audiokid, post: 429386, member: 1 wrote: :love:

Hi Angel,

Where have you been! Its been a long time since we last had a conversation. Thanks for the kinds words and sharing the testimonial.

I am here,but I bought new house and I was busy to move all staff to the new home.Now I plan to build new studio(big enough,control room 25 m2 and second-recording room 35-40 m2).
I will use golden ratio formula for the control room dimension.
Will share more things later,but for now just watch that video to see what the analog toys can do for mixing and mastering.

Angel, I thought you were capturing your audio (analog mix or master) on a separate DAW?
As far as hybrid , 9:30 he is doing the round trip, which I would never do again. Uncoupling two DAW's and placing analog gear between them sounds much better, less smeared and more punch and provide a faster way to mix or master.

imho

My standard chain would go like this:
DAW1= 96k (Samplitude) mix > DA stems (analog Matrix) 2 channel AD sum > uncoupled conversion> DAW 2 = (44.1 (Sequoia) sum> mix or master ITB
(DA headphones or speaker monitoring) > export.
Once ITB, stay ITB is how I do it. No bouncing needed.

audiokid, post: 429423, member: 1 wrote: Angel, I thought you were capturing your audio (analog mix or master) on a separate DAW?
As far as hybrid , 9:30 he is doing the round trip, which I would never do again. Uncoupling two DAW's and placing analog gear between them sounds much better, less smeared and more punch and provide a faster way to mix or master.

imho

My standard chain would go like this:
DAW1= 96k (Samplitude) mix > DA stems (analog Matrix) 2 channel AD > DAW 2 = (44.1 (Sequoia) sum> to either mix or master ITB
(DA headphones or speaker) > export.
Once ITB, stay ITB is how I do it.

On the movie he doing round trip,but not me.I post that link because of the analog cliping of API preamp.
My chain is that;
DAW 1-Antelope Orion32 DA -SPL MIx Dream-Shadow hills Dual Vandergraph-SSL Mynx Bus Comp-Thermionic culture ThePhoenix mstering compressor-
Millennia NSEQ 4-Bax EQ-Prism LYRA AD.DAW 2

right on!

audiokid. Well I've got every thing up and I can immediately see what you mean about needing a good monitor section for each stage of the signal path, (DAW1 @48>DA>Mix Wiz 16>AD>DAW2@44.1) More questions on this later especially when it comes to gain staging.
Sooooo...
I am so skeptical of my own psychoacoustic effects.
BUT: (And we all know what comes outa' there!)

That being said....holy Sh!#! The dry tracks in DAW1 @48/24 cleared up like rising above the fog when I summed through the Mix Wiz (flat ie. no eq/verb/compression etc.)and monitored through the Pure 2 @ 44.1 compared to the same Mix Wiz sum monitored directly, with subjective attempts to keep monitoring levels the same.

Is this possible Chris? I know it doesn't get more subjective and potentially biased than this (especially after dropping over $2K to try this out so far).

I haven't had the chance/time to monitor DAW1 sum direct yet and I'm getting very excited or just more crazy, not sure which at this point! I'm already pumped at the workflow and hybrid possibilities for me. Just pushing faders for the sum makes me happy. There may need to be a control surface for DAW1 in my future but that's a whole other topic (and may confound this whole process?).

So many uncontrolled factors here so ground me please.
Namaste

vibrations1951, post: 429488, member: 34341 wrote: I'm getting very excited or just more crazy, not sure which at this point

Both! :)

vibrations1951, post: 429488, member: 34341 wrote: So many uncontrolled factors here so ground me please.

It only gets better.

I'd love to have that new converter, I bet it sounds sweet.
(y)

audiokid, post: 429495, member: 1 wrote: It only gets better.

I'd love to have that new converter, I bet it sounds sweet.
(y)

Sweet for sure!! I've been able to sample quite a few of our old rehearsal tracks and, well,it's time to brush up our performances. I can hear, I can Hear! The audible nuances in dynamic tweaks as well as fx are incredible. It's all relative of course and I can't really say anything sensible until I can do some less subjective AB-ing but....the Pure 2 is...well...pretty pure to my old ears. I believe you Chris that it will get better!

I'm already trying to decide which purchase will be next...but I think monitor controller wins. I think that Samplitude should be next to replace Audacity and then I will be ready to make some decisions about control surface/analog console/summing box/whatever else my pocket book allows and I feel I need.

$$$$$$$$$$$$ but well spent so far. For my market and time frame (or should I say lifespan!LOL!) I'm beginning to feel even more confident that I am going in the right direction. My wife is an artist. I may have to build false racks and have her paint analog gear that I lust after on the fronts with fake leds! Just for that analog look and feel!

Don't get me wrong because I just love the organics of analog and mostly prefer traditional instruments as well as tracking artists all at once for that spiritual vibe and juice but....if I can do most of what I need ITB(es) and still inject the analog pieces when and where I can, well it's a win-win-win in my mind. The analog goodness, the digital benefits and a work flow I'm getting more comfortable and liking more already.

I like options and this arrangement seems to be endless in those. It feels like I will soon be able to afford a signal path and work flow with this set up as a base to get me up and running, refining my chops (endless process) and open for real business in a couple more years.

So a simple question Chris. How do you manage the 2 keypads and mouse/mice or whatever? I saw a hub that is usb and will switch between 2 computers thereby using one keypad and one mouse as assigned. Could even do the screens at the same time but I want them both operating at once of course...about $20. Thoughts?

I want to thank you Chris. This is all very exciting. I'm feeling like I should either start messaging you or start a new thread elsewhere on the forum... yet my process is ultimately about the analog summing voodoo verses validity for me, just maybe not helpful to the OP or others????

namaste

vibrations1951, post: 429507, member: 34341 wrote: How do you manage the 2 keypads and mouse/mice or whatever?

I tried sharing a keypad, mouse and screen but once you start getting into this, you'll see having two visible independent systems is much better.
The ST switches the audio, but you want to be seeing what your are mixing into or vice versa. My mixing DAW uses a big hdmi TV and the capture DAW uses a small, 22 in and its own keypad and mouse. If you have the realestate for that, do it like that.

vibrations1951, post: 429507, member: 34341 wrote: I want to thank you Chris. This is all very exciting. I'm feeling like I should either start messaging you or start a new thread elsewhere on the forum... yet my process is ultimately about the analog summing voodoo verses validity for me, just maybe not helpful to the OP or others????

Your welcome. :)

Keep posting here, it helps the interested.

FWIW,

Monitors like this but without all the gear, ROCKS!

http://recording.org/attachments/img_0689-1000-px-jpg.3687/

audiokid, post: 429509, member: 1 wrote: I tried sharing a keypad, mouse and screen but once you start getting into this, you'll see having two visible independent systems is much better.
The ST switches the audio, but you want to be seeing what your are mixing into or vice versa. My mixing DAW uses a big hdmi TV and the capture DAW uses a small, 22 in and its own keypad and mouse. If you have the realestate for that, do it like that.

Right now I really don't have the space (1 standard under-desk pull-out shelf with keypad over keypad and mouse next to mouse...ugghh). I may be forced to try the switching for now. If I only toggle mouse and keypad feeds, the screens and DAWs should stay up, running and visible I believe...at least that's what the computer shop guy in town thought. He will order one and said he'd take it back if it doesn't suit my needs.
I had rigged my screens so I have the larger one dedicated to the mixing DAW and the smaller is dedicated to DAW 2 like your set up. I have them side by side and this works great so far for me. It has to be because I have no choice right now. It will be good to work this way for a couple of years so that when I get to building my desk in the real control room I'll know better what my layout needs to be.

audiokid, post: 429509, member: 1 wrote: Monitors like this but without all the gear, ROCKS!

You had to really believe to rid yourself of the gear! If you don't mind my asking, what basic analog gear did you keep for tracking and mixing? Are you still using the NEOS and Mixbus? Just curious what how this settled out for you.
Namaste

DonnyThompson, post: 429411, member: 46114 wrote: This is something you really need to talk about with Chris, and trust his knowledge on, because he's done quite a bit of scenario experimentation. He's definitely the guy to talk to about this.

I won't lie to you, there is a learning curve to Samplitude that some might find steeper than others... but the good news is that there are some really great instructional vids dedicated to every facet of Samp and Sequoia.
But, ya know, any program that you are unfamiliar with, is gonna take some time to get comfortable with, especially programs such as Samp, which are so powerful and which can do so many things.

I finally started doing research on Samp "how-to's" through various online video instruction, and throughout my internet travels, I found that there are two sources, both whom I not only trust implicitly, but both of whom who also have a wealth of knowledge, and the ability to explain things in ways that are intuitive, yet easy to grasp.

These two people are Kraznet Montpelier and Tim Dolbear. As you may know, Tim, (who is also a member of RO), works for Magix as the North Amercian Sales Rep. He is also a musician, engineer and producer, and, a Samplitude /Sequoia user himself, who like may of us here, also has extensive past experience with other DAW Platforms.

Kraznet - who does not work for Magix - is perhaps the most knowledgeable person I've found in regard to "all things Samp/Sequoia". His videos are awesome. I've yet to come across any issue or question he hasn't been able to successfully answer and help me tp overcome, as well as providing info on things that I didn't know I even had questions about, LOL, but that still benefited me greatly. His Youtube videos are - as far as I'm concerned - the "de facto" standard for Samp knowledge, tricks, tips, tools and suggestions.

If you do end up trying out Samp, make sure to take advantage of these two guy's instructional vids. Truth be told, I think I'd probably be standing helpless out in the tall grass without them. ;)

Once you start to get a handle on how powerful this platform is, and what just what it's capable of, ( as well as working with honest audio... their audio engine is incredibly accurate), you'll look back and wonder why you didn't make the move sooner.

For modern production, (or even retro styles) as far as I'm concerned - and having had a lot of experience in both PT and Sonar - I can honestly say that IMO, there is no better platform, no equal.

This is not a platform for the hobbyist, or the person who just likes to mess around with recording and mixing. This is a professional DAW Program, and, because of this, it can be complex at times... but nothing you can't overcome if you look at the videos I've mentioned and talk to other Samp users here.

(And no, I don't work for Magix, either.) ;)

FWIW

d.

DonnyThompson. Hey Donny. I'm sorry I never responded! Been caught up with stuff. This was and is very very helpful in my process right now. Thanks so much for taking the time to lead me info and connections. Dollars dictate right now so Audacity will have to do. Then the next step will be monitor controller+/Samp. The old struggle between Time and Money....got the time, no money....got the money, no time. Baby steps are probably my friend for now!
I trust your experience and endorsement and again, thank you!
Namaste

vibrations1951, post: 429518, member: 34341 wrote: You had to really believe to rid yourself of the gear! If you don't mind my asking, what basic analog gear did you keep for tracking and mixing? Are you still using the NEOS and Mixbus? Just curious what how this settled out for you.

