We need to LEARN how to mix ITB????

[dbbubba]

While the debate over mixing ITB or using analog summing goes on I keep seeing people saying how those of us who do not accept the results we get mixing ITB need to "learn to use" the digital mixers in DP4, PT or what-ever platform you name.

Do you realize how much nonsense this is?

It is the same as saying that if you "learn" to use a Mackie 8-buss you can get the same results as using a Neve or an SSL!
I have heard it said that you need to "learn to use your platform."
If a platform is difficult to use immedeately and you have an option... use the better platform and forget the "difficult" one!
Yeah.. you might pull an acceptable mix on a Mackie 8 buss, but you'll get a better one on a Neve, SSL or decent quality console!
It'll take less time, too!

A good piece of gear should get a good sound without a lot of work or thought.
You shouldn't have to re-think things and spend hours, days, weeks or months re-learning how to mix!

A good engineer can sit behind an SSL, Neve, Trident, Soundcraft, MCI, Neotek or any decent quality console and get a decent result fairly consistently if he knows his craft. The differences between the consoles is there, but you don't have to jump through hoops to get a musical result. I know my EQ tricks and mixing tricks and they work pretty much the same on any good qualiy analog console. I use my ears, but a lot comes from things that I have learned over the years. I don't have another thirty years to devote to re-learning how to do things with a DAW's mixer!

Besides, most of the issues that I have with ITB mixing ARE NOT EQ or level related. It is resolution and depth of field related. Forget getting traditional and expected results with plug-ins quickly!

If you need specific skills to get a DAW's mixer to sound good and if the skills are specific to that machine it's a sad thing.

No one I know who has a DAW rig and an SSL or Neve mixes ITB unless it's a rough.

If it's all you have then use it.
Just don't say that people like me that have mixed for years (30 plus in my case) need to re-learn mixing to use something to get acceptable results!
I started mixing digitally (WaveFrame) in 1992 and it sounded crappy then and although it's WAY better than it was it still doesn't equal mixing on a good analog console.

You only use the mix platform in each DAW because itis glued to the software.
If you had a choice it'd be different.

Digital recording and playback is getting acceptable these days.
Now it's time for digital mixing to catch up.
It's the next area the big guys will market improvemnets in.
The Digi "White Papers" show that they are aware of the issue and addressing it.

The true test and barometer for "pro" gear is when a seasoned pro can use it and get a consistent result in a quick period of time.
Quality gear is easy to use when you know your craft.

Oh screw it!
Everyone's listening on iPods or their plastic computer speakers anyways!

I mix for stuff to sound good on a pair of Tannoy Golds with Mastering Lab X-overs and a tweaked power amp.
What do I know?

Danny Brown

[Lagerfeldt]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

If you need specific skills to get a DAW's mixer to sound good and if the skills are specific to that machine it's a sad thing.

Sad, but true.

I think one of the main differences lies in the amount of compression you need ITB since you have no such thing as tape compression or analog forgiveness.

Therefore I usually find that combining ITB with some HQ hardware will turn things around.

That said, I just mixed an absolutely amazing track totally ITB (ok+2 hardware reverbs and SSL Type 4000 mix comp). Warm, spacious and punchy. Can't hear the difference between this mix and the ones done on the SSL9000. So knowing the tools and doing the right thing is what matters most.

Plug-ins I use the most are Sonalksis comp+eq, Waves and SpaceDesigner. I do quite a lot of bussing and sidechaining.

[djui5]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

Do you realize how much nonsense this is?

It is the same as saying that if you "learn" to use a Mackie 8-buss you can get the same results as using a Neve or an SSL!

Not quite. It's like saying, anyone can walk to to an SSL and get an amazing mix out of it. You can't, you need to learn how to mix on an SSL. Even if you know how to mix great songs allready, if you've never mixed on an SSL, you'll need to learn the console.

Saying that if you "learn" to use a Mackie 8-buss you can get the same results as using a Neve or an SSL!, is like saying "learn how to use Acid Pro to make music with loop disks, and you can make hit records!"

I have heard it said that you need to "learn to use your platform."
If a platform is difficult to use immedeately and you have an option... use the better platform and forget the "difficult" one!
Yeah.. you might pull an acceptable mix on a Mackie 8 buss, but you'll get a better one on a Neve, SSL or decent quality console!
It'll take less time, too!

Ever work on a large format console?

A good piece of gear should get a good sound without a lot of work or thought.
You shouldn't have to re-think things and spend hours, days, weeks or months re-learning how to mix!

Really? So everyone coming out of recording school, or stepping into a studio for the first time should be able to mix hit records with the best of them?

A good engineer can sit behind an SSL, Neve, Trident, Soundcraft, MCI, Neotek or any decent quality console and get a decent result fairly consistently if he knows his craft. The differences between the consoles is there, but you don't have to jump through hoops to get a musical result. I know my EQ tricks and mixing tricks and they work pretty much the same on any good qualiy analog console. I use my ears, but a lot comes from things that I have learned over the years. I don't have another thirty years to devote to re-learning how to do things with a DAW's mixer!

So your working method and flow is identicle on every single console? And every single console has the same layout/signal flow/button structure/master section/eq's, etc? See where this is going?

Besides, most of the issues that I have with ITB mixing ARE NOT EQ or level related. It is resolution and depth of field related. Forget getting traditional and expected results with plug-ins quickly!

Sorry to hear that.

If you need specific skills to get a DAW's mixer to sound good and if the skills are specific to that machine it's a sad thing.

No one I know who has a DAW rig and an SSL or Neve mixes ITB unless it's a rough.

It's been done before. It's also not always about the sound either. Some people feel more comfortable working on a console. They've worked that way for many years/decades and that's ok.

If it's all you have then use it.
Just don't say that people like me that have mixed for years (30 plus in my case) need to re-learn mixing to use something to get acceptable results!
I started mixing digitally (WaveFrame) in 1992 and it sounded crappy then and although it's WAY better than it was it still doesn't equal mixing on a good analog console.

Danny Brown

No-one said you need to re-learn mixing. You just can't mix ITB like you do on a console. They work differently, so your flow/set-up is a little different. Similar to mixing on an API, then moving to a 9J. It works a little different, but it's still a console none the less.

Just wanted to clear the air on that one. I think you might have mis-understood what was meant by "learn your DAW"

[Grigri]

Hello.
There is something Bob Katz talking about digital sound in this thread :
Prosound

Check for his answer (#7 on the page)

Grigri

[dbbubba]

Yes djui5, I have owned and worked EXTENSIVELY on large format consoles.
SSL, Neve, MCI, Sphere, UA, Soundcratft, Soundtracs, Yamaha, Midas, Otari, Neotek and even Mackies.
I have mixed professionally for over thirty years.
I have wired about ten professional (commercial) analog rooms from scratch.
I have recorded EXTENSIVELY on all pro analog formats, SONY DASH PCM3324, DA88, ADAT, Radar, DAT, CD.
In fact, I have been mixing in DAWs for 14 years.
I don't mean that I have done it occasionally.
I mean that I have done it almost daily for fourteen years.
How about you?

And yes, the first time I sat at an SSL and mixed I got a good mix.
They first time that I sat at a Neve VR I got a good mix.
I had an assistant that knew the "tricks" specific to the console, but I EQ'd, compressed, set levels, FX, comped tracks.
Large format analog mixing consoles aren't THAT different.
The SSL's monitor section had to be explained to me, but it was an E series set up for TV/film work.
There are few things specific to any console, but gain stages and EQ are just that.
There are specific features that are unique to each, but they mostly are related to automation.
The basic sound of the each machine is not that different then another analog console.

Work flow has nothing to do with it either.
I have not produced a music on an analog multitrack recorder since 1994, but I have completed approximately 400 cuts in DAWs or in a hybrid set up since 1991.

