Does anyone still mix / master without viewing WAVs ??

[Jeff White]

some of us working digitally actually don't mix or master using WAVs - my version of Digital Performer still uses Sound Designer II files internally.

I am starting a new thread about this. <---(sarcasm)

i can't even imagine NOT working with digital audio with a screen and editing takes on the fly, using plug-ins AND outboard, mixing with a mouse in order to heavily automate almost every instrument group throughout a mix, switching off computer monitors and listening to a mix by lava lamp light half the time, etc.

However, with all of that said, I do miss the sound of tape rewinding between takes, having my hands on real faders, and constantly patching cables together.

Tools are tools. We use what we have, right?

[Nick Sevilla]

I sometimes count to 10 before playing from the daw again, to recreate the tape rewind wait, which served as q great pause for decision making.

Cheers

[losthighway]

The further I get in this the more I'm convinced that a computer is best for editing, and volume adjustments; it's quick, efficient and painlessly recallable. As for everything else (compression, effects etc) I think everything I do outboard always sounds better.

The one thing I'm on the fence about is eq. I have a bad feeling I will have the same attitude which could slow my process down a lot, and make me want to start buying Pultecs!

[cjogo]

Personally, I mix both with a console and with a mouse when I need to. It's all depending on what gear is available, the amount of time available, or personal preference really. It's fine to prefer to work one way, but it can also be very beneficial to know and use others. I find automation to be much easier with a DAW where I'm drawing envelopes instead of making multiple passes with faders. That's just my preference personally, but I honestly think it's a much faster way to work. I think summing OTB sounds better than ITB but again, that depends on what console or summing thingee you use for OTB mixing. Thingee is a technical term so I hope I didn't confuse anyone.

Never "draw envelopes", something else to add to my research ... Guess the days of 3/5 members of the band, in the control room @ mixdown , each with their hands on the faders ... leads me to still automix all 48 channels with hands on. OTB : We sum out stereo to a Finalizer thingee (DEQ 2496 )for sweetin' > to a Masterlink

[cjogo]

I sometimes count to 10 before playing from the daw again, to recreate the tape rewind wait, which served as q great pause for decision making.

Cheers

I liked that factor from my earlier days...... the band made some thoughts and re-recorded what they democratically thought was incorrect :: we did very little editing (snippin ) back in those days > and more was done in the performance of the musicians. Maybe why so many bands finished a song in 4/5 hours > not much post work.. But, I think out of this new technology ~ a totally new style of music /editing has evolved. If modern music comes knocking at our doors ... I certainly will not have clue Although with all this post editing >I guess one would be charging considerable more for the time involved ...( putting my clients out of range with their budgets)

last month artist -- one of his first recordings 1966http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMsyP-3glyU plug and play days http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNtZUmP ... re=related[/url]

[cjogo]

some of us working digitally actually don't mix or master using WAVs - my version of Digital Performer still uses Sound Designer II files internally.

I am starting a new thread about this. <---(sarcasm)

i can't even imagine NOT working with digital audio with a screen and editing takes on the fly, using plug-ins AND outboard, mixing with a mouse in order to heavily automate almost every instrument group throughout a mix, switching off computer monitors and listening to a mix by lava lamp light half the time, etc.

However, with all of that said, I do miss the sound of tape rewinding between takes, having my hands on real faders, and constantly patching cables together.

Tools are tools. We use what we have, right?

We automate all 48 channels {hands on faders}-- their eq/ effects /comps/etc > just never go to a wav.. the sequencer editing is quite slow on our Kurzweils ( no mouse /keyboard ) so most of the outputs from those 16 channels, are automated on inputs to the Roland VS

[cjogo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJnKMLbX ... re=related

You can see a live tracking session -- at the studio >>

[cjogo]

If you knew, you would know it has a banking and a nudging button, so you can bank in

Cheers

Using our nudge tool http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJnKMLbX ... re=related

[Autodidact]

[JGriffin]

It's funny though; most troll threads get much nastier much quicker. This one has a more subdued vibe.

[cjogo]

No luck trolling without WAV bait -- it looks like

hook-line-& sinker for us ancient engineers on the Coast....

[chris harris]

I'm still kinda speechless and puzzled.

[cjogo]

It's funny though; most troll threads get much nastier much quicker. This one has a more subdued vibe.

Strange that searching for info on a friendly forum :: In & About sharing the music of individuals Recording Technique >> would get ugly ? Guess it's all learning experiences .... sure not to ask about politics or religion

[cjogo]

I'm still kinda speechless and puzzled.

The conclusion looks to be : that most work with a newer method of recording. Something we will have to employ ~ if and when that genre of music is requested by a inquiring artist here. Not much different than asking if one adds compression before or after eq -- just tools of your market.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

that genre of music.

what genre of music would that be?

i'm in the middle of making a record with a classic rock band. we are using the computer.