Refuting the external analog mixer theory

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:16 am

Thanks, Splinter! I haven't fully talked about what I've been going through over the past 12-18 months, but your post really helps to answer a lot of my questions, regardless of who agrees or disagrees. Squeeze on input-- it's just a matter of knowing how much is enough in context, something only experience can tell you.

666 wrote:
richardein wrote:Frodo, I dunno about "super pros" but I have done rather a bit of composing, recording, and mixing,
Ha ha ha!!!!!

"rather a bit"

Dude, that's hilarious. Just a bit, eh? Can you say "Voices of Light--The Passion of Joan of Arc?" Sorry for the off-topic comment but this is my chance to finally say that I think your score for that flick is a masterpiece.

I don't dish out compliments very often but this time, I could not refuse.

Awesome.

I stand by my use of the term "super pro"!!

Amazing. (thanks!)

Don't worry, Richard... we won't tell anyone.

Timmy S · Post by **Timmy S** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:36 am

I just finnished an album, three years in the making, with upwards of 100 tracks per song. Did all the automation and plug ins in DP. At the end we took it to a Neve console in stems, to try out analog summing. We could not believe the difference. it was not subtle at all. The stereo field was about twice as wide and all the instruments had more of a space to sit in. even the people in the band that do not know about engineering and such noticed the difference. I don't know if it the color of the neve or the process of analog summing but the A/B of the 2 mixes is not even in the same universe. i will never do an ITB mix again.

Shooshie · Post by **Shooshie** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:10 am

666 wrote:
richardein wrote:Frodo, I dunno about "super pros" but I have done rather a bit of composing, recording, and mixing,
Ha ha ha!!!!!

"rather a bit"

Dude, that's hilarious. Just a bit, eh? Can you say "Voices of Light--The Passion of Joan of Arc?" Sorry for the off-topic comment but this is my chance to finally say that I think your score for that flick is a masterpiece.

I don't dish out compliments very often but this time, I could not refuse.

Awesome.

It's kind of humbling, isn't it?

But in the larger sense, it gives us all a standard to which to aspire! (I think Frodo was right on the money when he said "super-pros," but we'll try to keep our obsequious fawning in check.

)

Shooshie

Shooshie · Post by **Shooshie** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:23 am

Timmy S wrote:I just finnished an album, three years in the making, with upwards of 100 tracks per song. Did all the automation and plug ins in DP. At the end we took it to a Neve console in stems, to try out analog summing. We could not believe the difference. it was not subtle at all. The stereo field was about twice as wide and all the instruments had more of a space to sit in. even the people in the band that do not know about engineering and such noticed the difference. I don't know if it the color of the neve or the process of analog summing but the A/B of the 2 mixes is not even in the same universe. i will never do an ITB mix again.

That's really something, Timmy. It hasn't been my experience, but maybe the studios I've been in simply haven't had the same quality gear (or possibly the engineering just wasn't as good). Now you've got my curiosity aroused again, and I foresee another Studio/DAW shootout in my future. I'm going to try to find a place with a Neve board and see what we can do. Are you sure it was the Neve that made the difference? Could there have been other factors? Were you using plugins which were the equivalent of the analog studio's gear? Did you try stereo enhancement? Could the D/A converters have had something to do with it? I'm just trying to reconcile my own experience with a very similar situation which turned out quite different for me: I was able to duplicate the studio's mix pretty much exactly, and even enhanced some parts to sound better. But I realize there are dozens of factors at work. I should adjust my opinion to allow for those factors before saying "there's no difference between "in the box" and "out of the box." Obviously there are circumstances where my limited experience just breaks down.

Shooshie

giles117 · Post by **giles117** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:06 am

DA is a big part of it.

Better gear yeilds better results.

How many of us in the forum use 10K Prism COnvertors....

So to Scream wide, blah blah blah... Is subjugated to all the gear you use.

Do you expect a 2408 to sound like a LAvry or Prism????

And it's still digital.

Splinter · Post by **Splinter** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:12 am

Timmy S wrote:I just finnished an album, three years in the making, with upwards of 100 tracks per song. Did all the automation and plug ins in DP. At the end we took it to a Neve console in stems, to try out analog summing. We could not believe the difference. it was not subtle at all. The stereo field was about twice as wide and all the instruments had more of a space to sit in. even the people in the band that do not know about engineering and such noticed the difference. I don't know if it the color of the neve or the process of analog summing but the A/B of the 2 mixes is not even in the same universe. i will never do an ITB mix again.

I wouldn't refute there being a difference, but as Shooshie said, what other factors were involved? Was it a straight stems out, console in, faders at unity, summed and mixed out to DAW scenario? Recording engineer extraordinaire, Lynn Fuston, did a Neve/ProTools summing shootout a while back (which you can buy a CD of to hear for yourself) and no one could tell the difference. Shoot, just listening in a different room will make a dramatic difference.

I think the other huge factor is how many stems were used? I think its a farce to say external summing makes any difference if you are sending 4 stereo stems.

chrispnyc · Post by **chrispnyc** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:26 am

I figure that I should chime in as I use an external analog desk (Soundcraft). I do believe that it sounds better, but that is subjective to say the least...that's not why I do it though. I think I could recreate or create a 'sound' in the box that equalled or surpassed that of the external desk. but...

i do it because ITS FUN!!! I LOVE having those faders to pull on. I love reaching across and grabbing one of hundreds of knobs and getting the perfect sound out of it.

don't forget - if you don't do this for th efun of it, you're in it for the wrong reasons.

chris

Phil O · Post by **Phil O** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:56 am

Frodo wrote:Any more insights to the analog v digital summing debate? Of those tools which are supposed to be "transparent", there must be some sort of non-error-related characteristic-- or no?

Like Splinter, I'm an old analog person myself. A lot of my old gear I designed and built myself. (yes I'm old enough to have designed tube circuitry, and I remember what a razor blade was used for in the studio) Then when op-amps first came out I was in prototype heaven.

But digital is here now and it's here to stay. I think of it like oils vs watercolor vs pastels...just another medium. What one does with it is up to the artist. Which is better? Should we even go there?

I don't believe for a moment that there is NO difference between digital and analog summing. The differences may be small or not discernible by some, but just the act of introducing another analog stage or two (not to mention converters) will change something. It always does. Nothing is completely transparant. It then becomes a question of which tickles your artistic fancy.

my 2 cents

Phil

ryst · Post by **ryst** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:53 am

Hey guys. If you didn't read this discussion when it was "happening' last year, I HIGHLY recommend you read it now. It talks about all sorts of things that I will not begin to discuss here but it's a very good ey opening education to say the least.

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index. ... 918/0/0/0/

Make sure you read all 16 pages.

Resonant Alien · Post by **Resonant Alien** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:07 pm

Totally depends on how you mix. If you mixed on a Neve console for years and came to rely on the natural "sound" of the board itself, but you don't know how to re-create that "sound" in the box with plugins, then the mix through the Neve will absolutely sound different, because the board itself is changing the sound. If you are able to recreate through plugins, then it won't matter

Timmy S · Post by **Timmy S** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:26 pm

I used 20 stereo stems per song to the Neve.. My stems had all my DP automation and plug ins rendered into it. We noticed a difference right away, before any Neve EQ was applied and before we mixed to tape wich made it sound even better. I think the neve has a lot to do with it over other boards because it is has so much color.

Maybe it is my taste. I haven't liked the sound of popular music at all since the late 70's. I am totally opposed the modern, clean, pristine, digital sound. Using the Neve and tape gave me just what i was looking for. Perhaps the key is many stems.

