Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2016 12:35:34 GMT -6
Wiz's consul mix for the song (and thread) "Lay Down With Me" got me scratching my head a bit. I struggled to get the feeling of space that his mix obtained. Yes, I was mixing on an unfamiliar laptop, through shitty headphones, but there was something more ..... anyway this is a post on another forum by someone who has written a book called Zen and The Art of Mixing (which I haven't read as I still have nighhtmares about "Phaedrus and Quality" from the motorcycling dude)......
From Zen and the Art of Mixing:
“That’s right; I’m telling you that your DAW in its stock form is going to make life not just difficult, but untenable as it relates to mixing. That doesn’t mean you can’t make your clients happy (we all have clients that are easy to please). It certainly doesn’t mean that you can’t come up with an amazing arrangement. It means you’re facing a limitation so severe and so critical to mixing that your main instrument is essentially broken. Your results will remain severely compromised until you fix the problem.”
From the Introduction of Zen and the Art of Mixing:
“Pulling emotional impact out of a track is accomplished through concrete techniques, so you can actually learn how to do this. Once you begin to recognize all that goes into a great song and arrangement, which in turn should promote an inspired perfor- mance (knock on wood), you’ll start to work on a different level from everyone else. Manipulating sound as it relates purely to sound is irrelevant to music. It’s your ability to manipulate emo- tional impact as it relates to sound that will make you a great artist, producer, or mixer.
This doesn’t mean there aren’t real-world consequences to the gear we choose. Gear surely matters, and we’ll be discussing exactly what gear matters and why. But if you haven’t developed your ears enough to readily identify the differences you’re hearing and how they actually affect sound, then what does it really matter? As you get better at mixing, as you become more adept at hearing and more sensitive to emotional impact, you’ll naturally become more sensitive to what you want out of your gear. You could have the greatest, most accurate mixing setup in the world, but until you have some years under your belt you’re not going to hear even half the things that I do. The good news is that your hearing and mixing will improve concurrently with your gear. Even the most modest mixing setup should be good enough for now, and certainly won’t preclude you from this book. I’ll bet you’re glad to read that!”
I’m pretty clear in the book. At some point in your career, when making the transition from hobbyist, to part-timer, to professional, you should carefully investigate analog summing. It will make mixing easier, you’ll fight the audio less which allows you to concentrate on the music more, and as a result your mixes will greatly improve. I lay out an exact methodology for accurately testing analog summing for yourself, and I explain clearly that you must have adequate critical monitoring (which includes the acoustic space in which the monitors reside), and some time mixing under your belt in order to notice the marked improvement analog summing offers.
EQ and compression techniques are a wank. These merely need to be practiced. Nothing more, nothing less. I can give you precise instructions on how to use a compressor, and you’ll still fuck it up on your first batch of mixes. And I’m not suggesting a neophyte go out and purchase summing. It’s far more important to have accurate monitoring. Of course, once you have accurate monitoring, then other problems become more obvious. Any PROFESSIONAL who finds himself struggling to mix in an accurate room needs to seriously consider analog summing. If you find yourself getting good at mixing but not over the hump, try analog summing BEFORE you purchase that big expensive plugin bundle. The summing will make the bigger difference by a mile.
I certainly don’t mind push back to my arguments, and I’m all for a good debate, but the benefit of analog summing is something I can prove time and time again to anyone who sits in the room with me. Given this, I’m quite curious what summing boxes you’ve actually personally put through their paces, and how you did it.
Thanks,
Mixerman
Dig in ............
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Oct 27, 2016 13:22:48 GMT -6
There are many aspects of "analog" that bring amazing results to mixes.
Over the last 30+ years -- I've mixed with tape. I mixed with consoles. I've mixed 100% ITB. I've mixed hybrid. I've mixed in multi million dollar studios. I've mixed on laptops in bad environments. I'm a FIRM believer in getting real honest to goodness analog into your mixes. But.....
Analog "summing" or "summing boxes" isn't one of the analog solutions I believe in.
My thoughts are well described round these parts and other places if you desire to check them out. I won't bore you with them if you're convinced otherwise.....
