@ ubik:
thank you for your suggestions - I guess I will try freeing up as many outputs as I can for summing. Going from outboard to summing will not work for me for following
reasons: I like to use eq on fx-returns or chain fx. (and my option is a summing box, not a real console unfortunately...I will be on the road)

I want to use my Crane Song STC-8 on the 2-buss - I guess passive summing
devices do not have an insert? (So it would be summing -> pre amp -> STC-8 ->DAW)

Cheers,
Stefan

LOL, who said I was happy! (but thanks for the fatherly advice)

I've done comparisons sending a signal out and back through the 192 converters and comparing it with the original and could hear no difference. I've posted files to that effect and others have agreed. Heck, anybody can try it for themselves. I agree that they have sort of a "flat" sound, but to my ears doing another round of in and out doesn't change it one way or another. Probably because they are in fact pretty flat and don't add much coloration.

I usually keep a Cranesong STC-8 inserted on my master bus, but if there's a difference between that with the compressor bypassed and just deleting the insert, it's definitely not a difference worth worrying about.

So if there is a culprit, methinks it is elsewhere.

The one piece I have had problems with is my AD-8000. It just doesn't like to output to an unbalanced input. Now there's something you can really hear.

-R

I have to agree with thethrillfactor here. I do notice changes when you insert outboard and having to go through the AD-DA conversions. The audio becomes more sterile and you start to lose the stereo width and the dept.
Minimising AD-DA conversion specially if you plan to print severaL types of different outboard on a track is a must. I mean, I know my AD-DA is no comparison to a Lavry conversion system but my Mytek AD-DA conversion system I had I was noticing it heaps, I started losing quality as I inserted. I think a good analogue mixer and insert through that is the go unless you can pick up an AD-DA system that can produce it's own character to the conversion like Apogee or alot more accurate to the digital conversions, which I have heard only a few times on the lavry and the emmlabs which I canot really judge on unless I have used it for atleast a year in my own studio environment.

Try going out and back through your converters without inserting any analog device and see if you can actually hear a difference, and if so, if it is anything more than miniscule. I have a theory about this, but you'd never buy it unless you first do what I just suggested.

-R

Why not use a few summing devices chained together (atleast 32 channels of folcrom)

And insert your outboard between the DAW and the summing. I understand certain channels will still require inserts because of automation needs but I would avoid the conversion from AD/DA whenever possible. In my experience, the more channels u sum outside of the DAW (ptools in my case) the better

no way that's gonna fly... spill it!!!

gregoire
del ubik

I think when mixing or recording in the box you get into an aesthetic mindset that focuses on and in fact thrives on the clarity and sharpness, the hyperreality that good digital recoding can provide. If you're good at what you do, and like doing it, you're going to be focused on the best aspects of whatever system you're working on, and you will be building your piece of music and making decisions based on the given aesthetic. As soon as you send something out to an analog piece and bring it back it becomes the odd man out, sonically, and unless it's an extremely transparent, hifi piece of gear, it will have a signal-degraded sound compared to your digital environment. This is of course because the signal is in fact degraded in some way by the device you inserted.

Now when you're mixing through a console (or have everything going into an analog summing box) you have a different "given", a different sonic paradigm. Your signal is already being slew limited, slightly distorted, whatever, by the analog circuitry, so when you patch in a piece of outboard gear it isn't adding a quality to the sound that is fundamentally different from what you are already hearing, therefore it seems to work more easily, or at least seems to play nicer.

In my own studio I've tried running stuff out the HD 192 then straight back in and to my ears there is absolutely no problem with this. Very transparent. OTOH, I might be working on a mix in PT and loop out to an old LA2A and initially I don't like what it does to the sound, it is so far out of the paradigm. I'm used to hearing a clean, pristine sound and my initial perception of what the LA2A is doing, compared to what I already have, is that it is adding distortion and that bothers me. Of course, that's the very quality that, if I'm recording/mixing analog, I love about the box.

I'm not explaining this well, because I'm preoccupied with actually getting some work done today, but suffice it to say that I think your expectations and mindset might have more to do with this than the objective sound of the gear, and I certainly don't think that the mere act of going out and back through presumably good converters is much of a factor at all.

-R

Yes please when you get a break expound on this further.

Cause so far in reading into what you wrote you are saying i totally disagree with just about every point.

Case in point:

Now when you're mixing through a console (or have everything going into an analog summing box) you have a different "given", a different sonic paradigm. Your signal is already being slew limited, slightly distorted, whatever, by the analog circuitry, so when you patch in a piece of outboard gear it isn't adding a quality to the sound that is fundamentally different from what you are already hearing, therefore it seems to work more easily, or at least seems to play nicer.

When mixing on SSL you purposely go out to other outboard on purpose to change the characteristic of what you are hearing on the console.

That's why its good to have a slew of Neve's around(pre/EQ's and compressors).

Same goes for 1176's.

These units can change the sonic character pretty quick.

It doesn't necessarily plays nicer you have to massage it so.

If you hear things as being perfect than it is so to you.

