|
Post by porkyman on Dec 3, 2015 14:02:50 GMT -6
if active summing is just passive summing with make up gain. whats the benefit of converting all those individual tracks out to be summed when you can just send a summed stereo track to the same make up gain stage for color, and only use two channels of conversion. does sending a signal through one resistor do anything worth the cost of 16 channels of conversion? thinking of buying this www.vintagemaker.net/products.html
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Dec 3, 2015 15:41:13 GMT -6
Summing gets thrown around way too much as a savior. I used to believe only in it and I had 16 channels of summing via 2 BLA PM8's. While I liked being about to use the knobs for fade, volume and mute it wasn't until I took the summing mixers out that I realized I might have been mistaken. You can go through all my older posts from a year or so ago and I was staunch on believing it was the only way to get the sound of a console, but in reality there just wasn't a massive difference when I would pull them out. I had some bills to pay and I needed to unload some gear and the only thing I could part with at that time was my summing mixers, so I didn't really have a choice. Well, I can tell you my mixes sound just as good if not better without them.
The reason you would want a console is because of the imperfections it produces. There is crosstalk between channels, the channels themselves are unique so it's almost like when you're stacking guitars and if you played the stack with the same amp/guitar/settings/arrangement it's not going to sound as open and pure as it would if you used an entirely different setup and arrangement, a console is similar to this. Also, the master section of a console where the channels are summed and boosted creates it's own imperfections, but these imperfections, if it's a good quality console, will allow things like the bass to feel more dead center and more space for it, the channels when panned will feel more like you're actually doing something because of the extremely small delays in the strips going to the booster section and in some consoles you have transformer coloration on the inputs, letting you hit them differently to add harmonic content if you want.
Now, a simple passive summing mixer that consists of a resistor network feeding into what is nothing more than a line booster just isn't going to do the same thing a console will. I worked on an SSL6000e for most of my career at this and nothing I've ever used besides other large format consoles gave me that same feeling. I thought the summing was getting me there, but honestly I was living in denial.
If you want to do something for your 2 buss find a pair of Capi VP28's that were built at the same time, get a killer 2 channel A/D and do as you suggested, run your mix through them and find the best relationship between the input and channel fader level that causes you to feel something. I hate recanting all those bold statements I made about those summing mixers, but I have to because it's true. Now, I do believe SSL makes a rack mixer that I've heard a lot of people I would trust say is as close to mixing on a console as you are going to get without the console. They're pretty expensive and you could find a D&R or a Soundcraft that can be modded and then you'd be living in the true console world, but on this date, I just can't say that summing mixers provide this massive change in the way a mix sounds as an actual console does.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 3, 2015 15:57:05 GMT -6
The problem lies within the software. At least that is what the theory is.
In layman's terms, each piece of audio is represented by a stream of large numbers in the DAW. To "sum" multiple channels, you must multiply these large numbers together and you'll end up with numbers much larger than the bandwidth of the processing, I.E., 32 bit processing, 24 bit conversion, etc.
So in order to cut those numbers down to a size that can be handled by the hardware, or other software, you need to perform other complex math functions on those streams. The problem is that even with the fastest processors, you still burn cycles of processing doing these operations, and the whole system slows down to the point of limiting track counts, or plugin counts.
So in order to keep speeds relatively useful, truncation is used. In a nutshell, you find the most usable amount of data in a stream that fits within your bandwidth, and you simply cut that section and delete the rest.
This is super quick and easy, but it loses precision, and therefor loses data/audio.
It may not be audible at first, but you do this over a dozen plugins, digital sends/auxs, DAW inserts, volume changes, panning, and finally summing, and you lose a significant portion of the precision that would have been present if you were somehow able to do all that without loss.
I think a lot of testing has found that the track summing algorithms were the most lossy part of the DAW, having to truncate significant amounts of data in order to keep speeds useful.
So the thought is that if you bypass the digital summing, and do it in the analog domain, that you don't "throw away" audio like you would with digital summing.
That is the layman's reason for analog summing.
Whether or not it's ultimately true, I leave up to you. Some have generated some good data on this phenomenon being real, while others have done the opposite. I think it's really a taste thing.
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 3, 2015 16:13:24 GMT -6
I believe waveforms add together, they don't multiply when summing. Multiplication happens during attenuation. Boosting a signal means multiplying it by a float value greater than 1. attenuating it means multiplying it by a number less than 1.
don't forget that Fourier figured out that a wave can be described as the SUM of a bunch of sine waves, where each of these sine waves is related to the fundamental frequency of the original wave multiplied by a gain and phase value... the operative word being "SUM" not "product"
|
|
|
Post by carymiller on Dec 3, 2015 17:48:14 GMT -6
Summing gets thrown around way too much as a savior. I used to believe only in it and I had 16 channels of summing via 2 BLA PM8's. While I liked being about to use the knobs for fade, volume and mute it wasn't until I took the summing mixers out that I realized I might have been mistaken. You can go through all my older posts from a year or so ago and I was staunch on believing it was the only way to get the sound of a console, but in reality there just wasn't a massive difference when I would pull them out. I had some bills to pay and I needed to unload some gear and the only thing I could part with at that time was my summing mixers, so I didn't really have a choice. Well, I can tell you my mixes sound just as good if not better without them. The reason you would want a console is because of the imperfections it produces. There is crosstalk between channels, the channels themselves are unique so it's almost like when you're stacking guitars and if you played the stack with the same amp/guitar/settings/arrangement it's not going to sound as open and pure as it would if you used an entirely different setup and arrangement, a console is similar to this. Also, the master section of a console where the channels are summed and boosted creates it's own imperfections, but these imperfections, if it's a good quality console, will allow things like the bass to feel more dead center and more space for it, the channels when panned will feel more like you're actually doing something because of the extremely small delays in the strips going to the booster section and in some consoles you have transformer coloration on the inputs, letting you hit them differently to add harmonic content if you want. Now, a simple passive summing mixer that consists of a resistor network feeding into what is nothing more than a line booster just isn't going to do the same thing a console will. I worked on an SSL6000e for most of my career at this and nothing I've ever used besides other large format consoles gave me that same feeling. I thought the summing was getting me there, but honestly I was living in denial. If you want to do something for your 2 buss find a pair of Capi VP28's that were built at the same time, get a killer 2 channel A/D and do as you suggested, run your mix through them and find the best relationship between the input and channel fader level that causes you to feel something. I hate recanting all those bold statements I made about those summing mixers, but I have to because it's true. Now, I do believe SSL makes a rack mixer that I've heard a lot of people I would trust say is as close to mixing on a console as you are going to get without the console. They're pretty expensive and you could find a D&R or a Soundcraft that can be modded and then you'd be living in the true console world, but on this date, I just can't say that summing mixers provide this massive change in the way a mix sounds as an actual console does. I would get the CAPI Heider FD312's instead of the VP28's. VP28's are AWESOME...but I think you'll get a beefier sound from the Heiders. I also think the mastering version of the Manley Massive Passive is great an analog insert on the 2BUS. Stepped controls that can be perfectly recalled, a tube output section that softens things, helping to prevent ear fatigue.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 3, 2015 22:29:51 GMT -6
I believe waveforms add together, they don't multiply when summing. Multiplication happens during attenuation. Boosting a signal means multiplying it by a float value greater than 1. attenuating it means multiplying it by a number less than 1. don't forget that Fourier figured out that a wave can be described as the SUM of a bunch of sine waves, where each of these sine waves is related to the fundamental frequency of the original wave multiplied by a gain and phase value... the operative word being "SUM" not "product" You're thinking of it as "sum", like addition. "Sum" can also mean to combine two signals, like mixing RF. In that case, and the case of mixing two audio signals into one, is mathematically represented as trigonometric multiplication as the function. sinωRFt sinωLOt = 1/2 { cos(ωRF + ωLO)t + cos(ωRF – ωLO)t } Or V1 x V2 = (A x B) / 2 [cos (2 pi {f1 - f2} t ) - cos ( 2 pi {f1 + f2} t )] (Depending on what you are used to seeing) Is what you would use to find the simple products of two non-complex sines mixing. Fourier's (co)sine transform is a trig integral. I don't believe I ever heard the term "sum" (as in addition) associated with Fourier in school, I think he used "sum" as in the sense of combining signals, but, I wasn't the best student, and I haven't even looked at Fourier stuff beyond RF simulators (that do that stuff for me..). But then again, I'm not a software guy, I'm a hardware guy... So maybe there is an easy software way to do this with addition rather than trig and diff-equations, but working with the DSP guys at work, it's pretty clear they use high-order trig as the basis for their code.
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 4, 2015 9:49:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 4, 2015 12:22:50 GMT -6
There IS an analog solution that is cost effective and elegant that will give you the sound and drive capabilities of (IMO) the best consoles in the world without summing and tons of D/A and cabling issues....
Just sayin'.....
It's not MY answer to the "summing, console, analog question" but if someone wants to buy my 120 input, automated D&R OrionX, let me know.... I've headed other directions. It's been in storage too long now and it's not a part of the new CRM buildout.... There's nothing like having a big piece of hardware sitting in front of you.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Dec 4, 2015 16:27:21 GMT -6
Now this is the sort of technical analysis I crave in these debates. My only contribution to analog summing with a summing mixer to a pair of preamps, or just strapping those same preamps across 2 outputs left and right summed by the DAW is, they "do sound different."
I must not care enough to do the setup since I mostly mix in the box. But I did like what the resistor summing did to the audio when I had it patched in. I might have to bring it back into the fold as my hardware count increases. But I would also say, sum away, don't let digital mixing hold you back if that's what you're using. Don't worry about it.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Dec 4, 2015 17:43:49 GMT -6
Just my hobbyists take on it. I believed for years in pros telling me something like…
"you only mix 16 up to 40 tracks, you do not need it."
At one day I just bought another DA for more outs and one of those crappy cheap ZED mixers. Insert cabels for my outboard which I had hardwired to my interface before. There was or is a difference, special in the low end and I like it.
Two years later I was dirven again by the wish to have total recall for everything. I did try to get the sound I used to know ITB again, and again.
I statet on this board now... I have it, I know how it works ITB. But one of the old dogs advised me to use the ZED mini mixer again, and there it was again, special the bottem end sits nice in the mix with the mixer. The mix is opener, wider, the verbs are your friends.
I used digital summing for long years and I always wonderd why my mixes do not glue together like the pro ones. It all faded away with learning to use this cheap piece of low end gear. I said it in the other summing topic too.
To my ear in mixng stage there is nothing wrong with using it, and the specs confirm this. I would not use it for tracking.
Sure there are more expensive soloutions such as the SPL Mixdream, and they are high end stuff, and they do sound like a board. But mh its time for rock and roll and for this reason I keep the crapy one.
To make a long stroy short… try it yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 4, 2015 18:16:58 GMT -6
Summing gets thrown around way too much as a savior. I used to believe only in it and I had 16 channels of summing via 2 BLA PM8's. While I liked being about to use the knobs for fade, volume and mute it wasn't until I took the summing mixers out that I realized I might have been mistaken. You can go through all my older posts from a year or so ago and I was staunch on believing it was the only way to get the sound of a console, but in reality there just wasn't a massive difference when I would pull them out. I had some bills to pay and I needed to unload some gear and the only thing I could part with at that time was my summing mixers, so I didn't really have a choice. Well, I can tell you my mixes sound just as good if not better without them. The reason you would want a console is because of the imperfections it produces. There is crosstalk between channels, the channels themselves are unique so it's almost like when you're stacking guitars and if you played the stack with the same amp/guitar/settings/arrangement it's not going to sound as open and pure as it would if you used an entirely different setup and arrangement, a console is similar to this. Also, the master section of a console where the channels are summed and boosted creates it's own imperfections, but these imperfections, if it's a good quality console, will allow things like the bass to feel more dead center and more space for it, the channels when panned will feel more like you're actually doing something because of the extremely small delays in the strips going to the booster section and in some consoles you have transformer coloration on the inputs, letting you hit them differently to add harmonic content if you want. Now, a simple passive summing mixer that consists of a resistor network feeding into what is nothing more than a line booster just isn't going to do the same thing a console will. I worked on an SSL6000e for most of my career at this and nothing I've ever used besides other large format consoles gave me that same feeling. I thought the summing was getting me there, but honestly I was living in denial. If you want to do something for your 2 buss find a pair of Capi VP28's that were built at the same time, get a killer 2 channel A/D and do as you suggested, run your mix through them and find the best relationship between the input and channel fader level that causes you to feel something. I hate recanting all those bold statements I made about those summing mixers, but I have to because it's true. Now, I do believe SSL makes a rack mixer that I've heard a lot of people I would trust say is as close to mixing on a console as you are going to get without the console. They're pretty expensive and you could find a D&R or a Soundcraft that can be modded and then you'd be living in the true console world, but on this date, I just can't say that summing mixers provide this massive change in the way a mix sounds as an actual console does. I would get the CAPI Heider FD312's instead of the VP28's. VP28's are AWESOME...but I think you'll get a beefier sound from the Heiders. I also think the mastering version of the Manley Massive Passive is great an analog insert on the 2BUS. Stepped controls that can be perfectly recalled, a tube output section that softens things, helping to prevent ear fatigue. Try the Litz Wire Transformers in the VP28...awesome.
