# Advantage of Summing Mixers, i.e., Dangerous 2BUS LT?



## Frederick Russ (Sep 11, 2015)

I'm super curious what the new consensus is now regarding summing mixers. Currently I'm running Apogee Symphony system with Apogee AD16X to Apogee DA16X into a Dangerous 2BUS LT. Is there an actual advantage of doing this these days other than increased headroom? Or is it just overkill?


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 11, 2015)

I have seen guys using a Fat Bustard even a high end Oram Tube mixer for adding tone to a digital mix.
I think those are great products but I just don't hear much difference.
But I definately heard a diffrrence at Vegas Disc where Logic/PT mixes were sent digitally via AES/EBU into a Manley SLAM.
Convinced me how Limiters make excellent Masters.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 11, 2015)

Really like the new forum Russ.
Thank so much.


----------



## jeffc (Sep 11, 2015)

In my opinion, it's overkill. Especially for film/tv type stuff, where you mix in stems and the loss in flexibility to be able to sum outside of the box for the stereo mix isn't worth it, when most of the times on a dub stage they're playing off the stems anyway and not even using the stereo mix. I had a custom Neve summing mixer built a few years ago and after all hassle of setting it up and changing workflow to utilize it, I couldn't pick a mix that was done through that to one that wasn't. I suppose if you're doing records and it's all about the stereo mix AND you're using mostly acoustic instruments, it may help a bit. That's really not 100 percent proven. But for mostly sample based stuff, I really don't think it's worth the hassle. So many other things in the chain will have a more noticeable improvement on the final product than summing.

Just my opinion, of course. But even many big engineers and mixers are slowly going in the box over time. 

Jeff


----------



## synthpunk (Sep 12, 2015)

Most engineers I speak with use summing in some way to mix.

I use a Burl B-32. It has really nice transformers and adds a finishing sheen to my mix. 
http://tapeop.com/reviews/gear/99/b32-vancouver-mix-bus/

Could I live without it ? Sure! But what fun would that be ?


----------



## wst3 (Sep 12, 2015)

Hi Russ - the most obvious answer is "if it works for you!"

Audio is complex, and with the exception of a handful of snake-oil sale weasels, most audio professionals will tell you that we really do not understand how audio works. Scary eh?

There is a group of audio system gurus called Synergetic Audio Concepts, and the most common answer one hears there is "it depends".

To your question - analog summing provides differences, of that there is little debate, whether those differences are good or bad is keeping a number of on-line communities in business<G>.

I think the biggest disadvantage is the extra conversions from digital to analog and back again. And even that doesn't have to be a disadvantage I suppose (see "It Depends" above).

Transistors, Class-A gain stages, transformers, and other such 'tricks' can add some character to tracks. Even the simple act of summing in the analog domain will change the sound of a mix (unlike digital summing, analog summing has LOTS of non-linearities), and passive and active summing will create different effects. A passive summing buss feeding an active gain stage is yet another alternative.

So "it depends" on what you are trying to accomplish. When pressed I usually suggest that folks benefit from options, so if you have, or can afford an analog summing rig you probably ought to have one.

Right now I am stuck in the box, and I will be the first to admit that this is not my biggest problem! But when the opportunity arises I will rebuild my old console and use it as another tool. My first priority, however, is better monitoring, and my second is better converters (which is actually part of better monitoring.)

I hope that provides a little bit of fuel for your deliberations...


----------



## Frederick Russ (Sep 12, 2015)

Thanks guys. Good points. Summing definitely adds several steps when stemming out. If the benefits are negligible, makes me curious if I shouldn't look for another option altogether. Perhaps the answer is actually more inventive digital bussing via a virtual console sans Slate Digital. Their FGX Mastering Compressor sweetens without over squishing. 

I've heard good things about Manley SLAM for rock, pop, r&b - seems though that any tube squishing for orchestral will need to be mostly transparent. Can SLAM be transparent? I'm hesitant to just port over mixes arbitrarily to a standalone mastering compressor unless it can be truly next to transparent.


----------



## synthpunk (Sep 12, 2015)

If anyone else is interested in experimenting with passive analog summing, here is a neat little DIY and inexpensive way to start.

http://www.diyrecordingequipment.com/products/sb2-16x2-passive-summing-mixer


----------



## Pablocrespo (Sep 12, 2015)

Hi Frederick, I have worked for years summing outside the box.

