Swapping UAD SSL for Oxford Dynamic EQ
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 січ 2023
- Heads up! I'm changing the chain. Also the chain is now a STACK! Some of you have told me that the Oxford Dynamic EQ has been problematic for you and Mike asked if there was a way to get the same sound with something other than the Oxford Dynamic EQ. The solution... is quite simple.
Big Thanks to @RickMolloy for his thank you. I am blown away by this.
• Voiceover stack thank you - Навчання та стиль
Thank you so much Mark! These sound super similar but it is nice to get the dynamic eq out, since those are just more complicated to understand... I was trying to match your deep sea settings the other day and like you - was pushing the dots around until they looked the same :)
You're very welcome. Yeah, I think the problem with the Oxford is it's just too much. Too much trouble. Too much DSP. Too much to figure out. I love what it does, but the question becomes "Do I need it?" and when I think back to all the years I worked without it, with just the SSL, De-esser and DFC, I probably don't, but it's a nice thing to have in my back pocket. The stack will always be fluid, so adjustments are common. And yeah, Deep Blue Sea is a freakin' monster. I'll probably never really use it on anything, but again, it's just fun to push the Apollo to its limits and see what kind of trouble I can get into.
Awesome Mark! Thanks for taking the time! I think the SSL works really well with the chain and have been using it with good success with my slight variation of the Distressor at the end but yeah, i think it's a winning alternative to the DSP 'burden' of the Oxford. Agreed, sure, the Oxford is great...but until/unless UA might come up with a better way of managing processor intensive plugs rather than having to find tricks to distribute them across multiple cores, it's just too problematic and unstable for me to work around and the DSP Pairing/expansion options are designed for mix channels, not tracking, as you know.
Mike! It's one of those things where there's no wrong answer, just more efficient solutions. I'm glad you asked me about it and prompted me to tinker with the stack. I do prefer to keep it a little simpler, if only to make it all easier to deal with in the end.
The Stack is not wack Mark! I actually never purchased the Oxford Dynamic so I'm glad to see it go bye bye. Demoed it and yep, major DSP hog. Thanks for sharing this
You’re welcome Bill. “Stack or Wack” should be a regular segment.
I've actually found that the Oxford Dynamic EQ has been my saving grace for suppressing resonances as I have a very oddly shaped room. As much as I loved having that inaudible noise floor with C-VOX, the 88RS's light expansion does a pretty good job for me (I know they're not the same thing), pushing the noise floor down by 6-12 dB which is more than enough for me. Given that I have the Apollo Solo (needed a bus-powered interface) I had to make a choice between the two.
I will agree that the SSL has a better expander with much more control but I seem to have been able to tune the 88RS about right for my voice.
That’s awesome. It’s great for that. I had Oxford helping to tame a resonance around 500-600hz which just ended up in a spot where the SSL worked. The Oxford is pretty amazing for tonal shaping and I feel like I’m barely scratching the surface of what you can do with it. It’s nice having so many drag and drop options.
Oh Mark - I purchased the Oxford DE because you said its a must have - but no complains , I trust you more then my engineering skills so as You say now - I shall follow , But 4 sure will use it somewhere someday : ))
I still use the Oxford a lot. Just not for everything. It’s a brilliant way to shape tone. This is just an alternative for those running into issues with the Oxford. Don’t give up on it. It’s a great tool to own.
Thanks, Mark! Going to try the SSL. I replaced the Oxford in this stack with the Massenburg DW-EQ5 with some minor cuts in the 100 and 250 range. But that’s with the Neve 88 up top, with your settings for the 416. Interested to see how the SSL will change that. Since I’m getting two plugins on the site, any recommendations for number two in the bundle when I get the SSL? Also, wanted to ask how much DSP the DLX will use, and if I’ll still be able (or need to) use a stack like this with it?
The Sphere plug in uses very little DSP, maybe around 10% of a core, so it's very efficient. You shouldn't have a problem. As for a 2nd plug in, have you considered one of the Sphere plug in expansion packs like the Ocean Way or Putnam if you're going to get a Sphere?
@@MarkYoshimotoNemcoff Thanks! I haven’t even thought about that! Which one would you go with?
@@jeffstewartauthor They're both great, but perhaps Putnam with its two 251 models and a killer 47 may have a slight edge if we're talking for just VO.
@@MarkYoshimotoNemcoff I will get it! Next sale… haha. They want blood per plug-in at the moment. Wow.
@@jeffstewartauthor Yeah, the off-sale prices suck. During the big sales you can get the Sphere add ons for half off, and if you have a coupon to add on, even better.
MYN - question…on your sphere what boom arm are you using to hold that thing? I’m rocking a sphere and have tried a couple different arms but the weight of that bad boy with the shock mount keeps making the arms slide down…I’m looking for something solid and it looks like you have it! Care to share the brand?
Hi Frank! It's a Blue Compass boom arm. I also have one on the Soyuz which is actually even heavier and it holds up fine. The Compass is rated for 2lbs and the Sphere is about 1.7lbs. You probably can't see it because it's mostly out of frame, but I'm also using a Rycote Invision shock mount just to cut back a little on the total weight hanging off the Compass. The Compass has adjustable tension for the arm which you set with a screw on the bottom of the first part of the arm and I have it tightened a fair bit on both joint tensioning points, but it does work.
How does the Sonox compare with Fabfilter?
Never used Fabfilter.
I'm not a great sound engineer, my opinion doesn't really matter. What do I hear. There is a difference between Oxford Dyn and SSL and it is not in a plus of the SSL. Oxford is more focused, sharper, clearer and stronger, imho. I will say differently - I immediately recognized your signature firm sound when you returned it to the "stack" (hehe)
My prediction is that you will get rid of SSL very quickly, I don't know about the this magic word "STACK", you seem to like it a lot, hehe.
It's funny, because I've been an "SSL" guy for decades and certainly it has been my most used tonality in VO, so while reflecting on this change, I was kind of amused and unsurprised my ear was pulling back toward that sound. I get what you're saying. The 88rs/Oxford combo is fantastic in the "stack" (LOL) but I'm glad to have so many options and a path for those who can't run the oxford. For me, it's also a factor of paying less attention to how it sound naked and knowing that the SSL works well against a music bed or in a mix so I feel it's like putting on an old pair of jeans. I can guarantee this won't be the last time the stack changes.