sound of different creamware mixers?

[the19thbear]

Hi.. im just wondering. Did anybody notice any difference in sound when mixing with the stm 1632, stm 2448 and 4896.. or any other mixers?? ( i know spaceF's mixers are totally different, but other than that..)
Are there certain mixers that outperfom others???
I usually let everything go through the stm 1632 mixer before it is recorded in cubase, so it would be cool to know if there are different/better sounding alternatives..
I know i'm going into a touchy area and this can get very subjective.. but hey.

thanks.

[garyb]

yes, i think the stm2448/4896 mixers sound quite a bit better than the stm1632...trust your ears.

on the other hand, i think the main difference is in mixdown in scope, not during tracking/mixing in the sequencer.

[dawman]

The STM's sounded fine to me. But there are applications that differ, where 3rd party mixers really shine.

SpaceF's Valve mixers are unique in the way they can alter content by strengthening and warming, which really gives a vintage sound.

I find that Wolf, and SpaceF mixers add such finess to the Auxilleries when routing external effects. For example, when I have the same reverb on 2 different instruments, but need a lesser amount of the same effect, on one of the instruments, I usually had to pan the instruments slightly in the STS1632 to really hear the difference. But Wolf and SpaceF's AUX's just have a better fidelity where summing is concerned. This can be avoided by doing 2 takes into your recording, but my needs are based on capturing live performances for later editing and evaluation.

What's really great about 3rd party mixers is that you can have one built for exact needs.

I have a live PA FOH / Monitor mixer made by DAS which was perfect for using through powered monitors, and wireless ear monitors. It had the exact number of AUX's, inserts, etc. I can now use it again w/ my newest production group and the same idea is applicable.

I first starting messing around with a mixer made by Shayne White a few years back that showed me the endless possibilities of routing audio in Scope. DAS had a freebie back then also. Once I found how sweet external effects like reverbs sounded in Scope, I have been nuts for custom mixers ever since.

Routing 2 Lexicons, and a recently acquirred Alesis Q20 through Scope for my live rig sounds incredible. Delays on synths, and reverbs on sampled content has made my rig a supreme ruler 'round these parts.

I have been upped recently by my friend here who uses a Scope / Nuendo DAW though. He was jealous of my sound, and went out and bought a Kurzweil KSP8 w/ ADAT I / O's. That is an awesome DSP based effects unit. It actually pissed me off last night when listening. He can get 3 quality different reverbs simultaneously.....Jergov !!

[Shroomz~>]

All I can really say about this subject is that the dynamic mixer is not reliable in terms of channel alignment in my experience. It's most certainly a dsp management issue in the case of that mixer, but I haven't tested the stm mixers to the same degree. I'd like to think that they don't have the same problem.

[garyb]

the 2448 and 4896 are phase compensated across all inputs....

[geoffd99]

I have it from Ralf at CW/SC that all mixers use the same internal wotsits to do the processing.

I raised this a while ago. I think the old Big Mixer had problems but all the new ones are the same.

Which makes sense - why have different code? This is not analogue with hardware cost limitations etc.

[dawman]

Well I don't understand the internal wotsits thing, but when I route external hardware effects into the STM 1632 it sounds fine, that is until I start combining instruments using the same effect.

But that what I hear in the Auxilleries when I crank up an empty AUX on a channel of the STM it also adds uneeded db's. I don't have that happen in any of my mixing consoles, or in 2 or 3 AUX designed mixers from SpaceF, DAS, or Wolf.

Maybe they can chime in here on what I am hearing.

Also, SpaceF's FB5 has a beautiful bleedover function that isn't found in the STM series AUX's. It is controllable, and has it's purposes allowing certain effects to blend nicely.

I use software mixers differently than most, but whatever is requirred to get the sound I desire, is the goal. How it is achieved is of little concern to me.


I use to use the Dynamic mixer on synths, but on samples it adds colorations.
But I love it's expandable design and would die to have a mixer from one of the developers that can do that trick. Mono / Stereo / add / subtract,......great GUI.

[hifiboom]

All I can really say about this subject is that the dynamic mixer is not reliable in terms of channel alignment in my experience. It's most certainly a dsp management issue in the case of that mixer, but I haven't tested the stm mixers to the same degree. I'd like to think that they don't have the same problem.

stereo:
the phase is unimportant as long as the mono channels that belong to a stereo channel are in phase (L and R)....

you won`t hear if you bass kick drum comes in 2 samples earlier or later than your highhat.
(keep in mind that in a 44100hz environment, 2 samples are still a 22th part of one millisecond)

So IMO the STM have the same soundquality and as long as you are not working in a 5.1 environment, you can choose the mixer that fits your needs and your workflow best. I take the 1632 as it gives me access to all channels and inserts directly on one screen surface, which saves me much time compared to the bigger mixers.

for surround tasks something like the 4896 is the way to go.

[Shroomz~>]

stereo:
the phase is unimportant as long as the mono channels that belong to a stereo channel are in phase (L and R)....

I was talking about channel alignment, not stereo phase. Two completely separate issues.

[astroman]

regarding layered sounds it's an extremely important issue because the misalignement may change, at any time - in an almost arbitrary way.
According to my own experience it seems to increase with 'in-use-time' and 'modify-frequency' of a given project - it's not in the device itself.

The same applies to synth internal voices in the Modular, so it's not a mixer specific thing imho.
But since developers are aware of it, they pay attention to proper design.

I wouldn't overestimate it's meaning, as analog gear may suffer from the same inaccuracies (in the sub-millisecond timescale), but it's good to be aware of it.

cheers, Tom

[Shroomz~>]

regarding layered sounds it's an extremely important issue

exactly Tom. Especially if doubling up channels of certain types of sound. Sub bass is a great example of where it can be audible if only a few samples out. The problem is, that Scope mixers are expected to have features that are always going to throw off the alignment even if the mixer resides on a single dsp like the little Octamix mixer I built. Inserts & aux sends/returns will always throw it off, but you'd expect that behaviour from an external hardware desk, so that's something that people should keep in mind. On Octamix there's a 0-200 sample delay pre pan on each channel which gives you a degree of manual alignment when using inserts or aux's. Unfortunately I couldn't use larger sample delays since the primary objective was to build a small mixer that resides on a single dsp, thus assuring rock solid channel alignment. That's also the reason why it's channels aren't mono/stereo switchable (it would no longer fit on a single dsp).

Interesting points about the unpredictable allocation as well !!

[hifiboom]

stereo:
the phase is unimportant as long as the mono channels that belong to a stereo channel are in phase (L and R)....

I was talking about channel alignment, not stereo phase. Two completely separate issues.

will i ever understand what you mean.....