Quantcast
Dangerous 2-Buss LT - Page 2 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Dangerous 2-Buss LT
Old 23rd March 2003
  #31
Gear Maniac
 
Kaneepa's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Ok guys, everything is set up... panasonic converters (they DO sound good!) feeding outboard (NO more Latency problems with external gear!!) feeding D2b LT -- feeding L2 hardware onto PROTOOLS, and monitoring with a DAC-1.


BIG, really big difference! I must say (after mixing 2 songs) that I'm really impressed by the difference! :eek:


So .. what kind of test do you want me to do ?

This time we could use YOUR files to do the test..... I'll set up an ftp server so you could upload there a compressed packet (we could use monkey audio -- losless algorythm) with something like 30 seconds of a song containing at least 12-16 mono tracks ...

Opinions pls...



Ciao.

Michele
Old 23rd March 2003
  #32
Founder
 
Jules's Avatar
Enjoy your set up!!!

Old 24th March 2003
  #33
Gear Addict
 
kenn.michael's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Finally got my D2B LT!!! Here to join the club! My hybrid Native/TDM setup in Logic sends 16 channels from my ADAT bridge to (2) Metric Halo Mobile I/Os (love the sound of the converters!) into the D2B, out to the L2 at 96K, then into the Masterlink. Very satisfied with the sound improvement. Awesome really! Now, I just gotta get some nice outboard to inject some color.
Old 27th March 2003
  #34
Lives for gear
 
jeronimo's Avatar
How much for the Panas? So you got only D to As right?
Have you tried their A to Ds?
Old 28th March 2003
  #35
Nik
Gear Nut
 
🎧 15 years
Without actually having heard either the Lt or the 2-bus, I am considering buying the Lt........I can't seem to find any info that would persuade me to wait and get the 2-bus.

6db boost.....not sure I need it. Stepped output would be good but not sure it is worth the extra expense over the Lt?

Am I missing something?

Hope I am not dissapointed!

Nik
Old 28th March 2003
  #36
Gear Addict
 
kenn.michael's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I got the LT over the bigger version, and I'm loving it. I don't miss the stepped volume output, or the 6db boost...
Old 28th March 2003
  #37
Gear Maniac
 
Kaneepa's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Panas are *really* very clever (for what I've tried in my life they sound beatifully!)

Regarding D2b LT, I'm digging it more and more... it's incredible how many mixes I've done in the box that could have been sonically ten times better with the use of an analog summing device!

Ciao!

Michele
Old 28th March 2003
  #38
Founder
 
Jules's Avatar
Seems to be a growing grroup!



I think my D2b is serial number 001!

Old 28th March 2003
  #39
Lives for gear
 
jeronimo's Avatar
What kind of rigs do you guys use w/ the D2B? Are you all TDM/HD users?
I have a 001 and I plan to get a better extra D/A converter and a D2B LT... what do you think?
Old 28th March 2003
  #40
Gear Maniac
 
Kaneepa's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Kaneepa's RIG (gearslut-ism switch ON!)

-Powermac G4 DP 867 - 768 MB RAM - 230 Gig. internal HDs

-Digidesign Mix3 system

- 2 AdatBrige - connected to 2 RME ADI-8PRO
- 2 882/20
- 2 Panasonic WZDA96
- 1 Swissonic AD24
- 1 Waves L2 96khz AD Hardware

Universal Audio 2610 Tube PRE
Universal Audio 1176 reissue
Universal Audio LA-2a reissue
Manley Massive Passive
Empirical Labs Distressor
Empirical Labs Fatso
Eventide Eclipse
Kurzweil KSP8
Amek CIB
Amek 9098
API 2500 is coming in 1 week...
Dangerous 2-Bus LT
AMS RMX 16
Trident IXone 16 channel PRE
Trident MTA Signature 2
Joemeek SC4 compressor
TC Triple C
Lexicon MPX1
Sherman Filterbank 2
FMR Audio RNC

for synths:

Korg TRITON 61
Clavia Nordlead 3
Access Virus C
Clavia Micromodular
Clavia NordElectro 2
Elektron SidStation
Elektron Machinedrum
Jomox Xbase09
Futuretro 777
Waldorf RACK ATTACK
AKAI MPC4000
Roland SH101
TR707

Mackie HR824
Genelec 1029+7050 new active sub
KS Digital ADM4
Yamaha NS10



.........................AAAH I feel much better now....


