Digital Summing

Discussion in 'rec.audio.pro' started by TYY, Aug 30, 2003.

  1. That's pretty much what I said further up in the thread. If you're getting
    to those levels where a clip continually occurs then you're doing something
    wrong. But my answer was specifically aimed at the concept of keeping the
    meters pegged at 0 dBFS, which, as a concept is easy enough to do but it
    takes nothing of what type of music is being presented and whether it even
    wants to be full blast all the time. By simply wanting to use all the bits
    all the time, one negates this little thing called music and is resorting to
    logic in digital theory, not application in recording and presenting
    recorded music. I've heard plenty of Pro Tools recordings, for instance,
    that sound damned fine, even with the complaints some have of it's summing
    bus. I've heard some pretty shitty ones, too, and mostly it's because no
    concern for the music allowed the mixer to push everything farther than
    necessary.

    And to Mike, I'd have to say that regardless of the source being a digital
    summing bus or and analog summing bus, proper use usually takes care of the
    inadequacies that would be exhibited by excessive pushing of the material.
    I hate to see squeezes of toothpaste as the waveform and I hate to see
    nothing but red on the meters. I've found the reasonable tracking point to
    be acceptable on a 16 bit device at -20. On my setup, that brings 24 tracks
    with only panning right to 0dBFS on peaks with Samplitude. Having a system
    calibrated correctly will always allow one to set up specifics on just what
    the console should look like or a DAW's output should look like. As you
    say, if you're pushing more volts into your summing bus than the power
    supply has the ummph to handle, you're screwed.

    Honestly I think it's amazing that people want to have "more" from a static
    situation. Gain staging doesn't change and what a summing bus can handle is
    the same every fricking time. In live music it would be a factor of
    more/bigger amps for the speakers, not pushing the faders up until each one
    is just on the verge of distortion. There's just a point where more or
    louder is a matter of turning the volume up, not cramming everything into
    the last .02 dB.

    --


    Roger W. Norman
    SirMusic Studio
    Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
    See how far $20 really goes.




    "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:3F540FA8.6D0C4D55@hotmail.com...
    > Ben Bradley wrote:
    >
    > > In rec.audio.pro, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:
    > >
    > > >In article <20030901131817.19898.00000378@mb-m28.aol.com>

    pstamler@aol.com writes:
    > > >
    > > >> >There's really no reason to run out of headroom on a properly

    designed
    > > >> >analog system either, but there are practical reasons. Here, if you
    > > >> >add two signals that peak at 2 volts each, you need a bus that can
    > > >> >pass 4 volts.
    > > >
    > > >> Only if the two signals are identical.
    > > >
    > > >If they each peak at 2 volts at the same time no matter what they do
    > > >the rest of the time, you'll still have a 4 volt peak. If you have a 3
    > > >volt power supply, you're into clipping.

    > >
    > > You're right, Mike - both Paul and Bob (who was trying to defend
    > > linear addition, but based on correlated signals - peaks on
    > > UNcorrelated signals also add linearly with channel count) should be
    > > ashamed of themselves for making this error! ;)
    > > FWIW I've found them both to be very knowledgable, so errors like
    > > this from them are rare and unexpected.
    > >
    > > Even peaks of truly uncorrelated signals (such as several sources
    > > of white noise) may happen all at the same time, and such peaks will
    > > add arithmetically. Admittedly, the probablility of such a peak
    > > decreases [greatly] as the number of sources increases, but the chance
    > > is still greater than zero. You may be able to get away with less than
    > > the theoretical maximum headrooom, but doing so is definitely an
    > > engineering tradeoff/compromise.
    > >
    > > >> If they're not, then to add two of them,
    > > >> you'll typically need a bus that can pass about 2.8 volts. Adding 24

    of them
    > > >> will typically require a bus that can pass about 9.8 volts.

    Uncorrelated
    > > >> signals add by the root-mean-square law.

    > >
    > > Paul, you must be thinking of the average level (or is it the RMS
    > > level?) of uncorrelated sources adding that way. As I'm sure you
    > > know, mix busses (and DAW summing routines) clip at peaks (which don't
    > > neccesarily add the same way), not average or RMS levels.
    > >
    > > >You can design a console so that statistically it will work fine, but
    > > >there will always be exceptions. They may not last long enough to hear
    > > >much of the time but they may last long enough to measure.

