D8B Summing vs. Pro Tools Summing

[Sound Guy Andy]

I have an opportunity to pick up a Mackie Digital 8 Bus for a pretty good price, and I'm wondering if it would yield any of the sonic benefits that have been had from mixing to analog (multi-channel) from Pro Tools, rather than relying upon the Pro Tools mix bus (which I find to be fine if approached properly).

For that matter, do digital boards in general (DMX-R100, DA-7, Spirit 328, etc.) have better summing math than Pro Tools? If not, I'll save my money for more pre's and better converters and maybe go with an analog backend someday.


Thanks,
Andre

[Robin Hughes]

I have a D8B and I find the sound quality to be better on the D8B than ProTools. I find drums sound better multichannel through the desk than stereo submixed in ProTools.

[Corey Shay]

I've found the opposite, but that might be attributable to the D8B's D/A's. I don't like the D8B's anymore. All EQ's and dynamics, and converters sound really dirty.

[Bookerv12]

I also have had really bad results with the D8b.
Nothing on it works as well as PT....when it works.
As you said,,,If you do it correctly, there is no comparison between the D8b and PT.
Save your money on that one.
ProTools is the way to go.
Sorry to sound so negative, and the D8b is good for what it does, but I recently ended about a year and a half of heartbreak, frustration and bad support with it.
I've never been so glad to get rid of something for cheap.

Booker

[joestudio]

I've got two rooms. One a D8B/Tascam MX2424 and the other a Pro Tools 5.1.1. One song, both versions brought over 24 bit on a Glyph drive. First version, a full mix. Second version, a mix stem, and a vocal stem - so that I can edit the vocals for radio. I applied the same compression and eq to both versions and printed them to cd.

The label guy showed up the next day asking why the single version(edits) sounded so much better than the album version.

That's how much better the ProTools is. A label suit can tell the difference.

JS

[robmix]

I also used to have both in my room, Pro Tools mixes always sounded bigger, wider, and with more depth. Thus the D8B is gone. To me the summing issue is moot unless you can afford a high end analog desk.


Rob

[Buickwilson19]

Robmix said:

>>To me the summing issue is moot unless you can afford a high end analog desk.<<

My basic assumption would agree to this comment, except for 2 interesting data points....

1) Digi ran a non-sceintific experiment with PT versus SSL (and also another with an Oxford), and their conclusion was that it was not possible to correctly identify the PT mix. There was much debate over this being a legitimate test, the test methods, and other questions were raised, but nonetheless it is a data point. If I remember correctly the output audio data files were posted for others to judge for themselves.

2) Lynn Fuston recently provided a A/B comparison of PT mix vs Neve mix. You can find details at another data point.

Again, it's not sceintific, just an experiement, but having listened to these A/B mixes yesterday, I have to agree with what the digi test found when they ran their PT mixer vs. Oxford & SSL test, in that it wasn't obvious which one was the PT mix. They both sounded good and very close.

After spending some time going over one section at a time, I started to hear some details that started to sound different. This seemed more obvious on the softer passages. I started to prefer one mix a slight bit more then the other mix. I figure if I was listening to this score at a movie theater or in the car, I would never get close to hearing the slight differences, but paying close attention and listening in a studio control room with decent monitors started to show the slight differences. One mix sounded a little more open, deeper and wider. It wasn't a huge difference, but enough that I prefered this mix over the other as being a bit more pleasent to listen to.

So, I applied my assumption (the high-end Neve must be the better of the two), and posted my guess. Lynn will reval the identities of the mixes on the 8th...

[Robin Hughes]

Well diferent tricks for different sticks.

However , the post about the converters has truth. Mackie converters exhibit ringing when loaded with high frequencies ( I keep reaching for my mobile phone ). It has made me patch up my Otari 2" for tracking to , rather than just transfering from.

But I must dissagree about PT having a better internal summing sound than the D8B. Guess it's a matter of opinion. ( Although the D8B has a greater internal bit depth , but after truncating to 24 bit on PT outputs the benefit of this is questionable )

Still , sounds better to my ears.

I like the EQ , but the gates and Comp leave alot to be desired.

[Greg Malcangi]

I A/B'ed a D8B against PT when I upgraded to Mix++ about 3 or 4 years ago. Not even close! I went straight out and ordered a Procontrol.

Given the choice I would have one of a number of desks in preference to mixing in PT. However, the cheapest of them is at least three times the cost of my whole Mix3, Procontrol + fader pack rig.

Greg

[Robin Hughes]

Given the choice I would use a Neve and do now and again , but the adding the processing power of the D8B to PT I find to be a very versatile solution.

IMHO I have found that every baord and every medium has a way of working that suits it and replicating an A/B test rarely takes this into acount.

I owned a D8B for 3 years before buying ProTools and have found PT to be a wonderfull addition to my set up. I have never thought of it as a replacement. At the end of the day we were born without tools and it is beholden unto us to make what we have do what we want.

I suppose I beleive in working to my limtations rather than buying around them.