The sound has a very subtle difference, the main reason I have them is that they look badass, and I feel like they make me sing better(but they really don't). Plus when people come to the studio and see all the knobs they think I know what I am doing(but I really don't)
If gear inspires both you and visitors to your studio, that is enough for me! Kidding aside, I have often found musicians and vocalists that are comfortable and confident tend to perform better…sometimes a great amp or microphone is all it takes. Cheers!
The sound has a very subtle difference ? not even close ! and the reason's you gave are pathetic ! transformers, tubes, tape and discrete components made well ! will kill most thin ass'd clean pre amps , i mean 100 dollar pre's ! not $1000, unless there expensive trust me !
It's all "subtle" until it's time to stack those vocals. To put them up against the big dogs can you get an acceptable and lovable recording without all that yes but if there was a way to bypass all of that and just go straight to the recording label they would have already pushed pass out the way there is a balance and he can respect both
I likely don't need an external preamp, but I love the EQ sound of a Neve 1073. However the WA-73 EQ isn't a true 1073; it has one input transformer instead of two, only two inductors instead of three. And these inductors don't look like the ones used in a real 1073.
If you’re looking for an “authentic” hardware recreation of the original 1073, the BAE follows the original architecture as well as I’ve seen and some would argue, better than current Neve offerings. In the end though, when it comes to nuances between the sound of one to another with analog gear, if you can, nothing beats auditioning the one you could actually purchase. Reminds me of working on consoles years ago where some channels just sounded better on certain instruments or vocals and those were the ones we used…
@@askdrtk Thank you for your reply. No, I'm not looking for an "authentic" hardware recreation. The only true authentic recreations are from AMS Neve, specifically their classic vintage modules. No matter how good BAE is, it will always be a clone. If I wanted to buy a good clone, I would choose the AML 1073ez, as it is very faithful to the original architecture-wise and costs significantly less than BAE.
Please guide me I wrote you and relied upon your advice I bought APHEX 230 but I am interested in buying TC Helicon Voice Works. Is it good to buy for voice quality? APHEX 230 has the same function what TC Helicon Voice Works has. Please guide me. Thanks.
Is DSP vs native really a question of CPU power? On my setup I can be at 5% CPU at low buffer size and high sample rate, and the latency is still not really good enough for monitoring through plugins. Do people commonly do this?
Great question! There are a number of considerations. CPU power does matter in that DAWs are largely single-threaded applications. So while CPU usage may read as 5%, an individual core running a number of plugins could be maxed out causing issues... Of course some plugins (reverbs, delays, etc.) are more resource intensive than others, but individual cores and PCI communication on modern computers have become fast enough to support monitoring through plugins. The key to low latency has now become driver optimization for the audio interfaces. Some are considerably faster than others. As an example, with low buffer / high sample rates, I can get latency times with my Quantum 2632 monitoring through native UA plugins in Studio One that are comparable to what I get with the same plugins using DSP on my Apollo. RME has also done an excellent job of latency optimization with their drivers. While I cannot be certain, with UA opening up plugins to run native and new hardware on the way, I suspect we will see driver optimizations that could make monitoring a seamless experience whether using DSP, native plugins, or a combination of both. I could be wrong, native plugins could only be about mixing from UA's point of view ( and lets now forget other manufacturers), but given the costs around the business model of hardware and software for DSP powered interfaces, I think we may be on the verge of change. Keeps things interesting if nothing else...
Great videos thank you! , i own an Audient ID14 interface and want to buy some hardwares for mastering chain , do you recomend upgrading my interface first to a highend like RME Ufx , or is it good enough in terms of converters preamps etc and i should go straight for mastering hardwares? (In my case ssl fusion and bus plus) thank you again
Thanks, glad you're enjoying them. Your ID14 has excellent converters with very good dynamic range and a good low jitter clock. Going to an RME UFXII, you would likely not notice a difference depending what you are monitoring on. Generally either monitors (assuming room treatment is pristine) or headphones will make a greater difference to the quality of your masters vs upgrading your ID14. Like anything, there are of course diminishing returns. If you let me know what you are monitoring on and a bit about your space, I can provide some further details.
@@askdrtk Thanks alot for that! My monitoring syatem is mainly my headphones, i have Neuman ndh 30 which go directly to my interface. My problem with Id14 mk2 is lack of i/o s and im not sure if is it enough for conecting hardwares or i need extensions, and also the preamps cant be bypassed inorder to use outboard preamps.
If you are going to upgrade, the key for DA converters is to be as transparent as possible since you need to hear exactly what you are printing without coloration. AD converters can be colored if you want to impart that tonality on all of your masters, but if you are going to use a single set of converters, transparent for both DA and AD is the way to go imo. RME is an excellent choice. If you would like to stay with Audient, the ID44 will let you bypass the preamps and connect directly to the AD converters using the insert inputs.
I have a few different interfaces as I have both a tracking space and my YT space. A recommendation comes down to what you are planning to do. Tracking (vocals, instruments, band - multiple mics), hybrid, mixing, etc. I have been very pleased with my MOTU 828es, Clarett + 8pre, Apollo Twin X and Solo, and more recently, I have started using a Quantum 2632 as I have Thunderbolt on my Windows PC. The Scarlett 18i20 3rd gen has also served me well. If you give me an idea of what you are looking to do, I can provide a better recommendation.
The VoxBox is an outstanding channel strip, it is difficult to get that range of features and performance. While not at that level, some affordable alternatives include the Drawmer 1977, ART VoiceChannel, and I would take a close look at the DBX 676. The cheapest tube channel strip that I am currently aware of is the PreSonus Studio Channel. I haven't spent much time with one, but it does have a following.
hello nice video...i have 2 focusrite isa one but I want some samples, I'm ready to put them through the preamplifier for an analog and clear sound... they told me that it's done via send and return... I tried it... I activated the "line" button on the front... I connected 2 trs from my sound card and to isa one and then back to my card but I don't see the pointers from the Vu meter moving... what am I doing wrong?
I’m not sure which sound card you are using, but the general setup is to connect a line out on the sound card to the line in on the ISA one and then connect the main line output on the ISA to a line input on your sound card. You then configure the sound card line out as the send and the sound card line in as the return in your DAW. You will need to adjust teh gain on the ISA one so you have a good level on the meters with clipping. I hope this helps out!
my sound card is the apollo twin usb... what I have done is and it works: line out from the apollo to the input I/P line of the focusrite and from the Main O/P to the input of the apollo.. I hope it is the correct way and not with send and return sockets!@@askdrtk
Yes, they way you have them connected will work fine with the twin. You will find you have the ability to adjust the gain from the twin into the ISA One and the input gain on the ISA One to achieve tonal character. The more you drive the ISA One input gain, the more analog character you will receive, The "right" amount will depend on the effect you want to achieve and is generally different for various genres... For example, Pop = clean, Rock=some saturation, etc.
The 230 has proven to be a pretty reliable unit. They are still widely in use and there are never too many for sale, a good sign that those who have them don’t want to part with them. The preamp is generally clean (some like to replace the tube with a NOS RCA or similar). When it comes to effects, it all depends on the voice you are recording. There is no way to know whether it will be an ideal fit for a given voice without trying it, but it is a pretty flexible unit. Overall I wouldn’t worry too much about reliability and sound quality, it more comes down to whether it “fits” the vocalist’s voice. If you can find one at a reasonable price it would be worth trying.
@@askdrtk Thank You for your prompt reply. If you reply me about Aphex 230 and dbx 676 tube mic preamp which is better to buy because I am primitive in this new tech but I manage according to my need. Both Preamp I have very good price the 230 is $399+20 shipping and dbx676 is $600. I put hold to buy so please reply me with which one is better. I uploaded many indian style my original songs, if you listen to them for better ideas for my voice quality which one is suitable. Thanks.
