Sat thru All 38 + mins, Great video

Interesting video. I had to chuckle at the guy who had one in his parents' spare bedroom. Definition of overkill?

I talked to a guy who owned the Metropolis Focusrite for some time. He mentioned that it didn´t bring him more clients in. So he replaced it with a smaller, new ADT-Audio 5MT desk. He mentioned that the ADT sounded just as good - if not better - as the Focusrite.

I wouldn't doubt it... huge strides have been made in console manufacturing since that desk was originally made.

That being said, having George Martin come out and say that he loved the console probably didn't hurt sales any.

Although, as technology grows, and time goes by, I'm not sure that consoles in general will be around in the same population as they once were. I'd wager that there's already been a decline in their use. More and more studios are headed towards control surfaces, with handfuls of pres and strips from their favorite desks complimenting their DAW workflow(s).

Absolutely! A lot of the younger guys have never used a console and don´t know how beneficial it can be for the workflow. Hence they will never want to own one. I find it irritating, though, how much money people spend on buying micpres, EQs, summing boxes, monitor controllers if the could have all that in a desk for even less money and with more functionality.

Jensenmann, post: 423446, member: 18198 wrote: I find it irritating, though, how much money people spend on buying micpres, EQs, summing boxes, monitor controllers if the could have all that in a desk for even less money and with more functionality.

LOL... Oh boy... look out... heated debate ahead....;) waiting for Chris in 3...2....1....

Jensenmann, post: 423446, member: 18198 wrote: Absolutely! A lot of the younger guys have never used a console and don´t know how beneficial it can be for the workflow. Hence they will never want to own one. I find it irritating, though, how much money people spend on buying micpres, EQs, summing boxes, monitor controllers if the could have all that in a desk for even less money and with more functionality.

Having problems keeping 30$/hours customers does not allow new studios to spend 100K on a mixer. Don't forget that those owning pro mixers still have outboard preamps and EQs and ... the good old days of studios Worth millions is fading, any shmock in his basement can record with 1k investment. Will it sound good NO, but will he give up one day and turn back to a pro studio? Again NO !

I recently bought 2 LA610, do you know how much is Worth a mixer based on 610s ??
I also have 4 ISA preamps, to I get 2 great sound flavor Under 5k, How about that !! ;)

PS I've used big board in the past.. unless I win the lotterie it'll stay in my past...

The thing is, if you do a lot of tracking, a high end board, is going to be more economical, than the comparable array of outboard boxes. If you also intend to use the board for mixng, then even better, value wise, all other things being equal.

For the person at home recording 2 tracks at a time, a console makes no sense. For a facility that does a lot of tracking, and is a full professional deal, then a console still has a place, becuase it's far more efficient money wise, and workflow wise, (time=money).

That console is really cool, great watch. One thing that immediately comes to mind, with the amount of attention they put into the originals, is companies cheapening their own product. I'm not saying focusrite is guilty, and I liked the isa solo when I heard some tracks done w a 57 at GC one day. The 8ch is going to be in the running for a drumstrip when the time comes. But.

Manufacturers should have to disclose changes in components, if they are going to sell new incarnations of gear based, on the heritage of the original. Like UA always mentions van halen in their 610 boxes of today, but it's not even the same input channel they used, it had some differences. Not saying it's not a good piece of kit, I liked the la-610 when I heard it w vocals and apogee conversion, especially for the price, but it's a bit sly of the companies to use the legacy of LA, and 610, and names like van halen, when really it's not the same. It's "based on", and that's what they should say, and give it its own name. Especially the LA, part from UA in particular, when I compared the two, not really close, and missing quite a few tubes compared the big guy. Maybe I'm way off, and I'm addmittiedly new to thinking like a tech. all I'm saying is if your going to sell a product based on legacy, it should be made in legacy fashion and matched as closely as possible.
Focusrite had such an attention to detail, on the component level it would tough to be economically viable to sell the new incarnations to that standard. Maybe I'm wrong. I'd love to know what a tech who has compared both has to say.

Good points Kyle...
I've often wondered if these newer versions of older classic pieces are using the same components. Some of it may be economical, in that original parts are hard to come by, or are so expensive to make that it would make the device galactically expensive, and too prohibitive for people to buy; or, as in the case of the Yamaha Ns10s, materials for original construction aren't available anymore at all, so substitute components are used instead.
In the case of UA/Urei/, Bill Putnam is long gone, so who is minding his legacy for developing and building great gear with care taken on every piece? I'm not saying UA is bad gear...
Also, we both know that there was a lot more to Van Halen's sound than just one particular limiter or preamp. ;)

Builders use the parts they can buy in great quantity. It's very true that they can't build with the exact parts today because many of the company that made the parts closed their door many years ago. So the tech team needs to search for equivalents or redesign the circuit with new parts with the goal to reproduce the same sound. If they succeed or not depends on how long and how much the spend on research and developpement and how serious they are.

The most important thing for me when I use a piece of gear is that it does sound good regardless of it's origins.

Anyway, in 1975, I was 5 years old. I can't remember how those classic boards sounded because ! ;)
I think that if you and I went back in time and entered the best studio on the planet to mix a song it would still not sound like what they did at the time. I think our brains are wired differently because of all the HD and Digital we are exposed everyday but we are still looking for the right balance between precision and sweetness...

As for buying a big mixer; In Quebec right now, there ain't a lot of big studios still surviving the homestudio trend.
I doubt I'd ever have enough customers and/or money to build one.
Of course, I wouldn't say no if they'd invite me to track a band and mix on one of those focusrite board !!

One of the biggest legend we had in Quebec :

Le Studio at Morin Heights :

And now it looks like this :

DonnyThompson, post: 423448, member: 46114 wrote: LOL... Oh boy... look out... heated debate ahead....;) waiting for Chris in 3...2....1....

How can I resist, I will not disappoint! :D

kmetal, post: 423496, member: 37533 wrote: becuase it's far more efficient money wise, and workflow wise, (time=money).

If this was 1970 and Rush was on my radar, we had a choice to use a DAW or a console to mix. After a 10 minute demonstration I'm pretty certain it would be a mutual agreement. Console = tracking, after that, not even close in all regards to workflow, sound/ time and money.

generally speaking

The gas guzzling beautiful vintage console :love: was designed the way it was because it needed a multitrack tape machine attached to it.
You had to track to tape, had to return tape back to the console, had to capture the mix back to tape again, and then master to tape. Talk about accumulative distortion and phase smear. No wonder bass was so undefined and there was far less top end. And we aren't even talking overdubs and vinyl.
Vintage Console workflow
source>vintage console>multitrack tape>vintage console>2 track tape>mastering console> tape/vinyl master> commercial press.

If I walked into this same studio I would roll out and attach a complete 2 DAW mixing and summing system to the vintage console that works in a similar way but gets it all done in one pass, one direction. It knocks the doors off anything from the past. Each part to my system is connected to the source, yet uncoupled like analog but never returning backwards to phase smear. I don't have to reset anything either because each process remains dedicated to that process. I can record, mix and master any place in the session at will without loosing a beat and it is all basically automated. My very minimal analog tweaks are pretty easily remembered. If not, I take notes. If its a ridiculous amount of analog tweaking, something is wrong so I will go back into the DAW to rectify the problem there.
Hybrid Vintage Workflow
source>vintage console>DAW 1>summing console>DAW2>Master.

Taking both methods into consideration, how much do you apply old school methods in your current workflow? What do you do to compete with these ideologies and compensate for the one DAW fits everything approach today?
I mean, are we all using way too many plug-ins, overkilling the entire recording process and expecting one DAW to sound like a vintage workflow? Are we using cheap gear in replacement to the old days then going on about how how great the old days were?

What's ironic, I don't know one person loving vintage other than me on this planet who is actually using a similar workflow to vintage. Most into hybrid are doing the round trip. Does it really look like the workflow of vintage?

Its no wonder most people are scratching their heads when I talk about how great my vintage hybrid workflow is, at a fraction of the cost of yesteryear. No wonder old school is complaining or reminiscing about the "good old days" lol.

How does your DAW approach compare to the 70's?

Food for though: How many of us are even attempting a similar hybrid vintage workflow?
The first step is to build this. The next step is to uncouple it all and learn how to monitor every part of the chain, hybrid style. The last step is you.

From this perspective, most DAW based studio's are a broken approach full of backwards thinking.

:D

I mix ITB. But I also track a lot that I mix, and unlike most not afraid to heavily eq or compress on the way in if I feel it.

Now I think in general your points are valid Chris. I submit these questions for conversations sake, not necessarily cuz I've formed a solid opinion yet.

All other things being equal, ie two daw system, all plug-insloaded ect. Take CLA and his dated ssl. Do you think you could mix faster, and or with better results, with an ITB setup as the console? I use the ssl as an example, cuz of the ssl channel, and bus comp, being available, and it's a fairly consistent sounding board from one to another, as opposed to an old neve, or tube based desk.

I say the board would win most times, based on efficiency, which correlates directly to a studios earning potential. So it's not exactly fair, unless, the daw had a dedicated control surface like an s6 or icon, but something that mirrored the console. But then The compromise is space, and also the purchase of a very expensive mixing surface that makes no sound. The advantage to this would be instant recall. So while a good intern can recall a full mix in 15 min (so I've been told...), style and scope of a project would really determine which was better.

The next question would be sonics. I think one thing people forget is that the sonics of consoles, things that made some remarkable, like a low noise floor, aren't important anymore.

So while I think most people agree a consoles place in the current state of the art is, undoubtably maximsized (financially, efficiency wise) in a tracking based setup, I still think it's interesting, although personally I feel impractical, to consider its role as a mixing device.

The hard part of this type of anylsis is assessing the contribution of tracking to the overall studio. Also maintenance and operating costs as well. And since the plug-insdon't run without a computer, it's necessary to my twisted mind, ;), to include the daw and associated cpu costs revolving around those types of updates. Since the cpu, an interfacing is necessary in both cases its a wash.

So what I've been tossing around lately in different facets of my life has been the concept of 'value' and 'perceived value'. It's intersting because value is more of an intellectual concept than a hard number. And this is where it gets tricky.

Quick example, I reclently bought a relatively expensive high end job site saw, that cost about the price of a 414. Now I'm not a full time trade worker, but I do a fair amount, and have a nearly complete basic tool kit, a typical carpenter would have. I got the 2nd best money could by, with the next step being German engineered (naturally) and twice the price. Was this saw 1/5 of the projected profits from the job, yes. Good value, yes. To me, it's a good value, even if a bit overkill. Hers why. It's a better crafted machine, so it's safer, delivers far more consistent results, and and cut more at once. Could I buy a cheaper brand for a couple hundred, and replace it evry 3-8 years, sure, and have less money out upfront at a time (less oeverhead), yes. But that to me is less overall value, becuase, it's a less safe machine, less accurate, and also break probably when the store is closed, or I'm broke. :)

So while my example really kinda just said buy the best you can, it does sort of illustrate my conversational point of perceived value, which cannot always be directly correlated to a dollar amount. The mass market brain washers will confuse good value, with cheap price, which speaks only of numbers directly, not numbers weighted against overall satisfaction, and product longevity.

This works both way as well. There are many many people who would agree, a neve 1073 sounds better than an average interface stock pre. Almost evryone will pick the neve, in a test based purely on sonics. Now when you enter price, the opinions may be swayed a bit, but the answers would likely remain the same about the sonics. This is where it gets intersting. Among the people asked, how many, would value the somics enough, to come up w the money (assuming relative equality), how many would be happy w a simple interface pre, and how many would spend more money on junk, chasing that sound. That's where the question of value comes into play, and is very unique to each person.

Again I dont have a strong opinion formed I'm just kinda exploring thoughts.

If I were interested, and if I had the technical know-how, and if I had the money (and the space), my luxurious preference would be to track through a high end console. I used to really like the SSL G - and having tracked and mixed on it several times, along with Neve, Harrison, Trident, Neotek and MCI desks over the years, my personal favorite would probably be an SSL G, just by by a "scoodge". ;)
- I'm now putting my flame suite on for all the Neve lovers out there....

Relax, I didn't say that I don't like Neves...or any of the other desks I mentioned. They were all beautiful to track thru.
I'm saying that personally, I felt the SSL sounded best - to me - and for what I was working on at that time.

I liked the transparency, I liked how it felt somehow "faster". I don't have any other word to describe it... I just always thought that SSL had a certain response that was, well... faster. LOL.
I also loved the G Series EQ and in-line compressor/gate.

But, these days? As far as mixing on them? I can't see it.

Beyond missing the tactile part of it ( which I could probably satiate with a nice controller surface), I don't think that there's anything I could do on that console that I couldn't do just as easily - and maybe even better - using an SSL pre to track with, and then mixing in the box.

And if I was after "that" particular sound, there have been amazing strides made in console emulation plugs in the last couple years.

For those who like to use high end plug ins (I admit to being one of these types), the emulation of these now-classic channel strips is pretty amazing. I downloaded a trial version of Wave's SSL Collection last week, and I was very impressed by the G Series channel strip/EQ plug. I did some quick EQ settings on it - based on some "common" settings that I used to use on my own vocals, in the past when working on a real SSL - and it was spooky as to how close it sounded, and, how accurate the overall response was. The only thing that was missing was the sound of the SSL preamp... which is most certainly an important part, but there are other options these days to achieve that as well - options other than dropping anywhere between 40 - 80 grand, and parking a 10' -12' behemoth desk in my living room .

The first would be to get something like an SSL Alpha - a single channel pre/EQ based on the G Series strip. The other option - or addition - would be to get a library of well-designed, well-coded, great sounding plugs that emulate "those" sounds. I could do both of these things for under 2 Grand.

Either way, I have a lot more space, a lot less cabling, and no need to go back to school for an electronics degree that would give me the knowledge necessary to fix the desk when it breaks down...
And, it's not a question of "if" it breaks down - it's a 95% certainty of "when". ;)

IMHO of course.

