Rendering mix directly from session

[RefD]

this is better than Father Ted!

Are you talking about Pastor Ted "Rough Trade 'n' Meth" Haggard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Ted

i was thinking specifically of Father Dougal McGuire.

His inability to grasp the simplest of everyday concepts provides much of the humour in the show.

[Mark Alan Miller]

The issue I tested for was simply to see if a bounce-to-disk or a re-record internally to a track yielded the same data. They did.

I don't know about this 'hold down the mouse over the plugin' thing, never heard of it before, and I imagine that if it's true that a plugin somehow changes its math when being moused on that it would yield a different sound. But that's not what I was debating. As I have not tested for plug-in "wobble", to coin a phrase, I cannot comment on it. But I want to try it. I'm on PT 7.4, so I don't know if there's any relationship to any version 5 shenanigans...

And to play back even two copies of the exact same file, the exact same data, using different clocks would unlikely yield a null if one was inverted, even through an analog board. They have to be sample-locked for the test to even be relevant. Also, the likelihood of getting 100% nulling on an analog desk is low as no two channels are going to sound 100% the same due to tolerances in components in the circuits.

I have not tried the third option - running a multitrack mix out of PT onto another digital recorder and comparing that in a 'null test' to either or both a bounce-to-disc or a record-back-to-a-track mix. Could be intersting.
I never bothered, because the debate was always how bad 'bounce to disc' sounded vs. recording back to a track.
I surmise, though, that the difference between recording a multitrack mix out to another recorder, and recording it back to another track would be negligible as far as anything goes, unless the system was running so taxed that putting another track in record strains it to the point of - but not quite getting there - putting up a 'PT cannot get data/CPU taxed, etc...' error.
In this case, too, though, the clocking would all have to be the same, as, again, two different clocks will almost never run at exactly the same speed, nor is the likelihood of lining the two files being compared up at exactly the same starting sample very good at all. Without the exact same start time and clock, a null test won't tell one anything.

[@?,*???&?]

Without the exact same start time and clock, a null test won't tell one anything.

...and thus, the null test is rendered useless because it's not testing for a 'real-time' phenomena.

[RefD]

Without the exact same start time and clock, a null test won't tell one anything.

...and thus, the null test is rendered useless because it's not testing for a 'real-time' phenomena.

[Jay Reynolds]

Without the exact same start time and clock, a null test won't tell one anything.

...and thus, the null test is rendered useless because it's not testing for a 'real-time' phenomena.

So you're advocating recording the 2-mix in real time to another track in PT, using two different clocks?

[@?,*???&?]

Without the exact same start time and clock, a null test won't tell one anything.

...and thus, the null test is rendered useless because it's not testing for a 'real-time' phenomena.

So you're advocating recording the 2-mix in real time to another track in PT, using two different clocks?

I'm not, but that was Digidesigns suggestion from the original post.

[Jay Reynolds]

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?

Somehow I'm missing the details re:using two clocks to sync a single DAW.

[@?,*???&?]

Related to this, I have a project that's just been mixed in Los Angeles. The mix engineer is going to be supplying 24-bit, 44.1Khz files of the mixes in a bounced format.

My dilemma now at this end is one of the following:

1. Do I create a new Pro Tools session and import the tracks and then play them out with stock Pro Tools converters to 15 ips, 1/4" 2-track?

2. Do I convert the tracks to 16-bit and use 'Liquidplayer' as a playback device because even at 16-bits it sounds AMAZING? Unfortunately, Liquidplayer does not support 24-bit files.

3. Do I have the guy in Los Angeles rent in a tape machine to bounce the mixes directly at his end and play them in 'real time' from the multi-track session?

4. Do I rent in an Apogee or UAD stereo converter for D-to-A out of Pro Tools to go to tape?

[Jay Reynolds]

Related to this, I have a project that's just been mixed in Los Angeles. The mix engineer is going to be supplying 24-bit, 44.1Khz files of the mixes in a bounced format.

My dilemma now at this end is one of the following:

1. Do I create a new Pro Tools session and import the tracks and then play them out with stock Pro Tools converters to 15 ips, 1/4" 2-track?

2. Do I convert the tracks to 16-bit and use 'Liquidplayer' as a playback device because even at 16-bits it sounds AMAZING? Unfortunately, Liquidplayer does not support 24-bit files.

