mixing in the box with ACCEL better than MIX?
 

Ok, I know alot of discussions exist about this, but I have a very specific question I'm hoping some of you guys can offer your opinions about...

Put aside the better converters and the extra processing power of HD ACCEL for a second. Is there a very noticeable difference when mixing in the box between ACCEL and MIX? Has anyone actually bounced the same exact mix in both systems and compared?

Re: mixing in the box with ACCEL better than MIX?
 

Should be the same. You are using the same "engine".

Re: mixing in the box with ACCEL better than MIX?
 

The main difference as I understand it is, when your mix spans more than one mixer chip, the path from the 2nd or more mixer chips to the 'master' mixer chip is 48 bits. Where as in a Mix system, each additional chip gets truncated to 24 bits (with or without dither depending on which mixer you use). Also the system clocking is better with HD, which I don't really know if it affects internally bounced mixes. When I upgraded from mix to Accel I had mixes that I had just printed with my Mix system that I reprinted with my HD (AES to MasterLink) and there was a subtle but noticeable improvement. Better yes but not night and day.

sm

Re: mixing in the box with ACCEL better than MIX?
 

SM,

You should go back and see it the mixes cancel out, or not. After all, if you mixed and made it sound exactly the way you thought it should on a Mix system, some might think it out of line for the machine to arbitrarily make "changes" for you. The next time around, the changes may sound worse since they would be totally random in nature. I wouldn't really think of that as a feature. Or maybe it's just me...

Steve

Re: mixing in the box with ACCEL better than MIX?
 

It would have been interesting to print something without the random stuff like reverb and LFO's before I upgraded and then compared. I made the switch in one evening and comparing complete mixes was the best I could do. You could definitely hear the difference without knowing which was which.

sm

Re: mixing in the box with ACCEL better than MIX?
 

Steve is correct about the bridging chip, though this probably won't make a significant sonic difference except under extreme circumstances.

A more important improvement is simply in overall headroom. HD's headroom was drastically improved, (according to Digidesign) so it's now virtually impossible to clip the "summing section." If a summing aux is overloading, you can simply pull-down it's fader untl the red goes away, and no matter how far down you pull it, you will still have headroom. This does indeed seem to work. Also, on really hot 2-mixes, transients tend to sound cleaner (I tTHINK. Never actually did an A-B test, though.)

On Mix systems, if you keep all your faders low, this is not much of a factor, but if you tend to push your levels, this is a very big deal.

Last: I've read posts where people claim the aux sends are now truly 48 bit. I can't verify that, but it could be true. Again, this would be a VERY small sonic improvement, possibly not even audible.

-But it all adds up.

Re: mixing in the box with ACCEL better than MIX?
 

I don't exactly can technically explain but it's a matter of fact that with HD my mixes are much easier to do now than before with MIX. It's sounds much better now; I don't use much 3rd party plugins besides Digidesign plugs except when working with other systems not mine (most of the times I work with what I find on the computer of the studio), but I found that now I use much less plugs that before to do a good mix. And the plugs I use sounds better than MIX plugs.

Maybe it's my impression but my ear says it sounds better!