Indeed. Thanks Kurt.

Chris Perra, post: 417705, member: 48232 wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by track count. .

Mastering engineers often say they like these high end converters or that one because they can get another dB or 2 vs cheaper ones when coming back in from outboard gear.

If you need compression eq or effects and you don't have it in outboard gear.Just a mic and a pre. I think a uad plug in is a good idea vs nothing.

Odd ly, I just got a PM from Donny saying I am being rude to this chap so I am trying to be kind while I bite my fingers and take pills to keep me from hitting the delete button..

Last question(s) Chris,
Are compressors (or what) do Mastering Engineer use to get more volume in mastering?

I don't disagree. I never disagreed.. But I believe it should be the last thing to upgrade if you have RME level stuff.

Compressors can give you more perceived volume, as their function is to reduce peaks. Then you can increase the volume of the difference but the actual volume is the same.
Unless you crank the output which is at that point in time a volume control not a compressor.

Some high end converters can take more gain on the input with less artifacts and distortion. You wind up getting max headroom that way, you get better Db range than with cheaper converters that can clip at the same signal going in. Is that the converter or the pre if there is a pre,, ?. I dunno but some prefer certain brands over another for those properties.

Chris Perra, post: 417709, member: 48232 wrote: Compressors can give you more perceived volume, as their function is to reduce peaks. Then you can increase the volume of the difference but the actual volume is the same.
Unless you crank the output which is at that point in time a volume control not a compressor.

Some high end converters can take more gain on the input with less artifacts and distortion. You wind up getting max headroom that way, you get better Db range than with cheaper converters that can clip at the same signal going in. Is that the converter or the pre if there is a pre,, ?. I dunno but some prefer certain brands over another for those properties.

I wouldn't know, I never push my "high end" converters into overkill.
I never knew this about compressors? I mean, I use a digital limiter for controlling peaks.

Ha ha ok you changed your question..

Typically mastering engineers will lay out and album of material front to back. Take a look at the tracks, and do volume adjustments in a daw first for over all volume changes like if a section is too loud, or not loud enough for dynamic impact. Then they might apply reverb eq and compression on each track to even out the tracks so they don't have to be adjusted once you set up you volume and eq for the first song. Some do multiband compression.. a limiter is used to control the ceiling. If using a hybrid system feeding your mastered stuff up until the limiting stage into some high end converters can give you a bit more volume as it doesn't clip or cause artifacts a quickly as cheap ones. That way the limiter doesn't have to limit as much inside the daw as the max gain before clipping going in has been increased and the daw doesn't have to do it as much.

Chris Perra, post: 417708, member: 48232 wrote: I don't disagree. I never disagreed.. But I believe it should be the last thing to upgrade if you have RME level stuff.

What does RME have to do with anything? They make prosumer and high end products.

What interface would you recommend for me and why?

The OP has an Rme setup,.... he's the guy that was asking.

What RME interface?. or interface in general..?

The first question is what workflow and gear to do you have?....

Chris Perra, post: 417711, member: 48232 wrote: Ha ha ok you changed your question..

Typically mastering engineers will lay out and album of material front to back. Take a look at the tracks, and do volume adjustments in a daw first for over all volume changes like if a section is too loud, or not loud enough for dynamic impact. Then they might apply reverb eq and compression on each track to even out the tracks so they don't have to be adjusted once you set up you volume and eq for the first song. Some do multiband compression.. a limiter is used to control the ceiling. If using a hybrid system feeding your mastered stuff up until the limiting stage into some high end converters can give you a bit more volume as it doesn't clip or cause artifacts a quickly as cheap ones. That way the limiter doesn't have to limit as much inside the daw as the max gain before clipping going in has been increased and the daw doesn't have to do it as much.

I wasn't aware Mastering Engineers layed out tracks and did all this.

Why would you need to limit your master tracks into a converter? I can see using filters but not a limiter.
A digital limiter is faster than hardware based. This makes no sense to limit your signal OTB > AD? Can you explain this more?

Read the description again.. Up until the limiting stage..

