"packaging" a mix

[Mark Alan Miller]

Inspired partially by the 'digital recording transferred to tape' thread, I thought I'd throw this out there. Perhaps it's obvious to most people, but, as I am listening to a 12" of 2 Bit Pie's "Nobody Never" (Best 'dance' single of 2006 so far, IMO) and noticing a certain unfied quality to the sound of the track (perhaps from being on vinyl - I've never seen any other format for this song offered) it brought this to the front of my brain.

Some of what I think people react favorably to from bouncing a mix to analog is the way that all of the components of a mix seem to get 'glued together' or 'packaged'. As opposed to looking at it as the "sound of the media" I'm referring to what the media is actually doing - how it's shaping the waveform. (Perhaps that's splitting hairs - but it's that angle, that approach, from where I'm coming in on this.)
Whether it be from the mix being forced through a slightly misshapen frequency response (and impulse/transient arrival) curve, or from a little common compression, or from a touch of distorion (which, of course, is global to the unified waveform of the mix, as opposed to on individual tracks)...

And listening to that 12", thinking about printing to analog for mixes vs individual tracks, it's worth exploring deeper, I think.
Like, for example, running a mix through a stereo EQ that has transformers in the signal path - even with the eq dialed out - to have the transformers 'package' the sound. (Fatso, Neve's new "tape" device etc etc, are of course designed partially for such purposes...)

Again, it may seem obvious to most here, but I'd love to hear others' musings (both technical and artistic) as to how/why/where/when this works.

[T-rex]

I hope this is on topic, if not please dis-regard but I think it relates.

I went to the Joel Hamilton mixing workshop and, ya know, basically it changed my life. I have a Tascam M520, it's cool - I always considered it utilitarian - talkback, headphone mixes etc. Anyway I had tried the ITB versus OTB Summing through it and didn't really hear any sonic glue or any huge difference. This made sense cause I have a semi crappy console and ok convertors. BUT, after the workshop I just left everything at unity in my DAW and actually MIXED through the console - Duh? OMG, huge difference. Even with crappy convertors and crappy console doing the actual mixing through the board and recording back into the DAW made a considerable improvement. I can't say why because I haven't tried copying an exact mix on the colsole the way I did it in the box and I don't really care too. All I know is the mixes sound wider, deeper and more real - more "packaged". I don't know why, it has to be the physical apect of adjusting knobs instead of clicking a mouse or whatever, but I mix totally different on the board than in the box, even if I am using plugs for FX and things, it's just lends itself to force me to make different decisions during mixing. I think that is the key as much as the whole analog gear versus math thing.

There are definitely some trade offs - no recall, a steep learning curve (I've only mixed in the box up until now), an increased feeling of pressure (because of the two things I just mentioned) and limited track count. In fact the only thing that prompted me to try this was I am currently working on a project with fairly small track counts per song. But everytime I compare my mixes on the board to the box, I always like the mixes on the board so much better. I have only been playing with this for about the last week, but I am looking forward to really making this my new MO and eventually step up to a console like a ghost with 32 tracks.

Long story short:
Summing though some analog gear versus bouncing with a vintage warmer on the bus - I could tell a slight difference the next day but neither was better.
MIXING thorugh the console - I prefer the console mix everytime.

[Phiz]

Hmmm. I've always been interested in trying mixing on my console, but I figured my not-so-expensive converters would make it not worth my while. I guess I'll have to give it a try and see what happens.

Although I can see this quickly increasing my desire to purchase outboard gear. Uh oh.

[Jeremy Garber]

Funny question. What do you guys suggest for getting out of the box? I use the Presonus Firebox that only has 6 outs. I suppose I could send groups out to my analog 16 board, but I would like to try a full mix. I like the idea of the DAW as a tape machine and mixing on an analog board. Of course, I don't have really any outboard FX, but that is something I am trying to slowly build. I wonder if there is a decently priced PCI card with a bunch of outs I could use.

[Knights Who Say Neve]

Sleepy, I've used a Behringer ADA8000 to mix stuff through the console- an 8 channel ADAT to analog convertor. It's a Behringer but it does work reasonably well. If your firebox has an ADAT out it's a good inexpensive way to go.

[T-rex]

Well Sleepy, I will say that I am using 2 Delta 1010lt cards on a PC. Each card has 8 in's and out's on unbalanced RCA plus 2 digital in's and outs. They are real funny about IRQ assignment, but once I got them set up they have been asolutely rock solid. My only complaint is that because the convertors are inside the computer, they have a high noise floor and 2 of the 16 channels pick up noise from my graphics card. I mean it would only matter if I recorded extremely quiet music on the bad two channels, but it is something to be wary about. But for $400 new and a little more than half that used, they are a pretty sweet deal for 16 tracks.

I am still using plugs for reverb and delays and some compression. If I run low I will group all of the FX and return them to the board as a stereo track cause I don't have a lot of outboard gear right now either.

If the console thing continues to work out, then I definitely see some MOTU in my future, maybe a ghost and some more outboard. . . but that's not a bad thing!