3. Do I have the guy in Los Angeles rent in a tape machine to bounce the mixes directly at his end and play them in 'real time' from the multi-track session?

4. Do I rent in an Apogee or UAD stereo converter for D-to-A out of Pro Tools to go to tape?

3

[chris harris]

why the fuck would you ride the attack on a plug in compressor with your freaking mouse button, WHILE THE MIX IS PRINTING?!?!?!?!?!

Haven't you figured out how to use automation yet?

[Mark Alan Miller]

Without the exact same start time and clock, a null test won't tell one anything.

...and thus, the null test is rendered useless because it's not testing for a 'real-time' phenomena.

'

Um, a null test can only work when clock and start time are identical. Otherwise, even if the two sources are 100% identical, there will not be nulling. To compare real-time differences, one has to capture the different mixes with the same source clock, and an ability to align the start time to the sample.
Now, in the example of the 'mouse-over-plugin' thing, one could use a null-test just fine, using the same clock. In fact, that's just what you described - recording the same exact mix back to one track while not mousing over, then again to another while mousing. Inverting the polarity of one of the two, and playing them together. All with the same clock, all at the same start time, the only variable being the mousing-around.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

one wonders why i bother posting here at all, but i can't help myself, so here goes...

years ago jeff mentioned this 'mousing on a plugin changes the sound' business, i thought it had to be bullshit, so i did a test:
1. put whatever plug in on a track, bounced it to another track
2. did the same, but this time i MOUSED LIKE FUCKING CRAZY on the plugin

lined the two files up. you already know that they nulled perfectly.

now i did this in wavelab, so i suppose it's possible that wavelab is correctly written software and PT5 was coded by tranquilizer-addled rhinos, but i rather doubt it.

part 2: i pulled out an old project recently. mixed back in 2001. i have all the multitracks and the 24 bit mixes. for kicks i made a new mix of one song without changing anything at all from how i'd left it in 2001. i lined that new mix up with the mix i'd made back then, which of course was done on a different computer with a different clock. and as i retrieved the old mix from a cdr, it was a copy of a copy as well.

you guessed it, they nulled perfectly.

jeff, the answer to your latest question is 3, as superaction said. although really you oughta just, yunno, buy a good D/A converter. also i must ask why you presume bouncing the mix to tape will automatically be an improvement? why not keep it digital and bring those files to mastering, where the ME will surely have superior converters and tape machines? you ARE having this professionally mastered, right?

[@?,*???&?]

why the fuck would you ride the attack on a plug in compressor with your freaking mouse button, WHILE THE MIX IS PRINTING?!?!?!?!?!

I don't ride it you boob, the mouse never moves, but the plugin either sounds 'mushy' if you don't touch it and the mix is pretty maxed out- or sounds more clear and transparent while mousing down on the controls.

There is a strong case to be made to work with a program like Adobe audition that 'freezes' all plugins and puts the processed track into RAM for playback.

[@?,*???&?]

jeff, the answer to your latest question is 3, as superaction said. although really you oughta just, yunno, buy a good D/A converter. also i must ask why you presume bouncing the mix to tape will automatically be an improvement? why not keep it digital and bring those files to mastering, where the ME will surely have superior converters and tape machines? you ARE having this professionally mastered, right?

I always send both analog AND digital sources to mastering. That's a given.

Gavin Lurssen will be mastering this record. His signal path is great. Ideally, I think mastering facilities should be set-up with not only high-end playback equipment, but also recording equipment- at least in a 2-track domain for this kind of processing, but that never seems to be the case. I know my Studer will be fine for this.

btw, if the session gets played off tape, Gavin's signal path is different than if the session goes to him in digital files.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

I don't ride it you boob, the mouse never moves, but the plugin either sounds 'mushy' if you don't touch it and the mix is pretty maxed out- or sounds more clear and transparent while mousing down on the controls.

so if you were hanging out at my studio (you're welcome any time) and sitting in front of the monitors with your eyes closed, you could tell when i moused on a plugin because the sound would get clearer and more transparent?

really.

come to boston jeff. if you can tell when i mouse on a plugin you can leave with the entire contents of my studio. i'll even help you load the truck and give you money for gas.