|
|
|
Post by porkyman on Dec 4, 2015 19:32:06 GMT -6
im definitely gonna try. i was just trying to get myself talked out of it.... thinking im gonna go the mixer route over dedicated summer. any suggestions? looking for something old and cheap to mod. only need 16 channels. there are some cheap ones here on craigslist. mainly peaveys, yamahas, and tascams. ideally id like to get a JW soundcraft but i havent been able to find one of the ones listed on jimwilliams site. it has to be good enough (post mod) for me to believe its high end to use all that conversion. thanks
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 4, 2015 21:15:37 GMT -6
Summing gets thrown around way too much as a savior. I used to believe only in it and I had 16 channels of summing via 2 BLA PM8's. While I liked being about to use the knobs for fade, volume and mute it wasn't until I took the summing mixers out that I realized I might have been mistaken. You can go through all my older posts from a year or so ago and I was staunch on believing it was the only way to get the sound of a console, but in reality there just wasn't a massive difference when I would pull them out. I had some bills to pay and I needed to unload some gear and the only thing I could part with at that time was my summing mixers, so I didn't really have a choice. Well, I can tell you my mixes sound just as good if not better without them. The reason you would want a console is because of the imperfections it produces. There is crosstalk between channels, the channels themselves are unique so it's almost like when you're stacking guitars and if you played the stack with the same amp/guitar/settings/arrangement it's not going to sound as open and pure as it would if you used an entirely different setup and arrangement, a console is similar to this. Also, the master section of a console where the channels are summed and boosted creates it's own imperfections, but these imperfections, if it's a good quality console, will allow things like the bass to feel more dead center and more space for it, the channels when panned will feel more like you're actually doing something because of the extremely small delays in the strips going to the booster section and in some consoles you have transformer coloration on the inputs, letting you hit them differently to add harmonic content if you want. Now, a simple passive summing mixer that consists of a resistor network feeding into what is nothing more than a line booster just isn't going to do the same thing a console will. I worked on an SSL6000e for most of my career at this and nothing I've ever used besides other large format consoles gave me that same feeling. I thought the summing was getting me there, but honestly I was living in denial. If you want to do something for your 2 buss find a pair of Capi VP28's that were built at the same time, get a killer 2 channel A/D and do as you suggested, run your mix through them and find the best relationship between the input and channel fader level that causes you to feel something. I hate recanting all those bold statements I made about those summing mixers, but I have to because it's true. Now, I do believe SSL makes a rack mixer that I've heard a lot of people I would trust say is as close to mixing on a console as you are going to get without the console. They're pretty expensive and you could find a D&R or a Soundcraft that can be modded and then you'd be living in the true console world, but on this date, I just can't say that summing mixers provide this massive change in the way a mix sounds as an actual console does. I hear you...I was using the burl to print back in...but ultimately decided the difference wasn't enough to justify the expense or price.
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Dec 5, 2015 0:59:24 GMT -6
im definitely gonna try. i was just trying to get myself talked out of it.... thinking im gonna go the mixer route over dedicated summer. any suggestions? looking for something old and cheap to mod. only need 16 channels. there are some cheap ones here on craigslist. mainly peaveys, yamahas, and tascams. ideally id like to get a JW soundcraft but i havent been able to find one of the ones listed on jimwilliams site. it has to be good enough (post mod) for me to believe its high end to use all that conversion. thanks buy one off craigslist for nothing practically, send jim the master, and channel strips as you can afford to have them done, you will not regret it!
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Dec 5, 2015 16:05:23 GMT -6
To avoid the losses in fidelity mention I actually have a wav to text converter, I read out each sample (192Khz, 64 bit) and I manually sum each integer down to the 64th bit. I'm currently 5 milliseconds into my first tune (32 track mix), but I bet it will sound great some day.
|
|
|
Post by robschnapf on Dec 6, 2015 8:08:38 GMT -6
To avoid the losses in fidelity mention I actually have a wav to text converter, I read out each sample (192Khz, 64 bit) and I manually sum each integer down to the 64th bit. I'm currently 5 milliseconds into my first tune (32 track mix), but I bet it will sound great some day. Haha
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Dec 6, 2015 12:43:44 GMT -6
The point is to avoid any digital summing topography limited by Nyquist and to avoid using all those crappy sounding digital plug-ins.
