moving vs old school faders

L

leonardopete

New member
hi everyone
i would like to know which you prefer to use and if motorized are so important (obviously in term of time they are).

how do you save changes with old school faders? do you take pictures of the console or do you use a recall sheet?

how do you match the levels on your console and the ones in pro tools? manually trying to reproduce what you have in the console or do you leave them at 0 db?
 
On the relatively rare occasion than I'm mixing anymore, if I'm using a console from a DAW (not rare in those cases), all the faders are at unity as if it were a summing mixer. Sheets if using aux sends or EQ or what not, but volume automation is in the DAW.

If tape source, moving faders (or at least automated volume) is miraculous.
 
Volume automation in the daw is so much easier to program and tweak.

However, if you are using a mixer that has moving faders that didn't cost a $50,000+ when new, you probably only have scene automation. This means that the board will remember where the faders are when you hit save. You are able to save a bunch of scenes and recall them, but when you recall the next scene, the faders snap to the next position. It isn't the type of automation that remembers and executes you vocal rides.

If you are using a digital board, everything is recall able. No recall sheets required. The scenes are stored in the console and can be backed up on a computer or thumb drive.
 
leonardopete said:
hi everyone
i would like to know which you prefer to use and if motorized are so important (obviously in term of time they are).
Click to expand...
yes. they are real important. Get some and you'll see why.
how do you save changes with old school faders? do you take pictures of the console or do you use a recall sheet?
Click to expand...
SSL, Neve, stored to a computer with partial recall. Avid, Yamaha, controllers fully recallable. Studer, Harrison, full internal recall.
how do you match the levels on your console and the ones in pro tools? manually trying to reproduce what you have in the console or do you leave them at 0 db?
Click to expand...
?? What are you talking about? Dude, calibrate the trim pot using a VU meter. That's why they're there. Re-read page 37 appendix C of your manual for your avid converter.
 
I take photos of all the mixer controls and all my outboard gear, I write notes on the channel strips as to where things are sent. My mixer has automation but not full recall so this digital photo route is a quick way to get the mix happening again if needed.

Alan.
 
I mix all in the box (Logic), but I would imagine that your choice would change the nature of your mix. Older mixes were more like live performances (no automation). You might need a few people manning the faders/knobs who would perform the mix as it went to tape. I wonder if that would produce more of a musical result than just drawing a linear curve in automation. I can't help but think there's something kind of interesting about mixing that way, though in all practicality it's hard to get by without automation these days.
 
MrUserNameIV said:
Older mixes were more like live performances (no automation). You might need a few people manning the faders/knobs who would perform the mix as it went to tape. I wonder if that would produce more of a musical result than just drawing a linear curve in automation. I can't help but think there's something kind of interesting about mixing that way, though in all practicality it's hard to get by without automation these days.
Click to expand...

When (after a substantial amount of time has passed) I listen back to "manual" mixes I've done, either solo or with the requisite Three Otehr Guys Grabbing Six Faders/Aux Sends Each, I usually just hear the tune and the mix as an integrated whole; it's hard to separate the two...probably because the mix was a type of "performance", just like the one the musicians made during the recording portion.

Whereas when I (after a substantial amount of time has passed) listen back to fully automated mixes I've done with a DAW or a digital console, I almost always hear the mix as this separate entity overlaid on the music; it's like I'm being reminded of the litany of decisions that went into writing the automation.

It'd be interesting to find out whether other listeners perceive that same difference.
 
The performance aspect of a mix in my opinion is cooler. Organic and pleasing.

Digital mixes to me sound more sterile.

I'm not talking about any analog vs digital sound debate, just the vibe.

Also when doing mixes out of the box, more thought goes into it so the tune "mixes itself"
 
RFR said:
The performance aspect of a mix in my opinion is cooler. Organic and pleasing.

Digital mixes to me sound more sterile.

I'm not talking about any analog vs digital sound debate, just the vibe.

Also when doing mixes out of the box, more thought goes into it so the tune "mixes itself"
Click to expand...

I like the vibe of mixing in the box. And I (personally) also put a lot of thought into those mixes.
 
gecko zzed said:
I like the vibe of mixing in the box. And I (personally) also put a lot of thought into those mixes.
Click to expand...

Mixing in the box is certainly a skill all it's own.

For me, I'm at the early stages where there is too much thinking involved. :D

With a console one is familiar with the thought is gone and it becomes a dance of sorts. Also it's quite fun.
The thought and planning come in the tracking stages.

I believe when one masters their daw of choice, it could become so much second nature, that doing the creative "dance" is quite possible.

There are also benefits to itb mixing. All the pros that have moved totally itb seem to have one common reason for it. The ability to recall.

For me, I still prefer a console but enjoy benefits of itb.
 
RFR said:
I believe when one masters their daw of choice, it could become so much second nature, that doing the creative "dance" is quite possible.
Click to expand...

I believe this to be true for every human endeavour.

Playing golf, driving a car, using a scalpel . . .all become fluid and second nature once mastered. And once mastered, you have the freedom to explore the boundaries with confidence.

And there are very few human activities that are not daunting when first confronted. It's easy to regard 'unfamiliar, and therefore uncomfortable' as synonyms of 'bad'.
 
That feeling is mostly about how you are interacting with it, not the fact that it's a daw. If you had a control surface to do "the dance" with and recorded those moves with the daw's automation, it would simply be playing back that dance.

The trick would be to learn to program the automation to mimic how you would move the faders in a mix...or buy a control surface.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top