OTB Analog vs ITB Digital Summing with Michael James 2021 ***Use Headphones or Good Speakers***
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 01. 2021
- Methodology:
• Only difference is 2 channels vs 32 ch DA converter outputs from DAW to summing mixer.
• Identical signal path, calibrated with test tones.
• No added gain or other manipulation in post production.
Conclusions:
• There IS a difference in sound.
• Despite same peak levels, OTB version average loudness in between those peaks is greater by approx 0.3 dB. Does that imply that ITB is losing some detail by crunching all the ones and zeros through just two channels, whereas OTB retains detail by spreading the math load across more converter channels? I don't know. You tell me. But whatever you (or science) tell me, I know which version I prefer.
The video:
I'm frequently asked if investing in "Outside The Box" (OTB) analog summing is worthy. This video will help you to use your own ears and decide for yourself. I calibrated everything to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison. Each individual track was calibrated, and peak levels are identical on the mix bus meters. I mixed the f*** out of the digital version, and am happy to put my name on it. But the analog version is more pleasing to me. Feel free to disagree with my preference--and let me know why in the comments.
If you don't hear a difference, you can thank me because I just saved you a pile of money and hours of research. On the flip side, if you do hear it, and it's important to you, start saving your dollars and vent your frustrations to my manager instead of directly to me! :) - Hudba
This video is the "epic" proof that it is really possible, in just 8 minutes of video, to demonstrate something relevant and clear about audio. When I think of all the no-sense videos out there, all the one hour videos of "yes lets put 5 minutes of talking between soloing Track 1 and 2 and ops...I forgot this hardwdare switch on in the test, doesn't matter the point is to talk about it..." I can definitely say this is a Masterclass! Thanks a lot Michael...you're saving us :)
Right on. Glad you found it informative. Hey, I like your YT cover photo. Quite the metaphor!
Thank you! You’ve managed to demonstrate, quite simply, what I’ve been trying to understand for a while. And now I’m completely sold on the value of analog summing.
You’re welcome! Wishing you the best success on your new summing journey.
Great video Mike! Your explanation below about HOW you've set these summing boxes up is also of huge help. Thank you for this. Difference between A vs D in the video is clearly night and day. Liked and subbed.
Hi Hughy. Thank you for the kind words. Glad that you find the video helpful. Definitely experiment with how you allocate your sub mixes to the inputs on your summing mixers.
Thanks for taking the time to really sum it up in such a clear and practical way.
You’re welcome! Nice pun, by the way. :-)
Great demonstration man. Can hear the night and day even on my phone (stereo speakers)! Analog summing FTW
Thanks. Glad it was helpful.
Man, the organ sounds GREAT in the analog mix especially!! Can really feel it's place and separation. Great job!!
Right on. Thanks for the kind words.
I’ve been mixing on summing mixers and consoles for many years. Yes the number one reason is the sound. Additionally, I get so much more satisfaction mixing analog on my old console. I still track to 2 inch tape as well but depending on the band I have no problem tracking digital Via my Burl Mothership.
Great video thanks for posting!
Right on, Steve. Yeah, the Burl stuff sounds very good.
Sweet. All the Headroom of a Single Converter gets Allotted to one Channel…. What if one were to do there ITB Mix Via Listening from summing box…. Now I got to get a Dangerous, maybe. I do have a 16x 4 Vintage British Console.. 🤔
This is very useful because it truly isolates the summing stage, well done and an audible difference
Thanks, Steve. You totally get my intent: to isolate the summing stage, with everything else identical.
dramatic difference between the two. thanks for breaking it all down in the beginning. very helpful
Right on. Glad you found it helpful.
Rad! I hear it, especially the bass. Thanks for the demo.
You're welcome.
You're the first person I've seen on CZcams that has addressed this subject apart from the usual extremes of magical thinking or total skepticism. It was simple, informative, and quite refreshing!
Glad you found it refreshing!
@@MichaelJamesProducer I agree with @Christopher Levin West... +1 Like... + 1 Subscribe
@@sekritskworl-sekrit_studios thank you for subscribing!
@@MichaelJamesProducer Certainly!
If I may, I'd like to ask a couple of follow up questions:
1.) Does Dangerous make any converters with "Recall" (Being relatively new to all of this, I am attempting to avoid "recall sheets")?
2.) How would you sonically compare these to RME converter options such as M-32 (i'm curious about qualities/characteristics, between them and any other insights which your wonderful mind is willing to share regarding products from other brands)?
Thank you (in advance) for any time and/or consideration which you provide to this.
@@sekritskworl-sekrit_studios there's not much to "recall" on converters. Sample rate is controlled remotely inside the DAW. Re: comparing Dangerous converters to other brands, I'd rather not. All I will say is that there are good ones and bad ones, and I chose Dangerous because I make my living with my tools.
Great demo bro'! Respect 🙏🏽
Finally an excellent video on summing...
Thanks for the kind words.
This is such a great video. It is so clear the difference in sound. I've long been suspicious of the summing algorithms inside DAW, and it is exactly how you say - "pinched", with little depth. analog just sounds bigger. Great video and thanks for sharing.
Yeah, digitally mixing inside the box can sound great, but analog pleases me more
This was a nice quick video showing the examples of both converters and analog summing. I just upgraded my converters to iZ RADAR ADAii and it blew my newly used UA Apollo x16s out of the water! I had the Dangerous Convert AD+ too, but I un-racked it recently, as I cannot use AES inputs, but it doesn't sound as good as the RADAR neither, imo. I enjoyed this!
Glad you enjoyed the video. A number of my colleagues absolutely LOVE the radar converters.
Very interesting! Makes me question my own feeble trickery in-the-box shenanigans on the master stereo output track. Thing I love is how the clarity isn’t compromised, yet the richness of the lows are enhanced. Feels live, & the stage feels deeper. More Energy & clarity!
I agree with you about the sonic enhancements. By the way, I know the way your records sound, and they sound good! You may not need to question your “own feeble trickery in the box shenanigans“ unless you feel the desire to squeeze some more juice out of what you’re already doing. If you end up going down that path, let me know what you think when you get there.
@@MichaelJamesProducer Thank you, sir. You know I will... :)
The difference is very obvious in the upper mids. Great demonstration thanks 🙏🏾
Right on. Glad you got something out of the video. Thanks for commenting.
Good video. This is the first one where I can really hear a difference. I would imagine I could with the others if I was in the studio with them, but I'm not. This helps me with my decision.
Glad you found it helpful.
I wasn't even watching since I was cooking and wow. I could hear it like instantly. It sounded smoother but also a little more detailed.
