wow, wow, wow.... so many implied misconceptions in that post, I don't know where to start....

The short answer is - what do YOUR ears like? Keep doing that....

The short answer is no IMO. Great radio hits are being performed ITB all this time.

cure for digital audio

there's no real way to quantify it in scientific terms / methodology. it's truly a question of personal preferences .... for reasons stated many times from what i've heard over all these years, i prefer all analog.

if i had my way all computers would be smashed with the apropriate baseball bat and thrown out of the back of a pick up truck as a sacrifice to the freeway gods (i'm serious).

2 inch tape / 16 track @ 30 ips ( punches are faster) an API / SSL / NEVE or even an old MCI 600 and mixed to a 1/2 " half track @ 15 ips ( to spread tape hiss in different octaves) ....... hard to beat.

Over-the-top-rhetoric aside, both analog and digital can, and do, sound very good.... if one knows what they are doing with either format.

Paul999, post: 400520 wrote: The short answer is no IMO. Great radio hits are being performed ITB all this time.

...and thousands and thousands of great sounding records were made with tape machines.

This debate isn't going away anytime soon...

There are plenty of pros and cons to both formats.

I've heard plenty of junk coming off of a 30 foot SSL - and I've heard some amazing mixes coming out of digital "bedroom" studios... and vice versa.

So, in the end, IMHO, the engineer is a far more important quotient in the recording chain - than is the type of equipment or tracking format being used.

Well, I have a theory on this. ITB is cheaper, takes up less room and is good enough. Its a no brainer. This has nothing to do with superior.

If superior is what the OP is all about however, two top level formats done right are superior because you logically have more options for sound design, that is a double no brainer.

Its all about money and preferences.

Chris really said it all. In the past 10 years, I've actually done more ITB than analog. And I preferred the analog. But I use both. I can hear the difference. Generally, I listen beyond the difference. They certainly both have their pros and cons. In today's age, more cons than prose. That is you are being conned more by the pros LOL. Especially since many of them are now releasing lower-cost equipment to suit the current world economic structure. I mean even SSL now offers pro-consumer gear. Are with a lot of the flavor and a lot of the quality of their high end stuff. And so if you like that SSL sound from a 4000 or even a 9000, it's now affordable for ya. Because ya don't have to buy the entire console anymore. You could just get yourself a 500 rack. You can build your entire tutti-frutti boutique hybrid control room out of everything from 500 series modules from so many of the manufacturers now releasing products in that format. So you can have a Neve next to an API next to an SSL next to an Dean Jensen 990, all them y'all's. And ya can have eight channels of each. No job too big or too small for a series of 500 racks.

I personally prefer the sound of analog summation. But I frequently use digital summation also. It has its own sound. And lots of guys turn out stellar sounding things/productions that have all been done completely ITB. They're not complaining. And though sometimes they might be folding it down through the analog console?

On my recent trip to Nashville, summer, 2012, I visited most of the legendary hits studios. What do you think they were equipped with? What do you think half of these country songs are being turned out on? It's all analog. Some of it even coming from 2 inch analog tape. Something Dave Grohl has been going off about upon the last Foo Fighters, all analog release. And everybody marvels over that sound. It's real. It's moving at the speed of light altogether. There is no data multiplexing going on. And what you get a perceivable difference in the sound. So only you can decide for yourself. I don't denounce or evade digital because of its sound. But it is a matter of convenience and cost. Cost being the primary factor. PCM is a very viable and usable format even though I don't care much for it. I don't like that fluorescent light like sound from PCM, at any sample rate, at any bit depth. And with people telling me what they can't hear that I should also not be able to hear. You either have to agree with them because they're right or you don't agree with them because you hear it differently. And if you hear it differently, they can't possibly tell you what you're not hearing. But they'll argue with you about that which you may have perceived that you weren't supposed to hear? And I can't help them with that mis-perception. Obviously they're hearing is not as finely tuned as my own? They're just equipment junkies/monkeys. They're not professional listeners they're design engineers. That's a real big difference there. So while they know the theory, we know what it sounds like. And the two are not necessarily related. Sometimes they are. Other times not. So we're talking about these kinds of minute perceivable differences with people that listen for a living. Not people that design equipment for living, theoretically telling us what we should or should not be hearing.

Chris and others have realized the value of a summing box. I don't want or need one. I have a Neve console. I have API mixers. And while it might not be as squeaky clean as Chris's summing box, I find it extremely enjoyable and more than adequate. I don't care if my audio is going through additional unnecessary Neve circuitry and Transformers. Especially if that's the sound I want and it is. Sometimes I make a point to go through additional unnecessary Neve circuitry because that is a sound that delivers greatness. Chris just doesn't have the room or the financial wear for all to purchase a large framed vintage console. Not what he needs for his work. And he's got a beautiful sounding system that sounds considerably different from my own stuff. And right it should. That doesn't mean that's the sound that I want. It isn't. I'm rather steadfast in what I like and dislike. And no sales pitch is going to change that. I worked on top of the line digital consoles. I've worked on bottom of the barrel digital consoles. I've worked with the best analog consoles. I've worked with the worst analog consoles. And this doesn't change anything for me. I still have to simply deliver a professional product. Regardless of the equipment of the control room I walk into. I have my favorites for sure. But I really don't care what it is as long as it works and works well. Even George Massenburg worked on vintage analog consoles that were very different sounding from his own design and consoles. So with his superbright, super detailed sound, how the heck could he have used a mid-1970s Neve to record and mix Linda Ronstadt on? In fact that recording did not sound much different than when he used his own designed console and equipment. How do you explain that? It's technique and only technique. He knew how different that Neve sounded from his own console design. And he engineered around that, I guess? Otherwise he would have appeared as a schlep engineer if he had blamed the Neve console for a crappy recording effort. But like I've said, ya can't do that. You should never use your equipment as an excuse for a poor delivery. He doesn't. I don't. Bob Clearmountain doesn't. And he'll tell you what consoles he worked on, which he didn't quite prefer using like a 4000 G. He doesn't like the G. He likes the E. But he'll use the G, if it's in the control room. So he keeps going back to his 1978 4000 E, in his own studio. He is not interested in the new crap. I can't blame him.

I think the new digital consoles, frankly, are great, incredible! Everything you need is in that console. You don't need any of that outboard stuff unless you want to use it. I had a digital console that I rather liked but it blew up. The cost of shipping and repair exceeds the value. So I keep going back to my what? Nearly the 40-year-old Neve. Because it's like the Energizer Bunny, it just keeps going and going. That digital crap is designed to last 2-4 years, maximum. Is that a good investment of your dollars? No but it's something we all have to deal with. Total planned obsolescence. Like were all supposed to learn how to use our computers differently than we have since the 1980s, because we now have smart phones and tablets and the operating system " will still work with your laptop or desktop ". Which says to me, that new Windows 8 operating system was not intended to be used for any kind of professional or business applications. It was designed primarily for smart phones and tablets. Those are toys. They're not even real computers. They can't do what we need them to do. And if anybody thinks I'm going to purchase a piece of equipment that relies upon a smart phone to work, they've taken obviously more LSD than I ever have or will. No way. They are out of their freakin' minds if they have any. They've designed everything to be a toy for children. Nobody will know what to do in life if there isn't an app for that?

These times... they are a changin'.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Personally, I think it all comes down to the engineer, much more-so than it does the platform.

A great engineer will be able to provide great sounding audio - in either format.

Yes...there are certainly upsides and downsides to both, it's been endlessly debated, and I have no intention of kicking that particular horse here again ...

But ultimately, the fidelity is determined by the engineer - and not by the gear or the platform.

IMHO of course...

-d.

Well this post is Dedicated to all those who hear, appreciate, and demand the best of both worlds.

I admit I am just a child learning compared to some here but Wow, I'm blown away with our forum and comments like this. To think that people of your skill level would believe a computer alone will do everything equal to pro audio hardware is mind boggling and disturbing me. Each has its pro's and cons beyond the abilities of any engineer. Tools matter to professionals.

This is exactly saying you can make a u87 sound like an sm58. Or you can get a Hammer HM2EQ top end to sound just like this clinical marvel: http://www.avid.com/US/products/EQ-III
Ya, you can make due but... Come on guys, you all are freaking me out here. " Stand back guys, I'm here now. I've got my plug-ins :biggrin: . Seriously, these plug-ins sound and look just as good as that Neve. I'm here man. I read this on GS, a great engineer doesn't need a Neve or hardware today. My Pro Tools system and me running it !. I know what I'm doing, I'm here and I know what you want."

Would you bet your life on this statement? I sure wouldn't.

For once can we get past the dilutions of grandeur and wishful thinking. It may not matter when is comes down to economics but, Gear! power, cable, copper, I mean seriously... all things clearly make a difference in sound quality.
I cannot believe you all think your skills are this great that you would get an equal sounding mix between these two products:

http://www.apiaudio.com/vision.html
over this:
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.sweetwat…"]Pro Tools | Sweetwater.com[/]="http://www.sweetwat…"]Pro Tools | Sweetwater.com[/]
LOL http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/PT10SoftStu

facepalm

Its hard to even imagine anyone thinking this. I can't even discuss this anymore without a fun challenge.

The beauty of it all, its all music and who cares, especially if we don't compare.
But I do care and why we are all most likely here, yes? We do care right? I hope we still care. Do we?

The OP asked:
Is Analog mixing and processing superior to Digital mixing and processing?

I say the combination of the 3 are by a long shot. Digital alone is not, its generic.
You all claim its the engineer, not the gear.

You all have more skill than I. I am a musician just having fun here so I should clearly be ready and easy to get my ass kicked and finish this debate once and for all.

I'm pretty certain I could take anyone one of your mixes (preferably some well produced stems that are 100% ITB) and run it through something right now that would sound different, if not quite noticeably better in a blind test. I would use 3 things to start.
An analog summing system , STC-8, Bricasti M7 and possibly finish it with a Software Limiter. I call that hybrid.

Who's game?

I like Canadians Chris. Canadians always makes sense. It's just us dumb folk down here in the lower 48 wheeze All Sutheners Blow your border. We know how to spell corn whiskey you spill it NASCAR. We don't need to say we all the time or au revcaviaroir, or any of that confusing French stuff. We all have enough to do trying to learn Spanish maybe before us Caucasians become the minority. I mean I've understood that many Canadians cannot speak French? So what do you do when you get a letter from your Internal Revenue Service and its all in French? I guess you just give it to your accountant or H&R Block? Let them worry about the French. I'm only kidding I'm only kidding. I love the French Canadians so much I left a few pieces of myself behind in Montréal almost 12 years ago this coming 27th. I gave them the best of me. And now I am persona non grata in Canada because some middle eastern terrorists attacked my country and just a couple of miles away from where I lived. And then they tell me that emotional battery is against your laws? And so that's normally what I expect from my friends, the French Canadians LOL. I think it's what we all expect? It certainly gives us something else to joke about other than our own politicians. I mean it's not every day that you can walk into a lovely restaurant and be seated. And then watching other people get seated. Get their water. Get their drinks. Get their hors d'oeuvres, at more than three tables and you're still waiting for water because you and your partner are speaking English. Not quite what we would call Southern hospitality LOL. But then... they ain't Southern. They're French. And you know they don't like you guys either because they don't even want to be a part of the country that you live in. Golly by golly gosh that doesn't sound like they're quite right in their heads? So if my brain damage, subsequent surgery, French first name and I think I say OUI, with a French Canadian accent? LMAO It got me into a strictly French speaking nightclub back in 78 LOL. I really had no idea what the maître d', the coat check guy or the bartender said to me? I just answered the same way each time. Seemed to work until I asked for a whiskey sour... in English. And then a shouting match ensued between the maître d' and the bartender. I was really trying very hard not to laugh hysterically. The bartender was most definitely bawling out the maître d' for allowing me in the door. And I did not have to understand one word of French to know that LOL. And then I spent the rest of the evening there with a lovely young French-Canadian gal who, through our own frustrating communication skills, was able to convey to me that she felt quite alone and isolated in her own country because she could speak no English. And where she indicated that that's what most other Canadians speak. But she was raised in a very strict old-school French-Canadian way no outside English allowed anywhere in the household. I think that night I was a little ray of sunshine for her? She was not a happy girl. And I felt badly that that had been imposed upon her by these wonderful cool, laid-back Canadian folk. She felt trapped. Ripped off. Her freedom denied. And she's part of one of the most progressive countries in this world. You're so much like us and yet so different. And believe you me I appreciate your difference. Being from Detroit and taking numerous regular trips into Windsor Ontario and watching and listening to all of that CBC broadcasting, I've always felt that Canada was my second home. Your government certainly told me differently when I tried to go back up after 9/11. And where I had been allowed in the previous year spending thousands of dollars, of American dollars which at the time was worth twice that of your own. And the following year I am persona non grata? You know... neither one of our governments really got their crap together. And we're both better than most. I'm an atheist but thank God for that. I like it that we are all here in the North American continent including our cousins south of our border. We're lucky people, all of us. And I count my blessings daily, in spite of the fact I'm an atheist. And particularly because I'm still alive and shouldn't be. I hate intermittency's! You can never properly troubleshoot an intermittent. So for the time being and eight years post-brain surgery, every day is a good day no matter how bad a day it is. But y'all know I'm still living in denial over the demise of my truck. Throughout most of my career, I've been in the right place at the right time. That ended about 10 years ago however or maybe eight. And there's not been one blip of work on my radar screen. I certainly wouldn't be the first DC Metro recording facility to call it quits. Everyone is suffering if you can't generate the work on your own today. Otherwise it's BS garbage jobs paying minimum-wage. So bartending is looking more attractive. A new career. Who better to mix drinks? It's just another control room. Stand up console like at a radio station. All I need is a microphone on a boom arm and I'll keep everybody in the bar entertained. And you know as a bartender you always get a quota of free liquor to give away. Which means ya get people to perform stupid tricks. And who better can do that than a Producer? And the rest of the night you're engineering drink mixes and even manning the music playback system oh yeah. And you know how to squeeze out the best of whatever you can from whatever it is. And where I might also create a track sheet to indicate who was drinking what? So Debbie on track 13 may have had a blue Hawaiian. While Joe on track 22 had a cosmopolitan. Ricky Scott and Bruce on channels two three and four all had Budweiser. And the rhythm section of Betty, Frank, Jacqueline and Bo on tracks seven, eight, nine and 10 had buffalo wings and margaritas (two with salt shakers) So I've already got it down. Kind of like those sort of audio engineers that set all of the console's equalizer's before anybody plays a note LOL? So I'm doing right, good? I mean good, right? My other left?

Do you want whipped cream on your Jack Daniels?
Mx. Remy Ann David

What happened to my paragraphs?

RemyRAD, post: 400741 wrote: What happened to my paragraphs?

enter/ return bar lol: What do you mean Remy?

Chris... if you read my post more closely you'l see that I wasn't belittling either format. Nor was I knocking the incredible technological advances that have made our work easier, our work flow smoother..

But in either format, if you don't have someone who knows what they are doing running that gear, yu'll end up with much of what we hear these days... over compressed, balls to the wall limiting, EQ where 20 hz is boosted through the roof in order to get low end.

Cats like Geoff Emerick, Ed Kramer, Roger Nichols and other bad asses made fantastic recordings on tape.

Sgt. Pepper and Aja' still stand, to this very day, as testaments to sonic greatness.

Yes, of course mixing n the box can have its advantages, but you cannot discount that thousands of fantastic recordings were made in the days before those tools were available. Take a listen to stuff even older than that... recordings from the early 50's Capital Records stuff = Nat King Cole, Sinatra, Judy Garland... the sonics on those recordings was - and still is incredible.

I find it funny that you mention that ITB issuperior to OTB when you have a pretty nice rack of OTB processing...so I'll make you a deal. I'll be happy to trade you my entire Waves Diamond bundle for just one of your 1176's ;)

-d.

I like Canadians Chris. Canadians always makes sense.

I think you should shut up until you've been married to one for 27 years... ;)

lol

-d.

DonnyThompson, post: 400757 wrote: Chris... if you read my post more closely you'l see that I wasn't belittling either format. Nor was I knocking the incredible technological advances that have made our work easier, our work flow smoother..

But in either format, if you don't have someone who knows what they are doing running that gear, yu'll end up with much of what we hear these days... over compressed, balls to the wall limiting, EQ where 20 hz is boosted through the roof in order to get low end.

Cats like Geoff Emerick, Ed Kramer, Roger Nichols and other bad asses made fantastic recordings on tape.

Sgt. Pepper and Aja' still stand, to this very day, as testaments to sonic greatness.

Yes, of course mixing n the box can have its advantages, but you cannot discount that thousands of fantastic recordings were made in the days before those tools were available. Take a listen to stuff even older than that... recordings from the early 50's Capital Records stuff = Nat King Cole, Sinatra, Judy Garland... the sonics on those recordings was - and still is incredible.

I find it funny that you mention that ITB issuperior to OTB when you have a pretty nice rack of OTB processing...so I'll make you a deal. I'll be happy to trade you my entire Waves Diamond bundle for just one of your 1176's ;)

-d.

Donny and friends, no disrespect, I'm just being my blunt self and stirring the pot.

I dunno here. Its like pulling hens teeth around here to talk about more than ourselves. None of what I do in life is all based around just me. In fact, I can't think of one skill I have in my Trade (in or outside music) that is solely based on just me or an employee getting it right based on the person alone. What an arrogant statement that would be if I walked into a group of people and said here I am. When I hear you all talk that way, that's what I hear around here over an over. I just don't give myself that much credit like you all do. Good tools helps me learn. Bad tool, I just get frustrated and want to quit.
I actually turn down work if I can't use the products I need. I won't touch a job if I can't use my tools and the best stuff. But you know what, I get paid a lot of money to do what I do and I have endless testimonials. And you know what, I would never get those if I didn't have the whole package. I never talk about how great I am when people praise my work. I simply say, good tools and material sure help, thanks! I always praise the products. Its a circle. Thank goodness there are people that clever to make something that works and makes my life easier, more fun. Great sounding.

So, I'm smart enough I suppose to know what to buy and wise enough to know its not just me that makes a great finished product in a technology driven society. So when people come to us here and we say its us that makes the sound. man, how boring.

IMHO, the answer to the OP isn't what you are all giving, its a no brainer you need to know what you are doing with everything in life. This is a rudimentary skill we learn the day we use a knife. That is the part that sets us all stupid around here with those statements, IMHO.
You all are stroking yourselves so much and its hard to stomach.
Its so self-righteous sounding to me :(
It would be cool, no awesome to get past that every time we have these hybrid discussions and actually talk about technology instead of putting ourselves always first while watering down the manufacturers that build incredible gear. I don't get it.
I would never be where I am without tools. It would be a cold and short music career that's for certain. End of story.

The OP is not at kindergarten level. He is asking a question on a pro site assuming we all know what we are doing. It would be cool if we figured that one out IMHO and stepped it up.

Okay, I'll shut up now. I need to get out of here and go fishing. Its been a long winter.

...

Re Canadians:
Donny, you love her though eh!

Majority of Canadians I hang with like wearing jeans and t-shirts to work. We put less importance on how we look and say sorry a lot, even if there is nothing to be sorry about lol. We aren't that fussy about acting like we know it all and get bothered by arrogance. We all know you need a good coat to keep warm and it takes energy to heat a house or drive to work. So technology is always how you get there to stay warm and survive.
When we find a new way to do something, we get really excited about it and give it all away lol! Maybe that's what you all love/hate about us. :)

Analog Mixing is far better if done on quality gear and mixed by a pro.

Mixing is a art form, I have had to work on both and am constantly going back and fourth

I will pick analog mixing every time if I have a choice , Dimension depth and warms with impact over the flatso DAW every time.

The DAW mix has bells and whistles and recall which as the end of the day recalling flat non dimensionality sounds is just that!

DAW are popular because of price not because it is the better way sonically.

Recording Wise

A mix of the two is great either track DAW but mix some where Analog with as much good gear as possible is the best of both worlds in my mind.

It all comes down to the experience of the mixer in the end, if you have that over format to start with you are further ahead.

If it were me I would mix analog all the time and often do.

Live Digital is now king and the Analog console is dead, The large format Midas Ati;s Soundcrafts to me sounded far better then most of what is touring now.

Light weight recall and foot print and winning , sonics are generally not untill you go top end Digico Midas Studer

one thing people seem to blanket is how digital "adds up" or "stacks". for instance, i subjectively hear 24ch of stock eq from a mackie d8b, sounding better than 24 ch of stock eq on dp, or pt. do dsp card processes stack better than ram based? digital has this whole world thats being re-fined, like when they figured out 15ips. until we have no physical air movement in the perception of sound, we will have analog. even if we hard wire to the brain, it'll still be some sort of analog. Digital is only getting better. how it stacks, and how people use it is just as realavent as audio has always been.

what i'm interested in this thread, is how are we taking advantage of digital? the 13yr old starting out surely doesn't have a jump on us, or does he. but particularly to processing, digital gets ripped on, yet so many of my peers favs are in fact digital, h3000, spx 90, stuff like that. i know it's old hat.

and to remind everyone, unless we're mailing each other tapes or records, it's digital at some point. i'd prefer that my contemporaries, tell/show me things that pertain to this fact. the usual analog suspects already rule, old, or re-ferbished, or new, those things are pretty established and purchaseable. how is the digital element taken advantage of? people don't seem to question the value of the analog stuff. what's the most beneficial way to exploit digital? that seems to be a challenge for anyone still doing it. however questionable the new analog stuff, is, digital stuff is still the most unknown/unrefined part of modern productions.

the digitsl is the area in need of most attention/improvement in a hybrid system, i think, in an average system.

my latsest revalation is how plug-insstack. or don't. what do ya'll think?

Some plug-ins and DAW's are worse than others. I try not using anything ITB that isn't necessary. 10 years ago, I thought it didn't matter. All I wanted was more DSP so I could use the little monster's, Today, Sequoia 12 has all I need. The rest I do OTB, The more digital, the more boring wall. I am convinced f this.

Yesterday, working on your track Kyle, I was at a 32 buffer and it was a smooth as silk. Try that with a pile of processing clamping down on your party, Man, I would like to have 24 API EQ's all ready at will. I think I'll start with 8. Thats my next dig.

32. so awesomely nice!!. well my superior usues has 2 of the 550as, and the graphic lunchbox deals. i haven't used 'em yet. but he likes his trasnformer based stuff.

Yesterday, working on your track Kyle, I was at a 32 buffer and it was a smooth as silk.

i 'subjectively' fell like the sound quality would be different, becuase you employed a specific system. im not trying to suckup, but i honestly think that every process makes a difference. it was still 'full' .and 000's 1111's are processed differently per case by case... .

RemyRAD, post: 400741 wrote: What happened to my paragraphs?

I have been wondering that for months...

Thank you everyone for pitching in..

Is all I'm asking about is SONIC QUALITY though, I'm aware of the feature differences and the pros of digital..

What I don't know is there "pros" of analog??

I'm Just looking for a simple straight forward answer of "Yes, there is a certain sonic magic that happens
when you're using real wire, transformers, capacitors, resistors, actual volume potentiometers, to make a record vs digital numbers inside a computer and a mouse.. Or a "No, you'd be crazy to buy a vintage console in this day in age when digital is so advanced"
I've been practicing engineering for 10 years (though I'm only 23, I started young I guess) faithfully for hours and hours each week, and after getting my craft down with ITB engineering, I still cant help but feel that there is truly something missing in the overall sound with digital productions, even the top of there game pros, a sound that can't be described, a certain "realness", "organic", and "three dimensional quality..

If this gives you any help on which direction to push me in.. (Buy an Analog Console or Keep Working ITB)
My favorite sounding records were tracked, mixed, and mastered all analog, now is that a coincidence? I feel like it cant be
There's tonalities and characteristics and and overall vibe on all those records that is something I personally do not believe you could achieve ITB. I just want to know if I'm crazy or not?
If you listen to Steely Dans AJA or mostly anything that came out Sound City or likewise studios in the 1970s, which were tracked all analog to tape, or even new modern bands that refuse to use digital until the very last step only to get in out into the world, there is that goodness that I truly believe can't be emulated with digital.

Just tell me if I'm Crazy..

ITB on its own is a joke compared, well, crammed and mono ish sounding. But it costs money to do analog well so what I say to everyone first , don't waste your money doing it on a budget. If you want to hear that sound, it comes at a price. Here is my $100+ grand modest but effective start into the world of hybrid: The second screen is for the capture DAW. I use it like a 2 track tape machine was used back in the "Steely Dan days :) . But it also serves as the mastering system.

So I say Yes.

These two companies do the hybrid thing right:
Dangerous and SPL

If you go with a console, get your wallet out because I don't think the benefits are that great until you enter a certain level, and even then, I would pass. But, there is a lot of satisfaction with all the hands on control a console offers at your fingertips. But as you can see, I have total control too, just a bit different.

You're not crazy. Analog did indeed have a warmth and a depth of its own.

But... unless you have very deep pockets, pound for pound, dollar for dollar, digital is still your best bet from a revenue-turning point of view... as well as the convenience factor and general work flow.

Aja' is one of my favorite albums of all time - and not just because I loved the songs, but because of the sound of the album. It was incredible... warm, silky, beautiful depth and dimension...

And .....having the "A List" of session cats that they had playing on those tracks certainly didn't hurt, either. ;)

The general myth is that any analog rig will sound better and warmer than digital, and it's just not so. Just because it's tape, and just because it's an analog desk, doesn't mean that it will immediately sound good.

These guys were using the creme de la' creme of analog gear of the time - (and in my opinion probably of any time, our current time included) and while I can't say for certain that they were using a Neve, (although my bet is that they were, or something comparable) I can say with absolute confidence that engineers Roger Nichols, Al Shmitt and Elliot Scheiner were certainly NOT cooking on a 24 channel Behringer and tracking to a 1/2" Fostex, either.

So you have to compare apples to apples, so to speak.

In my own opinion, Chris (audiokid) is on to the next best thing, which is a mix between digital and analog. He's got some beautiful outboard processing, and from what I've heard him working on, my own material included, the Neos summing desk he is using adds a warmth and dimension that is very pleasing. But, he's also using stems that were recorded digitally, which offers the convenience of instant editing, trimming, and what he has termed "surgical" EQ. There is a precise-ness (LOL is that a word?) to digital, as opposed to analog, which has a kind of "smear" to it sonically, and it reacts differently to processing than digital does.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that yes, In my own opinion, if I could afford to do analog right, by and large I'd prefer to work that way. But doing it right ain't cheap, not by a long shot.

For the money I would spend on an analog studio of quality, i could probably buy 10 times as much in the digital realm... which includes limitless tracks, access to fantastic sounding soft synth libraries, processors by the truck load...

And these are but a few of the things about digital that I love, the others are lack of noise, no biasing or alignment needed, editing is a breeze, shifting parts around with the click of a mouse, and thank GOD for the "undo" function...

It's an endless debate and weighing of pros and cons.

IMHO of course,
-d.

i had an MCI 600 console ... before that i was mixing on small format consoles for the most part ... soundcraft, mackies, even a little phonic p.o.s. that i had ... one day i booked a studio with a humble Trident 65 and immediately i was like "ohhhhhh, now i get it" ...

i picked up the 600 and never looked back. keep in mind the 600 wasn't even a transformer based console. if i knew then what i know now the first thing i would have done was go out and get a bunch of 990 pres for it ... but there's something to the high volts and as said, runs of wire etc ... and the heat that thing put off ... you could hold your hand a foot above the control surface and feel the heat rising up.

at first we were tracking to black face 16 ADATs before i picked up the 2" tape machine. still, even with the ADAT's that old MCI sounded great. this was in the 90's ... and i immediately formed the opinion that it wasn't "digital" recording that sounded crappy, it was the cheezo mixers most ADATs were coupled to (in the small studios) that sounded like doo doo (i feel it's still the case with mixing itb .. it's a "bottleneck" that is audible).

that's the story of yesteryear. even then i could book 15 to 18 hours a day seven days a week at minimum 30 bucks an hour. at one point i was booked (with deposits) 14 months in advance. in short i had the cash flow to make the expenditure of 10 grand for the board and 300 a month for maintenance and still put some cash in my pocket after i paid for the rent, power, insurance, taxes etc. you can't do that now days. no one books studios any longer and now record companies aren't even going to release CDs ... it's all going to downloads and streaming through lossy compression / codecs. i really don't think that most people care about music that sounds good anymore (judging from what i hear in the media). it seems to me the worse it sounds the more they like it. i think it's just an excuse when i hear people say "that's how i want it to sound". they seem to gravitate to crappy sensibilities mainly because they say to themselves, "I can do that".

all that being said, it's just not practical to have and maintain a large facility any longer for the most part. the day of the big studio has faded ... there's a few in London, New York, Nashville and LA but other than that, a big studio is a lose / lose scenario.

unless you're just a fanatic with uber deep pockets who cares about something "sounding" good, who's willing to pay out the nose for it with no hope of return, mixing hybrid or i.t.b. is what you are left with. Even Donald Fagens last record was tracked in a small studio.

i challenge anyone who advocates a large console .... who's paying for it? is it making money? how are you paying the maintenance costs, the rent for the real estate? are you in a major market? do you see the future of your facility as viable over the next five years?

i would bet the answers are, someone else is paying for it, no it's not profitable, someone else is paying to maintain it or you are an electronics wiz that does the maintenance yourself (and you are not running it 24/7), you are in New York, Nashville LA or London and you are struggling to keep the doors of your studio open.

the new business model for a recording studio is as a home based facility. mediocre disposable equipment, mediocre acoustics, mediocre recording skills, mediocre musical chops ... mediocre music. you can hear it anytime you turn on a TV or a radio.

100% with Kurt on this:

Are these what you'd get?

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.johnhard…"]The John Hardy Company Jensen Twin Servo 990 Mic Preamp[/]="http://www.johnhard…"]The John Hardy Company Jensen Twin Servo 990 Mic Preamp[/]

A cool pic:

audiokid, post: 400955 wrote: 100% with Kurt on this:

Are these what you'd get?

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.johnhard…"]The John Hardy Company Jensen Twin Servo 990 Mic Preamp[/]="http://www.johnhard…"]The John Hardy Company Jensen Twin Servo 990 Mic Preamp[/]

A cool pic:

 

yeah those are the ones. Hardy made them to fit a JH-600 channel strip. check the JH-24 in the foreground and the UREI monitors in the soffits... and that looks like a 400 or 500 console. not a JH-600. I had a 636. the Hardys are prolly not your cuppa tea, pretty colored, not transparent. but just what i like. transformers that you can drive hard to get that "Tom Petty" sheen ....

This is for my own personal band and music, I don't engineer for a living, I write and play music for a living, however I engineer our bands records. I don't care if the everyday person can or can't hear a difference, as long as I can it'll be a more enjoyable experience. There will always be a select few people in the world that can appreciate above acerage qualities in a recording, and it's those people that I care about pleasing, way more than the average consumer/set of ears.

ChrisH, post: 400964 wrote: This is for my own personal band and music, I don't engineer for a living, I write and play music for a living, however I engineer our bands records. I don't care if the everyday person can or can't hear a difference, as long as I can it'll be a more enjoyable experience. There will always be a select few people in the world that can appreciate above acerage qualities in a recording, and it's those people that I care about pleasing, way more than the average consumer/set of ears.

well then this is for you! only $69,000 (Dead Link Removed)

Kurt Foster, post: 400957 wrote: yeah those are the ones. Hardy made them to fit a JH-600 channel strip. check the JH-24 in the foreground and the UREI monitors in the soffits... and that looks like a 400 or 500 console. not a JH-600. I had a 636. the Hardys are prolly not your cuppa tea, pretty colored, not transparent. but just what i like. transformers that you can drive hard to get that "Tom Petty" sheen ....

Kurt, I love flavor, color, just not on the summing amp. Thats the cool thing about it all. Add it in or take it out. Very broad and versatile.
Tom Petty is one of my favorites.

for me the more colored a piece is the more i like it as long as the "color" is a pleasant flavor.

tom petty jeff lynne .... those two guys make some of the best sounding records in the business... both of them use Neves and SSLs ...

i missed the "Mr Blue Sky" documentary on Palladia last week .... i caught the last 2 minutes ... big bummer... keeping an eye out for it to run again.

I will definitely give you a definitive answer. I prefer analog consoles. I prefer only good analog consoles, API, Neve, SSL, Sphere and even the budget oriented Auditronics made in Memphis Tennessee along with your cornpone. I loved my 2 inch analog 16 track MCI, their original JH 10 which had Ampex 440/MM 1000/1100/1200 cloned electronics. I love their JH 110 A series machines, with Transformers. Didn't care much for the B or, C later versions without the Transformers. I finally succumbed to my Ampex MM 1200-24. 2 inch 24 doesn't sound as good as 2 inch 16 because of the narrower track widths but ya had to have 24.

Unlike a lot of other folks here, I cut my teeth on API, Neve, MCI, Harrison. I started very young just like yourself. But because the difference in generations and age, all we had was analog. Sometimes things came out really nice. Other times it would sound like total crap. Especially if you are bouncing from the sync head (record head) on these old first-generation transistor analog machines. Later machines didn't quite have that limitation. And I loved, where and when possible, budget permitting, recording at 30 IPS. Though most was at 15 IPS which also was a different color. No one appreciated the noise accompanied all analog tape and noise reduction systems were both good and bad and those of us that elected not to use them at all. And I was one of those. I loved what the noise reduction offered, who wouldn't? But not what it did to the sound.

Folks from your generation only know PCM digital and yeah, I've heard some absolutely fabulous work by other very well seasoned engineers of everything that was ITB. And I find it breathtaking sounding. And probably something I could not deliver myself? However I do enjoy the new breed of standalone multitrack digital recorders, recording to hard drives or SSD drives. And while we all deal with the PCM, quite frankly, regardless of bit depth 16, 24, 32 bit float and higher sample rates of 88.2/96/192/320 kHz, it still sounds like PCM. It most definitely does not sound like the analog recorders. And I think it's crap but it's what we use because that is where the current technology lies in its absolute truth. There is a better digital standard I feel that more closely sounds like our analog recorders without that fluorescent light quality PCM sounds like to me. But we're not there yet. So the folks in the know, like Chris, like myself and many others are going this hybrid route.

So we're combining the best of what analog has to offer into the digital realm where it must be, has to be, and no other place to be other than to be a good bee because you don't want to be a Dolby there is just no DBX in it, for you. And I do that with the vintage equipment I happened to invest in. Which were large frame, high input count, analog consoles for my specialized needs applications. And that meant capturing 24-48 simultaneous channels through just as many high-end inputs and EQ's, limiters/compressors, gates/expanders, all high-end stuff. Now you're the lucky one. You only need a few good modules. And you don't even need to take it to the extreme that Chris has two still be able to obtain that awesome analog coherency. And you can get that with a tutti-frutti combination of high end modules in the API 500 series rack configuration being offered all over the place today. One of those lovely summing boxes. And then whatever kind of external goodies you would like to use of which we are all kids in a candy store about. And you'll have it all. And you'll largely still be working in an environment very friendly to you ITB. You'll then fold out stems or perhaps 24 analog outputs into that summing box. The output of which could simultaneously be split off to go to a one quarter-inch/1/2 inch 15 or 30 IPS analog machine and will also be feeding the inputs back into your converter to be recorded as a stereo pair or individual left Mono and right mono channels in your timeline. Chris prefers to use a secondary computer with a different converter as a stand-alone mastering recorder. But you can do it on the same machine from which you are mixing from and loop back to the inputs as if it was an overdub assigned to other channels. And you can even do that with a different converter on the same machine in addition to the other converter. You might even want to get one of those Korg DSD converters? Because I think that comes the closest to analog sound in the digital realm, not PCM. So ya can take part of the PCM out of your final master equation. And that DSD which you can transcode without any mathematical errors to any PCM-based format. Which personally would be the way I would go and am actually thinking of if I had any business to warrant it. Which I currently don't have because remote trucks are not studios unless you have a studio to also supplement your remote truck. I don't anymore.

I love the stuff I'm hearing out of Nashville today more than ever before. And on my recent visit, to the legendary hit making studios still in operation today, it's mostly analog high-end consoles and processing in opulent abundance. And David Groll's new release and movie called Studio City, all has to do with analog. And there is another definitive answer of yes for you. Mathematicians, theorists and programmers know in their heads this stuff should be perfect. You and I hear otherwise along with countless others and we happen to like that sound. It works for us. We do the digital dance when we are required to and still produce lovely product as you probably also have. Who wouldn't want to combine the two? The folks that like working completely ITB that's who. And only you can make that decision for yourself in your own engineering technique and is it your sound that you want? So even when I am engineering with all digital stuff, I still essentially come up with the same sounding analog style mixes. Because I handle my digital engineering much like I do my analog. I really don't care about all of the crazy and incredible plug-ins. I just like basics. That's all I need. I like my mixes very real, deep and organic sounding. I do not engineer nor produce electronica. And if I did, I would want to take full advantage of something like Pro tools and all the gobbledygook crazy fangled plug-ins necessary for those genres. I don't create music in the computer. I only work with real musicians and ensembles, groups, etc.. And I'm not dared to sell them on some newfangled microphone or digital thingy. I'm there to make a good recording, my way.

I worked out differently in the studio. And I preferred the analog equipment of the consoles and processing. I loved tape saturation but I can live without it and have been since 1983. It has just as many pros and cons as the analog tape did. And if you want, you can still combine both of those as well. And plenty of people are doing that also for those other obvious reasons you've heard and experienced. This is one huge money pit. It never ceases. You never stop. Audio equipment is not like yesterdays newspaper. Though it does seem to be for some? They have their own reasons. There are just those folks that want to embrace and push the state-of-the-art. And they get marvelous results because they have also invested heavily in prime Digital Equipment. They're not using a $150 box from Guitar Box. Then there is a big difference in the sound of those different quality level pieces as well.

So let's say you can't afford the high priced analog stuff? Does any of the lower-cost analog stuff cut the mustard or worth the investment, restoration and maintenance? Sure it does. Does it have to have a high-power rails? No it does not. Are ya good with a soldering iron? Can't afford that lovely summing box? That all you really need is a bunch of volume controls and switches from Radio Shaft and a couple of API 325 cards and you have a passive API summing box for a couple of hundred dollars. Or, order up a couple of John Hardy/Dean Jensen 990 modules and you'll have a 990 summing box. How about a couple of Neve 3415 A's? Then you would have a passive Neve summing box for a couple of hundred dollars. And maybe a 500 rack from Radial with a few other preamps du jour, EQ's, compressor limiters and voilà. Pay-as-you-go, start with two and keep adding. And you've turned your ITB system into a state-of-the-art hybrid system with all the goodness and all the value of what you already know you are missing.

And you don't have to purchase the API or Neve modules. Plenty of folks are making very good clone knockoffs for those 500 racks for considerably less money. And it's still an API or Neve just without the brand-name stickers. You already like that transformer coupled old-school preamps sound and EQ's, so go for those. Anything brighter or crispier will just end up sounding wretched because digital is linear. Analog tape was a nonlinear transference process but we had to work with it in a linear manner. Digital is all a linear transference process and we work with it in a nonlinear manner. And when you combine the two, ain't nothing you can't do or get. So there really is no one best. Although everybody will be happy to tell you what is best (for themselves).

It's obvious to me, you like the old-school sound. And you can get that today without the need for a 36 input/48 input/96 input SSLAPINEVE consoles. And I don't care how great the Dangerous summing box might be if I want that API or Neve sound/color/guts & glory. So I would just as soon build my own. I've built the same thing back in 1978 into a custom console I was building up. It was the passive multitrack recorder tape monitor mixer. Completely passive volume controls and switches into a couple of summing & output amplifiers, I was using throughout this console. They were American-made and designed. Similar to the API modules 2520 operational amplifiers. And sometimes that passive monitor mixer, with no EQ or anything else, sounded better than a mix folded back through the console again. And this happened on a couple of occasions. And where I had to print the EMT plate reverb (which came from a console pass through) to a couple of empty tracks rather hot, on the multitrack machine. And then I could pull the mix off of the passive monitor summing mixer. And that was 1978.

Would you gain the same sonic integrity from using somebody else's commonly available analog mixers such as Sound Craft, Mackie, Midas, Allen & Heath? Well sure but you might find it substandard? Then again maybe not? People can only convey to you what they have used and what works for them. So I can't get tape saturation anymore. Big deal. I can still saturate Transformers. I can still make discrete transistor operational amplifiers, pushing them to their absolute limits and have them start to go slightly nonlinear. Which will also cause the transformer to saturate as well, can come mighty close to what we got from analog tape. So maybe it's a little heavier in odd order distortion components? Big deal. It's only rock 'n roll. It's certainly not the way I would record a Symphony Orchestra or an opera. And then I would take a more distortion less approach. But I certainly will never record Symphonic or Operatic work ever again on analog tape. Rock 'n roll? Sure. No problem. But I don't have to. And I still get that analog sound you like with the digital recorders and PCM today. Check it out at Crowmobile.com (IE 6 or newer or, Google Chrome is required). That is all analog capture to digital recorders. And I think you'll find it has that 1970s/80s organic rock 'n roll sound because that's what I do. And while that might be a dated sound? I really don't give a damn. Don't like it go to somebody else. Lots of people want this sound. You do too because you are missing something. You just don't need to have all that I have. You need a small fraction of that. That's all.

You're on your way now!
Mx. Remy Ann David

API 1608 - This is a contender. 28db headroom. Almost as much as the Neos hehe.

Doesn't this look sweet! The OP should look at this. Only $52,400.00 and you are singing.

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]THIS[/]="http://recording.or…"]THIS[/] is a screaming deal! 3K for the console, amps and eqs!

those UREI's are inductor EQ's Crown D75s are killer little amps.

Looks like that might be a great deal for the OP. Apparently not the best headroom but nice vibe. What deal. I asked him for pics. OP, check it out.

Isn't it fun when we start talking consoles and gear. diddlydoo I'm glad this thread turned around.

I've been listening to Steely Dan all week.

Moving along, here is an A/B loop of a song I quickly remixed for a member a month back to demonstrate the difference between their mix and when you add some analog mojo.

NOTE: I never recorded this. If I had, it would have sounded considerably better. I'm not showing off any sonic skills here either. Its just about space.
That being said, this is a simple example of how easy and obvious analog is. I couldn't do this as easy ITB.
All I did was run their mixed tracks back through my analog mojo, did a couple of tricks which took about 30 mins and uploaded it here.

smoke

[MEDIA=soundcloud]audiokid/a-b-comparison-using-an-spl

Wow! What an awesome example! I loved it. Loved what you did to that overly bright and wide fake sound to that more subdued mono centric quality. No? Oh that was the original? Right. Got that. Well then your stuff sounded even more cool.

I like I like big difference, good difference, marketable difference. So can I get the same thing from my T-Bracts I mean Racks? No? I guess I need an M-7 also? Can I just feed the $50 ART tube microphone preamp from my LA-3's to make them sound like the tube LA-2's? It's got a tube in it that's brand-new from China. So it has to be good. They can't say anything on the Internet that isn't true.

I read that on the Internet. Oh look! Here comes my date... he's a German microphone, made in China.

LMAO I think I have to smoke another one? Damn thing won't work now?
Mx. Remy Ann David

Man, I never know what to think with your posts Remy. They are so strange, stifling, uninspiring. You generally make me want to quit recording or find a new forum lol. I wish you would actually say something instead of all this sarcastic dribble.

I don't believe I touched an EQ on this either. I used an UA LA-2A with Vintage tubes for the Vox, A Dangerous Master with a bit of M/S to clear the center, two UA 1176's and a Crane Song STC-8 over the 2-bus. The reverb is not an M7, it is the BFD2 overheads.. I personally couldn't open it up like this 100% ITB as easy or as fun. If all the tracks were recorded through a nice tracking system like yours Remy, or like the Trident Kurt just brought to attention, and with better mic placement care, it would be a huge mix with lots of attitude. Analog gear makes things fun.

You're absolutely spot on to what I am going for and what you informed me on is rather exciting.
The "Sound City" documentary was a wonderful confirmation of what I had already believed in.
I can afford a summing box but what one do I go with for a vintage 70's sound? The Manley one?
Also, how much for you to make me a neve box?

Thanks for that professional inquiry to a Neve summing box. I've had scads of people request that I build things up for them. Many things I have over the years. But I'm really not personally in the manufacturing business like my friend Paul Wolff once was. I don't have the house with a workshop in the basement anymore making this request even more difficult for me today to fulfill. I could however guide you in this process and I might still have enough extra 3415 A's lying around I don't use or have need to use. And plenty of folks have asked me to record those up with power supplies modified as microphone preamps. Been there. Done that. Don't want to do anymore really. I've designed and built, maintained enough control rooms for both the broadcast recording industry to have satiated my technical desires and accomplishments.

The Dangerous summing box obviously sounds great. As Chris pointed out however, it's naked. That's good for some but not good for all and not necessarily desired by all regardless of power supply rail voltages and other riffraff. Chris is the true perfectionist in search of the ultimate decibel. I just like rock 'n roll, symphonic and operatic work, gospel, bluegrass, country, jazz. And that old crappy equipment from 40+ years ago is still cutting its today without much neutrality in the equation LOL. And so we all go for this sound that we have in our head, willing to spend beaucoup Dinero, in order to get the right pair of underwear that fits and feels oh so right. No skidmarks need apply. It's the wrong kind of color sound. And where I even find some of that incredibly neutralized equipment sounding rather neutered. Not sure why I feel that way knowing how I've lived my own personal life?

Many of these summing boxes have input sections that are passive and not active circuitry. Any active circuitry will color and skew the sound one way or the other. And so even a passive transformer may not be desirable? It adds its own coloration. So creating a summing box, with passive unbalanced inputs, is the straightest wire, cleanest signal path you could build up. And if you are feeding this summing box from typical studio equipment outputs, you're looking at average +4 db levels going to and sometimes exceeding +24/+28/+30/+32 above +4. And that's what separates the professional equipment from the kids equipment and a generally do not have the ability to drive anything beyond +18. Now while that still sounds adequate and it can be, it frequently isn't. And when you're sound starts to sound squashed and certainly not stellar, you might have to rethink your gain staging? You need to add 10 db to that +18 DB output. Generally, you would assume, this would require additional specialized high output circuitry designs? It doesn't, if you are willing to sacrifice 10 db of less signal to noise ratio. So if the signal-to-noise ratio is 95 db, it will be reduced to 85. Yet you will probably not here that noise differential? And if it does become an issue, there are other ways to deal with that.

So for the passive summing box, you are really only dealing with a couple of input resistors, a level control, summing resisters and the active summing and output amplification. Which only as 2-4 active circuitry components for both channels. So you're only going to go through one or two operational amplifiers of your choice. Neve, API, Dean Jensen/John Hardy 990 and others to choose from. And you don't need those. You could go for those Seventh Circle DIY and Warm Audio products that are knockoffs of both the Neve, API and others that come quite close and which I think are worthy. So you could even get a little wacky like me? No no no not like me. But, nevertheless, you can create a summing bus box with a couple of Neve BA 438/440, discrete transistor operational amplifiers. They look a lot like the API 2520's but are in fact, unlike the API 2520, repairable. Though parts are right there in front of you. But then you could also stick in a couple of 2520's. And with which proves something like a multi-ganged wafer switch might be able to have a Neve summing bus with an API 2520 line output driver. Throw the switch and ya now have an API summing bus with a Neve output line driver. Or switch to one or the other with different gain structures to provide for an even broader range of fabulous cool coloration. And it will have that classic hit console sound. Nothing wrong with adding coloration on your summing. Especially if you can't afford a Neve or an API large frame console.

Now for instance, over at NBC radio, they had, at one point in time, an API 1604 frame and it was designed as a radio station commercial production console. For whatever reasons I never knew? It was taken out of service, stripped, scrapped and whatever was left thrown into the corner of the room and a couple of boxes. The old RCA on-air console we were using for the #1 urban contemporary station in the Washington DC market, had to go. Back in those days, NBC engineers like myself and M Berry, build up a lot of custom equipment. And when I found that API console frame, a couple of faders, a couple of VU meters and only a couple of 325 & 312 modules, I decided to build a brand-new highly specialized on-air console.

Given the dearth of parts I had on hand, I basically built up a passive input broadcast console. It was all balanced. It was all 600 ohms in and out. And only the summer/output amplifiers which were only two were used. And 2 API 312 cards for the two announcer microphone inputs. And while I said it was balanced, that's not entirely accurate. The outputs from the cartridge music playback recorders were unbalanced going into the 600 ohm conductive plastic API faders. Proper grounding procedures were used so there was no ground loop problems. Those input 600 ohm faders then simply fed, I think I remember putting in 10,000 or 12,000 ohm resistors. And with which they all terminate tied together, going into the summing/output amplifier. So the output of those 600 ohm faders were looking at 10,000 ohm loading. And that prevents plenty of interaction and crosstalk between input channels. The inverting side of the operational amplifier terminates those 10,000 ohm resistors down to essentially ground potential. And I put in the API 325 cards for this summing and output purpose. Unfortunately, we also had to have 2 inputs that had switch selectable input source switching. Such as punching up the radio network on one of those and some other remote incoming feed on the other one. At the time my senior union engineer supervisor through me quite a curve. We had a crosstalk issue on those incoming remote feeds. That meant the button would be selected and the Seder was down, completely. But that's signal through the ground loop made it into the program output. This was easy for me to correct with a simple 1:1 line level transformer providing the electrical isolation I needed. Unfortunately, Joe had a tendency to drink and he demanded " No Transformers ". And he would not listen to reason. So we could never leave any of the input selection buttons engaged, even with the fader down without crosstalk. Going into network news, you'd have to mash the input selection source pushbutton 1/2 second before you needed it. And that was stupid. Then Joe blamed the crosstalk on the API 325 cards. I knew that wasn't correct. But he wanted something else. Remember now, we have taken the station off the air starting at midnight, gutting the control room and started to install my new console. But now I had to tear the console apart and design a new summing output section. What? While we are off the air trying to install this sucker and to be back on before 6 AM. Obviously Joe had had one too many. And I found a couple of Jensen 990 operational amplifiers that were just sitting on the shelf in the shop. So I threw goes on to a couple of circuit boards added a few extra pieces, ripped the 325 out and installed those. And of course that did not correct the crosstalk, ground loop problem due to lack of electrical isolation from Transformers. A lot of people were into this transformer less kick like a bunch of lemmings, sheep, knuckleheads. And this wasn't even on the music input circuitry. We're talking about phone lines. Stuff that didn't have a response beyond 5 kHz for Christ's sake. No transformer. No isolation. It's like having a humanoid body without a brain. Kind of like me. However, that console I designed worked marvelously and everybody liked how I laid it out. And they really liked the eight automatic fade in/fade out microphone circuitry gizmo I came up with. No more clicks from the DJ's switching on/off their own microphones. Essentially an optical limiter controlled by the on-off switch. And where the switch would provide full and total 100 DB+ gain reduction or off as we like to call it LOL. So the on-off switch was simply a manual detector to the two optical devices I had wired each microphone up to. And with which I could have actually made each microphone a full-blown optical control over the microphone dynamics had I wanted to add the additional circuitry. But it wasn't necessary. But I designed that 990 Jenssen output and made that change to the console in less than two hours time. So it wasn't just an API console I had designed anymore but a hybrid API/Jenssen. And because of Joe's drinking and insistence due to his impaired judgment and decisions, we couldn't get the station back on the air at 6 AM drivetime OMG! We missed that deadline by two hours. And I got blamed for that, of course. The console worked perfectly before Joe's demands had to be met. Joe was gone shortly thereafter and where I heard he turned into nothing but a slobbering alcoholic. It was sad because he was a good guy to work with. M Berry was his supervisor before Mike moved on and upward. No doubt to me I enjoyed working under Mike more than I enjoyed working under Joe even though we were friends and colleagues at the time.

So there really isn't much that needs to go into a passive summing box. It can actually be quite a simple and fun DIY project. Sometimes, a summing amplifier is also the output amplifier. Other times, the summing amplifier is a unity gain device followed by a line drive output amplifier. Neve does it one way. API does it the other way. So you'll find two cards in an API where you might find a single card in a Neve? But when you're going for that classic coloration, you can pretty much lay this out anyway you want? There is no right or wrong. Well there is when you don't do it right the wrong way. And I mean that by how you gain stage your concept. A lot of that coloration is not just the device and components themselves. It's how they start to go nonlinear at the furthest reaches of the operational amplifier's capabilities where a lot of that magic happens. And that's the wrong way to set levels, right? Of course it's right because it's wrong. But it's what you want. It's that sound. You'll know it as soon as you hear it. That's a very different concept from the way that Chris conceptualizes what he does. And what he does is very good sounding, most definitely. One could say stellar and I would. Not my sound however. Not what I'd go for. And to be quite frank, I like being a little sloppy, it's fun.

So you can approach this in many different ways that will result in a plethora of sonic magic. As opposed to total neutrality a.k.a. neutered in my book just ask my cat. Well she's dead now but ya know what I mean. So is the other cat. Kind of like those furry shotgun microphone wind screens which is probably what my kitties look like today because they are looking like a dead cat which is what they are and so are those windscreens. So who would've ever thought to stick a dead cat around your expensive shotgun microphone anyhow? Obviously from somebody that did far too many drugs or got hungry and Kitty looked pretty good? And then ya get a bonus leftover you can use on a microphone. It's a win-win but not necessarily for the kitty.

So summing boxes are a little bit like that. Switches, volume controls, even panoramic potentiometers a.k.a. Pan Pots. Not to be confused by that second word in a solo sense. And most of that stuff does not contain active circuitry at that front end input. Not necessary especially if you are driving from professional output devices running at average +4 reference output levels. Even if they only have the capability of delivering a maximum of +18, still good, still workable, still good sounding if you don't overblow it's output level going to the input of your summing box. This doesn't necessarily hold up if you are feeding from a devices output that isn't rated for +4. TA-SCAM, comes to mind there. Most of their stuff, in the past, used a different reference standard of -10 and only capable of barely squeaking out a +4 signal which was about 20 db shy of what you needed. And that is where likely, you would need a summing box with active circuitry inputs to make up for those woefully inadequate output devices. And then to a certain degree, the summing box concept has been defeated with the additional input circuitry that would be required when used with that type of proconsumer stuff. So these passive summing boxes really only work well when you are supplying them signal from other studio standard +4 reference level output, devices. So this isn't necessarily a device that is purely generic in its usage? You have to have the other proper equipment in place to feed this device and to obtain that which you are looking for. When you have a proper budget as Chris has had, he still dropped quite a chunk of change. But then he is also not building up his own stuff. He is carefully shopping and matching items to properly execute the cleanest possible signal path that which he desires. And that's largely based upon budget.

Budget is truly a word with a double entendre. Those that have a budget. And those that don't have a budget. One word, two meanings. So my next question to you would be what is your current equipment inventory? Where and how do you intend to use this summing box? What will be feeding it? And what are you going to plug that summing box output into? One of the reasons why I ask that, is that I have a similar problem. Yes I said it. This is from decent standard run-of-the-mill multitrack converter boxes. My 10-year-old MOTU 2408 MK II, begins to clip when input levels to it, exceed +20. Well hell! And the API's & the Neve clearly can make it out to +24-+30 well that's a lot of clipping oy vey! 4 to 10 db over clipping. No good. So when my Neve or API's are feeding that thing, I really have to shift my operating levels and gain staging. Sometimes I'll run a 10 db resistive pad. Otherwise, other times I won't, if I can get away with it? So while that is still a premium piece of equipment, most of this stuff that is anything below the highest level of quality equipment is all going to stop dead between +18 & +20 coming out or going in. So I would need a $3000 two channel converter box for the computer if I wanted one that could accept that kind of input head room. Not within my non-budget these days. And I'm not going to throw a limiter on just to prevent my signal from exceeding +20 at the inputs of the 2408. I don't believe in doing that. That's only a broadcast transmitter necessity. Sometimes I just have to be more careful, that's all. No banging of meters into that device. Not like analog tape no way. We wanted to do that with analog tape. Mostly with the drums. But that was a generation or two ago OMG? Geez... where's my rocking chair? My slippers where are my slippers? I think I need my galoshes to put over my slippers? I have to go pay the outhouse in the backyard a visit. LOL no I don't that's old-school. I'm a modern engineer and I use equipment from the 1970s. I didn't mean modern I meant moron. Certainly not state-of-the-art and all of that awful coloration ugh. Makes everything sound like it's from the 1970s and 80s and who the hell wants that? So dated sounding. Yeah... just what I love to hear.

I think it's an audio engineers neuro- circuitry that essentially keeps us always pushing the envelope? While there are people like myself that are very old-school, I still push the equipment, mercilessly because I'm such a hard line driver. And my head room? Well they had to drill a hole in my head to make room for more headroom. I guess I was a little too big headed on the inside of my cranium? But that's all been corrected for with a simple modification utilizing a surgical silicone garden hose that I have had permanently installed. Minor structural changes had to be made to accommodate this new circuit pathway from my brain into my lower abdomen. Not quite a DIY project. So I had to travel to Guitar Center a.k.a. Georgetown University Hospital to have my summing bus head end operational amplifier modified. Wasn't really sure how they went about it because I fell asleep before they started? Next time I want to be awake.

So there really isn't much of a schematic that goes into these colorless summing boxes. The idea is to keep the parts count low and with minimum active circuitry. And because the cleanest audio you can get is from a straight wire. So really you can still make do with but only a pair of 2520's, 990's, old 1731's (which were pre-API, API's) and you can find those used, in good working condition, for $50 each and up. Then if you want those input and/or output transformers you would need the other associated componentry that would include the output transformer on the API 325 card or the Neve 3415 A's/1272's. Many folks know the 1272's as outboard Neve microphone preamps. Well they weren't that at all. Those were the summing and output amplifiers. Small modifications turn those into great sounding microphone preamps, still sounding like a Neve but without the Neve microphone input transformer. No. They turn around the line input transformer and run it backwards. Transformers are bidirectional. They can provide a step up or a step down as a free passive gain amplifier or loss inducer. And that's what a 1272 microphone preamp is with some gain structure changes and available front panel adjustability beyond a screwdriver trimmer control. And as you can expect, those complete modules with their surrounding additional electronic accoutrements, will run you considerably more money. But not that much money. I've seen 3415 A.'s going for around $300 as the original module. $800 when converted into a usable microphone preamp and provided by other folks such as BAE, Dan Alexander, scads of others. So you're paying a lot more money for something like that where they have had to cost to modify and add additional components. Silkscreen a rack panel with holes punched into the proper positions. Wafer switches, power supplies, cables and connectors. And then their time and effort. And all of this goodness comes from a 50-$100 used and new, operational amplifiers not including the Transformers.

If I wanted to go back into custom fabrication and manufacturing, I would likely do it mostly as DIY kits? Then I only have to come up with the directions, circuitry diagrams and schematics. Get some panels silkscreened and punched. Purchase some power supplies. Put it all in a box and ship it to you. The rest would be up to you. But why bother with that? We didn't have that advantage 20-40 years ago. We would just go out and purchase the parts we needed or pick up the phone. And then it was up to the individual. Plenty of us folks, back in the day, built full blown, large frame, custom multitrack audio consoles, from scratch. Otherwise you're purchasing all of this old stuff, reverse engineering, restoring and rebuilding it all from scratch anyhow. I mean if you wanted to be an engineer in this business, you had to be an engineer. Not a fader flipper. Not a PA guy. Anybody can do that and they've have proved how wonderfully awful they all are at it. So those people are not real Audio Engineers. That title has broad ranging definitions. I'm just stupid because I thought I had the know-how to do all of that stuff? Obviously I did not know that I didn't have to? So I just did it. You should try also. Fun, frustrating but in the end an incredible gratifying experience, when it works, if it works. It's even more exciting when you plug it in and it bursts into flames. Or suddenly you hear what sounds like fireworks and you find all of your electrolytic capacitors have some kind of electronically induced erections? And then you find yourself replacing at least 48 of these electrolytic capacitors that you just installed days earlier. Actually it was a lot more than that LOL. But that was the first custom console I designed and built in 1978 and I was only 23. But I also tell you all I'm a high school dropout with a GED? But there was a lot of other schooling I had that didn't necessarily get you a degree. No, it made you competent at something in actuality. A college degree means nothing unless you have obtained a job and worked it for a few years. Otherwise it's like buying a lottery ticket. Very exciting. Of course he did not win anything. But just the thought that you could have made it worth the one dollar cost. Rock 'n roll is that way and so is audio equipment for recording studios. Rock 'n roll has to do not with the clarity of the equipment but with the distortion components and degradation equipment imposes on the sound. Rock 'n roll is basically musically controlled distortion. Why shouldn't your equipment be as well? You're not recording symphonies or operas are you? No? Good. Then you can play with as much distortion as you want to dial in. And very very little goes a long long way. That's the magic. It's there. It's how you get that sound.

I think I forgot to eat today and it's almost 4 AM? Losing weight is great from the effects of depression induced seasonal affective disorder. I'm back into my skinny jeans again! So while I hate the depression I love the weight loss. Depression, distortion it can be both good and bad. Depends on how you use it.

My recordings are never depressing to listen to but I am LOL.
Mx. Remy Ann David

got to see the Jeff Lynne "Mr Blue Sky" doc this evening .. very informative and some real insight to his recording techniques. i think i get how he gets the sound now ... simple. prodigious use of U87s through Neve 1073 pres, mixed/monitored on an SSL. couldn't see what kind of monitors he was using.

really cool. followed by Joe Wash at Darryles place which was cool in itself.

analog rules.