Mix ITB it Doesn't Matter!

[dbbubba]

I was listening to a new release by a major female Diva today and it reminded me of the way that the Hillary Duff CD I bought for my eleven year old daughter sounds. I also have to listen to almost every current, hip, new pop release that comes out because of my line of work for half of the year. I get to hear it all!

With the current trend of EXTREMELY overcompressed stuff it doesn't matter that mixing ITB gives you very little depth of field! No one mixes that way any longer!

The guys that want a soundfeld that has any space probebly don't mix ITB anyways.
If they do they are going to be MIGHTY dis-satisfied!

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 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!

If you like mixes where it sounds like everyone and every instrument is pressed up against a sheet of glass or fighting to get out of the speakers then mixing ITB is probebly fine. If you grew up listening to music where some people were further away from "IN YOUR FACE" then mixing ITB doesn't cut it.

I finally figured it out.
I won't be changing my mixing style either.

Danny Brown

[giles117]

Originally Posted by djui5

Sounds like you've been working with the wrong ITB mixer...

I 2nd that....

[GPl]

When mixing ITB, try and think OTB........does that sound logical?

[C Heat]

Hi Danny.

Curious - who was the 'diva'?

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by C Heat

Curious - who was the 'diva'?

Just a guess...Mariah Carey.

[C Heat]

I guess the guess would be right.

There are no more 'divas' anymore, except Miss Carey. Mis Scarey? Mariah Airy?

If somebody could remove all that whispy air on her vocals I'd be able to listen to it...

[Kiwiburger]

Since most of the over-compression mutilation takes places at the mastering stage (frequently against the mastering engineer's good judgement) ... what has mixing got to do with this anyway?

Nobody has convinced me that there is anything intrinsicly wrong with summing in the box. Sure, external analog summing adds noise, distortion and phase smearing - and these may be very desirable. But that is an effect, seperate from the actual summing issue.

The anecdotal stories of people who compare ITB with OTB mixes are invariably comparing apples with oranges, every time.

Figure out what the real differences are. Probably psychological mainly. But - for example - if you are comparing outboard hardware with plugins, that is a completely different issue.

People who say they struggled with a mix ITB, and then had no trouble with a competely different project OTB are not adding any useful comment. Chances are they would have had the same issues with the same project, regardless.

Or maybe they just get more excited about big consoles over control surfaces.

Too many issues being confused together. It's probably just emotional baggage at the end of the day.

[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

[C Heat]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

Pink, but I wasn't desiring to hear it.

Okee Dokee then.

[C Heat]

Originally Posted by djui5

If you think console mixes sound better, then it's not the mix your listening to, it's the analog flavor. Don't tell me you can't get depth ITB, cuz you can.

This should get interesting...

[dbbubba]

KIWIBURGER...

Apply the same logic equally to both of your assumptions and it works either way.

Example: You assume that digital mixing is inherently pure and does nothing to the signal.
You say analog summing adds noise, distortion and time smearing...
What does digital summing do to the signal(s)?
What does it LEAVE OUT?
It is not the perfect solution!
The signal is HIGHLY altered.

We have heard analog summing since we were born. Digital summing came along as a way to build a product to sell. It is cheaper for the masses to afford a computer rig, so companies design and build digital mixers. This doesn't make them better. It makes them more accesable. Digital recording and editing might be better, but the mixing algorythms aren't!

You also assume that it is emotional baggage that says having a big console allows you to "feel better" about your surroundings. Doesn't the fact that you have spent thousands of dollars to get a decent DAW operating cause you to be defensive and beat the drum for your decision?

I admit that I was wrong!
We all know digital summing could be better.

Then again, your definition of "better" determines your preferences.

Danny Brown

[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 think the Rod Stewart standards CDs were done ITB, weren't they?

[dbbubba]

I'm just comparing thirty years of mixes on an almost daily basis using Ampex 1" B-track AG440s, MCI JH16, MCI JH24, MTR90s, SONY 3324, TASCAM DA88s, ADATs, WafeFRame 1000s, Ampex 350s, 351s, JH-110s MTR10s, Studer A810, B67, UA consoles, MCI consoles, Sphere consoles, Soundtracs, Soundcraft, Neve 8128, 8068 MkII, SSL 5000, Midas, Yamaha, Mackies analog, DA8b.... ProTools in all the generations fro Sound Designer II, Opcode, MOTU.... on and on.

