Hello again,

Sorry if this is redundant. I tried edit my other thread earlier but there was a database problem preventing it. So, to BE redundant, come and compare the cream of the analog summing boxes currently available. The details:

Skyline Studios; 36 West 37th St, 3rd Floor, NYC; 212-714-9691, Att.: Ron Allaire; [email protected]

August 9 Wednesday 11 AM to 8 PM

RSVP to the studio or myself:
[email protected]
609-466-7885

Thanks. The gear:

Barefoot Micro Mains 27
Pro Ac Studio 100 A's

Neve 8816
Chandler Mini-Mixer
API 8200-7800
Tonelux rack
Shadow Hills Equinox
SPL Mix Dream

See you there!

Hey Paul,

Good meeting you today - thanks to you and Ron again for organizing this. I liked the Chandler and SPL the best.

Tom
----------
http://www.tomdurack.net
http://www.myspace.com/tomdurack

Favorites in order top to bottomn:

1) Chandler-already contemplaing saving pennies. If WG can retrofit some moving faders he have a supporter here.

2) Equinox- Something weird was happenning but you could hear its potential. Also love the meters.

3) Believe it or not the Neve 8816- I was suprised how good it was after reading some things here

4) Tonelux- I was suprised how it paled in comparison even though the bottomn was tight. I expected more.

5) API- dissapontment. Wouldn't buy it personally.

6) SPL- it proves why i dislike SPL gear sonically and this box reinforces it.

Honorable mention: The modified Neve console which in reality kicked all of the boxes butts. The Chandler was the closest in terms of color and size. The Neve 8816 was closest in punch.

The speakers;

I've never cared for ProAcs 100 so didn't even bother.

Checked out the Barefoots.

I left thinking that i would love to hear the bigger guys and think i would like them.

The smaller guys just couldn't do it for me.



Thanks and had a good time.

2) Equinox- Something weird was happenning but you could hear its potential. Also love the meters.


What was up with it? Just curious
Meters? I am assuming you are referring to the eye tubes...if so, yea I find myself zoning out fomr time to time jsut staring...kind of that lava lamp stare you know?
heh

Hey Thrill,
How were the tests conducted? Was it actually a PT Session being piped into the summing or listening to CD's? When i first Listened to the Barefoots MM27 i didnt know if i liked them or not, then i said F*ckit it let me do a mix through them, when i finished the mix i was blown away on how incredible they translated, Especially in the low end, my recomendation would be to mix through them and forget the CD thing. Shortly after that is was bye bye to the NS-10's and Genelec 8050. I just got an Eqiunox and i gotta tell ya its one incredible piece of gear.

i had a good time. the room was very nice, and everyone who came down was very relaxed and seemingly knowledgable. of course, every person who stood at the console had a different opinion as to what was "the best". i feel that the "shootout" wasn't totally ideal, being that we only had 2-8 channels on each box working. i feel that if we were stacking 12-16 tracks into each box, some opinions would change.

out of the dedicated summing mixers, personally, i liked the tonelux system, though i wished we had 16 channels and some more EQs available to toy around with. i feel that the music that i typically record would benefit greatly from a medium-large tonelux console. of course, i did prefer the VR60, but that's just not in the budget right now.

the proacs are cool, but are of course wildly different from the barefoots and the mains, which we did most of the listening on. like thrill, i probably wouldn't try to mix anything too crucial on them. maybe check them for reference when mixing in lots of crunchy guitar tracks.

after most of the people filed out, i stayed and had beers with ronnie, peter and company and talked shop, and then popped in some stereo mixes i did last september that i'm starting to dislike (everyone else thought they were better than i do...whatever) to check out the barefoots a little more extensively. very odd design, and i'm definitely not sure how i feel about them after only hearing them for a few hours, but i'd be interested in hearing them in my room.

definitely a fine day. got my spark back for this whole career, which has been slowly depleting the past few months.

Big Gigantic thank you to Ron Allaire and his assistant @ Skyline for offering up their studio for an entire day 10am - 8pm...

They had everything setup, clean and provided a friendly and truely relaxed environment.

They had beer, soda and bottled water so you could kick back in front of the Augspergers on a comfy couch or roll up the neve and switch between the Barefoots and Proacs.

Only issue was the Mac kept crashing so it was a bit hard to load tracks into PT for auditioning but I did get there way later than I wanted and I'm sure if I would have had more time - but I had Met tickets. Ron has a very nice sounding room - it was very clear and clean and the difference in detail of the mixers and monitors was represented well.

Big, Big thank you to Peter Kehoe for acting on this Summing / Monitor shootout!

Hope we can do this again very soon. Hearing stuff, in the right environment is essential for my purchase decisions.

Again - thanks to Ron - Skyline - Peter and Vintage King!

Hello everyone,

Thanks to all for attending and being so positive about our summing mixer party. I enjoyed meeting everyone and a good time was had by all.

A couple of follow up notes. It is hard to be all things to all people but what we tried to do was keep many of the factors stable, or eliminated, and left the mixers as the variable. For that reason we used the same damn (but nice!) track all day. We had calibrated all the returns for level consistency between units. One valid criticism is that we only summed 8 tracks. We did this for two reasons. One was that the Tonelux rack we had was 8 returns, so we obviously wanted the same material going to all mixers. Secondly, if we were to go to 16 inputs, we would have had to go through the console bussing system to get that many feeds. We avoided that with 8 by multing to the mixer directly from the Pro Tools outputs. That way we tried to avoid having the sound of the console as a factor. The 2 buss outs of the mixers were patched into the externals of the monitor section of the VR which made the A-B process easy.

In private demo situations we can still do smaller demos with less boxes but more tracks. That would be a valuable test to do. Thanks again.

I've had the Micro-mains for about 4 months now and they have greatly improved my work imo.

I recently mixed a new Carlos Guitarlos album and am currently mixing projects for Jack Tempchin and the reunited Raspberries.

Mastering projects have included a brand new remastering of the original mono Pet Sounds to celebrate the 40th anniversary as well as a special limited edition EP of Good Vibrations, both for EMI.

If you get a chance check the Micromains out. You'll need some help getting them on top of your console cause they are real heavy, but they sound great.

Mark Linett

I agree. My mixes have improved a good deal with these. Every freelance Engineer that worked with them here has basically freaked out (in a good way). Many have the same comment: "They make me work harder, and I like that"

stike stike

I thought the whole thing was great. Thanks for putting it together.

My taste pretty much matched Thrillfactor's.

I did have one or two criticisms. First some of the pieces were not set a unity. In fact, I think most or all were not. I did read the API manual and that the demo was set according to them manual, but the manual didn't specify wha was unity for the inputs.

Second, as good and bad as some units sounded, I think the real question is how wold a mix sound done through each box?

For peices that sounded too warm, is that a result of the the mix being done in a context where the summing amp was light in the low end?

For the ones that were light in the low end, is it possible that if it was used in the mix, the low end would have stayed tight, but the engineer would have comensated and added some lows?

My point is, what is the effect of each sonic signature on mix results?

What this showed us was the sonic signatures relative to each other, but not necessarily relative to a neutral standard.

Maybe there should have been an option to hear a protools summed version which migh have been a familair reference point. Maybe things that sounded too dark or too bright would have been revealed to be more accurate to the source.

I'm not sure that any better job could have been done, but I think it's important to identify what it is we're actually learning from the comparisons which can be very hard to do.


I just tried to do a comparison between an L2 and a PL2 and process became a big issue. Just the simple fact that the L2 has digital conversion. Do you go into digital and out so that you're A/Bing an analaogs signal and one that's been converted twice? Do you compare recorded sample of each by using the L2 as the converters back to digital and then bypass processing and use the same converters for the PL-2?

Plus, does the characteristics of each make you want to put them in diffferent parts of the signal path? Maybe you ended up using each one differently and one gets better results when used with one method and the other with a different method.

Shootouts aren't easy.

This is a feature of the Equinox. You can switch between protools one and two or three through thirty-two summed on the input selector of the monitor section.
Peter Reardon

damn, i am *extremely* bummed that i didn't know about this event. i would've loved to bring the nicer 16, and to meet the folks in attendance.

another day perhaps...


gregoire
del
ubk
.

Unity on the 8200's is full up.

Guido

Is this info in the manual? I Thought it was about 3 o clock the 8200 fader.

Question for 8200 Users,
Do you guys mix with the fader open all the way up or, do you calibrate it to 0VU?

I'm pretty sure all passive summing boxes inputs will be at unity fully open.

What you're confusing is unity at input vs unity at output.

Assume that there are no active parts in the input section - the knob is just like the volume pot on a guitar - zero attnuation is maximum volume and infintie attnuation is off. Then unity is fullly open.

Now, run a 0dBvu tone in to a channel panned up the middle and set your ouput to show zero dB. Now send that same signal to every input sumultaneously and what will your output show? Way above 0dB VU becuase all of the signals have been summed and there's an increase.

WIth passive summing the output is a make up gain - think about the Folcrom that needs a mic pre on the back end. Each input stages is resistored down, summed creating the volume boost and then boosted more if necessary - at least depending on the design.

So the ouput knob is not like a master fader with zero attenuation at the top. On the passive summing boxes, it's exactly the opposite.

The Chandelr works that way. It sounds like the API works that way. The SPL has no input level control, so I'd be it works that way. Neve is known for passive summing, so there's a good chance that their box works that way (without the faders).

I looked through the API manual, and I didn't see anything explanations of unity. It reccomend starting with the knobs as about 2 o'clock, but it's recommended use doesn't make that unity.

I've asked a few people - one being a high end gear designer who wasn't involved and doesnt' make a summing box. He immediate response was that he didn't think it would make a significant diffference, that he was sure that people used pots that had no effect on the tone.

I trust him to know more about this than me, but that does contradict what I'm used to hearing about pots. Acutally that's not true, if he had said it made no difference as oppsed to "significant difference" then it would be true.


But the more important issue is that we were listening to the boxes relative to each other. Supposed one box had 2 dB more low end than another. Does that mean it's boosting the low end or the other is cutting or some of each. Or, is it boosing the low end by 12dB and the other only by 10db?

The way the A/B was set up, I think people generally get an idea of the tone of each box, but if one seems too anything compared to another, there was no way of knowing which was truer to the source.

So, it didn't tell us which was the best sounding box, it told us which had more of certain tones or possibly which had less of certain tones than the others.

You'd really have to have two protools systems to properly A/B.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

I'm saying that to hear how the box is altering the mix, if at all, You'd have to be able to switch between summing in the comptuer to summing out of the computer.

If you have broken out the protools mix to four stereo pairs and run it through the summing box, there's no way to A/B live as there's no way to hear the protools stereo mix since it's been broken out.

You could bounce to disk, but then you can't separate out the sound of the summing from the sound of the bounce.

You'd have to have two identical protools system with the same session - one being summed in protoos an one being summing in the analog box.

Also, I believe that certina boxes react differently to loading. So, depending on the routing - I beleive there was multing, but maybe the console busses were used - that could change the accuracy of the results. If the console busses were used - then maintenence is an importatn question (I'm not suggesting, nor did I hear anything that sounded like there was a probelm) and, we've jsut imposed the console tone on everything.

The only way to avoid this would be to record the mix through each summing box one at a time and then audtion the recorded mixes. That removes the consol/loading, but adds in two conversions.

My point is, this was a great opportunity and put together very well, we just have to keep in mind what decisions we can accurately make from the particular set up.

I went into the shootout with no expectations whatso ever(i really went to hear the Barefoots).

I am a console guy at heart so all i was looking for if anything in a summing box is something that offers me something magical sonically or a pallete that i don't already have in my arsenal.

Its the basic thought process when i buy any gear these days.

Basically a box that i could not say no to.

I realized right away that the setup was wacky and not totally kosher in terms of a fair comparison, but to me first impressions sonically mean a ton and if something doesn't tickle my ears right away i don't even bother.

(And personally i don't need them to be within .5db of each other to tell if i like something or not.)

I could hear right away the differences and there were 2 boxes that stood out that offered something new or reminscient of a sound that i miss.

And the funny thing is sonically they are polar opossites of each other which is great because it gives me 2 different options.

Right now i am trying to figure out if i buy acquire them how will i incorporate it my current setup.

Mike is right.
the process will vary to get the results

I used a good many of the summing/mixing units..Chandler,SPL,Manley,API..Fulcrom..
they're all different.it's all subjective.so much is personal taste
.. bought 2 ...Nicerizer..Tonelux
I've found it really does come down to mixing into the vibe of the individual boxes as opposed to just a/b'ing stems
Mixing the same song on an SSL vs. a Neve or API or ITB or whatever..I'd do it slightly different on each system to get the desired results

thumbsup Exactly !
Coudn't say better

Nope.... full up. OVU (from the source) should be full up, I believe.

I love the sound of the API DSM. It has a contemporary sound and the low end is tight, not puffy.

I like the modular-ness of it so a cat can have 8,24,48...whatever he wants. The 2500 compressor is an important part of the rig as well.

Guido

Thrill,
I see the Neve didn't make it into your top group. Could you please comment a little more on the Neve versus the Chandler. A big difference?

My need is basically simply for panning capability (versus the Folcroms w/o panning) with little need for any of the control section functions. And the Neve feel (1084, 33609) generally works well for my material. I need 32 channels, so a pair of Neves has a big advantage in rack space. Just wondering, if you mixed into each mixer, would you think the results might be fairly close?

Thanks!

Oh come on, Mike. Sure they are. That's why everybody does them.

Doing them right, that's the hard part.

I would welcome your thoughts on how it could be done correctly or most informatively, either by private email, PM or in this thread.

http://www.3daudioinc.com/3db/showthread.php?t=7433

I've been thinking about it for awhile (maybe three years) but the stars are lining up for it to happen in the near future. Love to have your comments on how it should be done before it begins.

That biggest issue is the one you mentioned. Do you compare the same mix through all or do you do a different mix through each, taking into account the sonic differences between them, and then compare the outcomes fully aware that they aren't the same. I think the latter might be a better representation but it completely nullifies the single-variable comparison aspect. Maybe the mixer had a better day when mixing through C than through A. Been there? I suspect so.

Any test will be imperfect and will tell the listener less than sitting down in front of the units themselves. There just aren't that many people who can put 12 summing boxes together in the same room and listen to them all. Regardless of how imperfect the test, I think that will be the main value of a comparison like this, having access to a single-variable test.

This is not completely accurate. You could easily do it with one system. Each track can be assigned to multiple outputs. Assuming you were mixing stems, each track could be assigned to one pair of individual outs for analog summing and also to an AUX master as well, which would source the PT summed mix.

I am in total agreement with you on these statements. Having samples available in rapid succession is essential due to time/memory effects.

Why not both ?
so everybody would be happy.

You could offer 2 CD's or DVD's with the same mix through all and a different mix through each.

Hey Lynn

I have been thinking about this for a while now as well. The best I can come up with is to mix as many different songs as you have summing mixers and start each song and a different unit.

Like this.... Song one mixed first into summing device one then summing device two and three. Song two into summing device two then into summing device three and one. Song three into summing device three then one and two.

At the end you will have a bunch of mixes that will need to be level matched and then placed in order.

The reasoning here is because mixing INTO a device will give you much different results than mixing TO it will (I know you know this). A real world test of a summing unit would require you to work like you would in the real world and that is to mix through the thing fresh from the beginning. But if you use the same song on each your mix decisions will be tainted by your past mix into a different summing device. I think the only accurate way to do the above is to start with a fresh mix on each unit done by the same set of ears then compare the whole mess to see if there is a general "vibe and tone" that can be found between each.

Summing shootouts like the one on this thread are almost useless in my eyes but…...

Summing shootouts like the one on this thread are almost useless in my eyes (sorry guys). I think they do much more harm to the reputation of the companies involved than good.

For instance because of one pretty popular member of the community I am sure that Toneluz sales are about to take a hit and that to me is not far because everyone has different ears and no one is sure about how valid this "shootout" was in the first place…..

I'm not sure if that tells us more about the mixer or the summer. There are two variables so how can you compare any two mixes and know which variable created the difference? Comparing A to B would reveal differences, but due to what?

I think the test you propose is more appropriate on a personal level for someone who is trying to decide between two boxes. For a large scale comparison, I think it would create a lot of confusion. And take a LOT of time with statistically meaningless results. It would mean a lot to the person doing it though.

Ah, the classic debate on how to A/B gear.

The approach I am using for comparing summing mixers is:
(1) Mix a song into my current mixer and print that in the DAW.
(2) Patch in the new mixer and print that mix, w/o changing anything else.
(3) Optimize/remix mix (2) and print that mix.

The differences in mixes (1) and (2) tell me how the two mixers basically differ sonically. I just want a quick feel for where the new mixer is tending to take me: feels good, doesn't feel good.

The differences between mixes (1) and (3) tell me which mixer will work best for me.

I sure wish I had all these mixers sitting here for testing!