Home » R/E/P Archives » Reason In Audio » DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk?
| Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk? [message #64647 is a reply to message #64532 ] |
Mon, 09 May 2005 11:46   |
 RKrizman
Messages: 403
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third Stone |
Active Member |
|
|
| gwailoh wrote on Sun, 08 May 2005 22:18 |
It seems to me though that if analog summed stereo images were consistently superior, the logic could be the reverse of what you suggest. E.g, it's not that analog summing is adding something, but that digital summing contains digital errors which analog summing eliminates. I'm not saying that I believe this to be true, but it does seem to be a logical possibility, and I think it's consistent with the anectodes which someone posted in another similar thread re how removing plugins from the ITB mix improved the results.
|
Summing and plugins are two different issues. Plugins have their own effect on a mix independent of whatever kind of summing is being used.
Furthermore, people don't agree that analog summing is consistently better than digital. In fact, in one controlled test, 9 out of 10 engineers in Teanneck New Jersey prefered digital summing to the same session summed through a Trident series 24. OTOH, many of them preferred the same session summed through an SSL J series. Many summing boxes have been tested publicly, and opinions fall on both sides, with a lot of "who cares" thrown in as well. end analog summing to digital
It has also been shown that when all other variables are eliminated that different DAW platforms with different engines (32 floating versus 48 linear) can produce bit identical results when summing the same session. No two analog consoles will do this, nor will 2 passes through the same analog console do this. Common sense would tell you which system has errors and which doesn't, which of course is different from saying which sounds better.
-R
|
|
|
| Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk? [message #64691 is a reply to message #64595 ] |
Mon, 09 May 2005 14:51 |
Nathan Eldred
Messages: 146
Registered: April 2004
Location: Central Florida |
Active Member |
|
|
| Tim Gilles wrote on Mon, 09 May 2005 08:30 |
| bobkatz wrote on Mon, 09 May 2005 08:18 |
Actually, the key to how to avoid "bad" digital summing mixes is to LEARN what it is that the analog stuff did automatically and apply that to your digital mix. Learn about the Haas effect. Learn how delays, crossed delays, early reflections, and phase manipulation, even the addition of noise and distortion, can be used to create a digital mix that is as dimensional (or MORE) than any analog mix you used to make.
BK
|
Once upon a time there was an Emperor who held a wonderful parade every Saturday....
|
Everytime I come across the comparison, there isn't a comparison. When I hear different engineer's work. What they used to do, and what they do now. Analog wins every time. ITB, can sound 'okay', but it requires good outboard gear and incredible conversion (again just to get to a B+...and that's just the guys with the best skills). The same guy doing the same thing on a high end analog console, it becomes an A+. Give yourself a letter grade advantage without doing anything extra. Just my $.00002 & HO. Maybe this is obvious to a lot of people....but is average sound acceptable, because convenience and cost take precedence?
Nathan Eldred
The Store:
AtlasProAudio.com
The Studio:
AtlasRecording.com
|
|
|
| Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk? [message #64702 is a reply to message #64691 ] |
Mon, 09 May 2005 15:28 |
 |
bobkatz
Messages: 2926
Registered: June 2004
Location: Orlando |
Platinum Member |
|
|
| Nathan Eldred wrote on Mon, 09 May 2005 15:51 |
Everytime I come across the comparison, there isn't a comparison. When I hear different engineer's work. What they used to do, and what they do now. Analog wins every time. ITB, can sound 'okay', but it requires good outboard gear and incredible conversion (again just to get to a B+...and that's just the guys with the best skills). The same guy doing the same thing on a high end analog console, it becomes an A+. Give yourself a letter grade advantage without doing anything extra. Just my $.00002 & HO. Maybe this is obvious to a lot of people....but is average sound acceptable, because convenience and cost take precedence?
|
All other things being equal, Nathan? That is: NO PLUGINS on the digital side, and NO outboard on the analog side? Try that first.
Start with excellent A/D and D/A converters, do a digital mix. Feed lots of good outboard with aux sends and analog inserts, stay away from (too many) digital compressors, and you'll have a mix that's both transparent and fat, dimensional and beautiful. It can be done.
If you have heard ONE In the Box mix that sounds superb, that is a simple "exoneration" (as if there needs to be) of the all digital mix. I've heard (and done) my share of them. You do have to learn new skills. A noiseless mixer doesn't mask or hide problems. A distortionless mixer doesn't add any sounds of its own.
BK
There are two kinds of fools,
One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better."
No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
| Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk? [message #64764 is a reply to message #64702 ] |
Mon, 09 May 2005 21:10 |
Nathan Eldred
Messages: 146
Registered: April 2004
Location: Central Florida |
Active Member |
|
|
| bobkatz wrote on Mon, 09 May 2005 16:28 |
All other things being equal, Nathan? That is: NO PLUGINS on the digital side, and NO outboard on the analog side? Try that first.
Start with excellent A/D and D/A converters, do a digital mix. Feed lots of good outboard with aux sends and analog inserts, stay away from (too many) digital compressors, and you'll have a mix that's both transparent and fat, dimensional and beautiful. It can be done.
If you have heard ONE In the Box mix that sounds superb, that is a simple "exoneration" (as if there needs to be) of the all digital mix. I've heard (and done) my share of them. You do have to learn new skills. A noiseless mixer doesn't mask or hide problems. A distortionless mixer doesn't add any sounds of its own.
|
I have done the tests, with all things being equal. I've heard other people's attempts (that's what I said above). I was saying that analog outboard somewhat helps ITB, plugs destroy it. Analog outboard on a console (operator being equal) is godlike. It's not a skill set deficiency, it's a tool deficiency. Maybe it's distortion, maybe it's cross talk, maybe it's because we like the sound of electrons flowing through a wire. Either way, through an analog console the music is sweeter/wider/deeper/extended/more real/more emotional intuitive to my ears, brain, and spirit. This is one case where empirical experience has won over scientific dogma on a daily basis, for me. And it's why I've put my money where my mouth is by hiring a tech to continually maintain a 2" & 1/4" deck, an analog console, and a respectable mix of vintage and new analog outboard. FWIW I don't keep it completely in the analog realm, the multitrack gets bumped to the computer and spit back out to the console and tape deck. Running a commercial studio for my client base without a partial involvement of the computer would be impossible. But this is not for sonic reasons.
Nathan Eldred
The Store:
AtlasProAudio.com
The Studio:
AtlasRecording.com
|
|
|
| Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk? [message #64776 is a reply to message #64764 ] |
Mon, 09 May 2005 22:59 |
Cerumen
Messages: 24
Registered: May 2004 |
Member |
|
|
"And it's why I've put my money where my mouth is by hiring a tech to continually maintain a 2" & 1/4" deck, an analog console, and a respectable mix of vintage and new analog outboard."
me too!
Jorge Hernandez
|
|
| | | |
| Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk? [message #65127 is a reply to message #65086 ] |
Wed, 11 May 2005 11:12 |
|
bobkatz
Messages: 2926
Registered: June 2004
Location: Orlando |
Platinum Member |
|
|
| maxim wrote on Wed, 11 May 2005 09:41 |
arys wrote:
"I don't think we are doubting that working with an analog console is better than totally ITB. "
i think bob k just intimated that it might not necessarily be the case
the question is not whether you can do a better mix on a daw, but whether a better mix can be done on one
not the same thing
|
The key here is to define "better". For some kinds of music, the slight loss of transparency in any D/A/D setup (external analog mixer) is more than offset by the coloration you like. Sounds nice, the additional fattening or HF rolloff or the thousands of other kinds of colorations are very appealing (in the VERY GOOD sense). However, if you are going for a mix that is TRANSPARENT you will be less tempted to do an analog console mix. I honestly feel that a digital mix with aux sends going to lots of good outboard analog gear can give you the best of both worlds (and controllable to any degree, as well).
I don't like to generalize, but "rock and roll" tends to sound better with an analog mix or lots of analog outboard, and "jazz" and "classical" tends to sound better with an all digital mix.
Oh boy, am I going to get creamed for that generalization... all I am trying to do is describe in complex words what only takes 10 seconds to realize by ear 
With the right tools and decent original miking techniques and decent original recording rooms, you can get as much depth and dimension and separation in a digital mix as ANYONE out there trying to do it analog. There are, of course, many ways to skin a cat, and the words "all other things being equal" automatically cannot apply when comparing a digital mix to an "equivalent" analog mix. Because you MUST add or apply different things in the digital mix to get some of the distortions that happen "automatically" in the analog mix. Been there, done that. I've really done a number of studies of this. Remember, every day I get in a new mix from a new client. I ask them, "how did you mix this?" After hearing hundreds and hundreds of such examples, each one auditioned on this high resolution mastering reproduction system, I can reasonably reach some conclusions. More easily done with listening examples than words.
The skills of the mix engineer TOTALLY enter in here. That's why I say, "all things are never equal." A good mix engineer who is skilled in both how to take advantage of the analog mix console AND a digital mix console is still a rare animal.
Anyway, speaking of skill sets. I received two songs (for a 3-song demo) from one engineer and a third song from another engineer working in the SAME ROOM with most of the same equipment and the same monitors (HD1-S). The second engineer wonders how the first engineer was able to get so much more depth than he. (Both were mixing on SSLs). The answer: Skill. Also, the first engineer had available to him two TC System 6000s and the second engineer only had a TC 5000 and a few other "lesser" reverbs available to him. But after mastering I was able to marry the first two songs with the third quite nicely and please all parties concerned. So, in other words, I was able to increase the "dimensionality" of the third song to fall more in line with the other two.
I'm willing to dare say that the same sound or a "reasonable equivalent" could have been gotten by a properly-skilled engineer working with an all-digital mix from the same sources, provided that all the same analog outboard gear was available, and MAYBE a couple of SSL modules or equivalent if you wanted to gild the lily and get a certain "sheen or warmth" that did not seem to happen in the digital mix.
BK
There are two kinds of fools,
One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better."
No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
| | |
| Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk? [message #65196 is a reply to message #60868 ] |
Wed, 11 May 2005 15:39 |
ted nightshade
Messages: 1272
Registered: April 2004
Location: Southern Oregon, US of A |
Platinum Member |
|
|
Of course it's not really necessary to mix either way, if the sound can really all happen in the same space all at once and for real.
I think we expect a lot of mixing. What an incredible trick to take all those separate tracks and make one big sound out of them. Of course there's serious degradation, analog or digital. But we are so invested in this approach that we see the shortcoming in the summing, not in the whole approach. What a miracle we expect this summing to do. No wonder we're always looking for a better way.
Ted Nightshade aka Cowan
There's a sex industry too.
Or maybe you prefer home cookin'?
|
|
|
| Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk? [message #65236 is a reply to message #65127 ] |
Wed, 11 May 2005 21:06 |
 |
PlugHead
Messages: 278
Registered: April 2004
Location: Dundas, ON, Canada |
Active Member |
|
|
| bobkatz wrote on Wed, 11 May 2005 09:12 |
| maxim wrote on Wed, 11 May 2005 09:41 |
arys wrote:
"I don't think we are doubting that working with an analog console is better than totally ITB. "
i think bob k just intimated that it might not necessarily be the case
the question is not whether you can do a better mix on a daw, but whether a better mix can be done on one
not the same thing
|
I don't like to generalize, but "rock and roll" tends to sound better with an analog mix or lots of analog outboard, and "jazz" and "classical" tends to sound better with an all digital mix.
Oh boy, am I going to get creamed for that generalization... all I am trying to do is describe in complex words what only takes 10 seconds to realize by ear
snip...
BK
|
IME I believe, and mentioned the same thing (pg 2): dense rock mixes need to breathe outside the box, and lighter/transparent stuff remains truer in a good digital environment. I would also reiterate that mixing for loudness ITB will result in a one dimensional, ugly sounding product...
thanks for echoing my earlier sentiments Bob!
N. Jay Burr
PlugHead Productions
|
|
|
| Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk? [message #65278 is a reply to message #60868 ] |
Thu, 12 May 2005 00:36 |
Deep White
Messages: 91
Registered: May 2005
Location: Taipei, Taiwan |
Member |
|
|
1. I've been wrongly quoted for several posts.
2. I don't even understand why I was quoted in the first reply. I'm not a native English speaker. Maybe I missed something there.
3. I went back and found that, maybe the bigger problem in my mix happens during the final stage: limiter. Before that I got decent depth, width and dynamic. After that the reverb tails are squeezed and kick attacks are cut. Yet I guess this is irrelevent to this thread and should be discussed somewhere else.
Arys Chien
Song Writer & Producer
Deep White Studio
Taipei, Taiwan
|
|
|
| Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk? [message #65289 is a reply to message #64764 ] |
Thu, 12 May 2005 05:06 |
Paul Frindle
Messages: 380
Registered: May 2004 |
Active Member |
|
|
| Nathan Eldred wrote on Tue, 10 May 2005 03:10 |
| bobkatz wrote on Mon, 09 May 2005 16:28 |
All other things being equal, Nathan? That is: NO PLUGINS on the digital side, and NO outboard on the analog side? Try that first.
Start with excellent A/D and D/A converters, do a digital mix. Feed lots of good outboard with aux sends and analog inserts, stay away from (too many) digital compressors, and you'll have a mix that's both transparent and fat, dimensional and beautiful. It can be done.
If you have heard ONE In the Box mix that sounds superb, that is a simple "exoneration" (as if there needs to be) of the all digital mix. I've heard (and done) my share of them. You do have to learn new skills. A noiseless mixer doesn't mask or hide problems. A distortionless mixer doesn't add any sounds of its own.
|
I have done the tests, with all things being equal. I've heard other people's attempts (that's what I said above). I was saying that analog outboard somewhat helps ITB, plugs destroy it. Analog outboard on a console (operator being equal) is godlike. It's not a skill set deficiency, it's a tool deficiency. Maybe it's distortion, maybe it's cross talk, maybe it's because we like the sound of electrons flowing through a wire. Either way, through an analog console the music is sweeter/wider/deeper/extended/more real/more emotional intuitive to my ears, brain, and spirit. This is one case where empirical experience has won over scientific dogma on a daily basis, for me. And it's why I've put my money where my mouth is by hiring a tech to continually maintain a 2" & 1/4" deck, an analog console, and a respectable mix of vintage and new analog outboard. FWIW I don't keep it completely in the analog realm, the multitrack gets bumped to the computer and spit back out to the console and tape deck. Running a commercial studio for my client base without a partial involvement of the computer would be impossible. But this is not for sonic reasons.
|
Every time this comes up I am left with exactly the same totally frustrated feeling.
The reason people do not get best results from ITB mixes and digital processing in general is that the whole cultural environment of metering, level control, overload and production styles within the digital domain is based on SAMPLE VALUE and not SIGNAL 
However many times I re-itterate this very important fact it seems impossible for people to grasp exactly what it means and what the gravity of ignoring it actually is in repect of their audio results. And this is NOT even the user's fault, they cannot be expected to grasp it because they are totally buried in systems that are wholly based on sample value misconceptions and always display values which are NOT signal
For a really fair analysis, this is not primarily a user problem - it is an equipment problem that the user must make himself aware of if he is to avoid it.
People who hear differences are not wrong - the equipment is lying to you - it is ecouraging you to produce illegal results that you are not made aware of.
IMHO & LE this is the sole reason underpinning ALL the arguments about ITB mixing, sample rates, 'resolution' - you name it.
|
|
|
| Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk? [message #65319 is a reply to message #60868 ] |
Thu, 12 May 2005 08:03 |
|
My firm belief is that if users of Protools, and the other DAW systems, would do the following, then MANY of the "digital" or "in the box" audio problems would vanish:
•STOP RUNNING YOUR SIGNAL SO HOT! Do not use the built in peak meters as you would use a VU meter. If you will keep your input levels lower, your sound will improve. You are not really gaining anything by trying to squeeze out that last little bit.
•If you can, find a way to also meter every input with a good old fashioned analogue VU meter...whether it's with an analogue console, a tape machine, a dedicated "meter box," whatever. Let these meter indications rule, while of course cross referencing the peak DAW meters as well. And use MUSIC as your general guide for I/O levels. Setting up with a 1k tone from inside Protools for your reference level to an analogue console following will not give accurate results on all types of program material.
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Sep 2 13:18:51 CDT 2010
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03784 seconds |
Members
Search
FAQ
Register
Login
Home
Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk?
