liquid mix

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live
Post Reply
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 5:06 pm

liquid mix

Post by Rayko » Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:40 pm

Anyone has a review of the liquid mix from Focusrite?


Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:03 pm

Post by amilo » Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:21 pm ... 982&lang=0

tthe video is not up now.

mr bt loves it and marshal jefferson too but i dont fall for that celleb endorsment bullshit,

you need to try it out.

i got one and its shit :wink:

Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:07 pm

Post by spherop » Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:46 pm

sure will give a spin.

my mixes are getting more and more elaborate and have realized that to really "compete" with some of the mixes i aspire to - i would need a lot more processor. i already have a uad1 - and a decent but no longer top shelf cpu (p4 3 ghz).

so - went down to GT and purchased a LM only if they waived the restocking fee. i was a bit skeptical. 2 concerns - stability, and of course sonic quality.

the short version is on both counts i am very pleased with LM.

installation is a breeze - and I have had no stability issues.

here's why i am digging the box:

it basically covers core/essential eq/comp needs - you uber channel strip. so now i don't have to think twice before tweaking any track in the mix. which is a mega-boon.

pound for pound i seems to me one of the best ways of updating your performance on a native system. ~$800 for 32 high quality plugs with no system stress.

i cannot comment on the sound relative to the emulated hardware. other people on gearslutz etc are doing some comparisons. it seems that some emulations may not be spot on - tho focusrite has aknowledged this and is going to be releasing new versions - free to add and update.

the thing is - i think software and hardware - have such different strengths anyway - the LM sounds good, and the UI is quite usable. this is what matters most. the different modules have different characters and you can very elegantly switch between modules, even combine different eq channels - ie., adding a particular hi-freq shelf from one eq to another.

it's very cool to be able to save combo-eq-comp channels for re-use. in sum they really thought this UI thoroughly out and it works very very nice.

so in sum -
i am very glad i purchased the LM - did not return it which is not what i expected.

fabulous performance for $. great sound, and great ui.

only downside:

this is just an overall thought about UIs of plugs. while LM has a great UI - the plugs that i ultimately find the most useful, the absolute top-shelf, are ones that stray away from "emulating" hardware and provide advantages that hardware cannot match. great example for me is the voxengo curve-eq. often this plug will let me shape a sound in such a way that i could never achieve with the typical parametric ui. so as far LM goes - great UI for the hardware mimicky type - however in the long run, i would be happy to see more of the voxengo plug approach combined with hardware acceleration.

another approach to more plug/performance is to use fx-teleport which i am checking out currently. my biggest gripe with that is that it seems to continue to gobble a fair bit of proc. perf plug instance which LM does not. this is a negative but - the idea of simply running any plugs you want on networked boxes is of course fantastic.

Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:03 pm

Post by amilo » Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:24 pm

voxengo plug approach combined with hardware acceleration.
would like to see that as well also Sonalksis. good way of stopping pirates

I wouldnt say that that liquid mix is no more advance than most high quality plug in but its up there with the best(Duende and UAD1), for me thou its the ease of the interface.

Spherop have you had any delay problems yet with the 2056 sample delay problem, i was thinking that Abletons delay would work on this as ive not heard any delays. But this was a problem that people were saying.

also the knobs move in large increments so you have to use mouse for more detail.

it would be cool to see a forum were snapshots could be swapped.

Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:07 pm

Post by spherop » Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:01 am

amilo -

i haven't had any probs with the latency/delay comp. but i'll keep an eye on that. i don't see why it should be a prob - but i am relatively new to live - is there something different about live's delay comp capabilities compared to say cubase sx?

Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:25 am
Location: Tampa Bay, Fl

Post by roach808 » Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:41 am

I think I'm gonna stay outta this one...... :wink:
roach- the other white meat
MBP, Live Suite, and lots of nice analogue gear.

Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:03 pm

Post by amilo » Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:34 pm

something different about live's delay comp capabilities compared to say cubase sx?
I did a test last night i put 4 instances of the plug on to one track, just to test .i then recorded it to a audio track and compared to the original , obviously the wavform look different because of compression and eq but there was no noticeable timing difference. focurite say that every instance that is applied to the same signal that 2056 is added on so that was a grand total of 8224 samples.

I dont know if im talking crap, as im not to good at maths.but would this be right.

44000 is 1 second at 16bit then 8224 is something like 187 milliseconds of delay that needs to be applied to the other tracks that dont have 4 plug ins.

then if a track has 2 plug ins its 4112 / 44 = 93 millisecs.

I dont know if i got this right . ill email focusrite about this.

anyway i cant audibly here any delay, so i dont think its a problem
think I'm gonna stay outta this one......
why has this been talk about a lot ?

Post Reply