Print

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

[Paul Frindle]

 

Quote:

This could be one aspect... so maybe we can call this problem: 1. collaboration vs. isolation. here is another terry has mentioned: 2. the necessity to commit vs. the ability to tweak endlessly. paul has suggested that many factors could affect : 3. the pace and rhythm of the workflow. such as dfferences in headroom on different systems i notice two important factors which support his contention that there are "many" such issues : a. with tape, there is always a dramatic pause before playback (rewind). b. with a daw, one can loop a section; the lack of need for rewind can lead much faster to ear fatigue in my experience. then there is another factor we touched on: 4. making music could be considered a physical activity. for me, mixing in analog is more like football, on a daw, it's more like chess. the first three aspects are clear to me, but i think we could perhaps overcome them through better daw design and by changing our work habits. however, the fourth...if it is really a factor, means to me that analog mixing will have this advantage over daw mixing until daw latency becomes less than one sample. jeff dinces

This is a good summary of the points. Signal and control latency are definitely issues, but (luckily) you don't have to drive latency down to single sample (20uS) levels

[Paul Frindle]

maxim wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 00:24

i've never touched a console, yet i've mixed numerous cuts itb i'd hazard a guess that, for my brain, mixing on a console would seem an unintuitive process which would take a while to get used to i have no trouble grabbing a fader with my mouse, the brain kicks in automatically (after 10 years, it's not surprising) i'm dubious that the experience would be much enhanced if my finger was touching a real fader this is aside from the fact that it would render my studio immobile

Sorry to keep posting long missives
These are excellent points - especially the one about cost and mobility! As an old analogue guy (with mixing a bit rusty), I have been pleasantly surprised at the speed I could knock up an acceptable mix purely ITB.
However I'm not so sure I could achieve the results I used to if doing the recording and mixing under commercial pressure?
The thing that strikes me most is that the art and culture have changed to accomodate the extra limitations, but also have naturally modified to make artistic use of the new facilities that are now at our disposal instead. IMO this is great and exciting stuff - we can achieve things that would have been unheard of in the 1970's to 1990's
However I am still aware of another aspect - the lack of true immersive involvement and instinctive control? On consoles the process would become tactile and immersing (if I was having success), almost like playing an instrument, you would 'sink' into it almost beyond concious consideration. When working ITB this isn't possible for me, instead I end up going over and over pieces getting it right that I would have just done intuitively in the past. This is perhaps only possible at all because I have a memory of 'what should be possible' and can aim towards this prior experience? For instance the last mix of any import I did ITB was of a 'disco' style, very similar to scores of them I did commercially back in the 70's.

If you stretch the instument analogy to it's limit and you are a musician you can understand that HOW you play and WHAT you play is dictated by the nuances of the instrument you are playing - even if they are of the same basic type, there are still differences. Now if I were to replace those instruments entirely (say guitar or piano) with a perfect sounding synthesized instrument - even with all the sonic nuances of the real one - but I was forced to play the music using only a mouse and virtual keyboard (or frets), however much (or quickly) I had the facility to modify and build it up in layers of complexity by repeated action, the fact that I couldn't do it in one go whilst interacting with the instrument would drastically modify the performance. I might get a note perfect reproduction of something I have played before - but it would lack natural spontaneous 'feel'. I would not be able to extemporise and experiment with musical measures in an involved way on the instrument - which would make composition very much more difficult and restricted, unless I were extremely proficient and had played the real instrument for many years beforehand.

The overall result of this would be that the music I composed would gravitate towards that which was artistically successful on the new system. Now this may indeed be valid art and great new stuff in its own right - but it would be different from what I would and could do on the real physical object - because the physical and psychological artistic feedback of playing the real instrument would be missing - and I would no longer have inspiration from interacting with it - for instance not being able to play multiple notes together would remove 80% of the possible expression. In effect I could have done what I was doing with the mouse anyway - but I have lost ALL the rest

Now imagine that I was going to do this without ever having played the real instrument at all? In this case i wouldn't even be aware of the potential experience of playing it. So the art I would produce would be radically different from even in the previous case (where I had at least memory of the experience). It would be impossible to even conceive of what I would have done if I had the real instrument - there would be no way of re-creating the experience.

Now I know this is stretching the point regarding mixing which perhaps these days has changed lots (and I was never a good sound engineer anyway), but when I was doing it I definitely had that musical involvement and intuitive interaction on sessions that went really well - with real artistic fluidity and satisfaction, never seeming like a chore. In fact it was the absence of this feeling that characterised those that didn't go well. Whatever I did and however long I spent on them, these 'difficult' sessions would be a drudge of time, effort and inordinate amounts of concentration that would focus ominously on ever more fine and finicky detail, only to squeeze out a passable but ultimately unsatisfying end result, that got finished primarily because I had simply ran out of time or patience - rather than ever having the feeling it was 'just right'.

It's at this level I am expressing concern. It's this level of involvement I would like to consider closely in the DAW environment and ideally how to get it back, because I have the suspicion that (for me at least) mixing ITB would always correspond with the latter of these experiences, unless I limited myself to specific musically artistic genres?

I can't dispell the deeply unsettling feeling that currently ITB mixers are inadequate virtual emulations of a 'real thing' - when they might instead be able to evolve into something 'in their own right' with a splendid new artistic validity and facility of their own - if one were prepared to think out of the frame and not simply try to replace an absent (and possibly obsolete) physical object

[maxim]

paul, these are very good points and i can see why my analogue desk trained friends and colleagues lament having to work on a daw

however, i think, your analogy is a little stretched

riding a fader requires a simple 'digital' movement, like rolling a trackball (which is what i use)

it's not the same as getting tone out of a fretboard

mixing itb is no longer a non-realtime experience (as it was when i started with deck on 7200 powermac)

as it is now, in dp on a g3, setting balances and pans is a completely right hemisphere activity (for me)

likewise, patching in eq, compression and delays is a fairly straightforward affair (more so than a desk, i would guess)

the only thing i'm missing out on is being able to ride more than one fader at the same time (although submixing and automation can compensate for this)

but i'm used to concentrating on one fader at a time

how much left hemisphere was involved in syncing multiple desks, patching in reverbs etc, that has now been left behind?

i think, it is a question of what you're used to

[Paul Frindle]

maxim wrote on Fri, 23 December 2005 05:26

paul, these are very good points and i can see why my analogue desk trained friends and colleagues lament having to work on a daw however, i think, your analogy is a little stretched riding a fader requires a simple 'digital' movement, like rolling a trackball (which is what i use) it's not the same as getting tone out of a fretboard mixing itb is no longer a non-realtime experience (as it was when i started with deck on 7200 powermac) as it is now, in dp on a g3, setting balances and pans is a completely right hemisphere activity (for me) likewise, patching in eq, compression and delays is a fairly straightforward affair (more so than a desk, i would guess) the only thing i'm missing out on is being able to ride more than one fader at the same time (although submixing and automation can compensate for this) but i'm used to concentrating on one fader at a time how much left hemisphere was involved in syncing multiple desks, patching in reverbs etc, that has now been left behind? i think, it is a question of what you're used to

Yes points well taken - I was indeed stretching the point to its absolute limit to illustrate the emotion and provoke discussion and feedback from people who use it every day in earnest. There are a great many things that can be done now with a DAW which were extremely difficult if not impossible with a console that did not have on the fly configuration and integrated HD editing - let alone one that was connected only to a tape machine .

The thing I would ask is do you get the immersive 'on a roll' feeling when you get into a track using a DAW? Do things just fall into place without you really knowing exactly why - when you are having a good session? Or do you end up proceding in a slow, considered stop/start basis using analysis of very small detail, rather than immersion and instinct applied to the whole?
It's not that I consider the latter impossible, it's just that I wonder if the DAW environment encourages the former.

[maxim]

i'm not certain about encouraging, but then, i'm not sure, how encouraging the console is either

i know for certain that it would take me a while before it became intuitive

as i said, after 10 years of daily daw use, i no longer think about it, and the right hemisphere kicks in straight away

the 'ghosts' between speakers materialise easily, and the control is fairly invisible

i do think it's all about the cerebellar feedback, like riding a bike

the only time when the stop/start feeling arises is when i'm comping, but there again, i'm sure it would be even worse with tape

also, i chose dp as my platform of choice, primarily, on the ease of use while mixing

i think it's VERY important to have your system set up well, so the issues like cpu overload don't arise

also, make sure all your submixes, auxilliaries, delays etc are set up before you start, so the right hemisphere is not distracted

[rankus]

maxim wrote on Fri, 23 December 2005 17:48

as i said, after 10 years of daily daw use, i no longer think about it, and the right hemisphere kicks in straight away the 'ghosts' between speakers materialise easily, and the control is fairly invisible the only time when the stop/start feeling arises is when i'm comping, but there again, i'm sure it would be even worse with tape

This has been my experience as well.  I took a ten year break between console and the DAW revolution.... But now after ten years on a DAW it seems pretty "natural" to me. There is very little thought between what I want to hear and the actions to get there...

[NoWo]

What he said. Although in my case it has just been five years.
On the other hand it is always a good idea to have a analog console in the CR. Switching and sending signals around is much easier with it. It looks more impressing when people are coming in, you have a place to lay your feet on (sometimes even your head) and what about all your pencils, papers, remote controls, favourite magazines, keyboards and mouse-pads? There is always some place left on a large-sized desk -:)))

Best wishes

[cerberus]

NoWo wrote on Fri, 03 February 2006 18:21

what about all your pencils, papers, remote controls, favourite magazines, keyboards and mouse-pads?

i think that's why the turntable is still here.

jeff dinces

[Pingu]

maxim wrote on Sat, 24 December 2005 09:48

i'm not certain about encouraging, but then, i'm not sure, how encouraging the console is either i know for certain that it would take me a while before it became intuitive as i said, after 10 years of daily daw use, i no longer think about it, and the right hemisphere kicks in straight away the 'ghosts' between speakers materialise easily, and the control is fairly invisible i do think it's all about the cerebellar feedback, like riding a bike the only time when the stop/start feeling arises is when i'm comping, but there again, i'm sure it would be even worse with tape also, i chose dp as my platform of choice, primarily, on the ease of use while mixing i think it's VERY important to have your system set up well, so the issues like cpu overload don't arise also, make sure all your submixes, auxilliaries, delays etc are set up before you start, so the right hemisphere is not distracted

Thats what i call mixing with your mind.

[maxim]

the penguin wrote:

"Thats what i call mixing with your mind."

right

a few of the concepts have come to me via the mind of mike stavrou (the 'ghosts', right/left workflow etc)

great stuff

[Daniel Asti]

Keyplayer wrote on Sat, 23 April 2005 16:04

Terry Manning [Whatever Works] requested this thread be a sticky Have fun.   F     ------------------------------------------------------------ ----     ------------------------------------------------------------ ---- With all the debate over the supeior ease of automation in the DAW vrs that of most mixing consoles, I was wondering if anybody was actually using their DAW like a tape deck/editor and mixing from their consoles to a mixdown deck or even back to a stereo or 6 stem tracks on their DAW? I'm pretty sure those of you with access to Neve's, API's, SSL's etc are doing just that. But for those running in the "Mid-Line" (I.E. DM2K, R-100, Soundcraft Ghost etc.) are you doing this or letting the DAW do all the work and having your desk just act as a router?

If I'm working at home it's TDM ITB with a Mackie HUI(which has good small environment controls for talkback and such). Perfect if you only have one separate room. Incredibly responsive interface too.

If I'm paying to mix in a professional studio, I almost always have to use their mixer. All the outboard gear (the stuff I'm actually paying for   ) is hooked to it.

They both sound as "good" or "bad" to me personally. One of my best friends does everything through his ssl. He truely believes that his particular board is magical and has a special sound. I think that you need some mojo like that to make good mixes. Making something amazing requires confidence in your equipment and abilities. You also need a lot of hard work. In my opinion the most important tools are your ears and the will to do something amazing.

[compasspnt]

Daniel Asti wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 15:42

He truly believes that his particular board is magical and has a special sound. I think that you need some mojo like that to make good mixes. Making something amazing requires confidence in your equipment and abilities. You also need a lot of hard work. In my opinion the most important tools are your ears and the will to do something amazing.

Good statement Daniel.

So much of doing something well is a positive attitude and confidence in yourself and your tools.

I agree in principle with your friend.  Our ssl is pretty magical on mixes, too.

[tris]

not sure what the actual question was but....
....A POINT ON BITRATE.....

multiply bitrate by 6 to determine possible dynamic range....

therefore a 16 bit file has a maximum dynamic range of 16x6=96db, so if you have -20db peak signal your maximum possible dynamic range is 76db...

24 bit file is therefore 24x6=144db....a peak level of -20 still leaves dynamic range of 124db so clearly an advantage.....and mastering engineers will love you for it...


not sure if the same apply's for 32 bit floating point files,
anybody know????????

hope that helps, got it out of bob katz mastering book...pretty cool,lots of handy tips....
by the way only found this forum cos im looking for any negative points about the apogee ad16x
1,...is it cool to use a normal firewire card..
2,...is it realy worth the cash, i already have the rme fireface?

[enginEAR]

Hello.

I am not quite sure if the desk i use (AMEK Classic w/24 Chn.) is in the 'mid-line', but since i have that one I mix as much as possible through the desk (with my tracks in PT [Mix

[yngve hoeyland]

We have a 9080J in the studio, and run PT/Logic as our DAW platforms using Apogee converters throughout.

I do a bit of everything, that is, mixing on the desk, mixing on the DAW (just monitoring though 2 strips on the desk, and every comination you'd think of in between those...) This is what I've found:

1. Summing
There definately is a difference to the sound of a DAW-summed mix (logic) and a mix summed on the 9J (A/B'd by just leaving strips at 0dB with no EQ/dynamics). How different the two extremes sound, not to mention what sounds best, is ofcourse a subjective matter. Personally I like the analog summing, it seems to define instruments and tracks a little more than summing digitally... moreover, possibly because of the bandwidth limitations on the desk channel strips, the highs seem less obtrusive - a little softer almost, without any dullness (strips specs 5-38000 Hz +- 0.1dB in the manuals BTW so it seems kind of weird).

2. Practical?
This I imagine is different for every studio, project, producer, writer etc. in the world. I prefer to do most of the mixing on the desk, sometimes summing BV's, arco sections, pads, horns and the likes together, sorted by voice, to save time-consuming knob-twiddling on the desk.) After setting up a good static mix, I'll do level rides on the desk. When I'm happy with those, I go back to the DAW to do detail automation, like taking out a pop or squeek from a chair etc, and also do any FX send level automation from the DAW (the SSL analogue desks only automate FX ons/offs not level changes so sometimes it's easier to route an FX send master directly from the DAW, then automate it on the desk faders using post sends on the strip).
A lot of things like sync delays and panning autos is just a pain outside the DAW because they take a lot of time to get right. Easier to do it in the box.

3. Why the desk?
Well, there's the analogue summing issue... which is a load of audiophile nonsense. The summing of a bunch of signals is minute compared to the "bigger" things in a mix, not to mention the actual music you're mixing in the first place which is what most people will listen to anyway).
For me (and again this is probably different for everyone) it all comes down to three things:
a) The hands-on approach. I like doing two or three things at once, say autoing levels on lead vocals and bv's simultaneously.

b) DAWs (even with controllers) don't give you instant access to any parameter on any channel at any time. On a big-ole analogue desk you can see what's happening if you hear something's off, and change it without fiddling your mouse to check out settings on all of your forty-odd plugins.

c) (the BIG one) I hate to see good engineers look at their mix more than they listen. What scientist told you that looking at waveforms and dotted automation lines is going to make your mix a grammy? Ten out of ten for overviews and faultfinding, but minus forty million for focus. It's a proven fact that our eyes override what we're hearing - it's the most dominant sense we have. What is more stupid than letting your eyes tell you what you're hearing? Ever noticed how you sometimes don't even notice when people are talking to you when you're watching TV? Exactly.

Thanks for the patience with reading this guys, sorry it turned out so long in the end. Morale of the day? Stop looking at what you're hearing.