ITB mixing vs. OTB - Audio Samples

Hey Guys,

I've been working on this mix today and decided to use my Sumthing into a pair of 312's for summing instead of ITB.  I also did an ITB bounce to compare the two.  The levels aren't the exact same, but they're close.  Here are links to both versions. 

Which do you prefer?  I'm not sure if it's hard to tell which is which, but I won't tell just yet. 

https://www.yousendit.com/download/TTZtcmxUayttUUVLSkE9PQ
https://www.yousendit.com/download/TTZtcmxUaytOQnpIRGc9PQ

-Tony

cant listen at the moment, off to work, but could you give details of your DAW, bit anal but i am interested

Iain

I'll guess that A is the sumthing into the 312s and that B was bounced ITB. I preferred A.

P.S. I should point out that I'm probably out of my depth given that I've never mixed out of the box and never used a 312 type pre! (And I'm not listening on pro quality monitors either...)

M

Iain,

The software is PT M-Powered which I use with the ProFire Lightbridge connected to an Apogee Rosetta 800 for I/O.  For the summing, 8 channels were run from the Apogee into the Sumthing into the API's and then stereo back into the Apogee. 

-Tony

Don't have time to compare samples right now, but wanted to share this:

The Metric Halo boxes I have sum almost exactly like the Neumann console. This was quite
a surprise.

But there is a serious issue with bouncing, and it is not in the summing itself:

When under load (lots of plugins, applications running in the bg...) with the test animal (Logic 8),
what happens is that the individual tracks don't get summed at the same time, meaning that the
more you load down your CPU, the greater the delay gets between individual channel outputs
actually hitting the bus itself. Depending on load, this can go all the way to outright phasing effects.

This is why the more plugins you add, the more you wonder what's happening to your sound and keep
screwing around to make adaptations. This is also the reason why I avoid the master out of that DAW
at all costs. Whether this lies in the code of DAWs or is a general computer problem I don't know,
but interestingly enough it doesn't happen when you switch your channels to an external output.

I really have no idea why. But safe to say high-grade digital summing = high-grade analog summing,
and keep your kids away from DAW summing buses.

It would be interesting to see what DAWs this might not apply to, but I have a feeling the bug is in the
system.

that sounds like plugin latency, but i thought Logic compensated for it (SAW studio does) to stop this happening :-[

in saw you can load as many of the same track as you want, then load each one with different (and different amounts of) plugins. When you hit play all the audio will hit the masters perfectly in time regardless of processing ... then again it is written in assembly so its a lot more stable than usual DAW's

Iain

A: through the summing and 312
B: ITB

A is more "rounded" sounding which is what I have experienced with the 312.
B is much more detailed.

I like B whatever it is.  Detail > warm anyday.

I guess A is in the box and B is analog summing. 

When will you post the answer?

Hi,
I like "B".

There is a lot more 'tape hiss' type noise on B.  It's a little disconcerting to me because it is at almost the same frequency as those shaker sounds that come in at :08 (or is that some kind of pumping going on?!?)

I like A better.  It is more of a 'glued-together' sound.  A bit slower and dare I say 'fatter'...

I haven't listened to it yet (but I will tomorrow when I can listen on my monitors) but odds are that the OTB version is the one with the best transient response. If the "warmth" appears to be like something you could maybe achieve with an eq, i.e. less treble and/or a bit more boomy bass, then that's probably the ITB version.

I remember taking the PT vs. Neve test a couple of years ago. I was thinking: "Damn, digital is really ahead now when it comes to the sheer quality of the signal." What I heard was the clarity and openness and thought to myself that must be the digital "clean" sound and the warm and more "rounded off" sound must be the analogue thing that we used to call "pleasing to the ear"... Until it dawned on me that hey, would Mr. Neve really build anything that would treat transients that bad? Would you expect anything less than crystal clear and open sound with any transients coming from the microphones being passed right through from one of the most sought after consoles in the world?

Of course the clearest and best sounding of the two would be the console. I chose what I thought simply sounded like the best audio path as my favorite. And that turned out to be the Neve console.

Judging from the answers and their reasons in this thread my guess is that B is the OTB version. But I'll check it out tomorrow myself, I hope...

"Warmth" is an illusion created by the word itself and most of us confuse it with high frequency roll-off and muddy low mids and bass. Too bad, because a good analogue recording path actually provides just the opposite and is the sole reason why we go into so fine details with all this nice gear we're building here.

Why would you choose a MC33079 over a TL074 if it was that much better to convert the signal to digital as early on as possible?
Why do I fall in love with the extra clarity and punch in a Cinemag CMOQ-2S over a Lundahl LL5402 in the output of an 1176 if I actually favored the more blurred low mids and bass and believe that's the "analogue telltale"?

The answer is it isn't and I don't!

But why do I get confused be the digital realm adding this "warmth"? Well, sometimes high frequency roll-off is exactly what's needed on a mix and a bit of "mud" certainly CAN hold the buildingblocks together and you may very well find that pleasing to your ear...

But what if you don't want mud and roll-off? Or more or less of it?

Wouldn't you rather have the choice?

And here's where the camera zooms out, a hot chick hands me a soldering iron, I smile like Roger Moore used to and the voice over says:"Analogue - The choice is yours!" 8)

Why would you choose a MC33079 over a TL074 if it was that much better to convert the signal to digital as early on as possible?

Click to expand...

I prefer the mc33079 because it's somewhat smooth due to it's slowness.  The same reason that an API2520 sounds smooth.  They are extremely slow and cannot reproduce transients.

I preferred the Lundahl too..

oh well.  Guess I'm just backwards.

Let's get the answers!

Hey Svart,
I'm curious then about your choice.  Did you pick 'B' because you think it 'sounds better' or because you think it is more 'versatile'?  You mentioned you like the slowness better, and to me A sounds a lot slower and smoother.  Just curious.

well I should rephrase that some.  I like the smoothness of the mc33078/9 vs. the tloXX series (or the OPA stuff for that matter).  It still sounds good, just not as "raspy" as most others.  The 2520 is slow and smooth-ish too but just sounds different to me.  There are others I would pick over all of them as well.

I picked B because I like clarity over "warm" or "smooth" any day but ONLY if it's not "raspy" or "harsh".  Nobody likes a buzzsaw in their ears.  It also has to be "full" sounding and not tinny as well.

Some people like that old-timey vinyl sound, not me, I like old-timey CD quality.   ;D

Some people like that old-timey vinyl sound, not me, I like old-timey CD quality.

Click to expand...

Well I have some nice mid-80's digital remasters to sell  you then.  8)

Hey guys, thanks for all your responses.  I thought this would be a fun thing to A-B since it is something discussed here alot.

ANSWER REVEALED:  "B" is out-of-the-box. 

It should be noted that "A" is slightly louder, so that probably has some influence on how it is preceived. 

I prefer the out-of-the-box myself, but my opinion is probably really tainted because I want that one to sound better and I know which is which.  While it has a bit higher noise floor, I think it sounds more realistic and is a bit punchier - even if it is slightly quieter.  I think it has a little better depth of field.

Luny Tune makes a really interesting point about what we (or at least I) think of when the word "warmth" is thrown around.  The ITB bounce sounds "rounder" to me, in that it seems to lack some high end clarity in comparison - something I might generally label as "warmth".  I think in this instance the OTB bounce seems both "warmer" and clearer. 

Either way, it is subtle and people have preferences that fall both ways.

The thing that Mbira is hearing at :08 might actually be the Ukulele which comes in then... there aren't any shakers. 

well, I was wrong but I'm happily surprised!

I had the exact opposite issue with passive summing, I got a more "warm" OTB and more detailed ITB mix than you did.  Your summing sounds really good, congrats!

Of course when I use a console for summing duties it sounds better than attempting either passive summing or ITB summing so that's what I've been doing for years.

I would use a console too... if I had easy access to one. 

I used to work at a studio in Detroit that had a great API console that really sounded tremendous so I'm trying the closest thing I have to that.  It isn't quite there, but I'm pretty happy with it. 

That said, I wish the difference were more noticeable.  I essentially used $3000+ worth of equipment for an end result that most people wouldn't really notice over an easy bounce in PT 

I think that's what they call addiction... I know it won't make a HUGE difference, yet I'm all too willing to drop a large amount of money and time into a DIY project thinking that "it's totally necessary".

I had  "A"  as the sumthing OTB and  "B"  as the INB.  But... I was liking  "B"  for its clear and seperation thing. Even seemed more "modern" to me.

I really didn't expect the INB to sound fatter. Is that just the lodness advantage?

Cool!  I guess I can sell my unfinished sumthing! 

I'm really curious about that sound I'm hearing though...I here the uke coming through, but there's something (like the sound of the players shirt rubbing against the body of the uke or something?)  It's rhythmic but up there at the same frequency as the hiss...is anyone else hearing that?  It doesn't detract from the song or anything like that-it's just that now my curiosity has been piqued!  Is there an expander or a compressor doing something?

It's there at 1:17 and then cuts out for a couple seconds at 1:18...anybody?  Anybody?