The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Mixing down thru HEDD 192
Old 9th February 2003
  #1
Lives for gear
 
jho's Avatar
 

Mixing down thru HEDD 192

I'm PT HD, also have a HEDD 192 I use on the master fader. I've been bouncing to disk primary in HD but have heard good things about going out thru the HEDD into a Masterlink.

Any feedback on this setup or another preferable one for mixing down without having to BTD ? I don't really want to buy a 1/2 inch...I can afford a Masterlink tho...

And if so what would be the recommended wiring configuration considering I am also using the HEDD on the master fader for the pentote/tape saturation effect.

jho
Old 9th February 2003
  #2
member no 666
 
Fletcher's Avatar
I think the converters in the HEDD-192 murder the converters in the Masterlink... but I'm potentially biased... so take that with a grain of salt.

One of the cool things you can do with the HEDD-192 is come out of a device at 96k... go D/A with the HEDD-192... process your mix in the analog domain [EQ, compression... whatever], then go back into the HEDD-192 to burn a 44.1k "CD" of the final product [I know all of the CD players in my world only play CD's done at 44.1].

Best of luck with it all...
Old 9th February 2003
  #3
Lives for gear
 
jho's Avatar
 

Fletcher,
Most of my sessions are at 44 or 48 in PT HD...I'm mixing pretty much in the box; so with that and the HEDD in mind (and not a humongous budget for more new gear right now) what would you do re: mixing down format.

If that's an ignorant question it's because I am... thanks for any additional help
Old 9th February 2003
  #4
Route mix AES out of 2 x PTHD interface outputs
Send that to the Hedd via AES
Add process on Hedd
Send to Masterlink via AES

Before you go and buy a MAsterlink.....

Try the above but route out of the Hedd BACK to PT via AES (to a stereo audio track in record) in place of a Masterlink.

Compare that with a BTD with the Hedd on insert like you are doing at the moment.

If you hear no difference, re think your plans on getting the Masterlink..

Tell us what you decide to do!!!

Jules
Old 9th February 2003
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
I'm sorry, but it seems to me that if you come out of PT with a mix, then push it through the HEDD and then back into PT again you got to be a risk of crapping up the sound, and I can't think for the life of me how running the digital signal through the HEDD you could expect it to improve the sound. These sort of devices work on their ability to do a really good AD/DA conversion. In the digital domain it should be bit for bit.

Sure if you run out analogue and process the sound with a couple of nice boxes (Manley Slam, Focusrite, STC-8 etc.) you might produce something that is nicer to listen too, but this is a different scenario.

My thoughts anyhow.

Regards

Roland
Old 9th February 2003
  #6
Lives for gear
 
kosi's Avatar
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Roland
[B]I'm sorry, but it seems to me that if you come out of PT with a mix, then push it through the HEDD and then back into PT again you got to be a risk of crapping up the sound, and I can't think for the life of me how running the digital signal through the HEDD you could expect it to improve the sound. These sort of devices work on their ability to do a really good AD/DA conversion. In the digital domain it should be bit for bit.

The Hedd has a processor, which can improve your sound, I think, thats what they wanted to say. You can dial in adjustable Triode, Pentode and Tape sounds.

kosi
Old 9th February 2003
  #7
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Roland
I'm sorry, but it seems to me that if you come out of PT with a mix, then push it through the HEDD and then back into PT again you got to be a risk of crapping up the sound, and I can't think for the life of me how running the digital signal through the HEDD you could expect it to improve the sound. These sort of devices work on their ability to do a really good AD/DA conversion. In the digital domain it should be bit for bit.
Jules has got it right, the HEDD works in the digital domain, so stay there when going through it and then compare the results.
After going through the HEDD the Masterlink may not be needed. The only thing the Masterlink offers at that point is it's DSP functions when rendering a songlist before burning the CD.

I'm just about to start using this very scenario to give me back a little of that analog warmth on mixes done in the box, that's what the HEDD is all about.
Old 10th February 2003
  #8
Yup the process works well digitally too

Running digital audio through the Hedd is great.

Jules
Old 10th February 2003
  #9
Lives for gear
 
jho's Avatar
 

I guess I'm confused, I'm already using the in/out of the AES going back and forth to the Digi 192 I/O. Someone else wired this place; i'll dig in the manual and figure it out tho.
Old 23rd February 2003
  #10
Lives for gear
 
jho's Avatar
 

What about mixing out of the HEDD into a 1/4" inch? How many DAW folks are doing that?
Old 23rd February 2003
  #11
Quote:
Originally posted by jho
What about mixing out of the HEDD into a 1/4" inch? How many DAW folks are doing that?
I mix to a half inch from the HEDD(and a comp and EQ).

I am on the opposite side of the fence on the HEDD processing.

I think it hurts more the mix than helps it sometimes.

This is one process that I let the mastering guy decide and if I don't like it I will definitely say it.

The problem with using the processing digitally is the latency incurred in the processing. If you don't shift it back it puts the files out of phase a touch(and I've tested this).

I would suggest you try it and see if it does something you like and if it doesn't leave it alone.
Old 23rd February 2003
  #12
Surely a phase issue due to process delay is only a concideration in a multitrack situation and not in a mixing situation as being discussed on this thread?

Old 23rd February 2003
  #13
Gear Addict
 
CrazyBeast's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Jules
Surely the phase issues are only a concideration in a multitrack situation and not in a mixing situation as being discussed on this thread?

I would think so. You always have to worry about that...
Old 23rd February 2003
  #14
Quote:
Originally posted by Jules
Surely the phase issues are only a concideration in a multitrack situation and not in a mixing situation as being discussed on this thread?

The phase issues are between the left and right channel.

There is latency incurred when the processing is engaged.

If used on the final mix he will either use it at as an insert on the mix or by running the output directly into it(and recording the return I gather).

Either way there is some latency involved.
Old 23rd February 2003
  #15
I think this has come up before Thrill.

First, you pointed out that the process causes slight delay, (no surprise in digital land)

And claim 'problems due to using it.

But this is a mixdown thread!

Delays incurred on 2 track mixes are "non-problematic". Many devices used by mastering engineers have 'look ahead' functions, many delay the signal.. So what?

Now a sinister new accusation emerges - "The phase issues are between the left and right channel."

Slagging the units phase coherency is a serious accusation.

Old 23rd February 2003
  #16
Lives for gear
 
jho's Avatar
 

To confirm, yes I am talking about a 2-mix/master fader situation here. That would be really scary if there was phase between left and right at all...then what is the point of using it? It would be good for nothing except mono recording. I'm not sure if I buy into that. Mine sounds too good on the mixbuss to be wrong

Jules (or anyone), if I am AES on the master stereo fader going 9/10 out/in, and I am going in/out AES from/to the 192 i/o, then to bring it back into 2 tracks for mixdown in PT do I just pickup from 9/10 coming back in? I'm still confused on that...!
Old 23rd February 2003
  #17
Quote:
Originally posted by Jules
I think this has come up before Thrill.

First, you pointed out that the process causes slight delay, (no surprise in digital land)

And claim 'problems due to using it.

But this is a mixdown thread!

Delays incurred on 2 track mixes are "non-problematic". Many devices used by mastering engineers have 'look ahead' functions, many delay the signal.. So what?

Now a sinister new accusation emerges - "The phase issues are between the left and right channel."

Slagging the units phase coherency is a serious accusation.


Hey Jules,

If you don't believe me...than check it out for yourself.

I know this is a mixdown thread.

That's why I mentioned it.

I feel to give both sides of the coin is useful. I am not trying to slag anyone.

I am not really sure what the poster wants. If he wants the sound of analog, than the his best option is an analog machine. I am one of"those" that feels that while the processing on the Hedd is nice, it is not the same thing. And to get someone's hopes up by letting them think it is so is a misnomer.

You can't get the spread of the bass(a problem with digital masters) like you can on a half inch. This is one fo the reasons that among proffesionals it is still the prefered mixdown format.
Old 23rd February 2003
  #18
Quote:
Originally posted by jho
To confirm, yes I am talking about a 2-mix/master fader situation here. That would be really scary if there was phase between left and right at all...then what is the point of using it? It would be good for nothing except mono recording. I'm not sure if I buy into that. Mine sounds too good on the mixbuss to be wrong

Jules (or anyone), if I am AES on the master stereo fader going 9/10 out/in, and I am going in/out AES from/to the 192 i/o, then to bring it back into 2 tracks for mixdown in PT do I just pickup from 9/10 coming back in? I'm still confused on that...!
Hey JHO,

The answer is 9/10,11/12 whatever you choose as your input.

