I have an La2a and can say the UAD plugin behaves very closely to the original, bearing in mind the T4B in the real units cause a bit of variance in their behaviour between units. The waves emulation is ok but not as good as UAD’s
None of the emulations can really model the affect of the input/output transformers though IMO, which help give the unit some of its magic.
One of the joys of the La2a is it’s simplicity, works wonders on most vocals/bass.
In denser mixes (or not) you can turn it up to ridiculous amounts of gain reduction and the thing just works…
I for one love it
A hand-wired, tubed-based unit (LA2A) for $3,499.00 vs what comes the standard Cubase Pro 9 license. You do get what you pay for, but do you need a real LA2A or can you get almost to the same place using just Cubase or with just Cubase and some essential plug-ins?
If you could pack a notebook DAW, monitors and one or two other things, would an LA2A win over a favorite instrument and two good microphones (mounts, cables and stands included)? As DAW technology continues to mature, eventually, I think, the digital emulation will be completely indistinguishable for the original hardware, it may eventually improve upon the originals. It would then come down to the characteristics of an individual unit’s sound – something the original manufacture, wanting unit consistency, would be working hard to avoid.
For a hobbyist it makes no sense to buy very expensive outboard. (gear lust anyone?)
Tracking through nice outboard compressors is a dream for most but it does help in completing a great signal path from mic to A/D.
These things help make life a lot easier in a busy studio
We do tend to mix almost entirely ITB these days though…
I think they’ll always be room for equipment such as the LA2A and so on for good reasons, that equipment, at the the top of the list, sounds wonderful. However, we’re at an interesting place in sound. To me a lot of it seems to be mostly a a matter of scale. Big acts, big shows, big sessions, big gear and the flip-side of that. Demand for such gear also has a social component, “must use” gear is more style, or even more fear-based and may have nothing to do with the actual quality of the final master recording. If testing proves no one can tell if a recording was from a multi-million dollar room or was it done in Cubase with a notebook does it matter? Perhaps other thorough tests demonstrating no technical differences in versions between a file rendered from said big room or from the notebook are around or will be. I can’t think of any articles right off that address that sort of testing and topic. I’ll look around.
I don’t think it matters one bit what stuff is produced with, if it sounds good it is.
We still use microphones, that does require a certain level of gear expense though, good mics, good room/s/spaces, good pre’s, good compressors and good A/D.
You can debate if you actually need outboard compressors as its entirely feasible to track without and compress ITB if you wish.
Personally I prefer to have some control of dynamics before it hits the A/D but that my choice.
I think the point is to the OP that a good vocal chain, i.e. a choice of class mic’s, a few nice outboard comps and a good pre/AD combined with a suitable space (vocal booth) or similar makes recording vocals that fit a breeze and consistently good. It becomes very challenging if you don’t get that right from the start. It can and is done but takes a lot more work.
Anyway thats my take on the subject…
Agreed. My mics are a Neumann TLM103, AKG C414XLS, AKG C1000S, and various dynamic mics; my outboard comp is an Envoice Mindprint II (tube based), which is good for tracking. For my level of skill plus the amount of recording I do, this is good enough IMO.
I’m talking more about mixing / mastering, i.e. if you have good sounding tracks, what comps / EQs are useful in what situations to help the tracks sit together well. Basically, I’m trying to take my mixes to the Lenny Level who I know mixes ITB, yet his mixes sound better than mine by an order of magnitude. Skill is involved but so are the tools that one has available to them in their toolchest to begin with.
I agree except for some reason I like the Waves SSL-E better than the UAD 4000. But wait…my license is the Legacy version.
As far as digital EQ’s keep in mind mathematically they are all the same. But it’s the other stuff in EQ’s that adds “character.” IMO if you don’t want character and you need very high precision with the most possible transparency, I’m totally sold on Massenburgs MDWEQ5. I don’t really care for the GUI, but what I can sonically achieve with ease is what’s important, and for me it really is a gem!
To be honest, he and I have only briefly spoke about his process. I do know that he swears by the Slate bundle because he’s constantly trying to get me to subscribe, and that he uses Omnisphere. Other than that, I know very little. He and I haven’t spoken in a while, so maybe I’ll ping him to see if he can impart some wisdom.
I started working on a new song a week ago and decided to setup the mastering project as well.
My normal starting point for mastering was always a slow compressor, M/S EQ, aural enhancer (similar to an exciter but not quite the same thing, according to Variety of Sound in the comments for SlickHDR), saturation followed by limiter. I added at the very front another compressor with fast settings but smaller impact to deal with the transients and changed the saturation settings (which, for some strange reason, were set to do program-dependent saturation a la an opto compressor).
The difference between the un-mastered mix, the mastered mix with the original setup, and the new setup is night and day. I’m quite happy with what I’m hearing so far, and I’m sure I’ll continue to tweak things a bit in lieu of actually owning some of the classic compressors that were discussed in here and in the article linked to in the beginning.
Thanks for your contributions to this thread! Keep those comments coming! By the way, once I’ve added vocals and possibly another solo - already have a brief bass solo (!) and another brief trombone solo (!!!) but I have 8 bars that are currently allocated for a guitar - I’ll post a mix up here in a separate thread for review.
It’s been a great thread and I hope it continues. I’m glad you’ve found some new methods, I’ve learned a lot reading the comments here as well. I see many of the best Mixers I follow on youtube and elsewhere use multiple stages of compression just like you seem to be doing. I’m working with similar things and slowly getting better at it. Chris over at MixDonw Online – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr4af6MfAMfff8w7WqCa7Lw – has a strong concept of how to use Cubase. Even if some of the topics of his videos are about subjects you’ve already covered, he’s worth seeing just for how he uses Cubase – from good color setups and his routing examples, general workflow concept.
As I work on it, I’m using some stages of compression much more for tone color and EQ and other stages of compression and limiting for dynamic range including making parts fit together better. Everything – levels, panning, EQ, dynamics, FX – is interactive and I sometimes get very lost and have to back off and try again. If I find a good setup, I save it as a Preset and try to remember to use it again. I work mostly on band-oriented music, not big orchestral pieces.
Anyway, keep it going. I think we’re lucky to have the group that posts on the Cubase forums.
Compressors for EQ…why not just use an EQ? What’s the difference in result when using compression for this? And how do you use a compressor for EQ in the first place? (I’m ignoring multi-band, because that’s a bit more obvious…or is that what you meant?)
One example: Compressor increases the sustain of the piano, which happened to consist of mainly higher note frequencies. So in essence it’s like boosting the highs with the comp.
In the software realm, I’ll just drop each potential candidate in and set each up the same in terms of ratio, threshold, attack, and release, with the same makeup gain. Then you can bypass them all and start checking each one, one at a time. You can even use keyboard shortcuts to fast mute and un-mute the next and do A-B tests.
But yeah, I used to write all these concerns off about coloration and different characteristics until I tried enough compressors, then I realized it’s not a joke. Luckily plugins are cheap and often free and we can quickly find one that sounds good. I get real anxious when buying a new rack compressor because hardware isn’t so hot-swappable like that. It’s a bigger commitment.
Hi all,
Just wanted to add my two penny worth to the post.
I record in my “mancave” using the equipment listed in my sig below.
When I record acoustic guitar and vocals I aim for the best sound, with NO plug ins added.
I then pan, balance and adjust the volume levels so they all sit together nicely.
I then use eq “surgically”. I love that phrase as it explains what I am doing😁. Basically I add small amounts to certain frequencies, then subtract those frequencies from the other tracks, which allows the part I want to shine through.
I use compressors to help level the audio signals as needed in the track.
I have the full Steinberg range of plugs, some Waves and other free ones, and I dont favour any particular one.
One thing I have found, and it’s only my opinion, is that by using different eq’s and compressors across the tracks it seems to add a nice overall feel to the sound.
So effectively, i record to the best levels I can, then add plug ins, but use them all sparingly.
It works for me!!
Lastly, I just discovered some part finished songs I did in Cubase 5 several years ago when I was getting into music production. I had slapped all sorts of plug ins across the tracks, so I took them all off and started again and I am getting a much better result overall, which goes to prove something!!!
I never saw this post until now, sorry. I’m sure others could explain this much better. It’s a subtle but effective compression technique and I’ve seen some mix engineers demonstrate it. The compression is being used to emphasize or de-emphasize frequencies, so, yes, the multi-band is aimed at that job. However, try this if you’ve not yet looked at it. Take the Cubase stock Vintage Compressor and bring up the Preset called BritPop Drums and put that on a kit in Acoustic Agent or an acoustic drums loop. You’ll notice how it colors the sound as well as compressing it. I’m just starting to explore this kind of use of compression and have gotten some interesting sounds from it. I’m working on de-cluttering my mixes, trying to get more definition without losing the dramatic impact of the parts – a topic for another post, I think.
Again, sorry for the late reply and I hope the anniversary project worked out well.
Jim, that sounds like a very effective pattern, thanks for sharing your workflow tips. I like “surgical” too as a term for EQ. I’ve followed Bobby Owinsky’s books and videos and much of what you posted here is along the same lines as what he covers in his 101 Mixing Tips and his books.
Everyone likes to explore and over do I think. I know I’m still more at that stage, but I don’t mind. there really is no other way to learn all this stuff than by experimentation and listening.
I can honestly say that my “tips” come from spending / wasting lots and lots of time playing with different plugs in a vain attempt to “better” my audio recordings.
Basically, through trial and error with the plethora of plug ins available from numerous sources, I came to understand that this is the only rule we should ALL apply:
IF IT DOESN’T SOUND GOOD WHEN YOU RECORD IT, IT STILL WONT SOUND GOOD, NO MATTER HOW MANY PLUGS YOU SLAP ON!!
I think it’s better to spend as much time as needed testing and setting your recording parameters until you are happy with what you produce, then polish that performance with MINIMUM use of eq and compressors!
I was lucky enough to record at Pye Studios in London a long, long time ago…pre digital age. With the rapid development of DAW recording, I had forgotten how we had to have our “sound” sorted out prior to any recording sessions, quite simply because we didn’t have the facility to massively “improve” what we recorded!
In other words, when ever and wherever you are recording, get the best audio takes you can, and then tweak sparingly!!
I’ve also just realised that, because I initially and mistakenly thought that plugs in solve everything, I could have saved a small fortune on plugs I now don’t use
I really hope this little post helps you all save money!!!
You do get what you pay for, but do you need a real LA2A or can you get almost to the same place using just Cubase or with just Cubase and some essential plug-ins?
who I know mixes ITB, yet his mixes sound better than mine by an order of magnitude. Skill is involved but so are the tools that one has available to them in their toolchest to begin with.
