NEVE8816 Users: What the Manual Says

[Tom H]

Originally Posted by Vato

keep all virtual faders(in DAW) at -0-, and do all mixing on the 8816 for best results.

Yeah, that's where it differs from most other summing boxes, it is actually a real mixer, hence the fader pack. You could still do your automation in your daw, just send out the subgroups/stems at 0 into the 8816 and set the levels and panning there; works perfect and it sounds better if you do it this way.

(i also didn't know at first )

I've got the feeling that on that vintageking shootout they didn't know too and just cranked the pots open wich explains why some of you hear distortion.

[ResonantFilter]

This makes sense to me. Go out of your DAW at full bit depth and do all of the volume control in the analogue domaind.

faders set at -12 or -18 in your DAW will have much lower resolution, so sonicall summing boxes give much better results (to my ears at least) if there is somre analogue volume control.

Zipper noise anyone? etc etc

[heathen]

Yeah, what he said.

[T_R_S]

Originally Posted by Vato

This all sounds very comprehensive but is it practical?

The Neve manual appears to be correct because that's what's an analog mixer does. The 8816 IS an analog mixer.
Anytime you leave the DAW world and go analog expect MORE work not less.
Good is not always easy ...
If you want easy go ITB...

[Vato]

I thank you all for your comments. I still am a bit dumbfounded. According to most of your comments...I should "mix " (do all volume changes) with the 8816. The 8816 to my recolection doesn't really let you do automation. It just remembers where you had all knobs set and lets you know when your knob is where you last had it. Not like automation. I really need that type of action when I mix. Thats why I want DP to do it. One of you said to go ahead and do automation in DP and leave the "stem" or subgroup master at -0-. That makes sense. Is that what the rest of you are getting at?
Vato

[obostic]

Vato,

What was your planned approach?And Does the 8816 have mute automation?

[Vato]

Originally Posted by obostic

Vato,

What was your planned approach?And Does the 8816 have mute automation?

No ,not to my knowledge. I just talked to my rep at Vintage King today and he said that making minute volume changes with DP's automation is not going to affect the quality of my mix. The more I dicussed and thought about all this, the more I came to realize what Neve is trying to say:
Its always better to get your DAW to -0- or less, and never more. Then let the Analog Mixer do the work from there. THe opposite technique will result in distorted tracks, no headroom, and not letting the summing mixer (NEVE) do what it is good at.
I just got all bent out of shape when I thought they were trying to tell me not to use the DAW''s automation.
Vato

[Mike H]

I do both.

I have some stems (overheads, toms) and here I pan and adjust relative levels in Pro Tools. For stems, you'll have to do this to set the relative positions and levels of the individual tracks. Once I have the correct panning and relative levels, then I use the 8804 faders to get the stem levels correct in the mix.

For individual tracks (kick, snare, bass, vocals, etc) I try to set the level in Pro Tools at zero and adjust the levels with the 8804 faders. However, I can't always set the Pro Tools level to zero because the tracking was cold or hot; in this case I may need to set the level in Pro Tools different than zero to get a reasonable level thru the outboard gear (near the sweet spot).

Regarding automation, I use it a lot in Pro Tools: taking down spikes to avoid extra compression/limiting, cleaning up tracks (for example taking out guitar hand slide noise, mistakes), etc. However, I try to use the 8804 whenever I can. For example, easing tracks in and out, and building to the chorus, I will usually do this with the 8804. I could do it in real time with the 8804 or automate in PT, but:
(1) The 8804 is quicker
(2) I like to move the faders according to the flow and drive of the song, which is hard to do when doing automation, and
(3) Faders are more fun.

But..........you don't have the fader moves stored away for later use, like you do with automation. So.............a trade off.

I really like having the option to both automate and use the faders. I always do both on any song.

[obostic]

I guess since the 8816 doesn't have mute automation you are better off leaving the DAW at 0 then mixing with the 8816. I mix two ways depending on if I anticipate recalls down the road.

The first way is to use my DAW as a tape machine where every track is route to a particular submix buss set at unity gain. I setup 24 submix busses and route each buss to a channel on my console where I then proceed to mix. The second method gets a bit more involved if I want automation and recall. Again I create 24 submix busses and assign each buss to a channel on my console, this time thou, the console channels are set to unit gain. Using this method, you must have mute automation or things would get pretty noisy. I installed midi mute automation in my console and I’m able to mute any channel on the console when not in use during a mix. Either way will work, but the most important thing is to ensure proper gain structure for the chosen method. I will admit though the gain structure gets a little tricky when mixing with the DAW and console fader are at unity gain.