Dykesh, post: 454591, member: 51050 wrote: Does anyone have an opinion on just how expensive the 2 channel A/D conversion needs to be to get the full benefits of uncoupling? I am using a Metric Halo Lio-8 for tracking but I only have an Apogee Rosetta 200 (192kz) and an RME 9632 card. I am also thinking about summing inside the Metric Halo. Their software gives me 18 mono channels of summing in an 80 bit environment. I just don't want to buy an expensive summing box and not have good enough conversion. Thanks for any ideas

The 2 channel AD DA should be excellent. Try the Apogee Rosetta 200 (192kz), those are claimed to be decent.

Dykesh, post: 454591, member: 51050 wrote: I just don't want to buy an expensive summing box and not have good enough conversion. Thanks for any ideas

What summing boxes have you been looking at?

Basically all the ones you guys have been looking at. I could go Folcrum and add another Micpre. I have API, Great River and Chandler (just not two of them). I could go with the 2-Bus plus. I like that it is transparent but has some color options. But that gets expensive and has no monitoring section. The Phoenix Audio Nicerizer looks like the best solution at the moment. I am also working on using the Metric Halo software to route different monitoring locations back to it and use the Lio-8 monitoring. Like having DAW2 monitoring coming back into channel 7 and 8 of the Lio and direct monitoring from there. Just trying to get my head wrapped around the least expensive way of doing this without sacrificing too much quality.

Two bad there's not a summing box with a good built in 2 channel AD converter.

Dykesh, post: 454594, member: 51050 wrote: I could go Folcrum

I'm going Folcrom on my next rig.

Dykesh, post: 454594, member: 51050 wrote: Two bad there's not a summing box with a good built in 2 channel AD converter.

In my opinion, you don't want the analog coupled to the mastering AD DA in any way. Its best the analog section of the 2 DAW system is independent and before the AD DA of DAW 2.
The advanced steps of this system are idea if you can build it up to a point where you can stem mix or sum on either DAW 1 or DAW 2.

If you can include mastering DAW software on DAW 2, this is ideal as well. DAW 2 is my full on mastering suite.

(Edited to say a bit more)
(Note for those just sorting through all this information, be clear how we use "tracking hardware" is not to be confused with mixing or mastering). Thus, once ITB, stay ITB.

My last rig had many of the worlds finest analog "mixing and mastering" boutique tools available and I used top end AD DA for everything.
Which ever analog way you go, to my ears after incorporating thousands of dollars in hardware, then comparing everything to the nth degree..., the mastering section on DAW 2 is where the most significant aspect of this entire system excels.
Being able to study your mix-downs, move them around, compare various captures side by side and master it all on DAW 2 is where the workflow and demystifying blooms.

When you make DAW 2 your mastering DAW and for example, load it with something like Sequoia ... most of the analog "mixing and mastering hardware market" starts "sounding" like a big big waste of money.

In its simplest form, the way to think about the two-box process is that it's like recording a single stereo microphone (and pre-amp). All the tracking, data storage, effects and individual track dynamics are handled by the tracking device (box 1). At mixdown, box 1 outputs via a multi-channel D-A to an analogue stereo summing device. The 2-track mixed output of this device represents the stereo microphone, which is simply digitised by the capture unit (box 2). Any necessary effects and dynamics needed at the 2-track mix stage can be applied in the capture unit.

The most sensitive (quality-critical) part of the two-box process is the stereo capture ADC, so you may want to consider targeting your future gear purchases in that direction. Unfortunately you can't use a single A-D/D-A box like the Lio-8 for providing both the track/stem analogue output of box 1 and at the same time the 2-track capture of box 2, as the clocking is not independent between the input and output sections.

The two boxes are interfaced to separate PCs. There is no sampling clock or any other digital connection between the boxes. Note that this process provides an excellent way of avoiding the use of sampling rate converters and all their problems, so you can happily track at 96KHz on box 1 and capture at 44.1 KHz on box 2.

You can expand this simple view of a two-box process in a great number of ways. Chris, for example, describes above how he has done this with switchable monitoring and further mastering processes.

Chris,
I do believe I have a copy of an older Samplitude I can use and also Reaper. I guess I will need to do some experimenting and see if the Metric Halo summing is better than ITB and maybe compare some expensive 2 track AD converters to what I have.

Dykesh, post: 454604, member: 51050 wrote: Chris,
I do believe I have a copy of an older Samplitude I can use and also Reaper. I guess I will need to do some experimenting and see if the Metric Halo summing is better than ITB and maybe compare some expensive 2 track AD converters to what I have.

Yes, please share your experiences! I am always interested in more ways to skin the cat. An older version of Samplitude Suite would be great. The mastering plugins are what I like.

Fabfilter makes some great tools too.

audiokid, post: 454596, member: 1 wrote: I'm going Folcrom on my next rig.

In my opinion, you don't want the analog coupled to the mastering AD DA in any way. Its best the analog section of the 2 DAW system is independent and before the AD DA of DAW 2.
The advanced steps of this system are idea if you can build it up to a point where you can stem mix or sum on either DAW 1 or DAW 2.

If you can include mastering DAW software on DAW 2, this is ideal as well. DAW 2 is my full on mastering suite.

I apologize for butting in. I've been lurking again lately and thought I would ask a question that has had me confused about panning with the Folcrom in a 2 box setup if you don't mind? I have written to Folcrom and thought I would copy my query here as well.

"Scenarios and questions:

1. I pan a mono channel in my DAW to 40% Left. I pass this mono channel to the corresponding mono channel of the Folcrom. Will depressing the L side of the corresponding channel on the Folcrom retain this position (40% L) in my 2 bus mix leaving the Folcrom?

2. My Nuendo DAW is capable of panning a mono channel in the DAW simultaneously left an right at different %'s at the same time as well. Will passing this signal to a corresponding mono channel in the Folcrom retain the panning scenario from the DAW by depressing both left and right buttons of the corresponding channel on the Folcrom and retain this dual placement and percentages in the 2 buss output of the Folcrom?"

The nuts and bolts of panning continues to confound my thinking from time to time and I am embarrassed that I still don't have a good handle on it! I mean I get it, but then when applying it to new scenarios like the 2 Box setup, I confuse myself all over again! Color me humbled and confused......any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance for putting up with this old fart with a slow newbie mind!

Namaste

vibrations1951, post: 454671, member: 34341 wrote: I apologize for butting in. I've been lurking again lately and thought I would ask a question that has had me confused about panning with the Folcrom in a 2 box setup if you don't mind? I have written to Folcrom and thought I would copy my query here as well.

"Scenarios and questions:

1. I pan a mono channel in my DAW to 40% Left. I pass this mono channel to the corresponding mono channel of the Folcrom. Will depressing the L side of the corresponding channel on the Folcrom retain this position (40% L) in my 2 bus mix leaving the Folcrom?

2. My Nuendo DAW is capable of panning a mono channel in the DAW simultaneously left an right at different %'s at the same time as well. Will passing this signal to a corresponding mono channel in the Folcrom retain the panning scenario from the DAW by depressing both left and right buttons of the corresponding channel on the Folcrom and retain this dual placement and percentages in the 2 buss output of the Folcrom?"

The nuts and bolts of panning continues to confound my thinking from time to time and I am embarrassed that I still don't have a good handle on it! I mean I get it, but then when applying it to new scenarios like the 2 Box setup, I confuse myself all over again! Color me humbled and confused......any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance for putting up with this old fart with a slow newbie mind!

Namaste

I can't tell you how it is with the Folcrom yet because I've not completed my new studio but will without hesitation once I am up and running.
My last hybrid rig used a console which I still panned ITB. I could pan OTB but that was useless even though I could... The Neos console is an amazing console but the panning is a complete waste of design imho.. I did not pan snares, bass freq, kicks and main vox, those I force mono into a stereo bus.
Everything else in stereo is usually hard left or hard right with the exception of some details and sweeping effects.

I suspect the Folcrom will be more of a one trick 2 bus effect for me as I am less and less interested in analog stacking and processing stems with analog gear. To me, those beautiful days are long long gone for good reason.
I am pretty much focused in what a Bricasti and high end preamps will do during the mixdown and capture to the master DAW. I suspect the preamps will degrade the imaging but the wire will make up for whats lost in mojo providing I use a good preamp and keep the pass really simple.

vibrations1951, post: 454671, member: 34341 wrote: I apologize for butting in. I've been lurking again lately and thought I would ask a question that has had me confused about panning with the Folcrom in a 2 box setup if you don't mind? I have written to Folcrom and thought I would copy my query here as well.

"Scenarios and questions:

1. I pan a mono channel in my DAW to 40% Left. I pass this mono channel to the corresponding mono channel of the Folcrom. Will depressing the L side of the corresponding channel on the Folcrom retain this position (40% L) in my 2 bus mix leaving the Folcrom?

2. My Nuendo DAW is capable of panning a mono channel in the DAW simultaneously left an right at different %'s at the same time as well. Will passing this signal to a corresponding mono channel in the Folcrom retain the panning scenario from the DAW by depressing both left and right buttons of the corresponding channel on the Folcrom and retain this dual placement and percentages in the 2 buss output of the Folcrom?"

The nuts and bolts of panning continues to confound my thinking from time to time and I am embarrassed that I still don't have a good handle on it! I mean I get it, but then when applying it to new scenarios like the 2 Box setup, I confuse myself all over again! Color me humbled and confused......any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance for putting up with this old fart with a slow newbie mind!

Namaste

I can't tell you how it is with the Folcrom yet because I've not completed my new studio but will without hesitation once I am up and running.
My last hybrid rig used a console which I still panned ITB. I could pan OTB but that was useless even though I could... The Neos console is an amazing console but the panning is a complete waste of design imho.. I did not pan snares, bass freq, kicks and main vox, those I force mono into a stereo bus.
Everything else in stereo is usually hard left or hard right with the exception of some details and sweeping effects.

I suspect the Folcrom will be more of a one trick 2 bus effect for me as I am less and less interested in analog stacking and processing stems with analog gear. To me, those beautiful days are long long gone for good reason.
I am pretty much focused in what a Bricasti and high end preamps will do during the mixdown and capture to the master DAW. I suspect the preamps will degrade the imaging but the wire will make up for whats lost in mojo providing I use a good preamp and keep the pass really simple.

audiokid, post: 454605, member: 1 wrote: Yes, please share your experiences! I am always interested in more ways to skin the cat. An older version of Samplitude Suite would be great. The mastering plugins are what I like.

Are you still using Sequoia? Or Samp?
Is there a big difference between them?

DonnyThompson, post: 454676, member: 46114 wrote: Are you still using Sequoia? Or Samp?
Is there a big difference between them?

I've always used Sequoia for tracking, mixing ITB/OTB and mastering but next year it will be Samplitude for tracking and mixing and Sequoia for mastering. Samplitude will be new for me but according to my tests of Sam a few years back, there is no sonic difference between either. Samplitude suite gives you the mastering tools that come stock in Sequoia. It really is all one needs for a DAW. Its complete.

audiokid, post: 454677, member: 1 wrote: I've always used Sequoia for tracking, mixing ITB/OTB and mastering but next year it will be Samplitude for tracking and mixing and Sequoia for mastering. Samplitude will be new for me but according to my tests of Sam a few years back, there is no sonic difference between either. Samplitude suite gives you the mastering tools that come stock in Sequoia. It really is all one needs for a DAW. Its complete.

