Whats the point with big consoles?

Chris Klein

New member
hey, im just wondering why do most of these studios have real big mixers? why dont they get a big control surface? I can understand tracking live drums, but if you have a interface with alot of ins and a control service why bother with big consoles! am i missing something?
 
The main reason is that if you go all the way back to around the year 2000, DAWs weren't powerful enough to handle to handle 48+ track counts. Engineers had no choice but to use tape machines. 48 track DASH machines were the industry standard. You had to have a large console to accommodate all those tracks. Even today there is still plenty of need for large consoles. A large console makes a large tracking date a lot easier to manage. You still need a mixer of some kind to bus channels to a single track. Even on mixdown, plenty of mix engineers prefer to do the majority of their mixing on an analog console, and using the DAW more or less like a tape machine. Many feel the end result sounds better. If you are going to be using a lot of outboard gear, if often makes more sense to work on a large console as well.
 
Like Raw Tracks mentioned, a lot of it is a matter of tradition and continuity. It's certainly not "necessary" by any stretch ... unless it's a tracking/mixing environment that you're used to and need it that way in order to feel comfortable.

Also, like Bigwill vaguely alluded to ... don't discount the importance of perception. Big consoles are impressive to look at. Subconsciously, people might feel that an impressive-looking setup will yield a better finished product. Especially people who don't understand as much about the technical aspects of audio and recording. And in certain lines of work, impression is everything ... and it's well worth the investment as it can help woo the bigger-paying clients.

In my line of work, I visit some of the largest and most prestigeous audio post-production houses on a regular basis. One of them I visited recently had the new Pro Tools Icon console that probably costs as much as a modest house. I recall a lot of people ooh-ing and ah-ing about it at one of their after-work parties.

It was pretty interesting talking to one of the engineers there who actually mentioned/slipped that he, and I do quote, "prefered just mixing with a mouse sometimes." :D Kinda' puts things in to perspective right there.
 
Primarily, large consoles are still around for one reason:


Professional analog still sounds better than anything digital. End of story.


Analog is a quite mature technology. The concepts are well known, well understood, and there are still a whole lot of highly experienced designers around who know how to manipulate an analog signal.

Professional analog still sounds better.

Digital is a technology which is still in its infancy (well, maybe it's adolescence). The designers have no where near the experience, expertise, or skill. The technology is not even close to being as good as analog, yet. It may get there (in fact, it almost certainly will), but it hasn't yet. Additionally, many of the most experienced and skill engineers in the world don't have the time or the inclination to deal with the VERY steep learning curve of the digital world.

Why would you use something which is not nearly as good and you don't know how to use when you are already an expert at another, better method.

Professional analog still sounds better.

And even those who preach the Digital God STILL don't say, "I use Pro Tools (or whatever) because it sounds better." They say, "I use it because it sounds fine, and is far more cost effective."

And they are right. Digital sounds fine, and the start up costs, not to mention the session costs, are FAR lower than an analog studio. I mean, you can get a hard drive which is big enough for an entire album for the same cost as a single real of 2" tape, which only holds at most two or three songs (if you only have one take of each song, and you run at 15 ips, which has a lower S/N ratio, though a lot of engineers prefer the bass at 15 ips).

But professional analog still sounds better.

And as Mister M. Zerrman says, frequently, on his Zen forum, "Digital summing just sounds wrong."

Most people don't have mixxie's ears (I know I don't), and would never hear what he is talking about. I know that I have heard it in non-blind tests, and not just that I believe I could hear, but that I could easily hear. But I still seriously doubt I could tell the difference in a blind test. But some one like Mixerman can. His ears are better than mine, and the fact of the matter is, he gets paid for his ears, not his ability to program a computer.

And as far as HE is concerned, analog still sounds better, and he gets paid for his opinions on this subject.

And I can easily tell you why I much prefer a console to a control surface:

