Just get the goodhertz midside plug-in on demo. It simplifies the process and when you’re don’t using it, you truly understand.

The Genelec 1030As should always be upright. Naughty of him. A big No No.

​@@waldiewave Why

I noticed the same, curious why no one has replied to this? The tweeters usually should be to the outside to align better to listener. There may be certain exceptions according to speaker design, tweeter polarity, and the crossover order.

@@TheFRiNgEguitars and as far as i know you shouldn't lie on one sie speakers designed to stay upward because you risk to mess with the emission pattern

but since these are UNIVERSAL studio i think they can measure and adjust the shit out of it

@@johnmiller8279 I think you are talking about the dispersion pattern? Yes you're right, with side placement the vertical becomes the horizontal pattern which will be usually tighter, The near fields have a waveguide, which are likely time aligned. (so these can be on their sides) The speakers will still image sharply, perhaps more so, however the listening sweet spot will be smaller... and pretty much restricted to dead center between the speakers for best response.

TJ Mack becuase all in the box doesn't sound as good as this analog gear

Bs I see Weiss digital eq and compressor

its to avoid conversion

its to avoid having to digital dither. you could do it with 1 computer, but your DAW/software will have to DIGITALLY convert it afterwards, which is what he’s trying to avoid. for example, lets say your mixed track is recorded at 96khz/32bit chain with 1 computer: 96khz/32bit > analog gear > 96khz/32bit > final 44.1khz/16bit (software/daw export conversion) chain with 2 computers: 96khz/32bit > analog gear > final 44.1khz (second computer recording)

+Miles Feinberg Sontec?

+Miles Feinberg It's the ITI MES-430 Parametric Mastering Eq. Also look into the Prism Sound Maselec MEA-2 Mastering Eq.

he answered he'd do this if he had a single-computer full digital processing, but he uses analogue gear between the source and the recorder, then in this configuration it removes a conversion step. 96 -> analogue -> 44.1 record instead of 96 -> analogue -> 96 record -> 44.1 conversion

my guess is (Just a theory) that whatever sample rate you record at (even if its low) would retain most of the original quality been recorded through it even if the recorded audio has a higher quality... E.g, If you record a 192kHZ audio source from another computer into a 44KHZ sample rate on the computer you choose to use for the final export, the re-recorded audio should be able to keep many qualities of the original audio been recorded through it while it still remains a smaller size....

+kadekbalian I was thinking the same thing. I can't seem to understand as to why he is using that archaic analog mixer. Every time a DAC converts a digital signal to analogue one, it looses quality. He should change his title to "butcher".

+Honey Bear Focusrite? ...The fuck are you talking about? Every time you convert digital to analogue you lose signal quality because of the lossy nature of the analogue signal. So analog technology is not archaic? Wow, you learn something everyday.. Not! lol Just because old stubborn mastering engineers and the sheep they influence STILL use doesn't mean it's valuable because it's in "real mastering studios....".

shechshire shechshire honey bear is implying exactly what you just said essentially. I can do 20 passes of da-ad on my Aopgee symphony and it still nulls to zero so there's no loss at all on higher end converters. It's all about the dynamic range of the ad, da stages, THD and the actual bits you end up with so yes it is indeed all about computer science. There's also nothing like that Sontec EQ he has there available as a plugin. There's also vibe in the Dangerous gear that he uses. No offence pal but you can't comment on that gear unless you've used it. You're not going to hear the difference in your bedroom studio anyway.

mrdan-music I take it you've read my other comment.. What I meant was that, studying sound, as in real sound in it's natural analogue state has nothing to do with computer science and hence that person wouldn't be able to talk out of knowledge because they don't understand computer science and how sound becomes digitized and then converted by a DAC into analogue again. I understand that mega expensive DACs are extremely low jitter but the key word here is LOW.. Meaning loss of fidelity still exist. Sorry but, if their's no need for it then why even do it? Why go through the trouble? In fact, analogue purists' number one complaint is people that take an analogue sound and then run the whole thing through digital equipment.

Genelec A1031

Genelec 1032c

No

Try a Lavry Gold.. under 10k and sounds AMAZING

phat handyman try a Lynx Hilo for about $2.5k

Just do it in the box. Most people do.

BAD MUSIC SOUNDS BAD AT ANY PRICE.

It's because listeners don't care about that technical stuff at all. It's engineers who worry too much!

why?

ozorg maybe movies?? (On movie film tape)

LOL wtf is right LOL

Because every piece of analog gear has unique sound, depth and width. Plugins still can't deliver that.

For the same reason virtually every professinal guitarist uses a real tube amp instead of a plugin

@@justaguy3515 That's debatable because even modern digital limiters sound different... If not better :)

Wrong ! When you understand the tools 1st. Then you understand theory.

Caveman rig gets the job done! I think you are imagining the "added noise."

… and thats why all the legendary hits are mastered/mixed on ANALOG gear. If you like TikTok ringtones i guess VST can work for you. This is for the big boys!

@@frutini I bet there are some great legendary hits made digitally, ain't it?

@@Essential-Electronic-Music fisher - losing it is not a legendary hit

You are the weakest link, and clearly don't understand a lick of what you're talking about or the gear that you just saw.

and that's why your shit will NEVER sound like the Masters

@@messiahblackgod I AM the Master