I mix usually on the analog console, at least submixes...It sucks to mouse mixes around, and I want real faders...If I had software with real faders, I would do more mixes strictly on the PC I think.

There IS a reason, it's called preference. The guys mixing the top 40 tunes are mixing them on neves and SSl and euphonix. Those are their "instruments". If you had a song that A&R said "it's a smash", then you want Mike Shipley or Tom or Chris Lord-Alge to mix it, no? Their favorite tools are SSL & Focusrite & API & Pultec, etc.- so that's what it gets mixed through. And they usually transfer it to 3348 before even listening to tracks.It's what they are comfortable, fast, and PAID to create hit mixes. When an eng/mixer becomes SO proficient on Logic or PTools or Nuendo AND is a "name" mixer, then we will see more records mixed off computers. When there is a 48 fader/dynamics/DDL/reverb/EQ controller that is fast & intuitive, this will happen.

Originally posted by supersonic C:
. When there is a 48 fader/dynamics/DDL/reverb/EQ controller that is fast & intuitive, this will happen.

Bravo!!!

The new "focusrite" MMC pro control looks interesting. It doesn't look like they went as far as the MegaPC I was asking for, but one remains hopeful.

Anyone want a used procontrol?

------------------
------------------------------
Ang1970 is:
Angelo Quaglia,
AQ Productions

http://www.recording.org
RO, created for musicians by musicians.

Hi Angelo,

From what I've seen and read of the new "Control 24" it looks an excellent piece of kit for the price and presents very few disadvantages for the majority of potential users over a Pro-Control. However, the Pro-Control still has some important advantages for certain users. It's expandable, a 48 fader pro-control with an edit pack makes a lot of sense for those who have to deal with big mixes and/or surround sound. Other minor differences are apparently poorer quality faders (on the C24), smaller scribble strips and the pre-amps are good, but not the best.

So don't sell your pro-control just yet!

Greg

Apart from the physical/aesthetic preferences of engineers toward hardware vs. software during mixing (I prefer real hardware myself), I also wonder about the summing buses in a computer, or even a digital mixer, vs. an analog mixer. It seems to me that the way mixes blend together is really different between the two - somebody tell me if I'm nuts. It seems like you can get tracks to sound fine soloed in a computer or on a digital console, but when you listen to the whole mix it's a lot more difficult to get everything to poke through than it was on analog consoles, even the cheaper ones. I chalk it up to the internal summing algorithms vs. actual wires, but maybe someone else has other comments.

Of course, it's also true that since it's much easier to have waaayyy too many tracks on an HDR than it ever was in analog, more and more people insist on throwing everything including the kitchen sink into their recordings. So that probably has something to do with it too. :D

--Lee

I cant agree with you more on the issue of summing Lee. To me, we have the same oath as doctors: " first do no harm"

The lure of computers to me was the ASSUMED " garbage in, garbage out " nature of a computer system, but...
So far, using a variety of cards/software on both PC and Mac, I have NOT been able to get a digital clone of a track back from a computer. I call the manufacturers and ask " how do I set this so that I get back a one when I put in a one and a zero when I put in a zero. They love to dance around on this question and never have I gotten a straight answer.

All that being said, I LOVE editing in my computer.

But no matter what anyone tells me, I DO see a difference between the rendering and summing of files between different programs.
Mix the same two tracks on cubase, then vegas, then samplitude and you will see what I mean.

Some sound close to transparent, some sound subjectively better or worse, some even do mush things up a little and sound " analog-ish " I dont mind so much IF something is done to my file, but please manufacturers, TELL me what it IS doing!

In a discussion on summing with a friend a while ago, we came to some conclusions.
In a pure digital mix, EVERY single thing; fx, audio, faders, are ALL referenced to one clock ( in a way, lets not get into clocking). When there is a pulse, there IS a pulse, when there is not a pulse there is NOTHING. On an analog summing bus, there is no such distinction, there are most likely sources being recieved all the time, even if its just thermal noise from a resistor :)

....

