The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
At Last: Nicerizer 16 vs. ITB (aif's & mp3's)
Old 13th July 2005
  #1
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

At Last: Nicerizer 16 vs. ITB (aif's & mp3's)

this is ubik, this is my baby. the track is called bittersweet retributions; i gotta bite my tongue to not comment on the differences between these mixes. i've even got a clever nickname for the itb mix.

for the record, this was 4 stereo stems->nicerizer->api2500. the ITB version still got the api, i used tones to match GR and output levels.

give a listen, enjoy. i'll be happy to answer any questions, technical or otherwise, when the fallout clears.


gregoire
del ubik



http://www.iloveubik.com/tracks/ubik...ributions1.aif

http://www.iloveubik.com/tracks/ubik...ributions2.aif


http://www.iloveubik.com/tracks/ubik...ributions1.mp3

http://www.iloveubik.com/tracks/ubik...ributions2.mp3
Old 13th July 2005
  #2
Gear Addict
 
EngineEars's Avatar
 

I A/Bed the MP-3's cause after all what do most people listen to the finished product on? Right off the bat I thought that #1's wurli/organ patch sounded more real, where as on #2 the attack quality felt sort of "Reason-like."

#1 top end more subdued / the mix seems more glued or melted together (more compression perhaps) / sounds like it was mixed by an engineer from England / gave me a sense of listening to a Portishead CD.

#2 more detailed / elements of the mix had more of their own space (oil/water as far as interlacing but more a more 3D soundscape /sounds like it was mixed more in the US / more apparent loudness / sounded like a more commercial version of the previous (Portishead ala Disney radio) well maybe not that drastic of a diff but I did sense that about it's flavor.

My guess is #1 is the Nicerizer and #2 is ITB simply b/c the mix sounded more radio, but if I'm wrong I'll be a huge fan.

What are your individual converters doing to the sound vs. hitting the main pair with a whole mix? Why don't you do a ITB version that is through 2 channels of the Nicerizer since your are still using the API on the 2 buss. That way the only change from one to the other is the "magical summing" not impedance or any other of what I call "the analog gear play along factor." Does the API react the same to you running out of your converters as you hitting the Nicerizer then the API? Theses little mysteries is what takes gear so long to figure out it's optimum place and settings.

"include in your post (or chime back in if you've already posted) how you currently do your summing."

Digidesign 192 (<-anyone mod these?) into a outboard EQ/dynamics then into a Dangerous then into a couple of character pieces, a comp, EQ or what have you. What ever is needed to tickle to 2 buss.
Old 13th July 2005
  #3
Lives for gear
 

Dude, you almost got a little Sweetback vibe going there..

The no. 2 mix has got to be the nicerizer mix, or else I don't want one

Some of the differences that I'm sure is very clear on a proper stereo file isn't that obvious on a mp3, though.
Old 13th July 2005
  #4
Gear Addict
 
EngineEars's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by juicemaster1500
Dude, you almost got a little Sweetback vibe going there..

The no. 2 mix has got to be the nicerizer mix, or else I don't want one

Some of the differences that I'm sure is very clear on a proper stereo file isn't that obvious on a mp3, though.
I was thinking Sade vibe too. I'm gonna have to listen to the aif's now. What did you use to convert the MP'3s?
Old 13th July 2005
  #5
Lives for gear
 

I'm guessing #2 is the nicerizer.
It's fatter.
It simply sounds better to me.
I'll have to listen to this at the studio tomorrow if time permits..
Old 13th July 2005
  #6
Gear Head
 

First off I listened too the aiff's.
I think #1 the nicerizer, sounds more crunchy and glued, has a little distortion in the chain which gives it a more analog vibe. Also there seems to be a bit of width enhancement going on thats very apparent around 4:22 in the song with the ambience on the whirl. it seems like a bit is coming from behind your shouders.
That said I think #2 is in the box. Theres more sence of space in there mix with a more convincing sence of depth. Also the top end and dynamics are more open in the mix which really helped the vocal track cut and the tone of his voice is less fuzzy and muddy, kinda held back in terms of dynamics on #1.

I like the mix on #2 better and is quite a difference if the only difference was running it throught that summing box.
Old 13th July 2005
  #7
Gear Addict
 
RhOdEz's Avatar
 

On the first listen i like mix 1 better .Vocal is more pleasing ,on mix 2 its more present but uhm i'm not sure thats good for the track.Also at the end where rhodes is alone with that guitar there's definately difference in panning heard between 1 and 2.In mix 2 it sounds like effect returns 're fighting for their life ,where its all okay on mix 1.Nice and wide .
I vote for mix 1 (I listened mp3 on headphones)

Edit:On second and other listens i dunno what to think eh i can ignore vocal presence in 2 - it seems like 2 is compressed where there's more space in 1.I'd like instumental from 1 with vocal bit brigter eh.Daym i hate headphones gawd knows whut will i hear next ...Ya it seems that transients 're softened in mix 1,thats why it seems darker .Its obvious in verse in rhytm acc guit .

Nice track btw thumbsup
Old 13th July 2005
  #8
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Number 1 is the Nicerizer, right? Sounds like you hit it a little too hard at one point. Kinda reminds me of an old Bowie record. Nice production, BTW. (I'm listening to aiff's on computer speakers)

I've had mine for a day and a half now. Too soon to voice any opinions, but there certainly is a difference.

-R
Old 13th July 2005
  #9
Lives for gear
 

I think No2 is the Nicerizer

The 1st mix seems almost fragile in comparision and on number2 I can also hear a slightly pleasing distortion and it just seems to sound more like a record.
Old 13th July 2005
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Tetness's Avatar
If #2 isn't the nicerizer, I don't want one either. To me, #1 didn't have near the clarity, the detail or deliniation...the 3d vibe.
Old 13th July 2005
  #11
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

hey,

great stuff guys, please keep it coming! i have total respect for what everyone here is saying.

here's something i would truly appreciate: include in your post (or chime back in if you've already posted) how you currently do your summing.

y'know, i had this silly idea that this experiment would add a nail or two to the coffin of the itb/otb debate. thankfully, there is NOTHING i like more than having my delusions shattered, thoroughly.


gregoire
del ubik
Old 13th July 2005
  #12
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
I havent gotten the Aiff's to download properly yet.
My DSL is acting wack tonight.
just heard the MP3's on little speakers...
1st impressions:
#1.... more musical, more 3-D,warmer.. especially in the end guitar/rhodes bit.
#2 ....sounds a tad brighter ..more 2-D/flatter

my guess would be the N-16 is the #1 mix.which to my ears sounded more like a record.
but i have to hear these AIFF's through some good speakers as well for more critical listening.
Old 13th July 2005
  #13
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
listening to the mp3s ...

#2 the transients are preserved (good), the highs are more open (good), the mids are flat, somewhat scooped, and unflattering to the vocals

less cohesion, better fidelity ... probably the digital


#1 the mids and vocal musicality is better but the transients are gone, there's low mid mudd and low compression, less subs, and the highs are cloudy and narrowed

more glue, less detail, more distortion ... very likely the transformers



if #1 is Nicer i say sell it fast! just kidding ...


honestly those transformer distortions and glue qualitites can be gotten at mastering with 2 transformers and the transient preserved would my choice ...
Old 13th July 2005
  #14
Quote:
Originally Posted by u b i k

for the record, this was 4 stereo stems->nicerizer->api2500. the
Why only 8 channels? Isnt the whole idea with external summing boxes to use as many analog channels as possible?
Old 13th July 2005
  #15
Gear Addict
 
MrChang's Avatar
 

Thanks for taking the time to post these examples. As much as I'd like AIFF 2 to be the Nicerizer...

1.OTB/Nicerizer

2.ITB

I like the clarity of the instruments and the vocal in AIFF 2. AIFF 1 has a cool vibe but is a bit too blurry for my taste, especially the highs ... kinda reminds me of what mixes sounded like after trying them through my 2-610. Kinda...

It's a nice track, ubik. I don't think either mix does the music a disservice.

BTW - I'm ITB, but if AIFF 2 is the Nicerizer, there will be a fun-filled "conversation" with my wife in the near future about studio "necessities." heh
Old 13th July 2005
  #16
Lives for gear
 
audiomichael's Avatar
 

#1 is a bit more open, hard to tell unless the vocal is in.

