I appreciate your insights very much, but I would have to disagree with your assertion that the DAW could be called the "primary" mixing device in situations like that of delCosmos where it seems 32 or more of the DAW outs are being processed with high-end analog outboard, then coming back into the DAW. To me the DAW is the "secondary" device in a situation like this because it's being used more as a multi-track recorder than for signal processing. Yes, the DAW in this scenario is where level and pan adjustments are occuring, but those are the more superficial qualities of a console IMO. EQ, pres, FX and compression seem to be the "make or break" tools that are so important in achieving a great mix -- especially for certain styles of music like metal, pop, and rock.

With a rig where $10,000-$15,000 is the total investment for the DAW and $500,000 is the investment in the outboard rack, I don't really see how the rack could be considered "secondary". If the DAW could really do all of the things that the outboard rack does with the same stellar sounding results, I seriously doubt that the producers who have such racks would be holding on to them simply because they look impressive and make them feel like big shots.

Like delcosmos said, he uses all of the equipment in that super slutty rack of his -- and I most certainly believe him!

delcosmos also has a CS2000 but that's neither here nor there.

there was a thread awhile back entitled something like or 'why did you change your SSL for an Icon', or something of the sort. the gentleman who owns Crystalphonics i think pretty much coined the phrase 'hybrid' in the fashion we use it now, when referring to mixing audio - at least that's the first time i saw it used.

at any rate to me it's pretty clear. if you use analog stuff with your DAW, it's a hybrid setup. if not, it's ITB. how much $ is spent on whatever % in or OTB is pretty much besides the point IMHO.

but really speaking who gives a hoot in hades??

it's kind of like when does it stop being rock and starts being pop? or when does evening turn into night? or when do you say potatoe and i say po TAH-to... or...

I am saying this calmly and without judgment.
I don't know who you are sage691, forums like this can give a person like you a great deal of anonymity.
You could be God's gift to the audio world... I don't know.
I don't know if you are real engineer with years of experience under your belt or a wannabe who likes to give their views on the world.
So once again I say this without malice or negative intent.

Your statement about the "limitations of such a rig," are both amusing and aggravating.
I'm not sure if you are just unaware that people choose to track with a lot of analog gear and then mix in the box,
or if you really believe that and are trying to just stir the pot, it's really hard to say.

Personally, I don't think it take "balls" to mix in the box with nothing other than plugins. It just takes a commitment to learning how to do it.
I have been doing tracking and mixing that way for the past 6 years. You can go to my website and listen to the MP3's of projects that I have mixed this way.
Or you can continue to make blanket statements about things you appear to have a limited knowledge of.

Well, the only thing that I would add is that the price of the outboard gear vs. the price opf plug-ins is somewhat moot. With outboard gear you get much fewer instances of each piece of gear as opposed to the plug-in equivalent. For instance, the greater the MITB the more processing power is required. This means that in the ProTools world, if you are mixing with HD, you would have to get another Accel card. Eventually you would max out your computers' slots and have to spend between 2-3k for a Magma chassis to contain those extra cards. We have about $50k just in Accel Cards/Magma Chassis and plug-ins alone. And we still use both plug-ins and hardware.

The point I'm trying to make is that the cost of the hardware vs. software isn't really relevant to the 'definition of MITB'. If a mixer spent 10k on a ton of Speck EQs and RNCs that equal the quantity of possible channel insert/buss effects as the more expensive units then it's a wash. He's still doing what delcosmos is doing, only with less expensive outboard. Right?

Tony, I'm with you on that one! thumbsup

"It's part of the new way"-Pete

You nailed it Tony. And with such clear and concise eloquence.

ITB can be more compact if you live in a small apartment.

If this has already been adressed, my apologies. Actually, no apologies since some people insist on beating into the ground.

I don't care WTF you want to call it, can we just define a few terms and USE THEM! Almost all records are mixed in 1 of 4 ways so let's define them.

1. ITB - no outboard of ANY kind, internal summing
2. ITB w/inserts - outboard as channel inserts, internal summing
3. Summing box - outboard as channel inserts AND/OR on the outputs after D/A and before the summing box, external summing
4. Proper Console

If I've missed something feel free to ad to this. Sitting around and arguing over semantics is retarted. Can we just start using these terms or somthing along these lines. I (and nobody else) gives a rats a** if you don't think that #2 on the above list is not "pure ITB". Simply state that you sum ITB with hardware inserts and we will know that is different than ITB with no hardware.

Personally, I go out of my 192 into a Folcrom with Shadow Hills on the back end. I'm getting another 192 in January and a Shadow Hills Equinox. Both of these would be considered #3 on the above list.

j

just for fun and to prove how futile this argument is, i'm going to agree on #1 but disagree with you on # 2, 3 and 4.

these could all be considered hybrid in my book, though not necessarily.

whether you insert 1 pultec into your DAW, stem out 16 channels to a Folcrom using numerous analog boxes in the process, or break out to a Duality, 9000K or whatever, using all the gear in delcosmos' rack, but still doing some automation, plug ins, summing etc. ITB, i would consider all this a hybrid approach. so there can be many shades of grey to 'hybrid'.

and if you use a Radar or whatever DAW as a recorder/editor only with a C200 or 88D, would that be ITB or OTB? heh IMO if one piece of analog gear were used with this rig, it would be hybrid. if one piece of analog gear were not used, i don't know what the hell i'd call it.

at any rate i would hope we can agree that more lines are being blurred the better 'the box' gets.

yes.

mr. shepperd,

you seem committed not only to mixing itb but also to teaching others that it can be done, and done well. to that end, i'm curious how you approach vocal compression with plugs; it's one of two things i have yet to find the love with inside the computer (the other being mix compression).

specifically, what comp(s) do you find are able to grab and lock down a voice without reducing the depth of the source or, in some cases, sounding heavy handed? i'm no stranger to well done compression, but i can't seem to achieve with digital what an 1176->la2a does for thick color, or an atomic squeezebox does for invisibility.

i appreciate any insights.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

^
thank you for asking this ubk.

Which compressor I grab depends on the style of music that I am mixing and the style of the singers voice.
If it's rock it might be Smack! If it's pop it might be the Waves Renaissance compressor.
There is no ONE compressor I reach for in a mix.

I am in the process of shooting a Mixing In The Box Masterclass DVD, so I can give you a couple of things I have on the DVD.
When mixing in the box here are my first 3 rules of thumb.

1. Every plugin you add changes the sound.
ITB, when you put a Pultec on your channel, it may not sound like a "real" Pultec. But it HAS a sound.
If you get to know that sound, you can start to develop a palette of sounds from plugins that can work for you in a mix.

2. You don't always NEED a plugin.
Listen to the mix before inserting a plugin. It may NOT need anything.

3. Record to Disc.
As a general rule I never Bounce to Disc my final mixes. I always Record to Disc.
I take the Master fader and send it over too the a buss to an audio track, then I record the entire mix down and export the file in any format I want to.
Typically I send it to mastering in the same format of the song, (24 Bit, 48k, stereo interleaved) or whatever the format is.

As for plugins on the stereo buss, I put on the Stereo buss the same kinds of things I did when I mixed on an analog board.
Once again it depends on the style of music I am mixing, but I might have IMPACT (if it's a pop tune) for compression and the Massey L2007 plugin. (One of the best limiters I've heard and priced amazing low for a TDM plugin.)

When I first started MITB I had deadline where it would have been almost impossible to do on a conventional board. My first client in my project studio was Back Street Boys and I had to mix 4 songs in 36 hours and the producers kept changing their minds about the mixes. We would literally have a song put to bed and they would change an entire section of the tune. That was in 2000 I was using my RADAR as my A to D convertor into my Pro Tools Mix plus system and mixing on a Euphonix consoles. Eventually I forced my self to move away from the Euphonix and start mixing in Pro Tools. Now I have an HD 3 Accel and I would never go back.
Do I miss having a wall of gear? No not at all. I still love 24 track analog tape, but that sound is not for every project.

Let's face it, the sound of the industry has changed. I can remember when no wanted to use an SSL console because "everyone agreed" it sounded horrible compared to a Neve. Now SSL is king of the consoles. Times change, and so does the way in which we create music.

Bottom line:
To my knowledge I have yet to lose a gig because I mix in the box.
My clients choose me because of what I can deliver sonically and ultimately, that's all that really matters.

thanks tony (and ubk for asking)! i was wondering if you were going to mention Massey. i love the CT4. haven't tried the limiter yet, and i haven't used Ren comp in a long time, just never dug it. maybe i'll look into it again...

there was a thread here about the different SSL- like compressors, and i thought Smack sounded the closest to my FX384, but i find the Waves/SSL comp useful on drum sub, etc., as it's a little more 'exaggerated' than Smack (IMHO), so i have found it useful on parallel stuff.

when you get a chance could you comment on the verbs you use? hope this isn't OT

thank you sir.

PS please let us know when the DVD is available.

And also, clients choose to work with you as a producer/engineer/person rather than the equipment you use.

What about an analog tape recording, mixed through a console to tape, using digital reverbs ....



I get the initial point he's making/asking ... with 48 outs and a load of nice hardware it's not very ITB. It's hybrid, as was said.

If you're mixing pop with a stong commercial vibe you dont need a console or the harmonic qualitites of much outboard or tape. You need power, and lots of it. But for more organic music other things are better. The medium suits the media at best. Some music is more compositional, some is more vibey. Some is both.

No one is accusing ITB mixers of anything, and results are obviously key. This is not a practical thread, it's an analytical one. There are a lot of weird topics that people make with less grief, so if you're not into this topic it's obviously a big internet. Please dont shoot down those who find it interesting, and just mosey along.

Enough Already..... for 2007 lets reveal the real secret of ITB!!!

The next step is to take whatever came in your box and make, mix or master a great song!!

completely off topic I know .... apologies for that .... but all this ITB OTB hybrid blah blah kinda made me think of this thread when I stumbled on it the other day ... and while still in the spirit of Xmas and all that :


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dmVU08zVpA

i think one of those DITB guys is justin.

makes total sense to me. i just mixed a track that was slamming 80's/90's power pop, but when i went to bounce it to the studer, something got lost, the transients up top didn't want to be reigned in . i preferred the straight to dig mix, maybe the 2d time that's ever happened to me but there it is.

i also think some styles of jazz work better straight to digital. oddly enough, i prefer classical on tape, but i also like a lot less hall and more direct than most recordists seem willing to do. i've got a few 50's era classical tapes on 1/4", they're relatively dry by modern standards, they sound unbelievable.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

yea, the thing that is often overlooked in many debates is the taste of the person in control of presenting the vision ... not their 'good' or 'bad' taste ... but the ability to making a thing whole (and appropriately so) that's a bunch of notes in time.

a good musician can make music from sound with taste, a mixer can make an image from a performance ... all with taste. craft helps to ... and discipline ... but i digress.