Quantcast
Yes you can mix with plug ins - Page 11 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Yes you can mix with plug ins
Old 12th February 2009 | Show parent
  #301
Lives for gear
 
robot gigante's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Frindle ➡️
Absolutely :-)

The problem with things 'digital' seems to be that historically (20 years ago) the industry sold people the idea that digital equated to 'math', which equated to 'perfect'. They allowed this selling point to propagate for commercial reasons. However as many people noticed, early digital kit was a pile of crap - and sounded distinctly 'off'. The first ever stuff I was involved in designing in the digital domain sounded frankly terrible and performed horribly in comparison to the analogue stuff we had on sale at the time.

Of course many of us have been beavering away ever since then, tackling the (sometimes almost religious) misconceptions of the digital fraternity and fixing up the issues - because we could see the potential in unleashing its fundamental power. And despite a good few outbursts of 'commercial madness' along the way, by and large achievable brute signal quality from larger scale mixing applications overtook analogue around the early 1990s. The Sony OXF-R3 console we made was the first console application I can honestly say as a whole system outstripped analogue in signal quality at all levels. That was just before the professional industry got squeezed out by so called 'prosumer' stuff and gave up on 'consoles', that were subsequently too expensive in comparison. It was written off in the late 1990s along with other 'professionally conceived' objects.

So now starved of enough funds from the industry to continue on that route, the next obstacle was to tackle consumer level gear that was being 're-purposed' in 'professional' environments. The error being that many people who had swallowed the 'digital = math = perfect' marketing mantra expected similar levels of quality from anything labelled 'digital', unfortunately that is how people think simplistically :-( Bias is not a new phenomenon.. It seemed you could get 'digital perfection' for a fraction of the price of what went before? Too good to be true? You bet!

So whilst it remains impossible to make you a professional level ADC and DAC for $10/channel (where professional means what it used to mean), that does not mean we can't re-apply what we learned in the digital domain - once the signal is there. And so the plug-ins we made took full use of every bit of expertise we had gained from the professional products - and moreover, since the humble home computer had greater precision than our 'professional processor' they actually outperformed what we had before. But even more crucially, the power of home computers and the S/W tools available opened up the possibility to make all sorts of things that would have confounded the OXF-R3 processor in the mid 1990's. All sorts of things I had dreamed of when I started engineering in the 1970's, but had never thought would ever be possible - are suddenly realisable.

Now of course we could take the attitude that the failure of the so called digital revolution back in the 1980's and the market bias this produces (apparently even now) makes all this a worthless proposition, certainly from a business perspective it might seem that way (my financially struggling wife definitely says so frequently!)? But luckily, even these days, not everything is done for solely commercial gain - there is still room for caring about our art :-) For a couple of hundred dollars we are selling the right to run unlimited amounts of something I would have paid thousands a channel for back in the 1970's. Hard up or not - it's just an opportunity that would be simply immoral to pass up. It's fascinating how things turn out :-)
Paul, I gotta thank you for your plugins making my ITB mixing a lot easier. I prefer to not mix ITB but I do it consistently anyway since I freelance and I don't always have a choice where to work at.

I interned at a studio back in the 90's that had literally given away its Pultecs, Studer 24 track etc. etc. and bought all the new digital stuff (yay!), so I pretty much learned to work with digital first and analog second. Now, when the budget is there (rare) I prefer to mix completely OTB, go figure. Guess it's not a question of if I CAN work completely digital but whether or not I like to, and I don't really, not yet.

So I don't know if I agree completely with your views on the d. vs. a. thing, but I have to say that an attitude where you aren't trying to replicate the past in the digital realm but are using it for new purposes is exactly what I hope plugin designers should be taking.

Personally I like different things about both formats but the thing that irks me the most is a plugin that claims to replicate old hardware but, predictably, sadly fails at it. It's the plugins that can do what analog processors can't do that I like, but sadly enough imho there aren't nearly enough out there like that that sound musical right now. I think that these mostly poor attempts to replicate the past rather than look to the future is another thing that is giving digital a poor reputation.

