The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
ANALOGUE CONSOLE w/ DAW SUMMING vs DAW CONSOLE w/ ANALOGUE SUMMING Consoles
Old 24th August 2007
  #31
Lives for gear
 
sonicdefault's Avatar
As digital technoogy advances, analog will become more and more the substance of memories and dreams.


-SD
Old 24th August 2007
  #32
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonicdefault View Post
As digital technology advances, analog will become more and more the substance of memories and dreams.
-SD
Maybe, if they offer a USB port into the side of your head like Cmdr. Data on Star Trek. Until then, it's about moving air. Digital is the tank and the train, storage and delivery. Everything else, voices, instruments, speakers, amps, mic pre's are still and will remain analog. There are no digital answers to those things except in your memories and dreams.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
Old 24th August 2007
  #33
Gear Maniac
 
CaptCrunch's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
Yep, let the client decide. And as long as they decide they like what I'm doing, whichever way I'm doing it, and as long as they are willing to pay the asking fee, then everybody's happy. Drop it cap'n, or move it into the Moan Zone...

That is exactly right! No moaning from here, just thoughts on summing and its spot in our overall audio experience.
Old 24th August 2007
  #34
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
What about us analog console/analog summing folks? We are responsible for all those classic records you love and compare against.

.... which is a little like saying because I worked on some low grade Sci-Fi in the early eighties that I'm responsible for Star Wars.....

THE MOST significant thing about recording is the whole ruddy process. Analogue this, digital that is but part of it. I've got quite a few high profile products out there done in various ways, Digital and Analogue. There are some ATTROCIOUS sounding analogue recordings just as there are digital. Good rooms/Bad rooms, Bad songs/good songs, bad playing/good playing , ugly singers/pretty ones, loud mouths/quiet gobs.

A good recording is a good recording. Analogue vs digital, the tired tired old debate, has very little to do with it. It is but a flavour and method. Im as happy working on my vintage Neve console as the modern one in the other room, as I am in the box or on a Harrison in Soho. C'mon Jim - move on. You dont like DAWs (particularly PT) - fine . No problem. Change the record. Or disk, depending on your viewpoint !
Old 25th August 2007
  #35
Lives for gear
 
sonicdefault's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
Maybe, if they offer a USB port into the side of your head like Cmdr. Data on Star Trek. Until then, it's about moving air. Digital is the tank and the train, storage and delivery. Everything else, voices, instruments, speakers, amps, mic pre's are still and will remain analog. There are no digital answers to those things except in your memories and dreams.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
Jim,

Forgive me for waxing philosophical (I know my post was subjective), but I was actually speaking favorably towards analog. I own very expensive analog gear and prefer it over digital processing any day. I was saying that analog will become more what people desire and dream about because of its history and nostalgic appeal.



-SD
Old 5th January 2009
  #36
Gear Head
 
Wild Sky's Avatar
 

Sorry to resurrect this thread but I feel I have to point out something...

I read each and every post on both threads concerning this subject and there's one definite advantage of using princeplanet's method that no one mentionned. When I think of ITB mix, yes I think about summing, but I also think about playing with PT faders and messing with the gain of each track digitally to create a mix to be summed. IMHO that is where most of the s**t hits the fan. I feel that if every bit has to be recalculated to get to the proper level, this is where the signal degradation buildup is most proeminent. Try routing a single track to a console channel and compare PT fader drastic level changes (console unity) and console fader drastic level changes (PT unity)...

If we try it prince's way, PT will play each track unity gain to a DA converter, the console will handle ALL the dynamics involved in creating the mix and each console channel will be recorded at the proper level in respect with the other tracks, back into PT. So each PT stemed tracks will play back at unity.... Worth a try... Don't know if I have enough patchcords to do a full mix + rerecording every channel though...

Even if you do traditionals stems you're stuck with the compressor on mixbuss problem, eg. the final mix (compressed) never sounds like the TV+ Lead Vocal Only together.

As for the conversion artifacts, this thread has me wondering... If you do traditional stems, you are AD-ing something back in PT to be mixed with other AD-ed stems, so you'll still be digitally summing those stems. Is it gonna be better to have the drums converted to a stereo stem, or all the different analog channels of those drums(including parallel compression and such) to it's own separate stem.... In theory, the kick drum will have been AD-ed twice (counting initial recording) in both case so it should not "lose" something more in one than the other, and no PT gain change to affect the sound...The one difference that I can see is that "individual" stems will need to be panned digitally to their proper place, so that's gonna blurr the image a bit... Still definitely worth trying
Old 5th January 2009
  #37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
Everything else, voices, instruments, speakers, amps, mic pre's are still and will remain analog. There are no digital answers to those things except in your memories and dreams.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
Jim, you forgot to add "EARS" +1
Old 5th January 2009
  #38
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Sky View Post
Sorry to resurrect this thread but I feel I have to point out something...

I read each and every post on both threads concerning this subject and there's one definite advantage of using princeplanet's method that no one mentionned. When I think of ITB mix, yes I think about summing, but I also think about playing with PT faders and messing with the gain of each track digitally to create a mix to be summed. IMHO that is where most of the s**t hits the fan. I feel that if every bit has to be recalculated to get to the proper level, this is where the signal degradation buildup is most proeminent. Try routing a single track to a console channel and compare PT fader drastic level changes (console unity) and console fader drastic level changes (PT unity)...

If we try it prince's way, PT will play each track unity gain to a DA converter, the console will handle ALL the dynamics involved in creating the mix and each console channel will be recorded at the proper level in respect with the other tracks, back into PT. So each PT stemed tracks will play back at unity.... Worth a try... Don't know if I have enough patchcords to do a full mix + rerecording every channel though...

Even if you do traditionals stems you're stuck with the compressor on mixbuss problem, eg. the final mix (compressed) never sounds like the TV+ Lead Vocal Only together.

As for the conversion artifacts, this thread has me wondering... If you do traditional stems, you are AD-ing something back in PT to be mixed with other AD-ed stems, so you'll still be digitally summing those stems. Is it gonna be better to have the drums converted to a stereo stem, or all the different analog channels of those drums(including parallel compression and such) to it's own separate stem.... In theory, the kick drum will have been AD-ed twice (counting initial recording) in both case so it should not "lose" something more in one than the other, and no PT gain change to affect the sound...The one difference that I can see is that "individual" stems will need to be panned digitally to their proper place, so that's gonna blurr the image a bit... Still definitely worth trying

Still going strong with my hybrid solution, infact have a second room doing it now. Not sure if I updated info in the thread to show that I sub mix stems into groups that go through HW inserts (eg gtrs through HW Neve 2254) and all subgroups go through 2 buss comp (usually C2). All automation is done either from the stems themselves or the subgroups and is therefore post console. I now use HW FX and feed them via automated PT auxes. This has revealed a need to leave all HW set up consistently from gig to gig, listing changes in PT comments should I vary settings. No biggie. Gotta watch out for delaying all subgroups against HW fx returns, not only while printing mix as same time as stems, but by different delayed amounts when recalling a mix from recorded stems.

Anyway, as for the reason you like my system, ie, leaving PT faders in a straight line, I thought that was important too, but recently have tried mixing where the PT faders are pulled down as much as 12 db. Why? 2 reasons, so the waveforms of the stems are bigger! and also to get better S/N ratio from my console. I still feel sure that the math involved in simple DAW faders is nowhere near as deleterious as sonic mangling caused by stacking plugins of various and differing types (rtas, tdm, fixed, float etc etc). My mixes still sound 100% analog but have all the advantages of ITB recall. I use 3 x Lynx 16 converters and have no problem with the "round trips" required to make my system fly. I have re recorded test sources up to 8 x in order to detect a sonic imprint buildup, and was shocked that it just wasn't there. People just never try this stuff for themselves it seems, that's why I'm the only guy in the world that is pro mixing this way. Forget anything else you've read, just try stuff and believe your ears.
Old 11th April 2009
  #39
pjk
Gear Addict
Hi princeplanet,