Aaron, I'm glad someone else feels this way. :) I really didn't feel like being told again that I was "hearing things" (as I often have been in the past only to have a zillion other people start saying they suddenly hear the same thing 3 years later...)

Anyway:

>>Some sound close to transparent, some sound subjectively better or worse, some even do mush things up a little and sound " analog-ish " I dont mind so much IF something is done to my file, but please manufacturers, TELL me what it IS doing!<<

LOL... well the thing is, HOW can they describe what it is doing? "Well, our package is MUCH less transparent than Logic!" "Our summing algorithms are 'mushy'!" What kind of vocabulary can be developed that would allow someone to make a judgement of what a particular algorithm will sound like?

Sure, the manufacturers COULD come up with a way to specify some of the technical details that were used. But then we'd have to suss out how that translated sonically. For example if a piece of hardware has a tube in it we know we can do certain things like overdrive the tube, and we have a pretty good idea what that will do to the sound, especially if we are familiar with tube circuitry and we could look up the other components involved.

How much digital software companies will reveal about their algorithms, and how we can begin to describe them sonically, is a huge question mark at this point!

--Lee

Quote:
Originally posted by Lee
---------------------------------------------------------
How much digital software companies will reveal about their algorithms, and how we can begin to describe them sonically, is a huge question mark at this point!
---------------------------------------------------------
Hey Lee,
So this is where ya been! Do we really care about algorithms and how to describe them sonically? Surely the bottom line is do they work? Can I make a good mix outta them? I for one don't give a rats ass about the technicalities of the individual analog versus digital thing. At the end of it all no person can tell you jack about your product, it's either good or not, it either works for you or not!! Opinions are so damn subjective! I can see good and bad in both worlds yesterday I was very happy to have all the power of Pro Tools today I wished I had a classic Neve. When all's said and done if it fits the product and it fits you then it's cool imho.

Simon :p

Hey Simon!

I agree with you and that was kinda the point I was making really - there is no way to qualitatively describe the sound of a digital mix and the bottom line is whether it sounds good and works for you.

Frankly I am not bowled over by ANY digital mixing medium at this point. They do all sound different, and it would be tough to set up a way to compare them all. But I do think the summing algorithm is a factor that's too often ignored in discussing digital recording. It's easy to get individual tracks to sound great in the digital realm; it's TOUGH to get them to sound great, or even the same, when they are combined. A lot of people who've never worked on analog boards probably don't realize this, and it's an area that I'm sure will improve over time, but not if we never complain about it. :D

--Lee

I didnt mean so much to ask for an exact algorythym, what I want to know, is HOW do I set the software to make a digital clone?
In what manners of operating ( levels, settings, etc. ) do I NOT affect the sound?

In other words I suppose that a LOT of this software would sound just fine, if the MINIMUM of futzing could be done to the auidio, but this is not what happens.

While mixing, most audio is held at levels where a gain change IS occuring even if there isnt a need for one. Changing gain is one of the MAJOR causes of sonic degradation in the digital world.

Not to make it sound like I may as well not put audio on the PC, I mean, yeah if you did nothing at all, then whats the point? But I mean, if a track doesnt need to be touched, I would rather it not be messed up, just to make up for the tracks that do need editing!

i think its just because there are just so many nice analog toys out there that just arent available on the "box" yet. if i was mixing a high budget project, i would most certainly use both the DAW and outputs to an analog board. use automation in the DAW doing what an analog board CANT do and use the analog board with all the analog toys and sum it all together there and get the best of both worlds. i most likely couldnt print to 2" jsut to mix off of but might possibly mixdown to a nice analog deck if thats the sound i am going for.

if DSP gets faster and better and people like bombfactory replace all the analog toys virtually, i would stay all digital assuming i have a really nice controller.

btw: i wouldnt use the control24 after seeing one, i would shell out the extra for a procontrol in a heartbeat, you are just too confined with the control24.

Using anolog and DAW I think gives the best of both worlds. :)

Aaron,
I am with you all the way, your posts are right on the money!!!!!!!!
And it would be nice to know more about what you shell out for, seperating the promotional BS from the real deal.... in tech terms, or whatever, right? ;)

Question for Brad Blackwood:

Why was 3DD mixed in PT with all the available analog stuff you have at Ardent? Was it an economic decision, producer's call, or both? And was it tracked in PT or transfered from another format?

