|
|
Post by thehightenor on Mar 27, 2024 15:28:27 GMT -6
2 to 4, usually just mix bus but occasionally it's 2 busses with separate processing and passive summing before a final process. An increasing number of mixes are 'none'. Is this driven partly by the fact you do this commercially and therefore as time is money you're always considering the convenience of easy recall? |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Mar 27, 2024 20:29:20 GMT -6
I route from daw to console (and back) via hardware insert, so typically I’m using a bunch. just using the humble avid io, 32x32, but the stereo mix is printed thru a RND converter I'm swaying between a Lynx Aurora N 16x16 or a Ferrofish A32 Pro 32x32. The Ferrofish is about half the the price and twice the number of I/O so I can use half (16) for my inserts and some for my cue mixes etc. I've noticed on this thread, people are using 16+ I/O but aren't obsessing about using super high end converters. I have my HEDD 192 for tracking and my stereo hardware chain and an Avocet for monitoring duties, so I'm thinking the Ferrofish A32 Pro will do just nicely for Cubase inserts. Yes it only has 114dB DR compared to the Lynx's impressive 120dB DR but as I'm inserting mostly tube gear and vintage style solid state gear then the noise floor hard deck is coming from the inserted hardware not the converters. I also have a Burl Mothership 32x32, but there are some workflow issues with hardware inserts using that, so I swapped it for my less-sexy-but-more-functional Avids, and my recordings didn't get any worse. 🤷🏻♀️ |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Mar 27, 2024 22:00:14 GMT -6
Zero. I don't have the good channels to do any now. Even if I did, it is pointless given how many recalls there are from remote gigs. I can do a simple recall of a 5 minute song in 15 mins. Why add more time? The sound isn't better now that there are extremely cool two bus compressors itb like Molot GE, Vulf Comp, and MDWDRC2. I was throwing everything at the wall itb and saving money up for something hopefully more consistent than a Drawmer 1968 before Molot GE came out but now I can just set it to do what I want.
|
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Mar 28, 2024 0:18:24 GMT -6
I’m between 32 and 64. But bread and butter tracks for using outboard in the mix are: master buss, drum buss, kick, snare, bass, lead vocal, horns, bg vocals and usually guitar as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Mar 28, 2024 1:51:41 GMT -6
I’m between 32 and 64. But bread and butter tracks for using outboard in the mix are: master buss, drum buss, kick, snare, bass, lead vocal, horns, bg vocals and usually guitar as well. Wow - that’s impressive - a big sound I imagine. Two questions. Which converters do you use to handle so much I/O? What is your strategy for recalling the hardware? Thanks THT |
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Mar 28, 2024 8:05:16 GMT -6
I’m between 32 and 64. But bread and butter tracks for using outboard in the mix are: master buss, drum buss, kick, snare, bass, lead vocal, horns, bg vocals and usually guitar as well. Wow - that’s impressive - a big sound I imagine. Two questions. Which converters do you use to handle so much I/O? What is your strategy for recalling the hardware? Thanks THT is the way to go for recall. You put pictures right in the DAW. And, it's free. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdeye on Mar 28, 2024 8:16:11 GMT -6
I'm moving back to Hybrid Mixing for my new album. I already use a stereo mix bus chain (so I guess that counts as I'm currently using 2 channels) - but I'm going to start using Cubase channel inserts to send to my hardware racks. I was reading about the last Neil Finn album and the producer said they only went out of Pro Tools for Neil's lead vocal and the bass. Everything else was ITB! So, I'm a little worried about the amount of recall need and so I'm thinking of striking a balanced approach and coming out for Lead vox Bass snare kick lead (guitar or synth) drum bus So about 8 channels. But then if I add a Wes Audio Titian 500 sereis it has full digital recall and so I could add anouther 10 channels without the worry of recall. So - what's your approach and how many channels do you face recalling for a mix and are you using high end ADA's like Lynx Aurora N? PS I added 64+ to the poll to cover Dr Bill  We have 64 hardware inserts with dedicated i/o plus 32 dedicated outputs going to our SSL Sigma for summing (plus 40 dedicated inputs for mic preamps). I take pictures of all the hardware inserts and recall "old school", turning knobs. The SSL Sigma recalls all of its settings. I'll print some of the hardware inserts, usually guitar pedal stuff and specific effects. The other inserts I just recall manually. If I'm mixing say a 10 song project that I tracked, most of my hardware will not change settings, so that makes things easier. Even with all the hardware inserts, my recall is about 5 minutes I'd say. Worth it in my opinion. I would say if you're thinking of doing about 8 channels, I would probably just print all the hardware. Take pictures of the settings before you print in case you have to go back and change something. |
|
|
|
Post by jaba on Mar 28, 2024 8:38:12 GMT -6
I run two or three channels through hardware when setting up most mixes, then render those to new files.
Takes no time really and the ear break does more good than harm.
After that, I'm mixing through hardware comp and EQ on the 2-buss.
I have a few empty slots in my 500 rack so am feeling out how I'd like to fill it. I do admit I could live with plugs alone but having used both for many years, I find there's something special about some nice hardware. Maybe it's a combo of committing early, their quirks adding something unique or just sounding damn good. Whatever it is, I'm in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadowk on Mar 28, 2024 9:10:26 GMT -6
So, I'm a little worried about the amount of recall need and so I'm thinking of striking a balanced approach and coming out for. That's the beauty of hybrid though, you can take out whatever pain points you wish. Besides the master bus which has a Pultec style (Gainlabs) all of my EQ is for tracking, I'm not trying to reach an end goal from the beginning as I just use it to correct obvious issues or add in what I'd always do at the mix stage anyway (like a bit of air and an LMF cut or something). EQ in general I tend to leave ITB and I don't want to spend time setting up 32 channels of that every time I switch mixes. This is the reason I've avoided a console (despite the whole acoustics portion of it). It's not like I wouldn't mind one but I always struggle to justify it again..
Compression is something that I mainly set and forget, the instruments I use are generally the same. The way I sing is mostly the same and I take the CLA approach with it even if it's a bit more tightly controlled due to not having many other variables to deal with. As a self recorder only Tenor the "rules" are slightly different, trying to do a "static" approach isn't cheap but I don't want to deal with repatching or printing either. Every channel has its use and it never really changes.. |
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Mar 28, 2024 10:00:38 GMT -6
So many great suggestions and ideas - I incredibly grateful to everyone for sharing their workflow and methods.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicksteinborn on Mar 28, 2024 10:50:26 GMT -6
Last few projects have just been through the Silverbullet/Audioscape Buss on the mix bus, but I have 24 channels available(32 if I actually hook up my ADAT, but using it as AD line inputs disables the pres and it's also just a lowly Presonus box). My rack has just been half set up between switching desks and a few piece out. The most I've run is probably 16 or so. If I do go nuts with a lot, I'll probably try to print as much as I can to make recall easier later. I have a bad habit of doing a lot of processing on group channels so I think I need to ease up on that if I want to use more outboard to leave the printing option more available. Or I could be a big boy and be better about taking down my settings and do proper recalls.
