The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
The "other" reason most ITB mixes don’t sound as good as analog mixes
Old 16th February 2013
  #451
Registered User
 
🎧 10 years
my music partner and i did a little experiment the other day.

we took some recorded tracks and summed them in the daw,
then we took the same recorded track, played them back through the lynx, and summed them in the console and recorded that into dsd.

the tracks recorded into dsd sounded way way better than the tracks summed in the door to us. even after going through another stage of conversion.

the other thing that stood out was the dsd tracks sounded almost identical to the tracks we heard through the console.
Old 16th February 2013
  #452
Lives for gear
 
vincentvangogo's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Digital sucks large balls.
Old 16th February 2013 | Show parent
  #453
13036
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k ➡️
<snip.>
I still want to add wah guitar and a shaker + tambo track as well, but no can do, only one open track.

Gregory Scott - ubk
.

Sure you can - Have the two percussionists and the guitarist perform live and submix to the one remaining track on the tape machine!

-BP

Last edited by 13036; 16th February 2013 at 05:03 AM.. Reason: typo! thank goodness for digital editing, ha.
Old 16th February 2013
  #454
Lives for gear
 
shortstory's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by vincentvangogo ➡️
Digital sucks large balls.
Large analog balls
Old 16th February 2013 | Show parent
  #455
Fezzle
Guest
Personally I've found to my detriment that the older Ive grown, the more I hear it. I never used to notice digitals sound much at all as I always draw to the music primerily and it was and still takes a back seat in terms of importance... however I noticed that music aside, something held me with the experience of listening to records cut to and mixed off analogue machines, even if the music wasnt great. For me its not so much the euphonics, or the softness, or the head bump etc etc...I can live without that stuff easily. its the depth, the way the sound flows unobstructed like theres nothing in the way, just like PFL'ing straight off the desk. That for me is what Ive found is the absolute biggest flaw of digital conversion, one that doesnt stick its head out either because its so subtle yet so vital.. it robs the the sound of that thing that helps draw you in and feel it more like your there.
Old 16th February 2013 | Show parent
  #456
Fezzle
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beyersound ➡️
+10000!!!!!!!!!! The absolute truth!
Or just another one mate
Old 7th March 2013 | Show parent
  #457
Lives for gear
 
crosscutred's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fezzle ➡️
Personally I've found to my detriment that the older Ive grown, the more I hear it. I never used to notice digitals sound much at all as I always draw to the music primerily and it was and still takes a back seat in terms of importance... however I noticed that music aside, something held me with the experience of listening to records cut to and mixed off analogue machines, even if the music wasnt great. For me its not so much the euphonics, or the softness, or the head bump etc etc...I can live without that stuff easily. its the depth, the way the sound flows unobstructed like theres nothing in the way, just like PFL'ing straight off the desk. That for me is what Ive found is the absolute biggest flaw of digital conversion, one that doesnt stick its head out either because its so subtle yet so vital.. it robs the the sound of that thing that helps draw you in and feel it more like your there.
This pretty much sums it up for me too.
Old 22nd March 2013 | Show parent
  #458
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundKlang ➡️
...
Probably it will take some hundred years more until a 2 MHz samplingrate is reached, which then may be sufficient for calculating the inner workings in an electron tube.

In the meantime ... why not use the real stuff?
Use a Korg DSD recorder "today" and capture all the sonic glory at 5.6MHz/1-bit. For real. Thank me later...
Old 24th March 2013 | Show parent
  #459
Deleted 1846071
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astimony ➡️
My statement is that there is no signal in a digital box...
This statement is either incorrect, or based on a very narrow definition of "signal." A signal can certainly be discrete, like those in Morse code or any written language, which are comprised of discrete, non-continuous characters.

Even an electrical signal, which appears and is typically dealt with as continuous, is, at a very minute scale of observation--discrete. It is made up of individual electrons.
Old 30th April 2013
  #460
Registered User
 
🎧 15 years
when protools works in DSD that will be the day..unfortunaly thats probably another lifetime away.
Old 1st October 2013
  #461
Gear Guru
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Reviving an old thread but someone said to me that digital sound is like florescent light, either on or off and gets irritating after a while, where analogue is like incandescent where there is a dwell point. I certainly notice getting tired playing a synthesizer for many hours but never an acoustic instrument... Not saying the digital doesn't sound great, just doesn't have something like the random quality that makes it sonically intriguing.....
Old 2nd October 2013 | Show parent
  #462
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Personally love 2" 16 or 1" 8 trk or 2" 8 trk.

Yet for production work in the real world Metric Halo LIO with nice transformer pres will do anything you want to do. It's very close to DSD.

No it will not have the natural anomalies per ch that tape has, nor the compression and distortion curves, but the MH sounds great and responds to processing ITB or hardware equally well.

Mixes sounding good is skill, always.
Old 28th October 2013
  #463
Registered User
 
🎧 10 years
Mixing is an Art, Digital or Analog, make the best of both world.
Old 29th October 2013 | Show parent
  #464
Gear Nut
 
Daniele Nosella's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolet ➡️
Wait for it.....I feel something coming.....



I don't want to disrespect anyone but this post is too funny

In my opinion the key is knowing your tools. Sometimes digital tools can be an advantage, sometimes a limitation, it is the same for analog tools.

Both worlds have their weakness and strengths, if you know them then you can use the best of both.

In my opinion digital to analog conversion (I use a Cranesong HEDD 192) sounds very good (sterile, but good) if you use some analog (or digital too) device, with the preferred flavour, on the channel input and on the mix bus, then the digital mixing environment can be a great-great advantage.

In my opinion the analog to digital conversion which doesn't add any coloration to the sound (not like any analog console o tape machine) it is an advantage. Of course if I'm trying to add some vibe to the sound I prefer to hit some devices (usually analog devices) before to hit the converter... API2500 is one of my favourite, Chandler TG2 another one... If I had some money I'll buy a Manley Massive Passive, or a Chandler Curve Bender just to help to obtain that sound we love.

But then in the digital realm I can fine eq in a way analog equalizer can't, I can do crazy modulations and manipulations....

And no I don't believe in the summing boxes, I believe I can obtain the same results with mix buss processing (analog or digital)

Excuse my bad english and... Just my opinion
Old 29th October 2013
  #465
Registered User
 
🎧 10 years
Your English is great, and your balanced opinion mirrors mine. Love the Shitstorm photo. Thumbs up.
Old 29th October 2013 | Show parent
  #466
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
I know people that are so wrapped up in their love of yesterdays classic cars that they insist on driving them today with mechanical brakes! The ribbon, tubes and tape crowd must have been deliriously happy with "direct to disk" recordings that were available in the 70s. How do these proclivities integrate with todays bar of acceptance for marketing any music?
Old 29th October 2013
  #467
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
A lot of hot air compared to blind listening tests that show that no one can hear a damn thing.
Old 29th October 2013 | Show parent
  #468
Lives for gear
 
Unknown soldier's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
So after all this, I'm wondering if converters such as Burl and JCF make a difference towards mixes sounding that much more analog. Or is it just a bit more turd polishing?
Old 30th October 2013 | Show parent
  #469
Lives for gear
 
herecomesyourman's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown soldier ➡️
So after all this, I'm wondering if converters such as Burl and JCF make a difference towards mixes sounding that much more analog. Or is it just a bit more turd polishing?
No they make a big difference.

Personally I'm more of a digital guy than a tape guy...but to me the Burl and JCF stuff has all the advantages of both without any of the drawbacks. Unfortunately they're both expensive...so I think of the Burl Mothership as being the most cost effective way to get in that ballpark for a lot of channels.
Old 30th October 2013 | Show parent
  #470
Registered User
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
01011010011001010010010001001000101000010 Versus +- 600 VOLTS
Electricity is not called juice for nothing







=
Old 30th October 2013
  #471
Registered User
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
01011010011001010010010001001000101000010 Versus +- 600 VOLTS
Electricity is not called juice for nothing
I hear you baby.

No plug in can recreate voltage and fluctuations.

