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 8th May 2006
  #121
Lives for gear
 
midnightsun's Avatar
 

An Opinion

Moogus..

15 to 20K doesn't get me a premium, trust worthy low maintence console in Alaska. How about in America? There isn't anybody up here who really knows how to maintain one. If a big console stops working I am stuck figuring out how to ship the f***king Statue of Liberty for repair. Better yet I can pay for an Alaskan vacation for a tech. Cha ching $$$$$$ that is the 25% of the cost of the Tonelux rig.

I presume that you are not familiar with Tonelux and that you are happily working on a big console-- that is fair... but you unwittingly state that Tonelux has no features or resale value. Tonelux is loaded with features and options. Mind you you pay for what you get or you get what you pay for. I wouldn't consider selling my Tonelux rig but if I died tomorrow I am sure that my wife could off it to one of my GS kin in a New York minute for a fair price.

Regarding the "security blanket to make engineers feel better about recording on computers" comment. Computers are here to stay and most of us here would agree that quality analog is necessary on the front end and the back end of the computer. The options are limitless and will continue to become more complex as the complexity of the DAW evolves. I don't want to fight the evolution of the DAW, I want to embrace what it has that is good. If someone dropped a premium, large, expensive console in my lap I would put it to good use, but probably never realize all of its features because of my unique workflow. However, I am not going to worship a big console like it is some damn altar of "worthy music."

Your statement ... "real analog mix done completely on a good sounding console..." This sounds like to are describing the Tonelux.... ya. If not, exactly what are you describing.... your Legacy coupled with a Studer tape machine? I would be happy to listen you some of your clips for comparison where you do a mix ITB and then on your "real analog" console. I truely would be interested.


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
Old 8th May 2006
  #122
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by van Overhalen
Ah, and by the way, I liked A best, too (NOT essential, though) and I still wanna hear the PT - Mix/no stems through the Nicerizer/Tonelux.

And AGAIN please don't take me too seriously, I am just playing a little devil‘s advocate here

No worries Michael..that's what i love about this place

Just remember..This is the "High End"

I wish i had more time to discuss your points but its monday..party's over for me
gotta work .

If I have time Im gonna play more with the stuff..but my week is looking brutal..
stuff to mix and a 1/2 inch machine on the fritz

Keep up the discussion its getting good
Old 8th May 2006
  #123
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TEMAS
And how beautiful it looks too, I might add.

For me, the whole reason I starting looking into summers instead of mixers, was because I don't want to mix with something that can't be automated or recalled. Buying a standard Tonelux rig doesn't really resolve this issue, its just smaller and sounds great.

Personally, I would wait until the Daking EQs are available. Then I'd simply get 8 x Daking, 2 x MX2 line inputs for my N16 and either an FX2+ or an SM2 for summing the 8 eqs with the N16. Would this work? Or do I need an MX2/MP1 for every EQ module?
Can't you just put some eq modules, Daking or whatever, in fron of the line inputs on the Nicerizer?

-R
Old 8th May 2006
  #124
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave-G
Cool song, RB -- who/what is that? In this clip, it kinda sounds a little vintage X-ish

Hearing the different flavors between the Tonelux and the Phoenix is interesting.. However... It sounds to me like the levels of elements in the mix were not 100% matched when it came to the ITB version. The obvious examples of that are the center-panned elements (vocal, kick, snare), which seem a good bit quieter in the ITB mix ...

This makes sense, because when mixing on an actual console with panpots, or in this case, in PT, there's pan-law involved and something panned to the center will be compensated -2.5dB down from where it would be if it were on a direct output feeding the Phoenix and Tonelux units.

I won't get into the fact that it should be -3dB, as that's another nit for another thread. heh

-dave
Hey Dave ..thanks. The band is called The Electromagnetic..
I was thinking about the X thing too when I first heard that tune..
they're stuff is coming out great..really cool guy/girl harmonies

the PT bounce was kinda an afterthought..but your prolly right..
Aint no science goin on here ,,
.. this thread reminds me of why i don't post clips here anymore..it's like digging a friggin deep hole that goes on forever..!
Old 8th May 2006
  #125
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave-G
Hearing the different flavors between the Tonelux and the Phoenix is interesting.. However... It sounds to me like the levels of elements in the mix were not 100% matched when it came to the ITB version. The obvious examples of that are the center-panned elements (vocal, kick, snare), which seem a good bit quieter in the ITB mix ...

