Analog summing Blind Test...worth it or a waste?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kno1ills
  • Start date Start date

Analog vs. Digital summing

  • Sample 1 was better than Sample A

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Sample A was better than Sample 1

    Votes: 2 40.0%

  • They sounded the same

    Votes: 3 60.0%
  • Total voters
    5
  • Poll closed .
Kno1ills

Kno1ills

New member
So I was sitting in my chair mixing a little joint effort between Myself, a a few of MC's I know, when I remembered Hakim's post about 'Analog Summing, the final frontier'. I figured I'd put in the work and have a blind test/poll to see if you guys can pick out the analog summed mix and the ITB summed mix. Lemme give you the break down of the process, and what steps I took. Please keep in mind I'm no engineer, I'm just an MC fiddling in audio engineering.

Summing is basically what the word itself entails. Adding. Whether you do it inside a Digital Audio Workstation or thru a Neve 88r analog console. You are basically doing the same thing, just different ways. In you favorite DAW, all those bits of binary code that amount to your song get summed whenever you say 'I'm finished, time to render/bounce to a .wav/.mp3 or whatever. So your CPU starts adding the binary code together to form a single cohesive file containing your song. This is where the debate about analog vs. digital summing comes in. Digital summing is not perfect, as nothing is, but when you start adding billions of ones and zeroes, one wrong calculation can be the difference between 100,000 and 1,000,000. Analog summing is basic. You're just adding voltage together to for one summed signal. Then why does it cost an arm and a leg? Does this make it better. Probably not. Definitely not if you got shoddy converters.

The thing is, with todays technology, digital summing has come so far, that people argue all the time that there's no difference, or very little and others say analog summing is worth it, 100%.

So everything is stemmed. I'm running out my BLA modded 003, into a Dangerous D-box summing/monitoring unit. I set things up as follows:

Vocals 1-2
Lead instruments 3-4
Low end 5-6
Hi end 7-8

I didn't follow this exactly. Certain things like drum buss would be on Hi end, while bass would be on lowend to help get the separation between Kick and bass. Backings were on lead inst I believe....so on.

I've read that analog summing is most beneficial when you start getting into summing larger amounts of stems like 16+. So if there's no difference, that could be a reason.

There is nothing on the 2-buss except a Limiter for level matching purposes and a dither. Let me know what your guess is for analog or digital, take the poll, I'll reveal which is which in a few.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=RYLUBGPQ

2 files: Sample 1 and Sample A. It'd be nice to hear why you liked one over the other also. Any problems with the files, levels, let me know. Please don't get on about the mix sucks or your rhymes are garbage, just focus on the samples. I actually still have to re-listen and probably make adjustments to the mix once my ears are rested.

Oh, I made the beat(MPC 60), I'm the First MC(Kno1ills), Romz 2nd, Nippondamic 3rd, Nicky Knocks 4th.
 
First! :D

I can honestly say I couldn't tell the difference. Sample 1 *just* might have a slightly edgier sound than A, but listening to just one of the files I couldn't tell you which one it is nor can I say if I prefer one over the other...
 
They sounded the same to me too...Im not even gonna take a guess...lol
 
I would have to bet the sample A is the analog mix. Much more round and defined low end. I found sample 1 clearer but I liked A better. I'm not afraid of my opinion. I'm just wondering what everyone's listening situation is??? I'm using DT770's on my stock laptop soundcard.
 
Last edited:
Morning_Star said:
I would have to bet the sample A is the analog mix.
Click to expand...
I knew miracle ears Morning_Star would be the only one with the balls to have a definitive answer. LOL!

I got $10 bucks on em. Any takers?

And yes. I'm gonna chicken out. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone listening through monitors?

I wanted to be a part of the test also, so i had someone name each one so i wouldn't exactly which is which.

I'd have to say, the difference is real small. Hate to say it, but analog summing might be a worthless for such a small stem count. I do have to agree with Morning on sample 1 being more clear and sample A having more bottom. I liked the punch in sample 1 and thought it was more open in the air department. When I listened to sample A, it sounded fine(aside from the assed out mix job), but when I listened to Sample 1, sample A seemed just a little smeared, not as crisp as sample 1. But that was only after comparing the 2 playing somewhat in sync, switching back and forth. I wonder how things would sound after being properly mastered.

I think sample 1 is the summed only because of the slight clarity difference. I don't think an 8 channel summing box is worth it, though. I'm interested in how a 16 channel would sound. If it wasn't for the monitoring section and my outboard buss gear, I'd probably sell it.

I wonder how much results would vary if I run drums, bass, vocals and effects thru first, print to a stereo track, then run the remainder of the instruments and effects thru, print to a stereo track, then run the two stems thru the summing box again. Might try that technique when I get home later just to experiment, sounds like over kill!!
 
Honestly sample 1 could be the analog because it has a converter sound to it, but I just don't believe that the bottom would be better in a digital mix. They both sound great and the difference is very small. I don't think it's because of the small track count though. I think it's because the variables.

Did you mix each one separately or did you take a digital mix and then sum it or did you take a analog mix and digitally bounce it? Also I think I would set up the analog channels slightly different. I would use more of a format like the one used in the Michael Brauner Multi Buss Mixing setup.

A - Instruments that are in the upper midrange of a song, such as vocals or keyboards, synths, percussion. Bring up the vocal a lot and it will only effect the instruments assigned to A. Choose instruments for a buss that will compliment each other.
B - Instruments that anchor the song such as drums, bass, maybe cello, congas. Adding more bass or kick will only have an effect on the other instruments assigned to B. Choose instruments that will compliment each other.
C - Instruments that create transient midrange power and will have a lot of rides, such as guitars.
D - Instruments that need the warmth of tube and are not played staccato. To be used in combination with other categories for glue factor.

Also I think a big advantage of analog summing is using an analog compressor. When I get my BLA mod and my summing box I'm going to add a SSL Master Buss Compressor after the summing box.

Also don't forget that different gain staging has an effect on the sound. You can lower the mix and drive the output for a more saturated sound. I'll be interested to find out which is which for sure. Any chance you can PM me before you let the cat out of the bag?

It's a tough call. I do like the clarity and stereo image of 1 better. But I'm glad to hear the better low end from sample A. I was thinking about it and I think it may depend on which track you used that would influence my opinion also. It has a real NY old school vibe which needs that round bass. I think if it was an acoustic guitar track I might go the other way.

When I get my damn main system running I'll take a listen through some real monitors. Through headphones sample A comes out on top because the stereo image is fine through headphones. Through the laptop speakers the stereo image of A is more smeared.
 
Last edited:
Morning_Star said:
Honestly sample 1 could be the analog because it has a converter sound to it, but I just don't believe that the bottom would be better in a digital mix. They both sound great and the difference is very small. I don't think it's because of the small track count though. I think it's because the variables.

Did you mix each one separately or did you take a digital mix and then sum it or did you take a analog mix and digitally bounce it? Also I think I would set up the analog channels slightly different. I would use more of a format like the one used in the Michael Brauner Multi Buss Mixing setup.

A - Instruments that are in the upper midrange of a song, such as vocals or keyboards, synths, percussion. Bring up the vocal a lot and it will only effect the instruments assigned to A. Choose instruments for a buss that will compliment each other.
B - Instruments that anchor the song such as drums, bass, maybe cello, congas. Adding more bass or kick will only have an effect on the other instruments assigned to B. Choose instruments that will compliment each other.
C - Instruments that create transient midrange power and will have a lot of rides, such as guitars.
D - Instruments that need the warmth of tube and are not played staccato. To be used in combination with other categories for glue factor.

Also I think a big advantage of analog summing is using an analog compressor. When I get my BLA mod and my summing box I'm going to add a SSL Master Buss Compressor after the summing box.

Also don't forget that different gain staging has an effect on the sound. You can lower the mix and drive the output for a more saturated sound. I'll be interested to find out which is which for sure. Any chance you can PM me before you let the cat out of the bag?

It's a tough call. I do like the clarity and stereo image of 1 better. But I'm glad to hear the better low end from sample A. I was thinking about it and I think it may depend on which track you used that would influence my opinion also. It has a real NY old school vibe which needs that round bass. I think if it was an acoustic guitar track I might go the other way.

When I get my damn main system running I'll take a listen through some real monitors. Through headphones sample A comes out on top because the stereo image is fine through headphones. Through the laptop speakers the stereo image of A is more smeared.
Click to expand...


One thing I think I like about 1 is it's potential to be more than it is after some careful 2-buss handling. Sample A booms, but I feel like it's potential to be more polished during buss manipulation falls short.
Buss compression is the main reason I bought it, and I can't really explain to a lot of people, how usefull it is for that purpose! You know that though:cheers: I'm thinking about scrapping the limiter and reposting bare bones, nothing touching it and just level match RMS. Maybe also do a ITB buss comp and analog buss comps poll type thing, to see what folks think of the 2.

I'll PM you once I talk to my wife about which is which.

Hakim. Did you get a chance to check it on monitors? Opinions?
 
I'm curious, what was the verdict on this? Listened to both and I couldn't tell the difference, probably due to the usb monitors I'm using right now.
 
Sample1 was a bit more focused
Sample A was a bit wider, ambient (for lack of a better word)
I like Sam A more. just cause it has the same punch with a bit of fullness/ear candy.
 
Sorry about the delay. I had a feeling that the limiter I put on the two files might have been altering the results a bit. Here's the 2 samples without any limiter at 24/96. I'll reveal the samples tomorrow evening.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=RTWE7T0T

It'd the first time I've done one of these blind tests, I'm learning!
 
Lol man these blind tests are scary, not only for our egos but to realize stuff we thought was right is wrong! I have tried the summing thing and I cant do it. I understand the whole run your daw mix through some outboard but to just SUM otb - I don't get it.

Mix oout the box, in the box, hybrid but summing I can't tell. Thats just me though. Great shoot out though! did anyone else watch Ethan Winers Video on conversion and the way people hear things? Its a great video!
 
@Kno1ills Isnt the results post limiting ideal for...music listening, post mixing??
@Obi u gotta link on hand? real quick
 
Last edited:
Ace*tT said:
@Kno1ills Isnt the results post limiting ideal for...music listening, post mixing??
Click to expand...


It is if you mix down each 2-bus- eqing, compressing. But I would handle each mix different. Sample 1 had a little more accurate and punchy bottom end and a pronounced, open top end. Sample A was a bit smeared. So, initially when I put a limiter on there for level matching, that smeared bottom end got brought out, which is why if you listen to the first Sample A, there's a decent low end range, but it doesn't have the punch or articulation as sample 1. This can all be easily manipulated in the 2buss mixing to bring out the finer points in sample 1. I wasn't focused on the consumer mix of it, mostly just revealing analog/digital differences.

Obi-They are man. The reason I included myself is, being the person who bought the analog box, my mind would have had that defensive mentality to MAKE the analog mix seen better to my ears, even it was somewhat similar.



I think I said it earlier, but analog summing benefits most once you start getting in the 16+ track range. 8 tracks, there's is a small difference and I don't think it's worth it if you don't plan on running it through any good analog outboard gear. That was the main reason for getting the box I have, is to use my outboard eq/comp and the monitoring section.


So the results are:

On both limited and unlimited version; Sample 1 was summed thru my analog box and sample A was summed in Pro tools.

Thanks for dealing with the delay and the limiting issues. 1st attempt at a blind test. I'm gonna do a opto compressor blind test soon. Thanks fellas.
 
Hey guys, there is a thread on another site that I frequent that you may find very interesting. There are a few big name mix and mastering engineers having a real world discussion on ITB vs. OTB mixing as well as ITB and analog summing: http://thewombforums.com/showthread.php?p=247653

Good read... recommended.
 
Kno1ills said:
So, initially when I put a limiter on there for level matching
Click to expand...

I did not listen to the tracks, but I just had to mention something...

You *can't* use a limiter for "level matching"... a "limiter" is not a "volume fader"... it is doing something to the sound...

For the same reason you can't use a compressor or limiter as a substitute for volume automation, you can't use one here either...

...when you do that, you are essentially changing the rules of the test from "compare digital/analog summing" to "compare these 2 different limiter/compressor settings"...
 
Now that I got my system up and running again I'm going to take another listen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top