[text ]The never-ending question ITB vs OTB summing. I’m an advocate for analog processing no doubt, So in turn analog summing is convenient. But in terms of summing alone without processing..?? The question is still up in the air.
As an experiment I’d like to see what is preferred after some blind A/B testing. One of these is summed ITB. The other is 16 channels worth in the analog realm via a passive summing bus + makeup gain.
What file do you prefer Sum A or B?
.
Sum A
Sum B
Summing method revealed below.
A = Analog Summing – via 16×2 – Passive Analog Summing Panel/Hardy M1 Preamp
B = Digital Summing – via Sonar
It’s of my opinion that summing alone gives zero benefit. Add some outboard, now you’re getting something beneficial. If your console/summing solution is full of transformers, bandwidth/headroom limits, High X-Talk, or tubes your “processing” plan & simple. I find this to be the real difference in analog summing. The magic is in the functionality & the world of outboard integration that opens up. Not the summing process.[/text]
A – ITB
B – Analog
A sounds a bit more harsh, more of those super fast transients coming through. Sounds like there’s a bit of clipping going on, and it’s emphasized in A. B just sounds smoother, but it also sounds narrower, less stereo depth. Just my thoughts. May I ask which program you’re using to sum?
BTW, love the blog. I snagged those PCM70 v2 presets for a v3 that I’ve got a while back. Thanks so much!
there is difference but i think that we are talking about 2% of audio that most
people unless they are Bob Rock or his kids might only be able to tell the diff.
most will argue that frequent these sites that”that 2% is what will make or break a recording
but i feel that its the song that transcends the recording.dont get me wrong you need to have skills when i comes to recording a GREAT tune but look at early Hendrix recordings.by todays standards those records sound lo-fi
and generally kind of un-mixed but none of that is what made the tunes great it was the tunes.the downward spiral is another great example of this.ITB OR OTB is just some new marketing buzz word like HI-DEF and its selling a lot of summing devices these days.some great albums have been made just in the box.FILTERS short bus was done in the box and it sounds great and still rules the airwaves.I know it was done this way cause i play with Frank Cavanagh the original bass player from that said band.we record all of our tracks that way still and it sounds killer.of course I’ve got some old neves here in the studio but i rely more these days on nebula and other various plugs to get it done.anyway theres 2% of my two cents.
rock on
“May I ask which program you’re using to sum?”
For this test X1. It was my “break-in test” for X1. I’ll leave my opinions about X1 for some other day/rant. My Need for PT isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.
Thanks Eric.
Charles: Agreed on pretty much all points, but I think there’s still a point to these non-scientific, A/B style tests in pursuit of that top tier of fidelity. Hopefully these kind of tests serve to debunk a lot of that hifi BS that’s out there. If you can hear a difference then you can make a cost/benefit analysis to decide if it’s really worth dropping the cash on the latest and greatest, or in this case breaking out the soldering iron and expending that human capital. If you’re hearing a 50% difference it’s probably time to start saving, if it’s 1% maybe don’t bother. Just some thoughts, anyway, sorry to distract from the test results.
Not a distraction & agreed, some good points for sure.
(written before reading other comments)
I prefer A because there’s more cohesion between frequencies.
The sound is a bit sterile but this can be easily fixed with the right amont of saturation while mastering.
B in the other hand has more harmonics but lacks the cohesion of track A
I you were a client sending me both mix, I’d process A
A = Analog Summing – via 16×2 – Passive Analog Summing Panel/Hardy M1 Preamp
B = Digital Summing – via Sonar
It’s of my opinion that summing alone gives zero benefit. Add some outboard, now you’re getting something beneficial. If your console/summing solution is full of transformers, bandwidth/headroom limits, High X-Talk, or tubes your “processing” plan & simple. I find this to be the real difference in analog summing. The magic is in the functionality & the world of outboard integration that opens up. Not the summing process.
I think you re right. No benefit of analog summing if you don’t do Michael Brauer style multi bus compression.
