A/B comparison between DAW SUMMING vs ANALOG SUMMING

[kambo]

didnt mean that at all... i meant use your mixer as you would in real life... it will help others in better way too...
they wont be the same exact same mix,
but, WTH  ;D
thats what OTB for

 

[danjpiscina]

That's like saying, do a mix on this SSL but you're not allowed to change anything on the console just run your mix. My point is that these "shootouts" come no where near to an actual test of each environment. No one in their right minds would mix totally ITB and then break it out to analog summing and then print, it does a dis-service to the process. You're optimizing your mix in a digital environment which completely ignores the advantages of a good analog mix.

Why not do it in reverse? Do a good, balanced mix into your analog summing box and bus compressor taking advantage of what they have to offer and then print that exact same mix digitally with your SSL plugin. I think you'll find the results to be quite startling when you fully take advantage of the analog environment.

Mark

Hey Mark. I personally know several world-class mixing engineers who mix ITB and then "break out the analog summing".... so it's fair to say that many people "in their right minds" WOULD do this. Also, shootouts (meaning A/B comparisons... no matter what it is you're comparing/how you're comparing it) are a great way to train your ears. I would advise that you alter your ignorant attitude towards the art of record production  

 

[Biasrocks]

Hey Mark. I personally know several world-class mixing engineers who mix ITB and then "break out the analog summing".... so it's fair to say that many people "in their right minds" WOULD do this.

So you're saying they would not fully utilize the advantages of an analog mixing environment?

These engineers make absolutely no adjustments to take advantage of analog summing?

If in fact they're not making any adjustments after breaking it out to an analog summing device and the requisite analog gear, I would venture to say they're doing themselves a disservice. That's akin to running a mix down to an analog deck at whatever level happens to be established by your d/a converter and your ITB mix and not making any adjustment for how hard your hitting the tape or how it sounds. ???

That's certainly not the way I was taught to make records.

My point is and has always been that these shootouts prove very little because they don't reflect the way many people (but apparently not the world-class guys you know) use this type of gear.

I'll ignore your personal jabs for now.  ;D

Mark

 

[danjpiscina]

Hey Mark. I personally know several world-class mixing engineers who mix ITB and then "break out the analog summing".... so it's fair to say that many people "in their right minds" WOULD do this.

So you're saying they would not fully utilize the advantages of an analog mixing environment?

These engineers make absolutely no adjustments to take advantage of analog summing?

If in fact they're not making any adjustments after breaking it out to an analog summing device and the requisite analog gear, I would venture to say they're doing themselves a disservice. That's akin to running a mix down to an analog deck at whatever level happens to be established by your d/a converter and your ITB mix and not making any adjustment for how hard your hitting the tape or how it sounds. ???

That's certainly not the way I was taught to make records.

My point is and has always been that these shootouts prove very little because they don't reflect the way many people (but apparently not the world-class guys you know) use this type of gear.

I'll ignore your personal jabs for now.  ;D

Mark

Remember Mark, we're not talking about active analog summing, or summing with faders. Passive summing systems are fixed. So it's really nothing to do with "running a mix down to an analog deck at whatever level happens to be established by your d/a converter and your ITB mix and not making any adjustment for how hard your hitting the tape or how it sounds". You're only "hitting" to things. 2 mic pres. So yes, you would adjust gain there, though many times the standard 30dB is fine. Think of it as putting a buss compressor or eq in after you mix. Doing so isn't unheard of. And to be fair, every now and then there are a few more things you might want to adjust but it takes 5 min. Part of the beauty of passive summing is the fact that, with the push of a few buttons, you end up with the way a Neve 8088, for example, works. Then you can change the mic pres and you have another sound.

I apologize for the rude comments. It's just frustrating because whenever someone goes through the trouble of posting audio comparisons, they get criticized. This is really silly, especially for this site. It is clear that most people here just like to talk about ohms and capacitor tolerances. They forget that they have a pair of ears and that they should be using them.

Don't disregard someone's shootout just because it doesn't follow your protocol. Take every chance you get to use and train your ears. Because once you hear something (like this particular ITB OTB A/B) you know how THAT sounds forever. That's useful.

 

[baadc0de]

If not anything else, we would get to hear how getting groups out to an analog mix buss to an 9k preamp for gain and a DIY SSL for compression sounds. It might be the sound some of us may be looking for. There is ofcourse no substitute to driving the units with our own material in real time while fiddling with controls, but that's not going to happen without some effort and investment. Some of us like to base investment decisions like that based on information we can gather about them, and samples that others do, with their material and with their knob fiddlery are still valid information, as long as proper perspective is taken care of. Some decide on how cool the knobs look like or how large the case and meter are... Or which engineer used it on which record... Those are all valid reasons on how to decide what stuff you want to invest in, so let's please be civil and respect those that have a different opinion.

In any event, if Stefanos wishes to conduct his tests, i'll be glad to listen to the results

 

[ytsestef]

I can't understand some things. This is a DIY forum. A DIY forum that focuses in Professional Audio DIY. We build the gear, and we make music with it. Others build the gear and make music professionally. And yet, most people go like "woah, nice case, where'd you get it?" or "how did you do the lettering?" or "what caps did you use?" and very few people wonder "how the hell does this thing actually sounds?". Sure, it's a clone, but, does it sound exactly like the original? Hell, what does even the original sounds like? I haven't used an SSL 9000 console in my dreams. If it wasn't for Keith (he's the man!!) I wouldn't know its characteristics. Sure, I know it's an opamp pre, and these things in general are quiet and neutral and stuff, but still...

I don't want to be offensive to anyone, some people here may be well-known sound engineers or world-class producers. I'm neither of those things, and yet, I'd rather use my ears before I decide whether a piece of gear meets the requirements of a session.

In an other thread I asked people's opinion on what preamp should I build to make up for the summing box level loss. I said that I wanted something neutral and quiet and stuff and a bunch of people started the "You don't need quiet and clean" "make an api" "a neve" rant. Again, there were guys like mitsos and martymart understood my needs and pointed me to th 9K.

As for the "disservice" Mark keeps talking about, I repeat:
The mix was done OTB, then summed all the busses ITB and ultimately used the GSSL on both versions.
The passive mixer has -40dB loss, and thus, the 9K was used with +40dB of gain.
Where exactly is the disservice?

"Finding the sweetspot of the preamp" means that I would have to maybe keep levels down during the mix (for example peaking at -15dB) to try different preamp gain settings (in this example +55dB!!!). Well excuse me Mark, but this is bad gain structure and THAT's what I call disservice

Sorry about the rant!
I don't mean to offend anyone.

The test will be done eventually, but take it with a grain of salt!!

Peace

 

[tv]

Mann, cut the crap and this "modern emotional man" vibe. (Aren't greeks supposed to be be more Macho types anyway? Like Sparta stuff etc.?)

We-The-Collective are eagerly waiting for your files, but for the sake of transparency, could you be so kind and provide "NO BUS-COMP" files as well?

Personally, I have a feel for summing devices, know what they do and have built my first "passive+discrete gain" in 1982 ( IIRC ). I am no famous mixer, more in the busch league(TM).

What is your opinion anyway:
a) is it worth it to sum a multitude of channels or
b) group/bus summing is good enough - ie groups are digitally summed ITB so when you go OTB you are summing f.e. drum bus, bass-bus, vox-bus, guit-bus and synth-bus (could be squeezed down to 4 x stereo)



---------
If you feel adventurous, here's one of my designs:
http://www.groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=30806.0

NOTE: if you breadboard it, that's fine, but I'm offering no support (unless it coincides with my occasional visits on this board). Otoh, if you read the pdf, there's enough info/concept explanation in there... imho

 

[e.oelberg]

I think the ultimate test is:

A: stereo mix ITB routed through the external summing device -> ITB

B: 16 channel mix OTB -> ITB

if this is the same we may finally forget about analog summing

nicholas

 

[ytsestef]

Mann, cut the crap and this "modern emotional man" vibe. (Aren't greeks supposed to be be more Macho types anyway? Like Sparta stuff etc.?)

We-The-Collective are eagerly waiting for your files, but for the sake of transparency, could you be so kind and provide "NO BUS-COMP" files as well?

Even the toughest guy doesn't stand a chance against anonymous keyboard bravery. I don't do any crap, nor am I trying to show any emotional vibe.
I couldn't care less about what a guy from some country thinks about my opinion or work. AFAIK, he's just some guy who is DIY-ing stuff. And getting into a "your mama's so fat..." loop of dialogue is simply outrageously childish. I just thought I'd ask what is your problem guys. You don't agree, fine. You thing this is time-wasting, fine. Stay away from this thread! It's really that simple. Much better than butting into the conversation being ironic, which is not only rude, but also definately deconstructing, not only in our case, but generally as a behaviour. What would be even better than staying away from the thread is try to make the test better. Contribute with your opinion. Nicely, or not at all.


What's the problem with both mixes sent through the gssl?
The mix is done inside the compressor and it is part of what the band wanted as a resulting sound.
It wouldn't do it justice if I left it out. We want to make the test in real-life situation, right? Well, real-life includes bus-compression for this kind of music.
This also means that the test is even more transparent, because both mixdowns are recorded back into the DAW, passing through the same converters.
Recording the mixdown results in a hell of a difference in sound than just rendering the file.

So there you have it: the least amount of variables in this test:
1) DAW -> D/A -> GSSL -> A/D -> DAW
2) DAW -> D/A -> Summing Mixer -> 9K -> GSSL -> DAW

Please elaborate on why you insist on "NO BUS-COMP" version.

Personally, I have a feel for summing devices, know what they do and have built my first "passive+discrete gain" in 1982 ( IIRC ). I am no famous mixer, more in the busch league(TM).

What is your opinion anyway:
a) is it worth it to sum a multitude of channels or
b) group/bus summing is good enough - ie groups are digitally summed ITB so when you go OTB you are summing f.e. drum bus, bass-bus, vox-bus, guit-bus and synth-bus (could be squeezed down to 4 x stereo)

I'm somewhere in the middle on this:
Grouping in my experience is good enough, but if I can get away with having some basic stuff on their own buses, that's even better.
If I had a 16 track project, I would definately send each track on its own bus, but when I have these 80-track projects I just sum ITB the instrument groups, but I send the kick snare bass and lead vocal to their own mono bus, too (parallel, at a lower level). I have found this helps them maintain clarity and seperation through a wall of sound.

e.oelberg: I have done this test. It's not the same thing. Taking the ITB mix and routing it through the summing/preamp path is almost exactly the same (well the 9K preamp makes is a tiny difference). I have personally found that the sound changes more significantly when summed externally. Thus I am conducting this test to hear people's opinions on whether it is better, worse or simply different.

 

[penguin]

which AD/DA will be used ?
sample rate ?
bit rate ?

edit: Sonic Core A16 Converter  ??? you are joking right
thats a low end/budget convertor ... you might as well stick with ITB  ;D
get better convertors if you want some benefit from ur gssl, 9k and etc etc....

 

[ytsestef]

which AD/DA will be used ?
sample rate ?
bit rate ?

edit: Sonic Core A16 Converter  ??? you are joking right
thats a low end/budget convertor ... you might as well stick with ITB  ;D
get better convertors if you want some benefit from ur gssl, 9k and etc etc....

ADA8000 is a low end/budget convertor. the a16 is nothing spectacular, not too bad, still better than m-audio onboard converters and still better than ITB
The A16 is used to convert the 2 ADAT outs to 16 analog.
The stereo mix is fed into the DAW through a Mytek Stereo 96ADC.

 

[penguin]

sample rate ?

 

[tv]

>>> Even the toughest guy doesn't stand a chance against anonymous keyboard bravery.

Cute, what can I say?

>>> What's the problem with both mixes sent through the gssl?

IMHO, this masks the "pure" effect of a summing device. It's like another layer of processing on top of the effect of what DA->sumbox->AD does to the mix..., so the "raw" factor of a summing box doesn't show as clearly as otherwise... YMMV

>>> Grouping in my experience is good enough, ... ... but I send the kick snare bass and lead vocal to their own mono bus, too (parallel, at a lower level).

IOW, ITB pre-grouping + OTB-multing the "important" tracks... sounds pretty reasonable to me...

 

[ytsestef]

The whole thing is done in 48kHZ, 24Bit, mostly because of the ADAT protocol, but to keep the files in reasonable size, too.

Now if we're done whining and arguing, I'll try and upload the files tomorrow if I find the time.
I'll post here when it's done, but anyone that wants to participate in this will have to pm me for the links. It's not like I won't give the links to some persons, I'll be glad to send the files to anyone. There are various reasons for this, including bandwidth saving and protecting the artist, which was kind enough to give me permission for this, in the first place.
The discussion will be done in this thread, though.

I'll also post info about the recording which essentially is a demo home recording with low-budget gear - it's more of a rescue attempt than a commercial mix (to save comments on the source quality and the quality of the outcome - this is not a mix evaluation after all, but a shootout). I'll just have to post some info and a link about the band if you don't mind. It's our agreement.

Cheers

 

[e.oelberg]

still the 9k is in the chain, why  not go stereo in the summing box vs 16 channel in the summing box. This will make the difference between summing vs ouboard clear.

I'd love to know if there is a difference, I wouldn't hesitate building a summing box if I hear a difference which convinces me

nicholas

 

[danjpiscina]

which AD/DA will be used ?
sample rate ?
bit rate ?

edit: Sonic Core A16 Converter  ??? you are joking right
thats a low end/budget convertor ... you might as well stick with ITB  ;D
get better convertors if you want some benefit from ur gssl, 9k and etc etc....

i have to say i agree with Penguin here. Especially when it comes to ADAT (the most horrible sounding digital sound ever.... A/B ADAT with your analog i/o and tell me you don't hear a difference!) and the internal clock of a piece of semi-pro gear. You might be better off using plugins because they wont degrade the sound. I run a 003 with the internal clock and I have some gear set up as inserts but after extensive listening, I concluded that I'm better off using UAD plugins. If I had 192 i/o's or Lynx converters with an Antelope clock this would be a different story, but for now....

 

[Biasrocks]

i have to say i agree with Penguin here. Especially when it comes to ADAT (the most horrible sounding digital sound ever.... A/B ADAT with your analog i/o and tell me you don't hear a difference!) and the internal clock of a piece of semi-pro gear. You might be better off using plugins because they wont degrade the sound. I run a 003 with the internal clock and I have some gear set up as inserts but after extensive listening, I concluded that I'm better off using UAD plugins. If I had 192 i/o's or Lynx converters with an Antelope clock this would be a different story, but for now....

The ADAT interface is used by many pieces of gear including the Apogee AD-16X that I have sitting here next to me. There are no degradation issues with it in my setup. Yes, the ADAT 8-track recorder was and is a total POS, but that's not what the OP is going to use.

I'll let the rest of this post stand on it's own merit.  ;D

with one caveat...

This is the kind of thing that undoubtedly derails the most well-intentioned "shootout".

Why not post your results, document how you went about it and let each person decide whether it's relevant to them.

Otherwise you'll be trying to satisfy everyone and we all know how that ends up.  8)

Mark

 

[danjpiscina]

The ADAT interface is used by many pieces of gear including the Apogee AD-16X that I have sitting here next to me. There are no degradation issues with it in my setup. Yes, the ADAT 8-track recorder was and is a total POS, but that's not what the OP is going to use.

I'll let the rest of this post stand on it's own merit.  ;D

with one caveat... This is the kind of thing that undoubtedly derails the most well-intentioned "shootout".

Why not post your results, document how you went about it and let everyone decide whether it's relevant to them.

Otherwise you'll be trying to satisfy everyone and we all know how that ends up.  8)

Mark

Good point Mark. But it just goes back to what I was saying. Shootouts are crucial. Say, for example, that there was an analog i/o vs. ADAT i/o shootout already posted somewhere here, then everyone who listens to this summing shootout would have that prior knowledge so they'd understand how ADAT effects the sound of ytsestef's shootout. You say there are no degredation issues with the ADAT in your Apogee AD-16X? Have you A/B'd it with your analog i/o? If you have, could you post it on my shootout page?

http://www.groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=35303.0

You could get a line splitter and track some guitar, then take the mic pre out (split to 2 channels) have one go into your ADAT and the other to your analog. Or simply put an insert on a track already recorded. Same piece of gear with ADAT vs. analog. 

I'd love to hear it. Because I haven't heard that yet and since I have no ADAT to analog converter for my 003, I can't compare. The shootout I spoke of earlier was done a while back at a tracking session (we listened to the ADAT front-end on a RADAR multitrack vs. 192 i/o analog. The quality was incredible. It's wasn't subjective. It was like listening to a home studio demo vs. a real record! But that was different gear.

 

[lolo-m]

I'd love to hear it. Because I haven't heard that yet and since I have no ADAT to analog converter for my 003, I can't compare. The shootout I spoke of earlier was done a while back at a tracking session (we listened to the ADAT front-end on a RADAR multitrack vs. 192 i/o analog. The quality was incredible. It's wasn't subjective. It was like listening to a home studio demo vs. a real record! But that was different gear.

Adat is a communication protocol and does only drive 0 and 1... There's no sound here. The converters used for AD or DA conversion are driving sound and there's a lot of diference between some of them.
No matter what interface is used in this test if DA and AD are used on both samples (ITB and OTB). DA noise and sound will be more present in OTB test so if they're crappy DA converters as some said it can only deserve the test but I think ytsestef doesn't think it does...

 

[danjpiscina]

DA noise and sound will be more present in OTB test.

Right. But I'm not talking about noise. I'm talking about distortion and the overall sound of the program material.

Adat is a communication protocol and does only drive 0 and 1... There's no sound here.

This is simply untrue and you said it in your sentence. ADAT is a communication PROTOCOL. All digital protocols (ADAT, AES/EBU, TDIF, SPDIF, etc.) sound different because of the way they work. I think AES/EBU sounds great and I use it all the time. My point is that ADAT sounds horrible. It's a user-friendly and cheap way to expand your i/o, so for a pre-production/demo studio it's perfect. But it's just not professional and it sounds bad.

Don't conclude that just because it's only "0 and 1" it wont affect the sound. It does. Listen for yourself.