# Summing Mixers



## stonzthro (Sep 29, 2011)

Any users of analog summing mixers here? Is there a noticeable difference and how do you go out of your system - stereo or stems into the mixer? 

I've read a bit and am curious how it applies to in-the-box composers like many/most of us here on the forum.

THanks in advance, 
Dan


----------



## Daryl (Sep 29, 2011)

There is certainly a difference, as they degrade the sound. As to whether or not you like this degradation is a matter of taste.

D


----------



## stonzthro (Sep 29, 2011)

Hmm - that's the first I've heard it put that way.

Any positive experiences with summing mixers? Are they hype then?


----------



## RiffWraith (Sep 29, 2011)

Daryl @ Thu Sep 29 said:


> There is certainly a difference, as they degrade the sound.



Huh?!?! Ok, depends what you mean by "degrade". Does it change the sound? Yes. Does it color the sound? Yes. So I guess if you are the type who doesn't like anything colored, you may consider that a degradiation. That what you are getting at?

If you use a good summing mixer, a good D/A, you have a good hw stereo bus compressor on the way back in, and you know what you are doing, a summing mixer can have a real positive impact on your mixes. Personally, I would shy away from "degredation" of audio quality, but it is true that there will be a change in the sound.

Cheers.


----------



## Daryl (Sep 29, 2011)

stonzthro @ Thu Sep 29 said:


> Hmm - that's the first I've heard it put that way.
> 
> Any positive experiences with summing mixers? Are they hype then?


My comment was neither positive or negative. it was just describing what they do. Degradation is not necessarily bad. It's all a question of taste. For me there are many more important things to worry about when it comes to mixing and mastering.

If you want to check it out for yourself I would suggest that you find a unit that you're interested in and hire it from a pro hire place. Then you won't have wasted the money buying one, if it turns out that it does nothing for you.

D


----------



## muziksculp (Sep 29, 2011)

I just got the 'Dangerous 2-Bus LT' summing unit. (16 mono / 8 stereo stems).

I'm currently setting up my new studio, so I won't be able to test at this time, but I will post my findings in a future post, regarding what type of sonic improvements I notice. 

I'm sure it will have a positive effect, what that means is hard to define, but from talking to users of analog summing units, they usually describe the sound being warmer, larger as far as the stereo width/panorama, and since it is analog, you get a much larger dynamic range to mix with, compared to a ITB (digital mix). 

imho, It would also help using high-quality outboard gear along with the summing unit, i.e. compressor/limiter, HW-Reverb, ...etc to get the full benefits of mixing OTB. 

Cheers,
Muziksculp


----------



## guydoingmusic (Sep 29, 2011)

It doesn't "degrade" the sound... unless you overdrive the inputs...

I've used the SSL X-Desk as of recent on several projects. The difference is HUGE!! I've also used the same technique with larger consoles such as a SSL G series, Oram, etc. I started out testing it using no additional outboard gear (eq, compression, magic fairy dust) and right away there is a noticeable difference in width/depth. 

Basically, you are introducing your digital samples/audio back into analogue circuitry which enhances the sound in a way you absolutely cannot get "in the box". 

/brad[/i]


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 29, 2011)

Sounds like you're suffering from DAW-itis.
Since you're a Vegas cat, PM me if you need a really powerful master.
I can take you the mansion and you can just master your stems using Manley AES/EBU hardware.
Sure the big rooms with the Neves and SSL 4000G+ are impressive, but the action is taking digital and doing hardware limited masters.
You'll soon forget about the 1 & 0's Blues....

Besides the place is where all of the Bikinis and Pool videos are done where the Brotha's are all strolling round with their Mr. T starter kits, etc.
Rates are really good as long as you did your pre production first.


----------



## Daryl (Sep 30, 2011)

guydoingmusic @ Fri Sep 30 said:


> It doesn't "degrade" the sound...


Of course it does. That's what it is designed to do. As I said the question is whether or not you like this change in sound. You call it enhancing. That is a matter of taste. :wink: 

D


----------



## RiffWraith (Sep 30, 2011)

It does not degrade the sound.

*Degrade* to lower in character or quality; to reduce in amount, strength, intensity, etc.;

ie - degrading the sound is making it worse, or making it less equal than the original. A summing mixer is not_ degrading _the sound; it is_ altering _the sound. If the end product is better than the original (even if to your ears), then that is not a degredation.


----------



## Daryl (Sep 30, 2011)

RiffWraith @ Fri Sep 30 said:


> It does not degrade the sound.
> 
> *Degrade* to lower in character or quality; to reduce in amount, strength, intensity, etc.;
> 
> ie - degrading the sound is making it worse, or making it less equal than the original. A summing mixer is not_ degrading _the sound; it is_ altering _the sound. If the end product is better than the original (even if to your ears), then that is not a degredation.


Analogue circuits add distortion. Would you not consider that to be degrading the orignal sound? If you could get a summing mixer that was so pure that the amount of distortion was negligible, you would probably not be able to tell the difference between that mix, and an ITB mix.

D


----------



## guydoingmusic (Sep 30, 2011)

RiffWraith @ Fri Sep 30 said:


> It does not degrade the sound.
> 
> *Degrade* to lower in character or quality; to reduce in amount, strength, intensity, etc.;
> 
> ie - degrading the sound is making it worse, or making it less equal than the original. A summing mixer is not_ degrading _the sound; it is_ altering _the sound. If the end product is better than the original (even if to your ears), then that is not a degredation.



Exactly! It's the same as running your voice>> through a mic>> into a preamp>>into your DAW. Your voice wasn't degraded... it was recorded. The same can be said of summing. 

