Will large format consoles still be around in 30 years?

[Sundown]

Hey all,

 

We all know many large studios have closed, and some of the mixing/recording icons that use large format consoles are getting older. Companies like SSL still sell large format desks (like the Duality line), but I doubt they are selling many units. And if someone is trying to build a commercial studio, I don’t know that they are going to put $150K+ into the console. That money buys a lot of other things.

 

So in 30 years, will the large-format console be completely obsolete? I suspect a few of the famous vintage units will still be maintained and owned by enthusiasts, but I doubt many studios will have them or use them as part of their workflow.

 

I’ve never had the pleasure of working behind one, but I can understand the appeal, even in a DAW world. If a mix is a performance, having most of the physical controls right in front of you (with automation) provides a lot of workflow advantages. 

 

So will a commercial studio in 30 years still have a big 72 channel desk? Will it have a control surface equivalent? Or are we headed somewhere else?

 

Todd

[KuruPrionz]

A table with flat screens mounted horizontally and touch sensitive faders and EQ is a possibility. 

It would have the capabilities of a mixing board but the lack of moving parts that eventually need replacement of a digital interface. 

It could be updated, upgraded and new modules could be added. Manufacturing costs could be virtually eliminated and software costs could be much lower since you would need less labor, less space and almost no inventory by comparison. 

 

It's not the only possibility, especially considering how far away 30 years is and the changes we might see. 

[Anderton]

That's a really good question. Short-term, I don't see any other way to mixing major Hollywood productions. But music has a lot of workarounds for doing projects without needing a giant mixer.

 

On 11/14/2023 at 9:42 PM, Sundown said:

I’ve never had the pleasure of working behind one, but I can understand the appeal, even in a DAW world. If a mix is a performance, having most of the physical controls right in front of you (with automation) provides a lot of workflow advantages. 

 

I spent decades working behind those kind of consoles, and they have pros and cons. With DAWs, you can put in any EQ or dynamics you want - with large consoles, it meant having an outboard rack and extra $$. But the performance aspect was something you don't get with a DAW, even if you have a 16-fader control surface. Having a control surface that required multiple sets of hands to create the perfect mix was a downright musical experience, not just a technical one.

[Stokely]

I didn't spend nearly that long, and only worked professionally in a small jingle studio for a couple years before switching to IT   

As far as getting things done, I don't miss consoles, or mixing with faders (or editing tape!).  I'm more than happy drawing lines in my DAW for automation.    There is definitely a vibe and atmosphere to a big Neve (what I learned on) or for that matter a room full of synths and rack gear that is amazing.   I do remember having those multiple hands (and pieces of tape to tell you where to move!) to pull off a mix if you didn't have access to automation!  Had to be quick with the mutes!

[Notes_Norton]

IMO, For things that need quick reactions, especially when your eyes are covering more than one thing, knobs and faders, physical projections, are best.

 

For the simplest example.

 

You have an old-fashioned radio in the car, you think you hear a siren, the radio is too loud, and you want to turn it down. You can do that without taking your eyes off the road.

 

If the volume knob is in a touch screen, you have to look at the screen to see where your finger is going to land, and the screen might even be displaying another function at the time. Wake up! Oops missed the spot, fix it, OMG I'm headed for that tree!

 

Now, multiply this by 24 or however many audio tracks you have in the studio.

 

The underlying technology can be digital or analog, but the control surface has an advantage by being physical.

 

Insights, incites and dramatizations by Notes ♫

[Anderton]

8 hours ago, Stokely said:

I'm more than happy drawing lines in my DAW for automation. 

 

Drawing with a mouse is precise, can snap nodes to the grid, and most DAWs can even draw periodic automation waveforms. But, consider this excerpt from the The Big Book of Dynamic FX. It describes one of my "secret weapons" for expressiveness that involves control surfaces.

 

“Humanizing” with Automation Moves

 

Small, rhythmic level variations are often felt rather than heard. I learned about this technique during session work at CBS Studios in New York. The engineer mixing the hit song “Brandy (You’re a Fine Girl)” closed his eyes and moved the faders ever so slightly in time with the song’s rhythm. It made the song more lively, and I never forgot that lesson. Although you can make these changes with a mouse, a hardware controller allows for a spontaneous, hands-on workflow (fig. 12.19).

 

 

Figure 12.19  This track in Studio One applies human-generated fader automation to add rhythmic accents. Trying to create a complex envelope like this by clicking/drawing would be frustrating.

[Stokely]

That's fair.  Then again, musicians (and sounds) can often be overly full of dynamics as it is (though surely that was done by pros more than I'm used to)...to the point where we have to compress partly in an effort to smooth things out

Fun song btw, our band just added it last month!

 

I was watching someone on a scoring vid using a string library, and there was a similar theme--he said he always has the modulation/other controllers acting on the orchestral parts, up and down almost constantly (not always the same speed depending on the spot in the piece) and he preferred to play that in due to feel vs draw it.
 

[Notes_Norton]

11 hours ago, Anderton said:

The engineer mixing the hit song “Brandy (You’re a Fine Girl)” closed his eyes and moved the faders ever so slightly in time with the song’s rhythm

Good move.

 

It makes me wonder if the music was compressed a bit during the recording process.

 

When I sing and play, I use shifts of rhythm and volume naturally, without even thinking about it, it's just my expressoin.

 

Notes ♫

[KuruPrionz]

13 hours ago, Anderton said:

 

Drawing with a mouse is precise, can snap nodes to the grid, and most DAWs can even draw periodic automation waveforms. But, consider this excerpt from the The Big Book of Dynamic FX. It describes one of my "secret weapons" for expressiveness that involves control surfaces.

 

“Humanizing” with Automation Moves

 

Small, rhythmic level variations are often felt rather than heard. I learned about this technique during session work at CBS Studios in New York. The engineer mixing the hit song “Brandy (You’re a Fine Girl)” closed his eyes and moved the faders ever so slightly in time with the song’s rhythm. It made the song more lively, and I never forgot that lesson. Although you can make these changes with a mouse, a hardware controller allows for a spontaneous, hands-on workflow (fig. 12.19).

 

 

Figure 12.19  This track in Studio One applies human-generated fader automation to add rhythmic accents. Trying to create a complex envelope like this by clicking/drawing would be frustrating.

I have a Presonus FaderPort (single fader) that I've never used. I plan on trying it for this. Not sure how it will work but Waveform does have "automation" tracks available, quite a few of them actually. One could fade, pan, blend in EQ, dynamic or modulation plugins. If that works with the FaderPort there could be some funs!

[ProfD]

Only if there is big mixer console renaissance.

 

Otherwise, it will either be a control surface or AI will be mixing music.😁😎

[Notes_Norton]

I suppose mixing in the studio is different from mixing live. That's where most of my experience is, and if I need to get to a knob, I need it faster than I can get with a touch screen or a mouse.

 

On the gig I mix:

• 2 mics,
• 2 guitars via amp sims,
• 4 synth modules
• 2 channels for my backing tracks
• Optional: 1 input for a mic in case the client wants to make an announcement (They don't use ours, just in case they are coming down with a cold, it would be unfair to our future clients if we caught it)
• Optional: 1 input for aux in case the client wants to pipe something through our PA

Especially when the client is talking on the mic, I need to be able to get to the volume knob instantly. They walk in front of the speakers, and they don't know how to use a mic, so the gain is up high already.

 

I use an old 12 channel analog mixer. I have spares, so if one breaks down, the show must go on.

 

Notes ♫

[Anderton]

1 hour ago, Notes_Norton said:

I suppose mixing in the studio is different from mixing live.

 

Very much so. You don't get a second chance with live. Everything has to be immediate.

[David Emm]

Captain Beefheart reportedly knew a major Hammond repair whiz who lived & breathed organs, largely existing within a couple of double wide trailers in the desert. He was the mack daddy and you were treated well, but on his internal schedule, which you had to respect. I'm sure a similar relationship exists between a certain number of engineers and repair techs. The onset of digital mixing means fewer people will be exposed to large consoles at all, so the benefits and demand for them will gradually fade. Its not like Hammonds or Mellotrons, where there's a history to propel things.

 

I expect the Raven mixer touchscreen model to filter into smaller products. You'll still see small analog mixers because they fit multiple situations, but a Venn point is coming where it'll be either/or. We're already seeing exploratory analog/digital hybrids. The learning environment for large consoles is plainly limited to a few studios, but anyone can have Live or Studio One. Sheer numbers will have their way in the end.       

[ProfD]

12 hours ago, Notes_Norton said:

I suppose mixing in the studio is different from mixing live. That's where most of my experience is, and if I need to get to a knob, I need it faster than I can get with a touch screen or a mouse.

30 years from now, mixing engineers will be so accustomed to using touch screens that tactile knobs and faders will be as foreign to folks as a rotary dial or touch tone phone is now.😁😎

[Sundown]

I’ve been watching a lot of YouTube videos with Chris Lord Alge and Bob Clearmountain. CLA does quite a few interviews and how-to sessions, which is great. Both individuals are heavy users of SSL boards, and one thing that amazes me is how often they are using the board EQ and compression. Let me revise that statement … It amazes me how often they used the board EQ and compression on big 80’s/90’s mixes. Now they are using plugins more and more and the desk is reserved for summing, gain control (faders), and patching to outboard, etc.

 

Both individuals have substantial outboard (including any number of outboard EQs and compressors), but whether it was convenience, speed, or the sheer capability of a top flight console, they used the onboard console EQ and channel compression on a lot of great, iconic tunes.

 

I think about the ultra-surgical, multi-node EQ options we have now (including Linear Phase offerings) and so many great tunes were engineered with a four band semi-parametric board EQ. It’s amazing to watch how fast these seasoned pros can work.

 

Todd

[KuruPrionz]

15 hours ago, Sundown said:

I’ve been watching a lot of YouTube videos with Chris Lord Alge and Bob Clearmountain. CLA does quite a few interviews and how-to sessions, which is great. Both individuals are heavy users of SSL boards, and one thing that amazes me is how often they are using the board EQ and compression. Let me revise that statement … It amazes me how often they used the board EQ and compression on big 80’s/90’s mixes. Now they are using plugins more and more and the desk is reserved for summing, gain control (faders), and patching to outboard, etc.

 

Both individuals have substantial outboard (including any number of outboard EQs and compressors), but whether it was convenience, speed, or the sheer capability of a top flight console, they used the onboard console EQ and channel compression on a lot of great, iconic tunes.

 

I think about the ultra-surgical, multi-node EQ options we have now (including Linear Phase offerings) and so many great tunes were engineered with a four band semi-parametric board EQ. It’s amazing to watch how fast these seasoned pros can work.

 

Todd

It's human nature to settle on something that you've more or less got figured out. It is also human nature to keep looking for something better. Plugin technology is advancing at a rapid pace, "Hands-On" analog mixer technology is not moving at the same pace. 

 

Certainly the size of using racks of analog gear is a consideration, so is cabling (routing audio and AC cables to avoid each other can be a PITA since there is no standard layout on the back side of analog devices (some of them put the power cord on the left, some on the right). Scratchy pots and "twitchy" switches are a thing of the past with plugins. Phasing problems are also much easier to solve in the digital realm. 

 

The only thing that never changes is that everything always changes. 

[Sundown]

12 minutes ago, KuruPrionz said:

It's human nature to settle on something that you've more or less got figured out.

 

That’s certainly true. CLA doesn’t really vary his delay/reverb sends much. He doesn’t really change the settings on his 480L, etc. He just uses the return faders to blend the right balance for the track.

[Anderton]

16 hours ago, Sundown said:

Both individuals have substantial outboard (including any number of outboard EQs and compressors), but whether it was convenience, speed, or the sheer capability of a top flight console, they used the onboard console EQ and channel compression on a lot of great, iconic tunes.

 

It's all you really need, right? The music is 20x more important than the sound. In a way, plugin presets are like having onboard processors - call up the preset, tweak a few knobs, done.

 

From a historical perspective, also remember that studio time used to be expensive. A lot of those simplified control sets were based on input from engineers who gravitated toward the same basic settings. So, the controls were like "EQ's greatest hits" or "dynamics processing's greatest hits." This is also why stepped controls were common - you could adjust them really fast.

[Sundown]

On 11/19/2023 at 2:15 PM, Anderton said:

 

It's all you really need, right? The music is 20x more important than the sound. In a way, plugin presets are like having onboard processors - call up the preset, tweak a few knobs, done.

 

From a historical perspective, also remember that studio time used to be expensive. A lot of those simplified control sets were based on input from engineers who gravitated toward the same basic settings. So, the controls were like "EQ's greatest hits" or "dynamics processing's greatest hits." This is also why stepped controls were common - you could adjust them really fast.

 

Great insight Craig. I forgot how much studio time cost in the heyday. I still struggle to think that Bob Clearmountain mixed “Born in the USA” in two hours (the song, not the album), but maybe he did. If something is recorded well and the arrangement is right (and you have Bob’s experience), perhaps it’s possible.

[Anderton]

3 hours ago, Sundown said:

If something is recorded well and the arrangement is right (and you have Bob’s experience), perhaps it’s possible.

 

Absolutely! This is why some songs "mix themselves." And when you don't have the opportunity to do endless tinkering, it helps

[Stokely]

In my limited experience working in a studio (and as a studio), I agree that great tracks tend to mix themselves.

My instructor in college brought in his uber-expensive Neumanns for use on a drum set (overheads and one kick mic, and the kick mic was waaaaay back!).   He helped us position and set everything up.  We brought up just the overheads and our jaws were hanging open...ok, now I understand that overheads aren't just the cymbal tracks    Those drums needed nothing, basically, though it was the late 80s so of course you have to add effects to everything  

 

Bob Clearmountain's mix of Tears for Fears' Woman in Chains from '89 is still one of my favorite reference tracks.

[Anderton]

12 hours ago, Stokely said:

In my limited experience working in a studio (and as a studio), I agree that great tracks tend to mix themselves.

 

I also like to use a minimal number of tracks, because that also leads to songs that mix themselves. It's not a genius insight or anything, it's going to be easier to mix a singer playing piano or guitar than 128 tracks for a Peter Jackson movie.

 

Most of my songs are 20 tracks or less, and many of the tracks don't play at the same time, so they don't have to be "mixed" with a bunch of other tracks. For example, I often have separate tracks for vocal chorus and vocal verse, or I submix drums so only one or two faders are in play.

 

At one point we worked with Damon Lyon-Shaw, who had miked the drums for Tommy IIRC. He was a "put a mic on every drum" kind of guy, which was the fashion back then. But he made it sound good, he somehow kept it from being a mud farm of phase issues. These days, personally I lean toward the "Glyn Johns" type of drum miking approach. It gives a natural sound that's easy to mix. Ironically, sometimes the "littlest" setups have the "biggest" sound.