Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin)
| Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77149] |
Sun, 17 December 2006 09:07  |
Paul Artola
Messages: 161
Registered: November 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Neil -
Knowing your music, studio setup, and experience/ability, I think you
might consider this advice. You work in a genre that really stresses
the core recording resources of a studio, and have been, to an extent,
patching together a studio to achieve that sound. But things are not
working the way you would like, optimally.
So why not start with a blank slate. Find out what the studios that
produce your reference sounds are using to get those sounds and see if
you can get a similar subset of gear together to get you in the game.
You might say, "Well, they are using large SSL consoles and racks of
vintage preamps and processors and a closet full of expensive mics,
and I can't afford that". However, these days, we can buy single
channels of Neve, SSL, API, etc., consoles, and software/dsp
emulations of virtually every piece of outboard gear ever made. There
are a staggering array of mics that are excellent performers for a
fraction of the cost of classic German models. And finally, sampling
technology has turned live performers into an option and not
necessity.
So, I believe the technology is out there to allow you to make your
music as you envision it. Just keep in mind that if your current tools
aren't cutting it, then its time to move on to new ones. That's how I
arrived to the Paris scene over 5 year ago, and may, someday, move on
to who-knows-what.
- Paul Artola
Ellicott City, Maryland
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77155 is a reply to message #77149] |
Sun, 17 December 2006 15:55  |
Nil
Messages: 245
Registered: March 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Paul Artola <artola@comcast.net> wrote:
>So why not start with a blank slate. Find out what the studios
>that produce your reference sounds are using to get those
>sounds and see if you can get a similar subset of gear
>together to get you in the game.
Well, there ARE no reference sounds, really - I mean, yeah it's
Prog, but I'm not necessarily going for a Rush sound or a Dream
Theater sound or a Yes sound, per se'
>You might say, "Well, they are using large SSL consoles and
>racks of vintage preamps and processors and a closet full of
>expensive mics, and I can't afford that".
I have good signal chain compliment, really. Let me show you
something... here's a hi-rez mp3 file of 4 comparison clips from
two projects that I did in the same genre... one was done on
PTHD, tracked with nothing but the best (by most people's
estimation) killer mics & pres - vintage Neve's, Focusrite ISA
110's, API's, Summit tube pres & comps, LA2A's) and mixed
through an SSL 4000 series console using EFX like two Lexi
480L's, a couple of AMS reverbs & delays, you get the picture.
The other was done here with only my own gear (except their
instruments & amps, I mean) & tracked & mixed in CubaseSX.
Both projects were done at the same samplerate (88.2k), and
the four song clips (two clips from each project) are all final
mixes, prior to mastering. Check it out...
http://www.saqqararecords.com/MiscAudio/PTHD-SSL%20vs%20Cuba seSX-ITB.mp3
Now, it's not the same songs mixed in different platforms in an
a/b comparson, but it's close enough in style, and one of the
guitar players & the singer appear on both projects... the 1st
& 3rd song clips are the PTHD/SSL mixes; two & four are the
Cubase/ITB mixes... dare I say the Cubase mixes sound better?
Fuller/more well-defined/bigger.
What do you guys think? Yes? No? Am I nuts?
Problem is, I can't get my OWN music to the right degree of
this bigger/more well-defined (not exactly like this other
stuff in the clips - it's a different style, but you know what
I'm getting at, yes?) place of existence in it's own right.
>So, I believe the technology is out there to allow you to make
>your music as you envision it. Just keep in mind that if your
>current tools aren't cutting it, then its time to move on to
>new ones.
EXACTLY! But, to WHAT?????!!!!!?????
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77158 is a reply to message #77155] |
Sun, 17 December 2006 16:03 |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Neil
I'm hearing a definite depth / width issue for sure...sonically you've
pretty well nailed it but there are some big differences in the soundscape.
Also the other mixes sound a tad warmer for some reason.
Don
"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4585cae3$1@linux...
>
> Paul Artola <artola@comcast.net> wrote:
>>So why not start with a blank slate. Find out what the studios
>>that produce your reference sounds are using to get those
>>sounds and see if you can get a similar subset of gear
>>together to get you in the game.
>
> Well, there ARE no reference sounds, really - I mean, yeah it's
> Prog, but I'm not necessarily going for a Rush sound or a Dream
> Theater sound or a Yes sound, per se'
>
>>You might say, "Well, they are using large SSL consoles and
>>racks of vintage preamps and processors and a closet full of
>>expensive mics, and I can't afford that".
>
> I have good signal chain compliment, really. Let me show you
> something... here's a hi-rez mp3 file of 4 comparison clips from
> two projects that I did in the same genre... one was done on
> PTHD, tracked with nothing but the best (by most people's
> estimation) killer mics & pres - vintage Neve's, Focusrite ISA
> 110's, API's, Summit tube pres & comps, LA2A's) and mixed
> through an SSL 4000 series console using EFX like two Lexi
> 480L's, a couple of AMS reverbs & delays, you get the picture.
> The other was done here with only my own gear (except their
> instruments & amps, I mean) & tracked & mixed in CubaseSX.
> Both projects were done at the same samplerate (88.2k), and
> the four song clips (two clips from each project) are all final
> mixes, prior to mastering. Check it out...
>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/MiscAudio/PTHD-SSL%20vs%20Cuba seSX-ITB.mp3
>
>
> Now, it's not the same songs mixed in different platforms in an
> a/b comparson, but it's close enough in style, and one of the
> guitar players & the singer appear on both projects... the 1st
> & 3rd song clips are the PTHD/SSL mixes; two & four are the
> Cubase/ITB mixes... dare I say the Cubase mixes sound better?
> Fuller/more well-defined/bigger.
>
> What do you guys think? Yes? No? Am I nuts?
>
> Problem is, I can't get my OWN music to the right degree of
> this bigger/more well-defined (not exactly like this other
> stuff in the clips - it's a different style, but you know what
> I'm getting at, yes?) place of existence in it's own right.
>
>
>>So, I believe the technology is out there to allow you to make
>>your music as you envision it. Just keep in mind that if your
>>current tools aren't cutting it, then its time to move on to
>>new ones.
>
> EXACTLY! But, to WHAT?????!!!!!?????
>
> Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77161 is a reply to message #77160] |
Sun, 17 December 2006 18:51 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote:
>Hey Neil
>
>1 & 2 if I remember were the better mixes at least on my
>laptop and headphones (buds).
OK, well #1 is a PTHD/SSL console mix and #2 is a CubaseSX/In-
The-Box Native mix.
>Sonically 3 & 4 mimic 1 & 2 - the sounds are very similar
>respectively (1 & 3 / 2 & 4) but there seems to be
>that "something" that's missing.
OK, but here's the BIG difference, IMO... first of all, the
reason I put them in the order I did is that the first two are
basically rip-roarers all the way through those sections of
each song - good comparison there from one to the other...
3 & 4 are back-to-back for the same kind of reason - both of
them have softer parts, and I placed the softer parts leading
out of one & into the other. Listen to the section from 1:43 in
the file to about 2:27... now, the part from 1:43 'til 2:12 is
definitely warmer-sounding... almost has a "70's" feel to it
in terms of tonality & the way the delay works with the vocals
(that was an AMS delay, BTW); I think it has a great feel, but
you can also hear the bandwidth limitations of going out of
PTHD via analog into the SSL, because as soon as the next clip
comes in at 2:13, listen to the "vertical" expand... what I
mean is the bandwidth - Don, if you're listening on a laptop &
earbuds, I don't know if you can really tell what I'm talking
about - listen on your monitors, burn it to a CD & playback
over them or something if you really want to see what I'm
saying... even on the hi-rez mp3 you can hear the "vertical"
expand as the next clip come in at 2:13.
You guys hearing what I'm talking about? Better defined lows
& highs... plus cleaner/better resolution all-around?
Anyone? Bueller? lol
Neil
>Now to be fair I too am having a hard time with that "something" and believe
>it or not the idea of sitting in with a reputable AE during mixdown is
>looking like a necessity and if it's at all possible I will do it this year.
>
>Anyway back to the differences..the instruments in 1 & 2 seem to have more
>depth than 3 & 4...and with the additional front to back info I believe
you
>are able to extend things outward more, which is another area 3 & 4 seem
to
>be lacking
>
>does any of this make sense?
>
>Don
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77163 is a reply to message #77161] |
Sun, 17 December 2006 21:43 |
emarenot
Messages: 345
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Neil
I think I'm hearing what you're referring to. Clip 3 from about 1:43 to to
2:12 and the first clip both definately have that 70's sound to
'em -warmer -the sound is "tighter" also. (BTW I love the AMS effect -just
the exact right amount -and that guy's got great intonation too...) Clips
two and four do seem to expand as you mentioned. I'm hearing lots more high
end detail along with a nice rich bottom.
If your comments are meant to suggest, in part, that ITB solutions can
generate wonderful stuff relative to great outboard gear (SSL, AMS etc..) I
agree. I've not got golden ears, and someone will always be able to hear
with more sophistication than I, but I think that at the level you're
working the differences in the mixes are a matter of taste. Each one of
those mixes sounds great, perhaps for different reasons, but they all sit
real well on my eardrums.
Thanks for taking the time to upload them for the comparison. I'm gonna try
and put up on my studio monitors tomorrow.
MR
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4585f40b$1@linux...
>
> "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote:
> >Hey Neil
> >
> >1 & 2 if I remember were the better mixes at least on my
> >laptop and headphones (buds).
>
> OK, well #1 is a PTHD/SSL console mix and #2 is a CubaseSX/In-
> The-Box Native mix.
>
>
> >Sonically 3 & 4 mimic 1 & 2 - the sounds are very similar
> >respectively (1 & 3 / 2 & 4) but there seems to be
> >that "something" that's missing.
>
> OK, but here's the BIG difference, IMO... first of all, the
> reason I put them in the order I did is that the first two are
> basically rip-roarers all the way through those sections of
> each song - good comparison there from one to the other...
> 3 & 4 are back-to-back for the same kind of reason - both of
> them have softer parts, and I placed the softer parts leading
> out of one & into the other. Listen to the section from 1:43 in
> the file to about 2:27... now, the part from 1:43 'til 2:12 is
> definitely warmer-sounding... almost has a "70's" feel to it
> in terms of tonality & the way the delay works with the vocals
> (that was an AMS delay, BTW); I think it has a great feel, but
> you can also hear the bandwidth limitations of going out of
> PTHD via analog into the SSL, because as soon as the next clip
> comes in at 2:13, listen to the "vertical" expand... what I
> mean is the bandwidth - Don, if you're listening on a laptop &
> earbuds, I don't know if you can really tell what I'm talking
> about - listen on your monitors, burn it to a CD & playback
> over them or something if you really want to see what I'm
> saying... even on the hi-rez mp3 you can hear the "vertical"
> expand as the next clip come in at 2:13.
>
> You guys hearing what I'm talking about? Better defined lows
> & highs... plus cleaner/better resolution all-around?
>
> Anyone? Bueller? lol
>
> Neil
>
>
>
>
> >Now to be fair I too am having a hard time with that "something" and
believe
>
> >it or not the idea of sitting in with a reputable AE during mixdown is
> >looking like a necessity and if it's at all possible I will do it this
year.
> >
> >Anyway back to the differences..the instruments in 1 & 2 seem to have
more
>
> >depth than 3 & 4...and with the additional front to back info I believe
> you
> >are able to extend things outward more, which is another area 3 & 4 seem
> to
> >be lacking
> >
> >does any of this make sense?
> >
> >Don
> >
> >
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77164 is a reply to message #77155] |
Sun, 17 December 2006 19:49 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I like your mixes better...........much better. I'd say you're there amigo.
Stop sweatin' this and go back to making music. For the genre you're working
with, you've nailed it. You can relax now and stop chasing this (and
spending money.)
;o)
"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4585cae3$1@linux...
>
> Paul Artola <artola@comcast.net> wrote:
>>So why not start with a blank slate. Find out what the studios
>>that produce your reference sounds are using to get those
>>sounds and see if you can get a similar subset of gear
>>together to get you in the game.
>
> Well, there ARE no reference sounds, really - I mean, yeah it's
> Prog, but I'm not necessarily going for a Rush sound or a Dream
> Theater sound or a Yes sound, per se'
>
>>You might say, "Well, they are using large SSL consoles and
>>racks of vintage preamps and processors and a closet full of
>>expensive mics, and I can't afford that".
>
> I have good signal chain compliment, really. Let me show you
> something... here's a hi-rez mp3 file of 4 comparison clips from
> two projects that I did in the same genre... one was done on
> PTHD, tracked with nothing but the best (by most people's
> estimation) killer mics & pres - vintage Neve's, Focusrite ISA
> 110's, API's, Summit tube pres & comps, LA2A's) and mixed
> through an SSL 4000 series console using EFX like two Lexi
> 480L's, a couple of AMS reverbs & delays, you get the picture.
> The other was done here with only my own gear (except their
> instruments & amps, I mean) & tracked & mixed in CubaseSX.
> Both projects were done at the same samplerate (88.2k), and
> the four song clips (two clips from each project) are all final
> mixes, prior to mastering. Check it out...
>
> http://www.saqqararecords.com/MiscAudio/PTHD-SSL%20vs%20Cuba seSX-ITB.mp3
>
>
> Now, it's not the same songs mixed in different platforms in an
> a/b comparson, but it's close enough in style, and one of the
> guitar players & the singer appear on both projects... the 1st
> & 3rd song clips are the PTHD/SSL mixes; two & four are the
> Cubase/ITB mixes... dare I say the Cubase mixes sound better?
> Fuller/more well-defined/bigger.
>
> What do you guys think? Yes? No? Am I nuts?
>
> Problem is, I can't get my OWN music to the right degree of
> this bigger/more well-defined (not exactly like this other
> stuff in the clips - it's a different style, but you know what
> I'm getting at, yes?) place of existence in it's own right.
>
>
>>So, I believe the technology is out there to allow you to make
>>your music as you envision it. Just keep in mind that if your
>>current tools aren't cutting it, then its time to move on to
>>new ones.
>
> EXACTLY! But, to WHAT?????!!!!!?????
>
> Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77166 is a reply to message #77163] |
Sun, 17 December 2006 21:48 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Mike R." <emarenot@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hey Neil
>I think I'm hearing what you're referring to. Clip 3 from about 1:43 to
to
>2:12 and the first clip both definately have that 70's sound to
>'em -warmer -the sound is "tighter" also. (BTW I love the AMS effect -just
>the exact right amount -and that guy's got great intonation too...)
Yeah, he did good in that part... he's better with intonation
on the softer stuff - it's when he hits it hard that I need to
use some Auto-Tune on him... interestingly, though, he doesn't
like everything tuned perfectly - he likes a few things to
remain slightly off here & there, and he'll actually pick
certain specific notes that he likes to remain "off" in pitch
sometimes.
>Clips two and four do seem to expand as you mentioned. I'm
>hearing lots more high end detail along with a nice rich
>bottom.
YEPPERS!
>If your comments are meant to suggest, in part, that ITB
>solutions can generate wonderful stuff relative to great
>outboard gear (SSL, AMS etc..) I agree.
Partly, yes, that's part of my intent.
>I think that at the level you're working the differences in
>the mixes are a matter of taste.
The "level" at which I'm working is miles below the level of
any number of perhaps a dozen or so guys on this newsgroup,
but I get what you're saying... i.e: none of the mixes
completely suck, and the differences might be either personal
taste preferences, or choices made at the time that happen to be
more appropriate to the task at hand. HOWEVER... when I point
out what to listen for, you CAN hear the differences I am
referring to... THIS was the point - these are the things I'm
noticing.
>Thanks for taking the time to upload them for the comparison.
>I'm gonna try and put up on my studio monitors tomorrow.
No Prob.. enjoy! If for no other reason than to learn
what "NOT" to do! lol
Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77175 is a reply to message #77161] |
Mon, 18 December 2006 04:59 |
Don Nafe
Messages: 1206
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You're right Neil
I can definitely hear a difference. in the back to back files now that I
have my ears back.
Don
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:4585f40b$1@linux...
>
> "Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote:
>>Hey Neil
>>
>>1 & 2 if I remember were the better mixes at least on my
>>laptop and headphones (buds).
>
> OK, well #1 is a PTHD/SSL console mix and #2 is a CubaseSX/In-
> The-Box Native mix.
>
>
>>Sonically 3 & 4 mimic 1 & 2 - the sounds are very similar
>>respectively (1 & 3 / 2 & 4) but there seems to be
>>that "something" that's missing.
>
> OK, but here's the BIG difference, IMO... first of all, the
> reason I put them in the order I did is that the first two are
> basically rip-roarers all the way through those sections of
> each song - good comparison there from one to the other...
> 3 & 4 are back-to-back for the same kind of reason - both of
> them have softer parts, and I placed the softer parts leading
> out of one & into the other. Listen to the section from 1:43 in
> the file to about 2:27... now, the part from 1:43 'til 2:12 is
> definitely warmer-sounding... almost has a "70's" feel to it
> in terms of tonality & the way the delay works with the vocals
> (that was an AMS delay, BTW); I think it has a great feel, but
> you can also hear the bandwidth limitations of going out of
> PTHD via analog into the SSL, because as soon as the next clip
> comes in at 2:13, listen to the "vertical" expand... what I
> mean is the bandwidth - Don, if you're listening on a laptop &
> earbuds, I don't know if you can really tell what I'm talking
> about - listen on your monitors, burn it to a CD & playback
> over them or something if you really want to see what I'm
> saying... even on the hi-rez mp3 you can hear the "vertical"
> expand as the next clip come in at 2:13.
>
> You guys hearing what I'm talking about? Better defined lows
> & highs... plus cleaner/better resolution all-around?
>
> Anyone? Bueller? lol
>
> Neil
>
>
>
>
>>Now to be fair I too am having a hard time with that "something" and
>>believe
>
>>it or not the idea of sitting in with a reputable AE during mixdown is
>>looking like a necessity and if it's at all possible I will do it this
>>year.
>>
>>Anyway back to the differences..the instruments in 1 & 2 seem to have more
>
>>depth than 3 & 4...and with the additional front to back info I believe
> you
>>are able to extend things outward more, which is another area 3 & 4 seem
> to
>>be lacking
>>
>>does any of this make sense?
>>
>>Don
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77176 is a reply to message #77173] |
Mon, 18 December 2006 07:38 |
Nil
Messages: 245
Registered: March 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Interesting... OK, here's the difference between the three
versions - first of all, all three were ITB Native mixes, NOT
using stems or anything like that:
* #1 is mixed with a BuzzMaxi limiter across the 2-buss, set to
-3db threshhold. This one to me is the cleanest of the three
versions. If I go much beyond -3 on this particular piece, you
can really hear the limiting, so -3 is where it remained.
I used UV22hr for dither on this one.
* #2 is the exact same mix, albeit with not one, but THREE
BuzzMaxi's in a row strapped across the 2-buss, each set at
-1db threshhold. This one's still pretty clean, and IMO it
provides a bit more power & impact than does mix #1. Again,
UV22hr provided the dither algo on this version.
* #3 is with Izotope Ozone strapped across the 2-buss instead
of the BuzzMaxi's... in this case, I used a little bit of
compression, a little bit of limiting/volume maximization, and
a little bit of the stereo spread section (no exciter or
anything else), and used the dither algo in Ozone. Now THIS mix
to me has more power, impact & depth, but ALSO - you can hear
some distortion or distortion-like artifacts... hear it?
IOW, for my taste, I like mix 3 better EXCEPT for the
distortion - now, I was being very conservative on compression,
limiting & stereo spread, and although Ozone takes a big chunk
of CPU cycles, my CPU meter still had some headroom (this
project went from 60% to 80% once I strapped Ozone across the
mix) so we know it's not glitching artifacts from overload.
I don't know why I'm getting the distortion, but if I could get
mix 3 without that, THAT'S what I'd be going for.
It's kinda like when I did the summing comparison files on that
other song with Native 2-buss, Native Stems & "Summed in Paris"
mixes... I liked a combination of certain aspects of the Native
Stems mix & the Summed-in-Paris mix, but I can't get all things
hitting at once!
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77182 is a reply to message #77174] |
Mon, 18 December 2006 11:03 |
Tom Bruhl
Messages: 1368
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C722AD.4E884AF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Neil,
I haven't had time to listen but just read all the words here.
It sounds to me like you need to let a great mastering engineer
do their magic. That will probably take you to the next level.
Pick the mix that comes closest to your liking. Master to add/subtract
the qualities that aren't quite there. The big boys will make that =
happen.
This happens to me almost every time. =20
Tom
"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:45868c0f@linux...
"DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote in message news:45863b07$1@linux...
> Hmmmm............mix #2 was my choice. It had more depth and breadth =
to my=20
> ears. ......followed by #3 which I preferred to #1.#1 seemed a bit =
less 3D=20
> and harder around the edges than 2 or 3. All of the were good mixes. =
None=20
> of them sounded harsh or unpleasant.
>
> Deej
>
I agree with DJ's accessment of the mixes but I prefer # ...just a =
personal=20
taste thing here #1 just seemed to fit what my ears like to hear.
DOn
.
> "Neil" <OUOIU@OIU.om> wrote in message news:45860fcc$1@linux...
>>
>> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>>>I like your mixes better...........much better. I'd say you're
>>>there amigo.
>>
>> OK, well they were ALL "my" mixes... the differences were just
>> me doing it on PTHD and an SSL out at Sonic Ranch , vs. me
>> doing it on CubaseSX & mixing ITB here.
>>
>>>Stop sweatin' this and go back to making music. For the genre
>>>you're working with, you've nailed it. You can relax now and
>>>stop chasing this (and spending money.)
>>
>> OK, you say so; but check this out... here's another set of
>> comparsion clips, back-to-back in one file. Same segment of the
>> same song (my stuff this time) - 3 slightly different versions,
>> neither of which I am 100% happy with (and I'll tell you why
>> later after I hear your feedback) which of the three do you
>> like better, or what kind of comments do you have about each?
>>
>> http://saqqararecords.com/MiscAudio/DracoClip-3versions.mp3
>>
>>
>> Neil
>
>=20
I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html
------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C722AD.4E884AF0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Neil,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I haven't had time to listen but just =
read all the=20
words here.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It sounds to me like you need to let =
a great=20
mastering engineer</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>do their magic. That will =
probably take you=20
to the next level.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Pick the mix that comes closest to your =
liking. Master to add/subtract</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>the qualities that aren't quite =
there. The=20
big boys will make that happen.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>This happens to me almost every =
time. =20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Tom</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"Don Nafe" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:dnafe@magma.ca">dnafe@magma.ca</A>> wrote=20
in message <A =
href=3D"news:45868c0f@linux">news:45868c0f@linux</A>...</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">"DJ"=20
<<A href=3D"mailto:nowayjose@dude.net">nowayjose@dude.net</A>> =
wrote in=20
message <A =
href=3D"news:45863b07$1@linux">news:45863b07$1@linux</A>...<BR>>=20
Hmmmm............mix #2 was my choice. It had more depth and breadth =
to my=20
<BR>> ears. ......followed by #3 which I preferred to #1.#1 seemed =
a bit=20
less 3D <BR>> and harder around the edges than 2 or 3. All of the =
were good=20
mixes. None <BR>> of them sounded harsh or =
unpleasant.<BR>><BR>>=20
Deej<BR>><BR><BR>I agree with DJ's accessment of the mixes but I =
prefer #=20
...just a personal <BR>taste thing here #1 just seemed to fit what my =
ears=20
like to hear.<BR><BR>DOn<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>.<BR>> "Neil" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:OUOIU@OIU.om">OUOIU@OIU.om</A>> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:45860fcc$1@linux">news:45860fcc$1@linux</A>...<BR>>><B=
R>>>=20
"DJ" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:nowayjose@dude.net">nowayjose@dude.net</A>>=20
wrote:<BR>>>>I like your mixes better...........much better. =
I'd say=20
you're<BR>>>>there amigo.<BR>>><BR>>> OK, well =
they were=20
ALL "my" mixes... the differences were just<BR>>> me doing it on =
PTHD=20
and an SSL out at Sonic Ranch , vs. me<BR>>> doing it on =
CubaseSX &=20
mixing ITB here.<BR>>><BR>>>>Stop sweatin' this and go =
back to=20
making music. For the genre<BR>>>>you're working with, you've =
nailed=20
it. You can relax now and<BR>>>>stop chasing this (and =
spending=20
money.)<BR>>><BR>>> OK, you say so; but check this out... =
here's=20
another set of<BR>>> comparsion clips, back-to-back in one file. =
Same=20
segment of the<BR>>> same song (my stuff this time) - 3 slightly =
different versions,<BR>>> neither of which I am 100% happy with =
(and=20
I'll tell you why<BR>>> later after I hear your feedback) which =
of the=20
three do you<BR>>> like better, or what kind of comments do you =
have=20
about each?<BR>>><BR>>> <A=20
=
href=3D"http://saqqararecords.com/MiscAudio/DracoClip-3versions.mp3">http=
://saqqararecords.com/MiscAudio/DracoClip-3versions.mp3</A><BR>>><B=
R>>><BR>>>=20
Neil<BR>><BR>> <BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><BR><BR>I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, =
and=20
you?<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html">http://www.polesoft.com/refer=
..html</A> </FONT></DIV></BODY ></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C722AD.4E884AF0--
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77186 is a reply to message #77176] |
Mon, 18 December 2006 12:52 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Neil,
You test confuses the hell out of me. Reason: You have so many variables(plugins
on this) another on that ..What gives??
On of all of your test, none have been on equal footing.
How about NO plugins on the master bus? Nothing..Then, render the stereo
file and see which sounds best. Your test always seems like you're hiding
soemthing from us the listeners and it seems that you;re always rigging the
test towards Cubase SX.
Being a Neundo owner and user, there is no way in hell that you, me or anybody
is going to get a better mix (ITB) over and SSL summed mix .. The Summing
bus in SX/ Nuendo is it's achilles heel and needs to improve big time, especialy
for mixing agressive music (Hard Rock /Hip Hop R & B..) You have to really
play it safe with the faders (ITB) mixing those genres..
But, when you're mixing a project over 60 tracks with lots of plugs, the
mixing buss starts to to suffer. Unlike Paris and Pro Tools, which mix summing
busses hold's up very well, Neundo /SX sounds losses it's dept..
What are you going for??
"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>Interesting... OK, here's the difference between the three
>versions - first of all, all three were ITB Native mixes, NOT
>using stems or anything like that:
>
>* #1 is mixed with a BuzzMaxi limiter across the 2-buss, set to
>-3db threshhold. This one to me is the cleanest of the three
>versions. If I go much beyond -3 on this particular piece, you
>can really hear the limiting, so -3 is where it remained.
>I used UV22hr for dither on this one.
>
>* #2 is the exact same mix, albeit with not one, but THREE
>BuzzMaxi's in a row strapped across the 2-buss, each set at
>-1db threshhold. This one's still pretty clean, and IMO it
>provides a bit more power & impact than does mix #1. Again,
>UV22hr provided the dither algo on this version.
>
>* #3 is with Izotope Ozone strapped across the 2-buss instead
>of the BuzzMaxi's... in this case, I used a little bit of
>compression, a little bit of limiting/volume maximization, and
>a little bit of the stereo spread section (no exciter or
>anything else), and used the dither algo in Ozone. Now THIS mix
>to me has more power, impact & depth, but ALSO - you can hear
>some distortion or distortion-like artifacts... hear it?
>
>IOW, for my taste, I like mix 3 better EXCEPT for the
>distortion - now, I was being very conservative on compression,
>limiting & stereo spread, and although Ozone takes a big chunk
>of CPU cycles, my CPU meter still had some headroom (this
>project went from 60% to 80% once I strapped Ozone across the
>mix) so we know it's not glitching artifacts from overload.
>I don't know why I'm getting the distortion, but if I could get
>mix 3 without that, THAT'S what I'd be going for.
>
>It's kinda like when I did the summing comparison files on that
>other song with Native 2-buss, Native Stems & "Summed in Paris"
>mixes... I liked a combination of certain aspects of the Native
>Stems mix & the Summed-in-Paris mix, but I can't get all things
>hitting at once!
>
>Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77187 is a reply to message #77182] |
Mon, 18 December 2006 12:32 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C722A8.F92944F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Good point Tom.
;o)
"Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote in message =
news:4586e364@linux...
Neil,
I haven't had time to listen but just read all the words here.
It sounds to me like you need to let a great mastering engineer
do their magic. That will probably take you to the next level.
Pick the mix that comes closest to your liking. Master to =
add/subtract
the qualities that aren't quite there. The big boys will make that =
happen.
This happens to me almost every time. =20
Tom
"Don Nafe" <dnafe@magma.ca> wrote in message news:45868c0f@linux...
"DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote in message news:45863b07$1@linux...
> Hmmmm............mix #2 was my choice. It had more depth and =
breadth to my=20
> ears. ......followed by #3 which I preferred to #1.#1 seemed a bit =
less 3D=20
> and harder around the edges than 2 or 3. All of the were good =
mixes. None=20
> of them sounded harsh or unpleasant.
>
> Deej
>
I agree with DJ's accessment of the mixes but I prefer # ...just a =
personal=20
taste thing here #1 just seemed to fit what my ears like to hear.
DOn
.
> "Neil" <OUOIU@OIU.om> wrote in message news:45860fcc$1@linux...
>>
>> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>>>I like your mixes better...........much better. I'd say you're
>>>there amigo.
>>
>> OK, well they were ALL "my" mixes... the differences were just
>> me doing it on PTHD and an SSL out at Sonic Ranch , vs. me
>> doing it on CubaseSX & mixing ITB here.
>>
>>>Stop sweatin' this and go back to making music. For the genre
>>>you're working with, you've nailed it. You can relax now and
>>>stop chasing this (and spending money.)
>>
>> OK, you say so; but check this out... here's another set of
>> comparsion clips, back-to-back in one file. Same segment of the
>> same song (my stuff this time) - 3 slightly different versions,
>> neither of which I am 100% happy with (and I'll tell you why
>> later after I hear your feedback) which of the three do you
>> like better, or what kind of comments do you have about each?
>>
>> http://saqqararecords.com/MiscAudio/DracoClip-3versions.mp3
>>
>>
>> Neil
>
>=20
I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html
------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C722A8.F92944F0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Good point Tom.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>;o)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Tom Bruhl" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:arpegio@comcast.net">arpegio@comcast.net</A>> wrote =
in message=20
<A href=3D"news:4586e364@linux">news:4586e364@linux</A>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Neil,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I haven't had time to listen but just =
read all=20
the words here.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It sounds to me like you need to let =
a great=20
mastering engineer</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>do their magic. That will =
probably take you=20
to the next level.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Pick the mix that comes closest to =
your=20
liking. Master to add/subtract</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>the qualities that aren't quite =
there. The=20
big boys will make that happen.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>This happens to me almost every =
time. =20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Tom</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"Don Nafe" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:dnafe@magma.ca">dnafe@magma.ca</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
href=3D"news:45868c0f@linux">news:45868c0f@linux</A>...</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">"DJ"=20
<<A href=3D"mailto:nowayjose@dude.net">nowayjose@dude.net</A>> =
wrote in=20
message <A =
href=3D"news:45863b07$1@linux">news:45863b07$1@linux</A>...<BR>>=20
Hmmmm............mix #2 was my choice. It had more depth and breadth =
to my=20
<BR>> ears. ......followed by #3 which I preferred to #1.#1 =
seemed a bit=20
less 3D <BR>> and harder around the edges than 2 or 3. All of the =
were=20
good mixes. None <BR>> of them sounded harsh or=20
unpleasant.<BR>><BR>> Deej<BR>><BR><BR>I agree with DJ's =
accessment=20
of the mixes but I prefer # ...just a personal <BR>taste thing here =
#1 just=20
seemed to fit what my ears like to=20
hear.<BR><BR>DOn<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>.<BR>> "Neil" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:OUOIU@OIU.om">OUOIU@OIU.om</A>> wrote in message =
<A=20
=
href=3D"news:45860fcc$1@linux">news:45860fcc$1@linux</A>...<BR>>><B=
R>>>=20
"DJ" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:nowayjose@dude.net">nowayjose@dude.net</A>>=20
wrote:<BR>>>>I like your mixes better...........much =
better. I'd=20
say you're<BR>>>>there amigo.<BR>>><BR>>> OK, =
well they=20
were ALL "my" mixes... the differences were just<BR>>> me =
doing it on=20
PTHD and an SSL out at Sonic Ranch , vs. me<BR>>> doing it on =
CubaseSX=20
& mixing ITB here.<BR>>><BR>>>>Stop sweatin' this =
and go=20
back to making music. For the genre<BR>>>>you're working =
with,=20
you've nailed it. You can relax now and<BR>>>>stop chasing =
this=20
(and spending money.)<BR>>><BR>>> OK, you say so; =
but=20
check this out... here's another set of<BR>>> comparsion =
clips,=20
back-to-back in one file. Same segment of the<BR>>> same song =
(my=20
stuff this time) - 3 slightly different versions,<BR>>> =
neither of=20
which I am 100% happy with (and I'll tell you why<BR>>> later =
after I=20
hear your feedback) which of the three do you<BR>>> like =
better, or=20
what kind of comments do you have about =
each?<BR>>><BR>>> <A=20
=
href=3D"http://saqqararecords.com/MiscAudio/DracoClip-3versions.mp3">http=
://saqqararecords.com/MiscAudio/DracoClip-3versions.mp3</A><BR>>><B=
R>>><BR>>>=20
Neil<BR>><BR>> <BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><BR><BR>I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, =
and=20
you?<BR><A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html">http://www.polesoft.com/refer=
..html</A> </FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE ></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C722A8.F92944F0--
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77188 is a reply to message #77186] |
Mon, 18 December 2006 13:41 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>Neil,
>You test confuses the hell out of me. Reason: You have so many variables(plugins
>on this) another on that ..What gives??
I'm just trying different things on them, Lamont - this wasn't
intended to be a blind a/b test, it's simply a matter of: "here's
what I did, here's what I think about the sound of each one;
what do you guys think?"
>On of all of your test, none have been on equal footing.
>How about NO plugins on the master bus? Nothing..Then, render the stereo
>file and see which sounds best. Your test always seems like you're hiding
>soemthing from us the listeners and it seems that you;re always rigging
the
>test towards Cubase SX.
????? How do you figure? When I did the summing comparisons
They were all the exact same mix, just summed in different ways -
I even said that I liked certain aspects of the summed-in-Paris
mix myself! When I posted the file that had 2 PTHD/SSL mixes & 2
Cubase Mixes, I would've had to have planned on rigging that
comparison well over a year ago & would've had to PURPOSELY do
less than my best efforts on the SSL mixes at the time.
>Being a Neundo owner and user, there is no way in hell that you, me or anybody
>is going to get a better mix (ITB) over and SSL summed mix ..
So what are you saying... that you think the Cubase mixes sound
better and that I must've purposely modified the SSL files to
make them sound worse? Or do you think the Cubase mixes sound
better and you simply refuse to believe what you're hearing?
Or do you disagree & think that the SSL mixes sound better... in
which case, I have no issue with your choice - it would simply
be a matter of personal preference. I'd disagree with you in
this instance because I happen to think the Cubase ones DO sound
better.
Lamont, I'm not "rigging" anything - I have no reason to pimp for
Steinberg or anything like that, nor am I trying to say "my kung-
fu is better" just to defend my gear choice. I'm trying to find
out how to get a certain sound out of it, is all.
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77189 is a reply to message #77188] |
Mon, 18 December 2006 19:21 |
AlexPlasko
Messages: 211
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
neil, they all sound good to me .id be happy to work with that caliber of
talent on a regular basis.the best advice in this thread is to send it out
to a mastering house.different set of ears /perspective,and not so attached
to it, etc.
>>Neil,
>>You test confuses the hell out of me. Reason: You have so many
>>variables(plugins
>>on this) another on that ..What gives??
>
> I'm just trying different things on them, Lamont - this wasn't
> intended to be a blind a/b test, it's simply a matter of: "here's
> what I did, here's what I think about the sound of each one;
> what do you guys think?"
>
>
>>On of all of your test, none have been on equal footing.
>>How about NO plugins on the master bus? Nothing..Then, render the stereo
>>file and see which sounds best. Your test always seems like you're hiding
>>soemthing from us the listeners and it seems that you;re always rigging
> the
>>test towards Cubase SX.
>
> ????? How do you figure? When I did the summing comparisons
> They were all the exact same mix, just summed in different ways -
> I even said that I liked certain aspects of the summed-in-Paris
> mix myself! When I posted the file that had 2 PTHD/SSL mixes & 2
> Cubase Mixes, I would've had to have planned on rigging that
> comparison well over a year ago & would've had to PURPOSELY do
> less than my best efforts on the SSL mixes at the time.
>
>>Being a Neundo owner and user, there is no way in hell that you, me or
>>anybody
>>is going to get a better mix (ITB) over and SSL summed mix ..
>
> So what are you saying... that you think the Cubase mixes sound
> better and that I must've purposely modified the SSL files to
> make them sound worse? Or do you think the Cubase mixes sound
> better and you simply refuse to believe what you're hearing?
>
> Or do you disagree & think that the SSL mixes sound better... in
> which case, I have no issue with your choice - it would simply
> be a matter of personal preference. I'd disagree with you in
> this instance because I happen to think the Cubase ones DO sound
> better.
>
> Lamont, I'm not "rigging" anything - I have no reason to pimp for
> Steinberg or anything like that, nor am I trying to say "my kung-
> fu is better" just to defend my gear choice. I'm trying to find
> out how to get a certain sound out of it, is all.
>
> Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77190 is a reply to message #77188] |
Mon, 18 December 2006 22:12 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"I'd disagree with you in this instance because I happen to think the Cubase
ones DO sound better."
Then that SSL Engineer does not know what they are doing with board. There's
no way a mix coming off of that board SSL should sound better than a ITB
Cubase SX mix..
Sorry, that just does not jive. That engineer does not know how to push he
SSL or just not familiar with it.
"Neil" <oiUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>Neil,
>>You test confuses the hell out of me. Reason: You have so many variables(plugins
>>on this) another on that ..What gives??
>
>I'm just trying different things on them, Lamont - this wasn't
>intended to be a blind a/b test, it's simply a matter of: "here's
>what I did, here's what I think about the sound of each one;
>what do you guys think?"
>
>
>>On of all of your test, none have been on equal footing.
>>How about NO plugins on the master bus? Nothing..Then, render the stereo
>>file and see which sounds best. Your test always seems like you're hiding
>>soemthing from us the listeners and it seems that you;re always rigging
>the
>>test towards Cubase SX.
>
>????? How do you figure? When I did the summing comparisons
>They were all the exact same mix, just summed in different ways -
>I even said that I liked certain aspects of the summed-in-Paris
>mix myself! When I posted the file that had 2 PTHD/SSL mixes & 2
>Cubase Mixes, I would've had to have planned on rigging that
>comparison well over a year ago & would've had to PURPOSELY do
>less than my best efforts on the SSL mixes at the time.
>
>>Being a Neundo owner and user, there is no way in hell that you, me or
anybody
>>is going to get a better mix (ITB) over and SSL summed mix ..
>
>So what are you saying... that you think the Cubase mixes sound
>better and that I must've purposely modified the SSL files to
>make them sound worse? Or do you think the Cubase mixes sound
>better and you simply refuse to believe what you're hearing?
>
>Or do you disagree & think that the SSL mixes sound better... in
>which case, I have no issue with your choice - it would simply
>be a matter of personal preference. I'd disagree with you in
>this instance because I happen to think the Cubase ones DO sound
>better.
>
>Lamont, I'm not "rigging" anything - I have no reason to pimp for
>Steinberg or anything like that, nor am I trying to say "my kung-
>fu is better" just to defend my gear choice. I'm trying to find
>out how to get a certain sound out of it, is all.
>
>Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77191 is a reply to message #77190] |
Mon, 18 December 2006 22:58 |
Nil
Messages: 245
Registered: March 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>"I'd disagree with you in this instance because I happen to think the Cubase
>ones DO sound better."
>
>Then that SSL Engineer does not know what they are doing with board. There's
>no way a mix coming off of that board SSL should sound better than a ITB
>Cubase SX mix..
>
>Sorry, that just does not jive. That engineer does not know how to push
he
>SSL or just not familiar with it.
You're not really paying attention, are you? It was the same
engineer (me). And as far as whether or not I know how to use
that particular board, I guess that would be a matter of
your opinion. I don't think the SSL mixes are bad ones, I think
they came out good; I just think that you can hear more detail
in the ITB mixes in the examples I gave, and they have more
wideband frequency content from top to bottom.
Anyway, my point of that particular comparison wasn't to say
"ITB mixes are better than using a large-format console that
costs somewhere in the six-figure range", the point of it was to
address a signal-chain suggestion that Paul had... he had
suggested perhaps that I needed to pick up a few pieces of
killer vintage gear, and I was just demonstrating that I think
the various signal chain components that I have here are on par
with most anything that can be found in heavy-hitter studios...
we used probably around $100k's worth of mics & pre's on the
PTHD/SSL mixes, plus obviously you're looking at another
roughly $100k for that particular console (40-channel E-series,
black EQ's, w/G-series Computer & Total Recall package), add in
the PTHD, outboard gear & whatnot, and you end up with
somewhere around a quarter-mil's worth of equipment involved in
that project. The project done at my place was done with my
gear, which certainly doesn't tally up to anywhere remotely
close to that cost & none of it bears a "vintage" stamp, but it
sounds competitive with the project that used all the heavy-
hitter stuff.
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77199 is a reply to message #77191] |
Tue, 19 December 2006 09:09 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Neil,
All I'm saying is: All DAW software have their own unique sound. Despite
what those lame summing test shows..
PT-HD has a very distinct sound. A very polished sound, with a nice top end,
but with full audio spectrum represented. Mixer/Summing buss can be pushed,
but you have to watch it.
Nuendo/SX: Has a very Clear, 2 dimension sound, that does not hype the top
nor bottom end.
Logic Audio: Very Broad- Aggressive sound, that really works for Rock and
R & B/Gospel mixes.
Digital Performer: With their hardware, superb audio quality. Full bodied
sound .
Sonar: Very flat sounding. I would say that Sonar is your most vanilla sound
DW on the market..
Samplitude : A little less top end than Pro Tools. Full bodied 3d sound..
Paris: Dark sounding in comparison to the the other DAWs. But, has a 3d sound
quality that's full bodied.
I feel that you asking SX to be something it's not with some analog summing.
Especialy for your genre of music..
"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>"I'd disagree with you in this instance because I happen to think the Cubase
>>ones DO sound better."
>>
>>Then that SSL Engineer does not know what they are doing with board. There's
>>no way a mix coming off of that board SSL should sound better than a ITB
>>Cubase SX mix..
>>
>>Sorry, that just does not jive. That engineer does not know how to push
>he
>>SSL or just not familiar with it.
>
>You're not really paying attention, are you? It was the same
>engineer (me). And as far as whether or not I know how to use
>that particular board, I guess that would be a matter of
>your opinion. I don't think the SSL mixes are bad ones, I think
>they came out good; I just think that you can hear more detail
>in the ITB mixes in the examples I gave, and they have more
>wideband frequency content from top to bottom.
>
>Anyway, my point of that particular comparison wasn't to say
>"ITB mixes are better than using a large-format console that
>costs somewhere in the six-figure range", the point of it was to
>address a signal-chain suggestion that Paul had... he had
>suggested perhaps that I needed to pick up a few pieces of
>killer vintage gear, and I was just demonstrating that I think
>the various signal chain components that I have here are on par
>with most anything that can be found in heavy-hitter studios...
>we used probably around $100k's worth of mics & pre's on the
>PTHD/SSL mixes, plus obviously you're looking at another
>roughly $100k for that particular console (40-channel E-series,
>black EQ's, w/G-series Computer & Total Recall package), add in
>the PTHD, outboard gear & whatnot, and you end up with
>somewhere around a quarter-mil's worth of equipment involved in
>that project. The project done at my place was done with my
>gear, which certainly doesn't tally up to anywhere remotely
>close to that cost & none of it bears a "vintage" stamp, but it
>sounds competitive with the project that used all the heavy-
>hitter stuff.
>
>Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77203 is a reply to message #77199] |
Tue, 19 December 2006 10:23 |
Nil
Messages: 245
Registered: March 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
That's interesting - all those DAW sonic interpretations, I
mean... I haven't had a chance to usee all of those, so it's
good information.
I still don't understand why you consider my summing
comparisons "lame", however - it was a fair set of tests;
the same mix summed in different ways. Not trying to prove a
point or to rig it so one sounded any better than the other - in
fact, if you recall the thread, different people liked different
summed versions for different reasons... there wasn't any one
version that stood out as being "the one" that everyone felt
sounded better. The only reason I didn't come right out & say
right away which version was which is so that I didn't bias
anyone's opinion beforehand by mentioning that... NOT to try
& "hide" anything or "trick" anyone, as you accused me of
Sheesh!
Neil
"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>Hey Neil,
>
>All I'm saying is: All DAW software have their own unique sound. Despite
>what those lame summing test shows..
>
>PT-HD has a very distinct sound. A very polished sound, with a nice top
end,
>but with full audio spectrum represented. Mixer/Summing buss can be pushed,
>but you have to watch it.
>
>Nuendo/SX: Has a very Clear, 2 dimension sound, that does not hype the top
>nor bottom end.
>
>Logic Audio: Very Broad- Aggressive sound, that really works for Rock and
>R & B/Gospel mixes.
>
>Digital Performer: With their hardware, superb audio quality. Full bodied
>sound .
>
>Sonar: Very flat sounding. I would say that Sonar is your most vanilla sound
>DW on the market..
>
>Samplitude : A little less top end than Pro Tools. Full bodied 3d sound..
>
>Paris: Dark sounding in comparison to the the other DAWs. But, has a 3d
sound
>quality that's full bodied.
>
>I feel that you asking SX to be something it's not with some analog summing.
>Especialy for your genre of music..
>
>
>
>
>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>"I'd disagree with you in this instance because I happen to think the
Cubase
>>>ones DO sound better."
>>>
>>>Then that SSL Engineer does not know what they are doing with board. There's
>>>no way a mix coming off of that board SSL should sound better than a ITB
>>>Cubase SX mix..
>>>
>>>Sorry, that just does not jive. That engineer does not know how to push
>>he
>>>SSL or just not familiar with it.
>>
>>You're not really paying attention, are you? It was the same
>>engineer (me). And as far as whether or not I know how to use
>>that particular board, I guess that would be a matter of
>>your opinion. I don't think the SSL mixes are bad ones, I think
>>they came out good; I just think that you can hear more detail
>>in the ITB mixes in the examples I gave, and they have more
>>wideband frequency content from top to bottom.
>>
>>Anyway, my point of that particular comparison wasn't to say
>>"ITB mixes are better than using a large-format console that
>>costs somewhere in the six-figure range", the point of it was to
>>address a signal-chain suggestion that Paul had... he had
>>suggested perhaps that I needed to pick up a few pieces of
>>killer vintage gear, and I was just demonstrating that I think
>>the various signal chain components that I have here are on par
>>with most anything that can be found in heavy-hitter studios...
>>we used probably around $100k's worth of mics & pre's on the
>>PTHD/SSL mixes, plus obviously you're looking at another
>>roughly $100k for that particular console (40-channel E-series,
>>black EQ's, w/G-series Computer & Total Recall package), add in
>>the PTHD, outboard gear & whatnot, and you end up with
>>somewhere around a quarter-mil's worth of equipment involved in
>>that project. The project done at my place was done with my
>>gear, which certainly doesn't tally up to anywhere remotely
>>close to that cost & none of it bears a "vintage" stamp, but it
>>sounds competitive with the project that used all the heavy-
>>hitter stuff.
>>
>>Neil
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77206 is a reply to message #77203] |
Tue, 19 December 2006 11:29 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Neil,
I was not reffering to your test as Lame, but rather that popular summing
test cd that was sold, that really proved nothing (imho) and BrianT as well.
Due to that fact fact that all softwafre behave differently under different
circumstances..
"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>That's interesting - all those DAW sonic interpretations, I
>mean... I haven't had a chance to usee all of those, so it's
>good information.
>
>I still don't understand why you consider my summing
>comparisons "lame", however - it was a fair set of tests;
>the same mix summed in different ways. Not trying to prove a
>point or to rig it so one sounded any better than the other - in
>fact, if you recall the thread, different people liked different
>summed versions for different reasons... there wasn't any one
>version that stood out as being "the one" that everyone felt
>sounded better. The only reason I didn't come right out & say
>right away which version was which is so that I didn't bias
>anyone's opinion beforehand by mentioning that... NOT to try
>& "hide" anything or "trick" anyone, as you accused me of
>
>Sheesh!
>
>Neil
>
>
>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>Hey Neil,
>>
>>All I'm saying is: All DAW software have their own unique sound. Despite
>>what those lame summing test shows..
>>
>>PT-HD has a very distinct sound. A very polished sound, with a nice top
>end,
>>but with full audio spectrum represented. Mixer/Summing buss can be pushed,
>>but you have to watch it.
>>
>>Nuendo/SX: Has a very Clear, 2 dimension sound, that does not hype the
top
>>nor bottom end.
>>
>>Logic Audio: Very Broad- Aggressive sound, that really works for Rock and
>>R & B/Gospel mixes.
>>
>>Digital Performer: With their hardware, superb audio quality. Full bodied
>>sound .
>>
>>Sonar: Very flat sounding. I would say that Sonar is your most vanilla
sound
>>DW on the market..
>>
>>Samplitude : A little less top end than Pro Tools. Full bodied 3d sound..
>>
>>Paris: Dark sounding in comparison to the the other DAWs. But, has a 3d
>sound
>>quality that's full bodied.
>>
>>I feel that you asking SX to be something it's not with some analog summing.
>>Especialy for your genre of music..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"I'd disagree with you in this instance because I happen to think the
>Cubase
>>>>ones DO sound better."
>>>>
>>>>Then that SSL Engineer does not know what they are doing with board.
There's
>>>>no way a mix coming off of that board SSL should sound better than a
ITB
>>>>Cubase SX mix..
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, that just does not jive. That engineer does not know how to push
>>>he
>>>>SSL or just not familiar with it.
>>>
>>>You're not really paying attention, are you? It was the same
>>>engineer (me). And as far as whether or not I know how to use
>>>that particular board, I guess that would be a matter of
>>>your opinion. I don't think the SSL mixes are bad ones, I think
>>>they came out good; I just think that you can hear more detail
>>>in the ITB mixes in the examples I gave, and they have more
>>>wideband frequency content from top to bottom.
>>>
>>>Anyway, my point of that particular comparison wasn't to say
>>>"ITB mixes are better than using a large-format console that
>>>costs somewhere in the six-figure range", the point of it was to
>>>address a signal-chain suggestion that Paul had... he had
>>>suggested perhaps that I needed to pick up a few pieces of
>>>killer vintage gear, and I was just demonstrating that I think
>>>the various signal chain components that I have here are on par
>>>with most anything that can be found in heavy-hitter studios...
>>>we used probably around $100k's worth of mics & pre's on the
>>>PTHD/SSL mixes, plus obviously you're looking at another
>>>roughly $100k for that particular console (40-channel E-series,
>>>black EQ's, w/G-series Computer & Total Recall package), add in
>>>the PTHD, outboard gear & whatnot, and you end up with
>>>somewhere around a quarter-mil's worth of equipment involved in
>>>that project. The project done at my place was done with my
>>>gear, which certainly doesn't tally up to anywhere remotely
>>>close to that cost & none of it bears a "vintage" stamp, but it
>>>sounds competitive with the project that used all the heavy-
>>>hitter stuff.
>>>
>>>Neil
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77213 is a reply to message #77199] |
Tue, 19 December 2006 13:51 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'd like to see this proven in a controlled ABY test.
"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>Hey Neil,
>
>All I'm saying is: All DAW software have their own unique sound. Despite
>what those lame summing test shows..
>
>PT-HD has a very distinct sound. A very polished sound, with a nice top
end,
>but with full audio spectrum represented. Mixer/Summing buss can be pushed,
>but you have to watch it.
>
>Nuendo/SX: Has a very Clear, 2 dimension sound, that does not hype the top
>nor bottom end.
>
>Logic Audio: Very Broad- Aggressive sound, that really works for Rock and
>R & B/Gospel mixes.
>
>Digital Performer: With their hardware, superb audio quality. Full bodied
>sound .
>
>Sonar: Very flat sounding. I would say that Sonar is your most vanilla sound
>DW on the market..
>
>Samplitude : A little less top end than Pro Tools. Full bodied 3d sound..
>
>Paris: Dark sounding in comparison to the the other DAWs. But, has a 3d
sound
>quality that's full bodied.
>
>I feel that you asking SX to be something it's not with some analog summing.
>Especialy for your genre of music..
>
>
>
>
>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>"I'd disagree with you in this instance because I happen to think the
Cubase
>>>ones DO sound better."
>>>
>>>Then that SSL Engineer does not know what they are doing with board. There's
>>>no way a mix coming off of that board SSL should sound better than a ITB
>>>Cubase SX mix..
>>>
>>>Sorry, that just does not jive. That engineer does not know how to push
>>he
>>>SSL or just not familiar with it.
>>
>>You're not really paying attention, are you? It was the same
>>engineer (me). And as far as whether or not I know how to use
>>that particular board, I guess that would be a matter of
>>your opinion. I don't think the SSL mixes are bad ones, I think
>>they came out good; I just think that you can hear more detail
>>in the ITB mixes in the examples I gave, and they have more
>>wideband frequency content from top to bottom.
>>
>>Anyway, my point of that particular comparison wasn't to say
>>"ITB mixes are better than using a large-format console that
>>costs somewhere in the six-figure range", the point of it was to
>>address a signal-chain suggestion that Paul had... he had
>>suggested perhaps that I needed to pick up a few pieces of
>>killer vintage gear, and I was just demonstrating that I think
>>the various signal chain components that I have here are on par
>>with most anything that can be found in heavy-hitter studios...
>>we used probably around $100k's worth of mics & pre's on the
>>PTHD/SSL mixes, plus obviously you're looking at another
>>roughly $100k for that particular console (40-channel E-series,
>>black EQ's, w/G-series Computer & Total Recall package), add in
>>the PTHD, outboard gear & whatnot, and you end up with
>>somewhere around a quarter-mil's worth of equipment involved in
>>that project. The project done at my place was done with my
>>gear, which certainly doesn't tally up to anywhere remotely
>>close to that cost & none of it bears a "vintage" stamp, but it
>>sounds competitive with the project that used all the heavy-
>>hitter stuff.
>>
>>Neil
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77216 is a reply to message #77213] |
Tue, 19 December 2006 14:26 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The only real test is with the ears and not scopes and graphs.
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>I'd like to see this proven in a controlled ABY test.
>
>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>Hey Neil,
>>
>>All I'm saying is: All DAW software have their own unique sound. Despite
>>what those lame summing test shows..
>>
>>PT-HD has a very distinct sound. A very polished sound, with a nice top
>end,
>>but with full audio spectrum represented. Mixer/Summing buss can be pushed,
>>but you have to watch it.
>>
>>Nuendo/SX: Has a very Clear, 2 dimension sound, that does not hype the
top
>>nor bottom end.
>>
>>Logic Audio: Very Broad- Aggressive sound, that really works for Rock and
>>R & B/Gospel mixes.
>>
>>Digital Performer: With their hardware, superb audio quality. Full bodied
>>sound .
>>
>>Sonar: Very flat sounding. I would say that Sonar is your most vanilla
sound
>>DW on the market..
>>
>>Samplitude : A little less top end than Pro Tools. Full bodied 3d sound..
>>
>>Paris: Dark sounding in comparison to the the other DAWs. But, has a 3d
>sound
>>quality that's full bodied.
>>
>>I feel that you asking SX to be something it's not with some analog summing.
>>Especialy for your genre of music..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"I'd disagree with you in this instance because I happen to think the
>Cubase
>>>>ones DO sound better."
>>>>
>>>>Then that SSL Engineer does not know what they are doing with board.
There's
>>>>no way a mix coming off of that board SSL should sound better than a
ITB
>>>>Cubase SX mix..
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, that just does not jive. That engineer does not know how to push
>>>he
>>>>SSL or just not familiar with it.
>>>
>>>You're not really paying attention, are you? It was the same
>>>engineer (me). And as far as whether or not I know how to use
>>>that particular board, I guess that would be a matter of
>>>your opinion. I don't think the SSL mixes are bad ones, I think
>>>they came out good; I just think that you can hear more detail
>>>in the ITB mixes in the examples I gave, and they have more
>>>wideband frequency content from top to bottom.
>>>
>>>Anyway, my point of that particular comparison wasn't to say
>>>"ITB mixes are better than using a large-format console that
>>>costs somewhere in the six-figure range", the point of it was to
>>>address a signal-chain suggestion that Paul had... he had
>>>suggested perhaps that I needed to pick up a few pieces of
>>>killer vintage gear, and I was just demonstrating that I think
>>>the various signal chain components that I have here are on par
>>>with most anything that can be found in heavy-hitter studios...
>>>we used probably around $100k's worth of mics & pre's on the
>>>PTHD/SSL mixes, plus obviously you're looking at another
>>>roughly $100k for that particular console (40-channel E-series,
>>>black EQ's, w/G-series Computer & Total Recall package), add in
>>>the PTHD, outboard gear & whatnot, and you end up with
>>>somewhere around a quarter-mil's worth of equipment involved in
>>>that project. The project done at my place was done with my
>>>gear, which certainly doesn't tally up to anywhere remotely
>>>close to that cost & none of it bears a "vintage" stamp, but it
>>>sounds competitive with the project that used all the heavy-
>>>hitter stuff.
>>>
>>>Neil
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77218 is a reply to message #77216] |
Tue, 19 December 2006 15:01 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Which is why ABY testing uses expert listeners instead of scopes and graphs.
I'm not saying you're wrong, esp. about ITB vs external summing. One would
expect that to sound at least slightly different. But I would be absolutely
shocked if anyone could tell in a controlled ABY test whether they were listening
to SX, Performer, of Sonar.
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>The only real test is with the ears and not scopes and graphs.
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>I'd like to see this proven in a controlled ABY test.
>>
>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Hey Neil,
>>>
>>>All I'm saying is: All DAW software have their own unique sound. Despite
>>>what those lame summing test shows..
>>>
>>>PT-HD has a very distinct sound. A very polished sound, with a nice top
>>end,
>>>but with full audio spectrum represented. Mixer/Summing buss can be pushed,
>>>but you have to watch it.
>>>
>>>Nuendo/SX: Has a very Clear, 2 dimension sound, that does not hype the
>top
>>>nor bottom end.
>>>
>>>Logic Audio: Very Broad- Aggressive sound, that really works for Rock
and
>>>R & B/Gospel mixes.
>>>
>>>Digital Performer: With their hardware, superb audio quality. Full bodied
>>>sound .
>>>
>>>Sonar: Very flat sounding. I would say that Sonar is your most vanilla
>sound
>>>DW on the market..
>>>
>>>Samplitude : A little less top end than Pro Tools. Full bodied 3d sound..
>>>
>>>Paris: Dark sounding in comparison to the the other DAWs. But, has a 3d
>>sound
>>>quality that's full bodied.
>>>
>>>I feel that you asking SX to be something it's not with some analog summing.
>>>Especialy for your genre of music..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"I'd disagree with you in this instance because I happen to think the
>>Cubase
>>>>>ones DO sound better."
>>>>>
>>>>>Then that SSL Engineer does not know what they are doing with board.
>There's
>>>>>no way a mix coming off of that board SSL should sound better than a
>ITB
>>>>>Cubase SX mix..
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, that just does not jive. That engineer does not know how to push
>>>>he
>>>>>SSL or just not familiar with it.
>>>>
>>>>You're not really paying attention, are you? It was the same
>>>>engineer (me). And as far as whether or not I know how to use
>>>>that particular board, I guess that would be a matter of
>>>>your opinion. I don't think the SSL mixes are bad ones, I think
>>>>they came out good; I just think that you can hear more detail
>>>>in the ITB mixes in the examples I gave, and they have more
>>>>wideband frequency content from top to bottom.
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, my point of that particular comparison wasn't to say
>>>>"ITB mixes are better than using a large-format console that
>>>>costs somewhere in the six-figure range", the point of it was to
>>>>address a signal-chain suggestion that Paul had... he had
>>>>suggested perhaps that I needed to pick up a few pieces of
>>>>killer vintage gear, and I was just demonstrating that I think
>>>>the various signal chain components that I have here are on par
>>>>with most anything that can be found in heavy-hitter studios...
>>>>we used probably around $100k's worth of mics & pre's on the
>>>>PTHD/SSL mixes, plus obviously you're looking at another
>>>>roughly $100k for that particular console (40-channel E-series,
>>>>black EQ's, w/G-series Computer & Total Recall package), add in
>>>>the PTHD, outboard gear & whatnot, and you end up with
>>>>somewhere around a quarter-mil's worth of equipment involved in
>>>>that project. The project done at my place was done with my
>>>>gear, which certainly doesn't tally up to anywhere remotely
>>>>close to that cost & none of it bears a "vintage" stamp, but it
>>>>sounds competitive with the project that used all the heavy-
>>>>hitter stuff.
>>>>
>>>>Neil
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77222 is a reply to message #77218] |
Tue, 19 December 2006 16:05 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thad, you really can't hear the difference?? Maybe I own too many software
DAWS thru the years.
Starting on Logic Audio 3.0, then to Cakwalk, Pro Tools, DP, Paris,Acid,
Neundo, Sonar, samplitude..
I can hear the diference with the same audio interface with the same wav
file(s)as oon as I import the file or files.
These days, depending on the genre I'm mising determines which DAW software
I'll use.
My circle of engineer and producer buddies all can hear the difference in
a second. Just the other day, we were mixing this R&B(ish)Gospel track and
somebody said, 'Mont, this is begging for Paris. Another track, the call
was for Pro Tools. And another,Nuendo..
I know BrianT feels and hears the same way in different DAW software. It's
really obvious..
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>Which is why ABY testing uses expert listeners instead of scopes and graphs.
>
>
>I'm not saying you're wrong, esp. about ITB vs external summing. One would
>expect that to sound at least slightly different. But I would be absolutely
>shocked if anyone could tell in a controlled ABY test whether they were
listening
>to SX, Performer, of Sonar.
>
>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>The only real test is with the ears and not scopes and graphs.
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I'd like to see this proven in a controlled ABY test.
>>>
>>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Hey Neil,
>>>>
>>>>All I'm saying is: All DAW software have their own unique sound. Despite
>>>>what those lame summing test shows..
>>>>
>>>>PT-HD has a very distinct sound. A very polished sound, with a nice top
>>>end,
>>>>but with full audio spectrum represented. Mixer/Summing buss can be pushed,
>>>>but you have to watch it.
>>>>
>>>>Nuendo/SX: Has a very Clear, 2 dimension sound, that does not hype the
>>top
>>>>nor bottom end.
>>>>
>>>>Logic Audio: Very Broad- Aggressive sound, that really works for Rock
>and
>>>>R & B/Gospel mixes.
>>>>
>>>>Digital Performer: With their hardware, superb audio quality. Full bodied
>>>>sound .
>>>>
>>>>Sonar: Very flat sounding. I would say that Sonar is your most vanilla
>>sound
>>>>DW on the market..
>>>>
>>>>Samplitude : A little less top end than Pro Tools. Full bodied 3d sound..
>>>>
>>>>Paris: Dark sounding in comparison to the the other DAWs. But, has a
3d
>>>sound
>>>>quality that's full bodied.
>>>>
>>>>I feel that you asking SX to be something it's not with some analog summing.
>>>>Especialy for your genre of music..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"I'd disagree with you in this instance because I happen to think the
>>>Cubase
>>>>>>ones DO sound better."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then that SSL Engineer does not know what they are doing with board.
>>There's
>>>>>>no way a mix coming off of that board SSL should sound better than
a
>>ITB
>>>>>>Cubase SX mix..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, that just does not jive. That engineer does not know how to
push
>>>>>he
>>>>>>SSL or just not familiar with it.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're not really paying attention, are you? It was the same
>>>>>engineer (me). And as far as whether or not I know how to use
>>>>>that particular board, I guess that would be a matter of
>>>>>your opinion. I don't think the SSL mixes are bad ones, I think
>>>>>they came out good; I just think that you can hear more detail
>>>>>in the ITB mixes in the examples I gave, and they have more
>>>>>wideband frequency content from top to bottom.
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyway, my point of that particular comparison wasn't to say
>>>>>"ITB mixes are better than using a large-format console that
>>>>>costs somewhere in the six-figure range", the point of it was to
>>>>>address a signal-chain suggestion that Paul had... he had
>>>>>suggested perhaps that I needed to pick up a few pieces of
>>>>>killer vintage gear, and I was just demonstrating that I think
>>>>>the various signal chain components that I have here are on par
>>>>>with most anything that can be found in heavy-hitter studios...
>>>>>we used probably around $100k's worth of mics & pre's on the
>>>>>PTHD/SSL mixes, plus obviously you're looking at another
>>>>>roughly $100k for that particular console (40-channel E-series,
>>>>>black EQ's, w/G-series Computer & Total Recall package), add in
>>>>>the PTHD, outboard gear & whatnot, and you end up with
>>>>>somewhere around a quarter-mil's worth of equipment involved in
>>>>>that project. The project done at my place was done with my
>>>>>gear, which certainly doesn't tally up to anywhere remotely
>>>>>close to that cost & none of it bears a "vintage" stamp, but it
>>>>>sounds competitive with the project that used all the heavy-
>>>>>hitter stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>>Neil
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77231 is a reply to message #77203] |
Tue, 19 December 2006 20:12 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I know we disagree here Lamont and that's totally cool, so I won't take this
beyond this one response, and this isn't really directed to you, but my general
thoughts on the matter.
In Neil's "defense" (not that he needs it), I and others have done this comparison
to death and the conclusion I've come to is that people are 80% influenced
by a change in environment (e.g. software interface) and 20% ears. Sorry
to say it, but the difference in sound between floating point DAWs is far
from real. It's just good, albeit unintentional marketing created by users
and capitolized by manufacturers. Perceiving a "sound" in DAWs that in actuality
process data identically, is a bad reason to pick a DAW, but of course there
is nothing wrong with thinking you hear a difference as long as it doesn't
become an unwritten law of engineering at large. Preferring to work with
one or the other, and "feeling" better about it for whatever reason is a
great reason to pick one DAW over another.
There was a recent thread that Nuendo handled gain through groups differently,
so I put Nuendo, Sonar 6 (both 32 and 64-bit engines) and Sequoia 8.3 to
the test - identical tests, setup to the 1/100th of a dB identically and
came up with absolutely no difference, either audible or scientific. To
be honest, this was the one test where I could have said, yes there is an
understandable difference between DAWs in a simple math function, and the
only one in the DAW that actually might make sense, yet even that did not
exist. The reason - math is math. You can paint it red, blue, silver or
dull grey, but it's still the same math unless the programmer was high or
completely incompetent when they wrote the code.
I thought it was entirely possible the original poster had found something
different in Nuendo, but when it came down to really understanding and reproducing
what happens in DAW summing and gain structures accurately between each DAW,
there was none, nada, nil. The assertion was completely squashed. This also
showed me how easy it is for a wide range of professionals to misinterpret
digital audio - whether hearing things, or just setting up a test with a
single missed variable that completely invalidates the whole process.
If you hear a difference, great. I've thought I heard a difference doing
similar comparisons, then changed my perspective (nothing else - not converters,
nothing - just reset my expectations, and switched back and forth) and could
hear no difference.
Just leave some room for other opinions when you post yours on this subject
since it is very obvious that hearing is not as universally objective and
identically referenced as everyone might like to believe, and is highly visually
and environmentally affected. Some will hear differences in DAWs. There
are Cubase SX 3 users claiming Cubase 4 sounds different. Sigh. Then they
realize they aren't even using the same project... or at least different
EQs, or etc, etc....
Say what you want about published summing tests, but Lynn's tests are as
accurate as it gets, and that bears out in the results (all floating point
DAWs cancel and sound identical - if you are hearing a difference, you are
hearing things that aren't there, or you forgot to align their gain and placement).
I've worked with Lynn at least briefly enough to know his attention to detail.
In the same way people will disagree about PCs and Macs until neither exists,
so will audio engineers disagree about DAWs. This is one debate that will
always exist as long as we have different ears, eyes, brains,... and opinions.
What Neil has done is to prove that opinions are always going to differ (i.e.
no consensus on the "best" mix of the ones posted). And in truth everyone
has a different perception of sound in general - not everyone wants to hear
things the same way, so we judge "best" from very different perspectives.
There is no single gold standard. There are variations and mutated combinations,
but all are subjective. That in and of itself implies very distinctly that
people can and will even perceive the exact same sound differently if presented
with any variable that changes the brain's interpretation, even if just a
visual distraction. Just change the lights in the room and see if you perceive
a song differently played back exactly the same way. Or have a cat run across
a desk while listening. Whether you care to admit it or not, it is there,
and that is actually the beauty of how our sense interact to create perception.
That may be our undoing with DAW comparison tests, but it's also what keeps
music fresh and creative, when we allow it to.
So my suggestion is to use what makes you most creative, even if it's just
a "feeling" working with that DAW gives you - be it the workflow, the GUI,
or even the name brand reputation. But, as we all know, if you can't make
most any material sound good on whatever DAW you choose, the DAW isn't the
problem.
Regards,
Dedric
"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>That's interesting - all those DAW sonic interpretations, I
>mean... I haven't had a chance to usee all of those, so it's
>good information.
>
>I still don't understand why you consider my summing
>comparisons "lame", however - it was a fair set of tests;
>the same mix summed in different ways. Not trying to prove a
>point or to rig it so one sounded any better than the other - in
>fact, if you recall the thread, different people liked different
>summed versions for different reasons... there wasn't any one
>version that stood out as being "the one" that everyone felt
>sounded better. The only reason I didn't come right out & say
>right away which version was which is so that I didn't bias
>anyone's opinion beforehand by mentioning that... NOT to try
>& "hide" anything or "trick" anyone, as you accused me of
>
>Sheesh!
>
>Neil
>
>
>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>Hey Neil,
>>
>>All I'm saying is: All DAW software have their own unique sound. Despite
>>what those lame summing test shows..
>>
>>PT-HD has a very distinct sound. A very polished sound, with a nice top
>end,
>>but with full audio spectrum represented. Mixer/Summing buss can be pushed,
>>but you have to watch it.
>>
>>Nuendo/SX: Has a very Clear, 2 dimension sound, that does not hype the
top
>>nor bottom end.
>>
>>Logic Audio: Very Broad- Aggressive sound, that really works for Rock and
>>R & B/Gospel mixes.
>>
>>Digital Performer: With their hardware, superb audio quality. Full bodied
>>sound .
>>
>>Sonar: Very flat sounding. I would say that Sonar is your most vanilla
sound
>>DW on the market..
>>
>>Samplitude : A little less top end than Pro Tools. Full bodied 3d sound..
>>
>>Paris: Dark sounding in comparison to the the other DAWs. But, has a 3d
>sound
>>quality that's full bodied.
>>
>>I feel that you asking SX to be something it's not with some analog summing.
>>Especialy for your genre of music..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"I'd disagree with you in this instance because I happen to think the
>Cubase
>>>>ones DO sound better."
>>>>
>>>>Then that SSL Engineer does not know what they are doing with board.
There's
>>>>no way a mix coming off of that board SSL should sound better than a
ITB
>>>>Cubase SX mix..
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, that just does not jive. That engineer does not know how to push
>>>he
>>>>SSL or just not familiar with it.
>>>
>>>You're not really paying attention, are you? It was the same
>>>engineer (me). And as far as whether or not I know how to use
>>>that particular board, I guess that would be a matter of
>>>your opinion. I don't think the SSL mixes are bad ones, I think
>>>they came out good; I just think that you can hear more detail
>>>in the ITB mixes in the examples I gave, and they have more
>>>wideband frequency content from top to bottom.
>>>
>>>Anyway, my point of that particular comparison wasn't to say
>>>"ITB mixes are better than using a large-format console that
>>>costs somewhere in the six-figure range", the point of it was to
>>>address a signal-chain suggestion that Paul had... he had
>>>suggested perhaps that I needed to pick up a few pieces of
>>>killer vintage gear, and I was just demonstrating that I think
>>>the various signal chain components that I have here are on par
>>>with most anything that can be found in heavy-hitter studios...
>>>we used probably around $100k's worth of mics & pre's on the
>>>PTHD/SSL mixes, plus obviously you're looking at another
>>>roughly $100k for that particular console (40-channel E-series,
>>>black EQ's, w/G-series Computer & Total Recall package), add in
>>>the PTHD, outboard gear & whatnot, and you end up with
>>>somewhere around a quarter-mil's worth of equipment involved in
>>>that project. The project done at my place was done with my
>>>gear, which certainly doesn't tally up to anywhere remotely
>>>close to that cost & none of it bears a "vintage" stamp, but it
>>>sounds competitive with the project that used all the heavy-
>>>hitter stuff.
>>>
>>>Neil
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77239 is a reply to message #77222] |
Wed, 20 December 2006 07:31 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'm not convinced I can hear any difference between native systems, with the
exception of the last version of ACID I used (way back, I think v. 3) which
did sound truly awful. The real test on that one for me was the DAWSUM CD
(which I purchased and dutifully scored because I was convinced 'summing'
was the real reason PARIS sounded so good) wherein I discovered that I could
barely tell one mix from the next even when hearing vastly different systems.
Since then I am a skeptic, as opposed to a disbeliever, when I hear that
one piece of software sounds greatly better, or even different, than another.
I'm not saying some people can't tell some pieces of software from other
pieces of software, I'm just saying I'm skeptical one system is 'bright'
or 'sharp' or anything else until someone can produce statistically meaningful
results in an ABY test.
One of the great things about that DAWSUM CD is it has let me use the software
that I like the most, without worrying too much about the sound. That would
be Ableton Live most of the time, with SX as a backup if the editing gets
more intense. For me that alone was worth the time I spent on the DAWSUM
CD.
TCB
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>Thad, you really can't hear the difference?? Maybe I own too many software
>DAWS thru the years.
>
>Starting on Logic Audio 3.0, then to Cakwalk, Pro Tools, DP, Paris,Acid,
>Neundo, Sonar, samplitude..
>
>I can hear the diference with the same audio interface with the same wav
>file(s)as oon as I import the file or files.
>
>These days, depending on the genre I'm mising determines which DAW software
>I'll use.
>My circle of engineer and producer buddies all can hear the difference in
>a second. Just the other day, we were mixing this R&B(ish)Gospel track and
>somebody said, 'Mont, this is begging for Paris. Another track, the call
>was for Pro Tools. And another,Nuendo..
>I know BrianT feels and hears the same way in different DAW software. It's
>really obvious..
>
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>Which is why ABY testing uses expert listeners instead of scopes and graphs.
>>
>>
>>I'm not saying you're wrong, esp. about ITB vs external summing. One would
>>expect that to sound at least slightly different. But I would be absolutely
>>shocked if anyone could tell in a controlled ABY test whether they were
>listening
>>to SX, Performer, of Sonar.
>>
>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>The only real test is with the ears and not scopes and graphs.
>>>
>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I'd like to see this proven in a controlled ABY test.
>>>>
>>>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Hey Neil,
>>>>>
>>>>>All I'm saying is: All DAW software have their own unique sound. Despite
>>>>>what those lame summing test shows..
>>>>>
>>>>>PT-HD has a very distinct sound. A very polished sound, with a nice
top
>>>>end,
>>>>>but with full audio spectrum represented. Mixer/Summing buss can be
pushed,
>>>>>but you have to watch it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nuendo/SX: Has a very Clear, 2 dimension sound, that does not hype the
>>>top
>>>>>nor bottom end.
>>>>>
>>>>>Logic Audio: Very Broad- Aggressive sound, that really works for Rock
>>and
>>>>>R & B/Gospel mixes.
>>>>>
>>>>>Digital Performer: With their hardware, superb audio quality. Full bodied
>>>>>sound .
>>>>>
>>>>>Sonar: Very flat sounding. I would say that Sonar is your most vanilla
>>>sound
>>>>>DW on the market..
>>>>>
>>>>>Samplitude : A little less top end than Pro Tools. Full bodied 3d sound..
>>>>>
>>>>>Paris: Dark sounding in comparison to the the other DAWs. But, has a
>3d
>>>>sound
>>>>>quality that's full bodied.
>>>>>
>>>>>I feel that you asking SX to be something it's not with some analog
summing.
>>>>>Especialy for your genre of music..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"I'd disagree with you in this instance because I happen to think
the
>>>>Cubase
>>>>>>>ones DO sound better."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Then that SSL Engineer does not know what they are doing with board.
>>>There's
>>>>>>>no way a mix coming off of that board SSL should sound better than
>a
>>>ITB
>>>>>>>Cubase SX mix..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sorry, that just does not jive. That engineer does not know how to
>push
>>>>>>he
>>>>>>>SSL or just not familiar with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're not really paying attention, are you? It was the same
>>>>>>engineer (me). And as far as whether or not I know how to use
>>>>>>that particular board, I guess that would be a matter of
>>>>>>your opinion. I don't think the SSL mixes are bad ones, I think
>>>>>>they came out good; I just think that you can hear more detail
>>>>>>in the ITB mixes in the examples I gave, and they have more
>>>>>>wideband frequency content from top to bottom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Anyway, my point of that particular comparison wasn't to say
>>>>>>"ITB mixes are better than using a large-format console that
>>>>>>costs somewhere in the six-figure range", the point of it was to
>>>>>>address a signal-chain suggestion that Paul had... he had
>>>>>>suggested perhaps that I needed to pick up a few pieces of
>>>>>>killer vintage gear, and I was just demonstrating that I think
>>>>>>the various signal chain components that I have here are on par
>>>>>>with most anything that can be found in heavy-hitter studios...
>>>>>>we used probably around $100k's worth of mics & pre's on the
>>>>>>PTHD/SSL mixes, plus obviously you're looking at another
>>>>>>roughly $100k for that particular console (40-channel E-series,
>>>>>>black EQ's, w/G-series Computer & Total Recall package), add in
>>>>>>the PTHD, outboard gear & whatnot, and you end up with
>>>>>>somewhere around a quarter-mil's worth of equipment involved in
>>>>>>that project. The project done at my place was done with my
>>>>>>gear, which certainly doesn't tally up to anywhere remotely
>>>>>>close to that cost & none of it bears a "vintage" stamp, but it
>>>>>>sounds competitive with the project that used all the heavy-
>>>>>>hitter stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Neil
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77247 is a reply to message #77239] |
Wed, 20 December 2006 10:11 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>with the exception of the last version of ACID I used (way back, I think v.
>3) which did sound truly awful.<
Don't hold your breath hoping ACID will sound any better. I DL'ed V6.0 and
it sounds pretty awful too. I'm going to run it using Rewire in cubase SX 3
and lightpipe it to Paris and see if it's the actual ACID audio engine or
the summing. I've got a feeling it's the audio engine..just a
feeling......because I've also got Vegas here and it sucks too.
;o)
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:45894947$1@linux...
>
> I'm not convinced I can hear any difference between native systems, with
> the
> exception of the last version of ACID I used (way back, I think v. 3)
> which
> did sound truly awful. The real test on that one for me was the DAWSUM CD
> (which I purchased and dutifully scored because I was convinced 'summing'
> was the real reason PARIS sounded so good) wherein I discovered that I
> could
> barely tell one mix from the next even when hearing vastly different
> systems.
> Since then I am a skeptic, as opposed to a disbeliever, when I hear that
> one piece of software sounds greatly better, or even different, than
> another.
> I'm not saying some people can't tell some pieces of software from other
> pieces of software, I'm just saying I'm skeptical one system is 'bright'
> or 'sharp' or anything else until someone can produce statistically
> meaningful
> results in an ABY test.
>
> One of the great things about that DAWSUM CD is it has let me use the
> software
> that I like the most, without worrying too much about the sound. That
> would
> be Ableton Live most of the time, with SX as a backup if the editing gets
> more intense. For me that alone was worth the time I spent on the DAWSUM
> CD.
>
> TCB
>
> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>Thad, you really can't hear the difference?? Maybe I own too many software
>>DAWS thru the years.
>>
>>Starting on Logic Audio 3.0, then to Cakwalk, Pro Tools, DP, Paris,Acid,
>>Neundo, Sonar, samplitude..
>>
>>I can hear the diference with the same audio interface with the same wav
>>file(s)as oon as I import the file or files.
>>
>>These days, depending on the genre I'm mising determines which DAW
>>software
>>I'll use.
>>My circle of engineer and producer buddies all can hear the difference in
>>a second. Just the other day, we were mixing this R&B(ish)Gospel track and
>>somebody said, 'Mont, this is begging for Paris. Another track, the call
>>was for Pro Tools. And another,Nuendo..
>>I know BrianT feels and hears the same way in different DAW software. It's
>>really obvious..
>>
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Which is why ABY testing uses expert listeners instead of scopes and
>>>graphs.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not saying you're wrong, esp. about ITB vs external summing. One
>>>would
>>>expect that to sound at least slightly different. But I would be
>>>absolutely
>>>shocked if anyone could tell in a controlled ABY test whether they were
>>listening
>>>to SX, Performer, of Sonar.
>>>
>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>The only real test is with the ears and not scopes and graphs.
>>>>
>>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd like to see this proven in a controlled ABY test.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hey Neil,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All I'm saying is: All DAW software have their own unique sound.
>>>>>>Despite
>>>>>>what those lame summing test shows..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>PT-HD has a very distinct sound. A very polished sound, with a nice
> top
>>>>>end,
>>>>>>but with full audio spectrum represented. Mixer/Summing buss can be
> pushed,
>>>>>>but you have to watch it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nuendo/SX: Has a very Clear, 2 dimension sound, that does not hype the
>>>>top
>>>>>>nor bottom end.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Logic Audio: Very Broad- Aggressive sound, that really works for Rock
>>>and
>>>>>>R & B/Gospel mixes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Digital Performer: With their hardware, superb audio quality. Full
>>>>>>bodied
>>>>>>sound .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sonar: Very flat sounding. I would say that Sonar is your most vanilla
>>>>sound
>>>>>>DW on the market..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Samplitude : A little less top end than Pro Tools. Full bodied 3d
>>>>>>sound..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Paris: Dark sounding in comparison to the the other DAWs. But, has a
>>3d
>>>>>sound
>>>>>>quality that's full bodied.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I feel that you asking SX to be something it's not with some analog
> summing.
>>>>>>Especialy for your genre of music..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"I'd disagree with you in this instance because I happen to think
> the
>>>>>Cubase
>>>>>>>>ones DO sound better."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Then that SSL Engineer does not know what they are doing with board.
>>>>There's
>>>>>>>>no way a mix coming off of that board SSL should sound better than
>>a
>>>>ITB
>>>>>>>>Cubase SX mix..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sorry, that just does not jive. That engineer does not know how to
>>push
>>>>>>>he
>>>>>>>>SSL or just not familiar with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You're not really paying attention, are you? It was the same
>>>>>>>engineer (me). And as far as whether or not I know how to use
>>>>>>>that particular board, I guess that would be a matter of
>>>>>>>your opinion. I don't think the SSL mixes are bad ones, I think
>>>>>>>they came out good; I just think that you can hear more detail
>>>>>>>in the ITB mixes in the examples I gave, and they have more
>>>>>>>wideband frequency content from top to bottom.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Anyway, my point of that particular comparison wasn't to say
>>>>>>>"ITB mixes are better than using a large-format console that
>>>>>>>costs somewhere in the six-figure range", the point of it was to
>>>>>>>address a signal-chain suggestion that Paul had... he had
>>>>>>>suggested perhaps that I needed to pick up a few pieces of
>>>>>>>killer vintage gear, and I was just demonstrating that I think
>>>>>>>the various signal chain components that I have here are on par
>>>>>>>with most anything that can be found in heavy-hitter studios...
>>>>>>>we used probably around $100k's worth of mics & pre's on the
>>>>>>>PTHD/SSL mixes, plus obviously you're looking at another
>>>>>>>roughly $100k for that particular console (40-channel E-series,
>>>>>>>black EQ's, w/G-series Computer & Total Recall package), add in
>>>>>>>the PTHD, outboard gear & whatnot, and you end up with
>>>>>>>somewhere around a quarter-mil's worth of equipment involved in
>>>>>>>that project. The project done at my place was done with my
>>>>>>>gear, which certainly doesn't tally up to anywhere remotely
>>>>>>>close to that cost & none of it bears a "vintage" stamp, but it
>>>>>>>sounds competitive with the project that used all the heavy-
>>>>>>>hitter stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Neil
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77251 is a reply to message #77231] |
Wed, 20 December 2006 11:22 |
LaMon
Messages: 18
Registered: June 2007
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Hey Dedric and Neil,
I reason I think that the Summing CD test(good intentions) were lame was
because.. If a person can;t hear the difference btw a stereo wav file that's
in Acid vs Sonar really needs a hearing test.
