Protools VS SSL , Neves, Tape analog

[LH]

Can protools have that same fat full spread sound as SSl, neves, 24,32,48 track tape analog, because with the 888/24 and protools I'm not feeling it. What do I need to have a record production mix. My mixes sound like this:

Lspeaker ----- R-speaker (My mixes in PT)
LS------------------------------------RS (commercial records) sound like that. I want one and each track to have that full soond. When I have my headphones low a record out on the market sound great, my mixes in protools sound thin, thin, thin.

Can any protools pro provide a list of what's needed. Should I run everything through a Avalon pre for fat sounds? HELP [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[Stratman]

This is probably the beginning of the longest thread in DUC history....I hope not...we have covered this ground so many times.

LH, please do a search of this subject and spare us the typing.

[Mt.Everest]

Yes exactly!!
Do a search and you'll find alot of info on this topic....

But I feel like typing so I'll add some stuff in here...

Avalons are not going to give you your "fat" sound or whatever by themselves... And Avalons are such a market hype anyway, but ugh, i digress...But obviously the better pre you record with the better your sound will be..

The most important thing is YOUR WORD CLOCK... Get an Aardsync, a nanosync, an Apogee or whatever... This will improve your'll stereo spread greatly....

Also, You need to abandon your analog thinking... Dont mix and use plugins like they are EQ's or compressors on an analog console... Use your ears to make it sound how you want.. Dont match your techniques from analog world to digi world..

And finally, many people neglect this, but watch out for latency/delay issues.. this will muddy up your sound... FX need to be 100% wet, and watch out for phase issues incurred by using alot of plugs or bussing... My favorite thing i can't do without rerecording: Send a Drums master to a compressor and squash the S*it out of it and blend it with the individual tracks... the latency of bussing is PT messes it all up... I have to commit to a setting, then record the effect to disk, and nudge the regions.. Want to change the setting? you'll have to re-record it... Bollocks...

MT

P.S. I dont mean to add to this thread... This is a questions that people should do a DUC search before they post it... Its so redundant...

[Kenny Gioia]

Mt.Everest

You can do that trick. Just buss your drums to 2 different stereo busses. Add compressor to aux A and then add the time adjuster to aux B and obviously set it to the same delay time

Also use old Neve Mic Pre's, Pultec EQ's
and other old gear and just keep mixing on Pro Tools until you get it right

[Extreme Mixing]

It could be the guy at the console. When you compare your work to the best in the business, you have to remember that you may not be as good. There are plenty of crummy sounding mixes done on SSL and Neves, too. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it!

Steve

[Mark Haliday]

I agree with most the above...
>>It could be the guy at the console. <<
True : good mixes are usually done by good mixers, be they engineers, musicians or producers.
It is not a surprise if you always see the same names crop up on album covers...
On the technical issue, there is much in common between the recent Protools rush, and the SSL rush in the eighties
When the first SSL came out, everyone went raving "hey a compressor and a gate on every channel and automation, Wow!" !
The sound actually wasn't that good or big (to be nice), but it rocked mainly because of the compression and because it just sounded different.
Soon however, engineers with ears (and people used to neve consoles....) started complaining and getting SSL to upgrade Eqs,
preamps, etc. Also it took some time for guys to actually learn how to use these consoles to their full potential.

Same with ProTools :
My main advice is : evaluate, evaluate, evaluate again every plugin you use, and demos you can download. And do it again every few month.
At the beginning I was perfectly happy with Digidesign and Focusrite eq until I tried double resolution plugs like filter bank and now the Sony eq.
Also (this has been discussed at length in other threads) check bit resolution and dithering problems
I work only in 24 bit and have now gone from 44.1 to 48k, and I can feel my sound improving every day, and that keeps me happy !
[img]images/icons/cool.gif[/img]

[johnnyv]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Mark Haliday:
On the technical issue, there is much in common between the recent Protools rush, and the SSL rush in the eighties
When the first SSL came out, everyone went raving "hey a compressor and a gate on every channel and automation, Wow!" !
The sound actually wasn't that good or big (to be nice), but it rocked mainly because of the compression and because it just sounded different.
Soon however, engineers with ears (and people used to neve consoles....) started complaining and getting SSL to upgrade Eqs,
preamps, etc. Also it took some time for guys to actually learn how to use these consoles to their full potential.
[img]images/icons/cool.gif[/img]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I have some mixed feelings about these comments. I still own a 1986 E-Series SSL, and it is still used on a daily basis for top level projects. IMHO, it was not that the "sound" of the SSL's which was bad, it was simply engineers' old-fashioned reluctance to try something new. Isn't it interesting that even in 2001, in the era of 9000J desks that the most sought after EQ is still the "black faced" SSL eq (circa 1986).

Again, IMHO, once a sound has been committed to ProTools, it has already been subjected to the "PT sound". From that point, I don't think there is any difference between mixing in ProTools (and perhaps sending some of your tracks to external eq, effects, compressors, etc) and splitting the tracks out through an SSL and mixing there. I think that it is just a matter of time before the collective industry takes note and moves in that direction. Both companies make great products and I support both!

J

[Pepe san]

Oh no, not again......

[joy4u]

First of all, the converters.
When i went to Apogee, the sound changed drastically.

Second download the dithered mixer, it sounds way better

third, .... i don't know...

[Mark Haliday]

"IMHO, it was not that the "sound" of the SSL's which was bad, it was simply engineers' old-fashioned reluctance to try something new. "

True. I also believe those old SSL to be very interesting sounding if you tweak it properly.
But the point I was making was that even if the results were sometimes poor sounding at the time due to inexperience in using all the new potential of the SSL by some engineers, that sound became trendy because it had this extra "edge" due to the gate/compressor.
I remember that at the time I would have traded the old Neve I worked on anytime for an SSL...
The amusing part is that many engineers at the time used the compressors in the slow attack default setting (by ignorance or taste). This created a recognisable sharp attack on on percussive sounds that to my opinion contributed a lot to the perceived "SSL sound". Says a lot for the importance of default settings...

Mark