F
foreverain4
New member
so do any of you analog mixer dudes use any automation packages with your boards?
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
For me, no and yes. The console itself is not automated but I use Cakewalk and set up volume/pan envelope editing so for all intents and purposes, the mix is automated to a degree.
F
foreverain4
New member
what i am refering to is a system that runs off the inserts of analog boards. i know mackie used to make one. it is a 2U rack unit that taps your board inserts with a tip, ring, sleeve cable. smpte time code is sent to it via your time piece. it is conected to a computer with a serial cable and has software with virtual faders with which you can record fader and mute automation in sync with your adat or HD recorder. your board inserts are then moved to the front of this unit making them accessible from the front like a patch bay. the unit i have is from behringer. (a mackie copy, no surprise!) it sure beats using your toes to pull down the other 16 faders!
lynn
lynn
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
This is a GREAT topic!
There was a lot of stuff going around the net about one app's summing buss vs another and some friends and I did a lot of tests, and we found that some apps cant produce digital clones! I mean certain summing sections cannot do " garbage in = garbage out.
We set up some files, 8 stereo channels that were turned up or down in a 2 track editor so that when thrown into an app, "zeroed out" it would be an OK mix. Some manufacturers wont even TELL you where zero is ( logic, sonar), so you gotta guess, but mainly there was a hitch in getting all the pan laws the same. Anyhow, the mixes sounded different coming off of different apps! This despite some of the app makers coming out publically and saying that they ALL summed by multiplying each channel and dividing by the number of channels. We tried Vegas, Sonar, Logic, Cubase 5, Nuendo, Samplitude, and PTLE.
There were different flavors to the different apps...maybe someone can use that to their advantage.
Whenever I have the time and KNOW that there will be no need to recall a mix, I'll give console summing a try, and an in the box mix and compare them. I'll almost always like the console mix better, but the in the box one will invariably sound more " hi fi ".
for most customers tho, recall is way more important as we wont be mixing all the songs in one sitting, and maybe have bands in in between, so Im using In the box more and more.
Lately tho Im noticing that it really may not be the summing sections fault, its just that you cant push two faders at once to compare with a mouse, cant grab two different eq's at once, etc...
Even on small digital consoles where there's not a knob per function, its almost as bad as using a mouse. I am betting once there is better control, REAL control, we wont be arguing this anymore.
I summed a lot of drums on my old Ghost, they always came out distorted and whacky on the hi end, a lot like someonbe threw a blanket over the speakers, compared to in the box, but I still liked the ghost summs better many times, because it sounded MORE like how I wanted it to, just minus a little hi fi'ness. Guitars and vocals tho for me always seem to do better in the box.
With this new trident Im gonna try zeroing out the board (except for pans) so that I can try its summing buss and still be able to recall REALLY easily. Of course Ill be tempted to hit the board's eq's and such but well see how it goes
There was a lot of stuff going around the net about one app's summing buss vs another and some friends and I did a lot of tests, and we found that some apps cant produce digital clones! I mean certain summing sections cannot do " garbage in = garbage out.
We set up some files, 8 stereo channels that were turned up or down in a 2 track editor so that when thrown into an app, "zeroed out" it would be an OK mix. Some manufacturers wont even TELL you where zero is ( logic, sonar), so you gotta guess, but mainly there was a hitch in getting all the pan laws the same. Anyhow, the mixes sounded different coming off of different apps! This despite some of the app makers coming out publically and saying that they ALL summed by multiplying each channel and dividing by the number of channels. We tried Vegas, Sonar, Logic, Cubase 5, Nuendo, Samplitude, and PTLE.
There were different flavors to the different apps...maybe someone can use that to their advantage.
Whenever I have the time and KNOW that there will be no need to recall a mix, I'll give console summing a try, and an in the box mix and compare them. I'll almost always like the console mix better, but the in the box one will invariably sound more " hi fi ".
for most customers tho, recall is way more important as we wont be mixing all the songs in one sitting, and maybe have bands in in between, so Im using In the box more and more.
Lately tho Im noticing that it really may not be the summing sections fault, its just that you cant push two faders at once to compare with a mouse, cant grab two different eq's at once, etc...
