|
|
Post by tonycamphd on May 9, 2015 10:34:58 GMT -6
IME, because they sound so cool, transformers can trick you into getting to much of a good thing, their compression is NOT dynamic, I always say the vp28 is the best light touch limiting compressor I own, and i'm not kidding, 3 tranny's! But you can compress/phase euphony the life right out of a track with tranny's on everything, my new to me delta 8 has sowter trannys on some channels, they indeed have the effect i expected. The PM8 bla seems cool because you can switch them in and out...i think? . But I need transformers at least in multiple stages when tracking. However with a console full of cinemag....there's a hugeness to that sound you can't defeat with transformeless consoles and you wind up needing far less outboard to get things to feel alive. The Fat Bustard is transformerless...it's all tube distortion...which is again...givings to me the worst case of the *wants* Also in my case it would cut down on the I/O needed for a new rig in a way that helps my budget out tremendously. we'll have to agree to disagree, contrast is the key to mixing IMO, if everything has a tranny, nothing has a tranny, if everything is compressed the same, then nothing is compressed, to each his own, JMO 8) |
|
|
|
Post by drew571 on May 9, 2015 10:50:06 GMT -6
i have a workhorse and several vp28's. would you guys recommend:
1. using the workhorse summing by itself with 4 stereo groups being sent to it from the DAW?
2. doing the above with 2 vp28's inserted on the workhorse
3. just using a hardware insert to the vp28's on my 2bus in the DAW
|
|
|
|
Post by carymiller on May 9, 2015 12:08:40 GMT -6
EDIT: I do agree with this on some levels. But I need transformers at least in multiple stages when tracking. However with a console full of cinemag....there's a hugeness to that sound you can't defeat with transformeless consoles and you wind up needing far less outboard to get things to feel alive. The Fat Bustard is transformerless...it's all tube distortion...which is again...givings to me the worst case of the *wants* Also in my case it would cut down on the I/O needed for a new rig in a way that helps my budget out tremendously. we'll have to agree to disagree, contrast is the key to mixing IMO, if everything has a tranny, nothing has a tranny, if everything is compressed the same, then nothing is compressed, to each his own, JMO 8) What's funny is I think the transformerless submix groups in the PM 2000 help because you're not saturating again at that stage....but so often when I'd mix on that desk I'd be given terrible recordings which needed the channel's transformers to warm and temper things up. I'm with you that it's different project to project...but I want distortions to make things exciting when I'm given subpar home recordings...and when I'm lucky enough to work on something truly great...it usually helps get me there without having to add too much compression. The thing about super "clean" transformerless analog...is, aside from a few pieces which really stick out to me...most of the time there's no point leaving the box IMHO...it's not a big enough change in terms of stereo image that working on a mix a bit harder couldn't get me there just as easily. I agree it can be overdone quickly, but the only "clean" desk I've ever worked on that really got me was an SSL 4K E/G that used to be owned by Ted Turner. Great console...had a vibe...but it was also + - 24V in terms of draw. Whenever I used a Neotek or an Amek console...or even a soundcraft...the benefits of the console were there, but just...not really what I was looking for in terms of harmonic distortions. I think the "hardness" of an SSL 4K kind of makes up for it's cleaner topology, but you are totally right to say everyone is different. Usually when i want things to be clean...I just mix ITB these days. |
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on May 9, 2015 12:15:06 GMT -6
You get me wrong here. I know there is a difference, but my console is something very diffrent from the PM8 with transformers. So to me it makes more sense if I have physical inserts, sends etc…. I mean we have summing boxes out there for insane prices. I would buy a console for the cash…. and to be fair even any midrange console will give you something over ITB, but the fun strats with outboard. And in the end of the day I have to admit that some folks know how to do it ITB. I konow I was a long time discussing this. But in the end its important taht I like waht I hear, and not a matter fo ITB or OTB. Well that's what I was basically saying, was that just your normal summing mixer/console that has a L/R resistor bus isn't going to really do anything crazy, that's why I didn't buy the Dbox when I was looking for a D/A for monitoring. So, I'm with you, I understand what