The everlasting search for computing power: ITB mixing myth and reality.

[malice]

I debated at least 10 minutes with myself about opening this debate here or in the mixitlikearecord forum. But I think it belongs here.

I don't know for how long you've been mixing on computers, but I have been doing this for nearly a decade now.

Not that I don't condider myself a luddite first, but times are changing, and wether it is a good thing or not remains the number one controversial subject in pro audio forae.

That said, I'm still floored by the thirst for processing power as soon as digital processing is concerned.

I remember when Protools and other daw were not viable mixing solutions that I was using 24 tracks of good Studer tape machine, 48 in very big studio facilities, and that was the 80'.

Anyway, the best productions I have laid my hands on were less than 32 tracks. That means I was using 40/48 tracks if I add the Lexicons returns and other popular effects and delays: and at the time, we were using too much of them.

That means roughly less than 32 EQs, no more than 24 comps, 4 rev (less nowdays, believe me) one mix buss comp and a couple of fancy filters or flanger boxes.

Let's face it: nothing that a $1500 computer, a good buss comp and a couple of outboard rev cannot handle.

I mean by that that when I mix at home, for small budgets (and even for bigger ones lately), I don't feel underpowered (no matter what the internet drugstores are trying to make me realise) with my G5 2.7 X2 computer, a summing box, a couple of UAD-1 cards and some nice outboard (a buss comp and 4or5 outboard Fx proc).

Still I find people around me upgrading their HD or changing computers as soons as they receive an Opteron email as if they were really in need of 8 procs, 4 UAD-1, 2 firewire Powercore and a couple of Duende to mix their tracks.

I don't GET it. Someone EXPLAIN this to me.

It's like people asking DAW companies to have more than 8 insert slots in their program :

WHAT THE FUCK ????

I mean : Neil Young's Harvest was mixed with 16 tracks, no automation.

What is your call on this, I'm curious

malice

[Brendo]

A huge part of the problem is the fact that you can put any plugin anywhere. I constantly find students, both first and second year, inserting 20 Reverb One's on their tracks, etc with identical settings on a bunch - so it could be done with maybe 2 or 3 auxes.

This also probably is a reason why people want more insert slots etc - because they just. don't. get it.

There's just something about working with a desk that makes it seem much more natural and intuitive to set up your effect sends fed by auxes... but ITB anything goes, and that's a dangerous situation to put someone in if they're just starting out and have little knowledge of audio practices - gain staging etc... and all the computer stuff that comes with running a DAW.

And even if you're not a beginner, it's just too tempting to do things the easy way by putting the plugins on the tracks instead of going through the motions of setting up an aux send, etc.

[MacGregor]

A huge part of the problem is the fact that you can put any plugin anywhere. I constantly find students, both first and second year, inserting 20 Reverb One's on their tracks, etc with identical settings on a bunch - so it could be done with maybe 2 or 3 auxes.


I know lots of people who don't even know that something like
aux/groups/howeveritiscalledinyoursoftware exist.
I watched techno guys saving all effect settings to be
able to replicate them on each track.

But IMO this phenomenon has a lot to do with gearlust.

[malice]

Putting rev and delay on aux, sub group processing: this is what this place should be about.

Mixing techniques.

keep them comments coming guys

malice

[Brendo]

An interesting side note is that about 1 in 3 of the students failed their practical based studio competency tests, due to not knowing how to subgroup drums to come through a single buss fader inside protools, and how to set up a send to a reverb inside protools...

Even though we taught it to them, and explained how very important it was when running revision classes for the tests which were coming the week after.

[Mixerpuppet]

I dunno Malice....

99 tracks? each with more than 2 plug-ins? I think alot of it is because people are trying to compensate for lack of real schedule flows, money and too many options. I have a friend who is extremely talented but spends at least 36 tracks of doing vocal and harmonies.... because he can, because he never learned differently. It has never occurred to him to have a bunch of people around one mic singing the chorus...

I used to track song by song... then phrase by phrase and now were almost down to bit by bit...

My opinion is that if you have a great song, good musicians and an engineer who properly uses the gear you will have a better product.

I remember a Steve Vai album that came out where the critics said it was overproduced. ProTool made that production style kind of the norm. The inability to commit and lack of an original vision and preproduction.

Computing recording has come along in 10 years... but I still use tape (1") and a 16 channel inline console with cheap outbd stuff.. most of it unused... I have enough compressors but not everything needs ems... same for reverbs and I have channel eq's that are decent enough...

Engineer has been replaced with Tinkering :)

[dwoz]

If you think about it, what you do or do not do is almost entirely constrained by COST.

