Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support

Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Pro Tools Software > Tips & Tricks

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-15-2001, 02:38 PM
joy4u joy4u is offline
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 390
Default Back to the quality....

As i'm not reading anymore about PT bad sound, i suppose that everyone is now satisfied...

Is the new dithered mixer and the 5.1.1 update the reason?

[img]images/icons/shocked.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/confused.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/shocked.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2001, 06:30 PM
roijin roijin is offline
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 123
Default Re: Back to the quality....

No we are just all busy still trying to get that sound [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]. After having read the huge thread on input levels I'm going back to the drawing board. I'm determined to get an internal mix that I'm saisfied with!!!
The battle continues!
Use the one with the BIG knobs!
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2001, 02:18 AM
Corey Shay Corey Shay is offline
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Orlando, FL, USA
Posts: 755
Default Re: Back to the quality....

I'm going to go out and say this...

It's the eq's. It's not the summing mixer. It's real eq's vs. plugins. It's real compressors vs. plugins. They aren't the same. They never will be the same. They CAN'T ever be the same. It's the price we pay. You put a lot of money into an eq and it should sound great. We pay lots of money for high end analog stuff. We don't pay anywhere near that much for plugins.

This isn't to say that one is better than the other, just that one will give different results than the other because one is simply reacting to voltage (sound) while the other is doing math on it. This concept cannot be escaped from.

Lately after mixing nearly exclusively in PT for 2 years, I've done a couple mixes on an SSL, and was amazed how much easier it was to get the sound I wanted using its eq's as opposed to plugins.

This is just my gut feeling on the situation, but I'm ready for the Sony eq's to blow it all away when I hear them. That seems to be what everyone is saying.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2001, 02:32 AM
Renie Renie is offline
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 394
Default Re: Back to the quality....

Hey Corey

Please post when you have heard the Sony I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.


Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2001, 09:14 AM
Nimrod Nimrod is offline
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 28
Default Re: Back to the quality....

The Oxford EQ is a massive improvement. Ihad an acoustic guitar that i wanted to improve the sound of in the mix. The high shelving filter on the oxford EQ
preset 3 which is supposed to sound like and old Neve, was just the trick, High end air with balls to the sound. The guitar just jumps out with sweet clarity. its just great. I cant wait to try the George Massenburg EQ and the compressor. It definately improves the PT sound and i would say that the PT mixer is capaable of great mixes, you have to use your ears and work differently from analogue. It is different and if you get the source sounds right with little or no plug ins you will get great mixes IMHO

James Cullen
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2001, 01:28 PM
nwilson@hns.com nwilson@hns.com is offline
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 345
Default Re: Back to the quality....

There's so much on this topic, but the facts are:

1) Digital will never be Analog - if you love analog, you need to stay analog. Digital is getting closer, but will NEVER be analog.

2) Working with analog is different then digital. Nobody should expect what sounds good recording to analog should be also expected to sound good in digital. Analog stores energy and is at the mercey of the electronics, head gap and tape - - digital is at the mercy of converters and number storage and math. It's not the same, and each needs to be treated in their own, "right" way. I don't think anyone that hates digital and PT has ever done a true apples to apples comparison. They take their hybrid and ad-hoc approach, tweak this and that and then get ****** results and then blame PT. It takes years to be good at anything (playing an instrument, painting with oils, photography, engineering). Analog is foregiving, digial is exacting, so noboby should blame PT and digital until they have spend considerable time knowing what to do... It' not the tools, it's the engineer, and don't expect to get a protools mix (with eq, comps, etc.) to sound like a SSL mix that you have done for years. They are different and the approach is different.

3) The only partialy close comparison was digi and their SSL and Oxford tests. They claim the mixer doesn't ruin the sound. They said nobody could ID which mix was which. They didn't say it sounded exactly the same, only that nobdy could tell which one was the PT and which was the Oxford or SSL. I believe them, it makes sense that both should sound good and nobody should be able to ID the differences...

I agree with Corey - - it's all about eq and everything else in a mix, like how it was recorded: was the initial recorder analog or digital... meaning if you record to analog and then dump to digital and the mix in any format - - the mix is starting with tracks that were shapped with mic selection, position, preamp selection, choice of eq curves or none, choice of comps that sounded good through the analog chain tracking to analog tape... this is way different then the same path that is needed to sound good tracking to digital.... for instance, a tube mic or ribbon may be perfect for a digital tracking, but may sound like mud when tracking to analog. I know everyone expects it to be closer, but they're different.

And it's all to do with what you do with the mix (eq, comps, phase relationships, timing, trim levels). I don't think PT's math does anything bad to the mix, but it's more of an issue of plugins, phase relationship, timing, trim and all the other issues involved with a mix....

3) I have the Sony plug-ins. They are a huge step up on helping eq's, but they aren't the same as what is needed when you want a good analog outboard box. The Sony plugs saved a totally crappy snare drum sound (drummer's striking and snare choice was awful) and made it good, but then I bussed the snare to my massive passive and got it to sound like a real snare.

Bottom line - Forget about the PT basher's. Digital takes a different approach then analog. Digital will never sound exactly like Analog, but it can sound close to analog, and it can sound very, very good if you know what to do and you approach it the right way from the start in terms of knowledge and use of the tools...
Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2001, 09:13 AM
Jules Jules is offline
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,565
Default Re: Back to the quality....

I agree on almost all points, however..

I would like to see the Golden Eared 'PT bashers' shut up - with an improved PT.

It's a bore to have your system dissed...

Personaly, I just get on and use it. I think it's a great system.

What a bonus it would be if it got better sounding!

The day all the 'you have to mix on a real desk' guys eat their words will be a happy day for me!

London, UK
Come hang with us here!
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
better quality power cable = better quality sound? dbvoyager General Discussion 22 04-15-2012 06:08 PM
Is the quality of a "ripped" AC3 good enough to lay back to HD Cam garnoil Post - Surround - Video 8 01-09-2012 02:08 PM
LE Quality compared to HD/TDM Quality dfusion 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 4 04-25-2006 06:40 AM
Digital feed back on play back after Bounce drew88 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 10 05-12-2005 01:18 PM
Converting WAV to MP3, then MP3 back to WAV...Will the quality suffer too much? Roy Howell 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 9 02-09-2002 12:51 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:38 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com