I was wondering who uses the Focusrite Liquid Channel and for those who do it would be great to chime in!

I just thought it would be good to hear form those who use it and share their experience with it. I have mine coming soon so it would be great to hear from those who have had theirs for a while.

Also, this thread is for those who use it, like it, and who want to share their experience. Not a place for people to troll and trash it! heh

SEA

I am interested in hearing comments too.

I am not so interested in hearing how accurately the various modeled pre's sound as compared to the originals, rather, I'd like to hear about how it just plain can sound, how the tracks stack, etc.

Is it a good tool?

From what I have heard from end-users that it's an awesome unit and many can't tell the difference between the actual pres, compressors, etc., and the Liquid Channel.

Do all of them sound exactly the same? Of course not! I own a VG-99 modeling guitar that sounds like a Strat, Tele, 335, LP, etc. Sounds great on tracks and live where many couldn't tell it from the real thing! However, there will always be those subtle differences and in some cases, end-users actually prefer the Liquid Channel over the real pre, not that the Liquid Channel is better, just to their ears sounds better on the track.

There are also some that will say it didn't sound anything like the pre it was modeling. However, each pre is different like... you can say it doesn't sound like this vintage Neve pre from 1970. But the truth is a new Neve pre won't sound "Just Like" the vintage one in many cases. same with vintage mics vs. a newer model of the same mic.

Same with guitars. A strat from 1965 won't play or sound identical to a new strat so... the thing you have to ask yourself is that important to you or not?

I use sample grand pianos like the White Grand and sample Rhodes like the Scarbee MKII. They are samples much in the way convolution is samples with reverbs like Altiverb. Everybody uses these every day and one can't tell the difference from the actual piano or reverb etc.

Now... would having an actual 1976 MK II Rhodes in your studio be better than the sample? No... just different. But some will say "The actual Rhodes is better cause of the feel and the depth etc." Same with guitars and my VG-99. Can you tell which is which on a track? Most cases no, however which would you RATHER have? The VG-99 or 6 vintage guitars it's modeled after? The guitars of course! heh

Same goes with the Liquid Channel! Many buy it... love it and use it every day! Other buy it, and learn from it and find that they use like 2 or 3 modeled pres like a Neve or API. So then... once they find the pres and settings they like in the Liquid Channel, they'll go buy an actually API of Neve and then sell their Liquid Channel.

Does that mean the Liquid Channel wasn't good? No! It just means they would rather have the "Real Deal" and all. The thing about the actual pre is many times you can drive it harder or that pre has a tube it in and things that may give it that "vibe" or "edge" etc. It's like a modeling guitar amp like the Fender Mustang vs. an actual 1968 Fender amp with a tube. When you AB them they sound very close. However, which would you want? Most would say hands down the vintage 1968.

However, do you have 20 amps stacked in your room and 40 pres and compressors? Do you have the money for all the models the Liquid Channel emulates? Who does? Like.. if you add up ALLL the pres, compressors, eq, etc. the Liquid Channel modeled it could cost you what? 100K plus?

For me, the Liquid Channel is a great tool to get my work done. I'm about making great music not collecting vintage gear. When my music is finished, is the listening audience going to say 'Was that a 1965 xyz?" Of course not! they are not going to care what you used, just if they like your music. We have to bring all this "Down To Earth" ya know.

I'm not gunna spend days AB'ing the Liquid Channel with the actual pres. I'm not out to "prove a point" and say "Ah HA! It's not the exact same!" Who cares? I'm just trying to go through the settings and find what sounds best for me! It has tons of choices and tweaking.

After I get used to the Liquid Channel and learn how to get "My Sound" then I'll try some other pres and see what I like best. Does it mean I'd sell it? Probably never would cause there's nothing else like it and it does so much.

Here's what 2 end-users had to say about it.

BTW - have you seen these videos? Pretty Cool

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArTh7qfT8mA

This guy works in a pro studio and is doing a live AB with the compressors. He really tells it like it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9cpZ6noJcM

I hope this helps.

SEA

i used to have 4 of them. They were not bad, pretty good in many ways. I slowly replaced the dynamic convolution for more of the "real deals"... BUT i found them (the LCs) very useful to have as extra versions of some of my more esoteric vintage style pre's when, for example, doing string sessions or more blues/jazz type recordings. Great for that - stuck them on toms etc or extra percussion when needed.

As clean press they were/are very very good. That was pretty much how they ended their life with me - as very transparent pre's (not using the dynamic convolution) for room mic's for strings. I sold them a while ago as i recorded less and less and focussed on mixing work recorded elsewhere. If you got them for a good price you'll be pretty happy with them....

Thanks narcoman for your input! Appreciate it! I do a lot of jazz singing like Michael Franks and also rock like Van Morrison, Ozzy, etc. Love Clean Pres!

What about the Liquid Channels ISA setting? I was gunna buy an ISA One then maybe an ISA II but got such a great deal on a mint hardly used Liquid Channel I couldn't pass it up.

Would you say that the Liquid Channel nails the sound of the ISA down where you can't tell the difference?

Thanks again!

SEA

Hi SEA, Sorry for my bad english but I'll try to help you with these indications. First of all the LC is an amazing preamp: I use it with FLEA 47 or Neumann U87 & it's pretty transparent. Second: When I work with Pro Tools I use it for treating sub groups, kick, vocals with differents settings. At the end of the mix it can do a subtle but nice difference. Another important point: When you load some vintage preamp you will notice a loss of treble (by example v72). I sometimes use this default as a trick by treating vocal with lots of sybillance through it. I don't really care if one preamp sounds close to the original (& I have hardware Pultec EQ, Neve 1073, Neve VR...). You need to have an empirical approach:If it sounds good to you so just trust your ears! At the end of the day what is nice is to have a wide choices of compressors with their own carasteristics and behavior. Last but not least: With the usb software I save or load my settings with my computer allowing me to recall preamp or combination (preamp + comp) with any PT session. Hoping it would help.

I used one for a session at the start of the year. I liked it!

I did think the 2 Liquid Channel settings used rather exaggerated emulations but they did sound good and were very easy and quick to audition and decide which Pre model worked in which situation, which is ideal.
The end result was pretty respectable.
Overall I was impressed, although I wasn't blown away at any point. Not that I was expecting to be given the units cost.

Thanks arnoldorodeo for your input! You're "Just what the doctor ordered!"

Your reply speaks volumes and reflect thousands of other pro studio cats who use and appreciate the Liquid Channel for "What it is" instead of despising it for "What it's not" Looks like you have more $$$ invested in your mics and external EQ's than most guys have in their whole home studio!

BTW - How many Liquid Channels do you have? I just picked up one used and was thinking of a 2nd unit so I could stereo mic my acoustic guitars and electric etc.

I was also thinking about going out my 2 channel DAC and back INTO my ADC for kind of a summing thing.

Would this be a cool thing in your opinion? Also, any other external pres I pick up down the road I can simply run them into the Line In of the Liquid Channel and bypass the pre, and then go through the Liquid Channels compressors and eq before tracking from what I understand! Is this correct?

Thanks for your input!

SEA

P.S. Have you tried the Manley VoxBox? If so, how does it AB with the Liquid Channels Manley Slam setting?

Thanks Whack Doofa! Glad to hear the LC working well for your project!

I wonder what it would cost to be "Blown Away" with a nice hardware channel strip configuration these days! heh

SEA

You're welcome. About £3,500.

That's about 4K USD!

So what would you recommend for 4K in a channel strip?

Of course you only have 1 pre, 1 compressor, and 1 eq so.. you better LOVE IT!

I only have one LC. But as I said before I usually use it for coloring or compressing separated elements (bass, lead vocal, drums L & R). Keep in mind that you'll always get a little latency with outboards. I always put a click on each track in order to manually align the LC recordings.
Yes you can link two units (In fact the SPDIF at the rear panel is only for linking 2 Liquid Channel) If you'd like to use the LC with digital input/output you have to buy a ADAT to SPDIF cable.
Yes just do what you want: In music the rule is "No rules"! When you record any guitar, external sources the LC has a default program "Transformerless" flat input (meaning no preamp) as well as a bypass button for eq or comp.This is the main advantage of this unit that sounds absolutely transparent. No artifacts.You can also move the eq pre or post comp.
I worked in the south of France for many years in a beautiful studio with the VoxBox (and Sony C800G...). The VoxBox is an amazing piece of gear, maybe the best for tracking vocals. The LC doesn't emulate the Voxbox (Although it has Manley Vari-Mu & Manley Slam emulations). Once again I think honestly that LC is able to reproduce the behavior of prestigious gear, mostly with compressors. But if you'd like an example: I have a Neve 1073 in my studio & the LC just cannot reproduce all the magic of it (strenght, presence, beautiful and immediate sense of proximity of the singer etc...). By contrast just try Distressor or DBX comp emulations: The LC is very very close...

My latency when cutting midi is set to 256 or even 512 ms. So... I THINK the latency on the LC is what... 5ms or so?

So adjust the vocal track to fix is no biggy. Plus I use Reaper as my daw and it has a latency compensation feature when record.

Opps! I didn't mean the Manley VOXBOX, I meant the Manley Slam emulation! heh

How is the LC on the Manley Slam?

Thanks!

SEA

Producer Dann Huff used the Liquid Channel and a u67 for Rascall Flatts album, totally respect that album....

Once again LC is great on compressors. Mainly for vocals (SSL,Distressor) or drums (DBX, Pie). But...
As it's been said on GS you cannot get the same exact behavior of a piece of gear that cost around 6000$. Sorry to ask that question but are you looking for a mic pre or a mastering 2 bus? Because the LC is great for adding color on many elements of your mix. The Manley Slam is a totally different beast. I'm not sure that the LC is the appropriate gear for mastering purpose.
If you have the budget and plan to buy a high end piece of gear for versatility & several types of comps you may have a look at the STC-8 Cranesong.

Forgot to answer your first question! Yes the Manley Slam emulation is great. But you know, it's sometimes surprising to see that it's not always the most expensive gear that suits a vocal or a guitar. It always depends of the song, tempo, mood etc... (Daft Punk used an old Alesis 3630 for Homeworks and Jamiroquai used a lot the Liquid Channel as well as Lily Allen's sound engineer John Delf)

Mic pres right now. Mastering bus as an option.

I have a Pure2 coming which will sound AWESOME without having to go out and master through anything else on it's own. I just thought since I need 2 mic pres and the LC are so reasonable... why spend $600 on 1 pre when I can get another LC for a few hundred more?

Right now I only have a budget for 1 LC!

Then I need to save up for another pre. I thought perhaps get an ISA One for now or maybe the TB12. Then later try out the STC-8as you suggested for summing through if the Pure2 even needs it which it may not.

Also many are not summing like they used to. They use Slates VCC (which I have) and other plugs to get a good sound.

Like my dad used to say "A Poor Workman Blames His Tools"

SEA

Folks who know, would the positive comments re: the good compressor emulations apply equally to the Focusrite Liquid Mix?

sonically yes.

The issue is the drivers and getting the damn thing to work right.

OK many thanks. Ive not had any probs along those lines.

How's the API emulation on the Liquid Channel?

Thanks!

How does is sound analog wise vs. WAVES, FabFilter, SoftTube, etc? Is more like the "Real Deal" like in the Liquid Channel and more analogue sounding or what?

I heard it was tough to get them running with Windows 7 (which is what I'm running and have not desire to upgrade in the future unless something spectacular comes along) but the FIX was to use the LEGACY Drivers.

Here's a link about it.

Are Focusrite's FireWire Products Compatible With Windows 7? | Focusrite

SEA

I just got the time to connect my Liquid Channels and linked together! So far so good!

I'll test them out tomorrow and see "What's what"

I was also reading about the "Hot Pre emulations" on one of the LC threads. Has anyone downloaded and tried them out?

If so how are they and which ones do you prefer?

Thanks!

I was recording vocals with a band some years back and had a api pre borrowed from the room next to mine. when I came back the next day they guys sold it under my nose . so I used the LC with the api setting and continued on punch ins on the vocals and nobodey even noticed a differents...... So sound pretty darn good in my opinion.

Very cool!

Arnold was gracious enough to take the time to make me a demo with a singer using both the Never 1073 and the Liquid Channel. The newer Neve was a bit brighter in the highs and the Liquid Channel Neve was pretty spot on once I adjust the eq a bit.

What people forget is that not all Neve 1073 will sound the same depending on when they were manufactured. Like all things, electronic age in time hence to tube guitar amps (one built in the 70's and another in the 90's) won't sound the same even with identical components.

I found the Liquid Channels Never clone to sound a bit more "vintage" perhaps than the newer Neve 1073. Not that it sounded inferior in anyway, just a bit different in the eq.

SEA

The LM works great on Win 7 64 and also endusers have the LM working on Win 8 64!

What about the "Hot Pres" in the Liquid Channel? Which ones are they?

which audio interfaces are you guys using. I am looking to change my interface that I am currently using with my liquid channel. I am doing the following: running AES out to Spdif-IN on a EMU 1212m. Some people claim the audio converter of the liquid channel is not as great as the apogee quartet or any of the new interfaces as off 2013-2015. I havent tried any of these new pieces of gear but what do you guys think? i.e. Would running a Line-Out from the liquid channel to a new RME 802 improve the sonic quality?? instead of actually making use of the AES out to bypass any audio interface AD conversion??

The Liquid Channel conversion is fine! Just YouTube about it and read reviews. Many cats couldn't tell the difference between the "real deal" and some even preferred the Liquid Channel over some of the units it was modeling!

SEA