Quantcast
Harrison Introduces 32C Channel Plugin (AAX, AU, VST, VST3) - Page 31 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Harrison Introduces 32C Channel Plugin (AAX, AU, VST, VST3)
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #901
Deleted 852f917
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by barada ➡️
I am fanboy

Yeah I could anticipate a lot of people would feel like you are. It's interesting how you see yourself in my quote.

I have UAD Ultimate 9 so I have that plugin. No need to buy it and you don't need to tell me what I need because I know that already.

I use my tools for what they are. Not for what some internet nobody told me it could or it should be because some marketing blurb upset them.

...
I wouldn't presume to tell you to buy anything.

Here is the problem; company gets caught selling snake oil.

Company response: "It's all good!"

Fanboy response: "It's ALL snake oil!"

I personally appreciate the good, honest, hard work that companies are putting into their modelling tech. It has lead to an improvement in plugin (and hardware) quality over the last twenty years and I hope it continues.

You wanna tell me I'm a clown because it's all digital, then you go right ahead and twist yourself into that pretzel.
Old 6 days ago
  #902
Gear Head
 
🎧 15 years
Again, looking back at the history of audio equipment design, I’ve read many times that things like noise, harmonic distortion and crosstalk were necessary evils that had to be minimized as much as possible, but could never completely be eliminated. The physical components simply generated these unwanted side effects, but the goal was to get the sound as clean as possible under the circumstances. Even designers now praised for the character of their designs were constantly trying to reduce those unwanted characteristics.

Over time, those components would age and degrade at slightly different rates, leading to some channels being farther out of tolerance than others, which would give each console a unique character. Engineers learned those consoles and played them like an instrument, taking advantage of the differences they were hearing in some cases. But those unique traits were never intended by the designers.

Many years ago, I had a Chevrolet Cavalier. I could take the keys out while driving and it would keep going. The brakes would stop working when it rained. There were lots of other things wrong with it, but it’s what I had, and I learned to live with it. None of those things were part of the original design, but it sounds very much like some people here would criticize Chevrolet for re-releasing the Cavalier and not including those “features” in the new car.

It’s been said many times here. Harrison have recreated the desired behavior of the EQ and filters from their 32C console, without any need to include those elements of the console’s behavior that simply couldn’t be eliminated in the physical console. Those characteristics were an unwanted byproduct from the beginning. It’s now possible for them to achieve the actual sound they were looking for, and they’ve done that.

I understand I’m just spinning this thread back around the same circle, but I think there’s a fundamental disconnect in thinking between the two groups discussing this plugin here. I’m just hoping to maybe shed some light on one of those perspectives.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #903
Quote:
Originally Posted by metraith ➡️
I think there’s a fundamental disconnect in thinking between the two groups discussing this plugin here
I feel like what most people want really is just to have this exact same plugin with bus saturation from the DAW included. The channel strips in the DAW don't have saturation so you route through the buses for colour. The two bus types (mix and master) have saturation, a more simplified EQ, tweaked variations on the compressors, a few more advanced metering displays and a brickwall limiter on the master.

Hopefully Harrison will release their mix bus and master bus strips in the future too!
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #904
Gear Maniac
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by metraith ➡️

Over time, those components would age and degrade at slightly different rates, leading to some channels being farther out of tolerance than others, which would give each console a unique character. Engineers learned those consoles and played them like an instrument, taking advantage of the differences they were hearing in some cases. But those unique traits were never intended by the designers.

.
I read this in a David Attenborough like voice, as if being spoken over a documentary about hardware.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #905
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stikkers ➡️

Of course, what remains is a type of workflow that leads to faster decision making or faster results. But this has nothing to do with "depth, warmth, 3D and such characteristics".
This plugin does warm...it's called a high shelf set to negative values!

I'm sure Harrison will be a bit more careful in the future with their choice of words.
Old 6 days ago
  #906
Lives for gear
 
cprompt's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
I'm just a hobbyist who most of the time doesn't know what he's doing. I bought this plugin because it makes stuff sound better very quickly, with just a few turns of some knobs or movements of a slider. Yes, I have no doubt I could recreate the compressor with different plugins, or use ReaEQ to recreate the EQ curves, but this just gets me to where I want to go super quickly and easily. Isn't that the point of this plugin?
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #907
Harrison Consoles
 
BenLoftis's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by cprompt ➡️
this just gets me to where I want to go super quickly and easily. Isn't that the point of this plugin?
Yes, that was the point of the original console EQ and it is the point of the plugin.

The choices made in this console EQ were a 'big deal' back then, and took a lot of experimentation to get right. That's why this EQ is still relevant whereas people will not be trying to recreate any brand's {generic parametric eq} 45 years later

Best,
-Ben at Harrison
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #908
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenLoftis ➡️
Yes, that was the point of the original console EQ and it is the point of the plugin.

The choices made in this console EQ were a 'big deal' back then, and took a lot of experimentation to get right. That's why this EQ is still relevant whereas people will not be trying to recreate any brand's {generic parametric eq} 45 years later

Best,
-Ben at Harrison
Thanks to all at Harrison for the brilliantly designed software produced there.

Could I ask whether the mix bus and master bus strips from 32C (with the seemingly highly desired 'analogue saturation' character ) are going to be released as plugins in the future?

Being able to recreate my Mixbus DSP signal flow into other DAWs would potentially be a very useful tool for me in collaborative projects.

Now, a step into imagination -- any possibility in the future of porting the 32C channel strips onto iOS in AUv3 form?

Thanks,
Oscar
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #909
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by cprompt ➡️
...this just gets me to where I want to go super quickly and easily. Isn't that the point of this plugin?
That's why I bought it, too. Most of the time I'm paid for live sound and live recording, but not for mixing the recording. Mixdown is either done by a friend who's doing the video, by the artists or not really done at all. However, I want to have a nice mixdown for my own archival purposes, to hand to the artists as a preview, to maybe even get them to pay me for a proper mix...

So far, the 32C has been great for this. I put it on every channel (usually between 14 and 24 channels in my projects), get gain staging, basic EQ and some reduction of dynamic range done fast, than put Molot GE on the groups and Kotelnikov GE on the 2-Bus, add two ore three Reverb channels, done.

When I'm paid for a proper mix, I might well use an TDR-centric template like before, but for a rough mix 32C has been faster. Worth 49€ for me.

Cheers Peer
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #910
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by BurtHanson ➡️
What Harrison could do to save their reputation (because boy, it took some serious blows) is to revamp the channel strip, this time actually incorporating some of the analog characteristics of the real thing, that were promised.

If they are unable to approximate the sound of the real thing in the box, they at least shouldn't make such bold claims. You don't need to go down to the route of modelling exactly every component of the real circuit and their interaction. There are actually many modern digital EQs who manage to give you analog characteristics without the component modelling approach. Take Tokyo Dawn Slick EQ for example, where you have the choice of adding mojo as a saturation stage or within the EQ circuit and even lets you set the amount of saturation (even though it will always stay within subtle territory, no obvious overdrive). Or LVC Audio's Toned-Max with saturation option per band, where you can even select between different types of saturation.
UA already did this, at least the EQ section
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #911
Deleted 852f917
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoke ➡️
UA already did this, at least the EQ section
Just for clarity, are you saying that since UA did this Harrison didn't need to bother?

EDIT: From the 32c MIXBUS manual (this isn't the plugin):

The Mixbus 32C channel is an emulation of the analog channel strip in our classic 32C analog console. In developing 32C we went into our archives of console schematics and meticulously analyzed the operation of the 32C channel strip in order to provide as accurate an emulation as possible. The result comes from an analysis and modeling of the actual circuits and the components therein, not of the circuit’s theoretical function. There is a difference between the two and this makes the Mixbus 32C channel special.

So if you bought the plugin Harrison didn't do this... for some reason? Or did they? Very confusing.

I guess the plugin doesn't have the "analog summing" that the DAW has.
Old 6 days ago
  #912
Here for the gear
 
Hello,

I used Harrison 32c channel on each track and the master bus of this track.
I find it easy to use and it sounds good to me.

Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #913
Deleted 852f917
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by philnowak ➡️
Hello,

I used Harrison 32c channel on each track and the master bus of this track.
I find it easy to use and it sounds good to me.

Thanks for making an account to share this.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #914
Lives for gear
 
Bob Yordan's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by philnowak ➡️
Hello,

I used Harrison 32c channel on each track and the master bus of this track.
I find it easy to use and it sounds good to me.

