Home Recording Blog » plugins

Ampeg SVX Review

Brandon Drury — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:58:53 +0000

This is part of my Gear Reviews For Humans series.

If you didn't read my temporary review of Ampeg SVX, let me summarize.

The Ampeg SVX is amazing. Just buy it!

Now for the real review.

I've been a bass DI fan for a long time. I got tired up micing up bass amps that weren't doing anything interesting. For my style of working and my situation (The neighbors let me record drums so I try to give them a break with the 8x10 bass cabinets) there have been few instances where the bass amp was necessary.

With that said, bass DI is what it is. I've heard great bass DI sounds. I've heard not-so-great bass DI sounds. Regardless, there are times where it sure would be fun to screw that bass sound up a little bit (in a good way!). That's where the Ampeg SVX steps in.

I want to start off by saying that I don't think the concept of a bass DI is any way flawed. I think it's an outstanding way of capturing X sound. The kind of bass players that just look at a bass amp as a louder version of their bass are usually quite content with X sound. It's the bass players that have THEIR sound that require THEIR real amp and the special treatment. There are some bass DIs that sound bad and need all the help they can get.

The Ampeg SVX gives me the tonal control in the places I need it (just like an amp does) in ways that the usual recording toys such as parametric EQ simply can not. With a killer DI, some of the tones I've come up with using the Ampeg SVX have been outstanding. I love this plugin!

The Ampeg SVX comes with numerous bass pedals

Features
I'm not going to get too wound up about features. You can read all of those here. They've got a bunch of amps, some cool pedals, a bunch of cabinets, a bunch of mics and a couple different mic placements.

Much like Amplitube 2, its clearly an extremely well thought out product.

Sound
Ampeg SVX delivers killer-amp caliber sounds without fighting the room, ticking off the neighbors, or taking the time for mic selection, mic placement, preamp selection, etc. You plug in, twist a few knobs and you've got it.

If you want robo deep tones, you've got it. If you want mega midrange tones, you've got it. If you want distorted tones, this thing seems to do exactly what the Ampeg bass stuff I've used can do. If you want more "vintage" sounding bass sounds like from the Ampeg B15 just switch to the B15. If you want to use the modern Ampeg stuff with limiting, graphic EQ, etc just use it. It just sounds freaking good! I don't know how else to describe it.

To hear the Ampeg SVX in action, I have numerous clips in Killer Home Recording: Bass.

I really like how the voicings of the amps compliment the tone. For example, that extra something that an Ampeg B15 can do to make a track “more there” in the low midrange is represented perfectly in the Ampeg SVX.

The Ampeg SVX allows for numerous mic selection and mic placement possibilities.

Downside To Ampeg SVX
The only downside to the Ampeg SVX is its CPU usage. It's CPU usage is very reasonable for a relatively modern plugin, but I'm on my last leg with my Athlon 64 2800. I'd expect my next computer will be able to run more Ampeg SVX instances than I could ever stand. At the moment, I have to get the tone I like and freeze it (Cubase feature for printing tracks). This isn't a huge deal, but it can slow down workflow. Even with a slower, older computer the workflow slow down are well worth the CPU price.

Reliability
The Ampeg SVX has been extremely reliable. I've had problems with specific plugins (usually VST Instruments) having issues when pushing the CPU hard, but the Ampeg SVX has been rock solid.

Conclusion
If you want the ability to play around with your bass DI tracks and you don't have the time, acoustical space, or massive bass amp collection this is a killer way to go. I couldn't recommend this purchase more! The IK Multimedia dudes/chicks really have their stuff down. Great work!

SPL Transient Designer and SPL EQ Ranger Review

Brandon Drury — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:26:42 +0000

This is part of my new series of gear reviews called: Gear Reviews For Humans

The End!

Installation – The Ilock made the install a bit buggy, but nothing a few four letter words couldn't fix.
Reliability – I had a few instances where the plugins would not load in a mix. In one situation I ditched the SPL plugin and fired up a different plugins because it was a “crucial session” type of thing where I didn't have time to troubleshoot. Other than that, reliability was excellent. The Ilock is a pain in the ass. I don't care if it's the “standard” security method for high end plugins. I deducted a point because the Ilock is expensive and it is sometimes buggy.
Usability – Any mammal can work the EQ Ranger plugins. It's your basic graphic EQ. The SPL Transient Designer plugin is even easier. You have two knobs that are clearly labeled “Attack” and “Sustain”. These things are fairly nice to the CPU. While they probably aren't as CPU friendly as the stock Cubase compressor or EQ, they used quite a bit less CPU power than I expected for high end plugins.
Sound – The Transient Designer is a must-have tool for anyone doing rock drums! I'd be lost without it. A client commented that I had nailed the Dr. Feelgood sound (he's not picky) on a particular recording using Superior Drummer 2.0. I would not have been able to do it without the Transient Designer. It does something that compressors can't quite do. You can do some really crazy stuff with it on other instruments as well.
The Ranger EQ series sounds great. It never sounds harsh even when using max boost. Most importantly, it lets me mix with the creative side of my brain! I'll never make fun of graphic EQ again (except in the live sound world har har). The voicings of the various Rangers (Vox Ranger, Bass Ranger, and Full Ranger) are pretty much exactly where they need to be. I do feel the names are misleading because I LOVED the Bass Ranger on drums. I used the Vox Ranger on saxaphone with great results, etc.
Cost - SPL Transient Designer - $350 (street). Ranger EQ Series: Volume 1 - $350 (street)
Overall Value – A person could limp by without the Transient Designer if they had to, but it's MIGHTY nice having that plugin around. MIGHTY NICE! With the right compressors you could come fairly close, I guess, but the Transient Designer is now my go to plugin for parallel compression. You can count on finding two instances of the Transient Designer on all my drum mixes from now until enternity. The Ranger EQ Series is good. Damn good! There are many EQ options out there and at this price it's not going to win any bang-for-the-buck awards. However, it does provide quite a bang.

The Beginning!

Installation
The SPL plugins use Ilock protection. As with all (supposedly) increased security there is a loss of liberty. I was new to the Ilock game. That stupid thing cost me $40. Oh well. I first installed the Ilock on my home computer and installed the SPL plugins on my home PC which I use with Cubase LE (exclusively for making sure stuff works before moving it over to my non-internet) recording computer.

On my home computer, the installation was a breeze. I already had the Ilock working fine on my home computer, when Cubase LE loaded, it asked me if I wanted to authorize the plugins. I said "yes" and that was the end of that.

On my recording computer, I plugged in the Ilock, plugged in my flash drive to snag my plugins, and the installation process began. Apparently, when I tossed my USB flash drive into slot #2 it disabled the Ilock. Not knowing for sure if the Ilock was working correctly or not, I restarted my computer and fired up Cubase SX3. I was told that no Ilock could be found and so the SPL plugins weren't loaded.

I moved my Ilock to a different USB card (I have an additional USB 1.1 card because there is a chipset conflict with Cubase SX3's dongle and my motherboards USB 2.0 ports). Immediately, the Ilock was recognized and the drivers were installed. When I fired up Cubase SX3, there was no mention of any authorization and no plugins to be found. I opened up Devices > Plugin Information and as I figured, Cubase knew they were there but couldn't load them.

When I clicked on the check to tell Cubase to try loading them again and restarted Cubase SX3, I was asked for authorization and installation went smoothly as it should have.

I guess this isn't exactly a flaw on SPL's part other than the fact that Ilock adds just one more thing in the chain to go wrong. GOOOOOODDD! With that said, most high end plugins use this damn Ilock thing for better or worse and that is just the way it is. Whaddya Gonnado?

SPL Ranger Series Volume 1

First and foremost, all 3 of these are graphic EQ plugins which give you different frequencies to play with. I have to admit that I feel a bit of snobbery towards the graphic EQ plugins. I generally viewed them as what the car audio idiot with his hat on sideways would use. (Switch to Mighty Mouse voice) I, WITH MY SUPERIOR AUDIO POWERS, USE THE PARAMETRIC EQ FOR EVERYTHING! (End of Mighty Mouse voice).

With that said, I'm aware of the fact that API makes a graphic EQ, API 560, and there must be SOME reason for that. Mr. Thumpboy certainly doesn't have an API EQ in his dope ass ride.

Graphic EQ and Parametric EQ: Totally Different Animals
The SPL Ranger Series taught me a little something about audio life. Graphic EQ and Parametric EQ are totally different creatures! They both have their place in audio land. In the future, even if I'm not using the SPL Ranger series, I'll certainly be using some graphic EQ. I recommend anyone who isn't using a graphic EQ to pick up one immediately.

So why the change in opinion? Why do I like Graphic EQ? I'll tell you why! I don't have to think when I'm using a Graphic EQ. The intense process in my brains that tries to pinpoint the frequency of whatever it is I'm hearing isn't used. I simply grab a fader and move it. Done. The part of me that puts brain power into the amount of cut and bandwidth is also eliminated. I feel like I'm playing with a guitar amp more than an EQ.

For example, when I open up the Oxford Parametric EQ (which I like A LOT!), every time I immediately tighten my abs. I know I'm about to get hit. I have to think a little extra when using that plugin. It's not a bad thing. It's just the cost of the added control that parametric EQ gives. The only problem is you miss out on the possible benefits of Keanu-Reeves style mixing. Sometimes it's nice going through life with a brain the size of a walnut and mixing is no exception.

I found that when I fired up the SPL EQ Ranger plugins I just tried to make “stuff” sound good. It was faster and more fun. I especially liked using them on high gain electric guitars, which as you may know, is not an instrument I like to EQ. I felt like when I was using the EQ Rangers Series that I was enhancing stuff as opposed to feeling like I'm reducing problems as I usually do with parametric EQ. I liked the fact that frequencies and bandwidth were fixed. Either the EQ was going to work or it wasn't. I liked approaching EQ with such a disposable mindset.

The Sound
I'm not a guy who gets too wound up about this EQ sounding better than that EQ stuff. The few times I've really been blown away by an EQ, I've been able to match the results using freebie stuff after the fact. For me, most of the time the differences have been found in the ergonomics of the plugin which influenced me to do this or do that.

With that said, there is something that just sounds pleasant with these plugins. I don't know what it is and I can't describe it in words, so I'm not going to. (Maybe it's because I got them for free!) I just want to say that these plugins sound good to my ear. I didn't do any hardcore A/Bing. I didn't use scientific testing. I just liked using them.

Each of the different plugins in the series has it's own set of frequencies. The Bass Ranger EQ, The Vox Ranger EQ, and the Full Ranger EQ all give different frequencies to tweak. I didn't get too deep into how one Ranger compares to the other Ranger. However, I do have to say that when I was in need of creative tweaking of just about any track, the EQ Ranger Series was fantastic. I really enjoyed using these plugins!

Sparqee (Robo Forum Member) and I were discussing the role of EQ on the forum the other day and we both pretty much agreed that what makes an EQ really stand out is it's ability for to solve the problems you hear quickly. I found that the Vox Ranger tested very highly with this criteria.

The Ranger Names
Don't get too caught up by their respective names. I know that attaching instructions to a product's title increases sales (How else can one explain the popularity of the Boss Metal Zone?). I thought the Bass Ranger was excellent on drums. It seem to hit the sweet spots just like it did on Bass. I used the Vox Ranger on a saxophone with excellent results. Maybe that's just my need to break the rules! Look out, cops! I'm on the rampage!

Graphic EQ Limitations
I don't consider graphic EQ to be all that great at hardcore problem solving. I had a bass guitar that would explode every time a “B” (7th fret, E string) was struck. The Ranger series is not going to fix this. That's a job for a much more precise kind of tool. Overall, I consider The Ranger series to be the kind of buddy you get drunk with and try to pick up chicks. The Ranger Series is not going to debate the merits of a capitalist society with you. I switched to the Oxford parametric EQ for that, used a super tight Q of 16 and cut an extremely thin sliver out at the frequencies that were leaping out on the B note. Problem solved. Maybe the Oxford and I can sit down and discuss Existentialism.

SPL Transient Designer

Overview
The SPL Transient Designer plugin is good for 3 things: Increasing attack, increasing sustain, and kicking ass. That's it. (My step dad always said I was only good for 3 things, too, but they were decidedly more negative! Oh well!)

I come from rock drum land. I want to hear a BUNCH of extra crack when I'm sending a snare to aux send for parallel compression. Nothing I've ever used is as good at overemphasizing this attack than the SPL Transient Designer. Still to this day the free Kjaehrus Classic Compressor is still my second favorite. In rock drum land, I also want an additional fader/bus with tons of sustain added. I want a fader to bring up the explosion sound as needed. This is one of the most important secrets to mixing rock drums. My typical tool for the job is the URS 1980 compressor. It is very good for this. The Transient Designer is better...most of the time. The Transient Designer added a hint of chaos to the sound which is awesome some times and not-so-awesome other times.

Attack Slipping Through
I'm not sure if it was glitch or what, but I noticed that when I really cooked the Sustain knob sometimes the attack would increase dramatically too. I never really figured out how or why this would happen, but it was obvious during certain snare rolls when certain snares would randomly leap out. I'm not sure if I was just using too aggressively or what but I ended up adding a limiter after the SPL Transient Designer to catch these. Big deal!

Great With Sample Layering
I've gotten into this sample layering business quite a bit with drums lately. My clients are eating it up. I've found that I can only take the sustain increase so far until all the bleed gets unmanageable. However, when I'm using sample layering and there is no bleed, I can go balls-deep hog wild. I think this is where the SPL Transient Designer really shines. When you can just rip a track in half leaving little more than dried blood and something that resembles old pizza you can get some POWERFUL drum tracks. The kids love it!

Creative Uses
The Transient Designer can be fun when used on “wrong” instruments too. Putting this thing on bass is fun. You can emphasize the attack. You can completely kill the attack in an obtrusive, disgusting way if you choose to overuse it. Good! The best way to tell how good a plugin is is to see how bad it sounds when you abuse it. The SPL Transient Designer definitely passes the abuse test with flying colors. If you can't turn up a plugin all the way and see the client get mad and quiet for at least 5 minutes as you pretend to like the sound, the plugin needs to be trashed. You can EASILY piss off the clients with this thing.

Of course, all this pissoffability (I'm calling Webster right now. That should be in the dictionary!) isn't going to work at excessive levels in a mix, but when used with “tasteful” discretion it's the mega secret to monstrous mixes. At least, this is how I rationalize the ridiculous nature of my mixing style.

Conclusion
These plugins are obviously in the high end market. They sound that way. They are priced that way. The Transient Designer is a must for anyone doing modern rock / metal drums. It's just that damn good! The Ranger EQ Series is an excellent set of graphic EQ plugins. If you've got the $350 and nothing better to do with your time, why not? Get 'em!

Antares Autotune vs Celemony Melodyne – Pitch Correction Software

Brandon Drury — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:13:14 +0000

Intro
First off, I want to say that I'm not a huge fan of pitch correction software. I think that that the ever-growing tendency to rely on tools, tricks, and engineers to make records is a bad thing. One of the biggest abuses of this is in the pitch correction software world. I'm of the opinion that a great vocal take is a lot more about sounding “cool”, “exciting”, and “emotionally intense “ than sounding mathematically correct.

Music Improvement vs Convenience
Pitch correction software was developed so that when there is a truly special take with just the slightest pitch issues, the magical, one-of-a-kind take would not have to be scrapped. Pitch correction software was developed to make the music BETTER! The Ferrari with a little dent in it is magically fixed! It was not designed to allow singers to be lazy. Autotune and Melodyne are not supposed to be convenient in my opinion. In fact, I'd prefer that they were a little tougher to use simply to put more responsibility on the singer.

I think the average person recording at home wants to do a take or two and then rely on the tools to fix things. This is not how the big boys do it! It takes a lot of work to really get into the song and to get a singer to really FEEL what they sing! This is what the buying public pays for. When they buy a song/cd they are paying to feel something. Give it to them! You'll know when you have a special take or even a special moment because the intensity will kind of leap out at you. You should day “Man! I believe that guys/girl!”

So while Autotune and Melodyne will allow you to get lazy with your vocals and pitch correct them, they have absolutely no method for “vibe correction”. In my opinion there are way too many terrible sounding vocals with perfect pitch these days. Don't let this happen to you! Don't settle for a lazy, uninspired vocal performance! Do the extra work, get an exciting sounding vocal with tremendous intensity first and foremost. When you have to decide between ditching an exciting note or tuning it with the pitch correction tools is the proper time to try out the pitch correction software. In other words, use your Pitch Correction Software to take dents out of a Ferrari, not put a giant spoiler / wing on a Chevy Lumina.

Not-So-Good Pitch or Not-So-Good Vibe
In my experience when a decent singer is having pitch issues, it's usually because they have chosen to sing a part in a way that isn't natural and doesn't express the right emotion anyway. These pitch issues usually stem from not singing for the song and instead forcing the vocal into some other place. While it's common for singers to really think about the pitch in these situations, so much more comes down to finding the right intensity and approach for the song. For example, pitch problems have a way of creeping up when sad songs don't have sad vocals. If you having problems singing a sad song, trying feeling sad when you sing it!

I've found that there are times that vocals sound bad even when Antares Autotune or Celemony Melodyne says the vocal is perfectly in tune. There are even more times when a vocal sounds perfect even if the little red line in Autotune isn't right on the line. So in the end, focus on getting an EXCITING vocal take. The pitch will fall into place. If the vibe is there and the vocal really makes the song come alive, we now have the tools to nudge a note here and there.

Antares Autotune
As far as I know, there is only one major version of Antares Autotune. They have updated it over the years. As of this writing, they are up to version 5. I have Anteras Autotune 4. Before I wrote this review, I attempted to use the demo version of Autotune 5, but it turned out that Autotune 5 would not install correctly in Cubase SX3. So, it was back to the Autotune 4.

Autotune 4 is a plugin. You can use it real-time or to do “destructive” processing in a wav editor. I generally prefer the latter. Autotune has two modes: Auto and Graphical.

