Blind Taste Test: Passive Summing vs ITB

[chris harris]

That's exactly why these blind, gotcha tests are mostly useless.

i think this test proves that summing for the sake of summing, and passing signals through hi fi preamps that aren't being pushed, is a game of millimeters.

I think that it proves that a mix done ITB will sound different when fed to an alternate signal path. This isn't a groundbreaking revelation. It definitely doesn't prove what's "better" or "worse". And, it completely disregards the real world application of the processes it seeks to invalidate.

[chris harris]

....This test is designed to test the widely held belief that adding signals together in the analog domain is going to sound better than adding them in the digital domain. ...... As a semi-scientific experiment, though, I need to focus on a single hypothesis and as simple a controlled test of that hypothesis as possible. That's more or less how scientific experiments work....

Indeed, well put. +1

Thanks for doing this. It it is indeed a very interesting test of the hypothesis that "OTB mixes sound better because (and only because) they have been sent outside of the box".

Again, proving or disproving something that is subjective, is not an aim of science. And, a subjective opinion is not the same as a hypothesis. Using the word "hypothesis" doesn't make this any more scientific.

To me, your results suggest there are more variables to it than that. Perhaps workflow issues as you and subatomic suggest, gain staging, other hardware, etc.

Doesn't mean that summing is not useful, just that under these defined conditions, other factors are likely more important.

Right. Exactly. The results of this test only prove something that is not really in dispute. ITB mixing and OTB mixing sound different. This is not really a disputed claim. Whether or not one is better or worse than the other, is subject to all of these other factors that cannot be accounted for in a test like this.

[spacelabstudio]

Well, there is a widely touted claim that analog summing is better than digital summing.

Possibly in the advertising world... but, in the real world, and especially where "science" is concerned, this isn't a "widely" held belief at all.

And yet I encounter it quite often. A quick search of various forums will turn up all sorts of people extolling the virtues of mixing outside of the box. Usually the analog summing is held to be more accurate and provide better detail and imaging. I have not had an opportunity to test this claim until now. The fact that you think it's stupid doesn't mean people don't think it.

As a semi-scientific experiment, though, I need to focus on a single hypothesis and as simple a controlled test of that hypothesis as possible. That's more or less how scientific experiments work.

Real scientists would find this hilarious! You cannot prove or disprove something that is subjective. Calling what you're doing "science" doesn't make it any more scientific.

Scientists conduct studies all the time in which people are asked to say something about their subjective experience. The subjective reports are objective data. Person A said X is an objective fact. In an experiment like this the point is to see if there is a correlation between a person's subjective experience of sound quality and this stupid analog summer that I built. The existence or non-existence of such a correlation does yield an objective fact about how people experience the results of using the summing box. I'm not trying to prove or disprove that the signal changed as a result of running it through something different. I'm trying to see whether anybody cares or not--whether the difference is enough for people to really notice or have an opinion about. The only way to measure that is to ask them.

Chris

[eeldip]

I SPEAK FOR SCIENTISTS TOO.

they tell me to tell everyone here that you are dumb heads.

[vvv]

Aiight, I hate to suggest this, ...


... butt, ...


... mebbe we should ask Kim Salmon?




FWIW, my take is it's interesting to learn if a change in the summing to the same mix makes a discernible change to it.

[Snarl 12/8]

I kinda wish people wouldn't totally flame someone for making an earnest attempt at trying to figure something out and then sharing it with the world. This is how science works, and art, and business, etc. You fling shit at a wall and see what sticks. 99 times out of a 100 (999/1000?) you don't make a meaningful contribution to your area of study, but every once in a while something moves forward this way. I don't think the OP deserves to be treated like a troll for this, obviously well-intentioned, if (arguably) misguided experiment and post.

If this isn't your cup of tea, just move along to the next post.

I know, now I'm "it".

Flame away, flamers!

[chris harris]

Welcome to Coddle Nation. If you guys wanna keep pretending that this is "science", then my continued interest in this thread is in relation to "peer review", you know, the thing that makes science mean something.

The bias in this "science" is obvious. "all the rage these days" "I took the lazy route and brought the drums out as a two channel stem rather than mix individual drum mics in the passive box" "widely touted claim that analog summing is better than digital summing"

You can also generally tell the bias by which side of the "experiment" they choose to half ass. In this case, the mix was done ITB. Then, THE SAME MIX was simply run through some other processes. If this was mixed INTO the summing box, and then the ITB versions just took that mix and re-assigned all of the channels back to a stereo out from the DAW and exported, don't you think that might affect which one the listeners "prefer"?

This test is to "science" what Fox is to "news". The conclusion came first, then the test was designed to support that conclusion.

This "test" will prove only one thing, and that's whether or not someone prefers the OP's original ITB mix as is, or if they prefer it passed through some other processes. And, even at that, the results are obviously mixed..... just like opinion on ITB vs. OTB.

