#433011 - 10/11/03 02:15 AM
"in the box" VS. console mixing
|
SteveF
Member
Registered: 10/18/01
Posts: 12
Loc: Atlanta,GA,UNITED STATES
|
Offline
|
|
I'd like to know what you guys think about these comments I read recently in a magazine:
"Lately, rule no. 1 is to never set up a master fader in Pro Tools. I try to keep a 1:1 output from Pro Tools into the console, So I can keep all my faders at zero, where it sounds good."
.....
"I don't know the physics of it, but the further you have to pull the Pro Tools fader down, the fewer bits you end up with. Due to the lack of headroom, you can't clip the master fader at all. So if your'e trying to squeese 60 tracks out of Pro Tools, every other fader ends up being at -40. And then your mix is tiny. No image, no depth. When I split everything out, got rid of the master fader, put everything through the console, and set all the Pro Tools faders at zero, all of a sudden my mix went "Whoa"!"
-Chris Vrenna [NIN] ("The Groove Is Out There", p.32, Electronic Musician, Aug 2003)
And he's using a Yamaha O2R!!
(don't care for them personally)
So is this true about the bits and Pro Tools faders? I know I always use seperate outs on an ssl, but is this also gonna make a difference when using a Mackie 24*8, or even a digital board like the D8B? How is this different with the D8B (still digital I mean)?
I often work on an Otari Concept 1 (32ch.) board (which I hate the sound of, esp. the EQ's) and there I usually stay all in PT. Would seperating out improve the sound?
What do you guys think? Mr. Nichols? Anyone?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#433012 - 10/11/03 07:54 AM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
EXAGON
Platinum Member
Registered: 07/03/02
Posts: 1358
Loc: Switzerland
|
|
Offline
|
|
Actually, moving a fader in a DAW doesn't degrade the sound enough for you ears to noticie it, apart Pro Tools. This issue is old, and not recoverable, no workaround possible (apart mixing out of the box) and live lasting due to TDM architecture and DAE mixing structure. This issue was discussed since 1997 in every recording forum in the world.
Just mix with a consolle or change DAW.
Best regards.
tron (if you prefere: troll for saying the truth)
_________________________
 Features Are Not An Opinion. (John Hope, 2003) http://johnhope.blogspot.com/ Addresse: UIPLPPICDSS Ufficio Internazionale Per La Presa Per Il Culo Dei Sbruffoni Statunitensi Att. Tua Sorella Codice Mavapigliatelindomo Pirla Chi Legge
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433013 - 10/11/03 08:42 AM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
Daniel_Dettwiler
Senior Member
Registered: 05/06/01
Posts: 422
Loc: 4125 riehen,,SWITZERLAND
|
|
Offline
|
|
This is really a myth and absolutely not true. It might have been an issue in very first Digidesign Hardware's, but it surly is not with HD (and not in Mix Systems)
There have been many debates about this, but if you look which people said what it rapidly becomes clear, who said what. I am really amused by all the number of trolls and ignorants which are just bashing proTools without any scientific argument. It is just "popular" to bash protools.
The reason I could think of some real problems people have is: Gainstaging and Singnalflow in ProTools is not that simple as in other DAWs. If you mix in PT, you have plenty of Headroom, but if you have lots of tracks (with a hot signal) then you must either lower the faders or the masterfader. But thats in no way a reduction of your resolution or bit deeph. If you don't, you can run into slight distortion, which does indead all the negative things often described.
The Plugin Bus is a different thing, it is "only" 24 Bit. While it might be easier to work with that bus if it was 32 Bits, 24 Bits are absolutely enough for a Plugin Bus. How many bits would you get, if you decide to have no plugins, but digital highend outboardequipment? Lets say, your audio channal goes digitally in a weiss EQ, then a Compressor in the TC 6000, then a digital chorus, yadda yadda? Well that all goes via AES I guess, and the connection is 24 Bits, not more. Why? Because it is absolutely enough to transfer digital signals. But you have to look for proper gainstaging. If you loose in every plugin (or outboard gear) ten dB, or if you clip at only one instance, then your audio is byebye.
So as you see, there are lots of things you have to look carefully in Protools. And yes, it might be easier to deal with those things in Logic or other DAW's. The comments of Protools sounding bad often comes from people who just can not operate it, and then even worse, many people seems to like to parrot those negative statements, even if they have very little experiance with PT.