But when you kick it out to an La2a and you are not digging it maybe it just not the right sound for that track.

So then you switch to a LA3a, Neve,1176,Sta-Level,whatever.

One of those should work.

If it doesn't than you try an EQ in there or something else(like 2 in series).

Maybe the problem is elsewhere(arranging).

think you explained it very well myself . as thrill just stated the very reason for using these things is in order to change the characteristic... but i see your point, definitely.

i'm using pultecs, AMS boxes, etc. as we speak, and going back ITB - though i know i'd like it alot more through a console, maybe for the very reasons you mentioned, i definitely can't get what i'm getting with these boxes strictly ITB (or i don't feel like trying) - so of course i use them. can't wait to get my board though... and maybe you just gave a rational explanation why.

Man isnt that why we all buy "flavor" pieces of gear so that we can add that flavor? As thrill stated, what u add may not be the right flavor so you change flavors. Or sometimes you need the right blend of Sugar and salt to offset one another in the dish(tune)
\
So now I get what I've been missing Daws are giving digital perfection and my ears are used to musical imperfection? BULL****.

I know that when I patched my mix system out into the folcrom (havent tried with my HD rig) The drums and other low end sounds sounded compressed in the box in comparison. I thought I was imagining this but I ran it by several people in the room and it simply sounded better via the folcrom. It was alot easier to get my drums/bass right.

I guess I love imperfection. And I'm saving to get a pair of 1084s so I can have more of that imperfection

respectfuly beg to differ. a distorted gtr is technically 'imperfect' but music to our ears. analog tape is anything but 'transparent', specially the harder you push it. again, probably not how the designers of the original device intended it to be used. that's why i kind of agree with RKrizman - in the context of the task at hand, distortion, noise, wow and flutter can possibly play an important role. when jagger or sinatra go slightly out of tune and don't do a second take it becomes charming and effective, but far from perfect.

i think if we defined what 'perfection' means to us, we'd agree alot more. fact is whatever you want to call an LA2, 1084, etc., it's safe to say they're perfect for one application or another. but 'transparent' is not an adjective i would use -- with a DAW, i would strive for transparency - kinda like a white canvass.

so i say yes, my ears are used to musical imperfection - long live rock n' roll stike

Yeah but the most so called transparent music classical and Jazz sounds better through some kind of "warming"device.

This is why the excellent classic Hi-fi gear gave the audio a juicier sound.

The so called sterile sound is a thing of the present.

I've always said is for people that listen with their eyes(numbers,specs,charts) than their ears.

And it so happens since audio went in this direction that records in general became more smiley faced sounding.

And why do you think this is so?

see? it's a matter of semantics! of course jazz and classical music sound better that way - that's exactly what i'm trying to say - harmonic distortion and other artifacts weren't intended to be there purposefully - they were a by product, albeit a pleasing by product.

what we call 'sterile' may very possibly be a closer recreation of the original source than what tape, acetate or whatever can give us (or not) - and FWIW i think that can be a good thing. a perfect mirror image of what happened could be a great achievement, but not desirable for a certain application. just like a picasso sure as hell ain't a perfect recreation of the human body. but i'd probably hang it on my wall over a 'perfect' picture, any day of the week.

alot of us like recording analog, then taking it ITB for the practical aspects of editing etc. - if i can't track analog, i try to recreate that sound the best i can. but it sure ain't 'perfect' - i bet if you put your ear next to a crash, it probably sounds closer to what you get from a 192 than what you'd get from tape printed real hot, but it's obvious that most of us here would NOT prefer that sound.

so 'perfect' depends on the application. sometimes distortion is perfect. sometimes quick editing and recallability are perfect. sometimes i'm full of ****. so g'bye!

Hey Raal,

I understand what you are saying but even the statement above i've always had an issue with.

When i listen to the original source lets say of a car passing by on the street or a simple conversation there is a lot of "life" there in the sound.

There's a sense of space,size and movement that you don't hear on a sterile or exact recording.

To me the so called modern sterile or exact recordings are both lifeless,dull,small and boring.

Very 2 dimensional.

They don't sound like the source at all to me.

The reason we add the "outside stuff" is to give these sounds some of these missing elements.

again i agree. maybe with DXD, DSD or whatever we'll get closer. maybe someday we'll actually achieve 'perfect audio'. if and when we do, i bet we'll still add dabs of this and that to our mixes though.

my point is maybe 'life' is pretty cool, but when we want to give the impression of 'bigger than life' we do the needful, just like in the movies. the new star wars flick is very removed from life as we know it; maybe a very well filmed documentary would be alot more accurate, but it probably won't be as entertaing to alot of people.

IMHO that's why we immediately go for certain microphones, AMS, 480L, SSL and Neve compressors; not to recreate the actual happening but to make it bigger than life... it's our interpretation.

maybe when we do achieve 'perfection' in audio, a faithful rendering of the original will be all that's necessary. i doubt it though.

