ITB vs. OTB

[tvanveen]

I'm not trying to fan any flames here, I just have a few questions about concepts I'm unclear on.

I've been mixing ITB. I haven't really considered OTB, because in my head when I think about that I think of a guy in front of a giant console outputting 24 tracks through 24 1176/LA2A/Distressors and 24 550/1073/Pultecs with a real plate reverb and some high end 2buss compressor.

Is this really what people talk about when they mix with hardware? Or is it possible to mix outside the box with less? I have a couple of 560's, an X73, a distressor and an MC77 which I would think could give me decent results a track or 2 at a time, but is that feasible?

Does anyone mix this way?

Right now I'm pretty comfy mixing with my UA cards in Cubase. I was thinking about getting that SSL bundle, but realized my little rack of nice stuff is sitting unused while I mix.

Any thoughts or advice is appreciated.

[Kiwiburger]

It's a confusing topic that always degenerates into a bar fight, because everybody has their own defininition of what ITB and OTB means, in their own mind.

For a start, some people try to turn this into an "analog vs digital" debate.
Others try to turn this into a "plugins vs hardware debate".
Others make this a purely financial superiority thing - anything that costs a helluva lot has got to be better, right?
Others make this an emotional thing - if a big piece of furniture makes you feel better, you make better music - right?
Others make it an ergonomic issue - if you need to feel a big knob in your hands, you couldn't be happy with a mouse - right? (Ignoring the fact that automated control surfaces for DAW's are dime a dozen now).

ITB vs OTB - it's all of these things and more. To make any sense at all, I try to seperate out the various issues - and for me the only question left is whether analog summing (in a mixer or simple summing box) is superior to digital summing.

Most people acknowledge that there is nothing 'wrong' with digital summing - it's simple mathematics, and it works perfectly. But some people believe that analog summing 'sounds better' - and probably does. Most people agree that analog summing has more noise and distortion, from all the converters for a start.

I believe that the issue of component tolerance, and simple differing lengths of wires, means that analog summing is never 100% accurate. With digital, 2 + 2 always equals 4. A centred track has identical signal - bit for bit accurate on either side.

Analog summing has some tolerance built in - so 2 + 2 might = 3.999 or maybe 4.111. A centred track will have slightly different level and eq on each side, and therefore can appear to have more width or depth.

Who really cares how you mix - if the results sound good, it's a good mix. If you have nice hardware you could use, it's a shame not to use them somehow. But after tracking, you need really good, clean, jitter-free and quiet converters to make the trip outside the box worthwhile.


My 2 cents on this much debated topic.

[absrec]

Sounds like you could benefit from inserting some of your outboard comps and eqs into your mix. However, to me that is not truely mixing outside the box. Mixing OTB to me is going out through more than 2 channels (preferably 8 or more) of a console and doing the bulk of your overall mix processing with outboard gear such as a buss compressor and/or overall eq. After this step, you may choose to print your mix back into the DAW. Or, you may choose to dump it onto a stand alone unit such as a DAT machine (tutt ), a 2 track tape machine ( ) or an Alesis Masterlink.

Mixing OTB has it's sonic advantages. I personally feel that it widens the stereo image, and just sounds bigger overall. Plus, it helps to go out through a desk that imparts a nice sonic character on the music as well.

Hope this answers your question.

Aaron

[joelpatterson]

However you work and whatever you use, the only thing that matters is your vision of what the final product should be like and how close you come to achieving it. The finest systems, the humblest systems, have no way to make decisions on their own, that's all up to you.

[Sizzleboy]

Originally Posted by tvanveen

I'm not trying to fan any flames here, I just have a few questions about concepts I'm unclear on.

I've been mixing ITB. I haven't really considered OTB, because in my head when I think about that I think of a guy in front of a giant console outputting 24 tracks through 24 1176/LA2A/Distressors and 24 550/1073/Pultecs with a real plate reverb and some high end 2buss compressor.



Any thoughts or advice is appreciated.

Mixing OTB could be as simple as sending a number of tracks out of your computer individually and summing them with a specialized box like a nicerizer or folcrum. All other duties, such as compression, EQ, aux effects, fader moves and even pan (panning would require two converters and summing inputs per channel) can still be done ITB. The signals are simply mixed together in the analog realm down to 2 tracks. Whether it really makes a difference is up to you. Try before you buy.

[mtstudios@charter]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

However you work and whatever you use, the only thing that matters is your vision of what the final product should be like and how close you come to achieving it. The finest systems, the humblest systems, have no way to make decisions on their own, that's all up to you.

If the vision is on the lines of Def Leppard Hysteria and all you have is a Tascam 4 track, well system does then have some say.

[joelpatterson]

If all you have is a Tascam 4-track, your reach will definitely exceed your grasp.

[mtstudios@charter]

That is why a vision should not be too far beyond the proper tool to obtain it.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by tvanveen

Or is it possible to mix outside the box with less? I have a couple of 560's, an X73, a distressor and an MC77 which I would think could give me decent results a track or 2 at a time, but is that feasible?

i don't know what kind of music you do, but i would urge you to get the 560's, the distressor and the 77 in on the action, they give results and character no plug in can hope to achieve.

get a nicerizer (who knew i was gonna say that?). slap the 560's and the distressor on the drums, put the 77 and the 73's eq on the vocals, push it all into that sweet summer's output tranny, and smile the big smile.

then you're just one mix comp away from otb heaven. you'll never go back, i swear.


gregoire
del ubik

[wwittman]

IF the answer was as Kiwi suggests, then why doesn't someone make a plug in that eq's the vocal slightly differently on each side or that shifts signals to slightly off centre and so on?

the reason analogue summing sounds better is that digital mixing is NOT "perfect"

I agree that this doesn't require a digital v analogue war... so let's not start with digital hype.

To me, it's what digital DOESN'T have that's the problem. What it LOSES.
not what analogue adds.

But to get back on topic:

You can mix out into a desk without any outboard processing, or you can mix into a small mixer in stems or subgroups... either will sound different than mixing in the box.

and of course you're right, you CAN go all the way to each output to its own channel with its own outboard processing as well.

but the real point in going OUT of "the box", is to use more outputs and sum them back together to stereo in the analogue domain.
Not just to introduce analogue OUTBOARD, which really can be done and still stay ITB.


Whatever is a) available to you in your budget range, and b) sounds better to you, is the way to go.

[GYang]

I thought that ITB vs OTB issue was debated to death that main issue should be obvious to GS readers.
Good ITB mix can sound subjectively better than OTB (more high-end resolution) if used properly and on some materials.
Good OTB mix can sound subjectively better than ITB (rounder, pleasant, more space around individual instruments etc.), ALSO, if used properly and on materials that otherwise would sound 2D or somehow harsh.
In general, for pop and rock, I prefer OTB practically always. It's not science, just simple auditioning and practice. It's quite obvious, not woodoo or guessing.
Bigger part of equation is analogue processing, although it doesn't diminish pure OTB vs ITB advantages.
Drawbacks are issues related to analogue processing that is not cheap. The point of going to analogue is to process with really good outboards, otherwise the whole purpose can be lost. Cabling, monitoring, patchbays, better air-conditioning everything would require improvement to some extent.
If you have couple of compressors and EQs it's already OK, but most likely with OTB summing box, you'll add some more and that will further improve the whole picture.
So, very simple ITB vs OTB question raises many subseqent issues that should be planned well to avoid disappointment or financial exhausting.

[Kiwiburger]

the reason analogue summing sounds better is that digital mixing is NOT "perfect"

Probably an issue of semantics.

I mean "perfect" in the mathematical sense. Not necessarily in the "sounds good" sense. Perhaps an analogy would be drawing a picture of a circle. I can draw a perfect circle in Paint Shop Pro that is mathematically perfect, to within the resolution of a screen or printer. Or, I can draw a freehand circle with a pencil on paper. I know which one I would prefer artistically - the freehand one would engage my brain more than a perfect boring computer generated circle.

Which leads me to sine waves ... you can experiment with importing sinewaves into a DAW, as many tracks as you have, and then summing then, and what do you get? A perfect sine wave. That's what I mean by perfect.

Maybe somebody will make a plugin that does what i'm suggesting. I tried to raise some interest once, and got a few responses such as "it will never work", or "this is old news dude" and stuff like that.

I hope somebody will one day make a plugin that gives random (on instantiation) subtle changes left and right to eq, phase and level - to approximate the small but significant differences in an analog circuit.

Some people would say that since an analog console would be perfectly balanced with a test generator, this doesn't apply. I would say that you then only have it perfectly matching at that one frequency.

I think it's at a stage when nobody could 100% accurately pick ITB and OTB mixes in blindfold tests anyway. This just might help bridge the gap.

For example - if I'm using quantised sampled drums, I have an application that gives very subtle timing, pitch, eq and level differences in repeated notes. It's a very, very subtle thing, but it makes a huge difference at a subconscious level. If find perfectly sequenced sample hits can be so robotic, it puts me to sleep. Just messing them up very, very slightly makes them more human and much more acceptable.

I think the differences required would be about as subtle, so that most people would deny there was anything different at all. But I think subconsiciously, it would be a big difference.

Just my 2 cents.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

I mean "perfect" in the mathematical sense. Not necessarily in the "sounds good" sense.

we're talking about the manipulation of sound here... what's the point of discussing anything other than how good it sounds? put another way, if it doesn't sound good, of what use is perfection?


gregoire
del ubik

[Dave Peck]

Originally Posted by tvanveen

I have a couple of 560's, an X73, a distressor and an MC77 which I would think could give me decent results a track or 2 at a time, but is that feasible?

Does anyone mix this way?

But do you have 16 or 24 channels of D/A conversion? When you say "a track or two at a time" it sounds like you don't, and you're really asking about using your outboard gear to process and re-record individual tracks. That's not mixing. But maybe I misunderstood you.

When I mix OTB I use 24 channels of D/A conversion out of the DAW and go into 24 channels of a simple analog console. I use some outboard gear during the mixdown, but not a lot. A few compressors, a few effects devices. It works great for me. I like it way better than ITB.

DP

[tvanveen]

Thanks guys, that cleared a few things up for me.

[Sizzleboy]

Originally Posted by u b i k

we're talking about the manipulation of sound here... what's the point of discussing anything other than how good it sounds? put another way, if it doesn't sound good, of what use is perfection?


gregoire
del ubik

I think what Kiwiburger is saying (correct me please if I am off base) is that it's the imperfections of anaolg that give it it's character. When you play a track up the middle in a DAW, the left and right channels are EXACTLY the same in the digital domain. Now, run those same two channels through an outboard piece of gear. Don't effect the sound (compress or eq), just have it running through the tubes or descrete circuitry and transformers. Granted,you get some nice pleasing harmonic distortion, but also the stereo field becomes wider....on the mono track up the middle. It's because the two sides of the analog circuit are not exactly the same. You have introduced slight differences between the left and right channel that are percieved as widening and fatening the mono source. No?

I used to do a trick with my Nord Lead (digital modeling) synth to get it to sound analog. I would take a single patch and play it out simultaniously through bank 1 and 2 (The nord had 4 seperate banks that could each play a different patch). And on that patch, I would put a slow, random LFO on the oscilators that just slightly detuned the patch in a completely random way. Play just one instance of the patch, and it sounded like the same old sterile digital modeling synth, but play two intances of that same patch, each with a slight random pitch oscilation from the LFO, and it sounded like a MINIMOOG (ok, close).

