Printing ITB Effects in DAW: How do you approach this?

[popmann]

What is the collaboration role they're going to play that they need your reverb return?

If I'm playing on your track, I don't need or want that level of control:mix w/o vocal and lead vocal (and any scratch of what Im doing you need to isolate, obviously)is ideal...if I'm mixing it--same deal. I need the TRACKS with squat printed...and your working mix to give me an idea where you're coming from.

[theblue1]

Yeah, I think you've got to call into serious question the technical grasp of anyone who says he is sending signal out of a DAW into an analog mixer to better 'separate' the stereo field.

Check the cross talk figures of most analog mixers vis a vis stereo crosstalk on a professional ADC/DAC -- and, of course, remember that if there was a significant crosstalk problem on the converter (I'd shitcan it if there was), that the more times you run stereo signal in and out, the more crosstalk you would 'accumulate.' Once the left has some of the right in it, it pretty much doesn't come out gracefully (null inversion tricks notwithstanding).

Crosstalk on many mixing consoles, however, is typically considerably higher, anyway, so sending out to a mixer is simply going to end up with more of the left in the right and vice versa.

(Now, it's occurred to me with so many OTB mixing aficianadi claiming 'improved stereo imaging' by sending through an analog mixer, that they may actually be mistaking the presence of greater stereo crosstalk [less separation, IOW) for better 'separation' -- even though it's almost certainly the opposite. Greater crosstalk might produce a somewhat more 'unified' stereo image in a manner of speaking, and those whose analytical skills are not as golden as they think their ears are may be mistaking that. Who knows? People around these parts say some incredibly dumb things. Often.)

[fastlanestoner]

Why not just set up a new track and send the one you want to record to post fx?

I always limit the conversion process, as everytime it's degraded.

[joeq]

Some of these strike me like a long way to go for a very small benefit, but I am just as guilty in other areas, so I won't judge.

It seems like somebody DIGS the analog generation degradation of multiple passes of i/o. Perhaps the only way to preserve that is to re-record it.

But as popmann asks, why should that be needed for a 'collaboration'? Unless you are 'mixing by committee', the guy who is doing the mix probably does not want his hands tied by someone else's printed effects, on a separate track or not.

The only time I print my reverbs is for my own convenience when they are not recallable: if I am using some borrowed outboard, a time-limited demo of a plug, or doing an acoustic ambience thing:

[Kiwi]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Yeah, I think you've got to call into serious question the technical grasp of anyone who says he is sending signal out of a DAW into an analog mixer to better 'separate' the stereo field.

Check the cross talk figures of most analog mixers vis a vis stereo crosstalk on a professional ADC/DAC -- and, of course, remember that if there was a significant crosstalk problem on the converter (I'd shitcan it if there was), that the more times you run stereo signal in and out, the more crosstalk you would 'accumulate.' Once the left has some of the right in it, it pretty much doesn't come out gracefully (null inversion tricks notwithstanding).

Crosstalk on many mixing consoles, however, is typically considerably higher, anyway, so sending out to a mixer is simply going to end up with more of the left in the right and vice versa.

(Now, it's occurred to me with so many OTB mixing aficianadi claiming 'improved stereo imaging' by sending through an analog mixer, that they may actually be mistaking the presence of greater stereo crosstalk [less separation, IOW) for better 'separation' -- even though it's almost certainly the opposite. Greater crosstalk might produce a somewhat more 'unified' stereo image in a manner of speaking, and those whose analytical skills are not as golden as they think their ears are may be mistaking that. Who knows? People around these parts say some incredibly dumb things. Often.)

Maybe it was just poor choice of words ... obviously there is greater crosstalk in analog chains, so the *width* will be a little compromised, but that isn't really what I thought he was trying to achieve ...

Very often, using a stereo reverb itself compromises stereo width anyway - mono reverbs with extreme panning can give a wider stereo spread.

What I think he is trying to achieve running the reverb OTB is to take that pristine ITB edge of the sound and put the whole reverb in a slightly difference focus. It would detach the reverb from the dry signal and help the illusion of *depth*. Pretty much the same reason why we would use the analog i/o of a hardware reverb in preference to digital, if we liked sound of the converters for their coloration and noise. Wet FX often benefit by being a little degraded, because real life reflections degrade in air and ambient noise is all part of reality.

Just my take on what they were trying to achieve here ... I could be wrong.

[Big_Bang]

Hey guys, I'll chip in, but its beside the point of my initial post. Not trying to say it is correct or dumb.

These were just some examples of stuff thrown around in conversation. I don't go even close as to what was suggested in the first post. But I should have been more specific I guess. Those more extreme printing techniques certainly were to "effect and effect", give it some edge, not be typical or obvious, being imaginative just for the heck of it... and some example were pretty darn cool !!

( I really must try that phase inverted thing though, it does sound very cool in that indie style context !! )

And yeah, we were talking about printing so people could collaborate in the pre-production stage, not final mix. Outboard gear, different plugins, very very different acoustic listing points... having prints is a great way to recall, and to instantly compare, say, the depth of a bricasti vs a lex, for texture, grain etc. - again, not judging this methodology.

I'm curious as to how YOU set up your DAW to print a 100% effects only track!

[popmann]

I wouldn't.