On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Len Ovens <len@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, jonetsu wrote:
>
> > Not impressed by separation and loudness, which would be trademarks
> > of a 'transparent' DAW.
>
> Listening to the engineers remarks about his reaper setup, he relies
> heavily on plugins and perhaps outboard electronics to get an "analog
> warmth" and other plugins to achieve "tape saturation feel". So you
> should not expect transparency from either take. It is possible on
> the Reaper mix he chose to let a track or two go unprocessed... same
> with mixbus, but I don't get the idea this engineer lets anything go
> without tweaking.
Yes, I removed the "which would be..." bit later on in a subsequent
reply. Plugins need to be added to Reaper (or any other DAW possibly)
to make such a comparison in the first place with Mixbus 32C. Then it
becomes a preference between, say, does one prefer SSL or Neve
emulation over 32C emulation and that is, on a per-project basis.
Another project might call for other sound characteristics.
But only to play along, the ones with more warmth and cohesion would be
Mixbus 32C. Even though throwing in the proper vintage emulation
plugins in any other DAW would achieve the same goals in their own way.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Fri Oct 28 20:15:05 2016
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 28 2016 - 20:15:05 EEST