Studios without any type of "board" at all

[RodC]

I dont want to create some huge quote here, but wanted to reply to fossiltooth and Mradyfist.

I have no issue with having all the same pres, a nice board is cool. The industry didnt make me do it, my love for different sounding pres did it, and my love of modding them. Trouble shooting different ones aint no issue either.

Most of my pres I have either built or modded for specific instruments/types of mics.

This also made it possible for me to build up 60+ channels of pres (30+ different flavors) little by little.

Many of the overlooked pres sound good on one or 2 sources, after you have recorded with each of them you get to know them. I dont waste a lot of time trying 62 different pres on a source. If I know Bass dont sound good through it I wont.

If you only have one kind of pre I guess it dont matter, you will never hear just how drastic the difference can be.

I guess I also didnt read any argument into the thread, I was just trying to state how I do things.

BTW, If I want several of the same pres I have many that are 8, 6, 4 or 2 channel. Many times I will record every drum piece with my Altec 1628a.

[RodC]

Maybe I'm out of my mind, or deaf. But In a regular session, as long as they were competently designed preamps, I've always thought to myself "there's other stuff to worry about" that I'd spend time on during setup and the recording process. To me, just about everything else matters more. As long as the preamp sends signal without fucking up or making weird noises, I'm good.

Thats what you think at first, and maybe I dont own any of the expensive stuff (Although some of my customers have sent me some pretty nice sounding compairsions between my EF86 pres and some pretty expensive stuff), but there is a wide range of sounds from many preamps.

Most of what I record I use a Mic. Most of my effects are in the box, compression and such. The way I see it I have 3 hardware items to shape the sound. (Room and Mic placement and other things are important, but lets just look at the hardware chain) I have Mic-Pre-Converter. I want to pick the best combination of the mic and pre to get the sound as close to what I want as possible. With mic placement and the proper mic/pre many many times I dont even have to EQ. If I do, it will be very minimal.

Why skip one more option? - Because many ppl dont like options. You have to do the part you enjoy. We enjoy pluggin in several preamps/mics and seeing which sounds the best.

[Mradyfist]

See? This is my main point right here. I know exactly what you're talking about. When I'm mixing with a mouse, I get sucked into the DAW and my perception changes. I have to take occasional breaks, sit back in a chair, close my eyes and
listen.

I'm not unique in this way. Many of those who mix with a mouse complain of a similar scenario, and you're complaining of it too! You can be working on a mix for a couple hours, working with a mouse, staring at the screen, but it's not until you turn it off and stop mixing that you really hear things for the first time.

When you're mixing on a console, or even a control surface, you can be in a true listening state of mind the entire time. A visual connection with a computer screen does not easily allow a (this is gonna sound so lame) spiritual "mindset" or a deep listening experience.

That's why you find yourself having to shut the screen off, sit back in the couch, and really listen to finally hear your mix for what it is.

Ok, I don't understand why computer screens are visual, but a giant board full of numbers and knobs isn't. I have to do the same thing with a board, because otherwise I've got all this information about my mix staring me in the face, and all these controls that I feel like I should be using even if I know they don't need to be touched right now. I've never felt like I was always "just listening" with a board, unless I close my eyes. That's certainly a workable way to do it, but I don't see it as being better than turning off my screen.

Again, not saying that you can't do good work on a board because that's obviously not true. Just saying that the things people say are wrong with DAWs tend to also be issues with a board, only they've internalized the workarounds already so they don't notice.

Although a console for recording might not make sense in your case (it didn't make sense when I began putting together my own project studio either), you might want to consider a small control surface at some point. If you devote as much time to manipulating a mixer as you do to manipulating a mouse, I'd be surprised if you didn't find it to be a quicker, more fulfilling, and more fun experience.

I still do quite a bit of mouse-mixing, but having faders under my fingers is always preferred.

I actually do sound over at my church as well, because I designed their new system. It's something of a hybrid; there's a Mackie 24:8 as the main board. However, I've got a computer that I built with 32 analog ins and outs patched into the inserts of the channels and subgroups. The idea is that you have an analog board for speed, and comfortability when other engineers come in. However, everything goes through the computer as well, so you have an infinite variety of plugins, easy recall, and 24-track recording.

Since I'm the person over there that actually knows the system, they call me in whenever they have a complicated setup to run. Of course, when I'm actually running the live show I use the Mackie. There's nothing like a big board full of faders when you need to jump to different channels quickly. However, when I'm doing the mixdown after the show, I bring everything back to two faders on the Mackie and mix on the computer. Seems weird, sure, but I don't need to jump around to different channels all the time because I already know what's going to happen. I can focus on what needs work at the moment, and I don't have a ton of faders for channels that are already good getting in my way.

I wouldn't say that I'm fantastic at running a board, but I'm a pretty competent live mixer, and I do it pretty regularly. It's great for some things, but I'm just much happier using a mouse

And RodC, I think for the most part I agree with you. I do see an advantage in some situations of having a row of preamps that are all the same to speed up setup, but preamps are definitely different and important. When I finally got a patch bay set up to switch between the pres that I've got (nothing amazing, just a Focusrite Red, a Digimax LT, a Drawmer MX60, and some ART TPSIIs), I was pretty shocked to notice how many differences there were, even just using an SM57 and my own voice. This is the kind of stuff that's really difficult to quantify without direct comparison but still has an effect.

[Patrick McAnulty]

With a board you have all the same pres.

Problem?

Our "industry's" recent obsession with a different mic pre for everything is somewhat ludicrous, and was largely created by manufacturers and marketers of products.

Sure, I own several different Pre's and use them for different things. On the other hand, they can be just another thing to think about and waste time routing and troubleshooting when you can be paying attention to things that usually make a bigger difference: performance, tuning, mic placement, arrangement, EQ, Mic Choice, etc.,

I'm not bashing the idea of using alternate pres for certain sounds... but c'mon! It's really gotten out of hand... to the point where people think it's a drawback to have a console because they contain only one type pf pre!

Getting back to the root of this argument, I think that every studio should have some type of board or control surface. Mouse mixing is a drag. It discourages true listening, as it promotes a visual state of mind. It hinders true instinctive interaction, as you can only work on one track or group at a time. It encourages placement of the computer monitor right between the speakers, which is bad for listening, state of mind, and imaging.

Having said all this, I'll admit that I've done quite a bit of mouse mixing in my life... that's why I have so many complaints. You can get good results from visually focused mouse-mixing.... It's just a total drag, and takes much longer than it should.

So, if you're able, do yourselves a favor, people! Even a control surface will do.

care to clarify the bold and underlined part, anyone? I have my monitor set up between my monitors and would like to know why this is bad.

[rwc]

I have a 50" 16:9 HDTV set I got for my room back when I had a real job(not audio ), for television, and as a computer monitor. The speakers are separated from it by about 17" on each side, and another 13" from the side walls. Moving the TV all the way to the back of the room does kind of give the sound a bit more help situating in the room. It's impossible for me to do the kind of blind test I'd like to with this practically, but I don't think placebo is playing a role in this. Having something of significant size between the speakers opposed to free space surely does something.

Stuff sounds cooler as well when you're not watching the screen, too.

A lot of people who ix ITB at home have a setup I'd never want to work with.. very small, cheap speakers that can't possibly reproduce the whole range, right up against a wall(causes so many issues), 3 feet apart from each other and 2 feet away from the listener. It's near impossible for me to get something that translates everywhere(or anywhere) with this kind of setup, maybe because I'm not used to them and never use it. I have a full range stereo with the speakers placed 7' apart, angled slightly towards me, with me about 6' away. I'm about 4' away from the back walls and the speakers 5' away from the back walls.. and with cheap diffusers I found in a dumpster where the earliest reflection are. My room looks absolutely ridiculous, but I'll be damned if it isn't accurate sound.

[Fieryjack]

To respond to original topic....

I think it is more common for 'audio for video' studios to be going console-less. For them (if they have clients in) a console can be a distraction to clients. They want 100% focus to be on the video or the commercial, whatever, and keep the whole 'engineering station' more low key/very much not the center of attention. There is a studio called Mach 2 in Milan Italy--doing LOTS of work--who elected against consoles in all of its rooms and instead invested in interior/acoustic design.

Someone was pointing out positives and negatives of having a console before, and the most obvious omission to this list was console reflections. If not positioned properly in relation to the monitors/glass, consoles can have a terrible effect on room acoustics. Removing the console is one way of solving this issue


Which brings me to my next point.....I personally don't own a console yet, but am putting more $ and effort into my room. Good room design/construction has an equal positive effect on clients that a console does, and even carries possibly a more audible benefit. I do plan on getting a good console some day though when I can afford it. (I agree with what someone else said earlier--don't bother unless its REALLY good).

