"In The Box" Emulation Of Large Console Techniques

[Murray]

The mix buss thing here, too?!

Just a few threads down, Brian T was about to prove that Paris solved this digital problem years ago. If you want to mix in the box, and get a punchy analogue sound, mix in Paris.

[Curve Dominant]

posted by Edmann:
There are many theories out there - yours would seem to imply generous use of plugins (am I right?)

Oh Gawd! Are you right! If audio was a Judeo-Christian universe, I would be the Plugin Satan. I ****ing love plugins, and use them and abuse them with glee.

I will not speak for the recording community on the subject. But last night I had three hiphop artists travel here from NYC to record a song in my studio. After recording their MPC 2000 (splitting out each sample over 10 audio tracks) and their vocal tracks (six audio channels of vocals), I applied a bunch of plugs to the tracks, the mix bus, some aux channels etc. Upon playing them the result, they were all like, "YO! THAT SHIT'S DOPE!!!" It WAS dope.

You mentioned Hendrix's "Are You Experienced." As I understand, Hendrix and Chas Chandler were doing A LOT of things in the studio that had "trad" engineers HOWLING with disgust with the wanton denigration of audio in their methods. But yo, it sounded dope, right? And it STILL sounds dope because they MADE it sound dope.

Dopeness, if it is something you consciously strive for, requires vision, yes, but it requires something else, something that I have found lacking in audio engineers I've worked with over the years (which has led me to build my own studio). It requires abandon. You know the "rules" of audio, yes, fine. Now, abandon them. And while you're at it, abandon the bit-wanking insecurities of those who claim to hear "voices" in the mix bus, and the plugin DSP, and "the spaces between the ones and the zeroes in digital audio" and all the rest of that boring bourgeoisie bullshit inherent in these crushingly simple-minded debates.

I've been diligently studying engineering and the science of digital audio over the past three years, and the most important lesson I've learned is that this bit-wanking obsession with mathematical precision really has nothing to do with art. THAT's not to say it isn't useful information. It is very useful. But when you go to work at making art, it's very useful to forget about it. Abandon.

Renie - "I'm not making myself clear. I am aware of the history of the issue I'm just not sure whether it's a flaw or an aesthetic thing.

The reason why I'm not sure where the truth lies is that I respect the opinions of people on both sides of the debate.

It's not soemthing I dismiss as rumour I think it's something that has a real basis to it somewhere but that it gets picked up by the masses as a 'scapegoat' for poor mixes, maybe that's an unfair comment."

Er...

1) There is a factual PT mixer chip shareing issue involving truncation of audio on hight track count mixes - I dont think you have fully let that information 'enter your life' yet. You still remain 'blinkered'. Check it out here...
http://duc.digidesign.com/showflat.p...=&fpart=1&vc=1

2) The amount of howling from fellow engineers about poor sound on the PT mix buss would be enough for some people but somehow, not you...

One is a fact the other has high % statistics going for it...

3) The "it's fine", "nonsence, nothing wrong with it" brigade are in denial of point 1 above. I ask you, why else then would Digidesign put such great store in announcing the improvement of the new HD mixer and its NON chip sharing / truncation & higher mixer headroom?

[edmann]

Originally posted by Curve Dominant
Oh Gawd! Are you right! If audio was a Judeo-Christian universe, I would be the Plugin Satan. I ****ing love plugins, and use them and abuse them with glee.

You mentioned Hendrix's "Are You Experienced." As I understand, Hendrix and Chas Chandler were doing A LOT of things in the studio that had "trad" engineers HOWLING with disgust with the wanton denigration of audio in their methods. But yo, it sounded dope, right? And it STILL sounds dope because they MADE it sound dope.

And while you're at it, abandon the bit-wanking insecurities of those who claim to hear "voices" in the mix bus, and the plugin DSP, and "the spaces between the ones and the zeroes in digital audio" and all the rest of that boring bourgeoisie bullshit inherent in these crushingly simple-minded debates.

I've been diligently studying engineering and the science of digital audio over the past three years, and the most important lesson I've learned is that this bit-wanking obsession with mathematical precision really has nothing to do with art. THAT's not to say it isn't useful information. It is very useful. But when you go to work at making art, it's very useful to forget about it. Abandon.

CD - too many words. Not looking for a prophet. 3 years of study or practice is not that much, my friend. We all know that plugs can be employed to twist the sound endlessly in new forms. I am just talking about how does it SOUND in the end - that would be: the Mix, and specifically (within this thread) Digital Bounce vs. Analog Summing. I am convinced at this point that the more plugs that are employed in the overall tracks/mix buss - the worse the final result will sound - especially if it is a Digital Bounce. So w/re to "...Experienced" - I am referring to the Wide Open Sound Of That Mix - and on that recording there were almost none of the innovations (tape flange etc) that Hendrix/Eddie Kramer employed on later recordings. I think as far as they went was backward (reverse) tape play on the title track. The rest of it is just a nice recording of the actual sounds.

On another note - ASCAP is nothing to be proud of. I have been a member since 1988 - but my membership ends this year. I think that ASCAP may qualify as being the most corrupt, inefficient and userous performing rights organization in existence. If you want to get paid honestly for your work - BMI or SESAC are much better options.

peace

Ed

[Robotnik]

Originally posted by Jules
2) The amount of howling from fellow engineers about poor sound on the PT mix buss would be enough for some people but somehow, not you...

One is a fact the other has high % statistics going for it...

Once you get more more then 16 tracks happening, the sound of PT mix bus starts to fold in...tracks struggle to gain their own space in the mix.

[edmann]

Originally posted by Robotnik
Once you get more more then 16 tracks happening, the sound of PT mix bus starts to fold in...tracks struggle to gain their own space in the mix.

THANK YOU Robotnik. Nice to have an OT post. I might venture a guess that this is generally true of most if not all DAW software/hardware available at this time. Perhaps Nuendo truly is an improvement.

[Murray]

Originally posted by Curve Dominant
Upon playing them the result, they were all like, "YO! THAT SHIT'S DOPE!!!" It WAS dope.

Can we hear it?

[Murray]

Originally posted by edmann
THANK YOU Robotnik. Nice to have an OT post. I might venture a guess that this is generally true of most if not all DAW software/hardware available at this time. Perhaps Nuendo truly is an improvement.

Check out Paris.

[Robotnik]

Originally posted by Murray
Check out Paris.

I did. Same conclusion.

[Curve Dominant]

posted by Murray:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Curve Dominant
Upon playing them the result, they were all like, "YO! THAT SHIT'S DOPE!!!" It WAS dope.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Can we hear it?

You should be able to. Most of it was frequencies between 20hz and 20Khz.

Everybody in the room could hear it, anyway.

Ya know, it's funny though: We all noticed that when I turned up the volume, we could hear it more. Although when the volume was low, we could still hear it, just not so much.

There's an AES meeting coming up in NYC, which I was originally going to skip. But since this came up, I might have to attend, ask some questions, or even perhaps present a white paper.

OK, here's something we can try, Murray. Simply email me a land address, I'll send you a CD, and see if you can hear it. Please let me know if you can. Geez, I certainly HOPE you can, or I've got some major bugs to fix.

Man-Oh-Maneschevitz! Just when you think you've got this digital audio thing licked...BLAMMO! Some new complication arises, and it's back to the ol' drawing board.

OYE VEY!

[Curve Dominant]

posted by Edmann:
On another note - ASCAP is nothing to be proud of. I have been a member since 1988 - but my membership ends this year. I think that ASCAP may qualify as being the most corrupt, inefficient and userous performing rights organization in existence. If you want to get paid honestly for your work - BMI or SESAC are much better options.

Edmann (whoever you are),

What, might I ask, does this have anything to do with the topic at hand??

But since you asked...how have you come to this conclusion? Please, enlighten us; And while you're at it, please explain the definition of the word "userous," as I personally am unfamiliar with the meaning of that word, let alone have I ever seen it before.

I haven't had any problems with ASCAP so far. My checks come on time, four times a year, and generally reflect accurately on my published works' performance history.

You have to understand, Ed, that PRO's are not charity organizations for frustrated musicians. You have to publish works, register them, get them to market and get them performed publicly in order to see return from that source. All the PRO's work on an actuarial accounting method which is not always 100% accurate on a day-to-day basis (which would be impossibly unrealistic to expect), yet the returns even out in the long run. Perhaps you are having some difficulties with properly registering your works, or securing cue sheets from producers. There IS some work involved in this respect. PRO's are not mind readers or telepathics. Also, if you are collaborating with someone who is a member of another PRO, there will be some funkyness involved, so you'll have to address that.

Keith Johnson is the NYC director of creative affairs at ASCAP. You can contact him at 212.621.6472, or email the brother at kojohnson@ascap.com

If you prefer a West Coast connection, try Alonzo Robinson at 323.883.1000

Good luck!

[edmann]

Originally posted by Curve Dominant
please explain the definition of the word "userous," as I personally am unfamiliar with the meaning of that word

How about this one?: tedious

[edmann]

Originally posted by Murray
Check out Paris.

Hi Murray -

do you work on PARIS?

sincerely

Ed

[blackcatdigi]

Originally posted by edmann
...I am convinced at this point that the more plugs that are employed in the overall tracks/mix buss - the worse the final result will sound...

This is consistent with my personal experience.

My studio partner frequently takes mixes home to edit on his LE system, and has to delete all the plugs in order to run sessions, native... He has commented (repeatedly) on the 'positive affect' stripping masses of pluggins off of the session has...

Curve. (As someone else pointed out), I (also) like you...

However, you and I have 'danced' on this subject, previously.

I have some experience DIRECTLY comparing 'inthebox' mixes VS. 'outtathebox', A/B'd, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms, multiple plugs have a negative affect on the sound quality. Period. Fact. Tested multiple times and proven, repeatedly.

As the track counts go up, the negatives multiply. Until you've tried this test and reached real world conclusions, I regard your personal opinions as 'theoretical,' at best. You seem to want to argue on a subject that you have NO ACTUAL practical experience with.

That being said, work how you want, believe what you want, but please don't try and shove your rhetoric down my or others throats.

Thanks,

Carry On!

[edmann]

Originally posted by blackcatdigi
This is consistent with my personal experience.

My studio partner frequently takes mixes home to edit on his LE system, and has to delete all the plugs in order to run sessions, native... He has commented (repeatedly) on the 'positive affect' stripping masses of pluggins off of the session has...

Thanks Casey! now I know it is not just me. Are you mixing IOB?

[edmann]

Originally posted by edmann
Thanks Casey! now I know it is not just me. Are you mixing IOB?

correction: ITB.

I mean ITB - as In The Box

(not IOB, which of course means: nothing).

Are you mixing ITB?

thanks

Ed

[blackcatdigi]

Originally posted by edmann
Are you mixing ITB?

No.

However, I DO think it can be done. But it takes a lot more effort, and IME never truly equals 'outside the box.'

YMMV...

[edmann]

Originally posted by blackcatdigi
No.However, I DO think it can be done. But it takes a lot more effort, and IME never truly equals 'outside the box.'

Cool - this is great - and (at this time) my conclusions exactly. What do you use as a summing mixer?

thanks blackcat

Ed

[Renie]

Originally posted by Jules
Renie - "I'm not making myself clear. I am aware of the history of the issue I'm just not sure whether it's a flaw or an aesthetic thing.

The reason why I'm not sure where the truth lies is that I respect the opinions of people on both sides of the debate.

It's not soemthing I dismiss as rumour I think it's something that has a real basis to it somewhere but that it gets picked up by the masses as a 'scapegoat' for poor mixes, maybe that's an unfair comment."

Er...

1) There is a factual PT mixer chip shareing issue involving truncation of audio on hight track count mixes - I dont think you have fully let that information 'enter your life' yet. You still remain 'blinkered'. Check it out here...
http://duc.digidesign.com/showflat.p...=&fpart=1&vc=1

2) The amount of howling from fellow engineers about poor sound on the PT mix buss would be enough for some people but somehow, not you...

One is a fact the other has high % statistics going for it...

3) The "it's fine", "nonsence, nothing wrong with it" brigade are in denial of point 1 above. I ask you, why else then would Digidesign put such great store in announcing the improvement of the new HD mixer and its NON chip sharing / truncation & higher mixer headroom?

Jules

Thanks for reminding about that thread.
I think we just perceive the situation differently. I don't appreciate the string of comments referring to me as 'blinkered' etc. To me the thread shows how

a) it takes the audio world's brightest and best to debate the impact of these sonic differences eg,

Lynn,

I just want to clarify a couple of things. I'm not reporting a "significant" difference, but rather an "audible, and preferrable" difference one way or another. Your results do "appear" to be insignificant, but I'm not convinced that they can't be "significant" under certain circumstances.

Nika.

and

b) that the technology is in development and improving.


I don't see this as proof that the mixer is 'flawed' and worthy of the amount and kind of attention it receives. That's just how I see it right now.

The high statistics of 'howling' you refer to, by my fellow engineers, regarding the mix bus reflects an intensity of feeling centred on this particular issue that I don't share. There are other voices in this debate who are talking rationally and with a spirit of exploration, I identify more with them.

I have not said anything is 'fine' or that anything is 'nonsense'. I'm just exploring the issues and feel the issue gets magnified sometimes.

Regarding your final question: I think that Digidesign make great store of these issues because they are market savvy; being in the business of making money, if they perceive the market will respond to certain terminlogy and button pushing it can capitalise on that. The marketing of this new mix bus plug-in Impact ties into this issue and is set to make them even more money and crucially lead people into the exclusive world of their new hardware. No coincidence that the plug-in looks very 'analogue' in it's design.

They can make money out of these fears people have I'm sure they also care about improving their technology. It's a mix of the two points I would guess.

Jules, I don't claim to be an expert on these things I'm just commenting on things as I see them. I don't mean to upset anyone and respect that people make sense of these things in a very individual way.

[edmann]

Originally posted by Renie

....I think we ..... I don't appreciate ...... 'blinkered' ......audio world's brightest.... sonic differences ..... clarify .... "significant" .... "audible.... preferrable" .... "appear" ...insignificant, .... "significant" ......circumstances.... technology..in development..... proof..... 'flawed' .... attention.....statistics ... fellow engineers... mix bus.... other voices ... rationally.... exploration.... 'fine'.. 'nonsense'....Digidesign....making money.... the market.... button pushing ....new mix bus plug-in.... make even more money...lead people ...exclusive... new hardware....coincidence ... plug-in... 'analogue'... make money .... fears ... their technology....It's a mix...claim to be an expert ....commenting ...upset...respect ... make sense ...

ok. Or you could just sum it thru an analog mixer and have a great sound. Otherwise you are doing Digi's R&D for them. Life is short.

[blackcatdigi]

Originally posted by edmann
What do you use as a summing mixer?

Currently, a Trident 80B console.

The guys across the hall (in the other room) mix on a Studiomaster.

Hate to get this far 'Off Topic'; OTOH, maybe this IS relevant.

IMHO, certain 'styles' or genres DO work better mixing ITB than others...

(I'm guessing) Curve's usual style of music probably DOES lend itself to mixing internally. There are folks here doing awesome, major label work, ITB. Mixing 'Hits'. I'll sometimes even mix Rap or Hip Hop ITB, myself. IME, samples and keys seem to be much more 'resistant' to the patented digimagic... Samples don't seem to take as much of a sonic 'hit'.

Mic'd acoustic instruments seem to fare much, much worse.

To expound on my earlier post and (hopefully) clarify my personal observations, my general MO (laziness / path of least resistance) is to just monitor stereo (hedd DAC), off of a Master Fader on PT Mix+, returned to a couple of channels on the console, during recording. Plugins, sure, eq, whatever, I don't even care about the group delays cuz they're going away, soon...

At mix, I strip that stuff off and route all the tracks to discrete channels on the console (via the vile 888/24s).

The difference, at the moment I switch the routing is fairly significant...

If the client happens to be around at that moment, I usually get 'raised eyebrows' followed be a "Wow, that sounds better. What'd you just do?"

In fact, I'm beginning to think "Hey. Maybe PT IS pretty good if you clock it, use some good convertors on the way in, for godsakes don't touch it while it's in there(!) and get it back outta there, ASAP before something weird 'happens' to it..."

But that's just around here. Maybe our PT's are all busted or wired backwards, or something...

Most of my projects are more acoustic, organic, (whatever), actual instruments mic'd up type stuff. Often of a 'hard rock' nature, but it runs the gamut. Doesn't work too well ITB, IME. I got tired of 'chasing my tail'...

YMMV

*Sorry for the detour everyone, now back to your scheduled topic.

[edmann]

Originally posted by blackcatdigi
Currently, a Trident 80B console.

The guys across the hall (in the other room) mix on a Studiomaster.

Hate to get this far 'Off Topic'; OTOH, maybe this IS relevant.

IMHO, certain 'styles' or genres DO work better mixing ITB than others...

(I'm guessing) Curve's usual style of music probably DOES lend itself to mixing internally. There are folks here doing awesome, major label work, ITB. Mixing 'Hits'. I'll sometimes even mix Rap or Hip Hop ITB, myself. IME, samples and keys seem to be much more 'resistant' to the patented digimagic... Samples don't seem to take as much of a sonic 'hit'.

Mic'd acoustic instruments seem to fare much, much worse.

To expound on my earlier post and (hopefully) clarify my personal observations, my general MO (laziness / path of least resistance) is to just monitor stereo (hedd DAC), off of a Master Fader on PT Mix+, returned to a couple of channels on the console, during recording. Plugins, sure, eq, whatever, I don't even care about the group delays cuz they're going away, soon...

At mix, I strip that stuff off and route all the tracks to discrete channels on the console (via the vile 888/24s).

The difference, at the moment I switch the routing is fairly significant...

If the client happens to be around at that moment, I usually get 'raised eyebrows' followed be a "Wow, that sounds better. What'd you just do?"

In fact, I'm beginning to think "Hey. Maybe PT IS pretty good if you clock it, use some good convertors on the way in, for godsakes don't touch it while it's in there(!) and get it back outta there, ASAP before something weird 'happens' to it..."

Most of my projects are more acoustic, organic, (whatever), actual instruments mic'd up type stuff. Often of a 'hard rock' nature, but it runs the gamut. Doesn't work too well ITB, IME. I got tired of 'chasing my tail'...

YMMV

*Sorry for the detour everyone, now back to your scheduled topic.

I would say this is certainly on topic. I would love to know how people are getting stunning results ITB (seriously).

My own recent batch of projects were all sample based mixed ITB , varied amounts of plugs. Other people seem to respond favorably to the stuff but I am not happy with it at all. When I compared to older all-sample stuff that I had mixed stems-thru-analog console I was astounded.

thus the quest continues.

Thanks YMMV I DEEPLY APPRECIATE your time and help.

best regards

Ed

[edmann]

Originally posted by blackcatdigi
...I'm beginning to think "Hey. Maybe PT IS pretty good if you clock it, use some good convertors on the way in, for godsakes don't touch it while it's in there(!) and get it back outta there, ASAP before something weird 'happens' to it..."

definitive statement!

[bjornson]

The style of music and quality of players help dictate these decisions for me. Kinda like this:
1)Real instruments, good players, good budget=analog all the way to the mastering house
2) Real instruments, average players, small budget= tools w/ind outs out to the desk
3) Everything else/anything less= ITB for ease and repeatability.
For me it seems that less talented musicians mean more automation and more mix revisions.