For Those Who Believe In Summing

[chrisso]

That might be a sync nightmare.

At the moment I go 8 out into summing unit. 2 out of summing unit into mic/pre of choice, possible compression, possible eq, and back into stereo track in my DAW.

[NathanEldred]

I wouldn't want to mix on an 8 channel input console (or summing box if that's what's used) unless I was doing *very* minimalist jazz, blues or folk something similar in setup/tracks. 16 would be my minimum. Some things would still get combined in the computer, but 16 would get me by if necessary. I want control of certain individual tracks with analog EQ and compression.

[sonicdefault]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Are 16 channels to 2 better than 8 channels to 2 in your opinion?
I have felt I made some compromise when mixing large track counts down to 4 x stereo stems.
I just bought a new 8ch converter and would prefer to sell my old 8 ch converter, but I could keep it and link them giving me 16ch into my passive summing unit on mixdown.
For the record, when I'm writing and recording I don't need more than 2 ch at a time.

Based on the little I know about your situation, I would suggest selling your old converter if you indeed think it's inferior to your new one. I think the conversion quality outweighs need for more channels, primarily because working with DAWs simply provides so many routing and workflow options.

From my experience, holding on to gear I'm not happy with for too long usually ends up in regret. Add to that the issues with sync, etc, and I think your best bet would be to consider your future goal to acquire 16 channels of conversion you truly like, to compliment your summing box.

If you don't mind me asking, what converters/summing do you currently have? This would help us with suggestions.


-SD

[RKrizman]

Originally Posted by chrisso

I just bought a new 8ch converter and would prefer to sell my old 8 ch converter, but I could keep it and link them giving me 16ch into my passive summing unit on mixdown.

Well, the most significant thing that "summing" will give you is the sound of your converters. If you don't like the sound of your converter, then the fact that you're summing analog will be a detriment.

-R

[chrisso]

My new converter is UAD Apollo. My ex-converter is Lynx Aurora.
I was getting good results with the Aurora.
I switched to Apollo for other reasons, but I don't think it's a step down in quality (most likely a sideways step).
I could sell the Aurora, or slave it to Apollo's ADAT outputs for another 8 tracks into my passive summing.

[marcelopennell]

While you have both, try both methods. Sum 8 and sum 16. See if it makes a difference to you. Consider this, if you want to sum OTB, what is the minimum number of output channels that make a difference. I think most people use as many outs as is practical with their gear.

I would suggest keeping both if you will make use of 16 inputs (you seem to say you won't) and if you can afford it financially.

I use additional ins and outs while mixing to insert analog gear.

[Sino]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Are 16 channels to 2 better than 8 channels to 2 in your opinion?
I have felt I made some compromise when mixing large track counts down to 4 x stereo stems.
I just bought a new 8ch converter and would prefer to sell my old 8 ch converter, but I could keep it and link them giving me 16ch into my passive summing unit on mixdown.
For the record, when I'm writing and recording I don't need more than 2 ch at a time.

In my opinion 16 is better and also "minimum requirement" to hear a great improvement in summing...
Of course everything depends on how many tracks you have got, but generally with 8to2 means that a lot of the summing work is still ITB, and it's really hard for me to hear a BIG difference
With 16to2 you have more possibilities to split your tracks better and then go out...

As other said just do a quick test...
Bounce a song summed ITB, then do the same but with 8to2 and 16to2, then just listen!

[foldback]

Opinions on this are like trying to handle fire and acid with your bare hands.

When it comes to mixing I go both ways, ITB and OTB. Mostly I lean towards OTB because I like the hands on control and analog processing applied as the final mix is going down.

My main mixer is a Neve 8816/8804 with a 40 channel A&H sitting on the stereo stacking input to handle extra effects or to provide EQ. I have a pair of Apogee Ensembles for 16 analog outputs and I even use a little two-channel converter to get the SPDIF outs into analog (use this for reverb return from Logic).

If you're just summing for the sake of summing well I don't know what the benefit of that alone is. I'd rather go ITB than just trying to pass stems through analog electronics for some sonic benefit.

If you're wanting to get your hands more into the mix then that is the main tangible benefit of OTB IMHO. Zero latency, delays or any kind of waiting, constant instant experimenting and comparing, that's the real benefit of mixing OTB.

Back in the old days I got by with a 16 track tape deck and was mightly glad to have it. Now I've got unlimited recording tracks but I still have the 16 or 18 track outputs for making my songs. I'm fine with this set up.

I do think that 16 track was at least twice as versatile as 8 track but to each his/her own. Personally I'd slave that Aurora interface in a second but that's just me.

Best of luck and good music to all.

[Slikjmuzik]

If you have that many channels that need the treatment of analog gear, then yes, 16 might be needed. I get so close itb, that IF I need any kind of summing, it's not for separation or for the things people expect out of summing, it's to run my kick and snare into 1066 or my guitars through a compressor for the mojo it offers. I really only sum out to kik-snare-all other drums-gtrs/bass-all vocals(sometimes just backups/strings/synths) and lead vocals will stay separate so I can provide a lead vocal up or down version for the artist.

This is at the most 8-10 channels of stems into the summing box. In other words, I'd totally be happy with a Fat Bustard!!

[sonicdefault]

Originally Posted by chrisso

My new converter is UAD Apollo. My ex-converter is Lynx Aurora.
I was getting good results with the Aurora.
I switched to Apollo for other reasons, but I don't think it's a step down in quality (most likely a sideways step).
I could sell the Aurora, or slave it to Apollo's ADAT outputs for another 8 tracks into my passive summing.

Well in that case, I think the extra channels will likely be beneficial! If you try it and it works, the extra I/O would be a huge plus.


-SD

[chrisso]

Thanks for the opinions.
One of the benefits of summing that hasn't been mentioned is the use of outboard pre's, eq's and compressors in line between the summing output and the DAW's stereo input. Even when only summing 8 channels, I tried various mic/pre and compressor combinations (SSL, Quad Eight, API) and found the mixes had very different characters.
I asked the question just to hear some different opinions. Also, as I can't easily test the expanded set up without some cost (Lynx LT-Adat card @ $300, new DB25 loom @ $40, wordclock cable and ADAT ribbon cables).

[Soniferous]

the more channels you sum the better the analog summing sounds because your DAW has to do less of its own summing.

I have SH Equinox, 30 ch SUM. I use 22 ch regularly (only have 32 I/O in the rig normally (Lynx 16s) so those last 8 outputs are headphone sends and my mix print outputs). I try to group everything in the mix into one of 11 stereo SUMs. Using fewer summing inputs always seems to be a little less defined.

I think it really shines when I only have about 24 tracks - near zero ITB summing. I am considering a larger system so that I never have to use ITB summing, and drop that system down into the Equinox. Something like a neve or API 8 ch sum for drums, with pans and parallel outputs for compression, then a bunch of 8ch boxes for each mix region or instrument - results in maybe 40 ch of summing down to 5 pairs with compression between each 8-ch box and the Equinox input (already using 2 pairs for drums and drum parallel comp), that brings us to 7 of my 11 pairs, then save 4 pairs for shared reverbs, possibly get another 8 banger if I really need it, something clean, and then Equinox Mono Sums would be vocals, center channel stuff.

And of course after that whole stereo rig is put together I'll want to figure out a way to do 5.1 with all OTB summing.

[AllBread]

I think that if the point is to sum out of the box then the more you sum out of the box the better. On a big mix session, getting things down into eight stereo busses will still require lots of internal summing (and I've never A/B'd 8 vs 16 so I can't say that that wil sound any worse than 16).

I like 16 just because you have so much more to work with and can do more parallel processing. Here's an example of a summing setup for me (but my main reason for getting out of the box is to use my outboard gear - although I did do a strictly summing test just last week and, sure enough, found the outboard summed mix to be wider and more open with less congestion in the midrange).

1-2 Drums
3-4 drums parallel
5-6 Keys, pads, etc
7-8 Pro Tools FX
9 Vocals
10 vocals parallel (or 9 and 10 as lead vocals with all stereo fx if they are done in the box)
11-12 background vocals
13 Bass
14 bass parallel
15-16 Guitars

[FATCAT1968]

One thing not mentioned is the headroom issue. One of the main attributes of summing is the headroom per channel OTB vs ITB. The more discrete channels you use, the less likely you will bottle-neck the headroom in your DAW. I try to run my DAW tracks at full fader, utilizing the entire recorded bit rate, and pull volume down in analog domain, if needed. I think that the full sound of the all recorded tracks at full bit rate is one of the reasons of the improvement. Also, the transients, the ones your DAW meters might not register, might also be getting through better which may also benefit greater clarity in panning placement.

[Mike P]

Hey Chris, I use an Apogee DA-16x outputted to a Neve 8816 summing mixer with a Vintech 609ca on the two buss and LOVE the results. I recently setup a friend's studio with the same gear, except that he used two FireFace 800's as his convertors.

We tested at his place and the he difference in sound between ITB and the RME's 16 summing to 2 channels for a stereo mix was quite dramatic, IMHO. With that said, I'd definitely go for as many channels as you can afford.

Also, I dedicate two channels of the 8816 for VST effects only and I believe this makes a big difference in the overall mix.

Good luck!