[Kiwiburger]

Originally Posted by u b i k

we're talking about the manipulation of sound here... what's the point of discussing anything other than how good it sounds? put another way, if it doesn't sound good, of what use is perfection? gregoire del ubik

You're joking right? Sound manipulation is a different issue to sound reproduction. Once you've manipulated your sound just the way you want it, you don't want it to be manipulated anymore.

Sometimes all you want is a perfect, transparent, clean reproduction of a sound. Sometimes you want to manipulate the shit out of it.
Personally I always want the choice.

[Kiwiburger]

Play just one instance of the patch, and it sounded like the same old sterile digital modeling synth, but play two intances of that same patch, each with a slight random pitch oscilation from the LFO, and it sounded like a MINIMOOG (ok, close).

An extreme example, but similar to what I was describing.

If you consider analog tape in the equation, then some subtle random pitch shifting wouldn't be out of the question.

But an appromixation of what i'm talking about would be to apply stereo 32 band graphic eq to each track. For each band, on each side, roll a dice to pick a gain (in 10ths of a decibel) and then toss a coin to decide wether to cut or boost. Do this for every track.

Then for each pan pot, roll a dice to pick a number, and toss a coin to decide left or right.

[robot gigante]

Originally Posted by Sizzleboy

I think what Kiwiburger is saying (correct me please if I am off base) is that it's the imperfections of anaolg that give it it's character. When you play a track up the middle in a DAW, the left and right channels are EXACTLY the same in the digital domain. Now, run those same two channels through an outboard piece of gear. Don't effect the sound (compress or eq), just have it running through the tubes or descrete circuitry and transformers. Granted,you get some nice pleasing harmonic distortion, but also the stereo field becomes wider....on the mono track up the middle. It's because the two sides of the analog circuit are not exactly the same. You have introduced slight differences between the left and right channel that are percieved as widening and fatening the mono source. No?

I used to do a trick with my Nord Lead (digital modeling) synth to get it to sound analog. I would take a single patch and play it out simultaniously through bank 1 and 2 (The nord had 4 seperate banks that could each play a different patch). And on that patch, I would put a slow, random LFO on the oscilators that just slightly detuned the patch in a completely random way. Play just one instance of the patch, and it sounded like the same old sterile digital modeling synth, but play two intances of that same patch, each with a slight random pitch oscilation from the LFO, and it sounded like a MINIMOOG (ok, close).

There's more to it than that, as Will points out. With digital, something is lost. It's not just what analog adds. Digital is not perfect. Not even in the mathematical sense. I like perfect, transparent and clean, sure- analog processing does that for me a lot better than digital processing does as a general rule, with some exceptions (not all analog boxes are colored you know).

As far as the original question goes, stick those guys on inserts or in front of a summing box. Enjoy!

thumbsup

[Kiwiburger]

There's more to it than that, as Will points out. With digital, something is lost. It's not just what analog adds. Digital is not perfect. Not even in the mathematical sense. I

We need some new english words I think, because nothing here makes any sense.

Neither Analog or Digital are perfect - does that make better sense?

Sure - when you digitize audio, something is lost, and something is added. Just as when you magetize some tape, something is lost and something is added.

But having subjected your audio to one type of loss and noise, does it make sense to then subject it to the other type of loss and noise? Possibly.

If your tracks are already inside the box, the damage is done. The audio is represented by numbers, and they are as good as you can get. All you have to do is sum them. It's a job that could be done with a digital calculator, and the results are mathematically unambiguous and as 'perfect' as any mathematical process can be.

I don't see how reasonable people can say that squirting those numbers out to numerous D/A converters, summing those electrons flows through components with 1% tolerance values and lots of brownian motion can be more 'perfect'. Something is lost, and something is added. One of these things is not like the other ...

Words, words, words ... it's just stupid really.

