SUMMING EXPERIMENT

dickster · Post by **dickster** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:51 am

The other day I tried a little experiment with SFP and cubase SX2. I had a 16 track project in SX that I copied two different times. One was mixed in SX and output to one stereo channel in 2448 mixer. The other project I ran each track to a separate channel in SFP. I could then quickly AB between the two projects. I also turned off all effects and EQs. I guess we all know how the test turned out.The project mixed in SFP sounded so much better,so much more open and clear. I am quite suprised how bad the SX mix sounded in comparison. Thank God for SFP.

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:00 am

Yup, Creamware mixers are really nice. I use them all the time though I prefere Tracktion as a multi-track.

Immanuel · Post by **Immanuel** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:00 am

Did you do any fader work?
Or was the comparison 100% equal?
(it isn't, if you automate faders or move them manually, as the 2 mixes will not be technically identical)
Anyway, being an old timer on this board, I am not surprised. But you are maybe(?) the first person to do a 100% equal test, which makes it interesting.
Is it possible for you to upload the 2 versions in the music forum? or maybe just 1 minute samples - preferably starting ending at the very same time, so we can do blind testing by having our mp3 program shuffle the tracks.
That would be very interesting.

Plato · Post by **Plato** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:12 am

Well, I've been advocating working like this for a long time, but I think it's pretty obvious that it would be better - like separating channels out in any external mixer/sequencer combo....it just stops the audio bottlenecking in the seq.
Well done for putting it to the test though.

dickster · Post by **dickster** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:48 pm

I will have to figure out how to upload files,as I have never done that. In response to Immanuel's question,I put all faders in both SX and SFP at 0db.The song had a pretty good mix balance-wise without moving any faders.

Immanuel · Post by **Immanuel** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 5:39 am

It is pretty straight forward to upload songs on PlanetZ. just go to the music forum and post one (2

). You have to convert to mp3 first though.

Music Manic · Post by **Music Manic** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:57 am

As I've said for 4 years Cubase audio engine stinks.So I'll say it again.They still haven't sorted MIDI synch probs either.There only plus is their MIDI editor.

cleanbluesky · Post by **cleanbluesky** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 5:16 pm

Routing an entire project through SFP for recording and mastering is too F**King hard... Cubase SX is a wonderful time saver... Take for example (this is a medium-large proejct for me)

Drum Kit From Hell Superior
Gigastudio 3
Synths (Possibly)
4-5 channels of 96/24
VST effects including convolution reverb

While SFP is flexible, how would I include automation, MIDI playback and everything else by using SFP?

I don't mean to flame you or criticise your findings, in fact I think that it is admirable that you have used your time this way, isn't mastering through SFP a little too much like complication?

wayne · Post by **wayne** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 5:32 pm

Well, it's complicated to those new to the platform, but with a bit of study you can make your music sound better, even if it isn't as easy as mixing in cubase.

Post by **hubird** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 7:03 pm

Sound quality of Scope is absolutely an argument

Yet it's a good and brave question, because having to have two platforms running at the same time is the biggest disadventage of Scope, in my humble opinion.

A full Scope sequencer is asked many times here in the past, for that reason

Personnally I'm switching slowly to Scope mixing, for reasons of sound and gathered quality plugs, but it feels hard to leave the greatly incorporated VST approach of the main sequencers (I use Cubase).

Speaking about having two platforms running, I'd say this:
Instead of develloping a new sequencer, which I hope they will not do that ever

, CWA should better update the Sequencer Remote module.
The weekness of it is that you have to have selected the right midi channel in your sequencer before switching to SFP.
In practice this doesn't work or even is not possible, given the state of working at a song.
I've given up to use that thing, tho it works fine under perfect conditions.
cheers

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2004-10-21 20:05 ]</font>

symbiote · Post by **symbiote** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:19 pm

On 2004-10-21 18:16, cleanbluesky wrote:
Routing an entire project through SFP for recording and mastering is too F**King hard... Cubase SX is a wonderful time saver... Take for example (this is a medium-large proejct for me)

Drum Kit From Hell Superior
Gigastudio 3
Synths (Possibly)
4-5 channels of 96/24
VST effects including convolution reverb

While SFP is flexible, how would I include automation, MIDI playback and everything else by using SFP?

I don't mean to flame you or criticise your findings, in fact I think that it is admirable that you have used your time this way, isn't mastering through SFP a little too much like complication?

How is this different in SFP than Cubase? It's just a matter of shoving 16/32 ASIO channels into an SFP mixer and you're set. It takes, quite literally, no time at all if you have a default project setup. Then it's just a matter of using the STM mixer instead of the Logic/Cubase mixer. Not only that, but you can still use VST plugins/instruments in your sequencer's mixer (at least, works perfectly in Logic), and send their output to SFP for the final mixdown part (and added processing in SFP if that's what you want.)

You can still automate stuff in Cubase to your heart's content. Plugins, panning, and whatnot.

If you want to automate SFP stuff, I guess it's just a matter of setting a CC value on a SFP parameter, and in your sequencer for editing. Not much different from a VST param automation. This will also let you record "live" MIDI automation in SFP, and play it back without a problem (at least, been working really well for me.)

I guess I work a bit differently from most people tho. Logic has this thing called the Environnement, which is simply a MIDI modular system. It lets you create knobs, sliders, buttons, and whatnot, give them a MIDI note or CC number (or pitchbend, or whatever you like, even Logic function), and shove them off to any MIDI interface. I shove mine to SFP! This way I can control all the parameters I want in SFP without ever switching out of Logic. Also works with outboard gear, quite awesome for the obnoxious outboard FX unit with clunky interfaces (but full MIDI automation.) You can have this stuff sent to (or thru) the sequencer too, in case you want to record it.

I don't know if Cubase has similar stuff, but I'm sure it has something, knobs or whatnot, that will send out CC values. I heard rumors of some scripting on Sonar, so do-able on there too.

Once you are ready to master, you can use the mixer's insert slots, or just add your mastering plugins after the mixer output, or just record the mixer output and edit that in soundforge/wavelab/stuff, or run thru outboard devices, so send it to a mastering house on Pluto (them fungii sure know how to master stuff!)

I guess this might sound a bit complicated, but once it's setup, it's months and months and months of instant gratification. Setting up the SFP part, from scratch, takes almost no time (load mixer, load ASIO modules, load whatever else.) The MIDI aspect in Logic is a bit more voodoo-esque, but still quite do-able (and quite fun.) Once you know your way around, hacking an interface in Logic is QUITE fast, and you can hack standard interface in a matter of minutes. Automating it in SFP is just a matter of right-click-twist-knob-save-dialog. Getting a feedback on the sliders in Logic (ie move a slider in SFP, it moves in Logic!) is a step further in voodoo, but again quite do-able, just have to make sure you don't create feedback loops.

The other important detail is the ASIO latency, which isn't a problem if all your sources are coming from ASIO. If you add some SFP synths, you might want to delay them a bit to match ASIO latency within a milisecond or two. That's all.

Honestly, once you have the basic project setup (takes an hour maybe?), it's all ready to go each time you start your machine/software.

With a bit of experience in MIDI and audio in general, this isn't much more problematic than building a project in Cubase. And like I said, you can still automate all you want on the Cubase side. It's a pretty good idea to limit mix-tweaking (adjuting gain etc) to a single place, either the sequencer or SFP, but both ways will benefit from mixdown in SFP (try it!)

Anyway, I did a similar test with Logic/STM mixer when I had to decide where I would be mixing. Used a similar techniqe with 0 gain on all channels, and compared the 2 of them. Chose SFP, never looked back, this even if the mixing in Logic sure is more than enough to produce high quality recordings.

dickster · Post by **dickster** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:59 am

My words exactly.Another method would be to commit your midi channels to audio just before mixing through SFP.The only thing to keep in mind,is to let SFP mix down to stereo instead of your sequencer. You can still automate each track in your sequencer.I think there is also a way have the automation control the SFP channels,without affecting the volume in sequencer tracks.Once you start making volume changes in your sequencer instead of SFP,there will be an additional loss in quality.Apparently,I have heard that making volume changes in a 32 bit mixer,such as SX or Logic you lose bits.That's why Protools HD sounds so good. It has a 48 bit mixer.SFP mixers are actually 38 or 40 bit.I'm not sure if that is the 2448 and 4896 mixers only,but that's what I think most of us use.I think I am right on this. Someone in Germany who works closely with STWs told me that CW added something like 6 bits to the mixer. Then I read it in some literature from CW somewhere. Sounds good to me anyway.

noname · Post by **noname** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:44 am

On 2004-10-20 11:51, dickster wrote:
The other day I tried a little experiment with SFP and cubase SX2. I had a 16 track project in SX that I copied two different times. One was mixed in SX and output to one stereo channel in 2448 mixer. The other project I ran each track to a separate channel in SFP. I could then quickly AB between the two projects. I also turned off all effects and EQs. I guess we all know how the test turned out.The project mixed in SFP sounded so much better,so much more open and clear. I am quite suprised how bad the SX mix sounded in comparison. Thank God for SFP.

Hola!!

how did u test that??
have u turned on the phase Compesation in the 24/48??

which pan law did u use in sx??

have u make a test by reversing the phase of the sfp mix against the sx mix??

tnx in advance...

bauzz!!!

mr swim · Post by **mr swim** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:22 am

I've never understood how to automate in cubase - there being no graphical routing interface makes it seem much harder than routing and automating in sfp.

I guess I'm lucky ! I find the engine with the best sound quality the easiest to use !

Will.