No, and I don't mean what the letters stand for!

After reading thru "I must admit I'm a Gearslut 2" and seeing the INCREDIBLE array of top notch outboard Cosmos has in his rack, when he stated that he does many of his projects ITB these days I just couldn't help but laugh.

If ITB means that you can have this ridiculous rack of top notch analog processing, with 32 channels of your DAW outputs each having it's own EXPENSIVE chain of gear to be processed thru, and it's still considered ITB just because you don't have an analog desk in the equation -- then I can fully understand why people on this thread can claim that top notch mixing is indeed done ITB.

To me ITB means this: you are EXCLUSIVELY mixing inside the DAW once tracking is complete, and the ONLY option of signal processing you have are the plug-ins, PERIOD !! You can only use outboard processors in the tracking phase. Oh, and the summing MUST be the digital summing of the DAW.

This is my definition of ITB. What's yours ?

With a rack like the one Cosmos has, who really needs an analog desk ? I'd take his rack over an SSL anyday.

When he says he mixes ITB it seems quite disingenuos to me. To me ITB means that you're stuck with the DAW and what's its capabilities are for signal processing and summing.

i think people mostly still call it itb even is outboard processing is used. im guessing they mean the "summing" is in the box?

not entirely sure...but i sold my distressor because i can get its sound and more with many FREEWARE vst plugs. theres thousands of creations up for the taking. when you combine, the results are endless.

Nobody has ever agreed on the definition of ITB before, and probably never will.

If you insist that ITB means you can only use plugins, it will rule out most of the lame brain ITB vs analog summing debates. It would make it just the same Plugins vs hardware debate, which is a no brainer in favour of hardware at this point in time.

Most people are using a mixture of plugns and hardware, so it's a pointless intellectual exercise.

And then somebody will come in with "it's all about the song, man" - and then when somebody mentions Hitler, the thread is officially over.

Hitler!

Too funny.

War

Well, I've been lurking here for almost 1 year and on countless occasions I've heard DAW enthusiasts mention that more and more top producers are mixing ITB these days. They usually say this with ALOT of enthusiasm, thinking that with their Digi 002 they have ARRIVED and that they are on the yellow brick road to making a great record --- because "so and so did it, and they did it all ITB".

But if "so and so" had a rack like delCosmos then it really doesn't matter to me whether you call it ITB or OTB, and it really shouldn't suprise anyone that they were able to mix a great sounding record this way!

Instead, it should be called RMM vs. PMM (Rich Man's Mixing vs Poor Man's Mixing).

Now, who in the "poor man's" category has produced a phenomenal sounding record using just the plugins on a DAW ? That one I would just LOVE to hear.

have to agree with this post!

http://www.harddisklife.com/



Charles Dye mixes some pretty good sounding stuff... and (more importantly) he really seems like a good guy with great attitude who does not get all hung up on having to use this or that gear.

ITB should mean mixing entirely inside the computer.

OTB should mean mixing entirely outside the computer.

Anything between the two should be called hybrid.

War

Unless you're in the porn industry where it means.... In The B*** or Up The B*** or On The B***.

I almost completely agree with this, probably as close as anyone is going to get with the definition ad pretty much how I see it as well....



The thing that hangs me up is, what do you call mixing with a RADAR / desk combo? Shades of gray I guess. Is that OTB? There is a computer involved. Is it Hybrid? There are no plugs on the computer side. What if someone is using Pro Tools without plugs then?

Sticky..

Me, I don't give a rats ass. Words are words, a rose by any other name and all. Use what you like / can afford / have room for / makes you get all fuzzy inside and gets the music out to an audience.

Hey... you guys familiar with the "X Prize"?


They should have an "X Prize" for the first guy that
records and mixes a top (enter number here) hit that
meets all Poor Man's Mixing® criteria:

All ITB (preamps may be used for tracking
but no 'high end' preamps;no compressors - acceptable
list to follow)
no 'good' mics (you know what we're talking about)
Guitar Center Brand or equivalent cables only
studio should NOT be smoke-free
must be recorded in a sheet-rocked room
No (and this is a biggie) room treatment!
bonus if done on a PC

.....and..... GO!

I record analog (studer 827) and mix on the dm2000 ...............backward

Quite possibly the most quotable quote on GS ever.

War

So using a PC is like using GC cables, cheap mics in an untreated sheet-rock room is it?

B.S. and bias. I use both, they both work and one is WAY less expensive which saves me money for more outboard that I think is much more important than what platform I am on.

Please don't go there.


tutt

hi all..! this is my first post i've been lurking for quite sometime now! and all but if u want to hear something mixed in that kind of eviroment just go here www.myspace.com/represionband this was all mixed on a 001 with less than average mics in a NOT smoke free room all done on pc too haha this shouldn't be on high end hahaha oh well

ITB

In The Butt

don't mix ITB. it sounds like ass.

i guess it comes down to the fact that we're talking about mixing itb or otb, emphasis on 'mixing.' radar doesn't mix, and if you're using pt without plugs then you're probably using it as a straight up playback machine, so in both cases i'd say you're mixing purely otb.

i'm in complete agreement that anyone who's routing signals out to 1176's and 8200's is not mixing itb. they may be summing itb, but that mix is most decidedly going out of the box for a good part of its life.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

I would buy that.... but what about if you are using Pro Tools into an SSL and you are making automation moves with PT but no plugs? Does that one little step cross you over into Hybrid land from OTB? I am really asking because I sure as hell don't know.

As I said I think War's definition is about as good as it gets and pretty much how I see it as well but the point is that there is a very fine line between ITB, OTB and Hybrid these days.

I would be inclined to say that a vast majority of the stuff out there is really Hybrid when it gets down to it. A Folcrom is "Hybrid" by this definition right? So is an SSL RADAR mix and the guy who uses his one high end compressor for his vocal $ channel during a mix.

I don't think there are many true ITB mixes or OTB mixes these days going by this definition and that is a good thing to me really. Do what works for you is my motto.

Me....... I would rather have a great console than tons of effects , compressors. outboard EQs, ect........ both would be nice though heh

Yeah, Radar is basically a digital recorder...with editing, like a 2". It can't mix, or process...you need a console. PT w/o plugs is still capable of mixing, eq'ing, etc., but yes, PT tools as a multitracker recorder (only) into a console is how many high end studios use it, hence the competition from Radar for the specific niche market.

Purely OTB...agreed!

Ultimately, I agree with your motto of doing what works best for you. But most of the people who I know, do mix completely ITB.
Very few of them mix with any analog summing. And as far as the RADAR goes, I wouldn't consider that ITB at all.
Because RADAR is not doing any summing in the box, (no efx, delays, reverbs), it's the equivalent (albeit better sounding) of a Sony 3348 or any other digital machine.
As far as I know, ITB truly refers to the internal summing buss of your music.

I have done mixes for clients were the label has requested the final mixes on 1/2" analog for archival.
However, everything up to that point was all done inside Pro Tools. Do you still call that mixing ITB? I do.
But if you are summing out to stems on an analog board, then I would consider that hybrid.

Well, much as I am happy about my hybrid rig with HD3 Accel and various Crucial Pieces of Analog/Digital Outboard (1081s, UA175B, Lexicon, AMS, TC, GE and Altec comps, etc.), I have to say that compared to PTHD through an SSL, ITB (even a nice hybrid ITB situation) just isn't as good. I don't think my rig sounds like total ass in a mix situation, but I have to work a lot harder than I would in a PT/SSL scenario just to get things sounding truly "nice". So while I think my rig is an excellent compromise for those of us without 8068's or 9000K's, I don't kid myself that it's the same- it's not.
Nor am I convinced about any of the summing devices I've heard yet (haven't heard the Neve yet, so no comment about that one)...they all seem to do precisely nothing perceptible to the sound in my experience. My feeling is, if you really want a good analog summing device, get a Neve BCM10. THAT will definitely make the sound better.

As far as records mixed totally ITB, I had a chance to hear an A/B comparison recently:

Some friends of mine are in a new Major Rock Band (3 of the 4 members were in other bands that are very well known and have sold a lot of records) that just had their first release. It was tracked at 96Khz on HD at a great LA studio, and since they write and play great, the tracks are fantastic. I happened to be around when they were elsewhere
with a certain Famous Mixer Dude who was just finishing their mixes, so I stopped by and had a listen. This guy works on a PTHD/SSL situation and it sounded absolutely fantastic. However, the band later decided that the balances were not right, but instead of having Famous Mixer Dude just recall and remix, they gave the whole record to a friend of theirs from a frequently-namechecked cult band who does a lot of mixing for other people, totally ITB on HD.

While the resulting mixes are certainly competent, there is no sonic comparison to Famous Mixer Dude's mixes. It now sounds compressed, strident and about half an inch deep- totally flat and electronic. Of course, the mastering may have contributed to this, but the difference is dramatic enough (having heard the original analog mixes
and also had some of the tracks on my own rig to fool around with, so I know what's there) that I tend to think it was Mr ITB Mixer's approach and the sound of what totally ITB mixing does to rock music.

While I think that the record would definitely benefited from some inserted analog outboard, it still wouldn't have been as good as the PT/SSL combination.
I have been in studios for 20 years (started as an assistant at Soundworks in NYC in the mid-80s on their SSL, which I think was a 4000E) and have done a lot of ITB
mixing with my current system and the previous incarnation, which was the same except with Mix 4 rather than HD. I have come to the conclusion that, for rock music at least, you need a ****ing real top-notch console when it comes time to mix if you want the vibe.

Just my $.02

Happy Holidays,

-sw

As I said, it's all open to viewpoint I think.

As far as RADAR goes, I agree it is not ITB at all but it could be viewed as Hybrid right? I don't really see it that way but the point of the thread is to come up with our definition of the terms at hand. I know some guys who consider any digital recording "hybrid" of ITB and hardware.

Again I don't really agree with that thinking but it does bring home my point, each of us probably has a slightly different take on the whole thing.

Like I said above, you could use a Pro Tools rig just like a RADAR set up and by that definition we are talking about OTB but what if I automate one track in Pro Tools? Does that really make it "Hybrid"? Where is the line that one would cross to go from OTB to Hybrid?

You are saying that internal summing is the key for ITB. Am I still ITB if I route one track out to a hardware compressor but still summ it and the reast of the tracks ITB?

Sticky.. words are sticky things with us humans.

heh

Well what if you are a "committer"? Someone who patches in the compressor and the outboard EQ during tracking, commits to a sound and uses all the outboard "on the way in"?

Then you mix ITB, not leaving the computer any more.

Is that person more or less ITB than the guy who tracks dry and uses the comps and EQs as inserts during mixdown?

Great point... see there you go. As I said there are many ways to look at this and I don't think any of them are "wrong' or "right." It is all about how you view it.

Form a practical standpoint the above says it all. The terms ITB and OTB alone are very general but each can go to an extreme. I have a RADAR that I can use just like tape through an analog console-- clearly this is OTB. I have a DAW where I can track into the box and never do a DA conversion except for monitoring-- to me this is clearly ITB. I have extensive experience using a RADAR on a digital console. Is this OTB but digitally summed? It is what it is. I now prefer to track directly to a DAW (Logic Pro). I'll add plugins to tracks, edit tracks, even sum a few tracks-- then send DA out to an analog console where I can strap in a bunch of outboard gear-- To me this is a hybrid approach and just seems easier. I would hate to be stuck in one camp or the other.

Well, in most cases the "committer" is somone who can't afford to have enough pieces of outboard in his rack to make it unnecessary to do the processing in the tracking phase. You have to know exactly what you're going for when you do it this way, because if you screw it up even though the performance was great you may have ended up with a sound that just doesn't work down the line when all the other stuff is added in.

But I would agree that somone could use all the fancy outboard they wanted to while tracking (no limits!) and still be mixing ITB as long as nothing but plugins and the DAW's internal summing could be used for final mixdown. Still, I don't think many of the "golden eared" ITB idols praised on this forum would be happy with the limitations of this definition. To be denied the slutty outboard racks would be akin to a marathon runner's feet being imbedded in cement boots --- he'll likely lose the race.

I'm more concerned with the box OFFICE.

uhg long repllies beyond me intelligence lurk above!

save me!

heh heh heh

Posted this on another forum, and it seems to fit here also:
----


Yep, if your doing all the work inside the DAW, whatever it is, it's ITB.

What it stops being ITB is when you start using outboard gear, or any analog gear/console/etc for processing during the mix/post recording. A lot of people use a lot of DAW processing and automation coupled with select pieces of their outboard gear/consoles/etc. This is called a Hybrid set-up. Then you have an analog mix where the DAW is a tape machine essentially. You route your audio out the I/O's and do everything with the console and outboard gear, like before hard drives were used in studios.

So you have 3 styles of working:

ITB: 100% in the DAW
Hybrid: Some processing/automation in the DAW, some outboard/console/digital console/etc
Analog: In this scenario the DAW is a playback machine only