question about summing in chandler mini mixer

[chimulko]

hi .. we (my band) just finished recording and mixing our second album, we did the recording at a friend's studio using acid pro , we were happy with the mix but last days a really good friend bought a chandler mini mixer and he will let me use it at his studio ( logic pro 8>DA16 apogee> chandler) , so the questions I'm having are:

1.- The chandler has 8 stereo inputs, so my friend uses the DA16 to send 8 stereo outputs to the chandler, so no i dont know how i will do this exactly, I was thinking of rendering in acid 8 stereos tracks, 1 for drums, another for the voice, guitars, bass, etc...so i will take those 8 tracks and put them in logic and asing the drums to output 1-2 , voice 3-4 etc... Am i right? , o what could be my best routing choice?

sorry if my english is not clear enough , greetings from mexico.

[mu6gr8]

Try this:
1 Kick (mono)
2 Snare (mono)
3-4 other drums & percussion
5 Bass (mono)
6 Lead Vocal (mono)
7-8 Backing Vox
9-10 Guitars
11-12 Keyboards
13-14 Horns, Strings, other...
15-16 FX returns

Thus, you would have six stereo tracks/busses/stems, and four mono. Flip the mono switch on those four channels on the mixer to disengage the pan pots.

[chimulko]

thanks for the fast response,i will try and will post results.

[Jack Ruston]

Just run the stereo mix up a pair of channels. Make sure you align them with tone.

This flies in the face of public opinion on the summing thing and it does require that your itb mix is technically good from a gain structure perpective. But what you find is that every part of the analogue summing advantage is there (width depth bottom end) except headroom increase which is why the itb box needs to be right.

Try it on one track both ways and making sure they're perfectly level matched, compare them. You might end up saving yourself some time.

J

[mu6gr8]

Originally Posted by Jack Ruston

Just run the stereo mix up a pair of channels. ... But what you find is that every part of the analogue summing advantage is there (width depth bottom end) except headroom increase which is why the itb box needs to be right.

I respectfully disagree that "every part of the analogue summing advantage is there" because that statement is contrary to my experience. Further, those of my clients who have asked for an A/B comparison have heard the difference, and always remarked how much more clarity, focus, width, depth and bottom end is present in the analog-summed mixes.

[u b k]

if he has to re-do the itb mix and also learn a new skillset for optimizing gain structure, how does that save him time? how does that approach embody 'all the advantages of analog summing', when one of the primary advantages (ime) is that it's fast and easy to pull together a great mix compared to itb?

seems faster and easier to just stem the mix out to the chandler and rock it.

op, when you've recaptured your mix thru the chandler, take a minute or three to move some analog faders around and see if a different take on your mix, one that emerges from moving families of sound wholesale, doesn't emerge as something at least as interesting as what you got. i recommend this because actually mixing with real faders and summing that mix is quite a different experience, and you'll get to play with the sweet spot of the chandler a little more fully.


gregory scott - ubk
.

[jono]

Originally Posted by u b k

.......op, when you've recaptured your mix thru the chandler, take a minute or three to move some analog faders around and see if a different take on your mix, one that emerges from moving families of sound wholesale, doesn't emerge as something at least as interesting as what you got. i recommend this because actually mixing with real faders and summing that mix is quite a different experience, and you'll get to play with the sweet spot of the chandler a little more fully.


gregory scott - ubk
.

+1 UBK's post above...

Also, it's worth pushing single instruments thru individual channels just to fiddle with panning...panning/imaging seems to take on a new life thru the Chandler as compared to ITB. I tend to run a number of tracks out to a number of stereo pairs, but for lead vox, solo's, and instruments that may move around the stereo field during the mix - they get their own channel. Moving the chicken heads real-time during a mix is fiddley, but it sounds good (chicken-head automation anyone?).

[chimulko]

so tomorrow i will do it finally .. i have some questions , cus i didn't mix the songs and i don't want to change any levels, i guess i have to set the pan law to 0 in logic to keep the same level right?, should i set the levels in the chandler all the way clockwise?

another question is: i have the chance to use after the chandler an api 2500 bus compressor, will that be a good thing to do if im planning to send the mixes to a mastering studio?

[Mastering101]

Originally Posted by chimulko

so tomorrow i will do it finally .. i have some questions , cus i didn't mix the songs and i don't want to change any levels, i guess i have to set the pan law to 0 in logic to keep the same level right?, should i set the levels in the chandler all the way clockwise?

another question is: i have the chance to use after the chandler an api 2500 bus compressor, will that be a good thing to do if im planning to send the mixes to a mastering studio?

do you have all mono tracks or stereo and mono?

[chimulko]

stereo and mono.

do i have to set the master faders in logic to unity ( becuase i was reading and saw -18dBFs = 0dBu) or should i set them to -18?