I have it all archived.
It's easy to compare.

Some analog configurations don't sound as good as others. Some rooms are better.

Everyone I do work for thinks the analog conole mixes sound better.
I think they sound better,

I don't forget how to mix when using digital.
I have mixed in a DAW since 1993!
That'd be before DigiDesign even made a multitrack recording system!

I don't need to LEARN how to mix!
I know how to mix.
I've been doing it professionally for thirty years!
I'm pretty good at it, too..... ask around.

I also don't buy a Radio Shack soldering iron and try to work on circuitboards either!
It'll work if you REALLY want it too.
I won't tell you it just as good though!

No, someday they'll design a digital mixer that sounds good.
Maybe the HD mixer is decent on a G5 running 48 bit.

It can improve in my opinion.

32 bit floating decimal point certianly doesn't work good enough.

Danny Brown

[dbbubba]

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 think the Rod Stewart standards CDs were done ITB, weren't they?

Yes, it would be nice to hear.
I'd hate to have to suffer through Rod singing standards though.
I rather enjoy my copy of Paul Anka singing to those big band arrangements of the rock stuff, but some of the songs are just idiotic!

Van Halen's "Jump" as a big band arrangement..... why?
Nirvana... oh nevermind!
A good song works in alomst any style, but musical jokes and wink and nod stuff like that is embarrasing!

So, yeah.... name me a ITB release and I'll consider it.

Either way... it is a huge pain in the ass to make it sound right ITB!

Danny Brown

[tony666]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

What does digital summing do to the signal(s)?

sum

What does it LEAVE OUT?

not much

It is not the perfect solution!
The signal is HIGHLY altered.

What is perfect? Analogue? Forget it!

We all know digital summing could be better.

Same goes for all analogue summing. Ic's and discrete opamps can always be improved.

Digital summing is in a mathematcial way superior to analogue. You can make a digital mixbuss as big as you want. It still isn't going to sound like analogue summing, but does it have to?

.

[goldphinga]

As far as im concerned mixing in the box is a pain in the **** and i cant wait for my amek bc3 to be fully up and running and installed so i can stop using eq plugins and enjoy the depth of soundfield and hands on "having to commit to" mixes again.I think anyone that is really into audio (imho)will know that you cant get the depth of sound without a great console or at least some phat outboard gear. After 4 years of working entirely in the box ive had enough of the nasty sound.Theres just something not right about it. Yeah better conversion would help but im convinced analogue desks are where its at. A studio i know well that recently installed a great desk are finding that everything has improved hugely (mixwise )going through their console and its obvious the benefits the desk has brought in terms of time saved on getting the mix.

Now i think you can get maybe 80% there with ITB but thats not good enough for me. just about all the 'classic' records i love were recorded through large consoles and to tape and i think thats my ears are conditioned to. However, that sound is for me still the best in terms of stereo image, punch and just all round nice sounding-ness!My analogue keys have always added a certain something to my sound that plugins just cant do(ive tried) and its the same with outboard.

Of course a great engineer will get a good mix regardless of ITB or OTB but i feel its similiar to when the digital yamaha dx7 came out and people through out their analogue keyboards without a care. The best mixes come from great engineers with a good balance of old and new- a daw for editing,good convertors and a console or summing mixer on the other end. Then preferably master down to 1/2 inch 2 track. Im warning you all that you'll regret going entirely digital in the very near future.Mark my words!

[noiseflaw]

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.

Originally Posted by dbbubba

The better the console... the better the depth of field!

Danny Brown

Nonsense.

[Ziggy!!]

Doesn't the resolution of digital audio fall with volume? Perhaps i've been mislead somewhere, but wouldn't that have a direct effect on digital depth of field.

I suspect there is a greater degree of Bias going on. I use to be part of the "ITB is great" camp but since buying my first large format console im not sure anymore. Right off the bat stuff started sounding better when mixing through the console. Like everything on this board, we have to defend our purchases for peace of mind.

What sounds better? Who cares use what you want to use... don't lose to much sleep over it.

Kiwiburger wrote:

Nobody has convinced me that there is anything intrinsicly wrong with summing in the box. Sure, external analog summing adds noise, distortion and phase smearing - and these may be very desirable. But that is an effect, seperate from the actual summing issue.

I fail to see how this can be seperate? It is not possible to sum via analogous means without a degree of distortion or "mathematical discrepencies". It has to be part of the issue entirely. What happens in an analogue circuit can be expressed via mathematics but that doesn't nessecarily mean that the mathematical result will be the same as the real-life measured result.

I've built several circuits that are identical in everyway. Same components, same layout, etc, etc but the chances of the same measurements (ie voltage, current, power) being taken across every circuit is beyond remote. They might be close, but rarely (if ever) are they exact. This is the nature of an analogue circuit, it isn't possible to add this as an "effect, seperate from the actual summing issue".

[Achim L]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

People who say they struggled with a mix ITB, and then had no trouble with a competely different project OTB are not adding any useful comment. Chances are they would have had the same issues with the same project, regardless.

I got a total different opinion on that.

Last year I tracked one song for a band, that then was supposed to be mixed at my place. Getting the next day back my mixbus of the console was ****ed up (due to some burnt op amps). No chance to get a technician in time as the deadline was the same evening. So i unplugged all the shit, set up the Avocet from our mastering room, put some APIs and UREIs on the ProTools inserts and went for my first ITB journey.
I felt very good while mixing, sittin in the sweet spot the whole time, inserting outboard with a mouseclick and so on. It took me forever, cause you are so slow with the mouse, when you´re not used to it. But the Mix came out pretty good. Band and Label liked it, and so me and my partner started thinking: "Hey it´s really cool to mix ITB, you got total recall, no or much less repairs. And we can make some good money when we sell the old lady."
Few days later after the technician took care of the console, I wanted to check everything put the same song up and did a quick mix. And then wow. not much tweaking, just faders up, little compression, and everything was ................................
just better.
There was life, depth, better stereo imaging and a much fuller soundscape.
The journey ended exactly there. Till today nobody in our place spoke again about ITB.

my 2c
Achim

[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 really don't think her albums (or any other cheaply produced album) should be used as proof that ITB sounds dreadful.
I think it's simply indicative that albums which are done cheaply (by which I mean all programmed, and generally less attention to detail) will by their very nature probably be mixed ITB simply beacause it's cheaper.
I really don't think it's fair to blame the tools in this instance, as personally I feel that there are plenty of guys doing great work ITB.

There are plenty of dreadful sounding all-analogue albums out there too (I've played on a fair few!).... but nowadays only a serious budget album is going to be done all analogue... and that's inevitably going to sound superior because cash is being spent to make it sound good.

[sekim]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

32 bit floating decimal point certianly doesn't work good enough.

Danny Brown

I have no dog in this fight so I just ask this out of curiosity... Have you tried Sequoia?

[Jim Williams]

I mostly agree with Danny, seems us old farts are too attached to the ways of the past and the results from our efforts, which speak for themselves.

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.

Analog summing can be worse, but it can also be better. Depth is easily heard, but circuit anomolies can affect mix quality, the dirt effect. To overcome analog circuit losses, my analog consoles are rebuilt to overcome losses and sonic colorations. My stereo mix buss measures -134 db noise on the Audio Precision analyzer. Distortion is at .0005% THD +noise and .0002% CCIF IMD. This is to achieve the low distortion specs claimed by the ITB code writers while offering no latency, 2 hz to 200k hz bandwidth summing with virtually no noise or distortion. This bandwidth, not achievable with traditional opamp inverting/summing designs offers no phase shift in the 20 to 20k audio band. It also allows full real time use of all that hardware outboard. Plug in's are for those who use plastic blow up dolls!

Remember that song, which by the way sounds pretty good without the ITB sonics and Volume Wars compression; "Ain't 'nothin like the real thing, Baby".

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[blackcatdigi]

Originally Posted by ali48343

...put the same song up and did a quick mix. And then wow. not much tweaking, just faders up, little compression, and everything was ................................
just better.

This has been my experience. You can do it ITB, but it takes much longer to arrive at something that is IME and for whatever reason, inferior.

Everybody has their own reasons for working however they prefer. I don't really care what anyone (other than the client and their fans) thinks. Do what works best for you, and I'll do the same.

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.

That's all the proof I need.

YMMV

[Ernest Buckley]

Theres a saying that goes something like this...

"People don`t know what they like, they like what they know."

In 20 years from now (when most of the kids being brought up on what todays engineers consider shit are making albums), our future engineers will think mixes sound wonderful and not because they are or aren`t, its just what they are used to.

We have gotten so use to compression that we have to compress everything now but in the real world, most sounds are not compressed and most sounds are not in stereo.

As times change, music changes and so does the sound.

We seem (myself included) to have tremendous difficulty accepting what we are not used to. So we judge it, condemn it.

Mariah Carey has an incredible voice. But most of us are so into what was, we cannot see her talent for what it is.

Yeah, I know you can throw a Fitzgerald in there or a Sarah Vaughn for starters but Carey has her own unique wonderful style and thats it. I don`t want to go off on a tangent but in 50 years, Carey will be looked at in the same eyes we look at a Fitzgerald or Vaughn.

Same goes with music. Linkin Park has a unique sound going for them as well. Their music relates to todays kids. You could knock it or try to listen to it, accept and learn from it. yeah its overcompressed but thats todays sound.

Getting to the point finally...

As technology improves, mixing ITB is getting very close to mixing on a console. Several plugs sound just as good as their hardware counerparts. Yeah I know you analog die hards hate to hear this but its true. If we did a blind sound test, most would not know the difference. We are so attached to what we know, we think that anything different is bad.

[thethrillfactor]

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.

.

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).

[jhg]

I learned to mix with a board and outboard. Live sound experience followed. The home setup was ITB for years until a few months ago.

Really good ITB mixes can be done. Really, really good sounding mixes, but it takes time and mousing.

When I was basically commisioning new board/rack I remixed an EP I recorded/mixed for a friend a few years ago. The mixes were different: although when mixing ITB I was basically emulating the ages old tricks, but had to push everything more to get it to sit right: ie more compression, more radical eq-ing, more level automation, etc. I found more space when mixing with the console, eq-ing softer, using compressors in a different way: not as a necessary tool to give a source punch and gain, but more as a tonal sculpting device. I'm doing more parallel compression, hitting each compressor a lot less. Where was I going with this? Ah yes, so, when listening back to the original ITB and console mix, they both sounded good, the console mix more open, not as loud or punchy. And mixing with the board is really a lot more fun. Another huge benefit is how cool the huge board looks in my space. Clients come in and say/think "Ahhh, yes, this is a studio" I'd recommend getting a gutted non working console for that extra "pro touch" plus, it works perfectly to hold keyboard, monitor, mouse. If a client spills their drink into it they'll feel indebted forever, but little do they know...

The downside is that recalling mixes is a PITA. I have a system using a digital camera and making notes in a recall folder stored in the project folder, have been able to get very, very close to original, but it takes a while to fully recall.

regards,

jhg

[Extreme Mixing]

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!

I'm guessing you are talking about the new single, Stupid Girls? I acutally like Pink. She's a great singer and stays true to herself as an artist. I'm thinking that's a Dave Pensado mix, done on a real console--as real as it gets, anyway. I think the FX and the breaks are pretty clever in that song, with a lot of inventive stuff going on. Mixing is mostly about style and fashion. Maybe you just don't like the new fashions for this year. My wife was the same way with blue jeans. For the longest time she hated the low cut styles, bell bottoms, and EVERYTHING. Then all her old ones wore out, and she had to buy some new stuff. Guess what? She loves them, and is having lots of fun experiencing the new style.

You're just not going to get a lot of "depth of field" out of the slam job that they call mastering these days. Maybe that's what you don't like. Much of the style element in modern music mixing is a direct result of the computer. Like it or not. I like the computer for the creative options that it offers.

In the end, you should use what you like and what makes your clients happy. But while you're up on your soap box slamming the tools, someone else is finding a way to make them sound cool, and the world will move on, not back. That much I know is true.

Steve

[blackcatdigi]

Originally Posted by Extreme Mixing

But while you're up on your soap box slamming the tools, someone else is finding a way to make them sound cool, and the world will move on, not back. That much I know is true.

Very wise words. 100% agreed.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Ernest Buckley

As technology improves, mixing ITB is getting very close to mixing on a console. Several plugs sound just as good as their hardware counerparts. Yeah I know you analog die hards hate to hear this but its true. If we did a blind sound test, most would not know the difference. We are so attached to what we know, we think that anything different is bad.

Sorry bro i gotta disagree here.

If we are talking a blind test with MP3's on a so-so monitoring system than its a different story.


But if that's what people are using to make sonic decisions than what can you say?

[u b k]

Originally Posted by tony666

Digital summing is in a mathematcial way superior to analogue.

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