Mixing in the Box/Summing

[Upryz]

So it seems that the prefferred method of mixing/summing for most top
engineers is all Pro Tools tracks discretely outputted to the channels
of a nice console and analog summed there. It is said that the
digital summing bus in ProTools will produce a mix that is slightly
lacking in clarity and spatial depth.
So... Here are some questions from someone trying to get the best
possible mixes but without the funds for an SSL, API, Neve, etc at
this time:

Would there be any improvement (over mixing in the box) by outputting
discrete tracks to a Mackie 8 bus and mixing there - or is that making
matters worse?

Are all the DAW's equally lacking in the summing category? Has anyone
done comparisons for the sound quality in ProTools 6.4 vs Logic vs
Cubase vs Nuendo vs DP4?

Thanks for your input,

Dan Fox

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Upryz" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
> So it seems that the prefferred method of mixing/summing for most top
> engineers is all Pro Tools tracks discretely outputted to the channels
> of a nice console and analog summed there. It is said that the
> digital summing bus in ProTools will produce a mix that is slightly
> lacking in clarity and spatial depth.
> So... Here are some questions from someone trying to get the best
> possible mixes but without the funds for an SSL, API, Neve, etc at
> this time:
>
> Would there be any improvement (over mixing in the box) by outputting
> discrete tracks to a Mackie 8 bus and mixing there - or is that making
> matters worse?
>
> Are all the DAW's equally lacking in the summing category? Has anyone
> done comparisons for the sound quality in ProTools 6.4 vs Logic vs
> Cubase vs Nuendo vs DP4?
>
> Thanks for your input,
>
> Dan Fox


I've had nicely expanded Pro Tools and later Paris systems, with 16 and
24bit converters respectively. Any Mackie mixer, and I've had them all at
various points since 1994., used as a summing device, trashed any ITB mix
every time. All individual tracks or stems, with individual tracks processed
(eq, compression etc.) within the DAW or not - rerouting those signals
through a Mackie mixer sounded more dimensional, alive, warmer, with greater
emotional impact. No subtle differences here. Yes, there might have been a
little less clarity or transparency, but it always seemed insignificant
compared to the benefits.

I finally sold my Paris system two years ago and ended up with a cheaper DAW
and a big nice analog console.

This is a highly controversial issue. You'll get a lot of completely
opposite opinions.

Predrag

[Roger W. Norman]

I think there's a misconception of what's possible using PT or virtually any
DAW and it's summing bus, but I'd have to admit that I like the overall
sound of using a computer as a tape machine and then mixing back out on a
console. The problem with that is that I can't recreate the mix time and
time again, so I accept what my setup will do with Samplitude as the mix
engine and both MOTU and RME setups running Frontier Designs Tang 24s for
the output.

But back to the misconception. PT isn't the wherewithal, although I have to
admit that if anyone who actually respects the dynamics of music can do a
fine job indeed using PT or any number of other application specific DAWs.
The consequence of abusing digital has nothing to do with PT's digital
summing as much as an overbearing effort to contort each individual channel
into the highest yield of bit depth without concern for how that particular
channel works within the big picture of a mix. If all tracks are at max,
the picture becomes distorted beyond recommendation.

The concept of digital isn't to find all the bits and utilize them for every
track and then take that summed product and clamp down on it whilst still
pushing the output until everything is as flat as a squeeze of toothpaste on
the screen. Now it may be that a well done recording mix can look just like
I've described, but it doesn't sound the way it looks. OTOH, it's just as
possible that if you look at multiple stereo mixes you'll see that self-same
toothpaste squeeze and it will sound like shit. Is it the fault of the
summing bus or the operator.

I'm saying it's the fault of the operator.
--
-----------

Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio


"Upryz" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
> So it seems that the prefferred method of mixing/summing for most top
> engineers is all Pro Tools tracks discretely outputted to the channels
> of a nice console and analog summed there. It is said that the
> digital summing bus in ProTools will produce a mix that is slightly
> lacking in clarity and spatial depth.
> So... Here are some questions from someone trying to get the best
> possible mixes but without the funds for an SSL, API, Neve, etc at
> this time:
>
> Would there be any improvement (over mixing in the box) by outputting
> discrete tracks to a Mackie 8 bus and mixing there - or is that making
> matters worse?
>
> Are all the DAW's equally lacking in the summing category? Has anyone
> done comparisons for the sound quality in ProTools 6.4 vs Logic vs
> Cubase vs Nuendo vs DP4?
>
> Thanks for your input,
>
> Dan Fox

[Blind Joni]

>I accept what my setup will do with Samplitude as the mix
>engine and both MOTU and RME setups running Frontier Designs Tang 24s for
>the output.

Same situation here..the total recall is way more important to my business than
a 5%
"better" sounding mix that is different the next time the client wants to fix
something.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Sugarite]

> >I accept what my setup will do with Samplitude as the mix
> >engine and both MOTU and RME setups running Frontier Designs Tang 24s for
> >the output.
>
> Same situation here..the total recall is way more important to my business
than
> a 5%
> "better" sounding mix that is different the next time the client wants to
fix
> something.

What I'd like to hear is a comparison between an analog summing bus and the
stereo output from a DAW summing bus run through the same console at the
same level.

I'm of the opinion that current DAW summing buses are very precise and
neutral, and that the (potential) benefit of an analog bus is pleasant
coloration, while coloration on program content is a mastering process.
Anyone considering "stepping up to an analog summing bus" should think about
what they pay mastering houses for, whether or not it helps or hurts to do
part of their job for them, and whether or not it costs any less as a
result. Neutrality still allows for any type of coloration, while
coloration is irreversible and cumulative.

Like I said, just my opinion. The difference in cost between a
preamp/EQ/ADC rack and a comparable console with converters to match is
certainly enough to research the idea thoroughly.

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Sugarite <***@home.com> wrote:

> I'm of the opinion that current DAW summing buses are very precise and
> neutral

My experience with Digidesign products leads me to suspect you've
underestimated their ability to fuck up what seems to us laypersons
like a straighforward, if not simple, operation. The anecdotal
evidence suggests a lack of precision. I'm only speculating, and
ultimately it doesn't matter whether there's a lack of precision or a
lack of euphonic distortion. In either case, it is widely believed to
lack.

ulysses

[Sugarite]

> > I'm of the opinion that current DAW summing buses are very precise and
> > neutral
>
> My experience with Digidesign products leads me to suspect you've
> underestimated their ability to fuck up what seems to us laypersons
> like a straighforward, if not simple, operation.

I wasn't being specific to Protools, in fact my argument is when several
digital summing buses render identical results, chances are it's not the
same bunch of errors. If memory serves, the one in Protools LE isn't one of
those "fuck-ups".

> The anecdotal
> evidence suggests a lack of precision. I'm only speculating, and
> ultimately it doesn't matter whether there's a lack of precision or a
> lack of euphonic distortion. In either case, it is widely believed to
> lack.

Well it wouldn't be the first digital process to be widely disliked for
being too precise and unflavorful. The total lack of concensus among the
folks I've read suggests that the issue isn't entirely understood. 10 years
ago the analog/ADAT debate was in a similar state. People substituted
preference for objectivity back then as well.

I finally found the basis for my assertions, a thread I saw a long time ago
that has to be the most comprehensive comparison done to date, comparing 24
different DAW summing buses. The results of 2 were tainted with mix
problems, and of the remaining 22, 10 systems rendered results that produced
null files when aligned, inverted, and mixed with each other (bit-accurate
matches). Another 5 systems left artifacts lower than -117dB RMS when
compared to the mix the 10 systems shared.

I'm of the opinion that 10 different systems can't achieve identical results
without being absolutely accurate. Inacuracy doesn't mean that it sounds
worse, but if it is improving the sound it's doing a mastering engineer's
job. I want accuracy and for the mastering engineer to do what I pay them
for. That's just me.

Here's the discussion:
http://www.3daudioinc.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=19
Go here before challenging the validity of the test results, they appear to
me to be quite reliable, but don't shoot the messenger! It's something of a
mess to follow, but here's a quick list of results:

System - RMS difference with reference mix, dB
*null* = bit-perfect match

Paris -62.28
PT LE OS9.1 *null*
PTHD 5, OS9 -18.27
Fairlight internal -22.99
Logic 5.5 OS9 -34.11
PT6 OS-X (mix error, excluded)
Digital Performer *null*
Soundscape -137.03
Logic 5 OS-X -55.8
Nuendo -64.99
Pyramix *null*
SAW *null*
Studio Vision Pro *null*
Cubase *null*
Sonar (mix error, excluded)
Sadie 5 *null*
PT Mix+ 5.1.1 on OS9 -136.29
Cool Edit Pro -125.22
Samplitude *null*
MX2424 to Sony DMX-R100 (hardware mixer) -117.47
MX2424 to Panasonic DA7 (hardware mixer) -144.7
Yamaha 02R96 (hardware mixer) *null*
Tascam DM 24 (hardware mixer) -27.88
Sony Oxford (hardware mixer) *null* (reference mix)

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Blind Joni <***@aol.com> wrote:

> Same situation here..the total recall is way more important to my
> business than a 5% "better" sounding mix that is different the next
> time the client wants to fix something.



<pimp>

Okay, but how about a reasonably-priced analog mixer that doesn't have
any knobs on it and is therefore entirely recallable and preserves your
DAW-automated (and recallable) mixes? Would you go for something like
that for "5% better sounding"?

www.rollmusic.com

</pimp>

ulysses

[Blind Joni]

>Okay, but how about a reasonably-priced analog mixer that doesn't have
>any knobs on it and is therefore entirely recallable and preserves your
>DAW-automated (and recallable) mixes? Would you go for something like
>that for "5% better sounding"?
>

At this point probably no..as I would have to buy it, wire it..etc just to find
out and then qualify the results..I'd rather be doing another project..at least
at this point in time. I get better mixes as time goes on by learning better
uses for what I have..and there are some cool plugins out these days.



John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Monte McGuire]

In article <***@posting.google.com>,
***@gmail.com (Upryz) wrote:
> So it seems that the prefferred method of mixing/summing for most top
> engineers is all Pro Tools tracks discretely outputted to the channels
> of a nice console and analog summed there. It is said that the
> digital summing bus in ProTools will produce a mix that is slightly
> lacking in clarity and spatial depth.

That's a commonly held opinion, but I don't think it makes any sense
technically. For one, you have to pass your signal through the dreaded
PT summing stage if you want to get the signal out of the box, even when
you're running each channel to a separate PT output. No ifs ands or
buts. My thinking is that the summing stage itself isn't the issue...
that it's really more to do with D/A converters, plugins-vs-outboard and
workflow habits.

I think this procedure makes sense when a person has a really fantastic
console, a lot of good outboard available, and has skills mixing on a
real console.

I think it's delusional when a person has a junky console, no usable
outboard dynamics and a poor console automation system. Yeah, they can
be part of the trendy "I don't mix in the box" crowd, but to what end?

> Would there be any improvement (over mixing in the box) by outputting
> discrete tracks to a Mackie 8 bus and mixing there - or is that making
> matters worse?

I personally would rather avoid a Mackie 8 bus as often as possible.
The faders are too goofy, the high end of the board sounds too brittle
to me, the EQ isn't fun and the automation stinks. I don't even think
it's sonically nice enough for quality PA, but that's me.

> Are all the DAW's equally lacking in the summing category? Has anyone
> done comparisons for the sound quality in ProTools 6.4 vs Logic vs
> Cubase vs Nuendo vs DP4?

Well, ProTools itself isn't one thing, so it doesn't have one sound
either. Version 6.4 can be run on Mix hardware, HD hardware and on
floating point, using the CPU to host the summing stage and not DSP
chips, and all three will sound different because they use different
summing algorithms, each with various weaknesses and strengths.

My advice is to worry about your control room, your monitor DAC and your
monitoring system, and stick with common grade floating point DAWs for
the moment. Improve your mix chops and your monitoring and you'll
improve your work more than worrying about some minor circuitry details.

The "digital summing" problem was indeed a real problem when ProTools
4.1 came out, supporting 24 bit audio files but with a mixer that
truncated each fader input to 20 bits. I and some other dedicated folks
made a stink about this (when... 7 or 8 years ago??) and it got fixed...
with version 4.1.1 to be exact. We even got a dithered mixer shortly
thereafter.

To hear people carry on to this day, not even understanding where the
whole thing started and _why_ it was important _then_ makes me cringe.
The generic floating point mixer you have today in many different audio
editors is way beyond even the 24 bit mixer we had with PT 4.1.1. The
dithered mixer that ships with HD is even nicer. Use it and be happy,
and look to other possibilities to make your mixes sound better.


Regards,

Monte McGuire
***@verizon.net

[Upryz]

Monte McGuire <***@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<monte.mcguire-

> For one, you have to pass your signal through the dreaded
> PT summing stage if you want to get the signal out of the box, even when
> you're running each channel to a separate PT output.

How so?

> I personally would rather avoid a Mackie 8 bus as (...) the automation stinks.

What automation?

> Well, ProTools itself isn't one thing, so it doesn't have one sound
> either. Version 6.4 can be run on Mix hardware, HD hardware and on
> floating point, using the CPU to host the summing stage and not DSP
> chips, and all three will sound different because they use different
> summing algorithms, each with various weaknesses and strengths.

Really? I've often wondered about this. Have you listened for an
audible difference between the summing in HD vs LE?


Thanks for your input,

Dan

[Monte McGuire]

In article <***@posting.google.com>,
***@gmail.com (Upryz) wrote:
> Monte McGuire <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:<monte.mcguire-
>
> > For one, you have to pass your signal through the dreaded
> > PT summing stage if you want to get the signal out of the box, even when
> > you're running each channel to a separate PT output.
>
> How so?

Every output on a PT system has a mixer assigned to it. More correctly,
when you assign a PT mixer channel to an output, a small mixer plugin is
created and given the task of preparing the signal sent to the selected
IO output; your channel's output is routed to a free input on that
mixer. That's the only way you get to the output channel. If a PT
mixer channel is already assigned to an output channel, then assigning
another mixer channel merely connects your new mixer channel to a free
input on the existing mixer. if there's no free input, the mixer is
"grown" to create a few more inputs.

It matters not whether you're summing one, two or 100 channels to that
output, they all must pass through a copy of the mixer software to get
to an IO interface. There's no direct path whatsoever. This is why
there's always a master fader available for each output - it's a built
in feature of the mixer. So... any master fader tricks used to get
makeup gain (like left or right shifts etc.) that cause truncations or
other problems will also apply to the "one channel to an output" case as
well.

Now, there are tricks to minimize the processing done by the mixer, such
as leaving the channel and master faders at 0dB, but even this won't
remove the effects of any truncations present, and depending on which
mixer you're using, there are some potentially bad sounding truncations
along the path.

> > I personally would rather avoid a Mackie 8 bus as (...) the automation
> > stinks.
>
> What automation?

My point exactly. No good sonics, no automation... what's the point?
At least with an SSL, you get some nice automation and usable dynamics
on each channel for the sonic penalty you take going through the 8 foot
wide summing stage.

> > Well, ProTools itself isn't one thing, so it doesn't have one sound
> > either. Version 6.4 can be run on Mix hardware, HD hardware and on
> > floating point, using the CPU to host the summing stage and not DSP
> > chips, and all three will sound different because they use different
> > summing algorithms, each with various weaknesses and strengths.
>
> Really? I've often wondered about this. Have you listened for an
> audible difference between the summing in HD vs LE?

I haven't had an LE system around long enough to really try to build
complex mixes on it, but it is possible that there are some differences.
A true 48 bit dithered to 24 bit mixer has more resolution than a 32 bit
float mixer, and I bet it might make some numeric differences in at
least a few situations.

What is probably most important, and what I do have experience hearing
is that many poorly coded plugins that sound bad on any sort of TDM
system sound much better on LE, since floating point is more forgiving
of poorly written DSP code. Some of the bad TDM plugins throw away a
few of the bottom bits upon input, and depending on your gain staging
this can end up causing resolution problems at much higher levels. This
level shifting is much less damaging in a floating point plugin, and
won't cause the same problems.


Regards,

Monte McGuire
***@verizon.net

[Arny Krueger]

"Monte McGuire" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:monte.mcguire-***@news.verizon.net

> I think it's delusional when a person has a junky console, no usable
> outboard dynamics and a poor console automation system. Yeah, they
> can be part of the trendy "I don't mix in the box" crowd, but to what
> end?

I can't escape thinking that some people simply haven't gotten comfortable
enough with nonlinear editing and mixing.

I suspect that for some people, getting comfortable with nonlinear editing
and mixing is mission impossible. Old dogs, new tricks and all that. Using
the DAW just as a recorder/player and mixing on a console is for them, a
warm fuzzy teddy bear.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger <***@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>I suspect that for some people, getting comfortable with nonlinear editing
>and mixing is mission impossible. Old dogs, new tricks and all that. Using
>the DAW just as a recorder/player and mixing on a console is for them, a
>warm fuzzy teddy bear.

