summing for a noob

  • Thread starter Thread starter orksnork
  • Start date Start date
O

orksnork

New member
summing this...summing that...

im trying to gather what i can about summing as a whole....

from what i gather you output from your DAW, or respective recording device, and mix with the piece of analog gear, using your quality converters for output as opposed to mixing in the box and dithering with software???

im sure that's probably only about 8% right...but enlighten me if you please...

and after you sum...what do you output that to?? in general...back into DAW for mastering??? cd recorder?? what what what
 
hey. that was only 5 characters. how in the crap did you do that?
 
orksnork said:
im trying to gather what i can about summing as a whole....

from what i gather you output from your DAW, or respective recording device, and mix with the piece of analog gear, using your quality converters for output as opposed to mixing in the box and dithering with software???
Click to expand...

Pretty much. I can't honestly imagine why anyone would do it. Seems like an awful lot of trouble, and all it really does is add a lot of D/A conversion loss (error is n*e where e is the D/A conversion error per channel and n is the number of channels), coupled with one extra round of A/D conversion and the extra noise of analog summing. Mathematically, summing in analog should yield precisely the same values after the final A/D as summing it digitally. If there is a difference, it is the result of loss in the converters or analog summing hardware. It's hard for me to see that as a benefit. :)

My guess is the people who talk about the benefits of analog summing are the same people who think 192 kHz recording results in better sound, or those who buy $1500 power cords and wooden volume knobs.

The only way it would make sense is if you wanted to manually mix down because you just like the feel of having the controls under your fingers and tweaking them during the mix process... but with mix automation and a control surface, that's almost a moot argument.

Oh, yeah. It's useful to do this if you want to add outboard effects. Obviously. :)
 
but what you said about the loss of quality due to the conversion....at least you don't have to dither with software...no??

im really just fishing here.
 
orksnork said:
but what you said about the loss of quality due to the conversion....at least you don't have to dither with software...no??

im really just fishing here.
Click to expand...
You don't have to dither with software even without analog summing... you can send the who mix out through a mastering processor (dbx quantum, TC Finalizer) and dither there...

Proponents of analog summing feel that the final analog stage adds a warmth to the "sterile" digital mix. Some track exclusively digital and want to capture some of the nuances of an analog consule on the "way out".
 
dgatwood said:
Pretty much. I can't honestly imagine why anyone would do it. Seems like an awful lot of trouble, and all it really does is add a lot of D/A conversion loss (error is n*e where e is the D/A conversion error per channel and n is the number of channels), coupled with one extra round of A/D conversion and the extra noise of analog summing. Mathematically, summing in analog should yield precisely the same values after the final A/D as summing it digitally. If there is a difference, it is the result of loss in the converters or analog summing hardware. It's hard for me to see that as a benefit. :)

My guess is the people who talk about the benefits of analog summing are the same people who think 192 kHz recording results in better sound, or those who buy $1500 power cords and wooden volume knobs.

The only way it would make sense is if you wanted to manually mix down because you just like the feel of having the controls under your fingers and tweaking them during the mix process... but with mix automation and a control surface, that's almost a moot argument.

Oh, yeah. It's useful to do this if you want to add outboard effects. Obviously. :)
Click to expand...


Have you ever mixed thru a big analog console?
 
NL5 said:
Have you ever mixed thru a big analog console?
Click to expand...

I suspect that is what it comes down to. Big consoles usually have very high quality engineering in the power supplies, grounding, etc., that keeps them quiet and well fed. Obviously they are injecting desirable nonlinearities, just like so many other types of nonlinearities we as audio engineers know and love. And then there are the onboard EQs and compressors that are still the favorite candidates for emulation . . .

When the gear drops in quality, I do start to wonder. I personally felt like my A&H MixWiz, heavily modded though it was, added mostly noise to the process. When I see people saying that an even lower tier of gear is better than ITB, I start to wonder if they just like the massive loss of high end clarity and tubby bass . . . and there are much cheaper ways to achieve that than investing the cash in lots of converters.

Having said that, I have a summing box design that I hope to get to someday :)
 
FALKEN said:
hey. that was only 5 characters. how in the crap did you do that?
Click to expand...

Hint: Spaces count as characters.

Don't say I never gave you anything.
 
mshilarious said:
I suspect that is what it comes down to. Big consoles usually have very high quality engineering in the power supplies, grounding, etc., that keeps them quiet and well fed. Obviously they are injecting desirable nonlinearities, just like so many other types of nonlinearities we as audio engineers know and love. And then there are the onboard EQs and compressors that are still the favorite candidates for emulation . . .
Click to expand...

Seems like if that's the only purpose, you'd be better off just running it through the board a second time during tracking. That way, you'd get the warming of the analog electronics without the additional conversion loss.
 
dgatwood said:
Seems like if that's the only purpose, you'd be better off just running it through the board a second time during tracking. That way, you'd get the warming of the analog electronics without the additional conversion loss.
Click to expand...

:D I'm not even going to touch this one.
 
please do touch it....i'd like to hear more opinions about what all is going on with summing....


and as far as this thread...this is more of a learning thing for me...nothing i intend to be working for...so do not poke me with hot conversion loss irons
 
It's just that I believe what MShilarious was refering to was the non-linearities as it relates to mixing and summing, not tracking
.
 
oops, forgot an important word.

chessrock said:
It's just that I believe what MShilarious was refering to was the non-linearities as it relates to mixing and summing, not tracking
.
Click to expand...
It's in the summing, right? The actual muxing of many channels to stereo, which is supposed to add desirable harmonic distortion to the process?

At least that's what the proponents of analog summing advocate.
 
Last edited:
fraserhutch said:
It's in the summing, right? The actual muxing of many channels to stereo, which is supposed to add desirable harmonic distortion to the process?

At least that's what the proponents of analog advocate.
Click to expand...


Harmonic distortion can be added at any point in the process. The summing thing is a whole different animal, and I don't understand half the stuff it involves, but there's a lot more to it than just distorion. It's the way the various sounds are combined. You're talking about a piece of music gear (mixer), versus a computer processor combining sounds via mathematical computations and manipulations of binary code.

This is usually the sort of thing where Southside Glen will chime in shortly with a long, detailed answer, most likely cut and pasted from somewhere (with wording modified). :D

.
 
fraserhutch said:
It's in the summing, right? The actual muxing of many channels to stereo, which is supposed to add desirable harmonic distortion to the process?

At least that's what the proponents of analog advocate.
Click to expand...

who?

I use tape because I feel I am getting a more *accurate* representation of the original sound than I do with digital converters. I don't want to argue that point, let's just call it a personal preference. That isn't based on "harmonic distortion" figures.

As far as I can see, there are three ways to "sum" signals together. Voltage summing, current summing, and digital summing. with most outboard "summing" devices you are getting voltage summing, which was found in the old neve consoles. Current summing is what you would normally find in a small analog mixer. Digital summing, if you guessed correctly, is done by a mathematical algorithm.

Technicalties aside, everyone has already pointed out that there are a million other factors that can get involved (converters, mixer quality, outboard gear, flying faders, etc, etc.) but in the end it all comes down to "personal preference". I tend to prefer current summing to digital summing, and don't have very much experience with voltage summing. Now, someone will come along and say that I'm wrong because there is "theoretically" no difference between them and maybe there isn't but remember I said its all about personal preference. when you start discussing this kind of stuff its really splitting hairs.

.. . .

.

... .
.
 
FALKEN said:
who?

As far as I can see, there are three ways to "sum" signals together. Voltage summing, current summing, and digital summing.
Click to expand...
I get you on the voltage and digital summing... but how does current summing differ from voltage... either can't exist without the other...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top