TIA,

Rick Powell/Studio71

P.S. I'd love to record in Memphis. My dad was born there and I've been thru town zillions of times. ;)

....

Originally posted by supersonic C:
There IS a reason, it's called preference. The guys mixing the top 40 tunes are mixing them on neves and SSl and euphonix. Those are their "instruments". If you had a song that A&R said "it's a smash", then you want Mike Shipley or Tom or Chris Lord-Alge to mix it, no? Their favorite tools are SSL & Focusrite & API & Pultec, etc.- so that's what it gets mixed through. And they usually transfer it to 3348 before even listening to tracks.It's what they are comfortable, fast, and PAID to create hit mixes. When an eng/mixer becomes SO proficient on Logic or PTools or Nuendo AND is a "name" mixer, then we will see more records mixed off computers. When there is a 48 fader/dynamics/DDL/reverb/EQ controller that is fast & intuitive, this will happen.

The reason that a mixers preference is to use a console, over mixing through the computer, is because the summing of the computer is of drasticaly poor quality. If you A/B the stereo output of drums from the computer, against the drums at unity level plugged into the console of your choice, the difference is staggering.

Not to mention the reduction in sonic quality that occurs when you start doing rides in the computer.

You'll see hit records mixed completely through a computer, but they won't be particularly great sounding records. Of course, it seems quite obvious to me, that 'great sounding' isn't currently a requirement for a hit.

BTW, some mix engineers transfer to 48 dig because they don't want to have to wait for 2 machines to lock up, and because they charge a rental for the machine, a big rental. Often times that decision is about time and money.

Mixerman

In many cases that is true, but there are some options that are comparable, in the right hands - Paris being one. Then again, there is extra hardware doing the mixing (not the CPU), so the issues with host-based mixing aren't the same. I know putting a $5k+ DAW up against 6-figure consoles is a bold statement, but there are #1-charting and Grammy-winning songs out now that were recorded and mixed entirely with Paris, and the list is growing. It obviously depends on the talents of the mixing engineer, which is true for any mixing environment. As far as mixing entirely in Logic or Cubase (for example), I agree with you completely - the sound isn't there - the mixing bus of most native apps is poor, but with the proper constraints, useable for some things - just not final mixes. I've mixed on all three - Paris is in another league. Point is, DAWs are closing the gap, but the engineer's preferences are still the final deciding factor - whatever it takes to get the job done efficiently, with the best quality level possible will always be the rule.

I'm glad somebody finally mentioned PARIS.
I interned on both analog and digital stuff, I know the difference. I edited a lot of projects in Ptools and I was never happy with the sonic compromises. Then I heard PARIS for the first time when they debuted it at NAMM a few years back...I was converted (so to speak). I've been using it ever since.

Ok could someone answer these two

1. Is the digital summing in a digital console like a Sony, O2R any better?

2. Is there a difference between a mixdown through a DAW in realtime and a mixdown as a computer function i.e. mixdown to wav as in cubase.

1. Is the digital summing in a digital console like a Sony, O2R any better?

I assume you mean better than a host-based application (Cubase, Logic, etc). There is a difference in how the summing bus/process is implemented, at what bit resolution, converters (for transfers/playback through consoles), etc. Digi had to rewrite their mixing engine (included in 5.0.1 I think) to address this very issue (really the 24-bit truncation on the TDM bus, that accumulates errors in summing, esp. as track count increases). Higher end digital consoles (and even analog for that matter, but for different reasons) will likely have a better summing bus than lower end consoles (O1V, O2R) or host-based app (in general - there may be a few exceptions or differences in personal taste for a given musical purpose). This does affect the sound and it is one of the things that puts systems like Paris, IMO, in a league well above their cost - sound quality of the mixing engine (summing bus included). That is just one example - there may be others too. Many host-based apps like DP, Cubase, Logic (in host-based form, not as a front end to PT), etc. can vary - while they can sound pretty good in the right hands, they aren't always going to compete with more expensive DAWs such as Paris, PT and RADAR, and high end digital consoles, etc. I know some people prefer Digital Performer to Paris or PT, which seems to defy the general expectations (Nuendo is another host-based app getting good reviews on sound quality).

2. Is there a difference between a mixdown through a DAW in realtime and a mixdown as a computer function i.e. mixdown to wav as in cubase.

Theoretically there shouldn't be since digital audio mixing is really just a lot of mathematical operations on audio files. Whether that can be accomplished by the application depends on the audio path (completely processed in the CPU, or routed through other hardware). The trade-off really comes in what the quality level of the mixing engine/process and effects/EQ/dynamics processing is within the application vs. using external gear, be it a DAW with external hardware, or a digital console and disk- or tape-based source, or some combination of the above. I personally am extremely impressed with what I am able to accomplish with mixes in Paris along with outboard gear, vs. other systems (host or console based). I think many people would agree that many of the digital console/DAW options sound better than Cubase, or an O2R. I don't mean for my posts on this thread to sound like a Paris ad - they aren't - just my tool of choice and what I consider to be a good standard for DAWs. The DAW and even the host-based landscape is improving, but so are the higher-end options. The two may converge at some point, some day, but for now there is a difference, just not always as much as cost differences would imply.

"There is a difference in how the summing bus/process is implemented"

...yes, but I would really like to understand this exact technical difference. Is it only a matter of the bit-deph? Which other aspects are involved?

Benoit

Originally posted by Benoit:
...yes, but I would really like to understand this exact technical difference. Is it only a matter of the bit-deph? Which other aspects are involved?

The differences are usually bit depth, dithering, and to a lesser degree, fixed vs. floating point, and noise in the case of hardware hybrid systems. If, for example a mixing engine processes 24-bit data at 56-bit fixed point (i.e. some older Motorola DSP chips as in TDM), but truncates to 24-bits on output, you can have up to 31 bits of data (assuming 1 sign bit) lost. That 31 bits represents the very lowest levels such as the ends of reverb tails and depth and spaciousness in a stereo field. Since digital audio cannot pass 0dBFS, the extra bits above the audio bit depth (24-bit for this example) are used for carry-over in summations. When returned to 24-bit format (i.e. when leaving the process for a destination outside the CPU or mixing processor), if the data is not dithered to mask the aliasing created by removing the lower bit levels, then you create a harshness in the detail because of lost information in lower levels. The quality of the dithering process is a factor, as is the actual DSP circuit design. If there is poor grounding in a hardware system, or a lot of interferance, a slight amount of noise can be introduced - similar to problems in a computer environment - usually not a big issue in pro-level digital gear, and even if it were, it would occur at very low levels. I don't count this as a big factor since it would only occur at I/O sections, and not within a processor. That is a separate part of the sound quality discussion.

As far as fixed point vs. floating point - floating point simply provides a wider range of representation. CPUs use 32-bit float, which contains 24-bits of data (mantissa), 1 sign bit and 7 exponent bits. This allows much more levels of representation than even 56-bit fixed point. There are varying opinions on the advantages and disadvantages of both. I don't know enough of the actual manufacturers' algorithms to deliniate pros and cons. I also don't know what most digital mixers use. Both the O2R and Ramsa DA7MkII use 32-bit internal processing (fixed point I assume), the Sony DMX-R100 uses 32/40bit floating point. I tried to find some specs on other higher end consoles (AMS Capricorn, Euphonix, etc. but with no luck). Paris uses 56-bit floating point custom DSP chips. TDM uses Motorola 56k 56-bit fixed point DSP. Host-based apps use 32-bit floating point (PC or Mac - both are 32-bit float). All factors have to be taken into account in comparing each of these. Hope this helps a little.

RADAR has no mixing capabilities that im aware of, its sound is determined by the converters [which people seem to love] but if you used the same converters to RADAR/Paris/DP/PT/et al, the data should be exactly the same until you start summing it on some mixer.