This makes sense, because when mixing on an actual console with panpots, or in this case, in PT, there's pan-law involved and something panned to the center will be compensated -2.5dB down from where it would be if it were on a direct output feeding the Phoenix and Tonelux units.
I assume that Hunter panned everything in the DAW and then sent out stereo stems and panned them hard left and right in the summing boxes, which would take differing panning laws out of the equation.

Is that right? If not, then the comparison is relatively meaningless.

I also assume that he didn't run tones to match levels, which may mean that the perceived differences between the boxes could be within the margin of error of the test.

-R
Old 8th May 2006
  #126
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToneLux
I 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.
Well, the 9 year old is the one who'll be buying the record. And for the record, I put a PAZ analyzer on these tracks, and she was right about there being more bass in the PT mix. It's a little higher around 80 - 100 hz. The Tonelux and Nicerizer both tilt the whole response up in the midrange and high end, with sllightly less at 100.

The difference between the Tonelux and Nicer are first that the Nicer preserves the relative frequency response, (allowing for the tilt), whereas the Tonelux actually alters the terrain throughout the frequency spectrum. Secondly, the Tonelux has the lowest peak level, but the highest average level--in other words, it is more compressed. The Nicer is similar to PT, the latter of which has the highest peak and widest dynamic range. It makes sense that on music like this one would prefer something a little compressed with a higher average level, and more forward midrange (particularly when listening on computer speakers).

There is something weird about the panning, however. In my studio I switch between PT and Nicerizer all the time, and although I hear a difference it's nothing like the drastic difference in these mixes. I just don't think the PT mix is panned as wide, or else there's some weird phase thing happening, particularly on the Tonelux, that is throwing the image wider. What are the D/A's here?

I know all this analysis doesn't mean crap--just defending my 9 year old's claim that C has more bass.

-R
Old 8th May 2006
  #127
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
Can't you just put some eq modules, Daking or whatever, in fron of the line inputs on the Nicerizer?

-R
Well yeah, but an N16 + 8 daking EQs + 2 MX2s + 1 FX2 = a 24 channel mixer.
Old 8th May 2006
  #128
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by moogus
If you wanted to hear people's opinions on the topic the files you posted and maybe even (god forbid) take on some different ideas, then good on ya!

At the moment Im confused about you motives...

As for your incredulity at my suggestions for some other good sounding and cheap (because theyre undervalued) consoles, you sound like you pay more attention to brand names than whats actually inside gear and what it sounds like.
If you knew anything about whats inside a Yamaha PM2000 (for instance) youd wonder, like I do, why theyre so god damn cheap. If it had the word Neve on it, theyd be rare as hen's teeth and youd be saving up to afford one. I wont bother going into the tech stuff, so you can believe me or not.

As for the others, theyre different flavours of good for not much money and it depends what floats your boat. But I bet I (or you) could do a better sounding mix on any of them than you could on small and limited modular mixer, even if its componants sound great.



I think youve hit the nail on the head there. The grass is always greener, and always more expensive.


M
Yes.. I posted for no other reason than for everyone here to listen and come to they're own conclusions,,
No VS threads for metutt ..F*ck that!

Simply put:this is the high end and this is high end gear..nothing more nothing less,,
the discussion is wide open for me..
..i use what works best for me,,you use what works best for you..
and I've owned lots of gear ..good and bad over the years
My experience with the old Yammie PM live mixers you see on ebay..?
I owned one years ago for monitors..sounded horrible for recording/mixing..gave it away ..
sure ...API..Neve..whatever.. are name brands .but after years of trying loads of gear these are some of the brands that I know and work for me.

The Tonelux rig is a demo from Vintage King i borrowed for a couple days on my weekend off
Old 8th May 2006
  #129
Lives for gear
 
doug_hti's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by van Overhalen
In the end it is all about what you BELIEVE that YOU need to make a good record.
(Now what`s a good record anyway)
It's all about what makes YOU feel well and round and comfortable.
I just can't stand this:
If you wanna do a great record you definitely need a this and a that and if you don't use it your record will sound like crap.


So back to summing:
If you sum in PT you suck.period
Damn fool, you.
Nobody will ever buy your inferior product.
Or even worse:
The GS community will not respect you !!!

Bob Katz said that he can't tell wether a record was summed digital or analog UNLESS he could COMPARE it summed both ways.

Now that is a valid point.

Noone outside your studio will ever know how you did it.
So do as good as you can and be done with it.

Simply STOP comparing.
It's a disease

There is no such thing like "better" in art.
Is Api better than Neve
Beethoven better than Mozart
Your wife better than mine
James better than Bond
"Smoke on the water" better than "Candle in the wind"

It's really funny that a lot of people here seem to dig
the records they grew up with (60ies/70ies stuff)
and try to achieve the same quality with a totally different approach.
Many more different mics, pres, outboard, over doing this and over doing that
and then complaining about the sound of today's records.

I personally am really glad that they had limited gear choices when they did their Led Zep, Beatles and Hendrix and Motown stuff.
But yes , their gear was top notch.
Michael,

I don't know why I'm biting onto this, but....It seems you are missing the point to some extent.

I don't think anyone (I'm almostly 100% sure Roundbadge) is saying they "NEED" product A or product B or the combination.

It's a matter of choosing equipment that provides the best "value" for the given jobs that need to be done trying to achieve the highest quality possible.

Value in this instance carries a lot more categories than sound choices or sound quality. Value encompasses at least:
-sound quality
-sound tone
-flexibility and patching
-interface
-workflow
-cost
-size
-weight
-heat
-maintenance
-portability
-expansion
-support

There are a lot of people that have been "making records" for a long long time and are finding that it's next to impossible to be able to work in a $2k+(USD) a day room everyday with great maitenance, assistants, and a wonderful LF automated console. The average budgets just don't support it any more, even major label budgets. I know a handful of mix engineers that I've watched go through that transition (and continue to do so) of only working in big rooms (for their entire career) and move to a itb setup in their own project studio....believing they can pull off the same results... It's not easy, their results are NOT the same.

So finding a valid solution to deal with this issue is very real. For the people that have the mentality and the skill and are pleased with to work "in the box", great for them, it's a lot less painful. I believe there are some programmer/remixer/editor types that can really do a lot of damage working almost strictly itb.

For me (leaving the otb or itb solutions/problems/summing aside) it's really more about thinking and feeling a thought and immediately putting a hand there to turn a knob...reacting to a feeling. I know for a fact I eq and compress differently when I use a real compressor/eq verses tweaking plugs, even if the eq/comp is way behind me or to the side. I LOOK at meters and settings WAY too much setting plugins. It's also much more difficult to try things. Maybe an Icon is helping that problem (i'm sure it is).

And I'm really tired of people saying something "sounds fine". Is there some magic threshold of saying something "sounds fine" and the search for taking something to the next level diminished? I hear people say it "sounds fine" giving me the feeling that there is absolutely no need to try and make it better. Most of the professional people that I work with on a regular basis that get into the "sounding fine" statements typically means that they have retained as much of the budget and time for their mortgage payment and vacations as possible. Their talent keeps them busy, but their mediocre investment keeps them from the top top tier and they wonder why they haven't gotten the "big" break.

It's not a matter of "fooling"anyone because they won't know the difference. Most people aren't making these choices to tell their clients. Most clients could care less about how it was done, they just "want it done"
Old 8th May 2006
  #130
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
I assume that Hunter panned everything in the DAW and then sent out stereo stems and panned them hard left and right in the summing boxes, which would take differing panning laws out of the equation.

Is that right? If not, then the comparison is relatively meaningless.

I also assume that he didn't run tones to match levels, which may mean that the perceived differences between the boxes could be within the margin of error of the test.

-R

Yep.. panned stems ,except kick snare ..both at 12 o'clock..
no tones ,,no time

Switched the channel 1-8 d-sub from the N-16 snake to the TLX's[identical pro-co's]
Old 8th May 2006
  #131
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundBadge
Yep.. panned stems ,except kick snare ..both at 12 o'clock..
no tones ,,no time
You sent kick and snare out individual D/A's and panned them in the center in the summing boxes? If so, then they probably aren't at the same level as they are in the ITB mix (unless the panning laws are all the same--no idea, but I doubt it).

Not nitpicking, but it's good to know mitigating factors if you're going to draw a conclusion from this. As for me, on my studio speakers I clearly hear the textural differences. I'd love to hear something on the Tonelux system that's not compressed rock n roll to see if it has transparency enough for other apps.

But that would probably have to be in the REMOTE forum !!

-R
Old 8th May 2006
  #132
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by van Overhalen
What bothers me the most is that these statements always come across as a fact.
You absolutely NEED this and if you don't use it your work will be inferior...
If this is really only about "just gear" why does this all tend to come across like "the holy grail" ?
Check my posts..
Never anywhere, did I state anything as fact,,holy grail.

I'm simply comparing some gear that I might buy ..or not.. to make MY process/work better.. not yours..
and I heard your stuff.. sounds good to me...rock on
I mix in the box a lot.
I also mix through big consoles,[when there's a budget.. ]
whatever it takes
Old 8th May 2006
  #133
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
You sent kick and snare out individual D/A's and panned them in the center in the summing boxes? If so, then they probably aren't at the same level as they are in the ITB mix (unless the panning laws are all the same--no idea, but I doubt it).-R
Yes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
Not nitpicking, but it's good to know mitigating factors if you're going to draw a conclusion from this. As for me, on my studio speakers I clearly hear the textural differences. I'd love to hear something on the Tonelux system that's not compressed rock n roll to see if it has transparency enough for other apps.

-R
I was hoping to try it on some more natural acoustic sources too.
I wish i could have it longer but it goes back today

It's available for demo next week i think if you're interested
Old 8th May 2006
  #134
Lives for gear
 
blaugruen7's Avatar
roundbage,
i just want to write you, that i enjoy your thread and sound examples.
it looks for me that you enjoy yourself, too.
keep on truckin...
Old 8th May 2006
  #135
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaugruen7
roundbage,
i just want to write you, that i enjoy your thread and sound examples.
it looks for me that you enjoy yourself, too.
keep on truckin...

Old 8th May 2006
  #136
Lives for gear
 
indie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaugruen7
roundbage,
i just want to write you, that i enjoy your thread and sound examples.
it looks for me that you enjoy yourself, too.
keep on truckin...
WORD.

I'm glad you post this stuff!!
All the bickering is getting way too ANAL. You're right about the game of inches...those inches are VERY real and can be what seperates a production from sounding "demo" or "like a record".
Old 8th May 2006
  #137
Lives for gear
 

Roundbadge,

So what's the deal with the Tonelux pre ??? Thanks
Old 9th May 2006
  #138
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by vudoo
Roundbadge,

So what's the deal with the Tonelux pre ??? Thanks

Sorry dude, the rack's gotta go back to VK right now..
No time..
I bet they rock !
maybe next week..I wanna play with it some more.
I like the EQ's thoughthumbsup
Old 9th May 2006
  #139
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by indie
WORD.

I'm glad you post this stuff!!
All the bickering is getting way too ANAL. You're right about the game of inches...those inches are VERY real and can be what seperates a production from sounding "demo" or "like a record".

thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
Old 9th May 2006
  #140
I think the original poster intended this to be a shootout between two summing boxes and not a test of analog vs. digital summing. And if so, then I would say that placing an ITB mix up there was unecessary, misleading, and really just confused the issue.

You run a signal through any piece of analog equipment and you are applying eq and compression to the signal. Even the cleanest, purest piece of electronics filters the signal to a certain degree. I wouldn't at all be suprised if gear used had a bump in the top end. So, in essence, what we were listening to were 2 eq'd mixes versus 1 non-eq'd mix. Naturally, everyone loved the eq'd mixes. But does this tell us anything?

I'm sorry but "tests" like this are so silly.
Old 9th May 2006
  #141
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundBadge
The SM-2's second set of trannies are part of the stereo insert stage[returns] on the 2 buss
More weight to the sound?..I would think so
But really,thats Pauls call.
I haven't compared the 2 modules myself.
......
The rack here has 8 MX-2's summing into 2 FX-2+'s
and 2 mic pres and 2 eq's.
Paul custom rigged the front of the demo rack with balanced TT outs.

The rack i want will definitely have the SM2 for the master 2 buss.



I engaged all the lights for a "Vegas mode"
Adds a bit more love, but man that pic looks sexy. Mind if I put it on the site?
Old 9th May 2006
  #142
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvoc3000
I think the original poster intended this to be a shootout between two summing boxes and not a test of analog vs. digital summing. And if so, then I would say that placing an ITB mix up there was unecessary, misleading, and really just confused the issue.

You run a signal through any piece of analog equipment and you are applying eq and compression to the signal. Even the cleanest, purest piece of electronics filters the signal to a certain degree. I wouldn't at all be suprised if gear used had a bump in the top end. So, in essence, what we were listening to were 2 eq'd mixes versus 1 non-eq'd mix. Naturally, everyone loved the eq'd mixes. But does this tell us anything?

I'm sorry but "tests" like this are so silly.
Seeing that the "original poster" put up 3 mixes, all lined up so thay would have the same levels and pan positions, It sounds to me that he was doing an ABC comparison, and I understood that he did not use the EQs, test like these are not silly at all, especially when the people that listened explained the differences of each, which are in fact the differences, and picked the ones that they preferred. I am very impressed with the responses of everyone, it clearly shows that they can hear, and not just picking a favorite, but picking it for specific reasons.

It also shows that the warmth of an analog mixer won 100% over the digital version of the same mix, regardless of the distortion, tone, levels, harmonics or smegma, the preferred mixes were the ones with added tone. I would be willing to bet that if you did a comparision of every box out there, they would all win hands down over a straight ITB mix.
Old 9th May 2006
  #143
Lives for gear
 
mixerguy's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToneLux
Seeing that the "original poster" put up 3 mixes, all lined up so thay would have the same levels and pan positions, It sounds to me that he was doing an ABC comparison, and I understood that he did not use the EQs, test like these are not silly at all, especially when the people that listened explained the differences of each, which are in fact the differences, and picked the ones that they preferred. I am very impressed with the responses of everyone, it clearly shows that they can hear, and not just picking a favorite, but picking it for specific reasons.

It also shows that the warmth of an analog mixer won 100% over the digital version of the same mix, regardless of the distortion, tone, levels, harmonics or smegma, the preferred mixes were the ones with added tone. ..... (snip).....
I agree!
Old 9th May 2006
  #144
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by moogus
If you knew anything about whats inside a Yamaha PM2000 (for instance) youd wonder, like I do, why theyre so god damn cheap.

i reckon they're cheap because the pre's are mediocre, the eq's are inflexible and edgy, they're not terribly reliable, and the whole kaboodle is noisy to a fault.

fwiw, i mix on an old sound workshop 1280b, so i'm no stranger to funky old gear that can be had on the cheap. but the sound workshop sounds like a big desk loaded with iron, and easily holds its own with a nicerizer and a studer half track. i've yet to meet a yamaha or amek that i can say the same of. they're great, they're analog, they're leagues better than a straight daw, but they're not blissful.

where to draw the line on the investment/return graph is an intensely personal choice. if $10k seems absurd to you to get the kinds of sonics at stake then so be it, but there are precious few paths to that last 5% and the road is not paved with the consoles you've mentioned --- well, except for some mci's, the maintenance of which i wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

rigs like the tonelux yield a tone and a functionality that, once upon a time, used to cost in excess of $100,000 to get, and were in the hands of an elite few. so what you see as excess, i see as progress. god knows, in this age with the dominance of the PT/digital paradigm, audio needs all the help it can get.


gregoire
del ubik
Old 9th May 2006
  #145
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToneLux
Seeing that the "original poster" put up 3 mixes, all lined up so thay would have the same levels and pan positions, It sounds to me that he was doing an ABC comparison, and I understood that he did not use the EQs, test like these are not silly at all, especially when the people that listened explained the differences of each, which are in fact the differences, and picked the ones that they preferred. I am very impressed with the responses of everyone, it clearly shows that they can hear, and not just picking a favorite, but picking it for specific reasons.

It also shows that the warmth of an analog mixer won 100% over the digital version of the same mix, regardless of the distortion, tone, levels, harmonics or smegma, the preferred mixes were the ones with added tone. I would be willing to bet that if you did a comparision of every box out there, they would all win hands down over a straight ITB mix.
Of course they would, Paul. But not for the reasons you suggest. They would choose the summing box mixes because they are no longer "raw" tracks. They've been processed to varying degrees by the boxes. Your gear has color - you even said yourself in this very thread you wanted your gear to have an "aggressive sound". If your gear has a sound on its own, then that is what we are hearing and comparing - not the summing.

Tests like these are inherently flawed because there is no way to isolate the summing functions of these boxes. If people want to spend money on these things more power to them, just don't fool yourself into thinking that you've done some sort of scientific test and the results are indisputable. Because you haven't, and they are.

