Analog summing - is it really worth it? Pro Audio Talk with Peter Muller
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 чер 2023
- Analog summing - is it really worth it? ? Let's find out!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM Mixing & Mastering is a mixing & mastering studio based in Germany, run by Peter Muller, who works as a mixing & mastering engineer for more than two decades. We are offering mixing & mastering for all genres and styles of music, using a high quality monitoring and signal processing chain, including carefully selected state-of-the-art analog equipment, and the finest software plug-ins. The best of both worlds! We can deliver your music in every digital format, to match all specifications of the various platforms (like Spotify, Apple Music, Tidal). Aside from the digital world, we can also create pre-masters for vinyl cutting and cassette production.
More info: www.pmmixmaster.com
Book Peter for mixing and/or mastering: pmmixmaster@gmail.com
Social Media:
Facebook: / pmmixmaster
Instagram: / pmmixingmas. .
Affiliate links:
We are using Sonarworks Sound ID reference:
www.sonarworks.com/soundid-re...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Music used in the video:
Intro Music licensed by Jamendo
All rights owned by Peter Muller and Mullennium Records, 2023.
Great explanation, I agree completely. I love using analog consoles and would love a full analog studio with tape but when recording digitally I wouldn't spend my precious resources on a summing box. I dont have the cash for the box and digital converters but it also doesn't move the needle for me. I went to audio engineering college and our professor set up a blind test in a control room with routing between studios so that we could compare with a push of a button the same tracks summed through a neve console, ssl console, pro tools, and nuendo - all level matched (live, so to speak). The whole class could not identify which was analog and which was digital - we weren't pros exactly but I listened carefully and I guessed that the digital nuendo sum was the neve if that says anything. We could hear a very slight difference between each but absolutely nothing that felt better between them.
Great video, I really like your precise content and delivery style. And yes, you saved me 5k too, was close to pulling the plug on a summer.
I felt the same all this time! Thank you for reinforcing this to me!
This is completely on point, fantastic job.
Excellent, articulate and thoughtful explanation/rundown. Thank you!
wow great, so well explained, throughly covered the subject!!
You summarize it perfectly. Great video.
Love you channel loook forward to hearing your take on this!
Thanks for clearing the air, you really saved me from spending unnecessary $5-6k. Thank you
If analog summing was not Superior he would not have$50,000 worth of analog gear or more
Summing mixers are useful for gluing busses together after outboard processing. Sure you can mixdown in your DAW, but if you can also master the track directly out of the analog summing mixer, that saves you a trip through AD/DA conversion (assuming the mastering setup is at least somewhat outboard). Of course, it's even better if the summing mixer is also contributing a pleasant coloration to the sound. That said, save ya money, spend it on concert tickets!
If you're ever curious, Access Analog now have a Rupert Neve summing box up on their servers. Rent it remotely, cheap.
The Clearest explanation on youtube about this topic! Subbed!
Thank you for to the point and very clear explanation!
Great advice. Thanks.
Very well explained. Thank you!
Makes sense! Thank you
Great video thank you for sharing, very detailed & informative explanation.
This should go viral, reach all the green buyers and paid UA-camrs out there.
Saved under "good, clear explanations for clients".
Nice discussion on the topic of analog summing, Peter Muller!
Thank you!
Very well explained.
Great Video! Totally agree with you!
Thank you!
Great take on analog summing, I agree a good analog compressor on the mix buss will give you some great coloration, there's a reason why so many Engineers of hits songs have used them to glue the mixes together.
Great content video, Thank you.
Thanks a lot!
I believe a main reason hybrid summing works very well is because of the headroom and space that is created in the mix. That may not be important for all. I also mix in the box, it depends on the song and which tools I feel I need to get the best sound. I don’t think there is 1 correct way but having multiple tools keeps it fun and interesting.
You just said it ...analog 😅....but not 100%
Yup, after comparing various routing, signal flow and and hardware/software, I agree with most of your opinions. Thank You - rp
Thank you for your input! Buss compressor it is!:)
Interesting......Thanks ,Man
Well said👍
well said!
Good stuff 👍
Great! job.
Legit advise here, thank you !
i like your work
Golden words!
