1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

An album fully mixed with Logic? (or Protools)

Discussion in 'Logic' started by zepdave, Jan 19, 2001.

  1. zepdave

    zepdave Guest

    I'd like to know if exist an album fully mixed in Logic Audio. It seems that all "pro" recordings are produced in Logic or ProTools; and at the time of the mix, it goes analog (through a Neve, Trident or SSL).

    I have no doubt that this consoles sound better for mix, but maybe is mitology or to amortize the price that cost this gear...

    Correct me if i'm wrong:

    For example, I've heard about Santana┬┤s Supernatural album. First the band recorded in a 2 inchs 16 tracks analog, then edited
    totally in Logic Audio, after this the players overdub again all the tracks but in a Studer 2" 24 tracks analog machine. The mixdown was done on a 40 channels Neve console.

    Other example is Madonna's Music, done enterily in Logic (with many Logic native plugins in... u can hear in the album the Overdrive, Distortion, Spectral Gate & Bit Crusher plugins very clean) but the mixdown
    on a SSL console.

    Two albums seem to mixdown in software like Protools (the last REM album and the last one of Ricky Martin). But many guys around doubt about this and vote for a presence of an primo-console like Neve or SSL at the mixing stage. The Craig David album was mixed on a Soundtrac Topaz console (a very
    cheap gear) over previously premixed on 8 buses using Opcode Studio Vision.

    This is because i ask for it in this topic. It seems that the mixdown stage is not "job" for software like Logic or Protools yet but yes in the analog consoles.

    Any info of albums would be appreciate.

    Cheers... zepdave.
     
  2. Aaron-Carey

    Aaron-Carey Active Member

    I mix usually on the analog console, at least submixes...It sucks to mouse mixes around, and I want real faders...If I had software with real faders, I would do more mixes strictly on the PC I think.
     
  3. supersonic C

    supersonic C Guest

    There IS a reason, it's called preference. The guys mixing the top 40 tunes are mixing them on neves and SSl and euphonix. Those are their "instruments". If you had a song that A&R said "it's a smash", then you want Mike Shipley or Tom or Chris Lord-Alge to mix it, no? Their favorite tools are SSL & Focusrite & API & Pultec, etc.- so that's what it gets mixed through. And they usually transfer it to 3348 before even listening to tracks.It's what they are comfortable, fast, and PAID to create hit mixes. When an eng/mixer becomes SO proficient on Logic or PTools or Nuendo AND is a "name" mixer, then we will see more records mixed off computers. When there is a 48 fader/dynamics/DDL/reverb/EQ controller that is fast & intuitive, this will happen.
     
  4. Aaron-Carey

    Aaron-Carey Active Member

    Bravo!!!
     
  5. Ang1970

    Ang1970 Well-Known Member

    The new "focusrite" MMC pro control looks interesting. It doesn't look like they went as far as the MegaPC I was asking for, but one remains hopeful.

    Anyone want a used procontrol?

    ------------------
    ------------------------------
    Ang1970 is:
    Angelo Quaglia,
    AQ Productions

    http://www.recording.org
    RO, created for musicians by musicians.
     
  6. Greg Malcangi

    Greg Malcangi Member

    Hi Angelo,

    From what I've seen and read of the new "Control 24" it looks an excellent piece of kit for the price and presents very few disadvantages for the majority of potential users over a Pro-Control. However, the Pro-Control still has some important advantages for certain users. It's expandable, a 48 fader pro-control with an edit pack makes a lot of sense for those who have to deal with big mixes and/or surround sound. Other minor differences are apparently poorer quality faders (on the C24), smaller scribble strips and the pre-amps are good, but not the best.

    So don't sell your pro-control just yet!

    Greg
     
  7. lflier

    lflier Guest

    Apart from the physical/aesthetic preferences of engineers toward hardware vs. software during mixing (I prefer real hardware myself), I also wonder about the summing buses in a computer, or even a digital mixer, vs. an analog mixer. It seems to me that the way mixes blend together is really different between the two - somebody tell me if I'm nuts. It seems like you can get tracks to sound fine soloed in a computer or on a digital console, but when you listen to the whole mix it's a lot more difficult to get everything to poke through than it was on analog consoles, even the cheaper ones. I chalk it up to the internal summing algorithms vs. actual wires, but maybe someone else has other comments.

    Of course, it's also true that since it's much easier to have waaayyy too many tracks on an HDR than it ever was in analog, more and more people insist on throwing everything including the kitchen sink into their recordings. So that probably has something to do with it too. :D

    --Lee
     
  8. Aaron-Carey

    Aaron-Carey Active Member

    I cant agree with you more on the issue of summing Lee. To me, we have the same oath as doctors: " first do no harm"

    The lure of computers to me was the ASSUMED " garbage in, garbage out " nature of a computer system, but...
    So far, using a variety of cards/software on both PC and Mac, I have NOT been able to get a digital clone of a track back from a computer. I call the manufacturers and ask " how do I set this so that I get back a one when I put in a one and a zero when I put in a zero. They love to dance around on this question and never have I gotten a straight answer.

    All that being said, I LOVE editing in my computer.

    But no matter what anyone tells me, I DO see a difference between the rendering and summing of files between different programs.
    Mix the same two tracks on cubase, then vegas, then samplitude and you will see what I mean.

    Some sound close to transparent, some sound subjectively better or worse, some even do mush things up a little and sound " analog-ish " I dont mind so much IF something is done to my file, but please manufacturers, TELL me what it IS doing!

    In a discussion on summing with a friend a while ago, we came to some conclusions.
    In a pure digital mix, EVERY single thing; fx, audio, faders, are ALL referenced to one clock ( in a way, lets not get into clocking). When there is a pulse, there IS a pulse, when there is not a pulse there is NOTHING. On an analog summing bus, there is no such distinction, there are most likely sources being recieved all the time, even if its just thermal noise from a resistor :)
     
  9. brad

    brad Guest

    ....
     
  10. lflier

    lflier Guest

    Aaron, I'm glad someone else feels this way. :) I really didn't feel like being told again that I was "hearing things" (as I often have been in the past only to have a zillion other people start saying they suddenly hear the same thing 3 years later...)

    Anyway:

    >>Some sound close to transparent, some sound subjectively better or worse, some even do mush things up a little and sound " analog-ish " I dont mind so much IF something is done to my file, but please manufacturers, TELL me what it IS doing!<<

    LOL... well the thing is, HOW can they describe what it is doing? "Well, our package is MUCH less transparent than Logic!" "Our summing algorithms are 'mushy'!" What kind of vocabulary can be developed that would allow someone to make a judgement of what a particular algorithm will sound like?

    Sure, the manufacturers COULD come up with a way to specify some of the technical details that were used. But then we'd have to suss out how that translated sonically. For example if a piece of hardware has a tube in it we know we can do certain things like overdrive the tube, and we have a pretty good idea what that will do to the sound, especially if we are familiar with tube circuitry and we could look up the other components involved.

    How much digital software companies will reveal about their algorithms, and how we can begin to describe them sonically, is a huge question mark at this point!

    --Lee
     
  11. nrgmusic

    nrgmusic Guest

    Quote:
    Originally posted by Lee
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    How much digital software companies will reveal about their algorithms, and how we can begin to describe them sonically, is a huge question mark at this point!
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Hey Lee,
    So this is where ya been! Do we really care about algorithms and how to describe them sonically? Surely the bottom line is do they work? Can I make a good mix outta them? I for one don't give a rats ass about the technicalities of the individual analog versus digital thing. At the end of it all no person can tell you jack about your product, it's either good or not, it either works for you or not!! Opinions are so damn subjective! I can see good and bad in both worlds yesterday I was very happy to have all the power of Pro Tools today I wished I had a classic Neve. When all's said and done if it fits the product and it fits you then it's cool imho.

    Simon :p
     
  12. lflier

    lflier Guest

    Hey Simon!

    I agree with you and that was kinda the point I was making really - there is no way to qualitatively describe the sound of a digital mix and the bottom line is whether it sounds good and works for you.

    Frankly I am not bowled over by ANY digital mixing medium at this point. They do all sound different, and it would be tough to set up a way to compare them all. But I do think the summing algorithm is a factor that's too often ignored in discussing digital recording. It's easy to get individual tracks to sound great in the digital realm; it's TOUGH to get them to sound great, or even the same, when they are combined. A lot of people who've never worked on analog boards probably don't realize this, and it's an area that I'm sure will improve over time, but not if we never complain about it. :D

    --Lee
     
  13. Aaron-Carey

    Aaron-Carey Active Member

    I didnt mean so much to ask for an exact algorythym, what I want to know, is HOW do I set the software to make a digital clone?
    In what manners of operating ( levels, settings, etc. ) do I NOT affect the sound?

    In other words I suppose that a LOT of this software would sound just fine, if the MINIMUM of futzing could be done to the auidio, but this is not what happens.

    While mixing, most audio is held at levels where a gain change IS occuring even if there isnt a need for one. Changing gain is one of the MAJOR causes of sonic degradation in the digital world.

    Not to make it sound like I may as well not put audio on the PC, I mean, yeah if you did nothing at all, then whats the point? But I mean, if a track doesnt need to be touched, I would rather it not be messed up, just to make up for the tracks that do need editing!
     
  14. alphajerk

    alphajerk Active Member

    i think its just because there are just so many nice analog toys out there that just arent available on the "box" yet. if i was mixing a high budget project, i would most certainly use both the DAW and outputs to an analog board. use automation in the DAW doing what an analog board CANT do and use the analog board with all the analog toys and sum it all together there and get the best of both worlds. i most likely couldnt print to 2" jsut to mix off of but might possibly mixdown to a nice analog deck if thats the sound i am going for.

    if DSP gets faster and better and people like bombfactory replace all the analog toys virtually, i would stay all digital assuming i have a really nice controller.

    btw: i wouldnt use the control24 after seeing one, i would shell out the extra for a procontrol in a heartbeat, you are just too confined with the control24.
     
  15. Papasean

    Papasean Active Member

    Using anolog and DAW I think gives the best of both worlds. :)
     
  16. Tony C

    Tony C Guest

    Aaron,
    I am with you all the way, your posts are right on the money!!!!!!!!
    And it would be nice to know more about what you shell out for, seperating the promotional BS from the real deal.... in tech terms, or whatever, right? ;)
     
  17. Rick Powell

    Rick Powell Guest

    Question for Brad Blackwood:

    Why was 3DD mixed in PT with all the available analog stuff you have at Ardent? Was it an economic decision, producer's call, or both? And was it tracked in PT or transfered from another format?

    TIA,

    Rick Powell/Studio71

    P.S. I'd love to record in Memphis. My dad was born there and I've been thru town zillions of times. ;)
     
  18. brad

    brad Guest

    ....
     
  19. Mixer-man

    Mixer-man Guest

    Originally posted by supersonic C:
    There IS a reason, it's called preference. The guys mixing the top 40 tunes are mixing them on neves and SSl and euphonix. Those are their "instruments". If you had a song that A&R said "it's a smash", then you want Mike Shipley or Tom or Chris Lord-Alge to mix it, no? Their favorite tools are SSL & Focusrite & API & Pultec, etc.- so that's what it gets mixed through. And they usually transfer it to 3348 before even listening to tracks.It's what they are comfortable, fast, and PAID to create hit mixes. When an eng/mixer becomes SO proficient on Logic or PTools or Nuendo AND is a "name" mixer, then we will see more records mixed off computers. When there is a 48 fader/dynamics/DDL/reverb/EQ controller that is fast & intuitive, this will happen.

    The reason that a mixers preference is to use a console, over mixing through the computer, is because the summing of the computer is of drasticaly poor quality. If you A/B the stereo output of drums from the computer, against the drums at unity level plugged into the console of your choice, the difference is staggering.

    Not to mention the reduction in sonic quality that occurs when you start doing rides in the computer.

    You'll see hit records mixed completely through a computer, but they won't be particularly great sounding records. Of course, it seems quite obvious to me, that 'great sounding' isn't currently a requirement for a hit.

    BTW, some mix engineers transfer to 48 dig because they don't want to have to wait for 2 machines to lock up, and because they charge a rental for the machine, a big rental. Often times that decision is about time and money.

    Mixerman
     
  20. Dedric

    Dedric Guest

    In many cases that is true, but there are some options that are comparable, in the right hands - Paris being one. Then again, there is extra hardware doing the mixing (not the CPU), so the issues with host-based mixing aren't the same. I know putting a $5k+ DAW up against 6-figure consoles is a bold statement, but there are #1-charting and Grammy-winning songs out now that were recorded and mixed entirely with Paris, and the list is growing. It obviously depends on the talents of the mixing engineer, which is true for any mixing environment. As far as mixing entirely in Logic or Cubase (for example), I agree with you completely - the sound isn't there - the mixing bus of most native apps is poor, but with the proper constraints, useable for some things - just not final mixes. I've mixed on all three - Paris is in another league. Point is, DAWs are closing the gap, but the engineer's preferences are still the final deciding factor - whatever it takes to get the job done efficiently, with the best quality level possible will always be the rule.
     

Share This Page