smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "bob" <segarini@sympatico.ca> |
| Subject | Re: Pro Tools (for dumb fools) |
| Date | Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:42:53 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (4.1 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Time to chime in...
Hey! It's 2003...
It took me 4 years to learn how to make records again. We use everything of
worth that has gone before and is current. Evident on the new Cats And Dogs
CD is everything from analogue tape and Cooper Time Cubes, to Nuendo, Acid
and software that's not even available to the public yet. Pro Tools is
considered outmoded, expensive, and, laughably archaic when it comes to
being used in tandem with warmer analogue outboard gear.
Nuendo, used properly with existing old and new analogue and digital
technology is the way to go until tomorrow, (or 3 months from now), when
something new and better comes along.
Those that reject the future are doomed to live in the past.
bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Williams" <ryan@headphonetreats.com>
To: <audities@smoe.org>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: Pro Tools (for dumb fools)
> > 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.