Analog summation in digital studio

[eirikur]

Hi there!
My studio is 100 % digital, apart from the mics and preamps, of course..
I have a friend, however, who does audio summation in the analog domain, using a 32 channel mackie 8bus mixer.
So, I took some material I had recorded and mixed in my studio, and took it to his place and mixed it there... To make a long story short; I now want to do analog summation..

But, I don't want to go all the way and buy a 32 ch mixer... I just don't have space for that... And I don't have enough outs either... I then tested routing the audio signals into software stereo-bus'es and routing them again into the buses of the mackie, and was able to achieve almost as a good a result as when I routed every track to the mackie's inputs...

Now, what I want is to find a decent piece of equipment that lets you input say 8 stereo signals (I have 16 outs on my soundcard), into 8 buses, which is then again routed to a master fader... In other words, I want a mixer/summation unit that represents the master section of a normal mixer... Any good ideas as to what would be suitable?

Thanks!

 

[boingoman]

Somebody will probably post a more reasonable solution, but this is pretty damn cool....

It's also $8,100 .

If you were happy with the Mackie you could check out an old 1604VLZ or their new Onyx stuff. I've wondered about this too, and am hoping someone will have a cool piece somewhere between the Mackie and the Manley.

 

[Track Rat]

Analog summing rules (well, at this time it does anyway). I always mix thru a analog console.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Analog summing rules (well, at this time it does anyway). I always mix thru a analog console.

Same here -- I can't get the same mixing results out of Cubase SX as I can with my ubiquitous Mackie 8-buss......

 

[Treeline]

This looks interesting...

But I'd have to sell the truck.

http://mixonline.com/products/review/audio_dangerous_music_monitor/

 

[ebeam]

So to what do you guys attribute the improvement in sound through analog mixing? I assume you are doing more than just summing.....the DAWSUM CD (from most accounts I've heard) seemed to discount much of a significant difference in *just* the summing part. Is it ergonomics? The fact that you are more comfortable with your analog mixer and not used to software yet? Using more analog compression, EQ, etc.?

It doesn't surprise me that you get better results if you have mixed analog for 15 years, but I just wonder if it is really analog vs. digital or just a learning curve...

Also, if you are handy with a soldering iron, a summing box ala the folcrom http://www.rollmusic.com/systems/folcrom.shtml is basically just a bunch of resistors and switches, assuming you have a nice stereo preamp for makeup gain. Probably wouldn't cost more than a couple hundred bucks to build with the box and everything.

 

[Ronan]

So to what do you guys attribute the improvement in sound through analog mixing? .

Its more a matter of the damage the digital mixing does to your sound.

 

[doulos]

dangerous music makes a cool lil summing device an le version takes 16 in to 2 stereo at a cost of 1500 its also a single rack space its called the dangerous 2 bus lt http://www.dangerousmusic.com/2buslt.html as far as analog summing goes its top quality

 

[Track Rat]

The fact that you are more comfortable with your analog mixer and not used to software yet? Using more analog compression, EQ, etc.?

It doesn't surprise me that you get better results if you have mixed analog for 15 years, but I just wonder if it is really analog vs. digital or just a learning curve...

First of all, it has nothing to do with being more comfortable with real faders and knobs, if that was the case, I'd buy a digital mixer. I've done many mixes in the box and I actually prefer to do it there as it would be infinatly repeatable (if a client comes back and says "I love the mix but could you bump up the vox a couple of dB in just the second chorus?", it's easy as hell). But the mixes through the console along with whatever analog toys I want to throw into it just sound.....fatter (GOD, I hate that word!!), rounder, wider, BETTER!
The learning curve for mixing inside the box is non-existant if you've been mixing ANYTHING for fifteen years.

 

[doulos]

can you really hear the diffrence? http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=127453 take my challenge

 

[Strryder]

I'll throw a little spam into this thread..

I have two 24x8 mixing consoles for sale, I'm located in CT and would prefer a pickup, shipping isn't too healthy for things this big.

Mackie 24x8 with meter bridge, 1200 bucks

TASCAM M-1600 24x8 with meterbridge, 600 bucks

PM me if interested.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

can you really hear the diffrence? http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=127453 take my challenge

There's a huge difference between those two mixes -- and BTW - neither mix was very good... very unbalanced over the spectrum, thin & oversibilant vocals, muddy overall quality...

But of the two, I preferred the first one - except for the fact that the vocals were mixed lower in that version than the second...

Either way, it doesn't prove much -- the fact that your mixes are inconsistent for each version is enough to throw off establishing whether the difference is due to analog/digital summing or a technical lack on your part.

The difference between the 2 versions should be more subtle than that, so I'd have to say your mixing itself got in the way of the test......

 

[doulos]

Either way, it doesn't prove much -- the fact that your mixes are inconsistent for each version is enough to throw off establishing whether the difference is due to analog/digital summing or a technical lack on your part.

The difference between the 2 versions should be more subtle than that, so I'd have to say your mixing itself got in the way of the test



your right blue bear im redoing this with closer matched mixes and again these are dry tracks to prove if you cant tell the diffrecne on dry tracks i doubt your gonna notice it in the final mix

here is the new mixes http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/?aid=2997/singles

 

[eirikur]

Wrong turn..

I REALLY don't want this to turn into one of those analog vs digital audio discussions, since that's an OOOOOOLD theme, and not my intention at all...
Everybody can use whatever works best for them, in my opinion...

So I don't really care...

What I DO want hints and suggestions about though, is the type of equipment I asked about earlier.... (Thanks for the hints I've already gotten)

So please start a new thread if you really want to discuss analog vs digital audio... again...

Cheers!

 

[noiseportrait]

So to what do you guys attribute the improvement in sound through analog mixing? I assume you are doing more than just summing.....the DAWSUM CD (from most accounts I've heard) seemed to discount much of a significant difference in *just* the summing part. Is it ergonomics? The fact that you are more comfortable with your analog mixer and not used to software yet? Using more analog compression, EQ, etc.?

Yeah, I thought the DAWSUM CD cleared up the mess for most people, but the debate still seems to be underway here for some reason.

For anyone who doesn't know about the DAWSUM CD, there was test done where a number of mixes were summed through bunch of different analogue consoles and a bunch of different DAWS in a very controlled manner, and the results were put on a cd so that AEs who bought the cd could participate in a blind test, and clear up the summing issue once an for all. Most people entered the experiment with a heavy bias toward analogue summing and the results were not what they expected. There were a lot of mixed opinions on the overall results once the whole thing was done, but the general consensus was that summing in the analogue realm made a whole lot less of a difference than anyone expected, and that summing in the analogue realm through cheap consoles like a mackie generally degraded the audio. Yes, there was a very modest improvement that a lot of people heard when a mix was summed through a neve or ssl, but most people seemed to agree that it was not enough of an improvement to warrant the money spent on converters and a high end console. A lot of people were forced to completely re-evaluate their notions on digital summing, and very few people involved in the tests still held to the dogma that analogue summing was better than digital. Some people with fairly good ears could not even detect a difference in a lot of the mixes.

There is still a lot of debate on what actually makes most people feel that mixes sound better when done on an analogue console. Is it ergonomics, less dependence on plugins, familiarity? For anyone still holding to their guns on the issue, the DAWSUM CD is still available for you to take the blind test yourself.

http://www.3daudioinc.com/

 

[ebeam]

I REALLY don't want this to turn into one of those analog vs digital audio discussions, since that's an OOOOOOLD theme, and not my intention at all...
Everybody can use whatever works best for them, in my opinion...

So I don't really care...

What I DO want hints and suggestions about though, is the type of equipment I asked about earlier.... (Thanks for the hints I've already gotten)

So please start a new thread if you really want to discuss analog vs digital audio... again...

Cheers!

That's cool, I just thought you might want an objective look at this before you lay down a bunch of cash on some gear that might not make any difference....

 

[eirikur]

ok...

Thanks, but I'll join you in the other thread to talk about that, and keep this one open for anyone who has more suggestions as to what kind of equipment would be suitable..