Neve 8816 summing mixer

[heathen]

I know summing mixers can actually be more of a problem than a cure sometime but I just heard a few mp3's posted on Vintage Kings website between a whole bunch of different summing mixers and the Neve sounded f-ing huge compared to the others, had a great low end harmonic distortion which I guess would fit my mental imagery of the Neve sound, ( I seriously hav'nt had the pleasure of using or owning any top quality neve gear to compare) so I'm speculating.
It is damn cheap too at say $3500 USD that is damn cheap for 16 channels and you can also add a fader pack for an extra $1500, the thing even has recall via usb. I know it's probably an un complicated device to build but this sounds way too cheap for something good but it sounded fantastic from the comparisons between a host of others and compared to the digitally summed control example. I'm seriously considering one of these units in the near future as I'm soooooo sick of my digital mixer. This could be a great purchase I think providing they are well made.
Anyway gaining a few more peoples perspective would be good. I think it sounds bloody great.

Cheers
Heath

Here's a link if thats ok with Rick and Mark.
http://www.vintageking.com/site/files/sumshoot.htm

[SoundSnob]

I would have to agree with you that the 8816 sounds the most pleasing to me.
I think its the sound of the iron in the transformer i like.
I am thinking about this mixer also.

[davemc]

Problem about these shoot outs is they normally just stem files through different units.. Although in reality you would mix seperately in each system and use your ears, different gain staging, compression, eq etc etc to get a sound you like.

Not to knock summing units just everyone like mics, pres,compressors etc etc adds a color which you like for a different project is personal.

[scott]

Both the review in sound on sound and
http://www.audiotechnology.com.au/downloads/47/neve/AT47%20Neve%208816.pdf

say that its not simple and uncomplicated but if you like that price tag i'd give iit a go. I'd think you would definetly want the faders too without it seems a little less usefull. After all isnt half the point of hardware tweakabilty.

[rick]

"I think its the sound of the iron in the transformer i like. "

interesting statement my feeling is you are definately NOT hearing the sound of the iron in the new neve mixers because there is nearly NONE in it
what you are hearing was in fact designed by 301s steve crane here in australia in conjuntion with the neve boys and what you are hearing is modern electronics pushed to thier limits and sounding excellent.

it does not sound anyhting like a neve 1272 based mix bus
in truth it probably sounds better

there are many wierd non old school neve things in that box

but the bottom line is it is made well, sounds great and its cheap
what more could you need .. service...? well i heard of a faulty one that neve (or steve crane) got fixed immediatley and for any one who has anything to do with neve in the last twenty years this fact alone is a bloody miracle

my only wish is that the knobs were bigger and neve would see fit to give me one for nothing

[heathen]

One for nothing? Hehe. Me too. Seriously though I'm glad you guys liked the sound of it too. Rick I'm especially glad you give it the thumbs up as I'm seriously considering this unit, I think it's probably one of the "best value for money" analog items on the market at the moment, well based on US prices.

Hopefully I'm guessing around $6000-$7000 street price (with fader section) to buy locally, hopefully less. Time to sell some stuff and save a bit I think. I'm really looking forward to checking one of these out. Even buying the main unit first and getting the fader pack later would be fine for what I'm doing. There has been a gap in the low to mid range mixing options and I reckon this unit clearly fills that gap. All the functions especially on the stereo buss seem great, the parallel function is a great idea too.

Heath

[rick]

a couple of my clients who read this forum but never post have one
you guys wanna join the forum posters print the actual aussie price and a review ..?

[SoundSnob]

I was under the impression that the the 8816 used the oldschool 10468 transformers as used in the input stage of the 1272.

I know that its the sum of the parts but cant the iron in the transformers impart a sonic character considering all channels can be mixed through the stereo bus?

If it has a "sonic character" dosn't it have to have somthing in the electric path that is either adding,subtracting or generally interfering in a way that is pleasing to my ears.

I think of electricity like its vibrating air.when i say iron i mean in the same way i think natural laquer spruce guitars sound magickal and poly bloody urathene coated crap wood axes sound shite.dont ask me how it works i can't see that small;)

[heathen]

I dunno about iron or lead but I know its got plenty of phat in there. So it's all gold to me. After years of mixing on an o2r I just need a change but everything was way out of my price range or was not really what I needed but this unit is just looking better everyday.

So please anyone who owns one as Rick suggested please post some prices and thoughts on this unit. It would be appreciated.

Cheers
Heath

[Chris H]

If it has a "sonic character" dosn't it have to have something in the electric path that is either adding,subtracting or generally interfering in a way that is pleasing to my ears.

I think of electricity like its vibrating air.when i say iron i mean in the same way i think natural laquer spruce guitars sound magickal and poly bloody urathene coated crap wood axes sound shite.dont ask me how it works i can't see that small;)

There are other things that make an electronic design more "musical" such as the way negative feedback is used in the design, and.... this is a bit of a guess but if high current is used it also can exite the electrons or push components to near their limit or optimum operation range where they act something like for want of a better example, the aphex aural exiter. It's where science meets art in the application of electronic design and principals but i really know nothing about it. Tell us more Rick... or see if you can get Steve Crane to shed some light on the matter without giving away any secrtets of course.

I supose by natural laquer you mean the shellac used traditionally to finish violins. It's only as good as the recipe, some are softer than others
and it takes someone who has gone into it in detail AND been lucky enough to have received knowledge passed down through generations of trial and error.
The Laquer that is commonly used for accoustic guitars is nitrocelulous laquer and does a very good job again if applied properly. How it works is if someone has gone to the detail of using shellac they have also gone to the trouble of getting all the components right, glues, timber selection etc, then the real magik is putting it all together..... The matching of the thickness of the top to the carving of the braces,( different on the trebble to the bass side of the guitar), and getting it just right to be strong enough not to collapse under the huge tension the strings place on the body and light enough to literaly jump to life when strummed or picked. Then using the right finish in the way that doesn't subtract from the sound of the natural timber and the way its been put together.
Another part of the magic is when spruce ages the natural resins cristalise and if the top is vibrating musically rather than to passing traffic etc this drying of the resins conforms to the musical vibrations adding to the tonal richness harmonic overtones and and and.....

[rick]

when i popped the top of that box i did not see any of the 1272 type input transformers at all
it looked electronically input balanced with just two output transformers

in a 16 chn neve desk using 1272 summing busses there would have been ...
let me see ....
about 44 transformers in the signal path to the two track monitor output depending on the model maybe more

now thats the sound of iron !

[Chris H]

"I think its the sound of the iron in the transformer i like. "

interesting statement my feeling is you are definately NOT hearing the sound of the iron in the new neve mixers because there is nearly NONE in it
what you are hearing was in fact designed by 301s steve crane here in australia in conjuntion with the neve boys and what you are hearing is modern electronics pushed to thier limits and sounding excellent.

it does not sound anyhting like a neve 1272 based mix bus
in truth it probably sounds better

there are many wierd non old school neve things in that box

but the bottom line is it is made well, sounds great and its cheap
what more could you need .. service...? well i heard of a faulty one that neve (or steve crane) got fixed immediatley and for any one who has anything to do with neve in the last twenty years this fact alone is a bloody miracle

my only wish is that the knobs were bigger and neve would see fit to give me one for nothing

If its not the iron but the "many wierd non old school neve things" then the question is what sort of things....?
......Anyone?

[Jason Dirckze]

Sorry to drag this "Off Topic"... but is there a way that the "Quote" functionality can be implemented into this forum???

As you were chaps...

[Kris]

Sorry to drag this "Off Topic"... but is there a way that the "Quote" functionality can be implemented into this forum???

As you were chaps...

You need to remove this part of the quote code:

so this - [quote="Jason Dirckze"]

remove this (="Jason Dirckze")

[SoundSnob]

When electricty flows through an electrical component , "electrons" are pulled/pushed through the electrical components material, come together within its internal structure and lose their velocity, thus generating heat.This internal movement causes the electrical component to vibrate, in turn causing displacement of the internal structure within the electrical component. The resulting distortion in the current flowing through the electrical component mirrors its spectrum of mechanical resonance.

i think the iron in the custom carnhill output transformers is enough to make the 8816 have a taste of some old english neve iron filing seasoning.The more you add the more you taste.

[Linear]

When electricty flows through an electrical component , "electrons" are pulled/pushed through the electrical components material, come together within its internal structure and lose their velocity, thus generating heat.This internal movement causes the electrical component to vibrate, in turn causing displacement of the internal structure within the electrical component. The resulting distortion in the current flowing through the electrical component mirrors its spectrum of mechanical resonance.

You are kidding, right?

[Andrew]

bit off the topic but does anyone know a source for spruce wood in aus? not going to make a guitar cause I do not have the skills or motivation, but would like to try for another cabinet and always interested in woods I haven't had a chance to work with before.

[Chris H]

Mathews Timber in Rooks Rd Nunnawading here in Melbourne is a good place to start. Sitka spruce is the most common. Not great for cabinetmaking though because it is quite soft. An Australian timber that is simmilar is King Billy Pine from Tassie. Another great timber from there is Cellery Top Pine, and because it is harder than spruce but very simmilar in appearance would be a great choice for cabinet making. It also bends well and is resistant to rot. I used it to re rib a boat i restored a few years ago.

[SoundSnob]

i take its a speaker cabinet?try trendtimbers dot com dot au in sydney area.you could also have a look in your local book for cabinet makers or boat buliders and ask them where they get it .if you are after tone king billy is good and cheaper than sitka wich is usually imported.dont stuff it up with synthetic finishes,that is if you are after sweet tone.

[Andrew]

Yeah I was looking for King Billy pine a while ago but it looks like its getting rairer? these days. Will try some of those places you mentioned, thanks for the info.

Anyway back to summing. Neve sounds good and is priced well. whether its done by transformers or circuitry or both doesn't really matter does it cause its the sound that is the final critea isn't it? and yes functionality is important to.

Maybe the slogan the 'sound is in the iron' should be changed to: 'a type of sound (insert flavour here) is in the iron (insert txfmr type here) plus the general circuit designed with it contributes to varying degrees in such&such ways of the net final sound'....on second thoughts lets not

[mickeyb]

Will a DAW (computer) sum fewer tracks better than many? or
Would a Neve 8816 sound equally as much better on a 2 track recording as a 32 track?

[Linear]

Will a DAW (computer) sum fewer tracks better than many? or
Would a Neve 8816 sound equally as much better on a 2 track recording as a 32 track?

Gee I don't want to sound like a smartarse or anything, but a two-track recording doesn't require summing (unless you're planning a mono mix). And an 8816 won't mix 32 tracks as it only has 16 inputs.

While the 8816 looks like a decent box, people need to stop thinking that it will wildly transform their mixes - I'm not so sure it would.

Plus, there's nothing stopping you from building your own for not much money, or alternatively getting one of these

http://www.broadcastproaudio.com/new.htm

this would give the same result, albeit with less routing options. just use your own pre's for makeup gain.

i've read quite a bit into mixing signals (both analog and digital). there's a lot involved with both, and neither is perfect.

here's my theory: for straight summing @ unity of 16 channels or less, you can't tell the difference.

i've done both too (16 channels via AWA mixbuss vs 16 channels in logic pro). where digital starts to get hairy is when you adjust gain away from unity, insert plugins and sum more channels. analog does this (summing, eq and compression) much better.

just my opinions though.

Chris

[otto ruiter]

There's a very informative thread about digital summing vs. analog summing here:

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/4918/0/32/15011/

There's a lot to read, but don't give up until you've read some of the posts by Paul Frindle. You will be much better informed about some of the possible problems you are creating for yourself when mixing ITB, and how to avoid them, and get the best from your DAW.

Paul Frindle has designed for Sony (Oxford) and SSL.

[heathen]

Hey Otto thanks for the link, a great read, though I did'nt read it all I do understand what you are getting at and the issue of internal digital levels and false matering values. I run into this problem on most mixes I do for home recordists. The individual tack levels are usually well above -6dbfs, then trying to add plugins/eq's/filters to this material at these levels is just begging for trouble and a lousy sound in the mid- hm migh freqs, and yep even subtractively eq'ing digitally can add to peak levels, which will never be displayed correcty.

I'm constantly saying record at a lower level or I'll just turn your tracks down resulting in a lower resolution, the look on thier face usually says it all, "awwwww jeez I thought it was da udder way round man". But usually its cool as most records sound like this these days, just something I make them aware of for future stuff.

I had to deal with this issue yesterday, I did some mastering for a guy's demo which was clearly into the clipping stage on each channel ( peaks were up to -.1dbfs), it was obvious even though just a stereo mix, anyway it sounded very bitey and punchcy and the guy was already quite happy with the sound even happier after some analog processing though 1 track I suggested he remix as it just did'nt compare with the others.

Though my mistake was to earlier advise he should mix future projects at lower all round individual track and stereo out levels I should have advised him after the session. Same stuff different day (I'm constantly advising on this), anyway the track he remixed and brought back the following day he had backed all the track levels down say 3-4 db and bingo totally different sound, very clean and even less than previously flowing with rest of the record.
Then I said I think you are either going to have bring me back another mix at the same previous levels with the adjustments you make or remix the whole record at these new levels, hmmmmmmm. He's going to just take it back to previous levels as it is a demo and time is short and it does sound good,though the whole record could have been better with more conservative levels while mixing his individual channels. Though everyone is still very happy, which is good. He's a good bloke and keen to learn so he took it on board immediately.

Paul Frindle and Bob Katz have been advocating this for a while now and getting abused on some forums by "The Clippers" thats what I call em, to some extent it's almost a brawl between "clippers" and "non-clippers" I'm the latter. Though sometimes clipping can add a dramatic effect 9 times out of 10 it sounds like shite, to me. I remember an article Rick did on otb summing and touched on the same stuff. I was a convert to more conservative levels a while back, even though previously taught digital levels are irrelevant until clipping, this I now know is bs when it comes to processing internally and watching false peak readings. I have calibrated my monitors (recently, yeah I know I should've years ago) and turn them up when mixing now as to keep a reasonable headroom, the way it is now you'd have to be deaf to run out of headroom, it's roughly k14.

Now back to analog: I've got some nice outboard which I use on most tracks, buzz soc (great opto comp)for bass & vox, C2 for drums and stereo buss or aggressive vox, mmmm crush on strings( great tip that 1 Otto). Pendulum ES8 for drums and anything that needs some tubes, great on the stereo buss, alot of the time with no GR. I'm of the opinion digital comps are really not there yet in terms of sound and usefullness. Some digi EQ's on the other hand are superb.

Thing is I'm finding it very time consuming to get a nice analog sound on each channel ( i do get it, but its very time consuming) as I really do prefer analog comps compared with any digi dynamics processing. I think keeping all this in mind has helped me choose why I like the neve 8816 sound as it could be alot easier to get a nicer sound with less processing. Though a lot of the other summing units discussed in the link you posted I have heard comparisons between them and the Neve stands out like beacon. The others were quite un-impressive to me.

I think anyone deciding to delve into analog summing should be totally aware of all these points disscussed at PSW. I think I'm making an informed decision as I'm looking for colouration for the style of music I'm mainly working on, but only nice colouration and I'll still have the option to mix itb/digitally as well. Bob Katz has recently discussed on other forums about quantisation errors caused by gain adjustments within digital systems and using dither to lessen the harshness introduced through such errors, using consevative tracking levels and keeping fader adjustments in the digi realm to a minimum must also be far better when summing otb. Just using small amouts for automation itb.

Have you heard the box Otto? I'm just interested to hear yours and as many different opinions as possible before purchase, hopefully I can test drive one for a week. It won't be till mid next year anyway, so I 'll have a better perspective by then. Reliability is another issue which I'd like to wait and see about.

Recently Rick evaluted a few mixes I had done, they passed, phew. But he comented on a lack of definition on most of the vox, the guy I did the record for likes his vox a touch back but I think its more a case of the crappy o2r pre's I'm using, I'm just about to get some nice ones, buzz audio elixir's and a couple of "A Designs" P1's, these pre's have a very very nice presence to them, in which case I may actually just get more pre's instead of the summing unit. Hmmmmm or both if my cash situation improves. Anyway I'm still going to get Rick to do these tracks in the new year though I'll probably re-track the vox in the songs which can be re done with the new pre's. I'm not going to just jump on the otb summing bandwagon though a little more tastefully added analog is usually good, I reckon. Thanks again Otto.

Sorry for the long thread but it's a looooong topic.

Cheers
Heath

[mickeyb]

After reading some of the comments Bob Katz and others have made I am given to understand that ITB summing is fine (plenty of headroom, no cross talk etc) but if you want that anolog colour to the sound then say.... the Neve8816 will certainly do that ... ?
Then what about these passive summing boxes (which require gain makup).
Do they ad any colour ? They sure are a lot cheaper and I have a hi end dual mic pre with which to make up gain.
I apoligise if my understanding is shallow ... I dont wish to be a drag on the discussion.
I know from my own experience that a mix with just two synth parts (from hardware boxes) sounded better going seperately into a little Mackie 1402 with the rest from the computer than when I recorded the parts into Logic and it all got summed from the box.... a lot better!

[harry]

I was wondering if this might be a cool cheap alternative:

http://www.prodigy-pro.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19426

add to that a pair of 1272 type line amps for stereo makeup gain.... (even have some nice heavy carnhills here)

my 2c is limited but from my experiences i have found that i definently find the sound of my 16 output emu sampler (one out for each sound) into a crappy mackie 8bus console mixed to stereo as sounding much better than the sound of the same samples trigered by the logic sample player and bounced down in logic. (i dont know why it's 18 bit converters should sound better but i do know that the emu's output op amps are really good - ad627 or op275 from memory i think)

I find that there is this crap fizz present in the high's with the in the box bounced version... the sounds start to all sound the same and it sounds muddy and cluttered - but sounds do sound ok when played individually.
The sound out of the emu is much rawer and more solid - like the sound of a real 909 or oberheim as opposed to a shite plug.

Conversly - i found the mixing in the box less of a problem with live instrument sources (i guess the sonic signature of each is vastly different than 16 instances of an exs24 sampler plug in.....)

anyway just my 2c.

i might build this passive anyway as it is cheap easy and will go nicely with my creamware a16. Then i might pick up a good quality stereo a/d to capture the final stereo image...