Nice track, have you listened how it sounds if you bypass all the 32C Channel plugins? After you made the mix.

It is kind of fun, did that myself yesterday on a track.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #915
Deleted 852f917
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Yordan ➡️
Nice track, have you listened how it sounds if you bypass all the 32C Channel plugins? After you made the mix.

It is kind of fun, did that myself yesterday on a track.
If you bypass all your pluigins your mix will sound different?!
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #916
Lives for gear
 
Bob Yordan's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted 852f917 ➡️
If you bypass all your pluigins your mix will sound different?!
Yeah, but it can be interesting to compare with what you started with or what the absent (of 32C channel) sounds like.

Not?
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #917
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constant_K ➡️
Just for clarity, are you saying that since UA did this Harrison didn't need to bother?

EDIT: From the 32c MIXBUS manual (this isn't the plugin):

The Mixbus 32C channel is an emulation of the analog channel strip in our classic 32C analog console. In developing 32C we went into our archives of console schematics and meticulously analyzed the operation of the 32C channel strip in order to provide as accurate an emulation as possible. The result comes from an analysis and modeling of the actual circuits and the components therein, not of the circuit’s theoretical function. There is a difference between the two and this makes the Mixbus 32C channel special.

So if you bought the plugin Harrison didn't do this... for some reason? Or did they? Very confusing.

I guess the plugin doesn't have the "analog summing" that the DAW has.
I think it was even mentioned by the dev or the rep, that they we're getting paid either way, since it's licensed. (thats a paraphrase by me).

Anyways they also mentioned they may put out a saturation plugin as well.

I understand the arguments on both sides of this to be clear.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #918
Here for the gear
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Yordan ➡️
Yeah, but it can be interesting to compare with what you started with. And what the absent (of 32C channel) sounds like.

Not?
Will I say it sounds better without the plugin?!?
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #919
Deleted 852f917
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Yordan ➡️
Yeah, but it can be interesting to compare with what you started with.

Not?
Absolutely. Just don't try a mix with stock plugins /s.

I actually think adding noise, saturation and other non-linearities is a good thing or at least it can be a good option to have. Not everyone does tho.

Dunno why those same people spend so much money SHARC chips.

Last edited by Deleted 852f917; 6 days ago at 09:37 PM.. Reason: seems i needed to add a sarcasm switch there.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #920
Lives for gear
 
Bob Yordan's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by philnowak ➡️
Will I say it sounds better without the plugin?!?
When I did my test (with my track) I liked the version with 32C Channel more.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #921
Here for the gear
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Yordan ➡️
When I did my test (with my track) I liked the version with 32C Channel more.
The same for me.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #922
Lives for gear
 
Bob Yordan's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Constant_K ➡️
Absolutely. Just don't try a mix with stock plugins.

I actually think adding noise, saturation and other non-linearities is a good thing or at least it can be a good option to have. Not everyone does tho.

Dunno why those same people spend so much money SHARC chips.
Yeah, one of the reasons I am here is probably because I need plugins that can get me results faster than with stock plugins. But also get another sound than just using stock plugins in Logic. But for me combinations of plugins is the key. But I love some of the stock plugins in Logic that are unique and very special and no 3:rd party has made a better version of.

Using just the 32C Channel plugin on every track, will not do it for me but in combination with everything else it is for me very useful. Eg adding saturation from somewhere else. Having a lot of options is cool and not have to use EQ all the time for sparkle on the high end.

I was using "SHARC chips plugins" a lot before and spent a LOT of money on the plugins. But decided to go native instead and finding plugins that use very little cpu and still can sound good (by themself or in combination with others) is one goal of many.
I have not bought any of Sharc plugins for over 7-8 years now.

Last edited by Bob Yordan; 6 days ago at 06:42 PM.. Reason: I spell like a seagull
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #923
Deleted 852f917
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Yordan ➡️
Yeah, one of the reasons I am here is probably because I need plugins that can get me results faster than with stock plugins. But also get another sound than just using stock plugins in Logic. But for me combinations of plugins is the key. But I love some of the stock plugins in Logic that are unique and very special and no 3:rd party has made a better version of.

Using just the 32C Channel plugin also on every track, will not do it for me but in combination with everything else it is for me very useful. Eg adding saturation from somewhere else. Having a lot of options is cool and not have to use EQ all the time for sparkle on hte high end.

I was using "SHARC chips plugins" a lot before and spent a LOT of money on the plugins. But decided to go native instead and finding plugins that use very little cpu and still can sound good (by themself or in combination with others) is one goal of many.
I have not bought any of Sharc plugins for over 7-8 years now.
Quick recommendations for demos from me: Sonimus Burnely and Tuco, fabfilter saturn 2 and anything from Kush.

Honestly plugins are preeeety, preeeety great these days.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #924
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constant_K ➡️
Quick recommendations for demos from me: Sonimus Burnely and Tuco, fabfilter saturn 2 and anything from Kush.

Honestly plugins are preeeety, preeeety great these days.
Karzog True Iron is getting a lot of play here!
Old 6 days ago
  #925
Lives for gear
 
Bob Yordan's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Smile

True Iron was on my drum bus during my test. Great for making snare & kick pop out.

Mostly using Kelvin overall on bass & guitars & synths & vocals.

Sometimes Ravage and Nevo for brutal drums and mighty bass sounds and lately smoothed the sound with 32C Channel and added more definition in the low end and making all the bass notes played more hearable (and in phase probably).

There are many other also from eg PA, Fuselab, Black Rooster, Denise, Gbsoundlab that add very nice coloring IMHO and use not super much CPU, that I use.

Last edited by Bob Yordan; 6 days ago at 07:30 PM.. Reason: remember some more ...
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #926
Lives for gear
 
poshook's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constant_K ➡️
Quick recommendations for demos from me: Sonimus Burnely and Tuco, fabfilter saturn 2 and anything from Kush.

Honestly plugins are preeeety, preeeety great these days.
Then you provide a finished mix using all those fantastic plugins and a introvert guy with 20 years old computer on Windows 98 and Reason 1 destroys it by a huge margin by using stock plugins
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #927
Deleted 852f917
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by poshook ➡️
Then you provide a finished mix using all those fantastic plugins and a introvert guy with 20 years old computer on Windows 98 and Reason 1 destroys it by a huge margin by using stock plugins
Absolutely.

No accounting for talent. Or taste.

Or brand loyalty.

Or marketing.

Or buyers remorse...
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #928
Gear Guru
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bouroki ➡️
But whose money is it that you're primarily after? Don't play the double-standard of targeting the amateur market while demanding only pros speak.
WTF! Pros or hobbyist should be the same thing. Less time better results. If you have a day job chances are you don’t have a ton of spare time to waste on crap tools.

You have a bunch on here commenting on a product they’ve never tried and calling a developer names, that’s bush league BS....
Old 6 days ago
  #929
Lives for gear
 
poshook's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Making and mixing music is the same as singing or guitar playing. I remember all those young ambitious singers in our music store who would never buy SM58 because of harsh high end, low sensitivity, crapy frequency response and old-fashioned dynamic design. And then later in the evening you listen Aretha Franklin singing "You Make Me Feel Like A Natural Woman" live trough SM58 and every single pants in the hall get wet
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #930
Gear Maniac
 
Its Mork's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tacertotambem ➡️
I read one guy here saying his test got the eqs to null to -70. How about on the videos? Are they getting silence or what?

Most of my hardware seem to have noise floor with less information than the difference between these two eqs nulling to -70. Some people hate noise floor while others take it into consideration as tone. I can only speak for myself but noise floor is a factor to me. Not a big factor, but I do not ignore it.
That was me. It actually looked like Dan got a perfect null in his video, but I copied his settings and couldn't recreate it. Maybe I have missed something, but I double and triple checked the settings and they where identical to his.

However, I was going for the fact that the Q's didn't match anymore when the gain was changed on both eq's. That means you'd have to constantly re-adjust the Q on ReaEQ to match 32c. Again, I couldn't care less if someone prefers to use ReaEQ, EQIII, or whatever and lots of people I look up to would easily outmix me just with those. But stating that ReaEQ and 32c will lead you to the same results, despite the different gain/Q relationships, makes me scratch my head. I am talking about actually eqing a source in 20 seconds, not matching "what might be that other eq". That logic is like saying a Golf is as fast as a Porsche, because you happen to see them both doing 80.
📝 Reply
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump