The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Tonelux Test...
Old 6th February 2007
  #61
Gear Addict
 
bit mangler's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
Another pointless Gearslutz summing debate grinds down to its predictably idiotic conclusion.

I mean, really, it would have been nice for you to mention this upfront.

-R
IMO, the best and most useful ITB vs OTB comparison was done by Rkrizman a while back.It was a very scientific experiment with matched levels and proper gainstaging.So folks who are looking for a proper comparison can check that thread.
This comparison was obviously skewed.I checked Tony's website and most of his stuff relates to PT,ICON,etc.In one of the examples he claims to have replaced a Neve console with an ICON.As a true Gearslut I would have never done that unless of course the board had some major issues.
However I dont know the complete details so I cant comment further.
I like people who give unbiased opinion of gear they come across.Immediate names that come to my mind -Thrill,Slipperman,Ubik,Jules and there are many others
Personally I feel that rock(genre) benefits substantially running through a board or using external summing.
The same may not be true for pop or jazz or classical.

Roundbadge:

You rock dude! thanks for the trivia.
Donny Duetch of CNBC interviewed that VO guy a coupla days back..I absolutely loved it
more trivia: he makes a 7 figure undisclosed amount..and sometime does more than 80 VOs per day
Old 6th February 2007
  #62
Lives for gear
 

Hey all...

First off, I have been working with a Tonelux rig for several months. I am VERY pleased with the system. One of the biggest factors of tone in this system is HOW HARD YOU HIT THE SM2 (summing module). Kiss it gently, and things remain clean and pristine. Smack it, and things start to gel, compress, smooth out....NICE!

I was mixing in the box before, but with outboard patched in as inserts. I find that with the Tonelux rig, I am using not only less outboard, but also, using that outboard much more gently.

If I were to take an ITB mix, with various FX on the channels, then converted it to an OTB through the Tonelux, but kept the FX set the same, it would sound worse. Why? Because all the FX I was using to get the ITB mix to sound big, would be added to the fatness of the TL rig.

One huge example is kick drum. I have always struggled with getting the kick to stand out in an ITB mix. I needed to compress and EQ it, and still jack it up above everything else in the mix to get it to pop.

With the Tonelux, no compressor. A little EQ on the mid highs, and turn up the volume.

So I can only say, that in my room, with my equipment, the Tonelux rig is far above ITB, and not only that, has made me more creative in the studio, and has made BEING in the studio a hell of alot more fun.
Old 6th February 2007
  #63
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
Another pointless Gearslutz summing debate grinds down to its predictably idiotic conclusion.

I mean, really, it would have been nice for you to mention this upfront.


Ouch, but sort of a good point, they all do this (wind up being ground into the finest single electron atom there is), I think that value is that it does it for some people, and they are trying to convey that difference the best they can to others.

Some prefer calibrated exact copies and some prefer the things that each format pulled out of them emotionally. Personally, I think that there is no point is a calibrated mix, since they are different formats. If the mix sounded better only because the mixer liked the way it sounded OTB, then that may be the reason entirely.

The facts are clear, large channel count digital mixes do have some problems because of internal math issues. External mixes have the analog stuff they add to the mix. Both have made good records and both will make good records.

Oh, and then there's the song...
Old 7th February 2007
  #64
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bit mangler View Post
Roundbadge:

You rock dude! thanks for the trivia.
Donny Duetch of CNBC interviewed that VO guy a coupla days back..I absolutely loved it
more trivia: he makes a 7 figure undisclosed amount..and sometime does more than 80 VOs per day


Yeah,Don LaFontaine. been around forever.makes massive bucks.
I have a couple buddys who do voiceovers here in LA.
one is building his second house now$$
both say it's the coolest gig ever.I'm jealous
..just finished another Geico series a couple days ago[w/go carts @ Nascar drivers]
Fun stuff.
Old 7th February 2007
  #65
Lives for gear
 
Mind-Over-Midi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToneLux View Post

Oh, and then there's the song...



heh
Old 7th February 2007
  #66
Lives for gear
 
Tony Shepperd's Avatar
So Krizman and Bit Mangler, a couple of questions.
On January 6th when you posted:

Wow, you still haven't gotten your Tonelux modules? Hasn't it been, like, a year or so? I hope your expectations in the meantime haven't risen to an unrealistic degree.

As a general comment, having posted in the past level matched mixes through different summing boxes, I can say that just listening to the results won't tell you much, because the difference is subtle first of all, and secondly, through any given box you might mix differently. With a Nicerizer you might find yourself carving back the bass at 40 hz, whereas with a Tonelux you might be adding (an oversimplification, but true in principle).

You also need to evaluate these boxes in terms of your work flow. Will you have an ergonomically transparent system in which your ideas can flow easily and productively, or will you find yourself with an extra layer of details that are more trouble than they are worth. Having used a Dangerous 2-bus, a Tonelux rig and a Nicerizer16, it was only the Nicerizer, by coupling ease of use with superior tone, that ended up staying. I could have never come to this conclusion by listening to files. And your own needs will dictate their own unique conclusion.

-R

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
1. Why didn't you tell the people in that thread where we could find those files, so all of us could listen?
To paraphrase you, it would have been nice for you to mention this in the thread. It really would have saved me 2 or 3 days.
2. If you already knew from your experience that a remix was involved, why are you bugging when I did it?

Bit Mangler
The comparison was not skewed. How can it be skewed when after I did the test, I said I like what the Tonelux did to the ITB mix? How is that skewing the test?

And as far as the ICON replacing the Neve, give Dom Camardella a call at 805.965.3404. http://www.sound-design.com/
He's waiting for your call so you can explain how there is some unwritten code of being a Gearslut and how your business model wouldn't include getting an ICON.
He still has 32 channels of 1073's mounted in his wall!
Since replacing the Neve with an ICON he has NOT lost one client and actually gained quite a few.
Gone is the heavy maintenance on a vintage console. Also gone is the added expense of the electrical. And yet he still has a growing clientele.

Paul, I make no defense of the song, I didn't sing it or produce I just mixed it.
It was the only rock song I had on the books that week.
But ya know Paul, it would be cool if all manufactures had some example on their website of the advantages of using their products.
Something where engineers and producers could come and listen to and A/B test.
Sanctioned by my the manufacture to show the product off in the best light.
Old 7th February 2007
  #67
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Shepperd View Post
1. Why didn't you tell the people in that thread where we could find those files, so all of us could listen?
To paraphrase you, it would have been nice for you to mention this in the thread. It really would have saved me 2 or 3 days.
2. If you already knew from your experience that a remix was involved, why are you bugging when I did it?
In what thread? In this thread I did in fact post a link to that other thread where I had posted the files. Did you go check it out? I had to spend the time to do a search and find it. Anybody else could have done the search as well.

I didn't know you remixed the files in your test, nor did you indicate that. That's why I called you on it when you finally said that's what you did. If we don't all know what we're listening to then everyone talks at cross-purposes.

-R
Old 7th February 2007
  #68
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToneLux View Post
The facts are clear, large channel count digital mixes do have some problems because of internal math issues.
I really don't think that's a fact at all. People record a hundred plus tracks of high resolution digital information with a frequency response that exceeds analog capabilities and then try to manpulate it all with a mouse and a zillion plugins, and then wonder why they can't fit it into a reasonable mix window. The solution then is to blame it on some mysterious math breakdown. To me that's a lame and unproven assertion. And it's not an asertion you need to make to justify your product line, which sounds excellent and is a useful tool in its own right, for all sorts of reasons--physical, existential, mystical and otherwise.

-R
Old 7th February 2007
  #69
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
I really don't think that's a fact at all. People record a hundred plus tracks of high resolution digital information with a frequency response that exceeds analog capabilities and then try to manpulate it all with a mouse and a zillion plugins, and then wonder why they can't fit it into a reasonable mix window. The solution then is to blame it on some mysterious math breakdown. To me that's a lame and unproven assertion. And it's not an asertion you need to make to justify your product line, which sounds excellent and is a useful tool in its own right, for all sorts of reasons--physical, existential, mystical and otherwise.

-R
Sorry Paul, I was thinking the same thing.

To me, the problem with ITB mixing has nothing at all to do with mystical "bad math." If anything working ITB is too perfect in some regards.

The beauty of mixing on hardware is that it adds distortion and depth to the tracks.

There is no need to apologize for that. People that say the good bits of OTB is getting around the bad math is doing a disservice to what the strong qualities of the hardware truly are.
Old 7th February 2007
  #70
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sizzleboy View Post
One huge example is kick drum. I have always struggled with getting the kick to stand out in an ITB mix. I needed to compress and EQ it, and still jack it up above everything else in the mix to get it to pop.

With the Tonelux, no compressor. A little EQ on the mid highs, and turn up the volume.


that's the first thing i hear when i split out into the nicer or the tonelux: the bass opens up and stretches to the back of infinity. kick and bass become separate entities again, none of that strange blurring i always get itb.

don't get me started on what these toys do for the top, or the transients...


gregoire
del
ubk
.
Old 7th February 2007
  #71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Shepperd View Post
Paul, I make no defense of the song, I didn't sing it or produce I just mixed it.
It was the only rock song I had on the books that week.
But ya know Paul, it would be cool if all manufactures had some example on their website of the advantages of using their products.
Something where engineers and producers could come and listen to and A/B test.
Sanctioned by my the manufacture to show the product off in the best light.
I agree to a point but I think you are seeing just how hard it is to create a good A/B test. In the end something like the Tonelux summing solution needs to be experienced hands on right?

Old 7th February 2007
  #72
Quote:
=Tony Shepperd;

Paul, I make no defense of the song, I didn't sing it or produce I just mixed it.
It was the only rock song I had on the books that week.
But ya know Paul, it would be cool if all manufactures had some example on their website of the advantages of using their products.
Something where engineers and producers could come and listen to and A/B test.
Sanctioned by my the manufacture to show the product off in the best light.
Actually, it was a comment regarding all that we talk about and all that we do, all that we buy and all that we glue, all that we test and all that we fix, it all really comes down to the song not the mix....

(sorry, it kind of came out that way)

We are working on that right now as we speak. Gil and Greg are coming down next week to make a zillion videos on how everything works. That will be the first step. Using engineers and producers is a bit more difficult because we have to get clearance for songs and ****, but that is the next step of our plan.

By the way, I'm sending the compressor back to Jeff to bring over to you. I actually had some time to fine tune it. I designed it the week prior (I had a real strong brain fart if creativity), laid out and sent out the proto PCBs, I received the proto PC board the weekend (sat AM) before NAMM, built it over the weekend, tuned it on Monday, went to LA on Tuesday, set up the Universal Console in the booth and said to Jeff (Goodman) "here-make it work". He did.

I have been thinking about it for a year and a half, didn't really have an image. Then one day, while lying next to my wife on Elation cruse ship, Christmas day, I ran to the room, got a pencil and a piece of paper, came back and designed the block of it. She said "what the F*** are you doing?" I said "I have to write this down before it leaves for good". 20 minutes later, we were on the Ledo deck having a drink and the compressor was in my pocket. Didn't do a thing with it until I got back.

I guess that is sort of like writing the record while in the studio...
Old 7th February 2007
  #73
Lives for gear
 
Tony Shepperd's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
In what thread? In this thread I did in fact post a link to that other thread where I had posted the files. Did you go check it out? I had to spend the time to do a search and find it. Anybody else could have done the search as well.

I didn't know you remixed the files in your test, nor did you indicate that. That's why I called you on it when you finally said that's what you did. If we don't all know what we're listening to then everyone talks at cross-purposes.

-R
No, not this thread.

This thread:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/showt...=102087&page=2

This is the first thread where darkwater said there was a huge difference in using the Fulcrum.
There were a number of us asking him to post mp3's. About 3 pages later you joined in with comments, but at that time I never knew you posted any sound files.

As for the remixing of the files it's clearly stated on the page.
I realize I put a lot of verbiage on one page, but it's there.
Old 7th February 2007
  #74
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
I really don't think that's a fact at all. People record a hundred plus tracks of high resolution digital information with a frequency response that exceeds analog capabilities and then try to manpulate it all with a mouse and a zillion plugins, and then wonder why they can't fit it into a reasonable mix window. The solution then is to blame it on some mysterious math breakdown. To me that's a lame and unproven assertion. And it's not an asertion you need to make to justify your product line, which sounds excellent and is a useful tool in its own right, for all sorts of reasons--physical, existential, mystical and otherwise.

-R
I reality, there is fact that (especially higher sample rates) the summing in a digital workstation ends up truncating some of the bits (throwing them away) which does change the way it sums. I didn't say that the reason you need Tonelux was because of that. You all should know me well enough by now that if I meant that, I would have said that. I look for reasons for things because "just sounds great" doesn't answer the "why" for me. I know a lot of coders that tell me that it is the best kept secret in the DAW industry. The difference in the way they do the math is why some say that this brand sounds better than that brand.

The Otari Advant digital console was a perfect example of one of the most analogish sounding console ever made. Too bad it was killed by the president of Otari seconds before is was to be released. They figured out a way to mult 6 DSPs together without using headroom from one to manage the next (this usually ends up being 6 DSPs actin like 5) so they had 6 per card. A normal console had around 24 cards equalling 144 DSP chips to process the audio. Even with the doubling of bla bla every 18 months, that would still be 36 DSPs of today, which is still 6 times more than most work stations.

Also, you have to record differently (meaning not like you would with a tape machine and a console) if you want to do it all in the box. That is why there are some that do a good job and some that don't. In my studio in DC, I had the original Sunset Sound Studio One console that did the Janis records, Doors, Van Halen 1, etc, and everything you plugged into it came out sounding like a record. It's not that way with a DAW. Remember the phrase "set all the faders at zero, spread out the overheads and guitars, then throw some reverb on it". Best rough mixes in the world.
Old 7th February 2007
  #75
Lives for gear
 
Tony Shepperd's Avatar
Paul, no apologies necessary, I LOVE your gear and I love what it does to my mixes.
When I had the rack over my studio I had at least 10 or 12 different producers and engineers over to hear the rack. They were blown away.
I don't know what you did inside the SM2, but it really is sweet.

For me, Tonelux has reaffirmed that I don't have to buy a large frame console and put it in my room. When I need that console sound, it will be a step away.
Now I'm just trying to figure out the whole Sterling Modular thing.

For 7 years I have been mixing ITB and now I think it's time try the Hybrid thing for a while. In fact I'm thinking of adding this to my signature.

Tonelux... it's the ultimate plugin!
Old 7th February 2007
  #76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Shepperd View Post
Paul, no apologies necessary, I LOVE your gear and I love what it does to my mixes.
When I had the rack over my studio I had at least 10 or 12 different producers and engineers over to hear the rack. They were blown away.
I don't know what you did inside the SM2, but it really is sweet.

For me, Tonelux has reaffirmed that I don't have to buy a large frame console and put it in my room. When I need that console sound, it will be a step away.
Now I'm just trying to figure out the whole Sterling Modular thing.

For 7 years I have been mixing ITB and now I think it's time try the Hybrid thing for a while. In fact I'm thinking of adding this to my signature.

Tonelux... it's the ultimate plugin!
2 ounces of aural pheromones.

Jim at Sterling has a whole line of Tonelux designed stuff. Get the 3 section one. Ask him to put a piece of glass in the middle and then put your keyboard and mouse there. It's lower and more comfy, and you can see through the glass to operate it. Put a small ring of rope light around it underneath so it lights up the keys but isn't very bright. Raise your speakers and point them down so you can fit 2 recessed 30" cinema displays behind it. OoOooOooOohohhHhhhHHhhh.....

Or maybe "Tonelux, the ultimate plugout"
Old 7th February 2007
  #77
Lives for gear
 
Tony Shepperd's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToneLux View Post
Jim at Sterling has a whole line of Tonelux designed stuff. Get the 3 section one. Ask him to put a piece of glass in the middle and then put your keyboard and mouse there. It's lower and more comfy, and you can see through the glass to operate it. Put a small ring of rope light around it underneath so it lights up the keys but isn't very bright. Raise your speakers and point them down so you can fit 2 recessed 30" cinema displays behind it. OoOooOooOohohhHhhhHHhhh.....
That sounds very cool. Are there any pictures of that kind of setup?
Jeff from Vintage King said they were building a custom desk, but I hadn't seen any pictures yet.
Old 7th February 2007
  #78
Gear Addict
 
bit mangler's Avatar
 

Tony,
This is the thread I was referring to .
Regarding my ICON comment - I was trying to point your preference for ITB in your business.While the installation of the ICON may have lowered the electric bills and shortened your workflow, you fail to mention what it has done to the sound.
You talk about a growing clientèle but when did a growing clientèle mean better sonics.Are people coming for the sound or for the latest gadget in town.
But I agree with you that those were better business decisions but not necessarily the best decision soundwise.
Old 7th February 2007
  #79
Lives for gear
 
Tony Shepperd's Avatar
If you truly want to know why Dom took out the Neve, ask him.

But the sonics of the room, by his standards and the clientèle, are far better now.
The studio is more accurate and the place just sounds better.
If you read the Studio Design portion of my website, that is Dom telling you about why he took out the Neve and rack mounted the pres in the wall.

Why is this so hard for you to believe?
Old 7th February 2007
  #80
84K
Lives for gear
 
84K's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToneLux View Post
I didn't say that the reason you need Tonelux was because of that.
Don't even bother defending your statements. We got ya.
Now get off your computer and make me my side car!!! LOL.
Old 7th February 2007
  #81
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToneLux View Post
Actually, it was a comment regarding all that we talk about and all that we do, all that we buy and all that we glue, all that we test and all that we fix, it all really comes down to the song not the mix....
...but the sun is eclipsed by the moon ?
Old 7th February 2007
  #82
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToneLux View Post
I reality, there is fact that (especially higher sample rates) the summing in a digital workstation ends up truncating some of the bits (throwing them away) which does change the way it sums. ..... I know a lot of coders that tell me that it is the best kept secret in the DAW industry. The difference in the way they do the math is why some say that this brand sounds better than that brand.
Yeah, I know, in my DAW 5 plus 5 equals 11 !!

This is nonsense. If there was a difference in sound between DAWs due to the math it could be easily demonstrated. It never has been, and in fact the opposite has. And that's my last contribution to this tired chestnut.

-R
Old 7th February 2007
  #83
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Shepperd View Post
No, not this thread.

This thread:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/showt...=102087&page=2

This is the first thread where darkwater said there was a huge difference in using the Fulcrum.
There were a number of us asking him to post mp3's. About 3 pages later you joined in with comments, but at that time I never knew you posted any sound files.

As for the remixing of the files it's clearly stated on the page.
I realize I put a lot of verbiage on one page, but it's there.
I reread your first post and couldn't find it. Where did you say that C was a different mix?

As far as that other thread, sheesh, it wasn't my responsibility to demonstrate his point. If you read my whole comparison thing you'll know it was all fairly beat to death and I don't feel like I need to revisit it every time this discussion comes up. I only brought it up here to indicate that there was something wrong with your test because my results show, all other things being equal, there isn't that much difference that can be attributed to just the summing.

-R
Old 7th February 2007
  #84
Gear Addict
 
JesseJ's Avatar
 

Didn't read the other post (yet), as I wanted to be subjective.

I wouldn't declare say I liked A the best, albeit it being the 'clearest'. It had that clinic ITB sound, althou I think you could have got a lot nicer and rounder 'analog' ITB with a handful of plugins. Me thinks.

But the overall sound was most pleasing in C, but there hihats had a 'siblance' problem to my ears (on 'Just Listen'). I see this more as being a mixing thing than a summing thing, that is it was tracked trough something like A, not like something like B or C? Whats the mics/chain on the HH and OHs? C worked best overall I think, specially the RnB thing was really pretty trough it.

Last edited by JesseJ; 7th February 2007 at 10:53 AM.. Reason: typos
Old 7th February 2007
  #85
w2w
Lives for gear
 
w2w's Avatar
 

Quote:
In my studio in DC, I had the original Sunset Sound Studio One console that did the Janis records, Doors, Van Halen 1, etc, and everything you plugged into it came out sounding like a record
THats pretty damn cool.Would you be kind enough to share with us where that console is today?....Just curious.
Old 7th February 2007
  #86
Lives for gear
 
Mind-Over-Midi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToneLux View Post
Actually, it was a comment regarding all that we talk about and all that we do, all that we buy and all that we glue, all that we test and all that we fix, it all really comes down to the song not the mix....

I got that. I thought everyone else did as well. The internet is amazing, but sometimes things still get lost in translation, I think we all forget that from time to time.




Old 7th February 2007
  #87
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Shepperd View Post
Paul, no apologies necessary, I LOVE your gear and I love what it does to my mixes.
When I had the rack over my studio I had at least 10 or 12 different producers and engineers over to hear the rack. They were blown away.
I don't know what you did inside the SM2, but it really is sweet.

For me, Tonelux has reaffirmed that I don't have to buy a large frame console and put it in my room. When I need that console sound, it will be a step away.
Now I'm just trying to figure out the whole Sterling Modular thing.

For 7 years I have been mixing ITB and now I think it's time try the Hybrid thing for a while. In fact I'm thinking of adding this to my signature.

Tonelux... it's the ultimate plugin!
Welcome back to the darkside Tony

I also need to look into this Sterling business.
Old 7th February 2007
  #88
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToneLux View Post
2 ounces of aural pheromones.

Jim at Sterling has a whole line of Tonelux designed stuff. Get the 3 section one. Ask him to put a piece of glass in the middle and then put your keyboard and mouse there. It's lower and more comfy, and you can see through the glass to operate it. Put a small ring of rope light around it underneath so it lights up the keys but isn't very bright. Raise your speakers and point them down so you can fit 2 recessed 30" cinema displays behind it. OoOooOooOohohhHhhhHHhhh.....

Or maybe "Tonelux, the ultimate plugout"

So Paul, does the Sterling setup accomodate the Faders sections too?
..gotta have those faders front and center
Old 7th February 2007
  #89
Lives for gear
 

Attached Thumbnails
Tonelux Test...-tonelux.jpg  
Old 7th February 2007
  #90
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Thanks Sizzle,you rock.thumbsup
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump