SSL MATRIX vs. C24 AND SUMMING MIXER

[low dawg]

I am trying to decide whether to get a SSL Matrix or a C24 and high end summing mixer like api, neve, xrack or similar products. I guess what I am looking for is class A analog summing that I can recall. I have crunched the numbers and by the time I buy a summing mixer with 24-32 channels and a controler I will be close to the cost of the matrix. I say the matrix because this is the only product I have seen that has class A summing and a control surface combine. I have looked at the Audient Zen but to me it looks like the control surface section of this console is far less than the matrix. What do you guys think? Am I way off on wanting this combo or should I just buck up and document mixes on a analog console like thousands of people do.

[Skip Burrows]

Originally Posted by low dawg

I am trying to decide whether to get a SSL Matrix or a C24 and high end summing mixer like api, neve, xrack or similar products. I guess what I am looking for is class A analog summing that I can recall. I have crunched the numbers and by the time I buy a summing mixer with 24-32 channels and a controler I will be close to the cost of the matrix. I say the matrix because this is the only product I have seen that has class A summing and a control surface combine. I have looked at the Audient Zen but to me it looks like the control surface section of this console is far less than the matrix. What do you guys think? Am I way off on wanting this combo or should I just buck up and document mixes on a analog console like thousands of people do.

Hey I love SSL products, but the Matrix does not use "Class A Summing" It Simply Uses Op Amps and Negative FeedBack Loops.

[low dawg]

So are you saying that you would rather mix on a summing box?

[Skip Burrows]

Originally Posted by low dawg

So are you saying that you would rather mix on a summing box?

Very few summing boxes are "Class A" But some do have A Nice Color. Best thing to do is to demo a few and see what you like to work with. I think Summing is over-rated. If I want A Console sound I Simply mix on a console!.

[low dawg]

Thanks, I was afraid that's what you would say.

[jamwerks]

Originally Posted by Skip Burrows

Hey I love SSL products, but the Matrix does not use "Class A Summing" It Simply Uses Op Amps and Negative FeedBack Loops.

I'm a bit surprised to read this about the Matrix! What do some of the other better summing boxes use?

[Skip Burrows]

Originally Posted by jamwerks

I'm a bit surprised to read this about the Matrix! What do some of the other better summing boxes use?

Very Very few "Summing" boxes are class A. You might do a bit of research on what class A really is. There is a lot of confusion on what this is. No SSL ever made that I know of has ever been True Class A path.

[low dawg]

How would you rate the summing of the matrix to larger ssl consoles or the matrix to summing mixers?

[Skip Burrows]

Originally Posted by low dawg

How would you rate the summing of the matrix to larger ssl consoles or the matrix to summing mixers?

I think the Matrix Is a very Very Nice product. It solves so many problems. However is you spend lets say 25 grand for the desk. And then you get an Xack loaded with goodies plus a well designed patchbay. I believe with wiring this setup will run about 45 to 50 grand. So as long as you know what you are getting into then cool. Its a killer system. I have said in earlier posts that I believe based on all it can do the C-24 is perhaps the best deal going In all of pro audio. Features/price taken into account.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Skip Burrows

Very Very few "Summing" boxes are class A. You might do a bit of research on what class A really is. There is a lot of confusion on what this is. No SSL ever made that I know of has ever been True Class A path.

indeed. I find the main reason to use summing boxes is to not worry about headroom so much on sets of stems!! Helps me!!

Rollmusic works well - anyhoo... i digress. I have started to like the Matrix for other reasons.

[jamwerks]

Originally Posted by Skip Burrows

I believe based on all it can do the C-24 is perhaps the best deal going In all of pro audio. Features/price taken into account.

I believe that you can't do groups on the C-24 That would certainly stop a few buyers

[jamwerks]

Originally Posted by Skip Burrows

Very Very few "Summing" boxes are class A.

Can you name 1 or 2?

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by jamwerks

I believe that you can't do groups on the C-24 That would certainly stop a few buyers

cant do groups? Can do it - PT has extensive grouping options coupled with the "hide/show" marker stuff.

[jamwerks]

Originally Posted by narcoman

cant do groups? Can do it - PT has extensive grouping options coupled with the "hide/show" marker stuff.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the Avid blocked the group possiblilities in the C-24, as opposed to what you can do with the D-Control.

And to be right on topic, seems like the two possibilities evoked are rather different ways of mixing. Matrix would start to be interesting once you start to have a good deal of out board. If you're using mostly plugs and on PT, the C-24 would probably be the way to go.

[narcoman]

oh i see what you mean. The fader assign option on ICON.

[Skip Burrows]

Originally Posted by narcoman

indeed. I find the main reason to use summing boxes is to not worry about headroom so much on sets of stems!! Helps me!!

Rollmusic works well - anyhoo... i digress. I have started to like the Matrix for other reasons.

Summing boxes do not increase the headroom. Its all an illusion. It just pads down a bunch of inputs to roughly mic level, then amplifies the back up. NO headroom is increased. This is bull. It may add color!!! and thats great. But please for the love of God don't buy in the crap this an analog system has "More" headroom than a digital one. IT DOESN"T !!

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Skip Burrows

Summing boxes do not increase the headroom. Its all an illusion. It just pads down a bunch of inputs to roughly mic level, then amplifies the back up. NO headroom is increased. This is bull. It may add color!!! and thats great. But please for the love of God don't buy in the crap this an analog system has "More" headroom than a digital one. IT DOESN"T !!

well think again!!

I'm not buying into it - I run two large format consoles and many digital rigs!

With summing systems - the advantage you get is to run your system at EACH stem or group as nice AES -18dBFS = 0dBVU. You don't have to construct a mix around a complete mix that way - you run parts that way. You've got a good 22dB of headroom to smack into all you like - you can afford to be a little looser.

All of my stem movie mixes of the last years have sat feeding into summing units. I can keep all the digital stems at that super duper AES figure. Really really is shitty to run 10 or so stems all running at -40dbFS so that they add well within stem limits.

1. It's fekkin LOADS easier. More like mixing on a console.
2. gain structuring takes a much more natural role - just like it does on a console.
3. when you run -18dBFS = 0dBVU {like me and most of my film mix cronies do} you have a great safety zone directly calibrated to the inherent headroom in analogue system
4. analogue systems - and thus summing systems - are a little more forgiving if you crap out and over shoot a bit. Hence easier.


I'm not buying into it. It's just easier and makes sense - and if you work for me, as quite a few do, that's how you do it........ and I'll even balance that statement. My compnay is equally at home ITB, in digital consoles, summing summers {!!} or on a console. All have there advantages - and not worrying so much about headroom is the main reason to look into summing units. Mojo? THAT's the bull!


Plus - baby - I said you don't have to worry about the headroom so much. Not INCREASE. Less worry. You're not looking at a viscious hard limit so much - headroom in a voltage based system is more forgiving than 0dbFS.

[Skip Burrows]

Originally Posted by narcoman

Plus - baby - I said you don't have to worry about the headroom so much. Not INCREASE. Less worry. You're not looking at a viscious hard limit so much - headroom in a voltage based system is more forgiving than 0dbFS.

I am in no means trying to Offend anybody. You may find the workflow Much easer with summing systems. Many do not.

Headroom is defined as distance between two points. X and y. X being a defined noise floor and the maximum amount of DB allowed from X =Y So by that def. Analog summing will decrease your defined headroom. Just for the record I love working on large format analog systems and hybrid systems. I was simply trying to dispel myths that zoom around here like fly's on road-kill.

[narcoman]

totally cool bro' totally cool.

The point I was making was about the ease - the whole thing of being abel to keep the stems at good levels works very well and stops one from pushing stem faders further and further down. Some of these media mixes are getting frikkin huuge!!!

[Skip Burrows]

Originally Posted by narcoman

totally cool bro' totally cool.

The point I was making was about the ease - the whole thing of being abel to keep the stems at good levels works very well and stops one from pushing stem faders further and further down. Some of these media mixes are getting frikkin huuge!!!

Hey, Have you red my post on ITB mixing? its gotten alot of Educating Posts.

Ohh and yes I just did a music mix with over 200 tracks. What the hell is going on here?

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Skip Burrows

Hey, Have you red my post on ITB mixing? its gotten alot of Educating Posts.

Ohh and yes I just did a music mix with over 200 tracks. What the hell is going on here?

unfortunately seems to be coming the norm!!! I don't do much pop music mixing - in fact my only band stuff is for garage and stoner rock labels. However I do a LOT of soundtrack work and yup - 200 tracks is pretty normal!! Scary huh? Yet somehow we're not getting any more money for the huge cerebral input it all takes!

Point me to the thread?


oh yeah - that one. Read it. Very good.

[Skip Burrows]

Originally Posted by narcoman

unfortunately seems to be coming the norm!!! I don't do much pop music mixing - in fact my only band stuff is for garage and stoner rock labels. However I do a LOT of soundtrack work and yup - 200 tracks is pretty normal!! Scary huh? Yet somehow we're not getting any more money for the huge cerebral input it all takes!

Point me to the thread?


oh yeah - that one. Read it. Very good.

Here is is "http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/420334-reason-most-itb-mixes-don-t-sound-good-analog-mixes.html"

[narcoman]

it's a really good encapsulation of the right way to do things ITB. Should be a sticky.!

[foldback]

Originally Posted by Skip Burrows

Summing boxes do not increase the headroom. Its all an illusion. It just pads down a bunch of inputs to roughly mic level, then amplifies the back up. NO headroom is increased. This is bull. It may add color!!! and thats great. But please for the love of God don't buy in the crap this an analog system has "More" headroom than a digital one. IT DOESN"T !!

Summing boxes do not increase headroom, but they may have more headroom (or signal level handling) than the analog outputs of a particular brand of D to A converters.

A few converters:

Apogee DA16X, maximum output is rated at +26dBU.

Protools HD192 receives its distortion and noise specs at +21dBU.

The Waves L2 hardware compressor produces +24 dBM at 0 dBFS (note the dBM, that's +24 into 600 ohms, much more demanding than a 2000 ohm input).

Neve 8816 Mixer - maximum input greater than +26dBU.

This is an analog line level mixer. Nothing is padded down and then regained up, it is simply a line level device. Before the fad of calling these summing devices we referred to this species as a "line mixer".

The thing I like about it most is that its capable of greater than +26 dBU input level so it has serious analog signal level handling regardless of where you consider 0 VU to be. In the context of working on some signals the 8816 is really hard to overload, your converters run out of gas usually before the 8816 does.

The "Greater Than" means that when analog audio peaks exceed +26 for some reason, maybe by just a little bit for a fraction of a second, the integrity of the waveform does not turn into a flat top square wave.

One of the beautiful things about the API 1608 is the +30 analog signal level handling ability. None of your D-A converters are ever going to overload this mixers inputs. This makes it a joy to work with, very friendly because it's never the source of hard clipping.

So it's not a matter of the box increasing the headroom. If you use a Behringer DA that only goes up to +20dBU before it runs out of gas, it will still square wave wherever that is, plugging it into a mixer that is capable of handling +26dBU will not give the DA more headroom.

SSL Matrix
It seems very odd to me that a piece in this price range does not have any EQ. I do like all the aux sends for controlling level sent to hardware effects.

I've been very happy with my 8816/8804 and Apogee converters. I have enough hardware signal processing that I don't need the aux sends the Matrix provides.

A Matrix could be the right thing for some people, I would just choose other components myself.

If you're on ProTools and plan to stay there then I think the C24 would be a better choice, perhaps less possibility of conflicts.

The C24 has a lot of power for a control surface and it's a lot less money but the two I've seen in person both had problems with a fader or two so I don't know if Digi really has it sorted out yet.

-18 DBFS = 0 VU
If you calibrate your system like this you have 18 db of headroom and that's all because you're hitting digital 0 dB, there is no more and no summing box or analog mixer is going to change that.

Cheers and happy recording to all.

[Skip Burrows]

Originally Posted by foldback

Summing boxes do not increase headroom, but they may have more headroom (or signal level handling) than the analog outputs of a particular brand of D to A converters.

A few converters:

Apogee DA16X, maximum output is rated at +26dBU.

Protools HD192 receives its distortion and noise specs at +21dBU.

The Waves L2 hardware compressor produces +24 dBM at 0 dBFS (note the dBM, that's +24 into 600 ohms, much more demanding than a 2000 ohm input).

Neve 8816 Mixer - maximum input greater than +26dBU.

This is an analog line level mixer. Nothing is padded down and then regained up, it is simply a line level device. Before the fad of calling these summing devices we referred to this species as a "line mixer".

The thing I like about it most is that its capable of greater than +26 dBU input level so it has serious analog signal level handling regardless of where you consider 0 VU to be. In the context of working on some signals the 8816 is really hard to overload, your converters run out of gas usually before the 8816 does.

The "Greater Than" means that when analog audio peaks exceed +26 for some reason, maybe by just a little bit for a fraction of a second, the integrity of the waveform does not turn into a flat top square wave.

One of the beautiful things about the API 1608 is the +30 analog signal level handling ability. None of your D-A converters are ever going to overload this mixers inputs. This makes it a joy to work with, very friendly because it's never the source of hard clipping.

So it's not a matter of the box increasing the headroom. If you use a Behringer DA that only goes up to +20dBU before it runs out of gas, it will still square wave wherever that is, plugging it into a mixer that is capable of handling +26dBU will not give the DA more headroom.

SSL Matrix
It seems very odd to me that a piece in this price range does not have any EQ. I do like all the aux sends for controlling level sent to hardware effects.

I've been very happy with my 8816/8804 and Apogee converters. I have enough hardware signal processing that I don't need the aux sends the Matrix provides.

A Matrix could be the right thing for some people, I would just choose other components myself.

If you're on ProTools and plan to stay there then I think the C24 would be a better choice, perhaps less possibility of conflicts.

The C24 has a lot of power for a control surface and it's a lot less money but the two I've seen in person both had problems with a fader or two so I don't know if Digi really has it sorted out yet.

-18 DBFS = 0 VU
If you calibrate your system like this you have 18 db of headroom and that's all because you're hitting digital 0 dB, there is no more and no summing box or analog mixer is going to change that.

Cheers and happy recording to all.

Yes this is all true, however one BIG part of the puzzle is what is the the Noise floor?The best summing or console can do about say for 16 channels is about 90 DB at the best. So again it may make your workflow easer but technically speaking no more headroom. Sorry. I know is a bummer.

[low dawg]

I guess for me it is hard to spend 7-10K on something that does not increase my sound quality. I know it would help my work flow and make it way easier to recall a mix. Right now I am mixing on a Midas 320 this is far less work than a large console to recall I realize. If I was to get a C24 I feel like I would want to get something like a 8816 or a API 7800 or something to increase my sound quality. So after all that I am close to the cost of the Matrix. I also realize that the matrix does not have the daw controls of a C24 but in a way it is still a analog console with no pres or eq.

[foldback]

Originally Posted by low dawg

I guess for me it is hard to spend 7-10K on something that does not increase my sound quality. I know it would help my work flow and make it way easier to recall a mix. Right now I am mixing on a Midas 320 this is far less work than a large console to recall I realize. If I was to get a C24 I feel like I would want to get something like a 8816 or a API 7800 or something to increase my sound quality. So after all that I am close to the cost of the Matrix. I also realize that the matrix does not have the daw controls of a C24 but in a way it is still a analog console with no pres or eq.

Well as Skip pointed out once you come out analog to a 16 input analog mixer you are at a place where noise build up could occur. The Matrix does offer a 16 channel analog mixer with moving fader automation. This would allow you the ability to program faders to lower when the channel is not in use and minimize the noise floor of your mix.

After using the 8816 for a couple of years I can say that residual noise build up has never been a problem for me. Usually I send 8 to 12 analog outputs from converters to the mixer, the other inputs on the 8816 mixer are typically returns from hardware signal processing like reverb, delays and harmonizers. I'd like a second 8816/8804 for more effects returns from hardware gadgetry.

[George Necola]

if you buy a matrix it must be about workflow and not sound.

it can increase your workflow dramatically. thumbsup

[low dawg]

Are you saying you don't like the sound of the Matrix?

[GSF]

The C|24 doesn't have a sound either, unless you want to degrade your audio by using its analog/monitor section. At least the SSL keeps your audio signal intact.

Originally Posted by George Necola

if you buy a matrix it must be about workflow and not sound.

it can increase your workflow dramatically. thumbsup