Dangerous 2bus+

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Yup some early digital combining was flawed, but that was not intrinsic to the technology but IMO related to the execution (my suspicion is compromised code to deal with limited processing overhead). Digital processing power has increased manifold since then.

Back then a practical remedy was to repurpose old analog consoles to mix "outside the box".

I repeat, I wish this was a real need (I've got a solution for you).

JR
 
For an end user that is a difference without a distinction.
But to a design engineer it is extremely important.

Back in the 80s I spent a lot of time arguing that digital audio was not irreparably flawed, while some early CDs were tragic, leading some to blame the technology not the knob twiddlers.

JR
 
But to a design engineer it is extremely important.

Back in the 80s I spent a lot of time arguing that digital audio was not irreparably flawed, while some early CDs were tragic, leading some to blame the technology not the knob twiddlers.

JR
From a designer who interfaces with end users it's also important to solve the problem the end users are complaining about. When Chris designed the original unit it was to solve a real world problem at the time. Most Dangerous products are utility items as opposed to sound processing devices.
 
Curious what you find awful about the dbox? I still have and use one for a monitor controller and find it does a good job at its price point.

Sorry for the delayed response.

Simple test. Pick 5 good reference tracks, WAVs in Pro Tools or whatever. Duplicate the track so you can set different output levels on two channels.

Set a comfortable listening level with your DBox monitor volume. Then physically bypass your dBox (carefully!) and use the fader on the duplicate Pro Tools track to match that level (check output with a good DMM or whatever) so you are just using digital attenuation..

This way you can fairly quickly go back and forth between dBox and no dBox. The difference is not small. And this is also true of the larger more expensive Dangerous monitor controller. I've done this test with clients and their reaction is always WTF?.

But maybe you don't hear it, or actually like dBox better. All valid.

I think it sounds cheap and nasty, like everything of theirs that I've used.
 
Sorry for the delayed response.

Simple test. Pick 5 good reference tracks, WAVs in Pro Tools or whatever. Duplicate the track so you can set different output levels on two channels.

Set a comfortable listening level with your DBox monitor volume. Then physically bypass your dBox (carefully!) and use the fader on the duplicate Pro Tools track to match that level (check output with a good DMM or whatever) so you are just using digital attenuation..

This way you can fairly quickly go back and forth between dBox and no dBox. The difference is not small. And this is also true of the larger more expensive Dangerous monitor controller. I've done this test with clients and their reaction is always WTF?.

But maybe you don't hear it, or actually like dBox better. All valid.

I think it sounds cheap and nasty, like everything of theirs that I've used.
a null test could reveal what the difference is, just not which one is causing the difference.

JR
 
From a designer who interfaces with end users it's also important to solve the problem the end users are complaining about. When Chris designed the original unit it was to solve a real world problem at the time. Most Dangerous products are utility items as opposed to sound processing devices.
I'm not sure I'd agree with this. The issue with Pro Tools pre HD was mostly the quality of the conversion (888s!) and the fact that it was passing only 24 bits between plug ins, so longer plug in chains were causing significant sonic degradation. There were also several improvements over the years in internal dithering, but the exact timeline of all of that is fuzzy now for me (I got my first HD rig about 20 years ago).

But much like EveAnna's smash hit The Manley Vari-Mu, the Dangerous 2 bus did not solve any of the actual intrinsic issues with early mainstream digital, it just poured some distortion and "warmth" on top and sold a great story. It played beautifully into the memes of that moment. EveAnna is a dear friend, and props to her and Dangerous/Muth for seeing the opportunity but I don't agree that the answer to "bad" distortion is "good" distortion.
 
Last edited:
a null test could reveal what the difference is, just not which one is causing the difference.

JR
Sure, modern converters are good enough that the distortion profile of the Dangerous will be easily measurable using REW. I've measured a bunch in the field using my Prism Lyra interface. John is smart, but most people on the internet don't use null tests correctly, so I don't recommend them.

