Popslut's scientific "analogue summing vs. ITB test.

[Sales Dude McBoob]

McBoob, it's important to know your history. Protools HD sounds fucking amazing, your earlier uninformed or maybe disingenuous comment was for old PT "mix systems" from about 8 years ago. Back then summing PT mix3 systems (which I owned then) sounded best summed into a console. But, not anymore. This is par for the course for PT being innovators.

Welp, I own PT LE, I mix music on it, and after bouncing to disc it always sounds different, and never sounds as good as it did coming right off Pro Tools. So that's what I base my comment on.

I'm not saying summing buses are the answer, but I do believe that something - however slight - is lost in the mixing process.

[nebulae]

That's all very well, but I'm three hours into mixing the same track on my analogue mixer and it sounds much better already.

Stuff I do allways sound better when I mix it on a real desk - I used to think it was because it was an analog desk, and for analog desk abuse then thats still true, you could plumb in some random bit of analog gear that gives the appropriate coloration when abused instead.

Excellent suggestion. I've decided to take my CD of Live 7 as well as my CD of Voxengo Elephant, and provide them both with verbal, physical, and sexual abuse (yelling, demeaning, beating, and raping). Afterwards, I will reinstall the software and let you know how the coloration has affected my mixes. I suspect it'll be a lot warmer and punchier.

[popslut]

is this meant to be debunking the whole SSL Duende, it's famous SSL glue and other hardware like that?

No, it's just a series of observations.

Take it at face value.

[b0unce]

No, it's just a series of observations.

[Timur]

Digidesign have updated their internal mixer to 48-bit. This means that you can mix 128 faders at +12dB with the master fader down to -90dB without overdriving the internal mixing buss. There will not be much room for a final fade, but at least Pro Tools is now being idiot-proofed. Me, I prefer to watch what I am doing and trim all of my faders down so that my master fader stays at zero. It has worked for me since the '60s and continues to work for me in whatever digital DAW I mix in.

One should take note though, that Protool uses fixed-point summing whereas all our usual DAWs use floating-point. It much easier to overload fixed-point than floating-point (which is virtually impossible to overload), on the other hand fixed-point is more precise. Actually we would want integer for precision, but that would easily lead to overload or considerably increased CPU load if high bitcount integers would be used (like 1024-bit or something).

[nebulae]

It much easier to overload fixed-point than floating-point (which is virtually impossible to overload).

I bet Chuck Fucking Norris could overload it.

[Timur]

It much easier to overload fixed-point than floating-point (which is virtually impossible to overload).

I bet Chuck Fucking Norris could overload it.

You're a constant clown!

[nebulae]

It much easier to overload fixed-point than floating-point (which is virtually impossible to overload).

I bet Chuck Fucking Norris could overload it.

You're a constant clown!

[knotkranky]

McBoob, it's important to know your history. Protools HD sounds fucking amazing, your earlier uninformed or maybe disingenuous comment was for old PT "mix systems" from about 8 years ago. Back then summing PT mix3 systems (which I owned then) sounded best summed into a console. But, not anymore. This is par for the course for PT being innovators.

Welp, I own PT LE, I mix music on it, and after bouncing to disc it always sounds different, and never sounds as good as it did coming right off Pro Tools. So that's what I base my comment on.

I'm not saying summing buses are the answer, but I do believe that something - however slight - is lost in the mixing process.

Ok, fair enough. Though I don't count PT le mainly because i've never done critical work on it and I don't know a thing about it on the tech. I only have HD for the main reason of "48 bit double precision dig path" through all busses and plugins. It sounds amazing. I also never use bounce to disk. So no, I wouldn't put PT le up against an ssl J, but i would put PT HD up against it. Hell, it's always up in it anyway.

I've mixed extensively on both platforms. I love tracking on a J but have no interest on mixing on it anymore. Don't get me wrong though, I love console mixing, i love the tactile thing and all the old gear, yeah, fun for sure. The music on my site mix player has mixes from all kinds of consoles and protools versions. It doesn't matter though, a great mix is just that. That said ITB gives me the edge wwaayyyy more than console mixing, no matter how sexy they are.

Ok, on my site mp3 mix player just over my pic:
01 adat blackface into an old MCI jh500 console. Hands only, no automation.
02 Protools ITB older "mix" system. Transfered from analog tape.
03 PT "mix" system into a Neve 8078, the best analog console ever made.
04 PT "HD" system ITB. Used a little Live5 too. Battery2, Kontakt.
09 recorded with cheap ass everything into PT le digi002. Mixed in PT HD.

One of my last sessions before I moved to vegas was in an ssl J room. I had PT plugged into the external 2track inputs. Which means all 80 something faders were down including the master fader. I had a half million dollar console in front of me and I was only using 2 strands of wire from the monitor knob to the speaker amps, lol. The studio manager was giving a tour and asked me to throw up a few faders before they walked in. Fuckin funny and a little sad for the studio owner going under.

popslut makes the point, but to riff on it further; mixing methodology and what your used to makes all the diff and makes testing subjective and impossible to quantify. Anyone used to console mixing who then tries the same mix ITB, will be heading for a console for their next important, "must be right quickly" mix job. I've been ITB solidly for 6 years now cuz i've committed to it, and i grew up on tape and consoles, but even i know I can kick my own ass ITB. Even better, I can kick the ass of my potential competition on a console cuz of all the other potential benefits. One is no pressure, which makes a mix sound different. Recall, hello. Budget, hello. Time, hello. Not only do those thing make mixes sound better, but they get you jobs and more money in your check, helloooo.

No one gives a fuck what you use and I don't expect anyone to need to kick ass with what I use. I just want to help the confused. The dudes who've got a good groove goin on with whatever don't need help. Really, it's just my .02 Hope it helps a few.

[Tone Deft]

Digidesign have updated their internal mixer to 48-bit. This means that you can mix 128 faders at +12dB with the master fader down to -90dB without overdriving the internal mixing buss. There will not be much room for a final fade, but at least Pro Tools is now being idiot-proofed. Me, I prefer to watch what I am doing and trim all of my faders down so that my master fader stays at zero. It has worked for me since the '60s and continues to work for me in whatever digital DAW I mix in.

One should take note though, that Protool uses fixed-point summing whereas all our usual DAWs use floating-point. It much easier to overload fixed-point than floating-point (which is virtually impossible to overload), on the other hand fixed-point is more precise. Actually we would want integer for precision, but that would easily lead to overload or considerably increased CPU load if high bitcount integers would be used (like 1024-bit or something).

you completely missed Tarekith's point (dude, how old are you Tare?)

read the Bob Katz article he posted.

you retort is nice in theory but that's all it is and it supports what Tarekith is saying, they made PT more usable. (sorry Timur I am actually a fan of yours, I like the shit you do, sorry you're misunderstood.) billions of dollars have been made with Pro Tools, we've all danced and had our heads blown by songs done in Pro Tools, it sounds perfectly fine FFS. to debate the sound quality of Pro Tools is ridiculous to begin with. you really think that shit matters?

this is all a fucking joke, it might matter for commercial whores like pops and KK but gimme a fucking break. use what you know, use your ears, stfu and mix. some of you guys take yourselves waaaay too fucking seriously. this in a forum where posters exist who prefer KRK over Genelec/Adam monitors (that's just fucking embarrassing, delete that thread please) and you want to debate this level of detail?

pops - my $0.02 is that the real horsepower of an analog desk would be in actually applying large amounts of +/- gain to signals, shaping them in the desk. a 0dB pass through should be pretty boring, that's a calibration point (my guess), a reference set in stone, 0 in 0 out. ITB/OTB the desk or DAW isn't making the decisions, it's the producer which makes a shitload more of a difference than the tools he uses.


mixerman's rant on the topic
http://thewombforums.com/showthread.php?t=4370

[leisuremuffin]

the advantage of analog desks?

eq and dynamics on every channel without eating cpu horsepower and real hands on control for everything.

it makes getting the meat and potatoes of your mix a hell of a lot faster.


but, i find i don't need that for what i do. Shit, i hardly ever have more than 4 or 5 tracks of stuff that came from a microphone or "real" instrument in my music these days. For the electronic stuff i taylor make it to fit in the context of the track anyway....



.lm.

[Khazul]

this in a forum where posters exist who prefer KRK over Genelec/Adam monitors (that's just fucking embarrassing, delete that thread please) and you want to debate this level of detail?

Or more likely that all they are willing to pay for given the environment that are to be used in. there is absolutely no point in using any better in here - full accoustic treatment isnt an option.

If your dumb enough to blow $000s on the best monitors without the kind of environment to make it worthwhile - thats your problem. If you have the environment - lucky you.

[Tarekith]

you completely missed Tarekith's point (dude, how old are you Tare?)

I'm 32 for a few more days at least. That was Roger Nichols not Bob Katz as well, just a clarification.

Anyway, I wasn't really making a point so much as saying that anyone who thinks they need a $3000 summing box to get good sounding mixes (or better than ITB mixes) is just missing the point completely. My comment wasn't pointed at Timur or anything like that at all.

[popslut]

pops - my $0.02 is that the real horsepower of an analog desk would be in...

The analogy I always use is that, for me, mixing ITB is like trying to peel an orange with chopsticks.

Or painting your hallway through the letterbox [mail slot?].


Years ago I used to make music with no controller keyboard - just inputting notes with a mouse and editing. Then, one day, somebody lent me a Kurzweil K2000 synth which I plugged in and used as a master kybd and my music got better overnight. The difference was dramatic.

Now, I could possibly have emulated what I played by inputting it one note at a time but I suspect without the five octave keyboard in front of me I'd never have come up with the ideas in the first place; the means of input fundamentally affected the nature of the output.

I'm pretty sure it's a tactile thing. I'm used to being able to squidge the sound into the right shape with two hands and ten fingers like it's made out of clay and the mouse/keyboard method just feels like a creativity bottleneck to me.


I'll keep trying to wrap my head around ITB mixing but I think I'll be keeping my console for a while yet.

Ever tried performing a live dub mix with a mouse?

[Timur]

you completely missed Tarekith's point (dude, how old are you Tare?)

read the Bob Katz article he posted.

you retort is nice in theory but that's all it is and it supports what Tarekith is saying, they made PT more usable. (sorry Timur I am actually a fan of yours, I like the shit you do, sorry you're misunderstood.)

Erm, yes and no, sorry, but in fact I got that point, but wrote less down into the post than I had in my head.

What I actually meant to say was, that when people blamed "digital" for bad sound during the times when Protools was still running at lower bit-power then I can perfectly understand why using the Master fader instead of track faders lead to problems with a fixed-point engine. Nowadays, when higher bit-power is used by PT and floating-point is used by our DAWs this should not be an issue anymore. Still I'd like to quote myself here:

Still you better use the track faders to control your summed/mixed signal volume, because a: it's a good practice if you ever need to use analog mixers and b: certain plugins/effects might not behave as expected when being fed with signals over 0 dBFS even when they work with 32-bit floating-point themself, plus any external loop (think of track-inserts to analog outboard compressors) going out of your DAW to external gear will also clip at 0 dBFS.

As you can see I'm promoting the use of track faders myself, not so much because of limitations of the summing-engines though, but because of possible limitations of plugins and effects (plus the analog thingy).

By the way, RME's Totalmix is using fixed-point arithmetic as well and there is a good and thorough explanation of what it does internally (like that it offer 65536 steps = 16 bit per fader which are phsychoacoustically aligned, and that is uses 36 bit for summing with 7 bits as headroom and such techmojo). One would like to see such internals for DAWs as well, not to brag about them, but to understand the limits of your tool.