I always reflect back to the days we only had a console and a tape machine. Did we need to keep buying extra stuff> I sure didn't. I/ we all relied on talent as a musician, mics and the place we were set up in to lay it all down. What a blast!

So... that's what Sequoia or Samplitude are... only better than the good old days. All extra things I couldn't afford or even source out back then, come with our DAW's today.

audiokid, post: 454677, member: 1 wrote: I've always used Sequoia for tracking, mixing ITB/OTB and mastering but next year it will be Samplitude for tracking and mixing and Sequoia for mastering. Samplitude will be new for me but according to my tests of Sam a few years back, there is no sonic difference between either. Samplitude suite gives you the mastering tools that come stock in Sequoia. It really is all one needs for a DAW. Its complete.

Lol ...you don't need to convince me pal. ;)
I was just wondering which program you were using for your mastering. :)

DonnyThompson, post: 454679, member: 46114 wrote: Lol ...you don't need to convince me pal. ;)
I was just wondering which program you were using for your mastering. :)

I do indeed know you do! Just passing the love to whomever follows us here. ;)
Either Sam or Sequoia will work. Sequoia is just more complete for mastering and video, so I'm told.
I'm likely getting Vegas Pro Suite as well and now preparing my new studio for A/V as we speak. Exciting 2018 for me. As you may remember, I sold off 75% of my studio 2 years ago and will hopefully have the new hybrid system turned on before spring. :)

Edit: I have a 16w x 22d x 9h mixing/editing room ready to go. So excited! Then the shop with a 20 ft ceiling to rock it out in. Its far from perfect but its going to be mine and my sanctuary.

audiokid, post: 454673, member: 1 wrote: I can't tell you how it is with the Folcrom yet because I've not completed my new studio but will without hesitation once I am up and running.
My last hybrid rig used a console which I still panned ITB. I could pan OTB but that was useless even though I could... The Neos console is an amazing console but the panning is a complete waste of design imho.. I did not pan snares, bass freq, kicks and main vox, those I force mono into a stereo bus.
Everything else in stereo is usually hard left or hard right with the exception of some details and sweeping effects.

I suspect the Folcrom will be more of a one trick 2 bus effect for me as I am less and less interested in analog stacking and processing stems with analog gear. To me, those beautiful days are long long gone for good reason.
I am pretty much focused in what a Bricasti and high end preamps will do during the mixdown and capture to the master DAW. I suspect the preamps will degrade the imaging but the wire will make up for whats lost in mojo providing I use a good preamp and keep the pass really simple.

Thanks Chris. After doing more research it seems that to do what I want utilizing the Folcrom, besides hard panning, I would need to dedicate a stereo signal (2 channels from the DAW) to pass the proportionate non-hard-panned signal through the Folcrom to it's 2 bus. It seems like this might work though it will eat up available Folcrom channels and need to be done judiciously. I don't expect to hear from Folcrom until after the holiday.
Again, thanks for the feedback and letting me butt in! I look forward to your follow up on your Folcrom experiences Chris.
Namaste

vibrations1951, post: 454689, member: 34341 wrote: Thanks Chris. After doing more research it seems that to do what I want utilizing the Folcrom, besides hard panning, I would need to dedicate a stereo signal (2 channels from the DAW) to pass the proportionate non-hard-panned signal through the Folcrom to it's 2 bus. It seems like this might work though it will eat up available Folcrom channels and need to be done judiciously. I don't expect to hear from Folcrom until after the holiday.
Again, thanks for the feedback and letting me butt in! I look forward to your follow up on your Folcrom experiences Chris.
Namaste

Are you generally only sending mono DAW channels to the Folcrom?

audiokid, post: 454697, member: 1 wrote: Are you generally only sending mono DAW channels to the Folcrom?

Yes, that's right.

vibrations1951, post: 454698, member: 34341 wrote: Yes, that's right.

