M
marpstar
New member
If professionals record instruments track-by-track, then why do they need 48 channel mixers? If they only need like...10 or less to mic the drums? could someone explain this to me?
S
sjjohnston
New member
Well, an obvious answer is that they record a lot of tracks, "track by track." Indeed, there's probably a tendency to record more tracks when you go track by track -- doubling parts, keeping versions, recording solos and different sections on a different tracks, etc.
(Also, they don't always record track-by track.)
(Also, they don't always record track-by track.)
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Even if you record track by track during production - requiring only a single channel - you're going to need separate channels to mix all the tracks together at mixdown......!
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
Just to amplify on Bruce's post, even if I use ten tracks to record drums, I'd use twelve at mix time as I usually set up a drum mix and then also assign some of the drums two a couple of bussus and send that to another compressor and bring that back to two more tracks. I also might use empty mixer channels as effects returns as they're a little more flexible than aux returns (EQ and such). It's easy to burn up a shit load of channels when mixing regardless of the track count.
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
Who would pay $80/hour for a studio with a dinky 16ch board? In addition to the other posts a pro studio has to be ready for many different situations.
James Argo
Fancy Rock N' Roll
They look cooler on the picture than 12...
Like memory, sex & beer, channel is sumthin we can never get enough. When you face multirouting mixing like Ted said, sometimes I even put some sub mixer in addition. Not to mention the busses, insert, monitor, send-return etc... etc...
Like memory, sex & beer, channel is sumthin we can never get enough. When you face multirouting mixing like Ted said, sometimes I even put some sub mixer in addition. Not to mention the busses, insert, monitor, send-return etc... etc...