|
Post by mrholmes on Jan 4, 2016 14:54:13 GMT -6
For the record, ha, I never said analog mixing would result in a better end result. I was explaining that what he's hearing is what I've heard in countless home studios for the last 20 years during the rise of the DAW.....the easiest way to explain is that if you're mixing, at the two hour mark the analog is better....the longer you spend (assuming you're diligently chipping away the stone and not haphazardly spinning knobs looking for the "better" knob)--the digital will improve, where the analog won't improve much. So, if you're a musician wanting to record and make a decent mix quickly--yes, that A&H mixer will do "better" contextually due to the knowledge and time component. Actually, it will do BETTER than nicer desks with bigger power rails--as part of what makes it "gel better" is the sort of dropping and smearing of "non musical" transients. I have worked hard to get happy with the software systems that the market has chosen. They are, IMO/E inferior to hardware digital in many cases....inferior to analog in other cases....purpose built gear is simply better. BUT...that doesn't mean that I can't turn out the best recordings of my life 100% in software now for the first time ever. Now, I know that OP is looking fo secrets....and I've been completely open here about things as I've found them on the journey--from gain staging in software to absolute phase to cutting low frequencies from the difference (or "side") component on busses and how the LCR movement has resurged in software DUE to the insufficiencies of the summing of floating point software....or getting the actual creative sound sculpting on the way in....or reaching for saturation plug ins before EQ and compression to manage non musical transients....there are a lot of pieces. If there was a single "put this plug in on it and it will sound just like analog summing"....we'd all own that, but there isn't (IME). The flaws, or objectively I suppose "difference" is too fundamental. But, you have to adjust if you want to do it. If you don't--then, I still say just mix on the little A&H. If that makes your ears happy--that is what you should do. Someone should have taught me this before I bought Logic and got more and more nervous for about 6 years beofre I bought this crap console. But you sum it up in a nice way I get nervous learning 100 techniques before my ITB sounds like on the console. Jim Williams was right to check again with summing before I ditch the desk. @svard Yes you talked about the small delay thing in a diffrent topic as well. But would that not mean a washed out image? The oposite is the case to my ears. The image is stable, the transients are nice to listen to, the reverbs sit strong - they are not hyped like pure ITB. Everything seems to be more under control. drbillThe idea of the Silverbullet is intresting. How does it sound as a mic pre? Neveish? I love my 1073 and I wont need 4 Nevesih ones becasue I overdub 90% of the time.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jan 4, 2016 15:46:24 GMT -6
Well, Logic of course is necessary regardless. The little mixer is what 12 channels? I would NEVER suggest someone use a hardware HDR with 24 tracks feeding a 24 track desk....I mean, if you own it and love it, keep doing what you're doing, but buying that kind of antique today? No--you're not taking advantage of the many advantages of a DAW.
But, the recommendation isn't JUST because of the summing....most musicians I know can't afford Neve preamps. They use what's around that powers their mics. And small analog mixer tend to have better preamps than small digital interfaces, IME. Plus, analog cue. Plus, monitor volume control management. Plus for many working at single sample rates, the high frequency EQ shelves work properly. They often own/need the little mixer for gigs anyway....so, it's a total package of "value" to them. Plus--they just seem to "get it" easier....which in the end, if they're doing the work, that's pretty valuable, IMO.
I've lamented more than once the LACK of little "home studio quality" analog mixers....and those Zed things being limited to 48khz on the digital side. A Mackie 1640i, while not the bestest sounding of them all, is the functional model, IMO--24/96 16x16 with one cable. If someone did that NOW....that we have a class compliancy for USB audio....thus no need for a driver, which is where Mackie has had trouble....that would be a big win, I think.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 4, 2016 15:53:39 GMT -6
mrholmes Avatar Jan 4, 2016 13:54:13 GMT -7 mrholmes said: drbill The idea of the Silverbullet is intresting. How does it sound as a mic pre? Neveish? I love my 1073 and I wont need 4 Nevesih ones becasue I overdub 90% of the time.
The pre's can be API-ish, or Neve-ish, or a cascaded combo of Neve>API or API>Neve - something unlike anything else out there. Read some of the comments on the First Impressions link I sent you.