Gearslut-ism MODE OFF





CIAO!

Michele
Old 28th March 2003
  #41
Lives for gear
 
jeronimo's Avatar
Niiiiice...
Why do you need all that DA? 16 ch on the RMEs and 16ch on the RAMSAs...
How do the RAMSA sound compared to the RMEs?
Old 28th March 2003
  #42
Gear Maniac
 
Kaneepa's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
To me they sound better, a little bit less hyped... and more clear sounding without being too brittle...

Ciao!

Michele


P.s. I'm using all that a/D/a cause I used to have all my synths and outboard hooked to Hardware inserts in protools...

Now that I got D2blt I'm using outboard directly in analog realm.. and finally.. no more phase/latency problems!
Old 28th March 2003
  #43
Lives for gear
 
bassmac's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Any PT|HD/192 users still think they need a D2 Buss?

Old 28th March 2003
  #44
Lives for gear
 
chap's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
indespensable

I have PT 192 HD3 and the D2B is one of the essential components of any mix I do. It offers sonic clarity, depth of field and retention (restoration?) of imaging that cannot be achieved
with conventional 'in the box' mixing. Sounds amazing and looks good too.
cheers,
chap
Old 31st March 2003
  #45
Gear Nut
 
🎧 15 years
HD3... Recently experimented with PT stems going into the Control 24 line mixer and must say it's way different than in the box. Some mixes were tons better, some were just different (ie, in the box had some good things, and analog summing had good things).... I've bought (and waiting for) a DBLT...
Old 1st April 2003
  #46
Nik
Gear Nut
 
🎧 15 years
Would it be possible for someone to provide an example of how they would set up with the LT for say a song with 48 tracks?

What would be a typical way of doing this? Do you assign each track to a particular D/A output? So you may have 8 guitar tracks assigned to a 192 output 1&2 etc.....

If you were hooking up a Smart C2 compressor, is it daisy chained from the output of the LT? I see no inserts on the back.

Last question......

What is the advantage of sending your 48 track mix into 16 inputs of the LT as apposed to 8 inputs of the LT? The unit is still summing alot of info at each input from a 48 track mix.....

Is this a vallid point? If so then one should really have 3 LT units!

I hope I am missing something! I think I am.....

Nik

Old 1st April 2003
  #47
Here for the gear
 
unclemurray's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
link em

The less summing you do in protools, the hotter your stems can be, so 16 stems can probably carry more weight than 8. But, like you said, to take full advantage of the technology, you'd probably want to utilize multiple 2busses to get the most out of a 48trk mix, but even 1 will still be better than in the box summing.
Old 1st April 2003
  #48
Nik
Gear Nut
 
🎧 15 years
Thanks for the info.

Am I correct as far as set-up goes............instead of the outputs(in PT) saying 1-2 you assign the multitudes to whichever input on the LT you desire? Correct?

Thanks again. Very much appreciate the time taken.

regards

Nik
Old 1st April 2003
  #49
Here for the gear
 
unclemurray's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
basically

Yes, for example, you could assign bass drum to out 1, snare drum to out 2, (with the mono button in on the 2buss), OHs and toms to outs 3 and 4, elctric Gtrs to 5 and 6, acoustyic guitars to 7 and 8, bg vox to 9 and 10, bass to 11 and Lead vox to 12 (with the mono button in on the 2buss), Reverb returns to 13 and 14, and fx returns to 15 and 16. This is basically the same as printing stem mixes from a console or within protools, except the 2 buss is summing the stems.
Old 1st April 2003
  #50
Gear Nut
 
🎧 15 years
It's interesting to hear others respond with their experience using analog summing. Helps to fill-out some gaps...

I've been trying to figure out why the differences accumulate between digital summing of multiple DAW tracks / mixing in the box versus outputting several stems (that share same or similar algorithms in the DAW needed to produce the stem) + analog summing..

Is the difference in phase correlation of how digital treats summing (math, number crunching and resulting errors or rounding) versus how analog circuits treat summing (resistors, caps, op amps that affect phase angles). Is it the transfer of real energy (ie energy transfer like analog tape storage, tube circuits, etc) that becomes an element when summing multiple analog stems, versus number crunching of representative signals.

Obviously the type / quality of the analog summing box will contribute significantly to the sound changes (a Dangerous bus design versus the SMB-2 design or a console - - each has it's own analog signature). Obviously how a DAW applies math to get digital summing has it's own signature and artifacts. But I also think that there's no way to get an true apples to apples mix balance between running stems versus running an in the box mix. Or at least that's been my experience with the few simple tests I've run.

For me, I found that when I take an in the box mix that I like and output that tracks to stems for analog summing, that I have to remix levels significantly to compensate for the different signal path. The track levels that I previously set for the in the box mix became un balanced (ie, vox gets too loud, drums too low) when I change the outputs from the in the box 2 bus, to stems. Maybe this is due to my simple test in using the Control 24's line mixer and will be different when I get the DBLT that is due to me... But I find that I need to remix the levels (and maybe tweaking eq, reverbs, etc.), and it starts to be a different mix. Then when I listen to this new mix that I found I like it better, but it's really not the same mix as before...

So, last night I took a song that I had both an in the box mix and an analog summed mix. Prior to last night I and others were sure that the analog summed version was much better. I imported the analog summed 2 tracks into the in the box session. Then I tweaked the in the box mix to match as close as I could to the imported.

The huge differences that I had heard in prior A/B'ing were much smaller with this tweaked comparison. I spent about an hour going back and forth between the two, and the underlining analog summed signature / DAW signature is still noticeable, but deciding that one is much better than the other was much harder to pick... The differences that I thought were huge (image, open space, depth, bass tightness I thought I heard in prior A/B'ing), were much less noticeable with a tweaked in the box mix.

So the saga continues...
Old 1st April 2003
  #51
Lives for gear
 
bassmac's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Those are some really good points!
Old 1st April 2003
  #52
Gear Addict
 
kenn.michael's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
buickwilson, you're so right about the tweaked mix and the analog summed mix not being too different in comparison. I just got my D2BLT, and have done some comparisons myself. I came to a similar conclusion as yours, but what I realized is that although you can get the "in the box" mix pretty close to the analog mix, the time used tweaking ends up being better time spent on improving the already improved analog mix. It takes less time to get the analog mix sounding better than tweaking an in the box mix. The most marked improvement I've noticed with the D2BLT is when you send mono stems, (kick, snare, bass, vox) these mono stems really cut through a mix MUCH more than an in the box mix - and because of the analog headroom, you can get kicks WAY punchier in the mix without distorting.
Old 1st April 2003
  #53
Gear Nut
 
🎧 15 years
Ken...

Much agreed... If forgot to say that exact same thought... Mixing with Stems, seems so much easier and quicker to get a good sound right away..

And, the issue on mono tracks is also something I've wondered about... How PT handles mono seems much different than analog...
Old 2nd April 2003
  #54
Lives for gear
 
jeronimo's Avatar
I also agree about the "remix" thing when sending stems of a mix to analog.
Now, one question: don't you think when you send your analog mix back to PT that you're suffering from the poor digital bus again, and that's why the differences are less noticeable than before?
Old 2nd April 2003
  #55
Gear Nut
 
🎧 15 years
Good question, but I've been using the same outputs (ie going thru DAW output stems) to A/B test..

In other words:

Test 1

A = Multiple mono and stereo stems into Analog summing into the active speakers into my ears

B = The 2 tk version of A, that was routed back from the analog summing into A-D (HD 192) and into recorded onto a stereo audio track in the session.. Then this stereo track is routed in the same way as A, except it's one stereo stem going into the analog summing box, instead of A's multiple stems... So the output section is very similar/same between A/B..

This should be testing the difference of B is the A-D converters and associated analog circuits (probably the most contributing factor), the DAW recorder (should be the least contributor - it should be storing the 24 bits directly from the converters), and finnaly B's playback track's mixer/output algorithms (ie the exact same ones used for the A outputs, so this is apples to apples, excpet this output is carrying the voltage swing of one pair of tracks, while A's multiple stems carry the voltage of several stereo/mono combinations, so the analog

I group A stems and then hit mute button between A vs. B's stereo tk and it's considerably different. The more open sound of the analog summed version collapsed a bit. I figured that was the converter's fault, and top grade converters would do better (or going to analog 2tk tape to master and forget going back to 24/96 - - saves doing PT's SRC later to get CD-R if you had a master on tape)....

I need to re-run this with my new TC6000's A-D instead of the HD A-D.. The TC6000 converters do sound nice, I didn't have these available when I previously ran the test. I also need to re-run this test and dedicate B's output to it's own stem. I think I skewed the results a bit by having B share a stem of the muted A (ie, so your point on effects of digital summing may be true). I'll try that again tonight...

Test 2

A = same tracks as in test 1, except all the outputs are assigned back to a stereo 2 bus output. Then I tweak the levels (cuz they are un balanced in this changed output routing) to match B as close as possible.

B = Same track as in test 1 (ie the previously recorded analog summed version of PT stems). All outputs from A and B share the same 2 tk mix bus. Like above, I should run this test with B having it's own dedicated output stem to see if it changes..

After tweaking the levels A and B are much closer...

Not sure if this description makes sense... but writing it sure helps me think thru some of the steps... and hearing others helps fill in the gaps.. in the quest for more open and musical sounding mixes...
Old 2nd April 2003
  #56
Gear Maniac
 
Heterodox's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
The one downside I see with the analog summing fiasco is panning...

I'm not always gonna want my bass guitar down the middle...nor my kicks, nor vocals, etc. All kinds of spontanious pan ideas pop up..and it seems like a pain to have to reassign your busses in the DAW and always be sure (between different songs/mixes) that your 2 bus LT is properly set for mono/stereo tracks. You could, of course, always have certain tracks on the LT be mono/stereo, but the balancing act to keep as many tracks on their own within the DAW whilst avoiding digitally bussing vastly different audio sources appears poopy.

Am I wrong? Easier method? Enlighten please.
Old 2nd April 2003
  #57
Gear Nut
 
🎧 15 years
The SMB-2 uses pan pots rather than Stereo/Mono switches as in the Dangerous Bus products to allow the user more freedom in panning tracks...

I typically go kick snare vox and bass in the mono and get space with panned and/or stereo guitars, keys, background vox, efx, ambient mics.. so the DBLT is cool for my needs.

BTW, speaking of panning - I was listening to Jackson Browne's latest CD (Naked Ride Home, which I bought more for the title than being a huge JB fan, although this CD has really bumped by enjoyment of JB's work/writing and playing up a few notches - but the title really brought back good memories). Anyway, here's a project that JB recorded at his pace in his own studio which has great analog equip, and then mixed by Bob Clearmountain. I really enjoyed the lesson in Bob's choices of panning the instruments, and very selective use of reverb / delays / efx to get a sound the works well for Jackson's songs...
Old 2nd April 2003
  #58
Gear Maniac
 
Heterodox's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Yes, I took the SMB-2 into account for its panning...but then with that you are stuck with your pans and have no automation (save manually (shudder)). If you want something moving around then thats just a no-go.

Guess 3 linked D2BLTs and 6 Mytek 8x96 ADCs would be overboard to get 24 channels of true, individual stereo tracks eh?
Old 2nd April 2003
  #59
Founder
 
Jules's Avatar
You can pan ANYTHING in ANYWAY you want between a stereo output pair.

My typical usage

1= kick
2= sn
monoed pair on D2b
-----------------
3&4 = stereo kit
Stereo pair on D2b
-----------------
5 = Bass
6 = Lvocal
monoed pair on D2b
-----------------
7&8 = Elec gtrs
Stereo pair on D2b
----------------
9&10 = B Vox
Stereo pair on D2b
----------------
11&12
Other stuff / keys / acc gtrs
Stereo pair on D2b
-------------------
13&14
Delays & AES effect exiting my interfaces (TCM3000 / Eventide DSP 4000 / soon to be Kurzwweil KSP -8
Stereo pair on D2b
--------------------
15&16
AMS RMX 16 reverb analog outs
Stereo pair on D2b
---------------------

Heretodetox, you could create pairs to do what ever the hell you like with..Simply pan on the PT mixer between whatever L&R outs you chose..
Old 2nd April 2003
  #60
Gear Maniac
 
Heterodox's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
But you couldn't pan the kick or snare around since they are on monos correct? Any PT panning would be summed to mono on those yes? And to achieve panning on them would mean reassigning them to different outs on a stereo pair (like perhaps moving the snare into the stereo kit 3/4 pair). Same for bass/vox...you'd have to move them to stereo pairs which means putting them on the same digital buses as other stuff that would be less than nominal to combine with. Right?

Wrong?

Heretodetox?
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 295 views: 72423
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 15929 views: 1528872
Avatar for Ragan
Ragan 11th January 2019
replies: 1296 views: 178608
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