I heard a difference in the top end... the Analog version is a bit darker/creamy and the digital is more crisp/precise... It's a matter of personal taste, both sound very good.
@@realityonx3063 Well I don't know if that's accurate because in reality the Analog summing introduces subtle harmonics and distortions (because of transistors or tubes) that fill those "Empty" spaces and compresses the top or bottom end of any mix, while the Digital version sounds much more cleaner and represent a much realistic sound of a mix. But in the end it's a matter of personal taste. 😊
@@realityonx3063 Clarity is not something you find only in top end... a more accurate terminology for top end would be crisp, accurate, defined... Clarity is when all instruments fit in their place inside the mix without fighting for space. Clarity is when you clearly can pinpoint the Piano and the guitar in those same frequencies, the Bass and Drums or the High Guitar Harmonics with Cymbals. When you mix in the box (digital) you can have more separation (clarity) than mixing in analog but... The analog distortions and compression (specially in the top end) makes our ears feel more relaxed and under control of what we're hearing which in reality, all they're doing is introducing harmonics, distortions that attenuate the top end... Is what I like to call creamy, glued.
@dfasht Yes, It could be... It's almost the same as women and hear me out... you could have a pair of beautiful twins, but one is picky, bitchy, dresses with top quality brands and she ain't down to do certain things (you know what I mean) 😆 The other one looks physically the same, beautiful, maybe they share 90% of things but one important difference is that, she's down for whatever every time. So in summary the whinny bitchy one is more detailed, crisp and probably clearer (digital) but the other one is more relaxed, enjoyable, creamy... (analog) in which every one prefers. 🤣
@dfasht I've heard Airwindows before... but never tried them. I'm on an M1 MBP and read they haven't made the transition yet. Since you're a patreon, any estimate ?
@dfasht When you say "He has to..." but also "One man operation...". Is he getting paid to do it... and if that's the case, why so many plugins ? That's more than what Plugin Alliance, Acustica Audio, Slate Digital, Fab Filter, iZotope combined.
Hobbiest here...My main DAW is Harrison Mixbus32C and I use all of the busses for various stems using the "tape" drive on each bus to taste. Sometimes I add True Iron or Lindell bus transformer emulations to each of those busses at the start of the mix if I'm going for a vintage vibe that I think will work. When I use Reaper (mainly when I want to emulate a different console), I create a similar bussing scheme and user True Iron or one of the Lindell bus plugins. Again, I mix through it rather than throw it on at the end. When I remember to, I bypass the plugins when I get near the end of the mix and even though it's software, it does make a difference. And yes, I use the TMT function in the Lindell's to get some slight variations on the channels.
Yes, please. And maybe alternative solutions. I've thought about using my Xone 96 DJ mixer 4 summing.. Not sure if it's gonna mess up more quality than it provides. 🤷♂️
I used Harrison's MixBus for many years along with Reaper. All editing was on Reaper and when everything was done, I routed to Harrison for kind of ' "analog coloring" and it worked fine. But when I found Airwindows consoles, I just decided to keep my workflow with just one DAW, and - I know it is a matter of taste - AW sounds a lot better to my ears. Both are great coloring tools for an analog feel.
I’ve got a ssl six. The best thing I’ve bought And great for summing. :just to add I’ve been in the box for years as I couldn’t afford a good thing to sum into Heard about the ssl six and summing as soon as heard a track into it there was more width and depth I didn’t hear before , I also think that if you use a lot of software interments ,like bass piano etc To go back into a analog desk to give it analog colour can be good for some music. .
Hey there, I was curious about the SSL Six. Thinking about getting it. Does this mean since there are 4 faders, I can only mix or run 4 tracks in my DAW through those 4 faders? I still work through my DAW in my computer(Pro Tools) and wanted to add analog harmonics to my mixes/tracks.
@@digitalmarketinghumans hi. No you can do a lot more , search on TH-cam there’s lots of videos about the desk ,that can explained better than me , I only use track one when I want to record , but when summing I have Kirk tr 1. Mono bass track 2. Mono. , then use the 3-4 sterio 5-6 sterio Ext. 1. Sterio Ext 2. Sterio. I’ll try to link something here th-cam.com/video/eC1CORyQhMI/w-d-xo.html
@@yamansitar6153 but like what would you say its causing that "width and depth" ? those are subjective terms. like for example a saturator makes the sound warmer but its because of added harmonics
@@hithere4289 Width and depth are terms for realism, like walking outside and observing what you hear with your ears. Sound production with analog components are the closest you can get to that.
I bought the Dangerous 2Bus+ one year ago and it was an absolute gamechanger for me. I think it depends on what you want to achieve. The difference is huge but in my opinion every elemt sits better in the mix. The stereo image is better and it all has that 5% more life that I was always looking for. The Dangerous also has some cool features I do not want to miss anymore. I do not think it is alway neccessary to sum analog, but evrytime I do it, everything gets that 5-10% extra I really like!
I saw a lot of review like yours. I want to include summing mixer in my workflow but hard to choose between Tegeler Tube Summing Mixer and Dangerous 2Bus...
I forgot which order you had the analog / digital, and I thought for sure my favourite was analog.. until I rewound the video and it revealed my favourite every time was digital! Too funny! Blind testing is time and time again, the only way to go.
For the longest time recording was done through a Neve console for the color / preamp, and then the tape from the session was given to a mixer to mix on an SSL console because of its transparency. In today's world if you are getting tracks that are already treated through analog equipment, then all you need to do is to mix it transparently through the DAW with digital plugins. It has all the color it needs. Now on the other hand if you are mixing cold digital tracks produced in a DAW, then it helps to give it some color in the mix. Perhaps use some analog emulating plugins, or at the very minimum run the mix through an analog summing mixer.
If you want to better isolate just the summing part, you could route each track out one at a time and re-record it back into the DAW. Use the same channels on your mixer that you are using for the summing. This would color each track exactly the same with the converter and mixer, but by re-recording each track one at a time the summing part would still be digital.
I was a professional audio engineer for over ten years, had my own recording studio, tracked and mixed bands every day. I was the engineer's engineer, didn't want to be Tha Produca, so I worked with producers and I just did THE SOUND. I went so far down the rabbit hole that I gave it up and went back to college to do a B. Eng. in Electronic Engineering. Digital summing is perfect. Yes, it can be easily abused and made to sound shit, most often by bad gain staging. Analogue summing sounds different because of the fact that it is not perfect. The real world electronic circuits have a sound that the digital summing does not. The sound of analogue "summing" varies widely, because of the summing circuit topology and associated electronics, such as any nonlinear components, from caps, to coils, to opamps, to... pretty much everything effects it in some way or another. So, to conclude, "analogue SUMMING" is not superior, it does not have "a sound", it has many sounds. Mixing on a Neve 8058 will not sound or feel like mixing the exact same material on an SSL 4K, or on an API, or an MCI... But it's not because of some magic woo woo of analogue "summing", it's everything else in the signal path.
After reading your post, I think we agree. It isn’t ‘analog summing’ itself that sounds better. As it could sound a lot worse, depending on what components are being used in the summing mixer. For example: The components used in a off-brand, cheaply made mixer, may effect the sound in a way that could be considered bad. But on the other hand, the components used in consoles like the ones you listed, effect the sound in a way that some would consider pleasing to the ears. While each are still unique in their own right. But since these effects that are considered pleasing are actually slight imperfections, on paper, digital could be considered better because it doesn’t have those imperfections. And it doesn’t matter if you pick analog or digital, if you don’t know what you’re doing you can make it sound worse on either.
Since digital summing is DIGITAL, i think the word "perfect" is a stretch. But in this scenario, where we are DAing, summing, and then ADing and playing that back digitally, that's perhaps a conversation for those of us who can hear a flea fart in the corner. I'll save the infinite harmonic series truncation artifact thesis for another day, and just say that I agree with you enough to get a bridge built.
it sounds like you are saying there's no reason to mix on a real console and I disagree. Since I can't fit a console in my room I'm interested in analog summing. If it doesn't work out, oh well. I just need an extra 5 grand. Still less than buying a console.
@@johnthecreative no more so that there's nothing "wrong" with digital summing as people claim. Analog summing is no more better than transformer less boxes. Taking a digital mix to make it better by analog summing is simply subjective cause there's nothing wrong or erroneous about digital summing. But if you like the sound and taste of analog summing then by all means. . .
Lol. Just posted about that too. It makes your workflow a bit weird is the only downside. The more instances you run the better. It sounds pretty analog to my ears.