Auto Mode
I use Auto Mode when there are very subtle pitch issues that need to be lightly tweaked throughout the track. This is especially useful for harmonies and things of that sort. I have to say that this is not my preferred way of using Autotune, but it does have it's uses. I find that many younger bands are so used to the sound of Autotune (fairly similar to a certain kind comb filtering to me..OUCH!) that something is missing if they don't have the Autotune sound on their tracks. There is no mistaking it. This Autotune sound is EVERYWHERE! I don't necessarily mean the infamous Cher effect. I mean the more subtle use of Autotune can be heard on just about any commercial that has a vocal. It can be heard on just about every pop and rock song out there. Personally, I put it in the league of gated snare reverbs and spandex from the 80s. (Personally, I feel the use of Autotune as a gimmicky effect is quite a bit more like spandex! I'll be glad when this trend is dead and gone.)

Speaking of the Cher effect, this is generally most easily accomplished in Auto Mode by setting Autotune to be very fast and extremely aggressive. It will attempt to “round” any frequency that doesn't sit on a specific note immediately to the closest note. To explain this concept a little better, let's just say an E note is 1 and an F note is 2. If Autotune detects a 1.49, the note will be immediately rounded down to E. If it detects a 1.51, the note will be immediately rounded up to an F. This is the Cher vocal effect to a T. It makes the vocal behave much more like that of a keyboard with fixed pitches. This sounds entirely unnatural, of course, because the human voice naturally varies in pitch. The human voice is more like a slide guitar than a piano. (By the way, the reason I'm explaining this whole Cher effect to you is so you know that if you start hearing that annoying garbly crap you know immediately to slow Autotune down. Be especially careful not to let young bands hear this warble even one time. They may want the damn effect on every single syllable! Rolaids spells “gun” “shot” “to” “head”) If you really have to use this ridiculous gimmick and I'm merely showing my age by shooting it down, do it in taste and in moderation. Do it so that it does add something to the song, even if us ancient 27 year olds don't get it.

Auto Mode can be used both in real-time as an insert on a track or to destructively process the wav file itself. I can't remember a time that I've ever used Auto Mode for destructive processing. I prefer the graphical editor for that because it means I definitely have a note that I do not like and I need to fix it. (That's one of the few times that I'll use “fix” when discussing recording).

Graphical Mode
Autotune also allows us to use Graphical Mode. I like Graphical Mode because I can get in there and adjust pitch myself without worrying about the software screwing it up too badly. I'll double click on a file in Cubase SX3 to open the wav editor. I'd highly the phrase with the problem, fire up Autotune (which I have a shortcut for) and then hit the preview button. This will allow Autotune to analyze the pitch and then draw a line on the screen to indicate the pitch. Autotune is not perfect at this “tracking”. It has a tendency to leave gaps from time to time. I've never really understood it. It's very frustrating when these gabs occur exactly on the note that needs to be fixed.

Autotune's GUI (graphic user interface) is not exactly cutting edge on Autotune 4, but I hear it has improved with Autotune 5. I guess it's better than command line, but it's not exactly top notch in it's ability to draw, cut, paste, etc. I frequently curse the screen when attempting to use the Autotune interface. However, when it works, it works well.

As a person who is devoid of any formal musical education, I've had to learn to hear pitch the good old fashioned way. After I got the hand of vocal pitch being “off”, it's taken me years to know if a pitch is flat or sharp. I just knew it was “off”. By using the Autotune Graphical Mode as visual confirmation, I've been able to develop my ear to the point where I can tell if a pitch is sharp or flat. This may not be a big deal for people who are formally trained, but it's a pretty cool side benefit for the musically brain dead. (That's me!).

Graphical Mode gives the option for drawing lines. If you hold down the control key, you can draw straight lines. Be VERY careful with this. I've actually had bands who have paid me to straight line every single word on an entire album. You have no idea how demoralizing this is! It's probably not as bad as getting raped. We'll leave it at that! I have found that straight lining long notes that drift is a good way of dealing with that problem, but overall I'm very hesitant to straight line. There is an “auto” button in graphical mode which I usually try to use first. It will automatically draw a line, but it will often cause as many problems as it fixes. However, the problems it does fix are usually a better alternative than simply straight lining everything to death.

Celemony Melodyne
Among all the big boys I've talked to, it seems to be a consensus that Melodyne is the most popular for pitch correction software. I was excited to see how Melodyne compared to Autotune. The rumor going around is that Melodyne is more natural that Autotune. I wanted to find out for myself.

I had no idea which version of Melodyne to order. I was in a situation where I had an upcoming session and I needed to order immediately to get my new audio interface in time. I went with my gut and ordered the cheapest version (Melodyne Uno) expecting Melodyne to use similar logic to Cubase and every other software product I've ever encountered. I expected an upgrade to “better” versions to be discounted to encourage people to actually upgrade. I was mistaken. Long story short! Do your research before ordering Melodyne!

Melodyne Uno
I received Cubase Uno the day before a big session that would require some pitch correction. This particular singer uses pitch correction liberally. (He's the boss!) It needs to be said that I comp vocals heavily. In search of the great take, there may be 100 or so pieces that have been comped together in a session. I usually like leaving them in pieces on the track because there is almost always something I mess up, bump, delete by accident, etc.

It turns out that Melodyne Uno is just a one track editor. Regardless of the delusions I had, it's just like Sound Forge or Wavelab but it's only process is pitch correction (and the other Melodyne features). In order for me to use Melodyne Uno, I would have to render my comped vocal to a single wav file, find that wav file in the audio folder, and then open it in Uno. Because Melodyne Uno is a one track editor, there is no way to hear the pitch corrections in context with the song. In other words, a person just has to assume the changes Melodyne is making are going to make the track sound good. I HATE this. This is completely unacceptable. Long story short, Melodyne Uno does not work with my style of recording. Bummer! Note: Melodyne Uno has a Rewire feature and I could not, for the life of me, figure out what purpose this served.

All is not lost. There is a Melodyne Plugin. This ended up being the product for me, although it took a little time to get used to. Melodyne Plugin actually works within Cubase. This is a huge first step. When there is a problem note and I want to use Autotune, I simply double click on the wav file, highlight the phrase that has the problem, open Auto-tune, draw my lines, process it and listen back. Done. The track has been destructively edited and the changes made my Autotune are permanently embedded on the track unless I hit undo. I like this method of working. Melodyne Plugin does a hybrid of sorts. Melodyne plugin must be used as an insert. When there is a problem phrase, I hit the record button in Melodyne (the actual term is “transfer”) and then hit play on the track in Cubase. I hit stop when the phrase is over. Then Melodyne analyzes and processes the phrase. Ironically, the tuning is pretty much automatic. It's already tuned once it is loaded in. There have been times where I haven't wanted a word or two tuned, and that was as easy as removing those words from Melodyne. When I'm finished, I do nothing. The track is fixed.

Basically, Melodyne Plugin works like a the switch thingy on train tracks. When Cubase reaches a point in the song where I have made tunings in Melodyne, Melodyne temporarily switches from the wav file in Cubase to the wav file created by Melodyne. When the Melodyne fixes are finished, it switches back to the file in Cubase. I find this method both genius and stupid at the same time. Let me explain. I really like this way of working. However, Melodyne will continue to act like a switch for as long as it is inserted on a channel and engaged. This causes problems if we decide to re-record a phrase. Every time I play that phrase back, I will hear the old version, even if I delete that section out of Cubase and even if I re-record a new file. It's also common for me to do very rough “automation” simply by dragging the wav file down to make it's volume smaller. If I fixed a pitch issue in the vocal with Melodyne, if I were to reduce the amplitude on the file within Cubase (on the actual waveform itself), it would make no difference on anything that was fixed with Melodyne because Melodyne is playing a totally different wav file that simply does not exist in Cubase. I haven't checked to see what pre-fader aux sends do yet. I'm expecting a pre-fader aux send to use the old track, which could be interesting (or TERRIBLE!). Basically this method isn't horrendous, but it's just one more thing a recording dude has to think about it. I hate having things like this on my mind during a vocal session. Once we are happy with a vocal, I immediately render the stupid file down and ditch Melodyne on that channel. (Luckily, using “Lanes” in Cubase I can keep all my old vocal pieces for when I need them).

It turns out that Melodyne does quite a bit more than just pitch correction. It can allow you to quickly and easily change the melody of a track. (I've not really found a use for that, but I guess it could be a fun joke!). The thing that does interest me just a little bit is the ability to adjust timing. You can ruin a track very quickly like this. I guess that's a good thing. Over the years, there have been tiny little timing things that have made me want to puke. Normally, I would just have the singer do it until it is right. However, there are times when the singer likes these bad timing phrases. With Melodyne I can go in there and change it, piss off the client, and then they never come back! One down, a bunch of other clients to go!

