Are 8 "tracks" too few when mixing a DAW through a hardware mixer?

moogyboy

moogyboy

New member
hi everyone

I know I'm asking a lot of dumb questions right off the get-go, but in this case it's because 1) I've been spoiled these last few years by Reaper, and 2) I'm in that paranoid planning and what-if? stage of designing my next generation studio. Bear with me.

As I wrote in another post under Digital Recording, I want to try incorporating my old TASCAM M-216 mixer into a PC-based DAW setup in a traditional tape/mixer manner. I'm slowly getting a handle on the hardware requirements for this arrangement; it looks like what I want is a rackmount audio interface with at least 8 inputs and outputs. The 8 outs would match perfectly with the M-216's switchable tape inputs, which basically means that at mixdown time I would be mixing a total of 8 "tape tracks" down to stereo, using channels 1-8 of the mixer.

Not that my songs generally use a large number of tracks anyway, but it has been a very long time since I was limited to 4 tracks on my Portastudio. I suppose my question then is whether, in your opinion, in this day and age of unlimited tracks on the desktop, cramming everything into 8 mixer channels is in some way limiting. I suppose lots of great records were mixed that way back in the day, and I just love and miss playing with actual faders and knobs. In any case I'd like to put that M-216 to good use for a change, and I'm intrigued by the challenge of working with limited tracks. But opinions from the experienced would be great. Thanks everyone...

cheers

Billy S.
 
Here's how it usually goes... :)

When you have 4 tracks...you make do and adjust your production options & goals to fit that.

When you have 8 tracks...you make do and adjust your production options & goals to fit that.

When you have 16 tracks...you make do and adjust your production options & goals to fit that.

When you have 24 tracks...you make do and adjust your production options & goals to fit that.

When you have unlimited tracks...you learn to use as many as you need to fit your production options & goals.


If you're just setting up your studio, you need to be realistic about what you really need and how you like to work.
Lots of folks (including me) have/had fun recording to 4 tracks...but I don't really want to work like that these days.

I now use a 24 track deck, and I also use a DAW...but even in the DAW I mainly stick to the the 24 track format, and I find it's just enough for the way I like to work. Occasionally I'll go beyond that by a few tracks...and sometimes I'll use a few less than 24.
When I was tracking to my 16 track deck...I always felt a bit limited and wanting a few more...so 24 works out just right for me.
 
moogyboy said:
I suppose my question then is whether, in your opinion, in this day and age of unlimited tracks on the desktop, cramming everything into 8 mixer channels is in some way limiting.
Click to expand...

It's limiting if you want more than eight channels.

Personally, I am not conscious of my track count. I just create them as I need them, and am grateful for the flexibility that Reaper offers.
 
You can always submix in the DAW and mix stems, but then what's the point of bothering with the mixer if you aren't really mixing with it? Do you have outboard? Compressors, effects, patchbay? Many pounds of copper to connect it all? Or is the mixer just a summing box, merely combining the fully processed stems into a stereo signal?
 
I don't miss 'submixing' and bouncing to do a final mix!

To the OP - a lot depends on your music - how many instruments, the genre, style, etc. You could easily mix your drums down to a pair of tracks (for left & right stereo), lead vocal on a track, backup vocals on a pair of tracks, leaving 3 tracks for bass, guitar(s), keyboards. More than that and you are going to be doing submixes.
 
just finished mixing nine songs for my new album.

one song has 13 tracks...

another has 61 tracks.


you can do the math,
and see that it tells you nothing.
 
I work in a small private studio with a Tascam M-2600 MkII at its core. During tracking it's a bank of preamps and a headphone mixer. During mixdown it's a monitor controller. For live studio performances and rehearsals I mix mains and monitors on it. There's a rack of outboard processing left over from when we did mix through the board. Without adding any gear I could get 10 channels out through the interface, and with some extra gear (sitting nearby in the studio) I could easily get 28 channels out of the DAW. But I will never do it because it can't compete with ITB mixing in any way that matters.
 
You're right, maybe ITB is the way to go for mixing; I agree it sure is a lot more straightforward and simple considering my limited resources. Perhaps I'll just use my mixer for sorting out all my inputs on the way to the audio interface. I suppose the idea was just a what-if thought experiment. Thanks for the advice, folks.

cheers

Billy S.
 
I have fond memories of that board. There was something about the preamp and EQ that always made me think it sounded like a guitar amp - like just pure balls out rock and roll.

I would not go back to mixing on the thing unless you paid me, though. Use it for its character in tracking or as a "hardware insert" for effect, but mix ITB. If you want to be able to have hands on faders while mixing without breaking the bank, look at a hardware controller. The Korg Microkontrol kind of looks like a toy, but is surprisingly satisfying to work with, and super cheap.
 
moogyboy said:
You're right, maybe ITB is the way to go for mixing; I agree it sure is a lot more straightforward and simple considering my limited resources. Perhaps I'll just use my mixer for sorting out all my inputs on the way to the audio interface. I suppose the idea was just a what-if thought experiment. Thanks for the advice, folks.
Click to expand...


Your mixer could be great for setting up cue/headphone mixes during tracking. :)

Also, you cans still mix with it, you'll just have to stem/sub down any DAW tracks exceeding your 8-track limit...as others have suggested...but IMO, with that limit and that mixer, I would just stay ITB.
I still mix out from the DAW, but I'm able to do 24 tracks using (3) 8-channel interfaces, and my mixer has the inputs to handle that...plus I still use a good deal of outboard. Anything less, and I too would just mix ITB these days.
 
