Ignoring 0VU.... urgh...

+1, but why not add a reference to a standard most already use like 0dBu?  The FS metering strikes me as a product maker ignoring the way the customer works for his own convenience.

JR

it does not matter because...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9UbEVpIeYA&feature=related

QUEEF BAG lolololol....

Oh man, that deserves it's own thread mate!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiQLmeSwtT4&NR=1

I got ZERO DOLLARS MAN!!!

Mark

JohnRoberts said:

For most of my career I have paid attention to audio myths, mainly to search out the tiny morsel of truth behind most of them that show any persistence... I continue to search for a smoking gun behind the many claims that digital combining is somehow inferior to analog. Boy do I wish this was true as I have some of the best technology around for analog combining (current source summing), and I would love to have the world beat a path to my door, but alas, I can't find anything really wrong inherently with digital combining. In theory unlike analog combining you end up with more signal resolution, not more noise, more distortion, more phase shift, etc. 

In practice there are always ways to mess up any implementation analog or digital from things as simple as gain structure, to mistakes in software coding. Properly executed typical floating point hardware has more than enough spot resolution and many times more total dynamic range than the best analog. Even fixed point summing is hard to find obvious fault with, in a world of <3dB final mix crest factor even a -96 dB quantization floor is not much of an issue, and even modest modern hardware is well better than that.

Any real smoking guns out there?

JR

Click to expand...

I thought I'd revive this topic since I seem to have some time on my hands this Saturday....    As JR says, digital summing circuits are fundamentally perfect, until or unless they are clipping. And as Keith said, it's virtually impossible to clip digi's summer unless you are using a formidable amount of tracks. So, technically speaking, digital summing is not an issue.

So, why are people saying that their digital mixes don't sound as "big, wide or spacious" as when they use an external analog summing mixer.

John asked about smoking guns. The answers are among some of the following:

1) Audio illusions can contribute to at least some of this. Make sure you are doing an objective listening comparison of captured files which are at identical levels, auditioned on another neutral system that can deliver perfect clones of those files to the D/A converter.

2) Pro Tools HD. How many people here know about the stereo and surround dithered mixers?  Raise your hands if you do. How many of you religiously check that the stereo or surround dithered mixers are still in the Pro Tools Plugins folder AFTER your latest update?  Aha! Digidesign (Avid) has a nasty habit of taking the dithered mixer out upon each update and replacing it with the non-dithered mixer or removing the plugin altogether. You can find it in the "plugins (unused)" folder. Insert it, replace the equivalent non-dithered mixer (if it's in the plugins folder), listen, and enjoy the pleasure of a wider, more spacious-sounding and accurate mix bus. Not sure if this is the case with the entirely new engine in Pro Tools X (10), as I am not familiar with version 10's engine or its own issues, so this discussion applies only to Pro Tools HD 9 and below. For the last two weeks, my erstwhile assistant screwed up our Pro Tools HD system when he did an update and didn't tell me and the surround mixer (non dithered) had made its way into the plugins folder. How are we going to know things have "smalled up" when we're always doing new mixes? This kind of problem is an insidious one because you don't discover it by listening unless you've heard the change or improvement on the very same mix you are working on. How do you know your new mix in the making is narrower than it could be, if caused by a missing plugin?

3) Pro Tools LE (or its modern equivalent, the floating point engine). There is no "dithered mixer plugin" for LE. However, the same issues apply. It's a 32 bit floating point system, and it has to make 24 bit files and/or feed a 24 bit input into a DAC. Answer: Insert a 24 bit dithering plugin on a stereo master fader. You'll be glad you did.

4) How audible are #2 and #3? Regardless of what some say, it is not "very dramatic", but it is definitely not inaudible. The more attuned you are to depth and dimension and the better your monitoring acoustic, the more you will notice the difference. Many listeners report an immediate meaningful audible improvement. Your mileage may vary according to your imagination, but yes, there is a difference, and it is audible.

5) So, with #1, 2, 3 and 4 taken care of, how come that external summing box model ABCD sounds bigger and wider and more spacious?  Hmmmm... does it contain any transformers? Does it have any phase shift?  Does it have excellent headroom, or does it go slightly into distortion?  Facts are that slight amounts of analog domain distortion increase the sense of depth and dimension. It is the probable reason why we like analog, that tickle that reaches the ears. You can get the same results (or almost the same results, in my opinion) by feeding your digitally-implemented stereo mix (properly dithered of course!) into a single stereo processor, like a classic Neve module, or an API. Ironically, something that is pure, transparent, and has no character, like a Dangerous Music, or (I suspect) John Roberts' current summing circuit, will sound equal to the digital bus, or slightly "inferior" (because no circuit is totally transparent). So, if you want width and depth, look for a circuit with some character, and a small amount of harmonic distortion. Then, do not leap to conclusions, it is NOT because the digital mixer is "defective", it is simply because it is "nearly perfect", far more perfect than the old analog mixers that we know and love. 

6) How do I know all this?  Lots of time, testing and research on this issue over here. The first time I discovered in a mastering session (long ago) that inserting a DAC, a feed to a nice piece of analog gear and back to ADC increased the sense of depth and dimension of a stereo file, I knew that something must be real kooky about people's ideas about the "weaknesses of stereo digital summing"----since it was immediately clear to me that the proper conclusion to make is that "analog summing circuits (or analog processors) ADD something", rather than the improper conclusion that "digital summing circuits (properly dithered and properly implemented) take anything away". It is the simple nature of many analog circuits to provide that certain savoir faire you are all seeking. Just let's stop trying to place blame on something blameless. You can't blame a digital summer for being perfectly uncolored, can you?

The above conclusions have been reinforced over here by a number of blind and non blind listening experiments, as well as simple tests for perfect clones, bit transparency, dither effectiveness, even FFT measurements.

Hey bobcat hows the system clock?

I Don't have anything to add,,, I have several suspicions about the popularity of OTB mixes but rather keep this simple.

JR

JohnRoberts said:

Hey bobcat hows the system clock?

I Don't have anything to add,,, I have several suspicions about the popularity of OTB mixes but rather keep this simple.

JR

Click to expand...

The system is clocked and we're rarin' to go! I wonder if some of our suspicions about summing boxes are congruent! Just be sure you use the "summing box du jour" to be perfectly au courant.

Queef.... im in tears watching your youtube video.... I think that same guy was in my studio a few years back... I need to find a tissue to wipe the tears away