Pathfinder

1 hour ago, sjoens said:

https://www.cakewalk.com/ > scroll to bottom of page > Cakewalk Sonar > Download.

This is a pre-beta demo far from finished.  No saving allowed.  Once installed, ignore the reoccurring red Activate nag toast and Start Screens unless you want to open a BandLab account, which will allow you to give them money and save projects, among other things.

If the nag screens appear while you have a menu open and everything freezes.  Hit ESCAPE to continue.

Thanks-Just curious about it. Wouldn't mind a non functional peek for now

9 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

OK-I do not see any download area for Sonar? I am sure it's there considering this thread but WHERE?

Thanks

So, I guess John V was serious about SHH don't tell anyone???????????????????????????????????????????

OK-I do not see any download area for Sonar? I am sure it's there considering this thread but WHERE?

Thanks

On 2/25/2024 at 8:03 PM, User 905133 said:

I have several Roland hardware sound GM/GS/Sound Canvas devices from the early to mid 1990s.  There are only two drawbacks: (1) no digital outs and (2) they use 5-pin DIN connectors.  Other than that, they are more than capable of handling any of my GM needs.

My Sound canvas works great with a simple Roland UM 1 midi cable-yes din connector, not a big deal for me. But I am a midi guy from the 90's.. I would never use the sounds from TTS-1 or my sound canvas in an actual finished project.. 

Been using CW with Kontakt forever. Been on 7 since it came out. No issues at all. It's not CW obviously! Just sayin. If it's YOUR system, why would you expect a difference in Sonar? 

I hope you get it worked out!

1 hour ago, Duncan Stitt said:

Alan Bachman - the OP mentioned his favorite mic was the Stellar CM5, which is a C12 style of mic. And he said he doesn't like his 87 clone, which leads me to believe any mic with a lot of low mids - like a 47 or 67 - might not be what he's looking for.  I agree Tony Joe White might use a beefy mic, but I think the OP was using those artists as examples of his repertoire, not the sound he was looking for. 

For harsh singers in rock music, I keep going back to my SM7b, but I cheat a little, using the Cathedral Pipes phantom powered booster and running it through a Tonelux MP5a 500 series preamp with the "tilt EQ" boosting the highs by 1 db. I used to use a Phoenix Audio preamp, which was a truly magical combination with the SM7b, but it's cutting out on me, even after replacing the stepped gain pot. The unit is so old, no one in Phoenix Audio's tech department has even seen one. If I wasn't so near retirement (past retirement, actually) I'd get their 500 series version.

The CM-5 also supposedly is\was marketed as C12\ELAM251 clone. You are correct-tony Joe white song was just an example of songs I sing. since Tony jowe White sings very low where bob seger sings kind of high and so does CCR. 
But I do know I was very happy with the CM-5, just made a bad move selling it. Especially since I did not need the $$$. I did buy some mics from Sweetwater a while back and return them. I have had a Sweetwater Plat card since 2002. Last one I tried was the Shure SM7b. To me it was a nothing mic and my Shure SM58beta sounded much better on my vocals. Tried, as mentioned the Mohave MA-200. Sent it back. all the time I still had the CM-5.

The only one I saw on reverb\Ebay was for $500 plus shipping and tax. I sold mine locally for $150---dumb, dumb, dumb.
I was looking at the warm audio wa-47 for a while. Still on my list. I have tried the neuman 102 and 103-did not like them

Anyway, still the only mic BESIDES, believe it or not, that I liked besides my CM-5 is my trusty SM58b.

I like how a tube mic reacts and duplicates my voice in a recording. Plain and simple!. why? Who knows.

I appreciate all the input.

If I could afford it I believe I would buy Telefunken ELA M 251E Large-diaphragm Tube Condenser Microphone but $12,000 is way out of my range.

I have looked at the cheaper ones in the $1,500 range. Still looking!

3 hours ago, Duncan Stitt said:

Pathfinder - what sort of music are you doing?

Do you need a bright mic to cut through a busy mix, or a beefy mic to feature a big, warm vocal in a sparse mix?

What sort of voice to you have? Bassy, midrangey, dull, bright, thin, thick, issues with sibilance?

What vocal mics have you used in the past, and what sort of EQ tweaks did you need to do to get them to sound good?

Do you want a mic with a lot of air on top (10k-15k) or do you want a more natural sound?

Do you sing loud? If you do, that could limit which mics would work for you, since some LDC (tube or non-tube) mics can't handle singers who project across the room like an opera singer or broadway singer or a rock music screamer.