Incidently I plan on buying a Tonelux rig in the not too distant future so I'm not bashing your gear - I've just grown tired of seeing the same myths perpetuated whenever this agrument arises.
Old 9th May 2006
  #146
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pvoc3000
You run a signal through any piece of analog equipment and you are applying eq and compression to the signal. Even the cleanest, purest piece of electronics filters the signal to a certain degree. I wouldn't at all be suprised if gear used had a bump in the top end. So, in essence, what we were listening to were 2 eq'd mixes versus 1 non-eq'd mix. Naturally, everyone loved the eq'd mixes. But does this tell us anything?

it tells me that the gear he was running it thru made everything better, and it demonstrates the ways that each piece achieves that. and it confirms that analog summing boxes yield mixes that most people prefer to computer generated ones. and it gives me an idea of what it costs to achieve these toneshapers, so i can suss out whether the differences are worth it.

you can sum your mix thru a mackie, which is analog and does plenty of eq to the signal, but you probably won't like it. fwiw, there's a whole lot more going on with these two otb mixes than eq lift; there's transient shaping, harmonic saturation, phase artifacts, and tone shifting. there isn't just 'more treble', the actual sound of the treble is changed, and it's changed in ways that make me smile.

hearing the itb mix gives me a reference point, a zero line on the graph, which allows me to determine just what each piece of gear is doing. otherwise, i wouldn't know if the tonelux were bass heavy or the nicer was bass light, and so on.

if the tests tell you nothing you need to know, so be it. just be careful when dismissing the value wholesale for anyone and everyone, because not everyone shares your frame of reference.


gregoire
del ubik
Old 9th May 2006
  #147
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvoc3000
If your gear has a sound on its own, then that is what we are hearing and comparing - not the summing.
FWIW i agree with pvoc3000. just got a folcrom and can't hear any benefit as far as the summing goes (stereo image, etc.). i use it for adding whatever tone i want at the end of the chain, and to save ADA conversions when using outboard.

but i think what what mr.tonelux was saying is that for whatever reasons, most everyone chose A. i chose A. heard a big difference on laptop spkrs. but IMHO this has nothing to do with ITB/OTB summing.

Last edited by raal; 9th May 2006 at 09:32 PM..
Old 9th May 2006
  #148
Quote:
Originally Posted by u b i k
it tells me that the gear he was running it thru made everything better, and it demonstrates the ways that each piece achieves that. and it confirms that analog summing boxes yield mixes that most people prefer to computer generated ones. and it gives me an idea of what it costs to achieve these toneshapers, so i can suss out whether the differences are worth it.
OK. Do you think that someone could simply eq and compress the ITB mix and make you like it more than the tonelux mix? Is that possible? Or is analog summing so powerful that there is no amount of post processing you could do that would negate its effects?
Quote:
Originally Posted by u b i k
you can sum your mix thru a mackie, which is analog and does plenty of eq to the signal, but you probably won't like it. fwiw, there's a whole lot more going on with these two otb mixes than eq lift; there's transient shaping, harmonic saturation, phase artifacts, and tone shifting. there isn't just 'more treble', the actual sound of the treble is changed, and it's changed in ways that make me smile.
So Mackies are inferior to Tonelux. No agrument from me there. And I realize that there's more to whats going than "tone lift" as you called it. Which is exactly why I'm saying it has little or nothing to do with summing. All that stuff is effecting the tracks before they get summed together. You could run inserts from PT into the Tonelux and back again and possibly achieve similar results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u b i k
hearing the itb mix gives me a reference point, a zero line on the graph, which allows me to determine just what each piece of gear is doing. otherwise, i wouldn't know if the tonelux were bass heavy or the nicer was bass light, and so on.
This sort of invalidates your argument for me. If you need a reference point, then what the were you "smiling" about earlier? That the analog mixes sound better than raw tracks? Well then we're back to my first post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u b i k
if the tests tell you nothing you need to know, so be it. just be careful when dismissing the value wholesale for anyone and everyone, because not everyone shares your frame of reference.
The tests tell me that most people preferred the Tonelux sound to the Nicerizer sound, but tell me (and everyone else ) nothing about analog verses digital summing. That's all.
Old 9th May 2006
  #149
11413
Guest
I didnt hear enough of a difference between A/B to spend the extra coin... and with that source material I dont think you can tell a whole lot... I'm not crazy about either mix in general at all.
Old 9th May 2006
  #150
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToneLux
Adds a bit more love, but man that pic looks sexy. Mind if I put it on the site?

Go for it!
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