1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

Rupert Neve Design 5059

Discussion in 'Recording' started by audiokid, Jul 10, 2013.

  1. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Any one that tries this, please let us know what you think and why you are into hybird mixing and chose or are thinking about choosing this?


    Thinking out loud and off the cuff.

    My first impression from the literature is it looks really cool and I'm really glad to see this available! Its priced competitively too.

    One thing that stands out being different is the added channel separation control and tranny colouring. Rupert is splitting up the 2-bus more than what SPL or Dangerous "doesn't do or see as a good thing". I tend to agree but who knows. Sure looks nice regardless.

    (Red Silk):

    An Excerpt from Tape Op:
    I'd love to have a shootout with anyone that gets a Rupert Neve Design 5059.

    Please share your thoughts on this or any hybrid related product here. I love discussing hybrid and certainly want to support companies going this direction. Its so good to see more and more developing hybrid technology!
  2. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Hmm, the more I look at this the more I like it. Its not exactly my direction but damn, if I was in the market and was shopping.... I'd be demoing this.
  3. MadMax

    MadMax Well-Known Member

    I'm thunkin' about it.... seriously thunkin' about it.

    It's not quite what I'm REALLY lookin' for... but closest yet in terms of traditional summing boxes.
  4. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Cool, Max!

    i'll chime in on a few things that may be of interest.

    The Portico MBP is on my list and why I'm taking a second glance at this new Neve summing mixer now. Not that I want it or need it, but why I would recommend it ( if it sounds as good and works like I'm assuming it should) and at this price point!

    I'm using a variety of gear that spreads a mix out in a similar process while preserving phase, but that didn't come cheap! The new Neve direction seems to be going this way and it may do it really well.
    For instance, I've added a Dangerous Master to my hybrid chain that goes in after my Neos summing console. It has M&S processing and 3 inserts for mastering gear. And this is where the magic happens.
    Down the path, on my Master DAW ( mixdown machine), I tighten the bass freq of the final mix with Sequoia, like Chuck is showing on the MBP. Neve seems to be using the hardware for M&S plus low freq mono control.
    They've also added what sounds to be a very nice limiter. Something that the Crane Song STC-8 sucks at really well.

    I'm not sure I like a hardware limiter but I've been thinking about buying the Portico MBP just for that. I'm wondering if it would add some fat while helping to increase signal tracking the sum on the the mixdown DAW. I mean, getting the majority of transients under control on a nice hardware limiter then topping it all off with a digital one back ITB heading to the web. Sort of like the marriage of an LA2A and an 1176 has been for a vox. Make sense?
    Not sure I like a hardware limiter but it also may add or do something really cool to the fat. If the phase is tight, the fat is big and its why we are doing all this OTB stuff.

    Bottom line of what I'm getting at here:
    Looking at the Portico stereo processing and this new Neve summing mixing, all I can say is it could do what I'm getting at a fraction of the cost. If this sounds and works like my rid... talk about making mixing fun and waaaay easier to hear, spread a mix out in minutes apposed to hours. Finding that compromise on every mix, the big sound you've always wanted but couldn't quite get, will come to you like a dream.

    This video demonstrates a similar way I'm doing it on the Master bus. Neve is looking pretty cool right now. I think Manley lost some serious brains when Chuck left!

    And a glimpse of the MBP :

  5. MadMax

    MadMax Well-Known Member

    Ultimately, from what I'm seeing with the 5059, is that I will really need 4 of em' to get what I'm looking for... but maybe someday, someone will make a really functional summing box that's what I want and what the industry needs... which is 4 line amp channels with phase inversion... with 12 additional summing channels for a total of 16 channels with 8 routable/selectable buses... with inserts on all channels.

    Essentially, a real master routing section with bus gain/attenuation.

    The 5059 can do a quarter of what I want straight out of the box... or maybe with insert routing and a patchbay, I can get it to do what I want. I've got an email into Josh, and maybe he can tell me if that's possible with the 5059, or maybe I'll end up with a quote back for what I'm looking for... We'll see.

    Some may disagree with me that an 8 bus summing box isn't needed, but those folks typically aren't used to live mixing, or have not ever used LFC's for tracking or mixing and don't understand the joy of being able to pre or post a VCA on a group that needs inserts... or tracking some of the more "tweaked" methods of micing that cannot be done ITB.

    Although, the Neos (et al) sum to two bus... I'm still not convinced that direct summing to the 2 is going to be all I need to get what I'm looking for.

    Example: Summing drum OH's and inserting a stereo compressor on them, and then routing them back in to the DAW for automation, and kickin' one or two final drum buses BACK out to analog summing for the two... while I'm summing guitars on another bus and routing back in for additional processing... then taking the guitar buses back out.... plus bass, keys, vox, etc... There's just not enough routing in a single dual stereo bus box like the 5059.It would take at least two 5059's and I would only use about half of each one... and that still only gives me 3 additional summing buses. To get to a true 8 bus configuration, I'd really need 5 of em'.... For that kind of money, I might as well stay where I am, and integrate something like a short frame console (4000 or maybe an XL) with master section.
  6. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    Yes... in a way. Although there were times when I did in fact use that chain and the vocals almost became "too fat"... almost like it was too much glue? Actually, some of the best tracks I ever ended up with were using those two devices at unity gain and just picking up the coloration that they had to offer.

    While the chances probably aren't high, is there anyway you could demo this Neve with your current configuration, if to do nothing more than an A/B comparison with what you are using now?

    I mean, yes, there's no doubt that Neve makes great stuff, but you have some very nice gear too, and you might already be there sonically without adding this piece... just thinking out loud...

  7. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Hi Donny, without sounding too arrogant to the rest of our readers (I'm thinking I should change my username to buttercup, hehe) , I wouldn't be trading what I have for this.
    I'm posting this for the those thinking past ITB. This system looks great but is not the same level compared to what I use. But it could still be awesome.
    However! Neve is definitely on the right track and the price point is absolutely there. If I was looking to step into hybrid, I'd be looking here too. The Portico MBP "limiter" is what I'm interested in. The Portico series appears to be heading in the right direction. From the Mastering bus section POV, someone at Neve is definitely thinking.

    Anyone thinking about hybird summing and not wanting to spend $20,000 right off the bat, the Orion 32 and the 5059 would take your crammed ITB mix to a whole new level. I guarantee that. The magic on this is at that master section of this summing rig. The 16 channel and the Red Silk thingy isn't what impresses me but, maybe some like that. I'd prefer Dangerous and SPL over the 5059 but what Neve is doing on the master section goes 100% my direction, and at a fraction of the cost I'm into it all it. So, from that perspective, this looks like a good opening to hybrid summing.


    Hey Max, I remember you talking about this a few years back, before I had as much hands on experience. Now that I've been using this hybrid stuff, reading a lot on it, listening to mixes, friends methods and comparing, the way you are describing things now has a whole new light to me so I'll share my thoughts. Maybe helpful, maybe not. :)

    I would NOT be doing the round trip like this because its a sure phase and latency nightmare. (One step forward, 2 steps back). A console and maybe a nice 2" for drums is where I would be headed if I was you. Why don't you just do that?

    From my perspective, hybrid summing concept is what you do at the end of the mix heading onto your 2 track or capture DAW prior too mastering or even better, along with mastering. Guys doing it like me are now finding the ultimate mixes are in 3 steps together. Tracking, hybrid mixing/ summing while monitoring it all from the capture system thinking somewhat like an ME and if you can, using mastering hardware as well. It gives you unbelievable control and flavour.

    To anyone listening, I wouldn't ever be going back to the same daw once I was OTB. Thats something I'm pretty solid on.
    Engineers using these to insert gear for analog mojo then track back to the same session are so far off the mark. Been there done that and heard ( hear in all mixes) $*^t I ovoid like the plague. The phase and latency creeps up on you, that produces smeary and weak sounding mixes. Better off I say, staying ITB.
    Also, summing amps that add tube or colour is also a warning flag to me which is something I don't like about this. To me, thats for people that need to warm up metalic mixes compromised or something. Again, targeted to the round trip thinking.
    But, I like the mastering control on this and the ability to fine tune the panning. I have a love hate thing for this lol. But it looks good and would get you going hybrid for sure.

    Back to Max,
    Grab a nice console and I think you will be in heaven and way further ahead! You, your whole studio has a really special and warm vibe that spells console to me.

    Back to the crowd,

    Forget trying to make Pro Tools more complicated than it already is. Simple and back to the basics sounds way better and is less expensive in the long run. Most likely way more fun too. I am so sick of plug-ins.

    My rant of the week.
  8. Gette

    Gette Active Member

    I agree, mixing entirely OTB is my approach. Using PT only as a recorder editor, no plug ins, just routing in and out. in my case 32 in 32 out. simple as that. Treat it no different then a 24 track 2". Just having the ability to edit with out cutting tape..... Guess I am just old school in that regard. duh
  9. MadMax

    MadMax Well-Known Member

    My approach from the get go has been to have the option to use as many or as few plug-in's and hardware inserts as I want.. the internal PT HD stereo busing for external sends/returns is where I think I find PT could be improved with analog summing.

    e.g. I'd rather create summing externally by taking mono channels and send mono buses to an analog stereo device, and bring those back in as analog stereo signals... EXACTLY as you describe... so, I'm not sure how you're not contradicting yourself about round trip latency... which even going round trip through as many as 3 devices... my latency is measuring less than 4mS. (3 devices was a test and typically my maximum is 2 devices.)

    Having been a percussionist for damn near 50 years, I often hear the smearing you're describing... but not as much with my mixes as I hear in so many tracks. Primarily I think that's because I am diligent about keeping the digital buses from over saturating, watching phase relationships, and using analog hardware as much as possible.

    From what I'm reading, the real different between your rig and mine is the bus summing to the 2-bus.

    What I hear between your mixes and mine is not really as "night and day" as one might think. In your mixes, I hear a lot more hyped upper mids to HF, which generally is a bit harsh and brittle on smaller playback systems, but sits fine on larger systems. This may be due to several things including your room, monitoring and/or producer direction. (Which the latter is probably the biggest difference... in that 99% of my clients self produce, with me sitting in the engineering role.)

    I have a coupla of good friends with multiple grammy's and good incomes who are using PT HD as both a tape deck hanging off their consoles, and in hybrid systems as well as stand-alone ITB DAW's. There's no one method that's earned their awards/industry significance... but AFAIK, they've had greater success as: 1) completely ITB, 2) PT as a tape machine into a console, with hybrid making it's way in there at #3. Mainly because hybrid systems are indeed rather difficult to get past the phase and latency issues.

    My ULTIMATE rig would be (in yesterday's technology) an HD DAW with 72 channels of I/O, an 8088 fitted 48 channels, 16 channel bucket of API, 8 channel bucket of SSL with a switchable 8088/4000 master section.... Since that's an impossibility - physically and electronically, the option which gives me the flexibility to use as many different flavors of mic pre as possible... that brings me to a hybrid system. But integrating a summing system with the configuration I'm looking for has proven to be difficult to say the least.
  10. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Hey Max,

    fwiw, in my mixes that you may have heard, they sort of are what they are as they are a product of something already mixed. Stems that have been "hyped", bad micing, ess's, boomy basses, phase issues etc, etc etc. What I mostly do is try and spread existing mixes out, maybe re align, clean them up, add new instruments for "remixes" , reverb, etc into them. The only way you will ever be able to accurately judge my work is by giving me something you've already done ( not asking btw, just saying). I usually don't eq much either. What I do more so is use hpf and lpf and try and clean stuff. I am also learning and experimenting with all this too, preparing for the day I actually get "well recorded full session to mix". :)

    But personal aside :), what I'm saying here,
    I never do what ( at least so drastically via DAC) like so many do, which is, insert or re-record "individual" tracks that have been altered OTB, AD back to the same session.
    When I am OTB, all of the mix is OTB ( not just one track) so there never is one track being changed in spacial timing or room bleed from the whole mix. If you have a live bleed in a Vox track and you take another track with that same bleed and shift it OTB, yikes! This is a major no no and what I refer to as the "Round Trip"
    People are doing this with dozens of tracks all the time! Plus! adding plug-in in to the mix too.What a mess of BS I say.

    I never screw with the timing and "natural space" (good bleed) of a "mix", especially, ESPECIALLY with rich acoustic music of any kind.. Sadly, I hear this in most stems I work with today. Everyone is over editing and screwing with the mix and space within that mix. If we spent more time preserving the mix rather than thinking the next plug-in simulator was going to be the magic solution... I'm pretty certain music would sound way better.

    Its so bad, I actually hear plug-in bleed leaking into tracks all the time. Pro Tools is the worst. Similar to the shifting two guitars method but unintentionally happening from crappy reverb plug-ins bleeding into everything, creating phase and smear that we are calling glue...

    More often than not, poorly designed rooms and poor micing techniques of OH and RM are usually the big culprit in a mix. When they are, I usually throw the whole works out ( or pull it down to where it stops messing the phase). I will then use sound replacement like BFD2 or something and Bricasti's if its allowed. This way you don't effect the other tracks with useful and natural room bleed. I will then use a Bricasti to re create the space on the tracks that I had to replace.. The trick is in steps OTB between the summing console and the capture system.

    The same thing applies for pitch modification. Man, people will correct pitch on a Vox track that has the same out of tune tune pitch in the room bleed , and leave it! (usually the worst in the Room and OH mics) Then they use plugins and reverbs to open it all up not thinking it's creating a mass phase throughout the entire mix!

    Preserving the music and natural space as it all sat during the tracking "changes" with the round trip of individual mono tracks altered OTB, like you describe. Make sense?

    The round trip changes the mix drastically. It creeps up on you in a very subtle way, like a virus. The music is never the same again. Adding plug-in also does this so when you start compounding it all. OMG, what a mess, and this is what I hear in the majority of music today. Everything is altered because of all this ability to edit ITB. Its a gong show and its far from pleasant.

    When I mix, "everything" the entire session is OTB together, not just part of it. The works is being mixed down and sent on to a capture system. There is zero latency or phase change. In fact, I actually try and correct phase as described ITB before it gets OTB if I can ( why I love Samplitude).
    Bass and cymbals tighten up so much that I actually have to tame down the mix and of course, the truth of the engineers room, monitoring is relieved and much easier to mix everything. Sadly, what can you do at that point to the tuning and tones of everything though.

    Cheap condensers, bad converters , bad gain staging, what a nightmare of sibilance overload.

    The round trip is sort of like mics being moved around after a song was tracked and then using latency compensation methods to get it back to a happy place. Everything gets all swirly sounding.. Thats what the round trip and most music sounds like to me. Maybe I'm going nuts hehe.

    Welcome to the wall of sound. And people think compressors , limiters, plug-ins and more and more pre amps plus mixing otb is helping lol. Our brains can't get a handle where anyone is sitting anymore.

    Each to his own but I just wanted to clarify what (round trip) means to me and what I'm working on at this point to avoid and improve mixes via hybrid methods. Whether I'm actually good at it or will ever get that one great mix someday is another topic ;) Hope that makes more sense.

  11. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Only to share shop talk so we all mutually grow and keep talking, not to push my ways or brag either ( more like to push to make better music for the world), here is the best current example I have to date. I love this track because it actually sounds real and is not all screwed up or VSTi'd. Its a simple example of hybrid mixing that took about 30 mins out of my day .

