Folcrom analog summing test

[NathanEldred]

What's the point of decreasing the wordlength of your two track output, then going through a preamp with mismatched impedance, and only being able to match the levels by decreasing the wordlength of the PT output? Get a tape machine, stay at nominal +4, and for gods sake use a Lavry DAC if you're going to do this.

[peterr]

You mean when you mix through the Folcrom you move your faders higher in your DAW? Then you didn't do a fair comparison, right, if you were running your faders hotter into the Folcrom.

why does this make it an unfair comparison? if you can do this with the said method/equipment and it sounds better.......... then that is a capability of the method/equipment which must be noted.

I agree that a test of the Tools BTD through the slam must be done. If all the goodness comes from the SLAM then you don't need the Folcrum. If however, it is a combination of the two (Folcrum+Slam) then running the Stereo bounce throught the SLAM will sound inferior to the Folcrum-SLAM mix.

I dont agree that all settings MUST be the same (although they can be). The point is to see which method sounds best period. Make the mix sound as good as possible for each different method. Level matching should be done for listening purposes so as not to confuse different loudness with different sound.

[dim light]

I think analog summing is the future...

[Jax]

Originally posted by Jules
Can you still place outboard in between your DAW interface and the Folcrom?

Yes, as long as the Folcrom inputs are connected to a patchbay. I've done it it's fun.

[Bang]

Originally posted by RKrizman
Did you actually try this and hear the results? I don't remember that being mentioned.

I'm not sure I understand your explanation. You mean when you mix through the Folcrom you move your faders higher in your DAW? Then you didn't do a fair comparison, right, if you were running your faders hotter into the Folcrom.

I don't get what you mean by overloading the DAW mixbus. Zero is your limit, and that's it. And if you're recording at 24 bits, you already have so much headroom that it's really not an issure to run your faders lower. Even at -48 db you still have a 16 bit signal.

Let me ask you this. When you just ran your attenuated DAW mix straight into the preamp for increased gain, bypassing the Folcrom, was it any improvement at all? Surely there must have been some difference, just running it through the iron.

I'm willing to believe, really.

-R

I've done every kind of test imagineable with DAWS and summing aside from determining whether or not summing sounds better while getting head from a two dollar *****. I can say that in 80% of the cases, external summing whether it be the Folcrom through my Trident S20 or even my Allen and Heath monitoring board, sounds better.

When you are externally mixing, you CAN push your faders higher because you gain more headroom. This isn't a fair comparison says Rick. Maybe not, but if your intentions are to make a better sounding mix and you can push the channels, who the frauk cares?

Attenuating a summed DAW mix by 40 db loses a TON OF BIT DEPTH. Putting the two track mix through a 40db gain stage whether it be Neve or GML is just amplifying a grainy low definition song with some great neve or george flavor. Doesn't get you squat. By putting the tracks into the Folcrom at FULL BIT DEPTH and letting good resistors do the attenuating, you DON"T LOSE DETAIL at all, and you get a great sound when you amp it up 40db with your preamp of choice.

Ok, Rick is a smart guy and he will fire back with: "why don't you sum the mix in the DAW and then output and attenuate the two track mix in the analog domain and THEN give it the preamp gain. Did it. But as said before, given that the DAW mix can't acheive the headroom as individually spread out tracks, you still don't get quite the width and depth. But depending on the preamp, it can still add some cool flavor and if you don't get a summing box, I'd recommend getting a good two channel PAD and trying this.

Steve
www.blacklinerock.com
www.bangrecording.com

[Jax]

Originally posted by peterr
I dont agree that all settings MUST be the same (although they can be). The point is to see which method sounds best period. Make the mix sound as good as possible for each different method. Level matching should be done for listening purposes so as not to confuse different loudness with different sound.

