Give me a second..
Give me a second..
Beck you don't know me and I respect your taste and analog ways. But I am willing to bet that you can't tell a high end digital signal from a high end analog one. I am sure you can't pick them apart. No one can..
When you have an all-digital setup, then yes, it becomes more difficult to tell which recording stage is contributing the most obvious objectionable artifacts. Of course I can pick them apart, just as I can compare different analog consoles side-by-side and have a preference. But comparing two analog mixers or two digital "mixers" involves different listening criteria.
"If you canít make a hit record with a Tascam or a Fostex,
then youíre not going to able to do it with a Studer or Otari!" -David Mellor
I'm certainly not going to come to the Analogue only forum and argue against analogue. As noted above, there are analogue mixers that I think sound great and would choose in an instant. However, what I won't do is argue that this is because analogue contains fewer artifacts. It's more to the point that the artifacts and distortions caused by analogue are very pleasing to the ear. Warmth, for example, isn't "accuracy"...it's actually a fault but a nice one to have.
If digital has a problem it's that it's too clean and accurate. However, on the good digital boards, a lot of attention is paid to the analogue sections--for example the pre-amps on the Midas Pro6 rival anything you'll hear on the best fully analogue mixer--and this makes a huge difference to the full signal path even though most of it is digital.
Anyhow, as I said earlier, analogue and digital are just tools. The decision between them is based on a mix of practical considerations and a lot of personal preference. Personally, I happily use either and won't generalise that either is automatically better.
The pessimist sees the glass as half empty. The optimist sees it as half full. The realist just drains the darn thing and gets a refill!
Never mind the fact that it's such a broad question, entirely based on peoples opinion and the OP hasn't stated any requirements of either such mixer or price willing he's to pay. May as well just put a poll up and got an average percentage of what people prefer.
I think for live shows and especially more theatrical ones....digital mixers seem to get the nod these days because of the setting/recall capabilities. I work in IT by day, but one part of my IT world involves a 4,500 seat theater that hosts evrything from Country acts to Broadway shows and acrobatic troupes.
So when I poke my head in the theater during load in and sound checks...that's what I've seen lately.
Some of the more "traditional" music acts still tend to prefer all-analog mixers.
For pure recording/mixing, where I wanted the mixer to be part of, and add to, the flavor of the audio....?
Analog all the way.
In the studio, if I were to use a console for mixing, it would be analog. This is simply because I can't see much of a difference between a digital mixer and mixing ITB. With mixing ITB, I can choose which EQ and compression plugins, from an array of companies and designs, that I want to use for each instrument. On a digital mixer, you have the same thing on every channel.
For theater, digital all the way. Mostly because everything can be automated. There are so many times when a person mumbles in one scene and screams his head off in the next. I can program the gain structure differently for each scene, set the compression differently for each scene, have effects preset, etc... You can do that manually on an analog console for one or two channels, but once you get up to 40-50 channels in the show, it's just too much to keep up with without this kind of automation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)