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
Tonelux/Nicerizer test Dynamics Processors (HW)
Old 7th May 2006
  #61
Lives for gear
 
Cojo's Avatar
 

Wow, amazing!

Now I want a Tonelux...

...or maby a cheap (soon to be sold) Nicerizer! heh




Thanks for the test, RoundBadge!

/Cojo
Old 7th May 2006
  #62
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundBadge
Also FWITW,the TLX rig has quite a bit more gain on the outputs than the N-16. The N-16 had to seriously push into the red to match the Tonelux' output.. [don't worry, the N-16 wasn't pushed into that for the stems]

i kinda wish you *had* pushed it that far, because hitting the transformer changes the sound so much. i haven't listened to the clips, and probably won't chime in when i do because the results were announced already. maybe i can get my woman to rename the files and make a key so i stay blind.

whatever else is true, i've been a bit lusty for tonelux since i first heard paul wolff talking about it... i love the tone of the 2500. i'm still incredulous that the tonelux has bigger bottom than the nicer, because the nicer seems so huge down there.

thanks for doing this roundbadge!


gregoire
del ubik
Old 7th May 2006
  #63
Lives for gear
 
drmmrboy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Clip "A" - Tonelux
.........

Clip "B" - N-16
.........

Clip "C' - really is PT ITB
Quote:
Originally Posted by raal
gulp... i was sure A was the nicerizer. oh ****e.
I was sure A was the Tonelux, and I've never heard either of them. heh
Old 7th May 2006
  #64
Lives for gear
 
GYang's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by u b i k

i'm still incredulous that the tonelux has bigger bottom than the nicer, because the nicer seems so huge down there.

thanks for doing this roundbadge!

gregoire
del ubik
I raised the issue in the very beginning, why 'B' had less bottom end than 'A'
Actually in my quite long experience with N16 (and Mixdream) it NEVER HAPPENED that bottom end ITB is better pronounced, warmer, bigger etc. than OTB if everything else is same (here we have apparently more low end on C than on B).
So something happened with that part of signal for sure.
Naturally, if you change something in low end, the whole picture above is perceived quite differently. My impression was that A is somehow better in mids and highs too, but I was not sure due to quite dense high frequency content.
So for real and fair conclusion it would be nice to listen next song with very careful level matching.
I am absolutely not interesting for any versatility, modular built and expandibility of Tonelux, only the sound and if it sounds 'overall better' it would be nice to know.
'Overall better' means feeling of sonic fidelity and space, pleasant resolution, nice separation of instruments etc.
Old 7th May 2006
  #65
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightsun
The following are my bias for a strong Tonelux vote
1. Channel inserts, aux sends, and stereo bux inserts give one tremendous flexibility to strap in his favorite outboard toys.
2. Well thought out monitoring/cue possibilities
3. Stereo mix can be output to numerous recorders simultaneously
4. If you want the Tonelux EQ and Preamps you will need to put them into a V-rack anyway
5. As your system grows (this is a given with a GS) you won't end up with an ill-assortment or collection of pieces that sort of integrate.



I am very much in this headspace as well..

It's not that the N-16 sucks.. ..given it's limitations, it does what it does very well.
I've had a good taste of what the basic summing thing can "do" and "not do" for the DAW mixing experience..
...kinda "Been there, Done that" for me at this point.

It's more about getting back into something that can take the DAW mixing process further and make it fun again as well[creative flow..Faders..Outboard,etc] without putting the time and space back into a full blown, big old school console in need of recapping, and Automation..[Anybody wanna buy an Uptown package these days??!]..
..which is looking more and more archaic for my particular M.O. these days.
My space is small and my **** needs to travel well!

Or how's about spending 20 G's on a small API 1604 or whatever [Try toting that around town..Have an extra box of eq's to swap out the old sketchy ones when they crap out? ] which sounds cool, but still, is very limited and really can't grow with my changing needs and budgets[or complete lack thereof ].

I was Just thinking tonight.. ..compared to even 10 years ago ..
There's some crazy technology we've got access to for making records nowadays!
as opposed to the 'less than"dfegad Adat/Mackie world we had just a little while back..

..Now a G-5 ... a compact 16-24 channel Tonelux record/mix rig or whatever ...throw in some comps,etc in a rack with wheels..a suitcase full of mics. a small patchbay in the back of a little pickup or station wagon,etc ..and you're good to go for making some seriously great sounding recordings just about anywhere.
Good times indeed, just which I was friggin' RICH, BITCH! heh
Old 7th May 2006
  #66
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by u b i k
i kinda wish you *had* pushed it that far, because hitting the transformer changes the sound so much.

..thanks for doing this roundbadge!


gregoire
del ubik
Don't worry Gregoire..i didn't wimp out on the master fader..
I just went for the cleaner side of things..
yeah.. .hitting those harmonics are a big plus with the N-16,[ala Thermionic Culture's Phoenix comp,except on the output insteadthumbsup ]

No need to thank me bro, you did us all a big solid with your N-16 test files..
.. extremely helpful
Old 7th May 2006
  #67
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by GYang
My preliminary conclusion:

7 k over PT definitely worth (sonics and added versatility)
4 k over N-16 needs more elaboration in terms of improved sonics
Agreed ..Time permitting,I'm gonna work with both boxes as much as I can over the next day or so.

..Although at this point, I'm kinda leaning in the TLX direction.stike
..I'm definitely a fan now thumbsup
{The EQ's rock too!}

I had the Chandler here with the API 8200 system.
The Chandler just didn't blow me away..And i'm a huge fan of all things Chandler.
The API as expected,sounded more up front..somewhat punchy.. but kinda brittle and lacking the "beef" compared to the old 3288 which was warmer/punchier overall.
I did a Pass-ola on both.
just my experience....YMMV

Sweet Jesus! I need sleep!! Now!
Old 7th May 2006
  #68
Hey RoundBadge

I still stand behind what I said above, I don't think the sonic difference between the two was large enough to base the decision on solely so really the question is can you live with the N16 "limitations" or can you swing the cash for the Tonelux? Yes to me A did sound a hair more pleasing in the lows mids and highs but in a game of inches this was 16th of a inch.

lol

On the other hand it was still a 16th of an inch better.

It sounds like you are saying that the limitations are really driving your decision here and that is a good thing to keep in mind. How you work is just as important to the sound of the finished product as what you are recording or what gear you have..

Anyway thanks for the test!
Old 7th May 2006
  #69
Lives for gear
 
AdamJay's Avatar
 

Mr. Badge

could you post the specs of the Tonelux system you are considering for $7k-ish ?
Old 7th May 2006
  #70
Lives for gear
 
indie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamJay
Mr. Badge

could you post the specs of the Tonelux system you are considering for $7k-ish ?

DITTO
Old 7th May 2006
  #71
Gear Maniac
 

I still think you guys are silly to be spending, what? 5-10-15k? on what is basically an analog mixer with no features and no resale value once this fad dies. For that kind of money (or less) you can get any number of really great sounding REAL consoles (Yamaha, MCI, Amek etc etc) with real features, flexability, much more and better 'analog sound' (simply because of the number of channels and amount of electronics you go through) and some real resale value.

I know this sounds really negative, but I get the feeling these featurless yet very expensive mixers (summing mixers as theyre redundantly called) are a kind of security blanket to make engineers feel better about recording on computers. The actual sonic benefits they provide are somewhere between small (in the case of the files posted in this thread) and non existant, especially when compared to a real analog mix done completely on a good sounding console.

I just think you/we should stop fooling ourselves and wasting our money with these boxes. Face reality, good sounds dont come easy!


M
Old 7th May 2006
  #72
Lives for gear
 
Mind-Over-Midi's Avatar
 

RoundBadge, again I'd like to thank you for taking the time to post these samples and to give us your thoughts, been waiting a long time for a average GS guy to come back and report! I'm wondering if you had any chance to work with the mic pres as well, and if so what do you think of them? We've heard some good comments about the EQ's, but not so many (of any type, good or bad) about the mic pres.

Bill.



Old 7th May 2006
  #73
I have to say, as Jules did, this was a nail biter.

After reading a post that one guy was whining about all the noogs on GS and all the "this VS that", https://www.gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...7&goto=newpost, , this is a clear example of a few things. Not so much that Tonelux was chosen by most, but the descriptions. The Nicerizer is also a class A design, and was either chosen or was the second choice, and except for the 9 year old, the ITB mix was always last. The Nicerizer is more in the Neveish direction, which was rich and cleaner nthan Tonelux, and very nice tone. The Tonelux design has a few technical differences, which give it the same sound direction, but more of the transformer sound, or some say an aggressive sound, which was the direction that I wanted it.

Here are the things that I got from this:

1 The tone of each was fairly obvous by most, if not all. This is great because it proves that people can hear and identify. Kind of blows the "noog" theory away.

2 The descriptions of the differences were right on, and were clear, even with a short clip and a compressed data stream. This shows that you not only heard differences, but picked out the differences.

3 The real bottom line is that everyone picked something that added warmth to the mix, which is still very important to people being attracted to a song.

For Tonelux and Phoenix Audio, it shows that we are headed in the right direction and what we are doing is what people's minds are attracted to.

If most of you had picked "C", then I think both companies would shut down and move to some island somewhere.

Whew!
Old 7th May 2006
  #74
Lives for gear
 
syra's Avatar
Great thread...tonelux rules!
Old 7th May 2006
  #75
Gear Addict
 
van Overhalen's Avatar
 

I' d like to know how the Protools Mix would sound like when
printed through the Tonelux and the Nicerizer (just the 2 buss, no stems...)

How much of the improvement is the summing and how much is the
Class A /Tranny in and out thing ?

I read somewhere on this forum that Paul White from SOS just did that with an Audient Sumo and couldn't tell the difference.
Old 7th May 2006
  #76
Gear Maniac
 
parasitk's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamJay
Mr. Badge

could you post the specs of the Tonelux system you are considering for $7k-ish ?
Yes, I'd love to know as well.

This was very cool to listen to. I liked them both (A & B), but am still leaning towards checking out the N16 first for myself mostly due to Ubik's clips (with the API 2500). But now I'm also wondering if some sort of hybrid Tonelux/N16 system would be interesting... Hmmm...
Old 7th May 2006
  #77
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by van Overhalen
I' d like to know how the Protools Mix would sound like when
printed through the Tonelux and the Nicerizer (just the 2 buss, no stems...)

How much of the improvement is the summing and how much is the
Class A /Tranny in and out thing ?

my experience is that the summing of the nicer gives a much deeper, wider, and clearer picture, while the actual circuits lend a harmonic richness, vibe, and (depending on how hard you hit it) transient softening to the picture. if you just run an itb mix thru the nicer, you get some of the coloration, none of the separation and detail. but even the coloration is not the same, because it's very different to thicken a mix than it is to thicken all the elements individually, then mix them thickly.

make sense?


gregoire
del ubik
Old 7th May 2006
  #78
Lives for gear
 

Paul,

Seems as though you should consider making a simple summing box using the superior sonics of your Tonelux products. Something with pans and level only. 16 channels. Simple, straightforward, to the point and maximizing budget considerations. Many of us want the very best in summing but have no need for many of the features which your modules generally offer. Seems like your module products actually fill a much wider audio role than many of us want/need.

Thoughts?

John Van Nest
Resonate Music Studios
Burbank, CA
Old 7th May 2006
  #79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resonater
Paul,

Seems as though you should consider making a simple summing box using the superior sonics of your Tonelux products. Something with pans and level only. 16 channels. Simple, straightforward, to the point and maximizing budget considerations. Many of us want the very best in summing but have no need for many of the features which your modules generally offer. Seems like your module products actually fill a much wider audio role than many of us want/need.

Thoughts?

John Van Nest
Resonate Music Studios
Burbank, CA
I agree but I get the impression that the Tonelux stuff will do that for you if you wish. Buy the right modules and you can have just summing and outputs but you can still add on later with more stuff when you can.
Old 7th May 2006
  #80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resonater
Paul,

Seems as though you should consider making a simple summing box using the superior sonics of your Tonelux products. Something with pans and level only. 16 channels. Simple, straightforward, to the point and maximizing budget considerations. Many of us want the very best in summing but have no need for many of the features which your modules generally offer. Seems like your module products actually fill a much wider audio role than many of us want/need.

Thoughts?

John Van Nest
Resonate Music Studios
Burbank, CA
I agree but I get the impression that the Tonelux stuff will do that for you if you wish. Buy the right modules and you can have just summing and outputs but you can still add on later with more stuff when you can.
Old 7th May 2006
  #81
Gear Addict
 
krid's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Resonater
Paul,

Seems as though you should consider making a simple summing box using the superior sonics of your Tonelux products. Something with pans and level only. 16 channels. Simple, straightforward, to the point and maximizing budget considerations. Many of us want the very best in summing but have no need for many of the features which your modules generally offer. Seems like your module products actually fill a much wider audio role than many of us want/need.

Thoughts?

John Van Nest
Resonate Music Studios
Burbank, CA
I agree, that's exactly what I am looking for, and from these short clips I really like the Tonelux sound.

If I remember correctly the Nicerizer 16 is around 2500 $ - 2800 $ whereas a 16x2 Tonelux set up would be around 4600$
Old 7th May 2006
  #82
Lives for gear
 
syra's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resonater
Paul,

Seems as though you should consider making a simple summing box using the superior sonics of your Tonelux products. Something with pans and level only. 16 channels. Simple, straightforward, to the point and maximizing budget considerations. Many of us want the very best in summing but have no need for many of the features which your modules generally offer. Seems like your module products actually fill a much wider audio role than many of us want/need.

Thoughts?

John Van Nest
Resonate Music Studios
Burbank, CA
Here ya go...the one on the top...32x2

http://tonelux.com/config.html
Old 7th May 2006
  #83
Roundbadge... first off, thanks for posting these. I think someone else mentioned it, but would it be possible, while you still had the gear there, to simply run the PT mix through the TL and N16 without fully stemming them out? I think this would be a very valuable test as well.
Old 7th May 2006
  #84
Quote:
Originally Posted by krid
I agree, that's exactly what I am looking for, and from these short clips I really like the Tonelux sound.

If I remember correctly the Nicerizer 16 is around 2500 $ - 2800 $ whereas a 16x2 Tonelux set up would be around 4600$
I was just doing some quick math on Paul's site and to get what I want (16 in's, control room monitoring and main two buss plus rack and power supply) we are talking more like $6500 or so. Up around where RoundBadge was talking when he said $7000.

This is more than double the N16 and frankly I did not think the sound was 2 or 3 times as good. Of course there is the argument that for every x% of sonic increase need to pay more % in money. Also the Tonelux stuff has more configurations and expansion so that counts for something.

Anyway, the Tonelux stuff did sound nice here but it is just too rich for my blood (and I know this is the high end forum and all). The Nicerizer 16 looks like it is my puppy. Down the road I would like to get a lunchbox rack with some EQ, mix that with the N16 and my existing preamps and I would have a pretty nice console as well. Maybe not as good as the Tonelux stuff but pretty darn good for me.
Old 7th May 2006
  #85
Gear Addict
 
van Overhalen's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b i k
my experience is that the summing of the nicer gives a much deeper, wider, and clearer picture, while the actual circuits lend a harmonic richness, vibe, and (depending on how hard you hit it) transient softening to the picture. if you just run an itb mix thru the nicer, you get some of the coloration, none of the separation and detail. but even the coloration is not the same, because it's very different to thicken a mix than it is to thicken all the elements individually, then mix them thickly.

make sense?


gregoire
del ubik
I'd still like to hear it...

There are comments about the snare and the bass drum being better, fuller, louder, whatsoever...
I am not into that "much deeper, wider and clearer picture".
A LOT of people tend to say:
"there is a difference, but it is subtle"
Look Ubik, when you posted your clips, I thought:
The summing won`t make or break the music.
It's the vibe of the music, the mood, the emotion.
It is always the same song posted three times with a little variation.
Noone will ever decide to buy or not to buy, to listen or not to listen to your music because of the way it was summed.
If you believe that I really feel sorry for you.

You have very strong feelings about this subject, but the difference is not THAT big at all IMHO
Now I hope I am more of a musician than of a technician and for the musician these subtleties are nothing but a major waste of time.
We all gonna die sooner or later and I don't want
people standing at my grave reading:
Well, he never wrote a decent song but after 20 years of research he found the
best solution to summing that money can buy...
I mean how far do you guys wanna go ?
Now that you all have your summing box you are already after the next/ better/different one.
Or you believe that you need FOUR different boxes to cover every possible need
Well I hope that at least great music will pour out of your studios...
Amen !

P.S.
I think I wrote this for me personally cause I feel that I waste a whole lot of time with equipment decisions, so please don't be angry...
Old 7th May 2006
  #86
Quote:
Originally Posted by moogus
I still think you guys are silly to be spending, what? 5-10-15k? on what is basically an analog mixer with no features and no resale value once this fad dies. For that kind of money (or less) you can get any number of really great sounding REAL consoles (Yamaha, MCI, Amek etc etc) with real features, flexability, much more and better 'analog sound' (simply because of the number of channels and amount of electronics you go through) and some real resale value.

I know this sounds really negative, but I get the feeling these featurless yet very expensive mixers (summing mixers as theyre redundantly called) are a kind of security blanket to make engineers feel better about recording on computers. The actual sonic benefits they provide are somewhere between small (in the case of the files posted in this thread) and non existant, especially when compared to a real analog mix done completely on a good sounding console.

I just think you/we should stop fooling ourselves and wasting our money with these boxes. Face reality, good sounds dont come easy!


M
In what way is a summing mixer, or a modular concept mixer like the tonelux different from what you call "a real mixer"? In that pricerange? New?
IMHO they're all mixers. However, in the case of the summers and the tonelux or API offerings the focus is more on quality of sound than on an abundance in functionality.
Not that a good mixer couldn't offer both, but there are choices to be made. The size of the footprint is one in 2006. And these are not FOH consoles that have a lot but sound "good" at best. (I use one now, till the new mixer here is ready sooo... )
You are on to something, as far as the fashion thing is concerned, however I think fashion in this case follows form. Very crudely put the development IMO has come full circle. From the small 8-16 channel handbuilt mixers from the fifties to the summer studios now. I do agree SOME of the summers are a bit too expensive (eh sorry pimps ) for what is offered. *And ppl. do tend to be blinded by those maroon knobs. ahem * However compared to big desk quality analogue offered now (API, ADT, Neve, SSL etc.), you're just buying a little part; only what you need. And high overhead cost for the manufacturer means higher purchase cost.
I just love mixing on a small, good sounding analogue console... eh summer

Last edited by Reptil; 9th May 2006 at 07:11 PM..
Old 7th May 2006
  #87
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by moogus
I still think you guys are silly to be spending, what? 5-10-15k? on what is basically an analog mixer with no features and no resale value once this fad dies.
Tonelux featureless?
Do your homework buddy

No resale?
I haven't seen one Tonelux product for resale yet, so ??


Quote:
Originally Posted by moogus
. For that kind of money (or less) you can get any number of really great sounding REAL consoles (Yamaha, MCI, Amek etc etc) with real features, flexability, much more and better 'analog sound' (simply because of the number of channels and amount of electronics you go through) and some real resale value.

Yamaha?!!? you mean for the "simply because of the number of channels and amount of electronics you go through" ....youre either kidding or trolling my thread right?
whatever... thats pretty entertianing nonetheless!heh

MCI?
I know someone who has one sitting in the studio with more mantainence issues than you have posts, and when its working,it sounds just OK to me
Big pass on that one

Amek?
9098?..sure go for it,knock yourself out.. if you have the room..I sure don't

Quote:
Originally Posted by moogus
I know this sounds really negative, but I get the feeling these featurless yet very expensive mixers (summing mixers as theyre redundantly called) are a kind of security blanket to make engineers feel better about recording on computers. The actual sonic benefits they provide are somewhere between small (in the case of the files posted in this thread) and non existant, especially when compared to a real analog mix done completely on a good sounding console.
That's ok..your entitled to your own opinion..
You're in the minority here ..but thats ok too.
you go get your mixing groove on a "Real console"... an old MCI ..
have fun with that..Cool old mixers for some things.....
Me?given the choice between an old API/Neve or MCI..,thanks but no thanks..i'll pass on the latter..I've been there ,done that

PS: these files don't contain "Mixes",just some very basic raw track stems for evaluation.nothing more

Quote:
Originally Posted by moogus
I just think you/we should stop fooling ourselves and wasting our money with these boxes. Face reality, good sounds dont come easy!

M

So surely don't waste your money and be sure to go get yourself that beautiful Yamaha mixer and show us those "Good sounds" buddy
Go ahead,knock me out with those mixes..
Old 7th May 2006
  #88
Michael, I tend to agree with you partially, I behaved a bit like a 8 year old in a toystore for some time, going ape about the machines themselves, but... simply put, isn't the summer mixer just a tool, someting you use? IMO the difference IS there. A and B have a different vibe that suit this song well.
Old 7th May 2006
  #89
Gear Addict
 
krid's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by not_so_new
I was just doing some quick math on Paul's site and to get what I want (16 in's, control room monitoring and main two buss plus rack and power supply) we are talking more like $6500 or so. Up around where RoundBadge was talking when he said $7000.
Yes if you add control room monitoring and others stuff the price will go up.

4600 $ is just for a straight 16x2 summing mixer : 2 TX-FX2+, 6 TX-FX2, Rack and PSU.

Well, that's a lot of money in comparison to the Nicerizer 16.
Old 7th May 2006
  #90
Lives for gear
 
drmmrboy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by moogus
I still think you guys are silly to be spending, what? 5-10-15k? on what is basically an analog mixer with no features and no resale value once this fad dies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundBadge
Tonelux featureless?
Do your homework buddy

No resale?
I haven't seen one Tonelux product for resale yet, so ??
I was just replying to this one too. Tonelux can get pricey, but so can a fine bottle of wine.

There's a lot of features/options also. That's what makes going this route appealing. A good mixer will hold it's value/usefulness through time.

So Badge, if you go the TLX route, and need to move some gear to foot the $$, let me know.. I could always use another 1176, to make a pair. Maybe a pair of SDC's.. (hah) heh
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
jayjay / High end
11

Forum Jump
Forum Jump