Moving towards a Hybrid setup, summing mixer questions.

[Gahlord]

Hello everyone. I'm ready to start expanding beyond "in the box" (ITB) methods to "outside the box" (OTB) methods.

I realize that summing mixer threads are everywhere and that there are many of them. I've read many of them. My hope is that this thread will serve as a repository of useful information about the topic for others who, like me, may be a bit overwhelmed by the variety of information and assumed knowledge. I'll update this initial post with info as I get more of it.

First off a few things:

1. I'm not interested in discussions about whether mixing ITB or OTB are better or worse than each other. I'm going to try it out regardless of what anyone says and decide for myself. So we can skip that part.
2. My process will be Hybrid as defined by the intensely thoughtful "OTB Pro" re-naming thread: Mics->Pre->AD->DAW->DA->Analog Stuff->AD->Distribution Format.
3. My questions will be basic and beginner but please don't assume that I haven't read the threads or used the search function. I'll try to be as specific as possible in my questions.
4. My budget, while not non-existent, is limited and I am at heart a DIY sort of person. I'm very interested in high quality stuff but am more likely to deploy solutions which I make myself.
5. My income is not reliant on work in music, audio recording or audio engineering. My toys and resources are more than a bedroom but I don't consider myself a "professional" in either strict or aspirational usage. That said, I do aspire to craft pleasing things with sound.

Alright, enough with the opening act. On to some questions:

In the aforementioned "OTB Pro" thread BigTree says, regarding summing mixers and OTB/ITB issues generally:

A lot of people in this business do not understand the difference between hybrid, OTB or ITB and how a console is, IMHO, different from a Hybrid summing system.

As I'm in the process of re-organizing my audio stuff to work more tangible-world things into my workflow, this quote really nails it for me. While not in the business, I am exactly one of these people who doesn't understand the difference between all of these things.

For example, I'm trying to figure out the difference between a running from DAW->DA->DIY passive summing mixer->Pre->AD->DAW vs DAW->DA->Mixing Console->AD->DAW. Obviously whatever sonic characteristics imparted by the "summing mixer + pre" and the "mixing console" parts of the chain would be different. So my question is:

Question: Can a console perform the same function as a summing mixer in a hybrid system? How is a console different from a summing system?

Answer: Kurt Foster, below, responds:

Yes it can . A console is different in that it can provide aux sends, eqs, and sub grouping as well as a two buss for summing.

Bigtree, later in this thread, offers a caveat. First that consoles impart a certain character (in other words they are not "transparent") due to their unique signatures--and liking/choosing them is then a matter of taste. And that

The summing amps IMHO should be transparent and have mass headroom. A console is very different as noted above in a previous post.

The reason I ask this question is because I do not currently have a summing mixer but I do have a small mixing board. If a mixing board serves the same function as a summing mixer, I would like to use the mixing board to try this whole hybrid thing out. My plan would be to test the following signal chain: DAW->DA->Small Mixing Board->-AD->DAW while monitoring via the "control room out" on the small mixing board.

Question: Would this signal chain give me a fair assessment of what using analog summing is about? (Obvious caveats given for the quality of the mixing board itself etc)

Answer: Kurt Foster, below, responds:

Yes it would. However the better your mixer, the better the mix's would sound. Using a mixer with with a cheese-o mix buss / power supply might not reveal much of a difference.

With those two out of the way, I have a question about panning. Many of the summing mixers I have seen while researching have inputs either hard-wired to be left/center/right or include just a switch which will hard pan left/center/hard pan right. Only a few have had a rotary dial. As I currently only have 8 channels of DA conversion and I rarely automate panning, I would love to set the panning from the summing mixer itself.

Question: Is there something inherently tricky about panning that prevents a pan rotary from being present on many summing mixers? For the DIY-inclined out there, is there something about panning that makes a rotary knob not work in a passive summing mixer?

Answer: Kurt Foster, below, responds:

Pan knobs require an active circuit. Anyway a pan knob should not be necessary as you should be assigning DAW outs in pairs to the summing network. Do your pans in DAW land.

That's it for now. I will edit/update this head post as I learn more. Hopefully in this way others who begin to investigate hybrid setups can be directed to one place instead of the large number of posts out there.

Also if this should be moved somewhere please let me know. I was going to put it in Home Recording for Newbs but that is under ITB mixing. I guess I sort of see this post as more of an "on ramp" for OTB mixing so I put it here.

Some additional thoughts put forth on the topic of hybrid and summing mixers:

Two hybrid signal flows have been suggested. The first one, which is the one I've seen in referenced in the majority of posts on the topic goes like this:

1. DAW stems
2. DA converter
3. Summing mixer (which may include inserts and aux for each stem)
4. Stereo mix from the summing mixer
5. AD converter
6. DAW

Bigtree, in this thread suggests that the DAW in step 6 be a different machine than the DAW in step 1 in order to avoid sample rate conversion (SRC). Bigtree's full Two DAW process is outlined in this thread about export vs printing of the stereo sum.

Boswell, later in this thread, further clarifies the process in regards to sample rate conversion (SRC):

(1) the avoidance of a digital SRC. None the SRCs I have tried are completely transparent. I think Chris reported that he immediately noticed an improvement in his mixes when he adopted this source-mix-capture method.

(2) Not mixing at 44.1KHz. The addition of tracks that all have brick-wall anti-aliaising filters at around 20KHz produces a tiring top octave. This effect is not dissimilar from the bedroom-recordists results of tracking everything using a single bright condenser microphone. When the top octave is 20-40 KHz, the 10-20KHz region is much cleaner, and having just the stereo 20KHz filter for the mix capture is a tolerable necessity.

Kurt, below, suggests a hybrid signal flow that is suitable for 64-bit DAWs which don't suffer the same bottlenecking as the 32-bit machines which lead to analog summing in the first place:

1. DAW channel inserts/sends
2. DA converter
3. Analog effects
4. AD converter
5. DAW channel returns
6. DAW stereo mixdown

[Kurt Foster]

Question: Can a console perform the same function as a summing mixer in a hybrid system? How is a console different from a summing system?

Yes it can . A console is different in that it can provide aux sends, eqs, and sub grouping as well as a two buss for summing.

Question: My plan would be to test the following signal chain: DAW->DA->Small Mixing Board->-AD->DAW while monitoring via the "control room out" on the small mixing board.

Would this signal chain give me a fair assessment of what using analog summing is about? (Obvious caveats given for the quality of the mixing board itself etc)

Yes it would. However the better your mixer, the better the mix's would sound. Using a mixer with with a cheese-o mix buss / power supply might not reveal much of a difference.

Question: Is there something inherently tricky about panning that prevents a pan rotary from being present on many summing mixers? For the DIY-inclined out there, is there something about panning that makes a rotary knob not work in a passive summing mixer?

Pan knobs require an active circuit. Anyway a pan knob should not be necessary as you should be assigning DAW outs in pairs to the summing network. Do your pans in DAW land.

[Gahlord]

Thanks for the quick and clear response!

If I do the panning in DAW land I am left with half as many channels to sum or I have to create stems/submixes. From reading on the various posts about this topic this seems to be a common/normal/great practice. In my case, having an 8 channel AD/DA converter, it would mean creating 4 stems/submixes and sending those out for analog summing.

My understanding is that I would want to group like material in those submixes (all the guitars in one, all the drums in one for example).

This raises two more questions for me related to using summing mixers:

Question: When choosing "like material" for creating a submix/stem to send out for summing what parameters should be considered? Pitch range? Attack/decay? Overtones? Or is this more of an arbitrary thing that is dependent on a great number of factors/taste/preference?

and then the inevitable...

Question: If groups of instruments are being mixed together in the DAW and then sent to the summing mixer as a stereo pair, isn't that the same as doing the mixing ITB in the first place? Or is this ITB mixing less problematic due to the nature of the "like material" selected via parameters outlined in the previous question (or more likely the answer to the previous question)?

Thanks!

[Kurt Foster]

Question: When choosing "like material" for creating a submix/stem to send out for summing what parameters should be considered? Pitch range? Attack/decay? Overtones? Or is this more of an arbitrary thing that is dependent on a great number of factors/taste/preference?

Either way. I would group Drums L/R, bass and maybe kick on one mono channel, Lead Vox on another mono channel, keys and guitars together, and solos. There's 8 channels. But really it's a matter of personal preference / what ever works for you.

I want to add another advantage to doing your panning in the DAW is of course, automated pans.


Question: If groups of instruments are being mixed together in the DAW and then sent to the summing mixer as a stereo pair, isn't that the same as doing the mixing ITB in the first place? Or is this ITB mixing less problematic due to the nature of the "like material" selected via parameters outlined in the previous question (or more likely the answer to the previous question)?

Not so much "like material" ... but the use of more than one stereo buss.

Think of the stereo buss in a typical DAW as a bottleneck. The more bottlenecks you use, the more easily the audio will "flow" into the summing network. 8 is better than 2 and 16 would be better than 8. Most of us are going 16.

I have to add (even though you said not to) With the advant of 64 bit processing, DAWs like Studio One2 and Pro Tools 10 XHD have come a long way towards solving the problem of "choking" in the 2 buss. I have a feeling the whole summing and hybrid thing is going to go away in the future. Finally, we have what we have all been wanting. Mixing ITB sans a mixer or other hardware even though mixing with a mouse still sucks!.

[bigtree]

I have a feeling the whole summing and hybrid thing is going to go away in the future. Finally, we have what we have all been wanting. Mixing ITB sans a mixer or other hardware even though mixing with a mouse still sucks!.

BUT! its not just about headroom, its about sonic variation and analog colour you get from very cool gear plus the unique space and imaging you get including a really pleasing distortion famous with analog. Its all relevant the better ITB gets, the better analog will get. The two worlds together, done right, are gold. That's how I hear it.

[Kurt Foster]

You just won't need a summing solution. Even ITB you can use analog processing (compressors, reverbs, gates, etc) by using your sends and returns . I do this all the time in lieu of purchasing plug ins that only get me 98% of the way there. I think that's where we are going to see things wind up. Of course everyone has their own preferences and no matter what if I could afford a nice API console, I would never mix in the box if I didn't have to.

From the beginning, the main promise of DAW's was the ability to record and mix without a lot of expensive hardware and the associated maintenance costs other than converters and computers. I myself was very disappointed when I heard what those mixes sounded like and by then I had unfortunately sold off my analog console. BUMMER!

[Gahlord]

Kurt: Just so I can make sure I understand, is the problem (assuming there is one) of mixing ITB one of mashing more channels into a stereo buss? For example is the following statement true? In mixing ITB, mashing 32 channels into one stereo buss tends to result in something that sounds different than mashing 32 channels into 8 stereo busses.

And I appreciate your insight into how changing technology if effecting this issue. Especially because you give a clear source for your suspicion--64 bit processing. It at least gives me something to go on when researching further.

As for mixing with a mouse, well that's what I've been doing for the most part but there are USB controllers which mimic the haptics of a console and so on. I think the psychological impact of having nobs that are readily tweakable has an impact on decision-making.

My income is generated as an online business consultant with a heavy focus on analytics--I'm the guy who tracks what people click on and know what/how/when to tweak it for different results. My research in that realm absolutely supports the idea that people will make different decisions based on what options are available to them onscreen (blue button, red button, on the left or right or up or down etc). Often these decisions people make are tied to large sums of money and/or important life decisions. Even in these instances what they see and how many clicks it takes to get someplace influences their behavior.

I have to believe that the same is true of professionals as well. Screen real estate is by nature limited. Shunting some of the interface out of the screen and into a hardware controller (whether analog or USB connected to the DAW) allows a greater set of options to be available in the mind as well as in the hand.

To be honest, this is one of the reasons I'm looking to cycle my recording setup from a completely DAW configuration to one which mixes in more analog stuff. Ultimately I would like to have a recording setup that takes advantage of DAW characteristics but requires an absolute minimum use of my eyes on a screen. This is primarily due to cognition stuff. The brain will prioritize visual stimuli over auditory stimili so in order to free up some cycles in my limited CPU (cognitive processing unit) I want to decrease visual requirements while mixing.

In this instance, even if ITB results in exactly the same auditory experience as a hybrid solution I would choose to be hybrid.

So that's the crazy underbelly of what I'm exploring here. On the surface though, I just want to develop a system and process that sound good. And since I don't know what I don't know I'm here asking these questions. And very grateful for the answers given.

I have no problem discussing advantages/disadvantages of analog summing. But so many of these threads have devolved into statements of taste/fashion which then quickly enflamed into episodes of individuals establishing status/dominance in relation to their taste/fashion. Since I don't make my living from audio engineering it's unfair for me to weigh in on these sorts of things; it's people's livelihoods we're discussing at some point.

[bigtree]

I avoid going back into the same box as you suggest Kurt. I would never do that after having a straight line like the Dangerous and SPL hybrid gear. I use the DAW for mixing and some plug-ins but sum OTB and never go back to the same DAW once its analog. Using a MixDream for its headroom and inserts is a glorious sound. I do the hybrid thing with a MixDream and Dangerous Master together and master to a second computer so there is no SRC. The magic happen OTB and I do my best to save it on a second system albeit DSD or DAW.

[Gahlord]

Bigtree: Sorry for this basic question but what is SRC? And in your configuration that second recording medium could be anything right? Tape deck, DAT, wax cylinder, DAW, whatever?

Sounds like two approaches (please correct me if I've got this wrong):

Kurt is advocating gaining some analog fun by sending items from the channel strips and back in the mixing. Then at the end summing the whole thing down ITB. Do you bother with stems etc in this process?

Bigtree is advocating sending stems to the MixDream summing mixer (which has inserts for each channel and the master) for summing, then on to a completely different device to record that final output. Are there benefits to this approach beyond the lack of SRC?

Thank you both for helping me with this. I'll be updating the top post once I have clearer understanding of what's what.

[Kurt Foster]

I agree with what Chis is saying as far as going back to the box with DAWs of the past, due to these same choking / bottle neck problems but I truly believe that this will be fully addressed in the near future as more and more DAW designers jump on the 64 bit bandwagon.

On the other hand there will always be those who like the sound of a particular piece of gear as Chris seems to feel about his Mix Dream. I get it and that's fine with me. Like I said, If I had an API or for that matter even my old JH 636, I would be jumping out of the box at the first opportunity. But the whole idea of computer recording is supposed to be to get away from expensive hardware, not to jump to using different expensive hardware.

I still suspect we will see a lot of summing box's on E Bay going for cheap in the next year or so. It's the nature of digital audio. Things change every 16 months.

Bottom line for me is at the present moment it appears that investing in a DAW with higher bit rate processing may provide a more efective way of improving your audio. And I would add, just try to sell analog gear. I have quite a few very nice pieces that I almost can't even give away.

shoot me again! I'm still here.