R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => Fletcher => Topic started by: breathe on December 17, 2010, 12:40:11 am

Title: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: breathe on December 17, 2010, 12:40:11 am
My mixing system (PTHD3 Accel with Apogee AD/DA16-x's and Rosetta 800 mixed analog) going through my current setup of JH-416A, with API, Drawmer, Distressor, and Manley channel compressors, with the Thermionic Culture Culture Vulture Mastering Anniversary Edition on bass and guitar duties, mixed through a Dramastic Obsidian bus compressor into a Crane Song HEDD192, I feel like I can melt face.

Nicholas

Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: Bubba#$%Kron on December 17, 2010, 06:03:52 am
You are such a Rebel!!!! Wink
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: breathe on December 17, 2010, 10:13:19 am
BTW, I'm totally not outright dissing the concept of plug-ins.  In my latest project, even with the pretty excellent collection of analog compressors I own, there are some things I can do with the Waves RVox and Renaissance compressors that I can't do with my hardware.  Also, the McDSP Filterbank is really excellent in my opinion, and makes up for the extremely minimal EQ on my JH-416.  Also, the Cube-Tec Spectral DeHiss plug-in really is the most effective and transparent denoising technology I've ever used.  One technique I've discovered is that if I record a guitar direct, I can use Spectral DeHiss to take out the inherent buzz/hum picked up by the guitar's pickups, and reamp the signal, and it sounds really excellent and natural.  While reamping guitar, I've also discovered that the Thermionic Culture Culture Vulture patched into the signal before it goes out to the amp can seriously make up for some limitations in a guitar amp.  In my studio right now my artist friend and I are using a friend's Vox AC15 reissue that doesn't have great crunch, but the TCVC really takes care of that and gives the amp sound a lot of girth as well, even in a non-distorting setting.

Nicholas



Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: mixwell on December 17, 2010, 11:06:14 am
I don't think its a sham at all. Its just a tool towards a means to an end. I find it useful, personally. Like and Dislike? Different story. While I don't find it compares to using an analog console, or great analog summing, its a tool to call upon none the less.
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: Jim Williams on December 17, 2010, 11:23:46 am
The tools are not a sham, but most of the current results from using it are a shame.

I blame the messenger, not the message in this case. Just like parents are responsible for their spoiled bratty kids and their poor education results.

The tools don't make crappy sounding recordings, the operators do.
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: Ryan Slowey on December 17, 2010, 12:32:21 pm
Better call Tchad Blake and tell him he's doing it wrong.
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: bigbone on December 17, 2010, 12:44:30 pm
Ryan Slowey wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 12:32

Better call Tchad Blake and tell him he's doing it wrong.


Like he care what people think about him on the net..........


JN
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: marcel on December 17, 2010, 04:27:43 pm
Ryan Slowey wrote on Fri, 17 December 2010 09:32

Better call Tchad Blake and tell him he's doing it wrong.

Ross Hogarth would probably like to know, too...
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: Ryan Massey on December 19, 2010, 02:48:23 am
The OTB mix is just going to be ruined by DSD anyways.

Or IC's.

Or whatever gear is being shit on this week.  

Damnit man, just make some good music already and stop worrying about the gear!

Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: tom eaton on December 19, 2010, 10:27:48 am
I have to sympathize with Nicholas to some degree.  There is a tangible thing that is lost when you record... always has been, seems like it always will be so.  If your intention as a recording engineer is to preserve as much of that initial magic as possible, it does become frustrating to feel that you have to work after the fact to make things resemble the magic that you heard before it went onto the recording medium.  I feel it, too.

The degree to which this fact keeps you from getting on with your day... well...it seems to impact some of us more than others.

I've done a bunch of headphone free sessions (bass (upright and electric), drums and a singing guitarist all in the big room) and I have to say that the FUN the folks have playing that way DOES translate, even if the technical recording process removes some of the fairy dust.

