How many Platinum Engineers prefer to mix ITB

[Chris Kress]

Just Curious, How many gold or platinum engineers prefer to mix In-The-Box. I am not talking about an assistant or editing credit, or the guy who cut a stray overdub. I am talking about chief engineer, running the show... If you want, post your credit and DAW..

[amishsixstringe]

Charles Dye....ProTools


Neil

[drBill]

Well....I do very few records these days - mostly film work, so not a lot of gold and/or platinum, but I've got grammy and academy award winning projects that I've tracked/mixed. I only mix ITB now unless a client demands otherwise. I've got a couple of decades + of experience in the biz.

Since you asked, here's my credits: http://www.mindseyeprod.com/credits.html

I should specify - PT HD3 ITB. Not a cheap native solution. I've got to have the horsepower and compatibillity that a big Digi system provides, along with LOTS of top end plug-ins for me to be comfortable ITB. I have a 120 input automated D&R OrionX, and a competent range of outboard gear, but the console never has the automation booted up anymore. Why?

Because I'm often working by mysellf, I'll have client changes days later, and most importantly, I don't have $200k of outboard. The creative flow that ITB offers outweighs the slight sonic benefit of doing it the old fashioned way. I do not have time on my projects to try out 5 different mics or a half dozen different mic pre's. I'm working here! Sessions have to move forward quickly.

I think the reason you hear so much about "analog this" and "analog that" these days is threefold. One, inexperienced engineers on prosumer equipment who don't know how to mix/engineer (this is the main reason). Second, experienced engineers who don't know how or don't want to adapt to new technology. And third, super-experienced engineers who need the extra 1-2% quality difference that mixing in their prefered way affords them - and they have the experience/reputation to demand what they want - and they want analog/tape with huge amounts of outboard.

I recently mixed a project and decided to do a test. All "mixiing" took place ITB, but I monitored and summed thru the console. I mixed with stems bussed out of my 192's as follows:
1/2 - Strings
3/4 - WW
5/6 - Brass
7-8 - Orchestral Percussion
9/10 - Keyboards
11/12 - Bass (& low end synths)
13/14 - Drums
15/16 - Lead stuff

I mixed with the "summing" being accomplished thru the Orion with effects (TL Space and Revibe) adding verb ITB. Also delays, EQ, chorusing, parallel compression, etc. ITB. Exported out to the Orion for summing. I after mixing a couple songs, I carefully printed 3 stems. One I did a bounce to disc in PT. The second I recorded via internal busses to a stereo track in PT. The third I took the analog busses of the Orion, combined thru the Orion's mix bus and back into a stereo track in PT.

Keeping in mind that as I mixed, I was monitoring thru the console. My conclusions were as follows. Between the Digi "bounce" and Digi bussed tracks, I could hear a very, very minute difference with the "bounced" tracks loosing out. But it was very minimal. OK, that left the decision between internally bussed/recorded tracks and the analog summed tracks. The analog tracks rounded off some of the transients and possibly made things just a teeny tiny bit smoother, but it was about a 50/50 toss up. Sometimes I prefered the analog summing - sometimes I prefered the digital. (The project was huge rhythm section with orchestra Olympic style over the top rock music with orch....) My conclusions were that I decided to stay ITB out of convenience and the fact that 50% of the time I prefered it.

Tchad Blake perhaps said it best in his GS when he said: "Music is changing, I'm changing, and I don't want to make the same sounds forever. What better time to change up."

There are compromises with any setup. ITB has the best set of advantages with the least amount of compromises for the way I work. Perhaps not for the next guy, but for me.

Cheers,

Bill

[Kingtone]

Great post Bill
i like how you added your subjectivity rather than stating how it 'IS'... you stated what you thought and what YOU felt about it. is good to see.

[loaf]

119

[Auslander]

I've been using PT since it first came out as Sound Tools, so it's really just been a matter of time for me to fully disappear into it.

My background is analogue old-school, from the days of 8, 16 and 24 track at Trident in London.

These days I do 90% of my tracking directly into PT, the rest might have an analogue tape stage first, depending on the sound we're going for. For the input chain I'm usually in SSL/Neve rooms anyway, so it can vary, but it's nice and fat either way.

I'm starting to make the transition to doing mixing ITB now. I've long done all my automation in there, but keeping everything split out through either SSLs (I prefer 4000 E's) or Neves for the summing/stems aspect.

I'm about to make the decision on which summing approach to take, but I anticipate moving into the box for everything in the coming weeks.

Credits: grammy winner, 42 golds and platinums for production/engineering/mixing - various types of music from punk to pop to rock/metal to jazz, jazz fusion and beyond.

[beyarecords]

Phil Tan.....32 fader Icon/Pro Tools

[Marineville]

I am about to make the leap to a hybrid system; Apogee, Dangerous, no desk but some outboard (lexicon, Focusrite). As a composer working in both TV and Film it's good to hear that people like Bill are working ITB successfully.

