The end of outboard processing gear?

For me, I've never understood how someone can effectively mix in the box. That's just me, though. I have to have control of all faders on the fly when mixing down. Same with EQ. There may be something I recorded that sounded decent when tracked, but doesn't sit right in the mix, or I want to give it a different personality. I like being able to do this knob-twisting without using a mouse on a virtual board. Just a personal preference.
 
Seeker of Rock said:
For me, I've never understood how someone can effectively mix in the box. That's just me, though. I have to have control of all faders on the fly when mixing down. Same with EQ. There may be something I recorded that sounded decent when tracked, but doesn't sit right in the mix, or I want to give it a different personality. I like being able to do this knob-twisting without using a mouse on a virtual board. Just a personal preference.

a control surface does the trick for me. that darn little berry BCF is pretty nice.

but you cant set it to work with plugs at the same time so there is the downside.
 
I'd be curious to know what mix of a A/D equipment is used by say, the top 20 selling bands in the world today. What do the big dogs use?
 
So a question a curious noob (or ignernt drinkin' old hat) might ask could be; So if I'm using the outboard processor to commit effects/compression/whathaveyou to track, how would the signal path lay? Pre first or processing first...? Do you effect the compressed signal then go to pre or compress the processed signal and go to pre or sculpt the preamped signal?

...So many variations, so little overhead... ;)

Eric
 
If you are tracking you'd definitely go from the mic to the preamp first, as you need to raise the mic signal to line level. Any processing would come after that.
 
stetto said:
So a question a curious noob (or ignernt drinkin' old hat) might ask could be; So if I'm using the outboard processor to commit effects/compression/whathaveyou to track, how would the signal path lay? Pre first or processing first...? Do you effect the compressed signal then go to pre or compress the processed signal and go to pre or sculpt the preamped signal?

...So many variations, so little overhead... ;)

Eric

Generally it would run as-

Mic->Preamp->Processing->Tape
 
Sorry to shift back, and I'll give the newbie some green love for his thread, but I am curious...I've never mixed in the box and am curious why so many people do it and how those who do get it to be effective. The following is not disrespecting those who do in any way, but simple curiosity, and it is probably at the end of the day just a different way of driving the car, both goals getting from point A to point B.

After I have tracked, and it is time for mixdown onto a deck/computer/whatever will record your mix, I like control on the fly for the following scenarios:
1) Let's say I want to fade a track in but it has a varying attack...e.g.-it is not something I want to be a smooth fade in but a couple of different levels of volume within, say 2 seconds or so and each push of the fader is critical to how loud I want it to stage in. I'm sure the digital realm will let you program fade ins and outs based on seconds and clocks, but I feel more comfortable doing this on the fly because I know a split second before I want it to record at x, y, and z levels to give the fade in effect I'm hearing in my mind's ear.
2) Let's say there is a rapid crescendo of all instruments at once but I really want to push the drums and bass in that moment and pull back the vocals slightly. Again, I'm guessing in the box I could program the mix to do this? I find myself comfortable doing this on the fly because that is what I'm hearing in the passion of the moment, kind of like riding a roller coaster and gliding through different turns and drops and lifts. Sorry for the metaphor.
3) I hit some bad notes somewhere on something, so again, I want to pull them down and then back up quickly, maybe in concert with a little extra compression or a little more reverb to mask what is not a major mistake, but something I hear and would like to subdue for a quick second or fraction of.
4) I would like a particular effect on a track or all tracks, but want it to sync with the rhythm of the vocals/guitar/bass/whatever, and want it to fade in at a certain groove that I can't really write down on paper but feel clear as day when I'm listening and controlling the board.

These are just a couple of scenarios of why I use outboard gear, especially a control board, and why it is comfortable to me. Not saying, by any means, that mixing via a mouse that this is not possible because I've never done it. But the reasons above are a few of the reasons why I am comfortable mixing in 'real time'.

I'm curious, as I said before, about some of the same reasons those who mix in the box are comfortable with that style. I'll bet there are some things that mixing that way has to offer that are better and make more sense than mixing my way. Just curious what they are. You never know, I may pick up on it someday soon. But if I don't know what it is and don't ask questions about it, I'll never be tempted to try the other side. :) :)
 
Hey Seeker- you don't have to give any of that up to mix in the box... just get a control surface... turn on the automation while your at it and you can go back a fine tune your mix before committing to tape... (and save the original tracks with the final mix automation)...
 
MOFO Pro said:
Hey Seeker- you don't have to give any of that up to mix in the box... just get a control surface... turn on the automation while your at it and you can go back a fine tune your mix before committing to tape... (and save the original tracks with the final mix automation)...

You see, that's why I am curious. Maybe mixing in the box is a step up I want to take at some point. Right now, what works for me works, and I have to be honest I kind of enjoy the 'high' of being on the spot to make a couple of planned tweaks (after several listens over and some practice runs, mind you :) ), but if I can get that otherwise, the same thing but a little easier, then maybe it is something I will look into in the future. I would have to have a controller, and I know some of the ProTools packages are based around a controller 'board'. That is really something like I do now. I record to an HD24 digital via the board. HD24 has the capability to cut, paste, and whatever other stuff I don't really use but should probably learn to. It is just that the HD24 is my 'computer' hard disk that I record to and my board is my controller.
Interesting stuff.
 
SonicAlbert said:
I think you are making a false assumption, i.e. that it has to be "old versus new". A lot of people are making this mistake right now.

My own opinion is that the best approach is "old AND new". Take what you like of the old and take what you like of the new and find a way to combine them together in a comfortable work flow. This is very possible to do, and in fact is the way I work.

I combine hardware synths/samplers with virtual instruments, hardware analog mixers with virtual in-the-box mixers, hardware outboard processing with DAW plugin processing. The workflow is seamless and easy, and I feel that most of the time I get the best of both worlds.

There's no need to choose, you can indeed have it both ways.

IMHO, this reply right here by Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert should have ended this debate!
Can't get any clearer than this!!
 
rsolinski said:
Here, Here!..I am all about mixing "In the box" but plug ins (and I have some real high end one's) still can't compare to the real thing..The UAD's come close but don't sound as good as my LA2A and 1176..I think plug in verbs are getting very good but nothing yet tops real dynamic and eq processing...Why choose?
I try to use whatever sounds best for a project be it hardware or plugs..

Cheers,
Ray


"I think plug in verbs are getting very good but nothing yet tops real dynamic and eq processing."
---------------------------------------------------------
But even all the great hardware "verbs" were only facsimiles of natural "rooms","spaces","reflection times" etc. interpreted as algorhythms in a "box" no where near as powerful as my MAC. I think the plug in verbs are amazing. As far as "dynamics" are concerned, I agree with you, but it's only a matter of time. It wasn't that long ago that the Moon was a far away impossible goal or to imagine that someone like Ashlee Simpson could have a career in the music biz!! For good or bad, never say never! ......peace?
 
Back
Top