Analogue Summing VS Plugin Summing

It always comes down to who's manning the bridge!

The problem inherent in this argument is that there's 2 possible situations for signal distortions to generate new harmonics in a console that is summing down to a Stereo Bus.

The first is that each channel distorts slightly - this is often emulated with distortion plugins that are inserted on a per channel basis. This will have harmonic overtones created, and also IMD (sum and difference products - things like a 220 and 330Hz signal distorting giving you some additional 110Hz and 550Hz).

The second is that the signals distort when they have come together, meaning a lot more audible IMD products as they are less likely to be directly related.

There is no moment you can quantify on a mixer at which the signals are beginning to mix, they just do and the summing amplifier distortion will act the same as any amplifier after that distorting - and so access to such a stage isn't particularly productive. You could do it with an aux and feed the aux to the DAWs Master Fader, incidentally, there's no reason someone couldn't just make a 32 input channel plugin and you assign an input to each stage. But it'd be the fib of the centuary to say it'll make a mindblowing difference, so I think no one's been cheeky enough to go ahead with it.

I personally like a little saturation, but I can't see why some people get as bogged down as they do. There's usually much bigger issues going on than needing a Voltage Summing or a Current Summing sound. I'd rather worry about those!

I ran into this topic on another thread and sort threw my hands up in frustration. I really prefer the direction this discussion has gone in. I actually purchased VMR/VCC and have put it to use in a design template I was working on and had loads of issues with it. It was impossible to automate easily, so after a few days with it the only real workable solution was to have a master bypass automated and that was that. I did a VMR/VCC insert on every track and played around with that for a bit. I guess I can say that it did something to the dimensionality of the mix (I had the drive set to zero), but it was a very subtle effect. In the end I had to get rid of it (I'm now selling them on ebay LOL) as the VMR plugin running the show was a bit too much of a pain in the butt for me to deal with. If it wasn't for the fact that VCC needs VMR to run it, I would probably have kept VCC just for the fact that you can make it a subtle effect if used on every track and bus. Is it an accurate "emulation of anything"? I couldn't say as I've never had the opportunity to A/B different consoles running the same signal through them. I will say that once you start cranking up that "Drive" knob, VCC turns more into a harmonic distortion plugin than anything else.

AD

The programming to describe that would be OUT1 = KickOut + KickIn. The two would have to be summed by linear addition, trying to independently put them out at the same time would mean every second sample would be from the second mic or something similarly silly.

Assuming the clip doesn't distort this is entirely linear processing. No DAW funkery, unless it's a very funky DAW.

Yeah but if you wanted an extra 0.1dB of Kick, you could always just turn the fader up. 

Analogue addition is actually basically perfect too - most Audio designers would tell you a deviation over 0.01dB is usually not considered acceptable. That's 100 times quieter than most changes you can hear (agreed threshold is 0.1dB, though some people will state as high as 0.2. It's not nearly as random as people like to think - especially when done well.

As I stated earlier there's two forms of natural distortion - Harmonic and IMD. Summing stages *can* create additional IMD, but so can any stage after it. Non linearity where the signals meet is not particularly special as the signals don't combine in the amplifier but rather at the last little nub of wire where they meet before the amplifier. So we can assume any amplifier will do this when driven unless the way the signals are combining is causing some elements of the distortion to cancel or you want to drive elements of the signal differently (which you can also do with it as an insert effect). At which point you have to ask what's up with the distortion itself that it requires that?

On an off note: Things like transformers and inductors are cool in that they can limit low frequency amplitudes and cause increased harmonics. I wouldn't be interested by a box of resistors and caps at all. They're definitely difficult to model mathematically, and asuch I do have some iron sitting around at home.

Last ounce of scepticism: Crosstalk is mainly a HF artefact, I'm not sure how people feel that having shared HF's across a mix makes it wide. Sounds like a narrowing effect to me!

Crosstalk is not good for width but more often for *glue*....

hard to do in the DAW LOL

Yep and here phase is correct because it's seldom 180 degrees!

I think you may be on to something there.  And still, one of the popular mod trends is to make better and better spec'd consoles.  In a sense, bringing them closer to the sterility and "perfection" of digital.

I'm not sure what you meant by "OP" but I'd probably agree.  There are many ways to achieve what you're looking for if your ears are sophisticated enough, and you have the experience to choose the right tools.

No.  I don't think I was joking....  Perhaps lost in translation?

Specs don't necessarily equal "tone".  If they did, digital would be the king, and Neve consoles would be considered inferior.

Use just a small amount of saturation on the reverb return, this will make a diffrence in depth and width of the verb. Most developers do not model the analogue path of the reverb, they concentrate on the reverb algo what is in my opinion not a complete simulation.