[Sizzleboy]

Originally Posted by robot gigante

There's more to it than that, as Will points out. With digital, something is lost. It's not just what analog adds. Digital is not perfect. Not even in the mathematical sense. I like perfect, transparent and clean, sure- analog processing does that for me a lot better than digital processing does as a general rule, with some exceptions (not all analog boxes are colored you know).

I'm not disagreeing here. I guess I'm just talking about one aspect of mixing OTB, which is that the miniscule differences between L/R channels in an analog system can contribute to a percieved widening of the stereo field. Again, in my example, I am talking about a single mono track,panned up the middle, so the summing is out of the picture there, but still just running through the outboard gear makes it sound bigger.

As far as OTB mixing, I've lurked here for a while and Ubik's posts about the Nicerizer over the past year have persuaded me to demo, and be floored by a Nicerizer 16. IMO, this is what has graduated me to gearslut, and I'm loving it. (of coarse the system I was quite happy with a month ago now will need upgraded monitors, a passive monitor control system, oh, and maybe a ATR-102 refurbished by ATR services. )

[Sizzleboy]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

I don't see how reasonable people can say that squirting those numbers out to numerous D/A converters, summing those electrons flows through components with 1% tolerance values and lots of brownian motion can be more 'perfect'. Something is lost, and something is added. One of these things is not like the other ...

Nope, not perfect...just better

[warhead]

No flames here, but a little info from some recent comparisons I've made.

I "think" the biggest problem with mixing in the box is the internal bounce. I have Nuendo, and have done plenty of ITB mixing. After spending time with a Nicerizer16 recently I can tell you that there seems to be a loss of energy in drums, bass guitar etc when doing internal bounces. Even when I wasn't pushing the N16 for some output transformer goodness there still was a punch and relationship there between things like kick / bass guitar / snare that just came out flat in my Nuendo mixes.

I wasn't using "high end" converters either, but rather my Creamware A16 Ultra which is bang for the buck stuff. Good stuff mind you, but not turning any slut heads.

I've even gone ahead and mixed back in just using my Ludid DA / AD converters with no "colored" boxes in between and a real time mix still has an advantage as far as energy is concerned. Of course your results may be different, and your ears may not care.

This isn't a commercial for external summing so please don't take this as some salesman pushing outboard gear. I would strongly urge that anyone here with decent converters simply run a mix out and re-record it...then do an internal bounce and see if you can hear the difference. I truly think that internal bounces is where the ITB experience seems to be failing by comparison. Lack of excitement, in varying degrees across the musical soundscape.

Don't post asking for clips. Don't take my word for it. Give it a try. Luckily, there is no wrong: only what you or your artist wants to hear.

War

[Kiwiburger]

I don't have enough good D/A to try for myself - which is why i'm seeking clarification of whether it's worth the investment.

I am 100% convinced analog adds noise and distortion - which can be good.

The experiences of many people is that a single analog stage over the 2bus is just as good as the whole summing drama.

I just had a thought that might actually swing me over to the whole way ...

If you have a 4 part harmony lead guitar solo, would you track 4 clean guitar parts and force them through a single distorted amp? I don't think so. The parts would get mushed together and be very indistinct. They would sound much better and more distinct if each part had it's own distorted amp ...

So maybe that's the missing factor ... each track getting it's own distortion before they are finally summed together.

Which then suggests that processing each track OTB seperately, before summing ITB might be just as good for someone with more time than money ...

[robot gigante]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

If your tracks are already inside the box, the damage is done. The audio is represented by numbers, and they are as good as you can get. All you have to do is sum them. It's a job that could be done with a digital calculator, and the results are mathematically unambiguous and as 'perfect' as any mathematical process can be.

Well, what about that stack of plugins on your "as good as you can get" tracks? Lots of number crunching going on there... lots of loss (to my ears).

And sorry, I don't buy the "mathematically unambiguous and perfect" summing thing either, especially when you have 60+ tracks, lots of routing, tons of fader rides etc...

I remember not too long ago how Digidesign was claiming that their summing algorithms were perfect, but it turned out there were some major flaws, which they fixed, or fixed at least some of them. HD is a lot better, but I don't think it's perfect in the real world (or any other software out there for that matter). I mean, at least we're not in the days of nubus and PT 1 any more, but to my ears there is still a lot of bad math or something going on.

I hope that all this doesn't sound like a flame or anything.

Back to analog processing, with uncolored analog gear it certainly sounds cleaner and punchier than most of the stuff ITB to my ears, even with the extra stage of (decent) conversion. Analog outboard isn't always about the coloration, even though that is something that it does really well to be sure.

[warhead]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

I don't have enough good D/A to try for myself - which is why i'm seeking clarification of whether it's worth the investment.

Yes you do, you have a DAC1. Just re-record it back to your DAW and see if you hear anything special by comparison vs an internal bounce.

War

[Sizzleboy]

OK, you're all gonna think I'm wierd, but I'm going to try to make an analogy here. I cannot wear anything but bleached white t-shirts. If I wear a colored t, yellow, blue, whatever, I can "feel" the color and I am uncomfortable. You could put a blindfold on me and hand me different shirts to try on, and I cannot feel the difference, but as soon as I open my eyes and see anything else but a bleached white t-shirt, I immediatly feel uncomfortable.

I think the same may go for audio. Recording is so much more then just sound wave manipulation. You have to feel comfortable. If you feel comfortable with outboard gear and summing via analog, and it makes you better at you're craft, then slut out. If you are comfortable mixing ITB with a couple of UAD-1 cards, then that's all you need. You can get great results either way, providing the songs and musicianship are great. Some may not be able to pick an ITB from an OTB in a double blind test, but that does not mean anything if you are not comfortable with the blindfold off.

I know, it's late and I'm not drinking tonight....sorry

[Sizzleboy]

Originally Posted by warhead

No flames here, but a little info from some recent comparisons I've made.

I "think" the biggest problem with mixing in the box is the internal bounce. I have Nuendo, and have done plenty of ITB mixing. After spending time with a Nicerizer16 recently I can tell you that there seems to be a loss of energy in drums, bass guitar etc when doing internal bounces.

Hey War,

There's something to this. I recall reading something about needing a true RMS meter on the master in order to avoid digital clipping at the mix bus. That is to say that even though the meters show no clipping of the POINTS of the waveform, when the converter reconstructs the waveform, the waveform peak may actually be above a 0dB sampled point, and therefore still clip. A good converter is less suseptable to this. This is why it may sound ok through the high end studio converters, but it sounds harsh and clipped (loss of transients) on a consumer converter.

One way to avoid this is to add a d/a a/d conversion on the stereo bus using a good d/a converter. Going out through a decent converter should still handle this effect to still create a decent waveform, then when you go back into the a/d, you can slam it to 0db and the waveform will then be recorded properly with no clipping at reconstruction.

just another late night non-alchoholic thought.

[Nu-tra]

Where ever you go... There you are.

[Brad McGowan]

Originally Posted by warhead

I've even gone ahead and mixed back in just using my Ludid DA / AD converters with no "colored" boxes in between and a real time mix still has an advantage as far as energy is concerned. Of course your results may be different, and your ears may not care.

Just to be sure I am reading this correctly. Are you saying that running a "real-time" export in Nuendo sounds better than doing the standard "export mix"? Does anyone know what differences there may be when clicking the little "real-time" box?

Not to be argumentative, but sending your ITB 2-mix out of a pair of D/A and back into the A/D does add coloration. The coloration comes from the analog stages of whatever converters you use. Sure it may be subtle, but it is there. Some converters just sound sweeter and more euphonic than others and that sonic imprint will be transferred to the loopback.

To the original poster: if you are using Cubase SX then why not just take advantage of the extenal FX plugins you can set up using your outboard gear? That would be a very easy way to stay ITB, but still get your gear involved in the mixdown.

thanks,
Brad