[Neil Rutman]

I was recently in on a session where the engineer/mixer was mixing in the
box but sent everything to an SPL Mixdream XP - analog summing mixer. I know
that any piece of gear is only good if you like what you hear coming out of
it but after a-b test of mix with and without it would be hard to imagine
someone NOT liking the mix better with it in. Very noticeable IMO and in a
good way.

I'm thinking I need to ad this type of mixer to my tool chest. Any comments
about what to get, what to look for in a good unit (what to avoid) or any
insights at all on the matter much appreciated.

Thanks,

Neil R

[Mike Rivers]

Neil Rutman wrote:
I was recently in on a session where the engineer/mixer was mixing in the
box but sent everything to an SPL Mixdream XP - analog summing mixer.

I'm thinking I need to ad this type of mixer to my tool chest. Any comments
about what to get, what to look for in a good unit (what to avoid) or any
insights at all on the matter much appreciated.

I read an article a few years back where several "analog summing mixers"
were
tested against each other, all receiving the same tracks from Pro Tools,
and comparing
recordings of what came out of each. There were three or four units in
the shootout, with
one being a top-of-the-line analog summer intended for the purpose - not
a Dangerous
Music, but something along that line, and the bottom of the heap being a
Behringer mixer.
They all sounded different, not radically different from a Pro Tools
mix, and there was no
clear winner.

Be that as it may, I'd say that the two things that are important, which
are really pretty much
at opposite ends of the scale, are really high quality analog design -
as many stages as
are necessary, good power supply, good board layout, etc., and
simplicity. The Roll Music
Folcrom (http://www.rollmusic.com/folcrom.php) is passive, but uses
very high quality
resistors and switches, and it gets its "sound" from the mic preamp you
choose to put
after it to make up the loss in the resistive summing.

It's hard to argue with what you heard, but frankly, I don't think
anyone really needs analog
summing as long as you have an up-to-date DAW and understand how to use
it. But then
everything sounds different, so you can have whatever you can justify
owning or renting for
a project.



--
"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

[Neil Rutman]

Very helpful reply. Thanks Mike! Who's to say that on a different day I
might hear the same A B test and think differently??

Neil R

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
Neil Rutman wrote:
I was recently in on a session where the engineer/mixer was mixing in the
box but sent everything to an SPL Mixdream XP - analog summing mixer.

I'm thinking I need to ad this type of mixer to my tool chest. Any
comments about what to get, what to look for in a good unit (what to
avoid) or any insights at all on the matter much appreciated.

I read an article a few years back where several "analog summing mixers"
were
tested against each other, all receiving the same tracks from Pro Tools,
and comparing
recordings of what came out of each. There were three or four units in the
shootout, with
one being a top-of-the-line analog summer intended for the purpose - not a
Dangerous
Music, but something along that line, and the bottom of the heap being a
Behringer mixer.
They all sounded different, not radically different from a Pro Tools mix,
and there was no
clear winner.

Be that as it may, I'd say that the two things that are important, which
are really pretty much
at opposite ends of the scale, are really high quality analog design - as
many stages as
are necessary, good power supply, good board layout, etc., and simplicity.
The Roll Music
Folcrom (http://www.rollmusic.com/folcrom.php) is passive, but uses very
high quality
resistors and switches, and it gets its "sound" from the mic preamp you
choose to put
after it to make up the loss in the resistive summing.

It's hard to argue with what you heard, but frankly, I don't think anyone
really needs analog
summing as long as you have an up-to-date DAW and understand how to use
it. But then
everything sounds different, so you can have whatever you can justify
owning or renting for
a project.



--
"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

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Rutman wrote:
Very helpful reply. Thanks Mike! Who's to say that on a different day I
might hear the same A B test and think differently??

My feeling is... if you're going to spend the money for a summing box, you
might as well just extend it a little bit more and buy a real mixer, then
use PT as a tape machine and mix on the console. There may or may not be
sonic benefits but there are enormous workflow benefits.
--scott


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

[Neil Rutman]

"if you're going to spend the money for a summing box, you
might as well just extend it a little bit more and buy a real mixer"

I have been considering this option as well. I do work this way sometimes
but with a low end Onyx 1640. There are some sonic (and workflow) benefits
of working this way and I assume a good analog board will surpass what I
have been currently able to achieve.

I've read about Midas Venice 320 in threads and it sounds like a pretty nice
board that I may be able to afford. Any opinions on this unit?

Thanks,

Neil R

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Neil Rutman wrote:
Very helpful reply. Thanks Mike! Who's to say that on a different day I
might hear the same A B test and think differently??

My feeling is... if you're going to spend the money for a summing box, you
might as well just extend it a little bit more and buy a real mixer, then
use PT as a tape machine and mix on the console. There may or may not be
sonic benefits but there are enormous workflow benefits.
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Rutman wrote:
"if you're going to spend the money for a summing box, you
might as well just extend it a little bit more and buy a real mixer"

I have been considering this option as well. I do work this way sometimes
but with a low end Onyx 1640. There are some sonic (and workflow) benefits
of working this way and I assume a good analog board will surpass what I
have been currently able to achieve.

