I've been recording/producing for 20 years. Started with plugins and thought hardware was dumb for 16 of those. These last 4 years I got some high end mics and a couple of pre amps. That was a really eye opening experience. I could simply pass audio through the pre amps and I would get an effect that I'd never heard any plugin do before. It added this untangeable sense of depth and 3d imaging while adding weight and sheen at the same time. Fast forward to today, I've got a rack full of gear in a hybrid studio and my mixes have never sounded better. I use way less plugins chasing that sound because it's already baked into the individual tracks. This whole idea of not making any decisions till mix down tells me you have no idea what your goals for the song are. If you are a good recording engineer you'll know exactly what "ingredients" are needed to bake all of the goodness into the track during tracking. My raw tracks sound great and often take processing much better now. Plus now I can mix a song in an hour or so.
@@ghfjfghjasdfasdf it's like taking professional photography with a nice lens and a full sensor. Can you use an iphone? Sure. But editing and adding some nifty AI effects doesn't replace the quality you get with the real deal
That is an asinine analogy. You’d never be able to tell the difference with a blind hearing test. Not to mention 99% of all media ends up as ones and zeros in the end anyway.
Every vocalist that tracks with me is always surprised who good their vocals sound before I even mix. Hint: talent - mic - mic pre - EQ (if needed)- compression - comfort verb on aux (if singer). Performers want to feel like they do on stage not like they do at the doctors. My 2 cents
Exactly! I have hardware reverb too for this very reason. It doesn’t get printed at all but man it makes a difference for some vocalists. Drummers too!
@@diyrecordingstudio Sometimes its an amateur, claiming years of ear experience without having it. So you have "what sounds good " to them, and or you, NOT being the best, or maybe even good. It matters far more if pro recordings are being laid down, where when possibly down the road, what sounded "good" to you then, doesn't now, and you want to do something different with them pro recordings, especially as technology changes.
I'm 100% with you. Since 1992, when I purchased my first compressor, the Yamaha GC2020, which I used during recording vocals and guitars, as well as on my master bus during mixdown, with my 4-track cassette recorder, that changed the way my production sounded. To this day, everything I record has just enough compression and EQ on the way in, speeding up the process during mixing. The artist can already hear 90% how it will end up in the final. Keep doing what you do. "Someone" is not happy you are spilling the beans :)
Aa an engineer of 30 plus years who has worked on platinum selling albums & a vocalist, I'm 100% w/you.on recording w/hardware. I always use a 1073 into an 1176 into a LA2A. The combination of saturation & compression yields a better vocal performance via the headphone mix. It's a practice that I don't encourage beginners to always do so I see his point.
Yeah that’s a winning combo there. I recently tried using one or the other with compression in tracking then went back to both. For rock vocals it just works.
There is no ‘one’ way to do stuff, do whatever works for you. Some engineers swear by clipping and saturation, some use compression. Everything is just a workflow that works for you and probably won’t satisfy someone else. People should stop telling others they are doing it wrong all those judgmental statements don’t bring anything positive to the table. Eventually the performance and the moment captured will make a bigger impact than all the technical mumbo jumbo. My approach changes over time so does my signal flow. Experiment and see what works for you, another’s approach doesn’t necessarily work for everyone. I like talking about my workflow and my approach if people are interested to know or have questions but I will never tell an engineer he’s doing something wrong. Everybody is different and unique and if there is something important to me than it’s that everyone sounds unique and not all the same. There is already to much music sounding the same, it’s better to be unique imo. So my tip would be to do something different and see what results you get from it, maybe you’ll like it, maybe you don’t. Experiment and never let anyone tell you what you can or cannot do. Don’t let anyone decide for you what’s good or bad , it’s up to you to decide what works for you 😊
Recordings...that is the difference. Not baking things in, actually leaves all them options you talk about, "open" for the future. Doesn't make it any rule, but surely should make you choose wisely.
@@sword-and-shield I use to record clean, 'top of channel' for years but changed to committing on the way in recently. Eventually all the choices we make shape the end result. I like to make these choices and move on to keep the creative flow going. It doesn't matter because eventually these choices have to be made somewhere across the line. When we have a "sound" in mind better get that sound from the start while tracking and the mix will come together much faster, a good fader balance can get it to sound close to finished. If it doesn't sound right then fix it at the source is a slogan I heard from Dough Fearn and nothing beats getting a finished sound right at the input imo. If we go in with extreme settings things cannot be undone but it's all part of the creative process and committing to a sound imo🙂
@@Chaos-Dynamics " It doesn't matter because eventually these choices have to be made somewhere across the line"...No, it does when they are baked into the base sound, especially if its a potentially exceptional performance recorded professionally, time, cost's, etc, and perhaps a few years down the line you don't want the processing that was baked in. If its all about now, and damn the future, or cheap diy at home amateur recordings easily re done or duplicated, then its more irrelevant. I get the committing factor, but when its the raw base and you are baking in something easily added after, seems pretty foolish when you can get the best of "both" of theses scenarios, not limiting you in the future.
@@sword-and-shield It isn’t necessarily one or the other scenario, it’s a workflow, recording, mixing, final the master and up to the next song. There is no later there is a new song, why revision something that is finished. Make something the best possible and finish it and go on to the next song.
@@Chaos-Dynamics " It isn’t necessarily one or the other scenario" Wrong again. Its is two scenarios, baked in and not baked in, each "scenario" producing a different file. You must be very new to the game if you don't think artist's have taken previous recordings and desired to completely re mixed the song, especially as new tech. comes out. When in a band, we have baked in garbage from analog recordings before digital dropped that would be so cool to have recorded them clean an process differently today. All about them options vs limits.
I record myself playing drums. I use a host of hardware preamps and a UA Apollo interface using the UA Console application, I have inserts employed on all the my channels going in (usually an SSL channel strip) which I can control from the drumkit via a midi controller (to finesse my individual channels to taste) all the drum channels are sent to an aux in real time which acts as a drum bus, it has eq and compression on it and some verb too (this is also controlled via midi controller from the drumkit) and is not "baked in" but is my headphone cue, and I can tell you it totally effects my performance (in a good way) I can even record my headphone mix as a stereo recording along with the individual channels for reference later on. for vocals I 100% use a hardware vocal chain too.
I was taught from the start that the main goal is to balance the preformance to fit in to 1-xx speakers from 20hz-20khz. Notes are hz. For best results it starts with the song arrangment, avoid if possible having several instruments using the same note/space (same hz), Then it is having the live room tuned for the live preformance, this is before thinking about mic type and placement, then it is mic type and placement then it is mic pre, corrective tools, fx, make it sound as epic and close to the end goal as possible. Great sounding HP mix to the preformer will boost preformance 100%. Now you are ready to Record. If you don't know what the end goal is, yes it might be good to hold off some commitment to post work in the daw. But there is no need to save everything to post. Some things you can just fix pre hitting the daw. You just need to understand why notes and hz go hand in hand and why you are tuning the surroundings to fit the preformance and adjusting/guiding the preformer to fit the mix. Mixing is the easy part of the whole process. If you find mixing to be the hard part of the process, you have to go back to start (song arrangment and analyse the steps). The hard part is guiding/helping the preformer to give it 100% and getting paid. I will never understand why we the engineers preach that this is a better work flow then this and yada yada yada.... Do the simple thing analyse the source, adjust, capture, mix and you are done. Simple arrangement = simple mix, horrible arrangement = horrible mix (even in a 1 million dollar recording studio).
