Summing mixer??

[Dark star Balla]

Can anyone explain to me the meaning, porpose and technique for using a summing mixer. I know nothing

[I'm Painting Again]

the idea is that you use it if you want to avoid a computer "summing" your tracks digitally in a software..the summing mixer is usually like a regular analog mixer without any individual volume control..maybe it has pan or a master volume/make up gain..at the core the summing part of any mixer is just a few simple components that take the individual analog signal inputs and combine them to a mono or stereo or other output or outputs..basically like a stripped down regular old mixer..

they are all the rage now since people talk online about how a DAW mix doesn't sound as good as an analog one..it's total crap..recording is a cumulative process and how good it is the result of the people and how they use gear not the gear being used..a summing mixer is not going to make or break a good record..

[Recycled_Brains]

they are all the rage now since people talk online about how a DAW mix doesn't sound as good as an analog one..it's total crap..recording is a cumulative process and how good it is the result of the people and how they use gear not the gear being used..a summing mixer is not going to make or break a good record..

it's so refreshing to hear that point of view. personally i've never used a summing mixer with PT, but i've heard plenty of mixes summed ITB that sound just find to me. it's entirely possible that summing OTB makes an audible difference, but i don't know from experience.

i have looked into the possibility of a summing mixer of some kind though, even something passive like the Folcrum, but more as a way to combat latency issues when using outboard compression and EQ along with PTLE. i don't think it's necessary though. more of a convenience thing.

-ryan

[japmn]

Doesn't really matter when it comes out of a pair of white earbuds.

[I'm Painting Again]

It's funny..

like what choice or gear doesn't make an audible difference in a recording process?

everything does to some extent..the difference may be slight..the difference may be great..the difference may be important or not important..and the difference depends on so many things that it is just silly to say something like out of da box is better than in da box mixing without any sort of context..like for example in the box may be better for classical and jazz because it is a less "coloured" and out of the box may be better for rock when you are working lots of outboard gear and a console to get more "colour" or harmonic distortion or any of the analogue gear's artifacts our ears pick up on as radical sounding..

[ashcat_lt]

before this thread gets taken over by folks who believe the hype, I'd like to say thanks to B&W for that little taste of reality.

It's my belief that the "argument" for the summing mixer was developed by a few boutique electronics companies as a great way to charge too much for almost nothing inside a fancy rack box.

[I'm Painting Again]

well they all are different and people do seem to like the concept in general..like everything else some are junk and some are made well and sound good..I mean there isn't any doubt in my mind that a nice analogue full bandwidth summing device with some high quality gain and interesting sonic qualities can indeed enhance a recording if used well..

I mean saying ALL summing mixers on the market is "almost nothing inside a fancy box" might be a bit presumptuous..what makes you say that?

[mjau]

I was intrigued for a long time, and recently stumbled on a killer deal for a folcrom, so I took it thinking that if it was snake oil, I could resell it and probably make a few bucks doing so. I haven't had tons of time to mess around with it, but did pass through some mixes on it for a 4 song ep I just finished, and the difference was very noticable and for the better. I felt like I could get better stereo imaging and the high end seemed a lot cleaner (for lack of a better term) once I summed through the folcrom. Would I pay full price for a new one? Hell no. Is it worth it for me now and does it help me make mixes I'm happier with? Definitely.

[Recycled_Brains]

I was intrigued for a long time, and recently stumbled on a killer deal for a folcrom, so I took it thinking that if it was snake oil, I could resell it and probably make a few bucks doing so. I haven't had tons of time to mess around with it, but did pass through some mixes on it for a 4 song ep I just finished, and the difference was very noticable and for the better. I felt like I could get better stereo imaging and the high end seemed a lot cleaner (for lack of a better term) once I summed through the folcrom. Would I pay full price for a new one? Hell no. Is it worth it for me now and does it help me make mixes I'm happier with? Definitely.

out of curiosity, what software platform are you using/convertors, etc.?

i only ask because proponents of analog summing often stress a need for really high quality AD/DA conversion, or it's not worth it (as in the 002 i use would "suck" or some other relative term). i don't really buy into that line of thinking, but i also can't afford an apogee or the like, so i don't have much choice.
-ryan

