MDM, wrote on Mon, 06 October 2008 07:41 |
there is something to it, aurally... the sounds have more 'space' around them than they do itb. |
Quote: |
there is something to it, aurally... the sounds have more 'space' around them than they do itb. |
marcel wrote on Mon, 06 October 2008 12:12 |
Not to be a vibe killer (!), but there is extensive discussion about this topic here and elsewhere on the net: here is a good start Should keep you busy for a week or so, LOL. |
Bill Mueller wrote on Mon, 06 October 2008 10:12 | ||
Max, As usual, spoken like a real authority. Now, PLEASE explain why, using technically acceptable language and a minimum of hyperbole and opinion. Best regards, Bill |
Vertigo wrote on Mon, 06 October 2008 12:43 | ||
This may not have been the authoritative answer you were looking for, but it sums up my own observations 100%. I know that using Nuendo there is a definite difference between the sound of summed tracks ITB versus console. I find that the individual tracks seem to retain much more of their definition OTB and I really find the Nuendo mix bus to be terrible in comparison; although that's not to say that I've been entirely displeased with it. I've done ITB mixes that sound great, but I still like the sound of my analog console mixes much better. If you're thinking about going this route I'd definitely recommend investing in some good outboard. Plug-ins tend to sound much different OTB... -Lance |
Bill_Urick wrote on Mon, 06 October 2008 13:26 |
So true. But I'm really interested in the experience and practice of members of this board at this time. A few years ago I did a comparison of the same tracks played from PT ITB and from RADAR through a Soundcraft Delta. Clearly the RADAR/Soundcraft mix was more satisfying. But this is not the same as running stems though a box. |
marcel wrote on Mon, 06 October 2008 17:14 | ||
I think the results are going to depend on the quality of said 'box', in all fairness. There is a massive range of quality in analogue mix busses, and probably PT is going to seem (forgive me for this, Bill Mueller) 'more satisfying' than some and 'less satisfying' than others. If it's PT vs. a Mackie, I'll probably take PT, but if it's PT vs. track-for-track thru good converters and an API Legacy, I'll probably take the console mix. Is your question specific to summing boxes, or do consoles count? If consoles are used, can the console EQ's and dynamics (if onboard) be used? I know that's not fair in the scientific sense, but mixing OTB opens up a whole lot of 'other' options in terms of workflow. Complicated. |
marcel wrote on Mon, 06 October 2008 17:14 |
Is your question specific to summing boxes, or do consoles count? If consoles are used, can the console EQ's and dynamics (if onboard) be used? I know that's not fair in the scientific sense, but mixing OTB opens up a whole lot of 'other' options in terms of workflow. Complicated. |
Bill_Urick wrote on Mon, 06 October 2008 07:35 |
I have tended to dismiss this, but am reconsidering. Are you doing it? Do you feel that it makes a significant difference? What are you using? Thank you. |
wwittman wrote on Mon, 06 October 2008 18:55 | ||
Huge difference. I've been using the Dangerous 2 Buss The BEST thing is to come out into an actual console, naturally. But given the choice between mixing entirely ITB and using the summing box, the summing box wins by a lot, for me. |
Barry Hufker wrote on Tue, 07 October 2008 00:02 |
I have to agree with Lance about Nuendo. I don't know why, except it must be the software's "mix engine". But the sound I hear when I am creating the mix in Nuendo and the resultant bounce to stereo are often quite different. Often I am startled by that difference. Have I resorted to mixing OTB? No, I like the extremely clean quality I get ITB and can't afford the gear it would take just to do an OTB experiment. Barry |
Bill Mueller wrote on Mon, 06 October 2008 21:58 | ||||
Hello Lance, For the last few years I have been immersed in a culture of absolutes. If you burn so much propellant for so much time, you generate so much force which accelerates so much mass to such a speed. At the same time, the rocket scientist genius types that run the program, go to great lengths to state their opinions as OPINIONS in exactly the same way you so appropriately just did. This forum sometimes takes me to the other extreme of the experience, with some people stating their unsubstantiated opinions as FACTS. A simple, "In my opinion", or "I believe" or "as per my observation" would take these discussions in a much more productive direction. The reason I am such a stickler for such decorum, is because this is a well respected forum and there are many young engineers coming here for knowledge and wisdom. I don't want them to get those valuable commodities confused with opinion and conjecture. Best regards, Bill |
Byra wrote on Tue, 07 October 2008 09:02 |
Has anyone here checked the difference between analog summing and simply lowering the faders of each channel ITB by 12 dB or so and then summing ITB? |
MDM, wrote on Tue, 07 October 2008 08:44 |
...usually as you add instruments and layers to a mix it becomes bigger.. with digital summing it seems that you can only go so far and then the mix begins to implode.. or crap out.. in other words the APPARENT resolution, or amount of light and shade, detail etc. SEEMS limited.. |
Dave @ D D wrote on Tue, 07 October 2008 11:26 |
Tracking and mixing at low-levels has dramtically improved my work ..... |
Barry Hufker wrote on Tue, 07 October 2008 00:02 |
I have to agree with Lance about Nuendo. I don't know why, except it must be the software's "mix engine". But the sound I hear when I am creating the mix in Nuendo and the resultant bounce to stereo are often quite different. Often I am startled by that difference. Have I resorted to mixing OTB? No, I like the extremely clean quality I get ITB and can't afford the gear it would take just to do an OTB experiment. Barry |
groundhog wrote on Tue, 07 October 2008 11:58 | ||
Same here , yet with still much room for improvement . Would anyone mind sighting an example or two of specific routing you're using when going through a summing device like the Dangerous 2 Buss ? Somehow going back into the same DAW seems almost counter productive , yet it seems as though many do just that . |
groundhog wrote on Tue, 07 October 2008 11:58 |
Somehow going back into the same DAW seems almost counter productive... |
throatsinger wrote on Wed, 08 October 2008 09:58 |
Terry, how are the mic inputs on this unit? |
Tomas Danko wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 09:56 |
We already know that subtle analog distortion can make a stereo sound come out to sound wider. |
Quote: |
We also know that background noise can help to gel things in the mix, through masking. |
Quote: |
Furthermore, we also know we can get a euphonic bonus due to built-up cross-channel leakage in an analog mixer. When cranking up a signal through compressors and what-not, it can become a real parameter to consider. |
Quote: |
And a lot of people are still running their DAW tracks very hot. We know very well how detrimental that can be to audio quality. |
Quote: |
But perhaps those issues are merely scratching the surface on the differences between ITB vs OTB. |
trock wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 12:32 |
I think Korg is about to or has released their new Korg http://www.korg.com/mr2000S/ |
Quote: |
If I had a dollar for every time a band came back to me and told me that they liked one of my rough mixes better than the final mix, I would be wealthy. This kind of thing happens both in the box and out of the box by my estimate. |
Vertigo wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 15:15 |
I suppose I could do a more useful A/B comparison by taking a set of raw tracks and summing them through the ITB mix bus, and then again via individual inputs on the console (all EQ/FX/inserts bypassed, faders at 0). I'd be happy to post clips if anyone thinks the results might be of interest. -Lance |
Vertigo wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 12:15 |
I suppose I could do a more useful A/B comparison by taking a set of raw tracks and summing them through the ITB mix bus, and then again via individual inputs on the console (all EQ/FX/inserts bypassed, faders at 0). I'd be happy to post clips if anyone thinks the results might be of interest. |
Bill Mueller wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 17:26 | ||
Hello Thomas,
What? Who knows this? I have never seen an AES paper on this subject in my life. Is this another example of posting an opinion as fact? |
Bill Mueller wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 17:26 | ||
I have read a BBC study that linked tape noise to perceived high frequency response, but never anything about noise being the glue that holds a mix together. Another opinion. |
Bill Mueller wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 17:26 | ||
Again, conjecture. There is not a shred of fact to this statement. I have never read an AES paper that stated that increased cross talk was desirable in an audio circuit. Please back up your statement. |
Bill Mueller wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 17:26 | ||||
Absolutely! Here we agree. However, this has nothing whatsoever to do with OTB summing. Just do as Terry has taught now for four years and lower your gain.
I will state the simple fact yet one more time. If you invert and sum your ITB mix and your OTB mix and they perfectly cancel, son yer trippin' if you think one sounds different than the other. If they don't and you can get a double blind study to confirm that the OTB mix is discernibly better, than you have the basis for an enhancement scheme. Very valuable information or more bunk. Best regards, Bill |
trock wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 11:32 |
I think Korg is about to or has released their new Korg http://www.korg.com/mr2000S/ |
darink wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 12:46 |
Here's one "shootout" that may or may not be useful. Unfortunately the ITB is a bounce-to-disk rather than recording through busses to 2 more tracks. http://vintageking.com/site/files/sumshoot.htm |
Byra wrote on Tue, 07 October 2008 08:02 |
Has anyone here checked the difference between analog summing and simply lowering the faders of each channel ITB by 12 dB or so and then summing ITB? In other words, if its a question of too much signal for the digital mix buss to handle (even if its not clipping), wouldnt this help? I know there have been lots of posts praising the virtues of tracking at lower levels, so this seems like a logical extension of that. I havent done the comparison because I dont have a way to do it, but I know that my mixes sound better when I lower every fader equally, even though none are clipping. --Byra |
Quote: |
Yes, and you could send me those same tracks, and I could run them out of the same DAW, thru the same converters, at the same levels (yadda, yadda) into my console, and I bet they would be at least 'as different'. Assuming, of course, that we don't have the same console. |
imdrecordings wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 13:14 |
I heard the Neve wasn't Neveish at all. It's a passive summer. No real "Neve" components except for the logo, VUE's and paint job. |
Vertigo wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 16:24 | ||
Absolutely, and if you were to perform the same experiment with the same tracks and 10 different analog consoles/summing boxes you would no doubt get a wide variety of "differences". But I also suspect that you would find a common element between all of the analog summing platforms versus their ITB equivalents. That said, I think it would also be an interesting experiment to sum the same set of tracks via PT, Nuendo, Radar, etc; and a few different analog consoles and summing boxes. It would make for an interesting listen at the very least. -Lance |
Fibes wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 21:41 |
I personally have only found a measurable difference when whatever is summing in the analog realm is set up to use analog outboard. Call me crazy but if I'm really not into the whole squeeze 16 channels into this mini mixer in some sort of stem methodology and like it mentality. The best results IME come from using the DAW as a tape machine with automation and a real console with real outboard. |
compasspnt wrote on Fri, 10 October 2008 05:06 | ||
QFE |
MagnetoSound wrote on Fri, 10 October 2008 10:55 | ||||
Me too, and I don't believe it has anything to do with distortion, crosstalk, background noise or 'analog grit'. |
Bill Mueller wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 08:12 |
Other question. Has anyone here ever made a mix OTB and then the same mix ITB or Bounce to Disc and then done a Sum comparison between them? I imagine that could be extremely informative. If the two mixes perfectly cancel, you're trippin'. If they are different, the difference is GOLD. The audio that is left over is what is BETTER! What a hugely valuable thing to know. |
Tomas Danko wrote on Fri, 10 October 2008 07:57 |
..... FWIW, I consider digital summing to be more accurate at times but that's not where we should be looking for answers. |
groundhog wrote on Fri, 10 October 2008 13:21 | ||
certainly this depends in great part upon the properties of the summing tools themselves ( if analog , what you're using for make-up gain ) as well as those of the recording ( classical opera , industrial rock , ect .)and ones technique . . |
Bill Mueller wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 07:12 |
Has anyone ever done a double blind study of the ITB versus OTB analog summing? Would that not resolve the question? The majority of opinion here is in favor of OTB but there are some pretty heavy hitters out there who say it is all in your heads. |
Fibes wrote on Fri, 10 October 2008 14:25 |
Bill, The 3d audio thing was an eye opener in a yawn inducing sort of way. I'm going to contend that some DAWs have pan law issues (like some consoles) but the real downhill path is the improper use of levels, plug ins and panning within the DAW. |
Kris wrote on Fri, 10 October 2008 07:33 |
If your interested, the following link has two mixes of the same song. http://www.gearslutz.com/board/1156477-post23.html The first is a ProTools mix, done after several years of ProTools mixing. The second is a mix on a Toft ATB, done after just several days of owning my first analog board (approx. a year after the ProTools mix was done). It took me about two seconds to conclude what I like better. Over time I have come up with lots more unscientific reasons as to why I like mixing OTB. Though it's not quite the same mix, I can say I tried to do my best mix both times... feel free to do a 'sum comparison' though I'm not sure if it would be valid? |
compasspnt wrote on Fri, 10 October 2008 14:32 |
You cannot do the *same* mix through an analogue desk and "in the box." |
trock wrote on Fri, 10 October 2008 08:42 |
I think, at least on the Yamaha/Steinberg front, that companies are now starting to roll out analog or digital/analog boards that are WRITTEN for a particular DAW. whoch to me means you don't have to spend hours trying to coordinate setups and have issues with products not working well together this to me is the future, havin a hybrid approach based on the DAW's partnering with hareware vendors to combine the products the Yamaha N12 i use with cubase and nuendo the new allen and heath Zed16 i think it is and sonar real analog boards with pre amps, comps, eq, verb etc that come wiht templates and one FW cable to hook to your pc to allow you inbound routing and then outbound mixing thru the boards with the yamaha you can hook 2-3 of them together and get with 3, 24 mono and 6 stereo tracks perfectly aligned with cubase or nuendo in and out this is one area not talked about here is how great it is to have products developed together so setup and maintenence is easy. for my setup i can have say 2 N12's with just 2 FW cables and all the connectivity, templates and in and out's i need already writeen for me, and tweakable however i want anyway, i dig this approach if for no other reason then i do believe the sound is better, it offloads a ton of CPU from plugs i would have used, its rock solid and set up for me, and you know it forces me to use my ears again. there is no gui for the mixer eq or comp etc so i have to LISTEN and its fun |
compasspnt wrote on Fri, 10 October 2008 10:08 |
OK. If one did a mix through a desk (Protools > analogue desk / outboard > capture)... And then did the same song, mixing fully ITB... And then you did a null test (of course they would not null)... What exactly would the leftover difference tell you...? |
compasspnt wrote on Fri, 10 October 2008 15:08 |
OK. If one did a mix through a desk (Protools > analogue desk / outboard > capture)... And then did the same song, mixing fully ITB... And then you did a null test (of course they would not null)... What exactly would the leftover difference tell you...? |
Bill Mueller wrote on Fri, 10 October 2008 15:41 | ||
Hi Terry, I'm not sure if your post is regarding my post above, but if so, what I meant was to take an ITB mix, route it both to the two buss and split it to a level matched analog summing console. Then record the outputs from both back to the DAW and compare them. I'm not talking about using an SSL with outboard reverbs and trying to match an ITB mix. From what I gather, this has been done already and I missed it or did not have time to look into it. If anyone has any more info about these kinds of tests, I would appreciate it and might actually have time now to listen to the results. I don't believe I have a dog in this fight, because of the rig I use, but I often wonder if a dedicated digital console like mine and PT or MX rig constitute ITB? Personally, I doubt it, because I am spreading the processing load across double the processing capacity with the digital console. Thanks, Bill |
tom eaton wrote on Fri, 10 October 2008 15:46 |
Good point, Bill. Would mixing on an Axiom or Capricorn or Oxford be considered ITB? I don't think so, personally. t |
compasspnt wrote on Fri, 10 October 2008 09:08 |
OK. If one did a mix through a desk (Protools > analogue desk / outboard > capture)... And then did the same song, mixing fully ITB... And then you did a null test (of course they would not null)... What exactly would the leftover difference tell you...? |
Ross Hogarth wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 02:36 |
ok my 2 cents and i have tried to remain neutral I pretty much hate the sound of the digi 192 i/o it is smeared and the low end is bunched up it is a necessary evil often for large tracking sessions but for all my overdubs i use a cranesong 192 hedd now as far as taking and converting my whole mix out of the digi 192 d/a it is completely unacceptable to me i refuse to reconvert out of that box and THEN a/d back in no thank you i do have my digi 192 hooked up to outboard gear so when i want to compress through a piece of hardware i can or use my dmx or 2016 or whatever outbaord but my mix goes d/d aes to my hedd 192 for some tape and pentode color but goes back in aes to PT and gets recorded on an audio track i monitor the dig out of pt d to d into my avocet so my system completely ignores the analog out of protools i find that the analog out of protools sounds nothing really like my actual mix i am sure you guys like and hear a difference with your dangerous 2 buss but you will not get me to use that until it becomes an aes box ignoring the a/d and d/a of the digi192 ] |
compasspnt wrote on Fri, 10 October 2008 10:08 |
OK. If one did a mix through a desk (Protools > analogue desk / outboard > capture)... And then did the same song, mixing fully ITB... And then you did a null test (of course they would not null)... What exactly would the leftover difference tell you...? |
wwittman wrote on Wed, 15 October 2008 18:09 | ||
That you need to get out more... |
Peter Weihe wrote on Fri, 17 October 2008 19:17 | ||||
Yes, that's exactly what I felt when I had finished the 0-test today. I had performed a few summing tests for a German studio magazine and a huge test of line level stages for the University of Hannover over the last years so it was a small step to do the o test Bill had asked for. As I had expected, the 0-tests did not show anything but that each audio stage and each converter the signal has to pass through changes the sound of the signal in it's own way. Once you send the signal through more than one stage it's impossible to tell what stage is responsible for what part of the leftover. And as every analogue mix of digitally recorded signals must pass through DA converters and a summing stage there are too many variables to let you recognize the difference the analogue summing process makes in comparison to the digital summing. Anyway I will post some of my findings in my next post. The results are probably too theoretical to help anybody to make better mixes but they may show how ridiculous the level of most of the typical digital vs analogue summing debates is. |
Bill Mueller wrote on Fri, 10 October 2008 16:41 |
what I meant was to take an ITB mix, route it both to the two buss and split it to a level matched analog summing console. Then record the outputs from both back to the DAW and compare them. I'm not talking about using an SSL with outboard reverbs and trying to match an ITB mix. From what I gather, this has been done already and I missed it or did not have time to look into it. If anyone has any more info about these kinds of tests, I would appreciate it and might actually have time now to listen to the results. I don't believe I have a dog in this fight, because of the rig I use, but I often wonder if a dedicated digital console like mine and PT or MX rig constitute ITB? Personally, I doubt it, because I am spreading the processing load across double the processing capacity with the digital console. Thanks, Bill |
Peter Weihe wrote on Fri, 17 October 2008 21:57 |
Sorry for the long posts but I did the work and now I would like to get rid of the information. |
Bill Mueller wrote on Sat, 18 October 2008 16:46 |
Do you have any audio files from these experiments? |
Quote: |
Your descriptions of the leftover files make perfect sense to my personal experiences and are exactly what I was asking for and in a small way, expecting. |
Quote: |
Now my question is; are the summing differences a matter of amplitude or phase? |
Quote: |
One note. You have the groundwork for a scientific paper here. I don't know if you took the extreme precautions and documentation necessary for such, but if so (and especially if you have the files) it would sound to me like you could get a paper published. |
Bill Mueller wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 14:12 |
Other question. Has anyone here ever made a mix OTB and then the same mix ITB or Bounce to Disc and then done a Sum comparison between them? I imagine that could be extremely informative. If the two mixes perfectly cancel, you're trippin'. If they are different, the difference is GOLD. The audio that is left over is what is BETTER! What a hugely valuable thing to know. I don't have answers about this, only questions. But it seems to me that it should be pretty simple to determine just EXACTLY what is going on. I mean, an entire industry is growing up around the benefit of analog summing. Don't you think it should at least be proven to exist? Best regards, Bill |
Bill Mueller wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 12:26 |
I will state the simple fact yet one more time. If you invert and sum your ITB mix and your OTB mix and they perfectly cancel, son yer trippin' if you think one sounds different than the other. |
Vertigo wrote on Mon, 06 October 2008 12:43 |
I really find the Nuendo mix bus to be terrible in comparison... |
Deuce 225 wrote on Mon, 08 December 2008 03:01 |
... I will admit I have read this thread several times and I'm still not sure I understand the key conclusion(s) and how best to apply the principles to improve a mix. |
Quote: |
