Analog mixing snake oil

Discuss everything related to production, recording, composition, etc.

Moderators: lisa, luketeaford, Kent, Joe.

User avatar
felixer
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 4140
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: germany

Post by felixer » Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:51 am

smallstonefan wrote:
felixer wrote:allright then ... i'm using a behringer digtal desk for that. but mainly for the luxury of having real faders to do my mixing. so much easier ...
I would LOVE to mix with real faders. :) I can't convince myself to do it all on the Midas though for obvious reasons. So those faders stay at unity and I mix in the box.

some day... :goo:
what 'obvious reasons'. are you afraid to touch the faders? they don't bite, you know ...
don't need midi, don't need keys, just want knobs and cables (all together now ;-)

calaveras
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 3495
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2014 2:02 pm

Post by calaveras » Fri May 10, 2019 2:38 pm

I prefer mixing on a big ole analog mixer. It sounds more stereo to me. And when I capture the mix to two track it sounds punchier and wider than the render out of Logic.
I keep meaning to do an AB test with a mix in Logic and one on the board. But never have the time.
There is also something to be said for workflow. Analog mixer imposes limitations in how you can patch things. But it is 1000% faster for getting around on. Sure you may be stuck with only 3 or 4 effect sends, and only one type of EQ on every channel. But thousands of great records were made that way! The ability to jump around and change gain, EQ, panning etc much faster makes an analog board batter in this regard.

OTOH, digital mixing in the box means you can save the entire mix down to the last detail and restore it later. But that also means you can dither around not making solid commitments to the mix forever!

User avatar
Hi5
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 2582
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: chicago

Post by Hi5 » Fri May 10, 2019 2:55 pm

Used to mix ITB and then got a Soundtracs Solo. Ideally I would just want a 16 channel mixer with decent EQ, 4-6 aux and at least 4-8 bus.

Outside of being the center of my studio which has made writing immensely easier and faster with hardware, I find mixing to be easier and more fun. The greater headroom and ability to push things without sounding like a stale fart allows for beefing thing up quite easily.

The best way I can explain the difference between ITB and shit mixers like mackie vs something nicer is that ITB/mackie just layers the sounds on top of each other where a mixer integrates them into a whole. I spend way less time dealing with fractional db adjustment and just get the level to where it should be and let the console/EQ do the work.
tetno: https://soundcloud.com/richard-holhburn
Goiks: A eurorack setup is a contemporary folk instrument. Relatively accessible and portable. Largely by, of and for the people.

calaveras
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 3495
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2014 2:02 pm

Post by calaveras » Fri May 10, 2019 9:50 pm

Soundtracs Solo midi 24 owner here! Nice board, funny layout. Great EQ.

The Grump
Veteran Wiggler
Posts: 524
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 6:17 pm

Post by The Grump » Mon May 13, 2019 2:35 pm

It depends on the project and what I have the time and space for. ITB is fine for ideas, and thumbnails sketches that I'm planning on fleshing out later, or if I'm just after a digital sound, but when time and space permit, I like to use an XL200 or XL250 in the studio for both tracking and mixing. They're not pristine, but the way they kind of grease up and get things to meld together is very pleasing to the ears.

I think that in a lot of cases, it's not about getting everything to come through, but just enough of what you want, not too much else, and then letting peoples' ears fill in the tiny holes with idealized sound that is implied. The human brain is a funny thing.

User avatar
naturligfunktion
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 397
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:07 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by naturligfunktion » Tue May 14, 2019 9:08 am

I think it sounds fatter running everything through an analog mixer. But I do think the difference is subtle. The greatest advantage for me is, as mentioned by Calaveras, the difference in workflow:
calaveras wrote: Analog mixer imposes limitations in how you can patch things. But it is 1000% faster for getting around on. Sure you may be stuck with only 3 or 4 effect sends, and only one type of EQ on every channel. But thousands of great records were made that way! The ability to jump around and change gain, EQ, panning etc much faster makes an analog board batter in this regard.
Very true. It's also way more fun to mess around with feedback loops and faders and those kind of things with your hands, as you are jammin, than to do it afterwords, with a mouse, during take one million five.

:hihi:

The biggest difference in sound production I have found is to record things with a microphone. Seriously, it give the sound a feel of ambience. And use several microphones, at different positions. And record different stuff, not just guitars.

User avatar
BendingBus
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:56 pm

Post by BendingBus » Sat May 18, 2019 5:00 pm

I've been using a 16ch outboard summing system for about a decade now, so I'll contribute a couple points...

First, top analog, like the new Dangerous 2-Bus+, sounds stupid good. Just as digital tech has been progressing, so has analog (I thought the original 2-Bus sounded good, but the new model went next level). If I had to, I'd mix digitally; it's more pristine and detailed with low noise/distortion, but doesn't sound as wide and real to me. Also, unless it's a world class summing buss, I'd just stick with digital (personally I don't see the point in going Mackie over digital, for sound quality, given how good digital is these days). And digital does sound good; I take live tracks off the modular all the time, just grabbing the Metric Halo mix instead of multi-tracking into the DAW—sounds great.

Second, one of the main reasons people do this is pragmatism-based (not necessarily sound quality), given their work flow. For example, if you're using a bunch of outboard eq/comps and thus doing the D/A/D anyhow, the thinking goes that you might as well just sum and stereo compress while you're at it, and bring the final mix back on the A/D. If you print each channel back to the DAW then you need to do another D/A/D to your mix compressor (the action of analog mix comps, like summing, is one of the areas that digital still can't match).

User avatar
Daveyp
Learning to Wiggle
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 7:57 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Post by Daveyp » Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:36 pm

I’ve recorded every digital, analog , hybrid etc. way that I can think of and I do believe there is a difference. It is very subtle. And there are so many variables that people are able to sit all day and talk converters, preamps, or whatever. These days I’m lucky enough to have a 1 inch 8 track machine and I record everything onto tape. Then I dump it into ProTools. I don’t know why it happens, but some subtle thing happens and I like having it right at the beginning of the process. Then all the digital processing does what it does best and I don’t worry about ‘glue’ or anything.

The Grump
Veteran Wiggler
Posts: 524
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 6:17 pm

Post by The Grump » Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:56 am

These guys know a thing or two about analog summing. You can pretty much be guaranteed that they are not full of shit, and probably know more than any of us, if not all of us combined about the topic. Peep game.

Analog summing

Post Reply

Return to “Production Techniques”