MOTUnation.com

James Steele wrote:Hmm... what I'm taking away from this is that it really boils down to "coloration" as was pointed out... not necessarily purely summing. I think that makes sense. I also wonder if the people who think the coloration is more pleasing are people of my generation who grew up listening to vinyl records that were recorded on analog gear that not only contained coloration due to tape saturation but the analog mixer circuitry? Do you suppose younger ears that know only digital would prefer the sound that they're used to? I know that being part of the former group, I'd probably prefer the analog coloration, but perhaps this preference is not just subjective but can be traced to a certain age group that was raised on the sound of records made on Neves, etc.

Certainly could be part of it. The problem with this kind of argument (and probably the reason Roger Nichols limited his argument to summing and made no statements of which sounded better), is that it is purely subjective as to what sounds better, AND there is absolutely no way to ever compare mixes this way. There is no way ever to A/B an ITB and analog mix get an apples to apples comparion. Why? I'm glad I asked Because any good engineer will mix differently depending on whether he (or she) is mixing ITB or mixing to a top dollar analog console. If you are mixing to an analog console, you will probably apply different/fewer plugs in the DAW because you know you will be using the console's EQs or compression or because you know the console is going to give you the warmth you want. If you are mixing ITB, you will probably add different and more plugs, maybe "special" plugs like PSP's VintageWarmer to get a simulated analog warmth. Basically, you have no controlled source to do a real experiment with because your source is different depending on how you plan to mix.

The best you could hope for is to do your best ITB mix using whatever plugs you need to simulate the sound of a Neve board, and then run the raw mix through a Neve board and compare the two. But even then, you're still not comparing the same source.

All in all, I think James is closest to the truth in all this. It depends on your reference and what you were indoctrinated with in your formative years. Some people think 80's hair metal is a black mark on the soul of rock and roll and can only be discussed as a bad joke. I personally think a lot of this music is awesome and there were some very good songs that didn't get their due respect because they were part of this genre (Poison's "Something to Believe In" IS a great song, even if you think Poison were a bunch of posing sissies.)

Although I like their music, the production on Franz Ferdinand's first album did not do it for me. To me, it lo-fi and not very interesting. But obviously, that was the sound someone wanted and they thought it sounded great, and I'm pretty sure it was mixed on an analog desk. On the other hand, I think A Perfect Circle's first album sounds really good, and it was (allegedly) mixed ITB. That does not prove the ITB sounds better than OTB - just that two different engineers were going for two different sounds, and some people like a certain sound while others don't

Timeline wrote:My point is that an analog board will not mess up low level signals. I disagree. Noise yes.. Digital mixers do.

Commonly in a mix, faders are not all at 0 level Splint.

Yes, I see your point, but you are refusing to see mine. Who works at -40dBfs? And isn't the 30dB or so digitally recreatable audio beneath the noise floor really negligible anyway? You'll NEVER hear it. While your argument proves that reducing the master fader -40dB reduces the bit depth (resolution), it doesn't say anything about what happens when working with the fader at unity and working with good levels where all the low level stuff is NOT getting lost beneath what is usable (above the noise floor).

there is absolutely no way to ever compare mixes this way.

Except for this I agree.
___________________________________

Splint. I know what you are saying.
Maybe 64 bit DAW's will help us both, we'll see


Here are some current scenarios that are disappointing to me mixing in the box:

The mix depth and harmonic landscape is not as broad and conceptual 'echo mix architecture' is all but gone. Echo treatments must be heavy or none at all. The art of creating a mix is down to "in your face stark reality" in many cases.

Harmonics, related to an overall mix is still poorly represented in plugs like Vintage Warmer ITB where the analog boards as previously described do it so much better and clearer.

I would disagree that low level sound doesn't matter. It' used to and that is where YOU miss the point.

Custom tube boards in the late '60s had 2-3% IM distortion. Some more. As boards improved we looked for wider bandwidth opamps that at least allowed mix sound with depth which we found. Even SSL's today are cleaner and have improved
clarity and wide bandwidth tone from predecessors are preferable today when I hated them originally.

When we compare where sound has gone in 36 years there is no doubt we've seen a big change in the way we have had to conceptualize our mixes due to digital sound in general.

I would take noise over bit loss distortion any day.

What a great thread.

I think everybody agrees that perfectly fine mixes can be done either way although I have to say I always have more satisfaction the more I analogi-fi (there's another word).

Can't we also say that most digital functions are approximations of some analog process - spectron and probably many others excepted. That doesn't mean digital is necessarily lesser or that it can't be or hasn't been used in a wonderful ways. I really like and use both A and D.

Sometimes I like to think of it like cooking with an oven or with a microwave.

I'll probably get fried - an analog process - for this post - a digital one!

mon wrote:Can't we also say that most digital functions are approximations of some analog process - spectron and probably many others excepted. That doesn't mean digital is necessarily lesser or that it can't be or hasn't been used in a wonderful ways. I really like and use both A and D.

Fair enough.

I like and use A and D too. Usually averages out to a B-minus though. Gotta try harder.

Timeline wrote:I would disagree that low level sound doesn't matter. It used to and that is where YOU miss the point... I would take noise over bit loss distortion any day.

I wasn't referring to audible sound. I was talking about sound beneath the noise floor. Quantization noise 30dB beneath the noise floor will never be heard. Point being, the limits of analog electronics, are presently exceeded by digital technology. Anything that would be lost in all practical situations with good engineering and gain staging would first be washed out in analog noise before it was ever perceived as bit loss distortion.

ooook.

Ha, I'll settle for a gentleman's C!

Just use whatever works for you. I think it's a bit much (whoever said it pages ago) to bash Dangerous based on this debate. They make some great ••••, and I am a big fan of my 2Bus LT. I'm with the fader fans. Riding a vocal with a mouse - what's fun about that?

When so many variables are involved, it is impossible to do a meaningful one-to-one comparison of systems that are so different (analog vs. digital). If you have a goal in your ear, you can achieve it in either one, but your process will be quite different. Anyone who tries to compare literally the same process in both realms will be shockingly disappointed in one of them. My take on Roger's comparison was that merely summing the stems out of the box is not going to produce any advantage over summing in the box. I think it's a stretch to take it from there and say, as Timmy S did, that the Neve produced entirely different results than their home mix, because there are too many variables involved, and we do not know what they are. I'm thinking that if the same engineer sat at both consoles and aimed for the same desired sound, he could get the two close enough that statistically nobody could consistently tell which was which, but he would have to start both mixes with the goal in mind, and take it all the way in each one; not just pick up in the middle of one and see how different it sounds on another console.

When I did my own little shootout a few years ago, my process was quite different from the one the studio engineer used, and yet in some ways it was the same. But it had to be different, because I was using different tools. I had to make a set of Waves plugins (and MOTU plugins, of course) do what a rack of vintage analog and digital equipment did. Already we're talking about too many variables to compare on a one-to-one basis. The only consistent common-ground of both mixes was what was in our ears. Each of us had to decide how to get there, and I had the advantage of being able to listen to the studio mix and reverse engineer it: "ahh... they dodged the midrange in this section to make room for the melody, and they sweetened the high end for spatial effects, and added a sub-bass track fed from a send from the regular bass..." etc.

My point, then, is that in seeking to take this thread into deeper levels of technicality, the actual point of the original post receeds further and further from our grasp. The more you try to pin it down with additional layers of technicalities, the more difference you actually wedge in between the two processes. You can only compare one simple action across both platforms at one time. In other words, Roger's comparison was a very simple, limited one, and in limiting his parameters he was able to show that there is no mathematical difference between the two.

But when you start stringing together many parameters, the comparison breaks down, and you have to go back to MY point, which is that only the engineer can control the direction that each system will go, and he will be guided only by his ears. A good engineer can make either system go where he wants it to, but the paths will be very different. And yes... it's quite possible that a million-dollar console will end up having some advantages over a $5000 DP installation. But you can still minimalize those differences to the negligible with a lot of work and tedious attention to detail.

Shooshie

Shooshie your argument on the surface appears strong but the fact is you have to have the tools to make it happen. You are a woodworker. If you don't have the tools you can't make a house. You can make a log cabin. It keeps out the rain but there is not one clean 2x4.

So the assumption that a engineer can make it happen with limited tools is dp idealism. Analog stuff sounds good because it smears the midrage, warms the low end squishes the highs and does some other stuff let's just call voodoo...

Simulators are really cool. And they get you down the road. But sooner or later if you want "The Sound" you have to start with the tools.

I love a couple of the things you have posted and I really think you are a virtuoso genius kind of guy. But you are gonna get some people chasing their tails.

So this post started because both Dave and I ordered new Trident Consoles with 80B eqs. I work alot on those eqs. I love the sound of the s80eq. I like the idea I can put my stems through 16 channels of Trident Oram series 80 eq for under $2800 bucks! Insert whatever outboard gear I might need and touch it all at once. And the sound is better, more open and as you know it may just make DP5 "snappier."

Shooshie wrote:And yes... it's quite possible that a million-dollar console will end up having some advantages over a $5000 DP installation. But you can still minimalize those differences to the negligible with a lot of work and tedious attention to detail.

I know for a fact that any day of the week I could easily take a million-dollar console and make it sound like a Behringer. It's a gift... what can I tell you?

Ahh yes James so true. Now flip it... A DAW and making it sound like a million bucks... Sum it through an Neve, API, Trident, Pultec... or send it out to be mastered by a pro. TRacks and the other warming plug imitators won't get r done...

While it's true that waxman and I are both getting Trident boards, the difference is he will be using his for OTB mixes, while I will still be doing ITB mixes....because I just stubbornly refuse to leave the DP environment....
waxman's mixes will probably be better, but he's a better engineer than I am...

MT wrote:Just use whatever works for you. I think it's a bit much (whoever said it pages ago) to bash Dangerous based on this debate. They make some great ••••, and I am a big fan of my 2Bus LT. I'm with the fader fans. Riding a vocal with a mouse - what's fun about that?

I'm with you and I'm a 2bus LT user as well.

Timeline wrote "Harmonics, related to an overall mix is still poorly represented in plugs like Vintage Warmer ITB where the analog boards as previously described do it so much better and clearer."

I totally agree, I've listened to mixes that I've done on my old Tascam 3500 that had a certain weight and width to them that I can only attribute to analog distortion and analog summing. Every mix I've done on SSL's absolutely have more weight than my ITB mixes. Once I got an Apogee Big Ben and Rosetta 800 and mixed OTB, I started to hear more of what I wanted. However, once I started to sum in a 2 Bus LT I got even closer. It's not what I would expect if I was mixing through an SSL with top notch outboard gear, but at this point it's close enough.