Mix ITB it Doesn't Matter!

[Ziggy!!]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

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.

I was thinking the same thing. Even when djui5 was talking about the comparison of this mix ITB and someone elses mix on an SSL.



Im still curious about the implementation of bit depth resolution and volume and its effect on depth of field.


Like I said before, im sure a lot of these statements suffer a great deal of bias whether acknowledged or not... No one wants to admit that their setup is sub-par in anyway.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Ziggy!!

Im still curious about the implementation of bit depth resolution and volume and its effect on depth of field.

I'm with Randy on this one.


I think the Pan Cake mastering does kill the depth somewhat.


In this new century although something like Beck's "Sea Change" maybe mastered a little too hot both volume and freq wise has a nice size and depth to it.

For the Radio Rock stuff Linkin Park's "Meteora" and Puddle Of Mudd "Come Clean"both mixed by AW are pancaked but still retain their depth and are still listenable over and over.

[drew]

try artistsdirect.com

i use it in my sig.

Guys the funny thing about all this is that come NAMM 2008 if Digi announces PRotools HDHD (Hi def/HI DEPTH)

Guys will be flocking to go get it and loving what is fixed in their flawed HD systems that are seen as without flaw today.

I think the best engineers are those who view a mix as a problem solving expedition. PROBLEM being the picture that is in mind (assuming the mixer has vision) needs to come out when Pressing play

The TOOLS: as pensado put it (ALL 52 cards in the deck) Meaning the engineer will hear a need for something that a certain chain of gear will solve, and reach for it. To ultimately solve the problem. Hell he may reach for the wrong piece, but learn that something else sends him in another direction (like reaching to play a chord and your hand plays an accidental that you happen to like)

Working purely itb doesnt offer this yet. IMO

We are JUST reaching a stage where with the proper front end/tracking working itb with plugs can get you "good enough" results

BUT honestly when we first pull up the faders to a song are we only looking for "good enough" results?

[indie]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

In this new century although something like Beck's "Sea Change" maybe mastered a little too hot both volume and freq wise has a nice size and depth to it.

"Sea Change" is one of my FAVORITE sounding records of all time. Maybe my favorite.
thumbsup thumbsup

[Soundog]

Pardon my ignorance, but might there be an explainable, rational physical reason for the differences ? I don't know - I'm genuinely interested.

I know nothing about electronics, but could perhaps the differences be in the way physical circuits behave ?

Everyone seems to agree that ITB sounds different to OTB, but not everybody agrees that one is necesarily better than the other. Assuming that the difference is real, could it be to do with the way circuits handle changes in voltages and current ?

I was thinking that the perception of depth often comes from subtle changes in EQ - less bass, less high due to the way air affects the frequency balance of a sound over distance. Do analogue circuits impose this sort of behaviour on signals at different strengths ? If you pull the fader down on a console, does it change the eq of the signal slightly so that not only is the signal softer, but it sounds more distant ? Contrast this to a signal mixed ITB where a volume reduction preserves the exact frequency curve preserving its perception of depth ( distance ), but only makes it softer.

This might explain why ITB sounds like it is coming from a 2 dimensional plane - because it is. If everything is close miked and mixed ITB, the parts will continue to sound close miked - even when pulled down in the mix because the frequency curve of every track is preserved perfectly and proportionately by mathematics regardless of the volume. Hence sounds mixed ITB can only become softer or louder, but not more distant or closer.

By contrast, an analogue mix sound might more open because only the louder mixed parts have their full frequency preserve while the softer parts are shaved off slightly and don't appear to compete for space.

If that is the case, DAW's could easily be programmed to accomodate this.

Jim Williams, anyone - comments ? Am I way off here ? Just a thought....

[eligit]

Originally Posted by indie

"Sea Change" is one of my FAVORITE sounding records of all time. Maybe my favorite.
thumbsup thumbsup

always serves as my reality check. "oh, yeah, this is what a quality modern recording sounds like."

all analog until mastering. tracked mostly live, even the vocals. i have yet to hear a tracked to digital project that is even in the same ball park as this record. (which is a bummer because tape is way out of my reality).

maybe a TOUCH too loud from mastering but you cannot argue with the all around quality of the sound. huge, rich, detailed....all that good stuff.

[raal]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

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.

i think if any engineer were to mix the same song on the same gear (ITB or OTB) but on a different day, it wouldn't sound the same. would boil down to how the individual feels that day, and how that translates though his skill and talent. it's like painting or playing the guitar.

ten years ago this discussion wouldn't even exist. but the fact that it does proves to me that digital is getting alot closer. some think it's already there. i still prefer analog but look forward to the day digital comes of age.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Soundog

Assuming that the difference is real, could it be to do with the way circuits handle changes in voltages and current ?

I was thinking that the perception of depth often comes from subtle changes in EQ - less bass, less high due to the way air affects the frequency balance of a sound over distance. Do analogue circuits impose this sort of behaviour on signals at different strengths ? If you pull the fader down on a console, does it change the eq of the signal slightly so that not only is the signal softer, but it sounds more distant ? Contrast this to a signal mixed ITB where a volume reduction preserves the exact frequency curve preserving its perception of depth ( distance ), but only makes it softer.

This might explain why ITB sounds like it is coming from a 2 dimensional plane - because it is. If everything is close miked and mixed ITB, the parts will continue to sound close miked - even when pulled down in the mix because the frequency curve of every track is preserved perfectly and proportionately by mathematics regardless of the volume. Hence sounds mixed ITB can only become softer or louder, but not more distant or closer.

I seem to recall reading that even high quality faders slightly attenuate the high frequencies as you pull them down.

but summing boxes have no faders...

[JP11]

If 2 different engineers on 2 different days or whatever makes the "contest" unfair or subject to iinterpretation, then isn't the whole discussion unfair?

[Soundog]

Originally Posted by joeq

I seem to recall reading that even high quality faders slightly attenuate the high frequencies as you pull them down.

Interesting... I'm curious because I've never worked on a console or used a summing box.

Originally Posted by joeq

but summing boxes have no faders...

True. Perhaps a slight high frequency attenuation of low level signals might come from elsewhere ? Digital to analog conversion perhaps ? Or resistance ( or is capacitance the right word ) in the signal path coming from cables, connectors etc which will be of a constant value for all signals whether of high strength or low strength ? Low level signals face a higher proportionate resistance than high level signals and might be more coloured as a result.

ITB has no cables or connectors to colour the sound.

I haven't heard Lynn Fuston's summing box shoot out yet, but from what I remember seeing of various discussions about it, people couldn't agree on one best sounding method there either - implying that it's really a matter of taste in the end.

[audioalchemy]

i can definetley agree that tracking to tape, mixing on a console, and a completely analog signal path sound the best. However we don't really live in that world anymore.
Nowadays, everything is done cheaper and quicker and being able to deliver a great mix ITB is something you have to be able to do IMHO. I'm pretty new to the industry and haven't had a lot of the expirience that you guys have had, or the client base. But when a client comes to me and only has so much to budget for a record, I'm not going to turn him down because I can't mix on an SSL for money reasons. I'll mix at home on my computer and deliver a product where the client won't even know the difference (most of the time).

In any industry those who are involved have to adjust to different ways of doing things, like it or not. I just look at it as adapt or die.

Peace,
AudioAlchemy

[tony666]

Originally Posted by Soundog

I was thinking that the perception of depth often comes from subtle changes in EQ - less bass, less high due to the way air affects the frequency balance of a sound over distance. Do analogue circuits impose this sort of behaviour on signals at different strengths ? If you pull the fader down on a console, does it change the eq of the signal slightly so that not only is the signal softer, but it sounds more distant ? Contrast this to a signal mixed ITB where a volume reduction preserves the exact frequency curve preserving its perception of depth ( distance ), but only makes it softer.

An EQ can be a more linear system or non-linear. In linear systems, volume changes don't change the systems output response (frequency response keeps the same) while in non-linear systems frequency response does change.

A digital modelled non-lineair EQ also behaves like this.

Analogue systems have all kinds of nonlinearities (crosstalk, phase shift, noise ...)
All these things can give an analogue mix a more dynamic feel.

(analogue volume reduction should be linear cause it's just a resistive voltage divider I guess, so it shouldn't alter higher frequencies more then lower)

[Jim Williams]

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?!?

It's better with thick carpet. Nothing like poping off the shoes and sinking your toes in it. OOOOhhhh! BTW, it's over tile so I can remove it to create an echo chamber in here. I like cozy.

It's better with a large window looking over a garden scene. I was impressed with Gary "Dream Weaver" Wright's Self Realization Fellowship studio/shrine and large plate window looking out on to an oriental garden, very soothing to work in. So I have a similar layout. Nice to look off a real console and view nature. Try it!

10 minutes using a mouse and staring at a CRT screen is enough to make me cry uncle, guess I'm not part of the "video game" generation!

Dark control rooms bug me. Natural light is cheery. Darken the enviroment, darken the mood. Besides, I can't see sh*t anyway and I need to work on this stuff, above and under the hood.

What's EQ and compression got to do with it? Dunno. Tube gear helps warm the room in winter, otherwise it's all bipolar class A solid state everywhere.

Does that help?

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[Jim Williams]

Originally Posted by joeq

I seem to recall reading that even high quality faders slightly attenuate the high frequencies as you pull them down.

but summing boxes have no faders...

Carbon track faders like Alps that are used in mid level consoles do suck the tops off when attenuated. I find HQ coductive plastic faders combined with quality wiring offsets any losses. P+G's have poor quality wiring, I prefer the Japanese TKD's.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[chriscoleman]

Originally Posted by JP11

All someone would have to do is post up a mix or name a well known album that was done in the box that is a wonderful recording with depth of field and that would be that...wouldn't it?

I don't know if it's "well known", but I will submit Sujan Stevens' "Come One Feel the Illinoise" as being an excellent ITB album that sounds great and has wonderful depth-of-field.

From what I understand, the thing was tracked primarily on an all-in-one Roland box and dumped into PTLE via 001 and mixed in PTLE by Sufjan himself while wearing headphones (!!!!!!!!!!!).

For me, this album puts the entire ITB/OTB discussion to rest.

[Jim Williams]

Originally Posted by danasti

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."

.

Well, there's the souce of the problem. Does anyone think that lowering sonic standards for the masses will improve the sonics of any production?

Garbage in, garbage out. What a race to the bottom!

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[chriscoleman]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

MP3's on a so-so monitoring system

Hm, that describes like 99.999999999% of the listening audience...

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by chriscoleman

Hm, that describes like 99.999999999% of the listening audience...

But they aren't making the sonic judgements that end up on a record.

[structuredloud]

My first OTB mix was on a 9000J, I was like "wow that sounds better already" as soon as I split it out. Like a kid in a candy store I quickly patched and re-patched about 60k worth of outboard gear. 8 Hours later, I had something that sounded better to me than anything I'd done ITB. At that point I should have certainly reveled in the fact that I'd discovered the way of the masters, shouldn't I? Or did I just finally start using the tools the way they were intended to be used.

Pro Tools is a tape machine clone. How do we mix stuff from a tape? With a console! Digidesign has not (hopefully will soon) had to own up to a true ITB life-style because their top clients want a tape machine that easily flies a hook and tunes a vocal. Don't believe me? Ask yourself why there's no non-realtime bounce option.

Real? Is analog more real than digital? Last I checked sound was a sensation. You can describe it as a periodic displacement of air pressure, a sampled voltage, or a 24bit word. Does one more layer of abstraction make something truly different?

I'd like to propose that the dynamic equalizer (Waves C4 / LinMB, etc) is the most useful musical tool I've ever used, it’s also one that is not feasible in the analog domain (at least multiple instances).

When will ITB sound as good as a console? Maybe when we start using things like dynamic convolution or complex algorithms in the summing bus. Real digital tools require a paradigm shift indeed.

For now, digital emulates analog. Is this a low-risk way to make cheaper production models with sonics that satisfy everyone but a whole generation of the worlds finest mix engineers? YES. Is it a way to move forward? NO.

[raal]

Originally Posted by JP11

If 2 different engineers on 2 different days or whatever makes the "contest" unfair or subject to interpretation

everything is subject to interpretation. there are some great engineers in and out of this forum that work ITB , hybrid, or OTB and get great results. i think it's starting to boil down to what one prefers to work on. there are advantages and disadvantages either way. my choice is hybrid for now.

then isn't the whole discussion unfair?

don't know about unfair but it's interesting.

Originally Posted by structuredloud

Pro Tools is a tape machine clone. How do we mix stuff from a tape? With a console! Digidesign has not (hopefully will soon) had to own up to a true ITB life-style because their top clients want a tape machine that easily flies a hook and tunes a vocal. Don't believe me? Ask yourself why there's no non-realtime bounce option.

This would be fine if it were how it was marketed, but Digi calls plugins "the world's greatest outboard/ffx rack"

[noiseflaw]

Originally Posted by structuredloud

For now, digital emulates analog. Is this a low-risk way to make cheaper production models with sonics that satisfy everyone but a whole generation of the worlds finest mix engineers? YES. Is it a way to move forward? NO.

But it IS the way things are moving and it is a FORWARD movement, that is the reality - like it or not.

How many of tommorrows engineers and mixers are going to even care about the good old days of analog mixing consoles, they will have been brought up using digital systems and will not have any reference, nor will they need to have.

We are now on the crest of that transition and it is unsettling because as ever, change is uncertain and it brings out many insecurities - but not so for those who do not see it as change, but see it as a welcome development. There is no way around this, THINGS WILL CHANGE and digital is the future, everything is relative and the young people are not going to notice never mind care.

[cdog]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

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

Sure, within the given budget and timeframe.

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

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.

Well, I don't want to step on the toes of any "Secondary Sound Transduction Artists" but once the sound quality passes a certain level (which is 90% determined by the recording quality - not whether its mixed ITB or OTB), the listener - the person who buys the album - is listening to the music, not the sound.

The reason they play the song over and over is not because it was mixed OTB on an SSL with $60K of outboard.

Its because they love the song.

I realize mix engineers rarely espouse this view.

Some of my favorite albums of all time, that I listen to over and over, have very modest fidelity, to put it nicely, and in some cases, gross flaws in the mix.

Does this stop me from listening to them over and over?

Not once.

Does the sound of Dark Side of The Moon contribute to my enjoyment of the music? Absolutely.

To wrap up, let me restate my position:

Fidelity is very important in a recording, but it is determined largely by the skill of the recording engineer and his/her tools, not by the mixing or mastering engineer (although they can increase or decrease the apparent fidelity of the given material).

Now, the contradictory statement:

We've reached a point where fidelity is sort of beside the point:

1) Almost everyone with modest skills and tools can achieve a high fidelity recording - historically speaking.

2) The general listening audience seems completely disinterested in fidelity, as evidenced by pancake mastering and the popularity of the mp3.

Now go put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by cdog

Sure, within the given budget and timeframe.

Sorry but this sounds like an excuse.

Originally Posted by cdog

Well, I don't want to step on the toes of any "Secondary Sound Transduction Artists" but once the sound quality passes a certain level (which is 90% determined by the recording quality - not whether its mixed ITB or OTB), the listener - the person who buys the album - is listening to the music, not the sound.

Impossible.

If they are listening to anything they are listening to both.

You can't seperate one with out the other.

Even if its spoken word and no music, certain voice tones will make you feel a certain way.

Certain voices will make you want to listen more.


Its all important.

Originally Posted by cdog

The reason they play the song over and over is not because it was mixed OTB on an SSL with $60K of outboard.

It depends who is mixing it.

Originally Posted by cdog

Its because they love the song.

And the production.

Originally Posted by cdog

Some of my favorite albums of all time, that I listen to over and over, have very modest fidelity, to put it nicely, and in some cases, gross flaws in the mix.

Yeah but some of my favorites are the opposite.


Who's choices are better?

Originally Posted by cdog

Does this stop me from listening to them over and over?

I would hope not.

Originally Posted by cdog

Not once.

Ok.

Originally Posted by cdog

To wrap up, let me restate my position:

Fidelity is very important in a recording, but it is determined largely by the skill of the recording engineer his/her tools, not by the mixing or mastering engineer (although they can increase or decrease the apparent fidelity of the given material).

Ok lets agree that its all working together.

Originally Posted by cdog

Now, the contradictory statement:

We've reached a point where fidelity is sort of beside the point:

Again your opinon.


Not mine.


Sounds like an excuse for lazy engineering or spoken from a view of a songwriter not an engineer.

Originally Posted by cdog

1) Almost everyone with modest skills and tools can achieve a high fidelity recording - historically speaking.

Again your opinion.


You will find many guys here that will disagree with you.

Originally Posted by cdog

2) The general listening audience seems completely disinterested in fidelity, as evidenced by pancake mastering and the popularity of the mp3.

Again an assumption.


Its not what people prefer is what they are being fed over and over.


MP3's are popular because they are convenient as were cassettes.


Liking something that is convenient doesn't mean that you don't care or don't like fidelity.


It proves it here on this forumn.


The majority of guys here use digital mainly because its convenient but they kill themselves everyday trying to squeeze every bit of fidelity they can out of it.

Originally Posted by cdog

Now go put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Nah it doesn't have enough fidelity for me.

[structuredloud]

Originally Posted by cdog

The reason they play the song over and over is not because it was mixed OTB on an SSL with $60K of outboard. Its because they love the song.

This is true, but not the point of this thread.

Originally Posted by cdog

Some of my favorite albums of all time, that I listen to over and over, have very modest fidelity, to put it nicely, and in some cases, gross flaws in the mix.
Does this stop me from listening to them over and over?
Not once.

Repeating yourself does get the point across, doesn't it.

Originally Posted by cdog

Fidelity is very important in a recording, but it is determined largely by the skill of the recording engineer and his/her tools, not by the mixing or mastering engineer (although they can increase or decrease the apparent fidelity of the given material).

That's why tracking engineers get paid more right?

Originally Posted by cdog

We've reached a point where fidelity is sort of beside the point:

1) Almost everyone with modest skills and tools can achieve a high fidelity recording - historically speaking.

2) The general listening audience seems completely disinterested in fidelity, as evidenced by pancake mastering and the popularity of the mp3.

And the general audience was more interested in fidelity when vinyl came out?

Originally Posted by cdog

Now go put that in your pipe and smoke it.

F@ck I'm sick of people bringing up artistry in a debate about craftsmanship. Obviously a musically better record is a better record! If you want compare records based on their mind-blowing, pipe-smoking psychadellic trip then go to coolestrecordeverslutz.com. That's simply not what is being discussed here.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by djui5

Pop isn't that I know of. Hip/Hop...maybe some of it, but I know Nas still mixes on a console, Eminems stuff is mixed on a board, Dre mixes on a console, 50?? I don't know. R&B, yeah, I'd believe that, and dance has been mixed ITB for a long time, so yeah.

My point is that you can't blame current trends on ITB, cuz the majority of stuff is still mixed on a console. I think we can all agree on that yes? Do you think DP is mixing with a mouse? No...

Well the Neptunes are the most popular producers on the planet right now(if you go by Billboard sales) and their engineers Phil Tan and Serban Ghenea mix in PT.

Originally Posted by djui5

I didn't know that. I knew he uses outboard comps, but didn't know he was using a folcrom. So there again, you can't blame it on ITB there either.....

I wasn't blaming anyone.

I was just pointing out that its a mix that wasn't done ITB.

One of the guys that i feel does excellent ITB mixes is Steve Macmillan.

I mean he's done great mixes OTB and ITB.

Originally Posted by djui5

If we're making an argument over whether you can get depth ITB, and someone mixes a song on an SSL (you), and someone else mixes the same song ITB with similar depth, then who's to argue that you can't get depth. We're discussing depth, not mixing style. If it's there, it's there, no matter who did it.

Well than we have to go back and define what is depth.

Guys, there's alot of reasons why things are different and itb mixing is onlyl one reason.

What about the fact that horns used to be played with horns, and pianos with pianos

What about the fact that most of the records we love were cut to TAPE and then mixed on consoles.


So when someone records and imitation guitar (variax), via imiation amps (POds) with imitation horns (synths) to an imitation tape machine (daw) to mix on an imitation mixer (DAW again) with imitation outboard (plugins)

Then wont something have to give

I'm personally happy to have a DAW because I probably wouldnt be able to work as I do, Hell I might not be able to afford to record my ideas with the fidelity that I can today.. But I'm aware that it takes much more in gear than just that DAW to get what I'm after

[structuredloud]

Originally Posted by djui5

I was just responding to DB's post about how it dosen't matter, everythings flat as hell so just mix ITB anyway.

My point was that it's not flat because of ITB mixing, it's flat because of current trends in music.

I think as far as that's concerned you and Danny are in agreement. Today's musical trends lessen the difference between a great mix and one that's just okay. At least in terms of the "finer points".

IMO the controversial part of this thread is:

Originally Posted by dbbubba

Several guys told me that I needed to "learn how to mix" in the digital realm and that it requires a whole new discipline. Well, yeah.... I guess it does if you want that sound...

I think this is going to trouble for a while yet.

Originally Posted by dbbubba

I don't though! I want to mix where it sounds like the soundfield I can get in analog. This requires a CONSOLE. The better the console... the better the depth of field!

Yeah, It's a dark area in R&D. If dynamic convolution is the answer to capturing flavorful inconsistencies then maybe a few processors later we'll be seeing a "liquidsum" section.

IMO, If we don't put pressure on these companies to make ITB summing sound better, they simply won't because it's not a big $$ point if everyone who cares simply resolves to keep mixing OTB. It's the high $$ OTB'ers that need to say just that:

I want to mix where it sounds like the soundfield I can get in analog!

Is that asking to much for all your HD trade-ins, WUP's, and semi-yearly subscription to Moore's Law?

[cdog]

Originally Posted by structuredloud

I'm sick of people bringing up artistry in a debate about craftsmanship. That's simply not what is being discussed here.

True, but thats why the current discussion is moot:

2 : deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic

When you're in the land of milk and honey, gravy is beside the point.

But that doesn't mean it isn't tasty.