Ah, not sure if this is best for you but I never send mono channels out. Everything I send OTB are stereo 2 bus lanes.
In a 16 channel hybrid system I would typically do this:

• Create 8 stereo bus outs in DAW 1: (Drums, Bass, Guitars, Keyboards, Percussion which would include overheads, Back ground Vox, Main Vox, Effects)

• DA 8 stereo lanes into 16 Folcrom inputs. (possibly mono bass, kick, main vox channels on the Folcrom)
• AD Folcrom L/R stereo main into DAW 2.

PS

Not sure if this is of interest to the readers in general... or am I in any way insinuating my way is any better than the next man, however,
I've never used hybrid mixing to round trip single or stereo lanes back coupled to DAW 1, or to reassemble a stereo imaging OTB and return it back, coupled to DAW 1 or DAW 2.
All the imaging, panning is done ITB, never OTB. Thus... hybrid summing is all about stereo channels.

The only reason I add analog is for a completed stereo effect via a final 2 buss analog mojo. The less I mess with mono lanes OTB, the better it sounds to me.

It will be interesting to see how the Folcrom and my stereo preamp keeps the integrity of the stereo field. I'm expecting less than perfect but hoping the effect adds a silkiness from the tubes of the M-2b.

vibrations1951, post: 454698, member: 34341 wrote: Yes, that's right.

What are you using for a preamp? Have you tried a few?

Thinking more on my last hybrid setup.
I had 24 DA > into the Neos so I could dedicate more stereo lanes OTB. I had dedicated stereo overheads, room and ambiance which was really nice. The new system will be scaled down to 16 DA so I'm going to creatively figure out how I want to sum less stereo lanes. I'm likely hard panning all Folcroms L/R to keep it simple.

Well I decided to pass on a Nicerizer before Christmas because I started thinking about which equipment would be most beneficial. I have heard quite a few examples of hardware summing that does seem to show subtle amounts of improvement but what about mix bus compression hardware like SSL, API, Manley etc? And I guess I will need to get my hands on a high end converter to compare to my Apogee Rosetta 200 for DAW2. What are your opinions comparing summing, compressor or better D/A and which one may make the most improvements? Thanks

audiokid, post: 454699, member: 1 wrote: Ah, not sure if this is best for you but I never send mono channels out. Everything I send OTB are stereo 2 bus lanes.
In a 16 channel hybrid system I would typically do this:

• Create 8 stereo bus outs in DAW 1: (Drums, Bass, Guitars, Keyboards, Percussion which would include overheads, Back ground Vox, Main Vox, Effects)

• DA 8 stereo lanes into 16 Folcrom inputs. (possibly mono bass, kick, main vox channels on the Folcrom)
• AD Folcrom L/R stereo main into DAW 2.

When I got back to my setup and tried to figure out what I had done before, i found I was monitoring a stereo bus ( with Dangerous ST) from box 2 converter (Antelope Pure 2) (basically from the first DAW as one stereo stem I believe).
First, from the DAW I sent the "stem" L to channel 1 of the Folcrom panned left and the R Stem to #2 channel of the folcrom hard R. Then the Folcrom 2 bus out to my Phoenix 2 channel pre >Pure 2.
I hadn't tried grouping stems ITB but had done my panning there.
When I looked closer, I was experimenting with both mono and stereo tracks to the Folcrom. got totally bogged down and quit. That was a while ago because for various reasons, I haven't been using my equipment for a very long time.
Anyway, this is a very long winded way of saying thanks for your feedback and it's back to diving in again and learning to use stems more as it makes so much more sense to mix that way, plus it will free up channels in the analog pass with the Folcrom.

audiokid, post: 454701, member: 1 wrote: It will be interesting to see how the Folcrom and my stereo preamp keeps the integrity of the stereo field. I'm expecting less than perfect but hoping the effect adds a silkiness from the tubes of the M-2b.

What are you using for a preamp? Have you tried a few?

UA 2-610, 2 Millenia 500 series, AEA RPQ 2 channel, Phoenix Audio DRS-Q4 mk2 .
Many flavors with noticeable differences. I left off with the Phoenix as a favorite at that time for a nice, mostly transparent pre to work with.
I loved the 610 mojo and the RPQ was very clean as well.
I am a bit embarrassed that I have such great equipment and little experience. It's just part of my plan to build up stuff to learn on while trying to finish the build, retire and do nothing else but hone my craft in retirement!

Dykesh, post: 454758, member: 51050 wrote: but what about mix bus compression hardware like SSL, API, Manley etc?

Well... at one time this was all good for a reason but those days are over.
IMHO
There is nothing other than a Bricasti processor that will benefit me more than ITB software. But of course, I use Samplitude software which could be why I don't hear any improvement mixing OTB. But don't get me wrong, I am very much into using analog to pass audio over to another DAW in order to avoid SRC. Note, (incorporating a Folcrom is next on my list)
I'll say this so you don't think I fall into the trap of "support of purchase" meaning, just because I bought something, I feel I have to like it.
I take time in all my decisions to figure out if it is the gear I like OTB or reasons leading me to believe otherwise. If you doubt this, take a look at my OTB summing arsenal and see if you think I have done my homework. Being said... go right ahead and try it for yourself but from one colleague to another... don't waste your money on most of the mixing gear today. Buy it for tracking, not mixing or mastering.

Dykesh, post: 454758, member: 51050 wrote: What are your opinions comparing summing, compressor or better D/A and which one may make the most improvements? Thanks

I love tracking with compressors and other respected analog products but once ITB, stay ITB. Don't wast your money on OTB mixing comps. Buy a Bricasti and focus on room acoustic improvements.
If people track great, the performance is great then a DAW will translate that no problem. If the tracking sucks, the performance sucks then all the gear you can afford will not improve one damn thing worth mentioning.

Once ITB, Stay ITB.

:)

vibrations1951, post: 454760, member: 34341 wrote: UA 2-610, 2 Millenia 500 series, AEA RPQ 2 channel, Phoenix Audio DRS-Q4 mk2 .
Many flavors with noticeable differences. I left off with the Phoenix as a favorite at that time for a nice, mostly transparent pre to work with.
I loved the 610 mojo and the RPQ was very clean as well.
I am a bit embarrassed that I have such great equipment and little experience. It's just part of my plan to build up stuff to learn on while trying to finish the build, retire and do nothing else but hone my craft in retirement!

Nice! :love: (y)

vibrations1951, post: 454759, member: 34341 wrote: Anyway, this is a very long winded way of saying thanks for your feedback and it's back to diving in again and learning to use stems more as it makes so much more sense to mix that way, plus it will free up channels in the analog pass with the Folcrom.

Its so good to have another member here with as close a system to what I know so well. You are going to have a blast with that system and I guarantee you will love mixing everything down into stereo groups on DAW1 and sending those OTB to the Folcrom to further the journey towards finishing or mastering.

Thanks for your experiences. I did find your posts about the API 2500 and SSL G. I was debating buying either of those flavors. By the way, I am working thru the Ozone 8 tutorials and that software looks very similar to the types of things Samplitude can do. Very impressive with updated IRC codecs and tons of M/S processing for EQ's and compression.

Dykesh, post: 454776, member: 51050 wrote: Thanks for your experiences. I did find your posts about the API 2500 and SSL G. I was debating buying either of those flavors. By the way, I am working thru the Ozone 8 tutorials and that software looks very similar to the types of things Samplitude can do. Very impressive with updated IRC codecs and tons of M/S processing for EQ's and compression.

The SSL can be emulated ITB, however the fade out is a cool feature that I like. The 2500 is excellent for tracking but I wouldn't again, use it for mixing. Either have great use in tracking. None of those have any use to me for OTB mixing. A DAW does a much better job.