Who still mixes with a console?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scott Baxendale
  • Start date Start date
RFR said:
With a screen I stare. With a console I listen. Big difference
Click to expand...
There's definitely something in that.
I always mixed in the DAW but very often I'd turn the screens off and just listen.

Some might think well what's the point, just don't look at it, or just pay attention to the music,
but it's not the same.
I'd recommend anyone who mixes ITB turn the screen off and just listen at least for the first and last listen of the session.
 
mixsit said:
In my cross from the mixer into the DAW I found quite quickly how 'simplifying staying -and doing everything in the danged Track View was (is' :>)
Still had the mixer, but wouldn't have wanted going back. Still served for tracking monitoring (band phones and mine etc. just fine..) The hands on 'utility there well earns its' keep.. yes!
Click to expand...
I stay mostly in the edit mode.
 
For me, the console makes things way easier. I usually EQ/compress on the way into ProTools for most things, so when it comes time to mix things, it pretty much sounds the way I want them to. It's more about editing and automation.

Plus, I use fewer plug-ins, and things sound better. I have a few outboard compressors (a pair of LA-2A, 1176, and a pair of 160As) and the 527s in my console.

Some plug-ins do things hardware can't or are way better (gates, for example). I see lots of YT videos from people matching hardware to plugins, I've yet to see the opposite - matching a plug-in to a piece of hardware.

YMMV
 
noah330 said:
For me, the console makes things way easier. I usually EQ/compress on the way into ProTools for most things, so when it comes time to mix things, it pretty much sounds the way I want them to. It's more about editing and automation.

Plus, I use fewer plug-ins, and things sound better. I have a few outboard compressors (a pair of LA-2A, 1176, and a pair of 160As) and the 527s in my console.

Some plug-ins do things hardware can't or are way better (gates, for example). I see lots of YT videos from people matching hardware to plugins, I've yet to see the opposite - matching a plug-in to a piece of hardware.

YMMV
Click to expand...
I use automation in Protools for some of the volume and panning on mixdown, but I also use the faders as well. When I am mixing I generally have stems automated for volume/pan but not as much on individual tracks where I tend to use the faders manually.
 
One thing I do when mixing is pace around the room. That not only gets my eyes off the screen, it averages out the room response at different locations. I check the bass in various places where I know how the room impacts the sound.
 
Scott Baxendale said:
I find mixing on a screen with a mouse and the constant going through screens, expanding and contracting while editing, etc exhausting, whereas I find mixing through a mixing console with hardware exhilarating. I’m curious if anyone else has this experience when mixing?
Click to expand...
I still mix with consoles or analog mixing boards of some sort. The computer is great sometimes.

 
Scott Baxendale said:
I find mixing on a screen with a mouse and the constant going through screens, expanding and contracting while editing, etc exhausting, whereas I find mixing through a mixing console with hardware exhilarating. I’m curious if anyone else has this experience when mixing?
Click to expand...
I like Consoles - when you have a big mix - 72 or more tracks - its really fun to get 4 people mixing and it’s enlightening to have people make mistakes that add to the mix.
However on my stuff - usually 48 tracks or less - I can whip together a Mix in the box in 15 minutes - and then do adjustments as I listen to the mix - one thing though when you do a Box Mix you have to have a complete concept of what you are trying to do - experimenting with a box mix is pretty tedious IME.
 
Papanate said:
I like Consoles - when you have a big mix - 72 or more tracks - its really fun to get 4 people mixing and it’s enlightening to have people make mistakes that add to the mix.
However on my stuff - usually 48 tracks or less - I can whip together a Mix in the box in 15 minutes - and then do adjustments as I listen to the mix - one thing though when you do a Box Mix you have to have a complete concept of what you are trying to do - experimenting with a box mix is pretty tedious IME.
Click to expand...
It’s funny because my console is an API The Box Console, so I’m always in one box or another…lol.
 
I was so pleased to move away from hardware to software, and I am like a pig in mud mixing on the screen. Mixing on a screen suits me very well.
 
