# Analog Summing: Yay or nay?



## apmusic (Jul 24, 2014)

I've been looking into analog summing for a few weeks now, specifically the Dangerous 2 Bus LT, and am curious about anyone's results with the unit or their thoughts on analog summing. I've been unable to find A-B demos of people putting their mixes through the 2bus compared to digital only. Any advice or experience is appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 24, 2014)

This has been an ongoing discussion for some time, and will continue for God only know how long. Some people will tell you that yes, an analog summing box makes all the difference in the world, others will say it helps to x-degree, and yet others will say it only makes a minimal difference.

In terms of the Dangerous box.... they used to have comparison audio exs on their website; I think they have been taken down for one reason or another. I checked out some of these comparisons while they were still available. The Dangerous summed files were considerably louder than the DAW summed files. Therefore, the Dangerous summed files sounded better - or should I say, _they gave the perception of sounding better_. When I took the a and the b files, and put them inside of Cubase to do a proper a/b test, the first thing I did was level match the two files from each set. When that was done, I did actually notice a difference. To me, the Dangerous summed files sounded better - but the difference was so infinitely small, I couldn't justify spending any kind of money on it - let alone the asking price. And I got the same results for each set. So yes, I could sit here and argue that the Dangerous summed files are "better" - but to what end? Hardly any.

Two more thoughts:

1) If you do a comparison, make sure you do what I did and level match the two files. Do not let anyone tell you that this step is not necessary.

2) Many people are looking for these summing boxes to do what large format analog consoles do - specifically Neves and SSLs. They don't.

Cheers.


----------



## charlieclouser (Jul 25, 2014)

Using an analog summing box will pretty much limit you to outputting stereo mixes, limiting their usefulness in a music for picture situation, where you'll likely need to deliver multiple stems, surround mixes, or even surround stems.

My delivery format is usually between 8 channels (4 stereo stems) and 48 channels (six 5.1 stems) - so no analog summing box could accommodate my workflow. Even with the biggest large format analog consoles it is a huge pain in the arse to mix and deliver OTB - and then there's the issue of recall-ability with ITB vs OTB mixing….

I was at the NAMM show when Dangerous showed their first summing box, before the concept took off, when I was still making rock records, and I'd recently switched to mixing ITB and was absolutely loving it. After they described the benefits of their new box, I asked if they had an A/B situation I could listen to, figuring that they certainly would have a show floor demo that would make clear the benefits of using their system. They replied, "It's a bit tough to hear the difference here on the show floor…".

I asked if they had a demo CD or downloadable clips that would clearly show the difference between mixing ITB and with their box - they didn't. 

I shrugged and walked away, thinking, "These guys must be kidding - no way to hear the magic that they are saying their box creates?" I wanted to hear the same one-bar clip of a heavy rock mix looping over and over, switching between ITB and OTB summing on every downbeat so I could clearly hear how one was better than the other.

I've listened to lots of clips of OTB vs. ITB summing in the years since, but I've never heard anything that would compel me to even consider that workflow, even if I was still just mixing records in stereo, which is the only context I've ever seen OTB summing boxes used.

For surround or stem work, outboard analog summing boxes are a non-starter for me.


----------



## Markus S (Jul 25, 2014)

I have found A/B comparisons on Gearslutz I think, also on the vendors web sites, maybe not Dangerous, but sone of the others. Judging from the examples it does make a huge difference, adds that little sparkle of the commercial sound. I still didn't go for it for work flow reasons. If I had unlimited time and budget I'd go OTB at least to give it a shot, I think it's very interesting. But if you have the box, why not make the test yourself? What do you think of it?


----------



## Daryl (Jul 25, 2014)

I have heard both with and without, and for certain sorts of music it can make things sound a little more pleasing, at times, but for what I do it makes no difference and in some examples I heard (admittedly a while back) it made things sound worse.

I think the only solution is to try it for yourself. Just remember that although you are degrading the sound, the only question that matters is whether or not it sounds good.

One more thing; if you are writing mostly acoustic instrument based music using samples, there are many more things to spend your money on before you get into the realm of Snake Oil. :D 

D


----------



## Oliver_Codd (Jul 25, 2014)

What bothers me about the analog summing conversation is that people (namely those trying to sell a product) stress the argument that digital summing is flawed, and that it can't handle x amount of tracks as well as analog. 

From my understanding, and someone please educate me if I'm incorrect, this is simply untrue. In fact, the opposite is true. Digital, if anything, is too perfect and transparent for peoples taste. What they are responding to is not a superior function in the summing process, but rather the sonic goodness that comes from the analog circuitry of a summing box. 

If this is the case, why not skip the summing box and get a massive passive, or a colorful preamp and run some stems through those units instead. 

Maybe a summing box is exactly what you want to easily add some analog color to a bunch of stems quickly, but I think this whole *summing* thing is a marketing ploy.

I'm curious to hear other peoples thoughts on the matter.


----------



## wst3 (Jul 25, 2014)

Oliver_Codd @ Fri Jul 25 said:


> From my understanding, and someone please educate me if I'm incorrect, this is simply untrue. In fact, the opposite is true. Digital, if anything, is too perfect and transparent for peoples taste. What they are responding to is not a superior function in the summing process, but rather the sonic goodness that comes from the analog circuitry of a summing box.



The short answer is that you have it right, but...

the real answer is that digital summing "CAN" be perfect, meaning no crosstalk, no distortion, no errors of any kind - IF the programmer wrote the code correctly, and the user uses the tool correctly. 

Analog summing can not live up to that, there will always be some non-linearities, even in an entirely passive device.

That said, Stephen St. Croix spent a great deal of time, talent, and effort trying to figure out why he preferred analog over digital, since he himself was a digital audio developer (among many other things.) And one of the things that he found most telling was that the bleed between tape tracks had a positive effect on the mix.

All of which to suggest that the real answer remains "who knows?" or maybe just "your mileage may vary".

My mileage - I still prefer mixing through a large format console when I can. But I am perfectly content to mix in the box when I can't. And while I can't say for certain, some of that may also be related to the project itself.

Who knows???


----------



## Oliver_Codd (Jul 25, 2014)

Interesting, Bill. Thanks for sharing!

I'm curious now to try sending small amounts of each track out to the Massive Passive with all bands deactivated just to simulate the bleed effect to a degree. 

We'll see what happens


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 25, 2014)

analog summings adds harmonics. 
there are a series of plugins that try to do the console thing. like slate digital;s virtual console collection.


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 25, 2014)

btw, there is this trick from infected mushroom..
http://ezinearticles.com/?Infected-Mush ... id=3325581

outpuitting the mix high and recording it back. 
ive read other folks doing this as well. sounds interesting.


----------



## Markus S (Jul 25, 2014)

My understanding is that analogue summing is interesting *because *of its imperfections. This results in coloration of the sound when passing through high-end outboard gear. Digital mixing is, as said, too perfect, clinically clean.


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 25, 2014)

I think analog summing works great for stereo as mentioned above.
Running digital outs from a PC to a great 2 channel mic pre makes great sense for live, but going out to a console then dumping back in the box seems to be a waste these days, as quality DSP and Native plug ins are light years ahead of the Cubase SX era.

I can't imagine going to a theater and hearing stereo.
Would love to hear 20.1 Surround where each channel is a Tube Pre Amped Rotary Cabinet............ >8o


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jul 25, 2014)

I'm still thinking of getting the Black Lion summing just for running synths/samples through it. Not for summing...just basically as a line mixer, effects return, saturator, etc. Anyone doing that?


----------



## Oliver_Codd (Jul 25, 2014)

givemenoughrope @ Fri Jul 25 said:


> I'm still thinking of getting the Black Lion summing just for running synths/samples through it. Not for summing...just basically as a line mixer, effects return, saturator, etc. Anyone doing that?



Hey why not? As long as you've got good A/D D/A converters it should work well.


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 25, 2014)

instead of analog summing, wouldnt it be better to get a outboard compressor like the shadow wills mastering comp and kush audio clariphonic.?


----------



## wst3 (Jul 25, 2014)

gsilbers @ Fri Jul 25 said:


> instead of analog summing, wouldnt it be better to get a outboard compressor like the shadow wills mastering comp and kush audio clariphonic.?



two very different effects, an outboard compressor will do some cool stuff, an outboard filter will do some cool stuff, an outboard summing bus will do some cool stuff, but none of them are going to replace the others!


----------



## dryano (Jul 25, 2014)

Analog summing for the summing aspect on its own has no real advantage over digital summing. What makes differences and possible enhancements is the coloring some summing boxes bring to the table, be it tubes, transformers or special vca circuits like in the Neve summing mixer.
But you can get the same kind of coloration by just running your digital sum through some analog outboard. Thats, where differences start to become audible and interesting.

I find summing in the analog world to be way to expensive. You need many channels of high end converters and also an interface with enough outputs just to get a good quality signal out of the computer. And its questionable if a 24 channel summing mixer is enough for orchestral mixes with way more tracks... I mean those are 12 stereo tracks. So you can only put out stems, which are presummed digitally. I think this whole thing only starts to make sense, if every single track is summed analog. But then at least I would need about 100 stereo tracks... so at least 8 Neve units. Seems pretty silly to went down that road.


----------



## wst3 (Jul 26, 2014)

dryano @ Fri Jul 25 said:


> Analog summing for the summing aspect on its own has no real advantage over digital summing.<the rest of the very sensible post snipped for brevity - read above if you missed it!



I have to respectfully disagree on this one statement. Sending a mix through an outboard device of any kind will add something - distortion, frequency response errors, etc. And some folks like that.

But that is VERY different than the errors introduced by analog summing. Well, analog summing can add all the errors any analog device can add, but it also adds crosstalk, which is a very different effect.

Other than that, yeah, the benefit vs cost equation is tricky. If I'm mixing a pop song, with maybe 32 tracks (finished tracks) I happen to have 32 channels of decent D/A conversion, so it's manageable. It is still a challenge, but it can be done.

For an orchestral project I can't imagine trying to pare it down to 16 stereo stems just for summing. Although I would imagine that effect would audible, I do not think it would be the same as summing all the individual channels. Hmmm... am I curious enough to actually try it?

Probably not<G>!


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 26, 2014)

dryano @ Sat Jul 26 said:


> Analog summing for the summing aspect on its own has no real advantage over digital summing.



That is not necessarily true. You even alluded to why in your next statement.



dryano @ Sat Jul 26 said:


> What makes differences and possible enhancements is the coloring some summing boxes bring to the table, be it tubes, transformers or special vca circuits like in the Neve summing mixer.



The other thing I would add to that is the addition of distortion. 

Analog summing through a summing box can - and usually does - have a real advantage over digital summing. The question is how much, and whatever that amount is - is it worth the money and workflow? I found not. Other people may find differently. Sometimes, as Daryl alluded to, it can make it worse. But you are almost always gaining something - albeit a tiny bit.

Cheers.


----------



## benmrx (Jul 26, 2014)

IMO, an analog summing box is really only worth it if you want to add some weight and/or character. Which means you'll want something that adds weight and character. The dangerous boxes are just too clean IMO. They have their uses in certain contexts, but in hopes of adding a box to your setup that adds some 'mojo', you just don't want something crystal clear. You can already get that ITB (IMO). 

That said, I still would love a Dangerous D-Box


----------



## Ah_dziz (Jul 26, 2014)

Nay


----------



## clarkus (Jul 26, 2014)

Personally, I'm not as interested in the "Summing / Not Summing" debate, but rather in specific products, either for use on a specific track or for mastering an entire project. If there is a plug-in that provides the warmth or muzziness of 2" tape, I'd like to know & would probably try it. I like that sound & imagine it would team up nicely with the crystalline quality of digital sample libraries / the digital signal-chain, and contemporary brick wall limiters. I can't afford (or fit in my room) a full-bore NEVE board. Would glad to know who's emulating it with any success. There are some clues if you read on.

By the way, the fellow who mentioned "harmonics" is on it. Digital and analog recording (via tape saturation) differ in the harmonics in the overtone series that we hear coming through in the final product. 

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr10/a ... ortion.htm

This phenomenon is referred to, though not explicitly stated in this otherwise quite thorough article:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb10/a ... warmth.htm

The takeaway from the latter article (as far as I'm concerned):

"There are plenty of tape and tape‑saturation plug‑ins to try, including Crane Song's Phoenix Tape Emulation, McDSP's Analog Channel, PSP's Vintage Warmer, Voxengo's Tapebus and Nomad Factory's E‑tube Tape Warmer. I rather like Yamaha's AE021 Master Strip tape emulator plug‑in for their digital consoles too. In the hardware department, Rupert Neve Designs' Portico 5042 is a good offering, as are Crane Song's Hedd and the Anamod ATS1...

...I haven't yet found a single magical processor (whether software or hardware) that instantly transforms a 'sterile' digital mix into one with wonderful, genuinely analogue warmth (although there are several that do work very well). Personally, I prefer routing a mix through a high‑quality analogue device of some kind, and often one with transformers in it."


----------



## clarkus (Jul 26, 2014)

If any readers in the know think these products have been topped in the last 4 years, please kick in with your favorite. I think most of us know what it sounds like to slam a signal to 2 " tape, and would give our left nut for a product that did a good mock-up of that sound.

Suggested Plug-ins for Emulating Analogue Warmth (from 2010 Sound on Sound Article / Matt Houghton / Hugh Robjohns )

There's no magic-bullet 'Warmification' plug-in. As Hugh Robjohns explains in the main text of this article, and the diagram elsewhere also illustrates, several different factors combine to create a perception of warmth. While you may be able to add character with something like PSP's Vintage Warmer or one of URS Saturation's tape emulation models on the master or group buses in your DAW, if you're looking for an authentic fake-analogue sound you really need to 'think analogue' while using your mics and plug‑ins, applying more subtle treatments at different points in your mix. Fortunately, there are plenty of good software tools to help you create believable warmth.

Valves/Tubes: 

My strongest criticism of even the best software valve guitar-amp emulations is that they lack the immediacy required to make software feel like a real amp when playing — but, happily, that's of no concern if you're processing sounds in the mix! As well as guitar amps and cabinets (which in themselves can be a useful tool for adding analogue character), there are oodles of dedicated valve preamp models too, though do note that it's not possible to replicate in software alone the way a mic interacts with a microphone preamp. At the cheaper end of the scale, Silverspike's Ruby Tube is pretty handy (check this month's Mix Rescue for an example), and moving up in price the offerings from Nomad Factory (Tube/Tape Warmer) and Antares (Warm — based on their earlier Tube) are well worth checking out. Another option, of course, is to use the valve gain-stages of emulations of classic hardware devices (of which more in a moment).

Tape Emulation: 

Emulating tape is a harder task because of the sheer number of variables, and no‑one has nailed every complexity, right down to convincing wow and flutter. However, there are plenty that offer control over things like tape drive, saturation and hysteresis, and they range from the subtle to the obvious, the almost free to the expensive. 

Two shareware plug‑ins worth a try are the VST, PC-only Ferox by Jeroen Breebaart and Ferric by Bootsy. The former offers an impressive array of controls, and can yield a great deal of colour, wheareas the latter is simpler but much more subtle. Both have their uses, depending on the effect you seek. 

Moving up in price, there's Massey's Tape Head (for Pro Tools on the Mac only, also with a free version, Tape Head Medium), the aforementioned Nomad Factory Tube/Tape Warmer and URS Saturation, DUY's DaD Tape and Digidesign's Reel Tape. DUY's offering includes models of four different tape machines, as well as different noise-reduction systems, while Reel Tape offers control over wow and flutter characteristics (not quite like the real thing, but a very useful addition). It might also be worth looking at some of the various tape delay plug‑ins, particularly models of classic units such as Universal Audio's emulation of the Roland RE201 tape echo.

The Abbey Road TG12413 Limiter plug‑in: an excellent software emulation of classic analogue hardware.