[mjau]

out of curiosity, what software platform are you using/convertors, etc.?

i only ask because proponents of analog summing often stress a need for really high quality AD/DA conversion, or it's not worth it (as in the 002 i use would "suck" or some other relative term). i don't really buy into that line of thinking, but i also can't afford an apogee or the like, so i don't have much choice.
-ryan

I'm using Sonar 3.1, with Aardvark converters. I do nearly all my processing in the box with a UAD card, among other plugins, so I don't go through a lot of D/A conversion and back with outboard gear.

[ashcat_lt]

well, i may have been a bit harsh, but in all these are extremely simple circuits. the prices are often inflated with terms like "discrete circuitry" and "point to point wiring." i'm not saying guys shouldn't get paid for the higher priced parts and extra labor. it's partly that it's still a pretty simple circuit, and partly that it's really a non-essential item to begin with.

i'm waiting for somebody to release VASM, the Virtaul Analog Summing Mixer. shouldn't be long now... (i wan't royalties)

anyway, i think anything that helps you improve your mixes has to be a good investment. but the OP didn't know what a summing mixer was. aparently someone had been leading him to believe he needed one in order to produce Pro recordings. this is patently false.

[mjau]

needed one in order to produce Pro recordings. this is patently false.

Totally agree.

[Disasteradio]

i'm waiting for somebody to release VASM, the Virtaul Analog Summing Mixer. shouldn't be long now... (i wan't royalties)

Can I get this in a digital hardware rack?

[chris harris]

aparently someone had been leading him to believe he needed one in order to produce Pro recordings.

how in the world do you draw that conclusion from the original post?!?! you're inferring quite a bit. and, apparently you're only doing it so that you can lead him to believe that analog summing is some kind of myth or waste of money. which is also false.

I've seen these discussions going on for a while now on lots of audio forums. The conclusion that I've come to is that most people who make the case AGAINST analog summing haven't even tried it. usually it's because of economic limitations (it's way cheaper to just mix ITB)....

I haven't tried just a straight analog summing box. But, I totally prefer to mix on an analog mixer to mixing ITB. And, without exception, EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT I KNOW AND TRUST, who has tried analog summing or mixing, prefers it to working ITB. Some of them (myself included) will still mix ITB occasionally because of demanding clients who will need to recall mixes.

again, nobody in this thread has made the false claim that you need analog summing to achieve pro results. it hasn't even been inferred. The most obvious B.S. assertion in this thread is that analog summing is some kind of myth or scam to separate ignorant engineers from their money.

There are waaay better engineers than any of us, who use analog mixing/summing every single day. The idea that these people are suckers who are being manipulated by marketing hype is pretty fucking insulting. I see bedroom recordists who mix ITB out of necessity make the insulting insinuation that analog summing/mixing is a myth far more often than I EVER see anyone insinuate that you must mix/sum analog to achieve professional results.

[Andy Peters]

I've seen these discussions going on for a while now on lots of audio forums. The conclusion that I've come to is that most people who make the case AGAINST analog summing haven't even tried it. usually it's because of economic limitations (it's way cheaper to just mix ITB)....

I haven't tried just a straight analog summing box. But, I totally prefer to mix on an analog mixer to mixing ITB. And, without exception, EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT I KNOW AND TRUST, who has tried analog summing or mixing, prefers it to working ITB. Some of them (myself included) will still mix ITB occasionally because of demanding clients who will need to recall mixes.

Two different things here ... "mixing on an analog mixer" and "analog summing."

You're like many people, who prefer mixing on an analog mixer ... top reasons are the ergonomics of mixing on real faders and the ease of inserting various pieces of kit. These are very valid considerations (I hate mixing with a mouse, too!). Basically the DAW acts as a multitrack tape machine.

But analog summing simply means taking each DAW track, converting it to analog, summing in analog, then converting back to digital for the final mix. I'm not quite sure I see the reason for this. The outboard summing fans argue their mixes are "warmer" or "fatter" or any of the usual buzzwords.

-a