avatar

zmix

Aqua Marine

Posts: 4,060 Member Since:20/01/2011

#21 [url]

Apr 23 17 9:42 AM

silvertone wrote:

I had a Panasonic WRT820B, it smoked the Soundcraft 600 I had  at the time in my B room. That got replaced by a Trident 24... but that console was nothing like the 80B. Still I thought the Panasonic sounded better than the 24 I replaced it with.  To be honest I only did it for the name.  Everybody gave me a hard time about the Panasonic name as well.  Engineers really need to trust their ears more. lol

Oh man..  I did so many records at a studio in Minneapolis that had  that Ramsa WRT-820, I recall we modded it in some fundamental way to separate the CR monitor out from the stereo bus? (too long ago).  It had replaced a Tascam desk which had VUs ( the Ramsa had LED meters).. one of the producers who used the studio was blind, and I had to teach him to use the VUs on the MS-16 to set the levels (he'd listen for the needles hitting the end stops to set level..!)

Quote    Reply   
avatar

d gauss

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 1,252 Member Since:17/02/2011

#22 [url]

Apr 23 17 10:43 AM

re: Ramsa WRT-820. back in the day, dave derr (of empirical/distressor fame) used to have one (possibly 2) in his studio in jersey as well. i had a smaller version for awhile (can't remember the exact model number), that i now regret selling when i had to liquidate gear to get a mortgage down payment.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

silvertone

Aqua Marine

Posts: 2,727 Member Since:26/01/2011

#24 [url]

Apr 23 17 7:55 PM

bob olhsson wrote:
Some of the Ramsas were designed by Motown Detroit's former shop foreman John Windt. Before John began free-lancing he worked briefly for Holzer building one of A&M's consoles and was a manager at Quad-Eight for a number of years.

Your right Bob, I remember reading at the time it was designer John Windt that designed the then new WRT820B.  I never new his history though... so thank you for that.

It was a well thought out small console that had quite flexible monitoring capabilities for its size.  In line, if I recall but made more sense than most in line consoles at the time.  That said, I always preferred a split Monitor design like the Trident 80B and even the 24 had.  I'm a simpleton and they were just easier for me to deal with in the heat of battle. 

Silvertone Mastering, celebrating 28 years in business.

www.silvertonemastering.com

Quote    Reply   
avatar

trock.lucasmicrophone

Gold Finger

Posts: 343 Member Since:11/10/2013

#27 [url]

Apr 25 17 7:43 AM

I'm sure this is a dumb question, but are most consoles set up roughly the same for workflow? In that, you come in on a channel into the pre section, then into an eq and possibly comp section? I have owned "channel strips", that all were set up that way and I thought were meant to mimic the flow of a channel on a board.

and to follow that, was it relatively easy for you then to go from one console to another and get to work quickly? in terms of workflow. I realize they had different sounds and capabilities but I'm wondering how easy or hard it was to say go from an API to something else etc? although i guess even in the same brand you had different boards. but, the question remains was it relatively easy to bounde from place to place if needed and console to console?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

soapfoot

Ruby Baby

Posts: 7,312 Member Since:04/02/2011

#28 [url]

Apr 25 17 8:34 AM

trock wrote:
I'm sure this is a dumb question, but are most consoles set up roughly the same for workflow? In that, you come in on a channel into the pre section, then into an eq and possibly comp section? I have owned "channel strips", that all were set up that way and I thought were meant to mimic the flow of a channel on a board.

and to follow that, was it relatively easy for you then to go from one console to another and get to work quickly? in terms of workflow. I realize they had different sounds and capabilities but I'm wondering how easy or hard it was to say go from an API to something else etc? although i guess even in the same brand you had different boards. but, the question remains was it relatively easy to bounde from place to place if needed and console to console?

not quite.

there are two main types-- inline consoles and split consoles. inline consoles can also be set up as split consoles, but not the other way around.

an inline console has two different paths on each channel strip-- the channel path and the monitor path. An SSL 4000 series would be an example of this-- you have a large fader and a short fader. One controls what you hear in the control room, the other controls what the DAW or tape machine "hears." On the SSL you can also flip them to change their functions (this is the "VCA to Monitor" button, which means that the short fader can make fine adjustments to your level to tape, and you can use the large fader to set up the rough mix without impacting level-to-tape).

Some older consoles have only one path per channel, and you must use two channel strips per track-- one as your send to tape, and the other as your return from tape (monitor path). In this scenario, you might have channels 1-24 as your sends to tape, and use those faders (along with the preamp gain) to set your level to tape. Then channels 25-48 would be your return FROM tape, and you'd adjust those faders to set up the rough mix that you'd monitor in the control room, and maybe print to a stereo recorder for later reference. 

