mixing boards

[horacejesse]

I am just curious and not very well versed in virtual recording. I use only a real board because that is the only kind I have.

[sgs4u]

Quote:I am just curious and not very well versed in virtual recording. I use only a real board because that is the only kind I have. Jesse, I use a Mackie 24 X 4 for mic inputs, into a Mac w Logic, and I mix in the box. I got to co-produce a cowboy project years ago on a Neve(sp?) and 2" tape. Nothing I've ever done since, has sounded that good. Getting closer tho. congrats again on the forward stevenice poll!

[horacejesse]

I am really so slow, Steve, that I have to ask you what you mean by "mixing in the box." I am real bad at the technical terminology of recording. I may have a block, a complex.But I do know what you mean about the quality of sound from a tape. I have $10,000+ worth of digital equipment and none of it has the pure sound quality I could get from a cassette tape. I recently dragged out some old cassette recordings and was shocked at the richness of the tone compared to what I have now, even though I know much more about recording technique now than I did then.

[sgs4u]

"Mixing in the box," is a term I just learned myself, Jesse. It means mixing using the virtual mixer in a DAW, inside the computer. I have a drummer buddy who works on our family cars. He has a buddy that used to run a restaurant on Maui 30 years ago. He had stacks of 1/4" tapes in a room with an old dusty reel to reel, and dared me to listen to them while we were having a few beers. The tapes were private gig tapes from his club of MARVIN GAYE, and GEORGE BENSON. Benson doing a small trio gig, and Gaye holed up in a local hotel making demos for his last record. The music was unbelievable, and I felt a strange wash of holey crap, this is like seeing Jesus. (sorry if that's out of line for some of you. Music has always been my God)BUT THE SOUND OF THOSE TAPES, 30 years later. OMG, was so beautiful. I'd forgotten how much tape is part of the sound of all the wonderful recordings I love. Makes me wanna drag my own deck out of moth balls. It might not even work.Quote:I am really so slow, Steve, that I have to ask you what you mean by "mixing in the box." I am real bad at the technical terminology of recording. I may have a block, a complex.But I do know what you mean about the quality of sound from a tape. I have $10,000+ worth of digital equipment and none of it has the pure sound quality I could get from a cassette tape. I recently dragged out some old cassette recordings and was shocked at the richness of the tone compared to what I have now, even though I know much more about recording technique now than I did then.

[mazz]

Well I just have to jump in here because you guys are speaking my language. See, my theory is that analog is non-linear just like the human brain/ear connection and digital is linear just like almost nothing in nature. While digital gives us pretty much everything we put in to it, analog warps it like we actually hear it and distorts it in a beautiful way that the human resonates with. Now I know I'm spouting blasphemy here for some but why in the hell are there so many tube units and analog tape simulators and modeled analog processors out there these days? Because Analog still is the holy grail of sound!!!I did an album in 1993 on 2" tape through a "mid range" Amek Angela ($40K) board and I'm still trying to re-create that vibe on my "modern" stuff!! The depth of bass and richness of the sound due to the natural "limitations" of analog are sorely lacking in today's sounds, IMO.Keep using that analog board! If I had the bucks, I'd buy one of those new 32 channel Tridents and run all my digital tracks through that, even if I did my automation moves "in the box".OK I'll stop there. Mazz

[clonsberry]

Quote:Because Analog still is the holy grail of sound!!!I did an album in 1993 on 2" tape through a "mid range" Amek Angela ($40K) board and I'm still trying to re-create that vibe on my "modern" stuff!! The depth of bass and richness of the sound due to the natural "limitations" of analog are sorely lacking in today's sounds, IMO.I agree. I think analog is a MUCH warmer sound by nature (no pun intended). I always wanted to do an acoustic guitar CD on tape. Unfortunately, I would assume that it's also much more difficult to edit, etc. I hear all kinds of stories about splicing tape. Unless you're doing it yourself (which doesn't sound as far fetched as it once did), that cranks up the studio costs. But recording on tape is one of my "when I make it big" goals.

[stick]

My first gig was editing commercials from 60s to 30s and 15s on 1/4" tape. I soon talked the company into a basic SoundTools rig (Digidesign's offering before ProTools) and haven't used tape since. I think both systems have inherant shortcomings. the 40 or 50 years of refinements in analog tape-land taught engineers how to work around the limitations of tape, not to mention the years of "training" the public that this was how recorded music sounds. The limitations of digital are much more about trying to get that analog sound that everyone was taught sounds "right". Tape has a sound. And the gear required to monitor tape has a sound. Digital has less of a "sound", but you can make it sound a lot of different ways with the processing available these days. (Have you heard the Digidesign Tape Emulation, or Analog Channel, or Cranesong Phoenix? They do some pretty cool analog vibe.) Anyway, this is all nothing new. I choose digital because it's faster, the margin for error is MUCH greater, and to me, it sounds great. Maybe I don't appreciate good analog recording, but I just don't hear it as "better".