Quite looking forward to The Big Shake Up actually.

Credentials: several Gold and Platinum records, a Grammy nomination and multiple TV and radio commercial awards (although none for engineering!).

[drBill]

I guess what I'd like to know from this thread is how many experienced mixers prefer to mix ITB (or traditional - your choice) because of the CREATIVE options it gives them. That's what it's all about for me. If I can get the creative thing happening, I'll live with the 1-2% reduction in sound quality. And for you personally - do those creative options edge out perhaps a slightly superior traditional mix on the console? For me, there's no question. Like I said earlier, without huge amounts of outboard like cosmos, I couldn't do what I do out of the box. (80+ automated tracks, automation of EQ, delays, etc., multiple instantiations of plugins vs one or two outboard boxes of the same variety, etc.)

[Jules]

Originally Posted by Chris Kress

Just Curious, How many gold or platinum engineers prefer to mix In-The-Box.

A growing number...

Mike Shipley
George Massenburg
Tchad Blake

To name a few,

If you are really interested, spend some time searching around this forum and elsewhere out on the internet. I can't personally roll out a list of artists and albums people have done ITB. It's a growing trend and fairly new so the info on what was mixed ITB and what wasn't isn't going to jump out of the trees right into your lap - you will have to spend some time researching into it....

[RCM - Ronan]

Originally Posted by drBill

I think the reason you hear so much about "analog this" and "analog that" these days is threefold. One, inexperienced engineers on prosumer equipment who don't know how to mix/engineer (this is the main reason). Second, experienced engineers who don't know how or don't want to adapt to new technology.

Ouch!!!

Pro Tools user since version 1.0, mix exclusively OTB.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by rcm

Ouch!!!

Pro Tools user since version 1.0, mix exclusively OTB.

Ronan, don't ouch dude! . I'd say you're one of the third type in my post:

"And third, super-experienced engineers who need the extra 1-2% quality difference that mixing in their prefered way affords them - and they have the experience/reputation to demand what they want...."

It's all good!

bp

[Traxx]

Originally Posted by drBill

Well....I do very few records these days - mostly film work, so not a lot of gold and/or platinum, but I've got grammy and academy award winning projects that I've tracked/mixed. I only mix ITB now unless a client demands otherwise. I've got a couple of decades + of experience in the biz.

Since you asked, here's my credits: M I N D S E Y E |credits

I should specify - PT HD3 ITB. Not a cheap native solution. I've got to have the horsepower and compatibillity that a big Digi system provides, along with LOTS of top end plug-ins for me to be comfortable ITB. I have a 120 input automated D&R OrionX, and a competent range of outboard gear, but the console never has the automation booted up anymore. Why?

Because I'm often working by mysellf, I'll have client changes days later, and most importantly, I don't have $200k of outboard. The creative flow that ITB offers outweighs the slight sonic benefit of doing it the old fashioned way. I do not have time on my projects to try out 5 different mics or a half dozen different mic pre's. I'm working here! Sessions have to move forward quickly.

I think the reason you hear so much about "analog this" and "analog that" these days is threefold. One, inexperienced engineers on prosumer equipment who don't know how to mix/engineer (this is the main reason). Second, experienced engineers who don't know how or don't want to adapt to new technology. And third, super-experienced engineers who need the extra 1-2% quality difference that mixing in their prefered way affords them - and they have the experience/reputation to demand what they want - and they want analog/tape with huge amounts of outboard.

I recently mixed a project and decided to do a test. All "mixiing" took place ITB, but I monitored and summed thru the console. I mixed with stems bussed out of my 192's as follows:
1/2 - Strings
3/4 - WW
5/6 - Brass
7-8 - Orchestral Percussion
9/10 - Keyboards
11/12 - Bass (& low end synths)
13/14 - Drums
15/16 - Lead stuff

I mixed with the "summing" being accomplished thru the Orion with effects (TL Space and Revibe) adding verb ITB. Also delays, EQ, chorusing, parallel compression, etc. ITB. Exported out to the Orion for summing. I after mixing a couple songs, I carefully printed 3 stems. One I did a bounce to disc in PT. The second I recorded via internal busses to a stereo track in PT. The third I took the analog busses of the Orion, combined thru the Orion's mix bus and back into a stereo track in PT.

Keeping in mind that as I mixed, I was monitoring thru the console. My conclusions were as follows. Between the Digi "bounce" and Digi bussed tracks, I could hear a very, very minute difference with the "bounced" tracks loosing out. But it was very minimal. OK, that left the decision between internally bussed/recorded tracks and the analog summed tracks. The analog tracks rounded off some of the transients and possibly made things just a teeny tiny bit smoother, but it was about a 50/50 toss up. Sometimes I prefered the analog summing - sometimes I prefered the digital. (The project was huge rhythm section with orchestra Olympic style over the top rock music with orch....) My conclusions were that I decided to stay ITB out of convenience and the fact that 50% of the time I prefered it.

Tchad Blake perhaps said it best in his GS when he said: "Music is changing, I'm changing, and I don't want to make the same sounds forever. What better time to change up."

There are compromises with any setup. ITB has the best set of advantages with the least amount of compromises for the way I work. Perhaps not for the next guy, but for me.

Cheers,

Bill

That was prolly one of the best, honest and insightful response's i've seen on gearslutz. Very well put..And as I always tell ppl, there's no set way to record or create music. Everybody has their way of doing things. I personally think there is nothing wrong with mixing totally itb. Plugin's are really getting good...I don't have any grammy, platinum or gold records under my belt but I still thought i'd throw in my two cents fwiw..

[macleodgrant]

i think while some people are learning, they think of things they can do or buy to get better quality. i think it's at this point that alot ot people start asking about recording analog and using outboard gear cos they think it will make their recordings better. the fact is that there are more than enough great engineers who are doing everything ITB and succeeding and that's down to experience.

i've begun to learn that i just need to keep working at it ITB and eventually i'll get there. primary to getting good mixes though we need excellent quality recordings, good monitoring, good room acoustics, a solid understanding of gain staging and excellent quality plugins of which there is no shortage.
i've recently invested in the sony bundle, gold bundle and duy everpack & duy tape and other. i now feel that armed with those and logic that i should be able to get professional CD quality mixes out of that and if it's not happening then it's something i'm doing wrong and not the technology

[Quanah]

Originally Posted by Auslander

Credits: grammy winner, 42 golds and platinums for production/engineering/mixing - various types of music from punk to pop to rock/metal to jazz, jazz fusion and beyond.

(forgive the quick OT-just want to give a public shout out to Neil)

Amongst that broad discography resides Queensryches' Rage for Order... an album that IMO, 21 years since its release, still sounds like nothing that came before or after it.

I have much respect for you Mr. Kernon ! Great to see you posting here!

-Q

[Kenny Gioia]

"Prefer" is kind of a vague term.

There are a lot of things that go into deciding what way you will mix.

It's not all about sonics. If it were, I'm not sure that anyone would mix ITB.

Why? I'm not sure that anyone thinks mixing ITB just plain "sounds" better.

I'm sure some do. But there are other factors.

I'll give you an example.

Perfect scenario:

You're about to mix a record. Your assistant puts the tracks on each of a:

1. Neve 8068
2. SSL G or J
3. API or Insert other great console here.
4. In The Box

You listen to the song and decide your medium. It's rarely done this way but it would be optimal.

Unfortunately you have to maintain and provide large amounts of electricity to all but the In The Box Situation.

The In The Box method is the cheapest and it's the quickest to recall. I mixed a major release earlier this year that could never have been mixed on a real analog console. We recalled mixes no less than 16 times per song. Way too much automation to consider using any other method than ITB. I did use a summing box though.

So I think the original question is in regard to sonic quality and I don't know that that is what has motivated many to switch.

Honestly I think you can make great mixes ITB. No question. And you shouldn't get lost in the "My mixes suck because I'm stuck in the box" mentality. It's not true.

[Chris Kress]

Originally Posted by Jules

A growing number...

Mike Shipley
George Massenburg
Tchad Blake

To name a few,

If you are really interested, spend some time searching around this forum and elsewhere out on the internet. I can't personally roll out a list of artists and albums people have done ITB. It's a growing trend and fairly new so the info on what was mixed ITB and what wasn't isn't going to jump out of the trees right into your lap - you will have to spend some time researching into it....

I think the preference of the mixer may not be indicated by the research you recommend. Many people who mix in the box do so for the purpose of a practical recall, and the sound may be tolerable but not preferred.. The key word is "prefer".

[C Heat]

Originally Posted by loaf

119

Very, very funny. Loved it

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Chris Kress

I think the preference of the mixer may not be indicated by the research you recommend. Many people who mix in the box do so for the purpose of a practical recall, and the sound may be tolerable but not preferred.. The key word is "prefer".

Remember people said the same about SSL's back in the day.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Remember people said the same about SSL's back in the day.

That is absolutely true. Now SSL's seem to be the holy grail. I too remember when API's or Neves were prefered and people only went to SSL's top mix because of the automation.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by drBill

That is absolutely true. Now SSL's seem to be the holy grail. I too remember when API's or Neves were prefered and people only went to SSL's top mix because of the automation.

Its one of the reasons i never disregard anyone's love for mixing in PTools with an Icon.

I fought against the prejudices for years the whole evil of the "SSL sound" or lack their off.

I have to admit i am one of those people that mixes in PTools more for the recall & automation than the sound but PTools is not supposed to have a sound to begin with. Its the whole blank slate idea.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by drBill

That is absolutely true. Now SSL's seem to be the holy grail. I too remember when API's or Neves were prefered and people only went to SSL's top mix because of the automation.

i also think that, in the time since they were first commissioned, guys have learned to wring the most out of ssl's while avoiding their pitfalls as much as possible. i don't know anyone who tracks with their pre's, and ssl guys always seem to know how to find that sweet spot in the desk right before it folds. also, the ssl's i've heard that sounded decent to me were all heavily modded, usually to clean up the master section.

are ssl's really the holy grail? that'd make me sad. i do have a fondness for the sound of the 4000 though.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by u b k

i do have a fondness for the sound of the 4000 though.

This alone is a big statement in itself.

10-15 years ago this would be considered heresy.

[Curve Dominant]

This album hasn't gone platinum yet, but it was recorded and mixed entirely ITB...

http://www.citypaper.net/articles/20...0/music3.shtml

Audio samples are on the Curve website.

-Eric Vincent @ Studio Curve Dominant

[bforest4]

The newer SSL's like the J,K, AWS, and Duality have improved sonic depth, clarity, and imaging over the older 4000 series(xcept for better overload characteristics on the older SSL's). I also remember when older Neve's and API's were considered way better sounding, and I still think they are better than the older SSL's.

I think mixing in the box, but summing with an analog line mixer and a couple of choice pieces of outboard gear(especially on the mix buss) gives you the best of both worlds. You get almost instant total recall and still have some analog flavor and vibe. I think many pros are doing this kind of hybrid mixing.

I wish SSL, Neve, Manley, Chandler, API would come out with Instant Automatic Total Recall on their existing analog rack gear, using some kind of digital knobs for control like the Procontrol, Euphonix CS2000, Nord Lead 3, or the Summit Neve designed EQ box from many years ago that never took off. The analog boxes should be controllable from a TDM/or RTAS plugin and the box itself and instantly reset when your session is recalled(unlike the SSL recall where you have to physically move each knob to the right spot.)

[drBill]

Originally Posted by Traxx

That was prolly one of the best, honest and insightful response's i've seen on gearslutz.

Thanks to Kingtone and Traxx for the kind words. Many on this board forget that DAW's and Analog tape machines/consoles are just tools. They also forget that when digital first arrived on the scene, analog engineers were EXCITED. There were many many things about analog tape that we were all to happy to leave behind. Time gives some perspective, but every format has it's advantages and disadvantages. The recall and automation perspective of DAW's is astounding.

Also, don't forget that way back when, one would have thought a Foxtex 1/4" 8 track to have a hideous "analog" sound compared to a Studer or MCI. Now, we lump a cheap PC with USB converters and a PTHD3+ into the same catagory when we talk about "ITB", and that's pretty shortsighted.

Tools! Use em!!!

Off to session now....

bp

[RCM - Ronan]

Originally Posted by drBill

Ronan, don't ouch dude! . I'd say you're one of the third type in my post:

I wish!!

Anyway, i want to encourage you to keep moving more and more ITB since I might be in the market for an D&R OrionX in a year or two.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by rcm

I wish!!

Anyway, i want to encourage you to keep moving more and more ITB since I might be in the market for an D&R OrionX in a year or two.

LOL! That console's never going anywhere. That's my baby!!! To replace it now would cost $60K. I just turned down an offer for somewhere between 20-30k.

[True North]

Originally Posted by drBill

That is absolutely true. Now SSL's seem to be the holy grail. I too remember when API's or Neves were prefered and people only went to SSL's top mix because of the automation.

I recently purchased that 'Recording the Beatles' book Recording The Beatles

It is really an absolutely wonderful peice of work and an unbeleivable read, I haven't finished yet (600 pg's) but one portion of the book really caught my attention.

When Abby Road studios started to make the transition to tape, most of the engineers still preferred the sound they got from recordings made direct to acetate. As the technology around tape improved engineers were willing to try and use it..........

GET THIS

mainly because of the editing capabilities......sound familiar

Most of the great engineers making/mixing platinum records cut their teeth on tape and large format consoles. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that as the years pass, as the technology improves and new generations of engineers come into the fold, the number of ITB platinum mixes will grow exponentially. It's already happening now.

P.S. no platinum here yet, but I thought the book reference was interesting

[Auslander]

Originally Posted by Quanah

(forgive the quick OT-just want to give a public shout out to Neil)

Amongst that broad discography resides Queensryches' Rage for Order... an album that IMO, 21 years since its release, still sounds like nothing that came before or after it.

I have much respect for you Mr. Kernon ! Great to see you posting here!

-Q

Thanks a lot. Much appreciated!