summing mixers

I think its pretty safe to say that most SONAR users around here mix "In The Box".
Go over to the GearSutz forum and you will find that there are mixed feelings on the issue.
Some engineers claim you have more headroom in the analog domain and you can push signals "hotter" while adding harmonic distortion and tonal color.
They also argue that summing ITB loses audio quality because you have 16 or so 24 bit tracks being mixed down to 2 16 bit tracks so ITB sum tosses out bits.
Others argue that mixing ITB is mathematically perfect and therefore sounds better.

I like ITB personally and I have done both.


Most practical app is definitely incorporating outboard gear into your DAW mix.

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/

thanks for your input... just like i thought... there is no answer... just a question. the subject is to subjective to the beholder. do i want to drop the 3500bucks? me thinks that for now my money would be better spent on a really nice mike

thanks
Darth Fader

I suggest you make a plan to rent a super hi-end summing mixer... the one that's sparked your imagination.

You can FedEx a unit for a week or two and see if suits your taste.

When you send it back you'll have gotten some good work out of it.

If you like it you can probably make a rent goes towards sale deal.

If you buy one and decide you do not like it you will probably loose far more trying to sell it.

I don't think one can expect summing mixers to rise in value the way preamps, eq, and compressors seem to... they aren't versatile enough.

Personally, I think it's just a way to muddy up your sound.

best regards,
mike

ORIGINAL: AT
If you don't have a lot of outboard gear (or any), summing seems like a cost benefit loser, but you may love it. Personally, I'd rather add superior two-track hardware for recording, mixing and mastering. That seems to me to add the most quality for the cost.

Awesome conversation. Learning a lot. Personally I like the idea of very good quality two-track hardware on the out end. Summing has always seemed to benefit the engineer whose work was time critical, but that didn't always guarantee the best end mix. If you have the time, the mixing and matching to attain the color and warmth characteristics you desire are literally infinite. But then what do I know? Really enjoying this fellas.

In that price range, if you are serious, I suggest looking at the Dangerous 2 buss. http://www.dangerousmusic.com/2bus.html

Here's a very easy to build summing mixer... it is described as having pristine sound quality.

http://forsselltech.com/8chsum_2.pdf

the guys that designed it are experienced high end audio designers.

They also designed this:

http://forsselltech.com/downloads/schematics/Summing%20Buss2.pdf

Where you can see that the actual "summing" is the same passive network.... suggesting that all the magic stuff is from the extraneous circuitry and as mentioned, the filter effects that occur when you go through your converters.

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue

Here's a very easy to build summing mixer... it is described as having pristine sound quality.

http://forsselltech.com/8chsum_2.pdf

the guys that designed it are experienced high end audio designers.

They also designed this:

http://forsselltech.com/downloads/schematics/Summing%20Buss2.pdf

Where you can see that the actual "summing" is the same passive network.... suggesting that all the magic stuff is from the extraneous circuitry and as mentioned, the filter effects that occur when you go through your converters.

I personally built an 8 channel version of this passive summing mixer off of this same diagram about a year ago.

I haven't used it much....but I can tell you that it certainly does work. Was very easy to build, and I used my Daking preamps for makup gain.

I really didn't use it because I used some cheap components, cables, etc just as a project to see if it would work. Now that I know it does, I should go back and rebuild it with good parts and see how it works out.

Hello Mike,

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
So Bill, what do you think of the JFet992?

It's a killer opamp... and it sounds different than all the other 990 inspired discrete opamps.

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
I just found this great discussion about the Dangerous 2 Bus:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/17014-whats-inside-dangerous-2bus-anyway.html

Where the discussion gets kinda crazy.... evidently if generic IC chips sound good it sounds good :-)... maybe not "vintage" but good.

I remember that thread... I thought it was pretty funny!

My take, fwiw, JW does upgrades, and he does work that a lot of folks really like. He uses (or used, I have not spoken with him in years) video chips because of the high speed - and high speed can be (is) a huge factor in what something sounds like. He is very generous with his time and knowledge - I asked him about things I could do to my Tangent console and he walked me though a bunch of suggestions. He even acknowledged that it would be silly to send him 48 channel strips, because the cost to upgrade them would be more than the console is worth. All he asked in return for his advise was that I not go sharing it freely. Fair enough.

Fletcher, on the other hand, sells boutique gear. He is, and has been for a long time, a working recording engineer. He has good ears, and an uncanny ability to measure the marketplace. I'd wager you won't find a single questionable piece of kit in his studio or on his web site. He's also made a name for himself by being inflammatory<G>! If you've never met him in person you owe it to yourself to do so, he is a very cool guy, and unbelievably generous with his knowledge! He's also a top-gun class sales guy (said with respect, not disdain!)

They are both right, and they are both wrong... not surprising eh?

I am not a fan of JWs high speed approach, even though intuitively it ought to work. I've tried it, and I've auditioned his microphone preamplifier, and I just never adjusted to that sound.

By the same token I do think it is possible to improve upon existing designs that use "jelly bean" op-amps... but you have to take the entire circuit into account when you do so. And you have to be careful that you aren't giving up part of the sonic signature while chasing after that next couple of dB in S/N ratio or distortion specs.

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
I keep thinking I've got a bunch of Mackies that already do that. :-).

My humble opinion is that those things don't sound all that great. It really isn't about just the chips, if it was the chip manufacturer would get the reference design spot-on and everyone would use it and everything would sound the same - and we all know that is not the case. Reference designs are a great place to start, but you have to be willing to really think it through if you want to get the best performance.

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
2 weeks ago I got to hear a local pop PTHD recording that had just come back from a big city mastering session using mid/side compression and analog summing. It sounded wonderful, smooth and organic. But the original tracks and in house mix sounded very good as well. They were different... I'm still not sure I think the extra work/gear is necessary if you KNOW the sound you are after. In other words, If I wanted the sound of the big city master... I think it could be possible to get it without all the pixie dust. In any event the final mix sounded stylized, as in, there was a decision made to color the sound, it was beyond the simple desire to replicate faithfully and with accuracy.

I'm going to argue your point about pixie dust... at least your application of the term. If we could accurately and COMPLETELY measure the transfer function of any device then it would be a simple matter to reproduce it in some other signal chain. OK, simple is a poor choice of words, but it is at least feasible. But we can't measure a transfer function completely because we still don't know what a complete measurement would include. Clearly the fact that two devices with identical specifications can sound different proves that point. Not that there aren't some really bright folks working on the puzzle.

So it isn't necessarily pixie dust. There may be interactions that we can't yet measure.

Still, a big part of the magic is (a) knowing what sound it is you are trying to create, and (b) knowing how others have achieved that sound. Then you have at least a fighting chance.

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
As for the discussion of the 2 bus I linked to above...I think it's one thing to fork over big bucks for a device that does cost a bunch to build like a hand built console full of discrete class A transitors and FETs... (FWIW I'm working on a tube preamp and I have $800 in parts sitting here and the work will all be hand labor) and it's another thing to pay a person big bucks to "certify" the sound quality of a bunch of generic IC chips as sounding really good.

An interesting distinction... I'm not sure I agree. Not everyone has the chops to design the circuit and the printed circuit board. And then there is the issue of recovering the non-recurring costs. And, there are so many other parts costs that using the cost of the active components alone really is not accurate.

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
Even If I agree it sounds really good... it just seems like pixie dust.

BINGO! None of the above really matters... it's interesting to be sure, but it doesn't matter. What matters is the sound, and YOUR perception of that sound. I tell folks all the time that any two loudspeakers are going to sound different, but that they are only better or worse in the frame of reference of the person listening to them. The same goes for all the hardware we use, and the end product... the recording.

That does not mean that each person ought not follow through in their quest for their sound... in fact, I think it means that we should, using whatever tools we have at our disposal!

ORIGINAL: ohhey

ORIGINAL: wst3
.....
That does not mean that each person ought not follow through in their quest for their sound... in fact, I think it means that we should, using whatever tools we have at our disposal!

I agree. And it also matters how much "quality" you are brave enough to leave in. If you follow the croud and drive the master to clipping so it's as loud as major label recordings then it really didn't matter how good your tracks sounded or how good your mix sounded. No customer or fan will ever hear that version.

hehehe... that's a whole nother rant... best saved for another day!!

Why the hate for the Dangerous 2 Buss Mike? Have you used one? I don't understand your long diatribe and speculation that this piece of gear is overpriced and lacks of value in the recording process. Is that coming from personal experience? Inquiring minds want to know.

Stepping in where no sane person would...

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
No Middleman, I have not used a Dangerous 2 Bus.

I can how ever confirm that I have on several occasions used a Y-chord and I CAN report from first hand experience that Y chords, when properly hooked up, do indeed offer pristine audio quality.

Not to be a smart-a**, but I know you understand the critical importance of "properly hooked up", but not every one does, and if one simply connects two low impedance sources to a high impedance input it's going to be, well, less than "pristine"! I don't believe that is nit-picking, it's a very real problem for folks that did not come up through the ranks.

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
Re: the Dangerous in particular... I think I keep mentioning them in acknowledgment that they seem to deserve the credit for having inspired so many people to turn summing, which previously had been thought of as a regrettable circumstance whereby one was sure to lose dynamic range, into a "polishing" phase in the new age workflow... and they have done so by convincing everyone that what comes out the end of the bus is somehow more expansive than what went in to the inputs.

No question they've done an excellent job of creating a need... but isn't it at least possible that they've done more than that? There have been numerous investigations into the question of why some folks seem to prefer recordings that were made on tape or with a console, and there are tons of answers<G>, including the errors in the conversion processes between analog and digital, distortions that exist only in the analog domain, etc. Steven St. Croix suggested that it was the crosstalk that exists both analog tape and analog consoles. I think there is something to his hypothesis, and if there is then a passive summing network would seem to be an outstanding solution.

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
I just think one should understand what's inside, what they are buying, and how it compares to the value of a Y-chord.

That's great in theory, but in reality not everyone has the chops to understand what's going on even in something as simple as a passive summing network. And I'd wager most folks that have never built and electronics device have no clue about the cost of circuit elements and switches and connectors and cases, nor can they put an accurate figure on the non-recurring expenses.

I dislike snake oil as much as anyone... and I do tend towards the skeptical side, but I'm also concerned that we as a marketplace have lost the appreciation for something done well. How do you place a value on years of experience and native talent that let someone design something that sounds great?

I'll allow that it is possible that passive summing networks are nothing more than placebos, but I'm also open to the possibility that they provide a little something that is missing from a project executed entirely in the digital domain. I don't think we know nearly enough about human perception yet to resolve this one.

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
I don't accept the "I guess you can't hear what I hear" marketing methodology without asking basic questions about the engineering...

And I don't believe that Dangerous nor any of their dealers have ever resorted to that sort of nonsense. I've experienced that sales approach, and mostly I find it amusing, but it scares me that some folks fall prey. You can argue "let the buyer beware", but that's not really fair... or at least in Bill's world sales people would be at least as concerned about taking care of their customers as they are about lining their wallets. Ain't always so, I know.

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
in the case of the Dangerous I was really surprised to learn what's going on inside.

Why? You are a knowledgeable guy, you know what parts are required to build a passive summing network, and you know what parts are required to build a line level buffer/amplifier.

As one who has spent some time thinking about this stuff I can tell you that the answers will surprise you! Years ago I built a series of microphone preamplifiers for a vendor.
They were interested in monolithic solutions, but they humored me and allowed me to include a discrete solution as well. The final candidates included:
1) a preamplifier based on a discrete operational amplifier - I used the Jensen 990 because I had one handy
2) a really simple instrumentation configuration based on an NJR 4558
3) the same NJR 4558 with an input transfomer and the circuit modified slightly to take that into account
4) a similar design that used the INA103 with the second stage bypassed
5) a design based on the reference design for the SSM 1512 (similar to the SSM2017)
6) a hybrid, where I used THAT 300 series transistor arrays to create a pseudo-discrete gain stage
7) a similar hybrid, but with an input transfomer

We also threw in a completely stock Symetrix SX-202 as a reference point, because it is highly respected in the marketplace.

Care to guess how the judges ranked them? (I'll share later)

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
Some may call me crazy to pay hundreds of dollars for Jensen Trannys and such, but at least that's what the market bares for real hardware... you can search for alternatives but eventually you will want the good stuff.

No, I don't think anyone would call you crazy for that<G>...

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
I think the market for summing boxes like the 2 Bus may be different.

It is! I can't figure out precisely how or why it is working as well as it is either. You'd think (ok I'd think) that anyone sophisticated enough to understand the application would
be able to build one themselves. And if you forgo the niceties you can save quite a bit by doing it yourself. You can also craft it exactly to your requirements.

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
Other than that, it's absolutely none of my business ;-)

And I'm going to have to respectfully disagree here as well. It is, I believe, the responsibility of those with a clue to ask questions. If I came here hawking $400 power cords wouldn't you cry foul? I would hope you would (well, after I sold, say, a couple thousand of them<G>)!

No, when bad information is posted I believe we need to say so. And there is such a thing as bad information!

When sketchy information, or products that might have questionable value are discussed the skeptics have to speak up. Doesn't matter if we are, ultimately, proven right or wrong, we just need to speak up and make sure that everyone is thinking.

And when good information or valuable products are discussed, well, we can take a breather<G>!

I think the reason that this particular topic becomes heated is that some folks question the value of a particular product based solely on the fact that it uses rather "common" parts, and the fact that the cost for those parts is but a fraction of the street price of the device. I'm not sure that's entirely fair to the developer.

And that's my two cents worth...

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
Bill, I just got back from work and I want you to know I anticipated this response from you all day :-)... I was in a rush to get to a call this morning and knew I had left the remark about the Y-chord unqualified.

Man don't you just hate that??? Been there, done that, never even got the t-shirt, just a red face<G>!

FWIW I knew that you knew the difference! I just could not resist the temptation to be funny (well, I chuckled)... and that will bite me back one of these days! It never fails.

Thanks for the nice words! So how is life as a location guy these days? You still keeping busy?

Take care,

Bill

ORIGINAL: AT
jenne se qua

je ne sais quoi ("I don't know what")

hi guys! I found this vintage summing gear, the price is damm too good for this unit.(32 ch for half price!) I'm a simple user who has to try the analog summing, not expert, engineer big guy..:) I saw another stuffs, like SM Pro Audio PM8 Summing Mixer(only 8 inputs), RMS216 FOLCROM(16 input passive-need gain make up) or TL Audio summing 16 input.(more expensive and wery few channel number)) e.g Neve 8816 have 16 mono inputs...equal with 8 stereo ch-s? All I need from a summing unit is a simple design with a clean and discrete amp, I really don't want to see any pot, useless routings and catchy elements. So I think this vintage summing with 32input worth the price...and is totally controllable from DAW, absolute repeatability..etc..

Vintage Lawo (jensenmann on gearslutz says:"These things are by far the cleanest opamps I have ever heard and used."
http://cgi.ebay.com/Activ...mp;hash=item3f03b51f3c
another Lawo with simple design:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Activ...mp;hash=item3f03b52f04