Boz and Chris are obviously the dudes in this dept.

I see the setup in a fairly simple way. Box 1 is your multitrack recorder and virtual instrument/sample player. Box 1 is for all things creative and performance oriented, from tracking to mix automation to midi programming. Box 2 is your 2ch mixdown deck. It's job is to simply capture all the hard work box 1 is doing.

So box 1 needs a drive for the OS (500gb) one for the daw (1-2TB) and one for samples (1-2tb). Sample collections get big over time.

So box 1 is running an OS drive, a daw drive (where all your recorded audio is stored), and a sample drive, which like a library of sounds. These 3 drives in box 1, do all the heavy lifting of the project, and spit out the results.

Box 2 is a very basic box with 2 drives. One for the OS (500gb) the other drive (1tb) to store The mixdowns of the projects from box 1.

Box 1 can be thought of as nothing more than a multitrack recorder and a super fancy Casio keyboard/synth. Box 2 simply mashes it all together into stereo.

It might be possible, depnding on what format the samples come in, to simply take them, and drop them into a folder on box 1. For instance if they happen to be .wav files in a folder called 'samples' or something like that, it's just a matter of drag and drop.

If the samples are in a proprietary format that only samplitude instruments can play, then I'm not sure how to go about it.

A sample (in general) is just a short snippet of a single hit or sound. The sample player (virtual instruments) simply tell the sample (snare hit for example) when to make noise. The virtual instrument is supplying the samples with directions. The samples themselves don't change (in a basic situation). The virtual instruments basically says 'ok you go now' to the sounds.

Box 1 builds the house and paints it, and box 2 takes a nice glossy picture of it, for the world to see.

So box 1 is the 'money box'. You want as much RAM, HD space, and speed, as your budget allows in this box.

An average smart phone as more than powerful enough (as far as computing power) than you'd ever need in a capture box.

It can surely get more complicated as far as monitoring and processing realtime on the capture box. But at its basis it's only job is to be a stereo recorder. Fwiw imho

Edit- Chris said it better and faster than me while I was fumbling thru my response.

exactly.

DAW 2 latency is way too much for triggering a library, overdubbing or performing anything where real time needs zero latency.

PS
What you need to do is Forget about DAW 2 until you have your main DAW 100%. You need to know it inside and out, and know its sound. Only then, would I suggest you add the second DAW.

I'll complicate things by adding, it may possible (depending on your machines age) to run Windows on a Mac, and OS X on a pc.

kmetal, post: 434160, member: 37533 wrote: I'll complicate things by adding, it may possible (depending on your machines age) to run Windows on a Mac, and OS X on a pc.

I believe you can go either way but it may come with conflicts.

FWIW, for DAW 2 , you could get the cheapest laptop with small DVI or HDMI output and connect it to a Costco TV for that matter. Done. Although something a bit better than cheapo will in time prove to be better.
Also, this may attract some eggs my way but its pretty obvious PC is leading in the best mastering software. So, forget about wasting any time or money on Apple for DAW 2. Which is what you were intending but I just thought I would clarify that POV.

Well said, everyone.

If you ignore box 2 for the moment, you should be able to listen to your complete, finished (but not mastered) mix at the analog output of whatever box 1 produces. This mix includes input from all your source tracks, effects and samples.

Box 2 acts as a glorified tape recorder to capture what you are hearing as the finished mix. Only when that is complete can you embark on any post-production work, including mastering.

audiokid, post: 434156, member: 1 wrote: I'll step in and add a bit because you are actually attempting what I have been doing for years already.

Your sample library, actually the mass of your recording and mixing system all needs to be on DAW1.

DAW 2 is for capturing your mix and/ could expand into mastering.

As Bos already said, you can use any DAW for DAW 2. I just happen to use Sequoia 13 for both DAW's because I have expensive taste and means to get this stuff. But that doesn't mean I couldn't get stellar results with Reaper on both DAW's. Or one DAW for that matter.

What you need to do is get your main DAW and monitoring working really well. DAW 1 is priority.
Think of DAW 2 being a replacement option for the master bus section of DAW1. To put it simple... DAW2 captures a mix exactly like a 2 track tape machine would. When you have mastering software on DAW 2, it opens you up to more ways to mixdown and master.

Do you understand this?

Yes I think I do and by thinking ahead and getting excited about possibilities I may be moving too fast without experiencing each step more fully first.
It tends to be the way I do things at times!

kmetal, post: 434157, member: 37533 wrote: Boz and Chris are obviously the dudes in this dept.

