analog summing

[lakis]

Hello Bob
and the others

What do you think about analog summing
( Saw Studio + Dangerous Music to 2-BUS Summing Amplifier and similar one )
only the sound quality interests me

Thanks,
lakis

[Bill Park]

I refer you to the previous thread on the frequency analizer, to the gearslutz conversation bookmarked about halfway through the thread. If yo go to that gearslutz thread by following the link, you will find, about half way down, Bob Katz's description fo a summing project done with the Dangerous.

He echos the sentiments thsat I and many others have espoused since the late 1980s/early 1990s, when various producers were running thier digital mixes through analog tape decks as a 'magic bullet' to 'fix' them.

Bill

[Ollie]

Just my preference, nothing more. I like working with analog 2 buss summing. I get better definition from my mixes doing it this way. Could be my lack of skills.

Ollie :rolleyes:

[Bob L]

I think my answer is no surprise... I have no need to go outside the SAWStudio environment and love the audio quality I am now getting on my virtual mixes... plus... it is mauch faster than realtime and things can be tweaked and changed and a new mix built instantly that is an exact of all other mix elements from the previous mix.

Bob L

[Brent Bennett]

I think if your mix holds up, it won't matter what you do because they'll both sound great. The SawStudio buss will give you what you put together in your mix with stereo imaging like you can get with an analog buss.

If you're looking for a certain effect (ie. tape) then go to tape. Just like playing your guitar through a certain effect. Don't believe that any of it will be your answer to any mixing problems though, just another piece of color that you may or may not want.

My suggestion is to try both. Spend the time doing it each way. After you're done, you can decide whether your effort of DA then AD is worth the time and expense.

Personally, I don't do that, I use the SawStudio mixing buss because I love the SawStudio mixing buss. I consistently get pro-level mastering engineers ask me if I do my mixes on a console. I don't need any more convincing than that. Nor do I feel the need to analyze it anymore. SawStudio is my money machine. :)

[AudioAstronomer]

I love working in sawstudio. I have a lot of time behind analog boards, and summing devices and sawstudio and I prefer sawstudio.

Why? Sawstudio sounds better? Nah. I think it does but that's not the reason why I prefer it.

In the time it would take to work on a board, or even realtime mixdown (not to mention configure routing) through a summing box I could have down 3-4 mixes in saw and have started a/bing them through different systems.

In the end, on any mix I've heard adding a few db more compression on the guitar or turning up the bass 3db makes a much larger difference than any summing device, so I'd much rather spend my time focusing on that. Not to mention on a car stereo almost no one will notice your summer but they will quickly notice your vocal is too scratchy.

Likewise I do think an analog board can impart A LOT to the sound alone (much more than a summing device) since it has many more independant components, but in sawstudio I am able to make quicker and more precise changes with the exception of very expensive digital/analog hybrid boards that I neither have the patience to learn, the money to buy, or the space to store.

I think my preference is more "I like to stay digital" than which sounds better... so to the question "which sounds better?" I will give my honest opinion, Sawstudio.. but that's not the reason I use it.

[Mark Stebbeds]

I refer you to the previous thread on the frequency analizer, to the gearslutz conversation bookmarked about halfway through the thread. If yo go to that gearslutz thread by following the link, you will find, about half way down, Bob Katz's description fo a summing project done with the Dangerous.

He echos the sentiments thsat I and many others have espoused since the late 1980s/early 1990s, when various producers were running thier digital mixes through analog tape decks as a 'magic bullet' to 'fix' them.

Bill

I don't think Bob Katz' summation of summing boxes:) , including the Dangerous, is as negative as you imply. I believe he uses words like "slightly" and "a little". In the same post he concurs that "character" can be added using analog devices on the mix bus.

Regarding the Dangerous, I've heard excellent results that seemed to be elusive without it, regardless of whether is was "warmer", "fatter", "smoother" or as Bob opined, "a little vaguer and less clear" on his one blind listening test.

And although he nixes the idea of the summing box, he currently recommends using "lots of good character-providing analog outboard" if you are mixing ITB, because "there is still plenty of analog processing that sounds superior to digital processing".

Mark

[Ollie]

I agree with Mark. That is what I read of his comments. Good digital adds nothing special to the signal. What goes in goes out. Katz described digital as 2 dimensional(flat). But he does say it is a great medium to start from, then add loads of analog gear that fattens up the signal and gives it more dimension and voila you are there. Bob Katz is not espousing an all digital approach.


I don't think Bob Katz' summation of summing boxes:) , including the Dangerous, is as negative as you imply. I believe he uses words like "slightly" and "a little". In the same post he concurs that "character" can be added using analog devices on the mix bus.

Regarding the Dangerous, I've heard excellent results that seemed to be elusive without it, regardless of whether is was "warmer", "fatter", "smoother" or as Bob opined, "a little vaguer and less clear" on his one blind listening test.

And although he nixes the idea of the summing box, he currently recommends using "lots of good character-providing analog outboard" if you are mixing ITB, because "there is still plenty of analog processing that sounds superior to digital processing".

Mark

[Ian Alexander]

Granted, I'm not mixing music, but ITB sounds just fine to me. The HUGE advantage here is that, once I save the edl, the mix is exactly repeatable. I don't have to remember or write down any settings or perform physical moves after 38.6 seconds, etc. Maybe the OTB guys are leaving all the faders at zero and doing automation in the DAW, but that's not the impression I get.

[Pedro Itriago]

You are all wrong. You want your mixes to sound fatter and more analog? then run SS on an analog computer. Guaranteed to fatten-up both the SS engine and your music

http://www.computermuseum.li/Testpage/EAI-Analog-Computer-1964.gif
Custom built SS analog computer with multifunction master out VU- meter at the bottom

[Bill Park]

...Katz described digital as 2 dimensional(flat). .... Bob Katz is not espousing an all digital approach.

Here is the quote. I want to first clarify that my original premise... that there is nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost by going out of the box for analog summing, then back in... is supported in this quote. I also know that Bob does indeed use outboard gear. After all, he has a collection of some of the finest outboard gear that exists, and the converters to support this choice. (and he doesn't propose analog summing.) VERY FEW IF ANY of the people who, on boards like this, propose analog summing have anywhere near this quality of equipment. I also stongly suggest that anyone who reads this take the time to go to the gearslutz site, read the thread, and be sure that they are understanding the conversation in context. In my opinion, analog summing is the current hot marketing topic, not the current hot developing science. George Massenburgs superb summing mixer has been available for quite a while, and as Bob says, a couple of API modules will get you there. You've all slowed down on buying cheap mic pres and cheap mics, so they now need something else to sell to you.

.......................................

"In the past (say, through 1990), in my writing, it was a fight against cumulative quantization distortion and grunge, and the use of low-quality plugins and digitgal processors----and that made full analog mixing and processing much more attractive than digital mixing and processing. Now, today, it's the opposite, digital processing has come a long way, if you don't abuse it.

So today, if you wish to mix outside the box, you have to balance the loss of transparency that comes from passing the signal through low-resolution D/A/D converters (unless you spend the money on the best converters) against the supposed advantages of totally-analog-domain processing and mixing. And these advantages, in my opinion, can now only be justified when using a superb analog console whose coloration adds a desirable color (e.g., space, depth, definition) that cannot be obtained any other way. But even that color that, say, an API console can give you, can be obtained without the full console. And the tradeoff is probably less than going through the entire console to mix. For example, mix digitally in the box, use lots of good analog outboard for your prime signals, and possibly send the entire mix through a single pair of superb D/A converters and a pair of API modules and into a single pair of superb A/D converters to capture the mix, or a 1/2" tape machine. The "magic sprinkle" that the API pair add to that mix can produce a final mix with a unique combination of transparency and color that can sound superior to the use of 24 or 48 or however many "cheap, low-class" converters feeding a full API console.

I've objectively tested the premise that there is no problem with the digital summing mechanism (e.g. Pro Tools "infamous" summing bus) by simply taking a pair of good analog modules and putting them on a digital summing bus. If the sound gets WIDER and CLEARER with simply a pair of analog modules added to a digital sum, that makes it clear that most (if not all) of the "improvement" people attribute to analog summing is NOT due to the summing but rather to the desirable character of the analog gear they are using.

In other experiments, conducted by Linn Fuston, he demonstrated equal performance with some analog summers, and worse with many. I can confirm that the transparent analog summer which does not objectively degrade the sound, is very rare. A client sent me a matched gain and pan mix done with the Dangerous 2-bus versus digital mix in the box, and objectively and subjectively, there was nothing special about the Dangerous Mix. If anything, it sounded a little vaguer and less clear. In my opinion, it did not add any desirable distortion. I performed the listening tests blind on the client's files.

In another test, a client sent me a mix done with the Sumo with its converters versus in the box. The Sumo was EXTREMELY transparent. The two mixes were virtually impossible to tell apart, blind or sighted. But there was absolutely no advantage to the SUMO. In both cases, no analog outboard was used to "complicate" the test.

In my opinion, the bar on the digital side has been raised so far. There is still plenty of analog "processing" that sounds superior to digital processing, but summing is NOT one of those processes. So unless you have a virtually-totally-transparent analog summer or one whose losses are made up by its character (e.g. API), then I would currently recomend ITB digital mixing combined with lots of good character-providing analog outboard."

..........................................

Bill

[Mark Stebbeds]

Here is the quote. I want to first clarify that my original premise... that there is nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost by going out of the box for analog summing, then back in... is supported in this quote. I also know that Bob does indeed use outboard gear. After all, he has a collection of some of the finest outboard gear that exists, and the converters to support this choice. (and he doesn't propose analog summing.)

Well the way I read it, I don't see it as supporting your quote at all.:)

Bob is clear that he does not support summing boxes as you stated, but encourages using analog outborad gear for superior sound quality. One could certainly argue the difference between using analog devices on inserts vs. bussing out of d/a converters into a summing box.

Having used the Dangerous with desireable results, I disagree that there is nothing to be gained. As you stated in an earlier post, what's different about analog summing and an analog mixing console with routing? Contrary to popular belief among the home studio DAW crowd, most major label CD releases and film soundtracks are still mixed on analog consoles, with individual tracks bussed out into console inputs. Why? Because they have the budget to do it the best way they can.

Personally, I don't own a summing box and probably never will because I don't feel the need.

Mark

[TotalSonic]

I've heard a few shootouts of the same mix summed in PT vs. various analog summing boxes and frankly to my ear it made nearly no overall difference at all as long as in the comparison the gains were set to unity and no additional processing was done. More apparent differences were soemtimes noticeable when the analog boxes were overloaded to the point of "saturation" (i.e. distortion) - but for most of the stuff I work on this sound would be completely undesirable.

However - I think there are a number of analog processors - especially for 2-bus work - that to my ear sound better for many applications than most digital processors. Generally you have to pay a pretty penny for these (upwards of $2g's). Currently my own work flow is generally to do all mixing and summing "in-the-box" and then do the majority of any 2-bus processing in the analog realm.

Frankly I feel nearly everyone's budget would be better spent towards better pre's, converters and monitors as I believe these would give you more dramatic improvements in the sound of your digital mixes than any gain you get from the use of an analog summing box.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[SoundSuite]

Granted, I'm not mixing music, but ITB sounds just fine to me. The HUGE advantage here is that, once I save the edl, the mix is exactly repeatable. I don't have to remember or write down any settings or perform physical moves after 38.6 seconds, etc. Maybe the OTB guys are leaving all the faders at zero and doing automation in the DAW, but that's not the impression I get.
Ian,

Referencing Bob Katz's book, "Mastering Audio the Art and the Science"...

He states when using outboard gear that is MIDI capable to use your MIDI sequencer to change the gear's presets in the songs timeline.
This way when you save your edl and pull it up later, that you dont have as much headache tweaking the external gear to perform identically (assuming you havent changed your preset parameters in the interim).

*granted, this reply has nothing to do with analog summing, but is a pure response to Ian wondering how anyone automates external gear*

[TotalSonic]

Ian,

Referencing Bob Katz's book, "Mastering Audio the Art and the Science"...

He states when using outboard gear that is MIDI capable to use your MIDI sequencer to change the gear's presets in the songs timeline.
This way when you save your edl and pull it up later, that you dont have as much headache tweaking the external gear to perform identically (assuming you havent changed your preset parameters in the interim).

*granted, this reply has nothing to do with analog summing, but is a pure response to Ian wondering how anyone automates external gear*

Of course this is assuming your outboard gear is midi capable...which of course also mainly limits you to digital processors such as Weiss or TC - which is what Bob K. mainly uses to this day - but to me a fairly limiting selection of gear options.

For other analog processors though there's something called a "recall sheet" - i.e. a piece of paper jotted down with the notes as to what the tweaks are - sometimes with actual diagrams of the knobbies on them with just marks placed at the settings. This has worked fine at numerous studios for years and years - it just takes a little longer to note and recall than just clicking to open an edl!

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[studio-c]

You are all wrong. You want your mixes to sound fatter and more analog? then run SS on an analog computer. Guaranteed to fatten-up both the SS engine and your music.

Gotta say I totally agree with Pedro on this one. Like I've said in previous posts, it's really hard to part with that vintage analog board and the convenient roll-around controller.
http://www.library.upenn.edu/exhibits/rbm/mauchly/img/mau0-1a.jpeg

By the way, Pedro, what shade are you using on yours? I really like it.

Oh, my next purchase will be the VST Jacob's Ladder plug-in. I'm stoked!



Okay, enough goofing around. It's after midnight and I gotta catch an early flight to San Francisco. Man, this business sure beats having a real job :)

Peace out.

Scott

[studio-c]

Seriously though, it seems the best thing would be to get your coloration going IN, then you know what you've got. Using proper mics, mic pre's, discrete component input sections, etc. I'd prefer that the math just be pristine going OUT, rather than further adding its 2 cents. Though if you went IN using "transparent" stuff without the proper personality, you might need to color it later. But capturing it correctly would be better engineering practice.

Especially if you tend to use high end commercial tracking rooms for your rhythm sections, taking advantage of the mics, pres, analog complimiters, eq, piano, large real estate, etc. Then it goes in the box like that, and you can do your overdubs and simple things at your home studio. The big stuff is already correctly seasoned to taste.

We're seeing a lot of that hybrid of big studio/DAW production where clients get the best of both worlds. Studios have bitched about and fought this for years, but if they embrace the bands with their own ProTools rigs, they can continue to prosper. The trick is making it easy for the bands to transition the stuff to their own rigs.

Scott

[Bill Park]

Seriously though, it seems the best thing would be to get your coloration going IN,.....
Scott

Which is what we recommend, and is great as far as it goes, but in mixdown (or mastering, in the case of Bob Katz, myself, and some others...) we are sometimes faced with the need for other solutions. In my old studio I spent a lot of time on the front end, assembling a nice collection of not only mics and pres, but instruments and amps, and room treatment... trying to make what went in to be as good as it could be, to try to reduce the amount of twiddling needed in post. No matter how much reproduction planing though, the vision and the art is ever changing. We have to be flexible.

I just happen to think that there is no magic bullet to great sound, there is an ever growing level of experience and ability, and the sooner that we realize that equipment is no substitute for experience, the better off we will each be, and the less money we will waste on gear that we don't need.

Bill

[Mark Stebbeds]

Seriously though, it seems the best thing would be to get your coloration going IN, then you know what you've got. Using proper mics, mic pre's, discrete component input sections, etc. I'd prefer that the math just be pristine going OUT, rather than further adding its 2 cents. Though if you went IN using "transparent" stuff without the proper personality, you might need to color it later. But capturing it correctly would be better engineering practice.



If you are using a summing box or a analog console for mixing, then it is ALWAYS in line, and not a question of adding it later to enhance or change the sound.

The sound going out is only as "pristine" as the converters you are using. The arguement for analog summing boxes is to compensate for the quality of lower end converters, and concerns about digital summing busses, not bad engineering practices.


Mark

[Craig Allen]

The arguement for analog summing boxes is to compensate for the quality of lower end converters, and concerns about digital summing busses, not bad engineering practices.
I always thought if you had poor D/A, then you would want to mix in the box to avoid the conversion process to begin with and that the analog summing boxes were just a way to avoid the digital summing routines in a DAW. But it seems to me that if you're using something like a Dangerous 8 channel summing box that you're not entirely avoiding the summing bus on the DAW to begin with. If you're mixing 24 channels, then you have to sum some of them to 8 submixes before you can run them out anyway and the whole point of using the analog box would be lost anyway.

[MMP]

The arguement for analog summing boxes is to compensate for the quality of lower end converters, and concerns about digital summing busses, not bad engineering practices.
Mark

It seems to me that if you mix outside the box, you are making more trips through the bad converters.

Some of these boxes cost more than a rack of good converters. It seems to be a high end solution looking for a problem, IMO. If you are worried about the math in a DAW mix bus, it would make more sense to me to build an external box that sums digital streams...say, like 24 aes, or 3 adat pipes to a stereo digital stream. But, how does summing the output of many compromised converters create a more pristine signal?

Regards,

MM

[soundtrack2life]

After struggling with a mix problem, last night I finally got a mix that I was very happy with and translated well to other systems. So then I decided to have some fun. I ran my ITB mix out of my RME FF800 into my Great River MP2-NV Preamp back into my Lavry Blue AD converters and recorded that. I tried all different settings on the GR & even switched on the Analog Saturation on the Lavry. Anyway like I said the ITB mix done in SAW and I was very happy with it! However running the two channels through the analog gear gave it a different "color" and IMO fattened it up somewhat. The track I tried it on was a 60's garage band style. So this may have been just what the Dr. ordered but may not be aplicable to all types of music. I think OTB mixing could would be nice when adding analog effects to individual tracks during mix down. And of coarse to add "color" to the mix. However if it is just color you are looking for I suggest trying what I did.
Joe

[Mark Stebbeds]

It seems to me that if you mix outside the box, you are making more trips through the bad converters.

Some of these boxes cost more than a rack of good converters. It seems to be a high end solution looking for a problem, IMO. If you are worried about the math in a DAW mix bus, it would make more sense to me to build a external box that sums digital streams...say, like 24 aes, or 3 adat pipes to a stereo digital stream. But, how does summing the output of many compromised converters create a more pristine signal?

Regards,

MM

Michael and Craig,

I stand corrected in the use of my language. Sending out of multiple bad converters isn't a solution for bad coverters. Using the word "bad" here is the rub.

But it certainly could "warm up", or at least change the sound more than sending out of two bad coverters, or even two good converters, if you enjoy what analog brings to the party.

I'm not an advocate of summing boxes, and do most of my mixing in the box lately, but I have enjoyed the results of bussing out of 24 converters and mixing on a high end analog console. It's more than just swinging everything through big iron, and more about the rest of the analog chain, and even more about the creative process.

Mark

[MMP]

I'm not an advocate of summing boxes, and do most of my mixing in the box lately, but I have enjoyed the results of bussing out of 24 converters and mixing on a high end analog console. It's more than just swinging everything through big iron, and more about the rest of the analog chain, and even more about the creative process.

Mark

I understand why some engineers use their DAWs as a tape replacement, and use a high end mixer to achieve their sonic goals. Though I presently am in the school of do it (analog processing) on the way in. I have some nice outboard gear, but have rarely (never?) looped audio from the DAW and back. If I was going to, I would use the best converters I owned to do it, in multiple passes if necessary.

But really, this is a different scenario than these summing boxes aimed at replacing the digital busses in DAWs. I just can't see the up side to working this way technically, and feel like a lot of misinformation is out there specifically to sell expensive "voodoo" product.

But, what else is new?

Regards,

MM

[Mark Stebbeds]

But really, this is a different scenario than these summing boxes aimed at replacing the digital busses in DAWs. I just can't see the up side to working this way technically, and feel like a lot of misinformation is out there specifically to sell expensive "voodoo" product.

But, what else is new?



Well, sort of. The intent is to simulate an analog console. I misspoke when I said I used the Dangerous 2 Bus in an earlier post. It was the Nicerizer.

http://www.phoenixaudio.net/products_nicerizer16.html

As an owner of the Phoenix DSR 2 preamps, I heard somehting I liked, regardless of how it would spec out compared to MIB.

So let's be purists and MIB, but put tons of plug-ins of every channel. :-)

Mark

[MMP]

It was the Nicerizer.
Mark

Looks, well...nice.:) I'll have to call Frasier and see if he will let me try it out. (the distributor happens to be about 15 blocks from me). I would use it to submix keyboards...



So let's be purists and MIB, but put tons of plug-ins of every channel. :-)
Mark

Not much different than hooking up a box that is always on, whether you need the flavor or not.;)

Regards,

MM

[MMP]

Here's how they are selling the Dangerous 2-bus:

http://www.mercenary.com/dangerous2bus.html

Summary...your DAW is flawed, but by summing through our $2995.US list device, everything will sound better.

Regards,

MM

[Mark Stebbeds]

Here's how they are selling the Dangerous 2-bus:

http://www.mercenary.com/dangerous2bus.html

Summary...your DAW is flawed, but by summing through our $2995.US list device, everything will sound better.

Regards,

MM

At a NAMM show a few years ago Fletcher had an ADAT impaled on a pole until they made him take it down. He's been anti digital for as long as I've known him.

Mark

[MMP]

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/mercenary-audio_1901_20271225

[Mark Stebbeds]

Ha! Forgot about the Mackie mixer.

Mark

[Neal Starrett]

At a NAMM show a few years ago Fletcher had an ADAT impaled on a pole until they made him take it down. He's been anti digital for as long as I've known him.

Mark

He use to be anti digital. He's been using Radar for some time now.

[Bill Park]

He use to be anti digital. He's been using Radar for some time now.

I was turned on to the RADAR unit from the many guys in Nashville who use it basically like a tape deck. Perhaps it was the same for Fletcher. I know that he was visiting Nashville at least for the various industry events that drew me to the city. For a 'no big deal' machine, (basically, a 286 running BeOS or something like that, and inexpensive converters) the RADAR sounds pretty good. When treated as a tape deck, one can still feel as if he were working 'in analog'.

Bill

[Neal Starrett]

Bill, the converters are pretty expensive. Going from their most basic Radar V Digital at $8K (no converters) to there Classic at $16K is quite a jump although there are 24 of them. So I guess per converter it is cheap, but the basic systems are up there. I've always read great things about Radar, never heard one yet.

[Mark Stebbeds]

Bill, the converters are pretty expensive. Going from their most basic Radar V Digital at $8K (no converters) to there Classic at $16K is quite a jump although there are 24 of them. So I guess per converter it is cheap, but the basic systems are up there. I've always read great things about Radar, never heard one yet.


Yeah, he prefers Radar over PT, but I think that's more of a political anti- Digidesign business model rant more than anything.

Radar has several levels of converter packages, and have had the reputation of sounding great compared to other DAW, but I'm not sure that reputation is holding up with the proliferation of high end outboard converters flooding the market.

Mark

[Bill Park]

Bill, the converters are pretty expensive. Going from their most basic Radar V Digital at $8K (no converters) ....

That is todays pricing, and todays models. It was less.

Bill

[Carlos Mills]

Hey Steve,


Currently my own work flow is generally to do all mixing and summing "in-the-box" and then do the majority of any 2-bus processing in the analog realm.
Best regards,
Steve Berson

I would be curious to know what you've been doing lately in the "2-bus processing analog realm"! :) Would you share with us? I am sure many will enjoy to read about your latest experiences... Thanks!

[joho]

Yeah, he prefers Radar over PT, but I think that's more of a political anti- Digidesign business model rant more than anything.

Radar has several levels of converter packages, and have had the reputation of sounding great compared to other DAW, but I'm not sure that reputation is holding up with the proliferation of high end outboard converters flooding the market.

Mark

Are you joking?? Have you heard the RADAR converters??

For me - nothing like it in the "depth" department! Lavry Blue, Apogee, etc - don't even come close.