Agreed 100%, because if the Folcrom-to-preamp summed mix sounds better with faders raised in the DAW vs the ITB mix with the faders where they need to be to make it sound right.... you wouldn't be using the Folcrom the same way as you would for an ITB mix anyway. The two mixes can't be the same to get the best results for each method.. that's an attempt at using scientific method where it doesn't really apply... a mix is a subjective thing.

One thing I've noticed is that especially with bass guitar tracks, I have to pump the shit out of their level compared to the level set with the ITB mix. I can't explain this yet, but I know keeping the bass track at the same level as the ITB mix would be pointless if I want it sound good...... so, there again, the comparison couldn't be valid.

Also, I see what Rick is trying have us discern - that the improvements we're hearing are not simply due to running the mix through a preamp, but are due to the summing effect of the Folcrom meeting the preamp - but looking at Nathan's post above, there's no reasonable way to do it gain matched.

So the best way to compare mixes would most likely be the best mix possible ITB vs the best mix possible through the Folcrom and preamp. I'm all for connecting an ITB mix out to a preamp, without the Folcrom in the middle, but I can tell you it's the middleman that makes the most difference in this case, not just the preamp. Nathan's right about fidelity before color.

I agree just as much with juniorhifikit who basically said to try it out yourself. Like almost all other gear talked about, what people say doesn't matter half as much as tyring it out for yourself. Rollmusic offers a 10 day trial period, last time I checked.

Well worth doing your own investigation.

[Jax]

Originally posted by Bang
By putting the tracks into the Folcrom at FULL BIT DEPTH and letting good resistors do the attenuating, you DON"T LOSE DETAIL at all, and you get a great sound when you amp it up 40db with your preamp of choice.

Don't quite agree with this. I've found that some detail is lost once you get past about 12-14 channels on the Folcrom. However, it still sounds better than ITB most of the time.

[NathanEldred]

Originally posted by dim light
I think analog summing is the future...

Aaah, and the past.

[dim light]

Originally posted by Jax
So the best way to compare mixes would most likely be the best mix possible ITB vs the best mix possible through the Folcrom and preamp. I'm all for connecting an ITB mix out to a preamp, without the Folcrom in the middle, but I can tell you it's the middleman that makes the most difference in this case, not just the preamp. Nathan's right about fidelity before color.

Here is the answer!!!

[Ted Nightshade]

I had this same design idea around the time Mr. Fulcrom (sic) did- only he did it up and I just mooned about it. Actually I had a custom mixer modded to get a buss level out, and then put it through a Manley 40dB pre for makeup gain- the mixer had other shortcomings earlier in the chain though, so bagged that one.

I thought all you guys with a million flavors of preamp would love this one- swap out the preamp, and you have a whole new "console" flavor!

[RKrizman]

Originally posted by Bang

When you are externally mixing, you CAN push your faders higher because you gain more headroom. This isn't a fair comparison says Rick. Maybe not, but if your intentions are to make a better sounding mix and you can push the channels, who the frauk cares?

By all means, use your best tools the way you want and make it sound great. But for the purposes of comparison, which this thread is about, I'm trying to isolate some of the variables.

True, it doesn't make sense to lower your bit rate of the ITB mix and then up it with the preamp. That won't tell us anything. So how about this. Instead of sending all the individual tracks to the Folcrom, just sent the ITB 2-mix to 2 channels. Compare that to the individual channels summed in the Folcrum, without changing the fader levels in Protools. Wouldn't that make all other things equal and merely test whether external summing makes a difference. (Now, if you tell me that just sending 2 tracks will change the load or whatever, then I think the box has a problem. )

It's an interesting question about the possibility of upping your faders when you go out to the Folcrom. I don't know, but it seems that when I mix in Protools I usually have a track or two that is bumping up pretty close to zero, with the other tracks down lower according to how they need to sound. If I go out to the Folcrom, I can't bump those tracks up any louder, and can't bump up the other tracks, obviously, without changing my mix.

