Skip to main content

60v rails vs 120v rails

Member for

21 years
60v summing had me and now 120v mixing is opening up new possibilities. What do you think?

Comments

Member for

19 years 9 months

Davedog Fri, 05/27/2011 - 14:15
I, for one, am more than interested in such a test. This is a fascinating discussion and I feel we are blessed here at R.O. to have such a discussion being conducted in a gentlemanly way while still being pointed and aggressive for results. Most other forums where things like this have occurred, usually result in insults and name-calling without any real conclusion other than opinionated fal-der-all.

Carry on gents.

Member for

18 years 2 months

Tom Fodor Thu, 08/02/2012 - 22:57
TheJackAttack, post: 369910 wrote: I think that most electronics deal with microvoltages and milliamps. The actual analog inputs/outputs etc are at most 48v. I think mostly that it is crucial the power supply be very well designed for whatever voltage is specified on the mixer/summing box/preamp/what have you. When folks discuss the value of high voltage rails for a tube preamp circuitry it is for a very specific purpose. So basically you have to know why the designers specified "120v" and what perceived or actual problem it's supposed to solve. Remember, in some circuits voltage is additive and in some it's constant. Make sure you're not heading in a direction with a knob marked "11".

I think you've "summed" it up brilliantly.

Member for

18 years 2 months

Tom Fodor Thu, 08/02/2012 - 23:03
Davedog, post: 371949 wrote: Havent we been 'summing' analog since the beginning of the digital revolution? I thought it was a given in the big studios that you ALWAYS ran the signals out of your Mix or even HD system back through your console for the old 'warm up'. And the tracking in analog only to dump into PT or other DAW medium directly after tracking to save passes and lossy issues . And now theres CLASP. Which seems to be the do-all be-all if you still own a tape recorder.

Funny how people/companies like to stick new labels on old ideas......

Member for

15 years 10 months

IIRs Sun, 05/22/2011 - 04:37
SPL, post: 370615 wrote: Here's the english version of Ralf Koschnicke's essay (in my post 19 I only had the link to the German version)
[="http://www.acousence.de/A…"]Aspects_of_Audio_Transmission.pdf
[/]

I'm not convinced.

Lets accept your assertion that a 48Khz samplerate has too low a "temporal resolution": in what way does converting that signal to analog for the summing stage help? This is like suggesting that converting all your 128kbps mp3s to 24 bit wavs will restore the lost detail!

Surely the only way to improve the "temporal resolution" would be to use higher samplerates..?

Member for

12 years 6 months

Guitarfreak Sun, 05/29/2011 - 20:12
It seems that the most compelling arguments that have been made deal with differing workflows rather than the amount of headroom in the final stage of signal flow. I do believe that there is a difference between the sounds of analog and digital gear, but what that difference is is largely dependent on the circuits/program coding being compared. Whether or not one is "better" than the other depends on preference. To me, the typical sound of "analog" is more compression and warmer tonality with more coloration, while the digital systems are colder and more matter of fact. If you were to increase the headroom on the piece of analog gear in question and subsequently design a circuit which took advantage of this aspect, wouldn't you be heading in the direction of emulating the accuracy of a digital system?

References keep being made to those "sweet sounding vintage recordings with analog gear" as a staple of reference. I'll tell you one thing, they didn't use analog summing mixers which ran on 120v for maximum headroom without coloration back then. If you want that sound, use the gear which made it.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Davedog Sun, 05/29/2011 - 20:42
Havent we been 'summing' analog since the beginning of the digital revolution? I thought it was a given in the big studios that you ALWAYS ran the signals out of your Mix or even HD system back through your console for the old 'warm up'. And the tracking in analog only to dump into PT or other DAW medium directly after tracking to save passes and lossy issues . And now theres CLASP. Which seems to be the do-all be-all if you still own a tape recorder.

Member for

21 years

audiokid Sun, 05/29/2011 - 21:58
From what I can tell, the big switch took hold when Pro Tools HD came on. PT Mix was still rasp so there was more OTB summing then. Many studios that were summing OTB, I'm hearing have sold those beautiful consoles or they are sitting in hallways because they take up too much real estate in the control room now and no one wants them.
After this 5 year run on PT HD I see some are finding the way back a bit and where SPL is developing. Ten years ago you couldn't convince me to do this, but it makes more sense to me now.

Member for

21 years

audiokid Thu, 01/03/2013 - 18:17
I now have a NEOS. Is it a gimmick? Nope, it isn't. smoke

It sounds beautifully lush and snappy. Its alive ah... electrified x 2! The NEOS has better center focus, a wider image and is all round bigger and clearer.
Even putting a mix in mono blew me away. The low mids really stand out, which is where I call the money freq. Obviously the result of what this is all about (electric power). I've never heard anything quite like it.
I can't wait to starting using it for well recorded acoustic music.

I'm like a kid with a new toy. Well, more like a teenager with a new girlfriend . While I'm waiting for new projects, I would love to experiment on a few tracks. If anyone has some nice acoustic music, and if you are interested in hearing what it would sound like through this, PM me. I need practice.

Member for

13 years 8 months

SASman Mon, 05/30/2011 - 02:16
I think you should forget this an learn to work with the kit you have and work within it's dynamic range, most kit
has vanishingly low noise floors to the point where it is not even necessary to think about. World class recordings come
from skillful audio engineers not voltages.

Member for

21 years

audiokid Fri, 01/04/2013 - 08:58
RO has a big DropBox space. I've Created a NEOS folder. PM me your email account for dropbox and I'll add whomever wants to add tracks to this NEOS party. I'll do as many as I can until I get tired of it :)

Be warned, with long beautiful faders like this, she's too stimulating to stop wanting to stroke her lol!

Member for

17 years 5 months

SPL Mon, 05/23/2011 - 00:06
You are right, 48 kHz is not sufficient. But exactly this is explained - and why 96 kHz provides a sufficient sample rate in RECORDING or STORING audio, while only higher sample rates may keep all the detail in MIXING/SUMMING that can be assumed if you proceed from our hearing capabilities reg. localization.
According to the idea of this essay, you have to do with very fine signal structures in summing. Keeping small structures requires accordingly high resolution - a physical law. When you mix many channels, complexity can get higher than in recording (whatever you record - it is already summed ;-). Therefore, perfect summing may require even higher sample rates than recording.
This is one aspect - resolution on the time scale. The other one is possible error propagation in digital summing. Both aspects may interesting for ITB/OTB summing theories.
As I already stated before - usually, we only read about "analog dirt" (noise, distortion) in such discussions, and we wanted to enrich this discussion with a few other aspects.

Member for

15 years 10 months

IIRs Mon, 05/23/2011 - 03:05
SPL, post: 371578 wrote: Therefore, perfect summing may require even higher sample rates than recording.

This is the main problem I have: as far as I can tell digital summing is already perfect. Its one of the few aspects of mixing ITB which will not introduce aliasing, and (as I understand it) would therefore not benefit from oversampling at all.

My maths isn't up to proving it, but I strongly suspect that (assuming the same bandlimited source signals, and perfect linear phase up and down sampling filters) oversampled summing would null perfectly with a non-oversampled version.

Perhaps you could suggest a test I could run to verify your assertion that conventional digital summing is indeed flawed?

SPL, post: 371578 wrote: This is one aspect - resolution on the time scale. The other one is possible error propagation in digital summing.

I tested this one: Reaper can sum hundreds of channels with error rates down at around -140dBFS approx. If this was really significant, surely 16 bit dither noise at > -90dBFS would be totally disastrous?
x