Seeking OTB enthusiasts opinions...

[2121TrumbullAve]

Mark, could you please clarify for me what this statement means, exactly? I'm not quite grasping it:

"...Of course, the sooner one can be mixing through the actual signal chain, the more one will mix 'into' the sound of said chain. So earlier is better in that regard. Just like putting a compressor across a 2-mix, the sooner one applies the processing during mix, the better that processing will be utilised."


Thanks everyone for your thoughts, BTW.

John

[xonlocust]

i thought this thread was gonna be about off track betting...

[2121TrumbullAve]

So now I'm confused as to how to properly do a ITB/OTB comparison.

Since I have to set trim levels on the outboard mixer, even at unity the levels won't be exactly like they are in the software console. I'm thinning there's a simple way to take an ITB mix, and simply dump that exact mix into a console at unity and spit it back into the software - by having my trims and faders all identically set?

So I am winding up with my ITB and OTB mixes being just that - different mixes with different individual track levels, and it makes it difficult to objectively judge whether or not I'm hearing any overall differences (which I am, btw).

What's the rule of thumb here?

This is embarrassing, so please don't roll your eyes too hard; the switch to OTB procedure with all the routing and new mindset has my head spinning and I'm not thinking clearly.

[Mark Alan Miller]

Mark, could you please clarify for me what this statement means, exactly? I'm not quite grasping it:

"...Of course, the sooner one can be mixing through the actual signal chain, the more one will mix 'into' the sound of said chain. So earlier is better in that regard. Just like putting a compressor across a 2-mix, the sooner one applies the processing during mix, the better that processing will be utilised."

Like any time one is going to run a signal through a processor, like when someone is going to put a compressor on the L/R buss of a mix (or across any buss for that matter) it's usually better to have said processing engaged as early on in the mix so it's part of the mix, so sounds and balances are worked on with the processing in place, even if that processing might get tweaked a little as time goes on.
That is, if one were to put a mix together and then at the last minute put a compressor on the whole mix, the way the compressor would react to the mix could radically alter the perceived balance of that mix. For example, heavy bass bits could make the mix 'pump' in a way that changed the way the balance sounded. If the compression were in place earlier, one would hear that reaction, and accomodate for it by changing the balance and/or eq of the bass. For example.
I always get tones 'through the signal path' whether it's tracking or mixing, so the sound of the console, the A/D and D/A etc etc are all taken into consideration by default when making sonic decisions...

Now, apply that similar thought to a set of subgroups or individual outs going to a mixer or summing box when mixing them OTB. The sound of those individual D/A converters, input amplifiers, summing amplifiers, etc etc, are all going to subtly, or not-so-subtly, affect the sound of the mix. The sooner one is listening through those signal paths, the sooner mix decisions will be made with the sound of those chains in mind.

So now I'm confused as to how to properly do a ITB/OTB comparison.

Since I have to set trim levels on the outboard mixer, even at unity the levels won't be exactly like they are in the software console. I'm thinning there's a simple way to take an ITB mix, and simply dump that exact mix into a console at unity and spit it back into the software - by having my trims and faders all identically set?

So I am winding up with my ITB and OTB mixes being just that - different mixes with different individual track levels, and it makes it difficult to objectively judge whether or not I'm hearing any overall differences (which I am, btw).

What's the rule of thumb here?

This is embarrassing, so please don't roll your eyes too hard; the switch to OTB procedure with all the routing and new mindset has my head spinning and I'm not thinking clearly.

No eye rolling at all! We all gotta learn...
Try this: calibrate your levels coming out of the DAW through the console, so at least your bussing/track levels are consistent to start with.
Take a 1kHz tone, say, at a level of -12dbfs, and send it to all outputs of the DAW through all of the inputs on the mixer. Carefully set each input up so with the fader at 'unity' the channels all output the same level to the L/R mix buss.
Depending on the operating levels of your D/A converters and mixer, that (somewhat arbitrary) -12dbfs digital should correspond to something like 0db, perhaps. In any event, if should be consistent across all channels.
Then, with every channel on the mixer acting consistently, switching the outputs of, say, your DAWs subgroups from it's internal L/R mix buss to individual stereo output pairs on you mixer will at least give you the same balance between ITB and OTB mixes. Take care to match listening levels bewteen the two different mixes as closely as possible when comparing - even a monitor level difference of 1/4 db will make a difference. And usually, all other things being equal, a louder mix will sound 'better'.

Just to monkey-wrench, perhaps making this calibration happen is irrelevant... if one working method yeilds a mix that is subjectively better for you, then it's better!

Did that help?

[2121TrumbullAve]

thanks very much for your reply, Mark. I get it now.

Incidentally, I just threw together a mix OTB that is much better than anything previous. I need to now be careful and objective during comparison - I don't want to like the OTB mixes better, but thus far it is shaping up that I do.

On the lighter side, my room looks more like an actual studio now with a tactile console and all those cords everywhere...
Thanks again.

John in Denver

[T-rex]

Right now recording right back into Cubase.

Only issue with this is if your project is at 24 bit, then your master is at 24 bit. At that point it should go to mastering or you will have to dither in the box to get it to 16/44.1 for the final CD.

I have considered getting a Masterlink just for mixing to, but I am thinking a nice set of 2 channel ad/da would be better and keep doing what I am doing. . Of course I would love to get a nice 2 channel tape deck to mix too, but that's a whole other thread. . .

[OneZero]

I just started running my mixes out of my 001 and through the 8 tracks of my 388 so I couid patch some outboard gear and record back into the computer. Man I love it!!!!

Using hardware instead of software for mixing really seems to make a difference for me. I can actually hear the eq adjustments.

Never going back i tell you....Unless I get some decent convertors I guess.

[2121TrumbullAve]

what's a 388?

(scoffs, jeers from the galley...)

[Mark Alan Miller]

Right now recording right back into Cubase.

Only issue with this is if your project is at 24 bit, then your master is at 24 bit. At that point it should go to mastering or you will have to dither in the box to get it to 16/44.1 for the final CD.

Nothing wrong with that at all! I recommend that everyone mix to the highest bit depth possible... for many reasons.
One, if any further processing needs to be done to the mix (i.e. 'mastering') then it's done at a higher resolution - making the math less damaging.
Two, if one decides to release the material at a later date, with a higher-resolution delivery media, you're in better shape.
Three, with dither sounding so good these days, there simply is no reason not to stay at the highest resolution possible for as long as possible.

That is, don't mix to 16 bit simply because that's where you are going to end up (assuming a CD format for release...)

[2121TrumbullAve]

So, like, you can hear dithering? I consider myself to have decent ears, and I can't hear dithering; perhaps because I mix only rock material?

[Mark Alan Miller]

I cannot say that I can hear one pass of dithering, per se, applied to a full-scale 24 bit recording, dithered down to 16 bits... But, on really quiet fade outs or passages, with the monitors cranked, the smoothness of the decay changes, for the better to my ears. During loud moments I don't know if I'd hear the slight increase in clarity nessesarily. I've never really tried an A/B experiment. I should.

[OneZero]

what's a 388?

(scoffs, jeers from the galley...)

A 388 is an older (1985) tascam tape deck/mixer all-in-one uniit The EQs on the mixer are kinda nice.

[Blade]

I'm with you on that one, except I have the 688 cassette version.

This thing was the caddilac of home recording until the digital age.

The pre's in this thing rock and the eq is so analog and very musical.

i use this thing to record tracks with, and then dump them into my session. I also used for OTB mixing......SWEET!