It's a sixteen channel board. There's nothing preventing you from mixing sixteen inputs other than the number of outputs from your DAW.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
It's a sixteen channel board. There's nothing preventing you from mixing sixteen inputs other than the number of outputs from your DAW.
Click to expand...
Then there's that. Heck, you could get a few more by using the FX returns, but of course you wouldn't then be able to use them for effects. I still don't think it's worth it, though.
 
There was some timeless music, that still gets widely listened to today, recorded in mono, with only a few channels. More channels makes it easier, but it's far from required to do good work, especially since you can do sub/stem mixing with minimal noise floor in the digital domain. I like what was said earlier in the thread about how your job, really, is to exploit the gear you have to the fullest. There's something to be said about the trap some people get into where they think "I'll do something good when I get XYZ gear". It would surprise you what you could accomplish with a little bit of creativity, good ears, good recording techniques and good source material. All of the home studio guys are lusting after the top gear, and then you find The Foo Fighters recording in their garage (on purpose) and guitar stomp boxes being used in place of expensive effects as a "secret weapon" to some engineers. It's all relative.
 
MrUserNameIV said:
...t would surprise you what you could accomplish with a little bit of creativity, good ears, good recording techniques and good source material. All of the home studio guys are lusting after the top gear, and then you find The Foo Fighters recording in their garage (on purpose) and guitar stomp boxes being used in place of expensive effects as a "secret weapon" to some engineers. It's all relative.
Click to expand...

I discovered some great little tricks and recorded some terrific stuff with my Portastudio 424 mkII and some cheaply acquired, used outboard gear back in the day. My patented self-tape-flanging reverb technique is my proudest discovery. :-) Hell, I made a stereo master for my second band's debut EP by mixing down to my Zenith VHS VCR--yes the one I used to watch movies with--and using my stereo as a monitor system. We must remember not to get spoiled by unlimited everything. I think the whole mixer>DAW thing I started this thread with is kind of reconnecting not only the older simpler way of recording in general but also in my own DIY use-what-I-have-laying-around roots, and wondering if that's even still viable or desirable.

Great discussion so far, I appreciate all of your comments.

cheers

Billy S.
 
Observation: I thought that the faders and knobs of my Portastudio encouraged a very direct, spontaneous free-form approach to mixing and recording, even if having only four tracks was very limiting, I liked to push those limits; even when the results were rough, it was a lively kind of roughness. ITB mixing in Reaper et. al. is fun but in a far more calculated way; it's more about manipulating WAVs, plug-ins, setting up convoluted routing paths, complicated automation...more like programming a computer. Playing with the massive available resources is the fun, rather than the fun of working around a massive *lack* of resources. Compare to analog vs. digital synthesizers.

cheers

Billy S.
 
moogyboy said:
Observation: I thought that the faders and knobs of my Portastudio encouraged a very direct, spontaneous free-form approach to mixing and recording, even if having only four tracks was very limiting, I liked to push those limits; even when the results were rough, it was a lively kind of roughness. ITB mixing in Reaper et. al. is fun but in a far more calculated way; it's more about manipulating WAVs, plug-ins, setting up convoluted routing paths, complicated automation...more like programming a computer. Playing with the massive available resources is the fun, rather than the fun of working around a massive *lack* of resources. Compare to analog vs. digital synthesizers.

cheers

Billy S.
Click to expand...

I can understand that some people have a strong fondness for the tactile approach . . . physically moving knobs and faders is very satisfying for them.

Likewise, I can also understand the hands-on approach that leads people to restore and drive old steam locos, even though they are less efficient and less manageable than contemporary engines.

Different processes appeal to different people, and I am one who finds no particular attraction in the physicality of recording. I accept that you can derive "a very direct, spontaneous free-form approach to mixing and recording."

Interestingly, I find messing with Reaper to likewise yield the same direct, spontaneous free form approach, particularly as I don't need to worry about limitations imposed by hardware.
 
I just don't have time for that kind of thing, going backwards with technology just for the amusement factor. For me the gear is mostly just a means to an end, and the end is a good recording.
 
It's just different strokes. I just recently finally got a fully functional R2R machine up and running --- a Fostex 80 8 track machine --- and I have a Yamaha RM804 8-channel board. I'm just about finished with my first song using it, and I have had a total blast with it. I haven't touched a computer during the entire process, the only exception being when I used a VST Mellotron because I don't have access to a real one. I'm using all outboard processors, and it's been a pure joy for me. I love the sound I'm getting, and most importantly, I'm really enjoying myself.

Like Gecko said, it appeals to some people and doesn't to others. I suffer a lot from option anxiety, so unlimited tracks/effects/etc. is not a good thing for me. I find it stifling.
 
I've got a 32 channel (inline, so really 64 at a time), 8 bus Soundcraft board sitting in my garage because I can't get anybody to buy it for a reasonable price. I managed to offload most of my 8 foot rack of outboard gear, though there are still random things in a couple different closets. I can do everything I need to do (almost) everything that did and a lot of things that it didn't from a 6-space rack that I can take pretty much wherever I want. I don't miss having all that crap crowding my house.

There is nothing stopping me from putting whatever limits I want for whatever reasons I choose, but I don't have to deal with any of that bullshit. I'm not saying hardware is necessarily an invalid way of doing it. I personally am glad to be done with it, though.
 
Option anxiety isn't an issue for me. Over the years I've tried all sort of stuff and by now I mostly just know what's going to work (for me, for a given genre etc.) and what isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top