analogue summing but digital mastering inside DAW. Will that work?

[SAMMIX]

hi,
i've heard so many good things about analogue summing and analogue mastering. i learnt i can achieve a more 'transparent', punchier, clearer and warm sound from summing analogue. my question is dis: after summing analogue and u decide to master the summed track inside your DAW digitally(with plugins), are u going to loose all the qualities of analogue summing(as in the transparency, warmness, clarity etc used in describing analogue summing)? or must i master analogue in order to retain those qualities? is analogue mastering as important as analogue summing in production process? please share your experiences in both digital and analogue mastering provided u summed analogue.
Thanks in advance.


SAMMIX

 

[Steenamaroo]

I can't really contribute anything useful, other than to say your adjectives are vague and contradictory.

Transparent suggests that you wouldn't know a process had been used, or at least that it has no unnecessary side-effects.
If you described a preamp as transparent I'd assume it does nothing to the sound other than amplify it.
Warm usually suggests some kind of full mids or low end. Pretty much the opposite of clearer which suggests boosted highs or cut lows.

Beyond that, analog summing isn't a one-size affair that you can describe.
There are good and bad tools out there, plus good and bad are subjective.

There are summing boxes that are meant to do something to your sound, and others that are designed to be as transparent as possible.

With regard to analog tracking and digital mastering, whatever you do to a track will remain done to the track regardless of how you process it later.
Now obviously if you boost highs with a hardware eq then pull them back with a digital one you've undone the work from the analog realm,
but the act of digitally treating audio doesn't 'un-analog' it.

 

[miroslav]

....but the act of digitally treating audio doesn't 'un-analog' it.

This alone can turn into a 20 page debate!



No, really SAMMIX...it's OK to mix/sum analog and then master digitally. That's how most guys do it that like to mix/sum OTB in the analog domain, including myself.... and honestly, even Mastering studios that utilize some analog tools, will also at some point digitize the audio too. There may be some Mastering studios out there that still use 100% all-analog chain and processing....but not many.

 

[SAMMIX]

No, really SAMMIX...it's OK to mix/sum analog and then master digitally. That's how most guys do it that like to mix/sum OTB in the analog domain, including myself.... and honestly, even Mastering studios that utilize some analog tools, will also at some point digitize the audio too. There may be some Mastering studios out there that still use 100% all-analog chain and processing....but not many.

thanks.. dats d point. but do you think everything noticeable in an analogue summed track e.g space btw instruments, clear reverb tail, warmness etc) will i still be able to retain them even after digital mastering? sorry to border you guys... jst that i hate my 'glued together' kind of tracks.

 

[miroslav]

Well...don't have some huge expectations that the mixes you now hate will all of a sudden take on some wonderful/magical properties just 'cuz you summed them in analog.
Unless you apply some obvious analog FX/processing (coloring)...just a basic analog sum will only give you a subtle difference from an ITB sum in most cases.

If you really hate the mixes, then figure out why...'cuz most likely the problem is BEFORE the summing and mastering.

 

[Ethan Winer]

I can't really contribute anything useful, other than to say your adjectives are vague and contradictory.

Excellent post, you totally nailed it. Also:

There are summing boxes that are meant to do something to your sound, and others that are designed to be as transparent as possible.

Any analog summing that really is transparent will sound exactly the same as normal DAW summing, which is also transparent. Why anyone would spend thousands of dollars on "clean" analog summing when they can get the exact same result for free in their DAW is beyond me. Even when the goal is adding "analog color" to a mix, that's also easy to do in a DAW using EQ and tube and tape emulators. Of all the things someone could invest in to improve the quality of their projects, "summing" products are (for me) at the bottom of the list.

--Ethan

 

[Steenamaroo]

Excellent post, you totally nailed it.

Thanks, Ethan.

Why anyone would spend thousands of dollars on "clean" analog summing when they can get the exact same result for free in their DAW is beyond me.

Truth be told I'm not that well acquainted with analog summing.
I'm just aware that 'transparent' summing mixers exist.

If someone tracks through a mixer to tape, would they ever want transparent summing from tape to their stereo destination?
I'm just guessing here.

 

[miroslav]

Thanks, Ethan.



Truth be told I'm not that well acquainted with analog summing.
I'm just aware that 'transparent' summing mixers exist.

If someone tracks through a mixer to tape, would they ever want transparent summing from tape to their stereo destination?
I'm just guessing here.

Just basic *summing* via some "box", is something of an oddity that is directly connected to the emergence of digital audio and ITB mixing. Some folks just didn't like the sound they were getting from ITB summing...and if so, then just *summing* in analog is valid for them, but I personally don't much see the point of doing everything ITB, and then just doing the summing-to-stereo part using some analog box for that.
There are people who swear they hear a difference by just summing in analog, and that's their choice...but I don't think their goal is "transparency". I think the use of the word "transparent" by the OP to describe analog summing may not be too accurate, and your point about contradictory terms is spot-on...but certainly some types of analog summing can add "punch" and "warmth" (and a few other descriptive terms)...and some obvious *color* to the mix, which some folks prefer over the purely digital outpout.

*Mixing* OTB on the other hand is a different animal, and usually employs more than just the "stereo summing" portion of the mixer, and often involves the use of analog outboard gear once the ITB tracks are broken out individually to the analog domain, making the use of the mixer and outboard gear pretty straightforward.
How much of that is easy to do in the DAW and/or can be made to sound exactly the same as the analog gear it was modled after, is a personal decision. In major studios, while certainly ITB mixes are done, many OTB mixes are also still done, with the DAW acting more like a playback deck, and all the "flavor-n-glue" coming from the analog gear, and I would even expect that most major releases today still have a strong analog OTB component to the production process.
You take CLA who we had here a year ago with that contest....he has a slew of Waves products with his name on them....but he personally still uses the analog gear to mix. That is his choice.....and everyone here can speculate why.

