Who still mixes with a console?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scott Baxendale
  • Start date Start date
RFR said:
A fantastic piece of work that involved creative songwriting, arranging, recording and mixing is Jimi Hendrix’s “Electric Ladyland”.

To my knowledge that was all done on a 16 track machine.

Yes, one may wonder what he could have done with some of today’s modern gear….
But that’s speculative and pointless. He’s dead (sadly). For all we know, he could have burned out and become a homeless crack head had he lived.
What we do know is what he did. We have physical evidence of the fruits of his artistic labors.

The key here is what the artist ‘did’. The artist is always the one responsible for the creation. And Electric Ladyland is a fine example of a masterpiece that till this day sounds phenomenal.

It always comes down to the artist.

And there are many other examples of monumental albums done with limited gear.
Click to expand...
Yes you are correct,... it was the Scully 288 2 inch 16 track tape machine and one of only two that existed in North America at the time. I think Engineer Eddie Kramer also deserves much of the credit for the innovative sounds on Electric Ladyland. He really pushed the creative aspect of recording for that 1968 time period.
Scully 288 16 Track.webp
 
RFR said:
A fantastic piece of work that involved creative songwriting, arranging, recording and mixing is Jimi Hendrix’s “Electric Ladyland”.

To my knowledge that was all done on a 16 track machine.

Yes, one may wonder what he could have done with some of today’s modern gear….
But that’s speculative and pointless. He’s dead (sadly). For all we know, he could have burned out and become a homeless crack head had he lived.
What we do know is what he did. We have physical evidence of the fruits of his artistic labors.

The key here is what the artist ‘did’. The artist is always the one responsible for the creation. And Electric Ladyland is a fine example of a masterpiece that till this day sounds phenomenal.

It always comes down to the artist.

And there are many other examples of monumental albums done with limited gear.
Click to expand...
At the time his gear was considered relatively unlimited. It’s all about capturing a performance. In the old days they performed but today it’s often a computer engineer crafting a performance one note or one beat at a time.
 
TapeRoll said:
I would argue that 24 tracks is plenty to get the job done,... hell, the Beatles only had 4 to 8 when they started and used the bounce method to increase track count for a song and look at what they had accomplished.
Click to expand...
I’m not nearly as talented as the Beatles - I need 56 tracks to get things done - the Beatles probably could do it with 8 tracks.
 
Scott Baxendale said:
They are more practical for a large mix than a keyboard and mouse is. I use the console with stereo stems on a large mix.
Click to expand...
How do you stems unless you have a Giant console and a ton of Busses? I can easily get 16 buss’ stem mix on my comp - but that isn’t the point - the pooint is for me a Computer is much easier to mix on.
 
Papanate said:
How do you stems unless you have a Giant console and a ton of Busses? I can easily get 16 buss’ stem mix on my comp - but that isn’t the point - the pooint is for me a Computer is much easier to mix on.
Click to expand...
I have 16 return channels on my API split console. In the DAW I create 8 stereo stems for mixdown if I’m running a lot of tracks, then mix those out through the console and then back into the DAW. It’s really simple. This gives me the best of both worlds. I can use automation in the DAW, but I generally prefer to leave a lot of the level adjustments during the mix to come from working the faders.

If the computer is easier for you to mix on then a console is probably something you don’t really need. A lot of younger folks never really used a console but us older guys grew up on this gear and it still functions for us extremely well.

For me mixing three hours on a keyboard and a mouse is totally exhausting whereas three hours of mixing through a console with outboard hardware just energizes me and I lose track of time. For me it helps to stimulate my creative juices. It’s also a lot more straightforward. The last time I had to update things in my console….…..like never.
 
I also try to record live rhythm tracks as often as possible. This is probably my main reason to use a console. I can setup and start tracking a full rhythm section (Guitar, bass, drums, keys, scratch vocals, etc) live to get a good solid take. Then build the song from there. This is much easier, faster and usually much better than building up a song track by track. The way my studio is setup the first 8 tracks are dedicated to drums and the other 8 to everything else. My old setup was a Soundcraft Ghost 24/24 I/o setup. My newer setup is only 16/16 but the sound and headroom are much better.

IMG_4816.webp
 
1st 8 channels are dedicated to drums. 9 to 16 is every thing else. Last 4 channels are for stereo effects returns or 4 mono returns.

