|
|
Post by OtisGreying on Jan 21, 2021 14:15:21 GMT -6
But does the cascading summing/makeup gain affect the sound versus just cascading line level amps? As Matt pointed out, the *summing* resistor network does not affect tone, only signal level. The makeup amplifiers are where the tone change lies, and can be affected from the summing bus impedance as well as the gain structure itself. Cascading amps is the same thing as using something like a multi-stage preamp like a 1073. The tone is relative to how you use each piece. Personally, I experimented with summing networks thoroughly a dozen years ago. I built multiple different kinds: external, internal, high loss, low loss, virtual earth, etc. To tell the truth, the tone you get is entirely the amp you use. The noise degradation is based on what method you use. I've since moved to ITB summing and have heard little difference in my mixes. I even took a hybrid mix I did (very little ITB work, mostly mixer/external hardware) and copied my signal flow ITB with similar plugs emulating the rack gear.. And it was almost identical.. Just a lot lower noise. If you want the same tones, just add some preamp emulation plugs to your master bus in your DAW and you're pretty much there. I appreciate the suggestion, but I question whether preamp emulation plug-ins are on the same level as the quality hardware counterpart, especially when stacking multiple instances. Spending more for the better sonics and peace of mind to put the convo to bed is worth it to me at the moment. Just trying to figure out how best to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Jan 21, 2021 14:38:49 GMT -6
Maybe cascading is the wrong word, compounding saturation from the busses being routed into eacother is what I mean. He states clearly that the Drums bus w/ Stereo Pre's cascade/compound and route into the All Music buss which has another Stereo Pre. Then the seperate Vocal buss w/ another stereo pre and the All Music buss route into the Stereo Mix buss which has then the final stereo pre.
So for example the Drums buss is meeting/cascading into 3 sets of stereo pre's saturation thats compounding in the final mix whereas a normal summing mixer ALL stems and tracks would only meet 1 instance of whatever preamp is providing coloration.
Right. That's how a real console works. Typical summing mixer like a 16x2 has only one amp stage at the end. Consoles with multiple buses have multiple amp stages, one for each bus. If we follow the signal flow, each individual bus is (typically) only hitting 2 amp stages. Drums hit the amp stage when they get dumped to the 2 mix bus and another stage when the 2 mix hits the end of the line and drives the 2-track recorder & speakers. As for summing ITB vs OTB... Have to admit that I was underwhelmed watching that video. It was cool in a techno geek way but personally didn't take much away from it. What I did agree with was his thought that a lot of standard summing boxes leave out an important piece of the puzzle vs having an actual console, which is multiple points to control gain staging. There are a few ways around it, his solution was to build a mini-console and use the outboard automation box to fine tune levels post compression/processing like an actual console. And that was rad! IMO its not much of a challenge to mix something OTB vs ITB and emulate it either way. The bigger picture for me is that ITB vs OTB represents two completely different paths to two different destinations. Could go off on a tangent here but its something I debated a lot last year since I revamped my entire rig top to bottom. But in a nutshell mixing on a console w/analog summing the song is going to be really different then if I had stayed ITB. Mostly because if I'm summing analog then I have access to a whole other toolbox with a completely different set of tricks and possibilities. When I get into the physical outboard I'm taking different approach to things. Not to say that one is better then the other, but for me OTB vs ITB is a completely different world. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 21, 2021 14:47:24 GMT -6
Its been a while since I watched that video, but I don't think he's using mic amps for makeup gain like I think you think he is? Technically he probably could've called that video "I built a passive summing mixer" Passive mixer is just resistors and bus bar. There's gain loss so an amplifier stage is needed at the end of the line. It's an oversimplification but technically the summing bus of an old Neve is that with some 1272s for gain... His thing wasn't cascading amp sections into each other, they're discrete sections. Drums would be resistor network, an amp and get dumped to another resistor network. Rinse and repeat for vocals, instruments etc with one last discrete amplifier at the end of the line, the main resistor bus as the final 2 mix. What his thing does vs a standard summing mixer is offer more control over gain staging in the analog domain. And yes, changing the amp topology will absolutely change the sound. Maybe cascading is the wrong word, compounding saturation from the busses being routed into eacother is what I mean. He states clearly that the Drums bus w/ Stereo Pre's cascade/compound and route into the All Music buss which has another Stereo Pre. Then the seperate Vocal buss w/ another stereo pre and the All Music buss route into the Stereo Mix buss which has then the final stereo pre.
So for example the Drums buss is meeting/cascading into 3 sets of stereo pre's saturation thats compounding in the final mix whereas a normal summing mixer ALL stems and tracks would only meet 1 instance of whatever preamp is providing coloration.
