How do you like to work between analog and digital?

Ryan Silva · Post by **Ryan Silva** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:46 am

Track/Monitor through Toft ATB16 using API?s, then to the Lynx Aurora. Then to Nuendo

Very little use of EQ on the way in, will track using a DBX 160a on Bass and Vocals, just touching the peaks.

Then in the box I bus things back too the Toft ATB16, this is where I do most of the compression of non-drum tracks, and where I add automation.

Then I stay out of the box until mix down where I add hardware compression and channel EQ, I also use mostly outboard effects for verbs and such. Then it comes back into 2 channels of the Lynx.

I?d say I use about 50% plug-ins and 50% outboard at the moment, but I plan to mix more OTB as time and money allow.

joninc · Post by **joninc** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:53 pm

this a great thread - i have been thinking about this stuff alot lately. the review of the Tonebuss in TapeOp has me really thinking about that too.

if you dont think about a DAW as anything BUT a tape machine.. a really, really smart one, but a tape machine nonetheless... then it becomes completely self apparent as to how to implement it in an analog studio.

so you don't run any automation (volume/effects etc..) off your DAW? no plug ins?

lately i have been wondering about the old idea of leaving everything in the DAW at unity (because *supposedly* anytime you apply a volume change/fx/eq/pan you are requiring the computer to do math and degrading your signal). do you guys buy that? apparently it was true of early versions of protools? 2 diff producer/engineers i know who do great work have told me that. i work in nuendo and cubase so i don't know if the same things may apply there or not.

i am not sure if i believe it or not but lately i have been feeling like things are maybe getting overcooked and losing quality by using too many plug ins and stuff ITB. somehow it feels like things get smaller and less 3d sometimes. my gut feels like it wants me to leave the bulk or all of the processing to happen in the analog world and let the computer just be a tape machine/editing device. maybe that's what you are suggesting Joel?

i have some outboard so i could do more of my comp/eq out of the box but there's no automation on my board so losing that would make my mixes a lot more complicated to perform in real time ( and forget about recall)

Ryan Silva wrote:
Then in the box I bus things back too the Toft ATB16, this is where I do most of the compression of non-drum tracks, and where I add automation.

Then I stay out of the box until mix down

this is interesting - don't you find it would be easier to render rough mixes along the way (doesn't every client want them at the end of nearly everyday?) and start to build your mix if you left it in the box and split out channels for sweeting AT mix time?

---------

i do a somewhat similar set up to some of you guys (minus analog tape machines) but i track through my outboard pres/eq/comp to my DAW (via my radar) and then track everything in the box. then i route most channels to the board for mix. some stuff grouped where it makes sense (often fx/bgs/strings/horns).

mix goes back through radar in a stereo channel of my DAW.

lately i have been doing a lot more mixing ITB and then just routing a few stereo stems (rather than a bunch of individual channels) to the board to patch in a drum buss comp or whathaveyou.

i am not sure it's working better yet but it's much easier to recall a few stereo groups than 22 individual channels.

joninc · Post by **joninc** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:59 pm

my gut feels like it wants me to leave the bulk or all of the processing to happen in the analog world and let the computer just be a tape machine/editing device.

quoting myself (haha!) - reading this back i think about an articles i recently read about S. "Husky" Hoskulds and how he mixes ENTIRELY in the box now - his mixes are INCREDIBLE.

have any of you heard the last few Joe Henry records? (not the brand new one) but SCAR/TINY VOICES/CIVILIANS. get em.

this guy is WAY UP HIGH on my list - seriously genius mixes (and engineering). SO WIDE - SO DEEP - so much TEXTURE and CHARACTER. fantastic insane drum crushing and larger than life kick drums - so much space and contrast.

sorry about all the CAPITALS.

but all that to say - it obviously CAN be done ITB well - it just seems very challenging to me.

joninc · Post by **joninc** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 pm

one more thing to throw into the pot here...

i have an acquaintance whose work i have been really admiring and he tracks everything to the computer.

then, once the album is ready to mix - then dumps to 16 track 2 inch and mixes from tape. (ampex1200 i believe) his stuff sounds really great to me. wide open soundstage and overall a nice thick and punchy tonality to things.

seems like most people who swear by tape want it on the front end but here it's used to great effect and is step late in the process.

(i remember ready that about SON VOLT - they tracked to ADATS initially so they get do tons and tons of live takes and not worry about the expense. then once they had settled on which takes - they dumped to 2 inch and mixed from there)

Future One · Post by **Future One** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:40 pm

joninc wrote:

lately i have been wondering about the old idea of leaving everything in the DAW at unity (because *supposedly* anytime you apply a volume change/fx/eq/pan you are requiring the computer to do math and degrading your signal). do you guys buy that?

Absolutely not.

Sure eq and fx will alter your signal but if you're recording at 24 bit volume change won't change anything.

T-rex · Post by **T-rex** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:30 pm

I find it sounds better overall when I keep stuff itb at unity and just mix on the board, but that could just be my workflow. I use cubase as quite a bit more than a tape machine just because I am seriously lacking in nice outboard gear and I have some really nice plug ins. But also the recall and automation is so nice to have. Doing recall on the console can suck, but it was a fact of life a few years ago and it sure pushes me to get it right the first time!

I think a console is more fun to mix on, personally, but I also believe you can totally get amazing mixes in the box too. Scar is an amazing sounding album (love Joe Henry). I will have to go back and listen toit again, I didn't realize that he mixed that. Same with Tchad Blake, still doing amazing mixes and he is all ITB now. If I am recording someone extremely picky or that I can tell is going to want a lot of revisions, I will stay in the box.

roscoenyc · Post by **roscoenyc** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:47 pm

joninc wrote: (i remember ready that about SON VOLT - they tracked to ADATS initially so they get do tons and tons of live takes and not worry about the expense. then once they had settled on which takes - they dumped to 2 inch and mixed from there)

Jay has had Digital Performer (with a 24 i/o) for almost 4 years.

joninc · Post by **joninc** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:12 pm

i am thinking of old early son volt - maybe like WIDE SWING TREMOLO. there was a tape op interview with the producer/engineer (david barbe?) a long time ago.. i know nobody's using adats (atleast for recording

anymore.

djgout · Post by **djgout** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:39 am

I totally just treat ProTools as my tape machine without the razor blades and tweaking. I've got 16 channels of I/O which might be kind of limiting but it works for me.

I will submix anything with multiple mics like kick in and out and bass amp/DI to a mono channel to send to the desk and I'll also submix stuff like B.Vox and sometimes guitars to a stereo pair then those will come out on a pair of channels. Kick and Snare will always have their own channels and rarely will I do a submix of the rest of the drums. I just prefer to have drums happening in the analog land as much as possible. EQ and effects are done outboard for the most part, but I will do some more surgical EQ in the box with plug ins.

As far as recalls that's where a pad of paper and a digital camera come into play. i'll photograph the basic levels and eq on the desk and then just put it into the folder that holds the specific album.

-justin

Ryan Silva · Post by **Ryan Silva** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:25 am

My setup exactly, drums in the analog world always make me smile.

I mean after they have been AD/DA'ed of course

Bro Shark · Post by **Bro Shark** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:35 am

Djgout has the right idea. I will move in that direction someday. For now I've integrated a Dangerous D-Box into my 002/PTLE setup and it's really made ITB mixes more fun and intuitive.

Mystic Steamship Co. · Post by **Mystic Steamship Co.** » Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:32 pm

I am ditching my 24 channel rig (HD24XR and 24ch Soundcraft Delta) in favor of a daw based system based around 2ch API 312, 2ch Tele V72a, and a 16 Channel Passive summing mixer I am building. Everything will be tracked through the API's or the V72s into pro tools and the tracks will be submixed into 8 stereo stems which will go out to the summing mixer and all the outboard gear. The output of the summing mixer goes into a pair of completely passive pultec clones and either the API or V72a's again to make up the gain lost by the passive summing and EQ's and then the outputs of the pre's will go into a 2 track machine. This setup will allow me to utilize all my equipment to it's fullest, and allow me to have a few channels of really great sounding pre's instead of many channels of decent pre's and eq's that are redundant and unnecessary. I have tried all sorts of different setups but I really think this one will be perfect for me. The only downside is that you can't' use outboard on mono channels that are panned off center, but I track with EQ and compression often and have some good plug ins so I don't forsee this being a huge problem for me.

Message Board

How do you like to work between analog and digital?

Who is online