Melodyne vs Autotune – The Sound
Simply put, Autotune is more aggressive than Melodyne when it comes to fixing pitch. Autotune has way more controls for auto mode, even though I don't consider these controls to be exactly intuitive. (“Intuitive” may not be the right word. I start playing with the knobs and it's not always obvious what I'm changing.) I think the reason most of the big boys consider Melodyne to be more natural has to do with it's subtle nature. I found that Melodyne, even at it's most aggressive setting was less likely to fix issues with long, sustained notes drifting. Autotune can fix these easily.

If I had to choose between slapping up Melodyne or Autotune in auto mode, for most things, I would probably go with Melodyne. It's least likely to screw up. This may be due to it's more relaxed nature or may be due to some kind of superior technology. I'm going to go with “relaxed nature”. I found that when a pitch problem came along, I was reaching for Melodyne first. If Melodyne sounded weird, didn't fix the problem, or the problem was a little drastic, I would open it up in Autotune for more surgical work.

The big thing that separates Melodyne and Autotune is the handling of vibrato. I'm not sure if it's just a fluke or if the times are a changin', but I've had three projects in a row that had used TONS of vocal vibrato. I've found Autotune to be useless in this setting. Maybe those knobs that don't appear to do anything would fix this. They haven't for me so far. Maybe I'm just an idiot, but Autotune on vibrato is absolutely horrible. However, Melodyne is AWESOME on vibrato. Without having a clue I was able to shift vibrato so that it sounded great with no effort.

I find that some singers like to take their time sliding into notes. The best singers just hit the note: BING! It's an “A”. Most singers have to kind of ramp up or down into each note. Some singers are slower about ramping up or down to the desired note. This ramping issue needs to be dealt with in front of the microphone and not after. Autotune HATES this ramping thing and Melodyne isn't exactly perfect with it either. I've never had luck using tools to fix this ramping issue. If you try to redraw the ramp up so that it's quicker, you can clearly see that you are asking quite a bit out of Autotune. It may have to shift up 3 or 4 semi-tones. This is always going to sound funny. It sounds even funnier when you hear the shift of 3 or 4 semi-tones in the middle of a ramp. However, of the two, Melodyne handled this better than Autotune in my opinion.

Melodyne vs Autotune – Workflow
As explained above, both Melodyne and Autotune used different methods of working. Melodyne Uno simply did not fit my style. Melodyne Plugin was much better for me, but I HATE the fact that I have to remember that I have Melodyne inserted on a given channel. I would greatly prefer for it to work in destructive mode so that I could immediately apply it to the track at hand and not have to think anymore. I think Autotune is much more user friendly in this regard. In the end, I guess the Melodyne Plugin's workflow method isn't horrible, but it could be better. It does waste time in a session because I'm an idiot and can't remember to take it off when necessary.

Conclusion
When it comes to Melodyne vs Autotune, I've come to the conclusion that I need both of them. I love the fact that pitch is sort of a given in Melodyne. It makes the process very simple. If the vocal doesn't work in Melodyne, I try graphical mode in Autotune. If that doesn't work, we fix it the old fashioned way. It seems that everything that Autotune fails at, Melodyne does well in. Examples of this include vibrato and overall natural, subtle processing. The same could be said for Autotune. Melodyne doesn't always get aggressive when it needs to, but Autotune excels at the aggressive stuff. Melodyne has a bunch of fancy timing features and such. I wouldn't pay for these, but I'm old school. You might. If you are into the idiotic Cher effects, Autotune is better at mangling audio than Melodyne. (Please don't do this! I'm begging you!)

In terms of workflow, I think Autotune has the upper hand. I have to use some of my own brain's limited short term memory when I have Melodyne on an insert. I DO NOT have RAM to spare. (Again, this is my own brain's RAM, not my computer's RAM.)

If you actually took the time necessary to read this entire article, get a life! Ha ha ha!

Brandon

Antress VST Plugins – I Love Them!

Brandon Drury — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:58:02 +0000

Recently I've been mixing quite a bit. I've had some projects that were put on hold that have been brought up from the dead, so to speak. I just found Antress plugins maybe 2 weeks ago and they have been getting HEAVY use on my mixes. Well, as heavy as I can go with them. Some of their plugins will chew right through a CPU. In fact, when I first tried them out, I went nuts on a drum kit with compressors and Eqs. I ran out of CPU power on my AMD Athlon 64 2800. Admittedly, this is not exactly a cutting edge computer, but I do have to say that Antress plugins dramatically more CPU power than the Waves plugins I typically use.

EQs
Before we get started, I want to say flat out that I DO NOT care about emulations. I have no idea what a real Neve EQ really sounds like as I've only played around with one a single time (although it was pretty damn awesome!!). The real deal Eqs have this way of changing the tone without sounding like you put EQ on it. Plugins have conventionally had this tone where they just added stuff to the track, but really didn't fix what was in the track. It's hard to explain. You know how those Boss bass distortion pedals sound? They keep the low end fairly clean but add a bunch of fizz to the high end. That's kind of what my experience has been with most EQ plugins and NOT what the hardware Eqs I've played with from API and Neve sounded like.

