a (potentially) stupid question about mixing on a computer based system...

  • Thread starter Thread starter amonte
  • Start date Start date
amonte

amonte

New member
After I make a recording, I usually use Cakewalk's EQ to tweak the bass, mids and treble on a track, and I use the on-screen faders to set the levels of the mix.

I noticed that there are a lot of computer interfaces with multiple outs and I was wondering...

Is it possible to send several recorded channels out of a multiple output card, into an analog mixer and then back into the PC to record the resulting mix? Does anyone do it this way?
 
i dont think thats a stupid question.

you can certainly try if you think youre mixer will help your final product.
but plugins for eq and what not are effective too.
id give it a shot to hear the results though.
experiment.

take care.
 
Is it possible to send several recorded channels out of a multiple output card, into an analog mixer and then back into the PC to record the resulting mix?
Click to expand...
Yes it is. That's one of the reasons those outputs exist.

Does anyone do it this way?
Click to expand...
A couple of people here do, though they tend to mix to another device instead of back into the computer. But like xfinsterx said, it won't hurt to try.
 
this is called analogue summing to my knowledge and there are companies who make products just for that purpose dangerous music etc some swear by analogue summing Vs mixing in the box. I think it depends on the internal clock of the sound card personally, and the a/d/d/a converters some say you lose a lot in the mix process when summing in the box. The only way to test it in my opinion is to experiment borrow or rent a stand alone burner and mix off the analogue board burn it to cd. Then mix the same song with the same panning and similar fader adjustments in the box and a and b them its the only way to give you peace of mind as to which is better for you imho
 
amonte33

interesting...never really thought this was a "viable option" but maybe I haven't given it enough of a chance...

MadAudio, what other devices do they mix to? CD Burners?

Do you think going back into the PC would degrade the audio too much?

the first limiting factor that comes to mind would be the number of outputs available from the sound card, and the size of the mixer accepting them. That's part of the beauty of Cakewalk - I've gone nuts in the past and have had tons of tracks.

More than anything else, I really like the concept of using a physical mixer to do the mix, rather than Cakewalk's on screen mixer. However, I do like Cakewalk's automated faders - helpful for getting creative with changing levels on the fly.

Maybe it would be interesting to send the individual tracks out to the mixer for eqing, and then back into the PC for doing the levels on the final mix? This would definately be an interesting experiment to try.

This also explains why I remember seeing (in the past) some sound cards with more outputs than inputs...
 
What you can do is set up stem mixes. If you have 8 outs send a stereo submix of the toms to 2 of them, stereo guitars to another 2, bass to 1 vocals to 1, kick to 1 and snare to another. now you can use the comuter mixer to do any automation, but you can compress and eq in the mixer ( and use outboard fx boxes)

When most big time pros have a protools mix, they usually run the tracks out of protools through an SSL (or something else just as cool) and use outboard compressors and fx.
 
MadAudio, what other devices do they mix to? CD Burners?
Click to expand...
There was a thread that went into this recently but I can't seem to find it. I remember that someone here mixes to analog 2-track.

Do you think going back into the PC would degrade the audio too much?
Click to expand...
Too much? Depends on what you're going for. But there's potential, yeah, 'cause you'd be going from digital to analog and back to digital again. In a perfect world, once you're in the digital domain you want to stay there until the very end.
 
MadAudio said:
In a perfect world, once you're in the digital domain you want to stay there until the very end.
Click to expand...
The sound of any mix is the sum of all the imperfections of all the equipment plus the source. If it doesn't sound bad, it's fine. Don't listen to the specs, listen to the music. A mesa boogie amp has piss poor specs as far as amplification goes (think home stereo) but it is magic when you plug a guitar into it. I don't hear anyone complaining about the double digit distortion figures on a marshall plexi. If you hear something degrading your signal and it sounds bad, stop it. if it sounds good, stop questioning it and just keep moving.
 
Farview said:
What you can do is set up stem mixes. If you have 8 outs send a stereo submix of the toms to 2 of them, stereo guitars to another 2, bass to 1 vocals to 1, kick to 1 and snare to another. now you can use the comuter mixer to do any automation, but you can compress and eq in the mixer ( and use outboard fx boxes)
Click to expand...

So then you're talking about doing the final mix, rather than making changes and going back into the PC here...but I did see your post regarding giving it a try and checking out the results going back into the system.

You brought up another interesting point - effects - I've never been 100% satisfied with the effects in Cakewalk (or more accurately, the way I've applied the effects in Cakewalk), which is why I like this idea a lot.

can I ask two questions somewhat off topic?

one, where would compression be applied on a track coming back into the mixer? In the loop or in front of the mixer input?

and two, what's a good...no, wait..."economical" and good...multi fx unit these days? Is the NanoVerb any good? I've had good luck with the NanoCompressor. Any other suggestions?
 
you can put the compressor any place you want. It shouldn't make any difference if you put it between the computer and the board or on a channel insert (the loop) However, if you route the channel to a bus and compress the bus, it will sound different because you are compressing after the EQ instead of before.
 
for multi effects try the TC electronics m-one. Huge bang for the buck. try ebay for a lexicon alex or any other stuff like that. I have noticed (and could be wrong) that if you get the low line from a company that makes really good stuff, you end up with the same sounds everyone was drooling over 3 or 4 years ago. If you go with a company that just makes cheap fx, you just get cheap fx
 
I got into a similar conversation a while ago. The upshot was that unless you have a shithot console and some real quality outboard there's no point.

I'd love not to have to mix 'in the box' but I know I can get better results (cos of my budget) in Logic than buying a cheap mixer and sending it all back for mixdown with a bunch of so so outboard.

Still you might have fun (and some success?) trying stuff out for yourself so I wouldn't want to put you off doing that.

Good luck with it.
 
doulos said:
I think it depends on the internal clock of the sound card personally, and the a/d/d/a converters some say you lose a lot in the mix process when summing in the box.
Click to expand...
The converters don't come into play at all when mixing in the box (unless you're sending tracks out to outboard hardware - which doesn't happen very often in DIY recording situations)..........
 
Kevin DeSchwazi said:
I got into a similar conversation a while ago. The upshot was that unless you have a shithot console and some real quality outboard there's no point.
Click to expand...
From my own experience, I have to disagree.... I get better-sounding mixes via my ubiquitous Mackie 8-buss than I do mixing within SX2 (Cubase)..........

I essentially use the DAW for editing to/from the HD24 and do all mixing from the HD24 thru the Mackie (using outboard hardware along the way.)
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
From my own experience, I have to disagree.... I get better-sounding mixes via my ubiquitous Mackie 8-buss than I do mixing within SX2 (Cubase)..........

I essentially use the DAW for editing to/from the HD24 and do all mixing from the HD24 thru the Mackie (using outboard hardware along the way.)
Click to expand...

OK I stand corrected on the console issue, but what about the outboard? I'm guessing you don't use a nanoverb :D
 
Kevin DeSchwazi said:
OK I stand corrected on the console issue, but what about the outboard? I'm guessing you don't use a nanoverb :D
Click to expand...
True - modest Lexicons, Roland, Yamaha stuff.... I'm looking to add a Kurzweil KSP-8 soon, though......
 
I get different mixes when I go through the board. I don't know that they are 'better'. The board forces me to work in a different way, the out board gear reacts and sounds different. Better is a matter of taste. But, if you are using your board as your mic pres and such, any 'sound' that the board has will be accentuated by running stuff through it again. (if you have a thin sounding board and you recorded through it, when you mix through it the board will do the same thing to that signal)
 
Farview said:
But, if you are using your board as your mic pres and such, any 'sound' that the board has will be accentuated by running stuff through it again. (if you have a thin sounding board and you recorded through it, when you mix through it the board will do the same thing to that signal)
Click to expand...
Agreed...... in my case, however, I don't generally track through the board - it's pretty much for monitoring only......

I pretty much practice "minimal signal chain"... mic --> pre --> Lucid or onboard A/D converter --> digital recorder (HD24)

For mixing it's HD24 --> Mackie (with analog outboard) --> Lucid A/D --> Masterlink 2-track
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top