Software vs Hardare mixing

  • Thread starter Thread starter HangDawg
  • Start date Start date

Software or Hardware mixing

  • Software

    Votes: 156 63.2%

  • Hardware

    Votes: 91 36.8%
  • Total voters
    247
You know, all this digital bashing sort of made me hungry. I decided to go and make some food.:eek: :eek: :eek: I am no cook!

Looking around the fridge, I found a couple eggs that were still white, some Best Foods mayo, some Garlic cheddar cheese, and in the freeze, some microwave bacon stuff. Sound like a good egg and bacon sandwhich to me!

Out of my limited experience in cooking, I have found that it is best to cook eggs with a little bit of butter. They seem to flip a little easier, and butter always provides a nice rich taste.

So I go looking for butter. Guess what? NO BUTTER! Damn.............................WAIT, here is some I Can't Believe It Is Not Butter! Well hot diggity dog! Who would know the difference?

I went and fried up those ol' eggs just dandy with that ICBIINB product, and guess what? Those eggs are tasting just fine right now. Coolio.

But you know, from time to time I catch the Cooking Channel, or whatever it is, and you know what? I never see them saying "You can replace the butter you would normally use in this (insert VERY yummy dish here) with ICBIINB. Nobody will know the difference!". I am not sure what I would think if they said you could replace it. You know why? Well because while that ICBIINB taste much better than Margarine, it really doesn't taste a whole lot like butter to my taste buds! I put ICBIINB on toast and it just isn't the same as butter man. It isn't all that bad, but that toast just doesn't melt in my mouth like it does with butter on it.

I bake cookies sometimes. Yes, sonusman bakes cookies sometimes! I just like cookies, and sometimes you just gotta have them out of the oven with a glass of milk. Years ago I learned a lesson about baking cookies. When they say to use butter, YOU USE BUTTER!!! I tried margarine once, and those cookies tasted like crap. I suppose I could have kept on making cookies with margarine for a long time and learned to like them, even convinced myself that they tasted better than cookies with butter in them, but no, I was already spoiled with butter.

Now in a pinch, if I just HAD to have a warm cookie, and margarine is all I got, I will not hesitate to use margarine. What the hell, maybe a little more chocolate might make the cookies better. Well, it doesn't, but at least I got more chocolate. But if I want my current girlfriend to be impressed with my cookies, there is no way in hell I am using margarine! BUTTER!!!

You know, if somebody never had cookies made with butter, or toast topped with butter, that ICBINB product would taste pretty damn good! That would last all the way up to the time that they first try cookies or toast that has butter though!

Butter it is for me, unless I get hungry from typing all this crap again and need another egg sandwhich. Butter to cook eggs is not really worth the expense for me. But then again, it is not like I am selling this egg sandwhich. If I was going to sell it, well, BUTTER!!!

Get my point?

Good luck on that Roland.

Ed
 
:D

Now I want some cookies!

Eh, my "butter" is my mic placement, the playing of my musicians, etc. At least I'm hoping it is. We really belive in these songs, so great care is being taken the whole way. We'll see if my digital mixing holds up. ;)
 
so what you are saying sonusman, is that you like analog "butter" than digital? hahah lol you had to see that one coming!


lynn
 
sonusman said:
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:




Ed
Click to expand...
Yes, InTheMirror.mp3 does indeed have much more life than Omega.mp3, but I'm willing to bet that Omega.mp3 would have sounded sterile even if it was pressed to vinyl, played through the finest vintage turntable, picked back up with the best Neuman around, and plopped onto 2 inch tape. :D
 
foreverain4 said:
so what you are saying sonusman, is that you like analog "butter" than digital? hahah lol you had to see that one coming!


lynn
Click to expand...

Ouch!!!!

:eek: :confused: :rolleyes: :mad: :p ;) :o :cool:

Yeah, I had that coming!

Chibi, take all the time in the world you need to track that CD for your band. Place those mics every so carefully. I hope to hell though after all that tracking that you don't need to do ANYTHING other than adjust a few levels, because that is when the Roland digital hash will start. Yes, I am picking on Roland here. There are not rated very highly in my book for DSP!

