# Analog Summing... who, what, when, where, why?



## WaveRider (Mar 19, 2019)

I recently watched a Christian Henson video and noticed he was using a Neve analog summing mixer in his studio. He uses the 8816, but these days everyone seems to be raving about the 5059. 

Being a home studio guy who's clueless about high-end gear, this led me down a rabbit hole to learn all about analog summing... something I didn't even know existed until a few days ago.

My takeaway so far is... for $3,700 your mixes will get a bump in quality. I get it. But wait, they say if you really want "that console sound" you'll also need a Neve MBP for an additional $3,900.

Ah geez.

I know that I would get a lot of personal enjoyment having the large console sound in my home studio, but my big questions is.... if you're sending your tracks off to a mastering house anyway, would analog summing beforehand really make a huge difference?


----------



## Scoremixer (Mar 19, 2019)

The easy answer to the question is... never.

A) if your delivery requirements demand that you print stems on a regular basis then obviously anything that 'sums' is a bit pointless. 
B) every trip out of and back into your computer is a degradation in quality.
C) if you feel a real urge to drop serious dollar on fancy box, choose something that's designed to make a real impact on the sound like a compressor, a nice eq, the aforementioned MBP, a Bricasti...
D) not many things are mixed on big desks anymore, and if you're talking soundtracks then very little is mixed there indeed. 

For that kind of expenditure, I'd recommend investing in monitors, acoustics, convertors, mics or a residential Mix With The Masters course - all of those could make an actual difference to the quality of your mixes!


----------



## WaveRider (Mar 19, 2019)

Scoremixer said:


> C) if you feel a real urge to drop serious dollar on fancy box, choose something that's designed to make a real impact on the sound like a compressor, a nice eq, the aforementioned MBP, a Bricasti...



I definitely don't have the urge to drop serious dollar on anything! But I was curious why so many people *would* spend so much money on such a thing.



Scoremixer said:


> D) not many things are mixed on big desks anymore, and if you're talking soundtracks then very little is mixed there indeed.



But is that because engineers have deemed big desks sonically no longer relevant, or because of the expensive and cumbersome nature? I think the point of these smaller boxes is that you can still get the big console sound with a smaller footprint and expense.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Mar 19, 2019)

Find a plugin or combination of plugins that does the same thing.

According to Bob Katz, simply running the full mix through the box will give the same effect as summing through it. It's not about the summing. It's just about running through the box.

If I were running any outboard, I'd want the best converters so I'm not crapifying everything. That's at least $2000 per stereo pair. Both for AD and DA. Certainly not worth it in my books.


----------



## gjelul (Mar 19, 2019)

waverunner said:


> I recently watched a Christian Henson video and noticed he was using a Neve analog summing mixer in his studio. He uses the 8816, but these days everyone seems to be raving about the 5059.
> 
> Being a home studio guy who's clueless about high-end gear, this led me down a rabbit hole to learn all about analog summing... something I didn't even know existed until a few days ago.
> 
> ...






If Rupert Neve makes a box for this application then there might be some truth to that application regadless what everyone here feels what's right or wrong.

IMO a summing box would be great to have if you can afford it. It does add depth and image to your mix for sure while making everything tighter. I used to have the TubeTech summing box and it was huge difference when running only 10 stereo stems through it (20:2) compared to the in-the-box summing. Since then I have moved to an SSL Matrix 2 for that purpose.

When it comes to mastering:
You master the final stereo and not the stems usually. Summing is done to add that analog color to the overall mix, add depth, and add that mojo these boxes provide. As long as you're sending a stereo mix with enough room to mastering you should be good.

My only reservation with the summing boxes is that with 16:2 you can only sum 8 stereos. For more you'd need two boxes and that makes it an epensive proposition. If you're in the film / tv industry, where last minute changes are the mo, or delivery formats are more elaborate than just one stereo, summing may be too time consuming and not efficient. 

It comes down to workflow and the project you're on, as for the rest, everything is subjective.

*the 5059 is a great box btw.


----------



## Scoremixer (Mar 19, 2019)

waverunner said:


> But is that because engineers have deemed big desks sonically no longer relevant, or because of the expensive and cumbersome nature? I think the point of these smaller boxes is that you can still get the big console sound with a smaller footprint and expense.



It's a bit of both. The sound of a console is made up of many things, of which the summing element is possibly the least important.


----------



## chillbot (Mar 19, 2019)

I had two of the 5059s, I ran all my external synth audio through them.

I never heard a difference, not for the synths anyway, I think it was overkill. I sold them.

Good story, bro.


----------



## jamwerks (Mar 19, 2019)

imo, the difference is there, but it's audible to people at various degrees. Some (musicians) don't hear any difference at all, even though they might have great ears. Sound is very complex and there's a lot to be listening to. Those who do tune in to the difference often describe it as each instrument has more air around it. I have the same kind of impression. 

If you're delivering stereo mixes, it might be worth it to you to go that direction. 32 channels DA then 2 AD top quality doesn't cost that much any more.

Both digital (numbers) and analogue (volts) are artificial transformations of what sound really is, air that vibrates. It makes sense that both would yield slightly different results when piling on sources. All those that do hear a difference, usually prefer analogue summing...


----------



## Scoremixer (Mar 19, 2019)

Found the blogpost I remembered from way back when, with a properly calibrated shootout of different mixers and some salient thoughts:

http://toddburkeisarecordengineer.blogspot.com/2012/03/summing-mixer-shootout.html


----------



## Akarin (Mar 19, 2019)

...if you really want analog summing, you could also go the plugin route. I use Waves NLS (currently on sale at $49) and yes, it does make a difference (that non musicians will never hear nor care about): https://www.waves.com/plugins/nls-non-linear-summer#classic-console-sound-with-nls


----------



## WaveRider (Mar 19, 2019)

Akarin said:


> it does make a difference (that non musicians will never hear nor care about):



That's exactly what I'm grappling with. As someone who's always trying to get the best sound possible, I realize it's mostly for my own personal enjoyment. It's always disheartening to know that most people are listening to music these days on iPhones, Laptops, Alexa etc.


----------



## wst3 (Mar 19, 2019)

Everything makes a difference!

Whether that difference is audible is a different question, and whether it is audible to the target audience is yet another.

But my short answer is yes, a summing box or a big old analog console will make a difference. Personally I prefer the big old analog console, but I need help.

While a plugin will also make a difference I am not a fan of that difference, but it is there. I am, within reason, a fan of analog summing. IF I could afford it<G>!


----------



## Greg (Mar 19, 2019)

Whats the rest of your studio like? I would splurge on the best monitors I could afford first. That way when you start adding premium gear, you can actually hear the difference it makes.


----------



## WaveRider (Mar 19, 2019)

Greg said:


> Whats the rest of your studio like? I would splurge on the best monitors I could afford first. That way when you start adding premium gear, you can actually hear the difference it makes.



I have decent gear -- Dynaudio MkII speakers in a bass-trapped room. My my A/D interface needs an upgrade. It's a MOTU 1296 w/PCI card via audio wire. Ancient I know.. but still sounds good to my ears. I suppose an upgrade to an Apollo is in order first. I'm mostly all VIs except for guitar, bass, and a Studio Electronics Omega 8 synth which is an analog beast!


----------



## danbo (Mar 21, 2019)

WaveRider said:


> But I was curious why so many people *would* spend so much money on such a thing.



Because it's a familiar interface from the old days. Probably a lot of gear-headism in there too, which Christen is a victim of (he blew $8k or whatever and never did the bare minimum check of what that box is). You also see this phenomenon with the guys that Christian has show off their studios, what do you see? Racks of old gear that is mouldering, out of spec, warranty and ready to blow a cap. They actually scour eBay for this junk, then proudly display (and rarely use) it in their studio. Maybe it impresses the directors.

Personally I think it's the height of foolishness. Domain crossing is obviously expensive, as an engineer this makes no sense to me. As a musician I don't get it either, while there is a past-worship with musical instruments (Stradivarius & Steinway basically) musicians have _always_ embraced innovations and new ways of making music. Few people play a clarinet from the 1800's today - too weird, hard to play and doesn't sound good. Back to summing, you _can_ get the same effect in the digital domain (somebody mentioned a plugin), you just get physical knobs with analog, at the cost of complication and D/A-A/D losses.

Funny too, it shows how far we've come. Used to be, with the old converters, nobody would dream of doing this. There was a lot of 'digital hate' (deserved at the time). Now converters are so good nobody mentions that little fact in analog summing. But there's still a little digital hate, or maybe distaste, in the idea of needing to sum in analog. Which makes me wonder what the magic is with analog summing, if you're injecting so much digital conversion. I can't believe it wouldn't get wiped out with the conversion, which is never perfect. I'll take a R2R converter over analog summing any day. 

Yes I've got an opinion, if you like it that's fine with me.


----------



## WaveRider (Mar 21, 2019)

I find the contrast of opinions on this fascinating.

Not sure what to make of:
"never heard a difference, I think it was overkill. I sold them."
"The sound of a console is made up of many things, of which the summing element is possibly the least important."

To (this buyer's review on Sweetwater)
"This box just shines. It IS a console as far as my ears are concerned. Combine this unit with UAD Neve EQ's and a rack mount NEVE MBP and good luck finding someone who can tell that your track wasn't actually mixed on the console itself. Absolutely BREATHTAKING results! "

I'm sooooo confused.


----------



## dgburns (Mar 21, 2019)

I have a Neve 8816. I use it on occasion. Especially rock stuff.

It's good, but it's not a magic bullet. The Slate mix buss is not as good, but so much more convenient.


----------



## danbo (Mar 21, 2019)

WaveRider said:


> I find the contrast of opinions on this fascinating ... I'm sooooo confused.


 I used to be an audiophile - well still am I guess. I've been through all the stages of it and have a pretty level head - _I think_. Ultimately the ears are funny things, small differences - real or imagined, can give the aural appearance of large benefits. It's hard/impossible to be objective.

To some degree it reminds me of when I was an orchestral musician. Somebody asked me "why the tux, does it make any difference?" My answer being "Yes, because you feel good, and if you feel good you play good". The same thing applies here I think. The Neve mini console is a thing of beauty, no doubt if I had it my experience of my mixes would be better, and so my mixes objectively would be better at least because I'm making them better. Objectively I also recognize it would probably be a wash on it's own merits, or possibly worse. But if I feel good I'll make better mixes.

These days I try to stick with science which prompted my answer.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 21, 2019)

The Dangerous D/A box a rep demoed in my room a few years ago was really good, but I'm pretty sure what I was hearing was its really good D/A converters.

If you want an expensive analog sound, to me it makes more sense to have expensive analog gear that does more useful things than just passing signals through it. The Millennia Media STT-1, for example, can add really nice colors if you swap its stock tubes for more exotic color ones and/or switch in its transformer - but it also has a fabulous mic preamp, amazing analog EQ, and an optical compressor, each of which can use tube or solid-state paths.


----------



## Greg (Mar 21, 2019)

WaveRider said:


> I have decent gear -- Dynaudio MkII speakers in a bass-trapped room. My my A/D interface needs an upgrade. It's a MOTU 1296 w/PCI card via audio wire. Ancient I know.. but still sounds good to my ears. I suppose an upgrade to an Apollo is in order first. I'm mostly all VIs except for guitar, bass, and a Studio Electronics Omega 8 synth which is an analog beast!



I would 100% upgrade your monitors to some nice 3 way ones first. I haven't used Dynaudio's but I would imagine swapping them out for some higher end Focals, PMC's, or Barefoots, would be a massive change and improve your mixes drastically more than a summing box. I was an idiot for not upgrading my monitors first when I was struggling to hear details and clarity with Adam a7x's.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 21, 2019)

If you have good ears, there is absolutely no need for analog summing tools. Invest in a good studio/mixing room and equipment, and all will get well .... .


----------



## WaveRider (Mar 21, 2019)

I guess I completely missed the point then. I thought the purpose of all the expensive Neve boxes was to get a warmer, smoother, analog sound.


----------



## danbo (Mar 21, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> The Dangerous D/A box a rep demoed in my room a few years ago was really good, but I'm pretty sure what I was hearing was its really good D/A converters.



The only D/A I've heard that is significantly an improvement is an R2R DAC. If you want it relatively cheap in two channel you can get the Soekris R2R in two channel for about $1k. I use this as my reference two channel chain, off a USB reclocker. Unfortunately don't know of any professional R2R's and not in 8 channel surround.



WaveRider said:


> I guess I completely missed the point then. I thought the purpose of all the expensive Neve boxes was to get a warmer, smoother, analog sound.



*soft analog compression* is what I've heard the allure is. 

Avoiding compression all together is one of my goals.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 21, 2019)

Greg said:


> I haven't used Dynaudio's but I would imagine swapping them out for some higher end Focals, PMC's, or Barefoots, would be a massive change and improve your mixes drastically more than a summing box



Dynaudio makes excellent speakers, so I'm not sure that your thinking is necessarily applicable in this case - although yes, speakers definitely make more difference to the sound than anything else, especially analog summing.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 21, 2019)

danbo said:


> The only D/A I've heard that is significantly an improvement is an R2R DAC. If you want it relatively cheap in two channel you can get the Soekris R2R in two channel for about $1k. I use this as my reference two channel chain, off a USB reclocker. Unfortunately don't know of any professional R2R's and not in 8 channel surround.



I haven't worked with any stand-alone D/As, but I'll take your word for it.

The Dangerous box sounded notably better than the digital mixer I had at the time *even after taking the time to unplug/replug cables* (i.e. I didn't have an A/B switch set up - it was just a demo, not a listening test).

The digital mixer was a Panasonic DA7, not dogshit at all.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 21, 2019)

WaveRider said:


> I guess I completely missed the point then. I thought the purpose of all the expensive Neve boxes was to get a warmer, smoother, analog sound.


If you want to get an analog sound, use only analog equipment. 
All other mixes are fake ... . Analog is analog, from the recording till the mastering. ...


----------



## WaveRider (Mar 22, 2019)

Well one thing I've learned through this whole learning experience is there's quite a few (unintentionally) comical YouTube videos of people showing off their 5059's and Portico II's and you can literally hear ZERO difference when A/B'd. I'm sure part of it is YT's crappy audio compression but seriously.... that's what everyone else hears too. 

And so I will keep my money and continue using plug-ins. I thought maybe these boxes were some sort of holy grail, but clearly they are not.


----------



## dgburns (Mar 22, 2019)

WaveRider said:


> Well one thing I've learned through this whole learning experience is there's quite a few (unintentionally) comical YouTube videos of people showing off their 5059's and Portico II's and you can literally hear ZERO difference when A/B'd. I'm sure part of it is YT's crappy audio compression but seriously.... that's what everyone else hears too.
> 
> And so I will keep my money and continue using plug-ins. I thought maybe these boxes were some sort of holy grail, but clearly they are not.



If you really want the analog experience, I’d suggest getting a reasonable quality analog studio mixer. In my experience, lot’s of things about mixing on a console can make a difference. But it’s alot of small things adding up to a bigger result. Things like gain staging, the analog eq, inserts with compressors, fx sends and groups and of course hitting the analog bus with a bit of signal to get into the red a little bit. I’ve noticed sometimes that the console helps with sample libraries, I’m not sure why, but I think it’s just so easy to reach for the eq and, again little moves here and there add up to a big difference.

I use a soundcraft spirit studio occasionally, it has those tlo72 chips which have a sound to them, slow slew rate, not linear but saturate in a pleasing way. I still think based on my experiences with consoles, big and small, that alot can be accomplished ITB. 

Gain staging is a big deal. On a console, you do it automatically, partly because it steers you that way. The daw allows for more gain ranges without sound considerations- you could achieve the same result with aggregate levels anywhere, so long as the end result is mastered to the same level- thanks to floating point math. (plugin internal gain staging not considered).

The big deal about analog summing is the crosstalk. This can be modelled, and this will only get better as time goes on. The trend is ITB not OTB.

But mixing with faders across a desk is FUN, and that counts for something


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 23, 2019)

dgburns said:


> The big deal about analog summing is the crosstalk



That seems very odd to me. There's always some crosstalk between stereo channels in the playback chain, but why would crosstalk in your mixer change the sound in any good way?


----------



## ironbut (Mar 23, 2019)

The bottom line is, there aren't any silver bullets when it comes to getting great sound for your compositions.
IMHO if you have a creation that you're proud of and want to do everything you can to make it stand up and be noticed, send it to a great mastering engineer. If it needs more work in the mix stage, he/she will tell you that and you can start there.
There's no substitute for experience and a proven track record.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 23, 2019)

ironbut said:


> There's no substitute for experience and a proven track record



With sex, absolutely - no reason to have it at home when you can hire an experienced professional.

But when it comes to music and audio, I'm still doing my best to gain all the experience and knowledge I can.


----------



## wst3 (Mar 23, 2019)

Nick you slay me!


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 24, 2019)

I’ve got a great Mastering Engineer that I hire.
His name is Manley Slam.
A dynamic genius.


----------



## dgburns (Mar 25, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> That seems very odd to me. There's always some crosstalk between stereo channels in the playback chain, but why would crosstalk in your mixer change the sound in any good way?



I hope it's ok to quote Steven Slate, as this is what I was referring to. He posted this somewhere else but I'll just paste it here rather then link to somewhere else-

"A lot of people incorrectly assume that the "summing" aspect of a mixing console is a major factor in its tone, but it's just not the case. What really gives a mixing console its tone is the summing *amps*, the channel amps, and then some other components throughout its circuit path will add bits of nonlinearities to complete the final tone. There is an argument that some of the crosstalk that can happen in the summing network can contribute to the tone, so this is why we modeled this artifact in our Mixbuss plugins.

Ultimately what an analog console, virtual console plugin, or a little rackmount analog console do is the same concept: Add color to your audio. And then it's just up to peoples' ears to decide what color they like, which is of course subjective. 

If you check out the VCC 2.0 thread, we did a comparison of the Nicersizer mk2 rackmount mixer against the VCC, and the results were quite interesting."

Cheers,
Steven


----------



## jamwerks (Mar 25, 2019)

One thing is the artifacts (pleasing distortion from the amps) and another is the summing of multiple signals in the analogue (electronic) domaine. Plug-ins can't do anything there...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 25, 2019)

dgburns said:


> Steven Slate



Well, I'm skeptical about the crosstalk part of his argument (although the rest of what he says is unassailable).

To me crosstalk is a bad thing. But I haven't heard a pure comparison with and without it alone, so who knows.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Mar 25, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> With sex, absolutely - no reason to have it at home when you can hire an experienced professional.



Early contender for the comment of the year.


----------



## Daniel James (Mar 25, 2019)

The difference I think is so subtle that unless you are specifically trying to impress and audiophile no one will notice.

When someone is showing your awesome track to their friend on their phone I doubt they will say "Oh man the analogue summing in this make its sound so much better"

If you want to feel what summing does to a mix, try one of the Slate console plugins, it will do the same job and sound just as good. People and Steven Slate himself make a point of doing blind A B comparisons with this kind of thing so have a look around and see if you can find the virtual console collection ones. The thing you will notice is some people get it right, most get it wrong....and these are people who are actively listening for a difference.....The average consumer, who isn't actually listening for it, or know what summing is will ever notice.

So tbh its just not worth the money, unless you have money to throw around of course....in which case put the money to something more overt, or fuck it buy a dirt bike and go ride some awesome mountain somewhere to get inspired to make the music itself better...ok we are strying into my world there so this is a good place to end.

tl;dr not worth the money and no one will notice other than you.

-DJ

EDIT: Sorry I just noticed alot of what I said has already been so. And I could be less of a dick and actually give you the link rather than make you google it haha https://www.slatedigital.com/virtual-console-collection/


----------



## WaveRider (Mar 25, 2019)

Daniel James said:


> When someone is showing your awesome track to their friend on their phone I doubt they will say "Oh man the analogue summing in this make its sound so much better"



LOL! Well said.

I'm currently using the Slate plugins and am generally happy with the sound. I almost got sucked into the "but hardware is so much better" trap.


----------



## dgburns (Mar 27, 2019)

Daniel James said:


> The difference I think is so subtle that unless you are specifically trying to impress and audiophile no one will notice.
> 
> When someone is showing your awesome track to their friend on their phone I doubt they will say "Oh man the analogue summing in this make its sound so much better"
> 
> ...



It’s so true that the iphone has become the reference monitor of choice. Who would have thought that the iphone would have become the new NS10M?


----------

