Photo courtesy of Shadow Hills
October 31st, 2009 – For those of us who mix “inside the box”, it’s easy to get caught up with using the latest plug-ins to emulate analog outboard gear. However as good as the plug-ins are getting, they aren’t the real thing. One thing I’ve talked about before is using a summing mixer.
The problem with summing mixers is that they are pretty expensive. Unlike a microphone pre-amp, which everyone needs, a summing mixer is for professionals and other picky people. In fact, while almost everyone knows about the latest and greatest analog inputs and channel strips, I’d guess that a huge percentage of people are oblivious to the existence of summing mixers.
Bottom line is that a summing mixer will do wonders for you mix; you’ll notice it immediately. Of course, its purchase should be one of the later ones for your studio, after good mics, pre-amps, and an AD converter/interface. One of the nicer ones I found out there during my hours of wishlist “research” was the Shadow Hills “The Equinox”.
I haven’t heard of any of their stuff personally, but the general consensus out there is that they make very nice gear. The nice thing about “The Equinox”, is that not only can it sum 30 tracks, it also includes a 2 channel pre-amp. It also includes heavy duty switches and knobs, and switchable transformers. Each transformer is built from a different metal (iron, steel and nickel), and allows you to tailor the different sound to your recording.
It’s a pricey piece of gear, but if you’re in the market for those features, you’d probably have to pay much more than that for separate modules that could do the same thing. And that’s not even considering the sound and build quality you get in the Shadow Hill stuff. The Equinox retails for just under $4,000.
4 Comments, Comment or Ping
Ian Shepherd
Interesting ! I’ve always thought analogue summing is nothing but snake oil, but then I’ve never taken the time to listen carefully.
My reasoning being: all the processes of conversion to analogue, summing and re-encoding to digital involve a *loss* of fidelity – added noise, distortion etc. Any other change in the sound is due to imperfections in this process, or subtle other effects (like adding an overall EQ shape, for example).
Why not cut out all the conversion problems and just achieve these effects digitally ? There’s nothing magical about analogue processing (although analogue tape and valves are very hard to emulate) so I don’t see the value in this.
But I’ve been wrong about this stuff before, and at the end of the day, if it sounds good then it *is*, so I’m genuinely curious – can anyone point me at examples that show the advantages of analogue summing ?
Ian
Nov 2nd, 2009
Sean
@Ian Shepherd : I honestly think there is a sonic difference, of course this depends entirely on the level of gear we’re talking about. The case for using an analog summer is the same as running a mix through an analog mixer. The difference between the two is one of cost.
I haven’t used an analog summing mixer before, but if my experience with analog consoles is any indication, then it’s a worthwhile investment. I have used a nice analog SSL console, and I’ve used SSL plugins. With the engineer (me) being the same in both situations, I felt like the mix summed on the real console, output to CD and then re-imported into Protools, sounded smoother (sorry for using that tired old descriptor) than SSL plugins and Protools digital summing itself.
Of course, there were many other variables in that situation (project studio vs nice studio, AD encoders in the dedicated CD burner, different days, different ears), but I still think it made a difference.
Nov 3rd, 2009
Ian Shepherd
I agree there’s a difference – the question is, is it beneficial ? I guess if it sounds better it is, but in theory all you’re doing is adding some analogue noise.
I don’t agree that the case for analogue summing is the same as using an analogue desk, though – desks have EQ, compression etc, all of which have their own sound. And, you can choose to overdrive certain channels if you like (for example). A summing unit doesn’t do any of these things, although the switchable transformers are an interesting twist.
I’d love to hear an A/B comparison, but I still suspect it basically comes down to EQ – for example, if you EQ out half a dB at 8kHz and lift slightly at 12 and up, lots of people will feel the result sounds smoother…
But I won’t know for sure until I’ve actually heard one of course
Nov 5th, 2009
Jesse Barney
I personally own the Equinox. It’s a fabulous piece of gear and rather than sounding like there’s added noise to the mix it sounds so clear and really helps the stereo image a ton especially when it comes to the 3d aspect of mixing and creating a “deep” mix.
I owned the tube tech ssa2b previous to this. Which had a great sound as well and definitely added the tube body and I would say it was more like what Ian fears, an expensive box that doesn’t do much but add noise and change the eq curve.
The Shadow Hills has 32 channels of output, 2 are dedicated to the normal stereo outputs on your daw and the other 30 for summing. Each channel has three different transformers, one is replicated from an API console one is replicated from a neve console and one is from a custom console in an LA studio.
It also has the two mic pres with the same transformers and the normal pad, 48v, and phase switches.
And it is a full blown monitor section as well.
This box is really priceless in all of those respects and kicks all of the competitions ass.
A couple of drawbacks. No headphone out (on a monitor section? Really? And there should be a switch to utilize daw 1-2 in your summing.
Other than that if you are mixing in the box this will kick up your sonics a lot! Be aware that you need lots of outputs from yinterface to utilize Ty’s thing. I would consider at least 16 outs minimum before this box is worth it.
To sum it up(ha), if you need your mixes to have the flavor of an analogue console this is the way to go!
Dec 26th, 2011
Reply to “Shadow Hills : The Equinox”