Folcrom -Shadow Hills, Etc- Yes More Summing Tests

[Kenny M]

Just when you thought it was over.....

I promised a few months back that I'd upload a few Folcrom mixes with the Shadow Hills pre's for those interested to check out. I've been slammed with composing projects so am just getting around to it now and have also included other pre's.

This song was originally mixed ITB in PTHD at 44.1K. I've processed all the mixes with the same master bus processing as the ITB mix and tried to match levels as well as possible, however I wouldn't say this is scientific. More so just a way to roughly compare the different mixes and see what differences the different pre's make as compared to each other and the ITB mix (or not).

While not in this order the following pre's were used -

Shadow Hills Mono Gama ( three mixes - Discrete, Steel and Nickel settings)
Brent Averill 1272 (real one, not reissue)
Brent Averill API (new one)
Chandler Germ ( two mixes, one with increased gain, lower feedback)
Chandler TG2
ITB (but of course!)

As the jury's still out for me on how much of an improvement OTB makes, I'd appreciate hearing what other ears have to say regarding improvements (changes) the different combinations make. Of course we'll do this blind for a while so that people are listening with their ears and not their sight or pre conceived notions. Enjoy

[Kenny M]

Finally got it to upload. Damn Computers.

Here's the first three-

[Kenny M]

Three More -

[Kenny M]

Will it ever stop-

[Infernal Device]

Just my opinion...

1. Kick/snare got pushed forward and the compression swallowed the mix.

2. Kick compressed and swallowed the mix. Hi-hat and acoustic brighter.

3. Thump in the snare.

4. See number 1. This is my least favorite. Sounds over-compressed.

5. Seems darker, but so far my favorite.

6. Better balanced low end (especially the kick).

7. My new favorite. The vocal sits well.

8. Seems like the most wide. It was the first time I payed attention to the acoustic gtr.

9. Just kinda "there". Nice.

[Kenny M]

Hmm.... where are all the people that wanted to hear the Folcrom with the Shadow Hills pre's?

Thanks Infernal for having a listen and posting your comments. I was hoping to have a few more take a listen and see what differences they perceived. For me, I think that while there are differences between the pre's, I'm not sure any particular one offers much over the other that couldn't be compensated for while mixing.

Anyone else care to check it out and offer their views?

[RoundBadge]

Sorry for OT.just my 2 c's.
I kinda bailed on the summing tests a couple years ago.
Coming from a console background to full ITB and back agian..
Had the Phoenix,API,Shadow Hills,Neve,Chandler,Aurora,SPL,Fulcrum,etc all here at one point or another.did a LOT of A/B'ing.
My conclusion:
Summing sonically helps but is a small part of the equation.
I'm back full time on a consoles again[API/Tonelux/Neve]
the combo of input channels,discrete class A paths throughout,busses,fx send/returns,outboard,etc,ergonomics,vibe really add up to something more than the sum[pun] of its parts.

If I can help it,i will never mix ITB again,I'm having way to much fun

Sorry again for the OT and enjoy the A/B's..

[Kenny M]

Yeah, I agree the summing tests never offer me much and I usually find that however I mixed the song, whether ITB or OTB it's usually the mix I like best. That being said, with this particular mix and the same amount of master bus processing on all of them, the Folcrom mixes don't seem as compressed sounding as the original ITB.

My main interest was whether people hear enough if any improvement in the Folcrom mixes.

[tGauge]

i definitely know which ones i prefer... which are which?

[Radioman]

Originally Posted by Kenny M

For me, I think that while there are differences between the pre's, I'm not sure any particular one offers much over the other that couldn't be compensated for while mixing.

Anyone else care to check it out and offer their views?

I think that the differences are very little (it appaers noticeable to me the "low end fillings" of "7" into the break starts at 0:52) and in some cases could be very hard to choose a pre instead another one.
The main differences are (obviously) between pre's sonic signature, so if i have many different pre's to choose from and i want to make an OTB sum i probably act in a different manner.

I could apply a different pre (setted into unity gain) to each stem output of my DAW, and put each pre's output to the relative Folcrom input.
So i start to assign the stem (and/or premix of stems) to the DAW output connected at the pre i want to use on this stem.
So if (for example, in relation to Infernal Device comments) the "7" is beautiful for voice i could assign some (or all) the voices stems to him, if the "8" is good for the guitar i could assign the guitar stem to him, the drums could transite into the "1" without squashing the rest of the mix etc etc, and some stems could transit directly from DAW to final reamp (through Folcrom) because i think it's not necessary to process them furtherly.

So i could use each pre's signature for his best, i could exclude from any reprocessing all the sounds are already ok, and i could freely reassign a stem to a different pre if i notice at the end that the "X" signature is not good but the "Y" signature it's better for this specific song.
I could also divide a sound between two different stems (and pre's path) to obtain a balance between the flavours of the different pre's and try all the combination i want and finally save them into my mix session project, so the mix of the "digital recall" + "analog processing" could represent an exceptional hybrid.

The final "make up" gain i have to choose should be the more transparent and "aseptic" as possible because each pre's apply their own signature to my mix before, and finally i have to recover only the loss of gain without adding further treatment.

[Kenny M]

Originally Posted by tGauge

i definitely know which ones i prefer... which are which?

Well now that would take the fun out of it wouldn't it?
I'll wait and see if a few more check it out and post some comments. Don't want to influence any opinions by telling yet.

Which are your favorites and what did you like or not like about them?

Originally Posted by Radioman

I think that the differences are very little, and in some cases could be very hard to choose a pre instead another pre because one is better on one side but lacks on another side.
The main differences are (obviously) between pre's sonic signature, so if i have many different pre's to choose from and i want to make an OTB sum i probably act in a different manner.

I could apply a different pre (setted into unity gain) to each stem output of my DAW, and put each pre's output to the relative Folcrom input.
So i start to assign the stem (and/or premix of stems) to the DAW output connected at the pre i want to use on this stem.
So if (for example, in relation to Infernal Device comments) the "7" is beautiful for voice i could assign some (or all) the voices stems to him, if the "8" is good for the guitar i could assign the guitar stem to him, the drums could transite into the "1" without squashing the rest of the mix etc etc, and some stems could transit directly from DAW to final reamp (through Folcrom) because i think it's not necessary to process them furtherly.

So i could use each pre's signature for his best, i could exclude from any reprocessing all the sounds are already ok, and i could freely reassign a stem to a different pre if i notice at the end that the "X" signature is not good but the "Y" signature it's better for this specific song.
I could also divide a sound between two different stems (and pre's path) to obtain a balance between the flavours of the different pre's and try all the combination i want and finally save them into my mix session project, so the mix of the "digital recall" + "analog processing" could represent an exceptional hybrid.

The final "make up" gain i have to choose should be the more transparent and "aseptic" as possible because each pre's apply their own signature to my mix before, and finally i have to recover only the loss of gain without adding further treatment.

Hmm... interesting concept that I hadn't heard mention of before. I had to actually re-read your post a couple of times before I got it.

While it may produce some favorable results it doesn't seem like it would be a very intuitive process at least not until you had done a lot of different types of mixes through each and every pre setup and built a catalogue in your head about what works best on which instrument/ stem/ style of music, etc. Until that point you're kind of shooting in the dark and could actually take more time checking pre's with stems than actually performing an inspired dynamic mix. Still, I do see the possibilities. Would hate to have to recall a mix or make a change in the music though.

Seems like I'm finding that whatever I mix into is usually the best mix as it totally dictates every decision I made in the process.

[amishsixstringe]

Wow, those are all so similar it almost doesn't matter. My uncle wants to give me his folcrum with the DSub cables for 300 bucks. I have a 2 channel vintech and 2 grace 101's. I intend to get a pair of 512s in a lunchbox really soon too, but I'm not sure that the difference is great enough to bother. Anyhow, I thought number 4 sounded the best actually. The kick and snare really punched through, then 1 and 2 were next. I disliked 5 and 6. I liked number 7, but I don't really know why. The others are just kinda there.

Thanks for doing this! I'm looking forward to seeing what the results are.

Neil

[Radioman]

Originally Posted by Kenny M

Hmm... interesting concept that I hadn't heard mention of before. I had to actually re-read your post a couple of times before I got it.

While it may produce some favorable results it doesn't seem like it would be a very intuitive process at least not until you had done a lot of different types of mixes through each and every pre setup and built a catalogue in your head about what works best on which instrument/ stem/ style of music, etc. Until that point you're kind of shooting in the dark and could actually take more time checking pre's with stems than actually performing an inspired dynamic mix. Still, I do see the possibilities.

Right, but if i'm not very experienced in pre's sound, or there is the risk the artist or producer don't like the sounds we choose in the tracking phase, with this "second time" method we could record some instruments with the more neutral pre we have, and then slightly change the instruments sound signature also after we record them (like we do with guitar with the reamping) or made some slightly different mixes to choose from, or bring all our PC project fixed at 95% (raw files and/or premixed final equalized and compressed stems) and mix it analogically in a studio that have more (and/or different) pre's or gears in respect to our pre/gear assortment, and add these sounds too. So we can add the "ultimate flavour touch" in this final section of our work (if we think it could be useful) or use a lot of different gear without buy all the gear rack but only renting it (or the studio that own this gears) only for the time to fix the final OTB mix.
It's a sort of "creative use" of the summing box, instead treat all the stems in the same manner and add only a pre sonic signature, and in the passive case (like the Folcrom) we can made our own DIY "passive summing box" only preparing some cables with 2 resistances mounted into the Jack (or XLR) or behind the patch.
It's only an idea and a new way of working, maybe could be good maybe could be useless, it depends from our way of working.

[tGauge]

my favorites were 5 and 9... 6 and 7 being close in my book also...

5- the kick and snare were present and the low end was tight. i agree with infernal device in saying it's a little dark, but that's actually what i prefer usually.

9- sounded to me like a mix summed OTB with a very clean pre that left little to no personal imprint behind, more of just an analog type sound, if that makes sense.

Originally Posted by amishsixstringe

I thought number 4 sounded the best actually.

Really? It's on the verge of pumping...

[Kenny M]

Interesting comments guys and some good ears. Keep them coming

[ulysses]

Originally Posted by Radioman

I could apply a different pre (setted into unity gain) to each stem output of my DAW, and put each pre's output to the relative Folcrom input.

I just want to jump in here and clarify that this is not the standard use of the Folcrom and its associated preamps. I know you're talking about an alternate, creative application, and that's fine. But I've gotten calls from interested parties who seem to think they need to put a preamp in line with each INPUT to the Folcrom, and that is not the case. The standard application is to feed line-level sources into the Folcrom and then feed its mike-level outputs to a single pair of mike preamps to bring them back to line level.

In general I think it's a bad idea to feed line-level sources into preamps for "flavor" but of course if it works for the particular piece of music then it's the right thing to do. I'm afraid that the Folcrom's use of preamps for makeup gain has had something to do with popularizing this idea of running line-level signals out of your DAW and into mike preamps. And for that, as the guy responsible for the existence of the Folcrom, I have to apologize.

[tGauge]

i don't think that you are solely responsible for that idea but i think you really popularized it.

personally, i wouldn't run line level signals into a pre either, even if you pad the pre, it is still probably too much signal... if you ran, say, just your drums through the folcrum, then through the your pre of choice, then re-recorded it and continued that for the creation of every "stem," then ran every stem through the folcrum and a different pre you would have a lot of different analog flavors like radioman was talking about, but your noise floor would be through the roof. i wouldn't suggest it by any means but it would be a more viable answer than running line levels through pres.

[Radioman]

My proposal to run through a pre set at unity gain is (obviously) realizable with a padding (3 resistors) before each Mic input, if a line level input isn't available or it doesn't have the flavour we want to add.
And also for the Folcrom outputs, there is a resistance at his output that stabilize the Z out factor (about 150 ohm) but also attenuate much more then necessary, so if we pull out this resistance or we change it with a greater value we can reduce the attenuation (and the "make up" gain to add) up to only 24 dB for a 16 bus sum (and 18 dB for a 8 bus sum) so we could add less noise or we could use only the -10/+4 switch of our daw to recover 14 dB without any further make-up pre.

