API 7800 Master as summing bus for 888's

[PeeTee]

Anybody here have experience with this unit or any master summing bus from some other console (Neve, Helios, Trident)? Instead of summing a bunch of API 7600 channel strips, could a couple of 888's be summed instead, thereby bypassing PT's internal mix bus?

http://www.apiaudio.com/7800.htm

[This message has been edited by PeeTee (edited April 05, 2001).]

[Baixo]

Boy, funny you mention this now. A friend and I were just discussing the need for this very thing

How many inputs can the API 7800 take?

Heard a rumour that Manley is building such a box...

[This message has been edited by Baixo (edited April 05, 2001).]

[Jules]

I use a mixer in my studio - a Pultec 4 into 1 valve mixer!!!
http://duc.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/smile.gif
Jules

As my only 'real mixer' I use it to sum mic's on kick drum and multi mic electric gtr set ups..

the cute little mixer idea to sum PT stems is an interesting one. Lets face it the pinnacle has to be a Neve BCM10 side car desk full of 1073's - use it to track with then mix PT stems on. 10 channels of heaven!

PT 5.1's new mixer page output options will open up the field for this sort of stuff to go on..

[Mike Tholen]

I hate with a passion the "Pro-sTools" summing!
I use a 16 channel Helios desk to track and mix with. Along with a slew of other "Real" gear.
I love Pro-sTools for it's obvious reason but, man that mixer fu#@in' SUCKS!

[PeeTee]

Baixo-
The 7800 can be expanded to a full-blown 16-channel mixer (enuff for two 888s). API even sells a 7800M which doesn't include the summing amps, but only the master, talkback, tone ect "designed for Pro Tools and similar type products."

The Manley is called the 16x2...with tubes on the master bus. I like the Manley sound, but I don't know if I like it that much as to use it across an entire mix.

Jules-
I thought you owned a BCM10. Have you had a go with one? Ever seen this beauty?
http://www.recordingconsoles.net/consoles/telefunken/mvc002s.htm

Mike-
16-channel Helios! SWEET! I'm just glad nobody mentioned SSL.

Thanks for the responses. http://duc.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/smile.gif

[Jules]

Wow! What a beast! that Telefunken is WILD looking!
No I need a few more hits before I get a Neve BCM10 !!!
I do however have 4 Helios units..

Hmmm to me the point of summing is:

To use analog gear via a patchbay

But doesn't automated moves PRE the f**king desk make a nonsence of the whole shebang? I mean it would be cool for tracks that just sit there.. but fukit I dunno , still expirementing...

last Mix:

Out of Mix buss (no plugs)
TLA EQ1 valve eq - mostly sheen and some mid balls.
into Joe Meek stereo comp
Into Cranesong Hedd
Digitaly into AD8000 adding UV 22
to DAT

Sounded cool

Jules

[PeeTee]

You can always instantiate a Ren-EQ 2-band (it dithers it's output) on each channel and use that as your channel fader for level automation. I know of a few people that do just this.

I'm still not 100% sure if the 7800 can accept 888's direct. I wish there was a picture of the back of the 7800. I emailed API, but have yet to receive a response.

[Oli P]

Interesting thread!

I have considered to get an old broadcast desk...like a Studer or NTP...or one you might never have heard of, called Torazim.

Just an 8 or 12 track desk, and use it to sum 4-6 stereo pairs out of PT.

Maybe splitting the mix up in stereo groups, like drums, basic music, vocals, strings/pads/effects/whatever....so the final summing was through the desk.
Just to take some of the load of the PT master bus, and to get the sound of the transformers and amps on these desks.
I am convinced that this would improove the sound considerable.

Done some testing, and looks really promising...but not ready to make a statement yet.

Anyone mixing in PT this way?? (with stereo pairs at unity on an analog desk, and all the automation and processing in PT)

[Mike Tholen]

I mix this way all the time With my Helios and I would highly recommend using a console to mix stems of instrument together.
I just aquired an EAB RE85 that I'm recapping and adding direct outs to.
http://www.bavodekker.com/re85.html

The Telefunken in the earlier post is a mono version of this desk.

I would like to put uptown or another moving fader system on my Helios but money is an issue. So I'm stuck with still using the fader in prostools to automate.
also check out http://www.tab-funkenwerk.com/
I wouldn't bother with woManley or Avalon when this stuff is around.
Mike

[Baixo]

I would definitely WANT the 7800 WITH the summing sections. If you wanted to do all your mixing in PT, it would have to be in stereo outs mode because of the panning. this raises an issue.

[This message has been edited by Baixo (edited April 06, 2001).]

[J Fernandez]

So which console would be the bang for the buck one?Im currently looking at the manley 16x2,any recomendations?any other killer/affordable alternatives?Budget between $3500 and $4000


[This message has been edited by J Fernandez (edited April 07, 2001).]

[Jules]

Funky Junk in the UK have a plan to market just this very API solution to Pro Tools people. Sounds to me like one doesn't need the WHOLE channel strip, just a 8 x stereo ch line mixer, possibly no faders required..
I love my API 3421 (dont have the mixer option, if I bought 3 more and added the mixer option to all of them, I could do what you guys are saying.. That would come in "in budget" for a few of you guys too I am sure..

Jules

[J Fernandez]

Hello Jules
Do you have any more info on this mixer (maybe a website)?This would be a awesome alternative to the protools bus.A 16 channel would be sweet!
Thanks

[This message has been edited by J Fernandez (edited April 07, 2001).]

[PeeTee]

http://www.funky-junk.co.uk/london/products/new/outboard/api/7800.html

Verbatim as what's on API's website:

http://www.apiaudio.com/7800.htm

Anybody here have any experience with this unit? API have yet to contact me. I'll probably give em a ring on Monday.

[Baixo]

Jules,

The concept is to use the superior automation and recallibility of PT but bypass the mixer's stereo bus, which is the cause of some sonic grief.

I've been mixing this way lately through a small Neve 8066 (at a studio, not my own) with faders at unity (20 channels or less) and the sound is vastly improved, just by having the desk sum the tracks instead. If you have a desk to use with good EQ's, you can choose to take advantage of this or not. Generally, the need to EQ is lessened by going through invididual outputs into such a desk, as mostly I EQ subtractively and often find I can bypass the plug-in EQ altogether because it sounds good.

Now most of us (myself included) can't always get access to Neve modules and desks and so using the nice EQs is generally a non-option. This is why we're looking for something that will act as a high-quality summing amp network. API's 7600/7800 series is a really cool idea and maybe it can be harnessed for this purpose. The manley looks cool, but it's got tubes in it and pots and pans, and I'm really looking for less. The Manley is 9000 bucks, when it could be 2000 without the extra features that make it a full mixer and tubes (tube gear, outside of guitar amps, is really not a big draw for me so far as *NEW* audio gear goes. M50s and C12s don't sound great because of the tubes, they sound great because they were built without cost-conciousness and from an age that wasn't market-driven).

[Fletcher]

Well Jules asked me to take a look at this, and look I did. The API 7600/7800 solution is indeed an excellent plan...only one small problem...it hasn't been released yet!!!

Yes, the 7600 has indeed won a TEC [dreck?] Award, but they have yet to ship a single unit. It's "hardware vaporware", the 7800 is even farther behind than the 7600...so I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

Don't get me wrong, I'm foaming at the mouth to get my hands on this thing as much as the next guy...hell, we're API dealers, I don't think a month has gone by in the last 18 months (since the concept's unveiling) that I haven't made an inquiry to it whereabouts/progress. I for one will be entirely psyched about it's release...but released it ain't.

Last word was perhaps over the summer, they're shooting to have them working and shipping sometime before the NY AES show.

In the meanwhile...the Manley 16x 2 rack mixer is pretty bitching for $8,500 for the "line in only version"...(I could be wrong about the price...I'm working off the top of my head, which generally isn't a good thing).

If you don't have $8,500 burning a hole in your pocket, may I humbly suggest the "Speck Electronics" mixer. It's something we've been playing around with for a while and have just approved to be added to our 'roster'.