I bought a neumann v475 board (4 haufe transformers from the 70s) and an engineer made a summing mixer for me. It's a game of inches and sure is a debatable topic but I can give you only my experience, and I have seen some other folks in forum correlate to this experience...

In a nutshell, mixing outside makes me work faster, I don't know if it is placebo, but something happens with transients, frequencies (especially high ones), separation, that makes me use less eq, and less plugins to achieve the same results. I think I hear more separation, but I never made a blind test, and you can't compare results, you have to mix in to the summing box or console.

So, that is my take, mixing faster and with less processing, And I want to try mixing with 32 or moreoutside channels!


----------



## Frederick Russ (Sep 12, 2015)

I like using my Dangerous 2BUSLT summing mixer particularly for summing 16 channels to a two track master. I suppose for the purpose of stemming out orchestral and band elements, I could simply bypass the analog out and create digital stems offline instead. Could be a great way to A/B test it. Thing is that summing seems far more about cumulative tracks than affecting an isolated stem positively.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 12, 2015)

The SLAM is magical like the old Transient Designer was 20 years ago.
At times you don't notice it until you hear the mix without it.
For Orchestral work it would round out your top end, but the real magic is how
it can alter the dynamics high and low.
You can get all of the energy and perceived volume of a _fff_ without having your
face torn off like I have experienced in so many movies in recent years.
I often wonder if the Theaters have some FOH/Soundman who just cranks
the audio up to piss off people for continuing to use their Cell Phones on vibrate...


----------



## dgburns (Sep 12, 2015)

summing box=meh
console=much more interesting(eq,inserts,panning,fx sends,subs with inserts and automation).I mean let's face it,volume rides and crafting the mix is way more interesting then just looking for 5% more mojo at the output imho.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 13, 2015)

Frederick Russ said:


> I like using my Dangerous 2BUSLT summing mixer particularly for summing 16 channels to a two track master. I suppose for the purpose of stemming out orchestral and band elements, I could simply bypass the analog out and create digital stems offline instead. Could be a great way to A/B test it. Thing is that summing seems far more about cumulative tracks than affecting an isolated stem positively.




I dunno Fred. A half dozen years or so ago, my friend Kenn had me over to his studio and he had one. He played a mix and A > B'd it with it in and with it out.

He said, "Notice how much punchier it is?"

I said, "I notice how much louder it is. Turn it down when you dial in the Dangerous."

When he did so, they sounded almost the same to me, slight difference but nothing that justified the time and money to my ears.


----------



## jamwerks (Sep 13, 2015)

Interesting thread here. This is something I've been thinking about lately. Every time I've listened to a shootout (digital vs analogue), I've always prefered the later. You always read "more air around each instrument". Hard to find words to talk about these things, but thats how I'd say it also.

It's as if all the different sine waves associated with each sound stayed with each other (for lack of a better way to say it). The "focus" sounds different, and better to me.

It's not at all surprising to me that so many people don't "hear" these différences, since "hearing" is a very complex process, and no two humans hear exactly the same.

So is it worth the extra cost? To me yes! Though I'm not there yet, on the shopping list is: (the new) Dangerous 2 buss+, Antelope Pure2, RME ADI-8 DS mk III (x2), and Dramastic Obsidian.


----------



## wst3 (Sep 13, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> they sounded almost the same to me, slight difference but nothing that justified the time and money to my ears.



And there you go...

The differences can range from subtle to in-your-face, depending on the material and the monitoring system. This may not be rocket science, but it probably has nearly as many variables<G>! AND (the dirty little secret no one cares to share) sometimes the differences can sound worse! And the vast majority of the time (from my limited experience) the differences will be subtle.

The differences can largely be attributed to mixing in the box vs mixing outside the box, meaning an A/B comparison is relatively meaningless in this context. You will make different mixing decisions depending on which approach you are taking. Think about writing and recording a string chart for Cinematic Strings 2 and then using that MIDI data to drive Hollywood Strings or LASS or any other library... it doesn't work because for each library you need to take into account the strengths, weaknesses, tricks, etc that make that library shine.

Lastly - even a dramatic, positive difference may not justify the cost and complexity. That is a personal judgement that only the individual can make.

Analog summing is neither panacea nor snake oil, if it works for you then you should consider it.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 13, 2015)

Good post, Bill.


----------



## synthpunk (Sep 13, 2015)

I have always thought the difference to be somewhat psycho-acoustical as well. But when you have transformers in the circuit of some kind involved then the it's more noticeable. I got my Burl as a dealer demo for good deal, but if something had to go it would probably top the list.


