I started the quest into what resulted in the two-box method by trying to emulate the apparently superior quality of the "direct-to-disc" stereo jazz recordings in the early days of stereo LPs.

The analogy of the two-box process that I came up with is a stereo microphone plus pre-amp set up to record something like a jazz combo or a symphony orchestra. In the two-box mixdown method, it's the job of the first box to provide the raw tracks representing the orchestral instruments, and then the analogue mixer takes these and produces the 2-track output. The second box captures the stereo mix as though it were the output of a 2-channel pre-amp being fed by the stereo microphone. I found that once you get that model in your mind, you separate out the complexities and a lot of things become simpler.

Capturing the 2-bus mix on the same computer that is sourcing the raw tracks has several shortcomings, including:

(a) It (usually) stops you choosing different hardware for the DAC reproduction of the source tracks and the ADC capture of the mix. In particular, the stereo ADC is the critical component in the two-box method, and audio interfaces that do a respectable job in outputting many analogue tracks may not give you the quality you want on the stereo capture. With OSX/macOS you can indeed aggregate audio interfaces, but in my experience the technique is not bullet-proof, and it does restrict the number of tracks that can be reliably output concurrent with stereo capture.

(b) You are constrained to working at the same sampling rate as the raw tracks. It means, for example, you can't use the 2-box mixdown method for generating CD mixes starting from 96KHz tracks. One of the principal aims of the two-box method is to avoid the explicit use of a sampling rate converter (SRC).

(c) There is a fixed phase relationship between the output samples and input samples. This can emphasize sampling characteristics in the audio hardware that would be not noticeable when there is no synchrony between output and input, even at the same nominal sampling rate.

We have had many threads here in RO about the two-box method. Try the search facility to locate aspects that particularly interest you.

Im mixing and mastering my own stuff, and im working in the same sample rate wich im going to release the tracks, 44.1khz.

I hear what im going to record and also whats is recorded after, and for me is the same.

There is no synchrony on the audio of what i hear and what i record after, btw.

I will try to search other threads of this topic, im a little bit confused with all this.

The point about the two-box process is that it starts to makes a difference at the high end (of quality, not frequency). The higher the quality of your recorded tracks and of your listening gear, the more you are able to hear a difference. This is not the Emperor's new clothes, it's a real effect.

Whether you like what you hear is a different matter, and you may choose to retain your DAW-mixed masters if you perceive them to give a better reproduction of what you are looking for as a recording of those particular performers.

Many years ago I used to go through a process that I called "mastering" of my own mixed tracks. That all changed when the performers in a couple of sessions I recorded were willing to pay for the mixes to be sent to an external mastering house. I couldn't believe the sound of what came back from the first set of tracks, so when the second set came up later, I asked if I could sit in the room with the ME to see and hear what he was doing. That single session made a huge difference to how I listened to what I was mixing. The result was that, with a bit of practice, I was able to generate mixes that were both much more ME-friendly, and, in the charity cases where I finished them off myself, gave a significantly better "mastered" result. It wasn't just down to the set of mastering gear that the ME used, it was having a different, trained set of ears listening to my work and dealing with a whole raft of small problems that were there but that I was overlooking.

One thing I remember Chris ( audiokid ) said about the 2 DAW setup is that it's possible to mix into master in realtime so it makes the decision process much easier.
The effect of going analog with decoupled clock and interface and in a seperate recording unit or computer is what makes the biggest difference, so they say.

I'm nowhere near attempting such setup but one thing I know is it's futil to go OTB without pristine conversion. If you are to degrade the signal it's better to stay ITB... (which is what I do now)

pcrecord, post: 459203, member: 46460 wrote: one thing I know is it's futil to go OTB without pristine conversion. If you are to degrade the signal it's better to stay ITB...

i don't agree. i've noticed what i perceived as an an improvement even with cheap converters and summing through a cheap table top Mackie mixer into a stand alone CD recorder.

Kurt Foster, post: 459206, member: 7836 wrote: i don't agree. i've noticed what i perceived as an an improvement even with cheap converters and summing through a cheap table top Mackie mixer into a stand alone CD recorder.

Stereo round trip: Well... sonically what you likely perceived as an improvement was what happens when you take any stereo wave and pass it through another analog device.All its doing is shifting the stereo waves like adding a touch of chorus. Curious... How did your process sum in mono after you did this?

Mono round trip:
If I recall your time line, The early converters sounded pretty raspy... Any analog device softened them which was the big buzz back then. Back in the day converters sounded like crap so any analog change helped smear or soften the rasp.

imho

:rolleyes: ..... i always check mono. long story but it was an issue once and i never made that mistake again. :ROFLMAO:

these were Alesis AI3 24/48 converters that had only line inzanoutz, set at +4 levels (i'm pretty sure these are the same as used in the Alesis HD 24) and a Frontier sound card through a Mackie SR24 with Cubase DAW.

from the start, I had issues with how Cubase itb mixes sounded. when i would record tracks, they sounded fine. when i mixed itb however the mix was flat and dull to my ears. not harsh. harsh was not the problem. mixes with a lack of dimension and dull and lifeless closed in sound was.

once i began to sum a few stems through a mixer and recording to a second recorder through the analog inputs things came back to life and sounded more like they did at capture. itb summing was the culprit imo. computers do a wonderful job for a lot of things but as a replacement for a mixer or summing they don't hit the mark. one reason a lot of manufacturers are making new consoles again.

Kurt Foster, post: 459206, member: 7836 wrote: i don't agree. i've noticed what i perceived as an an improvement even with cheap converters and summing through a cheap table top Mackie mixer into a stand alone CD recorder.

I ment doing it roundtrip isn't worth it.. I admit I didn't test any of the summing configuration... ;)

pcrecord, post: 459203, member: 46460 wrote: One thing I remember Chris ( audiokid ) said about the 2 DAW setup is that it's possible to mix into master in realtime so it makes the decision process much easier.
The effect of going analog with decoupled clock and interface and in a seperate recording unit or computer is what makes the biggest difference, so they say.

I'm nowhere near attempting such setup but one thing I know is it's futil to go OTB without pristine conversion. If you are to degrade the signal it's better to stay ITB... (which is what I do now)

Afaik you can mix master also in the same daw, i have to buy the cables to do it wich i hope i will do soon, but the root will be Daw >Orion32 >2Bus+ >Orion32(Daw Master Bus) >Pure2

Im with Antelope orion32 converters, they are very nice.

So the real thing of recording in another computer is about the SRC, isnt it? But for me is not doing nothing because i stay in the same sample rate, so i dont have to convert.

Humbly speaking specific to this topic: After extensive hands on > OTB vs ITB (mixing, mastering and summing) my conclusion and choice way to work would be to incorporate 2 DAW's > one set up for tracking and mixing and the second DAW set up to capture and master. I prefer to use the same DAW program on both computer because it makes it easy to switch, import/ export or exchange to and from equal DAWs for obvious reasons. My choice of DAW's are Samplitude or Sequoia.

basic requirement:
two computers> one loaded with a mixing DAW and the other loaded with a mastering DAW

• two high quality converters
• stand alone monitoring system. example Dangerous Monitor ST, SPL MTC.

That being said, the new generation of high quality converters sound rich and open to me. When I've used high quality converters, compared what OTB summing does to a track or a mix I instantly hear the amazing DAC smear and degrade.

Víctor, post: 459210, member: 51426 wrote: So the real thing of recording in another computer is about the SRC, isnt it?

partly this.

If all you are doing is mastering and tweaking a few aspects of a mix then you may not need to go belong one DAW. However, if you are already part way here and using something like the Orion 32 then you are beyond the basic mastering a 2 mix correct?

So... If I am stem mixing and want a more advanced way to study and mix or master I would mix into a master or master into a master as well. To me this entire process is more about better workflow that helps isolate and study, compare processing, cause and effect. Its about hearing what you are doing.

To me , two DAW's (not two boxes) demystifies and exposes how unimportant OTB mixing and mastering gear is in comparison to how important hearing deeper into a mix and being able to compare change more efficiently.

Cool. Yeah, now im understanding better.

But the thing is with this root Daw >Orion32 >2Bus+ >Orion32(Daw Master Bus) and then by Spdif>Pure2 (Capture of the final MixMaster) i can mix/ master at the same time

I dont think i need another computer and also another converter to mix/master at the same time.

I need to mix/ master at the same time, that was i did when i was ITB, but i wasnt recording, i was making a bounce online... didnt like it.

Víctor, post: 459214, member: 51426 wrote: Cool. Yeah, now im understanding better.

But the thing is with this root Daw >Orion32 >2Bus+ >Orion32(Daw Master Bus) and then by Spdif>Pure2 (Capture of the final MixMaster) i can mix/ master at the same time

I dont think i need another computer and also another converter to mix/master at the same time.

I need to mix/ master at the same time, that was i did when i was ITB, but i wasnt recording, i was making a bounce online... didnt like it.

I think you had good answers to why decoupling is better. It's up to you to do your own experiment and decide if it's worth it or not for what you do...
As an exemple, someone doing hiphop with samples already mastered may not need to do much to achive a great sound.
On the other hand recording a jazz trio with great instruments, room, mics, preamps will also be easy to mix since the genre ask for natural sounding instruments.

Another aspect that wasn't discussed is the computer ressources. I don't know about you but many of my projects have more than 30 tracks because I mostly record/mix full band instrumentation. They are often recorded live in the studio or overdubed.
The point is, if I do a full mix of the song and then add mastering plugins, my computer will crash. Of course I can go for a bigger buffer size but you get the picture.
Since I don't have the budget to go OTB with nice gear or have a second computer. The way I do it is mixing, exporting the mix into a Stereo file then I take all the songs in a new project and do my master.

Another workflow to consider is to export stems from your tracking DAW and import them into a session in Harrison Mixbus for final mixing/mastering. Mixbus has a deliberate distortion added to the buses for an analogue style summing experience. You can adjust this to taste on each track, so it can be the best/worst of both worlds. Easy to try, and with a trial download of Mixbus you are not out of pocket if it doesn't please you.

once again i reiterate two computers are not required to do this. you can print a two mix to any stand alone recorder with analog inputs. you can then take those 2 mix files and reload them into your DAW for mastering. of course you can't "mix and master" at the same time but to me that doesn't really qualify as real mastering.
it's more like mixing in two stages.

there's what i call bullsh*t mastering and real mastering. mastering to me means taking your mix's to different ears in a different room and system that is optimized for mastering. typical recording studio control rooms aren't suited to mastering. it's a specialized task requiring special systems, monitors and rooms that cost far more than the typical pro or home studio.

Kurt Foster, post: 459234, member: 7836 wrote: there's what i call bullsh*t mastering and real mastering. mastering to me means taking your mix's to different ears in a different room and system that is optimized for mastering. typical recording studio control rooms aren't suited to mastering. it's a specialized task requiring special systems, monitors and rooms that cost far more than the typical pro or home studio.

Nicely said, I personally call mine pseudo mastering ;)

Forgive me for double checking this, but is the actual two box method AD-DA-AA-AD-DA? This is better?

Lol

paulears, post: 459236, member: 47782 wrote: Forgive me for double checking this, but is the actual two box method AD-DA-AA-AD-DA? This is better?

ad > da > ad
In a 2 DAW system.... Being able to independently monitor at each conversion location using something like a (Dangerous Monitor ST) is critical. http://dangerousmusic.com/product/monitor-st/

If you are mixing OTB, incorporating analog gear then something like a Dangerous Master is a great setup as well because you can hard bypass gear and study the analog cause and effect step using two monitor outs.
http://dangerousmusic.com/product/master/

Notice how I am always talking about monitoring and listening.

If you do not have the monitoring control process to do this, it’s not worth doing. Imho.
It would also be difficult to fully understand why until you actually used and understood the complete system.

Is it better? A very subjective answer.
Sonically yes and no.
Workflow ... yes and no.

Is a digital grand piano any better than an acoustic grand piano? That is your answer.

Question: What is the difference between a “2 box method” and a “2 DAW System”?

Kurt Foster, post: 459234, member: 7836 wrote: once again i reiterate two computers are not required to do this. you can print a two mix to any stand alone recorder with analog inputs. you can then take those 2 mix files and reload them into your DAW for mastering. of course you can't "mix and master" at the same time but to me that doesn't really qualify as real mastering.
it's more like mixing in two stages.

there's what i call bullsh*t mastering and real mastering. mastering to me means taking your mix's to different ears in a different room and system that is optimized for mastering. typical recording studio control rooms aren't suited to mastering. it's a specialized task requiring special systems, monitors and rooms that cost far more than the typical pro or home studio.

Just to clarify... Mixing into a master has nothing to do with the art of mastering.
The term mixing into a master only means you are mixing down using mastering tools (software or hardware). Pretty much everyone using a DAW mixes into a master bus.

If I have a song worthy of hiring a “Mastering engineer ” ... I would send it to a Mastering Engineer.
Note, I would still mix into a master and then send it to a Mastering Engineer.

:)

so what you are doing is mixing in 2 stages. :love:

the same can be done with one DAW and a stand alone recorder that will be usable for the foreseeable future for less than $1000 instead of spending that same money or more for what is essentially vapor ware (any DAW program) and a second DAW that will both become virtually useless in a few short years because of OS updates or lack of legacy support. :D

Kurt Foster, post: 459240, member: 7836 wrote: so what you are doing is mixing in 2 stages. :love:

the same can be done with one DAW and a stand alone recorder that will be usable for the foreseeable future for less than $1000 instead of spending that same money or more for what is essentially vapor ware (any DAW program) and a second DAW that will both become virtually useless in a few short years because of OS updates or lack of legacy support. :D

you are missing the entire concept.

Kurt Foster, post: 459240, member: 7836 wrote: so what you are doing is mixing in 2 stages. :love:

the same can be done with one DAW and a stand alone recorder that will be usable for the foreseeable future for less than $1000 instead of spending that same money or more for what is essentially vapor ware (any DAW program) and a second DAW that will both become virtually useless in a few short years because of OS updates or lack of legacy support. :D

that would be a “2 box method”. Use anything to capture a mix without src.

DSD recorders would be my choice rather than tape or a second pc. But each to his own.

:)

We only need one DAW which can do an entire production at world class level.

traditional mixing consoles or tape is dead gone.
Any talk of that is imho just a trend to fool people it sounds better. Gear and “mixing” consoles are dying and software is only getting better. Once itb stay itb.
World class productions can all be recorded, mixed, mastered on a laptop. 100% ITB

If I am using specialized hardware not available ITB examples: (bricasti , pultec, la-2a) then I prefer two DAWs and more modern hybrid switching and monitoring equipment because they are designed to help you hear cause and effect better plus... I like getting into a mix far more that way .
https://www.manley.com/legacy/mmbb/

OT - a bit. Not being even a beginner in Mastering, I find one term very strange - "Printing" - I understand it was Protools who invented the usage, I just wonder why they picked it?

i'm not saying it isn't done or it can't be done all itb but i am saying your proclamation that consoles and tape machines are a thing of the past is a bit premature.

although i have retired, that doesn't mean i'm living in the past under a rock. i'm still learning and interested. there just aren't any paying clients where i live and i won't work for cheep or free like most the studios that come and go around here do. i don't roll that way.

almost all the evidence i have seen recently tells me mixing consoles are still alive and well. if you go to You Tube and check out the latest AES videos, you will see consoles are making a comeback, especially for tracking.

there are a ton of new smallish consoles of different flavors being made by companies like Tree Audio,

AMS Neve isreissuing the BCM 10 updated with a 2 buss.

and Geoff Tanners Aurora has come out with a new modular mixing system. then there's Rupert Neve and Audient putting out quite a few new full blown LF consoles that are all over the U.S.

Sphere has a new owner who is planning to reissue the Eclipse as the smaller Eclipse Alpha.

if i really tried i could come up with even more in just a few minutes. they aren't developing all that product for no one. there has to be a demand for it.

one of your faves, Mark Ronson often works in studios that have consoles. He did Amy Winehouse at DapTone in NY. on a Trident 65. Bruno Mars's Uptown Funk was recorded at Royal on an MCI 500 and Ronson owns his own MCI 500 as well. get ready for the wild life! :ROFLMAO:

videos i've seen of SIA and LSD show them in a studio with a LF console (i love Thunderclouds). Almost all the studios in Nashville still have consoles.

almost every video i see on records being recorded, show them in a studio usually with either an API, Neve or an SSL. i can't think of one that shows them being recorded on a DAW itb except maybe some Rap and what they are calling R&B these days. Even Andrew Sheps videos show him in a studio in front of a LF console and i know he mix's itb, but i bet he tracks with a console.

Mara machines is refurbing MCIs and ATR is doing refurbs on AMPEX'S. Tascam has reissued the 302 and i wouldn't be surprised if someone started to make new RTR analog tape machines in the near future. there is a demand for them. not everyone who wants to record is a computer geek. personally, i pretty much hate computers. i will never enjoy recording on a computer as much as i did on tape. i just like tape recorders. always have. lol.

Kurt, I think you are getting console tracking very mixed up with console mixing. Anyone who uses an analog console (not a control surface) to mix in today’s world must be living under a rock lol.

But if they say so... :whistle: good for them. I’d rather save my money and do it better itb.

Imho, analog mixing and the concept of tape is a gimmick to entice business and nothing more.

Each to his own.
Why anyone would ever mix otb anymore is beyond me.

audiokid, post: 459249, member: 1 wrote: Anyone who uses an analog console (not a control surface) to mix in today’s world must be living under a rock lol.

i guess F. Reid Shippen and the rest of Nashville and about 2/3rds of L.A. / N.Y. all live under rocks then ...... :rolleyes: and he has a lot more hit records than all of us!

audiokid, post: 459249, member: 1 wrote: Why anyone would ever mix otb anymore is beyond me.

apparently it is. computers are perfect for the internet and are decent platform to record on if you like sterile sound void of any character. not as good sounding as fat tape but still, it works.

but i like using a mixer. a great LF console and a couple of tape machines are just so much fun. in the end, you can feel like you really did something other people can't. with computers it's all at your fingertips at the the touch of a button. everyone has the same plugs. everyone's music sounds t same-o same-o. that imo stifles creativity.

i don't care for mixing with a mouse. i dislike staring at wave forms instead of listening to music. i don't like control surfaces. they are all toy like, tiny, flimsy and cheapo. i get distracted poking around on endless drop down menus.

i laugh at the bullsh*t graphics like turning reels and analog VU meters employed to make you feel like really got something for that 500 bucks you just wasted on a time sensitive "compressor" or "tape emulation" plug ins that won't work on the next OS system when you are forced to "upgrade" to in order to maintain compatibility. i disdain plug ins (what a racket).

i have never liked how itb summing and eq sounds. digital eq has a completely different sound than analog eq but a lot of people don't even realize it because they have no experience with it. yet these same pundits in their ignorance will argue endlessly how digital audio is better when they have never been within10 feet of a LF console or 2" tape machine for more that a few minutes for a photo op or to use them for more than few hours or even days. one needs to live with them for years to really understand the sound differences.

i really hate all the security nonsense we are forced to deal with. i don't care a bit for digital as a storage medium. there are 75 year old analog tapes that still playback just fine thank you. try that with any digital medium. not all tape gets sticky and sheds. only AMPEX.

i really hate how computers put a lot of different types of industries out of business. i don't care much for a lot of the new crop of recordists who really don't understand what they are doing and the bad music they produce. the loss of mentoring and apprenticeship / internship is one of the saddest losses. a lot of knowledge is being lost in the march "forward".

most of all i intensely dislike the continuous cycle of upgrades and updates we are forced to deal with with computers. talk about marketing gimmicks. they get you on a computer and you are stuck going back to them every few years. imo the biggest mistake i ever made was selling my JH 636. i miss it. i also miss my K.Kawi 7 foot grand piano. if i could get any of it back it would be those two pieces. :cry:

there are guys who are still driving their MCI 500's and SSL 4000's . that's at least 40 years of service on the same piece of equipment. you will never get that from any computer. computers are designed to be obsolete in a few years. it's a plan. talk about marketing. and then there's those like Larry Crane who went and purchased a new console .....

anyhoo it's all opinion and we know what the man said about that ...... :ROFLMAO:

please forgive the rant all, i must be upset with all the latest Trump nonsense. nothing new there! lol.

Im doing electronic music with sample libraries. I have to put my studio setup again this weekend and try some things... (been off for 6 months and some health problems) ive been an ITB boy for nearly ten years, always making bounce for export the project (online bounce but still is a sh*t)

Ive been talking with Chris Muth from Dangerous and im going to try again the route more obvious Daw> Orion32> 2-Bus+> Pure2... wich was my actually setup but couldn't make a second master bus for all summing tracks passing through there with some compressor, eq plugins etc at least to control my mix.

So i really enjoyed analog summing, but after nearly ten years mixing with minimum a compressor in the bus it was a bit tricky to mix without nothing... it was fine but when i went to master my own track in another session, i ended up with a loudness a little bit smaller of what i wanted (yeah im in the loudness war but trying to preserva as much of the dynamic and the quality of the mix). Its something that it have to do with the input monitoring in Logic Pro X, wich hopefully I will check this weekend... so the thing is that, i need a second master bus for making a pre-master at least and control the peaks just to play just a bit in the fuck**g loudness war.

I have a very powerful machine (not so powerful as in 2016) with an i7 skylake, and i don't have budget for another computer and another pair of high quallity converters. Im also working in the same SRC wich im exporting my final mixes. I have 2K more to waste and im going to get another 16ch of Dangerous summing.

Laos ive done a lot of stem mastering ITB the last year, export the stems with a nice pre master second bus chain, and mix them and master them in another session. I have a lot of fun and i like it, but bounce ruin all the mix in which i worked so hard.... and I worked hard one day an another an another in the box... mixing ITB is not so "easy" as mixing OTB.

BTW i work in the 80-90% with Acustica Audio convolution plugins, they have a sound very very nice... and thats the reason of my "powerful" computer... Ive got many of their Acqua plugins.

Thank a lot guys for your inputs, and sorry for my english... is not the best :)

Best regards,

V.

Kurt Foster, post: 459262, member: 7836 wrote: i guess F. Reid Shippen and the rest of Nashville and about 2/3rds of L.A. / N.Y. all live under rocks then ...... :rolleyes: and he has
[QUOTE=Víctor, post: 459277, member: 51426]Im doing electronic music with sample libraries. I have to put my studio setup again this weekend and try some things... (been off for 6 months and some health problems) ive been an ITB boy for nearly ten years, always making bounce for export the project (online bounce but still is a sh*t)

Ive been talking with Chris Muth from Dangerous and im going to try again the route more obvious Daw> Orion32> 2-Bus+> Pure2... wich was my actually setup but couldn't make a second master bus for all summing tracks passing through there with some compressor, eq plugins etc at least to control my mix.

So i really enjoyed analog summing, but after nearly ten years mixing with minimum a compressor in the bus it was a bit tricky to mix without nothing... it was fine but when i went to master my own track in another session, i ended up with a loudness a little bit smaller of what i wanted (yeah im in the loudness war but trying to preserva as much of the dynamic and the quality of the mix). Its something that it have to do with the input monitoring in Logic Pro X, wich hopefully I will check this weekend... so the thing is that, i need a second master bus for making a pre-master at least and control the peaks just to play just a bit in the ^#$%**g loudness war.

I have a very powerful machine (not so powerful as in 2016) with an i7 skylake, and i don't have budget for another computer and another pair of high quallity converters. Im also working in the same SRC wich im exporting my final mixes. I have 2K more to waste and im going to get another 16ch of Dangerous summing.

Laos ive done a lot of stem mastering ITB the last year, export the stems with a nice pre master second bus chain, and mix them and master them in another session. I have a lot of fun and i like it, but bounce ruin all the mix in which i worked so hard.... and I worked hard one day an another an another in the box... mixing ITB is not so "easy" as mixing OTB.

BTW i work in the 80-90% with Acustica Audio convolution plugins, they have a sound very very nice... and thats the reason of my "powerful" computer... Ive got many of their Acqua plugins.

Thank a lot guys for your inputs, and sorry for my english... is not the best :)

Best regards,

V.

a lot more hit records than all of us!

I would get a Dangerous Master before I would get another Dangerous Music 2bus. The Master is the key component you are missing. :)

No my friend... is too expensive and i don't own any outboard gear to use it.

My next purchase maybe in a couple of years is going to be a Dangerous Compressor (yeah, im in love with DM stuff....), but I will insert it in the insert path of the 2-Bus+, so there is no need for a D. Master. Im only summing OTB, all the rest is ITB. But if I had an interminable budget of course I will have it :)

I prever 32ch of summing, and the next 16ch are going to be of second hand btw...

Víctor, post: 459281, member: 51426 wrote: (yeah, im in love with DM stuff....)

Yes, me too.:love:

Please share any comparisons with the 2bus in and without. I'd love to hear any improvements.

audiokid, post: 459284, member: 1 wrote: Yes, me too.:love:

Please share any comparisons with the 2bus in and without. I'd love to hear any improvements.

Maybe I understand you wrong... Comparision between Analog Summing with the 2-Bus+ VS In The Box ?

Víctor, post: 459197, member: 51426 wrote: “Without going on too much more, for those really wanting to take hybrid past the playground, if you are using the same computer to go ADDA, "The Round Trip", you are already defeated. Two DAW's and high headroom analog in the middle works. If I couldn't do that, I would stay ITB."

You read this on GS??!
I’m surprised, considering that our pal (and fearless leader) Chris (audiokid ) took such a boatload of CRAP from GS members several years ago, when he proposed the 2 DAW method over there.
Bos ( Boswell) and Chris are our resident 2 DAW method innovators and experts around here.
I tried this workflow myself several years ago, using a friend’s laptop and a passive summing device; and I definitely heard a difference, most notably in the top end - but there was also a more defined low end too ( or at least that’s what I heard).
I always wanted to incorporate the 2 DAW system as a permanent part of my workflow - not for mastering, but for mixdown.
(RO member Thom Bethel ( Thomas W. Bethel) is my go-to mastering engineer).
I’ve just never had the second computer or analog summing device to do it.
(But...that’s about to change very soon. Stay tuned... ;) )
Just more proof that the real audio cats are here at RO.
;)

Yes Donny, i read that at GS from AudioKid.

The question is... why a better low end and high end? Is it something of the SRC? I think that yes, it is.

So for me, actually working in 44.1 and not doing any SRC is the same.

I hear my low and high end exactly the same when recording to the same DAW, but as i have said im in the same sample rate all the time.

Well, you bring up solid points, but I don’t recall changing sample rates from one DAW to the other; and even if I had, it wouldn’t have really mattered, because I was coming out of the 1st DAW’s analog outs, into a dual channel analog pre, and then into the analog summing device’s in’s ... and then out of the summing device, to the 2nd DAW’s audio Interface (analog in).
I suppose I could have had the first DAW’s Project SR at 96k, and then captured on the 2nd DAW at 44k if I wanted to; and maybe that would be the best thing to do, if I wanted to downsample for something like a Redbook format, as opposed to doing the SR conversion internally on the first DAW. Chris or Bos ( audiokid Boswell ) would know best on that.
I think that a lot of what I heard, with what I perceived to be “smoother” hi’s and more “defined” low’s ...was likely due to the analog summing device doing its “thing”.
I know the dual channel preamp I used ( I needed a pre because the summing unit was passive) was ultra clean (Grace), and wasn’t “adding” anything, (other than gain, to bring the signal up to line level).
I always wanted to try this method with a two channel HW compressor in the chain, but because I didn’t own the summing device ( or the second computer) I wasn’t ever able to get around to it.
;)

Víctor, post: 459293, member: 51426 wrote: Yes Donny, i read that at GS from AudioKid.

The question is... why a better low end and high end? Is it something of the SRC? I think that yes, it is.

So for me, actually working in 44.1 and not doing any SRC is the same.

I hear my low and high end exactly the same when recording to the same DAW, but as i have said im in the same sample rate all the time.

It doesn't sound as though you have done the work of looking at past threads here on RO concerning the two-box method.

A few links to get you started:
One
Two
Three

The link Two contains further links to the original discussions. I think it's worth 30 mins of your time to look through these, as there is a fair amount of background material on the two-box method that might influence the route you take.

Víctor, post: 459290, member: 51426 wrote: Maybe I understand you wrong... Comparision between Analog Summing with the 2-Bus+ VS In The Box ?

Yes! I'd love to hear what the 2bus does compared to ITB.

Víctor, post: 459293, member: 51426 wrote: I hear my low and high end exactly the same when recording to the same DAW, but as i have said im in the same sample rate all the time.

Question: If you hear the low and high exactly the same going OTB through 2bus+ and Round Trip back to the same DAW... why do it?