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

[RFR]

Different strokes for different folks.
I like the big bulky antique shit.

 

[ashcat_lt]

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.

That's pretty much where I'm at, too.

I'm completely on board with "use what you've got", too though. I am not above releasing an iPhone Voice Memo if that's all I had to capture a good performance. One of my best friends makes some of my favorite music with a little 8 track standalone and a pile of guitar pedals. As long as you're getting what you want or need out of it, nobody can tell you it's wrong.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Different strokes for different folks.
I like the big bulky antique shit.

I love having a big mixer as a central routing control. I just don't want to have to mix an album on it ever again. And I have a collection of obsolete format players, but they're just for digitizing old media, not for recording new stuff.

 

[RFR]

I love having a big mixer as a central routing control.

Well I guess that IS it's main purpose.

Me, not having a daw, I HAVE to mix on it. I imagine getting into computer based recording, I'd end up using it more like you do.

 

[miroslav]

I love having a big mixer as a central routing control. I just don't want to have to mix an album on it ever again.

That's kinda' how I use my mixer...but I actually DO mix through it.
The way I do things now days is to pretty much pre-mix all my tracks in the DAW...add some plugs, etc...then I break out 24 channels from the DAW to the mixer. I then use the mixer to add outboard processing, and I may also use some of the channel EQ on the mixer...but come mixdown time, I'm rarely moving the faders on the mixer once I set the balance. IOW, all the dynamics are happening in the DAW....so apart from the mixer EQ, the main reason for the mixer is to route/add any outboard processing.

I haven't done a straight mixer mix in ages.

Without that hybrid approach, I wouldn't be able to use my outboard processing, and then all the load would be on the DAW.
This way I split it up and I don't have any of the CPU overload issues, plus I still get the outboard gear into the mix and I get to have some of that hands-on thing instead of all-mouse.

 

[moogyboy]

It's a sixteen channel board. There's nothing preventing you from mixing sixteen inputs other than the number of outputs from your DAW.

True, especially if I use a patch bay and rewire everything between tracking and mixing.

 

[MrUserNameIV]

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.

I always get jumped on for saying so on here, but sometimes low-fi fits the production better than top shelf gear (depends on what you're going for). It's not to say one shouldn't learn all they can, develop their ears and learn how to make things sound amazing, but music is essentially an emotional medium, so in my mind, the job of the audio production process is to most effectively communicate the emotion (which doesn't call for a one size fits all approach). Personally, I think it speaks to someone's ability more if they're able to make a minimal setup sound great than someone with all the top end gear they could ask for. It's my observation that the home recording biz is filled with quite a bit of marketing with the purpose of driving up gear/software sales in total rejection of the fact that nobody is really going to care about the audio production any more than it helps the song speak to them.

If recording something onto a VHS tape makes the sound you want, then why is it a wrong answer? I've known commercial studios with lots of pro gear that keep their old Cassette tape recorders, because some people like incorporating it into their productions.

 

[ashcat_lt]

Hifi VHS was actually a pretty damn good 2 track medium as long as you had a machine without the AGC. I used it for mastering for a short period in the early 90s before I got my DAT machine. Even with AGC it was maybe even better for times when you wanted to record unpredictable and indefinite performances like live shows with a lot of bands or an extended jam session. Each tape will go for up to 6 hours! I was wishing I had one or two machines this past August to record the madness at my garage sale/music festival. We had something like 27 hours of music in two days, and there was no way I was going to try to shoehorn that onto a hard drive. VHS would have been just the ticket, but...

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Right, VHS HiFi was about the best widely available consumer audio format at the time. We used it because it didn't change the sound, not because it did.

 

[Tonuspomus]

The only benefit of mixing through an analog console is if it is a great sounding console, like a Neve or an API. I branched out a digital recording on a Neve recently (24 tracks) and the difference in the fullness and low end of the drums was very noticeable in a good way. Besides the big price difference you have to ask yourself is your Tascam M-216 adding something better to the sound, is the same or is it worse? Do A-B tests. It wouldn't be the first time a cheap piece of equipment out performs an expensive one. Tascam always made great sounding semi-pro machines. I agree with the others here that with only 8 channels you won't really be mixing if you have to sub-mix everything up on the 8 channels. But you could put your drum group through an good external stereo compressor if you have one and you can use the onboard eq to bring out more detail and low end. It's worth a try.

 

[ashcat_lt]

I can tell you from experience - and mentioned above - that mixer definitely has a character. Whether you'd consider it good...??? I personally really dug the thing. It has a particularly way if breaking up when pushed which to my ear is more pleasing than any other mixer I've used. And there's something in the voicing of the EQ section that really lends itself to guitar-based rock music. Like I said, it kind of just sounds like a guitar amp. I used that mixer for about a decade in both live sound and recording, and sometimes even miss it today. I'm not going back there, though.

 

[Jonesey9]

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.

I eventually manage to sell my Soundcraft Spirit Studio 32 last year (for a fraction of what i paid for it).

I hadn't mixed on it for about 5 years and now I've got a load more space.