versa - just use what you use and be happy - using instruments that sound the best to us is what inspires us to make better music (for me anyway)
the reason why we are reluctant to discuss "this" is that you have people both sides of the fence start claiming one side is better than the other - thats when it descends into stupidity |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| quote: | Originally posted by evo8
at the end of the day you shouldnt have to justify using whatever you want to use, or preferring the sound of digital over analogue or vice versa - just use what you use and be happy - using instruments that sound the best to us is what inspires us to make better music (for me anyway)
the reason why we are reluctant to discuss "this" is that you have people both sides of the fence start claiming one side is better than the other - thats when it descends into stupidity |
Nicely put. |
|
|
| tehlord |
| quote: | Originally posted by Richard Butler
I like reading about cosmology and particle physics and in a recent book Lee Smolin was explaining how any Human mathematical equation is only ever a very crude approximation of reality. As such a number in the digital realm which represents a sound, is going to be void of a huge amount of information.
|
I like this analogy (no pun)
I've often looked at programmes on Discovery where physicists are explaining the Universe with some very complex mathematical equations and thought they are missing something. A lot of these equations will multiply something with something else, but I'm not convinced the Universe is built on mathematical rules. It's like looking at a very realistic videogame. It looks real, it sounds real, but I can't smell what I'm seeing. I can't feel the breeze that's moving all that dust and water about. It's just another digital system describing an analogue world.
Anyway, I see the benefits of both. I'm certainly not going back to recording on tape. Life is too short.
And as adults, I feel confident that the discussion of preference can be had without spiralling into nonsense. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by tehlord
I'm not even sure what that is yet, it looks like it could be a follow up to the C|24 or perhaps competition for the Raven? It could be little more than a fancy midi controller. I'm not saying they're not useful, but I'd happily sacrifice blinking lights for a proper multi channel analogue signal path (I know, I know).
One thing that's struck me over the last couple of years is that I'm cool with arranging in a DAW, it's clearly one of the most appealing benefits of using a DAW setup compared to the way we used to have to do it, but I despise mixing on a computer. I tend to mix as I go and then just get bored.
The other consideration is that I know for a fact that my ears work better when I'm not staring at a screen. ;)
Maybe I'll compromise and get an MC Mix/Control setup and some decent multi channel converters. |
I'm in the same boat as you Geoff. I actually don't mind wokring in the box but when it comes to mixing, I cannot ing stand doing it with a mouse.
The S6 looks like they took the Euphonix System 5, and cross bred it with the icon and added waveform display for each channel.
The modular functionality is straight from the MC5 series; you buy each section and build it how you want. It seems they've taken that one step further and made modular units that can be assigned to several different functions (i.e. could be an EQ section, or could be parameter controls for a compressor).
Could be interesting if they keep the price low but I doubt it will be less than $20k, and in that respect it's going to be a Raven competitor (and will probably kill it as people like real faders not touchscreens).
I forgot one other bit of GAS: the poor mans version of a mixing desk, a used Tascam 2400. Wanted one for years. |
|
|
| cryophonik |
Getting back on-topic, this baby has my GAS going as well (Warm Audio TB12 Tone Beast).
 |
|
|
| evo8 |
| I had some lustful thoughts about replacing my JD-800 with an old Jupiter or something like that - must.......resist...... |
|
|
| tehlord |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
I'm in the same boat as you Geoff. I actually don't mind wokring in the box but when it comes to mixing, I cannot ing stand doing it with a mouse.
The S6 looks like they took the Euphonix System 5, and cross bred it with the icon and added waveform display for each channel.
The modular functionality is straight from the MC5 series; you buy each section and build it how you want. It seems they've taken that one step further and made modular units that can be assigned to several different functions (i.e. could be an EQ section, or could be parameter controls for a compressor).
Could be interesting if they keep the price low but I doubt it will be less than $20k, and in that respect it's going to be a Raven competitor (and will probably kill it as people like real faders not touchscreens).
I forgot one other bit of GAS: the poor mans version of a mixing desk, a used Tascam 2400. Wanted one for years. |
I think the Raven will be a halo product for the Slate brand. Even if they cost $50k a pop I reckon he'll sell enough to the MTV Cribs brigade to cover costs, and then every bedroom producer that sees it will go straight to his website and realise they can't easily warez his excellent products.
Anyhoo, I know a dude that just got his hands on a 2400 and he's loving it so far. He does score work and the multiple faders suit him just fine.
Back on the GAS wagon, I think I'll start with an expanded MCU or Euphonix(Avid) setup at first to see how I get on with the faders vs mouse thing. I'm not convinced I actually need more than 8 faders, but we'll see.
I just wish there was more on offer that competed with the A&H GSR-24 as I love the concept, but I worry about reliability. The only thing that comes close in the SSL Matrix, but that's just silly money. |
|
|
| evo8 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tehlord
I think the Raven will be a halo product for the Slate brand. Even if they cost $50k a pop I reckon he'll sell enough to the MTV Cribs brigade to cover costs, and then every bedroom producer that sees it will go straight to his website and realise they can't easily warez his excellent products.
Anyhoo, I know a dude that just got his hands on a 2400 and he's loving it so far. He does score work and the multiple faders suit him just fine.
Back on the GAS wagon, I think I'll start with an expanded MCU or Euphonix(Avid) setup at first to see how I get on with the faders vs mouse thing. I'm not convinced I actually need more than 8 faders, but we'll see.
I just wish there was more on offer that competed with the A&H GSR-24 as I love the concept, but I worry about reliability. The only thing that comes close in the SSL Matrix, but that's just silly money. |
whats the story with the Mackie controllers, will they pick up channel names and stuff automatically?? - i must dig out some info on them, a second hand one could be affordable to me..... |
|
|
|
|
