[Mike Rivers]

On 1/24/2011 7:28 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

Over the weekend I had the experience of listening to a few hours of live
music at a nearby large church with a young production staff and very basic
but good equipment (e.g. medium-level Soundcraft analog console). I didn't
even bother to look at the knobs, but my ears told me that their channel
strips were pretty much set to flat. I don't think that they had any actual
EFX facilities on the premises. The sound of their performances was not as
engaging and interesting as it could have been given the good musicianship,
relatively good acoustics of their room, and the good basic quality of the
equipment they used.

I wonder why? Are you more impressed with enhanced
production than good musicians playing well in a good
listening environment? Or isn't it that clear-cut? Were
there technical things, like a muddy base or a vocal that,
with a little compression, could be easier to understand, or
an electric guitar plugged in direct that could benefit from
an amp-like reverb? Stuff like that?


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in
message

Arny is the one who keeps dismissing the tools he's never
used - analog summing, but you don't seem to have a
problem with it. Well, he shares your preferences. Among
other things.

As usual Predrag conjurs up straw men and then pridefully dispatches them.

I guess in Predrag's world, analog mixers don't use analog summing. Life
must be pretty weird in post-iron curtain central Europe - different laws
of physics and all that. ;-)


The original topic of this discussion was analog summing devices. That is
before you and Ethan Winer hijacked it for your personal agendas.

We can discuss your nationalistic prejudices in a different thread. What is
still missing in this one is an account of your practical experiences with
analog summing devices.

Predrag

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

On 1/24/2011 7:28 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

Over the weekend I had the experience of listening to a
few hours of live music at a nearby large church with a
young production staff and very basic but good equipment
(e.g. medium-level Soundcraft analog console). I
didn't even bother to look at the knobs, but my ears
told me that their channel strips were pretty much set
to flat. I don't think that they had any actual EFX
facilities on the premises.


The sound of their
performances was not as engaging and interesting as it
could have been given the good musicianship, relatively
good acoustics of their room, and the good basic quality
of the equipment they used.

I wonder why? Are you more impressed with enhanced
production than good musicians playing well in a good
listening environment?

I'm not in favor of added production with no purpose. However, few
straight-forward sets can't be helped by adding a little this or a little
that. It depends. The music festivals we do with somewhat distant micing and
a nice room pretty well stand on their own. However, if the room has noisy
HVAC...

Or isn't it that clear-cut? Were
there technical things, like a muddy base or a vocal that,
with a little compression, could be easier to understand,
or an electric guitar plugged in direct that could
benefit from an amp-like reverb? Stuff like that?

It was mostly about musical tone. IME you can't just plug in a microphone
and have the best possible sound. It takes more than just gettting the
levels right. I've definately been in situations where the vocals
(particularly when close-miced) were too hot and dry, and were greatly
improved with subtle reverb that fit with how other instruments were
interacting with the room.

[Arny Krueger]

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in
message

Arny is the one who keeps dismissing the tools he's
never used - analog summing, but you don't seem to have
a problem with it. Well, he shares your preferences.
Among other things.

As usual Predrag conjurs up straw men and then
pridefully dispatches them. I guess in Predrag's world, analog mixers
don't use
analog summing. Life must be pretty weird in post-iron
curtain central Europe - different laws of physics and
all that. ;-)

The original topic of this discussion was analog summing
devices.

Your mastery of the utterly obvious is at times better than it has with
your comments about lack of experience with analog summing.

That is before you and Ethan Winer hijacked it
for your personal agendas.

As if you don't have a personal agenda, Predrag. Is a total lack of
self-awareness peculiar to you, or is it common where you live?

We can discuss your nationalistic prejudices in a
different thread. What is still missing in this one is an
account of your practical experiences with analog summing
devices.

Obviously Predrag, you have no clue at all about the circuitry inside of
analog mixing consoles. You tell us again and again that there are no analog
summing devices in there. Time for you to take a time out do a little book
learning, I'd say. Don't you realize that an analog summer is just an
analog mixing board with some pieces removed or bypassed?

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Roy W. Rising wrote:

Let us put this foolishness to rest and get on with matters more
suitable to the site.

+1

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Jan 23, 3:08 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
Thank you very much. It's so generous of you.

Again with the sarcastic tone.

I'm referring to analog summing devices, the tools that Arny keeps
dismissing based on his feelings.

My only problem with "analog summing" is the claims made to justify
the high cost of the boxes. But rather than have you accuse me of an
agenda, let's keep this on-topic for an audio newsgroup. Then we'll
have something concrete to discuss. So what exactly do you feel are
the benefits of "analog summing?" But please be specific.

--Ethan

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
...
"Predrag Trpkov" wrote:

So let me get this straight, everybody is free to dismiss the tools as
long as it's the tools you personally don't care for. It's only if they
fail to share your enthusiasm for mixing with a mouse that you'll react
by twisting their words, calling their opinion silly, misguided and
insulting, relativising all they say, using your age as credential, all
the while purporting to be preserving a professional-level discourse on
the NG.

Predrag

Enough! The semantics have become so garbled that this conversation
should
end.


I hope that it's merely a coincidence that you've had enough of the
conversation right now. If you read through the posts, I'm sure you'll find
more serious deviations from the desired spirit of this NG than the garbled
semantics of a non-native English speaker.



For example ~ "mix with a mouse" ~ If "mix" means to actively manage the
ingredients, then you cannot mix with a mouse. If "mix" means "create a
mixture without regard to time", say so.


Mixing with a mouse is the term colloquially used for programming activities
related to the mix functions in a DAW, in situations when the user interface
consists primarily of the computer screen and mouse.



"Analog summing" is subject to the constraints imposed by Physics. No
more, no less. Used with knowledge, it has given us a rich sonic library
and continues to contribute to much of what we hear. "Digital summing"
suspends physical laws at the whim of the programmer. Time yields
acceptance of some protocols, leading to definition by qualified
organizations. "Digital summing" really is a non-topic here.


Well said.


I suspect it finally comes down to "tools". A departed colleague who
graduated from Capitol Records (after having handled sessions with the
Beach Boys and their contemporaries) used to say: "It's a mighty fine
workman who blames his poor tools ... !" Several here have said, in
essence, they've done good work with the tools they were given, myself
included.


Anybody who's capable of doing good work will be able to come up with
satisfactory and presentable results regardless of the choice of tools.
There is no reason to dismiss any tool, let alone someone else's choice just
because they have different preferences. Yet we have been unable to discuss
any topic related to analog summing on r.a.p. for years now without Arny
Krueger and the likes instantly hijacking the discussion, persistently
discouraging any meaningful exchange of experiences and views. This was my
way of saying "Enough!"


Let us put this foolishness to rest and get on with matters more suitable
to the site.


So how do we proceed? By silencing the less represented views when the
argument gets heated or by preserving space for the full spectrum of
opinions?

Predrag

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Ethan Winer" wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 3:08 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
Thank you very much. It's so generous of you.

Again with the sarcastic tone.


Want respect, give respect.


I'm referring to analog summing devices, the tools that Arny keeps
dismissing based on his feelings.

My only problem with "analog summing" is the claims made to justify
the high cost of the boxes.


Most of the boxes are expensive, but the number of users who find it
justified keeps growing...


But rather than have you accuse me of an
agenda, let's keep this on-topic for an audio newsgroup. Then we'll
have something concrete to discuss. So what exactly do you feel are
the benefits of "analog summing?" But please be specific.


Isn't it exactly what we were supposed to do in the first place?

I've already described the benefits of analog summing in another post. It
adds subtle colorations and the sense of space/depth. It's sometimes just
what is needed for the client and/or engineer/producer to be happy with a
DAW-based mix. Just like any other tool, sometimes it's not needed, although
it's rarely detrimental to the quality of the end product. It largely
depends on the musical genre/arrangement and production style. I wouldn't
bother reaching for it when it comes to mixing classical material or smaller
ensembles of acoustic instruments, for example, because it sounds right
mixed in the box. On the other hand, mixing hi-energy material containing
acoustic drums and electric guitars is a torture to my ears without some
form of analog summing.

I've been mixing with a mouse occasionally from early 1995, when Pro Tools
III (Nubus) first came out. Obviously, I have other preferences, but I'm not
evangelising anything. It's just that when we talk about any tools I want to
be able to hear from people who actually use them, regardless of their
preferences.

Predrag

[Arny Krueger]

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in
message

I've already described the benefits of analog summing in
another post. It adds subtle colorations and the sense of
space/depth.

Only credible if one believes what one reads in Stereophile...

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in
message

I've already described the benefits of analog summing in
another post. It adds subtle colorations and the sense of
space/depth.

Only credible if one believes what one reads in Stereophile...

Only discreditable if one has used the gear in question.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Frank Stearns]

"Predrag Trpkov" writes:

snips, and back to topic... g

I've already described the benefits of analog summing in another post. It
adds subtle colorations and the sense of space/depth. It's sometimes just
what is needed for the client and/or engineer/producer to be happy with a
DAW-based mix. Just like any other tool, sometimes it's not needed, although
it's rarely detrimental to the quality of the end product. It largely

Indeed. Sometimes we're trying to fix things...

Two examples:

#1

SETUP: large chorus in a space that had been acoustically "fixed" (acoustically
messed up, as can be the case when someone thinks a "fix" is needed for a given
hall).

PROBLEM: recording sounded dull, lifeless; no amounts of EQ or reverb really fixed
the problem. Close, but not quite. I knew the group, having recorded them in other
rooms using the exact same gear. I knew what was possible.

SOLUTION: I was loaned the hardware version of SPL's "Vitalizer". It fixed the
lifelessness alright, but also imparted a "pass through" coloration of its own. (And
it wasn't the extra DA-AD trip to get in and out of the box; I checked that by
simply plugging the D-A-D I/O patch cords together -- that portion was virtually
transparent.)

But I did not like that particular pass-through coloration of the hardware
Vitalizer, though I could see where it might be good for some genres of pop music.

