Thread: Opinions on Dangerous 2 Bus Vs. VCC/NLS

Results 21 to 40 of 75

  1. #21
    Join Date Nov 2006
    Location Sweden
    Posts 13,523
    Rep Power 536871460

    Default Re: Opinions on Dangerous 2 Bus Vs. VCC/NLS

    "Uh-oh, I hear no difference."
    The way I see it is, you do hear the difference with the VCC, so there is no reason you wouldn't hear the "better difference", in my opinion, with a real, quality summing unit.

    Helios On-line has the best price I've found for the Vintagedesign SU-2 at 1.500,00 Euro.
    There are several American dealers who carry the unit. You would save not only on shipping, but also on sales tax if you shop out of state.

    The Dangerous/Lynx combination is still attractive, for the least expensive of the bunch. With the extra 6 channels of summing vs. the Vintagedesign.
    A 16-channel, passive expansion for the Vintagedesign SU-1 comes in at about $750, increasing the number of channels to 32. Room to grow when needed. It should also be noted that the SU-2 is the company's top-of-the-line unit. The Dangerous LE, while surely a quality summing amplifier, is not. It also lacks the feature that allows you to insert parallel processing on the 2-bus.

    I should also say that although I use several RME products, I do prefer the Lynx converters.

    Also, Apogee DA16X are starting to appear on the used market for $1500-$1800. If you already have a decent DA... Just sayin'.
    Since there really haven't been a whole lot of improvements in conversion in the last 6-8 years, this may in fact be a good alternative plan.


    otek
    "Tube color is not the 'thing'. Why would the most linear amplifying device have a color?" - Jonte Knif
  2. #22
    Join Date Nov 2011
    Location Charlotte, NC
    Posts 1,895
    Rep Power 536871011

    Default Re: Opinions on Dangerous 2 Bus Vs. VCC/NLS

    Originally Posted by Steveschizoid
    I have the Lynx Aurora 16 (with an AES16-e) and it works fine at 44.1...is the limitation you mentioned peculiar to using it with the ADAT card? Would you be using a non Lynx device to clock it? It would certainly be a huge issue not to be able to playback 44.1 KHz files!
    I use a Rosendahl nanosync for house sync. Oddly enough, we sometimes have the need to sync to blackburst.

    I was looking at the spec info on a retail site. This is their blurb:

    The Lynx LT-ADAT expansion interface gives your Aurora 8 or 16 A/D D/A converter ADAT functionality. Just install the LT-ADAT in the Aurora's internal L-slot, and you've got two high-quality ADAT lightpipe inputs and outputs in your converter. This interface provides up to 16 channels of ADAT I/O at 48kHz, and 96kHz and 192kHz rates are also supported. You also get a range of sample clock synch options on the Lynx LT-ADAT expansion interface.

    Lynx LT-ADAT Expansion Interface for Aurora Converter Features:
    Two ADAT lightpipe inputs
    Two ADAT lightpipe outputs
    Operates at 48kHz, 96kHz, or 192kHz sampling rates
    Installs internally in L-slot option slot in Aurora 8 or 16 A/D D/A converters
    Sample clock source can be derived from word clock received by Aurora, or first lightpipe input can be selected as source.
    Up to 16 channels of ADAT I/O (at 48kHz rate)


    So you're right in that it doesn't say it can't support 44.1. But it doesn't say it can. It doesn't sound like it from this blurb. I'll have to go to their site and do more research.

    It would seem odd if it couldn't....


    I don't understand why you absolutely need two 2Buss LT units while you're ready to go with one Vintage Design?
    Want 'n' need's two differ'nt things!

    Seriously though, I don't know that I need two 2Buss LTs. I'm basing my thoughts off of Mixerman's comments about the subject in "Zen and the Art of Mixing", and the fact that more is better.

    But only to a point! So perhaps I don't need two boxes. I hadn't really thought of it that way. That in and of itself would save some money.

    And unless I'm missing something (which I often do) you're thinking that the extra 6 channels I would gain from another box only leads to diminishing returns?

    Also, Apogee DA16X are starting to appear on the used market for $1500-$1800. If you already have a decent AD... Just saying'.
    And that's great food for thought! Although I would like to have more than 8 inputs. Hence the need (there's that word again!) for AD/DA boxes.

    All of this will be centered around the RME UFX as the main interface to the computer.

    Mike
    CAPE 10: Team Uprising
  3. #23
    Join Date Nov 2011
    Location Charlotte, NC
    Posts 1,895
    Rep Power 536871011

    Default Re: Opinions on Dangerous 2 Bus Vs. VCC/NLS

    The way I see it is, you do hear the difference with the VCC, so there is no reason you wouldn't hear the "better difference", in my opinion, with a real, quality summing unit.
    Oh, sure. You know though, buyers remorse and all that. What with the wiring that would need to be done and money spent. It's just something that niggles at the back of your mind!


    There are several American dealers who carry the unit. You would save not only on shipping, but also on sales tax if you shop out of state.
    Yes definitely. I just did a quick Google search to get an idea of price and the only dealers were overseas. I'll have to go to Vintagedesign's website and find a dealer Stateside.


    A 16-channel, passive expansion for the Vintagedesign SU-1 comes in at about $750, increasing the number of channels to 32. Room to grow when needed. It should also be noted that the SU-2 is the company's top-of-the-line unit. The Dangerous LE, while surely a quality summing amplifier, is not. It also lacks the feature that allows you to insert parallel processing on the 2-bus.
    So do you think that 22 channels is overkill and 16 would cut it?

    That's encouraging about the expansion, but I'm not sure what passive means. I'll have to go check it out.

    In Dangerous Music's defense, the only real difference between the 2Buss and the 2Buss LT is the absence of a -6db switch. Which, if I've done proper gain staging, wouldn't be needed in the first place. They otherwise should sound exactly the same.

    The LT is one rack space instead of two and uses the Dsub25 connector instead of all XLRs.

    The aux sends are still a great thing and the price of the expansion is attractive as well!

    And maybe I don't really need 22 channels?

    I should also say that although I use several RME products, I do prefer the Lynx converters.
    I need to verify the whole ADAT working at 44.1k thing, but the price is much more attractive compared to two ADI-8s!


    Since there really haven't been a whole lot of improvements in conversion in the last 6-8 years, this may in fact be a good alternative plan.


    otek
    I agree.

    I was wanting to add more input channels as well though. The RME UFX only has 8 line inputs. The Lynx or the ADI-8 would give me that option as well.

    Thanks again!

    Mike
    CAPE 10: Team Uprising
  4. #24
    Has Many Personal Intergritys Expensive Boat Anchor
    Join Date Nov 2006
    Location New York
    Posts 10,162
    Rep Power 536871347

    Default Re: Opinions on Dangerous 2 Bus Vs. VCC/NLS

    I love the Dangerous LT... and I think 16 channels is plenty.
  5. #25
    Voice like Marcel Marceau One toke over the line
    Join Date Feb 2012
    Posts 281
    Rep Power 520093944

    Default Re: Opinions on Dangerous 2 Bus Vs. VCC/NLS

    So you're right in that it doesn't say it can't support 44.1. But it doesn't say it can. It doesn't sound like it from this blurb. I'll have to go to their site and do more research.
    I'd call Lynx and ask.

    And if the LT-ADAT card does offer the option of using 44.1 KHz, I would suggest that they might benefit from making it clear in their description.

    I got to know their main tech support guy, Paul, when I decided to install the L22 along with the AES16e. He's a good man.
    Oh, sure. You know though, buyers remorse and all that. What with the wiring that would need to be done
    Consider it a chance to become more confident in your solder technique!

    By the way, when you do this, make sure and update this thread with your impressions. As I said, I'm leaning pretty heavily towards taking a similar step.
  6. #26
    Join Date Nov 2011
    Location Charlotte, NC
    Posts 1,895
    Rep Power 536871011

    Default Re: Opinions on Dangerous 2 Bus Vs. VCC/NLS

    I love the Dangerous LT... and I think 16 channels is plenty.
    Ok then. Excellent!

    Thanks!

    I have a question that I'm not even sure how to ask....

    When summing in the computer, is it ANY summing it does, or just at the Master Out? Or is it additive? A computer can sum a few tracks well, but it can't do 30 tracks well?

    For example, say I have a 5 synth tracks from different plugins (Kontakt, Omnishpere, whatever...) and route those to a stereo aux bus. Is this a bad way to sum? Or is it fine?

    As I mentioned, I often have very large track counts with virtual instruments involved.

    • String sections from Hollywood Strings or LA Scoring Strings:
      Violin I
      Violin II
      Viola
      Cello
      Basses
    • Brass and Woodwinds from Vienna Ensemble
      Horn sections: Trumpets, French Horns, etc...
      Wind sections: Flutes, Oboe, etc...
    • Synth pads and sound from Omnishpere
    • Guitar tracks
    • Drums and percussion
    • Electric Bass


    You get the idea. It can add up quick. Is reducing all of this to 16 channels going to be too much summing in the computer to reap the benefits of the analog summing hardware?

