Print

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

[Curve Dominant]

Herr Tik,

Machensie bitte sich verstandliche, dumkampf!

LOL!!!

Don't take me so seriously mien bruder.

Ja, your mix chain is discombobulated, if mixing ITB is what you want.

Mixing ITB is an art/craft/science in and of itself.  You don't approach it like an untermenchen. It takes courage and intelligence and serious curiousity to succeed at mixing ITB.

Ditch the mixer. Ditch the D2B. They are relics of a bygone era.

You have to let it all go...fear, doubt, hesitation...

Free your mind...

[Han S.]

Tik, you'd better take Eric Vincent not too serious, I mean, "untermensch", gimmie a break please.

[t(h)ik]

Aw shucks guys,

Yeah, well first off I am an untermensch....

And secondly, if I can't even identify who said what, how fukked up is that?

And thirdly it's not discombobulated god damnit! (grin)

But most importantly, I learned something, if only that I need to shutup and work harder....

And yeah Eric "V" you're right (wait before the punch-line seriously thank you for the help and rock on bro)

And yeah Eric "V", you're so fukken right I'm just gonna throw my god damned PM2000 in the fukken dumpster, Massive Passive......fukken dumpster! and just get some virtual instrument plug-ins because they sound better (digital) and bask in the warmth of digital summing.....because it's uh, better just do the math...That's why Hendrix was never happy with any of his recordings, he thought it was because of various outside influences and not being able to focus on what was really important but it turns out the recordings sucked because the mother fukker couldn't divide the tangent of the proportionally changing rate of bit and bauds under the fukken curve...

Love ya's

Lewis D Ticknor

TIK

Lautern Germany

[Bob Olhsson]

The oddest part of the summing controversy is the fact that for years many of us made it a habit to patch around analog summing circuitry every time it was possible because most very obviously degraded the sound quality. Having had that experience over and over using a wide variety of consoles, I'm inclined to believe there must be some other technical reason that people find analog summing to be preferable.

[Nika Aldrich]

PaulyD wrote on Thu, 30 September 2004 07:28

I realize there can be zealots from both camps (i.e. analog vs digital summing), but it truly puzzles me how even top professionals can suddenly develop this bent for sterilizing the audio chain at mixdown time.

I don't think anyone is really advocating digital summing as "better" than analog summing - just cleaner.  I think most recognize the subjective benefit of the added harmonic distortion and noise when it suits the desired purpose.

Having said this, I will also say that anything done in analog summing CAN be done in digital summing if the designers of the equipment aimed for these results.  To date that has not been their aim, much to my chagrin and conversations I've had with them on the matter.  If such a situation were to occur that a digital device were given the same mathematical algorithm that is achieved in an analog environment then I believe it would be difficult to make the case to spend the money on the analog gear.  Anything that can be done in analog can have a mathematical formula associated with it and therefore can be duplicated in digital.  

Finally, just for clarification, on the work that I have done I do prefer the digital mix for various reasons, but I have generally worked on material wherein the desired goal was more of a scientific documentation of what was there rather than an artistic improvement upon it.  Working with classical singers (opera) my goal has been to preserve exactly what came out of their mouth from microphone to CD, so total transparency has always been my aim.  Therefore, I have used the digital summing available to me.

Quote:

I mean, some of the comments here strike me as subtle jabs at those who prefer analog summing.

I think this is because the terms "distortion" and "noise" are interpreted as pejorative.

Quote:

Is it not true that when a fader is pulled down in a DAW, bit resolution goes down with it?

This is indeed not true on any of today's digital mixers on the market, from Protools HD to the Sony Oxford to a Yamaha DM2000 to Cakewalk to some cheap Samson box if there is one.  The analog only guys tend to take the approach that digital is inherently broken and analog is only broken in a subjectively pleasing way, so analog is preferred.  This is not so.  Digital systems are not inherently broken despite conventional wisdom, market hype, and entry level college courses.  

Quote:

So, if one pushes all signals out of their DAW / D/A as hot as possible without clipping, then sets levels with faders in an analog mixer, they're getting maximum bit resolution at the tradeoff of added noise and distortion? But what if most listeners do indeed find that noise and distortion pleasing? Wouldn't that be a win-win situation?

They would be getting maximum bit resolution if they mixed within the DAW environment also.  So all that is left for the difference is the addition of the extra noise and distortion - which you either like and therefore use the analog equipment, or you don't like so you use the DAW.

Good post, Paul.

Nika.

[JGreenslade]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Thu, 30 September 2004 13:55

The oddest part of the summing controversy is the fact that for years many of us made it a habit to patch around analog summing circuitry every time it was possible because most very obviously degraded the sound quality. Having had that experience over and over using a wide variety of consoles, I'm inclined to believe there must be some other technical reason that people find analog summing to be preferable.

An esteemed colleague who’s been designing gear since the early ‘60s recently remarked to me that he suspects users actually like certain noise types inherent in analogue circuitry, such as thermal and shot noise.

There is actually (I kid you not) a breed of “audiophile” that fervently prefers carbon-composition resistors over metal-film, these same “audiophiles” also think that carbon pots have a subjectively better sound compared to CP – could this suggest a potential piece of evidence to reinforce my colleague’s suspicion?

If one wishes to get involved in a discussion relating to the relative advantages / disadvantages of analogue mixing I would suggest that this link could provide vital background information on the physics: http://www.ciphersbyritter.com/RES/NOISE.HTM

I would always minimise the path regardless as Bob suggests, keeping summing stages to a minimum, but, personally, analogue summing sounds better to my ears, and I would be open-minded to the concept that maybe I’m just a noise junky :-)  

Cheers,
Justin

[djui5]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Thu, 30 September 2004 06:55

The oddest part of the summing controversy is the fact that for years many of us made it a habit to patch around analog summing circuitry every time it was possible because most very obviously degraded the sound quality. Having had that experience over and over using a wide variety of consoles, I'm inclined to believe there must be some other technical reason that people find analog summing to be preferable.

The sound that analog circuitry infects into the chain would be my guess.......

[bobkatz]

PaulyD wrote on Thu, 30 September 2004 02:28

Is it not true that when a fader is pulled down in a DAW, bit resolution goes down with it?

This has become a sort of urban myth!

Is it not true that in an analog console your signal to noise ratio goes to pot if you run the faders real low and the master real high?

Likewise, in a properly engineered DAW with a dithered mixer, the behavior of the digital mixer with respect to noise or resolution is exactly as it would behave in analog---except it's probably much quieter and has less distortion! If the mixer is a fixed-point undithered unit, then yes, bit resolution would concern you, but no respectable digital mixer in 2004 should be undithered.

So, operate your digital mixer the same as you would an analog mixer, paying attention to the peak level of course, and use "reasonable" positions on your faders, and it will behave just fine.

Quote:

So, if one pushes all signals out of their DAW / D/A as hot as possible without clipping, then sets levels with faders in an analog mixer, they're getting maximum bit resolution at the tradeoff of added noise and distortion?

"Maximum bit level" just does not "compute" in the above sentence. The tradeoff is  added noise and distortion, including distortion from jitter and clock interference! If you're REALLY concerned about minimizing DSP calculations prior to the analog mix, then you should turn off the dithering in the digital mixer, NOT maximize the levels, and set all the faders to 0 dB gain and feed the outputs of multiple D/A converters. This is probably academic anyway, as the D/A converter contains significant digital filtering and other calculations...

[magicchord]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Thu, 30 September 2004 05:55

The oddest part of the summing controversy is the fact that for years many of us made it a habit to patch around analog summing circuitry every time it was possible because most very obviously degraded the sound quality. Having had that experience over and over using a wide variety of consoles, I'm inclined to believe there must be some other technical reason that people find analog summing to be preferable.

And not just "people like the sound of analog distortion".

[electrical]

bobkatz wrote on Thu, 30 September 2004 11:06

PaulyD wrote on Thu, 30 September 2004 02:28 Is it not true that when a fader is pulled down in a DAW, bit resolution goes down with it? This has become a sort of urban myth! Is it not true that in an analog console your signal to noise ratio goes to pot if you run the faders real low and the master real high?

I think this is a better way to ask the question:

In my normal working method, on an analog console, many of the individual channel faders will be at -12dB relative to 0dB (unity). Some will be higher, some lower, but for simplicity, Let's pick that point for discussion.

If I assume 0dBfs to be equivalent to the hottest analog signal (+15dB peaks over a nominal 0dBvu), and that most signals are recorded at nominal levels (-15dBfs average -- "0vu" if you please -- with occasional peaks at or near 0dBfs), then make a test using the same relative level on a digital mixer (virtual "fader" virtually "set" to -12db, mix bus at unity).

So you have a signal recorded a potential (n)-bit resolution (n bits full at 0dBfs), whose average level is 15dB below that, futher attenuated by 12dB in the virtual "fader".

How many bits expressed as n-(some number) are used to represent that attenuated waveform on average and peak?

Come on now, you've all had this in college, right?

[electrical]

thermionic wrote on Thu, 30 September 2004 10:05

Bob Olhsson wrote on Thu, 30 September 2004 13:55 The oddest part of the summing controversy is the fact that for years many of us made it a habit to patch around analog summing circuitry every time it was possible because most very obviously degraded the sound quality. Having had that experience over and over using a wide variety of consoles, I'm inclined to believe there must be some other technical reason that people find analog summing to be preferable. An esteemed colleague who’s been designing gear since the early ‘60s recently remarked to me that he suspects users actually like certain noise types inherent in analogue circuitry, such as thermal and shot noise.

This is an academic position (not one gleaned from actual use of the equipment), and one that has been discredited. Here -- I can show you how to discredit it yourself: sample the self-noise of an analog mixer, overlay it on your music and see if it sounds "better" to you, or even "more analog."

This is an analogy I've used before, but I like it, so I get to use it again: Noise and distortion appear in analog systems, but they are in small amounts and are generally unimportant. Mistaking them for "the good part" is equivalent to seeing a really fast car, noticing it has dents in it, and then running home to put dents in your Rambler to make it go faster.

The dents (noise and small amounts of distortion) are unimportant to a system that works well in other, more fundamental ways.

[Nika Aldrich]

Steve,

Great to have your contributions here.

Nika.

[Curve Dominant]

Quote:

posted by electrical: sample the self-noise of an analog mixer, overlay it on your music and see if it sounds "better" to you, or even "more analog."

Steve,

In that scenario, the noise would be uncorrelated to the signal.

I think what the gentlemen you quoted were referring to, was correlated distortion.

(??)

[Eric Bridenbaker]

Eric Vincent wrote on Thu, 30 September 2004 15:52

Quote: posted by electrical: sample the self-noise of an analog mixer, overlay it on your music and see if it sounds "better" to you, or even "more analog." Steve, In that scenario, the noise would be uncorrelated to the signal. I think what the gentlemen you quoted were referring to, was correlated distortion. (??)

Yeah, sounds like we're talking about harmonic and intermodulation type distortions that are related to the signal.

Its a bit of semantics, but is there really such a thing as "uncorrelated distortion"? - It seems that would have to be defined as noise.

Cheers,
Eric

[Nika Aldrich]

Eric Vincent wrote on Thu, 30 September 2004 20:52

Steve, In that scenario, the noise would be uncorrelated to the signal. I think what the gentlemen you quoted were referring to, was correlated distortion.

Eric,

There are two differences between analog and digital in question.  One is an increase in a certain type of noise, whose sonic signature is of a particular variety.  Steve Albini's post corresponds to this issue specifically.  That noise would indeed be uncorrelated.  The other issue is distortion, and without mapping the specific transfer function of the analog system we couldn't propose a test for the distortion audibility.  Steve's point I think is very good, though, and at least tackles half of the grounds for discussion.

Nika.