So I tried (and later bought) the RTAS version of the Vitalizer - perfect! They'd
done a good job of modeling the "business" portion of their processor. All the
enhancements came through, but with none of the unwanted color.

Room-sound problem for this recording was solved. But I also quickly found that like
all such tools, it's easy to overuse this one so it's not an immediate "go to"; it's
more of a "do we need this to correct a problem?"


#2

SETUP: 16 piece concert brass band in a new 700 seat auditorium that was more for
live theater than music.

PROBLEM: Top end really got sucked dry, and yet that wasn't really the issue, as
EQ boosts only made the HF portion of the "plastic sound" a more intense plastic. It
was partly a lack of dimensionality.

SOLUTION: In this instance the Vitalizer helped a little, but not much. And it was
very easy to use too much such that the "plastic" was enhanced!

So I tried the PT "Smack" compressor plug in, with no compression (ratio set 1:1),
but with the even-order distorsion setting engaged. Whole different sonic animal --
brass came beautifully alive, with a whole new engaging soundstage and a very "real"
sound, even though we were, in a sense, "breaking it". But it worked in this
instance. (It's likely that in a more suitable room such processing would detract
rather than help.)



I come away from all this thinking that analog summing has its place, but it could
be something of a one-trick pony, depending on the problem and the solution you
needed.

Using the tools I noted above, you've solved problems, and maximized the tool
investment because you have some operability that you don't have with any given
summing system. Each summer would have its specific "sound", and that sound might be
ideal for some things but not others. And that's where you'd be -- I suppose if you
had the money (not to mention patching time during post-production!) you could buy
an assortment of summers for their particular sound. Yikes.

Me, I'd rather have my money do few more things...

As always, YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in
message

I've already described the benefits of analog summing in
another post. It adds subtle colorations and the sense
of space/depth.

Only credible if one believes what one reads in
Stereophile...

Only discreditable if one has used the gear in question.

False. Perhaps Hank you need to jump off a high bridge to figure out the
outcome, but I don't.

Hint: It isn't the rapid descent that will hurt you, its the sudden stop at
the bottom. ;-)

I should also point out that Stereophile has at least one staffer whose
discography as recording engineer probably has more substance than either
you or Predrag. Doesn't keep him from being a technical quack in most
professional's books.

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in
message

I've already described the benefits of analog summing in
another post. It adds subtle colorations and the sense
of space/depth.

Only credible if one believes what one reads in
Stereophile...

Only discreditable if one has used the gear in question.

False. Perhaps Hank you need to jump off a high bridge to figure out the
outcome, but I don't.

That's a reach, Arny, and you know it. Are you now imagining what you
can hear from a spec sheet?

Hint: It isn't the rapid descent that will hurt you, its the sudden stop at
the bottom. ;-)

I should also point out that Stereophile has at least one staffer whose
discography as recording engineer probably has more substance than either
you or Predrag. Doesn't keep him from being a technical quack in most
professional's books.

He winds up getting some good recordings. That, in and of itself, is
interesting.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Jan 24, 3:26 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
I've already described the benefits of analog summing in another post. It
adds subtle colorations and the sense of space/depth.

To me, "depth" can only be achieved by adding ambience in the form of
single echoes or multiple echoes (reverb). Maybe if you add enough
distortion to be clearly audible, some people might perceive that as
added depth. I'm pretty sure no commercial summing boxes include time-
based effects. So that leaves "subtle coloration," which for a summing
unit could be only one of two things - frequency response changes or
added distortion.

I describe the above as a way to demystify what these boxes are
capable of. All a "summing" unit can do is change the frequency
response and add distortion, so I don't understand the appeal. And I
really don't understand the high prices. Frequency response and
distortion are simple effects, so why the appeal to magic?

--Ethan

[Sean Conolly]

"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
acquisition...
"Predrag Trpkov" writes:

snips, and back to topic... g

I've already described the benefits of analog summing in another post. It
adds subtle colorations and the sense of space/depth. It's sometimes just
what is needed for the client and/or engineer/producer to be happy with a
DAW-based mix. Just like any other tool, sometimes it's not needed,
although
it's rarely detrimental to the quality of the end product. It largely

Indeed. Sometimes we're trying to fix things...

Two examples:

#1

SETUP: large chorus in a space that had been acoustically "fixed"
(acoustically
messed up, as can be the case when someone thinks a "fix" is needed for a
given
hall).

PROBLEM: recording sounded dull, lifeless; no amounts of EQ or reverb
really fixed
the problem. Close, but not quite. I knew the group, having recorded them
in other
rooms using the exact same gear. I knew what was possible.

SOLUTION: I was loaned the hardware version of SPL's "Vitalizer". It fixed
the
lifelessness alright, but also imparted a "pass through" coloration of its
own. (And
it wasn't the extra DA-AD trip to get in and out of the box; I checked
that by
simply plugging the D-A-D I/O patch cords together -- that portion was
virtually
transparent.)

But I did not like that particular pass-through coloration of the hardware
Vitalizer, though I could see where it might be good for some genres of
pop music.