@@HojoSinclair I have such a hard time keeping up. Is there anyone who indexes or categorizes his plugs? I know Chris has made a couple of bundles, but he pumps new ones out so fast, they go obsolete really quickly
YES! With analog you get the Harmonic Distortion and color with better stereo imaging . When i used analog summing for the first time i was amazed and i did a lot of comparisons and i always Chose the analog Sound .
Another way to get the analog sound without breaking the bank is to do all two mix processing outside of the box and while you mix always keep that path open
That's exactly the point. It's just a matter of choice. What sound you prefer in the genre or style you are creating. And this choice you should make already at the beginning of your mix. Because when you fas an example decide to go analog and KNOW your devices you work with, then you know what to do to brighten your high end for instance. But if you take all those stems and do digital summing, then of course it will sound harsher. So it's really a matter of choice and the decision you make at the beginning.
Yes, it is all about the color of analog summing rather than which is better. Analog summing is a bit more labor intensive. I do both and it just depends on what I am trying to achieve and how hard I want to work. If I have to walk away from a project for more than a day all of my settings are the same in the digital realm. I do love the analog color.
The low end of the digital sounds more tighter & deeper. The high end & the mid range of the analog sounds more smoother than the digital but the low end looses its clarity (but that can be due to the converters you are using as well). They both sound great though. Two different flavours if you may
Passive summing was known when I started in the 70's, as resistive summing. Pure resistive summing must be power matched in and out to achieve the best results. Typically we do not worry about power matching these daze, most inputs are bridging which makes matching eaiser. Pure resistive summing is only limited by the heat dissipation of the resistors, there are no headroom issues but there are headroom and distortion issues with the drivers and the receivers. These daze the converters also contribute. I found it interesting that your null test showed considerable nonlinearities. I do a lot of live capture recording and prefer my capture be as accurate as I can afford to make it. I do not miss pure analog, I was the person responsible for maintenance and repair. I don't miss daily calibration of the machines, tube replacement and associated drift problems. As always, does it really sound better or is it a sound quality that we're used to?
Analog definitely sound better from a production and sound design aspect. Not even a a question about it. Just look an the difference between an analog ssl bus compressor and a digital, or the black box, better maker eq etc etc etc. Plus you get away with more distortion and compression while it sound amazing and you can get higher lufs in the end (very important in my genre).
@@alexanderdiazlarsson829: I think it's a matter of sound quality that we're used to like comfort food. Perhaps it's the absence of non-liniarities makes things sound unfamiliar. I recently talked to a studio engineer that had his recordings "sound better" because he was adding tape noise to his digital recordings. The idea that vinyl "sounds better" is pure nostalgia, I recently bought my first turntable in over 30 years because one of the record companies I produce for is releasing 45's as a promotional gimmick and I need ot approve the test cuts. This was necessary as record mastering/cutting is more of an art than a science. Turntables , at best, are a precision approximation device and I might add that there are no newly manufactured cutting lathes in decades. I never enjoyed the "guy eating popcorn" in every vinyl record I've ever heard. I do a lot of live capture recording and have always strived to make the recording sound as good as what I heard in concert. In addition to my studio experience I worked as a broadcast engineer in radio and TV for 3 decades or so and I've been a professional recordist since the mid '70's.
@@RudeRecording tape noise has little to do with nostalgia and more to do with colouring your track and filling up blank spaces, it’s not much different than an atmospheric pad, the difference is when it’s real analog in that particular scenario the tape hiss actually reacts to the recording itself is and therefor is more musical than a loop. Either way, this all has little to do with any nostalgia and more to do with results and purpose. When you can squash something while giving it more dimension that makes sending out demos I’m working on way faster and more fun. It’s literally a way for me to save time while having the highest quality possible!
I like the thought that my analog summing can't be exactly reproduced elsewhere. It makes my studio and services unique as to repeat business and customer loyalty to a custom sound.
It’s obvious that the people who say there’s no difference between the two have bum ears. The moment I finally figured out how to route audio OUT from ableton and into the analog domain, is when i discovered this is everything i feel has been lacking in my sound and my mixes. it was honestly life changing. i was getting nauseous from that foul, metallic, flat, lifeless sound of digital summing.
I think you may still need two inputs for summing a mono source because of how panning mono sound sources in the stereo field work. I read that essentially a pan knob is a resistor that sends varying amounts of the same signal to the left and right output in inverse proportions, so as you pan to the left the level of output to the left speaker increases and the output to the right speaker decreases in response (and vice versa), this gives the impression of the sound sources placement in the stereo field. Cheers, just found your videos and I like them!
Mixplaining trigger warning: did you time-align the incoming summed track with the digi-bounce, there is WAY too much information in the null test, IMO, for all other things to indeed be equal. Also, was there any kind of limiter going on in there somewhere? It's strange that when you switch to the Alog solo, the track meters under digi go dark, but when you switch to digi, the track meters under aLog stay active. If there was a hard limiter in there, sending two of everything would clip out around the same, but the null test would be way off null instead of just a little bit. my 2 pennies
This is a good point - the conversion time from D to A and back again needs to be accurately measured and allowed for in the process (which he may have done) and you need to be super sure that gain really is unity.
yes, takes a step back from the speakers and to me the stereo image widens overall, yet becomes more defined and "glued" together sounding. You can only imagine once this is compounded by using analog in more places.
I'm listening on studio monitors and headphones and boy, is that difference subtle. I don't sweat summing too much when I consider Peter Gabriel's Security was recorded fully-digital in 1982! And no one's like, "Man, that LP sounds so cold and sterile...". But I fully agree with your take on digital distortion and oversampling. Thanks for this!
Peter Gabriel's Security, great album, one my favorites from him. Now you mention it, I do seem to remember something about digital recording / mastering on the record sleeve. I know The Alan Parson Project and Donald Fagen where early adoptes of digital recording and mastering. In the early 80's this was a selling point when the first CD's wherre released. Peter Gabriel was also quite keen with his Fairlight CMI, I'd say that it's part of the charm of the Security album. Despite it beeing digital (and 8 bit) it sounds quite warm to me.
As much as I’m a fan of early solo Gabriel I did find it cold, but pleasant. It was sortof a new era and sound. The synths also contributed to this. Good comparison.
@@onteraction8294 I hear you. It's an interesting thing, because the early 80s was all about angular sounds and arrangements. So is it cold because of the A/D converters, or the production/writing choices? I say the latter.
@@palebluedotstudios ya writing choices for sure. Though, that was the first era of full home studio recording. Smaller consoles, smaller sound maybe..... plus these guys didn’t entirely know what they were doing. Lol the tapes went elsewhere to be mixed I imagine. 👍🏼
I use a passive analog summing box, 16 channels, 4 of them can be switched to mono. Then depending on the source I go with my neve or api preamps. What is for me the best advantage of using a summing box? Well, I can use my busses analog gear and skip conversions. I have inserted a stereo buss compressor in channels 9-10, a stereo pultec (11-12), a Tape recorder for saturation (13-14) and a stereo reverb (15-16) taken from old hammond sounder 3 keyboards. I also can patch guitar pedals or any other processors in any channel. So, all the summing and analog processing will be done in the same D/A step and the stereo bounce will go throw a dedicated A/D converter. I try to do the least A/D D/A conversions, and I am so happy with the results, the sound and fixed lots of phasing issues using analog parallel processing. Best wishes! Stay safe and fun content... I would say, they sound different, not better. The only thing that matters is your workflow to get you where you love what you are hearing!
You can also get this effect by routing the mix bus through some good analog gear - like a silver bullet, or nice compressor and back in through good convertors
Analog summing plugins: UAD has API and Neve through LUNA. Analog Obsession has an 8 channel Neve style summing mixer as well (look for NCAR). Waves has NLS. You mentioned Harrison Mixbus, but I'm honestly not sure if it has any special summing sauce. Studio One has some built in stuff as well.
Spoken of summing, In my DAW , when I route all the tracks to a group bus (without any processing or eq on that bus ) and compare that to all the tracks routed to the master bus (again without processing or eq on that bus ) at the same level there's a difference in sound. I don't understand why that is, I would expect it to be the same.
as for the first example - coloration to low end was pretty amazing and made the sound less flat. What people would like to see is really checking how to use exciters and analog emulation based on e.g. ozone and compare it to the song without such coloration. Lack of warmth is common issue with mixes done without those.
Record some live drum and bass thru tape and digital simultaneously and you can really understand what we really love about analog saturation, but even that might not work all the time. Summing might be great if you have the time and money but we can get really close with plugins nowadays, matter of taste and style of music like you say in the end of the video. Daft punk RAM I think was tracked thru tape and digital simultaneously and they chose one or the other depending on the song. Wasn't "Leave the door open" - top 1 song of 2021 mixed ITB by Serban Ghenea?
