L
littledog
New member
I would really like someone to post an mp3 of mixing apples and oranges...
M
Mercuri
New member
Mixing
Well, it wouldn't be apples and oranges in every aspect...
The digital mix should be done in a top-end program that has one of the best digital mixing engines. (Subjective, I know, but some are clearly better than others.)
The analog mix should be done in a high-end analog board with really good DAC/ADC's.
This way you can A/B the mixes at their best, tables even steven.
Comparing the Alesis' analog mix to to the box mix isn't fair. Alesises (Alesi?) and Mackies paired up with a double-run of consumer-grade converters are going to KILL your sound.
I love digital to pieces, and probably will never make the switch to 100% analog (NO digital at all) even though it most definitely sounds better. The control and plausibility for imagination is a dream come true. Just wish it sounded like a dream come true!!
Well, it wouldn't be apples and oranges in every aspect...
The digital mix should be done in a top-end program that has one of the best digital mixing engines. (Subjective, I know, but some are clearly better than others.)
The analog mix should be done in a high-end analog board with really good DAC/ADC's.
This way you can A/B the mixes at their best, tables even steven.
Comparing the Alesis' analog mix to to the box mix isn't fair. Alesises (Alesi?) and Mackies paired up with a double-run of consumer-grade converters are going to KILL your sound.
I love digital to pieces, and probably will never make the switch to 100% analog (NO digital at all) even though it most definitely sounds better. The control and plausibility for imagination is a dream come true. Just wish it sounded like a dream come true!!
S
Scott Tansley
New member
Its a waste of time making a comparison mix of analogue and digital. Its just too obvious. Digi mixes are still getting there. Just not the same.
Form what ive observed here, most pro's with heaps of money or that get to work in big studios all get to use analogue gear.
The rest of us can only afford digi mix gear. But before that we had no alternative. So I actually feel quite blessed that in this world today I can do a mix thats reasonably good with gear thats worth less than $5000. I would trade my digi gear for a big bunch of analog gear any day. But that aint going to happen.
The differences to me are mostly in drums and electric guitar. You just can't get them to sound as good as on good quality 2" tape. Bass and vocals seem to suffer less. But still suffer.
And as has been said above, its the depth thats hard to achieve with digi gear. Hardware mixing has unlimited resolution, digi has certain fixed resolutions. And every time you touch anything in the digi world, your degrading.
Its the bad things about tape that make it nice. Its the good things about digi that make it sound sterile.
Just like its the bad things about film that make it better that a digi camera. The film grain, motion blur, sprocket jitter, logarithmic color, unlimmited resolution, and color depth that make film better. Actually film has a look that lets you suspend your belief in it more than that digi crap they shoot cheap sopies with. Cheap sopies look like there shot in the next room. Film doesn't. The film has a more unreal look. Just like analog tape lets you suspend your belief in the recording too. Compared to digital.
Scott Tansley
www.feel-rock.com
Form what ive observed here, most pro's with heaps of money or that get to work in big studios all get to use analogue gear.
The rest of us can only afford digi mix gear. But before that we had no alternative. So I actually feel quite blessed that in this world today I can do a mix thats reasonably good with gear thats worth less than $5000. I would trade my digi gear for a big bunch of analog gear any day. But that aint going to happen.
The differences to me are mostly in drums and electric guitar. You just can't get them to sound as good as on good quality 2" tape. Bass and vocals seem to suffer less. But still suffer.
And as has been said above, its the depth thats hard to achieve with digi gear. Hardware mixing has unlimited resolution, digi has certain fixed resolutions. And every time you touch anything in the digi world, your degrading.
Its the bad things about tape that make it nice. Its the good things about digi that make it sound sterile.
Just like its the bad things about film that make it better that a digi camera. The film grain, motion blur, sprocket jitter, logarithmic color, unlimmited resolution, and color depth that make film better. Actually film has a look that lets you suspend your belief in it more than that digi crap they shoot cheap sopies with. Cheap sopies look like there shot in the next room. Film doesn't. The film has a more unreal look. Just like analog tape lets you suspend your belief in the recording too. Compared to digital.
Scott Tansley
www.feel-rock.com
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
Scott, that's a very good analogy. It's kind of like my comment about how an analog board "hypnotises" or softens the sound in a good way.
S
Scott Tansley
New member
I just hope they continue to make good quality 2" tape. Its becoming rare though.
Even tape hiss sounds better than digi hiss.
Tape saturation sounds better than digi artifacts.
No matter what way you look at it or hear it.
Unfortunatelly I do like digi gear, but for every other reason apart from "sound". And what are we making here.....Sound...
Even tape hiss sounds better than digi hiss.
Tape saturation sounds better than digi artifacts.
No matter what way you look at it or hear it.
Unfortunatelly I do like digi gear, but for every other reason apart from "sound". And what are we making here.....Sound...
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
"Its a waste of time making a comparison mix of analogue and digital. Its just too obvious. "
You dont learn anything calling something a waste of time. Obvious huh? The two analog vs. digital mixes here, one the digital was OBVIOUSLY clearer, and the other was too close to really call. Pretty obvious
"Digi mixes are still getting there. Just not the same. "
and "not the same" doesnt mean better or worse, it actually means not the same
"The rest of us can only afford digi mix gear. "
I dont understand this, analog is almost always cheaper per channel than digital. Only time there is a HUGE difference is at the extreme hi end, where digital costs 4 or 5 times more per channel than analog.
"The differences to me are mostly in drums and electric guitar. You just can't get them to sound as good as on good quality 2" tape."
nonono...not me YOU! YOU cant get them to sound as good. To me the performance matters the most. Things can be done, and data manipulated digitally that can make the better more coherent performances than could be done with analog technology. It could sound like the best recording in the world but if there are too many out of time or not together notes and beats, itll sound like crap...HOWEVER, I have yet to see an analog mix ( coming from a digital source) that has the clarity and fidelity possible with a good digital recording. I dont think its possible.
"And as has been said above, its the depth thats hard to achieve with digi gear. "
THAT I can agree with! But like the rest of the thread says, it may not be digital itself that is causing that. A LOT could be the control or lack of it in the digital realm. And getting a room tuned right is hard, should we give up on that ?
"Hardware mixing has unlimited resolution, digi has certain fixed resolutions. "
Analog has seemingly unlimited resolution between a VERY definite top and bottom limit. Digital has a LINEAR response between a much wider margin
"And every time you touch anything in the digi world, your degrading. "
and any time you touch anything in the analog world youre degrading. I hear this one a LOT from analog guys who actually route their individual tracks thru BUSSES!!!!
"Its the bad things about tape that make it nice. Its the good things about digi that make it sound sterile. "
thats one narrow minded way of looking at it
" Just like analog tape lets you suspend your belief in the recording too. Compared to digital. "
I think this is a nut behind the wheel thing.
Yeah, it is easy and fast for an amatuer to get a decent mix out of analog gear, but getting a truly world class mix, capturing both fidelity, and performance, is pretty hard analog OR digital. The better mix has VERY little to do with the recording or mixing format. They both have pros and cons. Control is MUCH better in most cases for analog, while fidelity in digital seems so much better.
Ive always had access to the best of analog and some sort of OK digital, and even at this level, I cant call one clearly " better " than the other. I use both. I dont think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater so quick. And if you cant make a decent mix on either format, I think you got a LOT more problems than analog vs digital.
You dont learn anything calling something a waste of time. Obvious huh? The two analog vs. digital mixes here, one the digital was OBVIOUSLY clearer, and the other was too close to really call. Pretty obvious
"Digi mixes are still getting there. Just not the same. "
and "not the same" doesnt mean better or worse, it actually means not the same
"The rest of us can only afford digi mix gear. "
I dont understand this, analog is almost always cheaper per channel than digital. Only time there is a HUGE difference is at the extreme hi end, where digital costs 4 or 5 times more per channel than analog.
