Whats The Deal With The Summing?

I

illacov

Member
Im totally lost on this topic at least in my understanding of it

People spend all this money on buying DAWS..you know outfitting computers with all this expensive memory, cpus, hard drives etc plus buying nice expensive interfaces

only to have this opinion come out that mixing inside the box is DEGRADING the audio.

Now they have these things out like the Dangerous 2 Bus...which people are buying all over the place and recommending and im just looking at this like WTF??

If the whole point is you need to mix outside the computer because of the summing issue..then why are we even mixing with computers in the first place?? Or messing with them??

I know somebody will say my untrained amateur ears cant tell the difference..im not saying i can because i havent taken a listen to that cd yet that contrasts between analog and digital mixdowns etc...

But my real question is...do any of you buy into this idea?

At least in terms of getting this dangerous 2 bus thing

I know a good deal of people have been analogue for life and they've already leapfrogged over this since they're already in an analogue environment.

Me im not...I would love to own a whole bevy of tape machines and compressors and look upon them like Dr Frankenstein but the truth is I already spent my money on computer based recording.

Now this comes about and its like we've been fooling ourselves at least thats the way people have portrayed it as of late.

But enough talk

Whats the stance on this??

Also theres this whole snafu about differences between programs and their sound quality....i just cant help but laugh because it sounds so absurd and yet you have so many people that are saying its true man oh man it just gives me a weird feeling...almost like this whole ordeal is just an audio psychosis of sorts

Anyways begin the discussion already!
 
Engineers are just like everyone else on this planet......easily swayed by salesmen.

I'm sorry, but everytime I hear someone say "digital summing sucks compared to analog summing" it's almost always followed by something regarding the Dangerous 2-Bus. When you are in a business that demands you have the edge, you tend to look for anything that is going to give your sound "that extra push over the cliff." The Dangerous 2-Bus is there to fill a niche; The unit for those that can afford to have professional all-analog equipment who choose to go digital, but remain sceptical of it's overall performance and feel insecure with stock due to digital's overall availability to the mass market.

For almost three grand, you'll hear the difference. Is it worth it? You decide...
 
Oh, great! A box that lets you do a completely useless D/A+A/D conversion for three grand. Just what I always wanted! You know what, paint it with green paint, and it gonna sound EVEN BETTER!
 
You don't have to PAINT it green. A green majic marker will do just fine (but only if you use directional cables).
 
I guess it' swinglish in progress. To me, painting it green is painting even with a magic marker. :)

And of course, I *only* use directional cables. I'm running out of these green rings to put around them though, since the evil sino-semitic conspiracy put them out of manufacture.
 
I think you'll find most industry pros use the DAW for editing and playback only. Then they mix through an SSL or a Neve with automation. Are they wrong?
 
knightsy is right... It's true... Most of the BIG, BIG stuff is tracked and edited in Pro Tools and mixed on an SSL or Neve or API or Trident w/ automation.

Indie stuff varies greatly. The only requirement is that it sounds good.

Still, I find most of the Indies look elsewhere, regardless of the quality the studio outputs, if the studio doesn't have a 2" and/or Pro Tools and a decent enough large-format console; that is unless the studio has already done some regionally recognized indie work.
 
knightsy said:
I think you'll find most industry pros use the DAW for editing and playback only. Then they mix through an SSL or a Neve with automation. Are they wrong?
Click to expand...

If they claim that it's because the digital summing is flawed, then yes indeed they are wrong.

But if they claim that the Neve mixer AS A WHOLE sounds better than the mixer in ProTool, they are talking about matters of taste, and can not be wrong. :)

The $3000 device above can be built for $100 by making summing network of resistors and an opamp.
[Edit: Or wait. Two networks and two opamps, it's stereo, right? So make that $150, just to be safe. ;) How do they pan? Do you have to have two outputs for each channel? Man, that is gonna make the D/A salespeople happy!]
 
Recording Engineer said:
knightsy is right... It's true... Most of the BIG, BIG stuff is tracked and edited in Pro Tools and mixed on an SSL or Neve or API or Trident w/ automation.
Click to expand...

OK, let's make it even clearer, most of the big stuff has basic tracks recorded to 2inch tape, then overdubs are done in Profools.
Then the mix goes through the big-name board.

If they claim that it's because the digital summing is flawed, then yes indeed they are wrong.

But if they claim that the Neve mixer AS A WHOLE sounds better than the mixer in ProTool, they are talking about matters of taste, and can not be wrong.
Click to expand...

People talk about the summing being the problem, but I think the real issue is that there are things you can do in an analog mixdown that are somewhat more difficult to do in the digital domain. That said, does anyone know of a plugin that sounds/works like the SSL mixbus cmpressor?
 
Emulating the sound of a particular piece of equipment may be complicated, but putting a compressor on the mixbus ought to be possible, right?

//notaprotoolsuser
 
i always find it funny how people who make music in there bedrooms and most likely won't leave there living room augh at pros(guys that do it for a living some have multiple plaques grammy nominations etc.), when they say digital summing is flawed or whatever it is and say and alternative(dangerous 2 bus) is just a sham

if the shoe fits wears it....
 
So far my experience has been that DAW mixes tend to sound a bit more flat and stale compared to analog mixes. Whether that is simply the mixbuss or everything else combined I don't know but I think it's the latter.
 
The main problem with digital summing is that the software your using at some point has to reduce data to only 2 tracks.
It doesn't do this intelligently, it does whatever compromise the software mfg decided it should be. Its pretty scary to think of 24 tracks represented by a number, but the summing buss only had room for 2 tracks of numbers of the same decimal place. Thats why the big boyz keep the tracks separate and sum with analog. Any of you math genius' want to take on crunching 24 tracks of 24 bit audio into 2 tracks of 24 bit audio and convince me truncation isn't happening? Summing numbers is not the same as summing electrical currents from vca's and opamps as an example. Whether you like something or not has always been a preference issue. Why do some people like SSL over Neve? Clean verses dirty and dark verses bright? Check out the Daw sum CD from 3-D Audio and maybe youll hear it and maybe you won't. I can hear the difference because I do have to mix both on the desk and the daw.

SoMm
 
I'm getting annoyed by this stupid discussion, and that nobody listenes to me, even though I have the answer and the explanation. So, I'm switching to full-out flamewar mode.

Sensitive viewers beware!

Teacher said:
i always find it funny how people who make music in there bedrooms and most likely won't leave there living room augh at pros(guys that do it for a living some have multiple plaques grammy nominations etc.), when they say digital summing is flawed or whatever it is and say and alternative(dangerous 2 bus) is just a sham

if the shoe fits wears it....
Click to expand...

I remember a website where a pro claimed all digital copying creates sound degradation. Do you believe that too, just because a professional is saying it?

Oh look, the page is still up: http://www.getsigned.com/jvest22.html
"Even transferring a sound file from one hard drive to another changes the sound slightly." Pffft! That still cracks me up!

I wonder what HE has to say on the summing issue? Hmmm...
Not much it seems, except that he also have problems understanding the difference between comparing two completely different mixers and just comparing the summing.
http://www.johnvestman.com/DAWSUM.htm

He is a pro. He might have great ears. He may very well do a great job. But he has NIL understandning of the technicalities behind it, but yet he expresses string opinions and propagate many misonceptions.

Do you believe everything he sais, becuase he is a pro?
 
Last edited:
Son of Mixerman said:
The main problem with digital summing is that the software your using at some point has to reduce data to only 2 tracks.
It doesn't do this intelligently, it does whatever compromise the software mfg decided it should be.
Click to expand...

Ah, and no software manufacturer is intelligent, then? But people making analog desks, they are intelligent and can do this without compromises?

Nah, come on. The fact is, doing digital summing is dead easy.
You add upp all the numbers from all the channels you have. Then you divide it by the number of channels. Done!

Do you know what: There is no compromise involved in that. None. That is the closest to perfection that you can come. Yes, really.

Now as mentioned before, it is completely possible to do it STUPIDLY. Bu dividing before you add, for example. But that is so incredibly stupid, that nobody does it, and espcielly not the pro or semi-pro software. Yes, really.
I saw a good article on exactly how it's done in protools that explain it in full detail. Unfortunately, I lost the link.

For not the last time, I'm sure, this is not an issue about summing. It's an issue about mixers. There is nothing wrong with digital summing. It is an easy and trivial thing to do.

This is a question of digital vs analon MIXING. And as we all know, mixers sound VASTLY different. It's the whole mixers that make the sound NOT the summing.
 
regebro said:
Ah, and no software manufacturer is intelligent, then? But people making analog desks, they are intelligent and can do this without compromises?
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the people or the manufacturers. I was talking about the algorithms. If you actually think that a software engineer sat down and looked at every decimal place of a 24 bit number your slighly delusional. There is point in the process where randomization has to occur.


regebro said:

Nah, come on. The fact is, doing digital summing is dead easy.
You add upp all the numbers from all the channels you have. Then you divide it by the number of channels. Done!
Click to expand...

Its not that easy and its not JUST adding the numbers. Have you seen PT code? Was the summing code A+B/2? It must have looked like the floating point arithmetic which obviously is A+B/2 also? There are a variety of computations including Gaussian elimination, eigenvalue computations, and numerical quadrature. What about error corrections?
If PT thinks it as simple as 1+2/2 no wonder the big boyz are unhappy.

SoMm
 
Son of Mixerman said:
I wasn't talking about the people or the manufacturers. I was talking about the algorithms. If you actually think that a software engineer sat down and looked at every decimal place of a 24 bit number your slighly delusional. There is point in the process where randomization has to occur.
Click to expand...
There is no need to look at each number. We KNOW what they are. We know that 1+1 is 2 and 2056647 + 343566 = 2400213. There is nothing to *look* at. It's MATHS.

But yes, it's the algorithms. As mentioned, digital summing algorithms are fairly trivial. Because it's summing. Addition, you know. You learnt it the first year in school. Computer programmers also know how to do addition. There is no trick to it, really.

Its not that easy and its not JUST adding the numbers.
Click to expand...
No, you need to divide it afterwards, becuase when you have summed all the numbers, they have a combined bit depth that is larger than their individual bit depth. Thats why you have a summing algorithm that uses a wider bit depth, and you then reduce it back to the standard internal bith depth.

OR you use floating point. Now, you mentioned floating point before. I had avoided that subject to avoid making things more complex. But let's take a look at what happens with floating point:

If you compare digital floating point to integer maths, floating point is like having an almost infinite bith depth. You simply will not run out of bits in practice. This means an interesting thing: You don't have to divide after the summing! When using floating point maths, it IS only addition. Tada! :) However, it introduces a glitch, and that is that you now may need to do rounding.

The rounding problem is actually exactly the same problem as you have with any division / bit reduction. So in practice the difference suddenly becomes nil. ;)

The solution to division/bit reduction/rounding is usually known as "dithering". This is nothing new, nothing strange, and nothing magic about this.

What about error corrections?
Click to expand...
What error corrections? Do you think the computer suddenly will think 1+1 is 5?

Now, with analog summing it's a whole different thing. Basically, you need to divide each channel before you add it, because you can't create arbitrarily large headrooms. This means that the circuits you use in the whole summing process, (that is the fader amps and the summing network and the bus amp), must all have very high headroom, or you'll get clipping or noise, all while not fucking up the sound in any other way.

That is hard to do. Luckily, mixer designers have had 50 years to figure out how to do it, so they can now do it well. But the claim that digital summing somehow fucks up the sound is STILL wrong. It doesn't. It's just that digital mixers still do not sound as good as analog mixers. The SUMMING is not a major part of that, because digital summing is TRIVIAL compared to analog summing.

That is it. This is how it really is. Really. Now if you want to listen or not is not up to me to decide, you can go around with your head in a bucket of jello, that's your problem. But this is the truth. The real deal.

The reason the pros mix with Neve consoles are because the Neve console AS A WHOLE sounds much better than what the internal ProTools mixer. The claim that it has to do with summing is a MYTH. It doesn't. This simple fact OUGHT to be easy to understand, but I guess we are dealing with dogma and religion here, as usual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top