Skip to main content

Hi everyone,

First off, I'm a novice recording engineer, and I strive to one day become a "Pro". I've been engineering for 12 years now, making the best
out of my budget gear and I believe Its time for me to start working with a professional grade setup to further assist creating the sounds I have
in my head. I've saved up allot of money over the last two years to upgrade all my non professional pieces of gear all at once, about $17,000 to be exact. Up until about 2 months ago I've had my heart set on a completely "ITB" rig, where the chain would just go mic > preamp > a/d converter > Cubase > and processed with nothing but quality plugins.

This "ITB" setup, setup 1 would consist of the fallowing.
1. 8 Daking Mic Pre's
2. 8 Vintech Mic Pre's
3. Apogee Symphony system

Now, a couple months ago I discovered Toft consoles. I've wanted to be able to Eq channels with quality real analog eq's, mix with real faders, and so on, for a long time. In fact its been 11 years since I've touched a real mixer, as when I first started a had a 24 track Tascam tape mixer.
Something has been missing ever since, I think its the enjoyment of the hands on experience.

Enough rambling..

Basically it comes down to the realization that for nearly the exact same price I would spend on just the 12 quality outboard preamps, I could get a Toft ATB-32A console. Yikes, what to do?

Now it all comes down to sound quality of course, I want to know if I'd be making any sacrifices sound wise, or gaining any sound wise if I were to go the console route. I fear that the preamps in the toft are not on the
same quality level as such preamps as Daking, Vintech, Api, Neve, etc etc..
Now if i went the console route, I'd have to save up for compressors, limiters, reverb units, gates, and such, but I'm more than okay with that
if the end result is better?

Please give me all the the input you have, as I need to decide which route I'm taking and take the leap soon.

Comments

RemyRAD Sun, 09/16/2012 - 15:38

Chris I guess you are more concerned about the coloration about the summing box? What you're saying is, any coloration, be it Neve, API, is too colored (of their operational amplifiers) to be considered usable in a summing/mixing box? But that really would only be applicable if those operational amplifiers were not already high quality devices? And so more modern technology, operational amplifier is considered to be " totally neutral ", would be the only operational amplifiers, allowable? So not even Dean Jensen/John Hardy, or maybe even Massenburg's would even be acceptable, for the internal working summing network and output electronics? Because even with a passive summing box, one would still need to include some gain amplification to have at its outputs. Or do I have that wrong?

While you may have mused over Fabrice Dupont's use of external summing boxes like the Dangerous, that he has utilized in the recent past, you are automatically assuming, that he would not utilize a Neve in that application? But that is one of the things he is intending and going to do with my former Neve in place of the Dangerous box. It is that color we are all going for and not necessarily the neutrality thereof. We are not necessarily talking strictly for monitoring purposes. But to sum these different sources together for a mix.

Whereas if you are speaking strictly about summing these sources together for strictly monitoring purposes, it may not be actually that significant? Who has ever had trouble monitoring through a Neve or API console in the past that has prevented anybody from accomplishing a superior end product? In a somewhat related, and perhaps convoluted analogy, a snazzy Cadillac can get you to the same destination as a small, high-performance sports car? Does that make the sports car, better? The Cadillac gets you there, with more comfort, albeit a slightly different style wrapping and with more creature comforts and versatility. Otherwise, I don't exactly understand the comparison to the differences in their actual performance? Faster doesn't necessarily indicate better, just faster. And given the pipeline (roads) that it took took took took took took took. Because I don't see anything externally on a summing box that actually differs in its functionality to that of the summing network of simply a device in a larger form factor? Yes, I certainly understand that one of these gigantic behemoth consoles does not conveniently fit on the desktop of an average bedroom control room. All the while still arriving with a superior sonic signal from either type device. Sure, this may have something to do with how many additional stages of amplifiers and gain structure that exists in larger format consoles. Of course with extensive patching, many of those unneeded stages can be easily patched out/around, to simplify the signal path. So what you are saying is that something like a passive summing box, loaded into a Neve 3415 or API 2520 (with or without, the output transformer) would be inferior to someone else's operational amplifier circuit? Shirley, you jest?... Sorry. Didn't mean to call you Shirley. That's not really transparency. That's just something different sounding. And since all active circuitry has some kind of " sound ", to it, that also is not actually purely transparent. It still has its own sonic signature, which you may deem to be totally neutral. But that does not make it neutral. Neutral is a piece of straight wire, and nothing in front of or behind it. You can't get more natural than straight wire. But a summing box is not a straight wire. Circuitry is still involved. And I can't quite believe that recorded sound, should all be completely sterilized? What you are saying is that we should watch the Wizard of Oz, only on black and white television sets? But it was that neutrality, paired with the color that made its own statement. And without that contrasting difference, there would have been less magic to that production. So I'm not thinking in black-and-white. I mean there are so many timing problems and phase variances when dealing with stereo, a purely uncolored recording should be strictly monaural. Because stereo phasing and time differentials, create filtering effects, taking away from the pure neutral timing of monaural. So I really don't think your reasons are completely valid, except reasons regarding available physical space, i.e., small table desktop. Which, yeah, would be an absolute necessity in a relatively small room. Operational amplifiers are still operational amplifiers, all with their own character. And there's nothing inferior about API or Neve electronics except for the color of your car. So is a blue car better than a red car, better than a white car, or is a white car better than either? Then one should only utilize silver wire for its superior electrical characteristics over copper. And nobody is talking about utilizing all silver wiring. And it was for that reason at NBC Washington, that all video was running on all silver coaxial cabling. But then, NBC had the budget for that where other smaller local TV stations didn't.

My next statement would then be, summing boxes should have no volume controls for the independent inputs. It then falls upon the source feeding the summing box to be feeding the proper levels to the summing box. And we know that not to be true. Simply because volume controls, don't impart any particular color to the audio. So then, the summing box actually becomes a mixer, line level, mixer. All of the colorful changes are simply done further upstream. So if you are coloring something by your choice of tracking electronics, you defeat the summing boxes neutrality. Or maybe I am just dumb and don't know it? Which I would have an easier time believing LOL. I certainly don't find anything wrong with a standalone summing box. But can't we call a spade a spade? Summing boxes aren't something new, they are just something else. My Neve is just 2000 pounds heavier than the average summing box. And about 8 feet longer, 4 feet higher, 3 feet deeper. True, less is more. But if you can patch and reroute within the large behemoths to only utilize the simplest signal path possible, you have a 2000 pound 8 foot long, 4 foot high, 3 foot deep desktop summing box. And something a simple desk could never possibly support. Which I guess means my concept falls flat on the floor? Thankfully not my foot. Although that 500 Pound bleacher did send me and my foot to the hospital, when the other guys lost their grip, when we were striking it from the set, LOL. Ouch! Where's my toenails? (I wasn't wearing steel toed tennis shoes, i.e., Timberlake's). My bad. I was just wearing Nikes.

I'll never make that mistake again.
Mx. Remy Ann David

RemyRAD Sun, 09/16/2012 - 17:17

Sorry Chris. It really could be my brain damage that's preventing me from somehow comprehending your message? Since my brain surgery, these are still things that get me upset when I realize or have been told, that I'm not comprehending something relatively simple. It really makes me feel lost. So, I sure as heck hope I'm not getting Alzheimer's? That would certainly top things off. The doctors can't tell me what's going to happen to me or my brain in the long-term. It is what it is. One thing I am sure of though... is that we both make beautiful recordings.

Who let the dogs out?
Mx. Remy Ann David

RemyRAD Sun, 09/16/2012 - 18:11

Here I go again... Chris, when you say, enough of the offshore BS, I assume you are speaking of our friends in China and Taiwan? Not really sure what the Japanese are making these days other than a couple of microphones? If we could just teach the Chinese to make some better Transformers, I'd be a lot happier. I don't mind mass production was designed and built well, to last. I have as yet to discover any Taiwanese/Chinese equipment with good longevity. Here today... broke tomorrow.

I'm just going to miss that TV show called " ICE ROAD TRUCKERS ". If the Arctic ice cap keeps melting, the truckers will have to buy boats. But maybe they'll like that better when dinner always includes Alaskan King Crab?

The thought of cold water around me leaves me rather cold.
Mx. Remy Ann David

audiokid Sun, 09/16/2012 - 18:18

Without Prejudice

I love Japaneses gear. Love their keyboards, cars, tools, food, level of honor and respect. Its the USA I'm worried about. You are not supporting your industry's like you once did. Its all for supporting budget, good enough now, and in the process, you are killing excellence and paving the way for off shore industry.

http://recording.org/studio-lounge/53339-recording-gear-off-shore-manufacturing-like.html

RemyRAD Sun, 09/16/2012 - 23:30

Oh yeah, I too love all of the Japanese stuff. Unfortunately these greedy profit mongers in the US of A, are actually destroying our excellence factor. Chinese slave children work so much cheaper than those lousy union folks. I haven't had a union gig, since I left NBC in 2000. I still pay my dues. Unions elevated slave labor to that of the middle class here. And they want to go back to slave labor. Because when you are a greedy executive, you want that $12 million yacht with the Corinthian leather and not the $8 million yacht without the Corinthian leather. So you have to lay off or fire a lot of people. So you get that additional $4 million bonus for doing his job so well. And then everybody thinks you are a genius. And they would be correct because you got away with it. I guess Bernie Madeoff, wasn't all that smart? Still, though, he's at a very nice country club, federal penitentiary, with a health care plan. Color TV and Internet access, paid for by the American taxpayers that he ripped off. And from the people who can no longer afford their health care or Internet access. Mitt Romney just hasn't been caught yet. It's OK, they still have two months.

Barack Obama 2012. My younger brother is working on the campaign, again.
Mx. Remy Ann David

ChrisH Mon, 09/17/2012 - 20:06

RemyRAD, post: 393732 wrote: Chris I guess you are more concerned about the coloration about the summing box? What you're saying is, any coloration, be it Neve, API, is too colored (of their operational amplifiers) to be considered usable in a summing/mixing box?

No no no.. I want good coloration, I think that it's very usable, specially when you have different flavors to mix with.
I'm not sure how you got the impression I'm worried about good coloration? Sorry about the confusion

audiokid Mon, 09/17/2012 - 21:28

hehe, Remy addressed that to me. My name is Chris aka audiokid :)

Now I see why this is so comical too! But yes to Remy on that one! I actually don't want the summing box to add colour. I want high headroom and silky transparency for both the summing box and the monitor control system. I also don't want converters that are coloured. The colour comes from the gear that is added.

These hybrid systems are awesome for both recording and mastering.

pan60 Wed, 09/19/2012 - 06:01

Forgive me all, for not thoroughly reading the entirety of this thread first and foremost!

Okay, I think you will need AD DA any way you go. So I would say grab a lunchbox and get started with a system that will best serve your work flow. I cannot help with that as I am not a big DAW guy.
Having said that I hate computers and DAW's, so get a console!

LOL

I think a hybrid is a real answer. It is hard to beat the editing functions of a DAW.

Next let me ask what are you wanting from a console? Mixing or tracking? Will the control section offer the need and or want monitoring controls?

I just grabbed anther really real really nice Soundcraft Delta off ebay for $350.00 ( I wanted the stereo returns for another one ), and their was a clean 24 channel one that got no bids and did not sell. If I had the extra scratch I would have grabbed it.

But these console are not really studio console so they do lack some desired control room routing many would want and truly need. A good local tech could easily remedy that issue.

Anyway just getting in the thread and try to ketchup ( : )~ ) later.
pan

anonymous Fri, 11/30/2012 - 02:13

audiokid, post: 393629 wrote: To add some more now.

Why almost all people that try OTB summing with a console quit and stand firm that OTB summing is not worth it. That ITB sounds better.

It really doesn't. Analogue summing on a decent desk is chalk & cheese. You can sum a bit in the computer, and that can sound really good so long as the sources are related, but not the whole mix. Once you start putting drums, bass, vocals, reverb etc etc etc on the same stereo pair of converters, some hard to define but nasty sounding things start to happen, and it all glues together into flat gritty digitalness. I'd use an analog desk wherever possible, even a relatively crappy one (not a cheapo mackie though! hells no.).

*however*

This will depend on your desk. I've not used the toft myself, but people have complained quite a bit that they're not very solidly built, and they fall apart and go wrong. Good desks aren't cheap, but they're worth the outlay. Soundcraft works fine.

audiokid, post: 393629 wrote: They use a console like inserts ( DA, AD, DA, AD). They are sending individual channels I/O , back and forth to a console.
This is a bad thing. I would never do that.

It is not good to do that thoughtlessly. You can get away with some of that, but not too much of it. It also depends very much upon what you're doing to the sound during its round trip. If you're, for example, deliberately distorting the hell out of it, or feeding it into room or chamber to create reverb, it won't matter so much as if you're running lots of compression on the signal. It depends what processing you're doing on the aux how well it'll respond.

anonymous Fri, 11/30/2012 - 09:23

audiokid, post: 393675 wrote: why using a console is inferior compared to a "professional" summing amp

Tell you what, though. I remember back in 2006, the guys from Audient brought down their very latest prototype summing box for us to play with.

It had no faders, just pads. I said "isn't that missing the point, I want to be using the full digital level, and attenuating in analog... I think that's a large part of what makes it sound better! If I turn something down to -16dB in digital, and then mix that through the desk, it's not gonna sound so great. Screwy S/N, fewer bits, and more problems in the analog domain". Still, that's what they wanted to make, so that's what got released.

Didn't sound nearly as good to me as the desk, doing some experiments, didn't like what happened to the sound quality turning stuff down before the DAC, rather than using the fader, despite the fact that it was almost exactly the same mix bus, and flipping pads was a much less intuitive way of mixing. [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.soundons…"]Audient Sumo[/]="http://www.soundons…"]Audient Sumo[/]

Besides, the other thing that's great about a desk is the EQ. You work a different way with a mix if everything is quickly available under the fingers. A good desk EQ and a fader are very useful features which I wouldn't want to do without given the choice.

Audient now make this, which is kinda fun, flying faders but no EQs. http://audient.com/products/zen-small-format-automated-recording-console

audiokid Fri, 11/30/2012 - 10:16

Indeed, but its all a trade off and depending on the quality of your console and some workflow, a console may be inferior over a summing amp like MixDream or Dangerous 2-Bus.
An analog summing amp without faders or eqing, has advantages over a console. This opens up a big topic but in a nut shell, a good DAW like example: Samplitude or Sequoia, have excellent digital tools that take care of the clinical work. Digital is clinical so use it.
When I track, I set level close to where they should be so its not like I'm moving the faders much ever after. They are close already. OTB seems to remove the need to goof around with tracks. Tracks just seem to need less tweaking. ITB, is and endless quagmire of tweaking.

Eqing, well once you experience object based editing, nothing compares. I'm discovering more and more, that I may only eq a bar rather than an entire track. Or I may apply more or less at any given section. All this done ITB is so easy and so proficient compared to a console.
By the time it goes OTB, its ready for analog juice. Using special gear that opens it all up is all you need to complete the process.

But knobs and fader are a beautiful thing. Nothing compares to having all that at hands reach.

The challenge at the end of the day is, how to you preserve all that added analog lush with these Loudness Wars and online audio.

anonymous Fri, 11/30/2012 - 10:34

I suspect that a lot of the issues with digital mixing are due to scaling and summing issues, various forms of aliasing/antialiasing. This is why different software programs *do* sound different, they use different scaling and summing algorithms.

Automation has always been a computer thing, I'd much rather use a 2012 computer than a 1982 one!

anonymous Fri, 11/30/2012 - 10:47

RemyRAD, post: 393684 wrote: electronica, with sampled slop and other accoutrements, that's fine. That's not recording. That's playing computer games, where music something or the other comes out.

Strictly speaking, you can record using a pencil and paper. It's a semantic issue, and a little off topic, but one could argue that recording is not a narrow term applied specifically to the use of microphones. Records has a dual meaning – both the charts of sales and the recorded signal. Making records, keeping records. Record is an interesting word. Transduce... transcribe... I'm inclined to believe that a player piano records music, even if it does look like a roll of paper and knows only notes, primitive MIDI. A recording of a musical idea or performance is about the musical idea, whether it be transduced or transcribed as dots on staves, punch cards, CD, cassette, or video, or some kind of futuristic hologram complete with a sense of smell. It's all recording, just of different types of information...

Definitely out of the box with that one.

anonymous Fri, 11/30/2012 - 10:55

audiokid, post: 397140 wrote: I agree.

So, I guess its accurate to say, not all DAW's plug-ins do the math the same.

Absolutely no they don't! And if there's one thing a plugin maker won't tell you, it's what's actually going on in there. Sometimes they'll hint at an internal resolution interpolation, although they won't go into what sort of antialiasing or smoothing is done at the same time. Often you'll lose detail by interpolating with smoothing, and what sort of artefacts will occur depends on what sort of signal you feed it. Who knows, perhaps some plugins are fourierising things, wavelet transforms, blind-bernoulli-gaussian convolution/deconvolution, physical modelled components with matrix transfer functions... goodness knows how the data is being mashed, translated, cross-referenced etc, and what compensation measures they've put in to account for the artefacts of these processes.

I don't like it when all you're shown is an animated picture of tape reels going round and round, or a synthetic VU meter, that's for sure!

audiokid Fri, 11/30/2012 - 11:12

Trying to make a human face example: (Vox, acoustic guitar, piano etc) and a cartoon image example: ( all sampled recorded music ITB, VSTi ) look right or sit in the same picture. That's what hybrid does better.
Its about preserving and blending two audio formats with as little or right interference in the best order as possible.

I used to think that if all I was doing was ITB music, meaning sampled based music, Trance, Dance, Club mixes etc, ITB would be all you need.
But, after a few years of playing with this, a high end hybrid summing system does help simulate transients back into any mix, including, simulating transients to create space and separation.

anonymous Fri, 11/30/2012 - 11:32

recorden – old english.

To repeat or report.

Minimal techno definitely has a fine line in repetition haha.

____

Regarding transients it's really most important regarding traditional audio engineering as an electrical engineer's term that applies to inductors, ie wires and coils. Transients is an analog, electronics way to think.

An inductor resists a change in current through the creation/destruction of the magnetic field around the inductor. In an inductive circuit, when the electromotive force (voltage) changes, the inductor will create a voltage to oppose the change, induced by electromagnetic self-induction, causing the current flowing through the circuit to change gradually over time rather than instantaneously. In an idealised inductive circuit, the induced voltage is initially equal and opposite to the change in electromotive force, and it decays exponentially, with a time constant proportional to the inductance of the circuit.

Depending upon the design of the analog desk, the desk may well do all sorts of stuff to the transients. It might audibly accentuate them, and put them within reach of an imperfect speaker by fattening them out, or it might overly smear them. This is one of the properties that people really like about the old Neve desks with transformers, and also valve stuff which also requires lots of transformers. They often make the transients easier for a sluggish speaker diaphragm to reproduce, your ear gets to hear more transient, even though the signal gets a fatter and less dramatic (or transient) transient in the electronic domain – minor damage to or smoothing of the transients will often help what a speaker will later do in response to sharp transients. Some people call it "punchy", if it's gone too far people call it sludgy or woolly. This was one of many balancing acts performed in the design of the circuits according to taste by the designers.

One of the main factors which causes trouble regarding transients and induction is the voice coil of the speakers of conventional design. This also causes a varying impedance over sinusoidal frequency, as well as smeared transients. It's the escape from these sorts of issues where digital should have an advantage. It seems slightly perverse that people are trying to put back all of these electronics misfeatures by a process of algorithmic simulation out of fashion sense, nostalgic cachet, without thinking too clearly about what's going on, or why a certain property might or might not be desirable.

For digital to really, really work, we need digitally actuated speakers. Those are hard to build, though.

____

What happens in an acoustic sense is better thought of as a wavefront or impulse, although transient is well understood terminology in that field. What happens in a digital sense is just a bunch of data, from which one could analyse an amplitude envelope using various methods. When that electronic signal is synthesised by the DAC, then you're into transients.

audiokid Fri, 11/30/2012 - 11:58

I've read this too, and come to my own conclusions that the Neve phase or sound isn't the best for all direction in sound. Great for an older generation of sound or flavor but not ideal for all. I'd rather have the option to create mud when desired rather than it forced on me all the time via all that extra wire and console flavor. Using Neve hardware added to a hybrid summing system makes much more sense.
That smear you get from a Neve isn't desirable with refined music. And even for Rock, I would gamble, the huge cost to maintain one of those beasts and added noise , the hybrid mix would come out on top. But, depending on our skills, one engineer may work better with one or the other.

This is another big topic, but in a nut shell, once again why transparent analog summing that doesn't force colour or take away transients is the more favorable system in today's digital world. And this becomes even more beneficial at the mastering stage. And although DIY Mastering is a loaded topic, once you get to this point in sound quality, traditional Mastering becomes less value. The Mastering value is more a second ear or golden ear. Online music is taking us all into a new direction and with that, different tools and processes.
The gear and processing is already at highest level it can be via quality hybrid summing.
NOTE: I don't consider a console to be a true or personally well rounded hybrid summing solution in today's animated world.

anonymous Fri, 11/30/2012 - 14:07

audiokid, post: 397150 wrote: I've read this too, and come to my own conclusions that the Neve phase or sound isn't the best for all direction in sound. Great for an older generation of sound or flavor but not ideal for all. I'd rather have the option to create mud when desired rather than it forced on me all the time via all that extra wire and console flavor.

Class A, serious voltage, great EQ, loads of gain and solid sound on the pres. There's not that much to complain about on the classic Neves. It may not be as flat as what people build these days, but I wouldn't say there's a type of mix that it can't do. It has the same effect as a really good camera lens, it adds a touch of flavour, especially if you know how to push it over the edge, but it doesn't force your hand or dictate subject matter, especially if you're plugging a computer into it.

Back in those days they didn't have such powerful analysis methods, so they relied on subjective judgement much more. Does it *sound* right to the ear. These days there's much more reliance on measurements and flatness, which tends to result in a clinical or sterile sound, particularly in the case of classical music recordings. Something is lost in the process, but nothing is added, whereas for whatever reason, the high end 70s kit it adds a bit of sparkle, gloss and thump to replace what's been lost, in various ways, so that you get the same amount of music coming out as you get going in. However, it is a mixing desk, ultimately it does just blend sounds together. It's a tool that does a job. Any mixer that works within reasonable parameters should be serviceable, most of a mix is down to what's being mixed, and how the engineer balances it. Some are nicer or easier than others, but it's not to say that one can't do a great mix on a $400 ebay soundcraft.

The maintenance bill on a serious oldschool desk, now that's the scary bit. That's half the reason why many of them are now in pieces being used as outboard.

The main reasons to mix out of the box are detail and smoothness, and also the convenience and speed of operation, rather than looking for colour or character. A modern very flat mixer does that job just fine.

Colour or subtle dynamic reshaping is a separate issue, which you can go about achieving various ways.

RemyRAD Sat, 12/01/2012 - 19:10

I'm definitely with the B I S H, on this.

