audiokid, post: 428243, member: 1 wrote: Mixing into a master set at the destination SR is still unbeatable.

SR? As in sample rate?

SEA, post: 428273, member: 49025 wrote: SR? As in sample rate?

yes

SEA, post: 428257, member: 49025 wrote: I think we should have some ITB vs. Summing examples from those on this thread who say they are getting a great sound etc., like... "Show me not snow me!" :D
Then let us decide with our own ears what sounds the best! :)

The problem with such tests is they're really REALLY difficult to do correctly. Nothing can differ between the two mixes except the summing itself, and that's more difficult to do than it may seem. Even if your test mix has no plug-in effects, you still have to account for Pan Law differences unless the mix is mono, or all tracks / stems are panned hard left or right with nothing panned in between.

You also have to decide if "what sounds best" is the most neutral sound or the one with pleasing coloration. If "better" to you means no added coloration (my preference), then this can be determined pretty easily by logic and basic knowledge of "how audio works." But if you want your summing method to add grit and "glue" and "analog color," that adds another variable: how hard you hit the summing circuits affects the amount and quality of the added distortion. If you want color, analog will sound better to you because digital summing adds no color regardless of the signal levels. Here are a few facts that might help:

The 32-bit floating point math used by all modern DAW software is audibly transparent. There will still be errors in the form of added noise and distortion, but those artifacts are well below -100 dB and so are inaudible. The frequency response of digital summing is also perfectly flat.

A well-designed analog summing circuit will also have noise and distortion too soft to hear unless you intentionally feed it signals so large that it clips or comes very close to clipping. It's more difficult to keep the response within 0.1 dB from 20 Hz to 20 KHz, though it's certainly possible.

Usually when people compare summing, their methodology is flawed and they're not comparing what they think they're comparing. If you're serious about a proper test, describe what you plan to do and I'll let you know if it's scientifically sound.

--Ethan

Doing a comparison based on two different summing amps is easy. People use the same mix and pass audio through it. Does one sound different, I would expect so. And as Ethan said, panning laws plus one might have a tranny or even a hyped spacial emulator in it; which will change the transients even more.
How do they all compare in mono? Does mono matter to you?
Does that make the more colored pass better or worse?
To me, it simply says that the one that changes the pass the most is the worst offender. Less versatile .

Summing and hybrid mixing are two different things people get confused about all the time. Ethan is spot on up until we are leaving the "summing debate and moving into the mixing using analog gear to create change. So, it then becomes a creative thing that has nothing to do with science.

In other words, my summing console sounds near identical to ITB. In my opinion, its the king of summing consoles because I can hardly hear it on, and it doesn't degrade my digital mix until I add additional gear.
So, I have the ability to keep selected tracks or stems of a mix transparent or coloured (degraded).
ITB vs OTB becomes personal and impossible to compare from a scientific example. Science doesn't belong in this part of the thread.

From a versatile and uncompromized POV then, buying a summing console that is of the finest signal path to start with, and a wallet that allows me to buy racks of hardware to pick and choose gives me clear advantage over someone who buys the "all in one summing package " "coloured" (no choice in the matter). Those who follow the hype of those boxes may think they are getting a great summing amp but you are really loosing and will never produce a bigger and fuller mix to the transparent console , or even better... to what ITB can do if you know what you are doing ITB to begin with. That is the truth of all this hype.

People who buy summing amps to add "colour" are already going backwards and lossing more than they are gaining. Its all hype being fed by the misinformed. That I am 100% locked in to believe.

That being said. uncoupling a summing path and capturing that on a separate DAW is a whole new world. I'm not about to go on about it but it is fun to plant the seed for the lurkers.

At the end of the day... its a personal thing.

As an example, I can mix and finish a song 70% faster using my Neos between a 2 DAW system. Does it sound better over ITB.. It does to me but this is also subjective to how it improves my ability to hear a mix in a way that I call my strategical workflow. So, there are more reason I choose hybrid than just for the summing console.

There is nothing bigger then ITB. But, we all have our strategies. This is really all this is about. Whats yours? and so it continues...

To sum my two cents up on this thread... (a creative opinion based on my experiences...)
Round trip processing is for the birds. Uncoupling analog stems is more my thing.

Ok Chris, I'm trying hard to wrap my head around your workflow and signal path. Please excuse my limited experience and understanding and perhaps I should be asking this in a different forum so guide me there if necessary.
1. What I'm getting is that you are hearing an improvement in final mixes by taking the individual tracks/stems from the original tracking and mixing DAW, passing the converted D to A into the summing mixer (NEOS) and then A to D and capturing the 2-bus from there on a separate DAW in a separate computer at the desired final sample rate?
2. Would a simple "straight wire" from mixing DAW to final capture DAW at the final desired sample rate help a final mix as well (D/A/D)? (maybe even without conversion but that would make no sense to me at all)
3. Could you clarify your signal path for me.
I'm not even sure I'm asking this sensibly and I tend to need step by step concrete understanding of things if possible. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

vibrations1951, post: 428675, member: 34341 wrote: Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Pleasure.

My workflow is all about using two DAW's to better (optimize workflow, reduce CPU, avoid SR bouncing, hear a mix better.)
I mix from one DAW while capturing an uncoupled mix on a second DAW. Its a simple way to track at 96k and capture it at example: 44.1 in one pass.

I mix into a master regardless of actually "mastering". I prefer two DAW's for this with mastering software on the second DAW. Just because it's called mastering software doesn't mean I can't use good software to sum better.

To my ears, all I need are two converters, two DAW's and the best monitor controller I can afford. Being able to hear a mix on the capture DAW is ideal.
Added hardware or consoles in a hybrid workflow is irrelevant, in fact i don't think its even a consideration with me anymore. The benefit I hear is simply when you uncouple two DAW's. Expensive mixing gear is a distraction, a complete waste of money. I've sold all my mixing hardware and replaced that with Sequoia. Everything I did with my big hybrid system can be emulated on Samplitude and Sequoia.

The benefit I hear has little to do with gear and a lot to do with improving the way I hear a mixdown on a second DAW.

Additional hardware is just another way to degrade or change the audio. Which may be exactly what you need for a particular effect. If you can't get a sound or effect ITB, then some hardware might be why you would include that on a stem or bus during that pass between the two uncoupled DAW's. Its as simple as that.

imho, once a track is captured, analog gear does not improve the sonics. Once ITB, stay ITB but that doesn't exclude uncoupling to avoid SR conversion. That part I cannot emulate or avoid. I much prefer using two converters to go from 96k to 44.1 over bouncing. And when doing that, there is something about the sound that happens between two uncoupled converters that just sounds better to me. That simple and cost effect process has way more impact to a console or gear.

No matter what I do, all tracks in a session arrive and leave in the same pass. I never separate parts of a mix to do a round trip. Most people do this, I don't.

Does that help?

A couple of previous RO threads related to this topic.

[="http://recording.org/threads/help-with-hybrid-daw-setup-16-channels-i-o-to-analog-summing-amp-back-to-daw-2-bus.44810/"]First[/]="http://recording.or…"]First[/]

[[url=http://="http://recording.or…"]Second[/]="http://recording.or…"]Second[/]

Interestingly, some of these older threads also document stages in Chris's (Audiokid) conversion from "round-trip" processing to a "two-box" setup. Trying is believing, although it does need a sufficient level of quality in the conversion hardware for the method to shine above any conversion losses.

The problem with .... tests is they're really REALLY difficult to do correctly. Nothing can differ between the two mixes except the summing itself, and that's more difficult to do than it may seem.

i don't think a "test" is really required. simple comparison will prove it out.

the mix doesn't have to be exactly the same. what would be more revealing would be, in which scenario can the recordist get the best results? for me the difference was very apparent. it's not that hard to hear even with cheap tabletop mixers.

Even if your test mix has no plug-in effects, you still have to account for Pan Law differences unless the mix is mono, or all tracks / stems are panned hard left or right with nothing panned in between.

imo, any mix engineer worth their salt will not pan other than hard left /right. they had it right in the old days when consoles only had switches for left /right / mono. mono is mono, stereo is stereo ... if you need a stereo image record it in stereo. otherwise it's just mono panned ... (not real).

You also have to decide if "what sounds best" is the most neutral sound or the one with pleasing coloration. If "better" to you means no added coloration (my preference), then this can be determined pretty easily by [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.apple.co…"]Logic[/]="http://www.apple.co…"]Logic[/] and basic knowledge of "how audio works."

there's no such thing as transparent. talk about audio myths. lol. there's only a difference in how the signal is treated. some processing may sound "cleaner" than others but to me that's more distortion differences than anything else. electronic balancing vs. transformer really is not the distraction many make of it.

the advantage to transistor / electronic balancing is a "faster" circuit (slew rate). some perceive a faster amplifier as more "transparent" but implementing different transistors can change how a circuit sounds, transformers can be very accurate as long as they are not saturated. but it all changes the signal in one way or the other and it's absolutely never an improvment.

if you want "transparent" don't do any type of processing or amplification. it's kind of hard to manipulate audio that way though.

Ethan Winer, post: 428286, member: 1430 wrote: Usually when people compare summing, their methodology is flawed and they're not comparing what they think they're comparing. If you're serious about a proper test, describe what you plan to do and I'll let you know if it's scientifically sound.

gee thanks. what would we do with out you?

I don't think you need scientific tests to see if analog summing is beneficial or not. Try it,.. if it fits your workflow and you get better results, awesome if not,.. stay in the box. It's going to be about if it works better for you, not if you can match it in the box. This sounds similar to the all eq's in a daw are the same. They might be on a technical level, but as far as ease and speed of use they will differ.

I would think that a summed mix even pristinely level matched with a super clean summing box ect won't null 100% with the in the box mix as they are physically different. However I think the difference between them if perfectly matched wouldn't be audible.

That said,.. most people are not going to take the time or even care to try and match things perfectly. It's either going to work for them or not.

Kurt Foster, post: 428690, member: 7836 wrote:

imo, any mix engineer worth their salt will not pan other than hard left /right. they had it right in the old days when consoles only had switches for left /right / mono. mono is mono, stereo is stereo ... if you need a stereo image record it in stereo. otherwise it's just mono panned ... (not real).

Good to hear this from someone else too...marked this as a "like". This also forces an engineer to make better planning decisions and think about the end result early on when tracking. IMHO.

I think the title of this thread is confusing / uninformed. I'd never title hybrid mixing and summing like this. I use analog hardware in a summing workflow that always captures the sum ITB. I think the title would be more accurate if the OP asked it like this:
Are analog summing boxes / including mixing OTB Valid or Voodoo?

The obvious answer would be: How could it not be anything other than valid. :cool:
Its certainly not snake oil but I might go so far as to say, some methods might not be as beneficial as others.
One guy with a shitty system and no idea of what he's doing is sure to say it made no improvements while another guy with a very elaborate console and world experience in sound is sure to say its fantastic.

Who are we going to believe?

The more ways to sum anything the better. Some times all it takes is a simple pass between some hardware and other times, why even bother.
If you can buy great equipment, who wouldn't rather twist a few knobs while enjoying the smell of gear in a control room.

audiokid, post: 428970, member: 1 wrote: I think the title of this thread is confusing / uninformed. I'd never title hybrid mixing and summing like this. I use analog hardware in a summing workflow that always captures the sum ITB. I think the title would be more accurate if the OP asked it like this:
Are analog summing boxes / including mixing OTB Valid or Voodoo?

The obvious answer would be: How could it not be anything other than valid. :cool:
Its certainly not snake oil but I might go so far as to say, some methods might not be as beneficial as others.
One guy with a shitty system and no idea of what he's doing is sure to say it made no improvements while another guy with a very elaborate console and world experience in sound is sure to say its fantastic.

Who are we going to believe?

The more ways to sum anything the better. Some times all it takes is a simple pass between some hardware and other times, why even bother.
If you can buy great equipment, who wouldn't rather twist a few knobs while enjoying the smell of gear in a control room.

First Chris, would you mind describing your basic signal path from record to final DAW2?

Secondly, I would like to try the decoupling and analog summing with what I have for equipment but not sure if this will work as a fair comparison of summing ITB verses decoupling, summing analog and rendering the final mix in a second digital format. I don't have a second DAW right now and thought perhaps my Sony 2 track CD burner might function as a bare minimum for comparison. Perhaps not???
What I do now:
Mix Wiz/pres > Aurora 16 >Lynx AES16e>Nuendo 4 > sum ITB and capture 2-bus from Nuendo "control room" stereo outs (many available)>Lynx AES16e>Aurora analog> onto Sony 2 track CD burner as well as using additional "control room" stereo outs to monitor with Yamaha HS50's . I use a Big Ben for master clock.
Proposed test:
Use the same recorded and treated (edited, eq'd,comp., fx etc.) tracks in DAW> Lynx AES16e>Aurora>Mix Wiz line ins for final mix and summing>Sony 2 track recorder.

I think I would have to monitor both scenarios through the Sony RCA outs to the HS50's for a more accurate AB.

I'm not sure if the Mix Wiz 16 as a summing box and 2-bus, the converters in the Sony 2 track or the HS50's are of adequate quality for a good comparison????
Am I way off base here?

vibrations1951, post: 428994, member: 34341 wrote: First Chris, would you mind describing your basic signal path from record to final DAW2?

Whether I use 32 DA or 2 DA I do the same for two reason:

1. Sounds better to me

2. Easier to finish a mix

   . The simple is:

   DAW 1 @ 96k DA > analog matrix (could be as simple as just the converter analog out ) > AD 2 channel 44.1 uncoupled USB converter > DAW 2 with mastering software.

   done.

vibrations1951, post: 428994, member: 34341 wrote: I use a Big Ben for master clock

curious: Why do you need the Big Ben when you are using an excellent internal PCIe interface?

edit:

vibrations1951, post: 428994, member: 34341 wrote: Proposed test:

To my experience, there is no test worth doing unless you are prepared to get two DAW's and two licenses of some sort of DAW and mastering software, then uncoupled them and start working like this for a while. My reasoning for this workflow is not about some magic mojo, its more about avoiding bouncing and listening better.

Here is my mixing and summing process -

The analog summing console or summing box worthy of my requirements would have very little difference between an ITB sum to an OTB pass and capture. In other words, audio captured on the second DAW would sound almost identical to ITB , but there is definitely a change that happens.
Not until you start adding various gear in the matrix do you start to hear increase in change. This is how you decide what gear to add. Otherwise, your main analog core remains clear and transparent.
The more channels you have available simply increase more ways to pass either transparent or coloured stems. Not all channels need to be forced to be coloured. Imho, I am better off having a summing box that starts out transparent to one that is always colouring everything on every stem.

I am convinced ( using Sequoia at least) ITB EQ and compression is superior to hardware . Where I hear improvement is in the subtle uncoupled pass. I no longer need a console or gear. I am now bypassing all hardware except for what the uncoupling converters AD does.

The next part which is where I get more reward. Avoiding bouncing and being able to capture and master on a second DAW is by far the best workflow I have ever experienced. Without writing a book, I use two DAW's , both loaded with Samplitude/Sequoia and do no see me changing this simple process anytime soon. DAW is for mixing, DAW2 is for capturing and finishing. DAW2 is where I base all tracking, mixing and mastering decision.

Being able to mix 2 channels into an uncoupled second DAW with mastering software is pure butter. Being able to hear your mix through an excellent converter that has a monitor out on DAW2 is the best.
Avoiding bouncing is better than bouncing.

I need nothing more. No gear and the second DAW doesn't need to be very powerful. All it is used for is basic summing and mastering. That's it.

That's how I do it today.

audiokid, post: 429022, member: 1 wrote: curious: Why do you need the Big Ben when you are using an excellent internal PCIe interface?

Good question. It's kind of a a left-over. At one point I had my HD24 patched in as well and this was recommended by someone. I am still learning and rarely to never do work for others right now. I'm just continually learning and practicing my chops, trying to figure out a base system for when I get my studio build finalized in 3 years or so and go commercial.

audiokid, post: 429021, member: 1 wrote: Whether I use 32 DA or 2 DA I do the same for two reason:

1. Sounds better to me

2. Easier to finish a mix

   . The simple is:

   DAW 1 @ 96k DA > analog matrix (could be as simple as just the converter analog out ) > AD 2 channel 44.1 uncoupled USB converter > DAW 2 with mastering software.

   done.

OK thanks. Very helpful to this old easily confused mind of mine! It's as I thought.

Isn't the Big Ben a clock? (I'm asking because I'm not sure...I seem to remember a clocking device named something similar to that back in the 90's )

You don't really need one if you are using a 2 DAW system for mixdown... That's one of the things that Chris ( audiokid) discovered when he was tweaking his workflow method...

audiokid, post: 429021, member: 1 wrote: Whether I use 32 DA or 2 DA I do the same for two reason:

1. Sounds better to me

2. Easier to finish a mix

   . The simple is:

   DAW 1 @ 96k DA > analog matrix (could be as simple as just the converter analog out ) > AD 2 channel 44.1 uncoupled USB converter > DAW 2 with mastering software.

   done.

Thanks Chris.
So for me to try this with what I have, at the least I would need to buy or find someone willing to loan a 2 channel USB converter, a second DAW with mastering capability.
From what you say, unless I were to use a quality (ie expensive) 2 channel converter and second DAW, the benefits of this may not be as apparent?

My options are very limited because I really do live in the Boonies, well over 100 miles from any formal studio in either the US or Canada. I guess I will need to see if I can convince the only other guy I know with gear around here to try this with a combination of our gear . He has a "studio" set up in the basement of a local "music store" that sells some instruments and equipment as well as horse tack, nick knacks and what I call Bunnies on a Fence (crafts)LOL!

It all continues to be experimental for me. Analog summing just seems right to me and the decoupling seems to make sense as well. I also want the options of hybrid mixing if desired. Pushing faders, even if it's a control surface, is just so much more ergonomic for me as my old hands cramp easily with a mouse even though I love what ITB mixing can do. If I ever get the opportunity and time away from my day and often night psychotherapy gig, I'll try this and post my results.

Thanks again for clearing this up for me. I'll continue to lurk and hope to hear other's results as the many details and options in this rapidly changing field unfold. I won't need to commit to a work flow for a while and it's good to hear what others are doing and the actual results from those I trust here.
namaste

DonnyThompson, post: 429036, member: 46114 wrote: Isn't the Big Ben a clock? (I'm asking because I'm not sure...I seem to remember a clocking device named something similar to that back in the 90's )

You don't really need one if you are using a 2 DAW system for mixdown... That's one of the things that Chris ( audiokid) discovered when he was tweaking his workflow method...

Yup a clock. Guess I don't really need it right now!

vibrations1951, post: 428994, member: 34341 wrote: First Chris, would you mind describing your basic signal path from record to final DAW2?

Secondly, I would like to try the decoupling and analog summing with what I have for equipment but not sure if this will work as a fair comparison of summing ITB verses decoupling, summing analog and rendering the final mix in a second digital format. I don't have a second DAW right now and thought perhaps my Sony 2 track CD burner might function as a bare minimum for comparison. Perhaps not???
What I do now:
Mix Wiz/pres > Aurora 16 >Lynx AES16e>Nuendo 4 > sum ITB and capture 2-bus from Nuendo "control room" stereo outs (many available)>Lynx AES16e>Aurora analog> onto Sony 2 track CD burner as well as using additional "control room" stereo outs to monitor with Yamaha HS50's . I use a Big Ben for master clock.
Proposed test:
Use the same recorded and treated (edited, eq'd,comp., fx etc.) tracks in DAW> Lynx AES16e>Aurora>Mix Wiz line ins for final mix and summing>Sony 2 track recorder.

I think I would have to monitor both scenarios through the Sony RCA outs to the HS50's for a more accurate AB.

I'm not sure if the Mix Wiz 16 as a summing box and 2-bus, the converters in the Sony 2 track or the HS50's are of adequate quality for a good comparison????
Am I way off base here?

We've had a number of threads over the last couple of years about what I call the "two-box" method, as mentioned in my post earlier in this thread. In addition to the links there, have a look at these:

[="http://recording.org/threads/analog-transfers-between-uncoupled-daws.57856/#post-422479"]Analogue transfers between uncoupled DAWs[/]="http://recording.or…"]Analogue transfers between uncoupled DAWs[/]

[="http://recording.or…"]Thread spin off - mixing with and without "stuff"
[/]
[[url=http://="http://recording.or…"]Convertors or preamps?[/]="http://recording.or…"]Convertors or preamps?[/]

The point about calling it "two box" rather than "two-DAW" is that it does not, in principle, matter what the two uncoupled boxes are. However, the critical component is the A-D converter in the 2-track capture box, along with the quality of its clock and its anti-aliaising filters. The better the ADC is, the better the result, but you would start to hear the difference simply by uncoupling the mix system clock from the capture system clock. This means you do not need to worry overmuch about not having a second capture DAW, as your Sony CD burner will probably work to demonstrate the principle, at least for starters, even though the result is only 16-bit.

In one of those linked threads I described one of my usual ways of mixing, which is from a stack of HD24XR hard-disk recorders (24-bit, 96KHz) through an Allen & Heath Zed-R16 analog mixer into a 2-track capture DAW (24-bit, 44.1KHz), adding associated effect units, dynamic processors and other boxes dependent on what is needed for the style of music. If the ancilliary boxes get too much, or there are effects I can't achieve OTB, I transfer all the HD24 tracks to a DAW such as Samplitude and send out stems from there for external mixing.

