Originally posted by Shaman The mix was done before the test using internal summing.
All we changed was the output assignement, so I can´t talk about the mixing process, only about the result of identical mixes
I've recorded mixes from the Folcrom outs back into 2 tracks in PT, without doing a BTD, and with.
I'm not bringing out the old "BTD sucks" argument again, but compared to the non-BTD, the BTD version sounded slightly less defined and had less depth, although it was still good. This was most noticeable on drum overheads when the cymbals and drums overall seemed to have less "space" around them, and the pan placements were a little less defined. It wasn't the Folcrom's fault, because the non-BTD version was just the opposite.
The main benefit is that you don't have to do any dithering. IMHO, this is where BTD loses vs. recording to 2 tracks; dithering is the enemy. Just record the tracks back in at 16/44.1. You're already going thru the Folcrom... let that be your "dithering." This also lets you keep the mix at the highest resolution you want, at least until it sees 16/44.1 (and no dithering).
And ITB plus BTD isn't worth the trouble anymore. heh
Sorry, no wave files or mp3's to show right now.
The best part about the Folcrom is using your ourboard preamps for their "color" and headroom. It's a keeper.
Originally posted by Shaman
Originally posted by RKrizman
Unfortunately you forgot the most important thing in your test. You need to run the BTD mix through those preamps also, with the same gain staging.
[B]Why should I ??
PT HD -->16 DA Outputs from 2x192 I/O via Digisnake cable direct to the Folcrom -->Manley Slam for `make up Gain` --> 2 Analog Inputs 192 I/O routed back to PT HD --> Bounce to disk
....-->back through the Slam...for what...?...Mastering...Building a perpetuum mobile for sound engineers...?
You're missing my point. I mean you should try that as part of your comparison experiment.
Question: Does the improved sound come from the fact that you're summing all these tracks in the analog domain, or is it because you're using that particular preamp to amplify the summed signal?
What if you take your summed-in-the-box mix and run it through the same preamp, gain staging it the same way as you did with your other tracks. If it sounds better, then perhaps you can dispense with all the trouble of splitting out your tracks to the Folcrum.
Wouldn't it be nice to know what is actually responsible for the more desireable sonics so you don't go to a lot of needless trouble?
To reiterate. Maybe summing in the Folcrom is a sonic improvement in and of itself. However, maybe it's just a rain dance and what's really getting you there is the preamp you've added at the end. As long as people are testing, and posting files, and showing some interest in this, it would be nice to isolate some variables to find out where the benefit is really coming from.
The Folcrom came about when I called Dan Kennedy and asked him to make me a custom summing box with his Neve style make up gain. He basically told me he didn't have the time. Then he asked me why I couldn't just make a passive box and then output it to his Great River NV which I already owned. I told him I too didn't have the time. But what a brilliant idea. And then Dan referred me to a fella named Justin Ulysses Morse.
When I first found Justin he weighed only 100 pounds, spoke not a word of English, wore spotted clothing, and he could only turn his head to the right so that in a fight he could easily be beaten if approached from the left.* But man he could build some ****ing gear. I'm talking solid gear. So I had him build me the first Folcrom. It was a two rack unit thingie with 16 XLRs and some nice switches and it did wonders for my mixing and convinced me that out of the box was the way to go.
To answer R Krizman, simply outputting a mix from PT with a cut f -40db and then using a preamp to make up the 40db DOES NOT SOUND THE SAME as outputting the channels seperately to a nice D/A and then to the Folcrom and then to the preamp. The ladder is wider and deeper and richer sounding. And the reason is simple. You can push the channels up a ****load more because you don't overload the internal buss due to the much increased headroom. And so, you are capturing more bits as well. So I would recommend that everyone try out the Folcrom because you'll keep it. Its simply a better alternative then mixing in the box. www.rollmusic.com
Steve www.bangrecording.com www.blacklinerock.com
*added for dramatic effect and may not be completely true
Originally posted by Bang
To answer R Krizman, simply outputting a mix from PT with a cut f -40db and then using a preamp to make up the 40db DOES NOT SOUND THE SAME as outputting the channels seperately to a nice D/A and then to the Folcrom and then to the preamp. The ladder is wider and deeper and richer sounding. And the reason is simple. You can push the channels up a ****load more because you don't overload the internal buss due to the much increased headroom. And so, you are capturing more bits as well.
Did you actually try this and hear the results? I don't remember that being mentioned.
I'm not sure I understand your explanation. You mean when you mix through the Folcrom you move your faders higher in your DAW? Then you didn't do a fair comparison, right, if you were running your faders hotter into the Folcrom.
I don't get what you mean by overloading the DAW mixbus. Zero is your limit, and that's it. And if you're recording at 24 bits, you already have so much headroom that it's really not an issure to run your faders lower. Even at -48 db you still have a 16 bit signal.
Let me ask you this. When you just ran your attenuated DAW mix straight into the preamp for increased gain, bypassing the Folcrom, was it any improvement at all? Surely there must have been some difference, just running it through the iron.
The whole principle is that it's not just about iron or color or slowing down the highs, or whatever. If I throw a GML or a Buzz MA 2.2 for the makeup gain and am using Lavry conversion I'll make an educated guess it's going to sound quite incredible. I've said it so many times, fidelity before color. And voltage before math...sorry.
BTW Bang, I was actually confusing you with Shaman. It was Shaman who did the original test in this thread and neglected to test the "DAW into preamp without Folcrom" option, thereby leaving it up in the air as to what was responsible for the difference. Since he did all that, I was kind of hoping he'd go one step further and try my suggestion, and compare it with the rest.
How about it Shaman, it could be very informative.