AFA as why anyone would spend money on more analog based gear rather than some inexpensive software....well, again, that's a personal decision, sometimes based on individual SOPs and comfort zones, and not just the "sound".... though I always get a kick of how much most digital software strives to sound LIKE analog, and often uses the word "analog" in an attempt to describe its digital feature-set....so I guess for some people, just going with the real thing makes more sense, even if it does cost more to do that.

 

[SAMMIX]

i appreciate ur contributions, but i think u guys are not getting me right. what i want to know is this: assuming u finish a mix using analogue chain like summing box, compressor, equaliser and probably other analogue fx thereby adding a particular colour to your mixdown and you decide to master the track inside your daw with plugins, do u think i may loose that colour added to the mix with analogue chain because of 'inferiority' of plugins as most pple believe?

 

[miroslav]

I think we already answered that......what ever you add to the sound before you go to the DAW, should pretty much stay.
So if you use a particular analog EQ, its sound/flavor/effect will not be removed just 'cuz you digitized it.

However, once you do bring it into the DAW...if you start applying additional digital FX/Processing, then of course you will start to change the sound you had before....but that will happen in either analog or digital. Any time you add or take away something, it will change the sound....digital or analog.

 

[SAMMIX]

I think we already answered that......what ever you add to the sound before you go to the DAW, should pretty much stay.
So if you use a particular analog EQ, its sound/flavor/effect will not be removed just 'cuz you digitized it.

However, once you do bring it into the DAW...if you start applying additional digital FX/Processing, then of course you will start to change the sound you had before....but that will happen in either analog or digital. Any time you add or take away something, it will change the sound....digital or analog.

On point!! thanks for the clarification. i asked because i didn't want to stress my pocket so much in buying mastering gears simply because i want to better my results. with all the explanations, i think i'm cool with analogue colouring at mixing stage, then proceed with ITB mastering to keep work simple and easy for myself.
thanks everyone on this thread. you all cleared my confusion.

 

[Steenamaroo]

So if you use a particular analog EQ, its sound/flavor/effect will not be removed just 'cuz you digitized it.

This alone can turn into a 20 page debate!

 

[Beck]

Yeah, I say get out of the box! But first stop calling it summing! Call it mixing and only study references on how to do it that were written before the term "summing" came into vogue, which wasn't all that long ago! Short answer: When you go for a certain "analog color" using outboard means, it will largely be preserved in the final digital product... but not perfectly.

IMO one of the big problem with today's music production is the total digital chain from start to finish. Get away from that and, all other things being equal, you'll pull ahead of the pack! It's worth the cost and learning curve for those who weren't raised in it. To those of us who were raised in it this is no big deal and a no-brainier. To me total ITB is odd and amateurish.

 

[Steenamaroo]

Yeah, I say get out of the box! But first stop calling it summing! Call it mixing and only study references on how to do it that were written before the term "summing" came into vogue, which wasn't all that long ago!

I thought we called it summing when the mixing's already done.
I mean, of course you're still 'mixing' signals, but you're summing mixed tracks, right?

Like, If I pass my Protools session through a big mixer, all my volumes and effects are done. I'm literally just gona pass each track through a mixer channel at unity, right?

 

[Beck]

I thought we called it summing when the mixing's already done.
I mean, of course you're still 'mixing' signals, but you're summing mixed tracks, right?

Like, If I pass my Protools session through a big mixer, all my volumes and effects are done. I'm literally just gona pass each track through a mixer channel at unity, right?

Yeah, don't worry about it, I'm just being a PITA because I don't like when the industry unnecessarily reinvents terminology to make something sound like something else than it was when it's still the same thing. You can tell people who grew up with analog because they use the term mixing or mixdown, whereas people who are looking back at analog as some strange distant technology are more familiar with the term summing. We never used the term summing. Signals are mixed with a mixer even if the properties of the mix are controlled elsewhere in the chain. The most basic mixer consists of resistors, one for each input and combined into one output, with no controls to modify the signal whatsoever. It's still just another mixing stage in the recording chain.

I know I can't control the direction of popular terminology, but just be aware where it came from... that manufacturers did a little sleight of hand by introducing "Analog Summing" to the DAW culture when they knew all along you could get the same or better results with a vintage or even not so vintage mixer. A summing box is just a name for a product that was pitched to computer-based recordists as a novel idea.

 

[Ethan Winer]

You can tell people who grew up with analog because they use the term mixing or mixdown, whereas people who are looking back at analog as some strange distant technology are more familiar with the term summing.

Right, summing and mixing are the same, though summing implies a bunch of numbers that are summed together, so it's not inappropriate. I also agree about the marketing of "summing" boxes. IMO this is a product that solves a nonexistent problem.

--Ethan

 

[Beck]

Right, summing and mixing are the same, though summing implies a bunch of numbers that are summed together, so it's not inappropriate. I also agree about the marketing of "summing" boxes. IMO this is a product that solves a nonexistent problem.

--Ethan

Yep, very true, and we could probably borrow the term "Combiner" from TV/Radio and "Blender" from culinary arts. Now that I think about it I think I might market a simple tube mixer and call it The Juicer. I'll make a million dollars!