Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » The nut we have to crack
| The nut we have to crack [message #74705] |
Mon, 23 October 2006 16:55  |
chuck duffy
Messages: 453
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
DJ,
Listen I know you love messing with this stuff, but I think we need to focus
on how to get the mixes we want out of an all native system.
It just doesn't make any sense to me to get onboard with another weird, proprietary
dsp system. Creamware is as weird, oddball nad proprietary as it gets.
Why bother with it? Why bother with UAD or anything else. It just doesn't
make sense to me.
If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is wrong.
Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
Chuck
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74706 is a reply to message #74705] |
Mon, 23 October 2006 17:11  |
animix
Messages: 356
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
OK Chuck,
I'll bite. I'll have a native system here irregardless of what audio card
I'm using. I don't plan to sell of anything until I'm convinced that the
Scope cards are the ticket for me. Right now I'm in the middle of recabling
the studio, but it will be pretty simple for me to configure it so that I
can just restore a Ghost image, reconfigure the digital connects and pop in
the Magma PCI cards, and I'm back to the RME/UAD-1 rig that I've been
running. I have always intended to keep this viable for a while. The only
major change I'll be making is the mobo on both rigs. In the near future,
both the Paris system and the Native system will be running on Gigabyte
GA-K8NS Ultra 939 mobos, but in the meantime, what I've got now is working.
Believe me, I would dearly love to get a native system sounding like Paris
and I'll gladly help you beta whatever plugin you might develop or jump
through some experimental hoops, and I'm sure Neil, Dedric, Gene, Dave,
LaMont will have great suggestions since they are much further along in
native world than I am........but I'm also going to be getting another wierd
proprietary DAW happening......the stuff is already on the way here.
;o)
"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote in message news:453d565a$1@linux...
>
> DJ,
>
> Listen I know you love messing with this stuff, but I think we need to
focus
> on how to get the mixes we want out of an all native system.
>
> It just doesn't make any sense to me to get onboard with another weird,
proprietary
> dsp system. Creamware is as weird, oddball nad proprietary as it gets.
> Why bother with it? Why bother with UAD or anything else. It just
doesn't
> make sense to me.
>
> If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is wrong.
> Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
>
> Chuck
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74707 is a reply to message #74705] |
Mon, 23 October 2006 17:24 |
TC
Messages: 327
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
With all due respect Chuck, screw that noise, I'm all for weird oddball DSP systems..
It's worth it because it sounds good and is dead easy to mix in. And.. that makes it fun.
Besides, DJ's endeavors make for damn fine entertainment..
Go DJ.
Cheers,
TC
chuck duffy wrote:
> DJ,
>
> Listen I know you love messing with this stuff, but I think we need to focus
> on how to get the mixes we want out of an all native system.
>
> It just doesn't make any sense to me to get onboard with another weird, proprietary
> dsp system. Creamware is as weird, oddball nad proprietary as it gets.
> Why bother with it? Why bother with UAD or anything else. It just doesn't
> make sense to me.
>
> If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is wrong.
> Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
>
> Chuck
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74710 is a reply to message #74706] |
Mon, 23 October 2006 18:37 |
Chris Ludwig
Messages: 868
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
HI DJ,
The Scope will do the trick if:
1. It works with your chipset and motherboard. (It will probably work
better on your old system.)
2. You want to use it's internal effects and synths only.
3. It can run at very low latencies like the RME and Lynx cards can
under the same CPU load for all the of the Native VSTi and effects you have.
If it it doesn't do well for any of the above extremely well then there
is no benefit to it at all Personally I think purely native is the way
to go with the UADs being used during the mixing stages when latency
isn't as important.
FYI-
Here is a benchmark I just did today with the new single socket Quad
Core Intel CPU i.e.. 4 cpus on one chip. A 48k buffer on the the
Fireface is approx 2ms. With a Multiface I think the 64k buffer is 1.5ms.
system-
N3
thonex test
975 chipset mobo
Quad core 2.66
RME Fireface latest non-beta
48k buffer @ 40% cpu load absolutely clean. At 64k it was 31%. We
haven't seen any machine to date be able to play back this Thonex test
at a 48k buffer totally clean.
64k buffer is the lowest any systems have been able to go at these CPU
loads.
Core2 Duo 2.66 - 58%
Dual core Opteron 2.6 - 58%
AMD FX60 - 73%
AMD X2 4400 - 70%
Dual Core "Wood crest" Xeon 2.0 gig - 53%
P4 955 3.4g - 76%
DJ wrote:
>OK Chuck,
>
>I'll bite. I'll have a native system here irregardless of what audio card
>I'm using. I don't plan to sell of anything until I'm convinced that the
>Scope cards are the ticket for me. Right now I'm in the middle of recabling
>the studio, but it will be pretty simple for me to configure it so that I
>can just restore a Ghost image, reconfigure the digital connects and pop in
>the Magma PCI cards, and I'm back to the RME/UAD-1 rig that I've been
>running. I have always intended to keep this viable for a while. The only
>major change I'll be making is the mobo on both rigs. In the near future,
>both the Paris system and the Native system will be running on Gigabyte
>GA-K8NS Ultra 939 mobos, but in the meantime, what I've got now is working.
>Believe me, I would dearly love to get a native system sounding like Paris
>and I'll gladly help you beta whatever plugin you might develop or jump
>through some experimental hoops, and I'm sure Neil, Dedric, Gene, Dave,
>LaMont will have great suggestions since they are much further along in
>native world than I am........but I'm also going to be getting another wierd
>proprietary DAW happening......the stuff is already on the way here.
>
>;o)
>
>"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote in message news:453d565a$1@linux...
>
>
>>DJ,
>>
>>Listen I know you love messing with this stuff, but I think we need to
>>
>>
>focus
>
>
>>on how to get the mixes we want out of an all native system.
>>
>>It just doesn't make any sense to me to get onboard with another weird,
>>
>>
>proprietary
>
>
>>dsp system. Creamware is as weird, oddball nad proprietary as it gets.
>>Why bother with it? Why bother with UAD or anything else. It just
>>
>>
>doesn't
>
>
>>make sense to me.
>>
>>If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is wrong.
>> Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
>>
>>Chuck
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74711 is a reply to message #74705] |
Mon, 23 October 2006 18:45 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Imho, mixing has as much to do with how the engineer approaches the tools,
and their past experience/expectations, as it does the tools, maybe more.
That isn't a negative in any way - just than I believe perspective and past
experience play a significant role in how one solves a "problem" (i.e. a mix
itself).
Some people love analog summing like Dangerous 2-buss, others don't. Some
get great mixes out of native DAWs, others don't. Some think Samplitude
sounds better than Nuendo. Others might think Logic sounds better, or not.
Same for DP, Sonar, Saw, ProTools, etc. It all just says there are more
opinions than DAWs.
Anyway, Chuck - thanks for posting that finding in Paris. That answers some
questions I've had over the years that never made sense under the assumed
"mystique" of Paris. Actually this bodes quite well for anyone who loves to
mix in Paris - taking a methodical approach to what this gain
reduction/addition really means would lead one to uncover the keys to mixing
in any native DAW.
Regards,
Dedric
On 10/23/06 5:55 PM, in article 453d565a$1@linux, "chuck duffy" <c@c.com>
wrote:
>
> DJ,
>
> Listen I know you love messing with this stuff, but I think we need to focus
> on how to get the mixes we want out of an all native system.
>
> It just doesn't make any sense to me to get onboard with another weird,
> proprietary
> dsp system. Creamware is as weird, oddball nad proprietary as it gets.
> Why bother with it? Why bother with UAD or anything else. It just doesn't
> make sense to me.
>
> If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is wrong.
> Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
>
> Chuck
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74712 is a reply to message #74710] |
Mon, 23 October 2006 19:01 |
animix
Messages: 356
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Chris,
The way I intend to use it is with it's internal FX only. If that doesn't
float my boat, then I'm back to the native mix thing. I've been talking
quite a bit to Ali Fawaz, the Creamware rep for North America. He's an
interesting guy and very willing to be helpful in getting this going. He's
very negative about VIA chipsets, but not for any particular reason relaing
to driver compatibility. He says they are less efficient on PCI bus
throughput. I know that was a problem years ago but nowadays I don't know if
I buy that if a system is configured properly. I'll have a parallel rig
running the Gigabyte GA-K8Ns Ultra 939 with an 4800 x 2 CPU. and I'll be
testing both systems. I'm definitely on a mission here......stay with
RME/UAD and mix native or move to Scope as a standalone DSP processor for
Paris. I'm really comfortable mixing with UAD-1 plugins. It's going to take
some serious stuff from Creamware to change my mind......but it's worth the
effort to find out, IMO. I'm tired of chasing my tail.
Deej
"Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
news:453d6c61@linux...
> HI DJ,
> The Scope will do the trick if:
> 1. It works with your chipset and motherboard. (It will probably work
> better on your old system.)
> 2. You want to use it's internal effects and synths only.
> 3. It can run at very low latencies like the RME and Lynx cards can
> under the same CPU load for all the of the Native VSTi and effects you
have.
>
> If it it doesn't do well for any of the above extremely well then there
> is no benefit to it at all Personally I think purely native is the way
> to go with the UADs being used during the mixing stages when latency
> isn't as important.
>
>
> FYI-
> Here is a benchmark I just did today with the new single socket Quad
> Core Intel CPU i.e.. 4 cpus on one chip. A 48k buffer on the the
> Fireface is approx 2ms. With a Multiface I think the 64k buffer is 1.5ms.
>
> system-
> N3
> thonex test
> 975 chipset mobo
> Quad core 2.66
> RME Fireface latest non-beta
>
> 48k buffer @ 40% cpu load absolutely clean. At 64k it was 31%. We
> haven't seen any machine to date be able to play back this Thonex test
> at a 48k buffer totally clean.
>
>
> 64k buffer is the lowest any systems have been able to go at these CPU
> loads.
> Core2 Duo 2.66 - 58%
> Dual core Opteron 2.6 - 58%
> AMD FX60 - 73%
> AMD X2 4400 - 70%
> Dual Core "Wood crest" Xeon 2.0 gig - 53%
> P4 955 3.4g - 76%
>
> DJ wrote:
>
> >OK Chuck,
> >
> >I'll bite. I'll have a native system here irregardless of what audio card
> >I'm using. I don't plan to sell of anything until I'm convinced that the
> >Scope cards are the ticket for me. Right now I'm in the middle of
recabling
> >the studio, but it will be pretty simple for me to configure it so that I
> >can just restore a Ghost image, reconfigure the digital connects and pop
in
> >the Magma PCI cards, and I'm back to the RME/UAD-1 rig that I've been
> >running. I have always intended to keep this viable for a while. The only
> >major change I'll be making is the mobo on both rigs. In the near future,
> >both the Paris system and the Native system will be running on Gigabyte
> >GA-K8NS Ultra 939 mobos, but in the meantime, what I've got now is
working.
> >Believe me, I would dearly love to get a native system sounding like
Paris
> >and I'll gladly help you beta whatever plugin you might develop or jump
> >through some experimental hoops, and I'm sure Neil, Dedric, Gene, Dave,
> >LaMont will have great suggestions since they are much further along in
> >native world than I am........but I'm also going to be getting another
wierd
> >proprietary DAW happening......the stuff is already on the way here.
> >
> >;o)
> >
> >"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote in message news:453d565a$1@linux...
> >
> >
> >>DJ,
> >>
> >>Listen I know you love messing with this stuff, but I think we need to
> >>
> >>
> >focus
> >
> >
> >>on how to get the mixes we want out of an all native system.
> >>
> >>It just doesn't make any sense to me to get onboard with another weird,
> >>
> >>
> >proprietary
> >
> >
> >>dsp system. Creamware is as weird, oddball nad proprietary as it gets.
> >>Why bother with it? Why bother with UAD or anything else. It just
> >>
> >>
> >doesn't
> >
> >
> >>make sense to me.
> >>
> >>If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is
wrong.
> >> Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
> >>
> >>Chuck
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Chris Ludwig
> ADK
> chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
> www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
> (859) 635-5762
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74713 is a reply to message #74705] |
Mon, 23 October 2006 19:52 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is wrong.
> Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
(Long, but thought-provoking, and hopefully helpful, rant
follows):
I think the thing that's wrong is that some people just can't
get their heads around the differences between analog & digital.
With analog, "big" = hotter, and so hotter is better. When you
overbias your tape machines & smack the hell out of the tape,
you're getting compression right off the bat on every track you
do that with, so one gets used to hearing most tracks with some
degree of tape compression already... and we all know that
compression can make things sound "bigger". Or, you use a
compressor on the way in to the tape so that you get a better
SNR, but since that's not an issue with digital (unless you're
recording at levels so low that you just simply get poor
resolution, but that's a slightly different scenario), people
quit using compressors on the way in to digital since SNR isn't
an issue there.... you also can't smack an AD convertor hard &
expect it to like it - unlike tape. So right off the bat we've
got a whole different set of dynamics action going on from one
world to the other - then, when you've already got that
compressed kick or bassline on tape, you compress it more, and
you're compressing an already-compressed signal, so when you
apply compression to your uncompressed kick on your DAW you're
thinking "nah, that CAN'T be right, it can't need THAT much
compression! I'd better back that off a bit!" (because you're
looking at the ratios & the threshhold, etc, instead of using
your ears). EQ reacts differently with digital, too... if you're
used to mixing on a console, you might be used to boosting or
cutting something by 3, 4, 6db & getting an audible
difference... with digital/plugin EQ's, sometimes you gotta
boost or cut HUGE swaths of that frequency to really make a
difference... why? I think it's a phase thing... you get more
phase shift with analog filters, and so the change is more
apparent at smaller degrees of boost & cut. That also helps to
isolate things to have their own place in the mix at the same
time... considering that phase is the reason we have two ears -
it's the thing that makes it possible for us to tell which
direction a sound is coming from - this makes perfect sense.
So, those of us (and I think that's "most of us here") who cut
our teeth in the analog world first, and are used to all the
things mentioned above - and who have not changed that style of
mixing - could be disappointed in Native systems - not because
they fall short of analog or Paris, but because they are
actually much more accurate (assuming good quality convertors)
& as a result do not impart certain types of coloration that we
might interpret as "pleasing". If you could go back to a great
mix you did on analog & a console & take out half of the amount
of dynamics processing & half of the amount of EQ'ing you did,
what would you get? A mix that sounded flatter & more colorless
& with less dimension than the one you ended up with. Want
proof? Here it is: If you didn't need the amount of EQ &
dynamics you applied, you wouldn't have done so! If half the
amounts/degrees of those things would have sufficed, that's
what you would have used! So Paris sounds & acts kinda like
analog, and people who like Paris like that aspect of it... how
do we know there's not a few lines of code in there somewhere
that adds graduated degrees of even-harmonic distortion when
you push the faders or saturate the mix buss to whatever
degree? I personally don't think it's strictly a DSP thing,
because let's face it.. a plugin is basically doing the same
thing to your mix whether it's running of a processor on it's
own card or off your CPU; the difference being how well a
particular VST or Direct-X compressor or reverb is written (and
what it's designed to do in terms of treating the sound) vs.
whatever DSP compressor or reverb plugin you're talking about.