Cheers
Old 31st October 2013
  #472
A expensive DAW computer system, converters, with high-cost recording software and a lot of plugins.....
Good and fast to work, but sounds so poor, compared to my desk, outboard stuff and 2" 24 track machine.

Next album, for sure, back to the roots.

R.
Old 31st October 2013
  #473
Double post...

Sorry,

R.
Old 29th November 2013 | Show parent
  #474
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fezzle ➡️
Personally I've found to my detriment that the older Ive grown, the more I hear it. I never used to notice digitals sound much at all as I always draw to the music primerily and it was and still takes a back seat in terms of importance... however I noticed that music aside, something held me with the experience of listening to records cut to and mixed off analogue machines, even if the music wasnt great. For me its not so much the euphonics, or the softness, or the head bump etc etc...I can live without that stuff easily. its the depth, the way the sound flows unobstructed like theres nothing in the way, just like PFL'ing straight off the desk. That for me is what Ive found is the absolute biggest flaw of digital conversion, one that doesnt stick its head out either because its so subtle yet so vital.. it robs the the sound of that thing that helps draw you in and feel it more like your there.
This a fantastic way of describing what is WRONG with digital sound and today's music.. I pasted it and emailed this to my managers email, he runs my studio THE MIX PALACE STUDIO RECORDING. I recently did a 3 peice band live to tape and mixed them down to 1/4inch ATR at 15ips.. I just find myself listening to the recording over and over again in my car as opposed to all digital recordings..
Old 29th November 2013
  #475
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by sound_forward ➡️
but every other AD/DA converter I have tried cannot cope with original analog signal. Something is always lost, and that little "something" is a big deal when trying to mix 32channels of audio.
But this "something" is only evident after recording analog source. If I record digital source, the recording is perfect. (once I tried DA/AD loop, 5 cycles, and it was perfect).
I noticed this too. Then I realized that analog gear all has different output voltages. You need to attenuate or boost the input of the converter so that (for example) a +22DbV signal reads 0Db (a clip) on the converter's meter. Hence the gain staging argument. The problem IMO is that you are either losing resolution, or overloading the analog on the converter (but not the converter itself). It is not unusual for me to set my converters at -18dB or more, making what most people consider to be a weak digital signal... the correctness of this technique comes into play though when you do a whole mix without considering levels and the meter on the master bus in the DAW reads -6Db on the peaks ... now you actually have the headroom to mix, whereas before you were turning everything down to mix, turning down overloaded and mildly distorted signals, and losing even more resolution. Generally if you track at -18dB or less, your master bus will be spot on and your sounds will not lose any detail or be chopped off by the DAW.

Use test tones and you will see what I mean. I learned this from building car stereos. I realize my technical descriptions are not perfect, so if you don't understand anything or want to correct anything, feel free to ask or elaborate and correct.

PS: I would never use a tape machine because I don't know how. Most people don't know how to match voltages, or even consider doing so with digital stuff. For some reason people consider digital converters to be plug and play.

PPS: I would argue that I'm correct based on the fact that your recording will still end up on CD, and not lose its analog sound. When people tell me that Dark Side of the Moon sounds better on vinyl than CD, I instantly know that they have no experience with setting up electronics.
Old 30th November 2013
  #476
Registered User
 
🎧 10 years
Tape hiss was always so annoying that I don't miss analog at all.
Old 6th August 2015
  #477
Registered User
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by sound_forward ➡️
Reading all those info in other thread about gain staging etc...

Am I the only one who thinks that mixing ITB sounds "bad" because the simple fact that AD/DA converters are not capable of perfectly reproducing analog sound source?

I confess that I do not have experience with absolute highend converters (prism, lavry, dad...) but every other AD/DA converter I have tried cannot cope with original analog signal. Something is always lost, and that little "something" is a big deal when trying to mix 32channels of audio.
But this "something" is only evident after recording analog source. If I record digital source, the recording is perfect. (once I tried DA/AD loop, 5 cycles, and it was perfect).


I will try to explain what this "something" is.
I produce electronic music, and all my synths (mostly analog), samplers (mostly vintage) and fx go straight to analog desk, they do not touch AD/DA converters until the final master.
Everything sounds the way I want and mixes by itself. No EQ needed, no compression needed, the sound is alive and 3D.

When I record individal tracks to DAW and play it back to analog desk, sound is changed. 3D is lost, fatness gone, but the biggest difference is that mix does not mix by itself anymore. There is not right level anymore, it is to loud or to quiet. The biggest problem are quiet sounds like reverb, tiny delays, quiet instruments...They are pretty much impossible to find the right level ITB. This is why I hate digital and ITB.

My question is...

If I find a single stereo AD/DA converters that can truly reproduce analog source (be it tapemachine, minimoog or voice), does it mean that ITB summing will become perfect? Equal to analog?

Or in other words, did anyone here at gearslutz tried this test with top notch converters...

8/16/24 analog sources (tape machine) straight into clean analog desk or summing box and then recorded with AD converters.

VS

8/16/24 analog sources (tape machine), each channel recorded one by one into AD converter and then mixed ITB.

Results?

P.S. I do not care for this ITB vs OTB summing tests where OTB means digital playback thru analog summing box.
Looks like a post that talks mostly about your studio..
ITB sounds as good today.
Old 6th August 2015
  #478
Lives for gear
 
fwet's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Why bump a near worthless topic?
Your response makes you seem insecure. The other thread is a trolls gone wild episode. Go over there it can actually be fun playin the dozens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by raz_klinghoffer ➡️
Quote:
Originally Posted by sound_forward ➡️
Reading all those info in other thread about gain staging etc...

Am I the only one who thinks that mixing ITB sounds "bad" because the simple fact that AD/DA converters are not capable of perfectly reproducing analog sound source?

I confess that I do not have experience with absolute highend converters (prism, lavry, dad...) but every other AD/DA converter I have tried cannot cope with original analog signal. Something is always lost, and that little "something" is a big deal when trying to mix 32channels of audio.
But this "something" is only evident after recording analog source. If I record digital source, the recording is perfect. (once I tried DA/AD loop, 5 cycles, and it was perfect).


I will try to explain what this "something" is.
I produce electronic music, and all my synths (mostly analog), samplers (mostly vintage) and fx go straight to analog desk, they do not touch AD/DA converters until the final master.
Everything sounds the way I want and mixes by itself. No EQ needed, no compression needed, the sound is alive and 3D.

When I record individal tracks to DAW and play it back to analog desk, sound is changed. 3D is lost, fatness gone, but the biggest difference is that mix does not mix by itself anymore. There is not right level anymore, it is to loud or to quiet. The biggest problem are quiet sounds like reverb, tiny delays, quiet instruments...They are pretty much impossible to find the right level ITB. This is why I hate digital and ITB.

My question is...

If I find a single stereo AD/DA converters that can truly reproduce analog source (be it tapemachine, minimoog or voice), does it mean that ITB summing will become perfect? Equal to analog?

Or in other words, did anyone here at gearslutz tried this test with top notch converters...

8/16/24 analog sources (tape machine) straight into clean analog desk or summing box and then recorded with AD converters.

VS

8/16/24 analog sources (tape machine), each channel recorded one by one into AD converter and then mixed ITB.

Results?

P.S. I do not care for this ITB vs OTB summing tests where OTB means digital playback thru analog summing box.
Looks like a post that talks mostly about your studio..
ITB sounds as good today.
Old 6th August 2015 | Show parent
  #479
Registered User
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by fwet ➡️
Why bump a near worthless topic?
Your response makes you seem insecure. The other thread is a trolls gone wild episode. Go over there it can actually be fun playin the dozens.
I did responded there, and then this on appeared, and was too commercial wise that I had to.
But you got me there, I'm insecure
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 6270 views: 2047132
Avatar for jchristopherhughes
jchristopherhughes 2 days ago
replies: 12 views: 10591
Avatar for andychamp
andychamp 29th June 2010
replies: 189 views: 25580
Avatar for MarsBot
MarsBot 29th August 2017
replies: 964 views: 135444
Avatar for Jean Luc Cougar
Jean Luc Cougar 25th December 2021
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump