"In The Box" Emulation Of Large Console Techniques

[Curve Dominant]

Let's have at it.

We KNOW that there are ways to mix "in-the-box" like the large-console mixers do it.

It's right there in front of us.

It's just a matter of doing it, of going there.

We either do it, or we want to do it.

How do you do it?

How do you want to do it?

What do you think CANNOT be done?

What do you think CAN be done, but haven't figured out how yet?

Do you want to push the envelope?

Let's go on with our bad selves!!!

[Bob Olhsson]

Most DAWs require too much thinking and visual feedback. Can you imagine driving a car with a mouse? Now how about racing that car?

Most console manufacturers haven't got a clue how people really use one. Most DAW developers are at best blindly following all the blind console manufacturers or at worse, following each other.

I think of it as an instrument for a performance. A DAW feels like your hands are tied behind you. (By the way, I was among digi's first hundred customers so "getting used to it" isn't an issue for me.)

[C.Lambrechts]

Originally posted by Bob Olhsson
Most DAWs require too much thinking and visual feedback. Can you imagine driving a car with a mouse? Now how about racing that car?

Take a look at a formula 1 car interior ... then take a look at a PS2 standard gamepad.

Who copied who ????

And those cars go pretty damn fast imho.

[jazzius]

I agree with Bob.....the more you see, the less you hear.

Jules tips

1) Copy tracks

The 'big hitters' 'mult' or parrallel a lot, the DAW copy tracks function is a great thing, but can become DSP or Storage space intencive... but there are work aounds..

2) Automated send mutes & levels

A great feature on automated consoles, works very well, if not beter in a DAW

3) Full session recall

Often far quicker on a DAW

That's all I can think of now!

[thethrillfactor]

PT DAW wish list:

1) Most important to me is the latency correction in PT when using outboard gear.

I am tired of having to copy tracks and off setting them by samples so as not to phase with the originals. I do very elaborate mults and the amount of tracks can get ridiculous.grudge

2) Why can't we add auxes in PT on the fly? Something any console can do large or small. If we could, than 10 auxes are just not enough(most large consoles have 14).

[thethrillfactor]

Also how could I forget...

Why does PT have to stop running when you need to add tracks, something that no console in the world does.

Talk about killing your flow!!!

[Bob Olhsson]

Yes, "flow" not to mention session rhythm. I use Pro Tools almost every day but I DO know the difference.

[Curve Dominant]

posted by Jules:
Jules tips

1) Copy tracks

The 'big hitters' 'mult' or parrallel a lot, the DAW copy tracks function is a great thing, but can become DSP or Storage space intencive... but there are work aounds..

2) Automated send mutes & levels

A great feature on automated consoles, works very well, if not beter in a DAW

Yeah Jules!! I do both of those things, A LOT.

Duplicate Selected Tracks is a big fave of mine. Dupe, pan, trick out - it's dope.

I like to draw my sends automations in the edit window for levels, mutes and panning. Way dope. Like being Picasso with audio. A recent favorite: putting a muted send from the lead guitar to the DigiRack stereo delay/modulation aux, set the send REALLY high, and un-mute it when the guitarist makes a big string-bending lick - then quickly mute it again at the end of the bend...WILD! Sends big curving notes momentarily looping through the mix, very Chas Chandler-sounding.

----------------------

Here's a better idea of what I originally meant by "emulating" large console design in the box:

I read on another thread here about how large consoles have multiple stereo busses, facilitating the dedicated custom compression of the drums, the rhythm guitars, etc. in the mixing stage, and I thought, "Wow, that would be cool, how can I do that with my 001?" Multiple aux busses with compression plugs on the inserts? No, my 350Mhz machine won't handle all those compression plugs open and running in realtime, in addition to everything else that's going on. Send to hardware? No, lacking the quality and quantity of outboard; plus all the D-A-D conversion might sound less than pristine.

The solution = Bounce To Disk.

Mute everything but the drums. Put a compression plug, the 1176 for example, on the mix bus. Get a really hot pumping sound. Bounce To Disk, and import that stereo file back into the mix. Sounds great, plus you get to delete all the individual drum tracks from the mix, freeing up tracks.

Do the same for the rhythm guitars, keyboards, vocals, whatever. Ditto. Works like a charm.

One thing I always do in this process is Save Session As at every step, so if things don't sound as planned, it's very easy to backtrack, and tweak to taste. Session files don't take up much disk space, so there's no reason not to.

I find another thing: if I bounce compressed drums, I can usually stop there, and leave the rest of the tracks sitting individually, with a compression plug on the mix bus. The setting on that compressor ends up in a very mild effect, just gently pushing down vocal peaks a dB or 2 at most. If I have lots of rhythm guitar/keyboard tracks, I might bounce a compressed stereo file of those too.

That's an example of "emulating" a large console in a DAW: you can get the same effect of having multiple stereo busses, just executed differently. Granted, some of us non-dominant hemisphere types might take to this approach more freely, but that's why I thought it might be a good topic of discussion...kinda runs parallel to the "Tips & Tricks" thread in that sense.

[Curve Dominant]

posted by Bob Ohlsson:
Most DAWs require too much thinking and visual feedback. Can you imagine driving a car with a mouse? Now how about racing that car?

Bob,

I think the best way I can answer your question is: try for a moment another, more intuitive analogy. Think of the DAW, if you will, as a motion picture camera, and the process of recording not as driving, but as filming.

The camera is different, but its function is identical: it captures and records events. In our case, it captures and records sound events rather than visual events - what a singer is feeling as she interprets a lyric; what a saxaphonist is feeling as he improvises on a melodic theme, etc. So effectively we are recording slices of life as they "appear" to our auditory senses.

In the Mix Window, we can check and control the integrity of the sound as we are "filming." Once we have all the outboard settings correct, and the mix window tells us we have good input signal, we begin "filming," and instruct our subjects (the musicians) to proceed. We are like cinematographers in this capacity.

Then once we are satisfied that we have a lot of good "film" to work with, we proceed to the "editing suite" which in the DAW user's case is the Edit Window. We then edit that audio into a coherent "story," just as the film editor would.

Does this answer your question IRT my perspective?

[Steve Smith]

Well Eric, It is a cool way to look at recording, but really does not make up for the massive disruption to workflow. I too use PT everyday, and there is not a day that I do not both love an ability it gives me and sorely miss somthing it "takes away". All I can tell you is that when i am recording bands, or solo stuff that is spontainous in any way, soem sort of Tape or a "tape-like" recorder ( ie: RADAR ) really fits the bill. I notice, the client notices and the musicianship reflects it.

having said all that, I am about 90% decided to try and convince the studio I do alot of work for to go HD with a control 24 and dump thier current setup.. amazed me that I am even thinking it is a good idea somedays!

[Curve Dominant]

posted by Steve Smith:
Well Eric, It is a cool way to look at recording, but really does not make up for the massive disruption to workflow.

Steve,

So? Let's solve that! That's why we have threads like this!

Please describe how PT disrupts your workflow, and let's put our heads together to solve that problem! We are engineers, and Where there is a problem, there is an engineering concept with a solution. That's what we do! Let's make it happen.

My guess is that in your case, it's simply a matter of applying non-Euclidean geometries to a formerly linear-based paradigm.

"What the f*ck does The Curve mean by that??!!!" I hear you asking yourself.

Here's what I mean:

Take a piece of paper, a pencil, and a ruler. On the paper, make two dots with the pencil.

There is only one shortest distance between those two dots, and that's a straight line, right? So go ahead and use the ruler to draw a straight line between those two dots (stop me by now if you know where I'm going with this).

That line is the shortest distance between those two dots, right? ANd any line that is not perfectly parallel with that line will necessarily intersect with that line eventually, right?

Wrong! And here's why:

Pick up the piece of paper with your line drawn on it, and now bend the paper. You'll see that your straight line is now a curved line. You'll also see that the shortest distance between those two points is no longer your drawn line. And you'll also note that a line that is not perfectly parallel with that line will not necessarily intersect with it.

