Routing Summing Mixer

Have you turned on "input echo" in Sonar, on the tracks you're trying to route into ?

Sorry didn't work. I can see levels in the master section in the selected channels but I can't rout the signal into any buss including the master buss.
 

Hi Paulisher,
I use a summing mixer all the time (mine is an SSL). Here's how I set mine up (this assumes your monitoring off a feed from the summing mixer):
 
1. route D/A outputs to the inputs on the summing mixer.
2. Route tracks directly to those outputs. Do not route ANYTHING to a master bus.
3. On your master bus set it's output to "none".
4. Take the summed "2 bus" output off your mixer and bring that into an input on your interface...for example, you might use the last pair on your interface, say 15/16.
5. Create an audio track in Sonar with an input of whatever you used for your input (in the above example I used 15/16). Label it "print track" or "mixdown" or some other descriptive title. Set its output to your master bus. This is the only track that outputs to your master bus.

Once that's done when you want to print your mixdown just hit the record arm on your "print track" and hit record. This records the output from your summing mixer to that track. The reason I set the "print track" output to the Master bus (which, again, does not have an output) is that it gives me a place to view the signal coming from the summing mixer aside from the actual recording track. For example, I like to have an analyzer and some other meters for the signal from my summing mixer so I put them in the Master bus fx bin and enable input echo on the "print track".
 
Another option for the master bus is to set it's output to a set of hardware outs that bypass your summing mixer to a separate input on your monitor controller. That way you can listen to the mixdown by selecting that input without the summing mixer in the chain (I frequently do this).
 
This also allows for easy versioning of mixdowns. If you want to create a new mixdown just clone your print track, delete the media on the new track, archive the old one and create a new mixdown. I use version numbers and dates on my print tracks so I can keep track of what is what.
 
Good luck
Dean
 
EDIT: Gah! AT beat me to it 

1. Send the signal to your main out
2. Then put it into your inputs of your mixer
3. Take the outputs of your mixer to the inputs of your sound card
4. In sonar make a stereo track or 2 mono tracks (depending on your taste on how you have routed it)
5. Arm the track and select the inputs in the drop down arrow menu
6. Record it
 
Its just like Re-Amping bro. If you just understand that the main outs take your signal out of sonar and the sound card inputs put it back into sonar, you can do it. just put what ever you want in between those 2 things.
 
 
Thank me!
CJ
 

Hi Beeps,
I'm usually pretty wary of "proper ways" and "wrong ways". For me the validity of any technique is measured solely by it's utility. That said, summing mixers are pretty common and many large studios with very nice gear still certainly use analog consoles.
 
For me, I use my SSL because of a few things:
1. It changes the sound in a way that I like. I've actually done null testing on resultant mixdowns done internally and through the SSL and it absolutely changes the sound in a quantifiable way. There is some controversy surrounding this topic, particularly with passive summing devices, but I'm hesitant to wade into those waters. There are plenty of sources out there that go into detail about this and you can read as much as you'd like about it by doing a Google search (one interesting place to start might be this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYpoOg1I9UM).
2. My SSL also has a bus compressor and bus EQ built in to it. These are both very nice hardware devices that I would use anyway.
3. My SSL has an nice output section that I use for monitoring. It's just convenient.
 
There are certainly negatives as well....no fast mixdown is probably at the top of that list, but for me that's outweighed by the positive factors.
 
Dean

Hey, a couple other considerations that just occurred to me:
1. You'll find out that doing stuff like this really eats up A/D channels. Analog summing, along with my use of hardware fx, is what led me to end up with 48 channels of A/D conversion (that and I'm a stupid, stupid man ).
2. Converter quality matters. Keep in mind that you'll be doing lots of A/D conversion so if your converters are adding noise or unpleasant sound it'll start to stack up. I use Lynx and Antelope if you're curious.
 
Good luck
Dean

Razorwit
Hey, a couple other considerations that just occurred to me:
1. You'll find out that doing stuff like this really eats up A/D channels. Analog summing, along with my use of hardware fx, is what led me to end up with 48 channels of A/D conversion (that and I'm a stupid, stupid man ).
2. Converter quality matters. Keep in mind that you'll be doing lots of A/D conversion so if your converters are adding noise or unpleasant sound it'll start to stack up. I use Lynx and Antelope if you're curious.
 
Good luck
Dean

I'm guessing you are referring to how many input/output channels my interface can handle and the quality of the audio to digital conversion. If so I am currently limited to 8 channels and that's with my Layla Echo 3g which I don't really use anymore but I am hanging onto specifically for situations like this where I may want more than the 2 analog outs my current interface (Focusrite Scarlett 18i6) has (I'm also hoping I may be able to use the Layla as an expansion box via the ADAT in on the Scarlett if I need it but the outs won't work in that scenario AFAIK). So I can't exactly do a massive production with it but I could do 8 tracks at a time to create stems and/or just use it to make my final mix with the project busses which is what I do digitally anyway.
 
As far as the quality the Mackie sounds great but any time I tried to do this kind of routing I end up with that strange *PWANG* kind of noise on my tracks like when you bounce a basketball. I've seen reference to this sound being created because of some kind of feedback loop so if that is the case I obviously had my routing/settings wrong. It has been a long time though and I know much more now so I think I can figure it out.
 
The Layla is supposedly very high quality but frankly the Scarlett to my ears just sounds better all around. As I said though because of the limited outputs it just won't work for something like this. I guess I could try using one of the other driver modes (not ASIO) and see if I could get both devices running simultaneously which would be cool but that would certainly be another trek into unknown territory.
 
Anyway... just kind of rambling now about the possibilities but if it's possible I'd definitely check it out just to satiate my own curiosity. I'd likely stick to internal mixdowns for my final product for now but it doesn't hurt to try new things. Cheer and thanks for getting my mind moving.

Dean,
 
your explanation was better, tho.
 
Beep,
 
if you don't have some good analog hardware effects etc. just analog summing probably won't make too much difference.  Others may disagree and find that digital mixing gets to congested (that is the word I hear bandied about).  I don't find this this case (so far!), but if you give me a vintage neve or api I know the summing would be different because of all the (good) circuitry the tracks are going through. That is what digital summing tools are all about.
 
What is less argued about is summing w/ real analog comps/Eqs etc.  If you have an extensive outboard collection it hardly makes sense to only use it during tracking.  Even a few good units on the most exposed tracks help get a "pro" sound. 
 
Finally, just mixing your stereo signal through nice analog outboard can help.  That's what I do.  I haven't gotten around to summing through my ancient encrusted rasma mixer.  But I do send a stereo mix through some nice Komit compressor/limiters I have.  I'm fixing to add the warm audio Tone Beast preamps to that set up.  It adds choice of transformers, gain, output and other things into the circuit which are a lot of fun tracking w/.  Since I got a second one I think it would be criminal not to try it during mixdown.
 
@

That's great info, AT. I really don't have much outboard gear but I'd really love to see what the heck I can do with this mixer and test my on the fly mixdown skills. I think I would be pretty much limited to mixing stems considering the 8 channel limitation but really I can see a lot of creative possibilities there anyway. Neat to think about. I'll definitely have to figure out what the heck that nasty *PTWANG* sound was but it shouldn't be too hard now that I know how to actually research this kind of stuff. Probably just bad routing. Cheers.

Hi Paulisher,
Happy to have helped 
 
So on my SSL I have a monitor out and a record out that are seperate, but it sounds like you only have the one set of post-transformer outputs off the Nicerizer. In that case if you have an unused stereo output on your Apollo you could use the Apollo control panel to route the input you're using to record to an output that goes to your monitors. You could also do this from within Sonar by routing your Master bus to that output, but then you'd be dealing with ASIO delay (probably not a big deal, just mildly annoying).
 
I'm guessing you don't have a spare output pair becuase all your available outputs are routed to the Nicerizer though....hmmmm...this is where my comment earlier in the thread about needing lots of A/D comes into play. Only thing I can think of is maybe you can route to your monitor outs? Not sure if the Apollo can route to the monior outs, but it may be worth a look. Other than that you may just be out of I/O...
 
Dean
 
Oh, and I wouldn't put the Mackie in the listening chain if you can avoid it...and certainly not in the recording chain (between the Nicerizer and the I/O). Mackie's aren't in the same league generally as Phoenix and you probably don't want to add the sound of the Mackie to the sound you've gone to the time and trouble to get from the Nicerizer.

Thanks Dean,
 I am not at all recording through the Mackie but I am using it to monitor. It didn't occur to me that it would affect the fidelity while mixing but it makes sense.  I'll examine how to get around that. The Apollo monitor out must be the way to hear the full mix so I'll contact UA support to see if they can help. I got a Focusrite Otopre so I can slave it to use all 16 channels of the Nicerizer and have 8 more preamps if necessary. That has D/A converters though I don't think it's in the same league as Apollo. More possibility's, big learning curve. From what I've heard so far it will be worth it.
Paul

Compressing while tracking is used a lot.  As Dean sez, it helps to know the voice/instrument/musician.  But even w/ a artist you know it isn't wise to overcompress or EQ or anything.  But you can flatten out a sound a little - help w/ really loud hits and bits.  A little going in means you don't have to work the compresser as hard during mixing.  Just as using eq filters - esp. the grunge in the bottom - can help get a more solid, workable signal to mix with.  The key is not to overdue it, since any damage you do can't be undone.
 
Dean,
 
the Tone Beast is a very cool preamp.  Very flexible, a choice of op amps, output transformers (or none!), as well as the in/out gain staging.  I just used it as a DI on a bass this weekend and it was lots of fun.  I got  a little growl w/ the staging (and you can get a lot of distortion), and a nice thick smooth bass - all from the same instrument and player on different songs.  While no signal element alters the sound in a major way, in combination ...  you can get a lot of different tones out of it.  If you get a chance, check it out.
 
The review should be out in the next Tape Op.
 
@