----------



## jamwerks (Sep 13, 2015)

And I have the impression that analogue summing is even more important when using samples, as opposed to a purely live audio environment.


----------



## wst3 (Sep 13, 2015)

jamwerks said:


> And I have the impression that analogue summing is even more important when using samples, as opposed to a purely live audio environment.



Interesting! Never really thought about it, but that makes sense.

Stephen St. Croix (late audio boy genius) had a theory that the thing we liked most about tape decks and summing busses (or tracking the whole band) was crosstalk. Probably impossible to prove/disprove as there are so many variables that can not be properly isolated, but an interesting theory to be sure.

From that perspective, a track made up primarily from sample libraries would benefit from an analog summing buss.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 3, 2015)

Hi there
I do my summing trough a vintage broadcast console made for NRK (norwegian broadcasting corporation) by Kongsberg defence & aerospace. Was made around 1970-1990-s. It got all the great things like Lars Lundahl Transformers, Mil Spec components, EQ etc. It really do something interesting to my mixes. And I like it! 
For summing I decide whether or not I need to do it with the mixes. For commercials/Work I often don't have a lot of time, so then I don't do it. When I have a lot of time I really like to sum trough it. Change the EQ and make it really come alive!

For me, my subjective meaning, I say "yes thanks to both ways". 

Best
Ryan


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 3, 2015)

Frederick, when you talk about exploring other options... other options for what?

A guy repping Dangerous played one of their early boxes here a few years ago (quite a few). It sounded *outstanding* - but that was its D/A converters. It wasn't a summing box!


----------



## Frederick Russ (Oct 3, 2015)

Exploring other options as in staying out of having to sum 8 stereo mixes and simply summing in the box digitally and selling what I have. I'm currently using an Apogee DA16X to Dangerous 2BUSLT. I've noticed much more detail, separation, and clarity personally. Perhaps its subjective. I agree that converters are important especially when combining cumulative tracks to a two track master either digitally in the box or summed out to an analog mix desk or summing mixer.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 3, 2015)

With samples?

Just send me your mixes, I'll sprinkle Magic Dust™ on them, and I'll charge you a lot less.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 3, 2015)

The D/A wasn't for the mix, it was for monitoring. I think I was using the Pro Tools 888/24 D/A in those days, which was okay but beatable even then.

Seriously, if you're really after a different color and you already have a good analog chain, I'd consider a great piece of analog outboard equipment that you can also use as a great piece of analog outboard equipment.

Take a look at some of the channel strips out there. That'll improve the quality of your recordings and mixes. If you just want a subtle color, there's no shortage of saturation plug-ins.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 3, 2015)

I always liked digital but native audio just needs to either go through a stage of DSP FX or mixing or a nice AES/EBU ADAT hardware comp/limiter.

But staying in native really sounds great for dancey synth stuff like Big Red did for Lady GaGa using Logic on a laptop.

No need for any magic there. It was magically produced.


----------



## jamwerks (Oct 3, 2015)

Our samples from different developers, each have there own baked-in ER's, tails, noise, etc. Then sometimes we pan those (and move the side walls right into the center). Then we add reverb... That's a lot of "false" info getting to our ears, even though that can sound somewhat "convincing".

To my ears (totally un-scientific): samples sound better through analoge summing because the accumulation of all the contadictory info blurs the mix less than when summed in the digital world. Detail and clarity, as said above. That's what I hear.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 3, 2015)

jamwerks said:


> Our samples from different developers, each have there own baked-in ER's, tails, noise, etc. Then sometimes we pan those (and move the side walls right into the center). Then we add reverb... That's a lot of "false" info getting to our ears, even though that can sound somewhat "convincing".
> 
> To my ears (totally un-scientific): samples sound better through analoge summing because the accumulation of all the contadictory info blurs the mix less than when summed in the digital world. Detail and clarity, as said above. That's what I hear.



I bought the summing console/mixer just for this purpose.

One more thing to have in mind is that the more channels you sum trough, like mono channel strip (or other summing gear) the wider and better the sound image gets. I also got some vintage Siemens/Telefunken stuff, but haven't had the time to hook it up yet. Heard it could sound good!

Best
Ryan


----------



## waveheavy (Oct 6, 2015)

I come from the old analog days, I can hear the difference between an analog and digital master. I think whatever one grew up listening to might have something to do with it. Vinyl made a small comeback a couple of decades ago with a lot of young people. 

The way one mix engineer explained it was this: picture a tall skyscraper with clouds covering certain areas that are less clear, the skyscraper representing the audio spectrum. He said with analog, the clarity range is mostly in the mid range, while the highs are cloudy. But with digital, the highs are crisp and clear with the mid range cloudy. 

I recall when CD's came out, the highs were way too crisp sounding for me, especially with Country music. Most of my Jazz CD's back then were still recorded and mixed strictly on analog gear with a digital master, not as bad. I think a lot in the engineering industry just fell in love with digital because of the ability to get the clear high end they'd been missing with analog, and because of its easier way to work.

Sorry if that hurts anyone's feelings that love the digital sound. But I still don't like it, which is why I'm constantly trying new plugins that are supposed to emulate analog.


----------



## D.Salzenberg (Oct 7, 2015)

I'm from the all analog days too!
When I'm listening to music for pleasure or playing guitar for pleasure, as opposed to composing music with my samples and DAW, everything is the holy trinity of Valves, Vinyl and Reel To Reel Tape. Tascam Reel To Reel, Rega Turntable, for guitar Fender Princeton Reverb all tube amp. For sound there is no comparison between these and digital. Although not high end, or a summing mixer I used to run everything out of Cubase into a big Mackie desk, and even that made a big difference to the sound. Analog just imparts a weight and solidity and realness to music that digital can never do in my view. Digital always has that hard sheen to everything.
Here's a link to an interesting video with Yoav Goren talking about mixing through his SSL desk. Enjoy!


----------



## Jack Weaver (Oct 8, 2015)

This debate begs to bring in a wider picture. It’s a compound complex situation.

It really encompasses the whole gamut from recording input to output. If we consider that most here are using mostly sample libraries then there is more to consider.

How were those libraries sampled – what was the recording chain? Were they recorded to computer or tape. What mics, what converters, did they chain go through a console already? What happened to the samples during editing – were they noise reduced and/or normalized? Does the stereo perspective move around from one sample to another?

Do you use libraries from multiple vendors with entirely different recording and editing techniques?

OK, but why do these matter if we’re talking about summing boxes? It’s because summing matter the most on live instruments – just as the recording chain matters the most on recording live instruments and samples. Look, you just don’t really know or can scientifically appreciate the difference summing would make on a mix where you’re just piling up a ton of different manufacturers’ libraries. Will you maybe widen the perspective on a sample here or there – or warm something up a little? Probably yes.

Summing, as part of a unique high quality chain can be magnificent. These days recordists and mixers commonly take a well maintained vintage Neumann mic through a Neve 1073 preamp, through some compressor like a LA-2A, into a Burl A/D converter into Pro Tools. If you were to take 30 live tracks like this into 30 channels of Burl D/A into a Shadow Hills Equinox summing box with high quality components and 3 different choices of transformer outputs – then I would say yes, summing does make a difference. It would very much have a sound reminiscent of putting a multitrack through a console.

I don’t really think that taking a mix built completely of VI’s with samples from say, Spitfire, Orchestral Tools, EW, VSL, LASS, 8DIO and directly putting them through a summing box – then no, I don’t think summing would be worth the composer’s money.

Now, I do want to hedge my bet a little with a mix that’s only synths, virtual and hardware. There could be some value there.


.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 8, 2015)

Jack Weaver said:


> This debate begs to bring in a wider picture. It’s a compound complex situation.
> 
> It really encompasses the whole gamut from recording input to output. If we consider that most here are using mostly sample libraries then there is more to consider.
> 
> ...



Yep.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 8, 2015)

The digital/analog debate lives. Wow.

Well, here's what I say: record an analog recording through an audio interface - even an inexpensive one these days. A/B it against the original.

There's certainly a perceptible difference, as there is between any two things. But instead of waveheavy's skyscraper-clouds analogy, I'd be inclined to compare it to the height difference between two thicknesses of paper.

Digital recordings sound like what they're fed.

And this is a largely separate argument from the merits of analog summing - which I repeat will not make a damn bit of difference to Frederick's mixes.


----------



## D.Salzenberg (Oct 8, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> The digital/analog debate lives. Wow.
> 
> Well, here's what I say: record an analog recording through an audio interface - even an inexpensive one these days. A/B it against the original.
> 
> ...