Classic Gear Emulations:

I've not seen a software emulation of a Lundahl or Sowter transformer yet (I'm sure it's only a matter of time!), but that's because transformers tend not to be modelled on their own, but in the context of the circuits in which they appear — in other words, if it's the sound of transformers you seek, you need to look at emulations of classic hardware. There are now more such emulations than you can easily count. They vary enormously in quality and price, and, of course, some have extra features such as tube emulation. Some of the best are those for the Universal Audio UAD platform: their Neve, Pultec and Fairchild models in particular, are useful, even when the plug-in's bypass mode (not to be confused with your DAW's plug-in bypass button) is engaged, as well as their Plate 140 reverb. Waves offer several useful suites of plug‑ins modelled on analogue gear (their API range, for example). Abbey Road/EMI, SSL, Harrison and SPL all offer software based on their own hardware, the pick of the bunch, for me, being the Abbey Road plug‑ins. Other manufacturers, such as URS, Softube, TC Electronic and Bomb Factory, also offer well‑known models, but probably the greatest number of 'authentic' emulations for a reasonable budget comes courtesy of a hardware device, the Focusrite Liquid Mix, with its 'dynamic convolution' DSP‑based system.
You might not be aiming to recreate the sound of a specific piece of gear, of course, and there are many manufacturers making plug‑ins that are 'inspired by' hardware: they don't claim to recreate them, merely to offer an approximation of their characteristics. Stillwell's Vibe EQ and 1973 are excellent affordable plug‑ins that fall into that category, and if your budget can't stretch even that far, PC users could do worse than look at the Antress Modern range of shareware plug‑ins: not perfect, but great for the money! 

Matt Houghton


----------



## José Herring (Jul 26, 2014)

Nay


----------



## re-peat (Jul 26, 2014)

clarkus @ Sun Jul 27 said:


> If any readers in the know think these products have been topped in the last 4 years, please kick in with your favorite. (...)


It doesn’t matter whether any of the plug-ins which you mention have been topped or not, because they all are completely useless. For us who do mock-ups, I mean. See, the problem we’re facing is a much bigger one, and a fundamentally different one as well, than just hoping to find a way to “warm up a sterile digital mix” which is what Mr. Robjohns is talking about.
Not only do we have to deal with ‘sterile digital mixes’ (if only that were the extent of our self-imposed troubles), no, we have to deal with ‘sterile digital mixes of _fake_ instruments ― often assembled with snippets of mediocre audio ― going through _fake_ motions in a _fake_ space’. It’s this overwhelming amount of fakeness and sonic mediocrity which pervades our productions that renders any attempt at believability (in the area of simulating quality audio hardware or analog circuitry) completely pointless and quite absurd.

The benefits of external summing, convincing hardware simulation or the effect which analog circuitry has on sound, can’t be tested/experienced/appreciated with a mock-up. Those things can only be judged properly if you’re working with quality living sound to begin with: sound that has a beating heart and that is alive with real dynamics, real texture, real dimension. But we don’t have any of that. We work with dead sound, artificial dynamics, static frequency spectra (and the resulting frequency-clusters and -stacks), artificial spaces, poor and inconsistent stereo-imaging …

You can’t reveal the quality of a high-end compressor (hardware or software) with a sampled bass. Because the sound of a sampled bass (even the very best one), is simply too dead and static to bring out the very thing that sets a high-end compressor apart from an average or bad one. You can’t judge an analog summer with a sampled virtual orchestra, because the audio you feed into the device is so compromised to begin with (sonically and dynamically) that the summer simply has no chance at all to even begin to show what it is capable of.

It is for the exact same reason that I find plugins which claim to offer the sonic stamp of vintage hardware ― much of UAD, Slate, Abbey Road, Softube, Waves, etc …. ― a total waste of money for any mock-up oriented enterprise. (And I say this owning an Apollo and a UAD-2 card and many of the plugins mentioned previously in this thread.)
A UAD Fairchild or whatever may do ‘something’ to the sound of virtual strings, yes, but whatever that ‘something’ is, it certainly does not have the power to remove any of the fakeness of sampled strings. nor is it capable of bringing a suggestion of life where there is none to begin with.
These plugins can do a lot, and I definitely don’t have anything against them, but turning dead samples into quality audio is certainly not among their powers.

I also happen to have a valve-based summer and a pretty good one it is too: the Thermionic Fat Bustard (***). But again, it’s a complete waste of space in my studio when I’m doing orchestral mock-ups. It really is. Totally useless. As is my Anamod ATS-1 (hardware tape simulation) (***). Run LASS, Sable, SampleModeling, Mixosaurus, VSL, VLabs Ravenscroft through these boxes as much and as often as you like, you keep ending up with sample-based instruments sounding their tiresome sample-based self. Sure, the audio may take on a slightly different character, but the thing which exposes these tracks as being fake and lifeless remains as present as ever.
But … the moment I work with (decent) recordings of real basses, guitars, voices, hardware synths and percussion, both these hardware boxes immediately become indecently sexy, creamily gorgeous, quite irreplaceable, and worth every single one of the many pennies they cost, able as they are to impart a certain magic to sound which is alive enough to be receptive to such treatment.

_


----------



## clarkus (Jul 26, 2014)

You've got a sympathetic audience here for your POV. I've got the same response to orchestral libraries even though I don't see a way around using them, until or unless I'm working with a budget way beyond what's provided by what I am doing now. I've had the good fortune to write for chamber players and for orchestras, and that may be why I've got a love / hate response to Hollywood, Vienna, Spitfire, the whole lot. On one hand you get a performance that is as perfect as you want to make it (and when you consider the # of rehearsals allowed with a given orchestra & the sectional weaknesses in all but the A list orchestras, this is really significant). On the other hand, it's all a bit pallid.

I have found money well spent is in hiring a real player to play over the top of a section. Blended in with care, the ear can be fooled. With an actual violin playing a part in real time, in a real room, my Vienna library suddenly sounds remarkably like a string section.


----------



## spiralbill (Jul 27, 2014)

Slightly off the topic here (but still related).
Just wanna say that I have Dangerous D-box that can sum 4 stereo tracks together. But I've never used it.


----------



## wst3 (Jul 27, 2014)

clarkus @ Sat Jul 26 said:


> If any readers in the know think these products have been topped in the last 4 years, please kick in with your favorite. I think most of us know what it sounds like to slam a signal to 2 " tape, and would give our left nut for a product that did a good mock-up of that sound.



No mention of the UAD Studer and Ampex plugins?

I've not tried all of the other plug-ins listed, but I've listened to demos where I could not audition them myself. Thus far the UAD Studer stands out for me. The Ampex is also quite cool, but for reasons only my sub-conscious seems to know, I prefer the Studer. The problem is I don't have the processing power to use it in real time on more than a handful of tracks. But that's not a deal breaker<G>!

Piet makes an interesting point, although I'm not sure I agree with him completely. The pleasing effect of a tape simulator seems to be easier to control and appreciate on live tracks, meaning tracks that I myself have recorded. Does this mean I record them differently because I know I am going to process them? Beats me.

I am beginning to appreciate that it may have less to do with the effect itself, and more to do with the way the effect reacts to/with recorded material. As Jay eloquently posted about the Ocean Way processor, one needs to think entirely differently, with respect to processing, depending on how the tracks are generated.

For reasons I have yet to fully understand, sample library based tracks do react differently to some (maybe most?) signal processing. Could be any number of reasons, my own thought is that is has to do with how those samples are leveled. While I doubt that any developer actually normalizes their samples, it is not a stretch to imagine that they control the levels carefully, and that may prevent some processors from operating optimally.

Anyway, I still have a analog 2" tape machine, and I even use it sometimes<G>! I think the Studer plug-in comes about as close as possible today to the overall effect of recording to tape. More to the point, tracks processed with the Studer plug-in mix together nicely.

One 'upgrade' I've requested from UAD would be the ability to add some crosstalk between tracks processed with instances of the plug-in. Well, that and a free OCTO card so I can use more instances<G>!

There have been, for me, only a handful of jaw-dropping plug-ins. Ocean Way was certainly one, as were the Studer and Ampex, and believe it or not, the silly little dBX 160! Go figure!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 27, 2014)

Piet's point is valid to a degree but, as usual, he overstates it. Yes, samples are sterile, so: 

Huge difference with plug-ins like the UA Studer and Ampex? No. Better? Very possibly yes, if you like it.

Analog summing? Night and day? No. Better. Very possibly yes, but not worth what it does to your workflow.


----------



## wst3 (Jul 27, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Jul 27 said:


> Huge difference with plug-ins like the UA Studer and Ampex? No. Better? Very possibly yes, if you like it.



And that's the answer really - some folks will like one or more of the "analog" effects, some will go though the trouble to figure out how to use them to an effect they will like, some will discard them because the stock settings are not to their liking. And there is nothing wrong with that really - except maybe a missed opportunity, but even that's not for certain.

It comes down to taste. And we all have different tastes.

Sometimes, lamentably, we need to work to others tastes... which is why it's called the music business<G>!



EastWest Lurker @ Sun Jul 27 said:


> Analog summing? Night and day? No. Better. Very possibly yes, but not worth what it does to your workflow.



Workflow? I think the expense is probably a more difficult barrier<G>!


----------



## re-peat (Jul 27, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Jul 27 said:


> Analog summing? Night and day? No. Better. Very possibly yes, but not worth what it does to your workflow.


It seems to me ― but I might be wrong, or overstating things again ― that anyone who is prepared to invest seriously in quality analog summing, indicates by that very purchase that he or she cares about sound to such an extent that it is safe to conclude that workflow efficiency is perhaps not always the prime consideration in his or her set-up.
So, to say that _“analog summing is not worth what it does to your workflow”_ may be true for you, Jay, but it isn’t necessarily true for someone who is sensitive enough to appreciate the difference and who considers that difference important enough to accept both the expense and the workflow disturbances. What your ears consider ‘subtle’ might well be a substantial and very essential difference to someone else’s ears. No?

I’m often grumbling and mumbling everytime I find myself at the back of my rack of gear, flashlight in my mouth, switching cables in order to hook up the hardware Clariphonic (it isn’t hooked up permanently because my interface doesn’t have enough I/O’s), but that feeling of irritation and drag is immediately dispensed with the second I hear what that device brings to the sound. (Yes, there is a difference between the hardware and the software Clariphonic ― not a huge difference, sure, and totally negligible when doing orchestral mock-ups, but worth the effort, in my opinion anyway, when used on the right material.)

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 27, 2014)

re-peat @ Sun Jul 27 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Jul 27 said:
> 
> 
> > Analog summing? Night and day? No. Better. Very possibly yes, but not worth what it does to your workflow.
> ...



Well, OF COURSE when I say what I say, I am speaking for me, not for everyone. Nobody speaks for everyone.

If I had assistants bouncing out stems for me, etc. then maybe the trade-off would be acceptable but most of us do not.

Anyway, I have yet to hear enough of a difference (for me) , and I have been to several demonstrations where it was A>B ed, that makes the hardware solution worth the hassle. But software, sure, easy to do even if it is only a small difference.


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 27, 2014)

i agree w jay. and from the point i was trying t make above, for the price of analog summing boxes/setup , imo, a mastering hardware compressor/eq i think would make more of an impact if you are doing the outboard thing. 
analog summing imo, seems expensive a hassle and not much of a reward. 
seems there are muvh more important things to look out in a mix than analog summing. and a good mixer w or w/o summing will make a mix shine anyways. itb vs otb.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 27, 2014)

I don't have a different opinion from anyone else's here about analog summing, namely that it's very subtle.

However, a guy from Dangerous came over a few years ago and demoed their 2-track box. At that time their analog summing box and D/A box were separate.

Forget about summing, their D/A box was just stunning! That was what interested me.


Mr. wst wrote:



> And one of the things that {St. Croix} found most telling was that the bleed between tape tracks had a positive effect on the mix



Then we should have an analog summing mixer emulation plug-in that just adds crosstalk! 

Seriously, tape definitely does some great things - things that overlap but are different from summing.


----------



## Carbs (Jul 27, 2014)

apmusic @ Thu Jul 24 said:


> I've been looking into analog summing for a few weeks now, specifically the Dangerous 2 Bus LT, and am curious about anyone's results with the unit or their thoughts on analog summing. I've been unable to find A-B demos of people putting their mixes through the 2bus compared to digital only. Any advice or experience is appreciated. Thanks!



Hi! For sample based music, or live recordings? I own an apollo/dbox combo. I love the D/A of my dbox. (if my mac turns dbox into xbox one more time, I'll have a cow..ANYWHO...).

I have my setup almost exactly the same as described here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yOWQ01r1y8

Fabs a cool guy, I met him last year and he seems very genuine...but I digress...

It's been stated that the Dangerous stuff is very "clean" - to me this is not a bad thing at all. To expect a HUGE difference by running stems through one of these units (Dbox/2bus) might lead to disappointment. However, to me (me) the fact that these units are so clean is a good thing in that it allows me to utilize outboard gear that DOES have character. 

It's not uncommon for me to record live instruments, and then run them out through my Dbox into dedicated hardware units of my choosing while printing the results back into my DAW. As a creative person I love doing this.

When using samples, I really don't bother. In line with what re-peat says, I don't really see any benefit to doing this (and I've never heard one either  ). When I'm mixing samples I normally stay 100% in the box.

To sum things up :wink: I would say that I use my Dbox more for sending out tracks into the "real world" for external processing more so than summing an entire mix for mix down. Much of that has to do with the fact that I only have 4 stereo channels (technically 3 and then 2 monos)...but with the LT you at least get 8...which is probably the minimum I would consider for summing for mix down.


----------



## Carbs (Jul 27, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Jul 27 said:


> re-peat @ Sun Jul 27 said:
> 
> 
> > EastWest Lurker @ Sun Jul 27 said:
> ...



Using words such as "me" or "my" or "mine" instead of "your" helps avoid this sort of "confusion."


----------



## clarkus (Jul 27, 2014)

Hi, Nick -

Is this it?

1499.

Ack.


----------



## José Herring (Jul 27, 2014)

What does a horse say? 




NAAAAAAAAY


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 27, 2014)

Carbs @ Sun Jul 27 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Jul 27 said:
> 
> 
> > re-peat @ Sun Jul 27 said:
> ...



Well then let me be totally clear: in MY opinion what it does to ANYONE's workflow who is professional with deadlines and not just a hobbyist and does not have assistants to help is not worth what is gained.

I speak only for myself in that it is my opinion and others are entitled to disagree, but I stand by the statement.


----------



## davidgary73 (Jul 27, 2014)

I recall Alan Meyerson said (Pensado's Place # Ep 155) that he uses Heat, Magnetic 2 and Decapitator to give Kontakt samples some character since he mixes with live instruments and samples. 

Another non expensive way to get some character to samples is to use Nebula Pro 3. They have 3rd parties developers that makes various presets from AMS Neve 8816 Summing Mixer, GML 2032 DI/Preamplifier, API, SSL to Neve Console Strip, Thermionic Culture Vulture etc but the workflow wise is a pita but it does bring some nice enhancement. 

Slate VCC is also pretty good as well but you do need an ilok. Here's a official demo i did for Slate VCC and is called Trimix @ http://www.slatedigital.com/vccdemos/

Cheers


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 27, 2014)

clarkus: It was high-end, but I don't remember the price.

Jay: If you're working on, say, an album, then you have time to perfect the mix. That's different from scoring.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 28, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jul 27 said:


> clarkus: It was high-end, but I don't remember the price.
> 
> Jay: If you're working on, say, an album, then you have time to perfect the mix. That's different from scoring.



True, that. I always seem to forget that not everybody here is a picture composer. If I were doing an album I probably would not have a hard deadline so then I might very well do so. I probably would be using more live players than samples and I probably would not mix a rock/pop project strictly in the box.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 28, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jul 28 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jul 27 said:
> 
> 
> > clarkus: It was high-end, but I don't remember the price.
> ...


 Never mind "here", picture composers are in a tiny minority of music makers generally, and once you remove those who have assistants and those who can't actually tell the difference, you are part of a miniscule minority of composers. :lol: 

D


----------



## Michael Barry (Jul 28, 2014)

I too went through a phase where I thought summing mixer would add something to my orchestral mockups. I asked a few senior film mixers what they thought and the advice was pretty much the same - that summing mixers are pretty much superfluous at this point. 

In the early days of pro tools there were issues related to the mathematics of summing a signal from different tracks in the box (due to cpu.) Imagine a calculator with only one decimal point available whereas analogue has infinite decimal points. Modern computers have no issue summing these signals now, things have changed for the better and it is no longer an issue.

If you wish to add an analogue flavor to your mixes (which is what I truly wanted to do) it was suggested to me to get a 2-buss compressor to run my mixes through. 
If you really want color get a compressor from a company known for a non transparant sound (Neve, API).

Common choices for orchestral work would be things from Neve, Manley.
If you can afford it - the Vari Mu is a wonderful option for this.


----------



## clarkus (Jul 28, 2014)

Looks like 4400. to 6500.

http://www.manley.com/mslc.php#downloads


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 28, 2014)

Michael Barry @ Mon Jul 28 said:


> I too went through a phase where I thought summing mixer would add something to my orchestral mockups. I asked a few senior film mixers what they thought and the advice was pretty much the same - that summing mixers are pretty much superfluous at this point.
> 
> In the early days of pro tools there were issues related to the mathematics of summing a signal from different tracks in the box (due to cpu.) Imagine a calculator with only one decimal point available whereas analogue has infinite decimal points. Modern computers have no issue summing these signals now, things have changed for the better and it is no longer an issue.
> 
> ...



+1

Klark DN 500 here.... .


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 28, 2014)

germancomponist @ Mon Jul 28 said:


> Michael Barry @ Mon Jul 28 said:
> 
> 
> > I too went through a phase where I thought summing mixer would add something to my orchestral mockups. I asked a few senior film mixers what they thought and the advice was pretty much the same - that summing mixers are pretty much superfluous at this point.
> ...



++1 (is that even a thing?)

I use an API5500 EQ followed by a Manley VariMu on my 2bus and it is a great sound.


----------



## jamwerks (Jul 28, 2014)

You guys make my mouth water. The older Neve comp can do strings like nothing else imo.

For my home studio, I went with a Neve, a Red 3 & the Manely. Got a great deal from Steven Slate! :mrgreen:


----------



## dryano (Jul 28, 2014)

jamwerks, your Neve is actually an SSL emulation. Yes the slate plugins are nice, compared to other plugins. But that has nothing to do with hardware. Different sound, different space, different color... His claims, that there is no audible or measurable difference between his VBC or whatever he comes up with in the future are simply marketing lies. I would like to do a fresh restart of capitalism, where we don't have to deal with marketing claims... would be a better world.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 28, 2014)

dryano @ Tue Jul 29 said:


> jamwerks, your Neve is actually an SSL emulation.



Umm, please explain in detail. What Neve is an emulation of what SSL?


----------



## jamwerks (Jul 28, 2014)

Mine was just a joke. I agree that real analog comps sound great, both for compressing & adding analog mojo. Never tried any real comparisons with the Slate stuff that I use, but digital seems to get the job done. 

True though that the older Neve (HW) comps sound great on strings and orchestra. Pretty sure Air studio room A has several of them.

And with the way the latest stuff is being recorded (BML direct to tape, etc.) not sure more mojo is even needed.


----------



## apmusic (Jul 28, 2014)

Thanks everyone for this wealth of information! Very helpful. All of this info helped me decide to skip out on the analog summing and invest in other gear.


----------



## Michael Barry (Jul 29, 2014)

Hey Andrew. Didn't realize that was you.

If you are all set with samples.
If you are all set with a good pair of trusted headphones. Or speakers plus treated room.

Invest in an end game reverb. 
Invest in a good surgical eq. Pro-q should be mandatory.

Everything after is bonus. 
This is all you need to make music at the highest possible level.

Most of film mixing is riding faders.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 29, 2014)

Michael Barry @ Tue Jul 29 said:


> Hey Andrew. Didn't realize that was you.
> 
> If you are all set with samples.
> If you are all set with a good pair of trusted headphones. Or speakers plus treated room.
> ...



I mostly agree but somewhat don't on 2 points:

1. Unless your room is dreadful, treated or untreated., you want to use headphones as a secondary source not a primary source. While you will hear some things with headphones you miss on your speakers, it is extremely difficult to get any kind of accurate sense of panning and stereo imaging.

A good EQ is a valuable thing but you have to take the HippocraticOath: First do no harm.It is very easy to ruin sound with an EQ if you do not know what you are doing. Most good engineers that I know, and I know a lot of them, take a "less is more" approach unless they are trying to achieve a special effect.


----------



## Carbs (Jul 29, 2014)

Synesthesia @ Mon Jul 28 said:


> germancomponist @ Mon Jul 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Michael Barry @ Mon Jul 28 said:
> ...



Jealous! I've been lusting after the VariMu for awhile now.


----------



## dryano (Jul 29, 2014)

jamwerks @ Mon Jul 28 said:


> Mine was just a joke. I agree that real analog comps sound great, both for compressing & adding analog mojo. Never tried any real comparisons with the Slate stuff that I use, but digital seems to get the job done.
> 
> True though that the older Neve (HW) comps sound great on strings and orchestra. Pretty sure Air studio room A has several of them.
> 
> And with the way the latest stuff is being recorded (BML direct to tape, etc.) not sure more mojo is even needed.



First, I don't know why you think, that old neve comps sound especially good on strings or orchestra. Sounds to me, like you heard or read that anywhere and now repeat it. In fact, all you write basically sounds like you have no idea and no experience concerning analog gear or the difference between hardware and plugins. That "mojo" thing is a very little and unimportant aspect, if you ask me. Sure... some hardware unit do something to a sound, which one can describe as mojo... but there is much more than that.

My experience with hardware is this: I get faster results with a better sense of space, be it width, depth or the frequency spectrum. When turning the knobs on the hardware I can feel and hear immediately the interaction between my movements and the results the electronics produce. That effect is much weaker, when I turn the virtual knobs on a plugin. I also think learning mixing and in fact dealing with all that stuff (including synths) is much easier on hardware units than on plugins... don't know why... maybe its just a psychological thing. I can only say, that I am much better at working with plugins since I got some hardware units and started to really dive into them - and no: I didn't use plugin presets before.

@RiffWratih: I was referring to jamwerks comment about the VBC by Slate. He said he got a Neve, Red and Vari-Mu, but the emulations on VBC are SSL, Red and Vari-Mu.


----------



## Michael Barry (Jul 29, 2014)

Headphones are fine if not better to mix and write on.


All the music for League of Legends we use headphones 
http://youtu.be/vzHrjOMfHPY


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 29, 2014)

Michael Barry @ Tue Jul 29 said:


> Headphones are fine if not better to mix and write on.
> 
> 
> All the music for League of Legends we use headphones
> http://youtu.be/vzHrjOMfHPY



I disagree and a simple Google search will reveal all the experienced engineers who do as well.

As for League of Legends, it is my policy to to publicly comment on others work.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 29, 2014)

Headphones are useful for checking stuff with. However, there is no substitute for a good listening environment. The one exception I can think of is if music is only ever going to played back with headphones, and not for any other sort of broadcast medium. In that specific case I can see an argument for doing everything on headphones. I would find it very uncomfortable to work like that though.

D


----------



## jamwerks (Jul 29, 2014)

dryano @ Tue Jul 29 said:


> First, I don't know why you think, that old neve comps sound especially good on strings or orchestra. Sounds to me, like you heard or read that anywhere and now repeat it. In fact, all you write basically sounds like you have no idea and no experience concerning analog gear.


Sounds like you've had a tough day, dude! No, I don't use HW outboard on a daily basis. I do though work from time to time in some of Europe's great studios (Air, ICP, Mega, Forum, etc.) with world class engineers, and watch what do. If you have some similar experience, you've probably seen engineers go to Neve 33609's for strings and/or entire mixes more than any other comp. (third time I've wrote that now).

Do you think samples (like BML) recorded though tons of transistors (neve pre amps) and then to tape, need more analog processing/distortion (or "mojo" as I wrote)? I don't.

8Dio (Adagio, Claire) seem to favor (if my ears are correct) pre's with no transistors (Millenia type), and not strangely enough, I sometime like those buss's through à tape machine plug.

But if this sounds like BS to you, no real need to say so out loud, just click on the next thread and continue reading...


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 29, 2014)

Synesthesia @ Mon Jul 28 said:


> ++1 (is that even a thing?)



Yes it is! o-[][]-o


----------



## Michael Barry (Jul 29, 2014)

I didn't post that to get anyone's endorsement.

I simply post it to say this music was 100% done on headphones.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 29, 2014)

Michael Barry @ Tue Jul 29 said:


> I didn't post that to get anyone's endorsement.
> 
> I simply post it to say this music was 100% done on headphones.



OK, we've got it, 100% headphones. 

Still don't recommend it as the primary modality myself but if it works for you, it works for you.


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 29, 2014)

The best rock and hip-hop mixes I've heard in years are all done in Logic, even using an ESX24 for certain splice work, but the ITB signals are sent out via AES/EBU into the digital ins of a Manley SLAM (Analog) and it's so punchy and polished.

I have bought a few plug ins that try and get that dual slope limiter they use, but those dogs won't hunt, they do a nice job of emulating the slopes attack and release, but that big electrical oomph just ain't there.

Check out King Kobras latest album with Carmine Appice on drums. 
Tracked everything from the SSL 4000G+ into Logic and Pro Tools HDs.
Amazing what one good engineer and his tools can do.


----------



## Michael Barry (Jul 30, 2014)

Why do I persist with the headphones?

It is important for a purely financial reason. For many young composers, or those just starting in the business, it is important to know that for 300$ you can get a completely professional pair of headphones. It is important to know that you can make broadcast ready music with a 300$ of headphones. 

For 300$ you can't even get the room treatment for the corners of your room.

So for those considering a good investment in their studio, get a great pair of headphones and save up the money for something down the road like a great pair of monitors, room treatment, or a new chair, or great samples, or a quality reverb.

As long as you know how the headphones sound (listen to your favorite music and hear the bass response or the general loudness) you can do wonders.


----------



## clarkus (Jul 30, 2014)

I've got nothing against headphones ( I own a nice pair of Sennheisers) but my audio life improved dramatically when I bought my Tannoy monitors recently. And they are crazy cheap when you consider what we spend on everything else. You can get in the game for 400. the pair. These are the "Reveals" with the 8" woofer. Of course, monitors are a personal thing. But all you need is a robust set that provide neutrality.

On the other hand, that's not the topic of this thread, is it? Sorry.


----------



## CaptainMarc (Jul 31, 2014)

chimuelo @ Wed Jul 30 said:


> The best rock and hip-hop mixes I've heard in years are all done in Logic, even using an ESX24 for certain splice work, but the ITB signals are sent out via AES/EBU into the digital ins of a Manley SLAM (Analog) and it's so punchy and polished.
> 
> I have bought a few plug ins that try and get that dual slope limiter they use, but those dogs won't hunt, they do a nice job of emulating the slopes attack and release, but that big electrical oomph just ain't there.
> 
> ...



Fascinating. Absolutely none of my favourite Rock mixes I've heard in the last five years used Logic. None at all. (Not that I've got anything against Logic, it sounds as good and can do everything all other decent DAWs can do.)

But then again, we obviously have different taste, because I don't think that much of the Manley Slam. (It's very well built and thought out, I just don't like how it sounds.)

To get back on topic, I tried analogue summing for a few years. I found it brought absolutely nothing to the table. I like to work equally entirely analogue (great fun and inspiring) or entirely ITB (huge workflow advantages), but I find no difference in the end result.

When ITB, to get that analogue warmth/vibe/sheen/punch I will generally use various Nebula libraries and perhaps Waves Kramer tape sim. I also might make individual tracks a little edgier using a preamp sim or a smidge of distortion. I am also likely to make one of my 2buss compressors a little punchier.

But what do I know? I'm just an Indie Rock bloke.


----------

