Video

Interesting opinion... You and I are approaching the topic from opposite perspectives. I don't think that analog summing (in its purest form) "adds" any magic that's not already in the music, but rather that digital summing may be "losing" something, especially when creating a complex mix. In my experience, adding processing to an already digital mix does not achieve "the same result"; the result may be great, but it's not "the same" thing to my ears. Try adding your digital EQ to an analog-summed mix, and then let me know what you think. You may benefit from two processes instead of just one or the other. (BTW in case anyone is interested, I mix using a hybrid workflow with all kinds of analog and digital tools, without any ideology whatsoever. If it sounds and feels good, then it *is* good, regardless of how you get there. I really don't care whether you mix ITB or OTB.)

Right on. Glad you found it informative. Hey, I like your YT cover photo. Quite the metaphor!

You don't necessarily "need" an analog summing mixer if you are happy with summing digitally inside a DAW. Re: "hardware" can you be more specific? Outboard processing gear? Converters? FX? Saturation/coloration devices? A console? Regardless, analog summing adds "voltages" together, not "ones and zeros."

I enjoyed watching Dan's "Summing Schmumming" video. Love his dry sense of humor! Can't argue with his *empirical* conclusions (based on his methodology)--but *aesthetically* there is a difference. At 6:25 he states, "...we need to isolate the summing as the only variable." That's what I did. For the ITB mix, both Dan and I routed an internally (digitally) summed mix through channels 1+2 of the summing mixer. In my case, the difference is that the OTB mix is not summed one stereo pair at a time (and then summed digitally for Dan's null test), but instead mine is spread across 32 DA converter outputs into 32 summing mixer inputs. Draw your own conclusions from listening. The investment is worthy for me, but could be worthless to you. Off topic, I like your "Grace" song and video. Nicely done.

Not sure how to reply. I genuinely hear an improvement in the OTB mix. That said, the difference is not obvious enough for non-engineers to hear it--but they may feel it. Anecdotally I observed this multiple times: casual listeners could not describe the difference, but they consistently chose OTB mixes beyond any shadow of doubt.

Interesting... Everybody's YT seems to produce a different loudness difference. (The original OTB pre-CZcams source wave file is 0.2 dB louder average than the ITB.) Anyway...if the sonic difference is insignificant to you, then it makes no sense for you to go OTB.

No spoofing--although I most certainly appreciate a good joke. If you don't hear a difference, then there's no reason for you to spend all that money. I hear it, but more importantly, I feel it. Plus my job is hyper competitive, like the Olympics (a game of inches), so in my case the money is well spent. YMMV.

Good questions. 1) Yes, in the Analog/OTB version, 32 channels of Convert-8 get summed in the analog domain through an array of Dangerous 2-Bus summing mixers. 2) The "ITB" or "Digital" version routes everything inside Pro Tools to a shared stereo output from Convert-8 that passes through the exact same mix bus processing as the OTB version, before getting printed back into Pro Tools via Convert-AD+ AD converter. Make sense? In other words, the ONLY difference is 32 channels vs 2 channels out of DA converters into the same summing mixer and analog bus processing.

I don't understand the comment. Do I need to repair a broken video?

@@MichaelJamesProducer When It Switches to Black and White for the Digital Mix, one Eye of mine sees it in Green and the other black and white. I think that means I’m color blind… my father was in both eyes.

@@zakaroonetwork777 oh wow! That must be unnerving. Is it problematic, or do you just go with the flow and not worry about it?

Thanks. I have not tried Studio One. Do you like it?

@@MichaelJamesProducer Yea I like it! Lighting fast to work in, Was just interesting to note it has that in built channel crosstalk - give the demo a go :)

Thanks for the info!@@musicman2047

​@@MichaelJamesProducer Make more videos! you have a nice deck of hardware

@@musicman2047 okay! Any suggestions or requests? BTW thanks for subscribing!

Yeah, I feel you.There are many ways to emulate the feel of an analog mix in the digital realm, but no matter how far you get ITB, adding good old analog voltage to the equation can make the mix even cooler.

Thanks. I heard Prism years ago, but I do not remember anything about their sound.

It is louder by 0.3 dB. That's one of the differences. In theory, it should not be louder because everything was precisely calibrated and the signal path was the same for both versions--but it is. I did not do any post production to level-match because my goal was to show exactly what happens when I spread the DA conversion across 32 channels instead of two.

Certainly not. Don't ever buy anything that is "pointless" (to you)! It's the opposite for me, so it's worth every penny (to me).

Right on. Thanks for letting me know.

