Mixing In The Box / Outside The Box

[Sonic Surgeon]

In The Box.

Outside The Box.

Ok fine, lame joke.



Seriously though... Aside from the obvious difference in hardware utilization, what audible difference do you guys who mix outside the box hear that gives you the preference to mix that way?

Very curious.

 

[miroslav]

It’s often argued that ITB maintains sonic purity and that if you are not happy with your ITB sound it’s just because you’re not doing it right, but I still find that mixing/mastering OTB with console, outboard processing, tape...etc...gives me bigger, smoother mixes.
The stereo image sounds wider and deeper and there is a very cohesive quality to the mix without any upper-end edginess, which ITB aficionados will say comes from loss of highs…but I’ve sat there and A/B’d my DAW source to my OTB output, and all the highs are still there…they just sound smoother.

I still use the DAW extensively for basic editing, which IMO is a DAW’s strongest point and can’t be beat with any analog editing SOP…but after the editing done, I always come back out of the DAW to mix/master OTB.

I’ve done a few mixes ITB…and if I had to mix that way I wouldn’t be real upset…but at this point my preference is to go OTB, especially since I have the OTB equipment. If I didn’t have the OTB setup and was just gearing up a studio…I dunno…the ITB approach would be tempting mainly because of its smaller footprint.

 

[Emerson Maningo]

Mixing inside the box is converting analog to digital signals and storing it in your hard drive for example.

Now the way this is converted to digital can affect the quality of recorded sound. For example, if you have a 24 bit 96Khz sound card, the recorded sound is more complete and full compared to 16 bit. Though hearing it cannot give a much distinguishable difference but it can be noticed by the file size.

Outside the box, you deal with analog (no conversion) and this gives the complete sound and space, though using DAW offers more flexibility and ease particularly in audio wave editing.

 

[gcapel]

Mixing inside the box is converting analog to digital signals and storing it in your hard drive for example.

Now the way this is converted to digital can affect the quality of recorded sound. For example, if you have a 24 bit 96Khz sound card, the recorded sound is more complete and full compared to 16 bit. Though hearing it cannot give a much distinguishable difference but it can be noticed by the file size.

Outside the box, you deal with analog (no conversion) and this gives the complete sound and space, though using DAW offers more flexibility and ease particularly in audio wave editing.

YOU ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

Recording and mixing are two different processes. Mixing in the box is mixing within software. Mixing out of the box is exporting individual tracks or sub groups from the DAW through digital to analog conversion to a mixing board or summing device.

 

[ez_willis]

Mixing out of the box is exporting individual tracks or sub groups from the DAW through digital to analog conversion to a mixing board or summing device.

even that isn't 100% accurate. If you use a digital mixer, there is no D/A conversion, and no 2nd A/D conversion. You're just mixing on a non-software based mixer.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

even that isn't 100% accurate. If you use a digital mixer, there is no D/A conversion, and no 2nd A/D conversion. You're just mixing on a non-software based mixer.

A digital mixer is still software-based, it's just that the software is built into the box. The "hardware" is nothing more than a control surface for the built-in software.

ITB digital mixing has the advantage of power and flexibility in the way of editing options, OTB analog mixing has the advantage (if you get the right stuff, anyway) of superior sound quality. On either saide, however, all best are off on advantages to either one if you try it on the cheap.

G.

 

[ez_willis]

A digital mixer is still software-based, it's just that the software is built into the box. The "hardware" is nothing more than a control surface for the built-in software.

ITB digital mixing has the advantage of power and flexibility in the way of editing options, OTB analog mixing has the advantage (if you get the right stuff, anyway) of superior sound quality. On either saide, however, all best are off on advantages to either one if you try it on the cheap.

G.

so would you consider using a digital mixer in or out of the box? I say out because it's not within the editor.

 

[Emerson Maningo]

YOU ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

Recording and mixing are two different processes. Mixing in the box is mixing within software. Mixing out of the box is exporting individual tracks or sub groups from the DAW through digital to analog conversion to a mixing board or summing device.

Yes I know, but I mean that the fact you are in digital domain you are not dealing with analog signals and you mixing digital signals.

Yeah agree with ez_willis, it is not accurate to say "Mixing out of the box is exporting individual tracks or sub groups from the DAW through digital to analog conversion to a mixing board or summing device."

OTB is simply mixing in analog console , not strictly following your definition.

 

[ez_willis]

so would you consider using a digital mixer in or out of the box? I say out because it's not within the editor.

also, make it somewhat short.

 

[gcapel]

Yes I know, but I mean that the fact you are in digital domain you are not dealing with analog signals and you mixing digital signals.

Yeah agree with ez_willis, it is not accurate to say "Mixing out of the box is exporting individual tracks or sub groups from the DAW through digital to analog conversion to a mixing board or summing device."

OTB is simply mixing in analog console , not strictly following your definition.

EZ is just trying to be a smart ass (which i admire).

You need to stay out of this thread.

 

[gcapel]

On either saide, however, all best are off on advantages to either one if you try it on the cheap.

G.

Though you can't say that the result will be the same "on the cheap" advantage be damned.

 

[LeeRosario]

In The Box.

Outside The Box.

Ok fine, lame joke.



Seriously though... Aside from the obvious difference in hardware utilization, what audible difference do you guys who mix outside the box hear that gives you the preference to mix that way?

Very curious.

\\there's a huge debate on a crucial aspect within DAW mixing: Summing multiple tracks. Bit allocation arguably affects how sounds sum up into stereo.

Besides, good circuitry and channel strips actually do good things for sound. Think of it as a supercharger for your tracks.

I personally am a believer of outside the box mixing. There's a reason why you can't beat the sound of a large format console for music production. Nobody would use them if digital was really a worthy contender.

Most commercial quality mixes are still done via the grand daddy flash of all mixing consoles, the SSL.

If not, then you have API and Neve as these are some of the most discrete consoles in existence today. I mean digital mixing is good, but it lacks a soul.

 

[XLR]

ITB mixing=software processing/mixing with no DA conversion out and AD back in

OTB mixing=DA conversion>hardware processing/effects/mixing>AD conversion back into the box

You need mid to high end conversion out and in (expensive), and high quality hardware it's going to (even more expensive), to make this worthwhile IME.

Beyond that though, most sound quality problems are a result of performance and tracking quality rather than mixing issues.

 

[mshilarious]

\\there's a huge debate on a crucial aspect within DAW mixing: Summing multiple tracks. Bit allocation arguably affects how sounds sum up into stereo.

Besides, good circuitry and channel strips actually do good things for sound. Think of it as a supercharger for your tracks.

I personally am a believer of outside the box mixing. There's a reason why you can't beat the sound of a large format console for music production. Nobody would use them if digital was really a worthy contender.

Most commercial quality mixes are still done via the grand daddy flash of all mixing consoles, the SSL.

If not, then you have API and Neve as these are some of the most discrete consoles in existence today. I mean digital mixing is good, but it lacks a soul.

You know, I actually thought about wading into this, but then I realized this is really a Gearslutz thread, so I will stay out of it

 

[NL5]

\\there's a huge debate on a crucial aspect within DAW mixing: Summing multiple tracks. Bit allocation arguably affects how sounds sum up into stereo.

What's the debate? 1+1 = 10 No matter the DAW, the App, the Planet you're on........

 

[ez_willis]

EZ is just trying to be a smart ass (which i admire).

You need to stay out of this thread.

I wasn't, bro. I honestly considered ITB being within the editing program. I have a digital mixer. Sometimes I will use it to monitor each individual track that's in Logic. It has decent eq and effects. At times I will use them then bounce the entire song down to disc on an external cd-burner. I have a Philips cdr770. I consider that to be OTB.

Other times I use the mixer within Logic entirely and bounce down to a .wav to the hard drive. I consider that to be ITB.

If I am wrong, I stand corrected, but I don't think I am. TOTALLY willing to be corrected on this though.

Not trying to be a smartass at all.

 

[mshilarious]

I'm not aware of any technical standard defining "OTB" and "ITB", so it's impossible to be right or wrong. These are terms of art, nothing more.

 

[gcapel]

I wasn't, bro. I honestly considered ITB being within the editing program. I have a digital mixer. Sometimes I will use it to monitor each individual track that's in Logic. It has decent eq and effects. At times I will use them then bounce the entire song down to disc on an external cd-burner. I have a Philips cdr770. I consider that to be OTB.

Other times I use the mixer within Logic entirely and bounce down to a .wav to the hard drive. I consider that to be ITB.

If I am wrong, I stand corrected, but I don't think I am. TOTALLY willing to be corrected on this though.

Not trying to be a smartass at all.

Sorry about that guy. I am totally with you.

There really isn't a term for all the combonations. I am pretty sure everyone will agree that if it were mixed all in software and you end up with a stereo wav file it is crown ITB. Now what you do with that wav next?

 

[NL5]

I'm not aware of any technical standard defining "OTB" and "ITB", so it's impossible to be right or wrong. These are terms of art, nothing more.

While I agree with this, ITB generally means "mixed on a computer". Now, that can mean a beige box computer, or a fancy one that "looks" like a mixing console.

A digital console is just a fancy computer.

 

[mshilarious]

While I agree with this, ITB generally means "mixed on a computer". Now, that can mean a beige box computer, or a fancy one that "looks" like a mixing console.

A digital console is just a fancy computer.

Sure, we can create a definition that requires analog summing. But once you drift into the debate, some people feel what's important is the workflow on a console, not analog summing. That could be a digital console. Others feel that analog summing in and of itself does not distinguish a mix, you have to have the entire signal chain of the console.

Like I said, Gearslutz thread

And isn't everything in a box anyway? I mean, does anybody have circuits laying around their desk on perfboard that they are mixing on?