> At 19:39 Uhr -0800 29.03.2004, Carlos Boll wrote: >> The best thing I've found is to do the summing outside the computer. >> The Dangerous Music 2-Bus (http://www.dangerousmusic.com/2bus.html) >> is amazing. Everything sounds much more life-like with lots of >> depth. The downshot, and additional expense, is that you need a >> multi-channel DtoA. > > As I've stated earlier, I think the most clever solution to this is > the Metric Halo MonileIO 2882 or the smaller ULN-2. > With the MIO I'm getting 9 stereo masters that then get mixed on the > MIO and sound way more lively than anything I've heard Logic do. > Cheers > Hans I would second that!! No further D/A + A/D conversions and no voodoo either! The MIO Console Application has 80 bit resolution and thanks to the sterling efforts of BJ and his team much better code implementation than Logic: more accurate math=less denigration when summing = better sounding result. [Logics out's set to unity gain] Also, The converters/internal circuitry of the 2882/ULN-2 give stunning results for monitoring (Software monitoring in Logic disabled so using Metric Halo's driver [also an improvement IMO]) which gives a more accurate impression of what you 'have' which, for me, leads to better mix decisions. Metric Halo's customer support also puts others to shame... regards Cris

> The MIO Console Application has 80 bit resolution and thanks > to the sterling efforts of BJ and his team much better code > implementation than Logic: more accurate math=less > denigration when summing = better sounding result. [Logics > out's set to unity gain] Also, The converters/internal > circuitry of the 2882/ULN-2 give stunning results for > monitoring (Software monitoring in Logic disabled so using > Metric Halo's driver [also an improvement IMO]) which gives a > more accurate impression of what you 'have' which, for me, > leads to better mix decisions. Can I just be clear on this. Are some people saying that digital summing performed by one application sounds better than when performed by another application? There have been numerous scientific tests undertaken, which have categorically confirmed that digital summing (unless broken in the application) sounds identical in all the major hosts. The only marginal differences occur when one host uses a dithered mixer, where another may not. Even then it's only an issue when bit depth is being changed for processing, and therefore primarily only when plugins are being used. Aside from that (leaving plugins themselves out of the mix) there are NO differences. Digital summing is maths, not some kind of mysterious art-form. If some audio card console makes things sound better than Logic (without passing audio through any additional hardware), then either Logic's summing is broken (which when last tested, it most definitely wasn't), or whichever console or other application is adding some kind of artificial processing as part of the summing process. Sorry, but I'm just waiting for somebody to pop up and shout "why does ProTools sound better than Logic, even through the same hardware?" !!! Amazing how the same old myths are able to self perpetuate .... Jules

<quotes trimmed by admin> > Can I just be clear on this. Are some people saying that digital summing > performed by one application sounds better than when performed by another > application? In my work with all the major recording apps I have found each to have a slightly different sound on playback of the same audio (with identical audio hardware/converters) but all create identical files when digitally summing. judson_________________ Judson Crane Composer . Fluid NYC www.fluidny.com

At 15:11 Uhr +0100 31.03.2004, Jules Bromley wrote: >There have been numerous scientific tests undertaken, which have >categorically confirmed that digital summing (unless broken in the >application) sounds identical in all the major hosts I said this earlier related to something else, personally (!!) I don't care about the theory really, I just trust my ears (which may or may not be right, but they are the only reality that I can really deal with!) >Amazing how the same old myths are able to self perpetuate .... Again, I though Logic was fine, but when I started mixing on the MIO all of a sudden my reverbs had depth (I use one separate master for the reverbs) and also as soon as I move a piano part away from the drums , both of them sound better. And yes, I do not use any FX on the masters themselves! Cheers and good night Hans

On 04-03-31 23.53, "Hans Hafner" <hanshafner@...> wrote: > Again, I thought Logic was fine, but when I started mixing on the MIO > all of a sudden my reverbs had depth (I use one separate master for > the reverbs) and also as soon as I move a piano part away from the > drums , both of them sound better. And yes, I do not use any FX on > the masters themselves! > > Cheers and good night > Hans My experiences with my new RME Multiface are similar to Hans. The same mix sounds better when distributing used busses to 18 outputs and re-recording digitally over RME S/PDIF to a 24 bit stereo file. This file is then dithered to 16 bits and given a careful "mastering" treatment. I'm comparing this to my old way which was to route used busses to one Logic output, apply the carful mastering treatments there and bounce to a 16 bit file. When listening back to the two 16 bit files on an audio cd the RME summing method sounds better to me. I don't have the time, knowledge or interest to discuss it by any technical means. If it sounds good is good :-) Best wishes Per Boysen (Digital Voodoo Logician) -- www.boysen.se www.looproom.com

<quotes repositioned by admin> "Jules Bromley" <jules@t...> wrote: > > Can I just be clear on this. Are some people saying that digital summing > performed by one application sounds better than when performed by another > application? I'm curious from a mathematical perspective about performing compression or reverb on individual tracks and then summing the tracks via bouncing compared against summing the tracks and adding the same effect to the master channel in a bounce. If the effects were linear, then one would expect the same result. But if the effects are non-linear then one would not necessarily expect the same result. My impression is that compression is linear in the logarithmic domain. I'm not sure about reverb. Yet wouldn't digital summing be in the linear, not logarithmic domain? A related question: all other parameters constant, would two compressions of ratio 2 (audio track and master) be equivalent to one compression of ratio 4? Cheers, Larry

>> > > I'm curious from a mathematical perspective about performing > compression or reverb on individual tracks and then summing the tracks > via bouncing compared against summing the tracks and adding the same > effect to the master channel in a bounce. If the effects were linear, > then one would expect the same result. But if the effects are > non-linear then one would not necessarily expect the same result. My > impression is that compression is linear in the logarithmic domain. > I'm not sure about reverb. Convolution is always linear so if you're using Space Designer for reverb that would be linear. Matthew

> There have been numerous scientific tests undertaken, which have > categorically confirmed that digital summing (unless broken in the > application) sounds identical in all the major hosts. Bosh! Flimshaw! There are also scientific tests which show that Mackie pre's are more accurate than other questionable brands such as API and Neve, yet for some odd reason I went with API ; ) I am assuming the tests you're talking about took a few files, panned center, at unity gain, and summed them? This approach is technically accurate, scientifically valid, and utterly irrelevant to realworld use, so while it proves a certain point, it also demonstrates that perhaps that's not the point. For starters, Logic uses a different panning law than DP (6db down at center as opposed to 3.5db, but don't quote me). This gives Logic's mixes a potentially wider sound because it's dropping the levels on your center-panned tracks more than DP. As soon as you start panning, you end up with different summed files. For most people I have to assume that, in a discussion around 'digital summing' in one app versus another, they're talking about taking a lot of tracks, each of which has a lot of processing and fader changes, and putting them together in the box. That's nearly, if not totally, impossible to compare scientifically from one app to the next because you'll be using different plugs and different panning laws. Which puts us back in a place where all you have, all that really matters, is how easily you can achieve the results you're after in a given app, and how good it sounds to you. Wholly unscientific? I hope so, because while the mechanisms under the hood are mathematical, what we do with them is art and art is not beholden to anything but itself. This is not unlike the '3D Pre CD' which purports to compare all these different pre's scientifically, and at the end of the day all you know is how they sound on different performances of one or two sources in one specific room. Thank god for science! Don't be afraid to vibe it, people. Use your gut, trust your insincts, the hell with anybody who tries to undermine that. Truth is vastly overrated and very dimly lit. IMO ; ) Respectfully, u b i k