Low End Summing Update!

[illacov]

Ok folks its tax time here in USA and my return is in my bank account as we speak.

I actually got a chance to speak to someone at Audio Upgrades and they told me that theres nothing they can do to upgrade my Soundcraft board (Folio SX), but since the board sounds pretty good, Ill keep it for now, until I get the money together for the new Toft Trident board.

So what I am focusing on is the AD/DA stage and instead of Phase 28s, Ive decided to join the movement and get an RME 9652 card. I actually have found one at a place that sells them for very cheap and Ill be getting it in next week.

For the interface from the ADAT outs, Ill be using the Behringer ADA8000, 3 to be exact.....My DAW is going to be Cubase SX3. Ill be running 16 outs to the Folio and the other 8 ins/outs willl be my loop back connections for my hardware fx boxes and compressors,etc to be used in Cubase SX3.

Im thinking that Ill slap a dbx DDP on the mix inserts with a 150 hz hipass in the sidechain. Im going to get a used Presonus Bluetubes DP and put some rca or telefunken tubes in. This will be my stereo Pre to my DAW.

HOWEVER

Check this out!

I have a second computer that is sitting doing nothing. Its a 1.8 ghz with lots of free pci slots. So what Im going to do with that is install a 12120m running at 192 khz with a nice sized hard drive and the audio summed from the console thru the Blue Tubes is going into the second computer at 192 khz. Then Ill sweeten things up in the computer with a software eq and some limiting from either GCO1 or Voxengo Marquis comp and then back out the outputs of the 1212m at 192 khz to the mixers last stereo pair and run that through the dbx DDP one more time and thru the blue tube one more time back into the emu @ 192khz.

Besides the Blue Tubes, Im not doing too much modded stuff, but Im open to comments, I just thought Id do an update on the low end summing thing I started last month!

Peace
Illumination

PS If I had my way, I would save up and buy a Drawmer 1968 for my 2 buss compression! But what I might end up doing is finding a studio around here that has one and rent out some minutes of studio time from them!

[mrbowes]

I have a second computer that is sitting doing nothing. Its a 1.8 ghz with lots of free pci slots. So what Im going to do with that is install a 12120m running at 192 khz with a nice sized hard drive and the audio summed from the console thru the Blue Tubes is going into the second computer at 192 khz. Then Ill sweeten things up in the computer with a software eq and some limiting from either GCO1 or Voxengo Marquis comp and then back out the outputs of the 1212m at 192 khz to the mixers last stereo pair and run that through the dbx DDP one more time and thru the blue tube one more time back into the emu @ 192khz.

Besides the Blue Tubes, Im not doing too much modded stuff, but Im open to comments, I just thought Id do an update on the low end summing thing I started last month!

Why not just slap a little plugin comp on the 2-buss and be done with it? What are you trying to accomplish using this second computer? Sounds neat for experimentation purposes, but I doubt running the mixdown through some toob pres will have anything but mediocore results.

Sounds like way more trouble than it's worth, but don't let me stop you - report back with how it sounds!

[illacov]

This setup works under the impression that I might have projects that are starting out at different sample rates or at the max of the RME which is 96 khz. However, I would like to have as accurate a capture as I can of the resulting mix, now whether or not I use the Blue Tubes DP as the pre amp from the mixer would be here or there since the Folcrom uses this premise and Ive read other members doing the same with their console since their pre has better head room than the consoles master output.

But either way if the mix sounds great coming off the board, I would rather record it into the 1212m seeing as how the RMEs are more of a utility thing than simple sound quality. The 1212ms claim to have the same converters as the Pro Tools 192 HD setups Ive seen and they sound DAMN good at 192khz.

Also it makes more sense in all reality to do it with the second computer as a 2 track recorder, than do sample rate conversion to upsample the project to 192 khz. Maybe someone says do it the way it is, but I definately know from experience that a 192 khz capture of a live mix, whether or not it started in 44.1 or 48 khz would be much more accurate than a 44.1 khz capture of a live mix.

In my opinion once your mix gets into a console it becomes fair game again. Its not like its an internal issue, what you are dealing with is 44.1 khz or 48 or 96 khz from an RME DA playing out of 16 outs thru the converter. This is no longer truly in the digital realm at this point its being touched by analog technology and to that effect its changing the audio.

Now to simply re record that into the same converter is alot simpler than sending it to another computer, but if you had the opportunity to record at 192 khz and your mix was live why not? Especially if the Presonus Pre is either Clean or if the Tubes add some nice character, I dont see the loss. I mean if you noticed my next step would be to put a Drawmer 1968 across the two buss and then also Im scheming on grabbing a Chandler 2 channel pre (they sound real nice) but i might opt for a great river instead.

Besides man, Im fighting every conception of how you record hip hop music to begin with so why follow suit with how its mixed and mastered? You would die laughing if you saw what people have the nerve to call their "setup."

Fruity loops on a lap top aint my bag.

Plus, Im trying to satisfy the needs of all these guys who want nice mixing jobs done. Its definately a better selling point to have higher quality captures of your mixdowns than lower quality.

192khz never killed Dr Dre and he's coming with all different types of sample rates to begin with. Last time I checked if you use an MPC 3000 its maximum sample rate is 48 khz! But he's recording at 192 khz! So is he as insane as I am for making all these recordings of his drums and instruments at 192 when they're initially at 48 khz? I think what ends up happening is that we cannot forget that when you shoot audio out your computer it becomes negligible what sample rate it starts at, as long as its at least 16 bit/44.1 khz it becomes a live signal again.when the hardware gets ahold of it. Mind you Im not talking an implie Sample Rate Conversion, but simply the fact that the audio is being run through op amps and resistors etc. Whatever results you accomplish while you mix out the box, you kind of owe yourself the gesture of recording your mixdown at the most accurate sample rate you can afford or actually accomplish.

This in my opinion really applies to those people who dont record at really high sample rates but do mix out of the box. Im sure you might say just record at 192 khz, but even then if you mix OTB I think that you would still have to record the mixdown at 192khz, so its almost like these two scenarios NULL haha.

I thought the people here might like that pun.

But yeah most def I will post up the results you're talking maybe two business weeks and Ill be up and running if everything goes without any problems.

I mean what this does mean though is that for the price of one High End preamp, you could wind up with a VERY decent mixing setup.

of course people are already going to say monitoring this and that. Give it time guys. Since this is low end, Im going to give those Athena AS b1 monitors a shot. I already found a 6000 series Sony Hifi and Im going to take it to this Sony service center to see if theres anything that needs to be serviced or improved.

Comments, suggestions?

[nbutter]

i think using 2 channels of 192khz to convert your 2-buss master from summing actually makes LOTS of sense. if you're in the analog domain, and you've got to go back to digital, you might as well have the highest quality conversion you can afford!

What I don't like is that Behringer!!!!

I assume you're planning to get an AEB card for analog input to the RME -- so why not get an output card, too?

[John The Cut]

I think Dr. Dre's sound has more to do with his talent than what sample rate he uses.

[illacov]

I know people HATE HATE HATE behringer here....but the question is...Ive noticed that this piece of gear has ALOT of people using it here with GREAT success.

SO besides the fact that you've got your pecker in your hands ready to dfegad on my choice for adat to analog converter and analog to adat converter...use your ears and not your need to denounce Satan.

Ive heard too many people bust gobs of jizz over this piece of gear and also heard some VERY GOOD recordings done with this piece.

So post up why not the Behringer? I need 24 outputs and at least 8 ins. Please advise as to what I should be purchasing?

So far the only thing Ive seen have been those AD16X and DA16x units. But from what I understand these units are very very neutral. Id rather have some real world questions to their quality rather than Behringer makes it considering that there are some good Behringer pieces out there.

[illacov]

Dre's sound has ALOT to do with talent. But dont think for one second I have no talent and Im trying to compensate for that with gear purchases.

Talent is the basics my man.

You still need to get the best sound possible that you can obtain.

A: To satisfy your personal lust for perfection

B: To avoid sounding like the crap that every other local act can provide.

But like I said, I plan on starting a re mixing, mixing - mastering gig. You need good gear to accomplish that. I also think that most of Dre's achievements wouldnt have been so noticeable if he couldnt get the right tool for the job in his possession. Especially when you consider the guys ACTUALLY an engineer!

So he's pretty damn sluttly to begin with !
You have to remember that most people feel that mixing and summing ITB is more than ENUFF for hip hop music. I think this is garbage. This entire school of thought is what hip hop sounds so shitty right now.


Peace
Illumination

[joeq]

low end summing update:

SM Pro summing box
I have no idea what it sounds like, but I have their passive volume control and I like it a lot, so it might be worth a listen

At $399 my guess it will kill anything that starts with a "B"

[illacov]

Im not using a Behringer mixer to sum.

Im simply using their adat conversion box to make my adat ins into analog OUTS.

No summing, no mixing no panning no eq no nothing, I might have some interaction with the preamp built into the box, but other than that this is the least of my worries.

Believe me, ALOT of people have an ADA8000 because theres not much out there that can give you some basic TRS outs from Lightpipe at a reasonable price. Alot of these guys are using MOTU 2403s and RME Firefaces' etc......

Please keep it clean in here.

If you doubt how good the ADA8000 sounds try a gander at these threads..

http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...hlight=ada8000

http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...hlight=ada8000

the above song was done with just an ADA8000 and an EMU 1212M....


Are we still gonna act like jerks about this or what?
Peace
Illumination

[illacov]

seeing as how alot of guys and gals have viewed this thread, Just thought Id post this up for commentary.

For those people who mix bass heavy music, this includes some rock, most hip hop and r and b, perhaps even jazz, its worth noting that summing OTB is a very real issue.

Once I get my files up and running Ill post as example of the same track, summed ITB and also summed OTB, (well just a loopback from the outs to the ins on an EMU 0404) and you will definately see that some of this bass distortion that I thought was an issue, was actually not a reality until I mixed down the songs!

When they were live inside the daw, things were fine, it was after the fact that fudged things up.

What this means for me is that its all the more clear that I should be doing OTB summing than ITB summing, because of the issues with bass distorting when before it was fine and also nice and deep!

We should at least be trying a loopback and if at all possible, run the stereo outs into a preamp (stereo) to make up some headroom.

The mix im going to be posting is just going to be from outs to ins though!

Heres the question i ask of you though.

Does the nulling of two waves out of phase make them equivalent???

Are we missing something a bit more related to how music actually triggers our psyche perhaps or the harmonics of the pieces?

I know harmonics is also a waves issue, but I bet that you can have two copies of a song that are harmonically different (on very subtle but apparent levels) be put out of phase and indeed they will null!

YES! Im going out on a limb and saying that I think our proof test is

FLAWED



Go ahead light your blow torches and pull out your text books. I believe that in the case of this issue science has AGAIN failed us.

I dont quite have a name for my theory or hypothesis yet, but Im sure Im not the first.

However, I do believe that if you use the premise of wave cancellation to prove equivalency you have missed the boat. I believe that nulling does not prove that there are random artifacts that are caused by electric impulses that are almost violently introduced into the electric current that the music travels along when it goes thru analog gear.

Now being a philosophy graduate heres my antithesis to nulling.

Can you use the same device (Nulling) to perfectly prove that two like waves (the same song but summed differently) put out of phase are from DIFFERENT sources?

If no then said device is flawed, because you cannot prove similarity if you cannot by the inverse prove dissimilarity.

Therefore I think Nulling is balogney.

I think that we have been wrong from the start and that we have been too comfortable in our cigar lounges with this method. Its absolute garbage, the sad part is people are trying to convince us that we are convincing ourselves that we are hearing something different.
{Kiegergard, Hume, Freud}
This is also garbage. Unless there are a bunch of schizo people who post here, most of the users of this website are semi or professionals at what they do and we have used this kindergarten, Orwellian explanation for why people are hearing differences when they sum.

Yes some methods are flawed for summing ...Heres one primary one

If Protools does not allow you to directly open the audio you record outside it (in a loopback or OTB sum) without first CONVERTING the file to a wave, then it absolutely skews the results of summing tests.

If you use a host like Cubase SX or Nuendo, you dont even have to export the files you record. As long as you save your project, the files are already WAV files and there is no export process for recorded material. (There is some compiling but not the same as ProTools which still requires you to export your wavs!) Only when you have to make one stereo file from many Wavs do you sum inside the box with Cubase, Nuendo and I believe Samplitude is like this.

This would explain why so many PT users are saying that their files NULL. Because whatever they recorded is still being converted after its been recorded.

Im pretty sure that if they were to use a standalone recorder. And then Record the outputs of the standalone recorded in another program like Cool Edit or even Kristal, they would be shocked at what they heard.

But anyways,
Im probably losing money on this as we speak because some smo is patenting my tangent on a bulletin board site.

Useful contribution 2006

Peace
Illumination

[Brad McGowan]

If you watch your levels within your DAW, record conservatively (0 VU = -14 dBFS!) , gain stage properly between plugins, and avoid intersample peak distortion (I think that's what it's called), then you will not have problems with distortion due to summing ITB. The computer is a very good summer. In fact it's too good--that's my personal feeling why people don't like it. It doesn't have the non-linearities of an analog summing mixer that create the euphonic experience that people have grown accustomed to while mixing on decent analog consoles. The trick is to figure out how to inject the magic due to the non-linearities back into your ITB mixes. Given that as a whole this industry is still figuring out how to mix inside of a computer, it's going to be a while before most of us truly understand the medium we are working with.

Brad

[mdsmith64]

I agree with Brad. I know it's almost heresy to suggest here, but I am not 100% convinced that summing out and mixing analog is better. The "evidence" I've seen is mostly anecdotal at this point. I am aware of the 3D Audio Inc DAWSUM CD, but I haven't heard it myself. I have also not tried any experiments myself (yet). What concerns me most is the point Brad makes about how many people may not be summing properly in the box. This makes it an inaccurate comparison. It also concerns me that many recordists seem to be conviced and may actually be doing their mixes harm by summing out through inferior converters to inferior mixers. Anyway, for me I'm not ready to run out and invest another $10K to sum outside the box until I see more data.


Best Regards,

Mike.

[illacov]

If you are willing to put the whole thing in the snake oil category, we should also assume that our methods for making it summing a non issue in that same category.

Heres my approach and opinion.

I personally think that because we are so accustomed to DAWs that we have lost an intimate connection with how music sounded for almost a century before we began using computers en masse.

But either way, I dont think you need $10,000 converters to sum outside the box.

You didnt need em when you used a drum machine and a 300 dollar keyboard with an mpc so why has it become an issue now.

What we've done is separated ourselves from what we know is true, by only allowing those who are privileged to certify truths in music. Which is false to me.

What about the guy who does know how to mix with hardware? Does he need to get the absolute best converters in order to mix adequately outside the box no.

Would it matter if he got something adequate?

You dont need to spend 10,000 bucks on converters before you hear the difference.

I can hear it on a 100 dollar sound card. And I definately know that on an RME 9652 summed into a 1212m at 192khz that Ill hear it as well.

Whether or not I get the console and the outboard is negligible at that point.

Im just saying that we've got a flawed test to prove or disprove the validity of summing and thats the whole null thing. You can dig up any audio expert you want, any oldschool engineer on the planet. They trust their ears before science and we somehow have lost that whole aspect that guys in white lab coats **** things up too every so often (read Cold Fusion, AIDS/HIV)


So perhaps its not just the fact that we need 10,000 dollars converters, but the fact is that by the time we get those kinds of pieces, we've already spent tons on outboard gear as well so everything falls into place, however

I still think that even with prosumer stuff you will hear the difference,

Please stop changing the subject.

Im talking about the way we test our results, lets not get stuck on equipment, because even with 10000 bucks of equipment someone can throw in our face how it might be inaccurate. Thats ignoring the whole construct to begin with.

Its about how we certify our beliefs and this is the heart of the problem, I think we're using flawed methods to evaluate our data.

If you can hear differences between two sources on cheap speakers, then expensive speakers should not hide those differences.

POINT BLANK.

Converters are the same animal as well. DAWS, etc if they are even 40% accurate then an even more accurate system will only magnify my findings, not hide them.

Go figure

Peace
Illumination

[h2000]

Hey, I say if you got the option then go for it. A good comparison test to satisfy you that it's worth it and you're good to go.

BTW: I have read interviews in the not so distant past where Dr. Dre stated that he always mixed to 16 bit 44.1kHz DAT. Obviously this was 5 or more years ago, but nonetheless he had the option to mix to 1/2" and chose DAT. Many of his best hits = DAT.

[jebjerome]

Unless there are a bunch of schizo people who post here, most of the users of this website are semi or professionals at what they do and we have used this kindergarten, Orwellian explanation for why people are hearing differences when they sum.

Why is this explanation "Orwellian"? Just wondering.

Good luck with your summing. Let us know how it works out.

[Brad McGowan]

Originally Posted by mdsmith64

I agree with Brad. I know it's almost heresy to suggest here, but I am not 100% convinced that summing out and mixing analog is better. The "evidence" I've seen is mostly anecdotal at this point. I am aware of the 3D Audio Inc DAWSUM CD, but I haven't heard it myself. I have also not tried any experiments myself (yet). What concerns me most is the point Brad makes about how many people may not be summing properly in the box. This makes it an inaccurate comparison. It also concerns me that many recordists seem to be conviced and may actually be doing their mixes harm by summing out through inferior converters to inferior mixers. Anyway, for me I'm not ready to run out and invest another $10K to sum outside the box until I see more data.


Best Regards,

Mike.

I've done experiments so I have first hand experience to back up my opinions. I ended up making a passive summing box similar to a Folcrom. I've tried it with both mediocre and better than mediocre converters. Really nice converters are on the way. To my ears summing OTB was different. In many ways I felt it was "better" for the mixes I was running at the time. However, using the mediocre converters I felt that the ITB mix was "better" because my low end and high end stayed intact and wasn't mangled by the inferior D/A. The project was to be sent off for professional mastering so I felt the mastering engineer could add in the mojo I was missing from mixing ITB.

For the next project the converters were upgraded. This time around I chose to print ITB mixes because I felt that the the benefits I got from the OTB mix were outweighed by whatever I lost due to cables and patchbays and D/A. This project was also professionally mastered. I have high end D/A on the way and feel that I will be making no compromise in summing OTB when I have the new units installed.

Mixing is about compromises and using a low end set of converters is only producing another compromise for your end product. If you care about the integrity of your signal path then you need to decide at what point the benefits no longer outweigh the disadvantages of mediocre D/A, dithering, cabling, connectors, patchbays, etc. You can make music with crappy converters--this is true. But every engineer needs to decide with their own ears when the gear is actually getting in the way of the musical statement they are trying to make. For me that threshold is at a lower level than others may tolerate.

