So then, why are the ones who are aware of this still fighting it? Why on earth would you spend more money than you have to to get the results you seek? I'm not talking about certain OB gear or Plug In's that give certain textures, glue, etc.

I'm talking about the actual routing, the actual workflow... in simplest terms:

"we wanna go hybrid, and we choose this method because it gives us the sound we are after, it integrates what we feel to be is the best of both worlds, and we want that method to give us the best possible sonic results..."

"Well then, Kemo-Sabie... here's whatcha dooo..." (insert decoupled /separate DAW routing scheme here.)

"I don't wanna do that."

"Why? It's less expensive, and will yield better results..."

"I dunno. I just don't wanna. That's why..."

:confused:o_O WTF?

DonnyThompson, post: 421724, member: 46114 wrote: So then, why are the ones who are aware of this still fighting it?

I have so many theories. Some people look for better ways, even when at the costs of admiting a mistake. It's a creative industry too so who cares. But. If you don't need to spend money, why?

Its one of those things thats so simple, yet confusing and... because we have gear and one DAW, it feeds the direction. And once you are in the circle, you aren't even able to subjectively hear whats screwing what, so we don't really give it much more thought.

DAW's are "partly" being developed to sell to the Round Trip. Blind leading blind testimonials keeps it going this direction. Its feeding the manufacturers and putting those who have a studio like mine, busier. Its pretty cool seeing all that gear and it sure attracts attention.
I can keep busy mixing all year with this. But! there is no money in this business anyway so what's the point to BS us.

I've thought through all this long and hard. I would take on the very best mixer on the planet if he ever wants a public shootout. And don't get me wrong, I'm not out to rain on someone. But, I do feel its something buried deep and for those who are sincerely wanting to improve their game, this is another way to the finish line, and I think the best one to date.

I can't help thinking about our RO member who is buying that console right now. He claims ITB sucks and claims we/ he? can't mix as good without gear. Yet, would we/ he want to shootout a mix here in front of us, with me just for the hell of it?
Imagine finding out you just dropped $40,000 on a console and a DAW took you out. A DAW in a home studio by a guy who isn't even an engineer per-say. No one with substantial investment is going to want to hear this.
I'm now convinced, its easy over mixing, over processing ITB and the Round Trip is ridiculous.

I had a good scrape with some big boys on GS. They were shilling the $6000 clock there, the same one I own. So , I was asking questions that they couldn't answer. And they got pissed and frustrated the closer I pushed and responded with backup by what manufacturers have been telling the public for years. The thread was edited by GS mods because it was raining on a particular manufacturers who appears to be using GS forums as a way to market this nonsense. What a disservice.

Well, we know that site is all about shilling gear. We had our fill of that back in the day.

The kids reading this stuff are being led to believe they need to spend another $6000 on a clock, more gear ... .

It is fun drilling those in my sick twisting way. But, they deserved the drill because they are shilling gear and a concept that isn't helping any of us. Yes, its killing the studios who have invested a shit load, but that isn't our problem or a reason to mussel us.

IMHO, a good front end, conversion and our DAW's is basically all we need . We just need to learn how to do it all better.

I need to ask this in light of the responses to the "round-trip"...My preface: Currently I have one DAW. I may or may not render my two track mixes like the rest of you....ie: I DO NOT use the 'bounce' function to create two track masters and by this I am never dependent on a Master Fader created in a session. This is only used primarily as a volume control to the stereo outs to the monitoring system......make sense?? It barely does to me and I will have to review my notes on how this done to be accurate so don't ask. The result is stunning.

Now for round-trips ...I Do use my outboard for some tracks. Hardware comp here and there...back through a preamp...reamping a guitar or bass parts that needs help....etc but not all tracks.. I look for an enhancement on the general 'glue' and tonal aspects of a track that 'sit' better in a dense mix or make something really stand out. I don't dupe a lot of tracks though I do encourage players that can do it to double track. I'm sure my round-trip method is the same as everyone else's...I have a patchbay that gets me anywhere I want to go out to in to out to in etc etc...AND these 'new' tracks always sound better than the unaffected tracks as is the intention.

So is this the "round-trip" process that Chris is referring to?

I do get the second DAW as a capture machine but am still unsure if this would be considered a capture to become the two track master? I still see it as a step to capture these "round -trip" tracks and then mix in the second machine to a two-track capture. Of course, I'm not ever on the clock. All of my clients time is a flat fee and then I do what it is I do and they get much better recordings since they aren't worried about the time.Maybe I'm giving away my time at some point but it only takes a couple of great songs to collect on the back end for a few years and you never know what people are gonna like.........

So am I thinking about this wrong? Its a step I'll take when I get my head around it. I'm only a converter, a DAW, and some sort of passive level control from being there the way I understand it. Oh and one more patchbay.

Davedog, post: 421874, member: 4495 wrote: reamping a guitar or bass parts that needs help....etc but not all tracks

Reamping is cool

Davedog, post: 421874, member: 4495 wrote: So is this the "round-trip" process that Chris is referring to?

yup

Davedog, post: 421874, member: 4495 wrote: I still see it as a step to capture these "round -trip" tracks and then mix in the second machine to a two-track capture.

Bos can explain why we prefer uncoupled DAW's, but in a nut shell, I don't mix on the second DAW, I mix into the master and use that DAW to emulate my analog mastering matrix where I can . The idea of going back to the tracking DAW for anything is a bad move to my hearing but many people do it.
If you think your sessions sound good like this, wait until you hear what an uncoupled DAW gets you But, you need a second converter and a monitor system that allows you to hear your master prior to upload status. You don't benefit monitoring on a console or off the tracking DAW. You benefit most when your monitor system is telling you what the capture DAW2 is hearing. You set that to your destination SR and don't convert anything. So, your tracking DAW is example SR 96k, your capture DAW is 44.1.
It may only be a subtle improvement but that is where the last 2% lives and we all know that the last 2% is 98% of why we are going this extra step.

I'm not sure what Pro tools or the plug-ins sound like today. I downloaded it last year, tried to like it and it was pretty lame. So, I have no business telling people my way will improve your way. I do know, people who follow me, send me private notes thanking me. And, they don't share this because they consider it a secret.
Its a big topic and very subjective. Our chains, monitoring and how we use gear needs to all be questions continuously. There isn't a week I don't think about what I'm doing and telling people. If something was better, I would dump it all and go there. Which I am. I am trying to dump gear I have before its worthless. right now, we are in another analog craze. It took a few years to get it hyped up. But, I'm already heading back ITB but this time uncoupled with a closer ear on emulating what I learned OTB. Less is more and hearing how little we need to move something is everything.

If you hear an improvement mixing back to the same DAW and it makes you happy, thats really an accomplishment. If you ever want to send me something and have me put it through my process, so we both improve our game, you know where I am. I'm in the process of emulating my entire analog mastering martix. It can be done with Sequoia. But, I doubt I would get the same results on Pro Tools and one DAW. And a console isn't even an option. That is a complete waste of money.

I don't really use the Avid plugs. Too many others that are really good...things that aren't 'smeary'......

I 'get' this to an extent but now a bit more. The "round-trip" isn't...It's a one way to the mastering DAW. No rendering...Monitor direct off the DAW2 converter >monitor controller> monitors.. All mix is from a Master Fader in the DAW1 console>@ xyzkHz>converter2 @yxz kHz>Daw2 @ whatever software is installed.....OR in the case of a summing mixer of some sort , it's stems and an appropriate number of sub-mixes(stems)

Drawing a picture always helps......me I Am Old. 2% is the BIG dollar difference. Every time.

I really DO think people get there by other means than this process....BUT and this a big BUTT....Who's definition of "there" is being used? I'm not so sure a lot of people 'hear' the 2%......But you know it never hurts to have all the fidelity no matter what....Getting that at the first analog part of the entirety is a must. Always. Mics, mic amps,gain stage, placement, decision making. If you have a room that does a majority of its work capturing audio, then the tool kit gets to be something different than a Mastering/Sweetening Suite might require. Same goes for someone mostly exclusive to Electronica or HipHop etc. Different tool kit.

At some point it all veers into itself right at the delivery system. And I agree with Chris that at this point a LOT of music is permanently disabled from its fidelity and consequently from its true speaking voice.

Back in the day.....There were good, great, and magical mixes. All analog. Different tool box.

I was gonna tell a joke that related to different paths and ways to skin cats....or climb trees....

||) My Uncle was a great Southern Gentleman and a world renowned duck hunter and breeder of World Champion duck hunting dogs. Late one autumn day he got a call from the Governor. "Clem", he says "I got some very important visitors comin down here and they want to take in some of that fine duck shooting you got out there at yore place." My Uncle Clem replies, "Well certainly Governor ya'll always welcome but right now I'm kinda short on dogs so we might not do as well as usual. Who'd you say was visitin?" The Governor says its the President Of the United States and The Pope.

This of course makes my Uncle Clem really nervous so he tells the Gov again that hes kinda short on good dogs and doesnt know how thats gonna work...The Gov reassures him that it'll be great and he's got all the confidence in the world in Clem and they'll be there on Saturday. Saturday rolls around and all the bullet-proof limos and lots of police cars pull up to the house and all these black jacketed Secret Service guys are running around making all the chickens nervous......The Gov introduces Uncle Clem to the President and the Pope they both tell him how his reputation preceeds him and how much they're looking forward to shooting up a bunch of ducks. My uncle shakes his head and tells em how sorry he is but he's only got this one old dog and he's not a very good hunter or retriever. They both assure him that he's worried needlessly and out they go in the jon boat to the blind. Its a nice day and Uncle Clem calls in a bunch and the Gov and the President and the Pope blaze away knocking down at least 8 birds on the first pass. The old dog jumps out of the blind and tippy-toes out across the water and gets each of the downed birds and brings them back. Clem apologizes ,while at the same time ,all of the men are astounded by what they saw. This continued well into the day, each time, all the ducks were returned and they grew even more astounded. Finally, The Governor makes my Uncle an offer of $100,000 cash and free speeding ticket fixes anywhere in the state for the next 20 years for the dog. Clem shakes his head and tells him he can't accept something like that because the dog isn't any good. The President offers him a senators salary for life and a national monument in his name. Uncle Clem is very embarrassed now and tries to shrug off such a huge amount saying that he couldn't accept that since the dog isn't good at what he does. The Pope then offers him eternal Blessings and one half the gold in the Vatican's treasury if he'd part with that dog. Clem finally says," No, your Worship, How come you can't see that the dog is flawed,.....Hell, he can't even swim....."

Back to work....

audiokid, post: 421879, member: 1 wrote: Bos can explain why we prefer uncoupled DAW's....

Well, maybe - we had some threads about this a couple of years back.

In my case it started when I was much younger (and that is a long time ago) when some newer jazz stereo LP releases were billed as being recorded "direct to disc", and I recognised that the sound on these discs was different from that of conventional studio tape-edit-tape-master recordings. The direct-to-disc releases were being mixed, mastered and cut in real time, so had no tape or other storage medium in the loop. Don't get me wrong, this is nothing against tape, as it has pleasing dynamic characteristics all of its own that even today we are struggling to emulate in a convincing manner. This was all about purity of path, and although the direct-to-disc experiments did not really transfer out of the jazz realm, they did lay down a tantalizing standard that kept me thinking.

Phase forward to this century, and I kept on trying to get my 2-track mixed digital recordings to have something of the sound that I remembered from years ago. The mental breakthrough I had was purely that: a mental concept. I had been so immersed in and tied up with the intricacies and possibilities of multi-track recordings, DAW mixes and digital processing, that I had lost sight of the obvious - whatever does the final 2-track capture should see what it thinks is an analog stereo mix, just as the disk cutter used by those skilled direct-to-disk engineers did. Once I used my 96KHz recordings (on a bank of HD24XR recorders) and replayed those tracks together with any effect and dynamic units needed into an analog mixing desk with external stereo ADC capture, I suddenly got the sound I had been looking to reproduce for over 30 years. It didn't really matter what 2-track capture unit I used because the sonic quality I was looking for was part of the mix and not some sort of magic that had to be added later. I also found the whole system was much less sensitive to each component not being perfect, although of course there were pieces such as the 2-track capture ADC where sonic quality was more important than others.

Once you look at a system this way, you can see that an uncoupled 2-track capture DAW is your target, and you work backwards from there to feed it with an analog mix that the capture system thinks is basically a stereo microphone. That's the picture to retain in your head, and the more work you can do to achieve this aim, the better the result. For example, I mentioned 96KHz recording. This went along with another of my strong beliefs that the top octave of the multi-track recordings should not be represented in the final captured mix (see threads passim). What comes out of the analog mixer is a stereo signal of essentially 40KHz bandwidth, but with any phase effects due to anti-aliasing filters on the 16 or 24 source channels kept out of human audio range. Capture the mix at 44.1KHz for your target CD and you suffer only the effects of the capture system's filters.

It makes a real difference, particularly in the smoothness of both phase and frequency responses in the final top octave (10 - 20KHz). Chris and one or two others here at RO tried it, and although not everyone said they would instantly re-build their studios to encompass the method, they did notice the difference in sound.

This would require two separate systems, no? A separate computer, with a separate audio capture device ( with good pre's and converters) to get the mix into the second computer/DAW as well as a secondary monitoring system that alows you to hear what the second "mix down" DAW is hearing... ? ...

MY question remains, and I think that this is where my confusion lies... is that once you get that final mix into the second, uncoupled PC/DAW, once it's there, you still need to render that file as the true final mix in PCM format - so that it can be put to a CD, right?

So are you not then still facing the potential issues that you have tried to avoid by not rendering ITB on the original production DAW in the first place?

