|
Post by thehightenor on Jun 28, 2022 9:13:01 GMT -6
I really like this guy - he's very experienced, very technically able and I think he's got a funny dry sense of humour.
It's a good watch and possibly enlightening depending on your view point.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 28, 2022 11:17:23 GMT -6
As many of us already knew.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 28, 2022 12:31:43 GMT -6
What are the cliff’s notes? On the beach
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Jun 28, 2022 13:00:19 GMT -6
What are the cliff’s notes? On the beach I think On The Beach was summed on a Quad Eight.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 28, 2022 13:32:23 GMT -6
What are the cliff’s notes? On the beach Zero difference. His null test nulled the audio completely. Only thing left was the power supply noise from the analog summing unit. Remarkable really.
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Jun 28, 2022 13:48:22 GMT -6
What are the cliff’s notes? On the beach Zero difference. His null test nulled the audio completely. Only thing left was the power supply noise from the analog summing unit. Remarkable really. compared to a totally ITB mix?
|
|
|
Post by craigmorris74 on Jun 28, 2022 14:05:54 GMT -6
The summing nulled. The input and output circuitry colors the mix, but the summing of the signals nulls.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 28, 2022 14:06:00 GMT -6
Zero difference. His null test nulled the audio completely. Only thing left was the power supply noise from the analog summing unit. Remarkable really. compared to a totally ITB mix? Yep. The skinny is that he stemmed a bunch of tracks so that he could either use the analog summing, or sum them digitally, to get a stereo mix. Once he did it both ways, he was able to run the null test between them. The only thing left is power supply hum/buzz. You can't hear a single trace of the audio.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jun 28, 2022 16:11:05 GMT -6
yeah I think this is a great video that showcases that really its the nolinear aspects of a summing box that make it great. Not just the summing itself. Which is really just resistors or can just be that anyways.
Which all the more to me at least means if you want a summing box get a colorful one. Otherwise, there is no point.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 28, 2022 16:15:35 GMT -6
Didn't we just go over all of this on another thread?
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jun 28, 2022 16:20:48 GMT -6
Didn't we just go over all of this on another thread? yeah..And i posted this video there. haha
|
|
|
Post by RealNoob on Jun 28, 2022 16:28:28 GMT -6
Wow. Shocked to see it proven. I was holding a solid Mulder - I wanted to believe
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 28, 2022 16:48:39 GMT -6
Is there anyone actually using just a passive summing mixer without some sort of color for make up gain? I appreciate the effort he put into it but I’m not sure anyone is summing that way…at least I’d hope not 🤣
|
|
|
Post by RealNoob on Jun 28, 2022 16:51:30 GMT -6
Is there anyone actually using just a passive summing mixer without some sort of color for make up gain? I appreciate the effort he put into it but I’m not sure anyone is summing that way…at least I’d hope not 🤣 I had one and was using Daking mic pres for makeup gain so it was fairly clean. I let it go after doing more comparisons.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 28, 2022 16:56:49 GMT -6
Is there anyone actually using just a passive summing mixer without some sort of color for make up gain? I appreciate the effort he put into it but I’m not sure anyone is summing that way…at least I’d hope not 🤣 I think the most common belief is that analog summing itself is superior due to an unquantifiable source of euphonics. A colored sounding makeup gain is no different than using a colored plug-in in rendering which makes it no different in overall comparison to using an uncolored makeup gain vs. clean digital rendering .
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 28, 2022 16:57:14 GMT -6
Is there anyone actually using just a passive summing mixer without some sort of color for make up gain? I appreciate the effort he put into it but I’m not sure anyone is summing that way…at least I’d hope not 🤣 Probably not. But, to whip the dead horse yet again, why not just put the color makeup gain on the 2 buss, and save a ton on wiring, conversion, summing box, etc.. Now, for those who need the functionality (especially for wet/dry mixing, hands on faders, etc.), that's an entirely different conversation. I'm assuming we are only talking about sonics in this convo.
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 28, 2022 18:21:44 GMT -6
It just seemed to me the video creator made up his mind and then picked the worst example of summing I can think of(passive) to prove said point. It's like if I said analog gear makes no difference and used all Behringer(no offense) to prove my point. Wouldn't the video be more interesting if you used something like a Burl Vancouver? Even then, you have to mix into it. If you just took an ITB mix and stemmed it out through the Burl, it might not be the right color but it certainly wouldn't null! Anyway...I have a Dangerous 2 Bus...I like it...I mix better/faster through it so... 🤷🏻♂️.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 28, 2022 19:28:07 GMT -6
It just seemed to me the video creator made up his mind and then picked the worst example of summing I can think of(passive) to prove said point. It's like if I said analog gear makes no difference and used all Behringer(no offense) to prove my point. Wouldn't the video be more interesting if you used something like a Burl Vancouver? Even then, you have to mix into it. If you just took an ITB mix and stemmed it out through the Burl, it might not be the right color but it certainly wouldn't null! Anyway...I have a Dangerous 2 Bus...I like it...I mix better/faster through it so... 🤷🏻♂️. He said he let the unit warm up. And you can clearly hear power supply noise in the residuals of the null. Pretty positive that it's an active summing unit. He did the test just fine. The summing portion doesn't add the mythical euphonics it's supposed to and his purpose was to debunk that. He said so in the video. He also said all bets were off if transformers were in the chain, etc. If you use transformers, or other distortion adding devices, of course it'll be different, I don't think there's any epiphanies there and I don't think it has anything to do with his video.
|
|
ji43
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by ji43 on Jun 28, 2022 19:55:21 GMT -6
Is there anyone actually using just a passive summing mixer without some sort of color for make up gain? I appreciate the effort he put into it but I’m not sure anyone is summing that way…at least I’d hope not 🤣 Probably not. But, to whip the dead horse yet again, why not just put the color makeup gain on the 2 buss, and save a ton on wiring, conversion, summing box, etc.. Now, for those who need the functionality (especially for wet/dry mixing, hands on faders, etc.), that's an entirely different conversation. I'm assuming we are only talking about sonics in this convo. So in your experience, a preamp on the 2 bus essentially achieves the "vibe" that people attribute to summing? So line level to mic level pad of some sort, into a preamp for makeup gain?
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 28, 2022 20:08:57 GMT -6
"The unit is designed specifically to be clean and transparent..." That doesn't seem like a good idea for a summing mixer to me.
"I've reused the mix from my omni channel review to test it, I've grouped this down to 8 stereo pairs to feed 16 inputs of the summing mixer." Ok...we have a problem here. If you want to let the summing mixer have the greatest effect possible, why not send each channel's output directly to the channels of the summing mixer? Why group them ITB(digitally summing) first? So, not only is he using a bland summing mixer, but he's only sending 8 stems through it. Oh by the way, the summing mixer had 32 inputs but he only had enough I/O for half the channels(and wasn't willing to spring for proper cabling so just went unbalanced). I appreciate the effort he put into it as I'm well aware that these kinds of tests and videos aren't easy to make. It could have been done much better though.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 28, 2022 20:19:28 GMT -6
Probably not. But, to whip the dead horse yet again, why not just put the color makeup gain on the 2 buss, and save a ton on wiring, conversion, summing box, etc.. Now, for those who need the functionality (especially for wet/dry mixing, hands on faders, etc.), that's an entirely different conversation. I'm assuming we are only talking about sonics in this convo. So in your experience, a preamp on the 2 bus essentially achieves the "vibe" that people attribute to summing? So line level to mic level pad of some sort, into a preamp for makeup gain? This seems to be a delicate subject that some may take offense to - from both sides - so rather than stir things up again, I'll refer you to the previous thread from last week or so. My thoughts are pretty well laid out there. Cheers, realgearonline.com/thread/14251/summing-mixer-which?page=1
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 28, 2022 20:34:43 GMT -6
"The unit is designed specifically to be clean and transparent..." That doesn't seem like a good idea for a summing mixer to me. "I've reused the mix from my omni channel review to test it, I've grouped this down to 8 stereo pairs to feed 16 inputs of the summing mixer." Ok...we have a problem here. If you want to let the summing mixer have the greatest effect possible, why not send each channel's output directly to the channels of the summing mixer? Why group them ITB(digitally summing) first? So, not only is he using a bland summing mixer, but he's only sending 8 stems through it. Oh by the way, the summing mixer had 32 inputs but he only had enough I/O for half the channels(and wasn't willing to spring for proper cabling so just went unbalanced). I appreciate the effort he put into it as I'm well aware that these kinds of tests and videos aren't easy to make. It could have been done much better though. If there's not a clear and obvious difference at 16 channels, I doubt very seriously that 32 channels will suddenly be very obvious. Again, if the summing made ANY difference, it would be clearly audible. Even if it left residuals at -90db they still wouldn't be audible or useful.
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 28, 2022 21:12:18 GMT -6
"The unit is designed specifically to be clean and transparent..." That doesn't seem like a good idea for a summing mixer to me. "I've reused the mix from my omni channel review to test it, I've grouped this down to 8 stereo pairs to feed 16 inputs of the summing mixer." Ok...we have a problem here. If you want to let the summing mixer have the greatest effect possible, why not send each channel's output directly to the channels of the summing mixer? Why group them ITB(digitally summing) first? So, not only is he using a bland summing mixer, but he's only sending 8 stems through it. Oh by the way, the summing mixer had 32 inputs but he only had enough I/O for half the channels(and wasn't willing to spring for proper cabling so just went unbalanced). I appreciate the effort he put into it as I'm well aware that these kinds of tests and videos aren't easy to make. It could have been done much better though. If there's not a clear and obvious difference at 16 channels, I doubt very seriously that 32 channels will suddenly be very obvious. Again, if the summing made ANY difference, it would be clearly audible. Even if it left residuals at -90db they still wouldn't be audible or useful. I hear ya, and agree with this particular summing mixer. I'm just saying if you're going to make a video with a definitive statement like "analog summing makes absolutely no difference" then you owe it to yourself and your viewers not to cut corners. If somethings worth doing it's worth doing right. Otherwise it just seems like more of this click bait YouTube trend.
|
|
|
Post by Bat Lanyard on Jun 28, 2022 21:20:30 GMT -6
I recognize his voice from the Fab Filter demos which are really good over the years. I didn't watch the whole video though because it felt very click-baity.
When I went to the summing route years ago, I was trying to achieve things that aren't based on passive wiring into a stereo pair.
The CAPI SumBus and Burl Vancouver (owned one) aren't just summing devices.
Maybe the discussion needs to get back to "why I can't get the sound I want out of the computer?".
Both very different journeys and neither one right or wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jun 28, 2022 21:21:43 GMT -6
If there's not a clear and obvious difference at 16 channels, I doubt very seriously that 32 channels will suddenly be very obvious. Again, if the summing made ANY difference, it would be clearly audible. Even if it left residuals at -90db they still wouldn't be audible or useful. I hear ya, and agree with this particular summing mixer. I'm just saying if you're going to make a video with a definitive statement like "analog summing makes absolutely no difference" then you owe it to yourself and your viewers not to cut corners. If somethings worth doing it's worth doing right. Otherwise it just seems like more of this click bait YouTube trend. I think you are missing the point. The test was to show that act of summing itself does not improve or change the audio when done in an analog domain. Of course it is going to sound different if you have transformers and amps in the signal path, which pretty much all summing boxes do unless specifically designed not too like the one he was using. Which I thought he made pretty clear. Even most passive summing mixers you use a micpre to make up the gain, which probably is a color mic pre. So of course it'll sound different. So his test was just to prove the summing...as in combining audio signals...in the analog domain does nothing sonically different than summing in the box. Which he proved. If the test was done with say a Capi Sumbus which has input transformers on every channel and discrete op amps and output transformers and DOAs it sound way different but not because it's summing the signal but because you suddenly injected at a minimum 4 transformers and 4 DOA for a stereo stem or up to 34 transformers and 34 DOA into the signal path.
|
|