|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 13, 2016 20:52:43 GMT -6
Would Logic X work with the Sigma?
There's so much Pro Tools compatibility out there of course, but I'm quite happy I stayed with Logic for many reasons.
Did a little looking around. The Sima Delta seems like something I'd like, but no Logic Pro compatibility, ugh..
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Nov 14, 2016 17:01:33 GMT -6
The Sigma Mix above was Mix A
Here's A DAW and A Sigma Mix of another song
I like the reverb balance better in the DAW mix.
There's a learning curve with Sigma. It doesn't help when Sigma's Remote Control Interface kept turning off my FX Channel. I have no idea why...................Also, for me monitoring through Sigma has been a a hassle, because I haven't figured out how to monitor through Sigma and Cubase at the same time. This is necessary because I have to bounce the Sigma Mix and then hear it in Cubase while monitoring through Sigma. There is supposed tobe an EXT function to do this ,but I haven't gotten it to work and I'm running out of time. So, I'm focusing on mixing and not figuring out Sigma.
Let's Ride- DAW
https%3A//soundcloud.com/songflowerrecording/lets-ride-daw Let's Ride Sigma https%3A//soundcloud.com/songflowerrecording/lets-ride-sigma
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Nov 14, 2016 19:01:38 GMT -6
Sigma
Big Difference again!
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Nov 14, 2016 23:57:15 GMT -6
Try not labeling which is which to see if the bias is swaying opinion. Listening to mixes now.. The vocal are way brighter and pushed during the first chorus on the sigma mix, the DAW mix to me sounds more balanced and the guitars blend better in the mix compared to the sigma mix. I also think the sigma mix maybe louder by a db, the guitar is brighter definitely... The sibilance is about the same pretty tame which I like in both, however the LD vox are louder in the sigma mix, so when the BG's come in during let's ride, it's drowns out the main Vox a bit. The snare is hitting harder or more punchy is the DAW mix, the lead guitar is way louder in the sigma mix as well and the breakdown 4 on the floor part of the song the snare is louder on the sigma mix, but i still feel the DAW snare is punchier. Ya I definitely like the transition into the last chorus on the DAW mix better. Overall the sigma mix is louder and brighter and a completely different mix than the the DAW. I prefer the DAW mix here due to it being more balanced and ld vox aren't fighting against guitars.. links below, I could not access the links without changing the https:// part Cheers m.soundcloud.com/songflowerrecording/lets-ride-dawm.soundcloud.com/songflowerrecording/lets-ride-sigma
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Nov 15, 2016 8:00:37 GMT -6
Thanks guys for your comments.
One of the learning curves of Sigma is working with Mix Bus B, which I'm using for drum parallel compression. Typically in my Daw mixes I put my API 2500 on my Drum bus and don't parallel compress.Also, having another controller to deal with- the Sigma Remote controller- is a bit of a hassle and as I've said has been buggy. I now have three-Cubase-my RME Totalmix-SSL Sigma to work with.
All of this just makes me wish I had a console with enough inserts and bus's with a good monitor/cue section to work with. Sigma is a clever but complicated way to simulate the console, but it's not the same thing and though I like the sound I don't like the workflow. I think if I bought it from one of the distributors they'd help me much more than SSL. However, Sigma is going for 3K used. So, that's gonna be one thing I'll have to consider if/when buying.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Nov 15, 2016 8:45:07 GMT -6
The Sigma Mix above was Mix A Here's A DAW and A Sigma Mix of another song I like the reverb balance better in the DAW mix. There's a learning curve with Sigma. It doesn't help when Sigma's Remote Control Interface kept turning off my FX Channel. I have no idea why...................Also, for me monitoring through Sigma has been a a hassle, because I haven't figured out how to monitor through Sigma and Cubase at the same time. This is necessary because I have to bounce the Sigma Mix and then hear it in Cubase while monitoring through Sigma. There is supposed tobe an EXT function to do this ,but I haven't gotten it to work and I'm running out of time. So, I'm focusing on mixing and not figuring out Sigma. Let's Ride- DAW https%3A//soundcloud.com/songflowerrecording/lets-ride-dawLet's Ride Sigma https%3A//soundcloud.com/songflowerrecording/lets-ride-sigmaI assume these are different mixes too? Can you take your DAW Let's ride mix, stem it out to the Sigma, and let it ride through without any changes. So we can hear only what the Sigma is doing to the sound?
