Mixing down to a computer

J

junk e-mail

New member
Heres my hypothetical situation: a computer feeds tracks into an analogue mixer(i enjoy analogue mixing much more, one mouse just wont cut it), I send the output of the mixer back into the computer and record as a finished stereo track. Would that be a wise practice, or would it be wiser to record to a removable media like a DAT or a tape machine. Oh, another question. Would mixing down to a high end two track tape recorder produce a nicer sound than mixing digitally into the computer? These may be stupid questions but take pitty on me.
 
when you consider recording into computer
take audiocard into account
your quality depends on it
the advantage of computer with good audipcard is flexibilty to edit the
recording
i think the quality of audiocard and DAT is same level
hope this help
 
You didn't say what kind of sound card you had. I would assume something more high-end than the usuall Sound Blaster clone since what you propose means playing back 2 tracks while recording 2 more at the same time. Also "high-end" for a 2-track is a realitive term. Mixing down to 2 tracks internally on your computer will be noiseless while any other option will introduce various levels of noise. If you really want to use your mixer I would mix down to DAT, you should be able get a DAT deck for about the same price as a good 2-track. If your DAT has digital out and your sound card has digital in that makes it easy to put your mix back into your computer for CDR burning, back-up or additional editing.
 
Ummmmmm...providing that the soundcard is fully duplex, why even have a DAT involved at all? Just another step that is not needed. Now, that into account that if you are using a cheapy soundcard, then a DAT machines A/D converters may sound a whole lot better.

And while mixing on the computer may offer no new noise, the processing is not as real life sounding as analog processors are. The more really time processing you do, the less accuracy you will actually have (Slack will claim that is is completely accurate, but this is just a difference is the use of the word. Him and I suspect that plugin's and what not use a different algirhytim in real time mode then they do when applied to a track, but who know's with computer software, the bottom line is that it is limited in it's processing capabilities and it is NOT "what you here is what you get in most cases). Plus, a mixer and outboard processors are much easier to work with, so you spend less time clicking between views and screens, and more time just adjusting the mix. A frustration factor comes into play with dealing with plugin's and what not. After awhile, you the pain in the ass factor start's guiding judgement. The faster you can work on something to make it sound the way you want the better as the ears have a bad way of getting used to a bad sound and thinking it actually sounds good... :(

So, if your computers soundcard has nice A/D converters, then your hypothetical way of doing things will work just fine, provided that your computer will play back all the tracks, and record a new stereo .wav file at the same time without any burps or hiccups in the sound. In this way, you would have the .wav files right there just begging to be burned to CDR... :D without having to do anything else except author a CDR, and maybe some mastering with a cool mastering software like Wavelab 3.0 with the Mastering Edition plug's, or the Waves plug's.... :D :D :D

Good luck.

Ed
 
Oh one other thing.

Concerning the difference between a digital or analog mixdown.

I have heard lot's of both that sound killer, and lot's that sound really bad. Just because you may have a 1/4" reel to reel doesn't mean that the machine is very good sounding. Also, good noise reduction tends to help analog decks obtain reasonable dynamic range signal to noise levels. But, anything less then Dolby SR is probably not all that great, and Dolby DOES apply some artifacts to the sound (SR is the best sounding of them all though).

Cheap A/D converters have their problems too.

So, it really comes down to a couple things concerning digital vs. analog.

Is noise an issue with you? If so, you will need a very high end analog recorder with a great noise reduction system to record quiet recordings that just about any decent 16 bit A/D converter will.

Is controlling Transient Peaks in the mix more important than noise to you? If so, analog will be better as it "gradually" distorts transient peaks rather then just outright bad sounding distortion like you would have overloading any A/D converter.

If you have access to a nice analog 1/2 track machine that has some decent noise reduction, you will like the results a lot better then most digital A/D conversions. But price becomes an issue. I bought my Lynx One card (24bit/48K sampling rate) for $450 bucks, and it has a very nice sound that is only surpassed by A/D converters that cost many times the cost, and also sounds better then all but the best analog 1/2 tracks machines, which cost many time as much too.

So, I am willing to trade a little sound quality for economics in this case. Of course, a nice Studer with Dolby SR will find it's way into my rig when finances permit, but for now, this soundcard works really well.

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