HW vs. SW for Mixing discussion

Essentially yes.  But it does get more convoluted than just that.  I have enough gear to pretty much get what I want, and it not, I'll use a combo of hardware and plugins.  All tracks in my sessions are in "input" until finalized.  Where it gets tricky is stepping rearwards from the end product to :


- Final Mix (at unity); to
- Stems (at unity); to
- Printed contiguous "Final" tracks all at unity with printed automation and hardware; to
- Automated "Mix" tracks with non-printed (software) automation, inserts, FX, EQ, etc.; to
- Pre automated mix, midi & VI tracks (if used);

Once my mix is "finished", Ill print the printed final tracks, stems, and final mix all in one pass.  For a recall :

So a simple automation recall may only require me to go back one step, two steps or all the way 5 steps back.  If a tweak on the stems won't get it, I can go back to my printed (post FX/Automation/etc) tracks.  If it's a massive change that requires completely doing something radically different, then I go back to my automated mix tracks.  If it's something like a re-write and remix, then I can go back all the way to Midi and VI tracks if used, or call back musicians.

Where PTHDX rules in this scenario is it's incredibly robust.  It's quite elegant once laid out, but requires a TON of DSP mixing power.  This is why I need multiple hundreds of internal busses....

All of those busses have to eventually stack up on latency, no? A buss into a buss into a buss into a buss....

All of those busses have to eventually stack up on latency, no? A buss into a buss into a buss into a buss....

I never think about it.  I just hit "delay compensation" and move on.  It figures out if I have an insert on a path, native plugin, DSP plugin, whatever convoluted path I might have to come up with to get the job done.  I have not seen anything else that gives me that kind of power and reliability.  I will admit to pushing my DAW to the edge.

For me it's pretty simple.  But to write it all out would kind of take a small book.  I've got it dialed in after years of experimentation though.  Recall for me is virtually as fast as an ITB recall.

Every few years, I do the ITB to mixer comparison test, just to do it, and see where things have come.

I usually use simple Americana rock tracks, (mostly what I do) that are 24 tracks or less.
My guidelines are simply that I will use the exact same gear as inserts, on both the ITB box mix, and the Console mix!

If I don't have the same plugs, as my outboard, or vice a versa, then I don't use them.
This way a direct (or close to it) comparison can be made.

As I said, these are very straight ahead mixes, with not a lot of junk on them.


I start with the ITB box mix, and I usually spend a day on it, and return to it in the morning, to make sure it's as good as I want it.
And to be honest, I'm usually very happy with the results.

Once that's done,
I'll start from scratch, buss everything out to the console (or my summing setup, which I've done both) insert the outboard as it was on the ITB mix,
set all gear as it was in the other mix, and go....

Once again, no rush, I mix for a day, take my time, and return to it to print the next morning.
I print it, and then do the comparisons.

As good as I thought the ITB mix sounded, once played against the Console version, there is NO COMPARISON!
It's inevitable that the Console version, not only sounds bigger, wider, and just plain better, it also FEELS better!
I think it's more visceral, emotional, makes ya wanna move, tap your feet, etc...

At least this is my findings, and I've done this almost every year for about 8 years now.

I use a D-Control control surface with Pro Tools HDX and I don't notice any delay when writing automation/doing fader rides. I haven't thought about how that's compensated for, it just always worked so I never really noticed. Hopefully someone here can explain...I'm curious now haha.

Well it's probably not usually much of an issue, but DrBill said he had over 700 busses, so the thought had occurred to me that that amount of routing might actually create a noticeable latency offset for things like automation. So it made me curious how he was dealing with that.

I get that it all gets delay compensated, and is still lined up with itself, but delay is still delay. So, for example, do you ever find that, when you're doing something like automation fader rides, that there is a discernible difference between what you're hearing and where the automation move actually is recorded on the timeline?

Just as a theoretical question...In your opinions, can software "achieve the same results as HW - it just might take longer and more effort?" Or is it intrinsically inferior and the same results can't be achieved?

I'm still a HW sounds better kinda guy, e.g. - While interface pres and software emus come close, I still prefer the HW pres. The complicating factor is the stacking of tracks. The modeled pres can sound really good, but I do think there are differences especially when you're stacking. But I guess that's not really sticking to my mixing question and more about tracking.

Comps/EQ - there's still a more demonstrative attack with HW comps. Or at least that's what I think the issue is. But I have a much, much harder time telling a difference between HW and SW EQs. I have had the experience that HW EQ's sound more natural in the top end - like you can go to more extremes without it getting weird. Is that a Samplerate thing? Aliasing? IDK.




It just occurred to me: Good is good. If a SW mix sounds inferior, why can't you just mix it until it doesn't sound inferior? They're supposedly the same tools, right?
Here's an analogy (probably a convoluted one) I know when I first started using Luna, I was using the Neve "summing" and I felt like Luna might sound a little better than other daws. Once I heard that, I was able to work that into Pro Tools with a little more push with Slate VCC or Noise Ash N-Console. HW can be similar - sometimes you put something in the chain and it "just works." What I've found is that I can get plugins to be very similar...the advantage to HW being, I didn't have to futz with it as much. That's awesome - but brings me back to my original question: Can the same results be achieved? It makes me wonder about the most important thing in our whole chain - monitoring. If you can hear everything, why can't you mold it into the same result?

Like - instead of hardware, why not invest in high end monitoring and DA instead of HW comps and EQs? I don't know the answer - just asking opinions.