Summing Mixer A/B Rascal Tonebuss and Folcrom w/ Pacifica

[rookphase]

Hey guys, I'm in my final stages of shooting out Summing Mixers and could use your help. I'm in the process of finishing a mix here and have done it 2 ways:

- Lynx Aurora 16-> Rascal Tonebuss

- Lynx Aurora 16 -> Roll Music Folcrom (Pacifica Pre for make-up gain)

I also have an API 2500 buss comp and an Anamod ATS-1 after them in my stereo chain (both acting very conservatively) going back into a Mytek 8x192 convertor on the way back in to print in PT.

Would love to know your thoughts on these 2 mixes and which you think is stronger - the difference is fairly subtle, but it's there. I also apologize in advance for any slight level differences - I tried to match them as closely as possible.

Thanks guys!

- ben

[Brett 123]

What's your opinion of the two ?

[rookphase]

Let's just say I will for sure never be mixing in the box again. A lot of people say things about the way they perceive the out-of-the box experience to be different than in the box. Words like depth, width, 3-D, color, and many others are used.

I've gone back and forth a lot and I've consistently found that mixing out of the box with a good stereo chain yields 'bigger' results than mixes I've done in the box.

- All the instruments in your mix seem to come to the front of the speakers more, so you hear more clarity on everything in your mix (without the balances getting out of whack)

- There is definitely different kinds of color added depending on what outboard hardware pieces you choose to use.

- Mixes just come together easier for me. I felt that when I was mixing in the box, I was becoming an incessant automater and tweaker to try and get things to 'sit' just right. Now I feel like I can just properly eq, compress, and mix instruments and they will sit well and react with each other how I want them to. Mixes go a lot faster. (Important to start the mix from scratch out of the box)

I've still got a lot to learn, but this has been something I'm convinced of as a step in the right direction. Feels good to have that out of the way and just get on to making music!


As far as my thoughts on these 2: 'B' feels like it has more low-mid warmth and also a rounder, tighter bottom end. 'A' seems to have maybe just a bit more openness and 'clarity'. They're really close, but I think I have my preference and feel close to finalizing my mix chain.

- ben

[RKrizman]

First of all, really cool music! Second of all, mix A by a landslide.

IMO

-R

[Swurveman]

Originally Posted by rkrizman

first of all, really cool music! Second of all, mix a by a landslide.

Imo

-r

+1

-sm

[rookphase]

Thanks guys. Wow, really A? I was totally leaning towards B but you guys are making me second guess myself:-) Can you expound on that? Any other comments? Thanks

- ben

[popmann]

Yes, I preferred A. B sounded like there was something in the chain intentionally rolling off the high end. Like a LOT...like you accidentally click a LPF on some unit at 14k...

In fact, I thought, when listening to A..."wow, that's a really impressive mix" (and I'm sort of snobby, if you hand't noticed)...when I got to B, I thought "that sounds like someone took that nice mix and tried to loFi it.

Interested to see which is which...since the Aurora's should have plenty of high end...and if the master units were set the same, that leaves the summing.

[Hoffmanwantsgear]

B by a landslide! Sounds warmer and bigger to me, am guessing thats the Folcrom/ Pacifica

[popmann]

Tomato, tomahto...

[Trakworx]

I imported into PT to listen through my best DACs.

After level matching them (B was 0.3dB RMS louder), I prefer B and my guess is that B is the Rascal Tonebuss.

A sounds very clear and good, but lacks the "mojo" of B. B is slightly darker, but has a more 3D depth and a more analog feel that I would expect from the Tonebuss' transformers.

A sounds technically more accurate/transparent. B gives me a better feeling from the music. For mixing music, feeling trumps transparency every time in my book, and that is one of the main reasons I use analog summing.

I wouldn't pick either "by a landslide", but I would choose B for myself, and EQ in any high end I felt was slightly lacking on a case by case basis.

I expect that the difference would be more apparent in CD quality files instead of MP3s.

Thanks for the test!

When is the "reveal"?

[Reborn]

Sounds to me like the differences would be more pronounced with less color after both. that's a lot of color even just passing signal. It sounds like that's might be what is closing the top. I hear that closed sound on both clips. B is more colored but nicer to listen too! I'd like to hear these without the buss comp after! Thanks for sharing!

[rookphase]

Thanks guys, this has been really helpful. It's such a subjective thing, eh? I won't get rid of either chain, that's for sure. I think they both have their advantages. Maybe just a few more posts and then I'll let you know which is which and what direction I end up going. Thanks again

- ben

[SoundWeavers]

I like A. cleaner and punchier, rounded but with right amount of air.

My guess is this is Folcrom>Pacifica.

[steveschizoid]

Yeah, I don't think we're being much help. Perhaps it's the power of suggestion, but A does seem brighter, and B seems a little more down and dirty. If you could split the difference it might be better than either.

By the way rookphase sir, have you tried the VCC?

I'm curious, because I'm planning my next investment. I use lots of outboard, including an 8 channel Aurora Audio EQ. I seem to still spend too much time bouncing stuff, so i'm leaning preaty heavily towards another one of those, as opposed to a summing rig. The summing rig will require another Aurora 16 and, long story short, complicate my life significantly.

I've not seen a lot of opinions concerning the merits of the VCC versus real summing....

And it is a cool song; I love the bass guitar tone and the percussion especially.

[rookphase]

Hey Justin, just saw that you do mastering at insanely low rates and have a ton of great reviews. Want to take a crack at mastering this EP for me as I finish it?

- ben

[Oldone]

I would go with B. I'm drawn in and recaptured again and again with that sound as if the transients had some room to breath. A is compressed, sounds modern but it doesn't hold my attention after awhile and seems too glued with little excitment rising to the top.

[rookphase]

Hey Andy, I assume by VCC you mean the Slate console plugins. I haven't tried them - come close a couple times. I use his Trigger drum replacer program for bigger pop/rock stuff that I do and I love it when I need to incorporate drum samples. I have a few other console/saturation plugs that I like on individual channels, most specifically the Phoenix. Crazy, that plug has been around for years now, but I keep coming back to it for adding a bit of analogue-sounding mojo to individual channels.

My advice would be to go out of the box though. I've really tried to maximize my results in the box with a lot of plug-ins, spending time with them, overusing them, and then using them tastefully, but I still can't get the extra depth that I get just going outside and using some real iron on the 2-buss. In fact, this has been the case for every mix that I've heard come from an in-the-box mix engineer. Believe me, I say this humbly - there are a ton of great mix guys who are way better than I am who mix solely in the box and get great results, but when I match it up against other mix guys that I use who are using a console or an aggressive summing chain, there is always an added depth and weight that is hard to explain but is easily felt. This is what I'm going after. This is just the way I hear it and I don't try for a minute to say that this is global fact - it's been my journey thus far.

[e-are]

Landslide? I don't see it at all. Both have different sounds but equally pro,imo. I wouldn't know which one to go with. Hey, your a slut. Keep em both. Slut en 4 real!!

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by rookphase

Hey Justin, just saw that you do mastering at insanely low rates and have a ton of great reviews. Want to take a crack at mastering this EP for me as I finish it?

- ben

Hell yeah! I like the music and production. And I think we just might be on the same page when it comes to aesthetics. PM or email me about it!

Curious - what machine card/tape speed did you use on the Anamod?

Cheers,

J~

[rookphase]

I've been using 102/456 combo on most mixes I've been doing over the past few months. A touch of bias to the left, and a touch of HF and LF boost. I've wanted to use the 351 machine as it is pretty in-your-face, but I've had issues with the low end bump being too much at times. However, I used it for this one and found I was easily able to control the low end and liked what the 351 did here. I just brought the LF knob back to zero. So, for this one: 351/456. 30 ips - I've experimented with 15, but it just gets too loose for me, especially with liking to use my api2500 bus comp on the 'old' setting.

- ben

[popmann]

I listened with better monitors...eh...the B mix does have a vibe. I still prefer A...but, on nicer monitoring, B doesn't lose as much high end (meaning it's not as apparent)--thus, I'd still venture the one I prefer is the Pacifica, because it's got an upper mid zing to it that would come through as more detail and high end on "low rent" monitor chains.

Ideally, though, I would still like to hear the output without the 2500/Anamod. OR...at the very least, summed ITB with the 2500/Anamod inserted on the master.Know what I'm saying?

[eirikur]

I also prefer mix A.
Sounds more natural and "glued" to me. Could it be a slight HF loss and slight compression from transformers that I'm hearing/prefer?
Mix B sounds fine, mix A expresses more emotion, imho
Haven't tried either summing device myself but would guess that A is tonebuss and B is folcrom/pacifica.

[stephent28]

Prefer A.

Just an easier listen for me....crisp clear and more emotion comes through.

[Slikjmuzik]

I like A. Sounds more rounded and to me, better for this genre. For pop/rock, I might go with the other one, but could easily work with the first one.

Would like to know what A is if you could PM me please...

[RKrizman]

Just listened again and have to say, whatever you're doing, keep doing it. I think A sounds meatier and thicker, whereas B has more of the sonic signature of the Aurora converters. If the Pacifica is a really transparent pre then I'd guess it's B. Either one is great, but my personal preference is A.

Which is which?

-R

[rookphase]

I'll give a full disclosure this evening when I get home. Thanks for the feedback everyone.

- ben

[Red Baron]

I am quite sure B is Lynx Aurora 16-> Rascal Tonebuss.

I am interested to know the answer as I want to know how Tonebuss sounds.

I have read Tonebuss is a very good solution for adding warmth and depth, 3D to ITB or hybrid mixing, but it keeps being a little unknown. Now

You said you still don´t get that depth you are looking for, so I don´t know what to think of Tonebuss.

Here in Europe there seems to be no dealer, maybe this is one of reasons Tonebuss is still unknown here.

Congratulations to you and the singer, great song and wonderful voice.

[SoundWeavers]

Originally Posted by rookphase

I'll give a full disclosure this evening when I get home. Thanks for the feedback everyone.

- ben

thanks Ben, will watch out for that (popcorn and soda ready)

[once a roadie]

A is clearer and wider - high freq transients are in place

B has big bottom, not as wide sounding, vocal sounds too huge, high freq transients are overcooked, not sitting as nice


---
I like A on this overall, although perhaps B was driven a bit hard in this example

[rookphase]

Ok guys, first of all, thanks for all of your great comments and feedback on this. I really appreciate your time and generosity in sharing your opinions and ideas on these mixes!

The way I counted it here, it looks like we have:

- 8 votes for A

- 4 votes for B


A = Folcrom and Pacifica Pres

B = Rascal Tonebuss

Again, there were other things on the mix buss, but everything else stayed exactly identical on these two mixes, so the change you're hearing should be pretty much entirely just the summing mixer setup.

A little background. I've been using the Folcrom/Pacifica combo for a while now when I mix and I feel like I've gotten great results with it. I got the Tonebuss last week and was excited when I heard it. I actually thought 'B', which was the Tonebuss was the one I was pulling for - I put it in my chain last week and liked what it was doing to the bottom end and the overall mojo. However, all of your feedback has been illuminating here. There were a lot of people who passionately preferred A, so I guess I'm second-guessing myself a bit and at least wanting to do a bit more A/B'ing on stuff. Obviously you could make music with both, but it's just great to get an outside, fresh perspective on this.

I did another mix of a song with the Rascal Tonebuss chain last night ('B'). It was a mix that was a bit more lush than the one I posted here that you guys heard - i.e. more electric guitars, strings, etc. As I've been listening to it today, I'm liking it, but do feel like the Tonebuss is adding a new level of 'glue' that I want to make sure isn't getting too constrictive on the mix. I think those transformers sound great, but I don't want them to squeeze too hard on the mix.

Anyways, just wanted to get back to you all and say thanks for weighing in and helping me! I'll keep experimenting with both and keep you posted. I also want to do an A/B session with clocking next.

- ben