There’s a big debate looming in the recording world and it revolves around analog summing. People say that mixing “in the box” will never sound as good as using analog summing.
So what is summing, and why is analog supposedly better? Great questions. Today I want to briefly explain the issues at hand and help you to realize that you shouldn’t care.
What Is “Wrong” With Digital Summing?
The concept of summing is a simple one really. When you record and mix many tracks together (whether on a console or in your computer) you eventually have to mix them all down through a single stereo track (your master fader) so you can print (or render) a final stereo file. This process of funneling all your tracks together is called summing. Just like in math, when you add things together you get the sum of those parts.
This originally all took place in the analog domain, inside a mixing console. When digital recording and mixing was becoming a reality, people complained of the sound of the summing that was happening inside the computer. The argument goes that when you take tracks that are digital in nature and sum them together digitally, you get an inferior final mix. It is said that digital summing sounds cold, harsh, and broken.
Analog Summing To The Rescue
The solution then to this digital problem was to take individual tracks (or groups of tracks) out of the digital domain and sum them together in an analog console (or more affordably, an analog summing box like the Dangerous 2 Buss), and then take that final stereo analog signal and bring it back into the computer as your final stereo track. You could keep the advantage of digital recording and mixing in a DAW, but benefit from the “warm, wide, and huge sound” of the analog summing. That’s the idea at least.
Why This Debate Is Silly
There are two huge problems with this analog summing debate. First it becomes a crutch and excuse for poor mixing. Analog summing will not make your bad mixes better. More mixing will help make your bad mixes better. You need experience. Remember, there is no magic bullet in recording or mixing. If there were, no one would need to learn this craft. We would all just go out and buy what we need and instantly be churning out pro mixes.
Secondly there are many amazing pro mixers out there who DON’T use analog summing. They mix entirely in the box (ITB). Guys like Dave Pensado (Beyonce, Justin Timberlake, Christina Aguilerra), Charles Dye (Ricky Martin, Bon Jovi, Sammy Hagar), and even my friend and fellow blogger Kevin Ward (www.MixCoach.com) all mix in the box. Their work speaks for themselves.
At the same time some of my other favorite mixers like Mixerman (check out Zen And The Art Of Mixing) and Fab Dupont of PureMix.net both swear by analog summing. These guys are incredible mixers as well and their work speaks for itself. The point? Analog summing is not the common denominator among these top mixers, their skill and experience is.
So What Should You Care About?
Now that you know that this debate about analog summing is silly and pointless in your quest for better mixes, you should get back to what matters: making more and better music in your studio. Proper use of gain staging, eq, and compression will get you a lot further in your mixing career than an analog summing box. I guarantee it.
Comments
I’ve never used analog summing, and I don’t know if it sounds any better, so I’m just playing devil’s advocate here….
It makes sense that analog summing isn’t a magic bullet to combat bad mixing, but I bieve Mixerman’s argument for analog summing is that it makes mixing easier for him and it sounds better to him. While analog summing probably won’t benefit those that are your target audience (less than expert mixers who probably can’t afford a Dangerous 2 Buss anyway), it seems to make a difference to somebody. Mixerman’s stance has always been “try it, if you hear a difference that you like, then use it”. Unfortunately, in some circles this translates into “you must use this equipment or you aren’t pro”. This is unfortunate because it isn’t true for the reasons you said in your article.
Hi Graham,
This is a truth-filled article. By pointing out that we’ve heard great mixes (and bad ones) from ITB and Analog Summing proponents, one must realize that the common denominator is the skill and talent of the persons that create the good mixes rather than whether or not they employ Analog Summing. In coming weeks we’ll be interviewing representatives from several vendors with clear bias, but we’ll continue to stress to our readers and listeners that sharpening their skills with experience is the most valuable investment.
I decided to try this out by running a mix-down thru my Behringer UB802 mixer, and there was a difference…..if it was good or bad I am still trying to decide! LOL
Graham – you’re right, it’s not a magic bullet. I’ll parrot Rob Arbittier (Stevie Wonder, AudioNowCast) and say there’s no theoretical reason why ITB summing must be inferior — but some implementations are flawed. Floating-point math (in ProTools 10) is superior to integer math (some DAWs had floating-point years ago). Your friend Kevin Ward uses Harrison’s MixBus, and mentions guys running mixes from other system through MixBus for summing because it’s that much better (and provides Tape Saturation on all output buses just because it can). For $150, the full MixBus system is the price of a plug-in — and a fraction of a Dangerous 2 Bus, or even a Protools 10 upgrade license
well, summing and tapes, if calibrated right that they dont color the sound then its no difference if its made in digital or analog domain. But EQs will make difference still — so far I havent found no plugin which sounds like “these british analog eqs”.
If I’m running a high track count in the box, I believe I do perceive a bit of “semearing” in the soundscape coming off the 2 buss now and again although I’m not sure if that’s a case for analog summing or just the limits of my decient but not super high-end D to A converter revealing themselves. I also did a mix for one of my own tunes with a pretty successful mix engineer, tracks on radio, etc and we ran two mixes in the end – one rendered straight out of Pro Tools and one broken out through a Dangerous Box. Honestly, the difference was very slight at best IMO and I actually liked the “in the box mix” better.
Personally, what I think people are really looking for when they praise external summing is the sound of older, analog recordings and that’s probably just as much, if not more, the result of tape and tape compression than the desk they put that stuf through broken out (although, of course, that does make a difference).
Ultimately, I think audio peeps always need something to debate but really, at the end of the day, the only thing we should care about is – Is this a great song? Was it arranged, recorded and mixed well enough as to move me in some way? If so, as Graham says, it doesn’t really matter what mix process was used.
I own a dangerous dbox and I love it! That being said…..i have to agree with you. There truly is no magic gear that will fix any bad mix.
Well Said Mark… “Is this a great song?”.
I was sent a mono scratch track of a vocal and guitar. One mic in front of the performer. I listened to the song and immediately was moved by it. I enjoyed it so much I burned it as is (plus a little limiting) to have in the car so I can hopefully pull inspiration from for the actual recording and mixing process of said song. “Is this a great song?” Yes,
sure it can made better, but better from great is what you want.
Better is a subjective classification. DIfferent is more accurate. We offer analog summing boxes to be used as another tool in your toolbox. We always need to be careful when we venture into “better-land” with Audio. Our engineer Terry puts it very well. “With modern DAW software, mixing within the computer has resulted in some great sounding recordings, but I have long been intrigued by the concept of analog summing. I was not prepared to pay $800.00 or more to test that theory, so I engineered and built my own. Then to test the theory, I set out to see if there was any difference in the mixed sound. Much to my amazement and pleasure, I did notice a subtle but very pleasing difference in the stereo separation and placement of the instruments compared to my In the Box mixes.”
Not Better, Different.
Dangerous D-box owner here, so I am a analog summer. After doing a mix on a SSL duality console and comparing the same mix ITB I was sold on analog summing. there is a definitely a difference. Both sound good but I prefer analog summing over ITB. My favorite advantage of analog summing is the increased headroom you get from using 8 or 16 outputs rather than have everything going to outputs 1-2.
“My favorite advantage of analog summing is the increased headroom you get from using 8 or 16 outputs rather than have everything going to outputs 1-2″
You don’t get extra headroom by summing analogue. Its the other way around in fact: modern DAWs with floating point internal resolution can be considered to have infinite headroom, way more than any outboard summing unit or the converters you run your signals through to get them there.
http://youtu.be/Ph1M3QZGku8
In relation to your RC-Tube video and VCC in general, I still haven’t figured out the right gain staging approach.
VCC is encouraging you to push the levels instead of keeping them under control. Even Steven Slate says not to worry about that too much.
Perhaps you could do a video on your approach to gain staging with the inclusion of RC-Tube/VCC.
I don’t do anything differently. I just put VCC on and then mix through it.
I use analog summing plugin only when i feel my mix is already good enough. They add flavor to the mix, but i never consider them as a magic bullet.
You kind of skirted the more technical side of the discussion and jumped to your conclusion, although I agree: it’s the monkey on the mouse that matters.
What most summing set-ups require you to do is downmix ITB your numerous tracks to a set number of outputs of your DAW, to match up with a limited number of inputs (8 or 16) of your summing box. So you’ve already” taken the hit” of digital summing (if that’s what you were trying to avoid) in doing so, just in smaller groups. Then, you are adding “analog yumminess” (a technical term) in your summer, only to now have to go A/D with the final mix BACK into the DAW to print your final mix (unless you have the luxury of printing to analog tape and your client can afford the tape, you can get consistent tape stock, don’t mind the tape hiss and low end distortion and image smear).
Needless to say, I like mixing ITB, I like the total recall-ability, and have learned how to work the software to get solid mixes. Lots of gold and platinum credits to show for it. BTW, I don’t rely on the mastering guy to make me look good… but that’s another rant for another day.
Last axiom from me: Want better mixes? Record better tracks!
DC, I usually try to skirt technical issues whenever possible
Thumbs up for that last axiom.
I get the point of this article, although I kind of do disagree with you in this one Graham, of course there is no “need” to do analog summing, but even when mixing through the Soundcraft DC2000 in my friend’s studio, mixing is so much easier and fun, and I totally feel that it is because of the 3Dness it adds to the sound, not to mention I sat in a mix session where they used a 2bus LT, and it is just amazing. Although I gotta tell people, you gotta mix through the thing the whole time, not just go through it when ready to print (wrong way of using it, sompe people are doing that). Anyway, if it’s easier and more fun, I take it.
Wait a minute. Analog summing plug in sounds a bit like an oxymoron to me.
I love this site and what I have learned. I also love the discussion. I have come to this conclusion. I am 26. I didn’t grow up with analog boards or 2 inch tape. And most people my age didn’t either. Most people my age who are in a home studio don’t really know what that sounds and feels like from a hands on experience. I am learning that analog summing, or things like the VCC come down to one thing. Does it sound good. Not better or “authentic”. I can’t tell if it sounds “authentic”, because my reference point and “normal” is digital. I have bought the VCC. I don’t know if it really makes my mix sound like it is going through a Neve or SSL. The question is does it add to my mix in a positive way? Sometimes is does, sometimes it doesn’t. Like Graham said, first learn how to get a great mix! I am done ha.
You’re spot on Anthony. I grew up with Pro Tools. Have always mixed in a DAW so it’s the norm for me. I’ve learned HOW to mix in a DAW to get things sounding just right. It’s a bit different than mixing through a summing mixer or a console because of the headroom issue.
For the analog guys a summing mixer can be a helpful tool so they can mix the way they are used to (pushing the faders etc). For me, I don’t need it.
[...] when the conversation turns to things like the sound of tape, consoles or analog summing, remember they are of a different generation than you and therefore have a very specific [...]
I have a rather interesting workflow that combines mixing ITB and mixing analog, I do all my automation and set up gain structures etc ITB and then essentially send the outputs of subgroups etc to subgroups so I can have a tactile environment for big picture stuff. May not be everyone’s favorite method but it certainly works for me. Then you get all the benefits of mixing ITB but you also get some of that analog character–another way a great number of producers get that analog feel in a digital mix is to print the master to 2-track tape. Ultimately, my workflow allows the best of both worlds and lets me harness the power of both environments, and I daresay that’s the best way to go.
…”send outputs of subgroups etc to *[my console] so I can have a tactile environment…”
Digital summing isn’t harsh or cold. That might be part of the problem right there.
Switching from digital summing to good analog summing shortly after completing your static mix Frame, and at the point when you begin to struggle with the mix. This is the ideal time to understand exactly what you gain when summing analog because your sensitive to changes without being hypersensitive. In descriptive terms, your mix will be wider, punchier, with deeper lows, and more illusion of depth. Done properly you should recognize just how much benefit you’re getting from the analog summing.
As to me being “used” to analog mixing, I recorded the entire Pharcyde album on a DAW in 1992. I have a vast basis of comparison when it comes to different desks, recorders, converters and platforms, and I find it nothing short of humorous when someone tries to explain away my warnings with age bias. I was used to the auditory schmear that happens from mixing on a desk, yet somehow I managed to transition to midfield mixing with no impediments between myself and the monitors. That’s a strawman argument.
You realize, of course, you’re basically arguing that you can’t hear something that’s rather obvious and repeatable. Something that I demonstrate for clients (with anything but golden ears) on a weekly basis. To make matters worse, you’re admitting to this in public. I always find that to be a fascinating position to take. “I can’t hear what you hear! Therefore you’re wrong.”
Huh.
It’s possible you haven’t had the proper basis of comparison. It’s possible you don’t have a proper space for critical monitoring. I don’t know why you’ve come to your conclusions. All I know is that I’m merely encouraging people to try analog summing for themselves in the way I prescribe in Zen and the Art of Mixing.
Out of curiosity, what summing have you tried, and how did you perform your comparisons? What kind of program did you use? What was the basic track count? What converters and clock did you use?
Enjoy,
Mixerman
Hey Mixerman, let me first say that I’m honored to have you post here on The Recording Revolution. Truly.
I’m a big fan of your mixing work (especially Lifehouse, thinking “Spin”) and your book “Zen And The Art Of Mixing” is a great read. One of the more practical mixing books I’ve ever read because you describe mixing as more of an artform (big picture stuff) than a science (tell me what knobs to turn). I’ve recommended it here on the blog AND given copies away because it’s one every mixer or aspiring mixer should read.
That being said, what I’m arguing for in this article is a sense of perspective. Many aspiring mixers can get lost in the sea of gear, upgrades, and plugins that the pros use in search of that magic bullet that will make their mixes sound like a Mixerman mix. But much of the time they would be better served by learning (and practicing) the basics: gain staging, panning, EQ, compression, automation, arrangement, etc.
When it comes to the practice of analog summing in particular, I wanted to merely point out that how one sums (ITB or OTB) does not determine whether they can make a pro sounding mix or not. Hence why I compared analog summing mixers like yourself and my friend Fab Dupont to guys who simply sum in the box. I wanted to point out that there must be some OTHER common denominator that makes a pro mix: namely experience and tasteful use of inherently accesible tools (EQ, compression, etc).
In your book you make a very strong case for analog summing. So strong in fact that it seems as if you’re saying one CAN’T get a great mix without it. In the end I know you suggest readers simply try it for themselves and come to a conclusion on their own (a great idea), but it’s clear that you’re passionate about the practice and that it works well for you (and many, many others).
What I’m trying to make the case for here in this article and on the blog in general is that there is SO much more that goes into a great mix than summing and more often than not, what newer mixers need is more practice, more experience with solid EQ and compression technique, and to develop their tastes as a mixer and listener.
Cheers,
Graham
I’m (as Mixerman) am still curious:
["Out of curiosity, what summing have you tried, and how did you perform your comparisons? What kind of program did you use? What was the basic track count? What converters and clock did you use?"]
[Edit: Nevermind, saw your answer to that.]
Hey all. I hope this is not too crass, but I have been following this thread and felt compelled to drop in a shameless plug for the Unit Audio analog summing boxes that my pal Terry builds. For about the price of another plugin, you can try real analog summing.
From Zen and the Art of Mixing:
“That’s right; I’m telling you that your DAW in its stock form is going to make life not just difficult, but untenable as it relates to mixing. That doesn’t mean you can’t make your clients happy (we all have clients that are easy to please). It certainly doesn’t mean that you can’t come up with an amazing arrangement. It means you’re facing a limitation so severe and so critical to mixing that your main instrument is essentially broken. Your results will remain severely compromised until you fix the problem.”
From the Introduction of Zen and the Art of Mixing:
“Pulling emotional impact out of a track is accomplished through concrete techniques, so you can actually learn how to do this. Once you begin to recognize all that goes into a great song and arrangement, which in turn should promote an inspired perfor- mance (knock on wood), you’ll start to work on a different level from everyone else. Manipulating sound as it relates purely to sound is irrelevant to music. It’s your ability to manipulate emo- tional impact as it relates to sound that will make you a great artist, producer, or mixer.
This doesn’t mean there aren’t real-world consequences to the gear we choose. Gear surely matters, and we’ll be discussing exactly what gear matters and why. But if you haven’t developed your ears enough to readily identify the differences you’re hearing and how they actually affect sound, then what does it really matter? As you get better at mixing, as you become more adept at hearing and more sensitive to emotional impact, you’ll naturally become more sensitive to what you want out of your gear. You could have the greatest, most accurate mixing setup in the world, but until you have some years under your belt you’re not going to hear even half the things that I do. The good news is that your hearing and mixing will improve concurrently with your gear. Even the most modest mixing setup should be good enough for now, and certainly won’t preclude you from this book. I’ll bet you’re glad to read that!”
I’m pretty clear in the book. At some point in your career, when making the transition from hobbyist, to part-timer, to professional, you should carefully investigate analog summing. It will make mixing easier, you’ll fight the audio less which allows you to concentrate on the music more, and as a result your mixes will greatly improve. I lay out an exact methodology for accurately testing analog summing for yourself, and I explain clearly that you must have adequate critical monitoring (which includes the acoustic space in which the monitors reside), and some time mixing under your belt in order to notice the marked improvement analog summing offers.
EQ and compression techniques are a wank. These merely need to be practiced. Nothing more, nothing less. I can give you precise instructions on how to use a compressor, and you’ll still fuck it up on your first batch of mixes. And I’m not suggesting a neophyte go out and purchase summing. It’s far more important to have accurate monitoring. Of course, once you have accurate monitoring, then other problems become more obvious. Any PROFESSIONAL who finds himself struggling to mix in an accurate room needs to seriously consider analog summing. If you find yourself getting good at mixing but not over the hump, try analog summing BEFORE you purchase that big expensive plugin bundle. The summing will make the bigger difference by a mile.
I certainly don’t mind push back to my arguments, and I’m all for a good debate, but the benefit of analog summing is something I can prove time and time again to anyone who sits in the room with me. Given this, I’m quite curious what summing boxes you’ve actually personally put through their paces, and how you did it.
Thanks,
Mixerman
I’m not disagreeing that analog summing is a helpful tool for many. My point is that clearly it’s not necessary for great mixes, even Grammy winning mixes. If it were, why would we have other pro mixers mixing in the box? Wouldn’t they just get a summing box or sum through a console as well?
To your question about me personally. I worked in a studio where everything was summed through an SSL and I’ve taken part in other people’s blind tests (comparing summing out and in the box), but I’ve never been interested in doing my own tests. I’ve basically grown up in Pro Tools land and that’s what I’m used to (as explained here: http://therecordingrevolution.com/2012/05/14/embracing-the-pro-tools-generation/). I’m not remotely interested in analog summing. If however, I saw that nobody who’s anybody in the pro mixing world was mixing ITB then I would need to strongly consider it.
I’m sure you find me ignorant, and that’s OK. Your work speaks for itself, as does your career. Mine is a little less impressive. Regardless, the heart of this blog, and my heart personally, is to help people get away from debates like this (summing OTB vs ITB, 44.1khz vs 96khz, Apogee converters vs stock Digi/Avid converters) and instead focus on technique and experience. That’s where people are going to actually see improvement in their mixes and in their understanding of working with audio.
If in time some people want to play with different summing options (or sample rates or converters) then they should. But I personally don’t believe that those things are what will make or break their results.
Mixerman,
Much respect to your ears and your work, obviously they speak for themselves, and no doubt there is a difference between in the box and broken out mixes (whether one is better or worse is, IMHO, a personal decision) but I think what Graham’s trying to do with this post (and really with this whole site) is encourage folks, especially younger musicians, to dive into the art of music making – recording/mixing, etc – without feeling held back by their lack of experience or “proper/expensive” recording gear.
For the first time in history musicians coming up have access to incredibly proficient creation tools. One could argue the average teenage musician has a more powerful means of recording via his/her laptop than The Beatles had access to when making “Pepper” (I’m jealous I had a quarter in. 8-trk reel to reel and a crappy Fostex board), but unfortunately along with all that power and freedom comes, for some, an intimidation factor, so I think a lot of the folks that read this blog are just looking to overcome those feeling and simply begin to get their ideas on tape (drive
. As you mentioned, summing choice is probably a worry these budding engineers should grow into (if they choose to) once they’ve got the basics down and as such, maybe this is a discussion best reserved for Gearslutz or some such forum.
Lastly, all debate aside, in the end, I always keep reminding myself as I work (and I think you’d agree) it’s first and foremost about the song anyway…
Crappy Song + The Best Mix (in the box or out) = Crappy Song
A lesson I’m far more worried about folks learning than any engineering practice.
All the Best,
Mark
I would like to jump in here and say that before I found this site I was never finishing projects… Never. I spent more time researching gear and saving to buy gear then I did on recording. I felt like I just didn’t have enough of “the necessities” to make great music. Not to mention that I had no clue how to implement the basic fundamental ITB tools, such as EQ and Compression. Today, (almost entirely) because of this site and Graham’s tutorials, I am actually recording and truly having a blast doing it. Sure I still want certain pieces of gear and am curious to try new things out but the point is, that it is not necessary to have that “one mic”, that “all powerful plugin”, or that “must have outboard gear” to make great music. If I go back to that mentality, then I’ll be sitting around waiting and never feeling adequate enough to even try.
“Much respect to your ears and your work, obviously they speak for themselves, and no doubt there is a difference between in the box and broken out mixes (whether one is better or worse is, IMHO, a personal decision) but I think what Graham’s trying to do with this post (and really with this whole site) is encourage folks, especially younger musicians, to dive into the art of music making – recording/mixing, etc – without feeling held back by their lack of experience or “proper/expensive” recording gear.”
And my point is that my book puts a heavy emphasis on approaching mixing from the music side of things, and I don’t know how one could read my book and think otherwise. I mean, here you are telling ME that the song is the most important thing, despite my having written over twelve years ago on Usenet my Ten Steps to Better Mixing, in which number 2 is: If the song sucks the mix is irrelevant. So, you can’t bring up the importance of a song as debating point, when I’ve already given the song supreme importance, well over a decade before the debate began.
Next you’re going to tell me how much important the performances are than the summing. Let me save us all a little time. I stipulate to that!
So, we shouldn’t care about our tools because of that? There’s a big difference between making music for fun, and making music for money. And when I get paid for something, I make sure that there’s nothing getting in my way of a killer product. This way, on those occasions when I’m working with a killer singer and an amazing song, I can rest easy knowing I’m not allowing the technology to get in the way. Great songs will transcend lesser recordings. That doesn’t mean we don’t try hard.
Graham wrote: “I’m not remotely interested in analog summing. ”
It’s interesting, because I don’t typically write entire articles about things I’m not interested in. It seems to me, that you’re not interested in is doing the comparison. That only makes you ignorant. Why would you ever want to be ignorant? More importantly, why would you admit to wanting to be ignorant about a subject you’re giving advice on?
Seriously. You can’t reasonably claim I’m wrong when you haven’t even tried it for yourself in the way I prescribed.
Enjoy,
Mixerman
Mixerman,
Agreed that professional engineers, mixers, etc should care deeply about the quality of the work they’re creating and the tools they use to reach that end but again, I think you’re missing the core point of this post/site (as I believe it to be, not speaking for Graham) which is to encourage folks starting out to simply get in the game of recording, not be held back by their lack of gear and to help them make good recordings with the stuff they have (which these days is of pretty high quality even if they own Garageband & a cheap I/O). From what I’ve seen, most people who visit this site are not pro engineers and as such really shouldn’t concern themselves, at this point, with analog summing, vintage mic pres and the like.
May be presumptuous of me to say, so forgive me, but you might have gotten the gist of this site and it’s user-base if you looked around here a bit before you posted but probably no more presumptuous than you assuming I’ve read your book (I haven’t) or some post you put up on Usenet 12 years ago concerning your thoughts on the importance of the song (although glad to hear we agree on that point).
Best,
Mark
Hey Mark,
You know, the article IS right above this discussion. So, I and everyone else can read exactly what it is that Graham is saying, which is different from what YOU are saying. I get that the site is geared towards hobbyists. And I agree completely that hobbyists are a ways from worrying about analog summing. But I’m exceptionally clear in my book not to worry about the gear, that your gear will improve concurrently with your abilities. I even posted the exact quote in a post above here. How is that message at odds with yours?
I know you want to rewrite history on this, but it’s quite clear that Graham insists I’m wrong about the issues with digital summing. He says so directly, and he backs up his statement with mixers who I know personally, and whom he has likely never even spoken to. Then, when we dig a bit deeper, we come to find out he hasn’t even tried a direct comparison between analog and digital summing himself. He’s worked on an SSL years ago. Oh great. So much experience!
Graham also calls the summing debate a silly one. Yet he can’t be bothered to actually figure out if there is some merit to the position first? Now THAT’S what I call silly.
Graham, would you like me to arrange for you to try this for yourself?
Enjoy,
Mixerman
Hey Mixerman,
I totally get that you’re argument with Graham is over the validity of analog summing. That said, and again I can’t speak for Graham, but as a reader of this blog for some time I think I benefit from a little perspective/context that perhaps you don’t when I say that given Graham’s past posts I believe the greater message he’s trying to convey with this piece (and the whole blog) is for folks to not get caught up in the gear but to focus on improving their skills with whatever it is they have available to them. If you truly feel the same, as you say above, i.e – “not to worry about the gear” then I suppose ultimately there’s really no reason to debate the validity of analog summing, right?
Anyway, I’ll leave that to you and Graham. My food’s getting cold…
Keep making great mixes (however you do it).
Best,
Mark
Mixerman,
Good to see some blood-and-guts debate on here. To throw my hat in: I succumbed to GAS a few years ago and bought a summing unit. Best thing I ever did. It not only improved the sonics of my mix, but taught me a thing or two about patching, buss compression, soldering… Basically improved my skillset in the analogue domain.
I’m interested to know what you think of stuff like Slate Digital’s VCC? A little off-topic but I have it and am pretty impressed. Not a replacement for summing through our Series 75, but surprisingly close!
Cheers
Sam
I stubled on this debate I just had the urge to chip in.
Completely agree with Graham on this one. I have always mixed on analog consoles, not even touching ITB mixing until just a couple of years ago. And for me the biggest difference is WORFLOW. Once I got used to the workflow of DAW mixing I felt like i could make as good mixes as OTB. Now, I still like analog colour and distortion (which is why I have my fav pieces of outboards) which I do use regardless if I am mixing on a console or not. BUT to me, summing itself is not the problem with ITB mixing, its the lack of unlinearity and the “left side of the brain” type of workflow (fixable with e control surface).
The summingbox hype of today is just ridiculous. And yes I have made tests with several different summing products. The onle one I thought made a difference had a big transformer on the main outputs, which again had nothing to do with the summing itself…
/M
Hey Magnus,
Cool! Which units have you tried? Specifically how did you perform the testing (i.e. explain the proces of testing so I can understand what you’re listening to when you do it)? What kind of material did you perform these tests on?
Enjoy,
Mixerman
Hello Mixerman
I tested the Vintage Design 16ch summing (cant remember the model name), the SPL Mixdream and the Speck X-sum.
What i did was I took a mix project that I had in my DAW and made summing groups (16ch) via my interfaces through the boxes at unity gain etc and then recorded them back into the DAW. All the pannings in the DAW was exactly kept and I used only full LR stereo groups in the boxes. The song was a kinda avant garde rock song with both really quite and really loud parts.
Now, comparing these mixes with the ITB mix made no real difference to me, (except when using the transformer in the mixdream in which case i could hear a slight coloration/warmth) I would much rather buy another cool piece of gear that I feel actually makes a difference to my sound and/or workflow.
To make a long story short (not enough time right now to fully elaborate), after a full day of testing and listening I came to the conclusion that it’s not the summing itself that makes people like analog mixing but the unlinearity, the “flaws” etc. I see no real point in buying a really clean summing mixer for the sake of sound only. (A tube one would be a diffrent story though because of distortion)
Of course a summing mixer can be very useful anyway, routing, insert points etc. And I also have to add that I use SSL Soundscape as DAW, which is a (according to tale) very good sounding daw, whatever that means. So I do not know if Pro-Tools or other DAWs benefit more from summing OTB.
/Magnus
Well there’s your problem Mangus. The way you’ve tested those boxes isn’t going to tell you anything.
If you want to understand how summing affects your mix, and your ability to mix, you need to do a direct comparison which includes the mixing process. This does not have to be performed blind. The difference is too obvious when performed within the context of an actual mix.
You’re not looking for some magical coloration that makes you happy. I’m talking about a core and systemic difference in how you will connect with the music you’re making and the decisions you’ll make in the process. Once you understand just how much you actually fight digital summing, then you understand how it’s flawed.
Here is how I suggest one test a summing box in my boo Zen and the Art of Mixing:
“Testing Your Summing Box
If you’re going to try a summing box out for yourself, and I highly recommend that you do, there’s a specific procedure that I recommend. If you mix a song to completion, and then you put it through a Dangerous summing box, you’re going to have a difficult time with the evaluation. The summing box will change your mix. Even though the mix will be far better in some ways, it will also be different. It’s difficult to get past the inherent balance changes that will occur from such a radical change in your summing. Therefore, you don’t want to test a summing box on a finished mix, as it’s really not a comparison that you can accurately evaluate. There is really only one way that I can figure to fairly and accurately judge what a summing box can do for you.
Start by installing a summing box into your system. Run the analog outputs from your converters to the inputs of your summing box. By running all of
inputs of the summing box, you remove the sonic nature of the summing box itself as a variable when making your comparison. Mix a song in your DAW by digitally summing through outputs 1 and 2. Make your way through discovery, and frame a decent static mix. Go beyond the point where the mix is singing and you feel good about it, just to the point where you’re beginning to struggle with the mix.
Now switch your channel outputs so that you’re using all the channels of the summing box instead of just the first two. This switchover takes a few minutes, since you have to select new out- puts for every channel. If you have a good summing box (and the only one I can vouch for is the Dangerous 2-Bus), you should notice a greater depth of field, considerably more clarity in the bottom end, a seemingly broader frequency range, and more overall punch. The difference should be night and day, and you should immediately find yourself struggling less with the mix.
Don’t be put off by the changes in your mix. If there were no changes, it would be a useless and superfluous box. The whole reason for making the switch at the struggle point of your mix is that it’s not going to cost you time. In fact, the mix should improve so much where impact is concerned that you’ll likely find it considerably easier to mix.
Now, this isn’t a scientific way of determining a difference. It’s a practical one. You can’t devise a scientific test to prove this for your- self or anyone else. For starters, you can’t perform the switch in real time. The reason you can get away with performing a listening test in this manner is because it’s meant to reveal how much easier it is for you to mix on an operational and process level. It’s not meant as a subjective listening test, although you’ll likely think your mix sounds better. Regardless, if you’re finding it suddenly easier to mix, there’s a reason for it. It’s easier to mix when summing analog.
I’ve used many DAWs and in my experience they are currently all flawed at summing.
Enjoy,
Mixerman
Hello
Sorry, but to me your approcch is the “magical style” one. I do not see that going from “my test” (finished mix) to your test (almost finished mix) will change much in my perception of difference of the two. You are saying that listening through the summing box even with the ITB summing takes away the sonics of the box from the equation, then theoretically the difference should be even bigger when doing the test my way?
Anyway, I dont think anyone of us are going to win the other one over, so we can agree to disagree.
HOwever two factors in this still makes it interesting:
- You have never used SSL Soundscape (I assume)
- I have never used the Dangerous.
But I will probably never test the Dangerous as I have already decided what gear route to take with my new mixing room, SSL Matrix as center piece.
Regards
/Magnus
“Sorry, but to me your approcch is the “magical style” one. I do not see that going from “my test” (finished mix) to your test (almost finished mix) will change much in my perception of difference of the two. ”
Magical style, huh? Now you sound like Ethan Winer.
You can’t take a finished mix, one you’ve spent hours slaving on, and then just put it through completely different processing and expect to hear anything other than a mix that has changed. Where you gain from the summing you lose from balances that are not as you intended them. The benefit from analog summing affects mix decisions, and makes mixing easier. If you REALLY want to understand what benefit analog summing gives you, it’s not one you can just slap on at the end of a mix. This is the 2-bus we’re talking about here. It IS the mix.
“You are saying that listening through the summing box even with the ITB summing takes away the sonics of the box from the equation, then theoretically the difference should be even bigger when doing the test my way?”
Sure, there will be a difference. But that difference is on a finished mix. If you’re happy with the mix, why would you think that putting analog circuitry on the 2-bus, which will change your balances, and thereby give you an apples to oranges comparison. The only apples to apples comparison must be done at a stage in which the mix is in a state of flux.
It’s the same with comparing a mastered track to an unmastered one. Matching levels and switching back and forth tells you nothing about a mastering job. You have to listen to a large swath of the mastered version, and a large swath of the unmastered version, and if the mastered track makes you feel better, it’s a better job. Comparing audio A to audio B has no relevance. Comparing how the music makes you feel between the two examples has supreme relevance.
“Anyway, I dont think anyone of us are going to win the other one over, so we can agree to disagree.”
Actually, you’re just deciding to stick your head in the sand instead of accepting that maybe, just maybe, it’s worth exploring in the manner I’ve presented to you here.
“HOwever two factors in this still makes it interesting:
- You have never used SSL Soundscape (I assume)
- I have never used the Dangerous.”
“But I will probably never test the Dangerous as I have already decided what gear route to take with my new mixing room, SSL Matrix as center piece.”
Interesting. I’m the centerpiece in my room. I guess that’s what separates us.
Enjoy,
Mixerman
I really see no reason that you try to sell and promote Your book on someone others website.
I too am a reader of Graham’s Blog, but I do have you Zen and the Art of Mixing book, and also saw that you are indeed a strong advocated of analog summing. Now, what brought me to Graham’s site was is this valid even in November of 2012? The reason I ask is because we have 32bit and 64bit floating point on DAWs and do you still feel its broken at the 2bus? Have you tried a DAW called REAPER? I also wanted to know if you have ever tried SHADOW HILLS EQUINOX which is a 30 channel summing box, preamp and monitor controller, and I was just curious if ever I will have to make that kind of investment as in for an EQUINOX to make greater recordings. These are people with some big ears. I happen to also see Mike Shipley’s AVID interview where he likes to mix ITB these days as the converters, clocks and plugins have improved. Thank You
Regardless of where any of you fall on the summing debate, you REALLY owe it to yourself to buy and read Mixerman’s book, “Zen And The Art Of Mixing”.
http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Mixing-Mixerman/dp/1423491505/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337611363&sr=8-1
It’s one of the best mixing books out there and you’ll learn a ton (as I did) about the complete art and craft of mixing. Grateful to have it on my shelf for reference.
Mixerman
You are praising analog summing in such a way that I am sure it gives you what you want, that is good for you. I’ll wrap the up by saying that:
1. I dont know who Ethan Winer is.
2. You are indeed right about the feel, and my feeling is that analog summing in it self does not inprove my mixes.
3. I am not a center piece of gear, I am a human being and I dont need analog summing to make my mixes sound good. My ears will do.
Cheers
/Magnus
Mangus,
1. He’s a guy who thinks sound and music can be separated.
2. You can’t possibly say that, you haven’t tried actually mixing through one.
3. That statement makes no sense. I’m the centerpiece in my studio, and I too am a human being. Go figure.
Here’s what I said on page 3 of Zen and the Art of Mixing. Page 3.
All too often in this business of recording and mixing music we lose sight of the music itself. If you go on the Internet you can find thousands of debates comparing converters, compressors, mic pre’s, DAWs, etc. These arguments always relate specifically to sound—in particular good sound versus bad—but sound is just a means to an end. I was whistling over the noise of a vacuum cleaner and not one person ever asked me to stop vacuuming just so they could enjoy the sound of the whistling. Of course, you’ve never heard my whistling. Just the same, I can assure you it’s the music that’s important, not the sound. Our job, whether we’re the artist, producer, recordist, or mixer, is to deliver that music in a way that causes an emotional reaction. Whether that’s glee, sadness, love, anger—you name it, this is what music brings to our lives.
Oddly enough, the arguments on the Internet are always about specs and electronic measurements of distortion, jitter, frequency response, blah, blah, blah. Of course, there are usually a few participants who will pipe in with the argument that one has to measure how the gear affects emotional impact—myself included—but this sort of argument always gets dismissed as voodoo or magic, as if it’s irrelevant somehow. The problem is that there’s really only one way to personally measure emotional impact, and that’s with your ears and brain.”
You’re measuring the wrong things Mangus. Get the magic. Feel the magic!
Mixerman
I would say:
1) Ethan is another individual of strong opinions, like Mixerman
Seriously, though: Ethan co-owns RealTraps and presents on topics he’s most passionate about (room treatment, double-blind tests, audio measurement equipment). He’s on the left in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
He’s generally a nice guy who participates in forums and provides advice and opinion on gearslutz and EQ Magazine’s acoustics forum.
I’m NOT posting to draw a debate on the guy or his opinions. Take that up with Ethan in the forums – he’s usually good for a spirited debate
Just telling those who haven’t experienced him where he can be found — and that his opinions are generally thought-provoking…
Ethan’s opinions are just that–opinions. He suggests no one can hear the effects of jitter, despite many of us proving otherwise. He suggests that even the lowest grade consumer converter is “transparent,” and that no one could pick blind between source and a soundblaster reproduction. Laughable. He makes all sorts of absurd claims, that are so obviously false to anyone who actually makes records for a living, that he will have sealed his fate as nothing more than a crackpot, with no understanding of what a critical listening chain is, and no understanding of how production decisions might affect audio decisions.
Here’s the thing. Anyone who finds themselves agreeing with Ethan’s claims regarding converters is either deaf, or is so inexperienced they have no business even having an opinion.
Enjoy,
Mixerman
Hmm, ok well unless you can scientifically measure something and get it down on paper as hard figures, (which you obviously cannot do with music, feeling, perception of “good sound” etc etc) then the whole “this is just your opinion” argument is pointless.
I did a quick google search and found some interesting threads involving both you and Ethan Winer. Not exactly the most mature reading in the world.
With this said, I do not agree with many things that Ethan is (as far as I have understood from just quickly browsing) saying.
Going on:
3. My statement did make at least as much sense as yours, suggesting that I think my gear will do the work for me. You are the one claiming that one really needs a summing box to mix, well (or should I say one specific summing box). What’s important to me has more to do with workflow, integrating outboard gear in a nice way, touching real faders, not loooking too much at a computer screen etc etc etc. Basically like mixing on a real console. When going for a more ITB/Hybrid setup, this is what is important to me. This is when I get the feeling!
Of course, i want to get out of the DAs, feeding stuff to outboards, doing parallell compression etc, but it’s not the analog summing IT SELF that is doing the magic!
Cheers
/m
Magnus wrote: “Hmm, ok well unless you can scientifically measure something and get it down on paper as hard figures, (which you obviously cannot do with music, feeling, perception of “good sound” etc etc) then the whole “this is just your opinion” argument is pointless.”
You lost me with that. Look, here’s the bottom line. When you compare a finished mix with a finished mix in which the balances have changed, you are making a determination as to which is BETTER, mix A or mix B, and mix A will always have an enormous leg up, because you chose those particular balances for a reason. Suddenly the depth and the extra low end, and the extra width, they don’t seem like improvements, because the core of your mix has changed. It’s really no different from comparing your mix to the mastered version of it. The difference is that the changes on the master are purposeful.
The reason I brought Ethan into the conversation is because it is his contention that taking the emotional impact of the music is “magical” thinking, mostly because feelings cannot be scientifically measured. But we mix music, and the decisions you make when you mix music are musical ones. For example, when you bring the guitars up in the chorus, it’s to create a dynamic excitement–to assist with the lift of the chorus. That’s not a sonic decision, that’s a musical one. The level of the vocal in the track is a musical decision. Some tracks call for a somewhat low vocal, like dance tracks, for instance. Some tracks call for an extremely loud vocal. The level you place that vocal in the mix is a musical decision.
All of these musical decisions are made for the purposes of causing a physical reaction out of the listener. If I want to cause people to move a certain way, then I’m going to make balance decisions between my rhythmic instruments that cause that movement. If I bring up a conga, and it alters the way I move in a bad way, then muting it is a musical decision.
Even sonic decisions are musical ones. I’m not going to try and “nice” up a gritty hardcore track. I want it to be aggressive and irritating. Conversely, if the irritating track is an Adult Contemporary track, then I’m likely to use my tools to smooth out the sound. Those are sonic decisions, but they’re also musical ones.
When mixing, YOU CANNOT IGNORE THE MUSICAL DECISIONS that are meant to affect the listener, regardless of whether those can be measured electronically. So, when you strap a summing box onto the 2-bus at the end of a mix, you’ve changed the balances of the mix, which means you’ve changed the way the mix makes you feel (as the arbiter for the ultimate listener). Therefore, you MUST use the summing box within the process of mixing in order to evaluate it’s effectiveness. Furthermore, you MUST have a basis of comparison, which means you must start the process mixing ITB, and then once you find yourself struggling, switch to the analog summing. Furthermore, in order to keep the sound of the summing box out of the equation, you MUST keep the summing box inline for the ITB portion of the mix.
Mangus wrote: “With this said, I do not agree with many things that Ethan is (as far as I have understood from just quickly browsing) saying.”
Well that’s good! Unfortunately, you dismiss emotional impact as “magic,” and that is where you two think alike.
Mangus wrote: “3. My statement did make at least as much sense as yours, suggesting that I think my gear will do the work for me. You are the one claiming that one really needs a summing box to mix, well (or should I say one specific summing box). ”
Ah, now I understand the rub. I own the Dangerous products, yes. At the time I got them, they were just about the only game in town. I’m not trying to shill the Dangerous units. At this point and time, there are several other boxes I’d consider, including the AMS Neve box. The Great River summing box looks interesting too.
Mangus continued: “What’s important to me has more to do with workflow, integrating outboard gear in a nice way, touching real faders, not loooking too much at a computer screen etc etc etc. Basically like mixing on a real console. When going for a more ITB/Hybrid setup, this is what is important to me. This is when I get the feeling!
Of course, i want to get out of the DAs, feeding stuff to outboards, doing parallell compression etc, but it’s not the analog summing IT SELF that is doing the magic!”
You can’t possibly say that. You didn’t test the box right. Why not just TRY it the way I’ve suggested, and then if I’m wrong, tell me all about it. That’s a very stubborn position to take. Try it! You’ll like it!
Enjoy,
Mixerman
Mixerman, I do not dismiss emotional impact as magic. As a matter of fact I think you are 100% right that it’s all about the feeling of the music, and a agree mixing is a piece of art and not some techinical service.
What I I was dismissing is that many people think that analog summing will do the magic for them.
How good you are at mixing depends not on what gear you have, but who you are, your taste, your ability to understand music, experience etc etc etc. I know this, and of course you know it too. But THIS exactly is the reason why I think you cannot say that you need an analog summing mixer to perform this piece of art, which is what this article was all about.
For me, if a summing mixer doesnt colour or in any way significally (with a capital S) enhances the sound of my mixes then I see no reason to use it for that summing alone. If it fits my workflow, makes it easy to incorporate analog gear or have other benefits its another thing though.
I might be stubborn and firm in my opinions, but I think we both are
Regards
/M
“For me, if a summing mixer doesnt colour or in any way significally (with a capital S) enhances the sound of my mixes then I see no reason to use it for that summing alone.”
Summing certainly colors the sound. You just can’t evaluate the color on a finished mix. You have to mix WITH the color to determine if it’s beneficial. Neve VRs and SSL G Sereies are both lousy desks in different ways. Of the two, I prefer the V-Series because the color that console imparts doesn’t get in my way. Conversely, I find myself struggling to use the SSL. Someone else could easily have the opposite opinion, but that opinion is formed by working on the desk.
“If it fits my workflow, makes it easy to incorporate analog gear or have other benefits its another thing though.
I might be stubborn and firm in my opinions, but I think we both are ”
The difference being, I’ve tested summing boxes both ways (yours and mine), and you haven’t. That makes you stubborn from a position of ignorance.
Enjoy,
Mixerman
Mixerman,
Well argued. Your comment provides a clear and concise explanation of EXACTLY the process you advocate for testing a summing box per your book (which I’ll second Graham in recommending).
As you’ve said, “your hearing and mixing will improve concurrently with your gear.” As I get to the point where $gearbudget exceeds $gearcost I hope to try this experiment myself.
–
Andrew
All arguing aside, I still think it’s really cool that Mixerman is in here, giving a professional opinion. Eric, we appreciate you! I think everyone would agree there.
P.S., Zen & Art of Mixing completely changed the way I mix, you kick ass.
Hello Graham, Mixerman & All,
Sort of a related question although I’m afraid it might make Mixerman throw up in his mouth a little (sorry Mixerman) but I was wondering if anyone has experienced a noticeable summing difference/improvement mixing in the box when sending tracks to Group channels (at least that’s what they’re called in Nuendo, the DAW software I use) or what I believe are called Aux channels (?) in Pro Tools before sending to the 2 buss?
In other words, basically sending tracks to stereo buses before hitting the 2 buss, i.e. sending all your drums to a group stereo channel, all your vocals to another, then all the other instruments to yet another and so on. I remember reading a piece about this some years back (maybe in Tape Op) wherein someone was claiming that “the math” involved in digital summing preferred looking at say, just 4 or 5 stereo group tracks (or buses) funneling into the 2 buss rather than 24+ individual tracks, ultimately yielding less smearing/better imaging, etc.
Always was a little skeptical about this but have never done a comparison (i.e. rendering the same mix using each approach). Obviously grouping sets of instruments has its own mix advantages but curious what folks opinions here might be on this practice as it relates to the effect it may/may not have on summing. Any data out there to back this up or refute it one way or the other?
Thanks,
Mark
Hey Eric, long time no babble! (r.a.p. :>) A few comments:
First, both you and Graham have valid points. His is that novice mixers should be much more concerned with learning the craft than with trying to find a “magic bullet” piece of equipment, analog or digital, to rescue their mixes. Your point is that some expert mixers like yourself hear an improvement from analog summing. Y’all are both right, and are needlessly throwing apples and oranges at each other. Graham logged the original error though by claiming the analog-summing debate was “silly” for everyone, not just for novices.
Second, I’d love to hear your opinion of the cheaper analog summers, particularly the Folcrum http://rollmusic.com/folcrom.php and the UnitAudio http://www.unitaudio.com/unit.html , which I could afford and could run back into ProTools through my pair of API mic pres.
Third, unless I’m misunderstanding some semantic issue, I’d tend to agree with Winer’s assertation that music and sound are separate entities. For me as a composer, recording is a constant struggle to get the sound coming out of the speakers to remotely resemble the music playing in my head! :>) Remember, Beethoven created some of his best work when he was deaf, i.e. without sound but certainly not without music.
Cheers, Rick (rickymix).
Rick Novak wrote: “First, both you and Graham have valid points”
And how exactly could we both have valid points when one of us is making the point out of complete ignorance.? He’s never tried it! That would be hoping, not knowing. You argue a position based on knowledge, and Graham has acknowledged no knowledge when it comes to analog summing.
There’s no reason for me to even read the rest of your post since the initial premise is so laughable. People. Stop defending purposeful ignorance guised in the form of encouragement. All that’s being encouraged is further ignorance.
Mixerman
Eric, I’m surprised that you’re being so pissy. Graham’s very valid point is that novice engineers should focus on learning their craft instead of looking for “magic bullet” gizmos, digital or analog, to improve their work. Don’t you agree?
He’s wrong IMO in asserting that at the high end of the craft there’s nothing to be gained from analog summing, for precisely the reasons you mentioned.
But whatever; let’s discuss something beyond everyone’s egos. What do you think of the Folcrum? I’d very much value your opinion on that.
RICK NOVAK WROTE: “Eric, I’m surprised that you’re being so pissy.”
Dude. Even Graham has stopped defending this position of stunning admitted ignorance.
Mixerman
I have no need to defend my position as it’s a valid one.
I appreciate debate on a healthy level and I try to learn from as many people as I can (like I’ve said here, I’ve learned a lot from your book and have recommended it to many people). This post however has gotten out of hand and it’s frustrating because this is the polar opposite of what I intended my website to be, a site that actually helps people and motivates them to get better at their craft, not debate gear or processing techniques. If people want to debate things like summing, converters, and sample rates they can go to Gearslutz or a myriad of other places and waste their time.
Again, Mixerman, as I’ve said before I respect you and your work speaks for itself. You have no need to defend your methods or analog summing as a practice. I think what you are doing is getting you fantastic results. Thank you again for offering your expertise in this area.
That being said, I have a lot of work to catch up on and I’m assuming most of us reading this right now do as well. I’d rather see us use our time productively getting more music made rather than attacking each other on a blog. I’m sure you would agree.
Cheers,
Graham
Here’s the one and only lesson everyone should take from this blog entry: Never write an article on the internet in which you talk about things you know nothing about. Whatever you do, don’t invoke the one guy who can and will shine a light on your total ignorance.
Good Luck,
Mixerman
Dude yourself! :>) I’m actually AGREEING with you and you’re still being a dick. HUH?!?!?
@Graham: spot on and keep up the good work with the blog.
@Mixerman “the invoker”: don’t be rude.
Back to work now, summing or not summing.
I’m wondering if we have a troll here impersonating famous engineers? I just experienced the same thing on Linked In with someone claiming to be Jimmy Johnson who was also inexplicably defensive and belligerent and off-topic. I don’t know, maybe I just bring out the asshole in folks! :>) But anyone who has read Eric’s book could have written these posts attributed to him above.
Rick: As a reader of the Womb forum and other places Mixerman has posted, it ‘feels’ like him. Maybe it’s the New York in him that’s coming across as a little brash to some readers here.
Regardless, it seems the conversation has run its course.
Hi Kris, brashness I don’t mind, I was born in Manhattan. I’ve had lots of discussions with the real Eric back in the rec.audio.pro days, and he stayed on-topic there. Maybe a decade of internet has changed him, but the fact that a supposed “Jimmy Johnson” is exhibiting identical behavior over on Linked In aroused my suspicions. R.A.P. was ruined by trolls.
As you say, the conversation is dwindling and now way off topic, and I don’t want to further contribute to that. Over & out. R.N.
Now you’re saying I’m off topic? Hilarious!
And I’ll be sure to address this blog post and the absurd arguments on The Mixerman Radio Show later this month.
Enjoy,
Mixerman
The Rush Limbaugh of audio; Eric Serafin! :>)
It’s Sarafin, and it’s your buddy Graham who is making shit up Dittohead. I’m using facts.
Enjoy,
Mixerman
Sorry, I flunked spelling… :>) Here’s the thing Eric; I totally agree with your facts and I disagree with Graham, whom I’ve never heard of before. I came to this conversation intending to make the same points you have, but you beat me to it, and probably said it better than I could.
But you didn’t need to go around insulting people and making personal attacks. Every single time this thread has gone off topic, it’s because YOU started beating your chest. There’s nothing cool about that Eric. And I’m not talking about being correct or polite or “everyone is beautiful” or any of that shit. You’re being a dick just to make yourself feel like a big-shot. Is it working?
Rick wrote: “Every single time this thread has gone off topic, it’s because YOU started beating your chest. ”
The only person that has brought this thread off topic is you.
Rick wrote: “You’re being a dick just to make yourself feel like a big-shot. Is it working?”
Oh, is THAT my motivation! Are we back in middle school now?
Right. You think I’m being a dick. I get it. I think similarly of you. That got us far!
Now drop it already, because Bianco is certain I’m trying to convince people to use summing when here I thought I was offering fair warning to other bloggers laying out detailed opinions on things they have no personal experience with.
Enjoy,
MIxerman
Am I the only one starting to believe that come the end of time this thread will still somehow be active with Eric trying to convince the roaches why analog summing is the way to go?
“drop it already…”
Let’s.
yes, please drop it, even my email sighs at the incoming notification of this thread. Who is man enough to NOT get the last word here lol
From the Unit Audio website.
Terry A., Head Designer and Engineer for Unit Audio has this to say About Analog Summing:
“Loosely quoting Shakespeare one might say ‘To analog sum or not to analog sum?’ This has been a point of controversy with digital recording for quite some time.
With modern DAW software, mixing within the computer has resulted in some great sounding recordings, but I have long been intrigued by the concept of analog summing. I was not prepared to pay $800.00 or more to test that theory, so I engineered and built my own. Then to test the theory, I set out to see if there was any difference in the mixed sound. Much to my amazement and pleasure, I did notice a subtle but very pleasing difference in the stereo separation and placement of the instruments compared to my In the Box mixes.”
IN CONCLUSION
Is analog summing going to make your recordings sound like a Nashville studio with a billion dollars worth of equipment? Probably not, but you will notice a difference in your mixes using a Unit Audio summing mixer.
Hi David, has anyone done a comparison of the Unit vs the Fulcrom vs the Dangerous summers? As the least expensive of the bunch, it seems it would be to Unit’s benefit to do that, if indeed your box is in the same ballpark. Get one of each box and lend the trio to various engineers to compare, using Mixerman’s methodology above. You could probably put all 3 summers into an 8U rack with a switching device. THAT would be interesting! Good article for someone too.
Rick,
Thanks for the comment and the interest. The comparison you suggest would certainly be very interesting. It would however, bit a bit of an “apples to oranges” comparison as the Dangerous summers are active and the Folcrum and Unit summers are both passive. Our Mixers weren’t really designed to compete with either of these fine products. Instead, we wanted to offer access to basic physical analog summing circuitry at a price similar to what one might pay for a plugin that emulates analog summing. As far as reviews go, we have some boxes at a major recording publication and we expect to see it published in the very near future. I hope this helps.
Graham, love this site. I think you are doing a great thing for the people who may not have a lot of experience in this industry.
Mixerman, your work is great. I have always meant to read your book, and its on my list now. I have not used anaolg summing, but I stumbled upon this thread because I’m using a Rupert Neve 5088 console to sum a mix on Monday. It is pretty much finished, so I have a feeling that I may not be doing it the best way. I really hope it gives me the depth and 3d image that I am missing. Any tips on what I could do to help the process?
I would like to say that it doesn’t do any good to get into arguments on here. I know everyone is trying to help, and even though someone always has to be wrong, let’s not make a big deal.
I agree that I have “heard” that analog summing is overrated. I have Slate VCC now, and it did help a bit. However, I still am not getting the depth and width of the big boys. So, I decided to try summing. I will find out first and foremost if it is worth it. I may even book a full remix session there so I can mix the whole thing there and see the difference.
Thanks to both of you, but try and play nice.
Jrock
Hey Jrock,
If you want to hear how analog summing helps you, then you should follow my recommendation on how to test it There is no possible way to perform a results based test. Therefore, you want to do a process based test.
As to getting more depth out of your mixes, summing will definitely help with that. But it also takes practice. The analog summing won’t make you a better mixer. It might not even make your mixes better in the short run (depending on where you are in the learning process). Analog summing WILL, however, make it easier to mix, which will make it faster to mix, which is always a good thing in my book. By summing analog, you’re removing an impediment.
Think of it like this. If you put tattered, heavy shoes on a championship marathon runner and you put top of the line custom made running shoes on a slovenly mix engineer (you and me both!), I’m thinking the champ is going to be showered and out for the evening by the time you’re done running the marathon. If we reverse who wears what shoes, the results won’t change, right? Your Kenyan competitor is still gonna whoop you. So, you can’t compare the equipment in the hands (er feet) of a pro to the equipment in the hands of an amateur.
If you run the race again in the tattered shoes a week later, it’s quite possible you’ll run the race even faster due purely to experience and despite the introduction of lesser equipment. So, you can’t test the shoes based on the results from week to week. You risk a false result that way. You have to trust how the shoes make you feel. Comparing shoes from one race to another doesn’t prove anything when the comparison is based on the results rather than on how you feel in them.
If you run the race in the tattered shoes, but for 100 yards we give you the custom shoes with which to finish the race, would you be able to evaluate the improvement? Probably not. You’re dead tired. All you want to do is finish the race, and the tattered shoes got you this far, what’s the point in switching now? So, how are you supposed to evaluate them in that state of mind?
If we meet again a week later, and have you run the first four miles in the tattered shoes, and then give you the custom racing shoes you’re going to instantly recognize a performance difference. That’s because now you have a basis of comparison, and you’re fresh enough to evaluate the difference.
Just like in the running shoes analogy, you need to make your summing comparisons at a time when you’re in the best frame of mind to compare. That time is when you’re far enough along in the mix to notice subtle changes, but not so far in the mix that you’re disinterested in anything other than finishing the mix that you’ve been slaving over for hours. At that point in a mix, a major change is nothing short of confusing. You’re in a haze at the end of the mix due to the amount of time you’ve been working on it. And printing the mixes doesn’t help, because you SHOULD prefer the mix in which the balances that you spent hours slaving over remain in tact.
Here is my recommendation from the book Zen and the Art of Mixing:
“Testing Your Summing Box
If you’re going to try a summing box out for yourself, and I highly recommend that you do, there’s a specific procedure that I recommend. If you mix a song to completion, and then you put it through a Dangerous summing box, you’re going to have a difficult time with the evaluation. The summing box will change your mix. Even though the mix will be far better in some ways, it will also be different. It’s difficult to get past the inherent balance changes that will occur from such a radical change in your summing. Therefore, you don’t want to test a summing box on a finished mix, as it’s really not a comparison that you can accurately evaluate. There is really only one way that I can figure to fairly and accurately judge what a summing box can do for you.
Start by installing a summing box into your system. Run the analog outputs from your converters to the inputs of your sum- ming box. By running all of your audio through the first two inputs of the summing box, you remove the sonic nature of the summing box itself as a variable when making your comparison. Mix a song in your DAW by digitally summing through outputs 1 and 2. Make your way through discovery, and frame a decent static mix. Go beyond the point where the mix is singing and you feel good about it, just to the point where you’re beginning to struggle with the mix.
Now switch your channel outputs so that you’re using all the channels of the summing box instead of just the first two. This switchover takes a few minutes, since you have to select new out- puts for every channel. If you have a good summing box (and the only one I can vouch for is the Dangerous 2-Bus), you should notice a greater depth of field, considerably more clarity in the bottom end, a seemingly broader frequency range, and more overall punch. The difference should be night and day, and you should immediately find yourself struggling less with the mix.
Don’t be put off by the changes in your mix. If there were no changes, it would be a useless and superfluous box. The whole reason for making the switch at the struggle point of your mix is that it’s not going to cost you time. In fact, the mix should improve so much where impact is concerned that you’ll likely find it con- siderably easier to mix.
Now, this isn’t a scientific way of determining a difference. It’s a practical one. You can’t devise a scientific test to prove this for your- self or anyone else. For starters, you can’t perform the switch in real time. The reason you can get away with performing a listening test in this manner is because it’s meant to reveal how much easier it is for you to mix on an operational and process level. It’s not meant as a subjective listening test, although you’ll likely think your mix sounds better. Regardless, if you’re finding it suddenly easier to mix, there’s a reason for it. It’s easier to mix when summing analog.
That said, I guarantee I’m going to get hammered on the Inter- net for this one (I might as well have sent out invitations). I mean, not only isn’t the comparison blind, it’s not immediate! So why would I recommend this? Because blind comparisons are over- rated when it comes to mixing. Look, if you notice a big difference, you’re not imagining it. There’s a point in a mix when you know something has changed, and you know how that change has affected you. Making comparisons on a mix while you’re in a mix shouldn’t be performed blind. If the difference affects you, you’ll know it. If it doesn’t, then it’s not a big enough difference to matter. We do comparisons a thousand times a day as mixers, and they’re rarely, if ever, preformed blind. Do you need to per- form a blind test to determine whether the vocal sounds better with an 1176 or an LA-2A? Do you need a blind comparison between EQ settings? Of course not. You’re evaluating the sound within the context of a mix. These comparisons mean everything to your mix, and there’s neither a reason nor the time to perform them blind.
If you want to set up the comparison blind, then set up two mixes, one using multiple outputs, the other using two outputs, and have someone help you switch between the mixes. But once you hear how much extension you get on the bottom end, you’re not going to bother. Once you realize how much more depth your mix has, that summing box isn’t ever going to get unplugged. You’re in the middle of a mix; you’ll know instantly whether there’s a big difference or no difference at all. I’m sure I’ll be chal- lenged to pick blind by some Internet wannabe screaming about expectation bias. If you’re one of the Internet wannabes, then by all means, test it blind. If you’re on your way to being a bona-fide mixer, listen to the obvious difference and move forward on your mix.”

Enjoy,
Mixerman
*UPDATE*
I wanted to give a personal update and testimonial based on some things I’ve tried since this last post. Since Mixerman took the time to write me such a good response, I felt I owed it to myself to try his was since mine was not working.
First, I purchased and read Mixerman’s book. It had a lot of great information in there, and I’m sure I will read it again. Great book.
Next, I tried the summing thing. I had been looking to get a monitor control system with talkback, and I ended up getting the Dangerous Dbox because it came with analog summing, be it only 8 channels. I can officially say that I tried it the way he described it in Zen and in his posts. I got kinda stuck in the mix, blah blah blah. When I sent my stems out to the Dbox, things changed.
The Dbox allowed my width and depth of the mix to really change. I noticed I had a much wider mix without any of those crappy width adjusting plugins. The depth really increased as well, I seemed to have a bigger space with which to work.
The next step I took was getting an analog 2 buss compressor. Eric talks about the G384 in his book to do some of the heavy lifting. Well, I picked up a Chameleon Labs 7720 SSL style comp for $500. I know it is not an SSL, but it definitely stepped up the game. The UAD SSL comp plugin I was previously using really sounded ok to my ears. When I set up the Chameleon to patch it in with very close settings and reduction, wow. The stereo field seemed much more clear. I could hear the placements much more accurately. The Hi Hat is what jumped out first. With the plug it seemed to me really all over the place, center, a bit to the left, hard to explain. When I bypassed the plug and put in the hardware, the hats were right where I wanted them to be. They sat perfectly now with the overheads, and I could hear everything in its place.
I have been working quite a bit on an SSL 4056 E/G+ the past few months. The G comp is amazing. I love it. While the CL isn’t an SSL, for $500, it sure does beat any plugin I’ve used. Plus the HPF really lets you compress without killing your low end.
So, my take on the situation is two-fold. If I wouldn’t have been as far along as where I am, I don’t know if the summing would have made quite the difference it did for me, but I never tried it before, so I can’t make that claim. I can say that as my mixes continue to get better, I am much happier with the end result when using analog summing and an analog 2 buss comp. I have been kicking around the idea of getting 16 channels total of summing and seeing how much difference that makes, but I would have to add to my I/O, and I don’t have $3k for another Aurora 16.
Bottom line, in my personal opinion, summing did make a difference for me. I have pretty accurate monitoring. I have been getting much better performances, and I have really been focusing on getting better sounds from the beginning. I think it was time for me to take the plunge and see if it would work for my situation. I can without a doubt say that it did. But, I have also been doing this for about 4 years now, and I have really been pushing hard the last year or two. I really don’t think I would have been as happy with the results in years 1-3. But for me now, it is ABSOLUTELY benefitting my mixes.
As always, YMMV. And my advice is worth exactly what you paid for it. But I did want to say thank you to Mixerman for taking the time to respond and help me out. And thanks to Graham for a great site! I truly appreciate what you guys are doing.
Cheers!
JROCK
Glad to have you around!
Thanks Graham, great site my friend! Wish I would have had this about 4 years ago. LOL
JROCK
Thanks!
I know that Kevin Ward uses MixBus, which is a DAW that (claims) to have enhanced summing algorithms so that it sounds better. There have been some tests, and it was proven that there is definitely a difference between DAW’s summing capabilities. I think that summing is an aspect to your studio which you may want to evaluate.
If you just sum the tracks without the use of EQs then there is no difference between analog or digital domain if all is done right. whatever which DAW you use and whatever which analog mixer from 21 century You use. But You cant find still in digital domain such EQs which sound like analog ones. And these analog EQs are on analog mixers. SO, here comes the difference between the analog and digital mix difference — the EQs! I mean real analog, not just plugins emulations.
At first — I did one mix in analog mixer first, recorded result as 2-track.
Then I recorded every track in DAW and made mix in DAW entirely with its own internal EQs. But I did not get the same sound becouse the EQs are not the same in digital domain as in analog domain! Cubase, ProTools, MadTracker — the same similar sounding EQs have they all. If I had done all these tracks with no extensive use of EQs, then there would be no difference.
When just doing everything in computer and taking every output of multitrack to analog summing box, then it gives no difference compared to digital mix, if the summing box has no colorization. Well, you can also have analog EQs and do all __summing__ in digital — no difference, it still sounds as analog-summed signal to average listeners ears.
But Analog summing __plugins__ — thats insane!! The same insanity as there are people who buy the summing analog boxes without knowing that it has only 5 USD worth electronics details which make it happen, all other things you pay for is only casing and power supply!
You can also take into consideration blind test on average listener. I made such test a year ago and made conclusion that nowadays listeners dont distinguish if its mixed on analog mixer with zeroed eqs or in digital domain. Neither they saw difference if it was recorded directly or it was recorded over __calibrated__ cassette tape (!) (CrO2). On one side — cool! Becouse it means that vintage equipment limitations are not concern! However its extra economic loss if I use it and buy tapes for it instead of recording digital. And I really am not into this debate with concern if I like sound of Maxell UD more than Ampex 499.
The only thing which made me to see pros of the analog mixing is only the use of analog EQs on channels and majority of signal sources are hardware synthesizers here.
But those expensive analog summing boxes… I really recommend to get into electronics before You buy those ones which cost more than 100 USD! You will be surprised how simple are those and effective way for cheating consumers!
[...] at it a couple of years. I've learned a lot from this guy and his website. Here's his thoughts. http://therecordingrevolution.com/20…shouldnt-care/ Reply With [...]
Thanks Graham, this page was short concise and to the point. Your points are well thought out, un-conflated and well connected to your examples. This is my first visit to your blog, nice job. Many, many artist are very successful using just a laptop. It depends on your creative process or this case mine.
From an artist’s point of view, Summing is unnecessary and a subjective choice at best, to put it kindly. It stems from a very old argument from more than a few forums. Ye ol’ Analog v.s. Digital topic.
For the new-ish artist among us, It’s ok to buy analog mixing equipment. Just as long as you know your paying for a specific kind of distortion and sometimes less mixing options. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.
For the would be or current audio professionals out there…DO NOT google your name and post sections of you book on someone else’s blog, that’s well, unprofessional.
If your considering someones mixing advice which is largely based on their own opinions in the subjective field of music, check out their mixes. Is it your style, color or feel. When it comes to opinions make sure yours are honed and measured. There is definitely no “one size fits all”.
I’m a noob when it comes to recording, I tried an Alesis mic tube duo on the master bus. Its affordable and the difference in sound is quite noticeable, the digital edge seems to be smoothed off and warmth added. Might need EQ after this on a outboard insert because it changes the sound so much.
If you are going to put ANYTHING on the master buss, be it a compressor or tube mic pre, you should put it through that first and mix through that. That means making mix decisions while listening to the mix through the mic pre/compressor/limiter/etc. Mix your song in a top down fashion, regarding the routing. Apply copression to the whole drums bus before just the snare (if it needs compression).
Cameron, I totally agree, mix through it. I will in future.
I should have wiped the board and mixed it again with all fx in place.
No need to do that, but definitely mix that way in the future.
Yeah I agree Graham – the key is to understand what makes analog gear ‘analog sounding’ and learn to re-create those non-linearities in the digital domain. One thing I LOVE about Pro Tools is that you can use plugins in dual-mono mode… unlink them and make the settings just slightly different and you’re one step closer to that analog sound. Also understanding headroom and having an ear to eq out harsh frequencies blah blah blah haha. Love all your stuff Graham!
For anyone that might be interested, Unit Audio just posted some audio samples of a in the box mix and a mix run through their most basic analog summing mixer. These boxes are designed specifically for those home and project studios who currently run just in the box in a DAW. Be sure to pay attention to the instructions to get an accurate comparison. http://www.unitaudio.com/sound-samples.html
If this horse isn’t dead yet, Mix magazine just posted a review of one of our mixers.
They tested it by combining stems together on a Pro Tools mixer, the software mixer in
Harrison’s Mixbus DAW, the UNIT, and two analog consoles (SSL 4000E and an API
Legacy Plus) http://blog.mixonline.com/mixblog/2012/10/08/review-unit-audio-unit-passive-summing-mixer/
Hi Graham, excellent post, and I think you are right that a good or bad mix is not made by analogue or digital summing. I do feel however that analogue summing makes mixing easier, and I also like how the summed tracks sound. It can be done very coste effective, btw! I happened to have a Revox A77 (which are pretty cheap machines), and I just route the signal through the circuit, buss by buss (or track by track), and change the input level on the machine dependent on the type of material (kick and bass pushed hard etc.). Yes, it costs time to re-record the tracks, but the result is great!
I have a Dangrous 2 bus sounds great and it does make mixing easier. I recomend having a really high end a/d converter when printing the track back into the daw otherwise the mix takes a hit.
No one has really talked about DAWs on this thread and it’s probably why there are so many opinions. Depending on your bits you have for summing this will effect your mixes Protools has been at 24bit until 10 was released Sonar was the first to hit 64bit. Now all the DAWs are at 32bit. I think it’s possible to get great mixes with a daw that has 32bit floating point because of the headroom.
Actually, Dave Pensado does sum through his SSL he has in his room, but he does all the mixing ITB.
When I first read this article I had already purchased a 2BUS Lt. I had it set-up in a PT HD rig with two 96i/o, but I hadn’t read Mixerman’s book yet. I was trying to sum a mix I had done ITB. I noticed a little bit of a difference by just routing all my tracks to the 16 outs I had available to use, but not the HUGE difference my sale rep had proclaimed to secure my purchase. I thought maybe it was my monitoring (Presonus Monitor Station), so I bought a D-Box and I even noticed more of a difference at that point. My imaging was better and my center was more focused in the middle. I thought ok I can hear better but how do I get this to translate on tape (DAW)? That’s when I saw Fab’s video on setting up your Dangerous 2BUS for analog summing and realized how to get this sound to tape, but I was trying to do it with a mix I had completed in the box without the results I heard others talk about. Sometime later I read this article and saw Mixerman’s comments and saw the title of his book. I loved reading the debate and I thought to myself that if Mixerman is so bent on analog summing I still must not be doing it right. I bought his book a read it and realized I needed to start a mix from scratch to hear the effects of analog summing and I also noted which I was already aware of was I needed better convertors (that was already in the works since the D-Box has 8 Channels of summing as well). I purchased the Aurora 8 and Aurora 16 which I read alot about on Gearslutz. Mind you I work a normal job and I been doing music in some form or fashion since the 3rd grade, so I just never took the time to follow Mixerman’s advice. One day a friend of mine from Atlanta who just got back into making music (hobbist) via his DAW, asked me to listen to a few of his tracks. He sent them to my email and as always I like a few and others I didn’t. I said to myself for fun I should try mixing one. I told him send it to me through a file sharing site and he agreed. I followed Mixerman’s instructions as stated in his book to see if my investment would pay off or would I be eBay’ing this stuff. Put the faders up for proper balancing and very little panning just to my main outputs. I then assigned the instruments to my 24 outs for Summing, re-adjusted my fader AND I WAS BLOWN AWAY. The difference was like night and day. Granted he choose great sounds that worked well together, but the rough analog summing mix I made with levels and panning was much better then his rough mix and my ITB rough mix. Everything I read and heard about analog summing was now clear as a bright sunny day. For me analog summing is a game changer and I could never go back to summing in the box. The depth and clarity I get now is no doubt in my mind a combination of great convertors and the addition of analog summing. I mean when I first pulled up the faders I had to check to see if his mix was as clear. Don’t get my wrong it was clear, just not as clean, wide and didn’t have the depth mind has. The way I use reverbs has changed as well as my eq’ing (or lack thereof) and panning. I mean now I feel I can make a mix with just hard left, hard right and center as my only panning options. There’s some many good things I can say about analog summing and the way it has changed my mixing style. I can honestly say I finally feel like I can get that Big Studio sound in my home studio. I’ve heard the arguments on both sides, I’ve bought Graham’s video lessons, Ken Lewis lessons, Groove3 member and was also a subscriber to Fab’s puremix site. All of that has helped me along the way, buy analog summing gave me something the forementioned lessons could’ve never gave me. Mixing is easier (which I thought Mixerman was just rumbling about) and faster, hell it’s even fun when I’m working with a track I really don’t like in the first place. This is just my experience and yes I heard and know there’s a difference cause I lived it.
Sean Wrote: “Actually, Dave Pensado does sum through his SSL he has in his room, but he does all the mixing ITB.”
That’s called hybrid mixing. Yes, all the moves are made in the computer, but the summing is analog, and that’s different than mixing ITB.
Eric wrote: “I noticed a little bit of a difference by just routing all my tracks to the 16 outs I had available to use, but not the HUGE difference my sale rep had proclaimed to secure my purchase.”
Eric wrote: “I then assigned the instruments to my 24 outs for Summing, re-adjusted my fader AND I WAS BLOWN AWAY. The difference was like night and day.”
And yet another person has actually tried the process driven test I recommend in order to discover the enormous difference between summing ITB and summing analog. It IS indeed a night and day difference, but you have to perform the right test to hear that difference readily.
Enjoy,
Mixerman
RND 5059 Satellite Baby if youre working at home. Sounds as warm as any AMS Neve 80s console (as well as the 5088) and as crisp as a SSL console. I also like the Mixdream from SPL, but you cant push/saturate a channel like the 5059. You can push the whole mix but it tends to squash. The Dangerous 2 Bus with the +6 buttons are ok, but not the cheaper version.
I’ll tell you how to take of this whole question! I just recorded my first CD. It was exciting to do and I worked very hard on it and tried practically everything I’d ever heard on how to make it exciting (which to me equates to “it will sell). And I discovered something. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE HOW MUCH EXTRA STUFF YOU DO if the music isn’t top notch! I have a total output of less than 40 copies in public, and I won’t bore you with the sold to given away distribution ratio. I had to face it – I’m a lousy singer and not too great songwriter. I realized that before I spent a pile of money on extra gear. In the long run, I don’t think the tech stuff matters that much to the final buyer.
Funny, we always overlook how important the SONG and the PLAYING is. Everything else is moot if the song isn’t awesome and the performances aren’t awesome. Touche’.
JROCK
It absolutely does not matter how good your equipment or technical skills are, if the music sucks in the first place.
But that should basic common knowledge/sense.
I thoroughly enjoy Mixerman’s steel conviction in his posts and book. (-Amazing Must-Read for any engineer)
I know nothing about analog summing other than what I’ve read in “Zen and the Art of Mixing” and the posts here and on gearslutz.
I am convinced (sold on the idea) and have ordered a Rupert Neve Designs 5059 Satellite Summing Box.
I have hopes that it will help my mixes+imaging out….and will post updates as well (-after I try summing out for the first time)
Thanks everyone, for sharing your opinions, knowledge, and personality quirks. This is what makes the Internet fun and useful.
There is something called Unitaudio http://www.unitaudio.com/ and they have a few models of analog summing which starts at $149. I am planning to buy one of those and try. I think it should be quite interesting for that price. All of them are passive units.
Remember, analog summing is still only part of the picture. Your converters and skill are also part of the total equation (not to say anyone skills here aren’t up to par). With that being said analog summing did make a difference in my mixes cause I tried an all ITB rough mix again with my new converters, but the depth and width wasn’t the same so back to analog summing I went.
Remember you have to set up your DAW for analog summing and start a mix from scratch to hear the difference (I made the same mistake myself as I stated in my previous post). Fab Dupont has a video on setting up your 2BUS/DAW for analog summing (he’s using a 2BUS and Pro Tools HD, but this applies to all DAWs and Summing Mixers) that helped me along greatly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gW18nrUJOI
Check this out, I have a friend who I just mixed 2 songs for and for some reason he has taken Graham’s side on this debate of analog summing. Mind you he’s a talented musician and a decent mixing engineer at best. He continues to say “My skills are better and it has nothing to do with analog summing”. If I ask him the question then how has my mixes gotten better over night, he has no answer….yep, just as I thought…analog summing.
[...] [...]
A few points after stumbling on this thread long after its sell by date:
1. Mixerman never answered questions put to him on things like VCC etc, or at least as far as I can remember in this thread. Which leads to a point, he’s only ever mixed ITB with his methodology/tools, and he’s only ever mixed through a summing box etc with his methodology/tools. None of us can mix every way possible ITB and none of us can mix every way possible OTB because the possibilities are infinit. There is no objective way to judge it, there is no wrong or right in so far as there is no direct universal comparisan.
2. Mixerman’s proposed methodology for a more fair test for his use of otb summing is also not a fair test in the way that he rightly points out simply running a finished mix through a summing box isn’t a fair test. Briliant and all as you surely are Mixerman, your test still requires a person to do two separate mixes, and even you can not reproduce the exact same mix, exact same feelings and take the exact same choices for the exact same reasons the second time round. Both mixes again wil be different, but who knows for what reason each time. A real world fact is for example that moving your head even a relatively tiny amount between the speakers in the most well treated acoustic space will change the frequency response of what your brain is getting fed by larger percentages than say the measureable frequency changeso r distortions etc that any given summing box might produce.
3. Mixerman, a clear point in this original blog post was for aspiring engineers, they see guys doing work ITB which gets huge respect, sells in millions and is applauded by professionals and the public alike, so why can’t aspiring engineers aspire to do mixes like those. Is Mixerman saying Pensado et al are not doing their mixes as well as they could, should their clients demand at least a partial refund, are they’re celebrated mixes only 90% there. Instead of attacking the poster for being ‘ignorent’ it would be better to clarify your own position a little more.
4. If Mixerman is still reading even this very late to the debate post and goes on posting without actually addressing other perspectives and clarifying his position I begin to wonder whether this whole time, with all his books and contributions online, has the main driving force simply been a love of hearing his own voice or mocking and discrediting the position of others. I’m sure your right about plenty of things but your damaging your credibility when you land on a blog such as this claiming others are ignoring your points when you don’t even address theirs fully, see my third point above.
No Mix in a Dangerous Audio Summing Mixer will compare to an SSL Console mix unless your using analog outboard eq/compression. SSL Console will win every time period. Mixerman doesn’t have the credentials of a Chris Lord Alge or Tony Masserati. Yes they both mix differently but it comes down to outboard gear/ hardware. Andy Wallace, Bob Clearmountain, Young Guru.. C’MON, Do you think Adelle is recording in a DAW direct through a Digi 002, lol
TAPE TAPE TAPE 2″, ATR, great converters into your rig with Great Pre-Amps, Good Room, Good Technique
“No Mix in a Dangerous Audio Summing Mixer will compare to an SSL Console mix unless your using analog outboard eq/compression.”
You’ve never used an SSL, have you?
“Mixerman doesn’t have the credentials of a Chris Lord Alge or Tony Masserati. Yes they both mix differently but it comes down to outboard gear/ hardware. Andy Wallace, Bob Clearmountain, Young Guru.. C’MON, Do you think Adelle is recording in a DAW direct through a Digi 002, lol
TAPE TAPE TAPE 2″, ATR, great converters into your rig with Great Pre-Amps, Good Room, Good Technique”
Hilarious. For years, Internet poseurs argued that I was dinosaur because I wouldn’t stop working on tape, and because of my complaints over the quality of digital platforms in general. And now, after years of figuring out how to make a computer as effective as a fully analog system, I’m don’t have the credentials to talk about the differences, because I made the switch.
I spent my first 20 years in this business mixing on consoles. You would have a difficult time naming an LFC (that’s large frame console) I haven’t mixed a record on. Yet, you argue, that mixers, who do not have the same basis of comparison, mixers who have decided they will finish out their careers on a console, somehow have more knowledge about the differences, than someone who has mixed many records both ways. Because they have bigger discographies?
So, how does my discography compare to yours? Because according to your logic, my opinions would trump yours given a heftier discography. Right?
Silly boy.
Mixerman
Your way off base. Nobody’s talking about a Digi002 or some other cheap decent sounding converter. Were talking about some of the best equipment you can buy. If you had read Mixerman’s book you would have realized he uses a number of outboard gear and he’s not the only mixer using analog summing that’s mixing commercial records we hear everyday. Also some people are summing through a analog console back into their DAW and using plugins with outboard gear. As a matter of fact this was a favorite way of intergrating digital in an analog console for years before the analog summing box which in a sense is the same concept, summing analog back into your DAW to avoid summing internally.
The reason you use analog summing is for the width, mid focus and depth that you get from analog. A Dangerous 2Bus (or LT) provides a clean pure signal path so of course it doesn’t sound like a SSL, Neve, API etc. If you want an SSL sound buy an SSL or some of their other outgear which is what Mixerman and others have done and you made that point in your post.
I can only assume your not as deep in the game as some others on this tread cause to put down Mixerman cause he not Chris Lord Alge or Tony Masserati is down right foolish. Nobody is either one of them or some of the other big name engineers we read or hear about. I guess your bigger than Mixerman, Fab, Pensado, Swedian, Kevin Lewis or even Graham? I can only dream about doing the work these guys or any number of other Industry Engineers have done or the people they worked with. If any person is providing good information that’ll help me along in being a better mixer…I’m all ears. I don’t discount one person cause he’s not one of the so called giants in the game, I’m here to learn as I assume you are too.
I tried analog summing and it has worked cause I followed Mixerman’s and Fab’s instructions and didn’t try to sum a mix I did ITB and just route all the tracks to an output, I start my mixes from scratch using analog summing. It has made a difference in my mixes the short time I’ve been doing it and I’m telling you I’m NOT GOING BACK TO ITB cause analog summing does work. I hope one day you get a chance to try it the correct way and maybe you’ll report back to us (or maybe you have a large format console and don’t have the need to). We are all here to learn and that’s the bottom line.
Gosh, this comment section was like a train wreck… I couldn’t take my eyes off of it! After 20 years the internet is STILL less civilized than the Wild West. Graham, I admire you a lot for the restraint you displayed as someone basically barged into your HOUSE and attacked you on a personal level. I admire that Spirit in you.
Can’t believe this thing is still alive. Would be interested to hear your thoughts on the points I raised earlier Mixer man. You can refrane from trying to mock/belittle me etc though if you don’t mind, I’m not quite smart enough to win an online mud slinging match with you, so it would be a waste of time if nothing else.
Also would like to point out to the commenter that cyted CLA and others as more of an authority than Mixer man (or at least that’s how it sounded), CLA was still working off an antiquated 16 bit digital sony multi track machine last I heard…so again to me the important point is that there are a lot of guys doing rather briliant/rather successful work in all sorts of ways. And I wouldn’t discredit Mixer man’s opinion so quickly just because CLA etc have some bigger selling releases with their credit on it, because to me it seems like some of those guys haven’t quite explored various technologies as much as Mixer man has done.
@Brian wrote: “Can’t believe this thing is still alive. ”
And yet here you are.
“Would be interested to hear your thoughts on the points I raised earlier Mixer man.”
You’ll have to repost them. I’m in the middle of three albums right now.
“You can refrane from trying to mock/belittle me etc though if you don’t mind, I’m not quite smart enough to win an online mud slinging match with you, so it would be a waste of time if nothing else.”
Show me where I’ve slung mud in this thread. I’d be very interested to see it, because as far as I can tell, I’ve made nothing but good arguments, and have refrained from ad hominem attacks.
“Also would like to point out to the commenter that cyted CLA and others as more of an authority than Mixer man (or at least that’s how it sounded), CLA was still working off an antiquated 16 bit digital sony multi track machine last I heard…so again to me the important point is that there are a lot of guys doing rather briliant/rather successful work in all sorts of ways. And I wouldn’t discredit Mixer man’s opinion so quickly just because CLA etc have some bigger selling releases with their credit on it, because to me it seems like some of those guys haven’t quite explored various technologies as much as Mixer man has done.”
And that’s the whole point, right? Without exploring and making comparisons, there is no opinion worth voicing. That’s hardly slinging mud. That’s just a good point.
Anyone who loves what CLA does (and he mixes into a console, so that means he’s summing analog), should mimic him if they are so inclined and have such lack of vision. But anyone who wants to base their view of credibility purely on record sales, would have to acknowledge that I probably have the most sales of anyone in this thread, and therefore my opinion would have the most weight here.
An amusing argument if there ever was one.
Of course, I produce and mix records. And when you produce records for a living, you have to be far more selective than as a mixer. CLA only mixes albums. So we kinda got significantly different gigs. I can only produce eight albums in a year if I wanted to kill myself. He’s set up purely for mixing, tends to stick to one genre, and with the help of an assistant, can come in and mix an album in under four hours. So he can mix that many albums in 3 months (and still have a life), and an ME can master that many albums in 8 days. So, that would be comparing apples to oranges in more than one way.
The bottom line is, I make records that you can easily look up and listen to. So, it’s not difficult to determine whether you like the way I hear.
Enjoy,
Mixerman
I started when I was a kid, plugging stuff into whatever I could find to get it onto a tape. Later I got a 4 Cassette Recorder, and I’ve had a series of Reel to reels, Handheld tape recorders, a nice aiwa portable reel to reel, a radio shack TRS-80 cassette recorder. I think in analog, I still track all my rough stuff on an Tascam Digital 8 track portastudio and my 4 track cassette record ( A Yamaha MT-50, and I use my Sony Tapecorder Reel to reel.) so I prefer Analog when it’s being used as an interface, no latency, but I love the fact that you can do so much with the collated material once it’s in the box, So I can see both sides of the argument. Preferably , in my dream world I would have a Studer or Revox, and a Ampex and track and pre-master everything through that. I still like getting out the razor blade, and the slicing tape, But Digital is nice and convienient, powerful flexiable etc. The only thing I don’t like is the Analog aemulation plug in for DAWS, it’s kind of like the inverse of this. Sure they sound Passable, but to me it’s still not the same. But it’s probably purely a psychological thing..
Here’s what i’m seeing in your argument. Analog summing matters if you play instruments, it doesn’t matter if you don’t play instruments.
Guys, a good way to look at it is like mixing thru bad speakers vs mixing thru great speakers in a treated room…mixing thru summing, you can hear better and make better decisions and therefore your mix comes out better. Also like moving up from bad converters to excellent ones…once you do, you can hear in a much more detailed way and your mixes will come out better. And also sound better because of added depth and separation. Easy!
Graham,
I loved the post and I don’t think it was ignorant of you. You proved a point to me and to many others, thanks for that.. That being said, I will probably buy Mixerman’s book, even though I did not like he’s attitude for a second.
It’s a great book. Worth the read for sure.
@Nicholas Rubini
You want a hug or good arguments based on many years of experience that will allow you to make your own decisions?
Mixerman
@Mixerman
I only want Pros to be kinder.
Guess that’s asking too much, sorry.
Graham Cochrane – fighting snobbery since 2009. Love this site. Thank you for keeping it about making great music.
If there is one person that I have disagreed with the most internet forums it has to be Mixerman, but guys… take it from an old, gnarled mixer, who’s been around so long that even his ex-intern’s ex-interns are now famous mixers…
MIXERMAN IS 100% CORRECT.
Here is an analogy regarding ITB mixing that should bring home a point:
There are and were quite a few ways that analog summing was done.
The basic analog summing amplifier designs were and are a variation on a common concept, design and theory.
Each design used by each manufacturer is slightly different and they all perform and sound different.
So, you could say that a Neve sums differently than a Sphere and a MCI sums differently than a SSL and a Quad Eight, Soundcraft, Neotek, etc… on and on…
Well, they do all have slightly different summing designs, but the basic circuit is a derivative of previous analog designs and one somewhat lead to the next.
Now, along comes digital audio and suddenly we had DAWs show up with mixers included.
The engineers that designed the original digital mixers started from scratch.
They went on the basic idea that “mixing” or summing is a mathematical function that is the equivalent to simply adding together and summing the data stream that make up each track or channel of the digital mixer.
So, previous to digital mixing you had a lineage of analogs designs and you could trace the designs and theories back to the original mixers.
Once digital mixing came along you had a whole new set of engineers and designers who “invented” a method to sum the sate streams.
The digital engineers did not follow the lineage of analog summing.
So, it is not surprising that it behaves (sounds) differently.
Another point to consider is that there are just not that many “flavors” of digital mixers.
Yamaha has their way of doing things, DigiDesign/Avid has theirs, MOTU theirs, Sonar, and on…
There is fixed point, 32 point floating, 24 bit and each is different and some are clearly better, but each company’s mixer sounds slightly different.
Still, the number of viable digital mix platforms is fairly limited in scope compared to the sheer number of analog console designs.
It is like with digital everyone is mixing through only a few design topologies.
BTW… quit the silly comparison of people’s discography in relation to the validity of their opinion.
Trust me… there are people that most people on the internet have never ever heard of who have great ears, brilliant ideas, do brilliant work and have years and years of accumulated knowledge.
Most answers are not validated by the work of CLA, Bob Clearmountain, Mixerman, Chuck Ainley, etc…
There is a one hell of a lot more audio than SSL and Neve.
I listed my email wrong…
I like Graham and learned from him, Very Good site!
anyway, assuming U know what u doing and manage to get good sounding mixes, here is my way of thinking :
1. I would do anything i can to make my mixes (even if allredy sound good) – better.
2. since i cant afford an SSL or Neve Console (home studio remind u..) And all sort of Expansive outboard (compressors, eq’s, effects and so on), so Im working ITB I would buy the best plugin i can and get to know each the best i can. (for the last 8 years Im working with uad. i know the plugins realy well and getting good results. theres a lot of others native Vst’s that i picked after trying that gives very good results as well)
3. but..if analog summing will help me get more depth/width/headroom and its affordable – Im want to try it. I see a lot of good opinion from experienced people about analog Summing.
so, in this case – I do not agree with the headline “Why You Shouldn’t Care”.
ido wrote: “3. but..if analog summing will help me get more depth/width/headroom and its affordable – Im want to try it. I see a lot of good opinion from experienced people about analog Summing.
so, in this case – I do not agree with the headline “Why You Shouldn’t Care”.”
And this is exactly what I suggest in the book. Try it for yourself.
And your point is well taken. Why should you care? Because little positive comes into your life from willful ignorance, particularly if your goal is to become a professional. If you’re just a hobbyist, it doesn’t matter. If you’re trying to make a business out of your work, then you should be willing to seek out anything that gives you an edge. But until one tries analog summing for oneself, evaluating the cost/benefit ratio is impossible.
Enjoy,
Mixerman
I would be curious to get Mixerman (or anyone else’s) opinion of something like Slate’s VCC plugin, or others that simulate analog summing. I own the VCC and use it in combination with my Dbox’s 8 channels of summing. To my ears, the VCC certainly helps with the depth and width. The ability to change the flavors is wonderful too. When I can’t mix on the 4056E/G+ at the studio I work at, VCC, Dbox, and Serpent buss comp is giving me pretty decent results at home.
JROCK
Slate’s VCC is a great alternative to analog summing. I like his Trigger FX compressor. I can actually use that on the 2-bus. Neither of these existed when I wrote the book.
Personally, I prefer the summing. if you just want to get immediate improvement for short coin, I find that the Slate VCC will provide that.
Enjoy,
Mixerman
Thanks Eric. All the Slate stuff is phenominal when you look at it from a value standpoint. For those of us who can’t get a desk in our home setups, VCC definitely help immensely.
Cheers,
JROCK
At the end of the day its all ones and zeros, the analog vs. digital debate is really pointless. Anything you may have gained to justify an expensive piece of outboard gear is lost essentially in the fact that its all digital info in the end, not to say that that piece of gear didn’t do a great job, but the principle of the argument. If you like something and it sounds good and moves people, then its good, period, regardless of the tools used. Now if you record analog, mix and master analog and press/print to analog and subsequently listen to that recorded material on tape or (LP)without the waveforms ever being converted then I would whole heartedly argue the sonics and virtues of analog as whole, those waveforms have never been severed and reassembled. If money were no object I would have a warehouse of analog gear because the romance of it is irresistible. But one cannot argue the brilliance of a DAW and plugin recall, being able to render a song and throw it on 10 different play back units and then go back to the DAW and adjust is a godsend. I cant help but say that a less than perfect recording of amazing music beats the pants of a technically perfect master of lifeless garbage. Talk less, play and listen more!!
No opinions on the Waves NLS then guys? 32 modelled channels from SSL, Neve and EMI desks, including modelling of 8 routes + their colours and also master bus for all 3. I would really value an opinion of this product from any of you guys, thanks.
Ps: Graham, this article and many others have been absolutely fantastic, thank you for your videos and articles, you are making a bigger impact in the mixing world than many others who beleive young engineers dont have a chance without expensive analogue sipumming modules, patchbays and such. I am a little embarrassed at reading the aggression some people have towards you here, it’s pathetic and you come across as way too nice a guy to even address them, so kudos to you.
well, analog mixing, it so obvious you can implement it with resistors for few cents!
I ‘m surprised with the arguments i coud find in this debate. Every piece of gear can make a difference; i mean every circuit, the merely analog buffer you could find, but there are critical place in the chain. a lot of da converter are poor depending on the load (maybe opamp instability). A really good buffer/amp can make the difference. so i tend to move the debate to the quality of all intrinsic gear and combination. minimal path and why not tube design just at the output of ad chip…. but you find it only on few hifi..
well, analog mixing, it so obvious you can implement it with resistors for few cents!
I ‘m surprised with the arguments i coud find in this debate. Every piece of gear can make a difference; i mean every circuit, the merely analog buffer you could find, but there are critical place in the chain. a lot of da converter are poor depending on the load (maybe opamp instability). A really good buffer/amp can make the difference. so i tend to move the debate to the quality of all intrinsic gear and combination. minimal path and why not tube design just at the output of ad chip.. but you find it only on few hifi..