In a big analog mixframe, you only have so much outboard. Adding more gets costly. At some point, you hit the cost/benefit threshold, and you have to conserve resources.

Its really the same thing ITB, but its different costs, and different thresholds.

When you hit the threshold, you either throw more money at it (bigger processor/memory/hd, etc) or you go back and reconfigure, to conserve the resources you've got. Why bother to conserve, though, if you haven't hit the threshold yet?

Certainly there are SONIC reasons to buss to a 'verb or a comp, rather than individual instances on each channel...but if you're not hitting your noggin' on the ceiling, what's the beef? efficiency of workflow? is it really?

dwoz, the devil's advocate.

[FajitaTone]

besides teaching bussing/routing, how about GAIN STAGING. oh and while we're on the topic of Native versus TDM or whatever, Digidesign has spent a lot of dough so you can actually TRACK through Plug-Ins without noticable delay. Can't do that Natively, YET. Maybe some day, but I'm not selling my old Mix rig any time soon.

I might be out of touch but, has there been any recent major motion pictures mixed with stuff that was not ProTools or ProToolsHD? (not just as the SW, if you used Logic or DP with TDM plus, techincaly it's not Native any more)

[Brendo]

besides teaching bussing/routing, how about GAIN STAGING.

Lesson #1. And #2, and #3.... etc.

I mean... Bussing/routing = "advanced" gain staging. Right?

Mostly they get the basic stuff like this right - it's just when you tell them to subgroup the drums within protools and then compress the group using outboard compression on the way into the desk, that they start to scratch their heads and mutter under their breath.

[Comte de St Germain]

Just delay the room mics by 20ms and everything comes into focus.


Signal routing in the computer is great.

Buss the living bajeebus out of everything, 2 here, four there, side-chain the tuba off the oud and for Mithra's sake trigger the vocal off the high hat.

Signal flow- One of the ancient mysteries of the audio realm.

To describe this mystery, use a hose as a prop and try not to get wet.

[malice]

I dunno Malice....

99 tracks? each with more than 2 plug-ins? I think alot of it is because people are trying to compensate for lack of real schedule flows, money and too many options. I have a friend who is extremely talented but spends at least 36 tracks of doing vocal and harmonies.... because he can, because he never learned differently. It has never occurred to him to have a bunch of people around one mic singing the chorus...


I hear you but ...

I remember doing this back in the days doing a slave copy on another multitrack. We were puting the backing mix on two or more tracks and were recording Bvs , mixing them in two tracks back on the master copy.

Now that I can play 80 tracks on my system, I still premix my bvs, because I prefer doing the bvs balance before moving on with the rest of the production and mix.

I still end with no more than 30 tracks to mix, or less.

malice

[otek]

I think a huge part of the problem, at least if I look at it from my own perspective, is how the rooms are equipped these days.

In the old days, I used to use the patchbay and do a lot of complex routing and processing to tape - the tracks were actually more "finished" already when the recording took place. The large format analog consoles were fast and easy to work on, and made patching and routing a breeze.

This has changed. Many of the studios I walk into now are very short on outboard - a couple of pres, maybe a verb or two or a couple of compressors, the rest happens in the box. To add to the problem, very few studios have good analog consoles.

With that type of setup, I am basically forced to record a lot of things to separate tracks, because there are no time/cost-effective (let alone good-sounding) ways of "mixing while recording" like I used to.

Thus, in order to bounce a few tracks together, I would have to add an extra step to the process to make this happen, rather than keep the session moving during a very sensitive phase. I always prefer the latter. The result of this process is that mixing for me takes a lot longer ITB.

So unless I'm working with a bigger budget, I am forced to postpone a lot of my choices until mix time.

[Tim Halligan]

I might be out of touch but, has there been any recent major motion pictures mixed with stuff that was not ProTools or ProToolsHD?


Yep...although thinking of the actual names is a bit of a stretch right now... Roll eyes

Quite a few of the British films of recent years still have at least some of the components running off AMS-Neve Audiofile...typically dials or ADR as I understand it.


I've said it before...and I'll say it again: If I had to edit in PT for a living...I'd become a cameraman instead. Call me when they have a decent user interface...

Cheers,
Tim

[imagineaudio]

Digidesign has spent a lot of dough so you can actually TRACK through Plug-Ins without noticable delay. Can't do that Natively, YET.

I have no problem doing this in Nuendo, though I hardly ever do, as I find that it sounds the same as adding them later.

[dikledoux]

I agree with the observation on people being unwilling to make a decision and/or throwing stacks of tracks at a single part and piecing a performance together later. For my part, I'll tell people that while I'm able to edit the crap outta things, and I'm pretty fast.... I don't want to spend my time editing just for the sake of doing it. If you're not ready to play the part then don't tell me to hit the record button... er... icon... thing.