Boswell, post: 429040, member: 29034 wrote: We've had a number of threads over the last couple of years about what I call the "two-box" method, as mentioned in my post earlier in this thread. In addition to the links there, have a look at these:

[="http://recording.org/threads/analog-transfers-between-uncoupled-daws.57856/#post-422479"]Analogue transfers between uncoupled DAWs[/]="http://recording.or…"]Analogue transfers between uncoupled DAWs[/]

[="http://recording.or…"]Thread spin off - mixing with and without "stuff"
[/]
[[url=http://="http://recording.or…"]Convertors or preamps?[/]="http://recording.or…"]Convertors or preamps?[/]

The point about calling it "two box" rather than "two-DAW" is that it does not, in principle, matter what the two uncoupled boxes are. However, the critical component is the A-D converter in the 2-track capture box, along with the quality of its clock and its anti-aliaising filters. The better the ADC is, the better the result, but you would start to hear the difference simply by uncoupling the mix system clock from the capture system clock. This means you do not need to worry overmuch about not having a second capture DAW, as your Sony CD burner will probably work to demonstrate the principle, at least for starters, even though the result is only 16-bit.

In one of those linked threads I described one of my usual ways of mixing, which is from a stack of HD24XR hard-disk recorders (24-bit, 96KHz) through an Allen & Heath Zed-R16 analog mixer into a 2-track capture DAW (24-bit, 44.1KHz), adding associated effect units, dynamic processors and other boxes dependent on what is needed for the style of music. If the ancilliary boxes get too much, or there are effects I can't achieve OTB, I transfer all the HD24 tracks to a DAW such as Samplitude and send out stems from there for external mixing.

Great! This is very helpful. I'll check those links later and see if I can try some things on my own here before involving others and their equipment. I suspected that the 2 channel Sony might be usable to at least get an idea.
Thanks Bos

Just a thought, you could sell the Big Ben and use that money to help fund something.

vibrations1951, post: 429037, member: 34341 wrote: Thanks Chris.
So for me to try this with what I have, at the least I would need to buy or find someone willing to loan a 2 channel USB converter, a second DAW with mastering capability.
From what you say, unless I were to use a quality (ie expensive) 2 channel converter and second DAW, the benefits of this may not be as apparent?

Yes and no. :)

As Bos points out, ... the better the converter, the better the capture. Just doing this is a bonus imho.

There is a second reason I might use two DAW's which is something of an experience.
Nothing I've done in 35 years has proved more beneficial to me than mixing into a second DAW that has mastering software. You aren't necessarily mastering, you are summing using excellent software that has superior summing code.
If the end result is online why not simply mix into the DAW that is your end result? Assuming you do that then, I suggest to have your ears where it counts most which is right before the upload to publishing (archiving) regardless of what the finish product is.

The way I look at this, missing this opportunity in a two step process is cutting yourself short. You still need a second converter and a second capture of some kind, so why not that capture devise be a DAW with proven summing code?
In comparison, what you spend now , is savings later. ;) Plus, there are other aspects of this workflow that I don't talk , which will add to your business. It truly is a wonderful way to work.

For experimentation purposes you can use a very modest computer (A cheap used laptop) for the capture and you could download a 30 day demo of Samplitude or Izotope. 30 days is about the shortest I would want to get similar with anything like this anyway. I really never starting hearing a lot of what I now know now until it was a year into this. After two years year I finally had a great grip on it.

As an example of my evolution:
We start this because we hear something wrong in summing. Hybrid is the obvious direction.
Then comes learning about conversion, interfacing , connections and hardware rave ...

Monitoring in better ways to hear my sum is when this all started paying off. And I mean, selling gear I no longer needed.
Mixing into the sum and removing as many steps as I could in a two DAW approach was a big wow.

Maybe digital audio requires us to think about monitoring more. I found I edited and moved things way too much before. Especially coming from the analog era where you can turn knobs a long ways in comparison to digital.
My recommendation to this approach is more focused on that, which in turn, improves our sound. Its a win win. ,
Today I am mixing into the master (the sum) all in one step using two DAW's both loaded with the same software. I'm sure any familiar platform on DAW 1 is fine, then choose good summing software for DAW 2.
Mixing into a second DAW is about less steps, less bouncing and hearing better. So far I can't do it as well on one DAW. That is why I do this.

Bos and Chris
I haven't given up and been reading more. This is a lot to get my head around when it comes to monitoring, work flow and digital sampling and conversion ramifications to 2-bus capture and transfer.

Actually Bos, in my limited experience, I've been capturing the 2-bus from Nuendo onto the Sony CD recorder right along and the results are adequate yet limited in many respects. I need to try a controlled (as controlled as possible) situation where I monitor the 2-bus directly from the Aurora and then the 2-bus from the recorder into the same monitor chain. I'm not sure this will produce a fair or representative A/B test of summing alternatives. I might also try passing 12 tracks from the DAW to the Mix Wiz and capture that 2-bus onto the sony CD recorder for comparison as well.

Beyond this, I am getting what is being said about work flow and monitoring capabilities as well as my desired hybrid options with decoupling. I see why the Big Ben clock would not be needed and think I might try selling it. If so, I am curious which 2 channel converters should be considered if I am able to work this all out? I will have to see if the old Acer laptop could handle Samplitude...just a matter of looking up Samplitude at this point. Which version would you recommend Chris please?

I'm a slow processor but this is all starting to make a lot of sense to the way I think I want to eventually be set up. I still have ample time before my official studio is completed and this is another step toward that end. I'm feeling like it could be efficient in both cost and work flow plus allowing the summing and hybrid options I'm looking for. On top of all that it seems like the kind of arrangement that would be flexible enough to accommodate changes down the road, though who knows as quickly as things change!