Dedric wrote:
"Many host-based apps like DP, Cubase, Logic (in host-based form, not as a front end to PT), etc. can vary - while they can sound pretty good in the right hands, they aren't always going to compete with more expensive DAWs such as Paris, PT and RADAR, and high end digital consoles, etc. I know some people prefer Digital Performer to Paris or PT, which seems to defy the general expectations (Nuendo is another host-based app getting good reviews on sound quality)."

FWIW,
Nuendo uses the same audio engine as Cubase.
Also, yes, host based DAW's do rely on 32 floating bit. I believe this is why it makes a huge difference in how the software is written, aside from having highend hardware attached to your computer of course.
Seems to me this might be why DP has such a great rep for it's "sound"..... I've definitely heard people perfer DP to PT but not many DAW users seem to claim their sound to be better than a Paris system....... I still think it's in the software.
Just a hunch.

actually, i cant relate to the logic of paris... their routing system is a MESS [or becomes one quickly]

DP has come from out of nowhere with the sound of it and im liking it now, before i didnt that much... preferred analog. now if they would just build a controller with a center section id be a happy camper.

Originally posted by alphajerk:
actually, i cant relate to the logic of paris... their routing system is a MESS [or becomes one quickly]

If you are referring to the routing screen when connecting lines become a mess and won't display neatly separated, straight lines - I too wish that could be displayed better (I don't really see a need to mimic the back of one of my racks - which BTW, Reason does the same thing - only with perhaps too much realism). Aside from the display, the routing is very flexible and fast (esp. with a routing setup bin for fast recall) - all assuming you don't mind looking at spaghetti.
:D

Attached files

I'll admit PARIS' routing can get a little hairy. That is why I have routing templates saved. One for tracking, one for mixing, one for insert send/return, etc. When I want a new routing scheme I load the .pxp and I'm done. I also have a basic blank saved so I don't have to go through and delete connections. S'cool, twerx. ;)

Thanks for all that info Dedric. Much appreciated :)

cheers
john

Dedric, I'd like to expand a bit on your point about dithering/truncation in TDM. The argument you make regarding truncation and the lost 31 bits of data sounds completely logical and is exactly what a number of us pointed out to Digi about 18 months ago. It started one of the biggest threads there has been on the DUC. Digi replied to the thread with quite a bit of math proving that the effects of truncation could not possibly be heard above the noise floor. Of course none of us believed it! :D

Hats off to Digi though they created two mixer plugins (A & B), for us to test out. One dithered, the other truncated. The majority of people could not tell the difference. Of those that felt they could tell the difference roughly half preferred mixer A to mixer B. As it turned out, mixer B was the dithered plug.

In other words, I'm not sure if dithering the buses would improve the sound of DAWs in general but in PT TDM there is no gain.

Greg

Attached files

Greg - I followed that thread when I was looking at PT and Paris. I did see Digi's response and some of the A/B test responses. I did find that interesting, which leads me to believe that the dithering revision didn't really affect what some people refer to as the "sound" of PT. A lot may depend on what happens when a lot of truncation artifacts are accumulated such as in large mixes, but that too may be subjective, and vary from mix to mix, from one mix engineer to another. Some people claim fixed point sounds better than floating point - I think it really comes down to the algorithms at that point, but even more so, the converters getting the sound in, and the engineer getting the sound out.

Dithering from high bit rates (32/48/56) down to 24 really is at lower levels - below -144dB. I can hear differences in dithering from 24 to 16, but I think you have to accumulate artifacts to hear it below that (i.e. the artifact levels start approaching -90 dB, which may or may not be happening in any DAW).

I would love to run an A/B mix between the two with 32-tracks, only level and pan settings that can be duplicated on each system, just for the curiosity of it. The worst that could happen is that one person would like one more than the other, which is where we are now. :)

If anyone with a PT system is interested in doing this, let me know. I'll be happy to use your tracks with my preference being that they are tracked with Apogees or other A/D better than 888s, if possible (all on restricted agreement to dump the tracks once we are done for copyright reasons). I can import sd2 or OMF files. Just an idea. :)

Attached files

I heard that the new Steve Vai album will have songs tottally recorded and Mixed in PT. Steve was a former analog API+Studer user...he rackmounted his API pres of course...
thats what I heard....my 2 cents
hehe

Originally posted by Eduardo Luke:
I heard that the new Steve Vai album will have songs tottally recorded and Mixed in PT. Steve was a former analog API+Studer user...