Tracking: preamps, 1176, LA2A
Analog gear for mixing: none

audiokid, post: 429520, member: 1 wrote: tracking: preamps, 1176, LA2A
analog gear for mixing: none

Wow. So are you taking your 2-bus at tracking SR DA directly to your AD to DAW 2 at new SR or are you taking stems from DAW 1 into DAW 2. Now that I ask this I think I remember you said stems.
So if I ever decided to pass directly from Daw 1 to Daw 2 without anything in between (analog) would I be affecting, (if that's the right word), the signal from DAW1 by grouping to 2-bus, without SR change in DAW1, rather than stems? You have likely answered this before but I can't find the info. My thinking says no problem but this is confusing to me right now.
namaste

vibrations1951, post: 429521, member: 34341 wrote: Wow. So are you taking your 2-bus at tracking SR DA directly to your AD to DAW 2 at new SR

yes

vibrations1951, post: 429521, member: 34341 wrote: or are you taking stems from DAW 1 into DAW 2

no. But, I may invest in a Dangerous 2-bus or MixDream again but its highly unlikely. I'm replacing my Neos with a [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.rollmusi…"]Folcrom[/]="http://www.rollmusi…"]Folcrom[/]. I've not tried this yet, but I'm hoping I can successfully use a Folcrom and a clean pass together. If it doesn't work, its a cheap experiment.

vibrations1951, post: 429521, member: 34341 wrote: So if I ever decided to pass directly from Daw 1 to Daw 2 without anything in between (analog) would I be affecting, (if that's the right word), the signal from DAW1 by grouping to 2-bus, without SR change in DAW1, rather than stems?

If you are uncoupled, yes. The analog pass between the 2 DAW's is interesting and well worth it.
The idea would be 8 stereo stems with a Folcrom and 8 clean stems summing AD into the Capture DAW.

Monitoring on the Capture DAW, comparison learning cannot be accomplished with one DAW but that has nothing to do with the analog pass .

fwiw, through my studies,

Hybrid >The biggest waste of money in an analog mixing console are the faders, panning, bloated summing/mastering and monitoring section. This doesn't leave much to be desired in any analog console today.
DAW panning and DAW volume automation is hands down superior and an independent monitor controller is by far superior. The benefit from analog is simply all in the pass and maybe a tranny to add selectable character flavour. Less is more.
I used some of the best mixing and mastering gear money can buy and not one analog product convinced me it couldn't be emulated better ITB. Other than the pass between two uncoupled DAW's, once ITB, mix ITB.
I spent 3 years comparing products together and on their own. A simple analog pass and Samplitude or Sequoia with excellent monitoring abilities is all I need to accomplish what $100,000 worth of mixing/ master gear and 2 DAW's do better.

audiokid, post: 429522, member: 1 wrote: I may invest in a Dangerous 2-bus or MixDream again but its highly unlikely. I'm replacing my Neos with a [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.rollmusi…"]Folcrom[/]="http://www.rollmusi…"]Folcrom[/]. I've not tried this yet, but I'm hoping I can successfully use a Folcrom and a clean pass together. If it doesn't work, its a cheap experiment.

That Folcrom is a cool idea, especially using their suggestion to pass through whatever flavor of pre one my want to try at the time to color the 2-bus before capture DAW. I had this in mind a long while back when I purchased my first pre, an UA 2-610 and a 2-LA- 2A. But I was thinking round tripping at the time. can't wait to hear about your experience with it!

You said:
"The idea would be 8 stereo stems with a Folcrom and 8 clean stems summing AD into the Capture DAW."
Please excuse my ignorance but could you explain what you mean here because I'm not getting what you mean by 8 stereo stems and then 8 clean stems. The folcrom has capacity for the 8 stereo stems. Do you mean use another for 8 other stems summed separately to the capture DAW??

vibrations1951, post: 429534, member: 34341 wrote: That Folcrom is a cool idea, especially using their suggestion to pass through whatever flavor of pre one my want to try at the time to color the 2-bus before capture DAW. I had this in mind a long while back when I purchased my first pre, an UA 2-610 and a 2-LA- 2A. But I was thinking round tripping at the time. can't wait to hear about your experience with it!

Same. I thought about it years ago but bought into consoles instead. I see it much differently today with two DAW's. the pre I have in mind is the Millennia M-2b

vibrations1951, post: 429534, member: 34341 wrote: Do you mean use another for 8 other stems summed separately to the capture DAW

I have a Prism Atlas available for Capturing which has 8 channels. I think I could use 2 for transparent and two for the Folcrom and hopefully they would line up in a split.
I'm curious to try that! I've always taken the transparent summing console approach with the option to add character to some stems. A console that is colored will always force its footprint regardless. I prefer to choose that.
The M-2b is a transformer-less design but it has a Tube. It isn't what I would call coloured but the tube sweetens the path a touch. It might even be great for all channels. Its has big rails. We'll see.

I'm looking forward to your trials with the Folcrom. Thanks for explaining, I get it now.
Even though you keep saying it Chris, I'm only slowly understanding what you mean about having the ability to learn what impact every change in the signal path has. So much of this uncoupled 2 box setup is about increasing one's ability to accurately hear and understand the changes being made in each stage of work. This can only improve the final product in my mind.

I am rapidly yearning for a quality monitoring system. Hmmm, what can I sell next??? Right now it feels like this has to be my next purchase, even before upgrading my capture DAW!

I haven't gotten a chance to work through how I would eventually hooking up my Hear Hub and Monitors for musician's individualized mixes for tracking/dubbing sessions. Here I go falling deeper ITB! If I didn't have a console or the like, I wonder how this would work? Would I monitor everything directly off the Aurora DA for tracking/dubs?

vibrations1951, post: 429551, member: 34341 wrote: So much of this uncoupled 2 box setup is about increasing one's ability to accurately hear and understand the changes being made in each stage of work. This can only improve the final product in my mind.

Exactly.

vibrations1951, post: 429551, member: 34341 wrote: Would I monitor everything directly off the Aurora DA for tracking/dubs?

Assuming you get a Dangerous Monitor ST or similar, the concept is to connect all your DA's to the ST. The ST or monitor controller then has a Cue. But if you need more detailed Cue for the talent, then it doesn't matter what way you skin it, you need a more detailed cue section.

audiokid, post: 429552, member: 1 wrote: Assuming you get a Dangerous Monitor ST or similar, the concept is to connect all your DA's to the ST. The ST or monitor controller then has a Cue. But if you need more detailed Cue for the talent, then it doesn't matter what way you skin it, you need a more detailed cue section.

Thanks, thought so. I'll have to ponder that one a bit more.
namaste

I use [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.redco.co…"]Little Red Cue Boxes[/]="http://www.redco.co…"]Little Red Cue Boxes[/] with the Dangerous Monitor ST and they work excellent. You can cascade 3 to give you 12 feeds all off of one ST.

audiokid, post: 429554, member: 1 wrote: I use [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.redco.co…"]Little Red Cue Boxes[/]="http://www.redco.co…"]Little Red Cue Boxes[/] with the Dangerous Monitor ST and they work excellent. You can cascade 3 to give you 12 feeds all off of one ST.

That's a good option yet, as you said, I still wouldn't be able to customize the feeds to the talent. Maybe I am over-rating the need for this in tracking? So much of my limited monitor mix experience has been live sound reinforcement on analog boards and less studio work. This might be influencing my thinking too much?

I keep defaulting to, ah heck, this would be so much easier with a console, but I agree with you about any console imparting it's own footprint to one extent or another, which is something I may or may not want. This is mind stretching for me right now and I'll have to dig deeper into Nuendo to understand the routing possibilities available there as well.

Would you mind describing your tracking 2-bus monitoring in a little more detail? What I mean is do you group up to 8 stems during tracking (DAW 1 multiple tracks>stems>ST)? Or DAW 1 summed to stereo ITB>ST? This would help with some of my quandary.
namaste

vibrations1951, post: 429562, member: 34341 wrote: That's a good option yet, as you said, I still wouldn't be able to customize the feeds to the talent. Maybe I am over-rating the need for this in tracking? So much of my limited monitor mix experience has been live sound reinforcement on analog boards and less studio work. This might be influencing my thinking too much?

Although I don't require a more detailed cue (so I can't give you hands on experience in this workflow), customizing monitor feeds is easy, you just have to decide which way you want to do that.
You can dedicate some DA channels for talent. Example with an RME interface - use TotalMix digital routing and send feeds to the talent.
You could use your console for this as well.

Keep in mind that recording and mixing can be separated so you can get creative on how you utilize your ADDA channels.
There are lots of answers and solutions for this.

vibrations1951, post: 429562, member: 34341 wrote: I keep defaulting to, ah heck, this would be so much easier with a console, but I agree with you about any console imparting it's own footprint to one extent or another, which is something I may or may not want. This is mind stretching for me right now and I'll have to dig deeper into Nuendo to understand the routing possibilities available there as well.

Try your console in the loop. If you like it, then its good for you. A console is no different than the next one. Its an option to expand your workflow. You can incorporate all sorts of configuration and analog matrixes with a hybrid system. I ran a live console for 18 years. Everything I know from live work has been an asset.

vibrations1951, post: 429562, member: 34341 wrote: Would you mind describing your tracking 2-bus monitoring in a little more detail? What I mean is do you group up to 8 stems during tracking (DAW 1 multiple tracks>stems>ST)? Or DAW 1 summed to stereo ITB>ST? This would help with some of my quandary.

Each project is unique meaning, I may only have voiceovers or I may have multichannels but these channels usually end up routing through the same outs. My tracking DAW is set up like a console with groups, aux and bus outs. Those are all assigned to become stems which go into the DA. From there your decide if each one of them should have a console or patchbay in the path or go straight to the 2-bus.
The ST is connected to all your analog 2-bus outs. This could be console(s), DAW's., the web playback.
The ST has analog ins and outs. The outs connect speakers and talent, the ins connect tracking and summing points .
Your console monitoring section can be part of this, but I would never mix from it as being your main reference . The best place to final mix from is DAW2 reference.
I ideal monitoring set up allows you to choose any location at any second of a session.

The best monitoring solution is a fluid, independent, transparent monitor control system that joins all your areas together so you can isolate cause and effect.

NOTE: The 2-Bus on DAW1 is always disabled. DAW2 replaces it. DAW2 is like a super 2-bus

Okay... I've been following along... and I want to try this - again... keeping in mind that I have nothing but two DAW's - no summing devices, no clocks... just DAW 1 with Samp, and DAW 2 with Sound Forge.

1. When you say "disable the master bus on DAW 1" how am I routing the internal tracks on DAW1 ? more to the point, I have to select some kind of output destination for these tracks... is there a way I can bypass the master bus in Samp and route these tracks directly to the Presonus VSL I am using?

2. If I can figure out how to do # 1, would I then use the analog outs of the Presonus, and send it to the analog in's of the second DAW, which is a Focusrite 2 channel (USB), correct?

3. Once recorded in Soundforge to the second DAW, where I have predetermined the incoming SR/Bit Res, I would then just "save" as a . wav file with the pre chosen SR and BR ?

DonnyThompson, post: 429586, member: 46114 wrote: . When you say "disable the master bus on DAW 1" how am I routing the internal tracks on DAW1 ? more to the point, I have to select some kind of output destination for these tracks... is there a way I can bypass the master bus in Samp and route these tracks directly to the Presonus VSL I am using?

Yes.
See the master section (bottom below the fader) disable the out. NOTE: if you don't have your channels setup though, you won't hear anything until the channels, groups etc are assigned to go to your Presonus DA.

DonnyThompson, post: 429586, member: 46114 wrote: 2. If I can figure out how to do # 1, would I then use the analog outs of the Presonus, and send it to the analog in's of the second DAW, which is a Focusrite 2 channel (USB), correct?

Yes, you still need to disable your Master section on DAW1, otherwise your session and effects will be added into the stem channels. Example, a Master out is usually channels 1 &2 and includes effects too. You don't want DAW1, master section anymore! DAW2 is replacing the DAW1 Master section. This is why I use a mastering capture system in the first place. You are creating a hybrid mastering solution with superior SR mixdown and monitoring.

DonnyThompson, post: 429586, member: 46114 wrote: 3. Once recorded in Soundforge to the second DAW, where I have predetermined the incoming SR/Bit Res, I would then just "save" as a . wav file with the pre chosen SR and BR ?

Yes, but hopefully you take it further and start learning how to add value to this new workflow. You need to forget about the master section on DAW1. Its where it all goes to hell. DAW2 replaces it all.
What you put in between DAW 1 and DAW 2 is up to us all.

DAW1 = tracking and mixing
DAW2 = the master section

A Monitor controller is connected to the points of input and output of each section you add to my workflow. Do you see why a console is not ideal to monitor a mixdown off of now? Its good to monitor whats going in and out of your console, but not after per-say, as the final point. Why would we trust the monitoring section of a colored console when it hasn't been captured at the destination SR . ;)
We cannot accurately hear what is going on from a console at final mix. Its before the capture, before the SR and before the Master section of the DAW. ;) (DAW2)
This is why Chris Muth created the Dangerous Monitor system. Its revolutionized hybrid mixing and mastering ( both the same approach).
I take hybrid audio further by adding a capture system that replaces the master section of a one Round Trip, single DAW system.

Sequoia or Samplitude are the best hybrid mixing and master DAW section replacement I've found. This is why I put that software in both DAW1 and DAW2. DAW 1 can be a simple version of Sam, DAW 2 can be the Mastering section for it. If I had to compromise DAW software, I would use Reaper DAW1 and Samplitude or Sequoia as DAW 2. If I was creating more electronic added value, I would also include Ableton Live into this flow.
Its also a hell of a lot more proficient, sonically better to all my tests and massively cheaper than buying any analog mixing consoles, mixing and mastering gear, Pro Tools HDX and all the third party plug-in bloat you seriously do not need again.

I suppose we can capture the session on anything, but that is really stopping when it is just beginning to get interesting.

Its so simple and really a lot more about listening better. When you hear cause and effect, mixing gear and plugin bloat is a huge money pit.

DonnyThompson
I would add one more thing to Chris's replies to your questions: yes, set the target sampling rate in the second (capture) box, but don't attempt to reduce the wordlength at this point. You need the full wordlength resolution for any mastering-style adjustments, even if they are only final overall level adjustment plus topping and tailing of tracks. You reduce and dither when you export from the capture box for CD burning or if you write files to send to a CD production house.

audiokid, post: 429592, member: 1 wrote: You don't want DAW1, master section anymore! DAW2 is replacing the DAW1 Master section.

Ahhh! Okay... I'm starting to see where this is going now....

audiokid, post: 429592, member: 1 wrote: What you put in between DAW 1 and DAW 2 is up to us all.

At this point, I don't really have anything that would go between the two - no external summing or mixer, no clock, this would be straight from D1 to D2.

audiokid, post: 429593, member: 1 wrote: Sequoia or Samplitude are the best hybrid mixing and master DAW section replacement I've found.

absolutely no argument here from me... I'm wondering if I could get a secondary license from Samp for my other PC. I'm only using sound forge because it's what I have installed... I'm in no way beholden to using just that platform... I want whatever is going to have the best results.

Also, I'm going to want to monitor off of D2, right? If so, I'd be using the Focusrite for that.

Boswell, post: 429594, member: 29034 wrote: I would add one more thing to Chris's replies to your questions: yes, set the target sampling rate in the second (capture) box, but don't attempt to reduce the wordlength at this point. You need the full wordlength resolution for any mastering-style adjustments, even if they are only final overall level adjustment plus topping and tailing of tracks. You reduce and dither when you export from the capture box for CD burning or if you write files to send to a CD production house.

My intention was to capture at the same bit rate as the project, which is generally 32 bit float. Is this correct?

Thanks guys... I'm taking all this in...

So let me see if I've got this right - the jist of the whole idea of getting rid of the master bus on D1, is to prevent the internal summing that the program normally performs, and to ( hopefully) avoid the "bottlenecking" that can occur when you mix and sum within the same platform... correct?

So.. if I look at D1 ( with samplitude) as my multi track mixer, and D2 as my "mixdown deck", (but instead of "mixing" in the traditional sense, I'm CAPTURING instead ) thereby bypassing the internal summing that normally occurs when you "export audio" to a finished file within the same program...

...still taking this all in... ;)

DonnyThompson, post: 429595, member: 46114 wrote: My intention was to capture at the same bit rate as the project, which is generally 32 bit float. Is this correct?

Umm... in word-format coding there's sample rate and wordlength. Multiply the two together and you get a bitrate, just as you have with serial-transmission data encoding (MP3 etc). The data words themselves can then be fixed-point, floating-point or sometimes some other weird formats.

The capture A-D converters will produce 24-bit fixed-point data values. These can be converted and stored by the DAW as 32-bit floating-point values with no loss of resolution, but also to no real advantage. Unless you want to do fancy processing in the capture DAW, I would stick with 24-bit fixed-point in that box.

Boswell, post: 429599, member: 29034 wrote: Unless you want to do fancy processing in the capture DAW, I would stick with 24-bit fixed-point in that box.

I don't plan on doing any processing in D2, I want to use it strictly to capture the final mix...so I'm taking your advice and just keeping it 24.

Good catch, Bos. Thanks! :)

DonnyThompson, post: 429596, member: 46114 wrote: So let me see if I've got this right - the jist of the whole idea of getting rid of the master bus on D1, is to prevent the internal summing that the program normally performs, and to ( hopefully) avoid the "bottlenecking" that can occur when you mix and sum within the same platform... correct?

Yes, and more depending on how deep you go into this. You are taking advantage of the analog pass plus all that I include in my workflow.

DonnyThompson, post: 429596, member: 46114 wrote: So.. if I look at D1 ( with samplitude) as my multi track mixer, and D2 as my "mixdown deck", (but instead of "mixing" in the traditional sense, I'm CAPTURING instead ) thereby bypassing the internal summing that normally occurs when you "export audio" to a finished file within the same program...

Yes.

DonnyThompson, post: 429595, member: 46114 wrote: At this point, I don't really have anything that would go between the two - no external summing or mixer, no clock, this would be straight from D1 to D2.

perfect.

To my ears... if things are set up to my specs, other than the bais system, you really don't need any mixing gear in this. I have done numerous comparison using world class mixing and mastering gear to compare / hard bypass and there is no advantage in me ever using analog mixing or mastering gear again. I am still marginally preferring Bricasti's as reverbs (well maybe more than that) but they are digital anyway.

DonnyThompson, post: 429595, member: 46114 wrote: I'm wondering if I could get a secondary license from Samp for my other PC

If they knew what we were doing with their DAW's, I bet they would take a look. I don't know anyone other than me who is using two licenses of Sequoia for summing right now. Maybe one day it will be more common but even the smartest people I've been following would not get this. For some reason its not that easily understood. Its taken me a few years to actually learn why I am following this. At first I thought the better sound was to do with analog gear. Then I thought it was about summing amps, then I thought it was about conversion... What is it about? I look forward to others sharing what they hear and get out of this.

Maybe one day we will be able to split the master section off like a module. Maybe one day that entire concept of what I'm sharing will be included in the workflow of one system. Maybe I'm crazy lol.
I am looking forward to your advancement here, Donny!. If you follow my steps, I'm certain you will see advantages that cannot be had on one DAW system.

DonnyThompson, post: 429595, member: 46114 wrote: Also, I'm going to want to monitor off of D2, right? If so, I'd be using the Focusrite for that.

yes.

audiokid, post: 429612, member: 1 wrote: Maybe one day we will be able to split the master section off like a module.

Now there's an interesting concept... I'd never thought of that as a possibility before.

Okay.. so here's what I'm going to do today:

I'm going to take the most recent active mix I've been working on, and I'm going to mix it using a 2 DAW setup. Like I said, I have nothing to go in-between the two systems. It will be a direct capture, from D1 to D2. At this point, I'm forced to use SoundForge on D2, because that's what so happens to be installed on D2. I don't know if this will turn out to be a variable or not - ? - you would know better than I.

So... my project settings on D1 are 44.1/32 bit float I should open a new project with Sound Forge at the same rate and with a bit res of 24, correct? (I'm not even sure that the version of SF that I have even gives me a choice for 32 bit/float)...
But there's no real benefit in me capturing at a higher sample rate, especially since this will eventually have to be down-sampled to 16 bit anyway, to meet Redbook standards... because it's ultimately going to CD. Is this also correct?

And because this project is also going out to mastering facility, I should not dither on either DAW, correct? ( Dithering should always be the last step before press, or at least that's what my research on the subject has shown)....

PS.. I'm also not using any fancy conversion system. The output for D2 will be the Presonus VSL, and the i/o for D2 will be a Focusrite... do you foresee any issues with this?

audiokid, post: 429592, member: 1 wrote: Yes, you still need to disable your Master section on DAW1, otherwise your session and effects will be added into the stem channels. Example, a Master out is usually channels 1 &2 and includes effects too. You don't want DAW1, master section anymore! DAW2 is replacing the DAW1 Master section. This is why I use a mastering capture system in the first place. You are creating a hybrid mastering solution with superior SR mixdown and monitoring.

audiokid, @ Donny Thompson
I can use some clarification to stay with this if you don't mind my interrupting. My experience with the DAW is very limited in many respects. So what Chris is saying is that using the DAW Stereo out is different than creating groups/stems to send out DA?

I'm not understanding this because I haven't had projects go out to anything but CD off the DAW1 stereo out in the past.

DonnyThompson, post: 429615, member: 46114 wrote: I'm going to take the most recent active mix I've been working on, and I'm going to mix it using a 2 DAW setup. Like I said, I have nothing to go in-between the two systems. It will be a direct capture, from D1 to D2. At this point, I'm forced to use SoundForge on D2, because that's what so happens to be installed on D2. I don't know if this will turn out to be a variable or not - ? - you would know better than I.