It's a good question . As basic as my methods and technical understandings are my instincts have been to avoid or minimise visual interaction . I doubt anyone could describe the basic knobs on a tascam dpoo8ex recorder as a console but it keeps the focus away from grids /blocks and such .
 
Tracked and mixed on a console 95% of the time. I need to twist and turn knobs and feel how the outboard gear is responding to my commands. Also all the pretty lights glowing off of the console and outboard gear make it seem like your flying the 'Mother Ship' of creativity,... or something like that. You'll have to tear the console from my cold dead hands.

2 copy.webp
 
TapeRoll said:
Tracked and mixed on a console 95% of the time. I need to twist and turn knobs and feel how the outboard gear is responding to my commands. Also all the pretty lights glowing off of the console and outboard gear make it seem like your flying the 'Mother Ship' of creativity,... or something like that. You'll have to tear the console from my cold dead hands.

View attachment 147965
Click to expand...
Thats good for you - Mixers are tactile but not as practical if you have a large mix.
 
I don't use a console but I do use a controller. I have it set up so the pan controls, at a push of a button, control eq and comp parameters of fx that are automatically placed into a new track (also at a push of a button) in Reaper. I like to work the old analog way in the digital realm. The old Tascam US2400 Controller is awesome for me. With my Reaper templates/track templates all ready made, I rarely need to use the mouse to control much unless I'm using a specific plugin.

443698776_10164015478939569_1473865638269171302_n.webp
 
Last edited:
Papanate said:
Thats good for you - Mixers are tactile but not as practical if you have a large mix.
Click to expand...
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. I have up to 32 tracks with my Allen & Heath GSR-24M when using the digital card or 24 tracks with the analog card. In my opinion if you can't get the job done with 32 tracks then there may be a chance the direction of the song may be going somewhat overboard. However, because my console provides fantastic routing integration to a DAW through Firewire / ADAT(optical TOSLINK cable) there is the option to route signal to a DAW that lets' say is running Pro Tools Studio with an audio track count up to 500. So, theoretically you could track well over 32 tracks in protools then sub group them in Pro Tools and fly them back out to the console during the mix stage and have access to all that juicy analog outboard gear then send the stereo mix to that luscious sounding analog tape machine,... mmm,...yummy.

Having said all of that some of the best sounding music was recorded on 24 track 2 inch tape machines although I will admit during that classic era of analog tape machines there were many instances where two tape machines were synced together doubling the track count. I think the pre-planning stages with regards to precise instrumentation to be utilized on a track will reduce the number of unnecessary tracks during a session. Over doing it can sometimes ruin or take away from the root source of a songs inception,... more isn't always better. I'm perfectly content in the analog domain. Certain limitations will push one to work smarter to achieve the desired result.
GS-R24M routing options:

1. Allen & Heath GS-R24M Console Workflow Options.webp
2. Allen & Heath GS-R24M Console Workflow Options.webp
3. Allen & Heath GS-R24M Console Workflow Options.webp


Jeff Baxter on ‘outdated’ technology, December 1992:​

“We live in a world that is almost obsessed with planned obsolescence, bigger and better, and a relentless desire to get to the next plateau in the never-ending quest for perfection. Those of you who have home recording studios and must put at least some money away for food should tear your eyes away from the latest ads for new gear and stop drooling all over your new catalogs for a minute and think about this: just because a piece of gear is out of fashion doesn’t mean it’s lost its raison d’être. State of the art can be a crutch as well as a creative tool. Not having all the cool stuff can force you to push your creative boundaries past your limits. An old sound or effect used in a new way might make you write the next #1 record….the point is to use everything you have in as many different ways as you can and that there are no rules for the really creative.”​

Tom Coster
“No matter how much gear you have, no matter how expensive or inexpensive it is, a really wonderful project can come out of a home studio with the availability of today’s technology. But what it takes more than anything is the individual’s prowess to listen and to hear things. Because no matter how wonderful your equipment is, it’s only as good as you are a producer and an engineer.” —April 1993.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top