You need to re-read some of my points becuase you are actually mis-understanding what I am saying and are supporting my arguments in a few places.

Specifically you said, "Saying that if you "learn" to use a Mackie 8-buss you can get the same results as using a Neve or an SSL!, is like saying "learn how to use Acid Pro to make music with loop disks, and you can make hit records!"

I said that SAYING you can learn to make good mixes on DAW is like SAYING if you spend enough time on a Mackie you can make as good os mixes as on a SSL or whatever. I never said that you could learn to make mixes on a Mackie that were equal to those on Neves or SSLs. In fact, I said that if you could even get close it would take a lot longer to do it!

Don't argue with me for the sake of arguing!

Danny Brown

[djui5]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

Yes djui5, I have owned and worked EXTENSIVELY on large format consoles.
SSL, Neve, MCI, Sphere, UA, Soundcratft, Soundtracs, Yamaha, Midas, Otari, Neotek and even Mackies.
I have mixed professionally for over thirty years.
I have wired about ten professional (commercial) analog rooms from scratch.
I have recorded EXTENSIVELY on all pro analog formats, SONY DASH PCM3324, DA88, ADAT, Radar, DAT, CD.
In fact, I have been mixing in DAWs for 14 years.
I don't mean that I have done it occasionally.
I mean that I have done it almost daily for fourteen years.
How about you?

You win? I'm only 27

And yes, the first time I sat at an SSL and mixed I got a good mix.
They first time that I sat at a Neve VR I got a good mix.
I had an assistant that knew the "tricks" specific to the console, but I EQ'd, compressed, set levels, FX, comped tracks.
Large format analog mixing consoles aren't THAT different.
The SSL's monitor section had to be explained to me, but it was an E series set up for TV/film work.
There are few things specific to any console, but gain stages and EQ are just that.
There are specific features that are unique to each, but they mostly are related to automation.
The basic sound of the each machine is not that different then another analog console.

So obviously you were well versed in mixing by the time you sat at an SSL. That's great, not everyone bangs out an amazing mix the first time they work on one. Wanna hear the first mix I did on a 9J?

My point was that working in Pro-Tools isn't a "lot" different than working with a console. Some of the layout/work flow is the same, but it's different enough that if you need to make adjustments for your working habits. Working in a computer is just different, and is far from the difference between mixing on a Mackie and mixing on an SSL/Neve whatever. There is no excuse for not getting a great mix ITB. It might not sound the same as working on a console, but there is no reason you can't get a great mix.

[juicemaster1500]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

Besides, most of the issues that I have with ITB mixing ARE NOT EQ or level related. It is resolution and depth of field related.

agreed, have you tried to delete the master bus in the program you're using, or avoided using extensive bussing schemes?

it seems to help avoiding a bit of that sad itb-flatness imo.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

While the debate over mixing ITB or using analog summing goes on I keep seeing people saying how those of us who do not accept the results we get mixing ITB need to "learn to use" the digital mixers in DP4, PT or what-ever platform you name.

Do you realize how much nonsense this is?

It is the same as saying that if you "learn" to use a Mackie 8-buss you can get the same results as using a Neve or an SSL!
I have heard it said that you need to "learn to use your platform."
If a platform is difficult to use immedeately and you have an option... use the better platform and forget the "difficult" one!
Yeah.. you might pull an acceptable mix on a Mackie 8 buss, but you'll get a better one on a Neve, SSL or decent quality console!
It'll take less time, too!

A good piece of gear should get a good sound without a lot of work or thought.
You shouldn't have to re-think things and spend hours, days, weeks or months re-learning how to mix!

A good engineer can sit behind an SSL, Neve, Trident, Soundcraft, MCI, Neotek or any decent quality console and get a decent result fairly consistently if he knows his craft. The differences between the consoles is there, but you don't have to jump through hoops to get a musical result. I know my EQ tricks and mixing tricks and they work pretty much the same on any good qualiy analog console. I use my ears, but a lot comes from things that I have learned over the years. I don't have another thirty years to devote to re-learning how to do things with a DAW's mixer!

Besides, most of the issues that I have with ITB mixing ARE NOT EQ or level related. It is resolution and depth of field related. Forget getting traditional and expected results with plug-ins quickly!

If you need specific skills to get a DAW's mixer to sound good and if the skills are specific to that machine it's a sad thing.

No one I know who has a DAW rig and an SSL or Neve mixes ITB unless it's a rough.

If it's all you have then use it.
Just don't say that people like me that have mixed for years (30 plus in my case) need to re-learn mixing to use something to get acceptable results!
I started mixing digitally (WaveFrame) in 1992 and it sounded crappy then and although it's WAY better than it was it still doesn't equal mixing on a good analog console.

You only use the mix platform in each DAW because itis glued to the software.
If you had a choice it'd be different.

Digital recording and playback is getting acceptable these days.
Now it's time for digital mixing to catch up.
It's the next area the big guys will market improvemnets in.
The Digi "White Papers" show that they are aware of the issue and addressing it.

The true test and barometer for "pro" gear is when a seasoned pro can use it and get a consistent result in a quick period of time.
Quality gear is easy to use when you know your craft.

Oh screw it!
Everyone's listening on iPods or their plastic computer speakers anyways!

I mix for stuff to sound good on a pair of Tannoy Golds with Mastering Lab X-overs and a tweaked power amp.
What do I know?

Danny Brown

A lot of issues in your post, Danny.

Far be it from me to suggest that one can't get results they like better out of mixing through a nice mid-to-high-end board rather than in the box.

If I had a Neve and a suitable bank of D/A, I strongly suspect I'd be spending some qual time there. (And, like you, I started in the analog world [more or less 25 years ago... but I'd owned tape machines since I was 9.)


I guess the bone of perhaps minimal contention I want to pick revolves around this whole issue of "learning" a device or system.


Perhaps a reductio ad absurdum can highlight what I'm getting at -- it took me a long time to learn, say, compressors properly (and, honest to gosh, I think it's an art and a science that I'm still improving at, even after many years). Yah, I could have used a 'simple' two knob compressor -- and with the right one I might have got some good results right off. With the wrong one... well... But I, myself, am glad I learned about thresholds, attack, release, and so on.


Sure, some gear or software just seems to be designed with an arrogant obtuseness.

But, typically, powerful tools do have substantial learning curves.


Now to the extent, Danny, you're saying don't waste your time learning an (for the sake of argument) 'inferior' system when you already have the keys to a nice high end OTB mixing setup... well, yeah.


Maybe it's just because my day job since I left the music biz trenches is as a business software developer and I have to spend a substantial part of my professional life learning new tools, but, when there's a benefit to be had from learning, I have no qualms about doing so.

Now, I absolutely think it's important to keep your perspective. Job one is getting music recorded and produced. It is possible to spend way too much time obsessing on hardware and software and not enough recording. But I also think it's important for us as humans to keep learning, too...

It's all about balance.

[Brendan]

After a whole lot of anguish spread over a long time, I've resigned myself to the fact that it's not possible to get the mix out of a DAW that I really want to hear and that I know that I can get through the traditional tape/console/outboard method. But it is possible to get "acceptable" results from a DAW. So, even though "acceptable" has never been ... acceptable to me, I've accepted that it's the best I can do given the tools.

And no one else's ITB mixes are blowing me away anyway. The fact is that the standard has dropped. I hate to be involved in that process, but a man has to eat, right?

There's always hope that 64 bit will sound better. But then again, why should any reasonable person believe that a computer will sound the same as a Studer machine played through a Neve console? They're not the same thing. Why would one expect them to sound the same?

The best I think that can be hoped for is to get different, but "acceptable" results from the DAW, with "acceptable" improving over time.

[Agzilla]

Use what you've got available to the best of your ability and trust your ears i say..

KNowing your monitors and listening enviroment is most important of all..i reckon..

I've had crappy results in all arenas...and good ones too..

There's no rules...

[5down1up]

i am all itb since ~ 1 year + some month + some days .

i am not looking @ it like the ultimative mixing tool . for me its just an interface where i am able to hook up some devices , push some buttons and end up with some noise called 2track master

i can hardly imagine that when you are not used to a system that you are able to get the desired result . cause that stuff is really ( at least for me ) complex .

it took me some month to get used to organize & arrange larger music sessions .
it took me some month as well to understand the concept of how this lil puter wants to be treated to go where you wanna go .

satisfied ?

the flexibility is just " unbelievable " imho . never thought about like 10 years back that i will have access to those features in my own place .

itb , analogue etc. NOTHING CHANGED , still its up to whos using those systems .

and without the neverending support of the SLUTZ i still would wonder why i like my old 8tracks recordings better compared to my 0001100100010010 mixes .

[Jonny Mumra]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

Sad, but true.

I think one of the main differences lies in the amount of compression you need ITB since you have no such thing as tape compression or analog forgiveness.

Therefore I usually find that combining ITB with some HQ hardware will turn things around.

That said, I just mixed an absolutely amazing track totally ITB (ok+2 hardware reverbs and SSL Type 4000 mix comp). Warm, spacious and punchy. Can't hear the difference between this mix and the ones done on the SSL9000. So knowing the tools and doing the right thing is what matters most.

Plug-ins I use the most are Sonalksis comp+eq, Waves and SpaceDesigner. I do quite a lot of bussing and sidechaining.

Hi Lagerfeldt.
you use PT
do you slap aything on the master buss when mixing.

Cheers

[Chrisac]

Arguments aside, a console for a mixer who knows what hes doing is much more than a means to adjust levels. A console is a fully fledged highly creative and musical instrument which can transform the vibe of a song instantly. Regardless of controler, and definitely not a mouse you simply cant change settings on a DAWs mixer fast enough to keep a happening vibe going.

Mixing is as much about Vibe as it is about sound. If the mixer is on a natural high during the mix then that will certainly translate to the listener. It may be subtle but you would all be suprised how the general public do catch on to the mixers vibe. I used to do Live console mixes with very basic music just using the faders and mutes to drop stuff in and out. I woudl eq, adjust sends and move faders while mixing to DAT.' A very exciting way to record your stuff and it does translate to the listener. Ive had comments like this...."I really like your song. I dont know why because theres nothing in it but it keeps me interested every time I listen. I keep hearimng new things everytime I listen...Thats a genuine comment about one of my tracks from someone I didnt know and he wasnt the first. I know why he said what he did.....MIXING = VIBE....on a real console of course. And those lve mixes I did have mistakes which are obvious to me...But not one person has noticed. Theres also all those spur of the moment eq/fader/aux changes during the live mix that were done purely on vibe as Im mixing down. Thats something I have never been able to achieve Mitb despite trying very hard with various controlers.

Theres hundreds of debates on the net about MITB and OOTB'. One thing that is usually always missing from those discussions is Ergonomics, Vibe, ease of use, and . WHY?
Call me sceptical but a guy prefers mixing ITB over mixing on an SSL is the exception, not the rule and he is probaly the type that worked slow and used the console as a means to adjust levels.
Another typ eon the internet forums are the ones who have never used a console yet they will claim to have used many and say mixing ITB is better. Hmmmmm, well in my world and every single real life engineer with a genuine track record I have spoken to states without exception that they mix on a console. Many even laugh at the idea of mitb.

OH, and I say to those who are so obsessed with total recall. **** total recall. Thats only there to make you even more confused and paranoid and is usually bandied about as if it were essential in your armoury. Thousands and thousands of great records were made before automation and will continue to be made without it. Commit that shit youve just mixed and move on. The amount of times I have gone back to tweak an ITB mix is simply ridiculous and is a major timewaster because I can mix a track in 3 hours (usually less) on a console. When I went back tweaking it would take three hours to adjust the volume automation before I even got around to correcting what I was there to do.....guess what......LOSS OF VIBE....


I dont hate MITB, I can do it. But give me real faders and hopefully a cool sounding board and Ill beat any ITB mix I ever did.

I sort of went off on one there ehe

[Chrisac]

I just noticed the F-U_C_K word has been moderated. I realise the UK is the nanny state but this is going to far.F U C K isnt even a swear word these days and i even heard it in a crusty folk song on national daytime yesterday. Who exactly objects to that word?

[Lupo]

One thing to consider is the technical side of this. IMHO, proper signal handling in the digi domain is a far different subject than in the annie world.

Cables, impedances, levels, balanced/unbalanced, headroom and so forth are all well understood subjects. Getting problems in the annie domain is fairly easy to avoid, and if not, the result is usually white noise. Which isn't too bad, at least not compared to the typical digi noise!

Digi processing have it's own share of technical issues. First things to come to mind are bit depths, dithering, intersample peaks, why upsampling can help on some plugins sound better, and so on ad infinitum. These subjects are hardly understood by anyone. Frankly! Even the people programming for digi audio do grave errors. The results of failing to do proper signal handling in the digital domain is not white noise. The result is often small chuncks of noise energy spread across the spectrum at non-harmonic frequencies. I believe this is what people refer to in the term "digititis".

Handling digi signals is a far different realm than handling annie signals. So in this regard, I do believe you need to learn a new craft to achieve great results when mixing ITB.

Andreas

PS: I'm all for vibe! Am mixing OTB.. :)

[Geert van den Berg]

Originally Posted by Chrisac

I just noticed the F-U_C_K word has been moderated. I realise the UK is the nanny state but this is going to far.F U C K isnt even a swear word these days and i even heard it in a crusty folk song on national daytime yesterday. Who exactly objects to that word?

Yes I have noticed this as well. It's not me and neither is George. If you really want to know, drop Jules a PM, but he doesn't seem the type to bother about it either, I think it's some sort built in into these vBulletin boards.

[farjedi]

I get dbbubba's intentions in his original post, if you have access to the gear then it is a no brainer. Of course there are some projects where tracking is done through all the gear then transfered into the DAW then mixed ITB with the use of plugins like mcDSP, UAD, Cranesong etc. I know that Keane's album was done in this manner and I think it sounds great even without analog summing.
Like you said 'a good engineer will get a great mix..' I think this extends beyond consoles to any format from 4 track cassette to ITB. Achieving the harmonious balance of instruments is an engineers art and his guides are his ears. That's how digital and analog mixing sounds good or not. They do require different skills to achieve that goal undoubtedly.
I agree that it is easier to achieve that sound in the analog domain, if you have top quality equipment. Badly made analog equipment can be just as nasty as badly made digital. I challenge any one to argue using a behringer eurodesk to sum and eq will sound better than an ITB project running the best plugins. Of course the most expensive hardware cannot CURRENTLY be mimicked well enough to make it obsolete. But I believe it is possible to achieve one day(far away) and I welcome that. I have always been chasing the analog sound in my head mixing ITB and it is a pleasure using a console at work. That niggling feeling of 'is this real?' vaporizes. But with good plugins and good ears/engineering skills you can achieve fantastic results.

Viva la differance

[Lagerfeldt]

Originally Posted by Jonny Mumra

Hi Lagerfeldt.
you use PT
do you slap aything on the master buss when mixing.

Cheers

I use both Logic Pro and PT but I prefer Logic Pro for a variety of reasons.

I tend not to use anything on the master bus, this can give false impressions of what you are doing. If anything, I might strap an SSL comp on the mix for reference, and sometimes leaving it on during mixdown, but doing 1-2dB of GR max with slow attacks. I wouldn't use a software comp or limiter though.

If you're doing nice eq, comp and good reverbs combined with a bit of sum compression (again 1-2dB tops) and a bit of sidechaining, ITB can sound very open, warm, and have lots of space. Just mind the headroom.

However, I usually combine ITB with a bit of hardware, this gives the best results. Flexibility of using software combined with the coloration and harmonic improvements from tube gear for instance, add one or two nice hardware reverbs, and things are sounding about as good as a pure HQ analog chain IMO. It's 25% in the gear and 75% in what you're doing.

[Chrisac]

Originally Posted by Lupo

One thing to consider is the technical side of this. )

The problem is no one is discussing the 'Soul' factor os using a console. The technical side has been discussed to death.

[Chrisac]

Originally Posted by Geert van den Berg

Yes I have noticed this as well. It's not me and neither is George. If you really want to know, drop Jules a PM, but he doesn't seem the type to bother about it either, I think it's some sort built in into these vBulletin boards.

Yeh I know its an automatic censoring thing not a moderating job. It sno big deal and I understand Jules doesnt have the time to sort out something like this.

So, F_U_CK it :) I can always do that.

[AngeloClematide]

MITB:

First, you need a computer, and second, the universe is very, very large, and seen from the outside it has the form of a cube. That should help!

[dbbubba]

Chrisac has a very valid point here.
This may be part of the whole mixing experience, too.

I will say this...

Walking into an actual studio with actual gear compared to sitting and working in a virtual inviroment is as different as day and night.
It makes you "go to work" when you use analog stuff and sometimes when mixing on a computer you are just piddling around with stuff.

The two disciplines are very different!

How much quicker can you work?
This a live example, but it was 22 channels of mics.
I mixed at a large outdoor festival last summer and we were the second to last band.
The F.O.H. console was a Yamaha PM4000 and the headliner act had a Yamaha PM1.
Because there was rain on the horizon we (the band I was mixing) wanted to get going ASAP.
The crowd was HUGE and we didn't want anyone to leave due to the possibility of rain.
I made sure the mic'ing was good and ran to the F.O.H. position.
The band was playing EIGHT MINUTES later!
I was able to set the console and put a mix together from scratch in that time period.
That is how fast you can work in analog.
I probebly tweaked 90% of the touch-up stuff in the first two verses of the first song.
I also had five compressors, six gates and two three FX going.
It sounded very good, too.
Hmmmmmm.. I had never mixed on that rig either!
How did I do it?
The guy using the PM1 couldn't have worked this fast on it either.

I know that this isn't the same as mixing ITB, but it does illustrate how much mixing is a "vibe" and "feel" thing.
I have things that I know work in analog.
It's a "bag-o-tricks" thing and I'm not about to re-learn how to make things work because DAW mixers use a different set of rules!
These are not work flow things either.
It is EQ, level, compression and FX stuff.
MIXING!

It is almost the same stuff in studio mixing.

I'm tired of talking about this now.

Danny Brown

[Jules]

Having worked in studios for years - the first ITB mixes I did of a band on my PT ssystem, scored them a 2 album contract with Virgin records and several of the tracks were released by Virgin. (Band called Crackout, on V2 sub lable Hut)

That said. MITB drives me mad...

But mixing ALWAYS drove me mad on analog too..

I do find analog stratagies - like bus compression on drums DO help ITB mixes.. so I am gratefull for the prior eexperience.

In this day and age - it is very common for a semi pro person to hire a pro to come to their house and use their DAW to mix things. On a session like that you could pay attention and learn a lot.. or not.... up to you..

I think the folks really good at mixing, have sacrificed a lot of time to become good...

Less time playing video games
Less time with familly
Less time watching DVD's
Less time playing music
Less time with friends
Less time sleeping
Less time thinking about how to mix & more time actually doing it

Its very hard to get what you want from a comp