audiokid, post: 459300, member: 1 wrote: Question: If you hear the low and high exactly the same going OTB through 2bus+ and Round Trip back to the same DAW... why do it?

:ROFLMAO:

I will take a look tomorrow a little look at those links, but i don't think i will read them all because there are many many pages... But... is there something im missing? Main reason is SRC or there is more...? Could you tell me more about it please?

About 2-Bus+ VS ITB, sorry but i haven't got time for doing that... mixing through analog is Ok, trying to "replicate" the same ITB is not so Ok and it will take me time which for me is gold. If you have good studio monitors and acoustic treatment you will feel the difference of analog vs digital, and if you use headphones (i use the a lot since started listening music when i was young) you will feel it a little bit more. I could send you a mix which was done through the Dangerous, but it have more "colors" because Acustica Audio plugins. Im not here to debate ITB vs OTB btw. Dangerous summing sound is quite transparent but with a feel of width, 3D blablala... anyway is not the same summing 16ch vs 32 vs 48...

audiokid, post: 459300, member: 1 wrote: Question: If you hear the low and high exactly the same going OTB through 2bus+ and Round Trip back to the same DAW... why do it?

Sorry but i don't understand your question. I have to record the audio... if i don't do it i don't record nothing...? I have only one DAW for the record... Im recording the signal coming from the 2-Bus+. Sorry but i don't understand the question.

If you are simply summing otb with no additional gear then the same
Mix could be made in about 5 minutes summing itb.
I’ve done this many many times to check how both analog processing and converters are sounding. It’s part of calibration and study.

It’s something anyone summing otb should do.

I have got all the Acustica Audio "colors" emulating analog gear.

Its going to take more than 5 minutes trying to replicate the same mix.

What is the point of this that you want me to do? ITB vs OTB?

Trying to "glue" ITB mix is going to make me insert some of this plugins in the master bus btw, so is not going to be a serious comparison.

But maybe i do it if feel good when i build again my setup. I could just route all the aux channels that are doing the summing through the 2-bus+ to the stereo output and thats it? This will be a fair comparison?

Can’t you just route the 16 or 32 sends to your master bus?

Take any stereo or mono track and pass or sum it otb and itb then listen or null the two.

You could do this to hear and share what your converters and 2bus is doing in a process .

That’s how you can learn if you are being fooled or what something is doing so you learn more about processing! Emulation etc.

This is actually why I use two DAWs as well. But another topic for now.

To prove or discover a lot about gear I spend a lot of time listening and doing null test, listening to the remainders.

Never the less... we at RO are always interested in hearing results and openly discussing ways to hear what a product is about.
How to use it better and to pass the love and knowledge on to our great community.

I’ve always wanted to try the Dangerous 2bus.

Yes i could do that with no problem, less than 5 mins btw... but i would have to make the mix with no plugin process in the buses/ aux tracks that are going to the otb summing box... well i will put plugin processing in the individual tracks and no problem.

I will do it whenever i can, but i will do it for sure. I thought it was more complex than it really is.

I have to say that im not been fooled with OTB summing, im very very sure of what is doing. I can feel it even more specially with the headphones (pure2 have an insert to plug them) and ive been all my life listening to music with them. I own now Focal Spirit ones since 2 years and i love them.

Also, after so many years of mixing electronic heavy Kick/bass techno 125 bpm more or less, i know the time that it takes to make a decent mix glued and balanced for having a nice low end nd also a nice high end with a loud rms level. With OTB summing mixing is much easier mixing and you focus more on making music than engineering. All this time spend in ITB to make then a bounce and send all to the sh** btw. I could make a loopback in the pure2 to record the mix and avoid the bounce... but my big dream since many years ago is music with the sound the have clarity, detail, space, depth, 3D, separation, width... because ive heard records with that qualities and i want that in my sound. This was like 5 or 6 years ago, and i dint knew nothing about summing boxes. The point where i am now is a very large story of years and years searching for what ive mentioned. Im not fooled, and ive read so many posts before going to summing... you can't imagine. I dream with OTB summing having nightmares that it was a scam as some/many people say. Large story... remember im a ITB guy from the begging of my days, trying to avoid all the possible costs. Im obsessed with sound, that is my real problem.

Audiokid, so are you using two DAW for something else apart for the SRC? are you doing some kind of null tests with your mixes printing in the same DAW and doing it in two...?

Veryfun to have you here and so inspired to improve your mixes!

Víctor, post: 459316, member: 51426 wrote: Audiokid, so are you using two DAW for something else apart for the SRC? are you doing some kind of null tests with your mixes printing in the same DAW and doing it in two...?

Yes, its in all my history post. I am no longer working with music but I enjoy being the admin here and reading what everyone is doing.

audiokid, post: 459321, member: 1 wrote: Veryfun to have you here and so inspired to improve your mixes!

Yes, its in all my history post. I am no longer working with music but I enjoy being the admin here and reading what everyone is doing.

Where could it read that history post?

Ok i understand you wrong :)

Btw, i think i could get the mac of my brother, install there any DAW (Logic Pro X this time) and try to capture there the final mix. I will try after to make a null test with one capture and another.

The route will be Mac1> DAW> Orion32 (converters)> 2-Bus+> Pure2> DAW Mac2

So when i finish my mix, i will just put USB of the Pure2 in the Mac2 just for doing the capture... make sense? Am i overlooking something?

Thanks

Perfect.

:D Cool! So all what i need now is another computer to try this.

Many thanks

Yes

coinmuki, post: 461176, member: 51556 wrote: Passive MultiBus Matrix Summing Mixer Designed for Neve 1073

Setup:
2U Rack Unit
16 input TRS Balanced

1xStereo out TRS Balanced L/R (OUTA)
1xStereo out XLR Balanced L/R (OUTB)
2x Stereo to mono switch = 4 mono

Multi insert/send/return/bypass switch option TRS
4 x (SNDA/SNDB/SNDC/SNDD)- horizontal switch layout
8 x Master Sum / Group Sum select switch

4 x 8 = 32 ABCD Group Matrix
ABCD Group send TRS balanced L/R
ABCD Group return TRS balanced L/R

Matrix Return A/B stereo to Mono
Master Stereo to Mono option by switch
Engrave: “designed for CHO Yong uk by VintageMaker”
designed for Neve 1073 work range

More info: https://vintagemaker.net/studio-gallery/

More gears:

• MixBus MultiBus Matrix Neumann Summing Mixer
• Neumann Summing Mixer D-Sub input XLR output
• Neumann 32 in 4xGroup Summing
• Lawo Fixed Group MultiBus Summing Mixer
• Lawo dv975 16x6 D-SUB in XLR out
• Filtek Group Sum Summing Mixer D-Sub input XLR output
• 1U Passive Studio Summing Mixers
• 8 Channel Balanced Attenuator
• 6x6 Channel Balanced Monitor Controller

Nice list of gear. Please feel welcome to talk about something you are excited about?

audiokid, post: 459238, member: 1 wrote: ad > da > ad
In a 2 DAW system.... Being able to independently monitor at each conversion location using something like a (Dangerous Monitor ST) is critical. http://dangerousmusic.com/product/monitor-st/

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

Notice how I am always talking about monitoring and listening.

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

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

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

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

Hello again Chris. I've been very busy with life and studio construction but that's another story! Anyway, I'm back at trying to get my rig monitoring fine tuned.

Here is my signal path:
Inputs > Lynx 16ch > DAW 1 (Nuendo 4) > lynx stems > Folcrom 16 > pre choices > pure 2 > DAW 2 (Samplitude) > Pure 2 2bus > capture. I'm using the ST for monitoring.

Above you suggest the monitoring should access the "conversion location(s)".
Right now I'm only monitoring the pure 2 out w/o having the DAW 2 set up yet so kind of a pass through.

With my signal path, where would you suggest I tap monitoring points for the ST? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

My thoughts are a stereo bus from the Lynx before the Folcrom if I can configure this in Nuendo w/o confounding the stem outs, Pre and other analog toys outza's, and Pure 2 out.....
Thanks so much!

The best thing with the 2 comp setup is to have multiple point of monitoring. Monitoring DAW 1 and DAW 2 seperatly is the best way to hear the difference before and after mastering... ;)

For monitoring the source device (DAW1 in your case), you need the usual in-place multiple track or stem soloing, on a choice of speakers or headphones. There is no mix to monitor at this point.

Subsequent monitoring points are the stereo analogue mix and the captured mix (a DAC output pair from DAW2).

I have found that a push-button selection for the monitoring points using auto-release buttons is better than a rotary switch, as you can go rapidly between any pair of monitor points without the possible need to toggle through an intermediate one in the rotary switch case. I bought a simple multiple stereo loudspeaker selector, stripped out the wiring, and re-worked it to have combo XLR/TRS connectors and screened leads internally.

