My Mackie 1640 (original) died yesterd. : I need to replace it, opinions wanted.

[xiwiwix1]

This is definitely not true. There's a big difference in sound, even with just a simple "faders up" comparison where you leave the DAW faders at 0 and get your balance on the analog board vs. in the computer.

 

Oh! So then this can be measured, correct? This sounds VERY interesting to me, and sounds like the deal breaker, rack vs board for me.

 

If running the sound back thru the ZED or Mackie give my sound a fatter (flavor) analog vs "in the box", with out a doubt I'll be getting a one of these two.

 

Yes, "feel" helps in terms of doing a good mix, but by no means is that all there is to it!

 

I've never worked with faders so I have no earthly idea of "feel," so that is invalid to people who have never used a board to mix, but I'll take your word for it.

 

I was pretty astonished at the difference, frankly.

 

I don't understand, what are you astonished at?

 

 

 

I knew there was a big difference on higher end consoles because I've heard that many times, but I didn't expect it to be the case with an inexpensive console like the R16. Another friend of mine has a Toft console and had the same experience.

 

 

 

So if you take a song and mix it down on either the A&H or the Mackie, and do it once via mixing board and once via "in the box," there would be some type of messuarble differences if you ran both wave files thru some type of spectral graph?

 

^^^I don't want this thread to become some stupid debate. I'm really just looking for a yes or no answer to the question above. There would be no grey area, if it makes a difference it can be measured, and if it doesn't then it's just bs. I'm really trying to pick the best option for my studio. Please don't screw this thread up with some digital vs anaolog debate. Take it some where else. Thank you.

 

^^^^^^Lee the statement above wasn't directed at you, it's for everyone.

 

"An opinion without substance is like a car without gasoline." -Marc David

(non electric non hybrid car)

[xiwiwix1]

 

My reviews and articles are on the web page at the bottom of this message.

 

 

Great review on the Saffire 56! Sounds like an solid options. Thanks Mike!

 

Do you have a review on the ZED R16?

[Lee Flier]

 

Oh! So then this can be measured, correct? This sounds VERY interesting to me, and sounds like the deal breaker, rack vs board for me. If running the sound back thru the ZED or Mackie give my sound a fatter (flavor) analog vs "in the box", with out a doubt I'll be getting a one of these two.

 

 

I'm sure it can be measured, yes, though I've not done it. I mean, it's obvious enough using my ears.

 

 

I've never worked with faders so I have no earthly idea of "feel," so that is invalid to people who have never used a board to mix, but I'll take your word for it.

 

 

When you have faders you can treat a mix as a "performance" to a certain degree, making spontaneous adjustments in response to the music, including moving multiple faders at once, etc. You can also do some mixing with your eyes closed, which is helpful because it's a fact that we humans respond to visual data more readily than auditory data. In other words we may make certain mix decisions based on how something looks (on a grid or a waveform) vs. how it actually sounds, and that's not good. But it's hard to operate a DAW with your eyes closed.

 

 

I don't understand, what are you astonished at?

 

 

The main thing is there is a greater sense of "space", depth and dimension in a mix done on an analog console. This is something I've heard many times on more expensive consoles, as I said, but didn't really expect it to be so noticeable on a relatively lower end board. It's easier to achieve proper separation between instruments and get a good stereo field. It's also easier to get what you refer to as a "fatter" or more present sound. There've been a lot of discussions on here about what the possible technical reasons for this might be, so you can search this forum if you're interested in that. But in a nutshell, that's it.

 

 

So if you take a song and mix it down on either the A&H or the Mackie, and do it once via mixing board and once via "in the box," there would be some type of messuarble differences if you ran both wave files thru some type of spectral graph?

 

 

Sure, of course there would, if for no other reason than the analog board introduces different types of distortion than an ITB mix would. Which differences would account for the subjective improvement, I couldn't tell you. But of course if you did the same mix in the box vs. an analog board, even if you try to match the levels and pan laws as closely as possible, there are going to be measurable differences. The rest is a matter of taste, but I can't imagine that too many people wouldn't hear an obvious difference when you listen directly to the comparison.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

The main thing is there is a greater sense of "space", depth and dimension in a mix done on an analog console. This is something I've heard many times on more expensive consoles, as I said, but didn't really expect it to be so noticeable on a relatively lower end board.

 

 

I compared my mixes on the Akai MG1214, which is not considered a nice board, to my mixes in Pro Tools, and was astonished at how much more space, depth, and width there were in my mixes. I know this isn't exactly what you are talking about, but still, the difference wasn't subtle to my ears. And the thing is that I was surprised. I was expecting my Pro Tools mixes to be about the same because the Akai board isn't a high quality board, so this wasn't a case of me expecting the older analog mixes to be like this at all. And since I'm not using that board anymore, I'm a bit bummed. I have to work a lot harder at trying to achieve that sense of space, depth, and width. You have no idea how badly I want my Pro Tools mixes to sound like that. Regrettably, they don't.

 

Now, it'd be interesting to compare the depth/width of a cheap board like the MG1214 to a nicer board like the A&H.

[MikeRivers]

Great review on the Saffire 56! Sounds like an solid options. Thanks Mike! Do you have a review on the ZED R16?

 

Yes. It's in the same place as you found the Liquid Saffire 56. Glad you enjoyed that one. Focusrite did, too, and it was front page news on their web site for a couple of days.

 

It's not quite as extensive, though, since the ZED review was written for a magazine (Pro Audio Review) and they kept wanting me to make it shorter. I tried, for my web site, to resurrect most of what I edited out to fit PAR's size requirement, but there were some things that I just never wrote because I knew there wouldn't be room for them. Unfortunately, PAR paid me money when I was writing for them, and nobody pays me money for what I'm writing now.

[MikeRivers]

You have no idea how badly I want my Pro Tools mixes to sound like that. Regrettably, they don't. Now, it'd be interesting to compare the depth/width of a cheap board like the MG1214 to a nicer board like the A&H.

 

Could it be a matter of time, place, and material? I go back and listen to some of the recordings that I made 25 years ago and wish I could make recordings today that sounded that good. Mind you, it's not technical differences - there isn't more mojo or less pixie dust, but probably mostly because there weren't 172 tracks and three times that many decisions to make (some of which will invariably be wrong), and we corrected mistakes as we went or decided that they really weren't bad enough to worry about. There was none of this "I have six compressor plug-ins so let me see which one sound best on this track" (without hearing it in context with all the other tracks). And no AutoTune.

 

I think Lee summed it up pretty well that there will be different distortion products, more analog and less digital, and we tend to like those better, or rather, dislike them less. Plus having your hands on the console from the start to finish of the song gets you more involved in the music and you make subtle changes that you probably wouldn't bother with (or even be able to find) if you go back and try to edit a Pro Tools track.

 

As far as your Akai rig - I recall reading a "shootout" article several years back, I think it might have been in EQ, where they compared several approaches to analog summing. This was just unity gain summing - all the moves were made in the DAW - where they took stereo stems and rand them into several analog summing devices. The subjects ranged from a high dollar Dangerous Music box to a simple Behringer mixer, and they had a hard time telling the resulting mixes apart, but they all sounded different from the equivalent digital summed mix.

[xiwiwix1]

 

I'm sure it can be measured, yes, though I've not done it. I mean, it's obvious enough using my ears. When you have faders you can treat a mix as a "performance" to a certain degree, making spontaneous adjustments in response to the music, including moving multiple faders at once, etc. You can also do some mixing with your eyes closed, which is helpful because it's a fact that we humans respond to visual data more readily than auditory data. In other words we may make certain mix decisions based on how something looks (on a grid or a waveform) vs. how it actually sounds, and that's not good. But it's hard to operate a DAW with your eyes closed.

 

 

 

LOL!! I mix with my eyes close too.

 

 

The main thing is there is a greater sense of "space", depth and dimension in a mix done on an analog console. This is something I've heard many times on more expensive consoles, as I said, but didn't really expect it to be so noticeable on a relatively lower end board. It's easier to achieve proper separation between instruments and get a good stereo field. It's also easier to get what you refer to as a "fatter" or more present sound. There've been a lot of discussions on here about what the possible technical reasons for this might be, so you can search this forum if you're interested in that. But in a nutshell, that's it. Sure, of course there would, if for no other reason than the analog board introduces different types of distortion than an ITB mix would. Which differences would account for the subjective improvement, I couldn't tell you. But of course if you did the same mix in the box vs. an analog board, even if you try to match the levels and pan laws as closely as possible, there are going to be measurable differences. The rest is a matter of taste, but I can't imagine that too many people wouldn't hear an obvious difference when you listen directly to the comparison.

 

 

:phil:

 

Thank you Lee!

 

Damn, I was really starting to like the Saffire 56. : Oh, well. So it's now down to the A&H and the Mackie.

 

 

 

 

Does anyone know if the Mackie can run ProTools 9?

[UstadKhanAli]

Could it be a matter of time, place, and material? I go back and listen to some of the recordings that I made 25 years ago and wish I could make recordings today that sounded that good. Mind you, it's not technical differences - there isn't more mojo or less pixie dust, but probably mostly because there weren't 172 tracks and three times that many decisions to make (some of which will invariably be wrong), and we corrected mistakes as we went or decided that they really weren't bad enough to worry about. There was none of this "I have six compressor plug-ins so let me see which one sound best on this track" (without hearing it in context with all the other tracks). And no AutoTune.

 

No. What I mean is that I tried to remix the twelve tracks and couldn't get it to sound as wide, etc. etc. I was flabbergasted because I felt that it would be something I'd be able to do fairly quickly. After all, I was ten years better as a mixer, had automation, and many more tools at my disposal. But no matter how few or how many plugins, I couldn't do it. I was surprised. And I was bummed.

 

This wasn't a test. I was trying to improve the mix because there were a couple of things I wished I had done better. And I was bummed because even though my mix was "better" in that I had fixed the little issues that I didn't like about the first mixes and was beautifully balanced and nuanced, I couldn't get it to sound as deep or as expansive or as dimensional. I just couldn't. And like I said before, I was *expecting* that I could do better with Pro Tools. It was a real eye-opener. After several attempts at several songs, I could only conclude that with my Pro Tools rig, I simply couldn't get it to sound as deep or as expansive. I could get it to sound good. Really good. But not as deep or as expansive.

 

As far as your Akai rig - I recall reading a "shootout" article several years back, I think it might have been in EQ, where they compared several approaches to analog summing. This was just unity gain summing - all the moves were made in the DAW - where they took stereo stems and rand them into several analog summing devices. The subjects ranged from a high dollar Dangerous Music box to a simple Behringer mixer, and they had a hard time telling the resulting mixes apart, but they all sounded different from the equivalent digital summed mix.

 

Yes, I do know that, and that's why I always try and be careful in discussions like this. I don't say, "Oh, I can tell the difference all the time!" But I can't say that with any honesty. First of all, I haven't tried. The only thing I can tell you is that my analog mixes were deeper, more expansive, etc. than my Pro Tools mixes several times in a row, and that in general, I think analog mixes sound deeper and more expansive (more dimensional) than digital ones. But can I always tell the difference? I don't know, I really don't. I doubt I can tell all the time. I'd be shocked if I could.

[Lee Flier]

Could it be a matter of time, place, and material? I go back and listen to some of the recordings that I made 25 years ago and wish I could make recordings today that sounded that good. Mind you, it's not technical differences - there isn't more mojo or less pixie dust, but probably mostly because there weren't 172 tracks and three times that many decisions to make (some of which will invariably be wrong), and we corrected mistakes as we went or decided that they really weren't bad enough to worry about. There was none of this "I have six compressor plug-ins so let me see which one sound best on this track" (without hearing it in context with all the other tracks). And no AutoTune.

 

That is pretty much still the way I work. I rarely have more than 24 tracks in a project, don't use a bajillion plugins or do much editing, do complete takes and commit to them instead of cobbling stuff together, no Autotune, etc. I'll reiterate: just a simple "faders-up" mix compared directly between a DAW and a console mix, you can hear a not so subtle difference. So it's not the material or the working methods, although no doubt that could stand improvement for a lot of people.

[MikeRivers]

 

Does anyone know if the Mackie can run ProTools 9?

 

 

Yes, I've seen that combination working. But the real question, and this applies to any audio interface, is whether the hardware will work with your computer. There are no guarantees from anyone, ever. Mackie seems to have more incompatibility problems than just about anyone else but that may be simply because they sell more gear than just about anyone else, and they have an open user's forum where anyone can come and complain.

 

You just have to try it. It might work for you right off the bat, you may need to do some tweaking of your computer, or you might beat yourself up for months changing little things here and there and pleading Mackie for a driver update and never get it working. But if it works, it will work with Pro Tools 9.