    Does this make sense? I'm not really sure if I'm asking a proper question. Or my question in a proper way.

    Mike
    Last edited by mmcginnis; April 13th, 2012 at 07:29 PM. Reason: I couldn't get the dots right in my list!
    CAPE 10: Team Uprising
  7. #27
    Join Date Nov 2011
    Location Charlotte, NC
    Posts 1,895
    Rep Power 536871011

    Default Re: Opinions on Dangerous 2 Bus Vs. VCC/NLS

    I'd call Lynx and ask.

    And if the LT-ADAT card does offer the option of using 44.1 KHz, I would suggest that they might benefit from making it clear in their description.

    I got to know their main tech support guy, Paul, when I decided to install the L22 along with the AES16e. He's a good man.

    Consider it a chance to become more confident in your solder technique!

    By the way, when you do this, make sure and update this thread with your impressions. As I said, I'm leaning pretty heavily towards taking a similar step.
    I went up to there website and the card does indeed support 44.1. So with 44.1 and 48k you get 16 channels of audio.

    I did send them an email asking about wordclock sync in regards to the card itself.

    I will gladly post thoughts if/when I get this put together. It looks as if 16 channels will be enough. So that takes quite a bit out of the equation in terms of cost.

    Thanks for you thoughts as well!

    Mike
    CAPE 10: Team Uprising
  8. #28
    Join Date Nov 2011
    Location Charlotte, NC
    Posts 1,895
    Rep Power 536871011

    Default Re: Opinions on Dangerous 2 Bus Vs. VCC/NLS

    Everything seems to work as needed with the Lynx Aurora and an LT-ADAT expansion card. So this is a great option.

    Thanks for the heads up otek!

    Mike
    CAPE 10: Team Uprising
  9. #29
    Join Date Nov 2006
    Location Sweden
    Posts 13,523
    Rep Power 536871460

    Default Re: Opinions on Dangerous 2 Bus Vs. VCC/NLS

    I may be missing something, but if you do mainly scoring and post, how come you're not working at 48 (or 96)?


    otek
    "Tube color is not the 'thing'. Why would the most linear amplifying device have a color?" - Jonte Knif
  10. #30
    Join Date Nov 2011
    Location Charlotte, NC
    Posts 1,895
    Rep Power 536871011

    Default Re: Opinions on Dangerous 2 Bus Vs. VCC/NLS

    I may be missing something, but if you do mainly scoring and post, how come you're not working at 48 (or 96)?


    otek
    A lot of samples we use are at 44.1 and the rate conversion on the fly is very strenuous on the CPU.

    We're running huge libraries

    I'm thinking I really need to check the ones we use most now a days as they may be 48k. Or have an option for that install. I know the older Vienna stuff we have is at 44.1. But we're using this stuff in EXS for Brass and winds mostly. Also some of the older Garritan (sp?) stuff in Kontakt. And I wouldn't say Kontakt is the friendliest sampler to the CPU.

    Newer stuff would be things like Hollywood strings, or Superior drummer 2, or Ivory II, etc....

    On top of this we're running video along side for scoring to picture.

    We may be outdated here though....

    Of course all of this is a moot point as the Lynx does anything I may need it to. If I my only true need is 16 channels of summing and no more, then I can save quite a bit of money.

    Are my concerns about my track counts unfounded?

    Mike
    Last edited by mmcginnis; April 14th, 2012 at 01:26 AM. Reason: Thought of more stuff!
    CAPE 10: Team Uprising
  11. #31
    Junior assistant coffee maker trainee ACME recording engineer...just add water.
    Join Date Jun 2011
    Posts 859
    Rep Power 536870981

    Default

    Out of the few soundtrack oriented composers I work with, those doing "orchestral" work use VEP. It really helps putting together a powerful and streamlined, scalable multi-machines system. Using PT HD/TDM as main mixer/stem recorder can be useful too, in part because the 192 io has the ability to do real time sample rate conversion on its digital inputs.

    On the other hand, a great team doing some very contemporary stuff are simply using Live (and a bunch of real instruments).

    Btw, none use analog summing for that kind of work, neither do I, or for post work. When consoles are used they're digital ones. Speed and recallability are where it's at. For album work it's a different mindset.
  12. #32
    Join Date Nov 2011
    Location Charlotte, NC
    Posts 1,895
    Rep Power 536871011

    Default Re: Opinions on Dangerous 2 Bus Vs. VCC/NLS

    Out of the few soundtrack oriented composers I work with, those doing "orchestral" work use VEP. It really helps putting together a powerful and streamlined, scalable multi-machines system. Using PT HD/TDM as main mixer/stem recorder can be useful too, in part because the 192 io has the ability to do real time sample rate conversion on its digital inputs.

    On the other hand, a great team doing some very contemporary stuff are simply using Live (and a bunch of real instruments).

    Btw, none use analog summing for that kind of work, neither do I, or for post work. When consoles are used they're digital ones. Speed and recallability are where it's at. For album work it's a different mindset.
    Hey Le Chef,

    Yes, we have some of the library on VEP, but need to update the brass and winds. My boss is just waiting for capital to be able to do so. He still works at 32 bit because the legato tool is broken in 64 bit. VEP fixes that. I've been working mainly at 64 bit, because I'm only doing fill in work or smaller projects and don't rely as heavily on Vienna.

    But you're right on all counts, speed and re-callability are of paramount concern. I do need to keep this streamlined. One thing that's so appealing to me about the hybrid setup is the straight wire approach. All you really need do is run the audio through a summing box to reap the benefits (or so I hear, lol). But there are no re-callability issues, sans outboard processing, i.e. compressors, eqs, etc.... For this reason, I'm not overly concerned with using a lot of external gear. I have a couple compressors, (I'll typically aux out and record the processed track back into the project and keep moving...) and at some point would like a nice 2 buss compressor for the projects that are album oriented. Maybe an eq or two (not really worried about that right now either). My room is the only room that would have summing. My boss doesn't need it for scoring as you mention, nor the post room.

    My boss does the lion's share of scoring, particularly orchestral. Most of my work over the last couple of years has moved to writing more of the main stream contemporary music, one off songs, album work, tracking, and mixing. We also have a contract to write 4 hours of instrumental music every six months or so. These rely much less heavily on recallability.

    The possibility of more soundtrack albums being done is one reason I ask about the need for 22 channels vs. 16. But as you say, a lot of the "summing/mixing" can be done in the plugin itself, i.e. Vienna Ensemble Pro, Kontakt, etc...or whatever multi-timbral plug you're using these days. Which leads me to believe that you don't really benefit from only 6 more stereo channels of summing. I will say, I just finished an orchestral score and using VCC was incredible in opening up the sound stage and focusing the instruments in the mix. Particularly some percussion parts I had going on. Things just started to pop! I could use a hybrid-hybird approach!

    Anyway, I really appreciate your input. The more we discuss this, and from Weedy's comments, I don't think I need two summing boxes. And that's a big relief! If at a later time it becomes apparent that I do need more channels, it would be a simple matter of adding it then. All the conversion would already be in place.

    Thanks again!

    Mike
    CAPE 10: Team Uprising
  13. #33
    Join Date Nov 2006
    Location Sweden
    Posts 13,523
    Rep Power 536871460

    Default Re: Opinions on Dangerous 2 Bus Vs. VCC/NLS

    Missed a few of your questions before:

    So do you think that 22 channels is overkill and 16 would cut it?
    No and yes. I don't think 22 channels is overkill, but 16 would definitely be enough.

    That's encouraging about the expansion, but I'm not sure what passive means.
    Passive means the summing box lacks the makeup gain amplification stage at the output. As is the case with the Vintagedesign, it can be run as a "slave" to an active summing unit providing more input channels. In some cases (such as the Roll Music Folcrom), it is deliberately designed to run with external amplification, typically a set of mic preamps.

    In Dangerous Music's defense, the only real difference between the 2Buss and the 2Buss LT is the absence of a -6db switch.
    If so, that sounds like an unbelievably good deal (almost a little too good?), considering the almost 1500 dollar price cut between the two models.


    otek
    "Tube color is not the 'thing'. Why would the most linear amplifying device have a color?" - Jonte Knif
  14. #34
    Join Date Nov 2011
    Location Charlotte, NC
    Posts 1,895
    Rep Power 536871011

    Mojito Re: Opinions on Dangerous 2 Bus Vs. VCC/NLS

    Missed a few of your questions before:



    No and yes. I don't think 22 channels is overkill, but 16 would definitely be enough.