I can 100% attest to the fact that tracking "clean" isn't always the best options. I did that for years, and like you said, would always uncover issues with my tracks later while cleaning them up. Now I track through hardware doing the necessary cleaning on the way in, and what do you know, no surprises. And my audio has voltage baked in which gives it something plugins still can't do, no matter how much any shill says otherwise.
Yeah I did the same. Once I realised why this hardware really matters, and how it can be really useful, it all clicked. I feel like I was taught a lot of “safe” ways to do things and that it can be often the wrong approach.
I can’t tell you how many times I started compressing in the mixing phase, long after everyone is gone, and started hearing how bad things really were. I do a lot of full band at-once recording, which makes it even more crucial that I make sure to get stuff right in the tracking phase.
Recorded bass today through hardware EQ and compression. Worked great. Tapping an optical compressor and some presence. Saved me work later. I just don't understand lobbying for saving all these decisions later. 550 and api type eqs are great because they are easy to reverse later if you want. Most sounds can be pushed closer to the finish line with a touch of EQ or compression on the way in. You can even argue the less round trips through conversion you do the better so apply analog fx on the way in.
I have listened to your reasoning about hardware and I am in your corner on this debate. I have a hardware software hybrid studio as my main studio and a computer studio in my second home studio in another city. I mainly do vocals in my second studio and I build the instrumentals, and mix at my main studio. Over the holiday season I was at my main studio and I did some vocals there. My mixer has compressor/limiter on it and great pre amps and EQ. The difference voicing on my main studio set up was so much more pleasurable. I could hear the full nuances in my voice compared to recording at my second studio. My second studio is in the capital and a lot of my artists are based there and it's easier for them to record there. I can work with the audio interface and get the job done but working through a good mixer tops it every time.
How does hearing yourself with the compressor effect your performance? If you get better performances then others will too. All of this is only about capturing the best performance possible, the mix is only there to do the performance justice.
I think it all depends on the individual. For me, Whatever works for me, may not work for someone else. But there's nothing wrong with using a compressor or anything when tracking.
I'm interested in hearing some of Ethan's discography, some of these decisions must have affected how he's worked in music over his life, at least I can imagine.
Yeah I’ve done some digging into his recording and mixing work in the last few weeks preparing for this vid. You can decide for yourself 😉 ua-cam.com/video/OFG19RRGZKs/v-deo.htmlsi=Pc8fOhtvROT0bOUT
I can only speak for myself, but with more experience I lean more towards capturing the source in its most glorious format possible. That means the right mic, a sweet pre, appropriate comp and perhaps a touch of EQ (prolly just HPF and a shelf on the HF). You don't need to go overboard, but capturing in some mystical "clean-n-pristine" method that then gives you the opportunity to do everything your heart desires to the source afterwards is just ridiculous. Capture at the source what you like to hear and what you want to hear and what you do here, and you'll never be disappointed. But, it takes work to do it in real time. And you're under pressure, cuz the artists are wondering what's going on, why aren't we progressing? So most peeps don't want to do it because they'd rather just get something down and then try to deal with it later on their own time when they're puffing on a vape and sitting in their basement. Track it and be done.
I love this comment so much. Chefs don't add things to the meal after it's on the table. They know the ingredients that make a killer dish and they make it happen in real time.
I agree that you should have the vocal/instrument chain in place for recording but cant you use software "On the way in" monitoring the effects same as hardware? Why does it have to be hardware for tracking - unless latency is an issue? Which it should not be in this day
Latency is always an issue. Plugins also don’t sound the same especially in tracking. Audio hardware and its components reacts to the mic plugged into it. A good pre into a good compressor does something different to the software counterparts. I’ve tried it. Somehow with software the transients seem to still get through and the compression is not the same. Same with Eq. I can’t push an analog eq way further than any digital one without it sounding harsh.
@@Auldhelm Why should latency not be an issue these days? Unless your on a UAD DSP (which still has latency btw, and locks a user into their walled garden ecosystem) then latency kills recording/monitoring. And, latency aside, plugins are nowhere near the same performance as HW.
@Auldhelm 5 ms, Maybe (maybe) 8ms tops. What latency are you proposing is feasible with plugin-based tracking (with no UAD-type DSP box) and what program do you use yourself to achieve this?
@@ThisGuyDude I would need to upgrade to a true thunderbolt interface Because my current set up (Macbook Pro and Audient EVO 16 interface) can only achieve a 8ms round trip and run smoothly - it seems doable to me with a thunderbolt interface - I am not a pro and I am just helping friends make demos usually so it is all good
First outboard gear is the room. Thick room treatment first. Then a good mic, good pre, good compressor. Those transistors add clarity and sweetness that you can't fake. You need good tracking tools. Theeeen you can mix ITB
I like to use outbound dsp hardware emulation in my console but track clean and have the same dsp in plugin form to start shaping the clean recording. I think that is the best way to go.
I remember a few years ago Ethan had the worst take I've ever read regarding artistic use of saturation. He said that there is no reason to worry about what kind of saturation you use, because all saturation is the same. He has the most bonkers takes on things and acts like he knows best in the most smug and condescending way imaginable. It's like he thinks he is the god emperor of audio knowledge because he had the "guts" to tell people that it's woo to ionize the air in your room to improve the sound. You're not James Randi Ethan. Just because you understand that raising your power cables off the ground doesn't improve the sound doesn't mean dumb takes like "all saturation is the same" is an intelligent take.
Yeah he and AP Mastering have mad similar hot takes about clipping and saturation. It seems he started on this how cable myth trajectory which is fair, then applied it to everything which is a bit silly.
The only beef I have with this is that a lot of vocalists have a hard time singing to the compressor. The meat of what they sing is vibing with what we’ve dialed in with the compressor…but then they REALLY get into it and it pegs the needles. Great, experienced vocalists know how to work the mic and compressor properly. Inexperienced vocalists are a hot mess. Knowing which kind of performer we are capturing will determine for us how much we are safe to shoot for on the way in.
Totally agree man, if you are confident in using these tools while tracking, go for it! Tracking with hardware for certain sounds makes the actual mixing process SO much easier. I ALWAYS track with compression on vocals. I have many thoughts about all these controversial style videos coming out to ramp up views and validate one point of view... but I'll leave it at that haha. Keep up the good work!
100% Man! A good compressor (or even 2 😉) on vocals in tracking never sounds bad to me. And being able to less work in mixing is awesome. I’m trying to get my mixes down to 2-4hours per track. Not there yet but getting close. I may do it on my most recent sessions. The rage bait guys can keep doin their thing, we can stay in the more positive/ constructive lane I reckon. Thanks Rhys, you’re a legend!
But...if we want to believe other stories: Billie Eilish "When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?" album recorded in an untreated bedroom. Neumann TLM 103 into an UAD Apollo interface. That's it. 2 billion streams on Spotify for few songs on the album. Do we believe this story? I don't know....no one actually knows what they were using when recording because this is the only narrative offered. Conclusion: just do it.
I completely agree with you. In fact I would go further in pointing out that a compressor reacts differently to a microphone than it does to a recorded, line signal. The transients are different. Plus the compressor gives you more headroom before you clip the a to d. Further, if you have great analog outboard, you reap the most benefit getting the finished (as possible) sound going in rather than going d to a, then a to d again in the mix. I respect Ethan Weiner but he also claims the AT2020 is a $99 U47, so...
I have come round to your way of thinking. I still try use as little processing as possible at the recording stage, but mostly because I don't always trust myself to make the right decisions. So much depends on the context, such as quality of gear, instruments, room and knowledge. All of those variables will come together differently for each person, and I think part of the journey is figuring out how to make the recording process as good as possible using the tools and knowledge at your disposal, and that can absolutely include eq and compression.
One of my favorite 500 modules is the SSL six channel. Clean preamp, but has a hp filter, a super basic eq section, and one knob compressor. I use all of those features. Don’t go crazy but get things going in right direction. When mixing I’m surprised about how little I need to do to bring things together. I also use a wealth of plugins too, more so for special tasks and bus processing. This is what works well for me and the artists I work with. That’s good enough for me.
As far as I can remember, and I'm a bit surprised that Ethan would forget this, but before the time of DAWs, tracking was almost always with compression and filters. Ethan may be speaking from a classic music perspective, I don't really know the recording situations there, I can imagine to keep dynamics as high as possible, they don't use compression here.
I deeply respect Ethan and own some of his books, but I agree with you here. I think the fear of commitment is a strong point for those who aren’t confident yet in how to use their tools, or if the project has no vision or direction and we really need to defer those decisions until the picture starts to emerge at mixdown. But as a mixer, there’s nothing I love more than getting tracks where a lot of the heavy lifting was done with the artist in the room and digging the vibe- then just bringing the faders up I’ve got a solid starting point (as opposed to the opposite end of the spectrum when you get some midi drums and dry DI’s).
Yeah I get you, I mention it specifically in my original vid. That said, are you gonna really do this for 8-10 or more layers of vocals? 12-15 tracks of drums? Or just learn the gear, become a better engineer and make those decisions and commit? I’ve made small mistakes sometimes and none of them have ruined a song. It just made me better at my craft.
You have to understand there is a group of guys out their who come from a "audiophile background" and not the musician route, they may play an instrument or have some music talent but their mindset is from the perspective of the audiophile. This is 9 times out of 10 the people who are all about the tracking with no processing. Its a weird take to say to not use something on the way in because inevitably they will do some processing at some stage, so their argument is not if you should do it but when should you do it. Well I come from the old school where we had to process it on the way in because if we waited until mix time we didn't have enough gear to accommodate it all. So if you have 24 track, but only have 12 compressors and you need 18 what do you do? You didn't bounce down effects because of lack of track or noise and each bounce down was a degradation of tape generations and tape erasure ALWAYS happened with 456, 499, or GP9. I'm in total agreement with you, its not about when you do something, its about HOW you do it. I can apply EQ and compression live just the same as I can do it on playback, so anyone that says otherwise is just afraid they'll get it wrong so they don't do it that way. Will you mess up YES is it the end of the world NOPE. But waiting to process things after the fact now is just another degradation in the audio by another AD/DA conversion that I can avoid by doing it on the way in, so I can be free to mix in the box if I want to. Its a time saver and actually leads to less degraded audio!
Let me put a twist to everything you said... why does it have to be outboard analog? I think I see cubase pro in background of this video. You can run low latency plugins of compressors and eq and print to daw on the input channel. Also you could choose not to print the comp/eq to the daw and have the return monitor channel on with live comp/eq on making it so that whatever is live and on playback sound exactly the same without committing to daw the dsp. So why bother with outboard gear adding noise... cost, complexity. ESPECIALLY for the new young poor artist that cant afford such things. Not only does this make more sense and give you more control it also perfectly recallable everytime. I will have already figured out the perfect setting for singers that I have worked with before and within a few seconds ( using a track preset recall ) every setting comes back exactly the same way from the last time I worked with them. Now I here the comments coming in already about how analog feels and sounds better... Now while I do love the sound of some analog gear, I have learned I can easily recreate that analog vibe inside the box. So in all do respect if you already have the gear and like that workflow go ahead and do things that take more time to achieve what the modern world is doing in seconds. But for those of you newer to the game... save your money and time and just become a master of the tools given within your daw and stay inside the box!
Hi, I’ve been mixing/mastering/recording for 26 years now…most of the recording I do today is out of drum machines going line in where we are taking microphone placement right outta the equation. I get the best results when I use compression going in…it’s seriously not even a question about it….also will use EQ going in if needed…I could go in without it but I’ll just be doing more to fix it in the box regardless…I also get way louder masters when I compress going in than I do if I don’t use it.
For whatever reason hardware gives me way more headroom too. I had a really hard time getting any louder than about -9 to -10 lufs with plugins. And that was really pushing it. I can easily get to -7 lufs with less distortion with hardware in the chain. I don't need to, so when I master to -9 or -10 now, it sounds much bigger and more open. Specifically kick and snare compression, and mix bus saturation make the most difference as far as headroom goes.
@ likewise…I recently about two weeks ago hit -4.6 which is my all time record and lost zero dynamics getting there…the mix being balanced throughout the frequency field helps too but I can regularly get into the -7, -6 range and maintain dynamics. Sure it takes me time but not that much extra…well worth the effort.
Yea. It would be a shame if anyone made a record with intention instead of leaving all of the important decisions till the end when you’re likely no longer in the same creative headspace. Great vid!
I think he agrees with you about compression and eq on vocal performance but he suggests only on the headphones. I think you should record it the way that sounds best. Compression and eq will be done anyways so do it while tracking for sure and record it. Not a bad idea to record a clean track too but I don't do that when I compress and eq the vocal the way it needs for the song. If you know what your doing then why wouldn't you enhance and level the vocal on the way in? If you don't understand compression very well then sure record a clean version.
