Quantcast
Nicerizer/Tonelux/ITB level-matched comp - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Nicerizer/Tonelux/ITB level-matched comp
Old 5th June 2006
  #1
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Nicerizer/Tonelux/ITB level-matched comp

I own a Nicerizer and fooled around with the Tonelux demo for a few days. These are 8 tracks stemmed into the boxes, then stereo out back into Protools, Bounce to Disc. It's 4 stereo stems, panned hard, fx printed, converters are HD 192. The levels of each track in each format were tone-matched to within .1 db.

The choices are Nicerizer, Tonelux, or ITB, in random order. What do you think?

(Notice how none of the formats are a magic bullet that clean up the murky low end.)
Attached Files

Chicken Wings A.wav (5.10 MB, 2497 views)

Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #2
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Here's the second one.
Attached Files

Chicken Wings B.wav (5.10 MB, 2241 views)

Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #3
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
And the third one.
Attached Files

Chicken Wings C.wav (5.10 MB, 2121 views)

Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #4
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
I don't know if it's me or not, but playback via my stock Dell PC speakers makes it hard to call it.

I like, B, C, A.

No idea which is which, but after 20 listens - thats what i'm rolling with.
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #5
Here for the gear
 
bugbug's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
heavy decision!

here my opinion: a-ITB
b-nicerizer
c-tonelux

the weird thing is that i like "a" the most cause it has the best room/detail. the other two are very close together, so maybe you are loosing a lot of depth trough the conversion. deep inside i hope a is the tonelux, but we will see.

i may be wrong at all.

bugbug
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #6
Gear Maniac
 
Kalite Marka's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I had to listen kind of in a surgical fashion since there isn’t a major difference between the 3; first the highs, next the mids and last the lows.
Listening through Adam S3As hooked up to Avocet monitor controller in a really trustable control room.
My vote goes for A, C, B.
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #7
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Bugbug:

You know it's weird, but I agree with you. Though I have no idea which is truely which, I listed my selections of what A,B,C could be in the same order you did. I also agree wav A had an extended "crisper" high end then B or C. I prefered the bass and organ on B though. A blend of the room + hats/snare w/ whatever B is on bass/organ would be ideal for me personally.
Old 6th June 2006
  #8
Lives for gear
 
thenoiseflower's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I like C, B, A

I also hope c is the tonex, and some low_character.
B seemed smoother overall but lacked something for my tastes, Nicerizer
and a was very very clean and tight, ITB?,


this is a balanced comparason, i cant wait to scroll!
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #9
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoiseflower
I like C, B, A

I also hope c is the tonex, and some low_character.
B seemed smoother overall but lacked something for my tastes, Nicerizer
and a was very very clean and tight, ITB?,


this is a balanced comparason, i cant wait to scroll!
I listened for around 3 seconds of each. I agree with your picks. Except, I liked B the best. I like the sound of Phoenix Audio's stuff. Personal preference.

Really interesting how "not dramatic" these summing boxes are. Maybe that's not the point, but for 3-6 grand, I want dramatic.

I recently ran a mix through quasi mastering plug ins, and then through my slutty gear (set to quasi master). The difference was MASSIVE. Night and day... even my brother in law who is simply a music fan, noticed a HUGE difference.

I would think the summing boxes would do the same thing.
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #10
Here for the gear
 
🎧 15 years
They all sound great but I prefered the sounds of B and C to A. A just seemed to fatigue my ears a bit. B and C to me sounded a bit smoother than A. Tough to pick a favorite but I think I'll go C, B, A.

Thanks for posting the files. Look forward to the results.
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #11
Gear Addict
 
🎧 15 years
I lined them all up in a PT's session and sliced em up. When I looked at the regions, I thought I could hear a difference. When I started listening eyes closed it was almost impossible. I then tried several different permutations of listening to different orders of mutes. After a while I have to conclude that the differences are too close to call.
Dave McNair
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #12
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
A fun thing to do is to drag these files into a DAW session, mix them up, and then alternately solo them and see if you can identify them. Then mix them up and try again. See if your results are consistent.

If you're curious about what you're listening to, it's a sampled loop in the right channel and live drums hard left. The basic track was live with Wurly, rhythm gtr, drums and bass gtr playing along with the loop. The organ (a real one) and sax are overdubs. So there's leakage and live-band slop and murk.

-R
Old 6th June 2006
  #13
Gear Addict
 
KingUgly's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
B sounds the best here.

Then C, then A.
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #14
Gear Addict
 
JSVice's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I'm on my laptop and this demonstration illustrates perfectly that on a less than great playback system, this whole ITB vs. OTB debate is beyond moot. I can't imagine people busting out their iPods and doing this comparison with 128k mp3's. I'll listen through the Grados later. I'm hoping I end up having no definitive preference.
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #15
Lives for gear
 
TheSweetener's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Very close indeed! I like the top end of A. Were others think it's harsh, I think it's airy.
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #16
Lives for gear
 
blaugruen7's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
after some listening on speakers and headphones there is no real difference for me.
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #17
Lives for gear
 
H-Rezz's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Cann't tell a difference that would amount to any percentage , maybe B and C had 5% more bottom than A and thats about it ........

These ITB and OTB shootouts seem to show how good ITB actually is instead of convincing me of the opposite , here we have 2 known summing boxes and we'd all be splitting hairs that they actually sound better than ITB , i used to be the biggest OTB advocate and over the course of the last 5 months i couldn't be bothered with the difference .....

More interesting to me is what you used for your tracking , i love the tone of the pre/pre's you are using , if it's not to off thread can you share what you used for tracking ?

Thanks in advance
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Mind-Over-Midi's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by H-Rezz
Cann't tell a difference that would amount to any percentage , maybe B and C had 5% more bottom than A and thats about it ........

These ITB and OTB shootouts seem to show how good ITB actually is instead of convincing me of the opposite , here we have 2 known summing boxes and we'd all be splitting hairs that they actually sound better than ITB , i used to be the biggest OTB advocate and over the course of the last 5 months i couldn't be bothered with the difference .....

More interesting to me is what you used for your tracking , i love the tone of the pre/pre's you are using , if it's not to off thread can you share what you used for tracking ?

Thanks in advance


I tend to agree with H-Rezz. These shootouts are, if anything, leaning me more toward ITB mixing. There may be some very slight differences, but not nearly enough to really justify spending several thousand dollars. Outboard processing (EQ's, Compressors, etc.) is one thing, outboard summing is starting to seem like another.



Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #19
Gear Addict
 
Billster's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Really tough to tell. C has a more depth and IMO a better tonality than A and at the same time more transparency than B. So C, B, A is my ranking.

I guess C is Tonelux, B Nicerizer and A ITB. Could be completely wrong though. This is really close and shows that you can achieve very good results ITB.

Good job RKrizman

Regards,
Bill
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Cojo's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I'm pretty sure that A is ITB, then B Tonelux and C Nicerizer...

...so, what's the right answer? FWIW I like B the most!

/Cojo
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #21
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Did you mix each version through each summing device or did you just run stems into each summing device?

The reason I ask is that I have found that the only way to appreciate a good summing box is to actually do some mixes through it.
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #22
Lives for gear
 
funka's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I give it a try(only listened to it on bad quality headphones):
I think B is the nicerizer, and I like it most, more "warm" to me, good vibes.
C is more harsh/edgier to me, must be ITB.
And A should be tonelux because of medium focus/punch...and "little natural compression".

I like B, it sounds more analog to me.
Hope I am not too far away from the truth...

Results?
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #23
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by H-Rezz
More interesting to me is what you used for your tracking , i love the tone of the pre/pre's you are using , if it's not to off thread can you share what you used for tracking ?

Thanks in advance
Tracked at Mad Dog through their old Neve. I think it's 1081-type pre's, or some equivalent. Organ OD was at my place, 184's on top into a UA 2-610, U47 fet on bottom through ? Sax was probably a 67 into coulda-been-anything.

BTW, if it sounds anywhere decent at all it's because it was tracked by Bruce Sugar.

-R
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #24
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by redroom
Did you mix each version through each summing device or did you just run stems into each summing device?

The reason I ask is that I have found that the only way to appreciate a good summing box is to actually do some mixes through it.
It's the same mix, stemmed into the boxes. And you're right, just listening like this only tells part of the story. You as an objective listener have no vested interest in any of the little details I sweated over, so you're not as likely to hear or notice little differences between the boxes that I do in the course of mixing. The experience of working through these boxes is greater than the slight differences in the results would have you believe.

-R
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #25
Lives for gear
 
not_so_new's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
It's the same mix, stemmed into the boxes. And you're right, just listening like this only tells part of the story. You as an objective listener have no vested interest in any of the little details I sweated over, so you're not as likely to hear or notice little differences between the boxes that I do in the course of mixing. The experience of working through these boxes is greater than the slight differences in the results would have you believe.

-R
First thanks for the test, very interesting.

Second I have not had a chance to listen on real speakers yet so I will withhold judgment other than to say that with cheap phones and computer speakers (what most people are probably listening to these days) I don't hear a big difference between any of these files. Again I have not checked them out on anything "good" yet so YMM and probably will V.

Lastly, not giving anything away about the test files themselves, what can you say about the work flow of the 3? Above you said that "The experience of working through these boxes is greater than the slight differences in the results would have you believe." What did you enjoy / get the most out of working through?

Thanks again man!
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #26
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by not_so_new
Lastly, not giving anything away about the test files themselves, what can you say about the work flow of the 3? Above you said that "The experience of working through these boxes is greater than the slight differences in the results would have you believe." What did you enjoy / get the most out of working through?

Thanks again man!
If people are interested, I have a few more files to post. There's another tune that I mixed ITB, and then mixed it again from scratch through the Nicerizer using all my outboard gear. It's not a level-matched scientific comparison. Each technology makes possible a unique methodology, and when you follow each path to it's own conclusion the results are different and the feeling in the process is different.

-R
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #27
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
If people are interested, I have a few more files to post. There's another tune that I mixed ITB, and then mixed it again from scratch through the Nicerizer using all my outboard gear. It's not a level-matched scientific comparison. Each technology makes possible a unique methodology, and when you follow each path to it's own conclusion the results are different and the feeling in the process is different.

-R
Hey RKrizman, yes please load them up, I like the quality of your A B C files and I can already imagin what you could do with a mix up from the scratch through Nicerizer and outboard. I think it would be an eye opener for many.

Andreas
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #28
Gear Nut
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
If people are interested, I have a few more files to post. There's another tune that I mixed ITB...-R
That would be great Rkrizman,
Also when you say “ITB” is that entirely ITB including dynamic processing (eq, comp etc)?

I have been doing my own tests for about 2 years now and am entirely sold on using outboard dynamics…however the whole summing thing still seems ? to me.
Each summing box does affect the sound in different ways but nothing for me to WOW about.
The only box that “somehow” made some difference was the original Nicerizer, which added some color to the whole mix (“color” which did not really excite me). Haven’t tried the Tonelux yet.

Nevertheless, I will be getting some kind of 16 ch mixer NOT because they sound better…but rather for the routing convenience they bring to the table when you have a lot of outboard processors.
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #29
Lives for gear
 
not_so_new's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumin
That would be great Rkrizman,
Also when you say “ITB” is that entirely ITB including dynamic processing (eq, comp etc)?

I have been doing my own tests for about 2 years now and am entirely sold on using outboard dynamics…however the whole summing thing still seems ? to me.
Each summing box does affect the sound in different ways but nothing for me to WOW about.
The only box that “somehow” made some difference was the original Nicerizer, which added some color to the whole mix (“color” which did not really excite me). Haven’t tried the Tonelux yet.

Nevertheless, I will be getting some kind of 16 ch mixer NOT because they sound better…but rather for the routing convenience they bring to the table when you have a lot of outboard processors.
This post could have been written by me.

heh

The real reason I want to have a good summing solution is just to be able to use quality outboard comps and EQ.
Old 6th June 2006 | Show parent
  #30
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Lets see the results - the last 10 replies are more or less the same. I don't suspect anyone else is going to contribute a response that requires us wait longer for the results! heh
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 56 views: 16288
Avatar for Critic
Critic 16th December 2003
replies: 69 views: 13589
Avatar for pentagon
pentagon 26th November 2017
replies: 34 views: 5535
Avatar for maskedman72
maskedman72 28th October 2004
replies: 2380 views: 410094
Avatar for didier.brest
didier.brest 3 weeks ago
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