Quantcast
"A bus is a bus" - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
"A bus is a bus"
Old 28th March 2003
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Renie's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
"A bus is a bus"

I hope Speer won't mind me pasting his questioning comments from the DUC here.

"I will never understand the theory that stems sound better than an entire mix in the box. Don't both use the same mixer? Ten drumtracks to a stereo stem is just a mini full mix in the box, no? A bus is a bus.
So if it's just a "total number of tracks mixed at once" thing, then one could theoretically get the same results by lowering all faders, then using TRIM as the first plugin on the 2-mix.
How could it be otherwise?
Now, if someone likes the sound ADDED by the analog mixer, that's a whol seperate issue."

Interesting..is a bus a bus?
Old 28th March 2003
  #2
member no 666
 
Fletcher's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
3D Audio's "DAW-SUM" tests should be rather revealing as to whether or not this assertion is correct, or incorrect.
Old 28th March 2003
  #3
Founder
 
Jules's Avatar
IMHO there is a big difference between DIRECT OUTS exiting the DAW via interfaces & Auxes that are digital routes created in PT.

I avoid AUXES in PT whenever possible.

I belive the maths involved = bad voodoo and that they effect signal in a negative way.

Old 28th March 2003
  #4
Lives for gear
 
jeronimo's Avatar
Hey Jules... do you mind explaining how your studio is set up? How do you use external fx and dynamic processors w/ the D2B and PT?
I know you said this before... but...
Old 28th March 2003
  #5
Mindreader
 
BevvyB's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
He's got a couple of aurotones, a tascam 4 track, and a sony mic that came with his (now defunkt) minidisk player.

He gets quite a good sound with it though, I think it's 'cos he knows it so well.

Being in the Heathrow airport flightpath doesn't help though, and the cardboard doesn't seem to have helped much.

heh
Old 28th March 2003
  #6
Gear Guru
 
thethrillfactor's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Jules
IMHO there is a big difference between DIRECT OUTS exiting the DAW via interfaces & Auxes that are digital routes created in PT.

I avoid AUXES in PT whenever possible.

I belive the maths involved = bad voodoo and that they effect signal in a negative way.

Hey Jules that's because you are still mixing on the old system.

In HD the problem with the auxes has been corrected.

When mixing with PT, i sometimes mix in the box(HD), through an SBM-2 summing mixer, and or through a console. They all sound different.

Sometimes one works better than the others.
Old 28th March 2003
  #7
Gear Guru
 
🎧 15 years
I could see how using auxes and stems might create a different feeling or vibe for the person doing the mixing - thus producing very different results having nothing to do with 'summing' or 'math'.

I for one am anxiously awaiting the Awesome/DAWsum CD. I think it's great that someone is doing some serious testing to help settle the questions that currently reside in the area of what Jules appropriately calls "voodoo" . Summing, fader damage, the sonic signature of a DAW- how important are these- do they even exist...? Or as Thrill Factor suggests, do they only exist on some platforms?

Supposedly you won't get the Answer Key to the disc until you take the online quiz.



I don't know if the CD will have this test, but my curiosity is focused on the 'stems' aspect of analog summing devices. What is the difference between 8, 16, 24 and more channels of summing?

That is if you have a unit with 16 channels of analog summing you will probably have to group some stems together to fit all your tracks through it. How much better (?) would 24 channels of the same circuitry be? How about if _every single track had it's own channel in the summer? How much worse would having only 8 stems sound?
Old 28th March 2003
  #8
Gear Addict
 
mdbeh's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by thethrillfactor
When mixing with PT, i sometimes mix in the box(HD), through an SBM-2 summing mixer, and or through a console. They all sound different.

Sometimes one works better than the others.
TF, is there a pattern of when you'll prefer one platform over another? Certain styles, certain types of songs, etc. Or is it less predictable?
Old 28th March 2003
  #9
Gear Guru
 
thethrillfactor's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by mdbeh
TF, is there a pattern of when you'll prefer one platform over another? Certain styles, certain types of songs, etc. Or is it less predictable?
Hey mdbeh,

Yeah there are certain styles that naturally lend itself to certain platforms.

Certain songs scream out "SSL". While others because of the complexities of the tracks(based on the producers arrangements) just work better in the box. I've mixed songs sometimes where I've switched platforms(because of the budget) and the songs just tend to lose something.

