Summing with Scope?

[Neil]

But due to capturing the mix using the STS the bounces werent exactly aligned. And I didn't hear a change anyhow so this delta doesn't seem important anyways.

Hmmm... there was a slight difference in your tests - you had to adapt something in order to get the closest to an a/b comparision you could manage, considering the different platforms; just like I did... you adapted in a different manner than I chose, yet you still adapted... and yet you have the big brass balls to accuse me of my tests being flawed, yet you proclaim yours to be accurate - my tests, wherein I also posted an example (not on this group, if any other readers are wondering) for others to judge for themselves, vs. your tests wherein you post no comparison files for others to judge by, but you simply say essentially: "I can't hear a difference, therefore I proclaim there is none - so let it be written."

Fucking hypocrite.

Note: I am not saying that you, in fact, may not have heard an audible difference in your particular tests... I'm just calling you out as a hypocrite.

Neil

[medway]

That said it is really up to the guy driving the unit.
In my case I usually use 32bit float for dance & club tracks, while I prefer to use 32bit integer for rock & pop songs and for shure for classic stuff.
Integer is a bit heavier to work on though, but it's worth it.

Nice we scoper's have an option, isn't it ?

To be honest didn't know we did have an option. The only time I've really used integer recently is with SAWStudio a few years ago which was 48bit.

[medway]

But due to capturing the mix using the STS the bounces werent exactly aligned. And I didn't hear a change anyhow so this delta doesn't seem important anyways.

Hmmm... there was a slight difference in your tests - you had to adapt something in order to get the closest to an a/b comparision you could manage, considering the different platforms; just like I did... you adapted in a different manner than I chose, yet you still adapted... and yet you have the big brass balls to accuse me of my tests being flawed, yet you proclaim yours to be accurate - my tests, wherein I also posted an example (not on this group, if any other readers are wondering) for others to judge for themselves, vs. your tests wherein you post no comparison files for others to judge by, but you simply say essentially: "I can't hear a difference, therefore I proclaim there is none - so let it be written."

Fucking hypocrite.

Note: I am not saying that you, in fact, may not have heard an audible difference in your particular tests... I'm just calling you out as a hypocrite.

Neil

Neil,

What did I adapt? I don't understand what you're referring to.

I never "accused" you. You're taking my comments way out of line.

I could post examples but whats the point. I clearly hear a difference with yours and with mine I hear none.

Jesse

[medway]

But due to capturing the mix using the STS the bounces werent exactly aligned. And I didn't hear a change anyhow so this delta doesn't seem important anyways.

Hmmm... there was a slight difference in your tests - you had to adapt something in order to get the closest to an a/b comparision you could manage, considering the different platforms; just like I did... you adapted in a different manner than I chose, yet you still adapted... and yet you have the big brass balls to accuse me of my tests being flawed, yet you proclaim yours to be accurate - my tests, wherein I also posted an example (not on this group, if any other readers are wondering) for others to judge for themselves, vs. your tests wherein you post no comparison files for others to judge by, but you simply say essentially: "I can't hear a difference, therefore I proclaim there is none - so let it be written."

Fucking hypocrite.

Note: I am not saying that you, in fact, may not have heard an audible difference in your particular tests... I'm just calling you out as a hypocrite.

Neil

Neil,

What did I adapt? I don't understand what you're referring to. I see you've quoted where I talked about capturing via the STS. That would not affect this tests as its post summing and doesn't alter the sound. It's merely a recorder. I could have captured into a DAW, same thing. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I never "accused" you. You're taking my comments way out of line. You're gettin extremely definsive over a simple little audio test.

I could post examples but whats the point. I clearly hear a difference with yours and with mine I hear none.

Jesse

[Neil]

[quote="medway] What did I adapt? I don't understand what you're referring to. I see you've quoted where I talked about capturing via the STS. That would not affect this tests as its post summing and doesn't alter the sound. It's merely a recorder. I could have captured into a DAW, same thing. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I never "accused" you. You're taking my comments way out of line. You're gettin extremely definsive over a simple little audio test.

I could post examples but whats the point. I clearly hear a difference with yours and with mine I hear none. [/quote]

OK, no more venom, I promise - you just stepped into the wrong place at the wrong time, and I'm taking it out on you (well, I took some of it out on a couple of others over on the Paris NG, too - you just came in after that part).

Quick history... first, before I got the Pulsar card, i had done a summing comparison with a Native ITB mix, a Native Stems mix (running several submixes to disk, then reimporting them into a new project, then running the 2-mix from those without changing the levels or adding any other kind of processing), and also running several analog sumbmixes out of Cubase via my Multifaces into Paris & summing it to 2-track via "Live Mode" therein... kind of in a "Dangerous 2-Buss" with a DSP back-end sorta thing) this was mainly for my own edification - I wanted to see how much of a difference there was between them, and if I liked any one version better than the other. I posted comparison files for the guys on the Paris NG & asked them which version they liked better - I didn't tell them which was which, so as not to bias anyone's opinion beforehand. Well... turns out there was no one consensus - everyone certainly heard a difference beween the three, but some picked "a" as their favorite, some picked "b", and some picked "c".

The minute I revealed which was which, some bastard accuses me of manipulatng the tests somehow, because he picked one of the non-Paris mixes & in his addled little brain he was evidently pre-convinced that Paris is superior & he could hear Paris no matter what (or whatever kind of crack he was smoking). Another guy chimes in & says that if I had "pushed Paris harder, like it was designed to be pushed" I would've gotten THAT ONE to be the one that everybody liked (it was actually more or less tied with the Native Stems version, as I recall). Then someone else brought up the fact that because I ran the submixes out of Paris via analog, it wasn't a fair test, and THAT'S why the Native Stems mix sounded better (i guess that must've been the one he picked before he knew which was which).

