Comments on: Analog Summing PM8, For People Who Don’t Trust Software Mixing

By: DAPPADON

DAPPADON — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:11:12 +0000

Hey Guys just to get into this topic I agree with Wilhype… I’ve been working on large format consoles and have been doing the DAW thing for awhile now.. and at the end of the day it all boils down to your ability understand the strengths and weaknesses of digital and analog and utilize both technologies.. at the end of the day u need a decent front end preamp and good AD/DA such as mytek or lavery… then you need to sum out of the box to in order to get the headroom …depth…and separtion in the mix… as far as I’m concerned 80-90% of most “commercial” albums are still mixed through an ssl and tracked through a neve for a reason!!! That sound that the analog transformer technology imparts!!! As well the knowledge and approach of old school recording still stands tried and true

That’s my take on it!!!

DappaDon

By: Wilhype

Wilhype — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 04:10:29 +0000

I have mixed songs since the early Ninties on analog gear with analog tape and it sounded great if the mixer was decent, When digital came along it was a marriage made in heaven. I will take a digital source with good analog mixer over mixin IDB anyday. Yes it sounds g8 (InDaBox) till you max the level after mixdown and thats usually when you hear its inability to compare with the width and dynamics that a good console can provide. I have heard some good IDB mixes and I have heard what Dr.Dre and Timbalind get when they use a neve or ssl with protools. There is no comparing the 2. Mixes IDB bottlenecks thats why people are usin and creating these summing units. I you hear a mix from analog summing on a dangerous and it sounds like crap its obvious the engineer is not very good at it. most people never had a chance to use the older gear and would likely take years to learn how to get that older stuff to sound great. The art of mixin is taken a turn for the worse because newbies havent mastered the hardware devices.

By: Baxter

Baxter — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:27:42 +0000

Eric,
You may want to investigate a better clock than the 002 is running. The addition of an Apogee clock to my 002 rig was amazing. The bass and lower mid’s became 3D instantly, changing the mix considerably. It didn’t “add sound” or color it, it simply revealed what was there.

By: ep

ep — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:03:27 +0000

Folks…Heres my take on this kinda stuff… If you want that legendary “ghost sound”, you are only as weak as your weakest link….Going back to analog after digital etc,, doesn’t buy anything.. You killed that “spirit” when you converted to digital, atleast your last picture of it.

Anyway.. heres the secret….Record in the best studio room possible, with the best analog tube mics, to the best analog console/preamps, to the best analog tape deck, at optimum levels.. DO NOT color the sound to this point…If you can’t afford the above, then rent time in a pro studio with the above goodies.

In that studio, use the best a/d converters (like Radar) and bring the tracks into Protools….At that point, you can mix, add color and screw as much as you like with the plug-ins…at least you can always go back to the tapes.. Then leave the rest to the best mastering engineers. Das-de-Mojo sound baby!!!

Cheers!

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 01:29:46 +0000

I just bought an extra patchbay and some extra snakes so I can analog sum.

I use an allen&heath GL2400 (direct outs are post pre,eq,fader). Then dumps into an 002. For channels 9-16, I got a behrenger ADA8000 AD/DA box. My gear is balanced throughout.

I do all my recording at 48K/24bit. My intention is to record into pro-tools/Logic strong and use the full bit depth, do some effects and copy/paste stuff. Then blow it right back out onto the allen&heath.

The final recording device being a akia Z8 recording the mix@ 96k/24bit.

Will it make my mixes sound better?
I don’t know

Can a magic box make a crappy D/A sound like a Neve?
Probably not.

Will having a clients first real recording spread over my console so he/she can “touch” it a little bit in the raw form make for a more interactive session?

Most likely.

Will having the recording spread over the board for the client to touch allow me to charge an extra 5$ an hour.

Pretty much, but just kidding.

;)

If the trend is selling snake-oil:

Start a franchise.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:39:33 +0000

The reason why DAWs sound different and why analog gear sound different is because you use it differently. I get a much better sound in recording and mixing with Logic than with Protools LE.
Because for me it is more user friendly and less irritating (mainly PDC missing in Protools LE). It’s more fun to work in logic for myself so it is fairly logical that it will sound better because i’m more into it.
I’ll bring out the best out of everything but a mix i did in protools or in logic will sound differently.

If you mix with an analog summing buss , there is no logical sense to only bring it in after it is mixed. You mix together with the buss, not connecting it later to bring more analog into the picture because you already agreed that the mix is done.

So a/b tests never work with mixed materials.

What you can do, is do mix in stems (not because it will sound different than a stereo ITB bounce) but you can now put a fairchild UAD for example on each mono stem (always mono tracks)
The reason why analog sounds different is because there is no stereo ! Each pro console is made of mono busses, mono compressors, etc…

Spend the analog summing box money on better a/d + d/a + clock.
And work in mono tracks and mono effects ITB.

By: vallen

vallen — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:02:36 +0000

Here’s a blind A/B test:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=26442&highlight=dangerous+2-bus

Results:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/showpost.php?p=260485&postcount=127

By: Peter Kirn

Peter Kirn — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 18:08:57 +0000

Oh yeah, absolutely. That’s why I suggested getting a non-partisan friend to help. :)

The moment you say, “Now, here’s what Pro Tools sounds like –” it’s not terribly scientific. :)

Thanks everyone for ranting. That’s really my thinly veiled reason for bringing this up in the first place.

By: Paul Davis

Paul Davis — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 17:55:51 +0000

please: no A/B tests! no mentions of A/B tests! no references to A/B tests! double blind is the only acceptable testing strategy in every other field where testing matters, and it should be the standard here too.

oh and peter, i really will email you soon.

By: Vermeer

Vermeer — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 05:52:46 +0000

Another thing I’ve noticed is that for a whole generation of audio engineers, software is really hard to apreciate: they need actual knobs to turn.

One thing I find interesting about the old guard is that those who have managed to sty sucessful across many decades have never stucked to one technology: they evolved and many times were early adopters.

Examples:
* George Massenburg - Invented parametric EQ hardware in the 70’s, but now makes equally good plug-ins and produces on Digi Icon boards.
* Roger Nichols - This guy teaches ProTools for god’s sake! Started in the late 60’s. He never looks back.
* Michael Wagener - Can’t keep him down. His studio is totally digital. With a quite a few few outboard (www.michaelwagener.com).

If these guys can keep up at 55+, so can everyone else.