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

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

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

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

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

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

audiokid, post: 455353, member: 1 wrote: Another really awesome preamp that I've owned, which never got much love around the world is the PreSonus ADL 600. It sounds awesome.

I've looked into those highend Presonus preamps.. They seem underated by many. I'd like to try one at some point...

pcrecord, post: 455354, member: 46460 wrote: I've looked into those highend Presonus preamps.. They seem overated by many. I'd like to try one at some point...

Not over rated at all. Very under rated.
I've had quality concern with all PreSonus (offshore (n)) stuff, but if you get a good one, they are built like a tank and sound full and rich. The DI is excellent and the switchable gains make it really interesting. I love this preamp.

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

audiokid, post: 455355, member: 1 wrote: Not over rated at all. Very under rated.

What a typo !! LOL

pcrecord, post: 455348, member: 46460 wrote: 2 box setups.

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

pcrecord, post: 455348, member: 46460 wrote: I hope one of you could post a comparaison of 1 DAW exported file vs a 2 DAW summing setup.

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

pcrecord, post: 455348, member: 46460 wrote: There must be a definitive difference to engage such investment (2 daw, 2 interfaces, 2 computers..)

Its all about having more ability to hear and insert hardware between two DAW's. Its simple way more fun and fluid. Better workflow. Better way to learn, A/B compare and demystify.

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

Absolutely!

pcrecord, post: 455351, member: 46460 wrote: I'm still in the cloud about one aspect. Is it possible that the playback of some DAWs are not full resolution to save CPU usage ?
Or is it possible that a busy mix gets a lesser quality to keep up?

After owning Pro Tools and getting sucked into the bloat, I'd say the more bloat the more vanilla everything gets.

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

audiokid, post: 455357, member: 1 wrote: When I switched to Samplitude, the difference in sound quality was not subtle.

I think I'll need to do the move in 2018 ;)

pcrecord, post: 455358, member: 46460 wrote: I think I'll need to do the move in 2018 ;)

You will never regret it. NEVER.

pcrecord, post: 455358, member: 46460 wrote: I think I'll need to do the move in 2018 ;)

PS
Get the Suite if you can. The suite is where it completes the system and stops (greatly reduces) need for third party plugins and problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spot on Dave.

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

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

And to clarify, I'd be using 2 separate computers, connected only by the (unclocked) analog audio connections.

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

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

dvdhawk, post: 455371, member: 36047 wrote: And to clarify, I'd be using 2 separate computers, connected only by the (unclocked) analog audio connections.

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

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

Using test tones is even better than setting nominal values, as actual differences due to things like resistor tolerances can be corrected. It takes me back to tape days!

Boswell, post: 455372, member: 29034 wrote: Using test tones is even better than setting nominal values, as actual differences due to things like resistor tolerances can be corrected. It takes me back to tape days!

Would flipping the polarity of a channel and trying to null the signals a good method ?

dvdhawk, post: 455371, member: 36047 wrote: And to clarify, I'd be using 2 separate computers, connected only by the (unclocked) analog audio connections.

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

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

All I'm interested in is hearing the final stereo vs mono. Everything else is subjective and irrelevant to me..

RE: OTB Mixing and mastering:
I've used many of the finest 2 bus comps and EQ's on the market and not one of them (stereo locked or unlocked) sounded better to ITB comps and EQ. processing. Not one.
The top analog brands like example: Crane Song, Dangerous, SPL, SSL, Pulse Technique, API get the closest to ITB image integrity but where they shine, they always degrade imaging and imho, can all be emulated ITB as good or better. Actually Pultecs are about the only EQ's I would MIX OTB now.

The least expensive 2 bus analog products are the most useless OTB. They seem to shift imaging around into a swirling mess and always add addition noise.

yes,

pcrecord, post: 455373, member: 46460 wrote: Would flipping the polarity of a channel and trying to null the signals a good method ?

When I am in my study mode: Every mixdown I do on (DAW 2) I compare by nulling the mixdowns. The beauty of a 2 DAW system, I often will have 30 versions of master tracks of the same mix. I will go through the ones that I like the most, null between others to see what gear is adding what and so on.

This is how I became to learn how to emulate hardware and also to hear what each products adds to a process. The 2 DAW system is king for dissecting everything you want to know about your moves > what is working or fooling you.

pcrecord, post: 455373, member: 46460 wrote: Would flipping the polarity of a channel and trying to null the signals a good method ?

Nulling is a technique that can be used to get the two channels to have exactly the same gain, but you still don't know what that gain actually is.

Demystify can become very clinical. I will flip and adjust every single increment on the levels and timelines until there is only the remainder. Once I have done everything I can to null things, whats left is what I go by. This is how I learn what a HPF is doing with example, the Dangerous BAX EQ. Or what a compressor is doing and what freq's it is clamping down on most.

After you see most of this, you soon learn what a particular piece of hardware is doing and then the next thing that happens is... Ah... I can eliminate the hardware and do this on DAW 2. Thus less analog image degradation and saving mass amounts of money on needless hardware. It becomes more of a tactile lust to see and feel vs any of this being actual sonic value.

I'm pretty certain this is what a lot of the pro active analog guys are figuring out. Thus, mixing an album ITB or on a laptop makes sense.
It just takes some convincing to see how image shifting fools us into thinking the stereo spread was better with analog gear.

It all goes back to tracking which is why the best mixers are mixing the best tracks. End of story.

All I want is a DI that preserves what comes out of a sound source. I don't want character - I want the DI to be totally neutral. I want a tool that has as little impact on what comes out of the device as possible. I don't want anything other than a flat response, and certainly am not going to start looking at DI's as if they're pre-amps, or other devices with timbre changes as part of their design.

I guess I am at the place where I want to try things, experiment with different devices, be they ultra clean, or colored, if it's a sound that pleases my ears. I'm certainly more than willing to try certain scenarios before I determine what sounds best, and I don't think I can do that - I'm speaking of me personally here - without listening. I'm not willing - or able, for that matter - to form any opinion one way or another - on something I've never tried.
I am looking forward to the process though. I think the Apogee 2 channel converter will be a good device to start with to interface in between DAWS 1 & 2. I've spoken to Dave today and we are both on the same page about trying different chains to see what we can learn. I think it will be fun. :)