I use the Folcrom with a Neve 1073. I have tried it with my older Millenia M-2a pre to see what some tubes sounded like on it, but I did not like it as much. API and Dakings have worked well too... I have tried the API summing mixer, but it felt a little "closed down" to me for lack of a better description, and the Dangerous did not wow me...

Haven't tried anything else in the "summing box" category, would like to hear the SPL though.

Very, very cool. As much as you may hate it, I think you did a awesome job describing them.

Thank you very much for your insight. Great post!

hi mike,
this is why i picked up the speck extramix along with the folcrom. the folcrom did not cut it for me alone because of the lack of panning/routing , but is great for color with right combo. extramix has incredible routing and high headroom for its footprint but no color. by combining i am trying to get best of both worlds. i route the 8 stereo busses on extramix that have their own panning/level control into the 16 inputs on the folcrom. i may check out the nicerizer also for another summing flavor and see which i like best. everyone seems to really like it.

peace,
electric

Nicerizer will do the job, you can consider Nicerizer 8, as it has 8 direct outs (with trannys) + sum.
For flexibility (assuming that sound is great) of further expansions Tonelux seems very attractive.

RoundBadge

When you'll get your Tonelux and what specs did you order?
We all wait one really in-depth review (I'll suggest to do just drums and bass guitar tracks mix) and precise comparison vs Nicerizer.

I am having a hard time figuring out the Tonelux gear from their webpage.

If I got a TXP 32 channel summing box (as an alternative to my pair of Folcroms, plus pair of STT-1 Origins):
(1) How do I control the panning? Software in Pro Tools HD?
(2) What are the connectors, TRS?
(3) Is the preamp on the clean side? (I have found the STT-1's to sound much better than "clean" preamps I've tried).

I'm just trying to decide if a demo is worth the effort. I see an advantage if I can precisely pan outboard delays/reverbs/effects, instead of just L or R with the Folcroms. I'm not sure of other advantages.

I still have to pan overheads and toms on Pro Tools, in any case.

Can anybody give me some more info?
Just PM me, if I'm cluttering up the thread.
Thanks.

I heard the SPL for around 2 months. It was very clean, didn't really do much to the sound. So it was replaced by the Chandler. The Chandler adds more color to the sound and is definitely a better box to my ears.

With a Folcrom you do all your panning in PT and spit out stereo stems.

-R

R,
Yes, I understand that. I have a pair of Folcroms now. My point is:
- I have the ability to pan everything in Pro Tools now since I have 9 pair of Lavry Blue DAC's. Does panning with Tonelux give me a sonic advantage? If not, I don't gain anything.
-With toms and overheads, I will still need to pan in Pro Tools even with Tonelux because I will be panning several individual instruments (say, 4 toms) while going out in stereo.
-With my current setup I do NOT have the ability to pan delays/reverbs/effects that I mult to at my patchbays, except for the Folcrom options: full L, full R, or both L&R. So here, more precise panning would be an advantage.

I am just trying to basically understand what the purported advantages of the Tonelux system are, versus the Folcrom system. A clear disadvantage is loss of control over the selection of the preamp.....and I happen to really like my preamp.

If the advantages are in depth, closer to a big console, etc., then it starts to get interesting.

Thanks,
Mike

In terms of panning I prefer summing boxes that give you panning on individual channels, like the Tonelux or Nicerizer. To me one great thing about these boxes is sending the digital track to an outboard comp or eq and then into the summing box, instead of looping it out of Protools. So if you're sending a mono track, it's useful to be able to compress it, etc, then send it into one channel of the analog box and pan it there. Otherwise you need stereo compressors for everything if you're sending out stems.

-R

Yes, I fully agree.
However, I now already have enough DAC's and outboard processing to permit 9 tracks/stems to come out in stereo. That is plenty for me:
(1) kick (mono)
(2) snare (mono)
(3) toms (stereo)
(4) overheads (stereo)
(5) drum sub (stereo)
(6) vocals (mono)
(7) lead guitar (stereo)
(8) rhythm guitar (stereo)
(9) keyboards (stereo)
(10) bass (stereo)

This is 17 outputs.

And stereo Outs is often valuable flexibility for allowing parallel processing and/or two delays/reverbs on each stereo track/stem.

So, given that I already have the gear for stereo out for 9 tracks/stems, the question then becomes:
Are there advantages to converting from 2 Folcroms to the Tonelux 16x2?

Didn't you say previously that you wanted more panning flexibility?

I mean, the two systems afford you different options. What don't you understand?

