|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on May 22, 2015 6:02:59 GMT -6
I was at a friend's session at a pretty nice studio last night and asked the engineer about running the final two-track thru their neves while they were mastering it. He said that running the signal thru the converters a 2nd time shrinks the stereo image. Have you ever heard that before? if a converter is up to snuff, there should be no change in stereo image no matter how many times you run your tracks thru it. Maybe he was talking about how the neves might affect the audio? I know a lot of us here stick a pair of VP28s on the master bus for our projects. It just seemed like a weird statement. They were using Aurora 16s for conversion.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on May 22, 2015 10:54:16 GMT -6
JMO, i would only convert once if possible, the aurora 16's are good, but they aren't top shelf, especially in a multichannel configuration, it wouldn't shrink the image considering it's spec sheet for crosstalk is 120db, thats awesome, but the DR of 117AD and a more than probable max loaded psu, would have an effect. If the studio is kickass they should have a dedicated 2 channel beast converter of top sound Q, with a stout psu and specs about 130db DR.(vague numbers)
As far as a round trip, the trade off for running a mix through anything OB and another conversion process is the level of payoff, how much of a payoff? If it sounds better to you running it through neve's or vp's, then it's better. One thing for sure, you can't know if you don't try.
chances are the guy just didn't want to bother with it?
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on May 22, 2015 11:53:10 GMT -6
I find that hard to believe, considering all of the other outboard gear he was using during the mix session.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,107 
|
Post by ericn on May 22, 2015 15:30:35 GMT -6
It sounds like somebody is simply justifying the way they work.
This is also why I keep my mouth shut if I am at somebody else's session unless asked or I have a clearly communicated role!
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on May 22, 2015 15:52:59 GMT -6
I would like to know if there is actual proof that reamping causes a loss in the stereo width of a file. i'm not discounting the guy's workflow, I just thought the statement was strange (converters aren't supposed to color/affect the quality in a perfect world).
sidebar, they asked me to help them mix their song cuz it was a big band arrangement of a pop tune i helped arrange.
|
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on May 23, 2015 7:38:15 GMT -6
What I find interesting is that often when I import a reference song to a stereo audio track into Cubase and Pro Tools- and output it to a separate master output than the song I'm working on- the width of the reference mix is smaller than the one I'm working on. People talk about the value of wider mixes, but this surprised me and I don't see how it is due to my DAW software shrinking the reference mix image compared to my song's image. If anybody could explain that there are technical reasons why these fully mastered pro mixes are less wide than mine, I'd appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on May 23, 2015 8:02:05 GMT -6
maybe the pan law used for that reference track was different than what the DAW is using? i have no idea, that's just a guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on May 23, 2015 9:23:59 GMT -6
Analog Crosstalk specs, the better they are, the wider the stereo image.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on May 23, 2015 13:39:28 GMT -6
I would like to know if there is actual proof that reamping causes a loss in the stereo width of a file. i'm not discounting the guy's workflow, I just thought the statement was strange (converters aren't supposed to color/affect the quality in a perfect world). sidebar, they asked me to help them mix their song cuz it was a big band arrangement of a pop tune i helped arrange. It's not a perfect world, especially in the digital domain, i'd bet dollars to doughnuts if you stereo converted a track ADDA, ADDA, ADDA 10 times in a row, with the best conversion money can buy, you'd start to notice a real difference. I have never done it, but if i were a betting man, i'd bet all the quantization error corrections would start to become quite audible in the 3 dimensions. You should do it with svarts new rig and see what happens 8) |
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on May 23, 2015 14:09:40 GMT -6
I have done it several times with my 1073 and there was a wider and opener imgae after processing.
You can have similar stuff in mastering.....leave there.
|
|
|
|
Post by gouge on May 23, 2015 15:46:21 GMT -6
This is why I use dsd on master. No matter what the theory is pcm from what my ears tell me is not perfect and does not sound the same after multiple conversions. Doesn't even sound exactly like what's in the room. Dsd does.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on May 23, 2015 18:26:38 GMT -6
What I find interesting is that often when I import a reference song to a stereo audio track into Cubase and Pro Tools- and output it to a separate master output than the song I'm working on- the width of the reference mix is smaller than the one I'm working on. People talk about the value of wider mixes, but this surprised me and I don't see how it is due to my DAW software shrinking the reference mix image compared to my song's image. If anybody could explain that there are technical reasons why these fully mastered pro mixes are less wide than mine, I'd appreciate it. what happens when you route it to the same master output? Are you saying when you listen to the song its width changes depending on which outputs you use? cheers Wiz |
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on May 24, 2015 6:48:53 GMT -6
What I find interesting is that often when I import a reference song to a stereo audio track into Cubase and Pro Tools- and output it to a separate master output than the song I'm working on- the width of the reference mix is smaller than the one I'm working on. People talk about the value of wider mixes, but this surprised me and I don't see how it is due to my DAW software shrinking the reference mix image compared to my song's image. If anybody could explain that there are technical reasons why these fully mastered pro mixes are less wide than mine, I'd appreciate it. what happens when you route it to the same master output? Are you saying when you listen to the song its width changes depending on which outputs you use? cheers Wiz Hi Wiz, When I route the stereo reference song channel to the same master stereo output (taking off my Smart C2 which resides there) which I'm routing all my channels to, the reference song's width doesn't change. . I mix with the Smart. So, I don't want to hear the reference mix through that, which is why I output it to 3+4. |
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on May 24, 2015 6:53:31 GMT -6
maybe the pan law used for that reference track was different than what the DAW is using? i have no idea, that's just a guess. Chuck, I thought the pan law was about volume between the center and the sides. So, I don't see how that affects width perception. If it does, I'd be interested in how. Thanks for your reply. Frank |
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on May 24, 2015 9:29:16 GMT -6
try changing the pan law if you can. in logic I have a couple choices, and it affects how my imported mp3s sound, compared to when they play back in QuickTime/Finder.
|
|
|
|
Post by donr on May 25, 2015 2:07:23 GMT -6
It's plausible that image contraction of multiple conversions might have been the engineer's experience, but it doesn't ring as a rule of thumb. Besides, there are good digital ways of repairing perceived collapse of stereo image.
Does anyone besides me have Nomad Factory's 'Cosmos' plugin? If used conservatively, it's really sweet, for image width, excitement, bass, sub bass and limiting. I like it.
Ha. I think I just hijacked a thread about adding analog mojo.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on May 25, 2015 17:23:12 GMT -6
what happens when you route it to the same master output? Are you saying when you listen to the song its width changes depending on which outputs you use? cheers Wiz Hi Wiz, When I route the stereo reference song channel to the same master stereo output (taking off my Smart C2 which resides there) which I'm routing all my channels to, the reference song's width doesn't change. . I mix with the Smart. So, I don't want to hear the reference mix through that, which is why I output it to 3+4. Is this playing the song from within Logic? Or from an external source, connected to your converter... cheers Wiz |
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on May 25, 2015 20:06:10 GMT -6
Hi Wiz, When I route the stereo reference song channel to the same master stereo output (taking off my Smart C2 which resides there) which I'm routing all my channels to, the reference song's width doesn't change. . I mix with the Smart. So, I don't want to hear the reference mix through that, which is why I output it to 3+4. Is this playing the song from within Logic? Or from an external source, connected to your converter... cheers Wiz Within Cubase 8 Pro and Pro Tools 11. I import the audio off of a CD onto a stereo channel. |
|
|
|
Post by wiz on May 25, 2015 20:11:00 GMT -6
Unless I misunderstand, you bring a file into your DAW, Cubase or Pro Tools...
then it sounds different coming out of one set of your audio interface outs .. than the other.... correct?
So you must have some sort of analog monitor switcher going?
If thats all true, its either the interface outs, or the set up of them... whats the interface?
Whats the monitor controller?
It sounds like something POST DAWs
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
|
Post by tasteliketape on May 25, 2015 20:46:16 GMT -6
www.zmix.net/ home of chuck zwicky mixing and mastering engr. has test files he ran multiple conversion on you can download an judge for yourself just thought it was interesting test I know it's not reamping
|
|