#2 just a hair more congested
Old 13th July 2005
  #17
Lives for gear
 
audiomichael's Avatar
 

crap, I had them mixed up.

flip 1 & 2 in the last post. duh.

2 sounds a bit better
Old 13th July 2005
  #18
Lives for gear
 
thermos's Avatar
I like #1 better. Less fatiguing to me. The compression in 2 bothers me for some reason, but sounds great in #1. I would say #1 is the Nicerizer, but I'm ALWAYS wrong about this.

I use a d2b LT with DP 4.6.
Old 13th July 2005
  #19
Lives for gear
 
thermos's Avatar
Oh and thanks for the test. This is always fun. And nice track too; great song and engineering.
Old 13th July 2005
  #20
Lives for gear
 

It would be nice to hear them without the API.

Cool track. Production wise, I'm hearing more dark orchestral samples during the intense build up before the end. This would add to the tension, etc.. Of course, it's not my production.
Old 13th July 2005
  #21
Gear Addict
 
edIT's Avatar
 

really tough to tell. both sound pretty solid. I'd say maybe #1 has a wider image? so #1 nicerizer, #2 ITB?
Old 13th July 2005
  #22
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdunn
It would be nice to hear them without the API.

oh no it wouldn't. tutt

it might be informative, but it wouldn't be nice. that mix was built into the api, without it it's a mess. a boring mess, might i add.


gregoire
del ubik
Old 13th July 2005
  #23
Gear Addict
 
krid's Avatar
 

Where was the output on your Nicerizer : 5, 6 or more ?
(From what I read the more you crank it up, the more it colors.)
Old 13th July 2005
  #24
Lives for gear
 

Yeah, I meant in an informative way.
Old 13th July 2005
  #25
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Good Tune Ubik BTW ..makes these tests a pleasure.
Ok, now I',m listening to the AIFF's in protools through some lavry's
I still Prefer #1.

On headphone[Sony 7506's] going back and forth on a loop,randomly flipping between the mutes..with eyes closed.. ..Blind test
mix 2 sounds like its sitting in front of me ..sounds good and focused
mix 1 seems to go wider more 3-D around my ears... especially drastic on the middle break down string pads and the gtr/keys ending.pleasing slight distortion.
I feel like I'm more Inside the mix ...not in front of it looking in
with eyes closed, I can consistently pick out which is 1 and 2
Also #1 seems to have sort of analogish[circuits,tranny's,etc?] hiss on the noise floor..which is really noticable at the very very end, as the effected keys fadeout.
and completely nonexistent on #2.
I'd still like to think the N-16 is the #1 aiff.

So Ubik,whats the dealio? ...PM me and let me know..
Old 13th July 2005
  #26
Gear Head
 
ketz's Avatar
 

#1 ITB
#2 Nicerizer

First mix is a bit flatter which is one of the main sonic characteristics of ITB. Also listening thru sony 7506.
Old 13th July 2005
  #27
Lives for gear
 
dim light's Avatar
 

1 Nicerizer
2 ITB

I think the bottom sounds more focused on track 1 (mp3) and more space. I want more of the mid-range in track 2 on track 1.

I don't know how much time you spent on these mixes, guess you need to mix for the analog sum - if you just sum it will not be the same.

Good song.

thumbsup
Old 13th July 2005
  #28
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dim light
... guess you need to mix for the analog sum - if you just sum it will not be the same.

Good song.

thumbsup

Good point.
Old 13th July 2005
  #29
Lives for gear
 
syra's Avatar
For all the points already mentioned, #1 Nicerizer and #2 ITB

I like the glue of #1 but overall I prefer #2
Old 13th July 2005
  #30
Lives for gear
 
WunderBro Flo's Avatar
so far I have just focused in on how the vocals sit in the mix and from that standpoint I prefer #1. #2 is a little bit more buried, just like I "know" the sound from my own ITB mixes. However I have not changed the levels even though one of those files is 0.5dB lower in RMS level. gonna adjust that and let you all know what I am hearing then....

so my first guess is that #1 is the nicerizer.

Rock on!
Pat
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