I've read about Midas Venice 320 in threads and it sounds like a pretty nice
board that I may be able to afford. Any opinions on this unit?

It sounds good, it's easy to work with, although it is a little bit on the
flimsy side and the pots are cheaper than I'd like for a production console
that was being used all day.

The Crest consoles are a little bit more heavily built, also sound very good,
and also turn up on the used market.

Neither one of these will make you beat your head on the desk because you
can't make the EQ do what you want.

But to be honest, the Onyx is a whole lot better than the previous generations
of Mackie console, even if the gain structure is a little bizarre.
--scott


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

[hank alrich]

Neil Rutman wrote:

I was recently in on a session where the engineer/mixer was mixing in the
box but sent everything to an SPL Mixdream XP - analog summing mixer. I know
that any piece of gear is only good if you like what you hear coming out of
it but after a-b test of mix with and without it would be hard to imagine
someone NOT liking the mix better with it in. Very noticeable IMO and in a
good way.

I'm thinking I need to ad this type of mixer to my tool chest. Any comments
about what to get, what to look for in a good unit (what to avoid) or any
insights at all on the matter much appreciated.

Thanks,

Neil R

I fixed my own lust for something like that by coming to understand that
leaving ridiculous amounts of headroom in the DAW took care of any
summing problems I thought I had. I add the gain after I've finished
mixing, leaving some room for the mastering person.

There are many such devices available and some folks swear by 'em.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/hsadharma

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Apr 29, 12:27 pm, "Neil Rutman" wrote:
after a-b test of mix with and without it would be hard to imagine
someone NOT liking the mix better with it in. Very noticeable IMO and in a
good way.

I have to question how the A/B comparison was done. If the DAW works
correctly, which I'm sure it does, and the analog mixer / summer works
correctly, which I also assume, then the audible difference should be
very small. I'm not questioning what you heard, but rather questioning
if what you heard was actually the difference between analog and
digital summing.

--Ethan

[Mark]

On Apr 30, 9:24*am, Ethan Winer wrote:
On Apr 29, 12:27 pm, "Neil Rutman" wrote:

after a-b test of mix with and without it would be hard to imagine
someone NOT liking the mix better with it in. Very noticeable IMO and in a
good way.

I have to question how the A/B comparison was done. If the DAW works
correctly, which I'm sure it does, and the analog mixer / summer works
correctly, which I also assume, then the audible difference should be
very small. I'm not questioning what you heard, but rather questioning
if what you heard was actually the difference between analog and
digital summing.

--Ethan

should I even risk starting another firestorm and mention the M
word? :-)

Mark

[drichard]

I have not heard the analog summing devices, but I would be interested
in a blind test comparing the output of some of those analog summing
devices to that same output run through various tape sim plugins,
using settings that are very subtle. And I would also to hear them
compared to some of the tube compressor plugins that are out there,
again using very subtle settings. Does anyone know if there are any
comparisons on the net anywhere?

Personally, I often like to add a very judicious amount of tape sim or
tube compressor effect to a final "in the box" mix, and I suspect that
the people who love the sound of an outboard analog summing device may
find that this does a good job of getting a similar sound, but in a
much more controlled and inexpensive manner.

Then again, I've never used a real analog summing device, so maybe I'm
all wet. But a blind test would be informative, I think.

Dean



On Apr 29, 11:54*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
Neil Rutman wrote:
I was recently in on a session where the engineer/mixer was mixing in the
box but sent everything to an SPL Mixdream XP - analog summing mixer.
I'm thinking I need to ad this type of mixer to my tool chest. Any comments
about what to get, what to look for in a good unit (what to avoid) or any
insights at all on the matter much appreciated.

I read an article a few years back where several "analog summing mixers"
were
tested against each other, all receiving the same tracks from Pro Tools,
and comparing
recordings of what came out of each. There were three or four units in
the shootout, with
one being a top-of-the-line analog summer intended for the purpose - not
a Dangerous
Music, but something along that line, and the bottom of the heap being a
Behringer mixer.
They all sounded different, not radically different from a Pro Tools
mix, and there was no
clear winner.

Be that as it may, I'd say that the two things that are important, which
are really pretty much
at opposite ends of the scale, are really high quality analog design -
as many stages as
are necessary, good power supply, good board layout, etc., and
simplicity. The Roll Music
Folcrom (http://www.rollmusic.com/folcrom.php) is passive, *but uses
very high quality
resistors and switches, and it gets its "sound" from the mic preamp you
choose to put
after it to make up the loss in the resistive summing.