you were talking about. I agree too, I'm starting to process a lot of my tracks through the Warm pultec and print them back in, even if no eq is being applied, it does make things sound much larger, again, thanks to the transformers. Jeff's 526, you can also just print tracks through it with the GR turned off and it makes the source larger and fuller thanks to his opamps and the output transformer. I think that the new model I'm going with is more of sending and printing tracks through my outboard and then using plugins to do what I want in regards to eq/compression. Saving my outboard during mix time for the most important parts of the mix. I can't afford to have walls of rack gear or the i/o needed for it, I'm just not going to invest there because if I have something that requires that I'd rather rent a room at a studio in town and let the client pay for it. But I do think it is essential to have a few pieces of outboard that you know will lend some weight to your tracks if they need it and a summing rig/console that is setup to harmonically sweeten your mix. The PM8's, every channel is a little different than the one next to it, the crosstalk as well is useable and to me helps the mix to sound more real. For Johnkenn, I think your head is in the right place about summing, but look for one that is going to lend something to your tracks, not just piece together clean audio and spit it back out of a summing bus, I think you'd be disappointed. You have a Sta, 526's, print your tracks through it w/ no compression and see if that makes you grin, I bet it will. Even more, you could change up the gain structure of each track you run through it, maybe send it more level on one and turn the input down, and on the next send less and turn the input up, just something to make little differences, I've learned recently that little differences stacked and stacked can produce a big systemic difference. That alone might give you that sound you described. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 9, 2015 15:24:08 GMT -6
Thanks, Jerome...I need to try really cranking up the input level on the Burl to -12 and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by gouge on May 9, 2015 17:39:20 GMT -6
If I was replacing the cal ghost in the studio I'd either look at the purple audio 500 series mixer or the capi one.
|
|
|
|
Post by carymiller on May 10, 2015 8:14:22 GMT -6
EDIT: I do agree with this on some levels. But I need transformers at least in multiple stages when tracking. However with a console full of cinemag....there's a hugeness to that sound you can't defeat with transformeless consoles and you wind up needing far less outboard to get things to feel alive. The Fat Bustard is transformerless...it's all tube distortion...which is again...givings to me the worst case of the *wants* Also in my case it would cut down on the I/O needed for a new rig in a way that helps my budget out tremendously. we'll have to agree to disagree, contrast is the key to mixing IMO, if everything has a tranny, nothing has a tranny, if everything is compressed the same, then nothing is compressed, to each his own, JMO 8) Doing some research on the Burl Vancouver. Technically it's a simpler audio path than Shadow Hills Equinox, and you can switch the Transformers out. So this might be the best summing solution for people who want the option of a transformer driven 2Bus...but who also want to run a cleaner signal flow most of the time. I'm gonna see about getting one in to test. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 10, 2015 11:38:09 GMT -6
Yeah, that one has interested me too. My biggest problem would be getting enough I/O to do all this.
|
|
|
|
Post by carymiller on May 10, 2015 13:02:36 GMT -6
Yeah, that one has interested me too. My biggest problem would be getting enough I/O to do all this. Not just enough I/O...I want to run entire sessions at 96kHz/88.2kHz. So the number of I/O has to allow for that...no matter which configuration I go with. And it gets a whole lot more complicated if you're talking higher trackcounts of 32+ I/O with headphones, and even AUX I/O for analog inserts and printing. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 10, 2015 14:44:08 GMT -6
I'm currently using my apollos outs as headphone cue outs. I'd have to switch that back to adat and still only have six.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on May 10, 2015 17:42:50 GMT -6
carymiller, I have a TC Phoenix and Rooster and they are really, really great units. The don't feel like they're built like a tank like some things I've used (Summit comes to mind), but they've got the sound. I've almost pulled the trigger on the Bustard a couple times, but couldn't get the cash together before they were gone. If you end up testing some, make sure you get your hands on one.
|
|
|
|
Post by carymiller on May 10, 2015 18:56:43 GMT -6
carymiller, I have a TC Phoenix and Rooster and they are really, really great units. The don't feel like they're built like a tank like some things I've used (Summit comes to mind), but they've got the sound. I've almost pulled the trigger on the Bustard a couple times, but couldn't get the cash together before they were gone. If you end up testing some, make sure you get your hands on one. I'm torn between the Fat Bustard II and the LE II (Green faceplate), the original design concept involved Unbalanced Inputs, which the designer states even in the manual is for a better more cohesive sound overall. There are options for a more expensive Fat Bustard LE II with transformer (Jensen) balanced I/O...but is it really needed? Does this actually hurt the overall tone of things even though it's doing it's best not to? Additionally the LE uses completely different tubes which are a bit less colorful, but this might be better in the long run as the original's tubes are rarer...and it might make the Fat Bustard better across a range of styles. The real appeal of the unit is the low track count. 12 Inputs and 2 AUX inputs for FX means a 16a could handle the whole thing with room for printing tracks. also I love how the Fat Bustard II (original) sounds on the ASH albums like A-Z they've mixed with one (I know those guys and have been in their little Manhattan studio. They probably have over a dozen 1176 clones in there too though....) I keep looking at the Burl Vancouver, at the opposite end of the spectrum, as a more modern Shadow Hills Equinox with Transformerless options for those rare times I'd maybe need it...but even though it's a lot less expensive to start...with DSUBS and more converters needed for it's 32 tracks it's not that much cheaper in the long run. |
|
|
|
Post by drew571 on May 10, 2015 20:43:03 GMT -6
what do you gents think about the new heritage audio mcm-8 that's coming out? potential?
|
|
|
|
Post by carymiller on May 10, 2015 22:09:41 GMT -6
what do you gents think about the new heritage audio mcm-8 that's coming out? potential? It's interesting. If you filled it with x8 CAPI Hieder FD321's you would have three transformer stages and a very "console" like sound. But it would be an 8 channel mixer for $7,300 all in. That would mix Carnhills with Cinemags but the "bigness" of a console would be achieved. You'd have to mix into it like four stereo submixes with only 8 tracks at your disposal...12-20 is optimal really...but there's ways to make it work. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 11, 2015 8:20:34 GMT -6
Yeah...pretty pricey...
|
|
|
|
Post by drew571 on May 11, 2015 8:49:58 GMT -6
i was thinking more along the lines of the vp28's. could be done for $4k that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by carymiller on May 11, 2015 9:01:49 GMT -6
i was thinking more along the lines of the vp28's. could be done for $4k that way. Ooh good point! |
|
|
|
Post by svart on May 11, 2015 9:22:36 GMT -6
I think one of the differences in ITB and OTB summing is the micro delays that you get from the analog domain. Signals have a speed in the real world, and routing them into a resistor network and PCB traces to sum them will cause slight differences in when they arrive, since not all traces are the same length. You can't obviously hear these differences, but they are there, and I think the time differences add a little of the "space" and "size".
I'll explain..
When you track a guitar and want it to sound big and wide, you don't record it once and then just copy/paste the track again.. Why? Because the tracks aren't different enough for the brain to interpret them as, well, different!
So you double track the guitar, but no matter how close you get, it will never be similar enough for the brain to mistake as just a copy. All of the micro delays, harmonic differences, etc, tell your brain that they are different tracks, and you can pan them wide and hear what sounds like super wide stereo version of one guitar.
I think the same holds true with analog summing. Those micro differences that are added to the tracks as you sum, add to the illusion that the tracks are bigger, wider, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by carymiller on May 11, 2015 10:12:45 GMT -6
i was thinking more along the lines of the vp28's. could be done for $4k that way. Actually if you made the VP28's yourself you could do it in $3,500ish It wouldn't be as big sounding as the Hieders but you'd have HPF for tracking. You can link multiple Heritage racks from what I'm reading, similar to the Tonelux OTB design...but what I would do from there maybe instead is spend another $1,500ish on a Dangerous Music 2Bus LT...and just sum 16 channels through the last two VP28's. There's only mute switches and one sweepable gain knob that way, so recall would be fast considering the VP28's are stepped. That would give you 14 Inputs with recall essentially for about $5,000, and you'd have pan when you need it on some channels.
So signal flow for a rock/country session could be:VP28 1 Mono: Lead Vocal Mult (Up the middle) VP28 2 Mono: Bass Mult (Panable) VP28 3 Mono: Kick Mult (Up the Middle) VP28 4 Mono: Snare Mult (Up the Middle/Slightly Panable) VP28 5-6 Stereo: Rhythm Guitar/Piano Mult depending on primary instrument (Stereo Panned Left and Right ITB or on the Rack, whatever sounds better)
VP28 7-8 Stereo, fed by the Dangerous Music 2Bus LT: 8 additional buses, probably Drum room/Overheads (1), Toms on a separate bus (2), backing vocals separated into sections dictated by vocal range (3-5 potentially), and any auxiliary instrumentation would divided amongst the remaining buses from there for the best control of low frequency driven sources vs mid-to-high frequency driven sources. However all the panning would probably be done in the box....though you could hard pan it all L & R on the chassis if you wanted to be gutsy. Best bet would be to take a mix you know well...and spend two days playing with gainstaging feeding from your DA and on the stepped controls of the VP28's. This way you can play with something you liked until you "beat" it in terms of sound. Take a green pedal board marker and highlight any sweepable pot positions and now you've got perfect recall. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on May 11, 2015 10:27:45 GMT -6
i have a workhorse and several vp28's. would you guys recommend: 1. using the workhorse summing by itself with 4 stereo groups being sent to it from the DAW? 2. doing the above with 2 vp28's inserted on the workhorse 3. just using a hardware insert to the vp28's on my 2bus in the DAW Based on the options you suggested - 3. My experience is that the "summing" is not what we are looking for. It's in the ability to drive the gain stages, transformers, etc. in your mixing environment into their "sweet spot" for some mojo that digital looses. Some summing mixers can do that. A large percentage really can't. |
|
|
|
Post by carymiller on May 11, 2015 10:45:09 GMT -6
i have a workhorse and several vp28's. would you guys recommend: 1. using the workhorse summing by itself with 4 stereo groups being sent to it from the DAW? 2. doing the above with 2 vp28's inserted on the workhorse 3. just using a hardware insert to the vp28's on my 2bus in the DAW Based on the options you suggested - 3. My experience is that the "summing" is not what we are looking for. It's in the ability to drive the gain stages, transformers, etc. in your mixing environment into their "sweet spot" for some mojo that digital looses. Some summing mixers can do that. A large percentage really can't. 01. There's pan like with the Heritage, but there's also volume, both are sweepable...making recall harder in a work intensive situation. 02. Jensens are alright, but carnhills on the 2Bus will typically yield better results for the kinds of mixes I'd be doing (ROCK/COUNTRY/FOLK, etc.), for others this might not be the case, but it's not really that hard SSL 4K thing that would help EDM/POP/HIP HOP either. 03. While there's more connectivity, it's better suited for tracking and multing while tracking. 04. There's no metering on the 2Bus...which is essential for mixing and recall notes, Heritage got that part of it right. 05. The Radial is more expensive. Separate issue...I don't know anyone who's even heard the Heritage in action...it might not be that great, but the design is simple...and looks hard to screw up. The Radial has been out for awhile and people like them since they have a good build quality. Either way, both are probably not what I'm looking for, but this is much closer to the mechanics behind what a console is. As to your point DrBill:You're absolutely right that a large percentage of summing mixers fail at that task. That's why I listed three in my top picks, and I've only really talked about a few other designs that have potential which I've yet to try. It's a huge market that misses when it comes to firing on all cylinders a lot of the time. 1. Recall. If controls are going to be slimmed down, make things easy to recall. The best designs are fairly simple in this capacity, even if they look a bit intimidating at a glance. You can't have the functionality of a console so don't pine for one, let the DAW take over the intricate parts with perfect recall, and try to keep things as simple as possible while gunning for a tone / balance you want. 2. Transformer saturation is a must for me (with the exception that proves this rule being the tube driven/transformerless Fat Bustard II.) Others on here have stated they have different tastes, but the idea of being able to lessen the amount of processing I need overall to get a tone I want...that's what's appealing. Iron, Steel being my first two choices, but Jensens can work. This aspect is about your personal preferences/tastes...so learning how certain transformers sound and respond is essential. 3. High headroom master sections are also a must in terms of specs...if you can't achieve that, it's pointless/fruitless. This is why many mixers like the Toft ATB were a disappointment to many as well...to have great EQ, and mid-range line amps with a terrible master section just didn't cut it. at + - 16V rail system is a minimum requirement. + - 24V rail is better/preferred. |
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on May 11, 2015 10:49:30 GMT -6
i have a workhorse and several vp28's. would you guys recommend: 1. using the workhorse summing by itself with 4 stereo groups being sent to it from the DAW? 2. doing the above with 2 vp28's inserted on the workhorse 3. just using a hardware insert to the vp28's on my 2bus in the DAW Based on the options you suggested - 3. My experience is that the "summing" is not what we are looking for. It's in the ability to drive the gain stages, transformers, etc. in your mixing environment into their "sweet spot" for some mojo that digital looses. Some summing mixers can do that. A large percentage really can't. I agree here, that's why I find it hard to understand why so many people are looking past black Lions PM8. The cost per box is an incredible value, you're able to hit input transformers and output Transformers. Those are Edcores in there, they are good transformers. I think this is what I need to design, a version of a PM8 with cinemags and 1731 DOA's. |
|
|
|
Post by carymiller on May 11, 2015 11:01:28 GMT -6
Based on the options you suggested - 3. My experience is that the "summing" is not what we are looking for. It's in the ability to drive the gain stages, transformers, etc. in your mixing environment into their "sweet spot" for some mojo that digital looses. Some summing mixers can do that. A large percentage really can't. I agree here, that's why I find it hard to understand why so many people are looking past black Lions PM8. The cost per box is an incredible value, you're able to hit input transformers and output Transformers. Those are Edcores in there, they are good transformers. I think this is what I need to design, a version of a PM8 with cinemags and 1731 DOA's. I would rather see part of the PM8 and the Fat Bustard topology melded together: Channel 1-4 Mono, with switchable panning you can switch out so you can always find your way back to mono perfectly if you don't want to sweep for it. Then four-six more stereo channels (8-12 inputs) for stereo stems out of your DAW (without panning) All channels should have MUTE and SOLO switches. Cinemags or Carnhills should be optional, so you get an API or Neve flavor depending on your personal tastes. If you want to make things more flexible, put AUX sends and returns on each channel...but this might not be needed, and would add to the expense (however Two Mono Aux sends that can be panned, and one stereo AUX send would be extremely practical.) A stepped master fader knob with opamps and transformers at the final summing stage should also be added...with half dB steps so you can fine tune it...and some sort of metering (preferably VCA) All balanced XLR I/O. A monitor section would be great from here...but maybe not necessary.
If any talented builders want to prototype this with me...I'd pay for parts. =P |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on May 11, 2015 13:22:52 GMT -6
<<blushing slightly due to the obvious self promotion>> The answer is out there, it doesn't require 32 channels of AD/DA, it sounds awesome, it doesn't require a console or summing box, it has gain staging and tonal options that are unavailable ANYWHERE else (including any console out there), it doesn't require tons of patch bays and cabling..... It is : drBill's tone amp - the Louder Than Liftoff Silver Bullet. Brad McGowan and I researched this conundrum to the bone, and came up with this solution. It works. It will be available very soon. It's cost effective. Now, if you need a REAL console, with real faders, real aux sends, real bussing, and real individual EQ's, then get one - a real console is awesome. But get one with REAL tone associated with it like an API or neve. If you don't, then get a Silver Bullet for it's master 2 buss insert. Otherwise, the "summing" and mojo problems of ITB or Hybrid mixing have been answered......  |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on May 11, 2015 14:13:00 GMT -6
quality designed passive summing gives up to 90db CT specs, better separation, and a more defined image than active from what i've seen and heard, the benefits of summing are certainly not just in transformers, not by a long shot.
|
|