Let's look at the fundamental and elementary concepts of mix engineering. While you may equate genre of music styles to genre of engineering styles, that really ain't quite on the mark Chris. There is just as many fine young new engineers, as there are curmudgeon old-school folks that will track their productions through those old API and Neve preamps. Then there are those other folks that'll do their entire production within an SSL, completely internally. And so people do follow trends in engineering, no doubt about that. We all did that back in the days of disco. We all wanted that commonality of sound. But not everything was being done that way across the musical board. I can't believe you're sounding this narrow? Really honestly. And you fancy yourself, Chris, a hybrid guy. And your definition and internal term of better is a sound in which you just happen to be following these days. And your better doesn't necessarily equate to better across the board. So you're a Catholic and I'm a Jew... so do you want to tell me which one is better? One is certainly newer than the other. Does that equate to better? And I certainly won't go into politics here because I think sometimes styles vary to come and go. And we as audio engineers (particularly the ones in the musical domain) the latest to embrace something which is better, that sounds better, has to be used. I mean who the heck would want to hear a rock 'n roll band with an unamplified violin instead of any electrically enhanced guitar player? No one. Especially because the gain staging is all wrong. That doesn't make the violin any less valid does it? It's just a different tool that has to be used accordingly in the right software, I mean orchestra. So not sure Chris, how in the overall or, full picture of the capturing performance part of our business is supposed to be inferior over something you deem to be superior?

I think the cold is getting to you? You should be one of those Canadians that relocates to South Florida? American citizenship ain't so bad.

The ocean air will rot your equipment before they can become desirable antiques.
Mx. Remy Ann David

audiokid Sat, 12/01/2012 - 22:33

All right, I'm smiling now.

**** the fundamental. Remy, you are missing the concept and not reading through or understanding most of what I say on a regular bases. You aren't convincing me one bit here. Fundamental and elementary concepts of mix engineering, I don't think so. You are stuck in a time warp and been using shit gear too long on this one. You sound clueless when it comes to this area of engineering. But, you don't have to believe me. I'm simply sharing my opinion on whats worked BEST for me to date. And I really should stop telling people about this.

But don't forget, I'm talking about mixing, summing and mastering, not recording. The Neve or any console, pre amp hardware or some prosummer interface with built ins and a 57 will work for anyone. Yes, a console is a perfect solution for that. Its ideal for large projects needing 32 pre's or any band in a recording session, why not.
But what a real estate pig, power sucker and noisy thing for any studio wanting quality sound via money well spent. There are much better products to invest in and learn about, sonically and logically today. But you'll never know this because you're not a full time mixing engineer or are you? You aren't into programming electronic music either right? That sucks also right? Nothing popular in your sights right.
I know you are into Post though so some of your comments really surprise me.

Your talk about how all DAW's are equal or all converters are good enough and SM58s are great for everything, its the engineer who make the difference, not the gear. Well. ROTF twice over. I wish that were totally true in mixing but it isn't. That's BS low end. Fundamentally speaking you are right but most of what you recommend, I would toss. Yup. not for me.

I challenge you on any mix any day of the week. And any style too :)
Jazz, Blues, Classical, Reggie, Disco lol, Classic Rock, what ever.

Are you up for that? You won't come close to what a hybrid rig will do. I'll take anything you do and improve it. But I'm not here to prove anything, unless that is, what you need. You aren't teaching me anything on this path. I'm just telling the truth on how I hear things in MY WORLD based of real evidence. Your world isn't anything like mine.

You seem to be challenging me anytime someone asks about hybrid, and downplaying hybrid mixing. I think its because you think I'm talking about recording. Yes?

But hey, lets see who's blowing hot air here if you are up for a challenge. I've asked you for a few examples of your greatness, you never step up on par. Why is this? Doesn' even have to be great. All we need is something par. You try and convince me about the fundamentals.

Lets hear balls and sonic greatness in a mix from you today! Send me some tracks and lets play this out instead of BS all the time. Come on... There must be something we can do for an experiment. Any suggestions?

Instead of your constant digs. I challenge you in total fun here. Two professionals ( well, one pro and one Canadian lol) checking things out. Maybe someone else wants to run something by me. I've got endless time to learn and I do love helping people.
Why? Because I'm really serious about what I do.

Yup... Sequoia 12 is a monster. And when you add the juice I have beside me, wow. I'm excited indeed.

Your Neve console will never produce the clarity, bass, and fullness of something ITB like Sequoia with analog summing. Never. Hows that for being a stupid Canadian eh.
And you know I'm having fun with you.

In all fun... , sorry, but your entire outlook is based around dated technology. I'm not saying this to be hasty but since you are on me like a dirty shirt, and kind of insulting me regularly in a fun way too, I'm tired of talk here Remy. Show me your best.

I want more than words here from now on. I'm listening, learning and testing gear all the time. I'm not blowing smoke out my ass here. I'm also not afraid be schooled by you or anyone so bring it on.
Maybe I have it all wrong on this one but so far, I don't think so. You aren't convincing me on anything to do with mixing. Bottom line, all I'm concerned about is getting better so I'm listening. How about you?

Show me the money.

And just for added fun (Dead Link Removed)

audiokid Sun, 12/02/2012 - 10:22

Hi Pan,

I don't use Samplitude so I don't know what its "missing" but from what I understand, Sequoia includes extra Post features ( which I don't need) and some extra mastering tools. But, everything else you need can be added to Samplitude ( Pro X Suite) to make it close to Sequoia.

For instance, Samplitude Pro X Suite is the add-on package included in Sequoia. But buying Sequoia includes ProX Suite . With the " Pro X Suite" is the full package! Also, Sequoia 12 include the sample library called Independence. Its okay but I'm moving further and further away from VSTi. Hardware Synths and dedicated workstations and processors are where I'm returning theses days. (I just added a Korg Kronos x ) wow.

There is so much the this software. One of the real beauties of Samplitude/Sequoia AKA Sampliquoia is Object editing .

I just finished a 48 track session and hardly used any CPU. (Maybe 10% including a 64 buffer) . But I'm OTB all the time but those tracks are still running all the time. This software has Object Editing. What that means. All the wave files you see in the session can be sliced into "objects" (a 64th a bar samples or less even) and processed on the spot or even fly. This include stretching, pitch, EQ, all plug-ins, and more. And it does it so pristine.

As an example, say there is an essy vocal spot on bar 83 of a session. Most would reach for a de-esser plug-in or EQ and run that on the track. But now that plug-in is using CPU and also effecting the entire track per-say. We could use also automation but not even close in comparison... All we do ITB can or may cause or effect other things we "might" not even hear, who knows right....

Well, Object editing gives us the ability to select that bar or spot like wave editing and use your Object editor to add a plug-in(s), EQing, wave editing, special effect etc and fix it at Gods speed in real time most cases. Its like a deeper layer of editing that can be done even on the fly!

Once you are happy with it, you can glue it to that spot ( free up CPU) or leave it open to edit it at any later date. Make sense.
I'm not the best at explaining but that's one real beauty of this software that nothing rivals.
This software just sounds incredible. It really is incredible.

I used to think it lacked in the MIDI department but that was only because I didn't understand it ( famous last words). This really is the most amazing DAW I've ever used. And for hybrid, wow. So simple.

Hope that helped?

For anyone wondering more about Samplitude, the tutorials on youtube are the best!

I've learned more buy using and investing in gear made good enough for Mastering engineers. Its how I came to invest in hybrid summing and Sequoia. I don't follow recording engineers in this business, I follow the mastering tricks and the stuff I learned through digital editing that started 33 years ago. 20 years before Pro Tools hit the streets as a viable solution.
http://recording.org/track-talk/53629-songs-for-ro-4.html#post397237.

audiokid Sun, 12/02/2012 - 11:50

Yes, correct. we're all told the the Mac version is in the making. Slated to be added to the package in 2013. Once that happens, Pro Tools days are even more numbered.

But you know what Pan, Mac is becoming a mobile plagued OS. I got away from Apple 4 years ago. I'm using a PC that can be streamlined for audio for half the cost of a Mac. I don't need all the crap Apple is adding month by month.

audiokid Sun, 12/02/2012 - 12:17

I've posted some interesting info on PC and why they got such a bad Rap. In a nut shell, the problem started because any kid could build one out of clones and parts. They got hot, broke down, and weren't optimized. Mac was the choice for DTP ( desk top publishing) and A/V. Thats was then. Now Apple is a company heading toward world domination in the mobile market. Nothing to do with dedicated audio. You can streamline a PC but not an Apple. Its always calling Apple.

Just need to buy or build a beast and choose software that is Windows. Reaper, Samplitude and Sonar are clear winners for multi tracking. Ableton, FL are clear winners for loop based.
Pro Tools and Logic, days are numbered. I bet on it.

There are others but those are the DAW's that come to mind.

I use PCAudioLabs. They are the best from my knowledge. If you are building a PC, check them out for idea's too.

here is an article I wrote a few years back:
http://recording.org/content/687-custom-built-daw.html

anonymous Sun, 12/02/2012 - 17:54

audiokid, post: 397245 wrote: Now Apple is a company heading toward world domination in the mobile market. Nothing to do with dedicated audio. You can streamline a PC but not an Apple. Its always calling Apple.

You're quite wrong about that, y'know. Mac vs PC is the topic?

Apple don't dominate the mobile phone market, especially not globally. The iphone just gets a lot more attention than others. Problem with telcos is that they're the original enemies of the internet and computer industry. You want to make phones? Got to run according to their rules. Ma Bell. Yes, mobile phones are a big business, much bigger than the computer industry was 10 years ago. Yes the computer industry is huge now, since everything runs on computers.

Certainly OSX, being the biggest-budget blockbuster build of BSD UNIX, is sufficiently clean that you do not need to clean it, strip it down, or generally massage the mutant child of windows NT. All the system processes are necessary and well-implemented.

Yes, it'll try to phone home here & there, but so does everything these days. Not hard to put a stop to that.

I have heard that you can also get OSX to run on a normal PC, but it's just a rumour, right? Anyhow, my macs are real, and the last crash I had where I lost anything was something like 3 years ago (fingers crossed touch wood!). Compared to the cost of some other things, the price of computers is relatively small.

As for the future, it's speculation. In some ways I hope that apple do push it over the edge with OSX in the future. Why? Because most of OSX is open source, and the developers and users will all fork off and make something that does serve their interests. Apple have earned their place and marketshare so far by giving people what they want. That's good business. BSD has a long history, it escaped from Bell labs, who wanted to deprive the users of the ability to write their own software, and all the people who built UNIX were brain drained out of academia. Not interested in proprietary knowledge or engineering various forms of vendor lock-in. Computer technology has already done this a bunch of times with big corporations trying to use it as a license to abuse or incarcerate their customers, but the hacker ethic will prevail. [[url=http://[/URL]="http://en.wikipedia…"]Hacker ethic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/]="http://en.wikipedia…"]Hacker ethic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/] everybody will de-camp to something cooler if it gets too imperial. One would hope that enough of the people at Apple know not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg – user freedom, and that the platform will continue to be fully usable and fully administrated by the owners of the hardware.

If apple mess up the desktop, a bunch of people will cook up some next-generation BSD/Linux thing. That's really what's been holding Linux back. OSX is too appealing, it is currently the ultimate desktop UNIX. I would not mind if apple created that gap in the market, and something a bit more open took its place.

You see the avatar, right? That's what it says.

___

However, the jury is really out on Logic Audio. Emagic were brain drained from Berlin (it's a californian tradition that goes back to the '50s), and I suspect that all the smart people from that company now build the audio subsystem of OSX. Lots of the best music software comes from Berlin, and that's got a lot to do with the music culture in Germany/Austro-Hungary that goes back centuries. Logic has not really made the transition from being an Emagic thing to being an Apple thing... yet. I suspect that Logic X will be the making or breaking of Logic Audio. Hopefully it won't be a turkey.

ProTools have been winding up their users since day 1, incredible force of vendor lock-in, they got in early due to their DSP system giving you 8 tracks on the mac where others had... you'll be lucky. Synced up to DA88s nicely etc. That was what established them, I think your estimate of 1999 being the watershed when ProTools became viable isn't quite right, that's actually when we ditched ProTools and 888s, and went native with Emagic Logic and Metric Halo, although in 2005 we went back with ProTools HD. Digidesign really run a lot of the industry by their dubious business practises, I think a lot of people would be glad to be rid of the huge pricetag, arsey hardware lists etc.

But if ProTools went down, there would be *more* incompatibility. Everybody would be scattered around using this or that, and transitioning session files would be days to weeks of work. In a production environment, ProTools as an industry standard gives people compatibility. It's valuable. That's the actual leverage that Avid have over people, market dominance of compatibility. They use that license to abuse the users some, but again, they do have to turn out a usable product that does what people want it to.

It'd be nice to see a genuinely open interchange format for DAWs to use, so that you can just open your session up in whatever you want. Easier said than done. I don't see that happening any time soon.

anonymous Sun, 12/02/2012 - 18:04

audiokid, post: 393466 wrote: How fun is all I can say. I am so sick of looking at a screen for everything and using a mouse. My arm is starting to have a chronic ache, and I know its all from a mouse. I'm hybrid now and love it but would do a console too, if it was the right one.

There's some truth *right* there.

Mind you, these days I'm using wacom cintiq wherever possible, rather than mousing around.

Hmm, for $17k, you should probably be looking for a calrec or a neotek or something. Don't buy new!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Calrec-T-Series-Mixing-Console-Desk-/360382628289?pt=US_Live_Studio_Mixers&hash=item53e87a81c1 y'a get me blud! (bit scary... but nice if/when it works)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Calrec-C2-Production-console-mixing-36-channel-Mic-pre-amp-compressor-Eq-/290823009939?pt=UK_Mixers&hash=item43b666f693 slightly less hard line.

__

Perhaps amek...

(Dead Link Removed)

[/URL(Dead Link Removed)