"The differences to me are mostly in drums and electric guitar. You just can't get them to sound as good as on good quality 2" tape."
nonono...not me YOU! YOU cant get them to sound as good. To me the performance matters the most. Things can be done, and data manipulated digitally that can make the better more coherent performances than could be done with analog technology. It could sound like the best recording in the world but if there are too many out of time or not together notes and beats, itll sound like crap...HOWEVER, I have yet to see an analog mix ( coming from a digital source) that has the clarity and fidelity possible with a good digital recording. I dont think its possible.
"And as has been said above, its the depth thats hard to achieve with digi gear. "
THAT I can agree with! But like the rest of the thread says, it may not be digital itself that is causing that. A LOT could be the control or lack of it in the digital realm. And getting a room tuned right is hard, should we give up on that ?
"Hardware mixing has unlimited resolution, digi has certain fixed resolutions. "
Analog has seemingly unlimited resolution between a VERY definite top and bottom limit. Digital has a LINEAR response between a much wider margin
"And every time you touch anything in the digi world, your degrading. "
and any time you touch anything in the analog world youre degrading. I hear this one a LOT from analog guys who actually route their individual tracks thru BUSSES!!!!
"Its the bad things about tape that make it nice. Its the good things about digi that make it sound sterile. "
thats one narrow minded way of looking at it
" Just like analog tape lets you suspend your belief in the recording too. Compared to digital. "
I think this is a nut behind the wheel thing.
Yeah, it is easy and fast for an amatuer to get a decent mix out of analog gear, but getting a truly world class mix, capturing both fidelity, and performance, is pretty hard analog OR digital. The better mix has VERY little to do with the recording or mixing format. They both have pros and cons. Control is MUCH better in most cases for analog, while fidelity in digital seems so much better.
Ive always had access to the best of analog and some sort of OK digital, and even at this level, I cant call one clearly " better " than the other. I use both. I dont think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater so quick. And if you cant make a decent mix on either format, I think you got a LOT more problems than analog vs digital.
L
littledog
New member
It's always amusing to read how you can't get a good digital sound, at least compared to analog.
Anyone want to guess the percentage of classical symphonic music that's recorded digitally these days by the top classical recording labels? (Hint: the higher you guess, the closer you'll be...)
Anyone want to guess the percentage of classical symphonic music that's recorded digitally these days by the top classical recording labels? (Hint: the higher you guess, the closer you'll be...)
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
exactly. I would LOVE to hear an example of a " good " mix from someone who CANT get a good digital mix. I would be willing to bet that the " good" analog mix aint so good
S
Scott Tansley
New member
I think you guy's are missing the point.
Of course a good engineer will make a difference. And of course good musicianship makes a difference, of course a good room will make a difference. Where not talking about that. Read the question ?
Its very nice of you to go through and type an anti-responce to every line I typed. Its fun doing that isn't it. Your basically saying that im totally wrong on all accounts. And as for your per channel cost remark, I have 128 channel mixer in the form of cooledit pro. Please find me a 128 channel ssl or neve console for $600.00. In fact please find me even a shit 128 channel analog mixer for $600.00 with 34 effects per channel.
I knew this would happen.....
Of course a good engineer will make a difference. And of course good musicianship makes a difference, of course a good room will make a difference. Where not talking about that. Read the question ?
Its very nice of you to go through and type an anti-responce to every line I typed. Its fun doing that isn't it. Your basically saying that im totally wrong on all accounts. And as for your per channel cost remark, I have 128 channel mixer in the form of cooledit pro. Please find me a 128 channel ssl or neve console for $600.00. In fact please find me even a shit 128 channel analog mixer for $600.00 with 34 effects per channel.
I knew this would happen.....
Last edited:
L
littledog
New member
Hey, Scott!
Lighten up a little. It's just friendly talk here, even if we get passionate at times. I don't agree with every single point Pipeline makes, (like you, I wasn't sure how he arrived at the Analog being cheaper than Digital) but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate that he also made a lot of good ones.
There is a constant refrain on certain bulletin boards (can you say ProSoundWebRec?) about how totally crappy it is to work digitally, so while it may not have anyone's intent, this thread seemd to be taking the appearance of adding fuel to that fire. Some of us who have been through this discussion a few hundred times before may tend to get a little snippy, so please forgive us.
I have no problem with anyone who wants to work in the analogue world. Pipeline is an experienced engineer who probably has spent more time on a 2" deck and knee deep in tubes than all but a tiny fraction of anyone you can find on this board. I've never heard him put down analogue - and without attempting to speak for someone far more capable than myself, my interpretation of his main thesis can be distilled into three points:
1) each format has it's advantages and disadvantages, and it is not particularly useful to focus only on the disadvantages of one and the advantages of the other. (This is not to say that you, personally, were doing so)
2) for many of us, there are so many other critical variables of engineering technique and gear, that the analogue vs. digital factor would play a fairly insignificant part in quality of the final product. To exclude that fact by narrowly defining the parameters of the discussion is certainly your right, but may not result in a useful discussion.
3) SOME of the diehard digital critics have never really mastered the format, while others have not mastered EITHER format. Again, this is speaking generally, not directed at one person.
And MY POINT was, would somebody like to volunteer to tell the engineers over at Sony Classical that their stuff sounds like shit?
In your defense, I'll admit I've also gotten annoyed from time to time when someone does a point by point/counterpoint by counterpoint critique of one of my posts, so I try to avoid it myself. But sometimes it's just a convenient way of organizing a response to a post that raises multiple issues.
But, hey - I'm sure plenty of people here think I'm a pompous ass too. The difference between me and Pipeline though, is he's walked the walk. I'd say he's worth keeping around...
Lighten up a little. It's just friendly talk here, even if we get passionate at times. I don't agree with every single point Pipeline makes, (like you, I wasn't sure how he arrived at the Analog being cheaper than Digital) but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate that he also made a lot of good ones.
There is a constant refrain on certain bulletin boards (can you say ProSoundWebRec?) about how totally crappy it is to work digitally, so while it may not have anyone's intent, this thread seemd to be taking the appearance of adding fuel to that fire. Some of us who have been through this discussion a few hundred times before may tend to get a little snippy, so please forgive us.
I have no problem with anyone who wants to work in the analogue world. Pipeline is an experienced engineer who probably has spent more time on a 2" deck and knee deep in tubes than all but a tiny fraction of anyone you can find on this board. I've never heard him put down analogue - and without attempting to speak for someone far more capable than myself, my interpretation of his main thesis can be distilled into three points:
1) each format has it's advantages and disadvantages, and it is not particularly useful to focus only on the disadvantages of one and the advantages of the other. (This is not to say that you, personally, were doing so)
2) for many of us, there are so many other critical variables of engineering technique and gear, that the analogue vs. digital factor would play a fairly insignificant part in quality of the final product. To exclude that fact by narrowly defining the parameters of the discussion is certainly your right, but may not result in a useful discussion.
3) SOME of the diehard digital critics have never really mastered the format, while others have not mastered EITHER format. Again, this is speaking generally, not directed at one person.
And MY POINT was, would somebody like to volunteer to tell the engineers over at Sony Classical that their stuff sounds like shit?
In your defense, I'll admit I've also gotten annoyed from time to time when someone does a point by point/counterpoint by counterpoint critique of one of my posts, so I try to avoid it myself. But sometimes it's just a convenient way of organizing a response to a post that raises multiple issues.
But, hey - I'm sure plenty of people here think I'm a pompous ass too. The difference between me and Pipeline though, is he's walked the walk. I'd say he's worth keeping around...
S
Scott Tansley
New member
Geez guy's, lighten up, i wasn't tryn to start a war. If anything I was a little less in your face than you guys. And pipeline, its cool. Your a good guy around here. your opinions on many many things musical and other share loads of common sense. Seems where all passionate about this. Music wins again. Im one of the many here that when steped on, scream....But no-ones screeming here...cool.
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
"I'll admit I've also gotten annoyed from time to time when someone does a point by point/counterpoint by counterpoint critique of one of my post"
oops! that bugs people? I gotta quit that!
the analog vs digital thing, pricewise. I think at the lowest levels, they might come out near even tape recorder wise, but as we were talking about summing, I was thinking " console " and analog murders digital pricewise at any performance level I think...
take my old soundcraft ghost for instance, or a mackie 32-8 or whatever...around 6 grand for a ghost, dont know how much for a mackie, but cheaper. None of the affordable digital mixers can really be compared in my opinion. Nonbe of them till you get to the Sony DMX R-100 have anywhere near the inputs and outputs ( digital OR analog ) as a cheap analog console. And when you throw in all the I/O cards, in an attempt to make them as "outside world friendly" as an analog console you start coughing up bucks!
I am a FIRM believer in " knob per function" console topologies. These " phat channels" and banking and selecting, I think really dont cut it. Manufacturers use digital as an excuse to build simpler, less user friendly boards, while telling us the opposite.
I Think the layout of cheap digital mixers is a SERIOUS contributor to those opinions that digital summing sucks. I think it has a LOT to do with it. If you cant make it do what you want, of course its gonna sound sucky. You dont really get knob per function till you get into an SSL axiom or Sony oxford, either of which will buy you a few WORLD CLASS analog consoles.
anywho, thats what I meant about the analog being cheaper thing. That and when bands dont have money for mixing, Ill usually do an analog mix, cuz for me its MUCH faster, and itll get 80% of the way there for demo purposes
and Scott, yeah its all cool...really want to keep this thread going because I think this is a great issue! I just took exception to it being a "waste of time". Like littledog said, theres boards and chatrooms FULL of people who seem totally brainwashed
they say:
"Analog rules digital sucks" (then they pop in a CD)
"Analog rules, ANY analog " ( Id rather record apogee AD8k's to ADAT than go to a cassette portastudio anyday! )
"compression sucks its evil"( then next post is asking how to use an RNC as a 2mix compressor)
"reverb fx suck use real rooms"( then you hear their GATED reverb on everything...wow a real room that gates its own reverb huh ? )
" we recorded everything live first take, no headphones all in one room" ( my favorite one! Oh really, THREE voices come out of your one mouth huh? neat...whoa three guitar parts out of your one amp??? WOW!)
theres tons of other " the coolest thing to say" things...recording has its fads like anything else. Some people mindlessly spew regurgitated crap out that they heard their favorite guru say.
One of my favorite games to play, when a band INSISTS on analog tape is "analog or digital" and I play mixes I've done and ask them to pick which was done all analog and which all digital ( I dont throw in the other types cuz it would get too confusing). They end up right about 50% of the time, which, given only two choices makes sense
If a band is REALLY good, and can play in time FOR REAL, and wont need to many punches, and they INSIST on analog tape Ill still record them with that...makes my job easier. I dont need to worry worry worry about levels, tape takes care of that to a degree, and if the band's that good most of tapes other problems go out the window too. In this day and age of "the million dollar demo" tho, theyll probably get digital editing, and once Im there, I may or may not find it smarter to finish the mix " in the box". Its NOT an always one or the other for me.
Sometimes, theres a device that I just HAVE to have, then another then another, or maybe Im just having too much trouble getting things to " sit " right, so its back to the console.
Sometimes, things feel right, or I need a lot of automation or split second precision, and/or I just dont want to give up the clarity and fidelity of staying in the box
oops! that bugs people? I gotta quit that!
the analog vs digital thing, pricewise. I think at the lowest levels, they might come out near even tape recorder wise, but as we were talking about summing, I was thinking " console " and analog murders digital pricewise at any performance level I think...
take my old soundcraft ghost for instance, or a mackie 32-8 or whatever...around 6 grand for a ghost, dont know how much for a mackie, but cheaper. None of the affordable digital mixers can really be compared in my opinion. Nonbe of them till you get to the Sony DMX R-100 have anywhere near the inputs and outputs ( digital OR analog ) as a cheap analog console. And when you throw in all the I/O cards, in an attempt to make them as "outside world friendly" as an analog console you start coughing up bucks!
I am a FIRM believer in " knob per function" console topologies. These " phat channels" and banking and selecting, I think really dont cut it. Manufacturers use digital as an excuse to build simpler, less user friendly boards, while telling us the opposite.
I Think the layout of cheap digital mixers is a SERIOUS contributor to those opinions that digital summing sucks. I think it has a LOT to do with it. If you cant make it do what you want, of course its gonna sound sucky. You dont really get knob per function till you get into an SSL axiom or Sony oxford, either of which will buy you a few WORLD CLASS analog consoles.
anywho, thats what I meant about the analog being cheaper thing. That and when bands dont have money for mixing, Ill usually do an analog mix, cuz for me its MUCH faster, and itll get 80% of the way there for demo purposes
and Scott, yeah its all cool...really want to keep this thread going because I think this is a great issue! I just took exception to it being a "waste of time". Like littledog said, theres boards and chatrooms FULL of people who seem totally brainwashed
they say:
"Analog rules digital sucks" (then they pop in a CD)
"Analog rules, ANY analog " ( Id rather record apogee AD8k's to ADAT than go to a cassette portastudio anyday! )
"compression sucks its evil"( then next post is asking how to use an RNC as a 2mix compressor)
"reverb fx suck use real rooms"( then you hear their GATED reverb on everything...wow a real room that gates its own reverb huh ? )
" we recorded everything live first take, no headphones all in one room" ( my favorite one! Oh really, THREE voices come out of your one mouth huh? neat...whoa three guitar parts out of your one amp??? WOW!)
theres tons of other " the coolest thing to say" things...recording has its fads like anything else. Some people mindlessly spew regurgitated crap out that they heard their favorite guru say.
One of my favorite games to play, when a band INSISTS on analog tape is "analog or digital" and I play mixes I've done and ask them to pick which was done all analog and which all digital ( I dont throw in the other types cuz it would get too confusing). They end up right about 50% of the time, which, given only two choices makes sense
If a band is REALLY good, and can play in time FOR REAL, and wont need to many punches, and they INSIST on analog tape Ill still record them with that...makes my job easier. I dont need to worry worry worry about levels, tape takes care of that to a degree, and if the band's that good most of tapes other problems go out the window too. In this day and age of "the million dollar demo" tho, theyll probably get digital editing, and once Im there, I may or may not find it smarter to finish the mix " in the box". Its NOT an always one or the other for me.
Sometimes, theres a device that I just HAVE to have, then another then another, or maybe Im just having too much trouble getting things to " sit " right, so its back to the console.
Sometimes, things feel right, or I need a lot of automation or split second precision, and/or I just dont want to give up the clarity and fidelity of staying in the box
V
verticalplunge
New member
Great thread. I've been unhappy with the quality of my summed audio (from DP3 with a 1224) and am glad to see I'm not the only one. The two samples I've listened to here are good examples of what I don't like about my summed mixes--harsh highs, a bit plasticy. Also, I've had some difficulties with frequencies clipping in the summed file but not on playback from the timeline. I'm guessing this is related to not only the DSP on the sum but the headroom on the converters going out to my monitors. Basically, what I'm hearing on the timeline is NOT what I hear in the summed stereo file. The difference is pretty much similar to the a/b test files that have been posted.
I should point out that, to my ear, pristine recordings ( a la Steely Dan) sound bad. So all of this is subjective. So, even if the analog link is causing degredation and impurities, it would seem that I like it nonetheless.
So I've been thinking about adding a decent mixer to my set up. The question is how many channels? Do I need to add another card to my rig to send out more than 8 tracks? Also, how far do we need to go in the quest for analog purity? Would the 8 tracks be plenty? Could I sub group in the computer--and thus make use of some computer automation? Fact is, there are some kinds of automation that you simply CAN NOT do by hand. For example, random modulations of lfo's or delay setting etc. The computer is cool for this kind of stuff--and there is no such thing as a free lunch. Maybe you'll have to sacrifice some quality here. That's life. So I don't see this as an analog/digital debate, but how to get the most from digital--since I don't plan on tracking to tape anytime soon (how would I afford it?).
I just want to lose the harsh highs in my mixes. Try listening to that all-digital-chain mp3 Sonusman posted earlier loud on headphones. It hurts.
I'm assuming that you folks are taking the stereo pair back into the computer after it has been summed with an analog mixer--I'm also assuming you can hit it a little harder, if you'd like, in the mixer to get a vibe you just can't get in the computer. Finally, would something like the Masterlink be any better to send the mixed audio to?
I should point out that, to my ear, pristine recordings ( a la Steely Dan) sound bad. So all of this is subjective. So, even if the analog link is causing degredation and impurities, it would seem that I like it nonetheless.
So I've been thinking about adding a decent mixer to my set up. The question is how many channels? Do I need to add another card to my rig to send out more than 8 tracks? Also, how far do we need to go in the quest for analog purity? Would the 8 tracks be plenty? Could I sub group in the computer--and thus make use of some computer automation? Fact is, there are some kinds of automation that you simply CAN NOT do by hand. For example, random modulations of lfo's or delay setting etc. The computer is cool for this kind of stuff--and there is no such thing as a free lunch. Maybe you'll have to sacrifice some quality here. That's life. So I don't see this as an analog/digital debate, but how to get the most from digital--since I don't plan on tracking to tape anytime soon (how would I afford it?).
I just want to lose the harsh highs in my mixes. Try listening to that all-digital-chain mp3 Sonusman posted earlier loud on headphones. It hurts.
I'm assuming that you folks are taking the stereo pair back into the computer after it has been summed with an analog mixer--I'm also assuming you can hit it a little harder, if you'd like, in the mixer to get a vibe you just can't get in the computer. Finally, would something like the Masterlink be any better to send the mixed audio to?
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
Mr Plunge, There are a few folks here that mix to the Masterlink and I'm sure it's a hell of a unit but just my humble opinion, I believe that a computer with a good sound card to be the most flexible as the editing possibilities to the two track as far as mastering (down Bruce, down) is concerned. That's where I top and tail all the tunes, arrange the play order and burn a disc and also archive the raw files.
sonusman
Banned
LOL....I had to listen to those mixes via NS-10's too!
They DO hurt to listen to.
I will be fair. All of those "all digital" chain mixes were done with another engineer who happens to sort of like a more "crispy" sound. He was the band leader and studio owner, and was the guy paying me. I had little choice but to go with what he thought sounded good. As engineers, me and this guy have usually two different sounds in mind. I have heard him do better mixes working on other clients projects. I have certainly done better work myself using lesser analog mixers. Check this bad boy mix out. Used a Mackie 1604 and a 1202 together (main outs of the 1202 running into an effect return on the 1604. this was the only way to get a 24 channel mixer because this little project studio only had the 1604..I supplied the 1202 so we could mix...no budget for this band....I got paid very little to mix their demo...)
My overall impression though about DSP is that is sort of sounds plastic like, and sort of harsh in the upper mids. I notice that as I add tracks to the mix, the depth of the mix starts getting less and less.
As to the question about a Masterlink helping. Well, in the provided all digital mixes, all of those were mixed to a Masterlink. Some via the digital inputs from the digital out on the console, some via the analog inputs. I don't think the mixdown medium has much to do with what I hear comparing DSP to analog processing in the mixing stage. I have mixes that went to 16 bit DAT tape that sound excellent. I have a Lynx One card for my computer that sounds outstanding. I think the Masterlink falls into the "high quality" realm of digital recorders, but I don't think it is providing any more depth or smoothness to the mix. High quality mixdown mediums just capture faithfully what is already there. It certainly doesn't "improve" the mix.
Well, I could go on and on about my impressions about dsp vs. analog processing. I won't though. I have documented it well enough.
I prefer analog. It just sound "nicer" to my ears, and seems to have more depth and weight in the end. I feel I can accomplish what I want to do with it to a better degree than I can with DSP. It meets my expectations much better. The advantages of DSP being able to automate has benefitted me little, because usually I only need to "automate" a few faders, maybe a effects send and return when I use analog to accomplish what I need. I am not one of those guys that has to have every track doing something other than what it does at mix time.I HAVE heard some pretty nice sounding all DSP stuff. John Sayers and Sjoko2 have provided some examples here that I thought sounded excellent. Maybe one day I will master DSP like they have.
But no matter what I have tried, DSP has failed to meet my expectations for mixing. It doesn't matter to me that analog might provide "dulled highs", or somewhat flaky "imaging". It just sounds outright more natural to my ears, and provides the type of sound I want to hear.Ed
V
verticalplunge
New member
Thanks for the replies. Well, that mp3 sounds nice and silky....
One question, what medium was the song tracked to and which medium did you send the mix to?
I guess the Masterlink might not be the best investment for me. I do think I am going to pick up a mixer. Just a question of how much can I afford and how many channels (and then, if I like it, to acquire more than 8 outs from my Mac)....
One question, what medium was the song tracked to and which medium did you send the mix to?
I guess the Masterlink might not be the best investment for me. I do think I am going to pick up a mixer. Just a question of how much can I afford and how many channels (and then, if I like it, to acquire more than 8 outs from my Mac)....
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
My biggest issue when it comes to working in an all digital environment is that you lose the ability to 'follow the signal' when troubleshooting. One simple check box 5 menus deep can cost me hours to figure out sometimes and I don't think I'm that dense.
There has been many times on digital boards or DAW's that something just isn't routing the way I expect it to and instead of simply following the signal path I have to pull out the manual and try to figure out what the hell they are doing with my signal.
I hate that.
There has been many times on digital boards or DAW's that something just isn't routing the way I expect it to and instead of simply following the signal path I have to pull out the manual and try to figure out what the hell they are doing with my signal.
I hate that.
sonusman
Banned
That song was tracked to a Alesis HD24, with mostly ART preamps, and a few tracks used Mackie pre's.
At mix time, it was routed from the 1604's main outs to a MOTU card (don't remember which, they are all about the same though when it comes to the A/D/A converters.
Ed
At mix time, it was routed from the 1604's main outs to a MOTU card (don't remember which, they are all about the same though when it comes to the A/D/A converters.
Ed
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
"My biggest issue when it comes to working in an all digital environment is that you lose the ability to 'follow the signal' when troubleshooting. One simple check box 5 menus deep can cost me hours to figure out sometimes and I don't think I'm that dense"
AMEN to that!!!!!
A LOT of the people who make digital software and hardware( but software more often I think) have never stepped foot in a studio, or even seen in real life the piece of gear they are "modelling", muchless working with an irate customer over their shoulder because a piece of code isnt performing what it says it can!
Digital troubleshooting can become simpler than analog troubleshooting, once you know where to look , but the trouble is, the manufacturers many times WONT tell you where to look, and in many cases they wont even tell you where "zero" is!
This far into it, we still have barely an acceptable standard for input monitoring, and many companies dont have monitoring at all, and worse, DONT see the need for it! Insanity!
AMEN to that!!!!!
A LOT of the people who make digital software and hardware( but software more often I think) have never stepped foot in a studio, or even seen in real life the piece of gear they are "modelling", muchless working with an irate customer over their shoulder because a piece of code isnt performing what it says it can!
Digital troubleshooting can become simpler than analog troubleshooting, once you know where to look , but the trouble is, the manufacturers many times WONT tell you where to look, and in many cases they wont even tell you where "zero" is!
This far into it, we still have barely an acceptable standard for input monitoring, and many companies dont have monitoring at all, and worse, DONT see the need for it! Insanity!
V
verticalplunge
New member
Choosing a Mixer
Choosing a mixer is pretty tricky, I'm finding. The Mackie VLZ series gets a thumbs up for the mic pres by some folks, but is said to have limited headroom, especially on the bus--and this is what I want to fix!
The Soundcraft M12 has a s/pdif out that is useless with my 1224--unless I spend another $250 or so.
Which brings the price up to Allen and Heath territory--but do I want to spend that much? Could I invest wisely elsewhere in my signal chain--more mics say?
Hmmm....
Choosing a mixer is pretty tricky, I'm finding. The Mackie VLZ series gets a thumbs up for the mic pres by some folks, but is said to have limited headroom, especially on the bus--and this is what I want to fix!
The Soundcraft M12 has a s/pdif out that is useless with my 1224--unless I spend another $250 or so.
Which brings the price up to Allen and Heath territory--but do I want to spend that much? Could I invest wisely elsewhere in my signal chain--more mics say?
Hmmm....