analoge vs digital summing

D

doulos

New member
hello there has been a good deal of debate on summing in the daw vs using a console. Well i went ahead and did a lil test. This is a dry mix no reverb no compression minus a limiter on the vox.This song has 2 seperate 2 min mixes. One was summed using pro tools le with a 001 the other was summed using a analoge console. Both mixes have been panned the same amount as far as the numbers are concerned and the mixes are relatively the same volume within 1 db of tolerance.and both mixes used seperate mixdown conversions The mp3 is converted to 192k for best quality you guys guess which is the daw mix and which one was used with a console. warning this mix is rough, but was ment to be so so the volume would be the same no automation etc. have fun http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/?aid=2997/singles
 
Last edited:
I'll check it out when I get home (can't download at work). Quik question though, How many tracks in the mix and what bit depth/sampling rate was it tracked/mixed at?
 
There's a huge difference between those two mixes -- and BTW - neither mix was very good... very unbalanced over the spectrum, thin & oversibilant vocals, muddy overall quality...

But of the two, I preferred the first one - except for the fact that the vocals were mixed lower in that version than the second...

Either way, it doesn't prove much -- the fact that your mixes are inconsistent for each version is enough to throw off establishing whether the difference is due to analog/digital summing or a technical mixing difference on your part.

The difference between the 2 versions should be more subtle than that, so I'd have to say your mixing itself got in the way of the test......
 
Last edited:
I liked the first one better as well. The low end seemed rounder and fuller, drums had more punch, and the guitars sounded more real. I was wondering what "different mixdown conversions" meant. Was the 1 db tolerance in the overall mix or on a per-track basis? And was that db in signal level or db SPL? dbu or dbFS? Would it make sense to calibrate each track to a specific signal level in each platform, as well as the final output level, and compare the two mixes that way? What kind of converters did you use?
Maybe I'm off base but it seems like the debate between studio monitors. The final product is the important thing. Once you know your gear, isn't it possible to make two mixes sound the same on analog or digital, with the appropriate tweaking?
 
boingoman i had to redo the tracks cause there was to much difference in the mixes so i re did them as close to exact as i could. The first time i just threw up faders and went from there. This time i level matched everything using a db meter my ears and a spectrum analyzer the new test results are here boingoman http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/?aid=2997/singles

these tracks were 24 bit 48k files. Mixdown conversion meant getting them down to 16 bit 44.1. I used 2 seperate converters to do this one was the pro tools converter the other was cool edit. This was just a summing test so one mix i did the 8 tracks in the box ptle. The other i ran the 8 outs to an analog board and took the stero outs back in 2 a new stereo track then i bounced that stereo track down in cool edit so i didnt use the same mix down converters to refrence with. One was recorded using the adat in the other was used using the analog ins so that had seperate converters as well.
the 1 db tolerance was only to the stereo mix acording to the statistics of the wav file ears work much better so i used my ears this time

"Once you know your gear, isn't it possible to make two mixes sound the same on analog or digital, with the appropriate tweaking?"

it depends IF digital summing is robbing you of your low end high end depth perception and stereo field its hard to put that back with mix techniques.
Cause its not that your losing volume in the low end but clarity. Same with the high end and stereo field. If your losing the details in the mix even after eqing and everything else the new mix would lose its details in the summing
as well. Its like taking a picture with a slight blurr to the overal pic. You can change the hue the contrast the color the tone the overtones the shadows and everything else, but will you really ever see whats not there? This to me is the argument, but the question is can you hear the diffrence? If not your not losing anything then are you? :)
 
Last edited:
track rat 8 tracks 8 seperate outs 24bit 48k im just curious if you can hear the diffrence or not
 
doulos said:
Its like taking a picture with a slight blurr to the overal pic. You can change the hue the contrast the color the tone the overtones the shadows and everything else, but will you really ever see whats not there? This to me is the argument, but the question is can you hear the diffrence? If not your not losing anything then are you? :)
Click to expand...
This to me is why you make glasses. If a person's sight is impaired then yes it's possible to change the hue, the contrast, the color, the tone, the overtones, the shadows and everything else, and it's still possible there would still be a slight blur to their viewing of say a perfect picture. If your improve their vision with the proper lens then that may clear everything up.

However, if your take the picture on an inferior camera with say low resolution and it adds a blur to the picture then even with perfect vision you will continue to see the blur.

So in retrospect I agree with you to a point. I think you are saying if your camera is taking blurry pictures and you can't tell the difference then you don't really lose anything. Well you do lose something. You lose the ability to see a better picture by improving your vision(equipment). Like you say you can't put back what isn't there. In other words, you'd be losing the ability to hear what you're losing from these conversions by using equipment that could interpret the detail better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top