Skip to main content
Start a topic JOIN NOW!

Stereo vs Mono Di ?? Stereo bleeding ?

Member for

8 years 7 months
Hi gang,
I'm looking to step up the quality of Di I own and since like always I don't want to spend too much. I'm thinking of buying a stereo DI instead of 2 mono.
This could be the one I choose : Radial ProD2 Passive 2 Channel Direct Box
My concern is, could there be bleeding between the channels if I put 2 completely different sources instead of a stereo source ?
They advertise it as 2 ProDi in one, but before I buy, I thought to ask here...

I would use it mainly to record direct sound from 2 guitars while recording the customer amps and be able to reamp if needed. So the signal needs to be clean and to avoid horrors while being reamped..

Thanks !


Comments

Member for

12 years 9 months

dvdhawk Sun, 01/21/2018 - 14:33
I've got a Mackie Big Knob (again, not anything spectacular) that I intend to use to monitor DAW #1 and DAW #2 for A/B comparison. Each input can be trimmed to compensate for whatever differences there might be in the perceived volume.

I'd be inclined not to, but I don't see any reason you couldn't use a patchbay for the preamp switching. The fewer cables and fewer connectors involved for this the better, as far as I'm concerned. There's signal loss at every connector, and some loss for every foot of cable.

At least that's what I'm shooting for now, it may all change as things go on.

Member for

15 years 5 months

Boswell Sun, 01/21/2018 - 15:51
DonnyThompson, post: 455305, member: 46114 wrote: @audiokid , @Kurt Foster, @dvdhawk , @pcrecord @Boswell

Guys ... the reason we are considering using a dual channel pre/compressor is because Dave has a passive summing mixer that we would like to incorporate - or at least try using - in the final 2 mix between DAW 1 and DAW 2, andwe need preamplification of involved of some kind, because the summing mixer Dave has is a passive model.
I'm not sure that we'll end up using the summing device, or the Sebatron for that purpose either, but I think I can safely speak for Dave here, and say that we would like to at least try it going into a second DAW (no clock/syncing between them). I've never used any of the Sebatron stuff, so I can't say whether it will work to our liking or not.
What would the possible negatives be by using this workflow? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm sincere in my question. :)
When I first set up my two-box system, I made my own design of passive mixer unit and used a DAV BG1 as the make-up gain device. There were two reasons for my choice of the BG1 (not counting that fact that I already had several of them): (a) it's very clean in sound, and (b) the gain is switched rather than continuously variable. The last one I would say is very important, as you need to be able not only to ensure that both channels are at exactly the same gain, but also that you can write in your project notes the actual dB setting that was used. I've had to go back to several tracks to make detailed mix changes, and I need to know that it's only the mix that I'm changing.

I prefer not to add any dynamics on the way in to the capture device, but that's really a matter of personal choice rather than an engineering rule. I suppose that it stems from my early days of not trusting that I could make the correct decision on things like thresholds, attack and release at capture time.

Member for

21 years

audiokid Sun, 01/21/2018 - 16:15
Boswell, post: 455329, member: 29034 wrote: When I first set up my two-box system, I made my own design of passive mixer unit and used a DAV BG1 as the make-up gain device. There were two reasons for my choice of the BG1 (not counting that fact that I already had several of them): (a) it's very clean in sound, and (b) the gain is switched rather than continuously variable. The last one I would say is very important, as you need to be able not only to ensure that both channels are at exactly the same gain, but also that you can write in your project notes the actual dB setting that was used. I've had to go back to several tracks to make detailed mix changes, and I need to know that it's only the mix that I'm changing.

I prefer not to add any dynamics on the way in to the capture device, but that's really a matter of personal choice rather than an engineering rule. I suppose that it stems from my early days of not trusting that I could make the correct decision on things like thresholds, attack and release at capture time.
Ah, its starting to make more sense to me why you stop at the 2 box apposed to a 2 DAW system. I'm going to have to get a DAV pre one day. I've always wanted one.
Have you ever done mono tests after your capture to see how well everything sums up?

Member for

21 years

audiokid Sun, 01/21/2018 - 16:53
The more I rethink the Folcrom the less inspired I get thinking it will "perform well in a 2 DAW system". After extensive use with Dangerous and SPL summing systems... both company designs offer so much more control, stability and insert options with their units compared to every other brand I've looked at. It's hard not being spoiled and wanting to go back to SPL actually. However, I am hopeful the simple pass is really all I have been looking for all these years.
I'm excited to see this through like Dave.

Q: The Millennia m-2b has detent volume controls but I'm guessing...

