abletons summing engine

seannash

okay so i was having this discussion today and the person who uses ableton was looking for proof that theres a different sound out of ableton compared to other daws
sonis there any dfinitive proff to back up what most of us hear.
not trying to start a debate just looking for some reading material on the subject

Neurojazz

You'd need to install other DAW onto same machine and have an interface+monitors and a sound proof room with some non-existant analysis programs to work that out... - as Abletons' engine is 64bit it probably sounds fine and it's just the connection to the outside world that matters - like the DACs etc...

seannash

Neurojazz wrote: »

You'd need to install other DAW onto same machine and have an interface+monitors and a sound proof room with some non-existant analysis programs to work that out... - as Abletons' engine is 64bit it probably sounds fine and it's just the connection to the outside world that matters - like the DACs etc...

so how come people say they hear the difference.i honestly can and thats why i switched.now im no expert but i could tell there was a difference.same computer.
i could just get things sounding alot nicer in logic

Neurojazz

Again, i'd probably say that the testing of this scenario fails - you'd have to use same plugins etc... the inbuilt logic stuff probably kicks ass compared to what abletons does - BUT, that's things added into signal path and not the DAW itself.

One thing i have noticed though, is that demos sent from Ableton that are dance music tend to sound really nice - again probably what the artist is doing etc... plugins... samples source....

jtsuited

i did a simple summing test about a year ago. posted the results on aldj.

i put the same 4 mono tracks into logic and ableton. I dropped two of the tracks by about 6 db (iirc), and then bounced.

The ableton one was atrocious compared to Logic. It was even slightly out of time in the bounce.

When I null tested them, there was a world of difference. I was shocked and did the test another three times to see if i was doing something wrong.

Although that was with ableton 6 and not 7.

Neurojazz

So ableton made by a bunch of monkeys then?

if6was9

thats the kind of test i would have done- importing tracks to test their summing capabilities

seannash

if6was9 wrote: »

thats the kind of test i would have done- importing tracks to test their summing capabilities

is there anywhere online that has done this

fitz

Topically enough: I've an album being mixed at the moment.
The mix engineer is using an Audient summing box, and sent me the first rough draft mix over the weekend. There's a noticable difference to an ITB mix he did for me previously on the same song. Everything sounds more glued. Really brought home to me what a drastic difference summing can make.

Neurojazz

That Audient stuff looks nice - is there a way of using something like that through firewire? - or would you need a decent FW audio breakout box and then into the audient gear? - i'm 100% computer based and would love to start breaking out of it in that way.

jtsuited

Neurojazz wrote: »

That Audient stuff looks nice - is there a way of using something like that through firewire? - or would you need a decent FW audio breakout box and then into the audient gear? - i'm 100% computer based and would love to start breaking out of it in that way.

re: the firewire thing. allen and heath just came out with a 16 channel mixer that has 16 ins and outs on firewire so you can mix otb.

as far as i'm aware there is nothing else like that on the market in that price range at the moment.

i've heard a few of these summing units, and the difference they make is huge. however if you're mixing in the box, you tend to compensate for a lack of glue so the a/b comparison tests of itb vs otb are sort of academic in a way.

the neve 8816 (i think that's the name of it) was particularly warm and glue-y if I remember correctly.

Neurojazz

Hmm, will look into this over next few months - i need to get this right or will be very expensive mess up lol - am using the UAD Neve 33609 on my master buss to glue things together atm.

ogy

teamsdresch did a good comparison of a few summing mixers on his blog, can't remember the address though, its probably in his sig

jtsuited

Neurojazz wrote: »

Hmm, will look into this over next few months - i need to get this right or will be very expensive mess up lol - am using the UAD Neve 33609 on my master buss to glue things together atm.

i've looked into it a good bit, and it did work out fairly expensive mainly becaues of high quality d/a converters costing a good bit.

If someone is reading this who can do something about it take consideration of this:

You make a firewire mixer (just the faders, no eqs, no pre's, no inserts, nothing but the faders and related circuitry), with some fancy shmancy summing circuitry (akin to an SSL or Neve console) that can be nicely integrated into a DAW setup, and you will make a fortune. Provided it costs less than 3k.

madtheory

Isn't this difference caused by the fact that time stretching is always engaged in Ableton? It's not the summing.

Outboard summing just gives you different flavours of harmonic distortion. ITB has no harmonic distortion unless you make it so. The Cranesong plugins do it best IMHO.

Anima

Is summing just adding all the signals from the mixer together? Because if thats the case, how can it sound different between any DAW? I mean its digital, 2+2 is always going to equal 4 no?

Never really understood what people meant by that.

jtsuited

madtheory wrote: »

Isn't this difference caused by the fact that time stretching is always engaged in Ableton? It's not the summing.

.

no test was done with no warping.

jtsuited

Anima wrote: »

Is summing just adding all the signals from the mixer together? Because if thats the case, how can it sound different between any DAW? I mean its digital, 2+2 is always going to equal 4 no?

.

no not at all.
different DAW's have completely different summing algorithms.

madtheory

We're lacking science here folks... if the timing was changed, then Warp must've been engaged. There was a big change to the Ableton audio engine at some point, it was addressed maybe 2 years ago by Ableton and I think I remember extensive discussions on SOS and Ableton forums?

seannash wrote: »

is there anywhere online that has done this

Yep. The Awsome DAWSUM test:
http://www.3daudioinc.com/3db/forumdisplay.php?f=15

seannash

madtheory wrote: »

We're lacking science here folks... if the timing was changed, then Warp must've been engaged. There was a big change to the Ableton audio engine at some point, it was addressed maybe 2 years ago by Ableton and I think I remember extensive discussions on SOS and Ableton forums?


Yep. The Awsome DAWSUM test:
http://www.3daudioinc.com/3db/forumdisplay.php?f=15

its 5 years old

fitz

Science or not, if it's not current, it's no longer relevant.

madtheory

Ah c'mon, that's pure laziness. Click on the one link I gave, check the date without reading the info, and no one bothers to check the other two forums. God forbid someone might actually do some research themselves and spend 30 minutes actually reading something.

They do explain the science behind the tests, and dispell the myths and assumptions people make. The test approach they used could be used to test Ableton properly, instead of relying on hearsay.

But hey, if you'd prefer to bitch about Ableton's sound than actually figure it out, you're welcome to your drama.

Neurojazz

madtheory wrote: »

Ah c'mon, that's pure laziness. Click on the one link I gave, check the date without reading the info, and no one bothers to check the other two forums. God forbid someone might actually do some research themselves and spend 30 minutes actually reading something.

They do explain the science behind the tests, and dispell the myths and assumptions people make. The test approach they used could be used to test Ableton properly, instead of relying on hearsay.

But hey, if you'd prefer to bitch about Ableton's sound than actually figure it out, you're welcome to your drama.

I looked at the forum, but can you link direct to the post that counts, rather than a whole forum... people haven't got the time to read through 2,500 posts.... you might as well just link *internet* and search that...

seannash

Neurojazz wrote: »

I looked at the forum, but can you link direct to the post that counts, rather than a whole forum... people haven't got the time to read through 2,500 posts.... you might as well just link *internet* and search that...

:D:D:D

fitz

I read some of the forum. And the approach, from what I found, was well taken. But if each DAW has moved on a couple of versions since the test was conducted, the results are pretty worthless unless you're trying to decide on which of those older versions to use.
The method can of course be replicated, but results of testing for now outdated versions of software don't dispel any 'myths' formed based on usage of newer software versions.

madtheory

fitz wrote: »

I read some of the forum. And the approach, from what I found, was well taken. But if each DAW has moved on a couple of versions since the test was conducted, the results are pretty worthless unless you're trying to decide on which of those older versions to use.
The method can of course be replicated, but results of testing for now outdated versions of software don't dispel any 'myths' formed based on usage of newer software versions.

