Whats The Advantage Of Using A Real Mixer?

D

DRUM2001

New member
Hi there!If you work with Cubase for example you have a professional mixer there,and you can use this(software)mixer of Cubase.So what are the advantages of using e real mixer,except that you can connect each instrument,that you want to record to the mixer.
Is a keyboard/sampler and a PC with Cubase or Cakewalk with its plugins enough for a home studio?
 
that depends so much on what it is you want to record, what style of music and what instruments you will be using, wether there will be more than one person recording at a time........two things you will eventually need are reference monitors and a good soundcard...
 
There is a school of thought hanging around that says that the moment you start mixing or just changing the volume of a recorded track that there is deterioration in the quality. It is proposed that if you mix through an external mixer the result is superior to using the computer mixer.

Any thoughts anyone??

cheers
John
 
This is my humble opinion based on my experience. I like tracking on ADATs, sending the tracks into a computer for editing (taking out stick collisions, guitar handling noise, fixing stuff in general) then re-recording it back onto ADATs and mixing through my console. It just sounds better, rounder, plus I like my outboard effects better than plug ins. It's not that I don't like mixing in the computer, as a matter of fact, it's easier in the computer. To my ears, it sounds better through the mixer. YMMV.
 
Well, I use "Nuendo", made by Steinberg, to record. I find the advantages of using a mixer to be the following:
I have the mixer set up as a control surface to control the mixer in Nuendo. This allows me to control the fades on more than one channel at a time. If you use the software's mixer, you have to 'mouse' around the faders one at a time, saving the fader animations one at a time. I'm also a real 'hands-on, touchy-feely" kinda guy. I just prefer to use the mixer as opposed to the mouse.

As a side note:
John, in this day and age of high resolution, high bit-depth recording, with high quality A/D D/A converters, is the proposed degredation in audio quality even noticable? Would it be noticable at the end-consumer level of the final product?
 
I don't know Michael but as track rat says - it sounds better through the console ...mind you if he is using ADAT he's probably still 16/44.1

cheers
John
 
John, just for the record, I'm running 20 bits, 44.1. I was recording at 48 khz but I feel that recording at 44.1/20 bits and just dithering down to 16 bits sounds better than resampling and dithering.
 
Track Rat said:
This is my humble opinion based on my experience. I like tracking on ADATs, sending the tracks into a computer for editing (taking out stick collisions, guitar handling noise, fixing stuff in general) then re-recording it back onto ADATs and mixing through my console. It just sounds better, rounder, plus I like my outboard effects better than plug ins. It's not that I don't like mixing in the computer, as a matter of fact, it's easier in the computer. To my ears, it sounds better through the mixer. YMMV.
Click to expand...

I agree with Track Rat. A real mixer just sounds better (especially an MCI.) Instead of recording to the ADAT then bouncing it to my PC, I just used the ADATs as an AD/DA interface. I was recording 16/44.1 because of hard drive space. Now I am using the Alesis HD24, and recording at 24/48. I will still use my computer to fix the little things.
 
Now I am using the Alesis HD24, and recording at 24/48. I will still use my computer to fix the little things.
Click to expand...
Very soon my friend (as I rub my hands together with an evil laugh), very soon....
;)
 
Track Rat said:

Very soon my friend (as I rub my hands together with an evil laugh), very soon....
;)
Click to expand...

Once you get you'll fall in LOVE with it. best thing since sliced bread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top