No worries if you don't hear it. You're not alone. I personally hear the difference, but in all fairness I am a trained listener who is tuned into nuanced details every single day in the studio. To some people, it's worth the investment to sum tracks in the analog domain; to others, it's not. Re: "making a case for why summing through multiple converters and then summing to two should be better than summing straight to two," that's not what I demonstrated. The OTB mix is 32 DA converters summed to stereo in the analog domain; the ITB mix is two DA converters passing through the same analog signal path. In other words, the ITB is in fact (in your words) "summing straight to two." Make sense? Any questions?

@@MichaelJamesProducer Yeah, but where does that stereo sum go? You have to return it to the digital domain at some point, no? I just don't understand the science of it. I don't see how adding an analogue stage makes it better. I didn't hear it. Mind you, I'm an old man now, and I don't hear anything above 10kHz! So, there's that! AND we are discussing this after the CZcams audio strangulation has occurred. I mean, I spent my life trying to leave the analogue mess behind. Digital was the best thing that ever happened, as far as I'm concerned. I'd just like a more scientific approach rather than a wooly kind of subjective thing. You could do a phase/sum comparison to hear what the actual difference is. My prediction is what you are hearing that you like is analogue harmonic distortion? Maybe? I dunno. Like I said, I don't hear it. But it's all good!

@@periurban yes, BOTH versions returned to the digital domain post mix bus processing. Neither one benefits from an "added" analog stage because they both followed the same signal path with the same settings. Again, the only difference between the two mixes is that the OTB uses 32 DA converters (vs 2 for the ITB) that get funneled through a mastering grade summing mixer into the analog mix bus chain, which then gets converted back to digital to create the stereo master. ... Re: digital, I agree with you that it is the best thing to happen--I do not miss editing with a razor blade! Plus I use a hybrid workflow that gives me the best of both world. All the gear is part of my audio toolbox. Anyway... your prediction about analog harmonic distortion is interesting, although it would have been imparted to both versions of the mix.

@@MichaelJamesProducer But... at the risk of seeming to be really dumb (actually, I'm OK with that!) OTB = 1) streaming audio from hard disk 2) 32 DA converters into summing mixer 3) summed analogue mix converted back to digital stereo ITB = 1) rendering from hard disk to digital stereo BUT I think you are saying that you are using two analogue converters for the stereo mix too, which isn't exactly in the box as I understand it. If that's the case then it's obvious what's happening is that your stereo analogue converters are the parts that are not coping, and it has nothing to do with digital or ITB. I mean, that makes sense in the analogue domain, right? I've scientifically analysed my whole chain using pure and complex tones and what comes out of my ITB mixes is exactly what I instructed and expected the software to do. No harmonic distortion unless I added it or it came through an analogue source such a mixer channel, mic etc. I still don't hear the deficit you describe, but if you are hearing it then I'd suspect it's the analogue part of the chain that isn't coping with the 32 channels, not the digital part. Maybe that's what you meant all along! lol

@@periurban Now you *almost* understand the signal flow. The ITB mix (and OTB mix) entered the analog domain in order to use my analog mix bus processing, and then it was converted by the ADC to return to Pro Tools, thus becoming a digital master. Maybe an easier way for you to understand what is happening here is to think of it from a different angle than your usual assumptions about OTB vs ITB: 50-ish mono audio tracks were partially summed inside Pro Tools to a smaller number of channels before entering the analog domain and following the exact same, real world, mixing/mastering signal path. Pro Tools summed 50 tracks down to two (Left and Right) for my ITB mix, and it summed 50 down to 32 for my OTB mix. So... the ITB version simply passed through the summing mixer, while the OTB version was split apart into smaller audio parcels that were summed as voltages inside the mixer instead of in Pro Tools. Everything else its the same. Now do you follow what the video demonstrates? If not, here you go: "Listen to the difference of spreading your mix across two DA converters vs 32 DA converters." Let me know if it finally makes sense. (Even if it does, there's no intellectual reason for you to prefer one version over the other---whichever one FEELS better to you IS better...for you.)

That is already happening here. Both my ITB and OTB mixes are printed back into Pro Tools using the same Dangerous Convert-AD+ converters. The only technical difference between the two mixes is that ITB uses only 2 channels of DA converters, while OTB uses 32. They both pass through the same analog mixing signal path before being captured by the stereo AD converter. Is this what you want to compare, or am I misinterpreting your comment?

Indeed that is interesting. Louder is often perceived as better. Having said that, my test would be disqualified if I were to change anything in post production. The test was simply “what happens when you use 32 DA converters instead of two.” The video shows what happened with EVERYTHING meticulously calibrated. The cost of analog summing may not be worth it to you, but it is to me.

Re: additional saturation, I forgot to mention in my previous reply that the ITB mix is passing through the same signal path as the OTB mix. Literally the only difference is 2 DA converters vs 32, passing through the same summing mixers.