These are all factors that will help determine what sort of mic might sound good on your voice.

If random people on the internet tell you they like the mic, that tells you nothing about whether  or not  it will work for your recording scenarios. The only way to find that out is to plug it in and record with it. Alternatively, if you could find a mic shootout on YouTube featuring a mic you've used before next to the Lewitt, that would at least give you more information about whether or not the Lewitt might be a good candidate for you.

Keep in mind, tube mics should be turned on a half hour before recording to let the tube stabilize. 5 minutes would do in a pinch, but the sound could still fluctuate, meaning if you punch in 20 minutes later, it might not match the earlier take. Also, tube mics are fragile. They recommend not jarring the mic when the tube is hot, since it could break the filament.

And lastly, be aware of confirmation bias. If you pay $1200 for the Lewitt, you're automatically going to like it. That feeling might change over time, so put it through its paces before the return window expires.

Have fun!

Everything from Rainy Night in Ga-Tony Joe white style to Hollywood Nights by Bob Seger-kind of a screamer. Blues and R&B are where I like to sing and play. Started out playing finger-pickin folk songs after Nam-James Taylor, Croce, stuff like that. Even had a stint in a jug band. Most of the cover bands I was in did what we wanted-we didn't conform to the radio. But we still worked all the time. Many bands like that. Everything from Billy Joel to Ride Like the Wind to Bob Seger, CCR, traffic, Alman Bros and lots of old Soul stuff like dock of the bay.

I was always the lead or co lead singer in these bands, trios etc. I prefer Blues and R&B-great for singing for real and playing lots of cool stuff on the guitar. I am a singer 1st, Guitar player 2nd(although I have been playing guitar for over 40 years) and definitely recording engineer in training (on my own)

I have had many mics and recorded thru them all. Best mic (money wise) I ever had was the Mohave MA-200, so nothing really high end by studio standards. But My trusty old Stellar CM-5 ((C12/ELAM251 Inspired) I mentioned above was my favorite. Big old tube mic-heavy. But my voice just liked this mic and the mic liked me.
I sold it for really NO REASON at all and kick myself for doing it. There is one on Reverb for $500 but I wouldn't take a chance on a mic like that from reverb USED. 
I do have a powerful voice I guess-loud but growing up singing folk songs I also have a tame voice. 
I use the mics well. I know when to back up, move up etc.

I have watched many youtube videos of mi comparisons but on youtube they all sound the same to me. Right now I am recording using a wave Audio WA-87r2. I don't like it at all on vocals but it is nice on acoustic guitar stuff.

All of my recordings are Vocals (me), guitars Electric and acoustic(me), and lots of VSTS for Bass, Drums and keys. 

Well their you go-my life in a nutshell- 

21 minutes ago, Alan Bachman said:

Understood.  But when you write on a forum, there are others who are interested as well.  And it so happens that the Lewitt and the Chandler have been compared.

You are free to ignore the posts about other mics that might be considered.

Wishing you the best in your endeavors.

So the thread and question I asked is ignored so you can post what you want? Very logical. 

14 hours ago, Alan Bachman said:

I will toss this out there for consideration - as a relatively inexpensive high end mic.   I have heard some great samples of it.  (If my memory is correct, it was compared with the subject Lewitt. )

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/TGMicTypeL--chandler-limited-tg-microphone-type-l-large-diaphragm-condenser

Thanks but I never asked for suggestions. Only asked about ONE mic- period!

1 hour ago, Duncan Stitt said:

Expanding on my earlier comment, here is a "learning experience" situation I went through a while back. A lady singer came in my studio and I put up a Gefell MT71, which is a highly regarded LDC mic (not tube) descendent from the Neumann line. I had just purchased it used and had high hopes, since it was known to be a substitute for the industry standard Neumann U87. Unfortunately, the Gefell was giving us serious sibilance issues.

She had some tracks from a previous recording done in another studio. Her vocal sounded great. No sibilance whatsoever. She said the mic they used was a Shure KSM44 LDC (not tube.) I googled both mics and looked at the frequency response curves. The Geffell had a peak at around 7k. The Shure had a dip in that range. The Gefell was maybe twice the price of the Shure, but it was a bad choice for that particular singer. 

The general rule is to use a dark mic on a bright source, and a bright mic on a dark source, but it's subjective. You won't know until you record with it and see how it sits in a mix. It might sound fabulous soloed, but disappear in a mix, or it might sound tinny soloed but cut through a mix perfectly. It also might depend on the context. For a more exposed vocal, a warmer mic might sound better than the brighter mic that cuts through a busy mix.

As long as you have a return policy with whatever mic you get, you should be okay.

I have three budget tube mics at the moment, the Lauten 320, a Stellar CM6, and a modded Apex 460 with a RK7 capsule. They all sound different.  The Apex is dark and beefy, the Steller is more like a U87 but with less low end, and the Lauten is more of a flat response, but with a crispy high end. I can get sibilance from the latter two, so it's tricky. Originally, the Apex 460 had a Peluso C12 style capsule, but dealing with sibilance was never ending. I ended up sending it back for the RK7 capsule replacement.

If you're into soldering, you can get DIY kits from microphone parts dot com, with parts tailored to whatever sort of sound you're looking for.

Hey duncan

I had the original Stellar CM5. I sold it for no reason at all. I would love to have that back. Big mistake on my part. As I stated I am partial to tube mics for MY vocals. Thanks for the info!

5 hours ago, DeeringAmps said:

The Sondelux (Bock Audio) 251 gets/got amazing reviews as well, and it was/is a fine microphone.
BUT, tube mics are a PITA frankly, and it DID NOT magically  elevate my vocals to new "heights".
There are lots of LDC mics in that price range that are "very good"; the TLM 103 comes to mind.

HTH, YMMV

t

"A compact, energy saving power supply unit and 7-pin XLR cable are included"
I would have to confirm that this is actually a high voltage power supply and NOT running the 12AU7 at 50 volts
(so called "starved plate")

Once again, I was NOT asking for recommendations. I was ONLY asking about the Lewitt Pure Tube-Hmmmm?

BTW-If I could afford a $4K mic I would love to have one-I cannot   😞 The Sondelux 251 looks like a great mic!

5 hours ago, DeeringAmps said:

The Sondelux (Bock Audio) 251 gets/got amazing reviews as well, and it was/is a fine microphone.
BUT, tube mics are a PITA frankly, and it DID NOT magically  elevate my vocals to new "heights".
There are lots of LDC mics in that price range that are "very good"; the TLM 103 comes to mind.

HTH, YMMV

t

"A compact, energy saving power supply unit and 7-pin XLR cable are included"
I would have to confirm that this is actually a high voltage power supply and NOT running the 12AU7 at 50 volts
(so called "starved plate")

My mileage definitely varies-My vocals are much better with a tube mic. I have tried many, many mics at friends studios etc. Tube vocal mics just have something that tubeless mics cannot touch imho. 
But honestly, I was just asking about the Lewitt Pure Tube

Hi

Anyone familiar with these vocal mics? Reviews seem amazing. I am thinking of getting one for recording vocals in my home studio. 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1765753-REG/lewitt_puretube_es_tube_microphone_with_1.html/overview

Thanks

Frank

Thanks as always folks.

I did really jus want the fabfilter reverb-but the price for 3 (as mentioned above by me comp\EQ and reverb) is double so kind of 1 for free.

Just as a note-You do NOT have to just use the AI featured with Izotope. Especially with the EQ and compressors.

I most likely will do the fabfilter 3 bundle though. Maybe I can learn more and catch up to John V. with "standard processing tools"................😉

2 hours ago, Glenn Stanton said:

it does seem odd to compare niche tools like RX and Ozone with FabFilter - and i guess  even the Nectar tools are generally a different  mindset as opposed simply using discrete FabFilter EQ, Compression, and Reverb tools. i don't use Nectar often as it's simply too much stuff to deal with (same for some of the Slate presets - too much sometimes) if i need simple (like one or two things). but for complex sets of effects, it is handy in those rare cases where a number of layers of tweaking are needed. the RX and Ozone tools are (imho) very much focused on what they should be doing - fixes and mastering. 

I really only asked about Fabfilter since so many videos use them as the tools when explaining recording etc. I also did the trial of the Fabfilter reverb and I did like that.
I understand the MAIN difference between the 2, AI versus do it yourself type process. 

I should have mentioned that I started with Izotope a very long time ago-whenever they started with Ozone I was in. So I have grown use to them.

I will end this by saying I am just going to buy the 3 plug bundle and go from there. 

Thanks for chiming in everyone!
 

2 hours ago, John Vere said:

Reading that explains why I’ve never found isotope products did anything for my sound. I didn’t even install them this re build.  
Now I see why. I guess they are made for people who don’t know what to do with standard processing tools. For me everything sounded worse.  

John

That is an unfair assessment. My knowledge of the "standard processing tools", may not be as great as yours but I am not an idiot. I don't see Izotope RUINING my mixes. Your mileage obviously is different. 