The trouble I suspect, is that our expectations have changed. I've spent a while now sourcing on CD or download all my old LPs from the 70s and early 80s, when I was a teenager. I've noticed two things when I also find my own recordings from that era. Mine all suck! Big time. Technically, they are streets away from the commercial recordings of that time. The digital downloads and CDs I've managed to get are clean, virtually hiss free and to all intents and purposes, match todays quality quite well. If you listen to something you know on Spotify, you often hear a 2014 recording next to one done in 1980, and you don't suddenly jump. They are very similar. The contemporary version is often more sparkling at the top, and perhaps has bass that isn't quite so buried in the mix, but technically they are close. Looking back to an old live Jazz recording we did - 1981, I think, it lacks definition, has excessive hiss (4 track Teac), and sounds quite compressed, odd, as we didn't actually have any compressors then - so it's two lots of tape compression, plus whatever the eventual transfer to DAT added when we bought one of those. I found another band recording from the same time and it's very similar.

My point being that these old excellent consoles sounded so much better than the 'average' at the time, that this made them special. The noise floor comment, for example - we put up with every single item of kit hissing away, and if your monitors hissed, then you didn't mix anywhere near the bottom end when you'd hear it!

Now we all have access to such high sound quality - by comparison - that we are trying to find extremely subtle differences between X and Y. Back then, you could buy a new product and the difference was immense. Now, I can't hear any difference in any of my kit that can have a mic plugged in. I'm not interested in listening really, really hard, and then trying to find vocabulary that explains it.

Those old super consoles were wonderful, but only if you had an on site service engineer to keep them going.

kmetal, post: 423544, member: 37533 wrote: I submit these questions for conversations sake, not necessarily cuz I've formed a solid opinion yet.

indeed. same back at you. its all fun. :)

kmetal, post: 423544, member: 37533 wrote: All other things being equal, ie two daw system, all plug-insloaded ect. Take CLA and his dated SSL. Do you think you could mix faster, and or with better results, with an ITB setup as the console?

If I used my rig, which consists of 2 DAW's and my monitoring system , without a doubt.

I'm not comparing CLA to me. This is in response to mixing and summing.
If it was possible: I'd prefer including a vintage console in any demonstration where front end comparisons could be made.
I'd personally request a rack of boutique Pre's and Pulse Techniques Pultec's just in case ;)
No SSL EQ is going to be better than Pultec's combined with ITB processing.

(But, a mix is what it is... so on that note... You mix what they give you.)

Once I was familiar with the room, my system would sound noticeably better and be able to take every style of music to outstanding levels in comparison to a large format console. There is no doubt in my mind.

I'm not one to be in a rush nor do I look for speed related opportunities (We learn more when we have time for mistakes) but, if speed is the goal, to spit something out as fast as we can... . there really is no tactile speed issue with me and a mouse either. I know what I'm doing and my system is so proficient, its broken up into sections for very good reasons. A console could never compete because it can't remotely do what two instances of Samplitude Pro X 2 does. :)

Lets also assume the mixes CLA gets are recorded well. Anyone that knows better, knows good recordings mix themselves. Its not rocket science on that.
Therefore on that note alone, the 2 DAW workflow would not only have improved dynamics and more size, it would be mastered and processed faster.

If detail editing and creative flow was needed, the SSL is not even a contender. Its now wasting space for the good stuff. :)

audiokid, post: 423557, member: 1 wrote: Anyone that knows better, knows good recordings mix themselves. Its not rocket science on that.

Gonna have to respectfully but firmly disagree with you on that one.

DonnyThompson, post: 423562, member: 46114 wrote: Gonna have to respectfully but firmly disagree with you on that one.

Lets put it another way, :D

Q:
Without talent and a recordist able to capture like a pro, we have nothing good to work with, and plenty to fix. How is slated for that? A guy on a SSL or a guy that knows his shit on a DAW?

On that note: I doubt poor recordings are heading over to CLA without some repair before hand. What do you think?
Do you think CLA would have an easy time mixing problematic work on an SSL? If you say yes, I would be speechless.

So, I say... Great recordings mix themselves. Especially back in the day when people could play an instrument.

It would be interesting to know how much of the console a lot of these old school guys are actually using together with Pro Tools. I'm thinking the SSL is basically a summing box with too many wires and a monitor system on the wrong spot lol.

I know a guy that straps on a few 1A3's on the master bus of an SSL so it doesn't sound like an SSL. http://www.pulsetechniques.com/videos

Good recordings that are well produced talk to you. If you have ears (a good listener), good songs mix themselves because they are basically wonderful works of art that shouldn't require a heavy hand. :love:
Good recordings shouldn't take a DAW to fix yes/no?
Good recordings shouldn't have ridiculous problems...
Good recordings are much easier to mix in comparison to home grown low fi work with all sorts of sonic inconsistencies; which, I might add... is where Sequoia, Pro Tools and other quality DAW's rivals any console.

Poor recordings on the other hand, require the heavy hand all consoles fall short. Consoles work their best when the music is full of talent and we are basically mixing the cream that was given to us. That's the truth.

So, I doubt CLA is going to be blazing along, on an SSL if the mix is in trouble. An SSL or any console for that matter works best when there is a lot of talent in the mix already and it was tracked by someone who is worthy to CLA's demands.

fwiw, my comment (good mixes mix themselves) = " the mix talks to you" This was something I actually heard CLA say himself . Its a figure of speech I've heard more than once and is something I totally get the meaning of. I'm surprised you didn't get the deeper meaning of it, Donny?
 

DonnyThompson, post: 423549, member: 46114 wrote: I also loved the G Series EQ and in-line compressor/gate.

Watch them all but Allen's interview nails it. I could go on but I have a feeling, I'm boiling it on this one. http://www.pulsetechniques.com/videos

SSL comps can be duplicated, "better" in Samplitude. SSL has of sound of what I would call, smaller and boring. Samplitudes comps are more transparent, open sounding and you can use them in side-chain apps no Outboard will rival. They can be made to go slow or deadly fast. Samplitude comps are nothing short of deadly! There is no comparison imho.

just poking back. ;)

Chris;

http://www.tapeop.c… check this out

Nice one Kurt!

I'm not going to spend $50,000 to 75,000 for a headphone mixer!

Indeed, and not even a good one at that.

She comes out with a glass of champagne and she says, "Thank you all for coming out tonight and supporting my record. This has been such a long time coming. And I want to tell you one thing here, THAT man..." pointing at me and she tiptoes over in her high heels and hugs me and says, "This man mixed my record. When I said I wanted to make it purple, he made it purple..." and she gave this whole speech in front of all of these people. "I can't thank him enough." The A&R guy next to me says, "Well, that was pretty fucking cool." So that was gratifying.

Got to love that eh. :)

audiokid, post: 423564, member: 1 wrote: Okay, you are either baiting me, way too serious, confusing " good recording" or you have been around automation wayyyy too long?

Wow... wasn't expecting a response as aggressive as that. All I did was respectfully disagree with you regarding the phrase that a "good recording mixes itself"

The truth is, I wasn't responding with any of the above in mind... not "baiting", not being all that serious about it... I just think it takes a lot more than throwing up some faders on well-recorded tracks to mix a song.
It takes great gear, knowing it inside and out, along with a finely tuned sense of hearing, not only for the technical things, but artistically as well.

Certainly, it's a joy to work with tracks that have been done well, with care, quality. But there's a lot more to it than just that.. at least in my own opinion.

audiokid, post: 423564, member: 1 wrote: Samplitude comps are nothing short of deadly! There is no comparison imho.

I know. I'm not disagreeing with you... I wasn't making the SSL comparison in terms of mixing. I'm talking about tracking. I'm not arguing with you regarding mixing. I'm a proponent for using DAW's to mix... you already know that.

I'm just gonna shut up now.

I dont see how, if all other things were equal, how a consoles laid out controls could not be faster, or more immediate, from brain impulse to adjustment. You have ecellent points pertaining to monitoring, but I find digital,mixers annoying with the select a channel, then adjust a fat channel. Also without mupltiple controllers or an extensive control surface, you can't adjust two pluggin parameters at the same time. Which I do all the time on 100$ Mackies.

I'm not ppurposing the ssl is better, but I can say with full confidence that the immediacy of a console can't be beat yet, and even if matched, doesn't make financial sense for anyone but the elite . Anyone see the difference in monetary value in the icons, or should I say bubye-cons, over the last 5 years. At least a console with hardware that audio actually passes thru can be broken down and sold.

I think this is why I am a big fan of channel strip plugins, and just like stock basic stuff that's by default on the channels. Like the old n-track and audition.

Fwiw, if I had the money, right now, the neve genesys, seems like tha ONE. The king of what a modern full sized console should be, for medium to large facilities, that track live bands. IMHO that's the futre of designs where gonna see in the next 15 years.

If it where I, with a more real world budegt and my places. I get 16ch or color for tracking, a few more OB pres channel strips couple pultecs 1176, a monitoring/summing box, and naturally the capture daw. Really wanna try the burl converters. I like there thought process, color in, pristine out. Or is that my idea? I dunno.

I think touch screen is gonna solve of a lot of the clumsiness of the current daws, and bring immediacy to the process unthinkable, on a traditional console.

DonnyThompson, post: 423579, member: 46114 wrote: Wow... wasn't expecting a response as aggressive as that. All I did was respectfully disagree with you regarding the phrase that a "good recording mixes itself"

DonnyThompson, post: 423579, member: 46114 wrote: I know. I'm not disagreeing with you... I wasn't making the SSL comparison in terms of mixing. I'm talking about tracking. I'm not arguing with you regarding mixing. I'm a proponent for using DAW's to mix... you already know that.

I'm far from aggressive, I'm having fun with you. Please don't take things so personal. Its a forum and a discussion on old verses new technologies for crying out loud. Cheer up. You are loved more than you know :love: :D

kmetal, post: 423581, member: 37533 wrote: If it where I, with a more real world budegt and my places. I get 16ch or color for tracking, a few more OB pres channel strips couple pultecs 1176, a monitoring/summing box, and naturally the capture daw.