It's hard to argue with what you heard, but frankly, I don't think
anyone really needs analog
summing as long as you have an up-to-date DAW and understand how to use
it. But then
everything sounds different, so you can have whatever you can justify
owning or renting for
a project.

--
"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

[Neil Rutman]

That's a good point Ethan.

Neil R

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Apr 30, 9:24 am, Ethan Winer wrote:
On Apr 29, 12:27 pm, "Neil Rutman" wrote:

after a-b test of mix with and without it would be hard to imagine
someone NOT liking the mix better with it in. Very noticeable IMO and in
a
good way.

I have to question how the A/B comparison was done. If the DAW works
correctly, which I'm sure it does, and the analog mixer / summer works
correctly, which I also assume, then the audible difference should be
very small. I'm not questioning what you heard, but rather questioning
if what you heard was actually the difference between analog and
digital summing.

--Ethan

should I even risk starting another firestorm and mention the M
word? :-)

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

"Mark" wrote in message
On Apr 30, 9:24 am, Ethan Winer wrote:

I have to question how the A/B comparison was done. If the DAW works
correctly, which I'm sure it does, and the analog mixer / summer works
correctly, which I also assume, then the audible difference should be
very small. I'm not questioning what you heard, but rather questioning
if what you heard was actually the difference between analog and
digital summing.

should I even risk starting another firestorm and mention the M
word? :-)

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

[Mark]

should I even risk starting another firestorm and mention the *M
word? *:-)

Marijuana?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Measurement

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Ethan Winer" wrote in message
...
On Apr 29, 12:27 pm, "Neil Rutman" wrote:
after a-b test of mix with and without it would be hard to imagine
someone NOT liking the mix better with it in. Very noticeable IMO and in
a
good way.

I have to question how the A/B comparison was done. If the DAW works
correctly, which I'm sure it does, and the analog mixer / summer works
correctly, which I also assume, then the audible difference should be
very small. I'm not questioning what you heard, but rather questioning
if what you heard was actually the difference between analog and
digital summing.

The difference between analog and digital summing, the one between
additional D/A conversion and no additional conversion, this difference,
that difference - who cares? In-the-box digital mixing environment is
largely sterilized anyway, with little or no sonic difference between the
various systems and platforms. If a small audible difference made by the
analog summing mixer meant the difference between disliking the mix and
liking it, then and there, if the OP liked what he heard so much that he
couldn't imagine someone not liking it, than it's a small difference that
counts big time. He's the one who has to be pleased with what he's doing,
first and foremost. If he's not excited with the finished mix, why should
anyone else be?

Whenever there's talk of these things there are people who mix digitally and
don't use analog summing, but believe that, using the accuracy of
comparisons and measurements as an argument, they can challenge those who
prefer analogue summing and use it precisely to get away from the accuracy.

Predrag

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Mark wrote:


should I even risk starting another firestorm and mention the =A0M
word? =A0:-)

Marijuana?

Measurement

You can't really measure it, because so much of what is going on in the
process is a change in user interface rather than a change in sound, and
if that change in user interface makes it easier for you to mix well, you
may well get substantial sonic improvement as an effect of that.

UI issues aren't easy to measure and that's where a lot of the arguments
about workflow come from. Even if the equipment doesn't sound any better,
making it easier to use can often result in better mixes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2010-04-30 (ScottDorsey) said:
You can't really measure it, because so much of what is going on in
the process is a change in user interface rather than a change in
sound, and if that change in user interface makes it easier for you
to mix well, you may well get substantial sonic improvement as an
effect of that.

I keep arguing this point with people. FOlks keep telling
me that "whatever you're doing with that old analog iron
mixer I can do just as effectively with this touchscreen and
all these menus. Maybe you can, lots of people can't for a
variety of reasons. I don't think my brain would be wired
to work point and click even had I 20/20 vision. But, maybe
I"m wrong about that.

UI issues aren't easy to measure and that's where a lot of the
arguments about workflow come from. Even if the equipment doesn't
sound any better, making it easier to use can often result in
better mixes. --scott
Indeed, and no matter how much you study the ergonomics of a
task what works best for one individual might not translate
well for another. RIghthanded vs. left handed is a perfect
example of the pitfalls to be encountered here.
Look at the number of folks who can't agree on a standard
setup for festivals and live gigging. sOme want the money
channels nearest the master section, some start with them at
one end.
Most of us who learned to mix with the money channels
adjacent to the master section get all discombobulated as
soon as we have to work backwards.


Regards,




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
Remote audio in the Memphis, Tn. area: see www.gatasound.com



Great audio is never heard by the average person, but bad
audio is heard by everyone.

[Mike Rivers]

drichard wrote:
I have not heard the analog summing devices, but I would be interested
in a blind test comparing the output of some of those analog summing
devices to that same output run through various tape sim plugins,
using settings that are very subtle. And I would also to hear them
compared to some of the tube compressor plugins that are out there,
again using very subtle settings.

Tape simulators and tube compressors don't have anything to do with analog
summing. The reason why people who like to sum channels in an analog mixer
is either because they like the sound (distortion) of the mixer or they
don't like
the math in their DAW.

So clean or dirty depends on what problem you're trying to solve.


--
"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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , wrote:

Look at the number of folks who can't agree on a standard
setup for festivals and live gigging. sOme want the money
channels nearest the master section, some start with them at
one end.

No way. Everything goes left to right across the console the way the mikes
are laid out across the stage, with vocals to the left of the instruments
when they are in the same place.

Most of us who learned to mix with the money channels
adjacent to the master section get all discombobulated as
soon as we have to work backwards.

Likewise, I get really annoyed when all the vocals are grouped together for
instance....

But it's OKAY because I have a patchbay and my channel numbering doesn't
have to be the same as the channel numbering at FOB. Although sometimes
this can cause a whole other set of confusions.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Tape simulators and tube compressors don't have anything to do with analog
summing. The reason why people who like to sum channels in an analog mixer
is either because they like the sound (distortion) of the mixer or they
don't like
the math in their DAW.

So clean or dirty depends on what problem you're trying to solve.

And the thing is... if you like the way analogue consoles connected to
a tape machine sound... why not just use an analogue console connected to
a tape machine instead of fiddling around with all this stuff?

If it sounds the way you want, just go with it. People spend thousands of
dollars for goofy tape simulation crap when they could have just bought an
Ampex 440 for a couple hundred bucks and had the real thing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2010-04-30 (ScottDorsey) said:
Look at the number of folks who can't agree on a standard
setup for festivals and live gigging. sOme want the money
channels nearest the master section, some start with them at
one end.
No way. Everything goes left to right across the console the way
the mikes are laid out across the stage, with vocals to the left of
the instruments when they are in the same place.
Most of us who learned to mix with the money channels
adjacent to the master section get all discombobulated as
soon as we have to work backwards.
Likewise, I get really annoyed when all the vocals are grouped
together for instance....
But it's OKAY because I have a patchbay and my channel numbering
doesn't have to be the same as the channel numbering at FOB.
Although sometimes this can cause a whole other set of confusions.
YEp, your 12 is my 23, his 38, etc. etc.

THis just illustrates what we're saying though. I've worked
with folks use your system too, and can handle that,
especially if I've got subgroups, now this is for live doing
foh of course.

Patchbays though are wonderful things g



Regards,



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
Remote audio in the Memphis, Tn. area: see www.gatasound.com

[Mark]

UI issues aren't easy to measure and that's where a lot of the arguments
about workflow come from. *Even if the equipment doesn't sound any better,
making it easier to use can often result in better mixes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I wasn't talking about measuring the UI differences.
I agree those are a matter of taste.

I was talking about measuring sonic differences due to the equipment
coloration.

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

Mark wrote:

I wasn't talking about measuring the UI differences.
I agree those are a matter of taste.

I was talking about measuring sonic differences due to the equipment
coloration.

The thing is, we have finally got to a world where the UI differences are
maybe even more important than the sonic coloration.

Really, the state of the art in audio got to be really good around 1955
or so... and most of the changes since then have been to make it cheaper
and to improve usability. (I'd put the whole increased track count and
overdubbing production thing in the 'improved usability' category.)
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , wrote:
Look at the number of folks who can't agree on a standard
setup for festivals and live gigging. sOme want the money
channels nearest the master section, some start with them at
one end.

No way. Everything goes left to right across the console the way the mikes
are laid out across the stage, with vocals to the left of the instruments
when they are in the same place.
Likewise, I get really annoyed when all the vocals are grouped together for
instance....

No way! I don't believe in "money channels" (I'm not even sure I know
what they are)
but I believe in being able to control the level mic when someone speaks
into a mic. I
want my vocal mics grouped together, though I go along with the
left-to-right across the
stage. That way I can quickly locate the mic of the person speaking and
keep a hand
on the level. It's too hard for me to pick out an individual vocal mic
(or instrument mic,
for that matter) if vocals and instruments are interspersed. It's not
bad if have (or have
channels for, whether they're used or not) one vocal mic, one instrument
mic, and one
DI for each performer, but if someone plays three instruments, each with
its own DI,
and you use a mic+DI on one of them, and a 4th instrument doesn't have a
pickup and
needs a mic, and there's no vocal, that can get confusing.

Most of us who learned to mix with the money channels
adjacent to the master section get all discombobulated as
soon as we have to work backwards.

I put the vocal channels first. Some put them last. I can work
backwards, but I get
confused when the vocals are interspersed with the instruments. I often
don't have
a good enough view of the stage to see what's happening, particularly if
the group
isn't arranged in a straight line.

But it's OKAY because I have a patchbay and my channel numbering doesn't
have to be the same as the channel numbering at FOB. Although sometimes
this can cause a whole other set of confusions.

Yup, like when you ask the stage tech to lower the mic on the gedulka a
few inches and he
doesn't know what a gedulka is.

--
"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

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message


You can't really measure it, because so much of what is
going on in the process is a change in user interface
rather than a change in sound, and
if that change in user interface makes it easier for you
to mix well, you
may well get substantial sonic improvement as an effect
of that.

+1, with a bullet.

What a lot of people don't realize is that two mixes are pretty much
guaranteed to sound different unless you match every fader setting in the
mix on a second-by-second basis within a fraction of a dB. Purists would ask
for 0.1 dB matching. Without a superhuman effort, it simply isn't going to
happen.

So now you have 2 different mixes and they sound different, but do they
sound different because of the guts of the mixer or do they sound different
because they are 2 different mixes?

The smart money is invested in the idea that the mixis sound different
because they are 2 different mixes. The dumb money invests in the guts of
yet another magic mix bus, believing that it somehow transcends the obvious
differences.

Looking at the *why* behind the 2 different mixes, some of it is simply that
humans aren't robots and doing the identical same non-trivial thing exactly
the same twice is not possible for humans.

Throw in two different mixers with non-identical ergonomics and different
mixes are even more of a sure thing.


UI issues aren't easy to measure and that's where a lot
of the arguments about workflow come from.

+1 again. Round knobs versus linear, long throw versus short, the feel of
the knobs and potentiometers, the ordering of the channels from left to
right, layers or no layers, it all works on your mind while you are mixing.

Even if the equipment doesn't
sound any better, making it easier to use can often result in better
mixes.

Absolutely.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message


No way. Everything goes left to right across the
console the way the mikes are laid out across the stage,
with vocals to the left of the instruments when they are
in the same place.

Hmm.

Left to right as the musos stand makes sense if you are not familiar with
the setup. It is a good starting point.

Likewise, I get really annoyed when all the vocals are
grouped together for instance....

I think that depends a lot on what has to be done to keep the vocals
together. Good vocalists who can hear and track each other are easy to mix.
Amateurs with a poor monitoring or not enough rehearsing can keep your
fingers busy. It is easier to mix more than channel per hand if the faders
are close to each other. But, you hope you don't have to mix at that level
of detail.

No way! I don't believe in "money channels" (I'm not even sure I know
what they are)

IME that very much depends on what you are mixing. I would agree with you
if I was mixing a choir and and/or an orchestra w/o solists. If there are
solists then they are usually the money channels. If there is a small
ensemble that dominates, then they are the money channel(s).


but I believe in being able to control the level mic when
someone speaks into a mic.

Of course.

I want my vocal mics grouped together, though I go along
with the left-to-right across the stage. That way I can quickly locate the
mic of the
person speaking and keep a hand on the level. It's too hard for me to pick
out an
individual vocal mic (or instrument mic, for that matter) if vocals and
instruments are
interspersed.

Agreed. However, there was a big change with my weekly gig. The vocalists
used to be in the center, with the instrumentalists around and behind them.
We then moved the instruments down into a sort of ad hoc orchestra pit that
was in front. I haven't moved the channel assignements to suit because it
made more sense to keep the instrument channels where I knew they were. I
found myself mixing the strings, not mixing the instruments that are on the
right side. They used to be the same thing, and now they aren't but I stuck
with the functions, not the geography.

[Mike Rivers]

Arny Krueger wrote:

What a lot of people don't realize is that two mixes are pretty much
guaranteed to sound different unless you match every fader setting in the
mix on a second-by-second basis within a fraction of a dB. Purists would ask
for 0.1 dB matching. Without a superhuman effort, it simply isn't going to
happen.

This tread got off track (surprise!) from "DAW analog summing" to
"mixing with an
analog console." The way that an analog summing box is used with a DAW
is that
all the levels, pans, EQ, and any other processing is done in the DAW.
Instead of
assigning each track in the DAW to the same DAW stereo output pair, you
assign
each track to its own output pair (this takes lots of D/A converters)
and those are
summed outside the box, with uniform fixed (usually unity) gain on all
inputs to the
suming device. Errors can be introduced by differences in gain between
channels, or
channel pairs, but those can be minimized by careful matching. Perhaps
the biggest
difference between analog and digital summing of the DAW channels is
there are more
D/A converters involved with the analog summing. Aside from those
differences, the
mix elements should be identical whether summed by a bunch of resistors
or by an
arithmetic process.

Looking at the *why* behind the 2 different mixes, some of it is simply that
humans aren't robots and doing the identical same non-trivial thing exactly
the same twice is not possible for humans.

No humans involved, other than in building the summing hardware and
hooking up
the wires.



--
"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

[Ethan Winer[_3_]]

On Apr 30, 12:40 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
those who prefer analogue summing and use it precisely to get away from the accuracy.

But there are many other much simpler and less expensive ways to add a
little analog "character" when one wants that effect.