Wow what a difference between the OTB and ITB it really makes a significant difference. I am currently going against the grain with my new studio build where I will be using external multi-channel A/D and D/A converters connected to a high quality analog console. So many mainstream engineers think this is crazy but there is a difference when you convert channels separately and sum in the analog domain.
Thank you for doing this demo it reminds me that others out there also know that there is a difference.
Glad to hear that you’re doing your new studio build based on what makes you happy, rather than what makes your buddies happy. Wishing you the best success!
Great demonstration. Well done!
Thank you, Kenny.
in the first instance the digital is louder by 1.7 LUFS and in the second instance the analog is louder by 1.3 LUFS. what i found in listening to them blind and LUFS-matched was that the digital sounded thinner/hollower/less defined, but really only in the first clip and really just in the mid frequencies. i failed the blind test so many times on that second clip. i listened for so many different things (on HD600's): LF width/richness, mid freq width/richness, definition/clarity, treble, depth, "life," compression action, you name it. i would hear an edge in one clip and then hear that same edge in the other clip on the next blind test. couldn't get a real handle on the difference, as much as i thought i was finding one here or there at times. thank you for the video!
Yeah, I’m not surprised by your experience. I wouldn’t feel too bad about failing the blind test. Our perception can be influenced by so many different things at any given moment. Plus God only knows what the CZcams codec is doing to preserve or mangle the sound. When I listen to the original wave files, both versions sound good to me. That said, it’s pretty obvious that I prefer the analog version. I can easily tell them apart, which is not surprising given that I did the work and I know what my artistic intent was. I’m familiar with all the details, so I know where to point my ears to be able to quantify the differences.
@@MichaelJamesProducer would it be possible to share these shoert wav files to compare ourselves without CZcams involvement? Thanks in advance!
@@myyt4382 sorry I cannot send out the wave files. Might it be possible for you to go to your local pro audio dealer, and take out a memo loan of equipment so that you can do the same test in your own environment?
Great demonstration! I've been defending analog summing for the past few years. I will share this video for the naysayers!!
Thanks, John! Wouldn't surprise me, however, if the naysayers have already made up their minds.
This video is a digital version so, the difference that you claim to hear is not due to the source, rather the presentation of the sound, it is impossible to hear analog in a video/sound that was delivered by 0 or 1 to your computer via the internet, can you understand that?
@@pablobonilla5893 I personally sum my tracks from Pro Tools through my API console and back into Pro Tools.
My comment was me giving compliments to how well analog summing was explained in the video.
I didn’t use the video as a sound source to convince me.
I’ve already been summing through an analog chain.
But honestly Pablo, the listener doesn’t care. It’s all about how the song moves you, and how well created it is.
I do hope one day that you get a chance to hear analog summing in person.
You’ll see/hear what the fuss is about. 👍🏼
@@pablobonilla5893 if he were to "understand that" he d be lost - real comprehension of what is goin on there doesn t lead one to the conclusion you are making.
Wow, that was glaringly obvious.
The most drastic ITB vs OTB camparison I've heard yet.
Thanks for doing this.
You’re welcome. Glad you got something out of it.
Beautiful Video!
Michael you need to do more videos. This is the first time I've ever heard the difference. Thanks now I gotta spend more money, LOL!
Uh oh... sorry about that, Deryck! Haha
I need to figure out something so that my mix clients who work in Logic Pro can send me mono files instead of ALWAYS stereo. Want to trade a few minutes of knowledge? My Instagram handle is /michaeljamesproducer
Agree!
Thank you for doing this!
You're welcome!
The change in the mids is just "wow", thanks for this video!
You're welcome!
You are listening to a digital version, it is impossible to hear analog on youtube, I just can't believe how many of you are making this types of comment without even thinking
@@pablobonilla5893 this is not about the delivery format, but about the summing methodology
@@pcmaster888 Not after it has been processed by the youtube algorithm, all details on the original recording that he is trying to show are compressed to the same levels at the same bitrate if it is in fact the same audio
@@pablobonilla5893 No they are not, yes of course the final audio gets compressed by CZcams in the same way, but this comparison is about digital vs analog SUMMING, the end result ends up digital one way or another, the difference is in the summing. If it was the way you describe it, you wouldn't hear a difference here, but you definitely do
Hey Michael, I totally agree with you on the subject. I recently decided to start recording my music, the first thing I tried was to record in the box (of course is cheaper!) but the result was good but you don't know how good it is until you compared that with a world class reference track. So, I did and then I found it was not good enough if you want to get into the big leagues! The depth and punch were not there as in the reference track maybe recorded in one of the best studios in the world. However, I did not loose my faith in getting a good quality recording in a home studio! So, I tried the hybrid set up with some analog summing. I just hook the SSL Fusion on my main output track and what a change! suddenly the bass got deeper, voice got punchy and clear, more depth and stereo spread and the warm high frequencies that only analog gear can deliver. Now, I'm proud to say that after comparing my production against the reference track, I can say that I have a good recording which is actually the same recording but after running it through some analog processing it got the desire characteristics that the reference track has. Now, I'm waiting on my SSL Big Six for a real small summing set up! I will be running my Buss tracks to the individual channels and printing it back the result mix to Cubase 11Pro. Michael please let me know how you are printing your final recording, are you printing each individual track after processing or just the final mix (a Stereo Track). I will appreciate your feedback. Cheers!
Hi Charlie. Congratulations on improving your mixes! Re: your question, I print only three stereo tracks: main mix, instrumental stem/submix, and a cappella stem/submix. In the "good old days" before Pro Tools, I used to also print and deliver vocals up and vocals down alternate mixes.
@@MichaelJamesProducer Thanks a lot Michael, thank you for your reply. I really appreciate it.
Thanks for the clarity... XLNT Demo!
Right on. Glad you like it!
Great video!!! Props 🔥
Thanks!
Great video, subscribed!
Thanks, Jose!
Great video man!! The difference I usually notice between analog and digital gear is this “3D” character, not only on summing but a lot in compressors too, it’s hard to describe it. Make more vids like this one, you got a new subscriber here 😁
Right on! Thanks for subscribing
Isnt it just phase?
@@vigneshkarthikeyan8174i doubt it
@@insulatedworld 3d is not just left and right. It is also back and forth. That is what differentiates 3d from 2d. So this 3d effect, which I can hear clearly too. Is more of a depth effect. You only have 2 eyes. Yet you can see things to your left and your right as well as what is close and further away from you. Two eyes see 3d. Two ears hear 3d.
@@insulatedworld you don't have to believe me. As a matter of fact, I don't care what you believe. I'm just trying to help you understand what we are hearing. Idk what causes this effect but I hear it in many different hardware units. Tubes often create this effect.
Very interesting ! A comparison between real analog summing and digital summing (with analog emulation plugins like NLS, Slate Digital, Britson summing ..) would have been very instructive too. Thank you for this video and your smile!
You’re welcome!
that being said it sounds phenomenal
Thanks, Alex.
on my headphones, the difference is noticeable. And I'm not even a mix engineer. Wow
That's pretty cool that you hear the difference.
Thanks for sharing with us. I can clearly hear the difference, as the ITB digital mix sounds good but the analog OTB sounds more open and more dynamic to my ears. This is the only vid I’ve watched where I can truly hear a distinct difference, and I’m listening from an Amazon echo.
Glad it was revealing! An Echo, huh? Cool.
Since the analog summing is compressed compared to the digital you prefer less dynamics Kerwin.
@@bericadori I could make a case that your statement is not indicative of the whole story. What about the clarity, punch, definition, etc? Kerwin perceives the OTB version as more dynamic, not more compressed. I’m curious if you are listening to the 1080 HD version of the video. In theory it should sound better than the 480 or 720 versions.
@@bericadori False. The spatial difference alone is responsible for more dynamic movement and interplay among the instruments.
Amazing video thanks
Right on!
Love it🕊️
Right on. Glad you enjoyed it.
Analog rulez! Good job!
Thank you so much. I heard the difference in the depth of field. I used to underestimate the analogue domain. It's still the best option for the highest resolution in the 21st century. Its not a conspiracy, only the trained ear will hear the difference!
Thank you my good man. I'm a changed man😁😁😁
You hit the nail on the head: "only a trained ear will hear the difference." I hear it, so it helps me to work faster...and happier.
@@MichaelJamesProducer I can imagine how juicy everything sounds in your work space. I've heard some of your work on your channel, it sounds absolutely brilliant. Not forgetting the musicality and song writting🔥🔥🔥
The masters are you juicy😭😭😭
Thank you for teaching me this
@@theofilley thank you for the kind words. Hey, I love your cover of “the box“ by Roddy Ricch. Great soulful feeling. The most amazing thing to me is just how smoothly you can flow between wrapping and singing. Absolutely lovely! Keep up the good work.
@@MichaelJamesProducer Thank you so much Michael❤❤❤I appreciate you
Looking forward your latest work! Stay well! Stay Healthy!
Huge, huge difference. Was listening to some mixes the other day who went trough RND Orbit 5057 and then the same mixes went trough plugins. Difference was night and day. As I've always believed analog summing is 3D sounding, has more depth and wider stereo image. Summing in the box is just 2D,flat sounding, lifeless, uninspiring process. And the idea of great mixes is to get one closer to the feeling, to get you on that emotional trip the artist intended in the first place. There is a reason, pro studios use analog summing, its the standard, its the way to go and the right way to transcend the artist's idea out there to the audience. The plugins summing just ain't do it. It's ok, but not gonna bring that emotional content up front.The analog summing sounds alive and the digital sounds flat and lifeless.Perfectly explained. Thanks for the info, you don't hear these types of explanation every day. Totally to the point. Keep up the good work!
Right on. Glad you got something from the video.
the difference is super clear,i can tell the difference with my amateur ear,thank you for the great video and information,its time for me to quit home studio and leave it to professional
Please don’t quit the home studio! Have fun making music! And work with a professional when it makes sense.
@@MichaelJamesProducer oh that make sense,home studio now is a tool for me writing music,thank you 😍
YIKES. I can't wait to listen to this at home through a proper DAC.
I'm curious to hear your thoughts after comparing a proper vs improper DAC. I wonder if the difference becomes more (or less) apparent with the better converter.
Most likely the difference in depth is related to gain staging, sample rate, etc. Aliasing can make sounds seem to flatten out and smear each other. This does not happen in the analog world, which is why analog summing can provide depth, but... and a big but, this can be done in the box if you know the reason for digital in the box flatness. Gain staging properly into plugins, oversampling plugins or working in a higher sample rate for the project can help a lot, plus dithering the channels, making sure the plugins used have good anti-aliasing filters so on and so forth, can give the depth that you get from analog. Also, the saturation can provide depth also. This can also be done in the box if done properly. But yeah, it will cost you in CPU cycles, where a piece of gear just does it when you turn it on and run a signal through it. So, what analog does is not impossible to do in the box, but it sure is easier.
That’s basically it. And phase.
It is certainly possible to get make mixes purely inside the box. Hybrid approach works best for me, and is fastest.
@@vigneshkarthikeyan8174 That's part of it, but not the whole story. I'm not a scientist or physicist, so I cannot explain, but...just the other day I was evaluating a waveform editor. I null-tested the processed vs source files. 100% cancellation, yet EVERYBODY in the room heard a significant difference. I can't explain it. That's why I trust my ears.
@@MichaelJamesProducer very valid point..
Very interesting. I'm really fond of the digital realm and all its benefits. But some things just works better in analog, I suppose. Great demo
Thanks, Nicolai. The hybrid combination of digital benefits with analog mojo works great for me.
Nice vid - plastic\pinched vs full dynamic field !
Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it.
thats what i found out too. digital mixdown sounds 2 dimensional and even if you have a analog 2 bus compressor on mixdown you instantly get that depth of field. its pretty mindblowing and took me some years to find out. i always chased that big rock sound and worked only in the box, i even started using subtle reverbs because i thought it was the solution but in reality it is a 3 dimensional feel from analog, crazy
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.
Long time ago I was recording drums in a studio, and after the recording session, the studio owner played a digital mix of some song followed by an analog mix of the same song. The difference was like night and day. The analog mix sounded significantly better. It was "alive" and dynamic, while the digital mix was lifeless and dull. I could hardly believe my ears. This video only confirms that.
Yeah, the difference has potential to be dramatic.
This is great! 💯 👏
Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Cool!
Wich plugin Is Better x You as food analogo summing emulation ?
Love the hybrid mixing ,totally awesome,I love to do both, in the box ,then bring up the analog mix behind the digital,all of sudden it Zounds in 3d❤
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
Unfortunately, the RMS and thus -more or less- LUFS EBU 128 on the analog summing is at about 3.5dB higher than the digital counterpart at same peak level. So we have some compression going on, obviously. Besides this, the stereo field, the "balls" and the "groove" (sorry for using such subjective terms) from the analog summing are way superior even after matching the RMS. Digital sounds flat, analog sounds perfect. As expected. Thank you very much!
You’re welcome. I’m not sure if it’s compression happening OTB or details being sacrificed ITB. I’m surprised that you measure 3.5 dB difference. In my room, the peaks of the same and the RMS differs by 0.3 dB. Again, literally the only difference between the two mixes is that ITB used only two DA converter channels, and OTB used 32. They both traveled through the same summing mixer. There was no post production manipulation to either file.
Agree, the files are not level matched .
@@bericadori nope I can hear it very distinctly and louder to the human ear always sounds better. And the analog version is def louder in this comparison. Also one thing to note. When you mix ITB you mix differently then when mixing into a summing setup, so to use the "same mix" isn't exactly good to do for a comparison. You should just do a here is my best mix with the same tracks ITB and here is my best mix with the same tracks in a summing setup and then compare those. The summing mix might sound even better yet but my point is in the real world you would be making different choices when mixing into a summing setup vs mixing ITB. I've ran a summing setup with burl mothership for 8 years with 24x4 and I have found this to be true.
@@bericadori That was a deliberate choice so that I could show the exact difference of what happens when I sum outside the box vs inside. Everything is calibrated. Literally the only difference is 2 DA channels vs 32 DA channels, passing through the same summing mixer array. My *guess* is that some information gets lost with all the "number crunching" in the digital ITB version. But I am not a scientist, so I do not know if my guess has merit. FYI no gain was added anywhere.
@@voodoohex72 I agree that we make different decisions based on what we hear at any given moment. Further I agree that doing two mixes from the ground up (ITB and OTB) is the way to determine whether one should close ITB vs OTB workflow. BUT...my test was to isolate the difference of two CA converter channels versus 32, with EVERYTHING else exactly the same. Changing anything at all would invalidate the experiment. Make sense?
The OTB summing mix seemed to create the effect of adding 'air' or space between the elements of the mix. Its a very subtle thing but the difference is worth those 'extra inches' or the last 5% in a competitive industry. Too bad the Dangerous 2Bus+ is so expensive. Also, this video is very nicely put together Michael, good stuff! Subscribed.
Yeah, that's how I hear it. I wonder if OTB is adding goodness, or if ITB is losing it in the vortex of number crunching. Thanks for subscribing!
Great video. Question have you heard any summing mixer better than the Dangerous summing you used on the video.
Thank you. There are some good sounding boxes out there, and there are others that don’t sound good. I strongly prefer Dangerous Music. That’s why I have four of them. :)
Of course, for the home recorder, there's an even better option, though it's not in line with the modern "put out as many songs as fast as possible even though no one's going to listen to them" paradigm. And that's recording it via outboard on the way in, as it should sound and barely mix at all.
That's what I do and it's a great way to work if your desire is to become a better musician and song writer and recorder. You spend almost no time doing data processing, and all of it working on the more important things. When you do it that way, you can basically 'mix yourself' as you record, by changing the tone and volume as required (via fingers, tone knobs, volume pedal, mic distance, etc...) You put down the core, important tracks first and get them sounding right, then everything else has to fit into that.
This doesn't need a lot out outboard gear, since we one man/woman band types are recording one thing at a time. You can do it iteratively, going round and redoing parts to make them fit better until you get it like you want. Don't get precious and spend endless hours tweaking something to make it sound right. Spend them just re-playing the part and making it better as recorded.
Yes!!! Amen to that approach. That is how I produce records. They mix themselves as I add parts. BTW mix engineers used to be called “balance engineers.“ when you get the balances just right, something magical happens. My favorite EQ is no EQ. Seems like nowadays they might as well call us EQ engineers and compression engineers. Hahaha!
@@MichaelJamesProducer These days Data Entry Engineers would be closer to the mark for an awful lot of folks.
@@deanroddey2881 haha! So true.
Also curious if you have an opinion about using lower cost resistive summing boxes like the LittleOne (vintagemaker.net/littleone/) ? Seems like if you've already got 8-16 great DACs, then sending out the stems, summing with a passive analog summing mixer, then back in via your best ADCs would give a very similar result if you aren't leaning on the other stereo bus processing options like variable transformers, etc...
Sounds like it’s worth a try, but I will tell you that in my travels I learned that not all summing mixers are created equal. You get what you pay for with respect to good design and quality components. Better cross talk specs, lower noise floor, etc.
Great demo i can clearly hear the difference even through utube. I also went down the summing route using a second hand Orion 32 £1000, Vintage Maker filtek 24 channel summing mixer with Haufe transformers on the outputs £1100. Louder Than Lift Off Silver Bullet £2,500 for make up gain and the goodies it provides. The stereo out of that feeds 2 imput channels of the Orion 32 back into Cubase which then sums to cubase's stereo out where i have a Limiter. So i have only 2 tracks entering Cubase's Mixbus at -12fsThere's also a Stam audio SA4000+ compressor across the inserts of the Silver Bullet. I've found i use way less plugins with this setup mainly Fabfilter pro q3, soundtoys and reverbs. Mixes have the edge over my previous in the box mixes. But recently i've found that my in the box mixes can get close to summing using in my case Softube console one with the Neve emulation on every channel and buses and the DrMS matthew lane plugin on a few choice channels and on the mixbus plus Gullfoss and a lot of other plugins besides on other channels. Yes you can get very close but it takes a lot more time.
Seems like you figured out a good workflow. I’m curious if you’ve tried the Neve emulations on your individual channels, and then summed in the analog domain? Might be cool; might be too much coloration.
@@MichaelJamesProducer I did try that and every other combination. Using the softube neve on every channel with moderate variations of drive on each channel the results were truly excellent on guitar music mixes. For electronic mixes tracks felt over saturated. For electronic mixes I felt no drive at all on any of the channels and the haufe transformers on the summing box driven just before break up and the carnill transformers on the stam bus comp engaged sounded awesome.
I saw another comparison and in their video, it was just a passing comment comparing the 2 and it was night and day how much analog summing was better. How much better? 3-5%. That doesn't sound like much, and if you never heard analog summing, you wouldn't miss it. But, once you do, it makes all the difference. On top of that, everything you try to accomplish inside the box with special plugins promising to do this or that can easily be accomplished just running your mix through an analog pre-amp, eq, and compressor. You put it perfectly, it's a game of inches.
Indeed. A game of inches. Sometimes they mean nothing, and other times they mean the world.
@@MichaelJamesProducer Especially if using tracks mixed on analog and you're trying to figure out why our mix isn't as deep and wide.
Great video!! Thank you! Have you tried PrismSound converters?
Thanks. I heard Prism years ago, but I do not remember anything about their sound.
Thanx for sharing this comparative. But I ask myself does the mastering bring spaces make this the same at the end?
Good question. Mastering is a different thing. When done well, it can enhance a mix. A better mix will yield a better master. makes sense?
