The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
digital summing killing my sound???? DAW Software
Old 24th April 2003
  #61
Quote:
Originally posted by Ted
Hey Lynn,
When is the ADC disc headed our way?
That albatross?

Funny you should ask. There's a rather lengthy explanation that I just finished typing a minute ago at my site: http://www.3daudioinc.com/cgi-bin/ul...&f=15&t=000014

But the short answer is:

I just got the final approval artwork today (Yeah!) and the manufacturer is good to start on it on Monday. So I should have product in the mail by end of May. I'll have them in hand (Lord willing) when I go to TapeOpCon May 30th. So the end is in sight.
Old 24th April 2003
  #62
Quote:
Originally posted by Ted
Thrill,

I mixed to, not through, in every case. Is there that much difference?

Thanks,
Ted.
Ted,

I meant the same thing.

I've seen people add the machine on after(or last) and not monitor off the machine.

What tape format are you using on it by the way? And how hard are you hitting it?
Old 24th April 2003
  #63
Gear Addict
 
mdbeh's Avatar
 

I learned to monitor off the mixdown deck back when I mixed to DAT. Before that, when I monitored straight off the mixer, I'd get a pretty good mix on the board, print it, listen back and then think, "what the ???"

Then I realized that I needed to make decisions from the start based on the real sound of the mix. I've been mixing "through" ever since.
Old 25th April 2003
  #64
Lives for gear
 
doug_hti's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by mdbeh
I learned to monitor off the mixdown deck back when I mixed to DAT. Before that, when I monitored straight off the mixer, I'd get a pretty good mix on the board, print it, listen back and then think, "what the ???"

Then I realized that I needed to make decisions from the start based on the real sound of the mix. I've been mixing "through" ever since.
This is the biggest thing that I've learned in the last few months, especially when doing 96k sessions, where the mix changes enough going through the SRC to where it's not only a high end gloss loss issue.

What are you guys monitoring through for 44.1 16 bit stuff?
I know others have mentioned it, but does anybody monitor off of crappy DAs.
I have my G4 1/8" audio out patched in to my monitor mixer, and that helps to verify things, but I would like something to monitor live.
Old 25th April 2003
  #65
Lives for gear
 

I have always monitored through whatever I was mixing to, since digital showed up.

Frankly, guys, I think there's a pretty good case to be made for monitoring at 44.1/16 when mixing, if a CD is where you're going to land.

Even then, you know you probably have better DACs than the consumer will. I feel some responsibility to discipline myself to hear the music like nearly everybody else will. Seems like the folks paying for a CD should get first priority, and I think a mixer being surprised at what the CD sounds like is not fair to the consumer.

I know others will disagree, but I'm not all that excited about exotic monitoring setups and high mixdown sample rates while mixing. I mean, who else will ever listen to it like that? And if it causes you to make choices that yield a lesser CD, is that good?

I know....future formats and all that. I don't care yet. People are still paying their good money for CDs and they deserve me to make that sound as good as possible at their place, on their speakers, after they really pay too much for a CD in the first place.


Regards,
Brian T
Old 25th April 2003
  #66
Lives for gear
 
littledog's Avatar
 

Brian,

I know that whatever I mix is going to go to a mastering engineer. So it seems like I would want to send it out in a high resolution format, sounding as good as I possibly can make it in that format, and let the ME worry about downgrading it in the best possible way to CD quality.

Is there a flaw in that logic? Or are you saying people sending out their premastered mixes on 2-track should still be listening through consumer CD quality converters while mixing???

I really think your concerns are more applicable at the mastering stage than mixing. Unless, of course, your stuff isn't going to be mastered...
Old 25th April 2003
  #67
Lives for gear
 
Renie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by littledog
Brian,

I know that whatever I mix is going to go to a mastering engineer. So it seems like I would want to send it out in a high resolution format, sounding as good as I possibly can make it in that format, and let the ME worry about downgrading it in the best possible way to CD quality.

Is there a flaw in that logic? Or are you saying people sending out their premastered mixes on 2-track should still be listening through consumer CD quality converters while mixing???

I really think your concerns are more applicable at the mastering stage than mixing. Unless, of course, your stuff isn't going to be mastered...
Good point littledog,

thinking about it I guess it's a matter of the degree of control you want, hearing how your mix will sound downgraded might make you change things.

Maybe it's beyond a ME's job. It maybe introduces more risk that you'll be surprised by what comes back.

I'm interested to hear what Brian means.
Old 25th April 2003
  #68
Quote:
Originally posted by littledog
Brian,

I know that whatever I mix is going to go to a mastering engineer. So it seems like I would want to send it out in a high resolution format, sounding as good as I possibly can make it in that format, and let the ME worry about downgrading it in the best possible way to CD quality.

Is there a flaw in that logic? Or are you saying people sending out their premastered mixes on 2-track should still be listening through consumer CD quality converters while mixing???

I really think your concerns are more applicable at the mastering stage than mixing. Unless, of course, your stuff isn't going to be mastered...
Its the same logic why mixers mix through their on compressors, they don't want any surprises at mastering(changing levels, effect balances).

I've monitored like this for years(both 24 bit and 16 bit), also I own a unit that has configurations for what radio does and MP3's.

When you are mixing, the more control you have, the better you can deliver something that won't make the ME pull his hair out(unless he is bald already).heh

This is one reason I am not crazy about delivering stems to the ME and waiting there to do balances. If i someone is paying to mix something, the least I can do is get the balances and EQ's right.
Old 25th April 2003
  #69
Jax
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally posted by thethrillfactor
I've monitored like this for years(both 24 bit and 16 bit), also I own a unit that has configurations for what radio does and MP3's.

Its the same logic why mixers mix through their on compressors, they don't want any surprises at mastering(changing levels, effect balances).

This is one reason I am not crazy about delivering stems to the ME and waiting there to do balances. If i someone is paying to mix something, the least I can do is get the balances and EQ's right.
I'm one of those mixers who monitors through every time, doing my best to anticipate what gear is going to be in use at the 'final' mixdown. Usually the V-Mu and/or the L2 and the Mass Pass are at the last part of the chain, and I'm monitoring through them at 'ballpark' settings. It makes total sense to me because the mix is always going to change if final processing is added after the fact. I hate it when the box I've been listening through doesn't give me what I want by the time every else is said and done. That means I have to rework the mix from the perspective of more suitable box (or sometimes no box at all), which can take a long ass time.

TTF, I'm interested in knowing more about the unit that can be configured for mp3 and radio. Does it allow you to monitor through those formats (real time, not printing anything to them)? The only company I can think of that might build something like that is Orban. Is it a box they make or is built by someone else? Sounds like it would be extremely useful.
Old 25th April 2003
  #70
Quote:
Originally posted by Jax
I'm one of those mixers who monitors through every time, doing my best to anticipate what gear is going to be in use at the 'final' mixdown. Usually the V-Mu and/or the L2 and the Mass Pass are at the last part of the chain, and I'm monitoring through them at 'ballpark' settings. It makes total sense to me because the mix is always going to change if final processing is added after the fact. I hate it when the box I've been listening through doesn't give me what I want by the time every else is said and done. That means I have to rework the mix from the perspective of more suitable box (or sometimes no box at all), which can take a long ass time.

TTF, I'm interested in knowing more about the unit that can be configured for mp3 and radio. Does it allow you to monitor through those formats (real time, not printing anything to them)? The only company I can think of that might build something like that is Orban. Is it a box they make or is built by someone else? Sounds like it would be extremely useful.
Jax,

Its the TC DBMAX.

One of the most useful boxes out there, especially when you are working with digital signals.

When mixing its saved many a badly recorded vocal. Its incredible what it can do.

It has presets for both radio and MP3.
Old 25th April 2003
  #71
Jax
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally posted by thethrillfactor
Jax,

Its the TC DBMAX.

One of the most useful boxes out there, especially when you are working with digital signals.

When mixing its saved many a badly recorded vocal. Its incredible what it can do.

It has presets for both radio and MP3.
What else is it useful for, specifically? I had the notion that thing was the Lou Ferrigno version of the Finalizer... so I stayed away at all costs.

I take it those presets are close enough to the real thing that they're useful? I wouldn't have thought anyone could design a preset for radio in particular. I was expecting a box that let you emit an FM 'ham' radio signal and simulated broadcast limiting and eq. IOW, all the dynamics of a Harrier jet in hovering in a model train-sized Lincoln Tunnel.

I'll have to try one. That's a box I wouldn't even have considered!

Cool!
Old 25th April 2003
  #72
Quote:
Originally posted by Jax
What else is it useful for, specifically?

I'll have to try one. That's a box I wouldn't even have considered!

Cool!
I use for a couple of things:

1)To fix a vocal that has been overly compressed

2)To fix a vocal that has excessive room sound(if tracked in control room, person was too far away from mic, etc)

3)To fix a vocal that changes from verse-chorus-bridge(if certain ranges/passages introduce unwanted mid frequencies, also if it was tracked by a bunch of different people).

4)To take the "ring and ping"out of a snare

5)To fix a kick that has excessive leakage

6)To check a mix on how it will sound through FM,AM,TV or MP3(internet)

It was originally design as a broadcast limiter fo radio and TV. It has 5 bands instead of 3(finalizer), it has a fantastic expander,dynamic equalizer,multi band comp,spectral enhancement and it sounds excellent.

Like I said its a good swiss Army knife for digital signals.
Old 26th April 2003
  #73
Lives for gear
 
faeflora's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by thethrillfactor
Hey Cram,
On most Native based DAW's same thing happens when you max out the processor(this is why dual processor is a needed).

This to me is the bigger summing issue. Since a lot of guys either mix in it or compose in it(with soft synths), this would be a big concern.
Hey when I max out my 1.25GHZ DUAL g4 I don't get crap for sound, I get crashes and no sound. I'd happily have worse sound quality in exchange for system stability.

Regarding track counts I've always got 128 tracks rolling in Logic with 60 or so at once and oh yes, it does sound better when there's fewer tracks because when there's more simultaneously I can hear the algorithms straining away squeezing their audio turds out.
Old 26th April 2003
  #74
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by mdbeh
1) All digital summing is hopelessly, fatally awful, and even a crap analog mixer will be an improvement.
2) Math is math, so digital summing is flawless and the same regardless of platform.

From what I'm hearing so far, neither of these positions is supportable.

It's definitely an interesting listen.
number 1 is one of the most absurd statements i read...
Old 26th April 2003
  #75
jho
Lives for gear
 
jho's Avatar
 

So what are your favorite 'daw sum' combos?

Being an HD studio I'm a little 'high biased' ;P
Old 26th April 2003
  #76
Lives for gear
 

was sonar one of the prefered mix downs?
Old 26th April 2003
  #77
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 

Interesting post...

So what did you think of the high-end analog sums?
Old 27th April 2003
  #78
Quote:
Originally posted by mdbeh

There were two outboard summing box mixes as well. The D2B mix sounded good, but very neutral--I actually guessed it was a DAW.

My favorite DAW mixes were Pyramix, Samplitude, and Paris, I guess in that order, though Pyramix and Samplitude might be more like a tie.

The PT mixes were somewhere in the middle, I guess, which was a little distressing since I'm a user. They seemed have full, clear bass, but there was a sort of flatness and crispy upper midrange. After checking the answers, it was a bit depressing to realize that what I think of as the Pro Tools sound was coming through in the test. They weren't awful or unuseable, mind you, but being honest, I can't say that they ranked all that highly.


.
\


About the D2B, I thought the same thing when I tried it out(that is why i didn't buy it, I went with the SBM-2 instead). But it was designed originally for a mastering house and straight wire transaperency is the first call.

Samplitude/Sequoia is not cheap. I think the software alone is like $2.5K.

The same thing you said about PT, was said about SSL's back in the day. And look at people now fighting to do their mixes on them. Just like people did all kinds of mods and tricks to get the mixbuss to sound bigger on SSL's, the same thing is being done for PT.

If PT follows suit, than eventually they will hit the mark...(hopefully).
Old 27th April 2003
  #79
jho
Lives for gear
 
jho's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by thethrillfactor
\


About the D2B, I thought the same thing when I tried it out(that is why i didn't buy it, I went with the SBM-2 instead). But it was designed originally for a mastering house and straight wire transaperency is the first call.

Samplitude/Sequoia is not cheap. I think the software alone is like $2.5K.

The same thing you said about PT, was said about SSL's back in the day. And look at people now fighting to do their mixes on them. Just like people did all kinds of mods and tricks to get the mixbuss to sound bigger on SSL's, the same thing is being done for PT.

If PT follows suit, than eventually they will hit the mark...(hopefully).
This is all very intriguing.

I decided to test some ideas but inside PT HD. I setup stereo auxes DRUMS, MPC, BASS, GUITARS1, GUITARS2, VOX, BUVOX, etc. I setup different plug in compressors, dessers on the vox's etc. Sent everyone's out to the appropriate place and tried mixing a few songs that way.

I was actually really happy with the separation and how quicky the mix seemed to come together. Obviously you probably wouldn't want to try this in a mix+ system because of the aux issue, but in HD it's much improved.

Going to try a few more mixes this way. I feel like I'm cheating for some reason, but everything is breathing now in it's own right to a certain extent.

Look out it's a dangerous PT buss...
Old 27th April 2003
  #80
Quote:
Originally posted by mdbeh
Jon, as for high-end analog boards... besides the summing boxes, the only one tested was a 9000J. My notes for it say, "Very wide, but a little flat. Seems bass-light."

Plugins are still another story. Jon, that SSL/GML Plugin EQ story doesn't surprise me at all. I'm going through a phase where I think all plugin EQs sound like crap. Someday....
Your thoughts on the SSL9000J is right on.

That's one of the reasons Teddy Riley i remember got rid of it. Also he wanted "instamatic recall"(digital recall).

But that could be said about SSL's in general. The biggest issue on the 9000J as well as the older SSL's, is when you jam it with a lot of inputs. That's when the bass starts really disappear.

I hear on the new XL they've fixed it(haven't tried it yet so I can't really confirm).

The Sony plugs are actually pretty good. Maybe the curves aren't as SSL like as they claim, but the GML option on it is excellent. Its a good workhorse/finishing EQ.
Old 27th April 2003
  #81
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 

for plugin EQ, i kinda am digging the Audioease Periscope EQ plugin... its one of the first that knocked me back bigtime. took a bit to learn how to tweak it since it looks like a graphic EQ and you can adjust the "magnetics" of the surrounding bands, but damn... its sweet. the only thing is i wish i could zoom in on sections, tweak and zoom back out with that fine resolution staying [hard to explain but if you use it you'd know what im talking about]
Old 27th April 2003
  #82
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 

I haven't listened to the CD, but my thoughts about the SSL 9000J are that is it wide, open, punchy and transparent. What is not is colored or round or bass-heavy.

I haven't run across the bass issue you guys mention...ours being a 48 channel/96 input, it's not as big as the 80-104 channel ones in most J rooms, . Or perhaps the J's openness makes the overall sound seem less bottom-y. Can't say I've had a complaint about its sound...quite the contrary, in fact.

My impression is that SSL's philosophy was never about coloring/changing the sound. They got closer to this with the J/K series product evolution after the E and G series.
Old 28th April 2003
  #83
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally posted by jon
Interesting post...

So what did you think of the high-end analog sums?
Myself.....I thought the SSL mix sounded very different. Bass was just in a different place.

The summing mixers tested should pass out these CD's for PR. I thought they faired well against the upper end mixers for so much less money.

The Trident was my least favorite mix of any.
Old 28th April 2003
  #84
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally posted by mdbeh


The PT mixes were somewhere in the middle, I guess, which was a little distressing since I'm a user. They seemed have full, clear bass, but there was a sort of flatness and crispy upper midrange.
I thought the PT mixes were neutral as well. But through Pultecs (#30) I thought they turned into one of my favorites on the CD. Definitely a good trick to enhance the PT mix bus.
Old 28th April 2003
  #85
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by posterchild
But I definitely knew that the high hat sound I had recorded did not sound the same when I had all 32ish tracks going through the left channel simultaneously.
And why would it? And are you saying that was the only thing that sounded different?

-R
Old 28th April 2003
  #86
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Ckevperry


The Trident was my least favorite mix of any.
The mistake would be to generalize that result to all Tridents. The Series 24 that was used is a far cry from the 80 or the A-range.

-R
Old 28th April 2003
  #87
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally posted by RKrizman
The mistake would be to generalize that result to all Tridents. The Series 24 that was used is a far cry from the 80 or the A-range.

-R
Absolutely.
Old 28th April 2003
  #88
Quote:
Originally posted by Ckevperry
I thought the PT mixes were neutral as well. But through Pultecs (#30) I thought they turned into one of my favorites on the CD. Definitely a good trick to enhance the PT mix bus.
We did the same for a while on the older SSL's. I know guys that are still doing it.

Also when the 02R was all the rage(94-96?), this helped the sound gel also. Also a pair of V72's and the DW Fearn preamp works nicely.
Old 28th April 2003
  #89
Lives for gear
 

the 3 best sounding DAWs happened to be PC exlusive(well i t hink paris is PC xclusive) could PC's sound better then macs(process sound better)? or is it just coincidence?

has anyone heard differences in audio when tracking in different apps? just wondering...
Old 28th April 2003
  #90
Quote:
Originally posted by Teacher
the 3 best sounding DAWs happened to be PC exlusive(well i t hink paris is PC xclusive) could PC's sound better then macs(process sound better)? or is it just coincidence?

has anyone heard differences in audio when tracking in different apps? just wondering...
I noticed this when comparing programs for CD editing/burning.

The one's on the PC outblew the one's on the MAC.

It maybe a math thing(floating point vs. fixed), I am not sure but the all of the best mastering programs are on the PC.
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
wormsoftheearth / Electronic Music Instruments and Electronic Music Production
0
Sirocco / Rap + Hip Hop engineering and production
37
Audioholic / Low End Theory
20

Forum Jump
Forum Jump