A/B comparison between DAW SUMMING vs ANALOG SUMMING

[1954U1]

for digital, this is to do with the internal routing of your sequencing software

Sequencing software?
Aren't we talking about summing?

Anyway, its incredible.
After all the null tests and the obvious math, the myth is still alive.
We're in a horror movie..
Its like a zombie, really. 

 

[ytsestef]

As for the ongoing glearslutz-style war: it's the same reason why imperfect tubes and coloring transformers sound better to people's ears than opamp or discreet designs.

Back on topic: Hey danjpiscina! The gain structure was left unchanged, the levels didn't change at all, maybe the GSSL was affected by the summing box's crosstalk? The reduction was the same in both cases: -4dB Peaks, -2dB between peaks. Additional info on GSSL Settings: Turbo mode on, 4:1 Ratio, 10ms Attack, Auto Release.
I think the difference in the sonic characteristics doesn't lie on the gssl.
I have noticed the exact same things regarding the transients and the seperation.

My conclusion is that it sounds different, not better, not worse. My taste says that overall the OTB mix is what we call "better". YMMV.

Again, I can't stress enough how surprised I was when I A/B'ed them, cause I expected other kinds of differences like frequency content and not dynamics.

 

[danjpiscina]

please amuse me and present accurate measurement data to prove this.

measurement data? in this case, the "measurement data" is.... YOUR EARS! i'm not a software engineer or a console designer.

The digital part of your argument is an increasingly popular myth (impossible to kill, ref. 'belief systems'), and any properly set up nulling test will show you why. I know this is somehow completely impossible to do and hence rarely seen, but we all know how little actual engineering skills your average studio hack these days has.

Are you suggesting you have more engineering "skills" than I? Remember, I'm talking about listening, not 1's and 0's or components or null tests, etc.

The rest of your argument (pulled out the neve/ssl/analog rabbit out of the hat all of the sudden) introduces a plethora of variables in the form of mix bus buffers (imperfect analog amps), preamps (more imperfect analog amps), EQ stages (guess what?) and AD converters, all sprinkling little IMD, THD and noise over your audio. Of course they are going to sound different compared to perfect DAW summing!

i'm not talking about any stages other than summing. i'm merely talking about the way different consoles SUM line-level signals into a STEREO MIX. sure they introduce distortion. but so does (guess what?) DIGITAL SUMMING! and distortion in this realm generally isn't musical. (side note: I am not speaking of digital clipping).

Your predictable next step is trying to confuse me with the magical realm of floating point math, but ahha! that happens to be my day job

that thought honestly had not crossed my mind. sounds like a really fun day job though you know what mine is? ENGINEERING!

 

[Kingston]

danjpiscina,

it's completely stupid to even suggest to use ones ears to judge anything at all when there's extensive measurement data and mathematical facts available for all cases of the argument. If you insist on anything else you are simply being lazy, or with finger's in yours ears shouting 'la la la', refusing to accept that you are completely off base.

...and like many before you, making a complete fool of your self in the process. Remember, this isn't gearslutz, and people here actually research these issues, publish those results and sometimes even get paid for it.

Since you honestly think you are hearing differences between say, DAW summing engines, I would suggest you first read up on psycho-acoustics.

summing several thousand 32bit floating point numbers result in rounding errors that rear their ugly head somewhere down -180dBfs.

i'm not talking about any stages other than summing. i'm merely talking about the way different consoles SUM line-level signals into a STEREO MIX. sure they introduce distortion. but so does (guess what?) DIGITAL SUMMING! and distortion in this realm generally isn't musical. (side note: I am not speaking of digital clipping).

sigh.

now I regret spending all this time answering. You are beyond help.

:-[

 

[radiance]

 

[kambo]

danjpiscina,

I would suggest you first read up on psycho-acoustics.

not to forget "pan law", and the "meaning" of a NULL test..,
i bet it will start another argument... but then
radiance's great poster will take care of it

 

[Biasrocks]

it's completely stupid to even suggest to use ones ears to judge anything...

Wow.  ???

I think that time has proven this not to be true. All the best musical gear has had solid design practices along with critical ears deciding what was best. One without the other doesn't give you anything approaching usable, let alone good.

I will not touch on the 'all DAW's sound the same argument'. I have my own opinions and it's been 'done to death'.  8)

I will say that there's a big difference between these two mixes and in this case, I have formed an opinion on which one I prefer.

I'm a engineer and I use my ears to decide. I could care a less how something tests or specs out but I do care greatly about how it sounds.

It's not math, algorithms, resistors, design goals, right or wrong or any esoteric thing,

but simply emotional impact.

To me that's what making records is about.

YMMV.

Mark

 

[Kingston]

I'm a engineer and I use my ears to decide. I could care a less how something tests or specs out but I do care greatly about how it sounds.

It's not math, algorithms, resistors, design goals, right or wrong or any esoteric thing,

but simply emotional impact.

That's probably the core problem of these type of thread. The 'modern emotional man' confusing objective measurements (quantifiable science) with a highly subjective thing like sound. That's why I never go to gearslutz and I think it's a rotting influence to see it spill up here as well.

it's completely stupid to even suggest to use ones ears to judge anything...

Wow.  ???

I think that time has proven this not to be true. All the best musical gear has had solid design practices along with critical ears deciding what was best. One without the other doesn't give you anything approaching usable, let alone good.

You took what I said completely out of context, like any good tabloid reporter would. That comment was tied to the argument of judging summing by ears (stupid) vs. nulling test and distortion measurements (easily quantifiable). Seeing the data it's not necessary to know what anything sounds like. We can simply say, the other has negligible distortion, the other has lots. There's no need to get into the subjective side of it and comment on if something sounds better than the other. I certainly didn't.

 

[kambo]

 

[Kingston]

These aren't trolls. They are just confused modern studio engineers who have been conditioned into a little too many advertising fueled myths.

It used to be you became a studio engineer through lab work, designing, fixing or building equipment, operating the gear as a sidejob.

Nowadays you become a studio engineer by downloading Reaper off the internet.

 

[Biasrocks]

These aren't trolls. They are just confused modern studio engineers who have been conditioned into a little too many advertising fueled myths.

It used to be you became a studio engineer through lab work, designing, fixing or building equipment, operating the gear as a sidejob.

Nowadays you become a studio engineer by downloading Reaper off the internet.

Wow  ???

Quite the swipe you're taking.

Actually, this must be a joke.   ;D

Engineers don't operate equipment as a "side job", to operate the equipment is THE JOB.

This is a DIY site and the last time I checked there are a lot of engineers building, modifying, improving their equipment and learning from the folks who are generous enough to share their experiences.

"Nowadays" for me was 17 years ago when there was no such thing as downloading audio software to learn how to make records. I learned by trial and error, by watching, reading and studying how records where made. The great thing for me is, that 17 years later there's still new things to learn and incorporate into my bag of tricks. I've always felt that when you close your mind to new ideas, you cease to develop as a person.

You can go on all you want about how everything can be measured, quantified and explained. I simply can't be bothered to measure things for my day job which is making and producing records. I want to plug something in and have it sound great and fit in the context of what I'm producing. If that means it doesn't measure correctly or has to much distortion, then so be it. The result speaks for itself.

Read CJ's Rein Narma interview about him "correcting" the sound of the classic U47 to see a real world of example of how "improving" the specs of something didn't make a hill of beans difference in the record making world. Countless well respected engineers, prefer the sound of the less than perfect U47. Why? Because that sound has been proven to work time and time again. In fact many pieces of classic record making gear are sought out because of their less than perfect performance.

To understand this one thing will open up a whole new world for you.  8)

Mark

PS. A little respect goes a long way my friend.

 

[kambo]

quality of the sound vs happiness, is a totally issue... Cher recorded and sold tons of CDs through mackie desk with
behringer compressors...  i doubt she would sell more if she used top LA studio... all this totally different issue...

 

[ytsestef]

Where's a bag of popcorn when you need it, dammit!!

I will say that there's a big difference between these two mixes and in this case, I have formed an opinion on which one I prefer.

Well, which one, and why? Would you like to elaborate?

 

[Kingston]

Read CJ's Rein Narma interview about him "correcting" the sound of the classic U47 to see a real world of example of how "improving" the specs of something didn't make a hill of beans difference in the record making world. Because that sound has been proven to work time and time again. In fact many pieces of classic record making gear are sought out because of their less than perfect performance.

Your example fails, again, because you use a subjective opinion to prove your point.

