Mix ITB it Doesn't Matter!

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by u b i k

ah yes, nothin' beats sittin' back with a good friend, sipping a glass of red, and basking in the sweet sweet sound of superior mathematics.





gregoire
del ubik

This sounds like a scene from the movie "A Beautiful Mind".


Or from the TV show "Numbers".


Mathematics in the movies does make some entertaining films.


"Good Will Hunting" and "Proof" come to mind.

[guid0]

Originally Posted by u b i k

ah yes, nothin' beats sittin' back with a good friend, sipping a glass of red, and basking in the sweet sweet sound of superior mathematics.





gregoire
del ubik

My god, the polynomial interpolation on the alto sax track just exhudes vector space isomorphism!

I think this was proven/disproven by the SSL plug test conducted.
Alot of us couldnt tell which was the plug/analog, BUT most of us did pic the analog sound as a more "open" less boxy sound.

When you consider the fact that this was a 2 bus test on a 2 track mix. In isolation there's not much difference, but if you spread that lack of clarity around your mix on each channel 2 times as both compressor and eq,

THEN you have an overall lack of clarity as a result. I personally am choosing to go with otb summing and having all of my "money channels" (kick/snr/vox/bass) go through quality outboard instead of plugins.

Dave P knows quite alot more about mixing than I do, and when asked what outboard it would take him to pull off a mix that was to his standards, He posted a gear list of almost 60Gs in outboard. He also said that things" just sound better" when separated and brought up on console channels as opposed to ITB.

I trust his opinion. I think mixing hybrid/ITB does require a better engineer to pull off a great mix. There are benefits of tape/console mixing that have to be replaced in a hybrid environment because the other mediums simply offer these qualities that are missing in digital (distortion/warmth)

For me mixing/composing/playing are all skill based and I often compare them to shooting pool. There is so much to be learned by watching someone who is better than I am when he's stuck in a spot on a pooltable in a jam that I would not be able to get out of. ONCE I see how he approaches it, I LEARN. This is missing in todays productions from a musical standpoint as well as a sonic stand point.

Also in keeping with the analogy, there are some "corners" that an engineer can get stuck in that plugins simply will not get him out of

[RKrizman]

Originally Posted by Bishbashbosh

I've gotta say that Pink's albums have been an example of the very worst of modern pop sound.
Mizudastood may have been the biggest selling album the year it was realeased, but it's SO horrible to listen to. Totally overcompressed, and REALLY harsh. The sound of bad converters/harsh mastering IMO.
Her last album wasn't any better.

I love how her songs jump out of the radio. It's totally by design.

-R

[nathanvacha]

I.T.B, O.T.B. who cares? I want to know if it's better to work in low lighting or with windows that let in natural sunlight.
More conducive to creativity to work in one room, or control & several iso's?
Tube or S.S.?
Compress or EQ?
Hardwood floors? carpet?? Tile?!?

[jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

If we are gonna talk about examples we have to be clear about we are talking about.

The bulk of Missundaztood was mixed by Dave Pensado, KD Davis and Dave Way OTB on a SSL 9000J(Dave P and Dave W do both actually).

Which just goes to show that not even those guys can do much when guitars are tracked through a POD. ;-)

But seriously I think the issues with that album aren't about ITB/OTB. They are production issues. A hybird album, so you get the rock stuff without the rock soul of that part, and you get the hiphop side, without the hiphop sould of that side. Luckily for her, the songs were strong enough to overcome, and I am sure a lot of people enjoyed the sonics. I just can't imagine the state of the tracks before those masters got their hands on em. I bet they wer pretty awful.

PS - it's jsut KD, or Kevin Davis (not that it matters!)

[Dave Peck]

Originally Posted by blackcatdigi

But, IME it has been proven time and time again, on every tune I mix. Normally, I stay completely ITB throughout the tracking process. Mix time, I assign all the tracks to discrete outputs that come up on the console. At precisely that moment, the quality leaps forward. No inserts, no EQ, unity gain. At this point, someone from the 'peanut gallery' invariably asks "What did you just do? Man, it sounds way better." I hear it; they hear it.

YMMV

Yes! That is EXACTLY how I came to the same conclusion. When tracking, I usually just keep all DAW channels assigned to the DAW L/R master out & bring this stereo monitor mix up on the console via a spare return. Then, at mix, I assign the DAW tracks to 24 separate D/A outputs (with a bit of grouping if needed), bring them all up on separate channels/faders, and presto! It sounds better.

DP

[Ernest Buckley]

Originally Posted by jhg

And mixing with the board is really a lot more fun.

Can`t argue with that.

[cdog]

The reality is no one buys or decides not to buy an album because it was mixed ITB or OTB.

That is the elephant in the room no one wants to discuss.

Am I saying quality doesn't matter?

No, absolutely not.

But there is a quality point, once you get past, its all just gravy.

Sure, I like gravy on my turkey.

But I also like a turkey sandwich, especially one from Katz's deli on the LES.

[Brad McGowan]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

Pink, but I wasn't desiring to hear it.
I've heard the Mariah Carey stuff, too.
I certianly don't seek this stuff out!

So, you guys that love ITB...
Do you own a good console or did you learn in digital?

Truthfully, are you equally experienced in both analog console mixing and computer mixing?
Have you built up a computer rig and that is your main experience?

No engineer that I know who has mixed for any length of time and has experienced real consoles thinks that mixing ITB sounds better.
It might be more expedient or cheaper, but they never call it better.

I used to swear by ITB and made a lot of money mixing ITB, but thirty years of tapes, DATs and CDs tell the tale. I didn't just get shitty at mixing. I have mixed ITB for TEN YEARS! Console mixes sound better, period!

I highly regret selling my last console (a Sphere Eclipse C)
I did it because it was too big to bring in the house when I quit working in a commercial facility.
Several projects later I am back to using a Midas Venice 320 and my outboard stuff.

Danny Brown

This would be an interesting experiment: take someone who has been mixing 30 years ITB and then put them in front of a console and tell them to do a mix. I wonder what they would think...

Brad

Originally Posted by cdog

The reality is no one buys or decides not to buy an album because it was mixed ITB or OTB.

That is the elephant in the room no one wants to discuss.

Am I saying quality doesn't matter?

No, absolutely not.

But there is a quality point, once you get past, its all just gravy.

Sure, I like gravy on my turkey.

But I also like a turkey sandwich, especially one from Katz's deli on the LES.

This is true, I think professional recordings fit into a "sonic frame" Within that frame some things are truly amazing and some are ok, but HONESTLY if fits in that frame a consumer won't know the difference.

Hell Master P proved it didnt even need to fit the frame. EVERYTHIGN for the most part was done on adats/02Rs

But of course we want to strive for BEAUTIFUL within that frame

[Bishbashbosh]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

If we are gonna talk about examples we have to be clear about we are talking about.

The bulk of Missundaztood was mixed by Dave Pensado, KD Davis and Dave Way OTB on a SSL 9000J(Dave P and Dave W do both actually).

Absolutely..... my point was that ITB or OTB, the people calling the shots at her record company just want her records SCREAMINGLY loud....
I'm was not in any way suggesting that the guys credited on the albums suck (far from it.... Pensado has been responsible for some of my favourite recent albums - Stripped comes to mind)
In fact if Missundaztood was mixed on an SSL that kinda proves my point..... ITB or OTB is not the argument. The argument is 'does it sound good?'
There are plenty of great ITB mixes out there.... so ITB does not have to sound terrible.

But I stand by my feelings about Pink's albums.... I'd challenge anybody to listen to Missundaztood and tell me it's not harsh....
I know nothing about the mixing of that album, but to me it sounds like the harshest 'Digititus' (probably 888's but I'm guessing here) coupled with being one of the most squashed albums I'd ever heard when it came out.

So if the guys at Arista put volume over tone, and make an album mixed by great engineers on an SSL sound like iron gloves down a chalkboard (sorry Dave, but I really don't like the finished product!!), then suggesting that Pink's latest offering is an example of how ITB sucks, then that's perhaps not a fair judgement in this instance.

[JP11]

So instead of looking at what's bad, like a crappy Pink album or whatever, how about looking for the good...

I suppose, first, everyone would have to agree that with analogue, one can achieve great depth of field and a really nice sound...is there an album that everyone would agree on? There's probably a lot of albums where, regardless of style, taste, low rise bell bottoms or whatever, everyone would go, gee that's great sound...

Then, in all this time that ITB mixing has been going on (how long has it been?), there must be at least a few examples of great sound that most everyone would agree on...albums that haven't been smashed in mastering...albums done with the same care as so many analogue ones...isn't someone like George Massenburg doing this?

if there isn't one example...

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Bishbashbosh

The argument is 'does it sound good?'

This is a different argument all together.


This is dependent on a couple of factors.


Your blaming the Mastering Engineer(who is Herb Powers by the way).


And i've heard some classic R&B and dance records done by Herb that sound great.

Originally Posted by Bishbashbosh

There are plenty of great ITB mixes out there.... so ITB does not have to sound terrible.

Again i've seen people post this over and over but i've yet to hear one myself or have heard one suggested.

Now theoretically is it possible?

I think so or for some i hope so.

Originally Posted by Bishbashbosh

But I stand by my feelings about Pink's albums.... I'd challenge anybody to listen to Missundaztood and tell me it's not harsh....
I know nothing about the mixing of that album, but to me it sounds like the harshest 'Digititus' (probably 888's but I'm guessing here) coupled with being one of the most squashed albums I'd ever heard when it came out.'

The same can be said about every commercial R&B/hiphop/pop/rock record done in this decade.

Originally Posted by Bishbashbosh

So if the guys at Arista put volume over tone, and make an album mixed by great engineers on an SSL sound like iron gloves down a chalkboard (sorry Dave, but I really don't like the finished product!!), then suggesting that Pink's latest offering is an example of how ITB sucks, then that's perhaps not a fair judgement in this instance.

Again different argument but i do agree with you.


Its part of the reason i stopped buying albums in this decade.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by cdog

The reality is no one buys or decides not to buy an album because it was mixed ITB or OTB.

That is the elephant in the room no one wants to discuss.

Am I saying quality doesn't matter?

No, absolutely not.

But there is a quality point, once you get past, its all just gravy.

Sure, I like gravy on my turkey.

But I also like a turkey sandwich, especially one from Katz's deli on the LES.

But its not our job to decide that.


Our job as engineers is to deliver the very best sound we can possibly do.


Its part of the Recording Engineer's hypocratic oath.


That's really what this forumn is all about.


If the record labels decide to destroy all the work we've than that's out of our hands.


Personally i don't give a rats ass if the public can't tell what it was mixed on.


But i do give them enough credit to know how the sound makes them feel.


If something in the sound makes them feel like they want to play a song over and over than i've done my job.


If something sonically irritates them or tends to turn them off than i failed.

[Bishbashbosh]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Your blaming the Mastering Engineer(who is Herb Powers by the way).

And i've heard some classic R&B and dance records done by Herb that sound great.

The same can be said about every commercial R&B/hiphop/pop/rock record done in this decade.

Definitely not meaning to throw blame around at all....
My only reason for posting was that someone (ages ago!!) was trying to 'prove' that ITB mixes suck using Pink as a reference. My only point was that IMHO all her records sound pretty harsh to me. And Missundaztood is one of my least favourite sounding albums of all time.
I certainly don't want to come across as criticising the abilities of my fellow professionals (and that is not my intention).
I am all too painfully aware of the hoops through which we must jump to keep the money guys happy.

It is also a little humbling to point out that my least favourite sounding album also sold over 10 million copies.... so I guess somebody knows a lot more about the business than me!!!
I guess the reason we get so worked up about all of this is because trying to make stuff sound good is what we do.
Sadly that can be a different skill from making something that SELLS.

[djui5]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

ITB does offer a pristine mix.... but, anyone that's serously done comparisons will need to be honest about the results. ITB lacks depth. Most modern recordings sound like they are coming off a flat plane.

This is part of the mis-communication. A lot of people compare the current, narrow, smashed to hell, no reverb/little reverb, raw/in your face sound to digital mixing when really it's about a current trend in music brought on by the loudness war. The less bass you have, the tighter the bass, the less depth you have, the more compressed, the less high end you have, the louder you will be on the radio and the louder you will be compared to the next artists cd. That's the current trend in music and it has nothing to do with ITB or OTB mixing.

My argument isn't that analog or digital is better, but that you can get great depth mixing ITB. You can get wide and full mixes ITB. If someone tells you that you can't, they're either working with the wrong engineer or using the wrong system.

I mix 48bit on a dual 2GHZ G5 running PT's HD. I got depth.


If you want to argue that mixing rock music ITB dosen't sound right, then fine. That's fair. But don't tell me I can't do a great mix ITB, and don't tell me I can't get depth ITB, because I can and I have. Don't discredit the digital 48 bit summing buss, because it's far superior to most analog ones. It might not have the noise floor, or the "analog flavor", but it works and it works very well.

I really liked Brads point about sticking a 30 year ITB mixer on a console and letting them have at it. The mix would suck, I can almost guarantee it.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by djui5

This is part of the mis-communication. A lot of people compare the current, narrow, smashed to hell, no reverb/little reverb, raw/in your face sound to digital mixing when really it's about a current trend in music brought on by the loudness war. The less bass you have, the tighter the bass, the less depth you have, the more compressed, the less high end you have, the louder you will be on the radio and the louder you will be compared to the next artists cd. That's the current trend in music and it has nothing to do with ITB or OTB mixing.

This goes for rock but what about the other styles of music?


I've yet to hear the mix that someone nominates sonically as the possibility of what can be done on ITB mixing.


ITB mixing has been in healthy existance a good 10 years now.


You would think by now there would be something.


The SSL which got trashed to no end the same as ITB mixing early on still within 5 years produced great sounding records.


The first records i remember back in the day which kinda showed the possibilities were Diana Ross "Upside Down","I'm coming out" and Arthur Bakers productions.

And these records weren't mixed on a fancy G,G+,J or K.


They were mixed on the early E's.


And these records sound as good and punchy today as they did back then.

[superburtm]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

This goes for rock but what about the other styles of music?




The SSL which got trashed to no end the same as ITB mixing early on still within 5 years produced great sounding records.

.

That is your opinion, it's subjective

[six_wax]

Originally Posted by u b i k

ah yes, nothin' beats sittin' back with a good friend, sipping a glass of red, and basking in the sweet sweet sound of superior mathematics.





gregoire
del ubik

couldn't have said it better myself. thumbsup

[Chrisac]

Talking from Dannys original post I pretty much agree with him because thats how I explain the difference between a console and an itb mix. With that thinking it lead me to adopt a hybrid system where depending on the project I will mix on the console or entirely ITB. If It is an itb mix I will be looking for an in yer face mix because thats what seems to come out when I mix in the box and I quite like that sound now that I feel I understand it a bit more. In fact theres been a couple of times when I was sure a project would be much better mixed on a console but turned out to be better mixed in the box.

I dont have an amazing mixer but it definitely stands up to any of my itb mixes. The only way I can describe is the same as Danny that the console mixes seem to be a bit more spacey and sometimes thats what I want.

''At the end of the day I like the flexibility of being able to choose mixing style and I suppose I could look at it as another tool in the armoury of music production. Oh and If anyone asked me two years ago I would have hailed MITB as a devils curse on mankind. Since showing ITB mixes a little love and care I get on a lot better with it now.

Show me the money

Where are the great ITB mixes.


Djui5 I understand what you are saying about mixes being smashed to death today, but this trend corresponds to people going to DAWs more. Can we honestly say that both dont contribute a bit?

[Chrisac]

Originally Posted by nathanvacha

I.T.B, O.T.B. who cares? I want to know if it's better to work in low lighting or with windows that let in natural sunlight.
More conducive to creativity to work in one room, or control & several iso's?
Tube or S.S.?
Compress or EQ?
Hardwood floors? carpet?? Tile?!?

While all your subjects of interest make fine topics of conversation I think regardless of the numbers I this issue is probably the biggest change in audio engineering techniques since that bloke spoke in to the gramaphobe thingy. So I reckon this topic is one that will come up very often and rightly so in my opinion. With rapidly changing technology the situation changes as peoples experiences broaden

[superburtm]

Originally Posted by djui5

I think we should do a comparison here. Find a song the artist will let us use, and have someone do an ITB mix, and have someone else do a console mix. Compare the depth, etc etc.

The console will win, provided it's a decent console, and the engineer is not an idiot. Not to say that ITB mixing is useless, it has it's place. ITB is just not as good as a console with Hardware, end of story. Keep in mind that I mostly mix ITB as well due to budget constraints of most of the artists I work with. But when there is a good budget, you will find me behind a console. I'm just being honest about my experiences.

[robot gigante]

Just to adress a couple issues brought up earlier in the thread, there are a lot of younger engineers out there that have started ITB that much prefer analog gear and mixing on a console... I really don't think it's as much a matter of taste or what people are used to hearing if people switch to analog so easily, which I think happens quite a bit.

And if you don't like smashed masters btw, buy a hifi turntable and get the releases on vinyl. Problem solved. Sounds great. No smashing.

I think no ssl yet nailed it about plugins. I think that even goes for (good) plugins like Cranesong Phoenix that are supposed to warm up the tracks or give them depth (the good thing about Phoenix however is that you can use one Phoenix in the place of an eq and a compressor plugin so you are using less plugins overall). I think you really have to be careful about how many plugins you use and a tendency is to throw on too many because they are so accessible.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by djui5

I don't agree. Besides, most of the crushed, flat crap you're hearing on the radio and whatever was mixed on an SSL.

Maybe in rock and roll.

But in pop/hiphop/R&B and dance its become more and more ITB.

Originally Posted by djui5

Since no-one seems to know what's out that was mixed ITB, other than a couple songs off the Nickelback album by ships and that RM song Charles did, what's out there that's so flat that was mixed ITB?..... Seems we can't agree on what's even out there that was mixed ITB..so how is everyone gonna blame it on the DAW's?

Mike Shipley mixes through a Folcrom doesn't he?


That's not ITB that's OTB.

[JP11]

Originally Posted by djui5

I think we should do a comparison here. Find a song the artist will let us use, and have someone do an ITB mix, and have someone else do a console mix. Compare the depth, etc etc.

That sounds like a fun idea...

[JP11]

Originally Posted by djui5

Seems we can't agree on what's even out there that was mixed ITB..so how is everyone gonna blame it on the DAW's?

I put "entirely in Pro Tools" in Google...some things came up, but then I got distracted...one was Tony Visconti and a Prefab Sprout CD...

of course Pro Tools isn't the only DAW...I think some pretty good recordings with plenty of depth were recorded in the Emu Paris DAW...

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by djui5

I think we should do a comparison here. Find a song the artist will let us use, and have someone do an ITB mix, and have someone else do a console mix. Compare the depth, etc etc.

This would only work if the same person mixed the song on both platforms using the same gear.


If its 2 different people using different gear its just one person's interpretation versus the other.

And you won't be able to tell if its the plugs or if its the harware used.

[danasti]

Originally Posted by noiseflaw

Quote:
Originally Posted by dbbubba
The better the console... the better the depth of field!

Danny Brown


Oh dear oh dear, Depth of field is achieved with the skill of the recording engineer, the mix engineer and the mastering engineer.

If it is tracked well and mixed well it can have great depth of field.



Quote:
Originally Posted by dbbubba
The better the console... the better the depth of field!

Danny Brown



Nonsense..

I cound not agree more.

Since Manny Marroquin, who mixed most of Mariah Carey's new album on an SSL XL 9000 K as well as Pink's first album on an SSL 9000J that would throw your depth for field arguement out the window, right?

Oh NO wait! It's the masterering that's "EXTREMELY" overcompressed the Grammy winners work, right?

Well, let's see what he has to say. According to Herb Powers (who did the mastering for Mariah's latest), in Mix, he aims to make records "sound as good as they can in the real world, on the kinds of playback systems that people actually use, not only what you see in the audiophile magazines."

I'm not affraid to say that I don't like Mariah Carey or Pink. It's not my thing at all. But it seems like every thread I open here anymore is just some bitter person critisizing something about how "it ain't like it used to be" or "this manufacturer sucks". I did google Danny Brown but I assume you're not a falsly convicted man or a gay porn star. I do not know another way to look you up. I am interested in seeing what you have done because of your heavy critique of other well respected engineers and your passionate defense of your skills and talents.