hardware vs software mixing?

Strange Leaf said:
Analog mixing is it. More expensive, but totally worth it.
Click to expand...

It's more expensive depending on the context.

Since the sound is getting into the DAW through the Delta series AD converters, there's really not much point in expecting anything better than a Delta 1010 (or Delta 1010-LT) to handle the DA conversion to do analog mixing.

The next step is choosing a mixing console that, at minimum, doesn't suck any worse that the Delta series DA converters. That puts things squarely in Mackie territory.

Given the situation, and the fact that he's using SONAR as his DAW and the Delta ADs on the front end, digital summing in SONAR will easily beat out any DA/analog console setup he's likely to be able to afford.

For the work I do, I record one or two tracks at a time. The AD is a Lucid clocked to the GENx6-96 and it goes straight into Samplitude 7.0 Pro. I mix in Samplitude using a control surface. Major label quality? I don't think so, but that's not the sort of work I'm doing.

I find the summing engine in Samplitude to be more than acceptable for my work, and superior to SONAR 2.x, which I beta tested and compared to Samplitude.

For me to do the mixing in analog and equal or better the sound of the summing engine in Samplitude, I'd have to purchase a number of DAs at least as good as the Lucids and a quality console. I don't find it necessary to expend that sort of jack.

I am happy enough with the sound of Samplitude's summing engine to not even bother mixing anything through my Yamaha 02R via the lightpipes anymore.

In a way it seems rather silly to rationally compare sitting at an analog console pushing faders and twisting knobs, to digital mixing when, to achieve a sound in analog exceeding the quality of digital summing in one of the top DAW software packages, requires a quantum leap in equipment cost.

Just another opinion.

John LeBlanc
Houston, TX
 
I'll side with John's logic on this one athough I haven't revisited mixing on my Mackie in quite a while.
Put the effort on the front-end first -as many good or great A/D's as you need, and one set of good D/A's to mix on.
With a set of eight D/A's aren't you still partly mixing in the box?
Wayne
 
John W. LeBlanc said:
For me to do the mixing in analog and equal or better the sound of the summing engine in Samplitude, I'd have to purchase a number of DAs at least as good as the Lucids and a quality console.
Click to expand...

That about sums it up right there (no pun intended).

For some of us, the diminishing returns might be very well justified -- particularly if you've got the capital, or if it means the ability to land better-paying work. But how many of us are in that position? Let's not kid ourselves here. :D
 
a very different point:

analog mixing and digital mixing have differences in subtle ways beyond quality and resolution. outboard gear and plug ins sound very different from one another- and probably impart more of a sonic impact than the summing differences. i cant get my plug-ins to sound anything at all like my ashly sc-50... but then again, the logic compressor is a pretty powerful thing that my RNC can get close to, but cant keep up with certain tasks...

work styles and mixing techniques are totally different as well. for example: when i mix digital, i dont fear taking 30 minutes here and there to tweak something, but analog mixing i have to set aside 5 hour blocks. which is better? well they are totally different ways of working, with different results.

the differences in your ability to hear due to a lack of tactile sensations is pretty rough actually. turning knobs gives a satisfaction that makes a big difference.

and what about your eyes! eye fatigue can seriously hurt your ability to hear. i am serious. try listening to your song with a sheet over your monitor! it sounds different!

these are very important issues.
 
Hi, I know less than anyone else who's posted here, but for what it's worth, I have both a Delta 1010 and a MOTU 828 (alongside the proverbial Mackie analog mixer (1402VLZ-pro), and I mix in DP3.11 with a Mackie Control). In short, "Home Studio". Anyway, if you go this kind of route rather than expensive A/D D/A converters and the like, my 2 cents is the 828 is a far better audio interface than the Delta. You really should go A/B the two of them before buying a Delta. And I believe the NEW 828 mk 2 is a 24/96 versus the 24/48 which I have, which is even better.
 
i have to say the thing that makes the difference for me is outboard comp/eq and reverb. software just doesn't touch it to my ears- and all my hardware certainly not super highend stuff.

I know many people who Go software because they think its cheaper, take this example:

The new eventide TDM simulation of their first harmniser, the package costs ( with a few of their other things) £500, and it take a dsp chip (1/4 of a mix farm) to run. call that £300. i saw a few of the actucal units go last year for £250!!!!
 
I have owned the Aardvark Q10 since it came out and endorse it for an $800 solution. One thing that nobody has mentioned is that with software mixing there is no controls to get dirty and contacts needing to be cleaned. Ok, it's likely lazy of me, but this can be important too. Also, software can be upgraded much easier than new circuitry wired into a hardware console. To tell the truth, I doubt the end result of a project can be differentiated between analog and digital. As you see though, both solutions are defended tooth and nail.
 
But the test is not between analog and digital on material you don't know. The true test is on material you *do* know.

And in that scenario, I have done listening tests on material I know very well (my own) and have been able to determine clear audible differences between analog and digital plugin processing of the same types with similar settings (or I should say, settings designed to produce the same results). Clear enough differences that in blind tests I can pick which is plugins and which is analog with 100% accuracy.

The result of these listening tests is that I've been purchasing more analog outboard gear. As far as simple tone, analog wins hands down in my opinion. Plugin processing is great for automation/recall and working very fast in post production settings, so it has it's uses and is getting gradually better. But for sound, it's just not there yet.

So back to this thread, I agree that outboard analog processing works great with DAW's. It's a very complimentary scenario: the clean of the digital audio with the tone and color of the analog outboard.
 
It's much cheaper to get into mixing in the box but it's a lot more expensive to get out of it. You could easily spend $2k on a DAW program and effects plugins but when it comes to move on and you want to sell it you are pretty much screwed. You would be lucky to get a few hundred for everything.

If you put that same money into good quality hardware you can usually get about 70-80% back when you sell it. If you buy used gear and pick the right pieces you can probably end up selling them for the same price you bought them.

I bought my Radar Nyquist 24 on Ebay for $6000. That is a shitload of money to me and I could have just bought a Mackie and spend the rest on outboard pres and effects etc. But the Radar sells new for about $9000 and I figure if I sell it in the next few years I can probably get most if not all of my money back out of it. That means I got a Radar for free.

I bought my Ghost 24 on Ebay for $2500. They still sell new for around $6000. I should also be able to sell that in a few years for just little bit less.

Hardware is ALWAYS a better investment in the long run.
 
I agree with Tex here ... just bouhgt a 2nd-hand Ghost 32 (€3000, with meterbridge, 3y old virtually unused, yesssss!) on eBay and I'm buying a second 8in/out sound card next week, with plans on getting a thrid one later this year.
My ideal setup would be indeed gettting a deditcated 24 tracker and getting FX from plugins until I can save up for more and better outboard.


My 2 eurocents,
Herwig
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
Right now - I'm totally unimpressed with digital summing......... I'm happy to stay in the analog mixing world!
Click to expand...

Ever heard the summing of the PT tdm systems? It will kill a mackie anyday.
 
Not so far... my "digital summing" experience has been solely with Cubase SX/Nuendo - which, while not a PT rig, are no lightweights!
 
Last edited:
Nuendo is supposedly better then PT...for what i've HEARD...meaning on forums..havne't heard the same for cubase though
 
TexRoadkill said:

Hardware is ALWAYS a better investment in the long run.
Click to expand...

You don't have to go far to find a studio who learned this the hard way. I think Im correct by including digital mixers into the software lump. For example D8B'sand 02R folks having to spend money on 96khz upgrades only to find out that 192 systems are forcing another change if you want a piece of the SACD or DVD-A market. Neve and SSL still rule the high end analog mixer market while 2" Studers, 3M, Ampex etc... still provide consistent high quality products. Digital will never grow up to the point of stability. Im still running more projects on the narrow format recorders. IMOYMMVBPN


SoMm
 
Aardvark Q10

I have to agree with Zark. I have been using a Q10 for several months, and it is the best sounding sound card I've ever used. The converters are flat out terrific, and the preamps are outstanding. It works well with Sonar and XP. It has a nice software mixer of its own, and if you're not using midi instruments you could mix without an outboard mixer. However, if you do use midi, it has a midi interface and the timing is rock solid. BTW, I plug my midi gear into an Alesis Studio 32 mixer but do all my mixing in Sonar which allows me full automation. What more do you want? Most of the sound cards and mixers mentioned above will do a good job for you so you can't really go wrong. Good luck!
Lynn
www.artistlaunch.com/wife
 
The talk about summing is soooo overblown. Worry about your source quality, mic, pre, comp and AD first. I think most talk about digital summing vs. analog has alot to do with inferior mixing skills...people used to analog who havent fully acclimated themselves to the dif rules for mixing in a DAW or who simply have gotten used to the soft top end sound and like it. Alternatively, its used as an excuse by newbies with DAWs who turn out small, digitzed, shrunken sounding mixes.
 
JuSumPilgrim said:
The talk about summing is soooo overblown. Worry about your source quality, mic, pre, comp and AD first. I think most talk about digital summing vs. analog has alot to do with inferior mixing skills...people used to analog who havent fully acclimated themselves to the dif rules for mixing in a DAW or who simply have gotten used to the soft top end sound and like it. Alternatively, its used as an excuse by newbies with DAWs who turn out small, digitzed, shrunken sounding mixes.
Click to expand...

co-signs except that mackie's aren't really acclaimed for there softening of the high-end like 'high-end' analog consoles..api, neve, ssl, etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top