I really appreciate the generous support here guys .Your answers to my 2 questions here would be greatly appreciated.
Namaste

vibrations1951, post: 429131, member: 34341 wrote: Which version would you recommend Chris please?

Do you mean "which version of Samplitude"?

What would be your budget for converters? I assume you are considering USB interfacing rather than FireWire.

As for monitoring the Aurora converted output, this would have to be done via the Aurora DACs. Does the Aurora model you have allow you to set up direct monitoring via the internal mixer?

vibrations1951, post: 429131, member: 34341 wrote: I need to try a controlled (as controlled as possible) situation where I monitor the 2-bus directly from the Aurora and then the 2-bus from the recorder into the same monitor chain

The best way I achieved this test,
I split a monitor feed 3 ways into a Dangerous Monitor ST (highly recommend this btw).

1. DAW1 > 2-bus into a Dangerous Monitor ST

2. analog 2-bus > into a Dangerous Monitor ST
3. Capture DA > 2-bus into a Dangerous Monitor ST
   Using a monitor controller like this allows you to hear and mix from all 3 points at will (recording, mixing and mastering). There is no guessing with a system like this.

   To me, the greatest benefit was all about hearing what I am doing better over analog mojo. You will without doubt hear a change uncoupling, but this is also subjective to your analog matrix and your 2 channel conversion.

audiokid, post: 429133, member: 1 wrote: Do you mean "which version of Samplitude"?

Yes Chris. I believe this is the 2 channel master DAW you spoke highly of and I think Bos uses as well. In a quick search I thought I came across 2 different versions??

audiokid, post: 429135, member: 1 wrote: The best way I achieved this test,
I split a monitor feed 3 ways into a Dangerous Monitor ST (highly recommend this btw).

1. DAW1 > 2-bus into a Dangerous Monitor ST

2. analog 2-bus > into a Dangerous Monitor ST
3. Capture DA > 2-bus into a Dangerous Monitor ST
   Using a monitor controller like this allows you to hear and mix from all 3 points at will (recording, mixing and mastering). There is no guessing with a system like this.

   To me, the greatest benefit was all about hearing what I am doing better over analog mojo. You will without doubt hear a change uncoupling, but this is also subjective to your analog matrix and your 2 channel conversion.

I see what you are saying, appreciate the suggestion and do need to eventually set up a good monitoring system. Perhaps this is the time to scrounge the pennies and bite the bullet. I don't believe I'll regret it ever and from what I've read about the Dangerous monitor, and all their stuff for that matter, it seems to not only be of unquestionable quality but also fit my needs well.

The latest version of either Samplitude or Sequoia is best. Its most stable at 64 bit. If you get the full package, its all you'll need. Avoid loading Independence ( the sampling library it comes with is imho, useless bloat).
What you need is the engine and the mastering and summing software it has. You'll need Window 7 or 8. I don't know what laptop and cpu to recommend. A good HD is essential because you are tracking 44.1 sessions.
fyi, I usually capture dozens of takes of a session until I find the right analog mix. During my learning of hybrid, I would capture literally 20 to 100 mixes of a session. So in other words, I might capture the same song 100 times so that is a lot of 44.1 tracks on the capture DAW.
The capture DAW is where you will be learning everything you do. Its an amazing way to work.

Make sense?

vibrations1951, post: 429137, member: 34341 wrote: The Dangerous monitor, and all their stuff for that matter, it seems to not only be of unquestionable quality but also fit my needs well.

Dangerous Music is the bomb for hybrid mixing and mastering. They have their shit together. Being said, I also used the 2381 from SPL which was excellent too. I think PreSonus has an affordable controller and there are others. Come to think about it, maybe Antelope Audio has a controller and DA combo.
Whatever you get, its really paramount that its a very transparent build, for obvious reasons.

Boswell, post: 429134, member: 29034 wrote: What would be your budget for converters? I assume you are considering USB interfacing rather than FireWire.

As for monitoring the Aurora converted output, this would have to be done via the Aurora DACs. Does the Aurora model you have allow you to set up direct monitoring via the internal mixer?

I was hoping I could get a good 2 channel converter for around $400US. Yes USB as my DAW2 will likely be run by my ACER Aspire running windows 7 and I don't believe there is an option?? I've scanned some options including Scarlett Series, PreSonus AudioBox, Antelope Pure 2. My budget is a bit flexible and more dependent upon a quality purchase that will meet my needs best "down the road".

As for the Aurora 16, if I am understanding this correctly, I'll have to investigate this further because right now my DAW monitoring is done through Nuendo's "control room" ITB which gives me multiple "studio mixes" , "headphone" and "speaker" pairs out through the Aurora in LR pairs up to 4 pairs or so I believe. I'm not home right now so I'll check this later.

vibrations1951, post: 429140, member: 34341 wrote: Yes USB as my DAW2 will likely be run by my ACER Aspire running windows 7 and I don't believe there is an option??

If I am understanding you correctly with this statement, you are saying that you want to be flexible regarding the connectivity (USB, FW). If you have open slots in your PC, you can get PCIe FW cards, and they're not that expensive, either. I'm just mentioning this in case you might find a converter you like that is FW, you could go with it if you were to also buy a FW card.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815158191&cm_re=firewire_card-_-15-158-191-_-Product

DonnyThompson, post: 429147, member: 46114 wrote: If I am understanding you correctly with this statement, you are saying that you want to be flexible regarding the connectivity (USB, FW). If you have open slots in your PC, you can get PCIe FW cards, and they're not that expensive, either. I'm just mentioning this in case you might find a converter you like that is FW, you could go with it if you were to also buy a FW card.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815158191&cm_re=firewire_card-_-15-158-191-_-Product

Thanks Donny. Yes I did want to look at all options. I've never used firewire but have heard it can be superior to usb in speed of transfer.
Right now I'm thinking about selling my Big Ben, purchasing Samplitude Pro X2 and a decent 2 channel converter (not sure what to get here yet). I will likely have to hold off on a decent monitoring system for now and rig what I can.