Yeah, hate these kinda "rules". I like to get the sound right at the source, that includes compression and EQ. Everything else is influenced by each additional layer when multitracking also. Otherwise it's just "imagine this part is brighter" or "imagine this is compressed and sitting better" whilst adding layers. Madness. Sure, if you're not confident, keep a clean version or go easy but good lord... Mixing starts at tracking stage for most of us. I'd argue that the majority of decent engineers understand and practice this, it's also MUCH more inspiring for the artist to hear it coming together and sounding like a record from the get go. Lastly, many of us track in nice studios with outboard but mix in the box, what else is it there for other than to take advantage of at the time of tracking? Dude, it's okay to disagree and this was very respectful, but also it's fine to be a bit peeved by this kind of closed mindedness. Lots of respect to Ethan, but you gotta let people do their thing.
I agree with you, though, recording instruments and vox live though hardware and first bouncing all your daw stems through hardware...just adds a warm, rounded, gluey magic to the mix, that the harsh digital world, just cant nail
At every stage or production, ( i.e., tracking, arranging, mixing or mastering) hardwares are only tools. If they help to us to sound good "technically" or "creatively", we should not care about anything else. Get the job done and that's it.
Commit before recording...produce like a pro... Don't be affraid to record with efx, eq, compression, delay, chorus... Etc... if you are not sure....ot if you don't have a clear sonic picture of where you are going...record clean ...and move on...hell even choosing a mic can be massive eq right there...
Haha yeah, it can be a bit tricky once people are also so trying to sell something to go along with their philosophies. Can be a bit convenient and lends itself to confirmation bias.
What a bullshit. He has spent a massive amount of time sharing his knowledge for free, without asking anything in return. He even has a forum where he has helped many people with DIY acoustics. I've never seen him shoving his own products down people's throats. You're making quite a statement, do you also have concrete examples that back up your claim?
@@bubbelchampagne Only all of the years he's spent telling everyone that they shouldn't invest in preamps, compressors, eq's, plugins, or anything else, and just buy room treatment. Then you realize that's what he sells.
@@dakota-sessions You're twisting words. It is a fact that room treatment DOES improve audio fidelity a lot. But as mentioned, he advocates a lot for DIY treatment. He doesn't earn anything by that. You claimed that you feel like he pushes his own products. But apparently you don't have any data to back that up. I also don't think he ever said that no one should buy the products you mentioned, he just says that very often better acoustics give way better improvements, which again is just reality. But again, if you have any data about your claims, please provide it.
@@bubbelchampagne While it's true that treatment is extremely important, you (I mean he, sorry) take it to the extreme to then tell everyone that nothing else matters at all. It's an absurd worldview that just so happens to "accidentally" align with the products he (totally not you BTW) would like people to buy if they can afford them.
I see what Ethan is saying and he is right. However, do what you want to do. Either way, you're working towards the same goal, a result you're happy with, and then how your process is irrelevant to listeners who don’t care to consider it 😂
Dude, most of your critics just want to justify their own inability to fund outboard gear, or to justify their inability to comprehend the processes, and signal chain nuances, and gain staging that would come along with it. Thank you for this great video, and I have to say that it's redundant with common sense. Your critics will never get it because they can't get it because they can't buy it.
Yeah I’ve seen his null tests and stuff fine when he’s taking about audio cables but the argument falls apart when you get to the tolerances of 100’s of components.
Hahaha. Yeah, I got into hardware the first time I plugged a bass into a real neve. I was like, wait a minute, that’s the sound. I’ve been diving down the rabbit hole ever since.
@@diyrecordingstudio If you've ever bothered to actually test multiple mic preamps to see what differences exist, most measure pretty much ruler flat. Tolerances have acceptable ranges for a reason
Im sorry to say i have tested all my of my diy preamp builds. None of them are flat. They all have a response and a character and all have very slight differences. Take the api 2520 opamp of which there are 2 x in a vp28 or bt50 CAPI clone. Those use resistors with 10% tolerances. Put two full preamps or eqs next to each other, they’ll be different.
There is merit in what Ethan suggests, just maybe not the way he says it. See these days getting amateur recordings is far more easier, everyone with a couple of years of exp. is suddenly an engineer, or worse a "mastering engineer" just by claiming it. Pro recordings, truly pro recordings, can be a hassle and potentially very expensive depending on ones fiances. Baking in anything not absolutely necessary seems pretty foolish. Why? because who knows what tech. might come out that renders what you baked in worse than what it could be without it, or maybe they come up with the tech that can remove what you baked in. If the quality and or process, expense of recording, is a non issue for you, than its irrelevant. If it isn't consider heavily what you bake in, that can easily be added after. To act like "well you are always going to throw a compressor on your vocals anyway when mixing" is an imbecilic reason to bake things in, because it could change. We were victims of baking things in with analog, before digital dropped, performances that can't be re done to even re record. So we have unusable recordings, in the regard of attempting to try different processing in the digital realm, with those recordings from years back....choose wisely.
I think both ways are OK...but....Ive found that Slate Digital's Virtual Mix Rack, going in on vocals is probably the "easiest way" to get some Pro Vox in real time, going in, the only Flaw to the Virtual Mix Rack...which MixBox could soulve this, is that VMR does not have a Reverb in it...Mind Boggling....if VMR has a better Pre Amp Moduals and some Reverbs they would be the 'STANDARD" OF in the box, real time tracking while recording but....you pobably want to add verb during mixing and leveling, not going in anyway.....
That’s fine to disagree. Have you tracked with much hardware before Craig? Theres a benefit of committing the compressions as opposed to adding it later. Especially if it’s plugins you’re going to use later.
@@diyrecordingstudio - I wouldn’t track with anything on, except in the monitor. Even with guitars I only record output from their pedals into DI, then reamp that later. That way I can change settings, head, cab, mics… you name it. Can you explain what conceivable advantage there are to committing to any FX at the tracking stage? Adding it later, whether hardware or software, won’t cause it to sound any different. All I can see are massive downsides.
I've been recording/producing for 20 years. Started with plugins and thought hardware was dumb for 16 of those. These last 4 years I got some high end mics and a couple of pre amps. That was a really eye opening experience. I could simply pass audio through the pre amps and I would get an effect that I'd never heard any plugin do before. It added this untangeable sense of depth and 3d imaging while adding weight and sheen at the same time. Fast forward to today, I've got a rack full of gear in a hybrid studio and my mixes have never sounded better. I use way less plugins chasing that sound because it's already baked into the individual tracks. This whole idea of not making any decisions till mix down tells me you have no idea what your goals for the song are. If you are a good recording engineer you'll know exactly what "ingredients" are needed to bake all of the goodness into the track during tracking. My raw tracks sound great and often take processing much better now. Plus now I can mix a song in an hour or so.
So… it took you 16 years to learn about the benefits of adding harmonics to your material? Coulda done that in the box as well…
@@ghfjfghjasdfasdf If that's what you took away from this, I doubt we'll have any chance at a productive conversation.
@@ghfjfghjasdfasdf it's like taking professional photography with a nice lens and a full sensor. Can you use an iphone? Sure. But editing and adding some nifty AI effects doesn't replace the quality you get with the real deal
That is an asinine analogy. You’d never be able to tell the difference with a blind hearing test.
Not to mention 99% of all media ends up as ones and zeros in the end anyway.