Anyway to the original post, this seems to be pushing me closer to that elusive "glue" that makes the projects I work on sound more like albums and less like the projects I work on. Whether I actualy get there I guess I will have to wait and see.

[Jeremy Garber]

No ADAT on my system. I would need to get a PCI card for that. Could I use 2 PCI cards for ADAT, and use two 8ch A/D converters? I was originally thinking of something with direct connections on the card- but internal noise is an issue I guess?

[@?,*???&?]

Inspired partially by the 'digital recording transferred to tape' thread, I thought I'd throw this out there. Perhaps it's obvious to most people, but, as I am listening to a 12" of 2 Bit Pie's "Nobody Never" (Best 'dance' single of 2006 so far, IMO) and noticing a certain unfied quality to the sound of the track (perhaps from being on vinyl - I've never seen any other format for this song offered) it brought this to the front of my brain.

Some of what I think people react favorably to from bouncing a mix to analog is the way that all of the components of a mix seem to get 'glued together' or 'packaged'. As opposed to looking at it as the "sound of the media" I'm referring to what the media is actually doing - how it's shaping the waveform. (Perhaps that's splitting hairs - but it's that angle, that approach, from where I'm coming in on this.)
Whether it be from the mix being forced through a slightly misshapen frequency response (and impulse/transient arrival) curve, or from a little common compression, or from a touch of distorion (which, of course, is global to the unified waveform of the mix, as opposed to on individual tracks)...

And listening to that 12", thinking about printing to analog for mixes vs individual tracks, it's worth exploring deeper, I think.
Like, for example, running a mix through a stereo EQ that has transformers in the signal path - even with the eq dialed out - to have the transformers 'package' the sound. (Fatso, Neve's new "tape" device etc etc, are of course designed partially for such purposes...)

Again, it may seem obvious to most here, but I'd love to hear others' musings (both technical and artistic) as to how/why/where/when this works.

Packaged with less dynamic range!

It's that simple.

You take material from digital (if it's 24-bit) from a dynamic range of 145.8 dB [calculated with the formula for signal-to-error ratio 6(n)+1.8db] and whack it into a domain that averages 65 to 75 db of dynamic range at best. 24-bit may be enough dynamic to exceed the dynamic range of human hearing, but it certainly does not necessarily sound musical. In fact, very clearly, most pop recordings have about 15 db of dynamic range- so those must sound most musical?!

Isn't it really, really bizarre to think that we have such magnificent capabilities at hand with our digital recording formats and as a sort of counter-active measure we crush them to death to get as little dynamic range out of them as possible...more like tape, but really beyond good judgement. I remember looking forward to getting a project mastered. Now, I do so with trepidation.

[vvv]

I keep thinking of how guitar amps were originally designed to be "clean" sounding, full range and dynamic, until players started using the tubes for their distortion, and corresponding compression, characteristics.

I mean, there is something of an analogy to be drawn there, sorta...

[bickle]

Sleepy:
No need to come out on ADAT then convert; you could just get converter cards. I run an 8 in 8 out analog Delta 1010 (not the 'lt' model), which has a pci card and a rackmount breakout box. They're cheap, and the conversion sounds great to my ears. Plus, I've had the think since it was new (5-6 years?), and it's never had a single issue (knock on wood).

[Mark Alan Miller]

While Jeff brings up a great perspective about dynamic range, that's not what I'm after, nor do I believe that to 'package' a mix compression of any form is always nessesary. It's more about the cohesiveness of sound between elements in the mix - a connection between them sonically. Hence the concept (well, practice) of running a mix through an EQ that uses transformer I/O and leaving the EQ flat - the sound, or even 'ring' of the transformers adds a cohesiveness.
I've done exactly that in the past with a couple different EQs (one EQ I'm not even sure had transformers in it, but the result was the same.)
Or running out to tape, but not nessesarily going for tape compression. Tape does other things with time arrival vs frequency.

One thing we were discussing in a session yesterday was why D.I.s often sound 'flat'. I surmised that it was because the time arrival across the audible spectrum is linear, where time arrival in the real world (that is, through air) isn't. (Putting aside ambience cues for the sake of this discussion...)
I used a mic modeller, with the source model set to bypass and 'modeled' our D.I signal into an RCA or Coles or something and it made all the difference. Now, that applied both eq and time arrival curves to the signal, but the the results were audibly, to everyone, more 'lifelike'. That was just on a single track, but it illustrates what I'm trying to discuss regarding finished mixes.

Mixing "ITB" vs "OTB" isn't exactly on topic, but it's more on than not, as I think a lot of what people like about getting out of the DAW realm, in one way or another, are thse kinds of eq and time-domain responses.

I'm going to go out to the edge of my understanding of circuits with this, but I think the slew rate of an amplifer has something to do with it, too. Like how transients are effected, thus how high frequencies vs lower ones arrive to the listener relative to each other.



