About VST3 ?

[cgrafx]

But isn't ducking ever used in actual live sound (reinforcement)? Why would this type of soloing not be helpful, there? Or am I misunderstanding?

Yes ducking is used in live sound and that is what SAC is for.

The reality is that Saw Studio is way more powerful with SAC as the front end. It's really more of an integrated companion product than a separate tool.

It's so much easier working with SAC as the live front-end console and using SAC as the recording console. Live real-time monitoring of your instruments and mics, simple headphone mixes.

You can definitely do a lot of things directly in SAW Studio, but the combination of the two is just simpler, way more flexible and functionally way more powerful.

Personally, I would hate to have to go back to SAW studio by itself.

[Göran Nordberg]

WOW... very interesting discussions and ideas, very interesting to hear about different experiences.

[Pedro V]

Todd R,

I think I misunderstood who your clients are in your last paragraph.

I posted your answer a while ago and accidentally deleted it.

What do you think of the SS Frequency Analyzer?

I know it's less work to have an analyzer in the same equalizer and if you have dynamic control, then you can do that too (carefully). They are very comfortable, I used the one from apulsoft a long time ago.

You have mixed much more than me, I'm sure of that, from your experience. You could give me a good training. In my few sessions I have never used a multiband compressor, in addition to the channel compressor I have added: a Levelizer, and in vocals another Levelizer as a DeEsser. Three points of maximum compression per channel and the master.

Think about that. And how old school engineers worked.

I exaggerated when I said that I no longer use the frequency analyzer, it was a mistake. I meant I use it less. The issue of convenience and fast workflow is important for sound quality in fast deliveries. Working with the Frequency Analyzer in SS may be slower. You have to analyze the workflow. Always have it open, it always gives you data. You press SOLO on the channel and that's it. With Fab you can have many assigned, imagine in SAC.

There is an important issue (that comes up from time to time) is the good work that Bob has done both in the Fixed Point Audio Engine, as well as in how clean the Levelizer is, and the EQ and Dynamics section in the mixer.

Considering the sound quality in this case, and not the graphical interface, etc: What happens when we use plugins within SS that are programmed with lower quality, in high level languages, in floating point, etc?

Why are we SS users?

There are reasons, values and philosophies behind everything that I think is good to follow, because the right line of thinking goes awry if it isn't. Even with plugin companies, hardware and everything in life.

But believe me, I understand your point perfectly: You like the Fab tool, it works for you.

Would you like to take a good old session that sounds good and try to remix it practically only with RML Labs stuff?

Can you make the effort?

And the 2 or 3 plugins you use from another company are not the same type of those already available in SS.

Try the tackle a workflow with the frequency analyzer.

Listen and compare the results. Also check the use of cpu resources, workflow, costs, performance.

Maybe it's even a good exercise for you and you can tell me the results.

Thanks for your answer.

[Göran Nordberg]

Sorry,this has nothing to do with VST3 but I got inspired speaking about coding and sound quality so I just share this experience.
I made the basis of a song, very short, I think it was 24 bars something in MWS with chords, external midi gear and one acapella in SAW MT.
I then copied /imported the same song in to AKAI MPC2 software, exactly the same chords and acapella, no effects nothing else than the chords and acapella.
The VST synth in MPC2 was great and OK, BUT the acapella was sounding so liveless, sharp, I couldn't believe what I was hearing was true, and it was without effects, nothing, I tried to put in some EQ and a vintage something, but it got worse and worse , my talent probably contributed to that too, but still.
In SAW Studio, the acapella was much warmer and, like, natural, and it was also without effects.
Incredibly noticeable difference in the sound of the acapella.
Just wanted to share this.

[Todd R]

Todd R,

I think I misunderstood who your clients are in your last paragraph.

I posted your answer a while ago and accidentally deleted it.

What do you think of the SS Frequency Analyzer?

I know it's less work to have an analyzer in the same equalizer and if you have dynamic control, then you can do that too (carefully). They are very comfortable, I used the one from apulsoft a long time ago.

You have mixed much more than me, I'm sure of that, from your experience. You could give me a good training. In my few sessions I have never used a multiband compressor, in addition to the channel compressor I have added: a Levelizer, and in vocals another Levelizer as a DeEsser. Three points of maximum compression per channel and the master.

Think about that. And how old school engineers worked.

I exaggerated when I said that I no longer use the frequency analyzer, it was a mistake. I meant I use it less. The issue of convenience and fast workflow is important for sound quality in fast deliveries. Working with the Frequency Analyzer in SS may be slower. You have to analyze the workflow. Always have it open, it always gives you data. You press SOLO on the channel and that's it. With Fab you can have many assigned, imagine in SAC.

There is an important issue (that comes up from time to time) is the good work that Bob has done both in the Fixed Point Audio Engine, as well as in how clean the Levelizer is, and the EQ and Dynamics section in the mixer.

Considering the sound quality in this case, and not the graphical interface, etc: What happens when we use plugins within SS that are programmed with lower quality, in high level languages, in floating point, etc?

Why are we SS users?

There are reasons, values and philosophies behind everything that I think is good to follow, because the right line of thinking goes awry if it isn't. Even with plugin companies, hardware and everything in life.

But believe me, I understand your point perfectly: You like the Fab tool, it works for you.

Would you like to take a good old session that sounds good and try to remix it practically only with RML Labs stuff?

Can you make the effort?

And the 2 or 3 plugins you use from another company are not the same type of those already available in SS.

Try the tackle a workflow with the frequency analyzer.

