ADK Mics Ultimate Drum Giveaway
Killer Home Recording
View RSS Feed

paul999

I've Traded in Analog Summing for Digital Fire Power!

Rate this Entry
by , 03-12-2012 at 12:46 AM (1825 Views)
I've been summing my mixes analog for the last 6 months. I've done a ton of mixes during this time and I really enjoy the work flow of my console so why would I trade that?

Digital vs Analog summing. Is it important?

Not to me. On a scale of 1-10 I rate the benefits of analog summing as zero. Unless your console has some serious coloration in the master section there is no purpose IMO. There are also a ton of cheaper ways to get this coloration. A good 2 buss compressor is a great start for one.

With all the Digital vs Analog summing samples I've heard the results are dubious at best. I've done my own experiments and I for one hear zero difference.

Anything that has this much debate and non conclusive evidence is not worth putting your money into.

A New Horizon Emerges

This weekend I decided to set up my console so that each analog channel is accessed via an i/o plug in logic. Basically what I do is use each channel as a plugin with my DAW channel. This has a serious audible impact and adds irrefutable power to my console and my DAW.

What I Can Do Now That I Couldn't Do Before

There are some real workflow advantages this way. When I was routing through my console every channel HAD to go through the console. This meant that I would either give up 2 channels just to sum a bunch of channels that were mixed ITB or grouping things together limiting eq usefulness. Being able to automate F/X sends is awesome. I can't do that on a console. I am still figuring out how to record the individual tracks back into my DAW in the best way. When I do I will be able to instantly recall a mix which will be awesome! Even though I am not doing a ton of recalls lately they are unavoidable.

The biggest advantage is that I can use plugs before AND after my analog toys. This is HUGE. It is so huge that the summing argument is laughable.

Why is being Able to Use Digital Plugs Before and After an Analog Channel Such a Big Deal?

Most of the time I like to compress after eq or before and after. On certain channels like tambourine, shakers and percussion the magic comes from eq and then I need utility compression. Plug in compression fits the bill exactly! Generally, when it comes to gear, I think of channels as primary, secondary and ambiance. Primary channels are Vox, kick, snare, bass, guitars, solos, overheads etc. Secondary channels in my mind are toms(sometimes), keys that are support for guitars, Guitars used to accent primary guitars, Backing vocals(sometimes), Foley. Ambiance channels are F/X, pads and sometimes backing vocals.

Primary channels need tons of character harmonic content and need to be the star of the show. This is where my i/o plugin for vocals leads to an API 550b and an API 525 compressor or Rhythm guitar i/o plug goes to a tonelux eq and the an Audient coompressor. These pieces bring SERIOUS color to the table.

Secondary channels IMO need to be clear and fit into small places. My D&R eq's really make things sparkle and are fantastic at pulling out things that interfere with other elements. Combining this with an aggressive DAW compressor AFTER the eq really squeezes things well, even better then a lot of OTB compression IMO. Only compressing before eq just doesn't contain things the same way.

Ambiance generally only needs eq maybe a little compression. Often these tracks can be handled entirely ITB except for the F/X which in my case are OTB.

Drawbacks. What I Can't Do ITB

The biggest thing I notice from this method is that F/X sends are a pain in the @$$. I am using a Lexicon PCM 70 and PCM 90 as well as an eventide modfactor. This means I have 5 mono sends. 1 input for the PCM 70, 2 for the PCM 90 (left and right) and 2 for the eventide(left and right). When on my console if I wanted to add the same amount of left an right PCM 90 to a source I would grab either the dual knob with one hand and turn them up at the same time or one knob with each hand. For a channel without dual knobs I'd often use 2 hands. Now if I need to add both it takes 2 mouse movements. It doesn't seem like much but I miss this 2 handed movement. Oh well automation more them makes up for it.

Conclusion

This set up is really cool. It is requires a minimal patchbay and really accents the strengths of both ITB and OTB mixing.
Tags: None Add / Edit Tags
Categories
Home Recording Talk

Comments

  1. the evil's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    this was awesome!
    thanks
  2. EnSkorSang's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    I'm not sure I fully understand the setup here...you are using the channel on your console as a insert-send plug in the DAW/'external plugin' (as it would be on cubase)...so does that mean you are using the direct outs on your console for the return & bypassing the fader? Essentially using the console as hardware EQ? Are you totally bypassing the groups & master section on the console?
  3. brandondrury's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Hey dude,

    You and I are moving in similar directions.

    1) Cubase has a "Batch Export". I can now select all the buses I want to export to wav when rendering the final mix. So far this has been absolutely perfect. I can select 2bus, Eventide H3000, and any other channel I like. Cubase will import them into my project if I'd like. I just mute them, but I can tell this is gonna be a HUGE benefit to me when I have to recall a mix in 3 months and was too stupid to write down what settings I used.

    2) Cubase has several External FX configurations. Mono, Mono-to-stereo, and stereo. Surely Logic has something similar.
  4. rook2c4's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    With all the rage of analog summing these days, it's refreshing to read what I've been thinking for some time - that analog summing is not a magic formula to turn good-sounding mixes into fantastic-sounding mixes. Every audio example on the 'net comparing digital to analog summing I've come across has so far not convinced me that analog summing actually is vastly superior to digital summing (done right), and that I really need to jump aboard and invest in this analog summing thing.
    brandondrury likes this.
  5. brandondrury's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Even in the Slate VCC manual, it states that is nothing wrong with digital summing. The thing a lot of guys used to using consoles miss is mostly all the "bad" stuff....non-linearities, distortion, cross talk, etc.

    Of course, there are many "bad" things in audio that sound good. This just happens to be the single most subtle poart of the process I can think of.

    Brandon
  6. paul999's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Originally Posted by brandondrury
    Even in the Slate VCC manual, it states that is nothing wrong with digital summing. The thing a lot of guys used to using consoles miss is mostly all the "bad" stuff....non-linearities, distortion, cross talk, etc.

    Of course, there are many "bad" things in audio that sound good. This just happens to be the single most subtle poart of the process I can think of.

    Brandon
    The best part of this system is that I am only missing out on cross talk between channels and Aux sends as well as cross talk between left and right 2 buss. I am still getting the cross talk between channels and harmonic distortion of the actual channels. When I really push channels cross talk audible through my console. It still bleeds through the direct outs when I go out of each channel Honestly I wouldn't miss it if this went away.

    Funny pseudo- experiment.

    I mixed one song with analog summing from a punk rock band I've tracked and then another from the same band on my new system. I was sure for about the first 2 hours of the mix that I'd made a mistake and that not summing was going to comeback and haunt me. When I listened to the 2 mixes I would describe the digital summing one as **** and punchy compared to the analog one by about 2%.LOL I chalk this up to normal variation between mixes that I do over the course of an album.
  7. AndiP's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Originally Posted by brandondrury
    Even in the Slate VCC manual, it states that is nothing wrong with digital summing. The thing a lot of guys used to using consoles miss is mostly all the "bad" stuff....non-linearities, distortion, cross talk, etc.

    Of course, there are many "bad" things in audio that sound good. This just happens to be the single most subtle poart of the process I can think of.

    Brandon
    I'm fairly certain that the VCC mixbuss will give you 2-buss xtalk whereas the virtual channels don't actually exchange data with each other. The effects are fairly subtle and I haven't spent the time to ty to check this but that's how I think it works. If right it means that you may choose to put the mixbuss (rather than the channel) on stereo group and fx channels, and it means that you can freeze your individual tracks if you need to without losing the benefit of VCC.