One of my favorite Lexi's. And like a fool I sold it for peanuts when I went digital.

I still have a Prime Time. I sold the wrong one. LOL.

Paul999, post: 400520, member: 42110 wrote: The short answer is no IMO. Great radio hits are being performed ITB all this time.

Actually, that doesn't answer the questioned asked. It's irrelevant if hits are being made ITB, the question is n a nutshell, if digital audio is inferior to analog. Personally, it's all in the recording. If you are able to capture the original source correctly and with high-end gear, there is no reason that mixing ITB or OTB would be better or worse..if it's in the hands of a competent engineer. Digital starts to degrade the audio when there are countless conversions being done. Even if the source comes from analog tape, if it undergoes conversions to a DAW to edit, and it goes through sub-par converters, you will end up with a sound inferior to the original.

I personally mix ITB, but I prefer a hybrid system nowadays.

As for an analog console being better than a DAW, that too is all relative to the quality of the board in question. A Mackie analog board may not sound better than any DAW, but an SSL or a Neve may very well have better resolution in their faders. Will you lose anything sonically??? I don't think so, but what you will lose is the analog non-liniarities that an analog desk imparts. There are plugins like the VCC from Slate that give you those non-liniarities and distortion that get you close. Moving a DAW fader, or an analog fader...again, depends on the console you are comparing it to.

I think that today's DAWs do a fairly good job at crunching the numbers, after all, that's what a computer is built for after all, so I wouldn't worry too much about losing quality through the faders as much as getting the source material to sound it's best before hand.

Gain stage your plugins as you would your analog gear, and they will perform pretty close..I won't say 100%, but a good 90-95%...yes.

audiosphinx, post: 415265, member: 48125 wrote: Actually, that doesn't answer the questioned asked. It's irrelevant if hits are being made ITB, the question is n a nutshell, if digital audio is inferior to analog. Personally, it's all in the recording. If you are able to capture the original source correctly and with high-end gear, there is no reason that mixing ITB or OTB would be better or worse..if it's in the hands of a competent engineer. Digital starts to degrade the audio when there are countless conversions being done. Even if the source comes from analog tape, if it undergoes conversions to a DAW to edit, and it goes through sub-par converters, you will end up with a sound inferior to the original.

I personally mix ITB, but I prefer a hybrid system nowadays.

As for an analog console being better than a DAW, that too is all relative to the quality of the board in question. A Mackie analog board may not sound better than any DAW, but an SSL or a Neve may very well have better resolution in their faders. Will you lose anything sonically??? I don't think so, but what you will lose is the analog non-liniarities that an analog desk imparts. There are plugins like the VCC from Slate that give you those non-liniarities and distortion that get you close. Moving a DAW fader, or an analog fader...again, depends on the console you are comparing it to.

I think that today's DAWs do a fairly good job at crunching the numbers, after all, that's what a computer is built for after all, so I wouldn't worry too much about losing quality through the faders as much as getting the source material to sound it's best before hand.

Gain stage your plugins as you would your analog gear, and they will perform pretty close..I won't say 100%, but a good 90-95%...yes.

If you believe that Tchad Blake's or other well known engineers mixes are irrelevant your arrogance can only be matched by your ignorance.

Hi Jake, good to have you here.
I'm with you pretty much 100% except I'm certain plug-ins, even loaded on a track can have an effect that isn't intended. Conflicts and code errors happen all the time and are often never recognized. I've heard bleed on tracks I mix for people that wasn't intended to be there. In fact, I heard reverb leaking in on a Pro Tools channel that ( according to the engineer) was only activated as a test early on in a session, then turned off. It continued to remain bleeding of the left side of the track. A reputable Mastering Engineer doing a converter shootout missed it to. I discovered this through very critical nulling, brought it to their attention and after a long thought, the engineer said, that was actually disabled but apparently still bleeding.
I've also heard plug-ins take sparkle out of cymbals , space away from the OH, just by activation. I've heard HPF create distortion at sub freq just by being active.
Compound these kind of issues I think we know how this can effect a mix.

Is one better than the other?

We have done tests and know, even a cheep Mackie can improve the capture over summing ITB through a certain capture process. But, its so subjective to all our methods.
My personal belief , individually, neither is better than the other . hybrid simply makes more sense because you have more options and can take advantage of the best of both worlds; where they do best.
Digital is excellent for capture, clinical, and editing. Analog is wonderful for opening up a mix and adding distortion. Change is good. Having a variation in these texture can make a mix more interesting.

I think you are relying to much on what you heard. I use Pro Tools, not that it should matter, but I have mixed and worked on many albums, with plenty of high profile clients...I never heard of plugins causing such things to the audio. If this happens, I would bet that it's not the plugin, but some routing issue within the DAW.

It used to be years ago, that digital summing was inferior to analog. And I am a big fan of summing in analog, but unless you have the chance to sum on a Neve, I'd take my PT rig any day over the Mackie. What I think you like about analog, is what I like too...the distortion and irregularities that analog circuits impart. Digital is too sterile for me...I use many plugin emulations to re-create this as close as possible.

As for plugins having an effect on a track that's not intended, I think it strongly depends on what plugins you are using. Some are just coded poorly, and perhaps you may be hearing a thinness in the sound or artifact that isn't there originally. However, analog gear, is also different from piece to piece and adds it's own "color" to the sounds too.

I prefer hybrid because I like some analog gear OTB, that I can't get ITB because it's not available yet. And I do prefer analog summing when possible...won't lie, but the end result nowadays is digital anyway, so why not keep it digital...less conversion the better.

@ Paul999, you are missing the point. Who cares if the mix is ITB or OTB, the question is about digital degrading the sound over using analog. Don't care about other mixers really, I mix quite well myself...Who cares what Tchad uses...Furthermore, I never said THEIR mixes are irrelevant...what I said was, again...that it's irrelevant if HITS are made ITB or OTB...makes no difference, they can be made in a garage or bathroom...

<---- this is what digital audio makes me feel like! we all hear differently we all like different things. some people will eat their own boogers ... and some people like how digital sounds.

my observation is most people who like digital never worked with large format analog much. i mean 1 and 2 inch tape for 8 to 24 tracks. i'm talking 15 or 30 ips. i mean a big console that heats the room up in winter. (never need heat in the C/R). even adats sound decent when mixed with a quality LF console.

i don't think i would like boogers.

with the caveat of; up till now, i have not heard digital summing that sounds better than analog. i proved to myself that a cheapo SR24 Mackie sounds better to my ears for summing than itb with Cubase but that was several years ago.

as we know DAWs have a finite life span. now if we were talking my old MCI JH 24 it would still be relevant but Cubase 5.1 on an Antholon dual 1800 with XP Pro is obsolete and Cuebase 5.1 probably won't even run on a newer machine / OS..

i just bought Harrison Mixbus and i can hardly wait to get some new monitors for my downsized rig to do a new comparison with a more modern DAW. perhaps with Mixbus i will change my mind regarding itb mix's but there are still some issued for me ....

aside from all the techno muck, phase, plug in degradation blah blah, when you purchase plugs they are only compatible with particular software for a defined period of time. at some point these software programs become obsolete due to the failure of the OS systems manufactures to provide support, bit and sample rate advances among other issues.. if you buy hardware and treat the DAW as a glorified tape recorder no matter if you are forced to upgrade you still have the hardware. you won't be forced to go and upgrade your plug in collection. you will still have the same work flow for the large part, instead of having to go through yet another cycle of plug upgrades and learning curves.

one of the things i hate about digital and computers is the constant upgrade cycles .... it just drives me up the walls. if something works, don't fix it!

I agree digital doesn't sound as good as analog. I also agree that analog summing is better to some degree, and I do come from the world of tape. However, there really are plugins that allow us to come close, when used properly, to creating a more analog vibe and sound in digital mixes. I think a lot of the issue that most people are having with digital, and again, I need to say that I am a fan of analog, more so than digital...however, my thoughts are if people would mix digitally, with the same respect for gain staging and levels that they do for analog, then digital isn't all that bad.

I would also like to add that the Harrison Mixbus is AWESOME, and sums really nice...better than PT for sure. If you use it as a pure tape and console workflow...meaning no editing, it's pretty simple and straight forward, and the sound is truly amazing with just the board's EQs and comps. however, it's not user friendly when it comes to editing..it's just not there, so most pros, shy away from it due to the cumbersome and time consuming workflow. I guess if I took the time, or rather, HAD the time to spend learning it as well as I know Pro Tools, then maybe I can retract my statement...but who's got that time?...lol

I love the sound of Mixbus, but agree that when it comes to editing, it falls short of other DAWS like PT and Sonar. I can get around those with my eyes nearly closed (still working on Samplitude which I also dig the sound of but am still dealing with the learning curve of a new user when it comes to editing). Lately, on several projects, I've been doing all of my editing within Sonar or PT, and then importing the edited tracks into Harrison for the mix.

I love the EQ and GR of Mixbus. The jury is still out for me on the Saturation function. I'm not really a fan of saturators /tape simulators - having come up in the age of tape myself, to my ears, I haven't really heard one yet that truly emulates "that" sound, at east not to my ears anyway, although I will say that these types of processors can be used to get a certain coloration texture that can work and sound good, dependent on what I'm using it for... I just don't think it sounds like tape. Overall, and for whatever reason - perhaps it all comes down to the the coding - Mixbus simply sounds better to me for about 80% of the projects I do.

well i'm going to bite the bullet and figure out the editing for what little editing i do. not into midi so that's not an issue and i rarely do a lot of editing. if it's that bad i just re-record it until i'm happy. looking forward to exploring this software.

I think you'll dig it, Kurt. It's as close (virtually ) to any real analog desk layout and sound as you are likely to find in digital land. It's also not very expensive.

Now, some plugs may not be recognized, but with you, that's not really going to be a deal breaker, anyway - considering your overall thoughts on them and the amount of vst processing that you would use - if any.

I personally love the sound of the summing it provides. Of course, it's not the same as what Chris has, or what you will recall hearing back in the days when you were cooking on consoles, but it's better than PT and Sonar by a mile. ;)

IMHO of course.

d/

That's exactly what I love about the Mixbus...it's like working on a true virtual console. in other words, PT, Logic, Cubase and others don't exist in real life..they are made up fabrications...while they work and some have great work flow, Harrison, modeled Mixbus after an actual board, plus they are the first true console manufacturer to create a virtual model. I am sure that SSL may have something up their sleeve for a virtual SSL DAW too. I did read that Mixbus can route audio from Pro Tools or Logic so that it can just act as a mixer and all editing can be done through your preferred DAW. I haven't tried this myself yet, but as soon as I have the time...I will try it.

It's all clear to me now. I cleaned my glasses

audiosphinx, post: 415289, member: 48125 wrote: That's exactly what I love about the Mixbus...it's like working on a true virtual console. in other words, PT, Logic, Cubase and others don't exist in real life..they are made up fabrications...while they work and some have great work flow, Harrison, modeled Mixbus after an actual board, plus they are the first true console manufacturer to create a virtual model. I am sure that SSL may have something up their sleeve for a virtual SSL DAW too. I did read that Mixbus can route audio from Pro Tools or Logic so that it can just act as a mixer and all editing can be done through your preferred DAW. I haven't tried this myself yet, but as soon as I have the time...I will try it.

I have a suspicion about the origins of MixBus. I could be way off-base here, but I've recently wondered if this platform wasn't perhaps originally designed to be used as an alternative automation function for an actual Harrison Console? ...

Or, at the very least, as a DAW program to be used with a Harrison desk, much like Presonus developed Studio One as the DAW to be used with their Studio/Live Console.

Again..I could be completely wrong. But doesn't it make a little bit of sense that this could be the case?

I actually think it sprang forth from their digital film mixing consoles? They're all known to be quite good. They are nothing like their analog boards. Which of course was used for Thriller. They had one of those when I worked at Media Sound, NYC. The automation was confusing and intimidating. But that was the analog days.

I've had something of an interest in Harrison equipment. I've also been wondering about that Mix Bus? I've been rather intrigued by it. No budget, for it. Interest, in it. We'll see what happens in Austin?

I wanna rock with you... All night.
Mx. Remy Ann David

MixBus is currently $149, or you can opt for the subscription option instead, which is $49 up front, then $9 pr month after.

I was lucky... I picked it up during a promotional sale... and bought it for $39. ;)

http://harrisonconsoles.com/site/store-mixbus.html

RemyRAD, post: 415329, member: 26269 wrote: I've also been wondering about that Mix Bus? I've been rather intrigued by it. No budget, for it. Interest, in it. We'll see what happens in Austin?

Mx. Remy Ann David

Being familiar with your love of analog, personally, I think you'd probably dig this program a lot.

As long as you realize that (and I tell everyone the following, whether it would apply to your situation or not):

1. the editing functions are very basic, yet not at all easy to use, and nowhere near as powerful (and easy) as that of PT, Sonar, Cubase, etc,
2. there is absolutely no midi support or implementation at all, unless you are using the Linux version.
3. it's very likely - actually, more than likely - that all the plugs you currently have might not be recognized. It's also possible, depending on which vst's you do have, that it won't recognize any.

Harrison has a selection of their own plugs, which are exclusively coded and proprietary for their program. The downside is that they are extra $. The upside is that the processing they offer will sound much better, and leave far less artifacts, than a third party plug would, because they are coded specifically for MixBus.

It's a great sounding program.

But then again, if you were cooking on an actual Harrison Console, you wouldn't have those particular functions available either, right?

So, approach it that way....It's like you are mixing on a Harrison desk, only in virtual GUI form. ;)

FWIW

-d.

Thanks for that Donny. I really hadn't officially taken an honestly good look at the Mix Bus. I just know Harrison's are great. And since I really haven't described too many third-party plug-ins. I'm sure their own may actually be better than adequate but as you indicated, for extra dollars. So we'll see what happens to be in Austin? Which will really be a determining factor in the not-too-distant future.

So far things are looking up for Austin. First booking, August 8. For a club owner's, own band. Who also has another club in Houston. And apparently he's quite excited by this. Which is great because I needed something a little uplifting for a change. This is getting exciting. This is going to work. This is going to go beyond whatever I thought possible. I can feel it. And if I can feel it? Then it's going to happen. Guaranteed. Because I will make it happen. That's how it's done. That's what I do. That's all I do.

Wish me luck.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Go remy! Go remy! Go! Kick some butt out there!

Hey [[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]kmetal[/]="http://recording.or…"]kmetal[/] and other fellow colleagues! Thanks for the super positive vibes and your support. This whole thing seems to be falling into place nicely? I can hardly believe it? I need this. The last couple of years have been plain, awful. So I'm pumped up. Full speed ahead or at least 30 IPS.

I'm just afraid to eat the seafood from the Gulf of Mexico since the BP oil spill. Dag nab it!

You're rolling and this is take three.
Remy

I like the Canadians, actually spent my birthday last month, enjoying the healing waters of Harrison Hot springs.

Also spent a few years as a member of the NORAD Band, US Army, Air Force, Navy and Canadian Forces.

I like a combination of analog, and digital.

The UAD combination of plugins and software controlled hardware is changing my mind about the need for more analog gear.

Well how cool is that. I love those Hot Springs. There are a few awesome ones in the Kootneys . When I was a traveling musician, I've had a chance to see most of these.. ( http://www.bchotsprings.com/ )
But, hearing this and your response about hybrid, I'm even happier. Cheer's!

PS,

what's inspired you to think about analog again?

audiokid, post: 415853, member: 1 wrote: Well how cool is that. I love those Hot Springs. There are a few awesome ones in the Kootneys . When I was a traveling musician, I've had a chance to see most of these.. ( http://www.bchotsprings.com/ )
But, hearing this and your response about hybrid, I'm even happier. Cheer's!

PS,

what's inspired you to think about analog again?

I'm old, it's what I know, always used tube guitar amps.