Is Analog Summing Important If Sending For Mastering Anyway?

RawDepth said:
Correct! However, with analog summing, each track from the DAW is sent outside the computer through its own Digital-to-Analog (D/A) converter. So, in order to sum 16 tracks outside of the computer, you must have a 16 channel D/A converter box. These 16 analog channels then physically plug into the summing amp where they get mixed together (with panning capabilities) into a two track output. The two separate tracks (L & R) then get routed back to the computer DAW to be recorded as the final mix.

I use the TLAudio Ebony A4, which has 16 inputs and 2 outputs. Summing amps are generally preferred over conventional mixers because they have a shorter signal path and thus, less electronic components to taint the sound quality. A shorter signal path = cleaner results. EQing, level settings, and effects can still be done ITB prior to summing.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks for clearing that up for me !! So I should not have a problem of doing that unless I ever go to DAW recording ,at the moment the digital 24 TK stand alone unit is doing wonders for me although if Id have the room for it Id have my MSR24S and M-3500 settup along with all my other zillion tape based recorders!! I still will be flying mixes from cassette and maybe some 2TK reel to reel (15 IPS) mixes to the 2488 to do a little doctoring up and compilation and possibly finally do some complete masters!!I probably will be using outboard gear(amps,mic pre's,effect units etc)to get a little better realistic analog sound from what I did so far on it (2488 NEO)and Ive already learned a few of the editing features on it.I have yet to mix,master and burn a CD on it. The ease of use(learning curve) really has surprised me and I beleive I will be holding on to this one for a long while.But Tascam should start putting multiple analog outputs besides inputs(need more of them to) on there digital recorders.Id love to fly from 8-24 to my other analog machines sometimes and then do a final mix to a 1/2 TK RR at 15 IPS. So many things could be done with more inputs and outputs on a stand alone digital recorder......i could rattle on here but I nbarely had a cup of coffee so far !!:yawn:
 
RawDepth said:
Summing amps are generally preferred over conventional mixers because they have a shorter signal path and thus, less electronic components to taint the sound quality. A shorter signal path = cleaner results. EQing, level settings, and effects can still be done ITB prior to summing.
Click to expand...

Mmmmmm....maybe....but I think in some cases using the full path of a mixer with all it's EQ/Aux capability and actually mixing there rather than just "summing" can be desirable...it's not just going to "taint" the sound quality.
If you want just a super clean path....leave it ITB. :)
I think summing boxes grew out of the lack of decent analog mixers in a typical ITB setup...yet people wanted some "touch" of analog...so summing boxes became the rage.
I say edit ITB...mix OTB. :D
 
I say this and stand behind it 100% after numerous experiences with friends who went down this expensive, workflow altering road.... Unless you are at a point where your mixes are already *extremely* high quality, comparable to commercial releases - don't even consider going there.
 
miroslav said:
...If you want just a super clean path....leave it ITB...
Click to expand...

chuckduffy said:
I say this and stand behind it 100% after numerous experiences with friends who went down this expensive, workflow altering road.... Unless you are at a point where your mixes are already *extremely* high quality, comparable to commercial releases - don't even consider going there.
Click to expand...

Please refer to post #7 in this thread. I started using a summer to solve a problem that I was having ITB. Now my mixes sound better. I am finally happy.
 
Yeah...but those are two different things.
A summing box isn't mainly about getting a clean path...it's about digital VS analog summing.
My comment was in response to you suggesting that a summing box is usually "preferred" over a mixer because of the cleaner path...in which case I said ITB will be the cleanest of all...that's all. :)

That said...you can get a lot more from an analog mixer than just the summing aspect...but most ITB guys will go for summing boxes because their rig is primarily a DAW so they my just want the analog VS digital summing.
What I'm getting at is that (and this is a personal/subjective thing)...if you want the analog flavor, having the whole mix and processing will do even more than just analog summing of completely digital bunch of tracks/processing...but yeah, some folks hear some benefit even from just the summing...while others will swear it does nothing.

I do my complete mix through an analog mixer and analog gear + tape mixdown, with the playback coming from the DAW via 24 D/A channels...
...and yeah, I like it better than the ITB stereo mix, but then, I started my recording days with analog, and had quite a lot of gear before DAWs really came on the home-rec scene...so it was easy for me to add the DAW to my analog rig, rather than look of an analog add-on to a DAW rig.
I guess if I was just starting out all in the DAW world...then I too might opt for a summing box instead.

So yeah...we're pretty much on the same page....
 
chuckduffy said:
I say this and stand behind it 100% after numerous experiences with friends who went down this expensive, workflow altering road.... Unless you are at a point where your mixes are already *extremely* high quality, comparable to commercial releases - don't even consider going there.
Click to expand...
I agree with this 100%. I went down this very expensive path myself. Invested thousands of dollars on outboard eq, compressors, summing rigs, patch bays, more channels of conversion, and found mixing to be way more time consuming. Recall was non-existant. Remember, if you want to go back and revise a summed mix, you'll need recall sheets, or photos of all the settings you used on each piece of outboard gear to get back to where you were. When mixing ITB, recall is instant. The quality of plug-ins gets better every year. I finally sold all my outboard summing gear, and now mix hybrid. Everything ITB through one outboard compressor on the mix buss. Mixes come together way faster, are easier to edit, and I'm much happier. Your results may vary, but until you learn how to make really great mixes ITB, I wouldn't even consider outboard summing as an option. Just my 2 cents.
 
guitar zero said:
I agree with this 100%. I went down this very expensive path myself. Invested thousands of dollars on outboard eq, compressors, summing rigs, patch bays, more channels of conversion, and found mixing to be way more time consuming. Recall was non-existant. Remember, if you want to go back and revise a summed mix, you'll need recall sheets, or photos of all the settings you used on each piece of outboard gear to get back to where you were. When mixing ITB, recall is instant. The quality of plug-ins gets better every year. I finally sold all my outboard summing gear, and now mix hybrid. Everything ITB through one outboard compressor on the mix buss. Mixes come together way faster, are easier to edit, and I'm much happier. Your results may vary, but until you learn how to make really great mixes ITB, I wouldn't even consider outboard summing as an option. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

You go out DAW, into Outboard Comp, print back into DAW? via A/D converters?
 
And your above statements I agree 100% guitar zero, I only have a few outboard gear and I am so afraid to buy more.
 
RawDepth said:
Please refer to post #7 in this thread. I started using a summer to solve a problem that I was having ITB. Now my mixes sound better. I am finally happy.
Click to expand...

Please refer to my original point, which I stand behind 100% :-)

"Unless you are at a point where your mixes are already *extremely* high quality".

I suspect that you were at that point and wanted something more or else, you report that you achieved it. That doesn't change anything I've written, or negate it in any way.
 
TASCAM MAN said:
When you refer to "summing" do you mean having everything mixed to stereo??
Click to expand...

Summing is just another word for mixing down that we never used until after digital became prevalent. I can almost guess a persons approximate age just by whether they use the word summing or mixdown. You won't find the word summing much if at all in recording literature before the 90's. I'm not sure where it originated, but if its like most things it was a new buzzword in some marketing brochure. Before that you would see the term used in design for the components in a mixer that make up a summing circuit... a summing amplifier, usually the op-amp, resistors and capacitors that make up the circuit. But the device was always called a mixer.

RawDepth said:
For me, analog summing was a fix to a former problem. When I was mixing ITB, I noticed that the stereo mix did not sound the same as the multitrack playback sounded prior to summing. The digital summing process somehow changed it, making it slightly more harsh, blurred, or rough around the edges so-to-speak. Perhaps it depends on which DAW software you use. I don't know.

The difference is subtle, but I am happier now. Every little improvement helps.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is a fairly common complaint, but it does depend on a lot of things, including your DAW interface, software, how well your PC is tweaked for DAW use and operator skill. But all things being equal an ITB digital stereo mix will have a narrower soundstage than mixing through an analog mixer to a half-track analog mastering deck. The difference in an A/B comparison can be quite striking.

I work the same as miroslav through a mixing console. We even have the same DAW interfaces, but he has 24 discrete DAW analog input/output channels and I have 16.
 
gecko zzed said:
Why is this?
Click to expand...

Good question and I don't know exactly why, but even a cassette tape transferred directly to CD will narrow as far as the width perception of extreme right and left. In time past I remember when this was pretty common knowledge among the engineers I've worked with, but it was considered an acceptable hit to take for the other perceived benefits of digital. Now it comes as a surprise to more people because fewer people have the equipment to A/B. Many now never having even held a tape in their hands, much less listen to one. I remember the first person I heard lamenting about it was Tom Scholz of Boston... how so much of his early stuff lost its impact on CD compared to the tape or LP. You can imagine. I mean his stuff blew us away when it first came out with the depth and width, the swirling layered guitars and all that sounded like they were coming from someplace even wider than the physical speaker placement. So it does depend on the music certainly, but some things can really lose the intended effect of the original mix.
 
miroslav said:
Yeah...but those are two different things.
A summing box isn't mainly about getting a clean path...it's about digital VS analog summing.
My comment was in response to you suggesting that a summing box is usually "preferred" over a mixer because of the cleaner path...in which case I said ITB will be the cleanest of all...that's all. :)

That said...you can get a lot more from an analog mixer than just the summing aspect...but most ITB guys will go for summing boxes because their rig is primarily a DAW so they my just want the analog VS digital summing.
What I'm getting at is that (and this is a personal/subjective thing)...if you want the analog flavor, having the whole mix and processing will do even more than just analog summing of completely digital bunch of tracks/processing...but yeah, some folks hear some benefit even from just the summing...while others will swear it does nothing.

I do my complete mix through an analog mixer and analog gear + tape mixdown, with the playback coming from the DAW via 24 D/A channels...
...and yeah, I like it better than the ITB stereo mix, but then, I started my recording days with analog, and had quite a lot of gear before DAWs really came on the home-rec scene...so it was easy for me to add the DAW to my analog rig, rather than look of an analog add-on to a DAW rig.
I guess if I was just starting out all in the DAW world...then I too might opt for a summing box instead.

So yeah...we're pretty much on the same page....
Click to expand...
I understand and agree. That was a good post.
 
chuckduffy said:
Please refer to my original point, which I stand behind 100% :-)

"Unless you are at a point where your mixes are already *extremely* high quality".

I suspect that you were at that point and wanted something more or else, you report that you achieved it. That doesn't change anything I've written, or negate it in any way.
Click to expand...
I am not a pro yet, but I am at the point where I can often hear some of the subtle differences that my gear makes. I take my time and A/B a lot of things in pursuit of improving quality.

Now I see your point...that a beginner usually has far more problems to worry about overcoming than the fine differences between gear. They shouldn't waste their money believing that it's going to magically fix everything.

In this business, one should make purchase decisions based on needs, not wants.
 
RawDepth said:
I am not a pro yet, but I am at the point where I can often hear some of the subtle differences that my gear makes. I take my time and A/B a lot of things in pursuit of improving quality.

Now I see your point...that a beginner usually has far more problems to worry about overcoming than the fine differences between gear. They shouldn't waste their money believing that it's going to magically fix everything.

In this business, one should make purchase decisions based on needs, not wants.
Click to expand...

That is exactly my point - and I was fairly sure that we didn't disagree.
 
so 'summing' is the current term for 'mixing down' to a stereo mix?
I suppose it could also mean summing tracks to a sub-mix or group also.
 
gecko zzed said:
Why is this?
Click to expand...

Digital summing is not narrower than analog summing, but recording to analog tape can added a false sense of width for several reasons. One is the minute drop-outs that are different left and right. Width is created by differences in the left and right channels, so these very brief dropouts create a difference. Another related issue is the addition of stereo tape hiss, which is also different left and right. If you add stereo hiss to a mono track, it will seem to get wider.

--Ethan
 
I dunno....I output 24 channels from my DAW through my analog mixer, and before I ever mixdown to a 2-track tape deck, just at the stereo output of the mixer it already sounds bigger/wider than what I was hearing in the DAW sum.

Last time I said that someone (maybe it was here on HR) spent a lot of time trying to convince me it was probably because something was "broken or wrong" with my analog mixer setup.
OK...but I still think the "broken or wrong" stereo image is bigger/wider...and better. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top