To avoid those losses I use a 2000V/us slew rate transconductance analog suming amp operating on a single pole roll-off delivering a 30 mhz audio bandwidth with .00015% intermodulation distortion. Quantum physics are applied at the sub-atomic level to extract every free electron.
I found a new use for an old PC out on the firing line yesterday. A few 7.62 x 39 AK rounds did it in quickly and worked much better than 120 volts AC ever did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 13:45:37 GMT -6
None really, slate VCC is it and if you're not getting that sound at mix it's cause you didn't record it. I sum through a rascal audio tonebuss and I do so for two reasons
1. I can run all my stuff out to hardware and print everything back in a recallable manner
2. The RA is a Neve based box that sounds really nice, I've listened to the GR, the Shadow Hills, Dangerous, Folcrom and they all sound much the same to my ears. The two best I've heard are the RA and Pheonix units but the RA is completely stepped so that makes it a winner for me.
I can do my best work on either an OTB summing setup or on my laptop. I keep my analog gear because I'm religious and like believing in things that go bump in the night, it also attracts clients because they perceive it as more professional than me just sitting on my laptop. Don't get too caught up in the hype!
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Dec 6, 2015 16:23:04 GMT -6
None really, slate VCC is it and if you're not getting that sound at mix it's cause you didn't record it. I sum through a rascal audio tonebuss and I do so for two reasons 1. I can run all my stuff out to hardware and print everything back in a recallable manner 2. The RA is a Neve based box that sounds really nice, I've listened to the GR, the Shadow Hills, Dangerous, Folcrom and they all sound much the same to my ears. The two best I've heard are the RA and Pheonix units but the RA is completely stepped so that makes it a winner for me. I can do my best work on either an OTB summing setup or on my laptop. I keep my analog gear because I'm religious and like believing in things that go bump in the night, it also attracts clients because they perceive it as more professional than me just sitting on my laptop. Don't get too caught up in the hype! tapeop.com/reviews/gear/71/analogue-tonebuss/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 17:47:50 GMT -6
None really, slate VCC is it and if you're not getting that sound at mix it's cause you didn't record it. I sum through a rascal audio tonebuss and I do so for two reasons 1. I can run all my stuff out to hardware and print everything back in a recallable manner 2. The RA is a Neve based box that sounds really nice, I've listened to the GR, the Shadow Hills, Dangerous, Folcrom and they all sound much the same to my ears. The two best I've heard are the RA and Pheonix units but the RA is completely stepped so that makes it a winner for me. I can do my best work on either an OTB summing setup or on my laptop. I keep my analog gear because I'm religious and like believing in things that go bump in the night, it also attracts clients because they perceive it as more professional than me just sitting on my laptop. Don't get too caught up in the hype! tapeop.com/reviews/gear/71/analogue-tonebuss/Yep I've read this and I've talked with Joel Cameron extensively about it. This is my second one, I really love what the RA does
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Dec 6, 2015 18:39:39 GMT -6
Yep I've read this and I've talked with Joel Cameron extensively about it. This is my second one, I really love what the RA does You compare the RA to VCC in yor first post? I used VCC and compared it to my crap mixer, to my taste VCC was alright but no race with the ZED.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2015 15:55:05 GMT -6
Yep I've read this and I've talked with Joel Cameron extensively about it. This is my second one, I really love what the RA does You compare the RA to VCC in yor first post? I used VCC and compared it to my crap mixer, to my taste VCC was alright but no race with the ZED. My findings were that both we're incredible. The VCC N was in the ballpark of the RA so I sold it. Now I'm doing enough business that I can afford the luxury of having both. I print through VCC N and waves MPX during tracking, then mix with VCC Trident and VTM out the Tonebuss. What I notice is a really nice stacking effect with all of it, sounds don't have that edge that annoys me and it's all recallable.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 30, 2016 23:00:02 GMT -6
I have to say that after using the D-Box - with only 8 channels of summing - I'm a believer. Wider, deeper, more headroom, punchier. Better all around.
|
|
|
Post by mikec on May 1, 2016 6:30:29 GMT -6
I'm using the Apollo 16 into a 2 Bus + and would agree with you JK. My wife even comments on the difference when switching between the sum and the straight DAW.
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on May 1, 2016 7:43:33 GMT -6
Does the dbus have passive outs as well as active outs? It would be interesting to compare using the dbus amp vs some vp28s. Also, are you listening to the dbus converter or thru something else? Unless you're recording the output of the dbus back in to the daw, no one else will hear what you're hearing when the track is released in terms of dbus mojo.
|
|