Mixwizard 4

I'm interested, too. The problem is they seem limited in range, only 19" rackmount type styles available it looks like, up to 16 channels or so. The ZED range covers a lot more sizes.

its part of a larger discussion I wanted to have about specs, and gear.

The specs on that thing, are pretty impressive....

How do we go about equating, specs and sound though... thats the tough question.

Not picking on him, but I have often seen Jim Williams talk about the quietness of a modified sound craft delta, well not quietness on its own, but how clean and good it is.

How is something like this mix wizard better or worse?

How is this vs the X desk from SSL , with regards to specs , worse.... how do we equate that worseness or betterillygoodness ......

I often see people, maybe they know, maybe they don't, quoting older consoles being great, say Delta, and newer consoles, say Toft, being crap.

How do we sort the wheat from the chaff?

cheers

Wiz

I thought I would try and make my question clearer, by talking and not typing....

I don't think I was that successful


8)

wiz, interesting thoughts. I have a WZ3 that I use for my live gig that I've been happy with. I've tried some quick tracking through the pres and have had better results through my external pres. Now sure how the 3 compares to the 4 though. I also probably wouldn't be using all desk pres unless I was on a Neve, API, or Wunderbar, so there's that. I also prefer having busses for the studio (live too really). I imagine that the WZ4 would be a sonically capable desk for a small rig though.

I hope some real hardcore cats will answer. All I can say is great records that I have in my collection have been made on Mackie mixers, others on SSL, others on a computer with no mixing console at all, and I enjoy them as music all the same.

I think the answer might come down to design philosophy and sophistication. You can think of an electrical engineering design team like a reastaurant or a chef. SSL is a top chef with a fancy restaurant. They make good highly original "food," and it's expensive.  They get mentioned in the same breath as Mr. Rupert Neve, for gosh sake.  

If you look at two compressors that use the same THAT vca, one a DBX, and the other one an SSL, they provide the same function, both are built pretty solidly, but the price, and sound, is vastly different. If you were to trace the circuit, I think you would find that the SSL is a much more sophisticated, that is complicated, design. Specifically I think SSL made some technical advancement in compressor technology when they designed their bus compressor, I can't remember the details. But that takes a lot of work and sharp minds.  I think you would also find at the component level that the SSL and similar units will have more expensive components in some cases, like capacitors and audio op amps. And the power supply might be quieter or more powerful or something like that, which you won't see on any spec sheet. Again, a design decision.  Specifications do not even nearly tell the whole story.

I think the story is very much the same in the mixer world. If you pick apart an Allen and Heath (I've done it) you'll find cheap bottom of the barrel capacitors, cheap faders, bog standard op amps and transistors, and just a generally inexpensive internal construction.  Frankly, it's ugly to look at. I would think the inside of an SSL would look quite a bit different. Very specifically, you can buy the Allen and Heath fader by itself for about $10. But a professional grade fader like a Penny and Giles or something you'll find on some of the LFACs is closer to $100, and it will be much more robust, physically much larger, and built with long term service in mind. You can take them apart and service them, unlike the cheap fader in the A&H desk. Now just imagine scaling this price difference across 16 or 32 channels or whatever and you can see how the total cost (and quality) will skyrocket.  The same is true for op amps or any component.  The Allen and Heath is made to a price point, which means lower-cost components, both mechanical, and in the audio path. The SSL is made with an allowance for more high grade parts, a no-compromise design, and that is reflected in the cost.  Their gear is more consummately professional.

Regarding sound quality, this is highly subjective.  I think a lot of people would agree that higher quality components allow for better sound quality.  I know I prefer more expensive capacitors to cheaper ones, generally speaking, for example.  And this is partly why Behringer gear sounds worse than what it's directly copied from.  But also, the circuit itself determines the quality of sound, probably even more than component choice.  Just look at the legacy of the API 312 schematic.  Input transformer, discrete op amp, output transformer, to put it basically.  This became a starting point for many future successful preamps.  The SSL G bus compressor schematic was so brilliant, there are now a dozen knock offs on the market.  It's the same story with the Tube Screamer, the Moog ladder filter, and the Fender guitar.  Some designs are just blindingly brilliant.  I bet the SSL console's mix bus and EQ count too.

I think the essence of what you're asking about comes down to actual circuit design and quality standards.  Critical listening is a huge part of audio design, also. I'm curious to hear what other people have to say. I am not an expert, but I have designed a few pieces of gear. This is just my humble .02 cents.

^ great! thanx Wiz, this is exactly accurate to my experiences, the width, the focus and density is sooo much better! I always get a fly away/disconnected feeling that i'm listening through a very light loose cotton diffusor when ITB mixes are played.

The rig i'm building= I'm pulling every individual channel OTB 32x8x2, i'll be using pro q2 in linear phase mode for filtering duties and heavy lifts(yes, an instantiation on every channel for DC), then it's OTB all the way, including real reverb plates 8) I will be using my hardware comps and such at insert points, and automate the analog faders so volume changes are also in the voltage domain(i have a DIY automation system i "designed" thats going to blow your mind, but not for the reasons you might think, remember, i'm an idiot 8), i'll show you before too long)

it's a ton of work/$, but it'll be worth it in the end... please God lol

I think you have just had the Analog Summing Experience. I had the same one a few months ago. For me, there's no reason to turn back. I can hear it, too, and it's good.

If you want to know how popular this sound and equipment really is, just look at the 2 dozen or more analog summing boxes for sale on the big gear sites from almost every major and some minor companies. And after that, start looking at all the people that are still mixing on an analog desk, or just summing on the desk (yes people do that too), and analog summing sound is a big part of why that's still popular also, it's about the sound. The workflow is obviously different as well.

You know what though, the X-Desk has got my attention also, and I kind of want to save up for one, because I like the SSL sound so much, and it's ahead of a lot of simple summing mixers with its true mixing board capabilities such as 8 faders, aux sends, and a control room section, talkback, etc. It looks really appealing. The thread on gearslutz is 30 pages long or something, I think these actually are decently popular. I know some pros are using them too, like Luca Pretolesi.

Once you find out how simple it is to get true high end sound out of a hybrid rig, assuming your skills are adequate, well, that feels like a happy day for me. I think it is dawning on a lot of people right now, sort of a subtle revolution, after so much in the box stuff going on for a lot of us. Obviously you need outboard to get the 100% sound, but, going 50% is still really good too if you ask me. I'm not a big digital audio fan. I think the future of sound quality is looking really good right now, even on a moderate budget, and that's exciting. It's almost like the Abbey Road paradigm is almost completely melted down, and almost (almost!) we're all, all the serious music people, we all got our Baby Road Home studios popping up all over the planet. That's really cool if you ask me.

Dbox.

Audient 2802.

Standout, forwad looking designs aimed at marrying analog summing to a midrange home studio. I was planning to buy an Audient for my mix rig....until I laid hands on....and man...SO small....I have big hands. I play 50
s U necks on my Strat....know what I mean? Chicklet sized buttons....kind of awkward MCU emulated layout....but, the idea is golden.

Analog master/monitor control.
Analog Cue.
16ch Analog summing with 8 of them on faders, but AUTOMATED (ths fully recallable) faders.
DAW control via MCU emulation on the same faders.
Analog buss compressor.
8 solid preamps--which is enough for a small ensemble.

SSL will post a comparison with software, but they won't a comparison with a cheap analog mixer. For good reason, IME. There's a myth out there that if you can't afford a big expensive discrete console, you'll get better results in software. Not my experience.

It's not exactly even "anaog vs digital"....I tell you--as someone who sat here with them piped into the same DAC for reverse engineering purposes, that my old 56bit fixed Akai mixer sounded better in it's clarity and imaging. Same pan law, etc....test tone calibrated...

But, yeah--I've heard countless examples of people mixing on little Mackie and Behirnger and A&H boards sounding better than most software mixes. Even if on some level you could kind of say it MIGHT be lower fidelity in some way (though I wouldn't be quick to call it that)--they musically WORKED and sounded like a recording more than the some how "disjointed mud" that's so easy to produce in software mixers.

I held out for as long as I could--hoping someone would address the elephant in the room. Why DOES my $99 Behringer "summing mixer" sound better than the digital one? Cause it does--I promise. Its couldn't be used for client work because it's not exactly calibrated professionally, you know--recall would simply not work--and that was 100% necessary. For ME? Who cares? Dod a mix, print it. If you don't like it next week, redo it. Oh, wait--you don't dislike it enough to spend a few hours redoing it? then it's not an issue--move on.

Yeah, I don't know why that bothered you. It's MUCH easier than a patchbay**. You insert it just like a plug in....and turn the knobs on the hardware. I'm not sure how patching shit into a patchbay is easier. I did that for the first few decades of recording. No way it's easier. I haven't even HAD a patchbay for 15 years. And FWIW--mine was normalled when I did so I didn't have to patch stuff day to day--only if I needed to do something out of the ordinary.

**but, you DO have to have enough computer IO to have permanent devices defined....otherwise--sure that's a PIA. Constantly dicking around with the VST Connections....

I disagree. Summing introduces crosstalk across the channels, so there is a technical and audible difference there.

I've done a shootout (on the other site, you can check it out) where you can hear "color" (2 mic preamps) on a stereo mix, vs "summed" (into the same preamps) and there is a definite difference in width and separation.