Agreed.

madtheory

Neurojazz wrote: »

I looked at the forum, but can you link direct to the post that counts, rather than a whole forum... people haven't got the time to read through 2,500 posts.... you might as well just link *internet* and search that...

Or you could learn how to use Google.

On the Ableton forum, this topic comes up so much that they get antsy about it. It's Warp causes the problem. To the poster who did a null and the timing was off- this is apparently caused by resampling. So maybe check that the project was running at the same rate you exported the audio at?

PaulBrewer

fitz wrote: »

Topically enough: I've an album being mixed at the moment.
The mix engineer is using an Audient summing box, and sent me the first rough draft mix over the weekend. There's a noticable difference to an ITB mix he did for me previously on the same song. Everything sounds more glued. Really brought home to me what a drastic difference summing can make.

We represent Audient here - they're a really small company, only 9 people and make products (from their Console down) that bat way out of their league sonically.

We did A/B/C tests with the SSL X-rack summer, the Audient and the Neve and that's the order they finished from a sound perspective.

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

Ah c'mon, that's pure laziness. Click on the one link I gave, check the date without reading the info, and no one bothers to check the other two forums. God forbid someone might actually do some research themselves and spend 30 minutes actually reading something.

They do explain the science behind the tests, and dispell the myths and assumptions people make. The test approach they used could be used to test Ableton properly, instead of relying on hearsay.

But hey, if you'd prefer to bitch about Ableton's sound than actually figure it out, you're welcome to your drama.

That's a fair point , no?

PaulBrewer

Anima wrote: »

Is summing just adding all the signals from the mixer together? Because if thats the case, how can it sound different between any DAW? I mean its digital, 2+2 is always going to equal 4 no?

Never really understood what people meant by that.

That's a very fair assumption and one would hope that it's true, because if it's not it'll be a right pain in the whole.

Well I'm afraid our Wholes are sore ....

The argument for Out of Box Summing, apart from what ever character an analogue circuit may add, is it's also avoiding summing internally.

I recall hearing that when you're trying to add, say, 48 streams of 24 bit audio the Maths get so big that figures are rounded off and therefore changes occur - though that could well be Audio Pub talk.

Having explored this area somewhat in a test setting with a few guys on two separate occasions I feel that there is a significant sonic gain to be had by using a summer.

If you're building up your studio aim for global improvements - a mic or a reverb will only improve a recording when they're being used but better acoustics, clocking or summing are all examples of steps you can take that will improve everything from there on in.

fitz

Very interesting what you said about the SSL/Audient/Neve comparison Paul...
Out of interest, what do you make of the Mico?

PaulBrewer

fitz wrote: »

Very interesting what you said about the SSL/Audient/Neve comparison Paul...
Out of interest, what do you make of the Mico?

When they were talking about the Mico initially I didn't think it was such a great idea but when I heard it it all made sense.
It's a VERY cool way of going into the digi in on your M-Box or whatever cheapo interface you have and getting some right smart results. It has a great DI and the HMX circuitry can add some crunch if you want.

Much better than I thought it was going to be, a great sounding tool.

Neurojazz

madtheory wrote: »

Or you could learn how to use Google.

On the Ableton forum, this topic comes up so much that they get antsy about it. It's Warp causes the problem. To the poster who did a null and the timing was off- this is apparently caused by resampling. So maybe check that the project was running at the same rate you exported the audio at?

The point some people that may be missing is that they might not know what info or aspect of ableton to look at or the all important keywords to search that forum for the core of the topic your so passionate about that is right.... There are many threads there and i started to fall asleep after 3/4 page of the main sticky... couldn't grasp wtf you were alluding too to formulate a valid opinion.

fitz

That's what I thought when I was reading about it....
Can you PM me with a price?

madtheory

PaulBrewer wrote: »

The argument for Out of Box Summing, apart from what ever character an analogue circuit may add, is it's also avoiding summing internally.

I recall hearing that when you're trying to add, say, 48 streams of 24 bit audio the Maths get so big that figures are rounded off and therefore changes occur - though that could well be Audio Pub talk.

Indeed. Dan Lavry writes a lot online on this issue. I've put another link below, a risk I know, but maybe someone will read it...

This is how I see it: Basically, an outboard summer gives you different flavours of distortion. IMHO it's a convoluted and expensive way to do it. You could just insert your favourite valve/ transformer device on the main outs and get the same results. At this stage, all DAWs are summing perfectly inside the box. For 24 bit audio, 32 bit float is sufficient to take care of overflows with 100% accuracy. However, we don't always want 100% accuracy, which is where the analogue boxes come in.

Personally, I prefer to insert one of the many distortion type plugins that are available. My current fave is the Massey Tape Head. It doesn't sound like tape, but it gives the same gluing effect that a summing box does. The Cranesong plugins are absolutely gorgeous, very addictive!

I prefer to do the distortion digitally because it allows total recall.

PaulBrewer wrote: »

better acoustics, clocking or summing are all examples of steps you can take that will improve everything from there on in.

Again, Dan Lavry touches on these issues in the thread I linked to below. I agree with you about acoustics, that is a million times more important that anything else. Mr. Lavry (and Digidesign) both state that internal clocking the converter is always better than external. Using an external clock will always increase the jitter. Unless your converter is a "jitter immune" type that is designed to reclock, in which case it's even more pointless to buy an external clock! I thought these devices were out of fashion by now, as it seems widely understood that they are really a con?

BTW Dan Lavry builds some of the best converters in the business. He started out with NASA, and he did the much lauded converters in the NED Synclavier, and AFAIK had a hand in the first Apogees also. So he knows what he's talking about!

Here's the link:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/165264-96khz-better-than-48khz-multitrack-digital-recording-5.html

jtsuited

madtheory wrote: »

My current fave is the Massey Tape Head. It doesn't sound like tape, but it gives the same gluing effect that a summing box does.

probably the simplest and most useful plugins ever made.

PaulBrewer

Again, Dan Lavry touches on these issues in the thread I linked to below. I agree with you about acoustics, that is a million times more important that anything else. Mr. Lavry (and Digidesign) both state that internal clocking the converter is always better than external.

So what does one do if you're using more than one, as most pro systems will be ?

I read that Digi white paper. It seemed to me to be a very defensive ' but that's the why' type argument ultimately designed to deflect from the fact their 192s are jumped up Motus.

A story from an Apogee Horse's mouth - I'm not categorically stating it's true but I am stating it was told to me by a senior Apogee employee.

When Digis 192s came out Apogee bought one to pull it apart. They opened up the unit and started laughing.

In one corner was a copy of Apogee's own mid 90s Wordclock and they noticed the conversion chips were the ones being used in Motus.

I thought these devices were out of fashion by now, as it seems widely understood that they are really a con?

Again , not true in my experience.

We were demoing a Big Ben in with Cauldron Studios who have 192s. Ciaran had just done a mix and whilst it was still up on the board we inserted the Clock.

On listening back we all agreed that it seemed to make everything a bit peaky in the high midrange, about 5k ish, particularly noticeable on vocals in this instance.

Ciaran worked it out quickly though, using the 192s alone he'd regularly been adding that frequency region to many tracks to get them to cut through.

The superior clocking cleared up that 'softening' of tracks for them.

The next week they did a session with using the clocking advantage on the recording side as well as mixing.

The Big Ben is still in their rack!

Clocking does make a big difference.


Here's the link:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/165264-96khz-better-than-48khz-multitrack-digital-recording-5.html[/QUOTE]

PaulBrewer

Ah Scheise - I had a reply typed to the summing queries too but it vanished .... in short you're wrong about that too !

madtheory

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Clocking does make a big difference.

So Dan Lavry and Bob Katz are wrong? You're entitled to your opinion, but their science based argument is far more convincing to me. If I was going to improve on 192s, I'd save up for a Prism or Lavry box, not a clock. And given the way Apogee have responded to Lavry's challenges about their cables a few years ago on prosoundweb, I don't trust them either.

studiorat

I guess I'm joining this thread a bit late here. I believe Abletons engine was improved in version 7. I certainly noticed a difference.
I for one do think that the different summing engines used from DAW to DAW do indeed sound different.

Which leads me to think does anybody know if the summing algorithms used in the different DAWs are different? Is the bit of code in Logic or Cubase or Protools the same? Or is it a different set of commands. If they were different methods surely they would sound different.

Re: Summing, I believe there's a small but significant difference between different summing boxes and mixing ITB.

Whether mixing ITB or Summing depends on which summing unit is used IMO.

I'm not sure Paul, but was I present on those summing box tests? Was that the mixing I did that time?
Anyway I thought the SSL was tops, amazing sounding, after that the Audient and then the Neve. I'd like to the try the SPL mixdream and the Manley too!

Thing is the Neve put a colour on the mix that some I'm sure would like. I'm also sure that if I started mixing with that colour on as it were I'd be quite happy. The example of changing the clock on that mixing session shows this.

With the SSL the ITB and Summed difference was huge and a big improvement compared to the Audient, where the difference was much smaller. You have to remember too that you are also listening to their master output circuits as well. They will make a big difference too.

In conclusion, if I was spending 4grand I'd go the SSL route, with summing and the master compressor. If I was in the region of 1.5k I'd consider looking at a good clean monitor controller and maybe a decent D/A convertor and staying in the box.

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

So Dan Lavry and Bob Katz are wrong? You're entitled to your opinion, but their science based argument is far more convincing to me. If I was going to improve on 192s, I'd save up for a Prism or Lavry box, not a clock. And given the way Apogee have responded to Lavry's challenges about their cables a few years ago on prosoundweb, I don't trust them either.

Those men mentioned are of course salesmen as well as engineers..... as are Apogee guys. (hence my 'I was told' )

The only 'right' is to listen - Science is only as good as the scientists.

As it's an area of inconclusiveness then you should make your own decision. Come down to Clara over Christmas for a listen.

You're very welcome to a demonstration. That's the only conclusion worth a feck!

PaulBrewer

studiorat wrote: »

I for one do think that the different summing engines used from DAW to DAW do indeed sound different.



Re: Summing, I believe there's a small but significant difference between different summing boxes and mixing ITB.

Whether mixing ITB or Summing depends on which summing unit is used IMO.

I'm not sure Paul, but was I present on those summing box tests? Was that the mixing I did that time?

That was one of the sessions we did another one in Joes with Peter and Joe there and another in Peter's place with other guys.

Anyway I thought the SSL was tops, amazing sounding, after that the Audient and then the Neve. I'd like to the try the SPL mixdream and the Manley too!

Thing is the Neve put a colour on the mix that some I'm sure would like. I'm also sure that if I started mixing with that colour on as it were I'd be quite happy. The example of changing the clock on that mixing session shows this.

It's a simple thing to prove, use it and don't use it. Then make your decision

With the SSL the ITB and Summed difference was huge and a big improvement compared to the Audient, where the difference was much smaller. You have to remember too that you are also listening to their master output circuits as well. They will make a big difference too.

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

So Dan Lavry and Bob Katz are wrong? You're entitled to your opinion, but their science based argument is far more convincing to me. If I was going to improve on 192s, I'd save up for a Prism or Lavry box, not a clock. And given the way Apogee have responded to Lavry's challenges about their cables a few years ago on prosoundweb, I don't trust them either.

In fact Madtheory do come down and bring your 192. I have an SSL Protools Converter (the alpha/delta combo) that I want to test against the house Apogees. The SSLs are getting a good rep in the US in the post pro world so I'm keen to see how they perform.

Lets do the 3 simultaneously with and without Big Ben.

madtheory

PaulBrewer wrote: »

The only 'right' is to listen - Science is only as good as the scientists.

As it's an area of inconclusiveness then you should make your own decision. Come down to Clara over Christmas for a listen.

You're very welcome to a demonstration. That's the only conclusion worth a feck!

Absolutely, I agree with you. It's just that for my work, I don't find any advantage to going through a summing box compared to trying one of the many distortion plugins as an insert on the main outs, when it's needed. I also don't think that a summing box is good value, because the "improvements" (changes would be a better word) are way down the scale. Not quite as far down as jitter- what are we talking there, -120 dBFS? I like how Ethan Winer puts it (better than me!):
http://www.ethanwiner.com/audiophoolery.html

Thanks for the invite, but I don't own the 192s that I use Would you be willing to travel do a demo?

Neurojazz

madtheory wrote: »

Absolutely, I agree with you. It's just that for my work, I don't find any advantage to going through a summing box compared to trying one of the many distortion plugins as an insert on the main outs, when it's needed. I also don't think that a summing box is good value, because the "improvements" (changes would be a better word) are way down the scale. Not quite as far down as jitter- what are we talking there, -120 dBFS? I like how Ethan Winer puts it (better than me!):
http://www.ethanwiner.com/audiophoolery.html

Thanks for the invite, but I don't own the 192s that I use Would you be willing to travel do a demo?

lol funny thread.

I think i'm going back to NS10ms - Once i had wanted a set of Dyna-Audio speakers after hearing a pair (i was impressed at the time), then heard them again with some material i was very familiar with and was shocked.... they sounded incredible, absolutely awesome - but the material i was putting through them was sh1te, but an absolute joy to listen too.... so much voodoo out there...
I had a friend who had seismic sinks for his DVD player and every type of cable that money could be wasted on - there are some crazy scams out there.

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

Absolutely, I agree with you. It's just that for my work, I don't find any advantage to going through a summing box compared to trying one of the many distortion plugins as an insert on the main outs, when it's needed. I also don't think that a summing box is good value, because the "improvements" (changes would be a better word) are way down the scale. Not quite as far down as jitter- what are we talking there, -120 dBFS? I like how Ethan Winer puts it (better than me!):
http://www.ethanwiner.com/audiophoolery.html

Thanks for the invite, but I don't own the 192s that I use Would you be willing to travel do a demo?

I think you'd be surprised at the difference. Most of my X-Rack Sales have been 16 chans of Summing initially.
Why take my or anyone else's word/opinion?

The summing gains we found aren't tonal primarily but spacial i.e. There's more space , width depth etc and it's quite a distinctive improvement.

My opinion on opinons (?) is that opinions are always flavoured with an angle, and that's not to imply anything negative, people are allowed to have angles.
Hence you'll get SSL flying the analogue summing flag and Digi the ITB one ... cos that's what they make.

However I can categorically state that the improvements I and my customers have found with clocking+summing have been based on my experiences and those of my customers.

So I don't care what anyone says or has an explanation for .... I've based my decisions on what I've heard, clearly and repeatedly.

Of course I'd go to do a demo anywhere - in fact the master classes I'm in the middle of organizing for early next year (fingers crossed) are aimed at cutting through the 'My Digital Daddy is bigger than your Analogue Daddy' school of argument. Summing and Clocking are obvious ones for that.

My affiliation with SSL is obvious from my posts around here but if their converters box doesn't perform I won't be recommending them.
I won't know til I test them myself.

I believe testing yourself is the only way to know - everything else is hearsay, no matter how apparently 'good' the opinion is.
That's not to say other people's opinions aren't relevant but only become ideally relevant when you have your own to compare it to.

PaulBrewer

Neurojazz wrote: »

lol funny thread.

I think i'm going back to NS10ms

You LEFT NS10s?:eek:

Neurojazz

PaulBrewer wrote: »

You LEFT NS10s?:eek:

Yeah lol - They were not mine lol - i've got some lovely warm monitors which have helped writing the sort of music i make, but now need proper reference...

i'm gonna upgrade a couple of other parts next year after some tests here... I'm only ITB and doing dance music only with occasional vocals - so am looking at UAD2 upgrade for the extra instances of Neve comps (haven't messed with their eq yet to compare to SSL), and try and find the best Firewire Audiocard i can get for mixdowns (so no fancy breakout box or 897598745 ins and outs, i'll just be after a transparent D/A i suppose)

That's about the most economical improvment i think i can make (with the ns10s)

Eventually, dammed if i do/don't - i'll be going to a desk/hardware (i used to have a soundcraft ghost), but probably just a 16/32 channel thing (as dance music is pretty simple most the time)

I'll be screaming for help at that point and definately be begging for demos and put my business towards peeps who help - dreading going back to hardware, but i'm sure it's going to be fun - i'm so glad i'm not dealing with mikes/drums/guitar and all the extra gear entailed!

madtheory

Cool Paul, I'd love to hear them. But I've done my own tests with this stuff, A/B double blind. IMO the clocking thing depends on whether the DAC is jitter immune or not (e.g. Benchmark DAC 1, far better than a 192). To be clear, I'm not saying ITB is better that OTB, there's clearly a difference. I just don't think it makes any sense to
(a) do it by summing instead of just inserting across the main outs; and
(b) (purely a personal preference) the expense and lack of recall by using outboard for the distortion- because that's what it is, distortion. It's not better or worse, just different.

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

Cool Paul, I'd love to hear them. But I've done my own tests with this stuff, A/B double blind. IMO the clocking thing depends on whether the DAC is jitter immune or not (e.g. Benchmark DAC 1, far better than a 192). To be clear, I'm not saying ITB is better that OTB, there's clearly a difference. I just don't think it makes any sense to
(a) do it by summing instead of just inserting across the main outs; and
(b) (purely a personal preference) the expense and lack of recall by using outboard for the distortion- because that's what it is, distortion. It's not better or worse, just different.

Sure if you don't want to listen .... all I can do is offer.

jtsuited

just on the clocking and converter issue:

esoteric nonsense is more prevalent amongst factions of the industry involved in retail than anywhere else.

Realistically speaking, if the whole world was using mbox a/d converters from tomorrow on, very few people would notice the difference on records.

It's very easy to get lost in the finer details of audiophilia (I'm guilty of it myself), but surely most of this stuff is superfluous in the context of the finished product.

I have a friend who genuinely spends more time buying gear than actually doing anything with it. It's really frustrating to see because the guy has got skillz!

Yes there is a difference between most converters, pre's, clocks, acoustics, pretty much everything, but the difference is not in any way proportional to the cost difference.

I find the people who like to be the main proponents of audiophile standards tend to be

a) people who are involved in the retail of such products (which is fair enough - we all got's to make a living)
or
b) fairly anonymous engineers trying to make up for their lack of expertise and talent with a horrendously snobbish and deluded attitude of how crap everything is (that doesn't cost ridiculous amounts of money).

I've been a long time reader of gearslutz and tbh apart from a few notable exceptions, the actual bulk of the population over there is made up by category (b) types.

In fact I'm sure the internet pro-audio sphere is mainly populated by these types.


While Brewer may be correct in saying 'good gear won't make your music better, but bad gear will make it worse', I think it's also worth thinking about 'how much worse?'.
I think most of the time, judging by the actual skills posessed by everyone involved in making records the answer is most likely 'negligible'.

I've still yet to meet anyone who is better than their gear, but unfortunately you can't build a retail market on that truth so maybe it's better off to let people think they could be as skilled a mix engineer as Andy Wallace if only they had the best most expensive desk, the best oldest rarest outboard, and converters being clocked by a generator that's more accurate than an atomic clock itself.