Analog Summing vs In the box

  • Thread starter Thread starter xtimbox
  • Start date Start date
X

xtimbox

New member
hi. i currently have a mackie onyx 1620 w/ firewire option and digital performer 5 for software. I want to upgrade my setup but don't know exactly which route to take. I'm thinking along the lines of a 24ch soundcraft ghost and motu 24i/o or digi 003 (so i can use pro tools) and higher quality preamps (uad 2-610, focusrite isa 428, vintech x73 ect.) I want to be able to make high quality demos for bands.. mostly hardcore/metal or indie/acoustic bands.. would i be better off with the ghost for analog summing or should i stick with higher quality preamps and mix in the box?

thanks,

tim.
 
Well, the wars over which is better have been burning on here at HR.com for several centuries now. You can indeed do a good job with either analog or in-the-box mixing, given the right conditions. You can also do a poor job, given the wrong. Whether or not you get good results depends upon more than just your choice of gear. Quite often it is more about room acoustics than anything else.

Using outboard analog gear takes up more money and more room but, can be more forgiving when pushing things to the limit.

When I mix in-the-box, I tend to always watch the shape of all waveforms for signs of trouble. I am quick to pounce on any little flaw with my editing swords.

When I mix by analog, I am forced to rely 99% on my ears, (except for a few meters.) I am obligated to polish and blend every track based on how it really sounds to human beings.

Both can be good and productive methods. Only when you combine digital gear with analog gear do you get the best of both worlds.

I have built my system so I can do mixing either way. Thanks to a very versatile soundcard, I can output my tracks digital or analog and mixed or unmixed.

There is no right or wrong way to get good mixes. It's all about being comfortable, knowledgeable, and confident with your gear.

You are at the right place to gain more insight and ideas. Stay, read, learn. We all need more of that.

RawDepth
 
I like your Ghost and MOTU 24I/O setup. Very straightforward and bulletproof, plus it will work great with Digital Peformer. You can do basically the same thing with ProTools and the Ghost, if you outfit the Digi 003 with an eight channel analog to ADAT converter. That would give you sixteen channels of I/O in ProTools, which would probably be enough for recording bands.

Either way would work fine in my opinion. If you feel that it would be an advantage for you to use a ProTools setup, then that's certainly a great way to go.

I use both MOTU interfaces/Digital Performer *and* ProTools/Digi002R. I get projects on PT sometimes, but I prefer to do my own writing/recording in Digital Performer. So I can see the advantages in both.
 
I had a ghost 32 + 24 channel expander. This console is quiet enough, and can sound pretty agressive, and has REALLY nice EQ's

It should work fine. If all youve got is 16 outs though, Im not so sure I would bother
 
My two cents -

I had Motu's (828MKII's), and a ghost. For me personally, I found getting better converters helped much more than summing on the ghost. For my style of work, I found my mixes sounded better ITB. Also, now that I have done a few projects with only high quality preamps/converters, my opinion of the ghost has gone down somewhat. But, the ghost is unlikley to be the true limiting factor in your recordings. When it becomes the limiting factor, you won't need to ask questions like this........
 
thanks for all your input guys :). i'm leaning towards the ghost because i like being able to tweak knobs (and it looks legit to clients). are there any other interfaces i should be looking into besides motu's? the 24i/o seems like a good match. does the hd192 have higher quality preamps? i would very much like get apogee interfaces but it's not in the budget..

SonicAlbert are you able to record in protools with both the motu interfaces AND digi 002? i thought protools would only recognise digidesign/maudio interfaces? i might be wrong but can't digital performer output into protools and vise versa or something like that? could i have a digi 003r+8ch ad interface record into protools and a motu 828mk2 record to digital performer with those channels sent to pro tools to be able to record 24 channels simultaniously?

thanks,

tim.
 
xtimbox said:
thanks for all your input guys :). i'm leaning towards the ghost because i like being able to tweak knobs (and it looks legit to clients). are there any other interfaces i should be looking into besides motu's? the 24i/o seems like a good match. does the hd192 have higher quality preamps? i would very much like get apogee interfaces but it's not in the budget..

SonicAlbert are you able to record in protools with both the motu interfaces AND digi 002? i thought protools would only recognise digidesign/maudio interfaces? i might be wrong but can't digital performer output into protools and vise versa or something like that? could i have a digi 003r+8ch ad interface record into protools and a motu 828mk2 record to digital performer with those channels sent to pro tools to be able to record 24 channels simultaniously?
Click to expand...

Neither the 24I/O or HD192 have preamps (that's what the Ghost is for) but the HD192 does have better converters.

As far as ProTools, you can use Digital Performer with DigiDesign hardware. But you can't use ProTools software with other manufacturer's hardware. I haven't tried using DP with my 002R recently since I switched to an Intel Mac, but I was able to get it to work fine on my old G4.
 
I used to do this sometimes with a very modest setup before i really learned how to use protools. I had a yamaha mg12/4, delta1010lt, and a beheringer composer. So i wasn't running it through super highquality hardware at any stage. I actually found i got decent results. I felt alot more free i guess. It was a bit of a pain not having enough hardware, first of all, and not enough channels but i got around it.

I'd say go for it if you really think it's the way. I was concidering this route but made myself learn protools instead. This was purely for finacial reason. As someone said above, you really learn how to use your ears. For some of us younger people, or newer people to recording in general, so much is digital that you really start to edit by sight. What i did is learned from my experiences and applied it to digital but if i had the proper equipment, i would have stayed with it.

I have to say, even with my budget soundcard, i really didn't see a big difference when it came to D/A convertions back to A/D. I noticed it but i don't think the average listener would think anything of it.

Another big advantage of this way is that you can use the hardware you love but if you run out of options with your current gear, you can use plug ins to compensate. So you get all the flexibility of a DAW with all the good sounds of hardware.

For me, it ended up being more of a learning tool than something i wanted to go further with. Alot of it was gear, frankly. I just couldn't afford to have a setup that would suit me back then. But, at this point, i'm a bit glad i didn't invest because i don't know if the results would be better with more experience. It would be more fun, easier (in my oppinion), and more hands on.


The biggest downside, if you don't like one thing in the mix, you have to remix the whole thing over. That's the major downside in my oppinion. Even though I feel fairly comfident with my monitering chain, sometimes i just hear something and thing "that's not right." So you can just tweek that one part in a daw setup instead of redoing everything.

Sorry for the essay, especially from a noob. See if you can get infront of what you are least familar with and see if it's for you. It's a large investment to do it right.
 
I have a Ghost and a 24i/o. Every great once in a while I will mix on the board. I'm not sure the big difference for me is the summing. I relate to the board differently than the computer, so I end up someplace else.

It's not a quality issue, it's a workflow thing.
 
its sad that we might have to have box xyz to impress a client artist

to impress and engineer or producer I would undersatnd, but an artist?

this amaturization and playing to the krunk is a lot of the reason this business is in the mess it is.

You dont go to the doctor and tell him which brand scalpel to use do you?
 
SonicAlbert said:
Neither the 24I/O or HD192 have preamps (that's what the Ghost is for) but the HD192 does have better converters.

As far as ProTools, you can use Digital Performer with DigiDesign hardware. But you can't use ProTools software with other manufacturer's hardware. I haven't tried using DP with my 002R recently since I switched to an Intel Mac, but I was able to get it to work fine on my old G4.
Click to expand...

i meant converters :o thanks for all your help :)
 
pipelineaudio said:
its sad that we might have to have box xyz to impress a client artist

to impress and engineer or producer I would undersatnd, but an artist?

this amaturization and playing to the krunk is a lot of the reason this business is in the mess it is.

You dont go to the doctor and tell him which brand scalpel to use do you?
Click to expand...

i am sorry that to you i am contributing to "the reason this business is in the mess it is." obviosly that was never my intent.. i'm just trying to help local bands get quality demos for a very low cost (or free)..

i simply meant it wouldn't hurt to impress the person that is paying me.. it has seemed to me that a bigger console would seem more legit than a rack full of expensive pre-amps to the untrained eye.. the few bands i have recorded have commented on my mixer, not the rack..

and while i'm not going to pretend i know anything about the recording indistry, it seems to me like protools is that "box xyz." i can only speak for myself, but most of the people that know about me recording have assumed that i use protools, and then are a little weirded out when i tell them i use digital performer instead..

you said "its sad that we might have to have box xyz to impress a client artist" yet your gear is listed on your studio's website (sick stuff by the way). who was that meant to impress?

i agree with you that the final product is far more important that what gear was used to achieve this result though..

best wishes,

tim.
 
Last edited:
I understand the phenomenon for sure. The gear I list is stuff I actually WANT to use though and what * I * would chose, regardless of what any half informed customers think.

I remember going tapeless, then console-less, it really did freak some of them out. For the same reason you see decks and additions to houses actually falling apart and the stock market going completely upside down, audio is screwed by tardbuckle bands who read some bullshit article in a bullshit magazine and now think they KNOW how/what brand recording needs to be

All they SHOULD care about is playing their parts sort of kind of maybe halfway slightly close to correct, and the finished sound of the album

but of course they dont

marketing firms own their retarded asses

if this were conformity for their music "you MUST play a bridge after that second chorus" theyd be SCREAMING like the bitches they are, but hey, they INSIST on conformity on your part...cool
 
pipelineaudio said:
its sad that we might have to have box xyz to impress a client artist

to impress and engineer or producer I would undersatnd, but an artist?

this amaturization and playing to the krunk is a lot of the reason this business is in the mess it is.

You dont go to the doctor and tell him which brand scalpel to use do you?
Click to expand...

Easy solution: get some empty steal boxes, stack them on top of each other, outfit them with christmas lights, and tape pictures of high-end gear company logos on them.
 
pipelineaudio said:
I understand the phenomenon for sure. The gear I list is stuff I actually WANT to use though and what * I * would chose, regardless of what any half informed customers think.

I remember going tapeless, then console-less, it really did freak some of them out. For the same reason you see decks and additions to houses actually falling apart and the stock market going completely upside down, audio is screwed by tardbuckle bands who read some bullshit article in a bullshit magazine and now think they KNOW how/what brand recording needs to be

All they SHOULD care about is playing their parts sort of kind of maybe halfway slightly close to correct, and the finished sound of the album

but of course they dont

marketing firms own their retarded asses

if this were conformity for their music "you MUST play a bridge after that second chorus" theyd be SCREAMING like the bitches they are, but hey, they INSIST on conformity on your part...cool
Click to expand...

you certainly have weird analogys sir, i don't see how the stockmarket or a messed up deck/addition can directly relate to going consoleless/tapeless because of what someone read in a mag :rolleyes: I do more or less agree with you that the musicians should care more about playing their instruments and the final result and less about the inbetween stage though..

pipelineaudio said:
if this were conformity for their music "you MUST play a bridge after that second chorus" theyd be SCREAMING like the bitches they are, but hey, they INSIST on conformity on your part...cool
Click to expand...

that is one thought, only they're paying you, not the other way around..
 
Cyrokk said:
Easy solution: get some empty steal boxes, stack them on top of each other, outfit them with christmas lights, and tape pictures of high-end gear company logos on them.
Click to expand...

haha i like your idea
 
xtimbox said:
you certainly have weird analogys sir, i don't see how the stockmarket or a messed up deck/addition can directly relate to going consoleless/tapeless because of what someone read in a mag :rolleyes: I do more or less agree with you that the musicians should care more about playing their instruments and the final result and less about the inbetween stage though..
Click to expand...

Thats not what Im saying really. Talk to anyone in any formerly professional technical field about "amaturization"

From housing, to economics, to frighteningly even medicine, the democratization of technology is wreaking havok...

I mean its great the power is in everyone's hands now, but its also pretty bad that the power is in everyone's hands

xtimbox said:
that is one thought, only they're paying you, not the other way around..
Click to expand...

The trouble is, if you do bullshit that the band tells you, and you put out bullshit albums, you will soon find yourself without customers because the next band heard bullshit coming from your studio.

This is KILLING the mastering labs right now, and if so many valuable minds werent fleeing the industry it would actually be funny
 
pipelineaudio said:
Thats not what Im saying really. Talk to anyone in any formerly professional technical field about "amaturization"

From housing, to economics, to frighteningly even medicine, the democratization of technology is wreaking havok...

I mean its great the power is in everyone's hands now, but its also pretty bad that the power is in everyone's hands



The trouble is, if you do bullshit that the band tells you, and you put out bullshit albums, you will soon find yourself without customers because the next band heard bullshit coming from your studio.

This is KILLING the mastering labs right now, and if so many valuable minds werent fleeing the industry it would actually be funny
Click to expand...

i know what amaterization is. And i'm not representing myself as a high end studio. Everyone's got to start somewhere. I posted on this board so i could get guidance from the people that know their shit because realistically, i am an amature. And frankly, the crappy engineers should be weeded out in a free market society and the truly great engineers won't have to worry about getting work, as in all speciality fields. You're also twisting what i originally said. There's a huge difference between having your clients impressed with your gear and listening to them against your better judgement and making crappy cds.

best wishes,

tim.
 
Analog summing. I have no idea why (and Digi has papers out explaining why this doesn't happen...) but even a crappy Alesis board sounded wider than an in-the-box mix. And all I did was buss out the tracks and reconstruct the pans on the board. (shrug) So I bought some better mixers and never looked back.

002 w/ Adat outs gives me 16 tracks. 18 if I got off my butt and bought a S/PDIF i/o device. As Pipeline suggests it is a bit limited, but it *still* sounds better to me than computer mixes. I usually sub-mix in PT and out they go to the board. Works for me and its the best of both worlds. I can work anywhere along the ITB to Completely-Analog continuum using whatever tools I want.

Its basically style and personal choice, though. Unless you A/B ITB and analog mixes OR have a trained ear you'd probably never notice the difference.
 
Chris Shaeffer said:
002 w/ Adat outs gives me 16 tracks. 18 if I got off my butt and bought a S/PDIF i/o device. As Pipeline suggests it is a bit limited, but it *still* sounds better to me than computer mixes. I usually sub-mix in PT and out they go to the board. Works for me and its the best of both worlds. I can work anywhere along the ITB to Completely-Analog continuum using whatever tools I want.
Click to expand...

This is what I do as well, and it works great. You can use plugins or you can use hardware, or both. It all fits in the work flow very easily.

I treat my DAW as an 8 buss mixer with 8 aux sends. I'll assign tracks to the 8 busses in the DAW, and then send them to my outboard processors. Likewise, the 8 sends are routed out to my effects rack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top