Even on small digital consoles where there's not a knob per function, its almost as bad as using a mouse. I am betting once there is better control, REAL control, we wont be arguing this anymore.
I summed a lot of drums on my old Ghost, they always came out distorted and whacky on the hi end, a lot like someonbe threw a blanket over the speakers, compared to in the box, but I still liked the ghost summs better many times, because it sounded MORE like how I wanted it to, just minus a little hi fi'ness. Guitars and vocals tho for me always seem to do better in the box.
With this new trident Im gonna try zeroing out the board (except for pans) so that I can try its summing buss and still be able to recall REALLY easily. Of course Ill be tempted to hit the board's eq's and such but well see how it goes
sonusman
Banned
pipe, I agree that the lack of ability to grab two knobs of the same function on two different channels can indeed by a contributing factor to digital mixing solutions not being up to snuff in the sonic catagory. But in my experience, it falls more under "it takes longer to do" and "you gotta pay more attention" type of thing. I have gotten used to that type of thing, and possibly, you might have that same ability to keep a "picture" of a sound in your brain for doing a/b comparisons. I don't like talking too much about this ability to being able to "picture" the sound and at a later time know if it is exactly right when comparing to something else because until you see me do it, you would think I was making a wild ass guess. 
But I have talked to other engineers that have this ability.
Anyway, I have too ran some tests on the master buss summing on software programs. While frequency response wise, there really wasn't any detectable difference from one app to the next, the overall volume was QUITE different. Can you believe that ProTools LE will NOT let you distort the master buss? I remember reading about that, but until I tried it I couldn't believe they would play that kind of "trickery" on the audio. No shit! Same source files, all at "Unity Gain" on the channel faders. Master Fader at Unity. Compared Sonar 2.0, Nuendo, and ProTools LE. Nuendo and Sonar both displayed the same type of wave form (visually speaking) and we could detect no sonic differences. But the ProTool wave form LOOKED obviously different, and certainly sounded quieter! Hot dang!!! What was funny is that is also imparted that "ProTools sound". I have heard others talk about the "PT sound", and have heard it on other productions that I knew were mixed in PT, but always thought it was possibly the UV22 dithering or something. Nope. That same candy coated "polish" was added to this mix I did, with all dithering options disabled. Outputting a 24 bit files, etc.....
I didn't share your experience with the high's getting cut off on my Ghost. Not saying it isn't possible because that is the way of analog circuitry, and possilby, you placed demands on the audio that I normally didn't.
I like how the summing amps on analog consoles can be pushed to the point of it distorting/clipping, and the results that are possible with that. Analog circuits are much more gracious about distorting/clipping. If they are well designed circuits, you probably SHOULD push them to clipping! That is how the sound of POP music was created! I haven't heard any digital yet that quite grasp's that sound unfortuneately.
Maybe one day.
For now, MY money is in analog. Recalling mixes isn't that big of a deal, because usually while tracking, I work on the "faders up" concept and leave the eq alone until mix time. This forces me to track the way it needs to sound which I feel leads to better tracking decisions. As far as recalling actual final mixes, I have seldom found where my clients wanted to change things later when mixing on a analog console. We usually explore most possible mixes while we do it, and I always try to run several "finals" with vocals up, leads up, etc....to cover my bases. If the mix is a mess the next day, it is usually so bad that a full remix is needed, and recall would matter little.
That is just the way I like to work, and it has worked for me. The sonic excellence of my work was much better with analog consoles. The capabilities of digital (recall mainly) haven't benefitted me that much at all, and the automation part of it seems to be needed MORE when I mix digital than analog for some reason.
