Skol303 Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 [b][size=5]A fiendish little listening test for anyone interested...[/size][/b] Here are two snippets from the same track (mixed by yours truly): [url="http://soundcloud.com/skol-mixes/sets/cryptic-mix-test"][b]LINK TO CRYPTIC MIX TEST[/b][/url] One has been processed very differently to the other. [list] [*][b]Which version do you prefer - T1 or T2? [/b](and why) [*][b]Or do they both sound the same??[/b] [/list] Use the poll above and add comments below as you wish. I'll reveal all in due course (but don't go holding your breath, it's not [i]that[/i] exciting). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Done. Disclaimer: I'm old and more than half deaf, so... I listened carefully to the two, alternating, synchronising, playing 'ping-pong' with 'em, right through. Altogether a pretty good balance; I'd have maybe brought up the voice a bit more except when she comes forward herself. I liked the percu, especially. The brass has moments of being a bit 'brassy', but that's their role, I suppose. Good stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skol303 Posted May 10, 2016 Author Share Posted May 10, 2016 ^ Cheers Doug It's a rough mix of a track I worked on last year (i.e. before any final EQ'ing, compression, etc). I'm more interested in knowing whether there is any audible difference [i]between[/i] the two versions... purely for my own curiosity, as the way in which each track has been outputted is quite different. To my ears they sound almost identical, which was surprising. I'll reveal why once the statistical sampling pool gets beyond a total of 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowdown Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Through my 'phones, I like mix two better... A little more air on the whole mix as well..... But, I have 59 year old ears, so best not to listen to my ramblings. Plus I have been working through the early hours with someone and I am all coffee headed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul h Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 I think I preferred T2...it sounded a touch warmer to me. My ears are useless though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ras52 Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 T2 for me too - it feels a little more "glued". I thought the brass and the voice seemed to be competing for the same space in both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuNkShUi Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 (edited) I'm by no means and expert in recording, but i couldn't tell the difference. Edit: I actually thought that track 2 sounded tighter, not warmer as mentioned above. But the difference so negligible i didn't think it worth mentioning. Funny how we hear things different isn't it?. Edited May 10, 2016 by FuNkShUi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christofloffer Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 just through my stereo speakers i cant really tell much apart on them. i'm sure with some really good quality gear there would be more of a variation but i was straining to pick up much difference. if anything i would have said that the second one was slightly easier to pick out different parts but i couldnt hear enough to pick it over the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul h Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 I'm going to embarrass myself further and say T1 was mixed in the box and T2 was mixed through a console. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheddatom Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 To my ears, they're pretty much identical. The only difference I can notice is that the bass is slightly louder in the 2nd version, which I liked, so I voted for that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenshirt Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 I voted for No. 2...... a more defined sound to my old ears. By the way, not my kind of music but I do like it, nice one! Mart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skol303 Posted May 10, 2016 Author Share Posted May 10, 2016 This is [i]very [/i]interesting! I'm really tempted to spill the beans now... but I'm going to wait until later today, in case anyone else wants to quickly chip in. [size=2]I know, I'm just a big tease.[/size] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 (edited) So... Is one a WAV file and the other an MP3 or such..? 16-bit v 24-bit (or higher...)..? One went through analogue tape, the other; digital..? Come on, lad, spit it out..! Some of us have lives to live..! ([i]Sounds of fingers feverishly drumming a groove in the wooden desktop[/i]...) Edited May 10, 2016 by Dad3353 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skol303 Posted May 10, 2016 Author Share Posted May 10, 2016 (edited) [quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1462876541' post='3046439']Come on, lad, spit it out..! Some of us have lives to live..![/quote] Ok, ok! So the grand reveal is… [i]*drumroll please*[/i][list] [*]The first track (T1) was summed/outputted digitally ‘in the box’ using my DAW. [*]The second track (T2) was summed[i]*[/i] ‘outside the box’ using an analogue mixer - and the resulting stereo track was then outputted digitally as normal. [/list] ...no other difference between the two: i.e. no changes to the EQ, compression or other dynamics. Just a different summing process. I’m currently experimenting with analogue summing and the results of this little test support what I’ve been reading elsewhere: that analogue summing tends to create a slightly larger ‘sound stage’ and adds a touch of warmth/depth to the finished product. Personally speaking, I was expecting the results of each process to be more noticeable. I really struggled to tell the difference myself, and because I knew which track was which I needed some ‘impartial ears’ to make a more objective judgement. So a big thanks to you all for doing just that! It’s interesting to note how the majority of you favoured track 2 - the analogue summing - even using some of the adjectives that are typically associated with analogue such as “warmer”, “more air”, “more glued”, “tighter”, “more defined”, etc. Amazing… you guys have very good ears! I’m currently thinking about switching my home set up to a hybrid system, part ITB/OTB, and this has proved to me that it may be worthwhile. I won’t be investing in an SSL desk any time soon But there are some [i]very[/i] affordable analogue mixers on the market (less than £100 second hand) that make stepping ‘outside the box’ very possible - and tempting. Hmmmm… Thanks again guys. —— [i]*For anyone coming to this fresh: ‘summing’ is when the individual tracks of a mix are added together (‘summed’) to create a single track.[/i] Edited May 10, 2016 by Skol303 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ras52 Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 [quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1462879215' post='3046490'] Personally speaking, I was expecting the results of each process to be more noticeable. I really struggled to tell the difference myself, and because I knew which track was which I needed some ‘impartial ears’ to make a more objective judgement. So a big thanks to you all for doing just that! [/quote] Nugen A|B Assist lets you do a blind comparison: http://www.nugenaudio.com/newsitem.php?id=1f63331b-d55b-11e5-be2c-001999c29f76, and it's free! (Although it might only be available for Pro Tools...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 [quote name='ras52' timestamp='1462879838' post='3046502'] Nugen A|B Assist lets you do a blind comparison: [url="http://www.nugenaudio.com/newsitem.php?id=1f63331b-d55b-11e5-be2c-001999c29f76"]http://www.nugenaudi...2c-001999c29f76[/url], and it's free! (Although it might only be available for Pro Tools...) [/quote] Melda Production have [url="https://www.kvraudio.com/product/mcompare-by-meldaproduction"]MCompare[/url], which does much the same, for various OS and DAW's; there is also [url="https://www.samplemagic.com/details/184/magic-ab"]Magic AB[/url], too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 [quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1462879215' post='3046490']... [i]*For anyone coming to this fresh: ‘summing’ is when the individual tracks of a mix are added together (‘summed’) to create a single track.[/i] [/quote] So, let's see if I understand this properly... All of the separate tracks have their respective levels set (presumably in the DAW...). These are then fed out as separate tracks to the i/p's of a console, with all the gains and faders set to 0db or such, and the o/p from the console is taken back into the DAW for transformation (rendering...) into a file. Is that something like right, or have I missed something important..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skol303 Posted May 10, 2016 Author Share Posted May 10, 2016 [quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1462880754' post='3046522'] So, let's see if I understand this properly... All of the separate tracks have their respective levels set (presumably in the DAW...). These are then fed out as separate tracks to the i/p's of a console, with all the gains and faders set to 0db or such, and the o/p from the console is taken back into the DAW for transformation (rendering...) into a file. Is that something like right, or have I missed something important..? [/quote] Yep, that's exactly it! On track 2...[list] [*]The individual tracks in the DAW were sent to separate channels on the analogue desk (some set up a stereo pairs where necessary) [*]Everything on the desk was set to 'neutral' - all faders at 0db; nothing altered on any of the channel EQs. [*]Hit 'play' on the track and recorded the summed mix as audio back into the DAW. [*]The mix was then outputted from the DAW at the same 48kHz/24-bit resolution as Track 1 (the 'in the box' mix). Each track was then normalised to ensure consistency in the levels. [/list] No other magic or mojo involved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 (edited) [quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1462881086' post='3046530']... No other magic or mojo involved [/quote] OK, thanks for the confirmation. Now try taking the 'summed' stereo out to a reel-to-reel deck, and see if the famous 'tape compression' does its magic..? Having listened 'blind' (should that be 'deaf'..?) to the original tracks, is the slight difference worth the fuss and bother..? Any tiny difference in the 0 db of the console settings could account for the result. Do the same test, but swap around the console i/ps, without touching anything else, and listen for a difference between console 1 and console 2..? One could go mad going through all the potential permutations..! The result would have to be pretty proven before I'd consider investing. An interesting project, of course. Keep us posted on progress (and tell us if your Challenge tracks are treated of the sort..?). Edited May 10, 2016 by Dad3353 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skol303 Posted May 10, 2016 Author Share Posted May 10, 2016 (edited) [quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1462881793' post='3046543']OK, thanks for the confirmation. Now try taking the 'summed' stereo out to a reel-to-reel deck, and see if the famous 'tape compression' does its magic..?[/quote] I’d love to! Only my friend whose desk I used doesn’t have a reel-to-reel tape deck. Otherwise that’d be a good thing to test. [quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1462881793' post='3046543’]…is the slight difference worth the fuss and bother..?[/quote] Well that’s the thing… there really was no “fuss and bother” involved. Quite the opposite. I went into this looking for ways to improve the efficiency of my workflow - and very skeptical of the difference that using an analogue desk would make to the finished product (I already use a lot of ‘virtual analogue’ plug-ins to add “saturation and warmth”, etc). My mate has long championed the virtues of using a physical desk, so I decided to take up his offer and try it out. Mainly to shut him up I found it to be a lot more immediate and intuitive than I’d expected. Also - and this is perhaps a personal thing - I found it encouraged me to “use my ears” more than when mixing in the box. I could close my eyes and move the faders and channel EQs by hand, rather than having to constantly watch where I was looking on-screen. Less need for visual feedback, perhaps? I dunno. If you’d have asked me before this trial, I’d have poo-pooed the notion of it making much difference to the actual process of mixing. But surprisingly, it did. The only extra step was having to play and record the mixed track back in the DAW - rather than just immediately rendering it. A few added minutes, nothing more. I couldn’t notice any difference in the sound myself, but it’s interesting how people here did - and unanimously so (nobody voted for Track 1 being their favourite). Sure, this hasn’t been a robust and scientific test, but it’s given me much food for thought. And my mate is now banging on about analogue more than ever. But then every silver lining has its cloud, right? Edited May 10, 2016 by Skol303 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 [quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1462883726' post='3046585']...But then every silver lining has its cloud, right? [/quote] Hi, ho..! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ras52 Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 [quote name='ras52' timestamp='1462879838' post='3046502'] Nugen A|B Assist lets you do a blind comparison: [url="http://www.nugenaudio.com/newsitem.php?id=1f63331b-d55b-11e5-be2c-001999c29f76"]http://www.nugenaudi...2c-001999c29f76[/url], and it's free! (Although it might only be available for Pro Tools...) [/quote] [quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1462880445' post='3046514'] Melda Production have [url="https://www.kvraudio.com/product/mcompare-by-meldaproduction"]MCompare[/url], which does much the same, for various OS and DAW's; there is also [url="https://www.samplemagic.com/details/184/magic-ab"]Magic AB[/url], too [/quote] Ah, but as well as A/B comparison, this one can also do X/Y: you feed it your two sources, then it asks you to choose your preference [i]without you knowing which one is which... [/i]clever stuff! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 [quote name='ras52' timestamp='1462886389' post='3046628'] Ah, but as well as A/B comparison, this one can also do X/Y: you feed it your two sources, then it asks you to choose your preference [i]without you knowing which one is which... [/i]clever stuff! [/quote] Clever stuff indeed..! I shut my eyes, but whatever..! ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul h Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 What do I win? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skol303 Posted May 10, 2016 Author Share Posted May 10, 2016 [quote name='paul h' timestamp='1462902311' post='3046853'] What do I win? [/quote] My utmost adulation for sussing it out! Good call Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.7e18f76540598a8efc0e6ca9be453059.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.