--Ethan

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

What a lot of people don't realize is that two mixes are
pretty much guaranteed to sound different unless you
match every fader setting in the mix on a
second-by-second basis within a fraction of a dB.
Purists would ask for 0.1 dB matching. Without a
superhuman effort, it simply isn't going to happen.

This tread got off track (surprise!) from "DAW analog
summing" to "mixing with an
analog console." The way that an analog summing box is
used with a DAW is that
all the levels, pans, EQ, and any other processing is done in the DAW.


Well I finally did my homework and checked out what a "SPL Mixdream XP -
analog" is. You're right, its not a mixer in the conventional audio
production sense. My previous comments are inappropriate. My apologies.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Sat 2038-May-01 09:01, Mike Rivers writes:

snip

No way. Everything goes left to right across the console the way the mikes
are laid out across the stage, with vocals to the left of the instruments
when they are in the same place.
Likewise, I get really annoyed when all the vocals are grouped together for
instance....

No way! I don't believe in "money channels" (I'm not even sure I
know what they are)
but I believe in being able to control the level mic when someone
speaks into a mic. I
want my vocal mics grouped together, though I go along with the
left-to-right across the
stage. That way I can quickly locate the mic of the person speaking
and keep a hand
on the level. It's too hard for me to pick out an individual vocal
mic (or instrument mic,
for that matter) if vocals and instruments are interspersed. It's
not bad if have (or have
channels for, whether they're used or not) one vocal mic, one
instrument mic, and one
DI for each performer, but if someone plays three instruments, each
with its own DI,
and you use a mic+DI on one of them, and a 4th instrument doesn't
have a pickup and
needs a mic, and there's no vocal, that can get confusing.

Yep, I'll group mmy vocals, left to right of course, and
like them adjacent to the master section in most cases. Old blind man usually marks the start of the vocals group with a lump of tape or something for easy spatial reference in the
heat of battle g.

Btw, for most things I call my vocal channels the "money"
channels. WHat did the folks come there to hear? IN many
cases, the words to their favorite song(s) sung live. Hence I use that bit of slang for them g..


snip again

I put the vocal channels first. Some put them last. I can work
backwards, but I get
confused when the vocals are interspersed with the instruments. I
often don't have
a good enough view of the stage to see what's happening,
particularly if the group
isn't arranged in a straight line.

YEp, used to do vox all the way to the left, but as I
graduated to larger consoles I found that I was having a
problem reaching both ends, especially for prog rock type
acts that wanted that delay on the snare drum flown in for a beat or two, etc.

But it's OKAY because I have a patchbay and my channel numbering doesn't
have to be the same as the channel numbering at FOB. Although sometimes
this can cause a whole other set of confusions.

Yup, like when you ask the stage tech to lower the mic on the
gedulka a few inches and he
doesn't know what a gedulka is.

YEp, then you get to my 9 is foh's 14, is monitor world's 4, etc. THink I mentioned that one already though g.


Regards,
Richard


Remote audio in the Memphis, Tn. area: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Arny Krueger]

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in
message

The difference between analog and digital summing, the
one between additional D/A conversion and no additional
conversion, this difference, that difference - who cares?

Good point.

In-the-box digital mixing environment is largely
sterilized anyway, with little or no sonic difference
between the various systems and platforms.

Just another example of how there is really only one right way to do things,
and when you find it, that is about it.

One of the cannoical ideas of audio production is that we have our EFX over
here to add as we wish, but the other non-EFX things we do are free of EFX.

If a small
audible difference made by the analog summing mixer meant
the difference between disliking the mix and liking it,
then and there,

That a proper analog fixed-gain mixer would sound imperfect strikes me as a
bit of a leap right there.


if the OP liked what he heard so much
that he couldn't imagine someone not liking it, than it's
a small difference that counts big time.

That the OP did a reasonbly bias-free listening test for his impressions to
be credible is probably a big leap all by itself.

He's the one who
has to be pleased with what he's doing, first and
foremost.

Letsee. Someone spends about $1800 for a mixer that on the best day of its
life should sound no different from what he already has, and isn't pleased
is IME a big leap. This reminds me of high end boutique audio.

If he's not excited with the finished mix, why should anyone else be?

Seems like the excitement in a mix comes from the artistry of the musicans
and the desirable non-subtle attributes of the mix.

Whenever there's talk of these things there are people
who mix digitally and don't use analog summing, but
believe that, using the accuracy of comparisons and
measurements as an argument, they can challenge those who
prefer analogue summing and use it precisely to get away
from the accuracy.

I don't know about that. More to the point, how do we know that this isn't
just another case of the Emperor's new audio production toy?

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Ethan Winer" wrote in message
...
On Apr 30, 12:40 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
those who prefer analogue summing and use it precisely to get away from
the accuracy.

But there are many other much simpler and less expensive ways to add a
little analog "character" when one wants that effect.

Good stereo analog compressors, limiters, EQs etc. are not cheap and none of
them, including analog tape (recorders), add the same complex set of subtle
distortions as analog summing. They are all different characters, or
different effects, if you insist on that term.

Predrag

[Moshe]

On Sun, 2 May 2010 01:56:13 +0200, Predrag Trpkov wrote:

"Ethan Winer" wrote in message
...
On Apr 30, 12:40 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
those who prefer analogue summing and use it precisely to get away from
the accuracy.

But there are many other much simpler and less expensive ways to add a
little analog "character" when one wants that effect.

Good stereo analog compressors, limiters, EQs etc. are not cheap and none of
them, including analog tape (recorders), add the same complex set of subtle
distortions as analog summing. They are all different characters, or
different effects, if you insist on that term.

Predrag

I agree.....

[hank alrich]

Predrag Trpkov wrote:

"Ethan Winer" wrote in message
...
On Apr 30, 12:40 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
those who prefer analogue summing and use it precisely to get away from
the accuracy.

But there are many other much simpler and less expensive ways to add a
little analog "character" when one wants that effect.

Good stereo analog compressors, limiters, EQs etc. are not cheap and none of
them, including analog tape (recorders), add the same complex set of subtle
distortions as analog summing. They are all different characters, or
different effects, if you insist on that term.

Predrag

If we want to get that picky about it, then no two analog summing
devices sound alike, either.

Different makes and models of tape recorders also sound different.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/hsadharma

[Rick Ruskin]

On Sat, 1 May 2010 18:50:33 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

Predrag Trpkov wrote:

"Ethan Winer" wrote in message
...
On Apr 30, 12:40 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
those who prefer analogue summing and use it precisely to get away from
the accuracy.

But there are many other much simpler and less expensive ways to add a
little analog "character" when one wants that effect.

Good stereo analog compressors, limiters, EQs etc. are not cheap and none of
them, including analog tape (recorders), add the same complex set of subtle
distortions as analog summing. They are all different characters, or
different effects, if you insist on that term.

Predrag

If we want to get that picky about it, then no two analog summing
devices sound alike, either.

Different makes and models of tape recorders also sound different.


I watch threads like this and laugh my ass off. Does anyone here
seriously think that recorded product is bought or not bought because
of what it was or was not recorded on/with/through?


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

[Predrag Trpkov]

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

The difference between analog and digital summing, the
one between additional D/A conversion and no additional
conversion, this difference, that difference - who cares?

Good point.

In-the-box digital mixing environment is largely
sterilized anyway, with little or no sonic difference
between the various systems and platforms.

Just another example of how there is really only one right way to do
things, and when you find it, that is about it.

One of the cannoical ideas of audio production is that we have our EFX
over here to add as we wish, but the other non-EFX things we do are free
of EFX.


"We" in your case means people with no real experience in the trenches of
commercial audio production and with no clue about an audio engineer's role
in the creative process.

Those with the experience can be heard saying things like:
"If it sounds right..."
"Whatever works..."
"There are many ways to..."
"I would have never guessed that this would sound good on that..." etc.


If a small
audible difference made by the analog summing mixer meant
the difference between disliking the mix and liking it,
then and there,

That a proper analog fixed-gain mixer would sound imperfect strikes me as
a bit of a leap right there.

If you could understand that nobody cares about them being proper we
wouldn't be arguing now. People buy them precisely because they sound
slightly imperfect, because digital perfection doesn't work for them and/or
their clients.


if the OP liked what he heard so much
that he couldn't imagine someone not liking it, than it's
a small difference that counts big time.

That the OP did a reasonbly bias-free listening test for his impressions
to be credible is probably a big leap all by itself.

Who cares whether the OP's impressions are credible to you or not? It worked
for him, then and there, as it did for others many times before. It might
work for somebody else and/or their clients in the future. That's all that
matters. You don't understand what it's about, you never tried it, you won't
try it so it won't work for you. It doesn't fit into a quasi-scientific
matrix that you keep trying to impose on a field dominated by creativity so
you're only interested in dissing those who are capable of thinking out of
the box (pun intended).


He's the one who
has to be pleased with what he's doing, first and
foremost.

Letsee. Someone spends about $1800 for a mixer that on the best day of its
life should sound no different from what he already has, and isn't pleased
is IME a big leap. This reminds me of high end boutique audio.

Let's see. The OP listened to both and came here with his impressions. You
listened to nothing, you measured nothing, until a moment ago you didn't
even know what the SPL Mixdream was and yet you're claiming that you know
exactly how it sounds. You're claiming that the engineers at SPL don't know
what they're doing and that those who bought the unit don't know what
they're hearing, including the OP.


If he's not excited with the finished mix, why should anyone else be?

Seems like the excitement in a mix comes from the artistry of the musicans
and the desirable non-subtle attributes of the mix.

Whatever. It doesn't come from recording church services on a daily basis.


Whenever there's talk of these things there are people
who mix digitally and don't use analog summing, but
believe that, using the accuracy of comparisons and
measurements as an argument, they can challenge those who
prefer analogue summing and use it precisely to get away
from the accuracy.

I don't know about that. More to the point, how do we know that this isn't
just another case of the Emperor's new audio production toy?

You just don't know. The thing is, the time that you've spent over the years
on Usenet arguing about music production with people who have incomparably
more under their belts than you, making a fool of yourself countless times,
that time could have bought you a great deal of practical experience and
knowledge.

Predrag

[Predrag Trpkov]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Predrag Trpkov wrote:

"Ethan Winer" wrote in message
...
On Apr 30, 12:40 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
those who prefer analogue summing and use it precisely to get away
from
the accuracy.

But there are many other much simpler and less expensive ways to add a
little analog "character" when one wants that effect.

Good stereo analog compressors, limiters, EQs etc. are not cheap and none
of
them, including analog tape (recorders), add the same complex set of
subtle
distortions as analog summing. They are all different characters, or
different effects, if you insist on that term.

Predrag

If we want to get that picky about it, then no two analog summing
devices sound alike, either.

Different makes and models of tape recorders also sound different.

Of course, but they are likely to sound closer to each other, compared to
the ITB mix, than sending that mix through an analog compressor, for
example. The analog compressors add a different set of distortions, partly
because of the different electronics, partly because the equation involves
only a pair of D/A converters, instead of 8 or16 or 24 mixed together, as in
case of an analog summing device. The same goes for tape recorders, with
some additional variables (and coloration).

Predrag

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Rick Ruskin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 May 2010 18:50:33 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

Predrag Trpkov wrote:

"Ethan Winer" wrote in message
...
On Apr 30, 12:40 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
those who prefer analogue summing and use it precisely to get away
from
the accuracy.

But there are many other much simpler and less expensive ways to add a
little analog "character" when one wants that effect.

Good stereo analog compressors, limiters, EQs etc. are not cheap and
none of
them, including analog tape (recorders), add the same complex set of
subtle
distortions as analog summing. They are all different characters, or
different effects, if you insist on that term.

Predrag

If we want to get that picky about it, then no two analog summing
devices sound alike, either.

Different makes and models of tape recorders also sound different.


I watch threads like this and laugh my ass off. Does anyone here
seriously think that recorded product is bought or not bought because
of what it was or was not recorded on/with/through?

Not directly, but the choice of equipment may (and often does) influence the
way the people involved in the creation of the product feel about it, which
in turn could influence its quality, which in turn...

Predrag

[hank alrich]

Predrag Trpkov wrote:

In-the-box digital mixing environment is
largely sterilized anyway, with little or no sonic difference between the
various systems and platforms.

Even my owns mixes ITB can sound radically different within the same DAW
_depending on how hot I'm running into the mixbus_. All relative levels
the same, and only the overall level at the master being drastically
different. Hot levels hit -1 dBFS or so. Cool, nothing pops ove -12dBfs,
or even lower.

Hot sounds sterile, relatively dimensionless, mildy crunchy. Cool, lots
of headroom, is open, clean and gorgeous. If I want coloration I catch
it on the way in.

When I add additional gain to the finished mix in the premastering stage
the cooler mix retains its attributes, even if I now take that mix up to
-1. I don't do that because I want the mastering engineer to have
headroom enough to work with.

I am not alone on this. There circa 200 page threads about this in Terry
Manning's Whatever Works forum at ProSoundWeb.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/hsadharma

[Rick Ruskin]

On Sun, 2 May 2010 05:03:39 +0200, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:


"Rick Ruskin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 1 May 2010 18:50:33 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

Predrag Trpkov wrote:

"Ethan Winer" wrote in message
...
On Apr 30, 12:40 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
those who prefer analogue summing and use it precisely to get away
from
the accuracy.

But there are many other much simpler and less expensive ways to add a
little analog "character" when one wants that effect.

Good stereo analog compressors, limiters, EQs etc. are not cheap and
none of
them, including analog tape (recorders), add the same complex set of
subtle
distortions as analog summing. They are all different characters, or
different effects, if you insist on that term.

Predrag

If we want to get that picky about it, then no two analog summing
devices sound alike, either.

Different makes and models of tape recorders also sound different.


I watch threads like this and laugh my ass off. Does anyone here
seriously think that recorded product is bought or not bought because
of what it was or was not recorded on/with/through?

Not directly, but the choice of equipment may (and often does) influence the
way the people involved in the creation of the product feel about it, which
in turn could influence its quality, which in turn...

Predrag


Here - have some more sonic Kool-Aid.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

hank alrich wrote:

Different makes and models of tape recorders also sound different.

Two of a kind, set up by different techs, also sound different. There is
intentional voicing ALL the way in audio production via lots of small or
large setup and equipment choices.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen