Is analog SUMMING better than DIGITAL? | Plugin vs Hardware 

Based on the first example, I'm guessing A is Dangerous, B is SSL and C is PT.

A=Dangerous, B=ITB, C=SSL In the end it doesn’t matter though. At least half of the difference I would attribute to a slightly higher noise floor, THD increase, and channel cross-talk.

Idk which was which but my order for fav to least fav is B,A,C

I've owned a Dangerous Music 2-BUS+ for a while now. I honestly get just as good of mixes when mixing ITB. I originally got back when I was trying to widen my stereo field. But now I have plugins that have fixed that issue. I use it, depending on what mood I'm in. I like to use my ears more than my eyes. But I'm also a perfectionist when it comes to my mixing, so I also don't use it much, but I like the ease of opening a session and not having to recall anything. I recommend it, but it's not anything that's going to be a game changer compared to what can be done via plugins.

A. definitely the best. It assures that the highs are controlled better, smoother and keeps the warmth in the audio

FOR ANYONE WHO DOESN'T HAVE A DISCORD & WANTS RESULTS : Physical: A: Dangerous B: Protools C: SSL Kerstmis baby A: Protools B: Dangerous C: SSL Change your mind: A: SSL B: Protools C: Dangerous

Song 1: B = Protools: Lacks heft that comes froms a harmonic distortion floor and the stereo image (sounds like) a scene from an Egyptian adventure movie when the trap walls are squeezing closer (looks). Kick too tall and pronounced - due to DAW summing. A = Dangerous summing Mixer: Analog helf is there but the stereo image is slightly better due to analog stereo routing + slightly more depth (just apart of analog). C = SSL Console: Analog heft is there but with a much more noticeable increase in both depth and width due to individualized channel routing (and just being analog). So yeah, got it wrong at first. Changed to a more accurate set of phones. Was dead easy to get right. If you listen closely, you can hear how the stereo sinks or blossoms with every switch.

I think: A - Pro Tools B - Dangerous C - SSL

Either way depending on what you want for your intended reault: sum digitally without converting DA/AD with controlled levels for a transparent mixdown; analog sum to push tracks hard through external hardware for lots of harmonic saturation and massive increases in gain.

A - Flat, a bit digital sounding, my guess is protools B - smoothest of the bunch C - similar to B but with a high frequency boost, it even sounds like high frequency transients improved a bit my fav is probably B followed by C

Dan Worall also did a video about it a while back. Conclusion : it does not matter

The dangerous bus is a rare example of analog summing sounding better than daw summing

I just started using a dangerous dbox + and 2buslt with my apogee symphony mk2. And can honestly say that it has changed EVERYTHING. NOW I CAN HEAR WHAT IM DOING. I’m so glad that I made this investment. It’s not about hearing the difference between dangerous summing and without, it’s about hearing your mix better so that you can make better decisions. I also use a LOT of analog gear and being able to push the signal into my converters with the summing trim knobs is extremely helpful for me. Game changer

C is most definitely SSL. The dangerous mix bus doesn't even make a noticeable difference, might as well just mix in the box.

I like option A of Physical, option B of Kerstmis Baby and for the last song I like A and C equally. The difference of summing analog isn't large enough for me to go summing box. Small format console with EQ and all the routing options to insert hardware makes it worth while though.

Every song is different: 1st song A: Dangerous B: Protools C: SSL 2nd song A: Protools B: Dangerous C: SSL 3rd song A: SSL B: Protools C: Dangerous

track: 3 A : pro tools B :Dangerous 2-Bus C: ssl 4000

Lol, this one requires better monitoring to hear the differences, funny to see how different people's answers are. These examples don't highlight the differences as much. I gotta come back to this ! All i'm gonna say for now is that on the last song at 4:52 i can hear the SSL is A and it sounds beautiful for that song. Once you feed it a heavier warm low end it handles the entire track beautifully. Also, none of these methods sound particularily bad, which is a change for these summing comparisons, as we can usually hear the ITB summing as having a narrow and compacted centre image, lacking depth and more pleasant spatilisation.

