Whats the point with big consoles?

[LemonTree]

Well basically I agree with your premise that DAWs aren't there YET, but they should be. Sure, maybe plugs need better algorithms. That will come in time, how long I don't know. The other ergonomic stuff can and should be there now, we just have to demand it.

Anyway, back to EQ: Here's how you do that on a graph: it kind of looks like a graphic EQ, except it really works as a para. You have a flat line to start with, then you click a point on the line, and drag it up and down to cut/boost, and left or right to change the frequency. I suppose there are different ways to change Q, the mouse wheel would work for me. The curve visually changes as you move the point. So you click, drag up, drag back and forth to find the frequency, drag down to cut, and rotate the wheel to change Q, all on one click and one mouse operation. You can add as many points as the plug supports, all on the same curve.

Sadly my archaic software doesn't do this, but I know that some newer ones do have similar functionality, and I have photo software that works exactly like that for contrast curves, and it's very effective.

I also think dynamic control should be done directly on each track's wave, just click on the wave to set threshold, another click to set the max point, the software figures out the ratio based on that, then gives you a slope to drag & drop attack/release. You could even set expansion/gates the same way, without even telling the software in advance--for expansion, just set the second point below the first, and the software knows you want expansion rather than compression. I've seen stuff like this, but not directly on the wave.

Hmm, what about panning? How about a little soundstage, where you just click on where you want that track and the software assigns the pan and maybe even delay. It would be really cool to incorporate a reverb plug into that, where you also select the room and position of the listener, and the plug calculates reverb discretely for each instrument at the listener's position. Hmmm, that would take some CPU time

Maybe the DAW interface just looks like an auditorium, with a little musician icon at each track position, and a little meter next to each musician, with the master bus meters next to the listener. Roll your mouse over a musician, and that track's controls pop up. Add some automation by making the musicians walk around, or the listener walk around the band. Maybe the DAW can even calculate the Doppler shift

I really think we've only scratched the surface of DAWs thus far.

you've never used a large frame recording console, have you?

 

[mshilarious]

you've never used a large frame recording console, have you?

No, I've only used big boards for live sound, where speed on faders is several hundred times more critical than in a studio.

But I have no fear of analog--right now, I have three recording setups, the mixer-free DAW studio, a portable HD24 that uses a mixer front-end, which is analogous to a large console, but lacks several of the more helpful features of the large console. On the plus side, it's rackmountable.

Oh yes, #3 the trusty ol' Portastudio.

So, pray tell, what feature of large consoles will prevent any of the innovations I dream about? Do they have some magical power over the future?

 

[EleKtriKaz]

If you are going to call yourself a professional engineer, you should be able to step up to any audio system, and make it work within a reasonable time frame.

I understand what you're saying here, but I think there are some producers/engineers out there that could certainly be called "professional" that would disagree. Some great records have been made in the age of digital without ever smelling an SSL or a tape machine.

If you get "professional" results, on whatever system you use, then you're a professional engineer. If you make your living recording on digital with no console, creating widely distributed commercial releases on digital with no console, then I think you're doing alright.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there's no place for tape or an SSL or a Neve. That stuff sounds incredible, and I would love to work on gear like that some day, but I'd like to think it's possible for me to become a professional engineer/whatever without having worked on that equipment.

 

[xstatic]

There is no "prerequisite" in gear for being succesful or doing good work. But, I do agree to an extent that in order to be a "professional engineer" you should be able to work in an array of different situations. There are certainly great albums that have been done completely on DAWS, and completely without them as well. However, the great engineers all know how to work on differnet systems. In fact in order to be an "in demand" engineer your eally have to know how to work on a large format console. You actually don't have to know much about Pro Tools at all since most all of the big studios have Pro Tools engineers on hand. It is certainly helpful to be fluent in Pro Tools though.

As for large format console's having "some magical power over the future". They certainly don't have that. The thing is, before a DAW can truly feel and act like a large format console, it would have to be the size of a large format console. Thats what the Digidesign Icon has done. They recognized that people wanted more than what a Pro Control or a cheesy Control 24 could do for them. Thats why the Icon is being installed in so many places right now. Thats why Euphonix consoles were popular for a bit, thats why SSL added HD cards to their new consoles. They give you a little taste of both worlds.

But there is still one thing that will always seperate the big consoles from the DAW's. Console's DO sound instead of just controlling it. They have a sound of their own that is a desirable sound, where nowadays everyone is trying to make a DAW NOT sound like a DAW.

I run a por audio company and I can tell you first hand. There is a HUGE difference between running a large console on a PA and running a large console in a studio. Often times the studio consoles will have moving faders, a completely differnt type of VCA System and automation, 24 to 48 busses, often floating busses, two inputs or more per channel that are used simultaneously, and often many more options on board as well as the quick and easy ability to integrate with ungodly amounts of outboard. They really something more than just an impressive piece to stare at. I can actually re-route my inputs and outputs much more intuitively and quicker than you can on a DAW due to having floating subgroups and a slick inbuilt automation and routing system. In fact, a large format console is probably quicker to move around on than a DAW setup no matter how many keyboard shortcuts you have. Remeber, part of recording is not just changing a setting or two, but also routing the input and the output which means in a DAW setup a rack full of outboard preamps somewhere, dealing with latencies, clocking etc.... They each have their advantages and disadvantages which is why the Big Boys are almost all running a combination of Large Console, analog tape, good convertors and a DAW of some sort all together.

 

[mixmkr]

[*]High end analog has a better signal to noise ratio than most digital.

That is not correct.

 

[LRosario]

Simply put:

Routing options
Flexiblity increases exponentially
The electronics and automation aspects


Probably most important, you have preamps and circutry in large format consoles that blow almost any stand alone gear out of the water

 

[Light]

That is not correct.

Yes, in fact, it is.


I am not talking about a Mackie here, or any of that shit. I am talking about high end gear.

High end analog gear is to the point where it is running at or near the theoretical max signal to noise ratio, about 128 dB or so (I can never remember the exact number), at which point you can not get any better because the noise is being caused by the uncertainty principle (I love it when quantum mechanics enters into my day to day life, don't you).

Like I said, Analog audio is a quite mature technology. The other thing is, with digital, the signal-to-noise ratio is a function of the word length. There is no way to improve 16 bit beyond 96 dB, and it is not necessarily even that good, depending on the quality of the converters. And of course, there is no way you can completely control the quality of the converters, unless no one but you is ever going to listen to the recording (or at least, I know that I don't every insist that everyone who buys an album go out and spend a couple thousand on some Apogee converters).

16 bit analog, for instance, runs at a 96 dB. 24 bit digital is something like 108 dB (again, I can never remember the exact number, but 16 bit is 96dB).

Hell, I have an analog chorus pedal by TC Electronic which has 100 dB signal-to-noise, only cost me 300 bucks.

 

[Rokket]

Yes, in fact, it is.


I am not talking about a Mackie here, or any of that shit. I am talking about high end gear.

High end analog gear is to the point where it is running at or near the theoretical max signal to noise ratio, about 128 dB or so (I can never remember the exact number), at which point you can not get any better because the noise is being caused by the uncertainty principle (I love it when quantum mechanics enters into my day to day life, don't you).

Like I said, Analog audio is a quite mature technology. The other thing is, with digital, the signal-to-noise ratio is a function of the word length. There is no way to improve 16 bit beyond 96 dB, and it is not necessarily even that good, depending on the quality of the converters. And of course, there is no way you can completely control the quality of the converters, unless no one but you is ever going to listen to the recording (or at least, I know that I don't every insist that everyone who buys an album go out and spend a couple thousand on some Apogee converters).

16 bit analog, for instance, runs at a 96 dB. 24 bit digital is something like 108 dB (again, I can never remember the exact number, but 16 bit is 96dB).

Hell, I have an analog chorus pedal by TC Electronic which has 100 dB signal-to-noise, only cost me 300 bucks.

And more headroom, no?

 

[Light]

And more headroom, no?

Well, that goes hand in hand with the signal-to-noise ratio.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[mixmkr]

Yes, in fact, it is.


I am not talking about a Mackie here, or any of that shit. I am talking about high end gear.

when I first read the statement, I was thinking recording devices, and not necessarily other analog hardware, in which you are probably right. For some reason, when I think S/N, I think tape hiss, recorder electronics, etc...

My error, I suppose, since this thread IS about consoles

 

[chessrock]

As for large format console's having "some magical power over the future". They certainly don't have that. The thing is, before a DAW can truly feel and act like a large format console, it would have to be the size of a large format console. Thats what the Digidesign Icon has done. They recognized that people wanted more than what a Pro Control or a cheesy Control 24 could do for them. Thats why the Icon is being installed in so many places right now. Thats why Euphonix consoles were popular for a bit, thats why SSL added HD cards to their new consoles. They give you a little taste of both worlds.

But there is still one thing that will always seperate the big consoles from the DAW's. Console's DO sound instead of just controlling it. They have a sound of their own that is a desirable sound, where nowadays everyone is trying to make a DAW NOT sound like a DAW.

And to add to that point .. the ICON is a DAW. If you really want to get technical, it's a control surface. Like a gigantic, highly-complex and expensive mouse.

You can do the exact same things with any other control surface, although it would take you a great deal more time and effort to do certain things, and the workflow wouldn't be as conducive or agreeable to certain people in certain industries. Nor would it be as impressive from a purely aesthetic standpoint.

 

[foreverain4]

it all ends up digital anyway. CD's ARE digital, arent they?

 

[xstatic]

Yes it does end up digital somewhere. However, that really has nothing to do with large format analog consoles or why the big boys use them or don't use them. Most big engineers prefer to stay analog as long and as much as possible. The movie industry however has really taken to the whole digital approach. For the way that they work and what they need it really is a better solution. For music albums though analog is still king. Digital has certainly found a niche however in mid to low priced studios and as a tool in large studios.

The bottome line is that it is the Engineer and the musicians that really are responsible for how an album turns out regardless of whether a large format console was or was not used. Musicians tend to choose real amps over digital representations just like engineers tend to choose real consoles instead of toy remotes. Even the really nice digital consoles utilize a lot of nice analog circuits in them. The new SSL DAW remote (AWS 9000?) has real preamps and real EQ's in it as well as real analog summing, but has a nicely integrated inbuilt communication with most standard DAW applications. To me, that is where the future is really heading. I think that little SSL is a real sign of what is to come and I for one am glad for it. I love my big D&R console. I love having 94 full throw P&G faders in it, 92 channels of real EQ, 12 real auxes, 24 real busses etc... The summing and depth sounds amazing, the SN specs are incredible and the whole thing just feels awesome to run. It becomes a part of my workflow that is creative. I would however love it if it had some features like moving faders that followed Nuendo or Cubase's fader moves. I would love it if I could assign saome of the auxes to control sends inside my DAW, and I would love if my console assignments followed or controlled my routing assignments etc... My bet is in the next few years we are going to see a whole lot more consoles like that. Analog front end, analog feel, digital flexibility.

 

[Light]

when I first read the statement, I was thinking recording devices, and not necessarily other analog hardware, in which you are probably right. For some reason, when I think S/N, I think tape hiss, recorder electronics, etc...

My error, I suppose, since this thread IS about consoles

Even with tape, 2" 24 at 30 ips beats the shit out of 16 bit digital, even without SR.

The problem is so many people on a board like this one have little to no experience with truly high end analog audio. It is a whole different world than anything Tascam has ever made, really.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[Raw-Tracks]

Even with tape, 2" 24 at 30 ips beats the shit out of 16 bit digital, even without SR.

No, 2" 24 track without any noise reduction will get you about 70dB or so of signal to nosie ratio. Certainly 16 bit digital is better than that. I am not sure what Dolby would increase the s/n ratio to, as I do not use Dolby.

That said, I would still take 2" over 16 bit for most projects. It also depends on what 16bit digital we're talking about. Some sounds OK, some sounds absolutely horrible.