Interesting. I use the DAW for clinical and storage per-say and analog for the other stuff but never go back in on the same session, ever. Keeps everything clean and tight right to the last drop IMHO.

How do you get around the post-fader compressor issue for individual tracks?

-R

A few ways. The MixDream has inserts and bypass option everywhere. Its an amazing summing amp. I've been doing this for a long time and take it very serious. Most people that give up or fail at hybrid, there is a reason but they don't know it. That's my take on it.

Never the less, I won't go on because this could easily turn in to a really long post that would also get very twisted with opinions.
As mentioned, I never go back into the same session. That is mistake number one.
DAW are incredible when you use them with hardware at the right time. I don't need hardware compression on individual channels, especially as an insert ITB. I use hardware at the stem OTB.

You can insert gear on the stem between your DA> Hardware AD> capture system. or in the summing amp like a MixDream as it has 16 analog inserts.

You can look at things like a Liaison or X-Patch too. Once you are OTB, stay there man, This nonsense using your DAW as console is for the less informed.

I've said enough, time to deek out lol. hehe.
in my humble opinion as well. We all find our ways.

Cheers!

Well a lot of people like to use hardware compressors on individual tracks, prefader, like vocals for instance, or am I being naive?

All kinds of ways to skin a cat. No need to be dogmatic.

In any case, I'm pretty sure I'm not one of the less informed.

-R

nonsense.

Been working decades on the most complicated, high budget projects around.

I am VERY informed.

My DAW works great for mixing - as my console.

Protools HDX.

Hey Audio kid. I'm intrigued. What reason do you print to another daw? Do you print to another daw on another computer? What benefits does this give?

I'm sure it does.

Depends on a bunch of things including what SR you are working in and what your finished SR is at the end of the day. If you are bouncing down, a capture DAW, DSD whatever, rules ( no SRC this way). If you are sending your tracks out to be mastered, not bouncing down, that may or may not matter as much or at all.

The rest of what I could share will only welcome a whole bunch of GS debate, as we've already seen a start of . Not too into it.

Everything is subjective. We do what we do and can afford. The bigger challenge is preserving all this lush sound online. That's where it gets interesting.
Even though I'm not a mastering engineer, I tend to follow Mastering Engineers and products that are made by certain mastering manufacturers.

Basically, if all you have is Pro Tools HD, and a few pieces of hardware, your pretty much doing the DAW insert trip. Hopefully a few pieces of gear is all you're doing like that. I personally wouldn't even bother with that route but each to his own. Its the cheap way around the block but I'm not convinced its actually helping you much.

If you sum OTB however, it opens a new world but there is also more debate and costs along with more misinformation ..

If you invest in great monitoring and acoustics however, and use a high headroom summing system, you are able to hear more objectively and begin to really learn what's happening with your DAW and hardware, together in an order that runs smoothly, with the grain, not against it.

The clearer the picture, the less you guess. This whole mixing ITB vs OTB becomes easier to read between the lines, see through the fog per-say and make solid investments (time and money) win win. Learn...

Saving to a second system is the icing on the cake. Follow the topics ( engineers) doing this and it will lead you to a good place away from the "noise". You will be informed and have a clearer idea of what I'm talking about in this ever evolving and hyped out world full of mass misinformation.

thats my two cents.

Cheers!

You don't say what the icing is. In what way is it different or better. Also, is it a different daw on the same cpu, or on a separate cpu?

Capture DAW = Separate CPU or DSD recorder like a Korg MR2000BK

Something high end that you can record to, to avoid SRC (sample rate conversion) is what I do.
My choice is a second DAW with Sequoia 12 installed but it could be any DAW for that matter, Reaper is excellent. I like Sequoia because its a wonderful mastering program.

NOTE my hybrid monitoring chain:
Dangerous Monitor ST connects 3 sets of studio monitors, a sub, 2 computers, 3 converters for different stages ( 24 channels DA RME ADI-8 QS, Prism Orpheus, Lavry DA11) and 2 separate DAW systems both running Sequoia 12.
This monitoring system allows me to A/B, bypass or monitor any part of my chain at any given moment. However, I am usually listening to the final mix on the second DAW set at 44.1/16bit on the 2 buss before the internet. I mean, that's where its all going, right?

My typical chain is like this, however, I'll use Pro Tools for the tracking DAW for this example because most people relate to PT as a tracking an mixing DAW. I prefer Sequoia 12 for tracking , mixing and mastering so I have 2 licenses.