[Philter]

This is definitely not true. There's a big difference in sound, even with just a simple "faders up" comparison where you leave the DAW faders at 0 and get your balance on the analog board vs. in the computer. Yes, "feel" helps in terms of doing a good mix, but by no means is that all there is to it! I was pretty astonished at the difference, frankly. I knew there was a big difference on higher end consoles because I've heard that many times, but I didn't expect it to be the case with an inexpensive console like the R16. Another friend of mine has a Toft console and had the same experience.

 

Avid put up a blind listening test a while back with samples of the same music being summed in Protools, Protools with the Heat plugin, and Neve consoles...

 

Many people couldn't tell one from another. Lots of people who swore by hardware preferred the plain ProTools sum.

 

Yeah the hardware makes some kind of difference. But it's a subtle difference that many people can't even hear, and in many cases the ones who do hear it, when making an unbiased choice in a blind listening test, prefer the DAW summing. In my opinion a few small fader moves in a mix will make 100 times more difference to how it sounds than whether it was summed in a modern console or a modern DAW. I think the exception would be summing in cheaper analog gear, where it would make a difference, in a bad way.

 

Opinions about how gear sound are dangerously subjective, obviously. My favorite example is the blind listening test between $200 Behringer converters and a $2000 Lynx converter.

 

But I love my opinions as much as the next person.

[Lee Flier]

 

Yeah the hardware makes some kind of difference. But it's a subtle difference that many people can't even hear,

 

 

That depends on the material and a lot of other things. I have participated in blind tests where I could tell the difference. But I'm done arguing with people over whether there is a difference. I can hear the difference very noticeably in real-world situations. The only real way to determine what your preference is, is to try it, and I'd hate to think somebody wouldn't even TRY it because a bunch of people on the Internet told them it was all BS and blind tests blah blah blah. Worst that can happen is you don't hear much of a difference and return the console (if in fact you don't want to keep it so you can have 16 mic pres and something that can double as a live mixer). Best that can happen is you're really happy because you found a particular sonic element that you'd been looking for.

[UstadKhanAli]

Again, I'm going to say that I don't know if I can tell the difference in these scenarios with any authority. I don't like to come off as some know-it-all Golden Ears type because I'd be full of you-know-what.

 

What I can tell you is that, much to my dismay, the sound was wider, more expansive, and deeper when I switched to Pro Tools.

 

What I can tell you, much to my dismay, that I couldn't replicate the expansiveness, etc. of my old mixes that were done on an analog board.

 

What I can tell you, much to my dismay, recordings in general don't sound as good today as when we were using analog equipment. I think that sound quality dramatically decreased somewhere around the mid to late '90s, and sounds much flatter and less full.

 

I use digital equipment mostly now except for some hardware. I don't have the room for a console. I use what I use. I love the automation, I love the editing (I edit lightly, but I love that it's there), and I love the features that Pro Tools and other DAWs bring to the table. I have Apogee converters, which helps, and good outboard gear. What I'm saying here is that I'm not a "back in the day" analog-only zealot, as I will continue to use digital in the foreseeable future. But I'd be bold-faced lying to you if I said that what I'm getting is as expensive, deep, or dimensional as when I used analog.

 

At any rate, we're getting off the subject here. I haven't used the Saffire, but I can tell you that I really like A&H products, and if we're discussing sound quality alone, A&H wins it for me, hands down, both for their EQ and for their preamps. But ultimately, you should listen and choose yourself.

[Philter]

Again, I'm going to say that I don't know if I can tell the difference in these scenarios with any authority. I don't like to come off as some know-it-all Golden Ears type because I'd be full of you-know-what. What I can tell you is that, much to my dismay, the sound was wider, more expansive, and deeper when I switched to Pro Tools. What I can tell you, much to my dismay, that I couldn't replicate the expansiveness, etc. of my old mixes that were done on an analog board. What I can tell you, much to my dismay, recordings in general don't sound as good today as when we were using analog equipment. I think that sound quality dramatically decreased somewhere around the mid to late '90s, and sounds much flatter and less full.

 

Physiologically speaking you've probably lost a good amount of your hearing since the mid '90's. That might be what you're noticing.

 

In all serious though I think the loudness wars go a long ways towards explaining why stuff sounds so flat, more than anything else.

[Lee Flier]

 

In all serious though I think the loudness wars go a long ways towards explaining why stuff sounds so flat, more than anything else.

 

 

In your own studio, you don't have to participate in the loudness wars. It's easy to just not mix or master loud so that you can do a proper comparison. I'm not interested in compressing the living crap out of my mixes and I don't think Ken is either.

 

What exactly do you have to gain by trying to convince everyone they're not really hearing what they're hearing?

[Philter]

 

Personally, I found it pretty astonishing the difference between summing inside the computer and sending the individual tracks out to the board and doing an analog mix.

 

 

If there's one thing I'm sure of, you're hearing what you're hearing. We all hear what we hear. The only problem is, we hear more than what our ear alone tells us. We listen with our ears AND our brains, and our brains (and what's in them, including beliefs) have a big impact on how we hear things. Whether you would be hearing the same thing in a blind listening test is not something that is possible for me to know, but I have my own biases and beliefs about that and everything else, including gear. Maybe the difference between you and me is that I don't trust my own (or other's) hearing to be objective.

 

I deal all the time with people who are trying to improve their recordings, and a lot of the time their head is filled with nonsensical shopping lists of the things they need in order to make better sounding music. This is a great testament to the gear manufacturers, but not such a great testament to people working in the music making business. This is the kind of social outlet where people pick up these kind of ideas. So I am here to speak my mind, not to get along just for the sake of consensus.

 

The analog vs digital summing thing is a distraction for people who are still working on the first 95% of making a good mix. Either platform is going to sum your sounds pretty damn close to the same. If you're working on the last 5% of the journey great, you can be fooling around with esoteric stuff like different summing platforms, tissue paper over the tweeter, etc. It's not that I don't believe that analog summing can sound different in some circumstances. But I don't believe the summing itself will ever be the difference between a good sounding mix and a bad sounding one.

 

Now that's not a discussion of work flow, at all. Lots of people love working on a physical mixing console, and I am a big believer in work flow empowering creativity. So I have no intention of talking people out of working on a mixing board if that's how they work best. I had years working on a big console and never liked it. Even our host here says that you can't mix well with a mouse, but I prefer it, even after trying out the alternatives. That's all fine, those are workflow concerns, not acoustic concerns.

 

But when people start talking about how summing in a modern quality board vs a modern pro DAW makes an "astonishing" difference, I'm happy to speak up and offer another point of view. It makes little difference, and it's a difference many or most of us can't even distinguish in a truly objective listening test.

[Lee Flier]

 

I didn't bring up analog vs digital summing, actually it was you who did, in a thread about comparing mixing boards, not a thread about analog vs digital summing.

 

 

The OP specifically asked whether there was any difference in sound between analog and digital mixing, and I answered, 1) yes, there is, and 2) yes, the difference is measurable. Whether you like it better, that's subjective. I happen to like it better and so do many people. So really, all the stuff about blind tests and psychoacoustics and whether people are really hearing what they think they hear is just muddying the waters. If there really is a measurable difference (which there is), then why not just try it for yourself (and have someone blind test you if you don't trust what you hear) and see if it works for you. If you have done so and you're happy with digital summing, then great, but that doesn't mean there really is no difference, or even only a subtle difference, in other people's experience and working environment.

 

 

If there's one thing I'm sure of, you're hearing what you're hearing. We all hear what we hear. The only problem is, we hear more than what our ear alone tells us. We listen with our ears AND our brains, and our brains (and what's in them, including beliefs) have a big impact on how we hear things. Whether you would be hearing the same thing in a blind listening test is not something that is possible for me to know, but I have my own biases and beliefs about that and everything else, including gear. Maybe the difference between you and me is that I don't trust my own (or other's) hearing to be objective.

 

 

I don't either, and that is why I go out of my way to do comparison tests for myself, and have for years. I don't, however, put much stock in other people's "objective" listening tests. By definition, most of them don't take place in real world environments, and by the time you add in all the factors that make up a real world environment, you can't duplicate all of those factors in both platforms i.e. it's not a scientific, controlled experiment anymore. So I am afraid we're "stuck" with our subjective takes on things, which makes some people uncomfortable but the fact is that most of us just want to get on with our projects and use stuff that we think sounds good, and that's as it should be. I am satisfied after many years of actual comparisons of actual real world mixes that analog vs. digital mixing makes a very noticeable difference. Others' mileage may or may not vary, but it's nice that we now have some pretty inexpensive ways for people to find out for themselves.

 

 

I deal all the time with people who are trying to improve their recordings, and a lot of the time their head is filled with nonsensical shopping lists of the things they need in order to make better sounding music.

 

 

This is true. So you are putting me and Ken into that category?

 

 

The analog vs digital summing thing is a distraction for people who are still working on the first 95% of making a good mix. Either platform is going to sum your sounds pretty damn close to the same. If you're working on the last 5% of the journey great, you can be fooling around with esoteric stuff like different summing platforms, tissue paper over the tweeter, etc. It's not that I don't believe that analog summing can sound different in some circumstances. But I don't believe the summing itself will ever be the difference between a good sounding mix and a bad sounding one.

 

 

No one has said it would make the difference between a good sounding mix and a bad one. But just because it is of minor importance to you doesn't mean it is to everyone. To me, it makes many mixes sound noticeably better, and not just my own.

 

I started off as an engineer getting to work with some pretty great gear, and as far as I know, using good gear and finding gear that suited me was never a "distraction" to me learning the fundamentals. The OP is trying to decide on a new recording interface - and two of his candidates also happen to be mixers. He is already used to using a mixer since he has a 1640. So having the added benefit of being able to do analog mixing could be a great thing for him at not too much extra cost. I'm not recommending that he go out and get some fancy device that does nothing but summing, or that he has to buy a $50,000 console to get a decent mix. I'm saying it's worth a try. Same with any gear - if you're that convinced it's going to make your recordings or mixes better, then try it. Return it if it doesn't float yer boat. If nothing else you won't have to sit and wonder anymore whether it's you or the gear.

[UstadKhanAli]

Physiologically speaking you've probably lost a good amount of your hearing since the mid '90's. That might be what you're noticing.

 

Ehhhh? Waaaat?

 

In all serious though I think the loudness wars go a long ways towards explaining why stuff sounds so flat, more than anything else.

 

No, much of what I'm discussing is pre-mastering.

[UstadKhanAli]

I deal all the time with people who are trying to improve their recordings, and a lot of the time their head is filled with nonsensical shopping lists of the things they need in order to make better sounding music. This is a great testament to the gear manufacturers, but not such a great testament to people working in the music making business. This is the kind of social outlet where people pick up these kind of ideas. So I am here to speak my mind, not to get along just for the sake of consensus.

 

Well, I'm pretty sure you're not referring to anyone here in this thread, as it was about getting a replacement board.

 

While I think this can often be true, I'm just pointing out my observations. And again, I'm not a zealot of anything, but I know what I like for audio, and I can hear a difference based on my own equipment. I'm not even advocating anything here. I'm just honestly saying what I've experienced. I'm not getting a console anytime soon. I'm willing to work with what I have, and pretty much have everything I need for now. But at the same time, I have to be honest with what I hear, and either work around the limitations (more distance micing to create more depth) or live with them (coping with less width and expansiveness in terms of the placement on the stereo field, although we ask the mastering engineer to impart this with their analog equipment, which we've had done with some good success).

[Philter]

The OP specifically asked whether there was any difference in sound between analog and digital mixing, and I answered, 1) yes, there is, and 2) yes, the difference is measurable. Whether you like it better, that's subjective. I happen to like it better and so do many people. So really, all the stuff about blind tests and psychoacoustics and whether people are really hearing what they think they hear is just muddying the waters. If there really is a measurable difference (which there is), then why not just try it for yourself (and have someone blind test you if you don't trust what you hear) and see if it works for you. If you have done so and you're happy with digital summing, then great, but that doesn't mean there really is no difference, or even only a subtle difference, in other people's experience and working environment.

 

After spending years mixing on a big board (a magnitude more expensive than anything that's under discussion here) I did come to my own conclusions. It makes little difference in the sound. When I mix, I know how I want it to sound, and then I make the gear take me there. There's nothing inherent in the sound of a modern DAW or board that's remotely colored enough to impede me in that goal.

 

It comes down to work flow, and for me mixing in the box makes way more sense. I've heard thousands of terrible mixes done on both platforms, and that is proof to me that the real difference is somewhere else, not in the gear.

 

I don't either, and that is why I go out of my way to do comparison tests for myself, and have for years. I don't, however, put much stock in other people's "objective" listening tests. By definition, most of them don't take place in real world environments, and by the time you add in all the factors that make up a real world environment, you can't duplicate all of those factors in both platforms i.e. it's not a scientific, controlled experiment anymore.

The fact that you're talking about nit-picky details that are obstacles to setting up purely objective tests is to me a testament to just how minute the differences are we're listening for here. If it really were, as you phrased it, an "astonishing" difference, it would be elementary to demonstrate the difference. Either your threshold of astonishment is vanishingly small or your ears are just magnitudes more sensitive and trained than most people's. I guess there are other options, like you were exaggerating, or you really want to validate your choice to mix analog. You don't need to validate it. You're not wrong to do what sounds best to you. I'm just offering another opinion, which is that other things are far more likely to make a difference with a mix than the summing technology, in fact so much more likely that the choice of how you sum is besides the point.

So I am afraid we're "stuck" with our subjective takes on things, which makes some people uncomfortable but the fact is that most of us just want to get on with our projects and use stuff that we think sounds good, and that's as it should be. I am satisfied after many years of actual comparisons of actual real world mixes that analog vs. digital mixing makes a very noticeable difference. Others' mileage may or may not vary, but it's nice that we now have some pretty inexpensive ways for people to find out for themselves.

I don't really agree that we're stuck with the subjective on this. I think it's pretty easy to tell from blind testing that there is little difference in the sound of modern summing platforms. Even if it's impossible to set up the perfect test, we're left with a situation where many people, in a blind test, cannot tell the difference or pick one out over the other with any reliability. Even if it's hard to set up the perfect test, if the difference were astonishing, it would not be necessary. And this is in a world where objectively, most people listening to finished recordings are doing so in listening environments inferior to that of the mixer, making it even less likely that anyone will appreciate the vanishing differences between summing platforms. In the equation of choosing a summing platform, it seems obvious to me that concerns like work flow, client relations, and budgets are far more germaine, with far more of a real-world impact. Subjectively everyone is free to hear whatever they hear, and say it. You're not disallowed from expressing your opinion about the sound! And neither am I disallowed from expressing a contrary opinion, nor am I disallowed from backing it up with what real-world evidence exists to support it.

 

This is true. So you are putting me and Ken into that category?

Oh yeah Lee, you're a real noob. I count you as a trend setter and a respected voice here, which is why I'm willing to carry the torch with an opinion contrary to yours when we disagree.

 

No one has said it would make the difference between a good sounding mix and a bad one. But just because it is of minor importance to you doesn't mean it is to everyone. To me, it makes many mixes sound noticeably better, and not just my own. I started off as an engineer getting to work with some pretty great gear, and as far as I know, using good gear and finding gear that suited me was never a "distraction" to me learning the fundamentals. The OP is trying to decide on a new recording interface - and two of his candidates also happen to be mixers. He is already used to using a mixer since he has a 1640. So having the added benefit of being able to do analog mixing could be a great thing for him at not too much extra cost. I'm not recommending that he go out and get some fancy device that does nothing but summing, or that he has to buy a $50,000 console to get a decent mix. I'm saying it's worth a try. Same with any gear - if you're that convinced it's going to make your recordings or mixes better, then try it. Return it if it doesn't float yer boat. If nothing else you won't have to sit and wonder anymore whether it's you or the gear.

Sure, and I said nothing to dissuade the OP from his plan- in fact I recommended the same piece of gear that you did. A mixer is obviously part of his work flow. But assuming equal facility with mixing on both platforms, I highly doubt he will be astonished in the sonic difference between a DAW mix or one on an Allen and Heath. Now the difference between summing on an old Mackie and his new setup... that might be another story.

 

And you know, I reserve the right to be completely wrong. If you're at a point in your career where the small difference in sound between summing platforms is an astonishing difference to you, you are way beyond me, and I will probably never catch up. I would really dig hearing some of the stuff you're mixing these days besides the band that you play with.

[Philter]

Well, I'm pretty sure you're not referring to anyone here in this thread, as it was about getting a replacement board.

No, not at all, I recommended the Allen and Heath. My buddy's live sound company uses Allen and Heath and from what I can tell they are a quality product. His live mixes sound killer.

 

While I think this can often be true, I'm just pointing out my observations. And again, I'm not a zealot of anything, but I know what I like for audio, and I can hear a difference based on my own equipment. I'm not even advocating anything here. I'm just honestly saying what I've experienced. I'm not getting a console anytime soon. I'm willing to work with what I have, and pretty much have everything I need for now. But at the same time, I have to be honest with what I hear, and either work around the limitations (more distance micing to create more depth) or live with them (coping with less width and expansiveness in terms of the placement on the stereo field, although we ask the mastering engineer to impart this with their analog equipment, which we've had done with some good success).

I think there is probably a way for you to get what you're looking for with the platform you're working on. What kind of ProTools system are you running? I'm assuming you've already looked into PT pan law and the different mixer plugins?

[UstadKhanAli]

I was kinda kidding about the first part there.

 

I think the panning issue is only part of it, as we are also listening to the general sense of depth and dimensionality as well as how *wiiiiiide* the sound field seems to be. At least, that's what I'm talking about. So I don't know how much of this has to do with summing (probably quite a bit) and how much of it has to do with A/D and D/A conversion (possibly a bit)....if that makes any sense in relation to what you're saying. Regardless, that link you provided is a fascinating read, and may play in to this in part.

[BushmasterM4]

If you buy the Mackie 1640i, get it through Sweetwater. They give a 2 year warranty on the damn thing. You can mix in the box or the board or use it as a summing board. And as you know the Aux channels come in handy as individual headphone sends. And we need to start a "Do all DAW's sound the same" discussion

[UstadKhanAli]

I have had GREAT success with buying things from Sweetwater. Their customer support is superb.

[Lee Flier]

I've heard thousands of terrible mixes done on both platforms, and that is proof to me that the real difference is somewhere else, not in the gear.

 

But that is exactly the wrong way to judge anything. Anybody can produce a terrible mix on any gear. The question is really, if everything else is done at least reasonably right, what differences are inherent in gear? Otherwise you're not really comparing the gear, you're comparing people's ability to screw up a mix, which is endless.

 

The fact that you're talking about nit-picky details that are obstacles to setting up purely objective tests is to me a testament to just how minute the differences are we're listening for here.

 

Not really, it just means that I don't value "objectivity" in sound as much as you do. As long as differences in sound are physically measurable, then it stands to reason some people are likely to prefer one thing over another, some more strongly than others, and that's fine.

 

If it really were, as you phrased it, an "astonishing" difference, it would be elementary to demonstrate the difference.

 

It IS elementary to demonstrate the difference, to me. But there are definitely conditions under which the difference becomes more pronounced, such as having a lot of tracks, or having material that is loud, or there's a lot of ambience (either natural or artificial). With some material there isn't much difference. So that is exactly why I think people need to just try stuff in their own environment and see what it does for them, and I don't particularly care what someone else concluded in a blind test. I have participated in blind tests, but again it's still me that is doing it, not somebody else in a lab. And yes, I have done blind tests on other people's work as well as my own. I don't think I'm so golden-eared that I'm picking up on subtle minutiae in most cases. I did one blind test using an MP3 over pretty crappy computer speakers and it was still obvious to me. I don't claim to be able to tell every single time or anything, but if I'm sensitive to it a good deal of the time and the improvement is very noticeable to me, then I feel it matters a lot to what I do.

 

Either your threshold of astonishment is vanishingly small or your ears are just magnitudes more sensitive and trained than most people's. I guess there are other options, like you were exaggerating, or you really want to validate your choice to mix analog.

 

Or none of the above. As I say, it's easy to demonstrate to anyone under circumstances where the difference is pronounced. Which happens to be most stuff that I mix.

 

I'm just offering another opinion, which is that other things are far more likely to make a difference with a mix than the summing technology,

 

I agree, but that really isn't the point. The point is that we all have preferences in our gear that address what is sonically important each to us (as individuals) and our own aesthetic. What might be beside the point for one person might loom large for somebody else. And I think just about everyone here has summed with a DAW and knows what that sounds like, so trying other alternatives is good.

 

in fact so much more likely that the choice of how you sum is besides the point.

 

Again, if I am otherwise happy with a mix but mixing analog gives me the sound I want, that last push over the cliff, then it isn't beside the point at all.