My Acer seems to have the appropriate system requirements except for the 64 Bit operation RAM. Samplitude requires 4GB and my Acer has "2.75 GB usable". So I'm not sure if I can easily have RAM added as well as F disc the Acer for use of the maximum 136GB hard drive disc space and get it back up to decent operation. I may need a different computer. Chris makes a good point about the number of tracks at 44.1/24 so I need to get to a computer guy to help me tease this out. I seem to remember running my Nuendo at 32 bit to keep latency low? Perhaps running Samplitude at 32 bit is adequate? I'm not real savvy with the digital stuff but I'm getting there.
Any thoughts?

DonnyThompson, post: 429147, member: 46114 wrote: If I am understanding you correctly with this statement, you are saying that you want to be flexible regarding the connectivity (USB, FW). If you have open slots in your PC, you can get PCIe FW cards, and they're not that expensive, either. I'm just mentioning this in case you might find a converter you like that is FW, you could go with it if you were to also buy a FW card.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815158191&cm_re=firewire_card-_-15-158-191-_-Product

I may end up being able to use a very old desktop computer of mine that would likely have open slots but may be beyond repair and upgrade. The laptop won't accommodate this. I may be looking at purchasing a used unit that fits the bill better rather than fix up what I have. I'm also concerned a bit about the ergonomics involved with all the computer screens. Right now I'm using 2 with my present setup. May have to streamline to accommodate for another DAW. Lots to consider.

Your old 32-bit Acer PC with a good ADC attached would make a usable 2-track capture system. You don't need huge amounts of memory for a couple of channels being written through to disc.

Despite others expounding the virtues of a high-quality DAW for capturing the 2-track mix, I can get just as good results (at the file level) using Audacity as I can with Samplitude, because I've examined the Audacity code to verify that it does not change the captured bit patterns between the ADC and the disk file. If the mix is to go off for mastering, that's what I send, since the ME performs the topping and tailing and (of course) the level adjustment and any mastering EQ or compression needed. If I'm working on it myself for a non-mastered mix, I will capture to Samplitude or Reaper and tidy it up on the spot. As an experiment I recently used Harrison Mixbus for a capture mix and edit of a singer/guitarist who wanted an "old-fashioned" sound. I used exclusively ribbon mics for the recording and then mixed on a pure analog console. She was delighted with how the result turned out.

vibrations1951, post: 429148, member: 34341 wrote: I've never used firewire but have heard it can be superior to usb in speed of transfer.

If you are only using this for capturing, 2 tracks of audio at a time, a usb or fw interface will work just fine! I have both and its flawless however, there is definately latency between your mix and the capture but its never an issue because I switch to whatever monitoring input I need at the time (tracking, mixing, DAW2 capturing (summing).

Example, when I am tracking, I switch my monitor controller to DAW 1. When I am mixing or capturing (preparing audio for CD (uploading including a master (summing), I am on DAW2 (monitoring the sum). DAW 2 is my stereo mixer.

Again, I don't master, I track and finish (sum) audio better this way (EQ, compression, reverbs, spacial editing, cleaning whatever the task is that has to do with summing and finishing audio... etc)
I've also found I don't miss owning 2 Bricasti M7's using Samplitude on the capture DAW because I now use the Capture DAW as the 2-bus processor. I hear 2-bus Reverb sounds better on the capture DAW for various reasons.

Until you start mixing like this, its hard to get your head around it all ( maybe see the benefits) . But, think of the 2nd DAW as replacing your stereo mixing section on DAW1.
You bypass all 2-bus processing on DAW1 and target / dedicate this section to DAW2 :) DAW 2 is a dedicated 2-bus processor. Its very different from what Bos is doing.

(edit) Personally speaking, I could use Reaper or other DAW's for the capture, but I wouldn't if I didn't have to. If fact, to my ears, if all I was doing was "capturing" I wouldn't even waste my time if that's all I did in this step. The benefits to just uncoupling aren't worth the fuss alone.
The better mastering code and quality processing on DAW 2, the better I learn how to improve my mixing skills. Being able to avoid bouncing is a huge bonus, as is mixing into a sum at the destination SR is special. Once you have the monitor section in place, the whole process from mixing to summing is also so much faster achieving great sounding finishes in whatever project you are working on.
One DAW feeds the other. They are both connected, just not coupled.

Thats my two cents on this.

Cheers!

Boswell, post: 429150, member: 29034 wrote: Your old 32-bit Acer PC with a good ADC attached would make a usable 2-track capture system. You don't need huge amounts of memory for a couple of channels being written through to disc.

Despite others expounding the virtues of a high-quality DAW for capturing the 2-track mix, I can get just as good results (at the file level) using Audacity as I can with Samplitude, because I've examined the Audacity code to verify that it does not change the captured bit patterns between the ADC and the disk file. If the mix is to go off for mastering, that's what I send, since the ME performs the topping and tailing and (of course) the level adjustment and any mastering EQ or compression needed. If I'm working on it myself for a non-mastered mix, I will capture to Samplitude or Reaper and tidy it up on the spot. As an experiment I recently used Harrison Mixbus for a capture mix and edit of a singer/guitarist who wanted an "old-fashioned" sound. I used exclusively ribbon mics for the recording and then mixed on a pure analog console. She was delighted with how the result turned out.

I'm in the middle of trying to decide between 3 computer options, 1. upgrade the Acer laptop with increased RAM if the processor speed can be enhanced, 2. assess my old windows PC tower for use, 3. purchase a used computer instead that fits the bill. All would need to be adequate to ultimately run a DAW like Samplitude or equal.
The amount I have to spend on a computer will determine what I can spend on a good 2 channel ADC (as well as what I get for the Big Ben). The way I see it, if I can afford a good ADC and have a working decoupled system with something like Audacity, I can evaluate continuing on with upgrading the DAW2, monitoring and analog summing devices as I go along. If I bail on the whole idea, I could easily recoup my investment in a quality ADC or use otherwise.
Does this seem to make sense??
Bos, I like the way you went about getting that "old fashioned" sound. I am in love with ribbons used with digital recording/mixing. What little I've done with ribbons is enough to convince me to have a good stock of them in my mic cabinet! Can't wait to try this with a decoupled system and analog summing.

audiokid, post: 429152, member: 1 wrote: If you are only using this for capturing, 2 tracks of audio at a time, a usb or fw interface will work just fine! I have both and its flawless however, there is definately latency between your mix and the capture but its never an issue because I switch to whatever monitoring input I need at the time (tracking, mixing, DAW2 capturing (summing).

Example, when I am tracking, I switch my monitor controller to DAW 1. When I am mixing or capturing (preparing audio for CD (uploading including a master (summing), I am on DAW2 (monitoring the sum). DAW 2 is my stereo mixer.

Again, I don't master, I track and finish (sum) audio better this way (EQ, compression, reverbs, spacial editing, cleaning whatever the task is that has to do with summing and finishing audio... etc)
I've also found I don't miss owning 2 Bricasti M7's using Samplitude on the capture DAW because I now use the Capture DAW as the 2-bus processor. I hear 2-bus Reverb sounds better on the capture DAW for various reasons.

Until you start mixing like this, its hard to get your head around it all ( maybe see the benefits) . But, think of the 2nd DAW as replacing your stereo mixing section on DAW1.
You bypass all 2-bus processing on DAW1 and target / dedicate this section to DAW2 :) DAW 2 is a dedicated 2-bus processor. Its very different from what Bos is doing.

(edit) Personally speaking, I could use Reaper or other DAW's for the capture, but I wouldn't if I didn't have to. If fact, to my ears, if all I was doing was "capturing" I wouldn't even waste my time if that's all I did in this step. The benefits to just uncoupling aren't worth the fuss alone.
The better mastering code and quality processing on DAW 2, the better I learn how to improve my mixing skills. Being able to avoid bouncing is a huge bonus, as is mixing into a sum at the destination SR is special. Once you have the monitor section in place, the whole process from mixing to summing is also so much faster achieving great sounding finishes in whatever project you are working on.
One DAW feeds the other. They are both connected, just not coupled.

Thats my two cents on this.

Cheers!

I think I hear what you are saying Chris about the value of decoupling, good monitoring, the flow and use of DAW1 to mix/edit to DAW2 for final capture/mix. I thought I was getting this but apparently I have misunderstood the difference between what you and Bos are doing. Can you help me here?

vibrations1951, post: 429157, member: 34341 wrote: I think I hear what you are saying Chris about the value of decoupling, good monitoring, the flow and use of DAW1 to mix/edit to DAW2 for final capture/mix. I thought I was getting this but apparently I have misunderstood the difference between what you and Bos are doing. Can you help me here?

Where Bos stops, I add value.
In a nut shell, I got into hybrid because I wanted to produce mixes that didn't need "mastering" persay. Where all they really needed was a second ear and very tiny tweaks.

This is of course my own opinion. I'm not telling anyone to do this. It seems to offend people when you share all this, which I'm not in the least trying to sell it to anyone. It works for me.

There are two Hybrid models.

1. Round trip. This imho, in an over hyped concept started back when Pro Tools was as bad as it gets and guys like Fletcher were making a bundle selling gear to as many people as he could. It also gave all the analog crowd a way to integrate hardware into their new DAW. The old school analogers discovered (helped by gear pimps) hybrid was the answer to solving the bad converters and lack of "character". Thus, introducing the round trip snake oil approach to hybrid. I would challenge the round trip actually being worth it.

2. Two DAW's as I've described. This approach is all Bos describes plus my added approach included better summing and listening. This approach btw is what Chris Muth is known for and what many mastering guru's do with our masters. I simply added it to a hybrid summing system and include two DAW's because I feel its better to bypass the 1st DAW's 2-bus and use a sophisticated monitoring system to mix into the second DAW. I could go into this is great detail but it would be over most people attention only because most people are not able to mix like this anyway. It takes two systems and the will to want to explore different ways to sum. Recordist in general are not all that interested in mixing. This is a sophisticated mixing approach .
   If you do research on how people master and think about it how they get your mix and put it into their system... you soon see its the same idea as both Bos and I are doing with uncoupling. I connected the dots. ;)

   I strongly recommend not buying a bunch of hardware (eq's, comps) until you try this simple 2 DAW approach. If you hear it like I do, you may discover you don't need a lot of extra gear at all. ITB and Samplitude alone is extremely powerful.
   This is really about (less is more) listening and dedicating your workflow smarter while removing bouncing.

   Cheers