So I tried (and later bought) the RTAS version of the Vitalizer - perfect!
They'd
done a good job of modeling the "business" portion of their processor. All
the
enhancements came through, but with none of the unwanted color.

Room-sound problem for this recording was solved. But I also quickly found
that like
all such tools, it's easy to overuse this one so it's not an immediate "go
to"; it's
more of a "do we need this to correct a problem?"


#2

SETUP: 16 piece concert brass band in a new 700 seat auditorium that was
more for
live theater than music.

PROBLEM: Top end really got sucked dry, and yet that wasn't really the
issue, as
EQ boosts only made the HF portion of the "plastic sound" a more intense
plastic. It
was partly a lack of dimensionality.

SOLUTION: In this instance the Vitalizer helped a little, but not much.
And it was
very easy to use too much such that the "plastic" was enhanced!

So I tried the PT "Smack" compressor plug in, with no compression (ratio
set 1:1),
but with the even-order distorsion setting engaged. Whole different sonic
animal --
brass came beautifully alive, with a whole new engaging soundstage and a
very "real"
sound, even though we were, in a sense, "breaking it". But it worked in
this
instance. (It's likely that in a more suitable room such processing would
detract
rather than help.)



I come away from all this thinking that analog summing has its place, but
it could
be something of a one-trick pony, depending on the problem and the
solution you
needed.

Thanks to Frank & Predrag for adding a little personal experience into the
discussion. This is the kind of feedback I was looking for.

Overall the consensus that I get is (1) there is no consensus amoung people
who have actually used these things, and (2) there's a fairly strong
consensus that there's no known reason why these summers should work as
claimed, from the group overall.

I suppose I'll have to build a simple summing resistor array and see what I
get.

Sean

[philicorda[_9_]]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:59:40 -0500, Sean Conolly wrote:

snip

Thanks to Frank & Predrag for adding a little personal experience into
the discussion. This is the kind of feedback I was looking for.

Overall the consensus that I get is (1) there is no consensus amoung
people who have actually used these things, and (2) there's a fairly
strong consensus that there's no known reason why these summers should
work as claimed, from the group overall.

I suppose I'll have to build a simple summing resistor array and see
what I get.

As far as I can tell, the makeup gain after the summing is where the
sound really comes from. When people have noticed a difference using a
summing box, the same difference seems to be there when summing in the
computer and just putting a stereo pair though the summing box.

I'd expect to hear a difference using a flat mix on a mixing desk, as
there could be many variables, like pans never being quite centred, eqs
that are always in circuit, and all the input and output circuitry on
each channel. I've not tried a really clean passive summing circuit
though, so I may join you in experimenting as they seem quite easy to DIY.


Sean

[Mike Rivers]

On 1/25/2011 4:22 PM, philicorda wrote:

As far as I can tell, the makeup gain after the summing is where the
sound really comes from. When people have noticed a difference using a
summing box, the same difference seems to be there when summing in the
computer and just putting a stereo pair though the summing box.

The Roll Music analog summing box is just a batch of
accurately matched resistors and on/off switches. It's
designed to have enough attenuation so you can (and in fact
must) run it through the mic preamp of your dreams. That,
indeed, is where the coloration, good or bad, comes from in
a rig like this.

I've been watching this thread with amusement, and it seems
that some get it and some don't. The original "analog
summers" (the people, not the hardware) like what they were
hearing better than what they heard when the DAW was doing
the summing. But then Digidesign figured out what they did
wrong (or rather, finally fixed what a bunch of people told
them they did wrong) and after that, analog summing was
mostly just a "good feeling" preference rather than a "it
doesn't sound right the other way" preference.

I recall reading a shootout that one of the magazines did
where they set up several analog summing devices ranging
from a high priced box, I think a Dangerous Music, down to a
Behringer mixer with the channel gains carefully matched,
and there was no clear preference toward the high dollar
made-for-the-job boxes.

Today (like at least 5 years later) I think it's a non-issue
unless you're actually doing mixing, like using the EQ and
faders, on a decent analog console. Then it's as much a
matter of workflow and creative thinking while mixing as it
is adding up volts left and right.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

hank alrich wrote:
Arny wrote:

"hank wrote in message


Arny wrote:

"Predrag wrote in
message

I've already described the benefits of analog summing in
another post. It adds subtle colorations and the sense
of space/depth.

Only credible if one believes what one reads in
Stereophile...

Only discreditable if one has used the gear in question.

False. Perhaps Hank you need to jump off a high bridge to figure out the
outcome, but I don't.

That's a reach, Arny, and you know it. Are you now imagining what you
can hear from a spec sheet?

Hint: It isn't the rapid descent that will hurt you, its the sudden stop at
the bottom. ;-)

I should also point out that Stereophile has at least one staffer whose
discography as recording engineer probably has more substance than either
you or Predrag. Doesn't keep him from being a technical quack in most
professional's books.

He winds up getting some good recordings. That, in and of itself, is
interesting.


Sometimes people are superstitious - even high performing people.

--
Les Cargill

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

Let's get on with the heart of the question ... which type of resistor is
best for analog summing of complex waveforms?

We can choose from carbon composition, carbon film, thin film and thick
film, metal-film, metal-oxide film, wirewound, foil, cermet, phenolic,
tantalum and water resistors.

I lean toward the superior cooling characteristics of water resistors.
When the question of which salts are best is resolved, their inherent
warmth and transparency are beyond reproach.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[jwvm]

On Jan 26, 12:25*pm, Roy W. Rising
wrote:
Let's get on with the heart of the question ... which type of resistor is
best for analog summing of complex waveforms?

We can choose from carbon composition, carbon film, thin film and thick
film, metal-film, metal-oxide film, wirewound, foil, cermet, phenolic,
tantalum and water resistors.

I lean toward the superior cooling characteristics of water resistors.
When the question of which salts are best is resolved, their inherent
warmth and transparency are beyond reproach.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

I think that you are all wet!

[Frank Stearns]

Roy W. Rising writes:

Let's get on with the heart of the question ... which type of resistor is
best for analog summing of complex waveforms?

We can choose from carbon composition, carbon film, thin film and thick
film, metal-film, metal-oxide film, wirewound, foil, cermet, phenolic,
tantalum and water resistors.

I lean toward the superior cooling characteristics of water resistors.
When the question of which salts are best is resolved, their inherent
warmth and transparency are beyond reproach.


Roy, have you considered "air resistors" in a high-voltage environment?

True, there's some rather nasty popcorn noise as the spark gap is jumped; it's
annoying to have to step up each input to several KV; and there's that entire ozone
issue that might get you in trouble with environmental regulators; but oh! The
transparency...

w

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Ethan Winer" wrote in message
...
On Jan 24, 3:26 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
I've already described the benefits of analog summing in another post. It
adds subtle colorations and the sense of space/depth.

To me, "depth" can only be achieved by adding ambience in the form of
single echoes or multiple echoes (reverb). Maybe if you add enough
distortion to be clearly audible, some people might perceive that as
added depth. I'm pretty sure no commercial summing boxes include time-
based effects. So that leaves "subtle coloration," which for a summing
unit could be only one of two things - frequency response changes or
added distortion.


A combination of distortions seems to be the most plausible explanation. It
has nothing to do with time-based effects.


I describe the above as a way to demystify what these boxes are
capable of. All a "summing" unit can do is change the frequency
response and add distortion, so I don't understand the appeal. And I
really don't understand the high prices. Frequency response and
distortion are simple effects, so why the appeal to magic?


I guess it's because it does the trick without there being a proper
explanation... yet.

It gives the sense that not all of the instruments are pulled all the way to
the front, as though they are about to fall off the stage, which is what
often
happens when one combines predominantly close miking and/or samples and/or
virtual instruments with the total transparency/clarity of digital recording
and summing. Analog summing adds some sense of size and depth at the expense
of clarity. It's as if some of the instruments get pushed back a step or
two, just enough to avoid a flat, one-dimensional sonic landscape.

Adding time-based effects to close-miked tracks rarely sounds like what one
hears in a real room. It only adds ambiental cues without naturally occuring
frequency response changes and compression (dampening of transients, most
notably), the extent of which is in correlation with the distance that the
sound of a particular instrument has to travel through the air. Analog
summing helps there by providing a somewhat more convenient starting
position.

People like Frank Stearns, who are fortunate to record real instruments and
voices in large enough acoustic spaces obviously don't need it, but the bulk
of pop/rock music gets recorded in home/project studios nowadays. More often
than not it results in a pile of overdubbed close-miked tracks, with
undampened transients and no (good sounding) natural ambience. That segment
of the market is generating most of the demand for analog summing boxes.
Meanwhile a lot of manufacturers have entered the market. Some of them might
have gotten carried away with their advertising efforts, but it doesn't mean
that analog summing boxes equal straight wire with gain.

Predrag

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Jan 30, 6:02 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
A combination of distortions seems to be the most plausible explanation. It
has nothing to do with time-based effects.

I guess it's because it does the trick without there being a proper
explanation... yet.

Thanks for finally acknowledging that you believe in magic, and that
you have no plausible rationale for your beliefs. Versus my highly
detailed explanations of what is and is not possible, based on
understanding how audio and music and electronics actually work. I do
not mean this as an insult. I really don't. If you haven't watched my
hour-long AES Audio Myths video, I think you'll find it useful and
will learn a lot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

--Ethan

[Arny Krueger]

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in
message
"Ethan Winer" wrote in message
...
On Jan 24, 3:26 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
I've already described the benefits of analog summing
in another post. It adds subtle colorations and the
sense of space/depth.

To me, "depth" can only be achieved by adding ambience
in the form of single echoes or multiple echoes
(reverb). Maybe if you add enough distortion to be
clearly audible, some people might perceive that as
added depth. I'm pretty sure no commercial summing boxes
include time- based effects. So that leaves "subtle
coloration," which for a summing unit could be only one
of two things - frequency response changes or added
distortion.

A combination of distortions seems to be the most
plausible explanation. It has nothing to do with
time-based effects.

I'm getting these flashbacks to high end consumer-orented conferences, and
earnest posts prattling on and on poetically about the soundstaging of
different audio cables.


I describe the above as a way to demystify what these
boxes are capable of. All a "summing" unit can do is
change the frequency response and add distortion, so I
don't understand the appeal. And I really don't
understand the high prices. Frequency response and
distortion are simple effects, so why the appeal to
magic?

One irony is that the analog summer that the OP mentioned claims really good
fidelity, and with that comes the promise of sonic transparency - no audible
sonic coloratino at all.

I guess it's because it does the trick without there
being a proper explanation... yet.

It gives the sense that not all of the instruments are
pulled all the way to the front, as though they are about
to fall off the stage, which is what often
happens when one combines predominantly close miking
and/or samples and/or virtual instruments with the total
transparency/clarity of digital recording and summing.
Analog summing adds some sense of size and depth at the
expense of clarity. It's as if some of the instruments
get pushed back a step or two, just enough to avoid a
flat, one-dimensional sonic landscape.
Adding time-based effects to close-miked tracks rarely
sounds like what one hears in a real room. It only adds
ambiental cues without naturally occuring frequency
response changes and compression (dampening of
transients, most notably), the extent of which is in
correlation with the distance that the sound of a
particular instrument has to travel through the air.
Analog summing helps there by providing a somewhat more
convenient starting position.
People like Frank Stearns, who are fortunate to record
real instruments and voices in large enough acoustic
spaces obviously don't need it, but the bulk of pop/rock
music gets recorded in home/project studios nowadays.
More often than not it results in a pile of overdubbed
close-miked tracks, with undampened transients and no
(good sounding) natural ambience. That segment of the
market is generating most of the demand for analog
summing boxes. Meanwhile a lot of manufacturers have
entered the market. Some of them might have gotten
carried away with their advertising efforts, but it
doesn't mean that analog summing boxes equal straight
wire with gain.

There's a reason why some people avoid doing bias-controlled listening
tests - writing the previous 3 paragraphs gives them a thrill that might go
away if they knew better.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:

I'm getting these flashbacks to high end consumer-orented conferences, and
earnest posts prattling on and on poetically about the soundstaging of
different audio cables.

You make minor tonal changes, people first perceive it as a change in
imaging.

In fact, if you make ANY minor changes in a 2-channel stereo signal, people
perceive an imaging change at lower levels than they perceive anything else.

You make cables that are highly reactive and connect them to a high-Z output,
there are going to be tonal changes.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

I'm getting these flashbacks to high end
consumer-orented conferences, and earnest posts
prattling on and on poetically about the soundstaging of
different audio cables.

You make minor tonal changes, people first perceive it as
a change in imaging.

I would expand that to say that it is very stylish these days to report any
change including no actual change as a change in "soundstaging". If you
follow this up, then you might get told that there is no way to accurately
measure imaging.

In fact, if you make ANY minor changes in a 2-channel
stereo signal, people perceive an imaging change at lower
levels than they perceive anything else.

That seems to be overly general. Aside from style, reports of subjective
changes can vary all over the map. Sure they can report an imaging change,
but they can also report it as a lot of other things.

Rememeber that modern audiophiles can report changes in pace and timing in
things like cables that cannot actually change those things.

I've seen people report no actual change as being the exact same variety of
things.

We're dealing here with people here who probably have no relevant experience
with bias controlled tests. In blind tests you always get a snout full of
musings over something that ends up being nothing.

There's only one universe where *every* piece of audio gear, no matter how
highly perfected sounds different like Predrag seems to claim, and that's
the universe of imagination. One day with Predrag and some good blind tests
and he's very likely to be very quiet for a while.

You make cables that are highly reactive and connect them
to a high-Z output, there are going to be tonal changes.

In many cases high end cables are perfectly ordinary and do just as good of
a job of passing signals as the cheaper but competent ones. People still
report both subtle and dramatic changes, and that's the point.

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

There's only one universe where *every* piece of audio gear, no matter how
highly perfected sounds different like Predrag seems to claim, and that's
the universe of imagination. One day with Predrag and some good blind
tests and he's very likely to be very quiet for a while.


No problem, Arny. I'd be happy to do that any time.

I'll bring some audio files too, so while I'm busy you can entertain people
by singing from the waveforms on the screen.

Predrag

[William Sommerwerck]

Rememeber that modern audiophiles can report changes
in pace and timing in things like cables that cannot actually
change those things.

Though I think such a thing is highly, highly, HIGHLY unlikely, how do you
KNOW, Arny? Because it fits your ideas of how the universe works -- or
should work?


There's only one universe where *every* piece of audio gear, no
matter how highly perfected, sounds different like Predrag seems
to claim, and that's the universe of imagination. One day with
Predrag and some good blind tests and he's very likely to be
very quiet for a while.

Actually, what he needs is to hear how his perceptions -- of the same
stimuli, under uncontrolled conditions -- change from day to day.

[hank alrich]

Predrag Trpkov wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

There's only one universe where *every* piece of audio gear, no matter how
highly perfected sounds different like Predrag seems to claim, and that's
the universe of imagination. One day with Predrag and some good blind
tests and he's very likely to be very quiet for a while.


