Software vs hardware summing to stereo

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kellianjaxon
  • Start date Start date
K

Kellianjaxon

New member
I've been told that as long as there's decent semi-pro/pro hardware equipment (mixing console & ADA-converter most likely) available, making a stereo sum out of a hard disk multitrack project would result in better audio quality if done by returning each audio track individually to the console (assuming there are enough physical channels available), carrying out the summing process there and finally recording stereo signal back to digital form instead of just routing each track to audio sequencer's virtual stereo output in the first place. I understand the result may also differ depending on the software used, though. Anyway, I'd like to hear people's opinions on that.

The particular setup I'm referring to is the following:

Macintosh Cubase SX3
RME HDSP9652, http://www.rme-audio.com/english/hdsp/hdsp9652.htm
Creamware A16 Ultra, http://www.creamware.com/index.php?submenu=products&seite=products&lang=en
Soundcraft Ghost, http://www.soundcraft.com/product_sheet.asp?product_id=27
 
There was a recent thread on this, so you might want to search it. There are some very pricy summing boxes out there, and some golden ears who swear by the concept. But I think you have to spend quite a few dollars to get there, which may be worth it, or may be money that would have been better spent on a world class pre and mic. One of the online mags had an article recently reviewing some summing solutions, can't remember which.
 
Here is my standard reply to this fad:

George Massenburg said:
Mixing in the box has taken the biggest hit because of the perception that if you are working in the box, then by its very nature, you are technically limited. The idea is that digital mixing is flawed. ‘In the box’ has been thought to mean actual digital mixing. You will see people use Pro Tools as a tape recorder, then break it out and bring it into an analog console. The defense is that in-the-box mixing is in itself flawed. I don’t think that’s true. I think the reason for this misconception is the lack of talent making informed, intelligent, artistic decisions when mixing, rather than the idea of the mix being truncated.
Click to expand...
 
and to add to mshilarious:

If you record (mix) to digital tape, then what should you do next? The short answer is: nothing. Certainly, never return to analog. Successive A to D and D to A conversion is almost as deteriorating to sonic quality as the above-mentioned truncations (both conversion and processing are quantization processes...changing gain is a re-quantization process).
Click to expand...

from Bob Katz's article on the Secrets of Dither.
 
mshilarious said:
Here is my standard reply to this fad:
Click to expand...


I wonder if GM read the technical reports for pro tools design.


Basically the software designers at digidesign stated that inherently, all processes are done in 48-bit, until summing is involved. At that point it's reduced to 24-bit. So this means the bussing system in protools takes a somewhat of a blow by design when you try to buss in pro tools.

However, you're still in the clear, but it raises certain questions.

Thats why the Impact buss compressor came about. It's just about as good as what you get out in a close to high end console.

George Massenburg can afford to say what he says on a number of levels.

However, summing in DAWs is in one way or another, flawed in mimicking the real thing.


A/D/A conversion has very little to do with the fact, unless you're summing with an outboard summing amp. But thats another discussion altogether.


I still remain guarded against summing processes inside the box with the exception of two things:

A) something like the Impact Buss compressor, which can handle *almost* as well as the real thing.

or

B) legitimate improvements have been made to the summing network within DAW system.



I also use Nuendo, so let's see if I can find documents on internal workings of that.


Added:


Also don't get me wrong, the processes are not too far from what's actual. I have an article here that any PT users are welcome to hit upon.

But with all the turnacation that goes on, I still remain a little...well, you guys read and decide for yourselves:


http://www.digidesign.com/support/docs/
 
Last edited:
I am aware of the limitations of PT; suffice to say that I use a 32 bit floating point DAW.

Even so, the distortions of 24 bit mixing should be measurable. Anybody wanna lays odds that the THD of an analog mixer is lower?

The problem is that a generation of people are being sold a myth that digital mixing is flawed, and they are incurring a very real, very substantial cost in trying to avoid a problem that doesn't exist.

I can see lots of reasons for preferring analog mixing, but when that preference is expressed in terms of nonexistent flaws with digital mixing, I have to object. There are too many newbies reading this board getting entirely the wrong idea.

I have never listening to a track on the Clinic and thought it sucked because of digital (or analog) summing.
 
mshilarious said:
I have never listening to a track on the Clinic and thought it sucked because of digital (or analog) summing.
Click to expand...

:D which is why, for all my debating, I'm full of shit and still mix inside the box most of the time.


[coveringbases]Of course I don't encourage rengade forms of thinking to whatever newbsters misinterpret my opinions.[/coveringbases]

(his bases are covered).


But if the opportunity arises occasionally to jump on a solid console, over a DAW, then of course you know what I would prefer.
 
And my standard response is "why make things more complicated than they need to be". Keeping all the tracks within the one domain seems sensible to me.

I can imagine a number of responses that dwell on the satisfaction of the physicalness of external mixing.

There are no limitations in the box, except for the self-imposed ones of trying to deal with a newer technology using the methods that worked well with an older technology.
 
Until you've tried both and heard the results with your own ears I don't think it's fair to comment. That being said I pipe out to an analog mixer and am very happy with the results.
 
LemonTree said:
Until you've tried both and heard the results with your own ears I don't think it's fair to comment. That being said I pipe out to an analog mixer and am very happy with the results.
Click to expand...

That is not the same thing. If someone said "analog mixing sounds better", that's fine with me. When the clause "because digital mixing is flawed" is added that I object.

Alright the OP said "better audio quality". Sort of in between. I must have been in a bad mood that day :o
 
Flawed... Limitations... Deteriorization...

I thought the number one rule was: There are NO Rules!

Contrast and compare.. do what ever it takes to make it sound better.
 
Last edited:
I've recently gone through this debate with myself (yep, I talk to myself) and I've come to the conclusion that I and probably most people here need to worry more about tracking properly than how to sum their mixes. Summing shit analog still sounds like shit. I know cause I've done it. :D If I would have tracked it right to begin with it wouldn't matter which way I mixed it. I'm back to mixing ITB. The time I used to spend dicking around with all outboard gear and setting the console up, I now spend on mic selection and placement with far better results.
 
Wow, that experience is just exactly the opposite of mine! Goes to show there is not one right answer.

I not only sum analog, but mix analog as well. This is after having gone 100% digital for a while. Didn't care for how it sounded at all, and it seemed like I spent an enormous amount of time on tweaky kinds of things that I felt interfered with the flow of the mix process.

While it is entirely possible that many tests could be run showing that nothing is going wrong technically in an ITB mix, I personally found the results to be unsatisfying.

I find that when mixing analog the mix comes together a lot faster and sounds more pleasing overall when we mix on my analog mixers. I also have a nice collection of outboard that I like to use, and much prefer the sound of outboard to the sound of most plugins. So that is a big factor for me.

I would say that it is less expensive to put together a good ITB mixing setup, and on a budget it might be the way to go. You have to collect a lot more gear to do a good analog mix, and that gets costly.
 
SonicAlbert said:
Wow, that experience is just exactly the opposite of mine! Goes to show there is not one right answer.

I not only sum analog, but mix analog as well. This is after having gone 100% digital for a while. Didn't care for how it sounded at all, and it seemed like I spent an enormous amount of time on tweaky kinds of things that I felt interfered with the flow of the mix process.

While it is entirely possible that many tests could be run showing that nothing is going wrong technically in an ITB mix, I personally found the results to be unsatisfying.

I find that when mixing analog the mix comes together a lot faster and sounds more pleasing overall when we mix on my analog mixers. I also have a nice collection of outboard that I like to use, and much prefer the sound of outboard to the sound of most plugins. So that is a big factor for me.

I would say that it is less expensive to put together a good ITB mixing setup, and on a budget it might be the way to go. You have to collect a lot more gear to do a good analog mix, and that gets costly.
Click to expand...



I would agree that outboard gear sounds better than most software. That's why I'm spending all my time and effort on using the right mics and proper placement to keep the need for processing to the bare minimum. I am going to get the UAD-1 card though.
 
Seems there are as many opinions as there are persons to express theirs...pretty much what I expected. The main reason I asked for them was myself originally wondering if summing in analog world is really worth extra D to A to D -conversions. Well, I guess I've to try and see myself. Thanks for the debate, guys.
 
If you have great converters the concerns about taking a trip through DA and AD are really non-existent.

It also depends on what you are mixing. There are times when ITB is just the ticket, due to the easy automation and recallability. I recently did the dubbing mix on a documentary film in my studio, and that was done completely ITB. Mixing in the box was perfect for that kind of work. However, I also composed and recorded the score for the film and that was mixed completely on my analog mixer using hardware outboard.

It's a bit of a luxury to be able to choose *how* to mix based on the project, but I do like being able to tailor the sound and work process to the project.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top