Recording Engineering & Production: Making records better, not just louder and cheaper. The brightest minds from the creative and scientific world of audio discuss the elements of audio production that interest you most.
Terry Manning [Whatever Works] requested this thread be a sticky
Have fun. F
------------------------------------------------------------ ----
------------------------------------------------------------ ----
With all the debate over the supeior ease of automation in the DAW vrs that of most mixing consoles, I was wondering if anybody was actually using their DAW like a tape deck/editor and mixing from their consoles to a mixdown deck or even back to a stereo or 6 stem tracks on their DAW?
I'm pretty sure those of you with access to Neve's, API's, SSL's etc are doing just that. But for those running in the "Mid-Line" (I.E. DM2K, R-100, Soundcraft Ghost etc.) are you doing this or letting the DAW do all the work and having your desk just act as a router?
Tomas Danko Messages: 4492 Registered: May 2004 Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Platinum Member
Keyplayer wrote on Sat, 23 April 2005 21:04
With all the debate over the supeior ease of automation in the DAW vrs that of most mixing consoles, I was wondering if anybody was actually using their DAW like a tape deck/editor and mixing from their consoles to a mixdown deck or even back to a stereo or 6 stem tracks on their DAW?
I'm pretty sure those of you with access to Neve's, API's, SSL's etc are doing just that. But for those running in the "Mid-Line" (I.E. DM2K, R-100, Soundcraft Ghost etc.) are you doing this or letting the DAW do all the work and having your desk just act as a router?
I went back to analog mixing with outboard after having done the ITB-thing (first software only, later with a digital console + software) and some hybrid methods in between. Not only is it way more fun, again, but it sounds better most of the time. As far as I'm concerned, I'm getting a lot of the mix "for free" just by staying in the analog domain. With all-digital, I had to put it in from the get-go otherwise I didn't end up with that much weirdness to "gel" the mix in the end.
For whatever harm my DAC's are doing to the audio, my console is more than making up for it in mojo.
Sincerely,
Tomas Danko
Ps. My console is an Allen & Heath Saber 32/16/16 LBGPG with MIDI-mute.
"T(Z)= (n1+n2*Z^-1+n2*Z^-2)/(1+d1*z^-1+d2*z^-2)" - Mr. Dan Lavry
"Shaw baa laa raaw, sidle' yaa doot in dee splaa" . Mr Shooby Taylor
J.J. Blair Messages: 12301 Registered: May 2004 Location: by the sea & sand
Diamond Member
Keyplayer, as has been discussed ad nauseum on every forum here, one of the main issues seems to be summing outside the box. So for those who don't have a great sounding console, many people are turning to the Dangerous 2 buss and the Fulcrum, etc.
Now, there is actually debate over whether or not that sounds better. I think it does. There does not seem to be any debate about whether or not plug-in EQs and compressors sound as good as the real thing, though. Well, I should say the only people who tend to debate that either designed the software or have never really used the modeled hardware in question.studio info
They say the heart of Rock & Roll is still beating, which is amazing if you consider all the blow it's done over the years.
"The Internet enables pompous blowhards to interact with other pompous blowhards in a big circle jerk of pomposity." - Bill Maher
"The negative aspects of this business, not only will continue to prevail, but will continue to accelerate in madness. Conditions aren't going to get better, because the economics of rock and roll are getting closer and closer to the economics of Big Business America." - Bill Graham
djui5 Messages: 1511 Registered: May 2004 Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Platinum Member
I was trying to do only ITB mixing, but got sic of it and am mixing on the desk again despite not having desk automation and various other features.
We don't have enough plug-in's and processing power (HD3) for me to get the mixes I want ITB...not yet anyway. So for now...I'll still be using the board (soundtraks Jade).Morale of the day? Stop looking at what you're hearing.
yngve hoeyland 07'
bushwick Messages: 592 Registered: January 2005 Location: brooklyn, ny
Gold Member
I have a Allen & Heath that is for all purposes just the shell of it original self, having been completey redesigned with a new master section, summing amps, grounding...
ITB does not hold a candle to outboard mixes from my standpoint and I even use some outboard gear inserted in the some AD-8000 channels I reserve for that purpose and don't feel like I am suffereing in great loss in almost any case with that extra DA-AD cconversion. I putting a BA6A on a snare sometimes is just what you need and there is nothing that I can do ITB to do that. I automate my volumes and some plugs in PT and do some manual automation on my console for Aux riding and sub-mix fader rides and I am cool with that and get some killer results. We just got our first shiny record so things can't be that bad!!!
I will say that a board that doesn't sound good isn't going to help matters. Some mid level boards that you are describing might not sound good and owing the the mostly 5532 based designs in that category you can have mixed results. You have to learn what each of these boards are really doing to your audio when you are pumping a hot mix through them. Some boards in the mid-level do not regulate power to each channel and when you are slamming signal to all the channels, there is some debate as to distortion arising as a result of the power suck from the main supply rails. As far as I'm concerned, there is no debate there. Also, none of them clip nicely, or have the robustness in sound that the discrete counterparts can have - I learned this first hand with the overhaul of my board which was completed in steps - so I have been able to hear the change in the sound of the board in stages. But again, even without clipping individual channels you may feel like your mix is caving the board in. In these cases, it is better to leave yourself some headroom, not push the board to hard and I think you can wind up with a clean potent sound.
As an aside, Thomas, the master section on your Saber can be made much better and the noise floor can be dropped quite a bit. Of all the mods that were done, the master section made the most improvement (so did raising the SN ratio 30db in a worst case scenario!!!). Look at the schematics - poor grounding layout and they even ground the audio to the chassis on every single card in the board.....big no no. PM me if you are interested.
Nathan Eldred Messages: 146 Registered: April 2004 Location: Central Florida
Active Member
I'm mixing outside of the box on a real console. I can't get anywhere near the same results ITB (or on a digital console, same thing to my ears) as out. Not to mention I'm using 2" 16 track now, but I have no hesitation in tracking basics to the 2" and dumping into Samplitude via Lavrys. I'm still @ 48k and it sounds incredible. I'm not losing that much, and it's still light years ahead of the digital with absoultely no extra effort. So between tape and analog console, the sonics are very over the top in a good way. But the computer is there for ease of comping, editing, duplicating, time aligning, adding a funky effect on one word or note when the client requests it, yada yada.Nathan Eldred
kbshearer Messages: 19 Registered: October 2004 Location: Sacramento, Ca
Member
I've got to echo everyone else's repsonse. I track to 2" when the project allows and then bounce to a hard drive. I can't stand the sound of mixing in the box. I run everything back into an 80b,while using the automation in the DAW. Until something drastic changes, I am much happier with the sound of analog summing.
RMoore Messages: 4101 Registered: May 2004 Location: Spaceship Earth
Platinum Member
More and more working on the DAW I find but always mixing on a desk (Old Trident with 'issues') and (mostly, like 99%) running stems to analog multitrack and mixing from the tape machine.
Also using outboard FX, limiters etc.
Will have automation, submixing, edits obviously & some occasional plugs etc happening on the stems going to analog.
When I 1st got the DAW I did do some ITB action but discovered the results I was getting, while 'ok' weren't all that great sonically compared to the OTB vibe.
I'll never forget the ITB mixes went out on a commercial release & I saw later on a (genre-specific) music forum some, I assumed, college student writing about the release eg: 'kinda cool project but what happened to the SOUND? Something changed, it seems all digital'...or to that effect..
Anyway, I was pretty amazed that basically an 'end consumer' could hear the diff between a&b...and they were right too!People's Republic of Ryan
By the end of today, another day is gone forever. You will never get it back.
We must never let up for a second. Work harder at every single thing - Terry Manning
You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take - Wayne Gretzky
I'm mixing on my Studer 901 for clients who appreciate the difference, and for myself. For clients who just want it quick, I work ITB. After going thru my mid-90's 02R phase, the increase in midrange resolution (not to mention fader/panpot resolution), etc., that the Studer provides was immediately and dramatically apparent. You can also hit the buses with as much as you like and it never sounds saturated.
ryst Messages: 41 Registered: February 2005 Location: Atlanta
Member
I have a question. If I can't afford large format mixing console at this time but want to start mixing OTB, would a small format console from A&H, Soundcraft, or Mackie be worth buying? Would I hear a difference (assuming I know what I am doing) between ITB and OTB with a console in the $1000 range? Right now I use DP with plug ins... Any advice would be great.Nathan Schreier
Lee Flier Messages: 320 Registered: April 2004 Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Active Member
Hi Nathan ,
I think you will get answers all over the map. Some people will say you can't possibly get a better sound with a cheap desk, others will say you will. Only one thing is for sure: they will sound "different" and only you can decide if it's "better." I happen to have heard a few cheap desks that I think sound better than ITB, all other things being equal. But I think it's one of those things that you have to try to really know. Just buy a console from a place that gives you a 30 day money back guarantee, and return it if you don't think it's worth it... maybe try a different one. This question is kinda like "which monitors are best" - it's VERY subjective.What The...? http://www.what-the.com http://www.myspace.com/whattherock
Radio KIRA http://www.radiokira.com
ted nightshade Messages: 1272 Registered: April 2004 Location: Southern Oregon, US of A
Platinum Member
I'm attracted to the Fulcrom idea. I haven't tried that box, but before it came out we were replacing the make-up amp of a custom mixer with a Manley mic pre.
It's a good investment to score at least one really good mic pre, and then you can use that with the Fulcrom to have a really high quality mixer- even a tube mixer, if you use a tube mic pre! Cool idea, thinks me. Ted Nightshade aka Cowan
There's a sex industry too.
Or maybe you prefer home cookin'?
Dave Peck Messages: 61 Registered: March 2005 Location: S.F. bay area
Member
ryst wrote on Fri, 29 April 2005 13:32
I have a question. If I can't afford large format mixing console at this time but want to start mixing OTB, would a small format console from A&H, Soundcraft, or Mackie be worth buying? Would I hear a difference (assuming I know what I am doing) between ITB and OTB with a console in the $1000 range? Right now I use DP with plug ins... Any advice would be great.
So far, the Neotek Elan II and the Trident Dream look like the closest to what I need (about $15,000), and the Speck Lilo may be a better choice for some folks who only need 16 channels (about half the cost). Something like a D&R Vision would work if you don't need to switch between tracking & mixdown (it doesn't have A/B line input switching).
But if you're not using the micpres or the EQ, you may be able to get good out-of-the-DAW results on a more affordable console.
For me, a lot of the benefit in recording to a DAW and mixing analog is in the ergonomics and the immediacy, which allows me to work a bit more creatively and, I dunno, musically(?) than trying to do the same mix in the box. I tend to use the DAW for editing the tracks and fixing things like the levels on those few pesky bass notes that jump way out in the mix, and then I can use the faders on the console strictly for creative decisions and on-the-fly level tweaks.
So the performance of the desk needs to be good, sure, but I'm not mixing analog strictly because I think 'analog sounds better'. For me, it allows me to do a better job, and THAT sounds better.
mumbles Messages: 284 Registered: November 2004 Location: Upstate NY
Active Member
Hi there,
We are in the middle of CONSTRUCTING our own desk because we hate mixing on a DAW so much. I mixed in the CPU, using Digital Performer, for years. I mixed on a shitty little Mackie once and it was all over. Sure, it sounded like a Mackie (grainy, cartoonish), but I could see (hear) the potential.
We plan on using an HD recorder for tracking and mixing down to 2 on our Frankenstien board within a month or so, and I know that I'll never look back.
Automation is nice, but you have to choose your battles.
Members
Search
FAQ
Register
Login
Home
,