I'm not familiar with that DAW

DonnyThompson, post: 429615, member: 46114 wrote: So... my project settings on D1 are 44.1/32 bit float I should open a new project with Sound Forge at the same rate and with a bit res of 24, correct? (I'm not even sure that the version of SF that I have even gives me a choice for 32 bit/float)...
But there's no real benefit in me capturing at a higher sample rate, especially since this will eventually have to be down-sampled to 16 bit anyway, to meet Redbook standards... because it's ultimately going to CD. Is this also correct?

correct but part of why I do this is because I track at a higher SR ( DAW1 = 96 > DAW2 =44.1) . Uncoupling between the two should still create a change in the sound. How it will sound is unknown. You certainly will be able to identify how your FR sounds from this. Example, the better the conversion between both DAW's at the same SR should sound almost identical. What you should hear is a subtle change from the analog components. This could be a good change for you or worse.
Other advantages to this workflow are to do with monitoring and mixing into your capture. For me, the capture is a DAW that has excellent spacial tools and a reverb. These tools replaced thousands of dollars in analog mixing and mastering gear. I definitely hear improvement this way and also can mix faster and study the art of mixing or mastering much better. There are so many benefits, its hard to put one as better, but I thinks starting with a good set of converters with a way to monitor is key.
You don't want to degrade your audio paths stereo image and create a monitoring path that lies to you. You need to experiment.

DonnyThompson, post: 429615, member: 46114 wrote: And because this project is also going out to mastering facility, I should not dither on either DAW, correct? ( Dithering should always be the last step before press, or at least that's what my research on the subject has shown)....

correct

DonnyThompson, post: 429615, member: 46114 wrote: PS.. I'm also not using any fancy conversion system. The output for D2 will be the Presonus VSL, and the i/o for D2 will be a Focusrite... do you foresee any issues with this?

I'm not familiar with these products but you will definately be able to compare. Remember, if it sounds really different between one DAW to the second, something is adding a lot of character to the pass.
A two DAW system is also a way to learn what gear is lying to you. ;)
In my case, $ invested in the best analog mixing and mastering gear is a complete waste of money with a DAW like Samplitude. Hearing is believing. This is the greatest way to hear what products do. Its an ear opener to say the least..

audiokid, post: 429565, member: 1 wrote: NOTE: The 2-Bus on DAW1 is always disabled. DAW2 replaces it. DAW2 is like a super 2-bus

I need help getting this. I think I'm missing some core mixing knowledge. I'm caught up in terminology about what is meant by 2-bus in this case.
If I were to take my mixer out of the path between box 1 and 2, in theory I shouldn't use the stereo out from box 1 for capture in box 2?
I'm not talking about changing the DAW1 stereo out in any way other than to basically make a 2 channel mix I think????
If so, I will always need a way to take larger channel counts from box 1 and reduce them somehow to 2 channels for the Pure 2??
Would I be better off with a converter with more input channels on box 2??

vibrations1951, post: 429626, member: 34341 wrote: I'm caught up in terminology about what is meant by 2-bus in this case.

"2- bus" is studio lingo for your master bus, or your main stereo bus. It's a term used for both real consoles and DAWs.

A "2 mix" refers to your final stereo mix, be it MP3, .Wav, 2 Track Tape, etc.

DonnyThompson, post: 429630, member: 46114 wrote: "2- bus" is studio lingo for your master bus, or your main stereo bus. It's a term used for both real consoles and DAWs.

A "2 mix" refers to your final stereo mix, be it MP3, .Wav, 2 Track Tape, etc.

@ DonnyThompson, Thanks Donny for the clarification of terms. I need to keep this simple so thanks for your patience!

DonnyThompson, audiokid, Boswell, I've been reading and re-writing this for well over 3 hours now and it has helped me to see this clearer, I hope! Please, if you would, review the following to see if I have this at all correct....Any suggestions or other thoughts are very welcome as well.

I'm in my Nuendo DAW 1 and I mix and assign my recorded mono tracks to Nuendo's "stereo out". This stereo out is the "2-Bus" Chris instructs against even though I haven't utilized Nuendo's "2 mix" process, "Mixing Down to an Audio File".

So, regardless of whether I send a "2-bus"/"2 mix" out of DAW 1, I'm defeating a major purpose of this 2 box process because of what occurs in DAW 1 by using the 2-bus/2 mix...creating the "Bottleneck" +/ potential SR conversion bad mojo...... and I'm restricting further mixing options in DAW 2.

So to avoid the bottleneck +/ SR bad mojo, the reasonable way for me to get my mix from DAW 1 to DAW 2, (utilizing my 2 channel Antelope Pure 2 on Box 2), is summing somehow in-between DAW 1 and DAW 2, (utilizing something like a console/MixBus/Folcrom, etc.) and taking that 2-bus to the Pure 2. Of course I still will only have 2 channels to play with in DAW 2.

If I eventually decided to put nothing between Box 1 and Box 2, as I think you are trying now Donny, I would need a converter for Box 2 that will handle more than 2 channels for AD conversion. That would then allow me more mixing/"mastering" choices in DAW 2, having more channels to work with rather than just 2 ...... as well as avoid the 2-bus/2 mix "bottleneck"+/bad mojo from DAW 1.

Okay, let me have it!

As you said Chris, this info is really not being discussed in other forums or elsewhere in a concise cohesive manner. I appreciate all of your experience guys and your willingness to share what you do. I look forward to following how this turns out for you Donny and what you find!
Namaste

vibrations1951, post: 429639, member: 34341 wrote: I'm in my Nuendo DAW 1 and I mix and assign my recorded mono tracks to Nuendo's "stereo out". This stereo out is the "2-Bus" Chris instructs against even though I haven't utilized Nuendo's "2 mix" process, "Mixing Down to an Audio File".

Nuendo and how you are doing it should work just fine. Just avoid the master bus when you are stemming OTB! Thats the idea. You do not want the master out doubling over the same stem as a bus with the same assigned out. Plus, you dont want the stereo out looping back to create really bad phasing. Disable the master section of your DAW while you are mixing stems.

vibrations1951, post: 429639, member: 34341 wrote: So, regardless of whether I send a "2-bus"/"2 mix" out of DAW 1, I'm defeating a major purpose of this 2 box process because of what occurs in DAW 1 by using the 2-bus/2 mix...creating the "Bottleneck" +/ potential SR conversion bad mojo...... and I'm restricting further mixing options in DAW 2.

I don't necessarily look at the 2-bus as a bottleneck. I look at this for better ways to bounce, insert gear, monitor cause and effect, compare and even gain stage both analog or digital audio better. Again, its a module way to break down your recording, mixing and mastering processes and optimize a workflow in a way that helps you hear cause and effect in all those areas better. Its not just one thing here. Its many. Once you build the core to a two DAW system, its hard not expanding it. To put a value on one aspect of this is impossible for me. There are other attributes to this that I haven't even discussed because its just too deep to go into. Not until I was doing this for 2 years did I even understand how to share all I've learned. Its still difficult to put it all into a few paragraphs.
Its been an amazing ear opener to demystifying everything from the dilution of gear to monitoring. If you want to learn more about the summing and monitoring sections, read all you can from guys who use Dangerous Music gear. I take it all further.

vibrations1951, post: 429639, member: 34341 wrote: So to avoid the bottleneck +/ SR bad mojo, the reasonable way for me to get my mix from DAW 1 to DAW 2, (utilizing my 2 channel Antelope Pure 2 on Box 2), is summing somehow in-between DAW 1 and DAW 2, (utilizing something like a console/MixBus/Folcrom, etc.) and taking that 2-bus to the Pure 2. Of course I still will only have 2 channels to play with in DAW 2.

All you need is a 2 channel ADDA. My desirer for extra lanes has more to do with curiosity and demystifying the need for a particular flavour that cost me thousands of $ to get. I have a Millennia M-2b preamp that is imho, the greatest micpre I have ever used. This rave of mine is of course subjective and based around the same workflow I describe all the time.I am looking for a very specific sound.
I believe the M-2b is the perfect big rail tube sound I am looking for in a mix. It has a sound and size that I've heard in no other preamp. I want to hear how it would compare in a passive summing process by splitting it off using two DAWs. Two DAW's are how I compare cause and effect as well.

vibrations1951, post: 429639, member: 34341 wrote: If I eventually decided to put nothing between Box 1 and Box 2, as I think you are trying now Donny, I would need a converter for Box 2 that will handle more than 2 channels for AD conversion. That would then allow me more mixing/"mastering" choices in DAW 2, having more channels to work with rather than just 2 ...... as well as avoid the 2-bus/2 mix "bottleneck"+/bad mojo from DAW 1.

All the above.

When working on project from beginning to end, being able to keep all of your options open creates a huge improvement in what engineers are able to achieve. Mastering directly from your multi-track project means that if there is something wrong with your mix that is affecting what mastering can achieve, then you can fix it instantaneously.

(y)

Generally speaking:
For those considering any type of hybrid system, the basic chain to my approach isn't a big investment in comparison to what people are spending on a console or summing amp and all the added gear that goes along with hybrid audio. I suggest to start small and see how it fits for you. Hearing for yourself is the best way to make sound decisions. Good converters and a good monitoring system is essential.

As an example of how redonkulous this can get, there is guy on a well known forum who is trusting the wordsmiths of hybrid audio hype. It was suggested he go out and buy the $6000 10M superclock for his Orion. The guy bought it and now claims it sounds better, and so the support of purchase snake oil continues.

FWIW, I had that exact clock and system here for a year and it never "improved the sound" of that converter. Why would it?
Once you are at this level, the best clocking is internal. The problem is, shills aren't telling the blind a super clock is really only helpful for very bloated systems with poor or weak clocking issues.
Is it still 2006? As an example, Pro Tools mix systems that needed a better clock are long gone. Why would we need an extra clock when its the only converter (the Orion32) today? The O32 clock is excellent. Its the USB interface that is weak.
The lead guy suggesting this clock is a world class mixer coming from a really dated Radar rig. You'd think he would know better than to suggest that to the mass. but its no wonder. Look at how he is mixing OTB.
Sadly, he is endorsing gear for the manufacturer. One could ask, does he actually believe this or is he simply doing his part as a shill.
When I questioned this particular mixer about that clock, and I even posted cross references ( [[url=http://[/URL]="https://www.soundon…"]example[/]="https://www.soundon…"]example[/])to many articles about this, my comments were removed over there. I guess they didn't want to discuss this topic in depth.

Is analog summing valid or voodoo? Id say a lot of it is voodoo.

Again, digital audio is amazing on its own. Through all my tests, analog gear is best for tracking and has little if any benefits to a mix once you are itb. The system I use is more about optimizing the sections of our DAW and augmenting better ways to hear cause and effect.
If we take the time to build a system that enables us to hear cause and effect better, digital audio gets my vote.

cheers!

audiokid, post: 429640, member: 1 wrote: The system I use is more about optimizing the sections of our DAW and augmenting better ways to hear cause and effect.

Bottom line is that's why I started down this rabbit hole, to hear cause and effect for myself on my rig as I go along. To me, this seems like a very logical way to approach things, with relatively minimal cost up front, as I proceed through options of sound and workflow, without committing to high priced options and resultant buyer's remorse.

I'm lucky in a way, to have a couple of years to experiment before I'm officially up and running. I can clearly see that my next step has to be a good monitor system and the Dangerous ST is the highest on my radar right now. For me it is going to end up being sound first and comfortable workflow second. I'll have to see if the analog money should be spent mostly up front, in the middle or both! My intuition says mostly up front as you state Chris, but also as you say, one needs to experiment for their own ears and workflow.

Regardless, I'm glad I've made this choice for now and excited about the possibilities! Thanks for getting me to this point Chris and as I move forward I'll be checking back in. Can't wait to hear results from Donny and others with their process and take on this. I'll be lurking and learning!
Namaste