Anyway, aside from my no so favorable opinions about Roland products, that same tracking/mixing approach would probably end up sounding better being recorded on ADAT's, mixed through a Mackie with say 4 channels of Behringer Pro's, and two Lexicon MPX100's!

You know dood, I usually only engineer when I get paid to do it. I am not a freebie type of guy. How to I still get paid to do this stuff? Well, people trust what I hear, and trust that I know how to put good sound to tape, or can at least salvage the crappy sound they put to tape! LOL So, you are not taking an approach to tracking that I haven't already taken just about every time I engineer. It is interesting because so far, two other engineers with some pretty good experience behind them who own "for hire" studios have said mostly the same thing about digital mixing. It would be pretty safe to say that most engineers who have work on decent analog consoles then tried digital consoles hate mixing digital. The ones that don't, well, :) there is no accounting for some peoples tastes (I was trying to avoid making that statement in this thread, but I guess it was bound to come out at some point....:D)

The fact is though, when it comes time to sum that whole mix to a stereo mixdown, DSP just doesn't cut it. And you have an extra little problem on your hands!!! :D You are using that digital mixing while you track, which means that a lot of the tracking decisions you make are going to be based upon some rather poorly written DSP.

Sorry friend, not trying to discourage you about doing your own CD. Nope, not why I am hear. I am hear to give you the straight poop about audio, something manufactures and retail stores DON'T!!! Hell, you get Alen Hyatt spouting off around here about how the SP mics sound "just like" Nuemenns. That is easy to convince somebody of if they have never used a Nuemann before right? Hell, if the dood is just used to using a SM-58 to record his vocal, just about ANY LD Condensor is going to sound "stellar" in comparison!

Since you are commited to that Roland, let me give you a few hints that will help you get the best recording.

Track EVERYTHING at the volume you will need it at during mix time. That mean, make sure that when you go to mix, that every channels fader is at Unity Gain. This will assure that you are not adding bad sounding DSP on every channel that you have to adjust a fader on to make it mix right.

Track EVERYTHING to sound EXACTLY like you want it too. Applying any EQ is not going to work so well at mix time. About the only place I have seen digital eq's work well is in mastering, and then you need a VERY good digital eq.

Try as best as you can to keep your track count below 16 tracks total. Remember, when you are thinking that 4 guitar tracks might provide a really "thick and big" sound, really, two properly mic'ed tracks will sound even better! Believe it or not, less is more, and unless you want a very thin sounding, overcompressed, crowded production like most modern rock radio is, then keep you track count down.

Friend, I have tried a LOT of different mixing platforms. I am the type of guy that is willing to put up with a little BS if it means a price break. But you know what? Digital mixing is WAY too much BS to put up with. It is just plain embarrassing to compare my analog mixing work to my digital mixing work.
 
Chibi Nappa said:
Yes, InTheMirror.mp3 does indeed have much more life than Omega.mp3, but I'm willing to bet that Omega.mp3 would have sounded sterile even if it was pressed to vinyl, played through the finest vintage turntable, picked back up with the best Neuman around, and plopped onto 2 inch tape. :D
Click to expand...

Actually Chibi, Omega was VERY well tracked! The only difference between those mixes was In The Mirror was mixed on an analog console, and Omego was mixed on a Digital console. I can play you much more sparse arrangements that were mixed on the O2R that have that same "flat" sound to it. DSP is just loudy. The mixes just don't sound "open".

Ed
 
great analogy Ed

i was just gonna point out the fact that some of us just started getting into recording so it's love love

so me being digitized it's like i was sold some expired magarine but since i never tested the damn thing so i'm loving it-feel me

i'm sure some of us wouldn't mind a digital and an analog set up
but the prices for analog gear ain't coming down anytime soon due to the superiority (so i was told) obtain from an analog console so it's back to my funny tasting "i can't believe it's not butter"

i'm not gonna get sick am i? :D :D :D
 
So, back to this SUMMING thing. Would I be better off mixing through my mixer down to 2 track to avoid the Cubase digital summing? Should I dip all my gear in butter before tracking just to make sure I'm tasting exactly what I'm hearing?:D
 
If you have enough output's on your soundcard to send each track to a seperate ouput which would go to an input on an analog mixer, in effect, you software application would only be acting like any HD recording system, like the Alesis HD24. I find that to be quite an acceptable way to record and mix! I am not opposed to tracking stuff to digital, I am just against MIXING it in digital (meaning any kind of digital mixing..sortware, digital mixer.etc.....)

Just make sure that you don't have any faders adjusted in the software. They should all be at Unity Gain. Let your analog mixer do the track volume adjustments.

Ed
 
Analog compression has more obvious "flavors" than DSP does. I can detect some differences between compressors in digital, but usually, it is just varying degree's of "blah".....:D

Ed
 
Ed, I'm curious what you would consider a minimum quality analog mixer. Do you think a Mackie is worth the extra DAC trip or does it need to be a Soundcraft Ghost, Amek or similar?

On the really low end would you rather mix through Cakewalk Home Studio or an analog Behringer?
 
There was a huge debate/discussion over at Nuendo.com over mixing in Nuendo vs. mixing through an analog console. One of the points that came up was letting the gear and money spent on gear decide what to use instead of what sounds good. Or letting your ears be filtered by $$$$ spent on gear. For example, suppose you forked out a few thousand for a fancy control surface. Do you think you'll use that and mix in your DAW instead of a 12 channel mixer that sounds better that you bought of ebay for $200?

The other part of the discussion was the difference in summing on the PC vs. summing in external hardware.. be it digital or analog. There were many claims that an external mixer summed better than the software. That even certain digital mixers summed better than the PC. I also saw a similar discussion on a Samplitude forum. And again, people were saying that mixing on an external mixer usually sounded better.
 
I'll always prefer mixing on an analog board. I feel more intouch with whats going on, like I understand it better, and feel what the knobs are doing.
I also love doing mixes on the fly to 2 track. It's almost like playing an instrument. like learning a riff.
 
Tex, that is a good question. I posted a couple of mp3's earlier. One mixed on two mackies that you can purchase for about $1000 total now, and the other mixed on a Yamaha O2R, which you could purchase WITH the ADAT cards for maybe $4000. I used 1 channel of cheap compression on the analog mix. The O2R of course has dynamics on every channel. The first mix used a Lexicon Alex and a Alesis Q2. The second mix had a Eventide H3000, SPX 90, Lexicon LXP 15, and the two onboard effects on the O2R.

Tell you what, I am at the point I would almost rather mix on any analog console after doing that mix on the Mackies. I HATE mackies, but like them better than the O2R.

JR#97 pointed out the major contention about digital mixing, the Master Bus Summing. It is just horrendous in digital. On cheaper analog consoles, it isn't all that terribly clean, but at least it allows you to hit it hard, and if you do it just right, the distortion would be part of the asthetics of the sound, rather than digital hash!

I am NOT a digital mixing fan. I have gave it a pretty good shot over the last few years, and am just not impressed.

You get what you pay for. When you buy a DSP package that offers dozens of mixer tracks, dynamics and effects on each channel at will, etc....do you REALLY think it is going to be "all that"? Sacrifices are going to be made to the quality to make it affordable. Can you live with those sonic sacrifices? Does increased capabilty benefit your production? For some, I suppose it just might. If you need a demo, or a CD for local release, you know, something for people to just hear you, and the overall asthetics of the sound are less important to you, then digital mixing is the way for you!

If getting a pleasing flavor to your mix, and a nice open sound is sought, you want analog baby! Pure and simple, digital isn't going to stack up. But analog is going to cost you a bit more (or quite a bit more).

As much as I hate Mackies, I would rather mix on one than mix in digital. Of course, there is no comparing a Soundcraft Ghost with a Mackie. The Ghost is just going to chew up, spit out, and grinding into the ground any Mackie mixer. The Ghost is a smooth console with a very nice eq section, very versatile routing options, and buss summing that is far superior. But you are going to pay for that kind of quality.

But you know, when I laid out $8000 for a 24 channel Ghost several years ago, I was amazed that such quality could be had for so little! They aren't a whole lot cheaper now then they were then, which means that they have gone down in price because of inflation, cost of living, etc...The Ghost is a great value STILL. Coupled with some half decent compressors, it is a very capable setup for achieving great sounding mixes.

It is hard to make subjective comparisons on these boards when everybody is uploading mp3's, which are "normalized" during encoding. The reduction of bit depth tends to make lesser products start to sound almost as good as superior products. I bet many around here have made purchasing decisions based upon mp3's they have heard. Too bad.

When you have had the benefit of sitting in acoustically sound control rooms for long periods of time, working the hell out of a mix on a decent monitoring system and good quality console, with decent dynamic processors, you hear the difference. All that quality translates into making better mixing decisions, because you can trust what you are hearing. The gear is also more capable of making subtle changes that make a difference.

When I switched over to digital mixing (started working at another studio...) I was shocked on many instances at how poorly my mixes were coming out! It has been mostly frustrating to deal with because I take a lot of pride in doing the best I can for a client on their budget. I need tools that don't get in the way of making the best mix possible. Hell, in the realm of things, a Ghost and a bunch of lesser compressors is FAR from a Euphonix/SSL/Neve, etc...with classA dynamics! Yet, the Ghost at least get's you close! The digital stuff just leaves me perplexed as to what I need to do to get the mix "open" "smooth" "deep", and "louder".

So maybe I am just an out of date hack here. Not up to the digital mixing challenge. Yet, my old Ghost mixes to DAT tape still turn heads when it comes to the overall sonic picture. People think that I mixed that stuff in BIG TIME studios because they are used to the sort of small, thin, not so loud without obvious limiting sound of today.

I was reading an article a while back about how most modern music is just all starting to sound the same because everybody is using the same POD's, A/D converters, cheap mics, DSP. You know, it is true. When you are comparing your audio to other new stuff out there, well, you almost HAVE to have a ProTools system with the plugin's to compete because, well, good analog system just usually won't sound that horrible! :D No, but really, everything is starting to sound the same now because everything IS the same, because everybody is using the same "fake" sounds. Rooms don't seem to be important. Of course, every piece of analog gear has it's own little difference from others. McDSP just doesn't offer that. They offer you the same sterile sound Linkin Park has! I guess if you want to be as unadventureistic as Linkin Park, well, McDSP and PT is for you! ;) (you know, McDSP is soooooooooo appropriate of a name....)

So, if asthetics in the sound isn't for you, you can get a very capable mixing solution for very cheap using digital. If you want sound that is pleasing, open, and meaty, with a touch of spice and character, save your pennies and start getting into a decent analog mixer with some decent dynamics.'

I should quit ranting on this. It is not like it is going to make a whole hell of a lot of difference with most people. Everybody wants everything RIGHT NOW, and FOR CHEAP, and usually won't really LISTEN to what is good and right in audio anymore. It is too bad because audio quality is in my opinion at a all time low, even though it would seem that it is improving. It is just a thing of too many people accepting too low of quality when a better quality is available for a reasonable investment. The average guy could purchase a decent analog setup for less than the budget of many CD's I have recorded/mixed/mastered in the past.

Ed
 
sonusman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pardon my utmost stupidity, but what do you typically mixdown to if you are going from the DAW through the analog board? DAT or another pc? Also, if I'm trying my damndest to get everything just how I want it to sound when tracking, what is the purpose of the software to begin with? More track capacity? More to the point, how would shelling out $400 on say Cubase be beneficial other than expanding my ADAT setup with more tracks? If that's all I'm doing, then maybe I should consider buying other software with less bells and whistles..

It may not make that much of a difference in my situation. All I have is a Studiomaster Diamond 16X2. But if it does make a difference even on such a basic and limited board, then I need to reconsider how I'm going to integrate a pc in my setup to begin with.

Help:(

Cy
 
I'll happily concede that digital mixing is by definition sonically inferior to analog, in most scenarios. None the less, I have a Pro Tools studio, and I mix strictly within Pro Tools.

For me, it is purely a matter of practicality - I don't work on one project at a time, but am juggling as many as a dozen CD projects at once. It's just the way my clients tend to work.

That being said, I think I've done some things I'm quite proud of, and my clients are pleased as well. Like anything else, it takes time and practice to get good at anything, and in the process of mixing digitally full-time, I honestly believe that I've narrowed the quality gap to some extent. I understand the validity of the point that: "Why bother spending all the time and effort trying to get almost as good as analog, when you could just do analog?" But as I said, the practical advantages of digital mixing in my situation are compelling.

The other fact is, that each generation of digital platforms improves over the last. A lot of analog folks are taking second looks at products like RADAR and Fairlight, and the HD version of Pro Tools is said to have made some major improvements too. In a few years, the argument may well be irrelevent. While we're not there yet, the gap does seem to be narrowing.
 
sonusman said:


Ouch!!!!

:eek: :confused: :rolleyes: :mad: :p ;) :o :cool:

Yeah, I had that coming!

Chibi, take all the time in the world you need to track that CD for your band. Place those mics every so carefully. I hope to hell though after all that tracking that you don't need to do ANYTHING other than adjust a few levels, because that is when the Roland digital hash will start. Yes, I am picking on Roland here. There are not rated very highly in my book for DSP!

Anyway, aside from my no so favorable opinions about Roland products, that same tracking/mixing approach would probably end up sounding better being recorded on ADAT's, mixed through a Mackie with say 4 channels of Behringer Pro's, and two Lexicon MPX100's!

You know dood, I usually only engineer when I get paid to do it. I am not a freebie type of guy. How to I still get paid to do this stuff? Well, people trust what I hear, and trust that I know how to put good sound to tape, or can at least salvage the crappy sound they put to tape! LOL So, you are not taking an approach to tracking that I haven't already taken just about every time I engineer. It is interesting because so far, two other engineers with some pretty good experience behind them who own "for hire" studios have said mostly the same thing about digital mixing. It would be pretty safe to say that most engineers who have work on decent analog consoles then tried digital consoles hate mixing digital. The ones that don't, well, :) there is no accounting for some peoples tastes (I was trying to avoid making that statement in this thread, but I guess it was bound to come out at some point....:D)

The fact is though, when it comes time to sum that whole mix to a stereo mixdown, DSP just doesn't cut it. And you have an extra little problem on your hands!!! :D You are using that digital mixing while you track, which means that a lot of the tracking decisions you make are going to be based upon some rather poorly written DSP.

Sorry friend, not trying to discourage you about doing your own CD. Nope, not why I am hear. I am hear to give you the straight poop about audio, something manufactures and retail stores DON'T!!! Hell, you get Alen Hyatt spouting off around here about how the SP mics sound "just like" Nuemenns. That is easy to convince somebody of if they have never used a Nuemann before right? Hell, if the dood is just used to using a SM-58 to record his vocal, just about ANY LD Condensor is going to sound "stellar" in comparison!

Since you are commited to that Roland, let me give you a few hints that will help you get the best recording.

Track EVERYTHING at the volume you will need it at during mix time. That mean, make sure that when you go to mix, that every channels fader is at Unity Gain. This will assure that you are not adding bad sounding DSP on every channel that you have to adjust a fader on to make it mix right.

Track EVERYTHING to sound EXACTLY like you want it too. Applying any EQ is not going to work so well at mix time. About the only place I have seen digital eq's work well is in mastering, and then you need a VERY good digital eq.

Try as best as you can to keep your track count below 16 tracks total. Remember, when you are thinking that 4 guitar tracks might provide a really "thick and big" sound, really, two properly mic'ed tracks will sound even better! Believe it or not, less is more, and unless you want a very thin sounding, overcompressed, crowded production like most modern rock radio is, then keep you track count down.

Friend, I have tried a LOT of different mixing platforms. I am the type of guy that is willing to put up with a little BS if it means a price break. But you know what? Digital mixing is WAY too much BS to put up with. It is just plain embarrassing to compare my analog mixing work to my digital mixing work.
Click to expand...
Well, my only analog mixer is a Makie VLZ 1202. You have convinced me to at least try a mix on there of the tracks I have recorded on the Roland. It couldn't hurt to compare. If it turns out significantly better, it might benefit our band to rent a console at mixdown time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top