@@MichaelJamesProducer thank you for the answer. I understand the two process. I mean if you want give to mastering the mix which is the nearest in your mind, summing is the best path to follow. The test I've done told me summing give your a little plus that didn't miss after mastering in regard of the time I gained and the flexibility I have. I will try again cause I change my way to produce . Mixing is exploring new tactics so I will dive deep into this way (summing) befor to be categoric. Thank for the time to share your science with us. 🙏
@@kohndo my pleasure. Remember that it is okay to find the path that works best for you.
Hi there. When you sume with the Dangerous 2Bus+ without any of the 3 coloration knobs, do you still feel the difference vs in the box?
Yes, I do feel the difference. FYI I know somebody who sums inside the box, and then runs the entire mix through the dangerous two bus plus to add the coloration effects to the mix/master. That’s not how I do it, but it works for him.
@@MichaelJamesProducer Oh, got you. Sure, I asume that one can notice better when summing subgroups. Cheer!
Are you using any analogue emulation plugs within the ITB version? Cheers
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.
A few of my audio-geek friends were going on about analog summing, but never took me up on my request to do an A/B. So... thank you! The difference is obvious enough, but I am curious if you felt the audio as streamed via CZcams represented all the important differences vs an A/B using your original HD audio?
The uncompressed wave files are more revealing than the CZcams audio, which is apparently processed via a codec. Frankly I was surprised that the difference was so obvious after CZcams compressed/compromised it.
Something which you may find interesting too is I have a Yamaha digital mixer and I hear something very similar. When I sum everything ITB I get that ITB sound too but when I send stems and individual tracks out to the digital mixer and sum there it always sounds better to me as well. Its a little wider and deeper. So this approach is not just confined to analog summing. One would think that external digital summing is the same as ITB but its not.
Interesting. I wonder if it has anything to do with filtering on your mixer’s DA converter.
@@MichaelJamesProducer The mixer is sending the final mix digitally to my computer which has an RME sound card in the PCI slot. So I am still monitoring the ITB mix and the digital mixer mix via the same audio interface analog outs.
For the first time ever in these tests - I can hear a significant difference right away.
Michael, is the 2 channel sum still utilizing the Dangerous Bus 2+ for those 2 channels? *If it isn't* , then couldn't it be argued perhaps the difference lies in the color brought on by the Dangerous unit rather than the spreading amongst channels somewhat?
Hi Abbery. Yes, the 2-ch sum is also going through 2-Bus+. The difference between analog and digital in this case is 16 (or 32?) DA converter channels vs 2 converter channels into the same analog summing mixer. If there were any coloration being introduced, it would be identical in both versions.
It should be noted that while the peak levels are the same, the average sounds ever so slightly louder in the analog version. I did not add any gain. I wonder if this is because spreading the work across multiple converters provides more “DSP headroom“ and therefore reveals more detail that perhaps gets lost in all the numbers crunching required to squeeze an entire mix through two DA converter channels. If you were to superimpose one waveform on top of the other, you would see the same peaks, but a difference to the waveform in between the peaks. It looks like there is more information in the OTB waveform.
An other video that shows obvious difference, along the lines of what is heard in Michael videos, is this : czcams.com/video/gTiFMLxWUD4/video.html
Check it at 14:20 min
The high frequency detail is so much clearer. No dithering/aliasing or rounding errors... analog is accurate down to the particle. The cymbals sound particularly juicier in analog.
hey! very interesting comparison of both digital and analog. analog is just so dope! btw i'm looking to get good close back headphones for the korg SV2 its an electric piano that features a valve reactor technology that uses an actual valve to create the sound of an authentic tube power amp. can you please recommend me a good pair of closed back headphones to use with the piano to fully experience the sound in a great and fun way.. my budget un around $200 i don't quite like the Beyerdynamic/audio technica offerings the sound is a bit too stretched out for my liking and somehow fees too flat.. i want to enjoy playing.. i'm not trying to produce or mix the sounds.. im considering the "akg k371" as well as the ""Meze 99 nior/neo" pair that might be a good fit. what do you think?
Hi. Headphones are not my area of expertise, but I can tell you that I’ve always enjoyed using Sony 7506 headphones for various applications in the studio. They should fall within your budget, and are one of the studio standards. I do not mix in headphones.
Shure about loudness matching x a correct compare ?
Hello. My doubt is if when leaving the D/A converters I insert some effect such as compressor or EQ in, for example, the voice, and then in the summing of all the busses, if there is the possibility that some kind of phase problem arises between the voice and the channel of reverbs and delays that are on a separate bus and didn't go through that compressor or EQ. Great video. Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed the video. Regarding latency, I suggest that you print a percussive sound through your outboard effects and without the effects, on separate tracks. Zoom in to find out if there is latency. Measure it, and then compensate. In my workflow, ProTools automatically gets the delay compensation correct. If you do not have delay compensation, you can have a problem.
that's incredible, i wouldn't have thought it would make such a big difference. not only on studio speakers and headphones is the difference big. also when you listen to it on the ipad.
It’s interesting how we all hear music differently. I agree with you that the difference is big, based on the way I listen to music. But the difference is very small, if not nonexistent, to some other people. I guess it all depends on how one chooses to listen to music.
Michael James there is so much voodoo in the music industry specifically in the Hi-Fi spectrum. And because of different summing a/b test I have heard I was thinking that analog summing is voodoo as well. But you proved that to be wrong, it does make a difference. And I think everyone actually listening must hear it. Now I have to check if summing thru my Studer and Apollo is giving me such impressive results, too. But I expect that your gear of much higher quality is hard to match. I think the dangerous guys should pay you for doing the best advertisement they could get.
@@leonnaffin thank you for the kind words. I’ve become friends with the people at Dangerous, so I’ll tell them that they should send me suitcases full of cash. LOL.
the sound that we are all listening to is digital because it was converted and compressed when he uploaded the video, how can you praise the richness of a sound that you can't hear?
Greetings,
This was a wonderful video and there was a noticeable difference in the analog vs Digital summing, but it seems to be a vol/Gain issue. When I metered the 2 outputs the analog was coming out hotter than the digital feed. I would suggest matching the Gains then listening to the comparisons. Food for thought
Hi. Thanks for the tip, and good observation, but that would’ve interfered with the test. The experiment was to find out the difference between using 2 AD converter outputs versus 32. To manipulate the volume would’ve ruined the test. See the description if you want more granular info about the methodology.
Interestingly, the wave files that I have were about 0.2 dB different. I’ve seen various reports in the replies of different levels, so I wonder if the CZcams codec messed with the loudness. I’m not going to worry about that, but I am curious. Knowledge is power.
