Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[The1hub]

A few thoughts.
first of a great topic for a varied panel to discuss.
The summing issue i think summing is an important issue. (I know that it IS the diffrence between oob and mib)*
i think adressing sevral diffrences in a specific manor.  for example, instead of just saying mib gives you a darker sound then mixing oob.  the way i would phrase it would be more specific to the function of summing.  ie.  why dose summing in the box producer a darker, (insert your favorite distinction here) sound then mixing through a traditional analog bus system.
now before everyone starts giving me grief for this post there is a fatal flaw to this question that has been brought up many times in this tread.  It is that diffrent daws "sound" diffrent.  (tdm vs. logic vs. nuendo. for example).  not to mention that all of these daws use diffrent mathmatical formulas for the summing process. (wich is why they "sound" diffrent).   And the same argument can be made for the analog summing bus used.  An ssl sounds a lot different then a mackie.  
another idea for a question, mabey a little of topic.  What type impact dose mib have on the art of making records?
dose the flexibility of mib increase the quality of the art?
dose the loss in sound quality take away from the art?
there is obviusly a lot of factors that go into this question.  i would also like to see it addressed as fairly as possible.  

as far as people i would like to see on the panel (big time long shots)

Brian Transeau aka BT i think he is always pushing the limits and creativity of mib.

Simon Osbourne, Stings long time engineer.  he has recently been getting closer and closer to mib from moob.  i think he has some vary good insight on the topic as a whole.  there are some intersting articles on him about the subject on the web. (not the one on digidesign.com it is a little skued towards PT) google it.

sorry to be so long winded and being so mr obvious on these question but its the only way i could think to say what i had on my mind.  i probably should have not wrote this a 3:30 in the morning either.  i hope it all makes sense.  time to get some sleep got to finish mixing a session in the morning, unfortunatly its in the box.

please for give my spelling and grammer its way to late to be doing this.

*assumming playback source is the same. ie. PT bouncing to disk, pt with all channels in session routed to individual channels on a mixing board.  With identicle mix settings (pans, volume) and no eq comp or anything else that might change the original sound source.

[Sweet Spot]

I know im kinda new here, but i am a bit confused about this subject.
Why wouldn't mixing engineers be using the best of both worlds? I mean for example
If a chef was creating a gourmet dinner, its kind of  like saying he/she should only use a microwave as apposed to the stove right? When the best scenario (In my opinion)would be to utilize all of his/her tools in a harmonious combination. Right??

When our facility dose a mixing project we use both technology's.Sure our SSL sounds fantastic and our outboard gear is some of the best, but even with our GML automation  we can not automate the comps or eq! So we do it in the box. On the other hand some of the plugins we use, don't usually compare (sound-wise) to our outboard gear, and so we utilize the outboard gear! It just seems to me to be common sense. The only way I see it as a problem, would be if the engineer or chef,  only had access to the DAW or Microwave .

[Loco]

Eric Vincent wrote on Tue, 04 January 2005 00:10

Definitely add Charlie Dye

That would be like adding GWB to a panel discussion about WMD.

But if you are gonna invite him, then don't forget to invite Tron!