audiokid, post: 422118, member: 1 wrote: I might be dead by then.

Nah, that would be too easy

1. Gette, post: 422119, member: 46761 wrote: Instead of fighting each other lets just have just an honest go at it. I would say, I am about 2 weeks out from completion (could be less depending on Honey do's). We would just have to use a mutual set of tracks to mix. Ether forum generated or what not.

   sure

A little arbitration...

A mix-off isn't going to be fair to either one of you.

There are far too many variables involved beyond just the gear. The first initial dilemma is, where are you going to get the tracks to mix? They would need to be professionally recorded, and I'm talking about truly professionally tracks.

The second thing is that mix techniques vary from cooker to cooker, and vary widely. It's all too subjective. You could both come up with great mixes - yet, totally different mixes, and in turn, there might be a bias by some who like certain things in one mix, and others who like certain things in the other mix. That doesn't make ether mix better or worse than the other, just different.

If one prefers a more tactile approach to mixing, and is willing to spend the money, then so be it. If the other can do just as good a job without a $35000 console, then so be it.

I think that sometimes we tend to get lost in the technical side of our craft, and we forget the artistic side. Thousands of great sounding records have been mixed on consoles. Thousands of great sounding records have been mixed ITB.

In the end, it's all about the music, and the music listening masses don't care about THD, .0002% crosstalk, phase coherency, or any of the other technical factors you are both debating. This is a bit like two brain surgeons arguing over their favorite type of scalpel. The patient doesn't care. LOL

Let's all start to pay a little more attention as to why it is that we do this - which is ( or should be) to make great sounding music... and understand that there is more than just one way to accomplish that.

For as much as I dig intelligent debate, I think it's time for you guys to simply agree to disagree, and to each (proudly) use what you use, with no excuses. Neither one of you is going to convince the other that your process is better than that of the other. Respect each others talent, knowledge, and dedication to the craft, and call this one a tie. ;)

IMHO of course,

d.

DonnyThompson, post: 422125, member: 46114 wrote: A little arbitration...

A mix-off isn't going to be fair to either one of you.

There are far too many variables involved beyond just the gear. The first initial dilemma is, where are you going to get the tracks to mix? They would need to be professionally recorded, and I'm talking about truly professionally tracks.

The second thing is that mix techniques vary from cooker to cooker, and vary widely. It's all too subjective. You could both come up with great mixes - yet, totally different mixes, and in turn, there might be a bias by some who like certain things in one mix, and others who like certain things in the other mix. That doesn't make ether mix better or worse than the other, just different.

If one prefers a more tactile approach to mixing, and is willing to spend the money, then so be it. If the other can do just as good a job without a $35000 console, then so be it.
I think that sometimes we tend to get lost in the technical side of our craft, and we forget the artistic side. Thousands of great sounding records have been mixed on consoles. Thousands of great sounding records have been mixed ITB.

In the end, it's all about the music, and the music listening masses don't care about THD, .0002% crosstalk, phase coherency, or any of the other technical factors you are both debating. This is a bit like two brain surgeons arguing over their favorite type of scalpel. The patient doesn't care. LOL

Let's all start to pay a little more attention as to why it is that we do this - which is ( or should be) to make great sounding music... and understand that there is more than just one way to accomplish that.
For as much as I dig intelligent debate, I think it's time for you guys to simply agree to disagree, and to each (proudly) use what you use, with no excuses. Neither one of you is going to convince the other that your process is better than that of the other. Respect each others talent, knowledge, and dedication to the craft, and call this one a tie. ;)

IMHO of course,

d.

plus one!

audiokid, post: 422132, member: 1 wrote: We can make music on anything

My point exactly. ;)

"We can make music on anything" including a DAW.

One last thing and then I'm done here for a bit. :D

It would benefit us ALL to hear all sorts of mixes that don't have to be creatively matched, but sonically close enough to tell us one thing, how a $40,000 copper desk compares to a DAW.

Personally, once its ITB, I think its about the music and the guy behind the wheel directing the traffic.
But, who knows... Few people ever post their work and discuss the "process" .

