Dangerous 2-bus!

[minister]

i think you've missed the point of summing somewhat. the point isn't primarily to color the mix, it is the relieve the PT master bus a piece of math and performing it in the analog domain - summing the analog outputs, because it sounds different (and many would say better) than when it is summed ITB.

the coloring that different summing units add is secondary to the actual summing.

well summed up bill.! i like my d2B -- even for simple 2-3 pieces numbers.

[StadiumRocker]

i don't think you've understood the concept of summing properly.

Right. I've only been recording and mixing records for 15 years. What would I know?

I don't think you understand the concept that putting your mix through some good outboard gear to produce a desired result is a much better way to spend your money than worrying about the relatively insignificant differences between summing in Pro Tools and summing in some arbitrary analog circuit. As I said before, the D2B sounds great - and I'd be really bummed if I laid out that much cash for something that does so little. And what little it does can hardly be considered better. Microscopically subjectively different. But those differences are obtainable without using the D2B, leaving lots of cash left over for something cool, like a new preamp/compressor/limiter/speakers/A/D/D/A converters/etc.

the point isn't primarily to color the mix, it is the relieve the PT master bus of a piece of math and performing it in the analog domain - summing the analog outputs, because it sounds different (and many would say better) than when it is summed ITB.

"Relieve the PT master bus of a piece of math"? Brilliant. Was that technical explanation in the Folcrom literature? Do you have any idea what that means? (Hint: nothing)

the coloring that different summing units add is really secondary to the actual summing.
BBB

With the Dangerous 2-Bus, I agree that "the coloring is secondary to the summing". But with the Folcrom, the "coloring" is the whole point of the product, but it's pointless to use the Folcrom to achieve the effect. Most mic preamps have line level inputs. You don't need a Folcrom to convert your mix to mic level to add the color of your preamps. Just take the +4 outputs of your convertors into your mic preamps line inputs, overdrive the signal however you please, then off to whatever other compressor limiter you own, and back into Pro Tools or CDR or whatever. Or take the signal out of Pro Tools, into a +4 to -10 transformer/pad, and into the mic level inputs of your mic preamps. Same result as the Folcrom, for about $950 less. You don't need the Folcrom. It's a silly product, and a total waste of a thousand bucks.

But like I said, spend your money however you please. Just putting some info out there for your consideration.

[BigBadBill]

Right. I've only been recording and mixing records for 15 years. What would I know?

I don't think you understand the concept that putting your mix through some good outboard gear to produce a desired result is a much better way to spend your money than worrying about the relatively insignificant differences between summing in Pro Tools and summing in some arbitrary analog circuit. As I said before, the D2B sounds great - and I'd be really bummed if I laid out that much cash for something that does so little.

this is very much a matter of taste. i`ve been putting my mixes through "some good outboard gear" for 20 years now, and i still am. it still doesn't change the fact that to my ears, internal summing doesn't sound as good as analog summing does.

and i've yet to find a piece of outboard gear that can correct poor internal summing.

And what little it does can hardly be considered better. Microscopically subjectively different. But those differences are obtainable without using the D2B, leaving lots of cash left over for something cool, like a new preamp/compressor/limiter/speakers/A/D/D/A converters/etc.

we all hear sound and mixes differently. to me, the difference between digital and analog summing is not by any means "microscopically different".

"Relieve the PT master bus of a piece of math"? Brilliant. Was that technical explanation in the Folcrom literature? Do you have any idea what that means? (Hint: nothing)

before you get your knickers in a bunch, let me say that those were my words. let me also say that i am in no means technically qualified to discuss digital summing on a technical level. but i do know that summing some 40-50-60 tracks digitally is an incredibly complex piece of math, and this is where a lot of people feel that PT, in all its glory, falls a tad short.

my point was that this task is better left to analog summing devices, be it the folcrom, spl, tubetech, you name it. again IMHO.

there is a clear difference between a mix that's been summed ITB and OTB. i prefer OTB, as do many others. you clearly don't. and that's cool. can't we all just get along? sheesh..

With the Dangerous 2-Bus, I agree that "the coloring is secondary to the summing". But with the Folcrom, the "coloring" is the whole point of the product,

no, the point is to passively sum 16 analog channels into 2. which it does beautifully.

the folcrom is, for all intents and purposes, similar to a Dangerous but without the gain stage. this makes the folcrom a lot more affordable, the theory being that a lot of us have got one or more pair of good pres that we've spent $$$ on over the years, and they're seldom used in the mixing process. instead of building a fixed gain stage into a folcrom (and by that making it a lot more expensive), let the user sum his mix in the analog domain, use his gain stage of choice - which he already owns. this is the concept behind the folcrom.

as i said at the beginning, analog summing isn't for everyone. if you've actually tried it, and didn't hear that much of a difference, great. keep on doing what you're doing. there is no one thing that is going to work for everyone.

again, that is why i urge everyone to try it out for themselves before investing in it.

BBB

[StadiumRocker]

before you get your knickers in a bunch, let me say that those were my words. let me also say that i am in no means technically qualified to discuss digital summing on a technical level. but i do know that summing some 40-50-60 tracks digitally is an incredibly complex piece of math, and this is where a lot of people feel that PT, in all its glory, falls a tad short.

