"In The Box" Emulation Of Large Console Techniques

[graham]

Originally posted by Bob Olhsson
DAWs are more flexible than any analog console but they require thinking.

When you really know an analog board, you can create an optimum patch for exactly what you are doing. The result is the ability to handle anything that comes up on the fly without looking away from the performers or altering the pace of the performance you are recording. As it happens, I hate in-line boards for the same reason I'm not crazy about tracking or overdubbing in ProTools. And guess what I'm going to be doing tomorrow...

Bob, you reminded me of this:

http://daniellanois.com/soulmining.htm

"little Danny lanois is there hanging on to old values --- wearing the hands of a brick layer
getting up early --- chasing away crackles and hums
wondering why the computer fan is so damn noisy --- in the control room where we will be singing on the day
wondering why the stupidity of the inline console has managed to become the standard of the industry
he challenges the elitism of the control room."

Regards,

Graham

Lets try to not make this a 'bitch about mixing in the box" thread.

[Curve Dominant]

posted by thethrillfactor:
Hey Curve now you are stretching it.

Ok, under you scenario, find a solution for this:

Lets say they(producer and artist) are listening to the take(in loop mode of course) and in the middle of the take they want to lay some ideas(maybe for backgrounds or adlibs). But they want it on different tracks...right now...with(2) different mics (one for the producer and one for the artist) and you can't stop the track to add more tracks and change the inputs because it will kill their ideas/flow(something that in the good old days would just take a good able body assistant to patch it together on the patchbay).

What do you do now hotshot?

First off, I'm the producer. So if I've got a track playing back in loop mode and the artist suddenly wants to record, they will wait 2 gotdamn seconds while I hit stop, arm a track (which I've already got open, remember) then hit record/play.

If it was such a brilliant ****ing idea they had, they won't forget it in 2 seconds. And since this is MY HOUSE, any and all complaints they may have can be submitted to their almighty deity of choice the following Sunday.

Answer your question?

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally posted by C.Lambrechts
Once the track is set the duplicate track button on my edit pack gives me the exact same settings on that track quicker then one can do a routing on a console.

Not nearly as fast as I can plug in a single patchcord!

[Steve Smith]

Originally posted by Curve Dominant
First off, I'm the producer. So if I've got a track playing back in loop mode and the artist suddenly wants to record, they will wait 2 gotdamn seconds while I hit stop, arm a track (which I've already got open, remember) then hit record/play.

If it was such a brilliant ****ing idea they had, they won't forget it in 2 seconds. And since this is MY HOUSE, any and all complaints they may have can be submitted to their almighty deity of choice the following Sunday.

Answer your question?

nice... LOL

[C.Lambrechts]

Originally posted by thethrillfactor
Hey Curve now you are stretching it.

Ok, under you scenario, find a solution for this:

Lets say they(producer and artist) are listening to the take(in loop mode of course) and in the middle of the take they want to lay some ideas(maybe for backgrounds or adlibs). But they want it on different tracks...right now...with(2) different mics (one for the producer and one for the artist) and you can't stop the track to add more tracks and change the inputs because it will kill their ideas/flow(something that in the good old days would just take a good able body assistant to patch it together on the patchbay).

What do you do now hotshot?

well .... in this rather extreme example you are right ..... taking in account that you are at a very high class facility and you get an assistant who has been eating / sleeping / living within a 3 foot radius of that patchbay for the last 3 years so he can blindly patch them in for you without even looking at the patch. Guess you would just have to hope that you don't get the intern that just started his second week to do it.

anyhow ... just wanted to say that if my guess is right .... PT might have something coming up that could do stuff like that and maybe even more..... hope to know more soon .... it's allready friday here (1.20 AM)houldn't be a secret anymore ... but they are oing to show some kind of track creating / arming / routing software thing on the fly during playback thing at IBC amsterdam in a couple of hours so I suppose I can tell. On the other hand the info we got was rather vague on details concerning that specific thing so it might be that I'm completely wrong for which my apologies if so. Maybe it is what I wanted to read in it.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by Curve Dominant
First off, I'm the producer. So if I've got a track playing back in loop mode and the artist suddenly wants to record, they will wait 2 gotdamn seconds while I hit stop, arm a track (which I've already got open, remember) then hit record/play.

If it was such a brilliant ****ing idea they had, they won't forget it in 2 seconds. And since this is MY HOUSE, any and all complaints they may have can be submitted to their almighty deity of choice the following Sunday.

Answer your question?

Wow, nice answer.

I could see why as a producer I would want to hire you to engineer my sessions.grudge

Oh sorry I forgot, you've never engineered on a large console, but you've recorded on a big console(Neve).

Bro, if you want no input than don't start a post about what would make things better.

I know its PT and people get touchy when its flaws are pointed out, but I am just suggesting things that if they were fixed could make people feel more positive about working in it.

Its not meant to be a personal attack on anyone.

That's not my style.

[e-cue]

Originally posted by thethrillfactor
I know its PT and people get touchy when its flaws are pointed out, but I am just suggesting things that if they were fixed could make people feel more positive about working in it.

That's the way I was reading it. I'd rather poke the sleeping giant with a stick now before a new version comes out. That way all the things that hold me back as an engineer, especially in tracking, will be addressed in newer revisions.

[stealthbalance]

speaking of sleeping digidesign, the hd2 accel and the hd3 accel are out next week. $10,995 , and $13,995. they include the SSUUPPEERR DSP CARDs.
who know what that means except i got reamed upgrading to an hd4 a month and a half ago. thanks for the advance warning digi. thanks for coming to the party. thanks for leaving us struggling broke sound guys out in the dark. so nice of you to be thinking about all the guys that keep your company florishing.

[Curve Dominant]

Owe Gawd!!!

Ya know, the SECOND I hit Submit Reply on that post, I KNEW somebody was going to be insulted by it and get indignant with me.

But I NEVER for even a SECOND imagined that someone was going to be someone who works in NYC.

thrillfactor:

HAVE A COCKTAIL!

I could see why as a producer I would want to hire you to engineer my sessions.

No, you don't strike me as the suicidal type. I'm a musician and a composer, not a studio engineer. Slight difference.

Oh sorry I forgot, you've never engineered on a large console, but you've recorded on a big console (Neve).

I'm not sure what I'm being dissed for exactly by that statement, but thanks anyway.

Bro, if you want no input than don't start a post about what would make things better.

I didn't THINK I was posting a "Let's Count The Way DAWs Suck" thread. I was soliciting antecdotes on how people who use them innovate. I even shared a few myself.

I know its PT and people get touchy when its flaws are pointed out, but I am just suggesting things that if they were fixed could make people feel more positive about working in it.

I've been recording artists who've had to endure the experience of working in analog studios, and believe me, none of THEM think there's ANYTHING wrong with PT, and neither do I for that matter. The ONLY people I EVER hear complaining about PT is analog recording engineers. And since, as I've stated, I've never done that, I don't entirely know what I'm missing about anything that might be desireable about it. I thought I stated that pretty clearly in the post you just paraphrased.

Its not meant to be a personal attack on anyone.

I didn't take it that way. I rather assumed we had a humorous little exchange going for a while there. But as usual, The Curve went and got a little bit TOO humorous. My bad my brother.

That's not my style.

We know dude.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by Curve Dominant

HAVE A COCKTAIL!

Hey Curve, as long as you are buying I will.

I would actually prefer a rum and coke(Jamaican rum actually) or maybe a screwdriver.


No offense taken. Like I said I am not trying to dig on DAW's(I love working on them), I was just pointing out things that would make it better, or as you asked things that would make it feel like mixing on a analog console. I do work on both and sometimes i prefer working on one over the other(depends on song and project), but mixing on an analog console is still more intuitive.

I like you Curve.

Your enthusiastic and passionate about what you do. You remind me a lot of the early SSL engineers I came up with. They would defend it(working on SSL's) with a passion. A lot of those guys were the first to embrace working on the first pro DAW(Studiovision) even though it was just two tracks.

But over the years they mellowed out. Now its back to the old school. Analog this and analog that. Who would have known.

[Robotnik]

You might be able to work out the technique, but you won't get the sound. And, the sound is more important then the technique.

Continue your discussion...

[stealthbalance]

[quote]Originally posted by Robotnik
[b]You might be able to work out the technique, but you won't get the sound. And, the sound is more important then the technique.

--------------
are you absolutely sure about that ???

[faeflora]

I'd say something here but I've never mixed or recorded or farted on "large consoles". How can I compare functionality of my (pitiful unstable) DAW to something I've never used? Why would I want to hypothesize and theorize around people who have large amounts of real experience with BOTH???

[Curve Dominant]

posted by thethrillfactor:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Curve Dominant

HAVE A COCKTAIL!
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hey Curve, as long as you are buying I will.

Thrill,

I'll be in NYC on Saturday. Contact me before then if you want to meet, and it's on me. 215-413-0463, or curvdominant@earthlink.net

I have a 2pm meeting on Times Square that should go to 4pm or so. After that...LMK.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by Curve Dominant
Thrill,

I'll be in NYC on Saturday. Contact me before then if you want to meet, and it's on me. 215-413-0463, or curvdominant@earthlink.net

I have a 2pm meeting on Times Square that should go to 4pm or so. After that...LMK.

Hi EV,

I thought about it(i saw your post on the other forumn).

Danny G. is one of my biggest clients business manager/advisor.

Only problem is I got a new mix gig and its starts on saturday(50 hrs/10 songs, some rap duo from France).

If some how i can slip out of it and start on sunday I'll come(especially with the Hurricane, flights are being pushed back).

It be great to hang out and meet some industry chicks that will be there.

Let's see.

[Curve Dominant]

posted by thethrillfactor:
If some how i can slip out of it and start on sunday I'll come

I'll be wearing a black Napoli soccer jersey - PERONI splashed across the front in white.

I might be wearing a black bb cap w/ Vincent written across the front (I wear that in case I get lost and forget who I am).

[edmann]

For the DAW enthusiasts here - do you truly get big wide-open mixes that stand up against the best when mixing in the box? I have trouble with that - I listen back to the mixes that I made with digital stems thru an analog board and they sound better - more open, they breathe.

So - I am looking into ultra-quiet analog line mixers/summing devices to try and get more life out of the mix. I have been in the box-only for several years now.

curious to know anyone's thoughts.

thanks

Ed

[Curve Dominant]

posted by Edmann:
For the DAW enthusiasts here - do you truly get big wide-open mixes that stand up against the best when mixing in the box?

Yes indeedy.

I have trouble with that - I listen back to the mixes that I made with digital stems thru an analog board and they sound better - more open, they breathe.

It seems you're used to working that way. Perhaps you simply LIKE to work that way. And if so, you will probably always get better results that way.

So - I am looking into ultra-quiet analog line mixers/summing devices to try and get more life out of the mix. I have been in the box-only for several years now.

curious to know anyone's thoughts.

My thoughts are: If you have been mixing in the box for several years now, and you're still not satisfied with your sound, then you most definitely have to make a move in some direction to solve that. You could either:
a) Get a mixer, and go back to your old way of working which you know works for you, or,
b) Think about how you used to work through a console, and improvise ways to emulate that in the box. Which is what this thread is about. Some of us have posted some very good ideas in that regard, but unfortunately the thread took a detour into the DAW-bashing direction which probably confused the issue somewhat.

If you would like to draw on my experiences at all...I have been recording and mixing entirely in the box for exactly a year now, and I can honestly tell you I have no intention of ever using a console to mix with. That's not to say that I won't - if a client wanted me to produce a track in a studio that had a console and an engineer on staff, and insisted on using that setup, fine. But I'm past the point where I feel I need that.

Lately I've been finding that in order to "truly get big wide-open mixes...more open, that breathe" in the box, it's do-able, so long as some basics are applied. Here's a very rough outline (and bear in mind that I'm no guru and therefore quite inexperienced when it comes to making "how-to" lists when it comes to pro audio):