Basically...it's a 72 input mixer without EQ/etc. (it was designed as a keyboard mixer, so it's rack mountable, and has 'pots' instead of faders). It does have several sends (i.e. effects sends) / busses...and it's around $4,500 USD (again, I'm trying to remember off the top of my head, which isn't a good thing). We should have more details on the Mercenary Audio site sometime next week...

Best of luck with your search(s)


------------------
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
mercenaryaudio.com (http://mercenaryaudio.com)

[Baixo]

Well, I never thought I'd see the day when Fletcher would grace us on a Pro Tools-related site; let the lord be praised!

Now, more on this Speck mixer! Thanks again for the API info.

[edwarden]

Go to the Speck UltraMix. The day when I received this unit, I found out how sweet and clean the signal can be. I was using 3 x Mackie 1604 mixers before I received this UtraMix from Speck Electronics. There're a lot of options to work with the ultramix like eq, another ultra mix..,etc. Go to their website and you will figure it out.
www.speckelectronics.com (http://www.speckelectronics.com)
Hope this helps ! http://duc.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/smile.gif
Originally posted by Baixo:
Well, I never thought I'd see the day when Fletcher would grace us on a Pro Tools-related site; let the lord be praised!

Now, more on this Speck mixer! Thanks again for the API info.

[J Fernandez]

Fletcher
How does the Speck compare to the Manley in terms of sound quality?The Manley looks bitchin but the price does not!! Now if it Had Pres and line levels (on all 16 channels) then i wouldnt complain.What other alternatives are there instead of the PT summing bus?My Email is [email protected] if you would like to discuss out of the post.



[This message has been edited by J Fernandez (edited April 08, 2001).]

[PeeTee]

Ok. So what's the final word on the 7800 and two 888's combination? Is it a direct connection, or do you still need to go through a bunch of 7600's or use a line mixer?
I'm sure summing 8-stereo stems from PT's is gonna sound better then mixing all channels internally on the TDM bus.

Fletcher...thanks for saving me the trouble to call API. Now we know the rest of the story... http://duc.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by PeeTee (edited April 09, 2001).]

[LarsRec]

One other option, albeit expensive, is the Millennia Mixing Suite. I'm using 6 stereo modules that have a bypass switch that allows the signal to be routed directly to the stereo bus. The mixer is profoundly quiet and clean. Tom Jung and Telarc use this mixer for DSD recordings and it's compatible withthe Massenburg modular system. Millennia makes a passive stereo input module with no pan or faders. You can see it at mil-media.com

[Axis Audio]

Here is another interesting option. I have a new Control 24 which has an 8 stereo pair submixer section built in as a standard feature. I cannot yet vouch for its sonic properties when it comes to the summing amp since I have not sprung for the DB 25 snakes for that feature of the console. Is it possible that this 16 x 2 submixer could sound better than the PT mix buss? Probably not.. but it might be worth a try since the feature is sitting there looking lonely at this point. :0)

Barry
Axis Audio

[blairl]

When I read this thread I end up asking myself, WHY? Why go to all the trouble? Why convert to analog to sum your mixes? And finally, what is wrong with the Pro Tools mix bus? Use your own ears, don't listen to what the next guy says, (including me). Why has it become so important to go analog to sum? If you are looking to get away from quantization errors which is probably one of the major causes of "thin" sounding mixes, then by going analog you are only increasing the quantization error even further. If you just happen to like the sound of the analog circuits and are not worried about the rise in quantization noise, then that's another thing. Everyone has their own likes and dislikes. That's understandable.

I bought a well known CD that was recorded using Pro Tools. When I listened to it, I was shocked at how bad it sounded. I wondered why. In the end I found out that it was mixed with an analog console, not entirely within Pro Tools. There's another forum going on somewhere about the new Aerosmith CD that was recorded in Pro Tools and mixed on an SSL 9000. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/Forum17/HTML/000781.html Some of the comments as to the bad sound of that CD were pointing towards the 9000 as the cause. I haven't heard the CD so I can' t comment. On the other hand, I have heard some great sounding CD's that were mixed entirely within Pro Tools. (I've also heard some garbage). In the end, I think it's the guy behind the controls that's going to be the deciding factor, so I don't buy all of these comments about the sound of the Pro Tools mix bus.

If you would like me to go into detail as to why this solution may cause more problems than mixing entirely within Pro Tools, then I will. If not, just tell me to go away. http://duc.digidesign.com/ubb/images/icons/smile.gif



[This message has been edited by blairl (edited April 09, 2001).]

[Kenny Gioia]

It may be the nut behind the wheel but most of us are comparing our mixes with our mixes.

I don't A/B my mixes against other Pro Tools records.

I've been A/Bing my Pro Tools mixes against my SSL mixes. I'm sorry but the SSL sounds better. Oh Well

[rob1]

Blair-

Please tell us more.

-Rob

[Erik H]

Very timely thread.

What would you guys recommend, if I were looking for a 'minimalist' analog mixing desk with mute and fader (not VCA) auto?

No doubt the Speck/Manley/API things are all workable if all you wanna do is sum a static mix. I'd rather not have to do my rides in PT though, which means more of a 'real' console I guess.

Anyone know if the Millennia Mixing Suite can be fitted with moving fader packs?

[PeeTee]

You can still do your rides with Ren-EQ2's instantiated on each channel...it dithers it's output. I mentioned this solution above.

[This message has been edited by PeeTee (edited April 09, 2001).]

[COCO]

anybody tried a Daking sidecar?

[PeeTee]

The Daking sidecar with master section is $30k. For that price, you can get a whole lot more.

[Jules]

Pee Tee - whats the point fading a signal in PT if you have an insert accrosss (like a compressor0 it on your analog 'summing' console? A fade in PT will f***k the compression up!

Jules

[LarsRec]

Eric,
The Mixing Suite can be fitted with an external fader pack. I'm currently doing that with mine, non-automated, to do live to 2 track mixes. Automation can be done by Uptown and several others.

[bonneybear]

Im checking out this " Quad Eight" console for this mix purpose and also for tracking.Its much like an API in looks, seperate modules for eq. mic pre, etc. other than hear say I've never heard one. Anyone have any experience with these Quad Eight desks. Dean Jensen owned the company so good transformers it has. Other than that Im stumped..

[PeeTee]

Jules...i'm not talking about huge fades...just tiny movements to tweak a vocal track or something.
Lay off the caffeine. hehe

[Erik H]

PeeTee- I did catch your suggestion re: using RenEQ as a dithered gain controller within PT. Cool idea, but as Jules alluded to above, one of my goals is to be able to use outboard comps, EQ, etc. in the analog domain... and doing rides in PT will mess up the outboard compression.

LarsRec- can you talk a bit more about your experiences with the Millennia mixer? If I added Uptown faders, would that make it enough of a "real" board to become my main desk in a busy mixing situation? For the price of a 24ch Mixing Suite w/ fader auto, I can get into a used Neotek or D&R or something... and pretty soon you're talking about a real console for that kind of money. I just wonder if the rep for Millennia transparency etc. is really worth it......?

I'm looking at a used Euphonix in a couple days. Nice board, but kinda overkill for what I need, which is basically just an audiophile signal path with automatible faders.

If anyone else has any other console suggestions I'd love to hear 'em.

[Baixo]

Hey Jules, The idea is NOT to have insert points in the analogue section, rather, a more minimalist approach. You're right; a gain drop would screw up a compression setting. If you needed analogue compression, use an insert in PT's mixer.

I'm interested in Blairl's thoughts. He's always a voice of reality, and I for one welcome his opinions. However, I know from experience what a little analogue summing did for a couple of album projects, which is to say, helped very much.

[J Fernandez]

What about something like the Fatso on the 2 bus?Is it going to make a diffrence?

[blairl]

OK, Some people happen to like the sound of analog circuits and for this reason use analog consoles. Some people like digital consoles. I understand that this is all a matter of taste. I'll just post another viewpoint.

Many people have commented on the sound of the Pro Tools mix bus. There are two things to consider here. First is quantization error. Some people believe that something that may cause "thin" sounding mixes is this distortion or quantization error. If you mix entirely within Pro Tools then the mixer maintains the quantization at 48 or 56 bits and then rounds it to 24 bits at the final stage. This produces a quantization error at this level which is about -144 dbFS. I'm only talking about the faders. The different plug-ins and effects sends are another story. (This may be why using plug-ins that dither or noise shape the output seem to sound so good, the dither eliminates the quantization error. Some of these are Waves and McDSP). Anyway -144 dbFS is way down there and it's arguable that it won't interfere with the final output. However if you decide to run direct out to an analog console where each channel bypasses the internal 2 bus then something different happens. Each and every output is truncated. Instead of doing all of the calculations and saving them for one final truncation from 48 to 24 bits at final output, direct out mode requires that each and every output be truncated. Every time a signal is doubled the level will rise by 3 db, so for a 64 track session running out to an analog console the quantization noise floor will be at -126 dbFS instead of -144 dbFS if you were to mix within Pro Tools. Granted -126 dbFS is also way down there, but people seem to be afraid that the more channels used in Pro Tools, the worse it sounds. I'm just saying that this cumulative quantization distortion that may be affecting the sound is actually worse if you use direct out mode to an external analog or digital console than if you were to just use the interal Pro Tools mixer. If you were to use various stems instead of the full 64 channel out then the quantization noise would be less, but still more than a completely internal Pro Tools mix. The only way that this wouldn't be a factor at all is if you were to leave all of the faders at 0 and not do any automation at all within Pro Tools. As long as the faders remain at 0 then no quantization distortion will be introduced. But that makes a full blown Pro Tools mix plus system a prety extensive hard disk recorder. You can buy a RADAR or Mackie, Tascam etc. for much less. I understand however that Pro Tools would have an advantage over these because of the editing and plug-in factors, but unless you use plug-ins that dither their ouput, quantization distortion will also be introduced.

Another thing that people think may cause cumulative sound degradation within Pro Tools is the headroom. The more channels added, the more the mix bus is taxed. Some people think that with many channels this may be too much for the Pro Tools mix bus which may be causing some overload. There are ways to deal with this. Roger Nichols explained it best:
As with any time you mix multiple tracks together there can be headroom problems. If you are using an analog console you can get into a situation where you have to pull the master fader down because of the addition of all of the individual tracks. To get the master fader back up, you have to pull down all of the individual faders an equal amount to enable you to get the master
fader back up where it belongs. The exact same thing happens in Pro Tools or any digital console. If every track you have is
recorded with dense information slamming the top of the meters, then you can't have all of the track faders at zero for your mix. You will have to pull them down to some reasonable level so that the mixed signal is at a reasonable level.
1) Use the 24 bit mixer. It provides more headroom for large track counts.
2) Don't pull the master fader down more than 10 dB. If you need to pull it lower, then trim all of your track faders.
3) watch for overs on the master fader. If there are no overs, then there is no headroom problem.
I have been mixing Pro Tools sessions with 48 to 120 tracks of instruments and have never had a problem that Couldn't be remedied by one of the above points.

This is a great tip to keep your Pro Tools mixes sounding great.

Another consideration is just the fact that multiple A/D and D/A conversions can degrade the sound quality. Even Fletcher who is a strong proponent of analog said this:

The projects that I have worked on that have been stored in the digital domain, once it gets there, I prefer to stay there. As far as I can tell, no possible good can come from leaving the digital domain, converting to analog, adding a piece of processing or two, then going back to the digital domain.

Back to my original point. Some people happen to like the sound of analog circuits and for this reason use analog consoles. We can see opinions all over the place that claim analog is superior to digital. It's my opinion that so many people that get into the business are not using their ears, but only listening to the opinions of others. When they read all over the place that analog is superior and digital sucks then some people just go along with it. I just want people to use their ears and decide for themselves. So just for the sake of another view I though I'd remind people that there are also some pro digital arguments out there. When George Massenburg was asked about his view on the SSL 9000J and the AMEK 9098i he said the following:
Overall, I want to say that anyone spending this kind of money on large frame analog desks in the year 2000 should have their heads examined. (I should put it far more kindly, of course, but I'm late for class.) Neither of these consoles really does resetability effectively, and I believe in my heart and my mind that mixing in the next few years is going to DEMAND instant, RELIABLE resettability. I like digital desks...Frankly, most who complain about digital desks not having 'feel' or 'sound' that analog desks supposedly do are babies who've grown used to Pablum audio for too long...

