|
Post by plinker on Jun 29, 2022 10:31:22 GMT -6
I'm going to create and sell a super-cool summing plug that is completely identical to analog summing.
I'll even null-test it to prove how perfectly analog it sounds!
Would anyone like to pre-order?
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jun 29, 2022 11:02:49 GMT -6
I heard the Dangerous Music 2 Bus + and loved what it did for a final mix. It really had that "large console" sound. Let's say that the summing really makes little difference, what else is in the 2 Bus + that gets me the bigger, wider more complex big console sound? Can I just get those parts if the summing makes little difference?
I briefly tried the Silver Bullet and can see how brilliant the design is, but the sound wasn't quite what I was looking for. Whatever is in the 2 Bus + is, and I want that.
I tried the SSL Fusion that gives coloration and was completely unimpressed. I guess I just liked the Dangerous box.
I also liked the Burl Bomber A-D I had for a week, but that is of course a different thing. I mentioned it just to show the way my tastes lean.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jun 29, 2022 11:21:20 GMT -6
I'm going to create and sell a super-cool summing plug that is completely identical to analog summing. I'll even null-test it to prove how perfectly analog it sounds! Would anyone like to pre-order?
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 29, 2022 11:55:44 GMT -6
He used behringer conversion in that video for what it's worth. By the way the d/a and monitoring section alone of the original d-box was worth the price of admission! I did a lot of great work on that little box. Yep, I still own mine. Still sounds great as described. 👍 PS, to be super clear, conversion is not relevant to the issue I was surfacing with older versions of PT HD, but maybe you’re just heaping scorn on Behringer, which I get. 😀 Not trying to rag too hard on Behringer at all(easy target I know)…but isn’t it a bit odd that the Behringer conversion supposedly didn’t alter the sound at all? Like completely crystal clear transparent…Behringer 😁
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 29, 2022 12:20:49 GMT -6
It's not lost on me the fact that it didn't null the first time he tried. It would be interesting if someone took the time and proper effort to counter this test 🤔 You miss the point. The fact that it can null completely at any point is the takeaway. If it was different at all it would never null at any point under any test. Maybe I haven't spoken clearly enough here so I'll try again. I understand the point quite well and am open to the idea that he may in fact be 100% correct. I just contend that the methodology and the execution could have been better to the point of removing all doubt. A video that wouldn't require a bunch of disclaimers up front and after. That's all. Anyway...dead horse at this point but that's my gripe...not that I believe summing is doing something magical, just that I don't think this is the best example to make a determination one way or the other. I just want to see someone do it better and maybe they will? I would volunteer to do it but I don't know what brand he used since he didn't disclose it and I'm not aware of any summing mixers that advertise as being really transparent or clean.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 29, 2022 13:01:14 GMT -6
Yep, I still own mine. Still sounds great as described. 👍 PS, to be super clear, conversion is not relevant to the issue I was surfacing with older versions of PT HD, but maybe you’re just heaping scorn on Behringer, which I get. 😀 Not trying to rag too hard on Behringer at all(easy target I know)…but isn’t it a bit odd that the Behringer conversion supposedly didn’t alter the sound at all? Like completely crystal clear transparent…Behringer 😁 I dunno. Converter quality can have many different variables. Perhaps the power supply buzz we heard in the residual noise was actually from the DACs and not the summing unit? Perhaps it was a mix of both. Either way, the argument that behringer converters adds sound is valid, but how much would they add? It could be that they add less than the power supply noise, which did seem quite high. So still, nulling the audio down to below the power supply noise is significant. If you were suggesting shenanigans, then why is there only power supply noise left? Why not total silence and claim it was perfect?
