I would like to sum my stem mixes and am debating the pros and cons between using a summing box, or purchasing an equally price mixer.
What are the pros/cons of each approach (aside from space)?
Do you get significantly better audio path per pound using a summing box (but sacrifice gain, eq, etc)?
I have a Lynx Aurora 8, so only looking at 8 channels and for around the 1k GBP mark. I have some outboard but not much (Moog, UA 6176) so it's mainly for mixdown.
Analogue Summing box Vs Analogue mixer?
Re: Analogue Summing box Vs Analogue mixer?
Most summing boxes are little more than a nice summing bus with tidy input stages and a decent mix amp and output driver. So you're not getting much for your money, but you do get is nice.
A mixer has to provide mic and line input stages, EQ, aux routing, bus routing, insert points, multiple mix busses, multiple output stages, monitoring section, metering, and so on and so on.
For the same total money outlay, it doesn't take a genius to see that the main mix bus section of a mixer has to be inferior in so many ways to a dedicated mix bus unit.
Does that answer your question?
The bottom line is that the two beasts are designed to do different things. Either you need EQ, aux sends, multiple busses, and a monitoring section.... or you don't.
Hugh
A mixer has to provide mic and line input stages, EQ, aux routing, bus routing, insert points, multiple mix busses, multiple output stages, monitoring section, metering, and so on and so on.
For the same total money outlay, it doesn't take a genius to see that the main mix bus section of a mixer has to be inferior in so many ways to a dedicated mix bus unit.
Does that answer your question?
The bottom line is that the two beasts are designed to do different things. Either you need EQ, aux sends, multiple busses, and a monitoring section.... or you don't.
Hugh
- Hugh Robjohns
Moderator -
Posts: 43691 Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Contact:
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual...
(But generally posting my own personal views and not necessarily those of SOS, the company or the magazine!)
In my world, things get less strange when I read the manual...
Re: Analogue Summing box Vs Analogue mixer?
I'm loving my Folcrom to sum my DAW stems - you do need to get a nice pair of matched preamps to make up the gain of the output 2-buss, but at least that's money well spent on gear that will also be put to good use during tracking.
I've used my DAV BG1 for a nice solid and clean feel (along with a Drawmer 1968ME for some mix-buss glue), but now have a couple of Neve and API-esque preamp pairs that I can go to if I want a different 'flavour'.
I've used my DAV BG1 for a nice solid and clean feel (along with a Drawmer 1968ME for some mix-buss glue), but now have a couple of Neve and API-esque preamp pairs that I can go to if I want a different 'flavour'.
- Blue Lizard
Regular -
Posts: 165 Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Cleethorpes, UK
Contact:
"It's not pretty, also you can't dance to it." - Frank Zappa www.bluelizardstudio.com
Re: Analogue Summing box Vs Analogue mixer?
It might be worth reading this thread as it is ongoing and should provide you with some more optinions.
Re: Analogue Summing box Vs Analogue mixer?
One brain......two halves fighting for supremacy.
Both won.
