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
Nicerizer/Tonelux/ITB level-matched comp Studio Monitors
Old 10th June 2006
  #151
Lives for gear
 
syra's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by abit
So I thought TLux suppose to be brighter than NS16, but at least more round and less irritating(to me) vs deadly cold ITB.
And NS16 is a fat goose, excuse my definitions.
With this test I picked out the N16 as the ITB mix both times. I came to the conclusion that I don't like it. It sounds to me far brighter than the tonelux stuff both in Roundbage and RKrizman's tests.
Old 10th June 2006
  #152
Lives for gear
 
abit's Avatar
 

It's all personal and we know it.
Old 10th June 2006
  #153
Gear Addict
 
Justynfromnz's Avatar
 

wow...thats cool....
I said C (ITB) box was flat but it sonded more like the B (tonelux) than A (The N16)....So i guessed it musn't be the computer! That seems like alot of money to shell out though when they are quite similar results...at least the N16 was crazy different...although not many seem to be stoked on it....Thanks again for the test.
Old 10th June 2006
  #154
Gear Addict
 
KingUgly's Avatar
I liked B on Chicken Wings by a much further margin than I did C or A. To me it was the clear winner, mainly because it had more dimension and life to it. Subjective terms, I know, but I hears what I hears.

That being said, I really *wanted* B to the be the Nicerizer (which I picked last). I like it's layout, the busses, etc., and it would have integrated nicely to what I'm doing here.

But now what do I do?? The difference was enough that I want to hear more of the Tonelux. Thanks for screwing up my plan, RKrizman.
Old 10th June 2006
  #155
Gear Addict
 

Interestingly enough, I picked the Nicerizer as my fav on both tunes. Might have to check that box out.

Of more interest is that on Chicken Wings, ITB was not my least favorite. As stated before, my only conclusion is that the difference between ITB v OTB is not as apparent as some would like us to believe. Perhaps the best solution is something like the Fulcrom with several different mic pre's to suit the music being mixed.

Kenny M.
Old 10th June 2006
  #156
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Before anyone decides what they like or dont like ...

Mixing into a transformer based unit like the Nicer or Tonelux or SH results in a sound very different than just running a mix done with another mixing process through it.

When you think about these things, please remember that there is no real A/B ever possible because you would mix differently into each process.

This kind of test shows the artifacts added to an ITB mix, in most cases nothing more.
Old 10th June 2006
  #157
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey
Mixing into a transformer based unit like the Nicer or Tonelux or SH results in a sound very different than just running a mix done with another mixing process through it.

When you think about these things, please remember that there is no real A/B ever possible because you would mix differently into each process.

This kind of test shows the artifacts added to an ITB mix, in most cases nothing more.
thumbsup
Old 10th June 2006
  #158
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey
Before anyone decides what they like or dont like ...

Mixing into a transformer based unit like the Nicer or Tonelux or SH results in a sound very different than just running a mix done with another mixing process through it.

When you think about these things, please remember that there is no real A/B ever possible because you would mix differently into each process.

This kind of test shows the artifacts added to an ITB mix, in most cases nothing more.

thumbsup thumbsup
Old 11th June 2006
  #159
Lives for gear
 
pigpen's Avatar
 

With the Shadow Hills Equinox, I noticed that immediately. Just taking an ITB mix and summing it thru 1 stereo pair and flipping the settings switch changed the whole mix. I am really looking forward to mix through it!
I was once a doubter...no longer
Old 11th June 2006
  #160
Gear Addict
 
bit mangler's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey
Before anyone decides what they like or dont like ...

Mixing into a transformer based unit like the Nicer or Tonelux or SH results in a sound very different than just running a mix done with another mixing process through it.

When you think about these things, please remember that there is no real A/B ever possible because you would mix differently into each process.

This kind of test shows the artifacts added to an ITB mix, in most cases nothing more.
Brian,

I didnt understand what you're trying to get at.Didnt Rkrizman sum the 8 tracks(4 stereo stems) in the various boxes.
Old 11th June 2006
  #161
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bit mangler
I didnt understand what you're trying to get at.Didnt Rkrizman sum the 8 tracks(4 stereo stems) in the various boxes.
Right, he did all anyone can do ... yet a mixer works with the potential of what's there ... so a transformer summing box like the SH, Tone or Nicer will have a strong effect on the mix and the mixer will mix INTO that compression and tone from the transformers, etc.

An ITB mix that's put into these boxes shows each boxes basic tone, true enough ... yet the best sound from a transformer summer is going to be pushed differently channel to channel, so there is no real A/B possible.

And the reverse wouldn't work as well ... once a color summing box is used an A/B with ITB will be a very different mix.


Thus ... "there is no true A/B possible". You can hear the box, but not compare mixes fairly. A clean summer is another matter, much closer there.
Old 11th June 2006
  #162
Jai guru deva om
 
warhead's Avatar
 

I agree with Brian, depending on how you hit the transformers each of these boxes is going to dish out completely different sounds at different stages of saturation. That being said, these clips coupled with the original poster's comments would still be helpful to some. I did a recent test of the Nicerizer16 vs Nuendo's internal mixer, and never bothered to share clips because of the fact that I could vary the sound so much with those output transformers being pushed to varying degrees. Didn't make sense to portray one of the possibilities as "the sound".

War
Old 11th June 2006
  #163
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey
Before anyone decides what they like or dont like ...

Mixing into a transformer based unit like the Nicer or Tonelux or SH results in a sound very different than just running a mix done with another mixing process through it.

When you think about these things, please remember that there is no real A/B ever possible because you would mix differently into each process.

This kind of test shows the artifacts added to an ITB mix, in most cases nothing more.
I wouldn't say an A/B is impossible. That's exactly what this is. People can individually evaluate it how they wish.

You can say that you're hearing nothing more than artifacts, but that seems a little dry and reductionist. What you're hearing is tone. I mean, you could dismiss the whole mastering process with the same logic. I'm sure it would be better to mix into all your mastering gear rather than just using it to add distortion to an already finished mix.

I think it's useful to hear this stuff. Any semi-discerning listener can listen and extrapolate for himself how the box might work for him.

And I wouldn't assume that if you do a mix through one of these boxes that it would fall apart or need to be seriously reworked if it was switched to ITB. That remains to be demonstrated. In one case I was working on a mix through an analog box, and for comparison's sake I changed it to ITB. Turns out that cleared up a few things and I went with the ITB mix without making any adjustments.

However, I take your general point to be the same as mine, namely, that every box brings with it its own methodology and the most important thing is how successfully and appropriately you implement that. But it's more than just transformer sound.

-R
Old 12th June 2006
  #164
Lives for gear
 
funka's Avatar
was wrong but glad I did not pick ITB as fav'...Thank you for the test.
Old 13th June 2006
  #165
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by funka
was wrong but glad I did not pick ITB as fav'...Thank you for the test.
Why were you glad? It would sure make life easier.

-R
Old 13th June 2006
  #166
Lives for gear
 
funka's Avatar
Just glad I chosed Tonelux for chicken(was hesitating between A and B) and Nicerizer for blues(was clearer for me to choose that one this time, for the smoothness of brass). Glad the ones I prefered were not ITB as I was thinking they were OTB...that's all.
And as I am to get a summing box(D2B), that's better to prefer the OTB mixes...no? And to insert analog gear, I do not think ITB will make my life easier...OTB will avoid having an extra A/D for each tracks processed OTB...Because for me, the main thing(advantage) to try OTB summing process, it is mostly to insert analog gear at mix time without returning ITB with this extra A/D...
May I switch the D2B for a N16 later, I will see how the D2B works for me...
Old 13th June 2006
  #167
Lives for gear
 
GYang's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
Why were you glad? It would sure make life easier.

-R
RKrizman

You gave us very fair comparison and you completely refrained of saying what you think is better (no endorsment I guess).thumbsup

Anyhow, you had excellent chance to work with 3 summing solutions.
In my case Nicerizer summing IS ALWAYS preferred summing to ITB.
I can reach target with Nicerizer/Mixdream that I cannot ITB.
It's not question of understanding better plug-ins or different mixing paradigm or whatever. I learned my job in digital and much later discovered analogue with instant positive effect.
I never did absolutely exact two mixes ITB and OTB, due to fact that some tweaking in both variants are always needed to make optimal sum.
So, for that purpose I appreciate final result differences much more than my own comparisons between two 'same' mixes.
My search is focused in field which analogue summing will provide me with the best result and definitely not is OTB better than ITB.

Now my question is:
Do you finally prefer one of boxes on purely sonical ground and do you feel that one of them has particular strengths over other (and which)?
In your test gearslutzs voted for all 3 summing almost equally and statistical conclusion could be that (almost) no difference exist at all.
On the other hand I hear difference even with Mixdream that is way more neutral and clean than Nicerizer.
So, if we consider that due to further digital processes that you apparently had to do with given test samples (ADC, downsampling, dithering), subtle nuances have been simply lost, so your subjective opinion on what differences you could hear comparing Nicerizer and Tonelux are indeed what is necessary to see here.
Old 14th June 2006
  #168
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
Why were you glad? It would sure make life easier.

easier is overrated. i sweat balls every time i go into a new mix, because i've spent so damn much on these esoteric processors and i know that if i can't cut it, i can't blame the top shelf analog gear. sometimes i bitch at the heavens, but i know inside i don't really want anything easier. challenge is life.

so the api and the nicer sit in a rack directly in front of me, behind the console and between the monitors. besides the fact that i need them there to adjust panning and compression while i mix, i want them there because it inspires me to look at them while i hear what they do to the music.

the computer, it doesn't inspire me that way. even if it sounded like the nicerizer, i'm pretty sure it still wouldn't inspire me. if anything, the computer tends to leech my energy, which is why the monitor is off as much as possible.


gregoire
del ubk
Old 14th June 2006
  #169
Lives for gear
 

Just running the same stems through these summing boxes really does not make sense to me you really have to mix to them as there are decisions you will make on the mix because of what they will or will not let you hear.If I decide to repalce my D2b I would without a doubt have to do some complete fresh mixes on each summing device only then would I really no how the summing box is effecting my mix decisions and which one leads me to the sound I want.
Old 14th June 2006
  #170
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by redroom
Just running the same stems through these summing boxes really does not make sense to me you really have to mix to them as there are decisions you will make on the mix because of what they will or will not let you hear.IIf I decide to repalce my D2b I woud without a doubt have to do some complete fresh mixes on each summing device only then would I really no how the summing box is effecting my mix decisions and which one leads me to the sound I want.

Excactly my same experiencethumbsup
Old 14th June 2006
  #171
Lives for gear
 
GYang's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by u b i k

because i've spent so damn much on these esoteric processors and i know that if i can't cut it, i can't blame the top shelf analog gear.
heh ... but reward is great.
The whole point of analogue today is kind of humanization (process, result etc.).
Old 14th June 2006
  #172
Gear Addict
 
bit mangler's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by redroom
Just running the same stems through these summing boxes really does not make sense to me .
Same process + summing box[B1,B2...Bn] = fair idea of the sonic signature of [B1,B2,Bn]

IMO Rkizman has adopted a process which I think most of the AEs would follow.

Please let us know what doesnt make sense to you?
redroom,roundbadge - please let us know if you have some "magic tips n tricks" for mixing with each of the individual boxes.
Old 15th June 2006
  #173
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by redroom
Just running the same stems through these summing boxes really does not make sense to me you really have to mix to them as there are decisions you will make on the mix because of what they will or will not let you hear.If I decide to repalce my D2b I would without a doubt have to do some complete fresh mixes on each summing device only then would I really no how the summing box is effecting my mix decisions and which one leads me to the sound I want.
To get back to these files, here's what I also did in the course of playing with the boxes. At one point I had taken the "blues" piece and remixed it from scratch through the Nicerizer, using all my outboard and the individual channels and pans on the box. At a different time I also took Chicken Wings and remixed it from scratch through the Tonelux, using individual channels, pans and also the 2 eqs that came with it.

The results? I got a great, round, rewarding and forward sounding mix from the Nicerizer, and with the Tonelux I got a fragmented odd-sounding mix that just didn't hang together--a clear miss, like what happens to everyone at some time.

Why? One one hand, it's just one of those things, and on a different day the results could have easily been the opposite with either box, especially when you're trying to keep a fresh perspective in the face of remixing material from the upteenth time. Also, the Tonelux was an extra layer of complexity, patching in eqs with an ill-defined cabling setup and adding level controls into the process. Plus, the eqs added their own sound even if bypassed, which added another layer to the decision making process. I hadn't really "learned" that system yet.

If I'd used a real console my mix would have probably sucked worse

A mix system needs to provide a transparent pathway for your instincts and rewards for your sonic decisions. Both boxes provide the latter, and the former is a matter of personal needs and familiarity.

-R
Old 15th June 2006
  #174
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
A mix system needs to provide a transparent pathway for your instincts and rewards for your sonic decisions. Both boxes provide the latter, and the former is a matter of personal needs and familiarity.

-R

Nice thumbsup
Old 15th June 2006
  #175
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
To get back to these files, here's what I also did in the course of playing with the boxes. At one point I had taken the "blues" piece and remixed it from scratch through the Nicerizer, using all my outboard and the individual channels and pans on the box. At a different time I also took Chicken Wings and remixed it from scratch through the Tonelux, using individual channels, pans and also the 2 eqs that came with it.

The results? I got a great, round, rewarding and forward sounding mix from the Nicerizer, and with the Tonelux I got a fragmented odd-sounding mix that just didn't hang together--a clear miss, like what happens to everyone at some time.

Why? One one hand, it's just one of those things, and on a different day the results could have easily been the opposite with either box, especially when you're trying to keep a fresh perspective in the face of remixing material from the upteenth time. Also, the Tonelux was an extra layer of complexity, patching in eqs with an ill-defined cabling setup and adding level controls into the process. Plus, the eqs added their own sound even if bypassed, which added another layer to the decision making process. I hadn't really "learned" that system yet.

If I'd used a real console my mix would have probably sucked worse

A mix system needs to provide a transparent pathway for your instincts and rewards for your sonic decisions. Both boxes provide the latter, and the former is a matter of personal needs and familiarity.

-R

Word..
Thanks Rickthumbsup
Old 15th June 2006
  #176
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bit mangler
Same process + summing box[B1,B2...Bn] = fair idea of the sonic signature of [B1,B2,Bn] ... Please let us know what doesnt make sense to you?


i believe what others are saying, and what i'm agreeing with, is that there's more to these boxes (and analog processing in general) than sonic signatures. there's an experience that happens when mixing thru them, they each blend signals in quite a distinct fashion, and the particular way the nicerizer does that makes me hear things differently than itb or a d2b. the result is that i mix differently; the whole process shifts, and so do the results, but it's not subtle. read rick's recent post where he talks about building new mixes thru each box. *those* are the files i want to hear.

mixing into a nicerizer is extremely enjoyable, fwiw.

it's similar to folks who build a mix and then push it thru a couple of mix compressors and a plug-in, ostensibly creating a comparison of the three. it misses completely the point of mixing INTO a compressor, and only gives you a hint of what is possible when using the tool to its fullest potential, where it becomes a fundamental part of the foundation of the house rather than a coat of paint slapped on at the end of the day.


gregoire
del ubik
Old 15th June 2006
  #177
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b i k
i *those* are the files i want to hear.
When I return to my own side of the planet in a few days I'll root around and see if I can find them, although I hate the idea of pasting an "I suck" sticker on my forehead. But I'll need to figure out how to post longer files. Existential stuff like that is hard to illustrate in 30 seconds.

-R
Old 28th June 2006
  #178
I like any of the OTB mixes, there just seems to be a "thing" that they all do. A to B comparisons are great, for two reasons:

1 People get a chance to hear others work, and can see how some boxes work and some don't. All the tests point to external summing, which isn't a bad thing, as the DAW companies (I would hope) realize that they still have to sell a system, and most likely more DtoAs.

2 It gets people thinking, which our industry needs right now. When the thought to search begins, that means there is something missing, which could be the mix, the box, the song, or the way it was recorded. The fact that one is looking, shows that the search for "better" is still important.

Better means what ever it is that makes you feel that it is better. When I do live shows, or even in the studio, if the artist wants a blue light on him, he feels that it will make his performance better. If he is comfortable, then it most likely will be better. The PA may sound like ****, but if the monitors are right, then the person behind the mic will think it sounds like that out front and will perform in such a way that the crowd will say that the band kicked ass, even if it didn't sound that great.

When I first did the 2500 compressor, I loved it on so many things, but every now and then, I would play something through it and go "what the ...". It just didn't work on that song. Or, I might not have got the song, so I couldn't get the 2500.

So, what ever someone thinks is better is better. As long as someone is thinking, that is better too...
Old 15th March 2009
  #179
Gear Maniac
 

dude, one of your track has a flipped stereo....
i am not even sure this test is real....
how can you miss such mistake....
Old 15th March 2009
  #180
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drpenguen View Post
how can you miss such mistake....

by being human, perhaps?


gregory scott - ubk
.
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
Farshad / So much gear, so little time
10
jayjay / High end
11
RoundBadge / High end
329

Forum Jump
Forum Jump