Luckily, plugins are improving. The Antress people have included quite a few Neve channel strips in their arsenal. I have to admit that these plugins do have an extra something to them when compared to the Waves stuff that I'm used to. Generally speaking, you won't catch me boosting much with Waves stuff and if I do it's usually only a few DB. The Antress Neve stuff is different. I just twist the knobs and it ends up sounding great. I've found that I can dial in more click in a metal kick drum with the Antress stuff than I can with the Waves plugins without sounding “weird”. It just sounds more “right” with the Antress stuff.

With that said, I don't use EQ that much anyway except for getting stuff to fit together in a dense mix. So I really haven't used the Antress EQ stuff that often. When I have, I've been very pleased.

Compressors
The Antress package comes with numerous compressors. There are probably 10 different compressors in there. Overall, I can't say that any of them really blew my mind. They did have more “attitude” than the Waves stuff I'm used to. I thought to myself “Alright! Attitude! I'll same my room mics in DFH Superior and see what happens”. Well, I was a little disappointed. While the compressors do have attitude, I couldn't find one compressor that was fast enough for my room mic tastes. All of them accentuated that initial click sound in the beginning of the transient. This is useful in some situations, but it was not what I was looking for when crushing my room mics. For all I know, there is no hardware compressor that can do that. I don't care. After mixing with Waves plugins for years and years, I've grown to like the sound of zero attack in my room mics.

With that said, there are have been two compressor type plugins that have really stood out to me and they make my mixes better! The first is the Antress Painkiller. It is very simple. It has a gain knob and a threshold knob (or something to that effect). I appears to be a limiter, but it is just a tad slow, which works out great on drums. I've been using it on my drum bus and on my parallel compression bus. I'll get VERY aggressive on the parallel compression bus but then got quite a bit lighter on the drum bus. I love the fact that there are only 2 knobs. It's my nature to twist all knobs and really experiment. This is a curse and a blessing. Fortunately, great products like this allow me to get the tones I want without screwing anything up. It's hard enough to set 2 knobs to sound right, let alone 10. You can hear this in my member's only, Electric Guitar Mic Shootout.

The other compressor that I've been very excited about it is the Manley clone. Again, I have no idea what a real Manley compressor sounds like, but I LOVE this thing on the 2 bus. The Manley adds a bit of crunch to everything even when used subtly. I'm not exactly sure what it is doing or how it is doing it, but I like it. I've been using it set fast. I have to be very careful when using too fast of a release time on the 2bus because this can distort the low end. (If the Wavelength of the frequency is larger than the release time of the compressor, distortion can occur).

I tried out every compressor on my distorted electric guitar bus of a rock band I recorded live at Echo Echo Studios. I was looking for a little “grind” or a little “harmonic content”. I was looking for a little “liveliness”. So, I tried out each compressor to knock down 3dB off my electric guitars and then boost them back up so that I could A/B them with uncompressed electric guitars. In this particular application, only 2 of the compressors did anything cooler than the Waves Rcomp. The Antress tube compressor had just a touch of extra something to the track. The Antress Manley clone also added just a little “crunch” just like it did on the 2bus. However, I guess I was getting towards the end of the mix, because both the Manley clone and the tube compressor pushed my CPU over the edge. I went back to the Rcomp and was fine. The extra something in the Antress tube compressor plugin wasn't worth the CPU troubles in this particular case.

Conclusion
At the competitive price of FREE, the Antress plugins are a hell of a value. I'd recommend them to anyone who wants to try out some new plugins. I've been in “new plugins” mode for a while now. The Waves plugins are typically nice and clean, but maybe a little to Switzerlandish to me. (aka neutral). I'm looking for plugins that have more bad settings in them. (The power to destroy is also the power to create in the audio world).

I'm not sure if the Antress plugins are the Holy Grail, but they are certainly a step in the right direction. The fact that some of the plugins chew up so much CPU usage is kind of a real world problem that makes the plugins less useful to me today. However, if upgrading a PC will result in better sounds, maybe this is a good path to take. Then again, maybe something like the Focusrite Liquidmix or UAD-1 cards would get me to where I want to go easier. If nothing else, the Antress plugins have illustrated that an upgrade in plugins can get me closer to the goal.

Antress plugins have made it easier to make my clients happy. I wish the same could be said for all the expensive gear I've purchased.