Some people don't understand true analog summing is designed to clip your audio coming out the interface into the summing mixer at -20 , -10 or -6db and back in to your interface. Then you get the clipped audio say at -20 and gain massive headroom. You also achieve the fullness of true analog console analog mixer and won't need to do much like eq and add a bunch of plugins. Everything becomes very balanced and a lot easier to mix. When you bring the volume and audio back up in your daw you will see the difference and hear it. You can really only do this with a summing mixer. Summing mixers are all different. True analog summing is designed also to switch mono for your kick, bass, snare and lead vocal. It will come back through more punchy centered and true analog. Then the rest go out stereo and create a super wide but in place stereo analog mix. Digital can not do this meaning produce those transients in the digital domain. Sure there are plugins like saturation that will mimic it but nothing will sound as sweet as the analog summing mixer clipping audio. Many people dont understand analog boards and the concept so its best to research this before making comparison videos. There are many videos out there that will show you how amazing this all works and give you a better idea. I am not knocking the video. Thanks for the effort.
It’s an interesting discussion. The be precise, I actually like the sound of tracks going through a console, not just basic summers. Particularly because analog creates a vibe but usually always creates a new problem (and must decide if it’s worth doing). The following has been my compromise. Tracking - Analog (get as much goodness out of that stage as possible) Mixing - Digital (precise and repeatable - except when using “analog modeling” plugins) Mastering (digital with in-line hardware insert- if necessary) Analog can create vibe or create problems. Digital may be precise to a fault. Pick your battle.
Sure seems like the digital is brighter, with clearer highs but also occasional harshness, whereas the analog has a softened high end (trying to avoid the term "warm" here) and feels maybe more glued together. 🤔🩺
Did you make sure the null comparison was really precise? Some latency could have been introduced in the analog signal, that would completely kill the comparison.
Dan mentioned that the unit he had was designed to be very transparent, and he intentionally tried to eliminate any other difference, even routing both through the console or any other source of "coloration" (if i recall correctly)
@@dighawaii1 removing unwanted and unused frequencies adds space...adding another process like an FX bus or element actually uses space. So I'm not sure what you mean, here.
I use analog summing if i'm having a hard time fitting something into a crowded mix. I feel like I have more granular control of the stereo field and more width. Other than that, i keep it in the box.
Despiting the summing circuit added the color to the sound,the analog summing processing also introducing the DAC to ADC distortion.Moreover digital summing doesn't cut off the bit length if you lower the fader because of the floating-bit summing(48bits in protools 64bits in logic pro),in analog summing unless using the analog fader to mix,lower the fader in DAW channel would cut the bit in the DAC processing. I think the whole point is to put the fader to the right position and mix the music as good as you can.Whatever you use can't help you to get better music,just a little bit taste different.Snake oil
I also think it is no problem to create the analogue sound artificially ITB, at least to the point where even producers doubt which is what. It takes an experienced master's ears or a serious audiophile to tell them apart.
My analog summing rig is not a 'subtle difference' compared to the same mix in the box. Antelope Audio 32 DAC > Vintage Maker 32 to 2 passive summing mixer (with various mono switches) > a matched pair of Pultec eqs > a (stereo) Fairchild 670 > a Studer 1/4" half track (7.5 or 15 ips). More of a night and day difference. On my setup, 'which color' tends to happen more in the speed of the tape. 15ips gives me that precise open top end we expect from digital these days, but with a effortless sheen which is hard to describe, whereas 7.5 gives me that warm vibe (not much of a bump on the Studer vs American / Japanese stuff though). By using the same equipment that used to be used for the final signal controls before a tv/radio transmitter, I can dial in exactly how the signal hits the tape. The process really start to shine in reproduce mode, live monitoring playback while recording the mixdown. I can, for example, adjust the top end eq to make up for any high frequency response rolloff on the tape or adjust the compression to shape the character of the tape saturation. You are very correct about how much the work flow changes! It is not uncommon for me to do things that one would never do in a digital workflow. To take advantage of the full headroom of the converter (everything is sending out super hot), sometimes it makes sense to do things like sending out the vocal on two or three pairs of converters to bring it forward in the mix. Do I think my kind of set up is required? Nope. Would I give mine up? Nope :) Have fun. Use what you have. The character that your tool enforces on your art can be a feature not a bug. @whixr / @tymkrs
@@Jaburu They do saturate but I wasn't blown away by those. What I was blown away is the sound straight out of the LR bus. Just sounds organic and open. Hard to explain. Perhaps the brilliant EQ's help.
@@Jaburu Yes, and it sounds the same as the one on the groups... Didn't blow me away and the mixbus "sound" is not about that saturation specifically. That's what's amazing about it. It's totally clean but yet sounds much clearer and open than all the other DAWs.
@@Noammats as you said, you must be liking the sound of the EQ than, because without any plugins and all the saturation knobs down it will be like any other DAW
digital sounds "cleaner" and more precise. it also feels as though it's lacking a bit of fullness and depth. analog brings those features out at the expense of a little "crispness". definitely a "what is best for the song" issue, and not a "one is bad" kind of thing. as you said, flavours. i'd like to see the same comparison on a track with, say, 32 channels instead of what appears to be 3. i have a feeling the differences may be more obvious when a complete mix is being processed.
For an even more fair comparison, you should probably route the digitally summed channel through the console as well on a single channel and then do the comparison. This way the D/A won't play a significant role.
I think you've got to characterize the frequency response of a single channel your analog gear and apply the same EQ to your digital signals for the comparison to make any sense. Because the potentially interesting part of analog summing is non-linear effects, not the EQ part that doesn't depend on the summing and can easily be replicated in digital. I think summing some specific waveforms (e.g. sawtooth with different frequencies/amplitudes) would be a better way to approach the problem, because what you want to see is that breaking of linearity.
To my ears. The digital feels much wider and airy and has more punch or growl. The analog feels much more subtle, warmer and the instruments feel closer together or dare I say more "glued"
The analog summed mix has a lot more depth and width to my ears and sounds smoother overall. But analog summing is not easy to do/to setup/to maintain. So I switched to running analog gear on inserts on dedicated busses (ie the stereo buss, the guitar buss, the keys buss ...). So I'm just running out a few of the busses, not all of them. This is a lot more flexible and gives me 90% of the analog summing feel with 5% of the hassle.
Okay, I write this after having listened to the first comparison on my phone (!). Even on my phone the difference translate rather well. The analog summing has more depth, the digital one more clarity.
Using a basic passive summing mixer as Pm8 by Black Lion or SM pro audio, Is It enough to get good analog colour or Is It too much basic unità ? What about a 3D Better posizioning of the instruments, it's Onlus a placebo o real conseguenze oh phase modificati in of the signal ? Aldo with transformer less stages ? Ciao
Most of the difference signal in the null test is the result of phase shifts at the spectrum edges caused by transformers or HP/LP filters in the form of I/O RC circuits in the summing device. The difference is present but is rather subtle. Interestingly, the digital mix seems to have more impact and more air. The analogue one is more pleasant and rounder but not so spectacular. It seems to me that analogue summing makes sense if it' s permanently installed and affects the decisions made at the mixing stage. Limited number of channels forces the grouping strategy.
I like mixbus32c however if you don't know yet you have to make adjustment before you hear the sound of harrison. If you test with everything flat it sound =s the same as any other daw.
Aren't there many commercial summing rack solutions with built in conversion and recall? That would make some elements you mentioned (for instance the fact that summing makes sharing difficult) easier, although the other person would obviously still need the same summing mixer unit. For instance something like the SSL Sigma (now discontinued I believe), and the 8816 by NEVE. It would be interesting if you looked into the 'colour' format as well ,particularly for summing. I guess the whole Idea of that format is adding subtle analog flavour to digital sessions, seeing they call them 'analog plugins'.
Harrison mixbus is incredible. You should try it. The sound is great but working with Midi is not so good. I tried the NLS Bus and the consoles added a beautiful coloration.
wow! yeah it could be that you have discovered some strange effect. i don't have noise cancelling phones to test this with. what i know is that the mp3 format is basically a synthesizer, it's not compression in the regular (Shannon, etc) sense.
@@jokusekovaan Thought maybe it had something to do with the phase flip that causes the noise cancellation. These head phones are new to me. they were a gift but i freaked out a bit the first time I noticed.
Yes - lots of things in the signal path: Would be interesting to compare with Analogue Obsession Studer console. Mixbus' sound is mainly in their saturation stages; no summing magic per se. Ensoniq Paris however is a different story; but of course required hardware to run. Running through Acustica Audio console pre-amps is another good way of getting that summing/console sound and well worth trying. I have used analogue consoles a lot; and find that the acustica stuff really gives me the same feel. I think it's the closest ITB to real world analogue, but at a CPU price; however I've been seriously impressed by Analogue Obsession for algo stuff; certainly seems to live up to the name. The difference though may well be in that 3D effect when applied to a complete mix. Just my 10 cents.
I'm surprised but the digital summing sounded better to me every time, a lot wider and a little more dynamic. Analog summing sounds surprisingly flat. The difference was clear and bigger than I thought it would be.
Once you test different kind of digital summing, you might want to check out the Analog Obsession offering once again. There are all kinds of transformer emulations and what not and they are also light on the CPU. It might be interesting to see what happens if you throw them on a bunch of summing channels and channel those into a mixbus. Maybe it gives you an even better sound compared to the Harrison stuff. Who knows? :)
The problem is that there are so many of those saturation and analogue emulation plugins that many mixes are flat-out distorted nowadays. I want to see more plugins that give me that "digital coldness"...
Coming out my 42" tv cheap speakers, the analog translates with a little more weight. The digital sounds a lil more spikie with the transients. The analog energy "felt" better to me. but right what suits the song better.
What I hear from TH-cam, is a bit warmer sound on the low/low-mids in the analogue version and I like it more, even though I'm used to 'in-the-box' sound.
Of course it is. The question is more like, what good options are there for ITB? Chris at Airwindows has an interesting option with his channel 7 plugins..... Though, it generally makes your workflow a bit more difficult.
@@Tekkerue Airwindows console 7 really brings the depth and space and something very analogue. There was a snake oil review on this channel of his tape plug and Chris hasa really good ear and an innovative but unglamorous approach to analogue plugins. The music in his demos on his channel is really weird though..... So you have to get past that if you watch his videos. Patreon supported so it won't cost you to demo them if you're curious....
@@Tekkerue two completely different things. Console 1 I think also had it's own dsp as well as physical interface, which is awesome. Summing is the method of combining different tracks. There's very few plugins that do that. Airwindows console really does that in an innovative way.
vocal is more pleasing in the analog. What would be interesting is a null test on a complete analog summed mix vs the already summed digital mix passing through two console channels.
You checking into Mixbus would be nice. I'm a long-term Ardour user, which is the open source base of MixBus. Basically, MixBus is Ardour with special features added to its digital mixer. Some features are very obvious, like simple EQs per channel (which are supposed to be analog-modelling EQs), or simple compressors on each channel, and of course the tape saturation knobs on the 8 busses. (Note that Mixbus can have an additional arbitrary number of simple busses without tape saturation effect, but then you've got to dive into the Ardour-style routing which is basically... completely free. Which I find very nice.) However, and this is why I'm commenting this: A comparison of Ardour vs Mixbus simply on summing with no other FX would be interesting. Will there be a difference at all? I think both use a 32bit floating point engine underneath. But does MixBus do anything special in the actual summing? I'm not sure.
I brought a tonelux OTB 16 analog Channel summing amp and I would never go back to mixing digital again , the separation , clarity, detail and head room on each channel is incredible , great video
I think the digital had a bit more detail but the analog was definitely smoother...or rounder. I did like them both, but being and analog guy, I ultimately preferred analog. Although I could be biased...I think I would have preferred not knowing which one was which in the beginning as to not jade my opinion....but, at the end of the day, I can only go with what my ears are hearing and my overall preference.
My setup for years as been like this: SoundScape with Antelope Orion/SSL converters into our API Legacy Plus 48 channels with Barefoot Speakers. My main " mix ' compressors Elysia, Neve, API, ... All gear and only basic SSL plugins... Lexicon 960, 480, Bricasti...Lucky me I got them all. Studio is moving ( pandemic got the projet on ice) so had to settle for a small mix installation. Got Studio One 5 Pro since SoundScape is no longer updated... Had to do the mix all ITB...First time of my life since 1987.... I will never go back to analog to mix. Simple. 😁
great video as always! I found the null test really interesting.. I use a lot of summing, but in layers of effects over dubs, the final mix is a render, but I have the option of balancing stems on a small analogue mixer, it works well to incorporate my 90s FX/stomp boxes into my work. I do attain to use a large mixer for my own final mixes, but mostly because I'm a fan of Dubby sounds , I wouldn't feel the need to use that for a client mix unless it was requested...
For me, it’s evident that I would need to get the most out of digital summing before investing in analog summing… because then I would get more out of analog summing… I will be getting just the few bits of essential analog, hopefully… if not, it still wouldn’t mater too much… not these days… monitoring is the first real investment anyway… which the majority of that money will be acoustics… surely you could send files to be summed else where if needed… a strait summing with no mixing could easily fit in a budget if needed… those analog processing sites are a good thing to keep in mind also
I didn't hear much of a difference myself, if any. Maybe some minor stereo image changes in the middle, but then, when you subtracted both bounces it has shown that differences in the middle are pretty small. So, I don't know anymore
Interesting video - thanks. Would be curious how the Waves NLS (Non-Linear Summer) plugin compares to the outboard console when summing. With NLS, you can choose one of three modeled consoles.
I noticed one thing with good analog devices... they seem to make things more present without being harsh. Harshness is the big difference. It almost like analog absorbs the harsh peaks and low pass the highs without losing presence. But even thoy thats great.... I am in the box now and forever going to be. I can get the same results with plugins, and have total recall.
I heard a difference in the top end... the Analog version is a bit darker/creamy and the digital is more crisp/precise... It's a matter of personal taste, both sound very good.
@@realityonx3063 Well I don't know if that's accurate because in reality the Analog summing introduces subtle harmonics and distortions (because of transistors or tubes) that fill those "Empty" spaces and compresses the top or bottom end of any mix, while the Digital version sounds much more cleaner and represent a much realistic sound of a mix. But in the end it's a matter of personal taste. 😊
@@realityonx3063 Clarity is not something you find only in top end... a more accurate terminology for top end would be crisp, accurate, defined... Clarity is when all instruments fit in their place inside the mix without fighting for space. Clarity is when you clearly can pinpoint the Piano and the guitar in those same frequencies, the Bass and Drums or the High Guitar Harmonics with Cymbals. When you mix in the box (digital) you can have more separation (clarity) than mixing in analog but... The analog distortions and compression (specially in the top end) makes our ears feel more relaxed and under control of what we're hearing which in reality, all they're doing is introducing harmonics, distortions that attenuate the top end... Is what I like to call creamy, glued.
@dfasht Yes, It could be... It's almost the same as women and hear me out... you could have a pair of beautiful twins, but one is picky, bitchy, dresses with top quality brands and she ain't down to do certain things (you know what I mean) 😆 The other one looks physically the same, beautiful, maybe they share 90% of things but one important difference is that, she's down for whatever every time. So in summary the whinny bitchy one is more detailed, crisp and probably clearer (digital) but the other one is more relaxed, enjoyable, creamy... (analog) in which every one prefers. 🤣
@dfasht I've heard Airwindows before... but never tried them. I'm on an M1 MBP and read they haven't made the transition yet. Since you're a patreon, any estimate ?
@dfasht When you say "He has to..." but also "One man operation...". Is he getting paid to do it... and if that's the case, why so many plugins ? That's more than what Plugin Alliance, Acustica Audio, Slate Digital, Fab Filter, iZotope combined.
Hobbiest here...My main DAW is Harrison Mixbus32C and I use all of the busses for various stems using the "tape" drive on each bus to taste. Sometimes I add True Iron or Lindell bus transformer emulations to each of those busses at the start of the mix if I'm going for a vintage vibe that I think will work. When I use Reaper (mainly when I want to emulate a different console), I create a similar bussing scheme and user True Iron or one of the Lindell bus plugins. Again, I mix through it rather than throw it on at the end. When I remember to, I bypass the plugins when I get near the end of the mix and even though it's software, it does make a difference. And yes, I use the TMT function in the Lindell's to get some slight variations on the channels.
I’d love to see snake oil vids on some digital “analog” summing plugins
Yes, please. And maybe alternative solutions. I've thought about using my Xone 96 DJ mixer 4 summing.. Not sure if it's gonna mess up more quality than it provides. 🤷♂️
I used Harrison's MixBus for many years along with Reaper. All editing was on Reaper and when everything was done, I routed to Harrison for kind of ' "analog coloring" and it worked fine. But when I found Airwindows consoles, I just decided to keep my workflow with just one DAW, and - I know it is a matter of taste - AW sounds a lot better to my ears. Both are great coloring tools for an analog feel.
I like the digital precision for the instruments and the Analog for warm vocals (especially for consonants and sillables)
I’ve got a ssl six. The best thing I’ve bought And great for summing. :just to add I’ve been in the box for years as I couldn’t afford a good thing to sum into Heard about the ssl six and summing as soon as heard a track into it there was more width and depth I didn’t hear before , I also think that if you use a lot of software interments ,like bass piano etc To go back into a analog desk to give it analog colour can be good for some music. .
Hey there,
I was curious about the SSL Six. Thinking about getting it.
Does this mean since there are 4 faders, I can only mix or run 4 tracks in my DAW through those 4 faders?
I still work through my DAW in my computer(Pro Tools) and wanted to add analog harmonics to my mixes/tracks.
@@digitalmarketinghumans hi. No you can do a lot more , search on TH-cam there’s lots of videos about the desk ,that can explained better than me , I only use track one when I want to record , but when summing I have Kirk tr 1. Mono bass track 2. Mono. , then use the 3-4 sterio 5-6 sterio Ext. 1. Sterio Ext 2. Sterio. I’ll try to link something here th-cam.com/video/eC1CORyQhMI/w-d-xo.html
@@digitalmarketinghumans it’s maybe no the best but it’s the real thing and cheep.
@@yamansitar6153 but like what would you say its causing that "width and depth" ? those are subjective terms. like for example a saturator makes the sound warmer but its because of added harmonics
@@hithere4289 Width and depth are terms for realism, like walking outside and observing what you hear with your ears. Sound production with analog components are the closest you can get to that.
I bought the Dangerous 2Bus+ one year ago and it was an absolute gamechanger for me. I think it depends on what you want to achieve. The difference is huge but in my opinion every elemt sits better in the mix. The stereo image is better and it all has that 5% more life that I was always looking for. The Dangerous also has some cool features I do not want to miss anymore. I do not think it is alway neccessary to sum analog, but evrytime I do it, everything gets that 5-10% extra I really like!
I saw a lot of review like yours. I want to include summing mixer in my workflow but hard to choose between Tegeler Tube Summing Mixer and Dangerous 2Bus...
@@elliottbastide5936 I do not know the other ones, but I think every box does its job well! he main reason I bought the 2Bus+ were the extra features.
I forgot which order you had the analog / digital, and I thought for sure my favourite was analog.. until I rewound the video and it revealed my favourite every time was digital! Too funny! Blind testing is time and time again, the only way to go.
For the longest time recording was done through a Neve console for the color / preamp, and then the tape from the session was given to a mixer to mix on an SSL console because of its transparency. In today's world if you are getting tracks that are already treated through analog equipment, then all you need to do is to mix it transparently through the DAW with digital plugins. It has all the color it needs. Now on the other hand if you are mixing cold digital tracks produced in a DAW, then it helps to give it some color in the mix. Perhaps use some analog emulating plugins, or at the very minimum run the mix through an analog summing mixer.
If you want to better isolate just the summing part, you could route each track out one at a time and re-record it back into the DAW. Use the same channels on your mixer that you are using for the summing. This would color each track exactly the same with the converter and mixer, but by re-recording each track one at a time the summing part would still be digital.
Would also be nice for it to be a blind listening test to avoid confirmation bias.
that's clever, would have been a more fair comparison
I was a professional audio engineer for over ten years, had my own recording studio, tracked and mixed bands every day.
I was the engineer's engineer, didn't want to be Tha Produca, so I worked with producers and I just did THE SOUND.
I went so far down the rabbit hole that I gave it up and went back to college to do a B. Eng. in Electronic Engineering.
Digital summing is perfect. Yes, it can be easily abused and made to sound shit, most often by bad gain staging.
Analogue summing sounds different because of the fact that it is not perfect. The real world electronic circuits have a sound that the digital summing does not. The sound of analogue "summing" varies widely, because of the summing circuit topology and associated electronics, such as any nonlinear components, from caps, to coils, to opamps, to... pretty much everything effects it in some way or another.
So, to conclude, "analogue SUMMING" is not superior, it does not have "a sound", it has many sounds.
Mixing on a Neve 8058 will not sound or feel like mixing the exact same material on an SSL 4K, or on an API, or an MCI...
But it's not because of some magic woo woo of analogue "summing", it's everything else in the signal path.
After reading your post, I think we agree.
It isn’t ‘analog summing’ itself that sounds better. As it could sound a lot worse, depending on what components are being used in the summing mixer.
For example: The components used in a off-brand, cheaply made mixer, may effect the sound in a way that could be considered bad. But on the other hand, the components used in consoles like the ones you listed, effect the sound in a way that some would consider pleasing to the ears. While each are still unique in their own right.
But since these effects that are considered pleasing are actually slight imperfections, on paper, digital could be considered better because it doesn’t have those imperfections.
And it doesn’t matter if you pick analog or digital, if you don’t know what you’re doing you can make it sound worse on either.
Since digital summing is DIGITAL, i think the word "perfect" is a stretch. But in this scenario, where we are DAing, summing, and then ADing and playing that back digitally, that's perhaps a conversation for those of us who can hear a flea fart in the corner. I'll save the infinite harmonic series truncation artifact thesis for another day, and just say that I agree with you enough to get a bridge built.
Are you basically saying analog summing can add some good or bad humming? :)
it sounds like you are saying there's no reason to mix on a real console and I disagree. Since I can't fit a console in my room I'm interested in analog summing. If it doesn't work out, oh well. I just need an extra 5 grand. Still less than buying a console.
@@johnthecreative no more so that there's nothing "wrong" with digital summing as people claim. Analog summing is no more better than transformer less boxes. Taking a digital mix to make it better by analog summing is simply subjective cause there's nothing wrong or erroneous about digital summing. But if you like the sound and taste of analog summing then by all means. . .
Can you do a video on the Air Windows summing stuff? I think it is his Console series
Lol. Just posted about that too. It makes your workflow a bit weird is the only downside. The more instances you run the better. It sounds pretty analog to my ears.
I would like this as well. Console 7 is the latest one
@@HojoSinclair I have such a hard time keeping up. Is there anyone who indexes or categorizes his plugs? I know Chris has made a couple of bundles, but he pumps new ones out so fast, they go obsolete really quickly
@@alexarmstrong449 I know what you mean. You kinda just have to keep an eye on the website or his youtube channel.
@@alexarmstrong449 I love his tape plug and has one that does huge reverbs great for sound scapes..
YES! With analog you get the Harmonic Distortion and color with better stereo imaging . When i used analog summing for the first time i was amazed and i did a lot of comparisons and i always Chose the analog Sound .
Another way to get the analog sound without breaking the bank is to do all two mix processing outside of the box and while you mix always keep that path open
That's exactly the point. It's just a matter of choice. What sound you prefer in the genre or style you are creating. And this choice you should make already at the beginning of your mix. Because when you fas an example decide to go analog and KNOW your devices you work with, then you know what to do to brighten your high end for instance. But if you take all those stems and do digital summing, then of course it will sound harsher. So it's really a matter of choice and the decision you make at the beginning.
Yes, it is all about the color of analog summing rather than which is better. Analog summing is a bit more labor intensive. I do both and it just depends on what I am trying to achieve and how hard I want to work. If I have to walk away from a project for more than a day all of my settings are the same in the digital realm. I do love the analog color.
The low end of the digital sounds more tighter & deeper. The high end & the mid range of the analog sounds more smoother than the digital but the low end looses its clarity (but that can be due to the converters you are using as well). They both sound great though. Two different flavours if you may
Passive summing was known when I started in the 70's, as resistive summing. Pure resistive summing must be power matched in and out to achieve the best results. Typically we do not worry about power matching these daze, most inputs are bridging which makes matching eaiser. Pure resistive summing is only limited by the heat dissipation of the resistors, there are no headroom issues but there are headroom and distortion issues with the drivers and the receivers. These daze the converters also contribute.
I found it interesting that your null test showed considerable nonlinearities.
I do a lot of live capture recording and prefer my capture be as accurate as I can afford to make it. I do not miss pure analog, I was the person responsible for maintenance and repair. I don't miss daily calibration of the machines, tube replacement and associated drift problems. As always, does it really sound better or is it a sound quality that we're used to?
Analog definitely sound better from a production and sound design aspect. Not even a a question about it. Just look an the difference between an analog ssl bus compressor and a digital, or the black box, better maker eq etc etc etc.
Plus you get away with more distortion and compression while it sound amazing and you can get higher lufs in the end (very important in my genre).
@@alexanderdiazlarsson829: I think it's a matter of sound quality that we're used to like comfort food. Perhaps it's the absence of non-liniarities makes things sound unfamiliar. I recently talked to a studio engineer that had his recordings "sound better" because he was adding tape noise to his digital recordings. The idea that vinyl "sounds better" is pure nostalgia, I recently bought my first turntable in over 30 years because one of the record companies I produce for is releasing 45's as a promotional gimmick and I need ot approve the test cuts. This was necessary as record mastering/cutting is more of an art than a science. Turntables , at best, are a precision approximation device and I might add that there are no newly manufactured cutting lathes in decades. I never enjoyed the "guy eating popcorn" in every vinyl record I've ever heard. I do a lot of live capture recording and have always strived to make the recording sound as good as what I heard in concert. In addition to my studio experience I worked as a broadcast engineer in radio and TV for 3 decades or so and I've been a professional recordist since the mid '70's.
@@RudeRecording tape noise has little to do with nostalgia and more to do with colouring your track and filling up blank spaces, it’s not much different than an atmospheric pad, the difference is when it’s real analog in that particular scenario the tape hiss actually reacts to the recording itself is and therefor is more musical than a loop.
Either way, this all has little to do with any nostalgia and more to do with results and purpose. When you can squash something while giving it more dimension that makes sending out demos I’m working on way faster and more fun. It’s literally a way for me to save time while having the highest quality possible!
@@alexanderdiazlarsson829: I'm also a trained classical musician and I was always taught that the "spaces are as important as the notes."...
@@RudeRecording yup, but I think u get what I’m talking about!
I like the thought that my analog summing can't be exactly reproduced elsewhere. It makes my studio and services unique as to repeat business and customer loyalty to a custom sound.
It can be. Lol!
It’s obvious that the people who say there’s no difference between the two have bum ears. The moment I finally figured out how to route audio OUT from ableton and into the analog domain, is when i discovered this is everything i feel has been lacking in my sound and my mixes. it was honestly life changing. i was getting nauseous from that foul, metallic, flat, lifeless sound of digital summing.
I think you may still need two inputs for summing a mono source because of how panning mono sound sources in the stereo field work. I read that essentially a pan knob is a resistor that sends varying amounts of the same signal to the left and right output in inverse proportions, so as you pan to the left the level of output to the left speaker increases and the output to the right speaker decreases in response (and vice versa), this gives the impression of the sound sources placement in the stereo field. Cheers, just found your videos and I like them!
Yeah, that "null test" seems a bit sus to me. I just watched a Dan Worrall video on the same topic and his was a much smaller difference, almost none.
Mixplaining trigger warning: did you time-align the incoming summed track with the digi-bounce, there is WAY too much information in the null test, IMO, for all other things to indeed be equal. Also, was there any kind of limiter going on in there somewhere? It's strange that when you switch to the Alog solo, the track meters under digi go dark, but when you switch to digi, the track meters under aLog stay active. If there was a hard limiter in there, sending two of everything would clip out around the same, but the null test would be way off null instead of just a little bit.
my 2 pennies
This is a good point - the conversion time from D to A and back again needs to be accurately measured and allowed for in the process (which he may have done) and you need to be super sure that gain really is unity.
the analog one takes a step back from the speakers. I like that very much. also, analog summing makes mixing so much easier.
yes, takes a step back from the speakers and to me the stereo image widens overall, yet becomes more defined and "glued" together sounding. You can only imagine once this is compounded by using analog in more places.
I'm listening on studio monitors and headphones and boy, is that difference subtle. I don't sweat summing too much when I consider Peter Gabriel's Security was recorded fully-digital in 1982! And no one's like, "Man, that LP sounds so cold and sterile...". But I fully agree with your take on digital distortion and oversampling. Thanks for this!
Peter Gabriel's Security, great album, one my favorites from him. Now you mention it, I do seem to remember something about digital recording / mastering on the record sleeve. I know The Alan Parson Project and Donald Fagen where early adoptes of digital recording and mastering. In the early 80's this was a selling point when the first CD's wherre released. Peter Gabriel was also quite keen with his Fairlight CMI, I'd say that it's part of the charm of the Security album. Despite it beeing digital (and 8 bit) it sounds quite warm to me.
@@dykodesigns Yep. One of the earliest D/D/D CDs!
As much as I’m a fan of early solo Gabriel I did find it cold, but pleasant. It was sortof a new era and sound. The synths also contributed to this. Good comparison.
@@onteraction8294 I hear you. It's an interesting thing, because the early 80s was all about angular sounds and arrangements. So is it cold because of the A/D converters, or the production/writing choices? I say the latter.
@@palebluedotstudios ya writing choices for sure. Though, that was the first era of full home studio recording. Smaller consoles, smaller sound maybe..... plus these guys didn’t entirely know what they were doing. Lol the tapes went elsewhere to be mixed I imagine. 👍🏼
the console sounds much richer and denser. definitely more natural to my ears. very interesting, thanks!
I use a passive analog summing box, 16 channels, 4 of them can be switched to mono. Then depending on the source I go with my neve or api preamps. What is for me the best advantage of using a summing box? Well, I can use my busses analog gear and skip conversions. I have inserted a stereo buss compressor in channels 9-10, a stereo pultec (11-12), a Tape recorder for saturation (13-14) and a stereo reverb (15-16) taken from old hammond sounder 3 keyboards. I also can patch guitar pedals or any other processors in any channel. So, all the summing and analog processing will be done in the same D/A step and the stereo bounce will go throw a dedicated A/D converter. I try to do the least A/D D/A conversions, and I am so happy with the results, the sound and fixed lots of phasing issues using analog parallel processing.
Best wishes! Stay safe and fun content... I would say, they sound different, not better. The only thing that matters is your workflow to get you where you love what you are hearing!
You can also get this effect by routing the mix bus through some good analog gear - like a silver bullet, or nice compressor and back in through good convertors
They don't sound different to me in a "EQ" sense, but the analog one is more exciting to me. I guess the converter also plays a huge role I guess.
Great video! I also add analogue here with a diy summer based on a LAWO DV975-3 ... sounds very good!
Analog summing plugins: UAD has API and Neve through LUNA. Analog Obsession has an 8 channel Neve style summing mixer as well (look for NCAR). Waves has NLS. You mentioned Harrison Mixbus, but I'm honestly not sure if it has any special summing sauce. Studio One has some built in stuff as well.
Spoken of summing, In my DAW , when I route all the tracks to a group bus (without any processing or eq on that bus ) and compare that to all the tracks routed to the master bus (again without processing or eq on that bus ) at the same level there's a difference in sound. I don't understand why that is, I would expect it to be the same.
in my daw i can hear artifacts if i putt too many signals into an AUX channel.
as for the first example - coloration to low end was pretty amazing and made the sound less flat. What people would like to see is really checking how to use exciters and analog emulation based on e.g. ozone and compare it to the song without such coloration. Lack of warmth is common issue with mixes done without those.
Record some live drum and bass thru tape and digital simultaneously and you can really understand what we really love about analog saturation, but even that might not work all the time. Summing might be great if you have the time and money but we can get really close with plugins nowadays, matter of taste and style of music like you say in the end of the video. Daft punk RAM I think was tracked thru tape and digital simultaneously and they chose one or the other depending on the song. Wasn't "Leave the door open" - top 1 song of 2021 mixed ITB by Serban Ghenea?
Some people don't understand true analog summing is designed to clip your audio coming out the interface into the summing mixer at -20 , -10 or -6db and back in to your interface. Then you get the clipped audio say at -20 and gain massive headroom. You also achieve the fullness of true analog console analog mixer and won't need to do much like eq and add a bunch of plugins. Everything becomes very balanced and a lot easier to mix. When you bring the volume and audio back up in your daw you will see the difference and hear it. You can really only do this with a summing mixer. Summing mixers are all different. True analog summing is designed also to switch mono for your kick, bass, snare and lead vocal. It will come back through more punchy centered and true analog. Then the rest go out stereo and create a super wide but in place stereo analog mix. Digital can not do this meaning produce those transients in the digital domain. Sure there are plugins like saturation that will mimic it but nothing will sound as sweet as the analog summing mixer clipping audio. Many people dont understand analog boards and the concept so its best to research this before making comparison videos. There are many videos out there that will show you how amazing this all works and give you a better idea. I am not knocking the video. Thanks for the effort.
It’s an interesting discussion. The be precise, I actually like the sound of tracks going through a console, not just basic summers. Particularly because analog creates a vibe but usually always creates a new problem (and must decide if it’s worth doing). The following has been my compromise.
Tracking - Analog (get as much goodness out of that stage as possible)
Mixing - Digital (precise and repeatable - except when using “analog modeling” plugins)
Mastering (digital with in-line hardware insert- if necessary)
Analog can create vibe or create problems. Digital may be precise to a fault. Pick your battle.
Sure seems like the digital is brighter, with clearer highs but also occasional harshness, whereas the analog has a softened high end (trying to avoid the term "warm" here) and feels maybe more glued together. 🤔🩺
Maybe this calls for a snake oil video on analog summing plug-ins , like waves non-linear summer ?
And Slate Digital VMR in which they have option to use the type of console summing
Did you make sure the null comparison was really precise?
Some latency could have been introduced in the analog signal, that would completely kill the comparison.
Yes, REAPER has a cool trick to really match it
@@Whiteseastudio Reaper has a really cool trick for everything :D
@@Whiteseastudio Awesome!
The difference is huge!
Definitely a taste thing, and you are exactly right on specific circumstances dictate which is "better".
Why did you get such different results than Dan Worrell who didn’t get a big difference in the null test?
Dan mentioned that the unit he had was designed to be very transparent, and he intentionally tried to eliminate any other difference, even routing both through the console or any other source of "coloration" (if i recall correctly)
Not complaining, but, did you time allign the console bounce with the other one? Because the nulltest sounded a bit time shifted
Yes
Daaamn then the difference is HUMONGOUS. Luckly I was saving for a soundcraft series 6000 24 channel eheh
The answer to this is yes. And if you dont believe me, try a Dangerous 2 Bus summing amp, and you will hear the depth, warmth and space immediately.
Sure. If you spend $3000 for a magic box, of course you’re going to think it made your music sound better.
Adding another process, that is not a time-based effect, adds "space" XD
@@whitex4652 I dont smoke but I also dont understand the volatility to my otherwise enthusiastic response. Perhaps it is you who needs to smoke.
@@autodidacticprofessor869 I didnt pay for the box, the studio did. I got paid to use it. Do you get paid to use equipment?
@@dighawaii1 removing unwanted and unused frequencies adds space...adding another process like an FX bus or element actually uses space. So I'm not sure what you mean, here.
How do you like your beans cooked ? ...In a microwave oven or in a pan over heat.
I don't recall you mentioning pan law,...
I might be wrong, but the results in that null test sound like pan law differences.
I use analog summing if i'm having a hard time fitting something into a crowded mix. I feel like I have more granular control of the stereo field and more width. Other than that, i keep it in the box.
My guy. Good stuff. Good morning from Alaska. It's 8:35 am.
6:23 in switzerland actually. time to go to bed, intresting video as usual 😍
Despiting the summing circuit added the color to the sound,the analog summing processing also introducing the DAC to ADC distortion.Moreover digital summing doesn't cut off the bit length if you lower the fader because of the floating-bit summing(48bits in protools 64bits in logic pro),in analog summing unless using the analog fader to mix,lower the fader in DAW channel would cut the bit in the DAC processing.
I think the whole point is to put the fader to the right position and mix the music as good as you can.Whatever you use can't help you to get better music,just a little bit taste different.Snake oil
I also think it is no problem to create the analogue sound artificially ITB, at least to the point where even producers doubt which is what. It takes an experienced master's ears or a serious audiophile to tell them apart.
Harrison Mixbus episode is necessary
My analog summing rig is not a 'subtle difference' compared to the same mix in the box. Antelope Audio 32 DAC > Vintage Maker 32 to 2 passive summing mixer (with various mono switches) > a matched pair of Pultec eqs > a (stereo) Fairchild 670 > a Studer 1/4" half track (7.5 or 15 ips). More of a night and day difference. On my setup, 'which color' tends to happen more in the speed of the tape. 15ips gives me that precise open top end we expect from digital these days, but with a effortless sheen which is hard to describe, whereas 7.5 gives me that warm vibe (not much of a bump on the Studer vs American / Japanese stuff though).
By using the same equipment that used to be used for the final signal controls before a tv/radio transmitter, I can dial in exactly how the signal hits the tape. The process really start to shine in reproduce mode, live monitoring playback while recording the mixdown. I can, for example, adjust the top end eq to make up for any high frequency response rolloff on the tape or adjust the compression to shape the character of the tape saturation.
You are very correct about how much the work flow changes! It is not uncommon for me to do things that one would never do in a digital workflow. To take advantage of the full headroom of the converter (everything is sending out super hot), sometimes it makes sense to do things like sending out the vocal on two or three pairs of converters to bring it forward in the mix.
Do I think my kind of set up is required? Nope. Would I give mine up? Nope :)
Have fun. Use what you have. The character that your tool enforces on your art can be a feature not a bug.
@whixr / @tymkrs
I can testify that Harrison MixBus really sounds different. I was blown away.
well, it has a saturation knob on the buses
@@Jaburu They do saturate but I wasn't blown away by those. What I was blown away is the sound straight out of the LR bus. Just sounds organic and open. Hard to explain. Perhaps the brilliant EQ's help.
@@Noammats the masterbus has saturation, too, though
@@Jaburu Yes, and it sounds the same as the one on the groups... Didn't blow me away and the mixbus "sound" is not about that saturation specifically. That's what's amazing about it. It's totally clean but yet sounds much clearer and open than all the other DAWs.
@@Noammats as you said, you must be liking the sound of the EQ than, because without any plugins and all the saturation knobs down it will be like any other DAW
digital sounds "cleaner" and more precise. it also feels as though it's lacking a bit of fullness and depth. analog brings those features out at the expense of a little "crispness". definitely a "what is best for the song" issue, and not a "one is bad" kind of thing. as you said, flavours.
i'd like to see the same comparison on a track with, say, 32 channels instead of what appears to be 3. i have a feeling the differences may be more obvious when a complete mix is being processed.
For an even more fair comparison, you should probably route the digitally summed channel through the console as well on a single channel and then do the comparison. This way the D/A won't play a significant role.
ADDA plays a major role
Just push TrueIron to taste and you're good :)
I think you've got to characterize the frequency response of a single channel your analog gear and apply the same EQ to your digital signals for the comparison to make any sense. Because the potentially interesting part of analog summing is non-linear effects, not the EQ part that doesn't depend on the summing and can easily be replicated in digital.
I think summing some specific waveforms (e.g. sawtooth with different frequencies/amplitudes) would be a better way to approach the problem, because what you want to see is that breaking of linearity.
The Neumann sounds more detached, rounder and a bit larger as well. It lifts better?
To my ears. The digital feels much wider and airy and has more punch or growl. The analog feels much more subtle, warmer and the instruments feel closer together or dare I say more "glued"
What mic do you use for your videos? Sounds good man
The analog summed mix has a lot more depth and width to my ears and sounds smoother overall. But analog summing is not easy to do/to setup/to maintain. So I switched to running analog gear on inserts on dedicated busses (ie the stereo buss, the guitar buss, the keys buss ...). So I'm just running out a few of the busses, not all of them. This is a lot more flexible and gives me 90% of the analog summing feel with 5% of the hassle.
I like the low end of the digital sum better and over all everything sounds better , very interesting. Thanks
Yea ur lying lol
Okay, I write this after having listened to the first comparison on my phone (!). Even on my phone the difference translate rather well.
The analog summing has more depth, the digital one more clarity.
Using a basic passive summing mixer as Pm8 by Black Lion or SM pro audio, Is It enough to get good analog colour or Is It too much basic unità ? What about a 3D Better posizioning of the instruments, it's Onlus a placebo o real conseguenze oh phase modificati in of the signal ? Aldo with transformer less stages ? Ciao
When you do these comparisons do you do any blind comparison (to eliminate bias)?
Analog version was fuller, very 3D. Sounded louder. More in your face a d definitely warmer.
Most of the difference signal in the null test is the result of phase shifts at the spectrum edges caused by transformers or HP/LP filters in the form of I/O RC circuits in the summing device.
The difference is present but is rather subtle. Interestingly, the digital mix seems to have more impact and more air. The analogue one is more pleasant and rounder but not so spectacular. It seems to me that analogue summing makes sense if it' s permanently installed and affects the decisions made at the mixing stage. Limited number of channels forces the grouping strategy.
I like mixbus32c however if you don't know yet you have to make adjustment before you hear the sound of harrison. If you test with everything flat it sound =s the same as any other daw.
Mix 8, dbx Comp, BBE MAXIMIZER, DRAWMER SATURATOR, SSL 2 PLUS, RACK, HEADHONES......With good MIC, decent DAW AND CONTROLLER....$3000 dollars...your mixing and mastering like a PRO!!
Aren't there many commercial summing rack solutions with built in conversion and recall? That would make some elements you mentioned (for instance the fact that summing makes sharing difficult) easier, although the other person would obviously still need the same summing mixer unit. For instance something like the SSL Sigma (now discontinued I believe), and the 8816 by NEVE. It would be interesting if you looked into the 'colour' format as well ,particularly for summing. I guess the whole Idea of that format is adding subtle analog flavour to digital sessions, seeing they call them 'analog plugins'.
Could you take a look at Analog Obession's NCAR summing mixer plugin?
Harrison mixbus is incredible. You should try it. The sound is great but working with Midi is not so good. I tried the NLS Bus and the consoles added a beautiful coloration.
The stereo spread of the second set is audibly wider. Top ends smoother and the mids become more vibrant
yes thats exactly what I heard. On monitors.
I have a question, why do my MP3 mixes sound so weird in noise cancelling headphones when they don't sound weird anywhere else?
wow! yeah it could be that you have discovered some strange effect. i don't have noise cancelling phones to test this with. what i know is that the mp3 format is basically a synthesizer, it's not compression in the regular (Shannon, etc) sense.
@@jokusekovaan Thought maybe it had something to do with the phase flip that causes the noise cancellation. These head phones are new to me. they were a gift but i freaked out a bit the first time I noticed.
Yes - lots of things in the signal path: Would be interesting to compare with Analogue Obsession Studer console. Mixbus' sound is mainly in their saturation stages; no summing magic per se. Ensoniq Paris however is a different story; but of course required hardware to run. Running through Acustica Audio console pre-amps is another good way of getting that summing/console sound and well worth trying. I have used analogue consoles a lot; and find that the acustica stuff really gives me the same feel. I think it's the closest ITB to real world analogue, but at a CPU price; however I've been seriously impressed by Analogue Obsession for algo stuff; certainly seems to live up to the name. The difference though may well be in that 3D effect when applied to a complete mix. Just my 10 cents.
I'm surprised but the digital summing sounded better to me every time, a lot wider and a little more dynamic. Analog summing sounds surprisingly flat. The difference was clear and bigger than I thought it would be.
Analog is great for distortion 😃 digital is harsh, analog growls.
Btw i love your honesty...and you generally reaffirm my suspicious
The right plugins....with a Makie Mixer, dbx comp and a BBE Maximizer all used correctly can blow alot of big expensive studios....away
Once you test different kind of digital summing, you might want to check out the Analog Obsession offering once again. There are all kinds of transformer emulations and what not and they are also light on the CPU. It might be interesting to see what happens if you throw them on a bunch of summing channels and channel those into a mixbus. Maybe it gives you an even better sound compared to the Harrison stuff. Who knows? :)
The problem is that there are so many of those saturation and analogue emulation plugins that many mixes are flat-out distorted nowadays. I want to see more plugins that give me that "digital coldness"...
Coming out my 42" tv cheap speakers, the analog translates with a little more weight. The digital sounds a lil more spikie with the transients. The analog energy "felt" better to me. but right what suits the song better.
You are going to have differences and coloration from not only you DAC's but also in the console your going to pick up color from the transformers.
What sample rate were you using? I would hope that higher sample rates lead to different results. Also, have you heard of DSD?
What I hear from TH-cam, is a bit warmer sound on the low/low-mids in the analogue version and I like it more, even though I'm used to 'in-the-box' sound.
Of course it is. The question is more like, what good options are there for ITB? Chris at Airwindows has an interesting option with his channel 7 plugins..... Though, it generally makes your workflow a bit more difficult.
Softube's Console One looks freaking incredible. Check out the review by MixbusTV.
@@Tekkerue I watched that.... It looks solid for sure. Not in my budget.
@@Tekkerue Airwindows console 7 really brings the depth and space and something very analogue. There was a snake oil review on this channel of his tape plug and Chris hasa really good ear and an innovative but unglamorous approach to analogue plugins. The music in his demos on his channel is really weird though..... So you have to get past that if you watch his videos. Patreon supported so it won't cost you to demo them if you're curious....
@@Tekkerue also I don't think console one is actually a summing plugin, but rather a series console saturation and channel plugins
@@Tekkerue two completely different things. Console 1 I think also had it's own dsp as well as physical interface, which is awesome. Summing is the method of combining different tracks. There's very few plugins that do that. Airwindows console really does that in an innovative way.
Dude, do you ever do any type of Metal sound engineering, preferably nothing POP or Poison type?
Do you consider mixing outboard gear on a vintage mixing console, analog summing?
Jokse aside, which song is the first track?
It's sooo good :D
vocal is more pleasing in the analog. What would be interesting is a null test on a complete analog summed mix vs the already summed digital mix passing through two console channels.
You checking into Mixbus would be nice. I'm a long-term Ardour user, which is the open source base of MixBus. Basically, MixBus is Ardour with special features added to its digital mixer. Some features are very obvious, like simple EQs per channel (which are supposed to be analog-modelling EQs), or simple compressors on each channel, and of course the tape saturation knobs on the 8 busses. (Note that Mixbus can have an additional arbitrary number of simple busses without tape saturation effect, but then you've got to dive into the Ardour-style routing which is basically... completely free. Which I find very nice.) However, and this is why I'm commenting this: A comparison of Ardour vs Mixbus simply on summing with no other FX would be interesting. Will there be a difference at all? I think both use a 32bit floating point engine underneath. But does MixBus do anything special in the actual summing? I'm not sure.
I brought a tonelux OTB 16 analog Channel summing amp and I would never go back to mixing digital again , the separation , clarity, detail and head room on each channel is incredible , great video
I think the digital had a bit more detail but the analog was definitely smoother...or rounder. I did like them both, but being and analog guy, I ultimately preferred analog. Although I could be biased...I think I would have preferred not knowing which one was which in the beginning as to not jade my opinion....but, at the end of the day, I can only go with what my ears are hearing and my overall preference.
My setup for years as been like this:
SoundScape with Antelope Orion/SSL converters into our API Legacy Plus 48
channels with Barefoot Speakers.
My main " mix ' compressors Elysia, Neve, API, ... All gear and only basic SSL plugins... Lexicon 960, 480, Bricasti...Lucky me I got them all.
Studio is moving ( pandemic got the projet on ice) so had to settle for a small mix installation.
Got Studio One 5 Pro since SoundScape is no longer updated...
Had to do the mix all ITB...First time of my life since 1987....
I will never go back to analog to mix. Simple. 😁
great video as always! I found the null test really interesting.. I use a lot of summing, but in layers of effects over dubs, the final mix is a render, but I have the option of balancing stems on a small analogue mixer, it works well to incorporate my 90s FX/stomp boxes into my work. I do attain to use a large mixer for my own final mixes, but mostly because I'm a fan of Dubby sounds , I wouldn't feel the need to use that for a client mix unless it was requested...
For me, it’s evident that I would need to get the most out of digital summing before investing in analog summing… because then I would get more out of analog summing… I will be getting just the few bits of essential analog, hopefully… if not, it still wouldn’t mater too much… not these days… monitoring is the first real investment anyway… which the majority of that money will be acoustics… surely you could send files to be summed else where if needed… a strait summing with no mixing could easily fit in a budget if needed… those analog processing sites are a good thing to keep in mind also
Is there really no analog summing mixer with built in 32ch da converter? can someone pitch this idea to Tegeler? maybe tube stereo output (switchable)
I didn't hear much of a difference myself, if any. Maybe some minor stereo image changes in the middle, but then, when you subtracted both bounces it has shown that differences in the middle are pretty small. So, I don't know anymore
Interesting video - thanks. Would be curious how the Waves NLS (Non-Linear Summer) plugin compares to the outboard console when summing. With NLS, you can choose one of three modeled consoles.
Great video! youtube captions does not know the first thing to do with your voice... haha
I noticed one thing with good analog devices... they seem to make things more present without being harsh. Harshness is the big difference. It almost like analog absorbs the harsh peaks and low pass the highs without losing presence. But even thoy thats great.... I am in the box now and forever going to be. I can get the same results with plugins, and have total recall.
I’ve been experiencing the same thing for years
I prefer the digital one. Is obviously better! seams to me also a little wider on high frequencies. Analog one is blurry AF..
Good video. Who is the singer in the 1st song ?