    Passive means the summing box lacks the makeup gain amplification stage at the output. As is the case with the Vintagedesign, it can be run as a "slave" to an active summing unit providing more input channels. In some cases (such as the Roll Music Folcrom), it is deliberately designed to run with external amplification, typically a set of mic preamps.



    If so, that sounds like an unbelievably good deal (almost a little too good?), considering the almost 1500 dollar price cut between the two models.


    otek
    I assume theres no way to hook the Vintagedesigns expansion summer into the Dangerous LT is there? LOL

    I have no verifiable proof as to the quality of the LT vs. it's big brother. Other than Fab states this - emphatically, and what they say on the website.

    It does lack the -6db (or +6db I forget which way it goes) switch and is dsub vs. XLRs. Plus it's one rack space vs. two. That's a lot of hardware when it comes down to it. So that may be the difference.

    I'm going with one summing box for now.

    You guys are great! Too much experience out there and a willingness to share. I've just saved a couple o' grand!

    Le Chef may think I'm a Gear Slut, but I'm a Penny Pinching Gear Slut! LOL
    CAPE 10: Team Uprising
  15. #35
    Junior assistant coffee maker trainee ACME recording engineer...just add water.
    Join Date Jun 2011
    Posts 859
    Rep Power 536870981

    Default

    Well, better to put the money on the building the gear sits in, the way I see it now. (Once you have your working setup and unless an extra is bringing in clients or obviously paying for itself.)

    Don't worry I had my phase of "I'll send my assistant with the truck (full of junk) for the session". It eventually reached a point where I was bringing a complete studio to the studio - with PTHD, outboards and drumkit/instuments/amps. I guess the business owner side of me eventually won over the gear lusting nerd.

    Although it was initially motivated by economic reasons, I actually found doing more with less quite liberating and in effect rewarding. And it's more of a Zen mindset...
    Not that I'm totally there yet mind you... .
  16. #36
    Join Date Nov 2011
    Location Charlotte, NC
    Posts 1,895
    Rep Power 536871011

    Default Re: Opinions on Dangerous 2 Bus Vs. VCC/NLS

    Well, better to put the money on the building the gear sits in, the way I see it now. (Once you have your working setup and unless an extra is bringing in clients or obviously paying for itself.)

    Don't worry I had my phase of "I'll send my assistant with the truck (full of junk) for the session". It eventually reached a point where I was bringing a complete studio to the studio - with PTHD, outboards and drumkit/instuments/amps. I guess the business owner side of me eventually won over the gear lusting nerd.

    Although it was initially motivated by economic reasons, I actually found doing more with less quite liberating and in effect rewarding. And it's more of a Zen mindset...
    Not that I'm totally there yet mind you... .
    You've been a great help! And I'm only pulling your leg.

    Thanks!

    Mike
    CAPE 10: Team Uprising
  17. #37
    Junior assistant coffee maker trainee Reads Playboy for the articles
    Join Date Mar 2011
    Location Seattle, WA
    Posts 1,030
    Rep Power 126890143

    Default Re: Opinions on Dangerous 2 Bus Vs. VCC/NLS

    For 6G's...

    You might consider this
    Every time you use a preset, a puppy dies.

    Think of the puppies
    Originally Posted by Maurice Gerbehringer
    2. OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS
    Use your ears.
  18. #38
    Join Date Nov 2011
    Location Charlotte, NC
    Posts 1,895
    Rep Power 536871011

    Default Re: Opinions on Dangerous 2 Bus Vs. VCC/NLS

    For 6G's...

    You might consider this
    Hey, thanks Nathan.

    Yeah, unfortunately a console is not an option for me. But I personally would love to have one.

    Mike
    CAPE 10: Team Uprising
  19. #39
    Join Date Nov 2006
    Location 10.1.1.3
    Posts 2,175
    Rep Power 494928028

    Default Re: Opinions on Dangerous 2 Bus Vs. VCC/NLS

    Paul Frindle has interesting thoughts related to this:

    Originally Posted by Paul Frindle
    I never comment on other people's S/W, especially when I have absolutely no idea what's in it. And since I have a reputation of telling it how it is (even if I suffer financially for it), it's unlikely that anyone would seek my opinion in public as part of their marketing campaign.

    Luckily, with audio we have the luxury of 'messing about', no planes are going to fall out of the sky and no nuclear missles are going to be erroneously launched because of our marketing driven consumeresque 'popularist tech' - LOL. If it makes you feel happy and you like what you get from this stuff, you can safely use it, remembering that if you feel good it's likely you will produce better results (I could do a whole book in this stuff from studio experience - it's not trivial and it is important. It's what's called artistic freedom - and long may is prosper. Also please remember that the financial situation ensures that we can only afford to make what you people will buy - and what you buy is heavily influenced by how you feel about it and is not soley constrained by what it actually does :-)

    But from a technical point of view it's obvious that since processing can add up numbers almost perfectly (better than anything that could make a difference within the known universe), anything else is forcibly worse. If one thinks 'out of the box', ignore the hype and considers this in the cold light of day, it speaks volumes about our industry (and human psychology) that the one single thing digital processing can do better than anything else in the universe is exactly the very thing that you have been persuaded is flawed! It's both comical and sad all at the same time.

    The whole argument about 'summing' is completely false from a technical standpoint and the differences people notice when say flying out of the box into an analogue mixer and reconverting back to digital again are caused by the many intrusive effects of the conversions and interfaces.

    As for the so called SSL sound - as most of you know, I designed much of this stuff (especially the G series) and I can tell you there's nothing magic about the technologly used - we got the best performance we could from the technology at our disposal. We would have dearly loved to get anywhere near the performance of todays cheap DAWs and decent plug-ins - but it was simply impossible back then, because we were constrained in analogue by the laws of physics.

    The sound people got from the SSL was due massively to the features of the console itself - the way the user was encouraged to operate it (by the fixed control surface) - and the fashion of the times. And don't imagine that that some 'magic' exists in the 'errors of the system' either - apart from a bit of noise (unavoidable in large scale analogue systems), the errors were as low as we could make them (obviously) and are absolutely not the cause of it's success. And please do not take it a stage further as some people have done, and think that some ethereal magic happened due to factors we didn't realise - we were not simply fiddling around - and we did know what we were doing :-)

    You cannot magically obtain this from trying to analyse it and 'emulate' it - and more to the point, you cannot ensure the financial successes and environments of that era by simply having a 'name' on your screen. The world has changed technically for the better by miles and the fiscal situation of the industry has completely changed - the important thing is to embrace it and use it to the fullest extent - not get hung up on a virtual past :-)

    So even though I designed much of the analogue stuff people are worshipping, you won't see an SSL 'emulation' from me - because I would consider this unfair! If you want to use what I would have made back then had it have been technically possible, go to Sonnox and get hold of the Oxford EQ and Dynamics :-)

    BTW - that this not a Sonnox marketing plug. I don't work for them and I get nothing from the sales of the stuff I designed when at Sony :-)
    http://www.gearslutz.com/board/6958711-post487.html

    I personally find VCC helps make ITB mixing easier/faster. I guess whatever the real reason that is, doesn't matter to me.
    "Art is the expression of imagination, not the reproduction of reality." - Henry Moore

    >> York St Recording Studios <<
  20. #40
    Middle Handicapper...short game needs work Sqweels like a pig!
    Join Date Oct 2011
    Location caprica
    Posts 1,237
    Rep Power 536870990

    Default Re: Opinions on Dangerous 2 Bus Vs. VCC/NLS

    But from a technical point of view it's obvious that since processing can add up numbers almost perfectly (better than anything that could make a difference within the known universe), anything else is forcibly worse. If one thinks 'out of the box', ignore the hype and considers this in the cold light of day, it speaks volumes about our industry (and human psychology) that the one single thing digital processing can do better than anything else in the universe is exactly the very thing that you have been persuaded is flawed! It's both comical and sad all at the same time.
    The whole argument about 'summing' is completely false from a technical standpoint and the differences people notice when say flying out of the box into an analogue mixer and reconverting back to digital again are caused by the many intrusive effects of the conversions and interfaces.
    I know that Mr. Frindle is not actually here posting, so I'm not really responding to him, but..

    I hear a difference. Whether or not it is technically "correct" or whatever makes absolutely no difference to me. What makes a difference to me is what I can hear, and I hear a difference because I've been using the same shit for like 8 years and I know exactly the difference the dangerous 2-bus makes in my mixes. Even with all my shitty shit. I don't need a freaking graph or an equation or a test to prove what I already know from listening to it and working with it.

    I use my ears and my heart and my gut and whatever else got me into music in the first place.

    That's the POINT of what we do. Maybe some people just can't hear the difference? This argument becomes maddening because I already know what I am hearing. How can you argue this?

    You can't. Or I can't. Apparently summing and math don't jive. When robots start listening to music (cylons), then we can worry about the math.

    and by then it'll all be too late

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts