Biasrocks said: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
danjpiscina said: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.
Biasrocks said:danjpiscina said: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
tv said: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?
tv said: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)
penguin said: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....
penguin said: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....
danjpiscina said: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 said: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
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.danjpiscina said: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 said:DA noise and sound will be more present in OTB test.
lolo-m said:Adat is a communication protocol and does only drive 0 and 1... There's no sound here.
Enter your email address to join: