Digital mixers, do we still need them?

[Revelation]

With using a DAW which has a great mixer in most of the PT, Logic, Niuendo/Cubase, etc. what benifit do you see with using it with a digital mixer.

Granted you get mic pre's, converters, and effects all in one package, and most can be basic controllers.

[Sammas]

a digital mixer is not for everyone. And its also far from just a control surface.

Why do people still use analog boards when DAW's cover it all also?

People just like hands on mixing. It also free's up DSP, there is a compressor, gate and EQ on every channel of an 02R. It allows for extensive routing, both internally and externally with outboard gear. It can be used live! Most have touch sensitive Automation. Total Recall even when you mix outside the box. extensive I/O, lotsa preamps.

It sounds different! Just because a DAW is Digital and a Digital mixer is... well... Digital, doesnt mean they sound the same.

What i dont understand is people buying expensive digital boards and just using them as dedicated control surfaces.

Use them like an Analog desk with a lot of extra features. That is, Leave the Daw for editting and the Desk for mixing.

[Sharp11]

Originally posted by Revelation
With using a DAW which has a great mixer in most of the PT, Logic, Niuendo/Cubase, etc. what benifit do you see with using it with a digital mixer.

Granted you get mic pre's, converters, and effects all in one package, and most can be basic controllers.

I've got PT HD and a sony dmxr100 mixer.

I've been tempted to sell the Sony, but honestly, there are about a hundred different things I do with this mixer everyday that'd be more difficult by going itb.

For one thing, its automation, for basic fader moves and such, just works so beautifully, so smooth; whenever I print stems, I use the Sony's automation.

And printing stems is a breeze because I've got a number of different "snapshots" at the ready for instant routing.

Automation in PT is good, too, but isn't as smooth, so I use it for plugs and a lot of midi stuff.

Also, a digital mixer (or any mixer) makes interfacing with the outside world so much easier. And if you're spending long days with many different projects going back and forth (I work in television), one's fatigue can make the virtual mixing environment very tiresome.

Maybe one day I'll go itb, but I'm not ready, yet.

Ed

[wolfhound]

Ed,

I'm working in tv and movies too, and have always thought a mixer would actually make switching between cues/projects harder....could you explain a bit more how you find it easier with the Sony?

thanks,
wolfie

[kosi]

I was happy, when I dismissed my d8b, which was sitting behind my PT. Double data storage was a major pita !
I would rather go with a faderbox and some monitorcontroller and do all my setups and templates inside PT these days.
I just love to open one file and all data pops up exactley, as I left it.

[Midlandmorgan]

I too use the d8b...with Samplitude.

And for all the extremely cool things Samp does, there are times in which the digital mixer comes in really handy....especially at tracking times. Just being able to adjust cue sends/pans without opening a new screen or another application is often times a valid justification for keeping it here.

Same could be said for analog mixers...some people just prefer the ergonomics of sliding things, twisting actual knobs, pushing real buttons, etc....let the DAW do the processing, and let the mixer do the levels, pans, and 2 track routing.

Its a choice based on preferences and work habit - nothing more. Given my druthers, I'd have a digitally controlled analog mixer (ala Euphonics) but don't have $160,000 druthers laying around. (or whatever they cost these days)

[kosi]

When I remember right, I had to change screens and pages on my d8b also pretty often...
And I tend to hate multi-function knobs ! (and especially the mAsterVolume Poti on the d8b)

[drew]

I used to have an R100 with PTHD. I sold it and don't have any regrets. The lack of high density I/O other than MADI was part of it but lack of delay compensation, which made Parallel processing a major PITA and even regular analog inserting difficult, was the big reason. A DAW with a control surface feels like a console to me now.

[Alécio Costa]

Hi,
I have been using an 02R V2 and an 01V since 1998. They are connected with 2 adat bridges with a PT Mix Plus + . I have just upgraded my 01V to a new 01V96 and I am pretty satisfied. Since I may be working with upt to 5 projects at the same time,the digital board has been a much better alternative.
Also, to my ears, stereo image is better.
PT automation mainly for plugs and midi stuff.
If I had the budget now, I would prefer to upgrade my 02R v2 to an 02R 96 instead of spending the same money on a pt hd2 accel. Remember, your sound is mainly in the tracking quality, mic slection, room acoustics and of course the a/d stage.

[Johns]

I use 2 02R96s and just wouldn't want to mix in the box. I understand people who like opening their song files and everything thing is setup and ready (as opposed to multiple backups of the digital board, and computer files), but mixing and tracking with a board is much easier for me. I usually have 8 to 12 projects going at the same time and love using the digital board. Now this is not to say that there is no downside to these digital consoles. As someone mentioned before, going through menus and not having dedicated knobs can be a pain, but when you learn your console, it becomes second nature.

[Albert]

Why does it have to be either, or? I like using both. I do automation types moves in the DAW, like volume, panning. Then I send the tracks out to my mixer, where I do the aux sends and busses to my outboard gear.

The advantage to an outboard mixer is that if you are working on a project with a lot of similar cues, you do your mix once on the board and then just route the DAW tracks to the appropriate channels on the rest of the cues.

I find building each mix in a DAW to be time-consuming when all you really want is just to have the same basic mix with tweaks. Building a template of the mix isn't always practical, as a lot of changes can happen after the template is built. Copying tracks into a finished mix template is also a pain. Nothing beats having a hardware board with a mix set up ready to go.

[Sharp11]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Ed,

I'm working in tv and movies too, and have always thought a mixer would actually make switching between cues/projects harder....could you explain a bit more how you find it easier with the Sony?

thanks,
wolfie

hey wolfie,

Essentially, most of the other guys have covered it. I'll add by stating the DMX is a wonderfully designed ergonomic pleasure, so flipping screens and the like is really simple and light years nicer than a D8b.

Here's how I'm set up:

All my hardware synths are normalled through a patchbay into 16 line ins. I can simply break the normal to access any of these channels.

Continuing along the analog layer, I've got a snake with sends and returns for accessing the mic pres and one pair of the aux sends/returns (the other six sends and returns are hardwired to my effects). When I need to set up a mic, mic one goes into channel one of the snake, flip to the B channel on the Sony, engage phantom (if necessary), assign it to a bus and you're done.

My outboard tube pre's, compressors and SPL vitalizer are wired into the (optional) insert board, and this is where it gets nifty; anything patched into the insert board can be monitored in PT by use of the "input" function (in PT), so, when I need to take bass direct, I go right into the front panel of my summit mpc 100A and I can monitor in PT, no patching necessary, I just press the little "I" in PT's channel selector.

Protools is hardwired via ADAT into the first 16 digital inputs and outs (on layer 2) using the 192 dig I/O, the remaining 8 channels on this layer is TDIF for bringing in something in that format (currently unused on my board).

Layer three has the 8 MTR busses, 8 sends and 8 returns.

Mixing is back into PT either as stems through the MTR's, direct out, or two track into the AES/EBU out of the sony into the AES/EBU input of the 192.

The board's ergonomics are a breeze and everything is only a button push or two away. In a daw, setting up routing and patching is a pain, I think, especially when I'm getting fatigued, which is often.

I've got all kinds of schemes set up in the Sony via its snapshot function, so most of my tracking set-ups take literally a few seconds.

Ed