Dangerous Music 2-Bus LT question

[bruceup]

I've just taken delivery of a 2-Bus LT for my HD-3 system, and having been a 'bounce to disc' person in the past, was wondering how some of you out there are recording your final mixes with these things(whether going back into Pro Tools or into DAT decks or whatever). I'd like to try patching the 2-Bus' stereo master out back into my 192 i/o, but was wondering if I'd do better to get a PSX-100 or some other high-end 2-channel a/d to take advantage of my new and improved analog summing bus. Obviously, with this setup, simultaneous 2-mix monitoring(with any multi-band limiting or goodies)is impossible, as I'd have to mute the stereo mix while recording and then listen afterwards.

How are some of the rest of you treating the end of your mix chain with a Dangerous Music 2-bus?

[kenn.michael]

Congrats on your D2B!!! I love mine! I have the stereo outs of my D2B going to a hardware L2 running at 96K, and then AES out of the L2 into a Masterlink.

[[email protected]]

I've been using a DBLT for a couple of weeks and still in the trial and testing phase. I'm not sure analog summing is better in all cases over in the box digital, but I am sure that getting to final mixes seems to go much quicker when using stems and separate outputs. I think the middle of the stereo field is more open (PT sounds different in the middle - not that this is a bad thing, just different) and there's more open space left to right, back and front to help with the dimensional aspect.

At first, I was reaching to the conclussion that the DBLT versions sounded much better, but then when I spent some time on one track, going back and tweaking the "in the box version" to match closer to the DBLT version, I was left thinking that PT's "in the box" sounds much closer to PT stems & analog summing than my first reaction.

Now, I'm starting to believe that the benefits of analog summing is the ability to gain a good mix much quicker (things seem to gel much faster for me), and there's some side benefits of what you can do with analog stems and analog processing on the stereo output, but I'm not conveniced yet that the PT bus is crap and analog summing is the magical fix. I still have much more trail and error to do to reach any further conclussions.

So, for now, I've been going back into PTHD from the DBLT via a Massive Passive and touch of comp from a tube tech LCA2b then into 2 channels of a TC6000 AD's and recorded back to the PT session at 24/96...

I also run a version without the Massive Passive and LCA2b. I also have a version on some songs that were done in the past as "in the box" mixes.

All these mixes goes into a 44Khz mastering session (SRC applied to all during audio import), and then I use the 44KHz mastering session to balance level between songs (using a combination of fader, the Sony Inflator and L2) and then POWr diter to 16bit 44K..

On the versions that didn't have the Massive Passive / LCA2b applied I'll use other means such as the Sony Dynamics bus comp, analog channel-1, Sony EQ and/or the really good mastering algorithms in the TC6000 to see what these will do.

Then, I'll A/B/C'ing the different flavors... Most of the time I'll pick the DBLT + Analog EQ & Analog comp over the "in the box" and over the DBLT + digital EQ and digital comp versions. But it's reall close.. Not that I can't hear a difference, they're all different, but on some songs, it's really hard to decide which is best, and other songs, it's really easy...

So far, on about 10 songs that I've been using this method, my picks are (client hasn't picked there favorites yet, so these are my picks):

1 song I picked the "in the box: version. Really tight and clear.

2 songs I picked the DBLT + digital comp/eq (1 with the Sony comp and 1 with the TC6000 limiter). More detailed, more focused, more clearer.

7 of the songs I picked the DBLT + Analog comp/eq. Seemed to be a bit more smeared (in a good way), and really warm, big with a great sound in the middle (seems to be less dense and more discrete if that's any way to describe it?).

More work is needed to figure out the benefits and what direction makes sense...

I would like to have 1/2" 2 tk to test as well, since there's something lost between the (real time) output of PT stems and the DBLT output versus the PT 2 track (24 96K) version recorded on to 2 tracks via PTHD 192 or TC6000 A/D's. Sure there's pros & cons in mastering to tape, but I've more surprised at the sound change when A/B'ing the real time version to the 2 tk analog summed returned version. The 2 track version (sync'd in time) doesn't sound as a good. Part of this is getting the levels (the 2 tk version is much lower in output than multiple stems), but even when you add gain to the fader to match the loudness to the ear, there's something lost in going back to digital (and back out again)...

[Jules]

48 k session

Individual & stems out to D2B

Compress with SSL or Cranesong STC-8

into Cranesong Hedd - sample rate 96k 24bit

To Masterlink 96k 24bit - for Archive, & pro mastering

--------------

For 'junior' or self mastering,

Masterlink 96k 24 bit into TC Finalizer
Hardware SRC in Finalizer to 44.1k 24bit
Into PT for mastering with
Sony GML EQ plug in
Sony Inflator
Weiss Pow-r dither
Out to Masterlink for Red Book compilation
Master CD made in Masterlink.

I find the 96k helps to make the final master more 'stunning' . higher highs, lower lows.

All good gearslut fun!

Probably a total waste of time!

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

[bruceup]

Thanks for all your replies. I just had my 192 i/o's d/a's calibrated and will try some mixing tomorrow.

I noticed that most of you prefer doing the a/d from the 2-Bus into your Masterlinks at 96khz. I'm still a 44.1 guy and question the logic of doing synth dumps and such at a higher sample rate, but do you find that the final a/d from the 2-Bus makes a big difference(especially after being dithered down to a 44.1khz CD)?

Also, do you find that you need to dedicate the final pair of 2-Bus inputs to reverb returns?