Pro Tools session @ 88.2/24bit on CPU#1 > 24 channels DA> mixing hardware inserted> Hybrid summing amp (SPL MixDream and NEOS is what I have now)> Dangerous Master> (mastering gear inserted) example: STC-8, Passeq, Portico II MBP, BAX etc) 2 buss AD > Orpheus> DAW#2 @ 44.1/16 with Seqioua 12> Software mastering > Internet .

When in digital, stay in digital. When in analog, stay in analog. None of this going back and forth.
This is what I call a hybrid system and why my interest is in the Portico II MBP right now. Looks pretty nice.

Maybe a little off-topic but somewhat related to this thread...

Doing a mix right now, out of the daw, through analog outboard only, into Speck X.Sum line mixer, with an STC-8 strapped after that, directly into a Korg MR2000BK... extremely happy with the results so far. It's all working beautifully. Really wide and deep sound stage, great fidelity overall. I think the key factors here are the X.Sum mixer (which is apparently doing an incredible job of "summing", great headroom and separation), the STC-8 (which the entire mix is going through) and the 1-bit 5.6 DSD format of the Korg... really sounds very noticeably better than 44.1k for sure. Then I can archive everything at 1-bit as well as 24/96k etc... not limited to the 44.1k of the DAW.

Again, sorry if this is off-topic, but I just wanted to mention that the STC-8 is working wonderfully, and printing mixes from the DAW through analog summing into the Korg DSD unit is really working out very nicely. I think I'm gonna keep this set-up for a while.

Still interested in the RND Master Bus Processor though... I'm happy with the STC-8... but the RND's ability to parallel compress easily and also have the very handy hi-pass filter in the sidechain etc are features that I feel are important to have. Plus the RND's variable "silk" control, nice that it's variable and not just an "on / off" kind of thing. This RND unit really kills in terms of its feature set for sure... too bad that all master bus / mastering comps couldn't have this same set of features / functionality...

Just still wondering how the RND's sonics and overall behavior compares to the STC-8... or even the API 2500 for that matter (which is another great master buss type comp with great features).

Agreed about the metering. Its almost like they didn't talk to any mastering engineers before releasing this product. The 1st reading is 2db! What the hell is that about? If the light goes off its too much, thats how it works for me. And in my chain, with the limiter all the way engaged it doesn't do any reduction since I'm running colder through my gear for mastering (but probably not much colder than most Mastering Engineers). Very very weird. And the lack of true bypass is dumb (I also have a Liaison). Other than that it sounds very good and does a lot.

I actually get a lot of use out of the depth and width eq. Sometimes 1 tick is perfect for taking edge out of guitars and keeping clarity in the vox.

How do you like the Liaison?

The width is what I'm interested in as well, thanks for sharing that.

The Liaison is super great. Just digging into the power of the parallel bus on there, its really cool what you can do. Also, if you wire the busses together you can basically put any piece of gear anywhere. Sounds totally invisible to me. Really great to be able to a/b gear combinations instantly.

I don't use the Portico to widen much, I never really like that sound. It does it as good as any other box I'm guessing and better than any plugin. I used it once on a master (1 tick). The client was happy but I thought the mid range got glare-y and the middle channel lost focus. It was kind of a narrow mix though so maybe the positives outweighed the negatives. But as I said the depth and width eqs are really cool, even though they are really broad strokes. I've fixed a lot of problems really easily with those controls.

Another thing to note, is the SFE to comp thing is not as happening as it seems on paper. You have to have the depth and width actually engaged and attenuated in order for them to interact with the comp. IE the right channel (side) comp will only really do its thing if you are widening. And also the gain knob on the comp itself is disabled in favor of the width knob. I was hoping it would just send mid channel to left comp and side to right channel, that would have been more useful.

Hey, thanks for the info. I want the Liaison. Next on my list. Just added the SSL X-Patch, This is a cool one too.

I had a MixDream which I sold and bought the Neos, Wow... but one thing I miss was the widening effect on the MD. I know exactly what you mean about the mid getting smeary. The MixDream would bypass anything you put the mono switch on, So in other words, the center focus like Vox, Snare, Bass stayed dead center while the side widened. You could dial it in, ride it for effects. I miss it. This looked like it might be a cool box to replace that and more.

Toys eh... I love toys.

Cheers!

Regarding bypass on the STC8, this is from the manual:


Mychal

Sounds like a great hybrid setup and approach Audiokid! I use a similar approach in concept, although not quite as elaborate. Man, nothing I've heard or tried comes close to capturing my final mix at 5.6 DSD to the Korg. Do you print your mixes simultaneously to the capture DAW at 44/16 and the Korg MR at 5.6 DSD, or do you pick one or the other as separate capture processes? Are you basically using the STC-8 as your 2-bus "mix & mastering" comp in this context? IOW, not having your tracks mastered at a separate facility or in a separate, dedicated process?




Sounds great! (Apologies for continuing the off topic tangent)... I've been using the Korg MR2000 units and capturing at 5.6/1-bit for a long time now and it just sounds unbelievably great. I selectively channel or stem out of PT into 1 or 2 API 8200A line mixers, then through the transformer sum bus outs through a 5500 eq and 2500 bus comp. For my preffered rock style of music, the 2500 just excels. So versatile and balsy with a little make up gain. It just gels and glues everything the way I expect and like with great character-enhanced sonic presentation.

I'd love to hear others comparisons between the 2500 and MBP or STC-8 as well (which also seem to be excellent potential character comps with iron and sonic enhancing options).

Based on how others have used and described the STC-8, I've always considered it more a mastering comp, that excels in clean, transparent compression and makeup gain (thus perhaps more suitable in this context?). Are you (and any others reading) using one as a mix bus comp for rock styles of music and liking what it, and/or its sonic enhancing options, bring to the table?

You an I know it!

I've been following you around here for some time. I had 2 MR2000BK, sold both now only because I do a few more things in the process that would have taken me over the the Korg while I still eventually end up on the second DAW ready for online.
I avoid SRC like you too but simply track the finished product on the second DAW instead. I hated to part with them but two versions of Sequoia 12 is pretty awesome too and the cash went to good use.

I sold Sage691 my extra MR2000BK for a great deal. He was following you and I, and he is now one of us! . I'll never return to the same box again and I don't think he will either.

Just to ressurect this debate between Cranseong STC 8 and Rupert Neve Design MBP...

MBP seems to be a beast as Mix Buss Processor, I'm just a little curious... is the MBP able to bring the track forward like the STC 8 mantaining that clean sound, more like the STC 8?

...or MBP transformer make everything colored?

I'd love to see this thread come to life again as well, currently considering either of these, or two Portico II Channel strips. I'm interested in single point Blumlein recordings for classical music, like a lot of the Chesky recordings. I have an AEA R88 and TRP. My gut tells me I'm going to love the sound of the Portico II (I already love the Portico 5043 sound) but I'm wondering whether the STC-8 would preserve the room ambience a little better. The R88 is great at rendering that holographic image that I love about the Chesky recordings. I'd love to be able to tighten up the dynamics a bit, and tame shrill strings and winds (extreme fortississimos in very unfriendly high registers, and extremely brittle, aggressive playing is a major factor I need to consider), but still maintain a pristine image.

I suspect for the music I'm focused on, program dependent attack and release are more appropriate. There is a demo video for the Charter Oak SCL1, for contemporary piano and saxophone, that is the exact genre I do. Considering that one as well. My experience with the 5043 at least though is that the FB almost seems to behave program dependently. I know all the literature says "more musical, vintage behavior" but to my ears it's more of a "barely hear it working" which is what the STC-8 is supposed to excel at, right? The FF mode, I can hear it clamp down a little more obviously. I have an Avalon 747, and I love the sidechain EQ functions on that thing and the basic sound of the unit but when that comp kicks in it really sucks the life out it, I'm afraid to do anything more than tickle the GR. The 5043 on FB I feel like it can take a lot more off and the music retains its impact, and I can't figure out how with fixed attack and release, but anyway it makes me wonder about the MBP. The 5043 sounds a bit too dark with the ribbon though which I didn't find with my Advanced Audio 414s.

