Remy, I can't even begin to comment on what you all said. Make no sense to me at all. You are all over the place.

Chris said "The flavour doesn't come from the summing box, or at least it shouldn't." I respect his opinion but who made that a law?

Kurt,
It depends which way you are working, yes diddlydoo. ?
Are you tracking? Are you Mixing? Are you Mastering (finishing), or, are you doing it all, like never before in history? Maybe one day I am tracking. Maybe one day I am mixing, Maybe one day I am Finishing. Think hybrid.

You can add or remove your flavor piece by piece to create the perfect ingredient that seamlessly works with The DAW.
Its no Law. It brilliant technology explained, that's all.

You go right ahead and suggest a summing system or console that adds so called "colour" that actually does the analog integration as proficient as I just explained it and I'll buy it.
This hybrid concept is not just my opinion, its the opinions of those who have heard the difference. FWIW, people that usually buy into the "flavoured" summing concept are on budget, after one sound or very mislead.

well, here's the way I see it, and this is just my opinion so everyone put your flamethrowers down... LOL

From what I've been able to decipher, Hybrid is the future, the way to go, that one missing link between the final mix and the final master where the engineer has choices in terms of color or transparency.

There's no doubt in my mind that a nice console is a favorable step in the near-to-complete product, in terms of 2-bus analog summing.

If it's only a question of a high voltage analog summed 2 mix, with no flavor added, then that's great...because having transparency as an option is certainly a choice I would want if, as the recording/mixing engineer, the
sonics already sound good to me on the discreet and/or collective tracks....but Chris has the option of adding colors to the final 2 mix through the use of inserting processors like the LA's, 1176's, etc.

We veteran engineers know that in many cases, you can bus signal through one of those pieces at unity gain, without any actual processing even engaged, and still pick up "color" simply by sending that signal through the respective device. LOL... we also know, or at least Remy and I have discussed this in the past, that one LA2 doesn't sound like another LA2...it's not that either sounds bad, it's just that they don't always sound exactly the same in terms of coloration. Some offer a shade of blue that is deep, others area bit more "pale".

And, IMHO, Chris is sitting smack-dab in what I am firmly convinced will become the next big thing. It's doubtful that most people are ever going to give up their DAWS en masse, the convenience factor, not to mention the money that people have tied up in their rigs, will mean that most mid-level users are probably not gonna dump it all in terms of a pure analog studio... but they just might consider a room like Chris has, to marry their digital productions to the warmth of analog as a final step before it's sent to an M.E.

Now...please.... of COURSE there are mitigating factors. The source of the original audio will always play a part in how much or how little Chris can actually do. Someone who is recording through a Realtek sound card isn't gonna be able to send a decent enough product for it to make much difference, and those people probably won't care anyway, because if they are happy with the way their stuff sounds thru a budget I/O like that, they probably won't be able to hear any difference, and in fact, you could drop a friggin' SSL G on their heads... and they wouldn't know it from a Soundblaster.

But, for those that do have a refined ear and a sense of fidelity, for those that can hear the difference and who do care about what happens to their mixes during that final 2-bus rendering, well, I'd say Chris is probably sitting pretty good right now in terms of being on the cusp of what I am sure will become much more popular and accepted as the coming months and years approach.

IMHO of course.

-d.

i'm just not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water. i am not talking just about a hands on tactile thing, i'm looking at the SOUND. at this stage, i will most likely at some point be forced to go with some type of a hybrid system. that doesn't mean i wouldn't LOVE to have a great console as well as a nice hybrid system. imo, if a little color is good, more is better for the most part. a console would be great for tracking and mixing. i remain convinced that color at the mixing stage is a good thing.

the reason hybrid is the choice de' jour is because it is affordable in comparison to the feeding and care of a Neve or API and the method is attainable in varying degrees. hybrid can be iplemented for a few hundred bucks or one can go whole hog and spend a fortune.

in the real world / home studio / small facility, there's a lot of reasons a hybrid summing is a great solution although i remain unconvinced transparent summing is (the only) way to go.

1) there's no money left in the business and hybrid is a viable solution.

2) who has the real estate or the funds to keep both a console? i would enjoy (at least) having the option of adding color or not in the final amplification stages. this is why i asked, "Who made that a law?" where was i when the jury came in on this? i don't remember there being a vote taken?

this is really no different of a question as the choice of console. some people lean towards a Neotek for their lack of coloration and others love Neves for the sound they impart .. neither is right or wrong.

in the major metro areas, the larger studios that remain in business and running at a profit still offer consoles. i don't think that's going to change. the question is, is there a demand for a room like that in your neighborhood? probably not but things could change and perhaps some day they will.

i don't see Jeff Lynne, Dave Grohl or Steve McBride or any of the big boys going pure hybrid. All the big studios are still tracking DAW through a Neve or an API and mixing through the same. that's how it's been done for ages.

at the mastering phase a hybrid system is more in order. it's what mastering engineers have been doing all along. don't get me wrong, i am not pooh poohing your approach Chris. i just don't feel you have a lock on the process. there's still more than one way to bake the cake.

Donny thumb

Kurt,

Don't you worry about raining on my parade lol, theres more than one way tp make great recordings. I actually like the idea of me being the only guy here doing. I kind of hope it stays that way but I also like to share what I know and don't mind if you have your way. This just happens to be what I'm digging.

Hybrid is pretty opened ended meaning, you can not only add the colour on the way out, BUT... on the way in, in between. ALL .... at an astonishing lower noise floor and bigger headroom that has EVER been achieved to date in history. But who has both or cares to do a comparison once you own what you own anyway.. Enjoy what you have. Its all awesome at this point.

But for conversation sake, is there another 120V summing system or console on the market that has as much headroom as the Neos? Something that integrates this seamlessly with a DAW that also has this accurate a monitoring system? We aren't even talking about this yet, which id a huge part of hybrid mixing BTW. . :) When you use a monitoring rig this awesome, you know its not possible to mix as precise and as fun with a traditional console. Not even close.
Never the less, if we are talking about just colour right now, man, you all have no idea how fluid and colorful this can be.

Lets build a virtual Hybrid Neve channel (or console) using the Neos rails and do a virtual comparison.

Acoustic source > U87> [="http://www.ams-neve.com/products/outboard/1073-mic-preamp-equaliser"]AMS Neve | 1073[/]="http://www.ams-neve…"]AMS Neve | 1073[/]> 1176>LA-2A>AD> DAW#1> DA> (choose) [[url=http://="http://www.mil-medi…"]NSEQ-2[/]="http://www.mil-medi…"]NSEQ-2[/], API 550A, 1073LBEQ> Neos> Master 2-bus> (choose clean or flavour) API 2500, Vari Mu, Nail, Portico MBP II , STC-8, Hammer, API 5500, BAX, 8200 etc > DA> Master DAW#2> digital limiter> online. Done smoke

Times this colorful channel by whatever track count and flavour you need and I'd say you have a pretty kick ass method to get the right sound for Rock, Blues, Jazz, Classical, Hip Hop etc. Don't you think?

Lets switch gears and mix something after we just did that. All I need to do is turn off or re route my digital patchbay, which can be done on the fly manually or via MIDI control at any time. Talk about automation.

Now lets prepare the master because we have been mixing on the mastering bus all along anyway, (another great topic).

Turn off everything except for the Mastering chain now.

All the above can be achieved in high end baby steps, piece by piece. You invest in modular products like 500 series stuff or stereo processors.

I'd be pretty surprised if a vintage console will rival this.

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

Maybe one of these applies:

Big studios haven't caught up. Nor do they want to. Why would they spend $$$. They wouldn't be comfortable using what I have anyway. It would be senseless redoing a whole studio in exchange for what I use as well. Who care as well. Its not a competition.

And, I wouldn't even suggest something like hybrid for the guys you mention. When you are in that league, you provide the standards for the industry, what freelance engineers are accustomed too .

To add some interest after I posted this just in care you are thinking about the Equinox

I have a friend in the LA area that has been using the Equinox for a while, he just tested the Neos against it and has one on order now. No comparison. And he bought it for the vary reason everyone does, for the advertised vibe. But he now hears it suffers in bass because of the added crap in that unit.

So however you digest this all, I'm just sharing what I hear and discover day by day..

If I was on a hybrid budget, I'd be doing the Folcrom or the Dangerous D-box . One is transparent, one is related to the color of your preamp
But then if I was on a budget, I'd been thinking I should just get the StudioLive and forget OTB all together.

Summing amps I would personally recommend would be these:

• SPL Neos
• Dangerous 2-bus
• SPL MixDream
• Dangerous [="http://www.dangerousmusic.com/products/d-box"]D-Box[/]="http://www.dangerou…"]D-Box[/]
• SPL [[url=http://="http://spl.info/pro…"]MixDream XP [/]="http://spl.info/pro…"]MixDream XP [/]
• Dangerous 2-bus LT

Kurt Foster, post: 401592 wrote:

the reason hybrid is the choice de' jour is because it is affordable in comparison to the feeding and care of a Neve or API and the method is attainable in varying degrees. hybrid can be implemented for a few hundred bucks or one can go whole hog and spend a fortune.

i don't see Jeff Lynne, Dave Grohl or Steve McBride or any of the big boys going pure hybrid. All the big studios are still tracking DAW through a Neve or an API and mixing through the same. that's how it's been done for ages.

.

Here's my quandry, gang... perhaps I'm just an idiot on the whole hybrid process, but to my way of thinking, anytime you marry analog with digital, in my mind at least, you are running a "hybrid" system.

For me, or at least the way I look at the definition, if you are busing signal through an analog device, whether it's a Neve or a Neotek, or if you are inserting analog processing, whether it's an LA2 or a Dbx 166, but tracking to or mixing from a digital domain, you are technically "hybrid", which means that cats like whom Kurt mentioned, Lynne, Grohl, and the others, are indeed working within a hybrid environment.

So perhaps some clarity is in order to determine exactly what that term really defines...

Is it only about the summing process?

I don't think it is.

Chris may be working with sub sets or "stems", but he is still technically mixing those various tracks in an analog domain, but the source for playback and the target for final 2 mix is in the digital realm.

I suppose that definition could be broadened to include any USB or firewire audio I-O/mic pre, because unless you are working with only digital samples ITB, your signal source will be analog, and it will be bused through an analog pre where it's converted to digital...

To me, pure analog is signal bused thru an analog desk, with the signal either originating from tape or tracking to it.

The second you introduce any type of A to D conversion, you are working in the hybrid world...

Or am I just screwing the pooch on the whole concept?

Here's my quandry, gang... perhaps I'm just an idiot on the whole hybrid process, but to my way of thinking, anytime you marry analog with digital, in my mind at least, you are running a "hybrid" system.

pretty much.

However, to explain my idea of hybrid, I would say a console is mixing or summing OTB where something like the above is designed to integrate with a DAW so I would call those hybrid summing amps. Hybrid is designed to accept stereo stems, center tracks better, summing and integrate a more sophisticated hybrid monitor control system. The monitoring systems on majority of consoles is a dated design, unusable to me compared to the hybrid monitoring system.
Consoles are also noisy in comparison so they don't really do the whole "hybrid" process ( recording, mixing, mastering) well and proficiently.

I don't know if there is a definite distinction written in stone but this is how I understand the term.

I admit to be bias the both SPL and Dangerous Music . I feel these two companies are doing it right. Dangerous Music has a lot of great info on all this and more.
http://dangerousmusic.com/learning-center/summingmixing

Here is an few articles from some engineers that use Dangerous gear:

http://www.dangerousmusic.com/news-and-press/94-pete-evick-gets-dangerous-on-brett-michaels-mixes
http://www.dangerousmusic.com/news-and-press/;page-2

excerpt:

Biggs explains that the 2-Bus has a “clean, open sound” that allows him to put the color into a mix with his own choices of analog gear, rather than being forced to start off in a direction he may not like, "I've worked in other rooms that have summing boxes, and one of the things that I find to be a turn-off is that if they're really sonically 'colored' — that's almost as bad, to me, as the ‘blank slate’ sound quality of in-the-box mixing. I feel like Dangerous gives me the ability to not have to deal with a negative like that from the get-go." Peacock agrees, "We always want to be in control of choosing which elements in the chain are somewhat neutral and those which have a color, like when to use a box that has it's own opinion, and wants to 'be something' — we want to be the director that's casting these roles, we don't want to be stuck with something that is not the role we want to put it in. We love the combination of the way the Dangerous 2-Bus works and how it still allows us to add color pieces when, where and how we want in the analog realm. - See more at: http://www.dangerousmusic.com/news-and-press/95-richie-biggs-and-charlie-peacock-get-dangerous-in-nashville-#sthash.hXhuhDak.dpuf

To add some personal insight over the coloured verses transparent summing amp, although either is hybrid per-say, the coloured summing amp will always include/ force its sonic footprint which would not be acceptable for a percentage of mixing and mastering projects. See other opinions on this: http://www.dangerousmusic.com/news-a....hXhuhDak.dpuf

One would initially think having the option to hard bypass a transformer would be a cool and useful concept like the popular Equinox summing amp:

[="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpHE6bcVrpk"]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpHE6bcVrpk[/]="http://www.youtube…"]View: http://www.youtube…]

To me this is a complete waste of money, a gimmick, a detriment. I wouldn't want an Equinox mash-up in everything I work on.

I feel, if am am taking hybrid technology serious, growing/ maturing with it, once you hear the effect with a tranny in or out, I leave it out every time and go to the outboard gear on a, "stem or single track per basis" over an all or nothing tranny approach. So thats why I would stay away from that. Its a one trick pony targeted to what I think, the misinform.

more explained:

You don't necessarily want the tranny active on every stem or track of a Bass line, Hi hat, Percussion, Chorus, keyboads, Main Vox, Acoustic Guitar, Violin, Strings or monitoring output etc. ( recording, mixing, mastering) . I want the straightest wire and the greatest option open.
Transparent mass headroom with the option to add or remove tubes, trannies, colour on a al la cate platter, = awesome imaging, shaping of sounds, better control over transients per track.