Or is your target computer and audio program a 2 track program, like say, Sound Forge, where you print the final mix to it and then simply SAVE it as a 44/16 PCM? (I'm only assuming that this is the process and that there is a difference between rendering a file and and saving a file?)

???

I think that you want to exit the first DAW in what ever format the project is to analog and capture the analog signal at 16bit/44khz with the second DAW

pcrecord, post: 421894, member: 46460 wrote: I think that you want to exit the first DAW in what ever format the project is to analog and capture the analog signal at 16bit/44khz with the second DAW

Except that at that point, and depending on what your target audio program is, you'd still need to do a final render of the file, right? Unless - as I said above - you recorded it to a dedicated 2 track program - like Sequoia, or SoundForge, Bias Peak, etc, at which point you would simply save the file in the proper format - depending on what your final media target would be - PCM, MP3, hi-res .wav, etc.

Or am I missing something? (Not being a smart ass... I'm sincere in my question).

I treat the second (uncoupled) system as a 44.1/24 capture process that does not change the audio samples that its A-D converter puts out. It needs no rendering in the sense that most DAWs use the term, and even something as simple as Audacity works perfectly well for this task. Any amplitude adjustment, topping/tailing etc is done in the mastering process, one stage further on. It doesn't need to be a computer for the capture; provided the ADCs are up to scratch, a CD burner or something like an Alesis Masterlink would do just as well, although I prefer to stay at 24-bits to give maximum resolution to the mastering house.

You are right, Donny, that I didn't say anything about monitoring. The main monitoring while mixing is done at the output of the analog mixer or summer. Whether this is through a built-in second output or whether it's done by T-connections on the main output will depend on the design of the mixer or summer. I also have the ability to switch the monitoring to listen to D-A converters that are attached to the capture system, both while recording (capturing) and for replay. I have needed to use the capture D-A monitoring route so little once I learnt to trust what I heard in the main monitoring, but I do switch that way to check the captured result after the mix phase of the process.

Boswell, post: 421884, member: 29034 wrote: Once you look at a system this way, you can see that an uncoupled 2-track capture DAW is your target, and you work backwards from there to feed it with an analog mix that the capture system thinks is basically a stereo microphone. That's the picture to retain in your head, and the more work you can do to achieve this aim, the better the result.

This is exactly how I look at it too.

I'll talk about that next step here.

I mix into the master and think backwards as Bos described.
Although I do not want the title of a Mastering Engineer, my hybrid system is actually a professional stem mastering rig too. I built it for Mastering quality and have the added benefit to be able to track, mix and master making use of all the analog gear in any step through means of a digital patchbay , the Neos and a Dangerous Master Console. My same tracking gear can instantly be shifted to the mixing or mastering section via a midi or manual command to the patchbay.
I can hear and compare what everything sounds like because the Dangerous Monitor ST connects at each step through routers. If you are getting the jest of my process, its always coming back to the monitoring at the capture DAW.

I take the uncoupled system one step further and use Sequoia on the capture DAW. In fact, I use Sequoia 13 on both DAWs. My tracking DAW and capture DAW is matched per-say. I can share between theses DAW's seamlessly and use both DAW's to build a mix or master.

Even though I am confident to say there is no better monitoring signal than on the Neos, monitoring off any console is inferior. So, I use the Neos or Dangerous Master outs to send the monitor over to the Capture DA too. I want one DA to be the main truth of everything. This is why I choose a transparent DA, controller and location on the capture. The Dangerous ST is connected everywhere by that main DA. My ears stay on the capture DA 99% of the time. When I am tracking, mixing or mastering, I want to hear what the last step is all the time. I mix with my ear right there and this is where I think I have clear advantage over all other hybrid systems now. Hearing here has enabled me to learn how little gear matters and how easy it is to emulate the most sophisticated analog mixing and mastering matrix's. So, I am always coming back to the reason this system works so well is not because I have $150,000 in hybrid gear, but because I can hear the 2-bus better now. The Neos, and the Dangerous Master ( the other console I use and just love) are the added bonus's but these are absolutely unnecessary for the basic system.

I am 95% sure, 2 DAW's, the Dangerous Monitor ST, two converters are the core to all I need to make great sounding mixes. Other than the Bricasti's, the gear I have can all be emulated ITB, better.

The Dangerous Monitor ST and a very transparent DA on the capture DAW is an essential part to my process.
I hear shift occur sooner. I can hear shift in clients tracks that they don't even know exists. Thats what I'm talking about. So, when you can hear what gear sounds like and does to the music, its easier to play this game with little money itb. Especially if you have a good ITB process.

DonnyThompson, post: 421888, member: 46114 wrote: This would require two separate systems, no? A separate computer, with a separate audio capture device ( with good pre's and converters) to get the mix into the second computer/DAW as well as a secondary monitoring system that alows you to hear what the second "mix down" DAW is hearing... ? ...

Yes!
Without question for me. I know some guys use a DSD or other device but capturing at the destination SR to a DAW with a good mastering section gives you clear advantage.

DonnyThompson, post: 421899, member: 46114 wrote: Except that at that point, and depending on what your target audio program is, you'd still need to do a final render of the file, right?

yes. And plenty of what my thing is, goes on at this step. In fact, this is where my focus has been for the last 6 months and why I am now selling off more analog gear.

I come out of the analog 2-bus, my options are from the Orion 32, Dangerous Master or Neos and line in on an Atlas converter to DAW2.

audiokid, post: 421879, member: 1 wrote: And a console isn't even an option. That is a complete waste of money.

OK…. I do not spend much time on the forum, as maybe I should… I admit the child in me, was not only surprised by the above comment (being from audiokid), but, slightly offended…. the surprise and the being offended has faded…… BUT, silent…. Nah…..

It would be a fools game to claim either approach or that any gear is a waste of money (well anything of what we consider of quality in build & Performance) From a scientific point of view, both sides are right and wrong.

Most know the following, however, just stated to clarify….

Analog is electrons physically moving through something, at its very heart this is how ALL music is created/captured and in the end, regardless of process used, how we will hear it.

In a purely analog work flow, we are controlling those electrons from capture (mic) to tape, were the electrons become magnetic (and some would still quasi-classify that as electrons), then back out and through the console ( various out-board gear etc) and mixed to 2 track. The weakest link in the analog work-flow was the tape deck. It suffered from some huge defects, a low dynamic range and a high noise floor. BUT it was also hard to edit, fragile to transport and the quality of the audio recorded on it, degraded with each pass. Not to mention a short shelf life…. Oh and it was expensive and still is. (last checked a roll of 2" would cost you north of $300)

Analog gear carries a huge price and maintenance fee. Nothing is free even when paid for. The larger the console the more the air needed to be conditioned ( with a Neve VR, you could cool a warehouse with the same tonage it required to cool the control room) Power? the bill will get large, of course depends on just how much you have. In short, It was expensive to purchase, expensive to maintain and expensive to operate. BUT BUT BUT, That sound was so sweet……(y)

Back to the weakest link, the Tape deck, real-to-real, 2" what ever you wish to call it…

Now, i am not talking about the sound of tape, that is entirely a deferent topic, well for now.
Digital opened up allot of possibilities in its early days, it offered a huge dynamic range and low noise floor, but of course still on tape and still riddled with the whole tape massacre type of editing (for those with the stomach to do so) and,,, the huge expense of the machines and still being tape based (the sony dash 48 was half a million new)

I know, why the boring @#$% history lesson? well, the big studios and old school engineers that everyone hates today, are the reason for the tools we all use. It was there drive for better "tools" that would allow easy editing, ease of storage and low cost of ownership. So anytime you feel the need to slam an "Old engineer" or some major recording studio, at least first thank him/them for the tools we all now have.

NOW back to the topic, analog summing or better stated outside the box versus inside the box…..

Here is the big secret no one will tell. It does not matter… read that again….

It comes down to you and what your ear tells you what works. it's like me telling Slash that Gibson's suck and he should be playing a Custom Jackson, because they are just so much better…… Get my point?

Inside the Box will alway's sound deferent from outside the box….. They WILL NEVER SOUND EXACTLY THE SAME. Scientifically it is impossible. It is two very deferent treatments of signal and signal flow. One is an Algorithm (simulating the signal) the other is the signal in it's original captured form. If you believe otherwise, I have a honda civic i want to trade for your Ferrari after all they both do exactly the same thing…..

I personally use my DAW (Pro Tools DAW) as merely a replacement of the good ole 2" tape deck. What is important here, is the conversion, nothing else matters. there is no sound deference between DAW's they all sound EXACTLY THE SAME. a bit is a Bit regardless of what software package uses it, manipulates it etc… the DAW of choice is by preference or tools available (Plug ins, user interface etc) the conversion, (electrons in and electrons out) is what defines how we hear and capture audio digitally.

A defining deference between analog and digital is this. Analog sounds better with better designed gear, digital sounds better with better simulation, however that comes at a price of time. Digital takes considerable amount of time to do what analog does instantly. Of Course the more processing, the less you feel/hear the effects of the lag that otherwise would be very apparent. Another defining deference is, once in the DAW, its an Ideal environment, it can be programed to be perfect. Analog, has defects, as defined by physics and can not be overcome (heat, PCB lay outs, component tolerances, etc) Analog, is an imperfect solution because it lives in an imperfect world. No two components are exactly alike (albeit extremely minuet deferences) A simple resistor has flaws, either due to cost or limitations of manufacturing. Digital does not have to deal with these issues, it's "world" is perfect as defined by it's programmers/creators.

SO, were does that leave us? Well, I prefer the imperfect world of analog, there is a beauty to it's flaws that sounds like nothing other and that inspires me. (why else would I spend over a year rebuilding a console??) Crazy i know,,, Or just showing my true geekiness….. :eek:

audiokid,,,, Challenge is on

Joel,my comments aren't directed at you personally but they are indeed speaking about my hybrid experiences and sonics. If you are offended, you shouldn't be. You are lucky to have such a beautiful piece of history. But to compare history to digital technology today as being par or comparable would be like comparing a dial phone to an iPhone, there is no challenge .

I'm game for a challenge though, I think.
Just for the hell of it, you should read more on monitoring off a console and the capture process we've been discussing. Its not like it's old news. Rather than take offense It might be something you could benefit from too.

Gette, post: 421938, member: 46761 wrote: (last checked a roll of 2" would cost you north of $300)

I saw this recently as well. Unbelievable. I used to get 456 2" for around $100 if I bought four or more reels, ( 499 was a bit more expensive, by like $8 per reel) which wasn't all that hard to do back in those days, where I had 10-15 different clients a month... and considering that at 15ips, you only got around 33-34 minutes of recording time, it wasn't at all uncommon to burn through two reels for one album project (and sometimes three or even four reels, if the client liked to do multiple takes).

To do that today, at that price, would cost (the client, not me !) $1200 just in tape alone - and probably more like $1500 if you were mixing to 1/4" 2 track. ;)

Gette, post: 421938, member: 46761 wrote: there is no sound deference between DAW's they all sound EXACTLY THE SAME.

I'm not arguing your love for analog.. not at all. Having come up in that era - like yourself and many other veteran "old timers" here - LOL - There are some things I miss about it everyday.

I think you should use whatever you like, what you are most comfortable with, what you think sounds best.

But I'm sorry, Joel. Gotta call BS on the "all DAW's sound exactly the same" statement. I used to think how you did. Then I did comparisons on my own, with nothing changed but the DAW platform.
It's more than just "bit to bit". It's about the coding, the audio engine in the program, phasing, pan laws...

I've personally heard the differences - ad not always subtle, either - between different platforms - Sonar, Pro Tools, Logic, Samplitude - using the exact same pre - converters - I/O, monitoring and environment.
There was not a single change in the equation except for the platform being used.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one. ;)

Gette, post: 421938, member: 46761 wrote: It would be a fools game to claim either approach or that any gear is a waste of money (well anything of what we consider of quality in build & Performance) From a scientific point of view, both sides are right and wrong.

I think the point is not that having a console to track is not a wonderfull thing. I would be very happy to give my recordings some flavor of neve or SSL or any other big names

What we are discussing here is that once in the DAW ; is it better to mix ITB or OTB and once mixed is it better to record back to the same DAW or a second one.

Donny - I misstated that, i was tired and on a fun rampage. I know full well that each DAW had it's own tone based on the coding, algorithm used. It was unfair for me to make that statement.

audiokid - Love the dial-up to iPhone analogy ... That was funny! I know it was not personnel, I had just completed some modules on my desk when I sat down to browse a bit, so it hit it harder then it normally would. However your analogy to the phones would be more apt when comparing Digital technology over the years versus comparing analog of yesterday to digital of today. I may not have the extensive experience you do in AB'ing each approach, but what I do have is, a solid understanding of the design. As well as real world experience of having to repair just about every type of analog and digital audio related piece of gear. Using the AP (Audio Precision) as my standard test unit, has shown and destroyed more myth's then i cannot even begin to express. unlike digital, the expense of manufacturing analog is high when you are truly building a no-compromise piece of analog equipment (regardless of type IE Console, Compressor etc). Even the large format high dollar consoles had to make compromises in order to make them build-able and sellable at price people would pay, otherwise the number would be three to four times as high. To add to audiokid's argument, all analog gear regardless of its price, is a compromise from the ideal in order to be able to sell it and make a profit. Otherwise prices would be so high, it would never be built or in many cases Ferrari's would be cheaper (i am not just talking about consoles here). My console in particular has been "updated" to accommodate todays standards in frequency response and THD+N. The details of what was modified will be stated in the related thread, once the console is completed.

Analog designs today are all based on the original designs that came out of the late 60's to mid - late 80's. There has been some refinement over the years but more to do with advances in components and PCB design then in the core circuit design. No-mater what Analog gear you buy today, it will be based on some circuit of the "Analog era" Some even use that as a marketing ploy. But, Why? Because it is superior or is it, as you and many others may now believe, inferior? I say neither. It is as mentioned before, about taste.

The New AC/DC album, was recorded and mixed not far from you (audiokid), on a console built in the same year as my Amek, 1977. With a near unlimited budget, why did they not use a all ITB approach? IF the deferences between the approaches are that great, then why has it not become the huge mainstay of the industry in the upper echelon of Bands/Artists with large budgets? Trust me, when I say, they would prefer a cheaper solution, no one just wants to throw money at something, unless there is add value. If there was no deference and/or a better result going all in.... There would be zero large format consoles in service today at the upper level facilities.

The music industry is also hugely trend driven, more so in the MI markets then in any other segment. The Analog vs Digital argument will carry on for as long as music is being recorded/mixed and sold... It will never end.

I am running out time... I will be back.....

Like I said....even if your dog can't swim he could still be a great retriever.

I know a couple of studio owners. No, not like my studio or anything like a home or small studio or vanity room...real studios with large frame consoles and the latest computer and software and well maintained 2" tape machines sitting in machine rooms, large air-conditioning bills, extensive patchbays, racks and racks of the finest analog gear on the planet both classic and neo-classic, with house engineers and producers, and independent guys using the rooms, and without a DOUBT....they would strip their rooms bare for a solution that would yield better results for a fraction of the costs. The things that go into making these decisions aren't always about the fidelity or the workflow or the clientele selling points even when they are.

This is a debate that has no solution except the one that fits every individuals needs and desires. I would hope that all involved with such discussions would carry on without an ego barrier that brings offense into the equation. I see Chris' fervor and determination in light of what he has discovered as a beacon to explore a new approach. But its an approach which might not be the appropriate thing for rooms REQUIRING a large format knob table furniture piece. I, for one, would have a big maintenance hog in a well designed room in a second if THAT is what clients with BUDGETS wanted and were willing to shell out for. On the other hand, if I was a budget conscious small operator (HAH!!!) and really DESIRED high-fidelity at a price I could maintain and accomplish exactly what the big rooms can then I'd be all over a solution to this.

Gette, post: 421970, member: 46761 wrote: The New AC/DC album, was recorded and mixed not far from you (audiokid),

Its all fun!

You mean this one I'm sitting at ;)

Joel or anyone for that matter, I'm not disputing you can't make world class mixes on whatever we use, including Sonar which sounds like a Tascam console lol. Just because some studio uses an analog consoles and captures to tape or vinyl, does not mean its where we are headed this century either (we haven't even discussed Spectra Audio technology and how this is going to impact us).

I know for a fact I have a better handle in hybrid summing than most people and that includes a bunch of high profile engineers shilling gear for the questionable. I used to sit back and listen to all this nonsense about clocking, round trip processing, how Pro Tools was the best, how these $7000 vintage Pultec are so awesome, Manley comps, vintage this and vintage that... what a bunch of hype and muscle flexing, BS coming from gear pimps and blind leading blind. After the essentials, its either creative preferences or patching scars on scars.

About 4 years ago I had enough of it and started acquiring gear supplied to me by manufacturers. Yes, I didn't need to like it.
Learning everything I can about hybrid mixing and mastering, testing for myself and calling it all out has been something I've rather enjoyed while most definately pissing some off in the process. My goal isn't to build the best sounding system on the planet, but it sure is to see where the sound bottlenecks and the buck stops.
I want audio examples to prove it all to me. So, prove it I say? And, in the process, I am open and transparent all through this.

In my opinion, old school fundamentals apply but the more I dig into hybrid, the console is getting left behind.
When you know what a DAW is capable of, its hard listening to all the hype and seeing the shilling going on too, so I have to point this out. Witnessing the shilling supported by the aging generation and fast dying manufacturers is really questionable to me.
I have to agree, any large array of preamps is logical for tracking in big rooms but when it comes to mixing and mastering, a DAW and a competent man behind that wheel will do circles around anyone who wants to pay for the hard lesson. Show me the money :)

The idea we have to go out and invest in a large format console to sound like the next ACDC album is nonsense. I do not believe this one bit. It was a choice but there could have been a dozen other competent methods to get close enough results.And this is where I am looking. At choices and calling out some of this questionable.

The band, the room, the front end, the guy behind the wheel and the mastering is what matters. The gear is character shading tools and furniture playing on our emotions.
So, I am saying to all the kids with hopes and dreams, don't be fooled into thinking you need to cough up all this money to make stellar sounding music. Its guys like me who will continue to question the past, the hype and ask for proof, even if it cost me a few extra bucks .
Digital technology is putting man to mars. If we think we can't make an EQ or compressor sound good ITB by now, we need to stop smoking that stuff.

When you start paying attention to the capture process, you will be where I am now. As long as we are going a round and around with this DAW meets console, you will never be progressive. You will always be patching a broken or dated system.

Look at these video's. There are so many like this. Its part of the Ridiculous and Dated . :confused:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun10/articles/masterclocks.htm

[="

[/]

[[url=http://="

[/]

Davedog, post: 421978, member: 4495 wrote: This is a debate that has no solution except the one that fits every individuals needs and desires.

I believe I've come to the same conclusion on this. It's all so different for everybody, and everyone is going to have their own preferences, workflows, gear they like, gear they don't... it's all very subjective, and to an extent, it's a personal thing, too. I have no business critiquing anyone who has successfully recorded and released great sounding music - be it analog or digital.

Thousands of fantastic sounding records have been tracked and mixed through consoles, and thousands of great recordings have also been done using ITB digital. Far be it for me to tell anyone "what or how" they should do something... if they are happy with the results that they are getting.

It's also very easy to get bogged down in the minutiae, to find yourself focusing on things under a magnifying glass, many times just because you can.

You can also become hyper-sensitive, too, I think. Maybe that "S" is a bit too hot... or that one kick note sounds a bit "whoompy" compared to the others.... or you start working on mixing a vocal track at 9 am and 7 hours later, you find yourself still working on it; only to realize when you go back and listen to the original track, and realize that it was absolutely fine to begin with.

Just because there are so many tools available that allow us to to correct every little pimple and crease, doesn't mean you have to crawl up the ant's ass with a laser microscope to see what he ate for lunch yesterday.

Sooner or later, you're gonna have to have something musical to show for all of your efforts. And you need to ask yourself if all of those tiny little EQ corrections on one phrase or note, or that tiny bit of pitch correction by half a cent, or gain reduction by -0.025 db, will even make a difference when all is said and done, and the track is finally tucked into the mix and rendered, for people to listen to on the whole.

As long as you are making great sounding music, that's all that matters - and I don't care how you do it... I only care that you do do it.

Or at least that's my own criteria, anyway.

IMHO of course. ;)

d.

Mixing for others has helped me look at myself.
My beef in all this is around the G.A.S. and how hype is targeting our wallets and emotions.
I stripped my studio down so it forced me to think about what I was doing. I do this regularly. I've made it a practice to strip away clutter so I keep the eye on the art.

So,what is the $100,000 lesson this year? I am a firm believer we are all twisting the dials too far, ITB. 1db change is 1db change. Accumulative overkill accumulates fast and before you know it, you are looking in the wrong places for help. Thus, why I think hybrid is so cool. Its really easy to screw up a mix, ITB, not as easy OTB. What we loose OTB is transparency, but what we gain is warmer and more balanced results.

All this gear comes at a price both financially and sonically. Once you look to yourself and realize what ( "less is more" truly means) where to invest study and $ , things start making a lot more sense.

I think i need to start making better music. All the gear in the world - or lack thereof - doesn't have a thing to do with that part of it.

DonnyThompson, post: 421987, member: 46114 wrote: I think i need to start making better music. All the gear in the world - or lack thereof - doesn't have a thing to do with that part of it.

exactly.

good mic, good pre , good ADDA conversion, dedicated monitoring chain, keeping an eye on the gains and accumulative overkill with a DAW that doesn't distract us is all we need to get it done. All this comes at a fraction of what it used to cost in this picture of me, last century. The only thing we need to upgrade after you have the essentials is the computer or software. That is, if you choose to do so.

$10,000 buys a pretty decent start for anyone. Your music will sound just as enjoyable as it would though this. Maybe even better if you know what you are doing.

DonnyThompson, post: 421987, member: 46114 wrote: I think i need to start making better music. All the gear in the world - or lack thereof - doesn't have a thing to do with that part of it.

YES! that's why the records from the 50's sound so good. they had to play!

on a side note, i just had the good fortune to meet Jimmy Torres from the String Alongs this last week. he bought some ADAT machines and a BRC from me ... what a hoot! a real nice guy! we had the chance to chew the fat regarding ; Waylon Jennings, Norman Petty and his studio, Buddy Holly and more. i love that sh*t!

audiokid, post: 421989, member: 1 wrote: $10,000 buys a pretty decent start for anyone. Your music will sound just as enjoyable as it would though this. Maybe even better if you know what you are doing.

i think one can do it for a lot less .... even if you have to buy mic pres one could be up and running with a pretty nice system for well under $5K. i already have front end and with a new (USED) laptop, converters, passive sum mixer and new monitors i'm in a less than $1K .... !

i'm probably going to wind up selling all my other gear... verbs outboard and alll and just keep a small bare bones minimum system ... all itb. not saying it will be the best sounding thing around but wtf it will be fine for what i need.

Ya know forum discussions rarely following me through out my day, however this one has kinda been in the back of mind all day long!

A couple of things to point out, since this was in my mind all day, as i worked on deferent pieces of gear, I consciously sought out ways to either confirm or destroy myths that are generally excepted … this next one surpassed even me...

1) Digital is sterile/transparent adds little to no distortion regardless of processing unless intentionally wanted (heat plug ins etc)…

This is absolute BS and by far the greatest lie thus far. I had a well known and respected Digital console in today for repair, complaint, oddly enough was distortion on one of the outputs. First suspect of course is the ADC, after all distortion does not exist in the digital domain (unless it is clipped)… Well. I ran a frequency response vs THD+N @ +4dBu to try an identify what output was at fault and help verify the complaint. (Yes, we get allot of "it is broken", but in truth, the user was broken…LOL) THD+N was well below .002% from 20kHz to about 100Hz, at this point, very clean and "transparent" then it quickly ramped up to above 1% by the time it hit 20Hz! that is bad…. very bad…. Before i test anything, i go though the console to zero out everything (EQ, Dynamics, routing etc) So i re-checked before unscrewing, you know it, that damn parametric on the master L-R was not flat. It had a 5db boost centered at about 37Hz. I flatten it, re-ran the test and low and behold, .002% from 20-20kHz. I am using an Audio Precision, the world standard in testing THD etc, I can assure you it was not my gear. But just in case, I grabbed a random analog piece and ran the same test. Got the expected THD curve normally associated with transformer based gear. This my friends shows, that just by using an eq in the digital domain, does color the audio…. I should have done a phase sweep on it… damn it! The console issue was not an output but a configuration conflict on an input…. I will be testing this further,,, I do have a PTHD rig sitting at the office… Hmmm… this needs further testing in order to come to a true assessment…

I do not need "audio" to prove it to me, I need measurement. hard cold undeniable data that is uncolored by emotion or bias.

audiokid - Nice Pic! so i guess you would just throw that hunk of a piece of furniture out the door or sell it to the next guy as soon as possible?

Gear is not only chosen by it's sound, the only time that is the only criteria is when budgets are not an issue. Fact of life is budgets regulate all of use (well 90% at least) and there for cost becomes a large factor in our choice of equipment and workflow. Allot of the angst against the whole analog work flow is the cost and that fact that a vast majority does not have the means to acquire or be able to house the gear. (Some would say, I could not properly house my console! LOL ) Hearing "That will never sound good because of x and you do not have y" in its basic form, hurts. It causes a rebellious response that becomes close minded to another approach, after all we are all rebels in some form. As musicians, we are always emotionally attached to what we use to create, ask any guitar player how he feels about his favorite guitar? It is no deferent form an engineers perspective, i admittedly hold the same reverence to my console that i would my Custom Jackson that I have had for years. Why? The gear and workflow you use becomes apart of who you are in essence. When we have invested allot of time and money into a particular workflow and hear that it suck/inferior or was a waste of money. Or realize that we were not getting the results we had initially desired… causes a bit of hatred…. Or, that another cheaper solution yields "close enough" results, that can cause a rift or too.

It comes down to how we express our preference, only then could some one else truly gain insight as to what may be the right direction for them. I admit, i got into the mudslinging, why i originally posted. In the end, it helped no one.

Gette, post: 422004, member: 46761 wrote: I had a well known and respected Digital console in today for repair, complaint, oddly enough was distortion on one of the outputs.

There is a big difference between a digital console and a converter and a DAW. I don't see the correlation?
Mic, pre amp, conversion, mixing and mastering. How does this have much to do with a digital console in comparison to what?

Gette, post: 422004, member: 46761 wrote: Digital is sterile/transparent adds little to no distortion regardless of processing unless intentionally wanted (heat plug ins etc)…

Digital isn't sterile, its an image of the source. If you want distortion, you can use something before or after the source and capture it capture.

Gette, post: 422004, member: 46761 wrote: audiokid - Nice Pic! so i guess you would just throw that hunk of a piece of furniture out the door or sell it to the next guy as soon as possible?

I'm sure you find this hard to believe but emotions or bias aside, I choose what serves best.
If I needed a console I would have one. I would buy what my clients expected. But, I would never buy a console for mixing or mastering my own projects. I would buy a Neos and Dangerous Master and do exactly what I do now.

I will say this. If I was a commercial studio who had record labels and the circle of engineers coming through my studio, I would have a few PT rigs, this Neve, an SSL PLUS... my room all available for whomever wants what.

But no matter what room, they would all be fitted with an independent monitor control system and a summing system like I have (y)

Would I force anyone to use something they aren't comfortable with? No. But I'm pretty certain most who compared mixes, it would be a no brainer where they would be looking.

Gette, post: 422004, member: 46761 wrote: i admittedly hold the same reverence to my console that i would my Custom Jackson that I have had for years. Why? The gear and workflow you use becomes apart of who you are in essence

Well this is subjective and crossing into the creative. I prefer PRS 10 because I like the bridge, neck and heads much more than the Jackson USA. lol. But, were not talking about taste in this thread really, we are discussing summing boxes and how they integrate hybrid. Followed by capturing the sum and monitoring perspectives. These really aren't much to do with creative, The reason we choose summing boxes is to improve our sound. Until you've used one, its pretty hard to think these could ever rival what you have, Joel. Were talking about summing amps and why or how they work so well. I don't see them as some budget alternative either, They are simple and should have huge headroom for a reason.

audiokid, post: 422005, member: 1 wrote: There is a big difference between a digital console and a converter and a DAW

Actually there isn't much deference in truth. in most high end Digital consoles you have a better scenario to mix in and dedicated hardware for the task (DSP, FPGA .. etc) Only real deference is the lack of code to retain an "Image" as you have put it. However, the Mix facilities both in sound and versatility has always out weighed any DAW as pure comparison of a mix. If only purely from a design standpoint, the dedicated digital console has a huge advantage in this way. If i were to go purely digital, i would have a dedicated digital console to handle the mixing.

audiokid, post: 422005, member: 1 wrote: Digital isn't sterile, its an image of the source

An image limited by how it was captured, limited by the processing power of the vehicle capturing. limited by physics in that it will never get a complete picture only enough it to get by and not be noticed.

audiokid, post: 422006, member: 1 wrote: But, were not talking about taste in this thread really, we are discussing summing boxes and how they integrate hybrid. Followed by capturing the sum and hearing.

LOL, that is exactly what we are talking about here, taste, opinion….:LOL:

Gette, post: 422008, member: 46761 wrote: LOL, that is exactly what we are talking about here, taste, opinion…

:D yes, but about summing boxes and how they work, why they work and why people are using them in comparison to consoles. The differences between colour vs transparent and how this effects our monitoring and final mixes. Where we put the monitoring and what other options there are for connecting these to our DAW's. This is what I am discussing. Which at that point, a console is really not even a contender for a mixer or mastering E. It will be colouring every mix the same way. Not all mixes or people want their music changed.

You are welcome to dispute or question me. I like that. Just be prepared to be drilled. So far you have missed the entire thread's sweet spot.

Just saying... ;)

Q:
Are you really convinced your console can sum a master like a Neos or similar design?

Actually I highjacked it, due to a comment you had made.

My opinion on hybrid is, simple. No console? then do not waste your time, stay ITB. the whole summing market with an exception of a very few, are cheaply made overly priced crap. Why complicate your life with monitoring issues, routing issues etc… it is not worth it!

A very simple thing to assess, if you are mixing in the faders of a DAW, do not waste your time/cash on a summing box.

The whole hybrid thing, where you are mixing using the DAW and summing else where has always had me shacking my head. I do not know if I am just upset I did not think of it, (cash could be had apparently) or ...

I mean the above honestly, it does not make sense to me. Much like buying an engine but using horses to pull the carriage. Half of one thing and half of the other. From a technical point of view, a summing bus is just that nothing makes it all that. The true idea behind Analog summing is the whole of the parts from input to eq, dynamics then summing, That is what makes it sound analog. All i can see of it is a lot of fighting to get a balance and fighting to get a workflow. excuse the expression, but it is literally half assed…..

Simply decide what domain you wish to mix in and go with it. BUT to each their own..:whistle:

audiokid, post: 422009, member: 1 wrote: Are you really convinced your console can sum a master like a [[url=http://[/URL]="http://spl.info/ind…"]Neos[/]="http://spl.info/ind…"]Neos[/] or similar design?

ANY DAY OF THE WEEK… got to remember, i know their designs well….

Gette, post: 422010, member: 46761 wrote: The whole hybrid thing, where you are mixing using the DAW and summing else where has always had me shacking my head. I do not know if I am just upset I did not think of it, (cash could be had apparently)

I have to ask, have you ever used a summing system or "approach to summing and capturing like I describe? Which I might mention, is how many world class engineers do.

Gette, post: 422010, member: 46761 wrote: I mean the above honestly, it does not make sense to me. Much like buying an engine but using horses to pull the carriage. Half of one thing and half of the other. From a technical point of view, a summing bus is just that nothing makes it all that. The true idea behind Analog summing is the whole of the parts from input to eq, dynamics then summing, That is what makes it sound analog. All i can see of it is a lot of fighting to get a balance and fighting to get a workflow. excuse the expression, but it is literally half assed…..

You definitely are not understanding a lot of this Joel. Which isn't me insulting you, but I can clearly hear were you are locked in and missing the mark here.
Your console is not perfect for everything. It excels tracking. After that, it falls short because its always adding distortion which accumulates. But that doesn't mean you can't get it done or this isn't right for you. But for a commercial mixer or master, its too one sided. We are talking about summing here. Do you know why I feel your console falls short for mixing or mastering and why I would prefer to NOT use a console? I would say this even if I had 10 million to spend.

Gette, post: 422011, member: 46761 wrote: ANY DAY OF THE WEEK… got to remember, i know their designs well….

No, I don't believe you know their design this well or the workflow in the least.

Sorry Joel, this is where the rubber meets the pavement now.

You are missing it all. I have to ask, how many Neos's have you had past your studio and had the opportunity to sum with? And how many Dangerous Master consoles have you used to do M/S processing? And what converters ,interface and master hardware did you use and how did you return the sum? Did you round trip or use an uncoupled capture process?
What monitoring system did you connect to the Neos and what converters did you use for that section? Did the Neos have detent panning or ? How did you like the Master section of the Neos and did you use the returns? How many channels did you stem into? Did you use the Master section and what did you use in that master section for gear?

Did you appreciate the mono functions and if so, what groups of stems or instruments did you use them for? Did you notice the endless headroom? Did you compare this to any other console? Did you notice how the gain or headroom of the Neos can take or smoke anything in its path?

I cannot wait for this answer .:cool:

I'd post something testimonials on the Neos but there are very few in NA who even have these.
There are a lot of engineers using the Master though, so here is a starter video for your info.

[="

[/]

[/]

[/]

Apparently my credibility is not carrying enough weight with you to hear what i am saying. I fully hear what you are trying to explain, i get it. I do not agree, but get it.

Now, you have me at a disadvantage because the information i wish share i cannot due to respect to SPL. Assumption is the champion of many failures and to assume my console is either stock or in your words not up to task, is some one who clearly does not understand me, my skill set or standards. Likewise, to also assume, that one must have been able to actually use these in a pristine environment in order to assess them, is sadly mistaken. If you do not understand the design and are incapable of designing the gear you so hail, how could i ever truly trust your judgement? How could i be sure that your ears have not fooled you into believing something that is not there? Have you used an AP in the measurement of what you say is transparent, Oh that's right purchasing $15,000 piece of gear just to take measurements does not make sense for a studio? does it?

You also forget, I work on the gear so many wish they could own, From ATC to tube Tech. I know and understand what is under the hood and unfortunately, I know the truth.

I will let this be, go back to my little thread and continue refurbishing my piece of history……

Gette, post: 422014, member: 46761 wrote: Apparently my credibility is not carrying enough weight with you to hear what i am saying. I fully hear what you are trying to explain, i get it. I do not agree, but get it.

No one is asking you to agree. But, the first thing I'm going to ask you is , what experience do you have in something ?
The Dangerous Master is one of the dedicated consoles I use in my analog matrix. Which, I consider a summing type of box ;) . I use it in the last step during the mastering stage. This particular device isn't supposed to have a sound. It also has very intelligent step to monitor. (Once again, I mention monitoring) You are clearly confused why we use these.
Take a look at all the testimonials and where they are from. This should give you an idea that this is not just my opinion or a toy. I learn with the best of them. Summing, stem summing and mastering is a whole different area to tracking. Its an Art in itself, Joel. The tools used are all related.

http://www.dangerousmusic.com/testimonials/

i have used and have specified a number of Dangerous products to facilities and other artists looking to use this type of workflow. On here, just wanted to be a kid, (41 is the new 21 right?) just working on a console and offer up thoughts and truths i would not normally express else where. the funny thing about being online is the ability to shut down the professional side. Notice i do not speak much? it is rare i post outside the M3000 thread, rare i even post there… lol

I do not need the testimonials, the idea of hybrid was to meet a need, satisfy the desires for an analog sound with the convenience of just using a DAW for all tasks (Mix, Auto etc). Lower cost of ownership over a console and a booming market to sell to. When you do what i do, you learn some harsh lessons about pre conceived notions of quality and truth in design. The truth really is, the ideal analog console, Summing box (for you here), Compressor, Eq etc, will never be built for sale. EVER. when you get into to the details of a design and begin to look at components, the choices forced open the designers are horrendous! BUT, who is to say that a Vishay VAR resistor at $20 a piece is not going to make a deference in signal path? There are allot of factors that decide how a piece of gear is made, ironically the designer is only the idea starter, not the final word.

Gette, post: 422014, member: 46761 wrote: Now, you have me at a disadvantage because the information i wish share i cannot due to respect to SPL. Assumption is the champion of many failures and to assume my console is either stock or in your words not up to task, is some one who clearly does not understand me, my skill set or standards.

Okay, I just went through this with MadMax.
Unfortunately, this is where I do try but there is only so much I can convey through type.
If you haven't used HD summing, M & S features, the concept of a little box is going to go right over your heads. And if you think this is something you grasp in a repair shop or over a weekend demo, think again. Its taken me years to understand the meaning of a straight wire and the tools to use on mono or side information, not to mention, how to even mix something worthy of the substantial investment. But, we often know more about things than opportunities allow us to demonstrate too. Not all of us are so lucky to have the best crew from talent to gear at our disposal. We work with what we get.
Speaking for myself, I mix for people which I have no control over the source.

If you think an analog console is your ticket to success, I feel sorry for you. The real truth is, I see one big disappointment after another facing anyone living that dream. But, dreams are sometimes all we have so on that note, enjoy your dream. I dream too. Kudo's and a big hug.:love:

This is where emotion needs to stop and we cut through the drama.

Joel, I'm really trying to be gentle with you but you are digging a really big hole about now.

It appears you are looking at audio like a repair guy more than a mixing or mastering engineer looking to learn something .
Using the word "respect" in the context of how you placed SPL in this conversation was a low blow, its pretty alarming (n). How are you being respectful putting it this way? You are being very questionable. I have a 16 year relationship with this company and Dangerous Music. Both who have a mutual respect for each other. Chris Muth is no dummy nor are the people at SPL. Legendary Engineers with awards for excellence use this process , which I was kind enough to point to for your benefit.
They have designed some of the most impressive summing and mastering products to date.

To clarify once again :) my statement about how a large format console, (actually most analog consoles with trannies and miles of copper) , especially of your era would be a weak summing or mastering solution for a business. Your console would in fact be detrimental when it comes to this "level" of summing or mastering.

Why?
If you got your head out of the solder and read why, you might actually learn something about summing and mastering. We are talking about "preserving" or improving signal and why we choose to use a summing box instead of an analog tracking console. We aren't talking about tracking. My job isn't about changing peoples music, its about respecting the tones and doing the best job I can to get their sounds across all platforms.

Your console is a noise generator pal! It would impose unacceptable phase shift and bring the noise floor up to unacceptable levels. The monitor section on most character consoles are also unacceptable solutions from a specific standpoint because they lack transparency. In fact, your console would force accumulative distortions all through the path right into the monitor section. This is why we prefer independent monitor control systems with a transparent DA / DAW side.

I have to call you out on how you are even familiar with the workflow of summing boxes. The 20 pages of testimonials from world class mixing and mastering engineers aren't enough for you? Summing boxes do share a common goal and workflow. We are connecting boutique hardware to a DAW with a straighter wire. I hate to point us to GS but its no clearer:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/342471-how-essential-mastering-mastering-console.html

Point-to-point is the only way you can preserve as much detail as possible as there is less cable for the audio to travel down.

However, the uncoupled DAW's may be a game changer. I'm still learning this one.

Q"

Please answer all those questions I asked? If you want to redeem yourself, teach me about summing. I'm listening
Until you are able to have an intelligent conversation about the intricacies of summing and mastering consoles, monitor control systems, I can't even take you serious anymore. :cool:

Start @ 34:00 Donny, you will especially enjoy this. What a wonderful interview.
M & S on the Dangerous Master. Magix Amunition ;) Oh ya!

[[url=http://[/URL]="

[/]

54:00

Perfect comment on speakers, what works for you, do it. I do love my Opal Events and Avatones..

Followed by an interesting comment on how he prefers an analog (Sontec) EQ to ITB. 1 db of Analog to 2 times the amount with digital. This used to be how I heard it until I started using an uncoupled capture process. I now hear I need less digital on everything. The changes are harder to hear but they are definitely changes. I've been thinking about a Sontec, they get the most praise.
Right now I'm loving a Millennia NSEQ-4 . Its a wonderful new big rail EQ .