[fossiltooth]

Ok, I don't understand why computer screens are visual, but a giant board full of numbers and knobs isn't.

We might just have to agree to disagree about what works best for each of us.

To me, a computer screen is visual, and a board is physical.

On a board, you can grab two faders at once and balance them against each other with your eyes closed. You can grab an eq and sweep around without ever looking at it.

It encourages placement of the computer monitor right between the speakers, which is bad for listening, state of mind, and imaging.

care to clarify the bold and underlined part, anyone? I have my monitor set up between my monitors and would like to know why this is bad.

I think I've explained why I feel it's bad for state-of-mind and for true listening. However, I haven't mentioned imaging yet. If you're listening to a stereo mix on a good system in a good room, you can almost "see" where each sound emanates from in the stereo field and in the front-to-back "depth" field. I can almost "see" the relative "sizes" and placements of sounds ...in a very un-visual kind of way... (gimmie a break, it's hard to talk about sound!) I feel a screen interferes with this kind of auditory-spatial perception, not to mention it's a big hunk of reflective mass right between the speakers.

I work with a computer screen all the time, but when one is right in front of my face, I feel tethered to it, and my listening experience, as well as the listening experiences of those around me, is rarely as deep or fulfilling.

My favorite studios have the screen on a rolling cart in front of the console, next to the mix position. It can be rolled to the center for fine tweaking in the suite spot, it can be placed to the side of the engineer for easy access to routing and editing, or it can be rolled. backwards or rotated so that an assistant engineer can play modern day "Tape-Op".

Such a setup isn't feasible in all studios. In my own personal project studio I have the screen right between my speakers as a matter of necessity, and I do a lot of mixing with a mouse. I wish it wasn't so, but it is what it is. You can get great results under these circumstances. But, if you ask me I've found that other setups can lead to faster, more intuitive, and more enjoyable workflows.

That's my opinion. Most of the engineers I've met who are far better than I am agree with me. OK. I'm going to stop prattling on about the same narrow topic now.

Work in whatever way is best for you. I just encourage that you explore other options. mradyfist, it appears that you've done so, and settled on what works best for you at this time. Good! As long as you feel good about your workflow, you're doing it right!

[JohnDavisNYC]

beer tells me that mixing with a console is better.

anyone here want to argue with beer?

john

[xonlocust]

beer tells me that mixing with a console is better.

anyone here want to argue with beer?

john

best post of thread. lock it. discussion over.

[audiogeek1]

I thnk this topic is interesting. I was having a discussion with a colleague about something very similar the other day. We were discussing the current breed of engineers that are coming our way. Most of them have never heard 2" tape in person, most have never worked on a really good analog console ie (Neve, API, SSL, Trident, High Dollar Ameks etc...). They just have a different perspective than someone like me who has had this experience.

One of the things we discussed was even without my crutches (2", Console) that I have been impressed with some of the things these kids have come up with. They get there a different way than I would, but that is probably not a bad thing. So if mouse mixing is your thing then go for it. For me I like faders. I like moving them into place. I like the resistance of faders. I like reaching for a knob. That is me. I do mix in the box out of convenience from time to time. I tend to do this more. But I use faders while doing it. It fits better for my thing.


Now on a side note. I did take one of these students and had him record a song on 2" and through a solid analog console. It was amazing to watch his expression on playback from the 2" machine. His eyes were as big as softballs. He now knew of what I would talk to him about. He gets great results his way working without faders etc... But for a time he was able to really hear what my co workers and I talk about and use on a regular basis.

Just some food for thought.

Mike

[centurymantra]

I think I've explained why I feel it's bad for state-of-mind and for true listening. However, I haven't mentioned imaging yet. If you're listening to a stereo mix on a good system in a good room, you can almost "see" where each sound emanates from in the stereo field and in the front-to-back "depth" field. I can almost "see" the relative "sizes" and placements of sounds ...in a very un-visual kind of way... (gimmie a break, it's hard to talk about sound!) I feel a screen interferes with this kind of auditory-spatial perception, not to mention it's a big hunk of reflective mass right between the speakers.

I work with a computer screen all the time, but when one is right in front of my face, I feel tethered to it, and my listening experience, as well as the listening experiences of those around me, is rarely as deep or fulfilling.

My favorite studios have the screen on a rolling cart in front of the console, next to the mix position. It can be rolled to the center for fine tweaking in the suite spot, it can be placed to the side of the engineer for easy access to routing and editing, or it can be rolled. backwards or rotated so that an assistant engineer can play modern day "Tape-Op".

Such a setup isn't feasible in all studios. In my own personal project studio I have the screen right between my speakers as a matter of necessity, and I do a lot of mixing with a mouse. I wish it wasn't so, but it is what it is. You can get great results under these circumstances. But, if you ask me I've found that other setups can lead to faster, more intuitive, and more enjoyable workflows.

That's my opinion. Most of the engineers I've met who are far better than I am agree with me. OK. I'm going to stop prattling on about the same narrow topic now.

Has anyone ever tried setting up their workstation like this:





I was just going through a catalog offering ergonomic office furniture and noticed this. Seems like a great solution for audio workstations, as a means of getting that monitor out of the way of the speakers.

[inverseroom]

Plus, there's no overestimating the value of a good ficus in the studio.

[lotusstudio]

I agree with RodC about preamps. When I decided to go digital, I also decided to do it BOARDLESS. So, instead of the board, I have invested some cash in a few nice preamps (Grace, Neve, Groovetubes, Chameleon Labs, etc.)

So, here's my logic: I have a mic and then a pre and then the analog sound hits the converters and is cast in concrete as a wave file on my hard drive. Since I am not using tape, I want to get my mojo and my vibe going up front - from the preamp. The right combo choice really affects not only how good the mic sounds, but also the character of the sound. I can get grit, or thickness, or clarity, or shimmer depending on the preamp I use. One of my transformer based pres can be intentionally overdriven to any degree which is way cooler than doing it with a plug-in.

I wanted to get at least one good example of each species - tube, x-former, and fast solid state.

PLUS, now my studio is high-quality, semi-portable, and even with all the pres it's easier to move and occupies a much smaller footprint than if I had a huge mixing console.

Even though my work sounds good to me, I am still debating whether to get an analog summing box...snake oil???

[playonbrother]

I think I've explained why I feel it's bad for state-of-mind and for true listening. However, I haven't mentioned imaging yet. If you're listening to a stereo mix on a good system in a good room, you can almost "see" where each sound emanates from in the stereo field and in the front-to-back "depth" field. I can almost "see" the relative "sizes" and placements of sounds ...in a very un-visual kind of way... (gimmie a break, it's hard to talk about sound!) I feel a screen interferes with this kind of auditory-spatial perception, not to mention it's a big hunk of reflective mass right between the speakers.

I work with a computer screen all the time, but when one is right in front of my face, I feel tethered to it, and my listening experience, as well as the listening experiences of those around me, is rarely as deep or fulfilling.

My favorite studios have the screen on a rolling cart in front of the console, next to the mix position. It can be rolled to the center for fine tweaking in the suite spot, it can be placed to the side of the engineer for easy access to routing and editing, or it can be rolled. backwards or rotated so that an assistant engineer can play modern day "Tape-Op".

Such a setup isn't feasible in all studios. In my own personal project studio I have the screen right between my speakers as a matter of necessity, and I do a lot of mixing with a mouse. I wish it wasn't so, but it is what it is. You can get great results under these circumstances. But, if you ask me I've found that other setups can lead to faster, more intuitive, and more enjoyable workflows.

That's my opinion. Most of the engineers I've met who are far better than I am agree with me. OK. I'm going to stop prattling on about the same narrow topic now.

Has anyone ever tried setting up their workstation like this:





I was just going through a catalog offering ergonomic office furniture and noticed this. Seems like a great solution for audio workstations, as a means of getting that monitor out of the way of the speakers.

I really dig drinking beer while mixing but if I pass during a really long mix, I'd probably just mess up a few eq and fader caps with a nice face plant. I'd hate to see the look on my wife's face when she comes down in the morning and see's my head buried in that computer screen with a death grip around a red stripe. hahahahaha.

Al

[fossiltooth]

Even though my work sounds good to me, I am still debating whether to get an analog summing box...snake oil???

No, analog summing isn't snake oil. Just about any board or summing box will sound different than what you're already using. Whether it's a major difference to your ears, or one that's worth the investment is a personal call.

In audio, everything sounds different. Chances are any two given sm57's will sound somewhat different from eachother. Again, it's about whether that difference is appreciable or worth spending mental energy on for you.

For me, the bigger advantages of having a console are the advantages afforded in speed, workflow and inspiration. "Summing" as it were, would be a distant 2nd after all these considerations for me. Others have their own priorities.