Recording has made me a better musician over the years. Isn't that the way it oughta be?

So the need for crazy processor power and diskspace is due to the cop-out of musicians for the most part. That and some people are obsessed with buying stuff rather than actually accomplishing things.

dik

[Mixerpuppet]

I hear you but ...

I remember doing this back in the days doing a slave copy on another multitrack. We were puting the backing mix on two or more tracks and were recording Bvs , mixing them in two tracks back on the master copy.

Now that I can play 80 tracks on my system, I still premix my bvs, because I prefer doing the bvs balance before moving on with the rest of the production and mix.

I still end with no more than 30 tracks to mix, or less.

malice

I think you can probably hear the different between BGV's done on 36 individual (mono) tracks verses gang vocals in analog... At least to me there is a gel that happens when your flying a submix out and back...

As you've noted previously... the circuitry of the analog path contributes to making the gel.

I think even with an unlimited budget I'd still be using 16 track analog, mixer and outboard gear. Just higher quality components and better acoustics....

I hate editing...

[MacGregor]

Signal routing in the computer is great.


In my box it usually looks like kind of a tree, e.g.:

down is 2 bus (group 1)

into group 1 go:

vocals (group 2)
drums (group 3)
bass (group 4)
synths (group 5)
orchestra (group 6)
...


into each group go other groups and/or single instruments, e.g.:

into group 6 (orchestra) go

strings (group 10)
woodwinds (group 11)
brass (group 12)
percussion (group 13)
...


into group 10 (strings) go

violins
violas
celli
dbl bass
...


and so on, you get the idea.

Each group can have (but not necessarily needs) its own set of
effects.

[Comte de St Germain]

Since I mix most of what I track, decisions are made NOW.

This makes later much nicer.

The longer things go on the less likely 200% attention to detail will hold up so doing it NOW is the only way.

I track compression, eq, effects but not as much blended multi mic scenarios. I do however prefer to track them with gain relative to where I want them to sit later.

Always in search of the BROOMSTICK MIX.

[EyreSpace]

So I take it no one here has viewed the "Mix it with every Plug In known to Man" that Charles is selling? He is a fan of bussing though! YMMV...

I used to use an analog summing box with my G4, but with my G5 and a couple of magic plugs (DUY Wide and McDSP Analog Channel) on the two bus, I no longer hear much difference from using the summing box.

[malice]

So I take it no one here has viewed the "Mix it with every Plug In known to Man" that Charles is selling? He is a fan of bussing though! YMMV...

I used to use an analog summing box with my G4, but with my G5 and a couple of magic plugs (DUY Wide and McDSP Analog Channel) on the two bus, I no longer hear much difference from using the summing box.

Believe it or not, I'm still checking if there is a difference and more importantly, if I prefer OTB vs ITB.

For some style, I don't really mind ITB, but for a large majority I prefer OTB.

I'm no fool, I know it's all about crosstalk, distortion, Xformer harmonics etc.

But ...

malice

[myrtlebacker]

If you increase the power of your tools, I think it will enable you to

a) do stuff more easily and more cost effective. for example no need to freeze dry a track with all effects, just keep the effects on all the time

b) do stuff you couldn't do before, obviously...

I talked to a guy who does drum and base cuts, basically not much recording just production of samples. The number of tracks the guy used was insane to me. He explained to me that for example each drum sample occupied at least three tracks, split up in different frequency bands so he could use them for his nefarious purposes.

I suspect even if he doesn't use that all that time, it's a workflow he has become adjusted to and he will do that habitually.

[AxeSlash]

I reckon there's an element of what I call 'mobile phonia' - everyone's gotta have the latest one just to say they've got it and impress (hah!) people. Even though they only use a tenth of the features, and inevitably it will break because it's not as well built as the last one was.

My rig used to be full of crap I didn't use, until I realised that that was the case and thinned it all out to the bits that actually make it sound bearable.

To be honest I hate going overboard on plugins and all that jazz, I like to keep it simple - if later down the line I wanna adjust the EQ on a selection of guitar tracks, I quite like to be able to do it from one EQ, rather than doing one, then having to apply the same setting to all the other tracks, and then discover at the end of it all the combined effect is not enough/too much. Don't get me wrong, on average I'll set up a basic template with about 5 or 6 effects busses...but by the time I'm finished with it, I'll only be using 3. And I EQ the living hell out of everything.

Copying the same settings to a bunch of identical tracks is just a slow (and misleading) way of working to my thinking.

All of that said, I do like a quick mixdown time ;)

[bunnerabb]

I set up all of my automation ITB and then sum 16 out to a console for pans and use as much outboard effects as I can.

I use a few channels with PSPVW ITB and that, but I do all my MBC OTB on the desk and use actual console for pans.

Works.

All you need is stems for the outs from the converter assigns.

[otek]

I use a few channels with PSPVW ITB and that, but I do all my MBC OTB on the desk and use actual console for pans.

FYI some of the CPT of your MO left me SOL and nearly caused an ISA.

Please break it down for a bruddah willlya? :lol:

[Comte de St Germain]

MBC= Master Buss Compression?

Or one less than NBC?

HAL?

David?

[Tim Halligan]

FYI some of the CPT of your MO left me SOL and nearly caused an ISA.

Please break it down for a bruddah willlya? :lol:


LMFBO!!! :D


New sig material.

Thanks Brother O.


Cheers,
Tim

[bunnerabb]

Oh, shit, kidz...

Sorry.

See, I have sixteen convertors that can run from forty-four point one at sixteen bits, up to ninety-six at twenty-four bits.

I USE the outputs of these convertors to feed a sixteen channel Mogami snake, which then feeds sixteen channels of a twenty-four channel analogue mixing console. Those are the things with the knobs you can actually touch.

I then set up my automation (fader and crossfade writes, actually) In the Box. That means I tell the Digital Audio Workstation sftware in my computer to do that in the digital domain.

I use the plug-in called Professional Sound Projects Vintage Warmer. It's nice.

I then use the console to set up pans and perhaps do a couple of hands on fader rides Out of The Box and then print to tape, if I can.

this console also has eight sub-master busses that can have channels of audio assigned to them with a button. I find this very useful for using Multi Buss Compression Out of The Box by actually plugging compressors into the inserts of these busses.

I hope this clears things up.

:Roll eyes:

[CurtZHP]

Lately, I've been using my DAW to record and edit, while doing all the mixing and processing on my digital board. I've compared these mixes to things I've done entirely ITB, and I like the digital board mixes better. (I don't know, maybe I'm just subconsciously trying to justify the expense!)

Another thing I've done with the last few mixes is use just one reverb for the entire mix. Just one. And so far, I've been very happy with the results. The mix just seems less cluttered. (Gee, I wonder why!)

So I guess I'm with you guys who are expressing a fair amount of disgust with the current state of "stick a dozen plug-ins on it just because I can."

Funny.....
A while back, I was looking through a photo album that had some pics of my first "studio" that built in my parents' garage. Tons of gear, most of it utter crap, almost all of it analog. Turn the page, my second room in my first house. A pile of mediocre gear, most of it analog. My current room is now the complete opposite of the first room. Hardly any gear. A few good analog pieces and the rest is digital. The simplicity combined with experience gained from years of screwing up and fixing the screw-ups makes for a much better sounding, more productive room.

[bunnerabb]

I never use more than one reverb unless it's for an effect.

Four different ambient atmostpheres is not a cohesive record.

[CurtZHP]

Four different ambient atmostpheres is not a cohesive record.



My point exactly!

[Pimp-X]

I never use more than one reverb unless it's for an effect.

Four different ambient atmostpheres is not a cohesive record.


Whereas I often do...

[bunnerabb]

And that's the beauty of making recordings.

It's all a beautiful lie and if what you do works, it's perfect. :)

[nobby]

Believe it or not, I'm still checking if there is a difference and more importantly, if I prefer OTB vs ITB.

For some style, I don't really mind ITB, but for a large majority I prefer OTB.

I'm no fool, I know it's all about crosstalk, distortion, Xformer harmonics etc.

But ...

malice

Interesting. You're old enough to remember when crosstalk and distortion were the enemy. But if we get rid of them altogether we miss them.

Too sterile!

[nobby]

Malice, I think I have no choice but to report this poster to a moderator.

My Quad G5 seems to have a lot more power than my HD Accell 3 PCIe...

A max of 90(!) stereo Rennaissance Reverbs versus 54, if I remember correctly.

Though the comparison is unfair as the Digi hardware is running all my I/O's and mixer etc.

I don't mind the combined power, though. The RTAS well seems almost bottomless.

I don't think he uses 90 reverbs at a time himself, but I feel that he is a bad influence on today's youth.

http://womb.mixerman.net/showthread.php?t=341

[Skwaidu]

Malice, I think I have no choice but to report this poster to a moderator.



I don't think he uses 90 reverbs at a time himself, but I feel that he is a bad influence on today's youth.

http://womb.mixerman.net/showthread.php?t=341

It's still 144 combined!

:lol:

Well, I work with some people who love to spend tracks like they're candy... And for some reason I really don't like premixing that much even if I definitely can appreciate logic. So sometimes I end up with 200+ tracks come mixtime. :Razz:

[malice]

It's still 144 combined!

:lol:

Well, I work with some people who love to spend tracks like they're candy... And for some reason I really don't like premixing that much even if I definitely can appreciate logic. So sometimes I end up with 200+ tracks come mixtime. :Razz:

This is typically what I don't understand in some productions today.

I must be an old fart. I know Skwaidu is a good mixer, but when I see a session with 200 tracks, I just wanna run as fast as I can.

but that is just me.

malice

[Tim Halligan]

This is typically what I don't understand in some productions today.

I must be an old fart. I know Skwaidu is a good mixer, but when I see a session with 200 tracks, I just wanna run as fast as I can.



Whenever I hear of sessions with 200 tracks or more - that isn't a motion picture - all I can think of is that the producer seems to be afflicted with a decision-making phobia.

I remember reading an interview with Mike Oldfield - y'know, the Tubular Bells dude - where he stated that he preferred to work 24 track because it forced decisions, and kept the momentum going.

Cheers,
Tim

[Skwaidu]

Whenever I hear of sessions with 200 tracks or more - that isn't a motion picture - all I can think of is that the producer seems to be afflicted with a decision-making phobia.



The guy I'm mostly talking about is a huge Trevor Horn fan and into big arrangements(He's also very good at it and does a lot of orchestra work too as well as these pop/ rock things I'm talking about), so much of it is actually "layers and layers of shit" :grin: , I.E. doubles and triples and more of a large arrangement...

Huge stacks of BGVs and "sound design"- type elements. For a mix much of these could be premixed and sometimes I of course do it... Sometimes I have to, at least.

One other thing where I benefit from a big pool of processing power is that I nowadays *really* like to build a "custom desk" in the Pt session with my fave EQ's, outboad etc already inserted on most tracks, so when I start mixing with the control surface I can go uninterrupted for hours without inserting plug-ins unless I want to reasess my processor selection... (Though plug insertion is actually pretty fast with the D-Command too)

This way I do end up with several unnecessary instances of plugs that i never ended up using, but if I happen to need more power I can just quickly remove some of the unnecessary ones.

This style in addition to the control surface has definitely brought ITB mixing closer to a creative process for me, even though I do limit my initial processor choices to the "usual things". But it feels like, mixing(with a big desk, that is)! :icon_eek:

[malice]

The guy I'm mostly talking about is a huge Trevor Horn fan and into big arrangements(He's also very good at it and does a lot of orchestra work too as well as these pop/ rock things I'm talking about), so much of it is actually "layers and layers of shit" :grin: , I.E. doubles and triples and more of a large arrangement...


Aaargh, stop it, or I'll ban your ass :D

malice

[Barish]

I mean : Neil Young's Harvest was mixed with 16 tracks, no automation.


Yeah but then again, Harvest sounds nothing like Seal IV, which was totally mixed ITB in Pro Tools, the monitor of which was sitting on an SSL 9K at Sarm Studios, and I've heard this from a buddy of mine who heard it from Mr Horn's mouth himself, and I, frankly speaking, prefer the latter to the former in terms of sound and production values. Everyone else's mileage may vary. I wouldn't want my album sound like Harvest. I wouldn't want it to sound like Seal IV either, as it is in the past now as well, but you know what I mean.

I don't think that "Sg Pepper was made on 4-track" approach makes so perfect sense here.

I remember at some point in Fletcher's forum someone was halucinating around the idea that "how genius it was that they created the valve/tube sound back in the day" to which Fletcher's reply was "what the fuck are you talking about? It was because they didn't have anything else in hand, and the moment there was another alternative, they couldn't wait to get rid of the fucker for it was causing so much trouble", which had made me fall of my chair with a pair of denims burst right at the joint.

This chase will always be there. I'm totally pragmatic about this. Whatever gets me to goal. I don't care.

But to my logic, hardware always sounds more solid and real to me, in terms of investment. I'm not so sure about the software. I don't like the idea of having to pay for something I've already paid for, just because a few years down the line I'd like to plug in something else to it and unfortunately they happen to require different platforms to operate.

So, as far as reading and writing and storing, I'm comfortable with digital. For FX processing, so long as they are thrown in free with the digital storage system, I'm comfortable wit it too. But if I have to pay for it, I buy hardware. I still buy hardware. In fact, many people are selling their hardware gear in favour of software ones. I'm buying them.

Whatever pleases anyone.

B.