I have never accepted digital mixing fully, and have always sent my Pro Tools mixes out to analog line amps and bus compressors to get that undeniable depth, width, punch and realism. Bob Katz, a known authority on such matters, has said that this technique is all that’s needed, and that the need for analog summing is a “red herring.” In other words, all you need to get “that analog sound” is two channels of analog flavor by routing out to some analog gear in stereo. He and many others have insisted that what we mixers like about analog summing is really just the harmonic distortion we pick up by routing out to analog gear. Indeed, I do like that.
However, there are those on the other side of the fence who insist that analog summing is giving them more than just the harmonic distorition. They tend to claim that the stereo field opens up, that the reverb and delays they use are more evident and elegant, that there is a greater depth to the soundstage, and so on. I knew I liked the sound of a console, but I hadn’t really done much to compare digital and analog summing, other than to work in different scenarios and think: “that was different” and “I like the sound of a console.”
Last year I bought a Dangerous Music D-Box, which has an 8 channel summing mixer. I hadn’t used that summing mixer until this week, when I thought it was time to give it a shot. I really wanted to make an apples-to-apples comparison, so here’s how I configured my trial mix: Pro Tools HD -> Lynx Aurora 8-channel D/A converter -> D-Box summing mixer, then the stereo outputs of the D-Box -> Vintech x73i line amp -> API 2500 bus compressor -> Cranesong HEDD 192 A/D converter -> Pro Tools for the print. (Everything is clocked to an Antelope OCX-V).
For the analog summed mix, I stemmed the drums to channels 1-2, the guitars to 3-4, the effects and bells to 5-6, the bass to 7 and the vocals to 8. For the digitally summed mix, I simply bussed everything out to 1-2 and printed a mix. In this way the only difference between the two scenarios is that I summed in analog in one and in digital in the other. I’m still getting the coloration of the D-Box summing amp’s circuitry in both cases.
The digital mix:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
The analog version:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Is there a difference? Yes, and my vocabulary is about to sound the same as everyone elses: the analog summed mix is wider, deeper, more musical, more spacious, etc… Especially noticable to my ears is the detail in the effects, the delays and reverbs. They seemed more audible in general, but also more spacious.
In general, the best way I can describe the difference between these two mixes is that the ITB mix sounded like I feel before I do yoga, and the analog summed mix sounded like I feel after yoga – as if some tightness had relaxed and opened up the various elements of my body so that each molecule had that much more space. I know, it’s a pretty lame, new-age analogy, but there it is. Which did I prefer: the analog summed mix, for sure.
-
- Analog summing
-
- Digital summing
I also looked at the waveforms, and they were different, as you can see by comparing Fig 1 and Fig 2. I have no idea how to make any sense of what’s going on in these waveforms, but my sense is that the analog summed waveform is more complex, which fits my understanding of analog gear: it’s vastly more complex and nuanced than digital – just ask any plug-in designer.
If nothing else, this experiment helped me understand that the D-Box’s summing section is worth using, and given the price of that unit its value just shot up considerably as an indespensible centerpiece to my mixing studio. I’m happy to have confirmed my suspicion that analog summing is superior to digital summing. But is it vastly different? – well, not vastly different (it is only 8 channels), but for me it’s all about making small differences at every stage of the mix, such that the cumulative effect is a better, more musical, mix. I don’t ever expect one piece of an elaborate chain to hold the key to the sound. I do yoga every morning becuase it makes my day better, not becuase it makes my day.
I appreciate this entry. The audio comparison blows my mind. It’s almost subconscious but I’m just more relaxed and more interested listening to the analogue summed mix. I had no idea what a difference it could make! Thanks for this!
Hey Daniel, thanks for reading. Yeah, it makes a pretty big difference. It also allows you to do far more elaborate patching in the analog domain. I like how you describe it – as you feeling more relaxed.
Bitch’n song, awesome melody….i couldn’t really tell the difference in this case but i bet if u were to really push hard on the d box and on the daw with a limiter there would be a big difference. I order my box this thursday.
Thanks for writing in. Yeah, it’s a subtle difference, but the more I mix with analog summing, the more I hear it and wont go back to ITB mixing. As my ear develops these differences become way more apparent.
Do u still use the Dbox?
Congrats! – you’re going to love the dBox.
come on! there is absolutely NO difference!
Thanks for reading and writing in with your skepticism – genuinely appreciated.
Well, as I stated in the write up it’s not a huge difference, and I did all I could to make sure the only difference was the analog summing. Also, Dangerous Audio makes it a point not to make “color boxes” so the immediate tonal similarities are a testament to them meeting their design goals. These samples should sound as similar as possible. However, there is a difference in the sound, no matter how subtle, though not everyone is going to hear it. For some it is obvious; for some it may take some more ear training to make out the difference or some feedback on what the differences are. For me the difference is in the sense of space and dimension. The analog summed mix is more spacious and subtly more open, and I can hear what I was trying to achieve with the delays and reverbs more clearly. More 3D and more interesting and inviting.
Also, take a look at the waveforms. I posted those to show that, indeed, there is a physical difference. The digitally summed mix is the product of elaborate math while the analog summed mix is the product of physical components at work. I know, I know, looking at a difference you can’t hear doesn’t mean squat – and I agree. But, it is a visual confirmation that something is different, even if not everyone can make out that difference upon first listening.
I wish you could hear the full res mixes on my monitoring system. Perhaps one day when we’re beyond this MP3 hell-hole you’ll get to hear them in a better situation, and if the only to come out of this experiment is further confirmation that MP3s are eliminating the differences that make all the difference, then we’ve gained at least that knowledge.
I also refer you to this blog post, which takes a different angle on how all the little subtle differences can add up: http://farmelo.com/blog/?p=269
I think the Hi-Hat’s and crash cymbals have a bigger dynamic range on the analog summed track. Sounds more opened in that frequency range…
Focus on them, you’ll hear that they come at you more clearly then.
I wish I could hear the wav files though : I am sure mp3 is tainting the shoot out…possible to get send a link to them ? The PX-100 sennheiser headphones I use on this laptop may trick me though :p
Thks for taking the time to shoot that out anyway !
Patrick
Hi Patrick – I wont have the time to put up any .WAV files, but you know, I think maybe having MP3s makes the fact that we can hear differences even more important here. With the end-game delivery these days I hear many people say, “Who cares about being so careful if it’s all going to become an MP3 on someone’s lame iPod?” That logic gets thrown around a lot, and people question 24bit over 16bit, higher sample rates, converter quality – it’s just a slippery slope that misses the fact that everything we do prior to truncating our lovely 96k/24bit recordings will show up in those MP3s. The whole point I’m making is that many many small differences – like the difference between analog and digital summing here – will eventually add up to a rather large cumulative difference.
And I’d agree that the drums here have more of a 3D quality to them here. It’s a rather loud, swishy drum sound with a bombastic parallel compression on it, so anything that can help keep that from feeling too squished is positive in my book.
Thanks for writing…
Allen