bounce down question :?

[starfugger]

does the interface's a/d-d/a converters come into pay during bounce down?  in cubase we get to choose which channels to bounce and im guessing the a/d converters are still used, correct me if im wrong.

[KitC]

does the interface's a/d-d/a converters come into pay during bounce down?

No. Most offline bounces are native processes, meaning they pass through the cpu without passing through any A/D/A conversion. About the only time such conversion can occur is when you are mixing/mastering though analog summing busses or when you route the output of your interface back into a free input in order to perform a realtime bounce. The general rule is to avoid multiple A/D/A conversion over the course of mixing because the brickwall filters employed to prevent/minimize aliasing in the D/A conversion will have an overall effect on the mixes' harmonics.

[starfugger]

i see. thanks kit!

[skunkyfunk]

does the interface's a/d-d/a converters come into pay during bounce down?

No. Most offline bounces are native processes, meaning they pass through the cpu without passing through any A/D/A conversion. About the only time such conversion can occur is when you are mixing/mastering though analog summing busses or when you route the output of your interface back into a free input in order to perform a realtime bounce. The general rule is to avoid multiple A/D/A conversion over the course of mixing because the brickwall filters employed to prevent/minimize aliasing in the D/A conversion will have an overall effect on the mixes' harmonics.

So granting you have a project file, and all raw tracks were recorded using a common A/D converter, if I mix those tracks with the same software/project file in the box say using Shinji's DAW, technically, it should sound the same if another one mixes it with the same software and same project file in another DAW with less-accurate converters, because all the processing is done in the digital domain?  It's the monitoring that varies?

[starfugger]

yes i think that's what Kit is saying. 

[abyssinianson]

does the interface's a/d-d/a converters come into pay during bounce down?

No. Most offline bounces are native processes, meaning they pass through the cpu without passing through any A/D/A conversion. About the only time such conversion can occur is when you are mixing/mastering though analog summing busses or when you route the output of your interface back into a free input in order to perform a realtime bounce. The general rule is to avoid multiple A/D/A conversion over the course of mixing because the brickwall filters employed to prevent/minimize aliasing in the D/A conversion will have an overall effect on the mixes' harmonics.

So granting you have a project file, and all raw tracks were recorded using a common A/D converter, if I mix those tracks with the same software/project file in the box say using Shinji's DAW, technically, it should sound the same if another one mixes it with the same software and same project file in another DAW with less-accurate converters, because all the processing is done in the digital domain?  It's the monitoring that varies?

right-o. the mix should sound the same on both your system and shinji's because of the nature of A/D conversion in the recording process. the only time that, in my experience, the monitor mix has sounded different is when you monitor through a dedicated A/D system. when I added the Rosetta 800 to my system, I started monitoring through that instead of the outs of the RME.  I noticed that there was a difference in the monitoring sound between the Apogee and the RME.

[astrobog]

totoo yon. ako naman pag nagmimix ako kumukuha ng monitor signal direct from digi 192i/o, magka-iba ang sound pag dumaam sa control24 monitor section...

[abyssinianson]

totoo yon. ako naman pag nagmimix ako kumukuha ng monitor signal direct from digi 192i/o, magka-iba ang sound pag dumaam sa control24 monitor section...

same here. i do wonder though if there is a proper way. I've worked with an Icon before they seem to use the monitor section. in my case, since I learned that monitoring from the i/o seemed to make sense more, I just stuck with that. i wonder if there is a correct way of doing this business.

then again, if it works to produce a good mix, it works:)