|
|
Post by wiz on Oct 6, 2014 16:51:30 GMT -6
Internet information emptor.... toddburkeisarecordengineer.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/summing-mixer-shootout.html#.VDMcpL672X0thats one of the better ones I found about this summing thing. This is part of what got me thinking, that and the SSL one... I like the song in that too.. I also like the way he set up the test. very different outcomes between this and the SSL one I posted. Not implying anything at all negative. I know, you have to use this stuff yourself.... just thinking out loud. It just got me thinking, in a really really controlled test, at appropriate levels for the performance of all gear invoked (read as gain staging that you should do anyways, but many don't) how much of a difference, does the "summing" aspect impact. If in magic wiz thinking land, if all that changes, in absolute is the fact that it was 16 coming out, instead of 2.... how much does that actually impact. hope i am not putting you guys to sleep with this. |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Oct 6, 2014 17:14:01 GMT -6
To me it's just one of several subtleties that add up to a really nice bigger picture. I just can't get over the old way, the old sound. My favorite stuff is very much "analog" for the most part. My favorite albums of all time, that is.
To add to this idea, I'm not always satisfied with my own in the box mixes, but when I set up the analog rig, I get a lot happier, in general. Little tests like summing shootouts can help you to see exactly what's going on. Where the mojo is coming from.
No, it's not always perfect black and white, but for me, it almost is. It almost is that easy for me to make that statement about preferring analog sound across the board.
The reality for me is a hybrid setup, because I'm still slowly adding to the expensive and bulky analog pile over here, it's not fully equipped. The other reality is I will probably never stop using some plugins, because they are great these days. My preference however will probably always be for an analog console or summing mixer along with some outboard, and especially, hardware instruments (synthetic).
I guess I feel pretty strongly about this. I realize it's just my own personal preference, and I'm happy people are happy with whatever way they like to work. I'm just glad I found one I really like. It makes music more interesting, and more fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Oct 6, 2014 18:02:37 GMT -6
cool discussion
as always, what works for anyone, wins. Especailly if it makes it fun, and more creative....
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Oct 6, 2014 19:10:15 GMT -6
It's about the center channel imaging. It's simply better--clearer in analog. And I'm not the only one who says that....but, for me--on cursory listen, might think they were the same....until you listen to the bass guitar over time. It speaks better on analog with a mono feed than it does panned up the middle on a software mixer. The same thing makes the snare and kick hit harder. It affects the lead vocal much less, because it's so loud relative to everything else. But, the mix consistently sounds "less wet" analog summed without sounding drier, if that makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Oct 6, 2014 20:38:50 GMT -6
that's very astute, Popmann, I can hear what you are saying. I never thought of it like that before, but it makes sense.
The way I hear it is analog breaks things up and relaxes them a bit. A digital mix to me has a kind of hard and strong sound, like a solid block of sound. Very obscure language, I'm sure! Don't blind test me on it.
Tape is really cool, too. It seems to kind of break things down, to make them sound weak and vulnerable. I'm not making this up, Moby can be quoted saying this as well. Tape also has that relaxing effect I mentioned about analog summing/mixing, and seems to control the high end well. All desirable qualities, to my ear, yet the only tape machines I own are cassette.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Oct 7, 2014 7:43:53 GMT -6
I don't hear analog mixing as lower fidelity. Even at the lowest (cheapest) levels. The opposite--I'm always amazed what the tracks actually sound like taken out of that 32bit mixer. I feel like, to a large degree, we are all overcompensating with the "premium" input--in hopes it survives the great mush that is floating point mixing.
I'm saying those who have sat and compared....often completely blindly, never pick the digital mix--and they're NEVER comparing a floating point software mix--always TDM 48bit mixers. Which are of the same era tech as the 56bit Akai--in fact, that was arguably the end of digital mixing's evolution, in terms of fidelity. It's also when "mixing" also began to involve editing and tuning and stretching--I don't see these as different issues. I don't have any high horse issues with someone taking digital tech and using it to bend their art into whatever--but, I lament that there's not a tech company who simply said "yeah....we're not gonna do that--we're gonna use Moore's Law for fidelity instead". And/or....come out with a white paper on why PCM should never be used to mix PCM audio....some fundamental flaw in maths....who knows....
There was a site some time ago who had a bunch of summing mixers summing the same tunes...was it Vintage King? Mercenary? Anyway--I think those were actually more true that the SSL. They at least match MY experience with analog summing more--it's like it sounds exactly the same at first casual listen...but, if you allow your ear to follow a given instrument--and mine always goes for bass guitar, it becomes the stuff of night and day.You start getting MAD at the software, because you're hearing the bass line very clearly--and then you're hearing it sort of duck and jump around and disappear (yet, where's all the low frequency coming from? Right)....So sure--some of the colorful ones might ALSO clip the leading edge of the snare or cymbal crash....that's cool, too....but, it's a different aspect of why one might prefer mixing analog--saturating circuits.
|
|
