niclaus, post: 430956, member: 33719 wrote: I am not saying i think you waste your time doing that (i respect you guys and you work too much for that), i am just trying to understand why you feel it is so important to proceed this way everyday when you could be lazy and just launch an offline conversion.

Good point

How I look at it. The conversion and subtle added sweetness (if that is what it is) the we get from the uncoupled pass is about 10% of why I do this. However, in a competitive world even a few % better than what the mass is at is well worth this. Racks of high end mastering gear don't even produce 10% advantage to my tests. This simple pass is a clear sonic attribute but just a part in why I have kept doing this.
The rest of why I choose this, is in hundreds of posts going back years.
To name a few at the top of my list... faster mixing and mastering speed, less CPU usage (zero need for PCIe bloat) and comparison learning is a big part. I could never finish a mix in the same time frame on one DAW like I can on two. Its so easy to mixdown of few versions of a mix from 96k to 44.1, master the preferred one and export compared one DAW where you really have no additional choices like you do on a capture mixdown system like this, right there in front of you!
One of the best ways I've found to learn about mixing, is by being able to go back to a bunch of mixdowns days later, when your ears are relaxed and you are further removed from the bias. I more often then not discover things I would have missed had I not had a group of them to choose from when I had fresh ears and some of that personal bias that you get when you are into a deep mix for too long.
I take notes of all my mixes and have created a formula on how I study everything from gear to how I mix into a master bus. Mixing into a capture DAW allows you to hear how your mixing effects a master in new ways. As an example, I used to add too much high end in the mix stage. I no longer do that because I now hear how much better it is to leave some things for the master bus. Granted, I'm sure many seasoned mixers that work with great Mastering Engineers sooner or later learn these skills but this was definitely an ear opener for me. Very empowering to have both sides (mixing or mastering abilities) at my fingertips at all times.
Its a very powerful way to educate yourself.

Now that I added a mastering DAW to this, I have now sold all my expensive mixing and mastering analog gear because I get better (less is more) results when I bypass the master section of DAW one and allocate it all to the second DAW. A Bricasti between this section is amazing as well. The step between the two DAW's is a great way to implement a signature as well. The list goes on.

But, I can get by on one DAW and headphones no problem and be totally thankful to have something as amazing as what we have today.

Now you know how a bounce sounds in comparison to an uncoupled pass. Pretty cool eh ;) Wait until you do this for a few years. Its a mind blow.

audiokid, post: 430960, member: 1 wrote: I take notes of all my mixes and have created a formula on how I study everything from gear to how I mix into a master bus.

Smart move. And, I don't believe it's all that common anymore, either, for people to actually keep written notes of what they are doing during experiments or test phases anymore.

To have a written record of what you've done along the way would - at least to me - seems to be invaluable.

I wonder what would have ultimately transpired, and possibly how different the outcome would have been, if people like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs... or, someone incredible like Nicoli Tesla ... had not written stuff down. ;)

(Okay, maybe not Tesla... the guy walked around for 60 years with a thousand different patentable blue prints and inventions located only in his head.... probably not all that unlike our beloved Boswell. :) Boswell ) LOL

kmetal, post: 430959, member: 37533 wrote:
Also. If one was a master and one was a mix, they wouldn't ever null out because of the mastering processing, even at equal gain, because compression and limiting and EQ are changing the file even in a small way. Or did I miss something?

You did not get what i was trying to say. Of course, i did not try to null the mastered and unmastered version.
I had file 1 and file 2 (one being mastered and the other unmastered, but that doesn't even matter, i did that so i can try and listen to two different things, a dynamic one, and a not so dynamic one, and by this i was trying to see how the uncoupled pass would affect one and the other), and I did the same uncoupled pass and ITB conversion to those two files.
Forget about the mastering thing, see them as just two different files. And, obviously, i tried to null file1-uncoupled with file1-ITB, and file2-uncoupled with file2-ITB... Otherwise, yes, it would not make much sense...

audiokid Chris, this is really interesting... So from what i understand, it is much more complicated than just the fact that it should sounds "so much" better. It is a whole workflow issue, right? Little things that ad together in the end...
It is kind of your way of going out to tape, giving it that analog feel without the machine, plus you find it easier to work that way for other reasons, am i right?

well, the "This simple pass is a clear sonic attribute but just a part in why I have kept doing this." says it all. Thank you for that.

kmetal, post: 430959, member: 37533 wrote: Trident 24 consoles have underpowered stock power that can cause serious lack of depth and headroom in their busing, perhaps because it's a split console?

Kyle... this is the console currently installed in the studio you work at?

I've never heard of that happening on a Trident before, but then again, I don't believe I've ever mixed on a 24 Series, either. The handful of times I mixed on Tridents, ( years ago) it was always on their 80 Series... ( I never did get the opportunity to work on their A-Range... I don't think there were all that many made) although I can say that I always felt as if they ( the 80 Series) were a bit "shy" in the low end. Certainly not a deal breaker by any means... an uncountable number of fantastic mixes and big hits have come off of Trident desks over the years - I just always felt as though there was a certain low-end attenuation about the 80 series that I worked on... but at the same time, the funny thing was that at the same time,the low end was tight and nicely defined - I don't really know how to explain what I heard... and I don't know if this was due to the power supplies, or the pre's, ( as I recall, 80 series desks used Lundhal trannies ) or, perhaps even the output transformers they used on the Master Bus. Maybe it was a combination of several different things...

niclaus, post: 430969, member: 33719 wrote: You did not get what i was trying to say. Of course, i did not try to null the mastered and unmastered version.
I had file 1 and file 2 (one being mastered and the other unmastered, but that doesn't even matter, i did that so i can try and listen to two different things, a dynamic one, and a not so dynamic one, and by this i was trying to see how the uncoupled pass would affect one and the other), and I did the same uncoupled pass and ITB conversion to those two files.
Forget about the mastering thing, see them as just two different files. And, obviously, i tried to null file1-uncoupled with file1-ITB, and file2-uncoupled with file2-ITB... Otherwise, yes, it would not make much sense...

audiokid Chris, this is really interesting... So from what i understand, it is much more complicated than just the fact that it should sounds "so much" better. It is a whole workflow issue, right? Little things that ad together in the end...
It is kind of your way of going out to tape, giving it that analog feel without the machine, plus you find it easier to work that way for other reasons, am i right?

well, the "This simple pass is a clear sonic attribute but just a part in why I have kept doing this." says it all. Thank you for that.

DonnyThompson, post: 430971, member: 46114 wrote: Kyle... this is the console currently installed in the studio you work at?

I've never heard of that happening on a Trident before, but then again, I don't believe I've ever mixed on a 24 Series, either. The handful of times I mixed on Tridents, ( years ago) it was always on their 80 Series... ( I never did get the opportunity to work on their A-Range... I don't think there were all that many made) although I can say that I always felt as if they ( the 80 Series) were a bit "shy" in the low end. Certainly not a deal breaker by any means... an uncountable number of fantastic mixes and big hits have come off of Trident desks over the years - I just always felt as though there was a certain low-end attenuation about the 80 series that I worked on... but at the same time, the funny thing was that at the same time,the low end was tight and nicely defined - I don't really know how to explain what I heard... and I don't know if this was due to the power supplies, or the pre's, ( as I recall, 80 series desks used Lundhal trannies ) or, perhaps even the output transformers they used on the Master Bus. Maybe it was a combination of several different things...

Thanx Nic! I'm clearer now.

d- the Trident 24 is in the back, along with the C24 (pro tools surface). Right now the Mackie MCUs (42ch) are in there dying slowly (lol couple faders down). We just about finished the bands apartment in the back, and tony is getting the rest of the PT rig together. Running the usual apogee/digital performer setup.

The trident is not transformer coupled. It sounds good, to me, and has a weighty bottom, if not blurry. It's kinda like if a Mackie sounded really good, instead of just good, ya know? It's basically the lowest in the level of console where you get surface mount components? (I think that's what Phil was saying) we have the master section re built by Dan Zellman, and a few channels were re capped. Dan hot rodded one of the channels and they will add be done that way, if the console stays. He did this I belive by taking out some components, and upping the quality of some of the others, I think maybe caps and resistors ? Dunno that's stuffs not English to me yet.

The power supplies for the 24 are known to be meh. They are I think somewhat faulty and in adequate? There's a mountain of places who will rebuild yours, or just sell you a modded one. Our console had messed up phantom power, and the power supply had some thing wrong. One of the known issues w the 24 in general is the power supply, which equates to a higher noise floor, and lack of headroom, especially with all the busing possibilities. Dan got the channel he moddeds noise down by like 3-6 db or something, which is killer.

Honestly it's cool to have, but I don't really mix anything much on it cuz it hasn't really worked properly yet. But I would t mind a few of the channels strips for it's fun eq. It definately beefed up any iPod or iTunes stuff nicely, perhaps not "practically" useful, but entertaining.

This console was what got me interested in'hy bird' initially.

niclaus, post: 430969, member: 33719 wrote: Forget about the mastering thing, see them as just two different files.

exactly. (y)

To add, when I refer to mastering more often then not... am I actually talking about the mastering section of a DAW.

niclaus, post: 430969, member: 33719 wrote: [[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]audiokid[/]="http://recording.or…"]audiokid[/] Chris, this is really interesting... So from what i understand, it is much more complicated than just the fact that it should sounds "so much" better. It is a whole workflow issue, right? Little things that ad together in the end...
It is kind of your way of going out to tape, giving it that analog feel without the machine, plus you find it easier to work that way for other reasons, am i right?

Yes.

niclaus, post: 430969, member: 33719 wrote: well, the "This simple pass is a clear sonic attribute but just a part in why I have kept doing this." says it all. Thank you for that.

Pleasure is all mine.