1. Dear Guest, if you haven't already... enter to WIN Samplitude Pro X4!
    Dismiss Notice

Analog Summing Boxes ?

Discussion in 'Summing / Mastering consoles' started by Tommy osuna, Nov 29, 2014.

  1. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    You've got it exactly, Donny.

    to add,
    Few people even are aware of this. Its more a mastering step. So thats what we are really doing, mixing into the master. ;)
    Round Trip costs more in every way (sonically, mentally, financially) yielding poorer results. You end up buying gear you don't even need. It ridiculous to me.
     
    pcrecord likes this.
  2. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2012
    Location:
    Akron/Cleveland, OH
    Home Page:
    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?
     
  3. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    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 $*^t 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.
     
  4. Davedog

    Davedog Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    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.
     
  5. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    Reamping is cool

    yup

    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.
     
  6. Davedog

    Davedog Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    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....
     
  7. Boswell

    Boswell Moderator Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  8. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2012
    Location:
    Akron/Cleveland, OH
    Home Page:
    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?)

    ???
     
  9. pcrecord

    pcrecord Quality recording seeker ! Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    Home Page:
    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
     
  10. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2012
    Location:
    Akron/Cleveland, OH
    Home Page:
    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).
     
    pcrecord likes this.
  11. Boswell

    Boswell Moderator Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    Home Page:
    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.
     
    pcrecord likes this.
  12. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  13. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    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.

    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.
     
  14. Gette

    Gette Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2013
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    Home Page:
    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
     
  15. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  16. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2012
    Location:
    Akron/Cleveland, OH
    Home Page:
    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. ;)
     
  17. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2012
    Location:
    Akron/Cleveland, OH
    Home Page:
    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. ;)
     
  18. pcrecord

    pcrecord Quality recording seeker ! Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  19. Gette

    Gette Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2013
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    Home Page:
    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.....
     
  20. Davedog

    Davedog Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    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.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice