so why is it so bad to mix in the box?

[otter]

i am constantly hearing from people that it is absolute heresy to mix to stereo within protools, especially LE systems. i too prefer a tried and true mixer but the convenience of the box is often tempting. i've heard records that were mixed in the box that have sounded great... so what exactly is happenning to the signal in protools when bussed to two tracks? is it less of an offense if i'm only mixing 8 tracks vs. say 24? i'm a little unsure of the science as to what protools is potentially doing to degrade signal in this bus down...

[maz]

well, this is a huge subject that has a lot more voodoo to it than hard acoustical science.

THe mix bus math is subject to all kinds of debate, from platform to platform, program to program, etc.

Here's a great forum for more info: http://www.3daudioinc.com/cgi-bin/ultim ... forum&f=19

But you are right, there actually are some good sounds that can come out of even a Pro Tools LE system. So the best thing to do would be try it and see if you are pleased and then forget all the debate that takes too much time away from writing and recording good songs and performances!

[apropos of nothing]

I honestly think the in-the-box vx. out-of-the-box is related to convenience of the style of things that one would like to do with one's mixing interface.

If one has fantastic sounding preamps in one's board, and one wants to add a little bit of saturation to a particular channel, sure twisting the knob on the board is gonig to be easier than bring up the particular parametric page, adding the plug, adjusting the plug etc. And it'll sound a hella lot better because analog gain stages do have a particular sonic charm to them.

OTOH, if one doesn't have 2,000-20,000 to spend on one's mixing board to get those fantastic-sounding pres, the hell with it, mixing in the box can be just as nice-sounding, if a little more of a hassle.

Another factor is that (potentially) unlimited FX plug-ins make people want to use them, and there's a lot of sonic elbow-grease in dry signals.

If I had the money to go all outboard, sure I'd do it. Do I? Not on your life. Do I think my mixes suffer because of it? Cum see cum saw. My mixes suffer because I'm not the world's most experienced mixer, but that's regardless of the hardware I'm mixing on.

Given identical material and similar processing capabilities I think that most people would be hard-pressed to to tell you which which of two mixes was made in vs out.

[Slider]

Yeah, this is a tough one.
I mix both ways and I personally have an easier time of it through a console.
This might be just because I grew up working this way and it's very intuitive for me.

The instant recall of mixing in the box is amazing.
It's so cool to be able to mix a song and go on to something else knowing you still have a chance to easily make changes to the last one.

It does seem like some magic happens when the mix is brought out through the console.
I honestly don't know exactly why this is.
I guess it could be that the math of digital summing ITB is mucking up the sound to some degree.
I'd say being able to use some analog compression and eq, plus the hands on tactile feel of a console is the other 50% that makes the results sound so good.
There's nothing wrong with mixing in your computer, as long as you get results you're happy with.

[FNM]

Yeah I can see that being pretty much the case.

I think a lot of people probably lose some vibe when mixing in the box, and to a lot of people, the vibe is probably one of the most important things to the recording or song.

[andyg666]

UTFSF... plenty of topics about digital vs. analog summing. analog gives you better stereo imaging, more detail, more depth, less distortion, etc.

in my opinion, it doesn't make a difference. if you are good and make good mixes, it doesn't matter how you do it. good is good and crap is crap. i could have a 96 channel SSL and my mixes would probably sound just about the same as they do mixing everything in my computer. until I become BETTER AT MIXING my mixes will sound pretty much the same no matter what i do.

[optionshift3]

After 8 years of mixing EXCLUSIVELY in the box (all PT), I booked some time at another studio (heresy!!!) to finally try mixing exclusively on a console. I had read numerous threads like this one in numerous places, and finally just decided to see what I thought.
It may have been the Neve, but there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that it sounded better. The main beef against ITB seems to be that summing crucifies a lot of the spatial aspects of a mix. I couldn't show you the math, but under any monitoring cirumstances, the mixes were absolutely wider. There was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, more depth. Seriously, from NS10's to headphones to genelecs to my car, it was waaaaaay better.
So now I am left with a beautiful studio centered not around a console, but around an HD3 Accel. Some of the techniques that I used learning to mix on the console can be applied, but the results aren't going to be the same. I can't speak to mixing on any other console other than the Neve that I actually used, but those results, for me, were concrete.
So my two cents, based upon an experience within the last month. For what it's worth...

[kittonian]

Try adding a Dangerous 2-Bus, Dangerous Monitor, and Dangerous MQ to your digital setup and use the 2-Bus to sum everything (no master fader, things that are straight up the middle sent directly to a mono out with mono engaged on the 2-Bus for that input, etc.). You will notice a huge difference without a doubt and believers and disbelievers alike need to hear it for themselves.

The best quote I ever received from a customer was "How could people even debate this? An untrained monkey could tell the difference."

I always explain it like this. Imagine getting a great drum mix going. Then you mute the drums and get a great guitar mix going. Now you listen to both the guitars and the drums together and you find yourself increasing the volume of the kick drum and/or snare because all of a sudden they are too low or not "poppy" enough. This is where high end external analog summing comes into play.

Ever since I first heard it for myself and a/b'd the difference in real-time I haven't looked back. I use that exact setup every single day and my mixes have improved significantly from only mixing ITB.

[misterock]

Whoa! The Dangerous Music stuff is sweet, and mixing that way is much better than ITB.

What you essentially just said is, "dig down deep and drop $10,000.00 on some Dangerous gear!"

With $10k there are many, many options. I have a feeling alot of the guys here dont have $10k into their entire system. Though I could be wrong.

Dont forget that Big Ben or Aardvark, some appogee converters, and the UA6176, that will bring your total to about 15k. Once you have all of that you might as well scrap anything that says LE on it because you'll hate it.

Seriously though, if you are trying to mix real professional quality stuff, hire a professional mixing engineer and rent a real studio to mix at. You can still record at home, all you need is a portable hard drive. Then hire a mastering engineer to master it.

Otherwise, you'll have to live with your squishy ITB mixes that most hobbyists do, WAVES helps...and for homespun fun, it's sounds pretty damn good!

[high tek]

so if analogue summing is SO much beter than digital, why is it that pro tools is so popular for this?

also, how would a cheap analogue board (say a 16ch mackie) compare to a digital sum in lets say subase sx or logic?
if you bused each channel out of your DAW and mixed with the mackie compared to a digital sum.


anyone try this for comparison? (no guesses or assumptions please)

[misterock]

So many people mix ITB because it's cheap and they are making use of what they have. Which can be a good thing compared to other budget options.

When you go to a "real" mix room with "LE" SDII files or whatever, you are presented with many options. The have the word clock, outboard gear, I've even seen guys fly all the tracks from PT to 2". They have plenty of I/O's so you can reamp your pod tracks to a real Marshall or whatever.

All of these activities require time, knowledge, and gear. Or you could save up and buy your own gear and spend the learning curve time (years) to figure it out. You'll need monitors, acoustic treatments, mics, pre-amps...

I have never run my digi 001 outs to my mackie to my burner. I've thought about it though. I am tapped for time as I have a business, kids and a drinking problem! LOL I am happy to hit record.

I bought my first 4-track in 1988, the digi is my 5th rig, so I've aquired some cool (and not so cool) stuff over the years.

I would definately try running into my mackie if I had the time! There will always be room for killer studios and professional engineers, it's not so easy to write, play, produce, engineer, mix, and master all by yourself. It is great for getting some pre prod wrapped up to save you big money in the real room, or, as in my case, produce semi-decent mixes that WOW my friends and family even though I know they are half-assed on every level.

I love music and recording!

[dynomike]

so if analogue summing is SO much beter than digital, why is it that pro tools is so popular for this?

I don't know if you conside this an assumption, since I've never mixed through an analog board, but there is a fairly big difference between the mix bus in PTHD and some other audio apps in that PT has a 48 bit mixing bus... there's a pdf on this somewhere. You have a lot less math errors when you have those extra bits to work with. Plus, they have it arranged so there is extra headroom as well. Sounds good, but I haven't heard it.

Mike

[Slider]

so if analogue summing is SO much beter than digital, why is it that pro tools is so popular for this?

The majority of big budget rock records are still mixed through consoles.
Like the Lord-Alge brothers and Jack Puig, all analog console mixers.

[high tek]

so if analogue summing is SO much beter than digital, why is it that pro tools is so popular for this?

I don't know if you conside this an assumption, since I've never mixed through an analog board, but there is a fairly big difference between the mix bus in PTHD and some other audio apps in that PT has a 48 bit mixing bus... there's a pdf on this somewhere. You have a lot less math errors when you have those extra bits to work with. Plus, they have it arranged so there is extra headroom as well. Sounds good, but I haven't heard it.

Mike

the assumtion thing i said was reffering to COMPARING mixing in PT vs a cheap mackie board.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

i would mix in the box before i'd mix through a mackie. i'm in print in tapeop saying the opposite, but whatever, i was wrong then! mackies suck, they have this weird low mid haze and not much headroom. i wouldn't be too psyched about most of the other cheap mixers either, but i haven't tried them so i can't say for sure.

anyway, i have no problem believing that a neve or a dangerous 2, or whatever could beat in the box, but really, this whole issue is way overdone i think. your converters, gain structure, mics/pres/techniques blablabla will all have way more impact on what your mix sounds like than how you sum it.

in my humble opinion.