What does everyone mix through?

  • Thread starter Thread starter frist44
  • Start date Start date

What do you mix through?

  • I mix inside the computer

    Votes: 280 76.7%

  • I mix through an analog console

    Votes: 72 19.7%

  • I mixdown in the DAW to an analog 2-track

    Votes: 13 3.6%
  • Total voters
    365
F

frist44

New member
For those of you who record on some kind of digital medium, whether it be a DAW or stand alone digital record, who mixes down through an analog console and what kind of console, who mixes in the box, and who mixes in the box and sends it to some kind of tape for the 2-track.

Brandon
 
I really don't like the sound of mixes done through a DAW -- personally, I don't think they've nailed "s/w summing" yet....
 
An HD24 mixed through a StudioMaster console to computer through a Motu 2408 mkII (24/44.1) all clocked with a Lucid GenX6.
 
RNP>>RNC(depends what instrument)>>lynxtwo>>>sonar>>transfer to samplitude...mix in box

like it MUCCCCHHHHHH better then a mackie....them shits don't have enough head room for hip hop....bass is either thin or distorted for how i like my hip hop to sound....samplitude is supposedly one of the better summers in the S/W...right now i'm hard pressed to disagree..
 
have you tried samplitude 7?

i was(using the mackie wrong) before then i started using 'fletcher's' method of not pushing my mackie vlz pro to hard keeping the master bus peakin at zero(check)....when summing send it thru the alt outs to avoid a 'wackie' op amp...check...use a high end preamp to bring the volume up check....i still prefer mixing in samplitude...it could be because my outboard gear is non existant...minus a rnc... i can't call it but i'm an in the box mixer with samplitude NOT sonar.....
 
This is an issue that tends to stir a lot of hot, interesting, thought-provoking, controversial debates.

For now, I mix exclusively in the box . . . as I don't trust the quality of my D/A converters. This approach may change if I someday discover a noticeable enough difference in sound quality through analog summing.

Mixing/summing analog will unavoidably entail two more generations of digital conversion -- once for each track, bus, submix or what have you (however it is you tend to work) on it's way out of your DAW. And yet another back in for the final mix. If it's being mastered, there is another probability / opportunity it will be converted yet again, depending on how you or the mastering engineer work.

So what it really comes down to is which you feel is the lesser of two evils -- the added conversion steps, or the added rounding/math errors during the software-aided mixdown process. I am not Ethan Winer, :D so I know very little about what is really going on, technically, with all of those 1's and 0's.

. . . But knowing just enough to be dangerous, I guess, :D logically, I figure with all of those added generations of conversions, there might be a mathematically greater chance of sound degredation -- particularly from a cumulative standpoint -- by going the "outside" route. Also, my ears aren't telling me there's a big enough difference to justify it for now, either, so that's where I stand -- rather shakily -- for now.
 
ADAT--->StudioMaster--->DAT

Hopefully I will be synching the ADAT with a Gina and 8 tracks from the DAW and possibly bypassing the DAT (or keep it running as backup) this time next year.

Cy
 
I recently tried to mix "in the box" using Cubase SX... mainly because I was very curious to see what the differences were between that and my 8-buss...

The 8-buss won, hands-down........ not only that, but I've also noticed that even 2-track post-processing is not as effective using Sound Forge plug-ins as the results I get using my Masterlink.

Naturally, these are purely subjective observations -- but they are more than enough proof for me indicating that s/w mixing plugs have a long way to go to compete with analog summing.
 
Last edited:
The reason I ask is because I'm thinking about diving into console land. It requires a good amount of investment up front with the console, enough converters to mixdown how many ever channels you need, and then outboard gear, but if mixing in analog changes the sound the way some people describe it, it would definitely be what i'm looking for.

I record most indie stuff and am looking for a little dirtiness to the sound. I feel like it gets in the computer ok, but there's just something about the lack of natural feel to most plug ins. The only thing is, i can't just buy a console and test it out, it's like i either go for and hope to not be disappointed or deal with the computer.

decisions...decisions...

Brandon
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
I recently tried to mix "in the box" using Cubase SX... mainly because I was very curious to see what the differences were between that and my 8-buss...

The 8-buss won, hands-down........ not only that, but I've also noticed that even 2-track post-processing is not as effective using Sound Forge plug-ins as the results I get using my Masterlink.

Naturally, these are purely subjective observations -- but they are more than enough proof for me indicating that s/w mixing plugs have a long way to go to compete with analog summing.
Click to expand...

Hey BB, thanks for sharing the observation. Would love to hear some samples if you had any you'd be kind enough to share (?).

Like you mentioned in your earlier post about the Wackie summing, we may not all be using our gear optimally -- and that has to apply to software as well. Like are we "printing" our reverbs and other processor-intensive effects, or are we real-timing them? Are we summing 25+ tracks at once, or are we grouping/submixing as we go?

It just seems that with any type of gear, analog or digital, one of the most valuable things you gain with experience is knowlege of the limitations of what you're working with. And ultimately learning to work within or around those limitations.

I'd be really curious to know to just what extent these kinds of factors come in to play in the quality of our summing. Like how much stress are we putting on our processors when we digitally sum, and how can we lessen it? Again, I don't necessarily have any opinions either way (if you can believe it :D ) so I always welcome what other people might have to contribute to this knowlege pool -- which at the time seems to be rather shallow, for the most part.
 
I tried on 2 separate occasions - once a mix within Cubase, and once trying to do some clean-up on some 2-track mixes using Sound Forge.

And I didn't keep any of the the results--- it became clear very quickly that I wasn't getting the sound I wanted in both cases so I simply stopped trying at that point -- never completed either case. (The client's had long ago finished their projects, I was just revisiting them for my own comparisons.)

The plugs in Sound Forge simply don't work as well, and don't sound as good as even the modest outboard gear that I have.

And mixing in Cubase.... again, the plugs simply don't cut it.... and the overall sound after summing seemed to lack some presence or dynamic that I can get if I mix via my ubiquitous 8-buss!

But ya know - even if I had samples, that wouldn't do you much good... I think everyone really has to go through the process and decide for themselves what their own preference is. The comparison process itself is very enlightening with respect to "ear-training"!
 
Before I dive into console land for good, I wouldn't mind just kinda trying it out. I know most mail order places have return policies which I could take advantage of. I don't mean with an 8 buss or anything, but with something smaller just to give me an idea of what will happen with the sound. That way, I can just return it for the price of shipping.

Would a mixer like the Soundcraft m12 give me a good idea of what it would be like to mixdown through analog?

I guess a lot probably has a lot to do with the quality of the output converters, but I don't think i'm going to be getting 24 channels of Apogee anytime soon, so I want to see if my setup would help or hurt when going to analog.

Brandon
 
The problem with trying out a smaller mixer just to see how it affects the sound is that it will be totally different than if you go to a larger console. The way each console operates can be totally different based on the number of available busses, the way the aux sends and returns are configured, etc.

I used to use a Yamaha 24x4 mixer and learned how to run it the way it was designed. Then I moved over to a Mackie 32x8 and now I mix totally different than I used to because the I/O of the mixer is different and presents different options.

Just my .02.

Darryl.....
 
Source>Tmd4000(Flat) >Motu2408>Sonar>Tmd4000(whatever needed)>Wavelab>*.wav @ 24/44.1

What I mixed through and How prior to 1997 was a nightmare !!



Malcolm
 
for daw's you should check out:
http://www.3daudioinc.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=19

I do mix in the box, and have tried using a Souncraft SX just for kicks on the summing bus sound. Now this is only a stereo track, so it may not be much of a comparison to a "full mix". It did sound\
warmer in a sense, but it was was hard for me to discern the difference. After referencing with other systems, it does create more of a analog sound.

But it seems you would need to move to a large format consol, to really get any benefit, though some say the old yammies may be the ticket. It would be nice to mix outboard for that "sound" , but
all the maintenance and all, not to mention finding a good consol even if I had the $$ is outta hea.

I wish....
 
I track with Emu Paris system and mix through my TubeTech preamp to a 1/2in. Otari reel and back through my TubeTech into Paris for mastering.
I just started to mix this way and notice a big difference in the way the bass sounds "fuller and clearer". Overall I say it improved my mixes around 40%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top