summing?

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.

@

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.

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.

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.

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.

2 major arguments against saving up to buy that expensive analogue summing gear just came up (thanks, Jeff, well said): 

first, "great composition or song followed by great performances" - think about the songs that moved you most and listen closely; you'll hear some strange mixes, sometimes even dubious quality, yet, those songs get to you ... most are probably summed the analogue way, but as good as these songs are they'd move you even if they'd be totally digi-sterile ...

next, "mastering" - if you want analogue summation without splashing out huge amounts, give mix stems to your mastering engineering who owns all that gear; i'm pretty sure that would make a huge difference to the overall sound, but more likely due to another professional with a different approach and fresh ears working on your material rather than just analogue summation ...

We are straying away from the OP's questions - and to answer the last - try it.  Mix your song, bounce it to a master (at high resolution, of course), and then play that out through your TL comp and record it back into the DAW.  If you like it enough to make the extra step part of your system, do it.  When I do that, I send it out through a TC Konnekt and use the on-board DSP comp/EQ and an analog comp/limiter.  Generally, serial compression sounds more natural than one comp slamming, as you add a couple of dBs at a time.  You can do the same in the DAW on the stereo track.

Most of the qualities we are talking about are sublte.  The better the room and monitors, the more you can pick up the differences.  The more experienced the ear, the more you can hear them.  And the smarter you are, the more you integrate your experiences into your own system.  I know several professionals who have gone in-the-box.  They feel that digital is close enough (usually mentioning UAD) but mostly it is the fact they can recall settings when whomever is paying the bills wants "just a small change."  Resetting a bunch of outboard is a tedious, time-consuming process, and time is money.  Given their druthers, most would stick w/ hardware.  That should tell you enough about your own home-brewed mixes.

Where analog hardware does rule is in capturing your sound.  You need a room that doesn't have terrible flaws that you will record.  A good mic - or several, of various kinds.  An LCD for vocals and leads, a pair of SCDs for stereo stuff and acoustics, dynamics for drums, and a ribbon.  I recently picked up a cheap mxl ribbon that works better my mid-range LCD on guitar.  When placed right, it rounds the sound nicely.  A good preamp(s) is nice to have, for the flexiblity provided by more gain and the fact it is harder to crap them out when the guitarist/vocalist suddenly goes to 11.  Not to mention the sound they can impart.  A good compressor can help w/ keeping the level even.  Eq going in can help w/ that also, narrowing the energy.  All those settings should be minimal, unless you are sure about what you are getting rid of since you might need it for mixing.  Think of it as pre-shaping the signal.

Basically, recording and mixing is art.  There are rules that it is good to know and understand, and it is ok to break them once you do.  There are reasons people spend big bucks racking old neves for vocals and guitars or first send the bass through an UAD or use the same mic for the drum room.  It works most of the time.  Figure out how to use what you have so you can plug-in new stuff in the holes.  Finances might keep you from having the kind of analog set up you'd prefer, but digital should suffice once you figure out how you like to use the tools.


@

M_Glenn_M


Still not sure about the meaning of "Stems"?.
Would it not be the same as Exporting a mix but instead, sending "what you hear" thru the analog stereo Compressor and recording it?
Or is it better to do it dry first?
Or are these all just things to experiment with?

Generally speaking when folks say "stems" they are referring to similar tracks exported as single files or outputs (usually based around common bussing techniques). So, for example, when I output stems into my SSL I'm doing something like sending all the vox into st1, all the drums into st2, all the send fx into st3, bass into 4, guitar into 5 and so on. I don't know of any real rules for stems...for example, I've seen lead vox stems and backing vox stems, and then I've seen vox stems that include both.


Essentially think of stems as logical groups of tracks that are exported or sent to another device.


Dean

Digital summing is transparent.

Analog summing is, at best, less transparent. If one prefers analog, and they aren't just imagining things, it's because they find the coloration added to their signal to be pleasing. There is nothing wrong with this, assuming transparency isn't the goal.

Summing audio signals in the analog and digital domains is different.

The difference, however, is not in the summing itself. The difference is that analog summing requires extra D/A and A/D conversions (with added quantization noise), noise from amplifiers in the interface, plus any noise picked up by cabling, connectors, patch bays and internal components in the summing box. 

The degradation is probably insignificant, but I can't imagine how that could possibly enhance the signal in any way.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.