summing for a noob

[orksnork]

summing this...summing that...

im trying to gather what i can about summing as a whole....

from what i gather you output from your DAW, or respective recording device, and mix with the piece of analog gear, using your quality converters for output as opposed to mixing in the box and dithering with software???

im sure that's probably only about 8% right...but enlighten me if you please...

and after you sum...what do you output that to?? in general...back into DAW for mastering??? cd recorder?? what what what

[chessrock]

Yes .

.

[FALKEN]

hey. that was only 5 characters. how in the crap did you do that?

[pandamonk]

.



.

[dgatwood]

Originally Posted by orksnork

im trying to gather what i can about summing as a whole....

from what i gather you output from your DAW, or respective recording device, and mix with the piece of analog gear, using your quality converters for output as opposed to mixing in the box and dithering with software???

Pretty much. I can't honestly imagine why anyone would do it. Seems like an awful lot of trouble, and all it really does is add a lot of D/A conversion loss (error is n*e where e is the D/A conversion error per channel and n is the number of channels), coupled with one extra round of A/D conversion and the extra noise of analog summing. Mathematically, summing in analog should yield precisely the same values after the final A/D as summing it digitally. If there is a difference, it is the result of loss in the converters or analog summing hardware. It's hard for me to see that as a benefit.

My guess is the people who talk about the benefits of analog summing are the same people who think 192 kHz recording results in better sound, or those who buy $1500 power cords and wooden volume knobs.

The only way it would make sense is if you wanted to manually mix down because you just like the feel of having the controls under your fingers and tweaking them during the mix process... but with mix automation and a control surface, that's almost a moot argument.

Oh, yeah. It's useful to do this if you want to add outboard effects. Obviously.

[studiomaster]

............
....
.
.
.
.
.
.
..........

[orksnork]

but what you said about the loss of quality due to the conversion....at least you don't have to dither with software...no??

im really just fishing here.

[MOFO Pro]

Originally Posted by orksnork

but what you said about the loss of quality due to the conversion....at least you don't have to dither with software...no??

im really just fishing here.

You don't have to dither with software even without analog summing... you can send the who mix out through a mastering processor (dbx quantum, TC Finalizer) and dither there...

Proponents of analog summing feel that the final analog stage adds a warmth to the "sterile" digital mix. Some track exclusively digital and want to capture some of the nuances of an analog consule on the "way out".

[NL5]

Originally Posted by dgatwood

Pretty much. I can't honestly imagine why anyone would do it. Seems like an awful lot of trouble, and all it really does is add a lot of D/A conversion loss (error is n*e where e is the D/A conversion error per channel and n is the number of channels), coupled with one extra round of A/D conversion and the extra noise of analog summing. Mathematically, summing in analog should yield precisely the same values after the final A/D as summing it digitally. If there is a difference, it is the result of loss in the converters or analog summing hardware. It's hard for me to see that as a benefit.

My guess is the people who talk about the benefits of analog summing are the same people who think 192 kHz recording results in better sound, or those who buy $1500 power cords and wooden volume knobs.

The only way it would make sense is if you wanted to manually mix down because you just like the feel of having the controls under your fingers and tweaking them during the mix process... but with mix automation and a control surface, that's almost a moot argument.

Oh, yeah. It's useful to do this if you want to add outboard effects. Obviously.

Have you ever mixed thru a big analog console?

[mshilarious]

Originally Posted by NL5

Have you ever mixed thru a big analog console?

I suspect that is what it comes down to. Big consoles usually have very high quality engineering in the power supplies, grounding, etc., that keeps them quiet and well fed. Obviously they are injecting desirable nonlinearities, just like so many other types of nonlinearities we as audio engineers know and love. And then there are the onboard EQs and compressors that are still the favorite candidates for emulation . . .

When the gear drops in quality, I do start to wonder. I personally felt like my A&H MixWiz, heavily modded though it was, added mostly noise to the process. When I see people saying that an even lower tier of gear is better than ITB, I start to wonder if they just like the massive loss of high end clarity and tubby bass . . . and there are much cheaper ways to achieve that than investing the cash in lots of converters.

Having said that, I have a summing box design that I hope to get to someday

[ez_willis]

Originally Posted by FALKEN

hey. that was only 5 characters. how in the crap did you do that?

Hint: Spaces count as characters.

Don't say I never gave you anything.

[dgatwood]

Originally Posted by mshilarious

I suspect that is what it comes down to. Big consoles usually have very high quality engineering in the power supplies, grounding, etc., that keeps them quiet and well fed. Obviously they are injecting desirable nonlinearities, just like so many other types of nonlinearities we as audio engineers know and love. And then there are the onboard EQs and compressors that are still the favorite candidates for emulation . . .

Seems like if that's the only purpose, you'd be better off just running it through the board a second time during tracking. That way, you'd get the warming of the analog electronics without the additional conversion loss.

[chessrock]

Originally Posted by dgatwood

Seems like if that's the only purpose, you'd be better off just running it through the board a second time during tracking. That way, you'd get the warming of the analog electronics without the additional conversion loss.

I'm not even going to touch this one.

[orksnork]

please do touch it....i'd like to hear more opinions about what all is going on with summing....


and as far as this thread...this is more of a learning thing for me...nothing i intend to be working for...so do not poke me with hot conversion loss irons

[chessrock]

It's just that I believe what MShilarious was refering to was the non-linearities as it relates to mixing and summing, not tracking
.

[fraserhutch]

Originally Posted by chessrock

It's just that I believe what MShilarious was refering to was the non-linearities as it relates to mixing and summing, not tracking
.

It's in the summing, right? The actual muxing of many channels to stereo, which is supposed to add desirable harmonic distortion to the process?

At least that's what the proponents of analog summing advocate.

[Big Kenny]

this'll help oxborjk...
http://www.barryrudolph.com/mix/strictlysumming.html

[chessrock]

Originally Posted by fraserhutch

It's in the summing, right? The actual muxing of many channels to stereo, which is supposed to add desirable harmonic distortion to the process?

At least that's what the proponents of analog advocate.

Harmonic distortion can be added at any point in the process. The summing thing is a whole different animal, and I don't understand half the stuff it involves, but there's a lot more to it than just distorion. It's the way the various sounds are combined. You're talking about a piece of music gear (mixer), versus a computer processor combining sounds via mathematical computations and manipulations of binary code.

This is usually the sort of thing where Southside Glen will chime in shortly with a long, detailed answer, most likely cut and pasted from somewhere (with wording modified).

.

[FALKEN]

Originally Posted by fraserhutch

It's in the summing, right? The actual muxing of many channels to stereo, which is supposed to add desirable harmonic distortion to the process?

At least that's what the proponents of analog advocate.

who?

I use tape because I feel I am getting a more *accurate* representation of the original sound than I do with digital converters. I don't want to argue that point, let's just call it a personal preference. That isn't based on "harmonic distortion" figures.

As far as I can see, there are three ways to "sum" signals together. Voltage summing, current summing, and digital summing. with most outboard "summing" devices you are getting voltage summing, which was found in the old neve consoles. Current summing is what you would normally find in a small analog mixer. Digital summing, if you guessed correctly, is done by a mathematical algorithm.

Technicalties aside, everyone has already pointed out that there are a million other factors that can get involved (converters, mixer quality, outboard gear, flying faders, etc, etc.) but in the end it all comes down to "personal preference". I tend to prefer current summing to digital summing, and don't have very much experience with voltage summing. Now, someone will come along and say that I'm wrong because there is "theoretically" no difference between them and maybe there isn't but remember I said its all about personal preference. when you start discussing this kind of stuff its really splitting hairs.

.. . .

.

... .
.

[MOFO Pro]

Originally Posted by FALKEN

who?

As far as I can see, there are three ways to "sum" signals together. Voltage summing, current summing, and digital summing.

I get you on the voltage and digital summing... but how does current summing differ from voltage... either can't exist without the other...

[mshilarious]

There is active and passive summing, but I'd have to think that practically every modern mixer uses active summing. Big consoles may have stages of summing for groups of channels.

What kills me is the price of summing boxes. They cost as much as mixers, with a fraction of the features.

[NL5]

Originally Posted by mshilarious

What kills me is the price of summing boxes. They cost as much as mixers, with a fraction of the features.

Which summing box is as much as a mixer? (or do you mean a Behri?)


This thread reminds of that quote "talking about audio is like dancing about architecture." - or the Harley one "if I gotta explain it, you just won't understand"

[mshilarious]

Originally Posted by NL5

Which summing box is as much as a mixer? (or do you mean a Behri?)


This thread reminds of that quote "talking about audio is like dancing about architecture." - or the Harley one "if I gotta explain it, you just won't understand"

Check the link earlier in the thread, the price range was like $800-$4000

[fraserhutch]

Actually, I meant "analog summing"

In fact, I am not even faintly touching on tape. Purely analog summing, of which I am considering aquiring, FWIW. In fact, most of those who advocate anolog summing are purely digital elsewhere.

BTW, I am not saying they're right or wrong, only adding what I think their point is.

Originally Posted by FALKEN

who?

I use tape because I feel I am getting a more *accurate* representation of the original sound than I do with digital converters. I don't want to argue that point, let's just call it a personal preference. That isn't based on "harmonic distortion" figures.

As far as I can see, there are three ways to "sum" signals together. Voltage summing, current summing, and digital summing. with most outboard "summing" devices you are getting voltage summing, which was found in the old neve consoles. Current summing is what you would normally find in a small analog mixer. Digital summing, if you guessed correctly, is done by a mathematical algorithm.

Technicalties aside, everyone has already pointed out that there are a million other factors that can get involved (converters, mixer quality, outboard gear, flying faders, etc, etc.) but in the end it all comes down to "personal preference". I tend to prefer current summing to digital summing, and don't have very much experience with voltage summing. Now, someone will come along and say that I'm wrong because there is "theoretically" no difference between them and maybe there isn't but remember I said its all about personal preference. when you start discussing this kind of stuff its really splitting hairs.

.. . .

.

... .
.

[NL5]

Originally Posted by mshilarious

Check the link earlier in the thread, the price range was like $800-$4000

Yeah, but a similiar mixer/console to each of those SB's will be hella more expensive. That's not really a fair statement. Also, they get way more expensive than 4k, but your talking fully discrete, hand wired, etc.

I am not saying analog summing is for everyone. And, I agree, if you have a Mixwizard, you are probably better off ITB - heck I do most of my mixes ITB rather than on my Ghost ever since SX3 came out with "external hardware plugins". And, there are way better areas to focus your money and attention BEFORE analog summation.

I do, however, still love the sound of a big console..........