|
Post by indiehouse on Feb 17, 2016 8:55:04 GMT -6
What about something like the Oracle with all those op amps? Surely that's gotta be doing something, right?
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Feb 17, 2016 9:03:10 GMT -6
DIY jeff Steiger aca summing rig, check over at GDIY
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Feb 17, 2016 9:42:35 GMT -6
Also, just to throw this out there, I was more floored by how much better the summing in Cubase sounded than Protools.... sure enough it's calculus has more mojo than PT IMHO. really? come on man... Well I can't argue with how something sounds... And I wouldn't say something that radical unless I knew for sure and it does sound better.... I dunno what else to tell you.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 17, 2016 9:55:23 GMT -6
If we're strictly talking about tracks playing back in the DAW, PT and Cubase have been nulled over and over in the various "which DAW sounds the best?" threads.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 17, 2016 10:11:26 GMT -6
Though I will say that they sound different to me too, when I'm looking at different DAW environments. My brain "knows" they don't really sound different but I'm just as susceptible as anyone to the aesthetics tricking me.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 17, 2016 10:27:52 GMT -6
Yeah - I don't hear it doing anything to the mix other than enhancing the imaging...which is what I kind've want. Depth, separation and width are my focus these days and what you describe in a summing mixer is exactly what I would be looking for as well. I remember hearing the 8 channel Dbox a few years ago. The differences were subtle but certainly noticeable. I remember the cymbals coming more to the front of the mix and slightly taller (both in a good way) and the sides of the mix getting wider. Space between instruments was more defined. Color is easy - just like a few have mentioned - run through outboard transformers, put some VP28's on the Mixbus, etc. Combine some nice summing with some nice color and things start getting exciting. Here's my question for you. How do you discern what brings the element you like? How can you discern whether it's the summing itself, or the circuitry that is following the summing? My observations have shown me that I can achieve the same results, or absolutely close enough with the circuitry, but not the summing.... Even better, executing a work flow that is more closely related to how engineers used to work leaves you not equal, but out front of the summing pack. Rarely is slapping something on at the end of the production process the best approach.
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Feb 17, 2016 10:28:40 GMT -6
Two channels will not stress the sum amp design so that won't tell you much about imaging if you can't pan several individual tracks.
The more channels you feed, the more the sum design limitations are exposed. Common inverting opamp sum designs are limited to about 24 channels before loop gain limitations begin take their toll. THD goes up as loop gain is exhausted.
Using a higher gain-bandwidth opamp will help, look to designs with at least 80 db open loop gain at 10k hz. There are only a few that will make it that far, 5534/5532 designs are limited to 60 db OLG at 10k hz. The Burrbrown OPA134 used in the Dangerous box is also limited to 60 db OLG at 10k hz.
Trans-amp sum designs offer far greater open loop gain without the severe band limiting of standard opamp inverting sum designs because those require a larger than ideal feedback/bandlimiting cap to cancel the stray capacitance that would cause ringing or oscillations in the sum amp from the passive resistor buss.
Current feedback trans-amp designs avoid all those limitations, virtually unlimited open loop gain of over 150 db plus the super wide bandwidth and slew rates of current feedback opamps. We are talking about 2000v/us slew rates and many mhz's of bandwidth, orders of magnitude beyond any current voltage feedback sum topology. Another benefit is zero degrees of phase shift in the audio band. No other sum topology can offer zero degrees of phase shift. Therefore, all harmonics are time-aligned and imageing improves substantially.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 17, 2016 10:40:01 GMT -6
Although I'm sure you're dead on, and although I can't speak to the technicalities Jim, is it possible that what many like about the process are the poor spec'd non-linearities and phase smear?
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Feb 17, 2016 11:04:26 GMT -6
Although I'm sure you're dead on, and although I can't speak to the technicalities Jim, is it possible that what many like about the process are the poor spec'd non-linearities and phase smear? I believe it's the opposite, the claims that their are micro delays in the analog world seem over exaggerated to me, slew rates and phase shifts notwithstanding, electrons are moving at a rate of speed that is just insane, no less than 15,000 miles per second kinda speeds, probably faster? that's chasing a light switch type of speeds, and crazy faster than the speed of sound, as compared to the processes in the digital domain that are subject to general processing latencies, quantization/truncation errors, along with mystery errors(you know the ones i'm talking about), that MOST DEFINITELY occur on a regular basis, and are in order of many, many samples and or milliseconds, so where are the bulk of the bulk of de-solidifying phase shifts coming from again? Summing ITB has a lack of solidity, and vagueness to it that kills me personally, I hate it, haven't been able to nail down an absolute reason why I hear it, but I hear it.
