Software vs Hardare mixing

  • Thread starter Thread starter HangDawg
  • Start date Start date

Software or Hardware mixing

  • Software

    Votes: 156 63.2%

  • Hardware

    Votes: 91 36.8%
  • Total voters
    247
My test was far from controlled or scientific but I do believe there was a difference. I'll post the clips when I get home. They are pretty simple just drums, 1 guitar track, 1 bass track.
 
first test is up

all tracks were tracked to adat with a mackie 32-8 console


one clip was mixed directly from the adats with the mackie into pc

the other was transfered digitally to pc and mixed in vegas


can you hear a difference? your pc speakers may not tell you.



www.therecordinghouse.com/testclips
 
is " A " the vegas mix? thats my guess

also, how was this test done ? Were all parts of each console zeroed? Its not really apples to apples unless you set it in a way that was only comparing the summing modules. If you touched any eq's or whatever on the mackie its kinda moot...but I like " A " better :)
 
First let me say I'm amazed at the quick response... thanks so much guys. I'm between sessions and only have a few minutes. I listened to A&B through my studio monitors and frankly I don't know which is which yet. (I will listen more later) On my system, I felt the problem range was in the lower-mid area. The grainy quality was there, or what I was noticing. I didn't hear that really on either of foreverain's mixes. The grainy quality creeps up on me most often with many tracks going... and... during those times I am also usually using more compression than I would like. I admit to using too much compression, especially on 'quick' projects... I know I'm bad, anyway, I'd love to be doing tests (I like tests) but my session just arrived...

Thanks so much

Chaz
 
It's hard to really judge them as mixes because the levels sound very different. The ride cymbal in A is much more prominent but B has a lot more low end.

The problem with a blind mix test like this is that the best comparison is the original tracks. Which of those mixes is more faithfull to the original tracks?
 
the faders were all pretty much unity gain as everything was tracked to that loudness. "A" is vegas and "B" is the mackie. there was no eq used in mixing. there was a little used in tracking.
 
The snare and the cymbals were MAJOR tipoffs to me about which mix is which. This was exactly the hi frequency behavior I was describing in the previous posts. To be THAT clear, even after being mp3'd, I dont know if any analog console could do that but Im willing to be proven wrong. The hi's got exactly the same distortion and wet blanket effect I saw on my ghost, and the same thing I saw on an SSL.
The big question is, is this an effect of the extra stage of DA and AD conversions or was it the console itself, or was it both?

For more of an apples to apples comparison, it would be nice to set the mackie console to full zeroed out position and make one mix vegas internal, and then use the SAME mix except for sending each track back out to the mackie. This is gonna be a little tricky in vegas as the output busses are stereo only, so if you want to maintain the same track/channel relationship, you need to pan each track hard left or hard right and drop it by 6dB, also you wont be able to use send fx. But that test is doable...Id LOVE to hear the results of that one.

This EXTREME difference in clarity is one of the reasons I dont want to so easily dismiss digital summing
 
Tricky... I tried using the MOTU to send identical signals to the Mackie and O2R--I mirrored Bank A (1-8) to the analog outs. I'm afraid I only have an unbalanced 1/4 6' hosa snake to connect them. Matching levels is my biggest problem, I either need a balanced snake to the Mackie or need to adjust a jumper in the MOTU. The Mackie was clearly at a disadvantage due to this fairly lame connect and the fact that the signal would be passing through the mackie preamps turned up 1/4, (though the tracks were originally from the O2R's preamps).
They were more different than I exspected. Describing the difference is difficult especially considering the non-exactness of my test (needs refined)
(To me...) The mackie had more pronounced mids and lows but less high end detail. There are things about the mackie sound I like, I may even try using the mackie as an eq for a submix, but I wouldn't want to mix classical music on it.
The O2R can sound bad. It does not do that well with bright microphones, any harshness is not hidden. So you need eq... but the O2R's build in eq's are not world class. They're okay for shelving...
Anyway, to sound good, you definantly need some analog sounding stuff mixed in liberally.
Because they sounded so different, I really think I have not answered anything about buss summing. I don't have a way to fairly make the test. There are analog and digital boards I'd take over the O2R, but they wouldn't cost less. I need a better analog board to compare too... and better speakers, meters, ears, brain ect.

I learn a lot here... Thanks all.
 
Well my test is up. I don't know if this is a valid test or if it really means anything. It's not like the one foreverain4 did. There is not that much of an obvious difference. Could be cause I have a crappy mixer. Here's what I did. One mix was 8 tracks all sent to Buss1 in Nuendo, all faders set to 0, main fader set to 0, no eq, comp just raw tracks. Mixed to stereo 24/44.1 in Nuendo. The other mix used same settings in Nuendo except each track sent to individual output on delta 1010 into mixer. All faders and trims set to 0 on mixer, mains set to 0, no eq or pan. Mains of mixer sent to PC and recorded by WaveLab at 24/44.1 Have a listen.

Test mix A and B
http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/album.php?aid=1577&alid=-1
 
hhhhm this is a hard one. i would have to guess "A" as the digital and "B" as the analog. very close though.
 
I am totally not qualified to make this comparison. Spent another hour comparing today... today they seem damn near identical. I can't properly balance my levels between the two mixers. Even the slightest difference in level between the two mixers make the louder one sound better. It's so close I can't determine what is a loudness and what is a quality difference. All I can say is I thought the drum overheads may have sounded clearer on the O2R, but the rest was too close to call.
 
My guess is HangDawg A is digital, HangDawg B is analog...
 
Im guessing B is nuendo and A is analog, and a Mackie mixer

I dont know the sound of nuendo very well tho
People who have nuendo say that they like to record the mix to a DAT AND render it, because sometimes the rendered mixes sound different than the mixes while playing. I wonder if we could pick the difference between those two ! And why would they be different ?

Why is A so mono sounding while B is so spread? Thats kinda throwing me off about who's who
 
Hey sonusman, dont let this thread croak, I think were running into some interesting stuff here. I gotta do a little research on another facet of this but I think I've run into an analog vs. digital factor that I havent EVER heard anyone mention. Before I blow it, I gotta make sure its what I think it is :)
 
computers, digital, software - all the way.

basically because:
a - "simpler"
b - less shit around your studio
c - i dont have the money for huge analog gear...ha
 
I guess there is no reason to keep it a secret. A was nuendo, B was the analog.
 
buzzzzzzzz, minus one point for me! Im fired...
If you DID pan them the same, then I think were seeing the " panning law " issue everyone argues about. Are your nuendo pans set for -6db?
 
Summing

Ok, what I would REALLY like to hear is...

Is it possible for anyone to take one of their mixes... Mix it down in software... THEN, take that mix to a pro studio with a really nice mixdown board, get a final mix there, and THEN compare the two in this forum!!

It costs a bit of money, soooo... Chances are I won't see this because people only really invest that kind of money in projects they intend to sell/copyright... =oP
 
thats kinda apples and oranges, and an expensive studio doesnt necessarily mean an analog mixdown
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top