Truth
Every vocalist that tracks with me is always surprised who good their vocals sound before I even mix.
Hint: talent - mic - mic pre - EQ (if needed)- compression - comfort verb on aux (if singer).
Performers want to feel like they do on stage not like they do at the doctors.
My 2 cents
Exactly! I have hardware reverb too for this very reason. It doesn’t get printed at all but man it makes a difference for some vocalists. Drummers too!
@@diyrecordingstudio when I had a small room I always tracked drums with verb(aux) on the overs. It definitely helps musicians feel comfortable!
Been at it for 30yrs professionally. There's only one 'rule' - LISTEN and do what SOUNDS good.
Absolutely! What sounds good IS GOOD!👍
@@diyrecordingstudio Sometimes its an amateur, claiming years of ear experience without having it. So you have "what sounds good " to them, and or you, NOT being the best, or maybe even good. It matters far more if pro recordings are being laid down, where when possibly down the road, what sounded "good" to you then, doesn't now, and you want to do something different with them pro recordings, especially as technology changes.
I'm 100% with you. Since 1992, when I purchased my first compressor, the Yamaha GC2020, which I used during recording vocals and guitars, as well as on my master bus during mixdown, with my 4-track cassette recorder, that changed the way my production sounded. To this day, everything I record has just enough compression and EQ on the way in, speeding up the process during mixing. The artist can already hear 90% how it will end up in the final.
Keep doing what you do. "Someone" is not happy you are spilling the beans :)
You are 101% right on this matter.
👍🏻
Aa an engineer of 30 plus years who has worked on platinum selling albums & a vocalist, I'm 100% w/you.on recording w/hardware. I always use a 1073 into an 1176 into a LA2A. The combination of saturation & compression yields a better vocal performance via the headphone mix. It's a practice that I don't encourage beginners to always do so I see his point.
Yeah that’s a winning combo there. I recently tried using one or the other with compression in tracking then went back to both. For rock vocals it just works.
There is no ‘one’ way to do stuff, do whatever works for you. Some engineers swear by clipping and saturation, some use compression. Everything is just a workflow that works for you and probably won’t satisfy someone else. People should stop telling others they are doing it wrong all those judgmental statements don’t bring anything positive to the table. Eventually the performance and the moment captured will make a bigger impact than all the technical mumbo jumbo. My approach changes over time so does my signal flow. Experiment and see what works for you, another’s approach doesn’t necessarily work for everyone. I like talking about my workflow and my approach if people are interested to know or have questions but I will never tell an engineer he’s doing something wrong. Everybody is different and unique and if there is something important to me than it’s that everyone sounds unique and not all the same. There is already to much music sounding the same, it’s better to be unique imo. So my tip would be to do something different and see what results you get from it, maybe you’ll like it, maybe you don’t. Experiment and never let anyone tell you what you can or cannot do. Don’t let anyone decide for you what’s good or bad , it’s up to you to decide what works for you 😊
Recordings...that is the difference. Not baking things in, actually leaves all them options you talk about, "open" for the future. Doesn't make it any rule, but surely should make you choose wisely.
@@sword-and-shield I use to record clean, 'top of channel' for years but changed to committing on the way in recently. Eventually all the choices we make shape the end result. I like to make these choices and move on to keep the creative flow going. It doesn't matter because eventually these choices have to be made somewhere across the line. When we have a "sound" in mind better get that sound from the start while tracking and the mix will come together much faster, a good fader balance can get it to sound close to finished. If it doesn't sound right then fix it at the source is a slogan I heard from Dough Fearn and nothing beats getting a finished sound right at the input imo. If we go in with extreme settings things cannot be undone but it's all part of the creative process and committing to a sound imo🙂
@@Chaos-Dynamics " It doesn't matter because eventually these choices have to be made somewhere across the line"...No, it does when they are baked into the base sound, especially if its a potentially exceptional performance recorded professionally, time, cost's, etc, and perhaps a few years down the line you don't want the processing that was baked in. If its all about now, and damn the future, or cheap diy at home amateur recordings easily re done or duplicated, then its more irrelevant. I get the committing factor, but when its the raw base and you are baking in something easily added after, seems pretty foolish when you can get the best of "both" of theses scenarios, not limiting you in the future.
@@sword-and-shield It isn’t necessarily one or the other scenario, it’s a workflow, recording, mixing, final the master and up to the next song. There is no later there is a new song, why revision something that is finished. Make something the best possible and finish it and go on to the next song.
@@Chaos-Dynamics " It isn’t necessarily one or the other scenario" Wrong again. Its is two scenarios, baked in and not baked in, each "scenario" producing a different file. You must be very new to the game if you don't think artist's have taken previous recordings and desired to completely re mixed the song, especially as new tech. comes out. When in a band, we have baked in garbage from analog recordings before digital dropped that would be so cool to have recorded them clean an process differently today. All about them options vs limits.
I record myself playing drums. I use a host of hardware preamps and a UA Apollo interface using the UA Console application, I have inserts employed on all the my channels going in (usually an SSL channel strip) which I can control from the drumkit via a midi controller (to finesse my individual channels to taste) all the drum channels are sent to an aux in real time which acts as a drum bus, it has eq and compression on it and some verb too (this is also controlled via midi controller from the drumkit) and is not "baked in" but is my headphone cue, and I can tell you it totally effects my performance (in a good way) I can even record my headphone mix as a stereo recording along with the individual channels for reference later on. for vocals I 100% use a hardware vocal chain too.
I was taught from the start that the main goal is to balance the preformance to fit in to 1-xx speakers from 20hz-20khz. Notes are hz. For best results it starts with the song arrangment, avoid if possible having several instruments using the same note/space (same hz), Then it is having the live room tuned for the live preformance, this is before thinking about mic type and placement, then it is mic type and placement then it is mic pre, corrective tools, fx, make it sound as epic and close to the end goal as possible. Great sounding HP mix to the preformer will boost preformance 100%. Now you are ready to Record. If you don't know what the end goal is, yes it might be good to hold off some commitment to post work in the daw. But there is no need to save everything to post. Some things you can just fix pre hitting the daw. You just need to understand why notes and hz go hand in hand and why you are tuning the surroundings to fit the preformance and adjusting/guiding the preformer to fit the mix. Mixing is the easy part of the whole process. If you find mixing to be the hard part of the process, you have to go back to start (song arrangment and analyse the steps). The hard part is guiding/helping the preformer to give it 100% and getting paid. I will never understand why we the engineers preach that this is a better work flow then this and yada yada yada.... Do the simple thing analyse the source, adjust, capture, mix and you are done. Simple arrangement = simple mix, horrible arrangement = horrible mix (even in a 1 million dollar recording studio).
I can 100% attest to the fact that tracking "clean" isn't always the best options. I did that for years, and like you said, would always uncover issues with my tracks later while cleaning them up. Now I track through hardware doing the necessary cleaning on the way in, and what do you know, no surprises. And my audio has voltage baked in which gives it something plugins still can't do, no matter how much any shill says otherwise.
Yeah I did the same. Once I realised why this hardware really matters, and how it can be really useful, it all clicked.
I feel like I was taught a lot of “safe” ways to do things and that it can be often the wrong approach.
If you send tracks to a mixer, it should already kinda sound like a record, so you should get the sounds you want on the way in.
I can’t tell you how many times I started compressing in the mixing phase, long after everyone is gone, and started hearing how bad things really were. I do a lot of full band at-once recording, which makes it even more crucial that I make sure to get stuff right in the tracking phase.
I’m in the exact same boat! Getting it right in tracking takes practice but that’s what makes us good engineers right?
I tend to use valve mics and split them to the "vocal chain" and a "safe clean" recording with at least 12dB of headroom. Best of both worlds!
Recorded bass today through hardware EQ and compression. Worked great. Tapping an optical compressor and some presence. Saved me work later. I just don't understand lobbying for saving all these decisions later. 550 and api type eqs are great because they are easy to reverse later if you want.
Most sounds can be pushed closer to the finish line with a touch of EQ or compression on the way in. You can even argue the less round trips through conversion you do the better so apply analog fx on the way in.
100% how good is an opto on bass! Which one did you use?
Absolutely worth the time saved making decisions later on.
I have listened to your reasoning about hardware and I am in your corner on this debate. I have a hardware software hybrid studio as my main studio and a computer studio in my second home studio in another city. I mainly do vocals in my second studio and I build the instrumentals, and mix at my main studio. Over the holiday season I was at my main studio and I did some vocals there. My mixer has compressor/limiter on it and great pre amps and EQ. The difference voicing on my main studio set up was so much more pleasurable. I could hear the full nuances in my voice compared to recording at my second studio. My second studio is in the capital and a lot of my artists are based there and it's easier for them to record there. I can work with the audio interface and get the job done but working through a good mixer tops it every time.
How does hearing yourself with the compressor effect your performance? If you get better performances then others will too. All of this is only about capturing the best performance possible, the mix is only there to do the performance justice.
I think it all depends on the individual. For me, Whatever works for me, may not work for someone else. But there's nothing wrong with using a compressor or anything when tracking.
Yeah I agree. These are just tools. Whatever tools people want to use and can afford.
I'm interested in hearing some of Ethan's discography, some of these decisions must have affected how he's worked in music over his life, at least I can imagine.
Yeah I’ve done some digging into his recording and mixing work in the last few weeks preparing for this vid. You can decide for yourself 😉
ua-cam.com/video/OFG19RRGZKs/v-deo.htmlsi=Pc8fOhtvROT0bOUT
I can only speak for myself, but with more experience I lean more towards capturing the source in its most glorious format possible. That means the right mic, a sweet pre, appropriate comp and perhaps a touch of EQ (prolly just HPF and a shelf on the HF). You don't need to go overboard, but capturing in some mystical "clean-n-pristine" method that then gives you the opportunity to do everything your heart desires to the source afterwards is just ridiculous. Capture at the source what you like to hear and what you want to hear and what you do here, and you'll never be disappointed. But, it takes work to do it in real time. And you're under pressure, cuz the artists are wondering what's going on, why aren't we progressing? So most peeps don't want to do it because they'd rather just get something down and then try to deal with it later on their own time when they're puffing on a vape and sitting in their basement.
Track it and be done.
I love this comment so much. Chefs don't add things to the meal after it's on the table. They know the ingredients that make a killer dish and they make it happen in real time.
I agree that you should have the vocal/instrument chain in place for recording but cant you use software "On the way in" monitoring the effects same as hardware? Why does it have to be hardware for tracking - unless latency is an issue? Which it should not be in this day
Latency is always an issue. Plugins also don’t sound the same especially in tracking. Audio hardware and its components reacts to the mic plugged into it. A good pre into a good compressor does something different to the software counterparts. I’ve tried it. Somehow with software the transients seem to still get through and the compression is not the same. Same with Eq. I can’t push an analog eq way further than any digital one without it sounding harsh.
@@Auldhelm Why should latency not be an issue these days? Unless your on a UAD DSP (which still has latency btw, and locks a user into their walled garden ecosystem) then latency kills recording/monitoring. And, latency aside, plugins are nowhere near the same performance as HW.
@@ThisGuyDude How much latency is acceptable in your opinion? - Because with modern computers
@Auldhelm 5 ms, Maybe (maybe) 8ms tops. What latency are you proposing is feasible with plugin-based tracking (with no UAD-type DSP box) and what program do you use yourself to achieve this?
@@ThisGuyDude I would need to upgrade to a true thunderbolt interface Because my current set up (Macbook Pro and Audient EVO 16 interface) can only achieve a 8ms round trip and run smoothly - it seems doable to me with a thunderbolt interface - I am not a pro and I am just helping friends make demos usually so it is all good
First outboard gear is the room. Thick room treatment first. Then a good mic, good pre, good compressor. Those transistors add clarity and sweetness that you can't fake. You need good tracking tools. Theeeen you can mix ITB
I like to use outbound dsp hardware emulation in my console but track clean and have the same dsp in plugin form to start shaping the clean recording. I think that is the best way to go.
Been recording for 25 years. I started with effects on the way in. Dsp monitoring on the way in but capturing clean is my favorite
I remember a few years ago Ethan had the worst take I've ever read regarding artistic use of saturation. He said that there is no reason to worry about what kind of saturation you use, because all saturation is the same. He has the most bonkers takes on things and acts like he knows best in the most smug and condescending way imaginable.
It's like he thinks he is the god emperor of audio knowledge because he had the "guts" to tell people that it's woo to ionize the air in your room to improve the sound. You're not James Randi Ethan. Just because you understand that raising your power cables off the ground doesn't improve the sound doesn't mean dumb takes like "all saturation is the same" is an intelligent take.
Yeah he and AP Mastering have mad similar hot takes about clipping and saturation.
It seems he started on this how cable myth trajectory which is fair, then applied it to everything which is a bit silly.
The only beef I have with this is that a lot of vocalists have a hard time singing to the compressor. The meat of what they sing is vibing with what we’ve dialed in with the compressor…but then they REALLY get into it and it pegs the needles. Great, experienced vocalists know how to work the mic and compressor properly. Inexperienced vocalists are a hot mess. Knowing which kind of performer we are capturing will determine for us how much we are safe to shoot for on the way in.
Totally agree man, if you are confident in using these tools while tracking, go for it! Tracking with hardware for certain sounds makes the actual mixing process SO much easier. I ALWAYS track with compression on vocals. I have many thoughts about all these controversial style videos coming out to ramp up views and validate one point of view... but I'll leave it at that haha. Keep up the good work!
100% Man! A good compressor (or even 2 😉) on vocals in tracking never sounds bad to me. And being able to less work in mixing is awesome. I’m trying to get my mixes down to 2-4hours per track. Not there yet but getting close. I may do it on my most recent sessions.