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Feb 17, 2016 11:13:19 GMT -6
Though I will say that they sound different to me too, when I'm looking at different DAW environments. My brain "knows" they don't really sound different but I'm just as susceptible as anyone to the aesthetics tricking me. curious ragan, have you ever tried it blindly? I'm not going to argue that nulls tell the whole story, because they don't ime, i've listened to plenty of conversion shootouts that null, but i'd swear your nutz not to hear a diff.... blindly speaking
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 17, 2016 11:46:02 GMT -6
Although I'm sure you're dead on, and although I can't speak to the technicalities Jim, is it possible that what many like about the process are the poor spec'd non-linearities and phase smear? I believe it's the opposite, the claims that their are micro delays in the analog world seem over exaggerated to me, slew rates and phase shifts notwithstanding, electrons are moving at a rate of speed that is just insane, no less than 15,000 miles per second kinda speeds, probably faster? that's chasing a light switch type of speeds, and crazy faster than the speed of sound, as compared to the processes in the digital domain that are subject to general processing latencies, quantization/truncation errors, along with mystery errors(you know the ones i'm talking about), that MOST DEFINITELY occur on a regular basis, and are in order of many, many samples and or milliseconds, so where are the bulk of the bulk of de-solidifying phase shifts coming from again? Summing ITB has a lack of solidity, and vagueness to it that kills me personally, I hate it, haven't been able to nail down an absolute reason why I hear it, but I hear it. Tony - I agree with you about the "micro delays" aspect, slew rates, etc. But there is undeniably something "too clean" about digital, and there are myriads of people looking for dirt, saturation, smearing, and just good old analog grit (the kinds of things Jim is trying not get rid of) these days in an attempt (perhaps an over-reaction) to get away from Digititus. I don't hear the "lack of solidity" you are hearing - or maybe I just describe it differently, but there is zero doubt that working ITB requires a different approach than traditional OTB techniques. Ultimately, I've been able to conquer working ITB to make it work for me personally. I'm not the only one out there. My question goes again - if clean-ness is what we prefer, why the HUGE shift towards saturation, and natural forms of distortion in modern production techniques? It seems to me to go completely against what Jim is observing about high end analog.
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Feb 17, 2016 12:07:26 GMT -6
Audio fashion. Music recording tends to be 'clonic', one guy coping another's success. That's how audio fashion is created and why it remains so popular.
Add to the mix that just about every AE feels he should have as much creative input as the artists, they want their sonic "footprint" on the production. Once you think you have the power to make someone better than they really are, egos begin to take over.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Feb 17, 2016 13:26:49 GMT -6
Now we're getting somewhere!!! I like dirty recordings and I make dirty recordings. I use all kinds of equipment that, no doubt, specs out poorly and degrades my audio...and other people's audio. ? It's gotten worse and worse over the years. My older stuff is WAY cleaner than my more recent work. I am totally intrigued by JW's viewpoint here and totally scared I'm a lemming even though I think current audio trends sound really really clean to me. Not murky and wooly and thick like I like it...like I get from multiple poorly spec'd amp stages. Even "distortion" these days (as produced by plug ins) sounds really clean to me. I do ITB work and OTB work and hybrid work. I like it all at different times and for different reasons but I can't deny that I make choices based on what I'm listening to, what my clients are listening to and what's popular. Either way, I like Jim's angle here and it seems like the real questions and answers are in our ears/brains...more than our gear. OT maybe but more intriguing than the old summing debate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 13:31:30 GMT -6
Hey I'll do this, I'll send a file over tonight!
