Mixing on Console vs. mix "In The Box"

Console or "In The Box"

  • Total voters
    159
I think it all depends on what you're used to and what works best for you. I've always mixed on my DAW, so thats what I've stuck to.
 
I mix ITB for anything i plan on using. However, i will mix on my yamaha mg for fun. I only have 10 channels of I/O so depending, i can run out of channels quick (i do hip hop instrumentals so i can get away with 10 alot). I often mix on my mixer (sending tracks out of protools) to do a stereo mix for fun. Especially when i had some outboard, i could do it with a mix of plug ins and external gear. Just for fun though. Sometime my results were great, usually it was about as good as just doing it ITB. However, when you know you can't go back, you take all the time you need. I learned alot from it even though i don't plan to do it this way unless somehow i end up with a far better/bigger mixer and some great converters.
 
hybrid here dm24 to 001 out 001 by lightpipe to outboard back in via lightpipe
sometimes i burn stereo mix to external cd recorder via spidif to avoid mixdown issues with ptle
 
TRACKING - Console/Outboard to Tape

EDITING - Transfer Tape to DAW at 24/88.2 (do basic Cut/Paste edit, minor "spot-EQ, and comping)

MIXING - 24 DAW channels out to Console/Outboard (no plug-ins), stereo mix to 2-Track w/simultaneous Playback output back to DAW at 24/88.2, w/stereo EQ across Playback outputs for MASTERING, and then final sequence and level adjustments (and any touch-up) done in DAW before conversion to 16/44.1
 
I mix ITB for two reasons. I don't have the money to buy a good console, and secondly I don't have the space for a console. Since I don't have the money to spend at least $10,000-$25,000 on a decent sounding console, I feel the negatives would far outweigh the positives of going through a cheaper console, even something like the Mackie 8-bus.

And my interface allows me to send/return stuff to external processors if I want to.

However, if I had the money and the space, I've been salivating for this for quite some time.
 
I track and do my mix down on tape then when I'm done I dump to digital to burn Cd's. I find software very boring when it comes to music. I like tangible tracks I can see physically, not just blips on a screen.
 
How about the small 8 channel SSL xdesks? Do they do a good job for tracking/mixing/mastering in conjunction with the daw?
 
Last edited:
I Mix in the box. all coz of the :D. Am very ok with mixing in the box so far been doing it for sam time now.
 
Depends on the job at hand for me

I am old school but tech savvy, so good either way.
If I am in a commercial studio, I use what they have.

At home studio I record on a Korg D888 (digital but works like an analog mixer). I use analog preamps and mixers going into it so recordings are analog warm, but digital precise. It records in .wav format, connects to computer via USB2, and when done recording, I import the tracks into my daw.

For final mix and mastering, my preference for a while now is take every track as a .wav, bring in to Magix Sequoia and master from there where I can use vst sonic expanders, chandler limiter, etc.

I even do this from clients multi-track tapes, I re-record every track in to digital to master in daw.

Being able to save my mixers setting in the daw is nice.
Having automated faders (in any environment) makes life nice.

Now, being anal about my recordings, I do admit, sometimes I still record my own stuff to multi-track tape, then re-record every track in to digital, then to daw for mix/master.

Bottom line, I like daws for mastering ;) - but think they are awefull for recording!
 
But when you come down to it... analog or digital mixing... it will all end up as an MP3 format :eek: can you tell where it came from???
 
I can't really vote in the poll because although I mix on the console, the only recording I do, apart from sampling the vocals and the occasional live instrument, is the final stereo track that goes into my ancient PC. Everything else is sequenced and done live with synthesisers and effect units and mixed through the A&H ZED420. I realise that this is an all but unfeasible way of working for most people, and it can be impractical occasionally, but I'm pretty happy with it.
 
I voted DAW with a console.

In fact, the actual mixing I do is actually "in the box" but the console is a very convenient way of controlling inputs and outputs (and, most important, setting up headphone mixes for musicians while recording).

At the same time, the console can also function as a control surface for setting up the basics of a mix which I then tweak "in the box" since I can usually improve on any timings etc. that I do "on the fly".

It's a hybrid system of working but it works for me.

Bob
 
RobbieL said:
wasn't sure if i should vote for daw w/ console or daw "in box" since I use a mackie control universal pro to do the mixing in the DAW for me.
Click to expand...

It would be: (DAW) In The Box

Using a console infers that you are sending your signals out using DAC to the console.
 
Hey Guys,
Been at this as a tech and recording BIG into electronics since 70'
I have seen this grow from 4 track to 8 all the way to NOW.

If I have one thing to give every new studio producer/engineer would be a TEAC 3304
and make them produce everything on that to full production master on a 2 track.

You will learn where to be careful and when to "Bounce"
Many things that are "OLD " become new again.
if done right you may understand what the BEATLES/Martin WHO Zep were up against.

It will make you "Listen" !

M
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top