Mixing a digital recording with analog gear...

  • Thread starter Thread starter zed32
  • Start date Start date
zed32

zed32

Re-Attached Member
OK this is a very newbish question from me, but i'm still not quite sure how this works, i tried to search a bit but didn't find much of what i was looking for. anyway...

i was wondering what exactly is the procedure for taking tracks that were recorded digitally and mixing them thru an analog console? i've always just mixed inside the box with my digitally recorded music, but i could never quite understand the process of getting all the tracks out of the computer, and to each individual channel on the mixer, an then back into the computer. i'm wondering wether in the future i should invest in an analog mixer, or invest in a digital control surface for more intuitive mixing inside the box.

so say a song has 20 separate tracks on it, how would you get each of these tracks out of the computer at the same time to be able to mix them "outside the box"? would i need an interface with 20 separate outputs? and then, once finished, would i have to take the entire mix and re-record it onto the computer to save the changes? or how would you even determine what levels you set if you were to take a break from mixing one song and try working on another? would that require automated sliders? or a digital console? i dunno, i'm just sort of confused on the logistics of mixing outside the box. any links to articles or something would be appreciated, i don't want to have to waste people's time writing a response since i get the feeling this is something i should already know...

:o :o :o :o :o :o
 
Well you could have an interface with only one I/O and a mixer with only one channel and still do it. Take the output of the interface into the input of the mixer and from the output of the mixer into the input of the interface. This means that you can play one channel, mix it how you please, and record it as a new track. You could do this with every track, but it'd take ages. Another option is to get a mixer with however many tracks you will be working with, which has direct outs. Have an interface with however many I/Os and have the outputs of the interface go the the inputs of the mixer, and from the direct outputs of the mixer to the inputs of the interface. It would be much easier and better with a digital console, or a control surface, but it can be done with an analogue desk.
 
You could mix one track at a time like panda mentioned; but also like panda mentioned, it would be extremely tedious, even if you were able to get one track at a time just right without switching back and forth between tracks to get the right balance, which you aren't under those circumstances.

An additional complication is that there could be phase problems introduced by the delay caused by the extra analog signal path on the mixed channel that doesn't exist on the others.

The alternative would be a multi-I/O interface that allowed you to work on multiple channels - all of them - at once (in both directions.) By sending all channels out to analog at the same time and re-recording all of them to new tracks, there would be not latency/phase discrepencies between channels since they are all going through extra signal path.

But I think the thing to keep in mind is that one should not pay the sonic cost of converting between domains unless it's to purchase an analog benefit greater than the cost (e.g. that schweet tube EQ or compressor you got your hands on, or that Neve channel strip that you have access to for a day.) But outside of that, unless one is just that much better of a mixer on a physical surface than they are in the box, the D/A-A/D costs can be pretty high without such a payoff. Better off using a MIDI control surface to do physiical surface mixing in a case like that.

G.
 
yeah, i was just wondering because i've seen pictures of studios that record digitally, yet they have these huge consoles in front. does that mean they don't actually use the console for digital stuff? i just always figured there was a way that studios had it hooked up...i think i'll just stick to Samplitude and a nice control surface. and maybe later on get a summing mixer type thing...
 
zed32 said:
yeah, i was just wondering because i've seen pictures of studios that record digitally, yet they have these huge consoles in front. does that mean they don't actually use the console for digital stuff?
Click to expand...
It depends upon the studio. Just because you see a big honkin' desk doesn't necessarily mean it's analog. Some consoles are actually digital consoles (they are live mixing digital signals). Some are huge Pro Tools control surfaces.

The ones that are analog but record digitally have spent the money on top-shelf converters and I/O from the likes of Apogee, Focusrite, etc. and may in some cases have a bi-directional pipe between their desk and their recorders that's 24 or more tracks wide.

G.
 
There's a few different ways to do it. One is to have a separate output from the computer for every track, and the other is to send busses out. In addition, you can do your entire mix in analog, or do the mix in the box and then sum the tracks or busses in analog.

But basically, however many tracks you want to mix in analog, you need that many outputs on your soundcard/interface. Sending tracks out one or two at a time will simply not get the job done. You can't mix one track at a time, that's actually not mixing. Besides, when you do that you are sending the tracks back into the computer individually, where they *will* need to be mixed. Mixing is what occurs when you combine the tracks down to stereo. You can indeed process tracks externally individually, but that isn't the same as mixing them.

Also, if you are mixing in hardware outside the computer you also need a pair of converters to get the mixed tracks back into the computer. The higher quality the better for this one.

My studio is set up to mix exactly the way you are asking about. All my signal sources, whether they be hardware or virtual instruments and recorded tracks in the DAW, are routed to my analog mixer. From there I put the fx one them as well as buss the signals to my other outboard like compressors and eq. After that the signals are summed and recorded back into the computer.

I really like working this way and I think it sounds great. Before this setup I was mixing all digital and ultimately it left me unsatisfied with the result.
 
I'm in the same boat with SonicAlbert.
 
cool, thanks everyone. :)


so yeah, i think i might just stick to using a nice control surface, and later on down the road maybe sum the busses with one of those little summing mixers. but for now i have other parts of the studio that need more immediate attention, hehe. thanks again.
 
I recently bought a summing mixer, the Speck Electronics X.Sum. I'm liking it a lot. It's very quiet, tons of gain, and the tone is detailed and clean.

Why would I buy a summing mixer if I'm already mixing analog? Glad you asked!

I use Speck XtraMix's for most of my inputs. These mixers sound incredible but have two weaknesses: they have no eq and they don't have a stereo master channel in addition to the 8 busses. So you can assign the inputs to any of the busses, but the busses are then fed to the master channel. You can't assign an input to the master stereo master channel *without* it going through a buss.

So what I've done is use the XtraMix's for their inputs, assign busses there, do the processing on those busses with my outboard, and then mix all that and the fx returns in the X.Sum. So the X.Sum basically becomes the master section.

Based on what I'm hearing after a couple days using the X.Sum, I think it would make a good summing mixer coming straight from the computer as well.
 
yeah i just read an article about the Speck, i think it was in Tape Op or online somewhere, i forget. sounds like a great piece of gear, but i'm still pretty far off from being able to buy it and put it to good use. first thing's first, i need to get some room treatment. then a better computer, then better monitors, then better mics, better pres, a good compressor, yada yada...

:D


i really appreciate the input, as i'm getting a better idea of which direction i'd like to head. that way i don't waste any steps on bad purchases and stuff i won't be able to really use.
 
oh and one question to clarify about the summing mixer. let's say i arrange all my tracks into busses to be sent out to the summing mixer, it would go from my firepod outs, to the mixer, and then where? would it have to be recorded to my HD in real time after playing thru the mixer? i'm thinking i would hook the stereo outs from the summing box to inputs 1&2 from the firepod, and record that, right?
 
zed32 said:
oh and one question to clarify about the summing mixer. let's say i arrange all my tracks into busses to be sent out to the summing mixer, it would go from my firepod outs, to the mixer, and then where? would it have to be recorded to my HD in real time after playing thru the mixer? i'm thinking i would hook the stereo outs from the summing box to inputs 1&2 from the firepod, and record that, right?
Click to expand...

Correct. You take the master outs of your mixer back into a stereo track in the DAW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top