Have you ever switched an eq before or after a compressor? Used a transformer-less mic like a DPA 4011, or a tube vs Fet?
So this is a glimpse of what I am talking about.
Some tracks in a session benefit from more distortion or attitude where others like a kick or bass sound awesome transparent. Thats how you get those huge smooth subs happening. Add a tranny on those and you loose the tight center. We're trying to get away from one shoe fits all here.

Variation is the entire concept which helps everything bend or stand out better in a mix. We know variation helps us hear everything better and makes mixing a fast and easier process.. Gives everything a personality of its own. Much like using different mics when recording two guitars do.

Once again, hearing the true flavour of each and every product you have in your arsenal, and placing it exactly where it belongs at the right spot, rules.
If you want to flavour the whole mix, simply strap a tranny on the way in or out at the sweet spot of choice.

The fun begins when you start hearing better and learning about particular products.

Its a no brainer. Consoles don't come close to the big picture here.

This is the concept explained best I can.
Is it the only way to mix music, of course not. Is it for everyone, of course not.

Hope that helps :)

Check this out, nothing on hybrid mixing but a lot on a personal signature. Its how I look at this. Hybrid gives us a wider ability to be unique. I'm creating a sound of my own.

[[url=http://="http://www.youtube…"]View: http://www.youtube…]="http://www.youtube…"]View: http://www.youtube…]

Chris you are pointing out a one-size-fits-all that is spelled hybrid. And while hybrid may be the future for the home and midsized studios, it certainly is not the only way in which to work and produce professional product. You cannot convince me that your way is the better way. In fact the only stems I've ever worked with has been dialogue, music and sound effects. When it comes to pushing up a music mix, it is all done at once on the same thing. I don't screw around with stems. There is no need for stems in the mixing process for anything other than television and movie production purposes. I mean how is one to create stems when it's more important to create an entire mix of everything, together? That's nonsense. That's BS. That's someone else's way of working and perhaps yours it's not ours. And that doesn't make you any better or less than us. I don't care what your reasoning might be? Just because you got some stems of Christina Aguilera for remixing purposes doesn't mean that's how they made it. It's simply what they released, the way they wanted to release it, as partially mixed already, stems. You even indicated how awful her vocal tracks sounded. So where was the advantage in that stem? There would've been a greater advantage to the discrete dry track. But these people are just putting a carrot in front of a horse. And I'd rather have carrot juice. Where I can eat, 2 pounds of carrots in a single glass and receive a vitamin A overdose, by drinking 2 pounds of carrots. And where we prefer that tactile interaction with our equipment. I mean for heaven's sake, this is how everything is coming out of Nashville. It's mostly all analog on those awful Vintage consoles that no one should be summing through because of their inferiority and color. That's BS. It says it you thought a hit could not be recorded or produced unless it came from a hybrid based systems such as yours from stems? It doesn't go that way. It might very well be the future but we are not living in the future as yet, not completely, not for some time to come. Regardless of how superior a hybrid system such as yours might be? In fact, your system is not exactly the sound I seek. I don't really want that sound. I don't work that way. Opera singers don't sing death metal rock 'n roll. Death metal rock 'n roll singers don't sing opera. And that's what you're talking here. You're right I just don't get it? I don't want it. Not going to go after it. It may come? I'm not adjusted in working that way. That's my talent. That's my technique. That's my knowledge and experience. You have your own and I have my own and other folks have their own and they are all just as viable as yours regardless of specification blah blah blather nonsense. You're mixing with your eyes. And you've got a good set of ears in comparison to a lot of others. And you know how superior your system sounds for your purposes. But that's not everybody else's purposes. So I think the hybrid idea is unfounded for those that can afford the best that analog has to offer. It's perfect for the home operation studios and those with minimal budgets that can go beyond minimal such as your stuff. So I really don't buy into your way of doing things. It's just a different technique in which I do not practice. Just like surgeons. There are accepted practices but each have their own individual unique techniques they utilize. So maybe when everybody else is using a number five scalpel, this other surgeon is using a number three scalpel and they get the job done just fine their way. So you are preaching to the choir here Chris. It's fine for some and not fine for other professionals. Doesn't matter how superior you may think it is. I'd rather do it on a Neve or an API or even an SSL analog or digital console. Because I know what kind of a sound I want and I can get it just that way. I don't need to alter what or how I do things just to conform to your way of thinking the way that everybody should be doing it. That's bonkers.

And obviously, you cannot decipher nor interpret what I'm saying just the same way I can't conceive of working with stems for music production purposes unless it's for a movie mix or TV mix. It would be like recording part of the orchestra and then recording the other part of the orchestra and putting them together. And I would think that only an inept fool would work that way with an orchestra? Because any good mixer knows how to mix and they don't have to do it from stems. You can't accommodate a full multitrack mix. So you need to work the way you do with what you have. And that's without a large vintage fabulous sounding console. So for those that have those things and even less, it's still a viable way to go. This stem nonsense comes from a different aspect of the business.

Oh but all of those websites offering downloads of multitrack master, stems are all stems. So obviously that is the way people are working. It's not. That's for the consumer to have fun with and that stuff has already been pre-mixed and affected with whatever they wanted to affect it with. That was painfully obvious from that Christina Aguilera stem mixing contest and others like it. That's certainly not how the tracks were recorded. So they're just pulling your leg. It's another way to improve sales. So we'll go out and buy the recording and then mix the stems. It's a marketing concept that's all. There is no other reason why they would do that. And they're offering up big money, oh wow, 500 or $1000. And they're making millions. It's a tax write off. You know we have a different taxation system here in the US than you do in Canada. It might be similar? But it sure ain't the same. Why do you think so many Canadians move to the USA or British folks or anyone else? There are lots of taxation loopholes. So that's not necessarily how they are doing their own mixes. And you are making assumptions that's how it's all done properly. It's not. While others might work that way, most don't. Kids will because they cannot afford large analog or even smaller digital consoles to work upon. And where that hybrid thing would make more sense. But most are going to do that with the affordable junk not what you have. And they will still come up with simply miserable results that don't mix well together because they don't know what they're doing. You do. So you can. So can we in our old-fashioned ways with all of this inferior equipment we use and desire to use. So I'm not trying to rain on your parade. It's your parade. I parade what I do because I do what I do, so well. And it's nowhere close to the way in which you work. Yet we both seem to get really lovely sounding stuff. How is that possible if I don't have high voltage rails? Tell me please? You mean I can't makes a hit on a Neve or an API? No wonder I haven't been as successful as I had wanted to be? I wasn't using the audio buffet du jour. I'm using the leftovers before they go bad LOL.

Yes you know I'm screwy. But I to deliver results that are professional in spite of my lackluster ways of doing things.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Oh my. Remy, I question what you comprehend my friend.

Re Hybrid Mixing:
I hate to even comment after you because you utter such ignorance. You don't have a clue what you are talking about most of the time lately, especially when it comes hybrid technology.

Re Stems:
I've watched about 40 Grammy Award mixing engineers being interviewed over the last year and they all use stems or individual tracks combined in their mixing process. Its what we do. This is all dependent on the task. Many obviously being label status are on the SSL but some are now using hybrid technology. Its only beginning to dig in.
Mixing Stems however is a huge part of the mixing process. ITB or OTB.
Regardless of ALL OUR SUMMING METHODS ( ITB, OTB, Hybrid whatever) , stems are common. You are deeply out of touch.

I'm not trying to belittle you here but I'm interested in a higher level of discussion here. I think you need to take some time out to re educate yourself when engaging in these topics from now on, Remy.

And please stop pointing at me like this is something I'm just doing in the world of mixing. Its really disturbing how you preserve things like it was 1970 and broadcasting. Are you aware of this? I am biting my tongue trying to be respectful and polite to you over and over, but its wearing thin because you are constantly derailing intelligent topics back to, all about you back in the day. facepalm. This is 2013 my friend.

FYI, I didn't make these summing products either, I bought them lol and they are designed to accept and sum stereo stems. Did you know you can buy this stuff and this is how they designed it all to work? I've read memo's and manuals Remy.

I understand you couldn't possibly know much about what I am using because the cost to admission is over $100,000.00. Its not something you can go down to GC and have a listen to either. What is disturbing to me is you are acting like you know all about it, when I am one of very few in the world with such a system. My Neos is number 34. I could share a bit more but why at this point, yes?

My passion and enthusiasm doesn't make it LAW, but it does make a fun discussion and somewhat special for us. After all, who do you know with such a system?

REMY, Are you able to "mix" something for me? I'd like to hear how you do things today? Please please?

While we are waiting, try this one and get back to us:
">

"Is Analog mixing and processing superior to Digital mixing and processing?"

Well, it is usually different in result, as well as in process. Whether it is superior requires a value judgment. Many would say yes. Others would say no.

What do you say?

No, neither is superior standing on its own. But one of three offers more variation and method to tackle the task at hand, and to help support a sonic signature.
There are many times I never go OTB but then there is that one time where a tranny or tube is right on. I'm glad I have that option.
There are times when all I want to do is mix OTB and I'm glad I have the option. Then there are times I want to master something, I'm glad I have that option.

Would a console and tape deck be something which is higher in a hierarchical structure of any kind?
Would digital be something which is higher in a hierarchical structure of any kind?
Would hybrid be something which is higher in a hierarchical structure of any kind?

I would say the more option the better

I'm not out of touch Chris. You can look at stems much in the same way we used VCA subgroup faders. Those were basically stems. Or the moving fader varieties. So this isn't anything new. It's still a way in which I work. Subgroups are stems. While you have a $100,000 system unlike anyone else in the world, that's fine for you and your work. That doesn't make you better than me or anyone else. Folks producing computer music might well be utilizing stems? And I would understand why.

The video is interesting but it is not applicable to all. It's the way in which they work. It's the way in which those other folks you mentioned work but it's not the way everyone works. And it shouldn't be. Because it's art. You produce wonderful stuff. I produce the equivalent to rock 'n roll P.O.R.N.ography. I just hate that automatic censorship BS.

I devote a lot of time here telling people how to go about recording without a budget and without decent equipment. Because that's 90% or more of your visitors. I tell them I love what I use and what I use but I also tell them that the Barringer is just fine for their purposes. After all they all think dynamic microphones need phantom power. Right?

I have no doubt your way may be far superior in all manners. But just like having a full-blown vintage Neve, it's financially unrealistic for that 90% plus of your visitors. I'm not out to educate the world that a preamp that has .5% distortion is any worse than one that has .003% distortion. Because it's not any worse. And because all speakers produce far more distortion than what the scientific data says. Because it was microphones testing those speakers in an anechoic chamber. Which is not people and not ears and thusly has no bearing on the sound. It's only a printed specification. And we don't listen with our eyes. At least I don't, others do obviously.

And actually, other professional audio engineers that put down other professional audio engineers are not in themselves professional audio engineers as you have stated. I don't tell what other engineers should have or should get. They're professionals. They know what they want. They know what they need. They know what they've used. And so do I. And it ain't a hybrid. But if I'm going to downsize considerably I may in fact go that route? But I'm not going to do it the same way as you have. Not a chance. A decision a choice on my part. Will I be summing things digitally? Probably at times? It's perfectly adequate even though it doesn't sound like analog summation.

I almost can't understand how you would spend $100,000 on this superb system yet still be feeding audio through Chinese triode's? Or maybe you have all NOS Telefunken's? And because I don't want anything other than a Telefunken dual triode tubes in my tube stuff. I'm not interested in those Mallard ducks tubes. I don't want an RCA, Raytheon, Sylvania, dual triode, either. I want smooth plate Telefunken's. And I don't want a perforated plate tube. What do you think about that? I know Chinese tubes are inferior sounding even if they are in an LA-2. So if you wouldn't use the Barringer why would you use a Chinese triode? And maybe you don't? I don't care what you use I only care what I use.

I devote plenty of time here to helping people already so I'm really not up for a mix off. Besides, the truck is currently down and I have maintenance to perform on my Neve. Still no problem to do a 16 track mix. But I'm 24 track. And I've got eight modules that need sonic cleaning and capacitor replacements. Yet I am being pulled in numerous different directions right now, barely leaving any time to even contribute here.

So I'm happily ensconced in trying to figure out a new business plan for the truck or possibly just getting out like all of the other truck owners I know. And I know all of the best truck owners or former owners as the case might be today. And where I've also catered to a different crowd than who they catered towards. They weren't affordable and I am.

Most of the mixing I do today for demonstration purposes here have all been ITB. I mean why the hell should I power up my truck and put wear and tear on my equipment? I'll do it on the computer for free. You'll have to pay me to do it in the control room because I'm in business to do this. I don't give away my services as freely as I used to in my younger years. Where everyone for me back then was a guinea pig. I've already established myself as a highly professional and skilled engineer. And I really wouldn't care if my mix was not as pristine as yours. You are delivering a different kind of product from myself. And maybe this is how everybody is going to do it and is starting to? And you're ahead of the pack. You are the head of the pack. And if he gave me a choice between my Chevy van and a Cadillac, I'd likely still take my Chevy van? I like vans. I like the feeling of being in a big box. And I pay for it dearly in MPG's. But that's what I want. That's what I need. That's why must use. Even if the Toyota van gets 27 miles per gallon. And I only get 10.

Equipment doesn't make the engineer. The engineer makes the equipment.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Yes Remy, you are severely out of touch.
I could care less about superiority. I am only interested in methods to better mixing which include ITB or OTB (Most of by me is about 90% or more ITB.) and gear that gets people excited. Does anything get you excited today?

You are all over the map here. A constant Devils Advocate. One min its the Neve and Spring reverbs the next its Adobe . Then you are a designer of a summing box, then its plug-in reverbs. Then the industry is all to hell as you tell a newbie mixing on $200 monitors is good enough. Who the hell can grasp anything your are up on.

This isn't a stupid contest, however, I would like to hear something you do right now that backs up the engineer that thinks she knows more than the engineers mixing platinum albums today. People than don't prove anything using stems.

Most of the mixing I do today for demonstration purposes here have all been ITB.

Why are you always talking about your Neve?

Be clear, I don't want a "mix off". I just want to hear something from the Engineer who has all these methods and opinions that are so different from Grammy Award engineers?
Can you let me hear what you are doing lately? I'm preparing myself to be blown away!

saw a special on Palladia tonight called Dwight. it's about recording of Dwight Yokams latest album "Three Pears"... Chris Lord Alge among other luminaries ..

interesting to see how this recent album was recorded and the studio it was done in ... one thing that impressed me was several scenes / interviews / shots of a studio hallway with about 10 Studer 1/2 track machines all in a line ready to be wheeled into which ever studio they were needed.

it's going to re air tomorrow , Mon 3/4/13 at 8:30 AM - PST (check your local listings). IMO a must see.

looked like they were running 2" - 24 track and PT at the same time ... recorded and mixed on a console.

This is an odd sort of thread I must admit. In the painting world the are many mediums but the most "respected" by the general population is oil on canvas. There are many other mediums. There is acrylic, charcoal, pastel and the list goes on. I've never been a fan of acrylic paints. They are basically plastic and just don't have the depth that oils do and the same organic look. An apt comparison between analog and digital.

I am not a painter. I do like to look at painting and couldn't draw anything but stick men. I love oil on canvas paintings and will from time to time notice myself being drawn into a painting and then realize it is acrylic. Some artists just have a knack for really making it work.

The same is true in the analog digital world. Saying that digital, analog or hybrid is better IMO is a fools game. The medium the artist is a master at working with is the one to choose. There are some that are masters in many.

Could you imagine two master artisits like Devinci and Micheal Angelo debating weather oil or acrylic is better. That is the conversation I'd be least interested in. I'd be interested in what makes them pioneers in their field. What questions they ask themselves to push beyond the limits of what is currently happening. How they deal with time, economics, mediocrity etc.

It is not that people's experiences with particular mediums are invaluable. It doesn't matter what the cool kids are doing it only matters what we are going to be doing next.

Ok... yup... it's official. I'm an idiot.

On one hand we have Kurt as an advocate for console mixing. That's great. Don't get me wrong. I can't knock that nor would I attempt to because I spent the better part of 20 years cooking on them - of various caliber... from Tascam 3500's to Soundcraft's to Neotek's to Sony's to Neve's. (No, I never owned a Sony or a Neve. But as a hired gun engineer I've mixed on a few at studios which had them).

So yes. I dig consoles. Not only for the sound(s) but also for the tactile work environment. It beats using a mouse hands down.

On the other hand we have Chris who is using the Neos to accept stems - or individual tracks - from a digital source, in which he can control volume, pan, insert OB processing, etc. and it has those expensive hi voltage rails and really nice op amps to give a much higher headroom and overall sonic quality.

Ok, so it's not what we would refer to as a dedicated "recording" console as we all know one to be. It doesn't have on-board EQ, nor does it have busing assignment, so, it's not really isn't set up to record.

But it's still an analog console, at least to my way of thinking. It may be more mix oriented than it is recording oriented, but he's still technically "mixing" on an analog console.

Cats like Grohl and Lynn are recording through a Neve - an analog console - where they can pick up that coloration, that Neve "sound" - but they are still busing the signal to a digital platform like Pro Tools, right?

And then, they are returning those digital tracks back through the Neve, which is an analog console, where they are mixed and summed.

So... tell me how they they are both not "hybrid"? I'm not being a sarcastic dick here. I really do want to know what you guys think...

Donny, absolutely.

Did someone close the window? hehe

The Neos is a 24 channel analog console. And the other boxes I've mentioned are analog too. The Neos and the MixDream actually have direct Tape out and return labelled on them lol. But who cares I say, I won't be using tape over here. But they are definitely analog.

Remy, your disrespectful tongue in cheek over stems being some dated concept for mixing tracks today just cracks me up. You really are abrasive and living under a rock. You are impossible to grasp.

Kurt,

I get you and Remy now. There is generation gap here which I respect but I don't think its possible to be unbiased for you two because of this.

Tape might be a nice way to capture but where is the music going to end up. Its cool these guys are having fun rolling with tape but its not practical to me. Some things we just need to bury and move on and tape is one of them. I'm moving with technology so this is where you and Remy have completely lost me. I cannot even begin to imagine wasting my time and thoughts on old technology like that. Tape as an effect, okay, but as a master that still needs to be transferred to digital. eek cei la vie guys and gals. Talking hybrid isn't going to stimulate you guys.

Even if tape returned to the corner store you couldn't pay me to use that medium again. I get it, been there and done that but I've learned how to capture music and work in the direction the music business is logically going. It ain't back there with your peers. Maybe as an effect but not for archiving or publishing.

I stand firm and extremely confident in saying, the more options we have at our disposal the better, but mastering to tape ain't one of them. The combination of analog or digital working side by side is the coolest process I have experienced. That's what I'm talking about.

Regardless of the debate, I'm moving along sharing new concepts for the benefit of our hybrid thinking crowd here. You guys in the tape and console area, you've lost me. Sorry if you all think I'm trying to convert you. I have no intention of this at all so please don't box me into that circle. We really are two world going in different directions here. To me, its not about superior at all. That word just turns generations against each other. Its workflow and economics.

Bos just posted this in another thread which I feel relates to the hybrid process. Very well said Bos!

Boswell, post: 0 wrote: I have always taught that you have to draw a very definite line between tracking and mixing.

When tracking, i.e. recording individual tracks to some multi-track storage device, it's essential not to overload the tracks, as we have all been saying. How much you conserve your channel gain is really a matter of preference, style and the type of material you are recording, but peaks at around -10dBFS would be fine for most conditions using conventional 24-bit recording. That might imply an "average" value of around -20dBFS, but this is very instrument dependent.

For mixing, you ignore whatever headroom you gave the individual tracks and concentrate solely on two different sets of levels: the level you need of that track relative to other tracks in the mix, and the output level of the mix. The first you manipulate using the individual track faders to give you the required amplitude and balance. The second is much more equipment-dependent. In a DAW using floating-point summation, you simply adjust your output level to give you sufficient headroom when converted back to a 24-bit fixed-point 2-track mix. Doing this level adjustment has no effect on the sonics of the mix. With OTB mixes, it's up to the type of mixing box used, and this is where summing mixers can show their advantages. The thing that is little appreciated is that when performing external analog summing mixes from digital tracks, you need to use high-level feeds from the sources to maximise the range of the D-A converter that you use. You are free to reduce the resulting output level as an analog signal at no cost to the sonics.

