Folcrom analog summing test
Old 4th February 2004
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Shaman's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Folcrom analog summing test

Cleanup
Old 4th February 2004
  #2
Lives for gear
 
DanV's Avatar
 

Cool,

Outside of the minute end result differences - would you say that it was a lot easier getting your sounds to play nice through the Folcrom?

Still trying to decide if I need to go digital to analog for summing or if i'd be better off with an external digital summing device.

Cheers!
Old 4th February 2004
  #3
Can you do one more test and avoid BTD somehow...?

Old 4th February 2004
  #4
Lives for gear
 
DanV's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Shaman
The mix was done before the test using internal summing.
All we changed was the output assignement, so I canĀ“t talk about the mixing process, only about the result of identical mixes

Can you do a process one next?
Really interested.
Old 4th February 2004
  #5
Lives for gear
 
dim light's Avatar
 

can we hear the test?



Jules, do you have the time to make a d2b summing test?

Thanks guys!
Old 4th February 2004
  #6
Lives for gear
 
bigbaby987's Avatar
 

shaman i think you read my mind because dan we're in the same boat...i going crazy thinking about adding a mixer(be it digital or analog) to my set up to get good seperation.

any thoughts on the yamaha DM2000
Old 4th February 2004
  #7
Lives for gear
 
dim light's Avatar
 

can't you post waves?

I don't see that much info in your test? The low end was fatter... hmm, ok... then what?

Thanks!
Old 4th February 2004
  #8
Jax
Lives for gear
 

I've recorded mixes from the Folcrom outs back into 2 tracks in PT, without doing a BTD, and with.

I'm not bringing out the old "BTD sucks" argument again, but compared to the non-BTD, the BTD version sounded slightly less defined and had less depth, although it was still good. This was most noticeable on drum overheads when the cymbals and drums overall seemed to have less "space" around them, and the pan placements were a little less defined. It wasn't the Folcrom's fault, because the non-BTD version was just the opposite.

The main benefit is that you don't have to do any dithering. IMHO, this is where BTD loses vs. recording to 2 tracks; dithering is the enemy. Just record the tracks back in at 16/44.1. You're already going thru the Folcrom... let that be your "dithering." This also lets you keep the mix at the highest resolution you want, at least until it sees 16/44.1 (and no dithering).

And ITB plus BTD isn't worth the trouble anymore.

Sorry, no wave files or mp3's to show right now.

The best part about the Folcrom is using your ourboard preamps for their "color" and headroom. It's a keeper.

Old 4th February 2004
  #9
Lives for gear
 
dim light's Avatar
 

Hey guys,,, If you got the luxury of playing Robinsson Island with a lot of gear please do a mixdown for me... I'm horny!


Old 4th February 2004
  #10
Lives for gear
 
dim light's Avatar
 

Yeah that's what I have to do...

D2B...


But your test would have been nice to hear.


Thanks fo nothing tutt
Old 4th February 2004
  #11
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Unfortunately you forgot the most important thing in your test. You need to run the BTD mix through those preamps also, with the same gain staging.

It's entirely possible that your perceived benefits were due to the preamps and had nothing to do with external summing.

-R
Old 4th February 2004
  #12
Lives for gear
 
DanV's Avatar
 

trudat
Old 4th February 2004
  #13
Lives for gear
 
dim light's Avatar
 

explain BTD, please?

back to digital? break the drum?

Thanks x2!
Old 4th February 2004
  #14
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

Bounce to Disk

Old 4th February 2004
  #15
Lives for gear
 
dim light's Avatar
 

Thanks M8...
Old 5th February 2004
  #16
Lives for gear
 
dim light's Avatar
 

Shaman I want to hear your test, plizz!!!

If you don't have webspace please send me the waves!

I can put them on my site and we all can hear your story too!

Thanks a lot...

evil@evileyedcherry.com
Old 5th February 2004
  #17
Gear maniac
 
drmad69's Avatar
 

because your using a slam/avalon for "makeup gain". remove that from the picture and match levels with the btd. That's the fair comparison.

Or am I completely missing something?
Old 5th February 2004
  #18
Lives for gear
 
juniorhifikit's Avatar
 

As interesting as the details are, I think the one thing many are missing from this exercise is: you should try it yourself and see if it floats your boat.

Thanks for doing the experiment.
Old 5th February 2004
  #19
Lives for gear
 
dim light's Avatar
 

Hell I don't have the skill to build a sum box and I would love to hear some WAVE example...

I thinking of buying the D2B, Sold some gear and I have the money... Can some one give me a preview/kind word etc of the D2B.
Old 5th February 2004
  #20
Do a 'search' for info on the Dangerous 2 buss.

Er....a question

Can you still place outboard in between your DAW interface and the Folcrom?
Old 5th February 2004
  #21
Lives for gear
 
dim light's Avatar
 

Jules thanks! I have read all about the d2b here at gearslutz...
Old 5th February 2004
  #22
Lives for gear
 
cdog's Avatar
Jules - I don't see why not - if its all +4 line level type gear.
Old 5th February 2004
  #23
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Shaman
Originally posted by RKrizman
Unfortunately you forgot the most important thing in your test. You need to run the BTD mix through those preamps also, with the same gain staging.
-R
[B]Why should I ??

PT HD -->16 DA Outputs from 2x192 I/O via Digisnake cable direct to the Folcrom -->Manley Slam for `make up Gain` --> 2 Analog Inputs 192 I/O routed back to PT HD --> Bounce to disk
....-->back through the Slam...for what...?...Mastering...Building a perpetuum mobile for sound engineers...?


]
You're missing my point. I mean you should try that as part of your comparison experiment.

Question: Does the improved sound come from the fact that you're summing all these tracks in the analog domain, or is it because you're using that particular preamp to amplify the summed signal?

What if you take your summed-in-the-box mix and run it through the same preamp, gain staging it the same way as you did with your other tracks. If it sounds better, then perhaps you can dispense with all the trouble of splitting out your tracks to the Folcrum.

Wouldn't it be nice to know what is actually responsible for the more desireable sonics so you don't go to a lot of needless trouble?

To reiterate. Maybe summing in the Folcrom is a sonic improvement in and of itself. However, maybe it's just a rain dance and what's really getting you there is the preamp you've added at the end. As long as people are testing, and posting files, and showing some interest in this, it would be nice to isolate some variables to find out where the benefit is really coming from.

-R
Old 5th February 2004
  #24
Gear interested
 

I believe RKrizman wants to see:

PT HD --> Internal summing --> Master output (2-bus) ->
Manley Slam for `make up Gain` --> 2 Analog Inputs 192 I/O routed back to PT HD --> Bounce to disk


Readjust Master output so it is an appropriate level for Manley Slam input.

Compare that to the other three mixes. I would like to see that too.
Old 5th February 2004
  #25
Lives for gear
 
dim light's Avatar
 

Thanks Shaman!
Old 5th February 2004
  #26
Lives for gear
 
dim light's Avatar
 

No that's wrong man - digital summing? I'm doing analog summing thoughts.... I'm going to order the summing CD...

Go link
Old 5th February 2004
  #27
Lives for gear
 

The Folcrom came about when I called Dan Kennedy and asked him to make me a custom summing box with his Neve style make up gain. He basically told me he didn't have the time. Then he asked me why I couldn't just make a passive box and then output it to his Great River NV which I already owned. I told him I too didn't have the time. But what a brilliant idea. And then Dan referred me to a fella named Justin Ulysses Morse.

When I first found Justin he weighed only 100 pounds, spoke not a word of English, wore spotted clothing, and he could only turn his head to the right so that in a fight he could easily be beaten if approached from the left.* But man he could build some ****ing gear. I'm talking solid gear. So I had him build me the first Folcrom. It was a two rack unit thingie with 16 XLRs and some nice switches and it did wonders for my mixing and convinced me that out of the box was the way to go.

To answer R Krizman, simply outputting a mix from PT with a cut f -40db and then using a preamp to make up the 40db DOES NOT SOUND THE SAME as outputting the channels seperately to a nice D/A and then to the Folcrom and then to the preamp. The ladder is wider and deeper and richer sounding. And the reason is simple. You can push the channels up a shitload more because you don't overload the internal buss due to the much increased headroom. And so, you are capturing more bits as well. So I would recommend that everyone try out the Folcrom because you'll keep it. Its simply a better alternative then mixing in the box. www.rollmusic.com
Steve
www.bangrecording.com
www.blacklinerock.com

*added for dramatic effect and may not be completely true
Old 6th February 2004
  #28
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Bang
[B]T
To answer R Krizman, simply outputting a mix from PT with a cut f -40db and then using a preamp to make up the 40db DOES NOT SOUND THE SAME as outputting the channels seperately to a nice D/A and then to the Folcrom and then to the preamp. The ladder is wider and deeper and richer sounding. And the reason is simple. You can push the channels up a shitload more because you don't overload the internal buss due to the much increased headroom. And so, you are capturing more bits as well.
Did you actually try this and hear the results? I don't remember that being mentioned.

I'm not sure I understand your explanation. You mean when you mix through the Folcrom you move your faders higher in your DAW? Then you didn't do a fair comparison, right, if you were running your faders hotter into the Folcrom.

I don't get what you mean by overloading the DAW mixbus. Zero is your limit, and that's it. And if you're recording at 24 bits, you already have so much headroom that it's really not an issure to run your faders lower. Even at -48 db you still have a 16 bit signal.

Let me ask you this. When you just ran your attenuated DAW mix straight into the preamp for increased gain, bypassing the Folcrom, was it any improvement at all? Surely there must have been some difference, just running it through the iron.

I'm willing to believe, really.

-R
Old 6th February 2004
  #29
Lives for gear
 
NathanEldred's Avatar
The whole principle is that it's not just about iron or color or slowing down the highs, or whatever. If I throw a GML or a Buzz MA 2.2 for the makeup gain and am using Lavry conversion I'll make an educated guess it's going to sound quite incredible. I've said it so many times, fidelity before color. And voltage before math...sorry.
Old 6th February 2004
  #30
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

BTW Bang, I was actually confusing you with Shaman. It was Shaman who did the original test in this thread and neglected to test the "DAW into preamp without Folcrom" option, thereby leaving it up in the air as to what was responsible for the difference. Since he did all that, I was kind of hoping he'd go one step further and try my suggestion, and compare it with the rest.

How about it Shaman, it could be very informative.

thanks,
-R
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Ackman / High end
32
bobx / So much gear, so little time!
50
Mind-Over-Midi / So much gear, so little time!
0

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.