Yeah...well, you sit in front of a blaring guitar amp for hours a day for 25 years and see if it affects YOUR hearing.

Mixerman

Hi Dedric,

<< I would love to run an A/B mix between the two with 32-tracks, only level and pan settings that can be duplicated on each system, just for the curiosity of it. >>

That's exactly what I did try at the time, actually I used a 42 track mix I'd completed a few weeks earlier. Although there was a slight difference I couldn't say that I prefered the dithered mixer sound over the non-dithered one. I also tried the test with a whole bunch of plugs, much the same result. BTW, I did this test before Digi anounced which plug was which. I didn't post my results on the DUC because I felt my results were much the same as everyone else's.

Greg

Dig the topic, living it's drama, and now time to throw in my $0.02.

Currently I am a freelance Engineer/Producer, at the age of 21, who needs to do his own work rather than watching what he thinks is unsatisfactory work being done.

The main object in a setup is to be flexible, to be compatible, and to be able to take a check when needed.

For those reasons - I am going the Mobile DAW route. One can track to it, edit in it, and mix in it. Or one could track to 2", transfer over and edit, and then output to a console - etc, etc.

I'm going to throw my DAW (along with a few preamps/compressors) in a nice rack, and take them into other rooms for my tracking (and possibly mixing in the future).

As far as summing goes - its the case with any "mixer" - I decided to go with Nuendo for various reason, one being that it sounds great, as nice as Paris (yet I never did get the Paris hype), and definatly nicer than ProTools. Its an easy to use system, and its interfaces have A/Ds that you may just find sound exactly the same as the overpriced purple ones (cause they are the same chips). Plus the also give you DB-25s for you I/O, along with TDIF and Lightpipe.

Not to sound like a Nuendo Spokesman - I don't even own the shit yet, its just a really well laid out system - that sounds good. It also utlizes dual processor CPUs, and with more DSP cards hitting the market - it should be able to tackle anyone's needs. I could only wish for a better selection of plugins now, yet I am one that lets my mic selection and placement do 95% of the work, so it's not a huge personal deal.

anyone else doing the "mobile" DAW deal?

take care - Jason C. Crouch

Mixerman.

Pardon me, are you saying that Stevie Vai's previous albuns sounds bad ????? Is him unable to have a good ear cause he plays guitar for so long time ?

If so, what's an example of a good mix (in this style of music) in your opnion ?

Just would like to "get" your paramater...no ofense PLEASE !

Originally posted by E.L:
Mixerman.

Just would like to "get" your paramater...no ofense PLEASE !

You're missing my point. The point is, don't site someone who is most definitely the victim of some degree of hearing loss (or at the very least isn't at the peak of their hearing) as a case and point of why one should consider to record and mix exclusively in Pro Tools. As if, because he can't hear the diference, there must not be a difference. And as if, since he can use any gear he wants, then the Pro Tools must have been the best sounding. And as if, he didn't use top of the line converters, and actually mixed into a desk.

Neil Young's 'Harvest' is my favorite album of all time, both musically, and sonically. So because Neil now uses ADAT's, and thinks they sound good, I should take his recomendation?

That's the point.

Mixerman

Attached files

The original poster asked "I'd like to know if exist an album fully mixed in Logic Audio or Pro Tools".

I answerd: I heard YES !

I shared information.

Mixerman, again no ofense, but why do you visit this forum If you know so much and doesn't like recomendations ?

Do you wanna know my opinion ? Ok you don't, but anyway: PRO TOOLS ROCKS !!!!!

BTW...is there an engineer or anyone who works with music that have 100% health ears ? If so, tell me their secret.

the secret is easy its an ancient mantra...
just chant over and over

I can do that
I can do it better
I use 2" only'
I am blind to the world

chant that 8 zillion times ( and believe it)
and you will believe you have perfect ears :)