I mainly work for Jazz and Worldmusic projects. Soundquality is extreemly important to me and my clients. I use great mics and Pre's. For the "bigger" Projects I use Prism Comverters. For the mix there are two SSL Rooms (both 4000G+), a neeve room (VR I believe) and a ProTools Room. I always use the ProTools Room. Because in my opignion I can mix the recorded signal the why I have recorded them, no coloration takes place (exept I want that). Second reason is because I like to mix some hours at one song, then go to another project, and then, some days later finish the first song. And no, the Protools Room is not cheaper, infact it is more expensive to rent, because it has great reverberaters probably (And I do think, that reverbs have to come from great reverb boxes).
If there is anything bad with PT I am happy to learn. But sofar nobody could tell me anything that I was able to reproduce. Infact I could convince most people in my area that the sound of proTools does absolutely not suck. It is determinated from what ADs you use, and what plugins. As it is in every digital system.
My 2 Cts
Daniel
http://www.ideeundklang.com
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433014 - 10/11/03 09:14 AM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
Wolfgang Eller
Senior Member
Registered: 03/19/02
Posts: 84
Loc: Erlangen,,GERMANY
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by SteveF:
So if your'e trying to squeese 60 tracks out of Pro Tools, every other fader ends up being at -40. And then your mix is tiny. No image, no depth. When I split everything out, got rid of the master fader, put everything through the console, and set all the Pro Tools faders at zero, all of a sudden my mix went "Whoa"!"
-Chris Vrenna [NIN] ("The Groove Is Out There", p.32, Electronic Musician, Aug 2003)
And he's using a Yamaha O2R!!
Usually (with a 48 or 64 track song) my master fader is at -10 to -12 db.
And you can internally clip a Yamaha desk and no meter will show you. So if you compare a unclipped PT mix with a +6 db clipped Yamaha mix, the louder mix is always more "Whoa".
I did a test by my own which is just for me and a HD system: I have a HD system at home where I just mix in the box (with outboard equipment).
So what I did was a mix with all sounds printed to disc (Outboard EFXs + dynamics) and finally I did a BTD!!! (where most are saying itīs the worst you can do in PT).
I had no subgroups or master fader in the mix and no volume automation.
I send all 48 tracks in the studio Iīm working separately to a SSL MT desk and copied the fader and pan setting to the SSL (you can believe me the pan setting was hard to match) and set the PT faders to 0 db.
The SSL mix was tracked digitally to a Genex recorder (both mixes where done in 24/44.1).
Both mixes copied to PT and routed to SSL. With a phase reverse on 1 mix I just could hear something around -110 db which was a musical signal and not a kind of noise. Therefore I think it could be the not really matched fader and pan settings ( I did a second mix at home where I had just middle, hard right and left settings and the signal went down to -120 but again I couldnīt hear the whole mix just certain instruments: fader setting!).
So for me: the mix buss in PT is as good as the mix buss from SSL (SSL has floating point, PT fixed point). If you wants to mix in PT - go ahead.
And to you Troll: itīs boring. Donīt compare a MIDI programm with a DAW.
Cheers Wolfgang
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433015 - 10/11/03 11:04 AM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
EXAGON
Platinum Member
Registered: 07/03/02
Posts: 1358
Loc: Switzerland
|
|
Offline
|
|
and you don't compare an audio editor with a DAW
_________________________
Features Are Not An Opinion. (John Hope, 2003) http://johnhope.blogspot.com/ Addresse: UIPLPPICDSS Ufficio Internazionale Per La Presa Per Il Culo Dei Sbruffoni Statunitensi Att. Tua Sorella Codice Mavapigliatelindomo Pirla Chi Legge
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433016 - 10/12/03 07:09 AM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
Wolfgang Eller
Senior Member
Registered: 03/19/02
Posts: 84
Loc: Erlangen,,GERMANY
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by tron:
and you don't compare an audio editor with a DAW
Sorry but one question: As you are always acting (and reacting) like a child - how old are you?
Not older than 19, otherwise I would be very surprised.
Cheers Wolfgang
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433017 - 10/12/03 08:53 AM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
1_dup16
Senior Member
Registered: 01/04/03
Posts: 311
Loc: I am the beginning
|
|
Offline
|
|
incoherence:
wolfgang wrote:
"And to you Troll: itīs boring. Donīt compare a MIDI programm with a DAW."
tron answered:
"and you don't compare an audio editor with a DAW"
wolfgang answered:
What an argument!!
Sorry but one question: As you are always acting (and reacting) like a child - how old are you?