Here's my personal theory of why I found my OTB mixes to be "better". I was using an API 3124+ to provide make-up gain to my passive summing box. I love the sound of API. That is the sound of rock 'n roll to my ears. I get giddy when I hear drums and guitars being slammed into the input transformer of that thing. I have not yet figured out how to give my mixes that same color by processing tracks inside of the computer. I like the distortion and fatness the API preamp gives the mix when I really crank the levels. Magic is happening when I do that...transients are being clipped, harmonic distortion is being generated, the balance of lows to mids to highs is being enhanced by the transformers and API opamp. This effect has nothing to do with summing, however. It's all about pushing the mix through the API. My theory is that if I had an API module (same opamp and transformers), then I could simply run my 2-bus mix into the line input and experience the same sonic delight without having to set up stems and waste precious channels of D/A that I could be allocating to other outboard gear. That is a test I one day hope to peform for my own edification.

If you discover a better way to personally arrive at the result you envision, then by all means pursue that path.

Many people will continue to sum OTB until someone shows them an easier and simpler way to get the mix "there". A better shortcut will eventually come.

Brad

[Kiwiburger]

+1 I am totally convinced that summing ITB is simply too perfect, and lacks distortion. The reason to sum OTB is purely to add noise and distortion - nothing else.

Not doubting that OTB sounds better - just doubting the rhetoric and bs that suggests it is better because of less noise or distortion.

Face it - we like noise and distortion. I am sure there are ways of adding noise and distortion ITB.

[Brad McGowan]

thumbsup Agreed!

I think the manufacturers of summing boxes are marketing their products to potential users under the pretense that OTB summing has more headroom, is cleaner, less noisy, the list goes on. The marketing rhetoric is mostly false. They need to just come out and say something like:

"What does vinyl, analog tape, vintage Neve and API consoles all have in common? DISTORTION. Put the distortion back into your mix with our handy dandy Summerize 2000..."

Anyway you get my point.

I told someone once that I made a passive summing box and was using a mic preamp for make-gain. They said to me: "So you're telling me that your taking line level signals, dropping it 20-30 dB, and then bringing it back up 20-30 dB." I said, "yes, essentially." And they replied: "So you're turning up 20-30 dB of noise." I said: "Yeah, I guess so..."

Brad

[illacov]

Well I just discovered today that my EMU 0404 as well all the EMU cards have this nifty feature that allows you to internally route your stereo outputs to your inputs, thus creating a loopback mix to whatever you want. Heres the best part. You can run Cool Edit and Im thinkin Adobe Audition (same thing) at 192 khz and record your mix.

The difference in sound quality is so fricking amazing that I may not even need to buy the mixer! Yes its a real time mixdown, but getting a CRISPY 192khz mixdown using OTB methods with an ITB approach is DAMN convenient!

The best part is you use your converters to accomplish this. The EMU 0404 doesnt have the PT HD 192 converters but its big brother the 1212m does. Im wondering how much of a difference that card would make??

Either way, I think I just had a moment of INTENSE catharsis.

I definately might add that this scenario is QUITE noise free. But it does exclude the whole analog gear thing.

But MAN! I cant wait to put up some mp3 or mp4s to show you the difference.
Im off to spread the word to the other gearslutters!
Peace
Illumination

[George Necola]

the problem with behringer and other low-price gear is, that they produce a lot of digital artefacts, you loose clarity and things are clouding up...

simple test:
if you go trough the input of the behringer with a CD-player (2 track), record your favourite song and send it out to another recording device (you can do that directly without the cubase stage) the sound-decrease is immense.. I did that test, and sold my behringer afterwards. I use now some other mid-budget gear and the soundimprovement is immense.

I think you are going the wrong way but that's just my 0.02$

cheers George

[illacov]

I may not need to get the Behringer.

If this whole thing with the EMU works like a charm, then my only concern is getting the 0404 to place nice with another converter.

Or buy a converter that does the same thing but with better converters and has at least 8 ins and outs analog. I could just use analog hardware for reverbs and compression in SX 3 and just do the loopback internally in my EMU, I probably would switch the 0404 to a 1212M since it has those PT HD 192 converters.

As for the multiple out converter I could get a RME Fireface, seeing as how I dont quite need that many ins and outs anymore, but it would be nice to have more than less.

Has anyone noticed what I wrote about this nifty summing trick??

You guys totally ignored my last post...

BTW George thanks for the insight. I had no clue that people might be having that problem. Whats weird is how people are still getting good results with those things.

Care to add as to why that is?

Peace
Illumination

[octatonic]

Originally Posted by illacov

I know people HATE HATE HATE behringer here....but the question is...Ive noticed that this piece of gear has ALOT of people using it here with GREAT success.
Ive heard too many people bust gobs of jizz over this piece of gear and also heard some VERY GOOD recordings done with this piece.
So post up why not the Behringer? I need 24 outputs and at least 8 ins. Please advise as to what I should be purchasing?

I have an ADA8000 on the ADAT channel of my Protools HD rig.
It is ok... barely ok.
I hardly use it and never for anything important.

Now, illacov, I know you are really on this riff with them but I can tell you from personal experience that they are not a full sounding converter. But then I never expected them to be.
They sound a lot better (like 100%) when you use wordclock.
A good sync will cost you a fair bit if you don't have one already.

Digital summing the way you suggest isn't going to give you more headroom.
It can't- zero is still zero.

If you were using great converters, going out to a high quality analog mixer and then coming back into a recorder of some type, again with a high quality converter then you will get a different tone to mixing ITB. (This is the key with analog summing, it is more than just adding numbers together, the analog gear imparts subtle (or not) colouration and distortion)

Some people prefer this- I am one of them, and some people don't.

Ok... the summing issue.
There is no way that summing the way you suggest is going to compare to doing mixes on a good console or even a good summing box (like the cranesong/dangerour price range).

Regardless, posting mp3's of your results is pretty pointless... data compression, you know?

[illacov]

Have you??

ITS NOT THE SAME!

An MP3 with data compression or not is going to still show you how I had shit loads of distortion on a nicely mixed track AFTER DAW SUMMING when before there was none.

Yes I followed Mr. Frindles advice and lowered my level pre mixdown and you know what? When I turned the resulting file back up, the distortion was still there.

Yes Zero is still zero. But that doesnt change the fact that when a converter routes its inputs on itself, theres a physical connection going on. Yes its electronic but its not via software only.

You're trying to say that summing from a foldback is no different than a DAW summing and sorry to say but I fail to see the logic in your statement. If it was no different then you wouldnt get different results and you wouldnt get better mixes this way.

Try it man, if your converter permits try it. If you use PT then boycott Digidesign for making you smear your files with SRC before you can grab them as regular files post recording them.

However if you can create an internal foldback, record your mixdown like I did with ANOTHER program at 192khz and see if you hear a difference.

I use r8brain from Voxengo as my SRC.

Try it. Its a hell of a alot different that just summing it the regular way. I also get a much better mix dynamically, alot of my instruments are getting mushed when i sum inside SX, but you'd be a fool to think Ill mixdown the old way again.

Im not saying that you dont know what Im talkin about, but you have to understand that the majority is trying to say what Im hearing is a figment of my imagination.

Thats why I said the whole convention is Orwellian IE Animal Farm, we're just imagining the differences.

So fine knock my gear choices for my console and my converters. It doesnt change the fact that when I post up my ogg vorbis, mp3 or m4a whatever format people want (32 bit WAV anyone??) you will hear a difference.

Peace
Illumination

[octatonic]

Originally Posted by illacov

Snip...Yes Zero is still zero. But that doesnt change the fact that when a converter routes its inputs on itself, theres a physical connection going on. Yes its electronic but its not via software only.

You're trying to say that summing from a foldback is no different than a DAW summing and sorry to say but I fail to see the logic in your statement. If it was no different then you wouldnt get different results and you wouldnt get better mixes this way.

Don't twist my words... I am not saying that at all.

Originally Posted by illacov

Try it man, if your converter permits try it. If you use PT then boycott Digidesign for making you smear your files with SRC before you can grab them as regular files post recording them.

Lol... Sorry, but I cannot take comments like that seriously.

Originally Posted by illacov

Im not saying that you dont know what Im talkin about, but you have to understand that the majority is trying to say what Im hearing is a figment of my imagination.

So fine knock my gear choices for my console and my converters. It doesnt change the fact that when I post up my ogg vorbis, mp3 or m4a whatever format people want (32 bit WAV anyone??) you will hear a difference.

Gee, you really are taking this personally.
I've got no interest arguing the point with you here- but all you are doing is a software loopback- if this sounds great to you then more power to you.
You could do it with AES/EBU connections but it still wont change the fact that all you are doing is digital summing.
You'll find that getting precious about people discussing your discoveries to be a waste of time.
People here, some with a hell of a lot more experience than you, will analyse what you say and pull it to bits- we are engineers, it is what we do. Getting uppity about it isn't going to make you any friends.

[illacov]

But the whole deal about Summing is how summing is done dude!
If you're gonna try the route of comparing experiences at least get up to date with what the guys with more experience than me and you are saying.

The way the computer is actually approximating our tracks into one stereo mixdown is for better lack of the word flawed. The recording of a live mix with multiple tracks if it is done on an accurate medium is actually going to sound different than a summed itb mix.

Call my little trick what you want. Either way its NOT the same as what Cubase does when it renders a file. If I pull out two TRS cables and loop them back into the converter its not Digital summing then either. Because the computer is doing a different operation it cant be called summing truthfully. If you record into your computer what your cd player is playing are you summing then too?

Whats to sum?

All you are doing is capturing audio.

Im not taking it personal, but you're trying to school me about the very same things im denouncing.

So until I get a flagship ProTools system with B and W monitors with a MacIntosh Amplifier noone is going to believe that a 28 year old semi pro might have a point?

Its seems like everyone else is taking things personal.

Im presenting data and this discussion is perfectly within the confines of friendly debate at best and more along the lines of a fact finding mission.

BTW Whats so outrageous about me saying that the way PTs audio engine handles files is bogus?

Im not sayin dont use PT, but jesus the amounts of money people pay you think you could get what you record without going thru additional conversion.

Ive been reading in the Paul Frindle posts @ Prosound or Pro Rec forums about guys who get skewed results trying to compare their ITB and OTB mixes in Pro Tools, because once they record the 2 track from their console they still have render their file!

In Cubase you do no such thing. Once your track is recorded, its the default format that you selecte, IE Broadcast Wav, Wav or aiff i think.

You can go right into your audio folder and grab your music and away you go.

Why can you try the test out for yourself? Why is that an absurd idea? Isnt that the only way people can see for themselves if this makes any sense or if its real to them? Listening to mp3s or whatever cant prove something to everyone, so to the skeptics try it out. You would think that most professional interfaces and converters have some way of making a foldback that can be shot out to another program or right back into your daw.

I dont have the latest version of cubase so i cant record at 192 khz in it, so cool edit it was, but I am getting SX3 this month on an academic discount (graduate school rocks!)

And looking back at my posts im not getting offended as much as Im rather passionate about the whole ordeal.

In the end man just listen to the files if you hear any difference, then be honest about it otherwise say why not ya know?

I think that for alot of people trying to put this whole affair to rest, this would be a pretty quick and dirty test to see if theres a difference without getting involved with tons of gear. I know I was sold from my first wired foldback mixdown and this is only an attempt to further how convenient it can be for people.

But im still excited

heres the files

You decide :

BTW this is NOT a blind test....the files are named per their actual methods

The first file was Summed in Cubase SX at 44.1 32bit, master fader at -20db

http://illacov.onlinestoragesolution...ack44_1ITB.mp3

This second file was summed through an internal foldback (NO WIRES) from Cubase SX to Cool Edit at 192 khz, master fader at 0 db. Sample rate conversion from 192 to 44.1 32 bit done in Voxengo r8brain.

http://illacov.onlinestoragesolution...2khzb_r8b_.mp3

EDIT:
Heres the same track but summed through an internal foldback (NO WIRES) from Cubase SX to Cool Edit at 44.1 khz, master fader at 0 db. No sample rate conversion except wav to mp3 in Cool Edit.

http://illacov.onlinestoragesolution...TB_ITB44_1.mp3



My first impression is the difference in bass and theres something else about the OTB/ITB summed version, see if you can help me figure it out.

There is a difference, I've heard it on headphones and monitors so you be the judge.

Peace
Illumination


Peace

[octatonic]

I honestly don't have time to answer you point by point, but let me just say that you are pretty wrong about a few things here- other people will and have jumped in so far to try to help you.

I understand you are excited and that is a good and necessary thing, but please try to read what I and other peopple are telling you properly and understand we are not putting shit on you, it is just that your logic and methodology do not make sense.

BTW the links don't work.

James

[illacov]

You havent explained how the main point is flawed. Mainly because you dont really address whether or not summing makes a difference, with or without GEAR.

The links got entered all screwey i fixed em.

If you are trying to say that summing is worthless without great gear then fine I see where you are coming from, but I still dont think that your ideas are enough for me to simply run with my tail between my legs. What people are you referring to that have tried to bail me out?

I think this issue is particulary important if you mix urban music because bass has always been a source of woe in the engineers life when he or she has to mix bass heavy music.

You seem to think Im just ignoring convention, but I dont understand are you saying im not heeding what people are saying or that I should be obeying what they're saying?

You're kind of denying me my right to disagree with people, while you fully enjoy yours.

I still would love to know why you think that summing outside of your DAW which for better lack of the word is what happens (sort of) when you record your mixdown instead of rendering it, is not ENUFF. If you want to MIX OTB, then yes you understand why I want to do it.

I love gear, good gear great gear, Drawmers and Ameks love em like em, wish i had a trust fund.

Fact remains, this is a low end thing and the only reason i put it on high end was to get some peoples attention who wouldnt start a flamewar or whatever.

I just wanted some good input on the issue. I dont know how not enough experience or not elite enough gear disqualifies me from my own mindframe, but moreso why are you so matter of fact about everything? You've come across as so been there done that, but you're right you wont go point for point with, you only went one point. That Zero is Zero. Thats fine!

What makes you think computers reach zero everytime flawlessly without error or drift? I mean im using my own experiences and knowledge that Ive gained in this business and the IT field to present these ideas.

I keep hearing alot of rehashed things from people on this board and no new fresh ideas.

Whats so odd tho is that it would only take you 30 seconds of your time to internally route your converters outs to your ins and record a foldback mixdown and then also do a rendering of the same song for only 30 seconds worth of audio..

This is not aimed totally at you alone, Im just saying that if your converters have the capability, this is not snobbery or snideness, then try it out.

Thats all I said. Did I imply something else? Its just like sayin to bite a lifesaver in the dark and see if it sparks. Im not saying your breath stinks, Im saying see if it lights up.

Hopefully we can reach some happy medium in this affair, because Im not trying to write off what you or anyone else have to say, but simply to invite you all to disprove me by using the same methods I did.
And if you cant disprove me, then maybe we need to start getting to know our converters all over again, because we've been missing out.

Thats all

Peace
Illumination

[octatonic]

Originally Posted by illacov

You havent explained how the main point is flawed. Mainly because you dont really address whether or not summing makes a difference, with or without GEAR.

The links got entered all screwey i fixed em.

If you are trying to say that summing is worthless without great gear then fine I see where you are coming from, but I still dont think that your ideas are enough for me to simply run with my tail between my legs. What people are you referring to that have tried to bail me out?
Illumination

You see you are just coming at this from the wrong angle.
Read what Kiwiburger said.
No-one is trying to ball you out- we are not here to do that.
You are twisting my words by extending my meaning to the worst possible extreme.
The glass is not 1/2 empty, it is exactly twice the necessary size.

Also, I am not saying that summing is worthless without great gear.

I am saying analog summing is going to depend on the gear you are using.

For instance...
I have three mixers here that I can sum analog with.

32 channel Mackie
D&R 16 channel inline console
48 channel Neve

Each mixer has it's own sound... but for a release I would usually mixdown on the Neve.
90% of what I do is pre production or session guitars in my own room and I tend to bounce ITB for people to get an idea and then we mix in the main room.

All you are doing with you OTB/IB idea (lets get that sorted anyway, you are mixing ITB, just not using Cubases mixbus, right?) is a digtal sum before the converter but post the cubase outputs.

You can do the same with the RME Multiface (and I guess the digiface/fireface)- I did it when I had a Multiface and it sounds bit different to summing within Cubase (or for me, Logic or Protools), but it was not an enourmous difference in terms of quality.
If it is for you then either EMU are fitting an amazing new technology into a relatively cheap device OR there is somethiing in your mixing technique that is causing the cubase mix bus mixes to sound less clear- the main culprit there is people using too many plugins and not getting the sound right at the source.

You aren't the first person to do this though - RME users have been able to for years and some swear by it.
These users are generally in the semi-pro fareas, but I do know Paul Najar (in Australia) swears by this process also, we discussed it on the Logic Users list a few weeks ago, do a seach you will find it)
Mixing on a high quality analog console is still ligh years ahead, IMHO, in terms of depth, punch, clarity and tone.

[illacov]

You have finally agreed with me, I knew we were two cooks arguing over what end of the pig to gut first.

either way you look at it you need to get out of the box. If you can sum internally but avoid the DAWS mixbuss then you're one leg up.

I think moreso than anything this just makes my hunger for a console, right now a Soundcraft Folio SX, but eventually a Toft Trident or a refurbished Ramsa will be my board of choice.

I know definately that running music that comes out of your daw into analog gear makes a huge difference, for example I listen to my mixes on headphones sometimes and I can do this with a home receiver using the headphone jacks. But when i plug into our little console right now, HUGE DIFFERENCE. This is because the console gets the analog outs for monitoring from the 0404.

Ive noticed this difference for a while man. But anyways, I just wish you could see how crazy it is that when you say or I say we hear a difference, that people say WE are the crazy ones.

Keep up the feedback Im loving this thread!

Peace
Illumination

[octatonic]

I've not changed anything I've said from the beginning and I am not really agreeing with you.
The digital summing that is done by the Cubase mixer and the EMU mixer are simply different to each other.
If you prefer one to the other, then great.

I've listened to your mp3's here in my room (Dynaudio BM6a's) and in the Neve room (Genelec 1034b main monitors) and to be honest there is very little difference between them, but then mp3's aren't exactly reference quality, are they.

I wish I'd be able to help here, but I suspect I haven't.
However, I need to be recording the rest of the day so I will have to leave it there.

James