Crazy thing was I preferred the Pro Tools mix followed by the Dangerous Audio and then SSL EVERY TEST !!!

Sounds like 3 micro move eq settings to me. So subtle. B had a little more low end so my guess is the c was the SSL. The reason I say this is SSL always has that more scooped tight sound.

I think A is Ssl B is Protools And C is Dangerous 2-Bus XT

B has more low end and c is a little wider but still very very small difference imo. I had to listen multiple times to hear the differences. Thanks Thomas 🤘

I'd say in Physical, B is the Pro Tools mix because it has such a crisp high end which analogue hardware usually softens. I'd guess that A is the Dangerous because it retains much of the Pro Tools mix but just softens and glues it together a bit and gives it more harmonics in the low end. C which I think is the SSL was not at all to my liking, it feels like it falls apart and drops in energy. In this case I don't think summing was worth it. I prefer A but could just as well go with B. I would not prefer C. Had a quick listen to the others and it seems to me that you mixed them up, so I won't go into details there. But in the second song I preferred B and also B in the last one, but I think they were different. I think B in the last one was the Pro Tools mix and C the Dangerous judging by the low end. But I think the low end became too much with C in this example, if you had used a dash of shelf eq there I might have preferred C. But as it stands I'd pick B in the last round. So if my guessing is right then I prefer the Dangerous 2bus overall, but I could really just as well go with the PT mix to be honest.

Okay after reading the comments i think im way off but Y'ALL ARE TRIPPING A: Pro tools B: Summing Mixer C: SSL B and c can be wrong but you can clearly hear each sound proccessed seperately whereas A sounds like everything is OTB. I know y'all will disagree but thats what I hear. In song 3 listen to the percussion and you'll know why i say this.

Irrespective of the answer, it's interesting when anyone ever does these tests, that people often think the 'best' sounding one is the console and the 'worst' sounding one is Pro Tools.

A summing unit B console C Digital Whatever it is B is the truth

A:Dangerous B:SSl C:Pro Tools

The differences are insignificant and would not be noticed by anybody. Production, arrangement and songwriting are 99% of what people hear. This is like arguing which paint color makes a race car go faster.

IMO since most people aren't consuming music in studio tier listening enviroments it absoulutely does not matter, no one can hear the differences listening through earbuds or iPhone speakers. On top of that the listener has to have a sense of what to listen to when looking for the difference. Being honest the average listener doesn't care at all about mixing or summing. If you're an engineer and you've already nailed your mixing skills, sure, you can go and blow that money on summing devices but do it because you LIKE how it sounds, not because it's better in general.

Finally my requested video is out!!!

A: SSL 4000 B: 2Bus XT C: Protools B has more stereo image but losing tightness just a little bit which is the character of 2BUS I believe. C is more like flat. A is slightly more analog and focused than C.

For me the difference is too small to care about. The summing method doesn't define the quality of the mix, as I can tell by listening to these three songs.

I think c is pro tools. Stereo image doesn’t seem as wide for c, but curious to know the answer

A:Pro tools B: Dangerous summing C: SSL

@thomasvopstal which did you prefer?!

Now that this video is 1 year old, Why don't you post the result here..

Are u kidding me? So Analog summing cos so much to add too little to even differentiate. I used 3 pro headphones and i can say there's no so much difference to break a bank for. Infact, 99% of the consumer are not engineers and will not hear the difference.

As a more generic statement, I think good quality consoles have their value with regards to summing when you start pushing the console into their sweet spot. The non linearities and overdrives are what make the console sound (with API. Neve, SSL etc all doing it their own way and having their own characteristics). A summing test like this doesn't really reveal that because the point is to get the decibels the same for fair comparison between the three contenders but you are therefor not pushing the console as it should, kind of avoiding its sound to a certain degree (and hard pushed to impart its sound is not always the sound you'd actually want on the particular track you are working on). Summing boxes are usually very easy signal paths with almost nothing in them. It is why I don't really value-most-of them as they don't impart the same degree of colour as a console does. Most of them only have a pair of output transformers but the channels themselves are as easy as possible component wise. Something which is not true for a console channel (which is littered with components). They do complicate your setup but I think just sticking a piece of outboard (like a Neve line amp) on your output bus gives the same kind of character and probably even a bit more control and toneshaping options.

A - digital B - consile C - summing

B. Dangerous C . SSL

UA's LUNA's summing extensions sound great

What's available for ultra-high rail to rail power and associated dynamic range. There was a product called Neos from SPL, but they can't get the parts for making (or fixing) them anymore due to a fire and then war related issues. I need to feed and mix DSD 256 into it, so 80V+ is the base I am looking for. Most of the Rupert Neve, API, and other popular brands are roughly half that, which is fine if you are not looking for what is needed for this. Any thoughts?

After just the first example, I'll say, B felt a bit more coloured than A, but C was the widest. So I would say, A pro tools, B console, and C 2bus.. but let's continue. Middle I guess A console, B Pro tools, C 2bus The last example was B the widest, so I guess that's 2 bus, C felt a bit closer and more intimate, so I guess the console, leaves A for PT. But maybe I'm just focusing wrong, or just full of bs. In the end, all sound fine to me and the difference could be the same with the channel strip / bussing plugin in DAW for me.

Would've loved to hear this through prism converters 😁

UAD Converters..... They're great, just not a fan. Thanks for the video, wish more people did comparisons like these.

@thomasvopstal Thanks so much for doing this! It's something I'd never have access to try with the SSL 4000. You know, I've never been a fan of blind tests because I prefer someone to just show me the difference in sound between equipment, and with blind tests, especially when you've never heard a piece of equipment before, how is one suppose to know which is which and guess correctly? I just end up choosing which I like best (and hoping the one I chose, is the one I hoped would be the best). When watching this video, I was hoping the Dangerous 2-BUS-XT would perform the best but, I had no idea what the summing of the Dangerous 2-BUS-XT or SSL sounded like. So I basically just picked which I liked best and labeled that the Dangerous 2-BUS-XT. After reviewing the results, I was shocked that 2 out of 3 that I thought were the ITB Pro Tools summing was the SSL! And my third ITB pick was correct. That finding couldn't have made me happier since a 4000 E console is something I have no desire of ever owning. On the other hand, 2 out of 3 that I selected as the best and hoped was the Dangerous 2-BUS-XT was in fact the Dangerous 2-BUS-XT! That couldn't have made me happier either! The third that I selected to be the best (or the Dangerous 2-BUS-XT) ended up being the ITB Pro Tools summing - which also couldn't have made me happier to learn. That was the song Change Your Mind. After reviewing the results, I went back and re-listened to each test now knowing which was which. I determined that A. I thought the SSL summing was my least favorite on all songs and B. I was happy with the Pro Tools ITB summing on all songs, but still thought the Dangerous 2-BUS-XT summing was best on Physical and Kerstmis baby. I actually still preferred the ITB Summing on Change Your Mind even though I now knew it was not the Dangerous 2-BUS-XT. Good to know! Just one question, did you have Heat enabled on your group summing tracks in Pro Tools?

B - SSL

I really do think that here the differences are extremely negligible. Way more than usually imho.

though i would prefer ssl on everything, actually liked ITB everytime. =/ .....

Where can I find the correct answers? I couldn't find it on Discord(

I didn't always get the Dangerous vs ssl right, but I was able to pick out the ProTools version every time... the transients were always uglier, lol

@thomasvopstal Now I'd be interested for you to take the ITB summing Pro Tools mixes and compare them with the summing in different popular DAW's. Maybe Ableton and Logic Pro. Maybe the difference would be too minor to compare since in theory, all DAW's are suppose to null out but, I don't know, those ITB summing Pro Tools mixes all sounded really good. If you're not interested, you could send me the stems to one or all of these tunes, I'll do the comparison on my channel as a collaboration between the two of us. Let me know! Thanks again!

I like sound of B and I don't like C because it sounds very thin and I dont know about A it sounds in between but my favourite was B !!

A= 2 bus xt b= ssl c= itb

I prefere first B, C in second

Ah man. I was looking forward to knowing the answers..

The last song was actually good. Couldn’t really hear a difference here

Could you show your routings from your DAW out to your XT?

This video is pure evidence that digital is taking over. Absolutely not worth it to break the bank for the analog in 2023 > 😁

On that Protools mix should have turned heat on.

I liked the Pro Tools version better or Dangerous, never preferred the SSL which was interesting to me!

I bet if you told people which one is the super expensive SSL desk first they’ll think that sounds the ‘best’.

I think: A - PT B - SSL C - DF

Hilarious that people commenting contradicting opinions on stereo width for C. It's certainly not a big win either way. Dan Warrels summing video is more objective and shows... It's all in your head baby.

A Ssl B 2 bus+ C protools

Where in the discord is the answer ?

not everybody has a discord ...what a waist of time

C is pt b ssl

I think b is 2 bus

b protools ,a ssk c agerous

B is dangerous definitely going grab one 🔥🔥🔥🎼🎼🎼💯💯💯

C is best

B sounds best to my ears..wider, punchier, more defined and 3d...A is the worst

B C A

1. a dangerous b ssl c pro tools 2. a pro tool b dangerous c ssl 3. a pro tools b dangerous c ssl

A. Pro Tools B. SSL C. Dangerous Box

SSL is fat, round, soft, and modern

Clickbait. Seriously dude?

You messed up everyone by changing the order you present each summing method for all 3 songs lol

Interesting....however the way to compare ITB summing and analog summing is not relevant for one reason, you're not mixing the same way ITB and with analog summing, so running mixed stems through protools, ssl 4000 and summing mixer will not give you a huge difference, for a real test you need to mix each time from scratch to really hear a difference. But this test is still interesting and we still can hear a difference between A,B and C.

A definitely console

C is flat with no depth or 3D feeling so it’s ITB for sure.

this is 100000% IF YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW. The ones who know are not going to say sht. The reverse is also true 😂

Lame

Its a pointless demonstration, there is a dramatic difference in analog summing verses Digital, ALL my clients noticed the difference and gladly paid an extra 25 an hour when I upgraded to analog summing. Its video like this that keep people captive to digital. IM 6 platinum 5 Gold Deep. Buy a summing mixer. IT IS WORTH IT. Then you will sound like the pros or at least have the room to.

Okay, okay, again, Thomas van Opstal. You are evaluating the, summing. From the SSL-4000. But not a, Neve nor API. Those rock 'n' roll hits were, tracked upon? That were used for all of those legendary hits. Prior to those SSL 4000 coming out in, 1978. So nothing good was before that? In your estimation? Or because you never had that? You only had the SSL 4000. And you don't know what you are missing? You don't know what you are missing. You are clueless. Yes there is a definite difference. Between analog and digital summing. It is but hey nuance of difference. But a significant nuance to professionals. Like myself. That you would never understand. Like the difference between driving a Lamborghini and a Bugatti. And you know the difference, right? You've driven them, right? Right you have not. And even if you had? You haven't been driving it for over 40 years. You have been driving it for, 40 days. And 40 nights. And you are now the de facto expert? And your 5-year-old thinks they are, Michelangelo. With their poster paints. But looks more like Salvador Dali, dripping clocks. Oh but that's your head? I thought that was a clock? Why do you have sticks coming out of the nose? And how is that to be interpreted in the absence of Donald Trump? Or even in his presence? And because as a wealthy child he could get all of the presence. He ever wanted! I spelled what wrong? Presence? No I did not! RamyRAD