On some inline consoles, the monitor path either isn't quite as pretty-sounding as the channel path, or isn't as convenient (i.e. rotary pot instead of fader). The Neve 8058 we have in our B room is kind of this way... it's technically an inline console, but the monitor path uses a rotary pot... and for whatever reason doesn't seem to sound as nice as the channel path. So if track count is low, I'll often "split" that console as well, manually switching as many channels as I need to "mic" mode and using those to send to the recorder, and I'll return from the recorder to separate channels further to the right on the desk. That way I can use the better-sounding channel path (with the linear faders) both as my send to tape AND as my monitor path... but I only have half as many usable inputs that way.

Every desk is a little bit different, besides... I think any time I encounter an unfamiliar-to-me desk I have to get my bearings for at least a little bit.

brad allen williams

Last Edited By: soapfoot Apr 25 17 8:41 AM. Edited 4 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

seth

Ruby Baby

Posts: 5,572 Member Since:26/01/2011

#29 [url]

Apr 25 17 8:51 AM

There are split consoles that have a 'jukebox', a group of channels off to one side that are dedicated tape returns.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

maarvold

Aqua Marine

Posts: 3,093 Member Since:23/01/2011

#30 [url]

Apr 25 17 9:29 AM

seth wrote:
There are split consoles that have a 'jukebox', a group of channels off to one side that are dedicated tape returns.

 
At the place I ran, both our Neve 8038's were this configuration.  

Quote    Reply   
avatar

trock.lucasmicrophone

Gold Finger

Posts: 343 Member Since:11/10/2013

#31 [url]

Apr 25 17 10:11 AM

Wow, thanks Brad! It sounds complicated. So if you were using faders to send to the monitors and then faders for the mix etc, how would make them both sound the same? and isn't that what you would wants vs 2 different sounds of the song, or am i missing what you meant?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

soapfoot

Ruby Baby

Posts: 7,312 Member Since:04/02/2011

#32 [url]

Apr 25 17 12:24 PM

trock wrote:
Wow, thanks Brad! It sounds complicated. So if you were using faders to send to the monitors and then faders for the mix etc, how would make them both sound the same? and isn't that what you would wants vs 2 different sounds of the song, or am i missing what you meant?

The monitor faders are post-tape ("tape" could mean DAW of course), so it would be possible to make them sound exactly like what was coming off tape, and use the faders to change only their balances.

However, sometimes you want to keep the sounds going to tape unprocessed, and add EQ on the monitor side for the benefit of the rough mix, but without committing that EQ to tape.

On a split console it's easy to apply EQ to JUST the monitor path (the aforementioned "jukebox" doesn't always offer EQ on the monitor path, however).

This could be useful if you wanted to apply EQ to the rough mix, but didn't want to commit your EQ to tape. Many inline consoles allow you to do this, as well-- on an SSL 4000, you can choose whether to apply the EQ to the channel path or to the monitor path. You can even split the EQ section and apply the high/low pass filters to one and the rest of the EQ to the other. You can also apply the dynamics section to the channel path or to the monitor path... that way you can choose whether you want to process the sounds for the benefit of the rough mix but leave them unprocessed to tape, to allow the mix engineer flexibility. OR you can process them to tape and box the mix engineer in. Whatever you want to do.

There are many practical reasons besides the rough mix that one might like the process or balance the monitor side differently from what's going to tape. For example-- let's say there's a guide vocal, but the producer in the control room doesn't want to hear it, because she knows the song, and the guide that's going down isn't very good, and she just wants to focus on the track. They can mute the guide vocal (or turn it way down) in the control room without impacting its level to tape.

Or let's say that as the band is running down the first take, the engineer engages a high-pass on the wurli, sweeps it around, then settles on a corner frequency. The first 'rehearsal' take ends up being a magical 'keeper.' Since the engineer tweaked around with the filter only on the monitor side, his twiddling didn't mess up what went to tape, and he can recall his filter setting in the mix if needed. Or let's say there's a particular compressor in the mix room that works well on bass, but that piece of gear is not available in the tracking room. The engineer can use a channel compressor on the SSL "in the meantime" to get a similar effect, but leave the basic sound uncompressed so that he can really dial in the time constants on his favorite compressor later, in the mix suite. Etc etc.

brad allen williams

Quote    Reply   
avatar

trock.lucasmicrophone

Gold Finger

Posts: 343 Member Since:11/10/2013

#33 [url]

Apr 25 17 1:19 PM

got it! that's very cool! I'm constantly amazed at all the decisions that need to be made not only in the mixing part with a console, but tracking, editing, mixes sent different places and in different forms for people, all of it.

and they must be alot of fun to use. The few times I recorded in a real studio I loved sitting at the board with the engineer and just watching. most of it was truly beyond me though. He did let me cut the tape with a razor a couple of times though and taped it back up! He would find the part and twist the knobs back and forth a little and the be like"CUT IT THERE"! lol

thanks for the info, and thought process! really appreciate the insight!

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help