NO ROOM ON THE mix BUS!!!!!!

[christian]

hi all,

i used to use a big analogue mixing console and analogue tape to produce and mix my tracks a few years ago. Nowadays i use protools and mix in the box and i feel i just can"t get the sound that i want, (and love).Just feels like there's way less room to put everything in the mix. what should i do? i wonder whether i should just buy another analogue console.
i"m sure it was never this hard to get a great,open sounding mix...

[alphajerk]

put less shit in the mix?

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by alphajerk

put less shit in the mix?

Agreed.

[christian]

it"s not just about putting less stuff in the mix, because i never use to feel this when using a good analogue console. it's not a production thing, it just feels small to me, compared to analogue. No-one agree?

chris.

[christian]

yeah, i'm not the only one then. I find myself getting frustrated eveytime it comes to mix time. It takes alot longer for a mix to take shape when mixing in the box also. If i were to get a little console, which would give me the best sound, or bang for the buck.I think i only need 16 channels or so.Is there anything this size that really does sound pro, or should i just stick in the box?

cheers, chris.

[christian]

Any ideas chaps??? no....... still waiting..... thumbsup

[sleepwalker]

Originally Posted by christian

Any ideas chaps??? no....... still waiting..... thumbsup

My non professional opinion. Get a tape machine and a console, or learn to mix in the box.

I've got a humble Otari MX-5050 8 track 1/2 tape machine and a Sony MXP-390 analog console(4 mono channels, 8 stereo channels)

It's much easier for me to mix from tape through the analog mixer.

I also do a lot of DAW work, way more than I do on the 8 track. Mixing through the analog mixer doesn't do it for me here. WHen I'm doing digital the ITB mixing is just as good with better recall ability etc.

Keep in mind my mixer is worth around $700. I used to use a Yamaha PM-1000 mixer as a summing bus for DAWs. It was cool, but again, I felt the ITB mixes were just as good.

I believe that using stems ITB also will help.

I have recently started steming a few different things and running them out through external dynamics and back in and the ersults are much better.

Did you ever notice that the ITB mixer sounds great with 16 or less tracks?
I think stemming ITB makes this the case????

anyone who knows?

D

[christian]

so how is eveyone monitering out the box. i just run out two channels of my rosetta 800 into a small mackie mixer. Should i maybe get a better moniter source.i.e. a mackie big knob or avocet? thumbsup

[zimv20]

Originally Posted by christian

so how is eveyone monitering out the box. i just run out two channels of my rosetta 800 into a small mackie mixer.

i've found that monitoring through those mackie VLZ mixers distorts the signal at least a good bit. now i use a Coleman m3ph and my mixes translate better.

[sleepwalker]

Originally Posted by christian

so how is eveyone monitering out the box. i just run out two channels of my rosetta 800 into a small mackie mixer. Should i maybe get a better moniter source.i.e. a mackie big knob or avocet? thumbsup

A good monitoring chain is important. I've got a DAC-1 going into Speck Xtramix into ADAM's here at work. That said, the Mackie's fine. I sat in on a mixing session with a big name guy and he was mixing 80% of the time on Radio Shack Olympus monitors. No joke. He'd check the mains every once in a while.

Anyway, I suggest you don't stress over the Mackie. Find some mixes that translate really well, then listen to them a billion times on your monitoring setup.

I will never claim to be all that great of an engineer, but I've seen some people put me to shame on much lesser gear that I've pretty much stopped worrying about little things.

People will listen to these tracks on stock car speakers, an ipod, and a home theater system. Maybe you can throw some computer speakers in there. Make your mixes, listen to them elsewhere, come in and remix. THAT'S where digital is awesome.

This is the high end section, so I'm sure to some it's heresy, but I think people fret their monitoring more than they need to.

Same goes for digital cables. I made two digital bounces, one with an Apogee SPDIF, and one with a HOSA SPDIF.. THey phase cancelled out perfectly. That tells me that the cheaper cable was just as good.

Don't try this with analog cables. I actually think Hosa cables sound fine, they just have bad shielding and seem to break when you look at them funny.

[RoundBadge]

Originally Posted by christian

it"s not just about putting less stuff in the mix, because i never use to feel this when using a good analogue console. it's not a production thing, it just feels small to me, compared to analogue. No-one agree?

chris.

..I agree ....even with low track counts.Ive done roughs ITB and finals through the console of the same songs and it's been much easier to get there through the mixer.

[gabler]

Originally Posted by christian

it"s not just about putting less stuff in the mix, because i never use to feel this when using a good analogue console. it's not a production thing, it just feels small to me, compared to analogue. No-one agree?

chris.

I agree. I am selling my digital console and buying an analog console. I want it to sound like an album (big) !

[Mike Tholen]

How hot are your tracking levels?
I've found mixing ITB requires VERY careful gain structure...observing 0dBVU with your tracks is damn important.
OBSERVE 0dBVU!!! OBSERVE 0dBVU!!! OBSERVE 0dBVU!!!

[zmix]

Originally Posted by christian

hi all,

i used to use a big analogue mixing console and analogue tape to produce and mix my tracks a few years ago. Nowadays i use protools and mix in the box and i feel i just can"t get the sound that i want, (and love).Just feels like there's way less room to put everything in the mix. what should i do? i wonder whether i should just buy another analogue console.
i"m sure it was never this hard to get a great,open sounding mix..

Christian,
You are in a better position than most here because you have developed a solid reference in your head for what a mix is supposed to sound like. There isn't too much technically that can "make or break" your mix. Most DAW software (Logic, etc) use at least a 32 point floating point architecture, so don't worry about the levels in the box, as ever, it's harder to get a 'big' sound if everything is hitting the roof.

Give yourself a chance to start small and learn the new format.

-CZ

[Tousana]

Originally Posted by christian

hi all,

i used to use a big analogue mixing console and analogue tape to produce and mix my tracks a few years ago. Nowadays i use protools and mix in the box and i feel i just can"t get the sound that i want, (and love).Just feels like there's way less room to put everything in the mix. what should i do? i wonder whether i should just buy another analogue console.
i"m sure it was never this hard to get a great,open sounding mix...

Get outta the box. Why not a good summing unit,there are many out there. Some even allow you to have inserts,so you can use some real gear(analogue).

[Drumsound]

The new table-top Neotek might be a good soloution for you.

Neotek

[Dean Landon]

Last week I purchased a Folcrom, and using a Buzz Audio MA2.2 to gain it. If you want your "w i d e" mixes back, it's the only way to do it. Mixing ITB with Pro Tools never gave me the analog width I was used to.

I'd look into the Folcrom/mic-pre first before purchasing an analog console/tape.

[Frost]

Ill be looking closely at that once it comes out. I would love to find a mid level solution that would be better than my ghost (which isnt bad but...). Ill also be looking for the TG Sidecar.

Frost

[lucey]

Originally Posted by gabler

I agree. I am selling my digital console and buying an analog console. I want it to sound like an album (big) !

hoorah!!



6, 8 or 12 track recordings on a 2" 16 are HUGE



sort of that, a summing box and 2 mix eq/comps

[RKrizman]

Originally Posted by dpasch

I believe that using stems ITB also will help.

I have recently started steming a few different things and running them out through external dynamics and back in and the ersults are much better.

Did you ever notice that the ITB mixer sounds great with 16 or less tracks?
I think stemming ITB makes this the case????

anyone who knows?

D

Perhaps stemming just forces you to organize your material. Maybe it's methodology, not technology, that's causing the improvement.

-R

[lucey]

Originally Posted by RKrizman

Perhaps stemming just forces you to organize your material. Maybe it's methodology, not technology, that's causing the improvement.

-R

rick you've been on about debunking summing boxes for some time ... and i have to ask

did you not hear the PT vs Neve CD? were you not taken by the grainy and forward harshness of the ITB mix and the lush depth of the neve?

[Dean Landon]

Originally Posted by RKrizman

Perhaps stemming just forces you to organize your material. Maybe it's methodology, not technology, that's causing the improvement.

-R

R-

I know you're a non-believer, and that's ok, but this isn't a figment of my imagination. It DOES sound better, the width is better, and the depth of field is much better. As soon as I connected the Folcrom/Buzz Audio MA2.2, there was a huge improvement. If I remember correctly, you tried the D2B. Why not try the Folcrom and a high quality mic-pre of your choice. You may be pleasantly surprised. I certainly was! Of course, YMMV.

[RKrizman]

Originally Posted by lucey

rick you've been on about debunking summing boxes for some time ... and i have to ask

did you not hear the PT vs Neve CD? were you not taken by the grainy and forward harshness of the ITB mix and the lush depth of the neve?

What I wrote was as follows:

<Perhaps stemming just forces you to organize your material. Maybe it's methodology, not technology, that's causing the improvement.>


I think that there are many people using DAWs who all of a sudden are confronted with the overwhelming task of mixing huge numbers of tracks. The inability to deal with all this information is sometimes a problem between the ears rather than within the box. Organizing the material into submixes is a great way to get a handle on things and to break down the mix process into bite sized chunks. Easier to eat the elephant, so to speak. I only offer this on an "if the shoe fits..." basis.

Yes, I heard that CD you mention, and I identified each mix blind. I preferred the Neve. If I'm going to use an external summing box I want it to make that kind of difference. They don't all sound that good, at least not to my ears. I've also posted my own comparison files, you know, and you can download those and draw your own conclusions.

Finally, if I have a problem with ITB mixes it is not because they are grainy and harsh in some forward way. I think that's more a problem of the past, pertaining to ADATs and Digi 888s. For myself , I have trouble making a mix punch out the way an analog one does. I've got the gear to cut some pretty smooth digital tracks, but I tend to miss that bit of overamped voltage spank that some analog systems can bring to the party. The more I look into this the more I believe that it is the appealing euphonic distortions of an analog signal chain that help create tone and depth and dimension. Just like the corrugated quality of real life. I'm not debunking summing boxes. I'm debunking the rationale that claims that they are somehow more accurate and therefore better. If you want accurate summing, use a DAW. If you want analog, find a system that really brings something to the party. I don't want reality. I want better than reality.

Ironically, I think Digidesign got sucked into this rationale and ended up designing the flattest and most neutral converter they could---the HD 192---and missed the fact that sonic joy often results from analog circuitry designed for pleasure rather than accuracy.

-R

[alnico]

the Phoenix Audio "Nicerizer"....

[RKrizman]

Originally Posted by Imagine

R-

I know you're a non-believer, and that's ok, but this isn't a figment of my imagination. It DOES sound better, the width is better, and the depth of field is much better. As soon as I connected the Folcrom/Buzz Audio MA2.2, there was a huge improvement. ... Why not try the Folcrom and a high quality mic-pre of your choice.

I intend to. I'd also like to try the Mixdream.

I'm not a nonbeliever, and I did hear something of a difference with the D2B, but it was not enough to warrant changing my whole method of working. I've been having good luck sending tracks out to analog boxes using my 192 D/A and A/D so I haven't felt the need for a summing box to accomplish this.

I think there aree a lot of factor involved and there's no magic bullet.

-R

[Ruudman]

Originally Posted by djui5

I also have a lack of good plug-in's..

Well, aren't you the lucky bastard

I've gotten the best results by using PT more like a tape-recorder.

But I'm weak, and often I fall into temptation.........damn those plugs


ruudman

[Andy]

This topic has been much debated and there have always been some people pro for ITB and some analogue summing fans. I am in the latter group.
I started out long time ago on 16 channel analogue mixer and several synths and liked ok the results. Later I went ITB and it got worse to my ears. Then 16 channels through good quality converters to Mackie 8-bus and things got better.

Now I'm running 24 channels to Trident Vector 432 console and couldn't be happier. It sounds big and just like Christian said, there is much more room in Trident 2-bus than Mackie (or ITB). Never the less, many ppl are getting great results ITB.


Andy

ps. I'm new to board even I've been lurking here. Greets from Finland.

[Dean Landon]

Originally Posted by RKrizman

What I wrote was as follows:

<Perhaps stemming just forces you to organize your material. Maybe it's methodology, not technology, that's causing the improvement.>


I think that there are many people using DAWs who all of a sudden are confronted with the overwhelming task of mixing huge numbers of tracks. The inability to deal with all this information is sometimes a problem between the ears rather than within the box. Organizing the material into submixes is a great way to get a handle on things and to break down the mix process into bite sized chunks. Easier to eat the elephant, so to speak. I only offer this on an "if the shoe fits..." basis.

Yes, I heard that CD you mention, and I identified each mix blind. I preferred the Neve. If I'm going to use an external summing box I want it to make that kind of difference. They don't all sound that good, at least not to my ears. I've also posted my own comparison files, you know, and you can download those and draw your own conclusions.

Finally, if I have a problem with ITB mixes it is not because they are grainy and harsh in some forward way. I think that's more a problem of the past, pertaining to ADATs and Digi 888s. For myself , I have trouble making a mix punch out the way an analog one does. I've got the gear to cut some pretty smooth digital tracks, but I tend to miss that bit of overamped voltage spank that some analog systems can bring to the party. The more I look into this the more I believe that it is the appealing euphonic distortions of an analog signal chain that help create tone and depth and dimension. Just like the corrugated quality of real life. I'm not debunking summing boxes. I'm debunking the rationale that claims that they are somehow more accurate and therefore better. If you want accurate summing, use a DAW. If you want analog, find a system that really brings something to the party. I don't want reality. I want better than reality.

Ironically, I think Digidesign got sucked into this rationale and ended up designing the flattest and most neutral converter they could---the HD 192---and missed the fact that sonic joy often results from analog circuitry designed for pleasure rather than accuracy.

-R

The Folcrom without a high quality mic-pre, is just a metal box. Using the Buzz MA2.2 with Sowters, is one way to get the huge analog sound, but anyone could try the mic-pre of their choice. I'd like to compare the SSL mic-pre to the Buzz.

I know the Folcrom/Buzz combo is giving me more than a 50% upgrade regarding sound quality, width, and depth of field. If there was only a 10% upgrade, it would still be worth it.

[Wiggy Neve Slut]

Originally Posted by Mike Tholen

How hot are your tracking levels?
I've found mixing ITB requires VERY careful gain structure...observing 0dBVU with your tracks is damn important.
OBSERVE 0dBVU!!! OBSERVE 0dBVU!!! OBSERVE 0dBVU!!!

THIS IS IMPERITAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you come from an analogue background like i did... where there was allways a latitude to move a few dB here and there, its a total rethink of gainstructuring when you move to the land of 0dBVU!!!!!.. cos thats the ceiling!

Ive found on the whole that there is no need to 'hike' the levels to a digital format as there was to tape to avoid poor SN/ratio and hiss etc. So jsut be carefull and judicious in the amount of level going to your recorder.

these days i just try to record the levels as i would like to hear them in the mix in a rough ballpark fashion. There are no arbitary rules!!

Cheers
Wiggy