GrievousAngel wrote: i know many are using tape returns on analog consoles to excape the digital bus.

do feels high-end line amps are needed?

what are ya'll using aout there? suggestion wanted. i have a Tascam M5000 which of course can handle the tape returns, but ow good are users finding is needed to get a good sweet mix?

later,

Billy

This all LOOKS like English, but I can't make out a word of it. Are you on the crack pipe Billy-boy?

~S

no, not the crack pipe, but since your imagination is a litle weak, a real 'shotgun' may be too much for you?

yea, i had a few too many type-os as i was in a hurry to get to a live sound gig as we do live sound also.

to re-post:

i assume many DAW users are using analog line amps for mixdown to avoid using the digital bus in your DAW of choice. the big weakness in digitally recorded and mixed music at the moment is digitally summing many sourcces into a stereo mix, i.e. the mix never sounds as good as the multi-tracks did when playing back. many use 1/2" tape for stereo pre-master & master mix and mnay of us less forunate ones re-ply on analog channels for mixdown. the DAW automation and FX's just playback via the DA to tape returns on your console with faders maybe at nunity gain.

i was asking for opinions of who is doing this and what line amps/mixers are ya'll usimg with good results.

PEACE,

GrievousAngel

The "common wisdom" on this is that if you're coming back out into a prosumer mixer, such as a mackie, or a sound reinforcement board, or a soundtracks topaz or equivalent, then you're really not going to hear the advantage that external summing CAN provide.

The M5000 can be pretty noisy, so you might be in that boat too.

A board that has "weak rails" can fail to give you that advantage also. (the amount of current that a channel can draw, limits its ability to respond to big transients/dynamics...although this is decidedly less of an issue when a DAW is the source, as compared to a multitrack, where you might be able to bias the tape to get a usable +12dbu or so off tape.

Some people who "know better" have nice words to say for some of the newer passive summing boxes. There's certainly a truth to the idea that while a piece of wire may never improve a signal, it certainly cannot screw it up the way a poorly designed fistful of active components can.

So this has turned out to be a non-answer. sorry about that.

dwoz

There is no real problem in using the Digital mix bus in your workstation software. The problem is not paying careful attention enough attention to record, playback and mix levels in software, just as the same problem exists in hardware. Careful attention must be paid to "gain staging", whether it's in the Digital or analog domain. Sometimes I will fold back the output from my workstation through my Neve console just to get "that flavor" and/or the equalisation. Yes it's "degrading" to go through multiple analog decodes to re-encodes unless you have a specific reason to do so. Is this is still a non-answer?

at our place we take 24 line outs from the G5 into a soundcraft 2400. everything stays in the analog domain until mixdown time. personally i think it sounds great.

Hi there
I would suggest that ITB and analog summing both have issues.
ITB the stereo sum is difficult to achieve zero latency and a lot of jiggery pokery is necessary to get everything to 'line up' to the correct clock sample. This extra work has the potential to mess the sound up. With Analog summing the latency problem is virtually non existant as all channels are close to identical (unless a lot of EQ or whatever is added) but if care is not taken to keep the signal high enough to avoid noise then you must be aware of running out of headroom. With a good 'summing device' desk or simple mix box this should not be difficult to do. By de routing anything that is not needed most analog desks should mage at least reasonable summing devices (that is what they were designed for).
Matts

also, at my old place, i took stems out to a soundcraft ghost - nowhere near in the league i'm operating in now, but it still sounded great. to my ears, the transition from mixing ITB to on an analog board made massive improvements in quality. its also good to have a certain amount of restriction placed on you - it forces you to work harder and improve techniques. mixing ITB i feel gives you far too many tools and choices that in many cases make up for bad technique.

thanks for all replys.

what about some of the high-end 8 channel mixers with summing in a 19" rack setup. Buzz Audio has some new proucts like that and is it Circle Studio??? that also offers mic/line amps modeled after API, Neve, etc? they offered it in an 8 channel version or single units i believe. i wish i could remember the exact company name.

i am reseaching using the Tascam DVRA1000 DC/DVD as a Master recorder being feed from a analog source as we are discusing. i now use Wavelab and Waves Master Plug-ins with internal CDR burning. i am not real happy with the results but is OK. the playback in Nuendo always sounds 'bigger' than after Wavelab at least to my ears.

who feels 1/2" tape is the only answer for a great master?

later,

Billy

I have a variation of the question. ..something I have been scratching my head over for a while. Any input is greatly appreciated....my question is this:

Instead of mixing ITB and doing an audio mixdown of all the sequencer tracks to a stereo .wav file (summation by the DAW), you play your sequencer tracks through your 2 channel output soundcard onto a 2 channel analog tape. Is there a difference? Meaning you are not doing the actual stereo mixdown ITB with the sequencer, you are doing it with the analog tape. Or is the summation occuring at the soundcard since you are coming out of the soundcard stereo anyway???

Gosh Im stupid, but I've gotta ask...

Theron

hello theron_day,

i feel printing the stereo mix in real time to analog or digital will not give much improvement as the digital summing of 4 to 8 to 32 channels has already put its finger-print on the mix (but printing to 1/2" tape i'm sure would help some though).

i don't understand the fawls/technical side of digital summing, i.e. whether its phasing or what-ever but something does change. i guess means the math is not quiet understood yet??? why would a great DA converter care? math/digital in; music out.

Grievous,

I have noticed that there is a difference when I print to tape (from the sequencer versus doing the stereo mixdown (.wav/24/44.1) within the sequencer.

Guess what I am asking, am maybe I am confused here is when I print to tape, what is doing the summation since its coming out of the soundcard as a stereo mixdown. I assume its the soundcard instead of the sequencer?

I am getting ready to upgrade to Cubase Sx3. This may improve the sound image, since I am currently using Nuendo 1.6? Who knows?

Thanks for you input...

Theron

GrievousAngel wrote: hello theron_day,

i feel printing the stereo mix in real time to analog or digital will not give much improvement as the digital summing of 4 to 8 to 32 channels has already put its finger-print on the mix (but printing to 1/2" tape i'm sure would help some though).

i don't understand the fawls/technical side of digital summing, i.e. whether its phasing or what-ever but something does change. i guess means the math is not quiet understood yet??? why would a great DA converter care? math/digital in; music out.

Hi there
I think the maths is understood but the practicalities of getting 4/8/16/?? 24 bit numbers to be added AT THE SAME TIME is tricky and takes a bit of thought. The various algorithms to do this in a 'nice' sounding way will contribute to the perceived 'quality' of an ITB mix. A classic fault from early CD players was that the left and right channels had a clock cycle or so delay resulting in 180 degree phase reversal at 15KHz. Sounded terrible if you did a straight mono mix (for AM radio). Now you need to sort this out for many channels at 24 bit resolution and possibly 192K sample rate. Try emailing AMS NEVE or Mackie and see how they do it.
Matt S

Grievous,

I have noticed that there is a difference when I print to tape (from the sequencer versus doing the stereo mixdown (.wav/24/44.1) within the sequencer.

Guess what I am asking, am maybe I am confused here is when I print to tape, what is doing the summation since its coming out of the soundcard as a stereo mixdown. I assume its the soundcard instead of the sequencer?

I am getting ready to upgrade to Cubase Sx3. This may improve the sound image, since I am currently using Nuendo 1.6? Who knows?

Thanks for you input...

Theron

GrievousAngel wrote: hello theron_day,

i feel printing the stereo mix in real time to analog or digital will not give much improvement as the digital summing of 4 to 8 to 32 channels has already put its finger-print on the mix (but printing to 1/2" tape i'm sure would help some though).

i don't understand the fawls/technical side of digital summing, i.e. whether its phasing or what-ever but something does change. i guess means the math is not quiet understood yet??? why would a great DA converter care? math/digital in; music out.

Grievous,

I have noticed that there is a difference when I print to tape (from the sequencer versus doing the stereo mixdown (.wav/24/44.1) within the sequencer.

Guess what I am asking, am maybe I am confused here is when I print to tape, what is doing the summation since its coming out of the soundcard as a stereo mixdown. I assume its the soundcard instead of the sequencer?

I am getting ready to upgrade to Cubase Sx3. This may improve the sound image, since I am currently using Nuendo 1.6? Who knows?

Thanks for you input...

Theron

GrievousAngel wrote: hello theron_day,

i feel printing the stereo mix in real time to analog or digital will not give much improvement as the digital summing of 4 to 8 to 32 channels has already put its finger-print on the mix (but printing to 1/2" tape i'm sure would help some though).

i don't understand the fawls/technical side of digital summing, i.e. whether its phasing or what-ever but something does change. i guess means the math is not quiet understood yet??? why would a great DA converter care? math/digital in; music out.

yea, i understand. it's actually the 1/2" tape is helping that much, but the digital summation is still in the 'box'.

yep, i can dig it is trick to get a accurate handle on summing 24 channels of 24bit at 88.2 in stereo!

i always heard that Paris (maybe my luck) had a fairly good summation bus in that product.

Billy

You state that the summation is occuring ITB, but exactly where?

When playing through the stereo soundcard onto tape, you are not doing an audio mixdown ITB with the sequencer and forming a stereo mixdown audio file, you are simply playing an open session in your sequencer and its the soundcard that is doing the summation. Get me......I do hear a difference from the two...

Best
Theron D

GrievousAngel wrote: yea, i understand. it's actually the 1/2" tape is helping that much, but the digital summation is still in the 'box'.

yep, i can dig it is trick to get a accurate handle on summing 24 channels of 24bit at 88.2 in stereo!

i always heard that Paris (maybe my luck) had a fairly good summation bus in that product.

Billy

Grievous Angel

For awhile I was returning 24 channels from Digital Performer, thru a MOTU 24i into a Tascam M3700 (automated) console, and mixing to 1/4 tape, sounded sweet,

Generally everything was recorded into the computer, thru the board, then, edited and f'd with.

On more difficult mixes, with lots of fader riding, those channels were returned stero into the board at nominal, all muting was done virtually, but the basic mix, compression, eq, and verbs etc was done on the board,

the other bonus, is that a lot of the time I had a mix happening on the board as I was tracking, so i just built from there.

the only shitty thing about this , if you have to go back and remix for whatever reason, it takes awhile to get it back to what you had, which of course is the bonus of working in the computer.

I liked it, and it sounded good (just for the audio guys, the board was unbalanced rca, from 1/4 balanced outs on the motu) but whatever works, dude.

(like an idiot i dumped the board, and motu, for pro tools, and mic pres) and I wish i could have it back !

gilligan204 wrote: Grievous Angel

For awhile I was returning 24 channels from Digital Performer, thru a MOTU 24i into a Tascam M3700 (automated) console, and mixing to 1/4 tape, sounded sweet,

Generally everything was recorded into the computer, thru the board, then, edited and f'd with.

On more difficult mixes, with lots of fader riding, those channels were returned stero into the board at nominal, all muting was done virtually, but the basic mix, compression, eq, and verbs etc was done on the board,

the other bonus, is that a lot of the time I had a mix happening on the board as I was tracking, so i just built from there.

the only shitty thing about this , if you have to go back and remix for whatever reason, it takes awhile to get it back to what you had, which of course is the bonus of working in the computer.

I liked it, and it sounded good (just for the audio guys, the board was unbalanced rca, from 1/4 balanced outs on the motu) but whatever works, dude.

(like an idiot i dumped the board, and motu, for pro tools, and mic pres) and I wish i could have it back !

gillian204,

(assumming ITB is 'In The Box')

did you use ITB plug-ins & DSP on a card FX's or outboard FX's during analog mix?

also if running automation ITB (like maybe with Nuendo), you still had to ride the analog mixer faders often? so placing the mixer faders at unity and setting the ITB faders at same level does not necessarily result in proper fades, etc?

PEACE,

Billy

GrievousAngel wrote:
what about some of the high-end 8 channel mixers with summing in a 19" rack setup. Buzz Audio has some new proucts like that and is it Circle Studio???

Hey Billy -

The external boxes from Buzz and Dangerous are AMAZING for summing boxes. I strongly recommend them (particularly the Dangerous - available at http://www.mercenary.com) It's a bit cheaper than the buzz and does not include the pres - it's just a summing mixer. I think SPL makes one too that's really quite popular.

BTW - for all others out there -

There have been numerous tests to show that the summing buses on ALL DAWs is the same. I don't agree that all DAWs sound the same, but the summing buses have been proven to sound exactly the same.

J.

Cucco wrote: [quote=GrievousAngel]
what about some of the high-end 8 channel mixers with summing in a 19" rack setup. Buzz Audio has some new proucts like that and is it Circle Studio???

Hey Billy -

The external boxes from Buzz and Dangerous are AMAZING for summing boxes. I strongly recommend them (particularly the Dangerous - available at http://www.mercenary.com) It's a bit cheaper than the buzz and does not include the pres - it's just a summing mixer. I think SPL makes one too that's really quite popular.

BTW - for all others out there -

There have been numerous tests to show that the summing buses on ALL DAWs is the same. I don't agree that all DAWs sound the same, but the summing buses have been proven to sound exactly the same.

J.Cucco,

do you feel its worth the difference say if you are using a Tascam M5000 for MTR and mixdown?

Hard to say.

I really haven't found that many issues with summing "in the box." If I were going to sum out of the box, I would definitely consider a GOOD summing mixer. The dangerous seems to be, by most peoples account and my very limited experience with it, to be a great and affordable solution.

In short - if you like to sum externally, then yes, I do think it would be worth it. You will notice far better results than out of the Tascam.

J.

well... I mix internaly and externaly now that I purchased mackie d8b mixer. I submix some things in nuendo then run it through the mixer and I record it back to nuendo (stereo) as a mix. I didn't use external mixer before I purchased d8b and I certainly hear a big difference in sound clarity and depth. Maybe it's just in my head? Who knows ..hehe

chris

BTW... it's your preamps and mics that make the REAL difference

i don't get why everyone thinks that analog summing sounds so great. analog summing on a mackie sounds like sh*t. analog summing on a neve console sounds great. analog summing on a large vintage api console sounds great. but how many opamps and other various sound altering electronics does a mix go thru when mixed on a nice console??

i know that i have not used a dangerous summing box, but seriously, how good can it really be? seems like these things are a maybe a little overhyped. especially for how much money they cost IMHO. YMMV.

Hi there
You can do 'proper' 'analog summing' for less than $100 easily!!
All you need is a box with connectors (a beringer or more expensive patchbay and a bunch of resistors. The output is fed into your vintage Neve, API or whatever mic amp and there you have it. Massive headroom, vintage quality (of sound),vintage design.
I should patent it really but it was the way things were 30 years ago.
Matt S

TheRealShotgun wrote: [quote=GrievousAngel]i know many are using tape returns on analog consoles to excape the digital bus.

do feels high-end line amps are needed?

what are ya'll using aout there? suggestion wanted. i have a Tascam M5000 which of course can handle the tape returns, but ow good are users finding is needed to get a good sweet mix?

later,

Billy

This all LOOKS like English, but I can't make out a word of it. Are you on the crack pipe Billy-boy?

~S

Has similar thoughts! :)

mattsyson wrote: Hi there
You can do 'proper' 'analog summing' for less than $100 easily!!
All you need is a box with connectors (a beringer or more expensive patchbay and a bunch of resistors. The output is fed into your vintage Neve, API or whatever mic amp and there you have it. Massive headroom, vintage quality (of sound),vintage design.
I should patent it really but it was the way things were 30 years ago.
Matt S

And there you have it. Cut right to the chase.

Nice to see you here Matt!

Best regards,

SM.

mattsyson wrote: Hi there
You can do 'proper' 'analog summing' for less than $100 easily!!
All you need is a box with connectors (a beringer or more expensive patchbay and a bunch of resistors. The output is fed into your vintage Neve, API or whatever mic amp and there you have it. Massive headroom, vintage quality (of sound),vintage design.
I should patent it really but it was the way things were 30 years ago.
Matt S

Can you expound on this a little further? Any links on building a DIY summing box?

mattsyson wrote: Hi there
You can do 'proper' 'analog summing' for less than $100 easily!!
All you need is a box with connectors (a beringer or more expensive patchbay and a bunch of resistors. The output is fed into your vintage Neve, API or whatever mic amp and there you have it. Massive headroom, vintage quality (of sound),vintage design.
I should patent it really but it was the way things were 30 years ago.
Matt S

I don't think it's that easy...

The summing in that case would be performed by your Behringer box (or whatever other box you have with "more expensive patchbay and a bunch of resistors") and not by your Neve or API. The beauty of external summing is to take the 24 tracks or whatever and then output them through some high-headroom 2-bus output and have a circuit which is actually designed to do summing.

Simply slapping resistors in the chain won't a summing bus make. Even doing so for the purpose of daisy-chaining all inputs down to 2 outputs without a loss in resistance will not have the correct effect as you must either create some kind of pan-pot on this device or you must pan it in the mixer (DAW) and then send it out to bus 1 or bus 2. IOW, you're now summing in the box, not out of the box.

I still stand by the fact that there are MANY good DAWs out there and they all do an excellent (and rather identical) job summing. An external summing device is merely another tool in the arsenal to create a different sound. If that's your cup of tea - enjoy. If not, and you'd rather spend the $2k or so on good plug-ins, go for it. You won't be disappointed in any case.

BTW - the Dangerous box ain't that expensive.

J.

Sorry I may not have been clear. The Behringer part is simply a patchbay with NO electronics just a bunch of jack sockets bolted in a frame. I would probably use 'proper' long frame jacks. It is suggested because fixing sockets into a box or panel is a problem for some. The resistors are simply resistors and the only amplifier is the mic amp that you connect to the common point of all the resistors. The mic amp is whatever you have lying around, Neve, Manley, API or whatever else is 'your bag'. The resistors cause a loss of about 30 - 35 dB which the mic amp makes up to line level. Probably all valve mixers and early transistor types used this plan until the concept of 'virtual earth' was developed.
OK you would actually use 2 (or more) sums with associated mic amps and you would have to 'patch' the signals yourself but you are only doing the functions of routing buttons on a desk. My original point is valid, it can be done and is technically correct.
Matt S

mattsyson wrote:
OK you would actually use 2 (or more) sums with associated mic amps and you would have to 'patch' the signals yourself but you are only doing the functions of routing buttons on a desk. My original point is valid, it can be done and is technically correct.
Matt S

Ahh... clearly understood now.

I still prefer to use an external, pre-made box. Just my preference. Your point is quite valid though.

J.

I'm a little dense; I'm still not sure I get it. Are you talking about taking a patchbay, rewire it so that , say, 8 or 16 inputs all get routed down to 2 outputs using resistors or whatever to pad the level down, and then coming through those 2 outputs into the mic pre of choice for level adjustment, and then into your 2-track recorder of choice?

absolutely. You could happily just make a 'knot' of all the resistors bound up with sticky tape but using a patchbay makes life neater and simpler. You can wire it balanced (if your DAW ihas balanced outputs) or unbalanced. Don't use a combination of both as it may encourage hums or noises.
Use the switch contacts on the jacks to short the input if nothing is plugged in. 10 to 15K resistors are a reasonable value and then a low value resistor to 'terminate' the output which makes it drop the level to about -35dB (you do some math here!). The 'output' would conveniently be on another jack so that you use a patch cord to plug it into an amp which will give you about 35dB gain. Job done!
Matt S

Huh. Well, if that's all it is, then screw those $1500 summing boxes. Wish I could open one of them up to see for myself how the premade summing boxes are done.
I might have to get one of those 48 channel Neutrik patchbays ($100) and some resistors and try this out. I bet it would sound sweet using my SCA J99s as the amp part.
Still not totally clear on the physical aspects of summing all the channels together, but I imagine I can "reverse engineer" one of the cards to see exactly what is wired where, and then just do that for a bunch of channels instead of just two to one. Probably pretty simple, but I'm just not familiar.

Hi Reggie
It would be good if you did make one up even if it is only a short strip of 4 or 8 channels just to show it can be done. The patch strip would be best if it is just jacks on the front and solder tags on the back. Put 1 end of a resistor (10k) on tip contact leaving the other end in space. Another resistor (10K) from ring contact, other end in space.
Do the same for 4 -6-8 ? jacks.
Now link all free ends of TIP together.
Now all free ends of RING together. Fit a resistor about 620 ohms between the new joints of tips and the rings and wire these points to an 'output' jack. job done. I can understand why the summing boxes are expensive, especially in small quantities (for the manufacturer) because getting safety and EMC approval is so expensive.
Happy soldering and please if anyone actually builds one please either PM or put pictures up.
PS grounds on jacks should probably be left open (not connected) if all signals are from a DAW or same source.
MattS
PS Sorry moderators , has this post strayed into another topic or another board altogether?

Well, it ain't my forum, but I don't see anything wrong with the direction the post has taken.

My only issue with all of this, and maybe I'm mistaken, is simple.

True, you are summing, using this kind of device, but you would have had to decide your panning in your DAW prior to sending it to the summing bus.

In which case, your sending an already computed L/R mix out to a summing bus for the purpose of simply cascading channels on top of eachother.

One of the benefits of certain summing boxes is that you also have controls over panning. This is where I find a good summing mixer to have its strengths (such as the dangerous 8x2 or the manley equivalent). Simply laying sounds over one another proves no real advantage (or no significant one I should say) over mixing in the box. It has more to do with the panning and the output of the summed 2-bus than anything else.

So, your device is rather cool and simple, but does not do what I look for in a summing mixer. It would be a rather cool experiment though!

J.

ok then, the next step is to put panpots on it.
You then get into a bit of metalwork to make a panel but you could happily use some pots to do the panning. You do run the risk of wanting an auxiliary, then some more and you end up with a desk. My main point was that you can produce a viable simple summing unit cheaply.
Incidentally you can probably re establish panning on some channels by actually using 2 outputs from the DAW one to each side and manipulate the outputs to produce the pan.
Never driven a DAW myself so you are on your own.
Matt S

See...

This is great!!!!

We are inching back closer and closer to the real object of contention...

WHICH high quality analog desk would you like to give up yer only hope of "having a life" for?

Fer example:

I chose one of those giant hunks of plastic, sheet metal and silicon a few years ago.

Went into a half a million dollar hole on the one desk alone, broke up my marriage of 17 years, made me old and gray before my time, definitely made me quite a bit more insane than I was before I got it.... Drove the overhead of my business into the 1k per day range until I finally got the "lease to own" off my back 4.5 years later.

Ya know what!!!???

It was worth it.

I'd do it all over again... And if I get my way...

Soon enough...

I will.

HOHOHO.

Mixing on a great analog desk rules.

Kills "in the box" so many ways to Sunday it's a friggin' joke.

Rob banks, scam old ladies, cheat the IRS, start a church and embezzle the money.... Do whatever you must to own and work daily on a real analog platform before you die. Which, BTW, may be later this evening.

Then again.... As I stated earlier. I am most assuredly clinically insane and all of this should provide compelling evidence that ITB is the way to go.

Best regards,

SM.

Slippermang, yous so crasie

Got any DIY plans for a home-built discrete console? just kidding

Maybe if I get my other projects wrapped up I will try a little summing box to see what all the fuss is about. I had kind of planned on just sending like 4 stereo groups, already properly panned ITB, to the summing box to be summed down to 1 stereo output. Maybe this won't really do anything very cool? Whatever I build will probably be ugly so I don't have to sink much money in what may be useless to me. Maybe I could do a Tupperware-based summing box, like this guy's [[url=http://[/URL]="http://rockthemount…"]Tupperware Sontec EQ. [/]="http://rockthemount…"]Tupperware Sontec EQ. [/] :lol:

PS: I just found this DIY summing box: http://echoesrecordingstudio.hypermart.net/EchoesRecording/Summing-Two.jpg
What a freaking mess of wires!!! :shock:

mattsyson wrote: Sorry I may not have been clear. The Behringer part is simply a patchbay with NO electronics just a bunch of jack sockets bolted in a frame. I would probably use 'proper' long frame jacks. It is suggested because fixing sockets into a box or panel is a problem for some. The resistors are simply resistors and the only amplifier is the mic amp that you connect to the common point of all the resistors. The mic amp is whatever you have lying around, Neve, Manley, API or whatever else is 'your bag'. The resistors cause a loss of about 30 - 35 dB which the mic amp makes up to line level. Probably all valve mixers and early transistor types used this plan until the concept of 'virtual earth' was developed.
OK you would actually use 2 (or more) sums with associated mic amps and you would have to 'patch' the signals yourself but you are only doing the functions of routing buttons on a desk. My original point is valid, it can be done and is technically correct.
Matt S

Cucco is correct! it ain't quiet that easy. yes, typically 10k 'summing' resistors can be and are used for isolation purposes (between adjacent unbalanced signals, etc.). the 'summing' resistors then sum into an unity gain amp (opamp, discret bipolors, FETs or hell maybe 'hand picked' vaccum tubes) if you are really old school. then gain issues, electronically (diff amp) or xformer balancing (if desired) signals into the real world where 'telescoping' shielding may be required (if you are chasing ground loops, electro-static noise, etc.) and of course of what ever quality components you may can afford become issues.

one more point believe in dearly is headroom which is directly related to our discussion on summing. example, a Peavey or Mackie sounds great (or at least good) in a show room with ONE active mic right, BUT load that console up with 24 to 40 active mics and sum into 4, 8 or 2 (+4dbm) busess like in a typical live sound gig. it sounds like s...t right! now do the same inputs and +4dbm bus outputs with a high-end Soundcraft, Midas, or any tourning class FOH console with a power supply that weights more than your biggest QSC or Crown power amp does. it's feels & sounds great! just push that 100mm fader to your hearts content! years back i recall going from a high-end Peavey to an aged Soundcraft Venue II and its was like another world. the summing buses MAY be the most critical section a console design, at least IMHO.

i didn't mean to carry-on so long but it's a critical area of conccern when trying out consoles for live sound or studios.

thats why API, SSL and Neve's cost more than a Behringer 8000, my Tascam M5000 or someone's Mackie, etc.

but as was just said by the postee, the discusion of summing with resistors and a patch bay over-simplied for clarity.

(i hope my typing/spelling was better this time)

PEACE,

Billy

I agree with everything you say, but I think we are getting into two different areas: 2-bus active summing in a live console, and 2-bus summing in a passive design. I guess I didn't understand what you were originally asking for.