Actually, It's not incredibly complex. It's called addition. With fractions. It's simply, easy, and accurate. But that's not the point. I agree that people may differ over summing ITB vs OTB. My point is that these summing boxes, and in particular the Folcrom, are not getting people closer to the sound they are looking for.

my point was that this task is better left to analog summing devices, be it the folcrom, spl, tubetech, you name it. again IMHO. there is a clear difference between a mix that's been summed ITB and OTB. i prefer OTB, as do many others. you clearly don't. and that's cool. can't we all just get along? sheesh..

I agree that OTB summing is sometimes appropriate. I just don't agree that the Folcrum or D2B are anywhere near worth the money for what they accomplish, and I urge people to look elsewhere for obtaining the sound they want from their mixes.

no, the point is to passively sum 16 analog channels into 2. which it does beautifully. the folcrom is, for all intents and purposes, similar to a Dangerous but without the gain stage.

Completely incorrect. I won't educate you further because you don't seem interested in facts. But in case you are, look at the circuits in these two boxes for yourself, understand them, and then come back to this thread with a different point of view. The Folcrom is not simply lacking a gain stage. It intentionally reduces the output voltage, thereby requiring makeup gain. That's the reason that the Folcrom is such a lame idea and a waste of money. Whoever designed the Folcrom applied a solution to a problem that didn't exist.

this makes the folcrom a lot more affordable, the theory being that a lot of us have got one or more pair of good pres that we've spent $$$ on over the years, and they're seldom used in the mixing process. instead of building a fixed gain stage into a folcrom (and by that making it a lot more expensive), let the user sum his mix in the analog domain, use his gain stage of choice - which he already owns. this is the concept behind the folcrom.

eek! All I can say is, if you armed yourself with a little more technical information instead of just blindly believing in the marketing claims of these devices, you would move a lot further down the road towards understanding how to achieve the sound you want for your mixes.

...again, that is why i urge everyone to try it out for themselves before investing in it.

As do I. Read my recommendations above for achieving the same effect that the Folcrom provides for a lot less money.

[Stukface]

StadiumRocker if you got rid of the cocky attitude, people might take you seriously.

[StadiumRocker]

My goal in life. To be taken seriously on the DUC.

[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? You've gone around and surveyed people on this huh? BigBadBill is liking the results and Im sure a whole slew of other people like the folcrom,dangerous 2bus,tube-tech or any other summing bus. I find it humorous that you attack other people's methods without any real knowledge yourself. You explained digital summing so well and Im definitely gonna open up a folcrom and "look at" the circuits for a long, long time and maybe I'll understand them better. People use methods that arent technically "correct" all the time and get desired results. The ITB/OTB/Summing debate has been beat to death and it is a known fact that many users are unsatisfied with digital summing or bouncing out through external pres. I've heard amazing results with ITB summing and OTB summing, whatever works for ya man! IMHO I believe that analog summing is a nice bonus to DAW users and I hear a difference and will coninue to use it and encourage others out there to explore its possibilites. Good luck to whatever methods you people use to bring the rock.


ed

[StadiumRocker]

I find it humorous that you attack other people's methods

I haven't attacked anybody's methods. I have simply disagreed with some of the statements made here that are incorrect, and expressed my own opinion. Strange sense of humor.

...without any real knowledge yourself.

Says who? I've used both both of the boxes being discussed here. I also plan to try the SPL box at some point. I mix almost every day. What knowledge are you suggesting I lack?

You explained digital summing so well and Im definitely gonna open up a folcrom and "look at" the circuits for a long, long time and maybe I'll understand them better.

Good for you. Nothing like acquiring a little information to back up your faith.

People use methods that arent technically "correct" all the time and get desired results.

I agree. Again, for the umpteenth time...I agree that there are appropriate times for ITB vs OTB mixing. All I've been saying is that neither of the two boxes being discussed here are worth the money, for all the reasons previously mentioned. I agree with BigBadBill's original statement:

i would say that if your mixing chops are good, and you're already able to use your protools rig to its maximum when it comes to mixing ITB - then analog summing gives you that extra 5% that is often so hard to get in a mix. if your mixing skills are not quite there yet, analog summing won't make much of a difference, and you're better off spending your time and money honing working on your chops for now.

BigBadBill was the first one in this thread to make the point that your time and money are better spent elsewhere if you don't have good mixing skills. I agree. I do not agree that the Folcrom box in particular will give you that extra 5%. I think it subtracts about 20%. It's a piece of junk. I recommend not spending your money on it.

But do whatever makes you happy. Obviously you feel the need to defend your purchase if you have already shelled out for one of these boxes. Hope you feel better now that you've vented.

[sirpucho]

I'm not sure about the whole "summing issue" with 48 bit mixing we've got the headroom, I think the main problem is a lack of understanding of digital mixing technique (it isn't analogue those clip lights on your plug ins are really bad news) and the fact we miss the harmonic distortion of a real desk. 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!!!

[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.

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.