Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kenny Gioia]

I posted this in my forum but I thought I would get some GMers opinions too.

I'm producing this great Indie rock band the entire month of March.

My Chemical Romance meets Taken Back Sunday.

Anyway. When I mix this project I'd really like to mix it on an analog console.

But no budget. So I'm gonna try out some Summing boxes.

I've never used any summing boxes before.

Although I have used real Analog consoles even more than Pro Tools. (yeah, it's true)

So here's my problem with these summing boxes. All they really do is sum. I don't like the way the gain staging occurs.

The mix is still really being made in Pro Tools.

If I was mixing on a Neve or SSL from 2" tape I would never adjust my mix using the tape machine outputs (those tiny screws) and put all the console's faders at 0VU.

Kind of absurd. Don't you think?

I think your losing your console's sweet spot. Or spots.

So for this reason I'm really digging the Chandler TG Mixer. (pictured below)



Unfortunately the damn thing isn't shipping yet. Maybe by the end of March.

But it's perfect. It has color. But it also has volume pots and pans. (pots and pans? is that a coincidence)

I can keep most of my Pro Tools faders at 0VU and adjust the volume on the board.

So I had the idea of replicating it using a Folcrom summing box.



The advantage being I can get make up gain using either my Neve 1272's, API's or Chandler TG 2. Some good color there.

But what about the individual Volume and Pan?

Your gonna think I'm nuts. (you'd be right)

What if I bought eight (or more) of these guys?



I could patch it right in between the outputs of my D/A and the input to the folcrom.

Than I could mix with those pots.

It would be even better if I could get 16 real faders (P&G) that had XLR in and outs.

Does that exist?

Any ideas?

Thanks

[Jules]

I am having fun with the Fulcrom into API pre's at the moment...

I wouldn't get twisted about keeping faders at zero - thats too restrictive and 'anti mixing'

By all means patch outboard in prior to the Fulcrom for analog enjoyment.

Mike Shipley uses a pair of CS Flamingo pre's for post Fulcrom level boost I reliably told, I wonder if they would be better than my API's....

The API's beat our studio's - Helios / Neve 1073 / Night Pro / Focusrite 215 / Thermonic pre's in our rock band music playoffs / tests..

[lucey]

Why not use the Folcrom and your internal automation?  What's wrong with using the digtal faders?



Or put 16 ch or pre amps IN FRONT of the Folcrom !

[Kenny Gioia]

Thanks Jules. I thought you were using a Dangerous 2 buss. Did you sell it?

I'm guessing you prefer the Folcrom.

You actually gave me a cool but expensive idea.

I could keep all my faders in PT's at OVU and patch a Distressor before each channel of the Folcrom. Than mix my record with the Distressor's Output's.

[Kenny Gioia]

lucey wrote on Sat, 12 February 2005 22:44

Why not use the Folcrom and your internal automation?  What's wrong with using the digtal faders?

I don't like the idea of hitting some of those Folcrom inputs at -24dB. It's basic gain staging.

If you were mixing on a Neve console using a Studer tape machine, would you put all the Neve faders at 0VU and adjust the outputs on the Studer calibration outputs to make your mix.

I feel like that's what a summing box with no knobs or faders is doing. Am I wrong?

lucey wrote on Sat, 12 February 2005 22:44

Or put 16 ch or pre amps IN FRONT of the Folcrom !

Is this even possible? A line amp maybe, but a Mic Pre?

[lucey]

I'm saying use 16 ch of mic pre set at line amp levels, 0 or +5.  Not even sure if it's possible with the Folcrom but it's an idea.  

My understanding of the Folcrom is that it's a strait wire summing box.



As for the other thing, seems like you have to let go of the One to One analogy ...  a tape machine and a console is not Pro Tools and an external summing box (Folcrom added or not).    The coloration of a pre amp on a 2 mix is never going to be equal to pushing a whole console to a sweet spot.  But it still might sound better than your ITB mixes!

[Brett Mixter Rader]

You know, I'm getting really tired of hearing people say "We just didn't have the budget to do it the right way". What a shame.

You might consider that you'll eat up the budget by spending twice as much time fighting to get a decent mix as opposed to cruising along enjoying the process.

