Analog Summing

[MrTone]

Hello,

I'm trying to put a new rig together with analog summing in mind.

I'm thinking about getting an SSL 18 because I love SSL and it has 8 or 10 OUTPUTS and I have this SAMSON PL2404 laying around the house. Can I utilize this as my summing mixer?

I've never done this before and I'd appreciate any help I can get.

Thanks.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I don't see why not!

[MrTone]

I don't see why not!

Right? Coming from you, Technical Editor, It doesn't get better than this.

So, SSL 18's OUTPUTS to SAMSON's Line Inputs and then SAMSON's MAIN to SSL 18's INPUT 1 & 2? Did I get that right?

Or would you have better/different routing ideas for me, please?

[Hugh Robjohns]

That would work for me... if I thought analogue summing was worthwhile...

[RichardT]

I’m sure it has some effect, but the effect it has is going to be some kind of distortion!

[Exalted Wombat]

Surely you'll want to mix down to something with more credibility than just back into the DAW? VHS tape perhaps? Or I've got a couple of DAT machines here...

[Matt Houghton]

I don't see why not!

Right? Coming from you, Technical Editor...

And technically, the advice is correct: if you wish to perform analogue summing, then you can do that with any analogue mixer and audio interface that have with sufficient analogue inputs and outputs. But I did not read that as a recommendation, and whether, in subjective terms, it is worth your time and effort using the Samson for analogue summing is another question entirely. It would certainly allow you to experiment. But frankly, I doubt it will add anything very useful or musical to your mix — unless you are somehow processing the stems (eg. EQs, compressors, saturators) you're sending out to the mixer before you do the summing.

[MrTone]

That would work for me... if I thought analogue summing was worthwhile...

Haha! Once again, coming from you, I should just listen to you and stop right now, but I've been wanting to do this for a long time so I'm afraid I will dive in and then regret it later.

By the way, was that your personal opinion or a proven fact?

Would Digital Summing ITB be better?

[MrTone]

I’m sure it has some effect, but the effect it has is going to be some kind of distortion!

Oh, no! I wouldn't want any kind of distortion. Saturation maybe, hopefully...

[MrTone]

Surely you'll want to mix down to something with more credibility than just back into the DAW? VHS tape perhaps? Or I've got a couple of DAT machines here...

I don't have any of those as I'm starting over.

[MrTone]

I don't see why not!

Right? Coming from you, Technical Editor...

And technically, the advice is correct: if you wish to perform analogue summing, then you can do that with any analogue mixer and audio interface that have with sufficient analogue inputs and outputs. But I did not read that as a recommendation, and whether, in subjective terms, it is worth your time and effort using the Samson for analogue summing is another question entirely. It would certainly allow you to experiment. But frankly, I doubt it will add anything very useful or musical to your mix — unless you are somehow processing the stems (eg. EQs, compressors, saturators) you're sending out to the mixer before you do the summing.

Agreed. Sure would love to be able to put it through some AMS or APIs...

[Arpangel]

That word "musical" gets used a lot, to describe things that can't be described, probably better explained as non-existent.
I'd say this isn’t worthwhile, it will ad very small amounts iof distortion, if you can hear that, but it won’t be worth the electricity, and the extra cabling and effort setting it all up, it will look good though.
I use two mixers in my studio, they are there simply because they offer more practical routing options and FX flexibility, it's got nothing to do with "a sound" if I could find a simpler way of doing this and the ability to replicate my hardware FX in the box I would.

[Hugh Robjohns]

By the way, was that your personal opinion or a proven fact?

Personal opinion. I have no interest, and hear no benefit, in analogue summing for the kinds of music I'm working with.

Proven fact: analogue summing can only degrade the ITB signals through added noise, distortion, and conversion artefacts — albeit at very low levels in most cases.

But... those degredations might well add 'character' — however subtly — which appeals, musically and subjectively, in some situations.

Would Digital Summing ITB be better?

Technically, yes — assuming the maths is done correctly in the DAW (which wasn't always the case). But most people mean 'better' in a subjective rather than objective sense.

[James Perrett]

assuming the maths is done correctly in the DAW (which wasn't always the case)

Possibly analogue summing became a thing because early versions of Protools didn't do the maths right unless you changed the defaults to exactly the right settings. The mathematically correct settings also took more processing power so you couldn't mix as many channels at once. Since these early versions of Protools found their way into many top studios where these differences could be heard, the idea of mixing out of the box to improve the sound took off.

Nowadays the only reason for mixing out of the box is to have the ability to make complex creative real time changes to the mix - effectively using the mixing desk as part of a performance like in a reggae dub mix.

[Exalted Wombat]

SOS is a 'gear' magazine, so anything that involves using (and potentially buying) MORE gear is never going to be blatantly condemned as silly and pointless.

But it's come pretty close with this one...

[resistorman]

SOS is a 'gear' magazine, so anything that involves using (and potentially buying) MORE gear is never going to be blatantly condemned as silly and pointless.

But it's come pretty close with this one...

[Wonks]

I'd suggest looking at some reviews of summing mixers, units dedicated to this purpose.

E.g. https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/da ... c-2-bus-xt

These are trying to do what the best consoles do (but obviously without all the EQ and level controls). These normally have some means to add extra low level distortion (AKA 'warmth') in a controlled amount.

One thing your Samson unit doesn't have (being a line mixer) is any channel gain controls (apart from on the two rear mounted mic inputs). With one, you could deliberately drive a mixer channel a bit if you wanted to add some analogue distortion to the sound.

The gain control for each channel can add up to 10dB of boost, which means you might be able to drive the bus summing amps within the mixer to get some distortion, especially feeding it with multiple sources but you'd need to keep the output level down to compensate. And there's no telling whether it will sound musical or just unpleasant.

It's designed as a relatively low cost uncoloured line mixer, so is unlikely to add any analogue 'magic' to your mix. Even the dedicated summing mixers only add a very little something, which you can easily mimic in the box with a plug in or two.

It's easy to convince yourself that it's doing something, but I'd record a track with and without using it, and get someone to play the two tracks back to you without telling you which one's which, and see which one you really prefer.

[ef37a]

"Oh, no! I wouldn't want any kind of distortion. Saturation maybe, hopefully..."

"Saturation" is in fact the very worse and end point of extreme distortion!
But the term has come to have a different meaning in audio circles.

Strictly speaking, like "perfection" you cannot have degrees of saturation.

(OK! I'll feed my hobby horse and put him to bed)

Dave.

[Arpangel]

You can add distortion to anything very cheaply, you don’t have to spend thousands, it’d be interesting to build a really vintage looking box, big meters, knobs, all the ingredients that prepare us for a certain type of sound, but there's nothing inside, it just lights up, demonstrate it with a 24/96 clean signal going through it, and see who can hear something.

[ef37a]

You can add distortion to anything very cheaply, you don’t have to spend thousands, it’d be interesting to build a really vintage looking box, big meters, knobs, all the ingredients that prepare us for a certain type of sound, but there's nothing inside, it just lights up, demonstrate it with a 24/96 clean signal going through it, and see who can hear something.

They did something similar in the early days of Dolby NR. The top knobs claimed even perfectly decoded Dolby material was "duller". When they simply added a dab of white noise to the sample.. "That's better". Still Dolby but with a bit of noise!

Philips resisted paying for a Dolby license for years and developed their playback only DNR system. This was a level sensitive low pass filter (hiss only bothers us when the music is very quiet or absent) and actually worked quite well.

Dave.

[Matt Houghton]

You can add distortion to anything very cheaply, you don’t have to spend thousands, it’d be interesting to build a really vintage looking box, big meters, knobs, all the ingredients that prepare us for a certain type of sound, but there's nothing inside, it just lights up, demonstrate it with a 24/96 clean signal going through it, and see who can hear something.

I suspect many of us have more than once, a few hours into a mix session, found ourselves focusing on the tiny improvements that result from tweaking the controls of a nice bit of gear, only to then discover it was in bypass all the time...

[Drew Stephenson]

I suspect many of us have more than once, a few hours into a mix session, found ourselves focusing on the tiny improvements that result from tweaking the controls of a nice bit of gear, only to then discover it was in bypass all the time...

[James Perrett]

They did something similar in the early days of Dolby NR. The top knobs claimed even perfectly decoded Dolby material was "duller". When they simply added a dab of white noise to the sample.. "That's better". Still Dolby but with a bit of noise!

Philips resisted paying for a Dolby license for years and developed their playback only DNR system. This was a level sensitive low pass filter (hiss only bothers us when the music is very quiet or absent) and actually worked quite well.

I think Cedar found something similar when they were developing their noise reduction. Too much noise reduction makes things sound dull. Izotope uses an Aural Exciter to counter this in RX.

The Philips DNL system certainly works well on some material. JVC also had their ANRS system which was similar to Dolby B but apparently sufficiently different to get around the patents.

[SafeandSound Mastering]

Summing will add a little noise floor, a little distortion and a very small amount of crosstalk.

One slightly more interesting aspect that may relate to summing (which with irony was absent on summing mixers designed as summing mixers, when it was more of a thing) is L/R differences in channel EQ. I took this approach myself a few (self produced) tracks ago as part of "90s-ing it up". My era of choice for music making at the moment. Mainly to come away from "hyper precise" modern styles which I both respect and enjoy, but enjoy producing myself slightly less as it is complex. I was very into at one point then becmae a little worn out. Learnt a lot technically but lost inspiration a little. That's how it goes, you try things and move around as needed.

i.e. L channel 3.2kHz - 3.1dB gain and right channel 3.4kHz 2.8dB gain.

A very realistic and usual difference either by internal electronic component tolerances or by eye on any analogue desk for a stereo / pseudo source going into 2 mono channels panned hard L and R.

Across a mix of many desk channels that is quite a lot of subtle differences (frequency, level and phase) which I am absolutely certain you can hear. I made a Fabfilter Pro Q preset with L/R seperated so I could make these random adjustments. Broadly based ona Mackie 8 bus desk EQ.

It was born of thinking back to being in the 90s and what i did in my project studio.

I then subsequently found out that this technique was already implemented in some "analogue" plug ins. Such as Plug in alliances TMT and various others.

[Hugh Robjohns]

The effect, of course, being to 'blur' the stereo image slightly, with different frequencies coming from slightly different positions across the stereo image. It's pretty subtle, but it does make it less 'digitally precise' if that's what you want.