In addition, many bands track to analog tape, transfer to a DAW for editing, then have the DAW output each track to a channel on an analog console for mixing. THAT is how it is mostly done when you see that they did their project in (name your favorite application...PT, Neundo, etc...here). Seldom are any big time releases MIXED in those applications. Why? Because most agree that they just don't sound all that hot for mixing.
There is a trend though of some newer stuff being mixed in these applications. Fine. But really, how much of the newer music being released sounds like crap? Yes, the plugin's and automation in these applications is astounding and you can save all the work and come back to it for later "fixes". But the fact it that there really is a difference between a SSL with a rack full of LA2A's, Distressors, 1176's, etc....and ProTools with a bunch of plugin's. The all digital mix just seems lifeless in comparison, even though it enjoyed more "control".
I just mixed a "demo" for a band using two mackie consoles, a 1604 and a 1202 (the master out's of the 1202 where running into an effects return on the 1604). This was the only thing the artist could afford to do because the little studio was very cheap by the hour. I had to run the two consoles together in the described way because the recording was 24 tracks. Anyway, after spending the last nearly year working on mixes on a Yamaha O2R and in Sonar and/or Nuendo, with $1000's in high end plugin's, it was refreshing to have analog again! It just sounded deeper and smoother to me, and was devoid of the "plastic like" sound that digital mixing always seems to impart.
Yeah, it sucked having only one compressor and VERY limited eq for this demo, but you know what? It came out quite well. Take a listen.
Compare that 2 hour mix on such a limited mixing with this mix done on a O2R that enjoyed shitloads of editing and 10 hours to mix:
I know, the styles are quite different. But let me tell you, the first recording was done using an ART mic pre on most of the tracks. The second recording had classA pre's on just about everything!
Anyway, aside from the pre's, the consoles, the style differences, just listen to the overall asthetics of the sound between them. The first mp3 just sounds deeper and seems to have more "weight" to the sound than the second. You see, all the automation and dynamics processors don't mean crap when the mixing platform is butchering the sound.
If I dug around, I could probably somewhere find some push mixes of the same tracks being mixed on a Soundcraft Ghost with only about 4 channels of compression employed and the same tracks mixed in Sonar with the same type of processing applied. Trust me, you would hear the difference immediately. The Ghost push mixes just seem to have more depth and weight. They sound more like what you would want to hear.
I know a lot of people are really favoring this whole digital mixing thing these days. Many claim that it sounds great. But what are you comparing it to? Other digital mixes? Well indeed, if you think all that other digital mixing stuff sound great, then of course you would agree that digital mixing sounds great.
But when you start comparing to great sounding analog mixes, you have a very different sound on your hands. I think what is starting to happen is that people of course want their stuff to compare to "modern" stuff, and the old stuff just isn't valid any more. But tell me, when was the last time you could pop in a modern production CD in your player and listen to it over and over and over again. Most newer CD's annoy the hell out of me after a few songs, even when I like the music. The productions just sound thin and loud. Older music though, stuff that is sonically superior in my opinion, you can play it over and over and over and it doesn't get annoying. It has a more in depth sound, with a lot less compression.
I REALLY would like for digital mixing to sound as good to my ears as analog mixing does. God, who wouldn't? I mean, I can get huge number of channels and dynamic/effect processing for a LOT less money! But when push comes to shove, and good sound is what matters (as it does to me!) the digital systems just don't provide what I want while mixing. It requires me to make sonic sacrifices that I don't want to make.
Oh well. Just ranting here. I am indeed frustrated that digital mixing just doesn't stack up, because it is the way I could really afford to rebuild a studio. But alas, I am resigned to purchasing a nice analog console again complete with all the dynamic processors. I WON'T waste my money on digital solutions at this point because that is good money spent on a platform that is inferior to my ears. It is bad enough that a Ghost console is not up to speed with a Neve, but it is closer to achieving the sound I want that ANY digital platform I have tried to this point.
Ed
and then dither to 16 bits.
People are actually starting to get hip to the fact that all digital doesn't really sound all that great. For demo's, it is fine, and a very affordable way to record/mix a demo. But when you want to do something that is really satisfying to the ears, nothing beats analog. You would need a VERY expensive digital system to start approaching the sonic quality and "depth" you get in a even modest analog setup.