So album layed out and adjusted in daw.. then send out to hardware for reverb, compression, eq... Then sent to another Daw or back in to same daw with particular converters
Daw does the limiting after receiving the hardware altered material. If the signal going in is a bit hotter without clipping then the daw limiter has to do less work.

Some mastering engineers like that.

I find it hard to believe that you don't know the workflow of a mastering engineer. The idea is to make an album sound consistant from start to finish so that if you set your eq and volume to start with you don't need to adjust as you go along.

An album can be mixed and recorded by many different people in different locations and sound very different. Mastering is supposed to be used to make all your tracks cohesive.

This kind of thru me. You mentioned mastering engineers using reverb and compression and laying out the tracks / compressing them.
Still unsure about M.E. using reverb, I don't know many who do that! Although, I do this for stem mixing and if a track is really dull, I may emulate space.
I'm now assuming you are referring to the levels of 10 songs so they are balanced and flow with consistency. Like the good old days when we listened to an album or full CD of songs.

It sounds like you have this all worked out and certainly don't need my input. :notworthy:

Cheers!

Yes the good old days. However most people still do albums.

Quite often ME's will use a touch of reverb on a dry track to match others to give it space and depth..

Bob Katz and Bob Ludwig mention it here.

View: http://youtu.be/hZk…

I bought it years back. You should order it ;)

Books are only good if you can remember what's in them..haha.

So..... Donny,.. audiokid, Josh, are we gonna have a mix off?.. UAD vs Samplitude!!!!!

Someone with Waves who loves them or PSP, or Any kind of "totally in the box" plug ins.. as long as you list what you used.. Should do it as well..

If Donny is looking for the best mix out there... More is better..

Then we can have a mastering off as well.. For anybody interested...

I was reading the post on Mastering as a dying art.. Posting your work/samples is a great tool to learn..

Samples should be out there to show the difference not talk about the difference..

More ears on more speakers is the best thing anybody can do to get better.

Let's do this!!!!

I should mention I think I like the sound of X/Y better than the modified Glynn Johns I had going on before... I would not have thought that had I not posted and audiokid mentioned he thought things were phazey. Only possible by testing and posting..

Chris Perra, post: 417734, member: 48232 wrote: So..... Donny,.. audiokid, Josh, are we gonna have a mix off?.. UAD vs Samplitude!!!!!

Someone with Waves who loves them or PSP, or Any kind of "totally in the box" plug ins.. as long as you list what you used.. Should do it as well..

If Donny is looking for the best mix out there... More is better..

Then we can have a mastering off as well.. For anybody interested...

I was reading the post on Mastering as a dying art.. Posting your work/samples is a great tool to learn..

Samples should be out there to show the difference not talk about the difference..

More ears on more speakers is the best thing anybody can do to get better.

Let's do this!!!!

a "mix off" is a stupid idea.

all you will surmise is who did a better job of mixing. if you want to make a test, the only way a decent comparison would be made is if the same person did the mix in exactly the same way in different DAWs and itb vs. otb trying to duplicate them as much a possible. it would be difficult. . i my self did a mix of a song in Cubase summing itb and then Cubase summing otb with hardware verbs and compression and imo the otb with hardware was miles above the itb in sound and quality with much more depth / dimension to the overall mix.

Ahh.. but do you have Uad?.. I think if samplitude has good enough plug ins, it should be able to compete or beat Uad..

audiokid should have an advantage with his experience but I think Uad would prevail.

This is also to help out Donny.

It's a win win as it's a valid test where the variables are daw vs 3rd party used by different mixers. Same tracks.. only in a daw.. only difference is plug ins and daw and skill.. Which is how the real world works..

Someone with more skill using the same platform. .ie: in the box with the same source. . Should be able to do a mix equal or better than someone with Uad..

We won't know if that's true unless people buck up and do it.. has it been done before? I dunno..

the converter thing has been done to death.

I don't think this has. ..

you should do a mix outside the box Kurt to trump us all.

it's not just the gear ... it's the ears too. the only way the mix off would be of any viability is if the same person did all the mix's. three different mixers will bring three different sets of values to the table. it's not just the tools, it's the people using the tools.

you really are a contrary suck aren't you? you really think you know it all .... i'm going to label you "mr. wonderful".

Label me what you want. What's wrong with helping out Donny and giving real world examples of different ways to do things.

I'm willing to put my stuff up and show my convictions. . Whether or not my stuff or opinions are valid get judged by those who listen to actual examples rather than statements that can neither be confirmed or denied because it's hear say..

I don't think that contrary....that's putting thoughts and opinions to the test through stuff people can evaluate.

When you make a statement that you can do a mix just as good using just Daw plug ins vs Uad..

Are you supposed to just accept that as a fact?. This is the forum admin saying this.. I'm willing to be enlightened. . I need examples to make that decision though.

What difference does the mixer have to do with it?.. if its better it's better.. end of discussion.

it is contrary. everything someone else says, you argue with them. very contrary. you don't know how to accept that someone else may simply have a different opinion or hear something differently than you do. i guess because you have so much invested in UAD cards and plugs you feel you need to protect the investment? any quality outboard will blow away your UAD cards / plugs. plugs suck! you have a need to prove that you are right and they are wrong. just drop it Chris.

I need to see examples to see if I'm right in my opinions. Has nothing to do with right or wrong.

Without examples it's all just talk.

There's no way everyone can have used every thing gear wise. That's why forums are great for people to have discussion and share examples of what they are hearing..

reminiscing about researching converters I went to another popular forum. . There was so many examples of comprehensive testing of many top converters.

I see lots of opinions on this forum very few examples to go with the opinions.

I've been willing to post for good or bad. I in fact learned that I prefer the X/Y over what I was using. audiokid was the reason that happened.

there are a few guys that hang here that have used almost everything ... i owned a 3000 ft 2" analog studio with a sh*t load of great analog outboard ... Eventide HD3000SE lexicon pcm 60,70,80,90.... vintage Teletronixs LA 2a, la3's la4's 1178, LA-22's, MCI 2"with 16 & 24 track headstacks and jh10b 1/4" machines, JH636 desk .... C12a, C24, U87ai, Beyer 160, M201's .. 421's and a whole lot more ... and i'm here to tell you that rig blew the doors off any UAD sh*t (and any other DAW crap).

That's fine. care to share your work?. I will,... I have... Now my opinion on that is formed by actually using hardware and testing the results. I would tend to agree with you that Hardware beats plug ins in general.. But you saying that alone isn't going to be good enough.. People on forums who ask questions are looking for answers. Unless they can trust that the people posting know what they are talking about with examples on their website or what they post on the forum, It's just talk.

So far in this thread aside form you thinking I'm just trying to prove I'm always right.. Your only contribution is "Some people hear things and some people don't"

And "I used to have all kinds of awesome gear that was way better than any plug ins."

Both of those statements may be true but not help full in anyway without something for people to evaluate.
Somehow people have to know that you (Or I for that matter) know what you are talking about. Without a website with examples or examples added to the forum to validate your opinion. The statements don't really help anyone.

Kurt... What do you use these days. Do you have any Uad stuff?

Kurt is right. If 2 persons are to compare their mix of the same content, 80% will be comparing mixing skills and tastes. Not gear!

@Chris Perra : You are missing a few critical points. For any valid scientific test you would NEED ;

Required :

1. A tuned control room and good monitors
   1. if the music is not reproduced with fidelity you may be tricked by erratic frequency response
   2. Trained ears and some validation : to be able to recognize the difference between the sounds and there sonic properties.
      1. I meen, if you can't ear the difference you're wasting your time in any test.
      2. In that same room : 2 a specific unit (one plugin, one well calibrated hardware unit)
         1. You need to threat the 2 signal in the same room because the adjustments will be different if the room sound different.
         2. A recording of a complex well recorded content (good mics/pre, perfect room...): some piano or guitar or a complete song
            1. the content need to be of wide frequency spectrum for us to hear how the gear affect the sound on any frequency
            2. Accurate Converters AD and DA : yes high end ones some Mitek or Lavry or better.
               1. If a converter sound like crap and is not transparent, everything will sound the same...
               2. Common Taste
                  1. This is a tricky one, but if someone likes a nazal sound, you can feed him any perfect sound and he won't like it.
                     Method :
                     1. Double the content on two seperate tracks of your DAW or send one to UAD and the other to the OTB hardware
                     2. Adjust the plugin and the OTB unit with the same settings
                     3. record back BOTH signals either on the same DAW or on a Second One(second computer) or on an OTB digital recorder
                        1. if you compare the signal with plugin ITB, that signal won't go through the same converter and it won't be a valid comparation
                        2. Compare the signals
                           FYI, When I say you, I'm pointing to anybody who wants to make this test not a specific person.

                           In the end, a person may not need all this to be certain OTB gear is best. It may become obvious the first time you try it.
                           I meen UAD is better than some of the thousands of plugin out there. But any body with a real LA2A will tell you that no emulation will sound as sweet. Call UA and ask, they will say it's not the same but sound good ! Or go in NewYork to record with Fab Dupont, who made a lot of UAD demos. Go in is studio and check the rack. If UAD was better, why the hell would he buy all the original gear?

                           On a personnal note to Chris : recording is not like religion, we don't need to convince anyone of anything. If you are satisfied with your actual gear, I envy you and I'm glad for you. You got your recipe right and it's working wonders, so it's wonderfull. If somehow I got a different recipe, it doesn't meen your recipe is unvalid, nor than mine is. We simply went different routes my friend !

I don't think a mix off is a scientific test. .

It just shows the possibilities of what's possible using just Daw plug ins vs Uad..

I've never said Uad is as good as hardware..

This idea that this has to be perfect or that had to be perfect for it to be a valid test would too picky. For one to be better it needs to be better.. that's all. Using the same source tracks and only using in the box should be good enough.

The people listening to the results are the ones who will determine what they like the best. There's no convincing going on. When you don't have examples that's when the convincing happens.

problem is when you say "better", what does that mean? better to you might suck to me ... in fact i bet it would. to judge a mix is very subjective regardless of what tools are used. you seem to have a hard time wrapping your brain around this.

as far as the work i did in my commercial studio you need to check out my credits and buy one of the records i made. a lot of them are available on Amazon.com or directly from the record companies. i can't just post them because of contractual conflicts. I did records for JSP Records (Jackie Payne / Kenny "Blue" Ray), Cleopatra Records (Nik Turner / Spiral Realms) , Demon Records (Brownie McGhee) recordings for memebers of The Tubes, Tower of Power, Huey Lewis & the News and many others. you will have to dig but they are there.

I don't believe that my tracks are the right ones to test both plugs and converters - if that is indeed the test.

They might suffice to a comparison for the UAD vs Stock Plugs using GR and EQ .... but for a conversion A/B test, I'd think that you would want something a bit more intimate, organic, like perhaps a solo piano, or an acoustic or classical guitar, maybe....something that will allow the listener to hear things - those subtle nuances that they might not hear as well in a rock mix with distorted guitars, etc., and besides, this type of softer, organic-based stuff is generally where I think cheap converters make themselves the most apparent, ( badly apparent) anyway.

I'll upload any tracks you guys want, I've been saying I would all along, but as of yet, no one has provided a place for me to do that, nor has anyone stipulated format - .wav or hi res MP3 as the source format to work from. Obviously, .wavs are gonna be of better sonic quality, but, they'll take longer to upload - and, I'll do it that way if you guys want me to, as long as I know I'm not doing it for the tracks to just sit there unused for weeks.

Let me know...

ohh for pity’s sake ... the whole mix off idea is just plain stupid with a capital S ... first off you're talking about digital .. an imperfect medium at best ...if you really care that much you'd be tracking to large format tape and using a large format console ... anything else is crap! next you're most likely going to use a lo rez mp3 or similar format and last as i have said several times the results will be very subjective at the least.

Donny should do the comparison as he outlined and keeping the files as pure as possible and free from being transferred via internet ... then let him make the judgement. he probably has the best ears around here.

@Chris Perra ; i'll just say it. UAD plugs and processing is the best thing since cotton candy. it the bee's knees. yup, i wouldn't use anything else ..... there, happy now? good! ... now stfu. geez! frikin' drummers! this thing should have stayed locked ....

Chris Perra, post: 417752, member: 48232 wrote:
This idea that this has to be perfect or that had to be perfect for it to be a valid test would too picky. For one to be better it needs to be better.. that's all. Using the same source tracks and only using in the box should be good enough.

The people listening to the results are the ones who will determine what they like the best. There's no convincing going on. When you don't have examples that's when the convincing happens.

You are perfectly right, music and recordings doesn't have to be perfect for people to enjoy.
And if those who listen the pirated mp3 at 128kbps are the judges, they surely won't hear the difference between a 3000$ or a 3$ converter since the mp3 has been bit cruched already.

Please forget about a mix contest with suggestive people being judges, no pro engineer will participate ! I mean if you want me to crush a diamond to dust and ask random people to compare it to sand, how would you take the results seriouly ??

Chris, your opinion is valid and shared by a lot of people. But many person on this forum aspire to better themself so they are not interested to validate that lesser quality gear is as good as higher quality.

Just know that some common people have good ears too.. ;)

Kurt, better is to the listener.. You don't win a prize... if someone can hear the same source tracks mixed and decide they prefer the mix only using daw plug ins in comparison to Uad wouldn't that be a valuable thing to them in their search for direction in the pantheon of gear choices. .

As far as it being a digital source.. every single day people make pro albums using digital gear.

You can't test converters in a digital based mix off as its already been captured. .

One last thing... you guys really need to read through this thread again..

Not once have I said Behringer converters are on par with high end converters like Prism or Lavery.. Only that if you have Rme level converters which the OP already has the jump to better ones is expensive and not as big a deal as upgrading mics and pres.

Also I've never said Uad is better than hardware.
Only that I believe Uad is better quality than what comes in a stock daw.

I also belive the "Phasing" audiokid heard was because of my mic placement. . Not my converters. .. I think the samples provided give people the ability to judge for themselves. .

If you guys disagree with those convictions that's fine.. I would say that those concepts are exactly the same as you have. Most professionals would.

Except maybe my converters..

The only difference is that for some reason you wouldn't want to help out Donny and test the theory of stock daw vs Uad..

Chris Perra, post: 417758, member: 48232 wrote: Kurt, better is to the listener.. You don't win a prize... if someone can hear the same source tracks mixed and decide they prefer the mix only using daw plug ins in comparison to Uad wouldn't that be a valuable thing to them in their search for direction in the pantheon of gear choices. .

Not once have I said Behringer converters are on par with high end converters like Prism or Lavery..

Also I've never said Uad is better than hardware.
..

Chris : If I mix the same song twice, with the same exact Tools the 2 mixes won't sound the same. So by asking 2 persons to mix with different tools, you will only compare their creativity and taste of the moment! I don't know why you can't understand that !

Why don't you make the comparation yourself for us to enjoy ? Mix a song with stardard plugins and UAD. Either if you go scientific and replicate the settings or not, I will gladly blindfoldly tell you which I like the most !

Chris Perra, post: 417758, member: 48232 wrote: Kurt, better is to the listener.. You don't win a prize... if someone can hear the same source tracks mixed and decide they prefer the mix only using daw plug ins in comparison to Uad wouldn't that be a valuable thing to them in their search for direction in the pantheon of gear choices. .

No! Simply because whichever plug-ins, hardware etc. are in use are not the only variables. Much larger variations are going to be down to the individual's choice of the use of processing and hence will not achieve the result you seem to be promoting. It's totally pointless and a waste of time trying to argue otherwise. This is surely not a concept that is difficult to understand!

Sadly this thread is now so far from trying to help the original poster that it has become totally meaningless and I fail to see why anyone should feel the need to make any further comment. Continuing with this will only give the thread the attributes of trolling for an argument and will serve no useful purpose. I like this forum simply because such outbreaks rarely occur. Let's try and keep it that way and please just let it die!

Personally I have nothing else to contribute to this...