George Massenburg was asking an engineer in the Japanese music market about consoles in Japan where the SSL 9000 reigns supreme:
David, I have a question. In my opinion the Oxford is by far the best digital console I've heard and the most capable that I've interfaced with. Why...don't the Japanese get it? Why are 9000's still the only choice? Even Sony Music is getting custom-built analog desks (and alot of them at that) and avoiding Oxford altogether. Frankly, I'm stunned with the complete lack of sensitivity to sound, and the over-emphasis on "what he's doing". You've heard mainstream Japanese pop music on the radio; much of it is pathetic...

Oli P who posts a lot on the DUC had this experience:
I just got a test CD from mastering of an album I mixed in various rooms (SSL and Euphonix and at home on PT), and the PT mix was probably the best sounding.

He further explained his techniques and comparisons by saying:
The mix bus on an SSL has a lot of headroom, so if you compare your PT mix bus (on two faders on the SSL) with sendning all the tracks individually to the SSL faders, you won't do PT justice. The level out from PT will seem veak compared to the level you are used to push the SSL with.

The real comparison is to bring a 24bit master from PT to mastering along with an SSL master, and compare what you can get the final result to sound like.

Many people have mixed great sounding albums all within Pro Tools and have not experienced a sound quality degradation that has been refered too. One comparison that many may be familiar with is a test that was done at Mick Guzauski's studio where all other things being equal he and others there could not identify a difference between the Pro Tools mix bus and the Sony Oxford mix bus.

Roger Nichols has also mixed successfully within Pro Tools. When questioned about the quality of the Pro Tools mix bus he said:
I have used the Oxford many times also. And the Capricorn. Mixed albums on both of them. Sometimes from Sony 3348-HR, sometimes from ProTools feeding each channel
directly. The reason for doing that is because of the EQ and compression and 7000 inputs you get with a large console. At home I am using 2 Sony DMX-R100s.

I got out my SIM machine and Audio Precision and made sure that there was no difference
between what came out of the ProTools mix bus and the other digital consoles. The data
was the same...

Also there is a difference between listening to ProTools in your home studio and then
listening through an Oxford in a multi-million dollar control room. The mixes will ALWYS sound better in the tuned control room with $40,000 monitors. You cant tell me that the guy was in the Oxford control room looking at his ProTools screen and tried mixing the record with a mouse in ProTools while listening to the expensive monitors above the Oxford. Only I would do something like that.

Also in the listening process there is the level matching to deal with. If you listen to a mix from ProTools and then listen to the mix through the Oxford... If the Oxford is 0.1dB louder, it will sound better. Louder always sounds better.

If you would rather, you can mix your
records your way, afraid of bottom bits getting cut off when you turrn the level down 6dB,and that you must mix your ProTools through an Oxford. I, on the other hand, armed with the correct information about how this stuff works, will avoid the bad things and work with the good things and continue to make great sounding records...

Roger

Even the infamous Bob Ludwig has had some pleasant things to say about Pro Tools as you can read in the digi propoganda:

Although Ludwig was initially skeptical of projects mixed entirely within Pro Tools, he has recently warmed up to the idea. "Over the last couple of months, I've had projects come in completely in Pro Tools, as opposed to mixed on a (Neve) Capricorn or (Sony) Oxford, and the quality was so good I couldn't believe it," he beams. "It led me to believe that it certainly can be done."

Anyway this is way too long so I'll quit. I'm just saying that many very respectable people do not have a problem with digital consoles or the Pro Tools mix bus. Again I do understand that some people just happen to like the way analog consoles sound, everyone has an opinion and that's great. I just want people to use their own ears and make their own decisions, like many of you here have already done. The idea that analog is superior to digital and that digital sucks just doesn't seem like a valid argument to me. They are just different. And many people are mixing successfully within Pro Tools.