    >
    > Just to get some reality into this - if you were mixing 24 tracks, each

    simultaneously
    > peaking at 2 volts with 0dB gain to the L/R bus, it wouldn't say much for

    your mixing
    > skills ! About 10dB above practical analog levels.
    >
    > For practical purposes the uncorrelated method of adding sources works

    fine.
    >
    > I like to sum the bus amp 6dB below channel level which allows for mixing

    4 seriously
    > hot signals without any loss of overall headroom. Using it in the above

    example (
    > assuming uncorrelated - non simultaneous peaks - in reality fine ) means

    that would
    > mean you would be roughly 10 dB below clip at the bus amp.
    >
    > Don't forget that the 'main mix' is what you're aiming for. It's no damn

    good if it's
    > clipped because you're running the channels too hot. This is why we have

    faders and
    > gain controls.
    >
    >
    > Graham
    >
  2. Kinda makes you think they believe they'll kill their equipment if they try
    it, so they ask in case somebody else killed their equipment trying it! <g>

    Having said that, I can say that I've heard differences in the sound of
    different applications, so it's possible that the simple math one does isn't
    necessarily the same between all apps, or maybe it's just the accumulators
    or whatever. Still, SAWPro definitely sounds different from Samplitude.
    Same converters, same output chain, same material, different sound.

    --


    Roger W. Norman
    SirMusic Studio
    Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
    See how far $20 really goes.




    "Ethan Winer" <ethan at ethanwiner dot com> wrote in message
    news:wrKdncmxsqLK1M6iU-KYuA@giganews.com...
    > TY,
    >
    > > Why is that? I always hear about how digital summing busses sound like

    > shite. <
    >
    > Don't believe everything you hear.
    >
    > > Having never compared digital vs analog summing myself <

    >
    > Then let's fix that right away. Here's how:
    >
    > Take a track off the best sounding CD you have - one that is absolutely
    > clear and sparkling - then rip it from the CD to a Wave file and import it
    > into a track in Sonar. Now play that track and raise the volume up and

    down.
    > That "exercises" the summing buss as it performs the math necessary to

    raise
    > and lower the volume. How does it sound? Pretty good, eh? If you want to

    get
    > even fancier, take another track and import it, and mix the two together.
    > This works best if the tracks are sparse, as opposed to full dense mixes.
    > Maybe you have some Acid or sample CDs that have good sounding drums and
    > other good sounding instruments. Mix them together and listen carefully to
    > each component. It still sounds great, right?
    >
    > > I simply wanted to know if there is a mathematical advantage to hitting

    > the buss with low vs. high levels. <
    >
    > No there isn't an advantage one way or the other. Again, this stuff is so
    > easy to test I'm amazed that people continue to spread rumors rather than
    > just spend ten minutes to test it for themselves.
    >
    > --Ethan
    >
    >
  3. Indeed it would be hard to even begin to get a control room or studio down
    to a point where noise generated by the application's summing errors is of
    major importance, but again, this is only with probably the most recent
    versions of the applications. At least maybe back a point or two. Cakewalk
    certainly doesn't sound as good as Sonar, just as I mentioned that SAWPro
    doesn't sound as good as Samplitude. I also found some differences between
    earlier versions of Wavelab and Sound Forge, but I think I mentioned that a
    few years ago when we had this discussion. Can't say whether it's due to
    smarter application programming or simple the equipment that allows us to do
    the work in the first place. But if you can eliminate something due to
    commonality, then you can pair down the list. Applications seem to be the
    culprit to me.

    --


    Roger W. Norman
    SirMusic Studio
    Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
    See how far $20 really goes.




    "Ethan Winer" <ethan at ethanwiner dot com> wrote in message
    news:4NWdnY78coF4Fc6iXTWJhQ@giganews.com...
    > Arny,
    >
    > Great stuff as always. Thanks.
    >
    > > cut the level of a track by say, 20 dB and then amplify it by 20 dB, and

    > repeat this a dozen or more times. <
    >
    > That's what I did (once pass only) in the "24 bit test" on my site, to
    > reduce Wave data from 24 bits to 16, 13, 11, and even 9 bits. People are

    so
    > obsessed with high resolution they miss the forest for the trees. Just
    > yesterday a fellow who downloaded the files admitted he heard no

    difference
    > between any of them. If you listen carefully you can distinguish the 11

    and
    > 9 bit files, but even that low resolution is not as bad as some people

    think
    > it "should" be.
    >
    > > Mathematically, any operation adds some (usually microscopic)

    degradation.
    > The question that is always relevant is how audible the degradation is. <
    >
    > You mention noise as an artifact, but I usually think of math as

    generating
    > distortion. I guess you get both. What amazes me is how many people fret
    > over a mix buss adding noise at -100 dB or adding 0.002% distortion, while
    > acoustic interference in their control room causes frequency response
    > variations of 15 dB or more throughout the entire low end!
    >
    > --Ethan
    >
    >
  4. Unless you don't have the digital mixer, why not try it? Of course it does
    require some type of additional playback outside of the mixer to find the
    answer so that you have a comparison. Overall, the few digital mixers I've
    worked on didn't seem to sound all that different if proper gainstaging is
    employed. But the proof is in the pudding. One channel can be bussed
    without any adverse effects, just as 10 may or 24 may. Or not. There's a
    point on all mixers where they simply won't do more, but whether it's at 10
    channels being bussed or 24 depends on the quality of such things as the
    power supply and what the unit was designed for. A touring front of house
    mixer had better have plenty of umph on the bus to handle large numbers of
    channels being used. But a Roland VS isn't really designed for that type of
    work, and usually doesn't have that many channels to worry about. Even were
    one to use all 24 tracks, probably they wouldn't all be in use all the time.
    If they are, then someone bought the wrong piece of equipment. But my view
    of 0 on the DAW mix bus is established as being somewhere about -3 dBFS on
    peaks, with an average RMS of about -15. That way my mix bus has some
    headroom left. Not a "set in concrete" setup because each piece of music is
    different, but it starts me out pretty well. If one keeps either a digital
    mixer or DAW within the range of reasonable design constraints, you probably
    wouldn't notice that much difference at all. The largest difference at that
    point would probably be in the converters used, because in the above
    situation, the DAW would necessarily be playing back through different
    converters.

    That being said, I actually like the sound of my analog console mixing a
    digital tape, for instance, rather than necessarily transferring the tape
    over to the DAW, but the fact of the matter is that my tools are pretty much
    all on the computer now, so the mix becomes something a little different
    than I would perform on the console. To me the question of a mix bus is far
    less of a concern than about a million other factors.

    --


    Roger W. Norman
    SirMusic Studio
    Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
    See how far $20 really goes.




    "GKB" <gboboski@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:3F53D4E4.5184F347@shaw.ca...
    >
    > I asked this question a while ago with no replies , but
    > has anyone noticed [ or opinionated ] about the digital summing
    > of the DAWs Vs digital mixers ? [ like the Yamaha O3D ]
    >
    > Regards Greg
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > TYY wrote:
    >
    > > I am mixing a little project "in the box" using Sonar. I was wondering
    > > if there is anything I can do to improve the quality of the summing
    > > buss. Should I keep the levels low, or do I want to keep levels hot as
    > > possible?
    > >
    > > My only other option is using the mix buss on a b******r board, so
    > > thats out of the question. I don't run any signal through the mixer,
    > > only used it for monitoring.

    >
  5. You're doing something wrong. There's no reason to see a major difference
    in dimensionality between a DAW and analog tape, with the exception of how
    you handle the mixes. The problem often lies in "watching" a mix rather
    than listening to it. With an analog console you're listening, but way too
    many times people watch a position marker marching over the waveform and
    aren't really paying attention to what they're actually doing to the music.
    If you can't get the same quality out of decent converters and a good DAW
    package (and Sonar is a good package) then you're deceiving yourself.
    Particularly when one talks about the Fostex 16 track 1/2" machine.

    Another possibility simply lies in the fact that one might often be doing
    pans from a viewpoint rather than the audio stereo soundfield. And it's
    easy to get caught up into doing compression on all instruments rather than
    what one would be limited to when working in the analog realm, and this
    destroys dimensionality. Let's face it, if you don't have 24 tracks of
    compression in the analog world, you won't be putting 24 tracks of
    compression down. DAWs do make it easy to work far more aggressively than
    one might if they were limited to a certain amount of equipment. I do
    believe that herein lies the problem often discussed as a mix bus problem.
    But it's really no different than overusing EQ on all the channels of a mix
    on an analog console. Essentially you're just bringing the volume up and
    pressing the mix bus to handle more than it might actually like to see. I
    think it's a little bit of a fallacy to think that an analog console can be
    pushed. Within design specs it can't be pushed any harder than the
    equivalent digital mixer or the mix bus of a DAW. Good analog design does
    give one some little extra, but it's supposed to be there as extra, not used
    until it fails. Just like digital, you can't push it past it's performance
    specs. If the rails of the power supply will allow the analog mixing bus to
    handle X volts, then X+1 is bad, just like digital 0 dBFS +1 is bad.
    --


    Roger W. Norman
    SirMusic Studio
    Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
    See how far $20 really goes.




    <yambike1@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:102ccf7c.0309011753.28c6f72b@posting.google.com...
    > tyler@dhiw.com (TYY) wrote in message

    news:<b6b7a391.0308301152.4b5120ec@posting.google.com>...
    > > I am mixing a little project "in the box" using Sonar. I was wondering
    > > if there is anything I can do to improve the quality of the summing
    > > buss. Should I keep the levels low, or do I want to keep levels hot as
    > > possible?
    > >
    > > My only other option is using the mix buss on a b******r board, so
    > > thats out of the question. I don't run any signal through the mixer,
    > > only used it for monitoring.

    >
    >
    > I don't have digital theory locked down as well as a lot of you
    > guys so I wont comment on that, but I do use Sonar, and like many
    > other people I am disapointed with the sound of the digital mix buss
    > not only in Sonar but pretty much all DAWs. A lot of people used to
    > rave about Paris but I never had a chance to hear it and it's no
    > longer supported so I guess that no longer matters. I can't imagine
    > what they were doing that no one else is able to figure out.
    > Tyler, I would recommend that you try mixing through your b******r
    > board (If you have decent A/D and converters available)and compare
    > your results. You
    > may be suprised. I have mixes that I did on a Topaz mixer and a Fostex
    > 1/2" 16 track that sound more dimensional than my internally mixed DAW
    > mixes. Granted the tape machine adds another variable to the equation
    > but I don't hear many people raving about the sound of Fostex 1/2" 16
    > track recorders. The sad thing is that I sold my Topaz in order to buy
    > some API and Neve clone preamps so I can't do that comparison myself
    > at the moment. I keep finding that when I track to the DAW I can get
    > tracks that I am very happy with but when it comes to mix time the
    > mixed results sound flat without the sense of space I'd like and it
    > takes a lot longer for me to get a mix happening.
    > I know this is a tired subject but I think there is something to
    > this argument because I consistantly find that the albums that sound
    > good to me have been mixed on a console. If the Brendan O'Brians and
    > Andy Wallaces are still doing it this way then there must be something
    > to it.
    > I think that eventually DAW summing will sound as good as an SSL
    > console ( maybe even affordably) but how long is that going to take?
    > In the meantime I'm saving for a good mixer.
  6. Absolutely. Just in what I'm listening to right now I can hear specific
    instances that could present peak level problems if the gain staging isn't
    done correctly, or the mix is applied without concern for where these peaks
    might fall. All it takes is for a couple of tracks to have the same peak
    characteristics and one who's pushing everything and limiting the output to
    maybe .01 dBFS to crap out a mix bus. You may have the tools to stop actual
    clipping on the mix bus, but that doesn't mean you're treating the mix bus
    nicely! <g>

    --


    Roger W. Norman
    SirMusic Studio
    Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
    See how far $20 really goes.




    "Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
    news:3F53AB77.610EC9A8@arcanemethods.com...
    >
    >
    > P Stamler wrote:
    > >
    > > >There's really no reason to run out of headroom on a properly designed
    > > >analog system either, but there are practical reasons. Here, if you
    > > >add two signals that peak at 2 volts each, you need a bus that can
    > > >pass 4 volts. And if you add 24 of them, you'll need a bus that can
    > > >pass a 48 volt signal.

    > >
    > > Only if the two signals are identical. If they're not, then to add two

    of them,
    > > you'll typically need a bus that can pass about 2.8 volts. Adding 24 of

    them
    > > will typically require a bus that can pass about 9.8 volts. Uncorrelated
    > > signals add by the root-mean-square law.

    >
    > Audio tracks, however, are seldom uncorrelated. The purpose
    > of the beat is to correlate and it will almost certainly
    > cause peaks that exceed what the RMS principle will
    > indicate. While statistically less probable, nearly N times
    > the per track peak is quite possible.
    >
    >
    > Bob
    > --
    >
    > "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
    > simpler."
    >
    > A. Einstein
  7. Mike Rivers

    Mike Rivers Guest

    In article <102ccf7c.0309011753.28c6f72b@posting.google.com> yambike1@aol.com writes:

    > I don't have digital theory locked down as well as a lot of you
    > guys so I wont comment on that, but I do use Sonar, and like many
    > other people I am disapointed with the sound of the digital mix buss
    > not only in Sonar but pretty much all DAWs.


    I think that a lot of the "DAW Mix Bus" problems aren't entirely a
    function of the DAW software design, but rather in the user end of the
    system. Understand that most DAWs are being used in "entry level"
    environments. For many, a DAW is the user's first exposure to the
    recording and mixing process and they simply don't have the experience
    to create a good mix. Put them in front of an API console with their
    tracks and they still won't make a good mix.

    One problem is what the tracks going into the mix actually sound like.
    Entry level DAWs almost always use "good for the money" A/D converters
    for the input source. Alternately, important parts of the mix are
    composed of bought or ripped samples that may have been poorly
    recorded or inappropriately processed for the music in question. The
    best engineer in the world might be able to make some sense of them,
    but not a beginner.

    Then there's the concept of mixing with a mouse. Either it's dismissed
    as "finished" with a single balance of highly compressed tracks. Other
    times tracks are zoomed in and minute adjustments are made in a vacuum
    without listening to the whole picture.

    > I keep finding that when I track to the DAW I can get
    > tracks that I am very happy with but when it comes to mix time the
    > mixed results sound flat without the sense of space I'd like and it
    > takes a lot longer for me to get a mix happening.


    Yup, you're into the digital mixing syndrome. It's too difficult to do
    the things that just come naturally (so we never think about them) on
    a console that has all the controls laid out in front of you. When you
    have all the tracks playing, you can just turn knob on a track that
    you can't quite hear (or one which may be masking the track you can't
    hear), get instant feedback as to whether you're making progress, and
    putting it back if you're going in the wrong direction. You don't have
    that degree of control on the typical home DAW installation. The
    reason why many projects that are recorded and edited in a DAW are
    mixed through an analog console isn't so much for the sound as for the
    degree of control that's quick, available, and intuitive. There's
    nothing intuitive clicking on a channel, inserting an EQ plug-in, and
    dragging the pots, one at a time, while listening to a track play.

    > I think that eventually DAW summing will sound as good as an SSL
    > console ( maybe even affordably) but how long is that going to take?


    It's here right now. What's missing in the majority of circumstances
    is the ability to control the DAW and the ability to know that you're
    doing the right thing. For every Al Schmitt or Chuck Ainley there are
    100,000 guitarist/singer/songwriter/keyboardist/drummers with years of
    computer experience at being a network administrator.



    --
    I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
  8. "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message news:<bj28ri$q89$1@bob.news.rcn.net>...
    > You're doing something wrong. There's no reason to see a major difference
    > in dimensionality between a DAW and analog tape, with the exception of how
    > you handle the mixes. The problem often lies in "watching" a mix rather
    > than listening to it. With an analog console you're listening, but way too
    > many times people watch a position marker marching over the waveform and
    > aren't really paying attention to what they're actually doing to the music.
    > If you can't get the same quality out of decent converters and a good DAW
    > package (and Sonar is a good package) then you're deceiving yourself.
    > Particularly when one talks about the Fostex 16 track 1/2" machine.
    >



    Well I'm definitly open to the possibility that I'm doing
    something wrong. After all I've only been at this DAW game for 8
    months or so and I've been mixing analog for much longer. I'm really
    looking for the truth on this issue because I'm not happy with the
    mixes I'm getting and It's driving me crazy. When I mixed analog I
    used to be confident that I was getting near the best results I could
    given the equiptment I was working with. And I have way better
    monitoring, mic pres, microphones and compressors now than I had in my
    analog days. The only weak (I think) link in my system is a Layla24,
    which I'd love to replace as soon as I make my first DAW paycheck.
    I'm sure I'm not mixing with my eyes. I periodicly turn off the
    video monitor to take that variable out. And I always burn the mix to
    a CD, listen on various systems, go back and make changes and repeat.
    It's possible that I'm overcompressing the tracks. I DO love
    compression. I'll experiment with that a bit. Lately I've been doing
    pop/modern rock stuff so the vocal track has to be like a rock for it
    to sound competitive. Maybe I'm getting caught up in that. I have
    examples I could show of what I'm talking about with my mixes but I
    dont have anywhere to host them.
    Sorry to highjack the thread but I think this is somewhat
    consistant with the original post. And Roger, thanks for your
    feedback.
  9. EggHd

    EggHd Guest

    << For many, a DAW is the user's first exposure to the
    recording and mixing process and they simply don't have the experience
    to create a good mix. >>


    My nephew sent me some tracks he did with his mbox. When I listened to the CD
    I could hear some ugly clipping, etc.

    I asked him to look at the master fader level and tell me what was going on.
    He asked me what a master fader was. When I talked him through setting one up,
    to get a non clipping output, he had to turn down the master fader something
    like 10 DB.

    Talk about beating the shit out of the math!


    ---------------------------------------
    "I know enough to know I don't know enough"
  10. Jay Kadis

    Jay Kadis Guest

    In article <20030902141323.14153.00000367@mb-m18.aol.com> egghd@aol.com (EggHd)
    writes:
    > << For many, a DAW is the user's first exposure to the
    > recording and mixing process and they simply don't have the experience
    > to create a good mix. >>
    >
    >
    > My nephew sent me some tracks he did with his mbox. When I listened to the

    CD
    > I could hear some ugly clipping, etc.
    >
    > I asked him to look at the master fader level and tell me what was going on.
    > He asked me what a master fader was. When I talked him through setting one

    up,
    > to get a non clipping output, he had to turn down the master fader something
    > like 10 DB.
    >
    > Talk about beating the shit out of the math!
    >
    >
    > ---------------------------------------
    > "I know enough to know I don't know enough"


    The math itself is also a major consideration. My wife is taking a class in
    numerical analysis, which studies the accuracy of mathematical operations.
    Truncation and rounding errors are extremely critical to accuracy and not so
    easy to understand, even for mathematicians. It's quite possible that
    improperly employed mathematical operations also still contribute to the
    imperfection of digital mixing. This applies both to hardware and software.

    It's one thing to miss the moon due to a slight inaccuracy, still another to
    flatten the stereo image: while less traumatic it is no less problematic.

    -Jay
    --
    x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
    x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
    x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
    x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x
  11. P Stamler

    P Stamler Guest

    Okay, Ben, you are right. In practical terms, rms rules *most* of the time,
    just not all the time. Especially on drums.

    Mea culpa.

    Peace,
    Paul
  12. xy

    xy Guest

    sounds like a great idea for a big old feature story in Recording Magazine.

    Analog vs. Digital summing...realities, myths, and preferences
  13. Already done in EQ, at least somewhat.

    --


    Roger W. Norman
    SirMusic Studio
    Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
    See how far $20 really goes.




    "xy" <genericaudioperson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:6c38b64b.0309021346.54d87588@posting.google.com...
    > sounds like a great idea for a big old feature story in Recording

    Magazine.
    >
    > Analog vs. Digital summing...realities, myths, and preferences

Share This Page