Pro Tools 5.1: Does it sounds better? TRUE OR FALSE???

[joy4u]

It's incredible, someone says PT 5.1 sounds better, some other says there is no difference!
We are speaking about a music industry tool, not a freudian phillosophy!
PLEASE DIGIDESIGN: i can't believe that you made a VERY IMPORTANT AND DISCUSSED enhancement to your flagship product.....without claiming anything, no advertising, nothing....

My clients want to know if now their music could sound better in my studio, because if not, they could say "ok, now i made much money with my last album, and for my next album i want more quality and i will book an Euphonix or Capricorn suite!!!!! bye bye).

So, if Digi is not able to state if PT 5.1 sounds better, please, is out there a World Class Engineer (Bob, Bruce, Bob, and many others) that can compare them and publish a report?
Thanks

[mike connelly]

Why don't you run the exact same mix on both 5.0.1 and 5.1 and see if the files null? (of course not using reverbs or other plugs that have random elements)


Mike

[Zeus]

Mike, which TDM plug-in reverbs do have random elements? Not the Waves ones...I always loved the sound of the Lexicon 300, which has a completely random output, but I do not have one at disposal anymore!

[666]

Zeus,
i think that "random elements" is intended that if you record 100 times a SD with reverb , there will no matematical equal result, every tiime the samples will be slightly different, because reverberation is calculated on a "driven randomness".

------------------
somewhere in the planet

[uno1234]

Why don't you do a mix on each system and just LISTEN?

Then report back.

[KJones]

Sounds better to me.
More depth - clearer
Digi rep told me they reworte the whole stereo bus code for 5.1 but didn't know why or if sounded better.
The quality of the stereo buss and it's ability to compete with more traditional mixing platforms (anologe-SSL's, Neve...) is a hot debate. Digi has defended the quality of its stereo bus in some very long and heavy treads ever since the mix+ hit and people actually had enough power in a PT system to attempt full blown mixes. So it is my suspicion that Digi is not making a big deal over improvments in this area to avoid a backlash of "I told you so's & I knew its"
I think it a good strategy for Digi to quitely keep making improvements to the mix buss and the over all sound of their product and let the word spread on the street rather than boast that it sounds better than before when they said it sounded good (enough) in the first place.
The summing of tracks and the performance of th mix buss in PT (even with this improvement )is still, I think your/my biggest concern and challange in a PT mix.
Digi's Achilles Heal!?
It's defiantly better - can it compete?
I think Digi's leaving that for you/us to decied.

[blairl]

Dave LeBolt head of product development at digidesign said:

the mixer for stereo stuff is unchanged between v5.0.1 and v5.1 ("24-bit optimized" is the same). The mixer for surround (mixing paths greater than stereo) is new, but I don't believe that there's a performance improvement (there is not architectural change I'm aware of). The surround mixer is not used when you're working in stereo, so if people are commenting on the sound when mixing to a stereo bus, there would not be a difference.

Here are some facts: Mick Guzauski owns an Oxford. He and some other folks compared the mix bus in Pro Tools to the Oxford mix bus and could not tell the difference. Roger Nichols "the grammy guy" who has mixed several albums all in Pro Tools was asked about the Pro Tools mix bus and 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.

Now, it is possible for Digi Plug-ins to have bugs, or to create asymetrical waveforms or rounding errors that contribute to what you hear.

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.

...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. I have been working with digital audio since 1968 and have been recording digital audio to hard disk since 1978. Except for some theoretical physicists who may be listening, that puts me way ahead of the game as far as experience with digital audio. I learned by making mistakes and asking for help when I needed it. There are lots of opinions out there on the merits of one converter or recording console over another, but there are standard accepted answers to how they are made and how they work.

You can like one over the other because you prefer some feature, but that doesn't mean that everyone will like the one you picked or that they are wrong because they didn't pick your choice.

There's a lot of hype out there from all angles. Use your ears. Don't let hype and rumors take over the recording and mixing process. In the end the hype gets back to the clients and they tend to believe anything they hear. "You have to mix on an SSL or an Oxford for it to sound good." Mixes done in Pro Tools can sound great. It's the guy behind the controls, and the tools (preamps, plug-ins, outboard etc...)he/she chooses. A few years ago a "wise old guy" told me, "Don't believe anything you hear and only believe half the things you read." Use your own ears to discern audio quality.

By the way, if you like that analog sound, McDSP is working on a plug-in that emulates analog tape and analog mixing console sounds. I hear it works great.

[This message has been edited by blairl (edited March 07, 2001).]

[Eric Bazilian]

quote-

"By the way, if you like that analog sound, McDSP is working on a plug-in that emulates analog tape and analog mixing console sounds. I hear it works great."

I'm looking forward to checking this out. I've been a big fan of the DuY Tape sim plug for a long time and will continue to use it, but I'm also a big fan of Colin's and I'm confident he'll impress us with all kinds of modeling magic. Ah, the glory that is Pro Tools...

------------------
Eric Bazilian/The Mousetrap
"Music Is Good"

[This message has been edited by Eric Bazilian (edited March 07, 2001).]