Steenamaroo
...
It's entirely up to you and there are advantages and disadvantages each way.
Arguably you'd need to spend a lot of money on conversion and hardware before it'd be worth it. Ie. A cheap mixer isn't likely to be a positive move.
VSTS let you work at your leisure without committing. Hardware kinda means you have to get it right first time, you know?
In short, there's no right or wrong; It just comes down to what you prefer and what's feasible.
Arguably you'd need to spend a lot of money on conversion and hardware before it'd be worth it. Ie. A cheap mixer isn't likely to be a positive move.
VSTS let you work at your leisure without committing. Hardware kinda means you have to get it right first time, you know?
In short, there's no right or wrong; It just comes down to what you prefer and what's feasible.
MrWrenchey
Member
What's your budget look like, or what mixer do you currently have? Like Steen said, it'll have to be a nicer mixer before it becomes worth it to go out of the box with EQ. Unless you just happen to like those Behringer mixers and their EQ.
E
ecc83
Well-known member
The received wisdom is to record "flat, dry and clean".
"Flat" of course refers to the frequency response.
"Dry" as above but also without dynamic control or reverb.
And "clean" means at a low enough level such that there is no possibility of any overload. This means an average level of -18, even -20dBFS (24bits assumed). The main reason for all this is that none of the above FX can be perfectly undone*.
It is true that in the bad old days of tape some "sweetening" was used going in, especially compression because of the poor dynamic range of tape and the fact that post processing caused a build up of noise. Us digital folk have no such problems! Even so, the "classical" boys tried to stay "F,D,C, as far as practically possible.
The point has been made of the technical limitations of cheap mixer EQ. Well they are actually not that bad if you avoid extreme boosts and in practice MOST post EQ tends to be cuts? It is however true that the comps', reverbs and EQ to be found in Cubase lite or Reaper are likely to only be bettered by several 100 $ of hardware even if possible at all.
Of course you CAN have the best of both worlds! Take a single channel recording of an E guitar? DI or amped cab? Well you can do both. DI channel one and mic up into ch 2. You might need to "slide" one waveform to line them up perfectly if going for a mix. It does not take much imagination to extend the technique to have both dry and processed channels?
*But, wow! Just a few days ago I read of some "De-reverbing" software!
Dave.
"Flat" of course refers to the frequency response.
"Dry" as above but also without dynamic control or reverb.
And "clean" means at a low enough level such that there is no possibility of any overload. This means an average level of -18, even -20dBFS (24bits assumed). The main reason for all this is that none of the above FX can be perfectly undone*.
It is true that in the bad old days of tape some "sweetening" was used going in, especially compression because of the poor dynamic range of tape and the fact that post processing caused a build up of noise. Us digital folk have no such problems! Even so, the "classical" boys tried to stay "F,D,C, as far as practically possible.
The point has been made of the technical limitations of cheap mixer EQ. Well they are actually not that bad if you avoid extreme boosts and in practice MOST post EQ tends to be cuts? It is however true that the comps', reverbs and EQ to be found in Cubase lite or Reaper are likely to only be bettered by several 100 $ of hardware even if possible at all.
Of course you CAN have the best of both worlds! Take a single channel recording of an E guitar? DI or amped cab? Well you can do both. DI channel one and mic up into ch 2. You might need to "slide" one waveform to line them up perfectly if going for a mix. It does not take much imagination to extend the technique to have both dry and processed channels?
*But, wow! Just a few days ago I read of some "De-reverbing" software!
Dave.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
Unless you're prepared to spend a 4 digit sum on a mixer, stick to in the box EQ. The basic "Low/Mid/High" you find on basic mixers is worse than useless and harms rather than helps your sound.
I should say that I'm in the lucky position of having a mixer with a 4 band fully parametric EQ on every channel...and, even with that, I only use the mixer EQ when I'm out doing live stuff. I'm fully in agreement with ecc83 that "Flat, Dry, Clean" is the way to go when tracking.
I should say that I'm in the lucky position of having a mixer with a 4 band fully parametric EQ on every channel...and, even with that, I only use the mixer EQ when I'm out doing live stuff. I'm fully in agreement with ecc83 that "Flat, Dry, Clean" is the way to go when tracking.
B
Beck
Guest
No simple answer. You can do both, but you can get bad software and hardware EQ, so it really depends on the specific product you're using. It is generally easier to get great sounding EQ on a mixing console for less cost than great sounding EQ in a plugin. (and personally I don't think great sounding EQ exist in a plug. Try to avoid too much dicking around ITB.) It's not hard to build a good analog mixer, and there are many benefits to using one.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
You're showing your live in the past prejudices again Beck.
It may be easy to make a good analogue mixer (it's not BTW) but it's not cheap. I wouldn't even consider using mixer EQ until you get to the better end of the Allen & Heath or Soundcraft ranges--and frankly we'd have to be talking Midas or Neve to better some of the excellent VST EQ available these days--sometimes even packaged as standard with a DAW.
It may be easy to make a good analogue mixer (it's not BTW) but it's not cheap. I wouldn't even consider using mixer EQ until you get to the better end of the Allen & Heath or Soundcraft ranges--and frankly we'd have to be talking Midas or Neve to better some of the excellent VST EQ available these days--sometimes even packaged as standard with a DAW.
E
ecc83
Well-known member
Hmm,..an analogue mixer is a big pile of compromises. Internal levels have to steer a course twixt noise and headroom, EQ stages are an especial challenge to get low distortion and keep control interaction low and also avoid the use of expensive, hard to source pots. Even the "humble" balanced line input is problematic and the bog standard "4x 10k +chip" is really not quiet enough for top end kit. Channel to channel crosstalk is REALLY hard to keep better than say, -80dB at 10kHz. In many ways the mic pre is the easiest bit!
Of course, much of this mediocrity did not matter in the days of tape since even in the heyday of Dolby A you were lucky to get a dynamic range of 70dB. Today even the best of analogue mixers cannot beat the DR of the best converters and of course none of the above limitations apply to software FX.
Dave.
B
Beck
Guest
LOL
I've been recording from a certain point in the past to the present day. I have that to draw from what I like to use and what I think brings the best result. Your characterization of someone living in the past because they have certain preferences is amusing, especially for your claimed age and alleged experience.
I just have more tools in my bag of audio tricks from every era, including the present.I don't like what all ITB does to sound... what it has done to the sound of the entire recording industry. I don't care for most plugs compared to the hardware they claim to emulate. I can and have built my own mixers, but there are so many good off the shelf models in every price range that one does not have to. There is no simple progression of brands or models of mixing consoles as you describe above. There is in the minds of the uninitiated and inexperienced, but not in reality.
There is a religion on the web in music forums that requires everyone to march lock-step "forward" to the beat of manufacturer and vendors drums. I don't follow it because that's not about music or recording, but rather all about marketing... selling products.
Once again, a member has asked a question and I answered it differently than you would. Just live with it! Allow a thread to develop with divergent opinions and experiences without taking it personally. This thread is not about you. These forums are not about you. No one is out to get you because they have different perspectives. It's ok... you're safe and we love you.
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
When I track a whole band at once I can hear all the parts interacting and I'm likely to eq things accordingly. When I'm tracking the first few things in a new studio session I will tend to leave it relatively flat unless I hear something obvious that need fixing. Later in the session when overdubbing stuff I will tend to eq more. I tend to be more aggressive with eq with performers I'm familiar with.
B
Beck
Guest
And yet the best music was and is made with analog consoles. Software has its own unique limitations.
Because of recording/mixing/mastering practices today, people are lucky to end up with a practical dynamic range of 3dB. Potential dynamic range is just that... a potential.
E
ecc83
Well-known member
You had better read the Feb issue of SoS on the end of the loudness war lest you become a dinosaur!
Dave.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
Opinion, not a technical fact. I don't necessarily disagree (I'm old enough to think "they don't make 'em like that any more" far to often to be healthy) but there's some excellent new music being done on digital consoles and/or digital recorders. It's worth noting that we're probably comparing an analogue console worth a quarter of a million dollars to a home set up that costs $2 or $3 thousand, including computer, mic, software and interface. One is "doable" for a home hobbyist, the other only if Bill Gates gets into home recording. Yet the home set up is capable of darn near as good a sound as the expensive stuff. Add in a $200 analogue mixer then use the EQ though, and things go to ratshit. The EQ on the cheapies is hopeless for anything musical, if only because of the lack of control over the frequencies you wish to adjust.
Because of recording/mixing/mastering practices today, people are lucky to end up with a practical dynamic range of 3dB. Potential dynamic range is just that... a potential.[/QUOTE]
Now you're confusing choices--bad choices--with technology. I could mess up the dynamic range with an analogue set up just as much as I can produce crap recordings in digital!
Just for balance, I know a guy on the Audition forums who makes his living doing classical recordings. I've heard some of his stuff and it's amazing--it uses every dB of the available digital dynamic range. He'd be the first to say that the clean dynamic range he gets with digital has vastly improved his product over the analogue days.