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Feb 17, 2016 14:03:09 GMT -6
Jim's smartly offering a super white canvas to start your painting on, which is absolutely "Uge!" if you want a clean OR dirty recording, yup, you heard me right, CLEAN OR DIRTY. I too am waaay into saturation, and the reality is, dirt is of no use contrasting against dirt, if you're starting with a browned out canvas, you colors will NOT pop, so you're doing yourself a disservice before you even start afaic, there is no light without dark, happy without sad, loud without quiet, clean without dirty, mixing is all about contrast. I also wouldn't call digital "clean" as much as i'd call it "empty", and don't mistake "empty" for quiet, they are two totally different things IMV, but i digress, the lack of focus and solidity that appears to come from UNWANTED phase shifts/delay's or errors ITB?... or whatever that ITB image vagueness that seems to lay processing on TOP of the sound vs becoming part of the sound, is an on going bummer to me..., i will say things have improved in recent years, but still a long way to go imo.
and at the risk of sounding pretentious, I also make a point of not listening to anyone else's mixes as reference when i do my thing, I trust my monitors and instincts, and i'm always conscious of trying to be myself creatively, i think music would be better served by a whole lot more folks thinking this way, in all aspects of music creation, to me conformity is where boring lives, and interesting goes to die.
as always, JMO
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Feb 17, 2016 14:54:11 GMT -6
I want to clarify that while I support what DrBill is saying in the experience that many/most who were analog summing folks DO just want the two buss color, thus there's no need to go to the extreme cost to get a 16 channel summing set up to achieve that....my experience is different--you DO have to sum it to get what I want to hear. You can ALSO have some smeary color. I am generally a fan of API's brand of smearing. Never heard a better summing set up than 16 channels of the old 8200a(s)....I mean you can certainly get gooeier, more smeary sound out of others if that's your cup of tea, but the improvement happens with the cleanest ones--I thought the original Dangerous and like SPL, if memory serves had really clean summing units.
I would also encourage him to set up a second computer as a two track for any testing he does--capture the analog mixer at 96khz. My experience says that analog summing improves single rate more than double. My brain hurts when I try to think about WHY....but, it does. In fact in doing vinyl recording, you have to use 96khz to steady the center image. Since what I hear as different IS the imaging....recapturing at single rates is a bad idea. also because if you look at a spectogram of a 48khz recording mastered to 88.2 (by way of analog gear) there's transient saturation well above 24khz--because the peaks sizzle a little on the analog gear, and 88.2+ captures that--it's actually, IMO, why vinyl cut from a 44.1 recording often sounds more natural and open than the actual 44.1 recording--the cartridge and preamp are adding distortions that are musically/harmonically relevant on playback which make that "brick wall" filter not sound very brick walled.
Anyhoo....small clarification, hopefully.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 17, 2016 15:09:22 GMT -6
Though I will say that they sound different to me too, when I'm looking at different DAW environments. My brain "knows" they don't really sound different but I'm just as susceptible as anyone to the aesthetics tricking me. curious ragan, have you ever tried it blindly? I'm not going to argue that nulls tell the whole story, because they don't ime, i've listened to plenty of conversion shootouts that null, but i'd swear your nutz not to hear a diff.... blindly speaking How would you do it blind? Do bounces or have two DAWs open at the same time and have someone switch them? Either way, no, I've never done it blind. But, I guess unlike yourself, I do believe a null test tells the whole story when it comes to sonics. If they null, they're the same sound. I don't see a way of getting around that.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Feb 17, 2016 15:25:26 GMT -6
Here's a question. Let's say I'm mixing with a bunch of outboard. Would it be better to sum everything from the Hardware/DAW to a 2 bus and stay out in the analog domain, vs using hardware inserts on tracks/busses and then again on the 2 bus (meaning multiple DA/AD trips)?
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Feb 17, 2016 16:43:05 GMT -6
curious ragan, have you ever tried it blindly? I'm not going to argue that nulls tell the whole story, because they don't ime, i've listened to plenty of conversion shootouts that null, but i'd swear your nutz not to hear a diff.... blindly speaking How would you do it blind? Do bounces or have two DAWs open at the same time and have someone switch them? Yes, I have a buddy JC that we make a game out of doing blinds on friggin everything, it can really help you fine tune your ears, we've done everything from picks to drumstick wood, we play the game with op amps, compression setting on single sources and eq's on mixes, as little as a couple db in changes have been picked out, and super obvious things missed, it's quite challenging, very humbling, and proves i'm a geek beyond the shadow of a doubt 8)Either way, no, I've never done it blind. But, I guess unlike yourself, I do believe a null test tells the whole story when it comes to sonics. If they null, they're the same sound. I don't see a way of getting around that. I feel differently, and I'll leave it at that. edit; i agree that 2 files that null are the same sound, i just don't put the stock into them that most seem to..., is what i was trying to say..... poorly...
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Feb 17, 2016 17:14:45 GMT -6
If we're strictly talking about tracks playing back in the DAW, PT and Cubase have been nulled over and over in the various "which DAW sounds the best?" threads. Yep. Here's another mystery to me, Everytime I render a track in Cubase, it NEVER sounds the same to me although it DOES null. I've done it countless times and can never get satisfied that they sound the same. To me, a direct record from the converters just sounds better than tampering with it digitally. I am I hearing things? Probably, but I'm set in my beliefs that I hear a difference. So much so that if I render a file, I have to change the eq. Head games I guess but I play them.
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Feb 17, 2016 17:18:04 GMT -6
Depth, separation and width are my focus these days and what you describe in a summing mixer is exactly what I would be looking for as well. I remember hearing the 8 channel Dbox a few years ago. The differences were subtle but certainly noticeable. I remember the cymbals coming more to the front of the mix and slightly taller (both in a good way) and the sides of the mix getting wider. Space between instruments was more defined. Color is easy - just like a few have mentioned - run through outboard transformers, put some VP28's on the Mixbus, etc. Combine some nice summing with some nice color and things start getting exciting. Here's my question for you. How do you discern what brings the element you like? How can you discern whether it's the summing itself, or the circuitry that is following the summing? My observations have shown me that I can achieve the same results, or absolutely close enough with the circuitry, but not the summing.... Even better, executing a work flow that is more closely related to how engineers used to work leaves you not equal, but out front of the summing pack. Rarely is slapping something on at the end of the production process the best approach. I agree with this. The reason being, when your cooking a pot of Chili, never put the paprika in on the end. It reacts differently with other ingredient while cooking. Same principle.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 17, 2016 17:30:35 GMT -6
Here's my question for you. How do you discern what brings the element you like? How can you discern whether it's the summing itself, or the circuitry that is following the summing? My observations have shown me that I can achieve the same results, or absolutely close enough with the circuitry, but not the summing.... Even better, executing a work flow that is more closely related to how engineers used to work leaves you not equal, but out front of the summing pack. Rarely is slapping something on at the end of the production process the best approach. when your cooking a pot of Chili, never put the paprika in on the end. It reacts differently with other ingredient while cooking. Thanks for the tip!!! <thumbsup>
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Feb 17, 2016 17:31:55 GMT -6
John posted some tracks he'd run through the D-Box, and it got me itching for something like that. The D-Box track was to me, much more finished, with all the parts glued nicely, nothing jumping out at you. The track without the D-box seems all separated, where each track seems disconnected from the other.
So ANY shootout anyone here puts together sure has my interest. If there's a box that's half the price or double the price that gets me equal or better results, I'd love to know. Let's enjoy this and maybe do a more extensive Summing mixer shootout with multiple tracks a little further on down the road?
Thanks cowboy, I'm ready.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 17, 2016 17:33:11 GMT -6
Here's a question. Let's say I'm mixing with a bunch of outboard. Would it be better to sum everything from the Hardware/DAW to a 2 bus and stay out in the analog domain, vs using hardware inserts on tracks/busses and then again on the 2 bus (meaning multiple DA/AD trips)? I think you have to answer this for yourself. But for me, I'm mixing HYBRID - i.e.: hardware inserts on tracks / busses in PT. And then again on the output of the 2 Bus. (Silver Bullet)
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Feb 17, 2016 18:16:47 GMT -6
Here's a question. Let's say I'm mixing with a bunch of outboard. Would it be better to sum everything from the Hardware/DAW to a 2 bus and stay out in the analog domain, vs using hardware inserts on tracks/busses and then again on the 2 bus (meaning multiple DA/AD trips)? I think you have to answer this for yourself. But for me, I'm mixing HYBRID - i.e.: hardware inserts on tracks / busses in PT. And then again on the output of the 2 Bus. (Silver Bullet) Cool, thanks. I'm thinking if that's working for you, then it'll work for me!
|
|