Analog Summing -- HELP!

[basement]

OK, so I've read a ton of analog summing posts on this board and now I'm thoroughly confused!

I have PT LE on PC (Digi 002). Until I read the posts, I was blissfully unaware that there was any sort of degradation that goes on in PT summing, but now that I have read a little and listened to a mix on which I'm working, I'm wondering if maybe that's been one source of frustration with the seeming lack of pro-level sound coming out of my PT.

If I avoid using a master fader and go out of the 002 via ADAT to an Apogee Rosetta 800 into some nice outboard gear (Massive Passive, STC-8, HEDD, etc.) and then into a Masterlink (or even back into PT and record on a new track), then is there any PT summing issue at all?? I was looking into the Dangerous 2-Buss and as I thought about it, I was wondering if the D2B would make any difference at all if I do as outlined above. Of course, if I don't use a master fader in PT, there might be some issues (like not using the L2, Sony Inflator across the 2-buss, but I suppose I could live without 'em).

Am I missing something? Any thoughts? THANKS!

[Carlos Boll]

Doing the Dangerous 2-Bus route (as you describe) will yield noticably better results. Everything has more depth to it and sounds more 'alive.'

[jpaudio]

Ditto...

and don't sweat not having L2 or Inflator one bit (no pun intended). If you're spending the $ on Apogees and a Dangerous 2-Bus and the high-end outboard you mentioned, you don't want that crap on your mix anyway. Leave it to a mastering engineer whom you trust (insert shameless Brad Blackwood plug here).

[logichead]

"If I avoid using a master fader and go out of the 002 via ADAT to an Apogee Rosetta 800 into some nice outboard gear (Massive Passive, STC-8, HEDD, etc.) and then into a Masterlink (or even back into PT and record on a new track), then is there any PT summing issue at all??"

If you aren't splitting up your tracks to multiple outputs (beyond a single stereo pair) and *summing* them in an analog mixer, then yes, you are still summing in the box. This applies to the native systems (Logic, PTle, etc.) as well as TDM systems. (BTW, you can still use a master fader - at least in Logic - as a way to adjust all outputs at once. Might be different in PT??) I use a Dangerous 2-BusLT with a pair of Rosetta 800's. BIG difference from summing inside Logic.

"I was looking into the Dangerous 2-Buss and as I thought about it, I was wondering if the D2B would make any difference at all if I do as outlined above. Of course, if I don't use a master fader in PT, there might be some issues (like not using the L2, Sony Inflator across the 2-buss, but I suppose I could live without 'em).

Am I missing something? Any thoughts? THANKS! [/B][/QUOTE]"

Use the L2 and any other plugs you want to apply to the resulting mix you print.

Best....H

[De chromium cob]

Its all a link in the chain- are you sure thats your only weak link? Mics? cables? monitors/amps? good sounding room? stuff worth recording in the first place? quality instruments/drums tuned correctly? Song arranged properly? Unrealistic expectations?

Regarding that last one- If you are trying to get the sound of a 2"16 track into a 80 series Neve with a Digi002 you will probably never get to the point where your happy. Are you comparing it to commercial stuff recorded by pros through very expensive equipment? Has it been mastered by a genuine mastering engineer?

Maybe I'm off base here- but it seems kinda like a guy that buys a squire strat, practices(an unknown amount of time), and asks why he's not sounding like Hendrix...

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally posted by De chromium cob
...a guy that buys a squire strat, practices(an unknown amount of time), and asks why he's not sounding like Hendrix...

FWIW PT le has lots fewer summing issues than a big TDM system especially if you aren't using very many tracks and can't send out 16 or more using high-end converters. One tip is to drop an L-1 on the output set to 24 bit dither and no limiting because the PT le mixer truncates to 24 bits. Another is to put the same signal processor on every track even if you don't use it so the timing is identical.

A good reality check is to record something good from a CD player into your system using both the analog and digital inputs and take a listen. If both sound great, the problem is most likely what's being fed into the 002!

[7rojo7]

That was very kind.

[juniorhifikit]

My flame suite is on.

I think (and this is only MY opinion - take it for what it's worth to you), this PT summing thing is mostly bunk. I have personally done many mixes in the box, then split the stems into various consoles (mostly SSL 6000 G and Amek 2500); printed the results and compared. While I can't say they're exactly the same, I can say neither one is "better" than the other and neither could anyone else who cared to check out my results.

Everyone is spending all this time, money and energy on this sonic witch hunt, and it doesn't make any difference compared to everything else that's going on - especially what's going on in front of the mic! Think about it. I know top guys, recording top musicians in the best rooms with the best gear. They can mix in ProTools - it sounds GREAT!

All I'm saying is, if you're not getting the results you're after, the summing amp would not be the first place I'd look for problems. As always YMMV.

Flame on ye Gearslutz!

[oudplayer]

In some cases, what people are "missing" with DAW summing is the low-level hum of the transformers added by another analog stage. In these cases, a simple quick-fix that gets you quite a bit of the way there is to sample the noise floor of your favorite analog gain stage (say, a not-well-maintained Neve console) and mix the noise in on a stereo track, keeping it at around -70db. Analog tape hum can also work well for this purpose.

basement - are you using a lot of plug-ins on individual tracks? They can often degrade the sound quality when used in series (depends on the quality of the plug-in, which is not readilly apparent), and it's something that analog summing won't entirely repair.

Anyone here heard 3d Audio's DAW-SUM comparison? It's quite revealing, and I think is a good precursor to deciding to use analog summing (you can compare the same mix done with protools and native systems to a dangerous 2-buss version). If you can't hear the difference on the DAW-SUM comparison CD, it begs the question if you will really hear the difference in your own work environment.

BTW, FWIW - I tend to do analog summing for rock, blues, and acoustic music, and in-the-box for drum 'n' bass, techno, or music that needs to be less warm and fuzzy.

[cajonezzz]

Originally posted by juniorhifikit
Everyone is spending all this time, money and energy on this sonic witch hunt, and it doesn't make any difference compared to everything else that's going on - especially what's going on in front of the mic!

All I'm saying is, if you're not getting the results you're after, the summing amp would not be the first place I'd look for problems. As always YMMV.

AMEN

[NathanEldred]

I've got as good a front end as anybody could ever want from a nice mic locker, to preamps, processing, and ADC's. Even when working with great musicians, I cannot get a mix in the box to sound the way I want. This is an appropriate discussion being in the High End forum, considering that we should be talking about the differences between good, and exceptional....not mediocre and good.

If someone has a fundamental problem with sounds, then there ARE other places to improve. But if I'm going from a vintage Neumann to a Class A discrete preamp to a Lavry then the last place to improve is on the 'back end'. If I can do that, and I perceive it as a big difference, then why the hell not?

If you've got the mixing chops, in the box is not going to suck, but it's not going to ever be magic IMO and it takes a lot of extra effort to get it there. The sounds don't gel together the same way in the computer as they do on a console or analog summer. I still have yet to hear anyone I know who is mixing all digitally make the hair on the back of my neck stand up. It sounds 2D...right up to the front of the speakers, and there is an edge there that never goes away.

I would have to go through multiple conversion to get to my discrete EQ's and comps, which introduces other problems such as latency or degradation from the extra conversions. When I mix analog, it's very easy to get the sounds I need, even without additional coloration added....meaning that even for a purist project where no or little processing is used, it's still easier and sounds better to my ear. So it's not just about transformers, or tape.

For me it's about avoiding plug ins, easy routing to outboard gear, and the immediate and obvious benefit there is from pulling up the faders on the analog console. That benefit is not immediate in the computer IMO. If it's bunk I don't think so many people would be redescovering the joy of going back to 'out of the box'. I never left it.

[cdog]

Originally posted by juniorhifikit
All I'm saying is, if you're not getting the results you're after, the summing amp would not be the first place I'd look for problems. As always YMMV.

[CrazyBeast]

Originally posted by oudplayer
[BTW, FWIW - I tend to do analog summing for rock, blues, and acoustic music, and in-the-box for drum 'n' bass, techno, or music that needs to be less warm and fuzzy. [/B]

Similar findings here.

And it's not a "sonic witch hunt" in my case. I've done a lot of pretty carefully controlled tests, and with MY rig- hardware, software, A/D, D/A, etc, AND the sound that I'm shooting for (which after listening to a number of samples in the MP3 forum, is a little different than other folks), it makes a difference that matters to me.

Other folks could have totally different results of course, and capturing the right performance and becoming a better mixer are obviously of higher priority...

[Mike H]

Here's another one who just could not make it happen to my satisfaction in-the-box. Boy, did I try........for over four years, with the best plug-ins available. And then I'd upgrade plug-ins, and upgrade, and upgrade, and........

I can only speak to my experience, and admit I may not be the world's best at mixing. But if I can't make it happen in-the-box in 4 years, I give. With two linked Folcroms and a preamp that works well with them, the difference is pretty amazing.

I had a tough time biting the bullet and accepting that I needed to do this, and I can thank Nathan, Jules, and several others here for taking the time to converse with me and point me in the right direction.

Like I say, just my experience. I'm just thankful I made the change, and didn't spend another year fighting my mixes.

Mike

[jon]

Sorry to sound impartial, but I've found that the fastest and easiest path to a "pro-level" result is usually to hire a pro recording engineer/mixer and room.

[alphajerk]

the summing doesnt have jack shit to do with the sounds not being up there.... its all fuking talent. summing boxes are a marketing fad and can actually be more detrimental to the overall sound than staying in the box.

i wish people would wake the fuk up. there are NO summing issues or "bad math". talent issues, yes... but i have noticed [subjectively, and personal opinion] is that [talent aside] digital summing is FAR better than the washy phase ridden distorted analog summing mess.

[Mike H]

You're probably much better at mixing than I am, aj. All I can say is that with my ProTools HD2 system in my studio, there was a big improvement in going from summing in the box to analog summing. I won't make any more sweeping statements than that. But of that, I am quite certain.
Mike

[cally]

Talent aside ..
Surely its just about which method you prefer to use. In the box or out the box.. I wouldn't tell anyone that their method is f**** up just because its not the way I would do it.
The reason I would use analog summing mainly is to take advantage of outboard and if I'm wasting my money then its my money.
But I'll remain unconvinced of the benefits of either method until I've compared more mixes..

[alphajerk]

so if you automate within the box and send it out to analog summing, inserting analog gear is NOT the porper place to put it... you will always be changing your gain staging on the input of the analog gear which i will fully change its sound, compressors... forget about it. you will always be freaking the threshold.

[Mike H]

aj, I'm not following you.

After recording, I adjust track levels within ProTools HD (and may have some automation on), send the individual tracks directly to interface Outs, thru 24 D/A converters to two 96TT patchbays, some go to outboard processing/reverb units, then all signals go to 32-input analog summing. The stereo mix then go thru preamp to patchbay, possibly to comp/EQ, to HEDD, to monitors.

What is the issue you are concerned about?
Mike

[Ollie]

I think that a good Analog outboard mixer for summing is a good idea if you can afford it. When I say can afford it I mean you need high quality convertors in the whole process. Why do I think it is better? Two reasons come to mind

1) Analog summing from good equipment like the API 8200 etc sounds better to my ears than in the box mixes. Better stereo image, better depth of field. Is it a wondrous and mystical difference? No, but my experience is that things just blend together easier and sound a bit better.

2) Easy access to outboard eq, dynamics which to me still sound much superior than the plugins. Give me an API eq over a plug any day.

Can you make excellent mixes in the box? Yep, but then why is almost every major tune on the radio not done wholly in the box? More choices with analog gear I think.

No piece of equipment can substitue for experience and experimentation .

Play around and have fun.

[teleharmonic]

Originally posted by Mike H

What is the issue you are concerned about?
Mike

I don't want to speak for AJ but i think what he is referring to is the fact that if you are adjusting the level of a track (a la automation) before it hits the compressor then you will be changing the compressor's response as the level jumps around.

E.G. if you want nuke your drums with the compressor and you go about finding the sweet spot setting on the comp and everything is sounding dandy and then you automate a fade out at the end of the song... the sound of the drums will be moving out of the compressor's sweet spot as the level fades out... changing the tone considerably...

as opposed to using an analog desk where the insert would be pre-fader.

greg

[De chromium cob]

Originally posted by alphajerk
but i have noticed [subjectively, and personal opinion] is that [talent aside] digital summing is FAR better than the washy phase ridden distorted analog summing mess.

Thats probably true if your talking about that Behringer POS mackie copy... But all things being equal, a real board usually sounds better- at least with acoustic based music.

[alphajerk]

Originally posted by De chromium cob
Thats probably true if your talking about that Behringer POS mackie copy... But all things being equal, a real board usually sounds better- at least with acoustic based music.

nope, im speaking of ALL analog summing. wtf kind of comment is that anyway? that surely is the worst of the worst [poor design on mackies part with bad PS and circut implementation], but even on the highest of end with the best circut designs and PS, there are still the same issues that analog has to deal with.

[alphajerk]

Originally posted by teleharmonic
I don't want to speak for AJ but i think what he is referring to is the fact that if you are adjusting the level of a track (a la automation) before it hits the compressor then you will be changing the compressor's response as the level jumps around.

you can speak for me just fine, possibly better... but exactly what im saying.

[alphajerk]

Originally posted by Ollie
2) Easy access to outboard eq, dynamics which to me still sound much superior than the plugins. Give me an API eq over a plug any day.

you should enjoy dave pensados comments in this months EM regarding mixing then... im not saying he is the absolute truth on anything, but since you brought up radio stuff he seems to be a good person to comment.

[strauss]

I can't believe there hasn't been someone who has brought some automation system to the market with patchable (moving)faders for those who like to go out of the box! (Uptown's System One isn't available anoymore grudge )
This is the only thing that's holding me from getting something like the Folcrom box as it would be a great way to incorporate outboard and the idea of changing tone with the switch of a preamp seems interesting.

Though I don't have a problem with the summing, it's the plugins I want to avoid. But I'd rather do an extra DA-AD conversion (for the outboard) than being forced to do my compressors post-fade!

[NathanEldred]

Originally posted by alphajerk
,there are still the same issues that analog has to deal with.

Are you saying that digital is perfect or that any disadvantages that digital has are 'better' disadvantages to using analog?

I don't want to turn this into a digital versus analog debate, but there are flaws in both methods. If someone gets great results then what difference does it make if they use a radio shack mic to a digital 4 track, or a 128 channel Neve 80 series with 6 x 2" 16 tracks linked together?

[De chromium cob]

Originally posted by alphajerk
nope, im speaking of ALL analog summing. wtf kind of comment is that anyway?

Sorry, I guess that did sound a bit harsh- Didnt mean it that way...
PTHD 192s into a 9000J or 80 series with flying faders certainly sounds better to me than mixing ITB. I've heard it and I'm convinced based on the type of projects I normally do, but I could see where certain types of music would sound just as good either way...

[alphajerk]

i hear digital as way more clear and open. so thats what i prefer... i like to add distortion and phase issues on what i want rather than them being inherent in the system. it IS just personal preference and how each individual engineer works.... but all this "summing" crap is leaving a bad taste in my mouth as a "solve all" marketing campaign.