We use logic.And thats because its supported by apple.It only made sense to use a program that is made or at least we are told by apple.whats refreshing on this blog is that there really seems to be people that are making sense and not splitting hairs!!! Dylan your right as well.its all down to what is going to satisfy your needs and desires.if you hear large differences then,knock yourself out by all means buy a Neve summing buss or the dangerous stuff.with all that being said i do think there are definite reasons for having a great analog front in. such as a great API Neve or other notable manufactures to be able to capture that sonic musicality we are in search of.but unless your gonna use a real fat console of some sort to get to that sonic realm we all aspire then using a summing buss that is usually clean and transparent just seems to make little dollars and sense to my ears.the mixx buss in my opinion has gotten better ITB.it really depends on how many tracks your gonna cram down the buss.if it’s a bunch then your gonna hear issues if it’s a conservative amount of tracks then your gonna be just fine.the alex B console stuff for nebula has given us some great results.the only draw back is the work flow killer that it can be bouncing tracks and what not but if you have more time than money its way to go.anyway i really dig this place.keep the nebula programs coming!!!! all the stuff i’ve bought i’ve loved and used over and over !!! you rock Eric
charles
i will say this the DBX program for nebula you just put out…….lets just say i use it like i use my lungs now!!!! your stuff really is so usable musically speaking.i just wish i could figure out how to get the echo plex stuff i cant seem to figure out what i need to get them to download.the rar thing i cant figure.some things im still real ignorant in !!!!
i bought a RAR program its working now thanx bro love the echo sounds dead on!!!
Good to hear that worked out. & yes as time permits i’ll be releasing more goodies. The list is long. In-between the mixing I’ve been going over some designs for a few specialty hardware processors i’d like to create/sell.
I prefer B … seems to have more life in it 🙂 at least on laptop speakers
I also prefer B. I listen before reading the comments and i choose b as analog.
Thanks for the test is verry welcome.
Sorry for my english.
a is more punchy and bright
b is more sweet and balanced
both is good 🙂
a is software
b is otb
A has better stereo separation and bumps in your face. B has a narrow stereo and lifeless. For me the difference is VERY noticeable on both the focals and the HD800. As soon as I heard A I knew it was OTB, hearing B only confirmed it.
Im happy getting this stereo separation and bump is relatively cheap to adquire.
I did a blind test by importing into wavelab and arranging windows in such a way as to enable randomisation.
Listening on good NFM’s
Turns out A is slightly crispier and the room ambience is slightly more pronounced and wider (almost as if the send to the verb had been increased a smidgeon)
I certainly wouldn’t call B lifeless!!
Preference ?.. In isolation I prefer A. I’m thinking B might be easier to blend into a mix…maybe.
Hi!
thanks for the test. I greatly preferred A, finding it to have more grit and spaciousness. I was very interested to find out that A was analog passive summing
I’m assuming you had to run into a stereo pair of mic preamps for makeup gain, no? what were they?
given your statement that the summing itself provides no advantage, do you think the difference here was the make up gain that was (I’m assuming) applied? (but not yet revealed?) and that you could just run a stereo mix through the loop without summing and achieve the same results?
Here are the hardware details of my summing setup http://9n2.ac0.myftpupload.com/1313/?p=1004
A sounds better. I would think B was ITB.
Also felt A has more depth to the stereo image, and a little more bite to a few transients; it’s the former I noticed more though…that said, I wouldn’t hear it on my laptop speakers.
I would say it’s a 4–6% difference…they all add up…
In my opinion, analog summing makes a good job if there are more different instruments and channels than in this example. I have a Neve vr and I did this try personally. Maybe doing analog summing with a Neve gives higher results because of the cool preamps!
I prefered the A, more finished. I was shure for 200% that it was the analo sum. I maked blind test of this type, without any processings, and most of people prefered the analo sum; they don’t taste or explain the differences, but they feeled very strongly that otb seems professional, itb not finished.
Man..i put the two out of phase and it completely cancelled out..
i guess you uploaded the same file or you made a point in brain trickery…
Check the files again. One is labeled “sum a” & the other is “sum b”. Something went wrong with your test session, they don’t cancel out . They sound very similar but the meters don’t lie.