My stems would go like this in Stereo Buses
Kick, snares, Overheads/hi hat/ride, Toms, Rooms,Bass, guitars, organs, string quratet, choir, brass setion, harp, clav, cymbalom, glockenspiel, timpani, etc... ( that is just one song....and none of the sounds are fake )

goodday,
Tim

David Polich · Post by **David Polich** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:28 pm

Timmy S., your comparison isn't a fair one. Did you START the project on the Neve in that studio?. I'm sorry, I can't diagree with you more, your argument is groundless unless ALL factors are equal.

If you are monitoring through some small compact mixer at your home studio and you "compare" that to the same project played back through a Neve console at some high-end studio - duh, of course you'll hear a difference. A fairer comparison would be to do an ITB mix and an external mix through the same console with the same monitors, in the same room, start to finish. I say "fairer" because there are still too many other factors to consider between the ITB and the externally bussed mix - the kinds of factors Nichols pointed out in his SOS article.

In the same issue of SOS, the last-page columnist wrote about the perils of high-end gear elitism - the myth that one can't get a great mix unless one has the vintage German sonic fronabulator mic or 8000 dollar monitors or a rack of Amish-built triple tube compressors and levelers. It's a welcome response to the "gear snobs" who maintain you can't do well without some kind of "pre-requisite" piece of hardware. When I first started reading about the "joys" of externally bussed mixes, I thought oh great, now I gotta go and buy an expensive analog outboard mixer and buss everything out to that, or else my mixes are doomed.

Thankfully, common sense prevailed.

Yes there's a difference between analog and digital - one is analog and one is digital. But mixing skills apply equally to both realms. If it sounds good, it is good. To paraphrase the late Stephen St. Croix, who wrote creativity columns for Mix magazine, if you can't get a great mix in the box from any current DAW, it is your fault.

Timmy S · Post by **Timmy S** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:17 pm

But I can still monitor the results of mixes on CD from both studios ( mine, and the neve) on the same monitors and A/B the results, and I am telling you, it is not even close. That is what everyone who has heard the comparison has said. I know there are ots of factors and this isn't the fairest test, but I know what my body and my ears tell me about sound... and they like the sound of the instruements I recorded to be passed through the neve.

Splinter · Post by **Splinter** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:32 pm

Timmy S wrote:I know there are ots of factors and this isn't the fairest test, but I know what my body and my ears tell me about sound... and they like the sound of the instruements I recorded to be passed through the neve.

Right. And I think that makes the point we are trying to make - you like the color of the Neve. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the summing bus. Your DP mix remains virtually colorless while the Neve is imparting its own sound. The Neve has got its reputation for a reason, but you can't attribute the benefits of it solely to the summing buss.

I want to know what converters and master clock you were using for your "at home" DP mixes and in the studio with the Neve. That can make as dramatic an effect as the console.

It is very common to hear such grandiose claims about external summing with little to no more info about other factors. It is often the hype propagated by OTB crowd and probably bigger studios trying to stay in business.

chrispick · Post by **chrispick** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:59 pm

Splinter wrote:It is very common to hear such grandiose claims about external summing with little to no more info about other factors. It is often the hype propagated by OTB crowd and probably bigger studios trying to stay in business.

Why does it have to be considered hype? Some people like the sound better. Just expressing opinions, right? Certainly, analog devices add subtle aural aberrations and harmonics that many people prefer.

I think bigger studios have more convincing selling points -- notably larger, more acoustically-adjustable recording spaces.

I do agree with your observation in part: I do find some engineers are prone to spouts this sort of binary hyperbole about gear (e.g., "this pre sounds like duck sh*t in a rusty coffee can" versus "this pre sounds like tits and angel wings slathered in butter cream"). Often, the differences are really pretty subtle. I find this especially true when they debate A/D/D/A converters.

Still, for some, pleasure's found in the nth degree. To that, I'm more apt to say "fix your song."

Anyway, FWIW: I mix ITB. Just more convenient for me. But, I do introduce analog qualities prior to the box via preamps and comps.