One suggestion I have, for better or worse, is to ALWAYS monitor through your multi-track converters (as in, don't listen to your preamps directly).  Far less depressing!

tom

 
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: Nizzle on December 19, 2010, 12:10:26 pm
tom eaton wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 07:27



I've done a bunch of headphone free sessions (bass (upright and electric), drums and a singing guitarist all in the big room) and I have to say that the FUN the folks have playing that way DOES translate, even if the technical recording process removes some of the fairy dust.

tom

 



I was back in Boston(Sommerville) last week, finishing up a record and was able to put together 2 late night "headphone free" sessions. It was such a joy to setup in a room with fantastic musicians and be able to react/ listen to one another in a non-technically enhanced way. Most importantly, we played to the room as opposed to playing to an artificial dynamic, created by a skewed monitor mix. The fruits of those sessions are being released next week through the charity organization "Target Cancer"( http://righttracktunes.org/ ).

Oh yeah - We recorded it on to an old Ptools mix rig with 888's. The music and magic survived, just fine  Smile

-t



Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: tom eaton on December 19, 2010, 01:34:31 pm
Cool!

The point was... if you monitor the outputs of the preamps compared to the outputs of the d/a converters did you lose "something."  Not the feel of the players, or the vibe of the song... but still the answer always seems to be yes.

It's just a matter of accepting and getting beyond it (and then obsessing about it when the clients have gone home, secretly).

t
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: NelsonL on December 19, 2010, 02:27:21 pm
Ryan Massey wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 23:48

The OTB mix is just going to be ruined by DSD anyways.

Or IC's.

Or whatever gear is being shit on this week.  

Damnit man, just make some good music already and stop worrying about the gear!





Exactly.

(BTW, I was thinking of Sharkbite in reference to the patchbay labeling thread... never seen your method before, but it makes total sense.)

And to add to Tom's point, I think recording itself sets you up for disappointment--- that first impression of "THIS is the take!" never returns.
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: kats on December 19, 2010, 03:33:11 pm
Nizzle wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 11:10

tom eaton wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 07:27



I've done a bunch of headphone free sessions (bass (upright and electric), drums and a singing guitarist all in the big room) and I have to say that the FUN the folks have playing that way DOES translate, even if the technical recording process removes some of the fairy dust.

tom

 



I was back in Boston(Sommerville) last week, finishing up a record and was able to put together 2 late night "headphone free" sessions. It was such a joy to setup in a room with fantastic musicians and be able to react/ listen to one another in a non-technically enhanced way. Most importantly, we played to the room as opposed to playing to an artificial dynamic, created by a skewed monitor mix. The fruits of those sessions are being released next week through the charity organization "Target Cancer"( http://righttracktunes.org/ ).

Oh yeah - We recorded it on to an old Ptools mix rig with 888's. The music and magic survived, just fine  Smile

-t






I'm glad someone posted this. There's a certain threshold of decent sound that is important, but after that it is a bit over rated. The magic is in the performance, that is what we should be arguing for! That is (IMO) the thing we yearn for most but realize  the least.

I like the fancy gear just like everyone else,  but we should keep our perspective.
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: tom eaton on December 19, 2010, 04:19:08 pm
Tony,

Firstly, you never thanked me for naming your studio.  

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/337963/2571/?sr ch=empire#msg_337963

Secondly, weren't you just complaining about the "state of the art" in converters in another thread?  It's all part and parcel of the same thing... this IS a forum of engineers... we should be able to discuss both the general and the nuance of the process... what we want to hear as engineers can be different (and at times inconsequential) to what our clients need from us.  Most of us are in this biz because sound turns us on to some degree...when something sounds "right" or "real" (not necessarily the same thing at all) there's a satisfaction in the presentation...

I think we all understand that the presentation IS NOT the most important factor, but it is a part of the communicated art...and those of us who have decided to chase after this insane career tend to be inclined to seek something beyond "good enough."

t
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: Nizzle on December 19, 2010, 06:39:07 pm
tom eaton wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 13:19

Tony,

this IS a forum of engineers... we should be able to discuss both the general and the nuance of the process... what we want to hear as engineers can be different (and at times inconsequential) to what our clients need from us....

t


Surely, not just engineers.

There is no lack of discussion/ navel gazing/ obsessing about gear on this or any other forum here. I quite enjoy those discussions. It seems to me that a sentiment acknowledging the possibility that a constant focus on gear and the technology as it relates to capturing music can distract our attention from what, IMO, trumps all of that shit. Tom, your mentioning your "no headphones" sesh resonated with me which led me to recount a recent session WHICH THEN led another member of this forum to "re-focus" and possibly gain some perspective on what we're all really trying to do(I think). Capture magic. I know it sounds lofty, but I think that magic is why we're all here exchanging thoughts, observations, etc...

Just to be clear, Tom - I'm not in any way suggesting you aren't aware or don't agree with any of my observations. I just sensed a persnickety-ness to your response to Tony's observations that sometimes we can get caught up in the technology of it all...

That's all - Happy Holidays, all!

-t
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: tom eaton on December 19, 2010, 06:44:44 pm
Me? Persnickety?

Well, I never.

No, my comment to Tony was colored by his recent analog/digital thread in the Acid Test forum.  And I was hurt that he didn't send me flowers or anything for the studio name.  Or chocolates.  Or even a nice little card.

I don't expect much.  

As you were... I'll leave the ranting to Nicholas, before everyone thinks I'm as crazy as he admits to be.

t
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: Nizzle on December 19, 2010, 07:58:22 pm
tom eaton wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 15:44

Me? Persnickety?

Well, I never.

No, my comment to Tony was colored by his recent analog/digital thread in the Acid Test forum.  And I was hurt that he didn't send me flowers or anything for the studio name.  Or chocolates.  Or even a nice little card.

I don't expect much.  

As you were... I'll leave the ranting to Nicholas, before everyone thinks I'm as crazy as he admits to be.

t


Be well, Tom.
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: kats on December 19, 2010, 08:37:16 pm
tom eaton wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 15:19

Tony,

Firstly, you never thanked me for naming your studio.  

      http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/337963/2571/?sr ch=empire#msg_337963

Secondly, weren't you just complaining about the "state of the art" in converters in another thread?  It's all part and parcel of the same thing... this IS a forum of engineers... we should be able to discuss both the general and the nuance of the process... what we want to hear as engineers can be different (and at times inconsequential) to what our clients need from us.  Most of us are in this biz because sound turns us on to some degree...when something sounds "right" or "real" (not necessarily the same thing at all) there's a satisfaction in the presentation...

I think we all understand that the presentation IS NOT the most important factor, but it is a part of the communicated art...and those of us who have decided to chase after this insane career tend to be inclined to seek something beyond "good enough."

t


Hi Tom! Well wouldn't you know it, you did recommend the studio name and it goes without saying (and it went without saying) thank you!

And yes I totally agree with the rest of your post. I didn't mean to imply otherwise or that I was giving the world some new revelation, but I think this forum  is more encompassing than just a gear site and I was touching on a different aspect of it. <--- Which btw was an acknowledgement of the point you were making in yours. I fail to see any contradiction between what either of us is saying.


 
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: Fletcher on December 20, 2010, 06:33:22 am
The way I've always looked at my end of a session is to help "create" the best environment possible for the players - make them comfortable in the room, and hopefully that environment will inspire them to play what ever it is they're playing as well as they can possibly play it -- AND THEN to capture and present that performance [or performances] with the most faithful recreation of the artist's intention possible.

Some recordings want to be "Lo-Fi" - and they should be presented that way.  Other recordings want to be presented with the "highest" possible level of fidelity - in which case the tools shouldn't be the limiting [no pun intended] portion of the program.  

Yeah - we all know you can make a "great" record on a cassette 4 track - with a Tascam 3500 console - recorded to ADATs and mixed "in the box".  That's not the point.  The point is that some music lends itself to the highest levels of audio "integrity" -- and for that music you should be using and pushing the tools to the best of your ability to help the artist present the music in the manner most conducive to that artist's vision.

Nothing more, and hopefully - nothing less!!

Peace.
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: kats on December 20, 2010, 10:35:16 am
...IE to be a facilitator.

I totally agree. One thing we can probably agree on is that sound plays a large part  in fostering those "moments".


The dumb thing about all this philosophizing is that it really comes down to everything.
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: Tomas Danko on December 21, 2010, 11:21:02 am
tom eaton wrote on Sun, 19 December 2010 15:27

I have to sympathize with Nicholas to some degree.  There is a tangible thing that is lost when you record... always has been, seems like it always will be so.  If your intention as a recording engineer is to preserve as much of that initial magic as possible, it does become frustrating to feel that you have to work after the fact to make things resemble the magic that you heard before it went onto the recording medium.  I feel it, too.
 

Since most of us deal with hyper reality anyway, not realism, I tend to ignore hearing what the instrument really sounds like in the real room.

Instead, I listen to what the mic signal sounds like, and go from there in order to get the desired result.
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: Jim Williams on December 21, 2010, 11:28:10 am
Tomas Danko wrote on Tue, 21 December 2010 11:21

Since most of us deal with hyper reality anyway, not realism, I tend to ignore hearing what the instrument really sounds like in the real room.

Instead, I listen to what the mic signal sounds like, and go from there in order to get the desired result.


You can learn a lot by listening to the instrument in the room before you mic it up. Don't discount reality.
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: Fletcher on December 21, 2010, 11:53:11 am
What Jim said -- the idea [at least in my twisted mind] is that the player generally will have a better idea of what they want something to sound like than I will... so by listening to where they are, and then trying to "translate" that sound  / texture into the "recorded world" while listening to make somewhat sure that the new sound being added will "fit in" with / not detract from the entire presentation is my usual goal.

Nothing is "absolute" - but for me its definitely a "base line" starting point the great [vast] majority of the time.

As always, YMMV.

Peace.
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: Tomas Danko on December 21, 2010, 01:29:38 pm
Jim Williams wrote on Tue, 21 December 2010 16:28

Tomas Danko wrote on Tue, 21 December 2010 11:21

Since most of us deal with hyper reality anyway, not realism, I tend to ignore hearing what the instrument really sounds like in the real room.

Instead, I listen to what the mic signal sounds like, and go from there in order to get the desired result.


You can learn a lot by listening to the instrument in the room before you mic it up. Don't discount reality.

Perhaps I'm not expressing myself correctly, it often happens when a Swedish person tries to write in English.

Of course I listen to the sound in the room first, and also move whatever around to make it sound good acoustically (including microphones, musicians and what-have-you).
It's just that I don't use that aural experience as reference for the end result, since it always gets lost in translation anyway.

Instead, I consider the signal from the microphone when doing aesthetic decisions and so on.
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: Nick Sevilla on December 23, 2010, 02:13:39 am
breathe wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 21:40

My mixing system (PTHD3 Accel with Apogee AD/DA16-x's and Rosetta 800 mixed analog) going through my current setup of JH-416A, with API, Drawmer, Distressor, and Manley channel compressors, with the Thermionic Culture Culture Vulture Mastering Anniversary Edition on bass and guitar duties, mixed through a Dramastic Obsidian bus compressor into a Crane Song HEDD192, I feel like I can melt face.

Nicholas




ae;iubvpiz ;tugeint7G3R ;IEUG ;;ehirutv ;eoziuhxetv.kjbdnxd;ritvnhz;hn;iuhyrtbvs;iu
.
.
.
aweiuygtbV :IUWgrviugz'/ljbwvet.

I think I make more sense.

Now namesake.

Please.

SHOW ME THE MUSIC.

Merry Christmas
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: Tomas Danko on December 23, 2010, 07:21:31 am
Nick Sevilla wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 07:13

breathe wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 21:40

My mixing system (PTHD3 Accel with Apogee AD/DA16-x's and Rosetta 800 mixed analog) going through my current setup of JH-416A, with API, Drawmer, Distressor, and Manley channel compressors, with the Thermionic Culture Culture Vulture Mastering Anniversary Edition on bass and guitar duties, mixed through a Dramastic Obsidian bus compressor into a Crane Song HEDD192, I feel like I can melt face.

Nicholas


ae;iubvpiz ;tugeint7G3R ;IEUG ;;ehirutv ;eoziuhxetv.kjbdnxd;ritvnhz;hn;iuhyrtbvs;iu
.
.
.
aweiuygtbV :IUWgrviugz'/ljbwvet.

I think I make more sense.



Yeah, sure.

But can you melt face?
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: Nick Sevilla on December 26, 2010, 02:48:22 pm
Tomas Danko wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 04:21

Nick Sevilla wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 07:13

breathe wrote on Thu, 16 December 2010 21:40

My mixing system (PTHD3 Accel with Apogee AD/DA16-x's and Rosetta 800 mixed analog) going through my current setup of JH-416A, with API, Drawmer, Distressor, and Manley channel compressors, with the Thermionic Culture Culture Vulture Mastering Anniversary Edition on bass and guitar duties, mixed through a Dramastic Obsidian bus compressor into a Crane Song HEDD192, I feel like I can melt face.

Nicholas


ae;iubvpiz ;tugeint7G3R ;IEUG ;;ehirutv ;eoziuhxetv.kjbdnxd;ritvnhz;hn;iuhyrtbvs;iu
.
.
.
aweiuygtbV :IUWgrviugz'/ljbwvet.

I think I make more sense.



Yeah, sure.

But can you melt face?


You could ask my clients, except they would not be able to respond, due to their mouth being welded shut from my MELTING THEIR FACE!!!

lol
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: MagnetoSound on January 03, 2011, 03:23:04 pm


Enjoying this thread enormously!




(Especially this bit)


kats wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 15:35

The dumb thing about all this philosophizing is that it really comes down to everything.


Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: Chromatic Paste on January 04, 2011, 12:50:55 am
Here is an interesting article about Spike Stent now mixing "in the box" from Sound on Sound:

"Another development in part furthered by Stent’s move to the US was that he had to change his working methods to suit today’s technology, music, working methods and budgets. After 25 years of swearing by mixing on an SSL, Stent decided to adapt to the current in-the-box method. He is coy when prompted for specifics, but does explain “I mix most urban and pop records in the box now, while rock and acoustic records are usually done via the G-series desk. I like the way that the guitars and real drums are affected by the sound of the desk, and while I’ve been doing a combination of mixing in and out of the box for the last six years, last summer when coming back to England after mixing the Muse album, my assistant, Matty Green, and I had some time on our hands and really got the microscope out to make sure we could get that same sound in the box as from the desk. I had some time on my hands to experiment and really managed to dial that in.”

“Moving to mixing in the box wasn’t a watershed moment, more of a natural progression. Computer processing has become more powerful, and plug-ins are so much better than they were. I normally use shitloads of Waves plug-ins, the E-Channel SSL bundle, I like the Chris Lord-Alge plug-ins, the Waves PuigChild, I use the R-Bass a lot, [Metric Halo] Channel Strip is an old favourite, for delays I use [Sound Toys] Echoboy a lot, and for colouring things I think the [Tech 21] Sansamp is great. I also like some of the Pro Tools 8 plug-ins, even though I’m still using 7.4 — I’m waiting until 8 stabilises. I learned very early on that not jumping straight in with new software was the best strategy. In addition, producers, record companies, and artists are used now to the fact that they can call you, even two months after your mix, and request a change, and you just bring up the Session and five or 10 minutes later the change is made. So mixing in the box is about time and being flexible, and of course it also saves on the budget.”

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb10/articles/it_0210.htm
Title: Re: This whole "ITB" digital mixing thing is a sham.
Post by: Fig on January 04, 2011, 11:49:03 am
MagnetoSound wrote on Mon, 03 January 2011 14:23



Enjoying this thread enormously!

(Especially this bit)

kats wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 15:35

The dumb thing about all this philosophizing is that it really comes down to everything.





+1 and QFE.

Kats' statement is likely the truest thing on the internet to date.