I see the setup in a fairly simple way. Box 1 is your multitrack recorder and virtual instrument/sample player. Box 1 is for all things creative and performance oriented, from tracking to mix automation to midi programming. Box 2 is your 2ch mixdown deck. It's job is to simply capture all the hard work box 1 is doing.

So box 1 needs a drive for the OS (500gb) one for the daw (1-2TB) and one for samples (1-2tb). Sample collections get big over time.

So box 1 is running an OS drive, a daw drive (where all your recorded audio is stored), and a sample drive, which like a library of sounds. These 3 drives in box 1, do all the heavy lifting of the project, and spit out the results.

Box 2 is a very basic box with 2 drives. One for the OS (500gb) the other drive (1tb) to store The mixdowns of the projects from box 1.

Box 1 can be thought of as nothing more than a multitrack recorder and a super fancy Casio keyboard/synth. Box 2 simply mashes it all together into stereo.

It might be possible, depnding on what format the samples come in, to simply take them, and drop them into a folder on box 1. For instance if they happen to be .wav files in a folder called 'samples' or something like that, it's just a matter of drag and drop.

If the samples are in a proprietary format that only samplitude instruments can play, then I'm not sure how to go about it.

A sample (in general) is just a short snippet of a single hit or sound. The sample player (virtual instruments) simply tell the sample (snare hit for example) when to make noise. The virtual instrument is supplying the samples with directions. The samples themselves don't change (in a basic situation). The virtual instruments basically says 'ok you go now' to the sounds.

Box 1 builds the house and paints it, and box 2 takes a nice glossy picture of it, for the world to see.

So box 1 is the 'money box'. You want as much RAM, HD space, and speed, as your budget allows in this box.

An average smart phone as more than powerful enough (as far as computing power) than you'd ever need in a capture box.

It can surely get more complicated as far as monitoring and processing realtime on the capture box. But at its basis it's only job is to be a stereo recorder. Fwiw imho

Edit- Chris said it better and faster than me while I was fumbling thru my response.

Between you Chris and Bos I'm seeing the light clearer and you have done a good job of illustrating my dilemma.

Box 1 has my strongest Computer, for lack of a better word, a Mac Pro 3.1 8 core. I'm used to the Nuendo 4 DAW in it and the attached Aurora 16 ADDA seems to work great for me. I have no samples on the Mac. It presently has 500GB for the OS and the DAW lives there as well. I have a 1TB internal HD for projects. No other HD because I have had no samples. I intend to replace the existing 6GB RAM with 32GB (4-8GB/8-4GB depending upon pricing).

I felt the PC for box 2 would be just fine with the 400GB HD where both the OS and Samplitude DAW live. This is the only internal drive in that computer so I was planning to add a 2TB HD for projects. But then I got confused about the use of samples. Ideally I wanted them on Box 1 and would then add an internal HD in the MAC for this. But this raised the kind of questions for me you posed in this post about if/how that can happen and I was off into total confusion ahead of myself.

I think for now I will beef up the RAM in Box 1, (the Mac) and hold off on adding a sample HD there until I know more about the possibilities of using the Pro x2 Sample Library in box 1 where I really want it to be. Time to contact Magix...

audiokid, post: 434158, member: 1 wrote: exactly.

DAW 2 latency is way too much for triggering a library, overdubbing or performing anything where real time needs zero latency.

Yes, I had wondered about this initially when asking the local computer guy but I knew almost nothing about triggering or even using samples.

audiokid, post: 434159, member: 1 wrote: PS
What you need to do is Forget about DAW 2 until you have your main DAW 100%. You need to know it inside and out, and know its sound. Only then, would I suggest you add the second DAW.

Yup...got it.

audiokid, post: 434161, member: 1 wrote: I believe you can go either way but it may come with conflicts.

FWIW, for DAW 2 , you could get the cheapest laptop with small DVI or HDMI output and connect it to a Costco TV for that matter. Done. Although something a bit better than cheapo will in time prove to be better.
Also, this may attract some eggs my way but its pretty obvious PC is leading in the best mastering software. So, forget about wasting any time or money on Apple for DAW 2. Which is what you were intending but I just thought I would clarify that POV.

Good advice and much appreciated.

Boswell, post: 434162, member: 29034 wrote: Well said, everyone.

If you ignore box 2 for the moment, you should be able to listen to your complete, finished (but not mastered) mix at the analog output of whatever box 1 produces. This mix includes input from all your source tracks, effects and samples.

Box 2 acts as a glorified tape recorder to capture what you are hearing as the finished mix. Only when that is complete can you embark on any post-production work, including mastering.

Really true and I see your point. I'm kinda liking monitoring off of box 2 DA right now and may stay with it though I know it is not necessary. It is fun to experiment with different Pres after the Folcrom to see what I can get even though I'm not capturing there yet.

vibrations1951, post: 434164, member: 34341 wrote: Pro x2 Sample Library

(n)
Its not worth the trouble. I tried it and dumped it. There are much better programs.

vibrations1951, post: 434168, member: 34341 wrote: I'm kinda liking monitoring off of box 2 DA right now and may stay with it though I know it is not necessary.

imho... Monitoring when mixing down off DAW2 is the ultimate.

Many thanks to all of you for helping me get my head around this and setting me straight once again. I'll try to follow up here with what I find out from Magix about the sample library use. Just a gut feeling but I think I may be out of luck there. Live and learn. We'll see. Either way, I don't feel like I've gone too far astray.
Don't know how I could even be attempting anything like this without you all and this great forum! I would have given up long ago and settled for much less I'm sure...
namaste

audiokid, post: 434169, member: 1 wrote: (n)
Its not worth the trouble. I tried it and dumped it. There are much better programs.

Very good to hear! Thanks!

vibrations1951, post: 434171, member: 34341 wrote: I'll try to follow up here with what I find out from Magix about the sample library use.

Independence, Revolta and Vita are the sample libraries that all come stock with the "Suite" versions. I don't dislike Independence as much as Chris does, although of course there are better libraries available ... then again, when it comes to sample libraries, and at the rate that those manufacturers are creating them, there's always something better that's available eventually, right? LOL

DonnyThompson, post: 434174, member: 46114 wrote: Independence, Revolta and Vita are the sample libraries that all come stock with the "Suite" versions. I don't dislike Independence as much as Chris does, although of course there are better libraries available ... then again, when it comes to sample libraries, and at the rate that those manufacturers are creating them, there's always something better that's available eventually, right? LOL

Ok and good to know!
Having not used any samples, or midi's for that matter to date, I'm going to wait until I feel the need. When I do, the samples will live in Box 1 and I can be sure then that I have a separate internal drive for them and they are compatible with my Mac and Nuendo DAW. I may still try to see if there is a way for me to access Independence in Box 1 just because. We'll see, but a least now I'm not so concerned and can move forward with my system development.
Thanks so much for the info!
namaste

I like Vita, I use that.

Independence is archaic; it could be so much better. The samples are okay but they definitely sound like samples to me. The GUI is too small and awkward. Terrible imho.

On that note, and I only mention this here and now because we are in this particular topic about more advanced hybrid, analog and summing "way of thinking"....

Here is what I use when "real" and lowest latency is my goal.

With the exception of BFD and Akai MPC drum processing), I much prefer outboard keyboards to ITB libraries. But, this also comes at a price.
As an example, a Korg Kronos and Nord Lead(1 or 4) kick the shit right out of Independence, including pretty much everything I've used in the last 30 years. The best strings I've ever heard are DVZ string. But it also requires 2 computers to operate .

When the track count is high, under load, and I am going for a more real approach... DAW's work better for me when I get away from as much ITB libraries and include PCIe interfacing.
I'm super big on modular. Meaning, two DAW's, one for for tracking, one for the summing/mixdown. Hybrid/ outboard processing like Eventide and Bricasti , and outboard keyboards.

Sample libraries are continually being outdated by "the latest and greatest" - and very often from the same manufacturers. They've become very good at making their older ( and by "older", sometimes that refers to as little as 6 months) samples sound weak in comparison to their newer offerings. Obviously, as sampling and modeling technology become better, so does the result; but I've often chuckled at reading and listening to a new offering from a sample library, when less than just a year ago, their previous sample collections were being exclaimed as "the greatest sounding samples anywhere! " ... LOL.

All this means more money for the sample library makers, of course, at least from those composers who rely on those libraries for serious work, such as film/soundtrack. The competition is so fierce in that industry, that even Hans Zimmer is looking over his shoulder these days, at the new guys coming up behind him, with fresher sounds, and fresher ideas. I don't think he needs to lose any sleep over it, and I'm sure that he, and other composer cats like him, who rely on samples for their product, are pretty well entrenched, and aren't going to be unemployed anytime soon... but they do need to keep current, and largely because of that, the sample library manufacturers are kept alive and kicking... and ecstatically happy.