Are there are other factors that can negatively shift the audio imaging around from example: tubes and voltage swing? Or how does the actual make up gain work with a passive summing box like the Folcrom?

My current conclusion: The pros and cons to adding character with hybrid plays out as a big waste of money.I think a lot of companies making summing boxes know this, its really just a gimmick.
When ever I thought something seemed to sound better, scrutinizing what I could get from what happens to the pass seen on DAW 2... it really was nothing more than what happens when we move a left and right slightly out of line with each other to give that wider image. Mind you it does it very musically and I suspect this is why we need very stable analog products for 2 buss duties, including less stacking equates a more musical shift.

ITB vs OTB mixing... In every case there wasn't one piece of gear I've ever used that couldn't achieve the same effect better ITB for free.

Member for

8 years 7 months

pcrecord Mon, 01/22/2018 - 04:48
Wow, you guys are way over my head on those 2 box setups.
I hope one of you could post a comparaison of 1 DAW exported file vs a 2 DAW summing setup.
There must be a definitive difference to engage such investment (2 daw, 2 interfaces, 2 computers..)
Do you aim to send stems ot the summing gear or each individual tracks ?

Member for

8 years 9 months

DonnyThompson Mon, 01/22/2018 - 05:07
Boswell, post: 455329, member: 29034 wrote: When I first set up my two-box system, I made my own design of passive mixer unit and used a DAV BG1 as the make-up gain device. There were two reasons for my choice of the BG1 (not counting that fact that I already had several of them): (a) it's very clean in sound, and (b) the gain is switched rather than continuously variable. The last one I would say is very important, as you need to be able not only to ensure that both channels are at exactly the same gain, but also that you can write in your project notes the actual dB setting that was used. I've had to go back to several tracks to make detailed mix changes, and I need to know that it's only the mix that I'm changing.

I prefer not to add any dynamics on the way in to the capture device, but that's really a matter of personal choice rather than an engineering rule. I suppose that it stems from my early days of not trusting that I could make the correct decision on things like thresholds, attack and release at capture time.

Bos mentioned something here that I hadn't thought of for this workflow... which is switchable gain vs continuous gain.
The ISA One has switchable gain ranges, with a rotary continuous pot for fine adjustment.
Dave or Marco... (@dvdhawk @pcrecord )...does the ISA Two gave switchable gain ranges as well?
I'm just thinking out loud a little bit here... The ISA pres aren't going to be quite as clean as a Millennia, because they have the Lundhall XFO's, but it's still a very clean pre if you don't drive it hard.
For an XFO based pre, it's probably the "cleanest" I've ever heard. It doesn't have nearly the level of "color" that Neve, Amek, API, or even SSL has...

I know Chris (@audiokid ) prefers Preamps that are as clean as possible, hence his love he for Millennia - and I totally get what he is saying. I know he would like another one, LOL, and I can't blame him either. The times I've worked with Millennia (and Grace) pres, I've been knocked out by the clarity and the gain of both of those.
But...we don't have even one Millennia - LOL, so, using what we do have, I'm wondering if maybe we incorporate the next best preamp option, which would be the ISA range of Preamps. And, if you did want to add some vibe, the modified ART Pro VLA Opto you're thinking of geting would be a pretty nice thing to try, I love the sound of Opto GR anyway, and we don't necessarily have to even add any reduction at all, or very little, just kissing the signal so that the VU barely moves - but enough to add "that" sound...?

I totally get what Chris is describing, and I think that if we can, it would be good to have options. As far as ADACs go, I've got that Apogee on the way - and while my main reason for getting it is for the converters, it does have two very clean and hi gain mic Preamps in it as well, so perhaps that gives us a range of options, from clean to colored?
Again, I'm just kinda thinking out loud with this stuff guys. If we have these options available, I think we should at least try various combinations...and what sounds or works great for one mix might not work as well for another mix... We'll not know for sure until we actually use all these pieces, right?
I know one thing for sure...I think we're gonna have a lot of fun doing it. ;)
:)

Member for

8 years 7 months

pcrecord Mon, 01/22/2018 - 05:18
I'm still in the cloud about one aspect. Is it possible that the playback of some DAWs are not full resolution to save CPU usage ?
Or is it possible that a busy mix gets a lesser quality to keep up?
I'm using Adobe Premiere to do videos and that's one thing it does. The Program monitor saves GPU/CPU by lowering the displayed quality.
If DAWs ever do this, the export fonction would be a better choice, right ?

