PT 6, HD: Dithered Mixer, or not?

nikki-k · 14th April 2004, 04:46 AM

Hi!
So...
With all the advances in DSP power and software improvements, if one decides to use HD (Accel) with PT TDM 6.X and mix ITB, should one use the (stereo/surround) DitheredMixer, or the "vanillas" that are the *default* upon fresh install?

Why, or why not?

Has anyone compared a mix using each recently?

Charles Dye · 14th April 2004, 12:06 PM

Others may have an opinion as to why one should sound better than the other. I've just always used the regular non-dithered mixer. I think it sounds great + I see no reason to switch. I have not done the test you mentioned. Has anyone else. Lynn? I'd be curious to hear the results.

Thanks.

nikki-k · 15th April 2004, 09:18 PM

*bumper cars*

chriscavell · 30th April 2004, 01:46 AM

Nikki K,

I'm sure you've seen this by now:
http://www.digidesign.com/digizine/a...il04/techtalk/

It's a fairly detailed article detailing how the mixer works in PT, however, it leaves a number of questions unanswered.

I'm not sure how things have changed since the last time I looked into it, but when the dithered mixer was first introduced, it did a little more than just dither to 24 bits at the output of the mixer, it also dithered to 24 bits any signal going to an internal buss, the 24 bit output of a bounce, and was designed to offer 36dB of overhead versus the normal mixer's 30dB. The dithered mixer also only functioned in stereo...the surround mixer was completely different and didn't dither at all. But like I said, I haven't looked into it in a LONG time...I wouldn't doubt it if some of these things have changed since the introduction of HD and the *new* dithered mixer plugin.

I think the most important thing to note is that the theoretical noise floor of 24 bits, dithered or not, is close to 140 dB...where the dynamic range of most super high end converters is still only around 120 dB (not sure about the HD 192, pull out those spec sheets to find out for me)...so the noise floor due to the converters going in can't be lower than 120. When truncating or dithering to 24 bits, chances are that the real noise floor (probably around the 20th or 21st bit) is sitting far above the theoretical 24 bit lowest noise floor rendering differentiating b/w the two mixer plugins probably impossible (at least as far as the dithering is concerned).

If a difference is noticed b/w the two stereo mixer plugins in PT, it probably has more to do with the differences having nothing to do with the dithering, like the added overhead...but like I said, I don't even know if that's how it works anymore.

I know this doesn't really answer your question, but at least I hope it may give some insight into why a difference is noticed if noticed at all. I'm interested in someone pulling off a true blind test to find out too.

-chris

lukas · 30th April 2004, 09:04 PM

hey guys

can we leave away all this tech stuff for a sec and just talk about if anybody can hear a difference between the two mixers? ;-) I do not

it`s hard to say what is `better`sounding anyway - it`s always a question of taste as well

btw thats why I find the discussion about MITB against SSL or whatever so ridiculous - anyway - just my opinion

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Chandler Limited Mini Rack Mixer as Summing Mixer	siloo	High end	17	11th October 2006 10:54 PM
Would you suggest a Summing Mixer or just a Mixer?	rids	Low End Theory	0	9th August 2006 02:56 PM
Best mixer?	PHILANDDON	High end	2	12th December 2005 06:18 PM
Another one going mixer-less	Stargazer	The good news channel	17	19th November 2003 12:10 AM

14th April 2004, 04:46 AM	#1
nikki-k Gear addict Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: PDX Posts: 480	PT 6, HD: Dithered Mixer, or not? Hi! So... With all the advances in DSP power and software improvements, if one decides to use HD (Accel) with PT TDM 6.X and mix ITB, should one use the (stereo/surround) DitheredMixer, or the "vanillas" that are the default upon fresh install? Why, or why not? Has anyone compared a mix using each recently? __________________ nikki k

14th April 2004, 12:06 PM	#2
Charles Dye FX smörgåsbord user Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Hollywood, FL Posts: 883	Others may have an opinion as to why one should sound better than the other. I've just always used the regular non-dithered mixer. I think it sounds great + I see no reason to switch. I have not done the test you mentioned. Has anyone else. Lynn? I'd be curious to hear the results. Thanks. __________________ Turn Me Up!™ – Bringing Dynamics Back to Music (TurnMeUp.org) Facebook \| MiLaR Forum \| MySpace \| MiLaR \| PSN \| Projects \| MiLaR Workshop

15th April 2004, 09:18 PM	#3
nikki-k Gear addict Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: PDX Posts: 480	bumper cars __________________ nikki k

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:

30th April 2004, 01:46 AM	#4
chriscavell Gear nut Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: New Orleans/Baton Rouge/Lafayette, LA, USA Posts: 107	Nikki K, I'm sure you've seen this by now: http://www.digidesign.com/digizine/a...il04/techtalk/ It's a fairly detailed article detailing how the mixer works in PT, however, it leaves a number of questions unanswered. I'm not sure how things have changed since the last time I looked into it, but when the dithered mixer was first introduced, it did a little more than just dither to 24 bits at the output of the mixer, it also dithered to 24 bits any signal going to an internal buss, the 24 bit output of a bounce, and was designed to offer 36dB of overhead versus the normal mixer's 30dB. The dithered mixer also only functioned in stereo...the surround mixer was completely different and didn't dither at all. But like I said, I haven't looked into it in a LONG time...I wouldn't doubt it if some of these things have changed since the introduction of HD and the new dithered mixer plugin. I think the most important thing to note is that the theoretical noise floor of 24 bits, dithered or not, is close to 140 dB...where the dynamic range of most super high end converters is still only around 120 dB (not sure about the HD 192, pull out those spec sheets to find out for me)...so the noise floor due to the converters going in can't be lower than 120. When truncating or dithering to 24 bits, chances are that the real noise floor (probably around the 20th or 21st bit) is sitting far above the theoretical 24 bit lowest noise floor rendering differentiating b/w the two mixer plugins probably impossible (at least as far as the dithering is concerned). If a difference is noticed b/w the two stereo mixer plugins in PT, it probably has more to do with the differences having nothing to do with the dithering, like the added overhead...but like I said, I don't even know if that's how it works anymore. I know this doesn't really answer your question, but at least I hope it may give some insight into why a difference is noticed if noticed at all. I'm interested in someone pulling off a true blind test to find out too. -chris

30th April 2004, 09:04 PM	#5
lukas Gear Head Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: ch Posts: 45	hey guys can we leave away all this tech stuff for a sec and just talk about if anybody can hear a difference between the two mixers? ;-) I do not it`s hard to say what is `better`sounding anyway - it`s always a question of taste as well btw thats why I find the discussion about MITB against SSL or whatever so ridiculous - anyway - just my opinion