On one hand, it seems to make an argument for tracking OTB on a console with "like" pre's and EQ's. It also seems to suggest the possibility of improving OTB tracking by parallel chaining like pre's i.e. two GML's or 1084's etc... |
Quote: |
Lastly it seems to make the case for performing as few AD/DA conversions as possible. The original post was entitled "External Summing of DAW mixes". To apply "Peter's principles" to summing is where I get a little lost. Obviously to SUM OTB will require additional AD/DA conversions. So...unless there is "hearable" compensating value for performing the additional AD/DA steps it would be hard to build the case for summing OTB. |
Quote: |
I welcome other perspectives. Thanks Peter for all your work. |
wwittman wrote on Mon, 06 October 2008 18:55 | ||
Huge difference. I've been using the Dangerous 2 Buss The BEST thing is to come out into an actual console, naturally. But given the choice between mixing entirely ITB and using the summing box, the summing box wins by a lot, for me. |
cerberus wrote on Fri, 12 December 2008 09:21 |
peter; would you please remind people to dither when reducing bit depth? that would apply to any d/a conversion that has been processed in any way by the daw, including a simple gain change. it doesn't matter if your daw is floating or fixed, since the internal bit depth will always be greater than 24 bits. t.i.a. jeff dinces |
zmix wrote on Thu, 18 December 2008 09:59 |
I'm confused by your comments... Has Peter been instructing people to send you files which have been truncated without adding dither? |
Quote: |
You might be relieved to learn that dither is added after truncation, |
Quote: |
and that most 24 bit D/A converters have enough residual noise ( above -144dBfs ) to dither the signal. |
Wireline wrote on Sun, 06 September 2009 04:50 |
Question time for y'all in them thar big cities. There's a lot of different summing schemes in a lot of different boards, etc. What's to stop anyone from using their DAW for sub-bussing (like going to a Dangerous or whatnot), then to their analog board for compressions, EQ, external effects, and THEN to a monster cool summing unit like (fill in your favorite flavor that's better than what your board has here)? Example: I really like our Soundtracs Solo EQ, and my analog comps, with TC and Lexicon reverbs, but don't like (at all) the board;s summing. If this works the way we want, then we'll look at adding whatever flavor we think is needed (if any). It's gonna make for an interesting week, to be sure |
Wireline wrote on Mon, 14 September 2009 18:49 |
Might be...but its a good stopgap until the cash breaks free for the board we want, then its gonna have to do. Even as a stop gap, the summing unit will not go to waste. The EQs are why we are going thru this hoop jumping, BTW. |
Peter Weihe wrote on Sun, 06 December 2009 21:46 |
...Regarding the relatively small differences I am amazed that we could hear them by just comparing signal A and B. What a great tool the ear/brain connection is. |
Andy Simpson wrote on Tue, 08 December 2009 15:24 | ||
Hi Peter, I would not be quite so quick to assign greatness to the ear/brain in this case. In my opinion, the results and examination of 'leftovers' from a 'sum/cancellation test' are extremely unreliable if not totally misleading. Andy |
Peter Weihe wrote on Sun, 06 December 2009 21:46 |
we could hear them by just comparing signal A and B " |
Andy Simpson wrote on Tue, 08 December 2009 15:24 |
In my opinion, the results and examination of 'leftovers' from a 'sum/cancellation test' are extremely unreliable if not totally misleading. |
Peter Weihe wrote on Sun, 06 December 2009 21:46 |
As the level differences caused by various inserted circuits are frequency dependent and in some of the units probably also due to phase shift the matter is complex. The interpretation is tricky |
Peter Weihe wrote on Tue, 08 December 2009 18:44 | ||
Hi Andy, thanks for your reply. I was not referring to the sound of the leftover when I said that I was amazed that we could hear it. That would be easy to hear for everybody because those sounds are obvious. When I wrote:
I was talking about a simple A-B test. We compared Signal A, the reference signal and Signal B , which was the same signal but running through an extra circuit like a transformer or a line level stage. Those differences are subtle and some circuits like the Haufe transformers caused a leftover of -43 dB in the 0-Test which was the device with the highest cancellation that we have found so far. Nevertheless we could clearly hear those differences in a blind A-B test before we even started the 0-test by just switching from signal A to signal B.... |
Quote: |
That the Haufe transformer achieved the lowest leftovers result most likely indicates that the gain was most closely matched in this case, rather than saying very much about the distortion introduced. |
compasspnt wrote on Sun, 03 October 2010 08:54 |
Andre, how would you charactrise the differences with the "Zero Sum" method through the desk track-for-track v. the fully ITB method? |