Also, check out the manual further. In a vintage API or Neve room - your signal goes thru EXPONENTIALLY more op amps and transformers than just cutting with Neve/API mic preamps and then mixing thru a summing box - even if it's a Neve summer. Old school recording techniques utilize a LOT of opamp and transformer stages. This generally is not the case with modern DAW production - even if the user has great API and/or Neve style preamps. This is why the Silver Bullet's operational techniques and workflow can really bring a discrete console sound like the vintage API's or 80 series Neve's back into a ITB/Hybrid mix.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jan 4, 2016 18:04:29 GMT -6
Well, Logic of course is necessary regardless. The little mixer is what 12 channels? I would NEVER suggest someone use a hardware HDR with 24 tracks feeding a 24 track desk....I mean, if you own it and love it, keep doing what you're doing, but buying that kind of antique today? No--you're not taking advantage of the many advantages of a DAW. But, the recommendation isn't JUST because of the summing....most musicians I know can't afford Neve preamps. They use what's around that powers their mics. And small analog mixer tend to have better preamps than small digital interfaces, IME. Plus, analog cue. Plus, monitor volume control management. Plus for many working at single sample rates, the high frequency EQ shelves work properly. They often own/need the little mixer for gigs anyway....so, it's a total package of "value" to them. Plus--they just seem to "get it" easier....which in the end, if they're doing the work, that's pretty valuable, IMO. I've lamented more than once the LACK of little "home studio quality" analog mixers....and those Zed things being limited to 48khz on the digital side. A Mackie 1640i, while not the bestest sounding of them all, is the functional model, IMO--24/96 16x16 with one cable. If someone did that NOW....that we have a class compliancy for USB audio....thus no need for a driver, which is where Mackie has had trouble....that would be a big win, I think. Ahem I mean Logic by Apple sorry for not beeing exact, and I use RME converters with the mixer.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jan 4, 2016 18:21:00 GMT -6
Yeah, I got that....I meant you'd have to have bought Apple Logic Pro....or some other adequately mature DAW anyway. That other definition of logic, little L, given my years of experience with musicians is very much optional.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jan 4, 2016 18:27:31 GMT -6
Yeah, I got that....I meant you'd have to have bought Apple Logic Pro....or some other adequately mature DAW anyway. That other definition of logic, little L, given my years of experience with musicians is very much optional. got it ring....
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 5, 2016 8:18:21 GMT -6
For the record, ha, I never said analog mixing would result in a better end result. I was explaining that what he's hearing is what I've heard in countless home studios for the last 20 years during the rise of the DAW.....the easiest way to explain is that if you're mixing, at the two hour mark the analog is better....the longer you spend (assuming you're diligently chipping away the stone and not haphazardly spinning knobs looking for the "better" knob)--the digital will improve, where the analog won't improve much. So, if you're a musician wanting to record and make a decent mix quickly--yes, that A&H mixer will do "better" contextually due to the knowledge and time component. Actually, it will do BETTER than nicer desks with bigger power rails--as part of what makes it "gel better" is the sort of dropping and smearing of "non musical" transients. I have worked hard to get happy with the software systems that the market has chosen. They are, IMO/E inferior to hardware digital in many cases....inferior to analog in other cases....purpose built gear is simply better. BUT...that doesn't mean that I can't turn out the best recordings of my life 100% in software now for the first time ever. Now, I know that OP is looking fo secrets....and I've been completely open here about things as I've found them on the journey--from gain staging in software to absolute phase to cutting low frequencies from the difference (or "side") component on busses and how the LCR movement has resurged in software DUE to the insufficiencies of the summing of floating point software....or getting the actual creative sound sculpting on the way in....or reaching for saturation plug ins before EQ and compression to manage non musical transients....there are a lot of pieces. If there was a single "put this plug in on it and it will sound just like analog summing"....we'd all own that, but there isn't (IME). The flaws, or objectively I suppose "difference" is too fundamental. But, you have to adjust if you want to do it. If you don't--then, I still say just mix on the little A&H. If that makes your ears happy--that is what you should do. Someone should have taught me this before I bought Logic and got more and more nervous for about 6 years beofre I bought this crap console. But you sum it up in a nice way I get nervous learning 100 techniques before my ITB sounds like on the console. Jim Williams was right to check again with summing before I ditch the desk. @svard Yes you talked about the small delay thing in a diffrent topic as well. But would that not mean a washed out image? The oposite is the case to my ears. The image is stable, the transients are nice to listen to, the reverbs sit strong - they are not hyped like pure ITB. Everything seems to be more under control. drbill The idea of the Silverbullet is intresting. How does it sound as a mic pre? Neveish? I love my 1073 and I wont need 4 Nevesih ones becasue I overdub 90% of the time. We're talking very small amounts of these things, not nearly enough to wash out the mix. Delays in the pS and uS ranges, distortion in the fractions of a percent, etc. The human ear is extremely good at picking out small details, especially harmonics/distortion, although the brain does not understand these things unless you train yourself. These things are nonlinear, so they change with time and frequency. They mix with other frequencies to create even more harmonics and such. This all adds to the background and sort of "fills in" a bit. Anyway, there is one thing that is certain, and that is most of the big boy mix engineers use consoles and outboard gear. There will always be a few that will stay ITB and do a good job, but many fewer than OTB guys.
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Jan 5, 2016 11:08:41 GMT -6
I don't care for the sonic imprint of analog consoles either which is why mine are extensivly modified. Now I don't hear it at all anymore, I only hear the source.
I took the third way out, not simulators in a PC, not a classic analog console. An all analog, all super low noise and THD, very fast slew rates and no caps in the signal path approach that satisfies my desire to hear the great musicians I record and not the equipment.
Without commercial influences forcing the use of recall, simulators and other technical "hand holding", I'm free to hear the players in all their glory without needing to worry about making men out of mice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2016 3:04:01 GMT -6
and how the LCR movement has resurged in software DUE to the insufficiencies of the summing of floating point software... Hmm, would you mind elaborating on this? Digital summing is addition and multiplication (gain). In floating point, this is not insufficient at all i guess? AFAIK LCR mixing in the digital domain is just to resemble the analog pendant that was introduced to overcome insufficient panning on many consoles?
|
|
|
Post by zsarbomba on Jan 6, 2016 3:43:10 GMT -6
and how the LCR movement has resurged in software DUE to the insufficiencies of the summing of floating point software... AFAIK LCR mixing in the digital domain is just to resemble the analog pendant that was introduced to overcome insufficient panning on many consoles? And poorly set up home stereo systems. In between panning is hoping everyone is listening in the sweet spot or on phones.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 6, 2016 7:28:58 GMT -6
I think plugins have come a long way in a short amount of time. I love when you can insert something and immediately hear something happening even with it set flat. Ten years ago maybe that wasn't so much the case. It's gotten to the point where plugins actually excite me to work with and some of them have certain amounts of mojo.
I've done the A/B tests too, and real gear does have a more solid sound in general. Maybe not even as much better and worse, this could simply be a difference in aesthetic. I think at this point people are used to hearing digital mixes, and they are accepted along side any of the old classics by music fans.
I must admit I have a very large soft spot for analog mixing gear, and the sound of records made that way, but I tend to work 85% in the box. Like Dr. Bill said, I just gravitate toward it, no real rhyme or reason. And I do think the mix bus is a great spot to put analog gear for maximum effect.
To echo svart's post and address the original question, I think you need to create a lot of those subtle distortions and modulations ITB by using saturation plugins, compression, etc to sort of mess things up a bit.
In other words the stuff that happens automatically with analog rigs, you need to specifically create some of that sound ITB to catch up, otherwise the mix might sound a bit too perfect. So yes this might take some extra time and it's a technique that needs to be learned and practiced. I agree with popmann that real gear is a shortcut.
Maybe those huge records with massive big-studio fidelity are the gold standard. But I also love and cherish just as many albums with lower or medium fidelity. I guess the music is the thing. I think the artistic production decisions are going to vastly overshadow the technical details of the mixing gear in the final sound of a recording. It sure is fun to talk about though! :-D
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jan 6, 2016 9:31:52 GMT -6
wiz should chime in on this, he gives some very compelling reasons why he works the way he does... 8)
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jan 6, 2016 11:08:02 GMT -6
I am not a pro AE but I did mix a demo song by a friends band yesterday and it was for the main tracks nothing but the pure Sound of my Neve clone. The rest for the drums where cheap mic pres of a Behringer ADA 8200 its Midas Preamps. To my surprise the Neve single tracks where easier to mix and I decided to send all the drum single tracks through the Neve as well. It all went to the console and from there just a very small touch of my Gyraf GSSL Compressor. All artificial mojo/tone shaping came from tape sims and transformer simulators. I remember how easy it was to mix the song wiz fully ITB. He told us he uses HW in tracking. May its just the MOJO you can ad in the front or back end. With this in the end a matter of workflow one prefer or as Bill said, it leads to better mix decisions for reasons we don't know.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 6, 2016 11:19:36 GMT -6
Traking with great hardware on the front end is critical when you get to the mix stage. I try to track so that with all faders up, it sounds pretty close to a record without any plugins or mix moves. Of course, there are always plugins and mix moves, but the point being - get it to sound like a record when you track it. This is what the SB work flow is all about. But it's not the only way to get there....
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jan 6, 2016 15:37:09 GMT -6
and how the LCR movement has resurged in software DUE to the insufficiencies of the summing of floating point software... Hmm, would you mind elaborating on this? Digital summing is addition and multiplication (gain). In floating point, this is not insufficient at all i guess? AFAIK LCR mixing in the digital domain is just to resemble the analog pendant that was introduced to overcome insufficient panning on many consoles? The popularity of LCR in software mixing is what I meant. Re: insufficiency--I can sum on the old Akai or in Total mix or on ANY analog desk and the sum component will cancel (on the analog desk, maybe minus some artifacts) other than randomized effect and the difference will not. One of the Akai revs told me it was "properly implemented pan law rather than the crap in software"--but, I'm only using the very easy to test LCR positions in the digital hardware (now)--all gradation being handled in software....so, it's not that alone....I feel like since all these softwares null now....maybe it's a "flaw" in fixed bit digital that makes me choose it blindly nearly 99% of the time as "better"....but, someone needs to come up with a good explanation for what that flaw is--because I'm no where near full scale pushing the difference I understand as both the flaw AND strength of fixed bit summing--greater headroom than floating point, but once you exceed said level, it is clipped.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jan 6, 2016 17:20:32 GMT -6
wiz should chime in on this, he gives some very compelling reasons why he works the way he does... 8) Don't really know what to add.. but I did notice this yesterday. I downloaded the tracks for the Locomotive Mix Contest... I pulled a mix I was happy with, and to me it sounds like a "Wiz Mix"? for want of a better term... but geeze I had to work on it... I also used quite a few plug ins(compared to what I would normally use), ITB EQs to access their MS capabilities for instance, In a mix I track here, there might be, in say a 20 track song, 2 or 3 Linear Phase EQs that I use to "notch" something here or there to fit something in sonically. I used quite a few plugs to mould the sounds into something I liked... As I was doing it, it dawned on me about ITB vs OTB this comp vs that comp... etc Its so dependant on the tracking.... I am not saying in anyway shape or form, that the locomotive mix tracks were sub par, they are good.. really good.... just not how I would do it. Also there are some aspects in the tracking, I would have taken care of in the tracking stage, and not have to deal with at mix time, now they may have done this as part of the competition, nothing underhanded, just somethings that I thought you know, I would have done that differently.... I will cross post this in the locomotive thread. cheers Wiz
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jan 6, 2016 17:22:27 GMT -6
To echo svart's post and address the original question, I think you need to create a lot of those subtle distortions and modulations ITB by using saturation plugins, compression, etc to sort of mess things up a bit. In other words the stuff that happens automatically with analog rigs, you need to specifically create some of that sound ITB to catch up, otherwise the mix might sound a bit too perfect. So yes this might take some extra time and it's a technique that needs to be learned and practiced. I agree with popmann that real gear is a shortcut. Maybe those huge records with massive big-studio fidelity are the gold standard. But I also love and cherish just as many albums with lower or medium fidelity. I guess the music is the thing. I think the artistic production decisions are going to vastly overshadow the technical details of the mixing gear in the final sound of a recording. It sure is fun to talk about though! :-D Good idea to come back to the question. Subtle saturation I did try this ITB tac too... The question how someone creates (ITB) those subtle influences you get with the image, I call it stable, is still a mystery story to me...
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Mar 14, 2016 7:36:04 GMT -6
I think plugins have come a long way in a short amount of time. I love when you can insert something and immediately hear something happening even with it set flat. Ten years ago maybe that wasn't so much the case. It's gotten to the point where plugins actually excite me to work with and some of them have certain amounts of mojo. I've done the A/B tests too, and real gear does have a more solid sound in general. Maybe not even as much better and worse, this could simply be a difference in aesthetic. I think at this point people are used to hearing digital mixes, and they are accepted along side any of the old classics by music fans. I must admit I have a very large soft spot for analog mixing gear, and the sound of records made that way, but I tend to work 85% in the box. Like Dr. Bill said, I just gravitate toward it, no real rhyme or reason. And I do think the mix bus is a great spot to put analog gear for maximum effect. To echo svart's post and address the original question, I think you need to create a lot of those subtle distortions and modulations ITB by using saturation plugins, compression, etc to sort of mess things up a bit. In other words the stuff that happens automatically with analog rigs, you need to specifically create some of that sound ITB to catch up, otherwise the mix might sound a bit too perfect. So yes this might take some extra time and it's a technique that needs to be learned and practiced. I agree with popmann that real gear is a shortcut. Maybe those huge records with massive big-studio fidelity are the gold standard. But I also love and cherish just as many albums with lower or medium fidelity. I guess the music is the thing. I think the artistic production decisions are going to vastly overshadow the technical details of the mixing gear in the final sound of a recording. It sure is fun to talk about though! :-D As you can imagine it did not let me go and during my studio rebuild I had to work fully ITB. I think you are right, and I have found that the feel of dimension comes by using good amounts of saturation/distortion on the low end. True, it helps to smear the image by useing Hass delays betwenn 10 and 40 ms. Subtle image fxs on some sources help too. To my surprise it did matters which saturation tool I use. On the higher frequency spectrum I found it wise to use very subtle amouts of saturation, or no saturation, otherwise it starts to sound harsh and cold. To me it makes the impression its a total diffrent workflow doing it, and I did use a wrong mindset for a long time. I was useing saturation ITB very wrong. To much, and everywhere.... I did want to recreate the real gear...it works to a degree, but I have forgoten to listen ..... and I went back, frustrated, to the hybrid setup. It could be as fast as with the console with a clever use of my I pad as controler. It would mean many hours of programming, but once I have it its there. Does it sounds like with the real gear. No. Does it sounds good .....yes absoloutly....
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Mar 14, 2016 9:56:45 GMT -6
My take on this is still developing. I come at it from what is possibly a unique position here. I was forced to leave the music business due to illness for more than a decade, and only came back to it in the summer of 2012. So the last time I had recorded anything, it required me to push play on a multi-track tape recorder. I had joined the digital revolution early on, because I had to put together a small home studio. I'd been recording or producing at major studios, but began to get some lower budget work that was perfect for an in home production, so it made sense. I had a lovely analogue setup with all the basic things we all use, but was thrilled at the time that I could now buy a Lexicon digital reverb and delay for $1,500 instead of $8,000, and I could sync to a drum machine if I wanted to. I also had a kurzweil keyboard, an Emu Proteus, and a sequencer, so there were some digital things being sent into my soundboard. So in a way, this was an early hybrid system, not in the way we're comparing DAWS vs. Console to tape, but still, a hybrid of sorts.
The sounds the digital devices made lent themselves beautifully to the kind of music that was popular then, so I never had the issue of trying to get that classic record sound. But time passed, fads faded, trends subsided, and I began to see some of those 80's and 90's recordings the same way we see our high school yearbook photos, some love mixed in with some cringing.
So here we all are, in a way, trying to find our way home. For most of us, our home is no longer there, and for some, they've managed to keep it and "renovate" as time passes.
Of course, the elephant in the room is the quality of classic recordings we aspire to achieve just can't be easily duplicated, because a bunch of competent musicians rarely get together in one incredibly good sounding room to play and record with competent engineers and gifted producers. It does still happen, but it's the exception to the rule.
Having done both, go for it with good musicians in great studios, and build tracks one by one at home, I conclude they're two very different things. Great trackers like cowboycoalminer come damn close to getting it to sound like a bunch of pros were having a good time in a good studio making a record, but it's not quite the same.
I'm far from finished yet, and don't have the budget to just buy what I want and see how that works, but where I'm landing is a mixture of all the good suggestions here.
First, it took my analogue brain three years to finally get it into my head about digital gain staging. No matter how much I understood it intellectually, I just couldn't help banging those levels. I've finally settled down, and mixes are getting better. As for the analogue "vibe" we want to get while using a DAW, the closest I've heard, and I have heard a LOT now, is when cowboy goes through his board to his DAW, or Johnken went through his Dangerous Music summing mixer.
So, tracking closer to what you want is clearly crucial to not screwing the final sound up. Tracking with analogue gear sounds better to me than using a digital path like an Apollo and printing with all sorts of plug-ins, but that's not to say that method isn't perfectly valid, those plugs sound good in their own right. I only tracked with plugs because I couldn't afford the outboard I was emulating. I've gotten way better sound through micing amps, through my Dizengoff D4 pre, and the Warm Audio WA76 and EQP-1A than with plugs. I think a summing mixer and better A/D D/A will be as good as it can be for me without getting into the real issue, the room itself. My plan, first get a Thunderbolt computer, a new Apollo, see how that sounds, and add a summing mixer. After that, unless I can get a band to do the basic tracks in a good studio, I doubt I'll see much more improvement.
|
|
|
Post by brucerothwell on Mar 14, 2016 12:36:47 GMT -6
Perhaps it is worth considering these possible valid points: - Maybe the better quality the initial tracks are, the less crucial it is how you mix.
- Once you are in the box, stay there (multiple steps of average quality DA/AD conversion could degrade quality).
- Using an interface such as those from Metric Halo, which offer 80-bit summing, can be a great way to prevent summing degradation.
- When mixing hybrid with 2bus analog gear, mixing to stems could maximize said 2bus gear.
- Working ITB allows for maximum session and settings recall.
- When going out to a console for multitrack summing, etc., the number/cost of DA/D converter channels goes way up.
But of course, not everything is 100% black & white.
|
|
|
Post by nobtwiddler on Mar 14, 2016 15:33:22 GMT -6
Well, I've been at this since I was 16 years old... That's when I opened my first rehearsal recording room. Will turn 60 in less then a month. I've done nothing but own and operate my own studio since that time.
As of this posting, I still cannot get a mix to sound like anything, (that I would accept) if done entirely in the box. If I stem it out to my Neve Summing mixer, it sounds like music again. That being said, I'm still mixing on the console everyday, using 98% real outboard, but searching for a method (or maybe some new equipment?) that retains sonically what I love about mixing thru a console, and will allow for easier recalls. The search continues........
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Mar 14, 2016 15:36:33 GMT -6
Perhaps it is worth considering these possible valid points: - Maybe the better quality the initial tracks are, the less crucial it is how you mix.
- Once you are in the box, stay there (multiple steps of average quality DA/AD conversion could degrade quality).
- Using an interface such as those from Metric Halo, which offer 80-bit summing, can be a great way to prevent summing degradation.
- When mixing hybrid with 2bus analog gear, mixing to stems could maximize said 2bus gear.
- Working ITB allows for maximum session and settings recall.
- When going out to a console for multitrack summing, etc., the number/cost of DA/D converter channels goes way up.
But of course, not everything is 100% black & white.
That is old news topic here is how to make it ITB as good as with the hybrid setup. I found a lot of useful information by Pensados Palce, here and there a hint. Very good to know.
|
|
|
Post by nobtwiddler on Mar 14, 2016 19:55:39 GMT -6
Watched this vid when it first came out, and again just now. Nothing new here. I agree it works for him, and he does a good job (NO, a great job) of making things sound good. Then again look who he's working for!
That being said, Imagine if we heard what Tchad could do to the same mixes, real analog console, outboard processors, in a studio of his choice??? Now that might really be telling.
My guess is that he went this route, (even though he's now happy with the results) purely out of convenience, and I think he eludes to that in the video...
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Mar 14, 2016 21:06:21 GMT -6
I am more with drbill some people do a great Job ITB and I just try to find a way to mix good in both domains. I agree making ITB mixes sound great is a challenge, and its more easy with my hybrid setup.
Many plug ins do sound great today. From a technical point of view I do not see a reason why internal summing should be bad?
I think....
“It's not the wand, it's the wizard.” Duff Goldman
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Apr 13, 2016 10:08:46 GMT -6
ITB -- OTB --- They're different animals. If you try to mix OTB with ITB skills, you'll probably fall short. And vice versa. Some people can make the transition, and for others it's always an uphill battle. Neither is right. Neither is wrong. Both are totally viable options. One costs a LOT more in HVAC, Initial investment and maintenance - hence the general consensus that it's "better".
|
|