For reason of my music work, I have to work with different DAWs, so I'm very
familiar with their sound qualities. My circle of producers and engineers
talk about the daw sonics all the time. It's really no big deal anymore..
The same logic applies when Roger Nichols (a few) years back in his article
about master CD's and that he found out that 4 differnt CD burners yeilded
differnt sonic results. Sure, he sated that Math is the Math :) but, his
and the masering engineers Ears told them soemthing was different. Hummm???
Now, back to DAW sonics. I can hear the difference btw Paris and Nuendo vs
Pro Tools, Logic audio.. There is no math to this, this is an ear thing..You
either hear or you don't.. Simple.
But, good ears can hear it. .
I really think the problem is, noone want to no that their money that they've
spent on a given DAW, has sonic limitations or shall we say, just different..
I like that they all sound different. It's good to have choice when mixing
a song. Some DAWs, depending on the genre will yield better or the desired
results and than another.
EX. I would not mix a Acoustic jazz record today with Paris..reason, I'm
going for clarity at it's highest level.. For that project, It's either Neundo
or Pro Tools and may Samplitude..Why should I fight with Paris's thick, gooy
sonics, when I'm going for clarity. Well, Pro Tools and Nuendo/SX has that
sound right out the gate.. Which makes my job a lot easier. simple. This
is not tosay that I could not get the job done in Paris..i could..But, for
that Acoutic Jazz project , the other 2 daws gives me what I'm looking for
without even touching an eq..
This is not all about math. As BrianT states: Use you ears..Forget the math..What
does knowing the math do for you anyway? Nothing, it just proves that you
know the math. Does not tell you diddly about the sonics.. Just ask Roger
Nichols..
"Dedric Terry" <d@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>I know we disagree here Lamont and that's totally cool, so I won't take
this
>beyond this one response, and this isn't really directed to you, but my
general
>thoughts on the matter.
>
>In Neil's "defense" (not that he needs it), I and others have done this
comparison
>to death and the conclusion I've come to is that people are 80% influenced
>by a change in environment (e.g. software interface) and 20% ears. Sorry
>to say it, but the difference in sound between floating point DAWs is far
>from real. It's just good, albeit unintentional marketing created by users
>and capitolized by manufacturers. Perceiving a "sound" in DAWs that in
actuality
>process data identically, is a bad reason to pick a DAW, but of course there
>is nothing wrong with thinking you hear a difference as long as it doesn't
>become an unwritten law of engineering at large. Preferring to work with
>one or the other, and "feeling" better about it for whatever reason is a
>great reason to pick one DAW over another.
>
>There was a recent thread that Nuendo handled gain through groups differently,
>so I put Nuendo, Sonar 6 (both 32 and 64-bit engines) and Sequoia 8.3 to
>the test - identical tests, setup to the 1/100th of a dB identically and
>came up with absolutely no difference, either audible or scientific. To
>be honest, this was the one test where I could have said, yes there is an
>understandable difference between DAWs in a simple math function, and the
>only one in the DAW that actually might make sense, yet even that did not
>exist. The reason - math is math. You can paint it red, blue, silver or
>dull grey, but it's still the same math unless the programmer was high or
>completely incompetent when they wrote the code.
>
>I thought it was entirely possible the original poster had found something
>different in Nuendo, but when it came down to really understanding and reproducing
>what happens in DAW summing and gain structures accurately between each
DAW,
>there was none, nada, nil. The assertion was completely squashed. This also
>showed me how easy it is for a wide range of professionals to misinterpret
>digital audio - whether hearing things, or just setting up a test with a
>single missed variable that completely invalidates the whole process.
>
>If you hear a difference, great. I've thought I heard a difference doing
>similar comparisons, then changed my perspective (nothing else - not converters,
>nothing - just reset my expectations, and switched back and forth) and could
>hear no difference.
>
>Just leave some room for other opinions when you post yours on this subject
>since it is very obvious that hearing is not as universally objective and
>identically referenced as everyone might like to believe, and is highly
visually
>and environmentally affected. Some will hear differences in DAWs. There
>are Cubase SX 3 users claiming Cubase 4 sounds different. Sigh. Then they
>realize they aren't even using the same project... or at least different
>EQs, or etc, etc....
>
>Say what you want about published summing tests, but Lynn's tests are as
>accurate as it gets, and that bears out in the results (all floating point
>DAWs cancel and sound identical - if you are hearing a difference, you are
>hearing things that aren't there, or you forgot to align their gain and
placement).
> I've worked with Lynn at least briefly enough to know his attention to
detail.
> In the same way people will disagree about PCs and Macs until neither exists,
>so will audio engineers disagree about DAWs. This is one debate that will
>always exist as long as we have different ears, eyes, brains,... and opinions.
>
>
>What Neil has done is to prove that opinions are always going to differ
(i.e.
>no consensus on the "best" mix of the ones posted). And in truth everyone
>has a different perception of sound in general - not everyone wants to hear
>things the same way, so we judge "best" from very different perspectives.
> There is no single gold standard. There are variations and mutated combinations,
>but all are subjective. That in and of itself implies very distinctly that
>people can and will even perceive the exact same sound differently if presented
>with any variable that changes the brain's interpretation, even if just
a
>visual distraction. Just change the lights in the room and see if you perceive
>a song differently played back exactly the same way. Or have a cat run
across
>a desk while listening. Whether you care to admit it or not, it is there,
>and that is actually the beauty of how our sense interact to create perception.
> That may be our undoing with DAW comparison tests, but it's also what keeps
>music fresh and creative, when we allow it to.
>
>So my suggestion is to use what makes you most creative, even if it's just
>a "feeling" working with that DAW gives you - be it the workflow, the GUI,
>or even the name brand reputation. But, as we all know, if you can't make
>most any material sound good on whatever DAW you choose, the DAW isn't the
>problem.
>
>Regards,
>Dedric
>
>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>
>>That's interesting - all those DAW sonic interpretations, I
>>mean... I haven't had a chance to usee all of those, so it's
>>good information.
>>
>>I still don't understand why you consider my summing
>>comparisons "lame", however - it was a fair set of tests;
>>the same mix summed in different ways. Not trying to prove a
>>point or to rig it so one sounded any better than the other - in
>>fact, if you recall the thread, different people liked different
>>summed versions for different reasons... there wasn't any one
>>version that stood out as being "the one" that everyone felt
>>sounded better. The only reason I didn't come right out & say
>>right away which version was which is so that I didn't bias
>>anyone's opinion beforehand by mentioning that... NOT to try
>>& "hide" anything or "trick" anyone, as you accused me of
>>
>>Sheesh!
>>
>>Neil
>>
>>
>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Hey Neil,
>>>
>>>All I'm saying is: All DAW software have their own unique sound. Despite
>>>what those lame summing test shows..
>>>
>>>PT-HD has a very distinct sound. A very polished sound, with a nice top
>>end,
>>>but with full audio spectrum represented. Mixer/Summing buss can be pushed,
>>>but you have to watch it.
>>>
>>>Nuendo/SX: Has a very Clear, 2 dimension sound, that does not hype the
>top
>>>nor bottom end.
>>>
>>>Logic Audio: Very Broad- Aggressive sound, that really works for Rock
and
>>>R & B/Gospel mixes.
>>>
>>>Digital Performer: With their hardware, superb audio quality. Full bodied
>>>sound .
>>>
>>>Sonar: Very flat sounding. I would say that Sonar is your most vanilla
>sound
>>>DW on the market..
>>>
>>>Samplitude : A little less top end than Pro Tools. Full bodied 3d sound..
>>>
>>>Paris: Dark sounding in comparison to the the other DAWs. But, has a 3d
>>sound
>>>quality that's full bodied.
>>>
>>>I feel that you asking SX to be something it's not with some analog summing.
>>>Especialy for your genre of music..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"I'd disagree with you in this instance because I happen to think the
>>Cubase
>>>>>ones DO sound better."
>>>>>
>>>>>Then that SSL Engineer does not know what they are doing with board.
>There's
>>>>>no way a mix coming off of that board SSL should sound better than a
>ITB
>>>>>Cubase SX mix..
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, that just does not jive. That engineer does not know how to push
>>>>he
>>>>>SSL or just not familiar with it.
>>>>
>>>>You're not really paying attention, are you? It was the same
>>>>engineer (me). And as far as whether or not I know how to use
>>>>that particular board, I guess that would be a matter of
>>>>your opinion. I don't think the SSL mixes are bad ones, I think
>>>>they came out good; I just think that you can hear more detail
>>>>in the ITB mixes in the examples I gave, and they have more
>>>>wideband frequency content from top to bottom.
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, my point of that particular comparison wasn't to say
>>>>"ITB mixes are better than using a large-format console that
>>>>costs somewhere in the six-figure range", the point of it was to
>>>>address a signal-chain suggestion that Paul had... he had
>>>>suggested perhaps that I needed to pick up a few pieces of
>>>>killer vintage gear, and I was just demonstrating that I think
>>>>the various signal chain components that I have here are on par
>>>>with most anything that can be found in heavy-hitter studios...
>>>>we used probably around $100k's worth of mics & pre's on the
>>>>PTHD/SSL mixes, plus obviously you're looking at another
>>>>roughly $100k for that particular console (40-channel E-series,
>>>>black EQ's, w/G-series Computer & Total Recall package), add in
>>>>the PTHD, outboard gear & whatnot, and you end up with
>>>>somewhere around a quarter-mil's worth of equipment involved in
>>>>that project. The project done at my place was done with my
>>>>gear, which certainly doesn't tally up to anywhere remotely
>>>>close to that cost & none of it bears a "vintage" stamp, but it
>>>>sounds competitive with the project that used all the heavy-
>>>>hitter stuff.
>>>>
>>>>Neil
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77252 is a reply to message #77247] |
Wed, 20 December 2006 11:24 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
BrianT use to say all the time..Software has a sound. And I agree with him..
"DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>>with the exception of the last version of ACID I used (way back, I think
v.
>>3) which did sound truly awful.<
>Don't hold your breath hoping ACID will sound any better. I DL'ed V6.0
and
>it sounds pretty awful too. I'm going to run it using Rewire in cubase SX
3
>and lightpipe it to Paris and see if it's the actual ACID audio engine or
>the summing. I've got a feeling it's the audio engine..just a
>feeling......because I've also got Vegas here and it sucks too.
>
>;o)
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:45894947$1@linux...
>>
>> I'm not convinced I can hear any difference between native systems, with
>> the
>> exception of the last version of ACID I used (way back, I think v. 3)
>> which
>> did sound truly awful. The real test on that one for me was the DAWSUM
CD
>> (which I purchased and dutifully scored because I was convinced 'summing'
>> was the real reason PARIS sounded so good) wherein I discovered that I
>> could
>> barely tell one mix from the next even when hearing vastly different
>> systems.
>> Since then I am a skeptic, as opposed to a disbeliever, when I hear that
>> one piece of software sounds greatly better, or even different, than
>> another.
>> I'm not saying some people can't tell some pieces of software from other
>> pieces of software, I'm just saying I'm skeptical one system is 'bright'
>> or 'sharp' or anything else until someone can produce statistically
>> meaningful
>> results in an ABY test.
>>
>> One of the great things about that DAWSUM CD is it has let me use the
>> software
>> that I like the most, without worrying too much about the sound. That
>> would
>> be Ableton Live most of the time, with SX as a backup if the editing gets
>> more intense. For me that alone was worth the time I spent on the DAWSUM
>> CD.
>>
>> TCB
>>
>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Thad, you really can't hear the difference?? Maybe I own too many software
>>>DAWS thru the years.
>>>
>>>Starting on Logic Audio 3.0, then to Cakwalk, Pro Tools, DP, Paris,Acid,
>>>Neundo, Sonar, samplitude..
>>>
>>>I can hear the diference with the same audio interface with the same wav
>>>file(s)as oon as I import the file or files.
>>>
>>>These days, depending on the genre I'm mising determines which DAW
>>>software
>>>I'll use.
>>>My circle of engineer and producer buddies all can hear the difference
in
>>>a second. Just the other day, we were mixing this R&B(ish)Gospel track
and
>>>somebody said, 'Mont, this is begging for Paris. Another track, the call
>>>was for Pro Tools. And another,Nuendo..
>>>I know BrianT feels and hears the same way in different DAW software.
It's
>>>really obvious..
>>>
>>>
>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Which is why ABY testing uses expert listeners instead of scopes and
>>>>graphs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm not saying you're wrong, esp. about ITB vs external summing. One
>>>>would
>>>>expect that to sound at least slightly different. But I would be
>>>>absolutely
>>>>shocked if anyone could tell in a controlled ABY test whether they were
>>>listening
>>>>to SX, Performer, of Sonar.
>>>>
>>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>The only real test is with the ears and not scopes and graphs.
>>>>>
>>>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'd like to see this proven in a controlled ABY test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hey Neil,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>All I'm saying is: All DAW software have their own unique sound.
>>>>>>>Despite
>>>>>>>what those lame summing test shows..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>PT-HD has a very distinct sound. A very polished sound, with a nice
>> top
>>>>>>end,
>>>>>>>but with full audio spectrum represented. Mixer/Summing buss can be
>> pushed,
>>>>>>>but you have to watch it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nuendo/SX: Has a very Clear, 2 dimension sound, that does not hype
the
>>>>>top
>>>>>>>nor bottom end.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Logic Audio: Very Broad- Aggressive sound, that really works for Rock
>>>>and
>>>>>>>R & B/Gospel mixes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Digital Performer: With their hardware, superb audio quality. Full
>>>>>>>bodied
>>>>>>>sound .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sonar: Very flat sounding. I would say that Sonar is your most vanilla
>>>>>sound
>>>>>>>DW on the market..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Samplitude : A little less top end than Pro Tools. Full bodied 3d
>>>>>>>sound..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Paris: Dark sounding in comparison to the the other DAWs. But, has
a
>>>3d
>>>>>>sound
>>>>>>>quality that's full bodied.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I feel that you asking SX to be something it's not with some analog
>> summing.
>>>>>>>Especialy for your genre of music..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"I'd disagree with you in this instance because I happen to think
>> the
>>>>>>Cubase
>>>>>>>>>ones DO sound better."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Then that SSL Engineer does not know what they are doing with board.
>>>>>There's
>>>>>>>>>no way a mix coming off of that board SSL should sound better than
>>>a
>>>>>ITB
>>>>>>>>>Cubase SX mix..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Sorry, that just does not jive. That engineer does not know how
to
>>>push
>>>>>>>>he
>>>>>>>>>SSL or just not familiar with it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You're not really paying attention, are you? It was the same
>>>>>>>>engineer (me). And as far as whether or not I know how to use
>>>>>>>>that particular board, I guess that would be a matter of
>>>>>>>>your opinion. I don't think the SSL mixes are bad ones, I think
>>>>>>>>they came out good; I just think that you can hear more detail
>>>>>>>>in the ITB mixes in the examples I gave, and they have more
>>>>>>>>wideband frequency content from top to bottom.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Anyway, my point of that particular comparison wasn't to say
>>>>>>>>"ITB mixes are better than using a large-format console that
>>>>>>>>costs somewhere in the six-figure range", the point of it was to
>>>>>>>>address a signal-chain suggestion that Paul had... he had
>>>>>>>>suggested perhaps that I needed to pick up a few pieces of
>>>>>>>>killer vintage gear, and I was just demonstrating that I think
>>>>>>>>the various signal chain components that I have here are on par
>>>>>>>>with most anything that can be found in heavy-hitter studios...
>>>>>>>>we used probably around $100k's worth of mics & pre's on the
>>>>>>>>PTHD/SSL mixes, plus obviously you're looking at another
>>>>>>>>roughly $100k for that particular console (40-channel E-series,
>>>>>>>>black EQ's, w/G-series Computer & Total Recall package), add in
>>>>>>>>the PTHD, outboard gear & whatnot, and you end up with
>>>>>>>>somewhere around a quarter-mil's worth of equipment involved in
>>>>>>>>that project. The project done at my place was done with my
>>>>>>>>gear, which certainly doesn't tally up to anywhere remotely
>>>>>>>>close to that cost & none of it bears a "vintage" stamp, but it
>>>>>>>>sounds competitive with the project that used all the heavy-
>>>>>>>>hitter stuff.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Neil
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77259 is a reply to message #77247] |
Wed, 20 December 2006 13:38 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
That's too bad. I think people have an instinctive thing against the sound
of Live as well, just because it also loops like ACID does. Live sounds like
a properly written native DAW when working with non time stretched tracks.
The sound quality on the stretched audio is amazing, all things considered,
but the non-stretched sound is indistinguishable from SX. Too bad the only
really truly awful sounding app has to bring down a perfectly nice sounding
one.
TCB
"DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>>with the exception of the last version of ACID I used (way back, I think
v.
>>3) which did sound truly awful.<
>Don't hold your breath hoping ACID will sound any better. I DL'ed V6.0
and
>it sounds pretty awful too. I'm going to run it using Rewire in cubase SX
3
>and lightpipe it to Paris and see if it's the actual ACID audio engine or
>the summing. I've got a feeling it's the audio engine..just a
>feeling......because I've also got Vegas here and it sucks too.
>
>;o)
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:45894947$1@linux...
>>
>> I'm not convinced I can hear any difference between native systems, with
>> the
>> exception of the last version of ACID I used (way back, I think v. 3)
>> which
>> did sound truly awful. The real test on that one for me was the DAWSUM
CD
>> (which I purchased and dutifully scored because I was convinced 'summing'
>> was the real reason PARIS sounded so good) wherein I discovered that I
>> could
>> barely tell one mix from the next even when hearing vastly different
>> systems.
>> Since then I am a skeptic, as opposed to a disbeliever, when I hear that
>> one piece of software sounds greatly better, or even different, than
>> another.
>> I'm not saying some people can't tell some pieces of software from other
>> pieces of software, I'm just saying I'm skeptical one system is 'bright'
>> or 'sharp' or anything else until someone can produce statistically
>> meaningful
>> results in an ABY test.
>>
>> One of the great things about that DAWSUM CD is it has let me use the
>> software
>> that I like the most, without worrying too much about the sound. That
>> would
>> be Ableton Live most of the time, with SX as a backup if the editing gets
>> more intense. For me that alone was worth the time I spent on the DAWSUM
>> CD.
>>
>> TCB
>>
>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Thad, you really can't hear the difference?? Maybe I own too many software
>>>DAWS thru the years.
>>>
>>>Starting on Logic Audio 3.0, then to Cakwalk, Pro Tools, DP, Paris,Acid,
>>>Neundo, Sonar, samplitude..
>>>
>>>I can hear the diference with the same audio interface with the same wav
>>>file(s)as oon as I import the file or files.
>>>
>>>These days, depending on the genre I'm mising determines which DAW
>>>software
>>>I'll use.
>>>My circle of engineer and producer buddies all can hear the difference
in
>>>a second. Just the other day, we were mixing this R&B(ish)Gospel track
and
>>>somebody said, 'Mont, this is begging for Paris. Another track, the call
>>>was for Pro Tools. And another,Nuendo..
>>>I know BrianT feels and hears the same way in different DAW software.
It's
>>>really obvious..
>>>
>>>
>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Which is why ABY testing uses expert listeners instead of scopes and
>>>>graphs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm not saying you're wrong, esp. about ITB vs external summing. One
>>>>would
>>>>expect that to sound at least slightly different. But I would be
>>>>absolutely
>>>>shocked if anyone could tell in a controlled ABY test whether they were
>>>listening
>>>>to SX, Performer, of Sonar.
>>>>
>>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>The only real test is with the ears and not scopes and graphs.
>>>>>
>>>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'd like to see this proven in a controlled ABY test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hey Neil,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>All I'm saying is: All DAW software have their own unique sound.
>>>>>>>Despite
>>>>>>>what those lame summing test shows..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>PT-HD has a very distinct sound. A very polished sound, with a nice
>> top
>>>>>>end,
>>>>>>>but with full audio spectrum represented. Mixer/Summing buss can be
>> pushed,
>>>>>>>but you have to watch it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nuendo/SX: Has a very Clear, 2 dimension sound, that does not hype
the
>>>>>top
>>>>>>>nor bottom end.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Logic Audio: Very Broad- Aggressive sound, that really works for Rock
>>>>and
>>>>>>>R & B/Gospel mixes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Digital Performer: With their hardware, superb audio quality. Full
>>>>>>>bodied
>>>>>>>sound .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sonar: Very flat sounding. I would say that Sonar is your most vanilla
>>>>>sound
>>>>>>>DW on the market..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Samplitude : A little less top end than Pro Tools. Full bodied 3d
>>>>>>>sound..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Paris: Dark sounding in comparison to the the other DAWs. But, has
a
>>>3d
>>>>>>sound
>>>>>>>quality that's full bodied.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I feel that you asking SX to be something it's not with some analog
>> summing.
>>>>>>>Especialy for your genre of music..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"I'd disagree with you in this instance because I happen to think
>> the
>>>>>>Cubase
>>>>>>>>>ones DO sound better."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Then that SSL Engineer does not know what they are doing with board.
>>>>>There's
>>>>>>>>>no way a mix coming off of that board SSL should sound better than
>>>a
>>>>>ITB
>>>>>>>>>Cubase SX mix..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Sorry, that just does not jive. That engineer does not know how
to
>>>push
>>>>>>>>he
>>>>>>>>>SSL or just not familiar with it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You're not really paying attention, are you? It was the same
>>>>>>>>engineer (me). And as far as whether or not I know how to use
>>>>>>>>that particular board, I guess that would be a matter of
>>>>>>>>your opinion. I don't think the SSL mixes are bad ones, I think
>>>>>>>>they came out good; I just think that you can hear more detail
>>>>>>>>in the ITB mixes in the examples I gave, and they have more
>>>>>>>>wideband frequency content from top to bottom.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Anyway, my point of that particular comparison wasn't to say
>>>>>>>>"ITB mixes are better than using a large-format console that
>>>>>>>>costs somewhere in the six-figure range", the point of it was to
>>>>>>>>address a signal-chain suggestion that Paul had... he had
>>>>>>>>suggested perhaps that I needed to pick up a few pieces of
>>>>>>>>killer vintage gear, and I was just demonstrating that I think
>>>>>>>>the various signal chain components that I have here are on par
>>>>>>>>with most anything that can be found in heavy-hitter studios...
>>>>>>>>we used probably around $100k's worth of mics & pre's on the
>>>>>>>>PTHD/SSL mixes, plus obviously you're looking at another
>>>>>>>>roughly $100k for that particular console (40-channel E-series,
>>>>>>>>black EQ's, w/G-series Computer & Total Recall package), add in
>>>>>>>>the PTHD, outboard gear & whatnot, and you end up with
>>>>>>>>somewhere around a quarter-mil's worth of equipment involved in
>>>>>>>>that project. The project done at my place was done with my
>>>>>>>>gear, which certainly doesn't tally up to anywhere remotely
>>>>>>>>close to that cost & none of it bears a "vintage" stamp, but it
>>>>>>>>sounds competitive with the project that used all the heavy-
>>>>>>>>hitter stuff.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Neil
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77260 is a reply to message #77251] |
Wed, 20 December 2006 12:51 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Of course Paris sounds different on Lynn's sampler, that was audible, and
there are technical reasons why Paris will always sound different, but I
didn't like it better on the sampler CD, to be honest, though the
differences were subtle. Also, we weren't talking about Acid vs. Sonar
specifically. I don't even bother with Acid as a DAW example - it's a loop
app. Vegas is a video app that has had life as an audio app to some degree,
but iMovie does audio as well, yet that doesn't really put it in the same
category as professional DAW apps like Nuendo, PTHD, Sequoia, etc. I use
Vegas for video, but not audio.
On Lynn's sampler, Samplitude, Nuendo, Fairlight and the other natives don't
sound different and aren't different in the unity gain examples
(even the PTHD mix cancels with these). If you hear two files sounding
differently that cancel to complete null, an audio difference isn't what you
are hearing. When there are differences in non-unity gain mix summing
tests, you have an extra variable to account for - how is the gain
calculated? Gain
is non-linear (power), not adding two numbers together. So how is pan law
factored in, and where? Are your faders exactly the same, or 0.001dB
variant?
Also if you drop the same stereo file in two different pro audio apps and
hear a difference, one of the two apps is defective. There is nothing
happening with a stereo file playback when no gain change or plugins are
active - just audio streaming to the driver from disk. If you hear a
difference there, I would be quickly trying to find out why. Something is
wrong.
The point I am making is that these arguments usually come up as blanket
statements with no qualification of what exactly sounds
different, why it might, or solid well reasoned attempts to find out why, or
if there could be a real difference, or just a perceived one.
Usually the "use your ears" comment comes up when there is no technical
rebuttal for when the science and good
ears agree. Of course "use your ears" first from a creative perspective,
but if you are making a technical, scientific statement, then such comments
aren't a good foundation to work from. It's a great motto, but a bit of a
cop out in a technical discussion.
Regards,
Dedric
"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameriech.net> wrote in message news:45897f73$1@linux...
>
> Hey Dedric and Neil,
>
> I reason I think that the Summing CD test(good intentions) were lame was
> because.. If a person can;t hear the difference btw a stereo wav file
> that's
> in Acid vs Sonar really needs a hearing test.
>
> For reason of my music work, I have to work with different DAWs, so I'm
> very
> familiar with their sound qualities. My circle of producers and engineers
> talk about the daw sonics all the time. It's really no big deal anymore..
>
> The same logic applies when Roger Nichols (a few) years back in his
> article
> about master CD's and that he found out that 4 differnt CD burners yeilded
> differnt sonic results. Sure, he sated that Math is the Math :) but, his
> and the masering engineers Ears told them soemthing was different.
> Hummm???
>
> Now, back to DAW sonics. I can hear the difference btw Paris and Nuendo vs
> Pro Tools, Logic audio.. There is no math to this, this is an ear
> thing..You
> either hear or you don't.. Simple.
> But, good ears can hear it. .
>
> I really think the problem is, noone want to no that their money that
> they've
> spent on a given DAW, has sonic limitations or shall we say, just
> different..
>
> I like that they all sound different. It's good to have choice when mixing
> a song. Some DAWs, depending on the genre will yield better or the desired
> results and than another.
> EX. I would not mix a Acoustic jazz record today with Paris..reason, I'm
> going for clarity at it's highest level.. For that project, It's either
> Neundo
> or Pro Tools and may Samplitude..Why should I fight with Paris's thick,
> gooy
> sonics, when I'm going for clarity. Well, Pro Tools and Nuendo/SX has that
> sound right out the gate.. Which makes my job a lot easier. simple. This
> is not tosay that I could not get the job done in Paris..i could..But, for
> that Acoutic Jazz project , the other 2 daws gives me what I'm looking
> for
> without even touching an eq..
>
> This is not all about math. As BrianT states: Use you ears..Forget the
> math..What
> does knowing the math do for you anyway? Nothing, it just proves that you
> know the math. Does not tell you diddly about the sonics.. Just ask Roger
> Nichols..
>
>
> "Dedric Terry" <d@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>I know we disagree here Lamont and that's totally cool, so I won't take
> this
>>beyond this one response, and this isn't really directed to you, but my
> general
>>thoughts on the matter.
>>
>>In Neil's "defense" (not that he needs it), I and others have done this
> comparison
>>to death and the conclusion I've come to is that people are 80% influenced
>>by a change in environment (e.g. software interface) and 20% ears. Sorry
>>to say it, but the difference in sound between floating point DAWs is far
>>from real. It's just good, albeit unintentional marketing created by
>>users
>>and capitolized by manufacturers. Perceiving a "sound" in DAWs that in
> actuality
>>process data identically, is a bad reason to pick a DAW, but of course
>>there
>>is nothing wrong with thinking you hear a difference as long as it doesn't
>>become an unwritten law of engineering at large. Preferring to work with
>>one or the other, and "feeling" better about it for whatever reason is a
>>great reason to pick one DAW over another.
>>
>>There was a recent thread that Nuendo handled gain through groups
>>differently,
>>so I put Nuendo, Sonar 6 (both 32 and 64-bit engines) and Sequoia 8.3 to
>>the test - identical tests, setup to the 1/100th of a dB identically and
>>came up with absolutely no difference, either audible or scientific. To
>>be honest, this was the one test where I could have said, yes there is an
>>understandable difference between DAWs in a simple math function, and the
>>only one in the DAW that actually might make sense, yet even that did not
>>exist. The reason - math is math. You can paint it red, blue, silver or
>>dull grey, but it's still the same math unless the programmer was high or
>>completely incompetent when they wrote the code.
>>
>>I thought it was entirely possible the original poster had found something
>>different in Nuendo, but when it came down to really understanding and
>>reproducing
>>what happens in DAW summing and gain structures accurately between each
> DAW,
>>there was none, nada, nil. The assertion was completely squashed. This
>>also
>>showed me how easy it is for a wide range of professionals to misinterpret
>>digital audio - whether hearing things, or just setting up a test with a
>>single missed variable that completely invalidates the whole process.
>>
>>If you hear a difference, great. I've thought I heard a difference doing
>>similar comparisons, then changed my perspective (nothing else - not
>>converters,
>>nothing - just reset my expectations, and switched back and forth) and
>>could
>>hear no difference.
>>
>>Just leave some room for other opinions when you post yours on this
>>subject
>>since it is very obvious that hearing is not as universally objective and
>>identically referenced as everyone might like to believe, and is highly
> visually
>>and environmentally affected. Some will hear differences in DAWs. There
>>are Cubase SX 3 users claiming Cubase 4 sounds different. Sigh. Then
>>they
>>realize they aren't even using the same project... or at least different
>>EQs, or etc, etc....
>>
>>Say what you want about published summing tests, but Lynn's tests are as
>>accurate as it gets, and that bears out in the results (all floating point
>>DAWs cancel and sound identical - if you are hearing a difference, you are
>>hearing things that aren't there, or you forgot to align their gain and
> placement).
>> I've worked with Lynn at least briefly enough to know his attention to
> detail.
>> In the same way people will disagree about PCs and Macs until neither
>> exists,
>>so will audio engineers disagree about DAWs. This is one debate that will
>>always exist as long as we have different ears, eyes, brains,... and
>>opinions.
>>
>>
>>What Neil has done is to prove that opinions are always going to differ
> (i.e.
>>no consensus on the "best" mix of the ones posted). And in truth everyone
>>has a different perception of sound in general - not everyone wants to
>>hear
>>things the same way, so we judge "best" from very different perspectives.
>> There is no single gold standard. There are variations and mutated
>> combinations,
>>but all are subjective. That in and of itself implies very distinctly
>>that
>>people can and will even perceive the exact same sound differently if
>>presented
>>with any variable that changes the brain's interpretation, even if just
> a
>>visual distraction. Just change the lights in the room and see if you
>>perceive
>>a song differently played back exactly the same way. Or have a cat run
> across
>>a desk while listening. Whether you care to admit it or not, it is there,
>>and that is actually the beauty of how our sense interact to create
>>perception.
>> That may be our undoing with DAW comparison tests, but it's also what
>> keeps
>>music fresh and creative, when we allow it to.
>>
>>So my suggestion is to use what makes you most creative, even if it's just
>>a "feeling" working with that DAW gives you - be it the workflow, the GUI,
>>or even the name brand reputation. But, as we all know, if you can't make
>>most any material sound good on whatever DAW you choose, the DAW isn't the
>>problem.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Dedric
>>
>>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>That's interesting - all those DAW sonic interpretations, I
>>>mean... I haven't had a chance to usee all of those, so it's
>>>good information.
>>>
>>>I still don't understand why you consider my summing
>>>comparisons "lame", however - it was a fair set of tests;
>>>the same mix summed in different ways. Not trying to prove a
>>>point or to rig it so one sounded any better than the other - in
>>>fact, if you recall the thread, different people liked different
>>>summed versions for different reasons... there wasn't any one
>>>version that stood out as being "the one" that everyone felt
>>>sounded better. The only reason I didn't come right out & say
>>>right away which version was which is so that I didn't bias
>>>anyone's opinion beforehand by mentioning that... NOT to try
>>>& "hide" anything or "trick" anyone, as you accused me of
>>>
>>>Sheesh!
>>>
>>>Neil
>>>
>>>
>>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Hey Neil,
>>>>
>>>>All I'm saying is: All DAW software have their own unique sound.
>>>>Despite
>>>>what those lame summing test shows..
>>>>
>>>>PT-HD has a very distinct sound. A very polished sound, with a nice top
>>>end,
>>>>but with full audio spectrum represented. Mixer/Summing buss can be
>>>>pushed,
>>>>but you have to watch it.
>>>>
>>>>Nuendo/SX: Has a very Clear, 2 dimension sound, that does not hype the
>>top
>>>>nor bottom end.
>>>>
>>>>Logic Audio: Very Broad- Aggressive sound, that really works for Rock
> and
>>>>R & B/Gospel mixes.
>>>>
>>>>Digital Performer: With their hardware, superb audio quality. Full
>>>>bodied
>>>>sound .
>>>>
>>>>Sonar: Very flat sounding. I would say that Sonar is your most vanilla
>>sound
>>>>DW on the market..
>>>>
>>>>Samplitude : A little less top end than Pro Tools. Full bodied 3d
>>>>sound..
>>>>
>>>>Paris: Dark sounding in comparison to the the other DAWs. But, has a 3d
>>>sound
>>>>quality that's full bodied.
>>>>
>>>>I feel that you asking SX to be something it's not with some analog
>>>>summing.
>>>>Especialy for your genre of music..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"I'd disagree with you in this instance because I happen to think the
>>>Cubase
>>>>>>ones DO sound better."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then that SSL Engineer does not know what they are doing with board.
>>There's
>>>>>>no way a mix coming off of that board SSL should sound better than a
>>ITB
>>>>>>Cubase SX mix..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, that just does not jive. That engineer does not know how to
>>>>>>push
>>>>>he
>>>>>>SSL or just not familiar with it.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're not really paying attention, are you? It was the same
>>>>>engineer (me). And as far as whether or not I know how to use
>>>>>that particular board, I guess that would be a matter of
>>>>>your opinion. I don't think the SSL mixes are bad ones, I think
>>>>>they came out good; I just think that you can hear more detail
>>>>>in the ITB mixes in the examples I gave, and they have more
>>>>>wideband frequency content from top to bottom.
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyway, my point of that particular comparison wasn't to say
>>>>>"ITB mixes are better than using a large-format console that
>>>>>costs somewhere in the six-figure range", the point of it was to
>>>>>address a signal-chain suggestion that Paul had... he had
>>>>>suggested perhaps that I needed to pick up a few pieces of
>>>>>killer vintage gear, and I was just demonstrating that I think
>>>>>the various signal chain components that I have here are on par
>>>>>with most anything that can be found in heavy-hitter studios...
>>>>>we used probably around $100k's worth of mics & pre's on the
>>>>>PTHD/SSL mixes, plus obviously you're looking at another
>>>>>roughly $100k for that particular console (40-channel E-series,
>>>>>black EQ's, w/G-series Computer & Total Recall package), add in
>>>>>the PTHD, outboard gear & whatnot, and you end up with
>>>>>somewhere around a quarter-mil's worth of equipment involved in
>>>>>that project. The project done at my place was done with my
>>>>>gear, which certainly doesn't tally up to anywhere remotely
>>>>>close to that cost & none of it bears a "vintage" stamp, but it
>>>>>sounds competitive with the project that used all the heavy-
>>>>>hitter stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>>Neil
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77263 is a reply to message #77259] |
Wed, 20 December 2006 14:21 |
|
|
Agreed..
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>That's too bad. I think people have an instinctive thing against the sound
>of Live as well, just because it also loops like ACID does. Live sounds
like
>a properly written native DAW when working with non time stretched tracks.
>The sound quality on the stretched audio is amazing, all things considered,
>but the non-stretched sound is indistinguishable from SX. Too bad the only
>really truly awful sounding app has to bring down a perfectly nice sounding
>one.
>
>TCB
>
>"DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>>>with the exception of the last version of ACID I used (way back, I think
>v.
>>>3) which did sound truly awful.<
>>Don't hold your breath hoping ACID will sound any better. I DL'ed V6.0
>and
>>it sounds pretty awful too. I'm going to run it using Rewire in cubase
SX
>3
>>and lightpipe it to Paris and see if it's the actual ACID audio engine
or
>
>>the summing. I've got a feeling it's the audio engine..just a
>>feeling......because I've also got Vegas here and it sucks too.
>>
>>;o)
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:45894947$1@linux...
>>>
>>> I'm not convinced I can hear any difference between native systems, with
>
>>> the
>>> exception of the last version of ACID I used (way back, I think v. 3)
>
>>> which
>>> did sound truly awful. The real test on that one for me was the DAWSUM
>CD
>>> (which I purchased and dutifully scored because I was convinced 'summing'
>>> was the real reason PARIS sounded so good) wherein I discovered that
I
>
>>> could
>>> barely tell one mix from the next even when hearing vastly different
>>> systems.
>>> Since then I am a skeptic, as opposed to a disbeliever, when I hear that
>>> one piece of software sounds greatly better, or even different, than
>>> another.
>>> I'm not saying some people can't tell some pieces of software from other
>>> pieces of software, I'm just saying I'm skeptical one system is 'bright'
>>> or 'sharp' or anything else until someone can produce statistically
>>> meaningful
>>> results in an ABY test.
>>>
>>> One of the great things about that DAWSUM CD is it has let me use the
>
>>> software
>>> that I like the most, without worrying too much about the sound. That
>
>>> would
>>> be Ableton Live most of the time, with SX as a backup if the editing
gets
>>> more intense. For me that alone was worth the time I spent on the DAWSUM
>>> CD.
>>>
>>> TCB
>>>
>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Thad, you really can't hear the difference?? Maybe I own too many software
>>>>DAWS thru the years.
>>>>
>>>>Starting on Logic Audio 3.0, then to Cakwalk, Pro Tools, DP, Paris,Acid,
>>>>Neundo, Sonar, samplitude..
>>>>
>>>>I can hear the diference with the same audio interface with the same
wav
>>>>file(s)as oon as I import the file or files.
>>>>
>>>>These days, depending on the genre I'm mising determines which DAW
>>>>software
>>>>I'll use.
>>>>My circle of engineer and producer buddies all can hear the difference
>in
>>>>a second. Just the other day, we were mixing this R&B(ish)Gospel track
>and
>>>>somebody said, 'Mont, this is begging for Paris. Another track, the call
>>>>was for Pro Tools. And another,Nuendo..
>>>>I know BrianT feels and hears the same way in different DAW software.
>It's
>>>>really obvious..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Which is why ABY testing uses expert listeners instead of scopes and
>
>>>>>graphs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not saying you're wrong, esp. about ITB vs external summing. One
>
>>>>>would
>>>>>expect that to sound at least slightly different. But I would be
>>>>>absolutely
>>>>>shocked if anyone could tell in a controlled ABY test whether they were
>>>>listening
>>>>>to SX, Performer, of Sonar.
>>>>>
>>>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The only real test is with the ears and not scopes and graphs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'd like to see this proven in a controlled ABY test.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hey Neil,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>All I'm saying is: All DAW software have their own unique sound.
>>>>>>>>Despite
>>>>>>>>what those lame summing test shows..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>PT-HD has a very distinct sound. A very polished sound, with a nice
>>> top
>>>>>>>end,
>>>>>>>>but with full audio spectrum represented. Mixer/Summing buss can
be
>>> pushed,
>>>>>>>>but you have to watch it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Nuendo/SX: Has a very Clear, 2 dimension sound, that does not hype
>the
>>>>>>top
>>>>>>>>nor bottom end.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Logic Audio: Very Broad- Aggressive sound, that really works for
Rock
>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>R & B/Gospel mixes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Digital Performer: With their hardware, superb audio quality. Full
>
>>>>>>>>bodied
>>>>>>>>sound .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sonar: Very flat sounding. I would say that Sonar is your most vanilla
>>>>>>sound
>>>>>>>>DW on the market..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Samplitude : A little less top end than Pro Tools. Full bodied 3d
>
>>>>>>>>sound..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Paris: Dark sounding in comparison to the the other DAWs. But, has
>a
>>>>3d
>>>>>>>sound
>>>>>>>>quality that's full bodied.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I feel that you asking SX to be something it's not with some analog
>>> summing.
>>>>>>>>Especialy for your genre of music..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"I'd disagree with you in this instance because I happen to think
>>> the
>>>>>>>Cubase
>>>>>>>>>>ones DO sound better."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Then that SSL Engineer does not know what they are doing with board.
>>>>>>There's
>>>>>>>>>>no way a mix coming off of that board SSL should sound better than
>>>>a
>>>>>>ITB
>>>>>>>>>>Cubase SX mix..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Sorry, that just does not jive. That engineer does not know how
>to
>>>>push
>>>>>>>>>he
>>>>>>>>>>SSL or just not familiar with it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You're not really paying attention, are you? It was the same
>>>>>>>>>engineer (me). And as far as whether or not I know how to use
>>>>>>>>>that particular board, I guess that would be a matter of
>>>>>>>>>your opinion. I don't think the SSL mixes are bad ones, I think
>>>>>>>>>they came out good; I just think that you can hear more detail
>>>>>>>>>in the ITB mixes in the examples I gave, and they have more
>>>>>>>>>wideband frequency content from top to bottom.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Anyway, my point of that particular comparison wasn't to say
>>>>>>>>>"ITB mixes are better than using a large-format console that
>>>>>>>>>costs somewhere in the six-figure range", the point of it was to
>>>>>>>>>address a signal-chain suggestion that Paul had... he had
>>>>>>>>>suggested perhaps that I needed to pick up a few pieces of
>>>>>>>>>killer vintage gear, and I was just demonstrating that I think
>>>>>>>>>the various signal chain components that I have here are on par
>>>>>>>>>with most anything that can be found in heavy-hitter studios...
>>>>>>>>>we used probably around $100k's worth of mics & pre's on the
>>>>>>>>>PTHD/SSL mixes, plus obviously you're looking at another
>>>>>>>>>roughly $100k for that particular console (40-channel E-series,
>>>>>>>>>black EQ's, w/G-series Computer & Total Recall package), add in
>>>>>>>>>the PTHD, outboard gear & whatnot, and you end up with
>>>>>>>>>somewhere around a quarter-mil's worth of equipment involved in
>>>>>>>>>that project. The project done at my place was done with my
>>>>>>>>>gear, which certainly doesn't tally up to anywhere remotely
>>>>>>>>>close to that cost & none of it bears a "vintage" stamp, but it
>>>>>>>>>sounds competitive with the project that used all the heavy-
>>>>>>>>>hitter stuff.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Neil
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Neil's Dilemma (was: looking for De-esser plugin) [message #77265 is a reply to message #77263] |
Wed, 20 December 2006 14:37 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Well, hey, at least we can agree that Live sounds good.
I'm really psyched for my Live/Scope setup. The Core Duo desktop is set up
and running nicely (what a change from a three year old Athlon) so I'll have
gobs of native f/x and instruments, UAD-1 plugs, and Scope synths/effects/mixing.
Then I will officially be 100% at fault if I suck ;-)
TCB
"LaMont" <jjdpro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Agreed..
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>That's too bad. I think people have an instinctive thing against the sound
>>of Live as well, just because it also loops like ACID does. Live sounds
>like
>>a properly written native DAW when working with non time stretched tracks.
>>The sound quality on the stretched audio is amazing, all things considered,
>>but the non-stretched sound is indistinguishable from SX. Too bad the only
>>really truly awful sounding app has to bring down a perfectly nice sounding
>>one.
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>"DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>>>>with the exception of the last version of ACID I used (way back, I think
>>v.
>>>>3) which did sound truly awful.<
>>>Don't hold your breath hoping ACID will sound any better. I DL'ed V6.0
>>and
>>>it sounds pretty awful too. I'm going to run it using Rewire in cubase
>SX
>>3
>>>and lightpipe it to Paris and see if it's the actual ACID audio engine
>or
>>
>>>the summing. I've got a feeling it's the audio engine..just a
>>>feeling......because I've also got Vegas here and it sucks too.
>>>
>>>;o)
>>>
>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:45894947$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> I'm not convinced I can hear any difference between native systems,
with
>>
>>>> the
>>>> exception of the last version of ACID I used (way back, I think v. 3)
>>
>>>> which
>>>> did sound truly awful. The real test on that one for me was the DAWSUM
>>CD
>>>> (which I purchased and dutifully scored because I was convinced 'summing'
>>>> was the real reason PARIS sounded so good) wherein I discovered that
>I
>>
>>>> could
>>>> barely tell one mix from the next even when hearing vastly different
>
>>>> systems.
>>>> Since then I am a skeptic, as opposed to a disbeliever, when I hear
that
>>>> one piece of software sounds greatly better, or even different, than
>
>>>> another.
>>>> I'm not saying some people can't tell some pieces of software from other
>>>> pieces of software, I'm just saying I'm skeptical one system is 'bright'
>>>> or 'sharp' or anything else until someone can produce statistically
>>>> meaningful
>>>> results in an ABY test.
>>>>
>>>> One of the great things about that DAWSUM CD is it has let me use the
>>
>>>> software
>>>> that I like the most, without worrying too much about the sound. That
>>
>>>> would
>>>> be Ableton Live most of the time, with SX as a backup if the editing
>gets
>>>> more intense. For me that alone was worth the time I spent on the DAWSUM
>>>> CD.
>>>>
>>>> TCB
>>>>
>>>> "LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Thad, you really can't hear the difference?? Maybe I own too many software
>>>>>DAWS thru the years.
>>>>>
>>>>>Starting on Logic Audio 3.0, then to Cakwalk, Pro Tools, DP, Paris,Acid,
>>>>>Neundo, Sonar, samplitude..
>>>>>
>>>>>I can hear the diference with the same audio interface with the same
>wav
>>>>>file(s)as oon as I import the file or files.
>>>>>
>>>>>These days, depending on the genre I'm mising determines which DAW
>>>>>software
>>>>>I'll use.
>>>>>My circle of engineer and producer buddies all can hear the difference
>>in
>>>>>a second. Just the other day, we were mixing this R&B(ish)Gospel track
>>and
>>>>>somebody said, 'Mont, this is begging for Paris. Another track, the
call
>>>>>was for Pro Tools. And another,Nuendo..
>>>>>I know BrianT feels and hears the same way in different DAW software.
>>It's
>>>>>really obvious..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which is why ABY testing uses expert listeners instead of scopes and
>>
>>>>>>graphs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not saying you're wrong, esp. about ITB vs external summing. One
>>
>>>>>>would
>>>>>>expect that to sound at least slightly different. But I would be
>>>>>>absolutely
>>>>>>shocked if anyone could tell in a controlled ABY test whether they
were
>>>>>listening
>>>>>>to SX, Performer, of Sonar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The only real test is with the ears and not scopes and graphs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'd like to see this proven in a controlled ABY test.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hey Neil,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>All I'm saying is: All DAW software have their own unique sound.
>
>>>>>>>>>Despite
>>>>>>>>>what those lame summing test shows..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>PT-HD has a very distinct sound. A very polished sound, with a nice
>>>> top
>>>>>>>>end,
>>>>>>>>>but with full audio spectrum represented. Mixer/Summing buss can
>be
>>>> pushed,
>>>>>>>>>but you have to watch it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Nuendo/SX: Has a very Clear, 2 dimension sound, that does not hype
>>the
>>>>>>>top
>>>>>>>>>nor bottom end.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Logic Audio: Very Broad- Aggressive sound, that really works for
>Rock
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>R & B/Gospel mixes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Digital Performer: With their hardware, superb audio quality. Full
>>
>>>>>>>>>bodied
>>>>>>>>>sound .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Sonar: Very flat sounding. I would say that Sonar is your most vanilla
>>>>>>>sound
>>>>>>>>>DW on the market..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Samplitude : A little less top end than Pro Tools. Full bodied 3d
>>
>>>>>>>>>sound..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Paris: Dark sounding in comparison to the the other DAWs. But, has
>>a
>>>>>3d
>>>>>>>>sound
>>>>>>>>>quality that's full bodied.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I feel that you asking SX to be something it's not with some analog
>>>> summing.
>>>>>>>>>Especialy for your genre of music..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Neil" <IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Lamont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"I'd disagree with you in this instance because I happen to think
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>Cubase
>>>>>>>>>>>ones DO sound better."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Then that SSL Engineer does not know what they are doing with
board.
>>>>>>>There's
>>>>>>>>>>>no way a mix coming off of that board SSL should sound better
than
>>>>>a
>>>>>>>ITB
>>>>>>>>>>>Cubase SX mix..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Sorry, that just does not jive. That engineer does not know how
>>to
>>>>>push
>>>>>>>>>>he
>>>>>>>>>>>SSL or just not familiar with it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You're not really paying attention, are you? It was the same
>>>>>>>>>>engineer (me). And as far as whether or not I know how to use
>>>>>>>>>>that particular board, I guess that would be a matter of
>>>>>>>>>>your opinion. I don't think the SSL mixes are bad ones, I think
>>>>>>>>>>they came out good; I just think that you can hear more detail
>>>>>>>>>>in the ITB mixes in the examples I gave, and they have more
>>>>>>>>>>wideband frequency content from top to bottom.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Anyway, my point of that particular comparison wasn't to say
>>>>>>>>>>"ITB mixes are better than using a large-format console that
>>>>>>>>>>costs somewhere in the six-figure range", the point of it was to
>>>>>>>>>>address a signal-chain suggestion that Paul had... he had
>>>>>>>>>>suggested perhaps that I needed to pick up a few pieces of
>>>>>>>>>>killer vintage gear, and I was just demonstrating that I think
>>>>>>>>>>the various signal chain components that I have here are on par
>>>>>>>>>>with most anything that can be found in heavy-hitter studios...
>>>>>>>>>>we used probably around $100k's worth of mics & pre's on the
>>>>>>>>>>PTHD/SSL mixes, plus obviously you're looking at another
>>>>>>>>>>roughly $100k for that particular console (40-channel E-series,
>>>>>>>>>>black EQ's, w/G-series Computer & Total Recall package), add in
>>>>>>>>>>the PTHD, outboard gear & whatnot, and you end up with
>>>>>>>>>>somewhere around a quarter-mil's worth of equipment involved in
>>>>>>>>>>that project. The project done at my place was done with my
>>>>>>>>>>gear, which certainly doesn't tally up to anywhere remotely
>>>>>>>>>>close to that cost & none of it bears a "vintage" stamp, but it
>>>>>>>>>>sounds competitive with the project that used all the heavy-
>>>>>>>>>>hitter stuff.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Neil
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Dec 18 05:09:03 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03081 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