  1. I have yet to find a piece of software or a control surface which sounds as good as an analog console.
  2. I have yet to find a piece of software or a control surface which had as intuitive and flexible of a routing scheme as a large format console (mostly I am talking SSL here, as my experience with Neve's or anything like that is a bit limited).
  3. Control surfaces, and particularly software without a control surface, take a lot longer for me to mix on, as it takes a lot more time and thought processes to find the controls I need than on a console. The ergonomics of a real console can't be beat, as far as I am concerned. If I am on an SSL, and I need a compressor, I turn it on and start turning knobs. If I want the same thing in Cubase or Pro Tools, I first have to open up a plug-in, put it into the signal chain, turn it on, assign the controls to the control surface, and THEN I can start turning knobs. It takes me a lot longer in a software program. I want a dedicated knob for every single function, for every single channel, and the fact is that there is not a control surface out there yet which has it.
  4. Analog consoles still sound better.
  5. High end analog has a better signal to noise ratio than most digital.
  6. With an analog console, I don't have to go through a DAC and back through another ADC just to use an outboard processor. If I want to use a GML 8200 (which I frequently do, when it is available), all I have to do is plug in a couple of cords to a patch bay. In a software program, I have to assign the insert to an output, assign that output to a DAC, and THEN patch, and then assign the inserts return to an input, and assign the input to an ADC.
  7. Analog still sounds better


But really, for the time being, analog still sounds better, and if you are familiar with a large format console, is WAY faster to use.


And professional analog still sounds better. That trumps all the rest.


P.S. I am talking about PROFESIONAL analog here. If you have never heard 2" 16 track, or 2" 24 at 30 IPS, you have never really heard what analog sounds like. The great thing about professional analog is NOT the distortion, but the complete lack of high end harmonic distortion that digital just hasn't come close to yet.


P.P.S. By the way, the biggest problems with digital, that I hear, are nothing to do with the math or the actual digital domain. It is to do with the process of turning an analog signal into a digital, or a digital signal into an analog. The things you have to do to go between the two formats involve some really abusive analog filters which you would NEVER use if you didn't need to get into the digital domain. In general, the more complex a piece of electronics, the more damaging they are to the signal. The anti-aliasing filter alone pretty much can not, by its very nature, avoid causing all kinds of phase incoherencies in those very delicate high end frequencies, causing all kinds of distortion and comb filtering. I mean, for a 48k sample rate, you need to completely eliminate everything above 24k, and you can’t touch anything below 20k. Now, if we assume that a 60 dB cut is sufficient, then that is a low-pass filter of -300 dB per octave. Ouch. That is a phase nightmare if ever there was one.

That high frequency distortion is what makes people think of digital as being "harsh". And then on the DAC side, you have to filter out the carrier frequency, which, while not as bad as the anti-aliasing filter, is still, what, about a -60 dB per octave filter. Think about what happens to a signal when you filter it by -24 dB per octave, and then ask yourself, how can the ADC and DAC NOT cause sonic degradation.


Woops, getting a little windy here.

Now I am going to be a bit of an asshole.

Just because you know how to use what ever DAW you use, please don't assume you understand how the world of professional audio works, OK?


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
Last edited:
Light, I read your post and I have to say that there's a major issue I have with the content... :eek:

"digital god" should be capitalized. :D :rolleyes:

Thank you, thank you - I'll be here all week. Try the veal. :)
 
A lot of good ponts have been made here, but one point that I did not see is the actual cost effectiveness. I have a large console with 96 physical inputs all with EQ and faders. When you start to break that down the cost per channel is actually not very high. Especially when you consider that every one of those channels holds it's own against channel strips in the $1500 - $3000 dollar range. I notice large differences when mixing on an analog console. Of course I love the ease of integrating outboard and the tried and true summing, but have also noticed then even the stereo image has more depth. Even with a mediocre A/D and D/A setup I feel like the end product comes out better and easier. There is some setup and routing time involved in integrating my DAW with my console, and you do lose some recallability, but in my opinion it is well worth it. I still do some mixes in the box, but all of my serious stuff goes through the console on the way in and on the way out.

Also, latency becomes a non factor for me by using a large format console. I never have to worry about bouncing or running out of inputs, it keeps my control room warm in the winter, clients walk in and drop their jaw ( I have one of the very few large format consoles in Utah), and the sound of my console is absolutely stunning. With my console I also don't have to worry about clocking, sample rates, bit rates and all that extra stuff. Not only do my clients feel better about it, but every time I sit down in front of it I feel better. Also, with P&G faders everything just plain feels good too. Automated faders definately have a different feel. With my console I feel a lot more like I am involved in the mix as opposed to just doing the mix.

I certainly agree that they are not for everyone, but they most definately have their place. My console is the absolute best purchase I have ever made for my studio. My Dynaudio monitors being the next, and my Playstation 2 being the third:D
 
My reason for having a large format console integrarted into my setup.

24 channels of very good quality mic pre's,
24 channels of fantastic EQ
Great routing facilities
A nice big easy to read 20 segment LED meterbridge
Something to rest my monitors on
Something to rest my coffee/ashtray on


I just find it much easier to mix on an analog consol with everything at your fingertips and not having to type in EQ values or do mouse clicks and drags. Plus it sometimes helps to stand up and have a look at the whole board to see exactly what's going on in your mix

attachment.php
 
It's also a hell of a lot easier to keep a group of channels dedicated per project than have to switch out cabling and load up presets everytime you switch working from one client to another.
 
Light said:
Now I am going to be a bit of an asshole.

Just because you know how to use what ever DAW you use, please don't assume you understand how the world of professional audio works, OK?


Um ... excuse me, but when did this question turn in to a digital versus analog debate all of a sudden?

Read the posts a little more carefully before you try and criticize valid points that others bring up that aren't even in conflict with your own. Unless you like arguing with yourself. And I suppose if I knew as much as you did about the subject ... that might actually be a fun endeavor. :D

In other words, save that argument for the analog versus digital debate, smarty. It's much more relevent there. This is about size ... and all other things being equal -- i.e. if you're talking about a large digital console versus a small digital console -- it comes down more to functionality and features, etc. And yes, a lot it does in fact come down to impressing current and potential clients. For example: does an audio post facility doing voiceovers for radio comercials derive some great audio benefit from having the Icon in their control room? There are some instances where it's all for show -- and my example is one of them. And yes, that is one facet of of the "world of professional audio" of which I am more than qualified to speak, in case you weren't aware.

Thanks for the informative post, by the way. It was a very well-written and thoroughly supported (factually) argument for the merits of analog.
 
Last edited:
chessrock said:
Um ... excuse me, but when did this question turn in to a digital versus analog debate all of a sudden?


That is not what I was talking about, and I was not directing it at anyone in particular.

I am more than a little tired of young guys who know there DAW really well, but who have no experience with high end analog gear telling me there is no reason to bother with a console. They simply do not understand anything but their particular software, which is not a good way to approach mixing. They call themselves engineers, but if you put them in front of anything unfamiliar, they are lost.

I can make any system work, because I have a solid understanding of the basic principles of audio. I am not an expert on Pro Tools, but I could absolutely do sessions with it because it is all about how understanding the basics. What I don't like is, guys who, while they may know their particular program better than I do, would be completely lost in a room with an SSL and a Studer. If you are going to call yourself a professional engineer, you should be able to step up to any audio system, and make it work within a reasonable time frame.

I mean, there are only three concepts you need to understand to do audio; time, gain, and signal chain. That is it. Everything else is an extension of one of these three concepts.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
[*]Control surfaces, and particularly software without a control surface, take a lot longer for me to mix on, as it takes a lot more time and thought processes to find the controls I need than on a console. The ergonomics of a real console can't be beat, as far as I am concerned.

That's because DAWs have mostly reproduced analog mixers, which is highly inefficient due to the small size of the controls and use of a single controller--the mouse, rather than your fingers.

Once the ergonomics of DAWs progress beyond the limitations of analog controls, they will quickly surpass mixers in efficiency. Take for example EQ--a single graphical control where you can drag & drop curves is much faster and more flexible than a half-dozen knobs. Dynamics can be done the same way. There should be no knobs in DAW software. The fact that so many studios find dual monitors necessary is a travesty of poor software ergonomics, largely caused by poor integration of DAW software and third-party applications such as plugs.

DAW applications need to make better use of the keyboard--an experienced spreadsheet user knows many hotkey combinations that greatly increase efficiency, and DAWS should be no different. Keyboards should incorporate dedicated shuttle buttons (many do), but also wheel controls and small faders. Perhaps what we need is not control surfaces, but specialized keyboards.

With that in mind, a properly designed DAW should eclipse a large console environment in a time-motion study. The ergonomics of a large console can easily be beat--first off, the console is large, so physical motions required to reach its controls can be large. It has many controls that will go unused in any given session, which your hands must travel past to reach the desired control. For example, you will start nearly every non-fader control application by moving your hand over 100mm past the fader.

Mixers themselves aren't ideally designed for recording, because they don't put the most commonly used controls nearest the bottom of the mixer--instead, by necessity, they follow the signal flow through the channel. So there is a lot of room for improvement.

Your outboard gear is likely to be relatively inaccessible compared to your mixer controls, perhaps even requiring you to slide your chair across the room, make a physical connection on a patchbay--not particularly efficient.

Look at the tremendous efficiencies realized by other software--word processors, email, spreadsheet, graphic design. If we have bad software, let's blame the programmers; even so, let's acknowledge that they are trapped between those who are open to advanced, nontraditional ergonomics and those who demand a virtual replication of their analog production environment.




Postscript: Here is one of my random brainstorms for improved controls, if any designers are listening:

Track selection via function keys (F1-F12, with scroll lock for shifting to higher channel bank 13-24, etc.) By depressing any combination of function keys, those tracks are effected by whatever input occurs from other key combinations. If a specialized keyboard had fader(s) in place of the number pad, and dedicated keys within reach of the thumb for selection of fader, EQ, dynamics, pan, etc. (ctrl, alt, shift could be used), then the left hand could select a group of tracks, and the right hand could select the control and simultaneously change parameters on those tracks.
 
Though my board is small compared to the big boyz, I use a Topaz 24/8 (which eventually I'm gonna ' get me a 48!) specifically for the type of music I perform and track which I call "33 1/3 RPM-Olde-Skool/Horny-Funk/Jazz" (think T.O.P meets Herbie Hancock and James Brown while drinking tequilas with A.W.B. & George Clinton and eating pigs feet with Edgar Winters,Rare Earth & Isaac Hayes..........uhhh, sort of-kind of :p)!
Since I use full horn and rhythm sections in most of my crappy-@ss jammiez while rec'ding to a HD24, my Topaz allows me more room to create than my prev 8 & 16 track boards.
 
mshilarious said:
Take for example EQ--a single graphical control where you can drag & drop curves is much faster and more flexible than a half-dozen knobs.



On that one, I have to disagree.

I mean, how do most of us use EQ?

For myself, I mostly use subtractive EQ, as do most people, though there are guys out there with a much better understanding of the electronics who will tell you that the traditional reasoning for this is complete bullshit. None the less, most of the time, what I do is pick the general range the problem frequency is in (low mid, hi mid, whatever), and then boost that frequency range 5-10 dB, set the Q as narrow as it goes, and then sweep the frequency until I find the problem. THEN, and only then, I widen the Q, and cut the frequency as much as I need to. I can't think of a single way of doing this which is better than a knob. I mean, I have pretty good frequency recognition, but I still need to find the exact frequencies I am looking for.

Patching is also a good thing, in my opinion. Think of it this way; listening to music while mixing is nothing like listening for enjoyment. You are paying a lot more attention, usually, and you are focusing on very specific details. This is stressful and tiring. The pause to make a patch, or to go over to work with a piece of outboard gear gives your ears a break. It also gets you out of your chair, which is good for you body, and your frame of mind as you mix. I know I find mixing on a console much less tiring than on a DAW, myself.

Also, assuming that DAWs will one day eliminate the need for outboard gear is, I think, erroneous. It is not that you can't get good sounds with plug-ins and such, because of course you can, but they are DIFFERENT from the sounds you can get with outboard stuff. Different is not good or bad, just different. There will always be times when that outboard stuff is just more appropriate to the sound you are looking for, and in that case, you will always need to be able to get there.

But as I said, DAWs will get there one day. They just haven't done it YET. And I am not a Luddite myself. I do almost everything these days ITB, except of course for live work. The stuff I like to work on simply does not have the budget for a Neve and a Studer, not to mention the tape that is on the way out. I do prefer to use a big board, but generally the only work that I can get using them involves working on shit that I have no interest in, and to me that feels a lot like killing myself slowly. The material trumps all the gear in the world, so I use whatever it takes to do the job at hand within the budget available.

And by the way, occasionally, you do get an analog console with some good ergonomics. I mean, first of all, the thing you use the most on a console is always the faders, so in that respect they are pretty much all good. But, for instance, the old Yamaha PM 3000 (which is about 25 years out of date at this point, but is still a great console) has the mic pres at the bottom of the strip, right above the fader and the pan pot. Those are really the three most used controls for most live guys (and the 3K is a live board), the fader, the pan, and the pre. A well laid out console. Too bad they didn't carry that over to the 4K.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
Light said:
Primarily, large consoles are still around for one reason:
Professional analog still sounds better than anything digital. End of story.
Professional analog still sounds better.
Professional analog still sounds better.
But professional analog still sounds better.
And as far as HE is concerned, analog still sounds better, and he gets paid for his opinions on this subject.
But really, for the time being, analog still sounds better, and if you are familiar with a large format console, is WAY faster to use.
And professional analog still sounds better. That trumps all the rest.

I don't understand... what are you trying to say? Ok, sorry.. couldn't resist...

7
 
Light said:
For myself, I mostly use subtractive EQ, as do most people, though there are guys out there with a much better understanding of the electronics who will tell you that the traditional reasoning for this is complete bullshit. None the less, most of the time, what I do is pick the general range the problem frequency is in (low mid, hi mid, whatever), and then boost that frequency range 5-10 dB, set the Q as narrow as it goes, and then sweep the frequency until I find the problem. THEN, and only then, I widen the Q, and cut the frequency as much as I need to. I can't think of a single way of doing this which is better than a knob.

Well basically I agree with your premise that DAWs aren't there YET, but they should be. Sure, maybe plugs need better algorithms. That will come in time, how long I don't know. The other ergonomic stuff can and should be there now, we just have to demand it.

Anyway, back to EQ: Here's how you do that on a graph: it kind of looks like a graphic EQ, except it really works as a para. You have a flat line to start with, then you click a point on the line, and drag it up and down to cut/boost, and left or right to change the frequency. I suppose there are different ways to change Q, the mouse wheel would work for me. The curve visually changes as you move the point. So you click, drag up, drag back and forth to find the frequency, drag down to cut, and rotate the wheel to change Q, all on one click and one mouse operation. You can add as many points as the plug supports, all on the same curve.

Sadly my archaic software doesn't do this, but I know that some newer ones do have similar functionality, and I have photo software that works exactly like that for contrast curves, and it's very effective.

I also think dynamic control should be done directly on each track's wave, just click on the wave to set threshold, another click to set the max point, the software figures out the ratio based on that, then gives you a slope to drag & drop attack/release. You could even set expansion/gates the same way, without even telling the software in advance--for expansion, just set the second point below the first, and the software knows you want expansion rather than compression. I've seen stuff like this, but not directly on the wave.

Hmm, what about panning? How about a little soundstage, where you just click on where you want that track and the software assigns the pan and maybe even delay. It would be really cool to incorporate a reverb plug into that, where you also select the room and position of the listener, and the plug calculates reverb discretely for each instrument at the listener's position. Hmmm, that would take some CPU time :rolleyes:

Maybe the DAW interface just looks like an auditorium, with a little musician icon at each track position, and a little meter next to each musician, with the master bus meters next to the listener. Roll your mouse over a musician, and that track's controls pop up. Add some automation by making the musicians walk around, or the listener walk around the band. Maybe the DAW can even calculate the Doppler shift :)

I really think we've only scratched the surface of DAWs thus far.
 
I disaggree completely with using the flexibilty of DAW shortcuts and ergonomics as a reason behind not needing an analog console. In my opinion, keyboard shortcuts and copy-paste and layout are a big reason why analog consoles will become even more critical for making real music. Why would I want to be able to copy the EQ curve from one channel to another? If I am in such a hurry that the extra 3 seconds that it takes to actually set an EQ is too long, than I am not in the right mindset and should not be recording music at all. Music is a process. It involves creativity and thought and feeling. part of that process for me means not blindly applying filters. I like to put my hands on a mix. I like to grab 7 faders at a time. I like to close my eyes and listen while I make adjustments. Try doing that with a keyboard. The very same things that I love about my DAW can actually very quickly become a hindrance. The visual stimuli of graphic waveforms, EQ curves, analyzers and all that is great for certain parts of a recording, but sometimes I need to just close my eyes and feel the changes. That is how great music is made. There is still the fact though that no DAW seems to be able to recreate the "magic" of a large format console. The tightness, the integration, the sound, the summing, the depth... you name it. Music needs to be personal and adding to many bells and whistles and too many shortcuts means the music will start to get lost and will begin to become a machine.

I love my DAW too and have no plans on getting rid of it, but I love sitting in front of a 10 foot console. Every day when I get to the studio it makes me feel good just sitting there. My clients feel the same way. That feeling helps me to do a better job for my clients and helps them to do a better job with their end as well. Also, Cubase and Nuendo already have shortcut key programmings for almost every function available. I have certainly mapped out my own shortcuts for commonly used functions. I look forward to DAW's getting bigger and better. I know that they will start to do things that we can't even imagine as of yet, but my console isn't going anywhere.

2 or 3 years ago the biggest question I got from prospective client's was " Do you have Pro Tools? "

Now the biggest question is "Can you make it sound analog?" Thanks to proper outboard, good mics, a decent room, excellent monitors, a high qulaity large format console, and years of experience, I can now tell them yes:)
 
Back
Top