audiophile summing mixers...who's getting in the game?

[xy]

the three that come to mind are manley, millenia media, and dangerous
2 bus.

tl-audio has an 8x2, but probably has too much stuff in the signal
path. i think the cranesong spider can be a daw summing mixer too.

does anybody know of some new summing mixers that will be rolled out
at aes?
i'm talking about mixers made specifically to sum the outputs of a
daw, faders or no faders.

i'd love to see focusrite come out with a red-range level one. they
keep making those platinum range octa-mockta boxes...enough of those
already!

[Benjamin Maas]

Inward Connections SBM-2. This is a pretty darn good sounding box...

They can be found on the Inward Connections link of Boutique Audio's web
page (www.boutiqueaudio.com)

--Ben

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

"xy" > wrote in message
om...
> the three that come to mind are manley, millenia media, and dangerous
> 2 bus.
>
> tl-audio has an 8x2, but probably has too much stuff in the signal
> path. i think the cranesong spider can be a daw summing mixer too.
>
> does anybody know of some new summing mixers that will be rolled out
> at aes?
> i'm talking about mixers made specifically to sum the outputs of a
> daw, faders or no faders.
>
> i'd love to see focusrite come out with a red-range level one. they
> keep making those platinum range octa-mockta boxes...enough of those
> already!

[John L Rice]

"xy" > wrote in message
om...
> the three that come to mind are manley, millenia media, and dangerous
> 2 bus.
>
> tl-audio has an 8x2, but probably has too much stuff in the signal
> path. i think the cranesong spider can be a daw summing mixer too.
>
> does anybody know of some new summing mixers that will be rolled out
> at aes?
> i'm talking about mixers made specifically to sum the outputs of a
> daw, faders or no faders.
>
> i'd love to see focusrite come out with a red-range level one. they
> keep making those platinum range octa-mockta boxes...enough of those
> already!

The one Speck makes is pretty well respected I believe :
http://www.speck.com/xmix_2.shtml

John L Rice

[Scott Dorsey]

xy > wrote:
>the three that come to mind are manley, millenia media, and dangerous
>2 bus.

Geoff Daking has a nifty one too. Also, Great River sells a little one.

>tl-audio has an 8x2, but probably has too much stuff in the signal
>path. i think the cranesong spider can be a daw summing mixer too.

I haven't seen the TL, but you know, Calrec will sell you an 8X2 quite
nicely. It's got lots of stuff in there by my standards.

>does anybody know of some new summing mixers that will be rolled out
>at aes?
>i'm talking about mixers made specifically to sum the outputs of a
>daw, faders or no faders.

No, but I can give you a box of 10K resistors.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

BlacklineMusic > wrote:

> >does anybody know of some new summing mixers that will be rolled out
> >at aes?
>
> won't be at aes, but the RMS Folcrom made by Justin Ulysses Morse at
> Roll Music Studios is an all passive 16 channel summing mixer that
> uses whatever make up gain device you would like. I use a Trident
> S20 but you could also use a Neve, an API, a Sytek, or any other gain
> device. So while you get one color with the Dangerous 2 bus or
> Inward, I have limitless options of sound characteristics. When I
> want a thick and heavy sound, I go in my neve. For a rich open
> sound, the Trident. For a clean, pristine sound, the Sytek. Really
> is a great box.
>
> There will be a page up for it soon. Isn't that right Justin?
> Steve


Yes sir ree bob. If I could get out to AES, I'd drag one out there to
show off. But I should have a new pile of the things built very soon
and yes the web page is being worked on as we speak. I'm having a hard
time figuring out how to measure the "specifications" on a box that
almost literally doesn't do anything. Since it's a purely resistive
circuit, it's theoretically unable to distort, although it requires
external make-up gain, so it's hard to prove it.

Anyway, it's got no faders, no capacitors, no active circuitry
whatsoever, no transformers. It has 16 balanced line inputs (max input
level is something like +35dbm) and two balanced XLR outputs. Each
input channel has L and R assign switches. The outputs are 150 ohm
sources that typically require about 40dB of make-up gain. In other
words, they're intended to feed a mic preamp. The mixer itself has no
sound of its own, and your mix takes on the tonality of whatever you
choose to use for gain. You weren't using those V72s at mixdown time
anyway, right?

Because the circuit is so very minimal, this unit actually costs less
than any of the "similar" boxes I've seen.

justin ulysses morse
roll music studios
minneapolis, mn

www.rollmusic.com

[xy]

> won't be at aes, but the RMS Folcrom made by Justin Ulysses Morse at Roll Music
> Studios is an all passive 16 channel summing mixer that uses whatever make up
> gain device you would like

so if you had a 2 channel mic pre you really liked, you could go into
its line inputs and use it to bring the stereo mix level up or down?



i like the idea of an 8 channel one, because:
-i can feed the mixer better quality d-a using the same amount of
money, because i would only have to spend for 8 channels
-less wires, less space required
-less ambient noise, because only 8 channels "open".
-the mixer itself will probably cost less money since it's only 8
channels

16 let's you "stretch out", which is very nice. but i'd be happy with
a nice 8 channel one.

[Mike Tulley]

On 14 Sep 2003 10:17:59 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>xy > wrote:

>>does anybody know of some new summing mixers that will be rolled out
>>at aes?
>>i'm talking about mixers made specifically to sum the outputs of a
>>daw, faders or no faders.
>
>No, but I can give you a box of 10K resistors.

Almost facetious question:
How well are they matched?
Mike T.

[Gary George]

(xy) wrote in message >...
> the three that come to mind are manley, millenia media, and dangerous
> 2 bus.
>
> tl-audio has an 8x2, but probably has too much stuff in the signal
> path. i think the cranesong spider can be a daw summing mixer too.
>
> does anybody know of some new summing mixers that will be rolled out
> at aes?
> i'm talking about mixers made specifically to sum the outputs of a
> daw, faders or no faders.
>
> i'd love to see focusrite come out with a red-range level one. they
> keep making those platinum range octa-mockta boxes...enough of those
> already!

OK. I must be stooopid but am always willing to learn something new!
What is the rational/purpose/benefit behind these devices?

If I get this right you take the channel outputs of your DAW into
these devices...then these things passively sum them to a stereo
output. Why not just route your DAW mix into a single master pair of
outputs on the hardware interface and then "color" with any piece of
gear that your heart desires?

I understand the DAW mixing vs. through the console debate and if this
is what these things address then you'll need one summing mixer input
for each DAW analog output…correct? And any project that has more
soft tracks than physical outputs you must do some digital mix down in
order to get your number of tracks to be equal to or less than the
number of physical ouputs.

Has anyone in the RAP group blind tested these devices against a pure
DAW digital mix? What bang do you get for $$$?

Thanks for the education and entertainment… obviously I'm missing
something.

[BlacklineMusic]

>Why not just route your DAW mix into a single master pair of
>outputs on the hardware interface and then "color" with any piece of
>gear that your heart desires?
>

I don't know the reasoning behind it, but the more channels you sum analog and
the less you do by means of adding bits, the wider deeper and punchier things
become.

>Has anyone in the RAP group blind tested these devices against a pure
>DAW digital mix? What bang do you get for $$$?

I had a client in here today and we were listening to a mix I'm doing for him.
Something sounded weird. I realized that for some reason, the DAW mix was all
getting summed to outputs one and two fo the console (just like you referred
to). As soon as I bussed the tracks to the other channels on the mixer, the
mix opened up remarkabley. But here is what you want to hear. As soon as I
get time (and I'll try to do this soon), I'll put up a page of mixes with
various means of summing including the good old DAW vs mixer. Stay tuned.
Steve

[Gary George]

(BlacklineMusic) wrote in message >...
> >Why not just route your DAW mix into a single master pair of
> >outputs on the hardware interface and then "color" with any piece of
> >gear that your heart desires?
> >
>
> I don't know the reasoning behind it, but the more channels you sum analog and
> the less you do by means of adding bits, the wider deeper and punchier things
> become.
>
> >Has anyone in the RAP group blind tested these devices against a pure
> >DAW digital mix? What bang do you get for $$$?
>
> I had a client in here today and we were listening to a mix I'm doing for him.
> Something sounded weird. I realized that for some reason, the DAW mix was all
> getting summed to outputs one and two fo the console (just like you referred
> to). As soon as I bussed the tracks to the other channels on the mixer, the
> mix opened up remarkabley. But here is what you want to hear. As soon as I
> get time (and I'll try to do this soon), I'll put up a page of mixes with
> various means of summing including the good old DAW vs mixer. Stay tuned.
> Steve

Your story is really not a fair comparison of a digital vs. analog
mixing. Did you make an effort to make sure the levels were the same.
How about the panning? Unless your software allows you to assign
each track to an individual physical output (SONAR does not) then you
have to assign each track to a stereo pair and then hard pan left or
right (in software) to get it to the proper channel. If you already
had the soft-panning set up the mix would be funky.

To do a fair comparison you'd have to do the best mix possible on both
systems and then do a blind shootout with some objective ears.

[BlacklineMusic]

you don't get it. I'm going to assign each channel to a stereo pair. there
will be NO MOVEMENT IN SOFTWARE AT ALL. Get that? Then I'm going to match
the output with the analog make up gain. What you get will be what you get,
plain and simple. How about you listen to the examples before you talk. I'm
not trying to defend anything here, just providing real world **** for you to
hear.

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Brandon > wrote:

> > Each
> > input channel has L and R assign switches.
>
> Hmm, could they have a "center" select as well? I've never used the
> Dangerous box, but that sounded like a really good idea for
> kick/snare/vox. If there isn't a center bus, then wouldn't a center
> channel require two inputs?

Each channel has a Left assign button and a Right assign button. Push
them both, and you have mono. So you don't need two DAC channels for a
mono source. And of course if you need less than 16 inputs, then you
leave both buttons out on the unused channel, so it's "off."

P Stamler > wrote:

> Yup, and a center option would be nice. The only problem is that unless the
> source feeding the passive network(s) has an impedance of zero, switching
> something to both channels will cause the separation of everything on the left
> and right channels to be impaired. How much depends on the source's impedance
> and the size of the summing resistors.

This is technically true, but in practice it's simply not a problem.
The crosstalk measurements I've gotten for the FolcroM are not perfect,
but they're way better than, for example, a phonograph cartridge. This
is a stereo mixdown device after all. -90dB crosstalk figures look
nice on paper but are pretty meaningless when you play your mix on a
pair of speakers in a room. I'm hesitant to give a hard number right
now for the FolcroM's crosstalk spec, in part because there are so many
variables and in part because it's been a while since I measured it and
don't remember where I put the notes I took. I think it was in the low
-70s, but I'll have new measurements on my website as soon as I can.

Of course the key to success in using a passive summing buss is to have
high quality DACs with very low source impedance and robust balanced
outputs. But I don't see the point of shelling out money and effort on
outboard summing if you're using mediocre converters.

ulysses
www.rollmusic.com

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Gary George > wrote:

> OK. I must be stooopid but am always willing to learn something new!
> What is the rational/purpose/benefit behind these devices?

The theory is that the digital summing somehow gets the math wrong.
The theory continues to say that a regular analog mixer has so much
junque in the signal path for the purpose of adding features that are
redundant to the DAW feature set, you end up doing more harm than good.
Furthermore, total recall of an analog console is pragmatically
impossible, so you'd lose the 2nd-best thing about mixing in a DAW
(Total exact recall, the best thing being the random access and
editing). So you come up with a mixer that doesn't have any
potentiometers and therefore no variables. You take all the redundant
features out so you can have the shortest, cleanest signal path
possible. You control the mix from within the DAW, and in theory you
have neither the sonic drawbacks of digital summing, nor those of a
full analog console. This theory is predicated on the idea that
digital summing is in fact the primary flaw in DAW mixing, and also
that total recall is worth the practical hassles of mouse-mixing. The
former is a matter of fact that has been explored to some extent, while
the latter is a matter of personal preference and philosophy.

> If I get this right you take the channel outputs of your DAW into
> these devices...then these things passively sum them to a stereo
> output. Why not just route your DAW mix into a single master pair of
> outputs on the hardware interface and then "color" with any piece of
> gear that your heart desires?

If in fact the digital summing theory is wrong, then you could spit out
a stereo mix into the same outboard mixbus, put its output through the
same preamps, and end up with the same thing. The reasonably
well-controlled tests I'm aware of so far suggest otherwise. It's an
important distinction because one theory says we're removing the sonic
coloration of the DAW summing, and the other says we're simply putting
some kind of analog coloration on top of it. Which concept you buy
into will dictate a whole lot of things about the way you work.

> I understand the DAW mixing vs. through the console debate and if this
> is what these things address then you'll need one summing mixer input
> for each DAW analog output…correct? And any project that has more
> soft tracks than physical outputs you must do some digital mix down in
> order to get your number of tracks to be equal to or less than the
> number of physical ouputs.

Yes, you've got that all right. In practice what most people have been
doing is keeping their "important" tracks, especially kick and bass, on
their own DAC channels and lumping things like backup vocals and
"subliminal" type overdubs together to fit everything through their
limited number of DACs. Of course recording with fewer tracks makes
for better recordings anyway.

> Has anyone in the RAP group blind tested these devices against a pure
> DAW digital mix? What bang do you get for $$$?

There was a reasonably fair comparison done by Ben at Crazy Beast
studios and posted to the GearSluz forum a few months ago. He was
using PT and an 8-channel version of my box through various preamps.
His methodology was pretty solid, and the sonic differences were pretty
convincing. There is an unmistakeable difference in the analog vs.
digital summing, and most users have preferred the analog summing most
of the time. Mix cohesion, fullness, low-end "punch" (whatever that
means), clarity, etc. were all talked about. But don't take my word
for it because I'm selling something.

Like any tool, there are occasions when it doesn't fit the music as
well as another tool. Ben finds he prefers the internal mix on certain
examples of certain types of music. Electronica mostly, I think. I
don't record electronica. But then, I don't own a DAW either.

> Thanks for the education and entertainment… obviously I'm missing
> something.

You're only missing the experience of having listened to analog mixes
next to digital mixes in a reasonably controlled environment. Once you
do that, you can draw your own conclusions.

ulysses

[P Stamler]

If my arithmetic is correct, in a passive summing network where the impedance
of the source channels is 1/100 of the impedance of the summing resistors, then
connecting a single mono source to an otherwise stereo setup will degrade
separation to -46dB. Such a network is not unusual, if you have sources with
100 ohm output impedances (pretty common) and a summing network of 10k
resistors. The solution, of course, is to keep output impedances low or, since
you usually don't have control over that except when deciding what to purchase,
make the summing resistors larger. (Or do it with panned mono signals on a
stereo output, which eliminates the whole issue.)

Peace,
Paul

[Gary George]

(BlacklineMusic) wrote in message >...
> you don't get it. I'm going to assign each channel to a stereo pair. there
> will be NO MOVEMENT IN SOFTWARE AT ALL. Get that? Then I'm going to match
> the output with the analog make up gain. What you get will be what you get,
> plain and simple. How about you listen to the examples before you talk. I'm
> not trying to defend anything here, just providing real world **** for you to
> hear.

Whoa easy now...

I had to re-read my last post over to try and figure out what I said
to **** you off. I certainly did not mean to bag on you. I'm not
saying you're defending either methodology.