-R

i am quite astoished that you stem out the bass (10) in stereo. what is your agenda/reason for doing so ? is anybody else stemming bass in stereo and why ???

i always stem bass in mono dead center.

educate me here

R - yes, I understand the panning flexibility. I stated that in my first post. I am asking if there are other advantages. More panning flexibility for delays/reverbs/effects is a plus.............but not sure it justifies the extra cost. If it sound better (imaging, depth, etc.), then it would get my attention. I'm not arguing, I'm just asking what people have found.

Weapon - I parallel process the bass. However, on some occasions I offset it slightly from dead center. If I have another track, say strings or background vocals, I'll bring the bass out in mono to make the 2nd DAC available to the other track. I just showed this line up as an example of what I often do, so it is clear why additional panning flexibility from the Tonelux doesn't really provide much for my situation (except for multed delays/reverbs/effects).

This is not really related to this thread, but I'm required to deliver stems (television) as a finished product, so all stems are stereo.

Mono tracks, such as bass, are panned dead center on a stereo stem.

Ed

THANKS @MIKE and SHARP

I'll post a new thread for my question, since it isn't really the issue in this thread.

I have the API 7800/8200, Spider, DIY passive summer with API, Neve, Langevin, QE, etc., preamps to amplify the summed signal, and lately I've been using that stuff less and less for summing purposes.

I recently started using outboard comps and eqs on virtual inserts of the DAW mixer along with the Spider tape emulation and I've been getting the distortion and harmonics that way. I find it easier and faster to gain stage working with one mixer, the DAW mixer, instead of mixing half in the DAW, then some in the summing mixer with outboad gear in between.

For rock, I've found that it's definitely worth the effort to have the 7800/8200 involved. It does have a sound that helps a rock mix sound like "rock." But for hip hop and other things, I'm reaching for it less and less. I've actually done a few hip hop mixes through the API where afterwards I thought that the API sound wasn't quite right for the song.

I've been reading this topic over the last few days as I'm considering taking my mixes out of the box. One question I keep coming back to is this -

If I'm running individual outs such as a snare or vocal, processing through external EQ/ compression, etc. and then into an input of the submixer, How do I now put reverb or any other FX on this sound? The only workaround I can see is to create duplicate tracks ITB and try to EQ/ compress to match what's going on externally, just for sending to the FX buses ITB.

Starting to remind me of taking an SAT test or something. Is it really worth it and what happens if we ever have to start mixing in surround?

Kenny M.

One option is to just take a mult off of the last outboard processor (EQ/Comp) and feed that to your reverb/delay while also feeding it to the mixer. There are other solutions, but I think that's probably the most straightforward.

As ulysses said, I have two TT96 patchbays in my primary (nearest) rack, so I can easily reach them while mixing. Almost every output in the patchbay is half normalled to the input below it. So, when I come out of a outboard processor above a Folcrom input, I patch to a delay (or reverb, or effect) from that output. This approach allows me to mult in just about any way I wish.

I forgot to mention that I have two Folcroms, since I need inputs for both the track and the reverb (or delay or effect).

I use the Great River MP2NV followed by an Alan Smart C2 into the Apogee Rosetta 200. It's great on Rock and heavy hitting tracks but I need something more open sounding with a little more clarity for the high freq on ambient or jazz mixes though.

I've used the following (in no particular order)

Speck
Manley 8x8x2
ATI 8mx2 (not listed, but very worthy of being so.)
Dangerous LT
NEVE 8068 (Large Format obviously)

I would have kept the ATI, I really liked the sound, it had great pres as well, is expandable to something like 64 inputs, but that damn internal fan was too much for me to deal with.

The Manley is way overpriced AFAIC. It's Master output knob was not stereo balanced all the way through. The lack of detents made calibration of the unit a constant. Although it was very clean sounding, it never gave me goosebumps.

The Speck was nice, The routing options make it cool, Maybe a little too flat or clean sounding for me. Lots of functionality, but no sparkle.

Dangerous LT... eh...

NEVE 8068. Loved it for tracking, I really miss working on it. Not my favorite thing for the mix though.

I'm really happy with the Folcrom, looking forward to trying other Pre's or adding an EQ to the Great River. On that note, does anyone have any Master buss EQ's they really like?

Drooool. i heard the EQ in the origin for the first time last week. oh man. That's one pricey summing amp!

Suprise to see ITB was in second place.

That's over 2 1/2 years old.
I've upgraded since then, and I would guess a number of others have also.

Plus, I suspect it is more a survey reflecting what people were actually using back then (and what they could afford), not necessarily the best console/summer they have ever heard.

You have to be a MEGA-hitmaker Jim!!

Why not just save a lot of money and put the tone in that you want to come out? Or, maybe not save a lot money, but spend it on the hardware required to put the tone in that you want to come out. Seems like a lot more fun as well.

The reason this all started was because people were putting in the tone they wanted and it wasn't coming out that way at the end.