Sorry about the rant. I know that wasn't your question.

[bblackwood]

lucey wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 00:42

My understanding of the Folcrom is that it's a strait wire summing box.

Well, with a bunch of resistors...

[Jules]

Kenny - the Fulcrom isn't flawed because it needs to be boosted..

It was DESIGNED to be boosted...

We built this city....

.....to ROCK & ROLL!

     

You are, indeed... "wrong"

[Kenny Gioia]

Jules wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 09:31

Kenny - the Fulcrom isn't flawed because it needs to be boosted.. It was DESIGNED to be boosted... You are, indeed... "wrong"

No. I understand that it's not a design flaw. Even a real console has to make up that gain. But (to my limited understanding) it is limited in that it has no volume control on the inputs.

Maybe I'm just overthinking this.

[Kenny Gioia]

Brett Mixter Rader wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 06:47

You know, I'm getting really tired of hearing people say "We just didn't have the budget to do it the right way". What a shame. You might consider that you'll eat up the budget by spending twice as much time fighting to get a decent mix as opposed to cruising along enjoying the process.

I see your point. But I can't completely agree. Because this record is being recorded in my studio, a few extra days won't kill me.

I've been mixing ITB for 7 years. I'm not a Master, but I'm quite happy with the results I'm getting.

Part of this thing that we do is trying to improve day by day.

I know I could go to a big studio and get great results but some of the best records were made on a limited budget.

We did the Marcy Playground record with $30,000.

[sdevino]

Kenny,
-24DBFS is -6dBVU. I am not sure your gain staging is as mangled as you think it is.

Steve

[Timeline]

I love the idea of passive mixing but I have built a few consols in my time and can tell you even the type of resistors make a dif in the sound. Wirewounds to mil spec carbons.

The D2 Buss uses a Burr Brown front ends and would likely be about as clear and punchy as you would need in my opinion. For the cheap why not rent a couple for a few months.

Using a passive mixnet really does depend on alot of factors to sound good especially when pans and level control gets thrown in the mix,(pardon the pun).

Most mixnets, passive or otherwise,  start out with a 10K resistor input per channel all strapped together to a final 10K resistor and on into an unbalanced amp, Not much to that and anytime a resistor cuts level it sounds like the resistor doing the cutting although for those who can hear the grass grow I regress.

Found a way to use a bunch of API 8200's but I honestly think the system is too colored, too much API sound, but it might be the thang for rock.

Lot's of other opthins out there.  I had great luck with a little Behringer once. Small mixers will ultimatly be designed to be punchier than larger ones for sure by nature.

A small neve 80 series side car will likely blow away a 32 input boat anchor sonically.

By the way, the PVC is not made any more. I have two of them.

Good luck.

[tom eaton]

I thought the whole idea was RECALL.  If you turn any knobs outside of the box you have to write down what you did to get the mix back.  The fewer things to reset, the faster you can recall and jump back and forth between mixes.  I opted for an analog console with recall rather than dealing with a summing box.  Good deals are out there to be found...you just have to have the space!  I landed on an Otari Concept Elite...48 parametrics, 48 moving faders, total recall of every knob on the mix surface...all analog signal path with digital switching.  What do you do with a summing box when you want  to ride the lead vocal if you don't want to use the fader in the box?

-tom

[Kenny Gioia]

If you only have 16 volumes and 16 pans, recall shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes.

Which is about how long it takes to switch between Pro Tools sessions anyway.

I would still do vocal rides in Pro Tools but they would average at 0VU.

After talking to a friend, he explained that you could probably bring the faders up to around OVU using the Folcrom anyway. The input could handle it. Agree?

[tom eaton]

Forgive me for asking, as I haven't tried using one of these summing boxes: If you have more than 16 tracks, do you sum the external summers, or submix in the box using the mix engine you're trying to avoid?  This is one of the things I haven't quite understood about the "summing box" rage.  I typically send each mono track out to its own d/a and then to its own channel...just like a tape deck.  I've never particularly liked the sound of mixing or submixing anything in the computer, but I'd think an external summing box would need 24-48 (as many tracks as your project has) inputs before it did all the good it could do by totally avoiding the mix engine in the box.

-tom