Rupert Neve designs Portico summing mixer

Shaman · 7th February 2006, 10:05 AM

I read this on www.rupertneve.com

"...nineteenth century garrison near Austin has been reborn as Blue Rock Studios, a retreat and recording facility for selected producers specializing in Texas folk artists and music for film. ......

As Crockett explains, the forthcoming summing mixer from Rupert Neve Designs is also key to his facility concept, which surrounds digital control and recording capabilities both physically and electronically with discrete analog components and the simple purity of Mr. Rupert Neve's designs. "The restrictions of an old school console are clear enough now that we decided to go with the Digidesign ICON D-Command controller and Pro Tools|HD3, integrated with an analog, Rupert Neve-designed front and back end.:::"

sounds interesting

HudHudson · 7th February 2006, 06:16 PM

It's going to be an interesting product. Billy, me and a bunch of other studio owners have been providing input to RND as they design the mixer (features, layout, bucket size, etc.) and from what I've seen so far I'm excited. Like many private studio owners, I want a full-featured mixer (as opposed to a summing box) but don't need preamps or eqs on every channel and didn't want to take on the maintenance expense/hassle of owning a used mid-grade console (my recent experience with a vintage Trident cured me of that jones). If anyone else wants details or has input to offer the RND folks, give them a call.

Duardo · 7th February 2006, 08:32 PM

Is there such thing as a non-summing mixer?

-Duardo

Ziggy!! · 8th February 2006, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duardo

Is there such thing as a non-summing mixer?

-Duardo

How can something be a mixer if it does not sum?

Kiwiburger · 8th February 2006, 02:20 AM

Who mentioned a non-summing mixer? He said he wanted a 'full featured mixer', as opposed to a summing bus that lacks faders.

I still haven't found anyone who can explain why external analog summing is necessary. All experiments with summing ITB prove that it is deadly accurate, and noise-free. Summing in an analog box requires a whole bunch of converters, summing their noise floors together, and a whole bunch of resistors summing their noise together.

The question has been asked: is it simply 'analog dithering' - e.g. a layer of noise that analog summing diehards are craving?

jjdpro · 8th February 2006, 02:52 AM

Well, i agree with the previous poster.. Some mag just did asumming shoot-out usunf the 5k summing boxe, mackie onyx mixer, and an apogee.. the conclusion was startiling. The difference btw the high-end and low end was not wide at all. Some testers even prefered the mackie onyx mixer..

I was so elated with this test!!!..It proved my theiry all along. Which is: most any anolog mixer will make your Daw sound fuller & wider...All this hype for 5k summing mixers is a shamm..And a shameless one at that...

RKrizman · 8th February 2006, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjdpro

I was so elated with this test!!!..It proved my theiry all along. Which is: most any anolog mixer will make your Daw sound fuller & wider...All this hype for 5k summing mixers is a shamm..And a shameless one at that...

I wondered about the same thing. I've been using a Nicerizer 16 to sum and a Mackie 16 stereo channel mixer to bring in my synths. So yesterday I decided to try summing my Protools tracks through the Mackie, and guess what?

It sounded terrible.

Really, really bad. Don't kid yourself. If you're going analog, you need some good shite or it won't improve on the DAW summing bus.

-R

NathanEldred · 8th February 2006, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

All experiments with summing ITB prove that it is deadly accurate, and noise-free.

Yeah, and who wants that? I know I don't.

We're not talking about 5% distortion on everything with a -50dBV noise floor. A little harmonic and intermodulation distortion is a good thing (and even a tiny bit of noise!), but most of that is going to come from the outboard and especially tape. Nothing beats the sound of a console and tape, and I used to record only digitally so that's not where I came from....it's where I went TO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKrizman

Don't kid yourself. If you're going analog, you need some good shite or it won't improve on the DAW summing bus.

This is true....but it's amazing the deals that can be had on the more off brand analog consoles these days that aren't a Neve, API or SSL (the good Ameks, later Soundworkshop [modify them, which is easy], later MCI, Trident TSM & 80, Neotek, etc) for 20 cents on the dollar.

jjdpro · 8th February 2006, 06:18 AM

I'm not kidding myself,.. I think you had a bad mackie mixer, or your mix sucked anyway..?? It should not have sound worse by any measure.

Hey, it's your $$$$. Spend ther 5 k for 2 percent gain..

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKrizman

I wondered about the same thing. I've been using a Nicerizer 16 to sum and a Mackie 16 stereo channel mixer to bring in my synths. So yesterday I decided to try summing my Protools tracks through the Mackie, and guess what?

It sounded terrible.

Really, really bad. Don't kid yourself. If you're going analog, you need some good shite or it won't improve on the DAW summing bus.

-R

TRW · 8th February 2006, 10:54 AM

Hmm interesting, is that it in the wooden rack next to the icon?, looks like 8 vertical modules.....

Anyhoo I think Duado was getting at the name "Summing Mixer" - its stoopid! A mixer sums by definition, its like saying we have an Amplifying Amplifier!

Its a little strange for even RND to not pick up on this so to speak. It should either be called a Modular Mixing System or Summing Amplifier System not a Summing Mixer....

Anyway I'm splitting hairs so as you were gents.

Tom

narco · 8th February 2006, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRW

Hmm interesting, is that it in the wooden rack next to the icon?, looks like 8 vertical modules.....

I'm guessing thats his front end not his back end

narco

HudHudson · 8th February 2006, 01:49 PM

No, that's not "it". The mixer is still in the design stage.

narco · 9th February 2006, 01:32 AM

I wrote to them with some thoughts on what I'd loke to see in a summing... thingy.. and they are very open to listning, they even told me some details of what it is like so far, but asked m not to leak them because its still being designed.

narco

Duardo · 9th February 2006, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Who mentioned a non-summing mixer?

Nobody. I only questioned why the word "summing" was even used (even though I know the answer...because it's trendy).

Quote:

I was so elated with this test!!!..It proved my theiry all along. Which is: most any anolog mixer will make your Daw sound fuller & wider...All this hype for 5k summing mixers is a shamm..And a shameless one at that...

It didn't prove anything. There will never be "proof" that analog mixing is better than digital or vice versa, and the test certainly didn't prove that the more expensive mixers are a sham. People will always have their preferences, and there are plenty of people who prefer digital mixing, plenty who prefer analog, plenty who prefer digital mixing only on certain platform, people who prefer analog mixing only on certain consoles, people who are happy to mix on anything...just find out what works best for you and don't worry about "proving" anything because you never will.

-Duardo

MrChang · 10th February 2006, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjdpro

Well, i agree with the previous poster.. Some mag just did asumming shoot-out usunf the 5k summing boxe, mackie onyx mixer, and an apogee.. the conclusion was startiling. The difference btw the high-end and low end was not wide at all. Some testers even prefered the mackie onyx mixer..

I was so elated with this test!!!..It proved my theiry all along. Which is:

That you were waiting for a throw-away audio magazine, whose only interest is in pedaling those manufacturers whom advertise in their publication, to validate your mackie setup to be comparable to something of greater value.

1) You get what you pay for.

2) Use your own ears.

3) Theory.

John Suitcase · 10th February 2006, 03:09 AM

I do some ITB, some analogue through my little Soundcraft board, and while they sound different, I don't know that one sounds better, necessarily. I think it really depends on the project, and what you're going for.

One thing to keep in mind when using a mixer to sum a mix is that you still have to watch your levels. If you're going to the mixer too hot, you can introduce some bad sounding distortion, which I've found is easy to miss for some reason. But upon making CDRs, you'll start to hear it on different systems.

Basically, if you mix ITB and keep your levels low enough to avoid digital clipping problems, you'll be fine. If you go analogue, you still need to have a good deal of headroom. The bottom end may sound better, things may sound a little warmer and rounder, but you will introduce more noise, etc.

And in the end, I think the advantages of analogue summing are small, but real.

Kiwiburger · 10th February 2006, 03:21 AM

Yeah, and who wants that? I know I don't. We're not talking about 5% distortion on everything with a -50dBV noise floor. A little harmonic and intermodulation distortion is a good thing (and even a tiny bit of noise!), but most of that is going to come from the outboard and especially tape. Nothing beats the sound of a console and tape, and I used to record only digitally so that's not where I came from....it's where I went TO.

I happen to agree. I believe the mojo of mixing OTB is noise, distortion and phase shift. And I don't believe some immaculate summing contraption is required to produce this.

My current thinking on the whole ITB vs OTB is this:

24 bits has a theoretical dynamic range of 144dB. Our best converters have a dynamic range of 114dB. That's a big 30dB difference.

Most DAW users mix using the full 144dB range. In other words, they mix right up to 0dBFS. If they are smarter, they mix up to -6dBFS. Even then they are still using 24dB greater range than the best converters in the world can reproduce.

So - if you run your audio through your converters and back again, you are squeezing 144dB through a 114dB hole. The corners are going to get knocked off. You Will get extra noise, distortion and phase shift. This Will be noticable.

And very probably, you Will like what you hear.

A sine wave at 40 Hz is a boring thing. If you rough it up and add some noise and some harmonics, it becomes more pleasant to listen to. That, I believe, is the mojo of OTB processing.

AnalogBob · 10th February 2006, 03:38 AM

I think there is too much fidelity right now, and I find the whole DAW situation rather stressful and playback is sometomes just too acurate and effiecient and the computer never stops I mean hardly ever and when it does stop I have to stress out cause I have to work with it to fix it....the ability of the 24 bit daw to reproduce ear splitting transients is remarkable. I want some diffusion a lamp shade cause the lights are jsut too bright. I am starting the wonder if what is coming out of the speakers is as Alienating and as nervous as the environment I am working in?

RKrizman · 10th February 2006, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjdpro

I'm not kidding myself,.. I think you had a bad mackie mixer, or your mix sucked anyway..?? It should not have sound worse by any measure.

Why shouldn't it have sounded worse? It's running through a bunch of cheap ass analog circuitry. Unfortunately it wasn't a question of whether it was affecting my mix adversely. The audio quality just plain sucked compared to keeping it in the box.
You would have thought so too.

-R

Duardo · 10th February 2006, 05:23 PM

Quote:

24 bits has a theoretical dynamic range of 144dB. Our best converters have a dynamic range of 114dB. That's a big 30dB difference.

Most DAW users mix using the full 144dB range. In other words, they mix right up to 0dBFS. If they are smarter, they mix up to -6dBFS. Even then they are still using 24dB greater range than the best converters in the world can reproduce.

So - if you run your audio through your converters and back again, you are squeezing 144dB through a 114dB hole. The corners are going to get knocked off. You Will get extra noise, distortion and phase shift. This Will be noticable.

You've actually got it backwards...you don't start at the bottom and count up, you start at the top and count down. Whether you're mixing on a 24-, 16-, or 8 bit system, 0 dBFS is the loudest you can get and if you take a 16-bit file that peaks at 0 dBFS and import it into a 24-bit system it will still peak at 0 dBFS and be just as loud as it was in the 16-bit system...no less and no more. More bits don't let you get louder, they let you get quieter.

In addition, most DAW users don't even come close to using the full 144 dB dynamic range they have abailable theoretically, or even 114 dB, or 80, or 60, at least not as far as popular music is concerned...put in most commercial CD's and you'll see that the meters probably don't go more than 10 dB down. It is true that there would be artifacts if you tried to push a signal that truly utilized 144 dB of dynamic range through a 114 dB "hole" but they'd all be so quiet you wouldn't hear them.

-Duardo

VelvetGoatmine · 10th February 2006, 05:40 PM

So, it was an LM-3204 then... an IC-based product that hasn't been manufactured in, what? Ten years or so?

Just letting the readership know that the magazine and prior poster were talking about an Onyx mixer and RKrizman is referencing some super-ancient keyboard submixer that was made to a price point.

Value-packed commentary as per the GS usual. Carry on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKrizman

I wondered about the same thing. I've been using a Nicerizer 16 to sum and a Mackie 16 stereo channel mixer to bring in my synths. So yesterday I decided to try summing my Protools tracks through the Mackie, and guess what?

It sounded terrible.

Really, really bad. Don't kid yourself. If you're going analog, you need some good shite or it won't improve on the DAW summing bus.

-R

John Suitcase · 10th February 2006, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duardo

You've actually got it backwards...you don't start at the bottom and count up, you start at the top and count down. Whether you're mixing on a 24-, 16-, or 8 bit system, 0 dBFS is the loudest you can get and if you take a 16-bit file that peaks at 0 dBFS and import it into a 24-bit system it will still peak at 0 dBFS and be just as loud as it was in the 16-bit system...no less and no more. More bits don't let you get louder, they let you get quieter.

In addition, most DAW users don't even come close to using the full 144 dB dynamic range they have abailable theoretically, or even 114 dB, or 80, or 60, at least not as far as popular music is concerned...put in most commercial CD's and you'll see that the meters probably don't go more than 10 dB down. It is true that there would be artifacts if you tried to push a signal that truly utilized 144 dB of dynamic range through a 114 dB "hole" but they'd all be so quiet you wouldn't hear them.

-Duardo

But, that said, headroom is the key to this discussion. Many of the problems that people have with ITB summing have to do with inadequate headroom. When adding several tracks that all approach 0db together, there are mathematical shortcuts taken, which cause certain types of unpleasant distortion. These distortions can be avoided by either a) lowering the levels of the individual tracks going into the summing equation, or b) sending the tracks to an external analogue mixer which will sum them there, then bringing them back into the DAW at a lower level. The sound of these two options are slightly different (significantly different if you're sending enough signal to your mixer to cause some clipping), but both solve the "digital gauze" problem.

Duardo · 14th February 2006, 11:14 PM

Quote:

But, that said, headroom is the key to this discussion. Many of the problems that people have with ITB summing have to do with inadequate headroom.

Agreed, for the most part...except that the problem isn't that there's not enough headroom ITB, just that people don't know how to use it or don't know where they're running out of headroom. (Or, of course, that they just don't like the sound of ITB mixing...just not for the reasons that they think they don't). You're certainly not going to get more headroom out of any analog box.

-Duardo

kevinc · 14th February 2006, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duardo

don't). You're certainly not going to get more headroom out of any analog box.

-Duardo

That`s not true is it ?

Brad McGowan · 15th February 2006, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Suitcase

But, that said, headroom is the key to this discussion. Many of the problems that people have with ITB summing have to do with inadequate headroom. When adding several tracks that all approach 0db together, there are mathematical shortcuts taken, which cause certain types of unpleasant distortion. These distortions can be avoided by either a) lowering the levels of the individual tracks going into the summing equation, or b) sending the tracks to an external analogue mixer which will sum them there, then bringing them back into the DAW at a lower level. The sound of these two options are slightly different (significantly different if you're sending enough signal to your mixer to cause some clipping), but both solve the "digital gauze" problem.

Well said!

It's only a matter of time before people learn how to mix properly ITB and maintain the same headroom they do on an analog board. Part of the problem is the damn 0dBFS scale on the DAW channel strips. Change that number to +20 and you'd probably have more people backing off their levels.

Mixing OTB is all about the things that Nathan and a couple others have cited: phase shift, intermodulation distortion, harmonic distortion, etc. Once you figure out that you can add those things without using a mixer or "summing box" then you'll be well on your way to a more "analog" sounding mix.

Brad

Brad McGowan · 15th February 2006, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duardo

Agreed, for the most part...except that the problem isn't that there's not enough headroom ITB, just that people don't know how to use it or don't know where they're running out of headroom. (Or, of course, that they just don't like the sound of ITB mixing...just not for the reasons that they think they don't). You're certainly not going to get more headroom out of any analog box.

-Duardo

I totally agree here! Why do so many people keep insisting on the fact that analog gear will give you more headroom?

I'll eventually sound like a broken record--software programmers need to change the meter scales within the DAW to something that correlates to the meters on our analog gear. It has to go through an analog stage somewhere in the process of getting music to our ears!

Brad

doogie · 15th February 2006, 01:42 AM

nothing touches the Chandler Mini Mixer . NOTHING!!!!! PERIOD................................ IMHO

RoundBadge · 15th February 2006, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjdpro

Well, i agree with the previous poster.. Some mag just did asumming shoot-out usunf the 5k summing boxe, mackie onyx mixer, and an apogee.. the conclusion was startiling. The difference btw the high-end and low end was not wide at all. Some testers even prefered the mackie onyx mixer..

I was so elated with this test!!!..It proved my theiry all along. Which is: most any anolog mixer will make your Daw sound fuller & wider...All this hype for 5k summing mixers is a shamm..And a shameless one at that...

What Mag?
What 5 K mixer?
What kind of music?
Who were the testers?
Do you believe every review you read?
My mileage varies bigtime.
I've compared the Onyx too [nice clean little mixer,have one for location stuff and it is better than the older VLZ ones] to My Nicericer 16 an an old 70's API 3288 I mix on .although the Mackie is clean,it's also just plain boring sounding compared to the others.
But I do mostly rock,so in my world,color is king.
Try it yourself before you judge based on a magazine article..
Remebmer some of these dumbass mags also think the Focuswrong Liquid channel is the Bee's shnizet as well.

RoundBadge · 15th February 2006, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

I totally agree here! Why do so many people keep insisting on the fact that analog gear will give you more headroom?

Totally agreed..
Also ..i get mixes where the stuff is recorded so fukkin hot in PT ...
when I start patching outboard,I and have to use the gain reduction plugs just to hit stuff properly on mixer channels and inserts.
PT has plenty of headroom..people just slam it thinking it's better for the audio

AnalogBob · 15th February 2006, 02:40 AM

A good way to illustrate the summing issue...is the Piano...I recently recorded a piano and then used a library cause the piano was noisy... on single notes the Library shone...If I was judging it in parts I would pick the LIB....every key was meticulously recorded...but when you put the keys together on the real piano somthing happened inside of it that didn't happen with the model. Piano stays library goes......

I think the same thing is happening in the world of mixing.....we can model and convolve a compressor or EQ or pre amp to various degrees of similarity .... but we have yet to make a musical sounding mixing "engine" for our DAWs....The modern daw engine is clean clinical bt not musical, and I think it will be quite some time before this gets adressed. Besides...I shudder when I think abou how old the mix engine is in protools or logic. Sure I got all these new hot plugins that sound great on there own....put em together and well its just not right. Where is the weakest link in audio right now? We have the sum of the parts but not the whole......

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Rupert Neve Designs Portico 5033 Five Band EQ	JoshRND	New product alert!	40	7th December 2006 06:36 AM
Rupert Neve Designs Portico VS AMS Neve 1073 DPD	SLy_drums	High end	7	10th November 2006 10:59 AM
Rupert Neve Designs/Portico Console? If It Existed Would You Buy/Use One?	Rob G	High end	57	18th September 2006 01:15 AM
Rupert Neve Designs, Inc. announces the launch of the Portico™ 5043 Limiter-Compresso	The Press Desk at Gearslutz.com	New product alert!	41	30th March 2006 02:56 PM
Rupert Neve Designs Adds 5032 Mic Pre/EQ to the Portico™ Module Series	The Press Desk at Gearslutz.com	New product alert!	0	30th November 2005 03:16 PM

7th February 2006, 10:05 AM	#1
Shaman Lives for gear Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Munich - Germany Posts: 1,724	Rupert Neve designs Portico summing mixer I read this on www.rupertneve.com "...nineteenth century garrison near Austin has been reborn as Blue Rock Studios, a retreat and recording facility for selected producers specializing in Texas folk artists and music for film. ...... As Crockett explains, the forthcoming summing mixer from Rupert Neve Designs is also key to his facility concept, which surrounds digital control and recording capabilities both physically and electronically with discrete analog components and the simple purity of Mr. Rupert Neve's designs. "The restrictions of an old school console are clear enough now that we decided to go with the Digidesign ICON D-Command controller and Pro Tools\|HD3, integrated with an analog, Rupert Neve-designed front and back end.:::" sounds interesting Attached Thumbnails

7th February 2006, 06:16 PM	#2
HudHudson Lives for gear Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Austin, Texas USofA Posts: 1,141	It's going to be an interesting product. Billy, me and a bunch of other studio owners have been providing input to RND as they design the mixer (features, layout, bucket size, etc.) and from what I've seen so far I'm excited. Like many private studio owners, I want a full-featured mixer (as opposed to a summing box) but don't need preamps or eqs on every channel and didn't want to take on the maintenance expense/hassle of owning a used mid-grade console (my recent experience with a vintage Trident cured me of that jones). If anyone else wants details or has input to offer the RND folks, give them a call. __________________ "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." - Hunter S. Thompson www.myspace.com/steventoddhudson

8th February 2006, 02:52 AM	#6
jjdpro Gear maniac Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 287	Well, i agree with the previous poster.. Some mag just did asumming shoot-out usunf the 5k summing boxe, mackie onyx mixer, and an apogee.. the conclusion was startiling. The difference btw the high-end and low end was not wide at all. Some testers even prefered the mackie onyx mixer.. I was so elated with this test!!!..It proved my theiry all along. Which is: most any anolog mixer will make your Daw sound fuller & wider...All this hype for 5k summing mixers is a shamm..And a shameless one at that... __________________ JJD Media Productions

8th February 2006, 01:49 PM	#12
HudHudson Lives for gear Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Austin, Texas USofA Posts: 1,141	No, that's not "it". The mixer is still in the design stage. __________________ "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." - Hunter S. Thompson www.myspace.com/steventoddhudson

7th February 2006, 08:32 PM	#3
Duardo Lives for gear Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,922	Is there such thing as a non-summing mixer? -Duardo

8th February 2006, 02:20 AM	#5
Kiwiburger Lives for gear Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,671	Who mentioned a non-summing mixer? He said he wanted a 'full featured mixer', as opposed to a summing bus that lacks faders. I still haven't found anyone who can explain why external analog summing is necessary. All experiments with summing ITB prove that it is deadly accurate, and noise-free. Summing in an analog box requires a whole bunch of converters, summing their noise floors together, and a whole bunch of resistors summing their noise together. The question has been asked: is it simply 'analog dithering' - e.g. a layer of noise that analog summing diehards are craving?

8th February 2006, 10:54 AM	#10
TRW Lives for gear Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: UK Posts: 558	Hmm interesting, is that it in the wooden rack next to the icon?, looks like 8 vertical modules..... Anyhoo I think Duado was getting at the name "Summing Mixer" - its stoopid! A mixer sums by definition, its like saying we have an Amplifying Amplifier! Its a little strange for even RND to not pick up on this so to speak. It should either be called a Modular Mixing System or Summing Amplifier System not a Summing Mixer.... Anyway I'm splitting hairs so as you were gents. Tom

9th February 2006, 01:32 AM	#13
narco Lives for gear Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Switzerland/New Zealand/guitar case Posts: 3,096	I wrote to them with some thoughts on what I'd loke to see in a summing... thingy.. and they are very open to listning, they even told me some details of what it is like so far, but asked m not to leak them because its still being designed. narco __________________ The last thing for me to sell! FS: Mytek 896 D-A + exp card (located in new zealand) - will ship worldwide

10th February 2006, 03:09 AM	#16
John Suitcase Lives for gear Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,185	I do some ITB, some analogue through my little Soundcraft board, and while they sound different, I don't know that one sounds better, necessarily. I think it really depends on the project, and what you're going for. One thing to keep in mind when using a mixer to sum a mix is that you still have to watch your levels. If you're going to the mixer too hot, you can introduce some bad sounding distortion, which I've found is easy to miss for some reason. But upon making CDRs, you'll start to hear it on different systems. Basically, if you mix ITB and keep your levels low enough to avoid digital clipping problems, you'll be fine. If you go analogue, you still need to have a good deal of headroom. The bottom end may sound better, things may sound a little warmer and rounder, but you will introduce more noise, etc. And in the end, I think the advantages of analogue summing are small, but real. __________________ --------------------------------- Suitcase Recordings Indie, Punk, Garage - On Location Recording

10th February 2006, 03:21 AM	#17
Kiwiburger Lives for gear Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,671	Yeah, and who wants that? I know I don't. We're not talking about 5% distortion on everything with a -50dBV noise floor. A little harmonic and intermodulation distortion is a good thing (and even a tiny bit of noise!), but most of that is going to come from the outboard and especially tape. Nothing beats the sound of a console and tape, and I used to record only digitally so that's not where I came from....it's where I went TO. I happen to agree. I believe the mojo of mixing OTB is noise, distortion and phase shift. And I don't believe some immaculate summing contraption is required to produce this. My current thinking on the whole ITB vs OTB is this: 24 bits has a theoretical dynamic range of 144dB. Our best converters have a dynamic range of 114dB. That's a big 30dB difference. Most DAW users mix using the full 144dB range. In other words, they mix right up to 0dBFS. If they are smarter, they mix up to -6dBFS. Even then they are still using 24dB greater range than the best converters in the world can reproduce. So - if you run your audio through your converters and back again, you are squeezing 144dB through a 114dB hole. The corners are going to get knocked off. You Will get extra noise, distortion and phase shift. This Will be noticable. And very probably, you Will like what you hear. A sine wave at 40 Hz is a boring thing. If you rough it up and add some noise and some harmonics, it becomes more pleasant to listen to. That, I believe, is the mojo of OTB processing.

10th February 2006, 03:38 AM	#18
AnalogBob Gear addict Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 482	Give me less fidelity I think there is too much fidelity right now, and I find the whole DAW situation rather stressful and playback is sometomes just too acurate and effiecient and the computer never stops I mean hardly ever and when it does stop I have to stress out cause I have to work with it to fix it....the ability of the 24 bit daw to reproduce ear splitting transients is remarkable. I want some diffusion a lamp shade cause the lights are jsut too bright. I am starting the wonder if what is coming out of the speakers is as Alienating and as nervous as the environment I am working in?

15th February 2006, 01:42 AM	#27
doogie Gear addict Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 312	nothing touches the Chandler Mini Mixer . NOTHING!!!!! PERIOD................................ IMHO

15th February 2006, 02:40 AM	#30
AnalogBob Gear addict Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 482	A good way to illustrate the summing issue...is the Piano...I recently recorded a piano and then used a library cause the piano was noisy... on single notes the Library shone...If I was judging it in parts I would pick the LIB....every key was meticulously recorded...but when you put the keys together on the real piano somthing happened inside of it that didn't happen with the model. Piano stays library goes...... I think the same thing is happening in the world of mixing.....we can model and convolve a compressor or EQ or pre amp to various degrees of similarity .... but we have yet to make a musical sounding mixing "engine" for our DAWs....The modern daw engine is clean clinical bt not musical, and I think it will be quite some time before this gets adressed. Besides...I shudder when I think abou how old the mix engine is in protools or logic. Sure I got all these new hot plugins that sound great on there own....put em together and well its just not right. Where is the weakest link in audio right now? We have the sum of the parts but not the whole......