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.
|
Hi Tim,
I must admit that I have posted lots of results but purposely left it to the reader to
come to his individual conclusion. I will post some opinions and conclusions that I
have heard from engineers who discussed the findings of this thread with me.
I am afraid there are no universal conclusions beside the ones that the O-test proved that -
1.) there is and must be a significant difference between a mix ITB or an analogue mix with all levels and panning set to the same values. -
2.) It showed that the extra DA conversion alone changes the signal significantly ( all listeners felt that the change was to the worse with the PT converters) plus
3.) each extra circuit that the signal has to pass through changes the sound more or less, each with it's specific footprint.
But that alone doesn't say which way is objectively better for what kind of style and mix.
Bill has proposed the 0-Test because he hoped that it would bring us an objective, empirical answer instead of the common exchange of subjective opinions, which are necessarily based on different recordings, different converters, outboard equipment, rooms, monitors...
I purposely tried not to value my findings too much but just report my observations and leave my taste aside in order to stay as neutral and dare I say as "scientific" as my little private setup allowed me.
If the test made any sense than it would have to mirror the individual findings of those of us who have tried various setups and grades of ITB or OTB scenarios and evaluated them by listening because in the end our individual ear-brain-socio-cultural history and style dependant taste is all that counts.
We have to feel comfortable with our gear, the work flow and we have to like what we hear.
I am happy that I kept my notes from the first double blind listening test that I took part in with some of the units that I included in the 0-test, because those notes mirror exactly what I heard in the leftover of Bill's 0-test.
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...
|
I have got lots of responses for the tests and people still come to completely different conclusions.
First this is again what I have found:
My 0-test with inserting two or more units of the same model in the path showed that:
4.) the level of the leftover raises by almost always exactly +6dB when to stages of the kind are put in series. The sound character of the leftover stays the same as with one unit but it gets more intense.
5.) when I put two different sounding units in series each with a distinctively recognizable sound in the leftover the sum showed a mix of the two characters.
For example the leftover showed the low end boom of the BA 1084 plus the high mid bite of the API 550b.
6.) I do interpret that as a prove for the observation that a module sounds different
inside a console with all cables, transformers and similar circuits following in the signal path than a single module outside the console.
Some of the engineers who listened to the files liked it a lot, when they heard the sound of two chained APIs oder 1084s and others thought that some signals were getting too much of that character. Others felt that it was great when there were three API op-amp transformer circuits in series and said that 4 of them were too much for their taste...
7.) My conclusion is that this test supports William's and Terry's theory that you get a more consistent sound when you use just one kind of mic pre or eq or record everything through one console filled with the same type of Eqs.
Now some friends of mine come to the exact opposite conclusion.
They take this as a prove that they can purposely carve a more transparent mix when they record with different mic pre amps, use different eqs and compressors
and choose each unit for a specific character that they like to add to each instrument.
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.
|
Yes, everyone among the listeners agreed that each extra conversion degraded the sound and stole detail.
But again there are different conclusions:
Everybody seems to set the individual threshold for the amount of degradation on one side and the benefit of their outboard gear on the other side differently.
Some examples:
A.) Ross wrote that he does all overdubs through a Hedd 192 converter and monitors through the Cransong Avocet. He doesn't like the sound of an extra pass through the PT converters and prefers to stay digital. His master insert goes via AES to the Cranesong Hedd.
B.) I came to the same conclusion since I bought the Layry Gold. I record all overdubs through the Lavry and I monitor through a Lavry Blue and my console or through the Avocet.
For mixes in my room I try to rent the best converters I can get and let the engineer
mix through my analogue console.
C.) A friend of mine loves to mix on his SSL Duality console and his huge collection of outboard gear to a 1" stereo analogue machine . He uses the PT 192 converters although he knows from his own tests that there are better ones. But he feels that his gear and his work-flow outweighs the degradation of the extra pass through the converters.
D.) Other colleagues of mine are looking for better converters and depending on their budgets you can find a variety ot the usual suspects.
E.) One of the engineers, a tonmeister, who took part in our tests over a long period of time uses different setups for different styles of music.
He loved the API modules for rock 'n roll and hated them for classical music.
When he recorded rock bands at our university he borrowed my API lunchbox and some vintage discrete Siemens units.
For his classical recordings he uses a very puristic setup and stays in the box after the first AD conversion with high class converters.
For score mixes he likes to get some character and he loved the sound of the 1084 in the master insert. But he needed recall and preferred the EMI Curve Bender with it's step controls.
Yesterday he told me that he would love to mix his Jazz recordings on my console.
He was very open minded during our tests, listened carefully and felt that each style of music benefited from a specific setup.
One more conclusion:
I believe that if one decides to work ITB one should try to get the best DA- converter one can afford, because those are the lenses we look through and base our decisions on. I see lots of posts from people with shitty AD and DA converters ( on other forums of coarse) who prefer to buy the seventh brand of mic pre amp and Eq " for more color" instead. Somebody should go over and tell them.
Quote: |
I welcome other perspectives.
Thanks Peter for all your work.
|
Thank you for your feedback,
best Peter