Pro Tools doesn't seem big or wide???

[RCM - Ronan]

Originally Posted by sethbrand_12

Has anyone else noticed that when only mixing "ITB" with protools (mouse and keyboard) that the mix is very small and narrow??? Is it like this on all DAWS??? Why so much bigger just by sending it to an old analog mixer???

You have noticed what lots of us have noticed for years, but other people are going to chime in and tell you that you are crazy or that you just don't know what you are doing in pro tools.


All the people who agree or disagree with your observation will be pretty entrenched in their point of view.

[Energie]

Is it just pro tools, or ITB in general?

[sethbrand_12]

I have really only done most of my work in pro tools, so I'm not sure if other daws are like this or not, but up until 2 weeks ago I thought that mastering was how you got more spread on your mix. Well that just isn't true, at least for me. I am not saying that analog mixing is better, but it is for me it seems.

For those who plan to accuse me of not knowing what I am doing, it isn't that complicated what I am talking about. Even if I just take two different guitars and pan one hard left and one hard right in pro tools, then compare the same thing to doing it on an analog mixer, the analog mixer is much wider. Maybe it isn't for your set up, but for me it is an obvious difference.

Any more opinions????

[picksail]

[chrisj]

I think it's easy for analog gear to get deeper, but it's actually conning you into thinking it's wider, and this is how-

If you've got stereo speakers, they're probably to your sides. Technically, the sound field you can sense goes back from the speakers in a straight line, and is not parallel to the position of the speakers in a room. BUT, if your reproduction is weak on depth and everything sounds like a cardboard cutout glued on the surface of the speaker, nothing is going to sound wider than the speakers, because it all (including fake reverb) is going to be apparently right at the speakers.

Analog gear that sounds deeper- even if it's doing it by losing some of the top to the sound- will make stuff sound farther away, 'behind' the speakers. If it's doing it really well, your stereo spread, including reverb and room elements, is going to be in a space that is not parallel to the speakers, but extends straight back from each speaker- in other words, the deeper the sound element, the more it'll be able to appear wider than the straight digital representation.

Bear in mind that this isn't necessarily more accurate- but also bear in mind that just because you have a perfect digital representation of a thing, that doesn't mean IT is accurate either. It might be a data-perfect capture of a sound that could use a lot of work to fit into a mix...

[JP11]

Post 'em up!

[Todd24]

Threads like this require comparison links. Give short bits of lossless audio. Prove it.

Oh, and analog is deeper, and therefore wider?!?!?!? very Technical.......Thanks its all clear now.

[maskedman72]

Originally Posted by sethbrand_12

Hey guys,

I have been recording and mixing with Pro Tools for over 2 years now, and up until about 2 weeks ago was mixing completley in the DAW using my mouse and keyboard (which I never liked anyways). About 2 weeks ago I got the crazy idea to go down to the basement and dig out an old 16 channel Peavey Mark III mixer that I have had and never really use. I have about 12 analog outs on my interface and plugged those into the inputs on the mixer. I opened up a session and re-assigned all of my outputs so that each instrument was going to its own fader on the mixer (with the exception of a few things I grouped in pro tools and sent out as a stereo group). Anyways, I mixed on the song from scratch for about 3 hours, using only the eq on the board and plugin compressors, with a little reverb and my mix was SOOOOO much bigger, wider, huge, and better sounding. I have always wondered why my mixes in pro tools were never very wide or big at all, and I still don't know why??? All I know is that from now on I will NEVER mix using only pro tools with a mouse again!!! I really couldn't believe the difference, it was night and day.

Has anyone else noticed that when only mixing "ITB" with protools (mouse and keyboard) that the mix is very small and narrow??? Is it like this on all DAWS??? Why so much bigger just by sending it to an old analog mixer???

Seth

i am having this problem right now. i am looking into otb summing. what pt system are you on? hd?le?mix?

[sethbrand_12]

Hey guys thanks for the replies. I will definatley post the two comparisons for you to decide. I will not be back at my set up until tomorrow night, so I will try and post them then. Just for the record, I was in no way in favor of one or the other, and thought both had their advantages and disadvantages. The song I will post tomorrow is by a local guys, who wrote all of the songs and I recorded him. The mixing is not done, so they don't sound great, but I will post them just how they are as of right now and won't mess with them at all. Then you guys can be the judge.

[RCM - Ronan]

Originally Posted by Todd24

Oh, and analog is deeper, and therefore wider?!?!?!? very Technical.......Thanks its all clear now.

I know you are trying to be sarcastic, but this standard would rule out about 99% of the posts on gear slutz.

[chrisj]

Hey, it was just my best attempt to explain what is happening. If you don't like it, give us a better one. If your answer is 'because Pro Tools is just as big and wide as analog' we have the right to stop listening :D

Bear in mind you have to be able to explain around the fact that digitally hard-panned stuff is PERFECT separation yet isn't necessarily as wide... unless you're arguing something like inverted crosstalk you're going to have to claim perceptual effects too. I'm only saying that the soundstage isn't defined as a rectangular space starting with its front corners at the speakers and going back, but potentially as a wedge-shaped space starting at your ears and intersecting the speakers.

If things don't seem as wide as that it's because the reproduction isn't actually conveying a sense of space at all...

Honestly, I would think some of you guys would LIKE the idea of a plugin vendor grappling with this stuff instead of writing it off and claiming that digital is just perfect, even IF my understanding of these phenomena isn't the best... I'm quite aware that even suggesting such things gets me mocked by some people, but those people aren't the ones who use my products :D

[allencollins]

I always noticed way more separation and depth ITB. But I think OTB is a bit fatter for sure. Im sure If I had a $100,000 console the depth would be there.

[Todd24]

Every piece of gear requires a differant approach. Some work better for some folks, others prefer other peices of equipment. This includes DAW's and Plugins.

There is no definative better. If it works for you use it.

The constant tossing about of words like "collapsed image" only lead to misunderstanding. The image did'nt collapse, you mixed it differantly. There is plenty of "simulated" width available in all gear. You have to create an illusion to make something more left than left. Or more front or back. Its do-able with all of the equipment choices available.

You might find it easier to do this with a board.......OK.......go for it. But please lets stop spreading the idea that you "cant" do it with digital/ITB. You can, you just might not like it that way.

[zboy2854]

The biggest thing to be aware of when mixing ITB is gain staging. This is what solved the "width" problem for me when mixing ITB. If you haven't read this thread, I highly recommend it (go about halfway down on page 5 for Paul Frindle's post):

PSW Recording Forums: Reason In Audio => DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk?

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by rcm

You have noticed what lots of us have noticed for years, but other people are going to chime in and tell you that you are crazy or that you just don't know what you are doing in pro tools.


All the people who agree or disagree with your observation will be pretty entrenched in their point of view.

Try it again by simply taking 2 tracks out of PT analog into the Peavey and then back. If it gets wider then, what does that tell you!

BK

[allencollins]

Originally Posted by bob katz

Try it again by simply taking 2 tracks out of PT analog into the Peavey and then back. If it gets wider then, what does that tell you!

BK

It tells us that Peavey actually makes good consoles? ouch

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by bob katz

Try it again by simply taking 2 tracks out of PT analog into the Peavey and then back. If it gets wider then, what does that tell you!

BK

That the center image analog board is different? Don't know. Whatever it is, it's perceptual and not actual. However...

Since we deal in perception it's valid.

I had an old Ramsa 1620 that made me ill when I mixed on it. Not "ill" like bad but "ill" that I can't get that sound in a daw. Everything just sounded so much better going through it ... softer (in that good midrange way), warmer... better. Given today's music preference I'll take the total recall of a pro daw anyday.

I can make it sound wider.

I think the harmonic distortion that adds up to depth on analog consoles contribute somehow to the additional perceptions of more width. Of course, in reality all the way left is all the way left... analog or digital...

Excluding severe crosstalk.

[Sinewave]

Originally Posted by rcm

You have noticed what lots of us have noticed for years, but other people are going to chime in and tell you that you are crazy or that you just don't know what you are doing in pro tools.


All the people who agree or disagree with your observation will be pretty entrenched in their point of view.

Hello, will this "bigger, wider " sound produced by the analog gear be maintained if you were to burn your Mix to CD ?

[Paul Hammond]

Phase Shift,

One very important thing in analog systems vs. digital systems is phase shift. On both API consoles I use (vintage 32 input and 20 in bdcst) there is
a definite phase shift of a few Degrees or so but only in the lower frequency range. This would absolutely have an effect on the percieved stereo width. All consoles are different, but having a "perfect" analog system is next to impossible considering all the obstacles that have to be overcome from an electrical design standpoint and studio design standpoint. This is also the case with analog tape machines. The optimum setup will still have an amount of phase shift even at its peak. We have emulated the phase shift of analog setups in the digital domain with carefully timed stereo delay settings using sine waves and oscilloscopes. It definitely helps the stereo imaging. I always thought the stereo image was more or less a factor of phase shift and delay, not analog vs. digital. Like a mic'ed and DI bass signal combined. If done properly sounds "right" panned hard ( almost completely in phase) or not "right" (more out of phase) - unless of course that is what you are looking for as an effect!
Give it time, the digital designers will have "console two-mix" plugins emulating the frequency dependent phase shift and group delays of famous
recording/mixing consoles before you know it, and there will be believers!

[Jim Williams]

Originally Posted by Paul Hammond

Phase Shift,

One very important thing in analog systems vs. digital systems is phase shift. On both API consoles I use (vintage 32 input and 20 in bdcst) there is
a definite phase shift of a few Degrees or so but only in the lower frequency range. This would absolutely have an effect on the percieved stereo width. All consoles are different, but having a "perfect" analog system is next to impossible considering all the obstacles that have to be overcome from an electrical design standpoint and studio design standpoint. This is also the case with analog tape machines. The optimum setup will still have an amount of phase shift even at its peak. We have emulated the phase shift of analog setups in the digital domain with carefully timed stereo delay settings using sine waves and oscilloscopes. It definitely helps the stereo imaging. I always thought the stereo image was more or less a factor of phase shift and delay, not analog vs. digital. Like a mic'ed and DI bass signal combined. If done properly sounds "right" panned hard ( almost completely in phase) or not "right" (more out of phase) - unless of course that is what you are looking for as an effect!
Give it time, the digital designers will have "console two-mix" plugins emulating the frequency dependent phase shift and group delays of famous
recording/mixing consoles before you know it, and there will be believers!

There are more than a few degrees of phase shift on API stuff and that includes the hf's. Try like 100 or more degrees. Just like Neve 80 series. But I degress.

My console has no phase shift, less than 1 degree 20-20k hz. It makes no time domain changes during the mix. The bandwidth is 2-200k hz. Distortion is .0005% THD +noise and .0003% IMD. It sounds super wide next to any digital mix core I've ever tried or heard. The crosstalk is -90 db at 10k hz. I will demo ITB mixes sometimes for folks, I just feed that out into a great BurrBrown PCM1793 dac and run it into the monitor inputs of the console. A comparison is as easy and as fast as pressing down the 2 track switch. It goes from open to closed, like a book.

I gave up on any digital mix process long ago. There is simply no comparison. I use analog for it's clarity, not it's color. Yes, that took a lot of work, design and research to get there. For me, there's no turning back as the resolution of these analog circuits is far and away superior to the resolution and quality of any digital converter. For the rest of you, it's the converter quality and the mix core that is limiting you. The end users feel your pain, literally.

Fear not, Digidesign has a "white paper" that will explain how I'm all off and their mix core is "superior" to any analog mix stage. Funny, when ever I bring up the subject of perceived depth in a analog mix the digital minds never seem to want to address that, they just quote Digidesign white papers, which are about as useful as the paper on a roll in the bathroom.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[sethbrand_12]

Hey guys,

Thanks for all of the replies. I have the two files up on yousendit.com available for download. The mixes are extremely rough and don't sound that great (yet) but you can get an idea. Please go take a listen and decide which one you like better. Here is the deal:

I had been mixing this project for awhile in Pro Tools, using only the plugins that come with Pro Tools then bouncing to disk. Then I decided to send my channels out to a mixer and mix using the eq on the board, and only compression and a little reverb from pro tools. The analog mix came out louder, so turn your speakers up before listening to the Pro Tools mix so that your ears don't lie to you in anyway. To me, the analog mix is cleaner, wider, and just sounds better. That may not be true for you, but that is fine. I basically mixed them the same as far as panning goes.

By the way: I record on a Macbook with Pro Tools M-Powered using an m-audio fw 1814 and also (gulp) a Behringer ada 8000 to get 8 additional outs through adat :(. (yeah i know I am going to upgrade when I get out of school and get a job in audio and make tons of money!!! haha...yeah right).

I look forward to the comments, here are the links:

1. YouSendIt - Send large files - transfer delivery - FTP Replacement

2. YouSendIt - Send large files - transfer delivery - FTP Replacement

[sethbrand_12]

By the way, any suggestions on the mixing would be great as well. These are extremely rough and just a quick rough mix, so I am open to suggestions. I am an audio student still trying to learn as much as I can.

[UnDeFiNeD]

Hi Seth,

wow, I allways wonder wth people hear so fundamentaly different when they compare both. I work ITB and OTB with PT HD or SSL 4000G, 88VR to crappy O2R etc., so I constantly switch from digital to hybride, to sometimes even pure analog. I never hear those 'dramatical' differences that people seem so keen to write about.

But thank u for posting these examples, this is more than clear, your digital mix has nothing to do with ur analog mix and vice versa. These could have been mixed by two different persons around the globe
When hearing this, I completly agree that your analog mix sounds 10 000X better than the protools version. What I am wondering is, do u sometimes look to much at plugins than acctually listening to them? This is a very common mistake tons of people make when working ITB, they look at the EQ curve and think "hmmz, that can't be right, it just doesn't look good", while when they work OTB, they simply turn the knobs till it sounds good.
I have a feeling u belong to that group I just described, because your analog mix is much more mixed with gut, rather than the digital who sounds really dull, no daring EQ's no nothings. So I would advise to keep mixing analog, or at least a digital table with a more intinutive outline like analog boards, rather than with the mouse&keyboard, it simply doesn't work for everyone!

I have comparable difficulties too, if I mix ITB, I can be stuck suddenly, not knowing what the hell to do. If I make a bounce, and listen to it on the same PC with winamp (so basicly exactly what heard 3s before), I suddenly hear every imbalance in EQ, every leveling problem, everything I had overdone, and everything I had underdone. The mind is a tricky bastard in our line of work.
Best trick to work ITB? Turn of your screen if u are listening!! Thats the beaty of consoles, disregardless if they are analog or digital, u aint watching, u are listening!

Pzz& the best

[craigmorris74]

I'm a big analog guy and all, but the mix done with the console has some horrendous phase issues. Put it in mono and you'll see what I mean.

[steelyfan]

Good for you, you've made a discovery that's making your mixes sound better than before,and you really like it, and you didn't have to spend money! Just run everything you track through your peavey, then after you mix it, run it through again for your master 2 track (like kats said.) Something about that analgue circuitry, seems to be real.

[zboy2854]

Trying to compare these two mixes, as another poster said, is apples and oranges. There are several variables involved here contributing to the sonic differences, of which the simple digital vs. analog factor is but one.

First is the difference in EQ decisions you made ITB vs. OTB. Clearly you boosted more upper mids and highs on the OTB mix, which pushes the sound more forward and can accentuate the left/right image. By contrast, your ITB mix clearly has less boosts EQ-wise, making it sound comparatively duller and with less clarity.

