Hi bit,
While you're certainly right about the factors you've enumerated, it's probably safe to say that the analog summing process also may include some phase shift, emphasis of certain frequencies, subtle distortion, soft clipping, and the addition of harmonics. Any of which could be subjectively said to enhance the sound of something. In fact, when people talk about the "sound" of a console or summing box, I've always imagined that it was some combination of the above factors.

Dean

Well Bit, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your analysis... a little<G>.

Dean's point is spot on. We KNOW what's wrong with different parts of the analog chain, and we certainly know what's wrong with conversion between analog and digital.

Stephen St. Croix once suggested that it was crosstalk, both on tape and in a console, was a big factor in why analog sounds analog.

I'm not suggesting that the day won't come when we will be able to model analog systems so precisely as to make the differences inaudible, but we are not there yet. The UA tape deck emulations are close, they capture that feel without capturing all the stuff we didn't like about analog tape. But I'd wager I can still tell the difference - which is bogus, since the tape hiss and wow and flutter alone would make the difference obvious<G>!

The degradation you mention are very close to insignificant, and the euphoric effects are reaching that point too. But I don't think we are there yet, and I'll take the benefits at the cost of the problems that remain<G>...

as always, YMMV, and that's why I wish more folks could check it out for themselves.

Hi bit, While you're certainly right about the factors you've enumerated, it's probably safe to say that the analog summing process also may include some phase shift, emphasis of certain frequencies, subtle distortion, soft clipping, and the addition of harmonics. Any of which could be subjectively said to enhance the sound of something. In fact, when people talk about the "sound" of a console or summing box, I've always imagined that it was some combination of the above factors.

The "analog summing" boxes I've seen have been passive mixers. That means no phase shift, no emphasis, no harmonic distortion, no clipping and no crosstalk. A little thermal noise, perhaps. They're resistors.

Not to be confused with re-amping your tracks through a console. That's much more than just summing.

The analog summing boxes I'm familiar with are passive summing networks (a non-trivial exercise btw), followed by an active make-up gain stage. Still not running your tracks through a console, which I guess could be called re-amping, but again, not the application I am familiar with...

to close out my part here - it is easy enough to try the process out, and I think if people are curious they ought to do so... that's all.

bitflipper



The "analog summing" boxes I've seen have been passive mixers. That means no phase shift, no emphasis, no harmonic distortion, no clipping and no crosstalk. A little thermal noise, perhaps. They're resistors.

Not to be confused with re-amping your tracks through a console. That's much more than just summing.

Hi bit,
Ah, that makes sense...It sounds like we're talking about different things. When I think of summing I'm thinking of my X-rack and the input modules with gain and pan, so there's other stuff going on there (also a bus comp and stereo eq, but that's a different, non-summing topic). Yeah, I would tend to agree that a passive summing box shouldn't do much...anyone know if anyone has tried null testing with one?

Dean

Yes, although in this case I pretty much knew what to expect (why couldn't I know the outcome of experiments in college physics?)

I suppose one could call them close if one was so inclined, but I'd suggest they are really quite different.

It's even easier than you think to demonstrate this for yourself - simply look the analog ports on your favorite audio interface and record the result and loop that... it'll give you an idea.

At the other end of passive resistive summing boxes for those who are unaware there are some that include lots of components such as input transformers, valve stages and output transformers as well. There is even a new one out now that has got built in distortion stages over every input in order to shape the sound of the input signals in varying degrees.

These types of summing devices are obviously going to be adding quite a lot to the sound as opposed to the pure resistive devices followed by quality gain stages such as the Dangerous.

Check these out for your information:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun12/articles/spotlight-0612.htm


There are still much more important things to worry about than the summing approach. A lot of work has to come before it.

Zen and the Art of Mixing was written in 2010 and that is three years ago,. A lot has happened since then. That is why you have to be careful about thinking that the stuff in these books is gospel. It is not. It is already out of date. Digital emulation of analog devices is getting more amazing by the month. Of course many principles do apply well and are good for sure but when it comes to things like analog summing then they could be behind in their thinking.

Maybe I'll try running my mixes through a Fender Twin Reverb with an SM57 in front. I'll bet that will add some analog mojo!

bitflipper


Maybe I'll try running my mixes through a Fender Twin Reverb with an SM57 in front. I'll bet that will add some analog mojo!

Ha!
Or, better yet, perhaps play your mix into a tin can connected by a string to second tin can with a mic in front of it. But the mic you use better be an 87. 
Mmm...Campbell's soup mojo.


Oh, and you should compress it. Cuz, ya know, you should always compress everything.


:)


Dean

Summing in the analog domain - passive or active - is way down the list of important, but it is so easy to test for yourself that I'm not sure why you wouldn't do so. Everyone's ears, and musical/audio tastes are different.