Last edited by robot gigante; 13th February 2009 at 12:03 AM.. Reason: grammar!
Old 12th February 2009 | Show parent
  #302
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Frindle ➡️
Are you sure - have you been there and watched them? You may have a surprise! There was certainly a move to 'extract' the workings of one of my plug-in designs (still on sale) and put it in an expensive out board unit, because the mastering engineers currently using it would find such thing 'more comfortable'. Read into that what you will.......
Yeah, its been about 90% OTB and 10% ITB...the ITB has been limiting.
Old 12th February 2009 | Show parent
  #303
Lives for gear
 
5down1up's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.HOLMES ➡️
kai ich weiß du hast viele sachen gemacht bist ein geiler gitarrist und hast schönes equipment... aber die bmerkeung ist meiner ansicht nach einfach falsch..... als musiker solltest du doch wissen das man ne scheiß performance nicht schöner mischen kann...auch nicht mit massenburg krempel und den tollsten LA 2 As dieser WELT. ich lebe übrigens im gleichen haus wie dein freund P.W.
P.W ? Berlin ? Ach komm, Sachen gibts ! Nen FETTEN Gruß
hab schon gedacht du bist vom FBI !

--> back to englisch

1st of all, thanks for the flowers, i keep working on it, just need another 600 ++ years to figure that stuff out

bbl
Old 12th February 2009 | Show parent
  #304
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by robot gigante ➡️
Paul, I gotta thank you for your plugins making my ITB mixing a lot easier. I prefer to not mix ITB but I do it consistently anyway since I freelance and I don't always have a choice where to work at.

I interned at a studio back in the 90's that had literally given away its Pultecs, Studer 24 track etc. etc. and bought all the new digital stuff (yay!), so I pretty much learned to work with digital first and analog second. Now, when the budget is there (rare) I prefer to mix completely OTB, go figure. Guess it's not a question of if I CAN work completely digital but whether or not I like to, and I don't really, not yet.

So I don't know if I agree completely with your views on the d. vs. a. thing, but I have to say that an attitude where you aren't trying to replicate the past in the digital realm but are using it for new purposes is exactly what I hope plugin designers should be taking.

Personally I like different things about both formats but the thing that irks me the most is a plugin that claims to replicate old hardware but, predictably, sadly fails at it. It's the plugins that can do what analog processors can't do that I like, but sadly enough imho there aren't nearly enough out there like that that sound musical right now. I think that these mostly poor attempts to replicate the past rather is another thing that is giving digital a poor reputation.
Exactly - I agree with all your comments here :-)

People must use what they are most comfortable with. The technology is always second place the creativity and should never be used as an excuse to lecture artistic people about what they do or do not use.

And by the same token - no one should be castigated for what the do use either :-)

I just grab what I need to produce what I make - and that is how it should be :-)
Old 12th February 2009 | Show parent
  #305
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keire ➡️
Yeah, its been about 90% OTB and 10% ITB...the ITB has been limiting.
?

So, given that there is no target analogue medium on the cards any more - if that limiting were a digital process running in some 'box', would you count that as OTB? where does your definition actually reside? It is that the interconnects between 'boxes' have to be analogue regardless of what goes on inside - or is it the internal of the boxes that must not be digital - or is it that it can be digital provided it's not part of a workstation environment running plug-ins? BTW this is a serious question :-)

Thing is, that mastering engineers are also having to deal with 'market perceptions' too. When in fact, they should be judged on results, rather than what they used to get them. It's just as very sad for them as it is for everyone else dealing with blanket perceptions :-(

At the point where they would like a box running essentially a digital plug-in process internally - at a cost of $1000's per channel, just to placate clients, you know this is a serious (if highly inefficient) issue :-(
Old 12th February 2009 | Show parent
  #306
Gear Addict
 
🎧 15 years
There is something in hybrid mixing

Sometimes a few external EQ-s (lead voice, bass..), at least one external reverb or delay and a hardware comp or two will do the mix (less exacting tracks are run through plugins). But in that case I run stereo to DAT through analog ins. This way mix is comparable to OTB one..
Old 12th February 2009 | Show parent
  #307
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by camus ➡️
C'mon. Serious now. You really think anyone with that kind of musical talent would give up the guitar or piano because of ITB mixing?
My comment was sort of a joke...

Quote:
Is analog dead? Last I heard there were still plenty of all-analog studios around. Still plenty of gorgeous vintage gear around. Like I said, where are all these all-analog prototype Pepper MK2s? 35mm is still alive and healthy. Why is it nobody has managed Apocalypse Now MK2 yet?
I don't know...why has no one managed it?

