Pinachi
New member
faderbug said:
Oh no he didnt!!!
Oh no he didnt!!!
F
faderbug
.
Pinachi said:
yes, he did
B
bendeho
New member
Are you guys saying that tracking on digital, then sending out to mix on analog, then sending back 2 tracks of a final mix, yields fairly good results?
Is there much difference between doing that and originally tracking on digital aswell?
Is there much difference between doing that and originally tracking on digital aswell?
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
In my experience, yes.
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
wow! The dead horse gets draggedout and BEATEN! FLogged mercilessly
And still upon 3 years of reflection, analog vs digital dont mean JACK compared to the ability to get a song across
Most pinhead momfininaced emoweenie bands wouldnt be able to get the point of their song across without digital editing
SEVERE digital editing
So even if the most pristine, wonderful, Steve Albini approved analog gear was used front to back, dollars to doughnuts one would sound like a bunch of murky muddy crap, all out of time and out of tune, and one would (after a shitload of time) sound somewhat like a song ( or a turd spraypainted gold)
And still upon 3 years of reflection, analog vs digital dont mean JACK compared to the ability to get a song across
Most pinhead momfininaced emoweenie bands wouldnt be able to get the point of their song across without digital editing
SEVERE digital editing
So even if the most pristine, wonderful, Steve Albini approved analog gear was used front to back, dollars to doughnuts one would sound like a bunch of murky muddy crap, all out of time and out of tune, and one would (after a shitload of time) sound somewhat like a song ( or a turd spraypainted gold)
B
Bob's Mods
New member
pipelineaudio said:
So it would seem the perceived improved fattness and soundstage of analog mixing is actually overshadowed by the band, the tune, and the talents of the recording and mixing engineer. This is a major fork in the road.
So: "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing?".
Most excellant point brought up here. The vibe is the bottom line.
Bob
B
Bob's Mods
New member
TexRoadkill said:
For small time home rec'rs who have a limited budget and space, the ease of mixing ITB is paramount. If the above statement is true, and six tracks give or take is my own average, ITB is the only way to go. So all you guys who praise a hardware mixing solution are mixing upwards of over 6 tracks?
One trick I have started doing is band passing each track. Many already high pass each track from 40 Hz to 100 Hz but....low passing the extreme high end is useful too...because even if there is no audio at lets say 18 kHz, whatever is there is added to the digital summing result mucking it up. The harshness on the high side can be reduced by pushing the high side empty air down. Chop out (band pass) where ever there no audio info on the low side and the high side for an improved ITB mixing experience.
Bob
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
I dont always experience the multi track trouble syndrome
I wont have anything under 24 tracks being mixed around here usually, and many more than that
I have a theory though. Since I dont use compressors the way most do, and when I do the compressors only turn things DOWN with usually no makeup gain, I think I am not running into a potential problem that others may be
All apps I can think of use "numbers magic" whether in fixed or float, there is a system in place so that signals of nearly any volume would be "valid". Of cours the final out must be bounded so it can make it to a d/a, but before that? Man you can CRANK things and still have no meter indicating an over
In order to make these numbers magic work, at least in a float system, and Nika be dammed I AM going to use the word "resolution" here, there is going to HAVE to be some give and take.
Just made up numbers here, Im not positive how a caertain bit depth at a cwertain math type would dictate our decimal places, but say we get 4 digits total. We could represent a signal as level 1.000 or as 0.001
In order for the same number of digits to describe a GIANT sample, there must be a smaller number of digits left AT that decimal point position to describe a smaller signal.
So you hit a signal that needs to be 100. Fine no probelm we just move our decimals around and we get 100.0. Well what about 1000???
with 1000 you have NOTHING left in digits to describe AT ALL any thing to the right of the decimal point! Probably not an issue for 808 kicks. I bet when you got a ton of tracks near that level, with some much lower theres gonna be a problem.
If I decimate some 808 kicks to 8 bits in sound forge, then add a 16 bit cymbal sample, and mix them together and bound the output to 8 bits, the 808 becomes like a sidechain ducker to the cymbal decay!!! Try it!
I could be totally WHACKED but I believe this is what may be going on here
LEGAL signals are being passed, true, the meters show eveything hunky dory, true! 15 billion tracks at -0.03 peak? SMALL, distorted, gross, yakky, skinny, muddy, murky
I dont know a way around this, but I suspect if everyone selected all their faders at once and dropped em 6 dB they may be in for a surprise.
I wont have anything under 24 tracks being mixed around here usually, and many more than that
I have a theory though. Since I dont use compressors the way most do, and when I do the compressors only turn things DOWN with usually no makeup gain, I think I am not running into a potential problem that others may be
All apps I can think of use "numbers magic" whether in fixed or float, there is a system in place so that signals of nearly any volume would be "valid". Of cours the final out must be bounded so it can make it to a d/a, but before that? Man you can CRANK things and still have no meter indicating an over
In order to make these numbers magic work, at least in a float system, and Nika be dammed I AM going to use the word "resolution" here, there is going to HAVE to be some give and take.
Just made up numbers here, Im not positive how a caertain bit depth at a cwertain math type would dictate our decimal places, but say we get 4 digits total. We could represent a signal as level 1.000 or as 0.001
In order for the same number of digits to describe a GIANT sample, there must be a smaller number of digits left AT that decimal point position to describe a smaller signal.
So you hit a signal that needs to be 100. Fine no probelm we just move our decimals around and we get 100.0. Well what about 1000???
with 1000 you have NOTHING left in digits to describe AT ALL any thing to the right of the decimal point! Probably not an issue for 808 kicks. I bet when you got a ton of tracks near that level, with some much lower theres gonna be a problem.
If I decimate some 808 kicks to 8 bits in sound forge, then add a 16 bit cymbal sample, and mix them together and bound the output to 8 bits, the 808 becomes like a sidechain ducker to the cymbal decay!!! Try it!
I could be totally WHACKED but I believe this is what may be going on here
LEGAL signals are being passed, true, the meters show eveything hunky dory, true! 15 billion tracks at -0.03 peak? SMALL, distorted, gross, yakky, skinny, muddy, murky
I dont know a way around this, but I suspect if everyone selected all their faders at once and dropped em 6 dB they may be in for a surprise.
T
Tobias
New member
Bob's Mods said:
Was curious if this worked (or had impact) even if all the digital data at the high end was all zeros.... meaning there were no words/byes of data that represented any high frequencies above 18k? Or, by indeed eliminating "artifacts" of digitally represented sounds above 18k and below 200hz, we are cleaning up crud that makes digital mixing less appealing to some. Thoughts?
(Mini soap box mode on) Facinating thread. [And the following text relates to this thread overall, not the message I reply to.] But in the end, isn't our job (by whatever means) to bring the emotional impact put forth by the muscian as best possible to the listener? I for one would not go back to analog mixing without winning the lottery as I know my tastes would elevate me to a price range I cannot today afford. Just too much convenience in the digital domain and with carefull consideration I bet we can bring through great emotional impact from our artists in the digital mixing realm. Last thought is this: in the end I am not necessarily trying to impress my peer engineers with my warm digital mixing (although I certainly enjoy praise for my work); I only want the listener to get the same or similar impact of the song/message as the artist intented with original performance in the studio or stage. (Mini soap box mode off)
So the real question for me becomes this: does digital mixing in any way reduce sales of music or cause listeners to think any less of the music they hear?
M
mixsit
Well-known member
Tobias said:
..."So it would seem the perceived improved fattness and soundstage of analog mixing is actually overshadowed by the band, the tune, and the talents of the recording and mixing engineer. This is a major fork in the road."
Ding.
TuoKaerf
New member
Are you guys living in a cave? Everyone knows that using The Force is the only way to mix now.
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
Tobias said:
Very cool!
B
Bob's Mods
New member
Yeah, get rid of dead air and resonance nodes.
I recently upgraded my OS to Win XP and my sequencer to Sonar 5 and I have to say I'm impressed with the improvement in mixing. It certainly sounds more open to me after years of Win98SE and Sonar 2. I would not even think of a hardware solution to mixing with the cost, space and time it takes to make it work. There is just to much convience to ITB mixing. Besides, this is just a hobby for me.
Maybe the people who are having trouble with ITB mixing are mixing a large amount of tracks? It is possible ITM mixing breaks down with high track counts which kinda makes sense to me. I would suggest have the latest software and keep your track count to a minimum for the best ITB mix experience. But this is my conclusion, your mileage may vary.
I have discovered how critical a quality EQ is to band pass your tracks. I use the dbx Quantum's EQ for high pass (chopping out the non existant low end) at track recording time as it does a better job at that than the EQ plugins I've used. It seems that a high grade of EQ is required to remove this low end energy. If this low end funk is not removed it causes a reduced performance from your compressor as compressors are most sensitive to the low end. A regular plugin to chop out some of the highs works fine when mixing ITB for that part. It seems that the dead air somehow gets mixed in with plugs and mix and reduces definition. Push it down.
A high grade EQ(s) for band passing, finding and nulling/notching resonance nodes, a minimal track count, and the latest OS and sequencer software should provide for the average home rec'r a more than adequate ITB mixing experience. This is what works for me. YMMV.
Bob
I recently upgraded my OS to Win XP and my sequencer to Sonar 5 and I have to say I'm impressed with the improvement in mixing. It certainly sounds more open to me after years of Win98SE and Sonar 2. I would not even think of a hardware solution to mixing with the cost, space and time it takes to make it work. There is just to much convience to ITB mixing. Besides, this is just a hobby for me.
Maybe the people who are having trouble with ITB mixing are mixing a large amount of tracks? It is possible ITM mixing breaks down with high track counts which kinda makes sense to me. I would suggest have the latest software and keep your track count to a minimum for the best ITB mix experience. But this is my conclusion, your mileage may vary.
I have discovered how critical a quality EQ is to band pass your tracks. I use the dbx Quantum's EQ for high pass (chopping out the non existant low end) at track recording time as it does a better job at that than the EQ plugins I've used. It seems that a high grade of EQ is required to remove this low end energy. If this low end funk is not removed it causes a reduced performance from your compressor as compressors are most sensitive to the low end. A regular plugin to chop out some of the highs works fine when mixing ITB for that part. It seems that the dead air somehow gets mixed in with plugs and mix and reduces definition. Push it down.
A high grade EQ(s) for band passing, finding and nulling/notching resonance nodes, a minimal track count, and the latest OS and sequencer software should provide for the average home rec'r a more than adequate ITB mixing experience. This is what works for me. YMMV.
Bob
B
Bob's Mods
New member
EQing should be the first thing you do.
I would like to add that your quality EQ should be the first plugin in your plugin chain. EQ and resonance removal must be the first operation performed in your mix. Then add your reverbs, etc.
Another point too, I have eliminated the Aux buss. It causes phase distortions. Test this by enabling an Aux buss with no plug in loaded than gradually max out the track send. It should sound the same but only louder but it does not. The output of the track is being summed with the output of the Aux. There seems to be a delay going through the Aux buss and when the two sum, it causes a funny phasely sound. Using track inserts and main busses alone eliminates this problem and helps improve your mix experience also.
Learning how to record tracks and use EQ for band pass and notching resonance nodes is the essential foundation for a quality mix. It is on this foundation, that all else you do will be iceing in the cake. If your mix sounds good with just EQ alone then your almost home and it only gets better.
Bob
I would like to add that your quality EQ should be the first plugin in your plugin chain. EQ and resonance removal must be the first operation performed in your mix. Then add your reverbs, etc.
Another point too, I have eliminated the Aux buss. It causes phase distortions. Test this by enabling an Aux buss with no plug in loaded than gradually max out the track send. It should sound the same but only louder but it does not. The output of the track is being summed with the output of the Aux. There seems to be a delay going through the Aux buss and when the two sum, it causes a funny phasely sound. Using track inserts and main busses alone eliminates this problem and helps improve your mix experience also.
Learning how to record tracks and use EQ for band pass and notching resonance nodes is the essential foundation for a quality mix. It is on this foundation, that all else you do will be iceing in the cake. If your mix sounds good with just EQ alone then your almost home and it only gets better.
Bob
Last edited:
M
mixsit
Well-known member
That's interesting. I'll have to try that test. Most of the things we hang on the aux sends would not be particularly time sensitive, but it could well pop up on some parallel path needs. -Perhaps the timing error is corrected (as it should and as claimed) when a plug in included? (We'll soon enough see.Bob's Mods said:
Wayne
B
Bob's Mods
New member
mixsit said:That's interesting. I'll have to try that test. Most of the things we hang on the aux sends would not be particularly time sensitive, but it could well pop up on some parallel path needs. -Perhaps the timing error is corrected (as it should and as claimed) when a plug in included? (We'll soon enough see.
Wayne
You make a good point. The timing error could be fixed by the addition of a plugin. I did this with Sonar 2 and found that problem in Sonar 2. Haven't checked it with Sonar 5 yet.
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
Bob's Mods said:
This is one of those "it depends " things
dpeends on the app, and depends on the plug, and even IF its the app there are ways around it
M
mixsit
Well-known member
No aux/buss timing problems here that I can detect. I thought I heard some things going on when I was sliding fadrers around trying to keep equal volume in the comparisons. But as soon as I got it automated and down to a double click all was normal, with a Cambridge plug in there or not. (I did a group' on the aux and main masters with a 'custom, 'inverse.
It turned out 'zero - 101' on the aux' master got me '-inf. to +0' on that one and '101 to 75' for +0 and -6 for the combo level on the master.)
I have noticed you can see trouble, at least on plugs (maybe it can happen on busses too?) where if they are engaged during play, delay compensation goes out the window.
Sonar 4
Wayne
It turned out 'zero - 101' on the aux' master got me '-inf. to +0' on that one and '101 to 75' for +0 and -6 for the combo level on the master.)
I have noticed you can see trouble, at least on plugs (maybe it can happen on busses too?) where if they are engaged during play, delay compensation goes out the window.
Sonar 4
Wayne
B
Bob's Mods
New member
I thought this worthy of note because it can effect the quality of your ITB mixes in a subtle way. If I remember, in Sonar 2, I found there was no compensation for the slight delay...but I'm not sure if this applied to both DirectX plugs and VST wrapped plugs. There may have been compensation for one type vs. another.
Either way, the effect was there natively, and without compensation, would effect the dynamics of your mix depending, the degree to which would be dependant upon how many Aux busses you used.
Bob
Either way, the effect was there natively, and without compensation, would effect the dynamics of your mix depending, the degree to which would be dependant upon how many Aux busses you used.
Bob
A
AudioVault
New member
My soundcraft Ghost setup with protools couldnt be any cooler unless i had an SSL. The ghost with midi machine control and mute automation is amazing. worth the EQ alone