Try API. That would be my choice.

(dead link removed)

Also take a look at :

Dangerous Audio 2-bus

and Rolls Fulcrom.

Both look promising as well.

good calls guys, the exact two I was thinking of. Just read an artical in a Mix from earlier in the year where someone was using an API 7800 master module with 5 API 8200's. Of course he obviouisly had the money to spend, but loves it. But Dangerous Audio also puts out some awesome stuff.

Thanks, I'll look both of these up. Might have more questions at that point.

Jack

I took a look at the Dangerous 2-Bus. Not really overwhelmed. It is what it intends to be - a clean summing box. No problem with that. I don't really think that is what most Pro Tools/DAW users are really looking for (i.e., me). Somthing will discrete flavor, inserts on all inputs channel and master, drivable gain on inputs, etc. All for a fair market price.

I tried to find the Rolls Folcrom on Google but no luck. However, I did find out that a Folcrom is a bird, a soviet MIG and a whammy bar.

Anybody else have any input on this summing box tpe of product?

Thanks,
Jack

Here is a link to mercenary's website for the product...

(dead link removed)

here is the main web site...

http://www.rollmusic.com/systems/folcrom.shtml

I am *very* curious to hear people's experiences using analog summing boxes over the built-in digital summing of something like a Digi 002. I don't have the money to lay down on an analog summing box right now, but it is probably the next thing on my list. As a test, I tried listening to a rock song mixed entirely inside my Digi 002, then an alternate mix that was made by sending 4 stereo stems out of the analog-outs into a cheap Alesis mixer, then back into the master channel. The analog version sounded *alot* better musically but it lost a lot of fidelity- I think this owes to the fact that I can't set all the levels to unity gain and maybe the pan pots suck on the console. Anyway, that little experiment convinced me that with a good analog summing box, my output could be seriously improved. So, I guess I'm just asking if anyone has actually had any experience with a good analog summing box?

I should mention that I have glanced at schematics for these devices, and they seem relatively simple. Unfortunately I am too ignorant to be able to adapt and construct a hi-fi mixer box from the aforementioned schematics. However, it seems to me that if you knew what you were doing, you could build a *very* high quality unit just like the Folcrom for $100-$200, thus saving *tons* of money. (The Dangerous and API gear looks great but the price is outrageous!)

Is there anyone out there who could adapt or design a schematic for a "poor man's" analog summing box? For myself, the only requirement would be for the unit to take 4 pairs of balanced line-level audio and mix it to one stereo line-level return, which could then hook up to a pair of pre-existing mic-preamps for any necessary make-up gain (like the Folcrom).

If anyone is interested I can try to post the two music files up for comparison.

jbexp wrote: I am *very* curious to hear people's experiences using analog summing boxes over the built-in digital summing of something like a Digi 002. I don't have the money to lay down on an analog summing box right now, but it is probably the next thing on my list. As a test, I tried listening to a rock song mixed entirely inside my Digi 002, then an alternate mix that was made by sending 4 stereo stems out of the analog-outs into a cheap Alesis mixer, then back into the master channel. The analog version sounded *alot* better musically but it lost a lot of fidelity- I think this owes to the fact that I can't set all the levels to unity gain and maybe the pan pots suck on the console. Anyway, that little experiment convinced me that with a good analog summing box, my output could be seriously improved. So, I guess I'm just asking if anyone has actually had any experience with a good analog summing box?

I'VE HEARD that analog summing doesn't make much difference when compared to ITB summing. There has supposidly been many tests done on this subjective, and none have conclusivley shown that one is better than they other.