1) Take the utmost care in preparing signal paths for tracking, preferably using good quality mic preamps. The quality of preamplification will translate to overall mix quality (but you knew that already, so let's move on...)
2) Set your input levels on the DAW so they NEVER CLIP; or even come close to "riding" zero dB. Remember: In digital, a signal can clip even if your faders don't show clipping. This is because the DAW will reconstruct the wave in the D-A process in such ways that overs will occur if the signal is close to zero dB. (Nika Aldrich wrote a white paper on this, which you can find on his ProRec.org forum.)
3) Use the auxilliary channels capabilites on the DAW to mimic the way you used stems to mix out to the console. If you run out of processing power to support this, then use the Bounce To Disk function to suppliment this approach (if you go back through this thread you'll find a post I put up describing this approach - basically you bounce your "stems" with appropriate compression, etc, applied, and re-import those bounced stereo files into your session).
4) Apply all the basic elements a good mix needs: depth, width, variations in use of reverb and delay to create space and dimensional dynamics; EQing by cutting rather than boosting; mult tracks and pan them; pan an instrument, yet send it's reverb or delay to the opposite direction, and balance all these elements across the mix.
5) Have confidence in your tools, and be bold with them. Fortune favors boldness. The limitations you hear in your mixes might concievably have less to do with your gear's inherent weaknesses, and more to do with how far you've gone in experimenting with your gear's possibilities. I'm not trying to diss you with that statement; lest you suspect so, I will explain it further:

DAW's are to some extent still the "wild-wild-west" of the pro-audio world. They've been around for awhile, but most peeps are still suspecting of them, and few peeps truly know how to approach them in a way that taps their true potential. If you talk to most in the pro-audio community, they regard the Charles Dye's of the world as maddening anomolies at best, and rogue heathens at worst. The plain and simple fact is that Mr. Dye was simply an early harbinger of the future. That future is based upon certain models of economy, integration, access, and ease-of-use. The DAW fits squarely and firmly into those models, and the old paradigm of the 2" tape machine with its accompanying big analog console does not. But I digress, and so let us leave this monotonous subject of DAW/Analog=Future/Past, and get back to your predicament.

Imagine, if you, will, that some hypothetical phenomenon had eradicated the existence of analog consoles from our planet completely and irrevocably. So that now, you have a DAW, and no possible choice but to record and mix soley in the box.

Now consider that for many in the world, this hypothesis is in practice actually a reality due to economies. For those people, mixing in the box is a defacto reality; and so consider those people have since discovered and mastered techniques of mixing in the box that not only rival the sound quality of mixing through a console, but have as such created a standard of sound possibilites unique to DAW mixing and editing that audiences have become accustomed to.

If you wish to work and compete and thrive in this environment, you may want to give this scenario some consideration before you drop big $$$ on a console. Because that is not the direction things are going in.

YMMV.

[edmann]

Originally posted by Curve Dominant
Yes indeedy.



It seems you're used to working that way. Perhaps you simply LIKE to work that way. And if so, you will probably always get better results that way.

Actually not true. I always found it a bit cumbersome, and I welcomed the opp to be done with hand riding faders and skip the automated console burden. In fact - I only discovered the diff after months of intensive work on a new batch of material - painstakingly crafted in ways similar to what you describe in the body of your response, and overall just hit a wall where I realized that the stuff was about as good as it was going to get. So I took a few days off and dug back into mixes I made several years ago thru a Mackie (!) board - and I was astounded - they sounded better. Same converters - same synths - same mics and pres (good stuff).

There are many theories out there - yours would seem to imply generous use of plugins (am I right?) - others recommend minimal use of the plugs. In this case - it was recommended to me by someone who works for "the company" to do as you say - get in there with those plugs and carve generously. Stack them up! I didn't go completely nuts - but I did get each individual track to sound interesting by itself and remove overlapping freq's between groups of tracks, etc. I now question the plugz-galore practice - in fact I think that the plugs overall have helped to destroy the sound (yes I use negative EQ etc - I have been doing this in various forms for about 20 years although I am a musician and composer first and and engineer second) -
that perhaps when one sums all of that DSP the overall soundstage just "collapses" for lack of a better term.

Anyway - it's a mystery to me at this point. Or perhaps it is the DSP of my software which I will not mention out of respect for Friends at The Company. I am interested however in learning more about Nuendo and the rumor that it's DSP and summing are superior to other DAW options.[quote][i]

[i]unfortunately the thread took a detour into the DAW-bashing direction which probably confused the issue somewhat.[/b]

I don't need the thread to bash - I have only my experiences to draw from. In fact I am resisting the bash - but I also know what I hear, and I work on the DAW in some form or another everyday to make my living.

[i] Have confidence in your tools, and be bold with them. Fortune favors boldness. [/b]

with all due respect curve: I will have respect for these tools when I hear that they can produce great results. There is heavy pressure from the companies to do exactly as you say - and yet there are many of us who question the final results. So one has to also question this: if "this is the direction that things are going in" it is in no small part do to marketing efforts to SELL NEW STUFF and NEW IDEAS by the companies. DDT was also marketed freely until there was a enough damage for common sense to take hold. The rest of what you say is colorful and an inspirational pep talk on the Brave New World, but at the end of the day it is "what does it sound like?"

When I put on Hendrix's "Are You Experienced" - now THAT is BIG and WIDE OPEN sound.

Still not convinced about DAW summing until I hear it - and until I can cut thru the Company Hype - which is I guess what I am in the process of doing right now.

But I do appreciate your time and commentary - and I am not saying that you are wrong. I just know what I hear - and I know there is lots of room for improvement in DSP and DAW summing.

best regards

Ed

[Renie]

Originally posted by edmann
I know there is lots of room for improvement in DSP and DAW summing.

best regards

Ed

That's the crux of the matter is it in need of improvement or is it just different?

Because analogue and digital emerged at different times with the former being the established benchmark and having it's own methodology, it's hard to approach the topic with a completely open mind and there are so many variables which alter on a daily basis. It's each to their own at the end of the day as is said over and over again.

[edmann]

Originally posted by Renie
That's the crux of the matter is it in need of improvement or is it just different?

.

I think it is reasonable to assume that in everything man made there is room for improvement. Analog has been around for so long that there has been enough time for us to now see the results of generations of improvement.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally posted by Renie
Because analogue and digital emerged at different times with the former being the established benchmark and having it's own methodology, it's hard to approach the topic with a completely open mind

You know we've been screwing around with digital audio and not liking the results for 18 years now. In contrast, analog tape first became widely available in 1948 and many many recordings made during analog's first ten years are still considered benchmarks of recorded sound. Glynn Johns and Geoff Emerick both had considerably less than five years of experience learning analog when they made recording history.

Inexperience with digital was a plausible argument ten years ago but it doesn't stand up today.

[Renie]

Originally posted by Bob Olhsson
You know we've been screwing around with digital audio and not liking the results for 18 years now. In contrast, analog tape first became widely available in 1948 and many many recordings made during analog's first ten years are still considered benchmarks of recorded sound. Glynn Johns and Geoff Emerick both had considerably less than five years of experience learning analog when they made recording history.

Inexperience with digital was a plausible argument ten years ago but it doesn't stand up today.

The 'we' you speak for appears to ignore the fact that digital sells, so a great number of people must like it.

I didn't use the word 'inexperience' I am saying that there are factors and complexities in analogue and digital comparison that can get ignored. Issues like cost, availability, functionality, sound quality, creative freedom, personal taste,
delivery form, science, era etc etc

I can see the validity in the urge to compare, but the conclusions drawn often seem to be dismissive and to focus on right /wrong thinking which I find over simplistic.

Regarding the DAW mix bus issue, people think it's a flaw, or a sound, or a missing sound. I tend to think that people have to battle with digital more soundwise .

I also think that the 'mix bus' flaw argument is probably, (in this era of amateurs who call themselves 'producers'), all too often the convenient mute scapegoat for poor mixes.

[edmann]

Originally posted by Renie
The 'we' you speak for appears to ignore the fact that digital sells, so a great number of people must like it.

I can see the validity in the urge to compare, but the conclusions drawn often seem to be dismissive and to focus on right /wrong thinking which I find over simplistic.

Regarding the DAW mix bus issue, people think it's a flaw, or a sound, or a missing sound. I tend to think that people have to battle with digital more soundwise .

I also think that the 'mix bus' flaw argument is probably, (in this era of amateurs who call themselves 'producers'), all too often the convenient mute scapegoat for poor mixes.

I like digital, I just want to find ways to obtain as much raw clean energy as seems to come together almost effortlessly when creating an analog mix of DIGITAL feeds. Its a sound thing.