I think that both of you guys are saying the same thing, but somehow misunderstand each other. You agree that perfect recreation of an original sound may sound not as pleasing as less than perfect recreation.

If I understand RKrizman and raal, they say that digital audio ITB has this sterile character to it (because it is a perfect recreation), so when you run one track through some outboard, you give it that particular piece of gear's flavor (which is what you wanted), but than also it stands out in a weird sort of way compared to the other sterile tracks ITB.

If, OTOH, you mix with a hardware console, all the tracks run through the board's circuitry and so they're no longer a perfect representation of the original sound. In addition, using outboard to color and add character to a track doesn't make it stand out in a strange way, because all the other tracks were "colored" by the analog circuitry of the board and they are all more unified.

yes, excepting the 'they say that digital audio ITB has this sterile character to it (because it is a perfect recreation)' part.

what i meant to say is that digital audio may or may not be a more representative recreation of the original event - but that's besides the point. the point i'm trying to make is that we probably will all agree that analog audio is probably NOT a faithful representation of the original, but very pleasing to our ears.

maybe with DSD, etc. digital audio will get closer and some day actually achieve 'perfection' in this sense.

but 'perfection' in this sense may not be what we need for certain applications. anyway i think i'm way OT now so sorry.

Raal

I was just trying to say what RKrizman already did, because I felt that it was what you and Thrill interpreted differently. Using a particular outboard might give you the same results on the track it was used on (whether that track is coming from a computer or an analog board), but that same track will sound different in relation to the rest of the tracks (depending on whether they're coming out of a computer or an analog board).

i agree completely, but bottom line is i use outboard all the time with PT, and feel it works for me - wouldn't dream of NOT using it - i also feel an analog console will work alot better for me - but i don't plan to abandon PT any time soon. it's just too convenient.

so 'ITB with slutty outboard???'.... yes. OTB with slutty outboard... yes. slutty outboard with slutty outboard... YES!!!

thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup

I agree with Thrill real life is more "alive" and the Daw playback is smaller and flatter. If this were not the case. I'd be willing to accept it being different from analog recording/processing. My only deal is trying to breathe some dimension/life into the picture. This for me is where outboard is king. I think with outboard you get a synergistic effect of the subtleties of the gear. Distressors do things that 1176 dont do and vice versa. SSL eq's have a sound that Neve Eqs dont have and vice versa.
IMO this is what we use to help get life back into the recording. I dont think anyone ever assumed an analog recording was an actual representation of the source. And I dont know if i think a digital representation is a better one. I do know that depth and space is easier to achieve when I'm not using ptools. (I havent tried higher sampling rates. ) but I'm also in no hurry. I know how to get the sound that I'm after and it involves analog processing (for me)

so do we agree or disagree? you guys 'r killing me... i think.

I completely agree..
I've been fighting the Sterile demons ever since I bought my first Da88 way back when.
It tool me a while to understand why my slammed 1/2 inch 8 track stuff sounded cooler..
and on the same end of the digital ****stick is that a lot of plug ins[emulations,yeah right] sound like crap to me anyways, and outboard is a no brainer.
I'll take an extra conversion anyday over a URS/UA Neve /whatever cardboard plugin everytime.

Again Raal(not to bust your chops) i can't agree with this.

A so called digital recording at 44.1khz(probably the most common sample rate) is frequency limited so it can not be considered a perfect recreation.

I would choose a 2 track 1" every time over at digital 2 track.

Not all analog is created equal also.

Not all analog is designed to change the sonic characteristics.

You said it better than I did, with one exception. I didn't use the word "perfect",( and if I did I take it back.) Neither medium is perfect in the larger sense--I was trying to speak descriptively, not evaluatively.

-R

Right for the wrong reasons.

That's been discussed to death.

No recording medium gives a perfect recreation of an audio event, and to focus on that is beside the point. The question I was trying to answer was why when you're mixing in the box can it seem problematic to use analog outboard as inserts? Do the converters screw up the sound or is it something else? Is it reality, or perception of reality?

A couple of people here are grasping the issue. It's not just semantics either, because the conclusion you reach can affect your gear decisions and your methodology. As I said at the beginning, this idea will have more meaning if you test your converters yourself by sending something out and back through them and comparing it to the original.

-R

Man the logic here is stating that the La2A track stands out from the DAW because it is sooo sonically different. Where as on a console it wouldnt stand out as much.

THis is like saying a woman with the world's sexiest tits and ass would stand out in a land of obese women more than she would at a porn/ models convention

Analog was not perfect but it was more pleasant to listen to. (Is this not the goal of mixing ultimately???) Dont we work to make things more pleasant to listen to?

I understand the logic being argued perfectly (I think LOL) You are saying the LA2A track stands out more from the DAW tracks than it would from tracks on a console.

I agree, thats why I wish I had outboard to put on every channel to make a prettier picture (Just look at the little colors LLOL

But u keep adding channels and eventually what you have is A CONSOLE

The reverse is also true.

-R

Haahaha, that's a funny picture in my brain. thumbsup

Don't we usually think of analog as being fat?

-R