Sundown

In the musical realm, I have to give my original, first synth the crown (Roland D-20). I’ve had it since 1989 and I have yet to replace the memory backup battery. That might be a record … 34 years? That’s pretty amazing. My original Wavestation would chew through a battery every 3 years. I don’t buy a ton of music hardware, so I can’t really cite anything that has been a major disappointment reliability-wise. I also don’t play live, so that cuts out 80% of the opportunities for issues. My gear stays in one clean place. As far as other consumer goods, it’s a long list … Vornado fans. They are awesome for air circulation but I’ve bought far more replacements than I should in a short period of time. Refrigerators, washing machines, etc. have become short-term commodities. I don’t care what you buy, you’re lucky to get 5-10 years. Printers, ugh. Don’t get me started. Both HP and Epson drive me crazy. I got so tired with both of them that I buy Brother now. I can’t say I’m disappointed with Brother (they’ve been fine), but it was a conscious choice to avoid buying anything more from HP or Epson. As far as positive reliability, I have to give the iPhone some props (I presently have a v13). I carry it everywhere, my kids toss it around, and it’s the nucleus of my digital life and I almost never have an issue. That’s pretty impressive. I have no interest in an Apple computer, but their consumer devices are solid. Todd

Hi Craig, Ultimately I want to route a virtual instrument (in real-time) with the same freedom I have with a physical instrument. Using a stereo synthesizer as an example, In the physical realm I can take my Kurzweil stereo outputs and I can plug them into a stereo channel on my Mackie compact mixer. I can take those same two cables and I can instead plug them into two mono channels and treat them as two totally separate entities. I can unplug one of the cables from the mixer and toss the connector on the floor and only get one of the channels from the instrument. And if I reach around to the back of the Kurz, I could remove the right connector which would trigger a summed L/R mono signal from the left output. To your question, one way to accomplish this would be within the plugin instrument itself. But that would require hundreds of plugin manufacturers to change their instrument or code to my liking, which won’t happen. My proposed solution within Cubase is to handle it between the instrument and the mixer. You could also look at it as a mixer-side solution, but it’s almost a distinction without a difference. With my proposed dialog window (attached), I want Cubase to say “I see the instrument is sending a stereo output. What do you want me to do with it? How do you want it routed to the Cubase mixer?”. The third column from right is the magic and critical feature that allows me to take a stereo output from the virtual instrument and route it to the mixer in any channel configuration I want. I can pick a stereo channel (default), dual mono (two mono channels), the left channel, the right channel, or mono summed with -3/-6 dB pan law compensation. This would allow any existing plugin instrument to be treated with the same flexibility as a hardware instrument, using my Kurzweil example above. I don’t know how common my methodology is, but I never want a snare sample to be stereo. A stereo kick makes no sense to me. A synth bass is always mono in my book. And even with pads and larger sounds, I prefer dumping a channel and creating my own stereo image with effects and panning. And if I do record both channels, I’ll often split them as two mono channels and do some delay / pitch shift for widening. My proposed solution allows me to do all of this without rendering, and if I do render-in-place, I’m getting the exact channel and signal configurations I want. Todd

Hi Craig, Apologies for the delay. Cubase is similar in that you can activate additional outputs for an instrument (which are inactive or hidden by default), you can route a stereo instrument to a mono buss, or with panning plug-ins or even the balance panner (which can narrow to a collapsed mono-ish signal), you can do many of the same things as Studio One. But one of the unfortunate things with most virtual instruments is that all of the additional outputs (and the main output) are stereo. I want to take this to a new level that matches what I do with hardware. If I’m recording my Kurzweil PC361, I may (rarely) choose to run both L/R outputs to my converter and record it as stereo to a single stereo channel. I may choose to record both L/R outputs but as separate, independent mono channels so that I can apply stereo spread tricks or independent processing. Most often, I’ll grab the left output only and I might capture a summed mono signal by pulling out the right plug (jack normalling on the Kurz triggers a summed signal), or I may just grab the true left channel only and leave the right connector plugged in. Maybe I’ll even record the right channel-only as a mono signal because it has a component that only appears on that side. This is the level of flexibility I want with virtual synths and drum machines, and the with the dialogs I’ve laid-out in that post it would be achievable (with no changes to existing plugins or the VST SDK). It would save me so much time to get the routing I want ‘live”, adjust and edit the MIDI parts as needed, and then render exactly the output channels I want. I agree that you can do some workarounds to achieve similar results (though not all of them), but it’s tedious at best and if I have to go back and tweak a part, I’m re-rendering, etc. and wasting time. Best of all, if someone doesn’t want to bother with this functionality, they can still just activate additional stereo outputs and channels by default. My solution just gives them infinitely more options for routing. My mixes really started to get better once I realized the advantage of select, mono signals and getting away from the stereo train wrecks that can occur when too many parts are clashing in the spectrum. Hopefully Steinberg listens to my suggestion and can adopt this. I can take credit for the track division bar in Cubase (the horizontal line that allows you to split the screen). That was a suggestion they implemented 20 years ago based on a post/recommendation. Todd

I’ve gone back and forth on this, and I’m still not sure if my approach is best. For a long time I mixed with a clean master buss (no plug-ins). But when I would ultimately apply a G buss compressor, or a mastering tape emulation, or some other finishing process, it would alter my channel mixing decisions. Right now I’m doing more of a CLA approach with mixing into a gentle buss compressor (and sometimes even my buss EQ), because they are going to be there eventually. Then I’m not as surprised when the low end sounds different and I can make adjustments on the fly. I will also generally keep NFA’s Elevate Mastering bundle on the buss (in bypass or turned off), just so I can periodically hear what the final gain boost and limiting are going to do to the sound. I share the opinion that a mix should be good enough to distribute (absent level), as I shouldn’t be fixing things at the mastering stage. But I generally have to add 6-10 dB of gain in mastering to get to a 16 LUFS level, which makes me wonder if my mixes are too low to begin with. I generally aim for peaks to be no more than -3 to -6 dBFS on the mix, which gives me a bit of headroom for mastering processing. But I still find myself adding a lot of gain in Elevate to get to the -14 to -16 LUFS range for distribution. Todd

The main applications I use compressors for are the mix buss or mastering. As a keyboard player who writes instrumental music, getting a mix to glue together can sometimes be challenging and I find that a dB or two of a good buss compressor can help. My favorites are the SSL G, the Vari Mu, or for less color, the UAD Precision Buss compressor. I will use a compressor on a part that isn’t poking through. I have a lot of the classic software emulations (1176, LA2A, LA3A, Fairchild, dbx160), but often times I’m aiming for transparency and I’ll use a Waves C1 or Renaissance Compressor. The 1176 can add some nice color on a big rock piano part or a guitar. I don’t record many vocalists but when I do, typically I’ll use at least one channel compressor. But I’ll say this for sure: When I watch and listen to product demos on YouTube and I hear them squash the crap out of snare or drum buss, I’m scratching my head thinking “Why would I want to do that?” That “splat” sound is terrible to my ears. It reminds me of this old late 80’s Eddie Money track. I forget who said it (perhaps Chris Lord Alge), but he said “a compressor should always sound like I’m turning it up”. I think about that a lot, and if my settings or compressor choice are diminishing the sound, I’m probably doing something wrong and I re-evaluate. Todd

Hey all, I’ve been around long enough to know that when a company advertises their effects unit or plugin to be the “missing ingredient” in your mix, you’re generally going to be disappointed … Rarely does a single unit make a colossal difference and especially with the boutique / vintage craze, many plugins are a 1-3% difference in overall sonics. Said another way, there is a sonic impact, but it’s the last 1-3% of the journey that many listeners won’t even notice. But every once in a while I’m surprised, and right now I’m pretty knocked-back with the Massive Passive EQ from UAD/Manley. It’s not new to the market, but new to me. I slapped it on the mix buss tonight (along with the Vari-Mu compressor plugin) and there is indeed something great happening here … With just subtle cuts and boosts on the buss, there is a clarity, separation, warmth, and depth that wasn’t there before. I hypothesize that it’s the tube modeling as my adjustments have been quite subtle. I like the Vari-Mu too but between the two, the EQ seems to have a bigger “oomph” and impact to the overall sound. It’s definitely bringing a smile to my face. My go-to buss setup before was the UAD or Waves SSL G-Bus compressor and the UAD Precision EQ. I think I’ll be using these Manley units for a while…. And there’s a small, perhaps unintended bonus with this EQ … Because the frequencies are detented, I’m forced to choose and move on with life … I’m not fiddling around worrying about whether the right cut is 373 Hz or 417 Hz. On the Manley, it’s 330, 390, or 470 and that’s it (for that frequency range). You can certainly adjust the Q, but you don’t get other frequency choices except the available detents. P.S. I have no connection to UAD or Manley Labs … I’m just an amateur home studio rat who was pleasantly surprised tonight. Todd

I would have liked to have seen a rebuild of the Matrix 12 and DX-7. I’ll wait. Todd

I’ve got my eye on the UAD Manley Massive Passive, and either the Manley Vari-Mu or the Shadow Hills Mastering Compressor (but not both). I told myself, no more compressors, but when a $300 piece of software is two-thirds off, that’s hard to pass up. Todd

Hi Craig - If this is considered cross-posting, please feel free to delete. My biggest wish for any DAW (but Cubase specifically) is to be able to route VST instruments like a hardware synth ... I want to be able to choose on the fly whether I want a stereo output (and stereo mixer channel) from the plug-in, the left or right output only (a singular mono signal), a combined left/right output (also mono), or both outputs routed to individual mono channels (which is a dual mono or split configuration). I go through a lot of workarounds to get the signals I want from rendering, and it would be so much easier if I could configure the outputs and mixer "live" without having to render and re-render when I make changes to MIDI data, etc. I rarely record synths in stereo. Even when I use both channels, I'm typically using a dual/split mono configuration to do widening tricks, etc. My mixes got infinitely better once I chose to use mono channels for bass synths and individual sampled drums, and I much prefer creating stereo images using sends and effects, versus two channels from a synth. Organs and EPs are about the only sounds I record as true stereo channels (for the Leslie effect or Rhodes auto-panning). I came up with a detailed proposal (including fake screen mock-ups) which you can see in the Steinberg forum. I also forwarded it to someone I know in the company, hoping to get it some attention. I don't think it's something they would do on a point release, but I hope it makes it into v14. My recording/mixing life would be infinitely easier and quicker. Any thoughts or differing views are welcome. Todd

Hi Craig, One thing you will notice with Korg Collection 4 is that it could use some commonization / standardization across instruments. I love that Korg continues to develop these instruments (and sometimes offers major updates free of charge), but you will find some dumb inconsistencies across the collection (for example, changing screen size/zoom percentage is handled differently in one instrument versus another, librarians sometimes look and behave differently, etc). But again, I’m probably being nitpicky, as there’s nothing like having my teenage dream instrument collection available with huge polyphony, far more presets, far better editing interfaces, etc. It’s a steal for the price you pay. And there’s just something about those late 80’s/90’s ROMplers and how they sit in a mix. They just *work*. Todd

I like Taylor Swift, but I’ll share an unpopular opinion that I don’t like her newer material. When I listen to tracks off of “Red” or “1989”, I hear exciting mixes, interesting transitions, and arrangements that draw me in. When I hear some of her latest stuff, it’s washed in reverb, there’s limited dynamics, and it just seems rather copy and paste. Songs tend to blend together or sound the same. I’m not a hater by any stretch (I own some of her albums), but I feel like she lost something with her current production team versus the work done with Max Martin and Shellback. Todd

Hi Craig. As best I can tell, it’s Named User License dropped on your machine in the background (no dongle, iLok, etc). You download a download/license manager program, you punch in you authorization you get via email, and then it activates the license in the download manager. There is one annoying glitch with installation …. When you go through each instrument for installation, it will re-trigger the install of the software you just loaded. If you’re working on a PC and you get the typical Admin warning, pay attention to which instrument it’s referring to. I just hit “No” for the software I already installed and eventually it gets to the right installer. It’s clumsy and clearly a bug, but I powered through it. Todd

My willpower has not been strong this season, but the sales have been incredible. I recently picked up the complete Korg Collection 4 even though I owned M1 and Wavestation already. But getting Triton/Trion Extreme, Prophecy, PolySix, MonoPoly, and some of the Electribe/MicroKorg stuff for less than $200 was hard to pass up. I’m not a big fan of Kronos/Nautilus, but there’s something about eighties and nineties Korgs that makes them sit well in a mix. And it’s not the emulative sounds I’m drawn to (pianos, horns, etc). It’s often the synthetic analog/digital sounds. With some filter and envelope adjustments you can quickly come up with comp and pad sounds that sit wonderfully in a track. The other deal I fell for was the two-for-$99 plugin sale from UAD. For less than a hundred bucks I scored the EL8 Distressor (now in native format) and the AMS RMX16 reverb. I almost chose Capitol Chambers for some variety, but I tend to get more use out of eighties digital reverbs. I told myself I wasn’t going to get another compressor, but after watching some demos on the EL8, I was impressed with the range of control and color that’s possible. You can clamp down a sound without much coloration, or you can create an 1176 on Steroids. The 10:1 Opto setting is also quite impressive. Hopefully I’m done for the season. If Waves Flow Motion hits the $19 mark I’ll jump, but otherwise I’m closing the books on a good quarter. Todd

Thanks dacm. I wasn’t familiar with that unit and I love gear history. Todd

Hey all, I’m always curious about gear and recording history, and I’m curious what QuantX from Relab is mimicking. They make reference to a classic 80’s reverb, but they don’t call it out by name. I thought perhaps it was an AMS RMX16, but the controls aren’t the same and I’m not seeing any similarities. Again, only curious. Todd

I’ve already fallen prey to the UAD sales (picking up two amp sims and the Studer tape simulation), but for Christmas, I’ve really got my eye on the Korg sales. I haven’t been a Korg fan for a while in terms of hardware (Kronos, Nautilus, etc.), but I’ve loved their virtual recreations of classic instruments. I already own the M1 and Wavestation plugins (and I own an original WS), but II really like the Triton, PolySix, and Prophecy in that order of priority. Given that, the entire-bundle price makes the most sense despite owning M1 and WS already. Arturia’s upgrade caught my eye, but as much as I like playing their instruments, they never wind up in compositions. And I’m after tools that make my compositions and output better. I’m a Waves junkie too, and their FM synth (Flow Motion) and a few others have caught my eye. I haven’t seen anything in hardware worth watching. I love what Yamaha is doing with the latest Montage, but I’m not dropping $3K anytime soon (and if I did, it wouldn’t be on a synth but instead an updated DAW computer or monitor speakers). Todd

Hey all, I’ve been a Cubase user from VST 3.7 (~2001), and I use Cubase 12 Pro today. Maybe with some other DAWs this isn’t an issue, but I was recording some keyboard parts today as audio tracks, and it occurred to me that I reallywant a 0 dBFS meter/scale for my input channels, versus a typical channel meter. A typicall channel meter in Cubase is going to climb up to +6dB (though that setting is adjustable), but that doesn’t tell me much in terms of how hot my input signal really is. I’d much prefer a meter that tells me I’m hitting -18 to -12 dBFS on RMS/average, and peaking around -12 to -6 dBFS on transients. That’s my ideal input singnal as an amateur studio keyboard player / artist. Anything other than a 0 dBFS baseline doesn’t tell me much on input. Am I missing something obvious? Gain staging is extremely important, and when I’m recording a signal, 0 dBFS is the only ceiling I’m really interested in. Todd

Great insight Craig. I forgot how much studio time cost in the heyday. I still struggle to think that Bob Clearmountain mixed “Born in the USA” in two hours (the song, not the album), but maybe he did. If something is recorded well and the arrangement is right (and you have Bob’s experience), perhaps it’s possible.

By using a high bit depth and sampling rate, I figure it gives you the best results with plugins. One might say “why would I want to use plugins on digitized vinyl?”, but I could think of many applications depending on the quality of the source material. Maybe you want to apply some de-clicking / de-crackling. Maybe you want to raise the gain to more modern levels (short of limiting). Maybe you’re like me and you have a high sensitivity to mud, and you want to dip-out a bit of 300-400 Hz for your personal liking with a mastering EQ. Any way you slice it, absent the file size penalty, it gives you the most long term options to record it with 24 bit A/D and a good sampling rate. Todd

My ears aren’t very sensitive to sample rate, but they are to bit depth. 24-bit recordings have a depth to them that I’ve never heard 16-bit match, independent of source material. To me, disk space is cheap and 24-bit would give me long-range piece of mind. Todd

That’s certainly true. CLA doesn’t really vary his delay/reverb sends much. He doesn’t really change the settings on his 480L, etc. He just uses the return faders to blend the right balance for the track.

Hey all, I’ve suggested privately to many plug-in / software providers to offer gift cards. From a license/copy protection perspective I need to be the owner of my software, but a gift card allows my wife to give me something of meaning, without understanding the details. To date, no one that I know of has done it or taken me up on the idea. It reminds me of a reality in my profession, which is automobiles. I’m a mechanical engineer, but I do work with marketing and if you want to market an automobile, you better be sure you are marketing to the actual decision maker. You can’t advertise and market to a dude who wants a sports car … You need to market to the couple, who make the big spending decisions. Not all of us are married or in relationships, but many of us are, and no successful dude makes a major purchase decision without buy-in from his spouse. Plug-in / software vendors can apply the same learnings … Offer gift cards. Maybe you apply your creativity to make them special and custom so that they aren’t just a cash value (maybe you allow a special, custom message for the receiver). Maybe you provide a cool, physical medium that can be packaged like a gift. Any way you slice it, you are losing sales by not offering gift cards. But you can apply the same learnings to pricing … I can easily justify (if not even mention) a $30 or $50 dollar purchase in a given month. If your plugin costs $600, that’s starting to become a discussion item. Clearly many plug-in manufacturers have learned this and offer plug-ins at very low, seasonal prices. Again, the customer base may be single, in a relationship, or married, but if you’re not thinking about the other half, you might be missing the real decision maker. Todd

Well, let’s put it this way … When I renew my annual Waves coverage, I’m paying the plan maximum (about $240)… If they counted my plugins it would be higher. Todd

Hey all, I have a hypothesis about chocolate… If you put full-sized candy bars in a bowl, most people will walk right past. They have the self-control to say no, or they just aren’t interested in an entire candy bar. But if you fill that same bowl with miniature candy bars (the kind handed out at Halloween), not only will people eat them, they will eat more than they would if it was just a single full-sized bar. Sometimes much more … When I see the prices charged for some plug-ins, I wonder if it’s the same effect. I own *a lot* of Waves plugins. And most of them were purchased for somewhere between $19 and $35 over a long period of time. When I first started, I paid at least $200-300 for the Native Powerpack and The Renaissance Collection (each), and those bundles weren’t nearly as good as the Waves plugins available now. Similarly, I’m a sucker for the annual holiday sales. I own *a lot* of UA plugins, and many of them were purchased during holiday binges. It’s hard to say no to $99 on a plugin that costs $299 throughout the year. Both companies have been around for a while and I hope they are on good financial footing, but I wonder how they can afford to sell plugins so cheap, when the R&D and proprietary coding must take a long, long, long time to develop and fine-tune. Thoughts? Todd

There are so many sales right now … I just checked Korg’s site and the Triton, Prohpecy, etc. are at very low prices. I’ve had my eye on the Triton for a while. I own the M1 and Wavestation plugins, and they sit very well in mixes. I’m hoping the same from the Triton. I’d like to pick-up the PolySix as well. Arturia has the V-collection at a great upgrade price, but I never actually use their instruments in songs. To be fair, my PC is 11 years old and some of the Arturia plugs are resource-heavy, but there’s something about them that makes them fun to play, but not so useful in compositions. That could be my own personal taste or hang-up, but of all the instruments in that collection, you won’t find a single instance in my productions. All that said, the SQ80 sounds great in demos. The DX7 is good too (which I own right now), but it sucks up a lot of juice. Todd