You are here

Old ADAT/DAT masters sounded better - weak link my Delta66?

For everything after the recording stage: hardware/software and how you use it.

Re: Old ADAT/DAT masters sounded better - weak link my Delta66?

Postby narcoman » Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:25 pm

akkk wrote:Quality soundcard with several outputs, rme fireface etc. to quality analog mixer with plenty of headroom and good components

something like this:
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/LX308B

better with eq, but will cost pretty much then

analog pro compressor

and this to master recorder, or go to pro studio with your fireface and computer- only way to get pro sound

small mackie, soundcraft, a&h, yamaha mixers gives deeper (three dimensional, more enjoyable) and wider mixes than ITB, but u kind of loose the advantage, because they mush low and up end of frequenzys and no pro level headroom. Is stil prefer my mackie mixes over ITB, more enjoyable. But really pro is pro and u dont get that with cheap components and engineering. Kapitalism creates shitty products, I am sorry for us all. Wasted hours with broken tools. Neve, SSL level quality components, pro comp ati2500 etc., good master recorder, sounds from different sources (even more separation and air between tracks), pc, synths, samplers, there u go.


Well - I can make that direct comparison right here - got a Neve console and probably one of the best monitoring set ups this side of £100k. As I say - totally agree on the high end console front - but I (and others like Tchad Blake and Dave Pensado) can wipe the floor with low end hardware solutions.

So yes - you're right. But yer also wrong :) ( RME? eh? )
narcoman
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3439
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
Battenburg to the power of 20 - said by Richie Royale in a moment of genius. 4pm. Wed 16th Nov 2011. Remember where you were....

Re: Old ADAT/DAT masters sounded better - weak link my Delta66?

Postby narcoman » Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:27 pm

akkk wrote:Elf, does your mixes sound like this?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jByHIk27PE

Vst synths, but mixed outside with high end gear. Show me that kind of shining vocals with deep reverb and separation between the tracks in ITB mix. I don´t think so. Do you?

I can show you a couple of hundred!! Even more........ :)

I can show you a couple of Grammy nominated pieces. I can show you an Ivor winning movie soundtrack......

Anyway - enough. I get what you're saying - but poor mixing ITB has more to do with driving than quality of car.
narcoman
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3439
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
Battenburg to the power of 20 - said by Richie Royale in a moment of genius. 4pm. Wed 16th Nov 2011. Remember where you were....

Re: Old ADAT/DAT masters sounded better - weak link my Delta66?

Postby jaminem » Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:50 pm

Narcoman Does your carses go like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADY2Ka_0f3o

4 wheels, and a chassis but mixed with huge engineering resources, technical know how and cash. Does your '84 Nissan Micra provide this level of performance. I don`t think so.
jaminem
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1128
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 1:00 am

Re: Old ADAT/DAT masters sounded better - weak link my Delta66?

Postby The Elf » Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:02 pm

akkk wrote:Elf, does your mixes sound like this?:

No, mine are better, of course. :D

Blaming ITB for your poor mixes is like blaming a hammer for a badly constructed house.

I'm doing just fine with my hammer thanks!
User avatar
The Elf
Jedi Poster
Posts: 14685
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Sheffield, UK
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

Re: Old ADAT/DAT masters sounded better - weak link my Delta66?

Postby Martin Walker » Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:32 pm

Skyline wrote:Were ADAT converters highly rated? Should I (better late than never) seriously upgrade my Delta66, to say a Lynx L22?

Hi John!

To return to your original query I'd say you'll notice a huge difference between an elederly Delta 66 and a Lynx L22.

I've reviewed both and the L22 is nothing short of superb for audio quality. The Delta 66 was a good card in its time, but seriously outclassed by most budget audio interfaces nowadays, and particularly by the L22.


Martin
User avatar
Martin Walker
Moderator
Posts: 16065
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:44 am
Location: Cornwall, UK

Re: Old ADAT/DAT masters sounded better - weak link my Delta66?

Postby Martin Walker » Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:39 pm

There seem to be plenty of professional engineers and producers who already agree that while ITB and analogue mixes of identical material sound different (analogue seems to offer a magic ‘glue’ that sometimes gels everything together well), it depends a lot on the material, and even track by track as to which sounds ‘better’.

It’s certainly not a hard and fast rule that ITB sounds inferior, but simply an artistic choice.

You can get excellent results with both.


Martin
User avatar
Martin Walker
Moderator
Posts: 16065
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:44 am
Location: Cornwall, UK

Re: Old ADAT/DAT masters sounded better - weak link my Delta66?

Postby akkk » Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:40 pm

Narco, it is about driving, but can´t drive 200km/h on corners with volkswagen, so why not drive with ferrari all the time? :). And don´t talk about money here. We should leave the money a side and be proud professinals and leave a legacy behind, knowing we did the best we can. Maximum experience for listener, we doesn´t have to be ruled by economics and turn everything to [ ****** ], just because money rules. opinions are opinions ofcourse, but u know what I mean.

And yes:

Let´s forget RME 8-), u are right in that, prism or similar I guess. But everything else I said is solid and u agreed, which is cool. U sound like a pro, good for u. I understand ITB kicks low end analog mixing. Someone should make small mixer with neve components and sell it for 500$, why not :). Transistors, capasitors, metal, can´t be so hard. :)
akkk
Regular
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 12:00 am

Re: Old ADAT/DAT masters sounded better - weak link my Delta66?

Postby Skyline » Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:14 pm

Martin Walker wrote:
Skyline wrote:Were ADAT converters highly rated? Should I (better late than never) seriously upgrade my Delta66, to say a Lynx L22?

Hi John!

To return to your original query I'd say you'll notice a huge difference between an elederly Delta 66 and a Lynx L22.

I've reviewed both and the L22 is nothing short of superb for audio quality. The Delta 66 was a good card in its time, but seriously outclassed by most budget audio interfaces nowadays, and particularly by the L22.

Martin

Thanks Martin.
I'm pretty sure that the Delta66 is a weak link in an otherwise decent setup, so I'm looking seriously now at the L22.

John
User avatar
Skyline
Regular
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2002 12:00 am
Location: UK
When I'm sad I sing, and then the whole world is sad with me.
Band / Songs

Re: Old ADAT/DAT masters sounded better - weak link my Delta66?

Postby Skyline » Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:18 pm

James Perrett wrote:I'll bet that you changed your mixing technique when you started to mix in the box. I know that I certainly use compression differently now that I have an unlimited number of compressors. In the old days I would compress groups of tracks and compress on the way to tape whereas nowadays nearly everything is compressed separately at mixdown. Perhaps you are also using separate reverbs for everything? This can cause a very confused soundstage unless you are extremely skilled at mixing. I find that my most successful mixes use no more than 3 reverbs - much the same as my out of the box mixes used to.

Cheers

James.

James, you're right. I never thought about those aspects, so I will now! Thanks!

John
User avatar
Skyline
Regular
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2002 12:00 am
Location: UK
When I'm sad I sing, and then the whole world is sad with me.
Band / Songs

Re: Old ADAT/DAT masters sounded better - weak link my Delta66?

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Fri Aug 06, 2010 7:02 pm

James is quite right, and it is a very common theme.

When PW and I go out and about with our Studio SOS visits, and sometimes when we do our college visits, we often get asked to listen to a mix and to offer advice on how to make it better.

It often happens that our 'client' will call up the mix and then leave us to play while they go off and make another cuppa to wash the hob-nobs down ;)

Within minutes they'll hear the 'new' mic and come rushing back to say it how great it suonds and to ask what we've done?

Invariably all we have actually done at that stage is to bypass the five processors (comp, lim, EQ, reverb and guitar sim... or whatever) they had running in every single channel, and just re-balance the raw tracks to provide a starting reference point.

Because it is so easy to do, most people using modern DAWs tend to over-process everything just because they can (and they think they should) rather than because they actually need to.

It's often not helped by the fact that they've also recored the sources badly and are then forced into trying to fix it in the mix processing, rather than getting a good clean source recording in the first place.

And it's so common to see people running reverbs and dynamics on every channel rather than using aux buses and groups. And then wonder why the computer is maxed out all the time!

They also frequently run everything way too hot with no headroom at all!

So it's no wonder everything sounds naff and doesn't gel together.

With analogue OTB mixing they can't do any of that because they don't have the resources. All they have is some gentle EQ for tonal shaping (no surgical tweaking), an outboard compressor or two, and an outboard reverb or two. That's usually about it and as a result the mix is cleaner and simpler and just works and sounds so much better.

It goes back to Narcoman's point. Those who know what they are doing can produce extremely good ITB mixes. Those who don't, don't. It's that simple.

Oh... and running ultra-hot outputs from your computer interface into a budget analogue desk for OTB mixing won't help either because those kind of desks just don't have the kind of input stages that can cope with peaks around +22dBu all the time.

Back everything off in the computer so that the D-A outputs are averaging around -20dBFS with transient peaks kicking up to -10dBFS (or better still, record it that way in the first place) and the whole thing sounds a lot sweeter.

Gain structure is your friend!

hugh
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 27944
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Re: Old ADAT/DAT masters sounded better - weak link my Delta66?

