The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Mixing and Summing Discussion-No Debate
Old 14th May 2006
  #1
Lives for gear
 
numrologst's Avatar
Mixing and Summing Discussion-No Debate

I want to discuss this not have a debate or a war. Basically I have a nice home setup, I have been doing alot of work there, and have been booking less and less at the real studio where I work.

I basically approach mixing similarly when I am mixing at the studio or at home. Except at the studio I use a trident a range console, and at home I use a folcrom.

Basically come mix time, I prefer using mostly outboard. And the console usually just serves as eq medium and summing.

So whether I am mixing on a console or mixing DAW and folcrom, I am usually bussing and reprinting using all my outboard. Because I only have 4 distressors, 1 fatso, 2 1176, 1 1968, 4 channels api eq, 2 lil freqs. I typically prefer using these and I obviously can't use them as inserts b/c i don't have enough. Thats why I have grown used to reprinting all my processed tracks.

So I obviously have an approach that many people use, but it seems that many people here are opposed to reprinting processed tracks. I don't understand this. Why is this such a problem? It is easy for me to do it either way... Am i missing something? This allows me to use the processing I want, I don't need extra d/a converters, and I don't have to worry about post fader compression.

I obviously would like to have all the outboard so that I can use a distressor, fatso, 1968, on any channel I need it. It would also be cool to have dynamics on my console, it would be pretty easy. But what I do now is already pretty easy. And I see so many people huffing and puffing for solutions to post fader dynamics processing. And it makes me feel like I am doing something wrong or thinking of things wrong. Why are people so against reprinting processed tracks?
Old 14th May 2006
  #2
FX smörgåsbord user
 
Charles Dye's Avatar
 

I wish you the best of luck on the no debate part around here.

But it's a valid approach you're using @ your home studio.
Old 14th May 2006
  #3
Lives for gear
 

It makes sense to me what you are doing.... If it works and you are comfortable with it then go for it!

But you do have a lot of gear for just a home setup.... is the summing doing you any good? I havent had much luck with a summing box yet, I have tried a few but ITB sounds just as good!
Old 14th May 2006
  #4
Lives for gear
 
numrologst's Avatar
The only difference it makes to me is the ability to put a comp after the 2 bus and use cool make up gain. It adds alot of color to the mixes, something I can't achieve without the folcrom. But that's about it.

By the way it is a home setup, but I book at least 30 hours a week out if it. I book 20-30hours at the real studio.

However I may book more and more at my home studio because my home setup produces just as good, if not better quality than the other studio, and I make much more money at home
Old 14th May 2006
  #5
Lives for gear
 
numrologst's Avatar
Also after I process and print the new stuff at home, instead of tweaking the final dynamics and eq's on the console, I have been using alot of URS lately for the final tweaks, and it works pretty well.

Although I have been considering picking up an otari status 18r for the fun of it, and seeing what I can do with it and not use the folcrom. But I am very happy with it, I do miss having the console in front of me, but that is more of a mental thing. I'm not considering the console because I am unhappy with the folcrom
Old 14th May 2006
  #6
Lives for gear
 

seems like it, the bad thing is bringing people to your home!!!

I am now using the SUMO and the compressor is really a good SSL clone! But as far as summing, I get no satisfaction.....
Old 14th May 2006
  #7
Lives for gear
 
numrologst's Avatar
Yeah there isn't a huge huge difference. Back 5 years ago I was making awesome recordings with very little gear. At one time I was working in a studio with an hd3, and a control 24. We had a 6176, 737, u87, blue kiwi, and a few sm57's. Back then I was just happy to be making music. Everything came out fine. My records sounded great, no one complained. Now I have 10x that much gear, minus the hd3, but my recording now do sound better because I have more flexibility.

Yeah I bring people to my home, but my studio is back in the back. I have 4 video cameras, good door locks, and a great security system. I know all the people I bring in there, so there is not too much worry
Old 14th May 2006
  #8
Lives for gear
 

so now your music sounds better????

Is it because you are 5 years more exp and better? Thats the hard thing to decide. I bet you along with anyone else here can go back to our old gear 5 years ago and make it sound just as good as now.... Not perfect but you get the point!
Old 14th May 2006
  #9
Lives for gear
 
numrologst's Avatar
everything sounds better partly because now I have more mics and preamps, and I don't have to use focusrite pres anymore. That is what i attribute alot of the difference to
Old 14th May 2006
  #10
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Re-Printing is obviously a great solution when you know what you need to change.

I do it all the time with my Daking EQ and Distressors.

The problem comes when you need to make subtle changes based on other things in the mix.

For Example, If I'm mixing on a real console, I routinely will change the hi end EQ on the Lead Vocal and Snare track about 5-10 times during the mix. I'm not going to re-print those tracks over and over again.

My solution is to re-print the stuff that really needs surgical EQ or requires enuff EQ that Hi Quality EQ is essential and use plugins for the rest.
Old 14th May 2006
  #11
Quote:
Originally Posted by numrologst
but it seems that many people here are opposed to reprinting processed tracks.
Who are these many people?



Quote:
Originally Posted by numrologst
And I see so many people huffing and puffing for solutions to post fader dynamics processing.

This a whole other topic all together.

Its more of a question of work flow when mixing.

Your solution means stopping, processing, tracking and then conitnue mixing.

Very herky jerky and if you are trying to mix fast it will slow you down.

Also you need some kind of DAW with some kind of ADC.

Sometimes you want to make changes on the fly in an instant without having to think about it.


And i have question for you...what if you are mixing a 100 track song on a PT HD system that is maxed out with the amount of tracks it can handle?

In your case you will be stuck because you can only record on so many tracks.


Lastly tracking through converters twice is not my favorite thing to do.


The tracks start to take the sound of the converters even more which to me is a drawback.


The benefit in mixing this way though is the recall.


Basically it comes down what works best for you.
Old 14th May 2006
  #12
Reminds me of the difference between mixing with a` mouse vs mixing with a controller.

With a mouse you can only adjust one thing at a time

With a controller - you can get two hands on to fader (and or plugins) and 'massage' things to be the way you want them.

This is beneficial (to my way of working) - on

Balancing vocal harmonies
Balancing multi mic'ed drum kits
Layered guitar parts

Working 'one at a time' with a mouse - doesn't 'fly' for me personally.

Back to the topic and my point...

Pre-processing things one (or a few) at a time requires some sort of advance 'vision' on how you want things to turn out.

And some people just don't want to have to think ahead - they want the whole mix - sitting there 'live' - in front of them..100% adjustable.

Folks who have come from an analog 4 & 8 track recorder background can be VERY skilled at this sort of 'pre guessing' thing as with those systems - they often had to 'bounce down' to get things done.. But I am from a 24 track 2" large console background - and cant seem to dig this type of 'pre processing' bit by bit method numrologst describes in the opening post. But as Charles was saying, there are many ways to skin a cat.. use whatever works for you.

There is, I would like to point out of course, a sort of 'science fiction' solution for this.. (but I have no practical experience / flying time with it) Waves Q-Clone.. In theory you can use one piece of outboard - tweak a signal live - apply a clone of it to that signal - then move on to another signal - ad infenitum. So in theory - you could have just one of every piece of outboard made and be able to use MULTIPLE clone insistence's of it on your mixes.. I keep coming back to LIKING THIS IDEA! http://www.waves.com/content.asp?id=1583

Anyhow thats my two Euro Dollars on the subject..
Old 14th May 2006
  #13
Lives for gear
 

I personally try to limit the amount of digital conversions to a minimum.

I'm kinda in the same boat as you, but I've decided to process groups, or multiple busses; and then immediately sum all the busses right afterwards and add some mix buss compression.

It's not as flexible, but this way I get to use all my outboard gear and build as I go.
Old 14th May 2006
  #14
Gear Maniac
 
Mark Cattano's Avatar
 

mixing and summing

Great thread guys. I am intensely interested as I have been tracking my record here at home for the past few months, and am on the verge of picking up a Dangerous 2Bus LT for mixing, which is about to commence. I, too, may have to reprint some tracks with my outboard gear like Numrologst. I figure the Dangerous 2Bus, then my NY-2A for make-up gain will sound cool, but it is interesting how varied the opinions are about summing amps for ITB mixes.

Mark Cattano
Magneto Studios
www.heedmusic.com
www.myspace.com/markcattano
Old 14th May 2006
  #15
Gear Addict
 
belairstudio's Avatar
 

I have my personal approach to this, but I gues somebody else shares it.

I work "live" till the end of the mix, then print everything to disk.

This way I can mix 100% live, then print to have an easy time recalling later.


But I also take digi pictures of settings and store them for manual recall.


I'm starting to use a mixing board, and I guess I won't be able to use this system anymore though
Old 15th May 2006
  #16
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Cattano
I figure the Dangerous 2Bus, then my NY-2A for make-up gain will sound cool, but it is interesting how varied the opinions are about summing amps for ITB mixes.

Mark Cattano
Magneto Studios
www.heedmusic.com
www.myspace.com/markcattano
If you use a Dangerous 2bus you don't need anything for makeup gain. Perhaps you're thinking of the Folcrum.

-R
Old 15th May 2006
  #17
Gear Maniac
 
Mark Cattano's Avatar
 

Huh..wha? What if I want my NY-2A on my mix? I'm figuring, out of the Multiface-into the 2 Bus LT-into the NY-2A-back into the Multiface, no? If not that, then how?

Mark Cattano
Old 15th May 2006
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Bat Head Sound's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Cattano
Huh..wha? What if I want my NY-2A on my mix? I'm figuring, out of the Multiface-into the 2 Bus LT-into the NY-2A-back into the Multiface, no? If not that, then how?

Mark Cattano
You can do that, but the point is that you don't need anything for make-up gain when using the Dangerous 2-buss.
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
Forum Jump
Forum Jump