Hi Michael. I have a question for you back, What do you think about the dynamic range in AD/DA convertions. Is it 110db dynamic range good enough for summing.(D to A ) mean interface to mixer or whatever.. last time I wanted to know about summing and I searched all-round the CZcams. I found that most helpful advice had been given by you! thank you very much! It helped me a lot!
I’m happy to hear that you gleaned some useful information from me! Regarding the dynamic range, I do not know the answer to your question. Sorry. But I do know that converters can sound very different. If you shop for them, listen to a variety before you purchase. They make a huge difference with respect to sound quality! Poor quality converters sound thin and brittle. Good ones sound rich and musical. My favorites for my application are made by Dangerous music. I also have some Apogee and Lynx converters that sound excellent. All three sound different to one another. I hope this info helps.
Hello Michael. Thank you very much for this very useful video. Unfortunately I cannot afford Dangerous Music gear, but, I have preamps like Manley, or Heritage Audio which are Neve clones. Will I hear a substantial difference if I send one by one all my channels through a preamp and back again in Cubase. It'll be a very long process, but will it change something ? Thank you
Hi Michel. Yes, running your tracks individually through your preamplifiers can certainly change the sound, but you may not like the change. Or you may. You’ll have to experiment to find out. By doing that, you are either adding transformer mojo or saturation from gain. If you want to experiment, I would try it only with the specific instruments or voices that need a little bit of help-not everything. Or I would run the entire mix through the device. Long story short, what you are suggesting would require a lot of time and effort, with results that you may or may not like. Personally, I would not have the patience to do what you are considering. Therefore, I would begin the experiment by running the entire mix bus through your outboard gear. If you think it’s an improvement, then continue experimenting until you find the sweet spot. Make sense?
@@MichaelJamesProducer thank you so much for the reply. I'll try that.
@@MichaelJamesProducer Hello James... One year later and I bought Dangerous Music gear in part because of you ! I have : 2Bus+, Compressor, Bax EQ, Liaison, AD+, Convert2 and the latest is the Monitor ST that I should connect in the next few days. I have all of these, but I don't have your ears, nor your experience 😀 But since I'm not an engineer, I have fun seeing your videos and try to kinda replicate what you are doing. Thank you, you are a great inspiration....
With the digital summing are you running all the stems one by one out of your daw and passing them through the summing mixer and back to the DAW before they are then summed?
No. The ITB mix is summed digitally inside of Pro Tools, then that stereo audio comes out two channels of DA converters that feed two inputs on the summing mixers. The difference between the digital and analog mixes is that the former uses only two DA channels and the latter uses 32. The signal path is the same for both mixes, which are recorded back into the DAW in real-time.
@@MichaelJamesProducer 👍 That's the methodology Dan Worrall used to isolate the summing in his test. Be interesting to see this test with the Dangerous box.
im in the market for analog summing gear as I have been using my daw to sum my mixes for a few years now, the difference in sound is quite monumental!
however I do have one question, I notice with a lot of summing mixers, especially dangerous music ones, there is an option for the signals to be mono, or stereo. With these summing mixers am I limited to the option of having the tracks of the song being hard panned left and right, and then down the center? I love to mix certain instruments and backing vocals say around 30 to 40 percent left or right as a mono signal, is there a way to work around this with these specific summing mixers used in this video? or would I have to buy a unit that has individual knobs for panning. Thanks for the awesome video!
You do not need pan knobs. Pan inside the DAW. Make your tracks have a stereo output, and pan wherever you like across the panorama spectrum. As an example, you might pan Lead Vocals and Bass in the center, saxophone 92% left, viola 43% right and stereo reverb 100% wide. Set your DAW track outputs like this: LV 1; Bass 2; Sax 3-4; Viola 3-4; reverb 5-6. On the summing mixer, press the Mono button on input pair 1-2, and leave pairs 3-4 and 5-6 stereo. In the DAW, pan sax 92% L, viola 43% R, and the stereo verb return hard LR. Make sense?
@@MichaelJamesProducer yes makes perfect sense! Thanks so much!
@@knarkrew Best of luck with your swimming journey! Let me know how it goes.
I was thinking of getting the neve orbit or maybe the satellite, but i'll take a look at that dangerous now too.
I’m obviously biased, but I love the Dangerous Music products!
huge difference!!!!
Thanks for the vid. Big difference...
Unfortunately not all of us can afford the stuff you have. If you have tie maybe you could do a vid on how to get started with analog summing for us poor guys :-)
Ultimately the most important thing is that we make good music with whatever tools are available to us. If the song has soul, it has a shot at touching people. But if it doesn’t, even the most expensive equipment on the planet will not cause people to like it.
Regarding getting started with analog summing, the concept is quite simple: spread the digital information across as many DA converters as you can, so that each one can focus more precisely on a particular element of the music. Then you sum all of those converters together in the analog domain. You can do this on a dedicated summing mixer or a recording console. A well-designed piece of equipment well result in more clarity and detail; a bad design may add more noise. ;-) All summing mixers are not created equal. You get what you pay for. Let me know if this helps.
Hi Michael. Thanks for the video. Pretty compelling. Curious when OTB summing if there is a threshold where you notice the sound difference. For example, would we hear as big of a difference using only 8 channels of OTB summing? Do the 2 different models of Dangerous Music summing mixers sound different? And have you ever tried analog summing with a different brand or method? Thanks!
Hi. My response is purely anecdotal, not scientific, regarding minimum number of channels threshold. Answer: it depends. In other words, I’ve experimented with as few as eight channels, and found that the differences between ITB and OTB became more apparent as the mix became more complex. Even with 64 channels of OTB summing, if you take a well recorded multi track and spit it out 2 channels ITB or 64 OTB, there is a difference, but it’s pretty subtle. As I’ve said before, a game of inches… Important to me, but not to everybody. When I start manipulating the tracks with dynamics, EQ and effects, that’s when I really start to hear the difference between ITB versus OTB. It can be a huge difference with as few is eight channels, or it could be a subtle difference with as many as 64 channels if you’re simply being a purist and you don’t do any manipulation (ie real world mixing). I hope this makes sense. Let me know if it doesn’t.
Regarding trying other methods of OTB summing, yes, I grew up working on large format analog consoles. Neve, SSL, API… I have used several different “summing boxes“ since Pro Tools came on the scene 20-ish years ago. They are not created equal. My favorite is Dangerous 2-Bus+. Chandler Limited mini rack mixer also sounds great! It has a British sound and a sweet spot with respect to headroom. The other one that I liked a lot was something from inward connections that I heard back in 2005. It had a very sweet sound. I prefer dangerous because it has a lot of headroom, great cross talk specs, and I can make it pristine mastering quality or colored with transformer and harmonic richness.
I feel compelled to tell you that I’ve also tried a number of other summing mixers that are quite popular but not designed as well as the three I mentioned above. They don’t sound good to me. I would rather mix ITB than use a crappy analog summing box.
@@MichaelJamesProducer Thanks for the response. The problem is demoing this gear in your room but that usually doesn't happen. So you're left with trying to guess what you're gonna like and basing that decision on reviews and videos like these. I'd be curious to know the few that you'd stay away from. Looking at Dangerous' DA for a second...I would have guessed you're using either HD/HDX but not seeing a Digi Link connector on that box. Curious about your routing to the DA's. Don't want to get too long winded. Thanks for your time!
@@dmsaudio I am indeed using HDX. I connect the Digi link to Lynx Aurora 16 converters that act as an AES bridge to the Dangerous Convert-8 units. Dangerous converters sound terrific to me! For my hardware inserts inside ProTools, I use several Lynx Aurora 16s.
Regarding the summing mixers that I dislike, I’d rather not say. The most important thing is to make great music with whatever technology is available to you. There are many recordists who are not as privileged/lucky/blessed as I am, who do not have access to the same quality of gear. I don’t want to introduce doubts in their minds. If their music is great, then whatever gear they’re using is up to the task. Make sense?
@@MichaelJamesProducer Thank you
This is a fairly good comparison - although there seems to be some confirmation bias creeping in… It's always difficult even with the best calibration and level matching. From my own experiment's I find that various choices cascade together and influence future ones (kind of like engaging a Bus Compressor and/or character EQ on the 2 Bus early in the mixdown stage and then making your decisions from a broad-brush starting point). I'd kind of like to hear it with the transformers being driven a bit. Having said all that, I definitely prefer the analog summed version here - it works exceptionally well for this flavor of Rock. The stereo width is amazing. It feels right.
I've watched this video too many times - which is weird cause I work in a totally different genre. In most underground dance music (and particularly the louder EDM/Bass stuff) there needs to be that repeatability factor of the kick and the bass - sub bass energy HAS to be proper mono and phase relationship is king. I tried out summing just 3 stereo pairs (have 4 but Steinberg's DSP-mix software on my interface steals one "Mix" for monitoring.... it's lame but I work around it for now) to an old 80's Ramsa prosumer desk. I patched it in at the start - was basically writing the tune with the desk summing groups. It was very forgiving in the top end and saturating it ate transients and added weight. Panning and the way it naturally smeared the high was pleasing as well. Next day I switch to a digital sum - I don't like the high hats anymore, things seem off and pokey, more clarity but flaws are front and center. But bass and kick are proper mono without having to deal with it in post, I'm able to get similar weight on those with plugins used judiciously.
So what am I working on now? Creating the most hybrid mixdown setup with what I have in front of me. Kick and basslines stay ITB and then Stereo Drum mix + Music/Vox + FX (realtime generated + sampled risers/noise sweeps etc) on hard panned stereo channels. EQ and saturation. Find the rough sweet spot, and then do the a little automation in the box as required to finish. I think I'm onto something - even though it's a huge pain to set up.
I'd bet that it will become less painful for you to set up your new workflow after you become accustomed to using it. Sometimes things that theoretically appear important turn out to be less so in practice. Best success finding your sweet spot!
Wonderful comparison! The analog bring the song to life and I feel as if I'm right there with the band! Curious about whether the difference is as remarkable with music produced entirely in the box, or is it more noticeable only with real instruments recorded live. I'd love to hear your insights on this.
Good question. I do not know, but I have noticed that the difference is more significant when crafting simple mixes vs complex mixes. In other words, the more work I do to a mix, the more I will notice the difference.
I agree that the conversion is part of the reason. Bits simply don't combine as musically creatively and unexpectedly well as voltages. Once the signals are converted to analog, OTB summing is combining voltages that encourages creation. Headroom becomes just tool in analog (voltage combining that can creatively distort) and not a barrier as ITB. Digital ITB just crackles instead of birthing new sound, timbres, or harmonics. It's math 22 bits +18 bits=40 bits, truncated or dithered back down to 16-24 bits of a typical software system. But the more tracks you combine the more bits are rounded back down to 16-24 bits of your system. 16 tracks averaging 10 bits each (160 bits) still will get truncated all the way back down to 16-24 bits. Protools has a 48 bits summing engine. Even then, combining many tracks will need to be attenuated way down (further reducing bits on each channel) to stay within the system limits to avoid "Crackle, Pop, Buzz." This is one reason why small bands (piano, bass, drums) sound very clear ITB- fewer overall bits. But try 48 tracks, like from a live concert. Math is not always your friend. ITB is often about managing the boundaries as the sound is meant to be clean, or not.
My experience is that same 16 tracks OTB will yield voltages that will combine creatively, and may also begin to distort. But, depending on your aural preferences, that distortion is considered pleasing while preserving more of the original intention of each track without attenuating bits leaving the converter. 16 tracks at 10 bits each will yield the full 160 bits in aggregate leaving the converter- but the digital signals are changed to analog voltages that will smear a little (which is what we tend to call warm or musical). Combining these hotter voltages will creatively construct a new pair of voltages for stereo, that may have lots of pleasing distortion contained within. No math, just your ear to say when it's too much overall distortion, or which individual channels can stand a little more or less "warmth." Turn it up!!
Similar to a glass full of different grades of uncooked rice (ITB) versus glass full of marbles (OTB). Add warm water (more low level signals) ITB turns to rice soup. Not much water can be added without overflowing the glass. But, its all a very predictable consistency, even as more heat is added (voltages). The ITB mix on Sunday can be remixed with roughly the same sound on Tuesday.
With OTB, the addition of warm water (low level signals) to a glass of marbles causes additional, unpredictable refraction of light- a creative result that might change from moment to moment. More warm water than the ITB glass can be added without overflowing the glass. More heat just gives even more refraction, that is unpredictable and more...analog. People note subtle changes from day to day in an analog environment. How warm was the room and the equipment, is AC line power consistent that day, etc. are expected factors.
OTB is that much closer to having separate speakers for each track- or having the performance in the same room with you.
Thanks for taking the time to compose that detailed comment. I find it very interesting, especially considering that I don’t understand all the science behind ones and zeros. I only know what I like, what resonates with my ears and my soul. Your analogy of rice versus marbles is brilliant! Made me smile. Question: is your math (160 bits, etc.) anecdotal for the purposes of illustration, or is it literal and scientific? Either way, I understand your point, but I’m curious to know.
@@MichaelJamesProducer ITB is literally addition of track bits, then truncated back to the resolution of your system. The problem of course is that louder sounds use more bits than softer sounds; so that rounding down (always) is a bit complex for dynamic music. So a track may be 5, 7, 12, 18 , etc bits from moment to moment, depending on its dynamics. So combing that with other tracks, the math is an ever changing equation EVERY SECOND; but the formula is the same: add the bits then truncate back to 16-24 system resolution. Dither is supposed to hide it, but does it really? Protools' 48 bit summing is supposed to help, and it's better than the typical 24 bit DAW. IMHO still not the same "mojo' (technical term for voltage voodoo and magic) as a good analog summing mixer for dynamic music.
I'm with you. I enjoy working in hybrid setting. Let things do what they do best. Record analog (real dedicated preamps!), store and edit digitally, but then mix back through analog. Capture the mix digitally again.
@@humusiclab8974 Right on! I feel you.
@@MichaelJamesProducer do you boost the 2-Bus units much beyond unity/0dB for this demo? I also wonder if the subtle compression is a factor (convertors wide open but the 2 bus output is attenuated at 0dB). I can't really see the output knob position being 12 o'clock - or wide open at 6 o'clock.
looks like the 2 bus + is wide open and the 48 channel of 2Bus are at unity. Which unit(s) are we hearing the mixes through?
Thanks again.
@@humusiclab8974 The 48 channels of summing mixers in the producer rack to the left of the console have their knobs set at unity gain. That said, each input is padded -6 dB to ensure headroom. The fourth dangerous 2 bus that lives in the console is wide open because it sums together the other three summing mixers, which have already been padded.
Great A/B comparisons!
Thanks, Chris.
Do you think a multi-track recording could sound better at home with a multi-track player and DAC? It seems two channels is a small but limiting factor, especially if the mastering engineer is only working in two channels. Thanks...
Hi Peter. I don’t know the answer to your question. If you’re able to try it, then go for it! Let me know what you learn, please.
What do you recommend for a 'starter' analog summing setup?
Maybe 8-channel Dangerous D-Box+. You can add to it over time.
Mind Blown. So even mixing in the box, listening via multiple channels summed in analog, one gets a better picture of there mix…. So each channel out from Convert-8 goes straight into the 2-Bus;? But How do you Sum (2) 2-Bus, for 32 Channels?
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.
It sounds like the first dgital mix is a tiny bit lower in volume? The second ecsept at the end they are at the same level.
Yeah, it does, right? I didn’t do any manipulation. That was simply what happened as a result of using more channels of conversion.
Really interesting... I definitely hear a difference favouring the OTB mix. BUT, using my DBox (only 8 channels) at home, I can hear a very big difference between my own ITB and OTB comparisons. Way more separation and depth and less congested OTB. It really highlights needing to be cautious when making these observations via CZcams. It's not always realistic, but-it's hard to beat listening to these things (getting the hardware) in your own environment.
100% agreed!
I got a dbox and I'm about to receive my 8 channel interface so I can finally sum. GOOD TO KNOW! hoping it's not a mistake or money wasted
Theres a significant difference. It's like when each DAC gets assigned just one channel to work with, it does it's job better. I can juggle one pin much better than I can 10, in other words. Great showcase of this topic.
Just for clarification, the signal path is basically from digital in the box, out from the interface into a digital to audio converter, then the converter into a 2-ch analog summing box, then the summing box back into the inteface inputs, which can get converted back to digital (or routed via another DAC prior). Does that sound about right?
You almost have the signal path right. The summing mixer is 32 channels. On the ITB mix I used only two DA channels, therefore two analog mixer inputs. The OTB mix used up to 32 DAC and mixer channels. That’s the only difference between the two versions, other than the obvious fact that the DAW outputs were all “output 1-2” for ITB and they were assigned to 1-32 for OTB. The stereo output of the analog mixer was routed to my analog mix bus processing chain, which fed the input of a 2-channel Dangerous Convert AD+, which was routed back to the Pro Tools “mix print” track.
Hi Michael, if I would like to work in that way, using multiple converters, can I have the same result without an analog console? What do I need? I think just the converters and my sound card, is it right?
Hi Giuseppe. You need the sound card, the converters, and a summing mixer. You will also need a monitor controller so that you can listen to your work. I am aware of some people who don’t use any analog outboard gear - only plug-ins - and they love the workflow of analog summing outside the box.
What is really interesting is if you sum this video to mono. In my studio with acoustic treatment and calibrated studio monitors, your digital sum is 83 dB (measured on a Checkmate SPL meter). The analog summed version is 86 dB. Louder is perceived as better as they say. I think you need to go back and recalibrate for a fairer comparison. Also, add some additional saturation into the digital sum to match the analog sum. IMO a minor difference that can be replicated in digital summing and not worth the thousands of $$$ in analog gear.
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.
Depends on the material. The singer sounds more commanding on the digital. Analog sounds amazing but a little distracting that it’s so wide and big
Question sir, would you be so kind as to demonstrate how we would approach "rear bus compression" in a layout which includes summing mixers like 2-bus+ & xt?
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.
Good A/B Comparison. I def hear the difference. I wonder if this analog summing would work or make a difference for orchestral plugins for film scores. I am noticing when there are a lot of instruments playing at the same time, the mix sounds a tad muddy. Not horrible, but I notice it. I always search for ways to improve sound quality. Anyways, just a thought.
Like any tool, the ability to use it to maximum effect will make a bigger difference, rather than a smaller one. Therefore with your orchestral plug-ins sounding muddy as they add up, you *could* possibly leverage analog summing to make a more pleasing listening experience, but it won’t necessarily clean up the mud on its own. That’s probably better done by using equalization. Even if every instrument sounds good on its own, each one may have resonant frequencies that you don’t even notice until they add up with the other parts in the arrangement. Perhaps you could start by doing some subtle notching in the problem areas. Let me know if that helps.
Hence satisfying the three people that actually can tell the difference.
Frankly I am surprised by how many people do in fact hear a significant difference.
I hear what you're hearing!
Right on!
Is it worthy to buy an analog mixer like Soundcraft to achieve some width & depth in the mix???? maybe for some board eq.. ?? Do I waste my money or not???
It depends on whether or not you like the sound of the Soundcraft board. Obviously I prefer mixing OTB, but I would rather mix 100% ITB than passing my audio through equipment that sounds noisy or brittle. If it makes your music sound worse, then it’s a waste of money. If it makes it sound better, then it’s probably a worthy investment. I hope this helps.
@@MichaelJamesProducer yes thank you fam!!
whats your opinion on 500 series hardware?
Whatever sounds good, is good. Just make sure that your “lunchbox” rack has a robust power supply.