Well, I've read several topics about this issue, but I failed to sum things up =)
What is actually summing difference? What the difference between analog, dsp and software summing?
It's frequently noticed Scope summing in Summer82 or STM mixers far better than in DAW(Cubase), but why so?
Could I examine summing quality not just by ears but with some analysers?
So, is software summing bad by it's nature (vs. dsp summing) or particularly Cubase\Live\Logic summing is bad?
Is it about micro delays between DAW channels? I can use Summer82 sending my group chennels in Cubase to it, but has the correlation between channels in groups already damaged by Cubase submixing summing? So what the point to use Summer82 then?
Thank you for attention to my confusion )
Summing differences
Re: Summing differences
use your ears. that's all you need to know.
yes, software summing is bad by definition. that's not because software CAN'T do summing well, it's because you want to hear the process as close to realtime as possible and the CPU has to do all the calculations. there are too many tasks for the CPU to complete in 4-13ms(summing of tracks, eqs, effects, vstis) at the best possible quality.
no, it's not necessarily about micro delays. a real hardware mixer with patchbays and outboard gear has many more micro delays between channels(it takes time for a signal to travel down a wire) and no one thinks that any software sounds better than top quality hardware. that said, micro delays can make a bad problem worse.
anything that helps is good, so even though your grouping in Cubase, it's better than combining everything.
if you REALLY want the BEST possible quality ANYWHERE, then pony up several million(don't forget the room!)...otherwise, it's a compromise...
yes, software summing is bad by definition. that's not because software CAN'T do summing well, it's because you want to hear the process as close to realtime as possible and the CPU has to do all the calculations. there are too many tasks for the CPU to complete in 4-13ms(summing of tracks, eqs, effects, vstis) at the best possible quality.
no, it's not necessarily about micro delays. a real hardware mixer with patchbays and outboard gear has many more micro delays between channels(it takes time for a signal to travel down a wire) and no one thinks that any software sounds better than top quality hardware. that said, micro delays can make a bad problem worse.
anything that helps is good, so even though your grouping in Cubase, it's better than combining everything.
if you REALLY want the BEST possible quality ANYWHERE, then pony up several million(don't forget the room!)...otherwise, it's a compromise...
Re: Summing differences
Thanx, Garyb, for clarify this issue.
I would appreciate much for explaining a couple following by your comment questions:
UPD: Does one\two involved in realtime record specific but slow DSP(s) manage it better than x10 times faster universal CPU in offline?
). At first, it would be useful for me to get some knowledge about what happens in DAWs and DSP mixers to apply "anything that helps" more conciously ))
I would appreciate much for explaining a couple following by your comment questions:
So its a matter of good ears? Frankly, I don't feel any romantic with all this "I hear Logic sounds warmer than Cubase, I can't prove it but I hear", so while I don't hear the summing difference I'd like to find some way at least see the differenceuse your ears. that's all you need to know.
But if I get it right, final summing could be managed offline (mixdown), so I hear damaged project but it could be at least rendered perfectly? For offline works CPU can afford any latency it wants. No?it's because you want to hear the process as close to realtime as possible and the CPU has to do all the calculations. there are too many tasks for the CPU to complete in 4-13ms(summing of tracks, eqs, effects, vstis) at the best possible quality.
UPD: Does one\two involved in realtime record specific but slow DSP(s) manage it better than x10 times faster universal CPU in offline?
So... what is summing difference then?no, it's not necessarily about micro delays. a real hardware mixer with patchbays and outboard gear has many more micro delays between channels(it takes time for a signal to travel down a wire) and no one thinks that any software sounds better than top quality hardware. that said, micro delays can make a bad problem worse.
Amenanything that helps is good, so even though your grouping in Cubase, it's better than combining everything.
Actually, I don't (I can'tif you REALLY want the BEST possible quality ANYWHERE, then pony up several million(don't forget the room!)...otherwise, it's a compromise...
). At first, it would be useful for me to get some knowledge about what happens in DAWs and DSP mixers to apply "anything that helps" more conciously ))Re: Summing differences
music is a subjective experience. if you can't trust the way you hear things, give it up.
if the difference doesn't matter to you/you can't hear it, then it's not important. if everyone can hear it but not you, perhaps they're crazy, perhaps you are in the wrong profession...
theoretically, your thoughts about offline are correct. in the real world, it's not true so much. yes, the DSPs do a better job. they were designed specifically for these types of calculations, so clockspeed isn't the only consideration. here's a good word, "algorythms".
the summing difference is math, and some of this is very difficult to reduce to a few sentences of text. a sound is a pretty complicated event in the real world. some serious compromises are made inside the box, because frankly, the difference between hardware and software isn't worth the cost in math and time and measurement to realize. want to know the difference? find a GREAT piano and plink around on it. then get the best virtual piano you can and do the same.
how can you really know anything about what sound quality really is, if you haven't experienced it? spend some time in a hardware studio where even a half a million dollars was spent and find out...
ultimately, this is about you getting results that you are pleased with. if you get those results staying in Cubase, there's no problem. if you are, to my mind, more sensitive than that, you'll probably want to mix and sum in Scope(since you have it), at least for your more serious, completed works. this has nothing to do with anything anyone says about anything, though. it's about your sense of music and sound. actually, if your room is untreated, there's no way in hell for you to really make an "objective" opinion because you're not hearing anything correctly.
it's about hearing, not ideas.
if the difference doesn't matter to you/you can't hear it, then it's not important. if everyone can hear it but not you, perhaps they're crazy, perhaps you are in the wrong profession...
theoretically, your thoughts about offline are correct. in the real world, it's not true so much. yes, the DSPs do a better job. they were designed specifically for these types of calculations, so clockspeed isn't the only consideration. here's a good word, "algorythms".
the summing difference is math, and some of this is very difficult to reduce to a few sentences of text. a sound is a pretty complicated event in the real world. some serious compromises are made inside the box, because frankly, the difference between hardware and software isn't worth the cost in math and time and measurement to realize. want to know the difference? find a GREAT piano and plink around on it. then get the best virtual piano you can and do the same.
how can you really know anything about what sound quality really is, if you haven't experienced it? spend some time in a hardware studio where even a half a million dollars was spent and find out...
ultimately, this is about you getting results that you are pleased with. if you get those results staying in Cubase, there's no problem. if you are, to my mind, more sensitive than that, you'll probably want to mix and sum in Scope(since you have it), at least for your more serious, completed works. this has nothing to do with anything anyone says about anything, though. it's about your sense of music and sound. actually, if your room is untreated, there's no way in hell for you to really make an "objective" opinion because you're not hearing anything correctly.
it's about hearing, not ideas.
Re: Summing differences
Garyb, it's not fairif you can't trust the way you hear things, give it up.
if everyone can hear it but not you, perhaps they're crazy, perhaps you are in the wrong profession...
How can I hear\feel\trust differences between things I've never trained to hear?I would be happy to know that any person without 'right hearing' skill will hear the difference for sure and feel the better summing of hardware consoles, but I'm sure they don't. I remember my hearing trainings while using EQ and compression. In half cases EQed instrument sounds better, but in rest of cases it pretty damaged for better fit in mix (especially electronic instruments) and in solo it sounds bad (well, maybe not bad, but worse
). The same with compression, in some cases tough compression without wily make-up sounds poor and flat, but I know I must do it because of better volume balance of the group or whole track.So you're right about getting experience in hadware studio, I'll use your advise, I just thought I could train my ears to hear the difference Scope-Cubase summings, but at this moment I can't hear the difference... but I still not in a hurry to change profession
This is exact recipe I'd like to find for training my ears to hear better summingsfind a GREAT piano and plink around on it. then get the best virtual piano you can and do the same.
I think I start to double mixdown of each of my project both in Scope and Cubase, who knows, maybe I'll feel the things one day...
My old startup Scope project had active compressor with 2-6 db compression of any signal from my PC soundcard, you know, it helped, one perfect morning I was able to understand - something prevents sounds to spread in loudness
But before it was the same regardless of bypass was on or off.
Last edited by Inferman on Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Summing differences
too many variables...
it's when eq and compressors and other processors get used that the difference is the biggest.
fix your room a bit first, if you can. you need diffusers and bass traps. then you'll be able to hear subtle differences a lot more clearly.
you're right about how a track might sound "worse" on it's own, but better in a mix. there just aren't many absolutes in music. i'd say the performance itself is much more important than the sound quality, at least in non-mechanical music. once you have a really good performance, however, then you will want to maximize sound quality. again, fix the room first, so that you have a chance to hear these subtleties.
it's when eq and compressors and other processors get used that the difference is the biggest.
fix your room a bit first, if you can. you need diffusers and bass traps. then you'll be able to hear subtle differences a lot more clearly.
you're right about how a track might sound "worse" on it's own, but better in a mix. there just aren't many absolutes in music. i'd say the performance itself is much more important than the sound quality, at least in non-mechanical music. once you have a really good performance, however, then you will want to maximize sound quality. again, fix the room first, so that you have a chance to hear these subtleties.
Re: Summing differences
GaryB would anger the trolls at GearSlutz trying to convince hobbyist DAW users that they need to send them stems for analog summing so they can get that "Big" sound.
I get a kick out of the nullifying scientists and "famous" engineers who fall over each other when someone has money to spend due to no faith in themselves or poor hearing.
GaryB da man...
Ankyu
I get a kick out of the nullifying scientists and "famous" engineers who fall over each other when someone has money to spend due to no faith in themselves or poor hearing.
GaryB da man...
Ankyu
Re: Summing differences
Summer of '82 is good for a few reasons ( http://www.hitfoundry.com/issue_22/dna_mast.htm )
. If you perfect each of your 8 submixes first then mixdown you only have to concentrate on the 8 channels.
. If you group instruments together logically this makes the process easier. Like all drums together makes sense, or all backing vocals together makes sense as well. Since at this 'summing' stage you are more concerned with how backing vocals balances against lead vocal, than how each backing vocal balances with the other backing vocals.
. Each of the 8 channels has individual MS narrow / widen (or phase flip it). Great for getting wide soundscape on pad keys, maybe slightly narrower on backing voals etc.
. Solo each track to make sure it sounds best it can before putting back into the mix.
Use you ears not just on the final mix but on each individual channel in solo - if you can get the individual channels sounding good at lower volume, then 'summing' them will likely yield a great result.
Its about using your ears yes, but using them in conjunction with more detailed knowledge of the peice of gear.
. If you perfect each of your 8 submixes first then mixdown you only have to concentrate on the 8 channels.
. If you group instruments together logically this makes the process easier. Like all drums together makes sense, or all backing vocals together makes sense as well. Since at this 'summing' stage you are more concerned with how backing vocals balances against lead vocal, than how each backing vocal balances with the other backing vocals.
. Each of the 8 channels has individual MS narrow / widen (or phase flip it). Great for getting wide soundscape on pad keys, maybe slightly narrower on backing voals etc.
. Solo each track to make sure it sounds best it can before putting back into the mix.
Use you ears not just on the final mix but on each individual channel in solo - if you can get the individual channels sounding good at lower volume, then 'summing' them will likely yield a great result.
Its about using your ears yes, but using them in conjunction with more detailed knowledge of the peice of gear.