I get it. IMO, there are much easier ways to accomplish the same thing tonally. |
|
|
|
Post by OtisGreying on Jan 21, 2021 15:00:06 GMT -6
Maybe cascading is the wrong word, compounding saturation from the busses being routed into eacother is what I mean. He states clearly that the Drums bus w/ Stereo Pre's cascade/compound and route into the All Music buss which has another Stereo Pre. Then the seperate Vocal buss w/ another stereo pre and the All Music buss route into the Stereo Mix buss which has then the final stereo pre.
So for example the Drums buss is meeting/cascading into 3 sets of stereo pre's saturation thats compounding in the final mix whereas a normal summing mixer ALL stems and tracks would only meet 1 instance of whatever preamp is providing coloration.
I get it. IMO, there are much easier ways to accomplish the same thing tonally. drBill, do you suggest just using hardware inserts on busses? Whats your preferred gain staging method in this case? |
|
|
|
Post by OtisGreying on Jan 21, 2021 15:05:40 GMT -6
Maybe cascading is the wrong word, compounding saturation from the busses being routed into eacother is what I mean. He states clearly that the Drums bus w/ Stereo Pre's cascade/compound and route into the All Music buss which has another Stereo Pre. Then the seperate Vocal buss w/ another stereo pre and the All Music buss route into the Stereo Mix buss which has then the final stereo pre.
So for example the Drums buss is meeting/cascading into 3 sets of stereo pre's saturation thats compounding in the final mix whereas a normal summing mixer ALL stems and tracks would only meet 1 instance of whatever preamp is providing coloration.
Have to admit that I was underwhelmed watching that video. It was cool in a techno geek way but personally didn't take much away from it. What I did agree with was his thought that a lot of standard summing boxes leave out an important piece of the puzzle vs having an actual console, which is multiple points to control gain staging. There are a few ways around it, his solution was to build a mini-console and use the outboard automation box to fine tune levels post compression/processing like an actual console. And that was rad! IMO its not much of a challenge to mix something OTB vs ITB and emulate it either way. The bigger picture for me is that ITB vs OTB represents two completely different paths to two different destinations. Could go off on a tangent here but its something I debated a lot last year since I revamped my entire rig top to bottom. But in a nutshell mixing on a console w/analog summing the song is going to be really different then if I had stayed ITB. Mostly because if I'm summing analog then I have access to a whole other toolbox with a completely different set of tricks and possibilities. When I get into the physical outboard I'm taking different approach to things. Not to say that one is better then the other, but for me OTB vs ITB is a completely different world. Underwhelmed with the difference in the comparison ITB vs OTB he provided? I felt that the OTB provided a presence in the vocal and a finish that seemed pretty desireable to me. |
|
|
|
Post by OtisGreying on Jan 21, 2021 17:44:55 GMT -6
EV's update on the subject: he feels the utility in the summing mixer is more so less latency and less conversions, and he'll be introducing a UTA summing mixer soon.
I guess depending on how many conversions you'd no longer need for your set up by using this unit you can gauge whether its worth it or not. Along with the convenience of less latency. And perhaps (maybe) some extremely subtle sonic gain from the summing many on gearslutz would argue.
Interesting!
Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 21, 2021 18:26:24 GMT -6
I get it. IMO, there are much easier ways to accomplish the same thing tonally. drBill, do you suggest just using hardware inserts on busses? Whats your preferred gain staging method in this case? Yeah, that's the essence of my approach. Massive amounts of hardware inserts on both individual tracks, and busses as well. As far as gain staging "method" goes, I just gain stage appropriate to what I'm after -- whether that's squeaky clean with high headroom, or grungy and saturated, linking 4 or 5 analog units together, or going with a 100% digital chain. Whatever is needed is where I head and I'll push or pull inputs or outputs based on my experience and chain as appropriate. |
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Jan 21, 2021 21:42:31 GMT -6
Underwhelmed with the content in general but I'm kinda jaded. Had been hoping for more of a look at his workflow on that one...
I do probably 93% of mixing, which makes up the majority of my income with an analog desk and outboard.
IMO its a cleaner flow then dealing with hardware inserts on a DAW. If I'm mixing ITB I tend to not leave it.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 21, 2021 22:44:57 GMT -6
IMO its a cleaner flow then dealing with hardware inserts on a DAW. If I'm mixing ITB I tend to not leave it. J - the hybrid system I've currently set up is way simpler work flow than any mixing console setup that I've ever had - and I've had 8+ consoles and several studios. Simple, super fast, and it gets me where I want to go almost instantly. Faster and easier and better sonically than either a console or ITB workflow for me. The hardest part is remembering to turn all the racks on....  |
|
|
|
Post by nick8801 on Jan 22, 2021 6:43:53 GMT -6
But does the cascading summing/makeup gain affect the sound versus just cascading line level amps? As Matt pointed out, the *summing* resistor network does not affect tone, only signal level. The makeup amplifiers are where the tone change lies, and can be affected from the summing bus impedance as well as the gain structure itself.  Cascading amps is the same thing as using something like a multi-stage preamp like a 1073.  The tone is relative to how you use each piece. Personally, I experimented with summing networks thoroughly a dozen years ago. I built multiple different kinds: external, internal, high loss, low loss, virtual earth, etc. To tell the truth, the tone you get is entirely the amp you use. The noise degradation is based on what method you use.  I've since moved to ITB summing and have heard little difference in my mixes. I even took a hybrid mix I did (very little ITB work, mostly mixer/external hardware) and copied my signal flow ITB with similar plugs emulating the rack gear.. And it was almost identical.. Just a lot lower noise. If you want the same tones, just add some preamp emulation plugs to your master bus in your DAW and you're pretty much there. I experienced the same thing. In the end, the extra effort of outboard processing just weren’t worth it. |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 22, 2021 7:51:54 GMT -6
I also tried resistor summing with mic preamp makeup gain, and I wasn't really impressed enough to keep using it. The same mic pres without the resistor summing were similar enough, although there were some subtle differences.
Great discussion, it's nice to hear a technical version of this rather than the usual dancing about unicorns.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 22, 2021 8:35:39 GMT -6
As Matt pointed out, the *summing* resistor network does not affect tone, only signal level. The makeup amplifiers are where the tone change lies, and can be affected from the summing bus impedance as well as the gain structure itself. Cascading amps is the same thing as using something like a multi-stage preamp like a 1073. The tone is relative to how you use each piece. Personally, I experimented with summing networks thoroughly a dozen years ago. I built multiple different kinds: external, internal, high loss, low loss, virtual earth, etc. To tell the truth, the tone you get is entirely the amp you use. The noise degradation is based on what method you use. I've since moved to ITB summing and have heard little difference in my mixes. I even took a hybrid mix I did (very little ITB work, mostly mixer/external hardware) and copied my signal flow ITB with similar plugs emulating the rack gear.. And it was almost identical.. Just a lot lower noise. If you want the same tones, just add some preamp emulation plugs to your master bus in your DAW and you're pretty much there. I appreciate the suggestion, but I question whether preamp emulation plug-ins are on the same level as the quality hardware counterpart, especially when stacking multiple instances. Spending more for the better sonics and peace of mind to put the convo to bed is worth it to me at the moment. Just trying to figure out how best to do it. And this is where I had to ask myself back in the day, "am I going for effect, or trying to copy tone". After tons of time trying to copy someone's tones I made the realization that it was impossible. The overall effect is easy. Just add plugin emulation for general EQ and harmonic content and some saturation to gel it together. The effect of source loading through the summing network can probably never be cloned perfectly. There's just too many variables. The difference between a preamp and it's plugin emulation is just as much as the difference between two antique preamps. |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 22, 2021 8:54:33 GMT -6
I appreciate the suggestion, but I question whether preamp emulation plug-ins are on the same level as the quality hardware counterpart, especially when stacking multiple instances. Spending more for the better sonics and peace of mind to put the convo to bed is worth it to me at the moment. Just trying to figure out how best to do it. And this is where I had to ask myself back in the day, "am I going for effect, or trying to copy tone". After tons of time trying to copy someone's tones I made the realization that it was impossible. The overall effect is easy. Just add plugin emulation for general EQ and harmonic content and some saturation to gel it together. The effect of source loading through the summing network can probably never be cloned perfectly. There's just too many variables. The difference between a preamp and it's plugin emulation is just as much as the difference between two antique preamps.Or two "clones" of the same preamp, or two plugins of the same preamp. Or two plugin clones of two different antique preamps of the same model. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 22, 2021 8:57:41 GMT -6
And this is where I had to ask myself back in the day, "am I going for effect, or trying to copy tone". After tons of time trying to copy someone's tones I made the realization that it was impossible. The overall effect is easy. Just add plugin emulation for general EQ and harmonic content and some saturation to gel it together. The effect of source loading through the summing network can probably never be cloned perfectly. There's just too many variables. The difference between a preamp and it's plugin emulation is just as much as the difference between two antique preamps.Or two "clones" of the same preamp, or two plugins of the same preamp. Or two plugin clones of two different antique preamps of the same model. Gotta love the 20-50% tolerances and hand made pieces like transformers. |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 22, 2021 9:04:58 GMT -6
Maybe there could be a fun analog modeling plugin with a 50% random tolerance button labeled, "Fuck my shit up." Who knows, could get you somewhere. The Brainworx TMT thingy is like a baby version of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 22, 2021 11:31:45 GMT -6
I sure wish I could get my mixes where I want them ITB - but it just can't happen for me. I mean, I use plugins all the time. Especially when I run out of gear or need something that analog can't do. But I can't get the warmth and depth with plugins. and I've got hundreds of em.... And the time factor is important to me too as to the type of work I do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 22, 2021 11:41:09 GMT -6
I sure wish I could get my mixes where I want them ITB - but it just can't happen for me. I mean, I use plugins all the time. Especially when I run out of gear or need something that analog can't do. But I can't get the warmth and depth with plugins. and I've got hundreds of em.... And the time factor is important to me too as to the type of work I do. If you don't mind the off topic, what are your top 3 or top 5 most used plugins? I'm curious what would be left after your impressive hardware rig has been put to task. I would place some wild bet that at digital parametric EQ could be on there, maybe a delay. It seems to me like those are very well suited to software. Something about a digital EQ with a graph that you can click on and have 7 or 10 bands is really cool to me, hardware that does that is super expensive. Seems like limiters and "digital maximizers" largely live in the digital realm as well but I'm not sure. |
|
|
|
Post by superwack on Jan 22, 2021 12:26:22 GMT -6
I don't use analog summing either BUT to play the devil's advocate, the point of resistor summing networks is not to change the "sound" it's to take the math away from the DAW to avoid rounding/truncation issues, improved headroom (especially when people were using older fixed PT systems) and to introduce really minor differences so that: in DAW SUMMING you get 1.42321 + 1.4321 + 1.4321 = 4.3 vs RESISTOR SUMMING you get: 1.4221 + 1.4421 + 1.4021 = 4.2663 THEN you can tailor the overall sound with make-up gain choice. There isn't anything wrong with ITB summing and it works exactly how they designed it to work but, unlike analog, it's idealized and perfect and limited by whatever choices the software developers made. I remember in the old fixed PT Days, Doug Sax explained to me the fades in Sonic Solutions sounded better because their math used more decimal places than PT so there were less rounding errors In the modern world, I can't imagine it has much real impact unless you are using a Dr. Bill-ian number of outputs and he's squarely in the NO vote when it comes to summing  Sorry for the math |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 22, 2021 12:33:37 GMT -6
From what I understand, the digital math uses 32 bits or 64 bits, which is an outrageous amount of detail. Any sort of rounding or truncation would be at such a low level, as to be inaudible under your dither and your general noise floor. Your hearing probably isn't even sensitive enough to hear down there at normal playback volume.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 22, 2021 12:36:47 GMT -6
I sure wish I could get my mixes where I want them ITB - but it just can't happen for me. I mean, I use plugins all the time. Especially when I run out of gear or need something that analog can't do. But I can't get the warmth and depth with plugins. and I've got hundreds of em.... And the time factor is important to me too as to the type of work I do. If you don't mind the off topic, what are your top 3 or top 5 most used plugins? I'm curious what would be left after your impressive hardware rig has been put to task. I would place some wild bet that at digital parametric EQ could be on there, maybe a delay. It seems to me like those are very well suited to software. Something about a digital EQ with a graph that you can click on and have 7 or 10 bands is really cool to me, hardware that does that is super expensive. Seems like limiters and "digital maximizers" largely live in the digital realm as well but I'm not sure. Sure...happy to oblige! Top Plugin EQ's / Filters : - LTL Chop Shop - Love the hardware - love the plugin equally (one of the few plugin "emulations" that I feel achieved equal status with hardware) - mostly for HP/LP filters, and often the Tilt - Fabfilter Pro Q 3 - It's a workhorse, and I love the interface. Makes EQing simple, but it is always "pure and kinda digital (in a good way) sounding. Easy to pull off stuff that Analog might have a difficult time with. - Occasionally use the Rule Tec - but I keep finding I'm not really a Pultec kinda guy.... Top Plugin Comps/ Limiters : This gets trickier. I really prefer hardware here. - I use the Fabfilter L2 constantly. I don't have any brick wall analog hardware, so it's super useful. - Digging the MagicDeathEye a bit lately. Has a nice box tone. Not sure on the compression side of it though.... But still useful. - MJUC gets used a fair amount - trying to adapt to the Purple MC77. Need to give it more time. It's the best of the 76 clones from what I've had, but still not quite there for me.... I pretty much only look to plugins when my analog hardware is used up.... (and I've got quite a bit) Top Plugin Saturation : This is where I REALLY prefer hardware...5 Silver Bullets, 6 Chroma's, a dozen Mr. Focus's with various color modules, comps with great box tone, etc.. - The only one out of dozens that I bought that keeps getting used is Decapitator. It works pretty well for me with the Lp/Hp/Tilt filters. Most of the others NEVER get used anymore. I tried. Honest. Top Plugin Delays : Here, I'm mostly ITB due to the hassle of tweaking hardware, and often changing tempos where hardware becomes even more difficult. - #1, always, ALWAYS - EchoFarm. Usually on the Deluxe memory man setting. Magic!! - If I need super vibey and swishy and don't need a ton of control - Pulsar EchoRec! - The Valhalla Delay is cool too. Haven't gone too deep into it. - The one that never gets used unless I need specific L/R ping pong pro different metric delays - EchoBoy. don't really dig the tone of it, but it IS very versatile. Top Plugin Verbs : These tend to end up "plugins of the day" and often get replaced or rotated out of the mix over time. Always looking. So many options.... I usually have 10 or so verbs up in my template at any point in time, and use them to taste. Oh, and the Bricasti hardware is always up and running... - LX480 - large hall, large RHall, Large hall+Stage. Works. (their TC6000 copy is starting to get more use lately too...) - Little Plate! Works for me pretty well - SP2016. The newer one. Room sounds like a big studio. - BLACKHOLE!! Amazing for ambient stuff and synths. - and a dozen others that might work here or there for specific things. Those are the ones that come to mind.... Probably more, but.... |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 22, 2021 12:38:28 GMT -6
Sorry for the math John said the WOULD BE NO MATH!!! . Haha!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 22, 2021 12:49:04 GMT -6
Awesome, it's great to have your comparison since it's up against some stiff heavy rack gear. Quite a few of those are on my list too, nice choices. Guess I'll have to pick up Chop Shop next time I'm buying from Plugin Alliance, don't have it yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 22, 2021 12:55:56 GMT -6
Awesome, it's great to have your comparison since it's up against some stiff heavy rack gear. Quite a few of those are on my list too, nice choices. Guess I'll have to pick up Chop Shop next time I'm buying from Plugin Alliance, don't have it yet. Yes! Do... they have it for stupid cheap sometimes. It's a great, unglamorous workhorse. |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 22, 2021 14:02:56 GMT -6
The difference between a preamp and it's plugin emulation is just as much as the difference between two antique preamps. Or two "clones" of the same preamp, or two plugins of the same preamp. Or two plugin clones of two different antique preamps of the same model. I've had large numbers of the same antique preamps in hand at the same time, many times with many models, and they all sound the same as one another once they're properly serviced. What definitely sounds different is two of the same that are both half broken, and that's the users fault for sticking with that. Even if you recap one old thing, and the other you recap AND replace all the carbon comp resistors with metal film, it's still usually gonna sound far more 'the same' than a clone or a plug. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 22, 2021 14:35:21 GMT -6
I don't use analog summing either BUT to play the devil's advocate, the point of resistor summing networks is not to change the "sound" it's to take the math away from the DAW to avoid rounding/truncation issues, improved headroom (especially when people were using older fixed PT systems) and to introduce really minor differences so that: in DAW SUMMING you get 1.42321 + 1.4321 + 1.4321 = 4.3 vs RESISTOR SUMMING you get: 1.4221 + 1.4421 + 1.4021 = 4.2663 THEN you can tailor the overall sound with make-up gain choice. There isn't anything wrong with ITB summing and it works exactly how they designed it to work but, unlike analog, it's idealized and perfect and limited by whatever choices the software developers made. I remember in the old fixed PT Days, Doug Sax explained to me the fades in Sonic Solutions sounded better because their math used more decimal places than PT so there were less rounding errors In the modern world, I can't imagine it has much real impact unless you are using a Dr. Bill-ian number of outputs and he's squarely in the NO vote when it comes to summing Sorry for the math The noise and distortion contribution from a lossy network and make-up gain amplifier are likely far and above the maximum error in digitally summed signals, regardless of the number of sum bus inputs. A digital summing bus is likely more spectral-ly pure as well in today's DAWs. But yes, in the old days of fixed-point precision, truncation and rounding were necessary to fit the math into the latency constraints. Today's powerhouse computers can do floating-point math in a fraction of the time and are practically lossless in precision. |
|