I think you are a bit biased towards outboard gear, ofcourse anyone who mixes in the box exclusively will not like you statement, and in fact people who have no interest in mixing and just want to enjoy a song will never hear the difference between a plugin and outboard gear. that said It is very important to know how the outboard gear was and is used of which plugins are modeled on. Companies like Waves do a terrific job in getting the work flow and sound to your computer. It is important if you colour your signal, that you record clean, neutral, if you enable transformers and all kinds of saturation and spacial fx and then think a 1073 plugin is going to sound like a real one, you are obviously wrong. But even than, If you mix exclusively in the box you will come to know that adding saturation is a process, you know that when your mix is at -10 lufs the saturation needs not to be obvious but used to enhance the mix on many levels.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am actually not biased one way or the other. I look at plugins and outboard gear at tools we use to achieve a desired result. Without going into detail, imo there are many things plugins are capable of that cannot be, or at least not efficiently be achieved with outboard and the opposite is also the case. I use both plugins and outboard for tracking and mixing without prioritizing one or the other, for me it is about what I need for a specific purpose. I choose not to get into the debate, but in my experience most users working with both value both, and the debate comes up far more often online than in studios. In any case, my final point on this is that great results can be achieved with either plugins, analog, or both. Everyone should work with what is best for them and helps them achieve the results they are looking for. In the end, it is all about making great music and the listener certainly doesn't know or care how the music was recorded, produced, mixed, or mastered. Time is a limiting factor, but as always I will continue to share hardware, plugins, general info / tutorials and engage with a community that shares experiences and helps each other out. Thanks again for jumping into the conversation. Cheers!
That’s actually not true. The vast majority of interface preamps are automatically bypassed when you plug in an external preamp. You can confirm this by then turning the interface gain down to zero and using only the gain on your external preamp.
7:04 I feel like this is one of those things where if you are unsure about whether you need a $1000 preamp, the answer is probably no. If your audio interface has a preamp on it that is doing good for you, then don't even fret about it rn and one day soon you'll know if it's needed. Until then, your daw can do MUCH more drastic things to the sound and it takes a while to wrap your head around all that😋
I understand when it comes to cheaper interfaces etc etc but what about those interfaces that are on the higher end? I'm currently using the RME BabyFace Pro and have been thinking about the ISA One but curious on if it wouldn't really "help" or bring down. I'm still a noob in a sense. Whats your expert opinion?
I have a number of interfaces / converters, but I mostly use an Antelope Orioin 32+ gen3. I find external preamps such as the ISA one have more impact on recordings vs the interface I am using (some exceptions where dynamic range makes a difference - very quiet sources or wide transients). The preamps on your RME are very clean and transparent, an external preamp will be more to give you another flavour / colour option. I like the ISA One as it is flexible in providing a number of flavours to your recordings. Post processing aside (and great results are possible without question), some like to say that recordings made through preamps like the ISA One sound closer to records we have all been listening to for years. I hope this helps out!
@@C4CrotonaHi,I am in the same boat.Did you finally buy the Isa One? If so, can you really hear the difference in the vocal recording? I spent quite a lot, so I don't want to
Thanks! It starts with sound treatment in my space. I am using an all analog chain in this video. SM7B through a Universal Audio 710 preamp with EQ, compression, de-essing, and expansion provided by the ART Voice Channel strip and conversion through my Quantum 2632. No other effects were used in this video. When I create vocal presets for voiceover artists, whether plugins or hardware, I try to keep it simple and avoid noise reduction, de-reverb, and other destructive effects as much as possible. Hope this helps out!
People (Customers) can't tell the difference between plugin's and analog gear. Most sound engineers can't tell the difference either ! Analog is like film camera's or Horse and Buggy !
The sound has a very subtle difference, the main reason I have them is that they look badass, and I feel like they make me sing better(but they really don't). Plus when people come to the studio and see all the knobs they think I know what I am doing(but I really don't)
If gear inspires both you and visitors to your studio, that is enough for me! Kidding aside, I have often found musicians and vocalists that are comfortable and confident tend to perform better…sometimes a great amp or microphone is all it takes. Cheers!
The sound has a very subtle difference ? not even close ! and the reason's you gave are pathetic ! transformers, tubes, tape and discrete components made well ! will kill most thin ass'd clean pre amps , i mean 100 dollar pre's ! not $1000, unless there expensive trust me !
It's all "subtle" until it's time to stack those vocals. To put them up against the big dogs can you get an acceptable and lovable recording without all that yes but if there was a way to bypass all of that and just go straight to the recording label they would have already pushed pass out the way there is a balance and he can respect both
Love you man, Gr8 videos
Thanks. Glad you're enjoying them!
You have a great channel!
What do you think about Tegeler VTRC?
I likely don't need an external preamp, but I love the EQ sound of a Neve 1073.
However the WA-73 EQ isn't a true 1073; it has one input transformer instead of two, only two inductors instead of three. And these inductors don't look like the ones used in a real 1073.
If you’re looking for an “authentic” hardware recreation of the original 1073, the BAE follows the original architecture as well as I’ve seen and some would argue, better than current Neve offerings. In the end though, when it comes to nuances between the sound of one to another with analog gear, if you can, nothing beats auditioning the one you could actually purchase. Reminds me of working on consoles years ago where some channels just sounded better on certain instruments or vocals and those were the ones we used…
@@askdrtk Thank you for your reply. No, I'm not looking for an "authentic" hardware recreation. The only true authentic recreations are from AMS Neve, specifically their classic vintage modules. No matter how good BAE is, it will always be a clone. If I wanted to buy a good clone, I would choose the AML 1073ez, as it is very faithful to the original architecture-wise and costs significantly less than BAE.
Please guide me I wrote you and relied upon your advice I bought APHEX 230 but I am interested in buying TC Helicon Voice Works. Is it good to buy for voice quality? APHEX 230 has the same function what TC Helicon Voice Works has. Please guide me. Thanks.
So sick brother
Thanks…appreciate it!
That study costs me and my house with my entire family, I would even end up paying off 10 years later
Thanks
Glad to help out!
Is DSP vs native really a question of CPU power? On my setup I can be at 5% CPU at low buffer size and high sample rate, and the latency is still not really good enough for monitoring through plugins. Do people commonly do this?
Great question! There are a number of considerations.
CPU power does matter in that DAWs are largely single-threaded applications. So while CPU usage may read as 5%, an individual core running a number of plugins could be maxed out causing issues... Of course some plugins (reverbs, delays, etc.) are more resource intensive than others, but individual cores and PCI communication on modern computers have become fast enough to support monitoring through plugins.
The key to low latency has now become driver optimization for the audio interfaces. Some are considerably faster than others. As an example, with low buffer / high sample rates, I can get latency times with my Quantum 2632 monitoring through native UA plugins in Studio One that are comparable to what I get with the same plugins using DSP on my Apollo. RME has also done an excellent job of latency optimization with their drivers.
While I cannot be certain, with UA opening up plugins to run native and new hardware on the way, I suspect we will see driver optimizations that could make monitoring a seamless experience whether using DSP, native plugins, or a combination of both. I could be wrong, native plugins could only be about mixing from UA's point of view ( and lets now forget other manufacturers), but given the costs around the business model of hardware and software for DSP powered interfaces, I think we may be on the verge of change. Keeps things interesting if nothing else...
Thanks 👍🏼🙏🏼
I'm glad to help out!
@@askdrtk 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
Great videos thank you! , i own an Audient ID14 interface and want to buy some hardwares for mastering chain , do you recomend upgrading my interface first to a highend like RME Ufx , or is it good enough in terms of converters preamps etc and i should go straight for mastering hardwares? (In my case ssl fusion and bus plus) thank you again
Thanks, glad you're enjoying them. Your ID14 has excellent converters with very good dynamic range and a good low jitter clock. Going to an RME UFXII, you would likely not notice a difference depending what you are monitoring on. Generally either monitors (assuming room treatment is pristine) or headphones will make a greater difference to the quality of your masters vs upgrading your ID14. Like anything, there are of course diminishing returns. If you let me know what you are monitoring on and a bit about your space, I can provide some further details.
@@askdrtk Thanks alot for that! My monitoring syatem is mainly my headphones, i have Neuman ndh 30 which go directly to my interface. My problem with Id14 mk2 is lack of i/o s and im not sure if is it enough for conecting hardwares or i need extensions, and also the preamps cant be bypassed inorder to use outboard preamps.
If you are going to upgrade, the key for DA converters is to be as transparent as possible since you need to hear exactly what you are printing without coloration. AD converters can be colored if you want to impart that tonality on all of your masters, but if you are going to use a single set of converters, transparent for both DA and AD is the way to go imo. RME is an excellent choice. If you would like to stay with Audient, the ID44 will let you bypass the preamps and connect directly to the AD converters using the insert inputs.
What audio interface you have I’m looking for a new one and I’m on windows
I have a few different interfaces as I have both a tracking space and my YT space. A recommendation comes down to what you are planning to do. Tracking (vocals, instruments, band - multiple mics), hybrid, mixing, etc. I have been very pleased with my MOTU 828es, Clarett + 8pre, Apollo Twin X and Solo, and more recently, I have started using a Quantum 2632 as I have Thunderbolt on my Windows PC. The Scarlett 18i20 3rd gen has also served me well. If you give me an idea of what you are looking to do, I can provide a better recommendation.
can you please suggest me a cheap alternative of manley vox box?
The VoxBox is an outstanding channel strip, it is difficult to get that range of features and performance. While not at that level, some affordable alternatives include the Drawmer 1977, ART VoiceChannel, and I would take a close look at the DBX 676. The cheapest tube channel strip that I am currently aware of is the PreSonus Studio Channel. I haven't spent much time with one, but it does have a following.
hello nice video...i have 2 focusrite isa one but I want some samples, I'm ready to put them through the preamplifier for an analog and clear sound... they told me that it's done via send and return... I tried it... I activated the "line" button on the front... I connected 2 trs from my sound card and to isa one and then back to my card but I don't see the pointers from the Vu meter moving... what am I doing wrong?
I’m not sure which sound card you are using, but the general setup is to connect a line out on the sound card to the line in on the ISA one and then connect the main line output on the ISA to a line input on your sound card. You then configure the sound card line out as the send and the sound card line in as the return in your DAW. You will need to adjust teh gain on the ISA one so you have a good level on the meters with clipping. I hope this helps out!
my sound card is the apollo twin usb... what I have done is and it works: line out from the apollo to the input I/P line of the focusrite and from the Main O/P to the input of the apollo.. I hope it is the correct way and not with send and return sockets!@@askdrtk
Yes, they way you have them connected will work fine with the twin. You will find you have the ability to adjust the gain from the twin into the ISA One and the input gain on the ISA One to achieve tonal character. The more you drive the ISA One input gain, the more analog character you will receive, The "right" amount will depend on the effect you want to achieve and is generally different for various genres... For example, Pop = clean, Rock=some saturation, etc.
@@askdrtk Nice!!!thank you for the help..!!
is it good to buy 10 years old Aphex 230 Preamp for vocal recording? please reply.
The 230 has proven to be a pretty reliable unit. They are still widely in use and there are never too many for sale, a good sign that those who have them don’t want to part with them. The preamp is generally clean (some like to replace the tube with a NOS RCA or similar). When it comes to effects, it all depends on the voice you are recording. There is no way to know whether it will be an ideal fit for a given voice without trying it, but it is a pretty flexible unit. Overall I wouldn’t worry too much about reliability and sound quality, it more comes down to whether it “fits” the vocalist’s voice. If you can find one at a reasonable price it would be worth trying.
@@askdrtk Thank You for your prompt reply. If you reply me about Aphex 230 and dbx 676 tube mic preamp which is better to buy because I am primitive in this new tech but I manage according to my need. Both Preamp I have very good price the 230 is $399+20 shipping and dbx676 is $600. I put hold to buy so please reply me with which one is better. I uploaded many indian style my original songs, if you listen to them for better ideas for my voice quality which one is suitable. Thanks.
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
I think you are a bit biased towards outboard gear, ofcourse anyone who mixes in the box exclusively will not like you statement, and in fact people who have no interest in mixing and just want to enjoy a song will never hear the difference between a plugin and outboard gear. that said It is very important to know how the outboard gear was and is used of which plugins are modeled on. Companies like Waves do a terrific job in getting the work flow and sound to your computer. It is important if you colour your signal, that you record clean, neutral, if you enable transformers and all kinds of saturation and spacial fx and then think a 1073 plugin is going to sound like a real one, you are obviously wrong. But even than, If you mix exclusively in the box you will come to know that adding saturation is a process, you know that when your mix is at -10 lufs the saturation needs not to be obvious but used to enhance the mix on many levels.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am actually not biased one way or the other. I look at plugins and outboard gear at tools we use to achieve a desired result. Without going into detail, imo there are many things plugins are capable of that cannot be, or at least not efficiently be achieved with outboard and the opposite is also the case. I use both plugins and outboard for tracking and mixing without prioritizing one or the other, for me it is about what I need for a specific purpose. I choose not to get into the debate, but in my experience most users working with both value both, and the debate comes up far more often online than in studios. In any case, my final point on this is that great results can be achieved with either plugins, analog, or both. Everyone should work with what is best for them and helps them achieve the results they are looking for. In the end, it is all about making great music and the listener certainly doesn't know or care how the music was recorded, produced, mixed, or mastered. Time is a limiting factor, but as always I will continue to share hardware, plugins, general info / tutorials and engage with a community that shares experiences and helps each other out. Thanks again for jumping into the conversation. Cheers!
The issue I have is many audio interfaces do not allow you to by-pass the internal preamp so you are still coloring your outboard preamp mic
Definitely a consideration once you start adding outboard gear... Cheers!
That’s actually not true. The vast majority of interface preamps are automatically bypassed when you plug in an external preamp.
You can confirm this by then turning the interface gain down to zero and using only the gain on your external preamp.
@@michaelyolch79 How interface recognize pluging of external preamp via XLR???
Great informative review 👍
Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it!
7:04 I feel like this is one of those things where if you are unsure about whether you need a $1000 preamp, the answer is probably no. If your audio interface has a preamp on it that is doing good for you, then don't even fret about it rn and one day soon you'll know if it's needed. Until then, your daw can do MUCH more drastic things to the sound and it takes a while to wrap your head around all that😋
Lots of information but no bullshit. Good video.
Your tha man, been watching loads of your stuff. big respect from scotland !
Much appreciated! I'm glad you are enjoying the videos!
Awesome, this is great to learn and have different options.
Thank you..😊👍
I understand when it comes to cheaper interfaces etc etc but what about those interfaces that are on the higher end? I'm currently using the RME BabyFace Pro and have been thinking about the ISA One but curious on if it wouldn't really "help" or bring down. I'm still a noob in a sense. Whats your expert opinion?
I have a number of interfaces / converters, but I mostly use an Antelope Orioin 32+ gen3. I find external preamps such as the ISA one have more impact on recordings vs the interface I am using (some exceptions where dynamic range makes a difference - very quiet sources or wide transients). The preamps on your RME are very clean and transparent, an external preamp will be more to give you another flavour / colour option. I like the ISA One as it is flexible in providing a number of flavours to your recordings. Post processing aside (and great results are possible without question), some like to say that recordings made through preamps like the ISA One sound closer to records we have all been listening to for years. I hope this helps out!
@@askdrtk definitely helps. Thanks brother
@@C4CrotonaHi,I am in the same boat.Did you finally buy the Isa One? If so, can you really hear the difference in the vocal recording? I spent quite a lot, so I don't want to
LOVE IT!
What makes your vocal so clean?
Thanks! It starts with sound treatment in my space. I am using an all analog chain in this video. SM7B through a Universal Audio 710 preamp with EQ, compression, de-essing, and expansion provided by the ART Voice Channel strip and conversion through my Quantum 2632. No other effects were used in this video. When I create vocal presets for voiceover artists, whether plugins or hardware, I try to keep it simple and avoid noise reduction, de-reverb, and other destructive effects as much as possible. Hope this helps out!
Fantastic video. Great breakdown
Thanks again, much appreciated!
People (Customers) can't tell the difference between plugin's and analog gear. Most sound engineers can't tell the difference either ! Analog is like film camera's or Horse and Buggy !
The pre amp really brings out the true tone of your nasal voice