Second is what plugins you use. Anyone who works ITB will tell you that all plugins are NOT created equal, and the stock Digi plugins aren't known as the paragon of digital plugin processing.

Third, as I mentioned previously, is gain staging. Even though your PT track meters may not say you're overloading anything, you may actually still be doing so, which contributes to loss of what we call "depth" in the sonics, and overloading the mix bus can contribute to loss of perceived "width", which is why many people have claimed that their ITB mixes sounded fine with only a few tracks, but start to fold in when mixing a lot of tracks together.

Long story short, your comparison doesn't really tell us much vis a vis ITB width or size vs. OTB.

[obostic]

Originally Posted by sethbrand_12

Hey guys,

I have been recording and mixing with Pro Tools for over 2 years now, and up until about 2 weeks ago was mixing completley in the DAW using my mouse and All I know is that from now on I will NEVER mix using only pro tools with a mouse again!!! I really couldn't believe the difference, it was night and day.

Has anyone else noticed that when only mixing "ITB" with protools (mouse and keyboard) that the mix is very small and narrow??? Is it like this on all DAWS??? Why so much bigger just by sending it to an old analog mixer???

Seth

LOL, Damn it my secret is out!! Why do you think companies are making consoles again? More people know then will let on trust me.

[sethbrand_12]

Originally Posted by UnDeFiNeD

Hi Seth,

wow, I allways wonder wth people hear so fundamentaly different when they compare both. I work ITB and OTB with PT HD or SSL 4000G, 88VR to crappy O2R etc., so I constantly switch from digital to hybride, to sometimes even pure analog. I never hear those 'dramatical' differences that people seem so keen to write about.

But thank u for posting these examples, this is more than clear, your digital mix has nothing to do with ur analog mix and vice versa. These could have been mixed by two different persons around the globe
When hearing this, I completly agree that your analog mix sounds 10 000X better than the protools version. What I am wondering is, do u sometimes look to much at plugins than acctually listening to them? This is a very common mistake tons of people make when working ITB, they look at the EQ curve and think "hmmz, that can't be right, it just doesn't look good", while when they work OTB, they simply turn the knobs till it sounds good.
I have a feeling u belong to that group I just described, because your analog mix is much more mixed with gut, rather than the digital who sounds really dull, no daring EQ's no nothings. So I would advise to keep mixing analog, or at least a digital table with a more intinutive outline like analog boards, rather than with the mouse&keyboard, it simply doesn't work for everyone!

I have comparable difficulties too, if I mix ITB, I can be stuck suddenly, not knowing what the hell to do. If I make a bounce, and listen to it on the same PC with winamp (so basicly exactly what heard 3s before), I suddenly hear every imbalance in EQ, every leveling problem, everything I had overdone, and everything I had underdone. The mind is a tricky bastard in our line of work.
Best trick to work ITB? Turn of your screen if u are listening!! Thats the beaty of consoles, disregardless if they are analog or digital, u aint watching, u are listening!

Pzz& the best

I have always thought this!!! That is one of the main reasons I went and dug up the old mixer is b/c I hated looking at the plugins and mixing with my eyes rather than my ears. I would look at eq curves and go, no way that isn't right I will set it at what it is supposed to be. With the board I just listened and turned the knobs.

I know that I am not on a professional level yet as far as mixing goes, but I am trying to learn as much as I can and I think mixing analog is going to help me a lot. It just works for me better, but I am not in anyway saying it is better or sounds better for everyone. I have heard ITB mixes by people that sound amazing, I just can't seem to get it to work.

Originally Posted by craigmorris74

I'm a big analog guy and all, but the mix done with the console has some horrendous phase issues. Put it in mono and you'll see what I mean.

Ah...the phase monster. Yes I did not check my mix in mono, which I know I should and I will before I call it complete. But why would it do that only through the analog console and not the pro tools mix??? Any suggestions on how to fix that??? yikes!!!

[Todd24]

There is a lot to be said for the advantage of not having a screen to "read" on a consul.

I am Inclined to think that this IS where the difference lies.