OTB vs ITB Mixing - TECHNIQUE Differences?

The Marrvel · 14th June 2007, 12:52 AM

There's so much talk about mixing ITB versus OTB, but nobody mentions how the mixing techniques differ other than keeping ITB headroom.

As someone who has learned to mix ITB, I have no idea about what limitations I would no longer have OTB.

Please post some comparisons between mixing on the two formats in terms of:

Fader leveling
Compression
EQ
Mix Buss
and whatever else you can think of

Perhaps we can start the definitive guide for this type of thing...

dropblacksky · 14th June 2007, 01:21 AM

you're gonna have way more limitations mixing OTB than ITB...the only reason anyone mixes ITB is because the of the flexibility, cheaper cost, and non-linear editing. People who are into OTB are into it because of the perceived difference in sound and the "mojo" of moving real faders and real knobs (as opposed to a mouse or a DAW controller). I can't imagine any situation where using tape, outboard gear, and a large format console would have less limitations than mixing ITB...it's just not as fun. :)

3rd world order · 14th June 2007, 01:56 AM

when i mix ITB i have to go thru the added step of ripping my hair out...

peeder · 14th June 2007, 02:04 AM

I think the most obvious technique difference is you can mix an album as an album, rather than one song at a time. There is no cost to hindsight with instant recall.

Furthermore, you can automate effects settings (EQ, comp, etc.) much more thoroughly...so you can set different "scenes" for different sections of the music. OTB you would have to splice to get that kind of control (of course many OTB people "splice" nondestructively by using the DAW as transport).

As discussed on the earlier thread, constraints are good for creativity, and being forced to make decisions can help as well.

The Marrvel · 14th June 2007, 02:48 AM

I'm looking for more technical mixing answers fellas, not as much another debate about sound. And automation is pretty much a given for ITB.

bitman · 14th June 2007, 03:40 AM

Mixing otb does not always mean using a console. I send my daw busses vox,bass,e guit,ac guit,keys,drums etc to a passive summer. I still get to use the mix automation (file save) but otb sound and punch. Just by summing through resistors and copper. I still use flying fader control surfaces, so it has not changed my workflow.

I don't know if this helps at all.

CorkyTart · 14th June 2007, 04:10 AM

Furthermore is a grad student word.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peeder

Furthermore, you can automate effects settings (EQ, comp, etc.) much more thoroughly...so you can set different "scenes" for different sections of the music. OTB you would have to splice to get that kind of control (of course many OTB people "splice" nondestructively by using the DAW as transport).

RKrizman · 14th June 2007, 04:46 AM

Two things i always do when mixing ITB is to be sure to roll off all the excess super low end and pop a Cranesong Phoenix plugin on any track that I want to pop out and achieve a little more 3-D with.

-R

AdamZuf · 14th June 2007, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bitman

Mixing otb does not always mean using a console. I send my daw busses vox,bass,e guit,ac guit,keys,drums etc to a passive summer.

I want to do it as well. Did you build the summing box? How many channels? What preamps are you using??

Thanks
Adam

rob S · 14th June 2007, 06:47 AM

it sounds better outside the box.
its more 3D, the image is better.
more depth.
its the difference between staring at a really really good picture and being there.
with that said, it doesn't seem to matter anymore because it just ends up as a super smashed mp3.
so **** it.
stay inside the box.
we are no longer striving to make the recorded medium better.
the business is in a freefall and the marketplace determines the quality.
and it hasn't been doing such a good job in that dept.
flame away boys.
i'm off my pedestal.

u b k · 14th June 2007, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob S

we are no longer striving to make the recorded medium better. the business is in a freefall and the marketplace determines the quality.

to the former, i've yet to meet or encounter an engineer for whom that's true.

to the latter, what has 'the business' to do with this guy's inquiry, which is explicitly about workflow as it relates to mix platforms? your resentment must be pretty intense to have used this innocuous thread as an opportunity to jump on a soapbox, a well-worn soapbox at that.

to the original poster, just start out with a summing box and mix compressor, those two alone will change your world forever while keeping your workflow intact. the only major change will be the need to notate the comp's settings if you're working on more than one song at a time.

gregoire
del
ubk
.

Benmrx · 14th June 2007, 09:59 AM

For me, the more OTB I go, the less carving (EQ, Automation, ect.) I need to do in order to get a nice 3-D image going on. Therefore the less I **** with it, the easier it is, and the more creative I can be.

Quote:

when i mix ITB i have to go thru the added step of ripping my hair out

exactly

stevep · 14th June 2007, 11:21 AM

I mix OTB through a Console with Automation and from Tape 75% of the time
so here are some comparisons without getting into the automation pluses of itb

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Marrvel

Please post some comparisons between mixing on the two formats in terms of:

Fader leveling

When starting the mix otb i can decide if i want to hit the desk harder to get more crunch, or "that sound" of my console, this is with the channel trims and i can get that on every channel or only a few

Hard to do that itb without getting unwanted digital distortion

As far as fader levels to the stereo buss i set them so i have plenty of headroom for all the tracks in the song. ( you get to know where each desk likes to be so this will vary from desk to desk) on mine the master buss has head room to the moon before it collapses

Quote:

Compression

otb there is no latency when using parallel compression big plus !

and i like the sound of analog comps better so i dont use compression plugs 99% of the time

Quote:

EQ

Again i dont like the sound of plugins so i use the EQs and filters on the desk, Again the EQs react and sound different when you hit them hard sometimes adding that analog distortion thats just right , or hit them normal and they sound diffrent..or..well,.. normal..

in the end i dont use that much EQ ,. with this desk it just gets the sound i want all on its own,, kinda hard to explain,

Quote:

Mix Buss

Depending on how hard you hit the stereo buss on the desk can either help the mix or destroy it, i try and find the happy spot for each song, the stereo buss on my desk has tons of headroom all the meters can be fully lit before any audible distortion

My console works great with the original SSL mix buss comp and it gets patched in the insert of the stereo buss and i trigger it with a key in from an aux that is ran through a hi pass EQ, there are many advantages with this setup

For me this is where the itb mix falls short, i know the specs of PTs master buss looks great on paper, but in the real world i cant get the sound i want or expect when i mash all those tracks through it.

Quote:

and whatever else you can think of

A huge advantage of a nice desk is all the routing,

48 busses, a bunch of auxes, inserts, direct outs, inputs, patchbay mults, all with no latency using outboard gear

and without running through the converters again

Another is monitoring, large consoles have tons of options for sending cue mixes and for monitoring several 2 tracks ect...

i know there are some who prefer there own monitor set up external from the desk, mine is setup so thats an easy patch, but my monitor section sounds great.

As far as limitations, your only limited by your imagination :) either itb or otb

Believe me if i could get the same or better sound from an Icon and my PT rig than i get from my Studer 820, the APC1000 and the outboard, all working together
i would be using one.

The continuing maintenance on a analog desk is a must ! you can let them go and the sound will go with it

picksail · 14th June 2007, 11:49 AM

Not to be contrary Steve, but there is one minor error in your comparison. You can apply parallel compression without latency. I do it everyday.

It is possible with PTHD and auto delay compensation. The only time I've experienced any issues is with using outboard with the Apogees. Not so cool. But it's fine with the 192s.

So yes, you can apply parallel compression in the box.

Just wanted to offer a bit of clarification.

kats · 14th June 2007, 04:57 PM

Technique difference?

Easy,

For every dB eq change OTB, multiply by 3 ITB
For every degree panning OTB, mulitply by 2 ITB
Add plugz ITB (vintage warmer etc) to pretend your not ITB
Compress stereo bus to within 2dB's dynamic range so that it sounds modern and masks any sense of depth of space that wasn't there in the first place.

Big tongue in cheek fellas...forgive me!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
ITB vs OTB	Mark1353	The good news channel	15	30th January 2007 12:24 PM
How do YOU combine mixing ITB with OTB	Greens	Rap + Hip Hop engineering & production	2	14th January 2007 04:26 PM
ITB Levels if mixing OTB	jayjay	High end	25	21st June 2006 04:58 PM
ITB OTB	Jay Lee	Low End Theory	2	12th June 2006 01:26 PM
ITB,OTB, OTB to tape, examples enclosed	everybody's x	So much gear, so little time!	52	31st October 2005 01:26 AM

14th June 2007, 12:52 AM	#1
The Marrvel Gear addict Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: NYC Posts: 377	OTB vs ITB Mixing - TECHNIQUE Differences? There's so much talk about mixing ITB versus OTB, but nobody mentions how the mixing techniques differ other than keeping ITB headroom. As someone who has learned to mix ITB, I have no idea about what limitations I would no longer have OTB. Please post some comparisons between mixing on the two formats in terms of: Fader leveling Compression EQ Mix Buss and whatever else you can think of Perhaps we can start the definitive guide for this type of thing...

14th June 2007, 01:56 AM	#3
3rd world order Lives for gear Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: ann arbor, michigan Posts: 1,948	when i mix ITB i have to go thru the added step of ripping my hair out... __________________ 3WO - Mixing Without Tears "Tape is a mangler.." -- Slipperman // "The idea of the perfect album is this amorphous thing we're always aiming at. For us, it can mean something full of imperfection. Part of our aim has always been to destroy the sound in a beautiful way. It doesn't mean we expect everyone would like it. I'm not sure we will ever get there... but the whole point of making music is at least to aim at your own idea of perfection." -- Boards of Canada

14th June 2007, 11:49 AM	#14
picksail Lives for gear Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Hollywood Posts: 3,326	Not to be contrary Steve, but there is one minor error in your comparison. You can apply parallel compression without latency. I do it everyday. It is possible with PTHD and auto delay compensation. The only time I've experienced any issues is with using outboard with the Apogees. Not so cool. But it's fine with the 192s. So yes, you can apply parallel compression in the box. Just wanted to offer a bit of clarification. __________________ Stewart Cararas Seventh Level Productions Myspace Profile Discogs _________________________________ The new is necessarily abstract - Rudolf Borchadt

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

14th June 2007, 01:21 AM	#2
dropblacksky Gear addict Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 410	you're gonna have way more limitations mixing OTB than ITB...the only reason anyone mixes ITB is because the of the flexibility, cheaper cost, and non-linear editing. People who are into OTB are into it because of the perceived difference in sound and the "mojo" of moving real faders and real knobs (as opposed to a mouse or a DAW controller). I can't imagine any situation where using tape, outboard gear, and a large format console would have less limitations than mixing ITB...it's just not as fun. :)

14th June 2007, 02:04 AM	#4
peeder Lives for gear Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: No longer participating here. Posts: 6,742	I think the most obvious technique difference is you can mix an album as an album, rather than one song at a time. There is no cost to hindsight with instant recall. Furthermore, you can automate effects settings (EQ, comp, etc.) much more thoroughly...so you can set different "scenes" for different sections of the music. OTB you would have to splice to get that kind of control (of course many OTB people "splice" nondestructively by using the DAW as transport). As discussed on the earlier thread, constraints are good for creativity, and being forced to make decisions can help as well.

14th June 2007, 02:48 AM	#5
The Marrvel Gear addict Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: NYC Posts: 377	I'm looking for more technical mixing answers fellas, not as much another debate about sound. And automation is pretty much a given for ITB.

14th June 2007, 03:40 AM	#6
bitman Lives for gear Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Keystone, CO Posts: 649	Mixing otb does not always mean using a console. I send my daw busses vox,bass,e guit,ac guit,keys,drums etc to a passive summer. I still get to use the mix automation (file save) but otb sound and punch. Just by summing through resistors and copper. I still use flying fader control surfaces, so it has not changed my workflow. I don't know if this helps at all.

14th June 2007, 04:46 AM	#8
RKrizman Lives for gear Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Santa Monica, CA Posts: 2,846	Two things i always do when mixing ITB is to be sure to roll off all the excess super low end and pop a Cranesong Phoenix plugin on any track that I want to pop out and achieve a little more 3-D with. -R

14th June 2007, 06:47 AM	#10
rob S Lives for gear Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: silverlake Posts: 507	it sounds better outside the box. its more 3D, the image is better. more depth. its the difference between staring at a really really good picture and being there. with that said, it doesn't seem to matter anymore because it just ends up as a super smashed mp3. so **** it. stay inside the box. we are no longer striving to make the recorded medium better. the business is in a freefall and the marketplace determines the quality. and it hasn't been doing such a good job in that dept. flame away boys. i'm off my pedestal.

14th June 2007, 04:57 PM	#15
kats Lives for gear Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 2,367	Technique difference? Easy, For every dB eq change OTB, multiply by 3 ITB For every degree panning OTB, mulitply by 2 ITB Add plugz ITB (vintage warmer etc) to pretend your not ITB Compress stereo bus to within 2dB's dynamic range so that it sounds modern and masks any sense of depth of space that wasn't there in the first place. Big tongue in cheek fellas...forgive me!