To do a fair test, you would need to record tracks without your board at all and go straight into the box via your interface.

By doing all your fx etc OTB you are already providing the analog footprint missing in a completely ITB mix. The last little bit is the summing via electrical pathways vice digital pathways and then utilizing very high caliber two track conversion. So in your case, I'm not surprised you find little difference!

I have problem with concept too. I look at it like this, a typical summing mixer has 8 or so inputs. It takes these signals and put them through at most one or two gain/sum stage. Each stage adds something.

A console with many channels and does the same thing but it has many more channels, and subsequently many more noise sources. The noise (good or bad) in a 8 channel summing mixer should never equal that of a 48+ channel mixer. If it does, that summing mixer is a pretty bad design. A good 8 channel summing mixer should be clean, and it should be fairly easy to that with such a small number of inputs. However they are marketed as "the Glue" or the noise to stick you mix together. That tells me they markerting is lieing or the mixers are nothing more than harmonic noise sources.

If you want noise you can add it in the box. (UAD studer plug, Heat by Dave Hill, etc....)

I get what you are saying. When I do my F/X I don't actually use aux's. I write new tracks for each effect 100%wet and add it to the dry signal.

How would you do an experiment that separates the positive effects of the hardware from the summing issue but still uses hardware?

Link, you're more tech oriented than I am, but the argument that I hear has not to do with noise floor per se but the difference between electrical summing and digital mathematical summing-with the idea being that electrical summing provides a more homogenous final product. I suppose it gets rid of aliasing etc in a more organic fashion. Anyone that wants to add "noise" should look at plugs instead.

The last few years the DAW has gotten a lot better from the day I first got into this. I'm actually finding that I am not hearing the problems I did before with my new Sequoia rig. Even normalizing is better so I am actually changing a lot of my old opinions. Is it Sequoia 11 that sounds better? Well, one thing I'm not doing anymore is recording hot. I also do not move my faders all over the place. I try really hard to leave them where it was at print. Moving them is a bad thing to me, still. I also do not use plugins like I used to and I also have better mics and preamps. I simply have better gear so it all makes a difference.
That being said, I am buying a new converter and interface very soon that will be worthy of everything else I have in my studio.
I will put the analog summing hype to test with my SPL MixDream and [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.dangerou…"]Dangerous Master[/]="http://www.dangerou…"]Dangerous Master[/] once I get it all wired. Its no big deal to me whether one or the other is superior. I'm searching for the best sound I can get right now. The goal this year it to see if My hybrid rig is the way to go or not.

Its posted more than once. Check out how Fab is doing it:

Hi Jack actually my understanding of aliasing is that occurs in the ADC process not in the digital summing. In fact you creating more of a possibility of aliasing when covert to analog to do the analog sum and then convert back. When I say noise I mean more then just noise floor, which I was not really clear about. I actually mean distortion in this particular case. As for sound quality, if it sounds good it is good. I just have a personal gripe with "noisy" gear being sold at high prices.

I'm a mild skeptic on analog summing. We are talking about the differences between two high quality signal chains. Since there are different components and different signal paths there has to be some differences in the sound. But since the basic process is summing and is damned close to linear in both systems the differences are probably small - and there is no way (that I can think of) to know if the difference is the summing itself or other parts of the signal chain. I'd be impressed if someone could do blindfold tests and distinguish analog summed CDs from digital summed CDs. (I know Chris says, "that sounds like ProTools" every once in a while, but that's like saying "that football player looks like he is on steroids" or "that politician looks corrupt.")

Good points Bob

Its to do with cramming hot tracks into the DAW's master tracks. I've been battling this since day one and I know everyone has been there. Its always the same in my studio. Everything sounds great until the 2-bus. Then, I have to start compromising and trying to figure out how to get it all to fit. It takes the fun out of every mix I do. When I used tape, I never had the same problem. It was more obvious and seem to either fit or not and didn't come out sounding like a flat wall.

When I get my new converters, I'm going to do this comparison one step at a time for us all to evaluate.

audiokid, post: 367689 wrote: Good points Bob

Its to do with cramming hot tracks into the DAW's master tracks. I've been battling this since day one and I know everyone has been there. Its always the same in my studio. Everything sounds great until the 2-bus. Then, I have to start compromising and trying to figure out how to get it all to fit. It takes the fun out of every mix I do. When I used tape, I never had the same problem. It was more obvious and seem to either fit or not and didn't come out sounding like a flat wall.

When I get my new converters, I'm going to do this comparison one step at a time for us all to evaluate.

This sounds like gain-staging problems at tracking.

Its really really really hard to adhere to a level especially when you're not compressing or limiting on the way in like I do.

But adhereing to these levels gives you the headroom at the 2-bus that you're looking for.

Then theres the psycho-acoustics of the brain. The minute detail you once heard in each track become muted of covered in a mix and become a source of worry and wonder at why you cant get that little part to stick in a way thats pleasing.

Sometimes you simply have to go another way in your thinking and understand that this 'new' set of balances and tones is a completely different thing than the accumulation of tracks and has to be approached as a thing all its own.

I think this where you find the definitive mix of a song and it becomes that song as singular and individual as it can possibly be.

Summing stems or mixing out through analog back to digital is only a tool to accomplish the goal of making a song stand as itself rather than simply being an amalgamation of recorded sounds.

Its not gain staging, I have that part well figured long ago and do not have a problem with zeroing in and able to hear the mic and pre connect. Its not actual clipping red lights. You can't see the clipping. If you are seeing the red, you are already finished before you got started. Welcome to the ME nightmare.
This isn't something you are seeing. Its not visible even at the 2-bus.

Setting aside that zzz I speak of, I can already do great sounding music no problemo:) Bluntly, its the 2-bus in the DAW's where its compounded (and you are about to find out as you move further away from analog).
Having to move faders, boosting an eq etc, compounded by my thirst for some of the analog space is what I'm pursuing here. I'm reaching beyond what the average user is able to accomplish with just a DAW and plug-ins.
I hear an ugly unnatural sound with so many songs these days. Its everywhere , getting worse and I fear we are all becoming deaf to it, I suppose.

To give you an example of what I am over sensitive to:
You know the sound of low compressed files, that underlying zzzzz that becomes more prominent the more you compress an MP3? Well, I hear that like a dog hears a dog whistle. Its the sound of digital mixes, Pro Tools yes... Including the 100 grand Synclavier 11 famous for the intro to our beloved Michael Jacksons "Beat It".
Enjoy this for some insight:

I've been doing this for 30 years already and some of you are just figuring it out how cool it all is and plug-ins. But it sounds like zzzzzzzz to me.

Maybe I'm born with some sort of sensitivity to it, don't know. All I know is I first started noticing this with the early 8 bit samplers around 1981.
You can tune into it by transforming sample to lower octaves (sound design around it and and take it back up to speed). As long as you stay close to the original sample, its passable. But, detune a sample and it starts producing that sound we all do not enjoy.
I hear this in the majority of music these days. I hear it in cheaper converters and I hear it on CD's. I'm not getting used to it. Its becoming more and more audible to me and I'm hoping I will be able to work it out somewhat. I'm studying it and hope I will be able to sound design my mixes by using high end, hybrid methods.

I chose the MixDream for this because it allows me to be able to do this better than all the rest of the summing boxes. The headroom is killer and it has inserts for tools. I will be able to surgically isolate those freq, suck them out and give my sound analog space.
My final tool is a surgical eq like the SPL PQ [[url=http://[/URL]="http://spl.info/de/…"]Kurzinfo: Sound Performance Lab[/]="http://spl.info/de/…"]Kurzinfo: Sound Performance Lab[/]
So you see, its not a cheap fix where I'm going. Its been my dream to be able to dig in deeper than just gain staging.

So to help fight this, I'm moving into sound designing my mixes via hybrid gear. The best of both worlds, copper and bits. I don't believe this is for everyone. I think you have to be able to hear this sound before you can make good use of hybrid engineering.

I'm hoping I don't have to live with it. If not, then I'm in it like the rest of the crowd and the money lost is no big deal. We will know more either way after this journey I'm on. The next question will then be, is it worth an extra 50 grand to sound like that.

Chris....I hear this too. Its almost like theres a bit of ground loop somewhere in the system and I've been known to unhook the entire studio and test every cable searching for it never to really solve it.

For anyone who has or does work in an office are with a lot of flourescent lighting, especially older flourescents without solid-state ballasts, you are being subjected to a low 58 cycle hum at all times. Its a Bflat in case you're interested. The reason its not 60 cycles like the power grid operates at is because of the ballasting.

Okay, so I see what you're up to with this.

Perhaps something along the lines of a Manley Passive at the gateway to the 2-bus will add enough of its own set of harmonics to filter out this thing. Big tubes, big iron, nothing gets out without it becoming what is dictated by the circuit itself.

Some history for all you.

This video is where I was 30 years ago. I spent a lot of money on digital and learned a lot about sound designing and how to make sound. I followed Quincy Jones and the high end engineers who were using the secrets to creating pop music. I made a good living using it to my advantage but now see how it is effecting the entire world of music to a point that I don't want it anymore. If you listen closely, you may be able to hear the same un natural line in these old samples as you do in the music made today. I hear it.

This is one of the first DAW's I owned. This is an 8 voice, 8 bit sampler, and thanks to [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.audioimp…"]Christopher Stone[/]="http://www.audioimp…"]Christopher Stone[/] ( HEAR his new creation http://vimeo.com/14221577 ) for his dedication to the library:

:confused: And Yes... It is all related to the DAW you are using today. This was 15 years pre Pro Tools.

Chris, I don't know whether you had considered working this way, but the highest quality mixes I achieve are analog mix-downs of high sample rate (96KHz) digital tracks, the 2-bus mix being captured at the project target rate of 44.1KHz or 48KHz. This is easy to set up sourcing from a bank of HD24XRs, but to get this to work using a DAW, you would have to have a separate 2-track capture computer or else an S/PDIF digital recorder after your 2-track ADC.

I can really hear the difference even at the 16-bit 2-track (CD quality) level through having let my analog mixes "breathe" by sourcing them with 96KHz converted digital. No more 44.1KHz "tizz" that you mention amplified by the number of tracks.

Thanks Boswell, I remember you mentioning this some time back. I have the second DAW fitted with the Dangerous Master and Lavry Blacks.

When you say "analog mix-downs of high sample rate (96KHz) digital tracks, the 2-bus mix being captured at the project target rate of 44.1KHz or 48KHz."
Are these your analog tracks are what are you sending them to for analog summing? Can you explain your DAW to Analog rig?

The setup I was outlining was for tracks recorded at 96KHz on (multiple) HD24XR hard disk recorder(s). No computer or DAW involved during the recording process. For mixdown in those cases, I took the analog outputs of the HD24XRs (12 per unit) into the line inputs of whatever analog mixer was specified for the contract (Midas, A+H etc) and then the 2-track mix was digitized at 44.1KHz for CD on (say) an FF800 and captured on a PC.

It's not quite the same as your proposed analog summer, as my mix process was using a conventional analog mixer with all the usual outboard effects available. What I wanted to get across was the difference between sourcing at 96KHz and sourcing at 44.1KHz, even for a CD mix. I've heard many engineers say that if the product is a 44.1KHz CD, why record at a higher rate as no-one can hear the difference, and it just makes trouble when doing the sample-rate conversion (SRC). Maybe it is the SRC that makes the difference, but for me, the 96KHz source tracks were golden and mixed well without ear strain. If you have 2-track analog audio that sounds good, however it is derived, digitizing it at 44.1KHz does not automatically impair the sound.

Of course, what I was comparing was a 96KHz recording mixed in analog to a 44.1KHz 2-track recorder and a 44.1KHz recording mixed digitally to 44.1KHz 2-track. Neither of these two methods uses digital SRC, and what I have not done recently is the comparison with 96KHz recordings mixed digitally at 96KHz and then digital SRC down to 44.1KHz. I don't have a quality SRC that I would trust for that comparison.

With your setup, you may be able to experiment with 96KHz recordings output from one DAW system, mixed on your Dangerous Master and re-captured at 44.1KHz via the Lavry Blacks hooked up to a separate computer.

I have to say that 96KHz recording is the exception rather than the norm for me, as it gobbles disk space and the project budget does not usually justify it. For some of the big names, I will go 96KHz anyway even though it's not specified, just for my own satisfaction.

On a somewhat related matter....

Boswell and others, do you store your projects indefinitely? Or do you rotate them out like taxes (7 year or 10 year archive)? I ask because projects made just after I left the Corps 10 years ago took little space because I didn't have resources to have the studio/equipment I desired. Now that I'm nearly there, project storage is becoming something to plan for. Currently I just keep it all on Glyph cartridges but that isn't the most inexpensive way-just the safest most easily accessible way for me.

Thanks Bos for that detail.
I am confused over.. aren't HD24XR digital, all digital? I'm confused how you are getting analog in your mix? You say the outputs of the HD24XR are analog? If so, no wonder you guys like this but I'm thinking these units are HD recorders.

John,

I have 25 years of archived songs on 5 1/4 floppys, DAT, Zips, cassette data backup, CD, and old HD's all in closets. Most of it is just a memory in my mind because 3 quarters of it all are on formats I will never get running again.

I've tried to take the best with me as I advanced in my music career but times goes by and I've accepted the majority to be dust. I've been saving my old Pro Tools TDM but how long will it last too. Its a big problem.

I'm basically starting over.
All the digital stuff I have is just plain ugly. The analog stuff I had is on old Ampeg, long gone. Some old cassettes are the only memory there and even those they are at 65 db, stretched, wowy and noisy, but they have more warmth than all the digital stuff I did from 1998 to 2005. Its what got me into this whole hybrid thing. After listening to old recordings in my analog days... hmm, I'm convinced

The HD24XR has analog input and output. I think what Boswell is saying is that because you are sending each individual channel back out analog from the HD24-no summing yet-into a mixer or in your case a summing mixer, you avoid the zzzzz sound you hear because there is no down conversion and no bit rate conversion. Then the output of the summing mixer is sent to your high end converters to digitize the summed mix at target format. This is more or less what you're shooting for anyway with your Mixdream and Dangerous 2-Bus. Something like the Korg MR-1000 would be perfect for a master recorder in this application and a reason I've been wanting one. You get your space and you get your format conversion without the sizzle.

Incidentally I'd been thinking that the sizzle I hear was some combination of distortion from the speakers or headphones and my tinnitus but maybe not.

My kids are future engineers and they are listening and hearing it on most everthing. This makes me so happy to know that they are aware.
I hear it before I burn it so its there track by track and is only compounding. I see what Bos is saying and why we need better converters if you are going in and OTB. Its why I'm doing this big step.
The sound of plugins don't help either. Its so ugly to me but thats only another opinion and why I am choosing to use less than more. I have the whole Wave bundle and its not even loaded anymore. To me its crap and I want no part of it, no matter how many times it improves. Its a last resort.
Its all like living under Fluorescent lights.

When I hear people say they don't hear this... its pointless really getting to deep into it. For one, its not cheap as you can add up, and two, most of the population can't hear understand it or even cares.
To me though... digital is a beautiful thing but it comes at a price.
Its unnaturual to the organic mind (and eyes). Even though its so clear, is it really.
For someone that has been bought up under the classical legacy and so much emotion, its pretty obvious there is an ugly in its amazing sterile beauty that it delivers to my ears.

I'm sure it makes no difference to the business of music (on a daily number) but it does to the soul and to our long term influence and reaction to music. I think its the reason we are not appreciating music the same way as well. Its like living in a house that is so clean. Whats happening to our education system and the support of the arts? Its becoming less meaningful. Why?

Its effecting our subconscious and taking us further away from what? balance of real vs clear... ? This is only some of many ways to look at it music and how it is influencing us. All this being said, we are all hearing it.

Pro Tools is to music as Fluorescent is to light. A good quote by Fletcher long ago. I never forgot that and stand by this solid now. So, to help ease this, I am returning back to... analog part way.

Some people say the next big heath issue will be brain disease caused by the sizzle coming at us in many digital forms.

korg almost sent me MR-1000 a few years back, that would have been nice.
Hopefully I will be able to gain good from this partial return to analog and its not all bunk. Might as well see because I have most of it here already. What's another 10 grand lol. :eek:

I better back off and give it back to the OP, Paul, are you still listening?

audiokid, post: 367797 wrote:
I better back off and give it back to the OP, Paul, are you still listening?

Please don't back off this has been a most interesting read. I 've been dealing with a water main break and its aftermath in front of my studio so this was the soonest I could get back.

Anyway. As I was baby sitting an emergency sump pump(listening to it with one ear making sure it was still functioning) while in my control room editing a pile of songs. I was thinking about the "trying to keep all the faders as close to 0 as possible. I use logic (just changed over) the input meters are odd. I am recording at record low volumes for me(pun intended). As far as I can tell everything is at +4 db. Even with hot output pre's like 512c's I need to really lay into it to get around -10db. For most sources I don't nearly push the pre that hard. I had a song up where my meters were all in the bottom quarter of the channel meter and the output was clipping. Now I can lower the output or lower the channels. I decided to experiment because I do keep my channel levels up when routing out of my converters into analog gear. I lowered my channels ridiculously low. I turned up my monitor to volume full. I couldn't hear a real difference or deterioration of the sound as I lowered the levels. I hear no ZZZZZZZ. Not that I don't want to. I mean I am 100% analog on some projects and I want to be able to go to my customers and show them the ZZZZZZZZ that my studio doesn't have.LOL I really want to be an analog snob.:biggrin: If I do a fade in on any track or a mix where I have my monitor volume on full and slowly fade in should I hear a ZZZZZZ in the lows? Should it get better sounding as I raise the channel volume and decrease the monitor volume? These are actual questions and not meant to be rhetorical or sarcastic.