But I do agree what Jeff said about overcompression in 'mastering' these days bears repeating:

"Isn't it really, really bizarre to think that we have such magnificent capabilities at hand with our digital recording formats and as a sort of counter-active measure we crush them to death to get as little dynamic range out of them as possible...more like tape, but really beyond good judgement.

[@?,*???&?]

One thing we were discussing in a session yesterday was why D.I.s often sound 'flat'.

Ever try a Zaolla cable in-to and out-of a DI box?

http://www.zaolla.com/zaolla_specs_1.html

Many problems solved in doing so. This stuff ain't voodoo, it's real. As real as the slew rate of various electrical components.

As a side concept, the way an entire mix reacts going to tape is way different than the way individual sounds would react going to tape- don't you think? Isn't tape for a mix akin to submixing all tracks to a compressor?

[Mark Alan Miller]

Jeff- it's funny, but the last paragraph in your last post I just basically said in another thread. Well, not the compression bit, but the bits about individual tracks vs the 2-mix. But I don't think mixing to tape has to be like submixing through a compressor - if you don't slam the level and get tape 'compression' I think it's more like submixing through a circuit that imparts a subtle eq and time-arrival vs frequency curve. Oh, and it adds a little noise, too. There is something about the noise that can perhaps add to the 'shape' of the sound - even if the noise floor is really low.

As far as those cables go - the're more linear than standard copper. Cool! But, with a DI that's what I don't want nessesarily - I mean, that if I want to not have the DI sound 'flat' in the time domain sense, cables that are even more 'flat' than the copper I'm using are going to push me in the opposite direction of what I'm after...

or am I completely missing your point? That's entirely possible! Long (productive, but long) day today and I'm a little cooked.

[jmoose]

Even with crappy convertors and crappy console doing the actual mixing through the board and recording back into the DAW made a considerable improvement. I can't say why because I haven't tried copying an exact mix on the colsole the way I did it in the box and I don't really care too. All I know is the mixes sound wider, deeper and more real - more "packaged". I don't know why, it has to be the physical apect of adjusting knobs instead of clicking a mouse or whatever, but I mix totally different on the board than in the box, even if I am using plugs for FX and things, it's just lends itself to force me to make different decisions during mixing. I think that is the key as much as the whole analog gear versus math thing.

Long story short:
MIXING thorugh the console - I prefer the console mix everytime.

Yah man.

No doubt for me there's a stronger left/right brain connection or something that happens when I'm mixing on an analog desk.

With everything laid out in front of me & easily patchable, mixes come together in a fraction of the time it would take to build up something similar ITB. I'm mixing with a control surface for mutes, faders & solo from the DAW plus with the transport control I can turn the monitor OFF & just listen to music & run it like a tape machine with RR/FW...jog and all thst fun stuff which is GREAT!

With ITB there IS a tone thing too, sorry guys...but it's always thin & papery or just small & narrow. Going through a good analog desk & all the outboard rounds off all the edges & has more tonal 'breathing room' not to mention more headroom & that subtle compression thing.

I've got a good desk here & plenty of drool-inducing outboard gear to use with it so I don't ever use too many plug-ins. Generally a couple three gates with the odd compressor/limiter here & there and maybe & EQ or two...but ALL the 'heavy-lifting' including 'verbs are done with gear that 'plugs-into' the wall.

I'm pretty happy with the hybrid approach. I treat the DAW as a BIG tape machine & submixer...set everything I can to unity/0dB and let 'er rip. I ditched my outboard VCA automation about a year & half ago & do it all from the DAW now with a couple three hand moves per mix...ride the vocal & snare or whatever.

There's a whole helluva lotta flexibility to do anything that you need to do...but should be used ONLY if you need to do it. Otherwise it's just too damn tempting to keep moving shit around in tiny little increments that mean nothing in the long run. 'Cause it's ALWAYS faster & more musical to have the muso recut the part then to sit there and chop the shit together out of 500 takes. If 'ya find a quicker way to do it drop a line...I'd LOVE to hear it!

The same thing applies to mixing...taking some of the potential to perfect all those fades & whatnot for hours & hours on end isn't such a bad thing...NOW mixing involves both hands...no paging through menu's & faderbanks & whatnot. You can just sit there & listen, move things & twist knobs and get instant gratification from doing so!

It's a beautiful thing.

[jmoose]

Oh yeah..."packaging" a mix?!

That's what happens when they're all shrink wrapped up & have a price tag on 'em at the artists shows! LMAO

Nah...there is something going on. Some of it's compression...but there's a coheasiveness that exsists when audio is mixed in the analog realm.

If the mixing console you're on is kinda lo-fi or mid-fi...you can try running it at a lower internal gain structure & be just AT or even well under 0dBVU. Patch the output of 'da pissy little desk into a GREAT micamp (like big iron & headroom...API, Langevin, Neve's, Great River...whatever's around, go to the line in of the micamp & pad it down say 10 or 20dB...and crank the micamp for the gain & get it's mojo on there.

Push it hard enough and it'll start to act as a limiter & eventually breakup into a bajaliion pieces which is a cool sound sometimes...but not usually!