Can I get an "Amen, brutha!" on that?
Chuck's nailed the Paris mix buss thing, it seems, with that
-22db at the channel & +22db at the mix buss, but WHY does that
make a difference? Well, here's why gang... it's just as I said
earlier in another thread - you've got to give yourself some
headroom, dammit! Paris apparently does this for you. Want to
prove me wrong? Open up a Paris mix and drag the mix buss
master fader down 22db from wherever you have it, then insert
any plugin that has an output level control on each individual
channel of that mix - if the plugin is a compressor, for
example, don't use any compression, just use the output
control - now boost every channel by 22db using that output
control... if it only goes up 10 db, then insert that plugin
twice in a row & max out the output on each insertion...
that'll be close enough... how's that sound? I'll bet it won't
sound all that good! Are you hearing that "overstuffed" mix
buss sound? Is it smaller, with less dimension? I'd be curious
to see what you guys think if you try this. Now that we know
what Chuck told us he discovered, this is the best way to see
if that makes a difference or not (my guess - it DOES make a
difference, otherwise, they wouldn't have written the code that
way!).
So how can you get "big" in Native? Give yourself what Paris
apparently already gives you... some headroom - think "clean",
then dirty it up if you have to later... hell, just mash the
mix with a comp & limiter or an L2 or something equivalent -
you'll get all the harmonic distortion you want. I wasn't
kidding the other day when I said: "Think zen when mixing in
Cubase" it's all gotta flow without clips, gang... think about
it... if you have one channel getting "overs" in a 32-bit float-
point system, you may not notice it... heck you can't notice
each sample in a given sound file can you? Of course not. But
if you start adding more channels, and each of those channels
is running hot... let's say 32 channels - as a comparison
for you guys running two-card paris systems & no native mixes.
and let's say you're running hot (over zero) about 25% of the
time on each channel - that's 352,000 errors PER SECOND across
the 32 tracks. That's a lot of floating-point math going on
there, isn't it? And in this scenario, I want you to think of
each error as a mistake, because that's what it is... in this
style of mixing, it's a mistake. How can you expect something
that's got 352,000 mistakes per second going on, to sound good?
Are you still not convinced? Then you should also definitely
investigate running stems (submixes) & reimporting. When I've
done this I definitely can hear a difference, and I suspect you
most likely will be able to as well.. it is NOT a huge
difference, but it's audible. In fact, some months ago I posted
a stems mix vs. a non-stems mix & a number of you said you
could hear a difference. Now, if you think "aww, this is just
another pain-in-the-ass procedure I have to go through if I mix
in Native", keep in mind that you can run 90 Million stems
mixes in the time it will take Deej to set up his first Pulsar
card, and another 900 million in the time that it takes Chuck
to research & write that plugin (OK, just giving hell to Deej
there, and no really no offense intended to Chucks coding
capability, but I'm just saying this is something you can do
RIGHT NOW, TONIGHT if you want to if you have a Native system,
without having to wait for anything new). Now, if you have a
small project - one acoustic guitar, piano, & a vocal - with
just a few tracks, running stems won't make a difference, but
if you have a large project, give it a shot... you may not hear
enough of a difference to make it worth doing in any given
instance, but then again, you might.
So, now that I hope I've made my case, here's my own personal
guidelines for Native mixing - try it out & see wat you think:
1.) Do NOT bring down your Master Fader. It stays at zero
(unless you're doing a fade).
2.) On your Master inserts, use a peakstop/brickwall limiter
set anywhere from -.03 to -3db, depending on how much headroom
you want to give your mastering engineer. Settings for volume
maximization & other parameters will, of course, depend on the
program material.
3.) Record at 24-bit 88.2k or higher (Dan Lavry has a white
paper that makes a good case for a 60k sample rate - in order
to get the ringing from the convertors' FIR filters out of the
top range of our hearing - but since there is no standard 60k
sample rate, 88.2 is the next one up). Also, 16-bit may have
worked with Paris for whatever reason (maybe it just enhanced
the harmonic distortion you're hearing?), but let's face it,
everybody knows that more bits = greater "truth", especially
when combined with higher resolutions.
4.) Default your individual channel settings to -6db or lower...
I find that -6 is a good place to start because you can load up
a decent amount of tracks without overloading the mix buss &
hitting your limiter too hard at that level. Consider setting
it lower as a starting point if you plan on getting into the
range of 40+ tracks. HERE'S THE KEY... if you've got your mix
roughed out & you can pull out that peakstop limiter I
mentioned in #2 & NOT go over zero on the Master - you're
golden. Fuck it, set 'em all at -15 as a starting point if you
want, Paris is already setting them for you at -22, right? If
you're getting a few scant overs without the limiter, you're
still ok, really... the idea is not to overstuff the mix buss
so heavily that if you pull the limiter off you're going into
the +5, +6 range without it.
Think "clean" people = think "no clips" (or as few as
possible), you get 30-40 channels of "overs" constantly (like
the 352,000 of 'em per second in the example I gave earlier),
and it's going to get harsh & thin.... it's a cumulative effect.
That's it, really... it's just like any other tool - you can't
use an allen wrench to properly drive a nail, and you can't use
a hammer to trim your nose hair.
Happy Native mixing!
(think "zen"!)
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74714 is a reply to message #74710] |
Mon, 23 October 2006 19:58 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Chris, I assume this is one of the systems that you built? If
so, how much $$$ are we talking about for that kind of rig?
Neil
Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>HI DJ,
> The Scope will do the trick if:
>1. It works with your chipset and motherboard. (It will probably work
>better on your old system.)
>2. You want to use it's internal effects and synths only.
>3. It can run at very low latencies like the RME and Lynx cards can
>under the same CPU load for all the of the Native VSTi and effects you have.
>
>If it it doesn't do well for any of the above extremely well then there
>is no benefit to it at all Personally I think purely native is the way
>to go with the UADs being used during the mixing stages when latency
>isn't as important.
>
>
>FYI-
>Here is a benchmark I just did today with the new single socket Quad
>Core Intel CPU i.e.. 4 cpus on one chip. A 48k buffer on the the
>Fireface is approx 2ms. With a Multiface I think the 64k buffer is 1.5ms.
>
>system-
>N3
>thonex test
>975 chipset mobo
>Quad core 2.66
>RME Fireface latest non-beta
>
>48k buffer @ 40% cpu load absolutely clean. At 64k it was 31%. We
>haven't seen any machine to date be able to play back this Thonex test
>at a 48k buffer totally clean.
>
>
>64k buffer is the lowest any systems have been able to go at these CPU
>loads.
>Core2 Duo 2.66 - 58%
>Dual core Opteron 2.6 - 58%
>AMD FX60 - 73%
>AMD X2 4400 - 70%
>Dual Core "Wood crest" Xeon 2.0 gig - 53%
>P4 955 3.4g - 76%
>
>DJ wrote:
>
>>OK Chuck,
>>
>>I'll bite. I'll have a native system here irregardless of what audio card
>>I'm using. I don't plan to sell of anything until I'm convinced that the
>>Scope cards are the ticket for me. Right now I'm in the middle of recabling
>>the studio, but it will be pretty simple for me to configure it so that
I
>>can just restore a Ghost image, reconfigure the digital connects and pop
in
>>the Magma PCI cards, and I'm back to the RME/UAD-1 rig that I've been
>>running. I have always intended to keep this viable for a while. The only
>>major change I'll be making is the mobo on both rigs. In the near future,
>>both the Paris system and the Native system will be running on Gigabyte
>>GA-K8NS Ultra 939 mobos, but in the meantime, what I've got now is working.
>>Believe me, I would dearly love to get a native system sounding like Paris
>>and I'll gladly help you beta whatever plugin you might develop or jump
>>through some experimental hoops, and I'm sure Neil, Dedric, Gene, Dave,
>>LaMont will have great suggestions since they are much further along in
>>native world than I am........but I'm also going to be getting another
wierd
>>proprietary DAW happening......the stuff is already on the way here.
>>
>>;o)
>>
>>"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote in message news:453d565a$1@linux...
>>
>>
>>>DJ,
>>>
>>>Listen I know you love messing with this stuff, but I think we need to
>>>
>>>
>>focus
>>
>>
>>>on how to get the mixes we want out of an all native system.
>>>
>>>It just doesn't make any sense to me to get onboard with another weird,
>>>
>>>
>>proprietary
>>
>>
>>>dsp system. Creamware is as weird, oddball nad proprietary as it gets.
>>>Why bother with it? Why bother with UAD or anything else. It just
>>>
>>>
>>doesn't
>>
>>
>>>make sense to me.
>>>
>>>If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is wrong.
>>> Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
>>>
>>>Chuck
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>Chris Ludwig
>ADK
>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>(859) 635-5762
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74715 is a reply to message #74713] |
Mon, 23 October 2006 20:56 |
animix
Messages: 356
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
O wise one,
Which brickwall limiter preferest thou? What you described wasn't exactly
the methodology I used whil'st creating suckage from mine mix, so verily,
upon completing the recabling, performing a FengSui and reassembling my
environment in harmonic convergence, I shall endeavor once again to become
one with the native mix bus whil'st contemplating the aural posibilities of
yet another incarnation of the studio from hell.
Peacelovedove.........
;o)
"Neil" <IOUIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:453d8006$1@linux...
>
> "chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>
> >If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is wrong.
> > Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
>
> (Long, but thought-provoking, and hopefully helpful, rant
> follows):
>
> I think the thing that's wrong is that some people just can't
> get their heads around the differences between analog & digital.
> With analog, "big" = hotter, and so hotter is better. When you
> overbias your tape machines & smack the hell out of the tape,
> you're getting compression right off the bat on every track you
> do that with, so one gets used to hearing most tracks with some
> degree of tape compression already... and we all know that
> compression can make things sound "bigger". Or, you use a
> compressor on the way in to the tape so that you get a better
> SNR, but since that's not an issue with digital (unless you're
> recording at levels so low that you just simply get poor
> resolution, but that's a slightly different scenario), people
> quit using compressors on the way in to digital since SNR isn't
> an issue there.... you also can't smack an AD convertor hard &
> expect it to like it - unlike tape. So right off the bat we've
> got a whole different set of dynamics action going on from one
> world to the other - then, when you've already got that
> compressed kick or bassline on tape, you compress it more, and
> you're compressing an already-compressed signal, so when you
> apply compression to your uncompressed kick on your DAW you're
> thinking "nah, that CAN'T be right, it can't need THAT much
> compression! I'd better back that off a bit!" (because you're
> looking at the ratios & the threshhold, etc, instead of using
> your ears). EQ reacts differently with digital, too... if you're
> used to mixing on a console, you might be used to boosting or
> cutting something by 3, 4, 6db & getting an audible
> difference... with digital/plugin EQ's, sometimes you gotta
> boost or cut HUGE swaths of that frequency to really make a
> difference... why? I think it's a phase thing... you get more
> phase shift with analog filters, and so the change is more
> apparent at smaller degrees of boost & cut. That also helps to
> isolate things to have their own place in the mix at the same
> time... considering that phase is the reason we have two ears -
> it's the thing that makes it possible for us to tell which
> direction a sound is coming from - this makes perfect sense.
>
> So, those of us (and I think that's "most of us here") who cut
> our teeth in the analog world first, and are used to all the
> things mentioned above - and who have not changed that style of
> mixing - could be disappointed in Native systems - not because
> they fall short of analog or Paris, but because they are
> actually much more accurate (assuming good quality convertors)
> & as a result do not impart certain types of coloration that we
> might interpret as "pleasing". If you could go back to a great
> mix you did on analog & a console & take out half of the amount
> of dynamics processing & half of the amount of EQ'ing you did,
> what would you get? A mix that sounded flatter & more colorless
> & with less dimension than the one you ended up with. Want
> proof? Here it is: If you didn't need the amount of EQ &
> dynamics you applied, you wouldn't have done so! If half the
> amounts/degrees of those things would have sufficed, that's
> what you would have used! So Paris sounds & acts kinda like
> analog, and people who like Paris like that aspect of it... how
> do we know there's not a few lines of code in there somewhere
> that adds graduated degrees of even-harmonic distortion when
> you push the faders or saturate the mix buss to whatever
> degree? I personally don't think it's strictly a DSP thing,
> because let's face it.. a plugin is basically doing the same
> thing to your mix whether it's running of a processor on it's
> own card or off your CPU; the difference being how well a
> particular VST or Direct-X compressor or reverb is written (and
> what it's designed to do in terms of treating the sound) vs.
> whatever DSP compressor or reverb plugin you're talking about.
> Can I get an "Amen, brutha!" on that?
>
> Chuck's nailed the Paris mix buss thing, it seems, with that
> -22db at the channel & +22db at the mix buss, but WHY does that
> make a difference? Well, here's why gang... it's just as I said
> earlier in another thread - you've got to give yourself some
> headroom, dammit! Paris apparently does this for you. Want to
> prove me wrong? Open up a Paris mix and drag the mix buss
> master fader down 22db from wherever you have it, then insert
> any plugin that has an output level control on each individual
> channel of that mix - if the plugin is a compressor, for
> example, don't use any compression, just use the output
> control - now boost every channel by 22db using that output
> control... if it only goes up 10 db, then insert that plugin
> twice in a row & max out the output on each insertion...
> that'll be close enough... how's that sound? I'll bet it won't
> sound all that good! Are you hearing that "overstuffed" mix
> buss sound? Is it smaller, with less dimension? I'd be curious
> to see what you guys think if you try this. Now that we know
> what Chuck told us he discovered, this is the best way to see
> if that makes a difference or not (my guess - it DOES make a
> difference, otherwise, they wouldn't have written the code that
> way!).
>
>
> So how can you get "big" in Native? Give yourself what Paris
> apparently already gives you... some headroom - think "clean",
> then dirty it up if you have to later... hell, just mash the
> mix with a comp & limiter or an L2 or something equivalent -
> you'll get all the harmonic distortion you want. I wasn't
> kidding the other day when I said: "Think zen when mixing in
> Cubase" it's all gotta flow without clips, gang... think about
> it... if you have one channel getting "overs" in a 32-bit float-
> point system, you may not notice it... heck you can't notice
> each sample in a given sound file can you? Of course not. But
> if you start adding more channels, and each of those channels
> is running hot... let's say 32 channels - as a comparison
> for you guys running two-card paris systems & no native mixes.