Quote:
You're missing the point. The Beatles weren't afraid of technology. In fact they jumped on anything "new" BECAUSE it sounded different. If the DX7 was around they would've made some damn fine music on it. And remember, the mellotron was "new" once upon a time too. It had the musician's union jumping up and down in a rage thinking they were all going to be replaced by a keyboard with tapes...
Maybe you're missing the point...mine was that the tools make a difference...I'm not saying anyone should be afraid of technology...The Beatles tried new things with open minds, but not blindly, they seemed pretty particular to me. Did an ex-Beatle ever make fine music with a DX7?...I'm not sure any of them ever even used one at all...even Paul, who seems the most open to whatever's going on...maybe they didn't like that sound, maybe it sounded cheesy to them...the DX7 has not faired as well as the Luddite electric guitar, or the mellotron, for that matter. Sounds make a difference. The recording makes a difference.

Quote:
Like I said, we can all sit around and pray for the second coming of 1968 but it ain't gonna happen. I could set up a studio with nothing but equipment from Olympic Studios 1967 but that doesn't mean a modern Traffic, Stones and Scott Walker are suddenly going to magically turn up at my door is it? And if they were out there somewhere, the chances are you're gonna hear from them, whether they're recorded and mixed ITB or not. And it's probably going to sound ****ing terrific regardless.
For the record, I don't want want or care about a second coming of the past...I'm just saying the sound is different, and, for whatever reason, not much has come out of digital mixing ITB...by that, not only no landmarks, but many many people seem to be dissatisfied, and either go all vintage (so many bands, from The Dap Kings to Fleet Foxes, bands that sound insanely like 40 years ago), or try to "analog" it up with hardware, OTB mixing, plugins that emulate hardware, fake saturation, fake noise, and so on.
Old 15th February 2009 | Show parent
  #308
Gear Maniac
 
musicmatt's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I actually really like this thread.

I could tell immediately that the first example was software, and second was analog.. with that being said, I'm a big fan of both.

Here's a thought, there is an application for both of them! I love listening to the early 90's up to the 2000's to hear how music production has changed and evolved.

I hear drums back then and they sound great..but they aren't as punchy as today's drums. I'm assuming their signal chain was a one trick pony that just sounded great.. as it did, but there wasn't the sculpting that you can do with a digital channel strip now in days.

Then there's loudness.. HUGE debate. I personally love it.. if it's mixed well, there should be no reason why we can't smash it into a brick limiter! Would we have figured that out without the versatility of sculpting our individual tracks ITB??

when was interning at a studio in Detroit, one of the engineers I worked with told me that "Closer" by NIN was one of the first singles done completely in the digital relm. does it sound sterile and cold... yes.. but it still sounds incredible!!

I personally think that while the sales of music is dying, the art of the production has never been better.. its more creative than ever!

(whether we'll all be deaf in 40 years is a different story)
Old 15th February 2009 | Show parent
  #309
Lives for gear
 
5down1up's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicmatt ➡️
Then there's loudness.. HUGE debate. I personally love it.. if it's mixed well, there should be no reason why we can't smash it into a brick limiter!
to each his own ...

concerning loudness ... my overall listening level gets lower and lower cause it aint fun no more listening to new stuff loud, sadly.

it really is a bummer that everytime i am in the mood for roomshaking volume, back in black, comes out of the speakers ( and thats been done a 1000 years ago ).

lil loudness is ok, leave the rest to the volume knob.

just my 2 cents as a " listening fan "

ME WANTS IT LOUD heh
Old 15th February 2009 | Show parent
  #310
Lives for gear
 
audiomichael's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keire ➡️
Interesting you mention mastering....

Is there a good mastering house that does it all ITB? I don't think I have once sent a mix to an ITB mastering guy.
Eddie Schreyer mastered a record for me 100% digital. I asked if he uses his analog gear much anymore... he said, "Almost never!" We went on to say that receives almost everything on digital these days, and the DA/AD conversion outweighs any benefit from analog gear. He used a Cube-Tec system and UAD plugins. I don't remember the exact chain or order, but he had a Cube-Tec compressor, EQ, De-Esser, and a UAD Fairchild, and UAD Precision EQ all in miniscule amounts, but the difference was huge and very analogesque.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5down1up ➡️
concerning loudness ... my overall listening level gets lower and lower cause it aint fun no more listening to new stuff loud, sadly.
I wish my iPod had a negative volume knob. I almost always listen on the first volume notch, and sometimes it's too loud for "quiet listening".
Old 15th February 2009 | Show parent
  #311
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5down1up ➡️
to each his own ...

concerning loudness ... my overall listening level gets lower and lower cause it aint fun no more listening to new stuff loud, sadly.

it really is a bummer that everytime i am in the mood for roomshaking volume, back in black, comes out of the speakers ( and thats been done a 1000 years ago ).

lil loudness is ok, leave the rest to the volume knob.

just my 2 cents as a " listening fan "

ME WANTS IT LOUD heh
Totally agree - sadly. This stuff isn't loud - it's just annoying. Sad to admit as I am a designer - but I can't listen to it any more for pleasure. I only listen to it because I have to do my work - and even then only in short bursts because it's too excruciating otherwise and I become deafened to anything else.
This is a tradegy for me as I love music, it is my life - and the loudness wars have taken away a big part of my life and effectively made it inaccessible. No one in our house has bought music for the last 5 - 6 years to my knowledge - not even our teen aged children.
Old 21st February 2009 | Show parent
  #312
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiomichael ➡️
Eddie Schreyer mastered a record for me 100% digital. I asked if he uses his analog gear much anymore... he said, "Almost never!" We went on to say that receives almost everything on digital these days, and the DA/AD conversion outweighs any benefit from analog gear.

Now that makes a lot of sense to me...unless of course it arrives at the mastering house on tape.

Nick
Old 21st February 2009 | Show parent
  #313
Harmless Wacko
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiomichael ➡️
Eddie Schreyer mastered a record for me 100% digital. I asked if he uses his analog gear much anymore... he said, "Almost never!" We went on to say that receives almost everything on digital these days, and the DA/AD conversion outweighs any benefit from analog gear.
Wouldn't it be great if it was this simple.

A HUGE number of factor go into these assessments, not least of which are:

a.) Preferred work methods of ME.

b.) Expectations of ME's clients.

I can state with a fair degree of certainty that there are A LOT of ME's who work on Eddie's level every day who would be really bummed out if they had to work this way.

Ironically(I suppose), I ALWAYS felt this way(All digital processing) in the 5-6 years I spent(largely) mastering for a living(mid to end of the 90's). Back then, the "money" digital tools, like Weiss/Junger/dBTech/Desper/HarmMun/ect. were often regarded with great suspicion(sometimes derision) by my peers. I always HATED the AD/DA loss if I had to take digital source into the analog domain and back again. And I was using some conversion which cost INSANE amounts of loot(I think Jerry at Gotham used to SPRINT to the phone when I called - HOHOHO - but kinda true).

Anyhoo. I started my mastering shop with a fairly frightening slew of "old classics" from the analog domain. But as the majority of my clients kept sending me digital masters of various sorts... I kept steadily replacing the analog boxes with the various hotshot uber-expensive digital boxes and softie programs like Sonic Solutions...

Sorry about the tangent. Just explaining why I suspect the subject is... well... SUBJECTIVE.

Best regards,

SM.
Old 21st February 2009 | Show parent
  #314
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by slipperman ➡️
Wouldn't it be great if it was this simple.

A HUGE number of factor go into these assessments, not least of which are:

a.) Preferred work methods of ME.

b.) Expectations of ME's clients.

I can state with a fair degree of certainty that there are A LOT of ME's who work on Eddie's level every day who would be really bummed out if they had to work this way.

Ironically(I suppose), I ALWAYS felt this way(All digital processing) in the 5-6 years I spent(largely) mastering for a living(mid to end of the 90's). Back then, the "money" digital tools, like Weiss/Junger/dBTech/Desper/HarmMun/ect. were often regarded with great suspicion(sometimes derision) by my peers. I always HATED the AD/DA loss if I had to take digital source into the analog domain and back again. And I was using some conversion which cost INSANE amounts of loot(I think Jerry at Gotham used to SPRINT to the phone when I called - HOHOHO - but kinda true).

Anyhoo. I started my mastering shop with a fairly frightening slew of "old classics" from the analog domain. But as the majority of my clients kept sending me digital masters of various sorts... I kept steadily replacing the analog boxes with the various hotshot uber-expensive digital boxes and softie programs like Sonic Solutions...

Sorry about the tangent. Just explaining why I suspect the subject is... well... SUBJECTIVE.

Best regards,

SM.
yes it certainly is...but I'd like to see more support for staying ITB at the mastering stage...there is a lot to be said for it...that's not being said...and I love analog gear...I just think that (serious) mastering clients should be aware of it's validity and sometimes the benefits.

Nick
Old 4th March 2009 | Show parent
  #315
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
Yes you can mix with plug ins

Quote:
Originally Posted by MHB850 ➡️
because i like toys and i can afford to buy them. i also buy alot of plugins...why in the world would I do that too? mhb
My guess is Waves will be hitting you up soon to make "YOUR"
signature plug-ins.......Will you partake??
Old 30th October 2009 | Show parent
  #316
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcm ➡️
Great to have you chime in here Michael. Could you point us to some examples of your best totally ITB/ plug in only mixes? Particularly interested in guitar based stuff which always seems to be the hardest to do great ITB.

ps. Loved your recent Sound on Sound article. Lots of food for thought about mixing techniques and approaches.

And he never responded... Awesome and it says it all. Old thread but when I came across it and started reading, it was BRILLIANT the way RCM cornered him and called SHENANIGANS! I call SHENANIGANS!

But purely from a logic/debate perspective, RCM that was brilliant. Better than the photo...

Great mixer but damn is this thread full of sh*t...

And I would bet anything that if Mr. B mixed 100% in the box VS another mixer who had ocean way and full rentals, it would clear all of this up right away. Hes a great mixer but the racks of gear say it all... But it does sound super bitchen if he says plugs are good enough- even if HE HAS NEVER USED ONLY PLUGS... Whos the monkey now?

Give a man a spoon to dig a trench and it can happen, but I would rather have a backhoe...
Old 30th October 2009 | Show parent
  #317
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
I get your point, but it's very simple. Because he can.

Yeah, he COULD mix with crappy stuff, but if you have the money and it makes your product better, then he'd be a monkey not to.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcm ➡️
That would explain why he continues to buy outboard gear for his already over the top analog processing collection? I do not know MB, but if he could do it just as well without all the analog tools, why on earth would go through all the trouble of cost and recall of a high end analog system.

If I thought I could do equal quality work with just plug ins, I would certainly stop buying hardware.



RACK #1
# ELYSIA MPRESSOR
# STEREO PYE COMPRESSOR
# FATSO STEREO COMPRESSOR
# EMPIRICAL LABS DISTRESSOR
# EMPIRICAL LABS DISTRESSOR
# MOTOWN EQ
# MOTOWN EQ
# DRAWMER 1968 MERCENARY EDITION
# COMPEX STEREO COMPRESSOR
# CHANDLER EMI TG12413
# E.A.R. COMPRESSOR
# E.A.R. COMPRESSOR
# FAIRCHILD 666

REAR:
# (2X)1176 COMPRESSORS
# INOVONICS 201 LIMITER
# BOILER MAKER
# GATES COMPRESSOR



RACK #2
# LEX PCM 81
# SONY REVERB DRE 777
# AKAI S612
# TC FIREWORKS
# TC D-TWO
# SANS AMP
# ROLAND 3000A DDL
# MARSHALL TIME MODULATOR
# ZOOM 9030FS1 PANNER
# PORTICO SFE 5014
# THE CULTURE VULTURE
# ENSONIQ DP-4
# FSI CYCLOSONIC PANNER
# KORG A1
# ZOOM 1202
# LEXICON 200

REAR:
# DIMENSION D SDD320
# MARC CUSTOM EFFECTS MIXER
# Berhinger/Edison
# DRAWMER DL241
# SPL TRANSIENT DESIGNER
# (X2) MXR PHASER
# (X2) MXR FLANGER



RACK #3
# FOCUSRITE ISA 115HD
# VACRAC CUSTOM ST. COMP TSL-1
# CUSTOM NEVE/31083
# AVALON RACK A19-6i
(X4)E55 MODULES
(X2)L44 MODULES
# API 5502
# NEVE 33609
# API CUSTOM RACK
(X2)COMP 525
(X1)EQ 554
# MOOG PARAMETRIC MKPE
# (X2) UREI LA3A
# (X2) EMPIRICAL LABS DISTRESSORS
# 737 AVALON COMPRESSOR
# PENDULUM STEREO ES-8

REAR:
# APHEX B
# PULTEC EQP1A3S
# PULTEC EQP1A3S
# PEAVEY KOSMOS



RACK #4
# HELIOS CUSTOM UNIT
# VACRAC LIM/EQ
# STEREO RNC
# (X4) MXR MINI LIMITERS W/RACK
# FEDERAL COMPRESSOR
# CHANDLER GERMANIUM TONE CONTROL
# CHANDLER GERMANIUM TONE CONTROL
# CHANDLER TG CHANNEL
# CHANDLER TG CHANNEL
# DATA MIX EQ
# DATA MIX EQ
# TELEFUNKEN W695A X2
# PENDULUM QUARTET II COMPRESSOR
# TRI-TRONICS Dept. of Commerce
# ALTEC 436B

REAR:
# SPECTRASONICS 610
# ELECTRODYNE CA-700



RACK #5
# CHANDLER STEREO CURVEBENDER EQ
# CHANDLER GERMANIUM MONO COMPRESSOR
# CHANDLER GERMANIUM MONO COMPRESSOR
# SHADOW HILL STEREO MASTERING COMPRESSOR
# VOLUME BOX
# API 2500 STEREO COMPRESSOR
# A/B COMPARISON SWITCHING
# ADL 670 STEREO MASTERING COMPRESSOR
# SHADOWHILL POWER AMP
# ADL POWER AMP


DELAY RACK
# MEAZZI ECHOMATIC
# MOOGER FOOGER LOW PASS FILTER, ANALOG DELAY, RING MODULATOR
# ROLAND SPACE ECHO RE201
# BINSON ECHOREC 2
# FULLTONE TUBE ECHO
# ALTEC TUBE MIXER
# ALTEC TUBE MIXER
# AMPEG TUBE MIXER


WALL #1


# AWA Limiting Compressor/ Type 2G58250
# AWA Limiting Compressor/ Type G7201
# RETRO Mono Compressor
# Drawmer 1961 Mercenary Edition
# Presto Compressor

WALL #2

Click image to enlarge
# Universal 1176
# Universal 1176
# TELETRONIX LA2A
# TELETRONIX LA2A
# JOE MEEK
# Shure Level Loc
# AVALON 747
# DRAWMER DS201
# CHANDLER EMI TG1
# PCM 42 X3
# MEDICI STEREO EQ

WALL #3

Click image to enlarge
# Roland GP100 Guitar Processor
# EDWARD the Compressor P8
# DBX 160
# Lil Freq. X2
# DBX 160
# Sherman Filterbank
# Mutator
# AMS reverb
# PCM 80
# BBE
# SSL Surround Sound XL logic
# Alesis Masterlink X2
# LYNX
Old 30th October 2009 | Show parent
  #318
Lives for gear
 
FeatheredSerpent's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
All I know, looking at that rack is, that every single member of this board would have it all if they had the money. no matter whether they could get a perfect mix itb or not.

Who wouldn't want to rub up against all that hardware on a daily basis? I know I would.

I think the owner of that gear summed it up quite simply when he said that he had them because he had the money to get those toys, and why the hell not?
Same reason some people will buy a lambourghini when a nissan will still get them from a to b just fine, and get them there more economically to boot.

Maybe people get a bit too serious and forget exactly why we love all those knobs and lights and sleek looks so much.. because we're still a big bunch of kids at heart and always will be, that's part of the joy of being a man!
TOYS!! WOO HOO!! heh
Old 31st October 2009 | Show parent
  #319
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeatheredSerpent ➡️
I think the owner of that gear summed it up quite simply when he said that he had them because he had the money to get those toys, and why the hell not?
Same reason some people will buy a lambourghini when a nissan will still get them from a to b just fine, and get them there more economically to boot.
HUH? Clueless and obviously someone whom has never mixed a REAL record...

MB was TOTALLY jerking his ego off. He has that gear not because he can, but because....

ITS THE BEST TOOL FOR THE JOB. PERIOD.

But again, it sounds super bitchin if MB, who btw has NEVER RELEASED ANY ITB MIX, says ITB doesn't matter.

Sheeeeeeeep. You are all sheeeeeeeeeeep.

Why do YOU think he never answered RCMs question? HMMMMMMMMMMMM...

Real engineers dont buy gear so it looks bitchin in racks and is fun... They buy it because it brings something special to the table. If it didn't, it would be in the classifieds section...

Pathetic. To hear someone so successful be so full of sh*t is truly pathetic. And many of you believe him...
Old 31st October 2009 | Show parent
  #320
Lives for gear
 
FeatheredSerpent's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Are you all right?

I think it's taken as a given that he likes what his toys do to audio..

But this is what I mean when I say people take it too seriously, I suppose
Old 31st October 2009 | Show parent
  #321
Gear Nut
 
J.R. McNeely's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by haikusoftruth ➡️
HUH? Clueless and obviously someone whom has never mixed a REAL record...

MB was TOTALLY jerking his ego off. He has that gear not because he can, but because....

ITS THE BEST TOOL FOR THE JOB. PERIOD.

But again, it sounds super bitchin if MB, who btw has NEVER RELEASED ANY ITB MIX, says ITB doesn't matter.

Sheeeeeeeep. You are all sheeeeeeeeeeep.

Why do YOU think he never answered RCMs question? HMMMMMMMMMMMM...

Real engineers dont buy gear so it looks bitchin in racks and is fun... They buy it because it brings something special to the table. If it didn't, it would be in the classifieds section...

Pathetic. To hear someone so successful be so full of sh*t is truly pathetic. And many of you believe him...
OK, now I'm sure I'm going to piss off more than a few people with this.....but here I go.

You are missing the point entirely. What he said was (and I quote) "Put me in a room with whatever is available, and I'm going to deliver you a great mix. No excuses for lack of toys or different formats such as mixing in the box. Mixing is mixing, You're either a mixer or you're a monkey."

The "Monkey" thing was a bit harsh but he is 100% right. The art of mixing is NOT ABOUT GEAR!!!! Yes...I said art. The ability to mix music is no different than the ability to play a musical instrument. You either posses this talent, or you don't.

Example....If you are completely Tone Deaf, you will never be able to sing no matter how many voice lessons you take. And just the same, having a ton of killer gear and going through years of recording school will NEVER make you a great mixer.

I am personally NOT a fan of ITB mixing. And not because I think it sounds bad....I just simply HATE the workflow. I have been mixing on consoles for the last 19 or so years, and mixing with a mouse takes all of the fun out of it for me. I am fortunate enough to own an SSL and a bunch of great outboard gear and that is and always will be my PREFERRED way of mixing.

That being said...am I capable of mixing something ITB with ONLY plugins that sounds great??? Of course! I could not claim to be a professional mixer otherwise. And, if I have a client that is for some reason hell bent on me mixing ITB, (which thankfully is not usually the case) I'll do it. Will it sound different than if I used the console??? Yes...BUT...it will still sound like me and still be a great mix! Will it sound worse? NO!!! Different but not worse.

Look, I love great gear just like the rest of you.....but I realized a long time ago that talented people make great recordings.....NOT gear.


J.R.
Old 31st October 2009 | Show parent
  #322
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
I am personally NOT a fan of ITB mixing. And not because I think it sounds bad....I just simply HATE the workflow. I have been mixing on consoles for the last 19 or so years, and mixing with a mouse takes all of the fun out of it for me. I am fortunate enough to own an SSL and a bunch of great outboard gear and that is and always will be my PREFERRED way of mixing.
What ITB mixing needs is an affordable DAW controller with at least 24 faders, 8 encoders/channel for eq and dynamics, and a meter bridge. I know the ICON, Euphonix MC-5, and a few others do this already but lets face it, most people mix ITB because it's feasible and if they had the kinda money to buy one of these controllers they'd probably buy the SSL instead...I know I would. Let me turn off the computer screen, put the mouse aside, use the DAW as a medium, and focus on sounds rather than visuals.
Old 31st October 2009 | Show parent
  #323
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB872 ➡️
What ITB mixing needs is an affordable DAW controller with at least 24 faders, 8 encoders/channel for eq and dynamics, and a meter bridge. I know the ICON, Euphonix MC-5, and a few others do this already but lets face it, most people mix ITB because it's feasible and if they had the kinda money to buy one of these controllers they'd probably buy the SSL instead...I know I would. Let me turn off the computer screen, put the mouse aside, use the DAW as a medium, and focus on sounds rather than visuals.
This and the previous post kind of hit the nail on the head - with the work flow argument and the cost.

There is no doubt that having a tactile and well thought out control surface that has most of what you need there running all the time, just in case you want to twag an EQ or dynamics is much more immersive and involving than fiddling around with virtual stuff on a screen, being forced to pause and instantiate stuff when you think you need it.

However much 'potential' a virtual W/S has, it cannot always match the fluency of having a real control surface that is closely coupled to your music.

So as much as we have opened new dimensions with the art and cheap S/W - we have also closed down the past along with it.

And the rub really is - cost :-(

The fact is that control panels which are sufficiently closely coupled, integrated, durable and well designed enough to replace something like an SSL or an OXF-R3 are now incredibly expensive in comparison to your very cheap H/W and S/W systems.

In the case of the OXF-R3 the front panel alone represented around 40% of the cost of the entire system!!!! 10s of thousands of dollars before any signal was even gather or passed to any processing at all.

So there is no way we are ever going to get this kind of facility within the current budgets ascribed to modern day professionals.. If there were a viable market left these things would still be being made and sold :-(

Whether the new dimensions provided by non-linear editing and artistic processes out weigh the loss of surfaces is something that's never going to be easy to decide, because what we really want is both - but of course we can't afford it :-(
Old 31st October 2009 | Show parent
  #324
Lives for gear
 
gussyg2007's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
you know what you know , if you are old school a desk & HW is your portal to achieving your goal , hey there is a whole generation that have a computer as there only connection to music, i mean like they don't play any instruments (maybe a keyboard) they will never tweak a real knob!!! there whole connection with music will be totally digital !!! does that make the music of the future invalid ?? i think not... eventually consoles and HW will be priced out of the game save a few high end users, you only have to look at all the recent releases of S/W version of high end gear that is coming out look at lexicon,tube tech,mpresser to name a few, soon enough ITB will be a no brainer !!!
Old 31st October 2009 | Show parent
  #325
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
And the rub really is - cost :-(

The fact is that control panels which are sufficiently closely coupled, integrated, durable and well designed enough to replace something like an SSL or an OXF-R3 are now incredibly expensive in comparison to your very cheap H/W and S/W systems.
Hi Paul

That's the thing, I'm not looking for a controller that compares in quality to an SSL or an OXF-R3. I'd settle for Mackie faders and lcd scribble strips, Behringer encoders and software like Automap for mapping. Just having something that resembles a console would be better than mixing with a mouse IMO.
Old 31st October 2009 | Show parent
  #326
Gear Head
 
BigBoy's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
They're some many variables in reference to this on going and none important debate! Analog processing is here to stay and so are plugins. They both have their advantages and dis-advantages. If you can get the job done with plugins than so be it, If you can't the problem could be you, not the gear or the lack of.

I don't know how many GS were present @ the AES in 2007, but MHB played a mix he did for a client in his studio with all of his toys and then played the exact mix duplicated in the box. It was apparent to everyone in the room that the OTB mix was far superior to the ITB mix. Now with that being said, If we never heard the OTB mix, everyone in the room would have been kissing his ass about how great his ITB mix sounded! Why you say? Because the man can mix his ass off!

Now, stop this nonsense!
Old 3rd November 2009 | Show parent
  #327
Gear Maniac
 
rashman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
So is it all about workflow? In other words, does a SSL+Tape/DAW still beat an Icon/Euphonics+DAW despite all editing advantages DAWs offer? Please vote here.
Old 3rd November 2009 | Show parent
  #328
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBoy ➡️
I don't know how many GS were present @ the AES in 2007, but MHB played a mix he did for a client in his studio with all of his toys and then played the exact mix duplicated in the box. It was apparent to everyone in the room that the OTB mix was far superior to the ITB mix. Now with that being said, If we never heard the OTB mix, everyone in the room would have been kissing his ass about how great his ITB mix sounded! Why you say? Because the man can mix his ass off!
That's totally pointless. if it didn't sound the same, then it wasn't duplicated was it - it was an attempt to recreate the mix ITB which failed.

WHY it failed is up for debate. But it's not like using plugin versions of the hardware, duplicating setting and expecting it to sound the same is going to work.
Old 6th November 2009 | Show parent
  #329
Gear Head
 
BigBoy's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey ➡️
That's totally pointless. if it didn't sound the same, then it wasn't duplicated was it - it was an attempt to recreate the mix ITB which failed.

WHY it failed is up for debate. But it's not like using plugin versions of the hardware, duplicating setting and expecting it to sound the same is going to work.

Psycho-Monkey, you have proved my piont! The designers of these plugins and some top engineers swear that they can use plugins and achieve the exact same sound that they were getting from their hardware counterparts. And they can't get the exact sound and a top notch engineer proved it with his attemp to duplicate his OTB mix ITB!
Old 6th November 2009 | Show parent
  #330
Gear Nut
 
J.R. McNeely's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBoy ➡️
Psycho-Monkey, you have proved my piont! The designers of these plugins and some top engineers swear that they can use plugins and achieve the exact same sound that they were getting from their hardware counterparts. And they can't get the exact sound and a top notch engineer proved it with his attemp to duplicate his OTB mix ITB!

I hate to break it to you but, you won't get the "Exact" same mix EVER...even if you don't use plugs! In other words, if you mix a song.....print the mix.....come back a week later.....zero EVERYTHING and start from scratch....mix the same song WITHOUT listening to the first mix while using all the same gear....it will always sound different than the first mix. Like I said in an earlier post, mixing is an art. It's not paint by numbers and there will ALWAYS be a different result. The question is ultimately which mix do you like better. Gear is really not the issue....TALENT is and how it is applied.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 15929 views: 1533170
Avatar for Ragan
Ragan 11th January 2019
replies: 63 views: 22374
Avatar for seancostello
seancostello 26th April 2012
replies: 1452 views: 149527
Avatar for buckan
buckan 18th June 2021
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace 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…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump