Recording = Computer; Final Mixing = Analog?

[mrplow]

Hello,

I have another typical newbie question... I would like to record all my material (currently, only one track at a time) onto a computer HD using a preamped Delta 66 or Omni Studio, apply some editing and effects using software, then output all 4 recorded tracks to the 4 inputs in a $150-$200 analog mixer, where the final mixing will be done and sent to the input on the Delta 66 or Omni Studio. The reason why I would like to perform the mixing on the analog mixer rather than the software mixer is simply because I really prefer the "hands-on" feel of the analog mixer. However, would this result in a severe downgrade of audio quality than if I just performed all the final mixing of the recorded tracks on the computer?

 

[manning1]

your talking stem mixing right ?
we are not there with your signal chain. so its difficult to tell.
on the quality impacts. just try it and see. some studios have a very expensive sig chain to do this. its difficult to say.

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

Keep in mind that a cheap analog mixer will probably degrade your sound fidelity somewhat.

 

[Carter]

Hello,

I have another typical newbie question... I would like to record all my material (currently, only one track at a time) onto a computer HD using a preamped Delta 66 or Omni Studio, apply some editing and effects using software, then output all 4 recorded tracks to the 4 inputs in a $150-$200 analog mixer, where the final mixing will be done and sent to the input on the Delta 66 or Omni Studio. The reason why I would like to perform the mixing on the analog mixer rather than the software mixer is simply because I really prefer the "hands-on" feel of the analog mixer. However, would this result in a severe downgrade of audio quality than if I just performed all the final mixing of the recorded tracks on the computer?

I would get a control surface, and stay inside the box to mix.

 

[Ronan]

Keep in mind that a cheap analog mixer will probably degrade your sound fidelity somewhat.

My experience has been different. I would rather mix on a cheap mackie than sum inside the box.

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

My experience has been different. I would rather mix on a cheap mackie than sum inside the box.

Yeah, but a 150-200 dollar mixer is going to be something underneath a 1604vlz or CR model... which probably isn't going to cut it for track count, much less fidelity. I mean, I average 20-45 tracks PER SONG when I record due to all the doubling and quadrupling I make people do.

I did some decent stuff on a CR1604 but anything less than that... I dunno... I'm skeptical.

 

[manning1]

plow - maybe a better solution , and only if your going to release cd's of your songs for retail store sales is to take your recorded tracks into
a big studio with all the neve stuff etc and outboard and have them do your final mixdown.

 

[Ronan]

plow - maybe a better solution , and only if your going to release cd's of your songs for retail store sales is to take your recorded tracks into a big studio with all the neve stuff etc and outboard and have them do your final mixdown.

This is great advice. Unless of course home recording is more about the fun of doing everything yourself and not really the final result for commerical release. But like Manning said if you are looking to do a serious release, then going outside to mix can go a long way. You should not just look for an outside studio, but find a mixer whose work you really like. Its amazing how a good mix can often transform a modest home recording into something that can sit side by side with big commercial stuff. There is nothing embarising about getting your stuff mixed by some one else. The bulk of major label CDs are mixed by some one other than the guy that tracked it.

Another advantage of this is that you can dump all your home studio dollars into better tracking gear like mics and pres and let some one else spend all the extra money to be able to mix well.

 

[producerkid]

I would get a control surface, and stay inside the box to mix.

Couldn't agree more. Instead of risking a possible degradation to your entire setup by introducing an inexpensive (and probably cheezy-sounding) mixer, additional noise from lack of decent patch cables, etc, you should try and find yourself an inexpensive control surface. While inexpensive is kind of an oxymoron as controllers go, you should be able to find a decent one for around $2-300 used by Tascam, Edirol, or E-Mu.

If you are only doing 4 or so tracks, most standard control surfaces have at least 8 faders, so you'll have more than enough control. Plus most surfaces have stacked control layers, meaning faders 1-8 can work for channels 1-8, 9-16, 17-24, and depending on the controler, 25-32 and up. There are many options. In all actuality, you could find yourself a cheap, used Korg D8 which can be had on ebay for around $150 or so nowadays. These have MIDI capability which would allow you to pipe MIDI out of the D8, into your Delta and you could then use the faders and the panpots to control your software. Another benefit of this would be that you could also use the D8 for an effects processor. I used to use my old Korg D1600 as a front end for my PC in this manner. It worked fabulously. Just a thought.....tee hee

the kid

 

[Carter]

Couldn't agree more. Instead of risking a possible degradation to your entire setup by introducing an inexpensive (and probably cheezy-sounding) mixer, additional noise from lack of decent patch cables, etc, you should try and find yourself an inexpensive control surface. While inexpensive is kind of an oxymoron as controllers go, you should be able to find a decent one for around $2-300 used by Tascam, Edirol, or E-Mu.

If you are only doing 4 or so tracks, most standard control surfaces have at least 8 faders, so you'll have more than enough control. Plus most surfaces have stacked control layers, meaning faders 1-8 can work for channels 1-8, 9-16, 17-24, and depending on the controler, 25-32 and up. There are many options. In all actuality, you could find yourself a cheap, used Korg D8 which can be had on ebay for around $150 or so nowadays. These have MIDI capability which would allow you to pipe MIDI out of the D8, into your Delta and you could then use the faders and the panpots to control your software. Another benefit of this would be that you could also use the D8 for an effects processor. I used to use my old Korg D1600 as a front end for my PC in this manner. It worked fabulously. Just a thought.....tee hee

the kid

Thank you for the more in depth explanation to Mrplow. Some like to summ in the box some dont, Me I stay in Pro Tools only leaving for outboard processing.

 

[geet73]

My only qualm with "analog mixing" is that you have to reset everything perfectly everytime you go back to that song.

 

[Track Rat]

My only qualm with "analog mixing" is that you have to reset everything perfectly everytime you go back to that song.

True, but I just get better sounding mixes through the console vs mixing in the box. While I suppose it could be argued that my "mixing in the box" chops could use some honeing. I'd rather mix in the box for the infinate repeatability but the analog mixes alway sound better to me. YMMV.

 

[Carter]

True, but I just get better sounding mixes through the console vs mixing in the box. While I suppose it could be argued that my "mixing in the box" chops could use some honeing. I'd rather mix in the box for the infinate repeatability but the analog mixes alway sound better to me. YMMV.

I agree Track Rat that it does sound better analog, So then I would prefer a board that has automation ( I have to have my automation! ). That can get expensive verses a control surface. Do you agree?

 

[Track Rat]

Yes and no. You can get a degree of automation from software if your system allows. While I track to a HD24, I edit and play back from Cakewalk (through a MOTU 2408/ HD24 combo functioning as a 24 channel soundcard). Using volume and pan envelopes you can get some automation going.

 

[Carter]

My only qualm with "analog mixing" is that you have to reset everything perfectly everytime you go back to that song.

This is what I was refering to TR, yes the software has its own automation but for me there is nothing like watching those faders reset when you restart the song, thats why I like a control surface, by the way Im running a Digi 002 if that helps you understand

 

[geet73]

True, but I just get better sounding mixes through the console vs mixing in the box. While I suppose it could be argued that my "mixing in the box" chops could use some honeing. I'd rather mix in the box for the infinate repeatability but the analog mixes alway sound better to me. YMMV.

Do you think analog summing could help get rid of some of that "in the box" sound?

From what I understand.. it sounds kinda "mushed" when mixed in the box. I haven't had the chance to try out summing in a different way to be able to tell.

 

[Track Rat]

To me, mixes in the box sound...smaller for lack of a better way to describe it. My analog mixes sound fatter, more aggressive.

 

[Ronan]

Couldn't agree more. Instead of risking a possible degradation to your entire setup by introducing an inexpensive (and probably cheezy-sounding) mixer, additional noise from lack of decent patch cables, etc, you should try and find yourself an inexpensive control surface

I mix with real consoles to avoid the degredation of internal digital summing.

 

[Rokket]

Huh???

To me, mixes in the box sound...smaller for lack of a better way to describe it. My analog mixes sound fatter, more aggressive.

I am new to this, with just a few short months of recording and mixing and what-not. Your terms are confusing me. By "in the box", do you mean on the pc? I am trying to learn, hope I didn't insult someone

 

[Track Rat]

Not at all my friend. By "in the box" I do indeed mean inside the computer. Digital summing (mixing) just ain't there yet as far as software goes.