|
|
|
Post by jacobamerritt on Jun 29, 2022 13:13:51 GMT -6
I think this touches on the thing that many including myself have been wondering (and confirming) that printing a mix through a 2 buss with transformers, tubes, etc is where the 'flavor' comes from. And also that some summing boxes have mojo that this dudes' does not. Still seems a nice summing box is a useful tool depending on workflow, and folks who don't track through especially vibey/colorful outboard on the way into their DAW. IMO A couple nice channel strips and a good stereo comp would be the way to go if you want to give your final mixes a little extra special sauce.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 29, 2022 13:14:20 GMT -6
You miss the point. The fact that it can null completely at any point is the takeaway. If it was different at all it would never null at any point under any test. Maybe I haven't spoken clearly enough here so I'll try again. I understand the point quite well and am open to the idea that he may in fact be 100% correct. I just contend that the methodology and the execution could have been better to the point of removing all doubt. A video that wouldn't require a bunch of disclaimers up front and after. That's all. Anyway...dead horse at this point but that's my gripe...not that I believe summing is doing something magical, just that I don't think this is the best example to make a determination one way or the other. I just want to see someone do it better and maybe they will? I would volunteer to do it but I don't know what brand he used since he didn't disclose it and I'm not aware of any summing mixers that advertise as being really transparent or clean. Ok. It just seems like you're picking at small details that I don't believe would change the outcome at all. But one note.. "just that I don't think this is the best example to make a determination one way or the other" I don't know how much clearer it needs to be than totally nulling the audio. ANY small differences would not allow total nulling. Just a fraction of a dB of any frequency or a degree or two of phase difference and you'd ruin the nulling. I can't overstate how sensitive these null tests are to level and phase.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 29, 2022 13:29:45 GMT -6
You miss the point. The fact that it can null completely at any point is the takeaway. If it was different at all it would never null at any point under any test. Maybe I haven't spoken clearly enough here so I'll try again. I understand the point quite well and am open to the idea that he may in fact be 100% correct. I just contend that the methodology and the execution could have been better to the point of removing all doubt. A video that wouldn't require a bunch of disclaimers up front and after. That's all. Anyway...dead horse at this point but that's my gripe...not that I believe summing is doing something magical, just that I don't think this is the best example to make a determination one way or the other. I just want to see someone do it better and maybe they will? I would volunteer to do it but I don't know what brand he used since he didn't disclose it and I'm not aware of any summing mixers that advertise as being really transparent or clean. If I were going to try to do a test like this, I suppose I would try to compare the following: 1. 16 channels summed through a simple passive summing mixer like the Folcrom. Just wires and resistors. There would also be NO analog makeup gain. It would go out of the Folcrom and right back into two channels of the converters and then makeup gain would be done digitally in the DAW. 2. Just as a sort of control (which I realize is not strictly correct in this scenario) I'd run those same 16 channels out of each DA and loop those 16 channels back into each respective AD (all 16 channels) and then sum those digitally in the DAW. 3. Sum all 16 channels digitally (also as a control-ish point of comparison) but then loop back the two channel mix from DA to AD and back into the DAW. 4. Do a typical digital sum of all 16 channels entirely within the DAW. No DA/AD loopback. That way there's no analog gain going on whatsoever. It seems like it would just remove one more analog-domain variable from the equation. The various loopbacks described above are basically just an attempt to create more of an apples to apples comparison which accounts for whatever variances the DA and/or AD conversion may be adding or subtracting. Numbers 2 and 3 above probably don't actually matter much, but what the hell. The comparison between numbers 1 and 4 are what I'd really be interested in. There's probably ways that this could all be picked apart too, but I'd be interested in seeing the results, nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 29, 2022 13:42:22 GMT -6
Maybe I haven't spoken clearly enough here so I'll try again. I understand the point quite well and am open to the idea that he may in fact be 100% correct. I just contend that the methodology and the execution could have been better to the point of removing all doubt. A video that wouldn't require a bunch of disclaimers up front and after. That's all. Anyway...dead horse at this point but that's my gripe...not that I believe summing is doing something magical, just that I don't think this is the best example to make a determination one way or the other. I just want to see someone do it better and maybe they will? I would volunteer to do it but I don't know what brand he used since he didn't disclose it and I'm not aware of any summing mixers that advertise as being really transparent or clean. Ok. It just seems like you're picking at small details that I don't believe would change the outcome at all. But one note.. "just that I don't think this is the best example to make a determination one way or the other" I don't know how much clearer it needs to be than totally nulling the audio. ANY small differences would not allow total nulling. Just a fraction of a dB of any frequency or a degree or two of phase difference and you'd ruin the nulling. I can't overstate how sensitive these null tests are to level and phase. Yeah I'm nitpicking and for what it's worth I do this to myself when I make a video. I think it's important, this is our industry, these are people's products and livelihood. In general I don't share the same skepticism that this snake oil brand of YouTubers do towards gear manufacturers and plug in developers, but I do have that skepticism towards them LOL. Why? Because I know exactly how much this stuff pays and it can be awfully tempting to stir the pot to make some quick cash..consequences be damned. Consider this, he admitted he ran the test before making the video and it didn't null. It didn't null again the 2nd time he tried(around the 8:50 mark). So to get it to finally null he starts soloing pairs(1-2, 3-4, etc..) and bouncing them one at a time(are we even summing at this point?). "I've just proved that analog summing makes no difference" he says. No, no you didn't. You proved that if you make a video with no actual footage of the unit you used, not showing any part of your calibration process(or recalibrating you did to finally make it null). Not even caring enough to have decent cabling...you can confirm the bias you came into it with. Sorry, there are just about a dozen times in this video that don't pass the smell test. I couldn't' care less if the next guy is mixing completely ITB or on a huge console. What I do care about is we seem to be going through the daytime talkshow/cable news era of YouTube content creators in our industry and it's annoying to me. Guys crapping all over plugins, gear, etc... not even reading manuals...not taking the time to do things the best way. Seemingly just interested in views and subcribers(aka money) not the actual truth. If nothing in this video stands out as odd to you, then so be it. I'm not trying to convince you that you need a summing mixer. Not at all! I'm sure you're just as happy with your set up as I am and that's all that matters in the end.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2022 13:50:39 GMT -6
It didn’t null. An D->A->D loopback is impossible to null due to phase shift in the da if not dc coupled, phase shift in the ad, the black boxes of noise shaping that are the mass produced converter ics, and lots of amplification meaning distortion. There’s so much junk in the Behringer x32 or any Behringer signal path that pretty much anything leaving the console is going to be negatively affected.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 29, 2022 13:53:21 GMT -6
Ok. It just seems like you're picking at small details that I don't believe would change the outcome at all. But one note.. "just that I don't think this is the best example to make a determination one way or the other" I don't know how much clearer it needs to be than totally nulling the audio. ANY small differences would not allow total nulling. Just a fraction of a dB of any frequency or a degree or two of phase difference and you'd ruin the nulling. I can't overstate how sensitive these null tests are to level and phase. So to get it to finally null he starts soloing pairs(1-2, 3-4, etc..) and bouncing them one at a time(are we even summing at this point?). The first thing that came to mind when I saw that part of the video is that this potentially negates the impact of cross talk happening across 16 channels spread out in a summing mixer.
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 29, 2022 13:58:58 GMT -6
Maybe I haven't spoken clearly enough here so I'll try again. I understand the point quite well and am open to the idea that he may in fact be 100% correct. I just contend that the methodology and the execution could have been better to the point of removing all doubt. A video that wouldn't require a bunch of disclaimers up front and after. That's all. Anyway...dead horse at this point but that's my gripe...not that I believe summing is doing something magical, just that I don't think this is the best example to make a determination one way or the other. I just want to see someone do it better and maybe they will? I would volunteer to do it but I don't know what brand he used since he didn't disclose it and I'm not aware of any summing mixers that advertise as being really transparent or clean. If I were going to try to do a test like this, I suppose I would try to compare the following: 1. 16 channels summed through a simple passive summing mixer like the Folcrom. Just wires and resistors. There would also be no analog makeup gain. It would go out of the Folcrom and right back into two channels of the converters and then makeup gain would be done digitally in the DAW. 2. Just as a sort of control (which I realize is not strictly correct in this scenario) I'd run those same 16 channels out of each DA and loop those 16 channels back into each respective AD (all 16 channels) and then sum those digitally in the DAW. 3. Sum all 16 channels digitally (also as a control-ish point of comparison) but then loop back the two channel mix from DA to AD and back into the DAW. 4. Do a typical digital sum of all 16 channels entirely within the DAW. No DA/AD loopback. That way there's no analog gain going on whatsoever. It seems like it would just remove one more analog-domain variable from the equation. The various loopbacks described above are basically just an attempt to create more of an apples to apples comparison which accounts for whatever variances the DA and/or AD conversion may be adding or subtracting. There's probably ways that this could all be picked apart too, but I'd be interested in seeing the results, nonetheless. Man I forgot about the Folcrom! That is a blast from the past. I remember hearing some mixes Mike Shipley did through that set up 20 years ago or so that blew me away(using cranesong flamingo pres for makeup gain). That would be the perfect summing mixer for this test! Just to add a couple of more options, what do you think about running a mix that goes Folcrom > Mic Pres and then another that just hits the mic pres with no folcrom. That may give us some insight into a summing mixer vs silver bullet/fusion style boxes. Would definitely be interesting!
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 29, 2022 14:00:22 GMT -6
I think this touches on the thing that many including myself have been wondering (and confirming) that printing a mix through a 2 buss with transformers, tubes, etc is where the 'flavor' comes from. And also that some summing boxes have mojo that this dudes' does not. Still seems a nice summing box is a useful tool depending on workflow, and folks who don't track through especially vibey/colorful outboard on the way into their DAW. IMO A couple nice channel strips and a good stereo comp would be the way to go if you want to give your final mixes a little extra special sauce. I think people are maybe missing what summing is. Combining signals through a resistor network is summing but lossy. In the end summing is gain. Gain has THD and distortion and that will depend on the characteristics of the amplifier.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 29, 2022 14:03:03 GMT -6
If I were going to try to do a test like this, I suppose I would try to compare the following: 1. 16 channels summed through a simple passive summing mixer like the Folcrom. Just wires and resistors. There would also be no analog makeup gain. It would go out of the Folcrom and right back into two channels of the converters and then makeup gain would be done digitally in the DAW. 2. Just as a sort of control (which I realize is not strictly correct in this scenario) I'd run those same 16 channels out of each DA and loop those 16 channels back into each respective AD (all 16 channels) and then sum those digitally in the DAW. 3. Sum all 16 channels digitally (also as a control-ish point of comparison) but then loop back the two channel mix from DA to AD and back into the DAW. 4. Do a typical digital sum of all 16 channels entirely within the DAW. No DA/AD loopback. That way there's no analog gain going on whatsoever. It seems like it would just remove one more analog-domain variable from the equation. The various loopbacks described above are basically just an attempt to create more of an apples to apples comparison which accounts for whatever variances the DA and/or AD conversion may be adding or subtracting. There's probably ways that this could all be picked apart too, but I'd be interested in seeing the results, nonetheless. Man I forgot about the Folcrom! That is a blast from the past. I remember hearing some mixes Mike Shipley did through that set up 20 years ago or so that blew me away(using cranesong flamingo pres for makeup gain). That would be the perfect summing mixer for this test! Just to add a couple of more options, what do you think about running a mix that goes Folcrom > Mic Pres and then another that just hits the mic pres with no folcrom. That may give us some insight into a summing mixer vs silver bullet/fusion style boxes. Would definitely be interesting! Yeah, there would be nothing wrong with adding those two scenarios as well. I was mostly just trying to isolate analog summing down to its true essence and eliminate all analog gain stages to compare analog and digital summing on a more even playing field. But someone doing such a test might as well go ahead and add those other two scenarios you mentioned just to compare them.
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 29, 2022 14:03:30 GMT -6
I forgot to mention...I would prefer a test of this sort to include vocals in the song too.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 29, 2022 14:06:04 GMT -6
I think this touches on the thing that many including myself have been wondering (and confirming) that printing a mix through a 2 buss with transformers, tubes, etc is where the 'flavor' comes from. And also that some summing boxes have mojo that this dudes' does not. Still seems a nice summing box is a useful tool depending on workflow, and folks who don't track through especially vibey/colorful outboard on the way into their DAW. IMO A couple nice channel strips and a good stereo comp would be the way to go if you want to give your final mixes a little extra special sauce. I think people are maybe missing what summing is. Combining signals through a resistor network is summing but lossy. In the end summing is gain. Gain has THD and distortion and that will depend on the characteristics of the amplifier. But if you do the makeup gain digitally instead of in analog, you're cutting that stuff out. Well, at least you're cutting out the makeup gain portion. There's nothing that can be done about the opamps and what not associated with the converters, but conversion, by any general measure, is way less impactful on the signal than makeup gain in a summing mixer. Granted you could then get into a discussion about bit loss and all of that stuff, but with 24 bit conversion I think you'd still stand a much greater chance of being able to compare what the actual summing is or isn't bringing to the table. At least that's the point I was trying to make. I can't speak for others.
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 29, 2022 14:08:07 GMT -6
I think this touches on the thing that many including myself have been wondering (and confirming) that printing a mix through a 2 buss with transformers, tubes, etc is where the 'flavor' comes from. And also that some summing boxes have mojo that this dudes' does not. Still seems a nice summing box is a useful tool depending on workflow, and folks who don't track through especially vibey/colorful outboard on the way into their DAW. IMO A couple nice channel strips and a good stereo comp would be the way to go if you want to give your final mixes a little extra special sauce. I think people are maybe missing what summing is. Combining signals through a resistor network is summing but lossy. In the end summing is gain. Gain has THD and distortion and that will depend on the characteristics of the amplifier. This is getting way above my technical pay grade LOL. Thanks for chiming in Matt, in your professional opinion, do you think getting a summing mixer to completely null with an ITB mix is technically even possible? I can completely see the argument being made that a summing mixer either improved or degraded the sound...but did nothing at all, even with two stages of conversion?
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 29, 2022 14:08:44 GMT -6
I forgot to mention...I would prefer a test of this sort to include vocals in the song too. Might as well run full frequency spectrum (20 to 20) pink/white noise thru it as well.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 29, 2022 14:34:50 GMT -6
Ok. It just seems like you're picking at small details that I don't believe would change the outcome at all. But one note.. "just that I don't think this is the best example to make a determination one way or the other" I don't know how much clearer it needs to be than totally nulling the audio. ANY small differences would not allow total nulling. Just a fraction of a dB of any frequency or a degree or two of phase difference and you'd ruin the nulling. I can't overstate how sensitive these null tests are to level and phase. Yeah I'm nitpicking and for what it's worth I do this to myself when I make a video. I think it's important, this is our industry, these are people's products and livelihood. In general I don't share the same skepticism that this snake oil brand of YouTubers do towards gear manufacturers and plug in developers, but I do have that skepticism towards them LOL. Why? Because I know exactly how much this stuff pays and it can be awfully tempting to stir the pot to make some quick cash..consequences be damned. Consider this, he admitted he ran the test before making the video and it didn't null. It didn't null again the 2nd time he tried(around the 8:50 mark). So to get it to finally null he starts soloing pairs(1-2, 3-4, etc..) and bouncing them one at a time(are we even summing at this point?). "I've just proved that analog summing makes no difference" he says. No, no you didn't. You proved that if you make a video with no actual footage of the unit you used, not showing any part of your calibration process(or recalibrating you did to finally make it null). Not even caring enough to have decent cabling...you can confirm the bias you came into it with. Sorry, there are just about a dozen times in this video that don't pass the smell test. I couldn't' care less if the next guy is mixing completely ITB or on a huge console. What I do care about is we seem to be going through the daytime talkshow/cable news era of YouTube content creators in our industry and it's annoying to me. Guys crapping all over plugins, gear, etc... not even reading manuals...not taking the time to do things the best way. Seemingly just interested in views and subcribers(aka money) not the actual truth. If nothing in this video stands out as odd to you, then so be it. I'm not trying to convince you that you need a summing mixer. Not at all! I'm sure you're just as happy with your set up as I am and that's all that matters in the end. While working on RF stuff here at work, we have this part that needs I/Q (complex) differential pairs feeding from a high speed DAC through low pass filters and finally into the part itself. The I/Q signal is in quadrature format so that we can use phase shifting and summation to nullify mix images that fold over from other frequency domains (such as negative frequencies) as well as use 0hz as a valid frequency (called baseband or zero-IF). This doubles the bandwidth over using the usual positive domain signals and allows you to use much lower frequency parts. It's also called single-sideband mixing which some ham radio folks might recognize. In any case, the complex signals are generated from a pair of DACs. The signals in this case are identical but one is shifted 90 degrees in phase (Q). The drawback to a signal like this is that if you generate a signal in the positive domain you'll get an "image" signal in the negative domain at the exact same offset. I.E., if you generate 10MHz, you'll get one at -10MHz as well. 5MHz will have -5MHz, etc. This ruins your ability to utilize full bandwidth around zero. Once through the anti-alias filters the Q signal is then shifted again 90 degrees. The Q signal is now 180 degrees out of phase from I and will null out when I and Q are summed. However, that's only the theory behind it. Nulling is never good enough without calibration due to physical attributes of the system. You need to be able to modify 3 main attributes: I/Q DC offset: DC offset and LO bleed-through will cause a spike at 0Hz. Equalizing the offset will null it out. I/Q amplitude: Amplitude needs to be matched to tenths of a decibel to null. I/Q phase: Phase needs to be matched to tenths of a degree to null. All these things need to be balanced in a specific order and typically tweaked on the fly as temperature and power fluctuates. A few degrees of temperature change can render the calibration moot, so temperature compensation curves needed to be developed to keep the nulling within specs. Why do I mention these things? Because I spent a month working on this one circuit, taking data, testing calibration algorithms, perfecting the filters, the trace matching, the offset/amplitude/phase settings to get 80-90dBc of nulling across 50MHz of bandwidth. Every little nuance of nulling signals in a high-speed system was researched and tested. I just want folks to know that I'm not just stating an opinion without some kind of knowledge backing it up. I've seen first hand what signal nulling takes, and what doesn't matter. I know exactly the pitfalls the guy ran into with his 3 attempts because I ran into them as well, and have in audio nulling as well. I applaud him for continuing to persevere. Many would have stopped at the first try and either dropped it altogether or perhaps proclaimed that analog summing DID make a difference. All the folks who wanted a failure to null would have applauded and the ones who wanted the summing to null completely would have cried foul. The opposite of what's happing here. I think a lot of things in audio that are supposed to make huge differences don't actually make much difference at all. Working at much higher speeds has taught me what small differences really are. So while you see small things that could be done better because you think they'll change the outcome, I see small things that should have caused it to fail nullification but didn't, so they must not matter. Making attributes of his test better would only increase the nulling he's obtained, not reduce it. So the argument for "better testing" would only reinforce the current findings IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 29, 2022 14:39:13 GMT -6
I forgot to mention...I would prefer a test of this sort to include vocals in the song too. Might as well run full frequency spectrum (20 to 20) pink/white noise thru it as well. Won't work. By nature white noise is random so there would be no way to phase shift it 180 degrees to null because there would be no correlation. You need a repeating signal that can be correlated before polarity reversal can null it.
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 29, 2022 14:51:20 GMT -6
svart , thanks for sharing your info. I've never doubted your expertise or contributions for one second just to be clear. I highly respect you and your experience. One small correction to the last statement, I'm not criticizing small things in the test because I think it would make the outcome different. It's just for me, I require those things to accept the findings, when the YouTuber states them so matter of factly(with any kind of test or shootout). I don't care what the findings are actually because I would never use a summing mixer in that way so it's not going to shatter my world if he does a round 2 and crosses every t and dots every i.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 29, 2022 14:53:59 GMT -6
Might as well run full frequency spectrum (20 to 20) pink/white noise thru it as well. Won't work. By nature white noise is random so there would be no way to phase shift it 180 degrees to null because there would be no correlation. You need a repeating signal that can be correlated before polarity reversal can null it. I know you know more about this stuff than I, but if you recorded noise onto 16 tracks and used those tracks for all of your tests, random as the noise may or may not be, how is that any different than playing back actual music, for the purposes of such a test? It's still comparing two identical signals, (two identically random signals, if you will), but just 180 degrees out of phase from one another. The generator creating said noise might be random but, once it's recorded onto a track, it shouldn't matter what the signal even is beyond that point. All that should matter is that the return signal is phase flipped for the purposes of the test, no? In any case, it could be whatever kind of full frequency signal you wanted. I was just throwing it out there that it might not be unuseful to have something that is truly full frequency spectrum as a test signal. Also, to be clear, I actually think I tend to agree with your position that analog summing doesn't do much, if anything, in and of itself, and that it's the gain stages that are actually what makes people like analog summing. I'm mostly just discussing the topic out of curiosity and interest because it does seem to me that there could possibly be a better way to perform such a test than what was done in the video.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 29, 2022 15:08:06 GMT -6
What I’m saying is… summing is just resistors tied together. No one would (or should) expect that a single resistor is going to have a sound. Passive and active summing deal with how the resulting combined signals are handled or amplified. It’s. A high gain operation.
Limiting summing to resistors without the combining or makeup amp seems kind of like evaluating a mic pre using only a cable.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 29, 2022 15:16:28 GMT -6
What I’m saying is… summing is just resistors tied together. No one would (or should) expect that a single resistor is going to have a sound. Passive and active summing deal with how the resulting combined signals are handled or amplified. It’s. A high gain operation. Limiting summing to resistors without the combining or makeup amp seems kind of like evaluating a mic pre using only a cable. I think you're missing the point of the discussion though. I get that you're saying makeup gain is a necessary component IF you're going to use passive summing. What is being discussed though is if the wire and resistors themselves actually bring anything to the party or if it all truly comes down to the makeup gain stages inherent to a summing mixer. If it's the former, then there remains some validity to the idea of summing in the analog domain. If it's the latter, one could just introduce those same gain stages at the same points in the signal flow and basically achieve the same thing.
|
|