Hi there
The summing works whether it is 'cative' by which I presume you mean 'virtual earth' or by passive summing. Both have merits and problems. With a mix of around 8 - 16 signals passive is possibly best, it is certainly easier to get stable.
The amp for passive mix wants about 30 - 35 dB gain. Strangely (or rather not strangely) if you are going for a virtual earth mix scheme you have a 'noise gain' which is apropaching that of a passive mix setup when you have a lot of channels. The biggest 'con' is that with virtual earth mixing when you drop channels from the mix (un route them) you can reduce the 'noise gain' so your desk looks good on paper with only a few channels routed. A passive mix gives you a relatively constant noise 'floor' as you always have about 30 dB of actual gain. Whether the resultant mix sounds 'bad' is nothing to do with the actual virtual or passive line of thought but how much junk is crammed into a minute space.
The difference in analog mixing is down to good versus bad layout and design rather than what fancy chip or whatever is used.
Most of the desks I was comissioning around 1982 were passive mix with transformers and transistors.
Matt S

im not too familiar with the whole summing idea. i have a better understanding of how it works by reading this thread.
i do have a couple newjack questions to ask
i have an aardvark q10. of the 8 outs it has, i have 6 running into my teac 5b mixer.
my first question is this: is it a good idea to group my virtual channels to particular outputs which are in turn run through the channels of my mixer? does my mixer do the summing in this case?
i can tell that my mixes have a much better warmth to them since acquiruing this mixer. i don't know if i have the same width as i had when mixing in the box.

my second question is in regards to the width of my mix. is it better to pan on the individual channels of my mixer or the main buses?

i think once i get a better understanding of how to mix in the analog realm, i will be able to freak how i do things. at this point, it feels like i am starting from scratch since i havent worked with analog in a few years.

thanks

Cucco wrote:
The external boxes from Buzz and Dangerous are AMAZING for summing boxes.

Don't forget Neve's new 8816

http://www.ams-neve.com/html/news/8816.php

Lumin wrote: im not too familiar with the whole summing idea. i have a better understanding of how it works by reading this thread.

That's scary...this thread should have scared you away... :lol:

Lumin wrote:
i do have a couple newjack questions to ask
i have an aardvark q10. of the 8 outs it has, i have 6 running into my teac 5b mixer.
my first question is this: is it a good idea to group my virtual channels to particular outputs which are in turn run through the channels of my mixer? [/qutoe]

Hard to say...it probably doesn't HURT the mix at all, but as for helping it, mmm, hard to say. Do you use external effects at this time?

[quote=Lumin]
does my mixer do the summing in this case?

Yes and no. Yes, it does some of the summing. No, your DAW still performs some of the summing too. Unless of course you are ONLY working with 6 to 8 channels, then you can send them all out on their own outputs, sum in the mixer and then return as a 2-bus.

Lumin wrote:
my second question is in regards to the width of my mix. is it better to pan on the individual channels of my mixer or the main buses?

If working each channel as its own output, it's best (IMO, of course) to sum externally. However, if you're busing internally AND externally, the difference would be neglible in either case.

The true advantage of summing externally really only comes when you take all of the summing responsibilities out of the DAW. In this case, the computer merely acts as a non-linear recorder. (Such as a 24 track tape machine that you can "drop the needle" on wherever you want.)

J.

thanks for the response j
i am not using any external effects. if i do use effects, they are plugins, and are used sparingly.
what i plan to do for the future in terms of grouping is keep all drums in one channel, bass on another, and group my samples on the rest of the available channels.

i still have yet to try to do everything from the mixer and simply use sonar (my multitracker) as a recorder. i plan on that though. with sonar, you have to assign each channel to a particular bus in the program. i can add as many as i would like. each bus has its own stereo output.
if i spread the number of virtual channels out over more buses, that would minimize the summing done in the box. am i right?

the only thing that im stuck with now is how panning would come into play if i am assigning the tracks to an already stereo bus in sonar.

man im actually excited about learning more about this

Unless you pass each individual track to its own seperate output then you will be performing some interall summing.

To be honest I don't believe there is a huge issue when mixing ITB these days unless you have access to some sort of monster console and a heap of converters that is.

Cucco wrote:

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.

I used to think this too Jeremy until I heard Lynn Fuston's Awesome Daw-Sum test CD. At first things all sound remarkably similar, but after a few listens you start to notice the differences.

It's not a massive difference granted, but then again neither is his PT vs Neve mix.

o2x wrote:

[quote=Cucco]

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.

I used to think this too Jeremy until I heard Lynn Fuston's Awesome Daw-Sum test CD. At first things all sound remarkably similar, but after a few listens you start to notice the differences.

It's not a massive difference granted, but then again neither is his PT vs Neve mix.

In Lynn's test though, they were all proved to be the same.

However, I firmly believe that ALL DAWs sound different. It may not be the summing bus, but they definitely DO have a sonic character.

I agree, I can here differences, not even subtle ones, between DAW engines.

The difference between some DAWs far outweighs the benefits of external summing.

J.

Cucco wrote:
However, I firmly believe that ALL DAWs sound different. It may not be the summing bus, but they definitely DO have a sonic character.

I agree, I can here differences, not even subtle ones, between DAW engines.

The difference between some DAWs far outweighs the benefits of external summing.

J.

This is what bugs me about some of the things I read on forums (Not RO exclusively!).

You must have this kit...PT vs Mac...Analog vs Digital summing etc etc.

There is a marked distinction between good and bad in most people's eyes. Some don't like digital? Why others preconceptions maybe? Horror stories from 20 years ago? There's a load of analog junk out there too. However it has become less and less pronounced, certainly when people talk about the sort of equipment that most of the readers here are in a position to buy.

I'm sure no-one would turn down a Manley SLAM or a Urei 1176, or a rack full of Neve 1073's, but there's a fair bit of blind recommendations goin on in this here board i wouldn't bet; "Get a Brick - what..have they ever heard one??"

I hope you don't think i'm having a go Cucco - certainly not with you. Your one of the helpful ones :D .

I'm just in a foul mood and you were the last person who replied to one of my posts he-he.

I just wish people would:

a) listen to somthing themselves before committing to an £$x piece of kit.

b) realise that recording on budget equipment isn't a sin.

c) confess that most wouldn't know the difference between a £500 pre and a £5000 pre.

d) that adding £8k Prism converters won't do much either if they don't know how to do the basics.

Sorry - rant over, sorry if I went off topic people. Bad night.

o2x,

you have some really good points. my favorite is that my good friend and engineer just bought an apogee ad8000 for like 1500 bucks, and he was really excited about it. the only pres he has are focusrite octopres. so in our conversation, i was like. hmm. thats great. now you can REALLY hear how sh*tty those pre's are :D

me on the other hand, i bought a frontier tango24 converter, and 2 7th circle A12 pres and at least i have 2 good channels vs. 8 crappy ones. i just saved up enough to buy 2 N72 pres from 7th circle too, and now i have 4 good pres. so im inching my way towards getting 8 good channels, while he is stuck with 0.

i have gone through a lot of the mistakes as everyone else. i could never figure out why my mixes sounded so bad. so i

a) started interning with an experienced engineer
b) started actually listening with my own ears instead of buying whatever anyone else said was good (with some exception)
c) bought some good pres and some decent mics.

if i had my $10k to spend again, i would have bought Protools first, GOOD mics 2nd, GOOD pres 3rd, and not wasted so much money on a lot of mediocre stuff.

ok

steve

rudedogg wrote:
if i had my $10k to spend again, i would have bought Protools first, ...

And just like that, the $10K is down the drain once again! heh heh :lol:

yes i own a LE system, no i don't regret it.

yes i would like a HD system, no i don't have the money (yet).

people can say what they want about protools, but it's what i learned on, and i can edit faster on PT than any other system (yes i have used cubase, nuendo, digital performer, sonar, etc)

i also have some nice plugins for PT (sony oxford stuff rules).

so i am happy, and i can charge 1/4 of what other people can charge, and i make money, and bands are happy with their mixes.

the end.

Just razzin ya, mang. I think you have the right idea about things. And BTW: Seventh Circle Audio rulz!! Gitchoo some J99s some time. They are great when you are wanting a smoother fatter sound. I have a couple of those, a couple A12, and a couple N72 will be done tonight! 8-)

hey i just wanted to thank everyone that offered some help in this thread.
i came home today and spent about 2 hours routing my soundcard signals and listening and what not.
now i notice a HUGE difference in the sound. routing particular channels into my mixer made such a big difference im shocked. i a/b'ed the sound when my computer did the summing, and when the signal was ran through my mixer. everything sounds so much more full through my mixer (espeically drums) and i havent even added any eq.
seriously, i thank all of yall for explaining the info about summing and being patient with my newjack questions

peace

o2x wrote: This is what bugs me about some of the things I read on forums (Not RO exclusively!).

You must have this kit...PT vs Mac...Analog vs Digital summing etc etc.

There is a marked distinction between good and bad in most people's eyes. Some don't like digital? Why others preconceptions maybe? Horror stories from 20 years ago? There's a load of analog junk out there too. However it has become less and less pronounced, certainly when people talk about the sort of equipment that most of the readers here are in a position to buy.

I'm sure no-one would turn down a Manley SLAM or a Urei 1176, or a rack full of Neve 1073's, but there's a fair bit of blind recommendations goin on in this here board i wouldn't bet; "Get a Brick - what..have they ever heard one??"

I hope you don't think i'm having a go Cucco - certainly not with you. Your one of the helpful ones :D .

I'm just in a foul mood and you were the last person who replied to one of my posts he-he.

I just wish people would:

a) listen to somthing themselves before committing to an £$x piece of kit.

b) realise that recording on budget equipment isn't a sin.

c) confess that most wouldn't know the difference between a £500 pre and a £5000 pre.

d) that adding £8k Prism converters won't do much either if they don't know how to do the basics.

Sorry - rant over, sorry if I went off topic people. Bad night.

Aw, that's it. Now it's fightin time!!! (Just kidding... :wink: )

I don't take any offense o2x! In fact, I whole-heartedly agree with you.

I get absolutely fed up with folks spreading around BS about

"Well, if you don't use *this mic* with *this pre* then you obviously aren't any good and can't record music!"

This frustrates me to no end! Good music can be made and recorded with everything out there. All the way from the SSL desks down to the Behringer "rack crap." I agree, there is a serious up-side to owning good gear, and I would hope that one is in pursuit of the best gear they can rationalize (notice, I didn't say "can afford") in the interest of furthering their creativity.

Again, I have to stress that great recordings can be made with mediocre equipment. The "boutique" stuff, if used correctly, can simply add that extra dimension or polish.

That being said, good gear in the hands of the wrong person is worthless. I could give my Schoeps and Gefell mics, my Grace Pres and my Sequoia system to a lot of folks out there who would come back with a bad recording of an orchestra. It's not enough to *HAVE* the equipment, it's what you do with it.

On the flip side of that coin, send me out with a pair of Oktavas and a couple SM57s, a Mackie 1202 and a Mini-disk recorder and I can get you a good orchestral recording. Could I do better with my normal equipment? Hell yes. But my point is again, it's what you do and what you know, not so much what you own.

Furthermore, I feel the inexpensive (err, cheap) stuff is critically important to the development of young engineers everywhere. As long as it too is used correctly. Meaning - please don't go out and buy a generic karaoke mic, a crappy sound card and generic software with tons of hacked plugs and think that you are a recording engineer. LEARN how to use that crappy mic and that crappy card. LEARN what each of those plugs are and how they work (then go BUY a copy...), LEARN the principles of signal flow (yes, this is even important in the digital world) and WHY everything in your studio works the way that it does. Then, use your knowledge to make a little money and start to buy better equipment.

Don't waste money on it because it's what someone here recommended. Try it and see if it will suit your needs. Period.

This is what it takes to become a recording engineer. Luck has absolutely nothing to do with it.

So, preach on brother o2x. You are in fact correct and you didn't piss me off by referencing my post.

8-) J.

yep $5000 pre or $50 pre w/ proper use & a good player .

. . . makes good music!

o2x, i agree. i have to make every dollar count and i make compromises and hopefully are intelligent ones. i always have said, the indication of a person with TRUE knowledge of pro audio gear is when he/she can chose the right gear and put it in the right position in the signal path with the least cost!!! another saying of mine is, "they will sell a SSL or Neve to anyone"!

one piece of gear that great deals can be found are in studio mics these days.

PEACE,

Billy

Cheers Angel, I'm not in such a facetious mood tonight. :lol:

I do agree with Jeremy with regard to good quality summing boxes - the Dangerous is fantastic - i've not heard the buzz so I can't comment on that particular piece of kit.

I will be interested to hear the New 16 channel Neve box that's due out early next year. Just a summing mixer - nowt else. But a 'fair' price for a piece of Neve kit. It might however turn out to be absolute bollocks with a fancy badge.

With regard to Mic's - yup there are some nice mid priced ones out there. A particualar favourite of mine is the AT4047 (not 'cheap' maybe but worth every buck IMO). I also still hold the humble 57 in high esteem. Oh and I recently found a radioshack/crown PZM I'd forgotten about in a cardboard box. £20 that cost - for the price its fantastic, I used to use it quite a bit.

I'm also a great fan of used kit. While we may all crave the 'vintage' Fairchild, Pultec and Telefunken there are lots of bargains to be had out there which are admittedly not in the same league as the afformentioned but still good pieces of kit. The only problem with this strategy is that you are relying on a degree of luck to come across a good find at a steal (although you do find them). The most disturbing trend today is that dealers and e-bayers seem to think that 'cos it's old it's 'vintage' and want to charge the earth for it. Nope - it's just old and quite possibly crap.

Never forget the 'REAL' signal path:

PERSON>INSTRUMENT>EARS

If you don't get this 'path' right then I don't care if you throw a million dollars worth of equipment at it, it'll still suck.

Peace to you too!

yea, vintage may mean its woreout and was worthess when new!

o2x, i agree absolutely. hell, i'm 54 and only printed to tape (of course) and much gear in those days was basically chap! BUT, there was also alot of great sounds running down copper also.

i still feel, as many do i think, that part of the 'magic' was a gentle touch of harmonic distortion (even harmonics, not odd). i still dislike a clinical sounding console. i want it to have a little attitude or character or color as some call it.

having said all that, i saw the potential of digital years back and its it's only gotten better!

i would love to have a good 2" 16 track laying around for drums, bass and electric guitars, etc. though.

it's scary to think what 'Pepper and the 'White' Beatles projects would have been like with todays digital technology!!! Lennon would have drove George Martin nuts!

yep, the 57 is still a great choice for snare and electric guitars, etc. I use the Beta 57 for vocals usually (and the SM58 at times also) with my live sound gigs.

". . . i was so much older then, i'm younger than that now . . . deceived me into thinking i had something to protect . . ."

PEACE,

Billy