mattmoogus
Well-known member
[quote author="Lowfreq"][quote author="mattmoogus"]Actually I meant over the stereo pairs between your D-A and the passive mixer.[/quote]
Matt, I was thinking, Could I use the quasi balanced thing that you guys have with some of the jlm schems, to go from my unbalanced rca outputs in the DA side of my soundcard, to the balanced inputs on my compressors before going to my passive mixer? I could make up some short cables to do this.
Coz that would allow me to build a balanced summing box and use some of my outboard gear as part of the mixdown.
Or is it better to stay unbalanced the whole way? Don't want to degrade the signal if i can. My soundcard lets me choose between +4 and -10 on the outputs even though they're only rca's.[/quote]
I could be wrong about this, someone will tell me if I am, but...
I would make a balanced passive mixer because if youre making one you may as well make it balanced (its not much more work) but just use it unblanced. If youre leads are short (less than 3m) and well sheilded I cant see it making much noise difference. If you want to you can do the test and wire some quasi balanced leads to see if it makes a difference, but I doubt it will.
This is another reason why I think it better to make a pretty low Z passive mixer (mine uses 1k resistors). You get lower noise and more crosstalk, which is part of my theory of why passive mixers can sound better than ITB. Of course normally crosstalk doesnt matter but once you start inserting gear across the groups, you get a little bleed of everyhting thru just, say, the drum comp. Like I said above, I noticed this and realised it was sounding really good.
Also I have lots of transformer gear that likes to be loaded down and I think it sounds better when it is.
But other people have different views, maybe theyre right, who knows. I just know what I think sounds good and makes a difference thats worth the trouble of mixing out of the box.
To answer h2000's question;
I honestly dont think an 8ch passive mixer will make much audible difference over an ITB mix done with any of the common recording programs.
10 years ago, Definitely. Joe tells a story about hearing a famous producer here a/b between a mix inside PT (back in the power mac + 888 days) and the same mix on a mackie 8buss. The difference was night and day.
3-4 years ago, when I built my passive mixer (10ch with 1k resistors) I could hear a difference passive mixing 5 groups out of Sonar 2 (the version I had at the time). Around this time I remember heard quite a difference between ITB mixes done on Nuendo and all the other software. I could pick them almost straight away. When Sonar 3 came out, the sound of mixes done with it changed drasticly, they sounded like the Neundo mixes Id been hearing. Now all the recording programs seem to sound about the same. I dont know what the change was but theyve all done it.
So now, honestly I dont think there is much difference mixing through a passive mixer, and that difference there is is probably just in what amps you use for makeup.
Heres where I think the differences are:
1
Keeping all DAW faders at zero and changing volume in the analog domain. When I route a mix out to my PM2000, with DAW faders all over the place for a rough ITB mix and then reset all the faders while listening back to the mix, there is a noticable change. The mix suddenly becomes more 'analog' sounding...hard to describe but you probably know what I mean.
2
If you have a mixer with no faders, inserting gear over the groups as described above seems to have a drastic effect. As well as this you get to reuse your tracking gear during mixing :thumb:
3
The more channels you mix analog, the bigger the difference. Also the more you do to them in the analog domain, the bigger the difference. So if you have a 56ch mix and route it to 8 outputs of your soundcard and passive mix them, dont expect to hear much change. You might not hear ANYTHING. But if you send the same mix to say, 16ch on a good analog console and do analog eq, comp, fader changes etc, expect to hear a big difference. There is no way I can get the sound I get mixing on my PM2000 with an ITB mix.
Its because of this that I dont see the point in many of the summing mixers that are coming out now, that are basically mixers with no features and some 'nice' output amps. Most people still have to do the fades ITB anyway, so theyre loosing at least half the benefit right there, and still paying $3000-$12000 for the privilage. From what Ive heard, mixing this way has very few and very subtle sonic benefits. But hey if you do it and like it, more power to ya. I think if you want something like this youre better off either getting a Folcrom or building one.
This has turned into a bit of a rant but Ive been meaning to say this stuff for a while now, and looking at Gearslutz recently has kinda pushed me over the edge with it!
The bottom line is great sound doesnt come for free. You either have to pay for it with time or money, and usually both. If you dont want to have to recall mixes on a large analog console, then dont expect youll get that sound another 'easier' way.
Hope that made some sense,
M@
Matt, I was thinking, Could I use the quasi balanced thing that you guys have with some of the jlm schems, to go from my unbalanced rca outputs in the DA side of my soundcard, to the balanced inputs on my compressors before going to my passive mixer? I could make up some short cables to do this.
Coz that would allow me to build a balanced summing box and use some of my outboard gear as part of the mixdown.
Or is it better to stay unbalanced the whole way? Don't want to degrade the signal if i can. My soundcard lets me choose between +4 and -10 on the outputs even though they're only rca's.[/quote]
I could be wrong about this, someone will tell me if I am, but...
I would make a balanced passive mixer because if youre making one you may as well make it balanced (its not much more work) but just use it unblanced. If youre leads are short (less than 3m) and well sheilded I cant see it making much noise difference. If you want to you can do the test and wire some quasi balanced leads to see if it makes a difference, but I doubt it will.
This is another reason why I think it better to make a pretty low Z passive mixer (mine uses 1k resistors). You get lower noise and more crosstalk, which is part of my theory of why passive mixers can sound better than ITB. Of course normally crosstalk doesnt matter but once you start inserting gear across the groups, you get a little bleed of everyhting thru just, say, the drum comp. Like I said above, I noticed this and realised it was sounding really good.
Also I have lots of transformer gear that likes to be loaded down and I think it sounds better when it is.
But other people have different views, maybe theyre right, who knows. I just know what I think sounds good and makes a difference thats worth the trouble of mixing out of the box.
To answer h2000's question;
I honestly dont think an 8ch passive mixer will make much audible difference over an ITB mix done with any of the common recording programs.
10 years ago, Definitely. Joe tells a story about hearing a famous producer here a/b between a mix inside PT (back in the power mac + 888 days) and the same mix on a mackie 8buss. The difference was night and day.
3-4 years ago, when I built my passive mixer (10ch with 1k resistors) I could hear a difference passive mixing 5 groups out of Sonar 2 (the version I had at the time). Around this time I remember heard quite a difference between ITB mixes done on Nuendo and all the other software. I could pick them almost straight away. When Sonar 3 came out, the sound of mixes done with it changed drasticly, they sounded like the Neundo mixes Id been hearing. Now all the recording programs seem to sound about the same. I dont know what the change was but theyve all done it.
So now, honestly I dont think there is much difference mixing through a passive mixer, and that difference there is is probably just in what amps you use for makeup.
Heres where I think the differences are:
1
Keeping all DAW faders at zero and changing volume in the analog domain. When I route a mix out to my PM2000, with DAW faders all over the place for a rough ITB mix and then reset all the faders while listening back to the mix, there is a noticable change. The mix suddenly becomes more 'analog' sounding...hard to describe but you probably know what I mean.
2
If you have a mixer with no faders, inserting gear over the groups as described above seems to have a drastic effect. As well as this you get to reuse your tracking gear during mixing :thumb:
3
The more channels you mix analog, the bigger the difference. Also the more you do to them in the analog domain, the bigger the difference. So if you have a 56ch mix and route it to 8 outputs of your soundcard and passive mix them, dont expect to hear much change. You might not hear ANYTHING. But if you send the same mix to say, 16ch on a good analog console and do analog eq, comp, fader changes etc, expect to hear a big difference. There is no way I can get the sound I get mixing on my PM2000 with an ITB mix.
Its because of this that I dont see the point in many of the summing mixers that are coming out now, that are basically mixers with no features and some 'nice' output amps. Most people still have to do the fades ITB anyway, so theyre loosing at least half the benefit right there, and still paying $3000-$12000 for the privilage. From what Ive heard, mixing this way has very few and very subtle sonic benefits. But hey if you do it and like it, more power to ya. I think if you want something like this youre better off either getting a Folcrom or building one.
This has turned into a bit of a rant but Ive been meaning to say this stuff for a while now, and looking at Gearslutz recently has kinda pushed me over the edge with it!
The bottom line is great sound doesnt come for free. You either have to pay for it with time or money, and usually both. If you dont want to have to recall mixes on a large analog console, then dont expect youll get that sound another 'easier' way.
Hope that made some sense,
M@