No problem, Arny. I'd be happy to do that any time.

I'll bring some audio files too, so while I'm busy you can entertain people
by singing from the waveforms on the screen.

Predrag

Yep, that was a fairly outrageous statement, as if he can read waveforms
like they were notation. Oh, well.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Arny Krueger]

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

There's only one universe where *every* piece of audio
gear, no matter how highly perfected sounds different
like Predrag seems to claim, and that's the universe of
imagination. One day with Predrag and some good blind
tests and he's very likely to be very quiet for a while.


No problem, Arny. I'd be happy to do that any time.

I'm not stopping you!

I never did.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Rememeber that modern audiophiles can report changes
in pace and timing in things like cables that cannot actually
change those things.

Though I think such a thing is highly, highly, HIGHLY unlikely, how do you
KNOW, Arny? Because it fits your ideas of how the universe works -- or
should work?

Some of the problem is that subtle tonal changes can be misinterpreted in
very surprising ways.

Actually, what he needs is to hear how his perceptions -- of the same
stimuli, under uncontrolled conditions -- change from day to day.

That's a pretty serious problem too.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

Rememeber that modern audiophiles can report changes
in pace and timing in things like cables that cannot
actually change those things.

Though I think such a thing is highly, highly, HIGHLY
unlikely, how do you KNOW, Arny?

Been there, done that with real live people.

Because it fits your ideas of how the universe works -- or should work?

Your error here William is the obvious ploy of making it sound like I'm the
only person who thinks this way.

There's only one universe where *every* piece of audio
gear, no matter how highly perfected, sounds different
like Predrag seems to claim, and that's the universe of
imagination. One day with Predrag and some good blind
tests and he's very likely to be very quiet for a while.

Actually, what he needs is to hear how his perceptions --
of the same stimuli, under uncontrolled conditions --
change from day to day.

The blind tests could accomplish that, as well.

[William Sommerwerck]

Rememeber that modern audiophiles can report changes
in pace and timing in things like cables that cannot
actually change those things.

Though I think such a thing is highly, highly, HIGHLY
unlikely, how do you KNOW, Arny?

Been there, done that with real live people.

Because it fits your ideas of how the universe works -- or should work?

Your error here William is the obvious ploy of making it sound
like I'm the only person who thinks this way.

No, actually, most people think that way.


There's only one universe where *every* piece of audio
gear, no matter how highly perfected, sounds different
like Predrag seems to claim, and that's the universe of
imagination. One day with Predrag and some good blind
tests and he's very likely to be very quiet for a while.

Actually, what he needs is to hear how his perceptions --
of the same stimuli, under uncontrolled conditions --
change from day to day.

The blind tests could accomplish that, as well.

But I don't trust blind (or double-blind) testing. When a person finally
admits that the same stimulus evokes different responses on different days
and different times, their trust in the validity of subjective listening
will be severely shaken.

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Ethan Winer" wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 6:02 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
A combination of distortions seems to be the most plausible explanation.
It
has nothing to do with time-based effects.

I guess it's because it does the trick without there being a proper
explanation... yet.

Thanks for finally acknowledging that you believe in magic, and that
you have no plausible rationale for your beliefs. Versus my highly
detailed
explanations of what is and is not possible, based on
understanding how audio and music and electronics actually work. I do
not mean this as an insult. I really don't. If you haven't watched my
hour-long AES Audio Myths video, I think you'll find it useful and
will learn a lot:


Semantics again.

I believe what my ears tell me. It works.

Your "highly detailed explanations" is nothing but an opinion, based on
speculation, without any valid reference to a practical experience with the
tools in question and heavily biased by personal preference. One would
expect certain degree of objectivity from someone who wouldn't miss an
opportunity to plug their published theoretical works, but in your case it's
apparently just another myth.

Not only do I believe in magic, it is the very thing that drew me to the
world of music production and kept me there for a long time. Getting a bunch
of musicians together and assembling a sonic sculpture that does not exist
in nature, that they never heard in the rehearsal room and never thought was
possible... it's nothing short of magic. Magic is a good thing in music
production. It happens in spite of your hour-long lifetime achievement, it
makes the clients happy and helps the operator pay the bills.

If we really can't have a discussion here without you flinging patronising
statements, why don't you provide the link to your discography as well? I
don't care much for anybody telling me what is not possible in music
production, but if you're good enough as an engineer/producer, listening to
your work might give me an idea of what IS possible that I haven't figured
out yet.

Predrag

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Rememeber that modern audiophiles can report changes
in pace and timing in things like cables that cannot actually
change those things.

Though I think such a thing is highly, highly, HIGHLY unlikely, how do you
KNOW, Arny? Because it fits your ideas of how the universe works -- or
should work?

Some of the problem is that subtle tonal changes can be misinterpreted in
very surprising ways.

Actually, what he needs is to hear how his perceptions -- of the same
stimuli, under uncontrolled conditions -- change from day to day.

That's a pretty serious problem too.
--scott

Unless we're talking about test tones, one can rely on it never being the
same. Music evokes emotions - a complex chemical reaction in our brain.
That's way too many variables.

Predrag

[Arny Krueger]

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in
message
"Ethan Winer" wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 6:02 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
A combination of distortions seems to be the most
plausible explanation. It
has nothing to do with time-based effects.

I guess it's because it does the trick without there
being a proper explanation... yet.

Thanks for finally acknowledging that you believe in
magic, and that you have no plausible rationale for your
beliefs. Versus my highly detailed
explanations of what is and is not possible, based on
understanding how audio and music and electronics
actually work. I do not mean this as an insult. I really
don't. If you haven't watched my hour-long AES Audio
Myths video, I think you'll find it useful and will
learn a lot:

Semantics again.

No, a look at a part of reality that you deny exists.

I believe what my ears tell me. It works.

If you call damaging your credibility by making ludicrous claims. working.


Your "highly detailed explanations" is nothing but an
opinion, based on speculation, without any valid
reference to a practical experience with the tools in
question and heavily biased by personal preference.

That would represent quite a bit of self-illusion on your part Predrag.

As far as "the tools in question" goes Predrag, that is a little hidey-hole
that you've dug for yourself. You can maintain your self-illusion as long as
you want to by changing hobby horses at strategic moments.

One
would expect certain degree of objectivity from someone
who wouldn't miss an opportunity to plug their published
theoretical works, but in your case it's apparently just another myth.

Not myths Predrag, simple reality that you could demonstrate to yourself,
but why should you when your illusions can be manipulated in such a
self-aggrandizing fashion by you?


Not only do I believe in magic, it is the very thing that
drew me to the world of music production and kept me
there for a long time.

Some of us are drawn to the world of music production by a desire to make
nice-sounding musical productions. No magic needed, just hard work and
science.


Getting a bunch of musicians
together and assembling a sonic sculpture that does not
exist in nature, that they never heard in the rehearsal
room and never thought was possible... it's nothing short
of magic.

No, its what we can do with the benefits of technology.


Magic is a good thing in music production. It
happens in spite of your hour-long lifetime achievement,
it makes the clients happy and helps the operator pay the
bills.

So, you confuse yourself with someone like the wizard of Oz.

If we really can't have a discussion here without you
flinging patronising statements, why don't you provide
the link to your discography as well?

I don't see any of your published discography available as CDs via Amazon.
Given Amazon's breadth, I see your discography as a just collection of
names, signifying nothing. If it rocks your cradle fine, but don't expect
many props for it from people in the US.


I don't care much
for anybody telling me what is not possible in music
production, but if you're good enough as an
engineer/producer, listening to your work might give me
an idea of what IS possible that I haven't figured out
yet.

Thanks Predrag for basically saying that you want to live in your little
world of self-serving illusions forever.

[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" wrote in message


I'll bring some audio files too, so while I'm busy you
can entertain people by singing from the waveforms on
the screen.

Yep, that was a fairly outrageous statement, as if he can
read waveforms like they were notation. Oh, well.

No such thing was ever said hank, but thanks for your efforts towards
destroying your credibility around here.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
Rememeber that modern audiophiles can report changes
in pace and timing in things like cables that cannot
actually change those things.

Though I think such a thing is highly, highly, HIGHLY
unlikely, how do you KNOW, Arny?

Been there, done that with real live people.

Because it fits your ideas of how the universe works --
or should work?

Your error here William is the obvious ploy of making it
sound like I'm the only person who thinks this way.

No, actually, most people think that way.

That would be a classic ad homonym argument from you William. I don't care
how many people are mislead like you are.


There's only one universe where *every* piece of audio
gear, no matter how highly perfected, sounds different
like Predrag seems to claim, and that's the universe of
imagination. One day with Predrag and some good blind
tests and he's very likely to be very quiet for a
while.

Actually, what he needs is to hear how his perceptions
--
of the same stimuli, under uncontrolled conditions --
change from day to day.

The blind tests could accomplish that, as well.

But I don't trust blind (or double-blind) testing.

Your loss.

When a
person finally admits that the same stimulus evokes
different responses on different days and different
times, their trust in the validity of subjective
listening will be severely shaken.

DBTs do a nice job of that, and far, far more.

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"hank alrich" wrote in message


I'll bring some audio files too, so while I'm busy you
can entertain people by singing from the waveforms on
the screen.

Yep, that was a fairly outrageous statement, as if he can
read waveforms like they were notation. Oh, well.

No such thing was ever said hank, but thanks for your efforts towards
destroying your credibility around here.


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message


Show me an example of a single person who can look at a
waveform and describe what it sounds like, much less to
find and follow the melody.

I do that all the time, within my limitations as a musician.

[William Sommerwerck]

Actually, what he needs is to hear how his perceptions -- of the same
stimuli, under uncontrolled conditions -- change from day to day.

That's a pretty serious problem too.
--scott

Unless we're talking about test tones, one can rely on it never being the
same. Music evokes emotions - a complex chemical reaction in our brain.
That's way too many variables.

This is why subjective listening is unreliable.