the liquid mix

[dodz]

http://www.focusrite.com/productdeta...id=62&iRange=1






"Each of Liquid Mix?s 32 channels provides EQ and Compressor emulations selected from a huge pool of high-quality vintage and modern day classics. 20 EQs and 40 Compressors are available straight out of the box, with an expanding library online. Furthermore, a totally unique hybrid 7-band ?super EQ? can be built out of separate classic EQ sections in every one of the 32 channels. Each channel appears as a separate VST/AU/RTAS effect within the sequencer and will work within all major applications, including Pro Tools.

Liquid Mix uses the same patented Dynamic Convolution process as Focusrite?s Liquid Channel. Unlike standard convolution techniques, Dynamic Convolution utilizes vast processing power to sample the effect of a classic processor on a series of audio pulses, at many different gain settings and all frequencies. In Liquid Mix, all this processing is done using onboard DSP, so the processing has almost no effect on your computer?s own CPU."




pretty fucking tasty looking!......and only about ?430 for you brit folk.

[markgabba]

i know man i was checking this out the other day..saw the price and thought nah it cant be that good but

[subvert]

Its the Liquid Mix, the Liquid Channel is something different - uses the same sintefex convolution technology but has expensive analog preamp circuitry too....

The liquid mix sounds ok, but from what Ive heard not amazing. I think Im waiting for the Duende...

[dodz]

Its the Liquid Mix, the Liquid Channel is something different - uses the same sintefex convolution technology but has expensive analog preamp circuitry too....

The liquid mix sounds ok, but from what Ive heard not amazing. I think Im waiting for the Duende...

sorry, wrong title.....


i was just typing that exact thing.....

[Macc]

I've been reading about this and it looks taaaaasty. I want one. A lot. Being able to mix bands of different eq's is just too for words.

[titanium]

= useless??

[Macc]

Not at all, and you know it!

The bass band of a Pultec, highs of a Neve etc

[titanium]

Not at all, and you know it!

The bass band of a Pultec, highs of a Neve etc

i know nothing about hardware... thats my problem

[Macc]

I've only used Neve stuff a couple of times... but

[Macc]

Most important - will this thing help me mix my liquid choonz?

[olcyrus]

after working on neve and euphonix consoles, I think the neve sounds top notch. Then again I was working with tape, so since I am out of that studio and all digital now, I dunno know but the 64 track neve was the best board I have ever satin front of.

This sounds interesting, but like Macc said, will this help me mix down like d-bridge?

[markgabba]

Not at all, and you know it!

The bass band of a Pultec, highs of a Neve etc

[bobule]

yea im not convinced by this ol convolution thaang... but i gotta say after using a duende i am totally sold on that!

[Macc]

yea im not convinced by this ol convolution thaang...

Why not?

[bobule]

firstly i aint heard a covolution verb that i really like (or that even comes close to eventide/tc hardware verb) imho..

also i spoke at length to a couple of friends (who have coached me on music production since i was a v young man) who are also beta testing duende and liquid mix and also own a pt hd rig and uad cards. after a/b ing all the above the uad and duende came out tops whereas (technical issues aside) the focusrite just didnt sound as good.

i guess it is wise to make your own mind up but i trust the ears of these guys as they turned me on to kurzweil, eventide, vaz modular, dave smith, waldorf and many other fabulous bits of software and hardware.

focusrite does look good for the price but after hearing the duende (again technical issues aside) i was quite simply blown away by the quality of sounds and i really dont think covolution can stand up to good old dsp's in a box or on a card...

i mean theres a good reason why ssl/uad/pt use dsp expansions...

[Macc]

firstly i aint heard a covolution verb that i really like (or that even comes close to eventide/tc hardware verb) imho..

But that's a matter of the impulses you use, not the unit

I've not heard a synthetic reverb that sounds as real as a good impulse - they sound like reverb, rather than a space. Conv. verbs sound like the space they repesent/are. Both have their uses, but for real sounding stuff, I'd take convolution every time.

also i spoke at length to a couple of friends (who have coached me on music production since i was a v young man) who are also beta testing duende and liquid mix and also own a pt hd rig and uad cards. after a/b ing all the above the uad and duende came out tops whereas (technical issues aside) the focusrite just didnt sound as good.

Fair do's Although it is more or less the same price as the UAD for a lot more stuff...

focusrite does look good for the price but after hearing the duende (again technical issues aside) i was quite simply blown away by the quality of sounds and i really dont think covolution can stand up to good old dsp's in a box or on a card...

You mean dsp-based modelling of old circuits? I'm not sure which sounds better to be honest - not got enough experience with convolution based dynamics processors (only verbs really) - but I don't see what inherently makes one better than the other.

i mean theres a good reason why ssl/uad/pt use dsp expansions...

To take the load off the host CPU, largely, and allow dedicated power for the dsp - it doesn't affect the sound quality. I don't get your point really - UAD has never really had convolution as it was around before convolution was properly established (and now doesn't have enough on board memory to do it), PT has always run its dsp on cards for processing since the days where PC's couldn't handle more than two eq's and a shitverb...

External dsp just gives more horsepower, it doesn't make it sound better I don't see what that has to do with convolution.



Also, just to mention it, when the liquid channel came out they asked all kinds of pros to do blind tests between the LC conv. version and the original proper hardware, and 9/10 couldn't tell the difference. That speaks buckets to me


So long as the LC sounds good, I'll take 32 proper eq's for that money

[bobule]

as i said

i guess it is wise to make your own mind up

either way, yes cheap and cost effective is good, but i have not heard a convolution verb that sounds a patch on say the eventide chamber verb.. not even close.. but i guess thats not what you are wanting the focusrite for//

btw have you ever used a protools hd system? the quality of the sound from the tdm plugs is fucking amazing, i have never heard before a couple of weeks ago but i played with the eventide reverb tdm, eventide pitch delays tdm (along side a h8000 for reference) and the complete collection of soundtoys tdm plugs (developed by the man who developed the h3000 i think) and i will say again they sound like no plugs i have ever heard and i am lusting hard! shame its so expensive but then the good stuff usually is..

the advantage of dsp based systems i guess is that you have the chance of running many more types of plug, i guess if all you want is some eq's compressors then bang for buck the focusrite does look goood on paper but have you heard one? have you used one?

my judgement was entirely based on actually mixing a tune using the hd/duende/uad and my experiences with alll of them was top notch..

in fact our latest mixed track was mixed entirely in protools using those systems instead of mixing at keynote in analog and i gotta say the result, the speed of the mixdown and the fun of use way outweighed the convenience of crossing the yard to keynote. in fact i think im gonna mix on this pt rig instead of keynote for the time being...

considering i am a complete hardware whore isnt that funny!

[bobule]

oh an for a positive review if you aint sen the video...

http://www.dancetech.com/aa_dt_new/index.cfm

[Macc]

easy bob! not spoiling for a geekruck or nithing

not having a dig, man - i'm sure the ssl duende jobby will smack it i'm talking more about the convolution vs dsp thing

i have not heard a convolution verb that sounds a patch on say the eventide chamber verb.. not even close..

that's what i mean man - if you convolve an impulse of that eventide unit, it will sound the same as that eventide unit. convolution is only as good as the impulses you use. so to say you've not heard a convolution unit as good as a synthetic unit is missing the point completely

i agree though that with level-dependent processes, convolution may/will show its flaws - you can only sample a given unit at a certain number of dynamic levels before the ram/cpu usage becomes inefficient, and that balance point is the tricky thing.


as for eventide plugs being great - well, that's cos the plugs are great innit , not cos they are being processed in little boxes outside the pc or whatever. in fact i think we're having slightly different conversations

i've not heard the liquid mix yet, of course not but considering a single tdm plug costs as much as the entire unit, then balanceing that with the price, i'm fairly sure that unless the liquid mix sounds like the cubase green eq (or worse still, the waves eq's ), it's a winner. it's certainly going to be better value-wise than the recently-rebadged elemental plugins, innit.

and just to make sure:

[subvert]

i have not heard a convolution verb that sounds a patch on say the eventide chamber verb.. not even close..

that's what i mean man - if you convolve an impulse of that eventide unit, it will sound the same as that eventide unit. convolution is only as good as the impulses you use. so to say you've not heard a convolution unit as good as a synthetic unit is missing the point completely

first of all, i agree with your overall point bob - convlution verbs are great ways to simulate real space, your classic tc/lexi/eventide algorithms dont sound like real spaces, but they work very well on certain program material.
two quite different approaches, that i dont believe there is all that much merit in comparing....i love both for different purposes

but, what you write above isnt generally true - because most decent hardware verbs contain modulation fx that develop the reverb over time, and that really does add something to the character of the verb, and its something that unfortunately cant be captured by convolution impulses.

thats why 480ls are still all over the place and are still used in countless records, even though they are very old and even though there are many impulses available that try to model that unit.