Peace
Ed
But I have talked to other engineers that have this ability.Anyway, I have too ran some tests on the master buss summing on software programs. While frequency response wise, there really wasn't any detectable difference from one app to the next, the overall volume was QUITE different. Can you believe that ProTools LE will NOT let you distort the master buss? I remember reading about that, but until I tried it I couldn't believe they would play that kind of "trickery" on the audio. No shit! Same source files, all at "Unity Gain" on the channel faders. Master Fader at Unity. Compared Sonar 2.0, Nuendo, and ProTools LE. Nuendo and Sonar both displayed the same type of wave form (visually speaking) and we could detect no sonic differences. But the ProTool wave form LOOKED obviously different, and certainly sounded quieter! Hot dang!!! What was funny is that is also imparted that "ProTools sound". I have heard others talk about the "PT sound", and have heard it on other productions that I knew were mixed in PT, but always thought it was possibly the UV22 dithering or something. Nope. That same candy coated "polish" was added to this mix I did, with all dithering options disabled. Outputting a 24 bit files, etc.....
I didn't share your experience with the high's getting cut off on my Ghost. Not saying it isn't possible because that is the way of analog circuitry, and possilby, you placed demands on the audio that I normally didn't.
I like how the summing amps on analog consoles can be pushed to the point of it distorting/clipping, and the results that are possible with that. Analog circuits are much more gracious about distorting/clipping. If they are well designed circuits, you probably SHOULD push them to clipping!
That is how the sound of POP music was created! I haven't heard any digital yet that quite grasp's that sound unfortuneately.Maybe one day.
For now, MY money is in analog. Recalling mixes isn't that big of a deal, because usually while tracking, I work on the "faders up" concept and leave the eq alone until mix time. This forces me to track the way it needs to sound which I feel leads to better tracking decisions. As far as recalling actual final mixes, I have seldom found where my clients wanted to change things later when mixing on a analog console. We usually explore most possible mixes while we do it, and I always try to run several "finals" with vocals up, leads up, etc....to cover my bases. If the mix is a mess the next day, it is usually so bad that a full remix is needed, and recall would matter little.
That is just the way I like to work, and it has worked for me. The sonic excellence of my work was much better with analog consoles. The capabilities of digital (recall mainly) haven't benefitted me that much at all, and the automation part of it seems to be needed MORE when I mix digital than analog for some reason.
Peace
Ed
HangDawg
bUnGhOlIo
Well damnit, I can't explain shit as well as alot of you guys can, and I won't even try. But here's the deal. I just did two mixes, one mixing in nuendo and one mixed through my crappy Alesis 1622 mixer. For the alesis mix, all faders in nuendo were set to unity, no eq's compressors either. I took the mains back into wave lab at 24/44.1 I then did a mix from nuendo, just set the levels because that's all I did on my mixer. There is an audible and visual difference. I don't know for sure but there seems to be shit missing in the nuendo mix. Things like crash cymbals just don't sound the same. They seem to decay more naturally in the hardware mix. I could be nuts so I'm gonna listen more closely tomorrow. Looks like I got alot more gear to buy.
sonusman
Banned
VERY good that you did that comparison, because most don't bother to try that.
You are noticing the same type of thing I do with digital mixing solutions. The lack of depth and resolution (same thing really...) in digital is horrible. It makes you start to do things you normally wouldn't to audio. I find myself eqing MUCH more in digital, and having to try to compress the hell out of stuff to bring it forward in the mix, etc....
Nuendo is considered a "good" mixing package, but you are now hearing that just the master buss summing itself makes a HUGE difference in the end quality of the mix.
Digital my friends is just not as good. When I am finding that low end analog consoles (and this is being proven now by another source) can provide better detail by doing NOTHING to the sound, well, that should show you just what BS DSP does to your sound.
You all should try this same type of test. It is truely amazing to hear. It makes you suspect ANYTHING digital.
Ed
You are noticing the same type of thing I do with digital mixing solutions. The lack of depth and resolution (same thing really...) in digital is horrible. It makes you start to do things you normally wouldn't to audio. I find myself eqing MUCH more in digital, and having to try to compress the hell out of stuff to bring it forward in the mix, etc....
Nuendo is considered a "good" mixing package, but you are now hearing that just the master buss summing itself makes a HUGE difference in the end quality of the mix.
Digital my friends is just not as good. When I am finding that low end analog consoles (and this is being proven now by another source) can provide better detail by doing NOTHING to the sound, well, that should show you just what BS DSP does to your sound.
You all should try this same type of test. It is truely amazing to hear. It makes you suspect ANYTHING digital.Ed
HangDawg
bUnGhOlIo
Even my wife picked the hardware mix. She said it sound more like something you would buy. Said the other one was kinda harsh, or something. So that proves it.
sonusman
Banned
Your next test should be something like this:
Now start adding pans to the instruments and employ some Low Shelf filter. Try to do the same in both nuendo and on the console. Obviously, this will not be EXACTLY the same, but it should at least illustrate now how dsp via pan and eq will cause a lot MORE harshness and lack of depth.
We could try out compression next. But by then, you will be quite convinced that software mixing sucks ass.
Also, women are excellent judges of what sonically sounds superior because women retain excellent hearing for many more years than men, and they have a better sensitivity to high frequencies. They just hear it better than we do, and when it starts to annoy them, you can bet it is annoying.
Ed
Now start adding pans to the instruments and employ some Low Shelf filter. Try to do the same in both nuendo and on the console. Obviously, this will not be EXACTLY the same, but it should at least illustrate now how dsp via pan and eq will cause a lot MORE harshness and lack of depth.
We could try out compression next. But by then, you will be quite convinced that software mixing sucks ass.
Also, women are excellent judges of what sonically sounds superior because women retain excellent hearing for many more years than men, and they have a better sensitivity to high frequencies. They just hear it better than we do, and when it starts to annoy them, you can bet it is annoying.
Ed
Sennheiser
New member
My console has no automation. I am the automator. Every test mix, every final mix, and every practice mix until I get it right for mix down.
After 15 or 20 times you memorize the movements and how far to push, pull, or twist. I call it the PPT Finger Dance. And you gotta have your head on straight while you're doing it or you can screw it up and your ears play trick on you.
I'd really rather do this than have to second guess my mixes in a computer. I do that enough in analog without complicating it further.
Analog automation would be nice, but I couldn't touch it on an analog desk on my buget.
After 15 or 20 times you memorize the movements and how far to push, pull, or twist. I call it the PPT Finger Dance. And you gotta have your head on straight while you're doing it or you can screw it up and your ears play trick on you.
I'd really rather do this than have to second guess my mixes in a computer. I do that enough in analog without complicating it further.
Analog automation would be nice, but I couldn't touch it on an analog desk on my buget.
sonusman
Banned
Sennheiser said:
I really like how analog console force you to pay attention to what is actually going on. I get off on having to pay attention and as you said "keep you head on straight" while memorizing multiple fader moves and eq tweaks during a mix.But, mute automation is a godsend!
But you know, that is what I think DAW's are good for. Cleaning up tracks. After that, they are pretty much worthless except for cheapy mastering.Ed
Sennheiser
New member
You really do have to pay attention to what the heck you are doing. I don't think anyone who has never mixed on an analog console can appreciate the concentration required to do this consistantly.
I mean every knob, fader, and button has to be moved at precisely the right time, every time, or you get to start over. And over, and over, until you get it right.
Not many mixes I have done require zero movement of any control. Most of the time I'm moving all over the console while the tape is rolling.
Sometimes I have two parts recorded on the same tape track to avoid bouncing. That's when the dancing really begins because it's like setting up a whole different channel for maybe eight or twelve bars and then changing everything back, on the fly!. That might happen twice during the song. Along with any other movements that might have to be made on other channels.
I actually like it. It makes me feel like I'm accomplishing something after all the playing and tracking is over with.
I mean every knob, fader, and button has to be moved at precisely the right time, every time, or you get to start over. And over, and over, until you get it right.
Not many mixes I have done require zero movement of any control. Most of the time I'm moving all over the console while the tape is rolling.
Sometimes I have two parts recorded on the same tape track to avoid bouncing. That's when the dancing really begins because it's like setting up a whole different channel for maybe eight or twelve bars and then changing everything back, on the fly!. That might happen twice during the song. Along with any other movements that might have to be made on other channels.
I actually like it. It makes me feel like I'm accomplishing something after all the playing and tracking is over with.
G
gorbyrun
Mad Scientist
Oh no... you bastards... ya know, some of us spent 8 Gs on an O2R when they first came out... some of us went to bed last night not wondering if their digital busses were summing as well as on an analog console. I have noticed I really don't like the O2Rs eq and try my best not to have to use them. I have noticed it is easier to get "analog" sounding results when using less tracks. When I get a big 24 track mix going its hard to keep the midrange from developing a "grainy" quality. I always figured it was the sum results of using the O2R's preamps building up, now I'm wondering how much is the mixer.
Anyway, you do get a lot of "convenience" with a digital set up. I use Sonar with MOTU into the O2R--then from the O2R to a Drawmer 2476--to another PC. The Drawmer makes a huge difference in my sound and would call it a digital mixer "must have". I can't imagine trying to do it all in Sonar, I need knobs and buttons that respond in real time.
I guess it depends a bit on your market and budget. For fast good quality--digital--for painstaking exspensive quality--analog. But most importantly, you need lots of control surfaces that respond instantly.
Anyway, you do get a lot of "convenience" with a digital set up. I use Sonar with MOTU into the O2R--then from the O2R to a Drawmer 2476--to another PC. The Drawmer makes a huge difference in my sound and would call it a digital mixer "must have". I can't imagine trying to do it all in Sonar, I need knobs and buttons that respond in real time.
I guess it depends a bit on your market and budget. For fast good quality--digital--for painstaking exspensive quality--analog. But most importantly, you need lots of control surfaces that respond instantly.
HangDawg
bUnGhOlIo
I'm gonna post short clips of both. I wanna see if you guys can guess which one is which
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
Hang dawg, sounds to me like you just discovered EXACTLY what I hear.
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
"But in my experience, it falls more under "it takes longer to do" and "you gotta pay more attention" type of thing."
That's for DAMN sure! All this stuff was supposed to make things cheaper, DSP in the hands of regular guys and the ability to edit stuff that you would have had to have the whole band play over. In theory anyway, but I guess the reality has come to : if you CAN edit it, then EDIT away like mad! So now EVERYTHING has to be perfect, every note in tune past the degrees of human possibility. If a band just wants something quick, and doesnt have the money for an intense mix, then it is surely analog all the way mixwise, though the other day I did some quick in the box mixes that I'm pretty happy with, but nothing intense.
"you might have that same ability to keep a "picture" of a sound in your brain for doing a/b comparisons. "
thats the nail on the head! It sucks on a daw, formuch of the DSP, you have to do it in isolation as too many eq's or compressors will bog down the computer, so you have to guess how it will be in the mix. Also you cant easily sweep eq's and hear them in realtime ( tho in theory you can) latency and such makes it impractical. You have to draw on your experience with traditional gear and HOPE! Oh well theres always "undo " But I think this also is a BIG part of why in the box mixes seem inferior to an analog console.
"Anyway, I have too ran some tests on the master buss summing on software programs. While frequency response wise, there really wasn't any detectable difference from one app to the next, the overall volume was QUITE different."
I wonder if what we found was just volume? We didnt normalize to get them all the same, as we figured THAT would introduce too many variables, so it may be only volume. We were doing phase flipped comparisons to see which mixes would cancel out.
" Can you believe that ProTools LE will NOT let you distort the master buss? "
I wonder what theyre doing. Isnt it funny that both PT and Cubendo said " our summing buss is perfect" for so long, but now both companies are claiming " improved summing architecture" ?
"I didn't share your experience with the high's getting cut off on my Ghost. "
For me, on a ghost, the hi's change in two ways:
One was a low pass filter effect that you can see on a scope if you mult the out of the DAC to channel 1 on the scope and the Ghost stereo out or even channel insert to channel 2 on the scope. BUT, even tho the digital signal contained nothing over 22khz, you could see some harmonics on the ghost output, that you could easily argue would make the analog console sound better, which is really tied into :
two: distortion. Maybe it is mostly harmonics, but the stick on a hi hat or ride that the ghost put out was very different to what first comes out of the DAC. It seemed very nice for guitars, some snares and kicks, but I much perfered the PC mix for the vocals and cymbals usually, but as a whole I would go with the analog mix usually
"I like how the summing amps on analog consoles can be pushed to the point of it distorting/clipping, and the results that are possible with that. Analog circuits are much more gracious about distorting/clipping."
Yeah, analog systems are MUCH more forgiving, which is why I cant understand the posts in this thread about how hard it is to get right. I mean for a REALLY intense mix analog can take more time than digital, because you got to layout the non automateable parts right, but for speed, nothing beats a quick " board mix" up to and until you need to FIX something. Sometimes fixes can be done on the DAW and still sent to an analog console.
"This forces me to track the way it needs to sound which I feel leads to better tracking decisions."
I am very guilty of tracking for maximum versatility and then later going " damn now how was that SUPPOSED to sound ? "
" As far as recalling actual final mixes, I have seldom found where my clients wanted to change things later when mixing on a analog console. "
Recall is the only way I can keep the doors of the studio open. A lot of projects here are so disjointed, split fractured, spread out over time, recall is the only way to finish a mix when they split up the mix of one song at four hour intervals over a month or so..its madness
See, I think I was too harsh on digital summing at first. I came from a studio where I had constant and unlimited access to a G series SSL, a neve 8108, lots of tridents and other neves, 3 studer 827's, ampex mm-1600's, Sony dash and mitsu pro digi machines, all the outboard blah blah blah.
When I left that place, I ended up in front of a ghost, some da-88's, decent outboard, decent mics and a beta of a new software audio app.
I thought " you gotta be kidding right ? " I made one mix on the software, that I actually was amazed with, but I knew it had a " sound" something was wrong, and I dissed it ever since then. Now I'm going back and trying to question whether its just my inability to cope with a new type of technology, and maybe I just need to acclimate.
I am with you guys on the analog summing issue for sure, but I am always questioning my abilities and now I would rather dismiss my skills out of hand rather than dismiss digital summing out of hand...I think I just need to work harder at finding a way to get along with it. Then again we KNOW parts of it are flawed, so who knows? It will be an endless quest I think
That's for DAMN sure! All this stuff was supposed to make things cheaper, DSP in the hands of regular guys and the ability to edit stuff that you would have had to have the whole band play over. In theory anyway, but I guess the reality has come to : if you CAN edit it, then EDIT away like mad! So now EVERYTHING has to be perfect, every note in tune past the degrees of human possibility. If a band just wants something quick, and doesnt have the money for an intense mix, then it is surely analog all the way mixwise, though the other day I did some quick in the box mixes that I'm pretty happy with, but nothing intense.
"you might have that same ability to keep a "picture" of a sound in your brain for doing a/b comparisons. "
thats the nail on the head! It sucks on a daw, formuch of the DSP, you have to do it in isolation as too many eq's or compressors will bog down the computer, so you have to guess how it will be in the mix. Also you cant easily sweep eq's and hear them in realtime ( tho in theory you can) latency and such makes it impractical. You have to draw on your experience with traditional gear and HOPE! Oh well theres always "undo "
But I think this also is a BIG part of why in the box mixes seem inferior to an analog console."Anyway, I have too ran some tests on the master buss summing on software programs. While frequency response wise, there really wasn't any detectable difference from one app to the next, the overall volume was QUITE different."
I wonder if what we found was just volume? We didnt normalize to get them all the same, as we figured THAT would introduce too many variables, so it may be only volume. We were doing phase flipped comparisons to see which mixes would cancel out.
" Can you believe that ProTools LE will NOT let you distort the master buss? "
I wonder what theyre doing. Isnt it funny that both PT and Cubendo said " our summing buss is perfect" for so long, but now both companies are claiming " improved summing architecture" ?
"I didn't share your experience with the high's getting cut off on my Ghost. "
For me, on a ghost, the hi's change in two ways:
One was a low pass filter effect that you can see on a scope if you mult the out of the DAC to channel 1 on the scope and the Ghost stereo out or even channel insert to channel 2 on the scope. BUT, even tho the digital signal contained nothing over 22khz, you could see some harmonics on the ghost output, that you could easily argue would make the analog console sound better, which is really tied into :
two: distortion. Maybe it is mostly harmonics, but the stick on a hi hat or ride that the ghost put out was very different to what first comes out of the DAC. It seemed very nice for guitars, some snares and kicks, but I much perfered the PC mix for the vocals and cymbals usually, but as a whole I would go with the analog mix usually
"I like how the summing amps on analog consoles can be pushed to the point of it distorting/clipping, and the results that are possible with that. Analog circuits are much more gracious about distorting/clipping."
Yeah, analog systems are MUCH more forgiving, which is why I cant understand the posts in this thread about how hard it is to get right. I mean for a REALLY intense mix analog can take more time than digital, because you got to layout the non automateable parts right, but for speed, nothing beats a quick " board mix" up to and until you need to FIX something. Sometimes fixes can be done on the DAW and still sent to an analog console.
"This forces me to track the way it needs to sound which I feel leads to better tracking decisions."
I am very guilty of tracking for maximum versatility and then later going " damn now how was that SUPPOSED to sound ? "
" As far as recalling actual final mixes, I have seldom found where my clients wanted to change things later when mixing on a analog console. "
Recall is the only way I can keep the doors of the studio open. A lot of projects here are so disjointed, split fractured, spread out over time, recall is the only way to finish a mix when they split up the mix of one song at four hour intervals over a month or so..its madness
See, I think I was too harsh on digital summing at first. I came from a studio where I had constant and unlimited access to a G series SSL, a neve 8108, lots of tridents and other neves, 3 studer 827's, ampex mm-1600's, Sony dash and mitsu pro digi machines, all the outboard blah blah blah.
When I left that place, I ended up in front of a ghost, some da-88's, decent outboard, decent mics and a beta of a new software audio app.
I thought " you gotta be kidding right ? " I made one mix on the software, that I actually was amazed with, but I knew it had a " sound" something was wrong, and I dissed it ever since then. Now I'm going back and trying to question whether its just my inability to cope with a new type of technology, and maybe I just need to acclimate.
I am with you guys on the analog summing issue for sure, but I am always questioning my abilities and now I would rather dismiss my skills out of hand rather than dismiss digital summing out of hand...I think I just need to work harder at finding a way to get along with it. Then again we KNOW parts of it are flawed, so who knows? It will be an endless quest I think
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
It'll be fixed sooner than later I'm sure. Computers are getting more muscular and the apps will get better. It just ain't there yet.
G
gorbyrun
Mad Scientist
I'm trying to put together a O2R test. My plan so far (working on it) is to take the tracks from a Jazz Band I recorded live to ADAT and double mixing it. The O2R and I also have a Mackie SR series 32 channel mixer I use for live sound. I just don't know how good of a test I can do. The mackie would be fed by RCA snakes from the ADATs, The O2R could either be fed with the same snakes or light pipe. But if I do the snake the O2R will be suffering an extra AD conversion. I'm also wondering how much the O2R's stereo out converters could effect the board's sound, but I can't think of a way to test that with the gear I have.
Any input would be appreciated, I would much rather be able to perform these tests with a better analog board, but all I have is the Mackie so...
I'm booked pretty solid the next few days and can't see me getting to it before the weekend at the earliest, so if anyone is interested I'm open to suggestions...
Any input would be appreciated, I would much rather be able to perform these tests with a better analog board, but all I have is the Mackie so...
I'm booked pretty solid the next few days and can't see me getting to it before the weekend at the earliest, so if anyone is interested I'm open to suggestions...
cordura21
New member
we could do a test!
I have a Yamaha MX 12/6 and Protools LE with a Digi 001.
Maybe we could agree on a "scientific test":
mixing some white or pink noise and examine what comes out with some spectrum analysys or something, or;
A "musical test":
taking 4 very small tracks (couple of seconds) in wav format and mix them to see how they sound with both methods, using your analog mixer and your digital one.
I am in for it with these units.
I have a Yamaha MX 12/6 and Protools LE with a Digi 001.
Maybe we could agree on a "scientific test":
mixing some white or pink noise and examine what comes out with some spectrum analysys or something, or;
A "musical test":
taking 4 very small tracks (couple of seconds) in wav format and mix them to see how they sound with both methods, using your analog mixer and your digital one.
I am in for it with these units.
F
foreverain4
New member
i will test SF Vegas vs a mackie 32-8/ adat setup.