Congrats Sean!!!!!! Can't wait to hear whacha think.

Sean G, post: 438937, member: 49362 wrote: Update : - Picked up a Klark Teknik DN-410 used but in good condition for $295...compared to the prices they are going for on ebay ($380 -> $800 + & mostly out of the US and in USD) it was much cheaper than what was on offer.

well done!

Thanks Gents...the proof will be in the pudding so to speak.

audiokid, post: 438921, member: 1 wrote: But, I've never heard LA2A's sound as nice ITB as they do when used for tracking vocals. I wonder why that is? Anyone have an answer?

All about the wire and what happens in the real-time realm when things go through the circuit. I have AT LEAST five different emulations of an LA 2A as well as an LA2A and a Drip Opto6 (La2A clone) and soon to have another stereo LA2A clone in hardware. The ONLY emulation that comes anywhere near the hardware is the UA LA2A. I like stacking it on vocal tracks tracked through a hardware LA2A at the mix.

When considering what hardware you want and especially if you are looking to keep the rack at a working level, there are lots of choices. A lot of them will make you smile. Only a few of them will make you say instantly, "There it is...."

So you go into a nice studio with a great console and racks and racks of outboard to track some songs. The engineer puts selected tracks through track numbers that already have all the tie lines in place. You look around and notice there are a multiple number of LA2A's, 1176's, Pultecs and API 550's. There are other classics, but usually only one of each. You won't often see three or four API 2500's or Neve 33609's in a room for example.

There's a reason. Still. Today. From devices brought out in the 1960's. Pultec's are even older. And here we are. Already 16 years into the 2nd millenium and we haven't gotten all that far with what our ears want to hear.

About the Warm stuff. The Pultec emulations are very good. I own a WA 76 and like it alot. I think it doesn't have the headroom a real 1176 has, but it is MORE than usable at a very very good price. So, it could be a bargain for what you get.

I have 16 channels of hardware compression. I track most things that come through my room. Sometimes the patchbay is full. Other times its all about the pre choice and mic placement and no need to compress going in. That being said, the ONLY compressors I could NOT do without are the LA2A's and the 1176. The others are nice too and have a certain character. The 502 Grace is a wonderful optical comp. Sweet and really fast. The Retro Doublewide is an excellent comp for voice and guitar. The SC2 1.07 Meek is sorta a specialty. The modded ART VLA is wonderful on taking the edgy attack out of a bright acoustic instrument and to fatten horns. The DBX 160SL is a great drum overheads comp as well as spoken word.....but they are all specialty items as opposed to the LA2A and 1176 circuits.

I think that looking at the type of circuit that creates the compression, the speed and release is the real key to choosing what is best for a room. Optical, FET, and Vari-Mu are all different animals.

Thanks for the great post Dave.

audiokid, post: 438921, member: 1 wrote: But, I've never heard LA2A's sound as nice ITB as they do when used for tracking vocals. I wonder why that is? Anyone have an answer?

I never explained this well so I'll try again.
What I meant to say is:

A real UA LA2A doesn't sound as nice when mixing OTB "hybrid" as it does when used tracking the original source."tracking vs hybrid"
You'd think it would but to my tests I could always capture a better sonic LA2A print to waiting to use it on the same source after the print. DA > UA LA2A > AD. (n) It was still better than emulation but not as lush as on the AD.
Make more sense?
I wonder why this is? Or... isn't this interesting.
Got to love great monitoring and A/B/C ability to compare.
The only answer I have: Tracking with tube gear is better sounding to OTB mixing. Converters have a ways to go because something definitely gets lost in every conversion. Hybrid mixing is cool but tracking "better" and avoiding conversion is even cooler.

AD is still better than DA AD which makes me believe hybrid mixing isn't as good as ITB. Once ITB, stay ITB. And some emulation isn't as good as the real deal. Hardware LA2A and Pultecs are two products that come to mind.

maybe it's because the a /d conversion degrades the audio?

Kurt Foster, post: 438950, member: 7836 wrote: maybe it's because the a /d conversion degrades the audio?

My thoughts too. And I have used some of the most prestigious mastering grade converters to date. Which is why tracking "best we can" and "once in the box, stay in the box" is without doubt the best way to sonic excellence. I don't care what hybrid system if available, nothing is better than "less conversion the better".

Hybrid mixing is cool and very fun but until converters are significantly improved, hybrid mixing (DAAD) is not sonically better to my ears.
That being said, I currently still feel even though there is a degradation in a DA AD pass, and that round trip processing is long past what I would ever do again, the two DAW system is still worth every cent. One analog process carefully done at the end of a stereo mix adds just enough "swing" to a mix that the character out ways the degradation.

imho

until we can get 500 dB of dynamic range any kind of capture will be degraded. that's why God makes compressors.

Kurt Foster, post: 438952, member: 7836 wrote: until we can get 500 dB of dynamic range any kind of capture will be degraded. that's why God makes compressors.

Indeed.

To add or clarify,
Tube compression vs round trip or emulation compressors, especially in my UA LA2A tests, UA LA2A tracked sound better to all other options by quite a bit. The difference was not subtle to me.

I mention this because I also heard this with Hardware Pultecs. Specifically Pulse Technique MEQ-5's.

But, once ITB, all other options sound better to round trip or more specifically coupled to the DAW. Hybrid mixing using LA2A or Pultecs served no purpose to my ears. ITB tools did a better job.

But these same products strapped on an uncoupled capture DAW sounded great.

This is me just thinking out-loud...

• So my point and personal observation here seems to point out, tube hardware sounds better if it is used uncoupled from the DAW.
• I also noticed that stacked analog gear in this step looses character. Which is why I feel less analog gear in the mixdown pass of the capture DAW yields the most character and imaging integrity.
• Which is why a Folcrom , M-2b (big rail, transformer-less tube topology), possibly Pultecs and a Bricasti might be the last standing hardware tools left in my personal hybrid workflow.

audiokid, post: 438951, member: 1 wrote: Hybrid mixing is cool and very fun but until converters are significantly improved, hybrid mixing (DAAD) is not sonically better to my ears.

Doesn't the process of two a DAW setup for one pass still require DAAD coversion...in that you have to go out of one box then get back into the other?
I'm not being a smart-ass, just a legitimate question as the 2 DAW set up is something that I'm fascinated to try at one stage and I'm trying to understand the best way to go about it.
Or were you referring to DAW 1->DA->(insert any piece of analog gear here)->DA->DAW 2 ?

Sean G, post: 438954, member: 49362 wrote: Doesn't the process of two a DAW setup for one pass still require DAAD coversion...in that you have to go out of one box then get back into the other?
I'm not being a smart-ass, just a legitimate question as the 2 DAW set up is something that I'm fascinated to try at one stage and I'm trying to understand the best way to go about it.
Or were you referring to DAW 1->DA->(insert any piece of analog gear here)->DA->DAW 2 ?

audiokid, post: 438953, member: 1 wrote: But these same products strapped on an uncoupled capture DAW sounded great.

as mentioned above, they do when uncoupled. which is my entire point to a lot of what I am discovering more and more.

Sorry Chris, reading your posts again I realised that I may have blurred the lines in my thinking between hybrid mixing as opposed to using the 2nd DAW for capture only.

@Sean G
Specifically

audiokid, post: 438953, member: 1 wrote: So my point and personal observation here seems to point out, tube hardware sounds better if it is used uncoupled from the DAW.

Sean G, post: 438956, member: 49362 wrote: Sorry Chris, reading your posts again I realised that I may have blurred the lines in my thinking between hybrid mixing as opposed to using the 2nd DAW for capture only.

There is definitely something interesting happening when hardware is used in an uncoupled pass. Thus, tracking or uncoupled capturing. Both are doing a similar capture. Both are before the AD and uncoupled per-say.

I see where you are coming from now.

I like the way this thread has evolved along the way...plenty of food for thought.

What's also interesting is there was less to actually useless change with SS products in this workflow. Meaning, I noticed the most character integrity goodness was with tube processors in the uncoupled pass. SS gear sounded worse to plug-ins 100% of the time.
I also noticed stacked tube gear lost a particular musical phase "swing".
So if I was to choose one analog product as the "character" king , it would be Pulse Technique Pultecs or as I will soon confirm, Im suspecting just an M-2b as the closest to a straight wire with a subtle hint of a tube character, which is what M-2b are. They are Transformerless Tube Preamps. Wow is all I have to say.

See millennia m-2b. http://www.mil-media.com/m-2b.html

I haven't looked at the design of the Folcrom summing box...is it a straight-wire approach as you would expect?

And finally, a Bricasti in this pass recreates the most realist open mixdown I think is possible to date.

So to summarize the ultimate studio for me.

I would have at least 2, UA LA2A and 2 Pulse Technique Pultec MEQ-5s for tracking that could be also used for the mixdown via digital patchbays as discussed here too.
Plus the uncoupled capture process as I described above for the mix and mastering.

I like to think a really nice console would be wonderful for tracking but there is a lot of a console I don't feel is helpful if we go hybrid and what I hear as sonically and technically superior.

If I had $100,000 of choice for either a console or modular gear... Top converters, Pultec's and M-2b would go a lot further in my mind to a console that is all coupled together and has a lot more wire needed., not to exclude a very inferior monitor control section that doesn't come close to something like a Dangerous ST. Hybrid done right requires well thought out parts to really tie it all together.

But this is all of course, me thinking big bass mixes and the huge sound of what pop music achieves today. It would be cool to have a Neve room, SSL room and my two DAW system in another tracking room. If I had to choose only one for most applications today, it would be the 2 DAW system hands down. Then a Neve if I could share it with the 2 DAW modular tracking section. That would be wow.

Sean G, post: 438962, member: 49362 wrote: I haven't looked at the design of the Folcrom summing box...is it a straight-wire approach as you would expect?

Passive.
It is exactly what the preamp is. It uses the preamp topololgy. Maybe Bos, Kurt others will explain this better.

Basically, You want a tube summing console, use a tube preamp. You want a SS console, use a SS preamp.

The whole thing about round tripping, and adding things at the mix, has not changed since recording started. Great recording technique (and the gear and rooms and players that are accosiated with it) has always been the way to go, and always means less technical fixing at the end of the mix.

Ever heard an engineer boast "oh and I mixed the record with no eq, just balance". ?

Back in the day it was. The noise floor of adding stacks of noises gear, then hitting the mix down deck, then another generation at mastering. Now the degradation we experience at exactly the same points in the process, is just different symptoms, mainly phase, image, size, and overall fidelity.

Digital got this reputation that it doesn't have its own characteristics sound, which is totally untrue.

I've never re converted cuz my converters and gear are junk. Even with good converters and gear, the idea, of assembling your sound into anther 44.1 thousand samples every second, even once, isnt awesome, it's just necessary, never mind doing it again. Your sending samples out, as a new analog signal, then piecing it together again. It makes no sense to me, never really has. It's surprising things work as well as they do, given what's actually going on under the hood. Even when I've had the luxury of a lot of high end analog and decent conversion like the Rosetta, I've never bothered to use it at the mix phase. I always just stayed ITB

Analog had 120 years to get good, and when it finally did, everyone went digital. Lol. It's just gonna take some time.

So the daw, has always been just a capture device, albeit a super cool one, with amazing technical and creative editing. I've felt this way the whole ride, and when you try and make it do more than that, your really pushing the limits.

audiokid, post: 438963, member: 1 wrote: It would be cool to have a Neve room, SSL room and my two DAW system in another tracking room. If I had to choose only one for most applications today, it would be the 2 DAW system hands down. Then a Neve if I could share it with the 2 DAW modular tracking section. That would be wow.

That's an amazing proposition. I'm over mixing consoles, even if I could afford it. The footprint is too big, it's in the way of your ears and speakers. That's a form of degradation to me.

Now if you rack up those mixer modules, toss em in the machine room, and let me control them from whatever my control device is, that imho is tough to beat.

kmetal, post: 438965, member: 37533 wrote: The whole thing about round tripping, and adding things at the mix, has not changed since recording started. Great recording technique (and the gear and rooms and players that are accosiated with it) has always been the way to go, and always means less technical fixing at the end of the mix.

Ever heard an engineer boast "oh and I mixed the record with no eq, just balance". ?

Back in the day it was. The noise floor of adding stacks of noises gear, then hitting the mix down deck, then another generation at mastering. Now the degradation we experience at exactly the same points in the process, is just different symptoms, mainly phase, image, size, and overall fidelity.

Digital got this reputation that it doesn't have its own characteristics sound, which is totally untrue.

I've never re converted cuz my converters and gear are junk. Even with good converters and gear, the idea, of assembling your sound into anther 44.1 thousand samples every second, even once, isnt awesome, it's just necessary, never mind doing it again. Your sending samples out, to a new analog signal, then piecing it together again. It makes no sense to me, never really has. It's surprising things work as well as they do, given what's actually going on under the hood.

Analog had 120. Years to get good, and when it finally did, everyone went digital. Lol. It's just gonna take some time.

So the daw, has always been just a capture device, albeit a super cool one, with amazing technical and creative editing. I've felt this way the whole ride, and when you try and make it do more than that, your really pushing the limits.

That's an amazing proposition. I'm over mixing consoles, even if I could afford it. The footprint is too big, it's in the way of your ears and speakers. That's a form of degradation to me.

Now if you rack up those mixer modules, toss em in the machine room, and let me control them from whatever my control device is, that imho is tough to beat.

No, just send those modules to me...I'll look after them and keep them nice and safe just in case you ever do need them again. ;)

audiokid, post: 438948, member: 1 wrote: Thanks for the great post Dave.

I never explained this well so I'll try again.
What I meant to say is:

A real UA LA2A doesn't sound as nice when mixing OTB "hybrid" as it does when used tracking the original source."tracking vs hybrid"
You'd think it would but to my tests I could always capture a better sonic LA2A print to waiting to use it on the same source after the print. DA > UA LA2A > AD. (n) It was still better than emulation but not as lush as on the AD.
Make more sense?
I wonder why this is? Or... isn't this interesting.
Got to love great monitoring and A/B/C ability to compare.
The only answer I have: Tracking with tube gear is better sounding to OTB mixing. Converters have a ways to go because something definitely gets lost in every conversion. Hybrid mixing is cool but tracking "better" and avoiding conversion is even cooler.

AD is still better than DA AD which makes me believe hybrid mixing isn't as good as ITB. Once ITB, stay ITB. And some emulation isn't as good as the real deal. Hardware LA2A and Pultecs are two products that come to mind.

Yes. And it is my conjecture that this is the main reason that tracking rooms routinely have multiples of particular compressors. LA2A in particular. And I too have found that a round trip through my hardware LA2A and the clones do NOT add as much as a track initially tracked through the hardware and then to have the same thing added as an emulation ITB. The emulations don't quite live up to the hardware in tracking....I have the ability to track through my plugs but don't...but the emulations are just fine after you have physically prepped the track with the hardware going in.

And I agree 100% that the least amount of conversion NO MATTER HOW HIGH END is better in every way. I stay ITB except on the occasional reamping of a track. But that doesn't require converting as you are using the busing and the I/O to basically re-record something within the session.

Davedog, post: 438972, member: 4495 wrote: I stay ITB except on the occasional reamping of a track. But that doesn't require converting as you are using the busing and the I/O to basically re-record something within the session.

You brought up a good point Dave. I re amp once in a while, but plan to do a lot more of it.

I send it (clean d.i track) out of the interface, into a radial re amp box, then into the daw. Doesn't this qualify as re conversion, or conversion?. (Re conversion is the main reason I refrained from re amping as a daily technique, reserving it for 'emergency') Are you describing something different, like busing to a software amp, or something like a fractal axe effects, I think you had/have the eleven rack, which my cousin got, and I was impressed with, I hooked it up via the spdif. Is this what your describing in your post?

Just a quick opinion. Two things imho that avid did great on, got no attention, the eleven rack, and the command 8 controller. The command 8 still is the best feeling faders I've used, analog board or control surface. Sorry. Had to get that out.

Kyle. I do both. There are purists who would insist that the conversion can be heard when doing this as an analog capture (or recapture if you will) And this could be true with an entire mix or perhaps with a voice. For a guitar or bass the effect is negligible.
I have an Eleven Rack. I have a good friend with a Kemper Profiler. The Kemper has more detail in its amps but the Eleven does the feel of the guitar input better. As a player, I prefer to feel the device (amp or whatever) in a way that allows the freedom to flow with the sound I'm achieving. The Eleven has its own converter when I use it as a stand alone analog device. So, in a way it is decoupled from the converters for the ProTools. I can hook it up as a digital device through SPDIF and I have. Its just not that much better in the long run. I also find there is a bit more latency in the monitoring. I personally don't care about this. Some others are aghast at hearing this. So, the analog I/O at the original sample rate and having a monitor at zero latency with a world of large and in-charge noise going in is a very good thing. When I'm doing a "real record" I always take every guitar track with both mic'd amp and DI or just DI or (a lot of times) just Eleven. A lot of "purists" insist they can tell the difference in an amped track and a digital capture. And maybe so. What they can tell the difference is a track through the eleven with a nice program set-up and run through its own conversion clocked from the master. As an advertisement, I recommend the Apogee 192 as an excellent guitar oriented converter. (heheheh)

The Command 8 is nice surface. The language was the problem. When Avid bought Euphonics and started using that protocol as their surface language, things got better. I use both Artist surfaces, the Control and the Mix. Although I agree that mechanically speaking the older set up with the Command 8, 003, and others around this time had better feeling faders than the artist series. But the integration with PT10/11 is what I needed. So no HUI and now its Eucon.

Thanks for the clarification/explanation Dave. Strangely I share your sentiments, both on feel of the amp/device, and latency (as long as it's not ridiculous. 256 buffer size usually the line in the sand). I like the idea of having a dedicated device vs my former guitar rig 5 pluggin, for digital guitar amp sounds.

Lol I think latency doesn't bother me because according to every band I've ever been in, I have no rythym.

Any complaints on the artist mix? It's compatible with samplitude as well, so it covers both daws I plan on using.

audiokid, post: 438964, member: 1 wrote: Passive.
It is exactly what the preamp is. It uses the preamp topololgy. Maybe Bos, Kurt others will explain this better.

Basically, You want a tube summing console, use a tube preamp. You want a SS console, use a SS preamp.

Passive summing produces a smaller version of the algebraic sum of the inputs (but see caveat below). You need amplification of the sum bus (2-bus) to get back to line level. This is where character of the signal can come in, either deliberately when choosing which external box to use to perform the amplification, or by default if the summing box does resistive summing but has a built-in 2-channel make-up amplifier.

The caveat: a passive summing box sums the currents generated by applying the channel input voltages to resistors. However, all resistors change their resistance by a small amount as a function of applied voltage, that is, they are non-linear. The amount of change is dependent on a number of things including the type of resistor (metal film, wirewound, carbon etc), the nominal resistance value and the packaging (through-hole or surface-mount). It's the designer's job to minimize the distortion caused by non-linearity in the summing resistances by careful circuit design and component choice, and then insist that the production department sticks to what the designer has specified.

I have told the story before of a contract design I did for a well-known company where, to minimize distortion, I had specified three through-hole resistors in series in the feedback path from the output op-amps. The hand-built prototypes sounded really nice, which was more than could be said for the pre-production versions from the factory. Amongst other things, I found they had substituted a single surface-mount resistor of the correct value for the three through-hole parts in the prototypes. Their excuse for that particular horror was that they thought I had not been able to buy parts of the right value, and that I had strung three together to get the right resistance.

The upshot of all this is that different makes of passive summing boxes can actually sound different.

Perfect explanation boz, well said.

Boswell, post: 439005, member: 29034 wrote: The upshot of all this is that different makes of passive summing boxes can actually sound different.

Is it a safe take away, that passive summing boxes, although they vary in tone, they vary less than their active counterparts? Assuming similar levels of build/design quality between the products?

Also, does the line of thinking you outlined, also apply to other devices that can be passive or active, like a DI box, or re-amping box?

