|
|
Post by lowlou on Nov 26, 2023 5:30:29 GMT -6
Speck Xtramix X6... speck.com/xtramix6/xtramix_x6.htmlI know I want one, after researching affordable excellent consoles for the past months. It's that or a UTA Pyrasum. But the Speck has more... specs ? It's clean and transparent. Maybe it could be the start of solution for your wider sound ? Put few selected pieces of hardware on the many stereo busses, laid back, enjoy... 20 stereo tracks summed into 4 stereo groups for example (not taking into account all the auxes you can use as additional groups) , then joined on the master buss. It's up to you to decide what colours what via the inserts. You want transformers (in software, maybe try Kazrog true iron on every track btw). I'm making an 8 channel Neumann PV46 line amplifiers rack right now, to accomodate a Speck Xtramix X6. These line amps were used at the famous Neumann SP72 console summing junctions. A console on which many cool records have been mastered. The plan is to put a pair of these line amp on each group, and forget they are here. "cheap Burl" ? ^^ |
|
|
|
Post by lowlou on Nov 26, 2023 6:12:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by dougwendal on Nov 26, 2023 6:39:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by jaba on Nov 26, 2023 10:01:44 GMT -6
If I'm going for max width and depth: arrangement, LCR, monitoring in mono (single driver), judicious use of FX.
No single piece of gear or plug will do much on it's own. I do find though that it's easier to achieve with a high quality analog rig but that's not too say it can't be done digitally.
|
|
|
|
Post by nobtwiddler on Nov 26, 2023 10:56:11 GMT -6
Every time I mix a tune in the box, and then do the same song spread out to my little summing rig, the resulting mix ALWAYS sound Deeper, Wider, Bigger, and in a word, just Better, much more 3D than the in the box mix, which sounds flatter to me.
I believe the Summing mixer version just has more vibe, and emotion.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,099 
|
Post by ericn on Nov 26, 2023 11:14:12 GMT -6
I don’t. You mean move everything below say 100hz to the center? When I use ozone 11’s imager, I usually don’t really do anything from about 1khz down to say 125. Then I make below that more towards mono with that module. Yeah bass is mono but often lower than 125 filter. I use Klanghelm VUMT deluxe or TDR Slick EQ M to do that. I'm going to switch to the new TDR Elliptical filter because it can distort what's below the filter like MaxxBass but with more options so you can retain harmonics of what you removed. Also try very wide room or hall reverb settings and sending everything to them. Filter the low end beforehand, sometimes very high, up to 400-500 hz. Filter the highs after the reverb. You do set many reverbs past 100% width and control the width over different frequency ranges too. Slower music can generally take bigger spaces. This is free width even mixed down to where it barely is audible. You can also automate a stereo widener as a special effect. goodhertz.com/midside/ is a good one that won't produce zipper noise when automated. Or use panned short delays to exploit the haas effect. be sure to check in mono to see if they screw up your mix from phase cancellation Don’t think of LF as mono, that’s a mythical interpretation of a mythical interpretation. It started with the idea that LF is non directional a misinterpretation of the fact that a speaker becomes Omni in a plane when the wavelength is larger than the baffle in that plane, coupled with the fact drivers will acoustically sum if they are within one wavelength. In small rooms this can appear to be mono, but a properly set up monitor will offer cues to bass position via the harmonics even in a small room. If you treat the instruments LF content as mono any filter in the system will often skew the phase of the harmonics and collapse the image. The problem with the way we as mixers and frankly most speaker manufacturers is that they haven’t played with the big toys in big rooms to understand how it really works vs making assumptions. Had this argument with a guy from QSC recently, he didn’t get it till I pointed out there is a reason their line arrays are all designed with the idea of being hung with a sub at the top for directional cues with a line of subs across the bottom. |
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Nov 26, 2023 11:35:38 GMT -6
I’m not entirely sure how to even describe it…maybe it’s like a depth/dimension thing. Because it’s not that it’s wider left and right, it’s that it has more separation between the left/right and center. I know all these are cliches, but maybe I’m talking about something sounding more 3 dimensional as opposed to flatter. High sample rates and analog summing. More outboard less plug ins That's the answer for me. Every time I have to mix ITB it never has the same depth and sound stage. Audio production is a game of inches. Especially when you go looking to extract that last 5-10% of possible quality. Kindly remember, all those fancy pants plugins are just trying to emulate what happens in real physical space in real time. Key word being - emulation. Its not going to be one single piece of gear or change in workflow, its shaving that last couple percent out of every-single-piece in the process. The sample rate thing is a big one. To me things have more life, and respond more like analog at 88.2 or 96kHz. Its like, not even close. Combine that with some choice hardware and a quality desk? Not all that different then running analog tape. YMMV. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 26, 2023 12:02:57 GMT -6
I’m not entirely sure how to even describe it…maybe it’s like a depth/dimension thing. Because it’s not that it’s wider left and right, it’s that it has more separation between the left/right and center. I know all these are cliches, but maybe I’m talking about something sounding more 3 dimensional as opposed to flatter. High sample rates and analog summing. More outboard less plug ins That's the answer for me. Every time I have to mix ITB it never has the same depth and sound stage. Audio production is a game of inches. Especially when you go looking to extract that last 5-10% of possible quality. Kindly remember, all those fancy pants plugins are just trying to emulate what happens in real physical space in real time. Key word being - emulation. Its not going to be one single piece of gear or change in workflow, its shaving that last couple percent out of every-single-piece in the process. The sample rate thing is a big one. To me things have more life, and respond more like analog at 88.2 or 96kHz. Its like, not even close. Combine that with some choice hardware and a quality desk? Not all that different then running analog tape. YMMV. Man I didn’t even think about sample rate…but that’s a great point. I do think I’ve felt that way just recording some acoustic things at 96. I wouldn’t think converting lower sample rates to higher would do anything, right? Just should be tracked at higher sr. |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Nov 26, 2023 12:25:32 GMT -6
Red sports car? Midlife crisis?
|
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Nov 26, 2023 12:32:41 GMT -6
Analog on the two buss is the biggest delta that I've noticed. Particularly things like the Silver Bullet and the Burl, which have some of that "sounds like a record" mojo.
Also, another plug for Aspect Ratio here (although I have only used the digital version).
Bringing stuff back up on large faders on the Legacy where I sometimes work sounds a little better than what you've actually captured (track for track). But, for better or worse it kind of evens out in the end because everything I mix sounds like I mixed it, whether on the console or ITB, or through my analog chain at home.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 26, 2023 12:47:34 GMT -6
Red sports car? Midlife crisis? Eternal quest to be better |
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Nov 26, 2023 12:50:20 GMT -6
For me, easy answer.
Width, depth, gloss and just plain expensive sounding.
Thermionic tube gear.
I bought a Phoenix Mastering Plus and a Swift EQ (Xformer balanced O/P) and it's straight up cheating I tell you. Cheating.
(I use a HEDD 192 as the A/D/A and the HEDD 192 a lovely extra something in it's own right - with a tiny touch of it's saturation FX - which are unique ime)
The two units Thermionic were (for my budget) very expensive but I get the sound of the records I love and the sound I have in my head.
