There is a very intense discussion going on at nuendo.com and elsewhere about digital vs. analog summing busses.
http://forum.nuendo.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/011554.html
What do you think? Is mixing using SFP mixers (and busses) better sounding than summing with groups in Cubase/Nuendo? And if yes, what about XTC-mode? Is there a difference between mixing in XTC-mode vs. SFP-GUI?
Steve
Digital vs. analog summing / DAW vs. SFP summing
Hi Steve,
I'm interested in this subject too. There's already a discussion going on about differences in sound between Cubase and SFP mixing over here:
http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... forum=5&17
My opinion is that mixing in SFP sounds much better than mixing in Cubase SX (which should sound about the same as Nuendo). I think the difference is quite big if you know where to listen to (for me it is mostly 'depth' and 'spaciousness'). But I still have to make sure that this spaciousness isn't introduced because of phase problems in the SFP mixer, because if that would be true, I might as well mix in Cubase and use small delays to give it the SFP sound
Unfortunately, I've little experience with (good) analog mixing, so I don't know how SFP summing compares to first class mixing consoles. Are there any SFP users out there that use good quality analog consoles for their mixing?
I'm also curious about the opinion of Sunshine, because he both contributes to the PlanetZ and Nuendo forums and seems to be quite a knowledgeable engineer. Care to give your opinion Sunshine?
cheers,
vincent
I'm interested in this subject too. There's already a discussion going on about differences in sound between Cubase and SFP mixing over here:
http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... forum=5&17
My opinion is that mixing in SFP sounds much better than mixing in Cubase SX (which should sound about the same as Nuendo). I think the difference is quite big if you know where to listen to (for me it is mostly 'depth' and 'spaciousness'). But I still have to make sure that this spaciousness isn't introduced because of phase problems in the SFP mixer, because if that would be true, I might as well mix in Cubase and use small delays to give it the SFP sound
Unfortunately, I've little experience with (good) analog mixing, so I don't know how SFP summing compares to first class mixing consoles. Are there any SFP users out there that use good quality analog consoles for their mixing?
I'm also curious about the opinion of Sunshine, because he both contributes to the PlanetZ and Nuendo forums and seems to be quite a knowledgeable engineer. Care to give your opinion Sunshine?
cheers,
vincent
-
King of Snake
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
- Contact:
Oh no, not the summing busses discussion again! This has been raging on the Cubase forums numerous times, mostly for comparisons between the audio engines of Cubase, Nuendo or Logic, and never were there any clear results. People did extensive testing that produced zero differences, and then other people would come in and say "that may be, but I can still hear it". "it sounds like a blanket is over my speakers" "you should get your ears checked" "you are a moron" were other popular phrases in these discussions so my advice: stay well clear of it! 
. However, I think that the difference between SFP, native and analog mixing are not that small and can be quite easily heard. That's why I think (hope) that we can have a sensible discussion about this over here. And besides all that, aren't whe the most civilized community on the net? cheers,
vincent
-
King of Snake
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
- Contact:
Hello to all!
I think that this can be an interesting and helpful topic. To me, there is no point comparing analog vs digital mixing etc, in this forum at least. Especially because usually people seem to get fanatic about one or the other and the conversation leads to flying chairs, broken bottles of wine, pulling guns etc (ok, I overemphasized things a bit!)
To me, it would be helpful, however, a "comparison" of the SX mixer and CW 2448 and 4896 mixers. I did a small test with one tiny project I recorder last week. [note: that this project was NOT intented to serve as a valid test] The piece had 4 stereo tracks of greek string instruments, all panned in the middle. The tracks were recorded in mono and then they were transformed to stereo. So basically the whole thing was in mono practically but in stereo theoretically.
I did 2 different mixes. One using the Cubase SX mixer and one using the STM 2448 mixer (routing the different Cubase tracks to different channels in SFP and with phase compensation on). All the settings (pan/volume) were equal in the 2 mixes. Then I compared the 2 mixes by ear and using the various analyzers found in Wavelab 4. (take into account that I dont have very good quality speakers)
Acoustically, there was almost no difference. I just had the impression that the mix of STM2448 was just a little bit more spacey than that of SX. Each instrument seemed to have a separate and clearer sound. On the other hand, I had the impression that the mix of SX had a bit more treble (by the way, the recordings were 48KHz, 24bit).
Wavelab analyses showed that the SFP mix was just a little bit more loud (by 0.1db lets say), and there was a little bit more loud high frequencies in the SX mix. The pan meters were showing almost constant values around -0.3db towards the left side. (which makes me wonder why? since all tracks were recorder in mono?) The STM mix was showing values from -0.3 to -0.4db towards the left side too. (would these values mean a phase problem?) Finally, both mixes sounded clearer when converted to mono.
Conclusions: (drum rolls....)
1) Mixing with the SX mixer or the STM mixers produces the same results.
2) I am a shitty producer
I hope somebody does a really good intented-to-be-a-test test project and tells what he finds.
Thank you
I think that this can be an interesting and helpful topic. To me, there is no point comparing analog vs digital mixing etc, in this forum at least. Especially because usually people seem to get fanatic about one or the other and the conversation leads to flying chairs, broken bottles of wine, pulling guns etc (ok, I overemphasized things a bit!
)To me, it would be helpful, however, a "comparison" of the SX mixer and CW 2448 and 4896 mixers. I did a small test with one tiny project I recorder last week. [note: that this project was NOT intented to serve as a valid test] The piece had 4 stereo tracks of greek string instruments, all panned in the middle. The tracks were recorded in mono and then they were transformed to stereo. So basically the whole thing was in mono practically but in stereo theoretically.
I did 2 different mixes. One using the Cubase SX mixer and one using the STM 2448 mixer (routing the different Cubase tracks to different channels in SFP and with phase compensation on). All the settings (pan/volume) were equal in the 2 mixes. Then I compared the 2 mixes by ear and using the various analyzers found in Wavelab 4. (take into account that I dont have very good quality speakers)
Acoustically, there was almost no difference. I just had the impression that the mix of STM2448 was just a little bit more spacey than that of SX. Each instrument seemed to have a separate and clearer sound. On the other hand, I had the impression that the mix of SX had a bit more treble (by the way, the recordings were 48KHz, 24bit).
Wavelab analyses showed that the SFP mix was just a little bit more loud (by 0.1db lets say), and there was a little bit more loud high frequencies in the SX mix. The pan meters were showing almost constant values around -0.3db towards the left side. (which makes me wonder why? since all tracks were recorder in mono?) The STM mix was showing values from -0.3 to -0.4db towards the left side too. (would these values mean a phase problem?) Finally, both mixes sounded clearer when converted to mono.
Conclusions: (drum rolls....)
1) Mixing with the SX mixer or the STM mixers produces the same results.
2) I am a shitty producer
I hope somebody does a really good intented-to-be-a-test test project and tells what he finds.
Thank you
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 1105
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: paname
Ok, I'll try to setup a test this weekend with CubaseSX and SFP mixers . If you like, I can post some results, so you can A/B yourself. Even better, I could make a blind test of it. I can post several files without saying what is what mix.
Do you guys have any suggestions for me to make this test as accurate as possible?
This what I can think of myself:
- Use same Pan law or only use stereo tracks with no balancing.
- Keep everything with unity gain.
- No FX
- Use 32bit flt drivers
- Use at least 8 tracks (not sure about this, but I assume that if there is any difference, it will be more noticable when using more tracks)
- Make sure no phase problems occur on the SFP mixers.
Any other suggestions?
cheers,
vincent
Do you guys have any suggestions for me to make this test as accurate as possible?
This what I can think of myself:
- Use same Pan law or only use stereo tracks with no balancing.
- Keep everything with unity gain.
- No FX
- Use 32bit flt drivers
- Use at least 8 tracks (not sure about this, but I assume that if there is any difference, it will be more noticable when using more tracks)
- Make sure no phase problems occur on the SFP mixers.
Any other suggestions?
cheers,
vincent
Hello to all!
Visilia, if you have the time and patience to do this test, it is going to be very helpful for all. For me, such a test would be useful in order to know what should I do in order to have a better mix. In the case that the test shows that mixing in SX is of better quality, I will be happy knowing that. And I will still love my Pulsar cards the same! (I love the routing capabilities they offer)
Anyway, further ideas for the test:
- your audio tracks should have all sorts of frequencies, from very low to very high (I suggest 48KHz 24bit quality, as this is what most people work here)
- try 2 different pannings, one with everything on the center, and one with the different audio tracks spread from hard left to hard right
- do 2 different mixes with the STM 2448. One with the phase compensation on and one without (so we will have to compare 3 mixes at the end, 1)SX 2)STM2448 ph.comp.on 3)STM2448 ph.comp.off
Dont make the files too large, so you can post them uncompressed and we can do a blindfold test.
Thank you and good luck!
Visilia, if you have the time and patience to do this test, it is going to be very helpful for all. For me, such a test would be useful in order to know what should I do in order to have a better mix. In the case that the test shows that mixing in SX is of better quality, I will be happy knowing that. And I will still love my Pulsar cards the same! (I love the routing capabilities they offer
)Anyway, further ideas for the test:
- your audio tracks should have all sorts of frequencies, from very low to very high (I suggest 48KHz 24bit quality, as this is what most people work here)
- try 2 different pannings, one with everything on the center, and one with the different audio tracks spread from hard left to hard right
- do 2 different mixes with the STM 2448. One with the phase compensation on and one without (so we will have to compare 3 mixes at the end, 1)SX 2)STM2448 ph.comp.on 3)STM2448 ph.comp.off
Dont make the files too large, so you can post them uncompressed and we can do a blindfold test.
Thank you and good luck!
Well, I´m "Sunshine_Music" from the Nuendo thread you´ve posted the link to. All I can do is to repeat my answer from Nuendo forum.
-Benefits people are hearing whith this dangerous 2-bus thing, comes from analog distortion, produced by the mixing amplifier.
-deficits people encounter whith digital workstations do not come from the summing-engine
-There is no flaw whith digital summing. We never could really detect a consistent error.
-Bob Katzt has found sonic difference between Motorola based Daws and Sharc based Daws, meaning that although both should give you the same result, they don´t exactly give you the same outcome....Anyway differences can only be heard when at least a fader is touched or some other kind of processing was applied!
-Although apps like Nuendo/Samplitude/Cubase don´t rely on hardware summing (digital) those apps differ from each other, because they don´t contain the same code...
Another interesting test to show how fragile sometimes Software based translations might be, is when you take a complex mix from Win98 to Win200/XP on a dual boot system. Your mix will not sound the same !
-"Sharcs" or any other chip/software based combinations might be better suited for audio applications, simply because the code was written and optimized for a chip that was built to target audio applications in general.
-However, the summing itself does not get affected, but any further processing like compression, EQ and reverb will lead to differences, because they were done under different circumstances...
There are so many mistakes one can make when recording/mixing/mastering something. So you better learn your tools well and understand how those tools affect your material. You´re very likely about to deteriorate the sound-stage when you apply too much processing. In the end it´ll be the experience that should guide you through all those decisions. There always was bad sounding mixes on analog consoles as well just because people didn´t care enough about signal degradation, monitoring and room optimizations. Those mistakes have been done long before the digital world ever introduced itself to the music business.
But just like "Fredo" said in the Nunedo forum.....
Compressors, boost, smiley-like EQ, compressors, limiters, compressors, smiley-like EQ, limiters, boost and compressors. I see people starting off there mix with a compressor & a limiter in there master Buss. I see people adding subwoofers to there monitoring chain. (because it sounds cool) I see people adding "fat chorus" so parts become "out of tune". I see people fatting up signals and adding super-high frequencies (to give it "air") I see people using stereo-enhancers on there final mix. (To make it "wide") I hear people mixing @ 100 dB (on cheap Genelecs with a replacement tweeter)….
And people are wondering why it doesn't sound good.
Regards,
Bernhard
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sunshine on 2003-02-15 10:21 ]</font>
-Benefits people are hearing whith this dangerous 2-bus thing, comes from analog distortion, produced by the mixing amplifier.
-deficits people encounter whith digital workstations do not come from the summing-engine
-There is no flaw whith digital summing. We never could really detect a consistent error.
-Bob Katzt has found sonic difference between Motorola based Daws and Sharc based Daws, meaning that although both should give you the same result, they don´t exactly give you the same outcome....Anyway differences can only be heard when at least a fader is touched or some other kind of processing was applied!
-Although apps like Nuendo/Samplitude/Cubase don´t rely on hardware summing (digital) those apps differ from each other, because they don´t contain the same code...
Another interesting test to show how fragile sometimes Software based translations might be, is when you take a complex mix from Win98 to Win200/XP on a dual boot system. Your mix will not sound the same !
-"Sharcs" or any other chip/software based combinations might be better suited for audio applications, simply because the code was written and optimized for a chip that was built to target audio applications in general.
-However, the summing itself does not get affected, but any further processing like compression, EQ and reverb will lead to differences, because they were done under different circumstances...
There are so many mistakes one can make when recording/mixing/mastering something. So you better learn your tools well and understand how those tools affect your material. You´re very likely about to deteriorate the sound-stage when you apply too much processing. In the end it´ll be the experience that should guide you through all those decisions. There always was bad sounding mixes on analog consoles as well just because people didn´t care enough about signal degradation, monitoring and room optimizations. Those mistakes have been done long before the digital world ever introduced itself to the music business.
But just like "Fredo" said in the Nunedo forum.....
Compressors, boost, smiley-like EQ, compressors, limiters, compressors, smiley-like EQ, limiters, boost and compressors. I see people starting off there mix with a compressor & a limiter in there master Buss. I see people adding subwoofers to there monitoring chain. (because it sounds cool) I see people adding "fat chorus" so parts become "out of tune". I see people fatting up signals and adding super-high frequencies (to give it "air") I see people using stereo-enhancers on there final mix. (To make it "wide") I hear people mixing @ 100 dB (on cheap Genelecs with a replacement tweeter)….
And people are wondering why it doesn't sound good.
Regards,
Bernhard
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sunshine on 2003-02-15 10:21 ]</font>
-
King of Snake
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
- Contact:
Hehehe, I didn't even know there were cheap Genelecs!I hear people mixing @ 100 dB (on cheap Genelecs with a replacement tweeter)….
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sunshine on 2003-02-15 10:21 ]</font>
I guess cheap is a subjective term.
(going to get a pair of "cheap" Mackies myself soon)
-
King of Snake
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
- Contact:
Yeah I wanted to go for those as well, but there's no one over here who sells the damned things. The Mackie's should do nicely though
A shame all these monitors (and pretty much all american-made music gear) are about twice as expensive over here as they are in the US! That's right, TWICE as expensive. God bless the fucking Euro.
A shame all these monitors (and pretty much all american-made music gear) are about twice as expensive over here as they are in the US! That's right, TWICE as expensive. God bless the fucking Euro.
Yamaha NS10M studio still the best monitor,look at the pictures of studio's where they making high end sound like "FLYTE TYME" Tony Braxton and so many others still you can see NS10M first and others for a big sound like B&W Nautilus series or Dynaudio or else....So one cheap Genelec like 2029,or 1030, or few more can lead into "not quite pretty mix" but Yamaha NS10M if you make it on this,I am shure that everywhere will sound so "good".
I tryed genelec S30D and "bingo". he have the same mid freqencies like yamaha ns10m studio.I reccomend....
I tryed genelec S30D and "bingo". he have the same mid freqencies like yamaha ns10m studio.I reccomend....
the ONLY advantage to the ns10 and the thing that made them popular,is that all ns10 tweeters are virtually identical,allowing an engineer to go studio to studio and have a fair idea of what's going on without having to bring one's own speaks.i have NEVER met a professional engineer who thought they were especially good or good sounding besides that.(why else do you put toilet paper over tweeters?)
NS10's??? ...Uhh..yuk! I never did like the sound of the upper end. But that was the whole point. If you could make a mix sound half decent on them, then they would sound good on just about anything. I think this is what deneb was getting at. But the ns10s are no longer being manufactured anyway. Apparently the wood pulp used for the woofer cone was getting hard to source. I reckon soon they will be a collectors item like the old synths.
-
Mr Arkadin
- Posts: 3283
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 4:00 pm
From what I understand the ns-10's became the 'de-facto' standard after being given to a few ullustrious (well-known) studios by Yamaha and subsquently appearing in many images within magazines. The white cones are unmistakeable.
If you wish to emulate a poor "boombox" or "shelf" speaker there should be many cheaper alternatives.
As for the Events, I gave the powered 8" version a shot and found the port to impart a lot of unecessary 'boom' to my bass (and uncontrolled flutter to extreme sub). They were excellent for the price but based on that observation I opted to go up quite a bit in price to my Mackies. Adding a sub to a system can magnify many of the issues I was seeking to solve so the Mackies seemed a good comprimise to me. =]
If you wish to emulate a poor "boombox" or "shelf" speaker there should be many cheaper alternatives.
As for the Events, I gave the powered 8" version a shot and found the port to impart a lot of unecessary 'boom' to my bass (and uncontrolled flutter to extreme sub). They were excellent for the price but based on that observation I opted to go up quite a bit in price to my Mackies. Adding a sub to a system can magnify many of the issues I was seeking to solve so the Mackies seemed a good comprimise to me. =]