The other types of composers - The John Williams, ( Star Wars, ET, Raiders, etc) and The Elmer Bernsteins, ( Magnificent Seven, To Kill A Mockingbird, etc.) always use real orchestras for their soundtracks; so to them, all the various sample libraries probably mean very little to them, one way or the other, unless they are perhaps just using them as sketchpads to score the parts for real players to eventually perform, and they could do that with pretty much any orchestral library release in the last 20 years.

FWIW
-d

Precisely why I avoid VSTi as much as possible and use external keyboards and outboard processing to create my own space.

I love sampling and I'm sure VSTi will only get better and better , but, how many times do we need to sample a snare, kick, bass guitar, flute, marimba etc. :rolleyes:
What makes samples sound good>better> best... , (including what I hear that actually improves music in a mix) is largely all about the acoustic space.

Which is precisely why I am so big on good acoustics or the best kind of room emulation. But a basic string patch through a good reverb and it usually sounds pretty nice.
So, when we buy a library are we buying the reverb or the sample? Or, said another way, would we be better off buying a really good reverb and software that allows us to create better space in our entire workflow.

With samples being a dime a dozen and mediocre I am subscribing to a small bit expensive set from Vienna instruments for orchestral, and BFD for drums.

Any decent studio can record Kiks and Snares just as well or better than what you get in things like sample tank and other mainstream 'stockish' stuff.

A good set of orchestra samples brilliantly recorded will go a long way for a while imho. The largest difference between regular and spectacular is the nuances, and 'naturalness' of how realistic or unrealistic the midi performance can sound. I believe this is what makes things archaic, as opposed to the actual quality of the sample. I could be wrong in my thinking, but as a BFD user I believe there are some sample library's that are above the rest. We'll see about the Vienna instruments, but I have yet to hear a really realistic string section, and never heard a convincing woodwind/air instruments that sound authentic.

It's easier to make a great sample lo-fi, than to make an average sample hi-fi. Again imho

kmetal, post: 434182, member: 37533 wrote: Vienna instruments

definitely top quality there.
Spectrasonics , awesome.

I've posted this before. Its made by Christopher Stone. Those who don't know who Christopher Stone is, he was the original sound designer for Emu system, the Emulator II. He has dozens of epic soundtracks under his belt.

DVZ is at least 7 years old now, and seriously bloated code but how can you beat this effect. What I focus on isn't the samples but how its performed and what he figured out about space and emulating it.

Owning some of the finest samplers made, the good ones have excellent reverb and ability to place the samples well in the stereo field.
http://recording.org/threads/dvz-strings.47046/

I have DVZ software.
When dissecting it, I discovered/ confirmed the element that separated , good, better best real world emulation was more about the reverb and how he layers the samples in the DVZ stereo spectrum.
Listening to the DVZ string samples alone, I was shocked how common they sounded.
They are definitely excellent quality but truthfully, they are not any better than the crop of top end samples I've had for 20 years already.
I am 100% convinced we all should be looking a lot more in the direction of how important a common acoustic space is, and persevering or emulating this in a mix (as in glued > as in like a symphony or band all playing in the same space together at once) over all the fuss in gear we spend time on.

I'm not suggesting we buy into this software or a Bricasti, but reverb is pretty damn powerful. Good reverb will out do a lot of what a library doesn't do.

One Bricasti is an 8 core computer. So, how do we expect one DAW to preserve and/or create real world space without some serious compromise. Which brings us back to the OP I suppose.

[MEDIA=vimeo]18446563

Hi there to everybody.
I am a singer song writer. I have a small studio setup.

I have been following some threads for some time about analog summing.
There happens to be many options and views.
And I appreciate every valuable comments and contributions for that matter.

I have few outboard units that I could use during summing.

Among many options, I decide to go with a passive summing box to keep signal path as clean as possible and have the option of adding different tones and forms of audio processing based on what I have available at hand.

Among the passive options, I was checking out the roll music folcrom unit but recently came across with below units as well (all via GS)
Unit Audio Analog Summing box: http://www.unitaudio.com/index.html
Vintage maker: http://www.vintagemaker.net
And another one from Tim : http://wovenaudio.com

I would appreciate your kind guidance on to see if my logic of approaching the method is right?
And is it ok to go with a passive unit?
I look forward to your two cents.
fatih

Yes, it's likely that you could make any of those units work for OTB passive analogue summing. However, to give a certain reply, it would take further analysis of the output characteristics of all your devices that send analogue tracks to the summing box and also to highlight any disadvantages of particular units.

What would you use as the pre-amp for make-up gain and what type of A-D converter do you have to capture the 2-track mix?

Dear Boswell thank you for getting back.

I have UA Twin (BLA premium modded) and Apogee Duet that I use for tracking into Cubase Pro 8.

Once tracking is done, I lay down my tracks with pans in place and get them ready for mix down.
I do not mix down in the same daw as this method is something new for me to adapt.
This method is something that I heard from a seasoned pro in GS and wanted to try for its benefits.

From DAW1 (Mac Mini), I will get audio stems by MOTU 1248 (really great DAC) to the analog summing unit.

From analog summing unit to my second DAW2 (Wavelab or Cubase in Mac book pro), I will use Mytek 96 ADC to get the summed signal (mix down / master) to for final mix and master.

In between the summing unit and Mytek ADC I would use the following depending on the tone and character;

- UA Twin Unison mic pres analog in and analog out (using Unison enabled plugins for API channel - Neve 1073 - UA tube)
- 2 x Warm audio Tone Beast dual setup mic pre
- TL Audio Tube Ivory2 5060 Stereo Comp.
- Elysia Envelop Dual channel Transient designer/Comp/Shelve EQ
- Millennia HV-32P dual channel mic pre
- I may also use the Apogee Duet's soft limit property at the end of the chain (just analog in analog out)

This is the signal chain I plan to use depending on the song.
The only missing link is the summing unit.

I believe in my setup the best choose would be to go with a passive summing unit.
But I was not too sure about it.
Than why all these pros would use active units from the makes of SPL (Neos, Mixdream), NEVE, Tonulux, D-Box, BLA, etc...
Thnx and best

fmk2000, post: 434211, member: 49572 wrote: Than why all these pros would use active units from the makes of SPL (Neos, Mixdream), NEVE, Tonulux, D-Box, BLA, etc...

In the same way that you have a collection of different summing amps, some pros like to have the option of going for all-in-one analog summers, each with their own characteristics. I know Chris (Audiokid) gets very good results from all-in-one summers that use amplifiers running from higher voltage rails than those usually found in audio interfaces.

My own way of working is along the lines that you are contemplating, and I choose a summing method and gear that best suits the particular material being mixed. If you are working on the tracks for a whole CD, you have first to do the evaluation of gear and method over all the tracks on that CD and then stick with that configuration while performing all the mixing for that CD. Document what you do carefully, as that decreases the uncertainties if you have to re-mix any tracks later that happen to give problems at the mastering stage.

Boswell, Thank you for another great "reference book" explanation of work flow method.

I will take this under quotation:

Based on the particular way of working: "Choose a summing method and gear that best suits the particular material being mixed.
If you are working on the tracks for a whole CD, you have first to do the evaluation of gear and method over all the tracks on that CD and then stick with that configuration while performing all the mixing for that CD.
Document what you do carefully, as that decreases the uncertainties if you have to re-mix any tracks later that happen to give problems at the mastering stage."

Below is the text in quotation which belongs to Chris (Audiokid from GS) where I got inspired to adopt that kind of work flow methodology.

the GS link is https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/875483-analog-summing-all-options-big-thread-5.html?highlight=analog+summing

"We have Dangerous Music and SPL to thank once again. They are designing hybrid Summing systems right imho, a system (process) built to record, mix and master all styles of music (recording, mixing, mastering) without compromise to WORK WITH A DAW, not against it or inferior. We want digital audio to pass through the console without being effected.

A little bragging in this but that's how it rolls for me. I love sound. Miss the old FM stations that inspired us to invest in gear over a house. WTF was I thinking.
I'm going to shut up now and sign out. Cheers"

I just realised that Chris is also a member here (the audiokid).
I feel pretty dumb!...

fmk2000, post: 434216, member: 49572 wrote: I just realised that Chris is also a member here (the audiokid).
I feel pretty dumb!...

Post edited:
no worries, its nice to see people reading what I am so passionate about.
wow, I can't believe all the time I've spent doing this. What a long winded post from GS!

Don't waste your money, comes to mind all the time. Keep it simple and buy boat or something else. But, the rig I put together is amazing
I'm glad I'm retiring (well sort of..) Its too much explaining lol. :coffee:

fmk2000, post: 434216, member: 49572 wrote: I just realised that Chris is also a member here (the audiokid).
I feel pretty dumb!...

no worries, its nice to see people reading what I am so passionate about.
wow, I can't believe all the time I've spent doing this. What a long winded post from GS!

Don't waste your money, comes to mind all the time. Keep it simple and buy boat or something else. But, the rig I put together is/was amazing. World class indeed.
I'm glad I'm retiring (well sort of..) Its too much explaining lol. :coffee:

wellll....things are getting a bit complicated here as I read and dive deep into the roots of this AWESOME thread!....
it is like "AUDIO ORGASMIC STATE" (I can not find any other word to describe what I fee when keep reading what's been written on this thread!).
With all the lack of knowledge and experience in compare to all you guys (chris, boss and others), I am still curious and will keep asking the questions...

fmk2000, post: 434215, member: 49572 wrote: I do not need external clocks this way. Although I am testing the 10M ( to be announced)

10M is a beautiful piece of hardware but 100% useless in a system like mine. In fact, if anything, it was slightly (so slight) worse to a internal PCIe clock ; a complete waste of rack space and energy.
Those who claim huge improvement with it, well... if you say so.
But, those claims to me are a clear indication that your rig and workflow is seriously fucked up.

When I posted this on GS, I was attacked by the people shilling it there, my post regarding it was removed and I was warned.
Long live RO! (y)

audiokid, post: 434219, member: 1 wrote: wow, I can't believe all the time I've spent doing this. What a long winded post from GS!

Indeed;
while I was trying figure out the best setup that I could do within the boundaries of my capacity, while deep searching, I came across with Chris initial setup back in 2013! So I contacted him to ask his guidance and confirm few things regarding my setup.
He guided me to here (thank you Chris). And I found another Guru, the bosswell.

Yet, it was apparent that the process was evolving, based on constantly trying to find the better.
By going trough thread, it came to a point of stating:
" Through detailed tests of my own, I am no longer using analog gear to mix but still appreciating stems through various summing consoles" - by Audiokid Chris @ July 6th 2015.
He continues in such a way, to help me to find my answer that I have been looking for:

" I will advise you on this though, If I was starting out, I would always start with big rail transparent summing solutions. You can always add hardware with transformers and tubes on a stem(s) or 2-bus. You can always degrade your signal path so this is why people prefer transparent summing to coloured."

In this context, I will choose to go by SPL Mixdream XP for its price/performance ratio and what it offers.
Clean huge head room, no compromise all analog audio with 60-volts rails and no coloration with 16 channels and mono switch capability for 880 Euros!
It looks like the best bang for the buck, a stream lined version of original Mixdream (or NEOS without faders and bells and whistles) without inserts (further degradation of audio signal if I may).

But it does not stop here, because, the rest goes as follows:

" Contrary to the belief analog expands, makes music bigger, I am 100% convinced, it does the opposite. "

Waooov! This is huge! It just made me crash to a brick wall while I was running 100 miles/hr.
followed by the KEY SENTENCE:

"This is a big topic from this point on."

Upon crashing in to the brick wall (really compressed!), I remembered a recent discussion with a friend of mine.
His name is also Chris.
He is one of the most talented musician/producer/genius (besides you guys!) that I have known so far.
I met with him last year during Mix withe Masters seminar that I at tented with the analog master Steve (Albini).

I was also asking his opinion about analog summing, his experiences and what he would recommend me just about couple of days ago.
He told me such striking things that it was difficult for me to digest.
What he was saying was

"Contrary to the belief analog expands, makes music bigger, it does not, it is limited"

It may not be relevant to the discussion here but just to let you all know that he put his console for sale, if any one of you is interested, you may want to know what it is...

"This is my console, I've used it for years... it is actually almost all first generation from Paul Wolff directly.
I purchased it from Erik Johnson's engineer in Texas who received one of the original ones from Paul... It sounds amazing for sure... and PMI is a little bit of a pain in the ass, but they didn't trash the tone... They bought the designs from Paul himself, I think some of the newer stuff may be different but all this was bought years ago. - Amazing Tonelux system, 48 inputs, 6 mic pres, (two 8 channel travel racks) 4 fx returns, 10 compressors and 10 els"

Back to the discussion of the "BIG TOPIC" :
My budy Chris continues:
"There is infinite headroom practically in digital realm"
"you just have to structure your mixes right"
"with 56-bit architecture there is endless headroom... one must understand the gain structure apparently"
than he pointed me out to a white paper whose link is below
http://akmedia.digidesign.com/support/docs/48_Bit_Mixer_26688.pdf

"56 bits internally gives you 336 db of dynamic range, that's crazy impossible to hear..."
"It would kill you literally if you used it right..."

And here the killing statement (for me at the least) he makes:

"but in pro tools at mixing you have that headroom, you just need to turn up your monitors and mix lower!!!"