So all these assumptions we've made about the shortest distance between two points being a straight line suddenly fly out the window, and we're faced with this whole new universe of possibilities.

That's the difference between Euclid's geometry, and Non-Euclidean Geometries. But I think it also lends itself to a semi-eloquent parallel to the difference between analog recording, and DAW-based digital recording.

Euclid's geometry was solid, and worked well for its time. But it failed to take into consideration the existence of curved space.

Such as it is for analog recording techniques: they are what they are, confined by their inherent boundaries. Those methods worked so long as those boundries existed: linear boundries.

DAW-based digital recording is non-linear (non-Euclidean), so different boundaries exist...the boundaries have moved off into diverging directions, and it can be confusing to orientate one's self to the new paradigm, I know. I remember my first experience in a DAW-based studio, and it was a real struggle to keep up. It was intimidating as hell. Overwhelming. I felt like a really stupid ****, like there was no way I could ever get this newfangled shit. Fear.

But then I thought, "How hard can it be?"

Long story short: It's not that hard.

[Renie]

"We don't mix on the desk at all, we just monitor through it. Desks are suddenly the least interesting part of music, I think, they're not where it's at any more."

"I think the full-on fake mixing desk thing is not the way to go, that's like you're kidding yourself again, you don't want to admit that Pro Tools is what it is. I think they're for people who want to pretend it's still like an SSL or something. People who are in denial about digital audio. To me, a Playstation joypad would make more sense as a controller than a fake desk console. I prefer to think of Pro Tools as a souped-up funky laptop thing."

"I do love real human performance, and one of the joys of digital is that in some ways I think it makes it easier for singers just to do what they do. If you are going to edit the vocal they can see what you're doing, and they feel much more empowered than in the days when there would just be some guy on a mixing desk moving faders. I don't really drop in any more, I just let them sing and say 'Look, if you make a mistake, just finish the take, do another take, we're not going to go back over that bit unless you really can't get it at all, because we've probably got it on another take.' Or they can sing the right bit in the wrong part of the song, and it's not a problem. I'm not in the least bit sentimental about reel-to-reel recording. One of the most horrifying things in the world is having to use two analogue tape machines slaved together. I think that's the most painful thing, waiting while one takes 20 bars to get in tune with the other one — and then you want the singer to drop in after that?

"Another empowering thing in Pro Tools is that if you know what you want to hear, if you've got the idea that the riff should be this, you'll get it eventually, because even if you have to play it one note at a time into Pro Tools, you'll do it. And I think that's beautiful. If your compositional idea is clear, you'll get there in the end, even if your technical ability to play it is limited."

Guy Sigsworth quotes from SOS mag 2001.

Thrill makes the points about where a DAW isn't a fully formed mixing desk and where it's feature limitations disrupt creative flow.

For composing, tracking and creating a track it's powerful and exciting.

I aint upgrading until they have sorted out

Plug ins - on the fly (OK its there now on PT6 / HD)
sends / new tracks / Auxes - on the fly
Auto Delay compensation

Meanwhile I am rocking with the PT mixing IMHO..

[Steve Smith]

The main thing that I find disruptive is the "on-the-fly" stuff as well... just no way around that yet. and not being able to alter routing with tape playing.. creating mults, creating new tracks and settign them up while listenign to the last pass.. I have a cuople of guys I work with who are "old school" and really want the tech side of sessions to be invisible ( for lack of a better term) and PT is only invisible till you 1) turn on the monitor, and 2) need to change anything about the setup.

Now, on the plus side, I do love that generally by the time the producer and or artist has finished explaining an alternate arragement idea, I have already created an alternate playlist, done soem rough edits, and can just sa " you mean like this?" and let them hear it.. that part I am totally in love with. Ecept when really folks who cannot make a decision realize that we can do this till the cows come home... :(

[dave-G]

Originally posted by thethrillfactor
PT DAW wish list:

1) Most important to me is the latency correction in PT when using outboard gear.

I am tired of having to copy tracks and off setting them by samples so as not to phase with the originals. I do very elaborate mults and the amount of tracks can get ridiculous.grudge

Amen, brother!

2) Why can't we add auxes in PT on the fly? Something any console can do large or small. If we could, than 10 auxes are just not enough(most large consoles have 14).

The lack of on-the-fly is annoying, but the number of auxes is not much of a problem, really. You may already know this and I'm misunderstanding you, but in PT you can assign as many additional auxes as you could ever possibly need by adding them as additional outputs in your channel's main output assignment (hold down [control] while assigning additional outputs). It doesn't offer the gain-stage that the dedicated aux-assigns do, but unity-gain sending is usually not a problem for many of the things I use auxes for.

Besides that, you can also do the exact same thing with the [control] key on the aux assignments themselves, and send to multiple buses with the same gain and pan settings.

-dave

[Renie]

Originally posted by Steve Smith
T Ecept when really folks who cannot make a decision realize that we can do this till the cows come home... :(

"He who has a choice has trouble."
-- Dutch Proverb

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by dave-G
Amen, brother!



The lack of on-the-fly is annoying, but the number of auxes is not much of a problem, really. You may already know this and I'm misunderstanding you, but in PT you can assign as many additional auxes as you could ever possibly need by adding them as additional outputs in your channel's main output assignment (hold down [control] while assigning additional outputs). It doesn't offer the gain-stage that the dedicated aux-assigns do, but unity-gain sending is usually not a problem for many of the things I use auxes for.

Besides that, you can also do the exact same thing with the [control] key on the aux assignments themselves, and send to multiple buses with the same gain and pan settings.

-dave

Hi Dave,

Yeah I know this (I do it all the time), but when working on an analog console these are always for me down the line when I start running out of auxes.

I do this more when assigniing the mults. Also i don't use the inserts(i prefer to track the dynamics for recalls). I was just making the comment about things that differ from a console. Because even these work arounds are done ON THE FLY(today's Buzz word).

Hey that's a good point by the way...when was the last time you used this term(On THE FLY-Today's Buzz word) when doing something in PT period lately?

Its great seeing Curve's enthusiasm when it comes to mixing in PT(hey who knows he might be the next Alge Bro on it), but I came up working in studios in what was considered the "new school" of mixing(mid 80's) when SSL's were making there in roads. And yeah everyone had their gripes(not many studio owners new that you needed sufficient venthilation for the computer system/power supply so the SSL's would breakdown left and right). The all blamed the board for downtime. Some of the older guys hated the sound(I believe that was just that they were too afraid to admit they didn't know how to use the thing).

But when it worked it worked well(made mixing a whole lot easier). Hey it broke ground for alot of the new cats who because of the old ways would have never gotten a chance(if you grew up in studios at the time you would understand this comment).

Hey I have to admit, there are times I dread doing a mix in PT(especially when working with higher track counts). Sometimes you just wanna dive into it full steam ahead and take advantage of that little "special feeling" you get when you hear a cool song/production. But it dies after awhile when mixing in PT. Gotta stop to add a quick reverb, gotta stop to sample fix it, gotta stop stop to add an EQ, gotta stop to...

[Teacher]

in Samplitude 7 you can add new tracks, submixes and auxes(64 of each sub and aux) as well as plug-ins on the fly w/o missing a beat....

surely PT can do it..its the best right?

[jfair]

Originally posted by Curve Dominant
Let's have at it.

We KNOW that there are ways to mix "in-the-box" like the large-console mixers do it.

It's right there in front of us.

It's just a matter of doing it, of going there.

We either do it, or we want to do it.

How do you do it?

How do you want to do it?

What do you think CANNOT be done?

What do you think CAN be done, but haven't figured out how yet?

Do you want to push the envelope?

Let's go on with our bad selves!!!

I have mixed on a Trident board, 02R, Digital Performer, Cubase,
and PARIS, and the one thing that strikes me about DAWS is
that I find myself trying touch the signal as little as possible.

It just seems that plug-ins for these apps generally cause slight
"digitalness" that builds up with 32 tracks, and although the
deterioration(sp?) is too slight for me to tell on each individual track, the resulting mix is alittle more harsh than if I had just
arranged better, recorded better, and used panning and volume to greater effect.

I know that advise probably results in better mixes no matter what the platform, but the effects are REALLLY more noticable with a DAW than with hardware (even digital hardware).

John

[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...

[Curve Dominant]

posted by Bob Ohlsson:
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...

???

[Curve Dominant]

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

Bob,

I never engineered on a large console, so to me, the PT-stylie DAW comes as second nature. Maybe I DO think when using it, but I'm just not aware that I'm actually thinking because I'm too involved in operating it to realize I'm actually thinking about it. It's more like feeling my way through it intuitively than consciously thinking about it. Or not. Maybe. I dunno. Does that make sense? If it doesn't, it's not you, it's probably me, not making sense, that is.

I've RECORDED on big consoles (such as the Neve automated monster that USED to be in the Sigma Sound studio one room - just don't ask me what they did with it because I don't know; I just know it's not there anymore, and I had NOTHING to do with its departure, and NOBODY at Sigma will tell me where it went or WHY it went). But in those daze...uh, days, I wuz just a stoopid musician who didn't touch the gear, nor would I know what to do with it if I WAS allowed to touch it, which I wasn't, so I didn't.

When David Frangioni sent me the 001 system, I was pretty well versed in PhotoShop and GoLive (and some exposure to Avid Express from my soundtrack works), and so when I first booted up Pro Tools, it was like, "Oh, yeah, this is gonna be easy, it's like PhotoShop, but with audio instead of images."

So these complaints I hear about PT from folks who came up using analog consoles don't register with me because I honestly have no idea what their experiences were, so I have no idea what they are talking about.

I continually learn from you folks. But all I have to offer in return is a perspective that is completely and utterly removed from the analog paradigm, because that's all I know. I would LOVE to be able to dish out advice on how to mix on a Trident, or a Neve or an SSL, but there will be NHL Stanley Cup playoffs in Hell before I start doing that. My present and my future is digital, non-linear, non-destructive, fluid...and not of my choosing. I happened to be born into a world of Non-Euclidean Geometries, and I'm just going with the flow.

???

[C.Lambrechts]

Originally posted by Curve Dominant
..., and I'm just going with the flow.

???

ON THE FLY you mean ...

[Curve Dominant]

posted by Chris:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Curve Dominant
..., and I'm just going with the flow.

???
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON THE FLY you mean ...

Awwwww!!!

OK!!! So PT does NOT let you open tracks while recording...

BUSTED!

There ARE work-arounds to that, y'know.

F'r instance...when tracking a vocalist or instrumentalist, I'll often open and arm more tracks than I think I'll need, and dedicate all those tracks to that one input. This facilitates a couple of functions: For one, I can easily record multiple takes without having to stop to open up more tracks. And I can also play back a take for the artist, and have another armed track open to listen in while the artist makes comments on that take (this is a "ghetto-style" talkback work-around).

Satisfied??

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by Curve Dominant
Awwwww!!!

OK!!! So PT does NOT let you open tracks while recording...

BUSTED!

There ARE work-arounds to that, y'know.

F'r instance...when tracking a vocalist or instrumentalist, I'll often open and arm more tracks than I think I'll need, and dedicate all those tracks to that one input. This facilitates a couple of functions: For one, I can easily record multiple takes without having to stop to open up more tracks. And I can also play back a take for the artist, and have another armed track open to listen in while the artist makes comments on that take (this is a "ghetto-style" talkback work-around).

Satisfied??

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?

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by jfair
Ibut the effects are REALLLY more noticable with a DAW than with hardware (even digital hardware).

John

I have my theories on this.

One such theory has to do with the dithering down of the digital sends(48 or 32 to 24 bit output). My theory is that some programs truncate instead of dithering the output(and probably vice versa) so you are jearing the build up of the truncation.

I have noticed that alot of the digital hardware effect devices sound better in their analog sections, than when being sent/returned digitally.

[PlugHead]

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?

Thrill:
Killer idea! Many times I've wished for the same thing, but tell me this - how the hell would you ever do this on an analog machine? NOT!

Your point is taken, but moot nonetheless, as it could never have been done before DAWS appeared (looping, that is)