But to be honest, I feel right now adept in working on all 3. As long as I have my outboard tools with me, than it doesn't really matter anymore if its in the box,outboard summing, or on a console.

Hey I grew up engineering in NYC studios, you have to adapt to anything and anywhere(like the cockroaches)...

And no excuses!!!
Old 28th March 2003
  #10
Lives for gear
 
5down1up's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
thrill can you explain your setup a little ???

what do you mean by " avoid auxes " ??? <-- no fx
Old 28th March 2003
  #11
Gear Addict
 
mdbeh's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by thethrillfactor
And no excuses!!!
Helll yeah. As always, thanks for good advice.

I really, really hated mixing "in the box" when I first started messing with it, but I feel like I've made some strides with it lately. I'd still like to try the SBM-2, partly so I can hook up outboard without sliding tracks around. But decent DAW mixes are starting to seem possible.
Old 28th March 2003
  #12
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by mdbeh
Helll yeah. As always, thanks for good advice.

I really, really hated mixing "in the box" when I first started messing with it, but I feel like I've made some strides with it lately. I'd still like to try the SBM-2, partly so I can hook up outboard without sliding tracks around. But decent DAW mixes are starting to seem possible.
Somebody clue me in. What's SBM-2?

Lynn
Old 28th March 2003
  #13
Gear Addict
 
mdbeh's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Lynn Fuston
Somebody clue me in. What's SBM-2?

Lynn

Inward Connections SBM-2 Stereo Buss Mixer, kind of like the Dangerous 2Buss.
Old 29th March 2003
  #14
Gear Guru
 
thethrillfactor's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by 5down1up
thrill can you explain your setup a little ???

what do you mean by " avoid auxes " ??? <-- no fx

Sure.

I have an HD192 with 16 analog outs going to a patchbay. On the patchbay are all of my outboard(EQ's,comps,and efx). Also connected to the patchbay is the SBM-2.

I also have a HD96 for keyboards and effects(unbalanced).

On the HD192 I also have the 8 AES outputs setup for digital effects.

I normally process the tracks on the patchbay and track it back into PT. I then send the final outputs(whatever combination of tracks) to the SBM-2: Kick,Snare,bass,Overheads,perc,Drumsub,Stereo guitars,Lead vocal,Stereo bcks and stereo info. Hopefully by the end of the summer I will be able to get another one and I can have most of my effect returns and mults on it.

The SBM-2 has a main insert and its own panning which I employ. I send the final output of that to either an Ampex ATR or my HEDD/Masterlink combo.

I also use a Coleman(which I will dump eventually) for monitoring and speakers.

I compared the Dangerous Box and the SBM-2 and I liked the SBM-2 better for music mixing. The Dangerous Box while very neutral(great for mastering) was just not musical enough to me. The SBM-2 sounds like a fantastic Class A audiophile amp. Clean, huge, and warm at the same time.thumbsup
Old 29th March 2003
  #15
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by mdbeh
Inward Connections SBM-2 Stereo Buss Mixer, kind of like the Dangerous 2Buss.
Inward Connections? That's the VacRac people, right?

I didn't even know they were still around....
Old 29th March 2003
  #16
Gear Guru
 
thethrillfactor's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Lynn Fuston
Inward Connections? That's the VacRac people, right?

I didn't even know they were still around....

Yeah Steve Firlotte is doing specialized pieces.

He is still making the VacRac limiter now called the TSL 1.

All of the new products are custom products not made in bulk.

He is a great designer who makes very musical gear ala Dave Hill.

The SBM-2 is a Class A design(no IC's).
Old 29th March 2003
  #17
Gear Maniac
 
Heterodox's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Just curious, does anyone have experience with using linked Dangerous 2-buses? I'm wondering how this would work...example setup anyone? The manual goes into 0 detail on the subject. 16 tracks just isn't enough...
Old 30th March 2003
  #18
Lives for gear
 
littledog's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Ooooo! This is getting really good!

OK, Thrill, next question:

Since you own the Coleman DAW Monitor which I am considering as a possibility, how do you like it sonically compared to the SBM-2, as I am considering getting either the Coleman, the Dangerous Monitor, or the Inward Connections DMS-3.

Obviously the Coleman is going to be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper, but do you think I would gain a whole lot moving up to the DMS-3?

I know this discussion is going on in two different threads simultaneously, so I apologize for any annoyance.
Old 30th March 2003
  #19
Gear Guru
 
thethrillfactor's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by littledog
Ooooo! This is getting really good!

OK, Thrill, next question:

Since you own the Coleman DAW Monitor which I am considering as a possibility, how do you like it sonically compared to the SBM-2, as I am considering getting either the Coleman, the Dangerous Monitor, or the Inward Connections DMS-3.

Obviously the Coleman is going to be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper, but do you think I would gain a whole lot moving up to the DMS-3?

I know this discussion is going on in two different threads simultaneously, so I apologize for any annoyance.
I am ready to drop kick the Coleman out the door.grudge

Its ok for a budget a piece. I am not crazy about the volume pot at all(I can hear the signal degrading at different levels).

Yes there is a difference in what you pay for. By the way, I recently heard the one input Furman monitor box(SRm-80) and at certain levels it sounded better than the Coleman to my ears(plus the meters are cool).

I think you will win with either the Dangerous or the Inward Box. The Inward box is built more like a console monitoring section(I've been told its heavy and all Class A). The Dangerous box is built more for a mastering situation. Either one I am sure will sound great for your purpose.
Old 30th March 2003
  #20
Lives for gear
 
littledog's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by thethrillfactor

I think you will win with either the Dangerous or the Inward Box. The Inward box is built more like a console monitoring section(I've been told its heavy and all Class A). The Dangerous box is built more for a mastering situation. Either one I am sure will sound great for your purpose.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate this!

Now, if you wouldn't mind, would you elaborate on the distinction between a mastering box and a console monitoring section? From the websites, it seems like the main difference in features is the digital inputs and the Troisi (on the Dangerous), but otherwise they looked like they function similarly.

Thanks again!
Old 30th March 2003
  #21
Gear Guru
 
thethrillfactor's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by littledog
I can't tell you how much I appreciate this!

Now, if you wouldn't mind, would you elaborate on the distinction between a mastering box and a console monitoring section? From the websites, it seems like the main difference in features is the digital inputs and the Troisi (on the Dangerous), but otherwise they looked like they function similarly.

Thanks again!
An ideal mastering monitor would have a digital input switcher(to listen to different sources),analog inputs(to monitor analog sources),mono switch,mute(for those days that DC or digital feedback may leak into your signals and destroy your tweeters),L+R(to check different speakers) and a very transparent volume control.

This sounds like the Dangerous monitor to me.

I only wish it had meters(it has the inputs), but most people choose their own anyway.

The DSM-3 has a talkback switch(not necessary when mastering), big buttons that light up when you depress them(useful in the control room when the artist wants to dim the lights and get in their zone).

Also if it makes sense or not, looks play a part in the studio in gathering confidence from clients. Big buttons and big knobs impress people.

And the DSM-3 looks like something that is screaming "serious old school".heh

The color scheme for the Dangerous monitor leaves a lot to be desired.

They both serve their purpose well. Its a matter of personal need.
Old 30th March 2003
  #22
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Wow!



Gee, this guy gets tiring really fast.
Old 30th March 2003
  #23
Gear Maniac
 
Heterodox's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
So the top question on my mind, is it worth another $10,000 worth of top quality D/A, cables, 16x2 bus mixer, etc to do a mix outside of the box? A $10,000 noticable difference?

...from the Dangerous 2-bus manual:

The difference is never subtle (an understatement). The digital/analog combo always seemed to have more depth and presence.

This was in reference to using a Neve console as the bus mixer, but the anecdote was given to prove the point of the 2-bus being a MUST.

Thoughts?

P.S. - I am still interested to know how linking would work for these...
Old 30th March 2003
  #24
Gear Guru
 
thethrillfactor's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Heterodox
So the top question on my mind, is it worth another $10,000 worth of top quality D/A, cables, 16x2 bus mixer, etc to do a mix outside of the box? A $10,000 noticable difference?

...from the Dangerous 2-bus manual:

The difference is never subtle (an understatement). The digital/analog combo always seemed to have more depth and presence.

This was in reference to using a Neve console as the bus mixer, but the anecdote was given to prove the point of the 2-bus being a MUST.

Thoughts?

P.S. - I am still interested to know how linking would work for these...

The difference is in the low information.

You get more body and depth. But if you've never mixed on an analog console, its a whole new way of thinking(just like when you are learning to mix in the box). How to handle the new dynamics. Again, certain music believe it or not gels better in the box(just to add to the confusion). Just like certain mixes sound better when mixed down to digital instead of analog(not much but some).heh

Instead of linking two of them, you can just ask the guys over there to build you a 16X2 box. They do custom work over there.
They built a mini console for a friend(with transformers). It wasn't cheap, but he is very happy with it.
Old 31st March 2003
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Renie's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by thethrillfactor
Again, certain music believe it or not gels better in the box(just to add to the confusion). Just like certain mixes sound better when mixed down to digital instead of analog(not much but some).heh

Thrill

What is it about the tracks that makes them work better mixed in the box?
Old 31st March 2003
  #26
Gear Guru
 
thethrillfactor's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Renie
Thrill

What is it about the tracks that makes them work better mixed in the box?
The apparent lack of depth(bass) when mixing in the box actually helps tracks that need to sound fast and upfront(certain styles of dance music).

Its become a standard sound now...the "digital sound". heh


Again it doesn't work for everything. I think when you start mixing through a summing mixer, you will have to approach your mixing a tad differently.
Old 31st March 2003
  #27
Gear Addict
 
CrazyBeast's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by thethrillfactor
The apparent lack of depth(bass) when mixing in the box actually helps tracks that need to sound fast and upfront(certain styles of dance music).

Its become a standard sound now...the "digital sound". heh


Again it doesn't work for everything. I think when you start mixing through a summing mixer, you will have to approach your mixing a tad differently.
This is exactly what I've run into as well - electronic/dance type things often seem to hang together better "in the box", but almost everything else I'm finding works much better using external summing. I've been getting a lot more "the mixes sound great" comments in the last few months and I think this has been a big reason why.

I also agree with what you're saying about mixing differently - I haven't been able to put an exact finger on it yet, but it seems similar to the way you build a mix when you're using a 2 mix compressor (which I rarely do)...
Old 11th April 2003
  #28
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Heterodox
So the top question on my mind, is it worth another $10,000 worth of top quality D/A, cables, 16x2 bus mixer, etc to do a mix outside of the box? A $10,000 noticable difference?

...from the Dangerous 2-bus manual:

The difference is never subtle (an understatement). The digital/analog combo always seemed to have more depth and presence.

Take a listen for yourself and see. Same source files, same levels, same panning, about as close as you can possibly get, save for the extra layer of converters. It would answer your question really fast. The Dangerous 2-Bus, a Manley Line Mixer, an SSL 9000J, alongside 25 other DAW mixers and hardware digital mixers.

It's called the Awesome DAWSUM Sampler and it ships next week.


For more info: http://www.3daudioinc.com/cgi-bin/ul...ubb=forum&f=19


To order:
http://sales.3daudioinc.com/store/catalog.lasso


Mr. Moderator. If you judge this as SPAM, please delete it. I only post it here because I think it might help answer some of the questions posted here.
Old 11th April 2003
  #29
Lives for gear
 
dave-G's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Lynn,

I really admire that you put this project together, and I'm curious enough that I'm definitely going to order one of the CDs, but given the moderately tantalizing nature of your post, I'm also curious as to if, when or where you'd discuss your own opinions of the results.

-dave
Old 11th April 2003
  #30
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by dave-G
Lynn,

I really admire that you put this project together, and I'm curious enough that I'm definitely going to order one of the CDs, but given the moderately tantalizing nature of your post, I'm also curious as to if, when or where you'd discuss your own opinions of the results.

-dave
Tantalizing? I don't usually hear that word, at least not in reference to my posts. I think what is tantalizing about this project is the ability to put a digital myth to rest once and for all. Or maybe we can change it from myth to fact.

I think that the real appeal of this whole exercise is being able to sit down and within a few hours draw some extremely logical and viable conclusions based on your own hearing in your own space.

As far as publishing my opinions, I could write a book about what I've learned so far, just in the past 6 weeks during the course of this testing. It's been very enlightening. And some of what I've discovered is not very flattering. I'm not sure when I'll feel at liberty to discuss it all and it surely won't be until a lot of people have heard the CDs and voiced their opinions. I try hard not to bias people's judgments. As it says on the front of the CD "We Record. You Decide."

I'll gladly discuss it publically at some time in the future. Just not sure when. Actually, it's hard to keep my opinions to myself at times. So just catch me at a weak moment and say "Do you like A or B better?"
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 295 views: 72497
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 15929 views: 1529097
Avatar for Ragan
Ragan 11th January 2019
replies: 1296 views: 178795
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
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