Malcolm Boyce wrote:I just decided to stay with stable VS an update that didn't have anything that I actually need.
That has been something that I have said for years. Instead of trying to add new bells and whistles with each new release, all the the DAW manufacturers should be concentrating on making a more solid, stable, efficient working environment. New bugs with each new version of every platform out there. I know this goes for most software, but I've experienced and heard too many stories from all the camps about losing time because of glitches in systems.
Quoted for emphasis.Malcolm Boyce wrote:I'll say again... If a piece of hardware worked like some of these programs do right out of the box, you'd be back at the story getting your money back. With software it's... "We're working on it."
Absolutely incorrect. Many/most devices we use in pro audio are designed specifically to interface with other devices and do so flawlessly most times. It's that kind of "out of our control" thinking that lets the providers of these platforms to continue to do what they do.Mathieu Benoit wrote:Well that's apples to bananas... Hardware pieces are a self-sufficient system that don't require the co-ordination of several different companies to cover thousands of different variables.
Malcolm Boyce wrote:Absolutely incorrect. Many/most devices we use in pro audio are designed specifically to interface with other devices and do so flawlessly most times. It's that kind of "out of our control" thinking that lets the providers of these platforms to continue to do what they do.
If a piece of outboard may or may not work with a particular console, how long do you think that manufacturer would be in business?
Mathieu Benoit wrote:Malcolm Boyce wrote:Absolutely incorrect. Many/most devices we use in pro audio are designed specifically to interface with other devices and do so flawlessly most times. It's that kind of "out of our control" thinking that lets the providers of these platforms to continue to do what they do.
If a piece of outboard may or may not work with a particular console, how long do you think that manufacturer would be in business?
What kind of outboard gear are we talking about here? If it's gear that simply passes audio then I'm not sure I get where you are coming from. Either way...as soon as you start "Interfacing" things together it really depends on the protocol used and the quality of manufacturing.
Mathieu Benoit wrote:But... That compressor only needs to pass audio. There is no way passing audio will screw up the console.
Malcolm Boyce wrote:Mathieu Benoit wrote:But... That compressor only needs to pass audio. There is no way passing audio will screw up the console.
You are living in a world where you can take that for granted. As I'm sure Al will concur, there are many ways that carelessly designed electronic components can wreak havoc on interconnected gear.
Burnsy wrote: Its back up, and stable....but I WILL back up, and think twice about updating it in the future.... best advice Andrew gave me was to wait 6 months after, and see what others are experiencing.
Burnsy wrote:1st thing; because I didn't dive too heavy into the workings of Sonar, I'm not sure if it offers something similar...Malcolm, I'm sure you can fill me in here... But Elastic Audio in Pro Tools is something that really wowed me the 1st time I saw it in action, and the first time I got to work with it. It blew my mind that performances by musicians don't have to be perfect, in particular to their timing...and using Elastic Audio, we can fix it to make it sound more or less perfect. Maybe that's old news to most of you, but it was something I didn't know existed until a couple of months ago.
Burnsy wrote:The 2nd thing....and I'm not sure if this is a Pro Tools peculiarity, the SSL peculiarity, or just something that's understood by most, but new to me, was the huge difference in sound of my mixdown using the stereo record outs of the SSl, and the sound of the mixdown.....compared to the actual session playback quality before the mixdown. I was really happy with the sound of the mix before the mixdown. The mixdown seemed to have lost quality, seemed more compressed, less dynamic, and I dare say some frequency loss or degradation. One instructor told me that this is totally normal, and when we mix, before the mixdown, we have to compensate for that loss of audio quality. Is this similar across all software? What is anyone's take on this? Again, this could be normal to most of you, just new to me as I'm still learning.
Burnsy wrote:The mixdown seemed to have lost quality, seemed more compressed, less dynamic, and I dare say some frequency loss or degradation.
Burnsy wrote:One instructor told me that this is totally normal, and when we mix, before the mixdown, we have to compensate for that loss of audio quality.
Burnsy wrote:Oh, just did a quick check to see if my laptop is on the recommended list of Windows computers for Pro Tools. The specs on my laptop are roughly a third of the processing powers of the one's they have listed. Hahahaha. Oh well, its all I have for now to work with. I'll try to make the best of it.
Mathieu Benoit wrote:Burnsy wrote:1st thing; because I didn't dive too heavy into the workings of Sonar, I'm not sure if it offers something similar...Malcolm, I'm sure you can fill me in here... But Elastic Audio in Pro Tools is something that really wowed me the 1st time I saw it in action, and the first time I got to work with it. It blew my mind that performances by musicians don't have to be perfect, in particular to their timing...and using Elastic Audio, we can fix it to make it sound more or less perfect. Maybe that's old news to most of you, but it was something I didn't know existed until a couple of months ago.
I had the same reaction to it when it first came out in 7.4. Now that I've used it extensively, I know that the best results will come from the best performances. Not to mention it's way faster to just get good performers. I tell my clients all the time and it's usually true: "Hire session guys and you'll save money in the end."
Now elastic audio has its limits, particularly with cymbals that sustain and acoustic guitar. You have to be very careful when editing, start with broad strokes and always strive to fix things with the least amount of warp markers possible. There are things in the end though that EA just can't pull out of the ditch. With experience though, you'll come to know if the take you got is salvagable. Nothing worse then tearing down a drumkit and having a drummer leave the studio only to find out that you don't have enough usable material to comp/edit together.
My point is, always strive for the best performances you can get and use EA as a last resort. If you get it into your head that EA can fix anything then you'll find yourself learning the hard way that it can't... (like I did. )
Mathieu Benoit wrote:Burnsy wrote:The 2nd thing....and I'm not sure if this is a Pro Tools peculiarity, the SSL peculiarity, or just something that's understood by most, but new to me, was the huge difference in sound of my mixdown using the stereo record outs of the SSl, and the sound of the mixdown.....compared to the actual session playback quality before the mixdown. I was really happy with the sound of the mix before the mixdown. The mixdown seemed to have lost quality, seemed more compressed, less dynamic, and I dare say some frequency loss or degradation. One instructor told me that this is totally normal, and when we mix, before the mixdown, we have to compensate for that loss of audio quality. Is this similar across all software? What is anyone's take on this? Again, this could be normal to most of you, just new to me as I'm still learning.
Ah the old analog summing debate. I was hoping we could have it here. Personally I'm getting way better this year at hearing the little things that I never used to notice, specifically types of distortion and noise that I couldn't perceive before. I can also notice the obvious difference between 16bit and 24bit. Maybe if I started working at 96K that might make a difference in my decision making as well, I don't know yet. Maybe if I mixed through analog summing that would also improve my decision making.
I haven't tried analog summing yet and I have no idea if it sounds "better" but I really doubt it's something that can be all that obvious in a A/B test, unless somethign is in fact broken. It would probably be more noticeable if you were mixing through it from the beginning. I believe Andrew is going to test this theory soon. His is going to take tracks that aren't his and mix them both on his PT rig and through the SSL at the school. There are a ton of other variables to consider when changing rooms like that but I am curious to hear his thoughts on how analog summing changing his actual decision making.
Mathieu Benoit wrote:Burnsy wrote:The mixdown seemed to have lost quality, seemed more compressed, less dynamic, and I dare say some frequency loss or degradation.
Are you trying to say that the mixdown on the SSL was worse sounding than the PT playback? I guess I have a few questions to ask in that regard: Are you mixing through the SSL from the start, and if not why are you then mixing down through the SSL at the end of the mix? I don't know how you guys work over there, so I guess I'm just trying to figure out how you are coming to these conclusions.
I really wanna have this discussion to learn so please give more details about how you came to these observations.
Mathieu Benoit wrote:Burnsy wrote:One instructor told me that this is totally normal, and when we mix, before the mixdown, we have to compensate for that loss of audio quality.
How does one compensate for this "loss of quality"?
macrae11 wrote:By mixing through the complete monitoring chain so that your mix takes any deficiencies or changes into account. It's why you would listen off the repro head on an analogue 1/2" machine as opposed to directly off the mix bus of the console. I've been primarily mixing in PT with outboard so this phenomenon hasn't been an issue to me in sometime.
I need you to clarify for me exactly how you are routing and mixing. What you are monitoring during mixing should be what you are actually printing. If not, you need to revisit your setup and fix that. No, it is not totally normal to be listening to a mix, and then printing and listening to that and it being very different from what you were happy with.Burnsy wrote:The 2nd thing....and I'm not sure if this is a Pro Tools peculiarity, the SSL peculiarity, or just something that's understood by most, but new to me, was the huge difference in sound of my mixdown using the stereo record outs of the SSl, and the sound of the mixdown.....compared to the actual session playback quality before the mixdown. I was really happy with the sound of the mix before the mixdown. The mixdown seemed to have lost quality, seemed more compressed, less dynamic, and I dare say some frequency loss or degradation. One instructor told me that this is totally normal, and when we mix, before the mixdown, we have to compensate for that loss of audio quality. Is this similar across all software? What is anyone's take on this? Again, this could be normal to most of you, just new to me as I'm still learning.
Or at least check things in repro. You typically wouldn't mix that way unless everything was done and all you were doing was hitting play and record and letting it roll.macrae11 wrote:...It's why you would listen off the repro head on an analogue 1/2" machine as opposed to directly off the mix bus of the console...
I agree. I know you want it Matt, but in this case it's most likely just a workflow issue.macrae11 wrote:Mathieu Benoit wrote:Burnsy wrote:The 2nd thing....and I'm not sure if this is a Pro Tools peculiarity, the SSL peculiarity, or just something that's understood by most, but new to me, was the huge difference in sound of my mixdown using the stereo record outs of the SSl, and the sound of the mixdown.....compared to the actual session playback quality before the mixdown. I was really happy with the sound of the mix before the mixdown. The mixdown seemed to have lost quality, seemed more compressed, less dynamic, and I dare say some frequency loss or degradation. One instructor told me that this is totally normal, and when we mix, before the mixdown, we have to compensate for that loss of audio quality. Is this similar across all software? What is anyone's take on this? Again, this could be normal to most of you, just new to me as I'm still learning.
Ah the old analog summing debate. I was hoping we could have it here.
I don't think Burnsy is specifically referring to analogue summing, although that's certainly part of the equation.
macrae11 wrote:Mathieu Benoit wrote:Burnsy wrote:One instructor told me that this is totally normal, and when we mix, before the mixdown, we have to compensate for that loss of audio quality.
How does one compensate for this "loss of quality"?
By mixing through the complete monitoring chain so that your mix takes any deficiencies or changes into account. It's why you would listen off the repro head on an analogue 1/2" machine as opposed to directly off the mix bus of the console. I've been primarily mixing in PT with outboard so this phenomenon hasn't been an issue to me in sometime.
Malcolm Boyce wrote:I agree. I know you want it Matt, but in this case it's most likely just a workflow issue.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests