Looking for help/collaborators for an experiment . . .

  • Thread starter Thread starter chessrock
  • Start date Start date
C

chessrock

Banned
Seems I've been hearing a lot of talk lately about Digital Summing versus Analog Summing. The pros and cons of mixing in the box versus going back out to a board, etc. etc.

A lot of people out there are making major purchasing decisions on this stuff without even being able to fully hear for themselves, firsthand, the pros and cons of both. With all due respect to Lynn Fuston's ideas and good intentions, I also see some major flaws and shortcomings in the methodology of 3-D Audio's summing comparison CDs.

Alright, cutting to the chase, here's my idea:

I would need someone with a decent analog board incorporated in to your DAW setup. Your setup has to have enough D/A and mixer channels to handle up to maybe 12-16 tracks worth of audio for mixing and summing.

I will ship you several CD's -- or preferably one DVD+R -- consisting of several 24-bit wave files. Each file will be a separate track of a mix I have tracked here for one of my clients. These will all be stereo tracks, mind you, with all of the relative levels, panning, EQ, effects, etc. already present and printed to each respective track.

All you have to do is route them out of your audio editor, to your board at unity where you will sum it, send it back to your DAW program and save it to a 24-bit stereo wave file (don't do anything else to it) and send it to me.

I will take the same files I send you, and sum it here "in the box" using one or more popular software programs (Vegas, Nuendo, CoolEdit/Adobe whatever, etc.).

I'll then normalize the files if necessary, dither to 16-bit and provide a link to where everyone can download, listen and compare. I will supply 16-bit wave files for those with better connection, as well as mp3's for those with less bandwidth/patience.

Having good A/D and D/A would be a major bonus, as that would allow us to isolate the summing capabilities of our respective setups as (hopefully) the main variable. Even if they're typical prosumer level, I still think it would be a valuable experiment.

Let me know if anyone is game by PM'ing me or emailing me: snailinajar@yahoo.com
 
that would rock! hope someone takes you up on it......
 
Thanks, Gidge.


Just an FYI : This is not intended to be some sort of competition, by the way . . . it's not my system versus yours or anything like that.

I'm just really curious to hear what difference it might make in the final outcome, and how much. I just think so many of us would find this of imense value.

If I can't find any willing takers for this, I am contemplating renting out some time at a nearby studio . . . perhaps Chicago Trax or maybe I could book something at Steve Albini's Electric Audio. I'd appreciate if someone on this board could lend me a hand though, and save me some moo-lah. :D

Thanks again!
 
I think it would be good to get a few different boards sampled so you can hear the range of analog summing.
Might even be cool to hear a DAW standalone through a digital board to compare the similarities to the internal DAW mix.
The more options we have the more can glean.
I'm interested.

It would be great if the guys here could get together and start a space for comparison testing.;)
 
Chess,So what do you mean by decent? Something better than wackie of course?
I know you want to see the difference, but what level of resolution are you wanting?
Are you sure you want to submit them in stereo? How big is the project data wise?

Tony
chessrock said:
Alright, cutting to the chase, here's my idea:

I would need someone with a decent analog board incorporated in to your DAW setup. Your setup has to have enough D/A and mixer channels to handle up to maybe 12-16 tracks worth of audio for mixing and summing.

snailinajar@yahoo.com
Click to expand...
 
yeah I totally get it.....i only do software mixing/summing so i have no idea how much better going thru a good analog board will do.....
 
Re: Re: Looking for help/collaborators for an experiment . . .

Tonio said:
Chess,So what do you mean by decent? Something better than wackie of course?
I know you want to see the difference, but what level of resolution are you wanting?
Are you sure you want to submit them in stereo? How big is the project data wise?

Tony
Click to expand...

Tony,

The idea would be to try and eliminate as many factors as possible so as to isolate the summing as the main variable in the test.

By sending stereo files that are already panned, with stereo effects, etc. already applied, we'll be able to compare apples to apples, and worry only about the differences in the summing rather than wonder whether the panning on the DAW versus the board had any effect, or if it was slightly different on the board, or whatever.

From what I gather, the 12-channel wackie boards are actually the best ones they make in terms of summing capabilities, since the summing bus supposedly isn't being stressed or maxed out as much as the bigger boards . . . which makes sense when you think of it. So maybe a smaller Wackie or Soundcraft board wouldn't be such a bad idea?

The resolution just has to be the same on both ends so, again, we're comparing apples and eliminating bit-depth and sampling rate as possible variables.
 
Very interesting discussion this is.
I agree 100% that things like Lynn's CD's are of limited or no value, as there are to many variables involved in any such "comparison".

However, even more variables will be involved in Chess' proposed comparison.

I think it might be a good idea to give the whole 'digital vs analogue summing' a little perspective.

The statement and discussion concerning 'dig. vs anal. summing' is in itself misleading, as invariably it is implied that analogue summing is / sounds so much better than digital summing. Is that a statement based on fact?

In reality - no - it is not a fact, in fact it is anything but a fact :)

Saying that - take a Pro Tools session for instance consisting of a good amount of channels, go to a major establishment and run the mix through a Neve............ Would you get a better result doing it like that, as compared to doing the summing within Pro Tools? The answer is, without any question, yes, you would. On top of that, the lower the quality of your recording, the more audable the difference will be.
But.... run the same mix through a mackie or something like that, and its very likely that your "Pro Tools Original" would sound better in its organic state.

So where is the "problem" with digital summing?
To answer that, first a question; There are more and more top studio's with daily rates well into 4 figures with digital consoles costing hundreds of thousands, made by companies like Sony, SSL, Stagetec, Euphonix and the like. Does this mean they would be better of taking all their finished products to another, analogue, room to avoid the "digital summing problem"? Of cause they don't do that, and the audio quality would not benefit from that either.

The reality is that digital summing can be equally as good as - and in some cases better than - analogue summing. BUT IT DEPENDS how you do the summing, what equipment you use for the summing.
It so happens that all Digital Audio Workstations are designed and made for a consumer driven market, a very good thing, as most people cannot afford to buy a Euphonics console, or a place to put the beast for that matter. As a result, summing within DAW's and small / medium digital consoles normally takes place by using one single chip. It works. Does it maintain audio quality? Absolutely not.
To best illustrate this, take for instance the solution to avoid quality loss we have implemented here. We do use Pro Tools, but in a "hybrid" version, as we bypass the Digidesign A/D's, D/A's as well as its summing busses. Instead we use a Stagetec system, which we researched and found to be unequalled by a huge margin. The difference? Where DAW's use one chip, the Stagetec system uses a card containing 5 powerful chips to sum a MAXIMUM of 32 channels. 32 is the maximum number their research showed you could sum using this method without incurring quality loss, over 32 and you'll have to add another card for the next 32, etc. Given that the chips used are more powerfull than those found on most DAW cards, you get my drift, naturally you'll have a "problem" if you use one single chip, the more channels you route through one chip, the bigger your "problem" will be. Naturally, all major digital consoles use similar multiple chip systems.

As the above is nothing but scientific fact, why don't DAW manufacturers address this issue? Again a simple answer - cost. If they did, the solution to the summing "problem" would be equal in cost to the purchase of a complete system, and the quality difference does not equate to the expenditure.

In conclusion, there is no "digital vs analogue summing" debate. Instead it is a matter of routing your audio to the best possible circuits, be they analogue or digital.
Yes, you would benefit from summing your DAW recorded session through a high-end analogue console (or summing mixer for that matter), but only in the same way as when you would take the same session through a high-end digital console.

Slightly of the topic, a very similar scenario is the "digital=cold / analogue=warm" debate ......... it all depends on the quality of equipment used.

Personally, I believe that - at least high-end - digital has now arrived where it is possible to obtain a quality of recording that has never been possible in the analogue domain. With equipment prices dropping all the time, this means that "consumer" digital is getting better-and-better, which is nothing but a good thing. However, it also means that "digital done right" remains very expensive.
 
"But.... run the same mix through a mackie or something like that, and its very likely that your "Pro Tools Original" would sound better in its organic state."
Sounds like speculation to me.

"In conclusion, there is no "digital vs analogue summing" debate."
That may be your conclusion but I'd rather make my own subjective hypothesis from evidence.

I don't doubt that the highest end of digital summing can be as good as analog to some ears but the fact is we (home recorders) don't usually have access to that equipment. We have Mackies and Maudio cards. I would love to hear a comparison on a single system of an external (Mackie or other budget mixer) mix versus an internal mix at all zero with no EQ. I would even like to hear the difference in the EQ applicatiion and effects.
I would also love to hear that mix through a digital home recorder board to gain that perspective and how it compares to the internal (computer mix).

There is indeed a debate but it's not for the ultimate king of summing but more for the cost effective best summing option.


Just my opinion.
 
jake-owa said:
"But.... run the same mix through a mackie or something like that, and its very likely that your "Pro Tools Original" would sound better in its organic state."
Sounds like speculation to me.
Click to expand...
:D "it is very likely that" - doesn't just sound like speculation, it is speculation, as I've never run anything through a mackie. However, I really doubt you'd hear a difference, and would not be at all surprised if you didn't lower the quality of your session, as you would definately increase your noisefloor by quite a few dB

I totally get what you are saying jake-owa, but you have to take into consideration that it is the quality of summing that matters - the higher the quality - the better your summing will be, regardless if its analogue or digital

There are some companies that make really good summing gear, like for instance http://www.dangerousmusic.com/2bus.html, or the superb one made by Inward Connections, distributed by http://www.boutiqueaudio.com
 
Chess,
Got any takers yet?
I'm trying not to tink about what Skojo is saying, cuz he's at a level somewhat'above us'
so to speak, but I with ya! Hopefully I will reply to Skojo in what you are trying to
accomplish, at least I think what that is he he he.
I have tried the realtime bounce(internal-via aux) in the DAW and going stereo out back
nto the DAW for comparison. It was really hard to discern, but there was a small degree of
difference in the image. It may be small , but i gather it is actually big if ya know what I
mean. I read the debates about PT and other DAW's.
Anyway, what I meant with resolution was what kinda of board are you thinking of
wackie, spirit (micro home reccer type)around 16 channnels or 4, 32 boards like A&H
Crest, Soundcraft. I think you know where I'm coming from since the 'bigger boards' will
prolly give you a better representation of summing the bus. I guess being in HR I
would assume that this test is at the micro level, and if other guys like Skojo would
join the better-don't remember know what he's running but would be cool.
Down to the gritty. STEREO FILES.........I don;t think all track should be as such, though it
needs some kinda pre planning to be sure we are dealing with the right mix.
12-16 tracks(in stereo) would equal 4 files tops if ya know what I mean.
Anyway gotta take care of some chit, be back in abit:)

Tony
 
Skojo, allthough you bring up valid points... I don' think Chess is looking at that level.
At least I think so.
Sure if we could afford a dangerous 2B, we would all be happyLOL!!:D I know I can't.
It may difficult so orchestrate such a comparison, it may be doable to a degree.
T
 
It's simple. I want to know if the average home recorder will get a cleaner, more accurate mix inside his computer or with his mixer.
I understand that it will not be world class mixing either way but I would guess the board will sound much better. Anyone want to place bets?
Like I said before I would love to hear teh range of analog and digital (both internal and mixer) summing. So the more takers we get the more we will learn. If I had a 8+ output soundcard I would be first to volenteer but I only have 16 track tape and a four out card. I bet my 32 channel TASCAM board would blow a pro tools mix out of the water, give me a pro tools rig and I'll prove it. :p
 
Jake, thanks for translation, my thoughs too! well maybe add to it..better sounding?
I have 16 tracks via a Soundcraft Spirit SX mixer and MOTU 1224, and 2408 on the ada interface
available for this experiment.
What up Chess?

jake-owa said:
It's simple. I want to know if the average home recorder will get a cleaner, more accurate mix inside his computer or with his mixer.
:p
Click to expand...
 
Gee I must have had too many brews? Talk about incomplete sentences ha ha

Tonio said:
Skojo, allthough you bring up valid points... I don' think Chess is looking at that level.
At least I think so.
Sure if we could afford a dangerous 2B, we would all be happyLOL!!:D I know I can't.
It may difficult so orchestrate such a comparison, it may be doable to a degree.
T
Click to expand...
 
I should perhaps have added one more thing, but perhaps its obvious anyway.
With DAW summing taking place on one chip, the more tracks your mix consists of, the more the end result will benefit from alternative summing.
Of cause it also depends on your chosen sample rate and clock speed.

As a general rule, you can safely say that you would not hear an improvement with under 12 tracks. Over that, its a gradual decline with single chip summing, and its a well known fact that mixes of 40 tracks or over will fall apart if mixed within a DAW.

So if you guys want to do a comparison, use a session with a high track count.

My reason for posting the 2 good summing engines was simply to illustrate my point - its circuit quality that makes summing good or bad, be it digital or analogue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top