C
chevy32
New member
i look at all these highly exspensive studios, and they have these huge 40+ channel mixers in there costing a fortune, what is the point of these huge exspensive mixers?
Jim Lad
New member
Are you talking home studios or commercial studios?
The short answer, by the way, would be something like... Excellent preamps with long throw, fully automated faders, full channel strips with built in compressors, EQ and effects. Something like that.
The short answer, by the way, would be something like... Excellent preamps with long throw, fully automated faders, full channel strips with built in compressors, EQ and effects. Something like that.
C
chevy32
New member
im guessing commercial, cause i know most home studios have interfaces and not mixers, but i look up on google " recording studio " and get these beautifull studios with huge mixers im just asking why? do you really need a 50+ channel mixer?
TetraFish
Well-known member
I don't have any profesional studio expierience but i would assume that just drums could take up 10 or more tracks. There would be several takes on each of the other instruments. Fills, lead tracks etc. I'm sure there all there for a reason.
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
If you're mixing out of the box, yeah. Consider a typical pop/rock mix:
Drums:
2 overheads
1 kick
1 snare top
1 snare bottom
3 tom close mics (for a three tom set)
1 hihat mic
Total: 9 channels
Bass:
1 direct in
1 amp
Total: 2 channels
Guitars:
4 channels, 2x left and 2x right distorted rhythm
2 channels, L/R stereo acoustic
2 channels, L/R clean rhythm
1 distorted lead
Total: 9
Vocals
1 Lead vocal
2 L/R harmony
Total: 3
That's 23 tracks for a bare bones mix. This is before you get into things like using a couple channels for your lead vocal to "comp" a performance together, bussing together a number of tracks (say, the drum mix) into another set of channels and then using a send off that bus into another channel for FX - say, parallel compression on that aforementioned drum submix. You can add up pretty quickly. Hell, I do instrumental guitar music, and it's rare I finish tracking with fewer than 25-30 channels.
Of course, there's also a oft-mentioned psychological factor - "Whoah, look at the size of that board! This guy must be good!"
gcapel
boom box recordings
If you're mixing out of the box, yeah. Consider a typical pop/rock mix:
Drums:
2 overheads
1 kick
1 snare top
1 snare bottom
3 tom close mics (for a three tom set)
1 hihat mic
Total: 9 channels
Bass:
1 direct in
1 amp
Total: 2 channels
Guitars:
4 channels, 2x left and 2x right distorted rhythm
2 channels, L/R stereo acoustic
2 channels, L/R clean rhythm
1 distorted lead
Total: 9
Vocals
1 Lead vocal
2 L/R harmony
Total: 3
That's 23 tracks for a bare bones mix. This is before you get into things like using a couple channels for your lead vocal to "comp" a performance together, bussing together a number of tracks (say, the drum mix) into another set of channels and then using a send off that bus into another channel for FX - say, parallel compression on that aforementioned drum submix. You can add up pretty quickly. Hell, I do instrumental guitar music, and it's rare I finish tracking with fewer than 25-30 channels.
Of course, there's also a oft-mentioned psychological factor - "Whoah, look at the size of that board! This guy must be good!"
this^^^^^
Do a search on "mixing out of the box" or "mixing in the box"
Bristol Posse
Okey Dokey
The point of them is mixing 40+ channels
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
Or using 20 input channels and 40 mix channels...
B
bjorg
Banned
cashcohen
Jewnior Member
Of course, there's also a oft-mentioned psychological factor - "Whoah, look at the size of that board! This guy must be good!"
I've been volunteering in a one-man recording studio this summer (he does mostly jazz), and the first time I sat in, I took one look at this....
....and eagerly exclaimed, "wow, that's an impressive mixing board!"
*facepalm*
David may have been impressed by my enthusiasm, but my technical knowledge left something to be desired.
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
Even if you mix ITB a big mixer can be useful. You can track a whole band at once and generate multiple monitor mixes complete with effects, including one for the control room. Multiple returns from the DAW even allows for the reference mixes of previously recorded tracks to be mixed differently for different players.
Say you want that "live band" feel and track the whole band. Everyone is direct but the drums. You divide the group into smaller sections with their own mixes and track away, getting keeper drum and bass takes. Then you go back and replace parts, sometimes two or three players at a time, each with separate mixes of each other and of the drum/bass tracks.
And since it's an analog board all the monitor mixes are ZERO LATENCY. Not low latency, not near-zero latency, actual zero latency.
Say you want that "live band" feel and track the whole band. Everyone is direct but the drums. You divide the group into smaller sections with their own mixes and track away, getting keeper drum and bass takes. Then you go back and replace parts, sometimes two or three players at a time, each with separate mixes of each other and of the drum/bass tracks.
And since it's an analog board all the monitor mixes are ZERO LATENCY. Not low latency, not near-zero latency, actual zero latency.
Dr. Varney
Pimp
It's a bit like asking:
"When I go to the race track I see all these race cars costing a fortune. What is the point of these huge expensive engines?"
I'm not tryin' to be funny or anything but the amount of sliders is necessary to account for any level of complexity thrown at the system and quality sliders themselves are not cheap. They don't put that many in, in case one of 'em breaks, you know.
Maybe the average rock'n'roll band consists of only 4 musicians but imagine if you had to mix an entire orchestra.
More importantly, every part of everthing in the mix runs eventually in and out the mixer and as such, this part of the chain must treat those signals with absolute impartiality. No noise, no hiss; no electronic distortion; perfect neutrality before and after EQ.
You've only got to imagine what one pre-amp and one graphic EQ would cost on their own - and there are 40+ of them in here! Then there is all the wiring which connects each part. In view of this, I feel very lucky to have found a little 12ch mixer, which was cheap enough to afford and still does the job very nicely.
Dr. V
O
oretez
Hwy 50
for an orchestra playing a quasi classic(al) repetorire I tend (to prefer) to use a lot fewer mics then when recording the average pop [rock] ensemble
but . . . back to OP's question a well designed console is always a 'hybrid' tool for efficiently dealing with a lot of separate tasks that might face a recording facility (and for a commercial facility, albeit home, project or jingle, 'wowing' clients is not an insignificant component. A European friend of mine, old school Europe with a barely modulated contempt for rude raw uneducated America, schooled as an engineer and trained as a jet pilot, walked into an unrenovated control room of mine housed in a low ceiling basement, unadorned cider block and limestone walls, raw concrete floor, unattractive lightling with a 'barn wood' door took in the equipment and its layout and went 'damn, you really do have a recording studio in your basement! I always thought you were pretending.' My project studio pretensions got a lot more respect from him after that . . . and this was a guy intimately familiar with control panels of military and commercial jets. As disappointing as what it might imply about human behavior it is hard to overestimate the importance of gear and it's appearance has on potential clients)
Having a tool that functions a 'command center' for those myriad tasks, and for it to be 'big' enough to not have to scramble at the ass end of a four day tracking session with the talent set to board a red eye in hours can be worth its weight in gold
and generally speaking for a 24 track analog recorder you wanted a desk with double that number of channels. 24 inputs, 24 returns. Plus if working OTB I don't like to start a multi 'tune' project on anything less then an 8 buss board . . . the patch bay options of desk being one of their most undereviewed utilities. for much of the last decade I've spent more time mixing ITB (then out) but subtle console EQ and long throw faders are still a tactile (as well as auditory) pleasure with which to work. Nearly every ITB control surface with which I've worked has built to a price compromises that a well designed and built analog desk avoids . . . which is not to say I've ever found a 'perfect' analog console and have sworn at more then a couple . . . and there is a physical pleasure involved with being able to mix, balance, multiple tracks nearly simultaneously and being able to select which tracks more or less unconsciously (no negotiating 'banks') . . . then instantaneously shifting gears to track, record, punch in, overdub, a new, or edit an egregious element with an ease not found with most consumer computer based systems simply can make work flow far less stressful
Not saying anyone has to have a desk, merely that there are as many reasons to have one as there are studios that have them. Even while the room itself is far more important it was the console that suggested the idea of 'playing' the studio as a musical instrument.
R
RAMI
Guest
I just started mixing in the box recently, but even ITB, it's easy to end up with 30+ tracks, even if there are really only 15 or 16 actual tracks.
As was mentioned before, by the time I group a few things like drums and background vocals, add effects strips, split up one track into 2 if I want different volume (or panning or effects) on one part, etc...It can easily add up to 30-40 tracks even though it's really only a 14-16 track recording.
As was mentioned before, by the time I group a few things like drums and background vocals, add effects strips, split up one track into 2 if I want different volume (or panning or effects) on one part, etc...It can easily add up to 30-40 tracks even though it's really only a 14-16 track recording.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Like RAMI said.....^^^^
Some of the big studios might be doing sound for film...recording full symphony orchestras...etc.....and it's nice always having a bunch more channels than you really need....just in case.
I have 24-channel board, but it's a split design, so I can actually do 48 inputs (24 tape returns), though I can only use the EQ section for one or the other on any given channel, so I tend use only the main inputs of the 24-channels, though I've had some occasions when I had no choice but to employ the tape returns too...and I found myself wishing for a 32-channel board, or even 48.
A lot of it is about having tracking and mixing flexibility.
Some of the big studios might be doing sound for film...recording full symphony orchestras...etc.....and it's nice always having a bunch more channels than you really need....just in case.
I have 24-channel board, but it's a split design, so I can actually do 48 inputs (24 tape returns), though I can only use the EQ section for one or the other on any given channel, so I tend use only the main inputs of the 24-channels, though I've had some occasions when I had no choice but to employ the tape returns too...and I found myself wishing for a 32-channel board, or even 48.
A lot of it is about having tracking and mixing flexibility.
Similar threads
- sumitsimlai
- Digital Recording & Computers
