Studios with big ass mixers anyone??, but why!!

[TheComposer]

Hello, I'm kind of naive on this one.

Have you seen those multimillion dollars studios, right?

My question is, have you seen those mixers with more than 50 channels AT LEAST!! , they can have mixers with 100 channels, maybe.

So, why is that??, I understand they can have a lot of clients everyday, but they can program them so they don't have to rearrange everything every time.

Thanks!!

 

[mjbphotos]

Dude, they are not mixers these days (usually)- they are control desks. Multiple takes, tracks, all with manual control rather than mouse control on a screen.

 

[Steenamaroo]

Hey composer.
It depends on a lot of things.
As MJB says, sometimes they're just control surfaces. A hands on control for your ProTools (or whatever) session.

Sometimes they are big ass analog mixers. i.e. They pass and process sound.

Sometimes you get a mix of both. An analog mixer with automated faders and/or DAW control.

There are various different ways you can use these things.
You could use an analog desk to mix on the way in, or on the way out.
Your media could be digital like Protools or analog like tape.

Sometimes these studios have to work with very large groups of musicians, singers....even orchestras.
In those cases they're going to have 32channel+ analog desks to be able to handle such a big live session.

With dedicated control surfaces which don't pass audio, you're probably just tracking straight to PT or something and doing the mixing there.
The control surface should be thought of as a big fancy mouse/keyboard.

I think in a lot of cases the channel count may be excessive, but the equipment sounds incredible.
I doubt Dave Grohl uses all the channels on that Neve, but he definitely really wanted the sound of that Neve.

 

[Farview]

I routinely have mixes with more than 50 tracks. If I were still using an analog mixer, I would need at least 72 channels to be safe.

Movie houses have even bigger mixers. of course, there are hundreds of track that go into movies, with each characterhaving a track, all the mics from the orchestra, foley tracks, sound effects, etc... it adds up quickly.

I was working on an old school R&B project (think Chef from southpark) I was quickly up to 90 tracks of vocals. All thebacking vocals are 4-8 tracks per part, sometimes in 6 part harmony. Obviously, you can use the same tracks for multiple pieces, until they overlap. 4 tracks of 6 part harmony is 24 tracks. When that line overlaps the next one, now you are up to 48 tracks...and that doesn't include the main vocals or the music!

 

[bouldersoundguy]

I doubt anything that looks like a 48 channel mixer is a controller. Controllers usually have fewer faders than that since they can be used in layers, switchable to control eight or sixteen or maybe twenty-four channels at a time.

A big mixer is handy as a bunch of mic pres and cue mix routing all in one package. When you have a band recording all at once it's nice to have a quick way to handle a lot of headphone mixes.

 

[Farview]

Also, a lot of times you have an input side and an output side. The input side has the mic preamps and is routed to the recorders, the other side is the output of the recorders and is used to mix.

There are a bunch of different possible workflows.

The other thing to consider is the most sought after consoles are from a time before computer recording. If you had two 24 track tape decks synched together, you needed at least a 48 channel mixer to do the mix.

 

[bileshake]

I remembering having two people running different sections of faders (manually, in real time...) while mixing down. Good fun, an interesting mix was a performance. I miss that.

 

[rayc]

The OP makes me feel REALLY old.
It gives the impression of an eleven year old asking innocent questions.
I know it's not the OP's fault - time and Google do not cure all things particularly when the time, thus far, is short & the search engine not been used.

 

[allegro1650]

Having had to do one of those "performance art" mixes, sometimes it takes as many "takes" to get a mix right as a recorded performance.

This is why mix automation was such a big deal in the 1970s. Saving that rhythm section part of a mix you got right, and being able to going back and working on the rest of the sections (horns, strings, vocals, etc), was liberating.

My opinion on why the big desks needed so many inputs? Live drums. There's maybe 4 or 5 people in the whole world that can mic up the typical dual-kick metal drum kit with only 3 mics, and have it sound like anything special.
The rest of us have to use overheads, top & bottom mics on each drum, room mics, etc.

 

[Farview]

Last time I was mixing on a big board was in the digital age, so I was able to sync up the mixdown deck with the tape machines with the tracks, so if I screwed up anywhere in the mix, I could rewind a bit and punch in the mix. Automation would have been better.