Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Analog Summing

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    54

    Analog Summing

    It's hard to believe that 30 years ago I was running a simple Cakewalk sequencer with 7 hardware synth modules and 2 Lexicon outboard boxes - all through a 24/8 Mackie board = = = all mixed down to DAT. Loved the separation, warmth and definition of those production end-points.

    Then I went digital and things got a lot easier.

    Now - i went to a friends house . . . they produce EDM/techno music on their own label with lots of success on both Beatport, iTunes, etc (see Illbomb Records). They run Ableton Live - - - but output (through DA/AD converters) through a Neve "analog summing" rack unit . . . basically running the mixdown "out of the box" (Ableton) into the analog realm - - - then back into the computer for the final mix and mastering.

    I could easily hear the difference given the quality of the converters, Neve unit, their production skills, balanced room, and fucking awesome Genelec monitors . . . the A to B comparisons were subtle . . . but there was definitely a "wider" mix, more separation - - - and this "saturation" that was really difficult for me to identify . . . but it was there for sure, at least to my ears.

    This is a strange business when stuff like the TR-808/909 came out - audiophiles were dissing this technology big-time . . . now they are revered, with high-end VST's created in their honor, and the original hardware selling for thousands !!!

    At any rate = stuff like this is out of my league (and pocketbook) for a while now =

    Later . . . feedback appreciated.

    ~JK

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by WHORG View Post
    They run Ableton Live - - - but output (through DA/AD converters) through a Neve "analog summing" rack unit . . . basically running the mixdown "out of the box" (Ableton) into the analog realm - - - then back into the computer for the final mix and mastering

    At any rate = stuff like this is out of my league (and pocketbook) for a while now =

    Later . . . feedback appreciated.

    ~JK

    I use Ableton and will oftern mix out to a lower-level stereo tube limiter. Sometimes, even out to a lower-level/mid-priced tube stereo tube preamp as well. To my ears, it sounds a bit warmer than it would just mixing and mastering 'in the box'. Like you, I would love to mix out to a Neve-type rack unit. Also like you, it's out of my pocketbook for a while. Right now, the option are endless.

  3. #3
    You could try the Dangerous Music D-Box analog summing mixer. It is handy and not too expensive. Personally I use whatever method feels right and have no hard and fast rules. I often send two pairs over to my tube/solid state compressors/eqs (a pair of Millenia Media origins locked together) and then back to Logic. I then sum 4 stereo pairs through the Dangerous Music box (or not as the case may be). I do want all the various mixes and external processing to be part of the session though or at least in a rendered version of the session.

    I don't hear a marked difference in the quality of analog summing over internal bounces, so much as like the ease of having the vocal pair (I tend to sum pairs of gtrs, bass, drums, vocals or gtr& bass, keys, drums vocals) on its own analog fader and available for a wee bit of external processing. I can also do a vocal mix, (I work with vocalists who always think they should be LOUDER so I boost their fader), a mix I like (the vocals seated in the mix, where I null the fader) and a mix with no vox at all without altering the DAW session. That's handy.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    54
    My strategy:

    1. Record/capture everything in Ableton to perfection
    2. I use HEAT on some tracks to add that "analog" feel if needed
    3. Upgraded my monitors before anything (Dynaudio's) - this was my biggest step in achieving sonic success

    I am definitely happy, but space constrained none the less. I can always bring my tracks down to their place for the ultimate treatment I guess.

    Still kept several of my external rack synths: Roland JV-880, Ensoniq ESQ-1M, Yamaha TX-81Z - and a Lexi too - - - and still submix most of that through a 12 ch Mackie board -

    I thought the whole idea of mixing "in the box" was to avoid space problems, cabling, replication of production end-points . . . now they are doing the exact opposite !!! It's all good for sure - - - wish I won the lottery on this end.

    Later . . . ~JK

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by WHORG View Post
    It's hard to believe that 30 years ago I was running a simple Cakewalk sequencer with 7 hardware synth modules and 2 Lexicon outboard boxes - all through a 24/8 Mackie board = = = all mixed down to DAT. Loved the separation, warmth and definition of those production end-points.
    I keep having similar reflections
    Actually, still store most of the outboards collected between 85 and 98.

    Thoughts about that summing thing...
    When 24-bit files and 64-bit systems became a norm, I really thought this is it - no more cables.
    But it seems to me now that employing some sort of summing device may actually simplify the workflow.
    Especially, if the device has pan controls. I don't know but even with a control surface at hand, panning and EQing in DAW is not to my taste.
    I just don't get enough separation and clarity, although mix ITB for a decade already and know the rules.

    I guess, internal DAW summing does work somehow differently, particlary in Live.
    Although, I suspect tech ppl would say it is BS.

    I love Ableton and switched to it a year after Logic went Mac-only.
    It reminded me somehow of ASR10 sequencer workflow, and it is a fantastic tool.
    But when it comes to mixdown it's just sad.

    I've tried recently issued for Windows DP and got better results there as I got better results with Cakewalk X1 too.
    Dunno what can be different in Live. Bus-Master structure?

    So, I also happen to come across a homestudio with a TLA Ebony summing mixer and started to consider this "new-retro" approach, despite all newly developed PC muscle.
    Actually, I went down to my storage and dusted off an old Allen&Heath mini mixer and tried 8 channel summing back to the DAW.
    Sadly, the mixer is in need of over-blow service, sound breaks off, noise etc, but separation-wise the mix did sound like those I used to make to DAT.

    So, maybe there's a point for some cables crawling back in after all.
    At least, until some DAWs improve their internal consoles.

    Or maybe I'm just barking mad.

    Cheers
    Last edited by Sweastok; 10-07-2013 at 08:49 PM.

  6. #6
    Member Yodelgoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    1,065
    Genelec Monitors are fantastic. I could never afford them though. I don't pay much attention to the quality of digi convertors. I'm sure there are differences, but my noise floor is pretty high, due to the environment I record in, it just isn't too terribly important. I am about the only listener to my music. If its good enough for me, its good enough.

  7. #7
    Member Mikhael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Austin, TX USA
    Posts
    154
    There is something to summing in an analog world, in that when you put two files together, there are still only so many bits available, and it truncates what it cannot use. Is it enough to matter? I don't know. But for an old coot, who learned on analogue consoles and tape, *I* feel more comfortable doing final mix tweaking on my board (an old A&H studio console). I tend to get to the results I want quicker. Oh, I do envelopes and such in the PC - I'm not a neophyte - but it seems to be easier to just concentrate on the overall music that way for the end product.
    Gnish-gnosh borble wiff, shlauuffin oople tirk.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •