Mixing With Console vs ITB

  • Thread starter Thread starter GainBrain
  • Start date Start date
G

GainBrain

Member
What say you guys? You guys like the feel of recording/mixing on a console or on a computer? Feel free to give reasons why and how it works for you. Cheers!
 
I do everything ITB - for me it’s Faster and easier to track - and writing automation (which I do a lot of - panning, volume etc..) is simple - goes well beyond what I can accomplish on a console.

That said it’s whatever floats your boat - if you are comfortable and use to hardware then you should use it.
 
Isn’t there another thread on this topic?

But to answer the question, I like a physical console.
 
Well, you’re asking in the analog forum, so you’re likely to find a higher contingency of folks that prefer a physical console. And that’s me. But I also value ITB benefits like low noise. And a lot of analog consoles, like vintage budget stuff with low headroom and aged components, may contribute to the sound in a negative way. So I’m picky about what I use. Reliability is a factor too. Not that there aren’t maintenance headaches with computer-based systems too, but it’s a pain when you feel you can’t count on your gear. These are some of the reasons I love my Studer console. It sounds amazing, is extremely reliable, super-quiet…great and practical feature set…it’s a great hub and companion to both digital and analog systems. I like the tactile control-per function interface and lack of dependence on visuals. It’s what I grew up with. So familiarity is part of it too. And I also agree with @Papanate there are things a physical analog console just can’t do like a computer-based DAW can do…automation being one of them.

I think if you’re focus is on time is money, there are a lot of time-saving tools in the digital environment that can cater to that need…to extremes like tools that analyze a finished professional track and automatically applying mastering processing to your track to mimic. IMO that feels like cheating. No judgment, it’s just not for me. And on the other hand I honestly believe I spend less time getting a good sound with a good analog console than a computer-based DAW with all the bells and whistles. But that doesn’t mean my way is better. It just means it’s better for me, and there’s a couple reasons why.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RFR
@sweetbeats

You mentioned mixing. I’ve found mixing with a console to be pretty easy. I’m pretty much mixing while tracking.
 
Yeah I agree…there’s a something more if a “lost-wax” environment with traditional analog process that, while maybe being more cumbersome, may also drive a more engaged and artful approach in the moment during the process. And I like that. Not that you can’t do that in a digital environment…but traditional analog process and equipment don’t give you a choice. And sometimes I think those kinds of boundaries open doors to things the “I can fix it later ITB” environment pass by.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RFR
sweetbeats said:
Yeah I agree…there’s a something more if a “lost-wax” environment with traditional analog process that, while maybe being more cumbersome, may also drive a more engaged and artful approach in the moment during the process. And I like that. Not that you can’t do that in a digital environment…but traditional analog process and equipment don’t give you a choice. And sometimes I think those kinds of boundaries open doors to things the “I can fix it later ITB” environment pass by.
Click to expand...
Mixing while tracking goes all the way back to 4 track recording. If you’re bouncing two or three tracks to one, you damn well better get those tracks sounding the way you want to hear them in the final product.
 
Consoles are cool. I would rather have a real one, than a picture of one on a screen.
I dislike trying to turn a knob with a mouse.
 
RFR said:
Mixing while tracking goes all the way back to 4 track recording. If you’re bouncing two or three tracks to one, you damn well better get those tracks sounding the way you want to hear them in the final product.
Click to expand...
4 Track mixing was an exercise in diminishing returns - you had to get it right early - I wouldn’t go back to 4 track for all the tea in China.
 
If someone will buy me a console with full automation and about 32 channels, I'll gladly push faders and twist knobs. I'll also need a nice big room to put everything. You might also throw in a nice 24 track tape machine and 10 cases of tape!

Otherwise, I'll do everything in the box. I don't have any issue with working with a screen, and I like having the option to have unlimited choices and unlimited time. I'm not trying to impress anyone with the optics of a massive console and spinning reels of tape.

I gave up my 4 track tape so many years ago, I can't imagine going back there. To me, going digital was the best thing that ever happened in recording.
 
Many of you here started on analogue and then moved to computer based recording and mixing. For myself, and I’m sure many others, there is no way I could even be involved in recording without going the digital route. For a reasonable investment to get started I have the ability to record to 8 tracks, countless tracks for mixing, many free or cheap vst’s, that probably would have cost a small fortune to do analogue. Plus it’s super easy to share in the digital world. I most likely would prefer analogue as far as mixing but like many wouldn’t be able to do anything with it. Based on my inexperience, inexperienced people would most likely benefit from itb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top