But, I DID ask if anyone in the group had done blind tests between a
digitally summed mix and one using these devices. You posted a
comparison story in which you made the statement that an accidentally
digitally summed mix that you and your client listened to was not as
good as the mix you got through the board. All I meant by my comments
is that is really not a fair comparison. I'm guessing that you
probably agree.

If you read my reply post I think you'll find I do "get it" and said
exactly what you're saying about track to physical output assignments.
Maybe our DAW software configures differently? In SONAR you assign a
Track I/O output to a physical stereo pair on the interface. If you
don't pan the track hard right or left (in the software) then the
signal goes out both physical outputs. So I must pan hard on each
track in order to route the signal to a single channel on my board. I
then level and pan using the board. Unless you pan all the soft tracks
to your desired placements then what you heard on the two summed mixer
channels was a straight "everything down the middle mono mix". I don't
know what the status of your board mix was at the time but if you
already had the board panning set up and had created a wide sound
stage with track placement then I can see why that would sound much
different than the accidental digital mix.

Not to start RAP another "****ing contest" but… I'll "talk" about
whatever I want to, whenever I damn well please. My comments were
strictly against your "accident mix" and still stand. And since you
bagged on me, how about you actually doing a REAL comparison before
posting stories about comparing the two in such an unscientific
manner?

I do want to hear your comparison examples and I thank you ahead of
time for the heartbeats it will take to do a really fair job. FWIW -
I'm also doing some evaluations and as you already know it's not as
simple to compare the two as it might at first appear.

Peace
Gary

[Gary George]

Thanks for the thorough explanation Justin and I appreciate the
pointer to Ben at Crazy Beast I'll check it out.

For what it's worth I spent several hours last night comparing an
earlier pure digital mix to one through my board. This was a fairly
simple acoustic, Americana tune using minimalist mic techniques. 1
track Vox, 2 tracks of acoustic (bridge and neck), 2 tracks of fiddle
(near and distant), 2 reverb tracks, and two tracks of sound effects.

I use a decent mix of semi-pro and pro gear. All my tracking was done
with good mics & preamps (mics:414s, Sound Room matched pair Oktava
012s, 421s and 57s Pres: Trident 70 channel strips, Peavey VMP2, Joe
Meek VC1) direct to the Laylas. The console is a Tascam M600. I use
Layla 20s, SONAR, Mackie 824's, a fast CPU with 1.5GB of RAM, and a
good sounding control room.

I did attempt to make sure levels and track pan placements were as
close as I could get. I must admit I didn't hear any major difference
in the mixes other than a bit of the nasty "analog artifacts" you
spoke about, in the board mix. The analog mix had some low-level hiss
that is not present in the digital counterpart. But other than that
the mixes sounded nearly identical.

I agree that dissimilar music styles can sound different using the two
methodologies. Maybe this type of simple arrangement doesn't benefit
much by summing the tracks through the board vs. in the CPU (I plan to
re-mix a much more complex hard rock tune soon). Or perhaps the
resolution of my system won't allow me to hear the differences. If
this is the case then I probably wouldn't hear benefits these devices
impart either.


Justin Ulysses Morse > wrote in message >...
> Gary George > wrote:
>
> > OK. I must be stooopid but am always willing to learn something new!
> > What is the rational/purpose/benefit behind these devices?
>
> The theory is that the digital summing somehow gets the math wrong.
> The theory continues to say that a regular analog mixer has so much
> junque in the signal path for the purpose of adding features that are
> redundant to the DAW feature set, you end up doing more harm than good.
> Furthermore, total recall of an analog console is pragmatically
> impossible, so you'd lose the 2nd-best thing about mixing in a DAW
> (Total exact recall, the best thing being the random access and
> editing). So you come up with a mixer that doesn't have any
> potentiometers and therefore no variables. You take all the redundant
> features out so you can have the shortest, cleanest signal path
> possible. You control the mix from within the DAW, and in theory you
> have neither the sonic drawbacks of digital summing, nor those of a
> full analog console. This theory is predicated on the idea that
> digital summing is in fact the primary flaw in DAW mixing, and also
> that total recall is worth the practical hassles of mouse-mixing. The
> former is a matter of fact that has been explored to some extent, while
> the latter is a matter of personal preference and philosophy.
>
> > If I get this right you take the channel outputs of your DAW into
> > these devices...then these things passively sum them to a stereo
> > output. Why not just route your DAW mix into a single master pair of
> > outputs on the hardware interface and then "color" with any piece of
> > gear that your heart desires?
>
> If in fact the digital summing theory is wrong, then you could spit out
> a stereo mix into the same outboard mixbus, put its output through the
> same preamps, and end up with the same thing. The reasonably
> well-controlled tests I'm aware of so far suggest otherwise. It's an
> important distinction because one theory says we're removing the sonic
> coloration of the DAW summing, and the other says we're simply putting
> some kind of analog coloration on top of it. Which concept you buy
> into will dictate a whole lot of things about the way you work.
>
> > I understand the DAW mixing vs. through the console debate and if this
> > is what these things address then you'll need one summing mixer input
> > for each DAW analog output?correct? And any project that has more
> > soft tracks than physical outputs you must do some digital mix down in
> > order to get your number of tracks to be equal to or less than the
> > number of physical ouputs.
>
> Yes, you've got that all right. In practice what most people have been
> doing is keeping their "important" tracks, especially kick and bass, on
> their own DAC channels and lumping things like backup vocals and
> "subliminal" type overdubs together to fit everything through their
> limited number of DACs. Of course recording with fewer tracks makes
> for better recordings anyway.
>
> > Has anyone in the RAP group blind tested these devices against a pure
> > DAW digital mix? What bang do you get for $$$?
>
> There was a reasonably fair comparison done by Ben at Crazy Beast
> studios and posted to the GearSluz forum a few months ago. He was
> using PT and an 8-channel version of my box through various preamps.
> His methodology was pretty solid, and the sonic differences were pretty
> convincing. There is an unmistakeable difference in the analog vs.
> digital summing, and most users have preferred the analog summing most
> of the time. Mix cohesion, fullness, low-end "punch" (whatever that
> means), clarity, etc. were all talked about. But don't take my word
> for it because I'm selling something.
>
> Like any tool, there are occasions when it doesn't fit the music as
> well as another tool. Ben finds he prefers the internal mix on certain
> examples of certain types of music. Electronica mostly, I think. I
> don't record electronica. But then, I don't own a DAW either.
>
> > Thanks for the education and entertainment? obviously I'm missing
> > something.
>
> You're only missing the experience of having listened to analog mixes
> next to digital mixes in a reasonably controlled environment. Once you
> do that, you can draw your own conclusions.
>
> ulysses

[Vladan]

On 20 Sep 2003 15:41:57 -0700, (Gary George)
wrote:

>I did attempt to make sure levels and track pan placements were as
>close as I could get. I must admit I didn't hear any major difference
>in the mixes other than a bit of the nasty "analog artifacts" you
>spoke about, in the board mix. The analog mix had some low-level hiss
>that is not present in the digital counterpart. But other than that
>the mixes sounded nearly identical.

Something like that exist on the 2nd RAP CD collection. Ther's R.
Krizman's wonderfull entry, Pinochet and Margaret Tastcher (Fwinkle
fwinkle is also great). One half of it is analog mix, another is
digital mix. Now, there is some difference, but it's not very easy to
hear it. I could hear the difference, but couldn't tell for sure which
is which. Enough form {:-)} me.

Vladan
www.geocities.com/vla_dan_l
www.mp3.com/lesly , www.mp3.com/shook , www.mp3.com/lesly2
www.kunsttick.com/artists/vuskovic/indexdat.htm