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Nov 15, 2016 11:39:21 GMT -6
The Sigma Mix above was Mix A Here's A DAW and A Sigma Mix of another song I like the reverb balance better in the DAW mix. There's a learning curve with Sigma. It doesn't help when Sigma's Remote Control Interface kept turning off my FX Channel. I have no idea why...................Also, for me monitoring through Sigma has been a a hassle, because I haven't figured out how to monitor through Sigma and Cubase at the same time. This is necessary because I have to bounce the Sigma Mix and then hear it in Cubase while monitoring through Sigma. There is supposed tobe an EXT function to do this ,but I haven't gotten it to work and I'm running out of time. So, I'm focusing on mixing and not figuring out Sigma. Let's Ride- DAW https%3A//soundcloud.com/songflowerrecording/lets-ride-dawLet's Ride Sigma https%3A//soundcloud.com/songflowerrecording/lets-ride-sigmaI assume these are different mixes too? Can you take your DAW Let's ride mix, stem it out to the Sigma, and let it ride through without any changes. So we can hear only what the Sigma is doing to the sound? Yeah, they sound like really different mixes with different EQ/compression choices. The DAW mix sounds more compressed to me. I would be surprised to learn that they are the same with the only difference being the Sigma. I do understand that you're supposed to mix into a summing mixer to maximize its potential, but it would be useful to have a baseline, controlled variable.
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Nov 15, 2016 12:35:13 GMT -6
That sounds like too much $ and time to invest in the sigma without substantial returns.. Again, I liked the DAW mix, I felt it was less pushed, easier on the ears from the more balanced high frequencies. I know this is subjective and each person posting willnhave a different view point this is just mine 😂 I understand you have a learning curve with Sigma. If you have never parallel compressed your drums before why would you start now just because of the sigma?
Also as buggy as it has been for you as well as some of the odd or non functioning features would have me really worried about this purchase. After having to do all the troubleshooting and lack of communication from SSL, I probably would be boxing it back up as we speak. I know SSL hand builds everything at their home base, however it's not like they are too busy building duality's for SAE schools where they can't respond to standard communication practices 😁 SSL = 🤑
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Nov 15, 2016 13:53:17 GMT -6
I will say that I preferred the Sigma mix by a large margin. Sounded more open, better clarity between instruments, etc. I'm just wondering how much of that can be attributed to the box vs different mixing choices.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Nov 15, 2016 16:45:41 GMT -6
The Sigma Mix above was Mix A Here's A DAW and A Sigma Mix of another song I like the reverb balance better in the DAW mix. There's a learning curve with Sigma. It doesn't help when Sigma's Remote Control Interface kept turning off my FX Channel. I have no idea why...................Also, for me monitoring through Sigma has been a a hassle, because I haven't figured out how to monitor through Sigma and Cubase at the same time. This is necessary because I have to bounce the Sigma Mix and then hear it in Cubase while monitoring through Sigma. There is supposed tobe an EXT function to do this ,but I haven't gotten it to work and I'm running out of time. So, I'm focusing on mixing and not figuring out Sigma. Let's Ride- DAW https%3A//soundcloud.com/songflowerrecording/lets-ride-dawLet's Ride Sigma https%3A//soundcloud.com/songflowerrecording/lets-ride-sigmaI assume these are different mixes too? Can you take your DAW Let's ride mix, stem it out to the Sigma, and let it ride through without any changes. So we can hear only what the Sigma is doing to the sound? Sure. I'll try to do it tomorrow. I say "try", because I had another buggy day with the software. I was mixing another song when all of a sudden my Aurora 16's stopped working. So, thinking it was something in the hardware (the bnc connector/the sync between the two units etc) I tried all kinds of things to make it work to no avail. As it turns out, the Sigma software changed the Aurora 16 front panel settings to analog from AES. Don't ask me how that happened. I suppose it has something to do with the interaction of the Sigma interface, my RME audio interface and my Aurora 16's. Once I physically changed the front panel settings of my Aurora 16's back to what they originally were, the signal started passing again. I also had again this continuing problem of channel volume being turned off by the Sigma interface. In cubase I have it routed to the Sigma output with a full amount of volume, but then I look on the Sigma Remote Controller and the volume is all the way off. Not good as the Sigma fader trumps the Cubase fader and the fader connections are supposed to be seamless. I'm glad I demo'd it. I like the sound, but there's no way I'm going to put up with these kind of software headaches. I wonder if Sigma was developed as a proprietary device with SSL Alpha Link converters. It certainly does not play nice with my RME/Aurora 16. Or maybe it's the fact I'm on a PC where most of the industry is Mac based. Whatever it is, it's not working smoothly.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Nov 15, 2016 16:53:36 GMT -6
I assume these are different mixes too? Can you take your DAW Let's ride mix, stem it out to the Sigma, and let it ride through without any changes. So we can hear only what the Sigma is doing to the sound? Yeah, they sound like really different mixes with different EQ/compression choices. The DAW mix sounds more compressed to me. I would be surprised to learn that they are the same with the only difference being the Sigma. I do understand that you're supposed to mix into a summing mixer to maximize its potential, but it would be useful to have a baseline, controlled variable. As I wrote jcoutu1, I'll try to do it tomorrow if Sigma cooperates. I wrote down the original settings of my hardware. So, I think I can give you guys what you want.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,011
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Nov 15, 2016 17:25:31 GMT -6
So what I'm hearing is could be great with a nice small conventional mixer and a Monitor controller!
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Nov 15, 2016 17:27:05 GMT -6
Maybe demo the X Desk.. thats where I was headed if I didn't end up in Delta Land.
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Nov 15, 2016 17:32:04 GMT -6
So what I'm hearing is could be great with a nice small conventional mixer and a Monitor controller! What I'd like is a unit that has no preamps or EQ, but with channel inputs and outputs, channel inserts, busses with inserts and AUX sends/returns. That way you could track with hardware and mix with hardware. And yes, a good monitor section as well.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Nov 15, 2016 17:35:52 GMT -6
Maybe demo the X Desk.. thats where I was headed if I didn't end up in Delta Land. cheers Wiz Yeah, I thought about that. I wonder if SSL will send it to me................. Which Soundcraft Delta do you own? I've never demo'd anything from a dealer. Do they even do it, or do they sell it to you with a 30 day return? I'm also thinking about something like the Cranesong Hedd, wondering what the color vs 3D dimension trade off would be compared to summing.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Nov 15, 2016 19:14:35 GMT -6
Maybe demo the X Desk.. thats where I was headed if I didn't end up in Delta Land. cheers Wiz Yeah, I thought about that. I wonder if SSL will send it to me................. Which Soundcraft Delta do you own? I've never demo'd anything from a dealer. Do they even do it, or do they sell it to you with a 30 day return? I'm also thinking about something like the Cranesong Hedd, wondering what the color vs 3D dimension trade off would be compared to summing. My Delta is heavily modified.... Surely you can get a demo on a x desk in the states? cheers Wiz
|
|
|
Post by keymod on Nov 15, 2016 20:02:39 GMT -6
So what I'm hearing is could be great with a nice small conventional mixer and a Monitor controller! What I'd like is a unit that has no preamps or EQ, but with channel inputs and outputs, channel inserts, busses with inserts and AUX sends/returns. That way you could track with hardware and mix with hardware. And yes, a good monitor section as well. Speck LiLo
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Nov 16, 2016 7:28:40 GMT -6
What I'd like is a unit that has no preamps or EQ, but with channel inputs and outputs, channel inserts, busses with inserts and AUX sends/returns. That way you could track with hardware and mix with hardware. And yes, a good monitor section as well. Speck LiLo Only 2 Groups/Busses.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 16, 2016 8:03:07 GMT -6
