Speck Electronics – 32 x 2 Summing Mixer

[vince @ speck]

Here’s preliminary info on a new summing mixer from Speck Electronics. The X.Sum Line Mixer

http://www.speck.com/XSum/XSum.shtml

I’ve been getting enough requests for a flexible 1U mixer lately that I figured it was time to finish a design that I started a couple of years ago.

I welcome any thoughts and comments. I’ll keep updating the web page with more details as they become available.

Regards,

[DrDeltaM]

Features and price look excellent

[echorec]

Looks great!

[Teacher]

I hope there's no need for a 25 pin snake. Other then that it Looks GREAT! Can't wait to hear the reviews

[echorec]

Originally posted by Teacher
I hope there's no need for a 25 pin snake.

Looks like it has TRS inputs so, no 25 pin snake.

[heinz]

super efficient design... in 1RU. nice!

[Kenny Gioia]

Looks like a great unit.

The only problem I see is how to handle mono signals.

It's a waste to use 2 channels for a Lead Vocal.

And how would you put a compressor or EQ on it?

[vartan k]

i would like to see the top off

[Rea]

i can smell mackie not far...
i have a feeling that unless you run stems through some top end colorful device, you might aswell mix in the box.
if you need hiss my next project is a hiss sample cd.
you can order it online...

[vince @ speck]

Originally posted by Produceher
Looks like a great unit.

The only problem I see is how to handle mono signals.

It's a waste to use 2 channels for a Lead Vocal.

When used as a stereo channel the pan/balance control is a "balance". When you plug a mono source into the left input of any stereo channel, the signal is mono and the Pan/balance control changes to a "pan" control.

And how would you put a compressor or EQ on it?

Source signal --> input of compressor --> out of compresor --> input of EQ --> out of EQ --> input of X.Sum channel.

[vince @ speck]

Originally posted by Rea
i can smell mackie not far...
i have a feeling that unless you run stems through some top end colorful device, you might aswell mix in the box.
if you need hiss my next project is a hiss sample cd.
you can order it online...

????

I don't know what you're talkin' about.

[lukejs]

I sense that REA is thinking that a unit with this many inputs ( being able to mix 16 stereo stems) at 975 dollars seems to good to be true, and that the common sentiment amongst many gearslutz is that you've gotta spend some pretty serious cash to get results mixing outside the box. I guess he figures it must be a pretty noisy unit with a lot of crosstalk... I don't know... but I do know I'm in the market for an analogue summing box ( Thinking about the Audient sumo) and was floored by that unit's low price... And now..to see this... 16 stereo stems summed..for less than 1,000 looks really incredible...so I guess it creates skeptics with it's low price.... that's my take.... Peace, Luke
PS... HOw will this thing sum compared to the lilo ??

[Rea]

hey all-
no offense ha?...
just this "sum rush da show" thing...
its all about summing out of da box these days.
but i honestly think that signal wants to stay as close to home as it can UNLESS you process it in a way that flatters it.
i, personaly, dont see a reason to send 32(!)channels out of the original source unless i process it carefully and creativley.
thats why i doubt circuits at $1,000/32 just so i can feel that i summed something...just seems to be a trend in my eyes(ears).
again no offense i might be an ignorant who dosnt know what the hell he's talkin about...

[The MPCist]

Vince, great product!

I'll definitely demo it when it's out..

[Dave Martin]

Originally posted by Rea

again no offense i might be an ignorant who dosnt know what the hell he's talkin about...

In this case, I'd have to agree that you simply don't know what the hell you're talking about.

If you (as I do) like to use outboard processing, some sort of out-of-the-box device is pretty much mandatory (I use a console, but other use summing boxes). In addition, Vince at Speck has been making very cool (and surprisingly inexpensive) mixers, EQ's and such for quite a while. If he's built a summing box, it's definitely worth listening to.

[Albert]

I agree Dave, my first response is to trust that this gear will sound great. I don't smell Mackie anywhere even close.

What I would like to see on this box though is a couple of assignable stereo busses. Like a main mix buss and an alternate mix buss. So hitting the mix switch would send those channels to the main buss, and leaving them unswitched would send to the other buss, or something like that.

[De chromium cob]

Quick question for Vince-
I would have this hooked up to my patchbay- Would I still be able to switch from stereo to mono on each channel by choosing left only in the patchbay? I wouldnt want to have to physically unplug the right channel input from the back of the unit everytime I needed a out from the DAW to be mono...

[Albert]

If it is like any of the other equipment I've used with stereo inputs per channel strip, one cable of the stereo pair has to be physically disconnected from the unit for it to be mono. Unless Vince has come up with something different, it is the physical connection configuration that determines whether the channel is mono or stereo. Otherwise, there would have to be a mono/stereo switch.

So you'd probably just have to set it up with mono or stereo in mind from the beginning. I've done this with a 16 stereo input line mixer I have now. FX returns are L/R wired for stereo, and buss returns are wired with one input for mono. It just has to be hard wired that way.

It would be very cool if Vince figured out a way around this though!

[vince @ speck]

No, I don’t have a simple solution to stereo/mono jack issue. But some patchbays can be configured so the "normaling" terminals will combine the signals of two jacks when only one is in use.

One solution is to get rid of the patchbay. Not altogether, but using a small line mixer can certainly take the demand off of patching. Think of the mixer (like the X.Sum) as not only a mixer with variable parameters, but also as a signal router.

[Meriphew]

Originally posted by Dave Martin
Vince at Speck has been making very cool (and surprisingly inexpensive) mixers, EQ's and such for quite a while. If he's built a summing box, it's definitely worth listening to.

Ditto that.

[vince @ speck]

Originally posted by Rea
hey all-
no offense ha?...
just this "sum rush da show" thing...
its all about summing out of da box these days.
but i honestly think that signal wants to stay as close to home as it can UNLESS you process it in a way that flatters it.
i, personaly, dont see a reason to send 32(!)channels out of the original source unless i process it carefully and creativley.
thats why i doubt circuits at $1,000/32 just so i can feel that i summed something...just seems to be a trend in my eyes(ears).
again no offense i might be an ignorant who dosnt know what the hell he's talkin about...

No offense taken. You’re obviously not a candidate for an analog mixer. And I don’t take a position on whether mixing “in-the-box” or “out-of-the-box” is better. That’s a personal choice. There are 100’s of audio-post facilities in L.A. that are cranking out TV and film music every day. These guys don’t give second thought to adding analog to the back-end of their converters. They are perfectly happy working 100% in the digital domain. On the other hand, there are many, many studios that have embraced the DAW/Analog Mixer-fusion with a passion and will never turn back.

I hope when folks look at the X.Sum that they don’t dwell on the “summing box” aspect too long. After all, unlike some of the other summing boxes on the market that are “application specific” (i.e. designed only to “assign” line signals), the X.Sum has other applications. It can be used anywhere a little line mixer is needed (DAW’s, synths, samplers, effects, etc.).

Happy New Year!

Regards,

[De chromium cob]

Originally posted by vince @ speck
No, I don’t have a simple solution to stereo/mono jack issue. But some patchbays can be configured so the "normaling" terminals will combine the signals of two jacks when only one is in use.

One solution is to get rid of the patchbay. Not altogether, but using a small line mixer can certainly take the demand off of patching. Think of the mixer (like the X.Sum) as not only a mixer with variable parameters, but also as a signal router.

I figured as much- Getting rid of the patchbay isnt an option..Id rather have the -12 switch become a mono switch, or I suppose it could be labeled as a Pan/Balance switch...

[hollywood_steve]

After all, unlike some of the other summing boxes on the market that are “application specific” (i.e. designed only to “assign” line signals), the X.Sum has other applications. It can be used anywhere a little line mixer is needed (DAW’s, synths, samplers, effects, etc.).

I bet I'm not the only guy who thinks that the current crop of control-less summing boxes will be doing door-stop duty at some point in the future. A good line mixer will always have utility, but a box with no knobs has only one possible function. Just my opinion....

[Albert]

Vince, would it be possible to have a second set of mix outputs on the Xsum? That would be extremely useful, essentially a monitor out and a main out.

What's your timetable for releasing the Xsum? I already have a rack space reserved for it.

[Dan Kennedy]

I would think the addition of a mono/stereo switch to the right of the 12db switch wouldn't be too tough. It would be a real enhancement in my mind.

I too would be bothered by having to reach 'round back. I am old, cranky, and not nearly as flexible, not to mention my eyes are bad and I wouldn't be able to see where I was trying to reach in the mass of cable....ok, I'll shut up. Where's my damn Geritol?

[Gone Fission]

If I was in the market for a summing box, this would jump to the top of my list. Great price, an actually useful feature set. I like the idea of the Folcrom box, but I hate the Nazi left or right only choice. And every thing I've heard from users of Speck mixers would indicate that this box is an enhancement - I'm guessing very clean, high headroom analog audio here, as Speck excells at. I don't see the point of running a mix through a distortion box unless you are shooting for lofi, though I'm sure you can feed a very well summed signal into your distortion box down stream.

Mackie following? Bull. If Mackie had fixed their summing, we'd see it getting hyped in the magazine ads - it is the Achilles heel of their products. (Well, that and the eq, which they do claim to have fixed.)

Bear

[lukejs]

damn.....my other alternative to a summing mixer, was to buy a Mackie Onyx 1640...... judging from what's said in previous post... a dedicated summing box would be better than any small format mixer ? Dammit ! Why can 't anybody just make a 16 channel, Neve or Api like summing box for around 2,500 bucks...that's what I want !!!! No pan knobs, just a line mixer... maxiimum analogue mixing for my daw...... but cheaper than API 7800/8200 combo...... or Aurora GTM 820.... Will the speck x-sum give me this ?

[bigmanoncampus]

I think Rea may have some valid concerns even though he did not say it in a very tactful way at all. No offense to Speck but naysayers should be allowed to speak as long as respectful. For this cost to the working engineer it does seem a little worrysome to have it this cheap and expect it to be of high quality.

The Folcrom is so cheap because it is all passive with no active circuitry. Resistors do not cost much but great IC's, capacitors, pots for panning, and having to lay out a good circuit board plus the research and development put into a piece are not cheap. Having a fully passive design with the capability to have a $2000 or more pair of preamps in your rack as the actual 2 bus is quality. Having 32 channel summed through a 50 cent chip might raise scepticism if trying to compare it to things of higher quality anyway. Let us make sure that it is apples to apples here.

As an example, something like a Amek 9098 console has chips in it so what would a scaled down 9098 with just 32 channels of summing and pan pots, cost? Exactly what it should for that level of audio and it would be in the thousands maybe tens of thousands. The Dangerous two bus is another example in point. If the Dangerous LE model is a compromise for around $1200 for 16 channels, how is twice the channels for $400 less going to be better quality? The real Dangerous 2 bus is $2500 for 16 channels so to follow the logic 32 channels should be $5000 minimum.

Providing it is a high headroom low noise piece of equipment I cannot see much of a point in ultra clean summing anyway. Stay in the box and record it well on the way in. Adding some character in the stage of an actual bus that is simultaneously class A or class A/B makes more sense overall if we want to capture that big console sound.

[Mind-Over-Midi]

I like to judge with my ears, not the price tag. I'll wait until the box comes out and take a look see for myself!

Originally posted by Dan Kennedy
I would think the addition of a mono/stereo switch to the right of the 12db switch wouldn't be too tough. It would be a real enhancement in my mind.

I also think that this would be a very necessary addition, worth the extra cost.