See the many many page thread on Gearslutz of people drawing inferences from null tests comparing converters as an example.
 
Sure, modern converters are good enough that the distortion profile of the Dangerous will be easily measurable using REW. I've measured a bunch in the field using my Prism Lyra interface. John is smart, but most people on the internet don't use null tests correctly, so I don't recommend them.

See the many many page thread on Gearslutz of people drawing inferences from null tests comparing converters as an example.
I used to have trouble with people mismanaging simple listening tests while I was out of town... :rolleyes:

JR
 
Good listening tests are hard to conduct. In 28 years of making records I've met just a few people who I would completely trust in that regard
My problem was working for a boss who believed the marketing BS coming competitors and would have my people set up uncontrolled a/b listening tests when I wasn't around. Invariably levels were not properly matched and chaos would ensue.... :rolleyes: I'd have to undo the damage when I returned from the trade show or whatever....

JR

PS; I don't trust listening test at all. One pet peeve was comparing power amps with DDT (clip limiting) bypassed or not.... Power amps allowed to clip sound louder because they are (duh). Listeners like louder arghhhhhhh. :cry:
 
I'm not sure I'd agree with this. The issue with Pro Tools pre HD was mostly the quality of the conversion (888s!) and the fact that it was passing only 24 bits between plug ins, so longer plug in chains were causing significant sonic degradation. There were also several improvements over the years in internal dithering, but the exact timeline of all of that is fuzzy now for me (I got my first HD rig about 20 years ago).
I was never a Pro Tools user so I'm just going from what i remember people telling me. The external summing was designed because of user request. It wasn't an idea pulled out of thin air. They sold a bunch of them back then.
But much like EveAnna's smash hit The Manley Vari-Mu, the Dangerous 2 bus did not solve any of the actual intrinsic issues with early mainstream digital, it just poured some distortion and "warmth" on top and sold a great story. It played beautifully into the memes of that moment. EveAnna is a dear friend, and props to her and Dangerous/Muth for seeing the opportunity but I don't agree that the answer to "bad" distortion is "good" distortion.
I'd agree that it didn't solve the root problem (how could it?) but I'd disagree that it just covered stuff up with distortion. It avoided the Pro Tools mixer which was the stated problem.

I've never used Dangerous products so I can't comment on the sound. I can't get past the faceplates which are not pleasing to my eye. Unlike the Muth monitor console which has one of the nicest faceplates I've ever seen.
 
I was never a Pro Tools user so I'm just going from what i remember people telling me. The external summing was designed because of user request. It wasn't an idea pulled out of thin air. They sold a bunch of them back then.

I'd agree that it didn't solve the root problem (how could it?) but I'd disagree that it just covered stuff up with distortion. It avoided the Pro Tools mixer which was the stated problem.

I've never used Dangerous products so I can't comment on the sound. I can't get past the faceplates which are not pleasing to my eye. Unlike the Muth monitor console which has one of the nicest faceplates I've ever seen.
I was a user at that time and there was widespread mania about "the math being wrong" led by technically ignorant people like Mixerman (edit to add that despite his online style he mixed some records that love and clearly had ears).

So you very much did hear what you heard, but IMO likely from people repeating what they'd read online rather than people making contact with the facts.

From my memory it was wrongly attributed. Summing in digital has always been the very easiest part of DAWs. I also did quite a lot of tests back in the day and could never find a meaningful difference between clean low distortion analog summing and Pro Tools. It was mostly about distortion added by converters and poorly implemented summing circuits or deliberate fuzzboxes for "mojo".

Cheers,
Ruairi
 
Last edited:
HI everyone!

I'm always in awe when I read and absorb the knowledge you guys freely offer on this site. It's been so helpful to me. Here's a topic I've done a fair amount of work on, both as a corporate employee (Harman, AVID) and as a pro mixer (Madonna, John Legend, Kelly Clarkson). Allow me to share what I can.

Many of us who mix for a living can't live without our summing devices - digital or analog. I personally have a custom 32 input summing mixer based on 1206 input receivers and DRV134 and 1646 output drivers. The thing is a beast paired with HDX.

Here's the thing though: There's not much difference between in-the-box and summing with low track count (less than 40 or so). I mix everything under 32 tracks in the box. Yeah, there's a slight difference, but it's splitting hairs and I don't have to bounce in real time. Sometimes I like ITB better with these low-track-count sessions.

Over about 50 tracks though, the difference is clear. Very little is night and day anymore to me, but this is one of those instances. I would encourage all of you to test large mixes and hear for yourself. This is why outboard summing exists for a large segment of us. Pro Tools, Logic, Harrison Mixbus - they all choke up somewhere around 50 to 60 tracks (with associated group busses, FX returns and other channels) and outboard summing solves this problem quite well. Its hard to make in-the-box work over 100 tracks. Sounds like mud. Taking the same mix and spreading it out over 32 outboard busses removes the bottleneck for me.

Yeah - I can imagine if you're trying to tease out a difference on a 12 or 24 track mix you're working hard to find a difference. I'd even imagine it would null pretty well, if not completely. It's another story altogether at 133 tracks though.

I don't have scientific or null data for this. Time could be spent proving this to the world, but I've already done extensive testing myself and am happy with what I've discovered.

Hope this ads to the discussion in a positive way. :)
 
Last edited:
interesting info! I’ve tried almost every commercially available summing solution and they all have their “thing,” but I can’t justify getting several options to cover different use cases. I’ve also found that processing the most important instruments or groups through some analog gear often adds some character that would be much more difficult or time-consuming to achieve with plugins.

Are you summing 32 stereo busses? Also, are you processing the groups or just doing ouboard summing to avoid the DAW mix bus?

Maybe a DSP expert can offer info as to whether track count in a DSP mixer affects its behavior in any meaningful way.

Truthfully, my clients in all genres seem to prefer in-the-box mixes better than when I is summing. This even goes for pop, rock, r&b, jazz, folk, and classical music. When I sum I always mix with the summing setup before I start so my decisions are based on what I hear.
 
The workflow that I follow is:

Drums 1-2
Perc 3-4
Sweep FX 5-6
Guitars 7-8
Keys 1 9-10
Keys 2 11-2
Synths 1 13-14
Synths 2/Strings 15-16
Horns or Synths 3 17-18
Lead Vocal 19-20
Lead Support 21-22
BGVs 1 23-24
BGVs 2 25-26
BGVs 3 27-28...
FX Returns 32-32

One other thing I forgot to mention: Less than 16 channels of summing with Pro Tools doesn't seem to do much. For example, I have a Satori monitor controller with an 8 channel summing bus. Previously I had a Dangerous D-Box with 8 channel summing. In my opinion, 8 channels of summing doesn't really do much. At all. 16 channels is distinctly better than ITB, 32 channels is heaven.

Your experiences may differ.
I'm so good with that. :)
 
Simple test....

So I tried completely bypassing the dbox. There is a loss of clarity when running through the dbox. I've noticed it before with the summing but never tried the monitor controller by itself. Interesting.

The next question would be who actually makes a fully transparent monitor controller. Grace? Crane Song? Or just go passive and short cables?
 
Regarding the 2 bus+ I finally got a chance ťo try it. It's certainly an upgrade from the previous units. The built in limiter is a nice touch as are the transformers. Personally I think external summing does add a little something, the more channels the better.
 
The next question would be who actually makes a fully transparent monitor controller. Grace? Crane Song? Or just go passive and short cables?
Well, no one. For everyone who likes something there is someone who doesn't. Passive isn't always transparent either. Working a passive monitor into a modern voltage transfer system is no easy task. The impedance of the attenuator has to be high enough to present a bridging load to the source and low enough to not be a problem for the power amplifier. There is no ideal value.
 
Back
Top