Dangerous 2-bus!

[minister]

I've been getting that extra something by bussing the entire stereo mix through a nice pair of analogue channels/stereo unit even if the EQ is flat it gets that something extra. Just a thought but do you own a nice stereo high end analogue EQ or valve pre amps, channel strip etc try sending your whole stereo mix through that flat you may be surprised, get the sound you want and save some money!!!

this is a thought. i did it before i got an analogue summing device. "finishing" my mix by running it through an avalon 747sp gave me more than a LITTLE extra something. in fact, it gave some mixes BALLS they never had. so, if you like that sound, it does help. the point of these boxes (and their designers and the ones who like them) is that the summing itself is something best done in the analogue realm and it can give you that extra 5-10%. again, i believe in ITB mixes and the headroom is pretty good, and much improved.

so, yeah, use an analogue box to "finish" a mix. but taking all the pieces and putting them together in an analogue box and then through your other unit, MAY work even better. try it. it MAY not.

[sirpucho]

I'm always up for continously trying to better mixes, so I will be trying an Audient Sumo summing amp, but as I've moved over to ITB mixing over the last 2 years previously using SSL or similar to mix, as I get more and more into digital mixing and watching out for internal clip lights gain structure etc etc on the plugs etc I'm finding the mixes are getting better and better and better. I guess the point I'm trying to make is to people moving over as I did is that hey the odd OL led on an SSL who cared? often analogue distortion even improved the sound, but mixing ITB you've really got to reeducate yourself that its different it isn't an SSL and you cant push it in the same way. I'm also not so sure about the summing in digital issues I've done an album where most mixes were done on a trad desk, but a few were done ITB and listening back now after mastering it's really hard to hear the difference. I'm not saying that digital mixing is entirely sorted but I get the feeling there's a lot of marketing going on and people are shelling out for expensive summing boxes that may not actually make all that much difference and for some people who are short on cash if they want some analogue gear, that harmonic distortion they wan't may only be an insert away anyway.

[minister]

good points!

for sure, we can all get better and educate and re-educate ourselves on how to use the tools better. mixing ITB IS different, as you say, to trad mixing. and we need to learn how to do that too, rather than dismiss it as inferior to the old ways. each facility can sort it out for themselves what ways work best for them.

[StadiumRocker]

You have not answered my first question. I thought this was your original point, or is it the summing busses arent worth the $$$. You seemed to have changed your tune a bit. You say people arent getting teh results above. Prove it.

Well for starters dude, I can try to make more than one point without necessarily "changing my tune". Try to be a little less linear.

Second, I can't prove anything about how something sounds by just talking about it on the internet, as you well know. So instead, here's something you can try for yourself, so that you can prove it for yourself. If you are truly interested in gaining some knowledge then you will do this test, and report back your results honestly, and I predict that you will agree with my "original point". On the other hand, if you're just a troll talking out your butt, then you won't do this test, you'll hit me back with some witty retort, and then you'll carry on for the rest of your days blindly swallowing the marketing claims of the people who sell the D2B and similar boxes.

1) Do a mix. Preferably some reasonably clean and dynamic material worthy of a good listening test (ie - not a totally distorted hip-hop mix that looks like a solid square wave coming out of your TC Master X/L3/etc). Do the mix completely in the box. Bounce it to disk or print it to a new stereo audio track. Keep it at 24 bits, assuming your session is a 24 bit session. This will be Mix #1. IMPORTANT: You need to print/commit all of your reverbs, delays, chorus effects, and any other time based effect (pitch shifters, Auto Tune, Soundtoys, Waves, etc) to audio tracks before printing this mix, because those effects are often random and will be slightly different every time you print a mix. Also, have a click or "2 Pop" at the top of the mix that has a fast, loud transient so you can use it to line up the mixes later on with sample accuracy.

2) Now take the stereo 1/2 output of Pro Tools into your D2B, and print the mix through the D2B and back into Pro Tools. No breakout stems - just stereo L/R from Pro Tools, into the D2B, on channels 1/2, and back into Pro Tools. IMPORTANT: Make sure you carefully calibrate your 192 or Apogee before doing this. If you don't know how, search the DUC, read the manuals, and learn something useful. Make sure that tones going out of Pro Tools, through the D2B, and back into Pro Tools are accurate to within 0.1dB. This mix will be Mix #2. This mix will have the sound of passing through your convertors, into the D2B, out of the D2B, and back into Pro Tools, but all done with just two channels. In other words, this mix contains the "sound of running the mix through the D2B", but all of the summing was still done in Pro Tools.

3) Now break the mix out into stems, 4/8/12/16 channels, however many you please. Sum those stems in the D2B, and print back into Pro Tools. Again, make sure your 192 or Apogee was perfectly calibrated on all channels.

4) Line all the mixes up in Pro Tools using the click you printed at the top. Solo and play Mix #1 and Mix #2 simultaneously, with one of them flipped out of phase (put the Trim plugin on both tracks). They will cancel almost completely. If they don't, you either didn't print your effects, or your calibration was inaccurate, or you don't have them lined up precisely. Next compare Mix #1 and Mix #3 with one of them flipped out of phase. Again, they should cancel out almost completely. You should barely hear anything at all even with your monitors cranked way up. The most you should hear is a crunchy little signal that is way down in the noise floor. When you hear that, you have printed these mixes correctly.

