maxim wrote on Wed, 11 May 2005 09:41 |
arys wrote:
"I don't think we are doubting that working with an analog console is better than totally ITB. "
i think bob k just intimated that it might not necessarily be the case
the question is not whether you can do a better mix on a daw, but whether a better mix can be done on one
not the same thing
|
The key here is to define "better". For some kinds of music, the slight loss of transparency in any D/A/D setup (external analog mixer) is more than offset by the coloration you like. Sounds nice, the additional fattening or HF rolloff or the thousands of other kinds of colorations are very appealing (in the VERY GOOD sense). However, if you are going for a mix that is TRANSPARENT you will be less tempted to do an analog console mix. I honestly feel that a digital mix with aux sends going to lots of good outboard analog gear can give you the best of both worlds (and controllable to any degree, as well).
I don't like to generalize, but "rock and roll" tends to sound better with an analog mix or lots of analog outboard, and "jazz" and "classical" tends to sound better with an all digital mix.
Oh boy, am I going to get creamed for that generalization... all I am trying to do is describe in complex words what only takes 10 seconds to realize by ear
With the right tools and decent original miking techniques and decent original recording rooms, you can get as much depth and dimension and separation in a digital mix as ANYONE out there trying to do it analog. There are, of course, many ways to skin a cat, and the words "all other things being equal" automatically cannot apply when comparing a digital mix to an "equivalent" analog mix. Because you MUST add or apply different things in the digital mix to get some of the distortions that happen "automatically" in the analog mix. Been there, done that. I've really done a number of studies of this. Remember, every day I get in a new mix from a new client. I ask them, "how did you mix this?" After hearing hundreds and hundreds of such examples, each one auditioned on this high resolution mastering reproduction system, I can reasonably reach some conclusions. More easily done with listening examples than words.
The skills of the mix engineer TOTALLY enter in here. That's why I say, "all things are never equal." A good mix engineer who is skilled in both how to take advantage of the analog mix console AND a digital mix console is still a rare animal.
Anyway, speaking of skill sets. I received two songs (for a 3-song demo) from one engineer and a third song from another engineer working in the SAME ROOM with most of the same equipment and the same monitors (HD1-S). The second engineer wonders how the first engineer was able to get so much more depth than he. (Both were mixing on SSLs). The answer: Skill. Also, the first engineer had available to him two TC System 6000s and the second engineer only had a TC 5000 and a few other "lesser" reverbs available to him. But after mastering I was able to marry the first two songs with the third quite nicely and please all parties concerned. So, in other words, I was able to increase the "dimensionality" of the third song to fall more in line with the other two.
I'm willing to dare say that the same sound or a "reasonable equivalent" could have been gotten by a properly-skilled engineer working with an all-digital mix from the same sources, provided that all the same analog outboard gear was available, and MAYBE a couple of SSL modules or equivalent if you wanted to gild the lily and get a certain "sheen or warmth" that did not seem to happen in the digital mix.
BK