Okay enough beating that to death. I TOTALLY get not enjoying the sound of plugin's. The clinical reaction times of compressors, the sibilance that can't be dessed, eq'd out or smoothened with any digital "rolling pin" totally sticks out to me.

The biggest benefit I get from analog gear compared to digital is air movement. I remember when I was about 12 and was at the arcade where the music was brutally loud. I noticed that when this Def leppard song came on that it had a huge sounding kick but the air didn't move when it played. The shock waves produced by digital recordings don't seem to produce the same amount of air movement or shock wave that analog does. At least not to my senses.

So there it is, some of us hear zzzzzzz others don't feel their rock-star hair getting blown back from the digital frequencies. Most people look at me like I have 14 heads when I mention the air movement thing. So now I am wondering if you are hearing ZZZZZ are you noticing the lack of air movement?

Paul999, post: 367827 wrote: ....The biggest benefit I get from analog gear compared to digital is air movement. I remember when I was about 12 and was at the arcade where the music was brutally loud. I noticed that when this Def leppard song came on that it had a huge sounding kick but the air didn't move when it played. The shock waves produced by digital recordings don't seem to produce the same amount of air movement or shock wave that analog does. At least not to my senses....

(a) Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of physics!
(b) Pull the other one. It's got bells on.

On another topic entirely - Good luck with the water main break. I hate dealing with water damage!

[quote=BobRogers, post: 367837](a) Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of physics!
(b) Pull the other one. It's got bells on.

Yep. I am nuts! So is anyone that does this for a living.LOL

Good luck with the water main break. I hate dealing with water damage!

Thanks. It was a lot of work to keep things under control and minimize damage. We'll survive but it has disrupted everything.

Well, whether its bunk or not, my Sequoia rig is awesome ITB and I highly recommend that over everything. The way it calculates and finishes music is really outstanding. I see why most Mastering Engineers choose it over all the other DAW. Sequoia was the biggest improvement to my DAW system since I left analog and dumped Pro Tools. I'd be quite satisfied with just that and a fine CP. I know most people are unaware of the sound I am annoyed with. Its all just music to most ears and for the science guys, no different because it just doesn't add up.

As far as sampled kicks like Def Leopard, ya... ( for my tastes) I personally do not enjoy (most) real drums over sampled. I can never get enough tasteful keyboard flavour combined with a rocking guitar (acoustic nylon or heavy metal) for my growing love of Pop music. Strictly from an commercial music POV since the Linn Drum was introduced in 1978 (I think), I personally don't see any business logic's (top 40) in micing drums when you can use perfectly tuned and shaped kicks, snares, hats and toms. They are what the majority of youth (who are buying music) are attracted to and how you sync beats to and so on and so on... Its how I build pop songs in the studio in a smart way. 20 years later, its still 4 4 doing a boom smack! Drums are basically boom smack in the music that makes money. ( we are talking about the business too).
I've made a living off of samples and programmed drums long before engineers even knew they were listening to sequencers and samples (why I popped that Synclavier and Emulator into this thread). I'm a midi maniac and a go to for samples for most songs I've ever written the last 30 years and what I'm drawn to for personal tastes in music at a party, with my children or a study.

Again to clarify the zzz I'm speaking about, for those just chiming in here for the first time, is not prone to just my work or studio sound because I am doing something odd or incorrect using cheap samples and so on. It is the sound of the mixes in lower end DAW system for certain and the compressed recordings of the last 20 years on CD, radio and broadcasting today. Its the overall sound happening around the world. Its smashed, and overloaded with that crammed sound buzzing in everything. Its like a 3k tickle (no I'm not going deaf lol) . Not to mention the lack of space which is really why I am going hybrid. I simply want more headroom to play with and the ability to shape groups with more control. I want to be able to group certain tones of a mix into their own groups in an analog stage and in that environment, sound design around it. Generally speaking, I think if you aren't doing this with your analog system, you are already diminishing the benefits. I also think if you are not into sound designing, you are entering an area of sound that is either over most engineers perception or beyond your personal interests in music.
I often think the reason I am interested in hybrid is because I am a professional musician (guitarist) with both parents who were both classically trained and Metropolitan opera singers that influenced me in the acoustics of music but became interested in electronics very early in the game. They told me to keep my roots but go into popular because that was the top of the food chain. My love for clarity and totally techno just burns passion in me. I'm not a recording engineer at all. I'm a very proficient musician who knows many sides of this industry quite well. Musician and Performing, Composition, Sound Design and Sampling, Programming/ Sequencing and Sound Engineering plus running this site for musicians and enginners. So its been a process of evolving into a hybrid musician. My MixDream is my new journey.

I'm not familiar with your console Paul so it could be that you are gaining little from this. I've selectively chosen key product for my hybrid system and if it doesn't improve after all this, I will hang my analog hat up and never look back. I have a feeling though, that I am entering the new world of recording and track designing of music.
Its a very exciting time for me. I'm even more excited to share my finding with our community here if it proves true to my ears. Positives and Negatives. No one is paying me to do this. Its my next journey into sound designing.

Some of us do hear the ZZZZ. Sometimes its just zzzzzz. Othertimes its ZZZZZZ. and unfortunately some recordings (a lot of recent ones) it goes ZZZZZZZZ.

I dont hear it when I record into my HD24. I dont really hear it until I use PT as my capture. The pres on the 003 have the ability to add some sort of annoying insect sound so I dont use them at all. But bringing tracks into PT from a high-end analog source seems to quiet this.

However. I'm still really old school and I like grainy mixes. I want the preamps as open as possible. I want to get down into the circuit and bend the source with whatever the pres will add to it. Going into a digital input m this way means I cannot ever stay at 0db's with the faders. The only time there going to be at unity is a digital to digital pass.

About air movement. Its shocking to me that something with as much low-end mass cannot even pass the toilet-tissue test from the early 80's .....Those of you who are also ....errr.....elderly, remember that....Remy does for sure. Hell, I used to measure the cone excursion on the monitors just to make sure we were getting the bass correct.....

The sibilance with the plugs is a thing for sure. Its here that I really find the digital world to be lacking but at the same time to be able to have that many tools that actually have some use without budgeting the facility out of business is really cool. Since I'm old (really old) I've experienced a lot of the gear in real rack-mounted glory that are now emulations in a menu on my screen. Yeah, theres differences. The emulations are getting closer. The UA stuff is really good. The signature stuff like the Puig plugs and the Eddie Kramer stuff is really nice tools. The really basic plugs have that zzzz so using them in sparcity is my goal. That doesnt say that they have no use. But, for those who are absoluely dead-set on eliminating the zzzz, theres only a few solutions.

I think we are starting to hear music produced on Hybrid systems. I'm definately hearing tape again on productions that have a bit of a budget. I'm not sure that the zzzz becomes so prominate when you capture to tape or to Radar...perhaps. Maybe it is better converters or maybe its the technology finally catching up to the dreams of the digital designers who envisioned the ease of use with high-fidelity so many years back but failed miserably at the fidelity department.

Then theres this thought that occurs to me.....Maybe they intentionally leave in the ZZZZZ in order to agitate the population!

I suppose thats another discussion for another forum.

Okay this just clicked in my brain. I get the ZZZZZZ you guys are talking about. Running good converters is keeping the zzzzzzzzz just under the radar for me. I tried the behringer converters that have had so much good press. They are the definition of ZZZZZZZZ to me. Even my wife could hear it(She does payroll for a living and provides that "can my wife hear the difference when I spend 5K" test.)LOL The D&R consoles are popular in the U.K. kind of like raindirk and those caliber of boards. They sell for about 20-30K new. A fantastic B room board. I have zero issues with samples and I think I understand your definition of sound design.

Even though I truly believe in the value of analog I have an engineering friend that is totally ITB and a fantastic engineer. His mixes are great and though they don't have the same "depth" as OTB they have a modern sheen in the highs that just don't happen in analog. It is a "sound". I bet after in 10 years people are going to be requesting that" digital vintage 2D sound that tickles the ears with that pleasant ZZZZZZZZZ sound.LOL Just like we were once frustrated that tape didn't recreate the authentic sound we now love what we once avoided.

Boswell, post: 367774 wrote:

Of course, what I was comparing was a 96KHz recording mixed in analog to a 44.1KHz 2-track recorder and a 44.1KHz recording mixed digitally to 44.1KHz 2-track. Neither of these two methods uses digital SRC, and what I have not done recently is the comparison with 96KHz recordings mixed digitally at 96KHz and then digital SRC down to 44.1KHz. I don't have a quality SRC that I would trust for that comparison.

This is an interesting thread that Herbeck turned me onto at Samplitude/Sequoia. support2.magix.net/boards/samplitude//index.php?showtopic=25747 They are discussing an interesting challange over SRC with Sonar's 64 bit to Sequoia 32 bit float. Bob Katz is doing the tests and some other respectables are there as well . To add, Herbeck, our member here has designed a plugin that does SCR . They are comparing it to Saracon Weiss :: SARACON . I think you will find it interesting.

Perhaps something along the lines of a Manley Passive at the gateway to the 2-bus will add enough of its own set of harmonics to filter out this thing. Big tubes, big iron, nothing gets out without it becoming what is dictated by the circuit itself.

Exactly what I do. As I can't afford 10 massive passives, I long ago gave up using this as a tracking EQ and strapped it across the 2-bus to my Hafler so every time I record its already present and working the signal from tracking to mastering. Means I can 'use' it on every channel without 'printing' it till I roll out on 2CH. Whether it sorts the ZZZ problem IDK, its not something I experience, as hopefully its not something I generate in the first place, either that or I am too dumb to notice it!

Commiserations on the water damage Paul there's plenty of history here on my flood, which I survived with surprisingly little cost. Mind you the insurance company still haven't paid out 2 years later.

Boswell, post: 367751 wrote: Chris, I don't know whether you had considered working this way, but the highest quality mixes I achieve are analog mix-downs of high sample rate (96KHz) digital tracks, the 2-bus mix being captured at the project target rate of 44.1KHz or 48KHz. This is easy to set up sourcing from a bank of HD24XRs, but to get this to work using a DAW, you would have to have a separate 2-track capture computer or else an S/PDIF digital recorder after your 2-track ADC.

I can really hear the difference even at the 16-bit 2-track (CD quality) level through having let my analog mixes "breathe" by sourcing them with 96KHz converted digital. No more 44.1KHz "tizz" that you mention amplified by the number of tracks.

Hi Bos, I've been thinking a experimenting a lot since this post started.

I have a question for you and others:

Example, I'm working in a session at 88.2, stemming groups of DAW tracks ( 1 to 14 ADDA) out to my analog summing system, doing my hardware thing on them, then re recording the analog mixdown back to the DAW on its own stereo track at the same obvious sample rate.

How I do this is:

I arm a stereo track that is also my analog monitor channels ( AD 15 & 16) and mute them while recording the analog sum so I don't get a nasty feedback loop. This stereo track is also the only track of my entire session that is ever sent to my DAW 2-bus ( Master Bus = channel 15 & 16 ADDA). Tracks 1 to 14 are always dedicated for the mix.
Make sense?

Once I've recorded my analog mixdown, I disarm it and SOLO that track. That track goes to my Mastering bus where I do the little extra's. Once satisfied, I bounce a CD track which opens up in a new session at 44.1 ( or whatever I set the conversion to). I now have a new 44.1 CD Master session that I can do any final mastering on. This makes exporting waves, MP3 etc very accurate to what I'm monitoring.

