smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Ryan Williams <ryan@headphonetreats.com> |
| Subject | Re: Pro Tools (for dumb fools) |
| Date | Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:51:20 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain US-ASCII (3.2 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
> Having heard pro-tools and other computer formats summed to stereo
> with an analog summer (dangerous 16 bus, etc.) and being easilly able
> to flip back and forth between the two forms of summing for
> comparison, made it really easy to tell just how much warmth is
> imparted just by having all the tracks smushed to stereo in an analog
> process.
Frank. I respect your opinion on this, and don't doubt that you found
the analog mix to be superior to the digital one. However, please
satisfy my curiosity and tell how scientific a comparison this was. The
only way to truly test this theory in my mind is to compare a simple
balanced and panned digital mix (read: no plug ins or processing of any
kind) to the same on a passive class A discreet board (read: also no eq
or processing of any kind and as direct a signal path as possible...
unlike an SSL with it's literal tons of electronic components that
signal passes though even with processing bypassed).
My reason for asking is that I have a feeling much of the warmth and
blend you were hearing in comparison to the digital mix was cumulative
of the analog mixing process... meaning eq, outboard compression, color
introduced by line amps and transformers, etc. and I would speculate
that the summing bus was only a very small part of that. I would agree
without hesitation that the analog equivalent of all the various audio
components are superior to the current digital ones, but I think
attributing the character of the mix to one particular aspect of the
signal chain (including tape, as you said!) may be exaggerating things.
You would have to be specifically comparing the representation of the
stereo image, and the only fair way to do that is eliminate all the
other variations.
I am curious and intrigued by the idea though, because I know a few
people who are starting to build custom analog summing matrixes just
for this reason... so they can still record, process and automate
within the DAW, but send all the channels out to analog to be panned
and summed to stereo (or in some cases 5.1 surround) and then going to
master tape. I may do something similar in the near future if it proves
to make a difference in the stereo imaging, especially as I move more
towards surround mixing. I'm hoping I can get a live demo when these
guys get finished.
Some of you fellow ProFools guys may (or maynot) be interested to note
that I HAVE INDEED found that "bouncing" in Protools degrades the
quality of the mix. I can hear a loss in clarity of stereo image and a
(negative) change in transient response. I blame the algorithms used in
the bouncing process. The way to get around this is rediculously simple
though... you just route all your channels through one of the stereo
digital buses to a new stereo channel and record the mix within the
session. We've always called it "capturing" versus "bouncing". I used
to do this when mastering multi-channels in SonicSolutions (it was the
only way you could do it). Check it out. You'll hear a big difference I
think. That may be a big part of what you were hearing as well.
</geek off> Rock and roll music is pretty cool, don't you think?
Ryan
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.