Kurt Foster, post: 422209, member: 7836 wrote: then i can reload back into my daw for mastering / processing if i like.

Well, I'd say it all over again but I don't think its registering. What you are suggesting here is a very scaled down, ass backwards attempt at what you could do, better. But, it might cost a few more bucks, i dunno.
Simply understanding what I said would give me hope for you. No disrespect intended but I know you are an upfront guy so I'll be upfront, At this point, not even understanding the benefits to MS during mixing or mastering has kind of blown me away there pal. But, I understand you like it simple so this is why I am wondering why you are even doing what you are doing.

Kurt Foster, post: 422209, member: 7836 wrote: i believe the pres in the Forte' are ISA types and the converters are better than many. am i right about this?

No idea. Why are you needing these, and/ or these particular pre's to say the Millennia or? The Lundahl has what you expect to help?

for make up gain for the LittleOne. that's the beauty of these kind of sum box's ... you can choose what "flavor" you want to sum with ... it could be transformerless /super clean or tons of iron in the path ....or anywhere in between. and you're never stuck in the same place.

the box i ordered needs 26 dB gain .... right in the middle of what most decent pres deliver and just enough to have to drive the pres a bit.

audiokid, post: 422210, member: 1 wrote: At this point, not even understanding the benefits to MS during mixing has kind of blown me away there pal.

i get what you have already described but it really doesn't interest me. i am not into "sound design" or re-creating spaces. i will go so far as to use reverbs but for the most part i am more interested in capture in a real space that already sounds good. not so much into the whole "control" thing computer tweaking after the fact. i just want a decent platform to mix into that doesn't flaten out the sound stage. i need something that will retain the image ... not recreate it.

Kurt Foster, post: 422211, member: 7836 wrote: i get what you have already described but it really doesn't interest me. i am not into "sound design" or re-creating spaces. i will go so far as to use reverbs but for the most part i am more interested in capture in a real space that already sounds good. not so much into the whole "control" thing computer tweaking after the fact. i just want a decent platform to mix into that doesn't flaten out the sound stage. i need something that will retain the image ... not recreate it.

A reason the DAW has trouble, or you don't like how your ITB mix sounds is because something doesn't play well on the 2-bus. That we all get.
I suppose this could also have something to do with your source.
Could it be that your tape deck feeding your previous DAW and the conversion / clocking, moved your center and sides closer together/ smearing it all?

Now you are ITB and your DAW is super sensitive to it all and going, WTF is this. :coffee:

Most clocks from 2005 back sucked pretty much anyway.

2014, Trying to improve a bad capture with little ability to clean up the transient smearing is nothing short of impossible unless you take a more mastering approach, which is what I am suggesting regardless.
You're not seeing why you hate the daw or your mixes, thus, blaming the DAW more than it deserves at this point. There is nothing wrong with the DAW per-say, but there is something wrong with how you are capturing or summing. Which, is why you/ I hope this new setup will help.

IMHO, all it will do is smear it a bit more but I am hopeful, it does it well. I suppose the added analog step will break apart the transients on one end and put it back together on the other with a new stereo twist. It will change something without doubt. But, by no means will you actually tighten up or sonically improve much. You will be adding more distortion and smearing. My suggestion was M/S so you could at least try and get the space back to the original day you recorded it all.

I wish you the best.

Chris what i was speaking of were projects tracked in the daw .... i haven't even begun too do the archiving project .... that's coming after the holidays.

Kurt Foster, post: 422216, member: 7836 wrote: Chris what i was speaking of were projects tracked in the daw .... i haven't even begun too do the archiving project .... that's coming after the holidays.

I know,

Projects that you recorded years back right? What did you use (converter etc)?
I'm pretty certain I understand what you are doing. If you have any questions, or need to bounce a track off me to see if I can help, or confirm you are getting the best results with what you have, I'd be happy to help if I can.Just as a second ear even. Or just for fun.

In the mean time, I'm excited for you. I've read a lot of good things about the Focusrite Forte. I saw one for sale @ $250 I think. This is a good time to be looking. People need money or are upgrading something. If I was you, for what you are doing, I would completely stay away from a tranny.

Cheers!

audiokid, post: 422217, member: 1 wrote: I've read a lot of good things about the Focusrite Forte. I saw one for sale @ $250

yeah i missed that by 2 days waiting for paypal .....

audiokid, post: 422217, member: 1 wrote: If I was you, for what you are doing, I would completely stay away from a tranny.

that's the up side with passive mixers ... you can try different kinds of pres for make up gain ... and you're not stuck with one type. it can be clean or colored ...

I agree
I will by a folcrom someday

You should keep your budget funds in PayPal ready so you don't loose the next desk

audiokid, post: 422219, member: 1 wrote: so you don't loose the next desk

Hmm,,,, did you just slip on over to my point view? :D

Cell phone auto correction typoSo you don't loose the next eBay
Deal

:ROFLMAO: I knew there would be clarification….

:D

There's one little trick I usually do if I'm mixing a solo artist (e.g. vocal plus guitar) and that is to mix as usual on an external mixer as L-R and then convert in analog to M-S before sending off to the capture device, where I convert back to L-R digitally. In this way, I don't have to rely implicitly on the two channels of the capture ADC being identically matched to keep the central image absolutely constant. Unless I chose to record that artist's guitar in M-S, the stereo information in these types of recordings is usually ambiance plus added effects, so the real information is in the middle.

I got there through the frequent need to generate a separate mono mix, I and realised I needed only the S channel to get the stereo information, so could do it all in one pass using a single stereo ADC. I was surprised when for certain types of recordings that method gave me better stereo than I got from X-Y capture.

Excellent.
That's what I do with the Dangerous Master. Works great eh. (y) How are you converting to M-S in analog, Bos?

It's one of my own design of passive M-S converter boxes. I have a few of these, all different, but the one I normally use is transformer-based, so there may be a bit of magic going on there as well.

Boswell, post: 422268, member: 29034 wrote: It's one of my own design of passive M-S converter boxes. I have a few of these, all different, but the one I normally use is transformer-based, so there may be a bit of magic going on there as well.

If it sums tight and sounds good, you may have something worth marketing? If so, I personally think this step is more important than a lot of other purchases.

http://prorecordingworkshop.lefora.com/topic/4123058/Analog-Mid-Side-Encoding-Diagram#.VI3xm1E24UQ

this is interesting .....

I like this:

So now we know... M/S doesn't REALLY stand for mid/side...

It's Music/Seduction.

Personally, I don't use M/S for adding/ exaggerating width. I use it to sculpt and clean up cluttered mixes while centering everything better. Which, there has never been a mix I didn't use M/S for. Well, except for mono. ;)

Majority overuse it like an effect. And some M/S decoders, or whatever they are called are not good at all. They good up the mix balances and create phase.
M/S is not an effect to me, its a tool to clean and improve a cluttered stereo mix. Checking in mono tells us the truth. Its very easy to spoil the balances of instruments so you need to check in mono all the time. (Which is why I was asking Tommy at the beginning of this thread to let us hear whats happening with his summing box in mono). Summing boxes have a reputation of doing this without knowing. Its a gimmick imho.

The Dangerous Master can pull the side back when the mix was unknowingly subjected to a cheapo MS effect. Works both ways.

Did I read this right? a transformer is a requirement to decode this accurately? The technical is a mystery to me. Chris Muth is no dummy and the one he built, that I and hundreds of Mastering engineers use, if I recall, doesn't have a tranny, or does it. I should ask Dangerous to read that thread and comment.
Mixing in M/S has been a great interest to me for years. When you are mixing other people's music, I don't leave home without it. :)

Bos? what are your thoughts on the tranny. You obviously use one?

audiokid, post: 422290, member: 1 wrote: Did I read this right? a transformer is a requirement to decode this accurately?

only if you want to do it passively. you can go active too, no transformers needed but then you have to deal with the quality of which amplifiers are used. it can also be done with software.

Kurt Foster, post: 422291, member: 7836 wrote: you have to deal with the quality of which amplifiers are used.

A big fat can o warms.....

there's [="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.soundonsound.com%2Fsos%2Fapr12%2Farticles%2Freaper-0412.htm&ei=YxOOVIXjFZS1oQTItYLABA&usg=AFQjCNEJFG6KkuBcTsSfiSXln38DiomIJw&bvm=bv.81828268,d.cGU"]this[/]="http://www.google.c…"]this[/] and [[url=http://="http://www.soundons…"]this[/]="http://www.soundons…"]this[/] too

audiokid, post: 422290, member: 1 wrote: Did I read this right? a transformer is a requirement to decode this accurately? The technical is a mystery to me. Chris Muth is no dummy and the one he built, that I and hundreds of Mastering engineers use, if I recall, doesn't have a tranny, or does it. I should ask Dangerous to read that thread and comment. Mixing in M/S has been a great interest to me for years. When you are mixing other people's music, I don't leave home without it.

Bos? what are your thoughts on the tranny. You obviously use one?

To us designers, transformers are interesting in that they are the only simple passive components that can subtract.

Boswell, post: 422301, member: 29034 wrote: subtract

I like that.

To add for fun ;)
Transformers are to an audio engineer, shading techniques to an artist. Then we have the knife, the brush, the canvas.
For fun, in my audio spectrum of space/size vs colours, my pallet of preamp colours would go... transformer-less pres on the sides (the room = the canvas) , transformers and tubes for the (colours = shading).

I've asked the guys at Dangerous to comment on the thread Kurt pointed us to. I hope they respond.

Hmm, yes, but I was talking in strict engineering terms. Resistor networks sum, i.e. their output is an addition of defined fractions of all the inputs. A resistor network can give you L+R (to give mono or M channel), but no resistor network on its own can give L-R. To do this involves a subtraction, or its equivalent: a polarity inversion followed by a summation. Transformers can give you a polarity inversion simply by interchanging the terminal wires on either the primary or the secondary, and thereafter you can feed a resistor network to achieve the L-R.

Some of the simple passive M-S converters I produce (yes, people do order them from me) require to be fed from true balanced inputs, so that the box receives both the + and - polarities of the two input channels. From there, it's an easy matter to generate M+S and M-S or L+R and L-R with appropriate amplitude controls. The most difficult part is getting hold of log law potentiometers that track accurately.

Boswell, post: 422314, member: 29034 wrote: Hmm, yes, but I was talking in strict engineering terms.

I know, just having a creative moment ;)

Kurt Foster, post: 422291, member: 7836 wrote: only if you want to do it passively. you can go active too, no transformers needed but then you have to deal with the quality of which amplifiers are used. it can also be done with software.

Right on Kurt.

Throughout my 38 year career, quality built gear has always improved my business. I always learn something from my purchases and one of them is, I can't solder lol! . Unfortunately, I'm not one of those people that can build much, so I am at a loss. I have to buy everything I use. Kudo's to those with that skill.

Over the last 5 years hybrid summing and mastering , I'm trusting more and more in transformerless summing and mastering consoles as being choice because, I'd rather have choices to a wider pallet (character to transparent) through inserting outboard gear where it counts rather than having transformers in every part of your chain, subtracting HD sound while leaving a footprint that I was there. Versatility = more options, more opportunies.

I've asked Dangerous Music to chime in here and hopefully explain why some prefer transformerless designs at this stage of the game.

Understood, but if you want to use M-S processing between your mix and your capture system you have to make some choices. Using two-phase (balanced) inputs to an M-S encoder means you can generate unbalanced M-S outputs purely by resistive summing. If your passive mix process gives you only an unbalanced (single-phase) output, you either need electronics (non-passive) or transformers to generate the required difference terms in the S equation.

Benchmark results , what are the pro's an cons to either choice?

I like the idea of using pre-amps to add another colour! How cool does that sound! I mean, give it all to me but can I have it all while still keeping the path clean at the click of a switch?
The more ways to mash it up in a hybrid chain without degrading the better. But, I always want to have the core open and transparent because I don't want some tracks or stem or the master to be effected from transformers all the time. How can we get it all?

Here is another twist to this thread:

I'm a musician always trying new things, dreaming of how I can add some wild distortion. A few years ago (before I got the Neos) I contacted Justin (Folcrom) and asked if this was possible if I could incorporate the Folcrom with the MixDream / Dangerous Master combo.. Here is what he said:

Hi Chris,

The Folcrom affects your sound in two ways: First, the analog summing sounds different from the digital summing. Second, the preamps you use for makeup gain impart some degree of coloration. If you're already doing your summing in a Mixdream or Dangerous and you don't have any more summing that needs to be done, you're not going to get the first advantage from adding the Folcrom in series. If you had several summing boxes in parallel (say, a drum submix on the SPL and some other submix on the Dangerous), you could combine those submixes in a Folcrom. We have some customers doing that with a number of Folcroms (so that they can put compressors and other outboard gear across certain analog-summed submixes).
As for the coloration imparted by the preamps, you can get that by feeding your SPL's outputs into a Folcrom and then into a pair of preamps, but that would not be the most cost-effective method unless you already happened to have a Folcrom sitting unused. It would work just as well (for the preamp coloration) to use a pair of line-level pads to knock your SPL or Dangerous summing box's output down to mike level and then feed them into a pair of preamps. If you're not doing actual summing in the Folcrom, it would not offer any sonic advantage over the simple pair of pads.

Does that make sense?

Justin Ulysses Morse
Roll Music Systems
Minneapolis, MN

http://www.rollmusic.com
612-379-3255

Simply for the continued interested of this awesome thread, and now specifically to do with the latest discussions on M/S,
I received a simple but confirmed explanation with a [="http://www.dangerousmusic.com/products/master#mid-side-processing"]link explaining [/]="http://www.dangerou…"]link explaining [/] my question and reasons I choose the Dangerous Master M/S, Thanks Sean!

Hey Chris,

Bob's on the road for a couple'a days and asked me to get in touch here.

While a transformer can indeed be used for this purpose, the Dangerous Master does not use one for the S&M process -- all Dangerous Music gear is active from nose to tail with direct-coupled I/O. This is how we get the wide open, accurate sound that we're known for.

[[url=http://="http://www.dangerou…"]We do have something of a "spiel" on our website about the S&M process on the Master[/]="http://www.dangerou…"]We do have something of a "spiel" on our website about the S&M process on the Master[/]...

Please let me know if I can be of any more assistance, and I hope all's well!

--
Sean Eldon Qualls
http://www.dangerousmusic.com

rollmusic wrote: Hi Chris,

The Folcrom affects your sound in two ways: First, the analog summing sounds different from the digital summing. Second, the preamps you use for makeup gain impart some degree of coloration. If you're already doing your summing in a Mixdream or Dangerous and you don't have any more summing that needs to be done, you're not going to get the first advantage from adding the Folcrom in series. If you had several summing boxes in parallel (say, a drum submix on the SPL and some other submix on the Dangerous), you could combine those submixes in a Folcrom. We have some customers doing that with a number of Folcroms (so that they can put compressors and other outboard gear across certain analog-summed submixes).
As for the coloration imparted by the preamps, you can get that by feeding your SPL's outputs into a Folcrom and then into a pair of preamps, but that would not be the most cost-effective method unless you already happened to have a Folcrom sitting unused. It would work just as well (for the preamp coloration) to use a pair of line-level pads to knock your SPL or Dangerous summing box's output down to mike level and then feed them into a pair of preamps. If you're not doing actual summing in the Folcrom, it would not offer any sonic advantage over the simple pair of pads.

Does that make sense?

Justin Ulysses Morse
Roll Music Systems
Minneapolis, MN

http://www.rollmusic.com
612-379-3255

ya gotta love a guy who tells you why you don't need to buy something from him .......(y)

to use a pair of line-level pads to knock your SPL or Dangerous summing box's output down to mike level and then feed them into a pair of preamps.

Indeed. Which Bos has suggested to me more than once. (y)

moving ahead :p ,

I'm going to kick myself for selling my MP 2NV. I have wanted to use the EQ 2NV coupled with the MP 2NV in the Dangerous Master to add character to that EQ. ( you need both GR products for this)

To make life in the studio (and on the road) easier, the EQ-2NV has been specifically designed to integrate with the patch loop in Great River NV Series microphone preamplifiers (with a single TRS ¼” cable), for complete flexibility in tracking and mixing. The front panel input selector / sensitivity switch offers the option of using the signal from the EQ-2NV's transformer-coupled line input (ranging from +8dbm to -20dbm), or the patched signal from the NV preamp. When connected via the patch loop, the four EQ sections are inserted between the microphone (or DI) input’s first gain stage (with level control and metering) and the preamplifier’s output gain stage and "big iron" transformer (also with level control and metering). This routing flexibility provides a broad range of sonic/harmonic possibilities and maintains a full Class-A signal path.

thus, insert the EQ into one of the 3 Dangerous Master inserts for tranny mojo. Which once again, what the DM or summing boxes in general excels at! Imagine putting a tube in the middle and tranny on the sides of a mix. Its pretty cool. And thats just a snip of what all this offers.

UA tubes and tranny vibe is my "Go To" mojo makers lately. They are so full of character, who needs anything more lol!
Which is why a cleaner and more open capture and summing solution that allows adding mojo further down the chain works well a lot of the time.
UA mojo can get extreme! I prefer to mix mojo rather than it forced upon me all the time.

I bet your Millennia Pre will rock too Kurt!

I like something that has the full deal rather than a tiny teaser too . Being able to parallel process mojo or insert distortion through a transparent mastering console, blend character specific to your needs while the entire chain is still transparent and open, is a super cool deal about hybrid audio and these summing boxes in general.

audiokid, post: 422414, member: 1 wrote: I bet your [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.mil-medi…"]Millennia[/]="http://www.mil-medi…"]Millennia[/] Pre will rock too Kurt!

it would be if i had 2 ....

right . I was thinking you had a pair all the time.

audiokid, post: 422205, member: 1 wrote: I'm not trying to demonstrate my skills, merely just letting you hear what a few UA trannies sound like in a M/S Matrix.

Here is a mix I did using M/S with two LA2A's. Barely kissing the needles, they added beautiful grit but it also lost a bit of clarity. Had I adjusted the upper mids on DAW 1 a bit more in the mix to compensate for the character, I could have gotten it even better keeping the center clear and beefier. Using the comps increased the reverb's out come which I should have pulled back a bit more on the snare DAW stem. Live and learn.

[MEDIA=soundcloud]audiokid/betterbymorning-la2a-master
[[url=http://[/URL]="https://soundcloud…"]View: https://soundcloud…]="https://soundcloud…"]View: https://soundcloud…]

This mix sounds huge...there is plenty of space around the vocals, I mean its just right there in the center. I am listening through my Se Munro Eggs. Beautiful song btw! Lovely made my day/night!

Namin, post: 447166, member: 50331 wrote: This mix sounds huge...there is plenty of space around the vocals, I mean its just right there in the center. I am listening through my Se Munro Eggs. Beautiful song btw! Lovely made my day/night!

Thanks Namin. I actually made about 5 versions of this song using different methods and analog gear. This version had an intended extra long reverb decay and tail that I used to demonstrate how smooth it all summed via analog. The reverb is a Bricasti M7 that I put at the end of the mix just before capturing the mixdown to a second DAW.
I wouldn't normally use such a long reverb but I agree, it does sounds huge. Its such a great song as well. Such a beautiful voice.

If I find them, I will try and find all the versions of this mix and re-post them through our server. I uploaded them before to Soundcloud, which isn't the best quality. I have since stopped using Soundcloud and unfortunately lost the data needed to store a lot of my past examples.