I have been reading Zen and the art of mixing by Mixerman.
He is convinced his analogue summing box makes a huge (better) difference.
Just as convincing are discussions here and elsewhere that conclude analogue does change the sound but "better" is subjectively inconclusive.
My simple question is; if we send groups of tracks to busses and the busses to the master, is that the digital equivalent of summing?
My next question would be: if that is digital summing and it's as good, why do folks talk about exporting the stereo file and then bringing it back in for mastering? 
Wouldn't summing to a premaster buss and then to a master be the same thing?

Whether or not analog summing "sounds" better is one thing.  Many pros do prefer it, and it is hard to argue w/ running a mix through an ssl console to sum.  Whether or not 16 channels of nontransformer-coupled summing makes any difference is a matter more of taste.  Plenty of people swear they can hear the difference, so it works for them.

I will say that running a stereo mix or stem breakout into good analog does sound better to me, tho I've never done any blind testing.  SOS has said the same thing - that running a digital mix through 2 inputs of a summing mixer provides most of the sound as stem mixing through the same summing unit.

Your simple question deserves a simple answer - yes.

The next question begs a couple of questions.  I use digital summing (or mixing) and export it out through analog (and then back into the digital world).  Why?  I paid good money for a stereo compressor/limiter unit.  And it sounds better ;-)  Summing to a premaster bus I imagine is the same as bouncing/rendering/exporting, just not in real time.

I am fine w/ digital summing - it is all numbers and computers are very good at crunching them.  I am unconvinced that straight-wire analog summing adds anything, or if it does it is so subtle it is hardly worth the cost in hardware and extra DAs, etc.  I am convinced tho that running a signal through a good analog chain and transformers helps de-digitalize the signal.  Softens it.  And I find digital saturation/distortion doesn't have the subltly or depth of good analog saturation.  Digital gets blurry for me, which defeats the whole idea of perfect replication.  It has gotten better, but not perfect.  Or maybe I just haven't spent the money necessary in the digital world to get the sound I can in analog.

@

I'd like to try this and have a TL Audio dual valve preamp compressor to work with.
Would that be appropriate?
Would I send the master out to my BR 800 (that I use as a sound card) and then line out to the TL A and then back to Sonar thru the BR 800 to record it?

If you have X2 Producer you have the Console Emulator modules that should be useful in getting the analog sound. 

From the manual page 988
When recording to analog tape, the mixing console is the centerpiece of the studio. The audio signal
is affected as it passes through the circuitry of the console. Each console employs a different design
and components, which adds to the sonic imprint of each console. There are various elements that
define the sound of each console.
Digital audio is often accused of lacking “character”. Although mixing entirely inside a computer
(often referred to as “mixing in the box”) has many benefits, it can sometimes lack the character of
using an analog mixing console.
The Console Emulator module emulates the sonic characteristics of three classic mixing consoles.
This has nothing to do with EQ and compression, but rather mimics the subtle non-linear distortion
and noise that occurs when passing an audio signal through a mixing console’s analog circuit.
The Console Emulator module is based on the following principles:
• Input transformer emulation, which introduces hysteresis and frequency dependent saturation.
• Frequency response shaping of the channel.
• Bias drift of the active stages.
• Component tolerance simulation by slightly changing the filter's values in the different channels.
• Saturation of the mix bus.
• Crosstalk on stereo buses.
Just like an analog console, the overall sound character is the sum of all the separate processing
stages. Depending on the console type and settings, some of the benefits you may experience
include:
• A wider sound stage.
• Increased sense of sense of spatial cohesion.
• More depth and definition.
• A bit more warmth and aggression.
• Easier to balance levels across tracks.

Hi M_Glenn_M

Ah, the summing debate. You'll may get some fairly passionate responses 'round here (though mine won't be...I try to be polite). You asked:

My simple question is; if we send groups of tracks to busses and the busses to the master, is that the digital equivalent of summing? 

Yep. Summing is just adding tracks together, usually ending up at a stereo pair (a 2-bus).

Now, the question of "if that is digital summing and it's just as good". Lots of folks say it isn't, lots of folks say it is. Here's what I can tell you objectively: analog summing is different. How do I know? Because I can take a ITB export, an export of my 2-bus to one channel of my SSL, and a stem export to 16 channels of my SSL, and none of the three cancel when doing a null test against any other.

Of course, the real question is if it's better or even if anyone can really hear the difference, and I can't answer those :) You can, however, listen for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYpoOg1I9UM

Links in the description will take you to a place to download the hi-rez audio files so you can A/B in your DAW.

Next part of your question: "why do folks talk about exporting the stereo file and then bringing it back in for mastering?"

Because they like the sound of a particular peice of gear. Some folks really like pushing preamps a bit, or analog compressors, or even the inputs of particular A/D's. It's just a color thing.

Good luck
Dean

I really don't mean to troll for comments but to understand the how and why of it.
I can hear the difference in the video in my monitors but can't really say it's better.
So I need to work out the physical plugins arrangement in my case.

Hi all:
Everybody has a different opinion about summing.
Here it is:
1. those that don't want to spend any more money, claim that you can do the entire thing ITB.
2. those that spend some money to get the analog stuff, usually stay quiet, and make their customers happy.
3. those that spent humonguos amount of money on analog gears, like CLA, and still make people believe that he does it most of the time ITB.

You have to try it, and just get something like a Dangerous box.  It is so cheap compared to what you spend on automobiles, diamond rings to keep your wife happy, private schools for the kids.

Then you will know.

Name a hit song, or a hit band that do everything ITB.  There will be some. But the question is: were you there to confirm it, or they are just a marketing arm of Pro Tools? Mostly! 

I have yet heard a good song mixed ITB from this forum, including those mixed by C Anderton that made it to the charts.

I am pretty disappointed, not because of the song(s), but by what people claim it to be.
 
So come on, and be willing to post some songs that you guys here mixed ITB, so all of us can hear, and if they are good, we can learn from it, and they can tell us how they did it, so we can learn how to do it, so we can all be better at our trade.

Until then it is all Rashomon. He said, she said .......

best

dan
 

You need to visit the songs forum.

I doubt there's much there that wasn't done 100% ITB and you'll be amazed at some of the quality on offer.

Edit to add:

If you can't get fantastic sounding music from working ITB it's not down to digital or computers or anything else - it's down to you.

Bristol_Jonesey

If you can't get fantastic sounding music from working ITB it's not down to digital or computers or anything else - it's down to you.
 

+1
no money spend can compensate what you missed when not using your ears to the full extend first
 
 

Whatever you used to be able to do outside of the box you can do inside the box really. That is the truth of it I think. Maybe not a decade ago but that is changing all the time and certainly now is the case.

If you create a list of importance of everything in the scheme of things starting with great composition or song followed by great performances then by nice instruments then into mic choices, micing positions, pres, A to D then into great ears, production skills you will see the method of summing is actually of no real consequence or importance. It is low on the list of priorities. Especially compared to how emotionally moved the listener might be.

Put it into perspective. It does not change things that much. It is not night and day. I have never found it since but I once saw a great article on comparing digital to analog summing. It featured an interesting detailed three dimensional diagram to represent a mix done both ways and there was NO difference and I mean none!

People say the differences are huge but I challenge them to a controlled A/B blind test and then they would go away from that with a completely different opinion.