Topic says mixing so after a long fishing holiday, I'm back in the studio and enjoying new posts about this topic.

Are we tracking, mixing or mastering?

Since we're talking time now too, after my 38 years in this rat race one thing I'm convinced on is how clean digital audio is compared to analog. Digital audio has its place as does analog and I like both.
Hybrid is a win win when used wisely with digital audio.

The benefit for me has been finding the place and time in a mix to insert analog variation. Adding sonic variation via some sort of analog way can be just the right thing for a track or stems to help set tracks apart from the rest.
I'm not convinced one medium over the other is better on its own, yet. This whole good, better best debate is therefore seriously misleading when we start telling someone one way ( ITB vs OTB) is better over the other.
It costs money to hear results and it takes time to understand it all once its in your hands in the first place. Its so damn obvious the more ways I have to skin a cat produces better results in the long run. ITB is the starting point to pro audio for me.
For those who have tried mixing OTB and don't get all fuzzy over it, if you aren't hearing a big difference its because you aren't there yet! Plain and simple.

Examples:
If all I was doing was Dubstep, Ableton Live is about all I need. A simple digital program and a basic laptop, done.
If I was producing grit and attitude, an API console for tracking would be top on my list. However, it wouldn't be for mixing everything. I have some API stuff here and I'm not as impressed as I was before I got started listening closer.
If I was a mixing freak, like me, well... , I have one of the coolest modular hybrid system on the planet. This system is ideal for tracking, mixing and mastering.
If I was open for business and had freelance engineers mixing here, an SSL would be the standard. I think that day will be replaced with more and more hybrid systems.
If I had endless cash, I would buy all the above but most likely end using my hybrid rig for mixing. I want the DAW's automation and editing features.

Benefits depends what part of the project we are at : Recording, mixing and mastering, including the styles of music. If you can introduce a new sonic colour to tracks or stems, much like the benefit re amping or digital copy/paste, shifting or detuning of a mono track to simulate a wider sound has:
Two guitars with usually sounds better than doubling one mono track and doing the fake way to get it there. Mixing OTB can have a similar result because you are adding some analog change to a mix which can be just enough of a difference to make a dead track stand out without eqing.

We are in a DIY generation and using our DAW to do it all. It's affordable but can sound pretty tiring compared to the way music sounded 25 years ago when it had to be "real". We used analog gear that wasn't so exact and this may have had a great benefit. There has been research on how less interested we are with digitally produced music.

I like analog distortion and imperfection. I love how clean digital is too so, I'm greedy, I want the best of both worlds so I choose a method that allows me to pick and choose more options as I go.

If you never grew up on vinyl, I'm convinced some people can't hear these subtitles that kept us engaged in an album from start to finish.
I love Steely Dan, Old Doobie Bro's, Tom Petty, Fleetwood Mac, Cat Stevens, Neil Young, Pink Floyd, Bob Marley, Flamingo, Jazz, Blues, Classical etc and believe it or not, I like a lot of pop stuff on the crap radio today so, I NEED a wide pallet of colour and processing options plus a DAW that works! Sequoia is most definitely there. A locked in sound isn't enough for me. We are in an age where we can do a lot more to sound.

I've been at this racket for 38 years which doesn't make me more knowledgeable over the next guy I suppose unless I've actually had the opportunity to use everything possible side by side, including having the luxury to mix in a stellar room with stellar monitoring. I'm not sure any of us can really say we have the answers so it all comes down to common sense to me.

How I hear it.
If you understand the benefit variation has, especially as track count increases, the answer is so simple and logical to me. I dont care how many plugins you say are different, they are still itb and digital. Fixing latency phase and adding analog OTB to tracks and stems in the mixing stage will help an overproduced cold song back to life.

Having the ability to introduce and reshape digital music with some analog mojo sure sounds great to me.

Once I understood this and heard the changes ( can you hear it?) the next part of the journey has been really fun. I actually know what gear I need rather than guessing.
What type of converters work best for your rig, how much analog headroom do you want and why, are you mixing down to the same DAW or using a second system?
What do you need for monitoring the entire process etc. It all becomes clear.

The other benefits to hybrid (there are many) , working OTB = more power dedicated to digital processing where it counts. You not only benefit sonically but you soon realize how little amount of plug-ins are needed to make music sound great. The whole pro tools thing and this over rated UAD path starts to look like a broken and out of control marketing trap.

Studiolive and Studio One would be about the only system I would consider now if I was in the $75,000 or less budget and sold on just being digital. you could have that entire system and a great audio computer for well under 10 grand.

Pro audio isn't just a DAW for me, its a big part of the machine but the little extra that comes from OTB process is a step beyond average.
If you want to hear the difference I get, the next step up cost me $100 grand investment and that didn't include the room or monitoring. Its not cheep. Some people are happy ITB, some use a simple summing amp and some are loving a console. Its a labour of love.

Question: Can we make great recording on a DAW alone? Absolutely. If its recorded well and the performance is great, why wouldn't it sound good tracked on anything.

Page 2 howdy

I never get sick of saying... , to hell with all this here say, let me hear what you are talking about so we learn with our ears.
If someone has tried OTB and claims ITB mixing is just as good, something is very wrong or missing to me.

If we really want to prove this to ourselves, give your best mix to someone capable, who claims to be able to rival an ITB mix and figure this out for real.

I am confident a well designed and engineered hybrid mix will come out better sounding. But, if your monitoring and hearing is compromised, which is another factor never discussed enough in detail, it is a waste of time isn't it. Your mix will often sound better in your room.

Its also very difficult to have an audience participate in these debates because they don't know how much you did to a track that someone else messed up. The audience will usually think you recorded something that is causing an entire track to suck. So, you have to either say, I never recorded this or shut up.

What I hear isn't always what you will hear and this is where it all goes sideways and why we should not be mastering our songs. Mastering standards and what we consider to sound good today is being taken over with iphones, cheep monitors and very weird playback systems.

Anyway, enough from me, I'm pretty much done on this topic for some time.

This is something I did for a very talented musician in Sweden 2012. He sent me a 2 track song mixed ITB. I simply ran his final mix through my hybrid rig once again (which I was just getting to know BTW) and did a few steps to open it up. I'm guessing it was around 10 mins later I had this to give back. Thats profit and results.

Since this recording I have invested another $50 grand in analog equipment ( different conversion/clock, neos summing console, Bricasti and eventide processing and a second mixdown DAW) and improved my skills considerably. I could never get a mix to sound like this so easy ITB alone. I have 4 leading DAW's available here and they simply cannot produce music like this on their own.
Skill, Gear and DAW matters. Everything matters.

The ability to tighten up phase is another big part to improving ITB mixes. If your DAW is creating phase, you are ****ed right off the bat. Most ITB mixes I hear have some phase problems that the engineers aren't even aware of.

Here is one of many examples

Gator GRB-4

Hello all, I'm new to this forum & I would like some advice please: I have Protools from le7.4 - 10, Cubase sx3 - 7, & now Digital Performer 8 (I have all 3 DAW & thinking about getting Sequoia 12) I have waves plug-ins SSL, API & Neve, but I have never use the real deal. My question is can I or should I buy a Mackie Onyx 24 channel board, (because I can't afford no expensive mixing board), to use as a tool for mixing out the box to get that analog sound/warmth & punch? I have a BLA moded Yamaha UR824 & MR816csx as my interface/converters & the Yamaha HS8 & Behringer Truth(new versions)studio monitors.. I want to be able to use the best of both worlds both DAW & a mixing board something like the Mackie Onyx 24 & or the Behringer mx9000, that's what I can afford...

welcome to RO!

I use Sequoia 12 and love it but before I go on about it I would first like to ask why you are thinking about it over the other DAW's you have?

Kurt claims he has had great results working OTB with Mackie.

The reason I'm thinking about switching is because both Protools & Cubase have been extremely buggy & impossible to deal with (for me). The only reason I purchased Protools because every other studio has it & I wanted to be compatible but now I'm way over that; I just want a software that can give me the very best quality & also I want a software that's equivalent to Protools HD but better than HD & has the very best audio engine for recording, mixing & mastering and also for film/live music video post production...

Sequoia 12 is the ultimate, I highly recommend it.

It is also the best hybrid daw I've experienced as well.

Sent from my iPhone

audiokid, post: 407418 wrote: Sequoia 12 is the ultimate, I highly recommend it.

It is also the best hybrid daw I've experienced as well.

Sent from my iPhone

cool thanks for the advice bro, I will be getting Sequoia 12... So the Mackie board I should purchase for mixing out the box or run my outs from the software into the mixing board...?

My hybrid rig is modular, ruthless and pristine and may be overkill, it works great. I have a lot of experience using modular stuff but none with traditional consoles since hybrid became. I can help guide you more or less depending on what route you take.

Example, I use sequoia for the clinical and standard daw processing we are all familiar with , then stem out to a Neos hybrid console together with a few SSL X Patches, followed by a dangerous master where the final analog glue/mojo takes place.

From there I mix down to a second daw that also runs sequoia 12. This is where I master and do clinical processing.

I do not mix back to the same daw.

Whatever you choose for an analog console, sequoia 12 will work beyond your expectations. It's brilliant software great for recording, mixing, mastering and .... Hybrid pro audio systems! It's set up like an analog console. The eq, comps, etc that come stock are all you need.

I don't use it for video business but iknow it's ideal for this as well.
I entered a contest years back and had to sync my audio to video and won without even trying hard so it's very easy, trust me on that.

I have however heard some prefer nuendo for video.

Sent from my iPhone

audiokid, post: 407421 wrote: My hybrid rig is modular, ruthless and pristine and may be overkill, it works great. I have a lot of experience using modular stuff but none with traditional consoles since hybrid became. I can help guide you more or less depending on what route you take.

Example, I use sequoia for the clinical and standard daw processing we are all familiar with , then stem out to a Neos hybrid console together with a few SSL X Patches, followed by a dangerous master where the final analog glue/mojo takes place.

From there I mix down to a second daw that also runs sequoia 12. This is where I master and do clinical processing.

I do not mix back to the same daw.

Whatever you choose for an analog console, sequoia 12 will work beyond your expectations. It's brilliant software great for recording, mixing, mastering and .... Hybrid pro audio systems! It's set up like an analog console. The eq, comps, etc that come stock are all you need.

I don't use it for video business but iknow it's ideal for this as well.
I entered a contest years back and had to sync my audio to video and won without even trying hard so it's very easy, trust me on that.

I have however heard some prefer nuendo for video.

Sent from my iPhone

ok wonderful, thanks bro; when I get Sequoia I'll come back on here & give you my thoughts.

audiokid,

That itb vs otb sounds great. Is A or B your rendition?

Mo Facta, post: 407386, member: 42560 wrote: I am a firm believer in the influence of the performance, the placement of the microphones, and the ears and skills of the engineer over any other piece of mind-numbing minutia in this audio game.

I second that (y)

Exactly

And then once you have that great performance, excellent musicianship and it all tracked well, there is nothing better, more convincing and rewarding than having beautiful gear well mixed and mastered to go along with it. It's all relevant in the bigger picture. Of course it's all about the talent, but let's not undermine or underestimate the power of sound quality.
I mean, I didn't study guitar for 38 years to be recorded on a common daw and metallic conversion at this point in my career.

For those who think gear doesn't matter, well it does. :)

Great talent deserves great technology and engineering..

The topic that will never ever end…..

Mo Facto - You have never ever noticed a difference in EQ's from one kind to another? …. Really? I have always been able too, some more obvious then others…

The problem here, is accounting for uncontrolled variables when doing a true comparison. Skill set of the engineer, environment of the recording/mix, the material being mixed, totality of the equipment involved (outboard, Mics, Monitoring etc.) And the most important, our own personnel bias, which will show through, even if unconsciously so.

From a purely scientific view point, one is a math equation the other is moving electrons in a physical environment. In theory and in practice the digital environment inside of any DAW has endless headroom, headroom only becomes a concern when converting the digital (Binary) signal out or in the DAW. Analog is limited by physics due to the nature of the design,,, you can only go as far as the rail voltage will allow you. A simple example assuming an extremely efficient design (OpAmp, surrounding circuitry, etc)… would be with +/-15 volt rails, you are limited to a theoretical max 30v peak to peak signal (+31.76 dBu).. There is a little more to it, but in simple terms, there is a wall. Just in reference most consoles top out at or around 26 dBu. It is this wall that helps define the character of analog. When driving against it, it talks back, after all, hit a wall and it will let you know it is there. In this case, either in distortion/harmonics and/or design flaws. You can change it by what you use to drive it into the summing amp, IE Kick, Bass, Vocal, Guitar etc.. it effects the whole mix, after all, it is a physical (electrical) representation of the actual summed wave. It is this interaction that makes analog so desirable by those who prefer it. Its as if, you are having a conversation with music and the console. I know weird way of stating it, but trying to put in words what actually goes on during a mix on an analog desk, weither the engineer is aware of it or not.

When driving against a digital mix bus, what you are hearing is the converter, not the bus, as said before, there is no wall in a digital summing, only limited by conversion, which does not do the summing but translates what was summed/created digitally. Hince the terms cold, harsh, etc. it does not respond in the same way. Not a bad thing, just a very deferent approach. Digital distortion does not complement but subtracts from the whole, so over driving conversion is something no one ever wants to do.

I am bias to analog, I believe in using a DAW as a recorder/editor and using physics not math to mix and manipulate the signal.

There is no right or wrong way of doing anything. As long as you get what you want from the process you choose, all is good in the world.

-Joel

That Amek isn't gonna wire itself ya know... LOL

I think is safe to say we are redefining the DAW and where project studios end and Pro Audio begins. For the last decade there has been an over inflated hype, and hope that digital audio is the new frontier. There is no question digital audio can get the job done but when it comes to a bigger and more open sound, especially for transient detailed music, analog tools are definitely a bonus for me.

This doesn't mean the DAW studio is less valuable, if you have excellent material that deserves the added step, you can always hire a HD hybrid studio to mix your best tracks.

I'm with Joel as well, digital audio is choice for capture, editing, clinical tools and mastering prior to upload.

Donny Air, Oh know, trust me, i have been screaming and yelling at her (Amek) to hurry up and get herself straightened out, but to no avail…. So, it is coming along, will share pics and so forth later…

audiokid, good to see we are on the same plain...

absolutely.

For those considering budget hybrid:

The modular summing boxes are wishful hopes on their own but very effective when you insert outboard.
I've tried them without gear and all they did for me was tease enough of a buzz that you want more are become another stat that hybrid isn't worth it. What I'm saying, if you don't build a decent chain, don't expect much at first. They are the first steps to hybrid but pretty useless on there own.
If you aren't going to take hybrid further, save your money and stay ITB. Contrary to some believers, imho, those boxes are basically an insert-bay up until you start building your chain with serious gear.
I'm by no means undermining their use, they are essential, and what I have, but only the beginning part to hybrid. When you are OTB, its all about what you insert, EQ's and processing and how you capture it all at the final mix that makes it all worth it in the end.

audiokid, What console is in your future?

Hey Joel,
The Neos is all I require, its huge sounding ( "open" with gads of headroom), idea for hybrid mixing and mastering.
For shear interest sake , I'd like to test my workflow against a few other consoles that are basic and without interfaces priced in and around the $10,000 or less bracket to see if I get similar or better results.
Analog EQ (where you are going to be in heaven on, Joel!) are the main interest for me but if I was starting up, I'd be looking into this as an affordable system that Im pretty sure will produce better results for the same money as PT HD and UAD.

To add,
I'm always trying to be careful of my wording so I don't come across as analog arrogant or miss quoted. I never seem to get it all said and when I do, its a full page of rambling lately.

Anyway, This is more for the benefit of others looking to start a new studio and wondering where their money is best spent today. I think we are discovering more and more about where both worlds excel or fall short.
At this point, I'm pretty certain a modest console in the chain will out perform an elaborate ITB system costing more in comparison. This would be a challenge I'm up for. While I still have all this gear and spunk, if I ever get a console here, I'm going to do an online mix challenge with anyone up for the "challenge".
I think it would be very interesting to find that all these UAD plugs and extra DSP is really doing nothing for us. If anything, crowding up our music worse.

I think digitally controlled analog stuff is interesting. Where if some sort of agreed upon communication format like midi, or hui would be agreed on, and we can fully recall and control analog gear, but have the control settings data stored in the DAW I'm not technical enough in electronic design, to say for shure, but I've never heard anyone say the the actual analog pots and switches are integral to the sound of a piece of gear.

I think most people, in general, share the opinion the analog stuff has a sound, and digital should not. So really it's convenience, and more than that budget. Are you guys supplying tape, or mix recall time cheap? Or free? I love the sound, but I dunno how to edit tape, and I don't like the idea that possibly one of the most important moments in someone's life, would happen a moment after tape ran out, or that it's gonna wear out sonically, ouver the course the the project.

As a capture unit, I don't think DAWs are going away.

Soon what if that photorealistic pluggin window was actually control the hardware, or just offer a way to recall settings on a per instance, or whole mix, oh man. Real faders and knobs, w a memory, oof. What I think is gonna happen is that the consoles will come w something similar to what the UAD Apollo has where it's a window w a mixer picture, and fully controllable.

We just upgraded the computer at one of the studios, so I was making some new templates. A thirty ch template w 8 auxes took me about an hour, no faster from scratch han a patch bay. the recall ability saved quite a bit of time, but then i started noticing just how much it is between this vocal needs an eq tweak-> get to channel on screen, open, mouse over -> listten to the change. rinse wash repeat, but then, is was nice to be in the sweat spot for adjust, something impossible in a large room.

So I'm holding of on thoughts of some of the newer consoles like the API box for a while, just to see how Affordable they're gonna be making consoles similar, in foot print, that have daw a control, or at least just a recall. This is just speculation on my part, but hybrid is gonna be the norm. Give analog the recall from digital, and help digital develop the personality it needs.

This runs into it's own limitations, mainly if people are making mix changes back and forth and don't have similar setups, but that's not terrible, usually it's one or two dudes working on the mixing part anyway.

Also, very very potentially scary, is the new netwroking system avid is developing this year, is actually pretty cool file sharing wise, but w the intention to also manage, rights, and metadata tagging. Stuff that normally would be done by a record company or mastering engineer. What next, are they gonna control royalties, now, cuz they know you recorded it, cuz of the cloud storage based thing. I dunno that's extreme, but so is a company selling a lot of people systems that didn't even work. When I felt more confident in the reliability of a ten yr old tape deck, over a dual core home pt setup, not good.

The cool thing is, musicians as a whole aren't really complaining too music about losing royalty loot, in the decline of the record company, I think the reason as that the bottom line is most people never made back the money it even took to make the cd. Quickly to end my rant I will say that my cousins gitar sound, sounds raw into the Apollo, sound better from fully processed masters from the 002 and everything else is the same in the setup. Digital is just a teenager, so it's gonna need some more time, but analog took from like what around 1900, till, like what the late 70s, when kinda plateaued from a purely technical sonic point of view.

Like any good relationship communication, is paramount. That's what I think the hybrid needs to work on, comui caton between everything, cuz right now they ain't speaking a common language. I think I read that they are actually trying to work on an updated midi protocol, but w things like tablets being in my experince quite a bit more reliable than any computer I've ever used, we will see. Just my 75 cents.

Good points Kyle,

FWIW, I'm slimming down my analog chain to a select group of pieces and tasks that I can recall pretty close. I also, use the DAW in a way that works great together with analog. I set up my templates the same, and mix OTB using the DAW Aux's and Bus's in conjunction with automation when needed.
In other words, When I mix, I'm really mixing ITB but using analog in the end chain pretty much set-up the same way all the time. I'm not so big on inserting gear on each stem as I am using the summing box headroom followed by the mastering matric where most of the magic happens for me there.
The things I change on the mastering box are gains fed by the DAW and obviously EQ settings but I'm getting so fast at hearing what I need there, its not even that big a deal for me anymore.

The only major setback, if you would even call it that, is once I'm in a session, I don't like to jump between two or more. I get one done and move on.

I use my DAW to the fullest and feed that to my analog matrix. When I started hybrid mixing I tried all sorts of products and found most of them can be replaced itb. The things that can't are the high headroom analog products, tubes and trannies and processing like Bricasti's.
Bricasti's might sound great AES, and maybe one day they will be a plug-in but that's where I don't care because I don't want anything to do with plug-ins for these products. There are more reasons than just "analog" why I do this. Its about freeing up the DAW, lessening the load and processing and re establishing or preserving transients at a certain time in a mix.

So, the DAW is really doing all the work, the analog products I use are simply passing the DAW mix through it and continuing on to the capture mixdown system. Its like a 2 track but better.
I have zero interest in tape. To me, thats going backwards.

At this point I don't think more analog automation will get me excited, The DAW does all that for me perfectly well. I use SSL XPatches to switch gear around on the fly (which also can be controlled via midi if needed). There really isn't much more a guy needs if you use hybrid like this. Its future is here already.

It took me a awhile to find my comfort balance and ideal hybrid workflow. I think we can over complicated everything. My system is very uncomplicated. I think thats why it sounds so awesome.

Are you using any sort of pluggin controller?

kmetal, post: 415048, member: 37533 wrote: Are you using any sort of pluggin controller?

No, but define what you call a controller?
I detest vocal riders.
In Sequoia/ Samplitude, object based editing is the godsend way for hybird mixing and mastering.

Well, another break from fumes…

Some very interesting points and perspective.

First. Analog gear can be digitally controlled. Yes, pots do have an effect on the sound of a piece of gear. Switches are easy to control digitally. The easy answer to digitally controlled pots is the motor driven pot. However, the cost (extremely high, and not just the pots, motor control etc). The size of the pot and motor as well as the headache to reliably implement will never allow this option to be viable on the scale that a console requires. Ever….. Now compromise comes when replacing pots with some sort of analog to digital device. Euphonix did this with the CS series desks, I believe Harrison as well. AD has a digital pot (Basic resistor stepper, AD512x/AD43xx) and so does Texas Instruments. It’s a matter of time for these to improve and come down in price enough to make them worth looking into on a large scale. Of course the trusty VCA can be used in many ways. As long as there is a market to support it, I would not be surprised to see the large analog console manufactures looking into solutions that provide instant recallability.

I myself have ideas on the whole automation thing when referring to analog consoles and the DAW. I will wait on expressing that for now.

As far as workflow is concerned as stated earlier. Digital is exceptional at capturing, editing and playing back audio. That is exactly what I intend on using for, nothing more. I will use zero summing (unless track count exceeds available channels) plug ins only for a desired effect, not by necessity. Everything will be done the same way it was done in 1990 (less the tape deck, But I am strongly looking at Studer A827 if only for the warm feeling of it being near). Not because, I do not want to roll with the times, but more to what is comfortable for me. I have mixed ITB over the last 10 years and I am sick an tired of it. Damn it! Give me knobs and my noisy noise floor back!!!!

Although, I understand the whole hybrid approach, I myself would never consider it in the current status quo. Why do something half way? For me it becomes more of a hassle then an advantage. Just put all the DAW faders at unity, send each track out a dedicated D/A channel into a console and then go. Now have physical control over a signal, not bits and do with it as you wish, with no constraints dictated by CPU or DSP count. It all becomes easy now, no extra steps, crazy I/O schemes or concern for recallability. Just write down the session and move on.

Analog is not cheap and in most cases not cheap to maintain. That is the one thing that prevents it from being a major player among the younger and budget restrained engineers/studio owners. This will not change, good gear will be expensive and will be expensive to repair. There are as of right now some incredible deals on some great consoles right now, for the one who is not afraid of digging in, there is a world awaiting you.

I currently work on both analog and digital gear during the day and let me tell ya, at least with analog, you are getting something for the money spent, that will never go out of date, that can always be used regardless of what the latest trend is or were the industry may go. Analog in a sense is like time, never changes and is always going to be there. Were as digital gear will be out dated in a year or less.

My 3 cents anyway - Joel

Joel, its so cool you are pursuing this too. Seems the time you left Soundscape, I left Avid, and we are here now. Isn't that cool!

I'm looking forward to your grand opening... then we can compare notes and all :)

I think that analog is definitely the way to go with processing - IF you can do it right. Pieces like real LA2's, 160's, 1176's, MEQ's, etc are certainly great to have and use in that scenario.

But... if you're busing out to a cheap Behringer desk, I'm not sure I see the point. Just because a piece of gear is analog doesn't mean that it will automatically sound good.
You could never compare a cheap Mackie mixer to a desk like Joel's Amek, nor could one compare a cheap MXR Graphic EQ with Chris's Pultecs. So yes, Hybrid is definitely the way to go ... if you can afford to do it right.

If you can't, I think you should stay ITB and use what you have. I don't believe that someone should stop recording just because they don't have that upper level gear. If nothing else, record ITB and send stems or tracks to someone like Chris who does have that nice hybrid rig and have them mix it for you.

But I would never consider stopping my music recording just because I don't have an 1176.

IMHO

audiokid - yup, comparing notes and exploring ideas.

DonnyThompson - I would never advise anyone to stop, simply because they do not have the gear. I also do not fault or look down on anyone mixing ITB, we have options for a reason. BUT, I hate to say it, the Mackie 8 bus was used as a front end to both ADATs and PT- TDM in the late 90's by some very successful bands/artist's. (many hits recorded with it) or the Soundcraft Ghost (Soundcraft's response to the Mackie 8 bus)That could be had pretty cheaply today. Now, they would never compare to my Amek, but it is an option.

Once I get this all together and going, I will reach out for a session, this way it is a natural reference. I will first mix it entirely ITB. Then I will re do the mix (by recreating the settings on Eq/Compression etc) entirely OTB. This way we can hear, what the real deference is between the 2 approaches in the exact same environment.

- Joel

Gette, post: 415065, member: 46761 wrote: audiokid - yup, comparing notes and exploring ideas.

DonnyThompson - I would never advise anyone to stop, simply because they do not have the gear. I also do not fault or look down on anyone mixing ITB, we have options for a reason. BUT, I hate to say it, the Mackie 8 bus was used as a front end to both ADATs and PT- TDM in the late 90's by some very successful bands/artist's. (many hits recorded with it) or the Soundcraft Ghost (Soundcraft's response to the Mackie 8 bus)That could be had pretty cheaply today. Now, they would never compare to my Amek, but it is an option.

Once I get this all together and going, I will reach out for a session, this way it is a natural reference. I will first mix it entirely ITB. Then I will re do the mix (by recreating the settings on Eq/Compression etc) entirely OTB. This way we can hear, what the real deference is between the 2 approaches in the exact same environment.

- Joel

I wasn't implying that either You or Chris felt that way, Joel ;)

I was just mentioning it for those that might have the mistaken notion that they should wait for "the perfect rig"...before they write and record - mainly because it's been my own personal experience that no matter what I have, it's never really enough... and we're all never truly satisfied.

Someone could give me a Neve VR-60 - yet I'm positive that I could still find a reason to think that it still wasn't quite enough.

"This is great! Now all I need is to add a _________ and 3 _________ and I'd really like a pair of ____________." ;)

(That being said, if someone feels the need to give me one, I'd be happy to give it my best shot at being totally satisfied. :) )

I wasn't knocking Mackie, either. I was simply saying that it doesn't compare to your Amek. Honestly, for me to compare the two desks is stupid anyway, because neither desk is anywhere near the other's price class.
For the money - especially at that time - you were hard-pressed to find an equal console for the same cost. And, I know that more than just a few big albums were tracked and mixed through those 8 bus models.

At that time, in 1996, I went the other way and jumped into digital with both feet, with a pair of Yamaha O2R digital desks and a rack of 4 Tascam DA88's.. I can't say that I completely regret it, because I did manage to make a healthy amount of money doing sessions with that rig, when "digital" still held the connotation of "pristine". I realize now, looking back, that I was a bit ignorant in selling a lot of my analog gear in order to jump on the binary train. Like so many others, I was mesmerized by the whole digital "thing"... I should have looked at the crystal ball just a little closer back then... If I had done so, I might not have the three 50 lb boat anchors sitting in my closet right now that have"Tascam" printed on them.

Perhaps I should have gone with an Amek - like an Angela, maybe. I remember looking at other analog desks before I finally pulled the trigger on the O2R's instead...

And speaking of Amek... shouldn't you be burning yourself with a soldering iron right now instead of posting? LOLOL ;)

Echoing Donny on being ignorant around that same timeframe

I Was so mesmerized over flying faders. To me that was nothing but eye candy. A total waste of money and distraction.

Those that came out of the midi era know how cool automation is, and that's where I like it most, via midi

MIDI 2 is what Kyle was talking about. It's going to be the next step that I'm looking forward to.

In all seriousness, I like real music sounding natural, not so perfect and corrected. I don't see why so many need to be messing with things so much. Recall is definitely awesome, I'm not sure I would ever invest in it for analog because its sure to break down rendering something wonderfully simple, useless or obsolete. Like electric car windows. I love them but know there will be a day they die and I won't be able to roll the window up or down. Cars, who cares. They are all crap and junk in 10 years but my LA2A... I hope that gem lives on for more than that. Wishful thinking I suppose?

I opted out of having detent switches and panning for my console and EQ's. I could have paid the extra but I know I hear finer than what they offer. How could automation be better than my fingers and ears. And my Neos, I had is specially built with no detent panning. I know ME pay big bucks for those switches but there must be a greater price for recall than I care to have. How could they be dead on?
So, to have recall close but not perfect, itb/digital makes more sense to me. The DAW is better for all things automated and clinical. I embrace the DAW and built my rig around the attributes each excel.

Sent from my iPhone

Sounds like I'm not crazy for wanting to turn actual knobs and move actual faders. Sonic values aside, I feel it would be much more intuitive and enjoyable.
Am I Crazy?

DAW = automation,
Analog = simple and wonderfully manual fun.

In many ways, digitally enhanced, Analog consoles go back to the early mid 1970s. Remember SSL 4000's with "Total Recall"? Which I actually always found rather amusing. All it did was show you where all of your knobs and switches, were last set. It would then take you 45 minutes or so to dial everything back in. And they never had flying faders. They had VCA's mushing up your audio. Which Bob Clearmountain liked. And to this day it's still his favorite from 1978. And he'll work on just about any console except for API's. He hates those. He told me he could never get his sound from those.

When I was reading the discussion about the EQ... all EQ's, worth their salt, all sound different from each other. Some have wide Q's. Some have very narrow Q. Some have variable Q or, what is known as, "Proportional Q" as in API 550 series EQ's. Which is kind of like having a parametric but where the parametric, parametric's, itself the way it wants to. And you work with those differently than you do with reciprocal EQ's. In fact, with that type, you frequently have to do a little EQ during tracking. So that you can add a little more of that same Q, EQ at lower db settings as compared to the higher db settings. So all is not equal in the land of equalizers. Some use RC networks where the others use LC networks. And in software were some just use math. For linear phase EQ purposes.

Which brings all to the reason why numerous different studios that have numerous different brands of consoles are used to make a single recording. Most big-time substantial recordings are recorded from more than 1 recording studio. And not all are SSL's.

In that respect, the hybrid way of going about things basically emulates that type of flexible scenario in recording. And where half the fun of making such recordings is going to different studios and using different consoles in the production thereof. So long live 500 series modules LOL. The only way you can get 10 different consoles in a single rack box. What's not to like about that? You get so many choices now, you can lose your mind many times over LOL. I already lost mine. So please let me know if anybody finds it?

I think I see it? No, that can't be it? That's a walnut. It's about the same size.
Mx. Remy Ann David

RemyRAD. I agree a good Eq is a good EQ, in the case of my console, fully parametric and adjustable Q (from volume knob to notch filter is what they say)on all 4 bands….

I like allot of knobs and faders, the more the better. I do not mind resetting a session. Yeah, there will be days I will complain, but you know what they say about men, if you are not complaining, you are not loving what you do……

still prefer the response and interaction that a analog mix bus provides.

Great viewpoints though, I always find it fascinating how other engineers go about the decision process in regards to gear. Me? I am just gear slut, so my decision is purely based on available cash…

- Joel

I'm basically just a recording engineer and broadcast engineer, DJ (Major market FM). I considered myself lucky. With a great union engineer job with NBC Radio & TV News, That afforded me the opportunity, to save up a sizable chunk of cash. And being able to to obtain the equipment, at a quality level that had to be of the highest standards. And in the end, it actually went much further than I could have ever imagined. I'm not done yet LOL. So much to accomplish. So few years left of life. WTF? Who's responsible for this? I want my money back! I can engineer in my sleep. I've done that before. So I can engineer, if I'm deaf. Most drummers turned recording engineers are. So...

Besides, I never much liked large-scale rock 'n roll concerts as an audience member. I don't care how good the PA system supposedly is. They all sound like crap to me. Give me good control room monitors or give me death LOL. So I've only gone to Rock concerts, as many as I can count on a single hand. This doesn't include numerous regular trips to nightclubs. With live bands. Then again, I always left when it got too loud. That always spoiled my enjoyment. And so, I've only done PA on a few occasions. Not really my shtick.

And I certainly don't want to be distracted from the mix by trying to avoid feedback. So of course, ringing out the room beforehand is the most important part of preproduction. Still, you can't mix, just for the mix. With recording, that's exactly what one does.

Then again, I'm also of the belief that using average microphones (57, 58, 421's, etc.), with a great preamp/EQ, front end, is more advantageous than better microphones with a less than stellar front end. I also don't believe everything has to be pure Class A, throughout. I also actually prefer the consistency of a single console type over a rack full of numerous different, tutti-frutti selection of microphone preamps. But on my fly pack system, there is a multitude of different brands of microphone preamps. Most of which however are very similar in type of design. And in which I'll vacillate for certain ones for certain instruments. And because none of those have any EQ. And where, I've always used some EQ while tracking. The fly pack has none. And yet, it still all comes out just fine in the wash. In the mix.

I'm easy-going flexible when I'm working, for the most part. I'll also snap to the whims of the Producer if they like working in that manner. Sometimes, they just tell me to do a mix while they go out and get pizza and beer. (Those are my favorite producers LOL) Though it's always better when they bring back something good to smoke also. Good thing you can't take Salem out of the country. What we grow here these days is just fine. I guess, I'll also miss the great low prices for cigarettes, here in Virginia when I move to Austin? Nevertheless, I go about recording quite differently between the contemporary pop genre to those of the fine arts.

But rock 'n roll is so much more damn fun, in an old-school control room. Than, it is playing a video game with audio software. Which is still fun. But it's really just all gobbledygook. The tactile thing with the old stuff seems so much more magical. More like rather primal perhaps? Than the only manual dexterity required to be playing with a small screen with your fingernail. Instead, old school is like an infant who has not yet mastered the art of the dexterity of fine, arm and hand eye, coordination. And is always reaching out for things. So it's far more natural than it is playing with tiny little screens, 6 inches from your face LOL.

Now all of my normal modus operandi for live capture/mix also differs from my work in the studio but not completely. In that environment, I can technically afford to be a bit fancier. But then I still frequently end up with a vocal microphone rather akin to a 57/58 which is the 7. Which really aren't much different from those lower-cost versions if ya got an equalizer. So I really don't care which of those, I use. It still retains the unmistakable similarity signature, to the venerable, U-87's. And that's no joke.

Not sure why everybody thinks an audio engineer, engineers audio the same way, between the pop and fine arts musical genres? Which is the message I seem to keep hearing? One is heavily laden with effects, musical distortion, crazy gobbledygook. The other is based upon the utmost in superior performance and technical quality. So it merely means I'm just more flexible. I have different standards for different levels of art. Though I appreciate it all as art even when something isn't my cup of tea. Especially when I feel something has been done technically well. I certainly do admire that type of engineering. It's just not something that I do. I'm also much more free-form and I guess, somewhat consistently, inconsistent. I'm not a cookie-cutter engineer by any stretch of the imagination. Though I do go for a certain sound depending upon the genre in which I'm working with. Funk as opposed to hard rock as opposed to Opera. Blues are not my favorite. I could do without the blues as I've had the blues too much throughout my life. So, I avoid the blues. But have recorded quite a bit of it. I appreciate it for its art form. I even appreciate the art that I don't care for because it is art. And that transcends anything of a normal explanation of anything. And in which I always felt for Frank Zappa because of the nonsense he had to deal with, with the FCC. There was nothing rude crude or lewd that wasn't funny, in its own right. Proving that Americans just like to push the envelope on every damned thing they can. I'm an engineer but someone is always pushing someone else's buttons. As long as they leave me out of the drama. I'm fine.

Just about me and no others.
Mx. Remy Ann David

So please let me know if anybody finds it?

I recently went to 1987, and I met your mind, it told me "Neve Rocks! Know where I can score some...?" ;)

I wonder if any digital gear is gonna develop a sense of nostalgia after it's become obsolete, like the lexicon 240, I venture to say very few and far between, but still see a lot of H3000s, In pictures, and a lot of people still site the Yamaha spxs for delay and verb.

kmetal, post: 415132, member: 37533 wrote:

I wonder if any digital gear is gonna develop a sense of nostalgia after it's become obsolete, like the lexicon 240, I venture to say very few and far between, but still see a lot of H3000s, In pictures, and a lot of people still site the Yamaha spxs for delay and verb.

I love that stuff, Kyle! I have an Eclipse here and its awesome. And lets not forget Bricasti M7's are digital. Mind you, a Bricasti M7 uses six dual-core Analog Devices DSPs.

Strange... I don't remember the Lexicon 240? The 224, sure. 480. PCM 60/70/80/90 and 91, I think? The LXP's. Damn... what else? The Prime Time's, PCM 42? Geez... I am getting senile.

Hi... my name is Remy... I think?

*edit* i meant the 224.

Oh thank heaven for 711. I was getting out the MRI of my brain damage to see again what I was missing? Thanks for straightening me out on that. If that were only possible?

I still see Eventide, H-3000's all over the place. Still. One of the few gizmos I've always wanted but never purchased. Though I did have the original H-910 Harmonizer. I freaked when I heard the 3000.

I hate to admit this but I've never used an H-3000. I certainly wouldn't turn one away. I mean, given the opportunity? Strangely, I've also not used but once a Lexicon 224 and a 480. Neither of which I was well-versed on. I've only owned the cheaper ones. With no randomness. Something I was completely clueless about. And here I thought they all had randomness? They don't. That only comes with a high-priced spreads. And it's not butter. It's mullah. So the more money you spend the more random your reverb. Who knew?

Everybody raves about the Yamaha SPX 90's reverb. Which is about the only thing I won't use that thing for. I always found the Yamaha reverb always too dark. Nondescript. Nothing to write home about. But... pitch change C, is DA BOMB! Just my $.02. One cent Up. One cent Down. And ya got it. So all you need is $.02 of change.

When I want dark reverb, it's great. I rarely want dark reverb. I'm spoiled by DA PLATE. I always have been. I always will be. One of the most amazing electro-acoustical, mechanical thingamajig reverb. Still, some of these old raunchy sounding early digital muck stuff, had its own particular charm. There's no denying that. The same is being extremely fond of LA-2 & 3's, 1176's. They produce a certain character that just works. Whereas other stuff while it might be cool? It's stuff you wouldn't necessarily want to feed your geriatric mother? At least I wouldn't LOL. Like I was never really fond of those Roland 808's or any of those other similar fake sounding drum machines. Sampled drums? Well... now you're talkin' real. And that's all good. Not stupid voltage controlled oscillators. When I hear that stuff on old TV shows of that era, I almost barf. What did people like about the Roland 808? Please, someone tell me?

I guess that's getting a little melodramatic?
Mx. Remy Ann David