Just found this thread and want to say i found it very interesting (sorry for getting here late) and that i think your method gives the best of both worlds. It is a subject most of us have thought about for a long time, but ive personally always believed having analogue channel eq and compression etc for each individual track must have a far greater effect sonically than analogue summing alone would have (as well as the added benefit of recall). Its great to hear from someone who has actually put this to the test and found these results. It also gives the small man with 2 channels of decent analogue eq, ok compression and fx etc (like me) a fighting chance (albeit a very slow one) of getting the benefits of analogue with the convenience of itb.
I will now leave the high end forum and humbly return to where i belong.

Cheers
Old 14th April 2009
  #40
Lives for gear
 
illacov's Avatar
 

Analog vs Digital, ITB vs OTB, tired passe not worth it.

ITB summing of analog stems doesn't sound the same.

Ever try running an entire mix to multi track tape and then try summing it ITB?

WTF happened to the transients?

While you're correct on some levels, the individual wavs will sound great alone then in a multitrack DAW they collapse.

I believe that you mentioned you like analog summing but want recall and clients this and clients that.

If you give someone the greatest results ever by doing stuff the hard way with analog an using the gear without all those round trips thru the A/D D/A and the client goes and cries from every hilltop how great you are, someone is going to want you to do it that way for them too. I tell people all the time I'm usually 1.5 times slower than someone using a digital PT system because I do alot of post production on clients work like layback to multitrack tape along with analog summing (with 3 different sets of transformers and transformerless option) and hardware compression on a 24 I/O system with a custom 24 channel summing mixer (8 mono inputs, 8 stereo inputs, stereo slave input to expand or add in the ITB mix, parallel mix send and receive, 4 possible mix paths with 3 transformer options and 1 transformerless option). So while my mixes take longer than the next guy, the results also win people over very quickly because people dig the euphorics from the mixes I'm doing on my setup. Ive been getting alot of clients who track in local studios that they like the recordings but hate the mixes.

Go figure. As far as ITB vs OTB, digital vs analog. Do things the slow way, the assholes that want to rush you, screw em. Again what's the time differential? If you get really fast at your analog setup you probably can get mixes done faster on your analog setup without the round trip compared to ITB, especially if you don't bother with analog layback and just use whatever compressors you have for the money channels and use plugins for stuff that just needs some utility compression or eq. Stuff that's tracked well is going to fall into place, stuff thats not will be the slower stuff, but usually the well tracked stuff will be quicker turnaround time versus people tracking in their basement with no treatment and **** mics. Therein lies the dynamic you're describing, if you're going to lose "I tracked my band's (who can't play a note in time) demo in the basement with radio shack mics and ****ty guitar amps, no DIs and a terrible drummer," to the "other guy" then at some point you would have lost money on them anyway because while you're trying to fix their ****, you can't take anyone else on. So while they may throw money at you, unless its the numbers that cover all the clients you can't take while you spend a lifetime fixing their demo that's never going to get released because the band broke up at the listening session, please don't use guys like that as the reason why recall is the reason we need to use ITB. ITB is a workflow and has a sound. Period. Its not what PROs use because of Blah blah blah.

Recall is lightning fast for me bro. I load up Reaper, use the faders in Reaper (might get a control surface), tweak a few settings hear and there on my compressors (take a photo and save it to the clients folder with a label. 90 seconds of your life wow). The rest of the magic is automation and all that damn iron that my audio runs thru. I literally have about 20 sets (thats stereo or dual mono pairs) of transformers that are in various spots, as well as a Sprinkler box that has 12 sets of transformers that are 1:1 ratio. Does NUTTY things to audio, trafos from various manufacturers, Tamura, UTC and their clones, Telefunken....this runs into my PM1k or my PM700 or I might use a IC based pre with the tranny option turned off on my summing mixer and run the mix thru some UTC A20s and hit the IC based preamp and then hit some Cinemag pres on the outputs of the preamp. Sounds DOPE!! Since I don't worry about getting back into the computer except for two channels of A/D to capture the 2 track mix, I'm very happy. Very 3D very big bass response, rock sounds great, hip hop sounds like the 80s and 90s, I'm sure Jazz or Latin Caribbean music would sound insane in a setup like this. I'm big on passive stuff.