Thanks man
Extremely well said and put together. Thank you for the video
Yes very well said
Thank you!
great video, subbed ... I'm using a capi sum bus with 32 channels, op amps on every channel, transformers ... and print it back through a dangerous audio AD+ 2 channel mastering AD
I like it :)
Thx - interesting info. As a follow-on, would be curious to hear your thoughts about in-box summing emulation options (E.g., Waves NLS).
I’d love to hear more bass guitar in the intro jingle!
I think a lot of the time people don’t realise that the analog saturation they are looking for is tape saturation not analog summing
I just use an analog mix bus with SSL and Manley Tubes and All conversion through Burl B2
Boom
Full analog flavor in a digital world
thanks for you definitive explanation, do you advice to go straight in the mix bus processing strip through the D/A converter or maybe use a little line rack like Xrack from ssl would make more sense?
Using a high quality analog device as a bus compressor can give your mix that desired analog touch. It can also be the Xrack or any other chain. But keep in mind that plugins are so good these days, that they will outperform cheaper hardware. So if you consider to buy hardware, better save some bucks and get something really professional. Less hardware but higher quality will give you that real analog flavour.
Solid presentation.
I utilize analog summing (2 Folcrom units 32ch.). The biggest value is the ability to return analog FX into the summing network, thus alleviating a second A/D conversion.
The second benefit, parallel compression happening in analog NOT relying on DSP or delay compensation.
I do the same with some Rupert Neve boxes. All parallel compression using analog boxes plus various bus processing and analog FX returns make summing very useful. Most people I know using summing are using it to host their analog gear, not because summing necessarily sounds better analog.
You are wasting ur time doing unnessesary steps the listener isnt gonna hear all that extra bs yall are doing
@@joelhume1great. I m about to try analog summing. Please can you tell me how do you do to insert analog hardware ? At the output of the summing mixer ? Or is it better to have an insert in the analog mixer ? (I see not many of them having this). Would you indicate me a good one (16 inputs , or 8...) in budget under 1500 dollars ? (Even in used market). Thx a lot
Please can you explain how you do this on technical practical way ? I m not sure to understand your routing, sorry i m New on these things. (Parallel, re inject, the fact you have on conversion less). Thx a lot
@@MELOPSMUSIC There are two easy ways to integrate hardware. Some summing units have insert points so you can use those. Other option is to go from your interface output into your hardware then from your hardware to the summing unit. The way to integrate hardware depends on your workflow and summing units. I do it both ways.
-joel
Really great points you've made here. There's a lot of BS in the audio industry that's for sure.. Actually, come to think of it theres a lot of BS everywhere
I have those monitors! I feel better about my choices in life now.
Anyway, I have listened to A/B of summing boxes and I CAN hear the difference. Is it preferable, maybe that's subjective, but I definitely liked the sound of the Dangerous.
I just got the kAZROG TRUEIRON emulation and I really like it. I've started using saturation and analogue emulations on my submixes purely out of preference.
I mostly (80%) summ my session hybrid.
For me the biggest difference is definitely by starting to mix through my summing box. This way i have plenty of possibilities and it really helps. If not summing i at least run through my long collected 2 bus chain.
I would also like to add something to what u mentioned: ….if the mix sounds bad a summing mixer wont help you…fact is, that you should at least learn how to improve your mix first and that is the most important thing…❤
It's just a personal decision which tools serve you best. A skilled engineer can create a pro mix in any environment. Analog gear often comes into the game when you pushed digital to the limits and start to hear the benefits of real analog hardware. I don't condemn analog summing, I just explain what is needed to avoid the bottleneck and that I would prefer and recommend to spend the $$$ on other pieces of hardware that will give you the desired analog flavour.
@@pmmixingmastering5741But it wont sound the same all done in the box compared to analog summing. Sounds beefier, more substance, weight, fuller sonically better compared to just digital. Sell all your analog gear then and just do it all in the box. it is far from snake oil compared to vst plugins that claim to sound " analog" like UAD, WAVES etc.
Nice comment, i would like to try mixing through a summing box having my hardware After the summing mixer, what summing mixer would you consider as good and not too expensive ? Also i would like to have two output, one for monitoring and one for printing...
The biggest gain in quality ive ever had was going from an audio interface to a dedicated converter years ago. It's more of a work flow thing. I keep pretty much the same gear and learn to utilize it more and more as the years go by. But yes, I send individuals straight to g series bus compression then to a neve 5075 or Elisia Karacter (only for saturation/ coloration sake) so im kinda guilty. But i do not believe the stereo image is improved. If anything it gets narrowed and I have to use a stereo imaging vst to widen it back out. That's when a stereo eq that does mid and side comes in to play then print through Telefunken M15. Yep it is a process but i get the sound i want so im sticking with it.
cool
Good question - good video - One issue, however ----- Modern moderate priced converters are so good that they are indistinguishable from "master grade" converters. Often, the measurements of converters within the last four years are higher and better than "master grade" converters of ten years ago.
It's not really about the age of converters, you can find some stuff (Lavry, RME etc.) which is more than 10 years old and still sounds awesome. The marketing machine often puts DAC Chips and their dynamic range in focus, but it's the whole circuitry that makes the sound. I had my doubts about expensive converters, but when I got the Crane Song Hedd Quantum it was like a new dimension was opening up. But moderate priced converters these days sound very good, it's possible to work with them, no probs.
@@pmmixingmastering5741 I am not saying that just because the master grade converters are old they are less good than they were when new. What I am saying is that the technology of designing and manufacturing the converters (especially the chips) has dramatically improved. Ten years ago, moderately priced converters were not very good. Now, moderately priced converters are so good that they are substantially better. So good that any imperfections are inaudible. As a source I refer to the measurements in Audio Science Review and the measurements by Julian Krause on YT. Specifically, the Audient iD44 mkII and the SSL12 audio interfaces are in this category. Meanwhile a ten year old master grade audio interface is still as good as it was. Moderately priced audio interfaces from ten years ago, even the ones with better reputations like Apollo, are pretty bad.
BTW, are those Neumann KH420's? Very nice indeed.
@@teashea1 there's a huge improvement in converters over the last 10-20 years, no doubt. Every smartphone has better conversion, than the units from the beginnings of digital. But at the other end of the price range the manufacturers also improved their products. If you buy a modern high end converter it will serve you well for 10-15 years, which makes the price tag relative, if you are working with it as a professional audio engineer.
@@teashea1 No, these are the KH310's. The 420's would be too much for my room.
Consider the initial digital summing software and the likelihood it didn't sound that good. What eventually made digital summing ideal? Subjective evaluation of the summing algorithms?
Well....we (non engineers) know that the analog signal is continuous whereas the digital signal is discrete. Simply stated there are more components within the analog audio than the digital by nature. A digital sample rate 44.1kHz or 48kHz does not capture an entire acoustic signal because it can only capture audio 44,100 times per second (or 48,0000) vs an analog system that has a continuous capture. The digital signal is missing parts of the sound so....there is that.
And what about wavelengths in digital and analog audio? I mean, the phase errors and cancellations occurs mostly in digital summing because the wavelenght is much lower than in analog, actually analog is the longer wavelenght, so its imposible the sound reflects and cause a phase offset
I second that the „summing“ part is neglible. It’s just a resistor and a wire per channel - digitally you just sum it up and maybe add a little noise to it. There should be no audible non-linearity which would require more than elementary school mathematics.
Broadcast summing mixers (I.e. Siemens V275 etc.) with transformers on the other hand are excellent for color, crispness as well as softening and like in fotography, an image without postprocessing just looks sh***s. EEs will hate me for saying this, but a studio device needs to have tubes or lots of transistors and/or transformers to be interesting to me. I’ll make an exception for Lexicon 480Ls, SSL stuff and Kepex-Gates not having transformers. But in general there is not one single vintage device on the planet that has a Haufe transformer and sounds bad.
As why people like vinyl - well they don’t know good tape 😂. I must admit I like the vinyl sound sometimes but I would never be the ultimate consumer who buys deteriorating storage. Send CDs through Pultecs and and an Optimod - that is worth the costs.
As for the 65dB of dynamic range - it’s more than enough. There is an SAE demo where they added a really ugly metallic noise at -40dB. Even on my Stax I didn’t notice. Typical multi-tracks have 55dB to 59dB of dynamic range without NR, high quality stuff like Studers about 65dB. We still love the sound and music they held, don’t we?
