Summing Mixers. Do You Need One? 

I really do want to buy some outboard gear... but I doubt it will make anything sound better. Thanks! I've smashed all the smashers! Salutations from astonishingly grey & chilly Ireland! ☘💪🏽👀👍🏽☘

I have more substantial transformered summing mixer, Great River MM20. It does add something, and coloration if you push the mix buss. But, I don't think it's very cost effective, and digital summing actually sounds really good. Maybe a tad more clinical, but I think in a lot of situations one might choose the digital summing. The MM20 does give a slight amount of space, width, heft, and harmonics, but it's not a huge difference and you do have mix into it and push it. I really don't think these are confirmation bias, esp when you live with one for a while and then remove it. But the effect is subtle, and may not be worth it. I do actually hear differences in the intro track, one having more shimmer and space. I'd choose the brighter one for sure.

Quick answer…. Nope

Hey Oliver, Ola here. I think we went through the same thing after MWTM / CLA. As you know I was 95% there getting a small console but in the end bowed out, mainly due to the size of even the small ones. So I went the summing mixer route as well. For two reasons - one hoping to get some of that pushed console thing and the other was being able to set up a hybrid workflow where I could have an analog drum bus, a few parallell compression busses, a few hardware reverbs as sends and all going back to the daw via a summing mixer and a two bus compressor and EQ. I agree the sound difference between sw or hw summing isn't huge. It's there to some extent. But for me the big gain was t be able to set up that flexible hybrid workflow.

Agreed re: Dangerous. I sum out of a BURL Mothership on 32 channels via a Chandler MIni MIxer and BURL Vancouver into Manley outboard and there most certainly is a difference in spatial perception. (Depth/height/width, reverb tails, etc) and an overall muscularity that I just don't hear ITB. The cumulative effect of passing signal through all those line amps in the Chandler (essentially a 16ch TG console) as well as a switchable transformer-in option on the Vancouver is where the magic/mojo resides. Most importantly I get 'there' much quicker with fewer tweaks, making the entire mixing process smoother and more enjoyable. YMMV. Cheers!

Mixerman, Zen and the Art of Mixing p.182 claims 'the DAW's digital summing bogs down at the 2BUS. He says summing boxes exist for a reason. Good summing mixers provide extended high and low end, wider mixes, more punch and depth. He goes on, digital summing is not so much an issue when density is not a matter. One caveat, the quality of your clocking and convertors will determine how much advantage you gain from a summing mixer. For those who say there is no difference, they either do not have the monitoring or the convertors necessary to hear the difference.'

Some summing mixers are pretty neutral like the dangerous and spl Others are more prominent like the burl and Phoenix audio.

dangerous products to me are just lame. checked out the 2bus plus and thought it wasnt doing anything at all really. i do have a neve 5059 though and thats all class A

You need 2 summing mixers... 16 chan is a good quantity... 32 ideal... other point, the use of analog gear must be through inserts in the summing mixer since it has physical room to go, while in the box is digital...

I went through this when I finally stopped mixing on a console in 2012. After months of not being able to put my figure on why I like the analog summing more than the DAW. The reason was the default Panning law of +3db in Logic. My console at the time a Midas Legend 3000 had a +6 panning law and the mixes seemed to be more spacious and generally wider after finally matching the panning law in Logic I had a 95% null once time aligned with both my console sum and a DAW sum. I still use a console for tracking since it does speed up the entire process but I mix in the box. I now work with an ATI paragon 2 console, which was designed as API's version of a Live, SSL console with API VCA dynamics, Filters and EQ on every channel. The ATI is great for tracking but I can nearly make a mix null almost 99% with the DAW. So if a console with more electronics in it (from API) can null this closely, then a LINE MIXER (which is what summing mixers are) will not impart much of anything on your product except a differing panning spectrum. Sure some of them like the Rupert Neve designs have saturation built in as a feature and that is understandable as a tool to get that flavor of color. But beyond the color factor they don't really do enough to justify it. Why buy a line summing mixer when you can get a full channel strip with an EQ and mic preamp for tracking? Just my opinion but it is what it is, some people need to believe in magic to feel good about their work and some don't so use what you like. But I strongly suggest looking at it from a objective perspective and test it without bias!

That's a lot of words to say "this is based on nothing except my ears." For an analysis of what a summing mixer does (or in this case doesn't do,) Dan Worrall has you covered: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wVp4syrFkE0.htmlsi=HFCYoaq5iEnK9OJC