[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."

[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

[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]

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."

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

"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

[Arny Krueger]

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message
...

"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.

Predrag, that would be a lie spawned in your bigoted abject ignornace. You
have no idea what experience I have, what resources in commercial audio
production I have access to and etc.


Those with the experience can be heard saying things like:

"If it sounds right..."

True, and irrelevant to the statement that you are taking exception to,
Predrag.

"Whatever works..."

True, and not in conflict with the statement that you are taking exception
to, Predrag.

"There are many ways to..."

I totally agree with that, and its in no way against what I said.

"I would have never guessed that this would sound good on that..." etc.

Been there, done that.

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.

The only reason I'm arguing with you Predrag is that I take pity on your
ignorance.

People buy them precisely because they sound
slightly imperfect, because digital perfection doesn't work for them
and/or
their clients.

That's a speculative hypothesis, not a proven fact.

Your first problem Predrag is that you have already shown yourself to be
toally naive about the reasons why people say that something sound
different.

Just because someone says that something sounds different means absolutely
nothing. Zero. Zilch. Doesn't matter how many gold records the person saying
has on the wall of their office.

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 is not just me, Predrag.

There is a question at hand for which there appears to be little or no
reliable evidence.

The question is whether or not a good digital summer and a good analog
summer sound different.

It is already a proven fact that +/- a few good A/D - D/A conversions
makes no audible difference at all.

That a good analog summer should sound different than a good digital summer
seems completely illogical if you understand the performance levels involved
and how the human ears work. I would speculate Predrag that you are pretty
ignorant about both of those things.

It worked
for him, then and there, as it did for others many times before.

The identical same thing can be said about green CD pens.

It might work for somebody else and/or their clients in the future.

The identical same thing can be said about solid versus stranded audio
cables.

That's all that matters.

It matters nothing at all in the absence of reliable evidence.

You don't understand what it's about,

Ignorant false claim.

you never tried it,

I have bigger fish to fry, things that produce checks that cash.

you won't try it so it

Make it worth my while, and I'll do a better job than you can imagine of
evaluating it.

won't work for you.

If it is a worthwhile product it should work under very many reasonable
circumstances.

It doesn't fit into a quasi-scientific matrix that you keep trying to
impose on a field

The matrix *is* scientific and its not me alone that is imposing it. Since
science is at its core about Nature, it is Nature that imposes the matrix.

dominated by creativity

An artist's creativity can't change the chemical properties of the paint he
uses.

so you're only interested in dissing those who are capable of thinking out
of
the box (pun intended).

I'm probably one of the more agressive out-of-the box thinkers around. You
just don't know me! ;-)

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.

So did the guy who first posted about green CD pens.

You listened to nothing, you measured nothing, until a moment ago you
didn't
even know what the SPL Mixdream was

Sue me for posting when I was too busy to do my reasearch because I was
doing real world audio work.

and yet you're claiming that you know exactly how it sounds.

I never said any such thing. On top of your many intellectual errors
Predrag, you can't even read simple English.

You're claiming that the engineers at SPL don't know
what they're doing

I never said any such thing. On top of your many intellectual errors
Predrag, you can't even read simple English.

and that those who bought the unit don't know what they're hearing,

Lacking proper safeguards and experimental controls, *nobody* knows what
they are hearing when the differences are as subtle as these should be.

Predrag, your problem is that you seem think that there's an audible
difference hiding in everything used for audio production.

There is no logical reason to expect that a well-made analog summer, and a
well-made digitial summer sound one iota different. The digital summer can
obviously made to be as good as you want it to be, which the laws of physics
prevent the analog summer from ever being. However as a practical matter,
good analog summers are simply the result of the execution of
well-understood technology.

If the analog summer and the digital summer sound different, then someone
screwed up.

including the OP.

I see no evidence that he knows the slightest thing about doing proper
listening tests.

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.

Arrogant, ignorant, dismissive attitude noted. Good and even excellent
recordings are the results of the musicanship and non-subtle audible choices
made during production. Good recordings don't sound just a little bit good,
and bad recordings don't sound just a little bit bad.

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

I don't do that, (record church services on a daily basis) either. I'm
involved with that only once a week, and the actual button pushing is
deligated to someone else. Furthermore, the church services are usually only
recorded for the purpose of capturing spoken words. And, if I were serious
about the musical content of those recordings, they would be multichannel
from individual mic and instrument feeds, not recordings off a live sound
board's main outputs.

The majority of professional recording that I do is done someplace else and
it is for pay, not as a volunteer. Like I've been saying all along Predrag,
you don't know me. But heck, you don't seem to know yourself very well,
either.

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.

And Predrag who made you so much head-and-shoulders smarter that you *do*
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.

Prove it, Predrag. You obviously don't know what I do, you don't know what
I've done, and you showed your ignorance of it just a few paragraphs back.

What qualifies you to sit in judgement of me?

All I've done is observed what is not knowable from the highly limited
evidence that has been presented so far.

There is a *right way* to determing whether or not there is a sonic
advantage or even a sonic difference. So far it seems to be eluding certain
people, even though it is well documented.

[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

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

hank alrich wrote:
Predrag 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.



Did anybody actually do any number crunching to analyze this? Gotta say
- early on with my cheap DAW, I ran two mixes, one at -20 relative to
another that was about -1dB peak level, renormalized them and
took a diff and got nothing that could not be explained by pulling up
quant. and/or dither noise.

--
Les Cargill


--
Les Cargill

[Mark]

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.

Did anybody actually do any number crunching to analyze this? Gotta say
- early on with my cheap DAW, I ran two mixes, one at -20 relative to
another that was about -1dB peak level, renormalized them and
took a diff and got nothing that could not be explained by pulling up
quant. and/or dither noise.

--
Les Cargill


there you go...that's perfect...

if you suspect you hear a problem, do some kind of test and or
measurement to find out if it is real and if it is real to find out
what it is...

so in this example, there was no problem..

thanks

Mark

[philicorda[_8_]]

On Sun, 02 May 2010 12:00:41 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:



Did anybody actually do any number crunching to analyze this? Gotta say
- early on with my cheap DAW, I ran two mixes, one at -20 relative to
another that was about -1dB peak level, renormalized them and took a
diff and got nothing that could not be explained by pulling up quant.
and/or dither noise.

It might make a difference if the DAW uses integer maths to sum, rather
than floating point. It would be difficult to run out of summing headroom
on floating point DAWs. Only Pro-Tools still uses integer maths in it's
mixer and plugins as far as I know. So your cheap computer DAW might
actually behave better here.

I've always thought the good/bad 'digital summing bus' to be a bit of a
myth personally, at least for floating point. Why would anyone do
anything other than simple addition?




--
Les Cargill

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
hank alrich wrote:
Predrag 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.



Did anybody actually do any number crunching to analyze this? Gotta say
- early on with my cheap DAW, I ran two mixes, one at -20 relative to
another that was about -1dB peak level, renormalized them and
took a diff and got nothing that could not be explained by pulling up
quant. and/or dither noise.

Could it be that the only difference between the two mixes was in the
position of the master fader? I don't think that's what Hank suggested. If I
understood well his technique is based around being rather conservative with
the level of signals sent into the mix buss, by printing the individual
tracks relatively cold and by keeping the corresponding channel faders
relatively low during the mix. It's about the headroom of the mix buss and
not the level at its output.

Predrag

[Predrag Trpkov]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
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.

You could just as well be alone on this and it would still be intriguing.
Not only because it's coming from you, but because it seems plausible and
worth trying. I read what you wrote about it in another thread and have
already decided to try it. I don't believe it will change my preferences
when it comes to mixing - I like the sound and ergonomics of analog consoles
too much, but that wouldn't be a reason for me to diss your approach. One
can only profit from learning new tricks, especially if it costs nothing. In
any case, I wouldn't even dare to comment without trying it first.

Unfortunately, dismissing things without ever trying them seems to have
become the norm around here. That's not how one can learn new things.

Predrag

[hank alrich]

Predrag Trpkov wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
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.

You could just as well be alone on this and it would still be intriguing.
Not only because it's coming from you, but because it seems plausible and
worth trying. I read what you wrote about it in another thread and have
already decided to try it. I don't believe it will change my preferences
when it comes to mixing - I like the sound and ergonomics of analog consoles
too much, but that wouldn't be a reason for me to diss your approach. One
can only profit from learning new tricks, especially if it costs nothing. In
any case, I wouldn't even dare to comment without trying it first.

Unfortunately, dismissing things without ever trying them seems to have
become the norm around here. That's not how one can learn new things.

Predrag

Predrag,

Start on the way in. Keep levels into the DAW low. I like to hit it
about -20 dBFS. In this case I think the result has more to do with the
upstream analog portions running in a much more relaxed manner than with
whether or not the DAW math can handle such and such an input level.
Peaks pass very cleanly, and that's what I think improves the sound I
get. (The Metric Halo box is good enough that I have never even thought
to look at it and think that's where a problem lived.)

Upstream in my case are Great RIver and Millennia preamps. There is no
audible noise penalty for running them at lower levels.

Once upon a time I learned _by accident_ that avoiding lighting even the
yellow LED's on a Mackie output level meter made for an astonishing
upgrade to the sound. I don't need to measure it. Eventually this became
conventional wisdom, especially after guys like Scott Dorsey got into
the way the Mackie's summing and output sections performed.

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