    Note: I'm not finished with it ( just started) but listen to the separation and the top end between the original mix and mine so far. The extended hype has actually been tamed down via hybrid and the center is more focused. I mono'd the low end from 120hz down. The sss are better and the space has improved leaving room to actually add fat if desired without cramming up the whole mix.. Its a nice concept anyway.

    Their is an ugly low mid tone to the bass guitar that I would love to replace but will most likely just leave it. However, if I took it out, and replaced this bass now, it would have a wonderful lush low end the extends down even further, gluing everything up much nicer.
    If we don't add drums (or any other low end to this mix), a better bass guitar would complete this song.

    My thoughts, give me simple and real sounding songs that I personally think the world is starving for, something we need to hear more of over digital processing and all this editing crap these days.
    If the tracking was done through my rig or any rig that you would have heard this bass hump and high end hype, we would have tracked this all better in the beginning and the mix would have been super stellar. The nice room bleed would extent into all the tracks the way we all want it rendering and rich and full sounding song. Old Fleetwood Mac is coming to mind.

    To my ears anyway ;) this sounds great. There are three stages of outboard reverb that I couldn't do ITB as well.

    ( Note, you'll have to find the original track on the left side with their picture and the text : Original Track) I use these remixes for demonstration because they are public-ally available.

    My hybrid mix in progress:
  12. MadMax

    MadMax Well-Known Member


    Preserving the music and natural space as it all sat during the tracking is precisely where I'm at.

    But remember... Garbage In=Garbage Out

    If you track it right, and it sounds correct, e.g. in the CR like it does in the TR... then you're 99% of the way there from the get go. Its making the decisions on mix that one MUST be true to the final product. Whether it's a 30 second commercial for a local car dealer, or a punk band going mental for 7 minutes. One MUST set the production scale to the intended final product from the outset.

    When you walk in my tracking room, and walk into the control room and shut the door... 99% of the time, you really cannot tell the difference, unless the producer makes, or has made a change to a track. So, my monitoring is not an issue.

    What you're calling "round trip" includes an extra step of conversion that I don't like to do... and yes, I agree that the EXTRA conversion typically does introduce a whole host of crap... which is why I normally don't do it. (and play hell getting right when I do) However, that's why I don't see the use of a strictly 2-bus summing box... because it would be nice to be able to completely avoid doing "round trips" as you call them... and it's just not doable without additional busing, like you find in an analog console.

    Again, I think it's important to note that we really do work in different realms which do require different approaches... In my world, 99.5% of the work that comes in my shop is actually performance, with better than 3/4 of those performances tracked here. If you've done one midi track in any of your sessions in the last two years... you've done more midi work than me in the last 3.5 years.

    For me, edits are common, but my edits are generally a whole take... or a punch or two. Most of the musicians I get to work with actually can play... and play damned well. Notice I said MOST... not all... But severe editing is not a natural thing, and I do my best to get that point across to the performers. Most of the time they get it...

    It's the producers I have greatest issue with. I've had several projects that were tracked just fine for what was initially intended... and then they get on that edit, tune, polish jag, with tracks that weren't tracked with that direction in mind at all.... Like taking a broad "nice live bar demo" approach to perfectly isolated multi-track.... BZZZZZZT!!! NOT GONNA HAPPEN!!!

    Then they get all pissy about how hard it is to mix. To which I reply... "No $*^t?!?"

    "Don't you thinks you should have tracked it different?"

    "I would have, if you hadn't made the decision to track everything at once as a performance... dumbass."

    You can't fix what you can't fix... and you can't fix stupid... no matter HOW HARD you try.

    So, I'm with ya' 100%.

    It's finding that balance of least number of conversions that I'm after... and I just simply feel like many of the summing boxes don't give me enough options and too many channels for the busing they offer... Maybe I do just need to break down and get a short frame 9000J.
  13. jammster

    jammster Active Member

    Thanks Guys, Great topic. This is a really good thing to think about here, kinda makes me re-think about the way I work today.

Share This Page