Is this a MIX PLUS system, or 001 you're talking about?

We are using Mix Plus w/additional Mix Farm Card in 500mhz G4. TC Gold Channel used for overdub tracking :D ! Digidesign 1622 i/o & Mackie 16 channel VLZ mixer w/Purple Audio MC76 compressors used for band tracking. Mic's include: AT4033, AKG C2000B, AKG drum mic's shure SM57 and KSM32. Mostly my gear.
The individual tracking sounds wonderful! Even rough mixes we've recorded sound OK but never were considered as final mixes. Our latest attempts result with mix blend and impact lacking (all six of us agree).
We started this project with intention of going as far as the gear and our ability could take us. (ProTools very new to us).
But now considering a local studio for Final Mix/Mastering - only $$'s very tight (of course)...

Mixxed UP,

What is your complete pro tools setup?

you've prob. moved on by now, and i have no idea if you';ve researched the 40 million threads on the DUC and other places concerning PT mix sound quality, but the short list would be

1) mix using a 48bit dbl precision plugs (like waves, msdsp, not sure about others) volume graph, not digi volume.

2) not too many tracks near full volume, or too many in general...if you have to, submix...and when you do...

3) don't bounce to disc for the final mix...use digital out into 2 new tracks (set to bogus out so no feedback) ...folks find sound prob.'s there also

4) make sure you have a really good clocking source!

5) don';t limit the mix bus for max volume! save it for the masterererrer...

i'm sure they're more, but i gotta finish mixing this thing..in PT..right now :eek: ...ever heard of Warsaw NY?

lotsa luck...

First off, don't take everything you read on the DUC as gospel. Some people appear to have had difficulties with the quality when placing the faders in non-unity positions, taking the individual channels as direct outs and mixing on another desk. However, this isn't a problem when mixing within PT itself. Indeed, the advice of Digidesign and in my personal experience, using plugins to control the volume instead of the faders themselves actually results in less quality.

Another point is that you only mentioned the 1622 as your A/D converter. Remember that the 1622 is only a 20bit converter and is not of the quality of the 888/24s. I use a 1622 but only for synth/sampler inputs, I never track or output my main mix through it.

I definitely agree with Rader Ranch's points 3 & 4. Point 5 is good as well but if you absolutely have to master yourself then Waves L2 Ultramaximiser plugin is currently the only way to go.

It is possible to get excellent results without outboard gear but you need to be using the right plugins as many of them are very poor. The Digi plugins are pretty rough and I would never use them, except for the Reverb One which is the only plugin reverb on any platform that can compare with the mid to high end outboard gear available. However, I personally also use a PCM 91. Same with EQ (I use McDSP) and compression (I use Bomb Factory and outboard).

In short, it's certainly not as easy to produce a great sounding mix on PT as it is on say a Neve or SSL. But if you get the right plugins, are willing to work at it and are willing to change your approach to take advantage of the digital medium rather than trying to emulate the analog medium, it is possible to produce absolutely first rate mixes with PT.

Greg

I agree that you may want to check in to 24 bit converters going in.

I'm an amatuer, but have recorded two bands recently that preferred my sound to the local pro studio. (they paid there, I did mine for free) A few of the band members didn't even want to re-record (assuming they felt a home studio for free wouldn't even come close).

I use 24 bit AD/DA (888/24's right now), nicer pre's (Avalon, Manley, Amek 9098's, etc...), compression on the way in (Distressor's, RNC's, etc...), and the 48 bit plugs mostly (Waves, TC, BombFactory, WaveMechanics).

Maybe I just got better takes without any $$$/hr pressure, I dunno. Maybe a better vibe. Who knows.

They did send mine to the mastering house for print, though.

just my .02

He has a 24 bit converter in the form of the TC Gold Channel.

Are you connecting it via SPDIF to your 1620? I hope so!

Try Waves Q10, DUY Tape on the master fader + Waves L1 maximizer

Are you a/b ing between released CD's and your mixes? Dont forget to do this!

good luck!

:)

Jules

Hi Jules,

You're right, I missed the TC Gold Channel.

Just out of curiosity have you heard the L2? I'm sure that once you do you'll never want to use the L1 again, at least I didn't.

Greg

Hi Greg,
Yes I a/b ed it at the AES in Amsterdam... It did sound better, I want it.
:)
Jules

Originally posted by Greg Malcangi:
Hi Jules,

Greg

Geez!!
The wants list just keeps on growing doesn't it? It never ends funding it well hey, that's another holliday down the toilet then..... hmmnn :)

Simon

<< The wants list just keeps on growing doesn't it? It never ends funding it ...
>>

Welcome to owning your own studio. :D

I'm sure others have good solutions but I always put 10% of any fees received into a kitty for upgrades/improvements. This gives me a reasonable guilt free annual budget for gear while stopping me from blowing the lot!

Greg

I just tried a demo of McDSP Analog Channel. VERY cool.

Haven't tried DUY Tape, but the McDSP stuff sounded AWESOME on the master fader.

I believe the demo works for 14 days.

Also had a demo of L2 (only worked for 24hrs), but I noticed right away that you could drop the threshold more than twice as far as L1 before hearing that strained/nervous/whacky sound. Much smoother.

These two plugs made my last finished project sound more like a record than just five songs in a row.

Originally posted by Greg Malcangi:
<< The wants list just keeps on growing doesn't it? It never ends funding it ...
>>

Greg

Hi Greg,
damn good thinking if you ask me, with that kinda rational thinking, me an the spousage might get a holliday after all.

best
Simon

:cool:

Thanks for the responses. Yes, of course I know the 1622 is 20bit (16 channels were needed for tracking the band). We intend to upgrade as $$'s permit...

The TC Gold channel really produces wonderful sounding recordings (and is 24bit). We are looking at the Apogee Trac2 as a future possiblity for purchase.

Considering the 20bit converters used for the band tracking:

Is this project flawed right from the start?

Is it alrerady too late to try and salvage via plugins?

Is our best bet a studio?

As experience is gained, I expect to produce better mixes, but we have invested a lot of time on this recording. Our intention is a local release. :)

btw: local music scene in Buffalo could use more PT setups than ours!

Originally posted by Mixxed UP:
Is this project flawed right from the start?

not if you say the tracks sound good themselves, right? the enginneering grammie winnin' album this year was a 16 bit PT project (i haven't heard it, so i ain't gonna comment :D

btw: local music scene in Buffalo could use more PT setups than ours!

damn...it'd sure be nice to move back and hang with old buds again...but other than white xmasses, i'm not sure i'd be as into that lake effect snow as i was 15 years ago :eek: but lord what a house with real land i could buy for my family compared to here...the pain, the pain...

Greg Malcangi wrote: However, this isn't a problem when mixing within PT itself. Indeed, the advice of Digidesign and in my personal experience, using plugins to control the volume instead of the faders themselves actually results in less quality.

have to admit i hadn't heard of 3rd party plug volume automation making things worse for fully internal mixes. Greg, do you happen to remember digi's points enough to paraphrase, or remember some instances where you discovered this yourself? always curious to learn from others struggles with the many different PT setups out there...

Hi Mixed Up,

<< Is this project flawed right from the start? ... Is it alrerady too late to try and salvage via plugins? >>

Not nessesarily. Depends on the type of material and how pleased you were with the tracking.

<< What can I do to get the Pro-edge that I thought I was buying into? >>

I think you've slightly misunderstood all the marketing hype. Pro Tools is just that, a professional tool. Professional tools for any job are not of themselves any guarantee of "pro-edge" in the finished product. The "pro-edge" comes from the professional using them. Otherwise all you've got is a beginner with high quality tools.

So although you may not realise it, and baring in mind that Pro-Tools is a professional tool, the question you really asked was "how do I get good enough to get the most out of my tools?". Unfortunately for you this is a question that many of us here have spent many years trying to answer! :)

Essentially it's not that difficult to learn the ins and outs of delay, reverb, compression, EQ, etc. The difficult bit is learning how they all interact in a mix. Basically there is no subsitute for experience and the intelligence to learn from it. For this reason if no other it might be worth you going into a commercial studio for a while. Even after nearly 10 years in the business I still invariably learn something new and useful every time I go into a top class commercial studio.

Hi Rader Ranch,

<< have to admit i hadn't heard of 3rd party plug volume automation making things worse for fully internal mixes. Greg, do you happen to remember digi's points enough to paraphrase, or remember some instances where you discovered this yourself? >>

A bit off topic but here goes. Using direct outs and mixing on an external desk requires each output from PT to be individually truncated to 24bit. So at low fader levels you can sometimes hear noticable quantisation error artifacts. Mixing internally within PT is an entirely different ball game. The fader outputs are not truncated but passed direct to the mix bus which calculates values based on 56bit resolution. The resolution of plugins is only 24bit, even those that use 48bit precision math have to then dither back to 24bit. Obviously in this scenario, mixing internally and adjusting volume with plugs, you are adding dither noise and working at a resolution lower than the mix bus. It's not massive but I've tried it both ways and can hear the difference, even in double blind tests. Conversly if you are using direct outs it makes sense to leave the faders at unity and adjust volume from inserted 48bit precision dithering plugs.

Greg

Feedback welcome-

Well I gave mixing the first 5 tracks another shot. My results are still less than stellar :(

I believe the next step may involve retracking some of the vocals and Bass parts; as these tracks seem to be the most "needing of attention".

We are at the point where we would rather rerecord a track or two rather than try tweaking the sound via the Plugins currently available to us.

I like the idea of going into the studio to gain my chops w/PT's. A local Pro-Studio we have contacted sounded reluctant to OJT... but has allowed for 2 of us to sit-in during the "Mastering" of our final mixes.

What sort of outboard gear is available to provide analog tape compression simulation and tube warmth?

I think that maybe if the we rerecord with this effect encoded prior to digitizing, we will achieve better results with the Bass and vocals.

I have recently developed a theoretical problem with the concept of trying to introduce this effect via a TDM plug-in (DUY, McDSP, etc.) to a source file that is totally lacking of this character, and expecting to "rescue" it after-the-fact. Any thoughts?

Take care all...
Mixxed Up
null

Hi Mixxed up,

<< What sort of outboard gear is available to provide analog tape compression simulation and tube warmth? >>

An analog compressor with a tube! There are a lot of plugins out there that try to emulate existing gear. Without exception they are not as good as the gear they are trying to emulate. The occasional plugin, like the bombfactory compressors, get fairly close but mostly they are way off base. In fact, of all the plugs available across all the platforms probably less than 5% are in my opinion of decent enough quality to be worth owning.

<< I have recently developed a theoretical problem with the concept of trying to introduce this effect via a TDM plug-in (DUY, McDSP, etc.) to a source file that is totally lacking of this character, and expecting to "rescue" it after-the-fact. Any thoughts? >>

Without hearing what you have got and understanding what you want it's vitually impossible to say whether it is possible to "rescue" what you've already done. If as you say the character that you are looking for is totally lacking, I would guess that it's going to be at least very difficult. As a general rule you want to try to record a sound as close as possible to the sound you are looking for. If you only need to add a few plugins to your mix and they are only providing light processing, your mix will sound better than if you have to load up with plugs to try to get the sound you're after.

If you have an opportunity to sit in on a session in a pro-studio I would advise you take it. Keep your eyes and ears peeled and try to get as much as you can from the experience.

Good luck,

Greg

There's good news! The local music scene here in Buffalo can wait for you to perfect your mixes! You guys aren't desperate already are you? Relax. You've got a band, an Apple and ProTools....How bad can it be? My suggestions are ...

1) Educate yourself. You need to start working smarter not harder. I've learned a lot from you guys...I like the fact that you aren't afraid to ask questions...Now do your homework! 4 or 5 hours a day on these forums will straighten you right out !
I myself got hooked somewhere around "Jules reporting from OZ"...That was the coolest thing BTW !!!! Thanx Jules! I'm also inspired by MMAZUREK....mulchin' with the real studios...Are you crazy?
Nice job!
2) You might want to rethink your methodology a little...What kind of band are you anyway? For Pro Tool newbies, instead of trying to record 16 tracks at a time , with Mackies and 20 bit converters... How about refining your gear ...and tackling say...4 tracks of drums...for starters. You've already got the AKG drum mics...If you can, try starting out with a basic configuration...mic on kick..snare and two overheads...The track 2 can wait...For the money, you might be better off with something like the RME 8 ch conv...adat bridge and the True System's Prec. 8..mic pre.... (example of an upgrade...)
Your signal path is only as good as your weakest link...blah, blah, blah...tools like these could help you take your tracking sessions to the next level! Just remember..one step at a time... Good Luck ! Flush

Hi, you can mix in protools! It just takes a while to understand how to. If your tracking sounds good you haven't lost any ground.
Maybe get someone else to mix it but go direct out on all tracks.
Or stick at it, Once you get the hang of it, it is fantastic!
I use the same session players quite often ,
All the plugin settings I made for these guys that I saved from previous session are instantly recalled to use in new sessions & I am taking about 15 to 30 min a song to mix a 4 piece band with all the spatial stuff totally finished. I am listening to the mix & there is not a single thing I can do to improve it, so the mixes are the final ones.
ProTools can work for you! It took me about 6 months to adjust to mixing totally within it. So if you have the time.
If you haven't email me & I can talk you through it.
You can download the setting through the Protools plugin preset co op site
Regards Michael earthmedia@optushome.com.au

Hi guys!
Greg?

You said " Mixing internally within PT is an entirely different ball game. The fader outputs are not truncated but passed direct to the mix bus which calculates values based on 56bit resolution. The resolution of plugins is only 24bit, even those
that use 48bit precision math have to then dither back to 24bit. Obviously in this scenario,mixing internally and adjusting volume with plugs, you are adding dither noise and working at a resolution lower than the mix bus. It's not massive but I've tried it both ways and can hear the difference, even in double blind tests."

I admit to being more than a little dence on this kind of thing.. It's not clear to me which is "better" in the above post despite me re-reading it many times over! I would love clarifacation!

:)

I mix internaly.

Out of more superstition than anything else, I use the optional "Dithered mixer"

Presently I get a rough mix of static elements, then instance Waves Ren 4 eq's on each track and copy the fader levels on the mixer, on the plugs fader.

I had it in mind this was getting me a fatter sound than using the fader to reduce the levels away from zero.

Then I procede with mixing on a ProControl and use the mixers faders from there onwards.Most time they sit on or'around' zero.

Could you please be so kind as to tell me WHAT I AM DOING!

Is what I am up to a valid exersise? (I admit I am following advice I got a long time ago off the Digi site from another user) thanks in advance

Long live PT!

:)

Jules

P.S. a refined discussion re the above practice and the use of RTAS plugs would also be of great interest! :) Am I correct in thinking that might even yeald a BETTER sound? (that is if I'm not already wasting my time with that 'mix fader on zero , level set with plug' trick!)

Hi Jules,

First, the dithered mixer. In the original test between the dithered and undithered mixers I spent a lot of time trying out different mixes. Although I could hear a difference between them, I didn't think that one was particularly any better than the other. However, on an number of mixes I could hear a higher noise floor with the dithered mixer, due presumably to the additional dither noise. For this reason and because the dithered mixer uses more resorces I don't use it.

I eventually got my head around the technical side of things regarding mixing levels with plugs rather than the faders. I then set up a test and low and behold the information supplied during the thread by Digi proved to be correct. Basically, the input and output of all inserts (and sends) in PT are 24bit. So in your case you feed a 24bit signal to your RenEQ which then changes the levels using 48bit precision maths and the resulting audio is then dithered or truncated (not sure which the RenEQ does) back to 24bit before being passed on to the fader and then the mix bus. However, if you use the individual channel's fader to control volume the resulting changes are passed on to the mix bus without truncating back to 24bit because the mix bus has a 56bit resolution. Obviously if you are mixing externally you are bypassing PT's mix bus and going direct out from a 24bit interface so the fader's output is truncated.

In short, if you are mixing internally use the channel's fader to control volume rather than a plug. On the other hand if you are outputting channels through your interface you are better of leaving the fader at zero and adjusting volume using a plug. So in your case you should be mixing your levels with the faders (on your ProControl) as you would on any other system but your master faders, the channels which are going to be output at 24bit, should be left at zero.

I'm not sure how well I've explain this. Let me know if you still have any confusion. BTW Jules, where are you based?

Greg

I'm based in North London.

So! That stuff I am doing is a waste of time!

Hmmm rats..

And perhaps the ditherd mixer too!

I alway understood that the trip away fron zero on the digi mixer - was bad voodoo.

Oh, vell bek to zee olt drawink board zen!

How about RTAS then, isn't that a higher 'resolution' or something like that??? (!) would the plug in trick work with that?

thanks,

I wonder what Speer thinks of this...Speer? You arround? (He is a Digi voodoo / user folklore beliver like me!)

:eek:
:c:

Hi Jules,

I seem to remember that Speer favours the dithered mixer. Each to his own. I think it depends on personal preference and to a large extent your monitoring environment. Perhaps my environment is more sensitive to the noise floor.

<< So! That stuff I am doing is a waste of time! >>

Afraid so. If you were taking all of your channels out individually and mixing on an external desk then what you are currently doing would give the best results, but not if you're mixing internally within PT (or via a ProControl).

<< How about RTAS then, isn't that a higher 'resolution' or something like that??? (!) would the plug in trick work with that? >>

The resolution of the plugin itself makes little difference as it's output still has to be truncated or dithered back to the 24bit resolution of the TDM bus. When mixing internally your main channel faders are not truncated or dithered because the output is passed straight to the 56bit mix bus. Theory, common sense and my own experience dictates that truncating/dithering every individual channel in a mix has got to represent poorer quality than if you don't.

North London eh? I'm just a little way north of London myself.

Greg

i seem to remeber reading somewhee around here that it's advised to not use bounce to disk, but to send the mix out, and back in to a new pair of tracks. what's the thinking behind this, and is there any truth to it?

quote:Originally posted by BZ:
i seem to remeber reading somewhee around here that it's advised to not use bounce to disk, but to send the mix out, and back in to a new pair of tracks. what's the thinking behind this, and is there any truth to it?

I have done a couple experiments. Upon reversing polarity and blending the 2 versions together, the only differences left were in "random" elements such as dither noise and complex reverbs.

There have been people who did the same type of experiment and perceived a loss of dimensional quality. I propose a few UNtested theories to explain this.

1. Inferior Sync. If ProTools is using internal sync, perhaps there is some type of jitter induced when the BTD function is used. When I did my experiments, external sync was used.

2. "Random" based effects algorithms (such as those in reverbs) carry a lot of the weight for spatial qualities in many mixes. Maybe the processing for such algorithms really is suffering from some artifact in the BTD function? If #1 is true, this is the first places jitter will be likely to have a detrimental effect.

3. Automatic application of inferior digidesign dither not disabled?

4. Imagination.

5. Digidesign fucked up, and they know it. But they still won't admit it.

If anyone cares to explore these, I'd love to hear the results. To tell the truth, all my own suggestions sound out on a limb to me. Fortunately, I don't have much need for BTD.

For those who need a bottom line: If YOU hear a difference and you don't like it, don't BTD. If you don't hear a difference, or you do and it's not enuf to make you lose sleep, go ahead and BTD till the cows come home.

Thanks greg,
Hop to email comunication if you want to drop by,
standen@btinternet.com
Jules

Hi Angelo,

Like you I carried out some bounce to disk tests and I couldn't detect a difference. However I don't have much need of this feature either so perhaps it only occurs on certain types of mix. BTW, again like you my system is properly clocked.

As to your point 5, although Digi do sometimes blow it, they are generally reasonably good at admitting it. You can never be absolutely certain though.

Greg

Convert after checked ? A new feature in 5.1.1 ?

WTF is that?

It's "supposed to sound better" say the digi witch doctors

???????

:)

Were the f^^*k is it anyway?

Jules

Yeah, in 5.1.1 you have to select whether you want your BTD converted "during" the bounce, or "after" the bounce. This would make more sense if you're converting 24 to 16 bits or to MP3 format, but it's there even if you're just doing a 24-bit BTD to the native sdii format. If you select "after", then once the file is created, it then does something to "convert" it to sdii format. You watch as the little window pops up and shows the file being processed with a "progress bar". It doesn't make much sense when you're just doing sdii files at the same bit depth, but it's there anyways.

To MixedUp: The clock source can make a pretty noticeable difference in the depth and spacialness of a mix. Getting a Nanosync or even a Rosetta will definitely improve the sound from the better clock in those. I only have an 001, but since adding the RME to my system, the mixes have definitely stepped up a notch.

We haven't heard from Mixxed up in a month... I hope everything is alright... Should I call the Police? Yo! Mixxed up... How are those mixes coming?

my guess is that its not the gear, but the engineer thats causing the demo sounding mixes.

eez!!The wants list just keeps on growing doesn't it? It never ends funding it well hey, that's another holliday (sic) down the toilet then.....
hmmnn

Welcome to the world of digital audio and marketing. Sure, we can sell you a 24-track work station for $1000. BUT, in order to record 24 tracks at once you'll need interface XYZ2000, $2500srp. AND, if you need more than twenty minutes of recording time, you'll need the optional SCSI card and 20Gig drive: $1400srp. Oh, you want to hear all this "perfect" data? Then you'll need optional analog I/O card ANL500: $799srp. You see where this is going.
Of course, since it's all digital, our stuff won't work with their stuff, so don't even think that when we said "SCSI" you could hook up any old drive to our bus: BUY OURS!
Think I'll hug my old JH.
:cool:

The mixing/recording of our current project hit a snag due to our Bass player being an army reservist...
Anyway, the project has progressed with some of the tracks re-recorded and processed with the Purple Audio compressor. They sound better, but not always the same tones in all cases :) .

Hi everybody

I'm a bit late, but I have a question regarding Pro Tools Fader levels: Why should I set the levels in a plug in , while I'm mixing on an analog desk with automation?
I'm doing it the old way: mixing desk with nice outboards/efx. So I go direct out to the desk with all channels - every signal gets tuncated to 24 bit (but my files are 24 bit, what gets truncated?

Thanx to everyone - one of the best threads about pro tools and I read a few.
jo

Hi Jo,

<< So I go direct out to the desk with all channels - every signal gets tuncated to 24 bit (but my files are 24 bit, what gets truncated? >>

If your faders are at unity and you've got no plugs on the channel, then nothing gets truncated as like you imply, there is nothing to truncate. However, the act of moving a fader off unity or putting a plug on the channel introduces mathematical calculations on your 24bit file. A large part of the result might end up being outside the 24bit window. Let me give you an example: Let's say you record a track leaving a bit of headroom so that you are using 22 of the 24bits available. You then lower the fader half way to infinity. You have halved the resolution, you are now only using 11 of the 24bits. The other 11bits of your 22bit recording fall outside the 24bit window and have been discarded (truncated). To get around this problem PT calculates the results of the fader moves at 48bit resolution. So even when you halve the resolution with the fader all 22bits of your track are retained. Of couse you now have a 48bit file stored internally by PT which at some stage you have to get back to 24bit to output. You can either do this with truncation or dither + truncation. In reality the maths don't quite work as I have indicated but the principle is the same.

There are two main ways of using PT: As a recorder/editor or as a recorder/editor/mixer. If you are using PT only as a recorder/editor then use it as a recorder/editor and don't be tempted to use any of the mixing functions, that's what your external desk is for! The problems that seem to have arisen are if you are using PT as a recorder/editor and mixing externally but decide to do some of the mixing in PT, like changing the gain or using some plugs. If you absolutely must do this then you may get better results by changing gain using a 48bit precision plug that dithers it's output rather than using the main faders.

Jo it seems like you are doing it right so you've nothing to worry about.

Greg

I'm not worrying, because it sounds good to me, but everyday I learn something new - so I'm alive.

I agree with some people here, he just needs more experience. I've heard some near-pro mixes done with crappy 8-track digital devices.

While working in a local studio, I have been able to isolate the problems with our approach. Generally speaking, I have found that many projects submitted locally for "Mastering" suffer from the following:

1-Over compression or heavy limiting
1a-over-used analog tape compression simulation

2-Unfocussed/distorted low end of mix

3-wandering stereo image

Although some of the problems can be attributed to the producer, generally the problem resides in use of low-cost "budget" equipment.

I've found that major improvements to our sound can be wrought by two simple improvements to our system.

1-Recording a project in full 24-bit using a high 88.2 or 96k sample rate.

2-Full spectrum reference monitors - that do not rely on use of a subwoofer.

Due similar project studio submissions, I have made this assessment. Any comments???? I have found that projects recorded 24/96 throughout sound best and end up producing the best mixes. I suppose we will all be saying the same of 192 and 384, but really 24/96 does produce better sounding 16-bit 44.1k final mixes.

Anyway, with this in mind, We fully expect to be upgrading to the new PT's (when available). I've been reading about a new and improved hardware/software system release soon. We will upgrade the AD/DA converters to take advantage of the new recording resolutions. Also, we will upgrade the reference monitors (probably this will be upgraded first).

My time in the studio has proved very beneficial. I will be applying my hands on knowledge on our current gear in the mean time.

Mixxed Up

My feeling is that you're getting too caught up in the equipment and not enough in the fundementals. We've all heard of great records made by great engineers/musicians on not so great equipment. My suggestion is that you work with your current gear and force it to sound good through good playing and good engineering. There's really no need for new toys for you yet. Great gear is no silver bullet - great engineering/musicianship/songs/musical arrangements is.