Bummer. Good thing the label didn't notice.

@@MichaelJamesProducer LOL, label?

@@YoungNino2017Sony

@michaeljames3444 0 seconds ago Correct. That would void my demonstration. No manipulation in post production. Therefore ITB lost some info/loudness, or OTB became louder--which should not be the case because everything in the signal path is calibrated. This is what happened in real life using 32 DA vs 2 DA converters through the exact same signal path. The sound changes, but apparently so does the loudness. If this were a different experiment pertaining only to "which one should I deliver to the label" then I would level match and deliver the "better" feeling version. Make sense?

What's your takeaway? Dan's video seems scientifically sound. In real life, however, there's an X factor or a feeling that makes it worth in for me to keep $$$ tied up in the analog summing equipment, even though I do occasionally mix ITB because some artists require 100% ITB mixing due to multiple layers of input from the label. I'm faster in the analog domain, it sounds less "fluorescent" to me, and LITERALLY every client who ever asked me to play the difference of one of their songs ITB vs OTB has chosen the analog mix. Anyway... what aspect of Dan's video do you want to share with me?

Yeah, the difference has potential to be dramatic.

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it.

Glad you enjoyed it!

Hi. I replaced three Mac Pro towers with a single Mac mini i7 (2018-2020) with 64G memory. I run Pro Tools Ultimate HDX and Dolby Atmos Renderer on the same machine. Works great! I also have a 2017 i7 15" MacBook Pro that I use as a second Pro Tools "capture" rig when I make CZcams videos or when I may need to capture the stereo mix at a different sample rate and/or bit depth resolution than the original source material.

@@MichaelJamesProducer Thank you.

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it.

Thanks for the kind words. I feel you. The message of the song is powerful.

Typical setup, not precisely the path in this video: Instead of having one stereo mix bus chain, I have four of them.Three of those four feed the fourth. The simplified explanation is that Pro Tools HDX has 64 analog outputs per card. Those outputs are directed to various inputs on four separate Dangerous 2-Bus summing mixers, each of which has a "mix bus chain" (pre-mastering chain of EQ and compression.) I tend to think in subgroups/submixes to help my workflow and my brainpower. the first three submixes are: 1) vocals; 2) bass + drums; and 3) "sides" (guitars, keys, horns, strings, etc.) I can process each one independently. Then those three submixes are summed into a fourth Dangerous 2-Bus+ that has a final "mastering" chain. Does this make sense?

@@MichaelJamesProducer Yes, thank you for taking the time to respond. Do you think the my Apogee AD-16X and Big Ben still compete in 2023?

@@twitterjesus I still use Apogee Big Ben to distribute word clock generated by Dangerous Convert-AD+. I can't comment on your AD-16X because I do not use it, so I don't know. But Apogee makes great stuff, so keep on using it if you like the way your mixes sound relative to hit records on the charts.

Thanks for taking the time.@@MichaelJamesProducer

The 2-channel ADC is always in the path. It goes to the “mix print” track in Pro Tools, which is what I listen to. I’m hearing the same thing that the consumer will ultimately hear, not counting the quality of their DAC. In other words, every improvement I make that feeds the ADC will make a difference to what the consumer hears via their DAC.

​@@MichaelJamesProducer I understand, and I appreciate your response. Still, my point remains that if a stereo DAC were somehow overburdened with a full mix, the bottom line is that the consumer will always be listening to the full mix via a stereo DAC. My point is that a DAC isn't bothered by producing a more complex signal, it behaves no better or worse that reproducing parts of the mix. But even if you were correct about that point and I'm wrong, you'd still not be saving the consumer from listening to the full mix on a stereo DAC. You would, of course, be saving yourself from that step while monitoring. Ultimately, your methodology doesn't remove the stereo DAC step, and it adds another DAC and ADC conversion not needed with fully in-the-box mix/bounce. I'm not implying that is sonic problem, and clearly it's worth it to you. I'm just disagreeing that DACs have any problem whatsoever with full mixes, and also that your methodology gets around it anyway. I think people should do whatever works for them in producing music, I'm not faulting your methodology or questioning why you prefer it. Cheers!

@@nigel_redmon I agree. Good DACs sound good-the tech has advanced to a very pleasing level. I also agree that one should make music in whatever manner works best for them. I’ll add, however, that my experiment reinforces that adding voltages sounds “better” (to me) than adding 1s and 0s. When I was at Warner Music, chief technology officer Jac Holzman stressed the importance of keeping EVERYTHING in the recording/mixing/mastering process at the highest possible quality even though the music would ultimately be butchered by an MP3 codec. It makes a difference. A simple experiment would be to record a song twice: one version with hi-res wave files before converting to MP3, and the other version with MP3s from the beginning at the multi track stage. The versions will sound different. I wonder if your thoughts about DAC might be similar to this? (Also: remember that I am ALWAYS listening to the sum of an entire mix being captured by a stereo ADC as the last stop before the DAC pipes audio to the speakers.

@@MichaelJamesProducer I completely agree that, and although digital summing is effectively perfect, subtle deviations in analog summing may be perceivable. We know they are perceivable on crappy analog, and may be more subtlety perceivable on "good sounding" analog. I'm not in the analog summing camp myself, but my musical co-conspirator is (he likes to stem out and run though his Toft mixer). However, I do like to mic my vocals through a great preamp, and add a little compression on the way in-I personally don't hear LA-2A-type plugins yielding the same magic as hardware. Maybe some do, or I'm just "wrong", but all that matters is having a way to get what you want, right? 😃

@@nigel_redmon I know what you mean about plugin vs analog compressors. Seems like compressor/limiters are the hardest thing to get to "feel right" in plugin form. (EQs have been good for a long time already.) Even though the plugins are greatly improving, the compressor emulations never feel as good as the real thing. That said, there are some terrific digital limiters that do things that would be impossible in the analog realm. I frequently deploy them without feeling at all like I compromised.

Thanks for your constructive contributions to this ongoing discussion. Very productive. Way to make some new friends! I shouldn't even waste my time responding to a jackass like you who is probably even more stupid than I am, and who has probably never made a hit record in your life. But... other people are reading, so this reply is for them--and perhaps you as well if you want to become less stupid. Here ya' go: 1) I'm not trying to prove anything. People ask how I work, and I showed them. Plus I even explicitly said to make your own conclusions, and save $$$ if you cannot hear a difference or you think it's bullshit. 2) My "stupid" comparison is LITERALLY the same signal path, with the only difference being 32 vs 2 DA converters into the same summing mixer. Every other variable is EXACTLY THE SAME. 3) There is no gain manipulation in post production--any difference you may or may not hear is what happened when I spread the audio across more DA converters. One version is a little louder because...it became louder or the other version became quieter. 4) Even if I am stupid, I'm not a "believer"--I'll mix a hit on a 4-track PortaStudio if that is all that's available. I only believe in whatever works for me, not the hype. .... Now it's your turn, genius: let us know what a "proper comparison" looks like in your world, and don't tell me to level match the results because that would disqualify this test.

Whatever sounds good, is good. Just make sure that your “lunchbox” rack has a robust power supply.

Generally speaking, transformers and inconsistent tolerances can affect the sound. In this case, however, the only difference is the DAW outputting 2 vs 32 channels into the summing mixer array. Does this explanation help?

Must be YT. The original wave files are approx 0.2 dB different, with OTB being the louder one. I did not level match because that would have voided my experiment to find out what happens when you split the DAW load across more channels while using the same signal path. Either something got lost ITB or something was gained OTB. FYI the entire signal path was carefully and precisely calibrated.

Glad I was able to help you learn that analog “garbage” is not for you. I saved you $$$. You’re welcome.

I'm imagining you making a digital mix, then printing an analog mix, and then mixing the two together for LOUD 3d massiveness!!

Really like that idea

Right on. Thanks for the kind words.

I may have used SoundToys Decapitator somewhere in the mix. Same plugins and hardware for both versions. Only difference is 2 vs 32 DA converters.

Right on. Colin is a force of nature.

Are you asking because you want to mix in Quad/5.1 surround? If so, you would use one stereo summing mixer for Front L + R, and a second stereo summing mixer for the rear channels. You can place your compressors on the output (or insert) of the summing mixers. If you want to add C and LFE compression, you will need additional busses/mixers. Let me know if that answers your question.

@@MichaelJamesProducer I believe that it does, sir. I am asking as I am relatively new to analog. The 2-Bus tools are on my agenda, but I don't own them yet. So, I'm trying to wrap my head around implementation as opposed to plug-ins & with hybrids as plug-ins as I build. *Edit/after-thought* By the way... You sir, are a godsend. And @Dangerous Music tools have become far more clear to me under your online tutelage, descriptions, and explanations.

@@MichaelJamesProducer It more clearly maps out my understanding of the layout. However, I am more aware now that I will need far more context (fueled by personal experience) to understand a number of the matters which you have been kind & thoughtful enough to share.

That's how we roll, brother K!

Hi Joe. Thanks for the compliment. Not sure I understand your question. Is it meant for Colin Keenan?

@@MichaelJamesProducer oh sorry Michael. Yes 👍 thank you.