Upgrading Studio: Help deciding ITB or OTB

[JazzYoda]

For me the OTB ITB choise is usually determined by the type of product. I find the OTB sound to be more "vintage" and colorful, but it does add more noise. ITB seems more accurate, but sometimes leaves me with a disjointed feeling, especially when building up layers of the same instrument for a "section". I tend to use it for cleaner, brighter music.

For jazz that was recorded live to the DAW, I tend to mix OTB, to analog tape, and back in. My assumption is that a Rock engineer would do this, although I know next to nothing about rock.

For classical that was recorded with more than 2 mics, I tend to default to ITB unless there is something too sterile about the recording, in which case I will go OTB and run it through tubes as well.

My next project is to build my own passive summing box that is mated to my DAW, and give it enough loss so that the gain will be made up by a mic pre of my choice, since I have about 6-7 mic pre choices with multiple channels. This will not be a "be-all-end-all", but just another arrow in the quiver of engineering tools.

[acorredor]

Thanks a lot JazzYoda for your insights. I mosly do rock/pop. Any other opinions comments on this 2 setup options?

[acorredor]

anyone?

[mahasandi]

Hello,


I've posted this elsewhere its a a quote from Bob Katz ,
for i feel its so relevant here it is:

In the past (say, through 1990), in my writing, it was a fight against cumulative quantization distortion and grunge, and the use of low-quality plugins and digitgal processors----and that made full analog mixing and processing much more attractive than digital mixing and processing. Now, today, it's the opposite, digital processing has come a long way, if you don't abuse it.

So today, if you wish to mix outside the box, you have to balance the loss of transparency that comes from passing the signal through low-resolution D/A/D converters (unless you spend the money on the best converters) against the supposed advantages of totally-analog-domain processing and mixing. And these advantages, in my opinion, can now only be justified when using a superb analog console whose coloration adds a desirable color (e.g., space, depth, definition) that cannot be obtained any other way. But even that color that, say, an API console can give you, can be obtained without the full console. And the tradeoff is probably less than going through the entire console to mix. For example, mix digitally in the box, use lots of good analog outboard for your prime signals, and possibly send the entire mix through a single pair of superb D/A converters and a pair of API modules and into a single pair of superb A/D converters to capture the mix, or a 1/2" tape machine. The "magic sprinkle" that the API pair add to that mix can produce a final mix with a unique combination of transparency and color that can sound superior to the use of 24 or 48 or however many "cheap, low-class" converters feeding a full API console.

I've objectively tested the premise that there is no problem with the digital summing mechanism (e.g. Pro Tools "infamous" summing bus) by simply taking a pair of good analog modules and putting them on a digital summing bus. If the sound gets WIDER and CLEARER with simply a pair of analog modules added to a digital sum, that makes it clear that most (if not all) of the "improvement" people attribute to analog summing is NOT due to the summing but rather to the desirable character of the analog gear they are using.

In other experiments, conducted by Linn Fuston, he demonstrated equal performance with some analog summers, and worse with many. I can confirm that the transparent analog summer which does not objectively degrade the sound, is very rare. A client sent me a matched gain and pan mix done with the Dangerous 2-bus versus digital mix in the box, and objectively and subjectively, there was nothing special about the Dangerous Mix. If anything, it sounded a little vaguer and less clear. In my opinion, it did not add any desirable distortion. I performed the listening tests blind on the client's files.

In another test, a client sent me a mix done with the Sumo with its converters versus in the box. The Sumo was EXTREMELY transparent. The two mixes were virtually impossible to tell apart, blind or sighted. But there was absolutely no advantage to the SUMO. In both cases, no analog outboard was used to "complicate" the test.

In my opinion, the bar on the digital side has been raised so far. There is still plenty of analog "processing" that sounds superior to digital processing, but summing is NOT one of those processes. So unless you have a virtually-totally-transparent analog summer or one whose losses are made up by its character (e.g. API), then I would currently recomend ITB digital mixing combined with lots of good character-providing analog outboard.

Does this help make clear my current thinking?



__________________
Bob Katz DIGITAL DOMAIN http://www.digido.com
"There are two kinds of fools. One says-this is old and therefore good. The other says-this is new and therefore better."

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced."


here is the link :
http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...stion+for+paul

[acorredor]

Thanks a lot Mahasandi! very informative post! I guess i could upgrade my mixing surface, and invest in more comps/eqs. Any opinions are still welcome!