[Macc]

first of all, i agree with your overall point bob - convlution verbs are great ways to simulate real space, your classic tc/lexi/eventide algorithms dont sound like real spaces, but they work very well on certain program material.
two quite different approaches, that i dont believe there is all that much merit in comparing....i love both for different purposes

absolutement

but, what you write above isnt generally true - because most decent hardware verbs contain modulation fx that develop the reverb over time, and that really does add something to the character of the verb, and its something that unfortunately cant be captured by convolution impulses.

on the contrary man - it is in the nature of the sound already. the development of the sound over time is already caputred in the impulse - it's inherent in the nature of it. okay, fair enough, you can't make that impulse modulate differently, but then that's not the point is it (and it's another reason why both approaches are good in their ways).

to turn it on its head, it's supremely difficult to get a synthetic reverb to decay, or rather, develop, the way a real room does. so, again, horses for courses.

thats why 480ls are still all over the place and are still used in countless records, even though they are very old and even though there are many impulses available that try to model that unit.

i don't really buy that to be honest, i think it's more the hardware romance thing, but fair do's.

[subvert]

but, what you write above isnt generally true - because most decent hardware verbs contain modulation fx that develop the reverb over time, and that really does add something to the character of the verb, and its something that unfortunately cant be captured by convolution impulses.

on the contrary man - it is in the nature of the sound already. the development of the sound over time is already caputred in the impulse - it's inherent in the nature of it. okay, fair enough, you can't make that impulse modulate differently, but then that's not the point is it (and it's another reason why both approaches are good in their ways).

actually that is the point, its what makes some of those verbs sound so great, so organic.

with an impulse, its always the same. always.

to turn it on its head, it's supremely difficult to get a synthetic reverb to decay, or rather, develop, the way a real room does. so, again, horses for courses.

i dont disagree, but the algorithms are designed to sound good, not model a concert hall for example.
again, i like both for different applications.

thats why 480ls are still all over the place and are still used in countless records, even though they are very old and even though there are many impulses available that try to model that unit.

i don't really buy that to be honest, i think it's more the hardware romance thing, but fair do's.

having heard both, i stick with my original point.

[Macc]

actually that is the point, its what makes some of those verbs sound so great, so organic.

with an impulse, its always the same. always.

yeah, with the modulation etc built in with a room it's the same, unless you have blancmange walls or summink and you don't get more organic than a real room

i dont disagree, but the algorithms are designed to sound good, not model a concert hall for example.

then why are all the presets called cathedral, and concert hall and shit?

i ain't for a second saying fake reverbs sound shit. but they ain't better than convolution at making real spaces.

again, i like both for different applications.

one aspect where we agree entirely

having heard both, i stick with my original point.

i must have missed that... you had a point?

curse these lunchtime beers... unable to take anything too seriously.

[bobule]

sokay bob

[subvert]

actually that is the point, its what makes some of those verbs sound so great, so organic.

with an impulse, its always the same. always.

yeah, with the modulation etc built in with a room it's the same, unless you have blancmange walls or summink and you don't get more organic than a real room

i dont see the relevance of that. you said that a convolution verb based on an impulse taken one time from a hardware unit would sound the same as that hardware unit. i was disagreeing

i dont disagree, but the algorithms are designed to sound good, not model a concert hall for example.

then why are all the presets called cathedral, and concert hall and shit?

because those algorithms approximate spaces of those sort of dimensions

i ain't for a second saying fake reverbs sound shit. but they ain't better than convolution at making real spaces.

ive never said anything remotely along those lines

having heard both, i stick with my original point.

i must have missed that... you had a point?

curse these lunchtime beers... unable to take anything too seriously.

the reason people havent just thrown away all their 480ls, pcm 91s, orvilles, emts, quantecs etc