Dangerous 2bus+

[beatsnblunts]

Damn you guys!. Its been awhile since i’ve listened to anything other than the Dbox. When i last compared it to the Lynx aurora i thought it sounded great w just a tad push to the middle.

A few years ago i took the PSW mixing workshop and we did a mix of some stems then compared the internal bounce, record to aux input, record thru ssl and thru a mackie1202. they all sounded different but to me and most of the class the bounce to disk sounded the worse. i guess i just like distortion as most of my mixes have 3 sets of tranformers on the 2buss….

 

[ruairioflaherty]

Damn you guys!. Its been awhile since i’ve listened to anything other than the Dbox. When i last compared it to the Lynx aurora i thought it sounded great w just a tad push to the middle.

A few years ago i took the PSW mixing workshop and we did a mix of some stems then compared the internal bounce, record to aux input, record thru ssl and thru a mackie1202. they all sounded different but to me and most of the class the bounce to disk sounded the worse. i guess i just like distortion as most of my mixes have 3 sets of tranformers on the 2buss….

Ultimately you nailed it. Everyone has a different aesthetic and taste and should absolutely work how they want and use whatever they need to communicate their ideas - ITB or through a pair of fuzzboxes. There is no wrong answer.

So, I'm definitely not trying to impose some kind of orthodoxy but what I really dislike is faith based ideas that limit people. The idea that ITB summing is somehow flawed is proposed, but not proven. That idea is sexy, sticky, memetic and runs through the internet like wildfire because it lines up with commercial agenda of gear manufacturers, plug in manufacturers and many of the bigger producers/mixers at the time who were using their access to consoles as a brand differentiator or gatekeeping mechanism.

All well and good until some kid with a great song gets stuck because she believes she can't proceed with access to the right combination of equipment.

 

[kags]

I used to hold a workshop in L.A. where we would mix a project ITB (ProTools HDX) and then also mix the same songs through several different summing boxes. The boxes included (if my memory serves) Inward Connections summing box, Manley 16 channel Line Mixer, Tonelux OTB16, TubeTech SSM, Neuman 475b passive summing mixer (my own build), API 1608 console, SPL MixDream, Burl B32 (in various modes), Phoenix Nicerizer, and a couple more. Some of the summing mixers have no level, pan, or tone controls, so we tracked a few live band songs through an API 1608 console into Pro Tools via HD I/O converters—rock, light pop, jazz—processed on the way in so that we could do minimal mix processing.

We did basic balances and panning in Pro Tools to build a good stereo mix ITB and printed it to a stereo track in the DAW. Then we sent subgroups out to each summing mixer (one at a time) and made any level/pan adjustments to try to match our ITB mix. These adjustments were minimal, with less than 1dB moves on various subgroups. Then we printed the mixes through each summing mixer to its own stereo track in PT.

I know we weren't taking advantage of gain-staging or even making mix decisions through each summing box, but this was a comparison of "safe" level summing through 8 to 32 analog inputs just to compare the stereo field, tonality, and emotional feel of each summing mixer. If we introduced saturation in the summing mixers that would be whole 'nother thing.

I did this workshop maybe 5 times over 3 or 4 years and each time the result was basically the same. The differences were extremely small and most of the time only perceptible on instruments with extreme transients, like snare drums, tambourines, and nylon guitars. There were no suprises and none of the summing mixers made any particular mix "better" to our ears. Some mixers made the snare feel more relaxed in the mix, while others seemed to brighten the snare. These observations are similar to tiny (like tenths of a dB) EQ/Level changes made to a mix or master—ones that in no substantial way change the way an audience would feel about a song or mix.

I'm sure if we mixed into each mixer, using mix processing chosen while listening through the mixers we would have added different coloration depending on each mixer's character. For instance, the Phoenix allows for a wide range of saturation for each stereo input while the TubeTech imparted a gentle saturation across the whole mix. A few of the summing boxes sounded too close to the ITB mix to matter sonically, but their analog routing flexibility could add some utility to an ITB mix that includes outboard processing.

Ultimately, I mix in the box with an occasional analog insert on a channel or subgroup when I know I can quickly achieve a tone that I hear in my head. I have, on occasion, run an entire mix bus through a pair of Coil CA70 tube amps for their EQ (tone control based on NF and bias of the tubes). If I were to use analog summing, I feel I would need at least a few different summing options to cover all the bases.

I agree that all analog summing boxes will impart some kind of distortion that is different from mixing in the box, but not necessarily better or more accurate or "real."

My recommendation for all things musical is to use whatever inspires you to make music! If the outcome inspires you, it will affect others, too.

 

[beatsnblunts]

I used to hold a workshop in L.A. where we would mix a project ITB (ProTools HDX) and then also mix the same songs through several different summing boxes. The boxes included (if my memory serves) Inward Connections summing box, Manley 16 channel Line Mixer, Tonelux OTB16, TubeTech SSM, Neuman 475b passive summing mixer (my own build), API 1608 console, SPL MixDream, Burl B32 (in various modes), Phoenix Nicerizer, and a couple more. Some of the summing mixers have no level, pan, or tone controls, so we tracked a few live band songs through an API 1608 console into Pro Tools via HD I/O converters—rock, light pop, jazz—processed on the way in so that we could do minimal mix processing.

We did basic balances and panning in Pro Tools to build a good stereo mix ITB and printed it to a stereo track in the DAW. Then we sent subgroups out to each summing mixer (one at a time) and made any level/pan adjustments to try to match our ITB mix. These adjustments were minimal, with less than 1dB moves on various subgroups. Then we printed the mixes through each summing mixer to its own stereo track in PT.

I know we weren't taking advantage of gain-staging or even making mix decisions through each summing box, but this was a comparison of "safe" level summing through 8 to 32 analog inputs just to compare the stereo field, tonality, and emotional feel of each summing mixer. If we introduced saturation in the summing mixers that would be whole 'nother thing.

I did this workshop maybe 5 times over 3 or 4 years and each time the result was basically the same. The differences were extremely small and most of the time only perceptible on instruments with extreme transients, like snare drums, tambourines, and nylon guitars. There were no suprises and none of the summing mixers made any particular mix "better" to our ears. Some mixers made the snare feel more relaxed in the mix, while others seemed to brighten the snare. These observations are similar to tiny (like tenths of a dB) EQ/Level changes made to a mix or master—ones that in no substantial way change the way an audience would feel about a song or mix.

I'm sure if we mixed into each mixer, using mix processing chosen while listening through the mixers we would have added different coloration depending on each mixer's character. For instance, the Phoenix allows for a wide range of saturation for each stereo input while the TubeTech imparted a gentle saturation across the whole mix. A few of the summing boxes sounded too close to the ITB mix to matter sonically, but their analog routing flexibility could add some utility to an ITB mix that includes outboard processing.

Ultimately, I mix in the box with an occasional analog insert on a channel or subgroup when I know I can quickly achieve a tone that I hear in my head. I have, on occasion, run an entire mix bus through a pair of Coil CA70 tube amps for their EQ (tone control based on NF and bias of the tubes). If I were to use analog summing, I feel I would need at least a few different summing options to cover all the bases.

I agree that all analog summing boxes will impart some kind of distortion that is different from mixing in the box, but not necessarily better or more accurate or "real."

My recommendation for all things musical is to use whatever inspires you to make music! If the outcome inspires you, it will affect others, too.

 

[ruairioflaherty]

I used to hold a workshop in L.A. where we would mix a project ITB (ProTools HDX) and then also mix the same songs through several different summing boxes. The boxes included (if my memory serves) Inward Connections summing box, Manley 16 channel Line Mixer, Tonelux OTB16, TubeTech SSM, Neuman 475b passive summing mixer (my own build), API 1608 console, SPL MixDream, Burl B32 (in various modes), Phoenix Nicerizer, and a couple more. Some of the summing mixers have no level, pan, or tone controls, so we tracked a few live band songs through an API 1608 console into Pro Tools via HD I/O converters—rock, light pop, jazz—processed on the way in so that we could do minimal mix processing.

We did basic balances and panning in Pro Tools to build a good stereo mix ITB and printed it to a stereo track in the DAW. Then we sent subgroups out to each summing mixer (one at a time) and made any level/pan adjustments to try to match our ITB mix. These adjustments were minimal, with less than 1dB moves on various subgroups. Then we printed the mixes through each summing mixer to its own stereo track in PT.

I know we weren't taking advantage of gain-staging or even making mix decisions through each summing box, but this was a comparison of "safe" level summing through 8 to 32 analog inputs just to compare the stereo field, tonality, and emotional feel of each summing mixer. If we introduced saturation in the summing mixers that would be whole 'nother thing.

I did this workshop maybe 5 times over 3 or 4 years and each time the result was basically the same. The differences were extremely small and most of the time only perceptible on instruments with extreme transients, like snare drums, tambourines, and nylon guitars. There were no suprises and none of the summing mixers made any particular mix "better" to our ears. Some mixers made the snare feel more relaxed in the mix, while others seemed to brighten the snare. These observations are similar to tiny (like tenths of a dB) EQ/Level changes made to a mix or master—ones that in no substantial way change the way an audience would feel about a song or mix.

I'm sure if we mixed into each mixer, using mix processing chosen while listening through the mixers we would have added different coloration depending on each mixer's character. For instance, the Phoenix allows for a wide range of saturation for each stereo input while the TubeTech imparted a gentle saturation across the whole mix. A few of the summing boxes sounded too close to the ITB mix to matter sonically, but their analog routing flexibility could add some utility to an ITB mix that includes outboard processing.

Ultimately, I mix in the box with an occasional analog insert on a channel or subgroup when I know I can quickly achieve a tone that I hear in my head. I have, on occasion, run an entire mix bus through a pair of Coil CA70 tube amps for their EQ (tone control based on NF and bias of the tubes). If I were to use analog summing, I feel I would need at least a few different summing options to cover all the bases.

I agree that all analog summing boxes will impart some kind of distortion that is different from mixing in the box, but not necessarily better or more accurate or "real."

My recommendation for all things musical is to use whatever inspires you to make music! If the outcome inspires you, it will affect others, too.

This aligns with my experience, if we stay out of the non linear distortion area summing is basiclally summing. The very transient rounding of a DA/AD trip cannot be underestimated too.