Software or Hardware Mixer????????

[rpe]

Let me start be giving you my setup. I record acoustic and electric guitar into Guitar Tracks Pro (Cakewalk) through a Delta 1010, by mic’ing an amplifier as well as directly into the Delta from my electric-acoustic (onboard preamp). I currently use an old mixer (interM 642 – 6 mic ins, 8 other line ins, NO direct outs) to run the mics through. I import drum tracks created in Fruityloops. I’m thinking of replacing the mixer with an ART TPS preamp or two and do all the mixing (software) within Guitar Tracks Pro (or with the DELTA software mixer). I’m very limited in space so getting rid of the outboard mixer would be nice. I can see myself needing 1-4 inputs depending on how many mic’s are used at the same time and/or how many simultaneous guitars are being recorded. I’d appreciate knowing what your opinions are of this change.

Thanks,

rpe

 

[rpe]

Sonusman, Blue Bear, Track Rat, etc.,

I'd really appreciate your opinions on this.

rpe

 

[Track Rat]

Personally, I prefer the sound of a decent hardware mixer to software. The thing is, I find it a lot harder to get agressive sounding mixes, especially drums, just in the computer. For me, tracking hot but clean and then mixing through an analog board with hardware compressors I can get harder hitting, rounder mixes. When I used to use just a Gina (which also had only 8 analog outputs) I'd use the 8 outs as 4 stereo aux busses to a mixer with 1&2 as the main stereo pair so for the most partthings were mixed in software. Things likes vocals or acoustic guitars I'd send to seperate pairs (3&4, 5&6, 7&8) so I could treat them seperately with outboard compression or hardware reverbs and such. As a hybrid system, I thought it worked pretty well.

 

[Slackmaster2K]

The major benefit of mixing in software is that you get total recall....you just hit save and your entire mix, right down to the effects, is saved for a later date.

Slackmaster 2000

 

[rpe]

thanks guys......

for taking the time to respond.

rpe

 

[DeadPoet]

I just asked the same question to the engineer recording my band.

He naturally prefers hardware mixing, and these were his arguments:
1) ease-of-use: having a visual reference of a big mixing board
2) sound: the summing of his Protools Mix+ system didn't sound as well to him as their Oram board.
3) sound: if you only use 2 outputs of the computer you only have that much headroom and easier digital clipping. If you have 24 outputs you have much more headroom and "dynamic mixing space" (if you get what I mean)
4) sound: the mixing board's EQs and outboard FX *always* sound better than plugins.

Automatisation is in the digital realm, summing analog. Some effects digital (mostly auto-tune, beat-replacer and ampfarm), most in analog: Lexicon and *real* plate reverb, dBX 160, Urei and more goodies

...damn, I forgot to ask what they mix to (DAT?ProTools?Otari 2track?)

Herwig

 

[therage!]

I was doing my mixing with my little Alesis console but it's only 8 channels and when I've got a song with 30 tracks life is easier for me to mix in the software. Yeah I'd rather mix with a console, but until I can afford something like a Ghost I'm mixing with software. I hadn't noticed if anyone brought this up but if you are going to mix with your console then you will going trough a D/A conversion. That may not be too big of a deal but the 1010 converters are good, but certainly not top line. When I was coming back out of my 1010 and mixing with my console my results were pretty good. I did have to get used to the software mixing but I'm kind of liking it now and Slackmaster makes a good point.