Mixing out from the computer to a REAL BOARD

I'm setting my studio up that way. I have to save a bit more then I'll have 24 tracks I/o on a 32 channel board. And then when I get the other shit I need I'll add the last interface to have all 32 channels running.
 
nice

Yeah, sure it costs alot more to have a board, but it sounds so much better than mixing on a computer. Whenever i did a mix on sonar, everything would sound like jumbled, the instruments werent defined in their spot in the mix. Right now i run the 12 outs on my HD192 into my 32/8 bus. Im working on getting another HD192 so i can have 24in/24out.
 
thebarnstudio said:
Yeah, sure it costs alot more to have a board, but it sounds so much better than mixing on a computer. Whenever i did a mix on sonar, everything would sound like jumbled, the instruments werent defined in their spot in the mix. Right now i run the 12 outs on my HD192 into my 32/8 bus. Im working on getting another HD192 so i can have 24in/24out.
Click to expand...

What.....thats an insane statment. Unless you are factoring in outboard gear.
 
Nope.

You're the only one who's ever done it.

How does it feel to be the only known living person on the planet who has ever attempted to use a mixing board? :D

.
 
I DO I DO!

16 outs to a 16 channel board. Wouldn't trade it for the world. Ok, so maybe the world would be enough for me to let go, but I'd just trade the world in for a bigger mixer! :D
 
i don't. it goes into sonar and it stays in sonar (recording and mixing).

but i do control the individual sonar tracks with an external digital mixer (tascam fw-1884).
 
Great converters, mix out of the box.

Average-quality converters, mix in the box.

Lousy converters, stay away from the box.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Great converters, mix out of the box.

Average-quality converters, mix in the box.

Lousy converters, stay away from the box.
Click to expand...

Interesting, and clever too!

There are a few grains of truth in there, although I think the first and second points are debatable. Or at least, there are exceptions to those rules. The third point is great though.

I do think that sometimes the benefits of mixing out of the box can overcome any negatives of using average converters. I also think there may be times or styles of music where you will use great converters to record but will still want to mix inside the box. There are some real grey areas, but I do like those neat and tidy sayings you came up with! :D

Incidentally, I do both ITB and OTB mixing, my studio is setup to handle either or both. So I just choose which approach I want to use, or use a little bit of each.
 
I do both as well.

I've done listening tests where I'll take the same ITB mix and route it out to the mixer. Leaving the levels flat on the mixer, I just re-pan on the board and see how it sounds. Very different. And to my ears better. I don't have the greatest boards or convertors, either. (shrug)

Once I was mixing a new grass band and we were having trouble getting the bass to fill up the bottom the way the producer wanted. It sounded good, but he wanted more punch. After several tries to get some more attack on it with compressor plugs I said "Hold on a sec..." and routed the mix out to the baord and put an old dbx 166 on the bass. (I told you I didn't have the greatest stuff...)

The producer sat bolt upright and said "that's it!!! What did you just do? Crap! Now we have to redo the other songs like that." I know the guy well enough to know that he had no idea what I was doing and was just listening to the sound. And he did indeed pay me a few extra hours to go back and redo the few songs we had already completed.

I'm not a snob about it though. I mix in the box a lot, too. Expecially when I'm writing or doing my own stuff. Just easier. Some of the bands I work with (mostly the younger ones) demand ITB, too. 'What if we want to change it later, mahn?" :rolleyes:

If I'm being paid by the hour I'll tweak your mixes for the next 6 months, sure. :rolleyes:

-C
 
SonicAlbert said:
There are a few grains of truth in there, although I think the first and second points are debatable. Or at least, there are exceptions to those rules. The third point is great though.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, those definately fall into the "general guideline" category. Especially the middle one, as the definition of "average" is about as strict as the definition of "blue" :D

And of course, if one has great converters but they are going out to a Eurorack, the idea of leaving the box is not so attractive ;).

The main point of that triad is that crossing domains is always one of the most critical parts of the signal chain, and that link needs to be solid or the rest jsut becomes secondary.

This is just as true at the A/D and D/A domain crossings as it is at the crossings from air to electricity and back again (i.e. microphones and monitors). And when talking about coming out of the box to mix and then recording back in again, were talking about adding not one, but two crossings or conversions to the chain, which doubles the importance of converter quality.

Which is more important, converter quality or mixer/summing amp quality? I agree that's a tough situational call. But even if I had a Neve desk, I wouldn't want to go through a Soundblaster twice just to use it :).

See, now Albie, you made me go and make a long boring post. Wasn't the triplet easier and more fun? ;) :D

G.
 
sounds like user error, not a equipment problem....


thebarnstudio said:
Yeah, sure it costs alot more to have a board, but it sounds so much better than mixing on a computer. Whenever i did a mix on sonar, everything would sound like jumbled, the instruments werent defined in their spot in the mix. Right now i run the 12 outs on my HD192 into my 32/8 bus. Im working on getting another HD192 so i can have 24in/24out.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top