[This message has been edited by blairl (edited April 11, 2001).]

[LarsRec]

Eric,
With ProTools I use the Mixing Suite primarily as a summing bus and effects router. I do primarily acoustic jazz recording and noticed the "congested" kind of effect that digital summing seems to have, especially when summing multiple, busy tracks. Using the Millennia seems to open up the mixes and alleviates some of the headroom problems I had with ProTools (and a previously owned O2R.)
I generally setup stereo submixes for drum elements, bass, piano, horns, vocals, etc and send those out through Apogee or RME convertors. I ride the levels in ProTools using its automation. These stems are then summed to stereo in the Millennia and almost always travel through a Massive Passive EQ, then to 1/2 inch or a Masterlink.
I have not had problems with combining smaller numbers of tracks in ProTools and do not hear degradation in making level changes digitally (See Roger Nichols opinions about this) versus doing it in the analog world. The mixes are rich and clear and the clients and I are happy. I also love the mixer for location recording and the external fader pack will make that process a lot easier.
Part of this whole discussion reflects our preferences and work habits rather than pure sonic integrity but I think I can hear a difference. At least if the mix sucks I know I can't blame my equipment!

[Jules]

For a long time I found myself happy working like this with analog.

record tracks eq'ing & compressing
At mixdown add sheen & sub bass (if required) by strapping a high quality stereo eq accross the mix buss, then a compressor.


I have just discovered that I like to do this in PT too!

Record all tracks, buss out mix to analog eq & perhaps compressor. then via cranesong Hedd then UV22 then to DAT.

I plan to get a 96k Hedd & a Masterlink sometime soon..

I have found this 'self mastering sheen" or polish is the way to go for me.

BIG QUESTION! If I am sending 24 bit 44.1 material out of PT converters... say into a valve eq & compressor.... is there any info 'up there' WORTH PICKING UP at the 96k resolution? (I belive there must be overtones & besides 96 k is a better conversion...)

[tnie]

blairl,

I run Pro-tools through a V3 and mixes always sound better and not as thin. Roger Nichols ..........last CD he mixed? Doesn't he write for mix mag and his word is gospel? Don't you just love the sound of MP3's? Well, Roger Nichols says....he also has stock in the company....

If your so smart... why do 90% mix through a console and why are people recording in pro-tools then dumping to a 24 track and mix from a analog console? Maybe there not listening to you or Rogers Propoganda:
I HAVE MY OWN MIND AND MY OWN OPINION!!!!!!!!!! Good sales pitch for DIGI........

[Baixo]

Thanks to blairl for good and very valid information and comments. I, too, have mixed in Pro Tools with very respectable results, but I haven't had the same luck with everything. I do think the monitoring system/room design will (as Roger says) make any mix you do on that system sound better than others.

I, like many of us, am not a complete unbeliever in PT's mixing capabilities. After working for a week mixing a project in PT, I started a new project in a small studio with excellent room design. I had a day off and threw up the old sessions in there, to compare the mixes (that were done elsewhere). I did some rough mixes in that room (an hour a piece, through a desk) that were far superior to the ones I did previously. Is it the room? I know that All the plug-in EQ I needed became unnecessary going through the desk, and the 1073 EQs, when needed, yielded a better tone. I cut down my need for EQ by 2/3.

Now, had I NOT gone direct outs mode into the desk and just did it directly in PT in the nice room, would I have noticed/cared about the difference? I honestly can't say. I'd like to think it would've solved the problem of the original mixes. I do know what I heard, however, and it worked in this situation anyway.

I don't get a lot of time to do A/B comparisons that do justice to either party. I can only rely on what I learn from experience. If time and money weren't an issue, I'd experiment more on my client's dime, but that can't happen.

I WANT to mix in Pro Tools. I like resettability and automation! Perhaps the money one would spend on doing it in a great room seems wasted by not using the desk...

[blairl]

Originally posted by Tom N:
blairl,

I run Pro-tools through a V3 and mixes always sound better and not as thin. Roger Nichols ..........last CD he mixed? Doesn't he write for mix mag and his word is gospel? Don't you just love the sound of MP3's? Well, Roger Nichols says....he also has stock in the company....