|
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Mar 28, 2024 10:51:59 GMT -6
I’m between 32 and 64. But bread and butter tracks for using outboard in the mix are: master buss, drum buss, kick, snare, bass, lead vocal, horns, bg vocals and usually guitar as well. Wow - that’s impressive - a big sound I imagine. Two questions. Which converters do you use to handle so much I/O? What is your strategy for recalling the hardware? Thanks THT my system is a Universal Audio Apollo system with an Apollo eight, two Apollo 16s, and an Apollo X4 on my desktop. I have several high-end converters connected to the digital I/O on the Apollos. For anything less than two channels, conversion is Burl, Lynx Hilo, or Svartbox. A second Lynx Hilo is always on the Master buss. For everything else, I use the conversion on the two Apollo 16’s. I make hardware decisions about what sounds and feels good to me, and then I print that back into my session alongside the original tracks. If I ever need to recall a mix, the hardware is already printed into my session. In rare circumstances, I can always take the original tracks and re-run them through outboard if something isn’t working in the mix. My master buss settings almost never change so if I ever need to recall, then it’s a non-issue. In rare circumstances, I might throw an extra piece of gear on the master buss, and when I do that, I will be careful to note the settings. |
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Mar 28, 2024 11:19:53 GMT -6
Me too. Until mid-May. Not sure about making it to 120. Like Dr. Bill though.  Chris |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Mar 28, 2024 11:33:47 GMT -6
Wow - that’s impressive - a big sound I imagine. Two questions. Which converters do you use to handle so much I/O? What is your strategy for recalling the hardware? Thanks THT my system is a Universal Audio Apollo system with an Apollo eight, two Apollo 16s, and an Apollo X4 on my desktop. I have several high-end converters connected to the digital I/O on the Apollos. For anything less than two channels, conversion is Burl, Lynx Hilo, or Svartbox. A second Lynx Hilo is always on the Master buss. For everything else, I use the conversion on the two Apollo 16’s. I make hardware decisions about what sounds and feels good to me, and then I print that back into my session alongside the original tracks. If I ever need to recall a mix, the hardware is already printed into my session. In rare circumstances, I can always take the original tracks and re-run them through outboard if something isn’t working in the mix. My master buss settings almost never change so if I ever need to recall, then it’s a non-issue. In rare circumstances, I might throw an extra piece of gear on the master buss, and when I do that, I will be careful to note the settings. I have a pair of x16s and when the new Apollos come out (but also not until Luna gets HW inserts) I'll get a third 16 channel Apollo for a total of 48 channels of HW inserts. That's as far I ever intend to take it though. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 28, 2024 11:50:28 GMT -6
That's as far I ever intend to take it though. . I said that once...... LOL |
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Mar 28, 2024 15:38:46 GMT -6
That's as far I ever intend to take it though. . I said that once...... LOL hah! Me too… whew 😥 |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Mar 28, 2024 21:12:10 GMT -6
2 to 4, usually just mix bus but occasionally it's 2 busses with separate processing and passive summing before a final process. An increasing number of mixes are 'none'. Is this driven partly by the fact you do this commercially and therefore as time is money you're always considering the convenience of easy recall? For sure. Time is the clients money that they don't have! Remixes are endless sometimes, over nitpicky nothings. If I have a bunch. of analog channel processing it's printed back so I don't have to touch it again. |
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Apr 14, 2024 7:57:50 GMT -6
Well after a great deal of research and thinking.
I've decided to push on with tracking with hardware, mixing ITB for channels and having hardware on my stereo mix bus.
Two channel hybrid I guess you might call it.
I don't have the spare time to do recalls of channel hardware but most importantly the top 5 mix engineers I like the most
(who I would be thrilled to have mix my music) have now all moved to mixing ITB - some even without any hardware on the stereo bus!
My plugin collection gives me a far greater choice of channel EQ and compression than I have in my racks.
I will admit I think hardware does sound a bit better to my ears - but there's not as much in it as there used to be
and the variety, speed and workflow is just so appealing I'm sticking with my current set-up.
It's clearly the direction of travel.
|
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Apr 14, 2024 18:38:39 GMT -6
I did a little experiment with this fan-made instrumental of Invaders by Iron Maiden that I recorded some vocals over years ago. One instrumental file had the Shadow Hills Green plugin and one the hardware. Opto and Discrete both on. Vocals just had the plugin on the mono tracks. Then I ran the hybrid mix and the ITB mix through the same hybrid master chain. What I found was that I could get a better balanced mix ITB and also compensate for the loss of the SH hardware on the instrumental track at the mastering stage. It sounded like the hardware was bringing a lot more transient energy than the plugin. Much more lively. Reminded me of what happens when you turn the input up on the SPL PQ plugin. And turning the PQ input up more on the ITB mix definitely allowed me to get that missing mojo back. But I did have to make a few different decisions in regard to balancing with the hybrid mix, so it wasn't a case of replacing the plugin with the hardware and using the same settings. What I'm finding is that the plugins generally preserve the signature character of what they're emulating. They're just tossing out a lot of the mojo. And I do find it significantly more challenging to blend hardware with plugins inside a mix.
If I ever got the chance to use a setup like Bill's, I imagine it would be a radically different experience and I'd have to learn what works and what doesn't. So, my approach at the moment is to observe what plugins and hardware bring to the table and find ways to make them compliment each other. It'd be interesting to really see what things cannot be compensated for.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Apr 15, 2024 0:36:19 GMT -6
I did a little experiment with this fan-made instrumental of Invaders by Iron Maiden that I recorded some vocals over years ago. One instrumental file had the Shadow Hills Green plugin and one the hardware. Opto and Discrete both on. Vocals just had the plugin on the mono tracks. Then I ran the hybrid mix and the ITB mix through the same hybrid master chain. What I found was that I could get a better balanced mix ITB and also compensate for the loss of the SH hardware on the instrumental track at the mastering stage. It sounded like the hardware was bringing a lot more transient energy than the plugin. Much more lively. Reminded me of what happens when you turn the input up on the SPL PQ plugin. And turning the PQ input up more on the ITB mix definitely allowed me to get that missing mojo back. But I did have to make a few different decisions in regard to balancing with the hybrid mix, so it wasn't a case of replacing the plugin with the hardware and using the same settings. What I'm finding is that the plugins generally preserve the signature character of what they're emulating. They're just tossing out a lot of the mojo. And I do find it significantly more challenging to blend hardware with plugins inside a mix. If I ever got the chance to use a setup like Bill's, I imagine it would be a radically different experience and I'd have to learn what works and what doesn't. So, my approach at the moment is to observe what plugins and hardware bring to the table and find ways to make them compliment each other. It'd be interesting to really see what things cannot be compensated for. Yep, that sums up my findings too. I’m getting lot’s of mojo at the tracking phase as I’m mostly using tube gear with xformer i/o and tube gear on my stereo mix bus. I think this is making a lot of difference and means I’m getting a lot of action out of my plug-ins. The recent batch of plug-ins from UAD are so good I even feel there actually not too short on ITB mojo. The justification for multichannel hybrid mixing is shrinking seemingly month on month never mind year on year. ITB mixing is without any doubt the direction of travel. I’m a huge fan of JJ Blair - I have heaps of respect for him - he’s a very clever engineer and producer and I’ve discovered he’s working with the exact same method as me. Tracking with hardware - mixing ITB with UAD plug-ins and some hardware on the stereo mix bus. His productions sound fantastic! That said, three of my favourite artists Sting, Dave Gilmour and Peter Gabriel have million dollar home studio's (so to speak) and their own engineers and assistant engineers and they're making albums mixed on traditional large format consoles and huge racks of outboard. And if I had that kind of set-up it might be a different story |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Apr 15, 2024 9:41:31 GMT -6
If I ever got the chance to use a setup like Bill's, I imagine it would be a radically different experience and I'd have to learn what works and what doesn't. Could be. . All I know is that for me, there is no abandoning a true hybrid setup. There is MUCH more to mixing than just "sound" and sonics. |
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Apr 15, 2024 18:50:14 GMT -6
If I ever got the chance to use a setup like Bill's, I imagine it would be a radically different experience and I'd have to learn what works and what doesn't. Could be. . All I know is that for me, there is no abandoning a true hybrid setup. There is MUCH more to mixing than just "sound" and sonics. Are you still using a lot of plugins? What's interesting is how hardware increases the dynamic range. The mix with the hardware-treated file was DR13 and the pure ITB mix was DR12. An experienced mastering guy once told me that the ITB mixes he received didn't really have much in the way of dynamics compared to hybrid or pure analog mixes he mastered. There was a few things I had to change up just adding these Shadow Hills plugins. The other thing with hybrid is that you have to be able to play the mix all the way through without the cpu running out of processing. So, I'm guessing most hybrid mixes are using something like AAX DSP or really efficient native stuff. If I recall, you've got a really great Pro Tools HD setup. A lot of times when I'm loading up instances of Satin, I'll be lucky if I can get five seconds of playback lol |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Apr 15, 2024 19:35:33 GMT -6
Could be. . All I know is that for me, there is no abandoning a true hybrid setup. There is MUCH more to mixing than just "sound" and sonics. Are you still using a lot of plugins? What's interesting is how hardware increases the dynamic range. The mix with the hardware-treated file was DR13 and the pure ITB mix was DR12. An experienced mastering guy once told me that the ITB mixes he received didn't really have much in the way of dynamics compared to hybrid or pure analog mixes he mastered. There was a few things I had to change up just adding these Shadow Hills plugins. The other thing with hybrid is that you have to be able to play the mix all the way through without the cpu running out of processing. So, I'm guessing most hybrid mixes are using something like AAX DSP or really efficient native stuff. If I recall, you've got a really great Pro Tools HD setup. A lot of times when I'm loading up instances of Satin, I'll be lucky if I can get five seconds of playback lol Not really. I wouldn't call it "a lot". I certainly have plugs on every session though. Lots of trim plugins of course, a good amount of Chop Shop filter plugins as I don't have a ton of filter hardware units, most of my delays are plugins, and some reverb plugs. I'll use some EQ's to "add to or subtract from" the hardware EQ's. Most comps are hardware unless I run out. . As you mentioned, I"m running HDX, but most all of my plugins are native - not AAXDSP. Never have a problem with my upgraded 2010 Mac cheese grater, although it's due for an upgrade this year. |
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Apr 15, 2024 23:43:03 GMT -6
Kudos to all of you "fighting the good (sonic) fight" Although I don't doubt a great AE can dependably make a great "Plug" record totally ITB... Hardware great(er) still.  Fun to "window shop" read too. Chris |
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Apr 16, 2024 1:11:56 GMT -6
Could be. . All I know is that for me, there is no abandoning a true hybrid setup. There is MUCH more to mixing than just "sound" and sonics. Are you still using a lot of plugins? What's interesting is how hardware increases the dynamic range. The mix with the hardware-treated file was DR13 and the pure ITB mix was DR12. An experienced mastering guy once told me that the ITB mixes he received didn't really have much in the way of dynamics compared to hybrid or pure analog mixes he mastered. There was a few things I had to change up just adding these Shadow Hills plugins. The other thing with hybrid is that you have to be able to play the mix all the way through without the cpu running out of processing. So, I'm guessing most hybrid mixes are using something like AAX DSP or really efficient native stuff. If I recall, you've got a really great Pro Tools HD setup. A lot of times when I'm loading up instances of Satin, I'll be lucky if I can get five seconds of playback lol I think it’s in the hands of the mixer. As I said the mix engineers I admire have nearly all gone ITB and if I’m honest they’re mixes sound as dynamic as ever. For me yes, I find hardware easier to get great sounds, but my ITB mixes continue to improve. I’m the limitation in this scenario, not the gear. If Tchad Blake can make the mixes he makes ITB then I can’t blame my plug-ins - as ever it all comes down to skill. I actively want to stop using my racks of hardware when I’m mixing, I can see the direction of travel and the time to learn how to make this all work is now. I’ve always had a somewhat Luddite approach to my music making and I’m trying to make an effort to get into the fold of where things are travelling and update my skill set accordingly. At least that how I feel about it all. I’m still tracking with heaps of hardware and I will still continue to mix through my hardware on the stereo bus - I’m just trying to update my approach to channel mixing and get it up to par ITB. The flexibility and sonic variations are considerable advantages in my situation. It may be, I fail and return to hardware on my channels but I’m going to see if I can rise to the challenge and make it work as I do think the advantages are so considerable in terms of workflow, sonic variety, creativity and time saving. |
|