Sounds like you have an awesome setup now! As Bos points out, fast switching is choice and the ST allows that .
Beyond what you have for monitoring options, I was able to monitor the analog point from the Dangerous Master outs which helps hear the analog chain as pure as it gets.
The Folcrom doesn’t have that option quite like it could. If you can figure a way to study your analog section better, that would complete and incredible system.

Kudos on getting this all together!

pcrecord, post: 461220, member: 46460 wrote: The best thing with the 2 comp setup is to have multiple point of monitoring. Monitoring DAW 1 and DAW 2 seperatly is the best way to hear the difference before and after mastering... ;)

For sure! I must say that I see the capture from DAW 2 more as additional mixing rather than a "mastered" mix. I don't intend to represent this capture as mastered and will leave that up to the client to decide. I just really enjoy the use of the Box 2 (Pure 2 & Samplitude) for capture and further processing of the analog pass between "boxes" where I can use different analog pre flavors, my 2 LA2 and analog FX/processing units in the future.
Thanks for replying PC!

Boswell, post: 461221, member: 29034 wrote: For monitoring the source device (DAW1 in your case), you need the usual in-place multiple track or stem soloing, on a choice of speakers or headphones. There is no mix to monitor at this point.

Subsequent monitoring points are the stereo analogue mix and the captured mix (a DAC output pair from DAW2).

I have found that a push-button selection for the monitoring points using auto-release buttons is better than a rotary switch, as you can go rapidly between any pair of monitor points without the possible need to toggle through an intermediate one in the rotary switch case. I bought a simple multiple stereo loudspeaker selector, stripped out the wiring, and re-worked it to have combo XLR/TRS connectors and screened leads internally.

I think that using my patchbay to mult the Lynx to both the Folcrom and the ST will provide my DAW 1 feed to the ST for immediate button switching between ST feeds for comparison (Chris mentioned this in a latter post). That would add to my overall gain and leveling challenges but manageable I think.

To monitor the DAW 1 mix I would have to find a way in Nuendo to get a 2 bus mix out to the Lynx converter >patchbay. So far this takes a lot of "mousing around" with the sends and groups in Nuendo. So I may have to live with this and try to cut the moves down to as few as possible.

With judicious use of analog gear 2 channel outputs (all out to the patchbay for configuring to send to the ST first) I think I can route the analog chain to ST inputs relatively easily to at least one of the 3 possibly 4 inputs of the ST.
So that could leave me ST input 1 for DAW 1, St input 2 for analog gear and ST input 3 for DAW 2 capture mix at a minimum.

I apologize to the OP if I've strayed too far working through my situation out loud here. It helps me think this through with the hopes of criticism about my thinking and deficit of experience.
Thanks for responding Bos. I highly value your experience, expertise and willingness to share like so many others here at RO!

audiokid, post: 461227, member: 1 wrote: Sounds like you have an awesome setup now! As Bos points out, fast switching is choice and the ST allows that .
Beyond what you have for monitoring options, I was able to monitor the analog point from the Dangerous Master outs which helps hear the analog chain as pure as it gets.
The Folcrom doesn’t have that option quite like it could. If you can figure a way to study your analog section better, that would complete and incredible system.

Kudos on getting this all together!

Thanks, and special thanks to you and Bos as well as so many others here at RO!

It seems to be coming together. You are right about the limits of the Folcrom. If it had the ability of the Dangerous Master or similar, I would have only one move in the ST to get a clean representation of the DAW 1 mix without having to make so many moves, at this point, with re-routing in the DAW 1 first. It is a pain and I lose the audio image in my head rapidly of what I want to compare things with. This is a big loss of the power of this setup!

If I don't figure a better way through the DAW 1 to get a 2-bus feed easier I may have to find a way to cleanly mult and boost the feed from the Folcrom to the ST (='s more gain and leveling challenges). In the long run, it may be more cost effective to replace the Folcrom...sigh. Time, frustration and as always, cash flow will determine this I guess!

Chris, when I first read your posts about this system and variations here from others of the 2 Box setups, I felt the sky open up! Really! Finally others were addressing a way I could keep a lot of my love of analog and at the same time, benefit from the advantages of the digital world. For me, this really works well, and for that I'm so grateful to you and the rest of RO folks for the continuing support and ideas!

Sorry to hear you aren't involved in engineering any longer. Life does take it's turns! I'm "semi-retiring" in 2 months and will be that much closer to doing this full time. Besides the fun for me, it will be a give-back to the youth and small community I love and want to support in a healthy way. Too long a wait but here's hoping. I'm so glad you are keeping this forum going and thanks to you for that!
Later....