Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

28 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

334 profile views
  1. Olaf

    SSL Essentials Bundle

    Yeah, they're great. I also use TH-U, and it sounds awesome. I only wish they had an IR based cab simulator - much like mixIR or the new Amplitube - instead of that horrible IR browser. I like their LA-2A. I'm a bit disappointed with Tapedesk - I mean I like the concept, the features, the overall sound is OK, but I don't quite like what it does to the highs - there's some room for improvement there. On the other hand, I haven't seen too many tape plugins that I like, so - I imagine that's harder to get right, and that tape is one of their first generations. The problem is, just like everybody says, Overloud is pretty expensive.
  2. Olaf

    SSL Essentials Bundle

    1. SSL Native 2. Analog Obsession BusterSE 3. Slate Digital Buss Compressor FG-Grey 4. Overloud G Compressor 5. Cakewalk PC 6. T-Racks Bus Compressor I've also tried the Native Instruments Vintage Bus Compressor, didn't like it at all. My favorites - BusterSE, and G Comp. SSL Native is great, but rather limited in features. Surprisingly, don't get along with the FG-Grey, and don't much like the IK Bus.
  3. Olaf

    SSL Essentials Bundle

    IMO, CLA Mixhub sounds better than the SSL Native channel strip - plus it's got the whole Preamp section thing going on. On the other hand, Mixhub is a 4000E, while SSL Native is 9000J/K. On the Bus Compressor side, the latest Buster SE from Analog Obsession is awesome - just engage the transformer, and it's killer. It's also got more ratios available, plus a whole bunch of other features. And it's free - or donate what you will. With the Waves prices on one side, more Wave level PA sales, on the other, it seems SSL have been convinced to get back to Earth, at least temporarily.
  4. Strange... I just got it. February 21, still up. Try this coupon. https://www.solidstatelogic.com/sslupgrade
  5. Hey, @Jim Roseberry, thanks for your extended answer. There are some utilities, and registry changes you can make to permanently unpark all cores - it's one of the first things I do on a fresh Win install. Some links you can try. https://itechviral.com/enable-or-disable-cpu-core-parking-in-windows-10/ https://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak/CPU-Tweak/CPU-Unpark.shtml https://www.craigthetechteacher.com/how-to-disable-cpu-core-parking-in-windows-10-2020/ There's also disabling some of the C states or motherboard power saving utilities in BIOS, that might help. I imagine that's the case for the entire 5xxx series, including the 58xx, right? Are you referring to the overall performance, or only the noise? I was looking at 570 motherboards for a new 5800X.
  6. Yeap, been there, done that, repeatedly. I think if you add up all the report topics in the feedback or product related topics, and those on social media groups, it's gonna come up that we're not that much of a minority, after all. It also depends on how everyone uses it - how much it pushes it, customizes it, how many plugins, etc. It seems to work, though. It certainly stops the crashing problems, which is essential, especially if they happen often, and an extra 3 ms of latency induced in a high plugin count project doesn't seem to be a make or break factor, particularly since we're all bound to transition to newer platforms as hardware improves. I think if that's what sandboxing costs, latency wise, as per the article you posted about Ardour, that will be a more than doable tradeoff. In my experience you can work with up to maybe 15 ms roundtrip, when recording - when mixing even more. I think where you lose the most, latency wise, is in the engine, and in the hardware, like you said. On the other hand, I don't know how sandboxing can be optimized even further, or if there are better alternatives, but I really do think something must be done to stop the crashes. Even if you don't lose stuff, it's incredibly off putting. If you add the various settings that you need to redo on every project load, because CW doesn't save them - or some plugins, like with certain low range values in the compressor release times of CLA Mixhub, for instance - which is great, otherwise - it's enough to make you want to quit for the night. If it happens two-three times, you're really out of it. And then you have to record, and you're already pissed off. I still have mine - 16 GB. I've made it smaller - 1 GB, but haven't tried disabling it completely, to compare. What I've read mostly recommended leaving it on, so I left it on. I haven't tried overclocking because I don't know how to mess with the voltages, and I didn't put in the time to read enough about it until now. I didn't imagine it you make that much of a difference to actually delve in it. How much of a difference, percentage wise, would you say you've got? You've got big plans. That sounds good. But do you think you'll need all that RAM? Personally, for me, even with other stuff open, my most loaded project doesn't seem to push the RAM beyond 50-60%, with 16 GB, so I don't worry about that, for the moment. I think you're right about the availability, and the prices seem to be catching up to Intel, pound per pound, more than I'd like to - there's still a notable difference, but not as much as there used to be. On the other hand I don't want to switch to an all Intel platform not only because of the performance/cost ratio, which is still, in my opinion, noticeably favorable to AMD, but because I know AMD better than Intel, and I don't want to spend days understanding Intel, to know what to get - especially since the name codes seem to have to connection with the number of cores, generations, etc. - or I can't easily decode them, anyway. I won't hurry to get the new CPU for a few months. I've gotten the new NVME SSD this month - huge transfer rate difference vs a 2.5 SSD, but since I can't boot off it, I can't compare it in terms of system speed. I'll get the motherboard next month, the RAM the month after, and see where the CPU prices are in about April, it's probably the best thing to do.
  7. I know, and you're right, problem is with all the generalized plugin blaming they don't seem to be aware of the problem. I've told them all this more than a year ago. I've reinstalled CW many times, pretty much with every update, although I sometimes try to push it as much as I can - to avoid migration and stuff. It seems every update makes something not work, some visualization, some settings forgotten - for instance, now, the console view always opens half-way, instead of full screen, as i have it set. Windows I've reinstalled twice, I believe, when I switched to 10. And I need to redo it again, once I move in my new drive. I've bought an m.2 drive, looking for an adapter to PCie, now, and I'm gonna install it, since my storage solid state is starting to drop. Next month, I'm gonna buy an AM4 motherboard, maybe the memory modules, too, for the new Ryzen 5800X that I'm planning to buy in the near future. Your 5900 will probably be better, but I think the difference is too great in price, right now. Compared to my FX 8 core, I expect a doubling of speed from the CPU alone, from some reported benchmarks, so, adding the new drive speed, new RAM and new motherboard, the increase should be even greater, so that should take care of that. But how do you explain the fact that you've got incredible dropouts and stutter when the CPU shows a ton of headroom in the CW performance meter, even on the FX, and - check this out - only disabled the Ignite module on my Animate plugin - which is an exciter - and everything goes away? Or, even better, enable it back on, but when you switch the master from stereo to mono, it plays like a charm. It's optimizations, in my view, connected to the engine - CW, communicating with Win, I don't know, that's where my ability to tell stops. But if you don't do that, there's no point in adding to new features and new gadgets - sure, they're useful, but first things first. You're right, I do have an nVidia. I haven't installed the Experience, I've disabled the telemetry, and I have unchecked the startup of the whole graphic application. Your link might be very useful, I'll check it out, too. Check out how Reason reacts to a crashed plugins. Very elegant. What does CW do? Usually just crashes. Some Area 51 stuff: Colour Copy starts in CW, but not in Reason. Townsend Sphere starts in Reason, but not in CW. Now, I imagine that's something to do with the permissions - not blaming CW for everything - my antivirus at some point blocked all my exes, but the rest still stands. When do you wanna buy the new CPU?
  8. Sure, but giving up the "it's all plugins' fault, all the time" attitude would be a good place to start. Last night I had a crash after trying to close several windows in short sequence, and a short hang up. At least it wasn't five crashes, and I haven't noticed my Tape reset randomly a few times a night either, recently. I'll give a thumbs up on that - getting conditioned to low expectations 😳. Sphere won't start after the update. It worked before, didn't touch it in the meantime. And my WA Prod plugins won't visualize anything - I mean not even the knobs moving or the number values changing, let alone the waveforms. They work, audio wise, I can hear the changes, but not visually. Close them, open then up again, I get the updated values and new knob positions - which I adjusted blindly, but no movement in real time. A million and first confirmation that it's connected somehow to the graphics/visualization/multimedia core in CW, or to the integration with that part of Windows. I'd bet on CW for some strong reasons. My latency buffer if 512 samples - 10 ms one trip latency - I can mix fine, no hangups, no stutter, plenty of CPU headroom (but no engine headroom, strangely, which overshoots), until I record - and there's half a second of latency, on that setting - or any other. I'm sure I can reinstall and it will go away - but I'm tired of reinstalling and migrating my settings all the time - pretty much after any update. In a year and 4 months I must have reinstalled around 10 times. The same orphaned automations which you still can't delete, 16 months later. And lots of workflow "longcuts" and strange behaviors. EDIT: The WA Prod visualizations worked last night on a different project, until adding the plugin that topped the CPU load, when they stopped. It seems they stop responding visually when the CPU is full - the same conflict I was talking about.
  9. Yeah, I know, but wouldn't at least acknowledging the problems - and the fundamental causes - be a required step towards solving them?
  10. Good description. Moral, even on a decent configuration, anything that resembles real life and not an aseptic configuration, where you don't even look at the screen and tread very lightly, leads to crashes, and, even with that, performance issues. Direct monitoring recording is basically not being able to record - other than maybe vocals, but not helpful for a good performance even then. https://www.facebook.com/groups/333570523387557/permalink/3698301283581114/
  11. Don't bother, I'm not even gonna read it. You don't actually read what is being written, you fly over the points, so basically you repeat yourself over an over, with stuff that's been already answered, but somehow you missed it. I'm gonna return the favor and not read it, myself. Besides, the first phrases already show the more-sterile-theorizing over using your ears approach, even though even the theory is wrong, because it's oversimplified theory - that doesn't involve psychoacoustics, principles of physics, etc. There's not point to it, and I don't really care what Ethan said. Besides, somebody who enjoys saying "you're wrong" so many times - while a decent guy actually tries to avoid saying it, I could have said it, and maybe more than that - clearly has an emotional agenda behind his "certainties", so I suggest solving that first, and then having certainties. But once you do, you'll probably find you don't need "certainties" and to dizzy yourself with talk, as much, and you'll probably become more open to understanding and (somewhat) objective assessment. Again, we're all subjective, but not everything is entirely subjective. And I see a avoidance mechanism here, so...
  12. No, I agree they are smoother and more polished now - I've nuanced this is my original comment. But, yeah, all natural quality and emotion is lost, exactly, and they have a stock, one size fits all timbre, that you don't even know who's singing anymore. You used to recognize a well-known singer from the first word, before. Now you need to flip a coin. Absolutely, that's what I do, and I'm very happy about it. I've recently discovered that I need a DI box, I thought I didn't because I already have instrument/Hi Z inputs on my interface, but I've tried an... emulation 🙄, and it makes a big improvement in the transient quality. So, I figure I need one after all. Turns out, beyond the theoretical manufacturer reassurance, that maybe USB cannot push enough voltage in the preamp. I want to buy a new interface, change my setup, and revisit the issue then.
  13. Absolutely agree, but I think many have a defense mechanism against doing that - that is attached to finding out they're wrong and/or they're not necessarily the bee's knees just for the amazing merit of being born in the 2000s/90s. It's the same thing as the censorship and intolerance on the Left - they just can't find out they're wrong, because they have their ego attached to it, and their identity - in the absence of another. Yeah, exactly. They are smoother and more polished than ever before, that's true, but to me they're far from being perfect. That more unnatural than ever before, too. You can hear any lisp, plop, lip sticking, it's like the singer's got their mouth right in your ear, and it's very unpleasant, and aggressive. That's not how you hear people. Add to that the dryness of the sound which gives it a flatness and is, again, unnatural, and the, many times, exaggerated highs, and it's... uugghh. I agree with you 100% on the performance. It's amazing to me - and this is something those of the younger generations who don't spend the time listening, cultivating themselves - instead they just prefer projecting ego - and understanding what they see/hear, the level of mastery you needed to have to record that way. And, paradoxically, that's why you'd have flawed pitch, sometimes, out-of-sync, so on - they did it all in full takes. Not piece by piece, like today, word by word, etc., but just going through it. It got more fragmented going towards the 80s, technology allowed for easier comping, but still. You had to have great chops to do that, even if you occasionally f... up, it's inevitable, but they pulled it off. And when you had somebody with flawless performance, like Coverdale, or Sting, that was the mark of true mastery. Precisely. Not just analog gear - although the very act of miking things up, and running through circuitry had a beautiful effect right of the box - vibrance, variance, compression, saturation, hi-end roll off for tape - but beautifully crafted analog gear. But you need to take time to listen without bias, and not attach your identity to some words. Not have a nervous breakdown if someone calls you "unmodern" or anything of the likes.
  14. Actually they wouldn't, as it turns out, it's ironical, isn't it ? They thought they did until they made the comparison - I've already answered that - and realized you can actually sound even worse than you did with distortion and noise - you can sound "digital", that is. That's why they invented the term. And you can clearly see it, in the ton of analog emulations, noise and saturation plugins that they use now. It's not hard to see it everywhere, beyond blank in-vitro considerations without applicability, like "compromise", "limitations". What you may fail to see is that they overcame those limitations, in a way that works best with our ears, whereas all you have to offer for the lack of good sound is sterile considerations that actually come from a distorted theoretical perspective - 0 Kelvin - a so called neutral point that no one can use or needs. No, digital sounds harsh because it sounds harsh - and that's why I prefer analog sound. That's the correct logical sequence. There's no "fetish" for analog sound that you're freely and baselessly attributing to people that you don't know. By the way, great way to turn a conversation on principle into personal attacks. Do I sense you becoming defensive? Hint: when you feel you do, it might be a sign you need to rethink the things you're defensive about. If anything I could say I see a fetish for digital from those using uninsightful and sterile considerations that they attach their ego to, instead of their ears. While there is a margin for personal interpretation and taste, obviously, you can't "subjective" your way out of everything - while the speaker still sounds the way it does. There's also a right and a wrong, and it pertains to the natural quality of a sound, and the timbre of the source. For instance this below is not "clear", it's harsh - and it comes from a bad instrumental mix. And it's easy to tell the difference, beyond the bullshit: ask yourself if you've ever heard a human voice, anywhere, sounding like that. While we improve clarity, hype-up and change the natural sound all the time, apply cheat-codes - it's what we do - there's a margin for that before you lose touch, and things actually start to sound bad. I'm not gonna go into personal considerations of what I can and can't do 😉, it suffices to say that this very sentence should have made you think, if you had the inclination - it's a sentence that actually says analog sound is better, if you took the time to take it in. With good sounding analog you don't need to make anything sound good, it just did - obviously in relation to the source - by running it through the gear. What you would do is make it sound different, as needed. That's actually a good sign to recognize good gear, you can't make it sound bad - you can make it sound different in many ways, but not bad, tone wise - and you don't need to "make it" sound good - it already does. That should tell you a lot right there. Anyway, I'm withdrawing from the conversation, don't feel like engaging in a personal to and fro. Suffice to say that, for all the incredible tools that we have these days, I've never seen a larger amount of bad sounding mixes on commercial radio than these days - and it seems to be the norm. That's another thing that should tell you a lot. And they come from sterile considerations like that, that miss the point from an attachment to words.
  15. Beautiful. Actually cool to watch, who would have said the production actually had a great sense of humor, too. Very British, reminded me of Droopy - that little dog that had a long face when he said he was happy. The near/far - whisper/screaming examples are an illustration that I use when speaking about the the necessity to pass every dry sound/sample through a room emulation/IR, to recreate the natural behavior of sound playing in a space, without which to me it sounds flat, and artificial. It's a big part of generating a three-dimensionality that's missing in digital mixes, it helps you define the size of every instrument, it helps you organize the sounds, depth wise, and it also contributes to reducing harshness even while actually livening up a sound - in connection to the mention about "air", before. And it has a huge role in defining a mix's character. Another thing that's missing in today's everyday digital mixes, even though all the tools are there - because of some false equations developed in consequence of attaching ego to labels like "modern", etc., and not putting in the hours to listen to great music from the past. It's the first time I've ever seen something like that delay loop cassette. A lot of high level thinking and precise engineering went into the electro-mechanical devices of those days. My hi-fi stereo with autoreverse on remote, loop playing, tape counter, and CD changer, with programmable recording from a multi- CD customizable playlist. Lots of pressure sensors, mechanical arms, gears... Even a simple VCR. Everyday consumer products - a lot of complex engineering went into those, with very little room for error. Thanks for the video.
  • Create New...