analogue desks

seannash

okay so im not in the market for one but im wondering since most people run everything direct into there daw(im assuming) do they factor in much these days.
is it simply a case of getting a bit of a different sound by running the sounds through the desk and then back into the daw?has it got better eqs than software?

DamagedTrax

seannash wrote: »

okay so im not in the market for one but im wondering since most people run everything direct into there daw(im assuming) do they factor in much these days.
is it simply a case of getting a bit of a different sound by running the sounds through the desk and then back into the daw?has it got better eqs than software?

depends on the desk really. in pulse i like to surgically mix in protools and then route groups out onto the rembrandt to apply a little coloured eq and a little master compression before i record it.

on the neve down in windmill lane i can imagine myself doing a lot more actual mixing on it.

Aridstarling

I don't use one either but I'd imagine its quite often about physical control as well as the sound.

Now sometime in the distant future I would be looking at something like the Allen and Heath ZED R16, a real integration of digital and analogue. Seems like the way forward to me.

seannash

so for the most part its more for the tactile feel(i can appreciate that) and th inbuilt eqs.
so if a dance music producer was looking for a desk for just the sound colouration would he be better just buying some high end eqs like the sony oxford ones or whatever.

DamagedTrax

seannash wrote: »

so for the most part its more for the tactile feel(i can appreciate that) and th inbuilt eqs.
so if a dance music producer was looking for a desk for just the sound colouration would he be better just buying some high end eqs like the sony oxford ones or whatever.

you wouldnt get much sound colouration from the sonnox eqs, they're fairly transparent.

doesnt matter whether its dance or rock or whatever, your music will benefit somewhat from being taken out of the box and fed thru some nice circuitry. how much it benefits is entirly down to what you put it thru and what you do with it.

seannash

DamagedTrax wrote: »

you wouldnt get much sound colouration from the sonnox eqs, they're fairly transparent.

doesnt matter whether its dance or rock or whatever, your music will benefit somewhat from being taken out of the box and fed thru some nice circuitry. how much it benefits is entirly down to what you put it thru and what you do with it.

yeah i guess the eq plug in was a bad example but surely there emanulations out there of desks etc to run stuff through.

DamagedTrax

seannash wrote: »

yeah i guess the eq plug in was a bad example but surely there emanulations out there of desks etc to run stuff through.

theres quite a few plugs that emulate analog circuitry but they get pricey

my faves

mcdsp - analog channel
waves - V, API, SSL
URS - channel strip pro
UAD - neve, 4K etc (needs hardware)
focusrite liquidmix (needs hardware)


if you're looking for a decent "analogue" type sound without having spend too much check out the stuff from stillwell. they do a lovely dbx160 style comp and a neve 1073 eq. not the greatest emulations but they do impart a certain tone on the sound.

seannash

DamagedTrax wrote: »

theres quite a few plugs that emulate analog circuitry but they get pricey

my faves

mcdsp - analog channel
waves - V, API, SSL
URS - channel strip pro
UAD - neve, 4K etc (needs hardware)
focusrite liquidmix (needs hardware)


if you're looking for a decent "analogue" type sound without having spend too much check out the stuff from stillwell. they do a lovely dbx160 style comp and a neve 1073 eq. not the greatest emulation

thanks man,im just more curious than anything at the moment.
im not sure my set up warrants these expensive plug ins at the moment but its nice to know there about when i need them

fitz

Sean, you might also look at demoing a nice summing mixer. Sending your audio out of the box to get summed in the analogue domain is an approach that can give the kind of results that you're looking for, i.e. the imparting of a bit of "character" that you don't get ITB.

DamagedTrax

fitz wrote: »

Sean, you might also look at demoing a nice summing mixer. Sending your audio out of the box to get summed in the analogue domain is an approach that can give the kind of results that you're looking for, i.e. the imparting of a bit of "character" that you don't get ITB.

yup, dangerous 2 buss has quite a name for itself. on the less expensive end TL-audio do a tube summing box thats meant to be pretty nice

seannash

fitz wrote: »

Sean, you might also look at demoing a nice summing mixer. Sending your audio out of the box to get summed in the analogue domain is an approach that can give the kind of results that you're looking for, i.e. the imparting of a bit of "character" that you don't get ITB.

yeah but im wondering if its easier just to get a plug in.presuming its cheaper.
im definitely not looking at the moment as im overseas at the moment.but whenever i eventually settle into a space of my own ill be looking into stuff like this.
curiosity got the better of me

fitz

The summing mixer option certainly isn't cheap, but I heard fantastic results achieved with them. There's something about really high quality analogue summing circuitry that DAW's and plugins haven't been able to capture yet, imo.

jtsuited

DamagedTrax wrote: »

on the less expensive end TL-audio do a tube summing box thats meant to be pretty nice

probably the greatest pun ever is associated with that product.

On the TL site, the product overview information for this summing mixer is..........

British Summers Just Got Better!


BOOOOMMM!

johnnylakes

I have a Soundtracs 24 channel that I wouldn't swap for the world...I have used other desks with my set-up, Allen and Heath etc. but I just love the EQ..maybe it's just what I have become accustomed to over time..
I much prefer an actual desk for shaping the sound/EQ before I press record...I tend to find myself 'tweaking' things afterwards ITB..usually more subtle alterations...

PaulBrewer

Sean,

I think there's two elements to it. One is sound and one is control.

A mix summed out on individual chans of a high quality console often sounds better than an ITB one. We've done A/B/C tests where the ITB mix sound good ... but the through summing one sound much better.

Unlike some tests we've done there was universal agreement too, everyone agreed the OTB one was better.

When I say 'better' I mean has more of a 3 dimensional quality to it, more space within the mix, and often a feeling of more depth and stereo field , extended bass response , smoother top.

A lot of the features within sound that are commonly agreed are 'better'.

I think it was to you I mentioned Faithless as a band whose sound was much 'bigger' than a lot of dance records I'd heard (keeping in mind I'm no expert). That has the 'big console/studio' sound that I like. Others may not like it, but that's an example of the process at work.

It naturally sounds better, that's before you do anything to it processing wise.

The same is the case for inputting sounds.

The second element is control and coincidentally as we've touched upon it in another thread is the Left Brain (thinking) compared to Right Brain (feeling) to simplify it.

A console is a much Right Brainy way of working.

Most mix engineers set up their console the same way , Drums 1 to 12, Vocal 24 with a short delay , long delay, short reverb , long reverb , bus comp etc. etc. all in place or whatever combination works for them.

With that consistency in place making changes becomes a very quick intuitive process, the bass was on 17 yesterday, it is today, it will be tomorrow.... you turn it up you turn it down, no additional thinking, just feeling the bass must go up, less top, more mid, whatever.... job done.

However, unlike what might be as nearly black and white as audio gets (summing) Daw control is now replicating those functions and functionality in modern consoles.

Digi have their Icons etc and SSL have their Matrix /AWS and Audient have the Zen .... apart from the Icon, all sitting in a place that combines DAW and 'regular' Console.

To really understand this difference you have to hear it. That's why I organise those little demo dos every so often - so instead of trying to explain something that's difficult for words to convey you hear it, loud and clear. Then you can make up your mind whether you like it or not.

woodsdenis

seannash wrote: »

yeah but im wondering if its easier just to get a plug in.presuming its cheaper.
im definitely not looking at the moment as im overseas at the moment.but whenever i eventually settle into a space of my own ill be looking into stuff like this.
curiosity got the better of me

http://www.3daudioinc.com/3db/forumdisplay.php?f=15

Sean

Check this forum out . They did a lot of tests on different summing boxs and posted the results.I think they did a CD with the results. Personally I am very dubious about a lot of the hype surrounding these.

If I was to give a piece of advice as to how to improve your the sound of your DAW I would say get an external clock first. Not sexy
and you cant impress your mates with it but they make a serious difference.
Then go and blow your money on a summing box if you want.:D

That being said if you sum through a fully fledged analogue desk SSL/Neve/Amek it does make a huge difference. I get the impression that a lot of the summing boxs
filled a need that people thought they had.

PaulBrewer

fitz wrote: »

The summing mixer option certainly isn't cheap,.

You'd be surprised Fitz.
The Audient Sumo has been a great success for us and in Audio terms is quite cheap.

In tests we've done it performed better that a much more expensive summer whose name begins with N .... and it has a bus comp too.

PaulBrewer

woodsdenis wrote: »

http://www.3daudioinc.com/3db/forumdisplay.php?f=15

Sean

Check this forum out . They did a lot of tests on different summing mixers and posted the results.I think they did a CD with the results. Personally I am very dubious about a lot of the hype surrounding these.

If I was to give a piece of advice as to how to improve your the sound of your DAW I would say get an external clock first. Not sexy
and you cant impress your mates with it but they make a serious difference.
Then go and blow your money on a summing box if you want.:D

Dennis makes a good point.

A good word clock is a global improvement.

However Denis makes a bad point about summing

Woods! I'll get you down the next time we're doing test - a Steak Dinner says I convince you!

woodsdenis

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Dennis makes a good point.

A good word clock is a global improvement.

However Denis makes a bad point about summing

Woods! I'll get you down the next time we're doing test - a Steak Dinner says I convince you!

Which box one did you use.

fitz

PaulBrewer wrote: »

You'd be surprised Fitz.
The Audient Sumo has been a great success for us and in Audio terms is quite cheap.

In tests we've done it performed better that a much more expensive summer whose name begins with N .... and it has a bus comp too.

Who are ya tellin, my album was mixed using one!
The Sumo is relatively cheap, but it's still about €1500 if I remember rightly. It's not a cheap piece of kit, but it's a great price for what it is.
My mix engineer friend really liked the compressor on it too...

jtsuited

so this thread is now a summing myth/reality thread? ok.

summing otb is great if you have the cash.
entirely unnecessary if you don't.

also the a/b tests for summing itb vs otb are flawed as when you're entirely itb you tend to compensate for the lack of 'depth' and 'warmth'.

PaulBrewer

woodsdenis wrote: »

Which box one did you use.

Summing box?

SSL X-Rack, Audient Sumo, Neve 8816 from Apogee DA16s and a Big Ben.

Results in that order, 2 tests in 2 studios with about 6 guys in total.

Universal agreement...... and that's very rare!

DamagedTrax

jtsuited wrote: »

also the a/b tests for summing itb vs otb are flawed as when you're entirely itb you tend to compensate for the lack of 'depth' and 'warmth'.

definitly. you mix completly differantly ITB than out. i firmly believe that you can get the same sound with top quality plugins that you can get spending 1000 or so on a summing box.

differant story up the high end though. i really dont think anything can replace hardware like SSL, neve etc.. but who's got that type of cash lying around eh?

PaulBrewer

fitz wrote: »

Who are ya tellin, my album was mixed using one!
The Sumo is relatively cheap, but it's still about €1500 if I remember rightly. It's not a cheap piece of kit, but it's a great price for what it is.
My mix engineer friend really liked the compressor on it too...

Nah, £995 ex vat full RRP so probably around £900 street price.

Not 'cheap' cheap, but cheap in relation to a lot of it's competition.

1200 Euro bills max inc vat AND you get a free bus comp!

seannash

jtsuited wrote: »

so this thread is now a summing myth/reality thread? ok.

summing otb is great if you have the cash.
entirely unnecessary if you don't.

also the a/b tests for summing itb vs otb are flawed as when you're entirely itb you tend to compensate for the lack of 'depth' and 'warmth'.

i guess i was just curious,was watching that freemasons in the studio video and i saw them using a desk to run there stems through(i think thats what they were at)
was wondering if you take the tactile advantages of a desk out of the equation would plug ins do an equally good job and give your tracks a character also,not 100% like analogue but character none the less.
just curious like i said:D

PaulBrewer

seannash wrote: »

i guess i was just curious,was watching that freemasons in the studio video and i saw them using a desk to run there stems through(i think thats what they were at)
was wondering if you take the tactile advantages of a desk out of the equation would plug ins do an equally good job and give your tracks a character also,not 100% like analogue but character none the less.
just curious like i said:D

Sometimes the 'argument' takes a 'In The Box is Bad' and it's automatically sonically inferior to an OTB mix. I don't believe that to be the case.

I've tried to describe what, in my opinion, the differences are. Smooth top end , stereo imaging etc may make not make your track 'better' as a track but different.

In fact in the grittier end of sonics those qualities may be out of place. However those are the differences as I understand them.

woodsdenis

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/26124-audient-sumo-summing-bus-wav-examples.html

Just to throw this into the equation. Read this thread all the way to page 3.
I cant/wont comment on the boxs you mentioned Paul as I havn't personally used them, but one of them was endorsed by a well known/superstar producer I know, who swore that this was the best thing since sliced bread. I know for a fact that he never used it, which was ok because he used a fully specced SSL 9000 to mix on.

There is no doubt that if you sum through an SSL/Neve fully blown analogue
desk even I can hear the difference. Would I pay 100 of thousands for the difference

This is of course where the boxs come in. Analogue circuitry with no faders
for the most part. If you hear a difference then go for it. Its all subjective if it is any better though as shown in the gearslutz thread. Just because something is analogue doesn't make it necessarily better.

PaulBrewer

woodsdenis wrote: »

Just because something is analogue doesn't make it necessarily better.

Ain't that the truth! To take either an entirely analogue or entirely digital approach is probably missing a lot of sonic opportunities.

Like a lot of things in life a balanced approach can get the best results.

woodsdenis

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Summing box?

SSL X-Rack, Audient Sumo, Neve 8816 from Apogee DA16s and a Big Ben.

Results in that order, 2 tests in 2 studios with about 6 guys in total.

Universal agreement...... and that's very rare!

The real test would be to compare the Neve/SSL one to their fully blown
desk counterparts. I assume that the SSL/Neve ones claim to be the same as their desks? All being said if I had the cash I would buy the Neve.:D

PaulBrewer

woodsdenis wrote: »

The real test would be to compare the Neve/SSL one to their fully blown
desk counterparts. I assume that the SSL/Neve ones claim to be the same as their desks? All being said if I had the cash I would buy the Neve.:D

Well you know where to go for both

Seziertisch

I think the big thing is that for a recording to have that "sound" high-quality transformers are needed in the chain. One of the big differences a tape machine makes to the sound is (along with the tape obviously) that it introduces a couple of serious transformers to the signal path. Looking at pieces such as an 1176 or a Pultec or whatever, they also features similar heavy-duty iron. The same is true regarding the Neve or the API sound or whatever, obviously different designs, but also different transformers.

I think there is for and against mixing in and out of the box; the main argument being that there are gifted mixers that swear by each, and get great sounding results with each, as well as guys that use a hybrid of both. There is also the question of how much you gain by mixing out of the box versus how much you lose through having another round of conversion.

Regardless, this iron is needed somewhere in the chain, and if you have it at the front end the results possible in the box are greatly improved. In the case of having tracked through an mbox or similar and then mixing down through a couple of nice transformers I can see how mixing out of the box would be the better choice.

If anyone is in any doubt as to what a difference transformers can make, try replacing an average output transformer in a guitar amp with a better quality one (Mercury Magnetics or whatever) and see how much of a difference it can make.

Of course that said, it is possible to sometimes have too much of a good thing, and there are certainly more "hi-fi" transformerless designs that also work well (better even depending on the kind of sound you are after) in some cases. Although it is probably best to strike some sort of happy medium.

It also comes down to the individual mixer, as I said above there is some great work being done both in and out of the box. The main thing is that the workman has confidence in his tools. If you think you can do a great mix in the box, and what you are mixing has been recorded to a high standard then you will get results. If you think you can get better results out of the box then you are also probably right.

teamdresch

To my ears the Audient Sumo has a high-end lift, so I'm not surprised that it won a straight shootout vs. the Neve, which definitely softens the high end.
Brighter always sounds better on first listen.
The Dangerous D-Box is also a fine sounding low-cost summing box worth checking out.

PaulBrewer

teamdresch wrote: »

To my ears the Audient Sumo has a high-end lift, so I'm not surprised that it won a straight shootout vs. the Neve, which definitely softens the high end.
Brighter always sounds better on first listen.
The Dangerous D-Box is also a fine sounding low-cost summing box worth checking out.

An interesting point Team - I'll forward your observations to Audient and see what they have to say!

PaulBrewer

I've just been onto Steve Flower in Audient who says -

" There is no high end lift. I suspect its the transparency of the high end that he is hearing rather than any boost that the Sumo imparts. "

jtsuited

eh... if you compare most bits of gear to anything Neve, the high end sounds like it's lifted in my experience.

the 8816 certainly isn't as 'toppy' as many of the other summers, but again some people like that (me being one of them).

teamdresch

As far as I recall, I was comparing the Sumo to a bounce to disk in PT.

madtheory

It's all just various amounts of harmonic distortion...

PaulBrewer

teamdresch wrote: »

As far as I recall, I was comparing the Sumo to a bounce to disk in PT.

As I think we agreed at the time - we both described the 'sounds' the same but you preferred one and I the other, which is cool.

However, taking it that Steve's point is correct is it that some high end was being lost in some other way as opposed to the Sumo boosting?

teamdresch

Yes, I wonder.
I hesitate to speculate too much, since I don't remember exactly what I was comparing with what.
Perhaps if you have the time and inclination you could do a quick test yourself.

I don't see how a bounce to disk would have information missing vs. a sum with the sumo, but again, that may not have been what I was comparing.

PaulBrewer

teamdresch wrote: »

Yes, I wonder.
I hesitate to speculate too much, since I don't remember exactly what I was comparing with what.
Perhaps if you have the time and inclination you could do a quick test yourself.

I don't see how a bounce to disk would have information missing vs. a sum with the sumo, but again, that may not have been what I was comparing.

Yes, it is a while ago. Cheers.