And with my A&H ice16 I can go to tape and daw at the same time. Edit: pic is upside down sorry. Not sure how to fix it.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1143.webp
    IMG_1143.webp
    590.5 KB · Views: 37
Last edited:
Scott Baxendale said:
I also try to record live rhythm tracks as often as possible. This is probably my main reason to use a console. I can setup and start tracking a full rhythm section (Guitar, bass, drums, keys, scratch vocals, etc) live to get a good solid take. Then build the song from there. This is much easier, faster and usually much better than building up a song track by track. The way my studio is setup the first 8 tracks are dedicated to drums and the other 8 to everything else. My old setup was a Soundcraft Ghost 24/24 I/o setup. My newer setup is only 16/16 but the sound and headroom are much better.

View attachment 148001
Click to expand...
VERY nice hardware gear.?
 
TapeRoll said:
VERY nice hardware gear.?
Click to expand...
Thanks, you can’t see the urei 1176 in the bottom right rack behind all the crap…lol
Before I got the box I had a bunch of API and other preamps through a Soundcraft ghost. After I got the box I built the two side car units so that I could run 16 I/O sort of a “poor man’s” 1608, although it still wasn’t cheap. Actually it was about 1/2 price of the 1608 and I can make it work. I really need to pare it way down since I’m not really tracking bands currently.
 
Last edited:
Scott Baxendale said:
Thanks, you can’t see the urei 1176 in the bottom right rack behind all the crap…lol
Before I got the box I had a bunch of API and other preamps through a Soundcraft ghost. After I got the box I built the two side car units so that I could run 16 I/O sort of a “poor man’s” 1608, although it still wasn’t cheap. Actually it was about 1/2 price of the 1608 and I can make it work. I really need to pair it way down since I’m not really tracking bands currently.
Click to expand...
I was going to ask where you bought the side car units,... but now I'll just say that is some fine carpentry work.
 
Lately in music instrument shops and various forums
It is not difficult to find people, mostly guys with enhanced rigs of hardware synths also modular,
drum machines, samplers. romplers, etc..
that talk about the need to have a rackmount analog mixer, bankrupt free with good sound quality,
which would almost entirely meet their needs like with the following features:

16 inline channels (total 32ch inputs "A & B" on each ch )
with 3 band semi parametric eq, 4+2 aux sends
(aux 1-2 fixed with pre-post fader switch, aux 3-4 post fader switchable to aux 5-6 and to input " B" as well)

eq, aux sends, and volume+panpot of the input " B " of each ch with double pots as well,
for keep the dimensions sufficiently contained,

switchable on-off insert on each channel and L-R master bus for outboard routings,
direct out for multi channel recording with ADA interface, or analog tape reels as well,

control room section that can handle 2 monitors set,
and 2 more external inputs in addition to the main bus mix,
headphones and talkback options,

just to give an idea about it could be like a Mackie VLZ4-16ch
with double input on each ch, double pots and features etc.. above described
rack mount dimens to place in the middle of the synths rig,

allowing to put the hands directly and quickly on the mixer functions
without having to use an "alienating" mouse, and software pages scroll...,

several guys highlighted the need of the expandable option
like the one of the old API summ rack modules cascade
which practically connect in cascade the aux lines and the L-R master tus,

to allow to have up to 64 channels with 2 units in cascade,

a similar system already was produced by Mackie in the 90' years,
it is the model LM3204,
of which many owners seem to have had no satisfactory "experiences",
it is also true that many years have passed since that time...,
and Mackie has made considerable progress...,
In the end a rack mount mixer with the above features
would only be that a combination of models and technology
that they have already produced,
much less time-consuming and expensive than designing and producing one from scratch,

like a combination of the old inline 8 bus model with actual VLZ4
which would result in a model as described above,
at an affordable price not much higher than the current 16ch VLZ4,

someone (also not Mackie) will make one like this ?
 
Hmrc said:
Lately in music instrument shops and various forums
It is not difficult to find people, mostly guys with enhanced rigs of hardware synths also modular,
drum machines, samplers. romplers, etc..
that talk about the need to have a rackmount analog mixer, bankrupt free with good sound quality,
which would almost entirely meet their needs like with the following features:
Click to expand...
In college (Berklee), I was a dual major - MP&E and Music Synthesis (now something like Music Technology). The LM3204 was in the better labs (L1, L2, etc.), and it sounded fine, and by that, I mean it didn't sound like anything. IIRC, these were made in the USA, and at the time, Mackie was a reasonably new company coming out with some revolutionary products (8 buss, Ultramix, etc.).

If I needed a line mixer, that would be the one that I would look for. Otari made a fabulous line mixer, but I've only seen a couple pop up over the last ten or twenty years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top