The point Bill has been hammering on throughout this thread is a very good one: try things for yourself and see.  So many questions get posed on audio forums that could be answered through experimentation and observation. Is 96KHz worth it? Try it and listen. What dither algorithm should I use? Try 'em all and see if you can detect a difference. Are all equalizers the same? You've probably got half a dozen of them, try them all and see if you can hear any difference. Linear phase versus minimum phase? Ditto. What's the best drum synth? Go to the Songs forum, pick out some with great-sounding drums and ask the OPs what they used. What should my final average RMS levels be? Experiment and compare your results with your favorite commercial recordings. 

Thanks Bit - I was beginning to feel a tad silly!

Mixerman's a funny one, I think. Clearly, he's a very skilled engineer and producer. But I don't think he's particularly technical, in the real what's-actually-happening-in-the-wires sense. His arguments about gear are *all* exclusively "well, I can tell". He goes further than that, in fact, and is explicitly mocking about the idea that blind tests and even nulling demonstrate anything. To sum up: he knows what he's talking about re: mixing, but he doesn't have a clue about technology.

Well said, John. Mixerman is greatly entertaining. I read the Diary in one day, couldn't put it down. I love his humorous posts on The Womb as well as the podcast. But like the majority of great mixers, he's more of an artist than a technician.

Nothing wrong with that, either. But like Alan Parsons, he should probably avoid giving technical advice about things he's never studied. In the art world there's plenty of room for opinions, but very little wiggle room when it comes to physics.

Indeed. The other side of this, of course, is "whatever gets you there". If you're more comfortable with this kind of gear than that kind of gear, fine. And if there's some combination of placebo effect and comfort that helps you get better mixes from a piece of gear that is demonstrably not superior to another, then great. Go for it. But that stuff will always be entirely subjective, and any argument for gear that resorts to "I can hear it with my golden ears, which are better than any objective test" is best taken with salt.

Bitflipper's first comment is something I agree with.
 
If the difference is great enough to be measured, it can be emulated in software.  If it is too small to measure and emulate accurately, most people won't hear the difference, especially by the time it gets to mp3s on earbuds.

But if you have an equipment chain that sounds good to you, that's what it is all about.

My music sounds weird (or different) to people because it is almost all organic instruments (guitars, violins, drums, pianos, etc.) but all created digitally/virtually, quantized and edited, and mixed in the box.  That gives it a somewhat unnatural sound since ears expect natural instruments to be recorded loosely in live spaces with vintage mics and analog boards.
 
Bitflipper's point about "try it and see" says it all.  For example, plate reverb is standard for vocals for thousands for engineers and producers—but I am almost never happy with a plate on vocals.  What can I say?  Too many personal variables for rules sometimes.

Why engineers pursue analog summing?

With the following caveaut in mind....not all summing setups are the same, there are a variety of results depending on the summing box. There used to be a hardware summing shootout up at the VintageKing site, check that out.

Summing outside the box can add width and depth which are noticeably different and some say better, like analog desks of old. This is the primary reason a lot of people go to external summing or at the very least, a hybrid summing process. Yes, there is the added factor of tube or transformer color but the whole point of summing externally is to try and capture the characteristics of an expensive analog desk, like an SSL or Neve, at a much lower price point. The "glue" factor of an SSL or the width and depth you can achieve over a digital mix can be attained quicker if you are mixing into that sound and perceived sonic space.

Digital is just a pristine uncolored world of exact precision with a lot of plus factors like automation. It often fails at producing a sound which is similar to the music we loved from the past. This is why it requires a whole different understanding and process to produce similar results as our analog past. You have to learn how to color digital and create the depth and width that is achieved quicker with a summing box or preamp of your choice.

If you get a chance to experiment with summing setups you will find that you can get similar results in the digital world, it just takes a lot more time to get your busses and plugins aligned. Me, I prefer summing in the box and running out to a pair of decent hardware EQs and preamps. There are only two situations where I think digital fails for summing and that is modern country & metal rock. The SSL mixed sound and these genres go hand in hand. I have known a lot of guys who pursue getting these sounds at a lower cost and it never quite gets there. Most any other type of music can pull it off in digital or digital with a little hardware on the two buss.

John T


Mixerman's a funny one, I think. Clearly, he's a very skilled engineer and producer. But I don't think he's particularly technical, in the real what's-actually-happening-in-the-wires sense. His arguments about gear are *all* exclusively "well, I can tell". He goes further than that, in fact, and is explicitly mocking about the idea that blind tests and even nulling demonstrate anything. To sum up: he knows what he's talking about re: mixing, but he doesn't have a clue about technology.

I think the worst trouble people like that tend to get into isn't that they are necessarily "hearing" things that math, physics, controlled testing and the extensive and careful study of human hearing all tell us is decidedly inaudible.

It's that they are ignoring the fact that they might be imagining things or else are mis-attributing things they actually are hearing to things that are completely wrong. This is not helpful to anyone (except snake oil salesmen) and makes it impossible to have an intelligent conversation about things.


When making subjective decisions, it's perfectly reasonable to do so based on uncontrolled listening tests - because subjective decisions don't need to objective. But you don't gain knowledge that way. It's the difference between deciding if you like the color blue or green better vs. attributing your subjective preference to the "light fairy's crayons" or something like that.

Summing outside the box can add width and depth which are noticeably different and some say better, like analog desks of old.

Awww, Phil, not YOU! Come back to the light, before it's too late, or one day you could find yourself brushing the studio walls with Coat of Silence Soundproofing Paint. 


Kidding. I have no doubt that running tracks through an analog channel might add a tasteful amount of harmonic distortion and crosstalk. "Width" and "depth", though, I'm having a harder time reconciling those words with logic.

bitflipper


Coat of Silence Soundproofing Paint. 

 

What? I use this all the time (sic)
Ok, busted...a little. You have to be careful with the width and depth thing I admit. I have definitely heard clearer placement in the stereo field when using analog summing but that was with a very high end Neve summing mixer. The same thing could not be said for the Black Lion summing box under $1k. So saying anything about summing cannot be generalized as it is dependent on the hardware you are using.