The digital vs analog desk challenge - 2009

[Samc]

Okay, you win!

[Mixerman]

Originally Posted by Roland

The truth is that you can have any opinion you want, but you will be swimming upsteam against the tide and you risk doing the Mixerman thing where you sound like a Luddite.

First of all, I'm the one that CALLED myself a Luddite. So I didn't risk anything!

Second of all, I currently own a mix room, complete with Logic, Dangerous Summing boxes, Radar converters, a variety of outboard compressors, a variety of plugins including the URS bundle, and there's a half-inch machine available. I still prefer to mix on a console, but I can deliver mixes just as good out of my room, just not as fast. I made the room to adjust to the times and the global market for my mixing services. It really wasn't that hard. It required going through steps to make sure that my tools were able to meet my own high standards, but the whole argument that I couldn't adapt to a DAW is ludicrous and always has been. I just understand that mixes completely ITB lack depth in all directions, and so I put together a system that solves that problem.

The only projects I've generally screwed myself from getting are the ones that include bands who need excessive chopping and tuning, but then that's not actually screwing myself, it's just smart positioning.

Enjoy,

Mixerman

[Roland]

Hey if an ol' Luddite like you can make the move, anyone can! Glad to hear that you are finding a way to make it work for you!

When I first tried digital mixing I really didn't like it, however I was lucky that a friend of mine who was a very good and experienced engineer had come at it from a slightly different angle. He taught me some very useful tricks that in hindsight made perfect sense, but, I am ashamed to say, I didn't see for myself when I started. It made me adjust the way that I consider/approach mixing. I'm not sure how much slower you find it, but I've got to a system wher I can mix a track in around 4 hours on average, give or take a client tweak, its about the same time as a console mix used to take me.

Regards


Roland

[Samc]

Hopefully this shows that it's not a good idea to make sweeping, general statements about people and situations we have no first hand knowledge about.

I have owned my very own Digital (live) console before they became the norm du joure, and I've owned several Protools rigs (I presently own a PT HD3, Digi 002 and Mbox pro systems) since the first iteration of the system so I obviously don't hate progress and/or digital equipment.

Pointing out the shortcomings of digital systems does not make one a Luddite.

Like any good service provider, I am constantly preparing myself to satisfying the needs of clients and potential clients, fortunately, I'm in a position to choose my clients, which means I don't need to satisfy everybody and I too generally stay away from the chop me up, tune me in crowd.

But anyway......

[Roland]

Originally Posted by Samc

Hopefully this shows that it's not a good idea to make sweeping, general statements about people and situations we have no first hand knowledge about.

I have owned my very own Digital (live) console before they became the norm du joure, and I've owned several Protools rigs (I presently own a PT HD3, Digi 002 and Mbox pro systems) since the first iteration of the system so I obviously don't hate progress and/or digital equipment.

I think that early digital systems without doubt often had their problems, and I would say that the current crop of things like Venue, the Soundcraft and a few others are a very different bag than their predecessors, obviously much has been learnt, but we shouldn't be surprised by this. My personal experiences with digital come from the very early Yamaha desks, PCM F1's/701's. With digidesign I first edited stuff when they were using Atari 4 meg computers, slow and cumbersome, but little other choice at the time.

Pointing out the shortcomings of digital systems does not make one a Luddite.

Not at all, and I suspect, in person, that you are much more progressive in your approach than your posts would suggest, as indeed is Mixerman. My point is that often our opinions about how things have gone in the industry, and how it has detrimentally effected work can be misconstrued.

Like any good service provider, I am constantly preparing myself to satisfying the needs of clients and potential clients, fortunately, I'm in a position to choose my clients, which means I don't need to satisfy everybody and I too generally stay away from the chop me up, tune me in crowd.

But this is so often the case. The tools are terrifically powerful and used to terrible effect. I can't switch on the radio these days without hearing vocals that have been tunned to death, parts quantised out of exsistance, with the (almost) absolute power of things like protools, must come the class and taste to have restraint and knowledge of how best to use it. I suspect that possibly in 10-20 years time some of todays crop of records will be considered laughable for their overuse of autotune, much in the same way some view the stupidly dated sound of some 80's records. My personal problem with many top line analogue desks, is that the stupidly long signal paths of many of them seriously compromise their sound. When it comes to digital, I don't believe in external clocking or external summing, to me this is the same sort of stuff as directional cables, green CD pens, etc...

Regards


Roland

[diossyakos]

Anyone with experience with former entry level Yamaha digital desks (especially in comparison with the LS9? cons?: Pre's or AD, even DA?)
I have a 2U space in my gig rack AND growing anger toward the LS9-s, have to decide what to deploy..

Thanks

[fifthcircle]

What are the features you need? Nothing else at that price rage has the same feature set. Soundwise- the old desks aren't particularly good sounding.

Which desks in particular were you wondering about?


--Ben

[bishopthomas]

I assume you're referring to the O1V and similar. I couldn't tell you about their sound compared to the LS9 because I've never used them in similar enough situations to A-B them, but the navigation on them are extremely clunky. If you don't need to do anything quickly then it might work for you, but my experience with them is in live reinforcement use where I think they have absolutely no place. What are you "angry" about with the LS9?

[diossyakos]

It's the "sound" I'm fed up with. Was it just long ago, or is my memory playing games, but I could swear those 01V's etc. were better sounding desks. Ease of use is a different story. I can work with them, anyway, a little slower, must admit though. I have to live with LS9s for a long time I'm afraid. But I need something to help at least the most important channels soundwise. Good preamps with spdif out?

[fifthcircle]

While the LS9 is not a great sounding console, the old Yamaha consoles are not good by today's standards.

Your ways to make things sound better will require either or both of external preamps and converters. Yamaha makes a decent pre with a recallable headamp from the LS9 (the AD8HR) and there are 2 slots in the console. Otherwise, any good pre should work giving you the advantage of not needing to use the inputs for anything other than conversion. I would also highly recommend using an external clock with Yamaha consoles. They will improve in rather unsubtle ways with a clock.

--Ben

[Roland]

My own view is whilst a lot of people "knock" the LS9 and the MC7L, they are a huge improvement on Yamha's previous generation of digital desks and when you take into account their street price, they do offer exceptional value for money. For a little more though, you can get into the Digidesign range and they are good at any price.

Regards



Roland

[diossyakos]

Funny, but I was satisfied with M7CL on several occasions, there must be a difference/compromise somewhere, or I'm hopelessly snobbish. Do you know of a difference? Should it be the conversion or the preamps?
2. My first idea is to get the nowadays mostly available MOTU 828mkII from my project studio and try that either on two channels WITH conversion and take the SPDIF out to LS9 or on more channels as preamp.If not good enough by itself, than with more preamps. We (me and the band) have 2pcs of UA SOLO610 and an AVALON737, but it would be sooo good to have only one rack especially at festivals being behind schedule on arrival....

[Murton]

Having just purchased an LS9-16 and using it at a gig before purchasing, I for one am highly impressed with the quality of the pre's and conversion, add in a decent clock and the unit performs quite well.

[diossyakos]

I hope you're right, and I will find a way to not just getting the job done, but to enjoy the results as well..I might simply be dumb. I was just missing something all the times this far, (with those LS9s) which is hard to describe (especially in front of several thousand watts of screaming loudspeakers) any other way, than,errr..beauty. And I had found it many times with cheapo analog desks.

[DirkB]

Interesting thread here.

I'm a studio guy, not a live guy, so please take that into account.

Since I have been working in my little place for more than 7 years with Yammy desks and currently have a 02R96 installed which I love, I thought it would be fun to put in a different persprective.

Disclaimer:
- I grew up with digital, never "really" worked on an analoge console (i.e. never tracked with an API or NEVE desk, never mixed on a big SSL).

OK, my position.
I never got an all ITB situation to really work. No depth, no glue, no pleasant highs.
Perhaps it were my skills at the time, but at the moment with my 02R96, which is used for AD conversion, some aux. preamps (i.e. on closed miced toms, hi-hat, not on main channels) and mixing (balancing, panning, routing and summing) I am able to get a solid sound.
With some great mics, some top outboard preamps, some great analoge compressors and some good outboard FX boxes I can create mixes that are good to my ears.
If I had to rely completely on the 02R96 for all compression and eq duties, it would be a lot harder.

On the orther hand, I have been extensively blindtesting the onboard eq with the URS bundle and I can suggest to everyboday to once in a while test yourself on things where you think you have a clear and founded opionion. My conclusion: with moderate settings (i.e not more than 4-5dB boost, with cuts it's even a lot closer) it get's pretty close, meaning: I could easily be fooled (might also say something about my ears...)

Regarding the ease of use of the 02R96 compared to an analoge console. Since I grew up on these kind of digital desks (have been doing this seriously for about 8 years now - still an young dude ) I am much faster on a yammy desk than on an analoge desk. So I guess it's just what your used to.

Regards,
Dirk

[funkytracks]

i still honestly think that a good analog desk for studio recording is the best . but saying that i have been doing live sound for the past 10 years with some quite high profile acts and to be honest with you i could never go back to analog . when i was forced and i mean forced to work on a digital desk for the first time i thought i would give up and look for anouther job. slowly slowly and as desks have been getting better and better i really cant see myself going back. there are so many options , so so easy to access anything . and on a good desk that shouldent take more than 2 clicks. everything is at you fingertips . no patching no looking down or around at external outboard. and to be honest you could never never unless your working with a huge productioon ever have the amount of processing power on an analog system . the sound ??? well ive been using the soundcraft vi4 , digico d5 , sd8, and venue systems ill put them up against any analog consol anyday. crashes ?? yep ive had a few of those but nowdays not so often . and most good desks let you reset without loosing audio. yes your hart stops . but howabout crackly pots capacitor faults , distorting chanels howmanytimes has that happend with analog desks ? i suspect that most manufactures will stop production of analog desk very soon as one there just not cost effective any more and 2 why would you want to spend upto 10 times more on a pa ?

[funkytracks]

and anouther thing their kind of idiot proof , if you ****up anything ( dont say it dont happen to you ) theres always an undo or a recall. your not scared about leaving it alone after a soundcheck ( placing a security guard next to it untill the gig ). pack up and go to the next gig and its all ready for you all you have to do is compensate for the venue acoustics. you can program a gig from you hotel room using offline editors i can go on and on . i really honest dont see were the argument is . if your a pro the number one thing you want is a great sound with the minimum of effort and digital gives you that. not so much in the recording enviroment thats a compleatly different story .

[diossyakos]

Originally Posted by funkytracks

there are so many options , so so easy to access anything . and on a good desk that shouldent take more than 2 clicks. everything is at you fingertips .

Fingertips?
Not enough knobs/switches on most of them.
In a live situation, especially on a festival's rented digital desk, (for example: you want to add delay and verb to several guitar channels at once several times in a song..) those 2 (times 2 times 4) clicks are PITA or impossible. Can be edited offline to get a workaround, (though mix outputs, auxes are not always available the same way on festivals, sometimes they're patched for sub out, delay out, Tv mix, whatnot,) and should I really have all dozens of types of desks' console files on a pendrive?
Other options (more precise EQ, onboard FXs) make up for it sometimes, but it's still apples to oranges, total recall for instant access, and sound is still an issue, as it is in the studio.
I could (and would definitely) use a digital desk on a tour, and total recall will push the market toward digital on festivals' FOH as well, but even for the time being, there's a price to pay,