5) Now, post Mix #2 and Mix #3 on the internet for all of us to hear after you have spent a while comparing them yourself. What are we comparing? Well, Mix #2 and Mix #3 have gone through the D2B, so they both have the sound of passing through the D2B electronics, but the summing for Mix #2 was all done in Pro Tools. So we have essentially isolated the summing variable and we now have "A Pro Tools summed mix that was then run through a D2B" vs. "a D2B summed mix" for comparison.

6) If you did this test properly, (printed your effects, calibrated precisely), and you then ask people to compare these two mixes (Mix #2 and Mix #3) and repeatedly identify them in a blind listening test, the results will be totally random. Therefore, it will be demonstrated that no one can reliably hear the difference between a "D2B summed mix" and a "Pro Tools summed mix". Therefore, the D2B summing is not doing anything particularly audible or useful for the sound of your mixes. Therefore, the only sound you are really getting from a D2B is the sound of passing your entire mix through two channels of its analog circuitry, which is hardly why you spent all that money on it in the first place.

Which finally brings us back to my original point. By doing this test, you will understand that spending your bread on a much more interesting analog circuit, like a nice new (or vintage) compressor/limiter/mic pre/etc, makes a lot more sense.

Remember, we aren't comparing Mix #1 to Mix #2/Mix #3, because obviously running an entire mix through analog equipment changes the sound. We are comparing strictly the summing issue - Pro Tools summing vs D2B. That's the so-called "problem" that these boxes claim to have a solution for, and it's BS.

Once you see the light, here are some boxes that will make you a lot happier when you run your mix through them:

EL Labs Fatso, Jr.
Chandler TG1
Manley Vari-Mu
Avalon 2044
Neve 1084

I happen to own those particular items, I love them, and they are way cooler and way more bang for the buck than a summing box like the D2B or the Folcrom.

Now, tball, you have your homework. Report back with my proof.

[Stukface]

Now thats alot better Stadium, more answers/ideas for finding out the truth about summing. If I had a box to try it out I would, but I dont own a summing box. None of the stores around here have one in stack to try out.

[Jules]

Mix + internal summing vs External summing

HD internal summing vs External summing

Two different test senarios?

[tball]

My point is that these summing boxes, and in particular the Folcrom, are not getting people closer to the sound they are looking for.

HOW DO YOU KNOW PEOPLE ARENT GETTING THE SOUND THEY ARE LOOKING FOR? That is what I want you to prove. Im not interested in any of your tests or your wisdom. Im sorry you spent the time writing up your little test for me to do, but Im afraid you'll have to do it by your lonesome. You have your opinion and you can go use your Avalon and do what you do best. Once again I find humour in your attitude. You have your opinion and you like to flex it in a very condescending manner. I aint no troll, I just dont find your attitude or demeanor very appealling and I decided to call you out on it. Myself and loads of other people have used summing busses successfully. You can go do your test while I'll use what works for me. No whitty remarks. No name calling. No questioning anyones knowledge. I am just agreeing to disagree with you and I wont waste anymore time with it.

[Kenny Gioia]

It's not just adding color. That's what adding a Neve or Chandler pre might do if you just slap it across the 2 mix, but when you use devices like the Folcrom, your mix becomes wider, with more depth and better seperation between the instruments. More like a Class A console would.

I'll give you a perfect example that happened to me last week. I was mixing a pop record. It was not the kind of thing that you would mix on a Neve or API console. It was meant for an SSL. So I tried using my Folcrom with my Neve/API but it was completely the wrong color for the mix. It didn't work. So I bussed everything back to finish completely ITB. The color was now better but the stereo image just shrunk. Alot.

If it was just adding color, than I would have lost nothing going back ITB. But I was losing something.

I was forced to choose between color and width. I actually ended up doing a combination of both. I really need to buy some clean pre's.

And old Neve consoles do use a passive summing system. Much like the Folcrom. Useless design huh?

I've been on this board for many years and every 6 months we get to see an example of someone who is so insecure about their own way of doing things, that they need to insult others for doing things differently.

I don't care if you mix without tweeters in your speakers. Just make it sound good. And enjoy yourself. Because that's all that matters.

Peace.

[Touchwood Studios]

3) Now break the mix out into stems, 4/8/12/16 channels, however many you please. Sum those stems in the D2B, and print back into Pro Tools. Again, make sure your 192 or Apogee was perfectly calibrated on all channels.

But is this still not mixing in PT? You would need an output for every track.
I find I get a lot more mileage just using external comps/eq's and reverbs.

[StadiumRocker]

HOW DO YOU KNOW PEOPLE ARENT GETTING THE SOUND THEY ARE LOOKING FOR?

How totally unsurprising that this is your response.

They aren't getting the sound they are looking for as a result of using the D2B. You bore me to death. Take care.