ANALOG SUMMING

[dcb]

so im definately thinking about getting the ssl rack with
summing devices or the xdesk. but im really still not sure
if this outplays my cubase 6 32 bit floating point summing...
especially for the cost.
i mean i will have to spend 2500€ on the xrack with 16 channels +
SSL conversion (2500€)... for what?

i heard a couple of tests. this one here.

http://www.gearwire.com/media/ssl-x-rack-summing-features.wmv

but they compare 2 different mixes here...
one has the lead guitar centered, the other one has
the lead guitar panned wide....

im sure analog summing will do something to your mix (due to conversion,
more headroom, added noise...) but im not sure if thats really what i want in the end.

so who has experience with analog vs digital summing?
who does it? whats your opinion?

links that do not compare 2 different mixes would be cool too ! ;-)
thanks!

 

[BLUElightCory]

I've never been incredibly impressed with analog summing. It doesn't so much improve a mix as it just colors/changes it a bit, which can be a good or bad thing depending on what you're going for. The guys who like to rave about how analog summing will make a night and day difference seem incredibly hyperbolic to me, considering how minor the differences actually are. Keep in mind also that SSL units are generally known for being extremely clean (though they do have their own certain "SSL sound", which is more due to the EQs and compressors in the console) so I wouldn't think the X-Rack would be imparting much coloration to the sound.

In my opinion, you'd probably be better off putting the money into better monitoring, room treatment, mics, pres, processing, and/or converters, because they're all going to make a bigger improvement in your results than a summing box will. I'm not saying a summing unit won't help - I just don't think it should be very high on any engineer's list of priorities.

 

[Ermz]

Too much money for way too little effect. Get Nebula CLC Pro and be done with it.

 

[Sacha]

I'm curious about it too, i'm going to try and set up some sort of test when I get a chance here with digital vs analog summing vs VCC or something like that. Very interested to see how it affects the elusive 'depth' and width etc.

 

[C_F_H_13]

Too much money for way too little effect.

I agree with this 100% minus one very big exception....

a few years back, my former employer and I did a blind test of 6 of the most popular summing mixers at the time. Long story short, neither of us were able to pick a particular box (or in the box) consistently, and surprisingly we also picked ITB quite often.

So despite what alot of GS forum dudes ( *cough* mixerman *cough* ), It's not worth the money for what you get in return.

Where the exception comes is what you can actually do with a summing box besides just straight mixing with it. First off, most of the good ones give you true inserts. This alone will improve your mixing if you have outboard gear. I know cubase compensates for hardware delay, but trust me, it's really nice to do it all in the hardware world. They are also deadly for even summing two guitar mics together, or 2 or more amps!.

I don't know if I'd ever buy one, but if you plan on using it for multiple functions then yes it's worth it....straight mixing....no.

 

[crillemannen]

Buy yourself a couple of hardware comps and Eq instead

 

[Jarkko Mattheiszen]

If you want something really clean, you'll be sending a lot of money for quite minimal sonical change. If you want some mojo or colour, scavenge eBay for some odd, unknown 70's and 80's mixers and see if you can find something cool for dirt cheap.

 

[dcb]

Where the exception comes is what you can actually do with a summing box besides just straight mixing with it. First off, most of the good ones give you true inserts. This alone will improve your mixing if you have outboard gear. I know cubase compensates for hardware delay, but trust me, it's really nice to do it all in the hardware world. They are also deadly for even summing two guitar mics together, or 2 or more amps!.

yeah, thats a good point, as i will buy some ssl eqs and comps too...
basically building a small ssl 4k...

so you guys are "summing" up what i always thought about the topic.
still id love to really hear myself if its worth it...
anyone listened to this example?
its pro tools summing vs xdesk summing.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bhinsights/the_example.mp3

here is the full article.
http://pro-audio.bhinsights.com/content/ssl’s-x-desk-vs-9000j-–-analog-summary.html

the clarity in the high end is pretty obvious to me.

 

[C_F_H_13]

yeah, thats a good point, as i will buy some ssl eqs and comps too...
basically building a small ssl 4k...

so you guys are "summing" up what i always thought about the topic.
still id love to really hear myself if its worth it...
anyone listened to this example?
its pro tools summing vs xdesk summing.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bhinsights/the_example.mp3

here is the full article.
http://pro-audio.bhinsights.com/content/ssl’s-x-desk-vs-9000j-–-analog-summary.html

the clarity in the high end is pretty obvious to me.

Then you're on the right track. Summing makes way more sense if you have analog eq/comps to go with it.

As far as that example goes. I'd seen that before but never gave it a chance as it was an mp3. IF you can tell a difference in the mp3, then I promise one of them is doctored. The difference is summing is SOOOOO subtle that hearing it in an mp3 would be almost impossible IMHO.

 

[BLUElightCory]

To me, this paragraph (from the article) tells you all you need to know (and what most of us have been saying):

If you can’t hear the difference the first time, then try listening closely to the overheads on the drums (or the symbols). The difference is clearer in the details picked up by the overhead mics and the timbre of the cymbals. The bass frequencies also blend more naturally, and the stereo spread has a more natural quality too.

They're EXPECTING that people (not normal listeners but audio guys who read articles about summing) might not hear the difference - because there is barely ANY difference. They've even gone ahead and pointed out what the differences are, which makes the reader's ear hone in on them (in this case the high end/cymbals). If I switched the files on anyone in this forum without telling them, no one would ever notice. I definitely don't hear a $3000 improvement, especially compared to the kind of improvement one could expect from some great monitors, a great buss compressor/EQ, better converters, etc.

 

[if6was9]

If you want something really clean, you'll be sending a lot of money for quite minimal sonical change. If you want some mojo or colour, scavenge eBay for some odd, unknown 70's and 80's mixers and see if you can find something cool for dirt cheap.

Got a Hill Audio Concept 4400 kinda like that. Paid next to nothing for it. Seems really good. 32 channels, 8 bus, 12 auxes. nice EQ, nice pres, pretty flexible routing too.
Downside with going this route is the maintainance/service cost. Desks of this age suffer from dirty pots, bad power supplies and the possiblity of a need for a re cap. Mine seems in okay working order but I haven't delved into it fully to see how much work it will need. As of now its a few dead channels and alot of dirty pots. I'm sure once I start making full use of it a few more problems will arise.

As someone mentoned above, I seem these summing mixers as a great way to incorporate hardware outboard into your ITB mixing. I work as live engineer so I'd like to be able to splash out on some nice comps and be able to make really good use out of them in both fields.

 

[SkybluestudiosBEN]

I tried mixing out of the box ONE time, I never did it again because 1 it did not make a huge difference to the sound and 2 it made all the routing in pro tools a pain in the ass, AND if you ever want to remix it you have to patch a bunch of shit in again.......fuck it! lol

 

[Plec]

Agree with everyone above.

I can't believe people actually going for that "analog is just better" thing. It's total BS!

The people who scream most about it are the ones who invested a lot of money into it and in an attempt to justify their investment they need themselves to believe it is better. Anyone saying that analog summing is like night and day just want it to be so. You just need any version of an A/B test to be 0.1db louder than the other and you will think it is better.. simple as that. In fact, when doing a real test the differences are so subtle that in the real world, it will never make a difference. Plus, the only thing making a noticeable difference in sound is not the summing, but the make-up gain amplifier in summing boxes. You might just as well run your mix through an analog compressor or stereo preamp and you will have the same thing.

Just because it is analog doesn't make it better. Any time you're looking for coloration you must be pretty damn sure it fits the material you're working on and doesn't work against it. Price is besides the point here!

I'm getting an SSL AWS 924 this year and I will never say that "it just sounds better than digital". I'm only getting it for ease of use, having great EQ, compression and general workflow there at my fingertips instead of fiddling around with a mouse. Only way it will make my stuff sound better is having a more inspired workflow where I can focus on what's important.

Summing devices... waaaaay overhyped!

 

[dcb]

I tried mixing out of the box ONE time, I never did it again because 1 it did not make a huge difference to the sound and 2 it made all the routing in pro tools a pain in the ass, AND if you ever want to remix it you have to patch a bunch of shit in again.......fuck it! lol

haha, yeah thats the downside of the whole thing.
but listening to some ssl eqs and comps in action is just magic..

 

[dcb]

Just because it is analog doesn't make it better. Any time you're looking for coloration you must be pretty damn sure it fits the material you're working on and doesn't work against it.

absolutely. after listening to more examples
(pm me if you wanna hear them, a really nice user hereshared them with me)
i still cant really say that i hear a difference that will make my mixes any better.

not sure about great analog ssl eqs or comps.
its so hard for even 99% of the people here to tell
if the duende ssl sounds different than the xrack version...
i mean different - yes. but better / worse?

i think there is a certain excitement to some gear (like the 1176 with all button mode, or the tubes of a fairchild) that makes your signal ear candy,
or an ssl channel comp with its typical "snap". but knowing your plugins,
you can get a vibey mix for sure.

plec : holy sh... an aws ! really cool! thinking about the nucleus,
i was dissapointed about not having any analog eq in there at first,
but then i realised that having knobs and faders gets me back into the real world, and i still hate making music with computers. it blocks creativity somehow...

 

[Plec]

Yes, I'm all for analog if it ups your workflow. Still a real console in recording situations can't be beaten for workflow and convenience. Just being able to create different cue mixes with live FX for the talent on the fly without worrying about latency, not having to scroll through menus and mouse clicks to get to where you want etc..

For mixing only it is ok working with a mouse and a screen but DAMN did my workflow get more interesting and effective just from getting a CC121 for Cubase. Writing automation became fun instead of being a chore and that from having just ONE fader.

I was thinking going the controller route at first, but SSL's controllers are overpriced IMO unless I'm missing something. You do pay quite a bit for having those three letters on there. Then I figured that I do love having a console. The one I have now which is a huge ass 36ch in-line Otari is a great board but since the automation on it is a HAZZLE with no recall etc... it can not be used for every day mixing but for monitoring and recording I could never do without it, or something similar. Loved mixing on it for the workflow, but sound wise I got better results ITB... and this board cost almost $200 000 in the early 90's.

So the AWS is the only console I've found that does it all with DAW control, total recall etc... without going into the Duality league which is somewhere around $250k and up...

I just want to work.. getting the job done and not have to think HOW I'm going to get the job done technically.

 

[AudioGeekZine]

I can't find the words for what I want to say.

something about how mixing hot out multiple I/O and converters works differently than a stereo pair. Less/different distortion etc Each stem is at a lower level so less distortion from the analog components.
On the other hand, there's no conversion and electronics involved, just math summing summing ITB so there should be no loss.

I don't have the gear to test this theory. Or the interest to even explain it better.

 

[acappa]

Since one week ago I´m summing with a mini valve desk, 4 st buses and 2 mono. I bought also a GSSL Master Bus clone and a Arsenal Audio St Eq (by API) as inserts on the master bus and then send my stereo stem back to the daw. I find the sound coldless, liveful, as i push harder the master bus, more harmonics add. My outputs are: Drums St, Vox St, GTR´s St, Bass Mono and a general output (reverb, sinths, an other stuff)
Well, as I agree is not a night and day difference I definitely can find some colouration that´s cool to my ears, and that´s enough for me...

I was temped to pick the SSL Xdesk but no enough money, so I finally end up picking this one up! (TL Fat track)

 

[aramism]

i never understood people who claim there is no difference. its almost anti-professional to say "analog summing is bullshit." some people have such a hard-on about analog summing that when it gets brought up they come out of the woodwork to make it a point that its bullshit and a waste of money. why is it such a flagrant topic to you people? relax. you treat it as if its an argument on abortion, or gay marriage and it becomes so passionate. it's really not a big deal. like anything its just another tool with an intended use, and it delivers on its intentions.

there is a noticeable even effect to make a difference. i'm not going to argue which is better but i will argue that there is a difference. digital summing has its use and sound too (ask andy, james, i'm willing to bet joey sturgis also) but you can't argue that there is no difference. it's not HUGE like worlds apart and to be honest the biggest reason why people will tell you is they will mix a whole song and then A/B it as if its a "magic box" that you just put on and it makes it better. it's hard to tell what it does by just having a finished product and burning it down one way or another. it's one of those things where its part of the whole mix process and is more effective from the get-go. they say they improve imaging, depth, etc. etc. and some of it is true. in my experiences, i've noticed it gives it a unique subtle eq shaping as far as a sweet top end and kind of a fuzzy low end and i can say slight compression or something that sounds like it. it's very slight but it's a "finishing" product as is meant to be slight and a "cherry on top" sort of thing. the majority of professional records are summed in an analog environment and while it is not nearly as important as acoustics, preamps, converters, etc. it still has its place. so it's really unfair to speak with so much conviction about how useless it is because its really not true.

a more fair and accurate piece of advice to the OP would be "depending on your budget its something that has a slightly different sound and if you already have sufficient everything else it's something that can help your mixes if you like that slight coloration."

and to answer his personal opinion i will say i love the slight coloration it gives and when i start the process of setting outputs i hear a difference immediately and i think you would damn near have to be deaf not to as well. so i don't know which boxes people use that they claim is barely noticeable but it's pretty noticeable. it adds a little compression, and gives it a little eq almost to make it sound "sweeter" i guess. and IIRC andy has switched back to analog with his new ssl desk and keep something in mind, i'll be honest and say in my entire life i've only heard a handful of ITB mixes that have really been true professional and stood out and been successful. and those are pretty much mostly andys mixes lol, which i will give him major props but understand that his sound was so unique that i feel like the clean nature of it and the "sharpness" was somewhat associated with the ITB mixing. if i take any other favorite mix of mine, even guys like jens, you will find it was done on a console or some sort of summing system. that is something you cannot argue with, real results. the fact remains mixing in an analog environment given the mixer is competent enough yields a more "professional" sound in most cases based on the history or recorded music as what we are used to as "professional" sound. the only exception i can think of personally is andy. and i was always curious was stuff like anthems of rebellion, end of heartache, etc. done when he was still using the dangerous or was that when he started using pt hd fully. andy if you read this i'd be real curious to know about those particular albums and those years like 2003-2006 or so.

 

[fatalforce]

The only benefit I see is the affect on the stereo intensity and the pan law in your mix. While experimenting in reaper, where you can change the pan law, there was an spatial difference but no coloration. I think PT defaults -2.5dB