Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Summing Comparison Files Posted!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! [message #75887 is a reply to message #75884] |
Sun, 12 November 2006 17:05   |
Dubya Mark Wilson
Messages: 108
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'm not listening on refs but my laptop speakers tell me A is best, B is
second but slightly scoopy, C is last, narrow and less detailed. Lower mids
in A really treat the guitars nicely without trouncing the keys and seems
just all around more suitable for the piece. B wouldn't be bad if it were
Contemp Jazz or such. C... don't know what's up with that one but it just
don't do it for me. I'll be interested to hear which is PARIS, etc, and
what your routing, hdwr and procedures are/were.
Dubya
"Neil" <IOU@OIUOI.com> wrote in message news:4557bcc2$1@linux...
>
> Three files total... one's a 'Mixed in SX, Summed in Paris'
> mix, another is a straight-ahead SX 2-Buss Mix, and another
> is an SX Stems Mix (note: NOT necessarily in the order I
> just mentioned):
>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipA.mp3
>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipB.mp3
>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipC.mp3
>
>
> They're fairly short... 1:14 each, just enough to get a touch of
> instrumentation by itself, a portion with lead vox, then
> background vox. They're Hi-Rez mp3's.
>
> Any guesses as to which is which? Or better yet, which one do
> you like better?
>
> Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! [message #75889 is a reply to message #75884] |
Sun, 12 November 2006 17:24 |
Carl Amburn
Messages: 214
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Not really my cup-of-tea stylistically, but "B" is the one you want. It's
pretty different from the other two - to me, as if I yanked the cotton out
of my ears after listening to "A" and "C".
-Carl
"Neil" <IOU@OIUOI.com> wrote in message news:4557bcc2$1@linux...
>
> Three files total... one's a 'Mixed in SX, Summed in Paris'
> mix, another is a straight-ahead SX 2-Buss Mix, and another
> is an SX Stems Mix (note: NOT necessarily in the order I
> just mentioned):
>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipA.mp3
>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipB.mp3
>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipC.mp3
>
>
> They're fairly short... 1:14 each, just enough to get a touch of
> instrumentation by itself, a portion with lead vox, then
> background vox. They're Hi-Rez mp3's.
>
> Any guesses as to which is which? Or better yet, which one do
> you like better?
>
> Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! [message #75890 is a reply to message #75887] |
Sun, 12 November 2006 17:22 |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hmm, that's very interesting..
I preferred "C", except for that fact that it sounded a little smaller to me
than the others, it was cleaner somehow.
"B" was next and the "A" which I didn't like...too mushy
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"Dubya Mark Wilson" <mark.xspam@avidrecording.com> wrote in message
news:4557c2bb@linux...
> I'm not listening on refs but my laptop speakers tell me A is best, B is
> second but slightly scoopy, C is last, narrow and less detailed. Lower
> mids in A really treat the guitars nicely without trouncing the keys and
> seems just all around more suitable for the piece. B wouldn't be bad if
> it were Contemp Jazz or such. C... don't know what's up with that one but
> it just don't do it for me. I'll be interested to hear which is PARIS,
> etc, and what your routing, hdwr and procedures are/were.
>
> Dubya
>
> "Neil" <IOU@OIUOI.com> wrote in message news:4557bcc2$1@linux...
>>
>> Three files total... one's a 'Mixed in SX, Summed in Paris'
>> mix, another is a straight-ahead SX 2-Buss Mix, and another
>> is an SX Stems Mix (note: NOT necessarily in the order I
>> just mentioned):
>>
>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipA.mp3
>>
>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipB.mp3
>>
>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipC.mp3
>>
>>
>> They're fairly short... 1:14 each, just enough to get a touch of
>> instrumentation by itself, a portion with lead vox, then
>> background vox. They're Hi-Rez mp3's.
>>
>> Any guesses as to which is which? Or better yet, which one do
>> you like better?
>>
>> Neil
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! [message #75891 is a reply to message #75887] |
Sun, 12 November 2006 18:44 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dubya... I'll wait 'til I get a few more responses before I say
which is which, but here's what the procedures were:
-For the straight-ahead 2-bus Native Mix, it was basically just
as I've been saying in recent threads with regard to managing
levels, nothing special. Dithered down to a 16-bit wav file @
44.1k in SX using the UV22HR dither plugin. Done.
-For the Native Stems mix, it was the exact same mix as above,
but I just ran out the following stereo stems:
1.) Drums
2.) Low end stuff (bass, keyboard bass)
3.) Keys
4.) Guitars
5.) Vocals
I put all the tracks in various folders so I can just mute the
whole folder for the tracks that I'm not sending out to the
stems. This does not affect the sound in any way (placing them
in folders), it's just a convenient way of grouping them without
really "grouping" them audio-wise. Also in this manner, all the
group send/return effects that have anything to do with each
track are included in the particular stem, as well. Now in this
case I don't dither down at this stage, what I do is to export
each stem at 88.2k/32-bit float, then open a new (empty)
project, and import those stem files I just created... if I'm
getting any overs on the master, I just bring down each stereo
stem channel by the same amount, and it keeps everything in
the same balance - easy. At THAT point, I dither down to
16-bit/44.1k for the final stereo mix file.
-For the "Mixed in Native/Summed in Paris" mix, I of course kept
the mix identical, but sent four groups out of one of my
Multiface's 8 balanced analog outs to the 8-in MEC module.
Those groups were similar, but not identical to the stems I
used for the stems mix version (I didn't want to send a fifth
group out, because then I would've had to use the lower-
resolution MEC Master inputs); those groups were:
1.) Drums
2.) Low End stuff & Rhythm Guitars
3.) Keys & solo guitars
4.) Vocals
Now, I did place a transparent brickwall limiter set at -0.3
and no gain maximization across each output, so that I wouldn't
clip either the 8-in module or the individual channels in
Paris. This also replicated the stems mix in that regard,
because I limit everything going out into stems to -0.3.
I know some of you guys love the clip factor in Paris, but I
wanted to make it fair in all respects.... if I'm avoiding
clipping in SX, I should also be avoiding it in Paree. In this
regard, neither the 8-in module's inputs or any of the
individual channels in Paris were clipping with the channel
levels set at 0db - all those channels were left untouched
because the mix & balances were, of course, coming from
the SX mix. I did have to bring the Master down to -2.4db to
avoid clips there, which should tell you that Paris was indeed
getting good solid levels into the channels. I set Paris
for "Live Mix" mode & bounced to disk at 16-bit/44.1k. This
actually - it could be argued - gave Paris an advanatge in a
way, since no dither was needed to convert to that bitrate.
To convert the .wav files to hi-rez mp3 (the reason I didn't
mix down directly to mp3 in the Cubase 2-bus or stems version
is that I wanted to make sure it was fair since I couldn't do
that in Paris (i.e: bounce directly to disk into mp3 format) -
IOW, all versions had to undergo the step to convert from .wav
to mp3... anyway, to convert from .wav to mp3, I simply
imported all three versions into a new project in Cubase, made
sure they played back at as close to the same relative power
levels (both peak & RMS) as I could, and exported straight to
hi-rez mp3.
And that's what you're hearing.
Neil
"Dubya Mark Wilson" <mark.xspam@avidrecording.com> wrote:
>I'm not listening on refs but my laptop speakers tell me A is best, B is
>second but slightly scoopy, C is last, narrow and less detailed. Lower
mids
>in A really treat the guitars nicely without trouncing the keys and seems
>just all around more suitable for the piece. B wouldn't be bad if it were
>Contemp Jazz or such. C... don't know what's up with that one but it just
>don't do it for me. I'll be interested to hear which is PARIS, etc, and
>what your routing, hdwr and procedures are/were.
>
>Dubya
>
>"Neil" <IOU@OIUOI.com> wrote in message news:4557bcc2$1@linux...
>>
>> Three files total... one's a 'Mixed in SX, Summed in Paris'
>> mix, another is a straight-ahead SX 2-Buss Mix, and another
>> is an SX Stems Mix (note: NOT necessarily in the order I
>> just mentioned):
>>
>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipA.mp3
>>
>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipB.mp3
>>
>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipC.mp3
>>
>>
>> They're fairly short... 1:14 each, just enough to get a touch of
>> instrumentation by itself, a portion with lead vox, then
>> background vox. They're Hi-Rez mp3's.
>>
>> Any guesses as to which is which? Or better yet, which one do
>> you like better?
>>
>> Neil
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! [message #75892 is a reply to message #75889] |
Sun, 12 November 2006 18:50 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Style isn't the issue here, it's a matter of: "can you do a big
mix with a lotta tracks in Native vs. summming in some other
way"? lol
Keep the comments coming guys! It's interesting so far -
different people are liking different versions! Will any one
version win out?
Neil
"Carl Amburn" <carlamburn@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>Not really my cup-of-tea stylistically, but "B" is the one you want. It's
>pretty different from the other two - to me, as if I yanked the cotton out
>of my ears after listening to "A" and "C".
>
>-Carl
>
>"Neil" <IOU@OIUOI.com> wrote in message news:4557bcc2$1@linux...
>>
>> Three files total... one's a 'Mixed in SX, Summed in Paris'
>> mix, another is a straight-ahead SX 2-Buss Mix, and another
>> is an SX Stems Mix (note: NOT necessarily in the order I
>> just mentioned):
>>
>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipA.mp3
>>
>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipB.mp3
>>
>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipC.mp3
>>
>>
>> They're fairly short... 1:14 each, just enough to get a touch of
>> instrumentation by itself, a portion with lead vox, then
>> background vox. They're Hi-Rez mp3's.
>>
>> Any guesses as to which is which? Or better yet, which one do
>> you like better?
>>
>> Neil
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! [message #75894 is a reply to message #75892] |
Fri, 10 November 2006 18:26 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I just listened to them on my Studio monitors. A sounded a bit harsh. B
sounded pretty well balanced and I liked it. There was something about C
overall that I preferred..a sense of space around the vocal track I think.
It was a big difference when I first heard the track. After listening to
them all a few more times, the differences began to blur. Something about it
just jumped out at me about C.
Tell me this was the native mix ITB so I can stop the madness.
;o)
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4557cf79$1@linux...
>
> Style isn't the issue here, it's a matter of: "can you do a big
> mix with a lotta tracks in Native vs. summming in some other
> way"? lol
>
> Keep the comments coming guys! It's interesting so far -
> different people are liking different versions! Will any one
> version win out?
>
> Neil
>
>
> "Carl Amburn" <carlamburn@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> >Not really my cup-of-tea stylistically, but "B" is the one you want. It's
> >pretty different from the other two - to me, as if I yanked the cotton
out
> >of my ears after listening to "A" and "C".
> >
> >-Carl
> >
> >"Neil" <IOU@OIUOI.com> wrote in message news:4557bcc2$1@linux...
> >>
> >> Three files total... one's a 'Mixed in SX, Summed in Paris'
> >> mix, another is a straight-ahead SX 2-Buss Mix, and another
> >> is an SX Stems Mix (note: NOT necessarily in the order I
> >> just mentioned):
> >>
> >>
http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipA.mp3
> >>
> >>
http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipB.mp3
> >>
> >>
http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipC.mp3
> >>
> >>
> >> They're fairly short... 1:14 each, just enough to get a touch of
> >> instrumentation by itself, a portion with lead vox, then
> >> background vox. They're Hi-Rez mp3's.
> >>
> >> Any guesses as to which is which? Or better yet, which one do
> >> you like better?
> >>
> >> Neil
> >
> >
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! [message #75897 is a reply to message #75892] |
Sun, 12 November 2006 19:36 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Neil,
Yes styles of music is the case. I still say that it's very difficault to
mix Hip and R &B styles of music (Hot agressive) bangin beats, that are in
your face..
I use Nuendo, Pro- Tools & Paris. I know each strenghts and weaknesses. Nuendo/SX
, has a nice wide-open, warm charater mix summing sound..While Pro Tools
has a very nice top-end that pretty much mixes itself. Paris, warm, not a
wide(summing), but can take very agressive styles of muic with ease..
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>Style isn't the issue here, it's a matter of: "can you do a big
>mix with a lotta tracks in Native vs. summming in some other
>way"? lol
>
>Keep the comments coming guys! It's interesting so far -
>different people are liking different versions! Will any one
>version win out?
>
>Neil
>
>
>"Carl Amburn" <carlamburn@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>>Not really my cup-of-tea stylistically, but "B" is the one you want. It's
>>pretty different from the other two - to me, as if I yanked the cotton
out
>>of my ears after listening to "A" and "C".
>>
>>-Carl
>>
>>"Neil" <IOU@OIUOI.com> wrote in message news:4557bcc2$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Three files total... one's a 'Mixed in SX, Summed in Paris'
>>> mix, another is a straight-ahead SX 2-Buss Mix, and another
>>> is an SX Stems Mix (note: NOT necessarily in the order I
>>> just mentioned):
>>>
>>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipA.mp3
>>>
>>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipB.mp3
>>>
>>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipC.mp3
>>>
>>>
>>> They're fairly short... 1:14 each, just enough to get a touch of
>>> instrumentation by itself, a portion with lead vox, then
>>> background vox. They're Hi-Rez mp3's.
>>>
>>> Any guesses as to which is which? Or better yet, which one do
>>> you like better?
>>>
>>> Neil
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! [message #75900 is a reply to message #75890] |
Sun, 12 November 2006 18:58 |
Dubya Mark Wilson
Messages: 108
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Prolly not that interesting, Martin, considering my laptop speakers are
maybe the size of a nickel.
W.
"Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:4557c6ad$1@linux...
> Hmm, that's very interesting..
> I preferred "C", except for that fact that it sounded a little smaller to
> me than the others, it was cleaner somehow.
> "B" was next and the "A" which I didn't like...too mushy
> --
> Martin Harrington
> www.lendanear-sound.com
>
> "Dubya Mark Wilson" <mark.xspam@avidrecording.com> wrote in message
> news:4557c2bb@linux...
>> I'm not listening on refs but my laptop speakers tell me A is best, B is
>> second but slightly scoopy, C is last, narrow and less detailed. Lower
>> mids in A really treat the guitars nicely without trouncing the keys and
>> seems just all around more suitable for the piece. B wouldn't be bad if
>> it were Contemp Jazz or such. C... don't know what's up with that one
>> but it just don't do it for me. I'll be interested to hear which is
>> PARIS, etc, and what your routing, hdwr and procedures are/were.
>>
>> Dubya
>>
>> "Neil" <IOU@OIUOI.com> wrote in message news:4557bcc2$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Three files total... one's a 'Mixed in SX, Summed in Paris'
>>> mix, another is a straight-ahead SX 2-Buss Mix, and another
>>> is an SX Stems Mix (note: NOT necessarily in the order I
>>> just mentioned):
>>>
>>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipA.mp3
>>>
>>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipB.mp3
>>>
>>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipC.mp3
>>>
>>>
>>> They're fairly short... 1:14 each, just enough to get a touch of
>>> instrumentation by itself, a portion with lead vox, then
>>> background vox. They're Hi-Rez mp3's.
>>>
>>> Any guesses as to which is which? Or better yet, which one do
>>> you like better?
>>>
>>> Neil
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! [message #75901 is a reply to message #75884] |
Sun, 12 November 2006 20:10 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I can only listen a low volume on a cheap system at the moment as I'm at
work, but from what I heard, I thought B was Paris, but almost preferred
mix C for the material in question.
I'll have another listen when I get home on my proper monitors.
Cheers,
Kim.
"Neil" <IOU@OIUOI.com> wrote:
>
>Three files total... one's a 'Mixed in SX, Summed in Paris'
>mix, another is a straight-ahead SX 2-Buss Mix, and another
>is an SX Stems Mix (note: NOT necessarily in the order I
>just mentioned):
>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipA.mp3
>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipB.mp3
>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipC.mp3
>
>
>They're fairly short... 1:14 each, just enough to get a touch of
>instrumentation by itself, a portion with lead vox, then
>background vox. They're Hi-Rez mp3's.
>
>Any guesses as to which is which? Or better yet, which one do
>you like better?
>
>Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! [message #75905 is a reply to message #75901] |
Sun, 12 November 2006 20:09 |
Miguel Vigil [1]
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Listening on small PC speakers:
B best. Detailed and in your face. I guess SX stems.
A a little dark, but it works, I guess Paris.
C don't like this one. Grainy. I guess SX 2-buss.
BR
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4557e240$1@linux...
>
>
> I can only listen a low volume on a cheap system at the moment as I'm at
> work, but from what I heard, I thought B was Paris, but almost preferred
> mix C for the material in question.
>
> I'll have another listen when I get home on my proper monitors.
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.
>
> "Neil" <IOU@OIUOI.com> wrote:
> >
> >Three files total... one's a 'Mixed in SX, Summed in Paris'
> >mix, another is a straight-ahead SX 2-Buss Mix, and another
> >is an SX Stems Mix (note: NOT necessarily in the order I
> >just mentioned):
> >
> > http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipA.mp3
> >
> > http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipB.mp3
> >
> > http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipC.mp3
> >
> >
> >They're fairly short... 1:14 each, just enough to get a touch of
> >instrumentation by itself, a portion with lead vox, then
> >background vox. They're Hi-Rez mp3's.
> >
> >Any guesses as to which is which? Or better yet, which one do
> >you like better?
> >
> >Neil
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! [message #75906 is a reply to message #75905] |
Sun, 12 November 2006 20:21 |
Miguel Vigil [1]
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
If it's possible, it would be interesting to hear a test with the
SX-stem-files imported and summed in Paris.
BR.
"BR" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:4557ed5b@linux...
> Listening on small PC speakers:
> B best. Detailed and in your face. I guess SX stems.
> A a little dark, but it works, I guess Paris.
> C don't like this one. Grainy. I guess SX 2-buss.
>
> BR
>
>
> "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4557e240$1@linux...
> >
> >
> > I can only listen a low volume on a cheap system at the moment as I'm at
> > work, but from what I heard, I thought B was Paris, but almost preferred
> > mix C for the material in question.
> >
> > I'll have another listen when I get home on my proper monitors.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kim.
> >
> > "Neil" <IOU@OIUOI.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >Three files total... one's a 'Mixed in SX, Summed in Paris'
> > >mix, another is a straight-ahead SX 2-Buss Mix, and another
> > >is an SX Stems Mix (note: NOT necessarily in the order I
> > >just mentioned):
> > >
> >
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipA.mp3
> > >
> >
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipB.mp3
> > >
> >
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipC.mp3
> > >
> > >
> > >They're fairly short... 1:14 each, just enough to get a touch of
> > >instrumentation by itself, a portion with lead vox, then
> > >background vox. They're Hi-Rez mp3's.
> > >
> > >Any guesses as to which is which? Or better yet, which one do
> > >you like better?
> > >
> > >Neil
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! [message #75907 is a reply to message #75884] |
Sun, 12 November 2006 20:21 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
FWIW, C is the softest starting out, A is the loudest and B is in the
middle (according to my DB meter).
That said, C also seems to be somewhat muffled compared to the other
two. A feels like it's the most open.
Keeping in mind that I just got back from the opera and I still have
sopranos ringing in my ears (Magic Flute)...
So lessee, how about:
A - Stems
B - SX
C - Paris
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Neil wrote:
> Three files total... one's a 'Mixed in SX, Summed in Paris'
> mix, another is a straight-ahead SX 2-Buss Mix, and another
> is an SX Stems Mix (note: NOT necessarily in the order I
> just mentioned):
>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipA.mp3
>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipB.mp3
>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipC.mp3
>
>
> They're fairly short... 1:14 each, just enough to get a touch of
> instrumentation by itself, a portion with lead vox, then
> background vox. They're Hi-Rez mp3's.
>
> Any guesses as to which is which? Or better yet, which one do
> you like better?
>
> Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! - OK, here's my assessments & also the answers [message #75908 is a reply to message #75902] |
Sun, 12 November 2006 21:15 |
Nil
Messages: 245
Registered: March 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Here's what I think:
- "A" is OK, but not as good as either "B" or "C"... here's why:
1.) It's not as clear overall... it's got a bit of an edge or
rasp to it.
2.) It's not as well-defined across the entire frequency
spectrum... for example listen to the delay on the lead vocals;
it comes across MUCH clearer in "B".
3.) In it's defense, it DOES seem to be a little bit more phase-
coherent than "B", though. Something about it is a little
tighter.
- "B" is pretty good because:
1.) It definitely comes across as a bit "bigger" than "A"; the
soundfield isn't necessarily wider, but it's more well-defined.
2.) It's VERY clean... listen to the high mids & highs...
subtle things like the delay on the vocals I mentioned, and
also the air on the background vox overall come across much
better. Better so than in version "C", also.
3.) The low end is better than "A", as well - listen to the
break section after the BG vox are done - like starting right
at 1:00 minute into the clip... you can feel the low notes
better there than in "A".
- "C" is also pretty good, but for completely different reasons
than "B":
1.) There's nothing harsh about it, it's very smooth. Nothing
objectionable about it.
2.) It's pretty clean and doesn't sound clipped in any way.
3.) Low end feels great... lotsa "glue" to the lows & lo-mids.
4.) Highs & subtle things are subdued, though - listen to the
cymbals, the delay on the lead vox, and also the overall tone
of BG vox... less definition & "air" than "B".
My wish? If I could have something that were a combination of
the 500 HZ & below portion of Mix "C", and everything from that
point upwards from mix "B".
And the answers are:
Mix "A" is the straight-ahead Native 2-Buss version.
Mix "B" is the Native Stems version.
Mix "C" is the Summed-in-Paris version.
Neil
"alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>I listened through my computer speakers .
>A sounded like you spread the stereo field a little making the echo repeats
>and keyboard drone seem wider.A is my best out of the 3 if i had to pick.
>C was a little narrower with less mids.
>B was about the same width , more mids.
>Im with DJ on after the 3rd time through the line blurred.
>
>"Neil" <IOU@OIUOI.com> wrote in message news:4557bcc2$1@linux...
>>
>> Three files total... one's a 'Mixed in SX, Summed in Paris'
>> mix, another is a straight-ahead SX 2-Buss Mix, and another
>> is an SX Stems Mix (note: NOT necessarily in the order I
>> just mentioned):
>>
>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipA.mp3
>>
>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipB.mp3
>>
>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipC.mp3
>>
>>
>> They're fairly short... 1:14 each, just enough to get a touch of
>> instrumentation by itself, a portion with lead vox, then
>> background vox. They're Hi-Rez mp3's.
>>
>> Any guesses as to which is which? Or better yet, which one do
>> you like better?
>>
>> Neil
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! - OK, here's my assessments & also the answers [message #75910 is a reply to message #75908] |
Tue, 10 October 2006 20:46 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Well ****!!! Man........I was *really* hoping that Mix C was the native mix.
The way the vocal sat in the mix was a dead giveaway but I was soooooo
hoping that C was the native ITB mix. You don't know how much. ;o)
I think you would have a bit more detail and depth to the soundstage on mix
C if you were streaming the tracks over ADAT into Paris rather than the
AD/DA conversion though the analog streaming still seems to have revealed
the *Parisness* of the mix.
Thanks for taking the time to do this test Neil. Guess my ears haven't been
playing tricks on me recently. I think you may have a nice surprise when you
get the Pulsar card. I think you're going to have something closer to a
cross between mix B & C.
Once my 3rd card comes in, I'll get around to doing something similar and
post it up.
;O)
"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4557f156$1@linux...
>
> Here's what I think:
>
> - "A" is OK, but not as good as either "B" or "C"... here's why:
> 1.) It's not as clear overall... it's got a bit of an edge or
> rasp to it.
> 2.) It's not as well-defined across the entire frequency
> spectrum... for example listen to the delay on the lead vocals;
> it comes across MUCH clearer in "B".
> 3.) In it's defense, it DOES seem to be a little bit more phase-
> coherent than "B", though. Something about it is a little
> tighter.
>
> - "B" is pretty good because:
> 1.) It definitely comes across as a bit "bigger" than "A"; the
> soundfield isn't necessarily wider, but it's more well-defined.
> 2.) It's VERY clean... listen to the high mids & highs...
> subtle things like the delay on the vocals I mentioned, and
> also the air on the background vox overall come across much
> better. Better so than in version "C", also.
> 3.) The low end is better than "A", as well - listen to the
> break section after the BG vox are done - like starting right
> at 1:00 minute into the clip... you can feel the low notes
> better there than in "A".
>
> - "C" is also pretty good, but for completely different reasons
> than "B":
> 1.) There's nothing harsh about it, it's very smooth. Nothing
> objectionable about it.
> 2.) It's pretty clean and doesn't sound clipped in any way.
> 3.) Low end feels great... lotsa "glue" to the lows & lo-mids.
> 4.) Highs & subtle things are subdued, though - listen to the
> cymbals, the delay on the lead vox, and also the overall tone
> of BG vox... less definition & "air" than "B".
>
> My wish? If I could have something that were a combination of
> the 500 HZ & below portion of Mix "C", and everything from that
> point upwards from mix "B".
>
> And the answers are:
>
> Mix "A" is the straight-ahead Native 2-Buss version.
>
> Mix "B" is the Native Stems version.
>
> Mix "C" is the Summed-in-Paris version.
>
>
> Neil
>
>
>
> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
> >I listened through my computer speakers .
> >A sounded like you spread the stereo field a little making the echo
repeats
>
> >and keyboard drone seem wider.A is my best out of the 3 if i had to pick.
> >C was a little narrower with less mids.
> >B was about the same width , more mids.
> >Im with DJ on after the 3rd time through the line blurred.
> >
> >"Neil" <IOU@OIUOI.com> wrote in message news:4557bcc2$1@linux...
> >>
> >> Three files total... one's a 'Mixed in SX, Summed in Paris'
> >> mix, another is a straight-ahead SX 2-Buss Mix, and another
> >> is an SX Stems Mix (note: NOT necessarily in the order I
> >> just mentioned):
> >>
> >>
http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipA.mp3
> >>
> >>
http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipB.mp3
> >>
> >>
http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipC.mp3
> >>
> >>
> >> They're fairly short... 1:14 each, just enough to get a touch of
> >> instrumentation by itself, a portion with lead vox, then
> >> background vox. They're Hi-Rez mp3's.
> >>
> >> Any guesses as to which is which? Or better yet, which one do
> >> you like better?
> >>
> >> Neil
> >
> >
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! - OK, here's my assessments & also the answers [message #75911 is a reply to message #75910] |
Sun, 12 November 2006 21:57 |
Nei
Messages: 108
Registered: November 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>Well ****!!! Man........I was *really* hoping that Mix C was
>the native mix. The way the vocal sat in the mix was a dead
>giveaway but I was soooooo hoping that C was the native ITB
>mix. You don't know how much. ;o)
I know, the whole "two-computer" thing is a clusterfuck, no
matter what... just this somewhat simple experiment took me
quite awhile to set up, and then youre dealing with stuff
like: "OK, so I have to monitor through Paris for the analog
summing part, but then what do I do with the other mixes?
Repatch my monitors? Re-route through my VST outputs? OK, so
I guess I'll just save three different versions of this one
project, then" lol
>I think you would have a bit more detail and depth to the
>soundstage on mix C if you were streaming the tracks over ADAT
>into Paris rather than the AD/DA conversion
Can't do it... Even if I had a couple of Paris ADAT cards, I
couldn't do it... how would I get from my 88.2k samplerate
coming out of my ADAT outs, to the 44.1k Paris ADAT protocol?
>Thanks for taking the time to do this test Neil. Guess my ears
>haven't been playing tricks on me recently.
No prob!
>I think you may have a nice surprise when you get the Pulsar
>card. I think you're going to have something closer to a
>cross between mix B & C.
That would RAWK - seriously! To be able to have the phase-
coherence of staying 2-track ITB all the way through, yet
getting better summing out of the whole deal, while retaining
the definititon & clarity up top (again, listen to mix "B"
guys... that's just an MP3 file and even at that resolution
you can STILL hear what 88.2k can do for you!) - that would
KILL. And I'd love it.
>Once my 3rd card comes in, I'll get around to doing something
>similar and post it up.
Why do you need three cards? What the hell are you doing with
that bluegrass stuff you've been recording... turning it into
a damn 60-track symphony? POST SOME CLIPS NOW! lol
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! - OK, here's my assessments & also the answers [message #75913 is a reply to message #75911] |
Tue, 10 October 2006 21:28 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You'd be surprised how many tracks can be accummulated when you've got 12
mics on a drum kit, three fiddles with a pair of mics on each one, a pair of
mics on a bass amp and a DI, a pair of mics on rythym guitar, a stereo
piano, a mono mic on lead guitar, dobro and mandolin and a lead vocal with
3-4 part harmony vocals added.
A mix like this can get pretty busy and muddy. Paris seems to handle it
better than Cubase ITB. the three cards are so I can be able to stream 40
tracks via ADAT from Cubase to Paris if I decide that's the route I want to
continue to take once the dust clears. So far, the Pulsar cards have been
extremely stable. I'm hoping to continue that kind of stability when
streaming 40 tracks from Cubase to Paris for summing. I'm also liking just
patching Creamware processors into Paris tracks on different submixes. It's
all DSP based/zero audible latency at that point but I'm not using my UAD-1
cards. Still, the Creamware DSP based hardware is impressing me a lot. Very
hig quality. If I can find some Pulsar EQ's that can give me the same mojo
that the UAD 1073 does, I'm going to be a happy camper. If I don't have
1073's, I will die.
;o)
"Neil" <OIUOI@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4557fb52$1@linux...
>
> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
> >Well ****!!! Man........I was *really* hoping that Mix C was
> >the native mix. The way the vocal sat in the mix was a dead
> >giveaway but I was soooooo hoping that C was the native ITB
> >mix. You don't know how much. ;o)
>
> I know, the whole "two-computer" thing is a clusterfuck, no
> matter what... just this somewhat simple experiment took me
> quite awhile to set up, and then youre dealing with stuff
> like: "OK, so I have to monitor through Paris for the analog
> summing part, but then what do I do with the other mixes?
> Repatch my monitors? Re-route through my VST outputs? OK, so
> I guess I'll just save three different versions of this one
> project, then" lol
>
> >I think you would have a bit more detail and depth to the
> >soundstage on mix C if you were streaming the tracks over ADAT
> >into Paris rather than the AD/DA conversion
>
> Can't do it... Even if I had a couple of Paris ADAT cards, I
> couldn't do it... how would I get from my 88.2k samplerate
> coming out of my ADAT outs, to the 44.1k Paris ADAT protocol?
>
> >Thanks for taking the time to do this test Neil. Guess my ears
> >haven't been playing tricks on me recently.
>
> No prob!
>
> >I think you may have a nice surprise when you get the Pulsar
> >card. I think you're going to have something closer to a
> >cross between mix B & C.
>
> That would RAWK - seriously! To be able to have the phase-
> coherence of staying 2-track ITB all the way through, yet
> getting better summing out of the whole deal, while retaining
> the definititon & clarity up top (again, listen to mix "B"
> guys... that's just an MP3 file and even at that resolution
> you can STILL hear what 88.2k can do for you!) - that would
> KILL. And I'd love it.
>
>
> >Once my 3rd card comes in, I'll get around to doing something
> >similar and post it up.
>
> Why do you need three cards? What the hell are you doing with
> that bluegrass stuff you've been recording... turning it into
> a damn 60-track symphony? POST SOME CLIPS NOW! lol
>
> Neil
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! - OK, here's my assessments & also the answers [message #75915 is a reply to message #75913] |
Sun, 12 November 2006 22:24 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
So you're not summing in Pulsar? I thought that's what you were
going to do, so you could keep everything ITB, yet still have
DSP summing?
Neil
"DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>You'd be surprised how many tracks can be accummulated when you've got 12
>mics on a drum kit, three fiddles with a pair of mics on each one, a pair
of
>mics on a bass amp and a DI, a pair of mics on rythym guitar, a stereo
>piano, a mono mic on lead guitar, dobro and mandolin and a lead vocal with
>3-4 part harmony vocals added.
>
>A mix like this can get pretty busy and muddy. Paris seems to handle it
>better than Cubase ITB. the three cards are so I can be able to stream 40
>tracks via ADAT from Cubase to Paris if I decide that's the route I want
to
>continue to take once the dust clears. So far, the Pulsar cards have been
>extremely stable. I'm hoping to continue that kind of stability when
>streaming 40 tracks from Cubase to Paris for summing. I'm also liking just
>patching Creamware processors into Paris tracks on different submixes. It's
>all DSP based/zero audible latency at that point but I'm not using my UAD-1
>cards. Still, the Creamware DSP based hardware is impressing me a lot. Very
>hig quality. If I can find some Pulsar EQ's that can give me the same mojo
>that the UAD 1073 does, I'm going to be a happy camper. If I don't have
>1073's, I will die.
>
>;o)
>
>
>
>"Neil" <OIUOI@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4557fb52$1@linux...
>>
>> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>> >Well ****!!! Man........I was *really* hoping that Mix C was
>> >the native mix. The way the vocal sat in the mix was a dead
>> >giveaway but I was soooooo hoping that C was the native ITB
>> >mix. You don't know how much. ;o)
>>
>> I know, the whole "two-computer" thing is a clusterfuck, no
>> matter what... just this somewhat simple experiment took me
>> quite awhile to set up, and then youre dealing with stuff
>> like: "OK, so I have to monitor through Paris for the analog
>> summing part, but then what do I do with the other mixes?
>> Repatch my monitors? Re-route through my VST outputs? OK, so
>> I guess I'll just save three different versions of this one
>> project, then" lol
>>
>> >I think you would have a bit more detail and depth to the
>> >soundstage on mix C if you were streaming the tracks over ADAT
>> >into Paris rather than the AD/DA conversion
>>
>> Can't do it... Even if I had a couple of Paris ADAT cards, I
>> couldn't do it... how would I get from my 88.2k samplerate
>> coming out of my ADAT outs, to the 44.1k Paris ADAT protocol?
>>
>> >Thanks for taking the time to do this test Neil. Guess my ears
>> >haven't been playing tricks on me recently.
>>
>> No prob!
>>
>> >I think you may have a nice surprise when you get the Pulsar
>> >card. I think you're going to have something closer to a
>> >cross between mix B & C.
>>
>> That would RAWK - seriously! To be able to have the phase-
>> coherence of staying 2-track ITB all the way through, yet
>> getting better summing out of the whole deal, while retaining
>> the definititon & clarity up top (again, listen to mix "B"
>> guys... that's just an MP3 file and even at that resolution
>> you can STILL hear what 88.2k can do for you!) - that would
>> KILL. And I'd love it.
>>
>>
>> >Once my 3rd card comes in, I'll get around to doing something
>> >similar and post it up.
>>
>> Why do you need three cards? What the hell are you doing with
>> that bluegrass stuff you've been recording... turning it into
>> a damn 60-track symphony? POST SOME CLIPS NOW! lol
>>
>> Neil
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! - OK, here's my assessments & also the answers [message #75916 is a reply to message #75915] |
Tue, 10 October 2006 21:53 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'm going to try this as soon as my 3rd card gets here and another component
that I've been waiting on. I've been summing a few mixes in Pulsar when
doing the fader levels and pans in Cubase and I'm liking it a lot. I haven't
done a *large* mix yet where I'm simply streaming mono tracks from Cubase
through the Pulsar mixer and adjusting fader levels and pans in Pulsar. I
like to automate my faders and I'm going to have to figure out a way to do
this in Pulsar. There is a lot of midi functionality in the Scope mixer. I
haven't explored it yet. All indications are that fader and panning
adjustments in the Scope mixer are the way to go. The Cubase mixer is just
so **** efficient and convenient, I want to stay there.
;o)
<OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4558018e$1@linux...
>
> So you're not summing in Pulsar? I thought that's what you were
> going to do, so you could keep everything ITB, yet still have
> DSP summing?
>
> Neil
>
>
> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
> >You'd be surprised how many tracks can be accummulated when you've got 12
> >mics on a drum kit, three fiddles with a pair of mics on each one, a pair
> of
> >mics on a bass amp and a DI, a pair of mics on rythym guitar, a stereo
> >piano, a mono mic on lead guitar, dobro and mandolin and a lead vocal
with
> >3-4 part harmony vocals added.
> >
> >A mix like this can get pretty busy and muddy. Paris seems to handle it
> >better than Cubase ITB. the three cards are so I can be able to stream 40
> >tracks via ADAT from Cubase to Paris if I decide that's the route I want
> to
> >continue to take once the dust clears. So far, the Pulsar cards have been
> >extremely stable. I'm hoping to continue that kind of stability when
> >streaming 40 tracks from Cubase to Paris for summing. I'm also liking
just
> >patching Creamware processors into Paris tracks on different submixes.
It's
> >all DSP based/zero audible latency at that point but I'm not using my
UAD-1
> >cards. Still, the Creamware DSP based hardware is impressing me a lot.
Very
> >hig quality. If I can find some Pulsar EQ's that can give me the same
mojo
> >that the UAD 1073 does, I'm going to be a happy camper. If I don't have
> >1073's, I will die.
> >
> >;o)
> >
> >
> >
> >"Neil" <OIUOI@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4557fb52$1@linux...
> >>
> >> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
> >> >Well ****!!! Man........I was *really* hoping that Mix C was
> >> >the native mix. The way the vocal sat in the mix was a dead
> >> >giveaway but I was soooooo hoping that C was the native ITB
> >> >mix. You don't know how much. ;o)
> >>
> >> I know, the whole "two-computer" thing is a clusterfuck, no
> >> matter what... just this somewhat simple experiment took me
> >> quite awhile to set up, and then youre dealing with stuff
> >> like: "OK, so I have to monitor through Paris for the analog
> >> summing part, but then what do I do with the other mixes?
> >> Repatch my monitors? Re-route through my VST outputs? OK, so
> >> I guess I'll just save three different versions of this one
> >> project, then" lol
> >>
> >> >I think you would have a bit more detail and depth to the
> >> >soundstage on mix C if you were streaming the tracks over ADAT
> >> >into Paris rather than the AD/DA conversion
> >>
> >> Can't do it... Even if I had a couple of Paris ADAT cards, I
> >> couldn't do it... how would I get from my 88.2k samplerate
> >> coming out of my ADAT outs, to the 44.1k Paris ADAT protocol?
> >>
> >> >Thanks for taking the time to do this test Neil. Guess my ears
> >> >haven't been playing tricks on me recently.
> >>
> >> No prob!
> >>
> >> >I think you may have a nice surprise when you get the Pulsar
> >> >card. I think you're going to have something closer to a
> >> >cross between mix B & C.
> >>
> >> That would RAWK - seriously! To be able to have the phase-
> >> coherence of staying 2-track ITB all the way through, yet
> >> getting better summing out of the whole deal, while retaining
> >> the definititon & clarity up top (again, listen to mix "B"
> >> guys... that's just an MP3 file and even at that resolution
> >> you can STILL hear what 88.2k can do for you!) - that would
> >> KILL. And I'd love it.
> >>
> >>
> >> >Once my 3rd card comes in, I'll get around to doing something
> >> >similar and post it up.
> >>
> >> Why do you need three cards? What the hell are you doing with
> >> that bluegrass stuff you've been recording... turning it into
> >> a damn 60-track symphony? POST SOME CLIPS NOW! lol
> >>
> >> Neil
> >>
> >
> >
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! [message #75918 is a reply to message #75900] |
Sun, 12 November 2006 22:18 |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I only listened on my comp speakers as well, doesn't do the comparison
justice, although it's real world,
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"Dubya Mark Wilson" <mark.xspam@avidrecording.com> wrote in message
news:4557dd36$1@linux...
> Prolly not that interesting, Martin, considering my laptop speakers are
> maybe the size of a nickel.
>
> W.
>
> "Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:4557c6ad$1@linux...
>> Hmm, that's very interesting..
>> I preferred "C", except for that fact that it sounded a little smaller to
>> me than the others, it was cleaner somehow.
>> "B" was next and the "A" which I didn't like...too mushy
>> --
>> Martin Harrington
>> www.lendanear-sound.com
>>
>> "Dubya Mark Wilson" <mark.xspam@avidrecording.com> wrote in message
>> news:4557c2bb@linux...
>>> I'm not listening on refs but my laptop speakers tell me A is best, B is
>>> second but slightly scoopy, C is last, narrow and less detailed. Lower
>>> mids in A really treat the guitars nicely without trouncing the keys and
>>> seems just all around more suitable for the piece. B wouldn't be bad if
>>> it were Contemp Jazz or such. C... don't know what's up with that one
>>> but it just don't do it for me. I'll be interested to hear which is
>>> PARIS, etc, and what your routing, hdwr and procedures are/were.
>>>
>>> Dubya
>>>
>>> "Neil" <IOU@OIUOI.com> wrote in message news:4557bcc2$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> Three files total... one's a 'Mixed in SX, Summed in Paris'
>>>> mix, another is a straight-ahead SX 2-Buss Mix, and another
>>>> is an SX Stems Mix (note: NOT necessarily in the order I
>>>> just mentioned):
>>>>
>>>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipA.mp3
>>>>
>>>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipB.mp3
>>>>
>>>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipC.mp3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They're fairly short... 1:14 each, just enough to get a touch of
>>>> instrumentation by itself, a portion with lead vox, then
>>>> background vox. They're Hi-Rez mp3's.
>>>>
>>>> Any guesses as to which is which? Or better yet, which one do
>>>> you like better?
>>>>
>>>> Neil
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! - OK, here's my assessments & also the answers [message #75919 is a reply to message #75910] |
Sun, 12 November 2006 22:20 |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
So was I..
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote in message news:4557f635$1@linux...
> Well ****!!! Man........I was *really* hoping that Mix C was the native
> mix.
> The way the vocal sat in the mix was a dead giveaway but I was soooooo
> hoping that C was the native ITB mix. You don't know how much. ;o)
>
> I think you would have a bit more detail and depth to the soundstage on
> mix
> C if you were streaming the tracks over ADAT into Paris rather than the
> AD/DA conversion though the analog streaming still seems to have revealed
> the *Parisness* of the mix.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to do this test Neil. Guess my ears haven't
> been
> playing tricks on me recently. I think you may have a nice surprise when
> you
> get the Pulsar card. I think you're going to have something closer to a
> cross between mix B & C.
>
> Once my 3rd card comes in, I'll get around to doing something similar and
> post it up.
>
> ;O)
>
>
>
> "Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4557f156$1@linux...
>>
>> Here's what I think:
>>
>> - "A" is OK, but not as good as either "B" or "C"... here's why:
>> 1.) It's not as clear overall... it's got a bit of an edge or
>> rasp to it.
>> 2.) It's not as well-defined across the entire frequency
>> spectrum... for example listen to the delay on the lead vocals;
>> it comes across MUCH clearer in "B".
>> 3.) In it's defense, it DOES seem to be a little bit more phase-
>> coherent than "B", though. Something about it is a little
>> tighter.
>>
>> - "B" is pretty good because:
>> 1.) It definitely comes across as a bit "bigger" than "A"; the
>> soundfield isn't necessarily wider, but it's more well-defined.
>> 2.) It's VERY clean... listen to the high mids & highs...
>> subtle things like the delay on the vocals I mentioned, and
>> also the air on the background vox overall come across much
>> better. Better so than in version "C", also.
>> 3.) The low end is better than "A", as well - listen to the
>> break section after the BG vox are done - like starting right
>> at 1:00 minute into the clip... you can feel the low notes
>> better there than in "A".
>>
>> - "C" is also pretty good, but for completely different reasons
>> than "B":
>> 1.) There's nothing harsh about it, it's very smooth. Nothing
>> objectionable about it.
>> 2.) It's pretty clean and doesn't sound clipped in any way.
>> 3.) Low end feels great... lotsa "glue" to the lows & lo-mids.
>> 4.) Highs & subtle things are subdued, though - listen to the
>> cymbals, the delay on the lead vox, and also the overall tone
>> of BG vox... less definition & "air" than "B".
>>
>> My wish? If I could have something that were a combination of
>> the 500 HZ & below portion of Mix "C", and everything from that
>> point upwards from mix "B".
>>
>> And the answers are:
>>
>> Mix "A" is the straight-ahead Native 2-Buss version.
>>
>> Mix "B" is the Native Stems version.
>>
>> Mix "C" is the Summed-in-Paris version.
>>
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
>>
>> "alex plasko" <alex.plasko@snet.net> wrote:
>> >I listened through my computer speakers .
>> >A sounded like you spread the stereo field a little making the echo
> repeats
>>
>> >and keyboard drone seem wider.A is my best out of the 3 if i had to
>> >pick.
>> >C was a little narrower with less mids.
>> >B was about the same width , more mids.
>> >Im with DJ on after the 3rd time through the line blurred.
>> >
>> >"Neil" <IOU@OIUOI.com> wrote in message news:4557bcc2$1@linux...
>> >>
>> >> Three files total... one's a 'Mixed in SX, Summed in Paris'
>> >> mix, another is a straight-ahead SX 2-Buss Mix, and another
>> >> is an SX Stems Mix (note: NOT necessarily in the order I
>> >> just mentioned):
>> >>
>> >>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipA.mp3
>> >>
>> >>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipB.mp3
>> >>
>> >>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipC.mp3
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> They're fairly short... 1:14 each, just enough to get a touch of
>> >> instrumentation by itself, a portion with lead vox, then
>> >> background vox. They're Hi-Rez mp3's.
>> >>
>> >> Any guesses as to which is which? Or better yet, which one do
>> >> you like better?
>> >>
>> >> Neil
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! - OK, here's my assessments & also the answers [message #75920 is a reply to message #75913] |
Sun, 12 November 2006 22:22 |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Deej, I guess you don't subscribe to the KISS principal, huh?
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote in message news:45580005$1@linux...
> You'd be surprised how many tracks can be accummulated when you've got 12
> mics on a drum kit, three fiddles with a pair of mics on each one, a pair
> of
> mics on a bass amp and a DI, a pair of mics on rythym guitar, a stereo
> piano, a mono mic on lead guitar, dobro and mandolin and a lead vocal with
> 3-4 part harmony vocals added.
>
> A mix like this can get pretty busy and muddy. Paris seems to handle it
> better than Cubase ITB. the three cards are so I can be able to stream 40
> tracks via ADAT from Cubase to Paris if I decide that's the route I want
> to
> continue to take once the dust clears. So far, the Pulsar cards have been
> extremely stable. I'm hoping to continue that kind of stability when
> streaming 40 tracks from Cubase to Paris for summing. I'm also liking just
> patching Creamware processors into Paris tracks on different submixes.
> It's
> all DSP based/zero audible latency at that point but I'm not using my
> UAD-1
> cards. Still, the Creamware DSP based hardware is impressing me a lot.
> Very
> hig quality. If I can find some Pulsar EQ's that can give me the same mojo
> that the UAD 1073 does, I'm going to be a happy camper. If I don't have
> 1073's, I will die.
>
> ;o)
>
>
>
> "Neil" <OIUOI@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4557fb52$1@linux...
>>
>> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>> >Well ****!!! Man........I was *really* hoping that Mix C was
>> >the native mix. The way the vocal sat in the mix was a dead
>> >giveaway but I was soooooo hoping that C was the native ITB
>> >mix. You don't know how much. ;o)
>>
>> I know, the whole "two-computer" thing is a clusterfuck, no
>> matter what... just this somewhat simple experiment took me
>> quite awhile to set up, and then youre dealing with stuff
>> like: "OK, so I have to monitor through Paris for the analog
>> summing part, but then what do I do with the other mixes?
>> Repatch my monitors? Re-route through my VST outputs? OK, so
>> I guess I'll just save three different versions of this one
>> project, then" lol
>>
>> >I think you would have a bit more detail and depth to the
>> >soundstage on mix C if you were streaming the tracks over ADAT
>> >into Paris rather than the AD/DA conversion
>>
>> Can't do it... Even if I had a couple of Paris ADAT cards, I
>> couldn't do it... how would I get from my 88.2k samplerate
>> coming out of my ADAT outs, to the 44.1k Paris ADAT protocol?
>>
>> >Thanks for taking the time to do this test Neil. Guess my ears
>> >haven't been playing tricks on me recently.
>>
>> No prob!
>>
>> >I think you may have a nice surprise when you get the Pulsar
>> >card. I think you're going to have something closer to a
>> >cross between mix B & C.
>>
>> That would RAWK - seriously! To be able to have the phase-
>> coherence of staying 2-track ITB all the way through, yet
>> getting better summing out of the whole deal, while retaining
>> the definititon & clarity up top (again, listen to mix "B"
>> guys... that's just an MP3 file and even at that resolution
>> you can STILL hear what 88.2k can do for you!) - that would
>> KILL. And I'd love it.
>>
>>
>> >Once my 3rd card comes in, I'll get around to doing something
>> >similar and post it up.
>>
>> Why do you need three cards? What the hell are you doing with
>> that bluegrass stuff you've been recording... turning it into
>> a damn 60-track symphony? POST SOME CLIPS NOW! lol
>>
>> Neil
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! [message #75921 is a reply to message #75907] |
Sun, 12 November 2006 22:26 |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Lucky boy...
My wife works for Opera Australia, so I get to see all the operas on tech
night or opening night, which is pretty cool.
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:4557f074$1@linux...
>
> FWIW, C is the softest starting out, A is the loudest and B is in the
> middle (according to my DB meter).
>
> That said, C also seems to be somewhat muffled compared to the other two.
> A feels like it's the most open.
>
> Keeping in mind that I just got back from the opera and I still have
> sopranos ringing in my ears (Magic Flute)...
>
> So lessee, how about:
>
> A - Stems
> B - SX
> C - Paris
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
> Neil wrote:
>> Three files total... one's a 'Mixed in SX, Summed in Paris'
>> mix, another is a straight-ahead SX 2-Buss Mix, and another
>> is an SX Stems Mix (note: NOT necessarily in the order I
>> just mentioned):
>>
>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipA.mp3
>>
>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipB.mp3
>>
>> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipC.mp3
>>
>>
>> They're fairly short... 1:14 each, just enough to get a touch of
>> instrumentation by itself, a portion with lead vox, then
>> background vox. They're Hi-Rez mp3's.
>>
>> Any guesses as to which is which? Or better yet, which one do
>> you like better?
>>
>> Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! [message #75923 is a reply to message #75921] |
Mon, 13 November 2006 05:20 |
brandon[2]
Messages: 380
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I am posting before reading the results after listening
to A then B then C then A again on these cheap
comp speakers I definately think A sounds different then both
B & C.
I dont know if better is the word.
However, A seems more upfront and rocking.
--
Thanks,
Brandon
"Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:45580de2@linux...
> Lucky boy...
> My wife works for Opera Australia, so I get to see all the operas on tech
> night or opening night, which is pretty cool.
> --
> Martin Harrington
> www.lendanear-sound.com
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:4557f074$1@linux...
> >
> > FWIW, C is the softest starting out, A is the loudest and B is in the
> > middle (according to my DB meter).
> >
> > That said, C also seems to be somewhat muffled compared to the other
two.
> > A feels like it's the most open.
> >
> > Keeping in mind that I just got back from the opera and I still have
> > sopranos ringing in my ears (Magic Flute)...
> >
> > So lessee, how about:
> >
> > A - Stems
> > B - SX
> > C - Paris
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -Jamie
> > www.JamieKrutz.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Neil wrote:
> >> Three files total... one's a 'Mixed in SX, Summed in Paris'
> >> mix, another is a straight-ahead SX 2-Buss Mix, and another
> >> is an SX Stems Mix (note: NOT necessarily in the order I
> >> just mentioned):
> >>
> >>
http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipA.mp3
> >>
> >>
http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipB.mp3
> >>
> >>
http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipC.mp3
> >>
> >>
> >> They're fairly short... 1:14 each, just enough to get a touch of
> >> instrumentation by itself, a portion with lead vox, then
> >> background vox. They're Hi-Rez mp3's.
> >>
> >> Any guesses as to which is which? Or better yet, which one do
> >> you like better?
> >>
> >> Neil
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! [message #75924 is a reply to message #75923] |
Mon, 13 November 2006 05:27 |
brandon[2]
Messages: 380
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yeah, I would like to listen to them on refs.
I definately heard that A was not as detailed
as the other two, but I liked it cause it suits the music
in my opinion. Someone said "raspy" earlier.
I think that is pretty accurate.
The other two seemed to have a blanket on top of them.
Interesting results.
--
Thanks,
Brandon
"Brandon" <a@a.com> wrote in message news:45586ee4@linux...
> I am posting before reading the results after listening
> to A then B then C then A again on these cheap
> comp speakers I definately think A sounds different then both
> B & C.
> I dont know if better is the word.
> However, A seems more upfront and rocking.
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Brandon
>
>
>
>
> "Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:45580de2@linux...
> > Lucky boy...
> > My wife works for Opera Australia, so I get to see all the operas on
tech
> > night or opening night, which is pretty cool.
> > --
> > Martin Harrington
> > www.lendanear-sound.com
> >
> > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
news:4557f074$1@linux...
> > >
> > > FWIW, C is the softest starting out, A is the loudest and B is in the
> > > middle (according to my DB meter).
> > >
> > > That said, C also seems to be somewhat muffled compared to the other
> two.
> > > A feels like it's the most open.
> > >
> > > Keeping in mind that I just got back from the opera and I still have
> > > sopranos ringing in my ears (Magic Flute)...
> > >
> > > So lessee, how about:
> > >
> > > A - Stems
> > > B - SX
> > > C - Paris
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > -Jamie
> > > www.JamieKrutz.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Neil wrote:
> > >> Three files total... one's a 'Mixed in SX, Summed in Paris'
> > >> mix, another is a straight-ahead SX 2-Buss Mix, and another
> > >> is an SX Stems Mix (note: NOT necessarily in the order I
> > >> just mentioned):
> > >>
> > >>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipA.mp3
> > >>
> > >>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipB.mp3
> > >>
> > >>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Neil/Summing%20Experimen t%20ClipC.mp3
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> They're fairly short... 1:14 each, just enough to get a touch of
> > >> instrumentation by itself, a portion with lead vox, then
> > >> background vox. They're Hi-Rez mp3's.
> > >>
> > >> Any guesses as to which is which? Or better yet, which one do
> > >> you like better?
> > >>
> > >> Neil
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! - OK, here's my assessments & also the answers [message #75925 is a reply to message #75916] |
Mon, 13 November 2006 06:51 |
Ted Gerber
Messages: 705
Registered: January 2009
|
Senior Member |
|
|
DJ-
On the Pulsar web site, they make a big deal of their mixers being a
significant upgrade on any of the other native DAW mixers...
"two of probably the most capable software mixers ever: the STM 48 S Surround
Mixer and the 96-channel STM 4896 Recording Mixer."
FWIW
"DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>I'm going to try this as soon as my 3rd card gets here and another component
>that I've been waiting on. I've been summing a few mixes in Pulsar when
>doing the fader levels and pans in Cubase and I'm liking it a lot. I haven't
>done a *large* mix yet where I'm simply streaming mono tracks from Cubase
>through the Pulsar mixer and adjusting fader levels and pans in Pulsar.
I
>like to automate my faders and I'm going to have to figure out a way to
do
>this in Pulsar. There is a lot of midi functionality in the Scope mixer.
I
>haven't explored it yet. All indications are that fader and panning
>adjustments in the Scope mixer are the way to go. The Cubase mixer is just
>so **** efficient and convenient, I want to stay there.
>
>;o)
>
>
>
><OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4558018e$1@linux...
>>
>> So you're not summing in Pulsar? I thought that's what you were
>> going to do, so you could keep everything ITB, yet still have
>> DSP summing?
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
>> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>> >You'd be surprised how many tracks can be accummulated when you've got
12
>> >mics on a drum kit, three fiddles with a pair of mics on each one, a
pair
>> of
>> >mics on a bass amp and a DI, a pair of mics on rythym guitar, a stereo
>> >piano, a mono mic on lead guitar, dobro and mandolin and a lead vocal
>with
>> >3-4 part harmony vocals added.
>> >
>> >A mix like this can get pretty busy and muddy. Paris seems to handle
it
>> >better than Cubase ITB. the three cards are so I can be able to stream
40
>> >tracks via ADAT from Cubase to Paris if I decide that's the route I want
>> to
>> >continue to take once the dust clears. So far, the Pulsar cards have
been
>> >extremely stable. I'm hoping to continue that kind of stability when
>> >streaming 40 tracks from Cubase to Paris for summing. I'm also liking
>just
>> >patching Creamware processors into Paris tracks on different submixes.
>It's
>> >all DSP based/zero audible latency at that point but I'm not using my
>UAD-1
>> >cards. Still, the Creamware DSP based hardware is impressing me a lot.
>Very
>> >hig quality. If I can find some Pulsar EQ's that can give me the same
>mojo
>> >that the UAD 1073 does, I'm going to be a happy camper. If I don't have
>> >1073's, I will die.
>> >
>> >;o)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >"Neil" <OIUOI@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4557fb52$1@linux...
>> >>
>> >> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>> >> >Well ****!!! Man........I was *really* hoping that Mix C was
>> >> >the native mix. The way the vocal sat in the mix was a dead
>> >> >giveaway but I was soooooo hoping that C was the native ITB
>> >> >mix. You don't know how much. ;o)
>> >>
>> >> I know, the whole "two-computer" thing is a clusterfuck, no
>> >> matter what... just this somewhat simple experiment took me
>> >> quite awhile to set up, and then youre dealing with stuff
>> >> like: "OK, so I have to monitor through Paris for the analog
>> >> summing part, but then what do I do with the other mixes?
>> >> Repatch my monitors? Re-route through my VST outputs? OK, so
>> >> I guess I'll just save three different versions of this one
>> >> project, then" lol
>> >>
>> >> >I think you would have a bit more detail and depth to the
>> >> >soundstage on mix C if you were streaming the tracks over ADAT
>> >> >into Paris rather than the AD/DA conversion
>> >>
>> >> Can't do it... Even if I had a couple of Paris ADAT cards, I
>> >> couldn't do it... how would I get from my 88.2k samplerate
>> >> coming out of my ADAT outs, to the 44.1k Paris ADAT protocol?
>> >>
>> >> >Thanks for taking the time to do this test Neil. Guess my ears
>> >> >haven't been playing tricks on me recently.
>> >>
>> >> No prob!
>> >>
>> >> >I think you may have a nice surprise when you get the Pulsar
>> >> >card. I think you're going to have something closer to a
>> >> >cross between mix B & C.
>> >>
>> >> That would RAWK - seriously! To be able to have the phase-
>> >> coherence of staying 2-track ITB all the way through, yet
>> >> getting better summing out of the whole deal, while retaining
>> >> the definititon & clarity up top (again, listen to mix "B"
>> >> guys... that's just an MP3 file and even at that resolution
>> >> you can STILL hear what 88.2k can do for you!) - that would
>> >> KILL. And I'd love it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Once my 3rd card comes in, I'll get around to doing something
>> >> >similar and post it up.
>> >>
>> >> Why do you need three cards? What the hell are you doing with
>> >> that bluegrass stuff you've been recording... turning it into
>> >> a damn 60-track symphony? POST SOME CLIPS NOW! lol
>> >>
>> >> Neil
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! - OK, here's my assessments & also the answers [message #75928 is a reply to message #75927] |
Mon, 13 November 2006 07:37 |
Nil
Messages: 245
Registered: March 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Ted Gerber" <tedgerber@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>>Mw wish...
>>the 500 HZ & below portion of Mix "C", and everything from that
>>point upwards from mix "B".
>>
>>And the answers are:
>>
>>Mix "A" is the straight-ahead Native 2-Buss version.
>>
>>Mix "B" is the Native Stems version.
>>
>>Mix "C" is the Summed-in-Paris version.
>>
>>
>>Neil
>>
>
>Neil-
>
>Thanks so much for posting this, it's really helpful.
>One of the things I've heard repeated often over the years here is the
>need to mix Paris projects differently (like any piece of gear, play to
its
>strengths). Specifically the highs need more presence.
>
>Naive question but adding a few dbs and a stereo spreader
>in the treble would go a certain way towards granting your wish of
>combiningg the lows of C with the highs of B, wouldn't it?
>Mixing stems in Paris might be a good way to attack this...
Ted, it could be (the way to deal with it), but I wanted to
try & make this comparison as much about summing as possible,
in a fair manner - although Paris did have an advantage in that
I didn't have to dither down to the 44.1/16 2-buss wav file
therein. I did this both for my own curiosity - as I'm looking
for the best solution, too - as well as doing it for you guys
so that I could demonstrate that:
1.) The whole "collapsed soundfield" thing in Native is not
necessarily a given... none of the three clips have a major
difference between them in either the stereo spread or
imaging. There are some slight differences, yes - as one would
expect... I think we'd all we'd all be shocked as hell if
there WEREN'T some differences; and 2.) as I also have
mentioned in past threads, running several stems out, then
reimporting into a new project reinforces the imaging &
soundstage, and also preserves more subtleties.
If had EQ'ed the Paris stuff any differently, it wouldn't have
been as accurate of a comparison for the purposes of this test.
Having said that, maybe that'll be the next step! Like I said,
I'm looking for the "right stuff" for my own benefit as
well... it's not as if I just went out & repurchased some
Paris gear just in order to get you guys to drink my Native
Kool-aid. :)
So maybe the next step should be:
1.) A clip of the Paris-Summing, but with some EQ applied (in
Paris at the time of creating the 2-channel mix itself); trying
to match as closely as possible the upper mids & highs of
clip "B" (the Native Stems mix).
2.) A clip of the Native Stems themselves imported into Paris
(like someone asked about); but since the stems are at 88.1k
I'm not sure if I should samplerate convert them using dither
or do it with no dither.
Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! - OK, here's my assessments & also the answers [message #75932 is a reply to message #75920] |
Wed, 11 October 2006 08:14 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
KISS???..........not sure what this means but if it refers to simplifying
things/using fewer of any particular device(s).....I wouldn't have a clue.
;)
"Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:45580ce0$1@linux...
> Deej, I guess you don't subscribe to the KISS principal, huh?
> --
> Martin Harrington
> www.lendanear-sound.com
>
> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote in message news:45580005$1@linux...
> > You'd be surprised how many tracks can be accummulated when you've got
12
> > mics on a drum kit, three fiddles with a pair of mics on each one, a
pair
> > of
> > mics on a bass amp and a DI, a pair of mics on rythym guitar, a stereo
> > piano, a mono mic on lead guitar, dobro and mandolin and a lead vocal
with
> > 3-4 part harmony vocals added.
> >
> > A mix like this can get pretty busy and muddy. Paris seems to handle it
> > better than Cubase ITB. the three cards are so I can be able to stream
40
> > tracks via ADAT from Cubase to Paris if I decide that's the route I want
> > to
> > continue to take once the dust clears. So far, the Pulsar cards have
been
> > extremely stable. I'm hoping to continue that kind of stability when
> > streaming 40 tracks from Cubase to Paris for summing. I'm also liking
just
> > patching Creamware processors into Paris tracks on different submixes.
> > It's
> > all DSP based/zero audible latency at that point but I'm not using my
> > UAD-1
> > cards. Still, the Creamware DSP based hardware is impressing me a lot.
> > Very
> > hig quality. If I can find some Pulsar EQ's that can give me the same
mojo
> > that the UAD 1073 does, I'm going to be a happy camper. If I don't have
> > 1073's, I will die.
> >
> > ;o)
> >
> >
> >
> > "Neil" <OIUOI@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4557fb52$1@linux...
> >>
> >> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
> >> >Well ****!!! Man........I was *really* hoping that Mix C was
> >> >the native mix. The way the vocal sat in the mix was a dead
> >> >giveaway but I was soooooo hoping that C was the native ITB
> >> >mix. You don't know how much. ;o)
> >>
> >> I know, the whole "two-computer" thing is a clusterfuck, no
> >> matter what... just this somewhat simple experiment took me
> >> quite awhile to set up, and then youre dealing with stuff
> >> like: "OK, so I have to monitor through Paris for the analog
> >> summing part, but then what do I do with the other mixes?
> >> Repatch my monitors? Re-route through my VST outputs? OK, so
> >> I guess I'll just save three different versions of this one
> >> project, then" lol
> >>
> >> >I think you would have a bit more detail and depth to the
> >> >soundstage on mix C if you were streaming the tracks over ADAT
> >> >into Paris rather than the AD/DA conversion
> >>
> >> Can't do it... Even if I had a couple of Paris ADAT cards, I
> >> couldn't do it... how would I get from my 88.2k samplerate
> >> coming out of my ADAT outs, to the 44.1k Paris ADAT protocol?
> >>
> >> >Thanks for taking the time to do this test Neil. Guess my ears
> >> >haven't been playing tricks on me recently.
> >>
> >> No prob!
> >>
> >> >I think you may have a nice surprise when you get the Pulsar
> >> >card. I think you're going to have something closer to a
> >> >cross between mix B & C.
> >>
> >> That would RAWK - seriously! To be able to have the phase-
> >> coherence of staying 2-track ITB all the way through, yet
> >> getting better summing out of the whole deal, while retaining
> >> the definititon & clarity up top (again, listen to mix "B"
> >> guys... that's just an MP3 file and even at that resolution
> >> you can STILL hear what 88.2k can do for you!) - that would
> >> KILL. And I'd love it.
> >>
> >>
> >> >Once my 3rd card comes in, I'll get around to doing something
> >> >similar and post it up.
> >>
> >> Why do you need three cards? What the hell are you doing with
> >> that bluegrass stuff you've been recording... turning it into
> >> a damn 60-track symphony? POST SOME CLIPS NOW! lol
> >>
> >> Neil
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Summing Comparison Files Posted! - OK, here's my assessments & also the answers [message #75933 is a reply to message #75911] |
Wed, 11 October 2006 08:17 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>Can't do it... Even if I had a couple of Paris ADAT cards, I
couldn't do it... how would I get from my 88.2k samplerate
coming out of my ADAT outs, to the 44.1k Paris ADAT protocol?<
But that's the next test Neil. Track the whole project all over again at
44.1 *exactly* as was previously done at 88.2. ;o)
"Neil" <OIUOI@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4557fb52$1@linux...
>
> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
> >Well ****!!! Man........I was *really* hoping that Mix C was
> >the native mix. The way the vocal sat in the mix was a dead
> >giveaway but I was soooooo hoping that C was the native ITB
> >mix. You don't know how much. ;o)
>
> I know, the whole "two-computer" thing is a clusterfuck, no
> matter what... just this somewhat simple experiment took me
> quite awhile to set up, and then youre dealing with stuff
> like: "OK, so I have to monitor through Paris for the analog
> summing part, but then what do I do with the other mixes?
> Repatch my monitors? Re-route through my VST outputs? OK, so
> I guess I'll just save three different versions of this one
> project, then" lol
>
> >I think you would have a bit more detail and depth to the
> >soundstage on mix C if you were streaming the tracks over ADAT
> >into Paris rather than the AD/DA conversion
>
> Can't do it... Even if I had a couple of Paris ADAT cards, I
> couldn't do it... how would I get from my 88.2k samplerate
> coming out of my ADAT outs, to the 44.1k Paris ADAT protocol?
>
> >Thanks for taking the time to do this test Neil. Guess my ears
> >haven't been playing tricks on me recently.
>
> No prob!
>
> >I think you may have a nice surprise when you get the Pulsar
> >card. I think you're going to have something closer to a
> >cross between mix B & C.
>
> That would RAWK - seriously! To be able to have the phase-
> coherence of staying 2-track ITB all the way through, yet
> getting better summing out of the whole deal, while retaining
> the definititon & clarity up top (again, listen to mix "B"
> guys... that's just an MP3 file and even at that resolution
> you can STILL hear what 88.2k can do for you!) - that would
> KILL. And I'd love it.
>
>
> >Once my 3rd card comes in, I'll get around to doing something
> >similar and post it up.
>
> Why do you need three cards? What the hell are you doing with
> that bluegrass stuff you've been recording... turning it into
> a damn 60-track symphony? POST SOME CLIPS NOW! lol
>
> Neil
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Dec 20 23:20:48 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.05104 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