Yes. Any differences between resistors would exist in any circuit that uses resistors, including active summing boxes. And then you have the variations in all the other components on top of that. But it's my professional opinion that you would need to work hard to develop a circuit that can produce measurable and audible differences at its output attributable solely to the resistor package.

kmetal, post: 439018, member: 37533 wrote: Is it a safe take away, that passive summing boxes, although they vary in tone, they vary less than their active counterparts? Assuming similar levels of build/design quality between the products?

Also, does the line of thinking you outlined, also apply to other devices that can be passive or active, like a DI box, or re-amping box?

Yes, it does, but is usually masked by non-linearities in other parts of the circuit. It's only when you get to a unit that is billed as "passive" that you have the chance to make comparisons without active components getting in the way. Don't get me wrong, some of these components with small non-linearities (e.g. transformers) can make a great contribution to the sound. It's up to the experience and imagination of the design engineer to make sure the good effects come through the design and then the production process with minimal negative impact from the bad effects.

ulysses, post: 439030, member: 9729 wrote: Any differences between resistors would exist in any circuit that uses resistors, including active summing boxes. And then you have the variations in all the other components on top of that. But it's my professional opinion that you would need to work hard to develop a circuit that can produce measurable and audible differences at its output attributable solely to the resistor package.

You can hear things you cannot easily measure. In the gross instance that I related, I could measure the differences using a distortion analyser. That's unusual, and it confirms that they were severe. Effects of this sort are difficult to quantify with any certainty, but they can easily be heard. It's one of the reasons why you can't develop great-sounding audio gear simply by sitting at a bench in a lab, no matter how well-equipped.

Boswell, post: 439031, member: 29034 wrote: In the gross instance that I related,

Would simply swapping the resistors, back the the same the through hole type you originally specd, bring the mass produced unit, back up to the performance/quality level of the prototype. Was this somehow prohibited by the design of the mass unit, like not not enough room (or something else)? Was it a case where other components, beside the 3 resistors, were also changed in the mass production unit?

I ask this, out of curiosity in electronics. But also, I'm wondering particualry, in the budget/mid catagory where I'm shopping for an interface, if I should have the unit inspected by a knowledgeable technician, to possibly replaced certain parts like chips, or resistors, or(?) right away, before I even used it?

Does this apply/not apply in general even towards the upper end of mass produced gear?

ulysses, post: 439030, member: 9729 wrote: Yes. Any differences between resistors would exist in any circuit that uses resistors, including active summing boxes. And then you have the variations in all the other components on top of that. But it's my professional opinion that you would need to work hard to develop a circuit that can produce measurable and audible differences at its output attributable solely to the resistor package.

Thanks for the response Ulysses, it's always awsome to have opinions from people who are active in the field of design. It's somewhat of a budding interest of mine personally, but we all can benefit from educated thoughts and opinions on these types of things.

kmetal, post: 439034, member: 37533 wrote: Would simply swapping the resistors, back the the same the through hole type you originally specd, bring the mass produced unit, back up to the performance/quality level of the prototype. Was this somehow prohibited by the design of the mass unit, like not not enough room (or something else)? Was it a case where other components, beside the 3 resistors, were also changed in the mass production unit?

I ask this, out of curiosity in electronics. But also, I'm wondering particualry, in the budget/mid catagory where I'm shopping for an interface, if I should have the unit inspected by a knowledgeable technician, to possibly replaced certain parts like chips, or resistors, or(?) right away, before I even used it?

Does this apply/not apply in general even towards the upper end of mass produced gear?

For that product, I was a consultant design engineer. My contractual responsibilities ended at the approval of the pre-production prototypes, but in that instance I declined to approve them. For the record, the feedback resistors were only one of several deviations from the first prototypes.

As far as I know, they made no changes to their implementation, and the manufactured product was identical to the pre-production prototypes. I was not surprised when it did not sell well, and I put it down to another case of the power of production economics.

My advice would be not to replace parts in production units. The exception would be to have a known, verified upgrade done by someone like Jim Williams or one of the companies that specialise in that type of work and have a published record with the particular product.