With respect I think you may have missed the point there a little bit.
The whole beauty of analog is that it doesn't just sound like what its fed.
If you mix through a great analog desk onto a great tape machine you will have a sound that kicks digitals ass every day from now til the end of the world.
There are only two things digital has going for it, convenience and cheapness, and neither have anything to do with sound.

On the other hand, whether summing mixers have the analog magic of a great desk such as the one in the Yoav Goren video I linked to, I would probably doubt.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 8, 2015)

I promise you I haven't missed that at all, D.Salzenberg!

What I see differently is your comment about the tape machine etc. kicking digital's ass every time. In my opinion it kicks its ass often, but not always. It's a creative choice.

You know, I went to a Monster Cable-sponsored press tour of Bruce Swedien's studio in Calabassas in... I think 1991. He played us some of his Michael Jackson mixes. Each song had been mastered in a different format for this very reason: they all sound different.

[The other thing I remember is that he was very proud of his room's ability to reproduce a 32Hz low C. And to prove it he played a MJ song on some big-ass speakers so loud that it hurt me even when I plugged them... yet everyone else there was totally fine with it.  ]


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 8, 2015)

Back to the point... Frederick may not be able to duplicate the sound of an analog summing box with plug-ins (tape saturation, whatever), but he can come up with a different sound that's just as good.

There are other ways to come up with different, interesting sounds. For example, Dietz talked about re-recording samples through speakers (in fact he changed my mind about that - I had previously thought it a poor idea unless you have a great room).


----------



## sourcefor (Oct 9, 2015)

I used to sum all my mixes and it did sound analog, But recall and overdubbing was a pain. The time and expense was just not worth it in my book! Now I just use my outboard gear as plugins in LOGIC , so recall is easier and I dont have to print the track each time! The only downside is you have to do REALTIME bounces, but thats ok because I love the sound of my analog gear. My advice is to go this route if you must use analog gear. You can get great mixes either way if you know how! Also recording some live instruments or voice will make more of a difference than summing..just my opinion!


----------



## synthpunk (Oct 9, 2015)

If you already have a external stereo preamp and enjoy a little DIY, here is a box below you can make for $50 u.s. to play around with 8-16 channel to Stereo Summing. You will need a external preamp for makeup gain and to add any personality.



aesthete said:


> If anyone else is interested in experimenting with passive analog summing, here is a neat little DIY and inexpensive way to start.
> 
> http://www.diyrecordingequipment.com/products/sb2-16x2-passive-summing-mixer


----------



## Lindon (Oct 16, 2015)

aesthete said:


> If anyone else is interested in experimenting with passive analog summing, here is a neat little DIY and inexpensive way to start.
> 
> http://www.diyrecordingequipment.com/products/sb2-16x2-passive-summing-mixer




oh yes, great find... thanks.


----------



## esencia (Oct 23, 2016)

Frederick Russ said:


> Exploring other options as in staying out of having to sum 8 stereo mixes and simply summing in the box digitally and selling what I have. I'm currently using an Apogee DA16X to Dangerous 2BUSLT. I've noticed much more detail, separation, and clarity personally. Perhaps its subjective. I agree that converters are important especially when combining cumulative tracks to a two track master either digitally in the box or summed out to an analog mix desk or summing mixer.



imho, it's not subjective Fred

One of the best investments I made was an hybrid setup for analog summing.
Right now, I'm summing 12 stereo stems on a d-box and a 2-bus+ unit, and it´s awesome how clear and open is the sound vs ITB


----------



## wst3 (Oct 23, 2016)

Lindon said:


> oh yes, great find... thanks.


That is a pretty good deal. I built a passive summing bus from junk in my garage, which is slightly cheaper, but doesn't look nearly as nice!

I think there is some advantage to external summing networks, passive or active, but maybe advantage isn't the right word? It is going to change the sound. If you like the change then that's your answer!


----------



## synthpunk (Oct 23, 2016)

There 500 Series Lunchbox DIY stuff is fun, and very affordable as well.
http://www.diyrecordingequipment.com/collections/colour



wst3 said:


> That is a pretty good deal. I built a passive summing bus from junk in my garage, which is slightly cheaper, but doesn't look nearly as nice!
> 
> I think there is some advantage to external summing networks, passive or active, but maybe advantage isn't the right word? It is going to change the sound. If you like the change then that's your answer!


----------



## wst3 (Oct 24, 2016)

synthpunk said:


> There 500 Series Lunchbox DIY stuff is fun, and very affordable as well.
> http://www.diyrecordingequipment.com/collections/colour



I had not seen those - very cool idea!


----------

