Analog Summing Buss

[hubercraft]

Does Analog summing really make a difference to the sound of a DAW?
Also has anyone heard of Mytek Converters and if so how do they compare to Apogee Converters.

[qo]

See the other posts on the subject (search for "summing"). Yes, it makes a difference, IMHO. But, no, it's not better, or worse.

[Resonant Alien]

Check out Dangerous Audio 2 Bus LT. 16 in, 2 out analog summing - about $1300 street. I've seen them on eBay for about $1000.

As qo says, not necessarily "better" than ITB, just more what people are used to hearing when mixing on analog desks, so there is a perception at least that it is "better". "More familiar" might be a better term to use.

I have toyed with the idea of the 2 Bus, but I would also have to buy a new/additional firewire interface to make full use of the 16 ins. I only have 8 outs right now.

[Timeline]

OK here's a thought, albeit slightly OT..

Lets say you have a VERY good outboard mixer like an SSL or API with very cool analog outboard compression and eq being fed out from your multiple IO's and wish to return the analog mixer stereo output to two inputs of an IO, AES or analog, and insert that back into a master fader of the same mix which would enable you to add additional plugs or whatever. Is this possible currently? If so could you then bounce to disk using real time bounce?

I've never tried it.

[newrigel]

It would seem that the program material would have a huge impact on percieved quality increase and articulation of conversion. Summing seems to "open up" the mix and let everything have a better "imagery" so in most cases, summing will give a beter result IMO. But I have noticed that since I've been bouncing ITB @ 32 bit SD 2 the "definition" has really improved.

[kwiz]

OK here's a thought, albeit slightly OT..

Lets say you have a VERY good outboard mixer like an SSL or API with very cool analog outboard compression and eq being fed out from your multiple IO's and wish to return the analog mixer stereo output to two inputs of an IO, AES or analog, and insert that back into a master fader of the same mix which would enable you to add additional plugs or whatever. Is this possible currently? If so could you then bounce to disk using real time bounce?

I've never tried it.

I haven't tried exactly what you posted but I have mixed a couple of sessions using a 2408 mk1 outputting 24 channels of tdif into an AMEK console, and then mixed down to a CD. At home I imported the CD to a stereo track in DP (3.1 at the time) for additional eq sweetening and the first thing I noticed was how much better the width/depth of the stereo field was compared to my ITB mix. At that time I was using a Tascam M3500 for tracking and monitoring in my home studio, but that experience prompted me to experiment with mixing in DP but outputting (through the analog I/O) 8 channels of signal into my board. That also made a slight difference when comparing those mixes to an ITB mix. Unfortunately my Tascam board wasn't the most quiet board so I always settled for the ITB mix. Today I use a Dangerous 2 bus LT and go straight into various outboard comps then into a Waves L2 before hitting a Masterlink.
To my ears, this beats the ITB mix everytime.

[Timeline]

Today I use a Dangerous 2 bus LT and go straight into various outboard comps then into a Waves L2 before hitting a Masterlink. To my ears, this beats the ITB mix everytime.

Right. Same here. I have API 8200's so it's quite a nice glossy top end mix. Using L2 and then capturing in Masterlink, same as you accept I pass through an ATR 102 1/2" two machine first. This allows me sometimes to create a 1/2" master of the song then play the tape out for tape tone to L2 and ML. It's rare that I use tape but on some cuts it works nicely. Most of the time I leave the machine on input and ignor it.

I would love to know that I could process live analog by reinserting to the same mix though and then do the bounce within DP. Some are beginning to discuss this over on Nuendo forum and I thought i would add it here and see if anyone gets it.

Also, it would be a nice setup for mastering from 1/2" two track as a regular setup.

[FM]

Does Analog summing really make a difference to the sound of a DAW?

yes... but with an explanation of sorts...
IMHO, in the end is a matter of taste, convenience and money.

i prefer to mix ITB and sum using an API line mixer and thereby bypassing the software summing buss altogether, i like the way it sounds a lot.
i also like the ability to use real analog gear at mixdown, like going to tape etc...

it's not as convenient as staying totally ITB and it's certainly more expensive but, to my ears, it's worth it.

FM

FM puddin' and pie, kissed the girls and they made him cry.

[EMRR]

Hi,

I just went back and read all of the previous thread on this and wanted to throw in my own blurry impressions, which come from a slanted analog experience perspective. I will ramble far too much....sorry.

1) No matter what you do, it starts analog (discounting pure synths) and ends analog (speakers). Make what you will of that one philosophically.

2) There is a random organic nature I think I perceive with hardware sound that I like, whereas I get tired of hearing the perfectly repeatable sound of plug-in emulation. Not that it doesn't sound good in its own way.

3) The debate is really more involved than just ITB / OTB. If I recall correctly, passive summing would be voltage rather than current summing as found in most later post-1980 IC based consoles. Both sound different in many peoples opinion. A third option! The various passive analog summing boxes: They are, simplistically speaking, simplified vintage console summing paths in tiny boxes with no features. Behringer/etc. could build and sell these same boxes for $49.99, technically speaking. The connectors would of course be crap, so you••™d buy a spare or two. Someone with a little technical ability could put something similar together in a day for under $200.

4) The debate on distortion with various ITB / OTB platforms: I'm pretty sure we'd all be happy if converters and digital summing busses would distort with relatively pure 2nd or 3rd order harmonics, but I'm fairly certain they clip with predominately non-musically related high-order harmonics. A clipping analog stage can have anything from low order to high order harmonics depending on the topology used and the amount of negative feedback designed into the circuit. I can't address the harmonic distortion components of a passive summing network, but think what you get primarily is the Johnson noise of the resistors down in the -127 to 130 dbm range, which is far lower than what you get when you add in some active electronics. Digital black is indeed absolute silence, but that's in a vacuum; it has to get out into the real world through something that will add noise. The various distortion problems of any platform dictate different working methods.

5) ITB or OTB; different tools. Both are filters, there's NOTHING that isn't. Pick the one you want. I am still primarily running all hardware and a console, so I pick that one. I pick it because I know it and I can work so much faster that way. It is intuitive to me. So far ITB is like going to the dentist without anesthesia for me. I can't stand it, but am trying to get up to speed. Right now I can do a mix OTB, zero the console, re-do the mix, do it again 2 or 3 more times before I can get one done ITB. These mixes are usually straight rock band work with a minimum of overdub fluff and complexity. So my clients and I are not seeing the advantage of ITB at this stage. In contrast, I will take ITB with sound-for-picture work any day. I have always seen slower workflow with various ITB music studios in my experiences as a freelance producer/consultant, and this includes work with very experienced ITB operators. The greater number of tools and options seem to come at a cost. My clients generally have very little budget to start with, and there are many times I feel the enhancement of full automation can be irrelevant, knowing that I can do it OTB faster and they won't be coming back for touch-ups in the first place. I can think of multiple instances where the act of setting up templates and automation ITB takes more time than the entire job when OTB. There are plenty of folks here who don't know anything of hardware-based workflow, and I expect they will think I'm antiquated/crazy and would have the opposite experience if they were sent to a hardware-based room to do a mix. I am sure there will be a time in the near future when I prefer an ITB mixing experience for a certain project, but it hasn••™t happened yet.

Do what you know best, and try to learn the rest....

Party,

[Timeline]

Good one Doug,

I can't address the harmonic distortion components of a passive summing network, but think what you get primarily is the Johnson noise of the resistors down in the -127 to 130 dbm range, which is far lower than what you get when you add in some active electronics. Digital black is indeed absolute silence, but that's in a vacuum; it has to get out into the real world through something that will add noise. The various distortion problems of any platform dictate different working methods.

This is true if using select film resisters in the circuit and the entire mixnet is shelled completely in a can that is tied to earth for shielding.

Most passive mixnets are simply a string of 10K resisters tied together at one end and then bridged in to an opamp through one more 10K resistor. That's all there is to it.

I have also tried using a 10K to 600ohm transformer at the mixnets output and the results were fantastic as far as mix tone. Bandwidth did suffer a bit.

The sound of a passive net made of discrete components is awesome.

[EMRR]

I can't address the harmonic distortion components of a passive summing network, but think what you get primarily is the Johnson noise of the resistors down in the -127 to 130 dbm range, which is far lower than what you get when you add in some active electronics.

This is true if using select film resisters in the circuit and the entire mixnet is shelled completely in a can that is tied to earth for shielding.

Most passive mixnets are simply a string of 10K resisters tied together at one end and then bridged in to an opamp through one more 10K resistor. That's all there is to it.

Yes indeed. Certainly resistor quality and proper shielding are a given for good operation. If you start reading 1930's -1940's literature you find many approaches to passive summing, including ones that sum two tracks to mono without crosstalk back into the two tracks.

I have also tried using a 10K to 600ohm transformer at the mixnets output and the results were fantastic as far as mix tone. Bandwidth did suffer a bit.

Even more options. As everyone should know when trying this, proper impedance loading of the transformer can make a big difference on the bandwidth issues, and you can usually force a slightly lower than rated load to get slightly more bandwidth at the cost of some gain. There's at least one 'passive preamp' in the hi-fi market that is just a transformer with many many variable taps to adjust gain. I've heard it provides 'superior sound'. I will use certain transformers for their tone altering qualities from time to time also; one more tool that I can't see a workstation emulating realistically any time soon.

[Resonant Alien]

1) No matter what you do, it starts analog (discounting pure synths) and ends analog (speakers). Make what you will of that one philosophically.

Technically, it starts analog and ends digital - the bones in your ear vibrate against each other and convert the incoming analog sound wave into a series of electrical pulses for your brain, which are basically a series of digital 1s and 0s.

[chrispick]

I will use certain transformers for their tone altering qualities from time to time also; one more tool that I can't see a workstation emulating realistically any time soon.

Why do you say that? What about convolution technology?

[Splinter]

I have always seen slower workflow with various ITB music studios in my experiences as a freelance producer/consultant, and this includes work with very experienced ITB operators. The greater number of tools and options seem to come at a cost. My clients generally have very little budget to start with, and there are many times I feel the enhancement of full automation can be irrelevant, knowing that I can do it OTB faster and they won't be coming back for touch-ups in the first place. I can think of multiple instances where the act of setting up templates and automation ITB takes more time than the entire job when OTB. There are plenty of folks here who don't know anything of hardware-based workflow, and I expect they will think I'm antiquated/crazy and would have the opposite experience if they were sent to a hardware-based room to do a mix.

I have to agree with you Doug. I am a big advocate of ITB work and abandoned "analog" several years ago, but I learned old school. It is so easy to spend hour upon hour on a mix ITB, programming in automation, watching a screen, and getting bogged down in the details. It's much less intuitive and musical to me. I have to force myself to shut my eyes and use my ears, rather than drawing lines on a screen. I just got a control surface and that is helping having faders again, but I've worked so long without it I find I'm still editing my fader moves rather than just trusting my own musicality and feel.

Regarding ITB vs. OTB, I like the sound of ITB when it comes to purely summing, but much of OTB depends on what you are summing with. The sound of any console will add color to the mix and digital basically does not, so it's apples and oranges. "Do you like the sound of added harmonic distortion to the mix or not?" ought to be the realy question, not is analog summing better.

I've started using TTD's Colortone Pro on the Master fader of DP and I love the color, warmth, and gloss it is adding to my mixes. So, I'm basically ripping off what I like about "analog" mixing - the sound of its harmonic distortion - and applying it digitally. It's really changing the sound and quality of my digital mixes.

[kwiz]

.

I've started using TTD's Colortone Pro on the Master fader of DP and I love the color, warmth, and gloss it is adding to my mixes. So, I'm basically ripping off what I like about "analog" mixing - the sound of its harmonic distortion - and applying it digitally. It's really changing the sound and quality of my digital mixes.

I'm a fan of TTD's products myself and use ValveTone & HydraTone on a regular. I'm going to try out the ColorTone demo on a Master Fader in DP and not "stem out" through my DM LT.
Have you a/b'ed an ITB mix with ColorTone vrs. one without?
Did ColorTone add more stereo imaging to your mix?