If your so smart... why do 90% mix through a console and why are people recording in pro-tools then dumping to a 24 track and mix from a analog console? Maybe there not listening to you or Rogers Propoganda:
I HAVE MY OWN MIND AND MY OWN OPINION!!!!!!!!!! Good sales pitch for DIGI........
If you read my post carefully you will see that I understand that people have their own opinions and that some people just like the sound of analog consoles. I was just offering an alternate view. In the end people should decide for themselves what sounds best for them. Roger Nichols was only one of several people that I quoted. There were several opinions. I don't want people to take my word or your word as what SHOULD be done. Everyone should listen for themselves. I'm just posting and alternate view. No offense intended to anyone.

[Baixo]

Blairl wrote:

Every time a signal is doubled the level will rise by 3 db, so for a 64 track session running out to an analog console the quantization noise floor will be at -126 dbFS instead of -144 dbFS if you were to mix within Pro Tools. Granted -126 dbFS is also way down there, but people seem to be afraid that the more channels used in Pro Tools, the worse it sounds. I'm just saying that this cumulative quantization distortion that may be affecting the sound is actually worse if you use direct out mode to an external analog or digital console than if you were to just use the interal Pro Tools mixer.

Using both "Noise" and "Distortion" interchangeably to both speak about Quantization Error can be confusing.

Since quantization error is, in fact, distortion and not noise ("quantization noise" as a phrase or concept has no meaning) because quantization error is *correlated*, how can it build up cumulatively? Noise, is by definition, uncorrellated, thereby making it possible to add in such a way. This just occurred to me after reading your post because the error can't really be doubled (or more) in the strictest sense because it's different for each signal. Or can it?

I'm not being critical of your post at all, I'm more interested in learned discourse. In light of the above, how does this affect the QD issues in the PT Mix Bus?

[Baixo]

Here's another one for you who remember the great "Pro Tools Sound Quality???" post of yesteryear:

Does Mixer B work under 5.1?

This discussion has got me thinking up ways to experiment with this issue in a way that all other factors will be equal (room, monitoring etc.).

[blairl]

You're right, let's put it this way: Quantization error causes distortion; at the 24 bit level this distortion is audible at about -144 dbFS. Quantization distortion is not the same as something like white noise. If you boost the signal high enough to hear it you'll notice that it is completely dependent on the source material and is corelated with the source material from each individual track. If you use direct out mode then the distortion from each output will be uncorelated with the distortion from every other output, so in this sense it is uncorelated. However, the distortion is all over the place and not constant like white noise for example, so there's no real way of measuring it consistently. At certain points in the song it is exactly the same as other signals so it can be cumulative. The actual sound of the distortion is the same for each source, but it is happening at different times in different places depending on the original source so the cumulitive level is constantly varying. The 3 db for every signal doubling is a general rule for constant noise. This is my understanding anyway.

[This message has been edited by blairl (edited April 12, 2001).]

[blairl]

I haven't installed 5.1 yet. Is it a fact then that Mixer B will not work with 5.1? If not then I hope that digi will consider making a dithering mixer available.

I have coresponded in great length with Paul Frindle one of the main designers of the Sony Oxford about dither in a digital console as well as Stanley Lipschitz the father of DSP, and could offer some legitimate reasons to do this in the PT mixer. Is anyone at digidesign interested in hearing this point of view? If you don't want to discuss it here you can e-mail me.

[Dead Space]

blairl,

I can't speak for Digi, but I know that I, as well others, would like to hear what you have learned.

Share your info here. Public knowledge and opinion seem to be very effective in eliciting a response from the powers that be.

[Haddock]

Another option is to purchase one or more AMEK driver in a box units. Each unit takes up one rack space and can be wired to sum all the channels to a stereo bus. However, each unit is about 3 grand, and gives you 8 channels to work with. You can purchase as many of these units as you like to expand the number of input channels you can sum.

[Jules]

I still belive 4 x 4 mic pre units from API (3421M) with the mixer option could be summed to one stereo out..
patch bay could come into play somehow with inserts???
That might rock!
Jules