Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Legacy Products > Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-26-2004, 01:17 PM
FredrikThomander FredrikThomander is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 41
Default Analog summing, Dangerous vs. Mackie?

Hi all,

I've been looking at maybe getting the Dangerous 2bus.
But I have a Mackie 1202-vlz mixer sitting doing nothing in a corner.
Has anybody tried that for analog summing?
Are there any sound quality issues...?

....Cacka
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-26-2004, 06:02 PM
zr-rock zr-rock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 67
Default Re: Analog summing, Dangerous vs. Mackie?

the 1202 would work

the dangerous would sound better
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-26-2004, 06:24 PM
PhilBuckle PhilBuckle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 725
Default Re: Analog summing, Dangerous vs. Mackie?

This topic has been flogged to death on The Gearslutz Forum (with the manufacturers of the Dangerous stuff commenting) and also on that Forum where Lyn Funstan hangs out. Sorry can't remember the name.
As someone who was ready to buy the Dangereous I was very interested and did a lot of research.
The manufacturers naturally came out in defence of their product but no one at Dangerous will supply a listening A/B test.
The conjecture is that these summing boxes actually do nothing. Of course everyone who has bought them will say the opposite but no one can prove anything beyond "it just sounds better" or "my mate has one and he thinks it's great".
Yes I'm cynical. Since investing in a lot of expensive outboard I have become wary of the retail pimps and salesman who inhabit these lists. One thing I'm most cynical of are self appointed audio experts who make sweeping statements based on snobbery and subjective opinions.
There is a natural tendency for us audio guys to want new stuff and there are a wealth of people just ready to head us in the right direction.
So..............only one person has done a scientific test and that person is Lyn Funstan. If you do a search around I'm sure you will find many people commenting on the results. I've only heard of one person who could pick the Dangerous.
What really needs to be exploded and revealed is all the acoustic dissinformation spouted by manufacturers and wankers.
I didn't buy the Dangerous. Good luck with your investigations.
__________________
G5 Dual 2.7 OS 10.5.6 HD Accel 2 192+96 I/O
http://philbuckle.com/
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-26-2004, 07:29 PM
rtcstudio rtcstudio is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,040
Default Re: Analog summing, Dangerous vs. Mackie?

Actually it's LYNN FUSTON and if you're interested you want to get a copy of the Awesome Dawsome CD which compares all sorts of DAWS as well as Pro Tools going through the Dangerous, an SSL, etc.

You should just try to get a Dangerous and listen to it side by side with your mackie and see what works for you.

This is just something you can't ultimately decide based on opinions on a forum.
__________________
Pro Tools 10/11 HD, Mac OS 10.8.2, Mac Pro 2 x 2.4 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon (June 2012) 64 Gig RAM, Avid HDX Card, OMNI HD I/O, 192 HD 16x16, Artist MC Control, Firewire audio drives, Sony Bravia 42" HDMI monitor, Acer 24" monitor
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-26-2004, 11:12 PM
Duardo Duardo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 978
Default Re: Analog summing, Dangerous vs. Mackie?

Quote:
As someone who was ready to buy the Dangereous I was very interested and did a lot of research.
The manufacturers naturally came out in defence of their product but no one at Dangerous will supply a listening A/B test.
Why should the manufacturer supply a listening A/B test? If you really want to hear the difference, why not get your hands on one and compare it to your platform of choice using your tracks in your studio? That's the only way you're going to get a really useful result. I'd always be a little skeptical of a test provided by a manufacturer.

Quote:
The conjecture is that these summing boxes actually do nothing. Of course everyone who has bought them will say the opposite but no one can prove anything beyond "it just sounds better" or "my mate has one and he thinks it's great".
What do you mean by "do nothing"? They mix signals together. I don't think there's any question that that's what they do.

As for "proving" anything...what are you trying to prove? If you're talking about sonic quality, that's entirely subjective. Digidesign can easily explain why mixing in the box is more accurate than mixing through an external mixer, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily sounds better.

Quote:
So..............only one person has done a scientific test and that person is Lyn Funstan. If you do a search around I'm sure you will find many people commenting on the results. I've only heard of one person who could pick the Dangerous.
Lynn's test is hardly scientific...it's certainly a useful reference, but I'm not sure how it applies in this case anyhow. The Dangerous was compared to a few other high-end analog boxes and a bunch of digital mixing systems, but not the Mackie. The differences between the Dangerous boxes and other boxes of their ilk are fairly noticeable to most people. But all that Lynn's tests did was compare how the summing portions of various systems work. To really get an idea of what works and sounds best for you, you really need to use the device as part of your full system. I don't know of a really "scientific" way to do that, as you'll likely do things differently depending on the gear you're using.

Quote:
What really needs to be exploded and revealed is all the acoustic dissinformation spouted by manufacturers and wankers.
What "acoustic dissinformation (sic)" are you talking about?

What ideally should be done is to hear the products you're interested in for yourself.

Quote:
3 months ago I bought a Dangerous 2, I returned it after trying eagerly to justify my investment for about a week (15% restocking fee my loss).
It is all a hype.
What do you mean by "all hype"?

Do you just mean you didn't like the way it sounded? It's certainly not the only option out there, and it's designed to be relatively transparent...you may get more out of one of the boxes with more "character" to them, like the options for companies like Aurora, API, TL Audio, and so on...

Quote:
On the other hand using your Mackie pres isn’t the best route either, unless you love its sound.
A pair of Neve pres would do you more wonders compared to all the other hyped bs.
How did pre's come into this conversation? We're not even talking about them. How can you compare microphone preamps to a summing mixer?


Quote:
You should just try to get a Dangerous and listen to it side by side with your mackie and see what works for you.
This is just something you can't ultimately decide based on opinions on a forum.
Best advice I've seen in this thread so far. That's what it really comes down to, isn't it?

-Duardo
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-26-2004, 11:58 PM
bashville bashville is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 1,128
Default Re: Analog summing, Dangerous vs. Mackie?

------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing I'm most cynical of are self appointed audio experts who make sweeping statements based on snobbery and subjective opinions.
----------------------------------------

www.goldenagemusic.se/pdf/MixBus%20Theory.pdf


Read this for the Dangerous side of this discussion. I know Chris, and one thing I can say about him is that he's definitely not "self-appointed".
__________________
HD Ultimate (Native), PT2019.5, 192, 3.2 Quad MacPro 5,1, 16 Gig, Sierra
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-27-2004, 01:03 AM
Mt.Everest Mt.Everest is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 1,154
Default Re: Analog summing, Dangerous vs. Mackie?

Quote:
www.goldenagemusic.se/pdf/MixBus%20Theory.pdf


Read this for the Dangerous side of this discussion. I know Chris, and one thing I can say about him is that he's definitely not "self-appointed".
here we go again. I hope Nika chimes in to point out the misinformation in that Dangerous 2Bus Document. For one thing, it fails to point out that YOU CANT CLIP THE PT MIXER. It uses 56 bits (or whatever) so you DONT have to have your 64 faders at -36db to avoid clipping. And the stuff about the output to cds only having 11 bit performance? This gets into the whole thing of bits= dynamic range NOT resolution.

Anyway, rent a Dangerous 2Bus, set up a blind listening test and see if you can consistenly pick it out as the 'better' one. Most likely not.

I really hope Nika chimes in about that Mix Bus link.
MT
__________________
PT|HD4 Accel PCIx w Magma Chassis & 192 I/O
PT HD 9.0.5 - Mac Pro 8-Core 2.4Ghz Westmere 10.6.8
PT|HD 9.0.5 - MacMini Core-Duo, 10.6.8 - ProFire 2626
•••DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE•••
•Use & Trust ø Cancellation!•
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-27-2004, 10:21 AM
Markk Markk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 390
Default Re: Analog summing, Dangerous vs. Mackie?

Just for the Record. Chris Muth, who makes the Dangerous products, got his start making mastering studio gear. The real high-end custom stuff. He has a serious reputation in the industry for high-end equipment and is extremely knowledgable. I am not trying to sell his gear here, but I don't think he is just trying to get money out of people for something that does not, in his opinion, provide value.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-27-2004, 12:41 PM
lancejorton lancejorton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 446
Default Re: Analog summing, Dangerous vs. Mackie?

i have a custom passive box with a API-cloned gain stage. it sounds amazing! as opposed to Dangerous, you could look at a Folcrum:

http://www.mercenary.com/rmfo16chpasu.html

or

http://rollmusic.com/systems/folcrom.shtml

you need a stereo preamp for gain before going back into PT.

--
lance
__________________
--
lance
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-27-2004, 02:41 PM
zr-rock zr-rock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 67
Default Re: Analog summing, Dangerous vs. Mackie?

api "gain" stage??????

from their website:

"There are no amplifiers, ICs, transistors, capacitors, or transformers in the signal path whatsoever."

from what i know of electronics this leaves only resistors..... and resistors can only attenuate signals.

and i'm told that a fully passive curcuit will have some problems with impedances...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question to Dangerous summing box owners? Eduardo Apolonia General Discussion 8 04-19-2012 04:25 PM
ProFire 2626 + Dangerous D-Box: Correct Routing for Summing??? cueball73 Pro Tools M-Powered (Mac) 2 12-31-2010 03:46 PM
Anyone using a dangerous d-box with 003rack?/Benefits of analog summing? Digitopian 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 3 06-03-2009 12:17 PM
Dangerous 2bus analog summing Bryan Cook Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 15 06-22-2003 01:29 AM
Analog Summing vs. HD Mix Bus Nicolasixxx Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 3 03-06-2003 04:13 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:05 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com