Analong summing vs. Digital summing is a constant heated debate on these boards. I always see people claiming analog summing is better with no hard evidence to support their claims. There have been great commercial albums mixed in the box just as there have been great commercial albums mixed with an analog board.
I did an experiment with a good friend of mine who owns a studio. I mixed both mixes and tried to get them as sonically similar as possible. All processing is done in the box on both mixes, but one mix is summed in the box and one mix is summed on an analog board. Can you tell which is which? Hopefully this thread will put an end to the analog summing vs. digital summing debate or at least settle on the fact that one is not necessarily better than the other.
Both files are encoded at 192.
Please, no guessing. Use your ears.
http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/album.php?aid=1410&alid=-1
I did an experiment with a good friend of mine who owns a studio. I mixed both mixes and tried to get them as sonically similar as possible. All processing is done in the box on both mixes, but one mix is summed in the box and one mix is summed on an analog board. Can you tell which is which? Hopefully this thread will put an end to the analog summing vs. digital summing debate or at least settle on the fact that one is not necessarily better than the other.
Both files are encoded at 192.
Please, no guessing. Use your ears.
http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/album.php?aid=1410&alid=-1