So I'm being disparaged for trying to educate some folks, with no agenda on my part - it was just: "Here are three things, see if you hear a difference, see if you like one better than the other, then I'll tell you what's going on with each", and I catch a bunch of shit for it.

Here the files are, if you care to hear them:

http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Nei ... 0ClipA.mp3

http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Nei ... 0ClipB.mp3

http://www.saqqararecords.com/Music/Nei ... 0ClipC.mp3


Then later, as I was making the point that you could indeed get a killer mix out a straight-up Native ITB mix, with no external summing (see? I'm NOT tied to a particular theory here - I'm just looking to improve things if summing differently does result in a sonic improvement), and that you further didn't need a half-million dollars of "veeentage" gear to do it with, I had posted segments of two songs in the same musical genre (metal-ish rock), done by the same engineer (me), both were final mixes, unmastered; one was done on PTHD and mixed through an SSL 4000 using about $50k's worth of vintage mics & preamps - all the names people drool over - a total of roughly a quarter-mil's worth of gear altogether; the other was done at my own place with about a tenth of that dollar amount's worth of gear - good stuff, but newer high-end & boutique stuff, not vintage, and mixed in Cubase, in-the-box, no external mixing or summing. Turns out a LOT of people liked the ITB mix better, some thought it was at least as good, just different, and a very scant few liked the PTHD/SL mix better. So as a reward for doing that, some fuckwad accused me of purposely making the PTHD/SSL mix sound worse... yes, indeed, that's what I did - I purposely sabotaged a mix I did two years ago, because at the time I knew I would someday post a clip for the Paris NG to hear, and I wanted my as-yet-to-be-determined comparion clip to sound better. So then when I explained to said fuckwad how this was really unlikely, if he'd only use the four or five brain cells he apparently posesses, he'd realize this.................... then at that point he says: "well, then you must not know how to use an SSL - that's the only way the other one could sound better."

FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!

OK? So you see my frustration?

That clip is here, BTW, if you care to hear it... the PTHD/SSL mix is the first segment, the Cubase/ITB mix is the back half:

**BEGIN EDIT** I need to edit this & add this comment because I had forgoten the specific clip I was referring to... This clip has four segments not two - it goes in this order:

0.00 PTHD/SSL mix
0.39 Cubase/ITB mix
1.24 PTHD/SSL Mix (different song than the 1st one)
2.13 Cubase/ITB mix (different song than the 2nd one)

I used the first two cuts because they're pretty much rockin' all the way through, and I used the back-end two cuts because they both have louder parts & also softer parts, so you get a feel or the dynamics as well.
**END OF EDIT**

http://www.saqqararecords.com/MiscAudio ... SX-ITB.mp3

I think both sound good... personally, I just like the fidelity & of the Cubase mixes better.

Anyhoo - your summing test is not a fair comparison to mine anyway, because you ran submixes in BOTH instances, and I did not - the purpose of that particular test file I ran was to determine if a summed-in-Pulsar mix would sound any different (better? worse?) than a straight-up Native ITB mix straight to 2-buss... I happen to know that running stems in Native makes a difference... check the first three clips I psoted for verification of this! One of 'em is a straight Native two-buss, and another is a Native "stems" mix (the other is the summed-in-Paris" mix) each one sounds sightly different.... BTW no limiting was applied on any of those mixes.

Finally, I would like to ask you something: the mix that you used for your summing test... was it actually something that COULD have, in fact, benefitted from a broader summing funnel? IOW, was it a big, thick, 40+-track mix? Or was it a smaller 10-12 or maybe even a 20-ish track mix? The bigger the mix, the more you'll hear a difference when you try this sort of thing... I have a mix that's a solo female voice through an E251c & six piano mics, and I can guarantee that one wouldn't sound different at all if I ran out stems, summed it straight ITB to 2-buss, or whatever other summing variance I coud concoct... at least not different enough to be able be perceived.

Neil

[medway]

Neil,

I'm actually familiar with all those other tests you did as I had gone through them before and after our exchanges. So I understand where you're coming from and I was deffinatly not trying to stir anything up with my suggestions. I too just want to know either way if a native summed mix can be as good as one done by DSP/Analog means.

As far as your question on my mix, yes it's a high track count mix. It's a dance track with loads of drums, big bass and screaming vocals. Exactly the kind of thing that could benefit from some air.

Apart from doing the mix in stems to SCOPE I also ran a saturation/compressor unit within SCOPE (slim-jim - as you might have read in one of my previous posts here) over the 4 busses. That was my attempt as a sort of dangerous 2buss thing too. It did sound nice. But in the end i actually found that the 2 bus mix within SX3, slammed just like I used to with Paris, was the loudest and cleanest.

Concerning your other tests I agree with you on your verdicts for all of them. The SSL vs SX test was very intertesting. I have had the same result with a Logic vs Neve 9098i test. DAW's can actually sound more clear, open, punchy, breathe etc...

Thanks for the clarifications,

Jesse

[medway]

Neil,

Here's another idea I just thought of. Send say 16 groups to scope (or
even more) and then strap some of these across them:

http://adern.com/manuals/flexor/referen ... ft_sat.htm

This is an addon for scope which I have, really good stuff. It inculdes as you can see about 5-6 saturation type effects. Might go towards a more Paris/Analog sound.

Jesse

[voidar]

Or even that VM-42 mixer by Shroomz.