by Sweetwater in Audio, Sweetwater
16 Comments »

This article was written by Chris McCown at Sweetwater. We’ve publishing an entire series of articles in the Lounge from Sweetwater. Keep your eyes peeled and check back often! And now for some motivation.

If you’re like me, then your studio consists of a DAW (digital audio workstation software), a computer, an audio interface, a decent set of monitors, a nice selection of plug-ins, possibly an outboard mic preamp or two, and a couple of good mics. Maybe you have an outboard EQ or compressor, and you may even be using a nice master clock with high-end AD/DA converters. Hopefully some acoustic treatment is present on the walls and in the corners.

If this is you, you will definitely benefit from what I’m about to tell you, although I believe a summing mixer – which is the key term of this article – will be beneficial to anyone who records audio whether it’s in a small basement studio or a full-blown commercial production facility.

What is a “summing mixer”? A summing mixer is an analog device that takes multiple audio outputs from your digital-to-analog converter or audio interface, and mixes them in the analog domain. Essentially you’re taking your mix out of the computer/DAW digital domain, and stepping into the analog realm to create a mixed stereo track filled with high-headroom, spatially present glory. A summing mixer can be either a dedicated box, such as those from Dangerous Music, TL Audio, Audient, and other manufacturers, or it can be a compact or console-style analog mixer.

But wait, your DAW has a mixer screen; why would you want to go outside to an analog summing box or mixer? Good question, but I assure you, if you’ve ever had the opportunity to listen to a mix that’s been passed through a summing mixer versus the same project with an “in-the-box” mix, that question would answer itself. You’ll have more headroom, which will give each track more room to fit into its own place in the mix. The stereo image will spread significantly, and the depth of the mix will increase. To be completely clear, you probably won’t just take your in-the-box mix, reassign the outputs to your brand-new summing mixer, and print the mix. Some remixing will likely be involved, partially because you’ll find things that weren’t optimal about your in-the-box mix, and in part because the perceived levels will be different.

Have you ever worked on a project where you knew you had spent the appropriate amount of time getting everything just right, before tracking? You experimented with different mic positions, you made sure levels were right with no digital clipping, and worked until the material was well rehearsed and polished. Yet, after tracking, although you did your best in mixdown, the mix just sounded dull and flat? Perhaps some of the nuances got lost in the mix, or there was no depth to the recording; there was left-to-right spread but there was no front-to-back depth – you didn’t feel like you could step into the mix while you were listening, because it was so one dimensional?

dangerous-music-2-busPerhaps it wasn’t your ability or the material. For example, I was working on a 6-song album in my DAW early last year, and I was pulling my hair out trying to get something I could live with, because I knew the band was going to release it into distribution. That’s when I first tried a Dangerous Music D-Box – which is a combination of a summing mixer and a killer monitor control box – and it saved my mixes! Just as I had described, my mixes were flat, dull, and uninspiring. I tried everything I knew to try – and I mean everything! Nothing was working. I could get the mix to sound different, but not necessarily better. Tracks were getting buried, there didn’t seem to be enough room for each track to breathe. The D-Box summing mixer was the answer.

dangerous-music-d-boxHere’s how I did it: from the DAW, all the drum tracks were sent in stereo to two outputs on my interface, all guitars in stereo to another pair of outputs, vocals (including back-up vox) in stereo to another output pair, and the bass guitar all by its lonesome on another output. The D box has eight analog inputs, which are all combined to a single stereo output. As soon as I remixed my material and sent the tracks out to the D-Box as separate stereo pairs or “stems,” I could finally call it “done.” The stereo image spread wide open, as if someone had opened up another room. All of the sudden there was depth – that front-to-back thing that can be so elusive, and each track (even the quiet tracks and passages), had its own space and popped out of the mix.

The next time you find yourself pulling your hair out after realizing your mix just doesn’t sound as good as a commercially produced track, you might be ready to take your mix out of the box. If you’re looking to buy one piece of gear to step up your mixing game, a summing box is hands down the best suggestion I could give you. Happy mixing!

chris-mccownChris McCown has over 23 years experience as a musician and over 15 years experience as an engineer. He’s currently studying music theory, playing lead guitar at his church, and is a Sales Engineer at Sweetwater, in addition to writing and producing his own material. He can be reached at 1-800-222-4700 ext. 1328 or chris_mccown@sweetwater.com.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]
16 Responses to “Mixing Out of the Box”
 

[...] VIEW ARTICLE SOURCE [...]

Mixing Out of the Box wrote on March 4th, 2009 at 7:05 am

 

A load of hype….selling summing boxes are we?

Freddy Gabrsek wrote on March 6th, 2009 at 5:26 pm

 

Hi Freddy, I’m sorry that you feel that summing is a load of hype. If you care to elaborate, please do. I’m curious to know why you feel that way, and what you base that comment on. You can email me directly if you would like, or you can call me to discuss. My contact info is at the end of the article.

Chris McCown wrote on March 7th, 2009 at 9:35 pm

 

Thanks for the good article. Would like to add to my DAW’s midi tracks. Yes, they have their EQ layers and dynamics,
but for sonic improvement, this would be a good addition to have as an option.

Joe wrote on March 20th, 2009 at 3:18 pm

 

Thank you Joe, I appreciate the feedback. I agree with you – ’sonic improvement’ is one of the benefits of passing stems through a summing mixer (among others). We can certainly help you get a summing mixer integrated into your system, and help you understand how it works more clearly. Give us a call at Sweetwater anytime!

Chris McCown wrote on March 24th, 2009 at 11:54 am

 

i was wondering why rupert neve was building a summing mixer i thought why??? computers are the way to go? right? well he’s not an idiot, so i thought why not try it on some drum tracks… i was mixing in the box and thought i would mix on my mackie out of the box. There was such a noticeble difference that i always do final mixes in some form on my mackie then back into the computer (phase checked, and synched), i think the way a computer sums audio is lacking in some spacial form or the other…everyones set up is marginally different, so i do beleieve it would vary in other peoples rigs…but im on the summing ship. adrian incubator recording

adrian akkerman wrote on April 6th, 2009 at 1:13 am

 

Adrian! Thanks for the comment. I checked out your studio – looks good. Unfortunately not enough people know about summing, so it isn’t something most people think about, or even realize is available. Spread the word – summing is here to stay! If Mr. Neve believes it’s beneficial, perhaps people would take his word for it. S U M M I N G is crucial. Thanks again!

Chris McCown wrote on April 9th, 2009 at 3:25 pm

 

My thoughts:

A lot of people talk a lot of theory and it usually bores me to tears. I want to hear side by side comparisons before I ‘drink any kool aid.’

No offense to anyone.

In music, as is the case with anything in life, I have learned that people who talk/preach/theorize the most accomplish the least. Sort of the ‘those who can do and those who can’t teach” idea.

I’ve read arguments in both directions saying that summing is great and also that it is hype. I just want to hear side by side comparisons of a song before and after summing before I say “yay or nay”. Even then, the question remains: Does it make your song better?

What do your ears tell you about your mixes? How do your mixes compare to your favorite bands and more importantly… Will your fans be able to hear a difference?

My father, a talented musician, asked me, “What did the Beatles record with?”

Interesting thing to consider when quarreling over specs.

With Love,
Airto

airto wrote on April 28th, 2009 at 6:36 am

 

Hi Airto, I appreciate the feedback. Side by side comparisons with an ‘in the box’ mix and that same mix through a summing mixer are unfair at best. The reason being is that you would need to do some remixing and level adjustments rather than just sending your mix ‘as is’ through a summing mixer. It doesn’t quite work that way. If you did send a mix ‘as is’ out to a summing mixer, it will most likely sound horrible. Why? Because it CAN’T be the same mix. The audio engine sums the audio and sends it out to the master bus in a software recording program. Not so with a summing mixer. Being that a good summing mixer provides more headroom(and hopefully a better circuit path to travel down than the digital equivalent inside your computer), an in the box mix won’t sound right going through it, unless you remix it. That being said, I respect the fact that you would like to hear a side by side comparison. It’s possible, just not scientific. In spite of the fact that it wouldn’t be the SAME mix, I believe you could still hear the difference that a summing mixer can make if you gave it a try.

As far as what the Beatles used, that’s a great question. They started out on a simple two track TUBE recorder, then moved up to a four track, then eight track, etc. The main point is, they used ANALOG gear, which is what’s missing from an ‘in the box’ mix – it’s all a bunch of 1’s and 0’s that haven’t touched an analog device (regardless of if you used tube mic pres, outboard compressors, etc., the audio still gets summed down to the DAW’s master bus). I agree with not quarreling over ’specs’. Specs on paper are one thing, but ultimately the judge needs to be your ears, not how much total harmonic distortion a certain piece of gear may have over another. Thanks again for the comment Airto, I appreciate it!

Chris McCown wrote on April 30th, 2009 at 5:13 pm

 

Hi Chris,
Thanks for the illuminating article. I have just picked up a D-Box, and will use it with Logic Pro 8. Any chance you might be able to describe the routing paths to get in and out of a Logic project, finally exporting the D-box mix to the desktop (without “bouncing”)?
thanks
Paul

Paul wrote on May 7th, 2009 at 7:50 pm

 

OMG! I expect better of Sweetwater, but I guess it’s about sales, not doing the right thing.

Can an analog mixer sound different from a digital one? You bet! Is digital better or worse? Much better. In Chris’ case, if he can REALLY hear the difference, it’s only because he’s managed to drive one of them into overload, or because one is an exceptionally bad design. At the end of the day, properly used, a digital mixer introduces far less distortion than an analog one. IF you know how to use it, a 24-but DAW has FAR mre overhead than any analog mixer. That said, I’ve seen plenty of guys manage to drive their digital stuff into clipping… because they don’t know how to use it. Most will never get it.

Both are “summing mixers”, in fact I’ve never seen a mixer that is otherwise. The term, BTW, derives from the analog design of a “summing bus” – which approaches, but never attains, a mathematical sum of it’s inputs. In the digital domain, the sum is essentially perfect.

A professional engineer will understand that these arguments are immaterial. The low levels of coloration introduced by good modern mixers are insignificant compared to the high (3-5%) levels of distortion introduced by the electromechanical elements such as microphones and loudspeakers.

This is just hype intended to sell you something you really don’t need at all!

Gene James wrote on May 11th, 2009 at 10:07 am

 

Paul, thank you for leaving a reply. I would be happy to discuss routing options with you, and explain how to get the final mix from the D Box. Congratulations on picking one up! You can reach me at 800 222 4700 ext. 1328. I am usually in until 6pm EST. Give me a call, I’m happy to help.

Chris McCown wrote on May 11th, 2009 at 4:28 pm

 

Hello Gene, so basically what you are saying is that you would rather mix in the box, which is fine – that’s your prerogative. Have you ever heard a Dangerous Music 2 Bus, 2 Bus LT, or D Box? If you have and you didn’t care for them, that’s one thing (although I’m not sure why you wouldn’t care for them, because they’re amazing). If you haven’t, then that is something entirely different. Call it what you will, and I agree with you that “all” mixers are “summing mixers”, so call it a “recombiner”, or whatever you would like. The fact is, I have heard and used one on many occasions, and I’ve mixed in the box. I’ve done both. If the master bus of a DAW does “perfect” math, then why does every DAW sound different? Not dramatically different, but certainly scientifically different. Null tests prove this. Granted, there is fixed point vs. floating point, but DAW’s sound different, plain and simple. So I’m not so sure that “perfect” math is necessarily “perfect”. As I said before, specs don’t mean anything compared to what your ears tell you. Your EARS are the final judge. How many times has someone looked at a parametric EQ plugin and “shaped” it to look a certain way? Analog consoles didn’t used to have visual aids to the EQ like the GUI of a parametric EQ plugin has now. The engineer had to use his/her EARS. Have you ever heard of Sterling Sound in NYC? Chris Muth? That’s who and what you’re slamming. Chris BUILT the gear at Sterling Sound, and is the chief designer of Dangerous Music gear. I find it ironic that literally thousands of albums were done on the gear that Chris Muth built himself, and who has now launched Dangerous Music into the digital audio masses, yet you call it “hype intended to sell you something you really don’t need at all.” That’s a bold statement, considering the company that Dangerous Music keeps. If you accuse me of anything, accuse me of being a Dangerous Music junky, because I am. There IS such a thing as an inferior summing mixer. Dangerous products don’t fall into that category though. Folks, don’t take MY word for it, do your own research. I am not alone in this. You will certainly find people on both sides of this same coin, but having mixed for a number of years on both analog and digital equipment, I’m sticking to my original article. It wasn’t a “subtle” difference – it was HUGE. Gene, if you are happy mixing in the box, then that’s fantastic! Plenty of great mixes have been done in the box. As for me, I won’t turn in a final mix until it goes through a Dangerous summing mixer.

Chris McCown wrote on May 12th, 2009 at 3:09 pm

 

I am in australia nearing the end of a 4 month separation from my Logic Pro based studio. I should be back in the UK in mid june and have been spending a lot of time looking into the idea of summing. I use a motu896hd and have mixed itb with some success, though Chris’s article resonated with me. I would appreciate a reply on how things get routed back to the DAW as I have only ever bounced in Logic. Would you just send back to a pair of inputs and have Logic and something like BIAS Peak running as the recorder? PS I have been looking at TL Audio Fat Track, but I do have a Focusrite Vocaltrack Pro and this DBox seems a better choice.

Fintan Doran wrote on May 25th, 2009 at 1:47 am

 

Hello Fintan, I am including a link that will take you to a diagram that should help. Basically, you would come from your interface OUTPUTS and that gets the audio stems INTO the summing mixer. Ideally you should have at least eight outputs to use the D Box, or 16 outputs to use the 2 Bus/2 Bus LT. Otherwise, you won’t be able to utilize all of the available stems. From there, you would take the summing mixer OUTPUTS, back into a pair of unused inputs on your audio interface. This is your new mix, which you would print to track. In the diagram, the digital DAW input is S/PDIF (or AES) in this case on the D Box, which can be used for a reference track, or the way I have used it, to print a ‘before’ mix of your project and assign it to the S/PDIF (or AES) out, so you can A/B the in the box mix, and your new summed mix. In any case, that takes audio from the S/PDIF output of your DAW. There is also a CD input on the D Box for an additional reference source. I hope that helps. Here is a link to the diagram:

http://www.dangerousmusic.com/pdf/DBoxDiagram_1.2.pdf

Thanks Fintan!

Chris McCown wrote on May 28th, 2009 at 12:05 pm

 

It’s been awhile since anybody has posted on this thread. I just wanted everybody to know, I just finished recording a project that I wrote, and I am again amazed at what it does to a mix. I’ll say it again – I had an in the box mix that actually sounded pretty good. But, I ran it through the D Box and remixed it, and BLAMMO – everything sounded better because of all the extra room each track had to breathe. I could hear the synths coming out of the mix, the drum overhead mics were actually so present in the mix that I had to calm them down, and the guitars, which were quite ‘busy’ in this particular song, were each distinct and clear. At one point, I had a finger tapping section, with a counter melody, AND the rhythm guitar on top of that. Very difficult to separate even with proper EQ and compression. I was able to separate them a lot easier with the D Box. Enjoy and thanks for reading!

Chris McCown wrote on July 29th, 2009 at 9:53 am

Leave a Reply

Comments are moderated to prevent spam and keep the conversation constructive.
Please allow some time for the comment to post