Like I said before... you are introducing or re-introducing the sound back into the analogue realm. The circuitry of the analogue gear will add harmonic character that wasn't there before. That's it. Why do you think producers will try 10 different mics and 10 different preamps/compressor combos on a singer? Because, each mic and preamp/compressor has its own harmonic and frequency response. Some color the sound, some don't. It depends on what sounds best. And I can tell you from 4 years of experience with summing, it just sounds better when it's done. 

If you (Daryl) view that as degrading the sound... then the same can be said of all recording processes. They all degrade the sound. But that sounds a bit silly. Doesn't it? o-[][]-o 

/brad


----------



## Daryl (Sep 30, 2011)

guydoingmusic @ Fri Sep 30 said:


> RiffWraith @ Fri Sep 30 said:
> 
> 
> > It does not degrade the sound.
> ...


It's not my view, it's fact, backed up by engineers (Bob Katz amongst them) who know more about these things than I do. Are you really trying to say that analogue circuits don't add distortion?

I said right at the start that summing boxes degrade the sound, and they do, because that's what they are designed to do. You are still trying to argue about better or worse, but that is all a matter of taste, not fact.

Anyway there is no point in my discussing this further, because for some reason you take offense at the thought that you might be degrading sound. I don't. :wink: 

D

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 30, 2011)

Daryl @ Fri Sep 30 said:


> guydoingmusic @ Fri Sep 30 said:
> 
> 
> > RiffWraith @ Fri Sep 30 said:
> ...



Bob is a Zealot and discussing that kind of thing with him is like discussing evolution with a born again Christian. And Nikka Aldrich, who literally wrote the book on digital audio, disagrees with him about lots of stuff.

What a summing mixer adds is non-linearities. That is not degradation in the dictionary definition and definitions matter. Apart from the denotation, it has a negative connotation that is not merited and that is what people are reacting to, Daryl.

Two big lies:

1. Analog summing mixers bring nothing to the table that you cannot achieve within the boxes.

2. Running through a mixer, even one with crappy electronics, improves the sound. You need good electronics or you should not bother.

Two big truths:
1. Running through a summing mixer complicates the process and makes mixes less recallable later on.

2.While it sounds different, whether sounds better or worse is totally subjective.


----------



## RiffWraith (Sep 30, 2011)

Correct - analogue* circuits _do_ add distortion. Never said that was not the case.




Daryl @ Fri Sep 30 said:


> Would you not consider that to be degrading the orignal sound?



Nope. I guess it's really a matter of semantics, but if you say that you are degrading the original sound, you are saying that it is baing made worse. Degredation - in it's true meaning - takes the subjectiveness out of the conversation; it purely means that the sound has been made worse. Now, to people like us who know better, sure - you can get away with using that word, because we know what you mean. But to to others who are less knowledgeable and experienced - they are not going to know better. So someone who is new to audio, might read your post, and think, "wow - better not think about a summing mixer, because that will make the sound worse than ITB."

* Hey - who put that_ ue _in there??? :lol:


----------



## stonzthro (Sep 30, 2011)

This is really great info. 

Daryl, you have a strong opinion about them from a theoretical basis, has your experience with summing mixers been good/bad?

Has anyone included one in their chain and decided it wasn't worth the effort? I'm certainly going to try one out in the near future, but I'm looking for real-world experiences too, like those of guydoingmusic, RiffWraith and presumably EastWestLurker.


----------



## bsound76 (Sep 30, 2011)

One thing you'll have to take into account is the Digital to analog conversion that you'll have to go through to get to the summing box/mixer.

If you don't have some nice converters, then the possible benefits of using a summing box/mixer are likely to be offset by the worsening of the quality of your audio by passing through the converters.

You'll also almost certainly have to go back to digital after the summer- so you's also want some high quality A to D conversion to use there.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Sep 30, 2011)

The ITB vs OTB debate has been going on for many years. The end result of all the arguing usually finds its answer with genuine mixing and production chops either way. I've heard people utilizing ITB or OTB workflows and given the same amount of production talent, the results are fairly close. Some prefer one over the other simply because it is easier to get there than the other method so it is a matter of choice. That said, I've been using a Dangerous 2BUS LT for a couple of years now, it works for me and I love it - but that is not to say that using summing mixers is a one-size fits-all garment. I think people are best advised to use what works best for them all the while working to constantly improve their own production & composing chops.


----------



## spectrum (Sep 30, 2011)

I've done quite a bit of mixing both ITB and with analog summing boxes/Neve/API/SSL consoles, etc.

A few years ago I was getting improved results with the Dangerous stuff and Apogee 8000 D/As to a high-end Lavrey A/D...particularly when I was on Logic.

However, now I'm getting much better mixes working ITB with Pro Tools HD, Heat and the UAD plugs. Between Heat and the new Ampex tape plug from UA, I've finally nailed the elusive "gluing" quality that you previously could only get from the analog world...but without losing the clarity that happens when you enter the world of summing. I'm frankly blown away with the giant leaps that have happened in the last few years of what's possible ITB now....it's crazy!

So for most stuff, I'm loving ITB now that I'm on PTHD+UAD.

However, there is still some analog magic out there...but for me I'm more interested in going that route when I want "super coloration"...so I'm into this Thermionic Culture stuff now when I really want to go for a radical analog sound (especially for Rock and more Indie mixes):

http://www.thermionicculture.com/products/fatbustard.html (http://www.thermionicculture.com/produc ... stard.html)

That still makes sounds that are not possible to do ITB.....at least this year.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 30, 2011)

> Mr. T starter kits



hahahaha


----------



## re-peat (Sep 30, 2011)

stonzthro @ Fri Sep 30 said:


> Has anyone included one in their chain and decided it wasn't worth the effort?



_


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 30, 2011)

Thermonic Culture is definately a cool company.
A guy I work opposite of use to have a rack mounted Trident Tube mixer that was a summing mixer, but he used it for his VSTi's and PLAY stuff and it sounded alright but hardly worth the 6000 USD he paid.
But last time I worked with him he had the Fat Bustard which is also a summing mixer, but what a difference in strength and drive.
He runs a Virus T1 and Nord Modular through it too and they get pretty juiced up.
I decided to run my EML-101 ( ancient little semi Modular ) into a channel and the sound of the synth got gurgly, meaning that the motions from various modulation of the waveforms got an even bigger buzz.
I won't pay that kind of money for that unit, and for summing I am not sure if that result is desirable, but it somehow can take virtual synths and really give them an Analog flavor, and with a powerful sounding analog, it gets gritty and grindy results.

And yes Nick, Mr. T influenced so many kids in a positive way.
White guys stole his haircut and earrings.
And the Brotha's all strive for the real Mr. T Gold collection, but many fall short, hence the starter kits........ 0oD 

Just want to say that a Manley SLAM is an incredible mastering tool and due to it's Digital I/O's could serve as a great 2 Channel Summer, much better than Digital out to Analog, back into analog or digital again....
And while many say PT HD192's aren't needed still, the above examples with UAD are as good as it gets IMHO. The place I spoke of uses exactly what EP described above, and in the background in the jpeg below you can see the poor neglected SSL 4000G+ and Studer Tape on a Tripod.......PT and UAD rendered them..................less used.

But notice there's an XITE-1 there where we used a PBass with the Ampeg SVT Bass plug direct to the DAW.......Sahwheeet....


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Sep 30, 2011)

I have had the following libraries for roughly 5 years now:

1. VSL - Most of it
2. Some Spectrasonics stuff
3. Native Instruments
4. Project Sam Percussion

And some of the newer stuff from Tonehammer, 8Dio, Cinesamples etc.


I have never used any hardware unit for my mixes. I have always been ITB so to speak. 

The one thing I can definitely say is that, my mixes and sound have been improving with the SAME set of samples. I believe its to do with three things:

1. Better writing
2. Better programming
3. Better Mixing - Gain Staging etc


When Pete first said exactly what he has said above a few months back in another thread - I did not agree with him. But now, I clearly see what he means. In the sampled world - The Programming and Performance aspect is much more important and you can have any piece of gear - it wont conceal that fact. It simply cant.

That being said, if your programming is as good as it can get to a point, then by all means, you can think of getting gear to better your mixes. But as Eric said, recent advancements are great!

In the end, I think the only major problem with ITB right now is CPU Processing. 

Doing everything on one machine is simply too much. In the future I would like to set up not only Sample Slave Machines but also an FX Slave - which is only dedicated for Reverbs and other such things.

I am also of the opinion that Hardware EQ's or units like Manley Slam, Manley Vox-Box and other similar Tube and or Valve units will get you a better sound than a summing mixer.

I am seriously considering getting a hardware Compressor/Limiter as my final processor to get a larger and glued sound. And that too mostly because I am already pushing my CPU - so I have to run my Mastering plug ins in a seperate session - In the original session I let the CPU breathe the Reverb processing etc.

Hardware is also difficult to use at times because of only a Single instance and limited flexibility. I am 27 years old. I have grown in the Digital environment and I am simply to used to the ease of use of ITB mixing.

The only thing I would love to see in action is 5-6 Hardware reverbs - one for each section and see what kind of a difference it makes to ITB Reverbs.

But frankly with such things as:

1. VSL Reverbs - Convolution - Hybrid - MIR
2. 2C Audio Aether and Breeze
3. Stuff from Nomad Factory
4. Spectrasonics built-in plug ins

I would be hard pressed to find really that much better sounding hardware units as to justify their price.

I am still using the same samples I was using years ago and I am still getting a bit better after each project - well, hopefully!

I would love to actually send my dry samples - non processed to John Rodd and see if his Hardware processing makes that much of a difference. 

Of course, apart from the fact that he is just 100 times better than I am and a pro mixing engineer!


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## spectrum (Sep 30, 2011)

For reverbs, the game is over...the combination of high quality convolution verb plugs with killer plates and digital verbs like UAD has (EMT/Lexicon) is all you'd ever really need IMHO.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 30, 2011)

spectrum @ Fri Sep 30 said:


> For reverbs, the game is over...the combination of high quality convolution verb plugs with killer plates and digital verbs like UAD has (EMT/Lexicon) is all you'd ever really need IMHO.



Oh boy, wait until John Rodd reads this :lol:


----------



## tripit (Sep 30, 2011)

I think the summing mixer was really more of a benefit back before such things as HD audio. For example, the old protools mix benefited much more from using summing. 

I went through months of pain trying, testing using consoles as summing boxes a number of years ago. Now, I don't think I would spend the money as the difference is really so small. Now I see people dumping their dangerous 2 boxes all the time - and if you are doing orchestral or score mock up work, the need is even less. It really suits loud rock and pop more than underscore. 

As others have mentioned, the coloring is really the main thing. The glue and saturation you can get without a summing box. 

I would put the money toward something that is much more useful, like better speakers or more libraries.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 30, 2011)

I wish the DSP and Native verbs I bought would sound good on midfields and long throws, I look forward to that day. Until then my ancient Lexicon still rules, and sounds even better than the newer AES/EBU PCM91.
The plug ins still make the audio eminate from the rear of the powered cabinets, where as the hardware just becomes part of the sound.
Don't know the scientific explanation or mathematical nullification reasons behind this, but my ears still give the orders.
A few years ago I noticed another organ that ruled my senses relinquished it's power to " maturity ", but the ears still got legs left.


----------



## spectrum (Sep 30, 2011)

chimuelo @ Fri Sep 30 said:


> I wish the DSP and Native verbs I bought would sound good on midfields and long throws, I look forward to that day. Until then my ancient Lexicon still rules, and sounds even better than the newer AES/EBU PCM91.
> The plug ins still make the audio eminate from the rear of the powered cabinets, where as the hardware just becomes part of the sound.
> Don't know the scientific explanation or mathematical nullification reasons behind this, but my ears still give the orders.


So much is in the algorithms though...not the hardware.

Have you tried Lexicon's own native verbs or the Lexicon verb in UAD? They are using the actual Lexicon algorithms and the UAD is also modeling the analog circuitry too.

I'm a longtime Lexicon hardware guy and I was pretty stunned how great the actual Lexicon algorithms are sounding in these new plugs.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 30, 2011)

The UAD 224 sounds great but the little detail I really can't get yet on Native and DSP is the way a PCM70 just wraps around the audio instantly. Some say it's because the DSP chip has it's own RAM and bypasses the whole trip to sytem RAM that an a non RISC OS causes.
The same folks also claim Pyramix by Merging Technologies gets it's power and 192k sizzle by bypassing the OS and stealing a single core from an i7 CPU.
I tried using 24bit IR's emulating early reflections, and using the 480LXs' DSP version called the 4080L and got close, but after using the PCM70 since 1985 the only thing I like even more is the 480L w/ the LARC.

What it real boils down to with me is the sound that comes from the powered midfileds and long throws.
In my experience all of the FOH guys I know always have the 480L on their manifest. 
We all agree that Native and DSP Reverbs, not Delays, but the verbs require much more wetness to get the desired effect and push the sound back further into the cabinets, It's the only way I can describe the sound.
The PCM70, 224X and 480L's are in your face and the desired effect is transparent and eminates from the very front of the cabinets.

I can only compare something like the front surface mirrors that a dentists uses.
We all seem quite happy looking at ourselves in a regular back surfaced mirror, but only notice it's design flaws when we get really close and see the smeared image that is created.

With a front surfaced mirror like the Dentists use you can reflect a light off of it and it has a laser like reflection......

I know I sound nutty, but these little details are a small edge that I maintain does make a difference, even if I am the only one who notices.

FWIW I use the front surface mirror as an example because as a child I used a Norma Amplifier and a Tiesco Guitar with a Vox Distortion Booster that plugged directly into the Guitar out 1/4" jack.
I then had an open cabinet and put a Trojan rubber my Dad gave me over the speaker.
Then I took 6 round half dollar sized front surface mirrors and attached them to Grandpas nylon fishing line which was glued to the Rubber too.
Now add one of those cheezy spinning color wheels for the Christmas tree and Dads 8mm Projector.
The color wheel spun, the projector shined the light and the mirrors bounced while I played reflecting their lights like the Inna Gadda Da Vida album cover.

I won my 6th grade talent show and even tripped out the teachers...

Those little mirrors are so superior to the generic mirrors we all seem satisfied with.

Just a small little detail, but if it keeps me from frowning while I perform, I gotta have it...


----------



## vasio (Sep 30, 2011)

chimuelo @ Sat Oct 01 said:


> The UAD 224 sounds great but the little detail I really can't get yet on Native and DSP is the way a PCM70 just wraps around the audio instantly



nice point. i think otb sounds better generally. i think the main difference between itb/otb is depth of field, the difference between a "flat mix" (2d) vs spatial depth (3d). itb daws have the digital math - but - there is magic in nonlinear crosstalk that add depth and more space for everything to breathe and simply sit better in the mix overall. there are tons of plugs to warm things up but to me its only warming a flat digitally correct math based mix. the differences are subtle at first but medium to large mixes analog summing is preferred at least here.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 1, 2011)

Now I know how to explain what I hear thanks.
Afterall back in 1985 after first buying the Lexicon I could now add dual mono/stereo effects to my synths and samplers.
I think the first stereo keyboard I bought was a D50..?
Most Samplers and synths were mono and can't remember what year that changed, but I was running a Matrix 12/XPander using dual mono outs with the PCM41/41/70 and Roland Space Echo and thought I was God.... :mrgreen: 
I even record on Reaper using dual mono since I work with Vocals, Drums, Bass and Guitar. Kontakt Instruments in dual mono using Reapers Pan Laws is what gets my ITB mixes to the stage with the same sound quality, otherwise I get that perfect math mix which just won't work on large monitors, and I have 2 x Barbetta Sonas and a 41 Sub. 
This also explains why my friend using the Fat Busturd got close to the quality I enjoy using the XITE-1 and 32 mono ( dual Mono ) I/O's.
We usually work opposite of Mac/PC Towers using good quality RME cards, and these poor chaps don't know what hit 'em...
Perfect example is a guy using LASS and some VST verb a few months ago.
He had mad skills live using various pedal boards and a great old MC3000 controller, but his sound was so bathed in effects and 3D-ish, drove the FOH nuts.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 1, 2011)

vasio @ Fri Sep 30 said:


> chimuelo @ Sat Oct 01 said:
> 
> 
> > The UAD 224 sounds great but the little detail I really can't get yet on Native and DSP is the way a PCM70 just wraps around the audio instantly
> ...



I tend to agree with your analysis. If time, recallability, and expense were not factors, a hybrid ITB/OTB would be my preferred approach but they are big factors for me.

As Eric says, the good news is that we can now come closer than ever to what we want ITB.


----------



## tripit (Oct 1, 2011)

The reverbs have certainly come a long way. But, I'm still finding that OTB is still better. While I think the benefit for summing is pretty small, the benefit for OTB verbs, while still subtle, is much greater. When I use my M7 the verb and sound merge in a way and with a depth of field that I haven't come across with ITB yet. The sound sits in the verb better.


----------



## vasio (Oct 1, 2011)

tripit @ Sun Oct 02 said:


> The reverbs have certainly come a long way. But, I'm still finding that OTB is still better. While I think the benefit for summing is pretty small, the benefit for OTB verbs, while still subtle, is much greater. When I use my M7 the verb and sound merge in a way and with a depth of field that I haven't come across with ITB yet. The sound sits in the verb better.



well said. the m7 integrates and becomes part of the sound rather than slapping a reverb across a track. again its about otb depth and spatial information vs flat 2d itb. it would be so much cheaper to go itb but imo its not there yet by comparison.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 2, 2011)

I have no bone to pick with anyone who says hardware verbs outside the box still sit a scotch better but (you knew there was a but coming, right? 

Some time ago I sent a piece off to another very knowledgeable and experienced composer for comments and he wrote back, "Wow, your hardware verb sure makes a big difference."

I then told him that I had used a tandem of QL Spaces and the UAD Plate 140. He was shocked.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Oct 2, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 02 said:


> I have no bone to pick with anyone who says hardware verbs outside the box still sit a scotch better but (you knew there was a but coming, right?
> 
> Some time ago I sent a piece off to another very knowledgeable and experienced composer for comments and he wrote back, "Wow, your hardware verb sure makes a big difference."
> 
> I then told him that I had used a tandem of QL Spaces and the UAD Plate 140. He was shocked.



Regarding reverb, I think Jay may be onto something. I personally think a mixture of convolution and algorithmic reverb may provide both the spatial elements plus density information for that seriously lush integrated sound. It won't marry itself to the signal quite like a Bricasti but gets the job done with decent results. Whatever works.


----------



## tripit (Oct 2, 2011)

For sure, the ITB verbs are getting better all the time. I remember using the first Lexi plug that came out for TDM. It wasn't all that great. Grainy, horrible tails etc. 
Now you have so many good plug verbs to choice from, you can certainly do great stuff with ITB. And I do use plug verbs all the time, I always mix both in various ways. 

But if you are looking to push into that last 10%, I have yet to hear a plug that sits as well as the M7. 

And bringing it back to the summing, again that's in that last little percentage as well, all though I personally feel that summing is even less of a gain then OTB verb, at least for orchestral underscore. I think it plays a bigger role on genre like rock or pop, where you are using a lot of loud, dense material competing for the same frequency and space.


----------



## vasio (Oct 2, 2011)

tripit @ Sun Oct 02 said:


> For sure, the ITB verbs are getting better all the time. I remember using the first Lexi plug that came out for TDM. It wasn't all that great. Grainy, horrible tails etc.
> Now you have so many good plug verbs to choice from, you can certainly do great stuff with ITB.
> 
> But if you are looking to push that last 10%, which is usually where most of us end up at some point or another, and you have the means to go there, I have yet to hear a plug that sits as well as the M7. And bringing it back to the summing, again that's in that last little percentage as well, all though I personally feel that summing is even less of a gain then OTB verb, at least for orchestral underscore. I think it plays a bigger role on genre like rock or pop, where you are using a lot of loud, dense material competing for the same frequency and space.



this is the sad truth really because once you get 90% there, the rest of the percentage points are on a steep gradient costing thousands. quite a shocker for those used to paying x amount. great post.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 2, 2011)

Actually I thought Lexiverb TDM was pretty good! Not as good as the NuVerbs I had at the time, but still usable.

In any case, what is a hardware reverb? Answer: a computer.

What is a plug-in reverb? Answer: a reverb running on a computer.

So what's the difference?


----------



## wst3 (Oct 2, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Oct 02 said:


> In any case, what is a hardware reverb? Answer: a computer.
> 
> What is a plug-in reverb? Answer: a reverb running on a computer.
> 
> So what's the difference?



It I were going to get picky<G>... the difference is that the former case is all specialized hardware and software, the later case is a general purpose computer running code that is, by default, written in languages that were not designed to do digital signal processing.

DSP chips have special instructions (my favorite is the multiply-and-accumulate) that are designed specifically for the math required for digital signal processing. That means that you can do some thing quicker, or more accurately, or sometimes just more elegantly, and actually, in some cases it comes down to being able to do them at all, or rather do them in time.

Then there is all the other stuff - power supplies, analog audio stages, even the digital signal paths - and I've looked inside general purpose computers, and I've looked in, and in a couple of cases designed parts of specialized audio hardware, and by and large it is just orders of magnitude better - designed better, executed better - for the specific task at hand, whether that is reverb or whatnot.

Now a LOT of the differences between a digital reverb box and a general purpose computer have been vanquished by real, well designed, purpose built audio interfaces. I'll put Lavry or Prism or Benchmark or a Apogee (and others that don't pop to mind) A/D and D/A converters up against the best converters that were built into Lexicon and Eventide and Quantec. In fact I think that the stand-alone high end converters smoke the digital reverb converters, BUT, some of those converters add their own fingerprint, and we have all become accustomed to that.

The other thing is that the computer industry refuses to put a real digital audio interface on a computer - there's no percentage in it! So we're stuck with USB (horrible, but it does work), Firewire (coulda beena contenda), and whatever the next great thing is. None of them compare to MADI or AES because they were not designed from the ground up to carry audio. That's why I live with the limitations of lightpipe - I can't afford a PCI to MADI interface, but I have a very good PCI-to-Lightpipe interface.

So at some level you are right, both the plug-in and the digital reverb multiply this and add that, but the purpose built hardware will always do it better, and it turns out some folks can hear the difference.

Which is not to suggest that if you assemble your general purpose hardware and software and interfaces carefully you can not get as good as, or even better results with a general purpose computer - but it is hardly plug-and-play!

As an aside, I think that this is one of the reasons that accelerators like the UAD and Scope do such a great job of processing (you still have to provide the gozintas and gozoutas)... they have specialized processors, and the digital signal paths are very well designed.

Hey... you asked<G>!


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Oct 2, 2011)

Hey Bill,

Than you for a detailed reply.

I have always been curious about hardware and have very little experience with it. What you say makes sense but I think, people who have both hardware and great software reverts such as yourself should post blind tests. We can all make up our minds then.

I can say with certainty that when I do heavy projects, offline processing is much better. But only because the computer is pushed too much.

I cannot afford 5 Bricasti units so I am going ahead with lynx audio Aurora 16 with the AES card. And I will set up a new FX slave only, running only reverbs and final mastering.

In this way I would have dedicated the CPU for reverbs only.

This should take care of reverbs for sometime. I am also waiting for MIR Pro.

Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## tripit (Oct 2, 2011)

Nice post Bill, thanks for the information. 

I remember Casey from Bricasti posting something (paraphrasing) about the chips used in the M7 and how even if they decided to do a software version, the M7 as it is, uses about as much power as a 4 core and the process overall would not be as effective on a computer, in fact it would probably cripple the ability to run in normal situations. 

Clearly, while there may no difference in the algorithms in some situations, the hardware still plays an important part. Makes perfect sense that a standard computer would not offer all the benefits of one built specifically for the algorithms in use.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Oct 2, 2011)

Yeah I remember that post too from Casey - something about needing five cores minimum to do the work. It seems that a Bricasti M7 is essentially a computer designed to handle a single instance of pure magic. At $3699 retail its admittedly a lot though - not to mention a rack of two or more of them!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 3, 2011)

Sorry, the argument we're having here is a 1990s cocktail discussion.



> the difference is that the former case is all specialized hardware and software, the later case is a general purpose computer running code that is, by default, written in languages that were not designed to do digital signal processing.



Of course, but that hasn't been relevant for years. We've had plenty of processing power in desktop computers to run large sessions in sequencers that include literally dozens of very good reverbs.

My comment when I reviewed Breverb a few years ago was that if there was still any doubt - and that was putting it diplomatically, because there really wasn't - the argument over native vs. hardware reverbs was completely over. The relevant question is whether you like the algorithms in a given software reverb, not whether it can stand up to a hardware unit.

Bricasti...okay. Great. Five cores.

Meanwhile I'm looking forward to being able to run MIR Pro, and until then I'm more than delighted between Altiverb, Breverb, the QL reverbs in Play, the reverb in SSL Duende, VSL's convolution reverb, and so on.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 3, 2011)

> o we're stuck with USB (horrible, but it does work), Firewire (coulda beena contenda), and whatever the next great thing is. None of them compare to MADI or AES because they were not designed from the ground up to carry audio.



See, I'm as happy as a puppy with two tails using a 10-year-old FireWire interface (Metric Halo 2882) and the Most Magnificent VE Pro, a set-up that micturates gleefully all over MADI, AES, S/PDIF, lightpipe, that f-ing PITA mess of digital clocking crap that I'm so happy to have dispensed with.

I also couldn't care less whether a general purpose computer was designed to work as a sampler or not. The fact is that all this stuff works beautifully day in and out.

All that stupid cabling and junk is SO fired!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 3, 2011)

It occurs to me I should elaborate why I say that software reverbs are just as good these days.

The hallmarks of lousy reverb (other than generally lousy algorithms that just don't stick to the instruments you're running through) are: a metallic or plastic sound, HF sparkles, low density, and especially poor-sounding small spaces. These hallmarks - hey, that's an apt word! - are interrelated, but I say especially small spaces because you need processing power to create density and to build up reflections quickly; the ability to create good small spaces has often been the biggest factor separating really good reverbs.

And all the good software reverbs mentioned in this thread pass those tests easily.


----------



## drasticmeasures (Oct 3, 2011)

IMHO,

With Plugs like Nebula 3 Pro (especially with AlexB console libraries) and The Glue, etc, investing in an external 'summing' mixer is waste of time and money.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 4, 2011)

By the way, VSL's Hybrid reverb is just excellent. I mentioned "sticking" to the instrument above, and that's what it does.

Same with the impulses in their convolution reverb, actually.

For some reason I haven't seen a lot of noise made about them, but they're really top-notch processors. The idea that you need hardware...well, I've already said it.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 4, 2011)

Hey thanks Nick and Tanuj.

Thats the reverb I remember and Dietz explained it to me.
I shall try it but I absolutely hate dongles, they remind me that they'll cost more money again in the future when yet another operating system enslaves us further. 
But the goal is to have an XITE-1 and a laptop based on the Quad RAM x79 from ADK Pro.
Everyone else I work with has the XITE-1 and a laptop and they are home while I am still tearing down my racks. I really want something to replace the PCM70, and lord knows I have tried most of them.

I shall jump on this on my day off.
Hybrid is what I call my hardware, DSP Native rig, this already sounds appropriate.

Cheers.


----------



## ozmorphasis (Oct 4, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 04 said:


> By the way, VSL's Hybrid reverb is just excellent. I mentioned "sticking" to the instrument above, and that's what it does.
> 
> Same with the impulses in their convolution reverb, actually.
> 
> For some reason I haven't seen a lot of noise made about them, but they're really top-notch processors. The idea that you need hardware...well, I've already said it.



If there is anything that should be gleaned from this thread, it's that you really need to try this stuff (hardware solutions and software solutions) for yourself and then decide if it's worth it to spend extra for the hardware. 

In this thread alone, let alone all of the other threads/forums/etc, there enough people on both sides of the argument who "swear" that their solution is the right one, to make it clear that it is not clear.

If you are content with software solutions, or at least the results of software based mixes by fellow composers/engineers, then why spend the extra money? BUT, if you have compared the two, and hear a difference that is important to you, then all of the comments by Nick and others in this thread have to be taken for what they are: their observations about what works for THEM and is good enough for THEM. 

Having said all of that, it is certainly worth noting that there are a lot of ex-die-hard-hardware guys that are agreeing with the likes of Spectrum and Nick B about the nature of this question. Put differently, it's clearly all headed in the right direction: More cost effective software solutions that can get the job done without sacrificing quality. The question is always about whether it is quite there for you yet?

O


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 4, 2011)

I agree with that - everyone has to form his or her own opinions (about audio - when it comes to politics then everyone must agree with me or else  ).

One of my opinions I didn't mention is that a Lexicon PCM 70- or 90-class reverb has very refined algorithms. I like and use Breverb, but as a main space it wasn't...well, subjectively quite as nice or as good as the hardware Lexicon we compared it to.

While I haven't tried the high-end Lexicon plug-ins, there's no reason to think that's because the Lexicon is hardware, though, it's because of the algorithms. All I'm saying is that the Breverb plug-in is an example of a studio-class reverb processor, and it's certainly at least as good as a lot of the hardware reverbs I've used over the years.

And that VSL Hybrid reverb...I'm going to be using it a lot more now that I've started getting into it. That is one impressive reverb unit.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 5, 2011)

Now that we're talking about hardware and software reverbs, maybe I should share my experiences.

I used to have a Lexicon PCM70. It was OK, but in the end I found that whilst there was something pleasing about it, I preferred the convolution of Altiverb.

However, when I decided to get a newer (and more expensive) Lex, the PCM 90, I think, I got one on spec, as well as a Bricasti. For most of the things that I do the Bricasti was far better, and I sent the Lex back.

However, since then I have bought the VSL convolution and Hybrid reverbs, and am not really using Altiverb at all. I also have the Lex Native plug, and it is fantastic. Much better than either the PCM70 or PCM90, IMO.

So currently I am using VSL Convolution/Hybrid, Lexicon Native and Bricasti. There is still something about the Bricasti that the software plugs can't emulate. Or maybe it's just that no developer has tried to emulate. I don't know.

D


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 5, 2011)

Daryl @ Wed Oct 05 said:


> I also have the Lex Native plug, and it is fantastic. Much better than either the PCM70 or PCM90, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> D



i tried to research this and got lost. what is the pcm96?


----------



## Daryl (Oct 5, 2011)

George Caplan @ Wed Oct 05 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Oct 05 said:
> 
> 
> > I also have the Lex Native plug, and it is fantastic. Much better than either the PCM70 or PCM90, IMO.
> ...


I think you mean PCM90. A quick Google search will turn up loads of things to read.

D


----------



## Frederick Russ (Oct 5, 2011)

George Caplan @ Wed Oct 05 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Oct 05 said:
> 
> 
> > I also have the Lex Native plug, and it is fantastic. Much better than either the PCM70 or PCM90, IMO.
> ...



George, here you go: http://www.lexiconpro.com/product.php?id=147

Although the pcm 96 is one of the flagship models of Lexicon, the pcm 70 and 90 (and the new PCM Native) focuses specifically on reverb rather than additional effects.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 5, 2011)

The PCM70 needs good converters to sound it's best. I stopped using it in '99 becasue the sound on VSTi's and DSP synths & samples wasn't as good as I expected. Hence the PCM91 which did sound better due to the AES/EBU connections.
But 2 1/2 years ago I drug out the ancient DoD Spring w/ custom 16" spring, the Oberheim Echoplex Pro and the PCM70 and due to the 192k AKM converters on the XITE-1, I was back to the qualtiy I was accustomed to using hardware samplers and synths onstage.

Now my ITB Projects in Scope where all Native, DSP and hardware are connected was incredibly rich, so having quality converters makes a huge difference.
I think the Hybrid might do as I need, but after buying that, I am assuming it's quality is similar to all other VSTi's, so I have my fingers crossed.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 5, 2011)

Frederick Russ @ Wed Oct 05 said:


> George Caplan @ Wed Oct 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Wed Oct 05 said:
> ...



thats great fred thanx. pcm 96 apparently is just for reverb too mostly but has effects which could mean echos and delays.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 5, 2011)

The PCM 70 and family has a rich, thick sound, and it has that subtle Spin parameter that gives it some life. It's great on drums.

But the first time I tried Altiverb I nearly fell off my chair - and it has arms and a back.

They're just different colors on the palette.


----------



## guydoingmusic (Oct 5, 2011)

...so.... summing mixers.... (cough)

Ha!! :wink:


----------



## zacnelson (Oct 6, 2011)

Does anybody listen to or watch the Pensado's Place weekly audio/video podcast? It's a very interesting resource, as everybody on the show is mixing number 1 hits and winning grammy awards. I'm just amazed how much ITB goes on with these guys for whom money is no object; I get the impression that so often their time is really stretched and quick workflow and the ability to be ultra creative and spontaneous is their main priority. They talk about layering up to 10 plugins on single tracks, doing little nibbles of compression, eq, saturation, parallel processing etc with each plugin, in a manner that would be unthinkable with outboard gear or standard console eq. 

On last week's episode Ariel Chobaz was talking about how he using TL Space plugin for reverb, which really surprised me. I admit he's doing pop so I guess the reverb isn't as critical as it is for orchestral sample music but TL Space is by no means an expensive or well-renowned plugin. I have it though and have been fairly pleased with it.


----------



## zacnelson (Oct 6, 2011)

I've been wondering when somebody would bring up Slate VCC in this discussion....

It was reviewed in the October Sound on Sound, I thought the reviewer made a good point. He said on the SOS podcast that there was no point giving an audio example of what it does. He said the real strength of using VCC is that when you are mixing with VCC on each channel it makes it much easier to find a `sweet spot' and that it changes the way you mix, and affects all the decisions you make in the mix. So you can't exactly A/B it. I'm usually very sceptical of SOS reviews because they are all too complimentary and probably influenced by advertising sales, however it was a perceptive point. I have had VCC for a while now and I wouldn't want to complete a mix without it, however when I first demoed it I was underwhelmed and it took a lot of fiddling before I understood the benefit. 

I suppose a similar argument could be made with using an external mixer or summing box. You can't just A/B a mix - it is starting from scratch in each environment and seeing where it leads your mix, and obviously a lot of guys mix better and `feel' the music better when they are on a console and inevitably the end result is far better than what you could ascribe to the coloration alone. 

It's like trying to compare marriages.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 6, 2011)

FWIW, I find SOS to be a great magazine and over the years have made purchases based on their reviews.
Not because they were correct on those purchases, but there's a giant distributor in the UK named Arbiter and they jumped all over a huge lot of CME controllers when they first came out.
SOS was spot on and pointed out the problems and once published Arbiter threatened to pull ads, and the typical stuff you'd expect from a greed/profit based company. But Thomann quickly filled the void from what a I recollect and guess what, CME actually made better controllers since then...
It haven't bought Keyboard mag for decades though. Ever since I read an article giving step by step instructions on creating the patch for the synth in Fly Like an Eagle where the synth " expert " was trying to convince veteran synthesists that the repetitious repeats were from a Tape Delay. The tails were definately a Tape Delay, and the B3 also revealed that obvious fact, but an LFO is what drove the synths rhythmic groove, not a Tape Delay, at any rate good points.
Nice link for the ITB engineers and Pop stuff too.
Thanks


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 7, 2011)

A good read here.... .


----------



## John Rodd (Nov 20, 2011)

spectrum @ Fri Sep 30 said:


> For reverbs, the game is over...the combination of high quality convolution verb plugs with killer plates and digital verbs like UAD has (EMT/Lexicon) is all you'd ever really need IMHO.



Well, I just read this :wink: 

My thoughts on summing mixers..... for composers, generally speaking is..... don't bother.

I have done extensive tests with neutral summing mixer (a Folcrom) 

http://www.rollmusic.com/folcrom.php

comparing it with ProTools HD-Accel summing.... and i found there to be no worthwhile improvement in using the Folcrom IF THE GAIN STRUCTURE WITHIN PROTOOLS WAS GOOD.

However some summing boxes specifically 'color' the sound with the use of tubes & transformers....... however that sound improvement is NOT coming from summing, per say.

You could easily strap a nice tube or transformer hardware EQ over the stereo mix buss, and get similar results, in my experience (and it would be easier to recall, and be more flexible, to boot) and likely bring something nice to your mixes that a plug-in could not do as well.


I would recommend that composers spend their hard earned $$$$ on things like more sample libraries, and better reverb, of any kind.

In terms of software reverb being so good that hardware reverb is not worthy.... well..... i strongly disagree, and just look at the photos of my studio on my webpage for proof.

8) 

No plugin reverb can do what a Bricasti M7 or TC 6000 hardware reverb can do. And I do my tests double blind, level matched to remove any bias.

I'm not saying that software reverbs aren't great ... I use them all the time, in conjunction with my hardware reverbs.

o-[][]-o 


John


----------



## dannthr (Nov 21, 2011)

Don't you have three TC6000s?


----------



## RiffWraith (Nov 21, 2011)

John Rodd @ Mon Nov 21 said:


> You could easily strap a nice tube or transformer hardware EQ over the stereo mix buss...



Any reccomendations there, por favor?


----------



## John Rodd (Nov 21, 2011)

dannthr @ Mon Nov 21 said:


> Don't you have three TC6000s?



Yo Dan

Yes.... guilty as charged. >8o 

I am usually printing multiple stem mixes (either stereo, or 5.1) all at the same time as the full mix.... so the 3 really come in handy.

I'm a lucky guy to have such a nice studio filled with such nice gear.

:mrgreen: 

cheers

John


----------



## John Rodd (Nov 21, 2011)

RiffWraith @ Mon Nov 21 said:


> John Rodd @ Mon Nov 21 said:
> 
> 
> > You could easily strap a nice tube or transformer hardware EQ over the stereo mix buss...
> ...



Sure! :mrgreen: 

I'm a hardware EQ connoisseur...... so I have a bunch of different flavors.

There are many good EQs in the world.... I just know and own some good ones. 

I will say that I make almost all of my gear purchases based on blind, level matched tests... so I am confident that the ones I mention are great.....

For top end boosts I like the *A-Designs Hammer* a bunch
for low end boosts (and sometimes top end boosts as well.... but different sounding than the Hammer) I like the *A-Designs EM-PEQ*s a bunch. 

I also like the *API 5500* as a general shaping EQ. 

For surgical work I love the *Empirical Labs Lil FrEQ*s.

I'm probably forgetting some... but those are some of my favorites that I own.... 8) 

cheers

John


----------



## dannthr (Nov 22, 2011)

John,

I am coming over, I hope that red couch is a sleeper, because I plan on staying a while! ;P


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 22, 2011)

dannthr @ Tue Nov 22 said:


> John,
> 
> I am coming over, I hope that red couch is a sleeper, because I plan on staying a while! ;P



To visit John's studio is indeed to wish to never leave it., Not only does it sound great but John designed it so that it is a beautiful, peaceful room that is aesthetically immaculate.


----------



## John Rodd (Nov 22, 2011)

*The red sofa.....*



dannthr @ Tue Nov 22 said:


> John,
> 
> I am coming over, I hope that red couch is a sleeper, because I plan on staying a while! ;P



Dan... you always make me laugh! :lol: 

I did actually check out the 'sleeper' (pull out) version of that red sofa in my studio..... just for fun..... (I sat on MANY sofas to find one that was very, very comfortable) .... but the folding frame in that model of sofa made it less comfortable than the regular sofa version.... so I got the regular version. 8)


----------



## John Rodd (Nov 22, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Nov 22 said:


> *To visit John's studio is indeed to wish to never leave it., Not only does it sound great but John designed it so that it is a beautiful, peaceful room that is aesthetically immaculate.*



Thanks for the very kind words Jay!

After the 5 year process of building it from the ground up...... and investing enormous sums of money in the process...... I'm very happy with how it turned out. It also makes me happy when other people like it too.

:D


----------