I agree, no need for analog summing. If you want to spice up digital recordings there are other ways, as you also described. Dynamic range and the marketing that goes on around it when it comes to converters and interfaces could be a nice subject for another video. People fall in love with specs too easy😉
I mix hybrid through a console with hardware, everyone can hear the difference. For anyone mixing digital I would recommend renting an analog studio for a couple of hours and mix a song on the desk with hardware.
Of course you can mix perfectly in the box these days and the idea that da/ad conversion is degrading the quality is from the 16bit era with converters from 15 years ago. If you recording a signal 50 times da/ad again and again you could not tell the difference. All just placebo effects like a power cable of 5000 dollar for your hifi, completely nonsense.
If you have an analog bus compressor and the same plugin and you can’t hear the difference then sell your analog gear.
I’m happy to buy it 😊
@pmmixingmastering5741 Hi! What bus compressor, eq and preamps do you recommend?
I am thinking into buying 2 X RND Shelford Channel (single channel) and 1 RND Portico II. These 2 would cover more than 90% of the needs (transformer-"collored" preamp, eq, compressor, width and depth and limiter.
Or do you reccomend to go with other type of "coloration" like tubes or solid state?
And what brands and models do you reccomend?
I will use them all for tracking. I record in Cubase 11 Pro (I will soon upgrade to 13 Pro). Then use the same hardware on group buses and finaly on master bus/mastering.
I like that you follow the logic and the numbers so I will take into account your recommendation.
There are other even more expensive brands than RND, but that doesn't necessarily mean better quality, and many of the owners of those very expensive brands don't seem to show honesty, but rather try to manipulate the potential buyers with their high prices.
Thanks in advance!
Hi Jack, with RND you can't go wrong, great gear. Although I think that the Pórtico ll is more like a mastering tool, as the compressor section doesn't have the short attack times you need once in a while. I'd go for a more versatile comp. I like the AMS Neve 33609, it's a Diode bridge design with Marinair transformers and gives a very nice nix glue. Vari Mu tube compressors are also great for the mixbus, it doesn't have to be the expensive Manley, there are other more affordable options like Gainlabs Dictator, IGS Tubecore or Tegeler Vari Tube for example. For tracking it's great to have a couple of different preamp options. Maybe you want to take a look at the Louder Than Liftoff Silver Bullet, it has Neve and API Style preamps as well as an EQ which can cover a lot of different recording situations.
@pmmixingmastering5741 Thanks for taking the time to reply and for your recommendations!
1 - The Shelford Channel (single channel) strip that I said I want to buy together with the Portico II, already has the diode bridge compressor found in the AMS Neve 33609. I hade a look at the data sheets of both of them, and the one on the Shelford channel is even more versatile with attack times going as low as 180 micro seconds (with the "Fast" button not engaged) and 126 micro seconds (with the "Fast" button engaged - well below the 3 miliseconds of the AMS Neve 33609. Have a look at its data sheet and maybe you get interested in it... The maximum release time of the Shelford diode bridge comp is 1.25 seconds, while the maximum release time of the diode bridge comp on the AMS Neve 33609 is 5 seconds. I'm not an expert and I do not know if a release time slower than 1.25 seconds (as on the Shelford) will ever be needed ...
So I believe the Portico II comp and the diode bridge comp on the Shelford Channel (single channel) will cover most of my needs.
The "problem" is that MBT (Master Bus Transformer) came out and it has a more advanced "Silk" feature than the one ons on the Portico II and the Shelford, which unlike the one on the Portico II and the Shelford, lets you add both the blue and the red on the same channel at the same time.
That's the only feature of the new MBT that makes me think about it - all the other features of the new MBT are already covered, in an beter way, on the Portico II and on the Shelford.
2 - Although I want to get as much info as I can before buying, so I do not have to waste money, it is impossible to have one type of signal processor to fit on all the sounds.
Although the Shelford together with the Portico II cover almost everything (good quality preamp, 2 types of compressors, good quality and kind of comprehensive eq, saturation {Silk} and width and depth) I remain open to trying new flavors of EQs and comps (tubes and solid state). But it is hard to accept that people like EveAnna Manley can produce EQs and comps that justify a higher price tag than the ones from Mr. Neve, which has invented so much and dedicated his entire life to sound engineering.
I will take into account your recommendations. Thank you!
@@Jack_Sparrow_1 it looks like you did your research, RND is great stuff no doubt. The thing I like about the 33609 is how the Marinair transformers add a nice vibe to the sound. I have owned the Portico II MBP but sold it, as I did not like it that much. Here's a review that sums it up pretty accurate: jeremycox.us/neve-portico-mbp-ii-master-buss-processor
I hear and feel the differences in the studio, but after printing back to pro tools, distribution and playback from commercial sources, I hear nothing that keeps me using my summing mixer unless I get completely frustrated by clipping issues or just general headroom, but that usually can be dealt with in the box. It just takes a bit more patience and finesse.
I think you haven't mentioned something quite important; if you use a bounch of external analog gear (eqs, compressors etc.) in your ITB mixes, some people use them as HW inserts in Pro Tools, but you might be tempted to get a summing box and use your analog gear in the summing process rather than going in and out a bounch of times.
Yes you could do that, but the summing box itself will not bring as much coloration as some great outboard stuff and therefore I would spend my $$$ on more excellent outboard gear instead of a summing box.
@@pmmixingmastering5741what are some items of gear capable of the saturation achieved in summing boxes?
@@apple122596 there is a lot out there. Preamps, Compressors with transformers or tubes for example. Think of Neves Marinair transformers or the RND silk circuits. Or Tube-Tech stuff that will colour your sound even without enganging the compressor. Tegeler does some affordable stuff too, with transformer/tube/tape vibe. High-end converters often have a coloration/saturation circuitry to engage, that you can print back into your DAW.
What do you make of the SSL Fusion on the master bus chain?
I don't own an SLL Fusion anymore. I used it for a while but didn't like it that much. There are other people who use it for mastering though. If you have only a couple of hardware peces it can be useful. But in my opinion there are better options.
Thanks for the reply! Any hint you could provide on what some of these better options might be?
@@therightovers6667 instead of having several options in one
hardware piece like the Fusion, which are all decent, it's better to go for individual units which are really awesome. A dedicated bus compressor, EQ, Saturator etc. Most cheap hardware units do not bring any improvements over plugins, cause software is so good these days. If you choose hardware, buy less but high quality. For mix and
master bus compression I would recommend to invest in something, that gives you a "radio-ready" sound. Neve 33609, Manley Vari Mu, SPL Iron, to name only a few. There are also more affordable options, that come close like Heritage Audio, Wes Audio, Tegeler, Gainlab etc....
I used to record cd’s on to cassette because it sounded “warmer” is that inferior?
If you like the sound of cassette better than CD, go for it. What is considered as "warmer" is the tape compression and the natural roll off of the high end, while adding in harmonic distortion in lower frequency ranges.
@@pmmixingmastering5741 thanx for confirming this... this was something I wondered for years....
yes, and no. Enjoyment is subjective, science isn't
Based
I highly recommend Dan Worrall's video on Analog Summing. He gets very scientific to actually show there is no magic in analog summing.
A high quality-saturation plugin, a high project sample rate (or plugin oversampling engaged) and you are good to go.
If you think you need crosstalk, insert a Master tape plugin with crossfeed (like Fuse Audio Labs' "Flywheel"), there you go.
A somewhat generic exposition. The answer is it depends. It depends on the quality of the computer, the processor and memory dealings, the threads in the hypertracing and the speed of the DAW to resolve the latency accurately. Not forgetting the quality of the voltage, the voltage must be regenerated to attenuate harmonic distortion. The hardware quality of a computer. If these variables are not resolved the result can be disastrous. Most people don't even check plugins and calibrate them. Plugins do not behave the same on all computers, including Apple computers. In tests I have done for over 20 years I have encountered inaccuracies in Waves plugins, to cite one example.
The response of high end analog hardware is much more natural and correct in many ways. The big mastering studios and engineers work with analog gear. Just naming the term "in the box" makes them cringe.
It's wrong, digital summing is not the best environment with all these variables. It's also wishful thinking, my friend. I don't want to get more technical with the writing processes of storage units and why the origin of summers came about, it's not out of "Analog Nostalgia", it's in response to deficiencies in reading and writing large amounts of information, where there are still bottlenecks that degenerate the signal. The problem persists to this day when an entire mix is condensed into a stereo track. I repeat, distortions and artifacts are not distinguishable in mixing rooms, that's why there are professional mastering rooms, not only to inflate the signals, but also to clean the signal. There are people who record with white noise and don't even notice it, to give an example.
