ITB 3D Trick

Kappi · 23rd October 2006, 08:38 PM

Maybe you GS kill me immediatly,
but after reading Bob Katz saying that summing is not evident, and you only have to insert some analog device into the stereo bus, i couldn't resist to put my 8200 into the stereo bus of the Pt. Boom, it was more 3D. That's what we're after. Than i thought that it maybe is just a trick of the analog world , because L and R couldn't be set equally.I put a Sony Oxford in the Game and set L and R just a bit different and Boom,
got the same image, like with the analog insert.

??

Igotsoul4u · 23rd October 2006, 08:59 PM

where is this thread where bob katz says summing isn't evident. I'm very curious to now what he means by that. I felt like my api summing system was pretty much instant smile on my face gratification.

Kappi · 24th October 2006, 03:38 PM

I quote him from a post he did 18th may 2006
it was inside this famous thread: '' Q for Paul Frindle ''

Oh. Yes, time has marched on, in my opinion.

In another thread here on Gearslutz, introduced by Charles Dye, called "Favorite Analog Summing", I think I've covered my opinion. Here's another take on it, I guess it's a rehearsal for a rewrite of my article!

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

djui5 · 24th October 2006, 07:00 PM

I've said this before, but I really believe the reason people get more "depth/3D" with analog has a lot to do with super tiny delays in the audio running through all that gear/bussing/etc.

Also, what your hearing might not be more 3d depth, but a slight difference between left and right. If you have a narrow width track, and you slightly delay one side of the stereo buss it will sound more 3d, or so it seems. It's a mixing,mastering trick used to make the stereo field wider. It's the same way they do that "simulated surround" on those cheap stereos, except that it's way more drastic than what you did with the comp.

Nice comp btw!

Acko · 24th October 2006, 11:34 PM

Sounds about right to me. I started out in an all analogue studio so i know where thats at. Now I mix in the box, plenty of headroom and a buzz ma2.2TX on the master, no L2 or compression and as few plugs as i can get away with. I arrange and track everything I mix so my tones are pretty much where I wan't them when it comes time to mix. I have friends who's mixes I've heard through a summing box, I hav'nt tried one myself, but I' don't feel like I'm missing out on any depth, punch, dimension, glue or any other adjectives. I'd be interested in trying a summing box for myself...but i'ts not a critical issue.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
this is just a trick to keep from typing today	Dave Pensado	Q & A with Dave Pensado	99	31st October 2008 02:43 PM
Compressor trick...	BrianK	So much gear, so little time!	22	22nd May 2006 11:53 PM
trick or treat	kraftrourke	So much gear, so little time!	4	2nd November 2004 06:42 AM
Can anyone tell about the Helio's all eq up trick?	RoundBadge	High end	0	17th October 2004 09:15 AM
2 mic sibilance trick (I didn't get it)	cordura21	High end	1	10th June 2004 10:34 PM

23rd October 2006, 08:38 PM	#1
Kappi Gear nut Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 106	ITB 3D Trick Maybe you GS kill me immediatly, but after reading Bob Katz saying that summing is not evident, and you only have to insert some analog device into the stereo bus, i couldn't resist to put my 8200 into the stereo bus of the Pt. Boom, it was more 3D. That's what we're after. Than i thought that it maybe is just a trick of the analog world , because L and R couldn't be set equally.I put a Sony Oxford in the Game and set L and R just a bit different and Boom, got the same image, like with the analog insert. ??

24th October 2006, 07:00 PM	#4
djui5 Lives for gear Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Phoenix Posts: 6,680	I've said this before, but I really believe the reason people get more "depth/3D" with analog has a lot to do with super tiny delays in the audio running through all that gear/bussing/etc. Also, what your hearing might not be more 3d depth, but a slight difference between left and right. If you have a narrow width track, and you slightly delay one side of the stereo buss it will sound more 3d, or so it seems. It's a mixing,mastering trick used to make the stereo field wider. It's the same way they do that "simulated surround" on those cheap stereos, except that it's way more drastic than what you did with the comp. Nice comp btw! __________________ _________________ "What is a crossfire hurricane & why wasn't I born in one?" Randy Wright http://www.myspace.com/djui5

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

23rd October 2006, 08:59 PM	#2
Igotsoul4u Lives for gear Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 1,607	where is this thread where bob katz says summing isn't evident. I'm very curious to now what he means by that. I felt like my api summing system was pretty much instant smile on my face gratification.

24th October 2006, 03:38 PM	#3
Kappi Gear nut Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 106	I quote him from a post he did 18th may 2006 it was inside this famous thread: '' Q for Paul Frindle '' Oh. Yes, time has marched on, in my opinion. In another thread here on Gearslutz, introduced by Charles Dye, called "Favorite Analog Summing", I think I've covered my opinion. Here's another take on it, I guess it's a rehearsal for a rewrite of my article! 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

24th October 2006, 11:34 PM	#5
Acko Gear nut Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 123	Sounds about right to me. I started out in an all analogue studio so i know where thats at. Now I mix in the box, plenty of headroom and a buzz ma2.2TX on the master, no L2 or compression and as few plugs as i can get away with. I arrange and track everything I mix so my tones are pretty much where I wan't them when it comes time to mix. I have friends who's mixes I've heard through a summing box, I hav'nt tried one myself, but I' don't feel like I'm missing out on any depth, punch, dimension, glue or any other adjectives. I'd be interested in trying a summing box for myself...but i'ts not a critical issue.