Plug-ins or not?

[Drumstruck]

.... inspired by the recording levels thread....

Do you use plug-ins?
Do you love / hate them?
Pros / cons?
Any "must haves"?


Personally, any of the few plug-ins that I've used - that includes the ones that come with PT and Reaper - I just can't get a sound I like from them and don't like the CPU overhead.

The ones in Wavelab (Sonnox) have been handy for fixing up some old '78s that I'm playing with, but that's about it.

[waitup]

I'm using a combination of hardware and software. I think plug-ins get better by the month and I reckon they're at the point where you can get away with it in the box. Most of the jobs I did last year I did in the box and a couple of the bands insisted that the mixes sounded very 'analogue'. I don't even know what that means. Sorry to harp on about the whole level thing we discussed in the other thread, but what I have noticed is ever since I started tracking at lower levels, the analogue modeled plugins sound better... but that might just be my imagination.

Some of my favorite plugins at the moment:

- Slate Digital Trigger
- Waves Kramer MPX
- Oxford Limiter
- Pro Tools Heat (not really a plugin but all the same)

For lots of the projects I work on, mix sessions might be split up over a number of weeks. The ability to recall quickly is a must. For those projects, I will mix pretty much entirely in the box, but I will always have a good hardware EQ and compressor on the stereo bus. That might be because it sounds better, or because it makes me feel better, but all the same it means only 2 boxes to recall.

[Ben M]

I use a combo of analog processing and plugins for mixing.
I have a UAD Quad card and mainly use those plugins. They're well modelled and affordable. Plus it utilises its own processing power.
I also use Heat on every mix. I find it sonically improves things as soon as I switch it in.
I like the Sound Toys plugins too. Echoboy and crystalliser are V nice.

[graemeh]

I have a UAD2 Duo and a Solo and I pretty much stick to the same group of Plugins: EQ Cambridge and Pultec, Comp/Lim 1176LN, Fairchild, UAD Precision Limiter and De -Esser, plus others as required. Also Altiverb. Figure I don't need too much more and after the thrill of a new demo plugin wears off I find I'm back to the old favourites... Couldn't do without my UAD2's!!

[Wiz]

I don't use many plug ins....

I use some outboard comp and EQ.

the plug ins I do use and like atm...

3rd Party stuff

Slate VCC
Cytomic The Glue
Lexicon MPX
Melodyne
IK Multimedia's 1176, LA2A, Pulteq and Fairchild Plugs
Brainworx Metering Plug

Logics Plugs

EQ (mainly for HPF and LPF and notching out stuff)
Gain
Stereo Delay
Delay Designer

Thats pretty much it...I am simple in mind and mixing....8)

I am finding I am not (on my own material) using much outboard EQ during track and mixing nowadays, and during tracking I am using outboard comps, and not during mixing.

On stuff I am mixing for clients its generally all ITB because of the time and recall factor.

[The Tasmanian]

Gradually using them less and less, even though they are getting better all the time, but when I do:
Pootools EQIII - for cuts/roll offs.
Pootools gate III + look ahead
Sometimes pootools compressor III - or Abby Rd limiter.
Various de -essers depending on the vocalist and how wide the SSS is.

The best value plug I have acquired recently (that actually sounds really good) is Vallhalla Reverb - $50 ( every other reverb plug I have heard is generally pretty lame / and or stupidly expensive and average)
Then its 100% OTB through the real good shit into a Pro Harmonic passive mix plus.

I pre warn my clients that if they want changes after they have agreed to a mix - then they have to pay to remix it again from scratch.
Once they understand this they make sure I and they commit to getting the mix right.
Vary rarely do I have to remix.
Keeps me and the client on our toes. It puts a lot of pressure on me to deliver - but GOOD pressure.
Its really an old school approach but the mentality of knowing you can always change stuff later (in tracking and mixing) has bred the non committal army of musicians and engineers. IE ball parkers.

[jkhuri44]

cubase 5-6 have very impressive audio quality imo...maybe not the bees knees for character, but really useful plugins...and verry "useable" if that makes sense.

[obutcher]

I use plugins simply because of ease. It's great to work on a song for awhile and when you get sick of hearing it you can just switch tunes. I don't like to use them however as the ergonomics of using them annoys me. The whole look on screen, click with mouse, drag mouse while watching that you're adjusting the thing you want to etc sucks as you're sucked into using your eyes and not your ears.

I prefer using outboard gear because I can adjust the settings by ear and not with my eyes. The whole tactile experience makes it worth it for me.

Plugins I do use a lot are:
- SSL Channel (Duende)
- Protools EQ1 filters
- API 2500
- CLA 1176
- SSL Comp (waves, want to get the duende version)

[jkhuri44]

i think duende is discontinued?

[obutcher]

SSL have their Duende plugins as native RTAS ones now. Check them out here: http://www.solid-state-logic.com/music/duende%20native/

[GlennS]

SSL Duende Native X-Comp is one of my favourites, using both RTAS & VST versions.

Generally I like plugins that do something that would be difficult to do with hardware, rather than to replace hardware. I often use iZotope Ozone & RX2 plugins. Another handy one is Waves Maxxbass.

Other handy benefits of plugins are that you can easily automate their parameters, they can "look ahead" & you can render them on regions or entire tracks.

The main drawback is that it's very easy to sacrifice audio quality for convenience without realising it, more so than with hardware. One should always be ready to audition the bypass button.

[The Tasmanian]

Oh yeah - I really like the Massey L2007 limiter - best limiter Ive heard so far.

[Chris H]

I mixed a live show for Chain a few weeks ago and did a live recording via the console direct outs. I did a quick mix ITB that I have posted on youtube. I used my favourite plugins: chanel comp was apples AU dynamics processor. The gui has non of the retro eye candy but its one of the better comps out there. On bus comp duties i mostly use Audio damage's Roughrider. It's a good thickener and adds a nice distortion when the output is gained up. Voxenegro's Voxformer is on vocal comp duties. I did the mix quickly relying on intuition and not being too analytical. I think it's an ok mix but a bit lumpy in parts.
Now the interesting thing is last night after a mixing session finishing up another project, because I had the old Audek all wired up to the computer I did a quick mix of the Chain track, using the ITB mix as a template, again by intuition and not being to analytical. The results campared to the ITB mix are in my mind quite interesting.
Here is a link to the firs ITB mix and I will post up the Audek mix tomorrow.

http://youtu.be/0XOoJLCIv5s

[Chris H]

Here is the same live recording I did of their recent gig at Ruby's. This mix was done through my recently restored Audek console using the previous ITB mix as a template. Nothing scientific re controlled experiment, just empirical what you hear is what you get impressions of the difference of mixing through a good old desk.

http://youtu.be/8Bctd4i0EZw

[Drumstruck]

Hey Chris - that was a really cool comparison - and quite a stark difference between the two recordings.

my 2c:

the first one was brighter in the upper mids - vocals and cymbals much more up front - but it sounded more processed

the second one sounded more like a live band recording - the venue's footprint stood out


I generally like more toppy mixes but I preferred #2 on this occassion


cheers

[jkhuri44]

re the comments on "using your ears with hardware". there's something to be said about the whole "click" thing on hardware knobs, and thinking "oooo yeah, thats heaps better"...we all know the funny experminet where a box was set up in a room which simply had a switch in an empty box which lit up or whatever it was...it was a placebo box, had no audio processing, was just done to see who would be fooled by it.

[Chris H]

One thing that I think made a difference is how eq responds with plug in eq verses the eq of the Audek. As I didn't mention before the plug in eq i used was logics chanel eq and the rough rider on a parallel bus darkens the eq.
However the best way I can come up with in explaining the difference is the Audek's bass has more tone with less energy while the plug in eq has less tone with more energy. eg I add bass in the plug in, the energy added to say the speaker movement is apparent but the sound is somehow way deficient compared to when i add bass on the Audeks inductor eq. The bass is tighter, fuller and present without stuffing up the mixes energy level balance. The other big factor for me was what the Avalon 747 contributed as the main stero bus comp i ran the mix through on the way back into the converters. The ITB mix had Voxenegro's Elephant as the stereo bus limiter with a few dB of comp from apples AU dynamics processor before it. Both mixes where "mastered" using Elephant only to gain the mix up a bit.
I am sure this example does not reflect the extent of sonic differences between the two options. I remember Chris V's thread a while back where he was able to get a very similar result with an ITB mix and a desk mix.

I think what my little episode indicates is the differences in what is readily available and easily accessible to the mix engineer from the two mix options. Sort of a comparison between what happens resulting from "using your ears with hardware" .....verses.... " using your ears with software".

[Sammas]

re the comments on "using your ears with hardware". there's something to be said about the whole "click" thing on hardware knobs, and thinking "oooo yeah, thats heaps better"...we all know the funny experminet where a box was set up in a room which simply had a switch in an empty box which lit up or whatever it was...it was a placebo box, had no audio processing, was just done to see who would be fooled by it.

Heck, who hasn't been fooled at least once while mixing? I know I have tweaked a kick drum to perfection with subtle boosts and cuts only to realise I was adjusting the EQ on a guitar track.

I used to get really involved in the analogue vs digital debate, but I realised there really isn't much point. Out of everything within the argument, human hearing is the most flawed element. Who hasn't left a "perfect" mix in the evening and come back to it the next morning and thought "WTF?!". Even though that claim to have really great hearing simply can't escape the human condition... things like air pressure changes in the inner-ear from day to day, the effects of caffeine, alcohol, sugar, diet, etc on blood pressure. They all alter the way we interpret sound... human hearing really ain't what its cracked up to be.

[Chris H]

re the comments on "using your ears with hardware". there's something to be said about the whole "click" thing on hardware knobs, and thinking "oooo yeah, thats heaps better"...we all know the funny experminet where a box was set up in a room which simply had a switch in an empty box which lit up or whatever it was...it was a placebo box, had no audio processing, was just done to see who would be fooled by it.

Heck, who hasn't been fooled at least once while mixing? I know I have tweaked a kick drum to perfection with subtle boosts and cuts only to realise I was adjusting the EQ on a guitar track.

I used to get really involved in the analogue vs digital debate, but I realised there really isn't much point. Out of everything within the argument, human hearing is the most flawed element. Who hasn't left a "perfect" mix in the evening and come back to it the next morning and thought "WTF?!". Even though that claim to have really great hearing simply can't escape the human condition... things like air pressure changes in the inner-ear from day to day, the effects of caffeine, alcohol, sugar, diet, etc on blood pressure. They all alter the way we interpret sound... human hearing really ain't what its cracked up to be.

Absolutely agree with all the above but I'm a bit surprised at how the quality of my own work can slip with the convenience of the total recall of ITB mixesas a result of doing most of my mixing ITB while the Audek was being worked on. Upon going back to console mixing and listening to work i did in the 90's exclusivley out of the box I realy love the sound of the work i did back then and i think it has the edge sound wise on the work i did "between consoles ie when i sold the Amek and the time it took to get the Audek into operation. Quality means a lot to all of us I'm sure but i will say for me at least, it was too easy in a subtle way to let quality slip due to the convenience of ITB mixing.

[GlennS]

In many areas it's often easier to determine the best method by comparing the final result rather than AB'ing along the way.