How you tried it this way? Are you finding its better to track onto another computer set at 44.1 rather than letting the same box do the conversion?
If so, I wonder if this is where Sequoia excels or I wonder if I would get even better results Mastering to a DSD or doing what you suggest?

Paul,

I've been doing some mixes the way I think you are describing ? and find the sound doesn't have as big an impact re recording all the DAW tracks seperatly ( AD> DA> AD> DA> analog SUM> AD . In fact, some of the tracks sound degraded exept for maybe drums but I still wouldn't do that. Vocals for instance sound absolutley lush tracked through a comp inline > AD and grouped as a VOX Stem DA SUM AD. I wouldn't track vocals , bus them out to an analog mixer, and AD>DA>AD. Is this what you are doing?

Man that is hard to explain without being confusing lol.

I do one DA and thats it.

I think you've got it.

Since writing this a year ago I went through a phase were I was mixing fully OTB from about October to the beginning of March. So I would record in(AD) then I would use some plugs and route to my console(DA). I would sum analog and record my mix from there.(AD) I've been doing old school recalls with paper etc. When I did my test I used origional recorded tracks (AD) left the same plugs and routed to my console(DA). The only difference is that instead of summing analog I took each channel from my console and went back into my DAW on individual channels(AD). I then summed the new channels in my DAW(adding no processing or volume changes). I took this and ran it through the same 2-bus path my OTB mix used which required another round of (DA->AD) This gave me a close comparison. The only difference one more DA conversion on the DAW summed mix.

In theory if analog summing is so much better I added another generation of signal loss to my Digitally summed mix handicapping it further. Even squinting I could not hear the difference between my 2 mixes. Zero, zip, nadda.

Interestingly enough in march I transformed my OTB setup to use my DAW as a Digital console incorporating my hardware through logic's i/o plug. So I went from OTB summing to purely summing ITB. Here is what I do now. Using logic's i/o plug which routes your signal from a DAW channel to your selected hardware and then back (compensating for latency) I use Logic's DAW Mixer as my console. This allows analog gear on every channel but still lets me use the automation of my DAW to its fullest. Further I use the sends on my DAW mixer to run all my outboard F/X and I am in the process of setting up low latency cue mixes on them as well. Further this system allows me the ability to use plugin's after my hardware on a channel which is a great advantage. On the same channel I can try out a DAW eq or compressor and directly compare it to hardware in the exact same place in the signal chain. I've found that I am using less and less hardware these days to be honest. Don't get me wrong I LOVE my hardware and plan on following your example, chopping off body parts so I can be buried with select pieces when I die:-) I am finding that my mixes are taking a little longer this way which reflects the fact that I can automate more(so I do). Sometimes I think that things are muddier and less defined but then I compare my ITB with my OTB mixes and find that generally my current mixes are clearer and more defined because I have more options and can take a little more time to finish. A blessing and a curse.

Keep in mind over the course of this period of time I am not talking about a few mixes I've done ITB vs OTB. I've been averaging about 5 mixes a week this entire year. I feel I am getting a pretty good sense of ITB vs OTB advantages and how they effect me. The biggest difference in work flow is recall. OTB recalls took about 45min. Now that I am only using eq's from my consoles channel I can do a supper accurate recall in 6 min.

Sorry for being a little all over the place.

Cheers

Chris, am I correct in reading from your post that you are doing the sample rate conversion (96K or 88.2K down to 44.1K) digitally in the DAW? I'm sorry to say that I still have a healthy mistrust of the sound of digital SRCs, probably as a result of getting such terrible results from them when they first became available. It's the main reason I use the external analog summing route I described when generating a 44.1KHz CD final mix from high-rate tracks or stems.

I find it does help to have the source tracks on something external like the HD24XRs so they are coherent but independent. I usually also capture the 2-track mix at 96KHz on a couple of spare tracks on one of the source HD24XRs so I have a higher-rate digital reference copy. The CDs of which I've been most satisfied have been done without any DAW involvement other than final top&tail.

In my view, the big difference in working like this comes from having only two channels (final L + R) of the lower-rate anti-aliasing filters in your 2-track mix instead of having a mix made from 16+ channels each of which has had the final-rate filter applied. It's a bit like using the same microphone for all your tracks - shortcomings get multiplied.

Boswell, post: 387990 wrote: Chris, am I correct in reading from your post that you are doing the sample rate conversion (96K or 88.2K down to 44.1K) digitally in the DAW? I'm sorry to say that I still have a healthy mistrust of the sound of digital SRCs, probably as a result of getting such terrible results from them when they first became available. It's the main reason I use the external analog summing route I described when generating a 44.1KHz CD final mix from high-rate tracks or stems.

I find it does help to have the source tracks on something external like the HD24XRs so they are coherent but independent. I usually also capture the 2-track mix at 96KHz on a couple of spare tracks on one of the source HD24XRs so I have a higher-rate digital reference copy. The CDs of which I've been most satisfied have been done without any DAW involvement other than final top&tail.

In my view, the big difference in working like this comes from having only two channels (final L + R) of the lower-rate anti-aliasing filters in your 2-track mix instead of having a mix made from 16+ channels each of which has had the final-rate filter applied. It's a bit like using the same microphone for all your tracks - shortcomings get multiplied.

Yes Bos,

well explained and definitely top priority now. You nailed the single most important trick to summing.

analog console vs hybrid DAW

Hey Paul,

Good to hear how steady your work is. Kudo's indeed! I'm trying to follow your business model, very smart guy here. thumb

Okay, this is only my opinion right now and could change because I'm learning all the time but from my current understanding based on what I'm using today, this is how I see it.

Well there is an analog console and then there is a hybrid DAW system.