What you should not do is record a track at a low level based on the premise that this particular track will be low level in the mix. When tracking, think as a tracking engineer. Caress each track separately, giving it the best track representation that you can. When it comes to mixing, think as a mixing engineer. Your job is to create the material for the mastering engineer to work on. Get the relative levels of each track correct, including dynamic changes to this if the programme material demands it. Print the mix to the two-track recorder with dynamics that leave sufficient headroom for the mastering engineer to be confident that there won't be "overs". It's a myth that mastering engineers need their source two-track to have "headroom to work with", as they have level controls on their boxes as well.

My approach to recording and mixing is based around a complete rig which is designed to move back and forth between "recording, mixing and mastering". Its one system ideal for hybrid thinking engineers whom embrace DAW's but want more options via analog spirit. Its not about superior but it is about a proficient hybrid method vs a budget hybrid method. Maybe this is where the wires get crossed. So my suggestions are pretty much based around a monitor control system that connects and directs me towards the capture process, mine being anything from DVD to the internet. With a big emphasis on the Internet. I love where we are going. Bye bye CD's.

The core of my hybrid system is centered around a very essential and sophisticated monitor control design which connects an analog summing console and two independent DAWs together ( this isn't just to listen to speakers). For those who really want to get a grasp on this, do yourself a favour and watch as many tutorials on the Dangerous Monitor ST you can find. Some are better than others.

Until I got the ST, I was in the dark guessing how to hear and direct my mix. Even watching the tutorials on it, I still didn't get it all. Why? because I didn't have all the pieces to the puzzle (cable, converters, monitors and gear) plus I was still processing like the old days.

You cannot hook your hybrid system up like me until you have the core tools. Is the Dangerous way the best, I don't know but it sure deserves some raving. So, people like Remy who say its about the engineer are misleading people here. This is so false and full of self its staring to make me gag. I detect a very pissed off person towards the industry.
If I didn't have this gear, I wouldn't and couldn't be doing this. Plain and Simple! You aren't going to get music to sound this good without investment capital. But, you can start out in baby steps and plan ahead, as I did.
You absolutely need hybrid gear designed for this process to LEARN how to do it in stages like this. Otherwise you are doing the round trip back to the same DAW which will get you by until you can take the next step.

I understand there are other manufacturers making excellent monitoring controllers, however, my hats off to Dangerous Music for the ST. I am humbled as an engineer and thank Dangerous for putting decades of mastering knowledge into this product. This Monitor Controller teaches you to listen and is designed like a star to connect you up to the world of hybrid mixing. Plain and simple, it rocks..

To back up a bit,
When I first got into hybrid mixing, I had no idea what it was about. I knew I wanted to achieve a better sound over what I was hearing ITB so I put one foot in front of the other and started looking at consoles again and these new summing amps.

Looking back, most of what I read on forums and what I heard from the older generation and new comers on budgets was misleading, but I kept my eye on the transient ball. My concept has always been to embrace digital, not to say one was better than the other. My quest has always been to find a way that kept wires close as possible, but to break up the hard line of digital while keeping the highest SNR in analog. Variation and texture shaping is the magic ingredient between the two worlds. Digital alone doesn't do this well but it definitely is huge sounding, especially if you keep the plug-ins at bay and the copper close to the source.
I also hear the order of the chain being paramount so there are some key products and a process I follow which is always part of the monitor control system.

As Boswell describes in the quote above, "I have always taught that you have to draw a very definite line between tracking and mixing" .

I cannot agree with this statement more. And now we add mastering, a 3rd process in the system. I prefer the term "finishing" better because thats what I am doing, I'm finishing or preparing audio for the next step.
Thus, a hybrid monitor control system vs an on board console monitoring just got taken out of the equation. This is where a console shows its greatest weakness. Its stuck in the middle.

I could write a small tutorial on this but it would be so scattered, maybe one day. I don't think most of us are even wanting to learn about this here. I sense a wall of bitter sweet rejection. The industry is taking out the middle class studios so the is a lot of negativity around investing in anything.
I've really had enough of this thread but I wanted to give Donny a bit more on this as he seems to be grasping it with interest. My suggestions are based on actual testing in my CR.
I wish someone explained it all to me a few years ago, but, (smile with a grin) we all know more now then a month ago. And how heated this thread has gotten, I think its shed more light on how cool analog really is.

Cheers!

See you on the next thread.

Don't Let Me be Misunderstood

i think i'm being misunderstood ... the thread is titled "Is Analog mixing superior to Digital mixing and processing?" short answer hands down; YES! i have proved to myself that even mixing through a crappy mixer like a mackie renders an improved product.

the real answer to the question is; "ITB summing really sucks."

I think most of us here (other than those who are heavily invested in to all digital rigs) would agree. but we see bias like that all the time. people have to defend their positions (pov and market) and decisions right or wrong.

1) somewhere along the way, things convoluted and the discussion turned into, "What type of analog mixer is better?" or a "my mixer is better than your mixer" fest. i don't have a dog in this fight ... i don't have a mixer at all (other than that crappy mackie). actually i am trying to decide what my next step will be .. or if i will even make a next step or just get out of it completely (which still won't preclude me from participating in discussions on the topic re; recording).

2) as Donny has pointed out, in the end, analog is analog... whether it's an SSL or Neve or a NEOS or other "summing" mixer.

i am pointing out observations i have made .. that from what i see the larger studios that are still open, consoles are still an absolute necessity. they are not just a hangover from yester-year. people are buying new ones and maintaining older ones for a reason not just on a whim. it appears a large console is the preference for the elite set who can afford them. the Dwight Yokams, Steve McBrides, Dave Grohls, Jeff Lynnes (actually in Mr Blue Sky he was printing to an Otari MTR90 analog 24 track) Chris Lord Alge's still demand large format analog consoles.

3) i find the NEOS concept of high voltage rails to be very intriguing. the comments i have read ask the question, "Do we really need 120 volts or is say (to be arbitrary), would a 30 volt swing be Good enough" or perhaps even better?

for me the only question i have where i don't quite see eye to eye with Chris is the question of color. I really had to question the remark "The flavour doesn't come from the summing box, or at least it shouldn't." that's a very arbitrary point of view not much unlike if i were to say something like "Mixers that are transparent all sound like crap'. i would never say that. to use the same analogy, i would never be one to dictate to others that they should paint with acrylics or water color rather than oils. "Ohhh, oils are so antiquated" :)

one might have perceived my questioning remarks as an opposing point of view but in reality what is said, was what i said, "Who made that a law?"

i personally like the color that comes from a big board. for me it's like a glue that holds everything together and maybe some of that color does come from lower voltages and slower slew rates of the vintage designs. i'm not sure.

i see summing solutions like the Neos and SSL's X series as a response to a growing demand for analog summing for DAWs in the mid level and home studio segment of the industry. this is a market that is growing and growing every day and we can't ignore or dismiss it. it's there and it's probably where the business is headed. it's very difficult to compete with lower costs. we can only embrace it. it's like a tsunami that is overwhelming the business. no stopping it.

more and more artists are self recording at home or in personal project studios using analog modules like 500 series thingies or outboard pre amps whose designs are ripped from classic consoles from the past, into "the box" and summing and processing with something like the Neos. either way is just fine to my ear, i think the problem is the use of itb plugs for compression, reverbs, delays efx, that don't sound quite as good as the real things, itb eq that performs eqing tasks crunching numbers rather that physically altering the wave and itb summing which i am absolutely convinced is a bottleneck.

like i said i don't have a dog in this fight. these are simply my observations and don't think there's really any disputing them. the facts are the facts.

i don't think there's any need to "check out" of this thread. for me it has been the gift that keeps giving ... and so it goes (as someone said).

crap, another freakin' book ... it's contagious i'm afraid.

Nicely said Kurt. Too bad were weren't tracking and mixing together, I've always thought we would be a good combo.

To contribute to your question on rails. I did do a comparison between 60V and 120V rails before I pulled out the wallet on the Neos. I would be happy with the 60V no problem and even 30V. The difference was small between 60 and 120. Anyone knows once you are high end, everything is baby steps. What I hear was an subtle but obvious change in width and low end bass with the Neos. But if the source isn't great, its not going to reveal that either. Track count also is where all this is most noticeable. I instantly felt more glow like on the bass. Almost like new strings but subtle. The Neos also sums everything louder with a bit more width and center focus. I don't why it does this, could be I'm just getting better at mixing/ finishing but its very obvious.

Edit, I had an example of 60vs120 but can't find it... I'll look.

The choirs I recorded last year to this years should sound close in volume but they don't. The Neos has more mid focus and is clearly louder. I noticed this the day I started using it. When I heard this difference, I boxed up my MixDream and closed the deal. The MixDream is a killer summing box. I hated to part with it.
I think once you are at a certain level, its becomes workflow and proficiency.

http://recording.org/mobile-recording/54195-royer-sf-24-orpheus-spl-neos.html

Too bad were weren't tracking and mixing together, I've always thought we would be a good combo.

well you know where to find me ... diddlydoo

the only way it would make any sense is if we both moved to a place where there was some business ... like Austin or Nashville ... New York and LA are out of the question for me. I would want to work mostly with live bands and artists in the "Americana" genres.

Here is the difference between 60v and 120v. It took me a while to hear the difference today. I almost though WTF hehe. The music isn't going to be everyones pick put if you have good monitors, its pretty obvious between the two loops.

The center stays the same but the widths open up. This allows more opportunity to build a better center to my way of mixing.

(Expired Link Removed)

Kurt Foster, post: 401714 wrote: well you know where to find me ... diddlydoo

the only way it would make any sense is if we both moved to a place where there was some business ... like Austin or Nashville ... New York and LA are out of the question for me. I would want to work mostly with live bands and artists in the "Americana" genres.

I love Austin but Nashville seems like the smarter choice if you are awesome. Which we are lol. So Nashville it is! Problem is, I'm about quit and buy a bigger boat. Well, I might hold off until the whole Pro Tools saga completes its course. Then watch to see where it goes from there. If Avid collapses, we are in business. Way I see it, the cream is rising and the mid level sound is all merging into one pool. The next generation of analog isn't going to be cheap. Manufacturers making this stuff are keeping their costs down as low as they can to ride this out. Long live those guys.

Its looking like mixing is my thing and I should be able to do it anywhere, I hope. I need to get serious.

What I hear was an subtle but obvious change in width and low end bass with the Neos. But if the source isn't great, its not going to reveal that either.

And that's what I've been saying all along. Yes, the Neos may make things sound better in overall tonal quality, and it may "open things up" nicer in the center panoramic position more so than typical ITB sum rendering, but the source tracks are, at least to me, everything. If the quality isn't there to begin with, then like any other scenario, be it analog or digital or hybrid, it's gonna be like polishing a turd. LOL

I'm excited about the oncoming hybrid wave that seems to be the next big thing on the horizon.

And I'm not dispelling Kurt's observations on pure analog, either... I've already stated that I cut my teeth in a pure analog environment and worked that way for years...although again, as also mentioned many times before, to do that right is gonna take some dough. Then again, it's becoming more than obvious to me that to do hybrid right is also gonna take some deep pockets.

Either way, I'm looking forward to where this technology direction is going in regard to our craft.

I've spoken about this subject to a pro Mastering Engineer friend of mine, and he is also excited about this developing trend... I would think that other M.E.'s would also be looking forward to the possibility of once again receiving final 2 mixes that had pleasing sonics, accurate stereo rendering... and a return to dynamic range integrity as well, which as we all know has all but disappeared in an explosion of solid block waveforms and brickwall horror in the last several years.

It's been quite sometime since I heard a recording that wasn't squashed flatter than a hooker on shore leave. ;)

Just my two cents, and I'm still learning about the scenario... but I've also learned a lot from this thread, so thanks to all who offered up their observations.

It proves that an old war-horse like me can still learn new things about this craft of ours after 30+ years in the biz ;)

I do dig this place. ;)

fwiw
-d.

DonnyThompson wrote:
And I'm not dispelling Kurt's observations on pure analog, either... I've already stated that I cut my teeth in a pure analog environment and worked that way for years...although again, as also mentioned many times before, to do that right is gonna take some dough. Then again, it's becoming more than obvious to me that to do hybrid right is also gonna take some deep pockets.

deep pockets yes .. but hybrid is going to cost hundred of thousands while a studio like Blackbird is millions and millions.

there's deep pockets and then there's DEEP POCKETS

well you know what they say, a hundred grand here and a hundred grand there and pretty soon it adds up to real money... LOL

man guys, either one of those scenarios is so far off my radar screen financially that I can't even dream about it.

But I sure do like learning new things anyway. :)

I'm pretty certain you would get great results starting with the D-Box . My whole point is to keep going in one direction. Don't do the round trip like everyone else is doing ( summing back to the same DAW). Its works but sounds goofy. Also, inserting gear back into your DAW is goofy to me as well. I know everyone is doing it, but just think about it. How can you go OTB, process something and back ITB the same session without latency and SR goo. .
So what do people do? Grab some latency compensation tool and start correcting the timing. More CPU junk. Think about all this. Think about doing that to many tracks in a session. No wonder is all I say. :rolleyes:

The idea is to avoid SRC and latency from plug-ins and tracks lining up. This is why I use two computers and monitor off the second box. Its very simple and smart. Not that expensive either. A few grand and you are in. Then, if you like what you get, you can grow like I have. Or, get a console but I think you've seen the light.

I haven't tried these smaller boxes but I'm pretty sure its a hell of a lot better that 100% DAW.

I agree about not doing it all on the same PC... I just can't see how that would be of any benefit at all.

When I do go the entry level analog summing route, I will definitely work from one PC to another.

I would think that one of the major links in that signal chain would be quality converters, be it a PCI card or a stand alone device.

One thing I've wanted to ask but keep forgetting... Regarding the Neos 2-bus output... is it strictly analog or is there any digital I/O as well as analog?

Just curious.

-d.

Donny

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://spl.info/pro…"]click here[/]="http://spl.info/pro…"]click here[/]

Thanks for the link, Kurt. :)

It's a gorgeous desk, simplistic but so very optimal...and so very out of my budget. LOL

I'm still a little vague on the "bend" feature that they were discussing... does this work by fluxuating voltage or saturating it? Or neither? I wasn't really clear on its purpose...

Chris...

Just trying to come up to speed here...

Can I ask what I/O interface you are using to get the stems/tracks from your DAW into the Neos?

For example, I now know that your Neos has the ability to accept either 12 stereo / 24 mono ins, but how many discreet outs does your current audio I/O rig have?

And are you using one multi-channel audio I/O, or are you using multiple I/O's chained together ? ( via opticle interface, etc.)

Also, are you using a standalone clock or slaving multiple devices to a master clock on one of the I/O's?

Further questions...

Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

If one train is traveling at 80 mph and another is traveling at 100 mph headed backwards towards the other, how many squirrels can a monkey eat?

and finally... Ginger or Mary Anne?

LOL.. I have so many questions, and so little knowledge... :confused:

-d.

DonnyThompson, post: 401753 wrote: Chris...

Just trying to come up to speed here...

Can I ask what I/O interface you are using to get the stems/tracks from your DAW into the Neos?

For example, I now know that your Neos has the ability to accept either 12 stereo / 24 mono ins, but how many discreet outs does your current audio I/O rig have?

And are you using one multi-channel audio I/O, or are you using multiple I/O's chained together ? ( via opticle interface, etc.)

Also, are you using a standalone clock or slaving multiple devices to a master clock on one of the I/O's?

Further questions...

Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

If one train is traveling at 80 mph and another is traveling at 100 mph headed backwards towards the other, how many squirrels can a monkey eat?

and finally... Ginger or Mary Anne?

LOL.. I have so many questions, and so little knowledge... :confused:

-d.

The Neos has no digital IO. Its 100% analog console.
I use [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.rme-audi…"]HDSPe AES[/]="http://www.rme-audi…"]HDSPe AES[/] . I connect AES db25 8ft snakes to the converters . The converter will accept 24 analog ins and outs as well as 24 channels of digital ins and outs both db25 TRS AES. Its very fluid and versatile.
Goes like this
DAW#1 > 24 channel Interface DA> ADI-8 QS converters > DA > Patchbay > 24 ins to Neos > 2-bus> Dangerous Master> 2-bus> AD Orpheus> DAW#2
I can track 24 channels with any hardware I choose AD> 44.1 to 192k (however I usually stay at 44.1 or 88.2) and use that same hardware as inserts during the mixing or master process after. During mix down you have 24 channels of Mono or Stereo.

Neos is 24 discreet I/O that group 12 stereo channels that sum 2-bus analog to the Dangerous Master which then splits back into 3 analog mastering sections 1,2,3 . # 2 is designed for M/S. From there 2-bus >Ad to DAW 2 which has a digital limiter on it that is ready for the master. The whole process can be monitored from analog source to DAW#1 to DAW#2 or internet.
I do not need an external clock. Everything is clocked internally on DAW1 and independent as individual systems. The analog removes the need for clocking between each system. The analog removed the need for all SRC.
DAW 2 uses the Prism Orpheus converters.
I monitor the internet from Lavry DA11 Black
The monitoring controller connects all three systems like a star. It allows me to be able to hear every step of the path IO at will. The monitor uses relays to switch volumes and paths. It connect CD, the web, and all the systems together, all with their own volumes and panning 5.1, 7.1 DIM, Cue, etc.

The cool thing about this is, you don't need to go OTB if you don't want to. Or, you can go OTb for one track or all tracks. You can hard bypass any section anytime anywhere. Its nothing short of astonishing. When in analog, I can crank full volume and barely hear a hiss.

DonnyThompson, post: 401750 wrote: Thanks for the link, Kurt. :)

It's a gorgeous desk, simplistic but so very optimal...and so very out of my budget. LOL

I'm still a little vague on the "bend" feature that they were discussing... does this work by fluxuating voltage or saturating it? Or neither? I wasn't really clear on its purpose...

The Blend feature isn't something I use. It would/could be useful for taming transients on spiky percussion but I do that in other ways so its a feature I could do with out ( I think), so far I've not found it useful. But, we often find great uses for something we thought was useless.

Things I wish it had, but it would double the price to somewhere around $20,000.00 would be inserts like the MixDream and a balanced Master Insert section. The better option, which I resorted to was adding SSL XPatch for a patchbay. This is way cooler, so, from a high end POV and putting the money where it counts, leaving inserts out was a smart move. Had they been able to design that in, would have given me a few more routing options I can live without.

I don't use the Master insert section right now because its an unbalanced hassle. There was a great reason why they did this, but I forget already ( I should get that right) . But it had to do with phase, logistics and cost ( DAW phase sucks) . The reason why we do all this is to avoid the phase and SRC so I'm not complaining. However, for me, I'd rather remove that section all together and go to something like the Dangerous Master, which I have anyway. thumbs up. But, I'm guessing this is another one of those things I will find useful with more thought. I would like to strap the Bricasti in that section but right now I bypass that altogether and go direct to the Dangerous Master. The DM is a "superior" master control section so its no big deal either.

So there are a few things on the Neos that I would leave out of the design for me. For others with less "toys" than me, its a pretty complete and well thought out design.
To my way of thinking, the less stuff the better. The Neos is close to perfect.

The MixDream had a Lundhal tranny and although it added a vibe, it definitely sounded better without it. The bass is tighter without a tranny and this is why the Neos is King of summing amp. Its purpose is to provide space and voltage without hitting the walls. Just like room acoustic. Nothing is bouncing off the walls inside this thing lol. And there is plenty of room for everyone who wants to join in on the party!

This is a nice set-up:

http://recording.org/content/896-orgone-studios-perfects-sound-ssl-aws.html

I see a 2 track.

Can we even buy tape anymore? Last I bought tape was 20 years ago and the dealer said I wasn't going to be able to get it much longer. That was the time I jumped at Pro Tools.

audiokid, post: 401777 wrote: This is a nice set-up:

http://recording.org/content/896-orgone-studios-perfects-sound-ssl-aws.html

I see a 2 track.

Can we even buy tape anymore? Last I bought tape was 20 years ago and the dealer said I wasn't going to be able to get it much longer. That was the time I jumped at Pro Tools.

[="http://www.atrtape…"]

ATR Magnetics[/[url=http://[/URL]] still manufactures tape here in the USA. []] still manufactures tape here in the USA. [="http://www.rmgi-usa…"]RMGI[/] is also a player in the tape market.

cool site, I can smell it .

D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery @ xiph.org)

So what do we get out of this?

the best tape machines = 13 bit equivalence at best.
What else?

audiokid, post: 401781 wrote: So what do we get out of this?

the best tape machines = 13 bit equivalence at best.
What else?

i don't care how many bits it equals ... it still sounds better.

Leo DeGarKulka once told me his favorite PCM system was 14 bit ....

I think what sounds better is the way tape captures and compresses music so well. Drums especially.
What else did you get from that? I listened twice but didn't really go, oh wow. It looked like it was funded around Fruity Loops.