> and let's say you're running hot (over zero) about 25% of the
> time on each channel - that's 352,000 errors PER SECOND across
> the 32 tracks. That's a lot of floating-point math going on
> there, isn't it? And in this scenario, I want you to think of
> each error as a mistake, because that's what it is... in this
> style of mixing, it's a mistake. How can you expect something
> that's got 352,000 mistakes per second going on, to sound good?
>
> Are you still not convinced? Then you should also definitely
> investigate running stems (submixes) & reimporting. When I've
> done this I definitely can hear a difference, and I suspect you
> most likely will be able to as well.. it is NOT a huge
> difference, but it's audible. In fact, some months ago I posted
> a stems mix vs. a non-stems mix & a number of you said you
> could hear a difference. Now, if you think "aww, this is just
> another pain-in-the-ass procedure I have to go through if I mix
> in Native", keep in mind that you can run 90 Million stems
> mixes in the time it will take Deej to set up his first Pulsar
> card, and another 900 million in the time that it takes Chuck
> to research & write that plugin (OK, just giving hell to Deej
> there, and no really no offense intended to Chucks coding
> capability, but I'm just saying this is something you can do
> RIGHT NOW, TONIGHT if you want to if you have a Native system,
> without having to wait for anything new). Now, if you have a
> small project - one acoustic guitar, piano, & a vocal - with
> just a few tracks, running stems won't make a difference, but
> if you have a large project, give it a shot... you may not hear
> enough of a difference to make it worth doing in any given
> instance, but then again, you might.
>
> So, now that I hope I've made my case, here's my own personal
> guidelines for Native mixing - try it out & see wat you think:
>
> 1.) Do NOT bring down your Master Fader. It stays at zero
> (unless you're doing a fade).
>
> 2.) On your Master inserts, use a peakstop/brickwall limiter
> set anywhere from -.03 to -3db, depending on how much headroom
> you want to give your mastering engineer. Settings for volume
> maximization & other parameters will, of course, depend on the
> program material.
>
> 3.) Record at 24-bit 88.2k or higher (Dan Lavry has a white
> paper that makes a good case for a 60k sample rate - in order
> to get the ringing from the convertors' FIR filters out of the
> top range of our hearing - but since there is no standard 60k
> sample rate, 88.2 is the next one up). Also, 16-bit may have
> worked with Paris for whatever reason (maybe it just enhanced
> the harmonic distortion you're hearing?), but let's face it,
> everybody knows that more bits = greater "truth", especially
> when combined with higher resolutions.
>
> 4.) Default your individual channel settings to -6db or lower...
> I find that -6 is a good place to start because you can load up
> a decent amount of tracks without overloading the mix buss &
> hitting your limiter too hard at that level. Consider setting
> it lower as a starting point if you plan on getting into the
> range of 40+ tracks. HERE'S THE KEY... if you've got your mix
> roughed out & you can pull out that peakstop limiter I
> mentioned in #2 & NOT go over zero on the Master - you're
> golden. Fuck it, set 'em all at -15 as a starting point if you
> want, Paris is already setting them for you at -22, right? If
> you're getting a few scant overs without the limiter, you're
> still ok, really... the idea is not to overstuff the mix buss
> so heavily that if you pull the limiter off you're going into
> the +5, +6 range without it.
>
> Think "clean" people = think "no clips" (or as few as
> possible), you get 30-40 channels of "overs" constantly (like
> the 352,000 of 'em per second in the example I gave earlier),
> and it's going to get harsh & thin.... it's a cumulative effect.
>
> That's it, really... it's just like any other tool - you can't
> use an allen wrench to properly drive a nail, and you can't use
> a hammer to trim your nose hair.
>
> Happy Native mixing!
>
> (think "zen"!)
>
> Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74717 is a reply to message #74715] |
Mon, 23 October 2006 21:28 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'm not Neil, and can't claim any resemblance to the title "O wise one" :-),
but give Spectraphy a try: http://www.crysonic.com/spectraphy.html.
Best I've found. ymmv, and any other applicable netiquette acronym.
Dedric
On 10/23/06 9:56 PM, in article 453d8fc2@linux, "DJ" <notachance@net.net>
wrote:
> O wise one,
>
> Which brickwall limiter preferest thou? What you described wasn't exactly
> the methodology I used whil'st creating suckage from mine mix, so verily,
> upon completing the recabling, performing a FengSui and reassembling my
> environment in harmonic convergence, I shall endeavor once again to become
> one with the native mix bus whil'st contemplating the aural posibilities of
> yet another incarnation of the studio from hell.
>
> Peacelovedove.........
>
> ;o)
>
>
>
>
> "Neil" <IOUIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:453d8006$1@linux...
>>
>> "chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is wrong.
>>> Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
>>
>> (Long, but thought-provoking, and hopefully helpful, rant
>> follows):
>>
>> I think the thing that's wrong is that some people just can't
>> get their heads around the differences between analog & digital.
>> With analog, "big" = hotter, and so hotter is better. When you
>> overbias your tape machines & smack the hell out of the tape,
>> you're getting compression right off the bat on every track you
>> do that with, so one gets used to hearing most tracks with some
>> degree of tape compression already... and we all know that
>> compression can make things sound "bigger". Or, you use a
>> compressor on the way in to the tape so that you get a better
>> SNR, but since that's not an issue with digital (unless you're
>> recording at levels so low that you just simply get poor
>> resolution, but that's a slightly different scenario), people
>> quit using compressors on the way in to digital since SNR isn't
>> an issue there.... you also can't smack an AD convertor hard &
>> expect it to like it - unlike tape. So right off the bat we've
>> got a whole different set of dynamics action going on from one
>> world to the other - then, when you've already got that
>> compressed kick or bassline on tape, you compress it more, and
>> you're compressing an already-compressed signal, so when you
>> apply compression to your uncompressed kick on your DAW you're
>> thinking "nah, that CAN'T be right, it can't need THAT much
>> compression! I'd better back that off a bit!" (because you're
>> looking at the ratios & the threshhold, etc, instead of using
>> your ears). EQ reacts differently with digital, too... if you're
>> used to mixing on a console, you might be used to boosting or
>> cutting something by 3, 4, 6db & getting an audible
>> difference... with digital/plugin EQ's, sometimes you gotta
>> boost or cut HUGE swaths of that frequency to really make a
>> difference... why? I think it's a phase thing... you get more
>> phase shift with analog filters, and so the change is more
>> apparent at smaller degrees of boost & cut. That also helps to
>> isolate things to have their own place in the mix at the same
>> time... considering that phase is the reason we have two ears -
>> it's the thing that makes it possible for us to tell which
>> direction a sound is coming from - this makes perfect sense.
>>
>> So, those of us (and I think that's "most of us here") who cut
>> our teeth in the analog world first, and are used to all the
>> things mentioned above - and who have not changed that style of
>> mixing - could be disappointed in Native systems - not because
>> they fall short of analog or Paris, but because they are
>> actually much more accurate (assuming good quality convertors)
>> & as a result do not impart certain types of coloration that we
>> might interpret as "pleasing". If you could go back to a great
>> mix you did on analog & a console & take out half of the amount
>> of dynamics processing & half of the amount of EQ'ing you did,
>> what would you get? A mix that sounded flatter & more colorless
>> & with less dimension than the one you ended up with. Want
>> proof? Here it is: If you didn't need the amount of EQ &
>> dynamics you applied, you wouldn't have done so! If half the
>> amounts/degrees of those things would have sufficed, that's
>> what you would have used! So Paris sounds & acts kinda like
>> analog, and people who like Paris like that aspect of it... how
>> do we know there's not a few lines of code in there somewhere
>> that adds graduated degrees of even-harmonic distortion when
>> you push the faders or saturate the mix buss to whatever
>> degree? I personally don't think it's strictly a DSP thing,
>> because let's face it.. a plugin is basically doing the same
>> thing to your mix whether it's running of a processor on it's
>> own card or off your CPU; the difference being how well a
>> particular VST or Direct-X compressor or reverb is written (and
>> what it's designed to do in terms of treating the sound) vs.
>> whatever DSP compressor or reverb plugin you're talking about.
>> Can I get an "Amen, brutha!" on that?
>>
>> Chuck's nailed the Paris mix buss thing, it seems, with that
>> -22db at the channel & +22db at the mix buss, but WHY does that
>> make a difference? Well, here's why gang... it's just as I said
>> earlier in another thread - you've got to give yourself some
>> headroom, dammit! Paris apparently does this for you. Want to
>> prove me wrong? Open up a Paris mix and drag the mix buss
>> master fader down 22db from wherever you have it, then insert
>> any plugin that has an output level control on each individual
>> channel of that mix - if the plugin is a compressor, for
>> example, don't use any compression, just use the output
>> control - now boost every channel by 22db using that output
>> control... if it only goes up 10 db, then insert that plugin
>> twice in a row & max out the output on each insertion...
>> that'll be close enough... how's that sound? I'll bet it won't
>> sound all that good! Are you hearing that "overstuffed" mix
>> buss sound? Is it smaller, with less dimension? I'd be curious
>> to see what you guys think if you try this. Now that we know
>> what Chuck told us he discovered, this is the best way to see
>> if that makes a difference or not (my guess - it DOES make a
>> difference, otherwise, they wouldn't have written the code that
>> way!).
>>
>>
>> So how can you get "big" in Native? Give yourself what Paris
>> apparently already gives you... some headroom - think "clean",
>> then dirty it up if you have to later... hell, just mash the
>> mix with a comp & limiter or an L2 or something equivalent -
>> you'll get all the harmonic distortion you want. I wasn't
>> kidding the other day when I said: "Think zen when mixing in
>> Cubase" it's all gotta flow without clips, gang... think about
>> it... if you have one channel getting "overs" in a 32-bit float-
>> point system, you may not notice it... heck you can't notice
>> each sample in a given sound file can you? Of course not. But
>> if you start adding more channels, and each of those channels
>> is running hot... let's say 32 channels - as a comparison
>> for you guys running two-card paris systems & no native mixes.
>> and let's say you're running hot (over zero) about 25% of the
>> time on each channel - that's 352,000 errors PER SECOND across
>> the 32 tracks. That's a lot of floating-point math going on
>> there, isn't it? And in this scenario, I want you to think of
>> each error as a mistake, because that's what it is... in this
>> style of mixing, it's a mistake. How can you expect something
>> that's got 352,000 mistakes per second going on, to sound good?
>>
>> Are you still not convinced? Then you should also definitely
>> investigate running stems (submixes) & reimporting. When I've
>> done this I definitely can hear a difference, and I suspect you
>> most likely will be able to as well.. it is NOT a huge
>> difference, but it's audible. In fact, some months ago I posted
>> a stems mix vs. a non-stems mix & a number of you said you
>> could hear a difference. Now, if you think "aww, this is just
>> another pain-in-the-ass procedure I have to go through if I mix
>> in Native", keep in mind that you can run 90 Million stems
>> mixes in the time it will take Deej to set up his first Pulsar
>> card, and another 900 million in the time that it takes Chuck
>> to research & write that plugin (OK, just giving hell to Deej
>> there, and no really no offense intended to Chucks coding
>> capability, but I'm just saying this is something you can do
>> RIGHT NOW, TONIGHT if you want to if you have a Native system,
>> without having to wait for anything new). Now, if you have a
>> small project - one acoustic guitar, piano, & a vocal - with
>> just a few tracks, running stems won't make a difference, but
>> if you have a large project, give it a shot... you may not hear
>> enough of a difference to make it worth doing in any given
>> instance, but then again, you might.
>>
>> So, now that I hope I've made my case, here's my own personal
>> guidelines for Native mixing - try it out & see wat you think:
>>
>> 1.) Do NOT bring down your Master Fader. It stays at zero
>> (unless you're doing a fade).
>>
>> 2.) On your Master inserts, use a peakstop/brickwall limiter
>> set anywhere from -.03 to -3db, depending on how much headroom
>> you want to give your mastering engineer. Settings for volume
>> maximization & other parameters will, of course, depend on the
>> program material.
>>
>> 3.) Record at 24-bit 88.2k or higher (Dan Lavry has a white
>> paper that makes a good case for a 60k sample rate - in order
>> to get the ringing from the convertors' FIR filters out of the
>> top range of our hearing - but since there is no standard 60k
>> sample rate, 88.2 is the next one up). Also, 16-bit may have
>> worked with Paris for whatever reason (maybe it just enhanced
>> the harmonic distortion you're hearing?), but let's face it,
>> everybody knows that more bits = greater "truth", especially
>> when combined with higher resolutions.
>>
>> 4.) Default your individual channel settings to -6db or lower...
>> I find that -6 is a good place to start because you can load up
>> a decent amount of tracks without overloading the mix buss &
>> hitting your limiter too hard at that level. Consider setting
>> it lower as a starting point if you plan on getting into the
>> range of 40+ tracks. HERE'S THE KEY... if you've got your mix
>> roughed out & you can pull out that peakstop limiter I
>> mentioned in #2 & NOT go over zero on the Master - you're
>> golden. Fuck it, set 'em all at -15 as a starting point if you
>> want, Paris is already setting them for you at -22, right? If
>> you're getting a few scant overs without the limiter, you're
>> still ok, really... the idea is not to overstuff the mix buss
>> so heavily that if you pull the limiter off you're going into
>> the +5, +6 range without it.
>>
>> Think "clean" people = think "no clips" (or as few as
>> possible), you get 30-40 channels of "overs" constantly (like
>> the 352,000 of 'em per second in the example I gave earlier),
>> and it's going to get harsh & thin.... it's a cumulative effect.
>>
>> That's it, really... it's just like any other tool - you can't
>> use an allen wrench to properly drive a nail, and you can't use
>> a hammer to trim your nose hair.
>>
>> Happy Native mixing!
>>
>> (think "zen"!)
>>
>> Neil
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74718 is a reply to message #74705] |
Mon, 23 October 2006 21:48 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Chuck,
As I
ve stated many times before, there mixng in the Natives DAWs, expecially
Cuabse SX/Nuendo is difficult, until you add an mixer into the equation.
It's summing is poor at best.
Pro Tools is much better today for mixing and routing flexibility, even the
lower end versions (LE & M-Powered). You just hear and feel it when you import
audio(wav files) onto the playing field. They 48 bit summing is excellent,
and you can mix agressively..
Dedric and I have gone around and around on this issue. I'm sorry, I call
hen as I (Hear them).. :) This is the reason, I keep using Paris in my personal
studio. Now doay, other producers aring noticing that he Natives(Execpt PT)
are not living up to their hype..
