Question for Dangerous 2Bus Users

[cebolao]

Originally posted by Lee Blaske:
To do this scientifically (making sure everything was properly calibrated) so that the results would be meaningful and incontrovertible would be extremely difficult.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">(we're talking about comparing mix with and without dangerous2buss)

if i understand well the idea behind dangerous2buss it's not difficult. you make 8 stereo (or 16 mono or some stereo and some mono) submixes in protools (these can be just one track - kick or snare for ex) and route them to 16 interface outputs, which get into dangerous2buss, which sums them one-to-one (no faders, level changes). the output gets back to protools.

just record the output, then route all submixes to output 1-2 and bouce it internally. compare the two files.

am i wrong?

[Lee Blaske]

just record the output, then route all submixes to output 1-2 and bouce it internally. compare the two files.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Calibration of output trims on your interface, choice of output reference levels, plus choice of input sensitivity levels on the way back in are added variables that will impact the sound. I would expect that how hard you slammed it would affect the character of the sound.

Lee Blaske

[cebolao]

calibrate the levels (all outputs, also those going to dangerous) and record both mixes to DAT. come on! it can be done!

[Lee Blaske]

The A to D you use to take the output of the D2B into the DAT adds another wild card. Would you use the stock converter in the DAT, or something else? That would make a difference.

There's a whole deck of wild cards as far as how people are using this product in practice. If I recall correctly, I don't believe Jules (for instance) is using a Digidesign product for D to A out of his PT rig. It could well be that the extra D/A A/D passes through whatever gear he has chosen for doing conversion is doing something to the sound that he likes. There's no way to ONLY isolate and evaluate what the D2B is doing to the sound - you're looking at the synergy between a number of elements. Go back earlier in this thread, and Jules lists some of the other equipment he patches in to get his sound. There are gain staging issues every step of the way.

Also, what would be the fairest way to do it? Assuming there are differences, would you set the mix up so that it sounded as good as possible to your ears using PT's internal bus, and then patch that mix to the D2B for comparison? Or, would you optimize your mix through the D2B first, and then repatch your mix through the PT internal bus? It seems to me that whichever one you choose to perfect the mix on first would have an unfair advantage.

Lee Blaske

[stoneinapond]

While I probably shouldn't speak for either of them, I don't think that uno and Jules are saying contradicting things. So let me take a stab at this.

You would need sixteen physical outputs from your PT system, say two 888/24. Kick and snare would come directly out of say outputs 1 and 2 on the first 888/24 and into inputs 1 and 2 of the Dangerous 2-bus. I assume the mono switch in means that each channel of the 2-bus functions as such. Then the rest of the drum kit, if is strictly a stereo track would come out of outputs 3 and 4, go into inputs 3 and 4 of the 2-bus and so on with guitars etc. If the rest of the kit had more than two tracks, and then all those tracks would be bussed to a stereo aux, which itself would be set to output on outputs 3 and 4. Same with guitars, keys and so on.

The issue of no panning most probably confuses a little, but basically if an instrument is panned say 45 degrees to the left, and you wanted it to have its own 2-bus input, you would need to output it through a pair of 888/24 outputs and into two channels of the 2-bus to retain the panned information. The reason Jules doesn’t use a master fader is that in this scenario he doesn’t need to. It would not provide any functionality at all. Everything is either direct out or bussed and then direct out.

How we doing so far? Or am I just stating the obvious.

Yorik

[Jules]

"Jules

. I think he's still using Mix equipment and hasn't moved up to HD with its improvements"

Yes

'"My memory also is that he uses quite a large arsenal of outboard analog gear in his mix process (compressors, limiters, EQ, etc.) and I would assume that in his case, the Dangerous 2 Bus really facilitates the use of those devices "

Correct

"(and since those devices are being used in the mix, the recallability most likely is not as much of an issue for him)."

Oh it's an issue all right!

"If Jules didn't have the D2B, he'd be looping a lot of equipment in and out of his interfaces."

Nope! Way too much a PITA to work that way with outboard & PT.

"At any rate, it's my impression that there are a lot of building blocks to Jules's manner of working"

Yes! Too many!

", and especially in his case, I think doing an A/B test would be next to impossible."

Not so IMHO

" I almost hate to bring this up again (sorry Jules!), but in Lynn Fuston's admittedly less than perfect test of a mix done on PT Mix and a Neve console, Jules preferred the mix done within PT."

I hereby say, with hand on heart that big band TV theme / soundtrack music where the bass drum is is almost inaudable - is not my 'thing'.

[img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

[Lee Blaske]

OK, so I got a few things wrong, but I got a number of things right. Do I get a passing grade?

Also, I'm wondering how I did on the essay part of the test. [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

BTW, for all those interested, there's a lot of interesting discussion of this going on in Nika's forum.

Lee Blaske

[teddybut]

BTW, for all those interested, there's a lot of interesting discussion of this going on in Nika's forum.
Lee Blaske

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">what is "Nika's forum"?

where?

teddybut

[tripit]

Jules, I was curious to how you monitor your mix with the D2B? Are you monitoring directly off of the D2B or off of the masterlink? Or is it routed another way?

[Jules]

While tracking I patch the (analog) stereo output of the D2B into my Pro Control monitor section, I can then flip between the large (ADAM SC4-C) and small (Ghetto blaster) monitors.

In mixdown mode where additional converter latency isn't an issue for overdubbing musicians and an accurate picture of the final master is required - it goes as so.

Stereo out of D2B
Cranesong Hedd A/D section at 24 bit 96k AES to...
Masterlink at 24 bit 96k AES out to
Cranesong Hedd D/A section at 24 bit 96k to
ProControl monitor section for the same spaker switching mentioned above.

I feel the 96k capture of the analog mix is worthwhile, who knows (!) perhaps I am generating or 'exciting' frequencies above & below the 24bit 48k range limit the PT Mix + session is set at with some of the the valve eq's I use, certainly I find the 96k master better sounding than a 44.1k master and mastering engineers appreciate it..

[img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]