Mixing on Console vs. mix "In The Box"

Console or "In The Box"

  • Total voters
    159
D

DrJones

New member
Just recently change everthing. Regardless if you track to tape or DAW. Do you mix "in the box" or on the console? Just a poll to see why there is different strokes for different folks! :D
 
Well I suppose that just depends on the situation. I think that's really a hazy topic these days. Plus, I think it becomes extremely relevant whether you track to tape versus digital in the first place. And how good a job the engineer did. So you really have to consider that.

I think the engineers that where really alive during the analog to digital technology boom can compare the stats better than I can.




-Mixing completely inside the box.

Pros: Extremely flexible in the fact that you can automate just about anything, mix and match things in a non linear fashion, editing is alot more flexible, etc. Also, non destructive, which alot of people rave about.

Cons: You're subject to all the potential shortcommings of digital. It could be that the tracking engineer who relied on a Neve 1073 for the last 15 or 20 years to analog tape, suddenly gets effect he dosn't like when he goes to digital (on the same preamp/mic combination).

A/D converter qualities start becoming a factor. Wordclock sync becomes an issue. Resolution issues and unessessary conversions degrade signal.

The way it was tracked takes enormus effect. Cause then you have to consider what preamps may translate better to digital. You start looking into certain microphones with smoother high end response. Plus you get more dynamic range to work with in comparison to analog.

Also, you tend to realize that certain plug-ins cant be pushed like some outboard gear. So you eventually incur the cost of needing some really nice outboard gear.

I think more importantly, it really comes down to the dangers of miseducation. Digital tends to be approached differently than analog in some aspects.

Mixing on the "console", if I can afford it or I get a project that funds it, is a better route for my tastes. But that's only if I can suggest a place with a console of my choice for mixing purposes. Also, you start seeing that there are consoles out there (refering to large format) that do well in the mixing stage, but maybe not so desirable for tracking. And vice versa.

Like some engineers might track on a neve and mix on an SSL.

If you think about it, everything that you put that signal through is an FX unit in it's own right.

Anyway, my two cents.
 
Last edited:
I used to mix tape-console and now I mix DAW-in the box.

when I first switched to the DAW I didn't enjoy it and missed all of my knobs and faders being in front of me. But I've been on the DAW for a little over a year now (recorded with tape for 4 years) and the more I work with it the more I love it.
 
The fastest route is by mixing on the DAW console. That's exactly what I do 100% of the time...and i really love Cubase's mixer/console..very detailed and plenty of parameters for versatility.
 
I mix it in the box.

If I had top line converters and an "excellent" analog console for summing that would be one thing....but I'm not THAT rich. :o
 
well I'm not THAT rich. I track to hard drive and mix back through 24 channels of M-Audio Delta convertors at 24/48 back to a Soundtracs Topaz project 8 console and print to DAT.

The DAT goes back in via S/PDIF for final tailoring

WHY? cause it works for me. Some of the cheapest outboard reverb units will still beat some of the high end plugins (not UAD, TC POWERCORE).

I'm not even gonna argue the point cause it's all been done in other threads. I say find the medium you're happy working with and roll with it. For me it's a hybrid of analog front end and digital recording/editing and analog mixdown.

If you're getting the sound you want there's no right or wrong setup and if you're getting the sound your clients want there's no better setup.

Personaly I find it faster to mix down via a console and outboard gear than I do in the box, and personaly I like the way my mixes gel or glue together better that way too. If you've been brought up all digital then chances are you can crank out a mix just as fast and good sounding. Horses for courses I say.
 
here's my post from over a year ago in that other thread....pretty much the same as todays....

Lemontree said:
in my infancy as a home recker I used to MITB. When recording grew on me and I realised it was a hobby I wanted to get into I plunged for the big analog desk (A&H SABER 24/16/16/2) with direct outs to a couple of Delta 1010s, recorded to cool edit because the editing features supassed anything I'd seen from cubase. Still liked the cubase effects layout better so I imported all the tracks there and mixed down back through the desk. Instantly I realised how much more dimentional and warm sounding my mixes became. I now use SL3 with a soundtracs Topaz Project 8 and 3 Delta 1010s, not exactly lucid or apogee but the results I get now are 100 times better than I ever got from MITB.

I liked the comments about the comparrison to digital cameras and actual rolling film in a camera. I think personaly it's all a matter of taste. True, for some it's a lot cheaper to go fully digital and keep the signal clean and for others the hands on and overall sound = cohesion is a big factor. I vote for the hybrid mix for best of both worlds.

Digital editing X analog summing / hands on knob twisting = great mix
Click to expand...
 
I'm pretty much the same as 2002. Except now I track to an HD24 and monitor with a Tascam M-3500. All that ends up in the box through a MOTU 2408 mkII. The whole system clocked with a GenX6. I edit and semi automate some of the mix with Cakewalk but it's sent back to the MOTU/HD24 used like a soundcard and mixed with the analog console. The two buss from the console is patched to two analog ins of the MOTU and recorded as a new stereo track in Cakewalk (24/44.1). I send that to Soundforge to top and tail it and do any other vodoo I can think of. When I feel it's sufficiently mangled, I dither to 16 bits and burn CDs.
 
Track Rat said:
I'm pretty much the same as 2002. Except now I track to an HD24 and monitor with a Tascam M-3500. All that ends up in the box through a MOTU 2408 mkII. The whole system clocked with a GenX6. I edit and semi automate some of the mix with Cakewalk but it's sent back to the MOTU/HD24 used like a soundcard and mixed with the analog console. The two buss from the console is patched to two analog ins of the MOTU and recorded as a new stereo track in Cakewalk (24/44.1). I send that to Soundforge to top and tail it and do any other vodoo I can think of. When I feel it's sufficiently mangled, I dither to 16 bits and burn CDs.
Click to expand...
Hey Track Rat,
How come you don't record your stereo track straight to Sound Forge?
 
I've done it that way but I was just juggling two programs at the same time. It's too easy to just make a new track in Cakewalk.
 
I mix ITB. I have top notch converters and preamps and I dont give a damn about the analog nostalgia.
 
I prefer to mix from a DAW to a console. Personally, I find mixing on a console to be much easier and more natural. I find it is much easier to get a more cohesive mix, things fit better and sound bigger, and it all happnes faster and easier. However, that is what I prefer, and not what reality is. Reality is that the toal recall of digital mixing is a major reason to weigh against the other aspects of the console. I need the recallability with my clients and my workflow. There is no doubt in my mind that the analog realm still kills the digital stuff when it comes to pure sonics. Analog EQ's, summing etc.... There is still sopme sort of "magic" there. Vut the convenience and editing capabilites of DAW applications is a huge factor to consider.

Personally, to view analog as pure nostalgia is kind of harsh, if not uneducated and unrealistic. Analog is not really going anywhere, just changing a bit as digital matures. Not only that, but many people seem to be over there initial love of digital and are now looking for and experimenting with integrating the best aspects of boith worlds. This is where the true power is at.
 
I agree with everything you said. And true enough, I cringe when someone comes back and says like everything about the mix except "X", can I just bump "X" up a little. I don't have that repeatability. Every mix and remix is unique. I do some automation but it still comes back to where the desk's faders were at that particular time. Still, I prefere to mix on an analog desk. I can set up a monitor mix with or without effects in the phones WAY faster. Nothing will suck the life out of a session faster than dicking with a mouse trying to make everyone happy with the headphone mix.
 
I agree also, I mix in the box because I can't afford analog gear. Someday I hope to have a "hybrid" digital/analog studio.
 
Personally it all comes down to what equipment I've got handy. In my own project studio, everything's in the box 'cause I've sometimes got 2-3 projects in various stages of development. Also, I have the advantage (or disadvantage depending on how you grew up :p) of having learned originally to do everything in the box. I started way back in the day with a Fostex 4-track like anyone else, but as soon as I figured out I could use the 4-track as a pre-mixer and record direct into the computer, I was hooked :)

I think it's a completely different experience when you're on a big board. It's much easier to focus on the sound vs. the look when you're on a board w/o a screen. On the other hand, it's much easier to fix errors and clean up takes in the box. I think the best overall method, in terms of sonics *and* usability, is to work with the advantages & disadvantages of all-digital recording just like we've/you've learned to work with the advantages/disadvantages of tape!
 
100% console mixing. I don't get along with software mixing. I need the whole console in front of me. Chock it up to me. I have done it too long to change. As to if it sounds better, who knows. That is a whole 'nother debate probably full of red chicklets and stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top