Tubes, for me all day everyday - tubes.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Nov 26, 2023 13:34:38 GMT -6
Man I didn’t even think about sample rate…but that’s a great point. I do think I’ve felt that way just recording some acoustic things at 96. I wouldn’t think converting lower sample rates to higher would do anything, right? Just should be tracked at higher sr. Yeah gotta track higher from the starting gate. Up-sampling later isn't going to have much benefit... we can't add information that isn't there to begin with. Though, just about everything I've mixed... probably 90% over the last 15 years? Mixes have been captured/printed to an external 2-track running 88.2kHz. One of the reasons is, as a mix for hire guy I'll get projects in that have been tracked at 3 different studios & everything has a different rate... so part of my gig, in looking for and providing cohesion is get everything at the same rate & bit depth. That also helps out whoever's mastering. Way less confusion on that end. Could easily pontificate on the benefits but I started making the switch to running hi-res on tracking dates a long time ago... there was a specific album I produced where half was done at one studio at 88.2 and the other half was tracked at another shop running 48kHz. Had a great conversation with one of the players... Same band. Same gear. Mostly the same mics. Different preamps but same Avid HD converters. He said, in editing & doing overdubs at home that the material we tracked at the first shop... at 88.2 had more life, more space around the music... better tones... It was just nicer then the 48kHz batch and why did we run at 48 on that second batch? That reason was because the band member who elected to head up dubs? His ancient rig was 44/48 so hi-res wasn't an option unless someone else took on the workload... But realistically I find there's more space & more air, more detail up top especially in things like cymbals and reverb tails. High end boosts when you start adding +6dB at 10kHz to say, open up an acoustic guitar with dead strings or brighten up an overly dark snare? Smoother & responds more like analog. Again YMMV. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 26, 2023 13:46:08 GMT -6
Man I didn’t even think about sample rate…but that’s a great point. I do think I’ve felt that way just recording some acoustic things at 96. I wouldn’t think converting lower sample rates to higher would do anything, right? Just should be tracked at higher sr. Yeah gotta track higher from the starting gate. Up-sampling later isn't going to have much benefit... we can't add information that isn't there to begin with. Though, just about everything I've mixed... probably 90% over the last 15 years? Mixes have been captured/printed to an external 2-track running 88.2kHz. One of the reasons is, as a mix for hire guy I'll get projects in that have been tracked at 3 different studios & everything has a different rate... so part of my gig, in looking for and providing cohesion is get everything at the same rate & bit depth. That also helps out whoever's mastering. Way less confusion on that end. Could easily pontificate on the benefits but I started making the switch to running hi-res on tracking dates a long time ago... there was a specific album I produced where half was done at one studio at 88.2 and the other half was tracked at another shop running 48kHz. Had a great conversation with one of the players... Same band. Same gear. Mostly the same mics. Different preamps but same Avid HD converters. He said, in editing & doing overdubs at home that the material we tracked at the first shop... at 88.2 had more life, more space around the music... better tones... It was just nicer then the 48kHz batch and why did we run at 48 on that second batch? That reason was because the band member who elected to head up dubs? His ancient rig was 44/48 so hi-res wasn't an option unless someone else took on the workload... But realistically I find there's more space & more air, more detail up top especially in things like cymbals and reverb tails. High end boosts when you start adding +6dB at 10kHz to say, open up an acoustic guitar with dead strings or brighten up an overly dark snare? Smoother & responds more like analog. Again YMMV. I might see if I can get my reg studio to try one in 88/96. I’d say 99% of the tracks I get from studios around here are at 48. |
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Nov 26, 2023 14:25:01 GMT -6
I might see if I can get my reg studio to try one in 88/96. I’d say 99% of the tracks I get from studios around here are at 48. Push for it. Drive space is cheap. It should take what? About a minute to reset sample rates? Don't let 'em get lazy! I'd encourage everyone to run 2 or 3 projects at hi-res... start to finish. See if you don't feel there's a difference by the end of the line. Its an 'experiment' that costs nothing. Zero dollars. Only gotta make the effort. If you dig the results its basically a "free" upgrade! And if not? No harm done or money spent. Basically win / win scenario for anyone who puts the time in. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 26, 2023 14:50:50 GMT -6
I might see if I can get my reg studio to try one in 88/96. I’d say 99% of the tracks I get from studios around here are at 48. Push for it. Drive space is cheap. It should take what? About a minute to reset sample rates? Don't let 'em get lazy! I'd encourage everyone to run 2 or 3 projects at hi-res... start to finish. See if you don't feel there's a difference by the end of the line. Its an 'experiment' that costs nothing. Zero dollars. Only gotta make the effort. If you dig the results its basically a "free" upgrade! And if not? No harm done or money spent. Basically win / win scenario for anyone who puts the time in. My question is if whether they have the computer power to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Nov 26, 2023 16:09:17 GMT -6
Even something on the more affordable end like a D-Box into an Audio-Scape SSL Comp can be a world of difference over all ITB. I'd give something like that a try without spending too much to see if it's what you're after. I've done a bunch of mixes on a Dangerous 2-Bus into a Smart C1LA so not the most expensive set up but it was killer!
If you want to go a little further...a summing mixer, a 2 buss comp into a pair of Iron Age LH95 is the ultimate budget 2 buss chain to me. Tone and depth for days!
|
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Nov 26, 2023 16:22:08 GMT -6
My question is if whether they have the computer power to do it. If the computer power was available in 2004 why wouldn't we have it now? These days even the most basic $200 interface and laptop can run at 96kHz... |
|
|
|
Post by sean on Nov 26, 2023 16:24:42 GMT -6
Push for it. Drive space is cheap. It should take what? About a minute to reset sample rates? Don't let 'em get lazy! I'd encourage everyone to run 2 or 3 projects at hi-res... start to finish. See if you don't feel there's a difference by the end of the line. Its an 'experiment' that costs nothing. Zero dollars. Only gotta make the effort. If you dig the results its basically a "free" upgrade! And if not? No harm done or money spent. Basically win / win scenario for anyone who puts the time in. My question is if whether they have the computer power to do it. I recorded up to 32 inputs at 96K on a 2004 Mac tower with a HD Native card for over a decade...that shouldn't be a problem. It really does sound better, and a 1TB SSD hard drive is $60 these days. No excuse really. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 26, 2023 17:56:37 GMT -6
My question is if whether they have the computer power to do it. I recorded up to 32 inputs at 96K on a 2004 Mac tower with a HD Native card for over a decade...that shouldn't be a problem. It really does sound better, and a 1TB SSD hard drive is $60 these days. No excuse really. Maybe I’m just thinking about mixing ITB at 96. Back in the day it would bring my computer to a standstill. About to go see if I can figure out my hearback system. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 26, 2023 17:58:36 GMT -6
Even something on the more affordable end like a D-Box into an Audio-Scape SSL Comp can be a world of difference over all ITB. I'd give something like that a try without spending too much to see if it's what you're after. I've done a bunch of mixes on a Dangerous 2-Bus into a Smart C1LA so not the most expensive set up but it was killer! If you want to go a little further...a summing mixer, a 2 buss comp into a pair of Iron Age LH95 is the ultimate budget 2 buss chain to me. Tone and depth for days! It’s the additional I/O that’s been stopping me from doing something like the 2 bus plus. Well that and the $3k for the 2 bus plus. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 26, 2023 17:59:57 GMT -6
Also - I guess the old argument of “why take up the drive space, it’s just getting converted to 16/44.1” is over.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Nov 26, 2023 18:01:35 GMT -6
Even something on the more affordable end like a D-Box into an Audio-Scape SSL Comp can be a world of difference over all ITB. I'd give something like that a try without spending too much to see if it's what you're after. I've done a bunch of mixes on a Dangerous 2-Bus into a Smart C1LA so not the most expensive set up but it was killer! If you want to go a little further...a summing mixer, a 2 buss comp into a pair of Iron Age LH95 is the ultimate budget 2 buss chain to me. Tone and depth for days! It’s the additional I/O that’s been stopping me from doing something like the 2 bus plus. Well that and the $3k for the 2 bus plus. I still mix through the first gen 2 bus. I got so used to it I prefer the sound over the newer ones. The great part is the older ones can be found for under a grand easily these days. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2023 18:28:20 GMT -6
Man I didn’t even think about sample rate…but that’s a great point. I do think I’ve felt that way just recording some acoustic things at 96. I wouldn’t think converting lower sample rates to higher would do anything, right? Just should be tracked at higher sr. Yeah gotta track higher from the starting gate. Up-sampling later isn't going to have much benefit... we can't add information that isn't there to begin with. Though, just about everything I've mixed... probably 90% over the last 15 years? Mixes have been captured/printed to an external 2-track running 88.2kHz. One of the reasons is, as a mix for hire guy I'll get projects in that have been tracked at 3 different studios & everything has a different rate... so part of my gig, in looking for and providing cohesion is get everything at the same rate & bit depth. That also helps out whoever's mastering. Way less confusion on that end. Could easily pontificate on the benefits but I started making the switch to running hi-res on tracking dates a long time ago... there was a specific album I produced where half was done at one studio at 88.2 and the other half was tracked at another shop running 48kHz. Had a great conversation with one of the players... Same band. Same gear. Mostly the same mics. Different preamps but same Avid HD converters. He said, in editing & doing overdubs at home that the material we tracked at the first shop... at 88.2 had more life, more space around the music... better tones... It was just nicer then the 48kHz batch and why did we run at 48 on that second batch? That reason was because the band member who elected to head up dubs? His ancient rig was 44/48 so hi-res wasn't an option unless someone else took on the workload... But realistically I find there's more space & more air, more detail up top especially in things like cymbals and reverb tails. High end boosts when you start adding +6dB at 10kHz to say, open up an acoustic guitar with dead strings or brighten up an overly dark snare? Smoother & responds more like analog. Again YMMV. Depends on converter anti-aliasing filter. bad converters have poor band rejection and let in more garbage. lots of bad multichannel converters today. 88.2 and 96 khz will give bad converters more room for the filters and you can filter out ultra sonic garbage later. this can apply to playback too. your converter can just be playing back the 44.1 or 48 khz file dirtier than the 88.2 or 96 khz one rather than there being more dirt in the file itself. many converter manufacturers are also lazy or cheap and use on chip filters with inadequate band rejection or transition. 88.2 and 96 khz sample rates will have enough bandwidth so automation does not alias inside the daw. they are not enough to anti-alias most other non-linear processes so the better of these will upsample anyway. also for sample rate conversion, depends on the algorithm. there are still poor src algorithms out there like avid's most good modern digital eqs are running at 176.4 or 192 kHz internally to not cramp. they are not emulations either. they are running same filters as most analog eq but with idealized circuits now. not just something that is supposed to produce the same results but doesn't. of course many manufacturers are happy to sell you textbook filters with a nice gui for big money. if you are using old direct form filters, higher sample rates will have increased error and more dc. if they are running at 32-bit float, you will have numerical errors within the audible range at double sampling rates like waves q10's original filters. |
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Nov 27, 2023 1:39:31 GMT -6
Yeah gotta track higher from the starting gate. Up-sampling later isn't going to have much benefit... we can't add information that isn't there to begin with. Though, just about everything I've mixed... probably 90% over the last 15 years? Mixes have been captured/printed to an external 2-track running 88.2kHz. One of the reasons is, as a mix for hire guy I'll get projects in that have been tracked at 3 different studios & everything has a different rate... so part of my gig, in looking for and providing cohesion is get everything at the same rate & bit depth. That also helps out whoever's mastering. Way less confusion on that end. Could easily pontificate on the benefits but I started making the switch to running hi-res on tracking dates a long time ago... there was a specific album I produced where half was done at one studio at 88.2 and the other half was tracked at another shop running 48kHz. Had a great conversation with one of the players... Same band. Same gear. Mostly the same mics. Different preamps but same Avid HD converters. He said, in editing & doing overdubs at home that the material we tracked at the first shop... at 88.2 had more life, more space around the music... better tones... It was just nicer then the 48kHz batch and why did we run at 48 on that second batch? That reason was because the band member who elected to head up dubs? His ancient rig was 44/48 so hi-res wasn't an option unless someone else took on the workload... But realistically I find there's more space & more air, more detail up top especially in things like cymbals and reverb tails. High end boosts when you start adding +6dB at 10kHz to say, open up an acoustic guitar with dead strings or brighten up an overly dark snare? Smoother & responds more like analog. Again YMMV. I might see if I can get my reg studio to try one in 88/96. I’d say 99% of the tracks I get from studios around here are at 48. Reading your original post and what you’re looking for and what you feel is missing. There’s no way in my mind you’re going to get that changing from 48K to 96K sample rate. Many of the amazing records I admire and have all the qualities you describe as desirable (and we all think of as desirable) where tracked and mixed on Sony DASH machines at 44.1K 16 bit!! The magic you seek definitely doesn’t lay with the sample rate in my experience. It might add something very subtle to be enjoyed by consumers who playback on very high quality systems but as a fundamental for adding space, depth, width etc …. Imvho and experience I’m not convinced. 48K 24 bit ticks the box of high quality and allows one to look and focus on the areas where 99% of the magic for depth, width, space and gloss is to be found. Just my humble 2 cents. |
|
