There’s a lot of talk these days about audio summing amplifiers. Several companies are making them and for the most part they are being presented as a go between for engineers that want the sound of an analog console without the cost and/or maintenance of the real deal. With most people mixing in or from Pro Tools these days, whose mixer has a qualified 144dB of dynamic range, the question arises of why you want to do this? The answer: coloration and distortion. On the surface that statement sounds a lot worse than it is, but the reality is that transformers or tubes introduce distortion, which in turn deliver that warm and fuzzy coloration that sum (get it?) of us love and some of us can live without. Aside from coloration of sound, splitting out tracks or stems from your DAW to one of these 16 channel boxes (most of them available are only 16 channels) has some other benefits as well. These include but are not limited to inserting analog gear across certain parts or stems of a mix and more defined separation of parts in the stereo field.

Over the past several years I have had the opportunity to test drive just about every summing amplifier on the market. Some of them have been very impressive while others have not. When I first started doing this, the biggest challenge I ran into was how to effectively do an A/B comparison between some of these boxes. If you think about it, it’s almost like trying to compare a mix done on an SSL console to the same mix being done on a Neve. It’s not really possible-they’re never going to be the same. Different mix decisions are going to be made on different boards. You could certainly put the time in and match the vibe, but to do a true A/B comparison is not technically possible. So, the idea of taking a completed multitrack mix from Pro Tools and stemming it out across a summing amplifier is not going to work. It’s going to change the sound, levels, coloration and so on. If you’re mixing in Pro Tools, there is no coloration. If you take said mix and run it through anything that has, oh let’s say a “dark” sounding transformer, your mix has just become very dull from a sonic perspective. Okay-so what if we run a finished two mix through the box just to compare the color? We could do that and it would be very telling-but, it would not show us how the box handles separation of different elements in the stereo field. Interesting dilemma, isn’t it?

So here’s what I came up with: What if we take a rough mix of a song with no automation, no EQ, no compression, no FX, etc. (just the raw tracks) and did some comparisons with those? We know what the raw tracks sound like, so if we just get some decent levels and print a couple mixes for comparison, that should give us an idea of what a particular summing amp is doing, right? Let’s see..

Below are three download links for a section of a blues song (Right-Click and choose ”Save Target As…” to download). They are as follows:

1. A rough mix “bounced to disk” in Pro Tools HD

2. The same rough mix that has been outputted through the Digidesign 192 analog outputs and printed back into a stereo audio track (again through the analog inputs) in Pro Tools and

3. Again the same rough mix split out from the Digidesign 192 analog I/O and through the Tube Tech SSA2B Summing Amplifier and printed back into a stereo audio track (yet again through the analog inputs) in Pro Tools.

The split out was as follows: Drums (L&R 1/2), Bass Guitar (L&R, 3/4), Guitars (L&R, 5/6), Organ (L&R, 7/8), Horns (L&R, 9/10) and Vocal (L&R, 11/12).

Enjoy! I am personally very fond of the what the Tube Tech delivers and think you too will be presently surprised.

There always seems to be some confusion on the topic of word clock, what it is and why it’s relevant. Let’s see if we can clarify some of this. First, let’s take a stroll back to digital audio theory 101.

When recording in the digital domain, the A/D convertors of a digital audio workstation are taking snapshots of the incoming audio signal at a specified rate. These snapshots are called samples and hence the term sample rate. So, by way of example, if you have a session that’s recording at 48k, the incoming audio is being recorded (or acquired) at 48,000 samples per second. Makes sense so far, right? Now, in order for all these samples to play back at the same way in which they were recorded (which in this example is 48k) there has to be a common clock source as a point of reference.

Now, I know what some of you may be thinking: “If I don’t own an external clock, how does this process work on a system just using a computer and a firewire or usb interface?” Answer: All digital devices have their own internal word clock-everything from CD players to home computers using just iTunes. Otherwise the playback of the digital audio wouldn’t work properly. Now, this doesn’t always mean the fidelity of that clock is necessarily all that great. Remember: When you purchase a $400 audio interface that has microphone preamps and a bunch of other bells and whistles, you get what you pay for. Convenient? Absolutely. Audiophile? Far from it. But, what happens when there are multiple digital devices in the chain? Good question. Here’s an example we like to use:

Imagine a band with a drummer who can keep good time. The drummer sets the beat, everyone follows along, and they sound great. But suppose each band member decides to use their own metronome and listened to it rather than the drummer. Even if everyone set his or her metronome to the same tempo and tried to start it as soon as the drummer hits the first downbeat, reaction times would vary and they won’t all click at exactly the same time. Furthermore, the metronomes may not be calibrated the same way or be perfectly stable in the first place. So after a couple of minutes, the performances will all start to drift further and further apart. That would become one very sloppy band!

Like said band , all digital components need an accurate clock to keep the data stepping through at a constant rate. Otherwise this sloppiness called jitter occurs and the fidelity and accuracy of what you’re hearing is compromised.

Below are links to download some files that compare the differences between an internally clocked mix and the same mix clocked using the Drawmer M-Clock Lite. I encourage you to download the files (right click on the file name) and listen to the sonic differences. Drawmer makes the only line of digital clocks that follow the AES Grade 1 clock specification-the highest regarded specification known for superior clock performance. People ask me all the time what is a quick and easy way to improve the fidelity of their mixes. I always suggest using a master clock. It’s an easy addition and a sure fire way to make sure everyone in your digital audio workstation is playing on the same team.

Mix Using an Internal Clock

Mix Using the Drawmer M-Clock

We all know there’a a lot of audio gear on the market today. Some of it is very new and proactive engineering but some of it is a lot of hype based around buzz words like “vintage” or “classic” sound. Well, what does that mean exactly? What does “vintage” sound like? Is vintage gear a good investment? Is it easy and/or cheap to fix? Most importantly, how does it really sound? All good questions, let’s discuss.

When discussing microphone preamplifiers the word Neve comes up a lot, doesn’t it? Obviously this is with good reason. Rupert Neve has had an impressive career spanning many companies and a plethora of products. More so than not, the original 1073 modules get name dropped a lot. Pro audio salesman across the country get calls everyday from customers wanting that “Neve” or “Vintage” sound. This is certainly understandable. They are hard to get, a lot of classic albums were recorded with them and they are always referenced on forums and trade magazines as a source for comparison. That’s all well and good but the reality is most people making these phone calls have never even seen or heard a Neve module. Words associated with the 1073 sound are often “Warm”, “Punchy”, “Larger Than Life” or “Smooth”. Hold that thought a moment.

On the other side of the spectrum there are new products in today’s market that use the quest for vintage as their marketing platform to sale product. Some companies do an excellent job and others just have a big marketing budget. Granted, everyone has different tastes, but if we break this down by the terminology, I would suggest that our goals are probably fairly similar. So, back to the buzz words: “Warm”: This usually refers to bottom end or sonic character. So, if that’s the case than we would want a product that delivers that without distortion and a solid (not muddy) bottom end. “Punchy”: The word tone comes to mind-often associated with drums. We would want a rich tonal color that’s pleasing on percussive, high transient source material. “Larger Than Life”: Image (or thickness) of the sound in the stereo field. We would want full and present and not thin or weak. “Smooth”: From the upper mid range to the air on top (2k-12k) we want a clean, non abrasive sound that’s pleasing to the ear, not piercing or brittle and does not roll off at a certain point. With me so far? Good, now let’s take this one step further.

Below is a link to download a Pro Tools session. The purpose of this session is to compare the sonic differences between a current production Daking Mic Pre/EQ and a vintage Neve 1081. (the 1081 had a four band EQ like the Daking while the 1073 only had three-so we might as well compare apples and apples) The Daking design is based on the original Trident A Range design. Another “classic” console. A pair of Daking Mic Pre/EQs has a street price under $3000. A pair of vintage 1081s has a street price of about $10,000. The Daking modules are built in the USA and come with a warranty. The Neve modules are 30 years old and if broken would cost money to be repaired-plus the shipping to the one of the few people that know how to work on them. I encourage you to listen to this session in your own studio or listening environment and let your ears do the talking. I think you’ll be surprised how far you don’t have to go to get that sound you’ve been looking for.

BTW-We’ve also thrown in a third preamp from another current day and very popular manufacturer. It is labeled Preamp “A”. Our goal is not to get into a shooting match here (Neve 1081s are not currently in production) just to simply educate. The “Read Me” file should tell you everything you want to know about how the recording was made and not to worry, if you’re not a Pro Tools user the files are consolidated and labeled so they can be played back in other platforms. Until next time…

Daking Mic Pre Comparison Session