"TURN THE MONITORS ALL THE WAY UP AND MIX LOWER!"
"Analog offers something else...Saturation, width, dimension...glue.."
"It's analog that has headroom limits," but there is TONS of headroom in the analog realm as well if you structure your mixes appropriately"
"Find the sweet spot on your listening... then adjust your compressors, etc. to your taste, whether you want any at all, or to slam them, or to gently touch them..."
"learn the VCA faders, it helps a lot, and master faders on buses.."
"In the digital realm you can gain the clip up or down without disturbing it, and the noise floor is so low it won"
"But in general use meters and get your mix up there either way... even if you go over, with 32 bit architecture the data is not lost like in the past..."

"Unless you're going to go with a hi-end analog setup, it's not worth it... the box is so good now...

So in a sense:
what all that means "ITB rocks with all the head room you could get"
AND
use analog console or summing if you want to add "saturation, width, dimension...glue"

But isn't it all these about "width" & "dimension" & "depth" & "the glue" ...
Than the Audiokid Chris goes:

audiokid, post: 434219, member: 1 wrote: Don't waste your money, comes to mind all the time. Keep it simple and buy boat or something else.

so the questions remains: to SUM or NOT to SUM....
I wish William Shakespeare would have two cents to chime in here...

it is enough for me to share at what I got thrown.

look forward to your comments

Really the whole 'magic' in the analog summing has mostly to do with bypassing the mix DAWs master section. That is where bottlenecking takes place, and there is an audible difference in the mix, and the 'bounced' version, when using 1 daw only.
The rest is mostly taste and color choice.

PT was the big offender of this, partly because of its wide usage. There have been workarounds such as using aux instead of a master fader.

In the newer HD 64 bit versions they have added VCA faders and re written the code. I haven't put my new rig together yet so I can't say personally what, if any improvements have been made in the master sections summing ability. I'm curious to see how it compares with the summing to a mixdowns daw.

Taking the analog mojo out of the equation, the way I see a fit test, is simply to 'bounce' a hi res mix down to 44.1, and then mixdown to a second daw to 44.1 with no additional hardware in between. This will show the differences in th SRC abilities. If you did the same process bit with no sample rate conversion, it would show a fairly good idea, of the differences between analog summing, and pure ITB summing ability.

Between the to non-scientific processes it gives a good idea of what the master bus is or is not doing.

thanks metal.

this is a very good way to put it:

kmetal, post: 434224, member: 37533 wrote: Really the whole 'magic' in the analog summing has mostly to do with bypassing the mix DAWs master section.
That is where bottlenecking takes place, and there is an audible difference in the mix, and the 'bounced' version, when using 1 daw only.
The rest is mostly taste and color choice.

regardless off sum or not to sum;
I will keep the idea of DAW1 & DAW2 in place as it is obvious that one should stay away from the master bus of a DAW.
I do not use the PT a lot (almost none), but cubase most of the time.
though i am growing very curious about the samplitude but I hate to go back to a pc and an additional learing curve for that matter...

I feel ya. My workaround is to either dual boot, or simply get one of each. The Pc really can be bare bones.
I have a samplitude license and will be purchasing PTHD on eBay. I also have a NAS drive, which is basically a personal cloud. It's Mac, Windows, and Linux, compatible so it breaks down format walls for me. Or will when I get it set up.

The reason for this is samplitude does things PT simply can't, like object based editing. And it's audio engine is superb. PTHD does things samplitude can't, mainly multiple video tracks, and 7.1.

So to my feeble mind, I will have to two absolute best programs out there as I set my self up for global remote recording/mix/mastering domination.

fmk2000, post: 434222, member: 49572 wrote: use analog console or summing if you want to add "saturation, width, dimension...glue

Saturation yes!

Definitely the opposite for width and glue. Analog does some nice things but it does not add better sonics and the right glue. What it does, is shift the audio similar to us moving a bit left and a bit right (more lush and noble with out trying). But it comes at a price that isn't worth it once you know how to emulate the good part it doesn't, and avoid the bad part it does. ;)

fmk2000, post: 434222, member: 49572 wrote: It looks like the best bang for the buck, a stream lined version of original Mixdream (or NEOS without faders and bells and whistles) without inserts (further degradation of audio signal if I may).

The MixDream is excellent. The Neos is world class but I'm glad I sold mine.
The faders, master section and panning are a complete waste money.(n)
Some people who have never built a hybrid rig like mine would disagree.
Meaning, they may think you need all extra because of the old ways... but its all a detriment in my world. I built the one of the worlds most proficient, midi, acoustic tracking, mixing and mastering hybrid rigs.

I'd love to keep bragging about it, but it takes hours to write this stuff with any sense.

Two DAW's rule because you can work and move the audio around much better. You can without question, achieve everything better ITB and its even more fun with two uncoupled DAW's.
My attention is around space emulation with a two DAW system and the Bricasti.

Sequoia 13 replaced $100,000 in world class gear. But nothing replaced the space a Bricasti adds.

The ultimate for me is having a good mastering program on DAW2.

I just added a Folcrom which I think is going to be really nice.

kmetal, post: 434224, member: 37533 wrote: PT was the big offender of this, partly because of its wide usage. There have been workarounds such as using aux instead of a master fader.

And isn't it odd - that on a platform that is supposedly the industry's "gold standard" in DAW's, that the users were the ones who were forced to find a "workaround" to avoid using the master bus in order get better fidelity upon mixdown? :confused:

Basically, it's not all that different than buying a really nice console, and having the manufacturer tell you, "This desk has 96 inputs, all channels use Lundhal 1538 XFO's, it has full automation, 12 aux's per channel, in-line gain reduction which is side chainable and assignable as pre or post EQ, which just happens to be a beautiful sounding high quality filtering system; I guarantee, you're gonna love this console! ... oh... one more little thing, though ... when you mix, use a stereo aux out instead, because the master bus doesn't sound very good." o_O

audiokid, post: 434183, member: 1 wrote: One Bricasti is an 8 core computer. So, how do we expect one DAW to preserve and/or create real world space without some serious compromise.

I want you to mark the date and time that you've posted this, Chris - LOL - because I'm not willing to take the bet that it won't ever happen. Many things that we thought could "never happen", have in fact happened.
There was probably a time when people thought that something like the actual Bricasti hardware wasn't possible, either. But it happened.

So yes, it might be too difficult, and maybe you're right, and it's just not gonna happen.
But, some of the things we used to be just as convinced about not being possible, turned out to not only be possible, but did in fact happen. Great sounding drum samples, audio to midi, midi to audio, object editing...there have been many advances that quite a few of us thought of as pipe dreams.
And, not only did those things eventually happen, but some of those things are already in our rear-view mirrors... ( Like going to Mars.) ;)

No one can say for sure one way or the other what tomorrow holds. Maybe it's not possible right now. But our "tomorrows" sure do seem to be arriving faster and faster lately than they used to. ;)

audiokid, post: 434227, member: 1 wrote: Definitely the opposite for width and glue. Analog does some nice things but it does not add better sonics and the right glue.

I used to think that analog tape provided the "best" glue ... maybe because at the time, digital emulation hadn't yet reached where it is now. I've since discovered that I prefer the "glue" that I get now, in digital, to be better. I find it more cohesive, wider, and tonally unlimited, and without the negatives of tape - noise and NR, machine calibration, more limited BW, head adjustment, setting up a deck so that a tape that was recorded at one studio would play back accurately at another...
Sure, you can misuse saturation and limiting in digital. People do it all the time, and we've all heard and talked about the effects of that. But don't forget, it was also very possible to overdue it through trannies, tubes and to tape, too.

IMO, Saturation is mostly still best obtained using nice analog gear. But that's me speaking right now. There are exceptions here and there - for example, I'm having a pretty hard time hearing the difference between a Waves or T-Racks Modeled SSL G channel Strip Plug and a real SSL G Strip - which I've had experience on. OTOH, I've yet to hear any Pultec EQ sim truly sound like the real deal, ( of which I've also used the real things over the years at various studios).
And, I'm not even saying that the modeled versions of the EQP are worthless, because they're not... some do come pretty close, and even if it's not exact, you can still get a really nice character out of them.

So, on one hand, they nail it, while on the other, they don't.... For every success, there are always a multitude of failures first.

Slate (and Fabrice Gabriel) have recently released a new transient modeler ([[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.slatedig…"] FG Bomber[/]="http://www.slatedig…"] FG Bomber[/]) that is coming eerily close to the sounds of tranny saturation. I personally don't think that it's 100% there yet, but there's no doubt that the manufacturers are getting much closer.

And, I've played into some pretty good sounding guitar amp sims, but I've yet to find anything that sounds as good as the natural tube saturation on my HR DeVille, miked up with a nice dynamic and ribbon.

But, the operative word in all of these cases is "yet".

There are many things that we can now do ITB, (and often we take them for granted) that at one time, we couldn't do.... "yet".

IMO