THERE IS NO TEST THAT YOU CAN DO THAT WILL PROVE DEFINITIVELY IF OTB MIXING OR ANALOG SUMMING IS "BETTER" THAN ITB MIXING. And, this test in particular is fatally flawed in so many ways it's laughable. That the OP thinks he's the first to attempt such a test is also laughable. And, that the OP thinks that consensus in the audio community is that analog summing is "better" is even more laughable still.

People have been trying to invalidate analog summing since the first devices for it hit the market. If you search for "ITB vs. OTB" both here and at Gearslutz, I think that you'll realize that there are FAR MORE PEOPLE who want to believe that analog summing isn't worth the investment (in summing box, DA converters, etc.).

A quick search of various forums will turn up all sorts of people extolling the virtues of mixing outside of the box.

Have you actually done a search like this lately? There are FAR MORE PEOPLE MIXING ITB, both at TOMB and Gearslutz, who desperately want to believe that people mixing OTB are wasting money, than the other way around.

Usually the analog summing is held to be more accurate and provide better detail

Are you kidding?!?!?!?! You really haven't read up on this stuff, have you?!?! I think it's pretty much conventional wisdom, even among people who mix OTB, that analog summing is obviously LESS ACCURATE than digital summing. In fact, that's what I personally love about it!

Anyway, I'm still following along. Interesting that most people picked the mixes that had been passed through the summing box, even though the summing box was defective. It doesn't "prove" or "disprove" any phony, made up "hypothesis". But, it is interesting. I'm just not gonna sit by and watch it be represented as "science", when that's clearly bullshit. And, I'm definitely not gonna just bugger off because I happen to disagree. That's not how science works, folks.

If you want to present this biased, unscientific nonsense as "science", then prepare to defend your methodology. But, if you just want to be glad handed by people who already agree with you, then say so and stop pretending that it's "science".

[chris harris]

I kinda wish people wouldn't totally flame someone for making an earnest attempt at trying to figure something out and then sharing it with the world. This is how science works, and art, and business, etc. You fling shit at a wall and see what sticks.

Peer review (flaming) is how you determine if it sticks or not.

99 times out of a 100 (999/1000?) you don't make a meaningful contribution to your area of study, but every once in a while something moves forward this way. I don't think the OP deserves to be treated like a troll for this, obviously well-intentioned, if (arguably) misguided experiment and post.

I'm not treating him like a troll. I'm treating him like someone who's presenting a flawed "experiment" as if it proves something.

[chris harris]

I SPEAK FOR SCIENTISTS TOO.

they tell me to tell everyone here that you are dumb heads.

Well, you're the only one so far who's figured out what this "experiment" has actually taught us.

i think this test proves that summing for the sake of summing, and passing signals through hi fi preamps that aren't being pushed, is a game of millimeters.

That doesn't really say anything about how people ACTUALLY USE summing devices. But, yes, it does prove that simply running an ITB mix through a summing box and a preamp is not a magic route to mix ecstacy. Though, even those millimeters might mean something to someone. I mean, obviously, they did. Several people claimed to prefer the less-acurate, phase crippled mix. But, if you actually mix into a summing device, or mix on an analog mixer, those millimeters CAN (notice I'm not trying to prove anything definitively) turn into Kilometers.

[spacelabstudio]

THERE IS NO TEST THAT YOU CAN DO THAT WILL PROVE DEFINITIVELY IF OTB MIXING OR ANALOG SUMMING IS "BETTER" THAN ITB MIXING.

So? Who cares? I made a piece of equipment. I decided to try to evaluate on some level whether it helps me or not. I did an informal test with it to and invited people to listen and give feedback about the results. End of story. I don't get the histrionics.

Chris

[chris harris]

You're getting feedback.... both on your results and your methodology. What's the problem? Did you expect everyone to agree with you?

[chris harris]

If you just want to know if people prefer working with analog or digital summing, then why not just ask people who've tried both? The problem is that you seem to intend to prove something. And, you won't be able to do it.

[chris harris]

I made a piece of equipment. I decided to try to evaluate on some level whether it helps me or not.

You have me up to this point. Kudos to you! Everyone should do what you're doing, to find out if it works for the way that they work. I commend you for taking the initiative to find out for yourself!!

I did an informal test with it to and invited people to listen and give feedback about the results. End of story. I don't get the histrionics.

My histrionics are in reaction to your own. What you're now referring to as an "informal test" was previously put forth as "science" that was seeking to prove or disprove a "hypothesis".

[spacelabstudio]

You're getting feedback.... both on your results and your methodology. What's the problem? Did you expect everyone to agree with you?

You're not giving feedback about methodology. Your position from the get go has been that *any* such evaluation is worthless regardless of methodology. And you're getting quite worked up about it, too. I'm not sure why you have such an emotional investment in this.

Chris

[chris harris]

No. This evaluation is useful to you. I've never disputed that. You'll be able to tell if it's worth it to pass YOUR itb mixes through other gear, or not.