Mixing tracks on a computer with an Analog mixer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chiefi
  • Start date Start date
C

Chiefi

New member
Let's say I have 5 tracks (or more) of guitars, drums, bass, voice...etc.. all recorded with Cubase or any other recording software. Is it possible to mix those tracks with an analog mixer? If so, how do I set it up?

Thanks a lot. :)
 
Chiefi said:
Let's say I have 5 tracks (or more) of guitars, drums, bass, voice...etc.. all recorded with Cubase or any other recording software. Is it possible to mix those tracks with an analog mixer? If so, how do I set it up?Thanks a lot. :)
Click to expand...
It all depends upon your I/O capabilities between the computer and the mixer and the horsepower of your computer. If you have a wide enough pipe and enough converters so you can actually play five channels out to the mixer and simultaneously record five channels back in, and your CPU and hard drives can handle all that simultaneously without hiccuping, then it can be done.

But it's not something I would recommend. The mixing capabilities in Cubase are good enough and easy enough to do a fine job, and the problem with going out to an analog mixer and then back in to the computer again is that you are sending your signals through two extra stages of analog-to-digital conversion that isn't all that necessary. Ad dto that the extra signal length of going through the mixer itself and you are adding several stages of extra "dirt" to the signal.

On the other hand, mixing by mouse is (to me anyway) not as fast or natural as using a physical control surface, and going back out to analog would allow you to chain in external hardware processors that you just don't have access to inside the box unless you have the highest quality plugins.

The best bet IMHO (if you have the budget) would be to get a DAW controller which looks and feels just like an analog mixer but is actually used to control the processing in Cubase. You'd be mixing inside of cubase, bt you'd be doing it with a physical mixer-like device instead of a mouse.

G.
 
The DAW controller also seems to me like the best solution for my needs. I'll look into it.

Thanks for the very informative answer. :)
 
I never really felt alive until I bought my Mackie Control. This thing fuckin' rocks. definately worth every penny.. Plus it's stylish... the ladies dig that :D
 
Well, I feel that mixing analog got kind of a short shrift in this thread, it shouldn't be dismissed this easily.

To mix analog you need a few things: a soundcard with a minimum of eight outputs (or an ADAT output that you can hook up to an external converter), a mixer, and outboard gear like fx processors, compressors, and eq. You also need two channels of AD conversion to bring the mix back into the computer. More than two channels of AD conversion are not necessary, because you are mixing down analog and don't need to bring as many tracks in as you brought out.

I personally use a combination of analog and digital mixing. I use both plugins and outboard fx processing, depending on what I want to do, and the sound I want. Any plugins are added to the tracks in the DAW, and then I send the tracks to my digital mixer, the Tascam DM-24. From the tascam I buss the tracks to my Speck XtraMix mixers, which are analog. The tracks are bussed out of the Specks to any analog processing I might want, where I put the tracks through compression and eq-ing. The eight busses are then returned to the Speck mixers, mixed to stereo and then sent to an AD converter and recorded back into the DAW.

The reason for the double mixer system is that I still use a lot of hardware synths/samplers alongside my soft samplers, and I need a way to combine all my DAW and analog sources. This works great and is surprisingly easy and intuitive to use. Tracks in the DAW are routed to the Tascam, and tracks from the hardware synths are routed through the XtraMix's. The busses and aux sends of the two mixers are combined so that they function as one big mixer.

I used to mix all digital, either in the DAW or in the digital mixers. After a while I became very dissatisfied with that, and reworked my studio back toward the analog realm. It sounds much better to me, and I can work a lot faster.

I personally think that mixing analog is a good thing. Actually, I should say that combining the best aspects of in the DAW mixing and analog mixing is a good thing. Just my opinion.
 
Hey there Al,

You are one of the folks on this board who's posts I respect the most and whom I agree with an extremely high percentage of the time. On this one, though, I have some mixed (no pun intended :D) feelings.

First, in your description there are actually 10 converters needed (you need to convert the 8 channels out from digital to analog too.) I know you know that already, just clarifying for the readers :).

The situation remains, though, that there are two extra stages of conversion happening, for a minimum total of three conversions between analog and digital before it's all through. Plus adding yet another routing through the mixer circuitry. I'm not even adding the extra mixers and such that you have in your config.

Add that all together that that is one loooong signal path between performance and CD. I am of the school myself of "keep the chain as short as possible; if you have to add to the chain, make sure it's really worth it."

It's the second half of that truism where the mixed feelings come in. I agree that if you have some worthy outboard analog iron that digital plugins just don't replicate right, then it can certainly be worth the cost in added conversion and signal path to get that quality of signal processing. I said as much in my first reply.

But unless/until he has plans to get that extra analog iron, I am of the opinion myself that the extra baggage in going to the analog mixer just for the sake of having a mixing control surface is too high of a cost in signal length and degradation. In such a case he'd be better keeping it in the box and using a DAW controller for the surface, IMHumbleO. As you said, Just an O, though. :)

G.
 
Three conversions?

Mics --> DAW
DAW--> Mixer
Mixer--> DAW

If your converters are pristine and you have a good quality mixer the benefit could certainly outweigh the loss in conversion. Some people who work this way also eliminate the last stage of conversion by going out to something like an analog tape for final mixdown. In any case, I think a lot of people work this way. But I think the gear quality is key. Running out through a budget mixer is unlikely to improve over the mix bus in your DAW. I've tried mixing stems out through my Soundcraft M-Series (12 channels) board a bit and didn't see a big improvement in the sound. Plus once you're used to mixing in the box being able to easily save and automate fader positions for individual songs is hard to give up.
 
AlexW said:
If your converters are pristine and you have a good quality mixer the benefit could certainly outweigh the loss in conversion.
Click to expand...
I agree completly with that at its face value, but I'd also say that of the people that frequent this forum, we'd be lucky to find 5-10% of them who have anything close to "pristine" converters. That would include me. I use a MOTU 2408 myself, which is not a bad device (I rather like it actually), but I wouldn't even dare to set it next to something like an Apogee or a 2192. And, as much as I like my 2408 (or a Firepod or a Tascam 1804 etc.), I wouldn't want to run my sound through them any more than is necessary.

That said, I *do* do just that on occasion; sometimes to take advantage of my Pro VLA when the mix really calls for it (no snickers, please, I'll take that box with matched, quality tubes over a "toob" or "opto" plugin any day of the week :) ) or a great piece of analog gear that someone mught bring over, etc. But even in those cases, I'll try to loop the process direct and bypass my mixer, if possible.

And the origin of this thread was asking about using an analog mixer for mixing. I ask, semi-rhetorically, is it worth the cost of signal length and integrity to go out to something like a Mackie (which I also own) or a Spirit or an Alesis mixer? To what advantage? Are they, by themselves, going to make the signal sound any better? It's not like they add any "analog warmth" that's worthwhile or that their EQ sections are worth writing home about or anything. No, I say they are, at best, going to have minimal effect on the sound, though any minimal effect will be negative and not positive. At worst they will drape a veil of coloration and dynamics loss over the sound that was not there at the inputs.And THAT is much to high of a cost to pay (for my audio budget, anyway ;) ).

Give me a rack of Apogees and some nice Rupert Neve channel strips and I might go out to analog all day from my DAW and back again. But otherwise, once it's in there, keep it in there unless you have gold on the outside.

Again, that's just one point of view. Everyone is welcome to disagree...many usually do :D That's what forums are for! :)

G.
 
Right, I like the PRO VLA too. Now just imagine all the analog outboard processing is as good or better than the PRO VLA. If you would take the PRO VLA over any opto plugin, then you would probably take most of the other stuff over a plugin too. Not always though, as I said I do use plugins from time to time when I want what they do. My list of plugins that I actually use is very short though, I am very picky.

The way I work, I actually *avoid* conversions in many cases by mixing analog. I take the outputs of my synths/samplers into my analog Speck mixers, then all the bussing and aux routing is out of those, mixed back into the Specks and then the stereo mix goes through the AD conversion into the DAW.

Tracks that are recorded in the DAW are sent to the TASCAM DM-24 digital mixer, where the auxes are run out of. The tracks are bussed into the analog Specks, so you get a conversion here--the converters in the DM-24. Which are pretty decent, not boutique but good. Then the tracks are bussed to whatever outboard processing I want, mixed down to stereo in the Speck and then back to the DAW. I just recently bought a UA 2192 and it sounds great! I really don't worry too much about AD conversion anymore.

So you have one DA conversion and one AD conversion as opposed to doing it all in the box. This is where it turns into a matter of taste (and outboard gear). I personally prefer the sound of the analog mix and analog outboard, so for me the tradeoff of one extra DA/AD conversion is well worth it. The mix just pulls together so much faster and easier analog. When I was mixing digitally it seemed like I was enlessly tweaking stuff and still never getting quite what I wanted.

The only things I miss is the total instant recall of mixing in the box, and the ease of keeping everything super-quiet in the digital realm. As soon as you go analog you are back to dealing with keeping the noise down. But again, well worth the tradeoff in my opinion.
 
SonicAlbert said:
The way I work, I actually *avoid* conversions in many cases by mixing analog. I take the outputs of my synths/samplers into my analog Speck mixers, then all the bussing and aux routing is out of those, mixed back into the Specks and then the stereo mix goes through the AD conversion into the DAW.

Tracks that are recorded in the DAW are sent to the TASCAM DM-24 digital mixer, where the auxes are run out of. The tracks are bussed into the analog Specks, so you get a conversion here--the converters in the DM-24. Which are pretty decent, not boutique but good. Then the tracks are bussed to whatever outboard processing I want, mixed down to stereo in the Speck and then back to the DAW. I just recently bought a UA 2192 and it sounds great! I really don't worry too much about AD conversion anymore..
Click to expand...
Agreed on both the quality of the Tascam and the 2192. If I had a 2192 or two (or more! :D), I'd be a happy camper and would go out to analog far more often. :)

Hopefully sometime in the next couple of months I'll be consolidating and upgrading the core of my desk by moving to one of the new Tascam DM 3200s myself and consolidating/upgrating much of my current DAW software up to a copy of Nuendo. I'm looking forward to getting the best of both worlds with the 3200; I'll have both a decent surface control for Nuendo *and* a nice "real world" digital mixer. It's not analog, but my ProVLA and dbx 2215 will remain so :). Plus I'll be wanting a golden mic pre or two, but those will have to wait for the next budget cycle. Anyway, I digress...

Yeah, it sounds like you have a pretty nice rig, Albert, and you have it designed and thought out well. I guess I was just looking at the original question posed in this thread where it sounds like this guy is coming out of the starting gate and was wondering of he could/should use an analog mixer to mix the stuff he already has in the digital domain. In an instance like that I'd be hard pressed to recommend that he convolute through that path unless he had an outboard reason to. If he's mainly looking to mix his digital stuff - as were the implied parameters of the original question - I'd have to say keep it there and use a controller if you want the tactile stuff.

G.
 
The DM-3200 looks really really nice. I'm not sure if it has enough features upgraded from the DM-24 to make me buy it, but if you are buying a digital mixer new it looks to be excellent. I especially like the 16 busses and 8 aux sends of the DM-3200, I'm glad they upgraded those features from the DM-24.

One of the reasons I went back to analog mixers is that I read an incredible article in TapeOp magazine a while back, about a guy and his technique of using compression on busses, and his ideas on double bussing (or parallel bussing). I decided to model my studio on his concepts, sort of a mini-me version because I don't have the mixer or the outboard this guy does.

Anyway, when you get into double bussing and really throwing the signal around between processors the latency issues of mixing digitally come into play much more. Especially when going back and forth between a DAW and analog processing. I just don't want to deal with that. I know there is automatic latency compensation now, but frankly I don't trust it.

This also has to do with something very important to me in the creative process, which is to avoid being forced into numbers/intellectual left-brain thinking when in fact I want to be using my right-brain intuitive side more. Mixing digitally constantly forced me to engage in the wrong kind of thinking for the process. Adjusting numbers on a plugin for example is very differnet than grabbing knobs and twisting until it sounds right. Inevitably there is troubleshooting involved with plugins, DAW, routing, somethings not right, where's the problem, etc. I hate that and it totally takes me out of the creative process. Same goes for a sluggish computer that is overloaded with audio routing and plugins, takes me right out of the process. Then I'm adjusting buffer settings, constantly tweaking to get things working right. totally wrong for mixing, in my opinion.

So the analog mix is much more to my liking. I set up my studio, the cables go where they are supposed to go. I patch stuff in manually on the patchbays, which are labelled by the way. I learn the sound of my gear and experiment freely.

This is just the way I like to work, and I have the wonderful luxury of being able to set up my studio the way I want to. That's the true glory of home/project studios: they can be customized by and for the user. Commercial studios have to outfit themselves for a wide range of customers. But the owner of a home studio can make it work and sound in whatever way they want to optimize their own experience and get their own sound. *That's* what's really cool about home and project studios in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top