The rage bait guys can keep doin their thing, we can stay in the more positive/ constructive lane I reckon. Thanks Rhys, you’re a legend!
Norah Jones Come Away with Me album was pre mixed, compressed & EQ'd while recorded & it's an amazing sounding record! 27 million sold 😁
Yeah and definitely not the only one.
But...if we want to believe other stories:
Billie Eilish "When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?" album recorded in an untreated bedroom. Neumann TLM 103 into an UAD Apollo interface. That's it. 2 billion streams on Spotify for few songs on the album. Do we believe this story? I don't know....no one actually knows what they were using when recording because this is the only narrative offered.
Conclusion: just do it.
I completely agree with you. In fact I would go further in pointing out that a compressor reacts differently to a microphone than it does to a recorded, line signal. The transients are different. Plus the compressor gives you more headroom before you clip the a to d. Further, if you have great analog outboard, you reap the most benefit getting the finished (as possible) sound going in rather than going d to a, then a to d again in the mix. I respect Ethan Weiner but he also claims the AT2020 is a $99 U47, so...
Yeah very great points here. I didn’t know about the AT2020 comment though. That’s funny.
i use compression going into my DAW when recording vocals. I don't use it heavily but it helps.
I have come round to your way of thinking. I still try use as little processing as possible at the recording stage, but mostly because I don't always trust myself to make the right decisions. So much depends on the context, such as quality of gear, instruments, room and knowledge. All of those variables will come together differently for each person, and I think part of the journey is figuring out how to make the recording process as good as possible using the tools and knowledge at your disposal, and that can absolutely include eq and compression.
One of my favorite 500 modules is the SSL six channel. Clean preamp, but has a hp filter, a super basic eq section, and one knob compressor. I use all of those features. Don’t go crazy but get things going in right direction. When mixing I’m surprised about how little I need to do to bring things together. I also use a wealth of plugins too, more so for special tasks and bus processing. This is what works well for me and the artists I work with. That’s good enough for me.
The discussion only continues as long as we continue the discussion.
As far as I can remember, and I'm a bit surprised that Ethan would forget this, but before the time of DAWs, tracking was almost always with compression and filters.
Ethan may be speaking from a classic music perspective, I don't really know the recording situations there, I can imagine to keep dynamics as high as possible, they don't use compression here.
I deeply respect Ethan and own some of his books, but I agree with you here. I think the fear of commitment is a strong point for those who aren’t confident yet in how to use their tools, or if the project has no vision or direction and we really need to defer those decisions until the picture starts to emerge at mixdown. But as a mixer, there’s nothing I love more than getting tracks where a lot of the heavy lifting was done with the artist in the room and digging the vibe- then just bringing the faders up I’ve got a solid starting point (as opposed to the opposite end of the spectrum when you get some midi drums and dry DI’s).
Split the signal and record a clean back up track, It is not an either/or situation
Yeah I get you, I mention it specifically in my original vid. That said, are you gonna really do this for 8-10 or more layers of vocals? 12-15 tracks of drums? Or just learn the gear, become a better engineer and make those decisions and commit?
I’ve made small mistakes sometimes and none of them have ruined a song. It just made me better at my craft.
You have to understand there is a group of guys out their who come from a "audiophile background" and not the musician route, they may play an instrument or have some music talent but their mindset is from the perspective of the audiophile. This is 9 times out of 10 the people who are all about the tracking with no processing. Its a weird take to say to not use something on the way in because inevitably they will do some processing at some stage, so their argument is not if you should do it but when should you do it. Well I come from the old school where we had to process it on the way in because if we waited until mix time we didn't have enough gear to accommodate it all. So if you have 24 track, but only have 12 compressors and you need 18 what do you do? You didn't bounce down effects because of lack of track or noise and each bounce down was a degradation of tape generations and tape erasure ALWAYS happened with 456, 499, or GP9.
I'm in total agreement with you, its not about when you do something, its about HOW you do it. I can apply EQ and compression live just the same as I can do it on playback, so anyone that says otherwise is just afraid they'll get it wrong so they don't do it that way. Will you mess up YES is it the end of the world NOPE. But waiting to process things after the fact now is just another degradation in the audio by another AD/DA conversion that I can avoid by doing it on the way in, so I can be free to mix in the box if I want to. Its a time saver and actually leads to less degraded audio!
Let me put a twist to everything you said... why does it have to be outboard analog? I think I see cubase pro in background of this video. You can run low latency plugins of compressors and eq and print to daw on the input channel. Also you could choose not to print the comp/eq to the daw and have the return monitor channel on with live comp/eq on making it so that whatever is live and on playback sound exactly the same without committing to daw the dsp. So why bother with outboard gear adding noise... cost, complexity. ESPECIALLY for the new young poor artist that cant afford such things. Not only does this make more sense and give you more control it also perfectly recallable everytime. I will have already figured out the perfect setting for singers that I have worked with before and within a few seconds ( using a track preset recall ) every setting comes back exactly the same way from the last time I worked with them. Now I here the comments coming in already about how analog feels and sounds better... Now while I do love the sound of some analog gear, I have learned I can easily recreate that analog vibe inside the box. So in all do respect if you already have the gear and like that workflow go ahead and do things that take more time to achieve what the modern world is doing in seconds. But for those of you newer to the game... save your money and time and just become a master of the tools given within your daw and stay inside the box!
Hi, I’ve been mixing/mastering/recording for 26 years now…most of the recording I do today is out of drum machines going line in where we are taking microphone placement right outta the equation. I get the best results when I use compression going in…it’s seriously not even a question about it….also will use EQ going in if needed…I could go in without it but I’ll just be doing more to fix it in the box regardless…I also get way louder masters when I compress going in than I do if I don’t use it.
For whatever reason hardware gives me way more headroom too. I had a really hard time getting any louder than about -9 to -10 lufs with plugins. And that was really pushing it. I can easily get to -7 lufs with less distortion with hardware in the chain. I don't need to, so when I master to -9 or -10 now, it sounds much bigger and more open. Specifically kick and snare compression, and mix bus saturation make the most difference as far as headroom goes.
@ likewise…I recently about two weeks ago hit -4.6 which is my all time record and lost zero dynamics getting there…the mix being balanced throughout the frequency field helps too but I can regularly get into the -7, -6 range and maintain dynamics. Sure it takes me time but not that much extra…well worth the effort.
Yea. It would be a shame if anyone made a record with intention instead of leaving all of the important decisions till the end when you’re likely no longer in the same creative headspace.
Great vid!
100%. Couldn’t agree more.
A very fair response 👏
Choice is such a beautiful thing 🤓
Because the real answer is they don’t know how. They over or under do it and give up.
I think he agrees with you about compression and eq on vocal performance but he suggests only on the headphones. I think you should record it the way that sounds best. Compression and eq will be done anyways so do it while tracking for sure and record it. Not a bad idea to record a clean track too but I don't do that when I compress and eq the vocal the way it needs for the song. If you know what your doing then why wouldn't you enhance and level the vocal on the way in? If you don't understand compression very well then sure record a clean version.
Yeah, hate these kinda "rules". I like to get the sound right at the source, that includes compression and EQ. Everything else is influenced by each additional layer when multitracking also. Otherwise it's just "imagine this part is brighter" or "imagine this is compressed and sitting better" whilst adding layers. Madness. Sure, if you're not confident, keep a clean version or go easy but good lord... Mixing starts at tracking stage for most of us. I'd argue that the majority of decent engineers understand and practice this, it's also MUCH more inspiring for the artist to hear it coming together and sounding like a record from the get go. Lastly, many of us track in nice studios with outboard but mix in the box, what else is it there for other than to take advantage of at the time of tracking? Dude, it's okay to disagree and this was very respectful, but also it's fine to be a bit peeved by this kind of closed mindedness. Lots of respect to Ethan, but you gotta let people do their thing.
Even Andrew Scheps has said that that Hybrid Mixng and Mastering is the best........I agree
I agree with you, though, recording instruments and vox live though hardware and first bouncing all your daw stems through hardware...just adds a warm, rounded, gluey magic to the mix, that the harsh digital world, just cant nail
At every stage or production, ( i.e., tracking, arranging, mixing or mastering) hardwares are only tools. If they help to us to sound good "technically" or "creatively", we should not care about anything else. Get the job done and that's it.
Commit before recording...produce like a pro... Don't be affraid to record with efx, eq, compression, delay, chorus... Etc... if you are not sure....ot if you don't have a clear sonic picture of where you are going...record clean ...and move on...hell even choosing a mic can be massive eq right there...
Ethan can be so frustrating. Sometimes I feel like he just wants everyone to stop doing and using everything and just buy his RealTraps instead.
Haha yeah, it can be a bit tricky once people are also so trying to sell something to go along with their philosophies. Can be a bit convenient and lends itself to confirmation bias.
What a bullshit. He has spent a massive amount of time sharing his knowledge for free, without asking anything in return. He even has a forum where he has helped many people with DIY acoustics. I've never seen him shoving his own products down people's throats. You're making quite a statement, do you also have concrete examples that back up your claim?
@@bubbelchampagne Only all of the years he's spent telling everyone that they shouldn't invest in preamps, compressors, eq's, plugins, or anything else, and just buy room treatment. Then you realize that's what he sells.
@@dakota-sessions You're twisting words. It is a fact that room treatment DOES improve audio fidelity a lot. But as mentioned, he advocates a lot for DIY treatment. He doesn't earn anything by that. You claimed that you feel like he pushes his own products. But apparently you don't have any data to back that up. I also don't think he ever said that no one should buy the products you mentioned, he just says that very often better acoustics give way better improvements, which again is just reality.
But again, if you have any data about your claims, please provide it.
@@bubbelchampagne While it's true that treatment is extremely important, you (I mean he, sorry) take it to the extreme to then tell everyone that nothing else matters at all. It's an absurd worldview that just so happens to "accidentally" align with the products he (totally not you BTW) would like people to buy if they can afford them.
I see what Ethan is saying and he is right. However, do what you want to do. Either way, you're working towards the same goal, a result you're happy with, and then how your process is irrelevant to listeners who don’t care to consider it 😂
Dude, most of your critics just want to justify their own inability to fund outboard gear, or to justify their inability to comprehend the processes, and signal chain nuances, and gain staging that would come along with it. Thank you for this great video, and I have to say that it's redundant with common sense. Your critics will never get it because they can't get it because they can't buy it.
Indeed. Great point... Haters must snipe at the Sour Grapes they can't afford. Sad really.
FINE ILL BUY A REAL TAPE MACHINE
Hahahahah. Love it. I have used tape. I won’t be going back to it but hey never say never 😂
these are the same kind of people who think preamps don't matter as long as it's clean enough
No, they think that if two preamps measure exactly the same, they sound the same
Yeah I’ve seen his null tests and stuff fine when he’s taking about audio cables but the argument falls apart when you get to the tolerances of 100’s of components.
Hahaha. Yeah, I got into hardware the first time I plugged a bass into a real neve. I was like, wait a minute, that’s the sound. I’ve been diving down the rabbit hole ever since.
@@diyrecordingstudio If you've ever bothered to actually test multiple mic preamps to see what differences exist, most measure pretty much ruler flat. Tolerances have acceptable ranges for a reason
Im sorry to say i have tested all my of my diy preamp builds. None of them are flat. They all have a response and a character and all have very slight differences.
Take the api 2520 opamp of which there are 2 x in a vp28 or bt50 CAPI clone. Those use resistors with 10% tolerances. Put two full preamps or eqs next to each other, they’ll be different.
Great points here … agreed
There is merit in what Ethan suggests, just maybe not the way he says it. See these days getting amateur recordings is far more easier, everyone with a couple of years of exp. is suddenly an engineer, or worse a "mastering engineer" just by claiming it. Pro recordings, truly pro recordings, can be a hassle and potentially very expensive depending on ones fiances. Baking in anything not absolutely necessary seems pretty foolish. Why? because who knows what tech. might come out that renders what you baked in worse than what it could be without it, or maybe they come up with the tech that can remove what you baked in. If the quality and or process, expense of recording, is a non issue for you, than its irrelevant. If it isn't consider heavily what you bake in, that can easily be added after. To act like "well you are always going to throw a compressor on your vocals anyway when mixing" is an imbecilic reason to bake things in, because it could change. We were victims of baking things in with analog, before digital dropped, performances that can't be re done to even re record. So we have unusable recordings, in the regard of attempting to try different processing in the digital realm, with those recordings from years back....choose wisely.
I think both ways are OK...but....Ive found that Slate Digital's Virtual Mix Rack, going in on vocals is probably the "easiest way" to get some Pro Vox in real time, going in, the only Flaw to the Virtual Mix Rack...which MixBox could soulve this, is that VMR does not have a Reverb in it...Mind Boggling....if VMR has a better Pre Amp Moduals and some Reverbs they would be the 'STANDARD" OF in the box, real time tracking while recording
but....you pobably want to add verb during mixing and leveling, not going in anyway.....
Ethan is correct. Just add the hardware to the monitor mix.
Cant you also use the plug ins in the monitor mix? if latency is below 6ms? or is that still too much latency?
That’s fine to disagree. Have you tracked with much hardware before Craig? Theres a benefit of committing the compressions as opposed to adding it later. Especially if it’s plugins you’re going to use later.
@@diyrecordingstudio - I wouldn’t track with anything on, except in the monitor. Even with guitars I only record output from their pedals into DI, then reamp that later. That way I can change settings, head, cab, mics… you name it.
Can you explain what conceivable advantage there are to committing to any FX at the tracking stage? Adding it later, whether hardware or software, won’t cause it to sound any different. All I can see are massive downsides.