Print

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

[Keyplayer]

I was discussing the summing bus issue with a friend of mine. I told him about my first (and last to date) experience with mixing ITB. I had Nuendo 1.5 at the time and I decided to copy a mix, that I'd just done on my desk, to the Nuendo virtual mixer and render the file. The results  were so flat and lifeless that I went to the Nuendo Forum to ask if I'd done something wrong or to see if I had some kind of corruption in the file! All the respondents laughed and said "WELCOME TO ITB SOUND."

Obviously, there have been vast improvements in ALL DAW's since that early expeience. But, refering back to my thread WHERE'S THE LINE" http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/33536/1216/?SQ= 74ce30b662829bf5ae4c69620980920a#msg_33536  

I realized even mixing through my DA7 and using my Lexicon, Alesis, and Roland outboard FX was still TECHNICALLY mixing ITB.
It was all software in dedicated boxes interfacing via lightpipe and trs audio cables with more software/Nuendo. Yet it sounded vastly improved. So I started thinking about all the improvements to the ITB format and noticed that ALL (that I was aware of anyway) the improvements were based on more DSP resources available to specific tasks.

PT Mix 24 became Mix Plus, became HD became HD Accel, all the while one keeps adding cards the same way we purchased MDMs for more tracks (3 ADATS weren't enough. You need 6 for 48 tracks. NOW, you're cooking!) TC Powercore and United Audio gave us powered plugs for better sound by leaving our CPU RESOURCES free for the DAW. Other engineers did essentially the same thing by building PC's dedicated to native plugs and then connecting them to the DAW with a LAN.

So my question is this. Is the secret to a successfully satisfying ITB print just a matter of maximum DSP allocated to each function along the way? Or, even with the Constellation Power Company attached to your rigg, would the results still fall woefully short of a pristine recorded 2" tape running 30IPS through a Neve or API with all the SERIOUS OUTBOARD GEAR (GML, Empirical Labs, Manley, Alan Smart, SSL, Avalon, Focusrite, etc.) used on the final mixdown?

[jfrigo]

Keyplayer wrote on Sat, 12 February 2005 08:52

So my question is this. Is the secret to a successfully satisfying ITB print just a matter of maximum DSP allocated to each function along the way? Or, even with the Constellation Power Company attached to your rigg, would the results still fall woefully short of a pristine recorded 2" tape running 30IPS through a Neve or API with all the SERIOUS OUTBOARD GEAR (GML, Empirical Labs, Manley, Alan Smart, SSL, Avalon, Focusrite, etc.) used on the final mixdown?

DSP is certainly an issue, but all the DSP in the world doesn't help without a good programmer. Not only do many programmers not use available DSP for quality, rather opting for the ability to pull up the 48 EQs on the DAW that their customer base demands, but it takes a talented person to design excellent sounding digital processors. When you buy a Weiss EQ, you aren't spending the money solely on the hardware. The R&D that went into it and the quality of the digital processes - the programming - is easily as much as the hardware itself.

Also note that the ITB mixing outlined in your post refers to using processing, not just a simple summing of channels which any DAW worth its salt can, or should be able to do; perhaps not with the pleasing characteristics of external analog summing, but as a simple matter of math, mixing is pretty easy. I agree that mixing entirely in the box using all plug-ins etc. is never as satisfying as taking it out to a variety of analog processing, and preferably a good analog console. I imagine one day the DSP and software quality will catch up. Though becoming quite good in its own way, it probably will never be quite the same as an all analog mix.

[Kenny Gioia]

I don't think it's a matter of DSP.

I upgraded to HD and to my ears it sounds no better. Not at all.

I believe most people want to rationalize spending all this extra money to upgrade but it really is no better.

As far as Digital catching up, that's never gonna happen.

Not because it can't. Because there's no money in it.

If I gave you my widget invention that would be bought by 85% - 90% of the widget buying population, would you spend any serious money trying to get that last 10% - 15%.

Of course not.

Alot of the Analog hold outs would probably still hold out due to ergonomic issues.

Plus, the last guy on the planet using a Neve console would have no one to sell it to.

Anyway, my point is. It's good enuff. It gets them your money. Usually.

So figure out a way of getting the best of both worlds.

And no, Digidesign is not working on an Analog Summing Box.

Peace

[tamasdragon]

I agree. I see people day by day purchasing equipment without thinking it over. It's not just a matter of DSP. It's not just a matter of price you pay. Carefull testing, listening. And professional working. Learning, learning, learning. These things matters in my opinion.
Regards Tamas Dragon

[RMoore]

Its funny - I just did some ITB mixes as quick 'demos' last night in Logic 7 and was <quite> surprised at the quality as compared to running stems out to a desk / tape (!)..there's a certain clarity & less distortion,

I am intrigued..

its not what I would have liked to believe..

FWIW - all the tracking was done with good mics, pres etc.

It could be my gear (desk, outboard, tape deck etc) has issues like with capacitors cuz its all very old

Cheers,
RM

[jazzius]

I find it amusing that software developers are usually monitoring their handy work on Mackies or Genelecs or similar.....how can we ever hope they'll find that magic, elusive missing 10% when they don't even have the monitoring to resolve it?

[LawrenceF]

Ryan Moore wrote on Fri, 18 February 2005 12:00

Its funny - I just did some ITB mixes as quick 'demos' last night in Logic 7 and was <quite> surprised at the quality as compared to running stems out to a desk / tape (!)..there's a certain clarity & less distortion, I am intrigued.. its not what I would have liked to believe.. FWIW - all the tracking was done with good mics, pres etc. It could be my gear (desk, outboard, tape deck etc) has issues like with capacitors cuz its all very old Cheers, RM

I've found that certain songs will sound good ITB will some will not.  There's no real formula though.  What I do is mix in the box during tracking and for the basic mix after the session.  If the depth and clarity is there I usually stay there.

If it sounds flat I take it to discreet digital mixer channels and mix there.

Lawrence