Since its a digital return it can be any input(just select and assign it in the hardware page in PT).

This is one of the benefits of the new interface.

Your problem lies in what sampling rate you are working with and your storage medium. The HEDD digitally automatically clocks to whatever your digital input is(in your case its AES). If you are doing a session at lets say at 96K ,88.2K or 48K than the HEDD will be working digitaly at these rates(as well as your PT session). You will still have to sample convert it down to 44.1K(within PT or Mastelink or whatever). If its at 44.1K than its just a dithering situation(that's if you are working at 24bits).

If your mixdown destination is analog than its a different situation. Just set the HEDD to D/A and do what you have to do.


The last option(which works great with a seperate storage device like a Masterlink) is having the A/D and D/A work synchroniously at different rates. The D/A will be clocked by the incoming digital signal(ie 96K) you can add any kind of analog processing(mixbuss compression or EQ) and then have the return back into the HEDD unit outputting the digital signal at 44.1K into the Masterlink.

They all work.

Its up to you what works best for you.
Old 23rd February 2003
  #19
Lives for gear
 
jho's Avatar
 

thrill,
thanks, i'll give that a whirl. i use waveburner and it will burn redbook etc from up to 96/24 i think so that handles conversion pretty well.

I'm not going the masterlink route, it had just been suggested to me by some sales dude but heck no, I realize that an alesis a/d is nowhere near cranesong a/d.

your last option sounds good, maybe out to a massive? and a 2 buss compressor (alan smart, api?) and back in to PT...

Or maybe that 1/2" 2 track is an option...what are some of the best (new or used) options out there...?
Old 23rd February 2003
  #20
Quote:
Originally posted by jho
thrill,
.

I'm not going the masterlink route, it had just been suggested to me by some sales dude but heck no, I realize that an alesis a/d is nowhere near cranesong a/d.

your last option sounds good, maybe out to a massive? and a 2 buss compressor (alan smart, api?) and back in to PT...

Or maybe that 1/2" 2 track is an option...what are some of the best (new or used) options out there...?
JHO,

If you are using the HEDD with the Masterlink than you can bypass the Msterlink's A/D(this is what Jules does and so do i).

Yeah the analog processing could be recorded on PT. If you record it back to the Masterlink at 44.1K you can bypass the sample rate conversion. Like I posted earlier, the only conversion would then be the dithering(and that's another post all together).

I think there are only (2) 1/2" 2 tracks work considering either an Ampex ATR(if you are doing country,pop, or rock lighter in the bass and clean) or a Studer(hip hop,rnb and dance, thicker sounding, better bass, but not as clean).

You can do what most pros do is to mix to both digital and analog and choose at the end which works best for that particular song.
Old 23rd February 2003
  #21
Lives for gear
 
jho's Avatar
 

thrill,
lend me some more of your expertise for a second if you will;

currently for the master fader setup, I have Hardware setup, main, 9-10 input is AES/EBU [encl], output is digital [encl]. then on I/O setup, input 9-10 is set to AES [encl]. that is all working great for the master fader.

Now...to route back into PT for a 2 mix. I tried numerous things to no avail. Can you tell a poor hack what I need specifically to set, to give me two channels back into PT for a 2mix. Step me thru it if you will pardon my ignorance!
Old 24th February 2003
  #22
Quote:
Originally posted by jho
thrill,
lend me some more of your expertise for a second if you will;

currently for the master fader setup, I have Hardware setup, main, 9-10 input is AES/EBU [encl], output is digital [encl]. then on I/O setup, input 9-10 is set to AES [encl]. that is all working great for the master fader.

Now...to route back into PT for a 2 mix. I tried numerous things to no avail. Can you tell a poor hack what I need specifically to set, to give me two channels back into PT for a 2mix. Step me thru it if you will pardon my ignorance!
Sure,


1) Create a stereo audio track

2)Select its i/o for 9/10

3)Set the output for 1/2(whatever you are using for monitoring).

4)Engage the rec button so you can monitor the return.

5)Adjust the Hedd processing for whatever effect desired and record.

6)Voila!!! You are done.

The only adjustment will be to change the outputs of the music tracks to 9/10(whatever the digi output will be).

So Jho,

Where should I send you my bill?heh
Old 24th February 2003
  #23
Lives for gear
 
jho's Avatar
 

hehe that is $1,000 per hour, right ?

hey i tried that setup...when I make the input on the stereo audio channel to 9/10 and put in record i get some sort of feedback loop and it all reds out...because i think it's already using that 9/10 on the master fader, right? what am i missing?

dang i'm blowin my tech support budget
Old 24th February 2003
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by thethrillfactor
JHO,

...........Studer(hip hop,rnb and dance, thicker sounding, better bass, but not as clean).

I agree with your surmise of what hitting a track to 1/2" can do, but most hip hop and dance is hardly esoteric, particulary with what most of it is recorded on. Still a hell of a lot of stuff out there being tracked old pro-tools 888 sytems via Mackies. Recordings of a lot of these types of tracks are so often being done by Songwriter/producers, the chance of them correctly aligning a 1/2" machine is pretty remote!

I know one or two of these people and their idea of compression on a track is "fiddling till it sound about right" not much mileage in asking them for 1db overbias.


Further to that I had an engineer in my place a couple of years back who had a credits list that read like who's who. Numerous top ten records that he had recorded and mixed. Turned out that he worked in a producer/songwriters, who just happened to be one of the darlings of the moment, own personal studio. Without this guys musical talent this engineer couldn't hack it. Two years experience and had never miked a kit!

He came in to advise some friends of his band on a mastering session and it was painfully obvious he had no ears of his own. I'd like to say this is unusual, sadly its not.

Regards

Roland
Old 24th February 2003
  #25
Quote:
Originally posted by jho
hehe that is $1,000 per hour, right ?

hey i tried that setup...when I make the input on the stereo audio channel to 9/10 and put in record i get some sort of feedback loop and it all reds out...because i think it's already using that 9/10 on the master fader, right? what am i missing?

dang i'm blowin my tech support budget
The only way you would get a feed back loop is if the output of the stereo track you are recording to is 9/10(instead of 1/2).

Remember your monitor output has to be different than the send(unless you want to just mute the track and record with the mute on, the only thing is you won't be able to monitor the processing).

Does this make sense?
Old 24th February 2003
  #26
This thread is "Thrilling"!

heh
Old 24th February 2003
  #27
Lives for gear
 
jho's Avatar
 

Hey it's all your fault Jules, you talked me into getting HEDD! hehehe

Thrill, yeah I know...I must have something else set wrong. I should have waited for my tech to get back But I don't want to bore Jules so...

But thanks for all the feedback bro-ness!
Old 24th February 2003
  #28
Old 26th February 2003
  #29
Gear Addict
 
RobMacki's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Jules

Now a sinister new accusation emerges - "The phase issues are between the left and right channel."

Slagging the units phase coherency is a serious accusation.

lol
I haven't used the term "slag" since my Mot the Hoople days.

So the HEDD gives tube like analog qualities in the mix down.
Does it allow for more head room digitally?
I'm intrigued to hear this path....PT>HEDD>Masterlink.
Are there any uses for tracking with it?
Old 26th February 2003
  #30
Lives for gear
 
jho's Avatar
 

tracking w/hedd

Quote:
Originally posted by RobMacki
Are there any uses for tracking with it?
Oh yeah

This thing is super sweet as A/D into a DAW for things like vocals, etc etc. I compared a vocal take using the 192 i/o A/D, then with the HEDD for A/D, with no triode/pentode/tape enhancement and i could hear the difference. The Hedd seemed a little 'smoother'. (The chain was U99-->2022-->Distressor-->HEDD-->PT).

Of course it's all dependent on the singer (and your opinion) but triode 4, pentode 5, and tape 7 sounds just amazing with this chain on a soprano female vocal to me
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump