Got them...loading them into Cubase now.
I really like this DropBox it is slick!

djmukilteo, post: 386369 wrote: One thing I would like to talk about is how these DAW's actually sum tracks versus what happens with summing using summing hardware. Maybe that's another topic thread but I would like to know your opinion.

Without any plugins placed on two tracks in a DAW isn't the summing engine/algorithm just binary addition?
When you sum with hardware there must be a certain amount of circuit electronics that imparts itself onto the signal as it passes through the box.
I think the converter stage is for the most part transparent. I'm sure that's another argument and I'm willing to discount that stage of the process in my scenario.
So...if your DAW is summing merely as binary math and there is no algorithm mimicking even a little bit of electronics into the signal then it would seem that the result ITB will be an unaltered pure sterile sum of the two tracks. Which will never sound the same as passing it through hardware electronics.
The minute you add any plugin anywhere in the DAW to your summing you will impart something into the signal that could start to mimic what the hardware is doing.
In other words without adding something to the DAW sum it will always sound sterile compared to hardware.

YUP! smoke

I'm kidding... Your questions are great but when it comes to the math, I'm just a guitar player messing around here. If it sounds right, thats all I'm working with.
Digital will never sound the same as analog. Whether that is a good or bad thing is irrelevant. The analog modeling plug-ins are like digital keyboards compared to analog synths. They are missing copper and so far thats the part I like. This may change but for now, I like what I'm hearing and everything is just easier and more fun.

The whole OTB OTB debate comes down to what we like. At our current state, I doubt either format would make a difference as a hit song. But I have read that compressed music with less dynamics do not stay find their way into the circle of great songs. There have been studies on this. So, if we are compressing that crap out of our songs, you can be sure people will grow tired of it faster than a nice warm analog track that is full of natural dynamics.

djmukilteo, post: 386377 wrote: Got them...loading them into Cubase now.
I really like this DropBox it is slick!

Have you installed Dropbox 1.2.52. That is really slick. Once installed, all you do is save to that folder on your desktop and it loads to your account.

My thoughts on converters, they are the most important part of our DAW (and you thought your hearing wasn't that great!). Most people aren't listening this close so what you picked up on would go over most heads. Many think the mid level converters are as good as you need. But when we really start listening you can hear a difference. And that difference is grain, less open sounding, metallic colored, separation and SPACE.

If I could have 16 ADDA of Lavry, I would. The difference is the part that make it easier for a track to sit in the mix without a crammed sound. Also, that last 2% I've mentioned before, that you only get with high end gear, it is my opinion this is where it counts. Its the tiny percent that rolls off like a reverb tail. Its the sweet spot between sounds that make them more of there own and not washed together. It is the separation.

This is only my therory.

audiokid, post: 386379 wrote: Have you installed Dropbox 1.2.52. That is really slick. Once installed, all you do is save to that folder on your desktop and it loads to your account.

Yes 1.2.52 is my current version.
The upload and download process and linking is what I really like about it.
And a free 2.2Gb cloud account is totally amazing!
I can always delete files to stay below that figure.
I've wanted to have a simple large cloud account for sharing files with collaborators so this is perfect...
and if you refer someone else you each get an additional 250Mb of space up to 8Gb!

After downloading those final Sums...there's no doubt that the analog summing adds space, air, separation, warmth and any other nuance term you want to put in there.
Sum3 is the difference and if those final 3 sums were up for comparison, I would be picking Sum3 every time as my preference.
The other 2 were fine and great and all but flat and duller in comparison.

Converters are getting better with every new chip and I believe will continue to improve.
Just my opinion in terms of how electronics continues to change everyday, but audio bandwidth has it's limits but we may find dynamic range and S/N do not...so far that is what has truly improved audio from the past. And that is the real gist between software and electronics. Electronics is real, software is a mimic of the real....:cool:
Lavry is right across the pond from me here and I would love to have some of his stuff.
I know my RME FF800 isn't stellar and neither is my friends ZEDR16, but for the price and hobby budgets it suits my needs.....for the time being.
The cost of high end audio equipment like what you are using for recording still demands a commercial endeavor to provide a level of professional product that will still be outside the realm of the bedroom musician...

Just what I needed to hear!

How did Sum 1 and Sum 2 compare?

Well Sum-1-W-2.wav was inverted from Sum2 and Sum3 and out of alignment with 2/3.
So while they didn't null (none of them really did) those two were the closest to each other. I just flipped the polarity on Sum1.
But...I didn't like either compared to 3 (special)..so maybe some bias and listening fatigue going on.
So I don't know what else that can tell you for the test?

On a sidenote for this....when I made a mix of this song the spacey synth was set much lower and to the background from the piano which I did to eliminate some of the ringing and build up between the two tracks.
After listening to the sums of this I would still shift the pan slightly on the synth to balance overall and lower the level of the synth like that again...
But of course that is another story for another time...:cool:

If you like, I do that for you? I dropped it about 10 db already, wasn't sure how much more to go.

Sure thing if your not sick of it by now!...LOL....
Maybe I can explain what I hear...it's really just a blending thing and a bit of balance.

So...The piano is fine where it is, stays prominent and has it's own ring, verb tails etc...when it's centered it tend to pulls everything a little to the right...so if you bring the "universe" synth down to a certain point so that it sounds more off in the distance it ducks behind the piano and then moving the pan of the synth slightly left of center pulls the whole thing back to center. There's this weird point where those two changes makes it have a depth and the in and out timing, pan and verb tails all blend and drift together rather than one being more noticeable.
Keeping the synth down and back also lowers the occasional modulation ringing and buildup.

Man, we are having our own party, and is this not the best in a long time.

For fun, I added another Sum with tube gear. I'm going to do it again when my second UA LA-2A arrives ( should be any day now). This kind of track would be perfect for that. So expect something interesting.

(Expired Link Removed)
(Expired Link Removed)

I should note that these were bounced to 16/44 for CD.

PS,

the bit of garble at the end that sounds like a gate, is that part of the track?

This is too kind of you...Yeah I've heard that warble at the end....and I think your equipment has made that more noticeable. In my mix I did fade both stereo tracks out at the end to get rid of it.
That was what I was calling the "verb tail modulation".
Are you using the 2 synth mono tracks with the stereo piano track or the 4 mono tracks?
I could send you the original stereo synth track!?

Not a problem.

I'm using the stereo track. The mono ones had that grain to them and didn't line up. Could be the other two mono's should have been saved as a stereo track as well but we didn't hear anything there and they NULLED way back in this thread right?

The tube needed to warm up more, it sounds a bit more active but I could be getting ear fatigue. never the less, here is the forth.

(Expired Link Removed)

Sure, send me a new stereo file is you want, I do it again when the LA-2A comes.

Wow, the Bricasti would be a really nice touch on this track. Especially in the analog domain. The tails would soarrrrrrrr............

Just as a reference here's the song the way I had it mixed originally on Soundcloud....

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://soundcloud.c…"]Doon's sounds on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free[/]="http://soundcloud.c…"]Doon's sounds on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free[/]

I think I may have over emphasized the level of the synth part and how low it actually was.
Now it seems gone all together. I guess it was only "slightly lower".
LOL...you know this is probably why it's hard to mix or master remotely...!!!

Also in both those two runs there is some sort of faint grunting like artifacts that I hear almost like compression pumping....So I don't know if that is in the original file or is coming from somewhere else.
If you listen to the Soundcloud version it's not there and the whole thing has a smooth soft sound to it!

Ya, I know what you mean. Why that LA2A is going to be amazing here I think.

Notice the Soundcloud wave, its compressed a lot compared to these. I used your MP3 as a reference when setting the universe patch but I like it more now, more subtle.

Time for a commercial break... For those following this hehe, What a crowd!

I don't believe anyone has done this online before soooooooooo! another first for audiokid ( and the crowd goes wild!). I'm going to experiment with what two LA2A's do to choirs, inserted into the MixDream. Stay tuned!

Now, back to our regular program...

I'm feeling pretty honored that my wav's are passing through your stellar gear.
Briscati, LA2A's SPL Dangerous....All I can say is Wow and thanks
I'm feeling kinda guilty getting all this attention!...but it's a lot of fun.
I'll send you the stereo track of the synth!
Also would you like to try the OMF thing, I've only done that once but it would be pretty interesting as a cross platform experiment...

I researched OMF import for Sequoia and its only available as a third party add-in. Its been something many have asked about adding for years, but because Sequoia is so massive, there are some plus and negatives that they leave up to each user to deside on. So at this point I'm not going to concider it until I at least upgrade to Sequoia 12 next month, then question people who see it as stable.

correction, not using a Bricasti, I wish we I had one. It would make this track killer. Its on my list but not for a while.

Can you explain OMF to me? Don't use Avid anymore but I get the idea from this thread
http://recording.org/media-production/13023-what-is-an-omf-file.html

Just a thought...
Open Media Framework.
It's sort of a hyper meta-file that takes all the track information and data within an audio project and creates a single point exchange file. Sort of like HTML web format does where there are coded instructions and tagging info on how to place content data in there appropriate places.
So basically an OMF file contains all the information needed to re-create your project on some other system if the other system has the OMF extraction code needed to put everything back in place.
I've only tried it once and the file can be large and take some time to export and of course with anything like that I think there can be problems with stuff that doesn't translate correctly.

I'm probably not giving you enough time to answer, You are in Cubase, do you export your sessions in OMF? Now you can explain more :)

Here's the stereo synth track....

Pro Tools

djmukilteo, post: 386413 wrote: Just a thought...
Open Media Framework.
It's sort of a hyper meta-file that takes all the track information and data within an audio project and creates a single point exchange file. Sort of like HTML web format does where there are coded instructions and tagging info on how to place content data in there appropriate places.
So basically an OMF file contains all the information needed to re-create your project on some other system if the other system has the OMF extraction code needed to put everything back in place.
I've only tried it once and the file can be large and take some time to export and of course with anything like that I think there can be problems with stuff that doesn't translate correctly.

Ya, seems pretty important.

djmukilteo, post: 386415 wrote: Here's the stereo synth track....

Pro Tools

before I download it, will this line up to the e piano stereo track?

audiokid, post: 386414 wrote: I'm probably not giving you enough time to answer, You are in Cubase, do you export your sessions in OMF? Now you can explain more :)

No I've been exporting this stuff with standard .wav files.
in Cubase I have my projects set up either 32bit float/44.1 or 24bit/44.1.
The only reason to use this OMF exchange format would be to send someone else like a batch project.
But you would need to be able to import OMF. It will load the entire project in one shot.
So things like timing alignment which is a problem with sending individual wav's would go away...all tracks come into your system, it creates the audio tracks you need and loads the audio data directly into the track and your ready to go.

audiokid, post: 386417 wrote: before I download it, will this line up to the e piano stereo track?

Yes it was exported at 0.00 like the piano track.

Hippie! second LA-2A arrived so I have some examples coming in. Here is your track Don.

(Expired Link Removed)
(Expired Link Removed)

The garbling at the end is still there. But, this gives us an idea what two LA2A's are able to do. ( They aren't linked either) My first time doing this too so I'm obviously very green.

Here is a choir I did this month.

(Expired Link Removed)
(Expired Link Removed)

(Expired Link Removed)

Wow..that was vey "smooth" sounding and the levels between tracks were great!
It's too bad that piano track has that occasional faint background warble in it.....I'm sure most wouldn't notice that, but your high end processing certainly makes that more noticeable....I don't think I really noticed it before....but other than that little "nit picky" thing.....it was superb!
The LA2A is only one channel right?....so you used 2 to do the stereo sum?
At what point along the line do you have them inserted?
Thanks so much for playing around with my tracks....it was very enlightening!
I hope you post your choir tracks too.....I would love to hear those.

Yes, LA-2A's are mono . So I needed two of them to do this, but wow eh! This is a massive step up for me now.

djmukilteo, post: 386531 wrote: Wow..that was vey "smooth" sounding and the levels between tracks were great!
It's too bad that piano track has that occasional faint background warble in it.....I'm sure most wouldn't notice that, but your high end processing certainly makes that more noticeable....I don't think I really noticed it before....but other than that little "nit picky" thing.....it was superb!
The LA2A is only one channel right?....so you used 2 to do the stereo sum?
At what point along the line do you have them inserted?
Thanks so much for playing around with my tracks....it was very enlightening!
I hope you post your choir tracks too.....I would love to hear those.

Missed your question :)

I have them inserted in the Mastering Insert of the SPL MixDream. This would be its 2-bus just before the DAW return. However, for now, ( learning) I also use the Dangerous Master, after the MixDream, so in this example, the LA2A's are actually before the Dangerous Master. Make sense?

I did it this way because of cabling. Didn't want to start pulling cable just yet.

The choir tracks were stunningly different!....that cough at the end was too bad wasn't it!
The hazards of live recording in a public environment I guess eh!
I had trouble telling the EQ verision from the first LA2A, but the difference between the ITB and OTB is pretty clear.
I take it the ITB had no plugins or processing?...correct?

audiokid, post: 386537 wrote: Missed your question :)

I have them inserted in the Mastering Insert of the SPL MixDream. This would be its 2-bus just before the DAW return. However, for now, ( learning) I also use the Dangerous Master, after the MixDream, so in this example, the LA2A's are actually before the Dangerous Master. Make sense?

I did it this way because of cabling. Didn't want to start pulling cable just yet.

Yes, I assume you want the LA2A as the last thing before it's printed or is that the reason for the D-box after?
Or would you have the LA2A's right after the DAW output and then the summing?

djmukilteo, post: 386538 wrote: The choir tracks were stunningly different!....that cough at the end was too bad wasn't it!
The hazards of live recording in a public environment I guess eh!
I had trouble telling the EQ verision from the first LA2A, but the difference between the ITB and OTB is pretty clear.
I take it the ITB had no plugins or processing?...correct?

This was recorded using the Lavry AD11 ( USB converter/micpre combo) Royer SF-24 Flat. No processing. Wow eh! One mic stuck into the center of the Choir, DONE!

djmukilteo, post: 386539 wrote: Yes, I assume you want the LA2A as the last thing before it's printed or is that the reason for the D-box after?
Or would you have the LA2A's right after the DAW output and then the summing?

If I was doing this again, Live, I would track with them. The sound difference is even better. You just kiss it with the LA2A (s).

But for this example, they are the last thing in the chain before printing back to the DAW.