Rendering mix directly from session

Recording Techniques, People Skills, Gear, Recording Spaces, Computers, and DIY

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

User avatar
@?,*???&?
on a wing and a prayer
Posts: 5804
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 4:36 pm
Location: Just left on the FM dial
Contact:

Rendering mix directly from session

Post by @?,*???&? » Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:21 am

Spindrift just posted this over on the Computer World board:

"I was once at a three day Digidesign event where they had various seminars. In one of them someone from Digi was discussing the phenomenon of the bounce not sounding as good as things had in playback. He stated that he had been told by some Digi programmers that the math used in summing to a bounce is different than the math used in summing for playback. The suggested workaround was to bus the mix to a new audio track and record it. Apparently, this will sound better."

Would this not be a drastic argument to master directly from the multi-track Pro Tools platform at all times?

caffiend2049
alignin' 24-trk
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:25 pm

Re: Rendering mix directly from session

Post by caffiend2049 » Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:31 am

@?,*???&? wrote:Spindrift just posted this over on the Computer World board:



Would this not be a drastic argument to master directly from the multi-track Pro Tools platform at all times?
Or at least run it out through a nice summing bus to tape or a standalone burner.
bigger and better....sooner than later

cleantone
takin' a dinner break
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 10:44 am

Post by cleantone » Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:07 pm

do both, align the resulting tracks to the sample, invert polarity on one and see if your getting any sound.

User avatar
darjama
tinnitus
Posts: 1001
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:11 pm
Location: East SF Bay

Post by darjama » Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:16 pm

That doesn't make much sense. Why would the summing math be better in the realtime process than offline? If you were going to make it different at all, wouldn't you put the more processor intensive math (presumably better) in the offline process?

MoreSpaceEcho
zen recordist
Posts: 6514
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am

Post by MoreSpaceEcho » Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:19 pm

one would think.

User avatar
RedCrownStudios
pushin' record
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:28 pm
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by RedCrownStudios » Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:25 pm

I wonder if digi just told people the math had changed, without really changing it, how many people would say "Oh, it sounds much better now!"
Marshall Baker
Media Designer
Tulsa, Ok
www.MarshallBaker.com
www.MarshallandRoxy.com

MoreSpaceEcho
zen recordist
Posts: 6514
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am

Post by MoreSpaceEcho » Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:40 pm

but knowing digi, they'd say 'hey! we changed the math! it sounds way better now! upgrade now for only $10,000!'

User avatar
@?,*???&?
on a wing and a prayer
Posts: 5804
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 4:36 pm
Location: Just left on the FM dial
Contact:

Post by @?,*???&? » Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:01 pm

darjama wrote:That doesn't make much sense. Why would the summing math be better in the realtime process than offline? If you were going to make it different at all, wouldn't you put the more processor intensive math (presumably better) in the offline process?
It has to have something to do with this being so 'host-based' intensive with regard to processing.

In the LE systems, if you mouse down on the RTAS plugin as its processing, the sound of the plugin changes. If the computer is maxed out, alot of times function indicators on the plugins get slow. If you mouse down, it makes the plugin first priority (due to the computer making the mouse the priority) and thus, the processing of the plugin changes.

I suspect something like this may be at work during the 'bounce to disc' command, thus a reason for the possible difference.

User avatar
darjama
tinnitus
Posts: 1001
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:11 pm
Location: East SF Bay

Post by darjama » Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:15 pm

@?,*???&? wrote:It has to have something to do with this being so 'host-based' intensive with regard to processing.

In the LE systems, if you mouse down on the RTAS plugin as its processing, the sound of the plugin changes. If the computer is maxed out, alot of times function indicators on the plugins get slow. If you mouse down, it makes the plugin first priority (due to the computer making the mouse the priority) and thus, the processing of the plugin changes.
Holding the mouse pointer over a plugin GUI during playback changes the resulting sound? Seriously? If this is the case, I've never been happier not to be a Digidesign customer. But I have a hard time believing any serious multimedia creation app would be programmed this way. Any confirmation on this?

User avatar
0-it-hz
buyin' gear
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 3:01 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by 0-it-hz » Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:50 pm

I call bullshit. You have ZERO understanding of how digital audio or computers function. These threads are doing harm to people seeking real information and debate.

You are the very model of a medieval troglodyte.
Everything louder than everything else.

User avatar
JGriffin
zen recordist
Posts: 6739
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:44 pm
Location: criticizing globally, offending locally
Contact:

Post by JGriffin » Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:58 pm

0-it-hz wrote:I call bullshit. You have ZERO understanding of how digital audio or computers function. These threads are doing harm to people seeking real information and debate.

You are the very model of a medieval troglodyte.
Not to mention, the "bounce to disk sounds different" thing was discussed and discarded YEARS ago.

Seriously, how much farther back in time will these threads go? Are we to hear next that storing tape reels vertically instead of horizontally cuts down on print-through?
"Jeweller, you've failed. Jeweller."

"Lots of people are nostalgic for analog. I suspect they're people who never had to work with it." ? Brian Eno

All the DWLB music is at http://dwlb.bandcamp.com/

chris harris
speech impediment
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 5:31 pm
Location: Norman, OK
Contact:

Post by chris harris » Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:21 pm

any of you know anything about the revolutionary new practice of storing tape reels tails out? anything to that?

RefD
on a wing and a prayer
Posts: 5993
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:10 pm

Post by RefD » Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:40 pm

i try to keep my Edison cylinders away from my coal-burning stove.
?What need is there to weep over parts of life? The whole of it calls for tears.? -- Seneca

User avatar
JGriffin
zen recordist
Posts: 6739
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:44 pm
Location: criticizing globally, offending locally
Contact:

Post by JGriffin » Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:53 pm

subatomic pieces wrote:any of you know anything about the revolutionary new practice of storing tape reels tails out? anything to that?
Puffery. Pure puffery. :wink:
"Jeweller, you've failed. Jeweller."

"Lots of people are nostalgic for analog. I suspect they're people who never had to work with it." ? Brian Eno

All the DWLB music is at http://dwlb.bandcamp.com/

User avatar
@?,*???&?
on a wing and a prayer
Posts: 5804
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 4:36 pm
Location: Just left on the FM dial
Contact:

Post by @?,*???&? » Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:43 pm

0-it-hz wrote:I call bullshit. You have ZERO understanding of how digital audio or computers function. These threads are doing harm to people seeking real information and debate.

You are the very model of a medieval troglodyte.
Hey idiotboy, this is Digidesign theory. Deal with it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests