The "Secrets" of Mixing ITB

[mchimes]

As a home recordist who has resigned himself to working with the benefits and limits of the DAW alone (i.e. no console, external summing or bussing), I am always looking for ways to maximize the sound quality of the music I make.

I have noticed a common notion among the experienced, that very good sounds can be made and (from there) maintained in the digital domain alone. But there always seems to be caveats attached to such statements like:

. . . if you understand how to mix ITB
. . . if you gain stage properly in the plug-ins
. . . if you know the differences between analog and digital
. . . if you know where the "VERY small sweetspot is in PT"
. . . if you know how the digital mixing bus works
. . . etc.

So I'm wondering, specifically, how YOU approach mixing ITB? (or would approach it if you weren't hindered by that $600,000 Neve console

How is it different in practice/theory for you than analog mixing?

What do you pay more/less attention to ITB?

"How much harder do you have to work?"

What are your "secrets?"

Looking forward to your thoughts,
Mike

[jazzius II]

Originally posted by mchimes


. . . if you understand how to mix ITB

Mixing is mixing...ITB, OTB, it doesn't matter...it's all about communicating an emotion to people thru the waggling of the speakers cones that excites the air which goes in their ears

. . . if you gain stage properly in the plug-ins

Not sure about that one.....gain-staging in plugs is certainly less important then in the analog realm......obvioulsy you want to avoid clipping the wave unintentionally

. . . if you know the differences between analog and digital

Digital and analog what?

. . . if you know where the "VERY small sweetspot is in PT"

That's bull

. . . if you know how the digital mixing bus works

You mean technically or just what's routed where?.....it's important to understand the latter


. . . etc.

[gogo]

no "secrets" for cross posters tutt

[mchimes]

Is "cross posting" a no no? Wow it must be if it has a name!

I just thought it would reach a different audience . . . sorry you had to read it twice

So gogo . . . pick one forum and post your secrets

[alphajerk]

Originally posted by gogo
no "secrets" for cross posters tutt

only cross dressers have secrets?


biggest thing is to use your ears more than anything. also digital GIVES you nothing except what you give it, so if you want it, ADD it or CHANGE it.

biggest thing i use is HP filters in digital, on EVERYTHING [at various freq's].

another secret is resolution has NOTHING to do with how much level you record at or how many bits you "use". DONT record hot. not only will you "stress" your convertors on the way in, but you also eat up headroom in the mixer. know your window from floor to peak and stay within it. 24bit gives you 144db to work with which is roughly 24 more db than any analog gear has...

[blackcom]

Sectrets?...well, here's some tips.

-Run a very powerfull computer, preferably dual cpu to make in fast, and responsive so you have minimal lag when changing parameters. Makes a better workflow.

-Make shure there is noe digital "clipping" in the bus or when using plugins.

-Make shure only to use the "best" plugs out there. On PC it's kinda: Sonalksis, Voxengo, PSP, Elemental, Kjaerhus, Apulsoft, Oxford, UAD...Test a lot of plugins to find the ones that work for your tracks. I guess digital plugs are a littel less versatile...

-Take "some extra effort" in making the recorded sources sound as good as possible. No chance of doing "magic" with analog stuff later....

Don't go bellow 24/44.1.........

Besides that I really don't know.

[mchimes]

great stuff! I'm currently experimenting with getting sounds the way you want before it goes in . . . kind of in line with what Alphajerk was saying . . . with digital, you get what you give.

Question:

Does the routing flexibilty a digtal software mixer provides with (provided a fast CPU) unlimited plug-ins caus eyou to route, mult, bus, etc. differently?

What are your current sub-group tendencies?

[catfish11]

i don't know what daw you are using
i use a protools tdm system
routing is extermely flexible
bussing subgroups is a mainstay for me
vocals, drums, guitars
also keeps from using to many plugs for different tracks...
i.e. , back vocals all get mushed on a sub mix

i have a pretty powerful system so i will use specific verbs for instance for specific tasks, (maybe an old school no-no, i don't know)
i do not always use an aux bus
so a lot of my mixes will look like this
1 back voc >eq
2 back voc >eq
3 back voc >eq
4 back voc >eq
5 back vocs bussed together on aux return > compress, verb or maybe verb, compress
sometimes verb, compress, eq w/ aux send to other verb
sometimes nothing, sometimes everything

i lke to layer things w/ small amounts
both w/ verbs and dynamics
watch stereo spread/placement
many times even w/ backround vocals a narrow image is much better, so watch the verb pans also

parallel compression is another good, one works well to fatten bass, drums > send an aux out to new track eq/ compress to taste

remember however, protools has good delay compensation
without that you could easily end up in bad tasting sonic soup

i like to mix dangerously

as always YMMV

[joeq]

One thing that has been helping ITB mixing work for me is to really USE the automation. Lots and lots of fader moves.

[dreamaudio]

One secret for me is having my hd3 )))...I can really load all the things I need...and run it quite stable.

[alphajerk]

Originally posted by joeq
One thing that has been helping ITB mixing work for me is to really USE the automation. Lots and lots of fader moves.

not just faders but EVERYTHING. i automate auxes & plugins [that are able] too.

also a control surface of some sort is almost essential, or at least makes things a LOT more organic rather than sounding "forced" or contrived as editing nodes does [although sometimes necessary for certain things to get just right].

[Oldone]

Here are my big secrets..

Get the best ADDA convertors you can afford.
Get the best monitors you can afford.
Track with really good mics and preamps.
Get a UAD-1 card with all their plug ins.

The rest is experimenting, reading and learning how to listen.

[BigAl]

Listen to this song and tell me what you think.....> http://www.3daudioinc.com/clips/arlington.mp3

It is one Royer SF24 and all three of them were singing and playing live. It was done at a radio station in LA with a VacRac preamp and compressor. A Wackie..... I mean a "Mackie" was used for a top-end boost.

....just one mic with one pass.

I thank Lynn Fuston for telling us about this recording.

Mixing in da-box or out-of-da box doesn't matter. What matters is the talent from you.

Here is the thread regarding this. http://www.3daudioinc.com/cgi-bin/ul...c&f=1&t=001128

[PaRaNoId]

1- like alphajerk said, alot of HP (sometimes LP) filtering and NOT recording/mixing with super-hot levels.
2- don't record at 48khz and then mix to 44.1, sh$t gets f*ked.
3- use as much analog outboard as possible..... even tape-saturation fx plug-ins help sometimes...
4- use a different array of preamps and recording chains in order to give distinction and seperation to the seperate tracks in the mix. IOW- don't use the same pre, EQ, and converter on every single track/instrument.
5- don't record/use more tracks than needed (its easy to get carried away when u have hundreds of potential tracks rather than the traditional 16, 24 or 48) This is the number one cause of most cloudy ITB (AND OTB) mixes i hear!

[Studio Addict]

Originally posted by alphajerk
24bit gives you 144db to work with which is roughly 24 more db than any analog gear has...

Not true. There are no true 24 bit convertors in existance. The best ones currently measure about 120 db dynamic range which equals 20 bits of resolution.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by PaRaNoId

2- don't record at 48khz and then mix to 44.1, sh$t gets f*ked.

how many people agree w/ this? how many disagree?

[MJGreene Audio]

2- don't record at 48khz and then mix to 44.1, sh$t gets f*ked.

how many people agree w/ this? how many disagree?

I agree. Much first hand experience with this. The gearboxing down to 44.1 seems to be a mess. It does seem better with my HD system but not perfect.

Michael Greene

[Henchman]

Originally posted by mchimes

. . . if you understand how to mix ITB
. . . if you gain stage properly in the plug-ins
. . . if you know the differences between analog and digital
. . . if you know where the "VERY small sweetspot is in PT"
. . . if you know how the digital mixing bus works
. . . etc.

So I'm wondering, specifically, how YOU approach mixing ITB? (or would approach it if you weren't hindered by that $600,000 Neve console

Looking forward to your thoughts,
Mike

I use 3 UAD-1 cards.
I don't use Nuendo, and thus don't have to worry so much about gain stage between plug-ins, sweet-spots or how the digital mix bus works.
I don't use Waves plug-ins, becasue, IMO, they do more harm than good.

I just mix the way I used to in analogue.

[MarkS]

having a optimised recording chain INTO the box and having an optimised printing/ mixdown chain OUT of the box are -at least for me - the major things that improved my ITB mixes drastically (thanks to fellow slutz here helping me out/ pointing into that direction !).
the higher the standart that you record into the box, the more likely it is that you don t have to bother with extreme digital manipulation - except for effect - and it tends to be more easy to place in the mix.
going out of the box through a nice analog thing - currently i am using an avalon 747 for that - rounds up the whole mix very nicely and evens out the digital edge while glueing everything together.
for me the in/out thing and as others mentioned using high profile plugs - is all the thing for ITB to archieve good results.

[jeronimo]

I haven´t learned to mix ITB yet !!!

[Jules]

You might find this helpfull

- Set up a way to A/B between your ITB mix & comercial CD's via the SAME A/D converter type...

You will almost ceartainly need to set up a trial mastering plug in chain at the end of your mix buss (like some EQ & L2 Or Sony Inflator) to attempt to match the level...

But switching (''A-B ing'') back & forth between the comercial 'target sound' CD and your mix may assist you..

If you are souding like or better than million dollar buget productions...It's cool..isn't it?

[alphajerk]

Originally posted by Studio Addict
Not true. There are no true 24 bit convertors in existance. The best ones currently measure about 120 db dynamic range which equals 20 bits of resolution.

the RESOLUTION is 24bit. the headroom on any system only NEEDS to peak @ -24dbFS since the dynamic range is only 120db. 20bits has only to do with capable headroom but not resolution.

dont get resolution confused with dynamic range. 24 bits is 24 bit resolution no matter if you use 1 bit of it or 24 bits of it. basically it determines where the LSB is located... which is obviously well below what analog is capable of. a 24 bit converter IS a 24bit convertor no matter if their noise floor happens to be 24db above or 4 bits in.

[mchimes]

Originally posted by djui5


One thing I've noticed is that I use gentle compression plug-ins more to tame things...analog consoles do this naturally.
I've found myself using a lot of 2-3:1, quick attack (.6-3ms), semi-fast to semi-slow release times (30-250ms) with a semi-soft knee. This seems to take a lot of the super fast "attack" out of things and helps them sit in the mix, digital has a way of capturing these really quick responses of signals..and when it's captured ITB...it's there...so you have to deal with it.

That's an interesting observation. I'll have to try this more. It does seem like a digital mix couls get "pingy" with all those preserved transients.

Thanks,
Mike

[BigAl]

Originally posted by Jules
You might find this helpfull

- Set up a way to A/B between your ITB mix & comercial CD's via the SAME A/D converter type...

You will almost ceartainly need to set up a trial mastering plug in chain at the end of your mix buss (like some EQ & L2 Or Sony Inflator) to attempt to match the level...

But switching (''A-B ing'') back & forth between the comercial 'target sound' CD and your mix may assist you..

If you are souding like or better than million dollar buget productions...It's cool..isn't it?

I second this all the way!

[toolskid]

I've only got one (probably obvious so flame away) observation which is to discard any assumptions or habits you may have from mixing analogue and treat mixing ITB as starting from scratch again. Obviously if you're rocking the analogue world you're knowledge will be invaluable, but its probably good to think that although it looks like a board with eqs and comps etc... what actually is it doing. I suppose its just a vote for really listening rather than assuming things are working the same way as analog

ramble over...

[jeronimo]

I do compare my mixes to comercial CDs... but I never get to sound close to what I want, maybe my threshold is too high

[alphajerk]

one more thing i have noticed now that i listened back to a bunch of stuff i have done ITB, is not to "Wait" on mastering for anything. i think if i shoot for the final version everything ends up coming out better than if i stay shy on 2buss work and let someone else have at it later. i like getting the compression, the eq, and the loudness FROM the mix rather than mastering after. all the stuff i have done like that sounds better than when i have someone master it.

of course, i have a nubmer of refs happening and tests running thorough the course of the mixing. i also mix whole albums instead of song by song.

[M2E]

Guess this would be a good time to ask this if anyone knows.

Let's say you have a session that's 54 channels.
When mixing it in Pro Tools Mix Plus or HD and you use a lot of fader automation which results in a lot of math calculations.
But the Mater fader stays at 0. Does that in anyway effect the sound of the audio?

Or, would it be better if you left all faders at 0. And just used the last plugin for fader moves if need be. And If one or more channels didn't need processing and you put a trim plugin and automated that. Would this be better?

Someone mentioned to me that putting analog channels on all faders and leaveing the faders @ 0 is first the best way to use analog channel and second there won't be as much math going on by doing this so it won't mess with your audio when Pro Tools recalculates.

Is this weird? Have you guys heard this one before?

Thanx
M2E

[Jesse Skeens]

Originally posted by PaRaNoId

4- use a different array of preamps and recording chains in order to give distinction and seperation to the seperate tracks in the mix. IOW- don't use the same pre, EQ, and converter on every single track/instrument.

I've actually hear the contrary on this. By using the same pre amp can help homogonize the tracks so they all sound as one, or glued. Just like a real console. In reality both methods would work, but theres something ot be said about running all your tracks through similar gear so they gel better.

[Jesse Skeens]

Originally posted by djui5
I think if you can do an amazing mix analog...you can do an amazing mix ITB...

I use a lot of automation.....a lot.


One thing I've noticed is that I use gentle compression plug-ins more to tame things...analog consoles do this naturally.
I've found myself using a lot of 2-3:1, quick attack (.6-3ms), semi-fast to semi-slow release times (30-250ms) with a semi-soft knee. This seems to take a lot of the super fast "attack" out of things and helps them sit in the mix, digital has a way of capturing these really quick responses of signals..and when it's captured ITB...it's there...so you have to deal with it.
this.

Good tip. I also use deessers a lot on stuff like cymbals or anything with harsh transients. Kinda like a poor mans Fatso. (warmth mode). But the idea is to subtly tame some of that extra top end that might nromally get softened if you were using more analog components.