This whole vintage gear thing is way over hyped. Like $6000 vintage EQ snake oil. Consoles aren't too far off on that one for me now too. So forgive me, I have an opinion. :)

When it comes to mixing or mastering and Video, digital technology is taking us to Mars and beyond. Summing boxes are more often in that chain than an analog console with colour for a damn good reason.

As Kurt points out many times, he misses the tactile approach and all the fuss on software upgrades. So, he too is looking at summing box solutions.

There is no money left for most of us today so we can do pro audio smart. Thats what summing boxes are. "Smart". So, are we talking smart or stupid or what here? Last I looked, the OP was about summing boxes.

Smart would really be to run away from this business as fast as you can! But if you are caught with the audio bug like most of us poor saps... , Summing boxes could be smart or just as lame as the rest of your work.

Just for fun,

Here is the last mix I did ITB. I wish Clark was around to share his thoughts, he's off on some journey right now but I'm sure he'll be back. He was so fun to work with me on this. What an ear he has (kudo's)
I have the analog comparison somewhere which I WILL find and post both in a time line to hear for yourself. I never told Clark what I was doing but I was switching between ITB and OTB during the final last tweaks. It was pretty hard to tell the difference once I got everything emulated. The beauty of my rig, I can hard bypass everything in a chain with a switch. Build a system that you can do this and you will never regret it!
I was able to recreate (emulate) $70,000 in gear ITB. When I did that, ITB was subtle better. I tried for days to beat ITB and couldn't. Since then I have been scrutinizing everything. The first to go were trannies. M/S processing clearly was the last standing gem and that can now be had ITB via AM-Munition.However, LA2A's are still special for a few things that I can't come close to emulating.

So, here is the winner. I believe there were about 45 tracks. There were low end freq problems, SSS, and other issues that could never have been helped OTB. NEVER.

http://jungleheartproductions.com/track/heavens-sounds

A before version could be nice, if possible ;)

Which is why I posted this a few pages back. See 34:00 54:00

audiokid, post: 422040, member: 1 wrote: Start @ 34:00 Donny, you will especially enjoy this. What a wonderful interview.
M & S on the Dangerous Master. Magix Amunition ;) Oh ya!

[[url=http://[/URL]="

"]View:

[/]="

"]View:

[/]

54:00

Perfect comment on speakers, what works for you, do it. I do love my Opal Events and Avatones..

Followed by an interesting comment on how he prefers an analog (Sontec) EQ to ITB. 1 db of Analog to 2 times the amount with digital. This used to be how I heard it until I started using an uncoupled capture process. I now hear I need less digital on everything. The changes are harder to hear but they are definitely changes. I've been thinking about a Sontec, they get the most praise.
Right now I'm loving a Millennia NSEQ-4 . Its a wonderful new big rail EQ .

I listened to Clark's song. It's a really good sound, it your face, clear but not harsh. A very good Job !

This surely had nothing to do with you Chris but 2 things puzzled me with the song :

• There is a fair amount of noise at the beginning of the song. I guess I can't stand noise since I often point that out when commenting songs..
• the voice sound kind of autotuned. But I think Clark's voice sound a bit like that naturaly I'm just guessing here. ;)

This thread reminds me of a debate we had about How gear vs training do mather. Some argued that it was more important to have good techniques that high gear. Also that on lower grade gear and great engineer could still make a good record.
My point Chris is that I'm convinced you have all the knowledge and skills to produce the sound you want on any gear system.

I think the best thing you could do to demonstrate how your new system is better than old ways is to go to a big board facility, master a song with their system and then master with yours while commenting and explaining why and what you do at each step.
Then compare the two results.
Listening to mixes and masters always bring up suggestive opinions. You sometime need to be point at what is important to realise it.

Now finding a place that is willing to do that comparaison is the challenge.

PS, how close are you to what Fab Dupond does and tools he choose ? I know he doesn't master with mixers and use dangerous products...

Thanks,

pcrecord, post: 422172, member: 46460 wrote: There is a fair amount of noise at the beginning of the song. I guess I can't stand noise since I often point that out when commenting songs..

Thats a sample he liked.

pcrecord, post: 422172, member: 46460 wrote: the voice sound kind of autotuned. But I think Clark's voice sound a bit like that naturaly I'm just guessing here. ;)

Thats Clarks sound :) It was all autotuned before I got it.

pcrecord, post: 422172, member: 46460 wrote: My point Chris is that I'm convinced you have all the knowledge and skills to produce the sound you want on any gear system.

Thanks, this is my point, I went from using the best analog gear available to ITB. The difference was astonishing. I always thought my analog system was impossible to beat, ITB. I proved myself wrong.

pcrecord, post: 422172, member: 46460 wrote: I think the best thing you could do to demonstrate how your new system is better than old ways is to go to a big board facility, master a song with their system and then master with yours while commenting and explaining why and what you do at each step.
Then compare the two results.
Listening to mixes and masters always bring up suggestive opinions. You sometime need to be point at what is important to realise it.

That isn't the point. A console will never sound more in your face than this. It will sound more coloured, but not bigger, wider or in your face. The entire message I am sharing here is, the reason why the best mastering engineers use the same gear I have, is because its the best available. It doesn't degrade your sound like an analog console.

pcrecord, post: 422172, member: 46460 wrote: PS, how close are you to what Fab Dupond does and tools he choose ? I know he doesn't master with mixers and use dangerous products...

We have a very similar hybrid system, which is what those guys are using in the video's I just posted too. Except, I'm fortunate to also use the Neos for stem mastering. Which is another part to the art of mixing and mastering. Which is the best of what hybrid audio brings to what summing boxes are all about.

In a nut shell, the point is, those who don't think great mixes or masters can't be done ITB, I proved to myself that is can. And, for thousands less than a full scale facility. I already know what big consoles sound is like. If I wanted the spend $200 grand on the setup, I would have already. I choose what I choose, not because of cost, but because it sounds huge and is what is expected.

Chris,

aren't you printing your 2 mix to a second uncoupled daw/recorder?

Kurt Foster, post: 422175, member: 7836 wrote: Chris,

aren't you printing your 2 mix to a second uncoupled daw/recorder?

Absolutely.

audiokid, post: 422176, member: 1 wrote: Absolutely.

not trying to be argumentative but that's not "in the box" .... at least technically ...... :LOL:. i would say itb means all mixing and recording goes on in the computer.

i don't doubt you are hearing what you are hearing. i know what i hear too. but i don't believe what i hear is what others hear too. everyone has a different experience. it's like when the cops question a crowd .... every one will say they saw something different.

in my experience, anytime i mixed through the 2-bus in Cubase it sounded like crap. and i was printing to a CDR, uncoupled. it didn't matter or make a bit of difference if i printed to the daw, to a stand alone CDR or back to an ADAT machine .... through the 2-bus came pure crap.

the second i began summing through a mixer the seas parted ... a difference of night and day anyone could hear. add to that the benefit of being able to use real processing instead of plugs. for me at this point, otb summing is the way.

still, i am willing to reserve judgement until i can re assess with different daw's. i would not dismiss that the problem might lie in the daw software itself.

Chris, is [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.amazon.c…"]this[/]="http://www.amazon.c…"]this[/] the version of Sampletude you use?

I use Sequoia.

Kurt Foster, post: 422177, member: 7836 wrote: not trying to be argumentative but that's not "in the box" .... at least technically ...... :LOL:. i would say itb means all mixing and recording goes on in the computer.

This is what I'm getting at, which I will share next, Wich is also what mastering engineers are doing for years now.
There is something that I cannot duplicate 100% ITB. I still need two DAW and to uncouple them. But, other than the converters, no gear. :whistle:

(keep in mind, you are hearing an MP3 as well) I don't hate MP3's as much. Another topic :)

Uncoupling and M/S processing.

I love distortion. I'm from the 70's, I'm a guitarist that grew up listening and emulating my sound to all the classics including, clean pickers. I think like a guitarist. I use summing box's like a stomp box on steroids. Thats what summing boxes are to me.

How many amps do you put together before it all sounds like crap. Distortion accumulates and its easy to turn a big mix to small without even knowing its happening.

No matter what genre, to my ears, everything sounds bigger when the tracking is a straighter wire. I love the option to be able to mix character after everything is mixed together.

Thinking like a guitarist mixing music: I love tubes and trannies and they do sound different at different places in a mix. Summing with Trannies via stems or in a well designed M/S matrix sounds pretty good.

If I want to mash it up using character gear, I personally prefer UA products over most because they really have a sound. I insert them in the M/S matrix. Its all it takes to create the sound of a vintage UA console. You don't loose the size of a mix but get that character throughout the whole mix like it was vintage tracked on a UA console, in the 21 century. Granted , you're not going to have all the cross talk, but it will have tube and tranny in a way that is undeniably big and grainy.

All you have to do is turn up the gain on either M or S with a the flavour of choice and it starts to glow. I find its better to pick one colour over numerous products (less is more) especially on the 2-bus. I love how tubes or trannies sound in the master section "closer to the capture side of two daws" in comparison to early on in a mix, via round trip "where the glow gets lost".
No matter how expensive your gear is, trannies smear something when you are linking stereo fields together. The analog circuits tend to smear the transients so its crucial where I put the distortion and how i sum all the time. Listening, Summing and uncoupling is the magic mojo here.

So, this is the contradiction to my ITB or OTB:

I'm also pretty stoked on a straight wire from one uncoupled DAW to the another. If I want colour, without disturbing the "in your face" sound, I can either get this by using a tranny in an analog M/S process ($$$) or (save e big $) using Sequoia to emulate all or everything. I as keep improving my skills, and software continues to improve, I'm certain it won't be long where it all can be done better ITB.

So, in the mean time, no matter which way I go, keeping the sides and center transients in tack all the way to the finish line is the goal. There are pro's and cons to the gear we use. It would be cool to have some big neve for the guys that (seeing is believing) and/or want smear and cross talk galore but to my ears, , what I just shared is the best way around the block at a fraction of the cost. Thats the best part of summing boxes.

WE can take a transparent mix and distort the hell out of it with a turn of a knob and still keep the transients in the lane. We can crush them to nothing, but they are still firing straighter.

This is the idea of hybrid and summing boxes. One DAW, Two DAW's, Consoles and DAW, its up to you.

Sequoia looks more like a broadcast / video editing and audio mastering platform rather than a daw production program. at 3k a pop, it is obviously aimed at the pro market.

would I use it if they gave me a copy? sure ... but no way could / would i pop for 3 large on anything, let alone something that will be have to be updated in 16 months. i'm not saying the intellectual property should not be recognized but i can't ever see it being something i could justify. i don't spend for fun. it has to make sense. i have been that way since i was kid.

Kurt Foster, post: 422182, member: 7836 wrote: Sequoia looks more like a video editing and audio mastering platform rather than a daw production program.

For the most part, yes. But Samplitude Pro X Suite has the majority.

This is where I would say, "pay attention to what mastering engineers are doing here". I don't believe other DAW's will do it as well but Ozone would be another choice. I suggest the second DAW be loaded with a mastering Suite that has well coded M/S .

Believe it or not i understood the idea and reasoning behind using 2 DAW's. I do not see any fault with mixing to Sequoia as a final mix destination (replacing the round trip or 1/4 final) Would be very easy to purpose build a PC just to operate the program. Buy/Build a good ADC/DAC. Great tools for mastering and output to various media/standards. makes sense. Although It would be further down the road before I would do something like that (Have other gear to get first).

I think a lot of us agree on this.
It appears there is something wrong with how we either hear or how one DAW sums.

I'm hopeful but have my doubts that this passive box will do much for you. You are missing 4 essential parts to what I need.

1. Uncouple DAW's
2. 2 channel high quality ADDA
3. Independent monitor control system.
4. Mastering Software with M/S processing.
   I'm thinking there is a correlation to do with "hearing" and one DAW won't allow me to monitor the 2-bus like two uncoupled DAW's do.

   The unanswered question I have:

   Is it the uncoupling between two DAW's or simply not being clocked to the first DAW? I don't know. I sure like uncoupling compressors apposed to locking transients together. I sure like keeping mono tracks tight.

   Maybe I prefer a converter that will uncouple the two DAW's because I don't have to bounce. I capture and export to MP3 or whatever the destination SR needs to be because it sounds tighter this way. MP3 sound better too. Is that an indication of something?

   Technically, my choice right now requires a DAD step between two DAW's but I'm not convinced I will be doing this forever.
   Contrary to what we've all been saying for the last 5 years, " that converters don't make that much difference", maybe they do.
   I don't know.
   For now AD > LINE IN > Prism converter DAW2 . This sounds the best. If I want to create a UA analog console, LA2A or 1176 in an analog M/S get it done.

   I'm not so certain I can get away without uncoupling something purposely somewhere. I'm questioning whats happening on the 2-bus of a DAW and I like what happens with M/S processing. There seems to be something good when we uncouple something.

Gette, post: 422185, member: 46761 wrote: Believe it or not i understood the idea and reasoning behind using 2 DAW's. I do not see any fault with mixing to Sequoia as a final mix destination (replacing the round trip or 1/4 final) Would be very easy to purpose build a PC just to operate the program. Buy/Build a good ADC/DAC. Great tools for mastering and output to various media/standards. makes sense. Although It would be further down the road before I would do something like that (Have other gear to get first).

Exactly. This is where we are all going to be looking Joel. Which leaves a bunch of questions as to why, and how a mastering grade summing box with M/S features begins to look like a pretty solid step. The Dangerous Master is what I use.

OR… you could do it my "old school" way and use a console….:ROFLMAO: One DAW as a multi track the other as the mix down recorder…

This is also why I am seeing the second DAW as a way to emulate that analog M/S process. The straighter wire sounds better. HOWEVER, I cannot get the same tube or wild tranny sound of UA gear ITb so far. I am wondering if an Apollo 16 might do it when it on the capture side after the console or simply between two DAW's.

You could also look at a DAC with a Trans on the output stage. Or you could modify one to have it

Gette, post: 422189, member: 46761 wrote: OR… you could do it my "old school" way and use a console….:ROFLMAO: One DAW as a multi track the other as the mix down recorder…

As I have been saying all along, a console looses the edge when you mix through it. You are better off bypassing it and using a tranny in a M/S matrix of a mastering quality router ( summing box) while utilizing the tracking DAW automation and plug-ins at this point. The idea of replacing your DAW for a console is of no benefit. You might like the tackle approach but you aren't gaining sonics going back through it all over again! ADDA / ADA You are creating accumulative transient smearing and distortions.

Mixing on a console is where you and I part.

When you have your console running perfect, we can do a simple test.

the [="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvintagemaker.net%2F&ei=PMaMVJjdFcfVoAS01oHYAg&usg=AFQjCNEVqm04G1Uips-PWhq9igil6Eu8ng&bvm=bv.81828268,d.cGU"]LittleOne[/]="http://www.google.c…"]LittleOne[/] is a solution for me. i am mixing to a second daw ... and i want better converters for that machine but i am not going to spend a years property tax on it .... it's gotta be affordable.

the [[url=http://="http://www.google.c…"]Little One[/]="http://www.google.c…"]Little One[/] eliminates my need for a mixer and allows me to get out of the computer without going through the 2-bus in the daw .... my own personal experience has proved to me that in my workflow, mix's sound better this way .... since i began recording on the computer this has been an issue for me.

i am not the least interested in mastering solutions. i just want to record and mix. M/S does not interest me either or anything else excessively tweaky. just want to rock record and mix ... and have it make me smile at the end of the day instead of wanting to pull out my hair.

Kurt Foster, post: 422193, member: 7836 wrote: i am not the least interested in mastering solutions. i just want to record and mix. M/S does not interest me either or anything else excessively tweaky. just want to rock record and mix ... and have it make me smile at the end of the day instead of wanting to pull out my hair.

Yes, I thought this too. Then realized the mastering engineers had it right all along. You are getting mastering confused. Its not the mastering, its the ability to keep the 2-bus transients from smearing it all up. Which is why you are doing this all in the first place.

you need to read over why I keep mentioning uncoupling and how this is a direct correlation with M/S decoding. :)

well… open minded thought. The most important piece of gear in today's studio would be your AD/DA converters. after all, that is what actually captures the audio and ultimately allows you to hear what you do with it. The idea of using two DAW's, I believe has more to do with this step. DA then back to AD. By not linking them (Clock), you are actually capturing deferent images of the analog signal then what was originally used to create it.

Ok, lets re explain that…. A digital picture in the daw, gets converted to an Analog signal from that image, then is re captured, out of sync from the original digital image… Make sense? I believe I could create a repeatable test to prove, this is why/how it sounds deferent.

audiokid, post: 422192, member: 1 wrote: Mixing on a console is where you and I part.

I know….

ok i'll bite .... i don't get this .... why do i need to dick with M/S decoding if i never recorded anything in M/S?

Kurt Foster, post: 422196, member: 7836 wrote: ok i'll bite .... i don't get this .... why do i need to dick with M/S decoding if i never recorded anything in M/S?

YES! now we are getting somewhere!

also maybe some would have issues with phase and need M/S decoding but i subscribe to the theory of L/R - Mono panning. no 9 or 3 o'clock panning. i also check phase and mono compatibility every step of the way when recording.

Kurt Foster, post: 422196, member: 7836 wrote: ok i'll bite .... i don't get this .... why do i need to dick with M/S decoding if i never recorded anything in M/S?

I'm going to get wordy.

You are thinking like a recordist after the fact. Stop that.
Once ITB, think like a sound engineer, sound designing or preserving/ improving the space the tracking guy gave you.. You are now trying to preserve and paint what the musicians and the recording was intending all along. The problem is, the 2-bus is all mashed together in a computer and you are now hating it. M/S processing is the best way to construct your M and Side information, BETTER. Up until now, you are thinking MS is about micing. forget that! NOW you are creating the room inside your box.

Think like a mastering engineer who is trying to stop the transients from smearing all over the place. Once you get this summing box, Kurt, start mixing into the master section. Thats the goal.
This is why I monitor off the second DAW. I am actually monitoring off the back end of the M/S matrix. I can hear how I am improving the space between the mid and sides better this way. True .

We mix into the M/S matrix.

• Mid and side processing on DAW 2.

• DAW1 is for mixing and prepare what you are summing too. DAW1 is your mixing console, DAW 2 is where you separate the Mid and Side better.

One might think we can do this all on one computer, but I can't. And this is why Bos and I use uncoupled DAW's. But, I take it a step further and mix into a M/S matrix. I will either us my analog M/S summing box or put it on the second DAW.

Picture this now.
The recordist gives us the tracks to paint a picture with. The summing mixer thinks like a mastering engineer going backwards. We use M/S processing to shade the sides while keeping the center clean and fat. We remove the freq that don't need to be on the sides. I roll off bass on the sides so the bass is more centered and fat. I add spacial texturing on the sides while keeping the center more focused. This is how you build more spacious mixes.

I check in mono all the time while building the mid and sides. In the end, you are able to paint the finishing white drop on the eye with the sun or storm surrounding using side processing. Its a rush!

M/S process will allow you to get bigger, clearer and louder mixes. Without this turning into a tutorial, I'm really sharing something special here. One step at a time. You get that box and see how it helps. If you can get a M/S processor loaded on the second DAW. We will share notes.

Kurt Foster, post: 422198, member: 7836 wrote: also maybe some would have issues with phase and need M/S decoding but i subscribe to the theory of L/R - Mono panning. no 9 or 3 o'clock panning. i also check phase and mono compatibility every step of the way when recording.

Again, that is exactly how I mix. But, I am able to hear the transients and where I need to HPF or LPF better this way. I don't mess with much other than filters.

Before I learned this, I EQ's too much. Now, I filter and have better control where these filters need to be..

I suppose a Harrison Mixbus would be something I might subscribe too. Filters! But, when you are using two DAW's like this, 2 DAW's are better than one because you are digging further into a mix where it counts. The idea is to keep the transients and avoid compressing. Very seldom do I even need a traditional compressor. ITB comps become essential tools for side chain processing, which are superior to analog. Most analog Comps are too slow for this.

When we use filters and are able to isolate the Mid and Side information better. We do less damage to everything. A console will never out perform ITB processing when it comes to filtering like this. Its such a big topic and a really exciting one. And we haven't even touched on spectral editing. I can only imagine where this is going to take me.

One might think we are getting too digital but I see it as superior ways to improve how we paint the picture using better spacial editing tools. As humans, we know when something is behind us or to the side with in 2 degree's. How do you create that on tape? If you don't care, you should. But we don't need to do that wth panning, we do it with filtering the M/S information and reverb. Digital technology is helping us capture a picture of the real world more possible. M/S processing rocks.

I'm not trying to demonstrate my skills, merely just letting you hear what a few UA trannies sound like in a M/S Matrix.

Here is a mix I did using M/S with two LA2A's. Barely kissing the needles, they added beautiful grit but it also lost a bit of clarity. Had I adjusted the upper mids on DAW 1 a bit more in the mix to compensate for the character, I could have gotten it even better keeping the center clear and beefier. Using the comps increased the reverb's out come which I should have pulled back a bit more on the snare DAW stem. Live and learn.

[MEDIA=soundcloud]audiokid/betterbymorning-la2a-master
[[url=http://[/URL]="https://soundcloud…"]View: https://soundcloud…]="https://soundcloud…"]View: https://soundcloud…]

Here is the same mix without them, straighter wire to the capture DAW. Still using M/S

The is a wave file so its not quite fare but still, an example.

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Public/better-by-morning-11-v-4.wav?_subject_uid=6883402&w=AACwSHxK3PwWcRu2nzjDXsgEP03vNMu54le9kZ90KDd_sg

i fail to "get it". i don't understand why i need to jump through all these hoops. i don't want to mess with M/S decoding and "recreating spaces" ... in fact the very idea annoys me to no ends. the idea that something "virtual" or "synthesized" is better than something real ... i made tons of wonderful analog recordings with so much less. now i have to do all this sh*t to get something listenable? anybody else see the 2000 lb gorilla in the room? .....

Kurt Foster, post: 422207, member: 7836 wrote: i fail to "get it". i don't understand why i need to jump through all these hoops. i don't want to mess with M/S decoding and "recreating spaces" ... in fact the very idea annoys me to no ends. the idea that something "virtual" or "synthesized" is better than something real ... i made tons of wonderful analog recordings with so much less. now i have to do all this sh*t to get something listenable? anybody else see the 2000 lb gorilla in the room? .....

Did that seriously go over your head this much? What a waste of an hour I'll never get back :eek: hehe.
I'm at a loss for words but i get it. I'm now thinking, WTH are you even using a summing box for. Seems like a lot of trouble with an added ADDA step. You crack me up.
Never the less, I cannot wait to hear an example of whatever you are attempting to do or improve. I hope you share your mixes, Kurt. :)

audiokid, post: 422208, member: 1 wrote: WTH are you even using a summing box for. Seems like a lot of trouble with an added ADDA step. You crack me up.

i'm using a summing box to mix out of a daw because it sounds better than going out of the 2-bus in the daw. .... we've been through that before.

i want to print to a simple program like Ardour or Audacity. then i can reload back into my daw for mastering / processing if i like. it's to replace the Mackie i use to sum / mix.

in the end i hope to find a deal on a Focusrite Forte' for 2 track A/D.... i am under the impression the pres in the Forte' are ISA types and the converters are better than many. am i right about this? something like the Forte' is about as spendy as i am willing to go.