But why should I? I don't see it buying anything for me. If I were still
doing film tracks, I'd probably look on it as a godsend, but for what I am
doing these days I don't see it being any real improvement.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Stamler]

"Scott Dorsey" <***@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ckn3cj$1tc$***@panix2.panix.com...
> Arny Krueger <***@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >
> >I suspect that for some people, getting comfortable with nonlinear
editing
> >and mixing is mission impossible. Old dogs, new tricks and all that.
Using
> >the DAW just as a recorder/player and mixing on a console is for them, a
> >warm fuzzy teddy bear.
>
> But why should I? I don't see it buying anything for me. If I were still
> doing film tracks, I'd probably look on it as a godsend, but for what I am
> doing these days I don't see it being any real improvement.

For me the nices thing about mixing in the computer is repeatability. I can
get the exact same mix tomorrow as I got today, then tweak something, and
know that the rest is still the same. It takes a heap o' automated console
to duplicate that in the hardware world.

My rule of thumb is simplistic: if your console cost more than your car, mix
on the console. If not, mix in the computer.

Peace,
Paul

[Mike Rivers]

In article <d%Jbd.551711$***@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> ***@pobox.com writes:

> For me the nices thing about mixing in the computer is repeatability. I can
> get the exact same mix tomorrow as I got today, then tweak something, and
> know that the rest is still the same. It takes a heap o' automated console
> to duplicate that in the hardware world.

Ah, but if you mixed it right the first time, you wouldn't have to do
it again. <g> I like to finish projects. People who can't afford it
are too much into perfection.

> My rule of thumb is simplistic: if your console cost more than your car, mix
> on the console. If not, mix in the computer.

Scott's got that one covered. <g>

My rule of thumb is that if your computer costs as much as your car,
it's OK to mix on it.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (***@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Sugarite]

> > For me the nices thing about mixing in the computer is repeatability. I
can
> > get the exact same mix tomorrow as I got today, then tweak something,
and
> > know that the rest is still the same. It takes a heap o' automated
console
> > to duplicate that in the hardware world.
>
> Ah, but if you mixed it right the first time, you wouldn't have to do
> it again. <g> I like to finish projects. People who can't afford it
> are too much into perfection.

There's a big gap in logic between "mix it right the first time" and "I like
to finish projects". Mixing it right implies it's a strictly objective
process (which it isn't) and how you prefer to run your business is a
subjective issue, which has no bearing on how others should operate or the
objectivity of mixing.

I think there's other gaps represented there - studio downtime while the
client listens to the master ad nauseam looking for an excuse to change
something.

> > My rule of thumb is simplistic: if your console cost more than your car,
mix
> > on the console. If not, mix in the computer.
>
> Scott's got that one covered. <g>

A typical argument from someone whose console is worth more than their car.
With all due respect I don't think such people can really consider the
possibility that their consoles have become obselete. I'm not saying they
are, but even if they were, every SSL and Neve owner would flame any post
here that made any such suggestion to protect their investment, so it's fair
to say that a lack of anti-console posts is no proof of a console's
importance.

> My rule of thumb is that if your computer costs as much as your car,
> it's OK to mix on it.

Last I checked a Celeron sounded as good as a dual G5. IMO the computer
ends at the Hammerfall Digiface(s), so I don't see how you can spend that
kind of money on software. Preamps, EQ, and ADC sure, but console or not
you'll have to buy them either way.

My rule of thumb is that if the difference in cost between an in-the-box
system and a console system isn't at least the cost of a BMW M5, then it's
not going to offer any appreciable improvement.

But like I said in my other post in this thread, I consider any such
improvement to be a function of mastering, which is what we pay others for
already. So what I see is redundant coloration and comprimised versatility
on the one hand, an M5 on the other... hrmmmm...

[Scott Dorsey]

Sugarite <***@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> Scott's got that one covered. <g>
>
>A typical argument from someone whose console is worth more than their car.
>With all due respect I don't think such people can really consider the
>possibility that their consoles have become obselete. I'm not saying they
>are, but even if they were, every SSL and Neve owner would flame any post
>here that made any such suggestion to protect their investment, so it's fair
>to say that a lack of anti-console posts is no proof of a console's
>importance.

My console was obsolete when I bought it. So was my car for that matter.
I don't buy anything until it's obsolete; that way there's at least a good
notion of what goes wrong.

>My rule of thumb is that if the difference in cost between an in-the-box
>system and a console system isn't at least the cost of a BMW M5, then it's
>not going to offer any appreciable improvement.

A lot of it does have to do with the user interface as much as the sound
quality, and that is a very personal thing.

>But like I said in my other post in this thread, I consider any such
>improvement to be a function of mastering, which is what we pay others for
>already. So what I see is redundant coloration and comprimised versatility
>on the one hand, an M5 on the other... hrmmmm...

The mastering guys can't undo errors from up the chain. Once something has
been done to the signal, it can never really be effectively undone. That
is why a clean front end is important.

But, having tried to fix a friend's M5, I'll take a 2002 any day. Likewise
I'd rather fix a Neve than a Pro Tools install.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Sugarite]

> >A typical argument from someone whose console is worth more than their
car.
> >With all due respect I don't think such people can really consider the
> >possibility that their consoles have become obselete. I'm not saying
they
> >are, but even if they were, every SSL and Neve owner would flame any post
> >here that made any such suggestion to protect their investment, so it's
fair
> >to say that a lack of anti-console posts is no proof of a console's
> >importance.
>
> My console was obsolete when I bought it. So was my car for that matter.
> I don't buy anything until it's obsolete; that way there's at least a good
> notion of what goes wrong.
>
> >My rule of thumb is that if the difference in cost between an in-the-box
> >system and a console system isn't at least the cost of a BMW M5, then
it's
> >not going to offer any appreciable improvement.
>
> A lot of it does have to do with the user interface as much as the sound
> quality, and that is a very personal thing.

Agreed, but that doesn't really apply to those that are accustomed to their
DAW's and are considering "upgrading" to a console on the basis of sound
quality.

> >But like I said in my other post in this thread, I consider any such
> >improvement to be a function of mastering, which is what we pay others
for
> >already. So what I see is redundant coloration and comprimised
versatility
> >on the one hand, an M5 on the other... hrmmmm...
>
> The mastering guys can't undo errors from up the chain. Once something
has
> been done to the signal, it can never really be effectively undone. That
> is why a clean front end is important.

But coloration is redundant and perhaps even counterproductive if you're
then going to pay a mastering engineer to (among other things) apply
coloration on much better suited gear. It's as much an error as digital
rounding, and is equally "un-undoable". I suggest that perhaps it's
prefered only because it sounds better pre-mastered, when in fact a DAW sum
can render just as good a result after mastering. I suppose it would take a
mastering engineer who's worked on many good examples of both systems to
convince me otherwise, either that or a controlled study.

> But, having tried to fix a friend's M5, I'll take a 2002 any day.
Likewise
> I'd rather fix a Neve than a Pro Tools install.

Agreed. Prior to MacOS 9 diagnosis and repair used to be civilized...

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Sugarite" <***@home.com> wrote in message
news:exVbd.3954$***@read2.cgocable.net...
> > >A typical argument from someone whose console is worth more than their
> car.
> > >With all due respect I don't think such people can really consider the
> > >possibility that their consoles have become obselete. I'm not saying
> they
> > >are, but even if they were, every SSL and Neve owner would flame any
post
> > >here that made any such suggestion to protect their investment, so it's
> fair
> > >to say that a lack of anti-console posts is no proof of a console's
> > >importance.
> >
> > My console was obsolete when I bought it. So was my car for that
matter.
> > I don't buy anything until it's obsolete; that way there's at least a
good
> > notion of what goes wrong.
> >
> > >My rule of thumb is that if the difference in cost between an
in-the-box
> > >system and a console system isn't at least the cost of a BMW M5, then
> it's
> > >not going to offer any appreciable improvement.
> >
> > A lot of it does have to do with the user interface as much as the sound
> > quality, and that is a very personal thing.
>
> Agreed, but that doesn't really apply to those that are accustomed to
their
> DAW's and are considering "upgrading" to a console on the basis of sound
> quality.
>
> > >But like I said in my other post in this thread, I consider any such
> > >improvement to be a function of mastering, which is what we pay others
> for
> > >already. So what I see is redundant coloration and comprimised
> versatility
> > >on the one hand, an M5 on the other... hrmmmm...
> >
> > The mastering guys can't undo errors from up the chain. Once something
> has
> > been done to the signal, it can never really be effectively undone.
That
> > is why a clean front end is important.
>
> But coloration is redundant and perhaps even counterproductive if you're
> then going to pay a mastering engineer to (among other things) apply
> coloration on much better suited gear. It's as much an error as digital
> rounding, and is equally "un-undoable". I suggest that perhaps it's
> prefered only because it sounds better pre-mastered, when in fact a DAW
sum
> can render just as good a result after mastering. I suppose it would take
a
> mastering engineer who's worked on many good examples of both systems to
> convince me otherwise, either that or a controlled study.


This is a rather technical and clinical approach. Strategic coloration,
targeted at certain signals/instruments, can be a very expressive tool for
shaping of a sonic landscape. It can go a long way towards creating an
emotional charge within a mix. Analog outboard processors still have an edge
here, but not necessarily the most expensive ones. By delegating that to an
mastering engineer one loses control over one of the critical aspects of a
creative process, let alone the fact that the any interventions at that
stage are limited to overall processing of the entire mix. Which brings us
again to the stem mastering and opens a whole another can of worms.

There's too much talk of production of sound and too little talk of
production of emotions anyway.

Predrag

[Sugarite]

> > But coloration is redundant and perhaps even counterproductive if you're
> > then going to pay a mastering engineer to (among other things) apply
> > coloration on much better suited gear. It's as much an error as digital
> > rounding, and is equally "un-undoable". I suggest that perhaps it's
> > prefered only because it sounds better pre-mastered, when in fact a DAW
> sum
> > can render just as good a result after mastering. I suppose it would
take
> a
> > mastering engineer who's worked on many good examples of both systems to
> > convince me otherwise, either that or a controlled study.
>
>
> This is a rather technical and clinical approach. Strategic coloration,
> targeted at certain signals/instruments, can be a very expressive tool for
> shaping of a sonic landscape. It can go a long way towards creating an
> emotional charge within a mix. Analog outboard processors still have an
edge
> here, but not necessarily the most expensive ones. By delegating that to
an
> mastering engineer one loses control over one of the critical aspects of a
> creative process, let alone the fact that the any interventions at that
> stage are limited to overall processing of the entire mix. Which brings us
> again to the stem mastering and opens a whole another can of worms.

I've never heard of someone deciding to mix on the Neve instead of the SSL
for the reason that they think the Neve summing bus better suits that
particular mix, so I don't see the creative angle. Mastering engineers will
have much more versatility in that regard, so I would argue that they offer
more creative opportunity, just a matter of hiring the right one and
communicating your intentions clearly. And there's nothing stopping you
from using outboard analog processing with a DAW, and again it's much easier
to go back later and adjust the mix if need be.

> There's too much talk of production of sound and too little talk of
> production of emotions anyway.

What's there to talk about? In the case of music production, the production
of sound IS the production of emotions. But it's always important to
remember that the product is not the music itself, but rather the effect it
has on an audience.

[WillStG]

<< "Sugarite" ***@home.com >>

> There's too much talk of production of sound and too little talk of
> production of emotions anyway.

<<What's there to talk about? In the case of music production, the production
of sound IS the production of emotions. But it's always important to
remember that the product is not the music itself, but rather the effect it
has on an audience. >>

Well the *musicians* have to feel it first, then the crowd is moved. And
ideally I think if they are having trouble recording, their support team should
try to feel it and encourage them internally as they work. I think that makes
a difference anyway, it's a subtle aspect of artistic endeavor. I would never
work with cynical engineer who is bad mouthing the musicians behind their back
because there is a whole dimension of the Art of Music that gets destroyed when
that happens.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Sugarite]

> > There's too much talk of production of sound and too little talk of
> > production of emotions anyway.
>
> <<What's there to talk about? In the case of music production, the
production
> of sound IS the production of emotions. But it's always important to
> remember that the product is not the music itself, but rather the effect
it
> has on an audience. >>
>
> Well the *musicians* have to feel it first, then the crowd is moved.
And
> ideally I think if they are having trouble recording, their support team
should
> try to feel it and encourage them internally as they work. I think that
makes
> a difference anyway, it's a subtle aspect of artistic endeavor. I would
never
> work with cynical engineer who is bad mouthing the musicians behind their
back
> because there is a whole dimension of the Art of Music that gets destroyed
when
> that happens.

I'm of the opposite opinion. What I consider to be a professional musician
does not share attributes with a 6-year-old. They do not need their
favorite dolly and a staff of nannies. Some diva wannabes take that route,
and consequently are not my clients.

I know a drummer that got blood poisoning, narrowly got to the hospital in
time, and played a televised awards show the following day with a hidden
intravenus rig. I assure you, after a near-death experience he did not
"feel the music" as he played, but he got the job done, and the crowd was
"moved" all the same.

And while music is an art, music production is a craft, with little or no
flexibility for subjective whims. What works works, and what doesn't
doesn't, no matter how you feel about it. I'm a strong proponent of knowing
what works before even setting foot in the studio. The benefits of thorough
pre-production are vastly more important than the cosmic well-being of the
performers as they play. Once a pro knows exactly what needs to be played
or sung, they can do it in any mood. When an ill-prepared hack fishes for
the right chops and comes up empty, that's when emotions dictate the
outcome.

[hank alrich]

Sugarite wrote:

> And while music is an art, music production is a craft, with little or no
> flexibility for subjective whims. What works works, and what doesn't
> doesn't, no matter how you feel about it. I'm a strong proponent of knowing
> what works before even setting foot in the studio. The benefits of thorough
> pre-production are vastly more important than the cosmic well-being of the
> performers as they play. Once a pro knows exactly what needs to be played
> or sung, they can do it in any mood. When an ill-prepared hack fishes for
> the right chops and comes up empty, that's when emotions dictate the
> outcome.

That's one point of view from the technical side of the lab scope; from
the other side one sees many fine products have been _created in the
studio_, not delivered rehearsed to death in advance to satisfy somebody
behind the storage side of the glass.

Every sonic judgement is rooted in subjectivity unless one intends to
work by rote. By rote we get the very fucking lifeless and useless crap
that is nowadaze foisted as "music" on an uneducated audience.

--
ha

[Sugarite]

> > And while music is an art, music production is a craft, with little or
no
> > flexibility for subjective whims. What works works, and what doesn't
> > doesn't, no matter how you feel about it. I'm a strong proponent of
knowing
> > what works before even setting foot in the studio. The benefits of
thorough
> > pre-production are vastly more important than the cosmic well-being of
the
> > performers as they play. Once a pro knows exactly what needs to be
played
> > or sung, they can do it in any mood. When an ill-prepared hack fishes
for
> > the right chops and comes up empty, that's when emotions dictate the
> > outcome.
>
> That's one point of view from the technical side of the lab scope; from
> the other side one sees many fine products have been _created in the
> studio_, not delivered rehearsed to death in advance to satisfy somebody
> behind the storage side of the glass.
>
> Every sonic judgement is rooted in subjectivity unless one intends to
> work by rote. By rote we get the very fucking lifeless and useless crap
> that is nowadaze foisted as "music" on an uneducated audience.

I can see how my post could be interpretted to mean that every note and
nuance is predetermined, but that's a pretty extreme view. All I meant was
that the interpretations of the song by all performers, techs, and
executives are revealed beforehand so any disparity is sorted out in advance
instead of at $125/hour. Everyone's on the same page, even though there's
not necessarily any notes written on it at all. It's one thing to
train-wreck a performance, another animal entirely to train-wreck a
production, and it happens far too often IMO.

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Sugarite <***@home.com> wrote:


> But coloration is redundant and perhaps even counterproductive if you're
> then going to pay a mastering engineer to (among other things) apply
> coloration on much better suited gear. It's as much an error as digital
> rounding, and is equally "un-undoable". I suggest that perhaps it's
> prefered only because it sounds better pre-mastered, when in fact a DAW sum
> can render just as good a result after mastering. I suppose it would take a
> mastering engineer who's worked on many good examples of both systems to
> convince me otherwise, either that or a controlled study.

I think you and I have vastly differing ideas of what mastering is for.
It's not the mastering engineer's job to provide tonal richness in my
recordings. It's his job to make sure that MY tonal choices and my
recording's tonal richness arrives intact at the ears of all different
kinds of listeners, regardless of the system they use to play the
record. It's his job to make sure that there is continuity of tonality
through the progression of an album. And it's sometimes his job to
make sure my exuberance in applying my choice of coloration doesn't
interact negatively with the limitations of typical playback equipment.
But it is definitely not his job to try and slap some tone onto my
finished recording.

ulysses

[Sugarite]

> > But coloration is redundant and perhaps even counterproductive if you're
> > then going to pay a mastering engineer to (among other things) apply
> > coloration on much better suited gear. It's as much an error as digital
> > rounding, and is equally "un-undoable". I suggest that perhaps it's
> > prefered only because it sounds better pre-mastered, when in fact a DAW
sum
> > can render just as good a result after mastering. I suppose it would
take a
> > mastering engineer who's worked on many good examples of both systems to
> > convince me otherwise, either that or a controlled study.
>
> I think you and I have vastly differing ideas of what mastering is for.
> It's not the mastering engineer's job to provide tonal richness in my
> recordings. It's his job to make sure that MY tonal choices and my
> recording's tonal richness arrives intact at the ears of all different
> kinds of listeners, regardless of the system they use to play the
> record. It's his job to make sure that there is continuity of tonality
> through the progression of an album. And it's sometimes his job to
> make sure my exuberance in applying my choice of coloration doesn't
> interact negatively with the limitations of typical playback equipment.
> But it is definitely not his job to try and slap some tone onto my
> finished recording.

Coloration and tone aren't necessarily the same. Similar to color
correction in film (when not applied as an overt effect), coloration can
simply be enhancements made to do exactly what you're talking about - same
tone, just more refined and defined, exactly how an analog sum can sound
better. But a selection from a variety of high-end tube compressors and
EQ's is going to offer much more precision for that process than using the
same colored sum bus for every artist of every genre.

And the recall advantage of a DAW ensures that continuity and coherence
aren't a problem. I make a point of doing the drums for every song, then
the bass for every song, then the guitars, etc. That way I have complete
awareness and control over the similarities and differences from song to
song. If such a heavy-handed adjustment were required in mastering, I would
hope the mastering engineer would alert me so I could correct for it at the
mixing level, which again is much easier thanks to a DAW's total recall
capabilities. Actually, I get a discount from a mastering house when they
know the process is going to be global, without adjustments from
song-to-song. Still they do use different gear/settings from album to
album.

But the idea that analog summing is unilaterally better though definitely
less precise means that different consoles sum differently, so in order to
match the effectiveness of a good mastering house, you'd need an assortment
of high-end consoles, plus the understanding of each of their summing buses
to pick the right one before you even start mixing. This thread suggests a
general lack of understanding of the precise nature of analog sum bus
coloration. I say leave it to mastering. They know all about it. Plus
it's way cheaper and you're paying them the same either way.

[hank alrich]

Sugarite wrote:

> > I think you and I have vastly differing ideas of what mastering is for.
> > It's not the mastering engineer's job to provide tonal richness in my
> > recordings. It's his job to make sure that MY tonal choices and my
> > recording's tonal richness arrives intact at the ears of all different
> > kinds of listeners, regardless of the system they use to play the
> > record. It's his job to make sure that there is continuity of tonality
> > through the progression of an album. And it's sometimes his job to
> > make sure my exuberance in applying my choice of coloration doesn't
> > interact negatively with the limitations of typical playback equipment.
> > But it is definitely not his job to try and slap some tone onto my
> > finished recording.

> Coloration and tone aren't necessarily the same. Similar to color
> correction in film (when not applied as an overt effect), coloration can
> simply be enhancements made to do exactly what you're talking about

Apparently you do not understand what Ulysses is talking about. Your
approach to coloration can be applied only to the overall sound when in
mastering instead of to individual sources when applied in the tracking
and/or mixing stages.

--
ha

[Sugarite]

> > > I think you and I have vastly differing ideas of what mastering is
for.
> > > It's not the mastering engineer's job to provide tonal richness in my
> > > recordings. It's his job to make sure that MY tonal choices and my
> > > recording's tonal richness arrives intact at the ears of all different
> > > kinds of listeners, regardless of the system they use to play the
> > > record. It's his job to make sure that there is continuity of
tonality
> > > through the progression of an album. And it's sometimes his job to
> > > make sure my exuberance in applying my choice of coloration doesn't
> > > interact negatively with the limitations of typical playback
equipment.
> > > But it is definitely not his job to try and slap some tone onto my
> > > finished recording.
>
> > Coloration and tone aren't necessarily the same. Similar to color
> > correction in film (when not applied as an overt effect), coloration can
> > simply be enhancements made to do exactly what you're talking about
>
> Apparently you do not understand what Ulysses is talking about. Your
> approach to coloration can be applied only to the overall sound when in
> mastering instead of to individual sources when applied in the tracking
> and/or mixing stages.

Right, so you imply that an analog summing bus can apply more coloration to
one track than another? The other components to the console and outboard
hardware can sure, but there's nothing stopping a DAW from using outboard
hardware too y'know.

There is a valid point here though - once you're using enough outboard
hardware such that the required converters cost as much as a console it can
certainly be a good argument for going analog, but here it's been suggested
that the analog sum bus alone is an upgrade from mixing ITB.

With that in mind, I've presented evidence that digital summing buses can
render neutral results with absolute precision, so if an analog sum bus
sounds better it's thanks to coloration. Any coloration applied by the sum
bus itself is unilateral to all program material and therefore a mastering
process. If your argument is that coloration shouldn't be added in
mastering, then it certainly shouldn't be done in summing.

[R Krizman]

<< Right, so you imply that an analog summing bus can apply more coloration to
one track than another? >><BR><BR>

I don't think it's a question of "applying coloration". There are two
different processes. Only in a DAW does "summing", striclty speaking, occur.
Numbers are added (actually multiplied, I think, but it's math) and the result
is, well, the answer to an equation. Since it's math, if done correctly you
can stipulate that the result is accurate, or at least accurate enough. It's
all verifiable. Check the math. If it is correct, the resulting sum is
accurate, independent of how it may sound.

In the misnamed analog "suming box" however, numbers are not summed, signals
are blended. As they are blended they interact with each other, often in
nonlinear ways, which doesn't occur in a DAW. It's harder to say what
constitutes an accurate blend in this case, because there is no standard of
reference, such as 1 plus 1 equals two, that can tell you objectively when
you've combined the signals accurately. Every analog mix setup will have its
own topology that will combine signals in a way that will have its own sonic
character.

I don't see how you can just add something like this after the signals are
mixed.

-R

[Sugarite]

"R Krizman" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
news:***@mb-m16.aol.com...
> << Right, so you imply that an analog summing bus can apply more
coloration to
> one track than another? >><BR><BR>
>
> I don't think it's a question of "applying coloration". There are two
> different processes. Only in a DAW does "summing", striclty speaking,
occur.
> Numbers are added (actually multiplied, I think, but it's math) and the
result
> is, well, the answer to an equation. Since it's math, if done correctly
you
> can stipulate that the result is accurate, or at least accurate enough.
It's
> all verifiable. Check the math. If it is correct, the resulting sum is
> accurate, independent of how it may sound.
>
> In the misnamed analog "suming box" however, numbers are not summed,
signals
> are blended. As they are blended they interact with each other, often in
> nonlinear ways, which doesn't occur in a DAW. It's harder to say what
> constitutes an accurate blend in this case, because there is no standard
of
> reference, such as 1 plus 1 equals two, that can tell you objectively when
> you've combined the signals accurately. Every analog mix setup will have
its
> own topology that will combine signals in a way that will have its own
sonic
> character.
>
> I don't see how you can just add something like this after the signals are
> mixed.

Mixing is in fact summing, regardless of whether there's numbers assigned to
the waveforms or not. And the interaction you describe is called
intermodular distortion, which can happen even with a mono signal passing
through certain circuitry, and is common to coloration of most types,
including many that are available to mastering engineers. The coloration of
analog summing may be unique, but it's not imperative and there are other
far more economical and versatile types that can replace and improve upon
it.

[R Krizman]

<< Mixing is in fact summing, regardless of whether there's numbers assigned to
the waveforms or not. And the interaction you describe is called
intermodular distortion, >><BR><BR>

My point was that by using the word "summing" for both processes you imply that
they are the same sort of activity. Seeing the differences can help to
understand this issue. And no, I wasn't referring to intermodulation
distortion (is that what you meant?), even though that at times is a result of
track interaction.

-R

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 28 Oct 2004 20:49:32 GMT, ***@aol.com (R Krizman) wrote:

>My point was that by using the word "summing" for both processes you imply that
>they are the same sort of activity.

They are, and in fact, must be, the same sort of activity.

Chris Hornbeck

[R Krizman]

<< >My point was that by using the word "summing" for both processes you imply
that
>they are the same sort of activity.

They are, and in fact, must be, the same sort of activity.

Chris Hornbeck >><BR><BR>

I guess that's why you get the same results either way.

-R

[Sugarite]

> >My point was that by using the word "summing" for both processes you
imply that
> >they are the same sort of activity.
>
> They are, and in fact, must be, the same sort of activity.

Agreed. "The sum of all fears" isn't the addition of digital
representations of different forms of anxiety either.

To be specific:

digital summing = precise addition of signals
analog summing = addition of signals + coloration

My contention is that coloration is not necessary to the summing process,
and if you consider coloration on program material to be a mastering process
(which is why they have the tube compressors and EQ's), then summing
coloration is redundant, perhaps destructive.

So getting back to the root issue of this thread, whether or not analog
summing *alone* is worth spending tens of thousands on a console and
converters, my answer is a solid "hell no". In an operating studio there's
very little reason to spend any money on anything other than better mics,
preamps, converters, and monitors. Analog summing coloration is so far down
the list it's not funny.

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Sugarite" <***@home.com> wrote in message
news:CDahd.1407$***@read1.cgocable.net...
> > >My point was that by using the word "summing" for both processes you
> imply that
> > >they are the same sort of activity.
> >
> > They are, and in fact, must be, the same sort of activity.
>
> Agreed. "The sum of all fears" isn't the addition of digital
> representations of different forms of anxiety either.
>
> To be specific:
>
> digital summing = precise addition of signals
> analog summing = addition of signals + coloration
>
> My contention is that coloration is not necessary to the summing process,
> and if you consider coloration on program material to be a mastering
process
> (which is why they have the tube compressors and EQ's), then summing
> coloration is redundant, perhaps destructive.
>
> So getting back to the root issue of this thread, whether or not analog
> summing *alone* is worth spending tens of thousands on a console and
> converters, my answer is a solid "hell no". In an operating studio
there's
> very little reason to spend any money on anything other than better mics,
> preamps, converters, and monitors. Analog summing coloration is so far
down
> the list it's not funny.


Again, we're talking about two different types of colorations here. The one
that is a result of analog summing is likely to influence the decisions of
an operator during the mixing process. It's a rather interactive situation
in which a lot depends on how hard the mix buss is driven and which, among
other things, allows for fine-tuning of balances between the individual
signals.

The other is applied later, in the mastering process. Although it's usually
more sophisticated, along with (and partly generated by) compression it
inevitably changes those hard-fought balances. At that stage they are
difficult and often impossible to restore.

Your priorities may vary.

Predrag

[Sugarite]

"Predrag Trpkov" <***@ri.htnet.hr> wrote in message
news:cm404n$ehe$***@ls219.htnet.hr...
>
> "Sugarite" <***@home.com> wrote in message
> news:CDahd.1407$***@read1.cgocable.net...
> > > >My point was that by using the word "summing" for both processes you
> > imply that
> > > >they are the same sort of activity.
> > >
> > > They are, and in fact, must be, the same sort of activity.
> >
> > Agreed. "The sum of all fears" isn't the addition of digital
> > representations of different forms of anxiety either.
> >
> > To be specific:
> >
> > digital summing = precise addition of signals
> > analog summing = addition of signals + coloration
> >
> > My contention is that coloration is not necessary to the summing
process,
> > and if you consider coloration on program material to be a mastering
> process
> > (which is why they have the tube compressors and EQ's), then summing
> > coloration is redundant, perhaps destructive.
> >
> > So getting back to the root issue of this thread, whether or not analog
> > summing *alone* is worth spending tens of thousands on a console and
> > converters, my answer is a solid "hell no". In an operating studio
> there's
> > very little reason to spend any money on anything other than better
mics,
> > preamps, converters, and monitors. Analog summing coloration is so far
> down
> > the list it's not funny.
>
>
> Again, we're talking about two different types of colorations here. The
one
> that is a result of analog summing is likely to influence the decisions of
> an operator during the mixing process. It's a rather interactive situation
> in which a lot depends on how hard the mix buss is driven and which, among
> other things, allows for fine-tuning of balances between the individual
> signals.
>
> The other is applied later, in the mastering process. Although it's
usually
> more sophisticated, along with (and partly generated by) compression it
> inevitably changes those hard-fought balances. At that stage they are
> difficult and often impossible to restore.
>
> Your priorities may vary.

You've really hurt your argument with "a lot depends how hard the mix bus is
driven", since you're describing the common coloration of a gain stage, not
some magic intercourse between signals. I do it when mixing FOH,
particularily on older Soundcraft boards whose power supplies are marginally
starved from capacitor degradation. If you drive the piss out of them, it
gets a good tape saturation type of sound, and just use the EQ for a master
fader. That's exactly the sort of thing a mastering engineer can do much
much better. If there's any unusual interaction going on it's probably your
coloration perverting the coloration the mastering house is trying to apply.

If you really want to convince anyone that there's anything to this
interactive mix bus coloration, read up on the componentry of a console's
mix bus. I think you'll find it's unfeasible because even if it were
possible, designers would go to great lengths to prevent it, since it would
reduce the console's useful applications and seriously affect its
marketability.

IME a good mix affords mastering engineers the flexibility to apply suitable
coloration without fear of comprimising subtleties in the mix. What you
describe does not happen when a competent mastering engineer works on a mix
where the mixer hasn't tried to do their job for them. I suggest that the
mastering house(s) that are wrecking your mixes aren't up to the job, and/or
you're doing something in the mix that's handcuffing them, such as redundant
coloration.

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Sugarite" <***@home.com> wrote in message
news:Hajhd.508$***@read2.cgocable.net...
>
> "Predrag Trpkov" <***@ri.htnet.hr> wrote in message
> news:cm404n$ehe$***@ls219.htnet.hr...
> >
> > "Sugarite" <***@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:CDahd.1407$***@read1.cgocable.net...
> > > > >My point was that by using the word "summing" for both processes
you
> > > imply that
> > > > >they are the same sort of activity.
> > > >
> > > > They are, and in fact, must be, the same sort of activity.
> > >
> > > Agreed. "The sum of all fears" isn't the addition of digital
> > > representations of different forms of anxiety either.
> > >
> > > To be specific:
> > >
> > > digital summing = precise addition of signals
> > > analog summing = addition of signals + coloration
> > >
> > > My contention is that coloration is not necessary to the summing
> process,
> > > and if you consider coloration on program material to be a mastering
> > process
> > > (which is why they have the tube compressors and EQ's), then summing
> > > coloration is redundant, perhaps destructive.
> > >
> > > So getting back to the root issue of this thread, whether or not
analog
> > > summing *alone* is worth spending tens of thousands on a console and
> > > converters, my answer is a solid "hell no". In an operating studio
> > there's
> > > very little reason to spend any money on anything other than better
> mics,
> > > preamps, converters, and monitors. Analog summing coloration is so
far
> > down
> > > the list it's not funny.
> >
> >
> > Again, we're talking about two different types of colorations here. The
> one
> > that is a result of analog summing is likely to influence the decisions
of
> > an operator during the mixing process. It's a rather interactive
situation
> > in which a lot depends on how hard the mix buss is driven and which,
among
> > other things, allows for fine-tuning of balances between the individual
> > signals.
> >
> > The other is applied later, in the mastering process. Although it's
> usually
> > more sophisticated, along with (and partly generated by) compression it
> > inevitably changes those hard-fought balances. At that stage they are
> > difficult and often impossible to restore.
> >
> > Your priorities may vary.
>
> You've really hurt your argument with "a lot depends how hard the mix bus
is
> driven", since you're describing the common coloration of a gain stage,
not
> some magic intercourse between signals. I do it when mixing FOH,
> particularily on older Soundcraft boards whose power supplies are
marginally
> starved from capacitor degradation. If you drive the piss out of them, it
> gets a good tape saturation type of sound, and just use the EQ for a
master
> fader. That's exactly the sort of thing a mastering engineer can do much
> much better. If there's any unusual interaction going on it's probably
your
> coloration perverting the coloration the mastering house is trying to
apply.
>
> If you really want to convince anyone that there's anything to this
> interactive mix bus coloration, read up on the componentry of a console's
> mix bus. I think you'll find it's unfeasible because even if it were
> possible, designers would go to great lengths to prevent it, since it
would
> reduce the console's useful applications and seriously affect its
> marketability.
>
> IME a good mix affords mastering engineers the flexibility to apply
suitable
> coloration without fear of comprimising subtleties in the mix. What you
> describe does not happen when a competent mastering engineer works on a
mix
> where the mixer hasn't tried to do their job for them. I suggest that the
> mastering house(s) that are wrecking your mixes aren't up to the job,
and/or
> you're doing something in the mix that's handcuffing them, such as
redundant
> coloration.


Let me try again, maybe it's my English.

I'm not trying to convince you or anybody else that any particular type of
summing is better than another. My point is that analog and digital summing
sound different. The difference I hear is not subtle and that's what
determines my pereferences when it comes to mixing. I have my preferences,
you have yours. Perfect.

Your idea seems to be that coloration in general should be left to a
competent mastering engineer. That he would do the same job, as far as
colorations go, only better. Many people, myself included, disagree. It's
not the same thing and it's problematic on both artistic and technical
level.

On artistic level, the mixing engineer/producer should have control over the
tone of individual elements of the mix IMO. It's an important creative tool
and involves all kinds of different colorations applied to different
elements of the mix. The additional coloration of an analog mix bus makes it
even more complex and interactive. How and where in the signal chain the
individual signals are driven/processed/colored affects both their tone and
relative balances. How hard the mix bus is driven affects its tone, but it
also subtly affects relative balances between the elements of the mix.
That's the interaction I was talking about. Back and forth between channel
faders and knobs and the master fader. Fine-tuning goes on until the
operator is satisfied.
Added colorations constitute a significant part of his signature sound. By
the time the mix gets to a mastering stage it's a done deal and a mastering
engineer ideally shouldn't do anything that would disturb that delicate
tone/level balance, among other things.

Now on technical level, analog mix bus coloration is not as sophisticated as
that of mastering-grade equipment, true, due to often inferior circuitry of
console's mix bus. However, any processing, including coloration applied at
mastering stage affects only the whole finished mix. There's still potential
to disturb the balances within the mix (drums or vocals can get sucked in,
for example), but there's no way to compensate for it adjusting the
individual elements other than further processing (eq, for example) of the
whole mix, which in turn affects other relative balances etc. It's a tricky
game. I'd rather have control over my tone and balances as much as I can.

We're not talking about what's better or worse here. Good results could be
achieved any way. This is about who's having control of certain crucial
stages of production.

Predrag

[Sugarite]

> Let me try again, maybe it's my English.

It's your english alright, but it's your reading, not your writing.

> My point is that analog and digital summing
> sound different. The difference I hear is not subtle and that's what
> determines my pereferences when it comes to mixing.

Any difference introduced by the mix bus *alone* is coloration on program.
Program means after the summing is actually done. Analog mix buses have a
gain stage that acts as a buffer to prevent the interactive issues you
mentioned before. The coloration you're getting is from the gain stage
itself, just like a colored mic preamp. It's a post-summing coloration
process, exactly what you claim to dislike below. By using a colored mix
bus you are doing a stage of mastering as you mix.

> Your idea seems to be that coloration in general should be left to a
> competent mastering engineer.

We're not talking about using a Distressor on vocals here. Coloration *on
program material* is part of a mastering engineer's job, you pay them to do
it. Applying irreversible coloration that could react adversely with
mastering processes makes no sense. You're going to great lengths to
half-perform and half-sabotage the mastering process. Either master it
yourself or let them do their job.

> How hard the mix bus is driven affects its tone, but it
> also subtly affects relative balances between the elements of the mix.
> That's the interaction I was talking about. Back and forth between channel
> faders and knobs and the master fader. Fine-tuning goes on until the
> operator is satisfied.

That's exactly what I like to do live when I can, but again only because I
can't have a live FOH mix mastered. It's not interactive coloration, it's
standard gain stage coloration and saturation. Coloration has an
intermodular quality to it, similar to what you describe, even if it's a
tube EQ on a stereo mix. It can still do exactly what you're talking about,
which is why it can disrupt what you've done.

> Added colorations constitute a significant part of his signature sound. By
> the time the mix gets to a mastering stage it's a done deal and a
mastering
> engineer ideally shouldn't do anything that would disturb that delicate
> tone/level balance, among other things.

They can do it better than you can, but only if you don't attempt to do it
first.

> Now on technical level, analog mix bus coloration is not as sophisticated
as
> that of mastering-grade equipment, true, due to often inferior circuitry
of
> console's mix bus. However, any processing, including coloration applied
at
> mastering stage affects only the whole finished mix. There's still
potential
> to disturb the balances within the mix (drums or vocals can get sucked in,
> for example), but there's no way to compensate for it adjusting the
> individual elements other than further processing (eq, for example) of the
> whole mix, which in turn affects other relative balances etc. It's a
tricky
> game. I'd rather have control over my tone and balances as much as I can.

You can choose any mastering engineer you can afford. There's plenty that
are skillful enough to offer the results you specify. There's your control.

> We're not talking about what's better or worse here. Good results could be
> achieved any way. This is about who's having control of certain crucial
> stages of production.

You apply program coloration, then complain about how its mastered. How can
you control what you don't understand?

Digital equivalents to many analog processes have exposed how "good sound"
can often have more to do with coloration than with precision. For example,
a tube compressor's dynamic manipulation is very easily emulated with
software, however the hardware compressor will sound better because of the
coloration introduced by the componentry, which is completely irrelevant to
the dynamics. The software is more precise, but the hardware sounds better.
In most cases a better sounding compressor is preferable regardless of its
precision.

But a summing bus is no place for coloration if you're getting the final mix
mastered.

[Kirt Shearer]

Okay, this is getting silly. We are not creating technical specs here,
we are creating music. Coloration is not always a bad thing, if it is
used properly it helps ceate the magic. I happen to prefer analog
summing. To me, it helps me get the depth and width that I am looking
for. There are many great engineers who do wonderful "in the box"
mixes. To label all artifacts THAT DO OCCUR from BOTH these approaches
as merely "coloration" and therefore dismiss it as "bad" is just
silly. Tube mics, tube gear, Neve consoles, WHATEVER we run through
puts a stamp of some sort on the signal. There are times that the
rpoduction is best served by a straight wire with gain approach by the
engineer or producer, and so the choice would then be made as to the
best way...analog or digital, to achieve that. other times the
"coloration" of a big beefy imperfect analog buss is what serves the
production best. The idea that these things should only be left to the
mastering engineer is just wrong. Yes, there are people you either
don't have the equipment resources or the experience to do this
artfully on their own, and would be better served by letting the
mastering engineer send it through the coloration stuff, but not
everyone falls into that category. There are many really good
engineers that have a vision of what they are going for and how to get
there. I know guys who do really good sounding, really succesful
records that strap stereo EQs and compressors across the main buss of
million dollar consoles....because it gets them the vibe they are
after. Walking up to one of them and saying that "those things should
be left to the mastering engineer" would either get you a fist in the
mouth, or at the very least a good laugh session. There are times when
the coloration IS the thing, and it is up to the production people to
decide that. ALSO, I have seen many a mix screwed up by "professional"
mastering engineers with gobs of equipment by their side. Not guys in
bedrooms with a PC, but real, well known facilities. Just 'cause their
uniform says "Mastering Engineer" doesn't mean they have a clue.
Besides, in an ideal world, mastering should just be a final check for
translation of mixes and consistency, not the thing you rely on to
make your mix work. As engineers, we want to give the mastering people
room to have a positive affect on the product ( i.e. don't
pre-compress it down to a 2db dynamic range) but we also should be
delivering a product that doesn't require 3 hours worth of work per
song by the mastering engineer. Anyway.....again the idea that analog
always equals bad coloration that should be left to mastering is
absurd.

Kirt Shearer
Paradise Studios
Sacramento, Ca.
www.paradisestudios.net

"Sugarite" <***@home.com> wrote in message news:<rDAhd.1612$***@read1.cgocable.net>...
> > Let me try again, maybe it's my English.
>
> It's your english alright, but it's your reading, not your writing.
>
> > My point is that analog and digital summing
> > sound different. The difference I hear is not subtle and that's what
> > determines my pereferences when it comes to mixing.
>
> Any difference introduced by the mix bus *alone* is coloration on program.
> Program means after the summing is actually done. Analog mix buses have a
> gain stage that acts as a buffer to prevent the interactive issues you
> mentioned before. The coloration you're getting is from the gain stage
> itself, just like a colored mic preamp. It's a post-summing coloration
> process, exactly what you claim to dislike below. By using a colored mix
> bus you are doing a stage of mastering as you mix.
>
> > Your idea seems to be that coloration in general should be left to a
> > competent mastering engineer.
>
> We're not talking about using a Distressor on vocals here. Coloration *on
> program material* is part of a mastering engineer's job, you pay them to do
> it. Applying irreversible coloration that could react adversely with
> mastering processes makes no sense. You're going to great lengths to
> half-perform and half-sabotage the mastering process. Either master it
> yourself or let them do their job.
>
> > How hard the mix bus is driven affects its tone, but it
> > also subtly affects relative balances between the elements of the mix.
> > That's the interaction I was talking about. Back and forth between channel
> > faders and knobs and the master fader. Fine-tuning goes on until the
> > operator is satisfied.
>
> That's exactly what I like to do live when I can, but again only because I
> can't have a live FOH mix mastered. It's not interactive coloration, it's
> standard gain stage coloration and saturation. Coloration has an
> intermodular quality to it, similar to what you describe, even if it's a
> tube EQ on a stereo mix. It can still do exactly what you're talking about,
> which is why it can disrupt what you've done.
>
> > Added colorations constitute a significant part of his signature sound. By
> > the time the mix gets to a mastering stage it's a done deal and a
> mastering
> > engineer ideally shouldn't do anything that would disturb that delicate
> > tone/level balance, among other things.
>
> They can do it better than you can, but only if you don't attempt to do it
> first.
>
> > Now on technical level, analog mix bus coloration is not as sophisticated
> as
> > that of mastering-grade equipment, true, due to often inferior circuitry
> of
> > console's mix bus. However, any processing, including coloration applied
> at
> > mastering stage affects only the whole finished mix. There's still
> potential
> > to disturb the balances within the mix (drums or vocals can get sucked in,
> > for example), but there's no way to compensate for it adjusting the
> > individual elements other than further processing (eq, for example) of the
> > whole mix, which in turn affects other relative balances etc. It's a
> tricky
> > game. I'd rather have control over my tone and balances as much as I can.
>
> You can choose any mastering engineer you can afford. There's plenty that
> are skillful enough to offer the results you specify. There's your control.
>
> > We're not talking about what's better or worse here. Good results could be
> > achieved any way. This is about who's having control of certain crucial
> > stages of production.
>
> You apply program coloration, then complain about how its mastered. How can
> you control what you don't understand?
>
> Digital equivalents to many analog processes have exposed how "good sound"
> can often have more to do with coloration than with precision. For example,
> a tube compressor's dynamic manipulation is very easily emulated with
> software, however the hardware compressor will sound better because of the
> coloration introduced by the componentry, which is completely irrelevant to
> the dynamics. The software is more precise, but the hardware sounds better.
> In most cases a better sounding compressor is preferable regardless of its
> precision.
>
> But a summing bus is no place for coloration if you're getting the final mix
> mastered.

[Sugarite]

> Okay, this is getting silly.

I disagree, I think it's something interesting that most people haven't
considered before.

> We are not creating technical specs here,
> we are creating music. Coloration is not always a bad thing, if it is
> used properly it helps ceate the magic.

No argument there, we're discussing the proper use of coloration as it
relates to summing.

> I happen to prefer analog
> summing. To me, it helps me get the depth and width that I am looking
> for.

My argument there is that the coloration you're adding to get a sound you
like is doing part of the mastering process, when a colorless sum would give
a mastering engineer more to work with and render a better final result,
even though the unmastered mix might not sound as pleasing.

> There are many great engineers who do wonderful "in the box"
> mixes. To label all artifacts THAT DO OCCUR from BOTH these approaches
> as merely "coloration" and therefore dismiss it as "bad" is just
> silly.

I guess you missed the study I posted that proved that many digital summing
engines are rendering bit-accurate results. I would argue the
generalization is that people think digital summing has errors, when in fact
it's only missing pleasant coloration of an analog console.

> Tube mics, tube gear, Neve consoles, WHATEVER we run through
> puts a stamp of some sort on the signal.

Apparently the stamp of a good digital sum is the lack of a stamp.

> There are times that the
> rpoduction is best served by a straight wire with gain approach by the
> engineer or producer, and so the choice would then be made as to the
> best way...analog or digital, to achieve that. other times the
> "coloration" of a big beefy imperfect analog buss is what serves the
> production best. The idea that these things should only be left to the
> mastering engineer is just wrong. Yes, there are people you either
> don't have the equipment resources or the experience to do this
> artfully on their own, and would be better served by letting the
> mastering engineer send it through the coloration stuff, but not
> everyone falls into that category. There are many really good
> engineers that have a vision of what they are going for and how to get
> there. I know guys who do really good sounding, really succesful
> records that strap stereo EQs and compressors across the main buss of
> million dollar consoles....because it gets them the vibe they are
> after. Walking up to one of them and saying that "those things should
> be left to the mastering engineer" would either get you a fist in the
> mouth, or at the very least a good laugh session. There are times when
> the coloration IS the thing, and it is up to the production people to
> decide that.

Just because they need to hear the coloration to get the mix right doesn't
mean they have to print it! I suggest they record the console outputs,
before the EQ and comp, which would still be in the monitoring chain. That
way they can hear the coloration they need to monitor their "vibe" and still
minimize the program coloration. I would bet good money that a good
mastering engineer would render better results, assuming the mixer could
effectively describe to them the exact "vibe" they were after. Good
mastering engineers know how to get that sort of thing, and it's the
producer's job to enable them to do it.

I actually mix in a similar way. I often monitor through a tube stereo amp,
and I sometimes work on a mix with a multiband compressor plug in the master
channel depending on the content, but I never print it. Monitoring
coloration is for the mixer's ears, mastering is for everyone's ears.

> ALSO, I have seen many a mix screwed up by "professional"
> mastering engineers with gobs of equipment by their side. Not guys in
> bedrooms with a PC, but real, well known facilities. Just 'cause their
> uniform says "Mastering Engineer" doesn't mean they have a clue.

I bet you don't master your own mixes to avoid the quacks though. Part of a
producer's job is to track down effective mastering. Bad mastering affects
colored and uncolored sums equally and has no bearing on this issue.

> Besides, in an ideal world, mastering should just be a final check for
> translation of mixes and consistency, not the thing you rely on to
> make your mix work.

That may be what you need, but my contention is that if you found a
mastering house you could rely upon that much, you would be better served by
having no program coloration. Anyone you can't rely upon that much
shouldn't be used in the first place, especially since there's plenty out
there that are more than qualified.

> As engineers, we want to give the mastering people
> room to have a positive affect on the product ( i.e. don't
> pre-compress it down to a 2db dynamic range) but we also should be
> delivering a product that doesn't require 3 hours worth of work per
> song by the mastering engineer.

There's plenty of daylight between those two examples. And I don't see how
making a mastering engineer earn their pay is so terrible. I'm sure they're
happy as clams when they get heavily colored mixes and say, "oh good,
someone's done my work for me, and I still get paid!"

> Anyway.....again the idea that analog
> always equals bad coloration that should be left to mastering is
> absurd.

Dude, the whole industry is pretty absurd. Virtually every new music
reproduction technology or technique that stands to improve upon industry
standards is initially though of as absurd - transistors, digital tape, etc.
I make enough to live on just from the recordings where I use a Nomad
Jukebox 3 as the recorder. Two years ago everyone thought that was absurd
and it was unprofessional not to spend $3k on a Nagra III.

I only suggest that the theory is sound (pardon the pun) and it's something
to examine in more detail with more experimentation. If it wasn't for the
huge undertaking done to compare digital summing from completely different
systems, we would never have known they could be so accurate. I only hope
more mastering engineers become aware of this and equip themselves
accordingly.

> "Sugarite" <***@home.com> wrote in message
news:<rDAhd.1612$***@read1.cgocable.net>...
> > > Let me try again, maybe it's my English.
> >
> > It's your english alright, but it's your reading, not your writing.
> >
> > > My point is that analog and digital summing
> > > sound different. The difference I hear is not subtle and that's what
> > > determines my pereferences when it comes to mixing.
> >
> > Any difference introduced by the mix bus *alone* is coloration on
program.
> > Program means after the summing is actually done. Analog mix buses have
a
> > gain stage that acts as a buffer to prevent the interactive issues you
> > mentioned before. The coloration you're getting is from the gain stage
> > itself, just like a colored mic preamp. It's a post-summing coloration
> > process, exactly what you claim to dislike below. By using a colored
mix
> > bus you are doing a stage of mastering as you mix.
> >
> > > Your idea seems to be that coloration in general should be left to a
> > > competent mastering engineer.
> >
> > We're not talking about using a Distressor on vocals here. Coloration
*on
> > program material* is part of a mastering engineer's job, you pay them to
do
> > it. Applying irreversible coloration that could react adversely with
> > mastering processes makes no sense. You're going to great lengths to
> > half-perform and half-sabotage the mastering process. Either master it
> > yourself or let them do their job.
> >
> > > How hard the mix bus is driven affects its tone, but it
> > > also subtly affects relative balances between the elements of the mix.
> > > That's the interaction I was talking about. Back and forth between
channel
> > > faders and knobs and the master fader. Fine-tuning goes on until the
> > > operator is satisfied.
> >
> > That's exactly what I like to do live when I can, but again only because
I
> > can't have a live FOH mix mastered. It's not interactive coloration,
it's
> > standard gain stage coloration and saturation. Coloration has an
> > intermodular quality to it, similar to what you describe, even if it's a
> > tube EQ on a stereo mix. It can still do exactly what you're talking
about,
> > which is why it can disrupt what you've done.
> >
> > > Added colorations constitute a significant part of his signature
sound. By
> > > the time the mix gets to a mastering stage it's a done deal and a
> > mastering
> > > engineer ideally shouldn't do anything that would disturb that
delicate
> > > tone/level balance, among other things.
> >
> > They can do it better than you can, but only if you don't attempt to do
it
> > first.
> >
> > > Now on technical level, analog mix bus coloration is not as
sophisticated
> > as
> > > that of mastering-grade equipment, true, due to often inferior
circuitry
> > of
> > > console's mix bus. However, any processing, including coloration
applied
> > at
> > > mastering stage affects only the whole finished mix. There's still
> > potential
> > > to disturb the balances within the mix (drums or vocals can get sucked
in,
> > > for example), but there's no way to compensate for it adjusting the
> > > individual elements other than further processing (eq, for example) of
the
> > > whole mix, which in turn affects other relative balances etc. It's a
> > tricky
> > > game. I'd rather have control over my tone and balances as much as I
can.
> >
> > You can choose any mastering engineer you can afford. There's plenty
that
> > are skillful enough to offer the results you specify. There's your
control.
> >
> > > We're not talking about what's better or worse here. Good results
could be
> > > achieved any way. This is about who's having control of certain
crucial
> > > stages of production.
> >
> > You apply program coloration, then complain about how its mastered. How
can
> > you control what you don't understand?
> >
> > Digital equivalents to many analog processes have exposed how "good
sound"
> > can often have more to do with coloration than with precision. For
example,
> > a tube compressor's dynamic manipulation is very easily emulated with
> > software, however the hardware compressor will sound better because of
the
> > coloration introduced by the componentry, which is completely irrelevant
to
> > the dynamics. The software is more precise, but the hardware sounds
better.
> > In most cases a better sounding compressor is preferable regardless of
its
> > precision.
> >
> > But a summing bus is no place for coloration if you're getting the final
mix
> > mastered.

[Kirt Shearer]

Sugarite,

Two things:

1) If you think that digital mixing is without coloration, you are
fooling yourself. There is ultimate room for math errors to the right
of the decimal point. Especially the more DSP and track count that is
being summed.

2) I'd like you to re-read ulysses post on mastering about 1000
times until you understand what it means. I've copied it below.


> I think you and I have vastly differing ideas of what mastering is for.
> It's not the mastering engineer's job to provide tonal richness in my
> recordings. It's his job to make sure that MY tonal choices and my
> recording's tonal richness arrives intact at the ears of all different
> kinds of listeners, regardless of the system they use to play the
> record. It's his job to make sure that there is continuity of tonality
> through the progression of an album. And it's sometimes his job to
> make sure my exuberance in applying my choice of coloration doesn't
> interact negatively with the limitations of typical playback equipment.
> But it is definitely not his job to try and slap some tone onto my
> finished recording.
>
> ulysses

A topic is interesting as long as it is a discussion. Some of us
have tried to point out why we like to do things the way we do them,
but you don't seem to be accepting of that. If you prefer digital
summing, great. But don't claim that it is something that it's not .

Kirt Shearer
Paradise Studios
Sacramento, Ca.

"Sugarite" <***@home.com> wrote in message news:<4Nyid.2664$***@read2.cgocable.net>...
> > Okay, this is getting silly.
>
> I disagree, I think it's something interesting that most people haven't
> considered before.
>
> > We are not creating technical specs here,
> > we are creating music. Coloration is not always a bad thing, if it is
> > used properly it helps ceate the magic.
>
> No argument there, we're discussing the proper use of coloration as it
> relates to summing.
>
> > I happen to prefer analog
> > summing. To me, it helps me get the depth and width that I am looking
> > for.
>
> My argument there is that the coloration you're adding to get a sound you
> like is doing part of the mastering process, when a colorless sum would give
> a mastering engineer more to work with and render a better final result,
> even though the unmastered mix might not sound as pleasing.
>
> > There are many great engineers who do wonderful "in the box"
> > mixes. To label all artifacts THAT DO OCCUR from BOTH these approaches
> > as merely "coloration" and therefore dismiss it as "bad" is just
> > silly.
>
> I guess you missed the study I posted that proved that many digital summing
> engines are rendering bit-accurate results. I would argue the
> generalization is that people think digital summing has errors, when in fact
> it's only missing pleasant coloration of an analog console.
>
> > Tube mics, tube gear, Neve consoles, WHATEVER we run through
> > puts a stamp of some sort on the signal.
>
> Apparently the stamp of a good digital sum is the lack of a stamp.
>
> > There are times that the
> > rpoduction is best served by a straight wire with gain approach by the
> > engineer or producer, and so the choice would then be made as to the
> > best way...analog or digital, to achieve that. other times the
> > "coloration" of a big beefy imperfect analog buss is what serves the
> > production best. The idea that these things should only be left to the
> > mastering engineer is just wrong. Yes, there are people you either
> > don't have the equipment resources or the experience to do this
> > artfully on their own, and would be better served by letting the
> > mastering engineer send it through the coloration stuff, but not
> > everyone falls into that category. There are many really good
> > engineers that have a vision of what they are going for and how to get
> > there. I know guys who do really good sounding, really succesful
> > records that strap stereo EQs and compressors across the main buss of
> > million dollar consoles....because it gets them the vibe they are
> > after. Walking up to one of them and saying that "those things should
> > be left to the mastering engineer" would either get you a fist in the
> > mouth, or at the very least a good laugh session. There are times when
> > the coloration IS the thing, and it is up to the production people to
> > decide that.
>
> Just because they need to hear the coloration to get the mix right doesn't
> mean they have to print it! I suggest they record the console outputs,
> before the EQ and comp, which would still be in the monitoring chain. That
> way they can hear the coloration they need to monitor their "vibe" and still
> minimize the program coloration. I would bet good money that a good
> mastering engineer would render better results, assuming the mixer could
> effectively describe to them the exact "vibe" they were after. Good
> mastering engineers know how to get that sort of thing, and it's the
> producer's job to enable them to do it.
>
> I actually mix in a similar way. I often monitor through a tube stereo amp,
> and I sometimes work on a mix with a multiband compressor plug in the master
> channel depending on the content, but I never print it. Monitoring
> coloration is for the mixer's ears, mastering is for everyone's ears.
>
> > ALSO, I have seen many a mix screwed up by "professional"
> > mastering engineers with gobs of equipment by their side. Not guys in
> > bedrooms with a PC, but real, well known facilities. Just 'cause their
> > uniform says "Mastering Engineer" doesn't mean they have a clue.
>
> I bet you don't master your own mixes to avoid the quacks though. Part of a
> producer's job is to track down effective mastering. Bad mastering affects
> colored and uncolored sums equally and has no bearing on this issue.
>
> > Besides, in an ideal world, mastering should just be a final check for
> > translation of mixes and consistency, not the thing you rely on to
> > make your mix work.
>
> That may be what you need, but my contention is that if you found a
> mastering house you could rely upon that much, you would be better served by
> having no program coloration. Anyone you can't rely upon that much
> shouldn't be used in the first place, especially since there's plenty out
> there that are more than qualified.
>
> > As engineers, we want to give the mastering people
> > room to have a positive affect on the product ( i.e. don't
> > pre-compress it down to a 2db dynamic range) but we also should be
> > delivering a product that doesn't require 3 hours worth of work per
> > song by the mastering engineer.
>
> There's plenty of daylight between those two examples. And I don't see how
> making a mastering engineer earn their pay is so terrible. I'm sure they're
> happy as clams when they get heavily colored mixes and say, "oh good,
> someone's done my work for me, and I still get paid!"
>
> > Anyway.....again the idea that analog
> > always equals bad coloration that should be left to mastering is
> > absurd.
>
> Dude, the whole industry is pretty absurd. Virtually every new music
> reproduction technology or technique that stands to improve upon industry
> standards is initially though of as absurd - transistors, digital tape, etc.
> I make enough to live on just from the recordings where I use a Nomad
> Jukebox 3 as the recorder. Two years ago everyone thought that was absurd
> and it was unprofessional not to spend $3k on a Nagra III.
>
> I only suggest that the theory is sound (pardon the pun) and it's something
> to examine in more detail with more experimentation. If it wasn't for the
> huge undertaking done to compare digital summing from completely different
> systems, we would never have known they could be so accurate. I only hope
> more mastering engineers become aware of this and equip themselves
> accordingly.
>
> > "Sugarite" <***@home.com> wrote in message
> news:<rDAhd.1612$***@read1.cgocable.net>...
> > > > Let me try again, maybe it's my English.
> > >
> > > It's your english alright, but it's your reading, not your writing.
> > >
> > > > My point is that analog and digital summing
> > > > sound different. The difference I hear is not subtle and that's what
> > > > determines my pereferences when it comes to mixing.
> > >
> > > Any difference introduced by the mix bus *alone* is coloration on
> program.
> > > Program means after the summing is actually done. Analog mix buses have
> a
> > > gain stage that acts as a buffer to prevent the interactive issues you
> > > mentioned before. The coloration you're getting is from the gain stage
> > > itself, just like a colored mic preamp. It's a post-summing coloration
> > > process, exactly what you claim to dislike below. By using a colored
> mix
> > > bus you are doing a stage of mastering as you mix.
> > >
> > > > Your idea seems to be that coloration in general should be left to a
> > > > competent mastering engineer.
> > >
> > > We're not talking about using a Distressor on vocals here. Coloration
> *on
> > > program material* is part of a mastering engineer's job, you pay them to
> do
> > > it. Applying irreversible coloration that could react adversely with
> > > mastering processes makes no sense. You're going to great lengths to
> > > half-perform and half-sabotage the mastering process. Either master it
> > > yourself or let them do their job.
> > >
> > > > How hard the mix bus is driven affects its tone, but it
> > > > also subtly affects relative balances between the elements of the mix.
> > > > That's the interaction I was talking about. Back and forth between
> channel
> > > > faders and knobs and the master fader. Fine-tuning goes on until the
> > > > operator is satisfied.
> > >
> > > That's exactly what I like to do live when I can, but again only because
> I
> > > can't have a live FOH mix mastered. It's not interactive coloration,
> it's
> > > standard gain stage coloration and saturation. Coloration has an
> > > intermodular quality to it, similar to what you describe, even if it's a
> > > tube EQ on a stereo mix. It can still do exactly what you're talking
> about,
> > > which is why it can disrupt what you've done.
> > >
> > > > Added colorations constitute a significant part of his signature
> sound. By
> > > > the time the mix gets to a mastering stage it's a done deal and a
> mastering
> > > > engineer ideally shouldn't do anything that would disturb that
> delicate
> > > > tone/level balance, among other things.
> > >
> > > They can do it better than you can, but only if you don't attempt to do
> it
> > > first.
> > >
> > > > Now on technical level, analog mix bus coloration is not as
> sophisticated
> as
> > > > that of mastering-grade equipment, true, due to often inferior
> circuitry
> of
> > > > console's mix bus. However, any processing, including coloration
> applied
> at
> > > > mastering stage affects only the whole finished mix. There's still
> potential
> > > > to disturb the balances within the mix (drums or vocals can get sucked
> in,
> > > > for example), but there's no way to compensate for it adjusting the
> > > > individual elements other than further processing (eq, for example) of
> the
> > > > whole mix, which in turn affects other relative balances etc. It's a
> tricky
> > > > game. I'd rather have control over my tone and balances as much as I
> can.
> > >
> > > You can choose any mastering engineer you can afford. There's plenty
> that
> > > are skillful enough to offer the results you specify. There's your
> control.
> > >
> > > > We're not talking about what's better or worse here. Good results
> could be
> > > > achieved any way. This is about who's having control of certain
> crucial
> > > > stages of production.
> > >
> > > You apply program coloration, then complain about how its mastered. How
> can
> > > you control what you don't understand?
> > >
> > > Digital equivalents to many analog processes have exposed how "good
> sound"
> > > can often have more to do with coloration than with precision. For
> example,
> > > a tube compressor's dynamic manipulation is very easily emulated with
> > > software, however the hardware compressor will sound better because of
> the
> > > coloration introduced by the componentry, which is completely irrelevant
> to
> > > the dynamics. The software is more precise, but the hardware sounds
> better.
> > > In most cases a better sounding compressor is preferable regardless of
> its
> > > precision.
> > >
> > > But a summing bus is no place for coloration if you're getting the final
> mix
> > > mastered.

[Sugarite]

> 1) If you think that digital mixing is without coloration, you are
> fooling yourself. There is ultimate room for math errors to the right
> of the decimal point. Especially the more DSP and track count that is
> being summed.

Check your lingo. There's a big distinction to be made concerning digital
mixing and digital summing. Mixing includes effects processing and gain
adjustments with dithering etc, but summing is only the addition of binary
data, something that is hardly new to computing. There are no new rounding
errors introduced at the summing stage, though any previous ones are passed
on, just like an analog mix bus does, except with added program coloration.
That's what I mean by precise and uncolored summing. Nothing more.

> 2) I'd like you to re-read ulysses post on mastering about 1000
> times until you understand what it means. I've copied it below.
>
>
> > I think you and I have vastly differing ideas of what mastering is for.
> > It's not the mastering engineer's job to provide tonal richness in my
> > recordings. It's his job to make sure that MY tonal choices and my
> > recording's tonal richness arrives intact at the ears of all different
> > kinds of listeners, regardless of the system they use to play the
> > record. It's his job to make sure that there is continuity of tonality
> > through the progression of an album. And it's sometimes his job to
> > make sure my exuberance in applying my choice of coloration doesn't
> > interact negatively with the limitations of typical playback equipment.
> > But it is definitely not his job to try and slap some tone onto my
> > finished recording.

Show me where it's imperative that the mixer print program coloration in
that statement. If you put the coloring aspects required on program content
to make the mixing decisions in the monitoring chain only, a qualified
mastering engineer can recreate and improve upon those processes through
his/her superior experience and equipment. If they couldn't they wouldn't
be worth hiring.

> A topic is interesting as long as it is a discussion. Some of us
> have tried to point out why we like to do things the way we do them,
> but you don't seem to be accepting of that. If you prefer digital
> summing, great. But don't claim that it is something that it's not .

Welcome to usenet. Around here we make whatever claims we see fit. If I'm
wrong, I'm wrong, but it takes discussion to determine that. If all you
think you're doing is pointing out to others that I am wrong, I don't think
you're doing a very good job of it, mostly since you're missing my point.

If you like the way you do things, more power to you. I'm only suggesting
an alternative that has merit in theory. I often mix with coloration in the
monitoring chain that's not printed to program, and I have no trouble
getting the results I want from mastering. YMMV


> "Sugarite" <***@home.com> wrote in message
news:<4Nyid.2664$***@read2.cgocable.net>...
> > > Okay, this is getting silly.
> >
> > I disagree, I think it's something interesting that most people haven't
> > considered before.
> >
> > > We are not creating technical specs here,
> > > we are creating music. Coloration is not always a bad thing, if it is
> > > used properly it helps ceate the magic.
> >
> > No argument there, we're discussing the proper use of coloration as it
> > relates to summing.
> >
> > > I happen to prefer analog
> > > summing. To me, it helps me get the depth and width that I am looking
> > > for.
> >
> > My argument there is that the coloration you're adding to get a sound
you
> > like is doing part of the mastering process, when a colorless sum would
give
> > a mastering engineer more to work with and render a better final result,
> > even though the unmastered mix might not sound as pleasing.
> >
> > > There are many great engineers who do wonderful "in the box"
> > > mixes. To label all artifacts THAT DO OCCUR from BOTH these approaches
> > > as merely "coloration" and therefore dismiss it as "bad" is just
> > > silly.
> >
> > I guess you missed the study I posted that proved that many digital
summing
> > engines are rendering bit-accurate results. I would argue the
> > generalization is that people think digital summing has errors, when in
fact
> > it's only missing pleasant coloration of an analog console.
> >
> > > Tube mics, tube gear, Neve consoles, WHATEVER we run through
> > > puts a stamp of some sort on the signal.
> >
> > Apparently the stamp of a good digital sum is the lack of a stamp.
> >
> > > There are times that the
> > > rpoduction is best served by a straight wire with gain approach by the
> > > engineer or producer, and so the choice would then be made as to the
> > > best way...analog or digital, to achieve that. other times the
> > > "coloration" of a big beefy imperfect analog buss is what serves the
> > > production best. The idea that these things should only be left to the
> > > mastering engineer is just wrong. Yes, there are people you either
> > > don't have the equipment resources or the experience to do this
> > > artfully on their own, and would be better served by letting the
> > > mastering engineer send it through the coloration stuff, but not
> > > everyone falls into that category. There are many really good
> > > engineers that have a vision of what they are going for and how to get
> > > there. I know guys who do really good sounding, really succesful
> > > records that strap stereo EQs and compressors across the main buss of
> > > million dollar consoles....because it gets them the vibe they are
> > > after. Walking up to one of them and saying that "those things should
> > > be left to the mastering engineer" would either get you a fist in the
> > > mouth, or at the very least a good laugh session. There are times when
> > > the coloration IS the thing, and it is up to the production people to
> > > decide that.
> >
> > Just because they need to hear the coloration to get the mix right
doesn't
> > mean they have to print it! I suggest they record the console outputs,
> > before the EQ and comp, which would still be in the monitoring chain.
That
> > way they can hear the coloration they need to monitor their "vibe" and
still
> > minimize the program coloration. I would bet good money that a good
> > mastering engineer would render better results, assuming the mixer could
> > effectively describe to them the exact "vibe" they were after. Good
> > mastering engineers know how to get that sort of thing, and it's the
> > producer's job to enable them to do it.
> >
> > I actually mix in a similar way. I often monitor through a tube stereo
amp,
> > and I sometimes work on a mix with a multiband compressor plug in the
master
> > channel depending on the content, but I never print it. Monitoring
> > coloration is for the mixer's ears, mastering is for everyone's ears.
> >
> > > ALSO, I have seen many a mix screwed up by "professional"
> > > mastering engineers with gobs of equipment by their side. Not guys in
> > > bedrooms with a PC, but real, well known facilities. Just 'cause their
> > > uniform says "Mastering Engineer" doesn't mean they have a clue.
> >
> > I bet you don't master your own mixes to avoid the quacks though. Part
of a
> > producer's job is to track down effective mastering. Bad mastering
affects
> > colored and uncolored sums equally and has no bearing on this issue.
> >
> > > Besides, in an ideal world, mastering should just be a final check for
> > > translation of mixes and consistency, not the thing you rely on to
> > > make your mix work.
> >
> > That may be what you need, but my contention is that if you found a
> > mastering house you could rely upon that much, you would be better
served by
> > having no program coloration. Anyone you can't rely upon that much
> > shouldn't be used in the first place, especially since there's plenty
out
> > there that are more than qualified.
> >
> > > As engineers, we want to give the mastering people
> > > room to have a positive affect on the product ( i.e. don't
> > > pre-compress it down to a 2db dynamic range) but we also should be
> > > delivering a product that doesn't require 3 hours worth of work per
> > > song by the mastering engineer.
> >
> > There's plenty of daylight between those two examples. And I don't see
how
> > making a mastering engineer earn their pay is so terrible. I'm sure
they're
> > happy as clams when they get heavily colored mixes and say, "oh good,
> > someone's done my work for me, and I still get paid!"
> >
> > > Anyway.....again the idea that analog
> > > always equals bad coloration that should be left to mastering is
> > > absurd.
> >
> > Dude, the whole industry is pretty absurd. Virtually every new music
> > reproduction technology or technique that stands to improve upon
industry
> > standards is initially though of as absurd - transistors, digital tape,
etc.
> > I make enough to live on just from the recordings where I use a Nomad
> > Jukebox 3 as the recorder. Two years ago everyone thought that was
absurd
> > and it was unprofessional not to spend $3k on a Nagra III.
> >
> > I only suggest that the theory is sound (pardon the pun) and it's
something
> > to examine in more detail with more experimentation. If it wasn't for
the
> > huge undertaking done to compare digital summing from completely
different
> > systems, we would never have known they could be so accurate. I only
hope
> > more mastering engineers become aware of this and equip themselves
> > accordingly.
> >
> > > "Sugarite" <***@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:<rDAhd.1612$***@read1.cgocable.net>...
> > > > > Let me try again, maybe it's my English.
> > > >
> > > > It's your english alright, but it's your reading, not your writing.
> > > >
> > > > > My point is that analog and digital summing
> > > > > sound different. The difference I hear is not subtle and that's
what
> > > > > determines my pereferences when it comes to mixing.
> > > >
> > > > Any difference introduced by the mix bus *alone* is coloration on
> > program.
> > > > Program means after the summing is actually done. Analog mix buses
have
> > a
> > > > gain stage that acts as a buffer to prevent the interactive issues
you
> > > > mentioned before. The coloration you're getting is from the gain
stage
> > > > itself, just like a colored mic preamp. It's a post-summing
coloration
> > > > process, exactly what you claim to dislike below. By using a
colored
> > mix
> > > > bus you are doing a stage of mastering as you mix.
> > > >
> > > > > Your idea seems to be that coloration in general should be left to
a
> > > > > competent mastering engineer.
> > > >
> > > > We're not talking about using a Distressor on vocals here.
Coloration
> > *on
> > > > program material* is part of a mastering engineer's job, you pay
them to
> > do
> > > > it. Applying irreversible coloration that could react adversely
with
> > > > mastering processes makes no sense. You're going to great lengths
to
> > > > half-perform and half-sabotage the mastering process. Either master
it
> > > > yourself or let them do their job.
> > > >
> > > > > How hard the mix bus is driven affects its tone, but it
> > > > > also subtly affects relative balances between the elements of the
mix.
> > > > > That's the interaction I was talking about. Back and forth between
> > channel
> > > > > faders and knobs and the master fader. Fine-tuning goes on until
the
> > > > > operator is satisfied.
> > > >
> > > > That's exactly what I like to do live when I can, but again only
because
> > I
> > > > can't have a live FOH mix mastered. It's not interactive
coloration,
> > it's
> > > > standard gain stage coloration and saturation. Coloration has an
> > > > intermodular quality to it, similar to what you describe, even if
it's a
> > > > tube EQ on a stereo mix. It can still do exactly what you're
talking
> > about,
> > > > which is why it can disrupt what you've done.
> > > >
> > > > > Added colorations constitute a significant part of his signature
> > sound. By
> > > > > the time the mix gets to a mastering stage it's a done deal and a
> > mastering
> > > > > engineer ideally shouldn't do anything that would disturb that
> > delicate
> > > > > tone/level balance, among other things.
> > > >
> > > > They can do it better than you can, but only if you don't attempt to
do
> > it
> > > > first.
> > > >
> > > > > Now on technical level, analog mix bus coloration is not as
> > sophisticated
> > as
> > > > > that of mastering-grade equipment, true, due to often inferior
> > circuitry
> > of
> > > > > console's mix bus. However, any processing, including coloration
> > applied
> > at
> > > > > mastering stage affects only the whole finished mix. There's still
> > potential
> > > > > to disturb the balances within the mix (drums or vocals can get
sucked
> > in,
> > > > > for example), but there's no way to compensate for it adjusting
the
> > > > > individual elements other than further processing (eq, for
example) of
> > the
> > > > > whole mix, which in turn affects other relative balances etc. It's
a
> > tricky
> > > > > game. I'd rather have control over my tone and balances as much as
I
> > can.
> > > >
> > > > You can choose any mastering engineer you can afford. There's
plenty
> > that
> > > > are skillful enough to offer the results you specify. There's your
> > control.
> > > >
> > > > > We're not talking about what's better or worse here. Good results
> > could be
> > > > > achieved any way. This is about who's having control of certain
> > crucial
> > > > > stages of production.
> > > >
> > > > You apply program coloration, then complain about how its mastered.
How
> > can
> > > > you control what you don't understand?
> > > >
> > > > Digital equivalents to many analog processes have exposed how "good
> > sound"
> > > > can often have more to do with coloration than with precision. For
> > example,
> > > > a tube compressor's dynamic manipulation is very easily emulated
with
> > > > software, however the hardware compressor will sound better because
of
> > the
> > > > coloration introduced by the componentry, which is completely
irrelevant
> > to
> > > > the dynamics. The software is more precise, but the hardware sounds
> > better.
> > > > In most cases a better sounding compressor is preferable regardless
of
> > its
> > > > precision.
> > > >
> > > > But a summing bus is no place for coloration if you're getting the
final
> > mix
> > > > mastered.

[WillStG]

<< "Sugarite" ***@home.com >>
<< Agreed. "The sum of all fears" isn't the addition of digital
representations of different forms of anxiety either.

To be specific:

digital summing = precise addition of signals
analog summing = addition of signals + coloration

My contention is that coloration is not necessary to the summing process,
and if you consider coloration on program material to be a mastering process
(which is why they have the tube compressors and EQ's), then summing
coloration is redundant, perhaps destructive. >>

Oh come on Dude, you are making generalizations that are way too broad.

First off, every recording however pristine is by definition *distortion*,
let alone when you try to mix multiples of that together. Second, summing
busses are difficult to design, whether they are analog or digital, and there
are certainly analog summing busses that can subjectively be called "precise"
and "uncolored" with a transparency on a par with a digital buss. Third, if
an analog buss has bandwidth to 100k but a digital buss truncates program at
22k or 44k, which of the two would you describe as being the more "precise"
one?


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Sugarite]

> My contention is that coloration is not necessary to the summing process,
> and if you consider coloration on program material to be a mastering
process
> (which is why they have the tube compressors and EQ's), then summing
> coloration is redundant, perhaps destructive. >>
>
> Oh come on Dude, you are making generalizations that are way too
broad.
>
> First off, every recording however pristine is by definition
*distortion*,
> let alone when you try to mix multiples of that together.

You mean it *has* some distortions, sure, but there's two types: deliberate
coloration, and unavoidable shortcomings. A digital summing process can
have neither.

> Second, summing
> busses are difficult to design, whether they are analog or digital, and
there
> are certainly analog summing busses that can subjectively be called
"precise"
> and "uncolored" with a transparency on a par with a digital buss.

Called yes, proven no. If I were summing analog I would want an uncolored
console to do it. An absolutely precise digital sum is essentially the most
uncolored console you can get.

> Third, if
> an analog buss has bandwidth to 100k but a digital buss truncates program
at
> 22k or 44k, which of the two would you describe as being the more
"precise"
> one?

The one that can be compared to others and proven to be bit-accurate. You
can't even get bit-accurate results if you do the same mix on the same
colored console twice.

[WillStG]

> "Sugarite" ***@home.com

>You mean it *has* some distortions, sure, but there's two types: deliberate
>coloration, and unavoidable shortcomings. A digital summing process can
>have neither.

No, I mean a recording is by *definition* a distortion.

>Called yes, proven no. If I were summing analog I would want an uncolored
>console to do it. An absolutely precise digital sum is essentially the most
>uncolored console you can get.
>

Look, all analog consoles are not created equal and neither are all
digital consoles. Like I said, you are being way too broad in your
generalizations. Do you really think a Roland VM7100 digital mixer has more
transparent mix busses than a good analog mastering console? Not! In fact I
think they add tons of coloration, and not the kind I like either.

>The one that can be compared to others and proven to be bit-accurate. You
>can't even get bit-accurate results if you do the same mix on the same
>colored console twice.

So you define a "precise" bus as one that is merely repeatable? Jeez, I
suppose a digital mix session using an 18 bit mixer might be repeatable, but
can you really call that more "precise" than mixing on an analog Mastering
console that has bandwidth to 100K?

Analog vs. digital is way too broad really. Both can be colored, both can
be transparent, it depends.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Audioist 4 Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Sugarite]

> >Called yes, proven no. If I were summing analog I would want an
uncolored
> >console to do it. An absolutely precise digital sum is essentially the
most
> >uncolored console you can get.
>
> Look, all analog consoles are not created equal and neither are all
> digital consoles. Like I said, you are being way too broad in your
> generalizations. Do you really think a Roland VM7100 digital mixer has
more
> transparent mix busses than a good analog mastering console? Not! In
fact I
> think they add tons of coloration, and not the kind I like either.

Transparency can be and often is the result of coloration, which is part of
why it's so important to get right in both mixing and mastering. Like I was
saying in another fork in this thread, if you need program coloration to get
the mix to where you need it, try putting some mastering hardware in the
monitor chain, so you hear it but don't print it. Communicate to the
mastering engineer what you're after, even list the hardware and settings
used in monitoring, but let them take it from there and do what they do
best.

> >The one that can be compared to others and proven to be bit-accurate.
You
> >can't even get bit-accurate results if you do the same mix on the same
> >colored console twice.
>
> So you define a "precise" bus as one that is merely repeatable?
Jeez, I
> suppose a digital mix session using an 18 bit mixer might be repeatable,
but
> can you really call that more "precise" than mixing on an analog Mastering
> console that has bandwidth to 100K?

Coloration can too easily delude the listener into a sense of precision, so
repeatability is the best and only measure of precision, and the 32-bit
floating point summing engines in question have ample headroom for 256
tracks of 24-bit audio (32-24=8, 2^8=256). Summing is only exactly what is
seems, the addition of binary data. Just like with analog consoles, there
are plenty of other areas for problems to occur, for example Protools' old
24-bit undithered mixer, on which it was better to use plug-in gains for
mixing rather than the mixer faders. But if ten completely different
systems on different platforms render the exact same results, then I think
it's safe to say they are 100% absolutely precise.

> Analog vs. digital is way too broad really. Both can be colored,
both can
> be transparent, it depends.

Again you're wrong on the idea that transparency is the opposite of
coloration.

I remind you this thread is about the merits of "upgrading" from mixing in
the box to an analog console for the reason that digital summing is
erroneous, which it isn't necessarily. I contend that people prefer analog
mixing only because it sounds better thanks to program coloration, which can
be done better in mastering. However, there are other reasons to use a
console, some of which more than make up for the potential harm from program
coloration.

[John Washburn]

"Sugarite" wrote:
<snip happens>

> Again you're wrong on the idea that transparency is the opposite of
> coloration.

"Transparent sounding" is different than "sonically transparent". The former
is a color and the latter means that the signal path doesn't audibly change
the audio.

>
> I remind you this thread is about the merits of "upgrading" from mixing in
> the box to an analog console for the reason that digital summing is
> erroneous, which it isn't necessarily. I contend that people prefer
analog
> mixing only because it sounds better thanks to program coloration, which
can
> be done better in mastering.

Be done better or differently? "Program coloration" is going to happen
thoughout the recording process--everything from the room in which you
record the instruments to effects you apply all impact the sound of the
program. And mixing through a console introduces the audio to more than just
the summing bus--the individual channel strips, etc will also shade the
sound and isn't going to be duplicated by running the stereo mix through
some processor.

I don't have a general preference either way about mixing in the box vs
through a console, but I disagree that you should aim to deliver sonically
neutral tracks to the mastering engineer with the hope that s/he'll make
them sound like how you were going to mix them in the first place.

I think you're extending the argument about whether or not to compress or
limit the 2 buss during the mix to achieve loudness to the choice of the 2
buss itself, which doesn't necessarily follow.


However, there are other reasons to use a
> console, some of which more than make up for the potential harm from
program
> coloration.
>

If it sounds good...

-jw

[Sugarite]

> > Again you're wrong on the idea that transparency is the opposite of
> > coloration.
>
> "Transparent sounding" is different than "sonically transparent". The
former
> is a color and the latter means that the signal path doesn't audibly
change
> the audio.

Transparent is a word whose meaning is based entirely on perception, which
includes the interpretive processes of the brain, which is what's fooled by
coloration. Words like neutral, colorless, and precise are more
appropriate.

> > I remind you this thread is about the merits of "upgrading" from mixing
in
> > the box to an analog console for the reason that digital summing is
> > erroneous, which it isn't necessarily. I contend that people prefer
> analog
> > mixing only because it sounds better thanks to program coloration, which
> can
> > be done better in mastering.
>
> Be done better or differently? "Program coloration" is going to happen
> thoughout the recording process

Program content = final mix. "Program coloration" means coloration applied
after summing.

I made a mistake in that last paragraph, I mean to say the thread concerns
comparing the summing processes of digital vs analog. There's much more to
mixing in the box vs analog console than just the summing process.

[hank alrich]

Sugarite <***@home.com> wrote:

> Transparency can be and often is the result of coloration.

Too much yoga, dude; now you're trying to blow smoke up your own ass.

--
ha

[Sugarite]

> > Transparency can be and often is the result of coloration.
>
> Too much yoga, dude; now you're trying to blow smoke up your own ass.

So you're unaware of the potential for improvements to definition and timbre
from coloration? Why would mastering houses even own tube equipment, much
less use it on a regular basis then?

[John Washburn]

"Sugarite" wrote:
> > > Transparency can be and often is the result of coloration.
> >
> > Too much yoga, dude; now you're trying to blow smoke up your own ass.
>
> So you're unaware of the potential for improvements to definition and
timbre
> from coloration? Why would mastering houses even own tube equipment, much
> less use it on a regular basis then?
>

What makes you think that tube gear will necessarily color the sound more
than solid state?

-jw

[Sugarite]

> > So you're unaware of the potential for improvements to definition and
> timbre
> > from coloration? Why would mastering houses even own tube equipment,
much
> > less use it on a regular basis then?
>
> What makes you think that tube gear will necessarily color the sound more
> than solid state?

There are many very linear tube circuit designs, but every one of them
sounds different with a different brand of tube. The best sounding tubes
are far from absolutely linear in response, while the best sounding solid
state circuitry is typically those that are closest to absolute linearity.
Unless there's a "perfect tube" out there that I haven't heard about, they
all color the sound, and the best equipment does so in a euphoric manner
that has never been fully understood.

> Yes, but those improvements are _decreasing_ transparency, not increasing
it.
> This is not always a bad thing, mind you. But don't claim that you are
> improving transparency any time you add coloration, no matter how good the
> coloration may sound.

I'll claim whatever I see fit, thanks. If anything a claim of what does not
improve transparency is dubious at best since psychologists can't even agree
on how the brain interprets sound. One front-running theory is that the
inner ear operates like a keyboard with thousands of "keys", each
responsible for one very narrow discernable frequency, which provide
information for something ressembling a tone generator to render signals the
brain can process, which is what we actually hear. A similar system is used
for visual interpretations, which is one explanation for how we can dream
both visual and audible hallucinations when no actual external stimulus is
being observed.

Whatever the mechanisms are, they're so wildly complicated that a process
that conditions music signals to better interact with those mechanisms and
improve the passage of the musical content (ie make it sound more
transparent), while in fact distorting said signals, is entirely possible.
That's what I'm suggesting is best left to mastering engineers, and mixers
should only be responsible for the musical content, not it's conditioning in
that manner. The equipment required to apply such conditioning effectively
is completely unfeasible for a mixing environment, and vice versa.

Yes I am aware this opinion flies in the face of traditional engineering,
rest assured nobody is forced to comply with it. Just food for thought.

[Scott Dorsey]

Sugarite <***@home.com> wrote:
>> > Transparency can be and often is the result of coloration.
>>
>> Too much yoga, dude; now you're trying to blow smoke up your own ass.
>
>So you're unaware of the potential for improvements to definition and timbre
>from coloration? Why would mastering houses even own tube equipment, much
>less use it on a regular basis then?

Yes, but those improvements are _decreasing_ transparency, not increasing it.
This is not always a bad thing, mind you. But don't claim that you are
improving transparency any time you add coloration, no matter how good the
coloration may sound.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Sugarite wrote:

> > > Transparency can be and often is the result of coloration.

> > Too much yoga, dude; now you're trying to blow smoke up your own ass.

> So you're unaware of the potential for improvements to definition and timbre
> from coloration? Why would mastering houses even own tube equipment, much
> less use it on a regular basis then?

You have, literally, no idea what you are attempting to talk about.
There's no need for me to type at you further.

--
ha

[reddred]

"hank alrich" <***@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gms2c0.1vm0itih1gupsN%***@thegrid.net...
> Sugarite wrote:
>
> > > > Transparency can be and often is the result of coloration.
>
> > > Too much yoga, dude; now you're trying to blow smoke up your own ass.
>
> > So you're unaware of the potential for improvements to definition and
timbre
> > from coloration? Why would mastering houses even own tube equipment,
much
> > less use it on a regular basis then?
>
> You have, literally, no idea what you are attempting to talk about.
> There's no need for me to type at you further.
>

I tend to think of transparency as the opposite of coloration. Maybe some
colors can make things perceptually clearer, however.

jb

[John Washburn]

"reddred" wrote:
>
> "hank alrich" wrote:
> > Sugarite wrote:
> >
> > > > > Transparency can be and often is the result of coloration.
> >
> > > > Too much yoga, dude; now you're trying to blow smoke up your own
ass.
> >
> > > So you're unaware of the potential for improvements to definition and
> timbre
> > > from coloration? Why would mastering houses even own tube equipment,
> much
> > > less use it on a regular basis then?
> >
> > You have, literally, no idea what you are attempting to talk about.
> > There's no need for me to type at you further.
> >
>
> I tend to think of transparency as the opposite of coloration. Maybe some
> colors can make things perceptually clearer, however.

Transparency is the opposite of opaque.

In the context of describing a sound, you can alter a signal so that it
masks another signal less (ie: cutting lows on an acoustic guitar so that
you can hear the bass better) which is coloring it (making the processed
signal sound different from the original) to make it more transparent, but
this is different from what Sugarite is, I think, trying to say.

He seems to be talking about transparency in the context of signal path, and
that's different (which is, I think, more to Hank's point).

-jw

[hank alrich]

reddred wrote:

> I tend to think of transparency as the opposite of coloration. Maybe some
> colors can make things perceptually clearer, however.

I'll put a little layer of gauze over this window so y'all can see
better through it.

--
ha

[reddred]

"hank alrich" <***@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gms4r3.ux4cz98we8maN%***@thegrid.net...
> reddred wrote:
>
> > I tend to think of transparency as the opposite of coloration. Maybe
some
> > colors can make things perceptually clearer, however.
>
> I'll put a little layer of gauze over this window so y'all can see
> better through it.
>

Could be that joe listener's idea of 'clear' is a little different than joe
engineer's. 'Transparent' is going to be transparent - I think we all know
what that means, but I think you are talking about two different things
here. You are talking about transparency and sugarite(?) is using that word
to describe something else. I certainly have some colorful tube amps through
which the details of a signal seem more pronounced.

jb

[R Krizman]

<< > > Transparency can be and often is the result of coloration.
>
> Too much yoga, dude; now you're trying to blow smoke up your own ass.

So you're unaware of the potential for improvements to definition and timbre
from coloration? Why would mastering houses even own tube equipment, much
less use it on a regular basis then?
>><BR><BR>

Certainly not to make the sound more transparent. You've made some good points
but it would be easier to discuss all this if you'd let words mean what they
mean.

That said, very funny Hank. (I've been practicing over 6 years now and I think
I'm getting close to being able to do that myself).

Hey look everybody!! - - -metaphysics, audio coloration and blowing smoke up
your ass. I'd say r.a.p. is solidly back On Topic.

-R

[hank alrich]

WillStG wrote:

> No, I mean a recording is by *definition* a distortion.

Amen, startng with potentially severe time domain distortion. "Man, this
shit is out of phase by _years_!! "Who ya goona call?" "Somebody with a
convection oven??"

--
ha

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich <***@thegrid.net> wrote:
>reddred wrote:
>
>> I tend to think of transparency as the opposite of coloration. Maybe some
>> colors can make things perceptually clearer, however.
>
>I'll put a little layer of gauze over this window so y'all can see
>better through it.

It works for the NS-10!
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Sugarite <***@home.com> wrote:
>
>There are many very linear tube circuit designs, but every one of them
>sounds different with a different brand of tube. The best sounding tubes
>are far from absolutely linear in response, while the best sounding solid
>state circuitry is typically those that are closest to absolute linearity.
>Unless there's a "perfect tube" out there that I haven't heard about, they
>all color the sound, and the best equipment does so in a euphoric manner
>that has never been fully understood.

I disagree. Although this is certainly the case for circuits that use little
or no feedback, there are a lot of well-designed tube circuits out there
that use feedback specifically to minimize coloration, and where you can
often swap tubes with impunity without much sonic effect. Of course, you
lose gain by designing this way, but check out the RCA broadcast gear for
an example of this kind of design philosophy.

Sadly, most of these circuits wind up using transformers....
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Sugarite]

> >There are many very linear tube circuit designs, but every one of them
> >sounds different with a different brand of tube. The best sounding tubes
> >are far from absolutely linear in response, while the best sounding solid
> >state circuitry is typically those that are closest to absolute
linearity.
> >Unless there's a "perfect tube" out there that I haven't heard about,
they
> >all color the sound, and the best equipment does so in a euphoric manner
> >that has never been fully understood.
>
> I disagree. Although this is certainly the case for circuits that use
little
> or no feedback, there are a lot of well-designed tube circuits out there
> that use feedback specifically to minimize coloration, and where you can
> often swap tubes with impunity without much sonic effect. Of course, you
> lose gain by designing this way, but check out the RCA broadcast gear for
> an example of this kind of design philosophy.
>
> Sadly, most of these circuits wind up using transformers....

I have no experience with such equipment, mostly because I've been told to
avoid it like the plague, for the reason that even if the tube's coloration
is effectively defeated, it's substituted by coloration from the feedback
circuitry components themselves. I'm sure there's a comfortable medium, but
I wouldn't call it linear. I don't see much point in using tubes if you're
going to great lengths to make them sound like solid state. I could never
rely on a device which sounds the same with a good vintage tube or a current
production recycled metal POS anyway.

[Scott Dorsey]

Sugarite <***@home.com> wrote:
>I have no experience with such equipment, mostly because I've been told to
>avoid it like the plague, for the reason that even if the tube's coloration
>is effectively defeated, it's substituted by coloration from the feedback
>circuitry components themselves. I'm sure there's a comfortable medium, but
>I wouldn't call it linear. I don't see much point in using tubes if you're
>going to great lengths to make them sound like solid state. I could never
>rely on a device which sounds the same with a good vintage tube or a current
>production recycled metal POS anyway.

Yes, but you get the avoid the unpleasant transistor distortion by going
this route.

Check out Fred Forssell's transformerless tube mike preamp for a really
stereotype-shattering experience.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[maxdm]

> >state circuitry is typically those that are closest to absolute linearity.
> >Unless there's a "perfect tube" out there that I haven't heard about, they
> >all color the sound, and the best equipment does so in a euphoric manner
> >that has never been fully understood.

There are some tubes which are totally different from the common tubes
used in american studio gear such as 12ax7/ecc83 12at7 6an7 etc. from
a clarity/distortion factor.

My favourite audio tube is a gold-pin special quality tube originally
designed for analog computers, and with no feedback and a cathode
bypass cap (no local feedback) it provides a gain stage that sounds
very real and not noticeably distorted.

there are some tubes which are incredibly quiet, most of the ones I
know are german.

You cannot place a transistor or fet in a zero-feedback circuit becase
it sounds awful and distorted.
transistors with no feedback have more distortion and limited
bandwidth than pro-quality tubes in the same circuit type!
this is why solid state amps need so much feedback, and are generally
more complex than tube amps

the difference to me is like the difference between the U47 onboard
preamp (with a new tube and new coupling cap) and a fet condenser such
as a u87.

I have compared fet vs. tube on the same mic and the same capsule and
I can say that the tube circuit is less distorted from a sound point
of view: the sounds are closer to what I hear when I remove the
headphones and are more intimate sounding and 3d.
this depends on the tube type and condition.


and its NOT the added harmonics!
transistor gear adds distortion just as much as tube and makes
recordings sound smaller than life when compared to it's tube
equivalent.

Same goes for digital. Its not important to me if someone tells me
that a digital mixer has 0 THD or no measureable distortion.

summing in analog sounds more natural to me, and I believe that the
kind of distortion that happens in digital processing is NOT WIDELY
UNDERSTOOD and doesn't have any industry standard tests to verify it's
existance.

[Analogeezer]

Justin Ulysses Morse <***@rollmusic.com> wrote in message news:<211020042311134813%***@rollmusic.com>...
> Sugarite <***@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> > But coloration is redundant and perhaps even counterproductive if you're
> > then going to pay a mastering engineer to (among other things) apply
> > coloration on much better suited gear. It's as much an error as digital
> > rounding, and is equally "un-undoable". I suggest that perhaps it's
> > prefered only because it sounds better pre-mastered, when in fact a DAW sum
> > can render just as good a result after mastering. I suppose it would take a
> > mastering engineer who's worked on many good examples of both systems to
> > convince me otherwise, either that or a controlled study.
>
> I think you and I have vastly differing ideas of what mastering is for.
> It's not the mastering engineer's job to provide tonal richness in my
> recordings. It's his job to make sure that MY tonal choices and my
> recording's tonal richness arrives intact at the ears of all different
> kinds of listeners, regardless of the system they use to play the
> record. It's his job to make sure that there is continuity of tonality
> through the progression of an album. And it's sometimes his job to
> make sure my exuberance in applying my choice of coloration doesn't
> interact negatively with the limitations of typical playback equipment.
> But it is definitely not his job to try and slap some tone onto my
> finished recording.
>
> ulysses

Amen to that, I couldn't have said it better....where did this
"mastering tone mojo" business come from?

Analogeezer

[Blind Joni]

>My rule of thumb is that if your computer costs as much as your car,
>it's OK to mix on it.

Nah..my computer costs way less than my care..but if I ahd to setup a studio
based entirely on hardware it would cost more than my house.

>Ah, but if you mixed it right the first time, you wouldn't have to do
>it again. <g> I like to finish projects. People who can't afford it
>are too much into perfection.

True..but what is "right?"..this way I get to redefine "right" as I learn
more.. even though I do like to commit to sounds in the recording process to
not make choices endless.




John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Lorin David Schultz]

"Mike Rivers" <***@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
> Ah, but if you mixed it right the first time, you wouldn't have to do
> it again. <g> I like to finish projects. People who can't afford it
> are too much into perfection.


That depends on what you're mixing. My day-to-day work includes
examples of situations where perfect recall is very important, even for
stuff that's "done." Like the promo we mixed for an HBO series that was
nominated for an Emmy shortly after we finished it. The producer wanted
to add elements that acknowledged that. Rather than have to remix the
whole thing from scratch, we just had to replace parts of the VO and
slide a couple things around. Since we did it in a DAW, the fader moves
followed the relocated tracks. That was a real time saver.

There are also cases where a music mix is perfect one day, but the next
day they change the show format a little and it doesn't fit anymore, but
"it would work if we just made the synth pad hit on the eighth bar
instead of the fourth." Again, the mix was fine, it just needed to be
altered to reflect a change in its application. Another example of
where using a DAW is a practical solution.

As for mixing a record, I love the look on a client's face when they
come in wringing their hands over something they didn't notice during
mixing but discovered listening to the one-off, and I fix it in sixty
seconds without changing anything else. That kind of customer
satisfaction has got to be easily as important as that last 2%
improvement offered by an exotic mix buss. (In fact, client
expectations may be part of the decision making process.)

I love the feel and sound and session dynamic you get mixing on a real
console, but sometimes the box is just a better approach. Like anything
else, "It depends..."

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

[WillStG]

<< "Lorin David Schultz" ***@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca >>
<< That depends on what you're mixing. My day-to-day work includes
examples of situations where perfect recall is very important, even for
stuff that's "done." Like the promo we mixed for an HBO series that was
nominated for an Emmy shortly after we finished it. The producer wanted
to add elements that acknowledged that. Rather than have to remix the
whole thing from scratch, we just had to replace parts of the VO and
slide a couple things around. Since we did it in a DAW, the fader moves
followed the relocated tracks. That was a real time saver. >>

Well for that you dump off submixes, you make "stems" first right? Post
pro is a bit different than music mixing.

<<
As for mixing a record, I love the look on a client's face when they
come in wringing their hands over something they didn't notice during
mixing but discovered listening to the one-off, and I fix it in sixty
seconds without changing anything else. That kind of customer
satisfaction has got to be easily as important as that last 2%
improvement offered by an exotic mix buss. (In fact, client
expectations may be part of the decision making process.) >>

Yeah, but is it worth it to you to charge for a one minute session? At
least make it *look* like it takes a lot of time and effort. <g>



Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Mike Caffrey]

"Lorin David Schultz" <***@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca> wrote in message news:<Siecd.10263$***@edtnps84>...
> "Mike Rivers" <***@d-and-d.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, but if you mixed it right the first time, you wouldn't have to do
> > it again. <g> I like to finish projects. People who can't afford it
> > are too much into perfection.
>
>
> That depends on what you're mixing. My day-to-day work includes
> examples of situations where perfect recall is very important, even for
> stuff that's "done." Like the promo we mixed for an HBO series that was
> nominated for an Emmy shortly after we finished it. The producer wanted
> to add elements that acknowledged that. Rather than have to remix the
> whole thing from scratch, we just had to replace parts of the VO and
> slide a couple things around. Since we did it in a DAW, the fader moves
> followed the relocated tracks. That was a real time saver.
>
> There are also cases where a music mix is perfect one day, but the next
> day they change the show format a little and it doesn't fit anymore, but
> "it would work if we just made the synth pad hit on the eighth bar
> instead of the fourth." Again, the mix was fine, it just needed to be
> altered to reflect a change in its application. Another example of
> where using a DAW is a practical solution.
>
> As for mixing a record, I love the look on a client's face when they
> come in wringing their hands over something they didn't notice during
> mixing but discovered listening to the one-off, and I fix it in sixty
> seconds without changing anything else. That kind of customer
> satisfaction has got to be easily as important as that last 2%
> improvement offered by an exotic mix buss. (In fact, client
> expectations may be part of the decision making process.)
>
> I love the feel and sound and session dynamic you get mixing on a real
> console, but sometimes the box is just a better approach. Like anything
> else, "It depends..."

You're really talking more about speed than repeatability. Everything
you talked about can be done working either way.

I'm not sure what types of htings you're taking about with the 60
second mix fix. My first insticnt was if their rening their hands
you're alking about an edit, not the back up vocal was 2dB to low in
the second verse. My reaction to that is, the mix shouldn't have
started unti the production was finished.

If it's a fader move or somthing that truly a mix move, you leave the
mix up on the board overnight and make a tweak the next morning.

When you do a recall, the premise of the recall is that the mix didn't
sound right, so does it really have to be 100% accurate? I do recalls
periodically and if I've documented right and read the documentation
right, I can't hear adifference. I'm sure it's not 100% exact.

Someone said it's not worth it for the 5% differnece in sound quality.
I think a 5% difference is huge. Especially consideing we make EQ
changes of .5 dB or fader moves of .5 or 1dB. I think it's hard to
make a 1 or 2% differnce in the sound quality of a mix. Is the
difference betwee an 1176 plug-in and a reall one 1%? Mybe, probably
less, but do go from the level of mix that's listenable or good, to
really great, you've got to accumulate all those little fractional
differnces and a 5% differnce is huge. I don't know that it's acutall
a 5% difference or if the difference is even measuaable, but obviuld
or clearly differenct is worth taking when making a piece of art.

[hank alrich]

Mike Caffrey wrote:

> You're really talking more about speed than repeatability. Everything
> you talked about can be done working either way.

How do you quickly reposition any particular hit using aplayback machine
and a console?

> I'm not sure what types of htings you're taking about with the 60
> second mix fix. My first insticnt was if their rening their hands
> you're alking about an edit, not the back up vocal was 2dB to low in
> the second verse. My reaction to that is, the mix shouldn't have
> started unti the production was finished.

The production was finished. Then the production garnered awards and in
light of the production's intended use, those needed to be reflected in
VO. So aspects of the production needed to be redone.

This "arguement" comes down to individual situations. I enjoy console
mixing, without automation, much more than DAW mixing. But DAW mixing
now gets the bulk of my attention, because lots of folks don't have
enough time at one time to be able to go straight through a project,
whether it be tracking or mixing, let alone both.

--
ha

[WillStG]

<< ***@thegrid.net (hank alrich) >>
<< How do you quickly reposition any particular hit using aplayback machine and
a console?
>>

Well if you're using what used to be a top of the line machine, a Sony 3348
DASH deck with sampling, you record the hit into ram and rerecord it back onto
tape. You can use the rehearse punchin function and adjust the new position in
milliseconds.

Of course rewind time is tedious compared to a DAW, but as long as they
are billable hours...

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Mike Caffrey]

***@thegrid.net (hank alrich) wrote in message news:<1glsksf.p5kezk1btyr5sN%***@thegrid.net>...
> Mike Caffrey wrote:
>
> > You're really talking more about speed than repeatability. Everything
> > you talked about can be done working either way.
>
> How do you quickly reposition any particular hit using aplayback machine
> and a console?

I don't do that stuff during a mix session I do that before. The
producer job is to take care of that before mixing. The nature of
working in a DAW has allowed people to change the working process so
that people accept fixing a perfromance issue during a mix session as
normal. I can see the argument towards mix as you go, but I'd still do
a mix from scratch if it was a situation that I had any say in.
Building a mix from scratch can tkae so long that I can see how people
would rather stick with what they have so far.

[hank alrich]

Mike Caffrey wrote:

> I don't do that stuff during a mix session I do that before.

I addresssed a situation where whatever place you put it before, it now
needs putting elsewhere. I think the problem here is that some folks are
insisting that everyone else must always be able to work the same way
they do, and the world doesn't run like that. Different situations call
for different approaches.

My favorite way to record doesn't separate the tracking and mixing
stages. People play together and the mix hits storage. But that's not
often feasible for many musicians.

--
ha

[anybody-but-bush]

"Paul Stamler" <***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:d%Jbd.551711$***@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
:
: "Scott Dorsey" <***@panix.com> wrote in message
: news:ckn3cj$1tc$***@panix2.panix.com...
: > Arny Krueger <***@hotpop.com> wrote:
: > >
: > >I suspect that for some people, getting comfortable with nonlinear
: editing
: > >and mixing is mission impossible. Old dogs, new tricks and all that.
: Using
: > >the DAW just as a recorder/player and mixing on a console is for them, a
: > >warm fuzzy teddy bear.
: >
: > But why should I? I don't see it buying anything for me. If I were still
: > doing film tracks, I'd probably look on it as a godsend, but for what I am
: > doing these days I don't see it being any real improvement.
:
: For me the nices thing about mixing in the computer is repeatability. I can
: get the exact same mix tomorrow as I got today, then tweak something, and
: know that the rest is still the same. It takes a heap o' automated console
: to duplicate that in the hardware world.
:
: My rule of thumb is simplistic: if your console cost more than your car, mix
: on the console. If not, mix in the computer.
:
: Peace,
: Paul


What if your car is worth $1500 bucks? I mix in the box.
Phil Abbate
:
:

[jerry]

what about just using an external summing box, like the Dangerous
ones? Or even just summing on a mixer instead of leveling/EQ/etc on
it? Or, is it maybe all the crosstalk or what-not that goes on when
"mixing" externally that has a bigger impact, not just straight
summing? I can imagine a huge difference when mixing on some Mackie
thing but with a really high-end mixer is the difference as much as
mixing/summing ITB?

[hank alrich]

jerry wrote:

> I can imagine a huge difference when mixing on some Mackie
> thing

Check out Tonebarge's mixes on the RAP CD compilations, done on a 1604
and beyond instructive. Assumptions will fall by the wayside.

--
ha

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich <***@thegrid.net> wrote:
>jerry wrote:
>
>> I can imagine a huge difference when mixing on some Mackie
>> thing
>
>Check out Tonebarge's mixes on the RAP CD compilations, done on a 1604
>and beyond instructive. Assumptions will fall by the wayside.

Yeah, but I bet it wasn't fun for him.

I can get good mixes on a Mackie, but it's a lot of work and the whole point
of _all_ of this gear is to make it _easier_ to get the sound you want.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Yeah, but I bet it wasn't fun for him.

Having spoken with him I'll suggest it is _lots_ of fun for him to mix
on that Mackie. It's not like he can't afford a different console if he
thinks that's necessary for quality or fun. After all, he spent at least
twice what most folks spend on a fairly fancy DAW or their console just
for two channels of mic pre.

> I can get good mixes on a Mackie, but it's a lot of work and the whole point
> of _all_ of this gear is to make it _easier_ to get the sound you want.

About 98.74352% of the sound he's after is already there before he gets
to mixing.

--
ha

[Predrag Trpkov]

"hank alrich" <***@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gloxr6.d3za6r1qmemieN%***@thegrid.net...
> jerry wrote:
>
> > I can imagine a huge difference when mixing on some Mackie
> > thing
>
> Check out Tonebarge's mixes on the RAP CD compilations, done on a 1604
> and beyond instructive. Assumptions will fall by the wayside.


Very good mixes can be done on a Mackie. It doesn't have to be an expensive
console. Small, big, cheap, expensive - there was always a big difference
when I switched from ITB mix to an analog console. I've experimented with it
a lot, often with a Mackie and always liked it better than an ITB mix. YMMV
and you may still prefer it ITB, even soundwise, but I'm getting the
impression that people who continue with Mackie bashing or dismissing the
preference for analog summing as "old dogs, new tricks" have never actually
done the comparison. The difference is not subtle.

This is not about the operational aspects of mixing in or out of the box.
Total recall is a triumph of convenience. On the other hand, Mackies have
their own operational issues and surely wouldn't be my first choice.
However, that's missing the point. The original poster asked about the
possible sonic advantages of analog summing such as clarity and spatial
depth. At least for the latter there's no contest, IME. And yes, even with a
lowly Mackie, any model.

Predrag

[Blind Joni]

>For me the nices thing about mixing in the computer is repeatability. I can
>get the exact same mix tomorrow as I got today, then tweak something, and
>know that the rest is still the same. It takes a heap o' automated console
>to duplicate that in the hardware world.

Plus you can learn..the repeatability lets you compare things quickly..like
looping a drum track and trying different processors in a matter of
minutes..and learn.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Mike Caffrey]

***@aol.com (Blind Joni) wrote in message news:<***@mb-m23.aol.com>...
> >For me the nices thing about mixing in the computer is repeatability. I can
> >get the exact same mix tomorrow as I got today, then tweak something, and
> >know that the rest is still the same. It takes a heap o' automated console
> >to duplicate that in the hardware world.
>
> Plus you can learn..the repeatability lets you compare things quickly..like
> looping a drum track and trying different processors in a matter of
> minutes..and learn.
>
You can do that when mixing through a board.

No one said that mixning through a board means you can't use plug-ins
or submixes.

Certain things, like a really specifc delay effect or automating a a
fader move of part of a word to fix a problem are somtimes easier in
ProTools. SO you do 80% or 90% of your mix on a board where you can
work quickly with two hands, no mouse, no layers of windows
obstructing your view, where you can move speverad faders or knobs at
the same time an get the mix happeneing really fast. Then you can
choose where you do the detail work. It doesn't have to be so black
and white.

[SV]

In support of-
> Certain things, like a really specifc delay effect or automating a a
> fader move of part of a word to fix a problem are somtimes easier in
> ProTools. SO you do 80% or 90% of your mix on a board where you can
> work quickly with two hands, no mouse, no layers of windows
> obstructing your view, where you can move speverad faders or knobs at
> the same time an get the mix happeneing really fast. Then you can
> choose where you do the detail work. It doesn't have to be so black
> and white.

I mix on a Ghost with 24 outputs from my daw and the difference is
tremendous compared to my previous D8B. All automation is done within
the daw. If I need to put any dynamics processing pre automation, I
use an i/o plugin. MAny times, I don't even need pre automation
dynanmics, like for vocals, because the level-riding done in the
computer helps the vocal hit the compressor the right way anyway. I'm
sure all major sequencers have this. I also patch my aux send from the
board into "live inputs" and now I have a ton of plugins at my
disposal from my board sends -POST FADER- so I can really mix off the
board. With a fairly medern computer, latency is not an issue. And for
reverb sends, even if it is an issue, you can subtract the latency
from the desired predelay and get it spot on. Anything specific will
go on individual tracks or within submixes coming out of the daw.

[Lorin David Schultz]

"Paul Stamler" <***@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> My rule of thumb is simplistic: if your console cost more than your
car, mix
> on the console. If not, mix in the computer.


You obviously haven't seen my car...

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" <***@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ckn3cj$1tc$***@panix2.panix.com

> Arny Krueger <***@hotpop.com> wrote:

>> I suspect that for some people, getting comfortable with nonlinear
>> editing and mixing is mission impossible. Old dogs, new tricks and
>> all that. Using the DAW just as a recorder/player and mixing on a
>> console is for them, a warm fuzzy teddy bear.

> But why should I?

Same reason you embraced technological change in the past.

> I don't see it buying anything for me.

You stopped editing music?

> If I were still doing film tracks, I'd probably look on it as a godsend,
> but
> for what I am doing these days I don't see it being any real improvement.

When did you stop editing music?

[Roger W. Norman]

"Arny Krueger" <***@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> I suspect that for some people, getting comfortable with nonlinear editing
> and mixing is mission impossible. Old dogs, new tricks and all that. Using
> the DAW just as a recorder/player and mixing on a console is for them, a
> warm fuzzy teddy bear.

Well, it's not like there's a requirement to mix in the box. With enough
I/O and some of the more modern consoles, you can have the best of both
worlds, although those consoles that will impart a "sound" still have a
hefty price tag, such as the new small frame SSL 900, along with still
allowing for automation.

I don't mind using the console but it's just not a fixable situation even
with the best of documentation. And there have to be some 500+ buttons,
knobs and faders on my console, so a manual reset for a mix fix is bound to
have problems, at the least.

I've been thinking about the Tascam 24 control surface, but obviously thats
not the same thing. If the control surfaces weren't so expensive,
especially for those that still have full console setups, then it might be
viable. At least one could have tactile response. Just a different kind of
carpel tunnel, though! <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

[Mike Rivers]

In article <k--dnU4MzdieBfLcRVn-***@rcn.net> ***@starpower.net writes:

> Well, it's not like there's a requirement to mix in the box. With enough
> I/O and some of the more modern consoles, you can have the best of both
> worlds, although those consoles that will impart a "sound" still have a
> hefty price tag, such as the new small frame SSL 900, along with still
> allowing for automation.

Usually the discovery that you need as many channels of D/A
conversion as you have tracks is what quickly deters people from
mixing a computer multitrack recording on a console rather than in the
computer. When they get to the "oh, I can submix the drums, and the
vocals, and the guitars, and the percussion so I can send that out the
8 channels of my Fireplop" maybe they can delude themselves into
thinking it sounds better than mixing in the computer. And it's only a
little more trouble.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (***@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Blind Joni]

>I can't escape thinking that some people simply haven't gotten comfortable
>enough with nonlinear editing and mixing.
>
>I suspect that for some people, getting comfortable with nonlinear editing
>and mixing is mission impossible. Old dogs, new tricks and all that. Using
>the DAW just as a recorder/player and mixing on a console is for them, a
>warm fuzzy teddy bear.

I think you're right. I got into the box only when I could afford it and would
never go back..not in my present business model. I hated the process of trying
to mix low budget projects without recall..caused more anxiety than it helped.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[WillStG]

<< : ***@aol.com (Blind Joni) >>
<< I got into the box only when I could afford it and would
never go back..not in my present business model. I hated the process of trying
to mix low budget projects without recall..caused more anxiety than it helped.
>>

Well speed of session set up helps a lot when you are working alone. But
I like mixing analog not as much because of the summing buss quality which may
or may not be noticable, but because quality analog outboard gear will
*cumulatively* sound more interesting to me than plug ins *cumulatively* do.
It is more work for sure, but it's kinda like a Steam train vs. an Electric
train, it's just more visceral an experience to me.

And even on high end consoles recalled mixes never ever really - the truth
be told - sounded exactly the same. Nobody died as a result, and only the few
people really could tell.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Mike Caffrey]

***@aol.comnospam (WillStG) wrote in message news:<***@mb-m17.aol.com>...
> << : ***@aol.com (Blind Joni) >>
> << I got into the box only when I could afford it and would
> never go back..not in my present business model. I hated the process of trying
> to mix low budget projects without recall..caused more anxiety than it helped.
> >>
>
> Well speed of session set up helps a lot when you are working alone. But
> I like mixing analog not as much because of the summing buss quality which may
> or may not be noticable, but because quality analog outboard gear will
> *cumulatively* sound more interesting to me than plug ins *cumulatively* do.
> It is more work for sure, but it's kinda like a Steam train vs. an Electric
> train, it's just more visceral an experience to me.
>
> And even on high end consoles recalled mixes never ever really - the truth
> be told - sounded exactly the same. Nobody died as a result, and only the few
> people really could tell.

And you're recalling becuase you didn't like the sound of the first one...

[maxdm]

***@gmail.com (Upryz) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
> So it seems that the prefferred method of mixing/summing for most top
> engineers is all Pro Tools tracks discretely outputted to the channels
> of a nice console and analog summed there. It is said that the
> digital summing bus in ProTools will produce a mix that is slightly
> lacking in clarity and spatial depth.

Mixing in digital in my experience makes everything flat(ter) sounding
when compared to mixing in analog.

On your DAW try this experiment: place your cursor of a well recorded
full-range audio track at 0 dB and listen.

Now... place the cursor at -15 dB raise the control room volume pot on
your amps so that the level is the same as when the cursor was set on
0 dB.
you should hear a difference in sound for every position of the
cursor, within reasonable limits -- of course.

now when you have all the outputs at 0 db and there are no algorithms
modifying the ANALOG AUDIO wave in a numerical--digital fashion.

the best mixer that ever has been built electronically is a passive
resistive network with gain make up amp.

Since automation and digital effects etc are the meat and potatoes of
modern music you will either need an automated analog console like an
ssl -- which by the way distorts the sound quite a bit anyway.

If you have no rush, or need to record acoustic music or live
jazz/folk etc. you might want to look into a very simple but clean
mixer or build your own.