Jim Roseberry

A couple of thoughts How do the overheads sound? If the overheads are well-placed yielding a good overall balance of the full kit, you can easily get away without using the spot mic on the HiHat. If you feel the HiHat mic is absolutely necessary, first thing I'd do is run a high-pass filter on it. You don't need a lot from the HiHat mic... just a little attack/articulation. Run the high-pass filter frequency up where it's pulling out the body of the snare drum. You'll still hear the attack... but less of the "shell/resonance". Don't worry if you loose some of the "chunk" on the HiHat. I'm not a fan of close-mic'd cymbals. As a test, put your ear close to a cymbal... and listen. You'll hear nasty gong-like overtones. Step back a couple feet and listen again. Now you hear the shimmer/articulation... without harsh/brash overtones. Since you're dealing with already recorded tracks, you probably don't have the luxury of re-recording. In that case, you may also find that some "bleed" isn't necessarily a bad thing. In reasonable amounts, it can actually make the drums sound more 3D/real. With a high-pass filter... and for as little as you need that HiHat mic, I have no doubt you can make it work. First thing I'd do is check phase across all the drum mics. Once you're sure the drum tracks are all in-phase, then I'd start with the overheads. Get the overheads sounding balanced... giving a good representation of the full kit. Next, add Kick and Snare spot mics... to add some "beef" to those drums. If you have close mics on the Toms, add those. If the drums aren't well-tuned, you'll struggle more with close-mic Tom tracks (EQ can help). Now, listen to the balance of the overall drum-kit. You may find you don't need any close-mic'd cymbals. If you decide to use those close-mic'd cymbal tracks, you won't need much.

I use an Arturia Audio Fuse 8 Pre (connected via lightpipe) to provide more analog I/O for a Fireface UFX+. In my case, I have the Audio Fuse 8 Pre look to its lightpipe input (word-clock "Slave") The UFX+ (which is the word-clock "Master") is sending lightpipe (embedded word-clock) to the Audio Fuse 8 Pre. If I change sample-rates in the RME Fireface UFX+, the Audio Fuse 8 Pre automatically follows.

Hi Michael, Lightpipe carries embedded word-clock. When connecting two pieces of gear (digitally), they both need to be running from the same clock-source. If each are running on separate clocks, you'll hear small pops/ticks when the digital audio streams are merged. You'll have to choose either the Audio Interface... or the DP88 as the word-clock "Master". Have the other device (word-clock "Slave") look to its lightpipe input for word-clock. (The word-clock "Slave" must have lightpipe routed to its lightpipe input... and that's where it'll look for word-clock sync.)

I was just curious to hear your take on the OX. I'm certainly not a fan of UA Developers' Apple bias. UA hasn't really done much (firmware wise) to expand the OX. It got a few new Cabs (including v30 speakers)... and the ability to use with Solid-State amps.

John Suhr would explain it much better than I. The simple explanation is that the impedance curve of the Suhr Reactive-Load is nearly identical to a 4x12 with Greenback speakers. To my knowledge, there's no other reactive-load that's more accurate (in that regard). The OX impedance curve is (IIRC) based on a 2x12 and not as accurate (an approximate curve). Not sure what the Two Notes Captor-X reactive-load is based on (speaker wise), but it's also more of an approximate curve. Two Notes IR loading/capabilities are far more advanced than the Suhr Reactive Load IR. The Suhr is limited to running a single 1024-sample Cab IR. Two Notes allows running/mixing two Cab IRs... each up to 4096-samples. Cab IR loading is pretty spartan in the Boss Waza TAE. 1024-sample Cab IRs capture about 22-25ms (depending on the sample-rate). Longer Cab IRs capture a little more low-end.

Significant attenuation noticeably affects the sound. Of those mentioned above, the Suhr doesn't have attenuation abilities beyond ~3dB I was strictly interested in going cab-free (noise-free recording)... so attenuation wasn't a factor.

No worries! This is your area of expertise. 😉 The OX (or any of these units using digital processing) will have some amount of latency. Suhr Reactive-Load IR: ~1.2ms Captor-X: ~1.2-4.8ms (varies depending on length of IRs) Boss Waza TAE: ~2ms OX: ~2ms (similar technology to their "Unison" plugins for Apollo) Is it the sound/feel that you find inferior to the Palmer boxes? I'd like to see Suhr's reactive-load... along with Celestion's "SpeakerMix Pro" (dynamic Cab IRs)... in a hardware box.

Have also had the Boss TAE. You can tweak the TAE's Reactive-Load (bottom and top) for the specific amp. The only one that allows this. Again, you can achieve good/great sounds. I didn't care for the onboard SS power-amp. Can't go wrong too far wrong with any of the above.

I've owned all of them. Suhr has the best Reactive-Load... but the IRs are limited to 1024-Samples (short). Captor X allows you to run a pair of simultaneous Cab IRs. The Reactive-Load isn't as nice as the Suhr... but the IRs can be up to four times the length (plus you can run two simultaneously). OX Reactive-Load isn't as good as the Suhr. Cab models aren't IRs... they're slightly more dynamic models. UA Plate Reverb, Dynamics, and EQ are familiar to those who've used UAD/Apollo. You really can't make a bad decision from any of the three. IME, None is totally heads and shoulders above the others. You can get good/great sounds out of any of the three. I still have an OX and Captor X

If you got a RTX-3070 for $500, (at this time) that is a fantastic price. Microcenter has an MSI model right now (in stock) for just under $800.

I don't have a lot of free time to fully digest a deep video application. I need to hit-the-ground running... and be productive in the short amount of the time available. Though not perfect, I've found I'm most productive with Premier/After Effects. I can't remember the last time Premier or After Effects crashed. You're right, most of the good third-party effects are all available for Adobe. If you're doing Chroma Key (green-screen), Boris' Primatte Studio is amazing. Wish Adobe would fully optimize After Effects for multi-core CPUs.

Hi Reid, What version of Vegas Pro are you currently using? Here's my experience/opinion on Vegas Pro, DaVinci Resolve, and Premier Pro: I find Vegas Pro the most "DAW like"... so for the very basics, it's easy for a typical DAW user to get up-and-running. That being said, for more advanced functions/processing (Chroma keying, etc), I find Vegas (at least previous versions) a bit dated/clunky. Vegas often crashes due to some simple issue. I remember v13 crashing upon startup. Simple fix... but those types of things can be annoying. DaVinci Resolve offers so many amazing features, it's almost overwhelming. Basic cuts/splices/transitions are actually very easy. Not too drastically different from Vegas Pro. It's when you're getting into Video EFX (nodes) that it can get pretty deep (need to watch tutorials, etc). By itself (no 3rd-party plugins), DaVinci Resolve is probably the single most complete Editing/processing package. Makes good use of multi-core CPUs. High-end GPU is almost a necessity. The recommended RTX-3070 with 8GB RAM has been going for almost $800. With the previous version of DaVinci Resolve; I encountered issues where more complex EDLs (sessions) resulted in the timeline getting scrambled. After losing hours of work, I decided to keep my use of DaVinci Resolve to more basic cut/splice/transition duties (no special effects, etc). Premier Pro is IME the least intuitive for those coming from a DAW background. As was mentioned, the integration with After Effects, PhotoShop, Illustrator, etc is hard to beat. IME, The Adobe products are not the most CPU efficient, the most full-featured, or the easiest to use. That said, I find for the time spent using them... I'm productive. I find the Adobe products generally pretty stable. Ironically, I just upgraded to Vegas Post Suite. Haven't (yet) done any real work with it. I'd recommend having several video editing applications (suites) in the toolbox. Video production is such a wide open and rapidly evolving field, you're going to encounter roadblocks. Having numerous options let you work-around those problems.

That sums up the whole tech industry. 😉

Yes, but I have to be on top of it every day. When something comes in, I have to grab it immediately.

Local distributor got 140 RTX-3070 video cards ($750 each). They were gone in less than 48 hours. RTX-3060ti cards were $500 each... and the limited supply of 10 was gone within an hour. Supply has also been affected by holiday rush... and (of course) Covid. ie: There's a Honda manufacturing plant in Marysville, OH. It was closed 3rd-shift yesterday thru 1st-shift today... to clean/sanitize (someone was infected). No production for two shifts (workers sent home).

I believe Craig also designed something similar for Gibson Les Paul HP models... where you can enable/disable the "transient-tamer" via dip-switch.

Can a voice tell the difference between a Samson C01 vs. AKG C12.

Set-up is indeed important... but not the crux of what I'm describing. Fender passive style basses sound weak/anemic when run thru cheap DI boxes. Run the same exact bass thru a Neve Shelford or Portico-II... and the sound is just there (larger, more aggressive - no struggle). If the source DI bass track sounds weak/anemic, it's harder to seat that in a mix. Bass>Neve>1176 results in a bass track that requires little to no post processing. BTW, the Klark Teknik 1176 clone sounds/works great (inexpensive). Lots of folks use the A-Designs Reddi Box for similar reasons. Sounds similar to using an Ampeg B15.

Bloatware is generally defined as unwanted software. Since Win10 was released, I've yet to have a single client who's wanted Cortana enabled/running. Ironically, a friend of mine worked on Cortana. Tim Noonan is a great guy, great musician, and super sharp.

In the end, it doesn't matter "why"... the reality is the same. It can't be done. All those top-notch virtual instruments/effects are simply not available. One could fantasize about an OS far more dedicated/optimized for DAW purposes. BeOS was one such promising OS. No profit. No development. No future. The DAW using market is extremely small. The Linux DAW using community is a tiny percentage of that. It's not economically feasible for companies like Native Instruments, UA, Line-6, etc to spend massive development hours on such a small niche.

FWIW, You don't have to convince me about the virtues of Windows 10. 😉 I'm quite aware of them... I've built custom Windows DAWs professionally for going on 30 years. As a Cakewalk user, I go all the way back to Pro Audio 4.0 (first version that could record audio). As to "bloated" and "dumbed-down", that's a matter of opinion/perspective. To cover such a vast user-base, Win10 (by default) has to be more broad-based compared to OSX. Note, I'm not an Apple fan... so no need to get into the downsides of OSX. How many folks complain that they can't disable Automatic Updates? How many people complain about Cortain, OneDrive, etc (extraneous, annoying components)? Less tech-savvy users often don't know/realize these things can all be disabled. Once reined-in, Win10 is a fine DAW platform.

Can you run Helix Native under any Linux kernel at 96k using a 16-sample buffer size (sub 1ms total round-trip latency)? The answer is, no. You may have 2000 plugins... but you don't have anywhere close to the best plugins available. Can you run Keyscape, Omnisphere, Kontakt with advanced/scripted libraries, Waves plugins, UAD plugins, SSL plugins, etc (all native)??? The answer is, no. Without profit/competition, you're not going to see massive development. Witness the recent CPU boom we're encountering. Competition is bringing out the best in AMD and Intel.

Can't disagree with anything you're saying... I've done "Hackintosh" builds... for the fun of it (like solving a puzzle). We have clients who are still running RME Fireface 400/800 audio interfaces... which are ~15 years old. The issue most folks have with Windows 10 is that it's a "universal" (all encompassing) OS. Supporting such a wide group of end-users, it's bloated and a bit "dumbed-down" (for less tech-savvy users). Thus, (by default) we have Cortana, Automatic Updates, lots of applications running in the background, etc. Of course, the flip side of being a more universal OS is that it drives prices down (OS, hardware, software, etc). Microsoft grew into a massive company... with massive (over) exposure... generating massive revenue. The "man with the big cigar" (in their realm)... Regarding Linux: If you take most of the profit away, you also take away competition and desire to develop. Competition drives development. (Look at the CPU progress were now encountering). You've got wide-open potential... with little structure/oversight A bit like the Wild West

FWIW, I really don't get the fascination with running a DAW under Linux. It's literally like taking a 20+ year step back in time. We waited for decades to have the processing power, plugins, and virtual-instruments currently available under Windows.

If you're dealing with large number of large files (and especially if you're not running 1Gb Internet), Cloud based storage is a bit impractical. Also note that scheduling and sync services constantly running is not ideal on a DAW.