I assume these are different mixes too? Can you take your DAW Let's ride mix, stem it out to the Sigma, and let it ride through without any changes. So we can hear only what the Sigma is doing to the sound? Sure. I'll try to do it tomorrow. I say "try", because I had another buggy day with the software. I was mixing another song when all of a sudden my Aurora 16's stopped working. So, thinking it was something in the hardware (the bnc connector/the sync between the two units etc) I tried all kinds of things to make it work to no avail. As it turns out, the Sigma software changed the Aurora 16 front panel settings to analog from AES. Don't ask me how that happened. I suppose it has something to do with the interaction of the Sigma interface, my RME audio interface and my Aurora 16's. Once I physically changed the front panel settings of my Aurora 16's back to what they originally were, the signal started passing again. I also had again this continuing problem of channel volume being turned off by the Sigma interface. In cubase I have it routed to the Sigma output with a full amount of volume, but then I look on the Sigma Remote Controller and the volume is all the way off. Not good as the Sigma fader trumps the Cubase fader and the fader connections are supposed to be seamless. I'm glad I demo'd it. I like the sound, but there's no way I'm going to put up with these kind of software headaches. I wonder if Sigma was developed as a proprietary device with SSL Alpha Link converters. It certainly does not play nice with my RME/Aurora 16. Or maybe it's the fact I'm on a PC where most of the industry is Mac based. Whatever it is, it's not working smoothly. The modern MADI versions of the Alphalinks are only set by their front panels. Back when they used the Mixpander cards, you could set them remotely, but SSL abandoned the Mixpander system years and years ago. There's no way to change the settings of the MADI Alphalinks remotely now, so if SSL designed the system to use the Alphalinks, there would likely be no software option to even change the converter settings remotely, so I have my doubts that the Sigma would do that intentionally. I also run all my SSL gear from PC. I don't feel that SSL has prioritized Mac over PC like some other vendors do. They seem to have equal success rates with their hardware/computer integration. I'd bet there is still some issue latency somewhere, or some setting that isn't optimized somewhere that's also not mentioned in the documentation very well.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Nov 16, 2016 12:57:12 GMT -6
Sure. I'll try to do it tomorrow. I say "try", because I had another buggy day with the software. I was mixing another song when all of a sudden my Aurora 16's stopped working. So, thinking it was something in the hardware (the bnc connector/the sync between the two units etc) I tried all kinds of things to make it work to no avail. As it turns out, the Sigma software changed the Aurora 16 front panel settings to analog from AES. Don't ask me how that happened. I suppose it has something to do with the interaction of the Sigma interface, my RME audio interface and my Aurora 16's. Once I physically changed the front panel settings of my Aurora 16's back to what they originally were, the signal started passing again. I also had again this continuing problem of channel volume being turned off by the Sigma interface. In cubase I have it routed to the Sigma output with a full amount of volume, but then I look on the Sigma Remote Controller and the volume is all the way off. Not good as the Sigma fader trumps the Cubase fader and the fader connections are supposed to be seamless. I'm glad I demo'd it. I like the sound, but there's no way I'm going to put up with these kind of software headaches. I wonder if Sigma was developed as a proprietary device with SSL Alpha Link converters. It certainly does not play nice with my RME/Aurora 16. Or maybe it's the fact I'm on a PC where most of the industry is Mac based. Whatever it is, it's not working smoothly. The modern MADI versions of the Alphalinks are only set by their front panels. Back when they used the Mixpander cards, you could set them remotely, but SSL abandoned the Mixpander system years and years ago. There's no way to change the settings of the MADI Alphalinks remotely now, so if SSL designed the system to use the Alphalinks, there would likely be no software option to even change the converter settings remotely, so I have my doubts that the Sigma would do that intentionally. I also run all my SSL gear from PC. I don't feel that SSL has prioritized Mac over PC like some other vendors do. They seem to have equal success rates with their hardware/computer integration. I'd bet there is still some issue latency somewhere, or some setting that isn't optimized somewhere that's also not mentioned in the documentation very well. I can't tell you how buggy this Remote Control Interface is svart. Today, I was trying to mix when Sigma wasn't cooperating with Cubase. Guess what? The Remote Interface had changed the Control Protocol settings from Cubase to Logic. Fuck.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Nov 16, 2016 17:36:03 GMT -6
I assume these are different mixes too? Can you take your DAW Let's ride mix, stem it out to the Sigma, and let it ride through without any changes. So we can hear only what the Sigma is doing to the sound? Here is a Sigma Mix where I didn't change anything inside the DAW. I didn't write down all my hardware Compressor Settings. So, I wasn't able to recreate the hardware exactly. One thing I noticed is that the FX Channel I sent to Sigma-which has been buggy anyway- did not translate well. The mix is drier, even though I sent all my DAW FX Channels- without changing the individual FX fader levels- to a Group that was at unity and sent to a Stereo Sigma channel. Since, I didn't want to change anything inside the DAW, I left it alone even though the mix sounds drier to me. Hope this is better for comparison purposes.......... Sigma Mix B https%3A//soundcloud.com/songflowerrecording/lets-ride-sigmamix-bDAW Mix https%3A//soundcloud.com/songflowerrecording/lets-ride-daw
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Nov 17, 2016 0:03:40 GMT -6
I still like the DAW mix the let's ride Bg vox in the first hook are over powering in the sigma mix, whereas in the DAW mix they are blended nicely. The sigma mix the guitar is louder in the right monitor thannin the DAW mix. Are you sure you have the same pan law setup? It's like the sigma isn't compensating for the hard panned elements. I also still think the sigma mix is louder than the DAW mix. I feel the lead guitar in the beginning of the solo doesn't stand out as much on the DAW mix, the hard panned guitars are kinda dwarfing it. The sigma mix the solo starts off louder and grabs the attention better. I think the snare is punchier on the DAW mix. Overall these are close, however i still prefer the DAW mix.
I am sorry you have had so many issues with this product functioning as advertised. I really appreciate you taking the time tomorovide real world feedback and your experience with this product. This will be a great asset for those looking into this piece of gear and this type of workflow. What is the DAW mix missing that you feel you need a sigma or summing mixer? Have you looked at any other summing mixers? That Greg Wurth Oracle looks insane, also a lot of users are in love with the new Dangerous 2 bus plus..
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Nov 17, 2016 7:04:59 GMT -6
I still like the DAW mix the let's ride Bg vox in the first hook are over powering in the sigma mix, whereas in the DAW mix they are blended nicely. The sigma mix the guitar is louder in the right monitor thannin the DAW mix. Are you sure you have the same pan law setup? It's like the sigma isn't compensating for the hard panned elements. I also still think the sigma mix is louder than the DAW mix. I feel the lead guitar in the beginning of the solo doesn't stand out as much on the DAW mix, the hard panned guitars are kinda dwarfing it. The sigma mix the solo starts off louder and grabs the attention better. I think the snare is punchier on the DAW mix. Overall these are close, however i still prefer the DAW mix. I am sorry you have had so many issues with this product functioning as advertised. I really appreciate you taking the time tomorovide real world feedback and your experience with this product. This will be a great asset for those looking into this piece of gear and this type of workflow. What is the DAW mix missing that you feel you need a sigma or summing mixer? Have you looked at any other summing mixers? That Greg Wurth Oracle looks insane, also a lot of users are in love with the new Dangerous 2 bus plus.. Thanks for your reply Chase. I have the same pan law setup for both mixes. The Sigma mix may be a tad louder, even though I brought them both into Wavelab and tried to match them. It's too bad the software was buggy for me, because I like the sound of Sigma. I also had a hard time trying to monitor through Sigma. There is an EXt function that never passed signal. So, I was fortunate to have my Central Station and monitored through that. Yes, I am going to look at some other Summing Mixers. I think my next one will be one with color and then I'll probably try the Dangerous just because so many people use and it and like it.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Nov 17, 2016 8:46:29 GMT -6
What's going on with the Sigma mix? It's very different than the DAW mix. There is some sort of HP filter set very high compared to the DAW mix. The ass end drops out of the Sigma mix compared to the DAW mix. It's especially obvious in the vocal. Something isn't set right with this.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 17, 2016 9:02:19 GMT -6
I'm thinking the same thing. Yes, the Sigma mix is more transparent, with better stereo separation, and the DAW mix seems veiled in comparison, but the Sigma mix is either revealing shortcomings in the mix, which is too thin and bright, or the Sigma's doing something wrong.
In this case, I'd use the DAW mix and just brighten it up a little, like with a Clariphonic or better yet, a Massive Passive plug.
|
|