Refuting the external analog mixer theory

Timmy S · Post by **Timmy S** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:38 pm

I don't buy these summing comparisons. In order to take tracks that were ITB and run them to stems on a console things are goings to change drastically. You can't just run the stems through the board and hit record. The entire ITB mix you had changes and needs level adjustments, EQ adjustments, and maybe even some compression on certain stems. It is not a fair comparison to just run it through.

Maybe I just like the analog sound better. Although I wasn't alive when it was in it's heyday ( I am 28) and I haven't liked the sound of a record that has been done since the late 70's. My favorite sound in the whole world is the sound of Brian Wilsons Pet Sounds ( especially the mix without vocals because you can hear all of the live orchestra )

The mixes that I just did on a Neve sound so much better than anything I have produced in my$30,000 home studio. It wasn't even close. i know there are factors that make it hardn to determine the difference between summikng and outboard EQ etc. All i can say is that every aspect of the mix was much better. I have been an engineer/producer for 15 years and I will never do ITB again.

What about tape ? Does anyone mix to tape anymore? I can't stand the cleanliness of a digital mix. Our songs sound so much warmer and pleasant off of the 1/2 inch. I think it's the least we could do to our mixes after the intense surgery they went through in the DAW hospital.

Anyone trying to compare ITB sound with external with math equations needs to stop right now. There are many levels of subtlety, and utter intangibilty in sound and music that trying to tell me how my mix will sound with a math equation is utter non sense.

Perhaps I noticed such a difference becuase my project has over 100 tracks per song with practically a full orchestra in tandem with a progressive gypsy/metal/jazz band. Perhaps the more tracks per project the more potential for ITB degradation. I am trying to get my mixes to sound like something done in the late 60's and ITB does not work for that at all. Maybe if it's drums,bass,guitar, and vocal like most bands it might not matter as much. But for me I am so bored of that ubiquitous instrumentation that I can't listen to it at all, but that sounds like the beggining of another thread.......

Once my album is released by the label I will post my A/B mixes for you to hear.

pcm · Post by **pcm** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:46 pm

The post about gain staging is right on. Back in the adat days, people would try to "fill the meter". To this day, I have never head an adat distort, but I sure heard a lot of gear distort either trying to get up to that level BEFORE the adat, or deal with that level AFTER the adat.

For DAW use, the same laws of physics apply. Track at a median level, be kind to your plugins, and do the gain makeup with a plugin on the master fader. When time to master, remove that plugin and give the mastering engineer something that he can actually work with.

davedempsey · Post by **davedempsey** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:46 pm

James Steele wrote:

Marshalls are still here and ain't goin' anywhere, thank God!

Back in the early 80's a guitarist I worked with at the time decided to have his Marshall modified by way of upgrading each component to the best specification available. He spent a lot of money to have a tech put military grade components throughout the late 60's amp. It ended up being super loud and clean, rather brutal and personally I thought it sounded like •••• - it certainly didn't sound like a Marshall any more. I guess if it were housed in a different chassis without Marshall branding and used appropriately one could have thought "that's a great amp".
My take on this thread, which I'm really enjoying - thank you all - is that every piece of audio hardware has a character which can be useful - even cheap Behringer electret condensers with humped mids can work in your favour if used appropriately, and totally against you if not. All the gear in the world won't help if you make the wrong engineering decisions. A good sound is a good sound regardless of how you get there.
I like mixing ITB with DP and Waves and stemming out to external summing - best of both worlds approach. It definitely takes longer to mix ITB - I like to spend time, save and come back etc, if the time is available.
Gear I like: all the Tube Tech stuff - hope it's still around by the time I can afford to buy it, Peach mic pres - www.peachaudio.com/pdfs/brochure.pdf - there's also lots of lower quality things that can sound just right and that's why my studio is looking more and more crowded - I regret every sale of gear I ever made but you've got to be careful not to horde too much.
The most important gear is your ears and experience.

Splinter · Post by **Splinter** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:09 am

Timmy S wrote:I am trying to get my mixes to sound like something done in the late 60's and ITB does not work for that at all.

And there you have it. How many DAWs with plug ins were around in the 60's?

Timmy S · Post by **Timmy S** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:52 am

My point was that doing it OTB helped it to get the older sound I was looking for. Not totally authentic but a lot better than ITB. Also there are plug ins that actually help it sound older like colortone...

Timeline · Post by **Timeline** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:16 am

David Polich wrote:Okay, what a long interesting thread this has become! Great posts from everyone.

From reading every single post over and over, here's what I've gleaned:

1. You don't need a high-end external analog desk to get a great mix. It can help, but really, a great mix is up to who is doing the mixing.

2. A high-end external analog desk or rack mixer CAN make things sound better, but again it is as much due to the mixing skills of the engineer as it is anything else.

3. Some people have gotten great results with mixes externally bussed.

4. Some people have gotten great results doing ITB mixes.

So, it seems we've come full circle. Back to square one - "start with the kick drum, then the bass..."

I will always believe that all the math in the world doesn't mean squat. It's the ears and skill set of the engineer. And it's also the song and the arrangement. That is what makes great records - it is at least 90% song.

Well David, another day of blogging so this post is aimed at agreeing mostly and 'love' so fire up the lava lamps, light the incense and break out the sitar patches.

Yep, it is the engineer that ultimately make things work in the end as is the song, the arrangement, performance, sound of the instruments and talent to play them. I think we all understand this to be music law.

I have to say that among this Unicornation group I hear recent mixes and production ideas that are the best of what's out there regardless of how much press/airplay. Keep your posts on James's new DP showcasing thread coming. It's just great.

This community, as assembled, seems to understand so much more than we did when taking age and the past into consideration. In my early days we had to figure it out for the first time and it was tricky then too so I have to commend you all for sussing digital music making.

I'm sure we will all continue to make great music ITB or OTB with results that will push todays and tomorrows creative envelope well into the future, especially as better, faster math crunchers come online.

You guys have game.

Cheers

MattC · Post by **MattC** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:25 am

Agreed, and thanks to everyone for making me feel better that I don't have a Trident in my kitchen! I've also had my best results mixing OTB on an SSL or Neve, but it's so hard to compare, since everything's different when you're at somebody else's slammin' expensive studio - ideal room, beautiful monitors, great A/D, pristine signal path.

I don't deny at all that an analogue board adds a little something special, but I've seen similar results from great mastering, especially on projects where we've had the budget to do "big room" mixes on just the two or three tunes, with the rest done ITB in a project studio. A terrific mastering engineer (always endorse the good folks at Sterling) can really pull the "big house" and "little house" mixes onto the same page.

Matt

waxman · Post by **waxman** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:06 pm

Man just two more posts and Big Wave Dave wins a Chalupa!

come on step up...

join the lava lamp love fest

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:15 pm

Great gravy! I went out of town around page 2 of this thread and WOW!! This whole discussion has turned into a blessing. You can cut -40dB all day long, but my admiration and respect for the great minds here just went up at least +40dB.

No need for me to get into detail since this thread, as cohesive as it is, fills in pieces to a puzzle that are spread out among threads dating back to my early days on U-nation (downloaded and saved in old notebooks). The inspiration of this discussion alone is a gift.

I can't thank you guys enough.