Anyway, I know quite a few classical gurus on this forum use Portico stuff, I also know Bob Katz is a major fan of the STC-8, and I'm a major fan of his work. Does anyone care to offer more opinions on these units, maybe specifically for classical/acoustic (but like the ultimate extreme aggressive modern avant garde kind)

Best to wait to hear what they each do with the sound. Your gut it is a long way from your ears.
The MBP is on another level from the 5043 compressor

OK sure, I should've been more straightforward. What I was hoping to get anyone's feedback on was, has anyone found the fixed ratio/attack of the MBPII limiting on more complex program material? And if it comes down to that specifically does the 'intelligence' of the STC-8 make it likely more appropriate. Also wondering, I'm assuming the sound of the MBP is weighty and thick and generally powerful and stunning, but also hi-fi and articulate, but is it the kind of thing you wouldn't want to have on every track, or that you might not want imposed as a matter of course? I do have some reasonable basis for expectations, besides owning the 5043 I perform sometimes at Roulette in Brooklyn and those recordings are captured and mixed down on a 5088. I know, you can only base so much, but I have an idea of the modern Neve sound and I know I like it a lot.

The limiter in the MBP is an oft misunderstood device. It's a predictive/adaptive proprietary circuit that actually is extremely 'smart'. It's actually uses no additional audio circuitry, [a far cry from the typical 'clipper' limiter] which is why it's sooooo transparent and can do up to 10 db of limiting and maintain over 90 db of channel separation, a feat that generally can only happen with a digital limiter. It's the last thing in line and the compressor make up gain control actually 'drives' it, so you can choose your compression amount and then control how hard you drive the limiter while leaving it at the right setting for the piece of gear that follows it. This and the Width and Depth frequency based controls, the variable silk and it's flavours, FB/FF, and the blend control, allow for some amazing control and changes. Note that the silk can become more or less exaggerated if you hit the output transformer harder.

Enjoy!

Best-
Jonathan

The limiter in the MPB is actually, in certain situations, Jaw droppingly amazing.

highly recommended.

Hi there, film music composer here.

These were the 2 units that I demoed at VK before purchasing.

I did go for the STC8 instead of the MBC simply because I couldn't afford both and my budget allowed only for one. The MBC is a great unit, but it is that beautiful character that I didn't want on my 2 buss.

The STC8 is a great piece of gear and works on almost every music style, it
's very transparent and it lives in my 2 buss chain. However, I have it on a patch bay and can access it at anytime for tracking also if needed.

Whichever way you go you'll be in good hands regardless.

Thaea two compressors are so different and do not really compete against each other.

Cranesong is a transparent compressor made to remove 1 to 2 do of the mix after you have already used your other gear on the signal. Though transparent it's not invisible and it can impart it's pleasant character on a mix.
This comp would preserve the reverb and room ambiance of the music, while the Portico would change it

Portico has transformers inside that add more weight. It would be used instead of a SSL or API comp to glue a mix, or make it punchy. It has depth and width controls with a type is EQ as well.

I would use the Neve comp first and then finish off the mix with the Crane song.
Personally though I prefer the DW Fern VT-7 over the Cranesong as it has a little more glorious organic sound while still being clean but both are great

MBP here. One of the best purchases I have made. It can do nearly everything in one box. It's subtle character finishes of a mix or master in a way that is effortless and musical. Take some time to get to know it and then use it on every mix.

I have the API 2500, smart C1, dual LA2A, and have had the SSL buss comp, and many others. If I could only have one stereo buss comp it would hands down be the MBP.

ok well here you go. i just pulled the trigger and purchased a stc-8 to go in my chain with NEVE portico ii MBP into dangerous music BAXeq. I've wanted a STC-8 for probs 10 years saw one used great price couldn't pass it up.

ill make this short and sweet

neve transformer fatness= color of sound especially low frequency
cranesong transformerless transparency= highs stand out more great leveling of bass.

if i had to pick one probs go with Crane song.
the presets are amazing and make it easy to dial in a specific compression for vocal,mix,bass,drums etc....

don't get me wrong neve is so good on drum buss and bass buss, its incredible how much bigger running a mono bass signal sounds!!!!

the STC-8 it just sound better for gluing!!!! and not over powering a mix with that fat neve transformer sound the MBP does ever so well.

get both but if i had to choose one over again STC-8 hands down

I have been using the STC8 since 2010 ( almost for 11 years) and I habe been considering picking the Neve MBP II since 2015. It would probably substitute my Pendulum OCL2, whish has been used less and less. Great for vocals and Kick drum taming!

I think the post above yours is a bit suspect - the user's only ever post, created to encourage people to choose the STC-8 over the MBP.

My experience was the exact opposite - the STC-8 is solid but ultimately dull, the MBP is wondrous.