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Oct 27, 2016 13:38:13 GMT -6
Wiz's consul mix for the song (and thread) "Lay Down With Me" got me scratching my head a bit. I struggled to get the feeling of space that his mix obtained. Yes, I was mixing on an unfamiliar laptop, through shitty headphones, but there was something more ..... anyway this is a post on another forum by someone who has written a book called Zen and The Art of Mixing (which I haven't read as I still have nighhtmares about "Phaedrus and Quality" from the motorcycling dude)...... From Zen and the Art of Mixing: “That’s right; I’m telling you that your DAW in its stock form is going to make life not just difficult, but untenable as it relates to mixing. That doesn’t mean you can’t make your clients happy (we all have clients that are easy to please). It certainly doesn’t mean that you can’t come up with an amazing arrangement. It means you’re facing a limitation so severe and so critical to mixing that your main instrument is essentially broken. Your results will remain severely compromised until you fix the problem.” From the Introduction of Zen and the Art of Mixing: “Pulling emotional impact out of a track is accomplished through concrete techniques, so you can actually learn how to do this. Once you begin to recognize all that goes into a great song and arrangement, which in turn should promote an inspired perfor- mance (knock on wood), you’ll start to work on a different level from everyone else. Manipulating sound as it relates purely to sound is irrelevant to music. It’s your ability to manipulate emo- tional impact as it relates to sound that will make you a great artist, producer, or mixer. This doesn’t mean there aren’t real-world consequences to the gear we choose. Gear surely matters, and we’ll be discussing exactly what gear matters and why. But if you haven’t developed your ears enough to readily identify the differences you’re hearing and how they actually affect sound, then what does it really matter? As you get better at mixing, as you become more adept at hearing and more sensitive to emotional impact, you’ll naturally become more sensitive to what you want out of your gear. You could have the greatest, most accurate mixing setup in the world, but until you have some years under your belt you’re not going to hear even half the things that I do. The good news is that your hearing and mixing will improve concurrently with your gear. Even the most modest mixing setup should be good enough for now, and certainly won’t preclude you from this book. I’ll bet you’re glad to read that!” I’m pretty clear in the book. At some point in your career, when making the transition from hobbyist, to part-timer, to professional, you should carefully investigate analog summing. It will make mixing easier, you’ll fight the audio less which allows you to concentrate on the music more, and as a result your mixes will greatly improve. I lay out an exact methodology for accurately testing analog summing for yourself, and I explain clearly that you must have adequate critical monitoring (which includes the acoustic space in which the monitors reside), and some time mixing under your belt in order to notice the marked improvement analog summing offers. EQ and compression techniques are a wank. These merely need to be practiced. Nothing more, nothing less. I can give you precise instructions on how to use a compressor, and you’ll still fuck it up on your first batch of mixes. And I’m not suggesting a neophyte go out and purchase summing. It’s far more important to have accurate monitoring. Of course, once you have accurate monitoring, then other problems become more obvious. Any PROFESSIONAL who finds himself struggling to mix in an accurate room needs to seriously consider analog summing. If you find yourself getting good at mixing but not over the hump, try analog summing BEFORE you purchase that big expensive plugin bundle. The summing will make the bigger difference by a mile. I certainly don’t mind push back to my arguments, and I’m all for a good debate, but the benefit of analog summing is something I can prove time and time again to anyone who sits in the room with me. Given this, I’m quite curious what summing boxes you’ve actually personally put through their paces, and how you did it. Thanks, Mixerman Dig in ............ I have read that book.... He is a very good and entertaining writer. He also did one of my favourite albums, with Pete Murray here in Australia. The song "Better Days" is one of my favourite songs... I agree with everything he said, up until analog summing....8) I dont sum analog. I sum in the DAW. I don't use VCC or any plug in summing simulator. I have done extensive matched to .1dB tests of summing in my console, VCC , ITB and for me and my workflow, summing was best done ITB. Now, you might plug in a different summing console device, or use a different plug in simulation, and come to a different conclusion..., so might I for that matter. But, for me, not an issue anymore... That doesn't mean I don't process on the two buss, compression, transformer colour, sometimes I do just that. What you are hearing in my mix , that I labelled console mix (Which I named cause I was re amping the individual tracks on the console through it, not because It was summed in the console.) I would bet dollars to donuts, is the Bricasti. My mix, with the Bricasti removed, sounds as good, it just has no depth, other than the volume and EQ of the particular instruments... it sounds really good, but its flat in a front to back sense... you plonk the bricasti on, all of a sudden its depth. I couldn't do the same mix ITB without the console. I could do a good mix, it wouldnt be as fast or anywhere near as creative or fun to do.. but it would be good. The console stops me reading and f)($cking about and gets me listening, and the outboard and patch bays, allow me to be in non reading mode (what ever side of the brain that is) and in listening/creative sound sculpting mode. Plug ins, are wonderful at what plug ins are wonderful for... take Noise Reduction plug ins... oh man, are they so GREAT!! and a really good way to make your audio sound... EXPENSIVE. I use the DAW for what the DAW is good at. Arrangement, Comping, Timing correction, Noise Reduction, Automation Fades. I use the outboard and the console for their sound and workflow. Everyone is different though. Eric Mixer Man is right though about everything else he said in my experience... cheers Wiz
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Oct 27, 2016 15:11:06 GMT -6
For what it's worth I really LOL at the thread title.
I had to go to the piano and play the song with these lyrics.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Oct 27, 2016 15:37:05 GMT -6
Wiz's consul mix for the song (and thread) "Lay Down With Me" got me scratching my head a bit. I struggled to get the feeling of space that his mix obtained. Yes, I was mixing on an unfamiliar laptop, through shitty headphones, but there was something more ..... anyway this is a post on another forum by someone who has written a book called Zen and The Art of Mixing (which I haven't read as I still have nighhtmares about "Phaedrus and Quality" from the motorcycling dude)...... From Zen and the Art of Mixing: “That’s right; I’m telling you that your DAW in its stock form is going to make life not just difficult, but untenable as it relates to mixing. That doesn’t mean you can’t make your clients happy (we all have clients that are easy to please). It certainly doesn’t mean that you can’t come up with an amazing arrangement. It means you’re facing a limitation so severe and so critical to mixing that your main instrument is essentially broken. Your results will remain severely compromised until you fix the problem.” From the Introduction of Zen and the Art of Mixing: “Pulling emotional impact out of a track is accomplished through concrete techniques, so you can actually learn how to do this. Once you begin to recognize all that goes into a great song and arrangement, which in turn should promote an inspired perfor- mance (knock on wood), you’ll start to work on a different level from everyone else. Manipulating sound as it relates purely to sound is irrelevant to music. It’s your ability to manipulate emo- tional impact as it relates to sound that will make you a great artist, producer, or mixer. This doesn’t mean there aren’t real-world consequences to the gear we choose. Gear surely matters, and we’ll be discussing exactly what gear matters and why. But if you haven’t developed your ears enough to readily identify the differences you’re hearing and how they actually affect sound, then what does it really matter? As you get better at mixing, as you become more adept at hearing and more sensitive to emotional impact, you’ll naturally become more sensitive to what you want out of your gear. You could have the greatest, most accurate mixing setup in the world, but until you have some years under your belt you’re not going to hear even half the things that I do. The good news is that your hearing and mixing will improve concurrently with your gear. Even the most modest mixing setup should be good enough for now, and certainly won’t preclude you from this book. I’ll bet you’re glad to read that!” I’m pretty clear in the book. At some point in your career, when making the transition from hobbyist, to part-timer, to professional, you should carefully investigate analog summing. It will make mixing easier, you’ll fight the audio less which allows you to concentrate on the music more, and as a result your mixes will greatly improve. I lay out an exact methodology for accurately testing analog summing for yourself, and I explain clearly that you must have adequate critical monitoring (which includes the acoustic space in which the monitors reside), and some time mixing under your belt in order to notice the marked improvement analog summing offers. EQ and compression techniques are a wank. These merely need to be practiced. Nothing more, nothing less. I can give you precise instructions on how to use a compressor, and you’ll still fuck it up on your first batch of mixes. And I’m not suggesting a neophyte go out and purchase summing. It’s far more important to have accurate monitoring. Of course, once you have accurate monitoring, then other problems become more obvious. Any PROFESSIONAL who finds himself struggling to mix in an accurate room needs to seriously consider analog summing. If you find yourself getting good at mixing but not over the hump, try analog summing BEFORE you purchase that big expensive plugin bundle. The summing will make the bigger difference by a mile. I certainly don’t mind push back to my arguments, and I’m all for a good debate, but the benefit of analog summing is something I can prove time and time again to anyone who sits in the room with me. Given this, I’m quite curious what summing boxes you’ve actually personally put through their paces, and how you did it. Thanks, Mixerman Dig in ............ I have read that book.... He is a very good and entertaining writer. He also did one of my favourite albums, with Pete Murray here in Australia. The song "Better Days" is one of my favourite songs... I agree with everything he said, up until analog summing....8) I dont sum analog. I sum in the DAW. I don't use VCC or any plug in summing simulator. I have done extensive matched to .1dB tests of summing in my console, VCC , ITB and for me and my workflow, summing was best done ITB. Now, you might plug in a different summing console device, or use a different plug in simulation, and come to a different conclusion..., so might I for that matter. But, for me, not an issue anymore... That doesn't mean I don't process on the two buss, compression, transformer colour, sometimes I do just that. What you are hearing in my mix , that I labelled console mix (Which I named cause I was re amping the individual tracks on the console through it, not because It was summed in the console.) I would bet dollars to donuts, is the Bricasti. My mix, with the Bricasti removed, sounds as good, it just has no depth, other than the volume and EQ of the particular instruments... it sounds really good, but its flat in a front to back sense... you plonk the bricasti on, all of a sudden its depth. I couldn't do the same mix ITB without the console. I could do a good mix, it wouldnt be as fast or anywhere near as creative or fun to do.. but it would be good. The console stops me reading and f)($cking about and gets me listening, and the outboard and patch bays, allow me to be in non reading mode (what ever side of the brain that is) and in listening/creative sound sculpting mode. Plug ins, are wonderful at what plug ins are wonderful for... take Noise Reduction plug ins... oh man, are they so GREAT!! and a really good way to make your audio sound... EXPENSIVE. I use the DAW for what the DAW is good at. Arrangement, Comping, Timing correction, Noise Reduction, Automation Fades. I use the outboard and the console for their sound and workflow. Everyone is different though. Eric Mixer Man is right though about everything else he said in my experience... cheers Wiz Hey Wiz. Curious. What noise reduction do you use and can you elaborate on what you dig so much about it?
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Oct 27, 2016 15:47:18 GMT -6
I'm getting an SSL Sigma loaner at my studio for a couple of weeks. Should be an interesting experience.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Oct 27, 2016 15:58:51 GMT -6
Hey Wiz. Curious. What noise reduction do you use and can you elaborate on what you dig so much about it? Hey raganI use MR NOISE by Wave Arts. I have had it for a few years... at the time I shot it out against what was around then, X Noise, Rx, and something else I can't remember what.. and for the money it was really good. its a plug in, not stand alone... you can't say take out a guitar squeak during playing, like Rx can etc.. But for broadband noise its great. I use it to remover air conditioner hum, buzzing etc Its not a click and do and everything is wonderful plug in by any stretch of the imagination, and its a little long in the tooth compared to some of the newer options, but I know how to get really good results out of it.. A light hand is whats needed, otherwise the cure is worse than the disease.... 8) cheers Wiz
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2016 16:07:19 GMT -6
There are many aspects of "analog" that bring amazing results to mixes. Over the last 30+ years -- I've mixed with tape. I mixed with consoles. I've mixed 100% ITB. I've mixed hybrid. I've mixed in multi million dollar studios. I've mixed on laptops in bad environments. I'm a FIRM believer in getting real honest to goodness analog into your mixes. But..... Analog "summing" or "summing boxes" isn't one of the analog solutions I believe in. My thoughts are well described round these parts and other places if you desire to check them out. I won't bore you with them if you're convinced otherwise..... No no - not convinced otherwise - in fact I'm sold on analogue - just re patched everything at home today as awaiting some more gear. I think the context has been a little skewed in the bit I posted - what he was really saying was mixing on a consul was way better ( for him at least) than ITB but summing boxes were bought up by another dude. Really like to hear Wiz's mix run through a silver bullet ....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2016 16:10:05 GMT -6
Mr Wiz said.. "The console stops me reading and f)($cking about and gets me listening, and the outboard and patch bays, allow me to be in non reading mode (what ever side of the brain that is) and in listening/creative sound sculpting mode." He went on a long journey here but I think this is the point he was trying to make How / where did you use the Bricasti?
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Oct 27, 2016 16:16:35 GMT -6
Mr Wiz said.. "The console stops me reading and f)($cking about and gets me listening, and the outboard and patch bays, allow me to be in non reading mode (what ever side of the brain that is) and in listening/creative sound sculpting mode." He went on a long journey here but I think this is the point he was trying to make How / where did you use the Bricasti? Bricasti is set up on a post pan AUX in Logic. I send everything to it. Most stuff gets sent unity level, a couple of things get less... usually kick and bass get some less than everything else. cheers Wiz
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2016 16:43:07 GMT -6
gotcha - One (of the many) mistakes I've been making with my own stuff is sticking a different reverb on every channel.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Oct 27, 2016 16:46:46 GMT -6
gotcha - One (of the many) mistakes I've been making with my own stuff is sticking a different reverb on every channel. B4 the Bricasti I used 3 verbs. A Room Verb (this set the fake eviroment that the instruments all sat in) A Plate Verb (this set the back wall and depth) A Hall Verb (this set the height) The key was getting the settings right for each, and the amounts. Also, they had to be True Stereo and the sends Post Pan. I did this for years. Then I bought the Bricasti... and I don't do any of that anymore. cheers Wiz
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2016 16:53:20 GMT -6
gotcha - One (of the many) mistakes I've been making with my own stuff is sticking a different reverb on every channel. B4 the Bricasti I used 3 verbs. A Room Verb (this set the fake eviroment that the instruments all sat in) A Plate Verb (this set the back wall and depth) A Hall Verb (this set the height) The key was getting the settings right for each, and the amounts. Also, they had to be True Stereo and the sends Post Pan. I did this for years. Then I bought the Bricasti... and I don't do any of that anymore. cheers Wiz good stuff - now I've finally broken free of the box with the Audient will try just using the outboard lex ( cheaper model). If not will try the 3 'verb trick you mentioned. Presumably you'd use the same make reverb on each channel or would you have different makes for hall / plate etc?
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Oct 27, 2016 17:04:56 GMT -6
B4 the Bricasti I used 3 verbs. A Room Verb (this set the fake eviroment that the instruments all sat in) A Plate Verb (this set the back wall and depth) A Hall Verb (this set the height) The key was getting the settings right for each, and the amounts. Also, they had to be True Stereo and the sends Post Pan. I did this for years. Then I bought the Bricasti... and I don't do any of that anymore. cheers Wiz good stuff - now I've finally broken free of the box with the Audient will try just using the outboard lex ( cheaper model). If not will try the 3 'verb trick you mentioned. Presumably you'd use the same make reverb on each channel or would you have different makes for hall / plate etc? I used different... what ever was best at what job.... Convolution used to be the best back then..I used impulse responses.... Before that UAD plate... Last album I mixed like that it was Relab 480L for the Hall, Valhalla Vintage for the Plate, and the Room was Convolution.... cheers Wiz
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Oct 27, 2016 17:39:27 GMT -6
Drbill cartainly knows what he's talking about...but I tend to disagree on this point. Summing seems - at least to my ear - add definition between instruments and a punch I don't get ITB...YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Oct 27, 2016 17:45:43 GMT -6
John - What I've found is that good gear and proper recording techniques when tracking and getting gain structure right in the mix has negated any "magic" that external summing might give the illusion of adding. I have tested this many times, and it's a constant for me. Any difference I hear when summing externally comes from the make up gain, and (as I'm sure you're aware as I've mentioned it enough) that gain structuring and driving analog to it's sweet spot can happen during the mix. I'm a huge advocate of having analog on the 2 buss for the color it brings, and a detractor of being forced to "sum" externally. My $.02
|
|
|
Post by BradM on Oct 27, 2016 19:53:07 GMT -6
Drbill cartainly knows what he's talking about...but I tend to disagree on this point. Summing seems - at least to my ear - add definition between instruments and a punch I don't get ITB...YMMV. Hey John, Here's a simple test anyone can do to see if summing is bringing anything to the table without being distracted by the color the active amplifier stage of a summing box might add (which Bill and I both feel is what most people are attributing to the magic of summing boxes). Get a passive summing box like the Folcrom or the DIYRE SB2. It has to be a passive summing box because that's the only way you ensure you are just talking about summing and not other circuitry. Feed the output of this passive summing box straight into your DAW. Do not connect it to a mic preamp as you are typically supposed to. When you record the mix back into your DAW it will be about 30 dB down. Apply a gain plugin or trim to this mix when playing back in comparison to an ITB mix. Let me know if you hear magic. Brad
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2016 20:08:41 GMT -6
Hi Brad - any chance of zipping Wiz's consul mix through Silver Bullet. Was impressed by the Zulu and would be interested to see what it does..
|
|
|
Post by BradM on Oct 27, 2016 20:13:20 GMT -6
Hi Brad - any chance of zipping Wiz's consul mix through Silver Bullet. Was impressed by the Zulu and would be interested to see what it does.. Yes! I'd love to do this...or rather convince drbill to do it since I'm out of town at the moment. I just saw Wiz's thread the other day and was thinking it would be fun to process the mix through the Silver Bullet. Brad
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Oct 27, 2016 20:33:47 GMT -6
Drbill cartainly knows what he's talking about...but I tend to disagree on this point. Summing seems - at least to my ear - add definition between instruments and a punch I don't get ITB...YMMV. Hey John, Here's a simple test anyone can do to see if summing is bringing anything to the table without being distracted by the color the active amplifier stage of a summing box might add (which Bill and I both feel is what most people are attributing to the magic of summing boxes). Get a passive summing box like the Folcrom or the DIYRE SB2. It has to be a passive summing box because that's the only way you ensure you are just talking about summing and not other circuitry. Feed the output of this passive summing box straight into your DAW. Do not connect it to a mic preamp as you are typically supposed to. When you record the mix back into your DAW it will be about 30 dB down. Apply a gain plugin or trim to this mix when playing back in comparison to an ITB mix. Let me know if you hear magic. Brad So - you're saying the "magic" that people attribute to summing is caused by the color of the active amplifier...then you're telling me to take that away...well isn't that part of the summing process?
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Oct 27, 2016 20:35:19 GMT -6
An itb mix sounds massively different than if you were to take the same mix and spread it out over 16 channels of the SSL patched into the insert point on the channels, faders set at unity, rest of the desk normalled.
Not even remotely close. Not subtle at all to me.
|
|
|
Post by mulmany on Oct 27, 2016 20:55:46 GMT -6
An itb mix sounds massively different than if you were to take the same mix and spread it out over 16 channels of the SSL patched into the insert point on the channels, faders set at unity, rest of the desk normalled. Not even remotely close. Not subtle at all to me. You still have amps in the signal path on the master buss.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Oct 27, 2016 21:38:05 GMT -6
Hey John, Here's a simple test anyone can do to see if summing is bringing anything to the table without being distracted by the color the active amplifier stage of a summing box might add (which Bill and I both feel is what most people are attributing to the magic of summing boxes). Get a passive summing box like the Folcrom or the DIYRE SB2. It has to be a passive summing box because that's the only way you ensure you are just talking about summing and not other circuitry. Feed the output of this passive summing box straight into your DAW. Do not connect it to a mic preamp as you are typically supposed to. When you record the mix back into your DAW it will be about 30 dB down. Apply a gain plugin or trim to this mix when playing back in comparison to an ITB mix. Let me know if you hear magic. Brad So - you're saying the "magic" that people attribute to summing is caused by the color of the active amplifier...then you're telling me to take that away...well isn't that part of the summing process? No, that is not a part of the summing process. Not technically anyway. If analog summing is "doing something" it will do it without the makeup gain. If makeup gain is necessary to get the mojo for the combined 2 channel mix, then inserting the same "makeup gain" on your ITB 2 bus mix will accomplish virtually the same thing. Hence Brad and my take on ITB summing with the Silver Bullet vs. summing OTB. Brad - really don't have the time to do a remix of that mix right now. There are other guys here with Silver Bullets. Maybe they can step up and do it.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Oct 27, 2016 21:51:39 GMT -6
Re: SSL - a typical SSL has enough phase shift to absolutely make the sonics different by the time you output thru the mix bus. Whether one LIKES that or not is a personal preference. As best I remember, a typical SSL 4k input to output was close to 30 degrees phase skewed from any input to any output. JimW would know the spec I'm sure. All LFAC analog consoles have this to some degree. Some more than others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2016 4:22:37 GMT -6
Re: SSL - a typical SSL has enough phase shift to absolutely make the sonics different by the time you output thru the mix bus. Whether one LIKES that or not is a personal preference. As best I remember, a typical SSL 4k input to output was close to 30 degrees phase skewed from any input to any output. JimW would know the spec I'm sure. All LFAC analog consoles have this to some degree. Some more than others. Wiz answered my initial question as to the "space" of his mix (Bricasti). The rest of the discussion is interesting though, as to whether you can get more "feel" for a mix rather than just "sound" by mixing OTB. In the first post this guy mixerman eluded to the fact that at some point mixing purely ITB you can get to a certain point whereby it becomes less intuitive - opening that mix out in a console or by using 16 channels and mixing into a summing box (rather than sticking it on a 2 buss) can bring more clarity to proceedings, and more importantly more feeling. This may explain why people are either using outboard controllers with a daw, or buying the smaller consuls, and /or using said summing boxes. Anyone up for posting a mix pre / post summing box if they have one? Anyways, probably easier to provide a link HERE in case anyone wants to read the whole discussion Caveat: The actual site ( and initial discussion) is run by a guy who's keen to sell his own home mixing courses, and aimed largely at the amateur home PC/Mac user, equally the other guy's selling a book
|
|