Peace
Illumination
Old 14th April 2009
  #41
Gear Maniac
 

Yes you are right and It's because everyone has it wrong about the mix engine or summing ITB. After some extensive listening tests I've concluded the advantages of summing through a high end analog mixer are small not worth it at least for the reasons people think it's being done for. Where mixing ITB is letting every one down is in the processing period not so much in the summing part of it though that is processing too, as in the more processing that takes place the more the mix starts to collapse and sound flat as a pancake. The ideal is to use the DAW as a recorder only don't even use it for volume automation, also stay away from the effects eq compression especially reverb etc. all that stuff starts collapsing the stereo image and makes instruments sound small. If you're smart though you'll rent out some sweet analog studio when it comes time to mix instead of spending a wasted million dollars.
Old 14th April 2009
  #42
Gear Maniac
 

So Princeplanet is right, the key is to minimize the DAW for as much processing as you can get away however with the actual summation ITB probably does the least amount of damage to a mix hence his findings suggest. Although try routing a reverb through an aux send and return it ITB it sounds terrible, from my findings only summing through the stereo buss ITB sounds decent, start using the sends and returns ITB and it sounds terrible.
Old 11th May 2009
  #43
Gear Head
 
1945MF's Avatar
 

Can i use my Allen and Heath analog classic mixer GS3 as summing mixer ? so i summing 16 line from rosetta 800 and 003 to the mixer.. and send back as stereo to rosetta as like summing mixer are?

Please advice..

Cheers,

DJ R
Old 14th March 2015
  #44
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdmctear View Post
The A and B between my console and ITB are simply the difference between crap and awesome.
Interesting, I own an Amek Angela without automation.
I also did the test, a bounce itb and a bounce through the console, eqs off and faders at unity gain.
The itb summing won for clarity and transparency.
It was an audible difference.
After that, for a few years, I used the console only for tracking and kept mixing itb.
I was still looking for ways to improve and get better sounding mixes.
Recently I did the same test again.
This time I fed the console with stereo stems.
The approach was different, I applied very minimal eq in the computer, some hi-pass, some mid scoops, all in very small amount.
Once on the console I did all the generous boosting, treble and bass, some reverb and delay.
I haven't had anything sounding that good before.
It sounded big and fat, I could get away with a lot more boosting from the console.
I don't consider myself an accomplished mixer, my console is not a classic packed with quality transformers.
What I think is: analog summing isn't better that digital, a top mixer and converters can give you near identical results ... is it worth it ?
As soon as the eqs on the console get involved, the mix seems to happen better and quicker.
Most of my channels have never had a cap job done, my converters are Motu and the eq on the Angela is very basic ... Far from what the pro mixers use.
I'm enjoying the mixing process again.
Old 14th March 2015
  #45
Lives for gear
I don't know... I really like the workflow with an analog console.
Old 14th March 2015
  #46
Lives for gear
 
bdmctear's Avatar
 

Wow. My quote ... that "the difference between mixes in my console and itb is the difference between crap and awesome" --- I'm afraid I stated it backwards: I should have said it's the difference between awesome (in the console) and crap (itb). That said, I have no issues with people doing what they do however they wish to do it. I really enjoy my processes and being around things like the console, tubes, transformers, etc. More than that, I love being around the people I have had the pleasure to work with over the years. All my best friends. It's funny how the recording process has become this activity that brings people together from around the world. Neat time to be alive!

B

Quote:
Originally Posted by kavide View Post
Interesting, I own an Amek Angela without automation.
I also did the test, a bounce itb and a bounce through the console, eqs off and faders at unity gain.
The itb summing won for clarity and transparency.
It was an audible difference.
After that, for a few years, I used the console only for tracking and kept mixing itb.
I was still looking for ways to improve and get better sounding mixes.
Recently I did the same test again.
This time I fed the console with stereo stems.
The approach was different, I applied very minimal eq in the computer, some hi-pass, some mid scoops, all in very small amount.
Once on the console I did all the generous boosting, treble and bass, some reverb and delay.
I haven't had anything sounding that good before.
It sounded big and fat, I could get away with a lot more boosting from the console.
I don't consider myself an accomplished mixer, my console is not a classic packed with quality transformers.
What I think is: analog summing isn't better that digital, a top mixer and converters can give you near identical results ... is it worth it ?
As soon as the eqs on the console get involved, the mix seems to happen better and quicker.
Most of my channels have never had a cap job done, my converters are Motu and the eq on the Angela is very basic ... Far from what the pro mixers use.
I'm enjoying the mixing process again.
Old 14th March 2015
  #47
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kavide View Post
Interesting, I own an Amek Angela without automation.
I also did the test, a bounce itb and a bounce through the console, eqs off and faders at unity gain.
The itb summing won for clarity and transparency.
It was an audible difference.
After that, for a few years, I used the console only for tracking and kept mixing itb.
I was still looking for ways to improve and get better sounding mixes.
Recently I did the same test again.
This time I fed the console with stereo stems.
The approach was different, I applied very minimal eq in the computer, some hi-pass, some mid scoops, all in very small amount.
Once on the console I did all the generous boosting, treble and bass, some reverb and delay.
I haven't had anything sounding that good before.
It sounded big and fat, I could get away with a lot more boosting from the console.
I don't consider myself an accomplished mixer, my console is not a classic packed with quality transformers.
What I think is: analog summing isn't better that digital, a top mixer and converters can give you near identical results ... is it worth it ?
As soon as the eqs on the console get involved, the mix seems to happen better and quicker.
Most of my channels have never had a cap job done, my converters are Motu and the eq on the Angela is very basic ... Far from what the pro mixers use.
I'm enjoying the mixing process again.
+1. One thing I discovered a few years back is how much cumulative plug ins shrunk the depth of my mixes, btw it wasnt coz i couldnt mix.. they were good mixes and translated well across systems too. The thing that bugged me, as I didnt have any hardware processing gear or effects, is that as a test I would mute all of my plugins and do a simple levelling mix making sure headroom wanst compromised and check the difference. Bang. theres all the depth, punch bla bla bla, things are MOVING again. I dont know if this is placebo or whatever but I can tell you my perception is a fairly drastic difference and led to a skepticism about DAW processing plugins and there impact on sonic integrity and resolution.,, its like they gradually flatten your mix. like others say above.. most noticable on large track counts with many many plugins which suggests to me that the problem is perhaps very small but can become big enough to be an issue. Console all the way for me, just returning a hardware reverb auxiliary on a track says it all.. you dont get the surround outside/behind/around the speakers like that ITB no matter how 'big' they sound.
Old 14th March 2015
  #48
Lives for gear
 
Aaron Miller's Avatar
I think one reason people don't use the workflow mentioned is that it could require far more channels of AD on top of an expensive console. I have a Symphony I/O with 16 AD/DA. That's all I need for tracking and outboard on hardware inserts. I couldn't afford two Symphonies loaded with cards to get 40-50 channels of a full mix. If I could afford that, plus a great console, plus EQ and comps on lots of channels, I'd just track with killer chains, do some automation in the box, stem everything out, mixdown through Burl, Since I don't I just use hardware inserts and ITB automation.
Old 14th March 2015
  #49
Lives for gear
 
shortstory's Avatar
Hers what I do, which I don't think is much different-

Once I have my analog mix completed (and I mean completely analog as you can see by our studio), I re record all the final tracks back into pro tools in case of recall. Or I should say only if possible recall is requested as there is additional cost to the client flor all of this- so they have to want it. But this allows me to rebalance the mix with all of the analog compression, EQ, etc. on those tracks as you mention.

However, I typically bring them all back up on the SSL AWS, I don't sum them ITB. Although the client can always choose to do that themselves or with someone else, but if wouldn't since I would want to run the 2-mix thru some compression etc usually.

I get your idea though and certainly have no argument.

Peace
Old 14th March 2015
  #50
Lives for gear
 
mbvoxx's Avatar
There is also the belief that analog summing mixers are more or less just another piece of needless snake oil hardware targeted at a gullible contingency of impulse buying daw users who can't figure out how to maintain correct levels throughout the digital production process and achieve a good mix itb. The perception that they create a 'wider' mix, more spacial use of the stereo spectrum, etc, is also believed by many to be pure BS. I'm not saying I am in that camp, or stating whether or not I personally use a summing mixer, but there is a LOT of pos/neg positioning out there on this subject.
Old 15th March 2015
  #51
Lives for gear
 
zephonic's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PartHunter View Post
+1. One thing I discovered a few years back is how much cumulative plug ins shrunk the depth of my mixes, btw it wasnt coz i couldnt mix.. they were good mixes and translated well across systems too. The thing that bugged me, as I didnt have any hardware processing gear or effects, is that as a test I would mute all of my plugins and do a simple levelling mix making sure headroom wanst compromised and check the difference. Bang. theres all the depth, punch bla bla bla, things are MOVING again. I dont know if this is placebo or whatever but I can tell you my perception is a fairly drastic difference and led to a skepticism about DAW processing plugins and there impact on sonic integrity and resolution.,, its like they gradually flatten your mix. like others say above.. most noticable on large track counts with many many plugins which suggests to me that the problem is perhaps very small but can become big enough to be an issue. Console all the way for me, just returning a hardware reverb auxiliary on a track says it all.. you dont get the surround outside/behind/around the speakers like that ITB no matter how 'big' they sound.
To be fair, a lot of analog processing will do the same, though. You can really process a mix to death, but with analog you usually do not have infinite resources, as you do with digital, so that may force you to use processing more judiciously. Another thing in the digital domain is adc. If not properly compensated, things start to sound awful pretty quick.
Old 15th March 2015
  #52
Lives for gear
 
Will The Weirdo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PartHunter View Post
+1. One thing I discovered a few years back is how much cumulative plug ins shrunk the depth of my mixes
I have found that algo plugs never add to the signal, they only subtract. I stopped using most algo plugs and my ITB mixes improved, in 4 different DAW's. My tests with Nebula have shown it far superior to algo plugs, especially in a cumulative fashion, with many (30 to 200) plugs used in a mix.

All the modern DAW's sound the same, until the plugins are used.
Old 15th March 2015
  #53
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PartHunter View Post
+1. One thing I discovered a few years back is how much cumulative plug ins shrunk the depth of my mixes
Like you, I also became suspicious and the use of many plug-ins started to bother me.
So I changed approach, I started using less on the channels and use more bus processing, always itb.
It seemed to have made some difference, but nothing was like sending stems through the console.
After having removed all the plugins I also thought things were sounding better.
The truth is I don't know why things end up sounding this or that way.
We've all seen guys like pensado, mixing on an office desk with tons of plugins, they deliver impeccable mixes.
I'm also tired of the computer, it has never given me any love, I spent ten years on it ,thinking "... it looks ugly but I will learn to love it"
After going back to the console I immediately noticed how easy it was to brighten things up and how much more efficiently I could remove the low mud from the drums without losing the weight.
Maybe I'm not good enough to mix itb, maybe I need the placebo effect of the console.
Also, some routing, some parallel processing, plugins with lookahead ... Drum mics go out of phase, something changes.
I go to tape after having checked the polarity on all the mics, transfer everything to the box and Logic sounds fine.
As soon as some plugins get inserted and used (yes, my plug delay comp is on) I need to insert some gain plugs and reverse the polarity again to get the lows back.
I have found solutions but I can't explain why things happen
I could guess ... but I'm tired of guessing.
Old 15th March 2015
  #54
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortstory View Post
Hers what I do, which I don't think is much different-

Once I have my analog mix completed (and I mean completely analog as you can see by our studio), I re record all the final tracks back into pro tools in case of recall. Or I should say only if possible recall is requested as there is additional cost to the client flor all of this- so they have to want it. But this allows me to rebalance the mix with all of the analog compression, EQ, etc. on those tracks as you mention.

However, I typically bring them all back up on the SSL AWS, I don't sum them ITB. Although the client can always choose to do that themselves or with someone else, but if wouldn't since I would want to run the 2-mix thru some compression etc usually.

I get your idea though and certainly have no argument.

Peace
This sounds like an idea I played with a few years ago. I'll explain out my ideas below, but to make a long story short...my major hiccup is effects.

So, I don't want to really debate ITB vs analog summing, but I know for me...I much prefer to mix as analog as possible. It sounds better, wider, deeper and just..better. It's probably a lot to do with the way that I tend to work, use my ears and not my eyes, etc. when working analog. Anyways...because of this, I've fought the whole ITB with recall and flexibility vs analog with writing down settings, etc. It's a pain...and to be honest...flexibility often wins out unfortunately.

So, I always thought that if I just mixed on my console with outboard, then when finished, print my two track...as well as each individual channel from the console back in PT, I'd have a full analog mix back in PT ready to recall. I too, like it sounds like you do, would then run all of those newly printed tracks back out to the console, this time faders at unity, no eq...etc....and adjust levels and tweaks ITB. That way if I had any master bus compression/eq...I could add it again...same with group compression.

However, the one thing I couldn't really figure out was effects. During the mixing process, if I use outboard effects, I'd then have to print each effect to it's own track as well. So for example...if I had a hardware lexicon unit set up for a room verb, and had drums, vocals and guitars going to it...I wouldn't just be able to print the whole effects track, as any tweaks later wouldn't effect the level of the reverb then. So, I'd have to solo each effect, and print it to it's own track...which would just get a bit ridiculous. I'd end up having tons of tracks printed in PT such as snare verb, tom verb, guitar1 verb, guitar2 verb, lead vocal verb, bgv verb, etc...

Then I thought I could just do ITB effects, and send from inside PT...but this doesn't work because all effects would be pre any outboard processing...so it's not ideal at all.

If I could figure out a way to manage effects, then this is not a bad way of working at all. If you have a console that has 8 stereo groups (like a Toft ATB for example)...then you could mix 24-32 tracks on an analog desk, using eq, pan, level, rides, etc...print your mix analog, then route each track through the groups and within 2 passes of the song...have 24-32 channels re-printed in Pro Tools with all analog processing on it...ready for recall. Like I said...for me I'd sum these out again through the console for any tweaks, as I don't mind the extra conversion and think the summing through the console is worth it. But...the effects thing...can't quite come up with a great solution for that.

Thoughts?
Old 15th March 2015
  #55
Lives for gear
 
lordward's Avatar
Hey guys this is gearslutz! The real main point to having a summing mixer is so that one can have a lots more buttons and blinky lights to be proud of . I sure am.

DW
Old 15th March 2015
  #56
Gear Addict
 

Go with what works. I used to be surprised by the sheer number of different ways people work but now realize it doesn't really matter...as long as you're happy with the results.

And remember, at the end of the equipment is a human that has to operate it all....with all their quirks.

I knew a rich guy whose residence was a floor of a building in Manhattan.

He built himself a studio in their replete with a large SSL and racks of outboard, including 2 fairchilds...

None of that changed the fact that he couldn't mix his way out of a paper bag.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Booda / So much gear, so little time
16
frixion / So much gear, so little time
7

Forum Jump
Forum Jump