Found this article: Interesting!

FabFilter vs. iZotope: Summary

The most important distinction between FabFilter and iZotope lies in each company’s core philosophy.

FabFilter strives to produce user-friendly workhorse plugins you can use all over your mix. The Pro range, for instance, covers a majority of mixing/mastering needs, including EQ, compression, limiting, multiband compression, and reverb. The Total Bundle is a fantastic all-around kit you can use on every one of your mixes.

iZotope, on the other hand, is paving the way for future audio production technology. The forward-thinking pioneers are revolutionizing machine learning and how we can use it to make better quality mixes and masters as efficiently as possible. That said, the bulk of the plugins in Music Production Suite 4 are extremely specialized. You won’t find a Swiss army compressor with iZotope, for example. Instead, you’ll have a variety of ‘robot’ mixing and mastering assistants.

In conclusion, I don’t believe there’s a valid FabFilter vs. iZotope debate in terms of one being the best. If you’re looking for a more all-around set of professional plugins, then FabFilter’s Total Bundle is an excellent choice. If you’re curious about intelligent plugins who can analyze your mix and improve it, iZotope is the way to go.

FabFilter vs. iZotope: Why not both?

So I have owned most Izotope plugs for years-presently 10 advanced, Neutron 4 adv, Nectar 4 adv and RX advanced- plus others. I cruise youtube often to watch and listen to videos about recording. also have quite a few waves plugs and many others.

So many videos feature Fabfilter Q, Fabfilter R 2 and Fabfilter compressor. I do have the Sweetwater card and get the bundle of these 3 for like $6 a month.

Am I just wasting my $$$ or are they that good? I have no issues with the $6 a month as long as I am not just being redundant because of the Izotope stuff I have.

I get it's a personal choice but just wondering if they have qualities that the others don't have. I can use all the help I can get. with recording..................

Thanks

Thanks

Well, still don't have room for the 2nd monitor yet, although I do have the monitor itself-Samsung 27" 4K. It's not as big as my main monitor which is a new LG 32" 4k etc (still not huge I know).

So CV was certainly different and I am not sure it is for me-way too many years with TV. But I am giving it a shot for mixing. With 2 monitors I think I would like having both-well I know I would. Going to try this week to figure a way to make room for both.
I truly appreciate all the help and comments.

You know the real old CW forums were really my first time living and learning on a forum. To this day if asked I would say that the CW forums and the Fractal Audio forums are the most helpful forums I have ever used. CWQ since the 90's and Fractal since 2009.   🙂 

OK then-

follow- was the only way I saw to get the follow topic button again after I posted   🙂 

So I am searching youtube for demos of folks mixing-I have watched a zillion-well almost a zillion. I bought some wave plugin when promotions were on, still are I think. so I have maybe15. I also have around 15 demos of theirs. I asked how do I remove he demos because they are not listed separately in Win10x64 and the waves Central portal thing has no way to do this.

I was told that the portal has cleanup option and will remove ALL waves plugins? Then I have to re-install my paid for plugins. 
I am sorry but that is the lamest thing I have ever heard. I know I can exclude them in CW plug mgr, but so irritating. I bought these on a whim since I own many plugins including Ozone 10 advanced, Neutron 4 advanced and Nectar 4 advanced plus many others. 
Guess I am really posting to sort of vent at  stupid system.
BUT, here comes the dumb question, does uninstalling and reinstalling have any effect on my projects that use these plugins? 
If there is a chance of that then instead I will just exclude them in the cw plug mgr.
Also wish someone would create a more robust plug in mgr=I remember someone did way back in Sonar I think. I would pay for one that let me really create what I wanted. I probably do not have near as many plugins as most folks but I do have 504 (that includes all the CW plugins)

Thanks

I will see if I can make room for a second monitor-my graphics card and PC will definitely take it-Thanks to all

OK thanks. I am going to see how comfortable I feel mixing with console view- I do like recording in track view-so that's good!

Full disclosure-I have had and used CW Since before CWPA 9, so long time. BUT, big BUT, I never really recorded. I always was playing out in bands but also in duo's and trio's. I used CW for creating my own backing tracks. This is part of the reason I am lacking lots of little details.

My question: Now I am ONLY recording- I have a zillion backing tracks saved. I ALWAYS used Track View exclusively. At this late stage (recording only) is it worth trying to switch to using the console view, like I am guessing most folks do for recording?

good question for me I think and this is where to ask.

Thanks so much folks

Frank aka Pathfinder