That said, this question brings in another variable. If you do up your faders, for whatever reason, then you are hitting the analog electronics of your converters harder, which could also account for a change in the sound. It might be desireable to have trims on the Folcrom channels. That way you could hit all of your D/A's near zero and then readjust your mix at the Folcrum. All your automation moves will still be intact and to recall you mix you merely need to note the trim level on each analog channel.

My point with all this is that once you know what's really causing the better sound, then you can go there and make the most of it.

Interesting discussion, and lots of good points have been made.

-R

[RKrizman]

Originally posted by Bang

Ok, Rick is a smart guy and he will fire back with: "why don't you sum the mix in the DAW and then output and attenuate the two track mix in the analog domain and THEN give it the preamp gain. Did it. But as said before, given that the DAW mix can't acheive the headroom as individually spread out tracks, you still don't get quite the width and depth.
]

I won't fire back with that, because then you have your analog attenuator as a sonic factor. As I mentioned elsewhere, just plug your 2-mix into 2 channels of the Folcrom. Any reason why that wouldn't work?

Now this is what I don't get. What is lacking in the headroom of a DAW? Doesn't a 24 bit DAW have way more dynamic range than any conventional analog system?

-R

[ulysses]

Originally posted by RKrizman
True, it doesn't make sense to lower your bit rate of the ITB mix and then up it with the preamp. That won't tell us anything. So how about this. Instead of sending all the individual tracks to the Folcrom, just sent the ITB 2-mix to 2 channels. Compare that to the individual channels summed in the Folcrum, without changing the fader levels in Protools. Wouldn't that make all other things equal and merely test whether external summing makes a difference. (Now, if you tell me that just sending 2 tracks will change the load or whatever, then I think the box has a problem. )

There won't be any impedance or loading problems when you do this. The only problem I see is that the total make-up gain necessary from your preamp will probably be slightly different for a 2-mix going into 2 channels of the Folcrom than for 16 channels going in separately. I'm not positive, but I suspect that the net level coming out of the Folcrom would be different. You'd have to change the gain setting on the preamp, which could change its sonic signature. But I do think the comparison you're interested in is a valid and important one. Here's how I would do it:
1. Determine the signal level coming out of the Folcrom when you have 16 channels of audio feeding it.
2. Determine the signal level coming out of your DACs when you feed nominal level out of them.
3. subtract #1 from #2 and you'll have an attenuation in dB. build a 2-channel U-pad that has an input impedance of 10k-20k, an output impedance of 150 ohms, and an an attenuation equal to what's calculated above.
4. Feed your BTD mix out through 2 DACs (the same type you did your 16-track Folcrom mix with), into the special pad you built, and then into your 2-channel preamp which is set for the same gain setting you had for the Folcrom mix.
5. Do a null test or other such comparison to make sure your two mixes are level matched to within 0.1dB. Adjust the pad or your BTD output faders accordingly until you can get a mix matched precisely to the Folcrom mix.
6. Now listen to the three mixes (BTD, BTD through pad and pre, and Folcrom). Report back to us on your findings. I'm pretty confident I know how it'll turn out, but if you want to be "sure" then this is what you need to do. Once you figure out the attenuation you need in the pad mentioned in #3, I can help you figure out the resistor values. In fact, I'd even be willing to build a couple of inline pads of the appropriate value if somebody is serious about performing this test properly.

It's an interesting question about the possibility of upping your faders when you go out to the Folcrom. I don't know, but it seems that when I mix in Protools I usually have a track or two that is bumping up pretty close to zero, with the other tracks down lower according to how they need to sound. If I go out to the Folcrom, I can't bump those tracks up any louder, and can't bump up the other tracks, obviously, without changing my mix.

If you leave some of your tracks up at "zero" don't you need to pull down your master faders to avoid clipping the 2-mix? I don't use a multitrack DAW, so I don't know. I was under the impression that if you have a lot of "loud" tracks then your ITB summed mix will be "loud" too, and require that you attenuate it somewhere. I thought this is what Bang was talking about, because when you mix outside the box, you don't have to worry about that.

All your automation moves will still be intact and to recall you mix you merely need to note the trim level on each analog channel.

This is one of the big reasons why I decided to keep the Folcrom passive and without any trims or pots at all. I've found it is impossible to recall a mix based on "making note" (or even taking a photo) of the positions of analog pots. It always sounds different when you try to recreate a mix on an analog board. The Folcrom at least gives you the option of maintaining real, absolute recallability from the DAW. You're still free to give that up in order to patch in analog processing gear between the DAW and the Folcrom, but if you want the recall, it's there waiting for you. The Folcrom only has 4 discrete assign possibilities per channel, so you can't set it up "a little bit" differently.

My point with all this is that once you know what's really causing the better sound, then you can go there and make the most of it.

Interesting discussion, and lots of good points have been made.

I couldn't agree more. I'm really glad to see all this terrific discussion going on while I wasn't paying attention.

[Ted Nightshade]

Thanks to Mr. Morse for his thorough reply to the test issue! Great to have a piece of kit out there with a real live thinking and working human squarely behind it.

[zakco]

First of all, very interesting thread.

I have a question..... when one is using a summing device like the folcrom, how do you deal with the issue of patching?

To clarify: I have a MOTU HD192 with 12 analog outs. Currently I use MOTU's cuemix software to route the inputs to the outputs and out to my Ghost32 for discrete monitoring during tracking with outboard pres. I don't use a patch bay, just straight wire and connectors. The console is not in the signal path except for monitoring. I mix in the box because to my ears the DAW sum actually sounds better than the Ghost. Certainly cleaner and tighter in the bottom.

If I were to use the folcrom, I would either have to re-patch for mixdown or use a patchbay to swich between direct monitoring or summing.

How are others approaching this challenge?

-Z-

[Bang]

You think your DAW mixes sound better then your ghost mixes? What type of music? Have you tried a mix using the Ghost eqs rather then plugin eqs? What type of power supply with the Ghost and does it need servicing? A Ghost should whip the arse of a DAW mix, at least in my experience. I just mastered my friends project that he mixed on a Ghost from PT and it sounded great compared to the in the box demos he sent me as they were recording it.
Steve
www.blacklinerock.com
www.bangrecording.com

[zakco]

Steve,

I run a very busy small commercial facility. Every genre under the sun from choral to metal to jingles and everthing in between.

I do like the EQ on the ghost and if the 2 bus sounded better, I wouldn't hesitate to mix on it.

However......I've done some A/Bing between the DAW sum and a straight fader/noEQ ghost sum. Everyone that listened immediately chose the DAW mix hands down. Cleaner and clearer in the highs and tighter in the bottom. The ghost mix sounded grainy and distorted in comparison.

I'm not sure if this is a result of the MOTU's D/A or if the ghost is entirely at fault here.

I think you are on the right track in regards to the PSU. The ghost's PSU is a lightweight noisy piece of crap and probably not up to the task. Soundcraft really cheaped out on this one....

The ghost's 2bus sounds very different when I load it with 12+ channels and push the mains than it does when monitoring just a couple of channels. The harder the console works, the worse it sounds to my ears.

It's unlikely I'll be spending any cash upgrading the PSU any time soon because frankly I'd rather put my money towards something much better than the ghost. I'm thinking even something like the D2B or the folcrom would probably be a step up.

I am curious though, and if there was some way I could borrow/rent a decent replacement PSU I would jump at the chance to hear it. At least then I'd know.....

-Z-

[RKrizman]

Originally posted by ulysses
[B] The only problem I see is that the total make-up gain necessary from your preamp will probably be slightly different for a 2-mix going into 2 channels of the Folcrom than for 16 channels going in separately. I'm not positive, but I suspect that the net level coming out of the Folcrom would be different.

Why would that be? Is the Folcrom somehow not accurately adding the tracks up? I mean, tonal differences aside, why wouldn't a sum in Protools equaly a sum in the Folcrom, at least level-wise. I mean, on my Trident console, if I send multiple Protools outputs with the console inputs set to unity and sum them in the console, and compare that to the same mix summed in Protools and sent out to 2 inputs of the console, they sound the same, ignoring certain tonal differences.

-R

[juniorhifikit]

Originally posted by RKrizman
Why would that be? Is the Folcrom somehow not accurately adding the tracks up? I mean, tonal differences aside, why wouldn't a sum in Protools equaly a sum in the Folcrom, at least level-wise. I mean, on my Trident console, if I send multiple Protools outputs with the console inputs set to unity and sum them in the console, and compare that to the same mix summed in Protools and sent out to 2 inputs of the console, they sound the same, ignoring certain tonal differences.

-R

A console has many make-up gain stages. The Fulcrom is passive - resistors. Thus the loss in level, to be made up with your choice of amplifier stage.

[Jax]

Originally posted by zakco

I think you are on the right track in regards to the PSU. The ghost's PSU is a lightweight noisy piece of crap and probably not up to the task. Soundcraft really cheaped out on this one....
-Z-

They definitely cheaped out on the original PS. Last night I was yet again bemoaning not being able to move it into the machine room with the other noisy equipment. The cable is too short.

The good news is there's more to making the Ghost sound better than replacing the anemic PS with the newer (black) model. Like you, I'm not fond of the idea of dropping several hundred more bucks into a board that I don't see myself keeping forever, but the Ghost can sound much better if one is to take the plunge.

Check out this thread:

Upgrading a Ghost

[Ted Nightshade]

Originally posted by juniorhifikit
A console has many make-up gain stages. The Fulcrom is passive - resistors. Thus the loss in level, to be made up with your choice of amplifier stage.

And the make up gain needed will vary with the number of channels summed. channels and no summing will be different than 2 channels summed from 16.

I just wonder at the part where the difference in needed make-up gain is described as "slight"- but I know little and get surprised frequently. In my own passive resistor summing experiments, you need lots more gain as you sum lots more channels.

[zakco]

Originally posted by Jax
They definitely cheaped out on the original PS. Last night I was yet again bemoaning not being able to move it into the machine room with the other noisy equipment. The cable is too short.

Yeah what's with the vaccuum cleaner style fan??
I used to have a 600 series from the late 80s. It's PSU was a serious piece of hardward. Silent too. Heatsinks instead of a fan. The build quality on the 600 was like 10,000 times better than the Ghost. If the Ghost had ANY competition in its price range I don't think anyone would buy them. Feature wise, I love it but damn is it poorly made.

The good news is there's more to making the Ghost sound better than replacing the anemic PS with the newer (black) model. Like you, I'm not fond of the idea of dropping several hundred more bucks into a board that I don't see myself keeping forever, but the Ghost can sound much better if one is to take the plunge.

If I could find the upgraded PSU for a few hundred bucks, I'd probably buy one. The new price is $1600.00 CDN and the best price I've found on a used one (the only one for sale I've seen) was $1000.00 USD. Just about the same price as a new one.

I would love to hear a ghost with the bigger PSU and the variac but unfortunately I don't know any other local studios with them.

Jax, that thread you linked to was from April 2003, have you been running the variac since then? Any problems or concerns?

Sorry to hijack this thread BTW!!!

-Z-

[RKrizman]

Originally posted by Ted Nightshade
And the make up gain needed will vary with the number of channels summed. channels and no summing will be different than 2 channels summed from 16.

I just wonder at the part where the difference in needed make-up gain is described as "slight"- but I know little and get surprised frequently. In my own passive resistor summing experiments, you need lots more gain as you sum lots more channels.

So what if you have your DAW outputs plugged into all of the Folcrom channels, but just happen to be sending signal on 2 channels. Surely the Folcrom doesn't know if it's gettting audio or not. I mean, if you're mixing something and one track is tacet for a period of time, does that mean that the whole summing balance changes in some way?

So just plug you D/As into the Folcrom as you usually would. In one case, send your stems out the different outputs. In the other case, just send your internal mix out 2 channels but leave the other outputs plugged in. Surely there would not be any loading difference between these two scenarios, would there?

-R

[juniorhifikit]

My problem with this method, is that I mix as I go. I never really know what I'll have patched in in advance. I wouldn't want my output to the 2 bus compressor changing all the time as I path and unpatch gear. If you're only patching in your DAW, this method may work. I have many other toys that augment my DAW, and these are the reason I leave the computer in the first place.

[TheTruffleKing]

Man, my head is swimming!

Somehow, intuitively, analog summing seems to make sense to me...but that might just be because I want it to.

Is is possible that a variable in all this is in the DA conversions themselves? Maybe even the best of converters can do a better job resolving detail on individual tracks than an entire mix. This might help explain things if 2 channels into the folcrom wasn't as impressive as 16.

Of course, then your AD has to deal with a 2-channel mix anyway at some point, even if you're monitoring right off the Folcrom...and the extra conversions can't be helping things in the first place.

Be nice if it were true, though.

[Bang]

Blah blah blah blah analog summing with good D/A sounds good. I'm in this business to make things sound good and if in the box sounded better, I'd be mixing in the box. Hopefully one day it will. I also want to say that summing outside the box makes a big difference, but using analog eqs rather eq plugins makes a HUGE difference. Any of you PT guys ever compare the new API and Neve plugins to the real thing or to any analog eqs?
Steve
www.blacklinerock.com
www.bangrecording.com

[Jax]

Originally posted by zakco

Jax, that thread you linked to was from April 2003, have you been running the variac since then? Any problems or concerns?

-Z-

I keep finding stuff I'd rather spend my money on in the studio. But I heard a Ghost that was being run as described in the thread and the difference is pretty substantial.

I know of at least two other Gearslutz who're running their Ghosts this way. Neither of them have complained of related console problems yet.

[kevinc]

Originally posted by Bang
I also want to say that summing outside the box makes a big difference, but using analog eqs rather eq plugins makes a HUGE difference. Any of you PT guys ever compare the new API and Neve plugins to the real thing or to any analog eqs?
Steve
[[/B]

That`s the kicker for me too.
It`s one thing if your using all plugs and it`s just a question of running through a bunch of converters (hopefully damn good ones) through a Fulcrum compared to mixing in PT.

The thing is 99% of pugs aren`t there yet and in order to use a lot of outboard eq/reverb/compression in an efficient professional manner you need either a console or summing device like the Dangerous or the Fulcrum.

Theres a lot of advantages to a summing device that make it seem like it could be the wave of the future.
One is that you can get a high quality signal path much cheaper than the equivelant in a console.
You can`t buy a very good console for under $1000 these days.
To match the sonics in a D2b or Fulcrum you`d probably need to blow $10,000.
Think of all the cool outboard you could route into a D2b for that kind of money.

Another is it`s a couple of rack spaces for a whole mess of channels as opposed to a couch sized piece of furniture you`d have to carry around if your taking your rig anywhere.

[juniorhifikit]

Originally posted by kevinc
...
To match the sonics in a D2b or Fulcrum you`d probably need to blow $10,000.
Think of all the cool outboard you could route into a D2b for that kind of money.

Another is it`s a couple of rack spaces for a whole mess of channels as opposed to a couch sized piece of furniture you`d have to carry around if your taking your rig anywhere.

None of those products have what I would call "a whole mess of channels". The Speck Xtramix is close to a useable amount, but I've not tried one yet. I'm a little skeptical of the sonics. I'm old fashioned that way - I trust big heavy power supplies.

[kevinc]

I use an Xtramix myself and can`t see myself selling it for a Fulrum.
I love the quality they stuffed in that box

If I hadn`t bought it a couple of years back I probably would consider the Fulcrum.

The D2b was too expensive for me at the time for the amount of actual useable channels you get.