[michaeldean]

Ok, I'm the sole vote (so far) for "1 then the other".I primarily track to Sonar through an M-Audio Delta 66 just because it's so damned much easier than tape! I then do my mixing "in the box". The biggest reason it's easier is the editing - a DAW allows you to do slip editing (and copying and pasting) in seconds that would literally take hours with tape.But I also have a Tascam M-3500 24 track board that has surprisingly good (analog) preamps in it, which I use for tracking drums (~8 inputs) or for whenever I need more than the 4 discrete inputs on the Delta 66.I find the digital sound to be quite satisfactory, but that's probably because I typically run my mic's through outboard tube preamps before going to disc.I also have a Tascam 8 channel analog reel-to-reel machine (with DBX noise reduction) that I will probably dust off if, and when, I ever get around to doing "broadcast quality" recordings (as opposed to demos) or recording my own CD. In my experience, drums & bass just sound better on analog tape.My older brother was a recording engineer at one of the major recording studios in Hollywood (back in the late 70's - early 80's) and, whenever we have this conversation, he always says the same thing: the best sounding recording he ever heard was made on analog tape at 30 IPS (inches per second) with no noise reduction. At that speed, the typical tape "hiss" (of the individual oxide particles passing over the heads) is taken up above the threshold of hearing (>20KHz) and the sound is amazing (I've never heard it so I have to take his word for it).I'm embarrassed to say that I have a whole rack of DA-38's (digital tape machines) that I've never really used. When I designed my current studio and started building it (about 6 years ago) I was thinking I was going to be doing a lot more "live" work for which I might need to record a dozen or more simultaneous channels.As it turned out, I've done almost none of that and have, instead, spent most of my studio time recording solo demos.Digital audio can definitely have a "brittle" quality to it, but that's why the current crop of "tube" equipment is so necessary. Tubes seem to put that little bit of subliminal "blurring" in there that tends to round off all those little sharp edges and allows sounds to "slide" over each other and blend much better. To me it's like the liquid in the cookie batter: Sugar and flour are made of discrete particles (digital) and while they will mix together, you'll still have a grainy crumbly aggregate. It's only when you add enough liquid (analog) that it all dissolves into a homogeneous mass of dough (I'm getting hungry now...). It cracks me up that when CD's first came out, the two big selling points were (a) less noise (hiss, pops, crackles) and (b) the unbelievable dynamic range (>100dB)! Isn't it funny that we now routinely squash the crap out of CD's to the point where they have less dynamic range than the LP's they replaced? (I know that's a little off-topic, but I had to go on a mini rant there).

[ernstinen]

I'm an analog guy in a digital world. I can't believe how good some of my old 1/4" 15 ips tape masters still sound. Loud, warm, and punchy. Still lookin' how to recreate that sound, and I'm getting close by using both mediums.Since I'm primarily doing orchestral music now, I'm running a lot of sample players, but still make an analog pass. I mix in Performer, but run all the sound outputs into an old Soundcraft board, which has a killer EQ if needed. From there, I warm it up again by going stereo out into an Empirical Labs Fatso (analog simulator). Great, if pricey, unit.Then it's back to digital, going into an Alesis Masterlink at 24/96. I master in Pro Tools, then digitally back into the Masterlink for backup storage and to make CDs.I SERIOUSLY looked into a 1/2" 2-track for mixdown in order to get that tape compression sound. But I settled on the Fatso. Less upkeep! Purists may cringe at my signal path, but it sounds pretty darn close to the analog sound I love. And no noise, either.BTW, I NEVER got tape hiss back in the analog days even without noise reduction because I recorded everything so hot (plus, I was doing rock). Digital is good for orchestral stuff because the music has such a wide dynamic range. Ern

[elser]

Quote: See, my theory is that analog is non-linear just like the human brain/ear connection and digital is linear just like almost nothing in nature. While digital gives us pretty much everything we put in to it, analog warps it like we actually hear it and distorts it in a beautiful way that the human resonates with. MazzHey Mazz, can you expound on the 'linear/ non-linear' thing? I don't understand what you mean by that. Thanks, Elser