• Following this technology I'm discovering a how hybrid is too generalized, misunderstood and placed into the analog console circle where I don't think it belongs. There is working OTB using an analog console and then there the Hybrid DAW System that is modular and the closest thing to a straight line before you add the glue and flavour of the week. You aren't locked into anything with a hybrid DAW system. They are designed to work seamlessly with a DAW. The two systems are very different and even though both analog sum, I know the hybrid system using the same engineer would produce a different SUM than a mix summed through a traditional analog console. I would expect the hybrid system ( providing you have additional hardware) would out perform a console any day of the week, especially with the new programmable routing systems. I would expect hybrid to produce all spectrum's (fat, warm, aggressive, sweet, subtle) more detailed in comparison, or remain completely indistinguishable between ITB or OTB if you chose the sum to be. Also, a hybrid monitoring system has superior gain and level matching in every aspect of your signal ADDA and does not add colour to what you are hearing. They are transparent and sonically more accurate over a console's monitoring.

class="xf-ul">

• The Hybrid summing amp I use is designed transparent for a reason and have big headroom and routing abilities to integrate the analog flavour of the week. A analog console however, is an after thought, coloured and poor at routing any flavour of the week without adding its own to the mix. I bet more time is spent cleaning up unwanted colour than what is ever sonically gained. And because DAW's are so clean and the console is so the opposite, there is too much extreme on either side to really blend well together. Thus, why more and more people are trying to sell them. They do not work like hybrid.

class="xf-ul">

• Whether a mix ends up sounding like a million bucks at the end of the day, one thing for certain, it will surely be digitized. How we mojo our sound will be ongoing and there will always be opinions.

class="xf-ul">

• Last but not least, Flame away... the majority of growing opinions on forums are coming from people that have never been OTB in any worth to form a valid opinion or clear understanding on this subject, had the opportunity to use a complete hybrid system like I am describing (not just parts of one) or heard an analog mix before it was a victim to conversion. If you heard what I hear before it gets bounced around your answer would be exactly as mine. Mixing OTB is special but speaking from experience, its real easy to screw up.

class="xf-ul">
I’m discovering analog mojo is spoiled very quickly without even knowing its happening for a variety of reasons. I also trust, if I do not have excellent monitoring on top of excellent equipment ( I'm not talking headphone outs of a converter or an old mixing console and a pair of speakers adequate ) at this level of sonic engagement, you are most likely going to miss a lot more detail than you realize somewhere during mixdown and therefore, problem based learning and the ability to preserve your pristine mix true to final online distribution is most likely a loosing battle and pointless to discuss or pursue. How's that for blunt.

There are death paths that will surely turn all glorious sound into the recognizable digital death with one wrong decision from the lack of NOT being able to hear it happening. This is where it all changes and it is definitely the cross roads between bunk or not. The process lives or dies during summing, bouncing and conversions and this is why it becomes so subjective. How many times have you been confused and disappointed over the sound of your final mix after you bounced it to CD or mp3.

------------------------------------
Something Interesting:

I did a null test on analog vs digital last month and found that if I take an warm and open sounding analog mix and work at it enough times, I will eventually make it sound digital enough that you cannot tell the difference.
Yes, we can make an analog mix sound digital if it goes through the "Digital Factory" a few times but its not so easy to do it the other way around. So Boswell hit the magic on the head. I believe Cucco has mentioned this too and why I am ordering a DSD. If you missed that,

Originally Posted by Boswell

Chris, I don't know whether you had considered working this way, but the highest quality mixes I achieve are analog mix-downs of high sample rate (96KHz) digital tracks, the 2-bus mix being captured at the project target rate of 44.1KHz or 48KHz. This is easy to set up sourcing from a bank of HD24XRs, but to get this to work using a DAW, you would have to have a separate 2-track capture computer or else an S/PDIF digital recorder after your 2-track ADC.

I can really hear the difference even at the 16-bit 2-track (CD quality) level through having let my analog mixes "breathe" by sourcing them with 96KHz converted digital. No more 44.1KHz "tizz" that you mention amplified by the number of tracks.

Listen to the radio, can anyone tell the difference between anything? I can’t. This sad truth is enough to kill everyone's thirst to strive for sonically better pop music as a business. Its easy to just join the fast growing wanker (plug-in) crowd but I know too much now and am too damn stuborn to turn back or give in. I keep hoping the world will demand better sounding music and the economy will turn around enough for us all to get back on board and take back the airways.

Try the test. But I guess you’ll have to take my word on it because I don’t know very many people that have a complete hybrid analog rig, but if you do; Null two mix’s up best you can, bounce them a few bounces and you will take all the space out of the analog mix. You can throw in the towel with confidence.

FWIW: I have very good converters, cable and power so you can imagine anything less pro, yields an even truer digital sound and less reason to hope for better sound at the end of the day.

--------------------------------------

I know better gear makes a difference, I can mix faster and it is definitely a lot more fun but my point is, listen to the radio and take into account what the majority of people are using to monitor music on, including most of us here. If you can't hear it, you will never think about investing in high end and trying to convince anyone that this is specail, is pointless because you can't hear it anyway.
Don't try and convince me they both sound the same though, because high end analog is clearly warmer and more open on my monitors up until it gets screwed up, which I'm doing less and less these days because I'm not using using conversion software. I use a second AD system to master on and have a stellar monitoring system.

After a few years learning all I can on this subject, it is the music that matters most to me and to most of the people holding fast on this technology. I do honestly believe however, that we can make a commercial recording for under $5000 or less if you know what you are doing and you are satisfied with that sound and do this ( "I use a second AD system to master on and have a stellar monitoring system".) Maybe even more like $3000 and a good PC.
We do not need to invest thousands in hardware or a well designed studio for a lot of popular music. Music sounds so bad already that most of us don't remember what it used to sound like post 1998 and the new generation doen't know what they are missing. Sweet sounding transients just get crushed to get more volume.
Most DAW’s, VSTi’s, a properly optimized CP, an average DAC, a few quality preamp flavours and a decent mic collection should produce a sound good enough to be on the radio. That day may change. When it starts to sound better, it will be a great day to celebrate.

I would also like to mention, I just upgraded to Sequoia 12 and this is the best sounding and most complete professional DAW system I have yet to own. It covers everything from mass track count , excellent MIDI and a world class mastering suite all in one package, plus, it looks beautiful! The plug-ins and object based editing are outstanding. Nothing in its class touches this DAW . Look out world, that’s all I have to say.

---------------------------------------

That being said,

For people following the hybrid crowd, which I definitely believe has clear advantages prior to bad conversion choices and too many DA's, if you care to venture into the world of high fidelity like I live and die for, and are able to invest your time and hard earned money in this changing industry, maybe look at this like you are planning ahead in a world that hasn’t, or might never catch up to online HD.
I think there is a particular order and ideal time to use either plug-in or specific analog process ( ITB or OTB) that makes a big difference, and a whole lot of hype you do not need as well.

Boswell nailed a very important process that benefits everyone recording music today, not just analog geeks. And for the hybrid or analog console crowd, I would pay extra close attention to how you group transient similar stems, doing the DA once and making it count and your bouncing and conversions dead on because this is where the cross road is and how a $100.000.00 analog system becomes wanker real fast.

I use wanker because I don’t know the difference between home recording, project studio and pro DAW anymore. It used to be Pro Tools HD meant your were pro but we now know digital all sounds the same right? Digital is digital and Pro Tools is just another wanker product that happens to do third party plug-in's better than most. Albeit, the software is really great.
To me though, its all part of the wanker industry now. Some just have better wanker mojo and processing ability than others. Or is this more a computer thing than the actual DAW anymore. So you can run 100 tracks with plug-in's on all those tracks where another guy can run 400 tracks of plug-ins and automation up the hing yang. I think the more automation and plug-ins one can run, makes something more pro, high end . what? I dunno... Maybe high end gear is a thing of the past? Are there high end plug-ins, high end DAW's?

Majority of all digital gear is fast becoming close enough to what everyone is working with. You cannot be half way wanker to me anymore. And forgive me if I sound rash or if the word wanker is again, missunderstood. To me it is the replacement for high end analog augio. It means plug-ins to me.
I feel I am very informed and know no other way to question my peers, describe my passion without loosing my energy or share my no BS opinions on this very interesting subject in a pro audio discussion .

I do not know the difference between DAW Pro Audio or wanker anymore. We are all using the same DAWs so if someone can please shed some light on the difference between a wanker and pro, I would like to know?

---------------------------------------

And back to the original discussion,

There is "ITB", "analog summing with a console" and then there is "hybrid summing".
If I had to make a choice between a console or a DAW. I would take the DAW. Consoles aren't versitle enough and they are too damn big and noisy, well maybe not this one (the nice Neve in Bryan Adams Studio).
Too much of one thing isn't the answer and summing through a console is too much of one flavour if we are going to get technical over all this ITB OTB integration.
Drums really shine but I still think you would benefit more from the Folcrom and a DAW rather than investing thousand in a console today. Hybrid however is the best of both worlds.

I would love to have a Neve for eye candy, I cherish a picture taken of me sitting in front of this console back in 2001. Its one of 3 amazing consoles Rupert Neve built after he came out of retirement http://warehousestudio.com/files/Image/background/Studio-2-079.jpg , but I wouldn’t invest my money or studio space on something like this unless I was the owner of this wonderful studio in Vancouver who has a lineup of skilled engineers that know this console and go there just to mix on it. The girl on the other, well that’s another story :)

The first to be built, A4792 went to Air's resort studio on the Island of Monserrat in the Caribbean and later to A&M Studios in Los Angeles. The next to be built, A7976 was installed at Air Studios on Oxford street and is still in service today at Lyndhurst hall. The third console, A6630 was also installed in Oxford street and later went to Atlantic Studios in New York until 1991 when it was brought to Vancouver.

I know there are exception to all platforms but I couldn't help myself from sharing more on how I see hybrid. In the end, its the music that matters and a great song is a great song.

I forgot to mention,

I opened a new forum called [[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]Track Talk[/]="http://recording.or…"]Track Talk[/]. We are having fun doing mini mix fests and discussing how we process tracks and mix's with audio examples as we roll with it.

I am also preparing a big mixing contest so we need to do this a few times before official. I plan to participate myself using my hybrid rig so it will be interesting who ends up with the better mixes. I wouldn't be surprised if some 18 year old using FL kicked ass. Who knows.

Anyone that wants to share some tracks and polish up their chops before this all takes place, its a cool forum and great way to cut through all the chat we've been doing for 12 years and learn more using audio examples.

Be warned though, if you are sensitive and cannot take direct criticism, its not a place you want to air your mixes.

PS

If you have some tracks that you would share for us, please PM me. I'm dying to mix another song and ultimately get others involved too.

Boswell, post: 387990 wrote: Chris, am I correct in reading from your post that you are doing the sample rate conversion (96K or 88.2K down to 44.1K) digitally in the DAW? I'm sorry to say that I still have a healthy mistrust of the sound of digital SRCs, probably as a result of getting such terrible results from them when they first became available. It's the main reason I use the external analog summing route I described when generating a 44.1KHz CD final mix from high-rate tracks or stems.

I find it does help to have the source tracks on something external like the HD24XRs so they are coherent but independent. I usually also capture the 2-track mix at 96KHz on a couple of spare tracks on one of the source HD24XRs so I have a higher-rate digital reference copy. The CDs of which I've been most satisfied have been done without any DAW involvement other than final top&tail.

In my view, the big difference in working like this comes from having only two channels (final L + R) of the lower-rate anti-aliasing filters in your 2-track mix instead of having a mix made from 16+ channels each of which has had the final-rate filter applied. It's a bit like using the same microphone for all your tracks - shortcomings get multiplied.

Bos,

I just used a second DAW and a Prism Orpheus for mastering. Your method works flawless, thank you so much! My mastering just stepped up another notch. The mixdown is exact.
From the time I started this hybrid journey to now, I have learned so much from you guys.

(I remember you mentioned interest in an Orpheus a while back, it is no disapointment thumb)

Big hug

PS

Experiencing this, I am completly elightened and recommend this for anyone summing OTB.