Listen and compare the results. Also check the use of cpu resources, workflow, costs, performance.

Maybe it's even a good exercise for you and you can tell me the results.

Thanks for your answer.

Hi Pedro,
thanks for that quick response :-)

My fave thing about SAW is the automation design, hands down my fave thing in SAW.

I did get the IQS Spectrum Analyzer years ago and never really used it that much. It is rather low resolution compared with modern offerings. I find the ProQ3 SA invaluable...keeps the search time for what freq is bothering me to a much easier exercise. The freeze function on ProQ3 I use often.

In my current project (90 min documentary) I did try using only SAW native and could not carve out what I wanted...as far as EQ, the Q doesn't go as narrow as I need. I also tried low cuts with the native EQ to deal with wind issues, it kind of worked...I'm using a Spectral editor now and throwing out all my previous NR...and the audio quality is greatly improved from doing so. So, I'd have to say no; on-location recordings in one chance in a lifetime to capture recordings are not something I'd like to try to mix with SAW native given the amazing tools we access to today. I'd say the native "fx" is SAW are better suited to controlled studio recordings. There are just some very powerful tools (VSTs, etc) nowadays.

I always use the SAW dynamics section for make-up gain without compression...that's how a create a 0dB mix- yes I use the faders, but if you create a 0dB baseline for your tracks, you are always mixing to 0dB...I do very little live fader writing- it's 98% offline. I don't like compression very much and so don't use it very much...In music, I do...but not for human speech. Aaaaaand I'm re-EQing my film, and my ProQ3 settings are dynamic, hence I have compression (yikes!), so I need to reign in my dynamic EQ use, because I've been using it like a crutch to not have to get my EQ just right...make sense? Thanks for getting me to be more aware of that...I'm off to EQ

I have never used IQS Levelizer, never purchased it...wasn't that native back in SAW Pro? I've been using Bob's software since 1998...I bought SAW Studio Lite back in 2001 (IIRC), but did not start using SAW Studio as a "daily job" until 2011...and have learned a lot since then...albeit, not very much music...mainly dialogue mixing and NR with VSTs (Acon, Sonnox, Fab Filter)

As far as CPU load, my DAW for music is Reason, and it can't be very CPU unfriendly....I had to build a gaming machine. Which has helped me in my tasks. The Spectral editor is also a CPU cycles hog, so my relatively powerful machine copes very well with most SAW tasks. Only when I have too many VSTs working real time does SAW choke...and with my current workflow, I'm removing VSTs, so SAW is running with less and less CPU hit.

Anyway, thanks for your post about ProQ3 acting like a MB comp...you are right and it has helped me reframe my workflow with ProQ3.

Further, as far as music goes, I have a lot of live improv recorded to DAT over the years and things like MB compression (I have fab Pro-MB too), I was using that to gain more separation in those stereo recordings...yet with the Spectral editor software, unmixing of music is possible, so yet another way to balance and NR those recordings :-)

we live in a magical time for editing audio

[jmh]

I have never used IQS Levelizer, never purchased it...wasn't that native back in SAW Pro?

Yes, since SawPro. But always an optional plugin. It has a few unique tricks it can do - particularly the remove silence which I have found useful for achieving all kinds of things - and not particularly outputted audio.

we live in a magical time for editing audio

And craft beer!

There are definitely some silver linings with powerful audio tools. From various perspectives there are better DAWs too - but probably not one I'm going to know better. There are always programs with new features coming along, but saw gets the job done and has its areas where it shines. Just like always, is more than adequate to record a white album.

[Pedro V]

Tood,

Regarding the resolution of the Frequency Analyzer, don't be fooled by the RTA-like vertical bars. There are 50 filters (bars) but they can be adjusted from one octave to 0.005 octaves in a clear readout. It's a very high resolution, you can see and hear notes of the musical scale. Like the Fab, but without the piano. No more resolution is needed. It's been available for a long time.

Vertically you can limit the dB range that the meter covers from a normal high range to 4 dB, then you can visualize movements of up to 1 dB.

Sometimes you don't realize what you have in your hands.

The Levelizer is about as clean a limiter, compressor and gate as you'll find out there.

Speaking of magic: The Levelizer peak limiter.

[Pedro V]

What do you mean by white album?

[jmh]

What do you mean by white album?

Beautiful Pedro! You've made everybody on the forum laugh...

The 'White Album' is better than it's predecessor 'Abbey Road' which was (and still is) regarded as revolutionary in recording. The Silver Metal is a tie going to earlier albums 'Rubber Soul' and Revolver. If you thought this thread made some odd turns before, the old guys on this forum spent years debating that controversial sentence I just typed - but I assure you it is totally accurate.

That team - band, producer and engineer(s) did some extraordinary things with recording capabilities that look quaint from our perspective - although a lot of the microphones and other gear are still regarded as stellar - and part of that mystique is because of those albums.

Anyway if that was a joke, good one, otherwise listen to all of them then older Miles Davis albums. Among the great albums, there are some beautifully recorded albums. And probably without exception, more human.



Edit! Major slip above, is should say Sgt Pepper's not Abbey Road.

[jmh]

BTW, the albums listed ushered in a revolutionary time in the record industry when all the record companies wanted to mimic the success of the Beatles and many bands experienced indulgences of studio time (and LSD?) in a quest for new and creative sounds unseen before or since (although now that everybody has a studio on their laptop and the rate of great records being made has not increased might show you that some indulgences can be a liability). Part of all that change was engineering's elevation from a trade to an art form - at least a little bit.