What do you mix to most of the time?

What do you usually mix to?

  • Cassette deck

    Votes: 13 4.1%

  • Hi-fi VCR Deck

    Votes: 1 0.3%

  • Analog reel to reel

    Votes: 9 2.9%

  • DAT recorder

    Votes: 13 4.1%

  • Stand-alone CDR burner

    Votes: 41 13.0%

  • Stand-alone HD recorder

    Votes: 11 3.5%

  • Mini-Disc

    Votes: 15 4.8%

  • PC/Mac

    Votes: 209 66.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 3 1.0%
  • Total voters
    315
CDR

sjoko2 said:
BigKahuna:

"1- The best resolution you can record at is 16bit/44.1khz .. which for most people is more than adequate .. afterall, that is the standard for CD. Even if your master was 24,000,000bit/96,000,000khz ... it would have to be converted to 16/44.1 when the CDs are made anyway."

If you have access to higher bit rate recording, you should always use it, despite the fact that CD's are 16/44.1....
Click to expand...

"Big Kahuna's" 24 million bit, 96 billion Hz machine would be pretty exciting, although it might put a bit of a strain on your storage medium. Let's see, 715,255,737 gigabytes per second ... that's 682 petabytes ... a 3 minute song would need 122,782 petabytes of storage, even before allowing overhead for error correction. Might this exceed the entire world's data storage capacity?

On another topic, I'm not sure I agree with the "always use high bit rate recording," though I suppose it doesn't do too much harm (if you've got a lot of huge file servers sitting around). Sure, I suppose if you're recording something to a multitrack for further processing ... but what about a mixdown that's "final"? If you're not going to do any processing (and you don't need a lot more than 100 dB signal/noise ratio), I don't see why you shouldn't just record at 16 bit and be done with it.

The rest of the answer I've quoted talked about sample rate more than bitrate, but I don't know that the virtual of 96 kHZ has really been established, unless you're recording music for bats.

Of course, if you want high sample rates, how many oxide molecules fit in 15 (or 30) inches?
 
CDR hiss

Darkhorse said:
... when I mix to the CDR, It seems like I have a lot more hiss than I ever had with a regular tape mix. The sound is good as far as the instruments are concerned - they sound crisp and clear - more so than my mixes on to tape.

I did a mix on tape and then put that mix on a CDR. Then I did basically the same mix directly to a CDR. And I found that the mix I put on tape and then put on a CDR had a lot less HISS....
Click to expand...

This is sort of strange. If I get you right, you find that:

Multitrack -> CDR
is hissier than
Multitrack -> Cassette

and also that:

Multitrack -> CDR
is hissier than
Multitrack -> Cassette -> CDR

This suggest (to me, anyway), that it isn't so much that the process of recording to the CDR is adding noise (which would suggest that something's broken, at least if it adds more noise than recording to cassette), as the process of recording to the cassette is removing noise.

Dolby B/C doesn't really do this, so far as I understand it. It's a double-ended, not a single-ended noise reduction system. It doesn't remove noise from the signal that's fed into its inputs, rather what it does (or tries to do) is avoid adding noise ... so that the signal that comes out on playback is the same as the signal that was sent in when recording. If you think about it, this makes sense: how would a Dolby circuit know the difference between noise and signal? How would it distinguish between the hiss produced by your multitrack cassettes and the hiss produced by a snare drum or a cymbal?

Which leads me to believe that what's happening is that the process of recording to your stereo cassette deck, then playing back, isn't removing noise, so much as it's removed high-frequency information generally. You could do the same thing by using an EQ to roll off everything over, say, 10kHz. It removes high pitched noise, but at a significant cost. Basically, you're using the cassette deck as "single-ended" noise reduction system, though probably not a very good one.
 
Re: mini disc wheres my peers

darrin_h2000 said:
i used to use a tascam 7 in per sec reel ....
Click to expand...

What Tascam stereo reel-to-reel is limited to 7-1/2 ips? So far as I can recall, they all (ATR60, BR20, 3030, 52, 42, 32, 32-2 35-2, 25-2, 70-2, even the 22-2) will run at 15 ips. Or was this a TEAC quarter-track deck?
 
I only have a 4-track minidisc (Yamaha MD4), and was "mixing" to cassette, albeit a good Tascam deck, and it sounded like crap! I just bought the cheapest CD recorder (a Koss) that I could find with analog I/O and did some mixing to CDR. Incredible difference for $199.
 
I'll master to different formats depending on the situation. I'm happy using MD, DAT (mainly) or burning a CDR from my VS1680.

I've felt much better about using MD since I read that ATRAC data compression works in a very similar (and apparently borderline litigious) way to Dolby SR...

One thing I will do, however, when mixing to MD is always monitor from the MD machine (my studio MD has a "monitor thru" mode, just like my main DAT), so that what I'm hearing when I mix is what I hear when I play the MD back - no nasty surprises.

Bizarrely, I'll often tend to use MD for mastering complex recordings (big band etc), as the data compression seems to help "clarify" the sound. I suspect there's some proper psychoacoustic sense behind this, somewhere.
 
Why would ANYONE mix-down or master to a format that throws away a portion of your music????

And how can you believe that somehow there's an advantage to it??????

The idea is to mix-down to the highest resolution audio recorder you can, so that any further processing (ie, mastering) wil not unduly diminish the quality..........

Starting with MD, you're already behind the 8-ball -- its audio performance doesn't even reach redbook CD audio quality..............!!!

And the idea of "mastering" on MD is completely ludicrous if you care at all about audio quality..........!

:eek: :eek: :eek:
 
Well, right now I'm only mixing from ADAT through the board to DAT. But hopefully this will change soon.

I plan on mixing down from the pc through the board and into DAT. From there I will digitally transfer the mixdown back into the pc and burn to cd.

I'm not concerned about the signal making an analog pitstop in the process.

Cy
 
I mix down to 1/4" 456 tape. Mainly cause I don't have any other means of mixing music to. At least not right now. But I have no complaints. I've heard that 1/2" is the prefered medium with mastering houses.
 
crusty old compaq

so far everything gets lined into my piece of crap computer untill i get something better...I used too record stuff on a vcr (video tapes, but just sound on them no video) of all things, thats all i had way back in high school, well before i got a ghetto blaster hehe...BTW Big Kahuna do you play delta force????...
 
SS454 said:
I mix down to 1/4" 456 tape. Mainly cause I don't have any other means of mixing music to. At least not right now. But I have no complaints. I've heard that 1/2" is the prefered medium with mastering houses.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's preferred but it's more common. I have a guy in town that does all my mastering for the bands that come into my studio and he supports all formats. As long as a machine is calibrated for the tape used to its maximum amount of headroom it's hard to tell a difference between the two.

--AdamLazlo
 
I come to this forum quite often, but usually leave because it's so far over my head, so,,,
Can someone clear up a cloud in my mind?

The question, "What do you mix to most of the time" and what everyone is saying is so far from what I ever thought it was.

When you say, "Mix to" something, does that mean mixing your tracks, sound, effects, volume, etc?

I thought I was mixing my projects in Sonar.
I take it you guys use more kinds of hard/software than most.
 
badgas,

Many people have different combinations of mixing down. Doing it all in Sonar is certainly one option. Some people feel more comfortable taking the tracks in their pc's and putting them through an analog board for outboard processing, perhaps to free up the pc's resources, for better control of the signal, or because they are used to it. And there are others who prefer to use analog over digital processes because they have more control of the headroom on analog equipment.

In the end the result is the same: To get all your tracks, sound, and effects mixed down to a two track format, most often CD.

Hope that helps clear things up a bit..

Cy
 
Hi Cyrokk.
Yep, you explained it just fine.
I understand now.
I appreciate your reply and time.
Thanks.
 
Normally everything goes to the ADATs then through Sonar to CD. I don't trust using my PC to record all the tracks to because it always screws up. :( Don't think I've touched the DA-40 in quite a long time.
 
I'm a little different from the rest.

I personally mix down to another computer seperate from the one all my tracks are on. I sequence and record audio with cubase on one computer, use that sequencs on that computer as a mixer, mix my tracks, then the dig output on my audio card to the dig in on another seperate computer str8 into wavelab. Then from there to CDR.

I'm curious if anyone is doing something similar like I'm doing.

And People like our music were putting out.

IMHO, I get pretty good feedback from the public.

What can I say, I'm different.



Mike
 
I don't see any benefit in transferring your mix to another computer... unless you are doing it to just do it, then in that case..cool. There sure would be no problem having Cubase and Wavelab in the same rig, that's for sure... not to mention that you could share plugins between the two apps.

By the way... are you saying that you are recording the 2track mix via your S/PDIF out into your other computer? What benefit do you propose you are achieving by doing this? (I'm not being sarcastic by the way.. just curious.) Also, you realize that you mix could be succeptable to possible jitter if the runs long enough or you're not using 75-ohm digital cable.

At any rate, IMHO, I don't think a mix should leave "the box" unless it's hitting analog circuitry/ tape (or both), or you're saving it as a .wav file and burning it to a disk to work on the mix elsewhere..

To each their own I suppose... :D
ls
 
about ADAT

Ive heard great things about ADAT but i still think the use of outboard gear is necessary with a medium like that. Or use of a computer with the ADAT..

ADAT by itself though with outboard equipment is not my personal favorite though...then again the studio environments im familiar with that use ADAT have older models that came out around the time that ADATs were 2 or 3 years old. So perhaps their ADCs are different than the newer models.

Of course the outboard gear makes all the difference in sound but i cant say that everything ive heard that was recorded on ADAT was my personal favorite in regards to sound IE tone or "warmth"

I use Cubase and mix down to 16 bit wav 44100 khz
I get a hell of a lot more warmth and meat in my recordings using Cubase's plug ins and other 3rd party vst plug ins

I burn to internal cdr or cdrw redbook standard...

thats my preference but for personal use i transfer my wavs to my MD recorder...saves me a ton on buying cdrws those things scratch too easy for repeated listening.

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