Any TAPE Simulation Plug-In for Logic?

okay...I don't want to drive this topic into the ground, so I swear I won't post any more regarding this issue after this one last tiny thing:

Has anybody tried the Space Designer IR's mentioned earlier in this thread and developed any strong opinions? I realize there are numerous plugs out there that cost big bucks, and probably sound a lot better. I guess I'm just trying to find a nice little work around until I spend the bucks and go that route.

(Meantime, I have used match eq a couple times, sampling great recordings and matching my stuff to it on the 1-2 buss. It's pretty cool)

Jon H. wrote:
Has anybody tried the Space Designer IR's mentioned earlier in this thread and developed any strong opinions?

I don't really have much clout, as far as opinions go, since I'm kind of in a consistent learning phase, but I tried the Beamsonic IRs, and I was very pleasantly surprised. The tape stuff added a kind of (and I hate to use this word) "warmth" that EQ alone, probably couldn't provide. The amp stuff added (and I like to use this word) "beef" to my guitar stuff that I run through Logic's Guitar Amp Pro.

Back to the tape IR, KennyGsus's description of "clack becoming more of a thwack," is rather apt. In addition to the squashed transients, there's a sort of "fuzziness" to the sound that I dig. Since I do electronic style music most of the time, the "digital-ness" tends to bug me. The Beamsonic IRs add some life to my decidedly sterile-sounding recordings.

Convolution is a different process to EQ'ing. For instance, you can't get a reverb or delay out of an EQ. And you can't get the time smearing effect out of an EQ that convolution can, which is essential for those tape impulses.

You cannot replicate the same effect as the tape impulses with an EQ. You can broadly match the EQ spectrum of course, but that's as far as you can go. You certainly can't get that splotchy transients thing going on, unless you had a really broken EQ plugin... 😉

Has anybody tried the Space Designer IR's mentioned earlier in this thread and
developed any strong opinions? I realize there are numerous plugs out there
that cost big bucks, and probably sound a lot better.

You mean anybody other than those of us posting on this thread saying we already use them..?

I'm kind of in a consistent learning phase

As are most of us - I think that's a good place to be. The moment I feel I know everything is when I should probably do something else...

Since I do electronic style music most of the time, the "digital-ness" tends to bug me.
The Beamsonic IRs add some life to my decidedly sterile-sounding recordings.

I know what you mean. I think sometimes it's nice to hear something different to what's the raw digital nakedness - using eg those impulses just might sound nice because it sounds different, not because it's better or more lively.

It's for this reason when I'm bored with something or want some inspiration I have a bunch of stuff I'll flip though on an audio source, including wild EQ treatments, just to see if anything jumps out as being particularly interesting. One thing I particularly like is using noise print noise reduction plugins and just using the audio the plugin would be subtracting from the source - usually engaging monitor mode does this. I just like it because it's realted to my audio but at the same time something a little new for the ear to latch onto...

Bee Jay wrote:

You mean anybody other than those of us posting on this thread saying we already use them..?

yes

Hi Bee Jay,

I'm having problems with the Beamsonic Studer IRs and wondered if you could help. I realise it's not your favourite bit of kit and you're not Tech Support for Beamsonic! Any help would be appreciated though. It may be something more related to Space Designer settings than the IRs themselves.

I'm trying to test the tape effect on a two track stereo recording which is set up on two mono tracks in Logic, panned left and right (recorded with mics in ORTF). I've sent the left and right channels to their own aux track with the Studer IR (+3db without NR) set up on each and panned left and right accordingly.

This should be fine - the mono IR will affect each channel separately retaining the stereo image etc, but a few strange things are happening. With both busses activated in the mixer channels (100% wet) and both Space Designer insert buttons activated on the Aux channels, I actually get no effect. When I deactivate the SD Aux channels the affect appears to kick in!

I've checked this with other IRs (Logic factory stuff plus some third party Lexicon impulses) and they work as expected with both SD inserts on the Aux channels activated.

Another thing I'm confused about is the effect that the main SD reverb slider has on the sound. When I increase this from -25db (default) up to -6db or higher I get a 'roomy' delay effect, more like the sound of a very short reverb - obviously that's not desirable. I was under the impression this control changed out level only, and didn't manipulate the sound of the reverb in any way.

I really just want to apply a subtle amount of tape saturation to a stereo piece using the +1db or +3db Studer impulse responses, but need to make sure I'm using these right!

Cheers
Mark

Another thing I'm confused about is the effect that the main SD reverb
slider has on the sound. When I increase this from -25db (default) up
to -6db or higher I get a 'roomy' delay effect, more like the sound of a
very short reverb - obviously that's not desirable. I was under the
impression this control changed out level only, and didn't manipulate
the sound of the reverb in any way.

That sounds to me like you're treating the tape impulses like a reverb effect - ie, having some dry channels, sending those to auxes and mixing in the 100% wet aux processed sound with the original dry sound.

This is not the way to do it. The tape impulses need to be an insert effect, so you only hear the 100% wet signal - you do not mix in the dry signal at all.

So either put SD as an insert effect on the channels you want, set to 100% wet, or set the output of those tracks to the bus you want to use for SD, so you are only hearing those tracks through the SD processed aux channel, again 100% wet, so you never hear the dry signal at all.

Thanks. I did indeed have it set up as a send effect - I assumed setting the two channels to 100% would work but apparently not. I've got the outputs routed to the two SD Auxes now and it seems to be ok. To compare before and after I've compensated by taking off 6db (or whatever the IR is) on the two Aux channels so you can really hear what the differences are.

Sounds very nice - I really like the sound of these impulses compared to things like PSP Vintage Warmer. That sounds ok but when you compare it side-by-side you can tell it's been modelled in software rather than taken from real hardware.

Cheers
M

hey KennyGsus !
Wow, I'm really happy to hear what that guy did with his *Studer A80*. It sounds awsome here 🙂 Has a long PT HD user, I'm a fan of Massey Tape, DUY Tape, AC1, AC2, CB4 and the Fairchild.

I think I'm gonna sample some of theses 🙂 I would like to try Cranesong plugs too 🙂
I never realise how much IR are efficient !! Nice !!!

Do you know guys where we could have a place to put our IR's. Building or find a massive collection of processing like Tape or compressors.

And for Vintage Warmer, I'm a fan too but nothing to do with a tape saturation. It's a great compressor.

See ya later fans of saturation

" Now if only someone would write an AU for dynamic based convolution switching. "

I know exactly what do you mean !! But we can do different IR with different presets for SD 🙂 Ya it's a long process ... LIke for the Analogue Channel 2 from McDSP, it could take up 600 presets too really have an fully clone a it. It would be a full time job !! But for an 1176Black, 10 presets would be find as well as the Fairchild 🙂