Even more, I don;t agree with this new trend of adding more CPU powerer,
thinking that it will yield you better summing or sound.
It won't!!
Bottom line, if you are using SX/Nuendo, Sonar,Logic, you need to be using
the Apogee AD16x/DA..The Apogees have soft limiting beuilt in. Tha's very
inportant.. RME does not do soft limiting..
Or you need a decent analog /difital mixer to summ..Period..
"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>
>DJ,
>
>Listen I know you love messing with this stuff, but I think we need to focus
>on how to get the mixes we want out of an all native system.
>
>It just doesn't make any sense to me to get onboard with another weird,
proprietary
>dsp system. Creamware is as weird, oddball nad proprietary as it gets.
>Why bother with it? Why bother with UAD or anything else. It just doesn't
>make sense to me.
>
>If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is wrong.
> Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
>
>Chuck
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74719 is a reply to message #74705] |
Mon, 23 October 2006 21:50 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Chuck,
There was talk some time ago (oh how the years wander on...) of somebody
making an EDS chip emulator, which would then allow various possibilities,
which one would assume would include:
1) a "Virtual" EDS card driver which emulates all the functionality of an
EDS card down to the last bit, and hence plugs right into Paris allowing
more submixes, natively, but with the same sound characteristics as the EDS
subs, or...
2) using the same technology, a virtual Paris mix bus, which uses the emaulation
of the EDS alongside the code from the Paris OS to basically allow a Paris
mix bus, using something like rewire, to plug in to a native app.
I believe the talk was inspired by Matthew Craig's efforts in creating the
VST Paris EQ, which does basically this same thing, emulating the EDS functionality
and hence generating pretty much identical output to the same audio going
through the card itself.
This would sure sort out the issues if anybody with enough knowhow and dedication
got on board. Suddenly any app could have the Paris mix bus, not to mention
the paris EQ... that would pretty much put an end to all this shennigans
i would think.
Cheers,
Kim.
"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>
>DJ,
>
>Listen I know you love messing with this stuff, but I think we need to focus
>on how to get the mixes we want out of an all native system.
>
>It just doesn't make any sense to me to get onboard with another weird,
proprietary
>dsp system. Creamware is as weird, oddball nad proprietary as it gets.
>Why bother with it? Why bother with UAD or anything else. It just doesn't
>make sense to me.
>
>If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is wrong.
> Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
>
>Chuck
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74728 is a reply to message #74719] |
Tue, 24 October 2006 01:15 |
espresso
Messages: 17
Registered: September 2005
|
Junior Member |
|
|
I posted this a while ago.. I now use Nuendo with a Layla 3G to output 8 x
analog channels and 8 x ADAT stems to Paris ie. Paris is now my mixer, its
in the same computer, its easy....hardly any overhead as all Paris is doing
is sitting in 'live' mode. I've been doing a bunch of live concert DVDs with
50 odd channels - 2 hour files - no chance I'd be wanting to convert all
those puppies to .pafs... or even the stems for that matter. The proof is in
the sound - the files played through Paris are alive and have depth. Same
mix in Nuendo...urrrgghh. I know that I'm getting a double belt of DA-AD
plus losing 4 bits of info through the Paris ADAT, but honestly the end
justifies the means. All i'm trying to add to the discussion is - if you
want the functionality of the native program plus the Paris sound its
readily achievable without having to jump through the '2nd computer as FX
buss' hoops.
Cheers,
David.
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:453d9ba4$1@linux...
>
>
> Chuck,
>
> There was talk some time ago (oh how the years wander on...) of somebody
> making an EDS chip emulator, which would then allow various possibilities,
> which one would assume would include:
>
> 1) a "Virtual" EDS card driver which emulates all the functionality of an
> EDS card down to the last bit, and hence plugs right into Paris allowing
> more submixes, natively, but with the same sound characteristics as the
EDS
> subs, or...
> 2) using the same technology, a virtual Paris mix bus, which uses the
emaulation
> of the EDS alongside the code from the Paris OS to basically allow a Paris
> mix bus, using something like rewire, to plug in to a native app.
>
> I believe the talk was inspired by Matthew Craig's efforts in creating the
> VST Paris EQ, which does basically this same thing, emulating the EDS
functionality
> and hence generating pretty much identical output to the same audio going
> through the card itself.
>
> This would sure sort out the issues if anybody with enough knowhow and
dedication
> got on board. Suddenly any app could have the Paris mix bus, not to
mention
> the paris EQ... that would pretty much put an end to all this shennigans
> i would think.
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.
>
> "chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
> >
> >DJ,
> >
> >Listen I know you love messing with this stuff, but I think we need to
focus
> >on how to get the mixes we want out of an all native system.
> >
> >It just doesn't make any sense to me to get onboard with another weird,
> proprietary
> >dsp system. Creamware is as weird, oddball nad proprietary as it gets.
>
> >Why bother with it? Why bother with UAD or anything else. It just
doesn't
> >make sense to me.
> >
> >If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is wrong.
> > Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
> >
> >Chuck
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74734 is a reply to message #74718] |
Tue, 24 October 2006 06:02 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.ne> wrote:
>Even more, I don;t agree with this new trend of adding more CPU powerer,
>thinking that it will yield you better summing or sound.
>It won't!!
Perhaps not, but what it WILL do is allow you to get into
using very processor-intensive tools while still running a lot
of tracks. For example, If you mix with Izotope Ozone across
your 2-buss, you could mix with super high-quality program
compression, brickwall limiting, and a stereo image enhancer
right in place... however, Ozone is very CPU-intensive (I've
done this before in SX, but I've had to "freeze" a lot of
tracks in order to be abe to accommodate it. No big deal unless
you want to make changes to any of those tracks inserts, then
you have to unfreeze/tweak/refreeze.
Another thing it enables you to do is to get into convo or
modeled reverbs on the same computer - i.e.: no having to
dedicate a separate box for EFX. I have nothing against DSP-
based stuff, but there are a couple of really cool - but SUPER-
cpu-intensive verbs out there... did anyone else check out the
demo for theRayspace reverb that Deej (i think it was Deej,
anyway) posted a link for? If not, go check it out.... here's
the link:
http://www.quikquak.com/software.html
Simply amazing, IMO; but very much a CPU hog. So much so that I
can't use it at all - I was able to try it on a drum group
only after disabling half of the tracks on a particular project.
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74735 is a reply to message #74734] |
Tue, 24 October 2006 06:37 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I don't think anyone believes cpu power has anything to do with sound
quality, just as lowering channels by 22dB and raising the master buss by
22dB has nothing to do with improving sound quality - it's just a matter of
managing levels for the user instead of the user lowering the fader by 22dB.
Nothing wrong with a faster machine to allow more fx processing... or FX
Teleport, Wormhole or VST System Link.
Regards,
Dedric
On 10/24/06 7:02 AM, in article 453e0efb$1@linux, "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com>
wrote:
>
> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.ne> wrote:
>
>> Even more, I don;t agree with this new trend of adding more CPU powerer,
>> thinking that it will yield you better summing or sound.
>> It won't!!
>
> Perhaps not, but what it WILL do is allow you to get into
> using very processor-intensive tools while still running a lot
> of tracks. For example, If you mix with Izotope Ozone across
> your 2-buss, you could mix with super high-quality program
> compression, brickwall limiting, and a stereo image enhancer
> right in place... however, Ozone is very CPU-intensive (I've
> done this before in SX, but I've had to "freeze" a lot of
> tracks in order to be abe to accommodate it. No big deal unless
> you want to make changes to any of those tracks inserts, then
> you have to unfreeze/tweak/refreeze.
>
> Another thing it enables you to do is to get into convo or
> modeled reverbs on the same computer - i.e.: no having to
> dedicate a separate box for EFX. I have nothing against DSP-
> based stuff, but there are a couple of really cool - but SUPER-
> cpu-intensive verbs out there... did anyone else check out the
> demo for theRayspace reverb that Deej (i think it was Deej,
> anyway) posted a link for? If not, go check it out.... here's
> the link:
>
> http://www.quikquak.com/software.html
>
> Simply amazing, IMO; but very much a CPU hog. So much so that I
> can't use it at all - I was able to try it on a drum group
> only after disabling half of the tracks on a particular project.
>
> Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74736 is a reply to message #74735] |
Tue, 24 October 2006 06:43 |
John [1]
Messages: 2229
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dedric, You have experience in both Cubase and Paris if I'm not
mistaken, I'm about to receive Cubase using presonus digimax fs pres.
Can you elaborate on what sonic differences I should expect to
experience pro and con?
Thanks,
John
Dedric Terry wrote:
> I don't think anyone believes cpu power has anything to do with sound
> quality, just as lowering channels by 22dB and raising the master buss by
> 22dB has nothing to do with improving sound quality - it's just a matter of
> managing levels for the user instead of the user lowering the fader by 22dB.
>
> Nothing wrong with a faster machine to allow more fx processing... or FX
> Teleport, Wormhole or VST System Link.
>
> Regards,
> Dedric
>
> On 10/24/06 7:02 AM, in article 453e0efb$1@linux, "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.ne> wrote:
>>
>>> Even more, I don;t agree with this new trend of adding more CPU powerer,
>>> thinking that it will yield you better summing or sound.
>>> It won't!!
>> Perhaps not, but what it WILL do is allow you to get into
>> using very processor-intensive tools while still running a lot
>> of tracks. For example, If you mix with Izotope Ozone across
>> your 2-buss, you could mix with super high-quality program
>> compression, brickwall limiting, and a stereo image enhancer
>> right in place... however, Ozone is very CPU-intensive (I've
>> done this before in SX, but I've had to "freeze" a lot of
>> tracks in order to be abe to accommodate it. No big deal unless
>> you want to make changes to any of those tracks inserts, then
>> you have to unfreeze/tweak/refreeze.
>>
>> Another thing it enables you to do is to get into convo or
>> modeled reverbs on the same computer - i.e.: no having to
>> dedicate a separate box for EFX. I have nothing against DSP-
>> based stuff, but there are a couple of really cool - but SUPER-
>> cpu-intensive verbs out there... did anyone else check out the
>> demo for theRayspace reverb that Deej (i think it was Deej,
>> anyway) posted a link for? If not, go check it out.... here's
>> the link:
>>
>> http://www.quikquak.com/software.html
>>
>> Simply amazing, IMO; but very much a CPU hog. So much so that I
>> can't use it at all - I was able to try it on a drum group
>> only after disabling half of the tracks on a particular project.
>>
>> Neil
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74741 is a reply to message #74728] |
Tue, 24 October 2006 07:18 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
My Point exactly.. If all of you who use Nuendo or Cubase cannot hear that
there is something going on (software-wise) in Cubase or Nuendo that's not
bringing "Full-life" to our wav files, then,I'm sorry, your ears are not
as good as you may think..
"espresso" <audio@espressodigital.com> wrote:
>I posted this a while ago.. I now use Nuendo with a Layla 3G to output
8 x
>analog channels and 8 x ADAT stems to Paris ie. Paris is now my mixer, its
>in the same computer, its easy....hardly any overhead as all Paris is doing
>is sitting in 'live' mode. I've been doing a bunch of live concert DVDs
with
>50 odd channels - 2 hour files - no chance I'd be wanting to convert all
>those puppies to .pafs... or even the stems for that matter. The proof is
in
>the sound - the files played through Paris are alive and have depth. Same
>mix in Nuendo...urrrgghh. I know that I'm getting a double belt of DA-AD
>plus losing 4 bits of info through the Paris ADAT, but honestly the end
>justifies the means. All i'm trying to add to the discussion is - if you
>want the functionality of the native program plus the Paris sound its
>readily achievable without having to jump through the '2nd computer as FX
>buss' hoops.
>
>Cheers,
>
>David.
>
>
>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:453d9ba4$1@linux...
>>
>>
>> Chuck,
>>
>> There was talk some time ago (oh how the years wander on...) of somebody
>> making an EDS chip emulator, which would then allow various possibilities,
>> which one would assume would include:
>>
>> 1) a "Virtual" EDS card driver which emulates all the functionality of
an
>> EDS card down to the last bit, and hence plugs right into Paris allowing
>> more submixes, natively, but with the same sound characteristics as the
>EDS
>> subs, or...
>> 2) using the same technology, a virtual Paris mix bus, which uses the
>emaulation
>> of the EDS alongside the code from the Paris OS to basically allow a Paris
>> mix bus, using something like rewire, to plug in to a native app.
>>
>> I believe the talk was inspired by Matthew Craig's efforts in creating
the
>> VST Paris EQ, which does basically this same thing, emulating the EDS
>functionality
>> and hence generating pretty much identical output to the same audio going
>> through the card itself.
>>
>> This would sure sort out the issues if anybody with enough knowhow and
>dedication
>> got on board. Suddenly any app could have the Paris mix bus, not to
>mention
>> the paris EQ... that would pretty much put an end to all this shennigans
>> i would think.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kim.
>>
>> "chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >DJ,
>> >
>> >Listen I know you love messing with this stuff, but I think we need to
>focus
>> >on how to get the mixes we want out of an all native system.
>> >
>> >It just doesn't make any sense to me to get onboard with another weird,
>> proprietary
>> >dsp system. Creamware is as weird, oddball nad proprietary as it gets.
>>
>> >Why bother with it? Why bother with UAD or anything else. It just
>doesn't
>> >make sense to me.
>> >
>> >If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is wrong.
>> > Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
>> >
>> >Chuck
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74743 is a reply to message #74741] |
Tue, 24 October 2006 07:29 |
animix
Messages: 356
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
My wife agrees with you LaMont. She can pick out a native mix like a buzzard
circling roadkill at 3000'.
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:453e20c4$1@linux...
>
> My Point exactly.. If all of you who use Nuendo or Cubase cannot hear that
> there is something going on (software-wise) in Cubase or Nuendo that's not
> bringing "Full-life" to our wav files, then,I'm sorry, your ears are not
> as good as you may think..
>
>
> "espresso" <audio@espressodigital.com> wrote:
> >I posted this a while ago.. I now use Nuendo with a Layla 3G to output
> 8 x
> >analog channels and 8 x ADAT stems to Paris ie. Paris is now my mixer,
its
> >in the same computer, its easy....hardly any overhead as all Paris is
doing
> >is sitting in 'live' mode. I've been doing a bunch of live concert DVDs
> with
> >50 odd channels - 2 hour files - no chance I'd be wanting to convert all
> >those puppies to .pafs... or even the stems for that matter. The proof is
> in
> >the sound - the files played through Paris are alive and have depth. Same
> >mix in Nuendo...urrrgghh. I know that I'm getting a double belt of DA-AD
> >plus losing 4 bits of info through the Paris ADAT, but honestly the end
> >justifies the means. All i'm trying to add to the discussion is - if you
> >want the functionality of the native program plus the Paris sound its
> >readily achievable without having to jump through the '2nd computer as FX
> >buss' hoops.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >David.
> >
> >
> >"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:453d9ba4$1@linux...
> >>
> >>
> >> Chuck,
> >>
> >> There was talk some time ago (oh how the years wander on...) of
somebody
> >> making an EDS chip emulator, which would then allow various
possibilities,
> >> which one would assume would include:
> >>
> >> 1) a "Virtual" EDS card driver which emulates all the functionality of
> an
> >> EDS card down to the last bit, and hence plugs right into Paris
allowing
> >> more submixes, natively, but with the same sound characteristics as the
> >EDS
> >> subs, or...
> >> 2) using the same technology, a virtual Paris mix bus, which uses the
> >emaulation
> >> of the EDS alongside the code from the Paris OS to basically allow a
Paris
> >> mix bus, using something like rewire, to plug in to a native app.
> >>
> >> I believe the talk was inspired by Matthew Craig's efforts in creating
> the
> >> VST Paris EQ, which does basically this same thing, emulating the EDS
> >functionality
> >> and hence generating pretty much identical output to the same audio
going
> >> through the card itself.
> >>
> >> This would sure sort out the issues if anybody with enough knowhow and
> >dedication
> >> got on board. Suddenly any app could have the Paris mix bus, not to
> >mention
> >> the paris EQ... that would pretty much put an end to all this
shennigans
> >> i would think.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Kim.
> >>
> >> "chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >DJ,
> >> >
> >> >Listen I know you love messing with this stuff, but I think we need to
> >focus
> >> >on how to get the mixes we want out of an all native system.
> >> >
> >> >It just doesn't make any sense to me to get onboard with another
weird,
> >> proprietary
> >> >dsp system. Creamware is as weird, oddball nad proprietary as it
gets.
> >>
> >> >Why bother with it? Why bother with UAD or anything else. It just
> >doesn't
> >> >make sense to me.
> >> >
> >> >If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is
wrong.
> >> > Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
> >> >
> >> >Chuck
> >>
> >
> >
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74752 is a reply to message #74705] |
Tue, 24 October 2006 08:23 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Chuck,
By and large I agree with this, which is why I don't have a Pulsar card when
I could easily afford one. But I'll say this, you can't get any of John Bowen's
synths (www.zargmusic.com) on a native system, reverbs still throttle CPUs,
and Stephan Sprenger thought seriously about coding for Pulsar. He decided
not to _because_ it was so proprietary and becasue the vendor competed with
the third parties, but he liked the idea.
I remember many, many moons ago using another proprietary product that was
DOA on the market--the OASYS PCI card. Had they taken the time to put pretty
plug-in interfaces that could be used directly inside a VST/PT host I think
they would have sold a ton of them. I know it's stupid, but just being able
to lay off some of the really intense processors to a DSP chip, having a
decent hardware mixer for routing, and the extra goodies of a DSP card can
be really useful. And at $750 a Pulsar gets me all of that for cost of 5-8
good native plug-ins.
I think the reason UAD has done relatively well with their cards is just
this, they make things easier and they sound good. The Pulsar line _could_
be that if they do it right.
TCB
"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>
>DJ,
>
>Listen I know you love messing with this stuff, but I think we need to focus
>on how to get the mixes we want out of an all native system.
>
>It just doesn't make any sense to me to get onboard with another weird,
proprietary
>dsp system. Creamware is as weird, oddball nad proprietary as it gets.
>Why bother with it? Why bother with UAD or anything else. It just doesn't
>make sense to me.
>
>If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is wrong.
> Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
>
>Chuck
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74756 is a reply to message #74714] |
Tue, 24 October 2006 09:48 |
Chris Ludwig
Messages: 868
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
HI Neil,
Yes we built but no price yet sense the chips aren't in retail channels
yet.
it will less than a dual opteron 280.
Chris
Neil wrote:
> Chris, I assume this is one of the systems that you built? If
> so, how much $$$ are we talking about for that kind of rig?
>
> Neil
>
>
> Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>> HI DJ,
>> The Scope will do the trick if:
>> 1. It works with your chipset and motherboard. (It will probably work
>> better on your old system.)
>> 2. You want to use it's internal effects and synths only.
>> 3. It can run at very low latencies like the RME and Lynx cards can
>> under the same CPU load for all the of the Native VSTi and effects you have.
>>
>> If it it doesn't do well for any of the above extremely well then there
>
>> is no benefit to it at all Personally I think purely native is the way
>> to go with the UADs being used during the mixing stages when latency
>> isn't as important.
>>
>>
>> FYI-
>> Here is a benchmark I just did today with the new single socket Quad
>> Core Intel CPU i.e.. 4 cpus on one chip. A 48k buffer on the the
>> Fireface is approx 2ms. With a Multiface I think the 64k buffer is 1.5ms.
>>
>> system-
>> N3
>> thonex test
>> 975 chipset mobo
>> Quad core 2.66
>> RME Fireface latest non-beta
>>
>> 48k buffer @ 40% cpu load absolutely clean. At 64k it was 31%. We
>> haven't seen any machine to date be able to play back this Thonex test
>> at a 48k buffer totally clean.
>>
>>
>> 64k buffer is the lowest any systems have been able to go at these CPU
>> loads.
>> Core2 Duo 2.66 - 58%
>> Dual core Opteron 2.6 - 58%
>> AMD FX60 - 73%
>> AMD X2 4400 - 70%
>> Dual Core "Wood crest" Xeon 2.0 gig - 53%
>> P4 955 3.4g - 76%
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>>
>>> OK Chuck,
>>>
>>> I'll bite. I'll have a native system here irregardless of what audio card
>>> I'm using. I don't plan to sell of anything until I'm convinced that the
>>> Scope cards are the ticket for me. Right now I'm in the middle of recabling
>>> the studio, but it will be pretty simple for me to configure it so that
> I
>>> can just restore a Ghost image, reconfigure the digital connects and pop
> in
>>> the Magma PCI cards, and I'm back to the RME/UAD-1 rig that I've been
>>> running. I have always intended to keep this viable for a while. The only
>>> major change I'll be making is the mobo on both rigs. In the near future,
>>> both the Paris system and the Native system will be running on Gigabyte
>>> GA-K8NS Ultra 939 mobos, but in the meantime, what I've got now is working.
>>> Believe me, I would dearly love to get a native system sounding like Paris
>>> and I'll gladly help you beta whatever plugin you might develop or jump
>>> through some experimental hoops, and I'm sure Neil, Dedric, Gene, Dave,
>>> LaMont will have great suggestions since they are much further along in
>>> native world than I am........but I'm also going to be getting another
> wierd
>>> proprietary DAW happening......the stuff is already on the way here.
>>>
>>> ;o)
>>>
>>> "chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote in message news:453d565a$1@linux...
>>>
>>>
>>>> DJ,
>>>>
>>>> Listen I know you love messing with this stuff, but I think we need to
>>>>
>>>>
>>> focus
>>>
>>>
>>>> on how to get the mixes we want out of an all native system.
>>>>
>>>> It just doesn't make any sense to me to get onboard with another weird,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> proprietary
>>>
>>>
>>>> dsp system. Creamware is as weird, oddball nad proprietary as it gets.
>>>> Why bother with it? Why bother with UAD or anything else. It just
>>>>
>>>>
>>> doesn't
>>>
>>>
>>>> make sense to me.
>>>>
>>>> If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is wrong.
>>>> Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
>>>>
>>>> Chuck
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Chris Ludwig
>> ADK
>> chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>> www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>> (859) 635-5762
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK Pro Audio
(859) 635-5762
www.adkproaudio.com
chrisl@adkproaudio.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74757 is a reply to message #74743] |
Tue, 24 October 2006 10:13 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I've played the same gear forever, including an 18 watt amp that is a cross
between as AC-30 and an AC-15. I put a THD power soak on so I can play it
completely opened up. It sounds incredible, both in my opinion and in the
opinion of many, many people who have complimented me on my guitar sound.
I played a gig two weeks ago as the local band opening up for a national
tour. The sound person (a woman actually, with a lovely British accent) asked
if I would mind using the headliner's amp. I don't think I had any choice.
The amp the headliner had was a gorgeously restored AC-30 so I could hardly
complain. However, since I've used the same strat, LP, and Top Hat soaked
down all of these years it didn't sound or feel like _my_ gear and I had
a really tough time. I made some out and out mistakes, mostly because I was
trying to get more compression and grit out of the Vox than was there and
I tried to correct it by playing harder. Does that mean that beautifully
restored AC-30s sound bad?
Your wife didn't like the first non-PARIS mix you've done in years. Does
that mean native sounds bad?
Discuss.
"DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>My wife agrees with you LaMont. She can pick out a native mix like a buzzard
>circling roadkill at 3000'.
>
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:453e20c4$1@linux...
>>
>> My Point exactly.. If all of you who use Nuendo or Cubase cannot hear
that
>> there is something going on (software-wise) in Cubase or Nuendo that's
not
>> bringing "Full-life" to our wav files, then,I'm sorry, your ears are not
>> as good as you may think..
>>
>>
>> "espresso" <audio@espressodigital.com> wrote:
>> >I posted this a while ago.. I now use Nuendo with a Layla 3G to output
>> 8 x
>> >analog channels and 8 x ADAT stems to Paris ie. Paris is now my mixer,
>its
>> >in the same computer, its easy....hardly any overhead as all Paris is
>doing
>> >is sitting in 'live' mode. I've been doing a bunch of live concert DVDs
>> with
>> >50 odd channels - 2 hour files - no chance I'd be wanting to convert
all
>> >those puppies to .pafs... or even the stems for that matter. The proof
is
>> in
>> >the sound - the files played through Paris are alive and have depth.
Same
>> >mix in Nuendo...urrrgghh. I know that I'm getting a double belt of DA-AD
>> >plus losing 4 bits of info through the Paris ADAT, but honestly the end
>> >justifies the means. All i'm trying to add to the discussion is - if
you
>> >want the functionality of the native program plus the Paris sound its
>> >readily achievable without having to jump through the '2nd computer as
FX
>> >buss' hoops.
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >
>> >David.
>> >
>> >
>> >"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:453d9ba4$1@linux...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Chuck,
>> >>
>> >> There was talk some time ago (oh how the years wander on...) of
>somebody
>> >> making an EDS chip emulator, which would then allow various
>possibilities,
>> >> which one would assume would include:
>> >>
>> >> 1) a "Virtual" EDS card driver which emulates all the functionality
of
>> an
>> >> EDS card down to the last bit, and hence plugs right into Paris
>allowing
>> >> more submixes, natively, but with the same sound characteristics as
the
>> >EDS
>> >> subs, or...
>> >> 2) using the same technology, a virtual Paris mix bus, which uses the
>> >emaulation
>> >> of the EDS alongside the code from the Paris OS to basically allow
a
>Paris
>> >> mix bus, using something like rewire, to plug in to a native app.
>> >>
>> >> I believe the talk was inspired by Matthew Craig's efforts in creating
>> the
>> >> VST Paris EQ, which does basically this same thing, emulating the EDS
>> >functionality
>> >> and hence generating pretty much identical output to the same audio
>going
>> >> through the card itself.
>> >>
>> >> This would sure sort out the issues if anybody with enough knowhow
and
>> >dedication
>> >> got on board. Suddenly any app could have the Paris mix bus, not to
>> >mention
>> >> the paris EQ... that would pretty much put an end to all this
>shennigans
>> >> i would think.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Kim.
>> >>
>> >> "chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >DJ,
>> >> >
>> >> >Listen I know you love messing with this stuff, but I think we need
to
>> >focus
>> >> >on how to get the mixes we want out of an all native system.
>> >> >
>> >> >It just doesn't make any sense to me to get onboard with another
>weird,
>> >> proprietary
>> >> >dsp system. Creamware is as weird, oddball nad proprietary as it
>gets.
>> >>
>> >> >Why bother with it? Why bother with UAD or anything else. It just
>> >doesn't
>> >> >make sense to me.
>> >> >
>> >> >If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is
>wrong.
>> >> > Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
>> >> >
>> >> >Chuck
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74758 is a reply to message #74757] |
Tue, 24 October 2006 10:44 |
John [1]
Messages: 2229
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
If DJ's wife is not happy, nobody's happy ! hehe
John
TCB wrote:
> I've played the same gear forever, including an 18 watt amp that is a cross
> between as AC-30 and an AC-15. I put a THD power soak on so I can play it
> completely opened up. It sounds incredible, both in my opinion and in the
> opinion of many, many people who have complimented me on my guitar sound.
> I played a gig two weeks ago as the local band opening up for a national
> tour. The sound person (a woman actually, with a lovely British accent) asked
> if I would mind using the headliner's amp. I don't think I had any choice.
> The amp the headliner had was a gorgeously restored AC-30 so I could hardly
> complain. However, since I've used the same strat, LP, and Top Hat soaked
> down all of these years it didn't sound or feel like _my_ gear and I had
> a really tough time. I made some out and out mistakes, mostly because I was
> trying to get more compression and grit out of the Vox than was there and
> I tried to correct it by playing harder. Does that mean that beautifully
> restored AC-30s sound bad?
>
> Your wife didn't like the first non-PARIS mix you've done in years. Does
> that mean native sounds bad?
>
> Discuss.
>
> "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>> My wife agrees with you LaMont. She can pick out a native mix like a buzzard
>> circling roadkill at 3000'.
>>
>>
>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:453e20c4$1@linux...
>>> My Point exactly.. If all of you who use Nuendo or Cubase cannot hear
> that
>>> there is something going on (software-wise) in Cubase or Nuendo that's
> not
>>> bringing "Full-life" to our wav files, then,I'm sorry, your ears are not
>>> as good as you may think..
>>>
>>>
>>> "espresso" <audio@espressodigital.com> wrote:
>>>> I posted this a while ago.. I now use Nuendo with a Layla 3G to output
>>> 8 x
>>>> analog channels and 8 x ADAT stems to Paris ie. Paris is now my mixer,
>> its
>>>> in the same computer, its easy....hardly any overhead as all Paris is
>> doing
>>>> is sitting in 'live' mode. I've been doing a bunch of live concert DVDs
>>> with
>>>> 50 odd channels - 2 hour files - no chance I'd be wanting to convert
> all
>>>> those puppies to .pafs... or even the stems for that matter. The proof
> is
>>> in
>>>> the sound - the files played through Paris are alive and have depth.
> Same
>>>> mix in Nuendo...urrrgghh. I know that I'm getting a double belt of DA-AD
>>>> plus losing 4 bits of info through the Paris ADAT, but honestly the end
>>>> justifies the means. All i'm trying to add to the discussion is - if
> you
>>>> want the functionality of the native program plus the Paris sound its
>>>> readily achievable without having to jump through the '2nd computer as
> FX
>>>> buss' hoops.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> David.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:453d9ba4$1@linux...
>>>>>
>>>>> Chuck,
>>>>>
>>>>> There was talk some time ago (oh how the years wander on...) of
>> somebody
>>>>> making an EDS chip emulator, which would then allow various
>> possibilities,
>>>>> which one would assume would include:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) a "Virtual" EDS card driver which emulates all the functionality
> of
>>> an
>>>>> EDS card down to the last bit, and hence plugs right into Paris
>> allowing
>>>>> more submixes, natively, but with the same sound characteristics as
> the
>>>> EDS
>>>>> subs, or...
>>>>> 2) using the same technology, a virtual Paris mix bus, which uses the
>>>> emaulation
>>>>> of the EDS alongside the code from the Paris OS to basically allow
> a
>> Paris
>>>>> mix bus, using something like rewire, to plug in to a native app.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe the talk was inspired by Matthew Craig's efforts in creating
>>> the
>>>>> VST Paris EQ, which does basically this same thing, emulating the EDS
>>>> functionality
>>>>> and hence generating pretty much identical output to the same audio
>> going
>>>>> through the card itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> This would sure sort out the issues if anybody with enough knowhow
> and
>>>> dedication
>>>>> got on board. Suddenly any app could have the Paris mix bus, not to
>>>> mention
>>>>> the paris EQ... that would pretty much put an end to all this
>> shennigans
>>>>> i would think.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Kim.
>>>>>
>>>>> "chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>>>>>> DJ,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Listen I know you love messing with this stuff, but I think we need
> to
>>>> focus
>>>>>> on how to get the mixes we want out of an all native system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It just doesn't make any sense to me to get onboard with another
>> weird,
>>>>> proprietary
>>>>>> dsp system. Creamware is as weird, oddball nad proprietary as it
>> gets.
>>>>>> Why bother with it? Why bother with UAD or anything else. It just
>>>> doesn't
>>>>>> make sense to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is
>> wrong.
>>>>>> Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chuck
>>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74762 is a reply to message #74743] |
Tue, 24 October 2006 11:46 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
i hope to god you don't use that as a compliment when you tell amy how
much you appreciate her senses...whew...
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 08:29:15 -0600, "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>My wife agrees with you LaMont. She can pick out a native mix like a buzzard
>circling roadkill at 3000'.
>
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:453e20c4$1@linux...
>>
>> My Point exactly.. If all of you who use Nuendo or Cubase cannot hear that
>> there is something going on (software-wise) in Cubase or Nuendo that's not
>> bringing "Full-life" to our wav files, then,I'm sorry, your ears are not
>> as good as you may think..
>>
>>
>> "espresso" <audio@espressodigital.com> wrote:
>> >I posted this a while ago.. I now use Nuendo with a Layla 3G to output
>> 8 x
>> >analog channels and 8 x ADAT stems to Paris ie. Paris is now my mixer,
>its
>> >in the same computer, its easy....hardly any overhead as all Paris is
>doing
>> >is sitting in 'live' mode. I've been doing a bunch of live concert DVDs
>> with
>> >50 odd channels - 2 hour files - no chance I'd be wanting to convert all
>> >those puppies to .pafs... or even the stems for that matter. The proof is
>> in
>> >the sound - the files played through Paris are alive and have depth. Same
>> >mix in Nuendo...urrrgghh. I know that I'm getting a double belt of DA-AD
>> >plus losing 4 bits of info through the Paris ADAT, but honestly the end
>> >justifies the means. All i'm trying to add to the discussion is - if you
>> >want the functionality of the native program plus the Paris sound its
>> >readily achievable without having to jump through the '2nd computer as FX
>> >buss' hoops.
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >
>> >David.
>> >
>> >
>> >"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:453d9ba4$1@linux...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Chuck,
>> >>
>> >> There was talk some time ago (oh how the years wander on...) of
>somebody
>> >> making an EDS chip emulator, which would then allow various
>possibilities,
>> >> which one would assume would include:
>> >>
>> >> 1) a "Virtual" EDS card driver which emulates all the functionality of
>> an
>> >> EDS card down to the last bit, and hence plugs right into Paris
>allowing
>> >> more submixes, natively, but with the same sound characteristics as the
>> >EDS
>> >> subs, or...
>> >> 2) using the same technology, a virtual Paris mix bus, which uses the
>> >emaulation
>> >> of the EDS alongside the code from the Paris OS to basically allow a
>Paris
>> >> mix bus, using something like rewire, to plug in to a native app.
>> >>
>> >> I believe the talk was inspired by Matthew Craig's efforts in creating
>> the
>> >> VST Paris EQ, which does basically this same thing, emulating the EDS
>> >functionality
>> >> and hence generating pretty much identical output to the same audio
>going
>> >> through the card itself.
>> >>
>> >> This would sure sort out the issues if anybody with enough knowhow and
>> >dedication
>> >> got on board. Suddenly any app could have the Paris mix bus, not to
>> >mention
>> >> the paris EQ... that would pretty much put an end to all this
>shennigans
>> >> i would think.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Kim.
>> >>
>> >> "chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >DJ,
>> >> >
>> >> >Listen I know you love messing with this stuff, but I think we need to
>> >focus
>> >> >on how to get the mixes we want out of an all native system.
>> >> >
>> >> >It just doesn't make any sense to me to get onboard with another
>weird,
>> >> proprietary
>> >> >dsp system. Creamware is as weird, oddball nad proprietary as it
>gets.
>> >>
>> >> >Why bother with it? Why bother with UAD or anything else. It just
>> >doesn't
>> >> >make sense to me.
>> >> >
>> >> >If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is
>wrong.
>> >> > Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
>> >> >
>> >> >Chuck
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74764 is a reply to message #74757] |
Tue, 24 October 2006 11:40 |
animix
Messages: 356
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:453e49c4$1@linux...
>
> I've played the same gear forever, including an 18 watt amp that is a
cross
> between as AC-30 and an AC-15. I put a THD power soak on so I can play it
> completely opened up. It sounds incredible, both in my opinion and in the
> opinion of many, many people who have complimented me on my guitar sound.
> I played a gig two weeks ago as the local band opening up for a national
> tour. The sound person (a woman actually, with a lovely British accent)
asked
> if I would mind using the headliner's amp. I don't think I had any choice.
> The amp the headliner had was a gorgeously restored AC-30 so I could
hardly
> complain. However, since I've used the same strat, LP, and Top Hat soaked
> down all of these years it didn't sound or feel like _my_ gear and I had
> a really tough time. I made some out and out mistakes, mostly because I
was
> trying to get more compression and grit out of the Vox than was there and
> I tried to correct it by playing harder. Does that mean that beautifully
> restored AC-30s sound bad?
>
> Your wife didn't like the first non-PARIS mix you've done in years. Does
> that mean native sounds bad?
>
> Discuss.
I'd say you're absolutely right about this Thad......I should have said that
she can pick out *my native mix* .....(add aforementioned reference to
soaring carrion bird and carcass located on vehicular accessway ). I do
intend to keep plugging away at this. The Creamware system has always
intrigued me.......going wayyyyy back. I printed out the manual and started
reading last night. Even with the voluminous verbage vis-a-vis the RME
Totalmix, most of it made sense to me immediately............but then again,
I think Windows in much more intuitive than Mac OS, so .......oh well.
;o)
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74765 is a reply to message #74762] |
Tue, 24 October 2006 11:41 |
animix
Messages: 356
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Whaaaaatttttt???.......why???......what's the problem?
"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ponsj2tvrbuutjnnsfh2nda9io1s3n6d1a@4ax.com...
> i hope to god you don't use that as a compliment when you tell amy how
> much you appreciate her senses...whew...
>
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 08:29:15 -0600, "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>
> >My wife agrees with you LaMont. She can pick out a native mix like a
buzzard
> >circling roadkill at 3000'.
> >
> >
> >"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:453e20c4$1@linux...
> >>
> >> My Point exactly.. If all of you who use Nuendo or Cubase cannot hear
that
> >> there is something going on (software-wise) in Cubase or Nuendo that's
not
> >> bringing "Full-life" to our wav files, then,I'm sorry, your ears are
not
> >> as good as you may think..
> >>
> >>
> >> "espresso" <audio@espressodigital.com> wrote:
> >> >I posted this a while ago.. I now use Nuendo with a Layla 3G to
output
> >> 8 x
> >> >analog channels and 8 x ADAT stems to Paris ie. Paris is now my mixer,
> >its
> >> >in the same computer, its easy....hardly any overhead as all Paris is
> >doing
> >> >is sitting in 'live' mode. I've been doing a bunch of live concert
DVDs
> >> with
> >> >50 odd channels - 2 hour files - no chance I'd be wanting to convert
all
> >> >those puppies to .pafs... or even the stems for that matter. The proof
is
> >> in
> >> >the sound - the files played through Paris are alive and have depth.
Same
> >> >mix in Nuendo...urrrgghh. I know that I'm getting a double belt of
DA-AD
> >> >plus losing 4 bits of info through the Paris ADAT, but honestly the
end
> >> >justifies the means. All i'm trying to add to the discussion is - if
you
> >> >want the functionality of the native program plus the Paris sound its
> >> >readily achievable without having to jump through the '2nd computer as
FX
> >> >buss' hoops.
> >> >
> >> >Cheers,
> >> >
> >> >David.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:453d9ba4$1@linux...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Chuck,
> >> >>
> >> >> There was talk some time ago (oh how the years wander on...) of
> >somebody
> >> >> making an EDS chip emulator, which would then allow various
> >possibilities,
> >> >> which one would assume would include:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) a "Virtual" EDS card driver which emulates all the functionality
of
> >> an
> >> >> EDS card down to the last bit, and hence plugs right into Paris
> >allowing
> >> >> more submixes, natively, but with the same sound characteristics as
the
> >> >EDS
> >> >> subs, or...
> >> >> 2) using the same technology, a virtual Paris mix bus, which uses
the
> >> >emaulation
> >> >> of the EDS alongside the code from the Paris OS to basically allow a
> >Paris
> >> >> mix bus, using something like rewire, to plug in to a native app.
> >> >>
> >> >> I believe the talk was inspired by Matthew Craig's efforts in
creating
> >> the
> >> >> VST Paris EQ, which does basically this same thing, emulating the
EDS
> >> >functionality
> >> >> and hence generating pretty much identical output to the same audio
> >going
> >> >> through the card itself.
> >> >>
> >> >> This would sure sort out the issues if anybody with enough knowhow
and
> >> >dedication
> >> >> got on board. Suddenly any app could have the Paris mix bus, not to
> >> >mention
> >> >> the paris EQ... that would pretty much put an end to all this
> >shennigans
> >> >> i would think.
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> Kim.
> >> >>
> >> >> "chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >DJ,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Listen I know you love messing with this stuff, but I think we need
to
> >> >focus
> >> >> >on how to get the mixes we want out of an all native system.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It just doesn't make any sense to me to get onboard with another
> >weird,
> >> >> proprietary
> >> >> >dsp system. Creamware is as weird, oddball nad proprietary as it
> >gets.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Why bother with it? Why bother with UAD or anything else. It just
> >> >doesn't
> >> >> >make sense to me.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is
> >wrong.
> >> >> > Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Chuck
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74766 is a reply to message #74751] |
Tue, 24 October 2006 12:44 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Neil I do mix follow the native mix rules. No overs, faders around -5db ect,
and I can make it sound good..
However, when I add in a mixer for summing, all of those native mixing rules
are out the window. The whole mix "sonically" opens up..
As well as, If I'm using Apogees AD16x/DA16x with soft-limiter set on, I
can mix like I want to in SX. With RME interface's and converters, I have
to abide by the rules.
Lastly, when i have to mix (In the Box) using SX/Nuendo, I refer to the Charles
dye method and add in Harmonic distortion via plugs in (namely) antares Mic
modler(tube) on the inserts. This gives a different texture to the faders.
These days,I just use the SSL plugs which have that harmonic distort color
that helps a native mix...
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>My Point exactly.. If all of you who use Nuendo or Cubase cannot hear that
>>there is something going on (software-wise) in Cubase or Nuendo that's
not
>>bringing "Full-life" to our wav files, then,I'm sorry, your ears are not
>>as good as you may think..
>
>There IS something going on... IME, I think that a lot of people
>are using the tool in a manner in which it was not designed for.
>It's not designed to accomodate 50 tracks worth of clips/overs
>resulting in hundreds of thousands of errors per second... it's
>as simple as that.
>I don't think anyone who's said you can get good mixes out of
>Native suystems has insisted that it sounds exactly like Paris
>(or PT, or analog, or anything else), so is something different
>going on? Yeah... it's different - doesn't mean that it can't be
>good.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74779 is a reply to message #74766] |
Tue, 24 October 2006 18:35 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Lamont - if your D-A converters affect the way you mix inside a DAW, you
aren't mixing what you think you are. Certainly converters can sound
different, but the differences at the RME/Apogee level aren't in siginficant
areas (mainly a slight difference in sound of the top end - yes I've heard
all of these, along with Myteks, Cranesong, DCS, and others side by side -
Cranesong is my favorite - Myteks are great, but a little sterile. DCS is
just too expensive).
1) If you are saying you mix differently on a console because you are using
Apogee converters from the DAW with soft limit vs. RME converters, also into
the same desk (no mixing in SX, just playback), you are simply using the
converters to color the signal (albeit only slightly), in different ways -
Softlimit just limiting. Nothing wrong with that, but that is altering the
tracks going in, not the mixing platform itself. Saying RME converters
limit you because they don't have a limiter built in says you aren't mixing
the way most of us do - you are trying to get analog saturation out of
digital - ain't gonna happen.
2) If you are mixing inside SX and change your approach depending on which
converter you monitor through, then that's a problem since your bounces
aren't going to be the same, and your decisions aren't going to be
consistent. The idea is to have your monitoring chain *not* affect your mix
decisions, but enable more accurate ones.
If you mixdown to a 2-track of some sort (Masterlink, etc), then you are
using SoftLimit as a limiter on the output. You could achieve the same
think in a multitude of different ways.
Regards,
Dedric
On 10/24/06 1:44 PM, in article 453e6d24$1@linux, "LaMont"
<jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> Neil I do mix follow the native mix rules. No overs, faders around -5db ect,
> and I can make it sound good..
>
> However, when I add in a mixer for summing, all of those native mixing rules
> are out the window. The whole mix "sonically" opens up..
>
> As well as, If I'm using Apogees AD16x/DA16x with soft-limiter set on, I
> can mix like I want to in SX. With RME interface's and converters, I have
> to abide by the rules.
>
> Lastly, when i have to mix (In the Box) using SX/Nuendo, I refer to the
> Charles
> dye method and add in Harmonic distortion via plugs in (namely) antares Mic
> modler(tube) on the inserts. This gives a different texture to the faders.
> These days,I just use the SSL plugs which have that harmonic distort color
> that helps a native mix...
> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>
>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> My Point exactly.. If all of you who use Nuendo or Cubase cannot hear that
>>> there is something going on (software-wise) in Cubase or Nuendo that's
> not
>>> bringing "Full-life" to our wav files, then,I'm sorry, your ears are not
>>> as good as you may think..
>>
>> There IS something going on... IME, I think that a lot of people
>> are using the tool in a manner in which it was not designed for.
>> It's not designed to accomodate 50 tracks worth of clips/overs
>> resulting in hundreds of thousands of errors per second... it's
>> as simple as that.
>> I don't think anyone who's said you can get good mixes out of
>> Native suystems has insisted that it sounds exactly like Paris
>> (or PT, or analog, or anything else), so is something different
>> going on? Yeah... it's different - doesn't mean that it can't be
>> good.
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74780 is a reply to message #74736] |
Tue, 24 October 2006 18:45 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi John,
The difference is pretty much what Chuck found in technical detail - Paris
lets you clip channels by cutting your levels for you. Native DAWs don't do
this - what you put in you get out. You may not actually hear any
difference other than Paris' converters vs. the Presonus (I haven't heard
the Presonus so I can't comment on the differences there).
I always thought Paris was harder to get a clear top end out of. Nuendo
sounded clearer to me immediately. Some of that was Paris' converters, some
wasn't. If tracks are being cut by 22dB before you even start processing
you are losing 3.5 bits of resolution from 24-bit files (depending on how
Paris transfers to larger bit depths for processing, and where it lops them
off in the end).
There will always be people disagreeing about the audio quality of DAWs, but
imho, the differences have more to do with the way the "art" of mixing has
been taught and passed along over the years as a trade rather than skill -
with many misconceptions and traditions that have no sonic foundation or
engineering logic.
There are a lot of people mixing pro level music in Nuendo, and Cubase is
the same audio engine. Imho, Cubase 4 has the best workflow of any native
DAW out there now.
Regards,
Dedric
On 10/24/06 7:43 AM, in article 453e165b$1@linux, "John" <no@no.com> wrote:
> Dedric, You have experience in both Cubase and Paris if I'm not
> mistaken, I'm about to receive Cubase using presonus digimax fs pres.
> Can you elaborate on what sonic differences I should expect to
> experience pro and con?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> Dedric Terry wrote:
>> I don't think anyone believes cpu power has anything to do with sound
>> quality, just as lowering channels by 22dB and raising the master buss by
>> 22dB has nothing to do with improving sound quality - it's just a matter of
>> managing levels for the user instead of the user lowering the fader by 22dB.
>>
>> Nothing wrong with a faster machine to allow more fx processing... or FX
>> Teleport, Wormhole or VST System Link.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dedric
>>
>> On 10/24/06 7:02 AM, in article 453e0efb$1@linux, "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.ne> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Even more, I don;t agree with this new trend of adding more CPU powerer,
>>>> thinking that it will yield you better summing or sound.
>>>> It won't!!
>>> Perhaps not, but what it WILL do is allow you to get into
>>> using very processor-intensive tools while still running a lot
>>> of tracks. For example, If you mix with Izotope Ozone across
>>> your 2-buss, you could mix with super high-quality program
>>> compression, brickwall limiting, and a stereo image enhancer
>>> right in place... however, Ozone is very CPU-intensive (I've
>>> done this before in SX, but I've had to "freeze" a lot of
>>> tracks in order to be abe to accommodate it. No big deal unless
>>> you want to make changes to any of those tracks inserts, then
>>> you have to unfreeze/tweak/refreeze.
>>>
>>> Another thing it enables you to do is to get into convo or
>>> modeled reverbs on the same computer - i.e.: no having to
>>> dedicate a separate box for EFX. I have nothing against DSP-
>>> based stuff, but there are a couple of really cool - but SUPER-
>>> cpu-intensive verbs out there... did anyone else check out the
>>> demo for theRayspace reverb that Deej (i think it was Deej,
>>> anyway) posted a link for? If not, go check it out.... here's
>>> the link:
>>>
>>> http://www.quikquak.com/software.html
>>>
>>> Simply amazing, IMO; but very much a CPU hog. So much so that I
>>> can't use it at all - I was able to try it on a drum group
>>> only after disabling half of the tracks on a particular project.
>>>
>>> Neil
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74781 is a reply to message #74779] |
Tue, 24 October 2006 18:50 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yes, I do mixdown to a Masterlink...
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>Lamont - if your D-A converters affect the way you mix inside a DAW, you
>aren't mixing what you think you are. Certainly converters can sound
>different, but the differences at the RME/Apogee level aren't in siginficant
>areas (mainly a slight difference in sound of the top end - yes I've heard
>all of these, along with Myteks, Cranesong, DCS, and others side by side
-
>Cranesong is my favorite - Myteks are great, but a little sterile. DCS is
>just too expensive).
>
>1) If you are saying you mix differently on a console because you are using
>Apogee converters from the DAW with soft limit vs. RME converters, also
into
>the same desk (no mixing in SX, just playback), you are simply using the
>converters to color the signal (albeit only slightly), in different ways
-
>Softlimit just limiting. Nothing wrong with that, but that is altering
the
>tracks going in, not the mixing platform itself. Saying RME converters
>limit you because they don't have a limiter built in says you aren't mixing
>the way most of us do - you are trying to get analog saturation out of
>digital - ain't gonna happen.
>
>2) If you are mixing inside SX and change your approach depending on which
>converter you monitor through, then that's a problem since your bounces
>aren't going to be the same, and your decisions aren't going to be
>consistent. The idea is to have your monitoring chain *not* affect your
mix
>decisions, but enable more accurate ones.
>
>If you mixdown to a 2-track of some sort (Masterlink, etc), then you are
>using SoftLimit as a limiter on the output. You could achieve the same
>think in a multitude of different ways.
>
>Regards,
>Dedric
>
>On 10/24/06 1:44 PM, in article 453e6d24$1@linux, "LaMont"
><jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Neil I do mix follow the native mix rules. No overs, faders around -5db
ect,
>> and I can make it sound good..
>>
>> However, when I add in a mixer for summing, all of those native mixing
rules
>> are out the window. The whole mix "sonically" opens up..
>>
>> As well as, If I'm using Apogees AD16x/DA16x with soft-limiter set on,
I
>> can mix like I want to in SX. With RME interface's and converters, I have
>> to abide by the rules.
>>
>> Lastly, when i have to mix (In the Box) using SX/Nuendo, I refer to the
>> Charles
>> dye method and add in Harmonic distortion via plugs in (namely) antares
Mic
>> modler(tube) on the inserts. This gives a different texture to the faders.
>> These days,I just use the SSL plugs which have that harmonic distort color
>> that helps a native mix...
>> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My Point exactly.. If all of you who use Nuendo or Cubase cannot hear
that
>>>> there is something going on (software-wise) in Cubase or Nuendo that's
>> not
>>>> bringing "Full-life" to our wav files, then,I'm sorry, your ears are
not
>>>> as good as you may think..
>>>
>>> There IS something going on... IME, I think that a lot of people
>>> are using the tool in a manner in which it was not designed for.
>>> It's not designed to accomodate 50 tracks worth of clips/overs
>>> resulting in hundreds of thousands of errors per second... it's
>>> as simple as that.
>>> I don't think anyone who's said you can get good mixes out of
>>> Native suystems has insisted that it sounds exactly like Paris
>>> (or PT, or analog, or anything else), so is something different
>>> going on? Yeah... it's different - doesn't mean that it can't be
>>> good.
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74791 is a reply to message #74765] |
Wed, 25 October 2006 02:09 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
man, your amy is one loving woman.
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:41:48 -0600, "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>Whaaaaatttttt???.......why???......what's the problem?
>
>
>"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ponsj2tvrbuutjnnsfh2nda9io1s3n6d1a@4ax.com...
>> i hope to god you don't use that as a compliment when you tell amy how
>> much you appreciate her senses...whew...
>>
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 08:29:15 -0600, "DJ" <notachance@net.net> wrote:
>>
>> >My wife agrees with you LaMont. She can pick out a native mix like a
>buzzard
>> >circling roadkill at 3000'.
>> >
>> >
>> >"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:453e20c4$1@linux...
>> >>
>> >> My Point exactly.. If all of you who use Nuendo or Cubase cannot hear
>that
>> >> there is something going on (software-wise) in Cubase or Nuendo that's
>not
>> >> bringing "Full-life" to our wav files, then,I'm sorry, your ears are
>not
>> >> as good as you may think..
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "espresso" <audio@espressodigital.com> wrote:
>> >> >I posted this a while ago.. I now use Nuendo with a Layla 3G to
>output
>> >> 8 x
>> >> >analog channels and 8 x ADAT stems to Paris ie. Paris is now my mixer,
>> >its
>> >> >in the same computer, its easy....hardly any overhead as all Paris is
>> >doing
>> >> >is sitting in 'live' mode. I've been doing a bunch of live concert
>DVDs
>> >> with
>> >> >50 odd channels - 2 hour files - no chance I'd be wanting to convert
>all
>> >> >those puppies to .pafs... or even the stems for that matter. The proof
>is
>> >> in
>> >> >the sound - the files played through Paris are alive and have depth.
>Same
>> >> >mix in Nuendo...urrrgghh. I know that I'm getting a double belt of
>DA-AD
>> >> >plus losing 4 bits of info through the Paris ADAT, but honestly the
>end
>> >> >justifies the means. All i'm trying to add to the discussion is - if
>you
>> >> >want the functionality of the native program plus the Paris sound its
>> >> >readily achievable without having to jump through the '2nd computer as
>FX
>> >> >buss' hoops.
>> >> >
>> >> >Cheers,
>> >> >
>> >> >David.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:453d9ba4$1@linux...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Chuck,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There was talk some time ago (oh how the years wander on...) of
>> >somebody
>> >> >> making an EDS chip emulator, which would then allow various
>> >possibilities,
>> >> >> which one would assume would include:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1) a "Virtual" EDS card driver which emulates all the functionality
>of
>> >> an
>> >> >> EDS card down to the last bit, and hence plugs right into Paris
>> >allowing
>> >> >> more submixes, natively, but with the same sound characteristics as
>the
>> >> >EDS
>> >> >> subs, or...
>> >> >> 2) using the same technology, a virtual Paris mix bus, which uses
>the
>> >> >emaulation
>> >> >> of the EDS alongside the code from the Paris OS to basically allow a
>> >Paris
>> >> >> mix bus, using something like rewire, to plug in to a native app.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I believe the talk was inspired by Matthew Craig's efforts in
>creating
>> >> the
>> >> >> VST Paris EQ, which does basically this same thing, emulating the
>EDS
>> >> >functionality
>> >> >> and hence generating pretty much identical output to the same audio
>> >going
>> >> >> through the card itself.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This would sure sort out the issues if anybody with enough knowhow
>and
>> >> >dedication
>> >> >> got on board. Suddenly any app could have the Paris mix bus, not to
>> >> >mention
>> >> >> the paris EQ... that would pretty much put an end to all this
>> >shennigans
>> >> >> i would think.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >> Kim.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >DJ,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Listen I know you love messing with this stuff, but I think we need
>to
>> >> >focus
>> >> >> >on how to get the mixes we want out of an all native system.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >It just doesn't make any sense to me to get onboard with another
>> >weird,
>> >> >> proprietary
>> >> >> >dsp system. Creamware is as weird, oddball nad proprietary as it
>> >gets.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Why bother with it? Why bother with UAD or anything else. It just
>> >> >doesn't
>> >> >> >make sense to me.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is
>> >wrong.
>> >> >> > Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Chuck
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74796 is a reply to message #74780] |
Wed, 25 October 2006 06:31 |
Chris Ludwig
Messages: 868
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
exactly!!
Dedric Terry wrote:
>Hi John,
>
>The difference is pretty much what Chuck found in technical detail - Paris
>lets you clip channels by cutting your levels for you. Native DAWs don't do
>this - what you put in you get out. You may not actually hear any
>difference other than Paris' converters vs. the Presonus (I haven't heard
>the Presonus so I can't comment on the differences there).
>
>I always thought Paris was harder to get a clear top end out of. Nuendo
>sounded clearer to me immediately. Some of that was Paris' converters, some
>wasn't. If tracks are being cut by 22dB before you even start processing
>you are losing 3.5 bits of resolution from 24-bit files (depending on how
>Paris transfers to larger bit depths for processing, and where it lops them
>off in the end).
>
>There will always be people disagreeing about the audio quality of DAWs, but
>imho, the differences have more to do with the way the "art" of mixing has
>been taught and passed along over the years as a trade rather than skill -
>with many misconceptions and traditions that have no sonic foundation or
>engineering logic.
>
>There are a lot of people mixing pro level music in Nuendo, and Cubase is
>the same audio engine. Imho, Cubase 4 has the best workflow of any native
>DAW out there now.
>
>Regards,
>Dedric
>
>On 10/24/06 7:43 AM, in article 453e165b$1@linux, "John" <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Dedric, You have experience in both Cubase and Paris if I'm not
>>mistaken, I'm about to receive Cubase using presonus digimax fs pres.
>>Can you elaborate on what sonic differences I should expect to
>>experience pro and con?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>John
>>
>>Dedric Terry wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't think anyone believes cpu power has anything to do with sound
>>>quality, just as lowering channels by 22dB and raising the master buss by
>>>22dB has nothing to do with improving sound quality - it's just a matter of
>>>managing levels for the user instead of the user lowering the fader by 22dB.
>>>
>>>Nothing wrong with a faster machine to allow more fx processing... or FX
>>>Teleport, Wormhole or VST System Link.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Dedric
>>>
>>>On 10/24/06 7:02 AM, in article 453e0efb$1@linux, "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.ne> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Even more, I don;t agree with this new trend of adding more CPU powerer,
>>>>>thinking that it will yield you better summing or sound.
>>>>>It won't!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Perhaps not, but what it WILL do is allow you to get into
>>>>using very processor-intensive tools while still running a lot
>>>>of tracks. For example, If you mix with Izotope Ozone across
>>>>your 2-buss, you could mix with super high-quality program
>>>>compression, brickwall limiting, and a stereo image enhancer
>>>>right in place... however, Ozone is very CPU-intensive (I've
>>>>done this before in SX, but I've had to "freeze" a lot of
>>>>tracks in order to be abe to accommodate it. No big deal unless
>>>>you want to make changes to any of those tracks inserts, then
>>>>you have to unfreeze/tweak/refreeze.
>>>>
>>>>Another thing it enables you to do is to get into convo or
>>>>modeled reverbs on the same computer - i.e.: no having to
>>>>dedicate a separate box for EFX. I have nothing against DSP-
>>>>based stuff, but there are a couple of really cool - but SUPER-
>>>>cpu-intensive verbs out there... did anyone else check out the
>>>>demo for theRayspace reverb that Deej (i think it was Deej,
>>>>anyway) posted a link for? If not, go check it out.... here's
>>>>the link:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.quikquak.com/software.html
>>>>
>>>>Simply amazing, IMO; but very much a CPU hog. So much so that I
>>>>can't use it at all - I was able to try it on a drum group
>>>>only after disabling half of the tracks on a particular project.
>>>>
>>>>Neil
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK
chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
(859) 635-5762
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74804 is a reply to message #74779] |
Wed, 25 October 2006 07:40 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dedric,
My point has moe to do with 'head-room' of ITB mixes versus, using a analog
or digital mixer for summing.
There is a difference. Also, I challege anyone to open up say SX, DP, Logic
and play a stereo way file @ unity gain ..then, If you have copy of say Pr-Tools
LE M-powered, import that same file.. Then listen.
You can here the difference, even using the same audio interface..
I agree with you that you have to mix differently using the natives, but
Soft ware has a sound.. To me and others, to get make SX/Nuendo slam at it's
best, is to using a outboard summing mixer.
These days, my work flow is to record,edit,then bounce stems from Nuendo.
Simply put, there is no better workflow DAW on the planet for such tasks.
Then, I either mix in Pro-Tools or Paris depending on the color I'm going
for.
Dedric Terry <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>Lamont - if your D-A converters affect the way you mix inside a DAW, you
>aren't mixing what you think you are. Certainly converters can sound
>different, but the differences at the RME/Apogee level aren't in siginficant
>areas (mainly a slight difference in sound of the top end - yes I've heard
>all of these, along with Myteks, Cranesong, DCS, and others side by side
-
>Cranesong is my favorite - Myteks are great, but a little sterile. DCS is
>just too expensive).
>
>1) If you are saying you mix differently on a console because you are using
>Apogee converters from the DAW with soft limit vs. RME converters, also
into
>the same desk (no mixing in SX, just playback), you are simply using the
>converters to color the signal (albeit only slightly), in different ways
-
>Softlimit just limiting. Nothing wrong with that, but that is altering
the
>tracks going in, not the mixing platform itself. Saying RME converters
>limit you because they don't have a limiter built in says you aren't mixing
>the way most of us do - you are trying to get analog saturation out of
>digital - ain't gonna happen.
>
>2) If you are mixing inside SX and change your approach depending on which
>converter you monitor through, then that's a problem since your bounces
>aren't going to be the same, and your decisions aren't going to be
>consistent. The idea is to have your monitoring chain *not* affect your
mix
>decisions, but enable more accurate ones.
>
>If you mixdown to a 2-track of some sort (Masterlink, etc), then you are
>using SoftLimit as a limiter on the output. You could achieve the same
>think in a multitude of different ways.
>
>Regards,
>Dedric
>
>On 10/24/06 1:44 PM, in article 453e6d24$1@linux, "LaMont"
><jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Neil I do mix follow the native mix rules. No overs, faders around -5db
ect,
>> and I can make it sound good..
>>
>> However, when I add in a mixer for summing, all of those native mixing
rules
>> are out the window. The whole mix "sonically" opens up..
>>
>> As well as, If I'm using Apogees AD16x/DA16x with soft-limiter set on,
I
>> can mix like I want to in SX. With RME interface's and converters, I have
>> to abide by the rules.
>>
>> Lastly, when i have to mix (In the Box) using SX/Nuendo, I refer to the
>> Charles
>> dye method and add in Harmonic distortion via plugs in (namely) antares
Mic
>> modler(tube) on the inserts. This gives a different texture to the faders.
>> These days,I just use the SSL plugs which have that harmonic distort color
>> that helps a native mix...
>> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My Point exactly.. If all of you who use Nuendo or Cubase cannot hear
that
>>>> there is something going on (software-wise) in Cubase or Nuendo that's
>> not
>>>> bringing "Full-life" to our wav files, then,I'm sorry, your ears are
not
>>>> as good as you may think..
>>>
>>> There IS something going on... IME, I think that a lot of people
>>> are using the tool in a manner in which it was not designed for.
>>> It's not designed to accomodate 50 tracks worth of clips/overs
>>> resulting in hundreds of thousands of errors per second... it's
>>> as simple as that.
>>> I don't think anyone who's said you can get good mixes out of
>>> Native suystems has insisted that it sounds exactly like Paris
>>> (or PT, or analog, or anything else), so is something different
>>> going on? Yeah... it's different - doesn't mean that it can't be
>>> good.
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: The nut we have to crack [message #74810 is a reply to message #74713] |
Wed, 25 October 2006 09:38 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Neil,
Thanks for posting this. Last night I recorded a test song, drums, guitar,
and bass in DP. I dropped the individual channel faders to -6.0 and added a
limiter (for "make-up" gain and almost no limiting) to the DP main out. I
didn't raise any channel fader above -6.0. Only lowered channels to balance
levels. Even though I only had about 20 channels going, I could already tell
it was one of the better sounding mixes I've been able to get out of DP. Can
it really be this simple? I was so used to maximizing the levels in PARIS
that I took that methodology over to DP and my mixes in DP always sounded
"smaller". Now I'm jazzed about doing some more experimentation in DP.
Thanks again.
Tony
"Neil" <IOUIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:453d8006$1@linux...
>
> "chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>
>>If we can't get decent mixes out of a native daw then something is wrong.
>> Let's find the thing that's wrong, and make it right.
>
> (Long, but thought-provoking, and hopefully helpful, rant
> follows):
>
> I think the thing that's wrong is that some people just can't
> get their heads around the differences between analog & digital.
> With analog, "big" = hotter, and so hotter is better. When you
> overbias your tape machines & smack the hell out of the tape,
> you're getting compression right off the bat on every track you
> do that with, so one gets used to hearing most tracks with some
> degree of tape compression already... and we all know that
> compression can make things sound "bigger". Or, you use a
> compressor on the way in to the tape so that you get a better
> SNR, but since that's not an issue with digital (unless you're
> recording at levels so low that you just simply get poor
> resolution, but that's a slightly different scenario), people
> quit using compressors on the way in to digital since SNR isn't
> an issue there.... you also can't smack an AD convertor hard &
> expect it to like it - unlike tape. So right off the bat we've
> got a whole different set of dynamics action going on from one
> world to the other - then, when you've already got that
> compressed kick or bassline on tape, you compress it more, and
> you're compressing an already-compressed signal, so when you
> apply compression to your uncompressed kick on your DAW you're
> thinking "nah, that CAN'T be right, it can't need THAT much
> compression! I'd better back that off a bit!" (because you're
> looking at the ratios & the threshhold, etc, instead of using
> your ears). EQ reacts differently with digital, too... if you're
> used to mixing on a console, you might be used to boosting or
> cutting something by 3, 4, 6db & getting an audible
> difference... with digital/plugin EQ's, sometimes you gotta
> boost or cut HUGE swaths of that frequency to really make a
> difference... why? I think it's a phase thing... you get more
> phase shift with analog filters, and so the change is more
> apparent at smaller degrees of boost & cut. That also helps to
> isolate things to have their own place in the mix at the same
> time... considering that phase is the reason we have two ears -
> it's the thing that makes it possible for us to tell which
> direction a sound is coming from - this makes perfect sense.
>
> So, those of us (and I think that's "most of us here") who cut
> our teeth in the analog world first, and are used to all the
> things mentioned above - and who have not changed that style of
> mixing - could be disappointed in Native systems - not because
> they fall short of analog or Paris, but because they are
> actually much more accurate (assuming good quality convertors)
> & as a result do not impart certain types of coloration that we
> might interpret as "pleasing". If you could go back to a great
> mix you did on analog & a console & take out half of the amount
> of dynamics processing & half of the amount of EQ'ing you did,
> what would you get? A mix that sounded flatter & more colorless
> & with less dimension than the one you ended up with. Want
> proof? Here it is: If you didn't need the amount of EQ &
> dynamics you applied, you wouldn't have done so! If half the
> amounts/degrees of those things would have sufficed, that's
> what you would have used! So Paris sounds & acts kinda like
> analog, and people who like Paris like that aspect of it... how
> do we know there's not a few lines of code in there somewhere
> that adds graduated degrees of even-harmonic distortion when
> you push the faders or saturate the mix buss to whatever
> degree? I personally don't think it's strictly a DSP thing,
> because let's face it.. a plugin is basically doing the same
> thing to your mix whether it's running of a processor on it's
> own card or off your CPU; the difference being how well a
> particular VST or Direct-X compressor or reverb is written (and
> what it's designed to do in terms of treating the sound) vs.
> whatever DSP compressor or reverb plugin you're talking about.
> Can I get an "Amen, brutha!" on that?
>
> Chuck's nailed the Paris mix buss thing, it seems, with that
> -22db at the channel & +22db at the mix buss, but WHY does that
> make a difference? Well, here's why gang... it's just as I said
> earlier in another thread - you've got to give yourself some
> headroom, dammit! Paris apparently does this for you. Want to
> prove me wrong? Open up a Paris mix and drag the mix buss
> master fader down 22db from wherever you have it, then insert
> any plugin that has an output level control on each individual
> channel of that mix - if the plugin is a compressor, for
> example, don't use any compression, just use the output
> control - now boost every channel by 22db using that output
> control... if it only goes up 10 db, then insert that plugin
> twice in a row & max out the output on each insertion...
> that'll be close enough... how's that sound? I'll bet it won't
> sound all that good! Are you hearing that "overstuffed" mix
> buss sound? Is it smaller, with less dimension? I'd be curious
> to see what you guys think if you try this. Now that we know
> what Chuck told us he discovered, this is the best way to see
> if that makes a difference or not (my guess - it DOES make a
> difference, otherwise, they wouldn't have written the code that
> way!).
>
>
> So how can you get "big" in Native? Give yourself what Paris
> apparently already gives you... some headroom - think "clean",
> then dirty it up if you have to later... hell, just mash the
> mix with a comp & limiter or an L2 or something equivalent -
> you'll get all the harmonic distortion you want. I wasn't
> kidding the other day when I said: "Think zen when mixing in
> Cubase" it's all gotta flow without clips, gang... think about
> it... if you have one channel getting "overs" in a 32-bit float-
> point system, you may not notice it... heck you can't notice
> each sample in a given sound file can you? Of course not. But
> if you start adding more channels, and each of those channels
> is running hot... let's say 32 channels - as a comparison
> for you guys running two-card paris systems & no native mixes.
> and let's say you're running hot (over zero) about 25% of the
> time on each channel - that's 352,000 errors PER SECOND across
> the 32 tracks. That's a lot of floating-point math going on
> there, isn't it? And in this scenario, I want you to think of
> each error as a mistake, because that's what it is... in this
> style of mixing, it's a mistake. How can you expect something
> that's got 352,000 mistakes per second going on, to sound good?
>
> Are you still not convinced? Then you should also definitely
> investigate running stems (submixes) & reimporting. When I've
> done this I definitely can hear a difference, and I suspect you
> most likely will be able to as well.. it is NOT a huge
> difference, but it's audible. In fact, some months ago I posted
> a stems mix vs. a non-stems mix & a number of you said you
> could hear a difference. Now, if you think "aww, this is just
> another pain-in-the-ass procedure I have to go through if I mix
> in Native", keep in mind that you can run 90 Million stems
> mixes in the time it will take Deej to set up his first Pulsar
> card, and another 900 million in the time that it takes Chuck
> to research & write that plugin (OK, just giving hell to Deej
> there, and no really no offense intended to Chucks coding
> capability, but I'm just saying this is something you can do
> RIGHT NOW, TONIGHT if you want to if you have a Native system,
> without having to wait for anything new). Now, if you have a
> small project - one acoustic guitar, piano, & a vocal - with
> just a few tracks, running stems won't make a difference, but
> if you have a large project, give it a shot... you may not hear
> enough of a difference to make it worth doing in any given
> instance, but then again, you might.
>
> So, now that I hope I've made my case, here's my own personal
> guidelines for Native mixing - try it out & see wat you think:
>
> 1.) Do NOT bring down your Master Fader. It stays at zero
> (unless you're doing a fade).
>
> 2.) On your Master inserts, use a peakstop/brickwall limiter
> set anywhere from -.03 to -3db, depending on how much headroom
> you want to give your mastering engineer. Settings for volume
> maximization & other parameters will, of course, depend on the
> program material.
>
> 3.) Record at 24-bit 88.2k or higher (Dan Lavry has a white
> paper that makes a good case for a 60k sample rate - in order
> to get the ringing from the convertors' FIR filters out of the
> top range of our hearing - but since there is no standard 60k
> sample rate, 88.2 is the next one up). Also, 16-bit may have
> worked with Paris for whatever reason (maybe it just enhanced
> the harmonic distortion you're hearing?), but let's face it,
> everybody knows that more bits = greater "truth", especially
> when combined with higher resolutions.
>
> 4.) Default your individual channel settings to -6db or lower...
> I find that -6 is a good place to start because you can load up
> a decent amount of tracks without overloading the mix buss &
> hitting your limiter too hard at that level. Consider setting
> it lower as a starting point if you plan on getting into the
> range of 40+ tracks. HERE'S THE KEY... if you've got your mix
> roughed out & you can pull out that peakstop limiter I
> mentioned in #2 & NOT go over zero on the Master - you're
> golden. Fuck it, set 'em all at -15 as a starting point if you
> want, Paris is already setting them for you at -22, right? If
> you're getting a few scant overs without the limiter, you're
> still ok, really... the idea is not to overstuff the mix buss
> so heavily that if you pull the limiter off you're going into
> the +5, +6 range without it.
>
> Think "clean" people = think "no clips" (or as few as
> possible), you get 30-40 channels of "overs" constantly (like
> the 352,000 of 'em per second in the example I gave earlier),
> and it's going to get harsh & thin.... it's a cumulative effect.
>
> That's it, really... it's just like any other tool - you can't
> use an allen wrench to properly drive a nail, and you can't use
> a hammer to trim your nose hair.
>
> Happy Native mixing!
>
> (think "zen"!)
>
> Neil
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Dec 23 10:29:00 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06445 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
