Analog Summing Buss

[hubercraft]

Does analog summing really improve the sound of a DAW?
Also has anyone heard of Mytek Converters if so how do they compare to Apogee Conveters?

thanks newbie

[BradLyons]

Well, that's a long drawn-out answer that I don't have time to get into....but yes, analog summing CAN be an advantage depending on what you're using of course. There are reasons for this, primarily having to do with how the code handles the audio and the intensive math calculations happening with dithering, bit truncation, etc. Some will say Mytek is superior to Apogee, it's a matter of taste really. If you're after total clarity, you might find Mytek more appealing to you. Personally, i don't like that kind of sound...I want something with a touch of analog to it, something musical, something with it's own signature sound....personally, I prefer Apogee. I don't use Apogee in my home studio as, for what I'm doing, the 16-channels on my Digidesign 192I/O are perfectly fine. But I have been using Apogee for years, have always loved their stuff!

If you want to mix outside the box, be prepared to spend many thousands of dollars to do it right. But you have to ask, is it really worth it to you? Mixing ITB (In the box) today has many advantages, again depending on what you're using.

[sdemott]

When I had my commercial studio I used to direct out each channnel to a Soundcraft Ghost console. I used the DAW for all the automation and some plugs and then used the Ghost for EQ and to patch in external FX units then back into a stereo track into the DAW.

I've even helped friends setup similar things in their home studios with mackie boards - and yes there was a noticable difference in the sound of the mix.

I think there are advantages to both - you just have to know which sound is they sound you are after and go that way. The trick, in my opinion, is to use analog gear with some character. Or else you may as welll stay ITB.

This tends to be one of those touchy subjects for many - so experiment & do what suits you best.

[BradLyons]

Digital, when configured properly, is going to better than going through inferior analog gear. While years ago there was an advantage, things have changed so much in the last year that ITB does sound great. If you have high-quality converters and clocking with top-quality plugins, you can accomplish a great sound. On the very very high-end, yes it is worth it...

[sdemott]

Digital, when configured properly, is going to better than going through inferior analog gear. While years ago there was an advantage, things have changed so much in the last year that ITB does sound great. If you have high-quality converters and clocking with top-quality plugins, you can accomplish a great sound. On the very very high-end, yes it is worth it...

Better how? The problem here may just be that everyone has a different definition of "better". If what someone wants is a little grunge and little dirt - well you don't need a Ghost (or SSL or API, Neve et al) for that. To use a graphic analogy: one of the most powerful image filters in Photoshop is the Gaussian Blur. Technically, this filter reduces definition (much like analog gear)...but used properly it is one of the most useful & pleasing effects in a graphic artist's toolbox. The point is that analog's "inherent problems" are what we want from it (in a proper dose).

Same goes for "budget" gear. Some of it can be used with very repsectable results (and here's where I rant): remember those classic albums were recorded on gear that was every bit inferior to todays higher end budget gear. The trick is to use the gear towards it's strengths and minimize it's weaknesses - which is what a recording engineer used to have to know how to do. I've heard very moving and touching productions from great engineers on budget gear and good music utterly destroyed by bad engineers on the best gear money could buy.

to sum up: it's the person running the gear, not the gear, that matters.

[Jim]

February (current issue) Electronic Musician magazine, page 57: Article on analog summing. Summarizing their conclusions: It has a noticeable effect on the sound, but is it necessary? No clear answer, as it comes down to personal preference... "no winners or losers, just slightly different colors" (italics mine).

The only clear conclusion the author reached is that more expensive gear doesn't fare much better than cheaper gear.

My conclusion? Caveat emptor. There are a lot of vendors in the music equipment business who are ready and willing to sell you some magic beans, and there are a lot of dupes in the market eager to shell out for shortcuts to success, and to bypass experience and effort.

If there isn't significant agreement on the benefits of certain strategies, gear, techniques, etc., then I think one is wise to be skeptical.

[EMRR]

Same goes for "budget" gear. Some of it can be used with very repsectable results (and here's where I rant): remember those classic albums were recorded on gear that was every bit inferior to todays higher end budget gear. The trick is to use the gear towards it's strengths and minimize it's weaknesses - which is what a recording engineer used to have to know how to do. I've heard very moving and touching productions from great engineers on budget gear and good music utterly destroyed by bad engineers on the best gear money could buy.

to sum up: it's the person running the gear, not the gear, that matters.

Amen on the last one. However, you'll never get me to agree to this one:

remember those classic albums were recorded on gear that was every bit inferior to todays higher end budget gear.

I think that one has been repeated far too many times. It certainly helps sell new budget gear. Budget gear gets made for people on budgets....and that's where the market is today. There's plenty of perfectly good and affordable 'vintage' gear out there for the asking. Gear that cost far more to make for very elemental reasons (parts), gear that isn't made today because no one could afford it at todays prices, gear that was created by much larger design teams of more exceptional quality than I think any audio company can afford to hire today. Gear made with more input from more designers with more ears. Takes research beyond advertisements and paid spokespeople (magazines) to find. Most gear today gets made by extremely small teams, or even individuals. Well, there's my rant!:D

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, caveat emptor, etc etc. If you look at the big picture in audio (this type of music vs. that type of music vs. film audio vs. hi-fi vs. lo-fi vs. modern vs. antique) you will find very little agreement about much of anything.

What do you want to achieve? How do you like to work? What makes you and your ears and your clients ears happy? What do you like the idea of? These are not black and white issues, no matter how we try to sum them up.

There was another thread on this just a few days back with a ton of info, and links to other info. Have fun, whatever you do!