And of course you can change and color the signal of a pre master. Bob Ludwig, Bob Catz, Nick Litwin in many cases resample the pre master and scale it to have more depth and a wider spectrum. You are also forgetting the digital distortion in the high mid and high end ranges that are very characteristic of digital mixes.
We cannot forget that AD converters "are approximations", they are not duplicators, especially concerning harmonics, the heights of these are recreated falsely and artificially in computer language. And I must confess that not all converters are even close to the same, there are leagues and pedigrees for the quality of their manufacture and their engineering. You can never compare a Hedd Quantum like the one you have with Avid's crap. I am very surprised by your comment having a Crane Song. A lot of people don't know anything beyond Avid, Universal and Apogee. I wish people knew that Merging is cheaper and with infinite overwhelmingly superior quality.
Sure, people won't notice the difference on reference monitors for mixing, but on $60k Lipinski monitors in a mastering room, of course you can hear all the artifacts and the difference in quality.
To close,
Doing a double blind and triple blind test is very important to define the quality and specificity of the sample, otherwise the result will be incorrect and inaccurate. The reaction of a group of people under 15 years of age would yield very different results than a group of mature people.
We cannot forget the socioeconomic and cultural variables of a sample. Moreover, the results of a sample cannot be extrapolated and generalized, they are reductive.
You need to elaborate your exposition better and avoid inferences and personal perceptions.
Then we are having a problem unless we aren't making music for rich audiophiles
That's a lot of topics you bring in here and you might be right in some points. This video was just focused around one specific question. There is more to come😉
As an electrical engineer, I agree completely.
Can you share why? (from electrical engineering standpoint)
Yes, it would be interesting to know your point of your view from the technical standpoint
i was summing because of separation
Grab yourself a pair of Neve 542 Tape Emulators and track everything through those. Case closed.
Yes and yes ! The most People who are using
this Summing Boxes, try to improve a "bad" Mix
But If U already have a high Quality Mix with great
3D Sound...,there will be no Need for a Summing Box.
The Improvements here will be hardly noticeable.
Summing degrades the audio signal. We have plugins that can do this.
Hy, also aufgenommen ist aufgenommen und man kann das nicht ändern ist Blödsinn, warum Runden dann gewisse Geräte Transienten ab oder machen sie weicher ? Ich bin kein Profi aber da würde ja überhaupt nichts ein Sinn machen! Man merkt sehr wohl Unterschiede. Besitze seit paar Monaten den Dangerous 2 Bus und merk sehr wohl Unterschiede! Panning zb, der Headroomis Wahnsinn, Mono ist anders Mono als in der Daw, schon klar Protools HD is vielleicht nicht zu vergleichen mit einer Standard Daw, bzw Wei’s ehrlich gesagt nicht mal den Unterschied. Aber ich hab einen SSL Bus + und 2x Neve 1073 mit Manley Elop auf dem Master für Color, aber alleine diese und paar mehr Vorteile zahlt es sich aus. Kompletter Unterschied in Echtzeit mit SSL oder dem Neve, Manley zu arbeiten is Gold wert . Punch und separierung is auch ganz anders. Ich stimme da überhaupt nicht zu . Tut mir leid 🤷♂️. Ob sich natürlich das wer leisten will und kann is eine andere Sache, bzw es für den einen oder anderen nicht den Sinn erfüllt muss jeder selbst entscheiden! Lg
Danke für Deine Meinung. Man kann die Qualität (Bitrate/KHz) eines Files nicht verbessern. Kein Blödsinn sondern Fakt. Man kann nur durch Färbung/Sättigung den Klang verändern, so dass er subjektiv angenehmer klingt.
You make great points and logical arguments. But you dont provide audio examples. At the end of the day, if it sounds better, then it might be worth it to some.
Just get an api console.
WIe steht es mit dem Argument, analoge Summierung erlaube mehr "Lautheit" ? Spielt das noch eine Rolle ? Der 2Bus erlaubt die Zuschaltung von 6 db per Kanal ... ist das egal ?
Mehr Lautheit entsteht nicht durch das analoge Summieren, sondern durch Faktoren wie dynamische Bearbeitung von Einzelspuren, Gruppen oder Mixbus. Das Verhältnis von transientenreichen Material, welches für Peaks verantwortlich ist und dem Rest spielt eine große Rolle (Crest Faktor). Dieses auszubalancieren ohne dass das Material Druck und Loudness verliert ist die Kunst. Das kann auf digitalen und analogem Wege erreicht werden, die Art der Summierung spielt keine Rolle, wobei jeder Weg natürlich seine Eigenheiten hat. Wenn der Limiter beim Mastering keine Riesensprünge mehr machen muss um Peaks einzufangen, ist das ein gutes Zeichen für einen gesunden Crest Faktor und es sollte ohne Beeinträchtigung des Sounds eine angemessene Lautheit erreicht werden können.
@@pmmixingmastering5741 Danke, superschnelle Antwort und viel der gewünschten Information ... da muß ich jetzt als Mensch mit gefährlichem Halbwissen erstmal nachdenken um Alles zu verstehen ... Ich hatte es in einem Vorstellungsvideo der Dangerous music Summierer (von Fab Dupont) so verstanden, daß das +6db auf analogem Weg mehr Lautheit durch analoge Verstärkung des Signals ermöglicht, ohne daß man Gefahr läuft, im Mix in den roten Bereich zu kommen. Ich ging nicht davon aus, daß analoges Summieren an sich die Lautheit anhebt. In diesen Videos wird aber davon gesprochen, daß der limitierte headroom im finalen Mix bei einzelnen Spuren kein Anheben der Lautstärke als Folge eines plugin-Eingriffs mehr zuläßt oder eben begrenzt. Durch die Verstärkung einzelner Kanäle (der 2Bus hat 16 Kanäle, die jeweils paarweise mit 6 db zusätzlich versehen werden können) könne man hier Lautstärke gewinnen, ohne kritische Grenzbereiche zu überschreiten.
ua-cam.com/video/Rejs_mXyE1E/v-deo.html
- er spricht viel über analoge Summierung und der kritische Teil der unser Thema berührt findet sich ab ca. 10:15 min. :)
right on , analog gear sounds great but dislike routing, conversions etc, def a bottleneck ,kills workflow and creativity,i find myself mixing in the box, much quicker and keeps the flow going, and no need for recalls ..
No. Your welcome.
I enjoyed this video, thank you. I think the main take-away from all of this topic is that, yes analog circuitry tends to have a beneficial effect on a mix and its elements, in a musical sense, that is desirable -- it is just VERY EXPENSIVE (if you want to avoid any weak links in the chain). And it is also less flexible or convenient dealing in the physical world. But the topic of whether modern ITB mixes are as good as old analog records is, while subjective, certainly worthy of debate. My playlist is full of music from all eras, and I prefer the mixes from 70s/80s/90s generally.
Thank you, glad you liked my video. Many people prefer music from the period you mentioned. There was not only more analog gear involved in the production, it was also mostly before the loudness war started, when everything was limited to death, just to achieve the maximum level. The good thing is, that with loudness rectrictions on streaming platforms, the loudness war seems to be over and there is more space again for dynamic and "healthy" sounding material. It's a good time to integrate analog gear to your setup and that's what happens in many studios at the moment. Analog coloration is definetely desireable to the human ear. Analog emulations by Plugins is not the same, if you want analog, go analog. Mixing ITB can produce great results too, if these tools are in the hands of skilled engineers. But many famous ITB engineers use high end analog gear while recording, which is also a way to get that flavour into your daw. I think that integrating analog hardware to your chain is not so much "less flexible". Every DAW allows you to easily route through the analog domain and back in. I only don't see the point of a summing box with a huge channel count as explained in the video and I don't like the way it was being marketed with telling you, that there is a "problem" with digital summing. You don't need these boxes, you can achieve the same results with some high quality outboard gear on your mix/master bus and on individual tracks.
@@pmmixingmastering5741 agree with all
@@pmmixingmastering5741 actually to be exact, I'm not sure about the claims about summing, whether or not it's better. From all the examples I've heard, there is a pleasant improvement to my ears. But maybe it's the transformers rather than "summing",which in my opinion does not matter, unless that would render a summing box "overpriced" if the summing part was inconsequential.