Member for

21 years

audiokid Mon, 01/22/2018 - 07:38
DonnyThompson, post: 455349, member: 46114 wrote: I know Chris (@audiokid ) prefers Preamps that are as clean as possible, hence his love he for Millennia - and I totally get what he is saying

To clarify here: I prefer the Millennia M-2b to most preamps as it is unlike any other Millennia or preamp on the planet. It is transformer-less, has big rails and TUBES. No other preamp I know is like that. Its a $5700 preamp.
To describe the M-2b, its like HD TV with a fine sheer stocking over the screen. It has serious vibe and gain and is ultra quiet. Everything thing sounds good through it.
When you couple it with character gear in the chain, example> LA2A /1176 , you hear and feel the transformers and tubes of the character ultra sweet.

Its the only preamp I have like that. All the other preamps I have or have owned have character. The next most loved pre's I own are SPL Premiums which have Lundhall's on the front and back. They are sweet and open sounding too.

I'm not into ultra clean pre-say, I'm into ultra awesome. ;) Rails are what I notice.

Another really awesome preamp I'veEdit owned, which never got much love around the world is the PreSonus ADL 600. They sound great. They are full of character.

But yeah... m-2b are hands down my favourite pre of all time. I'd love more of those.
:D

Member for

8 years 7 months

pcrecord Mon, 01/22/2018 - 07:47
audiokid, post: 455353, member: 1 wrote: Another really awesome preamp that I've owned, which never got much love around the world is the PreSonus ADL 600. It sounds awesome.
I've looked into those highend Presonus preamps.. They seem underated by many. I'd like to try one at some point...

Member for

21 years

audiokid Mon, 01/22/2018 - 07:57
pcrecord, post: 455354, member: 46460 wrote: I've looked into those highend Presonus preamps.. They seem overated by many. I'd like to try one at some point...
Not over rated at all. Very under rated.
I've had quality concern with all PreSonus (offshore (n)) stuff, but if you get a good one, they are built like a tank and sound full and rich. The DI is excellent and the switchable gains make it really interesting. I love this preamp.

"With an assist from ADL's Anthony DeMaria, PreSonus stepped into high end studio territory with the ADL 600 and the results are nothing short of stellar. This dual channel, high-voltage tube preamp serves up a huge tone that's clear as a bell and reminiscent of classic vintage gear. This old-world sound is complimented with a modern feature set, featuring a switchable and tunable high-pass, switchable impedance, and separate coarse and fine gain control to dial in the precise amount of drive you're looking for. When you're done tracking, flip the ADL 600 over to line operation to give your whole mix a thermionic kiss and take your productions to the next level."

Member for

21 years

audiokid Mon, 01/22/2018 - 08:23
pcrecord, post: 455348, member: 46460 wrote: 2 box setups.
There is no doubt to me, 2 DAW's (which is different to Bos' 2 Box process), Having your Mastering software on the second DAW (2 DAW system) is superior in every way. Its really the preferred hybrid Mastering process and imho, the ultimate way to hybrid mix into a master bus.
If I can use the term best without sounding arrogant... A 2 DAW system such as I describe allows you to mix hardware OTB while being at two different sample rates at the same time. Its truly the ultimate way to break a pro audio workflow down for study.

pcrecord, post: 455348, member: 46460 wrote: I hope one of you could post a comparaison of 1 DAW exported file vs a 2 DAW summing setup.
Every time you mix on a 2 DAW system (not 2 box) you hear exactly what the differences are in real time and can make solid adjustments based on 3 variable points of the 2 DAW workflow in real time.
What is comes down to is being able to hear changes better including the mix going from 96k to Mp3 pretty much in real time. You mix at 96, 192 etc and adjust your mix in real time on DAW2 master section. Its hard to explain all the attributes but there is no doubt to me, if you are going to use two computers, the second DAW should be uncoupled and have mastering software and the hybrid designed monitoring controller there as well. Thus a 2 DAW system. :)

pcrecord, post: 455348, member: 46460 wrote: There must be a definitive difference to engage such investment (2 daw, 2 interfaces, 2 computers..)
Its all about having more ability to hear and insert hardware between two DAW's. Its simple way more fun and fluid. Better workflow. Better way to learn, A/B compare and demystify.

DonnyThompson, post: 455349, member: 46114 wrote: I know one thing for sure...I think we're gonna have a lot of fun doing it.
Absolutely!

pcrecord, post: 455351, member: 46460 wrote: I'm still in the cloud about one aspect. Is it possible that the playback of some DAWs are not full resolution to save CPU usage ?
Or is it possible that a busy mix gets a lesser quality to keep up?
After owning Pro Tools and getting sucked into the bloat, I'd say the more bloat the more vanilla everything gets.

When I switched to Samplitude, the difference in sound quality was not subtle. I instantly started using less plugins so I can;t say for sure if its that but there is definitely something to be said about less is more.

Member for

12 years 9 months

dvdhawk Mon, 01/22/2018 - 10:37
audiokid, post: 455353, member: 1 wrote: Another really awesome preamp I've owned, which never got much love around the world is the PreSonus ADL 600. They sound great. They are full of character.

And that right there is a perfect example of why we shouldn't let other people make up our mind about how good, or how bad, something sounds. A perfectly good product comes out with a bunch of marketing hype and a couple rosy reviews and everyone jumps on the bandwagon. Then inevitably some percentage of buyers will jump off the bandwagon as quickly as they jumped on - complaining all the way, because they became disenchanted for any number of reasons.*

*Just a few reasons to choose from: It's all very subjective. Their unit may differ from mine (condition, revisions, manufacturing, parts). They may have a 'lemon', or the one holy grail unit ever made. The material they're feeding it will certainly be different. Their monitoring environment, their personal preferences and prejudices. They may be compensated to have an opinion, one way or the other. The placebo effect, purchase justification. Poor understanding of what a unit was actually designed to do, and uninformed/unrealistic expectations. The list goes on and on.

So, I don't trust reviews of any kind - whether they're professionals, or random users. There are obviously some that carry slightly more weight than others (SOS), but even then, I take them with a giant grain of salt. Unfortunately, some spec sheets aren't a whole lot better than advertising hype when it comes to overstating performance. So who do you believe? Personally, I am much more likely to make a purchase based on the recommendation of a friend who has demonstrated similar tastes, but in the end I either like it, or I don't. That falls squarely on me. Although there are countless places I could stand to upgrade my gear, I don't need anything, so I can wait for a good price to come along on something I'm interested in.

If it sounds good, it IS good. If I don't like it, that doesn't mean my friends are suddenly clueless idiots. It just drives my scientific curiosity, and makes me wonder what variables are in play - whether it's taste, or purely technical inconsistencies. If something piques my interest, like this summing process, I'm willing to put some time, money, and effort into exploring it. I was hoping online friends like Chris, or JP @vibrations1951, would beat me to the finish line on this, in the Analog Summing Valid or Voodoo? thread, but it seems like we're all mired in about the same spot figuring out the best way to integrate the Folcrom for meaningful improvement and comparison.

I don't give some details, not to be secretive, but because there will somebody eager to dump all over it - so I don't bother. The vaguely anonymous way the world is connected these days really feeds people who just like an audience, and people who get off on outrage. Those are two groups with some significant overlap in the Venn diagram of online lifeforms. I'd rather try to make an educated decision, turn off the outside influences (negative and positive) and trust my own ears. If I can post anything of value along the way that might let someone else hear A/B/C comparisons, I'll do what I can, as time permits.

Member for

21 years

audiokid Mon, 01/22/2018 - 10:51
Spot on Dave.

How we create or appreciate art is no different to choosing a painting for our use, choosing a lover, style of guitar, organic or industrial and so on. All my posts are no more than me sharing evolving experiences, hoping to be a clear about how I learn in a very unbiased way. My opinions change over the years and I hope whatever I learn from the past makes me better as an artist and sound engineer in the future.

Reviews often leave out the most important stuff to me which is... just because its sounds that way to you doesn't mean it really sounds like that when I use it lol!

Member for

12 years 9 months

dvdhawk Mon, 01/22/2018 - 10:54
And to clarify, I'd be using 2 separate computers, connected only by the (unclocked) analog audio connections.

Boswell has previously mentioned in other threads the advantages of using a pre-amp with switchable gain, rather than continuously variable - which makes perfect sense.
I'm considering including a track of test tones for level calibration purposes. Any thoughts?

I can see where a hardware compressor would make repeatability virtually impossible, though.

Member for

15 years 5 months

Boswell Mon, 01/22/2018 - 11:00
dvdhawk, post: 455371, member: 36047 wrote: And to clarify, I'd be using 2 separate computers, connected only by the (unclocked) analog audio connections.

Boswell has previously mentioned in other threads the advantages of using a pre-amp with switchable gain, rather than continuously variable - which makes perfect sense.
I'm considering including a track of test tones for level calibration purposes. Any thoughts?

I can see where a hardware compressor would make repeatability virtually impossible, though.
Using test tones is even better than setting nominal values, as actual differences due to things like resistor tolerances can be corrected. It takes me back to tape days!