Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[minister]

ericjenson wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 23:48

i've noticed that with the harsher sounding mixes i recieve, the majority of them have been done with MOTU digital performer(sorry if there are any fans of this system present). ProTools a little less but it's still there.

could be the operator.

not as many things are mixed in DP as in PT...and a more experienced mixer would likely use PT to mix -- but use DP for traking and MIDI.

it could also be the plug-ins available for each platform.

often the harshness is from levels being too hot.....either in tracking or mixing or both.

[Ben F]

What I was kind of alluding to in the previous post is that even good mixes on Pro Tools or similar still have some form of digitus.

Mastering can help solve this.

[dcollins]

Ben F wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 23:35

What I was kind of alluding to in the previous post is that even good mixes on Pro Tools or similar still have some form of digitus. Mastering can help solve this.

I would argue that if you keep the digital levels down, and don't use every plug just 'cause you have them, ITB can actually work.

DC

[Ged Leitch]

dcollins wrote on Fri, 04 August 2006 08:07

Ben F wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 23:35 What I was kind of alluding to in the previous post is that even good mixes on Pro Tools or similar still have some form of digitus. Mastering can help solve this. I would argue that if you keep the digital levels down, and don't use every plug just 'cause you have them, ITB can actually work. DC

Wise words Dave, i guess the level thing is quite a common problem.

[Patrik T]

Patrik T wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 21:25

Why see red lights glow on the meters and the plugs when people record and mix at 24 bits?

[present]

Patrik T wrote on Fri, 04 August 2006 10:58

Patrik T wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 21:25 Why see red lights glow on the meters and the plugs when people record and mix at 24 bits?

A quote within a quote!

Yes, that's the problem with the digital ceiling. It's psychological (the idea that one can and must hit zero). Plus when you mix, most plugs are hidden from view. This isn't helped by presets with lots of gain, or auto-gain.
Many people don't pay attention to their gain staging.
And when they do, often they'll just pull down the faders.
I think this has always been the case, but in analogue mixer headroom might be more forgiving, or at least the distortion not as ugly.
And then there's the shift in experienced/inexperienced users delivering commercial mixes. I mean, an increase in fader-pullers.

So, I think it will pay off to teach people how to do proper gain staging and to use rms metering like the K-system.

But, to get back on topic, I think what Ged wants to discuss is,
given this situation of having to master dodgy mixes, could a tube-emulation plug-in help and if so, which one works best.

I agree that it's wisest to use the very best EQ you can lay your hands on, but if a mix is on the grainy side, some harmonic sweetening can give very agreeable results, IMHO.
I haven't used the Crane Song plugs (and I think they may not do VST 'cause it's a rotten torrent world out there) but I think in VST, Ged's first suggestion, the Voxengo analog flux suite, is the best you can get at the moment.

[masterhse]

Bob Boyd wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 13:38

For any of you who have a PT TDM rig (which is a smaller percentage in the mastering community), Crane Song's Phoenix can't be beat.  It is actually 5 plug-ins with different flavors of tape and machine characteristics.  Like the HEDD unit, it is simple both in look and operation but very powerful in it's results. It has become my starting point when I'm mixing and can definitely help give you the "tape" feel.

I've been a big advocate of Phoenix as well, in fact I prefer it over the tape emulation of the HEDD unit (for strictly tape emulation)at least when I tried them "head to hedd". Many will argue though, YMMV, etc.

There are more variations possible with Phoenix over the HEDD for tape, however it doesn't have the tube emulation that the HEDD has which is a big advantage. It would be great if Dave Hill came up with a separate plug for this.

As far as ITB, I recently produced a project that was recorded on ADATS, then tranferred over to Pro Tools for editing. While the ITB mixes from PT sounded good, we ended up mixing the PT sessions through an SSL. I had the engineer mix to a stereo pair back to PT and on another stereo pair we inserted a 1/2" machine running at 15 ips back to PT. The tracks with the tape machine won hands down for this material (Americana/Rock). It really depends on the style of music though. For Rap/Hip-Hop, Jazz, Classical, etc. it may have been the other way around.

[Patrik T]

Of course we should stay on topic, but it is of outmost importance to ask oneself if the best way to fight harshness (or whatever is "disturbing") is by digitally simulating tape-behaviour ITB. This is after all what this discussion is about.

As long as this simulation is 50-50-good, I disagree very much that it is solving a problem (which actually might not be a problem).

IMO, the classic digititus (whatever that is) might be LESS bothersome than the modern "emulatus" since the emulatus have tendencies to be over-cooked or poorly coded. I think it is very important to also hang on to this aspect of the discussion, rather than simplify it into that a tape-emulation should save the day. Because as long it is a mediocre emulation, it kills audio and makes it turn boring, dull, grainy, lifeless, re-quantiasized, plastic and cheap.

It can be a good idea to listen through some early/mid 90's CD's in order to hear that digititus sometimes is not what it seems and more so is meant to be there as parts of a sonic, full spectrum.

Example; Jeff Buckley - "Grace" (original master). Does it suffer from digititus because it is rather bright and clear or is it just a darn good sounding recording? IMO - the latter.

Best Regards + Peace
Patrik


P.S. I have not worked with or heard the mentioned Phoenix so it might be ace!

[HansP]

it seems there are some typical flavors of "digititus".
I think, as established pro DAW systems like PT bring with them a rich box of HQ plugins, then the typical mix uses many instances of these plugins. HQ still does not mean 100% perfect or true analog behavior. so,  it is likely that all the little rounding errors and (optimized=limited in number) coefficient schemata just have their footprints add up. this can make a typical ITB sound, just for the presence of typical plugins.
another thing is nonlinear plugins. if non-upsampling, they can create "illegal" value patterns (that might trigger the "gibb" or cause increased computational errors around nyquist or half nyquist, or intermodulation artefacts with the sampling frequency), and upsampling plugins have to rely on a very exact reconstruction-filter when re-downsampling, which would eat up CPU so it is "optimized" again.

my conclusion is, that plugin instance count matters. the more CPU the plugin uses for quality (number of coefficients, bit-width, upsampling, final filtering) the less that happens.

the digititus flavors have typical patterns in how and where they hit, and so we can expect that there are a few typical processing formulas that can reduce the effect, alas in most cases that would decrease or compress the high end of the spectrum also in general. "tape" and analog processing (with a very good reconstruction filter in the chain) are very likely to address some of these problems, particularly because these technologies have a very high level of engineering and quality, and when they have an impact or side-effect on the resulting sound, they are made to make that impact sound "good" or "musical" in most cases.

I would expect that the importance of tape and analog chains will decrease over the next years, because of growing CPU power and better plugin quality, and better digital modeling of the "anti-digititus" formulas, that are intrinsic in the impact of tape and analog interception.
still, these will remain as pleasant sound effects, that listeners in some genres love.

[present]

Patrik T wrote on Fri, 04 August 2006 13:07

Jeff Buckley - "Grace" (original master). Does it suffer from digititus because it is rather bright and clear or is it just a darn good sounding recording? IMO - the latter.

You're right there. Digititus isn't necessarily that bad.

Anyway, say something is mixed ITB. Lots of plugins, lots of arithmetics and re-quantisizing going on. I think if there's a question of overdoing plugins, it's mostly done during mixing.
Now, if things can be smoothed out a little by using an ITB emulatus thingy, what's the harm?
Processing may be necessary to deliver a nice master, so why not use a well coded plugin like Tape Bus (or whatever's your go to emulatus)?
If used tastefully and not overdone of course...but a good ME knows that.

[cerberus]

just put it on a radio style cart machine without a stop tone. run it for an hour if a mild case. up to overnight for more severe digititus.   if one looks carefully inside the shell of the cart, they can see the tiny little bits of digititus...

jeff dinces

[Patrik T]

dcollins wrote on Fri, 04 August 2006 06:33

In extreme cases, a bit of the HEDD Pentode and Tape seems to work.  That, and using an analog mastering chain....which sounds good with any source............

"In extreme cases"...= Rarely, uncommon, not so often, emergency exit and so on.

In other words - No default use.

That's the main thing. There are people who stretch out for "a little twist on the tape and the pentode" far too often (in some cases every time) and thereby maybe send out slightly wrong signals and messages to others regarding the true benefits of processes like these.

Thanks to Dave Collins for being realistic about this.

Best Regards
Patrik

[Ben F]

dcollins wrote on Fri, 04 August 2006 16:37

Ben F wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 23:35 What I was kind of alluding to in the previous post is that even good mixes on Pro Tools or similar still have some form of digitus. Mastering can help solve this. I would argue that if you keep the digital levels down, and don't use every plug just 'cause you have them, ITB can actually work. DC

I'd argue mixing 48 tracks of audio using outboard analog, or ITB,  takes more technical and creative skill than mastering.

It's a bit insulting to mix engineers to say they don't understand gain structure or how to use plug-ins properly. I think the problem is much more complex than this. Mastering is so much simpler when it comes down to decisions- 2 tracks of audio.

Ultimately the proof is in the result achieved and that's all I'm really interested in.

[present]

Ben F wrote on Fri, 04 August 2006 15:53

It's a bit insulting to mix engineers to say they don't understand gain structure or how to use plug-ins properly.

I don't think anyone is trying to imply this. That would be insulting. And stupid.
We're merely discussing the possible ITB effect when many plug ins are employed, be it during mixing or mastering. It's not about one being more complicated than the other in terms of operation, but about how this accumulation of digital arithmetics may affect sound for better or worse.

Some people may be going berserk with all the possibilities at hand and create great ITB art. But there are others who use things for the sake of using them, who may end up with a brittle sound.
Could be anybody.

Quote:

Ultimately the proof is in the result achieved and that's all I'm really interested in.

Agreed, completely.

Regards

[bblackwood]

Ben F wrote on Fri, 04 August 2006 08:53

It's a bit insulting to mix engineers to say they don't understand gain structure or how to use plug-ins properly. I think the problem is much more complex than this.

I don't think DC's intention was to be insulting, but rather sharing his experience asking mixers how they achieved the sounds they do.

That's the reason I believe he's correct - not because he says so, but because over and over when I ask mixers what they do to make it sound good, those mentioned above are common elements...