The main thing is that i think it's not the analog summing giving "the touch" but it's the OTB analog reprocessing to adds some little variations, so i think there shouldn't be big differences between an 8 or 16 stems OTB summed with a make-up gain respect to OTB reprocess the whole mix ITB summed through the same pre.
So i think if i've to make (or i want to make) an OTB passage and i want to give me more "sonic chances" i could assign a different pre at each stem, and decide in this phase the final analog reprocessing, or reprocess each stem 1 : 1 through a different pre and sum them digitally, the flavour is added by the pre, not by the sum. The first method is better because i can listen the results immediately and reassign the stems to the pre's, with the second method i have to imagine the results of the single reprocessed stems sum before i've all the files.

[h4nc0]

It's really hard to distinguish subtle details with mp3s, however, I like 9 and 2. Didn't like 1.

[Kenny M]

Originally Posted by h4nc0

It's really hard to distinguish subtle details with mp3s, however, I like 9 and 2. Didn't like 1.

Even listening to the full bandwidth wav files is pretty subtle in my opinion. With the exception of a little width difference on select instruments, I think most of the differences between pres could be accomplished within the mix. That being said the Folcrom mixes in general with a few of the pres were better than ITB and a little more open and less compressed.

I'll post which sound file was which pre this weekend.

[h4nc0]

Originally Posted by Kenny M

Even listening to the full bandwidth wav files is pretty subtle in my opinion. With the exception of a little width difference on select instruments, I think most of the differences between pres could be accomplished within the mix. That being said the Folcrom mixes in general with a few of the pres were better than ITB and a little more open and less compressed.

I'll post which sound file was which pre this weekend.

True, some of the similar sounding files, more I listened, more the same they sounded. I think I didn't like 1 because 2 sounded louder.

[Kenny M]

Okay here we go -

1 - BA API 312
2 - Chandler Germ (Gain up, Feedback low)
3 - Chandler Germ ( Gain lower, Feedback up)
4 - ITB
5 - Neve 1272's
6 - Shadow Hills Discrete setting
7 - Shadow Hills Nickel setting
8 - Shadow Hills Steel setting
9 - TG2

My observations -
Overall I really liked the 1272's the best, but the SH Nickel setting was very close - not quite as big on the bottom and maybe slightly cleaner on top. As infernal pointed out the SH Steel setting did seem to have some added clarity in the extreme L & R where the acoustic guitars were sitting. I did feel the Folcrom mixes added some openness over the ITB mix and much less compressed sounding even though I tried to match the compression levels as best I could. Oddly enough the ITB mix got more compressed sounding than my actual finished ITB mix when I moved all my master bus processing to an aux so that I could process all the mixes through the same plugs. This also seemed to be exagerated with the mp3's. All of the mixes sound less compressed with the wav versions. Kind of made me re think the mp3 thing as I rarely ever compare them so closely. Yuk. That being said, I actually think the differences between mixes actually stands out a little more with the mp3's as opposed to the original wav's. The wav files actually make me scratch my head more as to what the differences are.

All in all, while minimal I think the Folcrom mixes do offer some value over ITB and would be worth the money especially if you allready have multiple pairs of preamps. I still haven't mixed enough with this setup to know what other advantages it may offer. I'm told by some other friends that the main advantage to getting OTB is that it's just simply faster and easier to get a mix happening. I do know that I seem to have to work harder mixing ITB especially with the low end and low mid.

I also wouldn't really go crazy on which pre you select as we can see that the differences are very subtle. Pick any quality pre and you're good to go, allthough I didn't care so much for the Germ and surprisingly the API as I did the others. It would probably be a nice option to kick through a few pre's after you have a basic balance just to see if one offers a few more percentage points of mojo.

For all that were interested in the SH pre's I would have to conclude that these are a good match for the Folcrom. The three output settings do offer some options all in one pre. They also sound pretty damn good using them as a pre and I've had good results with them on vocals, acoustic guitar and overheads.

Unfortunately the juries still out for me on the ITB - OTB thing. I'm going to work this way for a while and then compare some projects later on down the road. The only way I will be able to tell fore sure is if I get a sense that the quality of my work has gone up as compared to say 6 months ago. Even then it's hard to say because you learn something new everyday and sometimes with monumental results. I think it's still all about the nut behind the wheel.