![]() | All Advertisers |
| Member Services Directory | Classifieds | Reviews | Jobs | Deal Zone | Merchandise | Marketplace | Facebook App | Books, DVDs & Gadgets | Video Vault | Tips & Techniques |
| |||||||
New Reply | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| | #1 |
| Lives for gear Joined: Jul 2007 Location: Reading, PA
Posts: 695
Thread Starter | Pro Tools Summing vs. Chandler TG2 Summing
Hey everyone, I'm in the middle of a metal project right now and I'm really enjoying my Chandler TG2. I have double tracked the guitars and I wanted to try out this summing option on the Chandler unit. So both tracks come out of Pro Tools on their own output into the TG2 with the input at +40 for each and the output is at 3 and a half. From there both tracks are coming out channel 2 and hitting an attenuator before back into Pro Tools. These are short .wav files with some "chugs" and open chords. Oh and if you're wondering about converters and what not, it's a Black Lion modded M-Audio Firewire 1814. Which is which?
__________________ -Alex |
| | |
| | #2 | |
| 3 + infractions, forum membership suspended. Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,978
| Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #3 |
| Lives for gear Joined: Jul 2007 Location: Reading, PA
Posts: 695
Thread Starter | |
| | |
| | #4 |
| Lives for gear Joined: Jan 2008 Location: Colorado
Posts: 879
|
Another vote for A.......seemed to have a bit more heft
|
| | |
| | #5 |
| Lives for gear Joined: Jul 2007 Location: Reading, PA
Posts: 695
Thread Starter |
Also consider what would sit in a mix better. I know it's subtle. But I had to do a lot high pass filtering (not in the sample), as well as adding some bite up top. Thankfully I had some api plugs and the best plug of all, Massey's tape head. That thing does wonders. Since this thread isn't catching on... I'll post some results tomorrow.
|
| | |
| | #6 |
| Gear addict Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 419
|
B is better. A is harsher/brittler. B is more rounded wider/fatter.
|
| | |
| | #7 |
| Lives for gear Joined: Jul 2007 Location: Reading, PA
Posts: 695
Thread Starter |
Here we go: I have to agree with Tacos, I also preferred B. Not because I did the test and know what was what and want to think I spent my money well, but because I honestly think so. I think it cuts a little more and as stated before, sounds fatter. A is Pro Tools B is Chandler Thanks for playing, hopefully next time I'll have a better clip.... I do really love the Chandler piece though.
|
| | |
| | #8 |
| Gear nut Joined: Apr 2009 Location: BAE
Posts: 125
|
allways late ![]() ![]() Last edited by papanauta; 23rd June 2009 at 04:56 AM.. Reason: bad spelling |
| | |
| | #9 |
| Lives for gear Joined: Mar 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 2,711
|
Cool test. I listened and preferred A b/c it was tighter. B had more low spread but I thought it was overwhelming for the clip and took away from the clarity... Wait... isn't the 'summing' option on the TG2 for summing two mic inputs to one mic output? It's not meant to accept line level ... are you sending a line level signal to the preamp input of the TG2? That would explain the output level at 3 + the attenuator... you're probably over diving the hell out of the input transformer... unless I'm missing something. |
| | |
| | #10 |
| Gear maniac Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 245
|
A wins to me. the sample from B sounded more brittle IMO, and A felt more "in my face" as a result. |
| | |
| | #11 |
| Gear maniac Joined: Dec 2006 Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 233
|
I also chose A.
|
| | |
| | #12 |
| Gear addict Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 346
|
A bit late but B is clearly the chandler. Protools and other daws have great lacks managing the stereo location. In sample B the stereo is more wide open, this is one of the reasons that people usually likes to use external summing
|
| | |
| | #13 |
| Lives for gear | I wouldn't say that DAW's have an inability to manage stereo location. What we may attribute to sounding more "open" or "wide" in the analog domain is due more to distortions, crosstalk, and so forth. These affect the perception, amongst other things, of the stereo positioning and width.
|
| | |
| | #14 |
| Lives for gear Joined: Sep 2008 Location: United States
Posts: 5,351
|
A = rocks!!! B rocks!!! with little more low end..
|
| | |
| | #15 | |
| Lives for gear Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,397
| Quote:
You can probably get away with it via the DI inputs, but the effect of the pres all over again is going to be overwhelming, as it was in this case. | |
| | |
| | #16 | |
| Lives for gear Joined: Jul 2007 Location: Reading, PA
Posts: 695
Thread Starter | Quote:
Here's a full mix, different song, but you'll get the idea. I didn't change guitar tones, and I'm on my laptop and this is the only track I got. It's metal, the singer only does inhales. Also just an MP3... | |
| | |
| | #17 |
| Lives for gear Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 544
|
I preferred A, but I have to say that the difference was not worth $2,000, not even close. If this was my test, I'd be returning the chandler right away. edit: I didn't noticed the results posted, apparently I liked the PT one. No tg2 for me.
__________________ I am now telling the computer *exactly* what it can do with a life time supply of chocolate. |
| | |
| | #18 | |
| Lives for gear Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,397
| Quote:
The reason is most summing units are made to accept line levels, blend them, and then re-amplify only enough to come back up to line level. In your case, you'll either be overloading your mic input by feeding it a line level signal it's not built for, or padding down 40dB on the way in and having to go through another 40db of pre-amplification before the summing even starts. So it might not be an optimal way to use it. | |
| | |
| | #19 |
| Gear interested Joined: Mar 2009 Location: Portland, OREGON, USA
Posts: 10
| B it is!
its B all the way. If you listen closely, you'll hear how A sounds a bit choked. not as open and deep. there's a reason the big boys mix on analog consoles. keep up the good work. V.
__________________ I wish there was a WAL-MART for Vintage gear
|
| | |
| | #20 |
| Lives for gear Joined: Jul 2004 Location: The Deep End
Posts: 1,359
| |
| | |
| | #21 |
| Gear addict Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 396
| |
| | |
| | #22 |
| Lives for gear Joined: Jul 2007 Location: Reading, PA
Posts: 695
Thread Starter | Keep in mind, it was tracked with the TG2... If you're paying 2 grand just to use the summing feature, well then you're wasting your money. Drop another stack and get 16 channels of Neve summing or whatever. The pres really are stunning. I wouldn't knock the unit.
|
| | |
| | #23 |
| Gear interested Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Posts: 4
| good mix
Right on, man. I think with the song you really nailed The Black Dahlia Murder sound. I also have a TG-2, but haven't used it yet. What else were you using to track? |
| | |
| | #24 |
| gears for Live |
i think difference is pretty big in favor of Chandler - at least it's how it sounds to me
|
| | |
| | #25 |
| Gear interested Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Posts: 4
|
Read the TG-2 manual today...... you can run line level into the normal inputs without a problem.. From the manual: "The TG2's warm, natural sound can be used to spice up already recorded tracks or even entire mixes. Just run them through the mic inputs on the rear panel, set the input to minimum (+5db), and back off the output slightly to make unity gain." |
| | |
| | #26 |
| Lives for gear Joined: Dec 2004 Location: L.A.
Posts: 761
|
I prefer B. More hefty.
|
| | |
New Reply
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Neve / SSL / API console summing vs. summing box summing | Shaman | High end | 90 | 2nd December 2011 09:51 PM |
| |