Postby planetnine » Fri Aug 06, 2010 7:40 pm

Hugh Robjohns wrote:...They also frequently run everything way too hot with no headroom at all!

So it's no wonder everything sounds naff and doesn't gel together.

With analogue OTB mixing they can't do any of that because they don't have the resources. All they have is some gentle EQ for tonal shaping (no surgical tweaking), an outboard compressor or two, and an outboard reverb or two. That's usually about it and as a result the mix is cleaner and simpler and just works and sounds so much better.

It goes back to Narcoman's point. Those who know what they are doing can produce extremely good ITB mixes. Those who don't, don't. It's that simple.

Oh... and running ultra-hot outputs from your computer interface into a budget analogue desk for OTB mixing won't help either because those kind of desks just don't have the kind of input stages that can cope with peaks around +22dBu all the time.

Back everything off in the computer so that the D-A outputs are averaging around -20dBFS with transient peaks kicking up to -10dBFS (or better still, record it that way in the first place) and the whole thing sounds a lot sweeter.

Gain structure is your friend!

hugh

I was brung-up on analogue desks mixing live events where there is not enough time for making the same mistakes with gain each time, and the meters and faders concentrate you onto the 10dB above and below 0VU/dB.

-so it seems natural to me to set my nominal at -18dB FSD, I can always turn my monitors up (that's why they have all that headroom capability).

It's apparent that most students I teach do not have that control or restraint, and they invariably run out of headroom, sometimes more than once during a busy mix and have to pull all the faders down, or mix with the master at -20, -30dB.

Everybody should learn gain structure on analogue desks at horrible gigs with 20 bands and no time ;)

>
User avatar
planetnine
Regular
Posts: 419
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 12:00 am
Location: lincolnshire government experimentation zone
Planet Nine, Lincoln, UK.

Re: Old ADAT/DAT masters sounded better - weak link my Delta66?

Postby The Elf » Fri Aug 06, 2010 10:02 pm

The no headroom/reverb on every channel thing... gawd, there are some people I work with regularly who just do not get it, depite me going over it a hundred times! This is where those of us who started on hardware are at an advantage and software companies need to come up with something to help guide newcomers to the right approach.

...and/or maybe I'm just useless at explaining!
User avatar
The Elf
Jedi Poster
Posts: 14685
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Sheffield, UK
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

Re: Old ADAT/DAT masters sounded better - weak link my Delta66?

Postby narcoman » Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:02 pm

jaminem wrote:Narcoman Does your carses go like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADY2Ka_0f3o

4 wheels, and a chassis but mixed with huge engineering resources, technical know how and cash. Does your '84 Nissan Micra provide this level of performance. I don`t think so.


erm - i wasn't making an analogy. I was saying poor ITB results are more to do with the driver. Any DAW - if you want to go there - is a high performance sports car. Perhaps not a Veyron, but certainly a capable machine. Top end analogue - yeah - that's a Veyron :)
narcoman
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3439
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
Battenburg to the power of 20 - said by Richie Royale in a moment of genius. 4pm. Wed 16th Nov 2011. Remember where you were....

Re: Old ADAT/DAT masters sounded better - weak link my Delta66?

Postby narcoman » Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:04 pm

akkk wrote:Narco, it is about driving, but can´t drive 200km/h on corners with volkswagen, so why not drive with ferrari all the time? :). And don´t talk about money here. We should leave the money a side and be proud professinals and leave a legacy behind, knowing we did the best we can. Maximum experience for listener, we doesn´t have to be ruled by economics and turn everything to [ ****** ], just because money rules. opinions are opinions ofcourse, but u know what I mean.

And yes:

Let´s forget RME 8-), u are right in that, prism or similar I guess. But everything else I said is solid and u agreed, which is cool. U sound like a pro, good for u. I understand ITB kicks low end analog mixing. Someone should make small mixer with neve components and sell it for 500$, why not :). Transistors, capasitors, metal, can´t be so hard. :)


As my post above mention.... a DAW is a well specced sports car - but a Veyron (my console :) ) IS better..... The point is - ITB is a good solution for those who know how to use it. A good console is better - but there are a lot of really great sounding mixes NOT done OTB. Just don't judge ITB by the crap swamping Myspace or in the charts..... because there is FAR better out there !! :)

All things being equal - if one can't do a kick arse mix ITB (with well recorded source material) then one can't mix. You can do it BETTER on a good console etc - but you can get most of the way there ITB.
narcoman
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3439
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
Battenburg to the power of 20 - said by Richie Royale in a moment of genius. 4pm. Wed 16th Nov 2011. Remember where you were....

Previous