You see, I personally very much respect the highly objective hardened scientist point of view of mr. Narma. He saw the design was "wrong" from pure performance/application point of view, and "corrected" it. Everything by the book, specification improved. Hey, he adds he would completely redo the "inferior by modern standards" Fairchild 660 sidechain and power supply with solid state. How's that for a blasphemy in your modern studio book of myths?

If it was anyone else, he would have been burned by an angry mob a fiery rage of studio belief system fire.

Notice, that not for once have I yet commented on which is the better solution. In the context of our current of arguments, it's best to simply refuse to do that.

 

[danjpiscina]

I'm a engineer and I use my ears to decide. I could care a less how something tests or specs out but I do care greatly about how it sounds.

It's not math, algorithms, resistors, design goals, right or wrong or any esoteric thing,

but simply emotional impact.

To me that's what making records is about.

Mark

Finally! Someone who understands what it's all about.

P.S. Kingston, you could learn a lot from someone like Mark. I suggest you put your pride aside and open up your mind. Listening to the samples posted on your site, I hear that they're very "objective" sounding.

 

[lolo-m]

OK, digital world isn't perfect most of the time. Check a cheap software eq response and you'll know. Even harware digital racks can do a lot of surprises. I remember a test I made on a FOH driver FDS355 or 366. Boosting a 1250 Hz created a 800 Hz harmonics  . Cutting the same freq just react as it should... And yes 800 hz isn't a 1250hz harmonic, but a digital bug due to a mis-optimised software to leave DSP power for the rest...
Summing in the digital domain is summing perfectly untill you finally convert the 48bits (protools) of 32bits floating into only 24 bits.

... mr. Narma adds he would completely redo the "inferior by modern standards" Fairchild 660 sidechain and power supply with solid state.

Some did it for him ...

 

[Biasrocks]

Your example fails, again, because you use a subjective opinion to prove your point.

I think the fact that countless people share that very same subjective opinion may have some relevance.  ;D

Right, it's also the subk
You see, I personally very much respect the highly objective hardened scientist point of view of mr. Narma. He saw the design was "wrong" from pure performance/application point of view, and "corrected" it. Everything by the book, specification improved.

Again, you're missing one crucial fact. Very few people make records based on specs. This is borne out by the fact the original U47's command a high price in the vintage market simply because they are extremely useful tools in the making of records in their completely stock, flawed form.

Hey, he adds he would completely redo the "inferior by modern standards" Fairchild 660 sidechain and power supply with solid state. How's that for a blasphemy in your modern studio book of myths?

You mean the myth that says "if it sounds good it is good".  

A redesign of the sidechain would certainly affect the sound. Why not do your own improved design and see where it leads.

It may or may not be an improvement for the guys in the trenches making records, that's all I'm saying.

I think it's best that we agree to disagree and move forward.

8)

Mark

 

[Kingston]

Yes, moving on indeed.

See me posting in any other thread and I'm perfectly happy talking about subjective things, just summing is a pet peeve of mine. There is simply no subjective ground to cover. All is quantifiable with respected scientific methods.

As for other things, had you read between the lines here you would have noticed it was mostly in jest (with the few swipes you saw). No need to educate me on perfectly obvious issues like the "if it sounds good it's good" old favourite. I had hoped I would not need to say that out loud.

 

[danjpiscina]

Again, you're missing one crucial fact. Very few people make records based on specs. This is borne out by the fact the original U47's command a high price in the vintage market simply because they are extremely useful tools in the making of records in their completely stock, flawed form.

Yeah, it's funny how some people think. It's almost as though their thought process is "gee, these professional sound engineers gotta be rich and stupid for spending 7k on a U47 when they can get the clone for $1,500" haha. as if their willing to spend 7k of hard earned cash based on a "myth". sound engineers, even the world-class ones, aren't rich but they invest in the tools of their trade. familiar tools that people have heard on hit recordings for 50+ years and therefore can relate to. not to mention they are a classic investment they'll be able to sell for twice what they paid 10 years down the line.

 

[1954U1]

The point here [see some posts on the previous page] is saying that 2 different digital DAWS that, in a summing test [of course with identical pan-law, or you'll have differences] do null,
can sound different.
Its exactly like saying that the sum of 3+2 can be different than the sum of 2+3.

Kingston is trying to say that there is no need of ears, to understand and prove that.
Its so simple, damnit!
Not agreeing about it, IMO is even more a nonsense than saying that the Sun turns around the Earth, because we must trust our own eyes, not some math or science.