Question about the old ProTools 'small' sounding mix problem

[gubu]

Running PTLE 7.4 on an old Mac.

First off, I know I'm pretty low on the curve as an engineer compared to most. But this is not a 'blame the tools' thread. Just something I've been scratching my head over.

Lately I mixed some material in which all of the elements were sonically well above average. From the perspective of harmonic content and dynamics, the mix stands up well in comparison to commercial material.

But, it doesn't compare well with commercial material in terms of stereo width, and low-level/high frequency fidelity (as best as I can explain it), making the whole thing sound 'small'. Also, the rough demos (with little or no processing) that I had been exchanging with a collaborator who uses a different DAW (also with little or no processing) don't compare well either. The PT versions were much fuzzier around the edges.

I know at least one other forumite here agrees that PT systems are prone to this problem, and I know a well-respected producer here in Ireland who has abandoned PTLE altogether, in favour of Logic, for exactly the same reason.

Also, I've heard murmurings on these very forums that the mix buss architecture in PT leaves a lot to be desired, in comparison to that of other 'pro' platforms.

So, my questions are these:-

To those of you who have had a similar experience with PT, is this just an issue with PTLE, or is it also a problem on HD systems?

Has this issue been fixed/modified at all on later PTLE releases? It's up to version 10 now, right?

Is there a workaround for this problem in the older versions of PT?

[Phil O'Keefe]

Any chance we could hear the mix in question?

[gubu]

Originally Posted by Phil O'Keefe

Any chance we could hear the mix in question?

Sure - here's the instrumental. I've been A/Bing it with stuff like the new XX album, some dance music, and Ry Cooder records..

http://soundcloud.com/gubu/highway-found-instrumental

[aZnrockstar]

The only thing I would say is that the guitar sounds very tonally rich and open, but the drums sound a bit dry. I usually try to tie a mix together by giving each instrument the same type of environment, like they were recorded in the same space. I would try a little reverb on the drums, not much. Maybe try and carve out some EQ space on the synth to give the guitar a little more room. I would tend to put a little more hi mid on the bass guitar, myself.

[gubu]

Originally Posted by aZnrockstar

The only thing I would say is that the guitar sounds very tonally rich and open, but the drums sound a bit dry. I usually try to tie a mix together by giving each instrument the same type of environment, like they were recorded in the same space. I would try a little reverb on the drums, not much. Maybe try and carve out some EQ space on the synth to give the guitar a little more room. I would tend to put a little more hi mid on the bass guitar, myself.

Thanks for listening!

The thing is, there is a TON of reverb on the drums. And, it's the same reverb send/return on everything, except the bass and synths, which are dry. Like yourself, i usually aim to put everything into the same 'room'.

I agree about the synths, it's a submix of 5 different pads, and they need to be remixed - there's too much synth around the meat of the guitar tone, the synth submix needs to be more airy.

[aZnrockstar]

are you using a predelay on the reverb?

[gubu]

Originally Posted by aZnrockstar

are you using a predelay on the reverb?

It's a plate in Altverb, so I may have to use a different reverb, and set a better sounding predelay, or at least send the drum buss to a different reverb.

Good call

[Telestrastic]

Try playing with some different verbs. I never use the same reverb for anything, usually use a bigger room like a med hall for my overhead and cymbal mics, a tighter smaller drum room for the snare top and a larger drum room for my toms and snare bottom. Pan the snare to one side slightly and then pan the reverb send from it to the other side. That'll open up the snare and widen it a bit.

[Lee Flier]

I'm not in a place where I can listen right now, but I'm another one who has noticed this problem with PT for years, including with HD. I use Reaper now and am much happier with the sound, as well as with a lot of other things.

Not to say that there may not be things you can to to improve your technique, but I still think this is an issue which will be there no matter how good you are at mixing. And reverb tails do get swallowed up, whether it's natural reverb or an effect. For instance if you patch an outboard reverb into a PT mix vs. the same tracks on an analog console, you have to turn up the verb a lot more for it to have the same effective volume, and even then it doesn't have the "spread" of the analog mix. And the difference is pretty apparent when comparing basic mixes of the same tracks between PT and other DAWs (not just Reaper but Nuendo, Sonar, etc.) This point is beyond argument to me by now. Other DAWs have improved their engines greatly over the past few years. PT doesn't seem to have.

All that said, I haven't tried PT since it went native. The latest version may be better. I just haven't had any reason to try it.

[gubu]

Yes Lee, I'll never be finished trying to improve my mixing technique! Upgrading to a different DAW/machine isn't an option for me right now, so I'll have to try and get the best out of what I have.

On the reverb tails disappearing - I've been working on a different way of balancing the mix so that the reverbs don't get masked and have had some success. I think it's getting closer to a more 'open' and 'wide' sound (that was easily achievable even on a cheap DAW like GTPro 10 years ago). But it will be a little while before I bounce down any results - we've been reworking the arrangement and re-recording since I posted this thread.

[Lee Flier]

Just curious why switching isn't an option? You wouldn't have to get a new computer or interface.

But yes it is irritating trying to get mixes as good as you did 10+ years ago. Best of luck to you.

[gubu]

Well, a DAW upgrade will require some serious expense in my case. It's an old 1G eMac running PTLE 7.4, and it's really not worth my while trying another DAW on it.

I'd need to be thinking about just buying a new machine. And when you consider the cost of upgrading/replacing my old Waves 5 bundle etc., it's just $$$ that I don't have right now.

In any event, I'm convinced that when you're good enough, you get the better tools

[Lee Flier]

 

Originally Posted by gubu

Well, a DAW upgrade will require some serious expense in my case. It's an old 1G eMac running PTLE 7.4, and it's really not worth my while trying another DAW on it.

 

You might just give Reaper a try. One of its huge advantages is that it has a very small footprint compared to any other DAW. It installs in under a minute and it tends to run well on older/less powerful computers. And it's free to try, $60 if you decide to keep it. Your Waves plugs should work fine with it too. Kinda hard to go wrong - it's not like PT won't still be installed if you need it.

[gubu]

 

Originally Posted by Lee Flier

You might just give Reaper a try. One of its huge advantages is that it has a very small footprint compared to any other DAW. It installs in under a minute and it tends to run well on older/less powerful computers. And it's free to try, $60 if you decide to keep it. Your Waves plugs should work fine with it too. Kinda hard to go wrong - it's not like PT won't still be installed if you need it.

 

Will that old Waves bundle work with Reaper? I'd have to dig out the discs and re-install the bundle as VST/AU (what format does Reaper use for plugins?), no?

[Lee Flier]

Yes it should work fine. Reaper does do VST and AU. If you only installed the RTAS versions of the plugs, then yeah you'd have to re-install.

[gubu]

Originally Posted by Lee Flier

Yes it should work fine. Reaper does do VST and AU. If you only installed the RTAS versions of the plugs, then yeah you'd have to re-install.

Ok, I'll have to look into that. AFAIR, I just did an 'express' install. Actually my tech re-installed them the last time after a big OS upgrade. But I'll give it a go.

[gubu]

Just checked, and the VST Waveshell is indeed installed. No need to dig out the discs!

I guess it's just a case of dragging the Waveshell into whatever location Reaper uses for plugins, once Reaper installs?

I'll figure it out

[Lee Flier]

Should be even simpler than that - you can just tell Reaper where your vst files are currently located and you're done. Reaper doesn't care where they are and you can enter multiple VST locations (which you will want to do, because Reaper comes with a lot of great plugs that are free with the program).

[gubu]

Ok, so I loaded Reaper up last night, and imported the audio from the track I posted further up in the thread, along with most of the plugs I used in that session.

First impressions - soundwise, the bottom end sounds completely different, with or without EQs engaged. Ditto the top end, but not as noticeable. Still, I can see myself using a lot less in the way of EQ processing in Reaper.

Functionally, I prefer the grouping and editing capabilities of PT, and will probably continue to use PT for recording/comping/editing (definitely for editing, PT is streets ahead). But, I'm looking forward to getting a mix done of this track in Reaper, and I'll get to grips with grouping/automation etc as I go. Maybe I'll put it up here as a blind A/B, if anyone cares to have a listen.

A couple of other things - my Waves bundle loads up as AU, not VST, even tho there are no AU versions of the bundle anywhere on my hard drive.
And, the Waves GUI doesn't work properly - it displays the same as in PT, but the plugin window remains white until you click somewhere, or something happens in a meter. Even then, it only shows what you've clicked, not the button name, or anything else that you can clearly see in PT.
I can live with that if the free VSTs are good enough, and only use the Waves stuff when i absolutely have to.

[gubu]

Ok,

So, I'm not the first person to try a different DAW. And I'm not certain my little spare-bedroom-arts-and-crafts music production stories are really all that interesting to anyone here!

But I've been using Reaper, and running test mixes for 3 or 4 days now, and would like to share some observations - at least with regard to my own setup.


First off, Reaper doesn't seem to use any less CPU that PTLE 7.4. In fact, I can run slightly more tracks/plugins in PT before I start getting pops and clicks etc. And this is with the buffering and session/audio paths optimised to hell in Reaper.

Soundwise - in the actual DAW's, Reaper sounds different. Running raw unprocessed audio, the bottom end especially is clearer. It seems like you'd need less EQ on individual tracks to get a mix to gel.

But I ran a mix of the track I posted earlier in the thread, to get an A/B comparison. Going so far as to use the same presets and fader positions I had used in PT. When you listen to it on other systems, the differences are negligible, at first. Then you notice that there are tiny (and I mean tiny) differences, which seem to be for the better, on the Reaper version. Slightly more space. Everything is a little cleaner, and rounder. There seems to be less tendency towards 'mush' on more forte passages. There are couple of measures in a particular section of the track where this really stands out.

Am I imagining this? And I realise that this is a completely unscientific, unlike the comprehensive tests done by a woman whose name escapes me in the early noughties, which showed that you shouldn't really be able to tell any difference between DAW's, all other things being equal.


So, apart from that, Reaper is pretty easy to use. But I have a lot more testing to do before I decide to pay for a license.

Maybe PTLE 7.4 is just fine in comparison

[gubu]

Here they are, just for the fun of it:-

http://soundcloud.com/gubu/highway-found-test1

http://soundcloud.com/gubu/highway-found-test2

One is ProTools, and one is Reaper. See if you can figure out which one is which! Or at least which one you prefer.

They're almost identical in every respect. Identical Waves plugin settings in both mixes. I substituted ReaComp and EQ in place of the couple of instances of EQ3 and generic comps used in the PT session, and input identical parameters.

Fader/pan positions are identical in both sessions.

The reverbs used are different, but I matched as closely as possible.

[Zooey]

I liked Test 2 better, but it sounds to me like the bass is mixed louder in that version. The vocal is a little louder and clearer in Test 2 as well. Maybe too loud. With pots and faders at identical positions, this could be accounted for by pan laws and not necessarily differences in the internal mix engine.

[gubu]

Thanks Zooey,

Pan laws - now there's a thing I need to start a thread about and do some googling! I know they're adjustable in Reaper, but not what I 'like', or what the settings are in PT, to get a proper A/B done.

Also, I should have mentioned, apart from the different reverbs, there is some compression on the bass guitar on one version - so, hardly a proper A/B comparison at all.

Thanks for listening tho!

[Lee Flier]

I'm just listening on crappy laptop speakers at the moment, but I'd say #2 is Reaper.

[Lee Flier]

Originally Posted by gubu

Soundwise - in the actual DAW's, Reaper sounds different. Running raw unprocessed audio, the bottom end especially is clearer. It seems like you'd need less EQ on individual tracks to get a mix to gel.

But I ran a mix of the track I posted earlier in the thread, to get an A/B comparison. Going so far as to use the same presets and fader positions I had used in PT. When you listen to it on other systems, the differences are negligible, at first. Then you notice that there are tiny (and I mean tiny) differences, which seem to be for the better, on the Reaper version. Slightly more space. Everything is a little cleaner, and rounder. There seems to be less tendency towards 'mush' on more forte passages. There are couple of measures in a particular section of the track where this really stands out.

Am I imagining this?

No. Like I say it's been obvious to me for years and it really becomes more apparent the more tracks you have and the more processing is going on. But even unprocessed, there's a difference.

And I realise that this is a completely unscientific, unlike the comprehensive tests done by a woman whose name escapes me in the early noughties, which showed that you shouldn't really be able to tell any difference between DAW's, all other things being equal.

Are you talking about Lynn Fuston's Awesome DAW-Sum test? If so, Lynn is a guy, and there definitely were differences in that test, although all the audio was unprocessed and, IIRC, there weren't many tracks. Plus I don't think 64 bit engines had come along yet then.