Jason Suecof 5150 settings

[==>Alb<==]

this thread is going to be very interesting \m/

 

[MattGrave]

You're probably better off using a duplicate in pro tools tho, so you don't end up with weird latency from sending to an aux stacked with plugs.

 

[Mikaël-ange]

If I send a track/channel to a Aux and then back to a new track/channel its no different sound wise than just duplicating the track Protools.

I guess i'm confused at what your going on about.

Ok, English isn't my native language so I will try to explain it to you differently.

I agree with you on the fact that duplicate a track or send it to an aux is the same thing.

But we speak about mixing so when doing mult you have:
-your original track with processing on: eq, comp...etc
-your mult feed from your original track previously processed and you add other eq/comp to that

Now the way you describe it:
-original track with processing
-duplicate track when you add same processing chain as original and other eq/comp on top of that. So you use 2 identical plugin/hardware chain on each track (original and duplicate) and other eq/comp you want to add for your mult.

Maybe it can sound over complicated described that way, I don't know...
Point was Mark/Jason and also Colin doesn't apply different eq to the same raw track in //. They put eq on original track and after that, they put other eq on already eq ed original track in //.

That not the same raw track eq ed differently in //.
It's raw track eq ed and re eq ed in //.

That the same thing you do when sending lets say you kick and snare to a buss in //. You don't send your raw kick and snare to that but your already processed element.

Hope that make sense...

 

[Joshua Wickman]

Ok, English isn't my native language so I will try to explain it to you differently.

I agree with you on the fact that duplicate a track or send it to an aux is the same thing.

But we speak about mixing so when doing mult you have:
-your original track with processing on: eq, comp...etc
-your mult feed from your original track previously processed and you add other eq/comp to that

Now the way you describe it:
-original track with processing
-duplicate track when you add same processing chain as original and other eq/comp on top of that. So you use 2 identical plugin/hardware chain on each track (original and duplicate) and other eq/comp you want to add for your mult.

Maybe it can sound over complicated described that way, I don't know...
Point was Mark/Jason and also Colin doesn't apply different eq to the same raw track in //. They put eq on original track and after that, they put other eq on already eq ed original track in //.

That not the same raw track eq ed differently in //.
It's raw track eq ed and re eq ed in //.

That the same thing you do when sending lets say you kick and snare to a buss in //. You don't send your raw kick and snare to that but your already processed element.

Hope that make sense...

I don't think there is anything wrong with using the raw track for your parallel/mult. I understand the mult thing very well and if you duplicate a track in Protools all the plugins follow (if you choose), then you just add your comp and eq after all the original plugins and blend underneath (unless you do a lot of guitar buss work/eq and then in this case the aux track would be the way to go here). I was just trying to explain it in a very simple way for people who have never used a console to understand.

 

[AceFireForce117]

This thread shows up just when i've acquired a 5150 head, fuck yeah i can't wait to test all those settings !

 

[nezvers]

I'm kinda frustrated about parallel EQ... It can't be just plain EQ on parallel buss because when summed up it is same as used EQ over EQ on same insert track.
If I'm right than there is some kind parallel compression too to have some point of parallel processing. Right???

 

[axeman720]

^^That's true, Mark did post that, but Suecof was the guy who mixed Nocturnal.

ACTUALLY. we both mixed nocturnal. And i micd up, and EQ'd those guitars. The credits in the record are not accurate and were fucked up by jason's manager (who later became my manager). Just to clarify that.


Also, when it comes to that guitar sound, alot of it has to do with that SSL console. Sure the tone itself was killer... but that console lends a big part of its sonic impact to that record. Ask andy, or any mixer whos spent any amount of time mixing on an SSL E or G series console. Its the complete opposite of pro tools. You have to absolutely rock the living the shit out of that consoles stereo buss... which we always did. The meters were pegged on that mix... the whole time. It lends that compression up top that you just cant get from anything else.

Anyway... as far as the parallel EQ goes, yes i multed the guitar tracks out of their main channels and to another set on the console. I then used a NEVE portico eq and if i remember right i eq'd around 90, 400, 900-1.2k, 4.5 and i believe 6 or 8k to the max. nearly every knob was up about 10-12db... crazy boost. It sounded literally insane, almost like a nine inch nails digital sound with alot more low end i think brought it up under the main guitar sound we already liked and i remember at that point that i completely dimed the midrange gain on the eq 15bd boost i think on that eq... (the 900-1.2 ish band) and thats what kind of those guitars that crazy in your face midrange sound.

I still do the parallel eq sometimes, but it does not quite work the same in the box, just never has. I use it much more sparringly then on a console. I acutally did some parallel eqing on these tunes http://usa-usa-usa.bandcamp.com/ and the new arsis record coming out next year. Its starting to creep back into my tool bag here and there. And no, there is zero compression involved in this guitar sound.

Hope this helps. I do find it funny watching you guys do this speculating... i do the same with mix techniques myself sometimes.

 

[chrisrivalry]

Just tried parallel EQ on my latest mix and I think it turned out great. I was running at 96k so I had to burn all of my groups after processing so it was the already processed guitar (HP, LP, few cuts, compressor) and then just duplicated it, and did some decent boosting with what I would consider to be really narrow Q's, especially for boosting. What I tried to do was use a spectrum analyzer with the two guitar tracks going, and use that to find out where there were some holes missing and boosted those on the parallel. Probably sounds stupid but I think it turned out nice. http://soundcloud.com/michael-rumple/desiderium-aerial-sea

 

[chrisrivalry]

oh yeah, for those drums the toms have absolutely no processing on them haha not even a gate or an eq.

 

[axeman720]

I'm kinda frustrated about parallel EQ... It can't be just plain EQ on parallel buss because when summed up it is same as used EQ over EQ on same insert track.
If I'm right than there is some kind parallel compression too to have some point of parallel processing. Right???

No no, def no compression. Check out my response and you'll see how i did it.

Also guys i used a Slanted Mesa Oversize cab for this record, that makes a HUGE difference over a traditional recto cab. They sound nothing alike...

And vintech or neve preamps are a must. You will get way too much top end fiz and sublows with an API or api style preamp for this. I rely NEVE to kind of smooth things out and give that certain midrange it has when i rock the front end.

Lots of critical steps...

 

[Mikaël-ange]

Also, when it comes to that guitar sound, alot of it has to do with that SSL console. Sure the tone itself was killer... but that console lends a big part of its sonic impact to that record. Ask andy, or any mixer whos spent any amount of time mixing on an SSL E or G series console. Its the complete opposite of pro tools. You have to absolutely rock the living the shit out of that consoles stereo buss... which we always did. The meters were pegged on that mix... the whole time. It lends that compression up top that you just cant get from anything else.

+ infinite
When overload lead light you know magic happen
On a J or XL it's a whole other story...

Hope this helps. I do find it funny watching you guys do this speculating... i do the same with mix techniques myself sometimes.

Speculation go far beyond what you would think

Anyway, thanks (once again) for clarifying this up