Large consoles in big studios

[Waffleness]

Afternoon,

Ok, so I understand the principles of studio signal chains. I have done a lot of live work so know my way round big soundcraft and midas desks and the like. What I am interested in is how pro studios (or even large home studios) route their signals through the consoles?

I assume you will have:

Mic --> Pre on Console --> Direct out into AD to DAW --> Output from DAW into console stereo in (or equiv.) --> output from console to monitors

and obviously all the FX routing on aux's inbetween. So whats the point of having faders on the console? Unless they are motorised and linked to the DAW through MIDI, i cannot see a reason for them being there. Also, I assume the DI from the desk is taken post EQ and pre fade?

Many thanks - i am just interested as to the function of an analog console in the digital domain.

W

 

[bennychico11]

well, typically on some large format consoles you have two faders for each channel. One for the record side going to tape and the other for monitoring. That way you can send each individual track to a DAW and then send each individual track back out to the console
for example: http://www.videoandaudioequipment.com/Images/SSLJ9000-side.gif

See at the bottom of each channel there is a fader...and right above it another one.
That's a large format way, but if you don't have a pro console, you can also just record each track like the way you mentioned...and then when mixing still send outputs from each track in your DAW (or off tape) back to the mixer so you can mix analog.
Obviously you need a soundcard/interface that has as many outputs as you have tracks

 

[Massive Master]

So whats the point of having faders on the console?

To adjust the volume. Just as you would digitally.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

So whats the point of having faders on the console? Unless they are motorised and linked to the DAW through MIDI, i cannot see a reason for them being there.
...
i am just interested as to the function of an analog console in the digital domain.

The point of having faders on the console is to be able to set the volumes on the individual channels with the general purpose of mixing the signals down. Hence the name "mixing" console .

Obviously if one is not going to be using the mixing console for mixing - e.g. they are going to mix by computer - then the "mixing" function of the console is obviated and the main function of the desk will be the use of it's preamps and maybe it's EQ in the signal chain.

There is no function of an analog console in the digital domain, because it does not exist in the digital domain. That does not mean, however, that one cannot use a combination of the two domains in their production. Many folks will record through a mixer's pres direct out to a digital recorder or DAW, but mix by sending the digital signal back out to analog and doing the actual mixing back on the desk or other analog summing board, for example. There are many folks who just prefer the sound that way.

There are other ways in which analog mixing and digital mixing are combined and the two domains switched between in the overall process as well. So just because a big studio has a ProTools HD rig doesn't mean that the faders on their analog Neve are useless.

G.

 

[NL5]

You wouldn't go to the stereo in on a console. You'd have a shit-ton of channels from the DAW going into the tape machine inputs/channel inputs/whatever.

 

[Waffleness]

The point of having faders on the console is to be able to set the volumes on the individual channels with the general purpose of mixing the signals down. Hence the name "mixing" console .

Obviously if one is not going to be using the mixing console for mixing - e.g. they are going to mix by computer - then the "mixing" function of the console is obviated and the main function of the desk will be the use of it's preamps and maybe it's EQ in the signal chain.

There is no function of an analog console in the digital domain, because it does not exist in the digital domain. That does not mean, however, that one cannot use a combination of the two domains in their production. Many folks will record through a mixer's pres direct out to a digital recorder or DAW, but mix by sending the digital signal back out to analog and doing the actual mixing back on the desk or other analog summing board, for example. There are many folks who just prefer the sound that way.

There are other ways in which analog mixing and digital mixing are combined and the two domains switched between in the overall process as well. So just because a big studio has a ProTools HD rig doesn't mean that the faders on their analog Neve are useless.

G.

Yeah that all makes sense, thanks.

There are just so many combinations with various setups, was confused as to what was accepted as the industry standard, but I get the picture its more engineer specific.

I wouldnt like the idea of tracking into a DAW and then sending it back into a desk to actually mix on. I would feel as though features in the DAW are wasted. Obviously there is the real like response from fader control which is more user friendly than a mouse.

I suppose its just recognising the mix itself is done outside of the computer, on a peice of hardware, and then the levels sent back to the PC. Im a ITB user so I can see how the other approach coud get expensive quickly.

 

[Light]

To adjust the volume. Just as you would digitally.

But better, because you don't loose resolution as you turn down.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[Light]

Oh, and by the way, live consoles are a very different kettle of fish from in-line studio consoles. Neve, SSL, and other in-line consoles have a LOT more routing options at the channel and buss level than a PM5K or a XL4, but they won't have nearly the output routing options. Also, high end in-line boards have a lot of fairly confusing options on how you set up the faders. I've spent a fair bit of time on a SSL 4000E (well, actually I think it was a G, but it had an E computer...don't ask me why), and I always had to have a assistant remind me which mode set the faders and sends the way I wanted them.



Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I wouldnt like the idea of tracking into a DAW and then sending it back into a desk to actually mix on. I would feel as though features in the DAW are wasted.

Well, there are advantages on both sides of the domain fence. You're right, one simply cannot beat a digital NLE when it comes to economy, editing power and features, automation control and stuff like that.

On the other side of that coin, beyond just the "look and feel" of an analog desk - and indeed any outboard gear - there is a difference in the actual sound in the two domains. There are many engineers that would rather give their left lung away than go without the sound of a good analog summing box or summing circuits in a big coal-burning mixer. And no matter how good the emulation, no plug ever sounds quite the same as it's analog counterpart, whether it's the board's EQ, or routing through an outboard compressor or other box.

It comes down to the old "pick the right tool for the right job". When one has the ability to edit and automate their tracks, and experiment with different mixes digitally, and then send those edited tracks with a selected mix plan back out through the Big Board with a nice Manley EQ, UA limiter and *real* plate reverb chamber, you can have the best of all worlds .

Of course, key to all this is having high enough quality and a large enough number of A/D and D/A converter channels between the two domains. That alone winds up costing more than most entire home studios cost.

But the most successful big studios are the ones designed to be the most flexible allowing the client producer/engineer to design their own signal path.

G.

 

[gecko zzed]

I wouldnt like the idea of tracking into a DAW and then sending it back into a desk to actually mix on. I would feel as though features in the DAW are wasted. Obviously there is the real like response from fader control which is more user friendly than a mouse.

Aside from sound quality issues, there is a high element of personal choice in this. But that choice is not simply based on whim. People have different ways of managing information, all equally valid. Have you noticed when asking for directions, some people will draw you a map, while others will talk you through it? Some people are highly visual, others are highly aural, and yet others are highly tactile.

People who are inclined towards the tactile are the ones most likely to feel at ease and be highly competent in moving physical faders up and down.

I, on the other hand, am not highly tactile, and instead, I'm more visual. So moving to a keyboard and mouse was no big deal for me once I got used to it. This is not without its problems, though. For example, when live mixing, I get very edgy if I can't see the performers, or the mixing desk clearly enough (while others can operate very easily by listening and by feel).

But I do agree that in most domestic situations, you are sacrificing potential by going out of the box to a desk, then back in again.

Note, however, the importance of Glen's response!

 

[RRuskin]

I wouldnt like the idea of tracking into a DAW and then sending it back into a desk to actually mix on. I would feel as though features in the DAW are wasted. Obviously there is the real like response from fader control which is more user friendly than a mouse.

This is how I prefer to do most of my work. One of the advantages, to me anyway, is that my signal only goes through the A/D & D/A processes once.

During tracking, the console is used for monitoring in the control room and cue mixes for the talent.

 

[Waffleness]

Some good responses glen and gecko, thanks. Interesting hearing more experienced people do it all

This is how I prefer to do most of my work. One of the advantages, to me anyway, is that my signal only goes through the A/D & D/A processes once.

This is on a similar line to why I created the thread. Obviously all methods of production are equally valid, so long as high quality converters is used in multiple AD/DA stages.
I just like the flexibility of a DAW. Just drop a channel in or take one away.

Would you say there is a certain amount of 'man points' that come with owning a 32 channel desk in your basement that you dont get with a 64 channel DAW

 

[RRuskin]

Would you say there is a certain amount of 'man points' that come with owning a 32 channel desk in your basement that you dont get with a 64 channel DAW

Maybe for some. I still needed a large board when I transitioned from analog to digital tape media and certainly won't chuck it now that I record to disk, whether stand-alone or directly to computer. For me, the pluses outweigh any minuses of such an arrangement.

 

[KineticSound]

Would you say there is a certain amount of 'man points' that come with owning a 32 channel desk in your basement that you dont get with a 64 channel DAW

There's absolutely the "wow" factor of the big desk, but to Glenn's point, there's also the aural "wow" factor of something being mixed through a great analog board that can make an impact.

I also think, though, that as digital technology continues to advance, the lines are getting blurred. Someone posted a link on these boards not too long ago that showed a shoot-out between a record mixed on an SSL board and the same record with the same mix done entirely in the box with ProTools (essentially, comparing the two methods that have been discussed here), and the differences were hard to distinguish. Granted, the studio had used the Neve preamps in the board to record the comparison tracks, so it had a pretty high starting point!

Until recently, I simply had to have a physical mixer in front of me. The routine of reaching for a fader or eq knob was just too ingrained for me to be comfortable mixing "in the box". Now I'm mixing in software, but with a control surface (still gotta have those faders!). My guess is that this is a trend that may occur at many studios. Many here in Kansas City have done just that... Control 24 surfaces abound at project & commercial studios. It's totally in the box - giving the flexibility benefits Waffleness described - but with a familiar, comfortable method of control. (Plus retaining the "wow" factor )

 

[xstatic]

I have a 104 input console in my studio and love it. I do understand both sides of the argument. My console is inline and it makes tracking much easier. I use the top channel section for all mic inputs and tap either a direct out from the channel or a group out (its a 24 bus console) for sending to my converters. I then have the option of either using a converter retunr for that channel on the bottom section of the channel, or internally routing the top channel to the bottom as well for monitoriong purposes. What this allows me to do is...

1.) create my cue mixes
2.) EQ the cue mixes should I want without affecting the actual recorded signal
3.) create a seperate mix for the control room monitors
4.) allows me to use solo and solo in place functions without affecting cue mixes
5.) during mixdowns I have easy access to outboard equipment via the 1000+ point patchbay
6.) Easily route any input to any output including outboard chains
7.) Inline monitoring is virtually latency free so latency becomes a non issue

What I have noticed over the years is that good analog equipment is much faster and easier to use. Working on a good console channel EQ or outboard EQ seems MUCH faster to get the sound you are looking for. Its not that plug-ins and such can't do this also, but dialing it in seems much faster in the analog realm. It just seems so much easier to get things just right. I do have good converters so the bounce between the two systems feels like a non factor compared to the benefits received by both the analog sound and ease of use. The biggest drawback to mixing in the analog realm however is the ability to 100% fully recall a mix. Many of my mixes are still done completely in the box with maybe a few bounces out to outboard gear and immediately re-recording those tracks to another track within the DAW so that I can maintain full recall. There are consoles out there that have better and worse automation systems, but that kind of automation is much more tedious than a DAW, and still not as pwerful in my opinion. Another advantage of digital however is consistency. Digital functions always sound the same from day to day. plug-ins to degrade or change over time. Analog gear however requires maintenance and to a certain degree does change over time for better or for worse, like it or not. One last thing I have also noticed is that in the digital realm, I tend to think about things where as in the analog realm I tend to feel things more. I know this is probably a mental thing, but I beleive that it exists none the less. As far as music goes, I believe that feeling things is the better choice. With digital I find myself all too often having to start a mix over because I have plug-in'ed myself into a box and the mix begins to lose power and strength. I find myself using too many tools because I have them and they are so easily available. With outboard things have to be hard patched, and equipment is limited so you really have to manage your use a lot better which makes it a little less likely to just start tossing compressors and other outboard on channels. It forces you to really know why you are doing something. With digital I find it too easy to just start loading up channels because you can. This isn't always bad, but for me at least, it exists.

I know that there are strong arguments and beliefs on both sides of the analog summing debate, but I am a believer in the anlaog sound. When I pan things on my console it seems to me like I get a wider, deeper, and more natural sound field happening. Almost like analog panning adds a bit of a third dimension to the 2 dimensional pan aspect. Regardless of whether or not this is true, the perception is there for me and it makes me fell better. When I feel better I track and mix better. Placebo? Maybe. Reality? Definitely.

 

[xstatic]

Someone posted a link on these boards not too long ago that showed a shoot-out between a record mixed on an SSL board and the same record with the same mix done entirely in the box with ProTools (essentially, comparing the two methods that have been discussed here), and the differences were hard to distinguish. Granted, the studio had used the Neve preamps in the board to record the comparison tracks, so it had a pretty high starting point!

I am not sure how I feel about some of these tests. I understand how and why they are being done, but there is always the one flaw for me. First, how did they do the same exact mix? Did they just stem the pro tools channels individually through the analog desk? Did they stem premixed groups from Pro Tools? If either of these is the case this is fairly scientific and fairly accurate, but really only compares one small feature of a good analog desk, but then mars it slightly by adding both an extra A/D stage and a D/A stage.

What I would really like to see is a test comparison with an engineer doing a mix completely in the box, and then that same engineer doing a mix on the console using console features like inbuilt console EQ'ing and compression and such. It would probably need to be limited to only console features instead of racks of outboard to more accurately show the differences on how just addding a console helps. I would also like to know how much time it took that engineer to do each mix. My bet is that the mixes would be much different if it were approached this way. The problem I have is in 2 major points (at least major in my opinion)

1.) First and foremost, mxig in the anlaog domain is really a much different approach in many ways. The way you mix in a DAW is not necessarily how you do it on a console. EQ points and Q's will often be different, thresholds and ratios different etc... because of the way the sytems interact and sound and feel. Even if just using a summing buss, I would not do a mix in a DAW and then send it thoruhg a summing buss, but would set the summing buss up AS I am mixing which may change the way I mix things.

2.) The current method that seems to be used to compare the two systems seems more "scientific" in its approach. That in and of itself is not really a bad thing, but music is NOT scientific. Its important to remember that many of the things we like in music the best are not based on perfection, but based on flaws and variances. Like it or not, they affect how we do and perceive things. Look at analog tape. Many people still prefer the sound of analog tape. Nobody in their right mind would really argue that analog tape is "more accurate" than digital (except for maybe the fact that digital is composed of a series of samples rather than a contiguous wave form). Tape is most often loved because of its "scientific shortcomings" Its loved for the way it shapes and changes you recorded tracks, not for how perfectly accurate it is.

Just my 2 cents!

 

[KineticSound]

I don't disagree with you at all. Another thing I left out was that I listened to the two "comparison" tracks - it was actually one song played through that was an edit switching back and forth between the two methods - through what many would consider "amatuer" monitors: M-Audio BX8's. Would I have been able to tell a bigger difference if I was listening through a more audiophile system? Probably. I'll also keep in mind that the vast majority of end users listen to their music through their iPods in dithered-down, compressed formats that degrade the sound to such an extent that the discussion of what sounds better is almost becoming a useless argument.

The other thing that we didn't bring up was the economy of mixing in the box. I didn't think about this until you mentioned the size of your mixing rig. (Man, I'd love to see a picture of that because the thought of having 104 channels in my house is making me weak in the knees!) The vast majority of us in the HR realm can't afford that sort of horsepower in the analog realm (or need it, honestly), but digital allows a user to expand capability in a virtual environment. Whether that is good or bad is debatable, but it's damn handy. If I'm working on a 24-channel analog board - common in home studios - and I need more room, then I have to get creative with bouncing / submixer / etc. In the digital domain, just add more channels!

 

[NL5]

Man, I'd love to see a picture of that because the thought of having 104 channels in my house is making me weak in the knees!

Here's my den (old pic) -

 

[Farview]

But better, because you don't loose resolution as you turn down.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

Nope, it just disappears into the noise floor...

Seriously, it doesn't lose resolution in 32 bit float until the mixdown is rendered (or it hits the converters). The resolution would be the same either way once the mix was digitized for CD.

 

[dean1964]

just tossing this out there...

There is something to be said for Analog summing and the SSL bus compressor.

I've seen folks that do the majority of their work in the DAW if not all, and then send their buses to the console for summing, and to make use of the SSL bus compressor. Some guys will even print that mix to tape, then dump it back to digital through the best converters available.

Does it make a difference? that could be argued until my dog starts paying her half of the bills.