There's obviously a lot to talk about I don't have one currently I've used the inward connections and what I found was the same mix had more dimension and what seemed to be fatter tracks
Is it the box itself ?
Is it the fact that there all summed together ?
What I heard and I'm not sure if someone can shed some light on this that a computer can't decide what to mix first second etc so by summing your controlling the flow of how it's mixed
Also because of the electronics in the box you get a wider frequency range added to your tracks better punchy low end clearer mids and better highs
Now I realize these are all opinions but please pcrecord
or anyone that's had specific experience with summing boxes,while mixing please chime in.
Comments
Joel, you are the one that barged in here stating you knew all a
Joel, you are the one that barged in here stating you knew all about these with underlying statements about a company that was a low blow. I asked you to quality your experiences with these, not paste some tech info that has little to do with your hands on experiences with the "processes and integrations". ? I look forward to next time when comparing real world comparisons.:love:
Yes, we can make music on anything and I'm sure I speak for everyone, we are really thrilled for you. But the OP is about summing boxes. Check the videos out. The last one is really special.
Gette, post: 422052, member: 46761 wrote: Summing: There are 5
Gette, post: 422052, member: 46761 wrote: Summing:
There are 5 "notable" topologies for active summing, although there is one topology that is most prevalent, virtual earth summing. BUT just for bread and thought, the others are; Voltage Summing (also called passive), Balanced Summing, Ground-canceling Summing, Distributed summing (which may be a combination of any of the previously stated approaches). Noise sources in summing networks are derived of three major sources, Voltage noise (Vn) Current noise (In) and Johnson noise (Rs). Other noise producing sources come into the equation when dealing with the physical layout and the means of transporting the summed signals. Obviously, grounding is a major factor here and so is cross talk. Use of a ribbon cables to carry a sum bus (the choose of the majority of console & equipment manufacturers) for example introduces a greater risk of capacitive cross talk. In the case of my console, ribbon cables were not used. Graham used large PCB's with hard soldered cabling to connect each plane to each other. Arguably, the best approach you could use in a console design. (pain in in the ass to work on though…:sneaky:).My console uses virtual earth summing (allot of Name brand large money consoles used this topology and most likely the summing box most own) It is a happy medium between performance and cost. The best topology, is balanced summing, but comes at a high cost (due to component count). My desk was originally fitted with a quad bus type architecture (L front, R front, L rear, R rear), the space and needed traces are there to accommodate Balanced summing..
excelent!
Joel; i read somewhere where you've said that passive summing had problems .... would you please elaborate on that? what are the drawbacks?
audiokid, post: 422053, member: 1 wrote: I asked you to quality
audiokid, post: 422053, member: 1 wrote: I asked you to quality your experiences with these? Which, you clearly don't have any, that I am 100% certain of.
Again assumption...
I have used a number of summing boxes from SPL, Tube Tech and dangerous. They all sounded fine, I did not much like the work flow. I found it to be more of a hindrance to the process then what benefits I was gaining.
Barging in on a topic is what forums are for, are they not? To add to the conversation.
Hell, I am sure the watchers of the thread at least got a laugh or two!
Kurt Passive (Voltage) summing suffers from a few issues. Altho
Kurt
Passive (Voltage) summing suffers from a few issues. Although sexy on paper, just using a few active components. Due the relatively high voltage sitting on the bus, allot of care has to be paid attention to the layout. Also with increased voltage comes increased capacitive cross talk. Another major factor is the ability for one channel to actually get into an adjacent channel causing distortion. It's also a hard to drive network from a design stand point. But if it sounds good to you, what am am I to say...
Spl, tube tech was used at my home . Same system used for ITB mi
Spl, tube tech was used at my home . Same system used for ITB mixes. The dangerous was at a nice facility.
All using PTHD. Everything is relative, you use what you are most comfortable with in order to assess how you feel about it. The mistake is to change the environment. You need to test gear where it will be used. As I said, the sound was fine (insert great, cool) I did not like the process. If a process hindered your own creativity, or takes away from listening to the music... It is simply not working...
i for one am left on the fence as to this topic. do i think an
i for one am left on the fence as to this topic.
do i think analog summing sounds better than itb? judging from my experiences, yes. but i would never assume that someone else might not arrive at the same findings. i would even venture to say that someone else listening to my work might not arrive at the same conclusion.
in the best of situations, i would love to have a LFC regardless of all the arguments presented against. i just love a good console. but i can no longer generate the kind of business that warrants such a choice and i'll wager that a lot of us who used to be able to attract enough business to house and feed such a beast are in the same boat as me. so what i have to do is compromise and go itb ... which sucks .... so i am looking to passive summing as a way to increase quality while not winding up living in a van down by the river.
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/7042
Crosstalk is only an issue in a summing box in terms of the stereo image. You decide you want something panned a certain distance to the left, and if it leans a little further to the right than you intended, that's a minor bummer. It would also be a bigger bummer if you were routing some sources into the mixer AND into other destinations, and you had other instruments bleeding into that source - but that's generally not the case when you're making a stereo mix.So crosstalk is important, but not the most important thing in the world. It doesn't need to be -120dB but it should certainly be a lot better than -40dB. The important thing is that it should be consistent and predictable. If the crosstalk changes when you rearrange your mix, that would be pretty annoying. That's the primary reason why you need the switches to turn off unused inputs.
Most every analog mixer of any kind can behave very differently depending on how they're used. In most cases, a passive mixer is using voltage summing. The output is fed into an amplifier which multiplies the voltage it sees at its input. But most modern mixers don't work that way - they use current summing, also called "virtual earth mixing". The resistor network is essentially the same, but its output is fed into a virtual earth amplifier which responds to the input current instead of the input voltage. It's called "virtual earth" because the input terminal acts like a ground point in that it has an input impedance near zero, and it reduces the input voltage to zero. The big advantage is an improvement in crosstalk performance, which as we said is not a huge deal in a simple 2-output mixer.
A passive mixer (such as the Folcrom, which is my product) can "become" a current-summing device by feeding its output into a virtual-earth amplifier (such as the JRF LEVR) instead of the usual voltage amplifier (such as a mike preamp).
The other major element of an "active mixer" is the buffer amps on each input channel. These serve to maintain a consistent source impedance as seen by the resistive network, and also to further improve crosstalk performance. Again, in the context of a summing device, these are not really necessary. Since pretty much all modern, professional recording gear has a rather low source impedance, variations are a non-issue.
So that pretty much sums up
the difference between a basic passive summing device and an active summing device. Add faders and buses and sends if you want to call it a mixing console.
__________________
Justin Ulysses Morse
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.rollmusi…"]Roll Music Systems[/]="http://www.rollmusi…"]Roll Music Systems[/]
Minneapolis, MN
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/audio-mixing.htm
[SPOILER=The NEOS]Neos Specs:
- Input path with 100-mm faders from ALPS, panning, mono-, Cut, solo and To Monitor Only-switching functions, indicator LEDs
- Master track with 100-mm faders from ALPS, inserts, bend function (limiting)
- Complete monitoring unit with volume control, tape return (or DAW return) and Mute, Dim and Mono switches
- Inputs: 3 x DB25 eight channels (balanced, TASCAM standard), XLR balanced: Slave, insert return, Tape Return
- Outputs (XLR balanced): Recording Out, Monitor A and Monitor B
- Outputs (XLR unbalanced): Alternative Out, insert send Metering
Measurements
Frequency Response (-3 dB): 10 Hz to> 200 kHz
Phase transition 1kHz: 0 °; 10kHz: -4.5 °; 20kHz: -8.30 °
Common Mode Rejection:> 60 dB
(Rec. Out, insert send Monitor A / B)
THD
10Hz Rec Out. 0.0011%, Insert Send: 0.0011%, Monitor A / B: 0.0016%
100Hz Rec Out. 0.00060% Insert Send: 0.0009%, Monitor A / B: 0.0016%
1000Hz Rec Out. 0.00090% Insert Send: 0.0013%, Monitor A / B: 0.0020%
5000Hz Rec Out. 0.0032%, Insert Send: 0.003%, Monitor A / B: 0.004%
10kHz Rec Out. 0.0028%, Insert Send: 0.0018%, Monitor A / B: 0.0027%
22kHz Rec Out. 0.00054% Insert Send: 0.00050%, Monitor A / B: 0.0005%
(Generator output 24dBu, inputs with 40 dBu completed)
Signal to noise ratio
Rec Out. 92 dBu Insert Send: 92 dBu, monitor A / B: 88 dB
(A-weighted, measurement bandwidth 22 Hz - 22 kHz, with 40 dBu inputs completed)
Dynamic Range:> 122 dB[/SPOILER]
Gette, post: 422052, member: 46761 wrote: When i started this jo
Gette, post: 422052, member: 46761 wrote: When i started this journey down the rabbit hole that this thread has become. I only wanted to bring out 2 points, 1) Analog Consoles are still valid (for all duties)
All duties? And what duties are these?
Gette, post: 422052, member: 46761 wrote: 2) Analog has a tonality that digital has yet (in my opinion, will not ever) been able to recreate.
Neve, SSL, API, what? and which one or specs? And which is more ideal for extended business like mixing and mastering? Most of us choose summing boxes because we can choose when or what tracks we want more or less "character", with a better signal at a fraction of the costs.
If you just left it as, you like the tactile approach for your own work, I might agree.
Gette, post: 422059, member: 46761 wrote: As I said, the sound was fine (insert great, cool)
Joel, I respect your personal workflow, I'm going to leave this alone but be sure, its because I don't want to continue the drama . I know you didn't even get off the ground with this technology. Had you, we wouldn't even be here right now. You'd be sharing A LOT more than excerpts off some front page manual. :cool:
Take the time to watch the video's. Contrary to your 20 years experiences, I'm hearing you are on a different workflow than modern summing or mastering workflow. What you are talking about is is pretty far on the left side. Recording, mixing, summing and mastering.
Gette, post: 422058, member: 46761 wrote: Passive (Voltage) summ
Gette, post: 422058, member: 46761 wrote: Passive (Voltage) summing suffers from a few issues. Although sexy on paper, just using a few active components. Due the relatively high voltage sitting on the bus, allot of care has to be paid attention to the layout. Also with increased voltage comes increased capacitive cross talk. Another major factor is the ability for one channel to actually get into an adjacent channel causing distortion. It's also a hard to drive network from a design stand point....
I don't really want to be a part of this megaphone discussion, but there are lots of things wrong with these statements that cannot be left unchallenged (the need for care in the layout excepted).
Passive summing "just using a few active components" is a tautology. The capacitance of a net is a property of the layout, cabling etc and specifically is independent of voltage, so crosstalk measured in dB is therefore independent of signal voltage. Anything that may get coupled capacitatively from one channel to another is a linear effect and does not cause distortion. Resistive networks are the easiest to drive.
Missing from this pot at passive summing is any mention of problems for a summing box designer having to deal with distortion due to the change of value of a resistor with terminal voltage (surface mount components are generally worse in this respect than axial-leaded parts). This is, incidentally, something that works against high-voltage summing systems. There is also the question of make-up gain and whether the designer should expect the following ADC to have enough available gain to perform this task or whether special make-up amplifiers should be part of the system.
PS I'm a professional design engineer.
Boswell, post: 422065, member: 29034 wrote: Passive summing "jus
Boswell, post: 422065, member: 29034 wrote: Passive summing "just using a few active components" is a tautology. The capacitance of a net is a property of the layout, cabling etc and specifically is independent of voltage, so crosstalk measured in dB is therefore independent of signal voltage. Anything that may get coupled capacitatively from one channel to another is a linear effect and does not cause distortion. Resistive networks are the easiest to drive.
Missing from this pot at passive summing is any mention of problems for a summing box designer having to deal with distortion due to the change of value of a resistor with terminal voltage (surface mount components are generally worse in this respect than axial-leaded parts). This is, incidentally, something that works against high-voltage summing systems. There is also the question of make-up gain and whether the designer should expect the following ADC to have enough available gain to perform this task or whether special make-up amplifiers should be part of the system.
Yea! What he said! :)
LOL... someday Boswell's statement might make sense to me... after I get that degree in applied mathematics and electrical engineering, with a minor in physics and nuclear atomology. (is that even a word? LOL)
At which point, I too will be able to understand how to connect the razz-ma-frazzle to the nymphomatic decapitating limp clutch in-line to the hoop-dee shmig-mometer with a vase-deference attenuating whomp-hog. ;)
Sorry Bos... You know how much I respect your knowledge. I just thought this thread could do with some momentary levity. ;)
Boswell, post: 422065, member: 29034 wrote: Passive summing "jus
Boswell, post: 422065, member: 29034 wrote: Passive summing "just using a few active components" is a tautology. The capacitance of a net is a property of the layout, cabling etc and specifically is independent of voltage, so crosstalk measured in dB is therefore independent of signal voltage. Anything that may get coupled capacitatively from one channel to another is a linear effect and does not cause distortion. Resistive networks are the easiest to drive.
You caught me being lazy... When you increase voltage on a bus, you increase the likely hood of capacitive cross-talk. With this type of design as a result of the high voltage it requires careful layout and heavy screening of the bus. It is also susceptible to bleeding (via adjacent resistors on the bus). The less component approach (Mix resistors without buffers) does suffer gain loss. It could be made up in the summing amp, but at a cost of headroom and an increased noise floor.
Thank you Boz, for also reminding me of some of the great books I have on my shelf!! Since admittedly, i do not work every day on this topology, I wanted to make sure my understanding was accurate, if not admit i was wrong. so reference for the above statement : "Small Signal Audio Design" Douglas Self, p446.
I am not perfect nor have I ever stated so. I truly learn something new everyday, The field of electronic design (as it pertains to audio) is massive. There are a vast amount of approaches and justifications to accomplish a single task. Some of the most heated debates I have seen/been apart of, has been on topics surrounding the design of (insert what ever piece of gear). And they have been the most educational!
I have always held a huge level of respect for anyone in the design field.
Boswell, post: 422065, member: 29034 wrote: Missing from this pot at passive summing is any mention of problems for a summing box designer having to deal with distortion due to the change of value of a resistor with terminal voltage (surface mount components are generally worse in this respect than axial-leaded parts). This is, incidentally, something that works against high-voltage summing systems.
SMD type of resistors have been a debate that I am sure we both do not want get into ;) Resistors are evil good guys.... :D
Thank you for posting!
audiokid, post: 422062, member: 1 wrote: Contrary to your 20 years experiences, I'm hearing you are on a different workflow than modern summing or mastering workflow. What you are talking about is is pretty far on the left side. Recording, mixing, summing and mastering.
Left field? most refer me to being in the right field, but ok ;) Tracking & Mixing. No one uses a recording console to master. thought that would be given.
Front page of a manual? Really? .... Allot of people still use a console to track and mix.
audiokid, post: 422040, member: 1 wrote: Magix Amunition ;) Oh y
audiokid, post: 422040, member: 1 wrote: Magix Amunition ;) Oh ya!
I am really digging Am-Munition, and its ability to process in M/S or Stereo Modes.
I love having the ability with M/S - to control the center "punch", yet have independent control of the sides for space, depth and width.
However, after working with this for 2 months now, I can honestly admit that I've only been scratching the surface of what Am-Munition can do.
It is not a compressor/limiter you want to just quickly reach for if you are a novice at using gain reduction, in the sense that it's fairly deep in function, you could end up doing more harm than good.
I've been watching Kraznet's Am-munition videos on YouTube; I think he has something like 4 videos dedicated to Am-Munition alone, with each video running between 8 and 12 minutes; obviously am-munition is complex enough to warrant several chapters devoted to instruction on its use.
I guess what I'm saying is that it's probably not a choice you would want to make in terms of a "quick, no muss, no fuss" simple gain reduction.
To use it to its intended optimum, you really do have to know what you are doing with it.
Here are some links for anyone who might be interested in learning more.
Part 1:
[="
"]View:
[/]="
"]View:
Part 2:
[[url=http://="
"]View:
[/]="
"]View:
Part 3:
[="
"]View:
[/]="
"]View:
Part 4:
[[url=http://="
"]View:
[/]="
"]View:
;)
d.
audiokid, have you looked this over? http://rupertneve.com/prod
audiokid, have you looked this over?
Gette, post: 422075, member: 46761 wrote: Front page of a manual
Gette, post: 422075, member: 46761 wrote: Front page of a manual? Really?
referring to the summing boxes you claim to have experience with.:rolleyes:
Gette, post: 422075, member: 46761 wrote: Allot of people still use a console to track and mix.
A lot is an over statement. However, I'm talking about summing boxes and the reason why. For some reason you don't get that. Your digging a hole here. I'm not disputing a console < Nor am I in love with summing boxes but the clear facts are, a console has a lot of build that are in the way. Meaning, there are more options when it comes to value, sonics, choices and real estate.
Gette, post: 422081, member: 46761 wrote: audiokid, have you looked this over?
ya, if I wanted something like that, I would buy it. Joel, leave it. I have no interest in consoles like this for mixing or mastering. They are a dying technology imho.
DonnyThompson, post: 422079, member: 46114 wrote: I am really d
DonnyThompson, post: 422079, member: 46114 wrote: I am really digging Am-Munition, and its ability to process in M/S or Stereo Modes.
I love having the ability with M/S - to control the center "punch", yet have independent control of the sides for space, depth and width.
However, after working with this for 2 months now, I can honestly admit that I've only been scratching the surface of what Am-Munition can do.
It is not a compressor/limiter you want to just quickly reach for if you are a novice at using gain reduction, in the sense that it's fairly deep in function, you could end up doing more harm than good.
I've been watching Kraznet's Am-munition videos on YouTube; I think he has something like 4 videos dedicated to Am-Munition alone, with each video running between 8 and 12 minutes; obviously am-munition is complex enough to warrant several chapters devoted to instruction on its use.
I guess what I'm saying is that it's probably not a choice you would want to make in terms of a "quick, no muss, no fuss" simple gain reduction.
To use it to its intended optimum, you really do have to know what you are doing with it.
Here are some links for anyone who might be interested in learning more.
Part 1:
[="
"]View:
[/]="
"]View:
Part 2:
[[url=http://="
"]View:
[/]="
"]View:
Part 3:
[="
"]View:
[/]="
"]View:
Part 4:
[[url=http://="
"]View:
[/]="
"]View:
;)
d.
Nice Donny,
Am-Munition is how I am able to emulate my entire analog mastering matrix. I am so thrilled with this software. It only gets better as you dig into that whole section of Sampliquoia (Samplitude or Sequoia) Master Bus. No return for me.
The jury is still out for me on the other modeling processors on
The jury is still out for me on the other modeling processors on the master bus; am-track, am-phibia and am-pulse are all processors that - at least so far in my experience with them - work best when you aren't seeking "dramatic" results.
I have found that a little goes a long way in terms of tape and tube-pre emulation, (am-track and am-phibia) as is is the same with the transient modeling (am-pulse). It's just little "touches" of those processors that seem to be the most effective.
What I do like about them is that when they are bypassed, the sonics remain truly unchanged, unlike other processors and plugs in other platforms that, when you bypass them, still seem to have an effect on the overall sound, even though they aren't engaged. I found this to be mostly the case with Sonar and its stock plugs, that even when bypassed, as long as they were in the signal chain, the sonics were altered.
In order for me to truly put them into bypass, I had to actually remove them completely from the processor chain, and with Samp's processors, I don't have to do that - on is on, and off is really off. ;)
audiokid, post: 422083, member: 1 wrote: referring to the summin
audiokid, post: 422083, member: 1 wrote: referring to the summing boxes you claim to have experience with.:rolleyes:
There was time I believe not long go, were i was fighting the good fight to show how another product was superior to what was then the excepted standard. At the time, it had measurable better performance (By a good amount) then anything else on the market, It was also rock study and very reliable. All this at a lower cost of ownership then the major competition. I learned allot of lessons while working for Soundcape Digital.
To try and get people to see the light and take a serious look at the product line, i used allot of the same techniques you are now using on me. (I guess full circle). For those who spoke against it, i said they never used it, let alone seen one in person. For those who said they did, and still stated negative reviews… I in turn questioned their integrity. I had the firm and honest belief, that I had a better solution then what they were using and if only they would listen, get educated and take the time to actually use it,,,, they would see the "light".
AND all the above is archived here on this website… albeit what,,,,,14 years ago?!
We had just completed a Soundscape install at a Post house in downtown LA, while outside smoking a cancer stick, i spoke to one of the engineers (Older one of course). I had expressed some of the frustration I was having "spreading the word of the Light"
"Ya know, if a product is clearly superior, why do people still choose to use the other products that do not even come close?"
He said.."It is not always about spec, or about marketing or even if it really is the best of the best that matters, It's all about how it makes you feel when you use it."
Mackie a few months later did a back door purchase of Soundscape and I was off onto another journey. But that moment has stuck with me, even to this day. The older I get, the more I realize just how right he was.
audiokid, post: 422083, member: 1 wrote: A lot is an over statement. However, I'm talking about summing boxes and the reason why. For some reason you don't get that. Your digging a hole here. I'm not disputing a console < Nor am I in love with summing boxes but the clear facts are, a console has a lot of build that are in the way. Meaning, there are more options when it comes to value, sonics, choices and real estate.
….. I will not argue about a summing box being more transparent then a console per say. A summing network would be cleaner as a purpose built unit. No doubt.
audiokid, post: 422083, member: 1 wrote: ya, if I wanted something like that, I would buy it. Joel, leave it. I have no interest in consoles like this for mixing or mastering. They are a dying technology imho.
I know you do not want to hear this, BUT analog gear to include consoles will be built for many years to come. Allot of the consoles in use today, will still be used years from now.
Gette, post: 422100, member: 46761 wrote: There was time I belie
Gette, post: 422100, member: 46761 wrote: There was time I believe not long go, were i was fighting the good fight to show how another product was superior to what was then the excepted standard. At the time, it had measurable better performance (By a good amount) then anything else on the market, It was also rock study and very reliable. All this at a lower cost of ownership then the major competition. I learned allot of lessons while working for Soundcape Digital.
To try and get people to see the light and take a serious look at the product line, i used allot of the same techniques you are now using on me. (I guess full circle). For those who spoke against it, i said they never used it, let alone seen one in person. For those who said they did, and still stated negative reviews… I in turn questioned their integrity. I had the firm and honest belief, that I had a better solution then what they were using and if only they would listen, get educated and take the time to actually use it,,,, they would see the "light".
AND all the above is archived here on this website… albeit what,,,,,14 years ago?!
We had just completed a Soundscape install at a Post house in downtown LA, while outside smoking a cancer stick, i spoke to one of the engineers (Older one of course). I had expressed some of the frustration I was having "spreading the word of the Light"
"Ya know, if a product is clearly superior, why do people still choose to use the other products that do not even come close?"
He said.."It is not always about spec, or about marketing or even if it really is the best of the best that matters, It's all about how it makes you feel when you use it."
Mackie a few months later did a back door purchase of Soundscape and I was off onto another journey. But that moment has stuck with me, even to this day. The older I get, the more I realize just how right he was.
….. I will not argue about a summing box being more transparent then a console per say. A summing network would be cleaner as a purpose built unit. No doubt.
I know you do not want to hear this, BUT analog gear to include consoles will be built for many years to come. Allot of the consoles in use today, will still be used years from now.
Gette, post: 422100, member: 46761 wrote: To try and get people to see the light and take a serious look at the product line, i used allot of the same techniques you are now using on me.
OMG, are you kidding me. Tactics now. Phony tactics, sales tactics or just tactics?
Okay, lets all go out and buy the Neve console guys. Maybe I could get a commission from Neve if you all believe me.
What do I do with this continued saga, guys? Please help me do the right thing. I'm beyond words right now.:unsure:
Joel,
here is an example of my hybrid rig http://recording.org/index.php?resources/big-mix.9/
What do you see? Analog gear or a DAW?
I just landed a big mixing and producing project for someone . Do you know what I will be using?
I really wish you the best but I'm begging, please stop.
audiokid, post: 422102, member: 1 wrote: OMG, are you kidding me
audiokid, post: 422102, member: 1 wrote: OMG, are you kidding me. Tactics now. Phony tactics, sales tactics or just tactics?
It is exactly what you are doing. You are selling your opinion. Wether you realize it or not. You whole heartily believe you have the best approach to achieve the best result. (that's a great thing). That my approach is archaic in comparison, old news and not relevant. Every response has been an attempt to "educate me" rather then being a simple conversation discussing multiple points of view. I too, was trying to educate you in my approach…. But we could never get beyond that. All i got back, was how i was not credible in my assessments…. So what do you do?
Gette, post: 422103, member: 46761 wrote: It is exactly what you
Gette, post: 422103, member: 46761 wrote: It is exactly what you are doing. You are selling your opinion. Wether you realize it or not. You whole heartily believe you have the best approach to achieve the best result. (that's a great thing). That my approach is archaic in comparison, old news and not relevant. Every response has been an attempt to "educate me" rather then being a simple conversation discussing multiple points of view. I too, was trying to educate you in my approach…. But we could never get beyond that. All i got back, was how i was not credible in my assessments…. So what do you do?
Joel, you are claiming as someone with experience with summing boxes, and insinuating a few alarming things about a company which was a respect breaker for me with you. . You haven't addressed one thing about the intricacies in summing yet keep pushing consoles here, which is cool enough, but it has little to do with the OP or my direction. Which I explain why. :)
In fact, I am working with a few people who are using laptops quite well.
I don't believe much of what you are saying here. In fact, I think you are blowing a bunch of wind.
Being said, And this has what to do with summing boxes again?
What gear did you use with these so called summing boxes? Which one did you hate the most? And why?
Or, why do you feel a console is better for those wanting to learn about summing boxes? You have the floor, Lets hear what you have to say instead of more drama, okay?
And you say I am missing the point…. My first post in this thre
And you say I am missing the point…. My first post in this thread was a direct response to some statements you had made and felt the need to offer a counter point of view… Below are the quotes that got me me to post as well as my original post
audiokid, post: 421649, member: 1 wrote: Would anyone you know want to mix something in public (here) and take the chance to expose their reputation, to prove the mass of their analog gear means nothing in the big picture?
To take it even further, most studios are actually smearing and degrading clients music through their backwards round trip concept. Its so obvious. Its not fooling me which is why I took the time to find out for myself. Its not the gear, its the guy behind the wheel. Once ITB, stay ITB.
audiokid, post: 421879, member: 1 wrote: And a console isn't even an option. That is a complete waste of money.
then I posted
Gette, post: 421938, member: 46761 wrote: OK…. I do not spend much time on the forum, as maybe I should… I admit the child in me, was not only surprised by the above comment (being from audiokid), but, slightly offended…. the surprise and the being offended has faded…… BUT, silent…. Nah…..
It would be a fools game to claim either approach or that any gear is a waste of money (well anything of what we consider of quality in build & Performance) From a scientific point of view, both sides are right and wrong.
Most know the following, however, just stated to clarify….
Analog is electrons physically moving through something, at its very heart this is how ALL music is created/captured and in the end, regardless of process used, how we will hear it.
In a purely analog work flow, we are controlling those electrons from capture (mic) to tape, were the electrons become magnetic (and some would still quasi-classify that as electrons), then back out and through the console ( various out-board gear etc) and mixed to 2 track. The weakest link in the analog work-flow was the tape deck. It suffered from some huge defects, a low dynamic range and a high noise floor. BUT it was also hard to edit, fragile to transport and the quality of the audio recorded on it, degraded with each pass. Not to mention a short shelf life…. Oh and it was expensive and still is. (last checked a roll of 2" would cost you north of $300)
Analog gear carries a huge price and maintenance fee. Nothing is free even when paid for. The larger the console the more the air needed to be conditioned ( with a [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.rupertne…"]Neve[/]="http://www.rupertne…"]Neve[/] VR, you could cool a warehouse with the same tonage it required to cool the control room) Power? the bill will get large, of course depends on just how much you have. In short, It was expensive to purchase, expensive to maintain and expensive to operate. BUT BUT BUT, That sound was so sweet……(y)
Back to the weakest link, the Tape deck, real-to-real, 2" what ever you wish to call it…
Now, i am not talking about the sound of tape, that is entirely a deferent topic, well for now.
Digital opened up allot of possibilities in its early days, it offered a huge dynamic range and low noise floor, but of course still on tape and still riddled with the whole tape massacre type of editing (for those with the stomach to do so) and,,, the huge expense of the machines and still being tape based (the sony dash 48 was half a million new)I know, why the boring @#$% history lesson? well, the big studios and old school engineers that everyone hates today, are the reason for the tools we all use. It was there drive for better "tools" that would allow easy editing, ease of storage and low cost of ownership. So anytime you feel the need to slam an "Old engineer" or some major recording studio, at least first thank him/them for the tools we all now have.
NOW back to the topic, analog summing or better stated outside the box versus inside the box…..
Here is the big secret no one will tell. It does not matter… read that again….
It comes down to you and what your ear tells you what works. it's like me telling Slash that Gibson's suck and he should be playing a Custom Jackson, because they are just so much better…… Get my point?
Inside the Box will alway's sound deferent from outside the box….. They WILL NEVER SOUND EXACTLY THE SAME. Scientifically it is impossible. It is two very deferent treatments of signal and signal flow. One is an Algorithm (simulating the signal) the other is the signal in it's original captured form. If you believe otherwise, I have a honda civic i want to trade for your Ferrari after all they both do exactly the same thing…..
I personally use my DAW (Pro Tools DAW) as merely a replacement of the good ole 2" tape deck. What is important here, is the conversion, nothing else matters. there is no sound deference between DAW's they all sound EXACTLY THE SAME. a bit is a Bit regardless of what software package uses it, manipulates it etc… the DAW of choice is by preference or tools available (Plug ins, user interface etc) the conversion, (electrons in and electrons out) is what defines how we hear and capture audio digitally.
A defining deference between analog and digital is this. Analog sounds better with better designed gear, digital sounds better with better simulation, however that comes at a price of time. Digital takes considerable amount of time to do what analog does instantly. Of Course the more processing, the less you feel/hear the effects of the lag that otherwise would be very apparent. Another defining deference is, once in the DAW, its an Ideal environment, it can be programed to be perfect. Analog, has defects, as defined by physics and can not be overcome (heat, PCB lay outs, component tolerances, etc) Analog, is an imperfect solution because it lives in an imperfect world. No two components are exactly alike (albeit extremely minuet deferences) A simple resistor has flaws, either due to cost or limitations of manufacturing. Digital does not have to deal with these issues, it's "world" is perfect as defined by it's programmers/creators.
SO, were does that leave us? Well, I prefer the imperfect world of analog, there is a beauty to it's flaws that sounds like nothing other and that inspires me. (why else would I spend over a year rebuilding a console??) Crazy i know,,, Or just showing my true geekiness….. :eek:
audiokid,,,, Challenge is on
I was actually helping the idea of using summing boxes while defending the viability of consoles in a studio environment….
Joel, are you upset because I like hybrid summing? Do you someho
Joel, are you upset because I like hybrid summing? Do you somehow feel I have rained on your parade?
I'll be right up front here. I think your console and all the work you have don is commendable but you know what? I think you are heading towards one big headache. Why? Because you are using a console that is going to break, cost endless amounts of money and it will never sound as good as most system like mine. Not even close.
Hey, I have an idea. Do you want to bet me your console for mine? I'll give you my console if I can't make a better sounding mix than you. What do you think?
And if I win, I will give it away in a future contest. Hows that?
audiokid, post: 422104, member: 1 wrote: Joel, you are claiming
audiokid, post: 422104, member: 1 wrote: Joel, you are claiming as someone with experience with summing boxes, and insinuating a few alarming things about a company which was a respect breaker for me with you
I understand you do not want believe me, that is fine. As to the company and how it may have effected your respect for me? that is crazy, really. far worst things have been said about that company and many others all over the web. I can say allot about allot of companies.
LOL now that is funny…. Again that stab, grind the dig. No offe
LOL now that is funny…. Again that stab, grind the dig.
No offense taken,,,, no rain on my parade…
You have never heard this desk? how can you asses it? you do not know what changes I have made? Mixes are subjective like colors on a car, what sounds good to you, may not to me. I can pick apart mixes I hate even if that have gone on to win grammies. It is a circle and that is what we are spinning in…...
I wonder if this is now, an interest to our members? Would it be
I wonder if this is now, an interest to our members? Would it be cool if audiokid actually was speaking some truth. And what is the truth?
To be able to make great music on a DAW. To encourage people that they can do it for under $10,000 . ITB.
Imagine what anyone can do with just a summing box? Or, maybe we don't even need that. Maybe its all about listening.
the one consistent thing over the years, humor. I know you kno
the one consistent thing over the years, humor.
I know you know what my response would be to that…. Mixes are subjective and can never be measured in a true sense of a competition like a race. It is largely a popularity contest and the winner is usually decided as a result of his standing among the voting group.
Gette, post: 422113, member: 46761 wrote: the one consistent thi
Gette, post: 422113, member: 46761 wrote: the one consistent thing over the years, humor.
I know you know what my response would be to that…. Mixes are subjective and can never be measured in a true sense of a competition like a race. It is largely a popularity contest and the winner is usually decided as a result of his standing among the voting group.
Words of wisdom there.
BUT, whether you see it or not, This site has never been about selling someone something from me. We've had shills here, and kicked there asses out more than once. The gear pimps , same thing.
I am sharing my experiences that are ALL from actual use.
This would come down to , if a $10,000 ITB studio can even come close, then that would be enough to make us all think. That would be a win in itself.
audiokid, post: 421649, member: 1 wrote: We don't need to agree
When i started this journey down the rabbit hole that this thread has become. I only wanted to bring out 2 points, 1) Analog Consoles are still valid (for all duties) 2) Analog has a tonality that digital has yet (in my opinion, will not ever) been able to recreate.
Emotions have in moments run high, Partially my fault for not being concise and thorough in my responses, thus allowing for assumption and mis-interpitation. now that was a long sentence…. o_O
I have been an audio engineer for well over 20 years, my experience runs many deferent disciplines. those years are what has forged my preferences and ultimately how I judge whether I feel a technique, a piece of hardware is something I may be interested in. This is not sign of rebellious refusal to learn or to gain further insight into any topic. I learn something new every day.
Well………..
Summing:
There are 5 "notable" topologies for active summing, although there is one topology that is most prevalent, virtual earth summing. BUT just for bread and thought, the others are; Voltage Summing (also called passive), Balanced Summing, Ground-canceling Summing, Distributed summing (which may be a combination of any of the previously stated approaches). Noise sources in summing networks are derived of three major sources, Voltage noise (Vn) Current noise (In) and Johnson noise (Rs). Other noise producing sources come into the equation when dealing with the physical layout and the means of transporting the summed signals. Obviously, grounding is a major factor here and so is cross talk. Use of a ribbon cables to carry a sum bus (the choose of the majority of console & equipment manufacturers) for example introduces a greater risk of capacitive cross talk. In the case of my console, ribbon cables were not used. Graham used large PCB's with hard soldered cabling to connect each plane to each other. Arguably, the best approach you could use in a console design. (pain in in the ass to work on though…:sneaky:).
My console uses virtual earth summing (allot of Name brand large money consoles used this topology and most likely the summing box most own) It is a happy medium between performance and cost. The best topology, is balanced summing, but comes at a high cost (due to component count). My desk was originally fitted with a quad bus type architecture (L front, R front, L rear, R rear), the space and needed traces are there to accommodate Balanced summing.. Hmmmmm… :unsure:
I am not even scratching the surface of the topic of summing here, but why state all the above? So you can say , I am missing the point?
Or, that I may need to learn more about summing? Or mastering? Or that i am just a repair guy, stuck in his ways and my opinions or thoughts are below you? The SPL reference was not meant derogatorily, I apologize if it translated that way. BUT what I can say, is it is not new technology. That is not to say, it is not a nice piece of gear or that it is not worthy of its asking price. You could also get "Big rail" consoles from Repurt Neve Designs… OHH but wait, waste of money…
I mean no harm, no disrespect nor ill will. However, to say, because I disagree with a technique or do not follow the same path as the engineers of your example, does not in any way show that my experience or knowledge is invalid or inferior. It just means, I prefer a deferent approach.
I agree to disagree.:D
Thank you ;)