PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

In some projects I have to use the STM 16/32 because it doesn't need much DSP.

But is there difference in quality between 16/32 and 24/48?

Do I always have to use the STM 24/48 to have the best Performance?

there has been a discussion about that about a month ago.
well check it out general discussion.
actually there is a slight difference.

well, since I really doubt that CWA has 2 different mixing engines I made a quick and dirty test, but had to cancel it before finish because of a strange behaviour of the 24/48

step 1 was to setup a project with both mixers where each mixerout was routed to a Dynamixer stereo channel.
One of them was phase inverted to indicate a perfect copy by extinguishing audio.
All mixers on my board #1 and phase compensation on.

step 2 to was a test with a single stereo source send to channel 1 of both mixers to see if the basic setup works.

step 3 was supposed to add a few channels to engage the engine a little more, but didn't make much sense after the following:

it started (almost) as expected with one channel completely off and the other one with a difference in the -55 dB range.
When clicking the phase compensation of the 24/48 (back and forth, just for fun) the thing dropped out of phase (-16 db) and never back again.
I saved the project - reloaded - same result.
Quit SFP - load the project - both mixers extinguish with a rest of -55 dB, but on both channels. Now I can click the phase button on and off.
Then I clicked the record bus matrix (for click's sake), the thing lost phase again, to the same dgree as above. Clicked the channel to it's original position - same as before, no change back.

Obviously there are certain actions that delay this mixer, and if those actions are reversed (or undone) the delay remains.

It's just an observation, I do not even know at which stage of the mixer the delay occurs - and it could also be specific to my setup.
I normally don't use this mixer, though it's less DSP hungry than it looks

cheers, Tom

i really prefer the 2448 and only use the 1632 on systems with 3 dsps....

16/32 seem sound more clean for me bat prefer 24/48 more complete



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: bronYaur on 2005-12-27 23:58 ]</font>

afaik you cannot set the 16/32 to a specific board (doesn't matter if you have only one), in that context my statement above is not accurate .
On the other hand watching DSP meters seemed to confirm that it occupied only board one - no wonder in an almost empty project.

But it might become an issue if the mixer happens to be spread cross boards in a more crowded project. I dunno about the loading specs at all.

There is a nice delay item in the 'channel' section of the 24/48 ranging from 0 to 200 samples (?). Move it quickly with the same source on another channel and you'll have a nice phaser, very illustrative about the effect of small delays

I'll check the 24/48 more deeply when time allows - it looks really effective on a second view, would be a pity if there was a hidden instability that strikes only occasionally.

cheers, Tom

I have noticed a difference in the sounds between the two, for at least a year or more I used the 16/32 simply because it came up as the default & I was getting to grips with it all. Then I bought a second card & tried 24/48, I was surprised by the sound difference. I have no idea why, but the 24/48 sounds much better than the 16/32 (its also has many more options). Becuase of the better sound of the 24/48 I dont use 16/32 any more.

I have 6 DSPs, so I'm able to use the STM 24/48 when it really sounds better. But I need every little bit DSP I can save, because I use Synths and sometimes with many voices.

Probably I have to use the STM 24/48 when I want to have the maximum on quality...

If posible, you can record synths without using mixer.

midi source > synth > ASIO DEST

This way your synt can use most of your DSP's

On 2005-12-29 06:31, arela wrote:
If posible, you can record synths without using mixer.

Yes, this is also my suggestion. I usually use 3 projects
-recording
-mixing
-mastering

In recording I usually don't care very much the sound balance so I use dinamixer (wich is very confortable if I need to add instruments or parts), but I think that the stm 16/32 could be a nice choice also.

In mixing I use the 24/48 but I really don't ever noticed any difference between this or the others. Simply I use it for his fast inteface, expecially for the peak-eq.

In mastering I don't use mixers.

In this way I can work without throubles of DSP.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Lima on 2005-12-29 07:43 ]</font>

well. check this out.
play a wav for example.
and move up and down the slider of the channel playing(not the master volume slider), YOU WILL HEAR A SLIGHT GLITCHING in the sound.
THIS happens only with STM 1632. Strange because i agree with astroman that creamware couldn't have used different machines for its mixers.(maybe it did).
if you do not hear it at once try headphones.
So this maked my not using STM1632 even if it is quite convenient.
another disadvantege of STM1632 is that it does not have a BUS page.


_________________
ELVIS LIVES

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ARCADIOS on 2006-01-01 13:26 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ARCADIOS on 2006-01-01 13:27 ]</font>

possibly, but if you check it out, DO NOT use a sine wave as source, as it will zip with anything that regulates it, even native audio apps

cheers, Tom

I'm going to do that test in te next days, when I'll come back to the studio. I'm very curious. Does it also appears if I automate the fader movement (via midi cc)?

it doesn't have to do with movement and automation - it's a specific artifact that only shows up with a single frequency sinewave.
If you consider the math character of a sine, you'll see that various points of the curve are rapidly approaching extreme high or low values - and the thing cannot be represented in finite numbers anyway.
you will not hear any zipping with any 'regular' audio signal

cheers, Tom

Hi Tom, now I've understood.
I will do the test using a sine wave.

Anyway if the throuble is so sublte there's no reasons to avoid the use of the stm16/32 in my opinion.

obviously not
the test is NONSENSE with a sine wave - do it with whatever you like, you won't hear anything but smooth fader movement.
It only zips with a pure sine - now how many pure sines fo you mix normally with 'live' fader moves ?
To verify this I took the next best native program, fed in a sine and it zipped as well, fed in a synth - no zips at all.

cheers, Tom