If math is not an opinion, A=B
_________________________
Sucking the brain's vacuum
Waiting for the Nuclear Fusion. More energy, less damage.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#433018 - 10/12/03 10:13 AM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
Mr Darling
Platinum Member
Registered: 04/15/01
Posts: 1313
Loc: The Blue Planet,BELGIUM
|
|
Offline
|
|
I'm also under the impretion that peple who complien about DAW summing bus not doing a good enough job are to blame.
Espcialy, using a digital desk like the yamaha's. Excellent desk, don't get me wrong, but the summing alogrithem on those old beast can not be better then the alogrithem used in newer DAWs.. So why do people believe it will work better.
Espcialy due to the fact that internal processing in those old things is only 24bit, as opposed to DAW 32 floating bit.
I mixed in Logic. And even though I use a yamaha desk, I do not do it because I think it will sound better. Simply because I like to have moving fader, and I do not put all the work on my poor ol' quick silver G4.
But I also often have (indevidual) tracks pul down to -40db.. I have a trick you see : I use my ears. if it sounds good at -40db that where it will stay. I prefer not to move my output faders to much down (my tehory is thats where the dithering is - lets leave big headroom )
Anyway.... stop reading. If it sounds good to you - it most be good. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433019 - 10/12/03 12:09 PM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
where02190
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 11/06/01
Posts: 5402
Loc: Weymouth, Ma. USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
When mixing in the box, keep your nominal fader position at -10 to prevent overloading the mix buss.
Since the insters on teh master fader are post fader, keep your master fader at 0. If you don;'t use mix inserts, don't use a master fader, although it's good to hav efor monitoring to see if youa re overloading the mix buss. If your master fader goes into the red, reduce the input ot it by lowering the channel faders, not the master fader.
This is a common problem in daw mixiing.
_________________________
Hope this is helpful. NP Recording Studios Analog approach to digital recording.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433020 - 10/12/03 02:30 PM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
Daniel_Dettwiler
Senior Member
Registered: 05/06/01
Posts: 422
Loc: 4125 riehen,,SWITZERLAND
|
|
Offline
|
|
Since the insters on teh master fader are post fader, keep your master fader at 0. If you don;'t use mix inserts, don't use a master fader, although it's good to hav efor monitoring to see if youa re overloading the mix buss.
Daniel
http://www.ideeundklang.com
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433021 - 10/12/03 03:24 PM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
edmann
Senior Member
Registered: 08/26/03
Posts: 314
Loc: MA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Is there any kind of comprehensive review or overview of the popular DAWs w/re to internal mixbuss and differences in engineering approach that one must take in order to get good quality mixes as a BTD? I use DP. If I were to learn that my mixes could be improved w/o stemming out to an analog moxer - I would be happy. I have no position to uphold in all of this except that I want good sound.....and I still like my "old" mixes (thru a Mackie 2404!) better than my DAW BTDs.
thanks
Ed
_________________________
Ed Mann
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433022 - 10/12/03 03:24 PM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
masmit
Senior Member
Registered: 12/30/01
Posts: 78
Loc: London,,UNITED KINGDOM
|
|
Offline
|
|
So Steve, there you have it. Opinion is very divided indeed about both the theory and practice of mixing in the box in general, and in the PT box in particular.
For what it's worth, my approach is to leave the master fader at zero, and put the channel faders wherever they need to be - I use analog VU meters after the DA, and aim to avoid my mixes peaking over 0VU. I usually print to quarter inch tape.
Cheers, Mark
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433023 - 10/12/03 03:34 PM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
OZ
Senior Member
Registered: 12/09/00
Posts: 98
Loc: Chicago,IL,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
I thought this was an interesting quote from a well-known audio card manufacturer describing the use of their software mixer and more specifically the use of their volume faders.
"With the volume fader at its maximum position, the vertical line within the fader turns black, no volume calculation is performed and the audio stream is unaltered. This is the recommended position for critical recording and mixdown sessions in which the highest signal quality is required."
Every manufacturer knows that any fader moments with in an audio application has to perform complex calculation, which alter the audio stream. It's nothing to do with the number bits utilized, but the calculation itself, must alter the audio stream. Whether you can hear the difference or not, there is a difference.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433025 - 10/12/03 05:54 PM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
edmann
Senior Member
Registered: 08/26/03
Posts: 314
Loc: MA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Wolfgang Eller: Originally posted by OZ: Whether you can hear the difference or not, there is a difference.
Sorry but in analog times every engineer could hear the sound difference between track 1 and 10 on a 24 track recorder.
In digital times maybe 1 % off all engineers "can" hear differences between DAWs.
Do you really think itīs worth about?
Isnīt there anything else which is worth to talk about than to always state that I can haer the grass growing and if you canīt then you are a bad engineer (which means mine is longer than yours - childish isnīt it?).
Ed
_________________________
Ed Mann
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433026 - 10/12/03 07:01 PM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
Loopy C
Gold Member
Registered: 03/05/01
Posts: 702
Loc: Valyermo,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
As I understand it, when no Master Fader is inserted in a Protools mixer there is the equivalent to one set to unity automatically inserted in the software mixer. I would imagine this is on the way out to whatever master out pairs you have set.
Steve, in regards to your question I would suggest the obvious, try it yourself and see if it improves the mix from your standpoint (that is if you have the number convertors necessary). This particular issue has been addressed by many people, some people I have great respect for come down on both sides of the issue. Going with what you hear seems to be the only reasonable answer to this question. As an aside, several years ago there was a post here and Roger at that time had no problem with either manner of working if I recall correctly. As much as I enjoy SOME of Chris Vrenna's work (as Tweaker), he is not a trained enginneer and in technical matters is prone to errors in overall procedure. He has made this rule for himself but I think you will have to decide based on your experience and not his.
Another point is that if you stem out to an SSL, the unique sound of the SSL (even at unity) is imparted. The low and high band notch boosts are the SSL sound. If this is compared to the non SSL sound one might use the word "tiny" (if one likes the SSL sound that is).
I have seen many an engineer unable to deal with proper gain staging in Protools, often it's simply a matter of turning up the monitors to compensate but it's simply not their "intuition" to work this way. Clipping through the various paths of Protools is far more a problem to sound than "I don't know the physics.." theory about fader math. IMHO.
And Wolfgang, in case you are unaware, 1 and tron are the same person, thought you would want to know since he/they are both arguing with you now.
_________________________
Chris R. Gibson aka Loopy C Micworks Ken Tamplin Mastering
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433028 - 10/13/03 07:48 AM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
Loopy C
Gold Member
Registered: 03/05/01
Posts: 702
Loc: Valyermo,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
_________________________
Chris R. Gibson aka Loopy C Micworks Ken Tamplin Mastering
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433029 - 10/13/03 07:49 AM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
Loopy C
Gold Member
Registered: 03/05/01
Posts: 702
Loc: Valyermo,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by edmann:
Is there any kind of comprehensive review or overview of the popular DAWs w/re to internal mixbuss and differences in engineering approach that one must take in order to get good quality mixes as a BTD? I use DP. If I were to learn that my mixes could be improved w/o stemming out to an analog moxer - I would be happy. I have no position to uphold in all of this except that I want good sound.....and I still like my "old" mixes (thru a Mackie 2404!) better than my DAW BTDs.
thanks
Ed
I also have old mixes from my Mackie 32*8 but find it was not complimentary to newer digital sources such as PT. YMMV
I know the gentlemen who did several IMAX scores with orchestra, they recorded with RADAR and then edited in DP. They have never noticed any audible problems with it's summing of 40 or more tracks and they have very "audiphile" ears.I don't hang out at any DP sites but havn't heard much complaint other than the general statement regarding all digital mixes of not sounding "mixed", what I call the "smoodge" factor of analog.
_________________________
Chris R. Gibson aka Loopy C Micworks Ken Tamplin Mastering
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433030 - 10/13/03 07:50 AM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
Loopy C
Gold Member
Registered: 03/05/01
Posts: 702
Loc: Valyermo,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
_________________________
Chris R. Gibson aka Loopy C Micworks Ken Tamplin Mastering
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433031 - 10/13/03 08:02 AM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
Wolfgang Eller
Senior Member
Registered: 03/19/02
Posts: 84
Loc: Erlangen,,GERMANY
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by edmann:
[QUOTE]Until one is happy with the results of their work it is always worth engaging in discussion, unless you can provide a definitive list of answers for all the questions as to why and how DAW work varies from so much from analog and why it is so easy to produce inferior results on a DAW compared to analog.
Ed
In analog times a decent recording system was starting with 100000$ so just somebody who was really sure what to do bought it.
Give anybody who has done a bad digital mix the posibility to mix the same in a SSL, Neve, Studer, Otari... studio - do you really think the mix will be any better?
50% of my money is mixing stuff which was mixed already - Iīm living from the Logic and Cubase guys.
Cheers Wolfgang
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433032 - 10/13/03 10:37 AM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
EXAGON
Platinum Member
Registered: 07/03/02
Posts: 1358
Loc: Switzerland
|
|
Offline
|
|
The secret to mix in the box:
Large consoles allow you to push your levels because the groups and masters can handle the overs.
DAW dont.
Put a soft, analog like, good sounding limiter (NO brickwall limiter) in all groups and set the treshold at -18 dB (or from -14 to -20 depending on your interfaces calibration)
Mix observing -18dB as your 0 dB VU. You will end up with a non distorted, but soft limited program, with an average level of -18 dB, and peaks to -4 dB, softly limited.
The master can have a maximizer to rise the level to -0.5 dB.
Result: great sound, maximal loudness, no distortion.
_________________________
Features Are Not An Opinion. (John Hope, 2003) http://johnhope.blogspot.com/ Addresse: UIPLPPICDSS Ufficio Internazionale Per La Presa Per Il Culo Dei Sbruffoni Statunitensi Att. Tua Sorella Codice Mavapigliatelindomo Pirla Chi Legge
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433033 - 10/13/03 06:57 PM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
passionmax
Senior Member
Registered: 11/13/02
Posts: 236
|
|
Offline
|
|
If a SSL Mix sounds the same as an inbox Protools HD mix then why is there board $700000 or more . If this is true then why didnt SSL and Neve go out of business. What is the point of spending that much money on a console iof you can get prottols and get the same results. If its for the Bling Bling then that is rediculous. But seriously. If they sound the same then Protools rules
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433034 - 10/13/03 07:29 PM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
Daniel_Dettwiler
Senior Member
Registered: 05/06/01
Posts: 422
Loc: 4125 riehen,,SWITZERLAND
|
|
Offline
|
|
If a SSL Mix sounds the same as an inbox Protools HD mix then why is there board $700000 or more . If this is true then why didnt SSL and Neve go out of business. What is the point of spending that much money on a console iof you can get prottols and get the same results. If its for the Bling Bling then that is rediculous. But seriously. If they sound the same then Protools rules
With a digital System you only need a computer. Thats much cheaper. Then you need good plugins. Buy one EQ, and you can use it on as many Channal as your CPU or DSP-Cards can handle. (Try to do that in analog). if you want to have for everything a knob and fader you need a controlsurface. The better and bigger the surface, the more expensive the whole thing gets. Even ProControl is a joke compared to an analog "big" desk. Or get the real thing, a "big" ditital Mixing Desk as the Axiom, or Oxford or M5, and you will see, that then the price is something equal to the analog desks. If there was a controller as complete as an SSL Desk for PT HD, the total System would coast about the same like the SSL Desk.
But if you don't need nobs and faders for everything then you can get the same sound for much less with computertechnology. (It is not much difference as it was with the type writer. Thise day the computer does it better if connected to a good printer (and worse if connected to a bad printer). IMO soundwise it is the same. A DAW (doesn't really matter which) can sound at least better than a SSL 4000 G+, but you need great convertars and the best plugins. I am personally sure that that goes the same with other desks, but I have not tried so I can not really say that.
Another Point is that people use what they are used to use and what they have leant on. People who have grown up mixing on big desks will continue to do so. Surly the next generation of great mixers will most likly not do so.
I for what is worth am sure that the bigger consoles will infact go out of buissness. There is no need of that and money could be spent better elsewhere.
My 2 Cts
Daniel
http://www.ideeundklang.com
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433035 - 10/13/03 07:52 PM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
Loopy C
Gold Member
Registered: 03/05/01
Posts: 702
Loc: Valyermo,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by edmann:
...how DAW work varies from so much from analog and why it is so easy to produce inferior results on a DAW compared to analog.
Ed 
_________________________
Chris R. Gibson aka Loopy C Micworks Ken Tamplin Mastering
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433036 - 10/13/03 09:26 PM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
where02190
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 11/06/01
Posts: 5402
Loc: Weymouth, Ma. USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Daniel_Dettwiler: Since the insters on teh master fader are post fader, keep your master fader at 0. If you don;'t use mix inserts, don't use a master fader, although it's good to hav efor monitoring to see if youa re overloading the mix buss.
Daniel
http://www.ideeundklang.com
My point being, (despite my horrendous typos!!) that moving the master fader will change sound of the tracks if you use a buss compressor, lower the master fader and the track sill be compresed les, because you've reduced the input level to the compressor.
Also, If you run all your channel faders to 0, and drop your master fader, you will ( give that your tracks are all recorded at nominal -15dbfs or so) overdrive the summing buss to the mix. This is a common mistake in DAW mixing. WHile reducing the master fader level will show a redution in level, it does not reflect the overdriven buss, since th meter is also post fader.
_________________________
Hope this is helpful. NP Recording Studios Analog approach to digital recording.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433037 - 10/14/03 01:56 AM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
ptuzer
Senior Member
Registered: 02/24/02
Posts: 479
Loc: Toronto
|
|
Offline
|
|
If I had a $500,000 I would probably say anything to justify it. I have used an SSL (Digital & Analog) before. The client insisted and more than will to pay for it. It made him feel better. But IMO it was not worth it. The big ass desk days are numbered especially judging from what record companies are willing to pay me these days to do my job. Besides it ends up on some kids ipod while riding a skateboard and you can't tell me he cares if was mixed in Protools or an SSL.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433038 - 10/14/03 04:17 AM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
Loopy C
Gold Member
Registered: 03/05/01
Posts: 702
Loc: Valyermo,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Concerning the D8B, I've talked to several artist's (Uberzone for one) who have this problem with the D8B alone. Uberzone is known for elements that pop out from the general "surface" of the mix. He was having a difficult time doing this when he went digital, this is one of the relearning aspects of digital. I can create this effect all day, its just a way of thinking. I think the suggestion to work at the proper level (-18db) with light limiting is a good start. Chris Vrnna suggests getting rid of the master fader (as I pointed out this simply inserts one behind the scenes at unity) and complains you can't clip the master fader because of lack of headroom (this is true of ALL digital scales (0 is 0!), some companies simply "cheat the scale to give you that Spinal Tap mythical 11. Headroom is accomplished by proper gain staging, regardless of analog or digital. Going back to the suggestion of working at proper levels as several here have posted, I have achieved great results exactly that way, using my L2 limiter in the end to make up the gain difference (and working with my monitors at a higher level). A Yamaha 02R is not using any alien technology in it's master summing bus, but I can tell you it's metering is very forgiving (Spinal Tap implementation).
So to get back to Chris's remark... Tiny? or not as loud given incorrectly set gain stages. His method works for him, mine works for me. YMMV
_________________________
Chris R. Gibson aka Loopy C Micworks Ken Tamplin Mastering
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433039 - 10/14/03 05:32 AM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
Wolfgang Eller
Senior Member
Registered: 03/19/02
Posts: 84
Loc: Erlangen,,GERMANY
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by ptuzer:
If I had a $500,000 I would probably say anything to justify it. I have used an SSL (Digital & Analog) before. The client insisted and more than will to pay for it. It made him feel better. But IMO it was not worth it. The big ass desk days are numbered especially judging from what record companies are willing to pay me these days to do my job. Besides it ends up on some kids ipod while riding a skateboard and you can't tell me he cares if was mixed in Protools or an SSL.
We are doing a lot of classical music, big bands, Jazz and some post pro. Have you ever tried to record a 80 piece orchester with 45 to 60 mic channels, adjusting the headphone mix and running a rough mix simultaniously for the conductor that he can listen the band afterwards in his hotel room, with a DAW "in the box"?
With a DAW you can record in overdube mode maybe 2 or 3 musicians at a time but for "big" bands playing live you need "big" consoles.
Therefore right now Iīm a "big" fan of SSL MT descs. (total recall and reset of the whole studio within 3 minutes). Sometimes Iīm working on 4 projects within a day - itīs just a dream.
Cheers Wolfgang
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#433040 - 10/14/03 06:16 AM
Re: "in the box" VS. console mixing
|
EXAGON
Platinum Member
Registered: 07/03/02
Posts: 1358
Loc: Switzerland
|
|
Offline
|
|
Sony Oxford GML consoles, Neve Capricorn consoles...they are DIGITAL, but the sound is amazing, Nuendo, Logic, Waveframe, Sonic Solutions and Fairlight DAW have the same sound.
A lot of great music is produced DDD, and sounds good, just choose the good DDD flow
_________________________
Features Are Not An Opinion. (John Hope, 2003) http://johnhope.blogspot.com/ Addresse: UIPLPPICDSS Ufficio Internazionale Per La Presa Per Il Culo Dei Sbruffoni Statunitensi Att. Tua Sorella Codice Mavapigliatelindomo Pirla Chi Legge
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
| |
