PT Bounce to Disk VS Recording Final Mix.

[jkhuri44]

"Mark's statement makes me wonder if it would be better to bounce mixes onto another computer as a 2 track recording... Bounces in the box still sound a little bit 'off' to me, so would using another computer as a 2 track make a difference? - considering you would still have to bounce the 2 track out of the session you recorded it in...

cheers, todd."


gday todd,

i was at a pro studio the other day, and the engineer told me that you should NEVER use the PT bounce to disk function...even bussing the mix internally is better than bouncing to disk, so what he did was sent all the track outputs to a spare stereo bus in PT and recorded the mix internally...

i dont know WHY that is better than "bouncing to disk"..., maybe some more experienced phorum headz can shed some light on this...

[scott]

It would probably be easy enough to try both of these method

[Kris]

Define "pro" studio?

[Howard Jones]

Define "pro" engineer?

[Damien]

pro means to me that you (usually) get paid. and hopefully more than it costs to do.....

semi pro - you dont always get paid, and your place costs more than it earns...

amateur, a smart person who has a job (and more money than the other 2 listed above)

notice none of this talks about ability...... ( only the ability to invoice)..........

ill sit in the corner and duck the incomming.....

[peat]

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much- ... ecord.html

i like recording to disk

sometimes even sending out of a digital output
and recording back in from another digital input

^that takes the internal bussing out of the equation

i think the difference is VERY subtle but
and this is just another one of those things that people get obsessed over (e.q ITB vs OTB summing/mixing)

[jkhuri44]

"define pro studio"

this was at electric avenue.
thats what the assistant engineer told me.

[mfdu]

[quote="Damien"]pro means to me that you (usually) get paid. and hopefully more than it costs to do.....
semi pro - you dont always get paid, and your place costs more than it earns...
amateur, a smart person who has a job (and more money than the other 2 listed above)[/quote]

having wished to be in the semi-pro camp, and now firmly in the amatuer camp, i totally agree.

but back on topic - my usual method for mixdown is bussing out of PT, through the console and back in again (as well as a split to 1/4 tape, usually)

even though i keep the console channels at unity on mixdown (relying on PT automation), it gives me a chance to play with a little hardware eq and some occasional (very light) compression - normally to take on a bit of colour and thickness from the transfrmers, more than anything else.

there is no comparison when it comes to the sound - bussed through hardware on mixdown has much more punch and definition. and a higher THD content, too. if that's a good thing . . .

my $0.02

chris
mfdu

[Mark Bassett]

In my humble opinion, (and if you disagree i'll hit you with a water cannon - sorry, i've come down with a bad case of APEC), the difference between the pro tools LE 002 bounce and playing the mix out to an external burner was easily heard. It wasn't subtle. Not only did myself and the engineer notice a difference, but the drummer, yes the drummer noticed a change in the sound of his snare drum (and he didn't even know we were comparing different versions).

So the 2 versions sound different, noticeably different. Now which sounds 'better' is totally a matter of taste. We chose the non-PT version, to our ears it sounded closer to the sound the engineer was going for, it was not simply 'better'. Better is far too subjective, and people can rightly say that they prefer the cold, narrow, shitty mix that comes out of your mobile to a Godrich mix, because they do prefer it, and you can't argue about what someone prefers.

[Chris H]

I haven't listened to the challenge but there has been a lot of discussion on the web about this topic, and to my mind there are reasons other than how it sounds that can be considered. General consensus seems to be that its the summing in the DAW that where the sound quality of the mix is degraded a bit. One thing that is said to really help is to track into the box at lower levels, sort of treating the occasional yellow meter as red or leaving 6 to 10 dB of headroom on each track. Differences would be more apparent depending on how the recordings were originally tracked...if there is a bit of dimension to the mix as opposed to a mix that is crowded or slammed.
I would rather see / hear a challenge between a pro tools internal bounce mix and a mix on an API console or similar

[peat]

you may want to check this out then

http://www.digidesign.com/index.cfm?lan ... emid=25669

[smash]

you may want to check this out then

http://www.digidesign.com/index.cfm?lan ... emid=25669

Lol - and we come full circle...

[Chris H]

you may want to check this out then

http://www.digidesign.com/index.cfm?lan ... emid=25669

I took the bait and checked it out..... downloaded the smooth jazz track, opened it up in logic and had a good listen on beyer headphones and B@W near fields, the gear I'm used to. It was a 16 bit 44.1 file. When i progressed to the challenge ( continuous smooth jazz track not the loop sections ) i saw it opened a quicktime file in the browser, so i PRESUME it's a high quality mp3. I could not download it as i don't have quicktime pro on my machine. I could not hear a difference in the challenge itself but i could hear a difference in the challenge compared to the same track i downloaded, particularly apparent in the snare reverb tails, and subtle yet discernible differences in the bottom end kick and bass punch. My guess is the differences, assuming there are some in the challenge analogue vr's digi box mix would be masked by the mp3.

Also i would like to know what console the analogue mix was done on. in this challenge... a mackie... ha ha..... maybe it gives details on the digi challenge but i didnt take the time to search it out. Whaterer the case, digi design are not going to put up a mix that shows up the differences that can be obtained in doing the job on a good clean vintage API, Neve, Helios......... or my old punchy old little Thirkle machine (thought i'd throw that one in for fun ). Thats the challenge i would like to hear... a mix to the same volume dynamics and eq ETC, but done on a console known for its superior sound and not functionality as is the case with the SSL....
I'm of the opinion you can do a good mix on a mackie, in the box, on an SSL and on an API but if we are talking about real advantages sound wise between the options available, and that is what the challenge is supposed to be about, then the Digi challenge is a waste of time.

[smash]

I took the bait and checked it out..... downloaded the smooth jazz track, opened it up in logic and had a good listen on beyer headphones and B@W near fields, the gear I'm used to. It was a 16 bit 44.1 file. When i progressed to the challenge ( continuous smooth jazz track not the loop sections ) i saw it opened a quicktime file in the browser, so i PRESUME it's a high quality mp3. I could not download it as i don't have quicktime pro on my machine. I could not hear a difference in the challenge itself but i could hear a difference in the challenge compared to the same track i downloaded, particularly apparent in the snare reverb tails, and subtle yet discernible differences in the bottom end kick and bass punch. My guess is the differences, assuming there are some in the challenge analogue vr's digi box mix would be masked by the mp3.

Also i would like to know what console the analogue mix was done on. in this challenge... a mackie... ha ha..... maybe it gives details on the digi challenge but i didnt take the time to search it out. Whaterer the case, digi design are not going to put up a mix that shows up the differences that can be obtained in doing the job on a good clean vintage API, Neve, Helios......... or my old punchy old little Thirkle machine (thought i'd throw that one in for fun ). Thats the challenge i would like to hear... a mix to the same volume dynamics and eq ETC, but done on a console known for its superior sound and not functionality as is the case with the SSL....
I'm of the opinion you can do a good mix on a mackie, in the box, on an SSL and on an API but if we are talking about real advantages sound wise between the options available, and that is what the challenge is supposed to be about, then the Digi challenge is a waste of time.

1. You don't need Quicktime Pro

2. It's 44.1/16 bit uncompressed on the Quicktime Movie

3. Mixed on a G series SSL

4. I personally would argue that there is waaaayyyy more to an SSL than purely functionality... but it does depend on what you like... you've really got to push the bass in the older ( Pre K ) models - not sure if thats what you are referring too?

5. It does depend also on your day, when I listened yesterday - first thing in the morning - I could hear and differentiate relatively easily between the two.
Had another listen today, after spending the better part of the morning on a dance track with a client who liked to have it "hard" i.e. loud, and found the differences much more subtle.

I have basically come to the conclusion that there would be probably no discernible difference when heard on the radio, or on an iPod, which is basically where I'm aiming to get my stuff to be.