It's interesting that you guys believe that there's no way to evaluate different mixes using different tools in the box. . And yet.. would you feel the same about hardware vs plug ins? Or this converter vs that one..

Or would hardware vs plug ins/cheap vs expensive converters be too much of a jump in quality to be able to compare.?

In principal hardware vs plug ins would have the same deficiencies in a mix off using the same source files.

It's not a plug in vs plug in test. . It's a can you do a mix only using Daw vs Uad test that is on the same quality/fidelity bracket.

You guys have particular way of thinking that this is supposed to be scientific and it would definitively show a clear winner...

It would not. . It would however potentially help Donny and show how the 2 sets of tools compare in a real world scenario. By showing examples rather than speculating.

MrEase, post: 417761, member: 27842 wrote: Personally I have nothing else to contribute to this...

..other than to say that I fully expected such a response. Chris, I'm sorry but your refusal to acknowledge such fundamental flaws in your arguments means only one of two things to me.

I do not believe you could be so academically challenged so, purely IMHO, you are just trolling.

I fully expect some further meaningless input from you but now I'm truly gone.

It seems to me that you are all discussing this as a proposal for some sort of comparative "evaluation" or even a "contest", which cannot work usefully for at least the reasons already presented.

That does not mean that the idea of different people posting their mixes of these tracks is necessarily a non-starter, particularly if we understand that they would be "illustrations" or "examples" of what could be done, stating the equipment/DAW/plugs used. In this way, different mix ideas could be shown in a non-competitive manner to broaden the mixing horizons of us all.

Chris Perra, post: 417758, member: 48232 wrote: Kurt, better is to the listener.. You don't win a prize... if someone can hear the same source tracks mixed and decide they prefer the mix only using daw plug ins in comparison to Uad wouldn't that be a valuable thing to them in their search for direction in the pantheon of gear choices. .

As far as it being a digital source.. every single day people make pro albums using digital gear.

You can't test converters in a digital based mix off as its already been captured. .

One last thing... you guys really need to read through this thread again..

Not once have I said Behringer converters are on par with high end converters like Prism or Lavery.. Only that if you have Rme level converters which the OP already has the jump to better ones is expensive and not as big a deal as upgrading mics and pres.

Also I've never said Uad is better than hardware.
Only that I believe Uad is better quality than what comes in a stock daw.

I also belive the "Phasing" audiokid heard was because of my mic placement. . Not my converters. .. I think the samples provided give people the ability to judge for themselves. .

If you guys disagree with those convictions that's fine.. I would say that those concepts are exactly the same as you have. Most professionals would.

Except maybe my converters..

The only difference is that for some reason you wouldn't want to help out Donny and test the theory of stock daw vs Uad..

Yeah, you might be beating your head against the wall at this point.
You are absolutely correct that the OP could possibly find other areas to upgrade first before coming back around to their already very acceptable RME converters, but they never returned to the forum to discuss it.

Josh, audiokid, Donny and the others that wanted to share mixes seem to have also left the building. If they want to continue with that and others are interested, it will probably resurface in another thread.
I agree that providing example mixes could be a learning experience for everyone.
I have also been suggesting that the mixes should emulate an already known mix that Donny has already provided. This would help establish a standard benchmark to compare against instead of just comparing against each other.

Those that are left here, seem to be in a nasty attack mode for some reason, that even I (who recently got ridiculed and shot in the head for a much lessor offense in a related topic) find tasteless.
(At least I apologized)

The thread was :
A/D and D/A Converters Upgrade?
Discussion in '[="http://recording.org/index.php?forums/affordable-recording-forum.14/"]Affordable Recording Forum[/]="http://recording.or…"]Affordable Recording Forum[/]' started by [[url=http://="http://recording.or…"]Keala[/]="http://recording.or…"]Keala[/], [[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]Jul 10, 2014[/]="http://recording.or…"]Jul 10, 2014[/]

Keala went away and never returned, probably because the subject isn't about the original post anymore.

If Donny wants to share stems of his song for us to compare different mixes, he's gonna do it on its own behalf.

If you want to do the exercise with open rights stems from another source, create a new thread, post the link of the stems and I will be glad to participate..