Low End: 4 Track Mixing Question: Analog or Digital

Here's the thing: The 'warm' analog sound is generally made with quality analog equipment. Unfortunately, 4-tracks are generally using the cheapest of cheap circuitry. Not that it isn't useable, but any analog 'magic' will not be found there.
I think what we are trying to do is keep you from applying a concept that pertains to high quality gear (analog summing is better, warmer, etc...) to low end equipment.

My entire point above was that in order to get transparancy without spending thousands of dollars, digital is the way to go.

I threw the solid state thing in there because people will assume the same thing ( warmth) about tube gear, when it is only true of the most expensive tube devices. I assumed you would know of tube preamps and compressors and such...

My recomendation is to get an interface with four inputs and record the tracks off the 4-track into the computer for mixing. Using a low end analog mixer will not add any magic and it will really limit your options.
 
I think what we are trying to do is keep you from applying a concept that pertains to high quality gear (analog summing is better, warmer, etc...) to low end equipment.

My entire point above was that in order to get transparancy without spending thousands of dollars, digital is the way to go.

I threw the solid state thing in there because people will assume the same thing ( warmth) about tube gear, when it is only true of the most expensive tube devices. I assumed you would know of tube preamps and compressors and such...

And now for the opposite opinion, because I couldn't disagree more with Farview on this topic.

I have always maintained that you have to spend much more on digital to come close to the quality of what we commonly call semi-pro analog gear, its truer today than ever before because there is more crap digital toy-like gear available than ever before.

I often say that all I had to do when people started switching over to digital was to do nothing, because the semi-pro gear I used in my home setup sounded even better compared to where the industry was going. Now relatively inexpensive analog gear is preferable, simple analog EQ is better at preserving the sound without mangling it the way digital EQ does.

Analog gear does not have to be expensive; it just has to be done right and there is plenty of inexpensive analog gear out that that is done right. There always has been, but now you can buy what used to be expensive for pennies on the dollar so the point is moot.

You have a 234. So get a used Tascam M-106 mixer and be amazed at its transparency, simplicity of design, low noise, low distortion, etc. It's one of those gems you discover as you learn more about what is available. Likewise there are many inexpensive tube pres, compressors, etc that perform to fully professional levels. In fact, perform beyond what people settle for today with digital counterparts.

Generally speaking the mistake people make today is that they do too much alteration of sound in the digital realm. The quality of recorded music is vastly inferior today because of that practice. If you're going to the trouble of recording analog keep it there until the last stages.

We used to see plugins and software versions of hardware devises as chincy and like a big joke compared to the hardware versions they claimed to emulate. But now as a new generation has grown up with it everyone sounds as bad as everyone else and we have a new lower standard for music. Plugs aren't better today. People have simply become acclimated to inferior sound.

If you want to buck these low standards and expectations get out of the box! It's going to take some time and research to learn what's out there... exactly what will cost little and perform greatly. I've been doing it since 1978, so don't expect to get it overnight. Granted, most people want quick results, so will get impatient and run to the digital solutions everyone else is using... and that's fine if you want to sound as bad as everyone else.
 
The only good tube preamp that is actually a proper tube preamp under $700/channel was the groove tubes pre, that is no longer made. It was a low gain preamp, which was a problem for certain things. All the other tube preamps that Ive seen are solid state preamps with an under-powered tube in the circuit (or not) for effect.

The Tascam board is fine for what it is, but I wouldn't call it transparent or quiet. Possibly compared to a cassette 4-track, maybe, but not on the whole.

You are blaming the musical same-ness on digital tools, when the blame needs to be placed on the tool running the DAW.
 
Plugs aren't better today. People have simply become acclimated to inferior sound.

Even being a very involved analog guy....I would disagree with you on this. You can't just toss out a blanket statement like that without being specific and givining some examples of current "bad" plugs.

I held off on buying plugs for my DAW for a long time....and was using what came with the DAW when I really needed to do something ITB.....but this past winter I loaded up with some very high-end plugs....and they are substantially better, and many that qualify as "mastering quality". I am actually looking forward to using them and doing more stuff ITB than I wanted to in the past, because these new plugs are capable of great results. Some of them ain't cheap....but you get what you pay for.

I'm sure if people just look to using "freeware", or the least expensive ones, then you get what you get....but there are certainly a LOT of great plugs that can be bought these days from quite a few manufacturers.
 
And now for the opposite opinion, because I couldn't disagree more with Farview on this topic.

I totally disagree with everything you said except...

Generally speaking the mistake people make today is that they do too much alteration of sound in the digital realm. The quality of recorded music is vastly inferior today because of that practice.

...which is to say that user error, not anything inherent in digital audio recording, is the problem. That is fixed by educating users, not by avoiding digital recording.
 
Though I'd like to think otherwise, I appreciate Beck's input here. Nevertheless, the primary rule I try to follow with mixing(and particularly in lacking experience) is to do as little as possible to the original tracks. I focus on volume and tweak an eq where it seems wanting. I really hate what has become the status quo in modern digital recording, which is extreme over-processing. Can definitely identify with Beck's thoughts in a general sense. If I was doing any major mixing I would get an analog board, if only for my own psycho-somatic reasons!

Dumping everything to digital does come in handy for simple edits though. I appreciate that aspect when a perfectly good take is hurt by some singular thing.
 
And now for the opposite opinion, because I couldn't disagree more with Farview on this topic.

I have always maintained that you have to spend much more on digital to come close to the quality of what we commonly call semi-pro analog gear, its truer today than ever before because there is more crap digital toy-like gear available than ever before.

I often say that all I had to do when people started switching over to digital was to do nothing, because the semi-pro gear I used in my home setup sounded even better compared to where the industry was going. Now relatively inexpensive analog gear is preferable, simple analog EQ is better at preserving the sound without mangling it the way digital EQ does.

Analog gear does not have to be expensive; it just has to be done right and there is plenty of inexpensive analog gear out that that is done right. There always has been, but now you can buy what used to be expensive for pennies on the dollar so the point is moot.

You have a 234. So get a used Tascam M-106 mixer and be amazed at its transparency, simplicity of design, low noise, low distortion, etc. It's one of those gems you discover as you learn more about what is available. Likewise there are many inexpensive tube pres, compressors, etc that perform to fully professional levels. In fact, perform beyond what people settle for today with digital counterparts.

Generally speaking the mistake people make today is that they do too much alteration of sound in the digital realm. The quality of recorded music is vastly inferior today because of that practice. If you're going to the trouble of recording analog keep it there until the last stages.

We used to see plugins and software versions of hardware devises as chincy and like a big joke compared to the hardware versions they claimed to emulate. But now as a new generation has grown up with it everyone sounds as bad as everyone else and we have a new lower standard for music. Plugs aren't better today. People have simply become acclimated to inferior sound.

If you want to buck these low standards and expectations get out of the box! It's going to take some time and research to learn what's out there... exactly what will cost little and perform greatly. I've been doing it since 1978, so don't expect to get it overnight. Granted, most people want quick results, so will get impatient and run to the digital solutions everyone else is using... and that's fine if you want to sound as bad as everyone else.

Wow. That is all I have to say.......................LOL
 
Back
Top