That sounds like a really smart plan.

kmetal, post: 423581, member: 37533 wrote: Really wanna try the [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.burlaudi…"]BURL[/]="http://www.burlaudi…"]BURL[/] converters. I like there thought process, color in, pristine out. Or is that my idea? I dunno.

I think converters are going to be evolving to where they offer a wider pallet of character. Kind of like how the Apollo 16 is going. A converter that offers emulators.

kmetal, post: 423581, member: 37533 wrote: I think touch screen is gonna solve of a lot of the clumsiness of the current daws, and bring immediacy to the process unthinkable, on a traditional console.

Agree as well. Hopefully more responsive, no lagging.
I'm watching MIDI 2. I think this might be where screens might interface, or maybe MADI.

Personally, I don't mind a mouse. I have enough around me that I touch already. Big screens and two DAW's, its pretty proficient.

I'm wondering how far off we really are from software that is pseudo-AI based; like a program that will allow the user to load tracks - like loading up all your raw tracks into specific track "templates" - putting the kick onto a certain track that is programmed for it, same with snare, guitars, keys, vocals - and then, selecting from a menu of choices as to "sonic character" - sounding like it was mixed/tracked through a Neve, SSL or Trident; or maybe, even certain "styles"; "mix this to sound like something CLA (or Phil Ramone or Bob Clearmountain) would do...", or, even more specific - "mix this to sound similar to Last Dance With MaryJane, or Sister Golden Hair, or California Girls...

Probably a kooky notion, with the general consensus being "it'll never happen"....but then again, it wasn't all that long ago that I said the same thing about computerized recording becoming the standard. ;)

I think we aren't too far off from server side tracking and mixing. Meaning, we subscribe to a tracking format, load the app and away we go. It may start out where we save the audio on our HD but use the DAW platform coming from a server. I see this as the best way for stability and 100% compatibility. Not sure I want it though.

I envision user groups consisting of collaboration to distribution that are part of the network. I think PreSonus is already heading this way.

I think Mastering will be the next (accepted) automated drive through. I doubt much of anything around automated mixing will take shape because its too subjective.
We all have our favorite kicks, snares etc. and a personal taste for what we want louder so I think its going to stop at mastering.. But I do think there will be improved vocal riders and more online collaborations that include guys like us who will mix through the app for people.

once people can make money from digital online services, that will cut vintage consoles even further back to only but a few left using it all.

I'm not gonna lie, I've already made up (well in my head at least) a template w my fave drum replacement samples, and re-amp stuff, even channel eqs, a couple months ago. Yes this is cheating if u wann call it that, and very subjective. But with a house kit and amps and stuff, my ocd has taken my bosses plug an play idea to the next level. Bear w me a sec. For demos, or instant gratification mixes.

The studio kit and rooms and amps, all have similar tendencies, the mud cut in the kick is fairly similar, the bass rig is usually what most end up using, ect. So to a certain degree, it's almost more rediculous to start from scratch than a custom made template w basic presets. While I don't mind tweaking the settings, it sure is nice when I have the usual dozen plug-insalready instansiated.

I basically want everything on all the time. and even w samples, obviously it depends on the song, but like the plugins, there's a dozen or so that make me go 'sweet'. This isn't what I'd necessarily like to do all the time, but since the old adage is its the performance that counts, I'm becoming more and more comfortable using samples, so who cares if they're hearing it right when they come into the control, or in two weeks when the 'mix' 'starts'.

I obviosly have a strong liking for classic stuff. Gear, techniques, talent, hell even classic rock era partying sounds like more fun! But, since I'm pursuing the hard way, comercial studios, expensive gear, I need show results fast. And I'm slowly realizing that this whole daw really is relatively new to evryone from the top down. So since there is no explicitly defined workflow, and evrything is still evolving, it's actually cool, and interesting to realize I need to find my own optimal workflow, that's the best for the type of work I'm doing.

There is no need for clients to pay for procedural computer stuff, and all that kinda crap. Same reason I don't charge for drum setup. 6 hours of my time by myself the night before, is worth every second when they come in and the red light is on in less than an hour. Plus i can experiment with no pressure. I dunno, I'm trying to use the concepts, of efficiency, maximization, and minimization, in all things lately, and the DAW can really do a lot more for me than I have been using it for, I think. I think as my technical skills are progressing, this is area will help me stand out a little bit more.

I don't find any fault with pre-set templates. As you said, if you know the issues you may face in a particular room with a particular instrument - like drums for example - it's always best to have those drums set up with EQ, Levels, Busing, etc., tweaked and tuned as good s you can get them.

You're a lot more likely to have clients come back when you can provide them with anything close to an immediate tone - sound checks can wipe out spontaneity, enthusiasm, as well as become burdensome to have to listen through ("Okay, give me the kick...(16 bars of thump/thump/thump) okay, give me the kick gain... and one more time, please (x10)... okay, let's do the snare...").

I always had my studio kit tuned and miked up, ready to roll, allowing the drummers to do whatever they needed to do in adjusting the pieces... and yeah, while some tweaking might need to be done afterwards, we weren't starting from scratch, either.

I think it shows a professional attitude on your part; in that you are making it as easy as possible for a band to get right to recording, as soon as possible.

A well recorded session will mix itself. And I don't care whether its digital, analog, or some thing found on the control panel of a spacecraft found in the desert.

I get to the point, after tracking, of adding all this crap to a session as I go and , to me, it starts taking on an identity possibly not of the original intent. So, lately, I've gone back to the Olde School. After all tracks are captured, and the editing is done (repairs, slip to grid for kick and snare and bass), I dup the session and make a working mix where I take ALL the plugsoff and pull the tracks to zero. Faders up and start from there. Its here that I will use only pan and slight level changes as well as swells and other dynamics decisions.

The fact is, if I recorded the tracks well, when I pull 'faders up' its sounds almost done.

Of course it's great when we have tracks that are well recorded to begin with. It does make it easier to mix. Much easier. I'm a total proponent for recording things as well as I can. But I don't believe that this is the only thing that is required in every case, and I don't believe that every song, no matter how well recorded the tracks may be, will "mix itself".

On this we differ. I'm not saying there aren't times where this occurs - I've experienced it myself with recordings that were organic, or basic in nature - a 3 piece blues/rock thing, or a guitar/piano accompaniment to vocal, but if this was the case all the time, there would be no need for a "mix"... the recording engineer would be able to toss the recorded tracks over to a 2-mix medium and call it finished. And, sometimes this does happen. But certainly not always.

When you get into more dense or complex productions, it's been my experience that you need to do quite a bit more than to just throw the faders up to zero and call it "done".

I'm thinking about productions from artists like Sting, Peter Gabriel, Yes, Asia, Steely Dan, Toto... I doubt very highly that the mix engineers on many of those productions just moved the faders and pans into appropriate positions, panned things a bit, and considered it to be sufficient, and at that point just printed those settings to a final mix.

And I'm sure that there are likely exceptions within this group of artists too. Gabriel's Solsbury Hill was probably easier to mix than Sting's Fortress 'Round Your Heart. Dan Fogelberg's Phoenix album was probably easier than Steely Dan's Gaucho', where Roger Nichols implemented what was arguably the first drum sound replacement system (Wendel).

So, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. ;)

A while back, somebody posted a link to a studio website on which the guy wasn't using any eq. He had a very unique approach.
Can't remember the name of the studio or the guy..

I think I know who you are talking about - kind of a strange fellow, uses all old vaccum gear, all tape, no EQ ? His studio was in cinder block room with no treatment? Is that the guy?

DonnyThompson, post: 423773, member: 46114 wrote: I think I know who you are talking about - kind of a strange fellow, uses all old vaccum gear, all tape, no EQ ? His studio was in cinder block room with no treatment? Is that the guy?

Yes, I think we are talking about the same guy ! ;)
The songs I heard from him were sounding good. He had his own recipe..

DonnyThompson, post: 423765, member: 46114 wrote: So, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. ;)

There is mixing, and then there is fixing... hehe! And you know I'm having fun with you right :D

I like to think of myself as a mixer who is a fixer that can also produce music that only mixers do in the back rooms where secrets live. We should coin a phrase for these guys, eh?

I don't think this is what CLA is doing when he says it only takes him 2 hours to mix something. And why an SSL is what he likes.
I often take 80+ hours to work a track and none of that would ever be on a console.

On that pov, I would tend to agree. You can't just put up the faders.

http://www.philsbook.com/apple.html

And we all fuss over room acoustics, cabling, all these secret effects and tricks lol... "" .

Now I'm planning on attaching triggers to spectral editing so I can get deeper into the image.
We are able to translate video into sound just by capturing the visual vibrations of a bag lying on a sidewalk. We are closer to each other than we think.

3d printing, sampling, images all share common things.
Digital technology is merging it all together. You can see how important transparency and spectral clearing is becoming. Or, how easy it will be to emulate our world.

CLAs assistants go as far as to do rough balances for group tracks. They organize his sessions his way down to the consoles channel count. He also says he doesn't tweak his compressors, and everyday sends, prefers to 'just buy another one'. Which I can't say I'd argue w provided the means :). This is all stuff he's open about. So when you are essentially mixing from a state of the art high end template that is the machine of comercial music, from the ground up, it's gotta be damn fun. I mean that sincerely. But it's also the exceptional method of mixing, not the common one. he and his brother paid there dues and got to be errand boys for 80s era ny blowhards, but they also learned from their masters and inherited the role.

They're mixes of mediocore local bands probably wouldn't a whole lot better than any other longtime engineer all other things equal. A huge problem is that a lot of artists refuse to take responsibility for is their own inability to achieve their own vison. The charts are full of songs that the artist/production team, aren't happy w, or if finished w.

There is no doubt, that the people who are in the mags and ads compromise quality and artistic integrety, to meet a deadline,a payday, convenience, or another's demand, some are very open about it. I wonder how many of the assistans have assistants lol.

Live tracking is my favorite way to engineer, In general,I like when bands do that. The layer by layer tracking is necessary for my one man band demo crap. I think I almost prefer live mixng, or mixing on a live system, better than studio, but the technical limitations tak it down a peg. Studio with big monitors, take that a peg up, but still the most amazing reproduced sound I've ever heard (top 3) was Hubert sumlin in a 900 seat theatere they a Yamaha board and I dunno what kinda speakers. It was full clear 3d is was like a glorification of the stage magic. Mm mmmm. It's really fun when there's a lot of air moving around, certainly a more uniformly defined vibe. I dunno, I almost hope my next coul,e projects are fast turnaround things. I'm burnt out from try g fix garbage, want some straight up heavy rock ala eary black label society! Crank it record it spit it thru and hit the road! Only time will tell.

Great link.

Yeah... "Magic Alex"... the guy was a bit of a wackadoo.

He had promised that he'd build a studio for The Beatles at Apple, and when they showed up to record, he had a "console" - which was actually nothing more than several console pieces/parts wired together in a plywood frame - and he had 8 little speakers above the console, each speaker wired to a channel so that they could "single out" ( solo) any track/channel they wanted. When told by another engineer that there was already solo functions on one of the consoles he had ripped apart, stripped down and put together with the other console parts, - he was dubious. He was sure that the solo function on those desks meant that when engaged, it would boost the volume of whatever instrument was "doing a solo" - a lead guitar solo, drum solo, bass solo... etc. LOL Someone - maybe Paul, called over to EMI to see if they could send an engineer over to fix things. In the end, I think they ended up going back to Abbey Road until a proper studio could be built - by people who actually knew how to build a studio. (It might have been Emerick)

In the end, they ended up with a Helios desk, and many acts recorded at Apple... no thanks to Alex.

Beyond building a plastic box with flashing colored lights for Lennon - it didn't do anything other than flash colored lights - he didn't do anything other than take their money. Although Lennon considered him a genius for building it... As has been mentioned previously, John wasn't a big tech guy. So he was impressed by the stupid flashing box that Magic Alex had built - which could have been built by any 3rd grader with a working knowledge of electricity, switches and wiring. Actually, John was probably impressed every time he turned on a light switch in a room - if he could find it and figure it out. LOL

Apple was a money pit from day one. Because there were, in a sense, four different bosses, changes would be made daily. John would come in one week and tell the staff to order a 10 thousand dollar white rug for the lobby, and two weeks later, McCartney would come in and tell the staff to have it ripped out and replaced by a carpet that was green... apple green. George invited the San Francisco Hell's Angels to visit, while he was visiting Haight Ashbury during the Summer Of Love... he just mentioned it in a kind of passing way... but 6 months later, The San Francisco Chapter of The Hell's Angels did indeed show up at Apple in London... and things got pretty strange - stranger than usual. Finally, after weeks of nerve wracking and walking on glass as to not piss off their "guests"...Lennon and McCartney told Harrison that they had to go... and it was George's responsibility to "un-invite" them. Uhm... yeah. LOL

There's a great book out there - it might be out of print now, written by Richard Dillello (sp?), who was an intern at Apple during its heyday... the book is "The Longest Cocktail Party" and it's filled with stories about Apple and how it pretty much imploded itself into failure due to the indulgences of The Beatles - and everyone else who worked there. Man, to be a fly on the wall there in 1969... would have been something to see.

pcrecord, post: 423772, member: 46460 wrote: A while back, somebody posted a link to a studio website on which the guy wasn't using any eq. He had a very unique approach.
Can't remember the name of the studio or the guy..

DonnyThompson, post: 423773, member: 46114 wrote: I think I know who you are talking about - kind of a strange fellow, uses all old vaccum gear, all tape, no EQ ? His studio was in cinder block room with no treatment? Is that the guy?

crazy joe!

Thanks Kurt ! I tried to reach his website but it seem to be down.. but found his new one. http://www.doctorcrazyjoe.com/index.html

Link removed

Mixing with no EQ certainly implied he takes more time working at the source and mic placement.
I guess if I would only have to pan and level tracks and work a bit of reverb this could classify as a recording that mix itself ;)

Nice find Marco. This guy has some of the coolest gear. You can tell he has the passion.
sweet.

http://www.doctorcrazyjoe.com/studio.html