The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
B32 or 5059
Old 10th June 2015
  #1
Gear Addict
 
Night Stalker's Avatar
 

B32 or 5059

Help me decide between the B32 vancouver summer and the rupert neve 5059 summing mixer. Does anyone have any direct comparisons and thoughts of the two devices? I can't demo any units here. I had the ssl sigma on the short list but may be overkill for my needs and just want a simple and great sounding summing box.

tnx in advance
Old 11th June 2015
  #2
Lives for gear
 

I've used both and they're both killer pieces. With that being said, they offer slightly different flavors. The Burl has a very cool sheen and is really open, but not steril in any way. It also has more inputs than the RND unit, but doesn't sport any individual level or pan knobs. That could be a benefit or drawback depending on your workflow.

The 5059 is a bit heftier sounding, likely due to the number of transformers in the box and is insanely versatile. Each input has an additional 10 dB of gain, so you can really drive the thing. Its got a ton of headroom as well, so you can really hit it hard without it folding. That, plus the fact it has balanced inserts on every channel, two independent output buses, and silk would make it my choice. With that being said, I own a 5060 so I'm a bit biased.
Old 11th June 2015
  #3
Gear Addict
 
Night Stalker's Avatar
 

tnx Estock,

Appreciate it, has anyone got any comparison files or stems for referencing to download? Would love to hear any input or feedback from others.

Last edited by Night Stalker; 11th June 2015 at 12:52 PM..
Old 11th June 2015
  #4
Gear Nut
I'm curious as to what made the SSL Sigma "overkill". It may stand to reason that that 5059 would fit into that same category depending on what your response is. With that being said, to answer your original question, be a real gearslut and get BOTH! Seriously, I would have nothing to add from EstockAudio's response. If you want more channel count, global gain control, no pan control, then go Burl. If you want Inserts/Returns, individual gain and pan, different saturation options, applied to either, both or neither Mix bus, then go RND 5059. Since they are two COMPLETELY different animals (different sounds and different configurations) I'd go both as they are both KILLER summing units.
Old 12th June 2015
  #5
Gear Addict
 
Night Stalker's Avatar
 

The sigma costs more and has a lot more features like automation which really helps if you own a console especially.

The main point for simplicity for me is to have a straight forward summing box with no software to run it and mainly for it to be a simple summer with some flavour. It's not possible to try one let alone a few units where I live hence my posts. It's always the first thing I would do, evaluate by myself for myself in my own environment.

I do appreciate your responses
Old 12th June 2015
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Squawk's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Night Stalker View Post
The sigma costs more and has a lot more features like automation which really helps if you own a console especially.

The main point for simplicity for me is to have a straight forward summing box with no software to run it and mainly for it to be a simple summer with some flavour. It's not possible to try one let alone a few units where I live hence my posts. It's always the first thing I would do, evaluate by myself for myself in my own environment.

I do appreciate your responses
I can't really help much as I've not used or heard the RND, but do have the Sigma and the B32 here. You are correct in that there are certainly more considerations and a few extra steps if using the SSL.

I'm not sure you could go wrong either way though. RND gear is fantastic (I'm ordering a RND MBP in the next few days) as is Burl. The B32 is just straight mono + stereo channel summing, with BX5 and gain options. The RND has quite a bit more going on with it than the B32. I think the B32 is also less expensive. Just depends on what features you want/need for your workflow...
Old 12th June 2015
  #7
Gear Addict
 
Night Stalker's Avatar
 

Thanks Squawk,

May I ask, how do you compare the sound between the b32 and the sigma? Is the b32 more coloured esp with the bx5 and +6db or is it only a slight difference in sonics?
Old 12th June 2015
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Squawk's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Night Stalker View Post
Thanks Squawk,

May I ask, how do you compare the sound between the b32 and the sigma? Is the b32 more coloured esp with the bx5 and +6db or is it only a slight difference in sonics?
They both sound great. For me, so far the Sigma is just used for analog volume automation only, and I got the B32 primarily for the BX5 option and to drive it a bit more when needed. I bought both around the same time and this was a concious decision based on my workflow, and either one would be great for just summing alone. I just like the option of having the extra push/balls with the burl if I want that for a particular track.

I did run some of James Lugo's session stems through both to compare on a couple of songs (summing only), and both sounded really good. He was trying to decide as well, and ended up getting the B32. I don't think sound was the primary deciding factor, but you can ask him as well as I don't want to speak for him obviously.

So yeah both sound very good. Sorry, I know that doesn't really help much
Old 12th June 2015
  #9
Gear Addict
 
Night Stalker's Avatar
 

It actually helps a lot so I appreciate your input. I know I've heard that one can also push the sigma hard and it reacts in a pleasing way as well but both seem clean and on par in general. One did not sound any better than the other apart from some features that may or may not be the deciding factor. I'm still keen to hear more if anyone has anymore input regarding the sonics between of the 5059 and b32.

tnx

heaps
Old 12th June 2015
  #10
Gear Nut
Sonics review is purely subjective. Do you like the transformers and the saturation available via Red/Blue silk or the saturation/transformer via BX5? That's purely a personal decision. If that is the only thing you are looking for, you are probably better off getting a passive summing box or a "clean" summing box (inexpensive) and sitting a lunchbox with different mic pres for different saturation flavors on the summing outs. Or get a GAS sigma that has slots built in for exchanging 500 series modules to add color. That option offers the most sonic flexibility but minimal features (which it seems you weren't so interested in) at the lowest price point.
Old 13th June 2015
  #11
Gear Addict
 
Night Stalker's Avatar
 

Not looking for any 500 series and only looking for 19inch racks. I have a few nice pre amps but do not want to go the passive summer route. Tnx for the options.
Old 13th June 2015
  #12
Lives for gear
 
dabigfrog's Avatar
 

Q - do you have outboard gear to run as inserts on your mix? = RND 5059
if you have no outboard and just want a simple summer = burl 32

its not a sonics issue its a workflow issue… your choice depends on how you mix ITB/OTB
Old 13th June 2015
  #13
Gear Nut
I've never really seen the benefits of inserts in a summing device since you have to patch the inserts. You can just run the input sources into a patchbay with the summing inputs as the normalized inputs then you can patch the inserts from the input sources and the returns into the normalized inputs into the summing inputs. More flexibility than hardwiring everything.
Old 13th June 2015
  #14
Gear Addict
 
Night Stalker's Avatar
 

Yeah work flow is important as well as sonics. I have the fatso, hammer eq, 1073, 1176, etc. I already incorporate them during mix down as inserts in logic/pro tools or print back into new tracks.
I just noticed the new dangerous 2 buss+. I wouldn't be surprised if I end up waiting and buy that blindly as it seems to have what I like as well. Some engineer friends of mine have some dangerous stuff and there build quality is top notch. Hmmmm decisions decisions. It would be easy to know what to buy if I could demo the units. A 3rd contender may be the one as I'm undecided between the two I mentioned.
Old 15th June 2015
  #15
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dabigfrog View Post
Q - do you have outboard gear to run as inserts on your mix? = RND 5059
if you have no outboard and just want a simple summer = burl 32

its not a sonics issue its a workflow issue… your choice depends on how you mix ITB/OTB
Bingo! Here is your answer. Work smarter, not harder.
Old 16th June 2015
  #16
Lives for gear
 
AllBread's Avatar
 

I agree that workflow should be every bit as much a consideration as sonics but the above oversimplifies things quite a bit. Even without hardware involved the 5059 offers a lot more flexibility and features that you may or may not use. Even if you're not using the extra features the 5059 can be set up to act exactly as the Burl (aside from the additional channel count) so then the decision would come back to sonics unless you're already swayed by 32 vs 16 channels or having inserts, gain, and pan on each channel.
Old 10th February 2016
  #17
Lives for gear
Does anyone know if the 5059 inserts are transformer or electronically balanced? Haven't seen a clear answer. I know Rupert loves his transformers but 36 of them in a box that size seems tight.
Old 10th February 2016
  #18
808-
The inserts are electrically balanced using a further development of the TLA circuitry originally debuted in the ISA110 and AMEK 9098.

32 more custom RND transformers of the size we used wouldn't fit in 8RU much less 2RU! And the cost would be insane. There are four big output transformers and associated class 'A' circuitry that take up more than 20% of real estate in the box alone. The 5059 sounds great and the harder you hit it, the more it 'glues'.

Best-
Jonathan
Old 10th February 2016
  #19
RND 5059 16x2x2

silk mode on the bus outputs is a seriously awesome feature
Old 10th February 2016
  #20
Lives for gear
Thank you, Jonathan. I doubted that RN would go for tiny pcb mount trafos.

The reason for my question is that I have a considerable amount of unbalanced gear that introduces ground loop and noise problems. Would the TLA inputs provide added common mode noise rejection? Of course expecting transformer-level noise rejection would be unfair, but I'm curious how the rnd TLA performs vs similar circuits. And I understand that ground loops and noise are very situation-specific. Thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
808-
The inserts are electrically balanced using a further development of the TLA circuitry originally debuted in the ISA110 and AMEK 9098.

32 more custom RND transformers of the size we used wouldn't fit in 8RU much less 2RU! And the cost would be insane. There are four big output transformers and associated class 'A' circuitry that take up more than 20% of real estate in the box alone. The 5059 sounds great and the harder you hit it, the more it 'glues'.

Best-
Jonathan
Old 11th February 2016
  #21
CMR rejection is based on the connection of two balanced lines... So there is NO CMR on a balanced to un-balanced connection...

Of course a transformer provides the ultimate in isolation and CMR, but the 5059 performs very, very well in this aspect. It is an actual Rupert Neve product so those kind of details are never ignored. A lot will depend on the type of unbalanced gear [and it's impedance], the type of cabling used, how long they are, and what kind of EMI and RFI is in your area. You should be able to work this out with at the worst a few balanced to unbalanced convertors or iso transformers for the worst offenders, but likely with little problem at all and no additional gear. All of this is guesswork without knowing all the variables, gear, grounds, cables, etc., etc. .

Hope this helps?

Best-
Jonathan
Old 11th February 2016
  #22
Lives for gear
Thanks, Jonathan. Very helpful. Sounds like the mixer would fit my needs. I love every piece of rnd gear I've had the pleasure of using.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
CMR rejection is based on the connection of two balanced lines... So there is NO CMR on a balanced to un-balanced connection...

Of course a transformer provides the ultimate in isolation and CMR, but the 5059 performs very, very well in this aspect. It is an actual Rupert Neve product so those kind of details are never ignored. A lot will depend on the type of unbalanced gear [and it's impedance], the type of cabling used, how long they are, and what kind of EMI and RFI is in your area. You should be able to work this out with at the worst a few balanced to unbalanced convertors or iso transformers for the worst offenders, but likely with little problem at all and no additional gear. All of this is guesswork without knowing all the variables, gear, grounds, cables, etc., etc. .

Hope this helps?

Best-
Jonathan
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump